J. Gresham Machen Bibliography

THE HYMNS OF THE FIRST CHAPTER OF LUKE

The outward form of Lk i. 5-ii. 52 invites investigation of sources. The prologue of the Gospel (Lk i. 1-4) is a genuine Greek period, clearly indicative of the literary culture of its author; yet it is followed by one of the most Hebraistic portions of the New Testament. Lk i.5-ii.52 exhibits throughout a marked affinity for the better portions of the Septuagint; while in the brief compass of the prologue there are no less than five words¹ that do not occur at all in the Septuagint, and six others that occur only rarely.² No greater contrast in style could be imagined than that which exists between Lk i. 1-4 and the passage which immediately follows. The contrast has usually been explained by supposing that the author of the Gospel is closely following a source in Lk i. 5-ii. 52. The prologue represents Luke’s own style; the following passage represents the style of one of his sources.

In recent years this conclusion has been disputed by Holtzmann, ³ by Dalman, ⁴ and especially by Harnack.⁵ Harnack

would explain the difference in style between the prologue and the passage that immediately follows by the conscious art of the author. In the prologue, Luke is writing according to his own natural style; in the following narrative, he is imitating the style of the Septuagint. At first sight the hypothesis seems very unlikely. It attributes to Luke a refinement of art which hardly seems natural in an ancient writer. But first impressions must be modified. For as a matter of fact imitations of the Septuagint in the Lucan writings cannot altogether be denied. For example, despite his literary affinities, Luke uses the Hebraistic ἐγένετο far more than it is used by any other New Testament writer. Evidently Luke had a keen appreciation for what might be called the “Bible style” of the Septuagint, and felt that it was peculiarly fitted to be the vehicle of his own sacred narrative. Harnack’s contention amounts to this: In treating in a poetical manner the events connected with the Saviour’s birth, Luke simply carried the imitation of the Septuagint style somewhat further than he did when he was narrating in a more matter of fact way the wellknown events of the public ministry. In the latter case, the subject-matter did not lend itself so readily to artistic imitation of the Old Testament, and furthermore Luke was hindered by his sources from carrying out his plans with perfect freedom. The hypothesis of Harnack cannot therefore be regarded as inherently impossible. In a very careful way, Harnack has gone through representative sections of Lk i. 5-ii. 52 pointing out Lucan peculiarities—that is, words or usages which occur only in Luke and Acts among the New Testament writings or else occur more frequently there than in the rest of the New Testament and especially in Matthew and Mark. The work of Harnack has received a valuable supplement from Zimungen zu Luc. 1 und 2, in Sitzungsberichte der königlich preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1900, pp. 537-556; Lukas der Arzt, 1906, pp. 69-75, 138-152; cf. Neue Untersuchungen zur Apostel- geschichte, 1911, pp. 108-110.

mermann. ⁶ Zimmermann examined in detail those portions of the passage in question which were left unexamined in Harnack’s former discussion. In Harnack’s more recent work he has carried the examination through part of the sections that had been covered by Zimmermann.⁷ Harnack and Zimmermann agree in excluding a Greek written source for Lk i. 5-ii. 52. The style of the passage,

after making due allowance for peculiarity of the subjectmatter and for imitation of the Septuagint, is found to be so totally Lucan, that Luke must have been something more than the mere editor. He must have been the first to treat the material in a Greek narrative. If he had used a Greek source, the style of the source would necessarily appear in the use of words that are not characteristically Lucan. So far Harnack and Zimmermann agree. But they differ in what they substitute for the hypothesis of a Greek source. Zimmermann supposes that Luke used an Aramaic written source which he translated himself; Harnack, while admitting the possibility of an Aramaic source, thinks it probable that Luke depended merely upon oral tradition.

Harnack began his investigation with the Magnificat (which he supposes to have been attributed by the author to Elisabeth, not to Mary) and the Benedictus. These hymns, despite first appearances, he maintains, are so totally Lucan in style that in the case of them even the hypothesis of an Aramaic source, possible for the rest of the narrative, is excluded. Luke himself composed the Magnificat and the Benedictus, and [after the manner of ancient historians] put them into the mouth of the characters of his narrative. Of course, Luke did not compose the poems in his own language; he pieced them together from the Septuagint. But subtract the Septuagint passages which he used, and the little that remains is sufficient to reveal quite clearly the hand of Luke. This argument, which has been elaborated in Lukas der Arzt, but appeared in essentials in 1900, was subjected to an acute criticism by Spitta.⁸ Spitta pointed out that the Septuagint materials out of which Harnack thought the Magnificat was composed were arbitrarily limit-

