  Our second task is to make a linguistic and stylistic examination of Lk. i. 34 f. At the beginning of the last chapter we drew attention to the importance of the test. It cannot be too strongly affirmed that any hypothesis of interpolation, which does not take account of the linguistic characteristics of the passage, is premature; indeed, it may easily turn out to be a rather glaring case of non sequitur. It is precisely the linguistic test which we miss in the arguments of those who claim that Lk. i. 34 f. was not written by St. Luke. Usually it is thought enough to argue an incompatibility between this passage and its context, and straightway to assign the former to the pen of an unknown redactor. We may illustrate this method from the two articles in the Encyclopaedia Biblica to which reference has been made. In the article on “Mary”, Schmiedel says (col. 2956): “It has to be pointed out that even in Lk. i only two verses—vv. 34 f.—contain the idea of the virgin birth clearly and effectively; and these disturb the connexion so manifestly that we are compelled to regard them as a later insertion”. The only argument of a linguistic character is the remark: “Note, further, that apart from i. 34 ?pe? (‘since’) is not met with either in the third gospel or in Acts”. Usener writes (col. 3349): “To Joh. Hillmann (JPT. 17, 221 ff.) belongs the merit of having conclusively shown that the two verses in Lk. (i. 34 f.), the only verses in the Third Gospel in which the supernatural birth of Jesus of the Virgin Mary is stated, are incompatible with the entire representation of the rest of chaps, i and ii, and thus must have been interpolated by a redactor”.49 It is theories of this kind that we have in view when we say (p. 47) that to state such a conclusion is to take two steps where there is ground for one only. The importance of the linguistic argument is manifest in such works as Sir John C. Hawkins's Horae Synopticae (2nd ed., 1909) and Dr. W. K. Hobart's Medical Language of St. Luke (1882). It has also received great emphasis in the books in which Harnack has sought to prove the Lukan authorship and early date of the Acts, viz. Luke the Physician, The Acts of [pg 056] It may not be without value to ask how far the linguistic argument can take us. We may certainly lay down the broad proposition that arguments in favour of an interpolation ought to be supported by the linguistic facts; provided, of course, that the suspected passage is susceptible of the linguistic test. We do not forget that a passage may be of such a neutral character as not to admit of that test. In that case we have to be content with other available arguments. Where, however, the linguistic test can be applied, and where the result is strongly favourable to the genuineness of the passage, that, assuredly, is a very serious objection for the theory of interpolation to face. It becomes especially formidable, if we can bring forward no evidence to prove an anachronism, or if we can allege no real textual objections. Under such circumstances, indeed, we may well adopt the rule that, in cases of this kind, we have not to do with the insertion of a redactor; unless, of course, we have good reason for saying that the interpolator has entered deeply into the original writer's style. The view here taken does not mean that all objections to a passage are sufficiently met if we can state a strong linguistic case on the other side. We shall have reason to take up this point again (p. 69). For the present it is sufficient to say that each kind of argument must be given its own particular force. In the case of a passage where objections arising from context and subject-matter cannot be gainsaid, we must conclude that the passage is of later date than its context, but not more. In a case where the facts of vocabulary, style, and subject-matter are sufficiently favourable, and no textual difficulties forbid, we must ascribe the passage to the original writer. In a case, finally, where both kinds of conditions occur, we must suppose that the passage was afterwards inserted by the writer himself into the body of his own work. Clearly, then, the linguistic examination of a suspected passage is a matter of great importance. In the case of Lk. i. 34 f., it is not too much to say that it is a task as necessary as it is neglected. It may be objected that the passage is one of two verses only, and that, in consequence, it is much too brief to allow of satisfactory [pg 057] Harnack has recognized the force of the linguistic argument in the case of two verses (thirty-one words). These are the last two verses of the Acts. After remarking that, so far