interesting.43 /pg. 223/ For verse 14, Gersdorf compares Lk. 15:7
sometimes added as here.38 *4`J439 occurs twice in Lk. 1–2, once in the rest of Luke, five times in Acts, not at all in Matthew, Mark and John, about ten times in Paul, and about seven times in the rest of the New Testament. In the Septuagint, it is common enough )especially in a number of books which Thackeray classes with 1 Samuel under the head of "indifferent Greek"( to prevent its occurrence in Lk. 1–2 from being surprising.
(,<<"$< of the mother40 occurs not only in Lk. 1:13, 57 and in Lk. 23:29, but also in Jno. 16:21 and Gal. 4:24.41 The usage occurs a few times in the Septuagint. Verse 14. §FJ"4…[email protected] Hawkins gives the following statistics for the use of ,Æ$<"4 with the dative: three times in Lk. 1–2, twelve times in the rest of Luke, ten times in Acts, three times in Matthew, twice in Mark, twice in John, three times in Paul, and three times in the rest of the New Testament. These facts perhaps furnish a slight argument for detecting Lucan style in Lk. 1– 2. But an investigation of the Septuagint usage would be interesting.43 /pg. 223/ For verse 14, Gersdorf compares Lk. 15:7 P"D( ¦< Jå$ @ÛD"<å$ §FJ"4, as well as one or two less striking parallels.
Verse 15. B<,b:"J@H ,(\@L.44 The statistics of the New Testament use of B<,L$:" to designate the divine Spirit are approximately as follows: Total occurrences of B<,L$:" designating the divine Spirit With "(4@< Of these with the article Lk. 1–2 761 The rest of Luke 10 74 Acts 58 43 24 Matthew 12 52 Mark 643 John 15 41 Paul 112 17 4 Hebrews 753 The Catholic Epistles 15 00 The Apocalypse 800 45
In the Septuagint, the following phrases should be compared: B<,L$:" 2,4$@< )Ex. 31:3, 35:31, Jb. 27:3, 33:4(, JÎ B<,L$:" JÎ "(4`< F@L )Ps. 50:13(, JÎ B<,L$:V F@L JÎ "(4@< )Ps. 142:10(,46 "(4@<… B<,L$:" B"4*,\"H47 )Wi. 1:5(, JÎ "(4`< F@L B<,L$:" )Wi. 9:17(, JÎ B<,L$:" JÎ "(4@< "ÛJ@L$ )Is. 63:10(, B<,b:"J@H "ÛJ@L$ ), (\@L(48 )Si. 48:12(, B<,L$:" "(4@< )Dan. Sept. 5:12, 6:3(.49 Compare, besides, especially Ps. Sol. xvii. 42 )in the well-known description of the Messianic king(. It will be remembered that the
Psalms of Solomon are to be dated in the first century before Christ and the Greek translation of them in the /pg. 224/ first century after Christ.50 The statistics for the New Testament are very striking. But the frequent mention of the Spirit in Lk. 1–2 is perhaps to be regarded as due partly to the subject-matter,51 and the addition of " (4@< is of course not very infrequent even outside of the Lucan writings. A basis for the term B<,L$:" "(4@< may be found in the Old Testament passages cited above; and the passage in the Psalms of Solomon shows that the "Holy Spirit" had a place in Palestinian Messianic expectations in the century just preceding the birth of Jesus. Nevertheless, the argument of Gersdorf and Harnack is not altogether without value.
B80F2ZF,J"4 and B<,b:"J@H ,(\@L B80F2ZF,J"4.52 B4:B8V<"4 occurs eight times in Lk. 1–2, five times in the rest of Luke, nine times in Acts, twice in Matthew, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament. ¦:B4:B8V<"4 occurs once in Lk. 1–2,53 once in the rest of Luke, once in Acts, once in John, once in Paul, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament. In the Septuagint, however, both B4:B8V<"4 and ¦:B4:B8V<"4 are very common; the very frequent use of the former word in Lk. 1–2 and the single occurrence of the latter are therefore not surprising. B4:B8V<"4 with B<,b:"J@H , (\@L occurs three times in Lk. 1–2, not at all in the rest of Luke, five times in Acts, )including Acts 4:31, where J@L "(4@L B<,L:"J@H is probably to be read instead of B<,L:"J@H "(4@L(,54 and not at all in the rest of the New Testament.55 The following Septuagint passages should be compared: Ex. 28:3 @áH ¦<XB80F" B<,b:"J@H "ÆF2ZF,TH, 31:3 6"Â ¦<XB80F" "ÛJÎ< B<,L$:" 2,4$@< F@N\"H 6"Â /pg. 225/ FL<XF,TH 6"Â ¦B4FJZ:0H, 35:31 6"Â ¦<XB80F" "ÛJÎ< B<,L$:" F@N\"H 6"Â FL<XF,TH 6"Â ¦B4FJZ:0H BV<JT<, Deut. 34:9 ¦<,B8ZF20 B<,b:"J@H FL<XF,TH, Wi. 1:7 B<,L$:" 6LD\@L B,B8ZDT6,< J¬< @Æ6@L:X<0<, Si. 48:12 8,4F"4$, ¦<,B8ZF20 ),B80F20 A( B<,b:"J@H "ÛJ@L$ )"(4@L A(, Is. 11:3 ¦:B8ZF,4 "ÛJÎ< B<,L$:" N`$@L 2,@L$. These passages indicate an Old Testament basis for the idea of "filling" with the Spirit or with a spirit. Si. 48:12, where Elisha is represented as being filled with the
spirit of Elijah, is especially worthy of notice. However, the coincidence of Lk. 1–2 with Acts in the use of this expression is very interesting. When it is observed that all but one56 of the occurrences in Acts are in the former portion of the book, where Jewish Christian sources were probably used and Jewish Christian conditions are described, a suggestion may perhaps be made to the effect that Luke derived his use of the phrase from the primitive Jewish church— partly perhaps even from a document underlying Lk. 1–2. ¦
6 6@48\"H :0JD`H,57 which occurs in the New Testament besides here only twice in Acts, once in Matthew, and once in Paul, has a number of parallels in the Septuagint. Compare especially Judg. 15:17 "(4@H 2,@L$ ¦(f ,Æ:4 •BÎ 6@48\"H :0JD`H :@L. In this passage, the speaker is Samson, whose manner of life was prescribed supernaturally as in the case of John the Baptist and in somewhat the same terms.
Verse 16. LÊ@Â FD"Z858 occurs not only59 here and five times in Acts, but also once in Matthew, three times in Paul, once in Hebrews, and three times in the Apocalypse. It is the regular Septuagint phrase, for example in Exodus.
¦B4FJDXR,4 ¦BÂ 6bD4@< JÎ< 2,Î< "ÛJT$<.60 ¦B4FJDXN,4< ¦B\ followed by JÎ< 2,`< or some other designation of God occurs in the New Testament only once )here( in Lk. 1–2, /pg. 226/ and five times in Acts. Zimmermann cites also 2 Cor. 3:16, but there BD`H stands instead of ¦B\.61 If this passage is in point, then surely 1 Thess. 1:9 ¦B4FJDXR"J, BDÎH JÎ< 2,`< should be cited also. Compare also 1 Pet. 2:25 ¦B,FJDVN0J, <L$< ¦BÂ JÎ< B@4:X<" 6"Â ¦B\F6@B@< JT$< RLPT$< ß:T$<. It should be noticed that ¦B4FJDXN,4< in Lk. 1:16 is transitive, whereas in all the five passages in Acts it is intransitive. This use of ¦B4FJDXN,4< ¦B\ in Lk. 1:16 could well be derived from such passages in the Septuagint as Deut. 30:2.62 Verse 17. 6"Â "ÛJ`H63 is used in this way64 three times )including this passage( in Lk. 1–2, perhaps about twenty-two times in the rest of Luke, perhaps once in Acts,65 perhaps three times in Mark, not at all
in Matthew or John, three times in Paul, three times in Hebrews, four times in the Catholic Epistles, and five times in the Apocalypse. It is obviously very difficult to tell which passages are to be counted.66 Zimmermann's counting differs considerably from the above. The coincidence between Lk. 1–2 and the rest of Luke is striking. The argument of Gersdorf and Zimmermann must be allowed considerable weight, at least until the Septuagint usage has been investigated.
