WHO SPOKE THE MAGNIFICAT?
Open accessAbstract
DR BURN' S edition of the works of Niceta, the author of the Te Deum, has once more raised the question which forms the subject of this paper.Niceta wrote, among other things, a tract De Psalmodiae Bono, and in this he distinctly assigns the Magnificat to Elisabeth.His words are:-' Ergo in euangelio inuenies primum Zachariam patrem magni Iohannis post longum illud silentium in hymni uice prophetasse.Nee Elisabeth, diu sterilis, edito de repromissione filio Deum de ipsa anima magnificare cessauit' (Burn, p. 76 f).' Cum Elisabeth Dominum anima nostra magnificat' (Burn, P-79)-Niceta, therefore, is to be added to the small group of textual ' authorities' which read in Luke i 46 et ait Elisabet where our Greek MSS have K<XI etwev Mapidp.Strictly speaking, the evidence of Niceta does not add material weight to the testimony for' Elisabeth'.The reading 'Elisabeth' is found in a, b and /*, i. e. in the leading Latin texts of North Italy, and also in the Latin of Irenaeus 235.These make up a typical ' European' group, just the company with which we should expect to find Niceta in agreement.Their united testimony shewed the reading ' Elisabeth' to belong to a very early stage of the European branch of the Old Latin version, and the accession of a fourth-century Father like Niceta cannot take us beyond this conclusion.At the same time I still think, as I wrote in Dr Burn's Introduction (p.cliii), that' Niceta's authority may remove some of the more general objections to the unfamiliar reading.That the author of the Te Deum saw nothing incongruous in regarding the Magnificat as the utterance of Elisabeth shews that such an opinion is not incompatible with the strictest orthodoxy or with the fullest sense of the requirements of Christian worship.'I did not mean by these words that I thought Niceta a particularly expert biblical critic, but I do think his witness goes for something in the question of taste.There is a famous example of what I meant in another vexed
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
F. C. Burkitt argues that Luke intended the *Magnificat* to be spoken by Elisabeth, not Mary, and that the original text of Luke i 46 probably had only “And she said” with “Mary” and “Elisabeth” as later glosses. He treats the patristic and versional evidence as showing an early European Latin tradition for Elisabeth, while acknowledging that Greek and Syriac support Mary.
Key findings
- Niceta, author of the *Te Deum*, assigns the *Magnificat* to Elisabeth in *De Psalmodiae Bono*; Irenaeus 235 also has “Elisabeth,” placing this reading in the early European branch of the Old Latin version.
- Burkitt proposes that the original Luke i 46 read simply “And she said” without either name; the Bishop of Salisbury independently agreed that “Mary” and “Elizabeth” are both glosses, and Harnack’s 1900 article (pp. 538–556) reached almost the same conclusion, differing mainly on Irenaeus 185.
- The direct evidence for Mary is strong: Tertullian (*De Anima* 26) reads “Maria,” and all Greek and all Syriac texts of Luke i 46 have Mary; Burkitt calls this consensus “practically fatal” to Elisabeth as the original reading.
- Burkitt’s literary argument is that Luke often uses *kai eipen* / *eipen de* without changing speakers, and that Luke i 56 (“Mary remained with her”) plus the contents of the hymn—especially Luke i 48, Hannah’s song, and the name of John—fit Elisabeth better than Mary.
Methods
- Textual-critical and literary analysis of Luke i 40–56, comparing the readings “Mary” and “Elisabeth” in Greek, Syriac, Latin, and patristic witnesses.
- Examines citations in Niceta, Irenaeus (including Irenaeus 235, 185, and 184), Tertullian, the Peshitta, and the Sinai Palimpsest, alongside Luke’s stylistic habit of inserting *kai eipen* between continuous speeches.
- No formal sampling or statistical analysis; the argument is exegetical, patristic, and stylistic.
Limitations
- Stated: the conclusions of a single scholar do not decide the issue; Niceta’s testimony does not make “Elisabeth” genuine, and the Bishop of Salisbury’s opinion does not make “Mary” and “Elisabeth” glosses; Burkitt admits his view “may be mistaken” and notes he could not convert Dr Burn.
- Stated: Harnack differs on Irenaeus 185, thinking Irenaeus really read “Mary” there and that “Elisabeth” in Irenaeus 235 came from the Latin translator.
- Evident: the Elisabeth reading lacks support in the Greek and Syriac textual traditions, and parts of Burkitt’s case rest on appropriateness, literary tact, and taste rather than direct manuscript evidence.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
0 of 30 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingown data
In at least three instances the eipen or elegen comes in the middle of what is represented as continuous discourse.
