altogether the possibility, which he leaves open as regards the rest of
certainly does not transcend the bounds of Old Testament prophecy.94 If Lk. 1:79 )¦B4N"$<"4 J@4$H ¦< F6`J,4 6"Â F64($ 2" <VJ@L 6"20:X<@4H( contains a hint of universalism, it is the universalism of Isaiah.95 /pg. 26/ Against this overwhelming prima facie evidence, Harnack can urge only his linguistic argument. And that has been examined in detail and found insufficient. Harnack is much more confident about the hymns than about the rest of Lk. 1– 2. In the case of the Magnificat and the Benedictus, he would exclude altogether the possibility, which he leaves open as regards the rest of the narrative, that Luke was merely the translator of an Aramaic source. This decision should certainly be reversed. The linguistic examination of the hymns, which has just been concluded, when compared with a thorough examination of the rest of Lk. 1–2, will, it is believed, show clearly that the evidence for Lucan authorship is far less convincing in the case of the Magnificat and Benedictus than in that of the rest of the narrative.96 That the hymns were found by Luke in a Greek form is perhaps most probable; that they were translated by him from Hebrew or Aramaic is perfectly possible, but is by no means proved by the linguistic phenomena; that they were composed by him is practically out of the question.
But if Luke was not the author of the hymns, who was? According to Hillmann,97 Hilgenfeld,98 Spitta,99 and others, the author )at least of the Magnificat( was not a Christian but a Jew. The Magnificat originally had nothing to do with the situation in which it is now placed; but was perhaps /pg. 27/ intended merely to express an Israelitish woman's rejoicing over a happy turn in the history of the nation, for which her own sons had fought.100 Some such view might seem to be suggested by what has been noticed above—the complete absence from the hymn of anything specifically Christian. In particular there is nothing in the Magnificat that points necessarily to the situation which is presupposed in the narrative. Indeed the J"B,\<TF4H of verse 48 )ÓJ4 ¦BX$8,R,< ¦BÂ J¬< J"B,\ <TF4< J0$H *@b80H "ÛJ@L$( seems to introduce a discordant note. Wherein consisted the "lowly estate" of Mary?101 The •BÎ J@L$ <L$< of the same verse has also caused difficulty. Why should
the blessing, which all generations are to render to Mary, be dated just from her visit to Elisabeth rather than from the conception, or from some important event like the resurrection? Again, it does not seem to suit the character of Mary, that she should speak a hymn of praise at all. Elsewhere in Luke 1–2 she is carefully represented as silent and passive. The manner of introducing the hymn has also provoked objection. Elsewhere in the narrative, when similar poetical effusions are introduced, the presence of the Spirit is noted; here there is nothing but the simple 6"Â ,Æ$B,< 9"D4V: )verse 48(. And what follows upon the hymn is declared to be equally unnatural: §:,4<,< *¥ 9"D4(: F×< "ÛJ®$ 6. J. 8. If Mary has just been speaking, her name might be omitted; but the name of Elisabeth who has not been mentioned for some time, should certainly have been expected instead of the pronoun "ÛJ®$. /pg. 28/ These difficulties have led a very considerable number of recent scholars )including Harnack( to suppose that the Magnificat was originally attributed not to Mary but to Elisabeth. This hypothesis is not quite devoid of textual support.102 And it apparently overcomes some of the difficulties. The J"B,\<TF4H of verse 38 now becomes intelligible. It is the humiliation )very acute to a Jewish woman( of childlessness, like the J"B,\<TF4H )1 Sam 1:11( of Hannah, whose prayer103 offers such a close analogy to this very verse, and whose song104 seems to have formed the chief model for the Magnificat itself. The •BÎ J@L$ <L$< now dates the blessing rendered to Elisabeth from the first movement of the child in the womb. The reserve of Mary now remains unbroken. The presence of the Spirit in Elisabeth does not have to be mentioned in verse 46, because it has just been mentioned in verse 41. Finally the F×< "ÛJ®$ of verse 56 now becomes natural, for Elisabeth has just been the speaker and does not need to be mentioned again by name.