B<,b:"J4 6"Â *L<V:,4.67 B<,L$:" and *b<":4H are joined besides here in the following passages in the New Testament: Lk. 1:35 B<,L$:" "(4@< ¦B,8,bF,J"4 ¦BÂ FX, 6"Â *b<":4H ßR\FJ@L ¦B4F64VF,4 F@4, 4:14 6"Â ßBXFJD,R,< Ò 0F@L$H ¦< J®$ *L<V:,4 J@L$ B<,b:"J@H ,ÆH '"848"\"<, Acts 1:8 •88( 8Z:R,F2, *b<":4< ¦B,82`<J@H J@L$ ,(\@L B<,b:"J@H ¦N, ß:"$H, /pg. 227/ 10:38 ñH §PD4F,< "ÛJÎ< Ò 2,ÎH B<,b:"J4 ,(\å 6"Â *L<V:,4, Rom. 1:4 J@L$ ÒD4F2X<J@H LÊ@L$ 2,@L$ ¦< *L<V:,4 6"J( B<,L$:" , (4TFb<0H, 15:13 ,ÆH JÎ B,D4FF,b,4< ß:"$H ¦< J®$ ¦8B\*4 ¦< *L<V:,4 B<,b:"J@H ,(\@L, 19 ¦< *L<V:,4 F0:,\T< 6"Â J,DVJT<, ¦< *L<V:,4 B<,b:"J@H ,(\@L, 1 Cor. 2:4 @Û6 ¦< B,42@4$H F@N\"H 8`(@4H, •88, ¦< •B@*,\>,4 B<,b:"J@H 6"Â *L<V:,TH, Eph. 3:16 *L<V:,4 6D"J"4T20$<"4 *4( J@L$ B<,b:"J@H "ÛJ@L$ ,ÆH JÎ< §FT –<2DTB@<, 2 Tim. 1:7 @Û ((D §*T6,< º:4$< Ò 2,ÎH B<,L$:" *,48\"H, •88( *L<V:,TH 6"Â •(VB0H 6"Â FTND@<4F:@L$.68 In the Septuagint, Judg. 6:34 6"Â B<,L$:" 6LD\@L ¦<,*L<V:TF,< JÎ< ',*,f< should be compared. A most interesting parallel occurs in Ps. Sol. xvii. 42, *L<"JÎ< ¦< B<,b:"J4 ,(\å,69 in the description of the Messiah. The joining of the two ideas, Spirit and power, is natural enough, and need not be due only to Luke. The Spirit was conceived of in the Old Testament as the active agent of God in His mighty works.70 If the activity of the Spirit of God is what it is represented as being in the Old and New Testaments then the conjunction of B<,L$:" and *b<":4H was inevitable. And why may not Luke, in particular, have come to unite the two ideas closely, under the influence of the document underlying Lk. 1–2? Surely the passage Lk. 1:35 is noteworthy enough to have made a great impression upon
his mind, if that passage lay before him. Verse 19. ,Û"((,8\F"F2"4.71 This verb occurs twice in Lk. 1–2, eight times in the rest of Luke, fifteen times in Acts, once in Matthew, not at all in Mark and John, twenty-one times in Paul, twice in Hebrews, three times in the Catholic Epistles )all in 1 Peter(, and twice in the Apocalypse )both times in the active voice(.72 In the Septuagint, the word is /pg. 228/ not common, but there is some basis for the New Testament usage. Compare also especially Ps. Sol. xi. 1 NT<¬ ,Û"((,84.@:X<@L, with Ryle and James's note.73 Stanton74 remarks that in Lk. 1:19 and 2:10 the meaning of ,Û"((,8\.@:"4 "seems to be simply that of 'bringing good news' as in O. T., not specifically that of bringing the news of 'salvation,' as in the rest of N. T."
Verse 20. –PD4 )or –PD4H(75 occurs once )here( in Lk. 1–2, three times in the rest of Luke, fifteen times in Acts, once )possibly twice( in Matthew, not at all in Mark or John, fourteen times in Paul, three times in Hebrews, and eleven times in the Apocalypse. In the Septuagint, –PD4 )or –PD4H( occurs only seven times, ªTH being the common word.76 The argument has some weight. But the frequency of –PD4 in the Apocalypse as well as in Luke-Acts is worthy of note. For –PD4 º$H º:XD"H, Gersdorf77 compares Lk. 17:27, Acts 1:2, and one or two other less similar passages. These parallels strengthen somewhat the argument derived from –PD4 alone. But Gersdorf was not justified in questioning the correctness of the text of Mt. 24:38.
•<2, ñ$<78 occurs once )here( in Lk. 1–2, twice in the rest of Luke, once in Acts, once in Paul, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament. But it is not uncommon in the Septuagint, and therefore the occurrence in Lk. 1:20 is not at all surprising. Loisy79 compares Gen. 22:18 •<2, ñ$< ßBZ6@LF"H J0$H ¦:0$H NT<0$H.80 /pg. 229/ Verse 21. BD@F*@6T$<.81 BD@F*@6"$< occurs once )here( in Lk. 1–2, five times in the rest of Luke, five times in Acts, twice in Matthew, three times in 2 Peter, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament. In the Septuagint, it occurs only about ten times, of which about four are in 2 Maccabees and one in Maccabees. The
argument has some weight. Verse 23. ¦(X<,J@ ñH ¦B8ZF20F"<.82 ñH meaning "when" occurs, according to Hawkins, five times in Lk. 1–2, fourteen times in the rest of Luke, twenty-nine times in Acts, not at all in Matthew,83 once in Mark,84 sixteen times in John, three times in Paul, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament. In the Septuagint, it occurs about 222 times.85 The Septuagint usage prevents the usage in Lk. 1–2 from being any clear indication of Lucan style. The frequent occurrence in such a narrative as 1 Maccabees is particularly instructive. ¦(X<,J@ ñH, which accounts for three out of the five occurrences of ñH temporal in Lk. 1–2, and occurs besides only in Lk. 19:29 in the New Testament, far from being an additional indication of Lucan style,86 is a Septuagint usage. It is customary in the Septuagint for the narrative ¦(X<,J@ to be followed by some clause or phrase indicating time. Luke strongly prefers ¦< Jå$ with the infinitive; Lk. 1–2 is about equally divided between ¦< Jå$ with the infinitive and a temporal clause introduced by ñH.
Verse 29. ,Ç0.87 The optative mood occurs three times /pg. 230/ in Lk. 1–2, namely in Lk. 1:29, 38, 62. Of these occurrences, Lk. 1:38 (X<@4J` :@4 6"J( JÎ Õ0$:V F@L calls for no comment; the optative expressing a wish is fairly well distributed among the New Testament writers.88 The other two passages, however, are interesting. They are as follows: Lk. 1:29 *4,8@(\.,J@ B@J"BÎH ,Ç0 Ò •FB"F:ÎH @ß$J@H, Lk. 1:62 ¦<X<,L@< *¥ Jå$ B"JDÂ "ÛJ@L$ JÎ J\ —< 2X8@4 6"8,4$F2"4 "ÛJ`. The optative used otherwise than to express a wish occurs twice )as above( in Lk. 1–2, seven times in the rest of Luke, fifteen times in Acts, twice in Paul, twice in 1 Peter, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament. The passages in Paul89 and 1 Peter90 are totally unlike those in Lk. 1–2. In both of the passages in Lk. 1–2, the optative stands in a question—a usage which recurs seven times in the rest of Luke,91 six times in Acts,92 and nowhere else in the New Testament. Of these thirteen passages, seven have –<, like Lk. 1:62, six omit –< like Lk. 1:29, in eleven the question is indirect. as in both passages in Lk. 1–2, in ten the question is introduced by the pronoun J\H, as in Lk. 1:62, and in
two93 the pronoun is preceded by J` as in Lk. 1:62.94 In the Septuagint, –< with the optative occurs thus a number of times in questions introduced by J\ and JT$H, for example five times in Job.95 But such cases are rather uncommon except in "literary" books like Job.96 According to Thackeray,97 the mood /pg. 231/ "appears still to show some signs of life in the vernacular of the Ptolemaic age, whereas in the N. T. writings it is always an index of a cultivated writer." In general, though the Septuagint needs investigation, the assertion may be ventured that a Jewish Christian writer of the first century after Christ would not be likely to use the optative in the way in which it appears in Lk. 1–2. The New Testament usage, as outlined above, tells an unmistakable story. The optative in Lk. 1:29, 62 is due to the hand of Luke.98
Verse 30. PVD4<.99 For the use of PVD4H in the New Testament, Hawkins100 gives the following statistics: Lk. 1–2, 3; the rest of Luke, 5; Acts, 17; Matthew and Mark, 0; John, 4; Paul, 99; the rest of the New Testament, 27. The word is common in the Septuagint. ,ßD\F6,4< PVD4< )so in Lk. 1:30( is a regular Septuagint phrase, and should not have been urged by Gersdorf and Zimmermann,101 because of its occurrence in Acts 7:46,102 as an additional mark of Lucan style.
Verse 32. ßR\[email protected] àR4FJ@H, though occurs oftener in Luke and Acts than in the rest of the New Testament, and is used as a substantive to designate God by Luke only among New Testament writers, is hardly a sign of Lucan style.104
Verse 35. ¦B,8,bF,J"4.105 ¦BXDP,F2"4 occurs once )here( in Lk. 1–2, twice in the rest of Luke, four times in /pg. 232/ Acts, once in Paul, once in James, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament. In the Septuagint, however, it is common.
*4`106 occurs once )here( in Lk. 1–2, once in the rest of Luke, eight times in Acts, once in Matthew, twenty-seven times in Paul, nine times in Hebrews, six times in the Catholic Epistles, and not at all in
the rest of the New Testament. The word occurs only about thirtythree times in the Septuagint, of which twelve are in 2, 3, 4 Maccabees.107 This use of *4`, though not at all decisive, is as good an indication of the hand of Luke as are many of the phenomena which have been urged by Harnack; yet Harnack makes it perform an opposite service. He makes it help to prove not the Lucan, but the non-Lucan character of verses 34, 35, which he regards as an interpolation into the completed Gospel.108 Arguments from style are apt to be colored by preconceived opinions. It may fairly be demanded that the search for Lucan characteristics should be as thorough in Lk. 1:34, 35 as in the rest of Lk. 1–2. Verse 36. 6"Â Æ*@× 8,4FV$,J º FL((,<\H F@L 6"Â "ÛJ¬ FL<,\80N,< LÊÎ< ¦< (ZD,4 "ÛJ0$H, 6"Â @ß$J@H :¬< ª6J@H ¦FJÂ< "ÛJ®$ J®$ 6"8@L:X<® FJ,\D(. Gersdorf compares Lk. 8:41 and 19:2. The sequence of 6"Â Æ*@b…6"Â "ÛJ`H in Lk. 8:41, and of 6"Â Æ*@b… 6"Â "ÛJ`H…6"Â @ß$J@H )?( in Lk. 19:2 is similar to the 6"Â Æ*@b…6"Â "ÛJZ…6"Â @ß$J@H of Lk. 1:36. But Gersdorf is exaggerating when he says that "without doubt the selfsame author must have written this."109 Perhaps a common adherence on the part of two authors to an extreme Semitic form of parataxis would help to explain the coincidence.110 /pg. 233/
Õ0$:" = "thing,"111 which Harnack and Zimmermann cite as occurring, besides here and at Lk. 2:15, only at Acts 5:32 and 10:37 in the New Testament,112 is a Hebraism common in the Septuagint. Both of the passages in Acts are in speeches attributed to Jewish Christians. The use of Õ0$:" in Lk. 1–2 is absolutely no indication of Lucan authorship.113 Verse 39. •<"FJ"$F".114 This pleonastic aorist participle of •<4FJV<"4 occurs, according to Hawkins, once in Lk. 1– 2, fifteen times in the rest of Luke, eighteen times in Acts, twice in Matthew, six times in Mark, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament. But it is so common in the Septuagint as a translation of the familiar &*8. of the Hebrew that the single occurrence in a narrative like Lk. 1–2 could hardly have been avoided. ¦< J"4$H º:XD"4H J"bJ"4H (compare :,J( *¥ J"bJ"H J(H º:XD"H in verse 24 and ¦< J"4$H º:XD"4H ¦6,\<"4H in Lk. 2:1)115 has perhaps some
value as an indication of Lucan style.Verse 41. ¦F6\DJ0F,<.116 F64DJ"$<, which occurs in the New Testament, besides here and verse 44, only at Lk. 6:23, /pg. 234/ occurs seven times in the Septuagint in all, and once of the leaping of babes in the womb (Gen. 25:22).