as he knows, it has never been questioned that these words come from the author of the complete work, though they have the appearance of being a postscript, he continues: “Moreover, in content and in form they agree so closely with the Lukan style that from this point of view strong arguments can be produced in favour of their genuineness” (Date of Acts, &c., p. 94). In a footnote he adds the linguistic argument. This is quite enough for our purpose. It is true that the genuineness of Lk. i. 34 f. is questioned by many (on other than linguistic and textual grounds). Nevertheless, the field is open for inquiry as to whether “in content and form they agree so closely with the Lukan style that from this point of view strong arguments can be produced in favour of their genuineness”. After all, the length of the passage is not the vital consideration, but its character (which may, or may not, be more striking than that of a much longer section); and this is something which can come out only after actual examination. We turn, then, to the linguistic examination of Lk. i. 34 f. According to the Westcott and Hort text, the passage is as follows: 34. e?pe? d? ?a??? p??? t?? ???e??? ??? ?sta? t??t?, ?pe? ??d?a ?? ????s??; 35. ?a? ?p?????e?? ? ???e??? e?pe? a?t? ??e?a ????? ?pe?e?seta? ?p? s?, ?a? d??a?? ???st?? ?p?s???se? s??? d?? ?a? t? ?e???e??? ??G??? ???T?S????, ???? ?e??. In treating these words, we shall not follow the order in which they occur, but the order of their importance for our investigation.51 It is clear that the words fall into different [pg 058] a.In the first class we may include the words: ????, ?a? ?p?????e??, p??, ???e???, d??a??, ?????, e?pe? with dat., ???s ?e??, and perhaps even ??e?a ?????. Every one of these words and phrases is well represented in the Lukan writings, and in the case of some of them we get, on investigation, remarkable results.52 [pg 059]Take the case of ????. In the NT. it occurs 212 times, and of these no less than 125 appear in St. Luke's works (26 in G. and 99 in Acts), i.e. 58 per cent. Still more remarkable is the result when we compare ???? and ?????p??. Whereas the other Evangelists use ?????p?? very frequently indeed (218 times), they employ ???? only 20 times. St. Luke also (especially in the Gospel) uses ?????p?? frequently (93 times), but he has ???? 26 times (cf. Mt. 8 times, Mk. 4 times, Jn. 8 times). If we take both Lukan writings, the usage of ?????p?? and ???? is roughly equal, whereas in the rest of the NT. it is as 9 is to 2. We can say, therefore, that St. Luke shows a liking for ????, whereas Mt. Mk. and Jn. markedly prefer ?????p??. However, the word is so common that we can lay no stress on the fact that it occurs in i. 34, where the connexion demands it. We can only note its congruity with a Lukan liking. ?a? ?p?????e?? is also interesting, though not, of course, in any way decisive. In Lk. the phrase occurs 14 times; in Mt. it is found 6 times; in Mk. 8; never in the Fourth Gospel, and never in the Acts. It occurs, that is to say, in those parts of the New Testament in which sources, probably Aramaic,53 are employed. This is in line with the view expressed by Moulton and Milligan with regard to the aorist passive forms of the verb.54 They say that they incline to the opinion that ?pe?????? “belongs only to early Hellenistic, whence it was taken by the LXX translators to render a common Hebrew phrase, passing thence into the narrative parts of NT. as a definite ‘Septuagintalism’ ”. It is in keeping with this view that ?a? ?p?????e?? ... e?pe? should appear in that part of St. Luke's Gospel where most of all we have reason to posit Semitic sources, whether oral or documentary. As we have seen, half the record of this expression in the New Testament, apart from Lk. i. 35, is in the Third Gospel. The presence, then, of ?a? ?p?????e?? in Lk. i. 35 is congruous with these facts; more, perhaps, we cannot say. A word like p?? has no bearing on our present investigation, [pg 060] ?a??? (of the mother of Jesus) occurs more often in Lk. than in other NT. writers (9 times and probably 10 in the G., once in Acts); the form ?a??a appears but once (ii. 19 is doubtful). In Mk. ?a??a occurs once, ?a??? never; in Mt. we find ?a??a 3 times and ?a??? probably twice. The use of the form ?a??? in i. 34 is therefore in agreement with St. Luke's usage, but of course this does not preclude the hand of an interpolator, since every instance of ?a??? (of the mother of Jesus) in the Third Gospel occurs in the first two chapters. As is well known, the phrase ??e?a ????? is very frequently found in the Lukan writings. The percentage is as much as 60, and out of