“In at least three instances the flirtv or t”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
This usage of kai eipen without change of speaker is by no means confined to St Luke's Gospel; good instances are common enough elsewhere.
“This usage is by no means confined to St Luke's Gospel: good instances are common enough elsewhere.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
If Mary were genuine, the actual occurrence of Elisabeth in the European branch of the Old Latin would be inexplicable.
“yet if Mary' were genuine the actual occurrence of ' Elisabeth' in the European branch of the Old Latin would be inexplicable.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
From these instances we have no reason to demand a fresh speaker from the occurrence of the words kai eipen in Luke i 46.
“From these instances it will be seen at once that we have no reason to demand a fresh speaker from the occurrence of the words Kal fiirev in Luke i 46.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The actual occurrence of Helisabeth in Irenaeus 235 carries a very strong presumption that in Irenaeus 185 the word Maria has been substituted by copyists for Helisabeth.
“It will probably be agreed by all who study the question that the actual occurrence of Helisabeth in Irenaeus 235 carries with it a very strong presumption that when we read in Irenaeus 185 exultans Maria clamabatpro Ecclesiaprophetans 'Magnificat...”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Irenaeus 235
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Irenaeus 185
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Premisecitation
On the preceding page Irenaeus 184 an ancient Western reading has been corrected out of the present Latin text, as shown by the Oxyrhynchus fragment reading for Matt iii 16.
“Moreover, we know that on the preceding page (Irenaeus 184) an ancient Western reading has been corrected out of our present Latin text, for whereas the present Latin has Hie est filius metis for Matt, iii 16, the Oxyrhynchus fragment of Irenaeus, an almost contemporary witness, reads <TV el 6 vios pov.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Irenaeus 184
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Oxyrhynchus fragment
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationreasoning
The Greek of Luke i 56 has retained the tell-tale aute, a word enough, even without the evidence of Irenaeus and Niceta, to show that St Luke intended us to understand that the Magnificat was spoken by Elisabeth and not by Mary.
“But the Greek of i 56 has retained the tell-tale airy, a word which I think enough, even without the evidence of Irenaeus and Niceta, to shew that St Luke intended us to understand that the Magnificat was spoken by Elisabeth and not by Mary.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Niceta is to be added to the small group of textual authorities which read Luke i 46 et ait Elisabet where the Greek manuscripts have kai eipen Maria.
“Niceta, therefore, is to be added to the small group of textual ' authorities' which read in Luke i 46 et ait Elisabet where our Greek MSS have K<XI etwev Mapidp.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Tertullian's evidence is clear for Maria in Luke i 46.
“But the evidence of Tertullian is clear for ' Maria': Exultat Elizabeth, Ioannes intus impulerat; glorificat dominum Maria, Christus intus instinxerat {De Anima 26).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites De Anima 26
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationreasoning
If the original text of the Gospel had kai eipen Magnificat etc. without either name, all the evidence falls into line.
“Now if the original text of the Gospel had KCU eltstv MfyaXvva K.T.X.., without either name, all the evidence falls into line.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The direct evidence for the ascription of the Magnificat to the Virgin is not so strong as might at first sight appear.
“I am anxious to shew that I am not defending a paradox out of mere perversity, and that the direct evidence for the ascription of the Magnificat to the Virgin is not so strong as might at first sight appear.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Such a consensus of authority is practically fatal to the claim of Elisabeth to be considered the original reading.
“Such a consensus of authority is practically fatal to the claim of ' Elisabeth' to be considered the original reading; yet if Mary' were genuine the actual occurrence of ' Elisabeth' in the European branch of the Old Latin would be inexplicable.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The author adheres to his own view and believes that Irenaeus regarded Elisabeth as a type of the ancient Jewish Ecclesia prophesying by a Divine Spirit about the Christ.
“But I venture still to adhere to my own view and to believe that Irenaeus regarded Elisabeth as a type of the ancient Jewish Ecclesia prophesying by a Divine Spirit about the Christ.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
In direct imitation of 1 Regn. ii 1 St Luke inserts kai eipen between the two parts of Elisabeth's utterances.
“In direct imitation of 1 Regn.ii 1 St Luke inserts /cat tl-nev between the two parts of Elisabeth's utterances.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites 1 Regn.ii 1
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationreasoning
The Greek of Gen. xxx 13 has helped to colour the wording of Luke i 48.
“A still more instructive instance is to be found in Gen. xxx 13, the Greek of which has, I believe, helped to colour the wording of Luke i 48.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Gen. xxx 13
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationreasoning
The rest of the Magnificat, so far as it can be said to be specially appropriate at all, fits Elisabeth's position better than Mary's.