$DXN@H117 occurs four times in Lk. 1–2, once in the rest of Luke, once in Acts, once in 2 Timothy, once in 1 Peter, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament. Though the word occurs only five times in the Septuagint, of which three are in 2, 3, 4 Maccabees,118 the argument for Lucan authorship has perhaps little weight.
Verse 42. •<,Nf<0F,< 6D"L(®$ :,(V8®.119 For 6D"L(¬ :,(V80 compare Septuagint, Ex. 11:6, 12:30, 1 Sam. 4:6, Neh. 5:1, 1 Macc. 5:31. For •<,Nf<0F,< 6D"L(®$ compare Zeph. 1:10 NT<¬ 6D"L(0$H. If the parallels Lk. 4:33 •<X6D">,< NT<®$ :,(V8® and Acts 7:60 §*D">,< NT<®$ :,(V8® be thought to indicate Lucan authorship of Lk. 1–2, compare 1 Sam. 4:5 •<X6D">,< B"$H FD"¬8 NT<®$ :,(V8®, Gen. 39:14 ¦$`0F" NT<®$ :,(V8®. Resch120 compares Ezek. 11:13, where the Septuagint has •<,$`0F" NT<®$ :, (V8®. Verse 44. For Æ*@b (VD121 see Spitta, in Theologische Abhandlungen für Holtzmann, p. 80.122 ¦(X<,J@ º NT<Z.123 NT<Z used thus with (\<,F2"4 occurs once (here) in Lk. 1–2, three times in the rest of Luke, four times in Acts, twice (?) in Mark,124 once in /pg. 235/ John (compare also Jno. 12:28 ²$82,< @Û$< NT<Z),125 six times in the Apocalypse, and nowhere else in the New Testament. In the Septuagint, compare Gen. 15:4, Ex. 19:16, 19, 2 Chron. 5:13, and Dan. Theod. 4:28.
,ÆH J( é$J"126 is a regular Septuagint phrase. Verse 45. :"6"D\"127 :"6VD4@H, which even on the showing of the New Testament occurrences,128 is not peculiarly Lucan, is very common in the Psalms (Septuagint), where it is used in just the same way as here.
J@4$H 8"8@L:X<@4H.129 The passive of 8"8,4$<, which occurs five times in Lk. 1–2, not at all in the rest of Luke, seven times in
Acts, once in Matthew, twice in Mark,130 once in Paul, five times in Hebrews, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament, occurs only six or seven times in the Septuagint (where the active of 8"8,4$< is exceedingly common). J( 8"8@b:,<" recurs in the New Testament, besides in Lk. 2:33, only in Acts 13:45, 16:14.131 The argument for Lucan authorship or editorship cannot altogether be denied.132 Verse 56. §:,4<,<…Fb<.133 :X<,4< Fb< recurs in the /pg. 236/ New Testament only at Lk. 24:29, and does not appear in the Septuagint; but a stronger argument, perhaps, is to be derived from the use of Fb< in general. According to Hawkins,134 Fb< occurs three times in Lk. 1–2, twenty times in the rest of Luke, fifty-two times in Acts, four times in Matthew, six times in Mark, three times in John, thirty-eight times in Paul, and twice in the rest of the New Testament. In the Septuagint, :,JV with the genitive is far commoner than Fb< with the dative. However, Fb< is not so rare in the Septuagint as to render surprising the occurrences in Lk. 1–2. It should be observed that :,JV is commoner than Fb< in Lk. 1–2. It is also commoner in the rest of Luke, but not in Acts.
of Luke, eleven times in Acts, perhaps once in Mark,136 once in 2 Peter, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament. In the Septuagint, the word occurs perhaps twenty-four times, but in many of these cases the text is doubtful. These facts are decidedly significant. In all probability, the use of the word in Lk. 1–2 is due to the hand of Luke. Verse 57. Ò PD`<@H J@L$ J,6,4$< "ÛJZ<. No argument for Lucan authorship can be drawn from this use of the genitive of the articular infinitive,137 for Stanton138 aptly cites Gen. 25:24 6"Â ¦B80Df20F"< "Ê º:XD"4 J@L$ J,6,4$< "ÛJZ<. Verse 58. ¦:,(V8L<,< 6bD4@H JÎ §8,@H "ÛJ@L$ :,J, "ÛJ0$H.139 This use of :,J, "ÛJ0$H is no sign of Lucan style, for B@4,4$< §8,@H :,JV J4<@H is a regular Septuagint phrase, formed in imitation of Hebrew.140 /pg. 237/
Verse 62. J`.141 J` before the interrogative J\H or J\ occurs, according to Hawkins,142 once in Lk. 1–2, four times in the rest of Luke, once in Acts, once in Paul, and not at all in the rest of the New
Testament. A similar use of J` before JT$H occurs twice in Acts.143 An investigation of the Septuagint usage would be interesting. Very probably, however, this use of J` is a genuine mark of Luke's hand. But Stanton should be given careful attention when he says:144 "But all that was necessary in order to produce this 'Lucan' feature was that the neut. art. should be inserted, which we see to have been actually what has happened at Lk. 9:46 = Mk. 9:34."145 Such features are just what a reviser could add with least derangement of his source; they indicate, therefore, Lucan editorship, but not necessarily Lucan authorship. Verse 64. B"D"PD0$:"146 occurs once (here) in Lk. 1–2, nine times in the rest of Luke, six times in Acts, twice in Matthew (in the same passage), and not at all in the rest of the New Testament. The word occurs only eighteen times at most in the Septuagint. The occurrence of it in Lk. 1:64 may indicate the hand of Luke.
Verse 65. ¦(X<,J@ ¦BÂ BV<J"H N`[email protected] (\<,F2"4 followed by ¦B\ with the accusative, and with N@$'@H as the subject recurs in the New Testament only at Acts 5:5, 11.148. /pg. 238/ Compare, however, Gen. 35:5 6"Â ¦(X<,J@ N`$@H 2,@L$ ¦BÂ J(H B`8,4H, 2 Chron. 19:7 6"Â <L$< (,<XF2T N`$@H 6LD\@L ¦N, ß:"$H. According to Hawkins,149 (\<,F2"4 followed by ¦B\ with the accusative in general occurs once in Lk. 1–2, five times in the rest of Luke, five times in Acts, once in Matthew, once in Mark, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament. In the Septuagint, this usage occurs only about fifty times.150 When it is observed that in Lk. 4:64, (Acts 2:43), and Acts 5:5, 11 the parallel with Lk. 1:64 appears in the ¦BÂ BV<J"H as well as in the particulars noted above, the indication of Lucan style becomes rather strong.
*4",8"8,[email protected] The word, which recurs only at Lk. 6:2 in the New Testament, does not appear in the Septuagint, but occurs a number of times in the translation of Symmachus (in the Psalms).
Verse 66. For §2,<J@…¦< J®$ 6"D*\( "ÛJT$<152 compare 1 Sam. 21:12 §2,J@ )"L,Â* J( ÕZ:"J" ¦< J®$ 6"D*\( "ÛJ@L$. 29:10, Hg.
2:18. BV<J,H @Ê •6@bF"<J,H.153 Of the passages cited by Zimmermann, Acts 5:5, 11, 9:21, 10:44 are really parallel. Acts 5:5b 6"Â ¦(X<,J@ N`$@H :X("H ¦BÂ BV<J"H J@×H •6@b@<J"H and Acts 5:11 6"Â ¦(X<,J@ N`$@H :X("H ¦N, Ó80< J¬< ¦6680F\"< 6"Â ¦BÂ BV<J"H J@×H •6@b@<J"H certainly display a remarkable similarity to Lk. 1:65, 66. In the Septuagint, parallels for BV<J,H @Ê •6@bF"<J,H are apparently scarce. Compare Lev. 24:14. J\ –D" (or J\H –D")154 occurs once (here) in Lk. 1–2, /pg. 239/ three times in the rest of Luke, once in Acts, four times in Matthew, once in Mark, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament. Though the occurrences of this usage in Matthew prevent it from being regarded as peculiarly Lucan, yet the extreme rarity or non-occurrence of it in the Septuagint155 suggests the hypothesis of Lucan editing if not Lucan authorship.
P,ÂD 6LD\@L ²$< :,J, "ÛJ@L$.156 This expression recurs in the New Testament only at Acts 11:21 6"Â ²$< P,ÂD 6LD\@L :,J, "ÛJT$<. Acts 13:11 6"Â <L$< Æ*@× P,ÂD 6LD\@L ¦BÂ FX is different.157 In the Septuagint, the expression does not occur, though 1 Chron. 4:10 6"Â ²$< º P,\D F@L [referring to God] :,J, ¦:@L$ is very similar.158 Gersdorf has here perhaps detected a true indication of Lucan style which has been overlooked by many more recent investigators.