the instances in the NT., where the phrase is anarthrous, more than 50 per cent, are in St. Luke (G. and Acts). The phrase is therefore very strongly Lukan. But perhaps we ought not to include the phrase among those which tell strongly against the theory of interpolation, since a redactor would easily and naturally introduce it in the connexion in which it appears in i. 35. “The new view was not an intruder from the sphere of heathen mythology, but a logical conclusion from the belief that our Lord was God's Son by the operation of the Holy Spirit” (Harnack's Date of Acts,56 p. 144). We can say therefore that ??e?a ????? is admirably in keeping with Lukan usage but hardly more. The case is quite otherwise with the whole phrase, ??e?a ??. ?pe?e?seta? ?p? s?, as we shall see. ?a??? is also a word which might be considered here, for it is, of course, a very common word. Having regard, however, to the way in which it is used, it will be better to take it later. Summing up our results thus far, we may say that we have found nothing that is out of accord with Lukan usage. On the other hand, indeed, every word and phrase we have examined is well represented in St. Luke's writings. Nevertheless, the [pg 061] b.We now come to words which present difficulties, less or greater, on the assumption of Lukan authorship, and so far tell in favour of the theory of interpolation. These are—?pe?, ????s??, and perhaps t? ?e???e???. 1. We introduce t? ?e???e??? here, because the expression, as distinct from the construction, occurs nowhere else in Lk. As a matter of fact it occurs nowhere else in the New Testament in this form. The perfect passive participle, however, appears twice in the Johannine writings: t? ?e?e??????? ?? t. sa???? s??? ?st?? (Jn. iii. 6), and ?t? p?? ?e?e??????? ?? t. ?e?? ???? t. ??s?? (1 Jn. v. 4). What is more important is that there is a close parallel to t? ?e???e??? in Mt. i. 30, which reads, t? ??? ?? a?t? ?e?????? ?? p?e?at?? ?st?? ?????. The complete clause in Lk. runs, d?? ?a? t? ?e???e??? ????? ?????seta?, ???? ?e??. It is certainly open to any one to argue that the passage in Lk. is introduced by an interpolator who is under the influence of Mt. i. 20. Why, however, while under that influence, he should so far enter into Lukan usage as to introduce the Lukan d?? ?a?, and ?????seta?, to say nothing of putting ??e?a ????? into a different connexion in a characteristically Lukan phrase (?. ??. ?pe?e?seta? ?p? s?. Cf. Acts i. 8 and see later), are questions which it is not easy to answer. Assuredly there is not much here to support the hypothesis of interpolation, and when we consider the constructional use of the article with the participle, there is still less, if indeed anything at all. To consider t? ?e???e??? is rather a concession to carefulness than the acknowledgement of a real difficulty. 2. G???s?? must be examined, because in i. 34 it is used of knowledge in the way of marital relationship. The only parallel in the New Testament is Mt. i. 25, where, however, it is used of a man: ?a? ??? ?????s?e? a?t?? ??? ?? ?te?e? ????. On the other hand, in other senses, ????s?? occurs fairly frequently in Lk. It is, however, in no sense Lukan, being distributed evenly throughout the New Testament, except in the Johannine writings, where it is very common. [pg 062]We cannot, therefore, produce evidence to show that elsewhere St. Luke uses ?. in the special sense of i. 34. Nevertheless, there is no reason why he should not have written ?. in that passage, and there are considerations which go to show how he could easily have used the word. In i. 34 and also in Mt. i. 25 ????s?? is by no means a “Hebraistic euphemism”,57 yet it is probable that the influence of the Septuagint is to be found in both passages. In the LXX there are several instances of ?. used, as in i. 34, of a woman. It is so used in Gen. xix. 8 (of Lot's daughters), in Judg. xi. 39 (of Jephthah's daughter), and in Num. xxxi. 17 (of the women of Midian). If, then, we are right in tracing the influence of the LXX, in i. 34, we have ground for finding the hand of St. Luke in that passage, even though he never again uses ?. in that sense. For it is just in Lk. i, ii that the influence of the LXX is most marked.58 Even if we do not press LXX influence (for ?. in this special sense is found “in Greek writers from the Alexandrian age down”),59 it is not at all apparent why St. Luke himself should not have used the word. And if the argument in favour of the theory of interpolation is to be sustained, it is scarcely enough to urge the bare fact that St. Luke does not use ?. as in i. 34 elsewhere. An idiom which occurs in Greek writers from the time of Menander60 (b.c. 325) may well have been known to a writer like St. Luke, apart from its presence in the Septuagint. If verses 34, 35 are indeed Lukan, it is quite probable that in ?. we should find the influence of the Septuagint, but we are not at all shut up to Septuagint usage. In the connexion in which it occurs ????s?? was a suitable word to employ, and its presence there is in no way incongruous with Lukan authorship. 