Spitta,105 while admitting the validity of some of the arguments which have been urged against supposing that the narrator intended Mary to be regarded as the author of the hymn, is on the other hand unable to satisfy himself with the Elisabeth hypothesis. The external evidence for the omission of the subject of ,Æ$B,< or for reading
8,4FV$,J in verse 46 is insufficient. It remains more probable that 9"D4V: was first omitted by accident and then 8,4FV$,J wrongly supplied, than that an original 8,4FV$,J was changed to 9"D4V: in order to attribute the hymn to a more illustrious authoress. Furthermore, if the Magnificat as the song of the barren Elisabeth were an imitation of the song of the barren Hannah, the clear indication of the barrenness of the singer, which appears in the song of /pg. 29/ Hannah )verse 5: ÔJ4 FJ,4$D" §J,6,< ©BJV, 6"Â º B@88¬ ¦< JX6<@4H ²F2X<0F,<( would surely not have been omitted from the song of Elisabeth. The idea FJ,4$D", being the very link which bound the two songs together, would not have been weakened into the general expression J"B,\<TF4H. Any other idea in Hannah's song would have been omitted more readily than that. Furthermore, the Elisabeth hypothesis explains no better than the Mary hypothesis the looseness with which the song is fitted into the narrative. If Elisabeth were regarded as the speaker, the hymn should have been inserted after Lk. 1:25. At any rate, almost any place would have been more desirable for the insertion than the one which was actually chosen. In verses 42–45, Elisabeth has greeted Mary as the Mother of her Lord, Mary and her Son are here the allimportant figures. Surely Elisabeth would not proceed at once to such an extravagant praise of her own son. And the F×< "ÛJ®$ of verse 56 follows admirably upon verse 45; whereas according to Old Testament usage, if the psalm had intervened, the name Elisabeth must have been mentioned even if Elisabeth had been represented as the speaker. The phenomena can be explained only by the hypothesis that the hymn was foreign to the original story, and was inserted by the Evangelist redactor.106
But what was the motive of the redactor in inserting the hymn? According to Spitta himself, the plan of the story requires Mary to keep silent. If that plan is so clear to modern scholars, even after it has been spoiled by the insertion of the Magnificat, it should have been still clearer to the Evangelist. He has respected it in other parts of the narrative; why should he upset it here? His action would be indeed conceivable if he accomplished anything by it. If the
Magnificat contained Lucan or even Christian ideas which the Evangelist was anxious to impress upon his readers, then the insertion of the hymn might be explicable. But Spitta himself has insisted that this is not the case. Or if /pg. 30/ the Evangelist had chanced upon a Jewish hymn which suited the situation of Mary in some remarkable way, perhaps he might have seized the opportunity of embellishing his narrative. But that too is far from the fact.107 The situation implied in the Magnificat itself can be defined only in general terms. How then came the hymn to be attributed to Mary? In general, it is unlikely that a Jewish hymn would be inserted in such a narrative by a Christian writer. Spitta points to similar cases in the Old Testament—for example, to the song of Hannah, which, he believes, was originally separate from its present context. But even granting the conclusions of criticism in the Old Testament passages cited by Spitta, the present case is somewhat different. There, Jewish writers are adopting Jewish hymns; here, a Christian writer is adopting a Jewish hymn, and adopting it, altogether without compulsion, for insertion in the most sacred part of his narrative. Would not the Christian consciousness of the newness of the Christian faith have prevented such disregard of the break between the old religion and the new?108 If the Evangelist had revised the Jewish /pg. 31/ song so as to make a Christian hymn of it, then his employment of it would perhaps be in accordance with the habits not of the author of certain early Christian writers, though not of the author of Luke and Acts. But that he should insert a simple Jewish song without redaction seems altogether beyond the bounds of probability. If the Evangelist were unscrupulous enough to put a simple Jewish hymn into the mouth of Mary, he would have been unscrupulous enough to make the hymn express his own ideas. The insertion by the Evangelist of this Jewish hymn could be explicable only if, when the Evangelist wrote, it was already regarded as a hymn of Mary. But that only pushes the problem a step further back. How came it to be attributed to Mary in the first place? If it were a Jewish song, it would very probably have been known as such by the primitive Jewish Christian community. How came that community