ed. The supposed Lucan words which Harnack detected, are really derived from the Septuagint just as truly as the rest of the poem—only they are derived from passages other than those which Harnack arbitrarily chose to regard as the basis of the composition. Thus Harnack claims as Lucan such characteristic Septuagint words and phrases as μεγαλύνειν (ν. 46), ἐπιβλέπειν ἐπί (ν. 48), ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν (ν. 48), ἐξαποστέλλειν (ν. 53). It is unfortunate that before writing his Lukas der Arzt Harnack did not notice the criticism of Spitta.⁹ For it is not too much to say that Spitta’s criticism amounted to a complete refutation. Subtract the Septuagint words and phrases from the Magnificat, and really nothing remains to indicate Lucan authorship. It will not be necessary to go over the ground already traversed by Spitta; and in his subsequent discussion of the Magnificat Harnack has added nothing of real significance. It should only be remarked (1) that τὸ ἔλεος (ν. 50)¹⁰ can hardly be claimed as specifically Lucan, since it occurs not at all in Acts and only once in Luke outside of the first two chapters, while it is very strongly attested in Mt ix. 13 (citation), xii. 7 (same citation), and xxiii. 23,¹¹ and occurs very frequently in the Septuagint;¹² (2) that οἱ φοβούμενοι (τοῖς φοβουμένοις) τὸν θεόν is simply an Old Testament phrase, common, for example, in the Psalms;¹³ (3) that ἐνπίμπλημι (v. 53) occurs in one of the Septuagint passages which

Harnack himself ¹⁴ cites as parallel, and is very frequent in the Septuagint in general; and (4) that ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι (v. 54)¹⁵ also occurs in one of Harnack’s own parallels and elsewhere in the Septuagint. With regard to the rest of Lk i. 5-ii. 52, a method of investigation somewhat similar to that of Spitta should be pursued. The words and phrases which Harnack, Zimmermann and other investigators regard as Lucan characteristics should be examined as to their occurrence in the Septuagint.¹⁶ If it be discovered that the supposed Lucan characteristics are also characteristic of the Septuagint, the argument for Lucan authorship will be decidedly weakened. Luke imitated the style of the Septuagint. But he need not have

been the only early Christian writer who imitated it.¹⁷ Even Harnack will admit that the similarity to the Septuagint is far more striking in Lk i-ii than in any other part of the Lucan writings. If this Septuagint element be subtracted, are there enough Lucan peculiarities left to prove anything more than Lucan editorship?¹⁸

In the rest of the present article not all of Lk i-ii, but only the Benedictus (Lk i. 68-79) can be discussed.¹⁹ Verse 68. ἐπισκέπτομαι (ἐπεσκέψατο ²⁰) is used of the activity of God frequently in the Septuagint²¹ and in Ps. Sol. iii. 14.²² It is also sometimes used absolutely in the Septuagint. Neither of these uses of the word, therefore, is peculiarly Lucan.²³ Verse 69. That ἐγείρω is substituted for ἐξανατέλλω (Ps cxxxii. 17) or ὑψόω (1 Sam ii. 10) or ἀνατέλλω (Ezek xxix. 21) in view of the resurrection of Christ²⁴ is an unproved assertion. Cf. Judg iii. 9 ἤγειρε κύριος σωτῆρα τῷ Ἰσραήλ. In his earlier work Harnack himself cited this passage. σωτηρία ²⁵ can hardly be called a “favorite expression of Luke”, since besides the three occurrences in Lk i-ii it occurs only once in Luke and six times in Acts (once in a Septuagint citation). It is true that it occurs only once in John and not at all in Matthew and Mark. But it occurs about nineteen times in Paul. In the Septuagint it is very frequent. See also Ps. Sol. x. 9; xii. 7.²⁶ Its use here in Lk i. 69 is clearly derived from the Septuagint. Verse 70. διὰ στόματος ²⁷ occurs elsewhere, it is true, only in Acts and probably in Mt iv. 4.²⁸ Furthermore the

istics” in Lk i-ii are also Septuagint characteristics, the significance of those characteristics in supporting Lucan authorship is not removed, but only diminished.

phrase is rare in the Septuagint. It should be noticed, however, that the occurrences in Acts fall without exception in speeches placed in the mouth of Jewish Christians. Very probably those passages were derived from Jewish Christian sources. At any rate, Luke must have felt the phrase to be Jewish in character—otherwise he would not have confined his use of it to the speeches. It must therefore have been in use in Jewish circles or in Jewish writings. This coincidence in usage, therefore, between Lk i and Acts does not necessarily prove unity of authorship. It may also be explained by a common adherence on the part of two authors to a Jewish Christian usage. However, the argument of Gersdorf and Harnack is not altogether without significance. The addition of ἅγιος (ἁγίων) ²⁹ can hardly be called specifically Lucan. The word is exceedingly common in the Septuagint. The remarkable clause, καθὼς ἐλάλησεν διὰ στόματος τῶν ἁγίων ἀπ᾿ αἰῶνος προφητῶν αὐτοῦ³⁰ is strikingly similar to Acts xii. 21, ὧν ἐλάλησεν ὁ θεὸς διὰ στόματος τῶν ἁγίων ἀπ᾿ αἰῶνος αὐτοῦ προφητῶν. First, however, the question must be raised whether the coincidence is not due simply to a harmonistic correction of the text by a scribe. In Lk i. 70, απ αιωνος is certainly genuine; for, although its position varies, it is omitted by no witness.³¹ In Acts iii. 21, however, απ αιωνος is omitted by D etc. The various readings may be exhibited as follows:³² των αγιων αυτου των προφητων. D, supported at least in the omission of απ αιωνος by 19. [Souter cites 28, instead of 19] h gig p [these three are cited by Souter] arm Cosm 503