3. In these verses the word which is of greatest difficulty is without doubt ?pe?. In the rest of the New Testament it occurs 25 times. Of these 10 are found in the Pauline Epistles and 9 in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The remaining 6 appear [pg 063] There are, it is true, two Lukan passages, one in the Gospel (vii. 1) and the other in the Acts (xiii. 46), where ?pe? d? occurs in some MSS. The true reading, however, in both cases is probably ?pe?d?.61 We have, therefore, to face the fact, that not only is ?pe? found nowhere else in St. Luke's works, but that elsewhere he seems to prefer ?pe?d? and ?pe?d?pe? (the latter in the Prologue to the Gospel, and the former five times out of the ten cases in which it occurs in the New Testament). Here is the strongest argument, which on linguistic grounds can be urged against the genuineness of i. 34 f. The richness of St. Luke's vocabulary increases the difficulty.62 Why, if he has used ?pe? in i. 34, he should never employ it again, is a question which it is not easy to answer. If, in view of the evidence as a whole, the case for an interpolation fails, we shall have to content ourselves with the fact, however strange, that here and here only ?pe? occurs in Lk. A writer indeed may use a word once and never again. ?pe? occurs but once in Mk. (xv. 42), and it may be so here. Assuredly, in a linguistic argument room must always be left for the occurrence of ?pa? ?e??e?a in an individual writer. The force of this contention is, however, somewhat weakened by the preference which St. Luke seems to show for ?pe?d?, and it must be allowed that the case for an interpolation does receive support from ?pe?. c.We have now to consider the third division of the linguistic evidence. It includes the following words and phrases: t? ?e???e??? (the construction), ?????seta?, d??a?? ???st??, d?? ?a?, ?p?s???se? s??, [pg 064]??e?a ????? ?pe?e?seta? ?p? s?, e?pe? d? ... p??? ... 1. We begin with t? ?e???e??? (the construction.) As is well known, the article with the participle is quite a characteristic of the Lukan writings. “Participles with the article often take the place of substantives”, writes Plummer (ICC., St. Lk., p. lxii). The instances given by Plummer are as follows: ii. 27. ?at? t? e???s????. (Here only in NT.) iv. 16. ?at? t? e?????. (Here and Acts xvii, 2 only.) viii. 34. ?d??te? d? ?? ?s???te? t? ?e????? ?f????. (Here and Mk. v. 14; Lk. [xxiv. 12]. Cf. also Acts iv. 21.) xxii. 22. ?at? t? ???s????. (Here only in NT. Cf. the parallel passages, Mt. xxvi. 24 and Mk. xiv. 21, where we find ?a??? ????apta? pe?? a?t??.) xxiv. 14. pe?? p??t?? t?? s?e???t?? t??t??. (Cf. Acts iii. 10.) To these may be added xxi. 36, xxiii. 47, 48. The construction is clearly Lukan, without, of course, being exclusively Lukan, and though t? ?e???e??? does not occur elsewhere in St. Luke's works, the verb is not uncommon (10 times out of 93 in the NT., of which 40 occur in the Genealogy in Mt.). 2. ?????seta?. In his Date of Acts Harnack underlines this verb, as a Lukan trait, wherever it occurs in the “We” Sections, which he prints on pp. 4-12. Out of the total number of cases in which it occurs in the New Testament, no less than 44 per cent. are found in the Lukan writings. In the Gospel it is present 41 times. It should also be noted that when we compare ?a? t? ?. ????? ?????seta? with the analogous phrase in Mt. 1. 20, t? ??? ?? a?t? ?e?????? ?? p?e?at?? ?st?? ?????, in the latter the Lukan ?a??? is absent. Of course ?a??? is a common word, but St. Luke's use of it is distinctive, and with this usage ?????seta? in verse 35 agrees. 