then to put it into the mouth of the Mother of the Lord, at a time when she had probably not long been dead?aaaa
The hypothesis, then, that the Magnificat was originally just a Jewish song, a foreign element inserted into the nativity narrative, must be rejected. Is it then simply a part of that narrative? Was it composed by the author of the narrative?109 This hypothesis cannot be altogether excluded. /pg. 32/ The author may well have exercised the freedom of an ancient historian by attributing to his characters not words which they actually spoke, but words which in view of the situation they might fittingly have spoken. The objection to such a view arises from the absence from the hymn of Christian ideas. The narrative of the infancy could not well have been written before the resurrection, for there would scarcely have been a motive for its composition before the origin of the Christian community. But after the resurrection, a Christian writer in composing a hymn for the Mother of the Lord could hardly have failed to insert in it some more definite prophecy of the life or death or resurrection of the Son.110 Unless, indeed, he were writing /pg. 33/ before the death of Mary, when such an anachronism would have provoked contradiction. But in that case he would scarcely have ventured to compose the hymn at all. One hypothesis alone is proof against such objections, the hypothesis that the Magnificat is actually derived from an Aramaic song of Mary herself. To many modern readers, that may seem to be an adventurous suggestion. But it seems so only because Joseph and Mary and Zacharias and Elisabeth as they appear in the infancy narrative are thought to be legendary figures. If the narrative is based upon fact, then why may not the mother of Jesus have been endowed with the gift of simple poetry; so that under the immediate impression of her wonderful experience, she may have moulded her store of Scripture imagery, made part of her life from childhood, into this beautiful hymn of praise? Why must the mother of Jesus of Nazareth have been a nonentity? Why may she not have possessed gifts that fitted her in some measure for her inestimable privilege?111
The hypothesis becomes more acceptable, when one examines again the manner in which the hymn is introduced. Modern criticism is perfectly correct in observing that the Magnificat is inserted rather loosely in the narrative. Perhaps the first impression of the reader is that the hymn is intended as an immediate answer of Mary to the greeting of Elisabeth. But that is by no means certain. There is no clear indication of it either in the introductory words /pg. 34/ 6"Â ,Æ$B,< 9"D4V: or in the hymn itself.112 It looks rather as though the hymn had circulated separately, as a hymn of Mary produced during the visit to Elisabeth, but without any indication of the exact day and hour when it was first spoken. It was then inserted in the narrative of the infancy at the proper place, as an answer to the greeting of Elisabeth; but without any indication whatever that it was spoken extemporaneously. It could be an answer to Elisabeth's greeting without being an immediate answer. The ridicule that has sometimes been vented upon the Lucan narrative, for attributing to a simple Jewish maiden an improvised speech of such perfect artistic form, is therefore misplaced. The sense of the narrative is not violated if the Magnificat be regarded as the product of Mary's meditation, during the three months in the hill country of Judah.113
Much of what has been said about the Magnificat could be repeated for the Benedictus. In the Benedictus, there is somewhat clearer indication of the intended occasion. 6"Â F× *X, B"4*\@<, 6. J. 8. )Lk. 1:76( points to a child, already born, as forerunner of the Messianic age. The hypothesis /pg. 35/ of an originally non-Christian hymn, therefore, could here be made plausible at best only by regarding the hymn as having undergone Christian interpolation.114 But there is the same absence, as in the case of the Magnificat, of Christian ideas; and therefore the same difficulty of supposing that the hymn was composed for Zacharias by the author of the narrative. Moreover, the Benedictus is even more loosely inserted in the narrative than is the Magnificat. If the narrator had desired to put a hymn into the mouth of Zacharias he would surely have done so at Lk. 1:64, when Zacharias regained his speech, and "spake, blessing God." Instead, the hymn is inserted in a general description )Lk.