[according to Souter, Cosmas places the phrase before αυτου προφητων as in אB] Ir int 194 Tert res carn 23 Orig lat [Souter].

των αγιων απ αιωνος αυτου προφητων. אABC 61. 69. [Souter cites, instead of 61. 69., 81. 429. al] (παντων) των αγιων των απ αιωνος αυτου προφητων. אBE al cat των αγιων αυτου (4. 13. add των) απ αιωνος προφητων. 4. 13. Or3,221 (vg) (Or 3,798)

(παντων) των αγιων αυτου προφητων απ αιωνος. P al plu syr-utr cop (sah) aeth Chr 9,86 (et 9,81 των αγιων αυτω προφητων των απ αιωνος). If the short reading preserved by D were original, then the varying position of απ αιωνος in the other witnesses would be easily explained. The phrase was supplied from Lk i. 70, but different scribes inserted it in different places.³³ The position of αυτου before προφητων both in אB and in P etc.³⁴ would be explained as a survival from the original reading, where αυτου was construed with the preceding αγιων.³⁵ Furthermore the designation of the Old Testament prophets as “saints”, though unusual, is not impossible in New Testament usage. If απ αιωνος is thus not genuine in Acts iii. 21, then the striking similarity between this passage and Lk i. 70 disappears, and there is no longer any argument for unity of authorship. On the other hand, however, the textual phenomena in Acts iii. 21 may also be explained on the supposition that the reading of אB is correct. The phrase απ αιωνος naturally gave difficulty to ancient as well as to modern readers—hence its omission in D etc. The reading of P with the mass of later witnesses

may be due to re-insertion of απ αιωνος into the D-text, or (more probably) represents an attempt at simplification of the אB-text, the heaping of three adjective expressions (αγιων, απ αιωνος, and αυτου) between article and noun being felt to be cumbrous.³⁶ On the whole, there seems to be no sufficient reason for deserting אB at this point in favor of the inferior Western documents.³⁷ The coincidence, then, between Lk i. 70 and Acts iii. 21 probably remains. This coincidence can hardly be due merely to an accident —the expression is too remarkable for that. The coincidence must be explained. But unity of authorship is by no means the only possible explanation. For example, why may not the author of the expression in Acts have been dependent upon the author of Lk i. 70? Suppose, for a moment, in opposition to Harnack, that the Benedictus (Lk i. 68-79) is a Jewish Christian hymn. It was well known to Luke, and if rightly or wrongly he supposed it to have been produced by Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, he must have regarded it highly. He may then have allowed it to color his language in Acts iii. 21. There is nothing at all improbable in such an hypothesis.³⁸ It should be observed further that Acts iii. 21 is part of a speech of Peter. The primitive, Jewish character of the speeches in the early part of Acts has often been noticed. Coincidence between one of these speeches, therefore, and Lk i does not prove the Lucan authorship of both. Luke was perhaps not the

author of Acts iii. 12-26 any more than of Lk i. 68-79. In both cases, he may have been merely the editor. But even if Acts iii. 12-26 is pre-Lucan—indeed even if it is an actual speech of Peter in its original form—the hypothesis of direct dependence upon Lk i. 70 remains possible. Why may not Peter himself have known the primitive hymn, the Benedictus, so that its language came naturally to his lips? It must be admitted that this hypothesis, though possible, is hardly probable. For there is no evidence that the narrative-cycle represented by Lk i-ii was known at the very earliest time by the Christian community in Jerusalem. Peter would hardly have had time to become so familiar with the Benedictus as to use its language spontaneously in a speech. If he did so, then it was probably because he was under the overpowering first impression made by the narrative of the infancy of John and Jesus. But such an hypothesis cannot here be argued. The problem of the speeches in Acts may fairly be left out of account. Even if Acts iii. 12-26 is genuinely Petrine, it hardly reproduces a verbatim report, or a literal translation of one. The wording, at any rate, is probably due either to Luke, or to his sources. But either Luke himself, or the earlier author of a Jewish Christian source may well have allowed the Benedictus to color his language, most of all, where, as in a speech of Peter, the Jewish Christian spirit was to be preserved. No particular explanation of the coincidence between Lk i. 70 and Acts iii. 21 need here be defended. All that is insisted upon is that Lucan authorship of both passages is by no means the only possible explanation. A number of other explanations suggest themselves. ἀπ᾿ αἰῶνος ³⁹ occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only in Lk i. 70, Acts iii. 21, xv. 18. But similar phrases ⁴⁰ are not uncommon in the Septuagint.⁴¹ It should be observed

