“And you shall call His Name…”: Luke 1:57-66

Luke 1:57-66

As we continue through a study of the Infancy Narratives, we come now to the episode of the circumcision and naming of John the Baptist in Lk 1:57-66. Following the Visitation scene in vv. 39-56, in which the John and Jesus halves of the Infancy narrative come together, in v. 57 the scene shifts back to John’s side, picking up from verse 25. Clearly this episode functions as a fulfillment of the annunciation scene in vv. 8-22, and is given much more attention than the corresponding circumcision/naming of Jesus. The birth of John itself is narrated simply in verse 57:

“And the time for her to produce (a child) was fulfilled for Elisheba, and she caused to be (born) [i.e. gave birth to] a son”.

The verses which follow narrate the circumcision and naming of the child—this event is framed by two notices which establish the significance of the scene:

“And the (one)s housing round about [i.e. neighbors], and the (one)s together (with) her [i.e. her relatives], heard that the Lord did (a) great (act of) his mercy with her, and they took delight (in it) together with her.” (v. 58)

“And fear came to be upon all the (one) housing round about them, and in the whole mountain-region of Yehudah {Judea} all these utterances were spoken throughout; and all the (one)s hearing (this) set it in their heart saying, ‘What then will this (little) child be?'” (vv. 65-66)

The first reaction by the people is a response to the miraculous nature of the birth (i.e. to Elizabeth, who was elderly and barren), the second is to the wondrous sign of Zechariah suddenly speaking again. In between is the moment of circumcision and naming.

Circumcision was a customary cultural practice throughout much of the ancient world, and in traditional societies even today. It was scarcely unique or original to Israel; however, there was special significance to the practice for Israelites—it was an essential mark of religious identity, going back to the tradition of its introduction for Abraham (Gen 17:10-14). Indeed, it is called the “sign of the covenant”, an indication that the person belongs to God’s chosen people, and is thus obligated to observe the terms of the agreement (covenant) established by God—namely, the Torah (or Law) as recorded in the Pentateuch (Exodus–Numbers & Deuteronomy). The central importance of circumcision is stated or otherwise indicated numerous times in Scripture (Gen 21:4; 34:15ff; Exod 4:24-26; 12:44ff; Lev 12:3; Deut 10:16; Josh 5:2-8; Jer 4:4; John 7:22-23; Phil 3:5, etc). Its significance in terms of religious identity made it a controversial issue for early Christians, as dramatically illustrated in the book of Acts (10:45ff; 15:1-16:3; 21:21) and the letters of Paul. By ancient tradition, circumcision was to take place on the eighth day, as narrated here in v. 59, and also (for Jesus) in 2:21. This is not merely an incidental detail in the birth narratives, but is of the utmost importance for the author, as it relates to the key theme of Jesus as the fulfillment of the types and forms from the Old Testament and Israelite religion—the New Covenant that fulfills and completes the Old Covenant. This is the primary reason for emphasizing details which show that John and his parents, as well as Jesus and his parents, were devout in religious matters, faithfully observing the commands and precepts of the Torah.

The narrative context suggests that the naming of the child took place at the circumcision. Such a practice is known from later Jewish tradition, but is otherwise unattested in this early period (cf. Fitzmyer, Luke, p. 380). Based on the pattern indicated in the Old Testament, we might expect the naming to occur at the time of birth, rather than eight days later (Gen 4:1; 21:3; 25:25-26, etc). It is possible that the author (trad. Luke) has taken dramatic license and moved the naming ‘ahead’ to coincide with the circumcision, given the importance of that event to the narrative (cf. above). Apparently, some of the neighbors and relatives were expecting that the child would be named after his father, Zechariah (v. 59b); or, on the assumption that the naming was delayed until the time of circumcision, in lieu of a name, they may have been referring to the child e.g., as “little Zechariah” (Fitzmyer, Luke, p. 380). At this time it was perhaps more common to name a child after his grandfather, rather than his father. In any case, the name spoken by Elizabeth—Yohanan ( )Iwa/nnh$, John)—was, it seems, not one common among the child’s immediate relatives (v. 61).

I discussed the meaning of the name Yôµ¹n¹n (/n`j*oy) in the earlier note on vv. 13-17. It means “Yah(weh) has shown favor”. As such, it is an old Yahweh-name, dating back to the Kingdom period; it is not especially common in the Old Testament, but is known in priestly circles (Neh 12:13, 42; 1 Macc 2:1f), so it is perhaps not unusual that a priestly family such as Zechariah and Elizabeth might adopt it. As I noted previously, the name can be understood or interpreted three ways:

  • God has shown favor to Zechariah and Elizabeth by giving them a child
  • God has shown them favor due to the special role the child will play in the deliverance of His people
  • God shows favor to His people in the person of Jesus, and the child John will play a key role in “preparing the way” for him

All three aspects are present in the narrative, but especially the latter two, which will be emphasized more clearly in the hymn of Zechariah (the Benedictus) that follows in vv. 67-79.

In the Introduction to this series, I discussed the way in which names (and the idea of a name) were understood in the ancient world, much differently than in our society today. The name was thought to represent and embody the essential nature and character of a person—to know a person’s name was effectively the same as knowing the person. When applied in a religious setting or context, names which include a theophoric element (i.e. a shortened form of a deity’s name), often had a very special significance, usually as a phrase- or sentence-name. It may indicate praise to God for his care, power, etc., in bringing the child into the world and blessing the parents. At the same time, such a name could be invoked over the child as a blessing or prophecy over his/her future life and destiny. This aspect of the name Yôµ¹n¹n is included as part of the Angel’s annunciation, in vv. 15-17, when the name is first declared (by Gabriel) to Zechariah (see the earlier note). No such explanation is given by Elizabeth in v. 60, but it is emphasized again in the hymn of Zechariah (vv. 76-77ff), as will be discussed in the next note.