1:65–66, 80( of the growth of the child.115 Surely the most plausible explanation is that the hymn was circulated separately, and was delivered to the author of the narrative as a hymn of Zacharias, but without definite indication of the time when it was produced.116 Like the Magnificat, it may well have been the product of partly conscious, though inspired art.117 The absence, then, of Christian ideas in the Magnificat /pg. 36/ and Benedictus, the absence of reference to concrete facts in the life of Jesus, points to a time when the Messianic hope was still couched in the terms of Old Testament prophecy. On the other hand, the hymns are not simply Jewish hymns, composed in some unknown situation. If they were, they could not have found a place in Lk. 1–2. They must, therefore, really have been produced by the persons to whom they are attributed in the narrative—and produced at a time when Old Testament prophecy had not yet been explained by its fulfilment. The fulfilment is at the door—it is no longer a thing of the dim future—but the fashion of it is still unknown. The promised King has arrived at last; but the manner of His reign must still be conjectured from the dim indications of prophecy. The Messiah is there; but He is still unknown. The hymns belong just where the Evangelist has placed them.118 /pg. 37/
If the hymns really were composed by Mary and by Zacharias, then they were composed in Hebrew or in Aramaic. The former hypothesis would explain best of all the Old Testament spirit and coloring of this poetry, the Old Testament parallelism, etc. And that the priest Zacharias, at least, should have composed such a hymn in the sacred language, rather than in the language of every-day life, is by no means impossible a priori, indeed in view of the judgments of experts with regard to the language of Palestine at the time of Christ, it might almost be pronounced the more probable alternative. That a woman )Mary( should have composed a hymn in Hebrew is less natural.119 If the hymns were composed in Aramaic )and in the case of the Magnificat, that is more probable(, then the task of the translator was harder. He would not be able to use Septuagint renderings which had already been coined for the very expressions which lay before him, but would be forced to /pg. 38/ consider first
)of course naturally, and almost unconsciously( the Old Testament Hebrew expressions which were equivalent to the Aramaic expressions of the hymns. In view of the similarity between Hebrew and Aramaic, the task would not be over-difficult, especially for one who was at home in the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Scriptures. The Aramaic hymns would have been composed by one who was familiar with the Old Testament passages. The suffusion of the Aramaic hymns with the thought and language of the Old Testament would not be unnatural; for the Scriptures in an Aramaic form became familiar to all through the oral translations in the synagogues.
The Origin of the First Two Chapters of
Luke*
IN the last number of the Princeton Theological Review,1 the Magnificat )Lk. 1:46–55( and the Benedictus )Lk. 1:68–79( were investigated in order to determine whether these hymns were derived from a source or sources or whether they were composed by the Evangelist himself. The same method of investigation which was there employed will now be applied to the rest of Lk. 1:5–2:52. The words and phrases which Harnack, Zimmermann and others regard as Lucan characteristics will be examined as to their occurrence in the Septuagint. If the supposed Lucan characteristics are also Septuagint characteristics, the argument for Lucan authorship will be decidedly weakened.2
Chapter 1. Verse 5. Ï<`:"J4,3 used to insert proper /pg. 213/ nouns, occurs once in Lk. 1–2, about six times in the rest of Luke, twentytwo times in Acts, and twice in the rest of the New Testament. Alternative uses )for example, 6"Â JÎ Ð<@:" "ÛJ0$H Lk. 1:5( occur four times in Lk. 1–2, four )or three( times in the rest of Luke,4 once
in Acts, once in Matthew )not of a person(, three times in John, twice )or four times( in the Apocalypse. J4H is used with Ï<`:"J4 once )here( in Lk. 1–2, twice in the rest of Luke, fourteen times in Acts, and nowhere else in the New Testament. The Septuagint, in inserting proper nouns, uses regularly Ð<@:" "ÛJå$ or õ$ Ð<@:"; there is perhaps not a single case of Ï<`:"J4 where the text is perfectly certain. This use of Ï<`:"J4 is therefore a pretty clear mark of Lucan style, and the addition of J4H; makes the matter even clearer. But the occurrence in Lk. 1:5 may well be due merely to Lucan editorship. Alternative uses occur about as often in Lk. 1–2 as in the rest of Luke and Acts combined; whereas the Lucan Ï<`:"J4 occurs only this once. Since 6"Â JÎ Ð<@:" "ÛJ0$H occurs in the latter part of Lk. 1:5, Luke may have substituted Ï<`:"J4 in the first part of the verse in order to avoid monotonous repetition. However, for the style of the whole verse, Harnack compares Acts 18:2, ,ßDf< J4<" @L*"4$@< Ï<`:"J4 6b8"<…6"Â AD\F6488"< (L<"4$6" "ÛJ@L$.