that both occurrences in Acts are in the speeches of Jewish Christians. Verse 71 (also verse 74). ἐκ χειρός,⁴² though it recurs in just the same sense as here only in Acts xii. 11,⁴³ can hardly be regarded as specifically Lucan. It occurs in the passage (Ps cvi. 10) quoted by Harnack as the basis for this verse, and elsewhere in the Septuagint. The phrase in Acts is attributed to a Jewish Christian (Peter). Verse 72. ποιῆσαι ἔλεος μετά,⁴⁴ though it occurs again only at Lk x. 37 in the New Testament, is not specifically Lucan. It is a common Septuagint phrase, produced in imitation of Hebrew.⁴⁵ For the addition of ἁγίας ⁴⁶ see above on verse 70. Verse 73. ὅρκον ὃν ὤμοσε.⁴⁷ Cf. Acts ii. 30 ὅρκῳ ὤμοσεν, the only other passage in the New Testament where ὀμνύω is used with ὅρκος. The usage occurs in the Septuagint: Gen xxvi. 3 τὸν ὅρκον μου ὃν ὤμοσα ᾿Αβραάμ—a close parallel to Lk i. 73, (Ex xiii. 19 ὅρκῳ γὰρ ὥρκισε), Nu xxx.3 ή ὀμόσῃ ὅρκον, Deut vii. 8 τὸν ὅρκον ὃν ὤμοσεν τοῖς πατράσιν ὑμῶν, ⁴⁸ Josh ix. 20 διὰ τὸν ὅρκον ὃν ὠμόσαμεν.⁴⁹ Such a use of accusative or dative is common in the New Testament; it is merely by chance that it occurs with ὀμνύω only in this passage and in Acts. The use of πρός c. acc., ⁵⁰ though unusually common in Luke and Acts, is hardly any sure test of Lucan style. The fact, which is not noticed by Harnack, that this usage occurs almost exactly as frequently in Lk i-ii in proportion to

the length of the passage as in the whole Gospel of Luke⁵¹ may possibly be significant for determining the authorship of the infancy narrative as a whole; but the one occurrence in the Benedictus surely proves absolutely nothing about the authorship of the hymn. πρός c. acc. is nowhere rare. It is true that ὀμνύω seems always to have the dative, never πρός c. acc., in the Septuagint.⁵² But πρός c. acc. in this connection cannot be proved to be specifically Lucan, for in the only other passage (Act ii. 30) where Luke uses ὀμνύω he follows it with the dative. Verse 74. For δοῦναι c. infin.⁵³ compare, for example, Gen xxxi. 7 καὶ οὐκ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς κακοποιῆσαί με and Job xxii. 27. τοῦ c. infin., ⁵⁴ epexegetical or expressing purpose, which occurs three times in the Benedictus⁵⁵ and once besides in Lk i-ii,⁵⁶ is far more frequent in Luke and Acts than in the rest of the New Testament.⁵⁷ But this usage is very common in the Septuagint.⁵⁸ A Jewish Christian writer could hardly avoid it. λατρεύειν,⁵⁹ which occurs twice in Lk i-iii, once in the rest of Luke (citation), once in Matthew (same citation), five times in Acts, four times in Paul,⁶⁰ six times in Hebrews, twice in the Apocalypse, is rather common in the Pentateuch, and in Joshua and Judges. It is certainly no clear indication of Lucan style.

Verse 75. ἐνώπιον ⁶¹ occurs five times in Lk i-ii (twice in the Benedictus), about eighteen times in the rest of Luke, thirteen times in Acts, not at all in Matthew and Mark, once in John, seventeen times in Paul, twice in Hebrews, four times in the Catholic Epistles, and about thirty-two times in the Apocalypse. The word is very common in the Septuagint, especially in Samuel-Kings and in the Psalms.⁶² Its frequency is due to its adoption by the translators from vernacular Greek as a convenient translation of the Hebrew לפני and בעיני.⁶³ Its relative frequency in Luke and Acts is due to Luke’s imitation of the Septuagint. It is certainly no clear indication of Lucan style. Luke was probably not the only early Christian writer who imitated the Septuagint— witness the very common employment of ἐνώπιον in the Apocalypse. The word would very naturally be used by any Christian writer, but especially by a Jewish Christian. The entire absence of ἐνώπιον from Matthew and Mark and its very sparing use in John remain very surprising.⁶⁴ Verse 76. ὑψίστου ⁶⁵ ὕψιστος as a designation of God, occurs three times in Lk i-ii, twice in the rest of Luke, twice in Acts (one of these in the speech of a Jewish Christian, Stephen), once in Mark, (where, despite Harnack, it is scarcely doubtful), and once in Hebrews. It is rather common in the Septuagint, and is therefore no clear mark of Lucan style. Anarthrous ὕψιστος as a designation of God occurs in the New Testament three times in Lk i-ii, and once in the rest of Luke. That is surely insufficient to stamp the usage as Lucan; especially since it is exceedingly common in Sirach, and occurs a few times elsewhere in the Septuagint.