Also important to the structure of the narrative is the moment when Zechariah’s (mute) silence ends and he speaks again (v. 64). Keep in mind the basic outline and note the parallelism:

  • Annunciation of John’s coming birth to Zechariah (vv. 8-25)
    —with the sign: Zechariah will be mute until it comes to pass
  • Annunciation of Jesus’ coming birth to Mary (vv. 26-38)
    —with the sign: the miracle of Elizabeth conceiving & giving birth
    • The fulfillment: Mary sees Elizabeth’s pregnancy (vv. 39-56)
    • The fulfillment: Zechariah speaks following John’s birth (vv. 57-66)

The order of scenes is inverted when dealing with the fulfillment of the sign given by the Angel, but otherwise the parallel is precise, covering all four scenes in vv. 8-66ff. Interestingly, Zechariah is not yet able to speak at John’s birth, but only after the child’s circumcision and naming takes place. Indeed, it is only when Zechariah himself confirms the name of John (Yohanan), writing it down, that his speech returns: “and his mouth opened up along (that very) moment, and (also) his tongue, and he spoke, giving good account (of) [i.e. blessing/praising] God”. This leads to the reaction by the people narrated in vv. 65-66 (cf. above), which spreads, with the news of the wondrous sign, all throughout the region. Even as Zechariah speaks (lale/w) again, so word and news of this event is spoken throughout (dialale/w).

Two significant notices close this scene. The first is a question which represents the thoughts of the people: “What then will this child be?” It is a question at the very heart of the child’s identity, as indicated by his name, and the marvelous events surrounding it (and his birth). The second, final statement is made by the author, almost as though in response to the people’s question: “For indeed the hand of the Lord was with him“. The idiom “hand of the Lord (YHWH)” is familiar from the Old Testament (Exod 9:3; 15:6; 16:3; Num 11:23; Deut 2:15; Josh 4:24; 22:31, etc). It is an anthropomorphic image that primarily refers to God’s power, either to bring judgment on people, or protection and deliverance for his chosen ones. Both aspects will be manifest in the preaching and mission-work of John, as we see depicted in the Gospels (Lk 3:3-20 par).

References above marked “Fitzmyer, Luke” are to J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, Anchor Bible [AB] Vol. 28 (1981).

“And you shall call His Name…”: Luke 1:46ff

Luke 1:46ff

Today’s note will examine the famous hymn of Lk 1:46-55, the Magnificat. This is the first of the four hymns which punctuate the Lukan Infancy narrative, each of which came to be part of the Christian liturgy and are best known from the first word(s) of their rendering in Latin. When studying these hymns, there are three basic theories regarding their origin and composition (cf. also the article in the series “The Old Testament and the Birth of Jesus”):

  • They are inspired poetic works, more or less as uttered by the speaker, according to the context of the narrative. While there may be some translation and editing, etc, by the author (and/or the underlying tradition), the attribution in the text is accepted and taken at face value. This would generally be the traditional-conservative view.
  • The author (trad. Luke) has incorporated earlier Jewish (Christian) hymns, adapting them and setting them in the mouth of the individual character within the context of the narrative. This is probably the dominant critical view.
  • The hymns are free/original compositions by the author, in imitation of similar Psalms and hymns in the Old Testament, which he has likewise integrated into the narrative. Many critical scholars tend toward this view as well, or at least grant it as a possibility.

In my view, only the first two are legitimate, viable options, and both need to be taken seriously by commentators and students. On objective grounds, the evidence perhaps favors the second view, but each interpreter will have differing opinions on the weight of the evidence, and how it relates to a particular understanding of the nature and extent of inspiration, as well as other factors. It is not possible to go into this subject in any detail in this brief article. Also, for the purposes of this study, I am assuming the majority reading which attributes the hymn to Mary (cf. “Did You Know?” below).

The structure of the hymn has been analyzed and divided various ways. I prefer to view it in two parts:

  • Vv. 46-50—A (personal) praise to God for what he has done (i.e. for the speaker)
  • Vv. 51-55—Praise for what God has done on behalf of His people (Israel)

Some commentators feel that verse 48 is of Lukan composition, having been inserted into the hymn, based on the theory (cf. above) that the author has adapted and made use of a pre-existing Jewish Christian (or Jewish) hymn. It must be admitted that v. 48 does seem to interrupt the rhythm and flow of the poetry somewhat; on the other hand, it fits the personal context of the opening lines, at v. 48a at least could easily have been part of an earlier hymn. Only v. 48b specifically requires the setting established in the narrative.

It is the first half (or strophe) of the hymn which I want to examine in this note, especially the opening couplet (vv. 46-47) which sets the tone and theme for the hymn—beginning with the personal viewpoint of the speaker (i.e. Mary):

“My soul declares (the) great(ness of) the Lord,
and my spirit leaps (for joy) upon God my Savior”

There is a precise parallelism in this couplet; note each of the three elements:

My soulmakes/declares greatthe Lord
My spiritleaps (for joy) uponGod my Savior

The third element involves names and titles of God—specifically, Lord (ku/rio$) and Savior (swth/r). If we combine the two expressions here the result would be: “(the) Lord God my Savior”. We have already seen the combination Lord God (ku/rio$ o( qeo/$) in verse 32 (cf. the earlier note), where, as I discussed, the expression stems from the ancient Israelite (religious) identification of Yahweh with the (one) Creator God °E~l. Here Yahweh the God of Israel is also identified in the role of Savior of his people. This is essentially the theme of the hymn which follows, and draws upon the various episodes in Israelite history and tradition (as narrated in the Old Testament) where God acted to save/deliver his people. In fact, there a good number of Old Testament allusions in the hymn, beginning with the opening lines. Two passages, in particular, should be noted:

  • 1 Sam 2:1-2—The opening lines of Hannah’s hymn, upon which the Magnificat was patterned (at least in part). The Lukan Infancy narrative draws heavily upon the Samuel birth narrative (1 Sam 1-2), with Hannah serving as a type/pattern for Mary (and perhaps Elizabeth as well).
  • Hab 3:18—There is a more precise formal parallel in expression here:
    “I will leap (for joy) in YHWH, I will spin (joyfully) in the God of my salvation”

Mention should also be made of Psalm 35:9. If we were to blend together and distill these three passages, we would end up with wording not too different from that in Lk 1:46-47.

The title Savior (Swth/r) is especially significant as a thematic keyword, since it relates to the very name of Jesus (Yeshua)—the person through whom God will act to save his people. This aspect of Jesus as Savior will be discussed in more detail in the upcoming notes on Matt 1:21 and Luke 2:11. The word swth/r is actually rather rare in the New Testament, occurring just 24 times, and, somewhat surprisingly, only 5 times in the Gospels and Acts. Four of these occurrences are in Luke-Acts (the other being Jn 4:42)—Acts 5:31; 13:23, and here in the Infancy narrative (Lk 1:47 and 2:11). Much more common is the verb sw/zw, indicating the action of saving, delivering, protecting, etc, and which is used in the explanation of the name Yeshua in Matt 1:21. There is also the noun swthri/a (“salvation”) which occurs three times in the hymn of Zechariah (1:69, 71, 77), the Benedictus, a hymn which has many points in common with the Magnificat.