Verse 6. ¦<"<J\@< )or §<"<J4(5 occurs twice in Lk. 1–2, twice in the rest of Luke, three times in Acts, and nowhere else in the New Testament. But one of the passages in Acts takes the ¦<"<J\@< directly from a passage in the Septuagint, and all three passages in Acts are in the speeches of Jewish Christians, where Luke was probably using sources. In the Septuagint the word is so very common that its employment in such a narrative as Lk. 1–2 was almost inevitable. /pg. 214/
B@D,L`:,<@4.6 B@D,b,F2"4is a favorite word with Luke; but it is so exceedingly common in the Septuagint that it is here entirely without significance as a mark of Lucan style. The figurative sense in which it is used is the well-known Hebraism. BVF"4H.7 B"$H is unusually frequent both in Lk. 1–2 and in the rest of Luke and Acts. But in the Septuagint the word occupies no less than twenty-nine pages in the Hatch-Redpath concordance. Is not its great frequency both in the Septuagint and in Lk. 1–2 due to the influence of Hebrew style?
Verse 7. 6"2`J48 occurs once )here( in Lk. 1–2, once in the rest of Luke, four times in Acts, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament. It is not infrequent in the Septuagint. The argument is perhaps not altogether valueless.
Verse 8. ¦(X<,J@ *¥ ¦< Jå$ Ê,D"J,b,4< "ÛJ`<.9 ¦(X<,J@ followed by ¦< Jå$ with the infinitive occurs twice in Lk. 1–2, often in the rest of Luke, once in Acts, elsewhere in the New Testament only at Mk. 4:4. In the Septuagint, ¦(X<,J@ is followed numberless times by some temporal phrase or clause; ¦< Jå$ with the infinitive is apparently not uncommon. The occurrence of this usage in Lk. 1–2 is therefore not to be wondered at; though it may perhaps be a mark of the hand of Luke.
¦< Jå$ with the infinitive in general10 is especially frequent in Luke. Hawkins gives the following figures: Lk. 1–2, 5; the rest of Luke, 27; Acts, 7; Matthew, 3; Mark, 2; John, 0; Paul, 4; and the rest of the New Testament, 4. According to Moulton,11 the infinitive with the article in general /pg. 215/ occurs as follows: James has 7 occurrences, or 1.08 per WestcottandHort page; Hebrews, 23, or 1.09 per page; Luke, 71, or nearly .99 per page; Paul, 106, or .89 per page; Acts, 49, or .7 per page; 1 Peter, 4, or .59 per page; Matthew, 24, or .35 per page; Mark, 13, or .32 per page; John, 4, or .076 per page; the Apocalypse, 1, or .027 per page. Lk. 1:5–2:52 has eleven occurrences, or about 1.42 per Westcott-and-Hort page; so that the articular infinitive is considerably commoner here than in the rest of Luke and Acts.12 In the Septuagint, ¦< Jå$ with the infinitive occurs about 430 times.13 The New Testament figures for the use of ¦< Jå$ with the infinitive are striking, but the extreme frequency of this usage in parts of the Septuagint diminishes somewhat its value as a mark of Lucan style.14 The familiar ¦(X<,J@ in narrative15 is a wellknown Lucan characteristic. Three types have been distinguished: )1( ¦(X<,J@ 6"Â ²$82,, )2( ¦(X<,J@ ²$82,, )3( ¦(X<,J@ ¦82,4$<. Hawkins' statistics for the New Testament are as follows: ¦(X<,J@ 6"Â ²$82, occurs not at all in Lk. 1–2, eleven times in the rest of Luke, once )?( in Acts, once in Matthew, and not at all in the rest of