Verse 80. 0Ü>"<,.159 "Û>V<,4< occurs twice, in Lk. 1–2, perhaps twice in the rest of Luke,160 four times in Acts, twice in Matthew, once in Mark, once in John, nine times in Paul, twice in the Catholic Epistles, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament. It is not the mere occurrence of the word in Acts which is interesting, but its occurrence in summaries which are somewhat similar to Lk. 1:80 and 2:40. But for the 0Ü>0F,<…6"Â ¦B802b<20 of Acts 7:17 and the 0Ü>"<,< 6"Â ¦B802b<,J@ of Acts 12:24, compare Gen. 1:22; and for Lk. 1:80 and 2:40 compare Gen. 21:8 6"Â 0Û>Z20 JÎ B"4*\@<.161 ¦< J"4$H ¦DZ:@4H.162 For the plural "Ê §D0:@4, which recurs /pg. 240/ in the New Testament only at Lk. 5:16,163 compare Ezek. 13:4 ñH •8fB,6,H ¦< J"4$H ¦DZ:@4H @Ê BD@N0$J"\ F@L, FD"Z8.
•<"*,\>,TH.164 •<V*,4>4H, which does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, occurs in the Septuagint only at Si. 43:6. •<"*,46<b<"4, which occurs in the New Testament only at Lk. 10:1 and Acts 1:24, occurs only about eighteen times in the Septuagint, of which half are in 2, 3, 4 Maccabees. However, the meaning "to exhibit publicly as a king or officer," which appears not only six times in 1 Esdras and once in Daniel, but also perhaps in Hab. 3:2,165 approaches far more closely to Lk. 1:80 than does the use of the word in Acts. ßB@*,46<b<"4 is fairly common in the Septuagint.
Chapter 2. Verse 1. *`(:",166 which occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only twice in Acts and twice in Paul, is rare in the Septuagint, but occurs frequently in the Daniel of Theodotion.167 Holtzmann168 compares Dan. 2:13 JÎ *`(:" ¦>0$82,<. The occurrence of the word in a Jewish Christian work (supposing Lk. 1– 2 to be such) is not surprising. When a Jewish Christian wished to speak of things that had to do, with the Empire, his vocabulary would naturally approach more closely than elsewhere to that of an historian like Luke. @Æ6@L:X<0<.169 The word @Æ6@L:X<0, which occurs once (here) in Lk. 1–2, twice in the rest of Luke, five times in Acts, once in Matthew, once in Paul, twice in Hebrews, three times in the Apocalypse, and not at all in /pg. 241/ the rest of the New Testament, is rather frequent in the Septuagint, for example in the Psalms.
Verse 2. •B@(D"NZ170 is rare in the Septuagint. But the coincidence with Acts 5:37 is due of course to the similarity of what was to be designated. º(,:@<,b@<J@H. Gersdorf compares Lk. 3:1.171 The comparison is interesting. º(,:@<,b,4< does not occur in the Septuagint, but º(,:@<\" occurs a number of times, and º(,:f< is fairly common.
Verse 4. *¥ 6"\172 occurs, according to Hawkins, once in Lk. 1–2, twenty-four times in the rest of Luke, seven times in Acts, three times in Matthew, twice in Mark, eight times in John, twenty-two times in Paul, and five times in the rest of the New Testament. An
investigation of the Septuagint usage would be interesting. But the single occurrence in Lk. 1–2 is perhaps without special significance.
*4( JÎ ,Æ$<"4 "ÛJ`<.173 *4( J` with the infinitive occurs once (here) in Lk. 1–2, seven times in the rest of Luke, eight times in Acts, three times in Matthew, three times in Mark, once in John, once in Paul, three times in Hebrews, once in the Catholic Epistles, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament. In the Septuagint it is fairly common. The single occurrence in Lk. 1–2 is of no great significance.
Verse 8. NL8VFF@<J,H.174 This verb is exceedingly common in the Septuagint. For NL8VFF@<J,H NL8"6VH175 compare Num. 3:7 NL8V>@LF4< J(H NL8"6(H "ÛJ@L$, etc. For the somewhat similar expression ¦N@$Z20F"< N`$@< :X("< in verse 9, compare Jonah 1:10 ¦N@$Z20F"< @Ê –<*D,H N`$@< :X("< (or N`$å :, (V8å). /pg. 242/ Verse 9. ¦BXFJ0.176 ¦N4FJV<"4 occurs twice in Lk. 1–2, five times in the rest of Luke, eleven times in Acts,177 three times in Paul, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament. In the New Testament, the verb is always in transitive;178 in the Septuagint, it is usually transitive, and when it is intransitive it is not often followed by the dative. The word looks like a genuine mark of the hand of Luke.
B,D4X8":R,<.179 B,D48V:B,4<, which appears elsewhere in the New Testament only at Acts 26:13, does not occur at all in the Septuagint, and the simple verb 8V:B,4< is not common. The parallel is worthy of notice, but in view of the ease with which compound verbs could be formed it is perhaps of no great significance. Similarity in the event described might have produced the similarity in expression.
With verse 9 6"Â –((,8@H 6LD\@L ¦BXFJ0 "ÛJ@4$H 6"Â *`>" 6LD\@L B,D4X8":R,< "ÛJ@bH compare Acts 12:7 Æ*@× –((,8@H 6LD\@L ¦BXFJ0, 6"Â NT$H §8":R,< ¦< Jå$ @Æ6Z:"J4.180 The parallel is interesting, but the connection between an angel of the Lord and "light" is natural enough, and does not necessarily indicate common authorship. And why may not the similarity of expression
be due to dependence of the author of Acts 12:7 upon the source of Lk. 2:9?181 Verse 10. B"<JÂ Jå$ 8"å$.182 B"$H (or "B"H) Ò 8"`H occurs, according to Hawkins, once in Lk. 1–2, nine times in the rest of Luke, six times in Acts, once in Matthew, once in Hebrews, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament (once in pericope de adultera). It is a regular Septuagint phrase, occurring, for example, twenty times in Exodus. /pg. 243/ Verse 13. ¦>"\N<0H183 occurs once (here) in Lk. 1–2, once in the rest of Luke, twice in Acts, once in Matthew, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament. The word occurs only about ten times in the Septuagint. It is doubtful whether the occurrence in Lk. 2:13 is of any special significance.184
FJD"J4"$H @ÛD"<\@L (or @ÛD"<@L$). Gersdorfaaaa cites Acts 7:42 J®$ FJD"J4($ J@L$ @ÛD"<@L$. But with Lk. 2:13 compare 1 Kings 22:19, Neh. 9:6, Hos. 13:4; and with Acts 7:42 compare 2 Chron. 33:3, 5, Zeph. 1:5, Jer. 7:18, 8:2, 19:13. FJD"J4( @ÛD"<@L$ or the like occurs in all these passages.
"Æ<@b<JT<.185 "Æ<,4$< occurs twice in Lk. 1–2, once (possibly twice) in the rest of Luke, three times in Acts, once in Paul (citation), once in the Apocalypse, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament. The word is common in the Septuagint, and is very frequently used of the praise of God.