“The rest of the Magnificat, so far as it can be said to be specially appropriate at all, fits Elisabeth's position better than Mary's.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisereasoning
The chief difference between Harnack's interpretation of the evidence and that given above concerns Irenaeus 185.
“The chief difference between Harnack's interpretation of the evidence and that given aboie concerns Irenaeus 185.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Harnack
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Irenaeus 185
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 23
- May combine two claims. 21
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingnone givenIn Luke xxi 9,10 both verses form part of the same discourse and are addressed to the same audience.
“The last instance is specially interesting from the point of view of the literary method of St Luke, for there is no question but that both verses form part of the same discourse and are addressed to the same audience.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingown dataSt Luke repeats Mark xiii 7,8 almost verbally but separates them by Tote elegen autois, to which there is nothing corresponding in St Mark or Matt xxiv 6,7.
“These verses are repeated almost verbally by St Luke, but he separates them by Tore H”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Mark xiii 7, 8
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Matt, xxiv 6, 7
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Findingown dataSt Luke is quite remarkably fond of inserting kai eipen or eipen de between the speeches of his characters, without a change of speaker.
“St Luke is quite remarkably fond of inserting KOI elirev or etirtv bi between the speeches of his characters, without a change of speaker.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
FindingreasoningMy soul doth magnify the Lord is re-echoed in Luke i 58, where at the birth of John Elisabeth's kinsfolk heard that the Lord had magnified His mercy towards her.
“' My soul'doth magnify the Lord' is re-echoed in i 58, where at the birth of John Elisabeth's kinsfolk heard that the Lord had magnified His mercy towards her.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
FindingreasoningThe word makaria is almost a technical term for a happy mother.
“Surely fj.aK.apia is almost a technical term for a ' happy mother'.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.
FindingreasoningThe Magnificat consists of adaptations of Old Testament phrases taken from various parts of the Bible, the general effect being much the same as Hannah's Song.
“It consists of adaptations of Old Testament phrases taken from various parts of the Bible”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
FindingreasoningThe adjective makarios or the appropriate part of the verb makarizein is the proper word to use in congratulating a mother or a grandmother.
“is the proper word to use in congratulating a mother or a grandmotherfoot_5 .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningThe text which underlies the European Latin perceived that the pronoun in Luke i 56 should refer to the person who utters the Hymn, and therefore that person must be Elisabeth.
“On the other, the text which underlies the European Latin-I will venture still to add, with greater literary tact-perceived that the pronoun in Luke i 56 (' Mary remained with her') should refer to the person who utters the Hymn, and therefore that person must be Elisabeth.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationNiceta wrote a tract De Psalmodiae Bono and in it distinctly assigns the Magnificat to Elisabeth.
“Niceta wrote, among other things, a tract De Psalmodiae Bono, and in this he distinctly assigns the Magnificat to Elisabeth.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Burn, p. 76 f
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Burn, P-79
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisereasoningMany texts ascribed the Hymn to Mary on the ground of the supposed appropriateness of Luke i 48 to the mother of our Lord.
“On the one hand, many texts ascribed the Hymn to Mary on the ground of the supposed appropriateness of Luke i 48 to the mother of our Lord.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningThe united testimony of these witnesses shows the reading Elisabeth to belong to a very early stage of the European branch of the Old Latin version, and Niceta cannot take us beyond this conclusion.
“Their united testimony shewed the reading ' Elisabeth' to belong to a very early stage of the European branch of the Old Latin version, and the accession of a fourth-century Father like Niceta cannot take us beyond this conclusion.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
InterpretationcitationThe best explanation of the various readings Mary and Elizabeth is that both are glosses intended to clear up the sense of a phrase some readers or scribes found ambiguous; the original reading would have been simply kai eipen.
“He says: ' I have been for some time of opinion that the best explanation of the various readings”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Bishop of Salisbury
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationNiceta is the author of the Te Deum.
“DR BURN' S edition of the works of Niceta, the author of the Te Deum, has once more raised the question which forms the subject of this paper.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Burn
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationThis African testimony is borne out by e, and with these go all Greek and all Syriac texts of Luke i 46.
“This African testimony is borne out by e, and with these go all Greek and all Syriac texts of Luke i 46.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites e
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
InterpretationreasoningThat the author of the Te Deum saw nothing incongruous in regarding the Magnificat as the utterance of Elisabeth shows that such an opinion is not incompatible with the strictest orthodoxy or with the fullest sense of the requirements of Christian worship.
“That the author of the Te Deum saw nothing incongruous in regarding the Magnificat as the utterance of Elisabeth shews that such an opinion is not incompatible with the strictest orthodoxy or with the fullest sense of the requirements of Christian worship.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
InterpretationreasoningThese witnesses make up a typical European group, the company with which we should expect Niceta to be in agreement.