the New Testament; ¦(X<,J@ ²$82, occurs eight times in Lk. 1–2, fourteen times in the rest of Luke, not at all in Acts, five times in Matthew, twice in Mark, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament; ¦(X<,J@ ¦82,4$< occurs not at all in Lk. 1–2, five times in the rest of Luke, sixteen times in Acts, once in Mark, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament. For the Septuagint, Thackeray16 has compiled the following /pg. 216/ statistics: ¦(X<,J@ 6"Â ²$82, occurs 269 times )164 times in Judges–2 Kings(; ¦(X<,J@ ²$82,, 145 times; and ¦(X<,J@ ¦82,4$< once only. When it is observed that no less than 164 of the occurrences of ¦(X<,J@ 6"Â ²$82, are in Judges–2 Kings, which for the most part lies linguistically far beneath the level of Lk. 1–2, the preference of Lk. 1–2 for ¦(X<,J@ ²$82, is not to be wondered at. Certainly there is nothing in the use of ¦(X<,J@ to suggest Lucan authorship. The characteristically Lucan ¦(X<,J@ ¦82,4$< does not occur at all in Lk. 1–2; and of the other two types, which are almost equally divided in the rest of Luke, only one is used. This last fact might seem if anything to be an argument in favor of non-Lucan authorship.17
Verse 9. 6"J( JÎ §2@H18 occurs twice in Lk. 1–2 )here and Lk 2:42(, once in the rest of Luke, and nowhere else in the New Testament. 6"J( JÎ ,ÆT2`H occurs in the New Testament only once in Luke and once in Acts. 6"J( JÎ ,Æ24F:X<@< occurs only in Lk. 2:27. The word §2@H occurs in all twice in Lk. 1–2, once in the rest of Luke, seven times in Acts, once in John, not at all in Matthew and Mark, and once in the rest of the New Testament. In the Septuagint the word §2@H occurs only six times at most )all in the Apocrypha(. 6"J( JÎ §2@H "ÛJT$< occurs in Dan. Th. Bel. 15. 6"J( JÎ ,ÆT2`H occurs only twice in the Septuagint, and 6"J( JÎ ,Æ24F:X<@< not at all. 6"J( JÎ §2@H, therefore, has some value as a mark of Lucan style.19
Verse 10. ²$<…BD@F,LP`:,<@<.20 ,Æ$<"4 with the participle occurs, according to Zimmermann, forty-eight /pg. 217/ times in Luke, thirty-nine times in Acts, eleven times in Matthew, twentyeight times in Mark, and only once in John. Friedrichaaa has the same counting for ²$< or ²$F"< )or ³:0<( or §F@:"4 with the
participle, except so far as John is concerned, where he counts twenty occurrences. This usage is thought )for example, by Zimmermann( to be an Aramaism. An examination of the Septuagint usage would be interesting. B"$< JÎ B80$2@H…J@L$ 8"@L$.21 The word B80$2@H occurs twice in Lk. 1–2, six times in the rest of Luke, sixteen times in Acts, not at all in Matthew, twice in Mark, twice in John, and three times in the rest of the New Testament. B"$< )or "B"<( JÎ B80$2@H occurs once )here( in Lk. 1–2, three times in the rest of Luke, three times in Acts, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament.22 J@L$ 8"@L$ is added to B80$2@H once )here( in Lk. 1–2, twice in the rest of Luke, once in Acts, and nowhere else in the New Testament. The synonym ÐP8@H, which is very much more common than B80$2@H in the New Testament )it is more common even in Acts(, does not occur at all in Lk. 1–2. In the Septuagint, the use of the two synonyms is the reverse of the New Testament usage. B80$2@H is used more than five times as much as ÐP8@H, and is very common. That looks as though Lk. 1–2 had simply followed the Septuagint usage. B"$< JÎ B80$2@H occurs, for example, in Ex. 12:6. Nevertheless, the phenomena in the New Testament are so striking that B"$< JÎ B80$2@H…J@L$ 8"@L$ affords genuine evidence of Lucan style.