Verse 14. With this verse Gersdorf compares Lk. 19:38, where the second part of the verse reads ¦< @ÛD"<å$ ,ÆDZ<0 6"Â *`>" ¦< ßR\FJ@4H. These words are not found in the other Gospels, but take the place in Luke of the ñF"<<( ¦< J@4$H ßR\FJ@4H in Matthew and Mark. But what is the relation between this Lucan addition and the angelic song of Lk. 2:14? The two have two things in common; the *`>" ¦< ßR\FJ@4H, and the conjunction of this with ,ÆDZ<0 ¦<. With regard to the former point, Ryle and James186 can cite an interesting parallel in Ps. Sol. xviii. 11 (xix. 1) §<*@>@H ¦< ßR\FJ@4H 6"J@46T$<. This /pg. 244/ suggests the possibility that the *`>" ¦< ßR\FJ@4H of Lk. 2:14 and of Lk. 19:38 may be quite independent. The idea was a natural one, and also the expression of
it. The writer who first put the angelic song into Greek (supposing it to have existed first in Aramaic) may have written independently of him who performed a similar service for the original of Lk. 19:38. In the latter passage, ¦< ßR\FJ@4H, at any rate, was already given. It stands in the ñF"<<( ¦< J@4$H ßR\FJ@4H of Matthew and Mark. The conjunction of ,ÆDZ<0 and *`>" ¦< ßR\FJ@4H might also be explained as due to mere coincidence, especially since the order is reversed, and since ,ÆDZ<0 goes with ¦< @ÛD"<å$ in the one case and with ¦BÂ (0$H and ¦< •<2DfB@4H ,Û*@6\"H in the other. However, in view of the rather striking parallel between the two passages, other solutions of the problem call for careful consideration. Wellhausen is quite confident that Lk. 2:14 is dependent upon Lk. 19:38187 This hypothesis, however, is apparently connected with the untenable188 view that Lk. 1–2 is an addition to the completed Gospel. The reverse hypothesis, that Lk. 19:38 is dependent upon Lk. 2:14, is favored by Holtzmann,189 B. Weiss,190 J. Weiss,191 and Gould.192 In Lk. 19:38, Holtzmann supposes, the wording of the triumphant cry was exchanged for a reminiscence of the Gloria (Lk. 2:14), which had already become a hymn of the Christian congregation. There is nothing improbable in this hypothesis; though if a correct view be held with regard to the date of the Gospel, the Gloria must have become a hymn of the Church long before Holtzmann would suppose. If there is dependence, /pg. 245/ may it not rather be dependence upon the source of Lk. 1–2, in which the Gloria was already inserted as it appears now. Such dependence would not be irreconcilable with the integrity of Luke as a historian. The cry of the multitude at the triumphal entry of Jesus was not recorded with verbal exactness. Indeed, it was probably not stereotyped in the first place. There were many persons; some said one thing, others another.193 It is not surprising, therefore, that the tradition of what was said is not exactly uniform. The characteristic cry of the multitude—what was heard again and again during the descent into the city—might have impressed itself upon the hearer with greater or less fulness. The translation into Greek, moreover, necessarily brought greater divergence from the exact words that were spoken by any person
among the multitude. One Aramaic word, Hosanna, has been preserved by three of the Evangelists. Luke, for the benefit of his Greek readers, has substituted Greek words for it. His ¦< @ÛD"<å$ ,ÆDZ<0 6"Â *`>" ¦< ßR\FJ@4H reproduces the spirit and general meaning of the ñF"<<( ¦< J@4$H ßR\FJ@4H which has been preserved by Matthew and Mark. Surely that phrase is not altogether clear.194 In order to bring out the meaning of the original cry—that is, its real significance in the feeling of the original speakers—literal translation was insufficient. There are cases when amplification is the truest translation.195 However, to those who have not accepted without modification the current view of Luke's dependence solely upon Mark, it will seem more probable that Lk. 19:38b is no mere amplification of ñF"<<( ¦< J@4$H ßR\FJ@4H, but rather a reproduction of independent tradition. The decision with regard to that question does not affect essentially the problem involved in the parallel with Lk. 2:14. For the tradition was not in the first place fixed in a /pg. 246/ Greek form; if it came to Luke in Greek, it came in a mere translation which might freely be modified. In any case, therefore, Luke may have made use of the words of the angelic doxology in determining the form, though not the content, of the triumphal cry. He may have done so consciously or unconsciously— more probably the latter. The song of the angels, as recorded in the infancy narrative, was familiar to him; the words of it came naturally from his pen when he was putting the similar praise of the multitude into a form which would be both intelligible and impressive for himself and for his Greek readers. Such a solution of the problem is a combination of two hypotheses—the hypothesis that Lk. 19:38 and Lk. 2:14 are completely independent of each other, and the hypothesis that the former is dependent upon the latter. The present form of Lk. 19:38 is due partly to a real coincidence in the original praises rendered to God, and partly to Luke's familiarity with the wording of the angelic hymn. The similarity, therefore, between Lk. 2:14 and Lk. 19:38 does not prove that Luke was the author of the former as well as of the latter. He may have been the first to put the angels' song into Greek (that would perhaps help to explain his
familiarity with its wording and his natural employment of it without artificial imitation), but such an hypothesis is not necessary.196
Verse 15. *4X82T:,<.197 *4XDP,F2"4 occurs twice in Lk. 1–2, /pg. 247/ eight times in the rest of Luke, twenty times in Acts, once (in Mt. 19:24 it is probably not to be read) in Matthew, twice in Mark, twice in John, five times in Paul, once in Hebrews, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament. In the Septuagint, the word is not uncommon. For *4XDP,F2"4 ªTH198 compare Gen. 22:5 *4,8,LF`:,2" ªTH ò*,. However, the remarkable preponderance of the word in Luke-Acts as compared with the other New Testament books renders the two occurrences in Lk. 1–2 rather significant.
*Z with the imperative (or hortatory subjunctive),199 which occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only at Acts 13:2 and 15:36 (in the latter passage with the hortatory subjunctive as in Lk. 2:15),200 is common in the Septuagint. It occurs, for example, about twenty-four times in Judges, including, of course, the cases where it is used with the subjunctive in prohibitions. It translates the familiar Hebrew 1!-.
Ç*T:,< JÎ Õ0$:" J@L$J@ JÎ (,(@<`H.201 JÎ (,(@<`H occurs, according to Hawkins, once in Lk. 1–2, three times in the rest of Luke (not counting Lk. 24:12), three times in Acts, once in Mark, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament. JÎ (,(@<`H as the object of ,Æ$*@< occurs, besides here, only in Lk. 8:34 (where Mk. 5:14 has ¦*,4$< J\ ¦FJ4< JÎ (,(@<`H), 35, Acts 13:12. In the Septuagint, compare 1 Sam. 4:16 J\ JÎ (,(@<ÎH Õ0$:",202 10:11 J\ J@L$J@ JÎ (, (@<ÎH Jå$ LÊå$ 5,\H,203 Esth. 4:4, 7, /pg. 248/ Judith 15:1, (Eccl. 1:9), 1 Macc. 4:21. The significance of JÎ (,(@<`H as a Lucan characteristic cannot, perhaps, be altogether denied.
Verse 16. FB,bF"<J,H.204 FB,b*,4< occurs once (here) in Lk. 1–2, twice (in the same context) in the rest of Luke, twice in Acts, once in 2 Peter, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament. The participle "is used in a precisely similar manner" in Lk. 19:5, 6.205 But so it is also in the Septuagint, where, moreover, the word itself is
fairly common. •<,L$D"<.206 •<,LD\F6,4<, which recurs in the New Testament only at Acts 21:4, appears only once in the Septuagint, and that in 4 Maccabees. Possibly this word is an indication of Lucan editing of Lk. 1–2.
J,207 occurs, according to Hawkins, once (here) in Lk. 1–2, eight times in the rest of Luke, about one hundred and thirty-four times in Acts, three times in Matthew, not at all in Mark, three times in John, twenty-three times in Paul, and twenty-two times in the rest of the New Testament. In the Septuagint, it is fairly common, but especially in the "literary" parts. It is perhaps an indication of Luke's hand, but the significance of one occurrence must not be exaggerated.
Verse 19. FL:$V88@LF".208 FL:$V88,4< occurs once (here) in Lk. 1–2, once in the rest of Luke, four times in Acts, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament. But the meaning varies somewhat in these passages.209 In the Septuagint, the word occurs only twelve times at most. It is perhaps some indication of Lucan style. /pg. 249/ Verse 20. *@>V.@<J,H…JÎ< 2,`<.210 *@>V.,4< JÎ< 2,`< occurs, according to Hawkins, once in Lk. 1–2, seven times in the rest of Luke, three times in Acts, twice in Matthew, once in Mark, twice in John, six times in Paul, and three times in the rest of the New Testament. In the Septuagint, it occurs only at Judg. 9:9 (A has a different reading) and at Dan. 3:51 (both Septuagint and Theodotion);211 though of course *@>V.,4< is used of the praise of God in passages where the noun 2,`H does not appear as the object. The expression is perhaps some indication of Lucan style.
Verse 25. ,Û8"$ZH212 occurs in the New Testament only here and three times in Acts. In the Septuagint, it occurs only three times at most. It is perhaps some indication of Lucan style.213
BD@F*,P`:,<@H.214 BD@F*XP,F2"4 occurs twice in Lk. 1–2, three times in the rest of Luke, twice in Acts, once in Mark, three times in Paul, twice in Hebrews, once in Jude, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament. It is not uncommon in the Septuagint. With the
present passage and verse 38 may be compared Job 2:9a BD@F*,P`:,<@H J¬< ¦8B\*" J0$H FTJ0D\"H :@L and Wi. 18:7 BD@F,*XP20 ßBÎ 8"@L$ F@L FTJ0D\" :¥< *46"\T<. Neither of these passages, however, had a Semitic original.215 B"DV680F4<.216 B"DV680F4H, which occurs once (here) in Lk. 1– 2, once in the rest of Luke, four times in Acts, twenty times in Paul, three times in Hebrews, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament, occurs only about fifteen times in the Septuagint. Holtzmann217 compares Is. 40:1. /pg. 250/ Compare also the passages from Jewish writings cited by Wettstein,218 and Dalman.219
Verse 27. ,ÆF"("(,4$<,220 ,ÆFV(,4< which occurs once (here) in Lk. 1–2, twice in the rest of Luke, six times in Acts, once in John, once in Hebrews, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament, is very common in the Septuagint. Verse 28. ¦*X>"[email protected] *XP,F2"4 occurs once (here) in Lk. 1–2, sixteen225 times in the rest of Luke, eight222 times in Acts, ten223 times in Matthew, six224 times in Mark, once in John, thirteen times in Paul, once in Hebrews, once in James, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament. In the Septuagint, it is not uncommon.
Verse 29. *XFB@J".226 *,FB`J0H is fairly common in the Septuagint, being often used, as here and in Acts 2:24, in addressing God. It should be noticed that in the Nunc dimittis (verses 29–32) specifically Lucan features are absent.227 The Messianic hope is expressed entirely in Old Testament forms. The universalism is the universalism of the prophets. The nations of the earth are to do honor to Israel for the light that proceeds from her. Besides the Old Testament parallels, compare Ps. Sol. xvii. 32, 34f.228
Verse 33. 2"L:V.@<J,H ¦B\.229 2"L:V.,4< ¦B\, which /pg. 251/ in the New Testament appears only in Luke-Acts (five times in all), occurs about eleven times in the Septuagint. Verse 34. •<J48,(`:,<@<.230 •<J48X(,4<, which occurs once (here) in Lk. 1–2, probably not at all in the rest of Luke (in Lk. 20:27 it is probably not to be read), four
times in Acts, once in John, once in Romans (citation), twice in 1 Timothy, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament, occurs about eight times in the Septuagint. Verse 35. *4"8@(4F:@\.231 *4"8@(4F:`H is much more common in the Gospel of Luke than in any other New Testament book, and of the thirteen New Testament occurrences of *4"8X(,F2"4, ten are in Acts. Both words occur in the Septuagint, though not with great frequency. Verse 36. §J0.232 §J@H, which occurs, according to Hawkins, twenty-six times in LukeActs (four times in Lk. 1–2), as against twenty-three times in the rest of the New Testament, is exceedingly common in the Septuagint.
Verse 37. •N\FJ"[email protected] "N4FJV<"4 occurs once (here) in Lk. 1–2, three times in the rest of Luke, six times in Acts, three times in Paul, once in Hebrews, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament. It is common in the Septuagint. 8"JD,b@LF" <b6J" 6"Â º:XD"<.234 8"JD,b,4< <b6J" 6"Â º:XD"< occurs in the New Testament only here and in Acts 26:7, and in the Septuagint not at all. The parallel is interesting.