Turning to verse 49, we find, embedded in the line, another couplet which may be viewed as parallel to vv. 46-47:

“the Powerful (One) did great (thing)s for me,
and Holy is His name”

There are three adjectives in this verse which need to be examined:

“Great” (me/ga$)—It was previously stated of Jesus that he will be great [me/ga$] (v. 32, and cp. the qualified use with John the Baptist in v. 15). As I discussed in the note on v. 32, the absolute use of this adjective (as a descriptive title) is essentially reserved for God and reflects the fundamental meaning of the word °E~l (“Mighty One,” i.e. “God”). Here the reference is to the mighty and miraculous things God has done—i.e. his deeds and actions (cf. Deut 10:21)—using the prolonged (neuter) form mega/la as a substantive (“great [thing]s”). Applied to Mary, of course, it relates to the miraculous conception and birth of Jesus, and to his identity as Messiah, Son of God, and Savior.

“Powerful” (dunato/$)—Here the adjective is used as a substantive, with the definite article (“the Powerful [One]”), and is virtually synonymous with the title “Mighty (One)”, presumed to be the fundamental meaning of the name °E~l. Probably there is an allusion here to Zeph 3:17, where the Hebrew roBG] (“strong”) is translated in the LXX as dunato/$: “The Lord your God is in/among you, (the) Powerful (One) will save you”. In the New Testament, dunato/$ frequently refers to God’s ability to work miraculously on behalf of Christ (and through him), as well as other believers—e.g., Mk 10:27 par; 14:36; Acts 2:24; Rom 4:21.

“Holy” (a%gio$)—As an adjective, holy (Heb vdq, Grk a%gio$) is commonly used in reference to God, going back to the fundamental statement of Israelite religious life and identity in Leviticus 19:2. God’s holiness is frequently emphasized in the Scriptures, but vodq* (q¹dôš, “holy”) as a specific title is rather less common. Most likely there is an allusion here to Psalm 111:9, but see also Ps 99:3: “Let them raise hand(s) to [i.e. praise] your great and frightening Name—it is Holy [Q¹dôš]”. It is not entirely clear whether such references mean that God’s name (Yahweh) is holy, or that “Holy (One)” is to be regarded as a name/title of God. Later Israelites and Jews would likely have assumed the former, but, in the ancient context of the Psalms, the latter is a distinct possibility as well. Q¹dôš (or something equivalent) is known as a separate name, or as the name of a separate deity, in the Semitic world. The Greek a%gio$ (“Holy”) was used as a name for Jesus in Lk 1:35—”he will be called (the) Holy (one), the son of God”.

These words—”Powerful” and “Holy”—also occur in tandem, as a (synonymous) pairing, in verse 35 (cf. the earlier note). Recall the words of the Angel to Mary:

“the holy [a%gio$] Spirit will come upon you
and the power [du/nami$] of the Highest will cast shade upon you”

This surely is no coincidence, for the terms and attributes are essential to an understanding of God and his manifestation to human beings (His people). They come together most completely, and perfectly, in the person of Jesus Christ, the child born of Mary. Consider the concrete idiom used to express the conception of Jesus: “you will take/receive together [sullh/myh|] in the womb”. This same conception is described in verse 35—the holiness and power of God come upon Mary, and she conceives (in the womb) the holy child who is called the Son of God.

In a few (Latin) manuscripts (a b l) and writings (or translations) of the Church Fathers, the Magnificat is attributed in v. 46 not to Mary, but to Elizabeth. A few commentators have accepted this as the original reading, on the assumption that scribes were much more likely to change the text from “Elizabeth” to “Mary”, rather than the other way around. More plausible, in my view, is the theory that originally no name was specified, with the text reading simply “she said” (ei@pen). If one were to accept this premise, the specification of Mary as the speaker should still be regarded as an authoritative tradition, even if not part of the original text. However, based on the overwhelming evidence of the Greek MSS, it is probably best to maintain “Mary said” as the most likely original reading.

“And you shall call His Name…”: Luke 1:43

Luke 1:43

Following the annunciation scenes in 1:8-23 and 26-38, the Gospel writer brings together the two narrative strands—related to John the Baptist and Jesus respectively—into a single episode (vv. 39-56). It may be outlined as follows:

  • Narrative introduction, establishing the unifying motif—Elizabeth and Mary in the same house (vv. 39-40)
  • Elizabeth’s reaction and blessing (vv. 41-45)
  • Mary’s hymn of praise to God (vv. 46-55)
  • The narrative conclusion, with a notice of Mary’s separation from Elizabeth (v. 56)

There is a wonderful symmetry—in between the two short narrations, Elizabeth and Mary, while they are together, each are depicted uttering inspired (hymnic) poetry, as befitting the grand and lofty occasion established by the narrative context. Today I will be looking at the first portion—the words of Elizabeth—before turning to the hymn of Mary (the Magnificat) in the next note. Elizabeth’s reaction is described in verse 41:

“And it came to be, as Elisheba heard the welcome of Maryam, the baby in her belly jumped and Elisheba was filled by the holy Spirit”

The dramatic character of the scene is increased as the description continues in verse 42:

“and she raised up (her) voice (with) a great cry, and said…”

Elizabeth utters a two-fold blessing to Mary, in vv. 42 and 45. The first is a blessing proper, addressed both to Mary and her child:

  • “Well counted [eu)loghme/nh] are you among women,
    and well counted [eu)loghme/no$] is the fruit of your belly!”

The verb eu)loge/w means “to give a good account (of someone), speak well (of him/her)”. In a religious or ritual context, it commonly refers to giving praise and honor (in speech) to God; or, in the reverse direction, it can indicate God showing favor to (i.e. speaking blessing upon) a person. The idea of praise and honor (given to Mary) is certainly present in the use of the verb—she will be spoken well of and highly regarded, by both God and His people. Moreover, it relates specifically to the favor (xa/ri$) which God has shown to Mary (cf. the Angelic annunciation in vv. 28ff), by the conception of Jesus within her (“the fruit of [her] belly”). The second blessing in verse 45 is more generalized, but certainly relates to Mary’s words in v. 38; it uses the parallel adjective maka/rio$ (“happy”):

“and happy [makari/a] (is) the (one) trusting that there will be a completion [i.e. fulfillment] to the (thing)s spoken to her (from) alongside the Lord!”