Verse 11. êN20,23 since it is apparently the regular Septuagint word for describing visions, etc., can hardly be regarded as a certain mark of Lucan style. /pg. 218/ ©FJfH for ©FJ06fH.24 In Lk. 1–2, ©FJfH occurs once, ©FJ06fH not at all; in the rest of Luke and Acts, ©FJfH occurs fourteen times, ©FJ06fH once; in Matthew, ©FJfH occurs six times, ©FJ06fH once; in Mark, ©FJfH occurs not at all, ©FJ06fH four times; in John, ©FJfH occurs four times, ©FJ06fH three times; in the Apocalypse, ©FJfH nine times, ©FJ06fH twice. So Matthew, John, and the Apocalypse, as well as Luke, prefer ©FJfH And Stanton has called attention to B"D,FJ06fH in Lk. 1–2 )in Lk. 1:19(.25 In the Septuagint, Thackeray gives as the proportion of ©FJ06fH to ©FJfH 95/51; the latter being "practically confined to late and literary books."26 In the New Testament, ©FJfH is not particularly literary, as is indicated by the usage of the Apocalypse.
Certainly ©FJfH in Lk. 1:10 is no sign of Lucan authorship. B"D,FJ06fH )Lk. 1:19( might with at least equal plausibility be claimed as distinctly non-Lucan.
©FJãH ¦6 *,>4T$<.27 ¦6 *,>4T$< ÊFJV<"4 occurs again in Acts 7:55, 56. But that Jesus should be seen standing on the right hand of God is very natural. The similarity of expression may simply be due to the similarity of the facts.
Verse 12. ¦BXB,F,<.28 ¦B4B\BJ,4< for the beginning of unusual states occurs once )here( in Lk. 1–2, once in Acts,29 and perhaps once in the Apocalypse.30 In Acts 19:17, as in Lk. 1:12, N`$@H is the subject; but the same /pg. 219/ is true of Rev. 11:11.31 In the Septuagint, this use of ¦B4B\BJ,4< is not uncommon, and the subject is almost always N`$@H or some other word expressing fear. There is no argument whatever for Lucan authorship.
¦B4B\BJ,4< ¦B\, according to Harnack, occurs only in the Lucan writings. But he has apparently overlooked Rom. 15:3 )citation(, and in Rev. 11:11 and Jno. 13:25 ,B,B,F,< ,B4 is strongly attested. In the Septuagint, ¦B\ after ¦B4B\BJ,4< is quite the regular thing. Verse 13. ,Æ$B,<…BDÎH "ÛJ`<.32 Statistics of the use of BD`H with the accusative and of the dative after the chief verbs of saying are as follows:33 In Lk. 1–2: ,Æ$B@< BD`H 7 ,Æ$B@< c. dat. 4 8X(T BD`H 0 8X(T c. dat. 0 ¦DT$ etc. BD`H 0 ¦DT$ etc. c. dat. 0 8"8XT BD`H 5 8"8XT c. dat. 5 In the rest of Luke: about about ,Æ$B@< BD`H 65 ,Æ$B@< c. dat. 96 8X(T BD`H 12 8X(T c. dat. 76 ¦DT$ etc. BD`H 0 ¦DT$ etc. c. dat. 11 8"8XT BD`H 1 8"8XT c. dat. 3 In Acts: about about ,Æ$B@< BD`H 24 ,Æ$B@< c. dat. 17 