Verse 38. "ÛJ®$ J®$ òD(.235 The phrase (with or without ¦<) occurs once (here) in Lk. 1–2, five times in the rest of Luke, twice in Acts and not at all in the rest of the New Testament. It occurs only a few times in the Septuagint.236 The phrase may perhaps be regarded as a genuine mark of Lucan style. /pg. 252/
Verse 40. F@N\(, 6"Â PVD4H.237 Compare verse 52 ¦< J®$ F@N\ (…6"Â PVD4J4. A similar association of PVD4H and F@N\" occurs at Acts 7:10 (in the speech of Stephen). In the Septuagint, Eccl. 10:12 8`(@4 FJ`:"J@H F@N@L$ PVD4H may perhaps be compared. Verse 43. ßBX:,4<,<.238 ßB@:X<,4< in the sense of "remain" occurs again in the New Testament only at Acts 17:14. But compare (in the Septuagint) Num. 20:19, Judg. 3:25.239 Verse 44. <@:\F"<J,H.240 <@:\.,4< occurs once (here) in Lk. 1–2, once (Lk. 3:23, in connection with the genealogy) in the rest of Luke, seven times in Acts, three times in Paul, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament. With
the infinitive,241 it occurs only here and six times in Acts. In the Septuagint, the word is rare, occurring only once outside of Wisdom and 2, 3, 4 Maccabees. It seems to be a genuine mark of the hand of Luke.
•<".0J@L$<J,H.242 •<".0J,4$< occurs in the New Testament, besides here and in the next verse, only at Acts 11:25. In the Septuagint, it occurs only three times, and that in the "literary" books, Job and 2 Maccabees. The case is somewhat similar to that of <@:\.,4<.
Verse 46. ¦< :XFå243 is common in the Septuagint. Verse 47. ¦>\FJ" <[email protected] The word occurs once (here) in Lk. 1–2, twice in the rest of Luke, eight times in Acts, once in Matthew, four times in Mark, once in Paul, and not at all in the rest of the New Testament. In the Septuagint, it is not uncommon. However, the exact parallel of /pg. 253/ Lk. 2:47 with Acts 9:21 ¦>\FJ"<J@ *¥ BV<J,H @Ê •6@b@<J,H245 is striking.
Verse 48. Ï*L<f:,<@4.246 The verb occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only at Lk. 16:24, 25 and Acts 20:38. In the Septuagint it occurs only ten times.247 The preceding investigation has by no means discredited the contention of Harnack and others that Lk. 1–2 exhibits a remarkable linguistic affinity with the rest of the Gospel and Acts. The existence of the parallels must freely be admitted. The only question is how they shall be interpreted. Harnack interprets them as evidence that the author of Luke and Acts was also the author of the infancy narrative, and that for this narrative he was not dependent upon written sources. But is this the only possible interpretation? Other interpretations have suggested themselves in the course of the investigation.
In the first place, many of the parallels between Lk. 1–2 and the rest of Luke and Acts have been explained as due /pg. 254/ simply to a common dependence upon the Septuagint,—or rather, perhaps, in the case of Luke, dependence upon the Septuagint, and in the case of
Lk. 1–2, in addition to dependence upon the Septuagint, an independent operation of the same forces which produced the style of the Septuagint.248 Harnack himself admits that the style of the infancy narrative is not entirely Lucan. "The narrative in Chapters 1 and 2," he says, "is, regarded linguistically, a product of Bible (Septuagint) Greek with the Greek that belonged to the author himself." The style of Lk. 1–2 is "artistically and successfully imitated from the Greek of the Septuagint, but mingled with this the narrative exhibits in almost every verse the elements and the vocabulary of the author's own style."249 Harnack's method of investigation, then, is essentially this: subtract from Lk. 1–2 the elements that have been taken from the Septuagint, and what remains is purely Lucan. But the conclusion to be drawn depends upon the amount of the Lucan residuum. The Lucan element, after subtraction of what has been derived from the Septuagint, is so large, Harnack maintains, that nothing short of Lucan authorship will explain it. If the Lucan residuum were smaller, perhaps Harnack would be content with the hypothesis of Lucan editing, as in the body of the Gospel. But the preceding investigation has had just this result—the reduction of the Lucan residuum. The Septuagint element in Lk. 1–2 is found to be much larger than Harnack supposed, and the purely Lucan element correspondingly smaller.
In the second place, some of the parallels between Lk. 1–2 and the rest of Luke and Acts have been explained as due probably to dependence of Luke upon various sources of the same type. With what part of Luke-Acts is Lk. 1–2 to be compared in order to exhibit its Lucan character? Obviously the comparison should be made with parts where /pg. 255/ Luke's own style appears in its purity. But this is not certainly the case, for example, in the former part of Acts, especially in the speeches which are there attributed to Jewish Christians. Very probably Luke is there using sources, and sources of a Jewish Christian character very much like the source that has been posited for Lk. 1–2. Therefore, affinity of Lk. 1–2 for those early chapters in Acts does not necessarily prove Lucan authorship. It may prove nothing more than authorship by a Jewish Christian, whose
linguistic and religious environment was the same as that of the authors who produced the sources of the Lucan account of the primitive Jewish church.
Finally, even if Lk. 1–2 is found to coincide in a certain usage with the admittedly and purely Lucan parts of Luke and Acts, that does not necessarily prove dependence of Lk. 1–2 upon the Lucan usage in question. For the dependence may be the other way. Such a possibility has usually been ignored. But quite unjustifiably. That Luke's style has been colored by phrases in the Benedictus and in the angelic doxology has already been shown to be probable ;250 and there is no reason why the dependence should not be extended to the narrative portions of Lk. 1–2, if Luke was really using a written source in that section of his Gospel. Luke was attracted, not unnaturally, by the simple grandeur and poetic dignity of the "Bible style," and followed the Old Testament model in his own sacred narrative.251 But why should such influence have been exerted by the Old Testament alone? If Lk. 1–2 is what at first sight it seems to be, a poetic narrative produced on the very native soil of the Old Testament, at a time when the Old Testament type of poetry had not yet become a thing of the remote past, and if this narrative fell into the hands of Luke, what more natural than that it, as well as the Old Testament, should impress itself permanently upon his mind and fancy? Surely it is not inferior to the best of what the Old Testament /pg. 256/ can offer, and it is concerned with the events most stimulating to the Christian imagination. It may well have taken a place side by side with the Old Testament in moulding the literary gifts of the Greek historian for a sacred use.252
However, after all deductions have been made, the Lucan residuum in the style of Lk. 1–2 remains amply sufficient to prove that the author of Luke-Acts certainly had a part in the production of the present form of the infancy narrative.253 Some of the "Lucan characteristics" that have been examined above are discovered not to be also characteristic of the Septuagint. Many of them are found not only in the former parts of Acts, but also in the latter, and more
certainly and purely Lucan, part. Finally, some of them were certainly not taken by Luke from Lk. 1–2, for these belong not to Semitizing Greek or even to popular Greek, but rather to the literary form of the 5@4<Z. Hence Luke was at least the editor of Lk. 1–2. These chapters /pg. 257/ belong to the Third Gospel in its original form. That fact was established beyond contradiction by Gersdorf nearly one hundred years ago. It has been confirmed, not disproved, by the preceding investigation.
Thus the first (and perhaps the most important) result of the above examination of the argument which Harnack and Zimmermann have developed for detecting Lucan style in Lk. 1–2 has been a clear confirmation of that argument. In the birth narrative, the hand of Luke has certainly been at work. That conclusion, it is believed, has been strengthened rather than weakened by the criticism to which it has been subjected in the preceding pages. Some of the supposed indications of Lucan style have been eliminated; but the severity of the test has only exhibited all the more clearly the genuineness of the proofs that remain.
On the other hand, however, the investigation has resulted in a deepened impression of the affinity of Lk. 1–2 for the Septuagint. Many of the supposed Lucan characteristics have been shown to be merely characteristics of the Septuagint. Of course Harnack himself admitted the presence of a large Septuagint element in Lk. 1–2. But the present investigation makes that element much larger than Harnack supposed. This remarkable affinity of Lk. 1–2 for the language of the Septuagint, which has appeared even in the case of those words or phrases for which parallels have been cited in the rest of Luke and Acts, points to a Jewish Christian origin of the narrative. And of course these instances do not exhaust the list of the Hebraisms or Aramaisms254 which are to be found in Lk. 1–2.255 A complete /pg. 258/ list of such characteristic Old Testament expressions would amount almost to a transcript of the whole narrative. Stronger still is the argument which is to be derived not from details but from the spirit and temper of the whole. The Semitic
coloring has not been produced by such a merely artificial imitation as might have been possible for a Gentile.
Thus the form of the narrative furnishes evidence of Jewish Christian origin. Stronger yet is the evidence which is to be derived not from the form but from the content. In the first place, the familiarity which Lk. 1–2 exhibits with regard to Jewish customs and Palestinian conditions is a strong argument for placing the origin of the narrative in Palestine. The events are dated not by reference to world rulers, as is partly the case in Lk. 3:1, but simply by the phrase "in the days of Herod, king of Judea."256 The author is familiar with the courses of priests and with the name at least of one of them, yet enters into no explanations as a Gentile would naturally have done.257 Lk. 1:8–10, 21 display an intimate and detailed acquaintance with the procedure in the offering of incense. Lk. 1:39 seems to be written from a Judean point of view. "The hill country" without qualifying word or phrase means the hill country of Judea.258 The custom of circumcision and of the naming of the child is of course perfectly familiar to the narrator.259 Events which concern the Empire at large are referred to only in the vaguest way. Lk. 2:1 loses its difficulty, perhaps, when it is understood as written by a provincial. The writer knows merely that the census in Judea is part of a great imperial measure. He does not know or care how or when or how completely the enrollment was carried out in other provinces. Just so, without perspective, would the events in the history of the Empire naturally appear in the /pg. 259/ eyes of an inhabitant of Palestine.aaaa The technical expressions @Æ$6@H and B"JD4V and NL8Z are incidentally used.260 The author knows the provisions of the law about purification after childbirth and consecration of the firstborn.261 He represents the parents of Jesus as choosing the alternative offering prescribed for the poor262 which they would probably have chosen in actual fact. Yet he does not call attention to the alternative, as he would probably have done if his narrative had been the product of a learned study of the law.263 The pious custom of visiting the temple for worship and prayer, as illustrated by Simeon and Anna, is described in sympathetic terms.