προπορεύσῃ ⁶⁶. προπορεύεσθαι occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only in Acts vii. 40 (in the speech of Stephen). But that passage is a citation from Exodus xxxii. 1, 2, 3, and the word occurs elsewhere in the Septuagint as well.⁶⁷ The argument has absolutely no weight. πρὸ προσώπου ⁶⁸ is probably not the correct reading. It is supported by D it and the mass of the Syrian documents. It was probably inserted by a scribe under the influence of the Septuagint of the well-known passage, Mal iii. 1. If, however, it is original, it is no mark of Lucan style. πρὸ προσώπου occurs elsewhere in the New Testament three times in the rest of Luke (once in the Malachi citation), once in Acts, once in Matthew (Malachi citation), once in Mark (Malachi citation); but it is frequent in the Septuagint, and Mal iii. 1 made its employment in Lk i. 76 very natural. Verse 77. γνῶσις ⁶⁹ is not peculiarly Lucan. Though it occurs in the Gospels only here and in Lk xi. 52, it is frequent in Paul, and not infrequent in parts of the Septuagint. ἄφεσις ἁμαρτιῶν ⁷⁰ occurs twice in the rest of Luke, five times in Acts, once in Matthew, once in Mark (Mk i. 4=Lk iii. 3), and once in Paul. It does not occur at all in the Septuagint. The argument for Lucan authorship is stronger here than in the cases which have been discussed before. But in view of Mk i. 4 (Lk iii. 3), the hypothesis suggests itself that the Greek expression is derived from a phrase current in the circles from which John the Baptist came. Conmpare ἀφήσει ἁμαρτίας in Ps. Sol. ix. 14.⁷¹ Verse 78. ἐξ ὕψους ⁷² occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only in Lk xxiv. 49.⁷³ But compare 2 Sam xxii. 17,

Ps xvii. 16, ci. 19, cxliii. 7, Si xvi. 17, La i. 13. Verse 79. ἐπιφᾶναι.⁷⁴ ἐπιφαίνω occurs elsewhere in the New Testament once in Acts and twice in Titus. But it is not specifically Lucan. It occurs a number of times in the Septuagint, nearly always of the manifestations of God (often it is transitive). See especially the notable passage, Nu vi. 25 (the Benediction), and Ep Jer 60, where the word occurs in connection with ἀστραπή, which is somewhat related in idea to the ἀνατολή of the present passage. ὁδὸν εἰρήνης.⁷⁵ The expressions ὁδὸν σωτηρίας (Acts xvi. 17) and ὁδοὺς ζωῆς (Acts ii. 28) are somewhat similar. But the latter passage is simply a citation from Ps xv. (xvi.) II. Furthermore, ὁδὸν εἰρήνης itself occurs in Rom iii. 17, and a similar expression ( ὁδὸν δικαιοσύνης ) in 2 Pet 21. ὁδὸς εἰρήνης is a Septuagint expression. Rom iii. 17 is derived from Ps xiii. 3. For similar expressions, compare Gen xxiv. 48, Ps xv. 16, etc. The word εἰρήνη itself occurs in Hawkins’ list of Lucan characteristics.⁷⁶ But it is very common in the Septuagint. It is now time to attempt to draw some conclusion with regard to the hymns. Of Hawkins’ one hundred and fiftyone “Lucan” words and phrases,⁷⁷ no less than eighteen occur in the Magnificat or Benedictus, the total number of occurrences there being twenty-four.⁷⁸ In addition, Hawkins has placed in his “subsidiary lists”⁷⁹ two words one of which occurs once in the Benedictus, and the other once in

the Magnificat and twice in the Benedictus. At first sight, such statistics seem formidable. But the argument which might be drawn from them for Lucan authorship has been weakened by the investigations of Spitta, which have been supplemented for the Benedictus by the preceding discussion. The Lucan expressions are found to be also Old Testament expressions, which would occur naturally to any Jewish Christian. Whether he was translating Aramaic hymns or composing the hymns originally in Greek, he could hardly fail to be influenced profoundly by the Septuagint.⁸⁰ One argument of Harnack remains—an argument drawn not from details, but from the structure of the hymns.⁸¹ The skilful management of the repeated μου and αὐτός in the Magnificat, and of αὐτός and ἡμεῖς in the Benedictus, and in general the elaborate character of the poetic compo-