8X(T BD`H 7 8X(T c. dat. 12 ¦DT$ etc. BD`H 0 ¦DT$ etc. c. dat. 0 8"8XT BD`H 8 8"8XT c. dat. 17 /pg. 220/ In Matthew: about about ,Æ$B@< BD`H 1? ,Æ$B@< c. dat. 98 8X(T BD`H 0 8X(T c. dat. 130 ¦DT$ etc. BD`H 0 ¦DT$ etc. c. dat. 12 8"8XT BD`H 0 8"8XT c. dat. 13 In Mark: about about ,Æ$B@< BD`H 1 ,Æ$B@< c. dat. 58 8X(T BD`H 3 8X(T c. dat. 109 ¦DT$ etc. BD`H 0 ¦DT$ etc. c. dat. 1 8"8XT BD`H 0 8"8XT c. dat. 4 In John: about about ,Æ$B@< BD`H 9 ,Æ$B@< c. dat. 114
8X(T BD`H 7 8X(T c. dat. 149 ¦DT$ etc. BD`H 0 ¦DT$ etc. c. dat. 3 8"8XT BD`H 0 8"8XT c. dat. 19 In Paul: about about ,Æ$B@< BD`H 0 ,Æ$B@< c. dat. 5 8X(T BD`H 1? 8X(T c. dat. 14 ¦DT$ etc. BD`H 0 ¦DT$ etc. c. dat. 5 8"8XT BD`H 1 8"8XT c. dat. 12 In Hebrews: ,Æ$B@< BD`H 0 ,Æ$B@< c. dat. 0 8X(T BD`H 2 8X(T c. dat. 0 ¦DT$ etc. BD`H 1 ¦DT$ etc. c. dat. 0 8"8XT BD`H 2 8"8XT c. dat. 3 In the Catholic Epistles: ,Æ$B@< BD`H 0 ,Æ$B@< c. dat. 1 8X(T BD`H 0 8X(T c. dat. 3 ¦DT$ etc. BD`H 0 ¦DT$ etc. c. dat. 0 8"8XT BD`H 0 8"8XT c. dat. 0 /pg. 221/ In the Apocalypse: ,Æ$B@< BD`H 0 ,Æ$B@< c. dat. 4 8X(T BD`H 0 8X(T c. dat. 26 ¦DT$ etc. BD`H 0 ¦DT$ etc. c. dat. 4 8"8XT BD`H 0 8"8XT c. dat. 0
In the Septuagint, Genesis, 1 Samuel, 1 Chronicles, and 2, 3, 4 Maccabees have been chosen for examination, as representative of different degrees of literary correctness. The statistics are as follows.34 In Genesis: ,Æ$B@<, ¦DT$ etc. BD`H 52 ,Æ$B@<, ¦DT$ etc. c. dat. 228 8X(T BD`H 2 8X(T c. dat. 1 8"8XT BD`H 16 8"8XT c. dat. 22 In 1 Samuel: ,Æ$B@<, ¦DT$ etc. BD`H 115 ,Æ$B@<, ¦DT$ etc. c. dat. 79 8X(T BD`H 0 8X(T c. dat. 7 8"8XT BD`H 10 8"8XT c. dat. 5 In 1 Chronicles: ,Æ$B@<, ¦DT$ etc. BD`H 10 ,Æ$B@<, ¦DT$ etc. c. dat. 19 8X(T BD`H 0 8X(T c. dat. 0 8"8XT BD`H 5 8"8XT c. dat. 0 In 2, 3 4 Maccabees: ,Æ$B@<, ¦DT$ etc. BD`H 0 ,Æ$B@<, ¦DT$ etc. c. dat. 1 8X(T BD`H 1 8X(T c. dat. 1 8"8XT BD`H 0 8"8XT c. dat. 1
If the New Testament alone be examined, BD`H after verbs of saying appears to be very decidedly a Lucan characteristic. Indeed it is almost confined to the Lucan writings. But in 1 Samuel and in 1 Chronicles it is even much more frequent in proportion to the dative than it is in Luke-Acts; and in Genesis also it is common. The argument for Lucan style must be pronounced weighty; yet if the use of BD`H in the body of the Gospel indicates only Lucan editorship, why should it indicate more than that in Lk. 1–2? /pg. 222/
:¬ N@$@L$35 is no clear mark of Lucan style. It is not uncommon in the Septuagint,36 where the name of the person addressed37 is