“These make up a typical ' European' group, just the company with which we should expect to find Niceta in agreement.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationThe reading Elisabeth is found in a, b and f, the leading Latin texts of North Italy, and also in the Latin of Irenaeus 235.
“The reading 'Elisabeth' is found in a, b and /*, i. e. in the leading Latin texts of North Italy, and also in the Latin of Irenaeus 235.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Irenaeus 235
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationThe Peshitta and the Sinai Palimpsest render Luke i 56 as Now Mary remained with Elisabeth.
“This point was evidently seized by the Syriac versions, for the Peshitta as well as the Sinai Palimpsest renders tiwptv ik Mapta^ <rvv avrfj by 'Now Mary remained with Elisabeth'.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Peshitta
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Sinai Palimpsest
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningThe verses i 42-45 are Elisabeth's direct reply to Mary's salutation; the following verses i 46-55 are not conversation but pious meditation; the transition is marked by kai eipen, indicating not a change of speaker, but of the mode of speech.
“The verses i 42-45 are Elisabeth's direct reply to Mary's salutation, mentioned in i 40; the following verses i 46-55 (i.e. the Magnificat itself) are not conversation but pious meditation: the transition from one to the other is marked by Kal dirfv, indicating not a change of speaker, but of the mode of speech.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisenone givenThe Bishop of Salisbury is an unhesitating defender of the ascription of the Magnificat to the Virgin Mary.
“Following my note comes a note by the Bishop of Salisbury, who is an unhesitating defender of the ascription of the Magnificat to the Virgin Mary.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Bishop of Salisbury
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).
InterpretationreasoningSt Luke's little interpolation Tote elegen autois seems merely designed to throw a certain emphasis upon the words to which they are prefixed.
“St Luke's little interpolation seems merely designed to throw a certain emphasis upon the words to which they are prefixedfoot_3 .”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationcitationThe words For he hath regarded the lowliness of his handmaiden are a direct adaptation of Hannah's prayer in 1 Regn. i 11, and therefore more appropriate in Elisabeth's mouth than in any other.
“The words ' For he hath regarded the lowliness of his handmaiden' are a direct adaptation of Hannah's prayer in 1 Regn.i 11, and therefore more appropriate in Elisabeth's mouth than in any other.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites 1 Regn.i 11
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningThe very words of Gen. xxx 13 were in St Luke's mind, and Luke i 49,50 is a prophetic reference to the name John which was about to be given to the son of Elisabeth.
“I cannot help believing that these very words were in St Luke's mind, and that just as Leah is here making a play of words on the name of Asher, so Luke i 49, 50 is a prophetic reference to the name John which was about to be given to the son of Elisabeth.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningZacharias, the father of John, when filled with a holy Spirit, speaks in i 72 of the mercy of the Lord God of Israel, and in the following verse the mention of the oath sworn to Abraham alludes to the name of John's mother, Elisabeth.
“Somewhat similarly Zacharias, the father of John, when filled with a holy Spirit, speaks in i 72 of the 'mercy' of the Lord God of Israel, and in the following verse we may detect in the mention of the 'oath' which He sware to Abraham an allusion to the name of John's mother, Elisabeth.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationcitationIn the LXX, Hannah's speech to Eli is immediately followed by Hannah's Song with only kai eipen in between; this was in St Luke's mind when he placed the Magnificat immediately after Elisabeth's reply to Mary's greeting.
“And in the LXX, as indeed the Bishop of Salisbury points out, Hannah's speech to Eli is immediately followed by Hannah's Song with only KOI dnev in between; I cannot but think that this was in St Luke's mind when he placed the Magnificat immediately after Elisabeth's reply to Mary's greeting.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Bishop of Salisbury
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningThe Septuagint lay before St Luke as it lies before us, and the wording of Hannah's Song is enough to explain the mention of Dynasts and Thrones, of the Hungry and the Rich.
“But the Septuagint lay before St Luke as it lies before us, and the wording of Hannah's Song is enough to explain the mention of Dynasts and Thrones, of the Hungry and the Rich.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The Septuagint was available to St Luke and its wording influenced his composition.
May combine two claims.
Interpretationnone givenAlthough makaria is predicated of the barren or unmarried in Wisd. iii 13, Luke xxiii 29, and 1 Cor. vii 40, these three passages are almost enough by themselves to prove that the word was ordinarily used of the happiness of mothers in their children.