The blessed and favored status of Mary has touched Elizabeth as well. According to the narrative, both women have experienced a miraculous conception, and each will give birth to a child who will play a major role in God’s plan of salvation for His people. The reason for Elizabeth’s inspired reaction is expressed in verse 43, with wonder and amazement:

“how has this (happened) to me, that the mother of my Lord should come toward me?”

The specific phrase “the mother of my Lord” (h( mh/thr tou= kuri/ou mou) is of utmost significance in the context of the passage, and must be examined in more detail.

The word ku/rio$ (“lord”) has already been used 10 times in the Lukan Infancy narrative to this point (vv. 6, 9, 11, 15-17, 25, 28, 32, 38), but always in reference to God the Father, the God of Israel (Yahweh). This is the first time that the title (“Lord”) is used of Jesus. In the earlier article on Yahweh, I discussed the traditional use of °A_dœn¹y (yn`d)a&), “My Lord”, as a divine name, substituting for the name hwhy (YHWH, Yahweh). This is literally what Elizabeth says here—o( ku/rio$ mou (“my Lord”). Yet one must be cautious about assuming that Jesus is being identified here with God the Father. The only other occurrences of the specific phrase “my Lord” in either the Synoptic Gospels or Luke-Acts as whole involve the citation of Psalm 110:1 (Luke 20:42 par; Acts 2:34). There can be little doubt that Psalm 110 was highly influential on the early Christian use of the title “Lord” (Ku/rio$) for Jesus. The Greek text (LXX) of verse 1 reads:

ei@pen o( ku/rio$ tw=| kuri/w| mou
eípen ho kýrios tœ¡ kyríœ mou
“The Lord said to my lord…”

The same word (ku/rio$) is used twice, creating an obvious wordplay (as well as potential confusion). However, the original Hebrew reads:

yn]d)al^ hwhy <a%n+
N®°¥m YHWH la°dœnî
“Utterance of YHWH to my lord:”

The LXX version is the result of the standard substitution, when reciting the Psalm, of °A_dœn¹y (“My Lord”) in place of YHWH. In the original context of the Psalm, the “lord” (°¹dôn) was understood as referring either to David, or to the reigning king (in the Davidic line). Eventually, in Jewish tradition, it came to be interpreted in a Messianic sense, of a future Davidic ruler who would deliver God’s people and judge the nations at the end-time. Jesus himself treats Ps 110:1 this way in the Synoptic tradition (Lk 20:41-44 par). The two main ‘Messianic’ passages from the Psalms utilized by Christians from the beginning were Ps 2:7 and 110:1—the first establishing Jesus as Son of God, the second as Lord. In this regard, believers went beyond the standard Messianic interpretation. The earliest Gospel preaching (kerygma), as recorded in the book of Acts, understands Jesus as Lord and Son of God specifically in terms of his resurrection and exaltation to heaven at the right hand of God (Acts 2:24-36; 13:33ff). Even in the Gospel of John, which otherwise has a more developed Christological sense of Jesus as God’s Son, the expression “my Lord” occurs in a setting after the resurrection (Jn 20:13, 28). Luke 1:43 is unique in the Gospels in applying the title to Jesus prior to his death—indeed, before his very birth.

In what sense should the child Jesus be understood as “my Lord” here as uttered by Elizabeth (v. 43)? In my view, we do not yet have a clear sense of Jesus’ deity in view at this point in the narrative, even though Christians reading or hearing the Gospel would naturally make the association. This will be discussed further in the note on 1:76ff. More likely, the use of ku/rio$ here is meant primarily in a Messianic sense (cf. the earlier article on Lk 1:46-55 in “The Old Testament and the Birth of Jesus”). This would seem to be confirmed by two parallels in the Old Testament from 2 Samuel, both involving David (cf. Brown, Birth, pp. 344-5):

  • 2 Sam 6:9—In the narrative of the transportation of the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem (vv. 1-4ff), in the midst of celebration, the sudden death of Uzzah (who had unintentionally touched the Ark), brought fear upon the people (vv. 5-9a), as well as with David who exclaimed: “How shall the box {Ark} of YHWH come to me?”. The Greek of v. 9b is reasonably close to Elizabeth’s wording in Lk 1:43.
  • 2 Sam 24:21—At God’s command, David visits Araunah the Jebusite to purchase his threshing-floor and erect an altar to the Lord there. Upon David’s approach, Araunah asks “(For) what reason does my Lord the king come to his servant?”. Again, there is a formal similarity in the Greek to Elizabeth’s words.

Given the parallels between 2 Sam 7 and the pronouncement by Gabriel in vv. 32-33 (cf. the previous note), the likelihood increases that there is an allusion here to the earlier episode in 2 Sam 6. The primary reference would be to Jesus as the Anointed Davidic ruler (Messiah) who would deliver God’s people. Even so, the context of the Ark of the Covenant, like the use of the title ku/rio$ (“Lord”), implies something deeper as well—the manifestation and presence of God Himself. This will be discussed in upcoming notes as we progress through the narrative.

References above marked “Brown, Birth” are to R. E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Anchor Bible Reference Library [ABRL] (1977 / 1993).

