that he had derived from a reading of the LXX. Lk. also has Hebraisms, not only in chaps. I f. but elsewhere as well, and not only where he is dependent on Mk. or Mt. but also where he had no exemplar before him (as, for example, often "and it came to pass", kaì éyéveтo; see HS.2 p. 37), and yet no one holds Lk.'s writing to be a translation of a Semitic original.' It is something of a feat to have crowded so many misconceptions into the space of a few lines. Mk. does not Hebraize at all in the proper sense of the term; but the fact that his Greek exhibits a strong Aramaic colouring is admitted by all Semitic scholars who have studied the subject, though they differ as to whether this colouring implies actual translation from an original Aramaic document, or is merely due to the fact that the author was ill versed in Greek and accustomed to think and speak in Aramaic. Mk.'s 'Jewish Greek' cannot have been 'derived from a reading of the LXX', for it exhibits peculiarities (those which connect it with Aramaic) which are not found there, while at the same time the most striking Hebraisms of the LXX are absent from it. The fact that Lk. has Hebraisms is the first accurate statement which Prof. Schmiedel makes; but he goes on at once to confuse the issue again by equating the supposed 'Hebraisms' which are the result of dependence upon Mk. or Mt. with those which are found in passages in which the author had no exemplar before him. The fact as regards the Marcan source in Lk. is that the third evangelist has made some attempt to smooth away the most palpable solecisms, but has by no means carried this out thoroughly or consistently; consequently a number of Marcan Aramaisms (not Hebraisms') remain in Lk.* The parts of Lk. = * As regards Mt., which Schmiedel also mentions as a source containing 'Hebraisms' employed by Lk., i. e. of course the Q document which is used in common by Mt. and Lk., the present writer cannot claim to have examined in detail into the question of its original language (Greek or Aramaic). No Semitic scholar can, however, study such a passage as Mt. 1026-33 Lk. 122-9 without arriving at the clear conviction that we either have in it the literal translation of an Aramaic original, or that the ipsissima verba of our Lord in Aramaic were branded on the hearts of His hearers and reproduced with a reverential exactitude amounting to virtual translation. Cf. especially the phrases μǹ poßŋoîte åñó (Semitic ID of aversion after a verb of fearing), dμoλoyńσei èv èμoí (cf. on this expression even Moulton, NTG.3 i, p. 104), åkoλovleî ¿ñíow pov (Mt. 1098). Mistranslation of an which may be taken to be due to the author himself (such as the setting of narratives, to which the phrase cited, καὶ ἐγένετο, belongs) do contain Hebraisms, and these so striking as to make this Gospel stand out as stylistically the most Hebraic Gospel of the four. Yet, as Schmiedel states, 'no one holds Lk.'s writing to be a translation of a Semitic original', for, paradoxical as it may seem, the very existence of this Hebraic colouring in his style Aramaic original seems clearly to the indicated by comparison of the following Here it can hardly be doubted that the remarkable variant between Mt. καθάρισον πρῶτον τὸ ἐντὸς κτλ. and Lk. πλὴν τὰ ἐνόντα δότε ἐλεημοσύνην is to be explained by the fact that New Heb. and Aram. ' means both 'to purify' (occurring in Aram, as well as normal '77) and also to give alms (cf. Wellhausen, Einleitung, p. 27). For the latter sense cf. the numerous occurrences in Midrash Rabba on Exodus, par. xxxiv; e. g. sect. 5 (New Heb.), 'If misfortune has befallen thy companion, consider how to give him alms (12 math) and provide for him; sect. II (Aram.), 'The Rabbis Yoḥanan and Resh Lakish were going down to bathe in the hot baths of Tiberias. A poor man met them. He said to them, “Give me alms” ( 1999). They said to him, “When we come out we will give thee alms” (7 (91). When they came out, they found him dead. The inference is that our Lord used some such expression as That which is within purify'; this has been rightly rendered in Mt. and made more explicit by the addition of τοῦ ποτηρίου κτλ., while in Lk. it has been wrongly rendered, • That which is within give as alms’. Ἡρμήνευσε δ ̓ αὐτά, ὡς ἦν δυνατός, ἕκαστος. In the opening of the long indictment of the Scribes and Pharisees contained in Mt. 23, presumably from Q, we find a passage (vv. 2-7) which has clearly formed a source for Mk. in his short summary of teaching contained in 1238–40 It seems not unlikely that Mk.'s opening phrase, Καὶ ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ ἔλεγεν, which recurs nearly verbatim in 42 (introducing the parable of the sower), may be his manner of referring to this written discourse-source to which he had access. Lk. 2046-47 has followed Mk. and not Mt, though his opening statement that our Lord's words were spoken both to the multitude and to the disciples seems to indicate that he rightly identified Mk's abbreviated version with the long discourse of Mt. (Q), and selected the former. The parallel passages run as follows : is a sure indication that he was steeped with LXX influence, and The statements of Mk. in vv. 38. 