“By a kind of oxymoron, used to produce an unexpected effect, naicapla is predicated of the barren or the unmarried (Wisd.iii 13, Luke xxiii 29, 1 Cor.vii 40), but these three passages are almost enough by themselves to prove that the word was ordinarily used of the happiness of mothers in their children.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites Wisd.iii 13
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Luke xxiii 29
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites 1 Cor.vii 40
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
InterpretationreasoningIf we assign the Magnificat to Elisabeth, the conversation of the two holy women has a striking parallel in Luke ii 25-35, the conversation of Mary and Simeon.
“If we assign the Magnificat to Elisabeth, the ' conversation' of the two holy women has a striking parallel in Luke ii 25-35, i.e. the 'conversation' of Mary and Simeon.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningJohn means Jahwe has shewn mercy; it is therefore exceedingly appropriate that Elisabeth should say that they will call her happy like Leah, and that the son to be born will derive his name from the Holy Name of the God of Israel and commemorate His mercy.
“John means ' Jahwe has shewn mercy' ; it is therefore exceedingly appropriate that Elisabeth should say: ' They will call me happy like Leah, and therefore the son that is to be born will derive his name from the Holy Name of the God of Israel and at the same time commemorate His mercy.'”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The name John means Jahwe has shewn mercy.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).
InterpretationreasoningThe Magnificat is more appropriate in the mouth of the matron Elisabeth than in that of the Virgin Mary.
“At the conclusion of my note in Dr Burn's edition of Niceta I expressed the opinion that the Magnificat was more appropriate in the mouth of the matron Elisabeth than in that of the Virgin Mary, and I ventured to adapt the famous phrase of St Ignatius {Magnes.§ 8) in which Jesus Christ is called God's Word that came forth from Silence (airov Ao' yos a-nb 2tyjjs upoiXedv).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Burn
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Magnes.§ 8
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
InterpretationreasoningHer spirit rejoiced is itself an echo of the leaping for joy with which Elisabeth's unborn son welcomed the Mother of his Lord.
“That' her spirit rejoiced (fiyaXXCaa-ev)' is itself an echo of the leaping for joy (lv AyaXXiAati) with which Elisabeth's unborn son welcomed the Mother of his Lord.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningThe view that the Magnificat is intended by St Luke to be the Song of Elisabeth may be mistaken, but it is not a serious error in orthodoxy or in taste.
“My view that the Magnificat is intended by St Luke to be the Song of Elisabeth may be mistaken; but I cannot think that to be a serious error in orthodoxy, which I share with Irenaeus, or a serious error in taste, which I share with the author of the TeDeum 2 .”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
PremisecitationHarnack thinks that St Irenaeus really read Mary in Luke i 46, and that Elisabeth in Irenaeus 235 is due to the Latin translator.
“Professor Harnack thinks that St Irenaeus really read ' Mary”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Harnack
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Irenaeus 235
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningIt is not conclusive to point to Luke i 48b as specially appropriate to Mary, for the custom of calling the Mother of our Lord the Blessed Virgin is derived directly from the wording of this verse.
“It is not conclusive to point to v. 48 b , for the custom of calling the Mother of our Lord ' the Blessed Virgin' is derived directly from the wording of this verse.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationHarnack's general conclusions agree almost exactly with the view defended in this paper.
“Harnack's general conclusions agree almost exactly with the view I have Ventured to defend.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Harnack
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
The paper relies on this without support.
The Septuagint was available to St Luke and its wording influenced his composition.
“But the Septuagint lay before St Luke as it lies before us, and the wording of Hannah's Song is enough to explain the mention of Dynasts and Thrones, of the Hungry and the Rich.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The name John means Jahwe has shewn mercy.
“John means ' Jahwe has shewn mercy' ; it is therefore exceedingly appropriate that Elisabeth should say: ' They will call me happy like Leah, and therefore the son that is to be born will derive his name from the Holy Name of the God of Israel and at the same time commemorate His mercy.'”
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Still being checked.
- Authors
- BURKITT, F. C.
- Corresponding author
- BURKITT, F. C.
- Venue
- The Journal of Theological Studies
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1906
- Volume
- os-VII
- Issue
- 26
- Pages
- 220-227
- ISSN
- 0022-5185 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-4607
- OpenAlex
- W1994920177
- Semantic Scholar
- 80dca632459c910a4c18d0d87bc4e7298bf9e602
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- The Journal of Theological Studies (publishedVersion)
- Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Biblical Studies and Interpretation
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Classical Studies and Philology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Historical and Linguistic Studies
- Keywords
- Magnificat, Elizabeth, Zacharias, textual authority, textual variants, Greek manuscripts, Te Deum, Byzantine patristic literature
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-31.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-31.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