3. We have referred to d??a?? already,63 and have said that while frequent in Lk., it is too common a word to be important for our present purpose. The case is otherwise with the phrase d??a?? ???st??. St. Luke is fond of using d. in composition with other words in the genitive. In his Gospel, he employs [pg 065] 4. ??? ?a?. Elsewhere St. Luke uses d?? 9 times (once in the Gospel and 8 times in the Acts). In this respect he may be compared with St. Paul, who uses the word 25 times, and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, who employs it 8 times. In the Catholic Epistles it appears 6 times. There is but one instance in Mt. and a doubtful case in Mk. The results are also interesting when we take d?? ?a?. Out of 10 instances in the New Testament, St. Luke has 2 (Ac. x. 29 and xxiv. 26), St. Paul has 6, and Hebrews 2. There is not an instance in Mt. or Mk., or anywhere else in the New Testament. We are far from suggesting that no one else could use d?? ?a?.65 The point is that the supposed interpolator has introduced the phrase into the work of a writer who, with St. Paul and the author of Hebrews, alone among New Testament writers employs it! 5. ?p?s???se? s??. ?p?s????? appears in four other places in the New Testament. Of these, three are connected with the [pg 066] 6. ??e?a ????? ?pe?e?seta? ?p? s?. Here we have first to call attention to the verb ?p????a?. Apart from Eph. ii. 7 and James v. 1, this verb is limited to the Lukan writings, where it occurs six times (i.e. besides i. 35). We have already spoken of ??e?a ????? and remarked that, while it is characteristic of St. Luke, we could not lay stress upon that fact, since even an interpolator would naturally introduce a reference to the Holy Spirit in such a connexion as i. 35. If, however, as now we take the whole phrase, we come to a very different conclusion. For in Acts i. 8 we have the significantly close parallel, ?pe????t?? t. ????? p?e?at?? ?f? ???. The parallel speaks for itself! 7. We consider lastly, e?pe? d? ... p???. A comparison of passages in the four Gospels and the Acts gives the following results: [pg 067]e?pe? d?: Jn. 1 (& 2?); Lk. (G.) 60; Acts 15; Lk. (G. & Ac.) 75 e?pe? ... p???: Mt. 1?; Mk. 2; Jn. 9; Lk. (G.) 79; Acts 26; Lk. (G. & Ac.) 105 e?pe? d? ... p???: Lk. (G.) 25; Acts 2; Lk. (G. & Ac.) 27 To the facts noted in the foregoing table we may add that e?pe? p??? occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. St. Luke, therefore, has it 105 times out of 116. Still more is e?pe? d? ... p??? limited to St. Luke. No other New Testament writer uses the phrase, and St. Luke has it 27 times.66 In his three books on the Acts, Harnack is fond of underlining Lukan characteristics in the “We” Sections, in order to show the linguistic identity which exists between these Sections and the rest of the work. Let us see how Lk. i. 34 f. appears, when treated in this way; not forgetting, of course, that we are dealing with two verses only. It is obviously impossible to indicate by this method the special significance of each word or phrase; this, however, has already been shown. Our results may be represented as follows: e?pe? d? ?a??? p??? t?? ???e??? ??? ?sta? t??t?, ?pe? ??d?a ?? ????s??; ?a? ?p?????e?? ? ???e??? e?pe? a?t? ??e?a ????? ?pe?e?seta? ?p? s?, ?a? d??a?? ???st?? ?p?s???se? s??? d?? ?a? t? ?e???e??? ????? ?????seta?, ???? ?e??. A possible reply to the linguistic argument presented above is that we may have to do with an interpolator who has thoroughly entered into the Lukan style. If our examination has shown anything at all, it has shown that Lk. i. 34. f. is very far from presenting neutral features: it is shot through and through with “Lukanisms”.67 But, it may be asked, could not an interpolator, strongly influenced by the Lukan style, have penned these verses? Let us see what, on that hypothesis, the interpolator has done. He has produced a passage of thirty-seven words, in which there [pg 068] This feat, it must be confessed, is a striking performance. If, indeed, it has been achieved, we must conclude that it has been carried out deliberately. We make every allowance for the possibility that a redactor may well enter into the style of an author. But to suppose that in so short a passage so many Lukan features have come together without premeditation or design is all but impossible. We make bold to say that, if we must admit such an undesigned collocation of “Lukanisms”, we can have little confidence in the linguistic argument anywhere. But can we believe that the linguistic features of Lk. i. 34 f. have been purposely introduced? Such a question is its own answer. No one, assuredly, would resort to the desperate expedient of supposing a redactor, who laboriously amasses Lukan characteristics, with the intention of passing off the very phraseology of his insertion as genuine. A modern interpolator might work along these lines, but not an ancient redactor. Interpolations are not forgeries. The thought of consciously reproducing stylistic features in an insertion would probably never have occurred to a redactor of the Gospels.69 So far then as linguistic considerations go, we must conclude that our unknown interpolator is a mythical personage. We do [pg 069] |
|
