Harnack has recognized the force of the linguistic argument in the case of two verses (thirty‐one words). These are the last two verses of the Acts. After remarking that, so far as he knows, it has never been questioned that these words come from the author of the complete work, though they have the appearance of being a postscript, he continues: “Moreover, in content and in form they agree so closely with the Lukan style that from this point of view strong arguments can be produced in favour of their genuineness” (_Date of Acts_, &c., p. 94). In a footnote he adds the linguistic argument. This is quite enough for our purpose. It is true that the genuineness of Lk. i. 34 f. is questioned by many (on other than linguistic and textual grounds). Nevertheless, the field is open for inquiry as to whether “in content and form they agree so closely with the Lukan style that from this point of view strong arguments can be produced in favour of their genuineness”. After all, the length of the passage is not the vital consideration, but its _character_ (which may, or may not, be more striking than that of a much longer section); and this is something which can come out only after actual examination. We turn, then, to the linguistic examination of Lk. i. 34 f. According to the Westcott and Hort text, the passage is as follows: 34. εἶπεν δὲ Μαριὰμ πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον Πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο, ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω; 35. καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ἄγγελος εἶπεν αὐτῇ Πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ, καὶ δύναμις Ὑψίστου ἐπισκιάσει σοι· διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ᾿ἍΓΙΟΝ ΚΛΗΘΉΣΕΤΑΙ, υἱὸς θεοῦ. In treating these words, we shall not follow the order in which they occur, but the order of their importance for our investigation.(51) It is clear that the words fall into different classes: (_a_) according as they are neutral in character, that is to say, of insufficient importance either way in deciding the question; (_b_) in so far as they create difficulty on the assumption of Lukan authorship, and, to that extent, support the theory of interpolation; (_c_) in so far as they give clear support in favour of Lukan origin. a. In the first class we may include the words: ἀνήρ, καὶ ἀποκριθείς, πῶς, ἄγγελος, δύναμις, ἅγιος, εἶπεν with dat., υἱὸσ θεοῦ, and perhaps even Πνεῦμα ἅγιον. Every one of these words and phrases is well represented in the Lukan writings, and in the case of some of them we get, on investigation, remarkable results.(52)