“And you shall call His Name…”: Luke 1:19-20, 26

Luke 1:19-20, 26ff

Today’s note continues the previous study on the Angelic birth-announcement to Zechariah (vv. 13-17). It is worth pointing out again the close similarities between the Angelic appearances to Zechariah and Mary, both of which follow a similar pattern from the Old Testament narratives (on this, cf. the discussion in Brown, Birth, pp. 155-8, 292-8). Apart from the basic parallel between Zechariah/Elizabeth and Joseph/Mary (related to the wider John/Jesus parallel), which includes the element of childlessness—in each case the woman is incapable of conceiving at the time of the announcement—note the common elements in the two accounts:

  • Appearance of the Angel to the person (vv. 11, 26-28a)
  • The person is troubled/afraid (vv. 12, 29)
  • The Angel responds “Do not be afraid [mh\ fobou=]” and addresses the person by name (vv. 13a, 30a)
  • There is a declaration that God has heard/chosen (i.e. shown favor to) the person (vv. 13a, 30b)
  • An announcement of the child’s conception and coming birth, using a similar formula, and including a declaration of the child’s name (vv. 13b, 31)
  • Statement regarding the future destiny and (divine) role for the child (vv. 15-17, 32-33)
  • Question from the person as to how this can be, in light of the current condition of childlessness (barrenness/virginity) (vv. 18, 34)
  • Response by the Angel involving a sign confirming the message (vv. 19-20, 35-37)
  • A faithful response by the person to the announcement (vv. 21-25, 38)

The heavenly/angelic appearance to Zechariah draws upon, or echoes, three appearances in the Old Testament narratives:

The appearance to Mary brings in elements of the Samuel narrative (1 Sam 1-2), with Hannah serving as a type/pattern for Mary. There is an interesting sort of progression in the narratives cited above:

  • Gen 17 (also chap. 15)—it is God Himself (YHWH) who appears to Abraham
  • Gen 18—God Himself appears to Abraham (v. 1), it would seem, in the form of three Messengers (“three men”, v. 2)
  • Judg 13 (cf. also Gen 16:7-13)—it is the “Messenger of YHWH” (hwhy Ea^l=m^), i.e. the “Messenger/Angel of the Lord” (Greek a&ggelo$ kuri/ou)
  • Dan 9:21-24—the Angel who appears is Gabriel

The chronology of these traditions matches the (historical) development of Israelite/Jewish thought and theology regarding the relationship between God and the other heavenly beings (i.e. Angels). The Lukan narrative most clearly follows that of Judg 13:2ff and Dan 9:21-24—the being who appears to Zechariah (and then to Mary) is first called “the Messenger of the Lord” (v. 11), and then identified as Gabriel (v. 19):

“…the Messenger said to him, ‘I am Gabrîel, the (one) having stood alongside in the sight of God, and I was se(n)t forth to speak toward you and to give you the good message (regarding) these (thing)s’.”

The name Gabriel is a simplified transliteration of the Hebrew Ga»rî°¢l (la@yr!b=G~), a name which otherwise occurs in the Scriptures only in the book of Daniel (8:16; 9:21). In the post-exilic period, and subsequently in Jewish tradition, names were assigned (or recognized) for various heavenly beings (Angels) which had always been nameless in earlier tradition. Two other Angels are named in the (later) Scriptures—Michael (Dan 10:13; 12:1) and Raphael (deutero-canonical Tobit 3:17). Four others were added to these three, resulting in the traditional number of seven chief Angels, or beings, who stand in the presence of God (Tobit 12:15; 1 Enoch 20; Rev 8:2). For more on the basic idea of Angels standing in God’s presence, cf. Job 1:6; Dan 7:16; Ezek 9:2; and the Testament of Levi 8 (Fitzmyer, Luke, pp. 327-8). All of these Angels bear °E~l-names, which ultimately derive from old Israelite (and Semitic) tradition (cf. the earlier article on °E~l).

The name Ga»rî°¢l is a phrase- or sentence-name made up of two elements: (a) the noun ge»er (rb#G#), essentially referring to a strong (mighty, vigorous, successful) young man, i.e. a warrior or hero, and (b) the divine name °E~l (la@), “Mighty (One)”, i.e. “God”. It should probably be translated something like “My Strong One [i.e. Warrior] is God [°E~l]”. As an old °E~l-name, it reflects ancient warrior imagery associated with Yahweh/El, especially in relation to ritual warfare and the “holy war” tradition. The heavenly bodies (sun, moon, stars, etc) were seen as moving together (‘marching’) as an army (the “hosts” of heaven). God himself would come with the clouds, controlling the wind and rain, thunder and lightning, etc. According to the religious (and mythic) traditions of the ancient Near East, all of these natural and meteorological phenomena could be utilized by God fighting on behalf of his people. So it was, in truth, for Israel in their understanding of Yahweh/El, and this is expressed various ways in Scripture, especially in older poetry (Exod 15:1ff; Judg 5:4-5, 20, etc); for other references, cf. the article on the names ‘Adôn/Baal. Eventually this warrior-imagery was reinterpreted and cast in a different theological light (in the Prophets, etc), but would resurface in later Jewish eschatology and Messianic tradition, such as in the writings from Qumran (the War Scroll, etc). The military role tended to be associated more with Michael, rather than Gabriel (cf. Dan 10:21; 12:1; Jude 9; Rev 12:7); yet Gabriel continued to have a prominent place in Jewish writings of the period, such as in the book of Enoch (9:1, 9-10; 20:7; 40:2, 9; 54:6; cf. Brown, Birth, p. 262).

Returning to the scene of Gabriel’s appearance to Zechariah, adding the details from verses 19-20ff, we may construct the following dramatic (chiastic) outline:

  • Zechariah serving as priest in the Temple sanctuary (vv. 8-10ff)
    • Gabriel is sent to speak “these things” (tau=ta) to him (v. 19)
      • He gives the good news (eu)aggeli/sasqai)
    • Zechariah will be unable to speak until “these things” (tau=ta) happen (v. 20)
  • Zechariah comes out of the sanctuary (to give the priestly blessing) (vv. 21-22)

It is possible that this scene, with its Temple setting, reflects a traditional motif of receiving a revelation in the Temple, as, for example, in Isaiah 6:1-5ff (cf. also Josephus, Antiquities 18.282f, etc). In the case of Isaiah, his vision also involves a transformative touching of the mouth (the lips). Isaiah, like John the Baptist, is divinely appointed and gifted to speak the word of God (cf. the use of Isa 40:1-5 in Lk 1:76-77; 3:4-6 par, etc). By contrast, Zechariah is rendered mute and unable to speak (1:20), until after the birth of John and the declaration of his name (vv. 57-64). As a result, he is unable to deliver (speak) the priestly blessing to the people waiting outside in the Temple court (vv. 21-22, cf. Num 6:24-26; Mishnah Tamid 7:2). In the overall context of Luke-Acts, this blessing is ultimately fulfilled by Jesus at the end of the Gospel (Lk 24:50-51). There is thus, perhaps, a greater symbolic importance to verse 23 than the simple narrative statement would suggest:

“And it came to be, as the days of his working in service (to God) were (ful)filled, he went (away) from (there) [i.e. from the Temple] into his own house [i.e. back home].”

