THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
gave such a document to Mary as a protection of her good name, that she passed this on to the family of Joseph, and that from them it came Ge ‘Atlas Accounts to be worked over by him according to in Relation his purpose is an interesting conjecto Joseph ture, but is nothing more (cf. C. Gore, and Mary. ut sup., pp. 28-29). If this were true, it is inconceivable that both Peter and Paul, in their contact with the chief persons of the church at Jerusalem, heard nothing of it. An indication that the nativity story of Matthew was employed by catechists appears perhaps in the division of the sections and the length of these to aid the memory of pupils (cf. A. Wright, Commentary on the Fourth Gospel, p. 118, New York, 1890). That Mary is the center of interest in Luke’s narrative of the infancy is true (cf. i. 27, 36, 40-44, 56- 57, ii. 48, 50-51), and this has led to the surmise that the final source of the story was a woman. It is characteristic of Luke, as compared with the other synoptists and with John, to introduce and emphasize the place and ministry of women in relation to the Gospel (cf. vii. 37 sqq., viii. 2-3, x. 38, Xxill. 27, 29, 55), and the same feature marks the Acts. This fact might of itself be enough to account for the large part that Mary plays in the infancy narrative. Out of the traditional material at his disposal, the author was especially attracted to that portion which centered in Elizabeth and Mary, and he has preserved this interest in the record. Nowhere else in the entire Gospel is there disclosed a more delicate reserve or a rarer literary skill than in the handling of the details of this story. The particular content and form of the narrative have, however, led to the opinion that it is to be traced to a woman. W. M. Ramsay identifies her with Mary (Orr, Virgin Birth of Christ, pp. 244, 246, New York, 1907), while W. Sanday deems it more likely that Joanna, Chuza’s wife (Luke viii. 3), was the intermediary (ib. p. 246; cf. J. Adderley, Critical Questions, p. 139, 2d ed., London, 1906). If Mary was still living when Luke visited Palestine in 57 or 58, she may herself have communicated the account to him, or some intimate of hers may have been the immediate source (cf. W. M. Ramsay, Was Christ Born in Bethlehem? p. 88, London, 1898), or Luke may have become aware of the story from the church in Jerusalem of which James was then head, and where Mary resided with John (H. B. Swete, ut sup., p. 50). But there is absolutely nothing elsewhere in the New Testament to warrant such conjectures. If, as Harnack thinks likely, Luke came in contact with Mary as well as with James in his visit to Jerusalem (Lukas der Arzt, p. 3), it is unaccountable that in his infancy story no place is left for the journey to Egypt (cf. Luke ii. 39). A further question is closely connected with that just raised, whether Luke availed himself of a written or of an oral source. The almost universal judgment has been that he used a document or documents of Aramaic or Hebrew origin, perhaps about 80 a.D. or earlier, the general view advocated by Weiss, Godet, Ryle, and James (Psalms of Solomon, London, 1891), Sanday (Book by Book, London, 1892), and Gore (ut sup., p. 14). In support
into the hand of the First Evangelist |
of this position, reference is made to various features—the Hebraic diction as compared with classic Greek, the archaic quality, the coloring 8. Problem of Jewish national hopes, Judeo-Chrisof Oral or tian sentiment, similarity to the Psalms Written of Solomon (70-40 B.c.), use of ‘‘ Spirit” Sources. as prophetic impulse or impersonal power of God, the theophany to Mary corresponding to Old-Testament divine manifestations, and the naive simplicity of the story in contrast with the prologue and the remainder of the Gospel. It is thus maintained that these stories —of the infancy of John and of Jesus—appear to be more primitive than anything else in the New Testament, except parts of the book of Revelation. They arose in a Jewish circle and were first circulated in a restricted Jewish-Christian community in the sixties; their background was far removed from Greek influences, which, passing away in that early period, never recurred. Sanday assigns the forties as the more probable date of their appearance (in Orr, ut sup., pp. 440 sqq.); G. H. Box proposes “as early as the middle of the first century ” (DCG, art. “ Virgin Birth”); and J. Weiss, who allows to them no historical value, places them ten years later (Schriften des Neuen Testaments, p. 383, Gottingen, 1906). The last seems the earliest possible date for the story becoming public; and the fact that Paul, although a close companion of Luke, was to the last ignorant of it goes to show that Luke was himself not cognizant of it earlier than the sixties. Another surmise is that there was no written story of the infancy of which Luke availed himself, but only a number of Hebrew (not Aramaic) poems concerning events associated with the infancy, from which the Evangelist selected such as suited his purpose (Matt. i. 20-21 is to be included in this grouping). These poems were the works of several Christian poets who attributed to the angels, and to the various fathers and mothers, the songs which they themselves had composed. The Evangelist is to be credited with the prose-setting to the poems, and also as vouching for their essential trustworthiness (Briggs, ut sup., pp. 41 sqq.), and it has been further conjectured that these hymns were composed and used for liturgical purposes in Palestine. On the other hand, the view is presented that an independently written infancy narrative falling, utterly into oblivion is most improbable; and it is also highly improbable that Mary wrote any such document or gave publicity to that which was so intimate and precious to herself, or, indeed, that any one else gave it written form. Ramsay holds it more likely that Luke came into possession of the story by oral communication either from Mary herself or from some one, probably a woman, whose intimacy with Mary furnished the key to the secrets there disclosed, in which case the information is equal to first-hand authority (cf. ut sup., chap. iv.). On this hypothesis differences of style in various sections of the first two chapters are accounted for by the deliberate literary aim of the writer, and in part also by the different form in which the material came to him. That there are legendary elements in the nativity stories has been alleged. The angelic appearances to