The author is not only familiar with the custom of visiting the temple at the feast of the Passover, but one of these journeys is described with a wealth of detail that makes an irresistible impression of intimate acquaintance. The scene formed by the doctors with the boy Jesus is also described in perfect harmony with what can be learned of the customs of the Jewish teachers. Some objection, however, has been urged against the accuracy of the author's knowledge of Jewish customs so far as the passage Lk. 2:22–24 is concerned.
In the first place, J@L$ 6"2"D4F:@L$ "ÛJT$< in Lk. 2:22 is thought to involve an error. According to the twelfth chapter of Leviticus, it was the mother who was regarded as ceremonially unclean, whereas Lk. 2:22 apparently extends the impurity to the father also.264 For "ÛJT$< refers most naturally to Joseph and Mary (the subject of •<Z("(@<), /pg. 260/ rather than to Mary and the Child, as is maintained by De Wette and Alford. But the writer can hardly mean that the husband was regarded as ceremonially unclean like the wife. That would involve an ignorance greater than would be natural even in a Gentile, if he had studied the customs of the Jews enough to be so accurate in other particulars. Rather is the husband thought of as involved not in the uncleanness of the wife, but merely in the purification of the uncleanness. The ceremonial impurity belonged to the wife alone; but the purification, so far as it involved a journey to Jerusalem and the purchasing of the offering, belonged naturally to the husband as well.265
In the second place, it is objected that according to the law, the firstborn son was to be redeemed266 rather than actually presented in the temple.267 But that only means that the presentation was not absolutely necessary. In order to make the ceremony of redemption more impressive, the presence of the child would be advisable. It is true that the redemption money is not mentioned in the narrative. But that does not prove that the author did not understand it to have been paid. No other evidence seems to be extant with regard to such a ceremony of presentation,268 but neither, apparently, has any evidence been cited to exclude it. In view of the accuracy which is
displayed elsewhere in Lk. 1–2, this passage, of which the accuracy cannot be verified directly, may fairly be permitted to supplement the extant sources of information with regard to the customs of the Jews.
An even stronger argument for the primitive Jewish Christian origin of Lk. 1–2 is to be found in the genuinely Jewish character of the religious ideal that runs through the whole narrative. There is no reference whatever to specifically /pg. 261/ Christian dogma, and no specific reference to the later events in the life of Jesus. This argument is difficult of presentation, because the Old Testament spirit of the section can be felt only when the narrative is taken as a whole. But a few examples may not be out of place. In Lk. 1:6, the idea of righteousness is that of the Old Testament dispensation, and as far removed as possible from the teaching of Paul. "Righteous" is explained by "walking in the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."269 In Lk. 1:15, the Old Testament form of asceticism is represented as required of John the Baptist. In Lk. 1:16f., the work of John is regarded as confined to the Jewish people, and as a preparation for the coming, not specifically of the Messiah, but of Jehovah. The need of ethical preparation for the Messianic age is implied throughout all the teaching of the Old Testament prophets; the special function of John is described in Lk. 1 in the terms of Mal. 3:1, 4:5, 6. The punishment of unbelief (Lk. 1:20) and the praise of faith (Lk. 1:45) are in accordance with Gen. 15:6, etc. The characteristic Jewish feeling of shame on account of childlessness appears in Lk. 1:25. In Lk. 1:31f., nothing whatever is said about the ethical work of Jesus; the name Jesus is not explained, as in Mt. 1:21, of salvation from sin. The promised son appears simply and solely as the Messianic king of David's line—king of "the house of Jacob," not of the world. "Son of the Highest" (Lk. 1:32) is to be understood in a theocratic rather than in a metaphysical sense .270 Even the doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Lk. 1:35) hardly transcends the Old Testament conception. In Lk. 1:41, 67, the Spirit appears as the moving power in inspired utterance, as the Old Testament connected the Spirit with the prophets. In Lk. 1:43, it is true,
Elisabeth recognizes Mary as the mother of her Lord. /pg. 262/ For disbelievers in predictive prophecy, but for them only, that is a vaticinium post eventum. At any rate, it is quite indefinite. Of course, the narrator regarded John as the forerunner of Jesus—that much, however, was natural even in the primitive Jewish Christian church. In Lk. 1:27, 2:4, the Davidic descent of Jesus is traced altogether through Joseph, although Joseph is not regarded in the narrative as in a physical sense the father. This apparent contradiction has sometimes been regarded as indicating that the virgin birth was not mentioned in the original form of the story. In reality, it indicates merely that the narrator is thoroughly imbued with Jewish ideas, which trace descent altogether through the male line and regard putative fatherhood as equivalent to actual begetting. In Lk. 2:11, the Messiah is called PD4FJÎH 6bD4@H as in the Palestinian Psalms of Solomon.271 JÎ< PD4FJÎ< 6LD\@L in Lk. 2:26 is of course even more clearly a Jewish expression. Lk. 2:14, ¦< •<2DfB@4H ,Û*@6\"H does not mean that God is pleased with all men. In Lk. 2:21–24, the fulfilment of all legal rites prescribed for the infant Jesus is described apparently with a sympathetic hand, and not merely as part of the humiliation of Christ.272 In Lk. 2:25, the piety of Simeon is described as an awaiting of "the consolation of Israel"— the Messianic hope still centres around the chosen people .273 The same is really true of Lk. 2:30–32, for the universalism of these verses is simply that of universal honor paid to Israel. The nations are to be enlightened, but the light shines out from Israel. Exactly the same conception appears in Is. 42:6f., 49:6, 25:6ff., 46:13 (passages cited in the margin of Nestle's text, published by the British and Foreign Bible Society).274 Lk. 2:34–35 contains a prophecy. If predictive /pg. 263/ prophecy is impossible, then this is a vaticinium post eventum. But if there is such a thing as genuine prediction, then there never was a prophecy which bears the marks of genuineness more clearly than this. Everything is indefinite, like vague premonition rather than exact information. In the midst of the general rejoicing, the darker side of the Messiah's work is revealed. He is come to bring about a dread decision. He is come not to send peace on the earth but a sword. Surely so much may have been
revealed; so much preparation may have been granted to Mary for the bitter disappointment of the coming years. Even the remarkable sentence 6"Â F@L$ *¥ "ÛJ0$H J¬< RLP¬< *4,8,bF,J"4 Õ@:N"\" is thoroughly enigmatical. Later writers think of the scene at the cross, the stabat mater dolorosa; but that that was originally intended is by no means clear. Rather what is meant is that the division which the Messiah will cause is to be felt in its most poignant form in the heart of Mary herself. The cross was the culmination of the fulfilment, not the fulfilment itself.275 It must be remembered, furthermore, that the conception of the suffering Messiah was not really absent from the Old Testament, and perhaps not absent from the current Messianic beliefs at the time of the birth of Jesus.276 In Lk. 2:38, the Messianic salvation is spoken of as the "redemption of Jerusalem."277 Surely the use of such a term points /pg. 264/ almost unmistakably to Palestine. In the following verse, the Mosaic law (and that too especially in its ceremonial aspect) is called simply "the law of the Lord." In Lk. 2:41–52, Jesus is represented as sitting at the feet of the Jewish teachers. The interpretation of this passage has gone astray when it has represented Jesus as putting the rabbis to shame. That does not lie in the intention of the narrator. Jesus is a genuine pupil, though of remarkable understanding. What Gentile Christian, writing at a time when Judaism and Christianity had become two separate, hostile religions, could have produced such a picture? If a Gentile Christian had attempted it, he would have fallen into the error of which the exegesis of the passage has actually become guilty. The point of the scene would have been laid in the superiority of even the boy Jesus over the proud, self-sufficient rabbis. Instead, the Jewish teachers, so far as they are described at all, are described in sympathetic colors. In hearing them in their quarters within the temple area, Jesus was "in His Father's house" or "about His Father's business."
Finally, Lk. 1–2 contains special indications of such familiarity with Palestinian persons as could have been derived only from Palestinian tradition. Feine278 argues with some plausibility that the very presence of the stories about the birth of John points to Palestine.
"The forerunner of the Messiah as an historical person concerned also the Gentile Christians. But the stories of the wonderful events connected with his birth could have been preserved only in the nation in which the great forerunner of the Messiah was called forth. For to the believers from among that nation they were of special value, and only in that nation could the presuppositions of the narrative be understood. Furthermore, the traditions of the birth of John the Baptist and of Jesus are so closely related that a distinct derivation of them is improbable." The description of Anna (Lk. 2:36–37) may also be regarded as indicating a Palestinian /pg. 265/ origin for the narrative. For such a surprising wealth of minute details, altogether without relation to any conceivable purpose of the narrative, can hardly be explained except by personal acquaintance of the narrator with the person so described, or at least with her friends or relatives.279
Two facts, then, have been established with regard to Lk. 1–2. In the first place, the narrative is of a primitive Jewish Christian and Palestinian type. And in the second place, it shows clearly the mark of Luke's hand. These two facts must be reckoned with in every hypothesis which may be proposed with regard to the genesis of the narrative. Three hypotheses have been proposed.