It is the child Jesus who will, in a sense, take over in the Temple, serving in the house of God his Father (2:49).

References above marked “Brown, Birth” are to R. E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Anchor Bible Reference Library [ABRL] (1977 / 1993). Those marked “Fitzmyer, Luke” are to J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, Anchor Bible [AB] Vol. 28 (1981).

“And you shall call His Name…”: Luke 1:5-6

Luke 1:5-6

Today’s article begins the second part of the Advent/Christmas series, in which a specific verse or passage in the Infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke will be discussed each day. I begin with the Lukan narrative, and the opening verses Lk 1:5-6:

“It came to be, in the days of Herod king of Yehudah {Judea}, (that there was) a certain sacred-official [i.e. priest] with (the) name Zecharyah, out of the regular (priestly) turn of Abiyah, and the wife [lit. woman] for him (was) out of the daughters of Aharôn {Aaron} and her name (was) Elisheba. And both of them were just [i.e. righteous] in front of God, walking in all the (thing)s placed on (them by God) and (the) just (command)s of the Lord, without fault.”

As most Christians and students of the New Testament are aware, in the Gospel of Luke, the birth of Jesus is set parallel to the birth of John the Baptist, with the two accounts intertwined and connected throughout the narrative. The parallelism is more or less clear and precise, as for each figure (John and Jesus) there is:

  • A heavenly (Angelic) announcement of the child’s conception and impending birth, which includes a pronouncement regarding the child’s future destiny and role in God’s plan, following the pattern of similar scenes in the Old Testament
  • A miraculous birth
  • News of the birth being spread to neighbors and people in the surrounding area
  • Mention of the child’s circumcision and application of his name (given previously by the Angel)
  • An inspired oracle-hymn (or hymns), drawing heavily upon Old Testament imagery, which declares the child’s future role in God’s deliverance of his people
  • A notice regarding the child’s early growth, patterned after the Old Testament Samuel narrative

Other details only confirm and enhance these essential points. The Lukan narrative begins with John and his parents (Zechariah and Elizabeth), here in vv. 5-6ff, which sets the scene for the Angelic announcement. The section 1:5-25 may be divided into four parts:

  • Introduction of John’s parents (5-7)
  • The Angelic announcement to Zechariah, Part 1—Of the child’s birth and destiny (8-17)
  • The Angelic announcement to Zechariah, Part 2—The sign of the birth (18-23)
  • The Fulfillment: Elizabeth becomes pregnant (24-25)

From the standpoint of this series, the mention of John’s parents in vv. 5-6 is also significant as they are essentially the first names which appear in the narrative. They are venerable Hebrew names which ought to be examined briefly:

  • Zechariah—Hebrew [W]hy`r=k^z= (Z§½ary¹h[û]), transliterated in Greek as Zaxari/a$ (Zacharías). It is a sentence-name, which essentially means “Yah(weh) (has) remembered”; as such, it is one of many Hebrew (and Aramaic) names, still in use at the time, which contain a hypocoristic (shortened) form of the divine name (cf. the recent article on Yawheh). There are at least thirty men with this name mentioned in the Old Testament (and deutero-canonical books), including the famous 5th-century Prophet and an earlier priest who was stoned to death in the Temple court (2 Chron 24:20-22; cf. Luke 11:51 par) on the order of the king.
  • Elizabeth—Hebrew yb^v#yl!a$ (°E_lîše»a±), likewise transliterated into Greek— )Elisa/bet (Elisábet). The meaning of her name is a bit harder to determine; typically it has been rendered “God [°E~l] is my oath (i.e. the one to swear by)”, but it possibly could mean something like “My God [°E~l] is the one who satisfies, brings satisfaction”. In any case, it too is a sentence-name incorporating the divine name °E~l (“Mighty [One]”, i.e. “God”); cf. the earlier article. It is an ancient Hebrew/Israelite name, but found only once in the Old Testament (the wife of Aaron, Exod 6:23 [cf. below]).

It is unlikely that the author of the Gospel (trad. Luke) intended to convey the significance of these (Hebrew) names to his Greek readers, though he may have been familiar with their basic meaning. However, the underlying (historical) tradition he records tells us something important about the family background of Zechariah and Elizabeth. We may note two key points:

  • Indication of religious devotion in the worship of the (one) Creator God, Yahweh/El
  • A connection with the priestly line

Both points are made clear by the author in vv. 5-6. To begin with, Zechariah is specifically described as a priest, among those who served at regular periods in the Temple. In the case of Elizabeth, her lineage is identified even more precisely when she is referred to as one “from [lit. out of] the daughters of Aaron“, that is, a descendant of Aaron, bearing the same name as Aaron’s wife. Both of John’s parents should thus be regarded as coming from the Aaronid priestly line.

Concerning the first point, while one might assume that men and women from priestly families are (or at least ought to be) devout persons, the Gospel writer makes this quite clear for Zechariah and Elizabeth personally, in verse 6. The first clause (6a) states: “And they were both just/right(eous) in front of God”. The adjective di/kaio$ (“just, right[eous]”), used frequently throughout the New Testament, becomes an important keyword in Luke-Acts, appearing as a title of Jesus in Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14. It is also used of Simeon (Lk 2:25), a character sharing many features in common with Zechariah. The “righteousness” of Zechariah and Elizabeth is explained in 6b; note the chiastic structure of the clause, following the Greek word order exactly:

  • walking
    —in all
    ——the (thing)s placed on (them)
    ——the just (thing)s
    —of God
  • without fault

The participle poreuo/menoi (“traveling, walking”) carries the sense of regular, habitual behavior. This “walking”—that is, a particular way of life and conduct—is said to be “without fault” (a&mempto$) in “all the (thing)s…of the Lord” (e)n pa/sai$…tou= kuri/ou). These “things of the Lord” are specified by two nouns:

  • e)ntolh/—usually translated “command(ment)”, but rendered above more literally as something “placed on” a person, i.e. a charge or duty which is expected to be observed or carried out. It refers here (in the plural) primarily to the various commands, injunctions, precepts, etc, in the Old Testament Law (Torah) which Israelites were to observe, in faithfulness to the covenant established with them by God.
  • dikai/wma—this noun, related to the adjective di/kaio$ (“just, right[eous]”), refers essentially to something which is regarded or declared to be right and just. Here, in the plural, it is parallel with e)ntolh/, referring to all of the commands, etc, in the Torah (the Old Covenant) which God has declared for his people, and which were to be fulfilled.