sition is thought to indicate the hand of the artist Luke. With regard to the Benedictus, Harnack is particularly confident. “The first three strophes of the Benedictus (verses 68-75; in all, there are five strophes with four lines each) are only superficially put into the form of the Hebrew psalm; a closer examination reveals a single, complicated, genuinely Greek period which is altogether to the credit of the author of the prologue (Lk i. 1) and of numerous excellent Greek sentences. The period is merely forced into the Hebraising covering: the hands are Esau’s hands, but the voice is the voice of Jacob.”⁸² How many of the niceties discovered by Harnack were intended by the authors of the hymns is a matter of doubt. At any rate, in order to prove Lucan authorship, Harnack should have exhibited by example (1) the likeness of these hymns to undisputed works of Luke and (2) their unlikeness to non-Lucan hymns. The former requirement is impossible of fulfilment. Luke has unfortunately left to posterity no certain examples of his poetry, if he ever wrote any. The most that could possibly be done would be to show that these hymns are Greek rather than Semitic in poetical form; that they are such as a native Greek must have produced, without a Semitic original, merely by moulding Hebrew materials into an imitation of a Hebrew poem. Obviously, examples in point are rather hard to find; at any rate, they have not yet been produced by Harnack. In the second place, if Harnack is unable to exhibit the likeness of the Magnificat and the Benedictus to undisputed Lucan works, he should have exhibited their unlikeness to non-Lucan and particularly Old Testament hymns. That could have been done only by examples. Until it is done, the proof remains incomplete. If some of the psalms of the Septuagint were to be examined by the same kind of minute scrutiny which Harnack has applied to the two hymns of Lk i, perhaps similar peculiarities of composition might be discovered.

Harnack lays particular stress upon the first part of the Benedictus, Lk i. 68-75. But if he means to compare this sentence with the prologue, Lk i. 1-4, the comparison is particularly unfortunate. The two sentences are totally different. Lk i. 1-4 is one complete period; it could not grammatically be broken off until almost the very end. But Lk i. 68-75 could be broken off at the end of almost any one of the nine lines of which it is composed, and still make complete sense. The sentence is not planned as though the end were in view from the beginning, but is lengthened out by adding one epexegetical phrase or clause after another, loosely and almost as an after-thought. Is that a characteristic Greek form of sentence? Does it not look more like the simplicity of Semitic poetry, forced into the restraints of Greek grammar? Compare for example such a passage as Ps. Sol. xviii. 7-9,⁸³ which certainly is translated from a Semitic original: μακάριοι οἱ γινόμενοι ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις ἰδεῖν τὰ ἀγαθὰ κυρίου, ἃ ποιήσει γενεᾷ τῇ ἐρχομένῃ, ὑπὸ ῥάβδον παιδείας χριστοῦ κυρίου ἐν φόβῳ θεοῦ αὐτοῦ, ἐν σοφίᾳ πνεύματος καὶ δικαιοσύνης καὶ ἰσχύος, κατευθῦναι ἄνδρα ἐν ἔργοις δικαιοσύνης φόβῳ θεοῦ, καταστῆσαι πάντας αὐτοὺς ἐν φόβῳ κυρίου. This passage is very much shorter than the passage from the Benedictus; but the sentence-structure, if “structure” it may be called, is very similar. The Psalms of Solomon, from which this passage has been taken, afford material for other interesting comparisons with the hymns of Luke i.⁸⁴ Of the parallels cited by Ryle and James a few are striking. Compare, for example, with Lk i. 50 (καὶ τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ εἰς γενεὰς καὶ γενεὰς τοῖς φοβουμένοις αὐτόν) Ps. Sol. xiii. 11 (ἐπὶ δὲ τοὺς ὁσίους τὸ ἔλεος κυρίου, καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς φοβουμένους αὐτὸν τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ), and with Lk i. 69 (Εὐλογητὸς κύριος ὁ θεὸς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, ὅτι

ἐπεσκέψατο καὶ ἐποίησεν λύτρωσιν τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ) Ps. Sol. vi. 9 (εὐλογητὸς κύριος ὁ ποιῶν ἔλεον τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτὸν ἐν ἀληθείᾳ). Although direct parallels are few, a certain similarity in spirit and in ideas can hardly be denied. This is one more indication of the Palestinian and Semitic origin of the Lucan hymns; since the Psalms of Solomon reflect the events of the Palestinian invasion of Pompey, and were produced in Palestine at about the middle of the first century before Christ.⁸⁵ The date of the Greek translation is placed by Ryle and James between 40 B.C. and 40 A.D. There can be no question of direct literary dependence one way or the other between the Psalms of Solomon and the hymns of Lk i. In order to explain the parallels, Chase⁸⁶ suggests the hypothesis of common dependence upon the “Greek Jewish prayers of the Hellenistic Synagogues,” and to support this hypothesis constructs an extended list of parallels between the Jewish prayers and the Lucan hymns.⁸⁷ Even granting that the Jewish prayers in question, which in their present form are later products,⁸⁸ are in substance earlier than the