In the first place, there is the hypothesis that Lk. 1–2 was composed by the author of Luke-Acts himself without the use of written sources. But how did the author compose it? If he is thought to have composed it simply by artificial imitation of the Septuagint and artificial adaptation of his narrative to Palestinian conditions of which he had no firsthand knowledge, then the hypothesis becomes impossible. Such a refinement of art is altogether inconceivable in an ancient writer. If the author of Luke-Acts actually composed the birth narrative himself, then he was himself in /pg. 266/ close touch with Palestinian conditions. This supposition, however, is by no means unnatural. If the author was Luke, the companion of Paul, then he was certainly in Palestine at the time of Paul's last visit to Jerusalem. At that time, or on previous occasions of which nothing
definite is known, he may have acquainted himself intimately with Palestinian conditions. But even so he could not have composed the birth narrative unless he possessed definite Palestinian tradition. If, however, he had himself been in Palestine, if he was in full possession of Palestinian tradition with regard to the birth of John and of Jesus, and if he put that tradition into written form without any long delay, then conceivably he might have composed the birth narrative without the aid of written sources. In this form, the hypothesis is perfectly possible. It has not been rejected categorically in the preceding pages. All that has been maintained is that it has not been proved. The non-Semitic Lucan element in Lk. 1–2 is insufficient to exclude the possibility of written sources. The important thing to observe is that if Luke was the first to put the Lucan birth narrative into written form, even then the genuinely primitive Palestinian character of Lk. 1–2 cannot be denied. If Harnack is right, if the linguistic phenomena show that Luke was the original author of Lk. 1–2, that proves not that Lk. 1–2 is late, but that the whole of Luke-Acts is early. If it can be proved that Lk. 1–2 was composed by the author of Luke-Acts, then Lk. 1–2 furnishes simply one more weighty argument for the Lucan authorship and early date of the entire work. Indeed, it might almost be maintained specifically with some degree of confidence that the Gospel of Luke was written in Palestine during the time of the Palestinian imprisonment of Paul. The hypothesis that Luke composed Lk. 1–2 on the basis of primitive Palestinian oral tradition, aided by firsthand acquaintance with Palestinian conditions, is very attractive. It explains admirably many of the facts. It may well be correct. But it has not been proved.280 /pg. 267/
The second hypothesis is that for Lk. 1–2 Luke himself translated an Aramaic written source.281 This hypothesis would explain on the one hand the thoroughly Palestinian character of the content of Lk. 1–2 and on the other hand the undeniable Lucan elements in the style. That Luke should have known sufficient Aramaic to translate an Aramaic document is not at all impossible. Thus Harnack, who is inclined to reject the hypothesis of an Aramaic source for Lk. 1–2,
supposes that Luke may have translated an Aramaic document in the early part of Acts, and adds that knowledge of Aramaic sufficient to translate a simple Aramaic text may well be attributed to a native of Antioch,aaaa and a companion /pg. 268/ of Paul.bbbb This hypothesis is perfectly possible. But like the first hypothesis it cannot be proved. The third hypothesis is that Luke employed a Greek written source. The above examination of the linguistic phenomena has shown that this hypothesis, like the two others, is perfectly possible. After deducting from the style of Lk. 1–2 what is characteristic of the Septuagint and what is natural in a primitive Jewish Christian document, the Lucan element that remains is insufficient to prove anything more than Lucan editing, though on the other hand it is sufficient to render actual Lucan authorship perfectly possible. The hypothesis of a Greek written source, like the other two hypotheses, is possible, but not certain. If Luke was using in Lk. 1–2 a Greek written source, then the source may have been composed originally in Greek, or the Greek form in which Luke used it may have been produced by previous translation from Hebrew or Aramaic.
According to Resch,282 the source was originally composed in Hebrew. That would explain admirably the linguistic phenomena. For, as Dalman has pointed out, a number of the Semitisms in Lk. 1– 2, for example the familiar narrative use of ¦(X<,J@, are Hebraisms, not Aramaisms.283 But is it likely that such a narrative should have been composed in Hebrew in the first century after Christ? At that time Hebrew had long ceased to be the ordinary language of Palestine.284 Yet Hebrew remained in use as the language of certain kinds of literature.285 If Lk. 1–2 was originally written in Hebrew, then it was intended /pg. 269/ from the first to be a sacred narrative, for which the sacred language would be the fittest vehicle. In view of the lofty, poetical tone of the narrative, comparable to the best parts of the Old Testament, such a supposition is by no means impossible. The necessary knowledge of Hebrew would not have been lacking, for, despite linguistic changes, the Old Testament continued to be read and studied in its original language. However, the earliest
Christian community, despite the presence of many priests (Acts 6:7), was probably composed chiefly of persons who, in the sense that was true of the apostles (Acts 4:3), were "unlearned and ignorant men." In such a community, the employment of the ordinary language of the country for such a work as the source of Lk. 1–2 remains on the whole more natural.
The Hebraisms of Lk. 1–2 cannot at once overbalance these a priori considerations. Indeed, they may conceivably be regarded as furnishing an argument not for, but positively against, any Semitic original for Lk. 1–2. For Hebraisms are not Aramaisms; they might establish a Hebrew original, but not certainly an Aramaic original. But if a Hebrew original is impossible in view of the linguistic conditions prevailing in Palestine in the first century after Christ, then the Hebraisms still require explanation. According to Dalman,286 they can be explained only as due to the Septuagint. In other words, they are not really Hebraisms, but "Septuagint Graecisms" or "Greek Biblicisms."287 Of course, the Hebraisms might conceivably be explained as due to an influence exerted upon the Aramaic of the source by the Hebrew Old Testament. The apparent Hebraisms would then be Aramaic Biblicisms. Thus, although the familiar Hebraistic ¦(X<,J@ has no equivalent in the living Aramaic,288 yet in the (Aramaic) Targums the Hebrew &*%* is imitated by &%&%.aaaa It might have /pg. 270/ been imitated also in the Aramaic source of Lk. 1–2. But this Dalman regards as improbable, because the imitation of a Targum is hardly to be attributed to Christian writers.289 In general, says Dalman,290 "the Jewish Aramaic, as it lived among the people, displayed much less tendency to adopt Hebrew expressions than did the Greek of the Synoptic Gospels." Hence Dalman can enunciate the principle for the literary criticism of the New Testament: "the more Hebraisms, so much the more activity of Hellenistic redactors."291 The Hebraisms in Lk. 1–2 are thus made to afford merely another support for the view of Dalman that the passage was composed originally in Greek.
The question certainly cannot be settled without firsthand knowledge of the dialects of Palestine. But even accepting most of what Dalman says with regard to these dialects, the possibility of an Aramaic source does not seem to be altogether excluded. Only, it would have to be admitted that the Aramaic source imitated the Hebrew of the Old Testament. That supposition, which certainly does not seem altogether unlikely, would explain some of the non-Aramaic Hebraisms of Lk. 1–2. Others would be laid to the charge of the Greek translator, who imitated the Septuagint.292
At any rate, even if Lk. 1–2 was written originally in Greek, it was written by a Palestinian Jewish Christian, and written probably in the very early days of the Jerusalem church. So much has been established by what has been said above about the Jewish Christian character both of the form and of the content of the passage. That such a primitive Jewish Christian narrative should have been written in Greek is by no means impossible. The earliest Christian /pg. 271/ community at Jerusalem, which is described in the first chapters of Acts, was composed to a very considerable extent of Greek-speaking Jews.293
Many questions with regard to Lk. 1–2 must be left undecided. It is uncertain whether the narrative was composed by Luke himself on the basis of oral tradition, or whether he himself translated an Aramaic document, or whether he used a Greek written source. It is also uncertain whether the source, if it came into Luke's hands in a Greek form, was composed originally in Greek, or in Hebrew, or in Aramaic. In the midst of so much uncertainty, however, two facts stand out clear. In the first place, the birth narrative formed an original part of the Third Gospel, and in the second place, it is genuinely primitive and Palestinian. These two facts are quite independent of the disputed questions. And they are the really important facts.
Throughout the investigation; the unity of the source )if there was a written source( has been provisionally assumed. That unity,
however, has been challenged in various /pg. 272/ ways. Schmiedel294 supposes that Lk. 2 was originally separate from Lk. 1, because "in Lk. 2 the contents of Lk. 1 are not presupposed, except in 2:21b: which was so called by the angel before he was conceived in the womb." But since no contradiction between the two chapters has been established,295 this verse, Lk. 2:21, is amply sufficient to link the chapters together. The style, as well as the entire spirit of the narrative, displays a marked uniformity throughout. What Holtzmann296 says about Lk. 2:4, 5, as proving the "relative independence of the new passage"297 is unconvincing. In those verses, Nazareth, Joseph and Mary are not spoken of as though they had not been mentioned before. The Davidic descent of Joseph is mentioned again simply in order to explain the journey. Certainly the name Joseph appears abruptly enough, as though Joseph had been mentioned before and needed no further introduction.298 Nazareth need not have been mentioned, but probably a certain emphatic parallelism with ,ÆH J¬< @L*"\"< ,ÆH B`84< )"L,\* was desired.299 Of course, Holtzmann does not separate Lk. 2 from Lk. 1 as a second document )for he attributes both chapters to the author of the Gospel(, but apparently supposes merely that the two chapters are derived from different traditions. Even in that more cautious form, the theory is devoid of support.aaaa Far more elaborate are the theories of Völter300 and Wilkinson.301 Both of these writers, working independently,302 detected within the first chapter of Luke a purely Johannine /pg. 273/ document303—that is, a document written by a non-Christian disciple of John the Baptist—which a Christian compiler used in order to show the inferiority of John to Jesus. It will be convenient to consider first the theory of Völter. Since Lk. 1:5–25 is purely Jewish in character, whereas, Lk. 1:26–56 is distinctly Christian, Völter leaps to the conclusion that the second section was not originally the continuation of the first. The Christian writer of verses 26–56 has, however, adapted to his own use certain elements that stood in the original Johannine narrative. In the Johannine narrative, the angel Gabriel was represented as visiting Elisabeth )an appearance of the angel to the wife as well as to the husband is demanded by the parallelism with the story of Samson in