The adjective a&mempto$ (“without fault”) does not mean that Zechariah and Elizabeth were perfect or sinless, but that there was nothing wicked or improper in their daily life—their ethical and religious conduct—which was in clear violation of the Torah or God’s Law. All of this detail in verses 5-6 serves two main purposes for the author in terms of the narrative which follows:

  1. It introduces the important motif of the faithful/righteous ones in Israel, who remain obedient to God and patiently await the fulfillment of His promises.
  2. It establishes the Temple setting of the annunciation scene (i.e., explaining what Zechariah would be doing there), which likewise becomes a vital theme, both in the Infancy narrative, and throughout Luke-Acts. The Temple setting takes on even greater prominence in the episode(s) in Lk 2:22-38 (cf. also vv. 41-50).

A subsidiary (narrative) purpose is to clarify the notice in verse 7 regarding the childlessness of Zechariah and Elizabeth. For a woman to be barren, or a family to be without children, was unusual and regarded as a reason for shame in the ancient world (cf. verse 25). The Gospel writer is essentially making clear that Zechariah and Elizabeth being childless was not the result of any specific sin or impiety on their part.

The Old Testament and the Birth of Jesus: Luke 1:46-55

The hymns (or canticles) in the Lukan Infancy narrative are among the most beautiful parts of the Gospel, but they also present a difficulty with regard to their origin and place in the composition of the narrative. The traditional-conservative view would see them as inspired oracles spoken more or less exactly as they are recorded; critical scholars, on the other hand, tend to see them as separate existing poems placed into the mouths of the characters by the author (traditionally, Luke). From the critical viewpoint, there is the additional question as to whether Luke composed the poems, or whether he inherited them as early (Jewish-)Christian hymns. Much the same set of questions apply to the speeches in the book of Acts. It is a difficult and sensitive point of interpretation: on the one side, there is the weight of tradition and orthodox sentiment, on the other, a more natural (one may say ‘realistic’) process of composition. It rather depends on one’s understanding of the nature of the inspiration of Scripture.

For these Advent season notes, I will attempt no judgment on the matter, allowing the text to speak for itself. However, in examining the use and influence of the Old Testament on these canticles, it will be necessary at times to touch upon the critical points. There are four such canticles, or hymns, in the Lukan Infancy narratives, better known by their Latin titles:

The Song of Mary, if not as familiar as the Angels’ Song, it certainly the most often recited, having been a cherished part of the Catholic liturgy for many centuries. Virtually every famous Western composer in the late-Medieval, Renaissance, Baroque and early Classical periods wrote at least one setting of the Magnificat. So familiar is it that one often does not study the verses in detail; such a study would reveal that this short hymn is actually a dense network of Old Testament quotations and allusions. Let us look briefly at each line (OT and Deutero-canonical passages cited according to the LXX):

Vv. 46-47:
Megalu/nei h( yuxh/ mou to\n ku/rion
My soul makes great [i.e. magnifies] the Lord
kai\ h)galli/asen to\ pneu=ma/ mou e)pi\ tw=| qew=| tw=| swth=ri/ mou
and my spirit leaped (for joy) upon God my Savior

This stich appears to echo at least two Old Testament passages:
(1) 1 Sam 2:1: e)sterew/qh h( kardi/a mou e)n kuri/w| u(yw/qh ke/ra$ mou e)n qew=| mou (“my heart is made firm in [the] Lord, my horn is raised high [i.e. exalted] in my God”)
(2) Hab 3:18: e)gw\ e)n tw=| kuri/w| a)gallia/somai xarh/somai e)pi\ tw=| qew=| tw=| swth=ri/ mou (“I will leap [for joy] in the Lord, I will rejoice upon God my Savior”)
In particular, Luke 1:47 is very close to Hab 3:18b. Cf. also Psalm 35:9 [LXX 34:9].

V. 48 (vv. 48-50 are often considered together as a strophe):
o%ti e)pe/beyen e)pi\ th\n tapei/nwsin th=$ dou/lh$ au)tou=
that [i.e. because] he looked upon the lowliness of his handmaid [lit. slave-girl]—
i)dou ga\r a)po\ tou= nu=n makariou=si/n me pa=sai ai( geneai/
for see! from now (on) all (the) generations (of women) will call me happy [i.e. blessed]

This particular stich is close to the words of Leah in Gen 29:32 (dio/ti ei@de/n mou ku/rio$ th\n tapei/nwsin, “because [the] Lord has seen my lowliness…”) and 30:13 (makari/a e)gw/ o%ti makari/zousi/n me ai( gunai=ke$, “happy am I, that [i.e. because] the women call me happy…”). V. 48a is also very close to the words of Hannah in 1 Sam 1:11 (translating conventionally): “Lord… if only you might look upon the lowliness of your handmaid…” [e)pible/yh|$ e)pi\ th\n tapei/nwsin th=$ dou/lh$ sou]). Cf. also the similar thought and wording in 4 Ezra [2/4 Esdras] 9:45.

V. 49:
o%ti e)poi/hse/n moi mega/la o( du/nato$
that [i.e. because] the Powerful (One) has done great (things) for me
kai\ a%gion to\ o&noma au)tou=
and Holy is His name

The first line is close to Deut 10:21: ou!to$ qeo/$ sou o%sti$ e)poi/hsen e)n soi ta\ mega/la (“this is your God who has done the great [things] in you”). The second line may reflect Psalm 111[110]:9b: a%gion kai\ fobero\n to\ o&noma au)tou= (“Holy and fearful [i.e. awesome] is His name”).

V. 50:
kai\ to\ e&leo$ au)tou= ei)$ genea\$ kai\ genea\$ toi=$ foboume/noi$ au)to/n
and His mercy (is) into generation and generation to the (ones) fearing Him

This line is quite close to Psalm 103:17 [LXX 102:17]: to\ de\ e&leo$ tou= kuri/ou a)po\ tou= ai)w=no$ kai\ e%w$ tou= ai)w=no$ e)pi\ tou\$ foboume/nou$ au)to/n (“but the mercy of the Lord [is] from the Age and until the Age upon the [ones] fearing Him”)

V. 51 (vv. 51-53 are usually considered a [second] strophe):
e)poi/hsen kra/to$ e)n braxi/oni au)tou=
He has done [i.e. shown] might in his arm
diesko/rpisen u(perhfa/nou$ dianoi/a| kardi/a$ au)tw=n
he has scattered the overly-shining [i.e. haughty/arrogant] (ones) throughout in the thoughts [lit. thinking through] of their hearts

This stich may echo Psalm 89:10 [LXX 88:11]: “you have made lowly the haughty/arrogant (ones) as a wounded (man),  and in the arm of your power [e)n tw=| braxi/oni th=$ duna/mew/$ sou] you have scattered your enemies throughout [diesko/rpisa$ tou\$ e)xqrou/$ sou]”. The original Hebrew reads quite differently, especially in the first half of the verse.