Magnificat and Benedictus, the parallels are quite insufficient to establish direct dependence. The correspondence between the Lucan hymns and the Jewish Prayers, so far as it is verbal, is amply explained by common dependence upon the Old Testament.⁸⁹ However, although all thought of direct dependence must be dismissed, the similarity of thought and feeling between the hymns of Lk i-ii on the one hand, and the Palestinian Psalms of Solomon and certain Palestinian Jewish prayers on the other, furnishes subsidiary evidence for a primitive Jewish Christian origin of the Magnificat and the Benedictus. The primary evidence is discovered simply by an examination of the two hymns themselves. It has already been observed that the Magnificat is made up altogether of Old Testament phrases. These phrases are derived from no one passage, but from the most various parts of the Jewish Scriptures. The Magnificat is no mere imitation, for example, of the song of Hannah in I Sam ii. 1-10. Yet the various elements are welded together into a song of perfect unity and great beauty, which preserves the parallelism of Hebrew poetry in its noblest form.⁹⁰ Harnack supposes that the result was accomplished by the conscious art

of a Gentile. But it is no wonder that the vast majority of scholars and of simple readers are opposed to him. A single passage from the Old Testament might have been imitated; but that almost numberless passages should have been united without disclosing the joints, without making the slightest impression of artificiality, must always remain very improbable. The author of such a hymn must have lived in the atmosphere of the Old Testament, and must have been familiar from earliest childhood with its language. Only so could elements derived from so many sources have been incorporated without artificiality in a single poem. The synthesis must have been made in life, long before it was made in literary form.⁹¹ The Benedictus, it is true, is somewhat different in form —probably different enough to disprove at once Harnack’s contention that the two hymns must have been composed by the same person. The parallelism is not quite so simple, there are more subordinate clauses and appositions and epexegetical phrases.⁹² The basic Old Testament passages are perhaps not quite so easily designated. But the Hebrew parallelism and the genuine Old Testament spirit are really almost as clear as in the case of the other hymn.⁹³

The form of the hymns, then, is genuinely Semitic.⁹⁴ The Greek translation, like some of the better parts of the Septuagint, has preserved the spirit of the original, though without doing unnecessary violence to the idiom of the Greek language. But an even stronger argument for a primitive Palestinian origin is to be derived from the content of the hymns. There is nothing which can by any possibility be stretched into an allusion to Christian dogma, or even to the later history of Jesus. In the Magnificat there is no clear allusion even to the person of the Messiah.⁹⁵ In the Benedictus the allusion is merely to salvation in the house of David. The Messianic king has come at last; but nothing more is known about Him than what was contained in Old Testament prophecy. The child John is thought of as a forerunner, not particularly of the Messiah, but of Jehovah. The coming salvation is conceived as applying not to the world, but primarily at least, to Israel.

amination. It is valid only if the author of Lk i. 78 had Jer xxiii. 5, Zech iii. 8, vi. 12 in mind. But surely it is more natural to think of such passages as Is 1x. 1, Mal iii. 20 (iv. 2), where the verb ἀνατέλλω (though not the noun ἀνατολή) is used in the Septuagint, and where the figure of the rising of a heavenly body really is used in the Hebrew text to designate the coming salvation. The ἐπεσκέψατο ἀνατολὴ ἐξ ὕψους is not such a bad mixture of metaphors, if ἀνατολὴ ἐξ ὕψους be regarded as putting the rising of the heavenly body for the heavenly body itself (that is the interpretation of Plummer, in loc.).

Israel is to be delivered from its insolent oppressors.⁹⁶ That the salvation is to be not merely political, but also moral and religious (Lk i. 75ff.) certainly does not transcend the bounds of Old Testament prophecy.⁹⁷ If Lk. i. 79 ( ἐπιφᾶναι τοῖς ἐν σκότει καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου καθημένοις) contains a hint of universalism, it is the universalism of Isaiah.⁹⁸

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 i-ii. 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 i-ii, 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.⁹⁹ 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,¹⁰⁰ Hilgenfeld,¹⁰¹ Spitta,¹⁰² 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

characterizes all Old Testament prophecy. The Benedictus, in this respect as in others, belongs to the Old Testament. The new dispensation is close at hand; but it is still enveloped in prophetic dimness. Where else could such a psalm have arisen except just where the author of Lk i-ii has placed it? For the unity of the hymn, Lagrange (Le Récit de l’Enfance de Jésus dans S. Luc. in Revue Biblique Trimestrielle, iv, 1895, p. 168, note) appeals to the τοῦ δοῦναι of verses 74, 77, which indicates the same author in both parts.

