KiMrthili's;, wlien the my.stery became known thron-h I ho .allusion of the First and Third Gos|i,.U, ii^ iiiiiiortance as a completion and con- liriiiation of the faith was recognized. Ignatius (c. A.D. 110), in a pa.ssage {Eph. 19) which is fre- quently quoted by later Fathers (Origen, Euse- bius, Basil, Jerome, etc.), places the virgin birth in tlie front rank among Gospel truths ; and we find it as an article of faith in the Old Koman Creed, which can be traced almost to the beginning of the second century, riv -livrqBivTa. (k iri'eu/ji.aTos aylov Kal Mapias t^s irapdivov : qui natiis est de U.S. ex M. V.
The antecedent probability that St. Luke de- rived the information respecting Mary either from herself, or from a woman to Mhom she had con- fided it, is confirmed by the characteristics of these first two chapters of his Gospel. The notes of time ^jM. 3ii. 56j are specially feminine; and competent critics lind a feminine touch througlioui (!-'• -■■■ji-j-- "
25-7. 19. U5. 48. 01). La,„„e ^lij;, „f r/,rr./ [.;]. ISTl'], 1.
p. 2.58) saj-s : 'The colouring ol a \\,.niaii s nauioiy anda woman's view isunmislakalili^ iii i ho separate features of this history. When it is oner .ascribed to a female narrator . . . wo loiiquohonil the in- describable grace, the quiet lii\olinrs-, and sacred- ness of this narrative.' Itamsay ( ]l'a.s Christ born at Bethlehem? p. 88) says: 'There is a womanly spirit in the whole narrative which seems incon- sistent with the transition from man to man.' Sanday (Expository Times, April 1UU3, p. 297) agrees that the narrative came not only from a woman, but through a woman, and he thinks that Joanna, the wife of Chuza, steward to Herod Antipas (Lk 8--^ 24'"; cf. 23''^ Ac l'-"), may have been the person through whom the information passed from Mary to St. Luke. Both Lange (con- fidently) and Sanday (less confidently) believe that St. Luke received the information in writing, and that he wrote the first two chapters with a docu- ment before him. On the whole, this is probable. It is quite true that the peculiarities and character- istics of St. Luke's very niarkod stylo arc specially frequent in these twi.. '|m|iIii^ ( riiiinm. t, ,s/. Luke, p. Ixx) ; but they aio aNo \oiy tiv,|uont in other places where he was workiriL; from a document. St. Luke seems never to have simply copied his authority. In using written material he freely altered the wording to exijrcssiuns which were more natural to himself : so that mere frequency of marks of his style is no proof that he was not using what was already in writing. And, of course, when he was translating from an Aramaic document bis own fa\durite words and construc- tions would <-oiiic spoiilaueously.
But, \\liih'(his i, ail I II it ted because it admits of sonn-lhint; like pro.ii, we are not compelled to admit the unproved assertion that the hymns of praise with which these chapters are enriched have been composed by St. Luke himself, and have no more basis in fact than the speeches in Livy. Each of these canticles suits the time at which it is sup- posed to have been uttered better than the time at which St. Luke wrote, and it may be doubted whether he could in imagination have thrown himself back to the surroundin-s and anticipations of Zach.arias and :\lary and Simeon. There may have lieen on his part '■ a free liieiary remodelling of material' (B. Weiss). I'.elon^ anythingwas written down I here may have been some modifica- tion in Hie woi.liiie as the result of rellexion upon what had been uttered and done. There may even have liccu conscious elaboration. But it is reason-
76
AKNUXCIATIOX, THE
AXNUNCIATION, THE
able to believe that these exquisite and approijiiate songs represent fairly accurately what was said and felt on each occasion. What was said and felt would be remeniliered, and perhaps was com- mitted to writing long before St. Luke obtained the precious record, although not till many years after the events. And there is nothing extrava- gant in the belief that Mary herself may at last have thought it best to commit her recollections and meditations to writing. The feeling, mcum sccretiim mihi, would pevail for a long time : 'she jjondered these things in her heart.' Then, as the end of her life drew neai"er, she mirfit put on record what ought not to be lost. Finally, she committed the sacred mystery to another woman, or to a small group of women ; and from them it passed to St. Luke. But we must be content to remain in ignorance as to whether INIary, or some conlidante, or St. Luke himself, was the lirst to put the story in writing.
That St. Luke should be the Evangelist to receive this womanly stoi'y of women is not sur- prising. The rest o{ his Gospel shows a marked sympathy with the sex which was so commonly looked down upon by both Jews and Gentiles. To this day, in the public service of the synagogue, the men thank God that they have not been made women. No other Evangelist gives us so many types of women. Besides those in the first two chapters, we have the widow at Nain, the sinner in Simon's house, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, the woman \\ith the issue, Martha and Mary, the woman bowed down for eighteen years, the widow with her two mites, the daughters of Jerusalem, and the women at the tomb. And he alone gives us the parable of the Woman and the Lost Coin. We may believe that he was one in whom a woman might naturally confide.