V. 52:
kaqei=len duna/sta$ a)po\ qro/nwn kai\ u%ywsen tapeinou/$
He has taken down the powerful (ones) from (their) thrones, and has lifted high the lowly (ones)

There are general similarities to a number of passages, but no precise quotations or allusions: 1 Sam 2:4, 7ff; Ezek 21:26 [LXX v. 31]; Job 12:19. The closest wording is perhaps to be found in Sirach 10:14: qro/nou$ a)rxo/ntwn kaqei=len o( ku/rio$ kai\ e)ka/qisen praei=$ a)nt’ au)tw=n (“[the] thrones of chiefs the Lord has taken down and has seated [the] meek against them [i.e. in their place]”).

V. 53:
peinw=nta$ e)ne/plhsen a)gaqw=n kai\ ploutou=nta$ e)cape/steilen kenou/$
The hungry (ones) he filled with good (things) and the rich (ones) he sent out from (here) empty

The first line is nearly identical with second part of Psalm 107:9 [LXX 106:9]: “because he satisfies the empty soul, and the soul of the hungry he fills with good things [yuxh\n peinw=san e)ne/plhsen a)gaqw=n]”. Cf. also a similar juxtaposition in the Lukan Beatitudes (Luke 6:21, 25).

V. 54:
a)ntela/beto  )Israh\l paido\$ au)tou= mnhsqh=nai e)le/ou$
He took (hold) of Israel his child (to help) in remembrance of [lit. to remember] mercy
kaqw\$ e)la/lhsen pro\$ tou\$ pate/ra$ h(mw=n tw=|  )Abraa\m kai\ tw=| spe/rmati au)tou= ei)$ tw=n ai)w=na
even as he spoke toward our fathers—to Abraham and to his seed—into the Age.

There are possible allusions here to a number of passages: e.g., Psalm 98:3 [LXX 97:3]; Micah 7:20; Isaiah 41:8-9; cf. also the Psalms of Solomon 10:4.

For a tabular summary of Old Testament parallels, with the Greek text compared, see J. M. Creed, The Gospel According to St. Luke (1957), pp. 303-4; cf. also R. E. Brown, Birth of the Messiah (1977, 1993), pp. 358-360.

Having gone through the Canticle, it is worth mentioning several Old Testament parallels in the declaration by Elizabeth in vv. 42-44, which functions as a similar sort of inspired poem.

Verse 42. The opening words by Elizabeth take the form of a poetic line, with two parallel phrases, each beginning with the passive participle eu)loghme/no$. The verb eu)loge/w literally means “give a good account (of), speak well (of)”, which, when used in a religious context, is usually translated “bless”. The perfect passive participle form, “(having been) given a good account”, “(having been) spoken well of” functions as an attribute or characteristic of the person being addressed—a formula of honor, praise or blessing.

  • “well spoken of [i.e. blessed] (are) you among women” (eu)loghme/nh su\ e)n gunaici/n). This may be an echo of Judges 5:24 (LXX): “well spoken of [i.e. blessed] (is) Ya’el {Jael} among women” (eu)loghqei/h e)n gunaici\n Iahl). A more contemporary parallel is to be found in Judith 13:18, most likely influenced by the narrative in Judges. Judith, like Mary, also utters a hymn of praise to God (chap. 16).
  • “well spoken of [i.e. blessed] (is) the fruit of your belly” (eu)loghme/no$ o( karpo\$ th=$ koili/a$ sou). The expression “fruit of (the) belly [i.e. womb]” is a common Semitic idiom for pregnancy and childbirth (Gen 30:2; Lam 2:20, etc). However, this specific phrase is likely drawn from Deut 28:4. It is part of the blessing promised to those who remain faithful and obedient to the covenant God established with Israel. Here, too, Mary is faithful and obedient to God (1:38, 45).

Verse 43: “And (from) where [why/how] (does) this (happen) to me, that the mother of my Lord should come toward me?”. The reference to the child as “my Lord” reflects a basic belief among early Christians of Jesus’ divine status and position (as Messiah and Son of God), largely influenced by the wording of Psalm 110:1. The actual question by Elizabeth resembles that of two passages in the David narratives of 2 Samuel:

  • 2 Sam 6:9: “How shall the box/chest [i.e. Ark] of the Lord come in toward me?” (LXX)
  • 2 Sam 24:21: “(For) what [i.e. why] (is it) that my Lord the king came toward his servant/slave?”

Taken together, these provide a distinctive kind of theological and Messianic significance to Elizabeth’s words.

Verse 44. The reference to the baby (John) reacting within the womb of Elizabeth as a loose parallel with the words of Rebekah in Genesis 25:22f. As here, the LXX of Gen 25:22 uses the verb skirta/w, often translated “jump/leap”, but more properly referring to the wild/restless movement of animals (esp. the galloping of horses, etc). The idea of the child “kicking” in the womb may be in view. The joyful reaction of John certainly contrasts with the violent struggle of the children (Esau and Jacob) in Gen 25:22. More significant, however, is the way that the reaction in the womb reflects the future destiny of the child(ren) (Gen 25:23).

 

In three Latin manuscripts (a b l*), supported by the witness of several Church Fathers, the speaker of the Magnificat is not Mary, but Elizabeth. This would certainly seem to the be more difficult reading (scribes being much more like to change the text from “Elizabeth” to “Mary” than the other way round), and might be preferred on text-critical grounds (lectio difficilior potior); on the other hand, the textual evidence for reading “Mary” in v. 46 is overwhelming (including all Greek MSS). A few scholars have posited the reading “she said”, without the subject being specified. This is an interesting solution, which might explain the rise of both readings; however, without additional textual evidence for corroboration, the majority reading is to be preferred.