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.¹⁰³ 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 ταπείνωσις of verse 48 (ὅτι ἐπέβλεψεν ἐπὶ τὴν ταπείνωσιν τῆς δούλης αὐτοῦ) seems to introduce a discordant note. Wherein consisted the “lowly estate” of Mary?¹⁰⁴ The ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν 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 i-ii 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 καὶ εἶπεν Μαριάμ (verse 48). And what follows upon the hymn is declared to be equally unnatural: ἔμεινεν δὲ Μαριὰμ σὺν αὐτῇ κ. τ. λ. 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 αὐτῇ.

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.¹⁰⁵ And it apparently overcomes some of the difficulties. The ταπείνωσις of verse 38 now becomes intelligible. It is the humiliation (very acute to a Jewish woman) of childlessness, like the ταπείνωσις (I Sam i. 11) of Hannah, whose prayer ¹⁰⁶ offers such a close analogy to this very verse, and whose song ¹⁰⁷ seems to have formed the chief model for the Magnificat itself. The ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν 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 σὺν αὐτῇ of verse 56 now becomes natural, for Elisabeth has just been the speaker and does not need to be mentioned again by name. Spitta,¹⁰⁸ 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 εἶπεν or for reading Ἐλεισάβετ in verse 46 is insufficient. It remains more probable that Μαριάμ was first omitted by accident and then Ἐλεισ- άβετ wrongly supplied, than that an original Ἐλεισάβετ was changed to Μαριάμ 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

Hannah (verse 5: ὅτι στεῖρα ἔτεκεν ἑπτά, καὶ ἡ πολλὴ ἐν τέκνοις ἠσθένησεν) would surely not have been omitted from the song of Elisabeth. The idea στεῖρα, being the very link which bound the two songs together, would not have been weakened into the general expression ταπείνωσις. 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 i. 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 all-important figures, Surely Elisabeth would not proceed at once to such an extravagant praise of her own son. And the σὺν αὐτῇ 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.¹⁰⁹ 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

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.¹¹⁰ 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?¹¹¹ If the Evangelist had revised the Jewish

song so as to make a Christian hymn of it, then his employment of it would perhaps be in accordance with the habits 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?¹¹² 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?¹¹³ This hypothesis cannot be altogether ex-

cluded. 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.¹¹⁴ Unless, indeed, he were writabove that the composition of the Magnificat by Luke himself is, unlikely.

ing 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?¹¹⁵ 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

καὶ εἶπεν Μαριάμ or in the hymn itself.¹¹⁶ 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.¹¹⁷ 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. καὶ σὺ δέ, παιδίον, κ. τ. λ. (Lk i. 76) points to a child, already born, as forerunner of the Messianic age. The hypo-

thesis of an originally non-Christian hymn, therefore, could here be made plausible at best only by regarding the hymn as having undergone Christian interpolation.¹¹⁸ 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 i. 64, when Zacharias regained his speech, and “spake, blessing God.” Instead, the hymn is inserted in a general description (Lk i. 65-66, 80) of the growth of the child.¹¹⁹ 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.¹²⁰ Like the Magnificat, it may well have been the product of partly conscious, though inspired art.¹²¹ The absence, then, of Christian ideas in the Magnificat

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 i-ii. 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.¹²²

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.¹²³ 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

who died a sudden death in 44 A. D. But these aorists can be understood perfectly well as examples of the vivid past tense of prophecy. It is perfectly true, as Weiss insists, that even so there must have been some special occasion for praising these acts of God just at the particular time when the poet was writing. This occasion, however, was present to Mary, at the time described in Lk i, as well as to a writer of the Jewish Christian church. After the marvellous experience which Mary had undergone at the annunciation, the coming of the Messiah was to the eye of faith already accomplished, and also (in principle) all the acts of God’s grace which are celebrated in verses 51-54. Wilkinson (op. cit., pp. 14 f., footnote 2), like J. Weiss, regards the Magnificat as “a hymn of the early Christian Church at Jerusalem”. Only, Wilkinson is not obliged to regard verse 48 as an interpolation into the original hymn, for he supposes that the term δούλη was originally applied to the Christian community. Wilkinson and J. Weiss have at least entered a wholesome protest against current misconceptions of the hymn. The Magnificat is neither purely Jewish, nor is it of late Gentile Christian origin (see, for example, Weiss, op. cit., p. 419: “es kann nicht verkannt werden, dass der Lobpreis dieses Psalms mehr einen judenchristlichen Standpunkt zeigt, als den eines heidenchrist*- lichen Schriftstellers am Ende des ersten Jahrhunderts”). The former part of the Benedictus (verses 68-75) is also regarded by Weiss (op. cit., p. 321) as the work of a Jewish Christian poet.

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.

Princeton. J. GRESHAM MACHEN.