39 can be clearly recognized in Mt., except for Severus Alexandrinus, Rhetorica, 790., Jkaj boj If he wishes to be verbose”). It is likely, therefore, that an original n'an who make The writer believes that this suggestion as to a misunderstanding of n is not his own, but has already been made; though he cannot recall to whom acknowledgement is due. He is himself responsible for pointing out the variant meanings of the verbal form. *That St. Luke was a Hellenistic Jew and not a Gentile would be-apart from other evidence to the contrary-the natural deduction from the fact that the LXX has coloured his Greek style in so marked a degree; since this surely implies that he was brought up upon the Greek Bible. Had he been a Gentile, and not converted to Christianity until he was a grown man, his Greek style would presumably have been already formed and would not have taken on a LXX κατα μακρὰ λήμ The following striking Hebraisms occurring in Lk. may serve to illustrate the true meaning of the term 'Hebraism', viz. a construction or word-usage found in Biblical Hebrew which has been copied in translation by the LXX, and has come through LXX influence into N. T. Greek: I. éyévero introducing a time-determination. The use of y 'And it came to pass' is in such a case very idiomatic in Hebrew, and the LXX equivalent is kaì éyéveto or éyéveto dé. After there follows the note of time or occasion, which may take various forms, such as An Infinitive with preposition ; e.g. Da 'when they came’ (lit. ‘in their coming’) = LXX ẻ r@ ẻ 0 C Tous. An Infinitive with preposition ; e. g. Dat their coming' = LXX ὡς (or ἡνίκα) ἦλθον. (or) 'when' with a Perfect; e.g. when they came =LXX ὡς (or ἡνίκα) ἦλθον. A Participle Absolute with pronominal or nominal subject ; e.g. ' 'they (were) coming' LXX aurŵv épxoμévwv. Dig on the third day' A specific note of time; e.g. after three After this comes the apodosis, which is most frequently (though by no means invariably) introduced by 'and' (= 'then'); e.g. and they saw' LXX (kai) eidov (LXX often omits κaí), and, behold, they saw' = LXX κaì idoù eidov, or simply INT 'they saw' LXX eidov. The subject of the apodosis may of course vary from that of the time-determination (when this = And וַיְהִי כְּבֹאָם וַיֵּצֵא אִישׁ לִקְרָאתָם .latter embodies a subject); e.g it came to pass, as they came, that (lit. 'and') a man went out colouring, at any rate to the extent that it has. We do, however, possess other and apparently contrary evidence in the fact that St. Paul in Col. 414 appears expressly to distinguish him from 'those of the circumcision' previously mentioned (v.1); and this is taken by most scholars, such as Dr. Lightfoot (Colossians, p. 239) and Dr. Plummer (St. Luke, p. xix), as conclusive evidence that he was of Gentile origin, the latter scholar going so far as to maintain, 'That he was originally a heathen may be taken as certain'. Such a verdict, however, surely ignores the important criterion of style; and perhaps the conclusion which best satisfies the conflicting evidence is that he may have been a proselyte from his youth and have come over to Christianity from Judaism. And it came to וַיְהִי הֵמָּה בָאִים וְהִנֵּה אִישׁ יֹצֵא לִקְרָאתָם to meet them, or pass, they (were) coming, and, behold, a man going out to meet them'. Instances of this Hebrew construction, with time-determination ẻv tậ (Infinitive) and apodosis introduced by κaí, may be seen in Lk. 51.12, 91, 14, 17, 19, 24(15); without κaí, Lk. 1, 26, 918.33, II1.27, 1714, 1835, 2430.51. With time-determination &s (Aorist), and without κaí in apodosis, Lk. 123.41, 215, 1929. With specific note of time, and Kać in apodosis, Lk. 5, 8122, Acts 57; without kaí, Lk. 159, 2146, 7", 928.37, 201. There are besides some cases in Lk., and many more in Acts, in which the verb of the apodosis is not an Aorist but an Infinitive. This modification of the construction, which is not found in Hebrew, and only occurs once in LXX (3 Kgs. 113 B), can be paralleled from the papyri. It seems therefore in Lk. and Acts to be a modification of the Hebraic construction under the influence of a known Kown construction (cf. Thackeray, Grammar of the O. T. in Greek, p. 50). So Lk. 321, 61.6.12, Acts 45, 93*.32.37, 14', 1616, 19', 226.17, 2817. It may be noted that in some of these examples, viz. Acts 92, 14, 226.17, the note of time or occasion has been variously modified so as to lose its clear-cut Hebraic form. In other cases, viz. Lk. 1622, Acts 943, 1126, 28, it is altogether absent. This is quite un-Hebraic. Hebrew might say And the poor man died', without note of time except as inferred from the context ('and'=' and then'), or, inserting And it came to pass, after וַיְהִי מִקֵץ יָמִים וַיָּמָת הָאֶבְיוֹן,note of time some time (lit. "from the end of days"), that (lit. "and") the poor man died'; it would not say 'as n?" '7?=¿yéveto dè åπobaveîv TÒV TTWXÓV (Lk. 1622). The reason why St. Luke modified his Gospel-style in this respect in Acts demands investigation. It would seem to imply a not inconsiderable interval between the two works, during which his wider intercourse with Gentile heathen in the course of his missionary labours exercised an influence on his style. Outside Lk. and Acts ¿yévero introducing a time-determination is only found in the five-times repeated phrase καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν 'Inσoûs in Mt. 72, 11', 1353, 19', 26', and also in Mt. 91o, Mk. 19, 223, 4* (cf. 25). In Semitic it is specifically a construction belonging to * With time-determination before ¿yéveto. |