REVELATIONANDINSPIRATIONBYBENJAMINBRECKINRIDGEWARFIELD

TableofContentsPrefatoryNoteTHEBIBLICALIDEAOFREVELATIONTHEIDEAOFREVELATIONANDTHEORIESOFREVELATIONTHEINSPIRATIONOFTHEBIBLETHEBIBLICALIDEAOFINSPIRATION“SCRIPTURE,”“THESCRIPTURES,”INTHENEWTESTAMENTTHEREALPROBLEMOFINSPIRATION“GOD-INSPIREDSCRIPTURE”“ITSAYS”“SCRIPTURESAYS:”“GODSAYS”“THEORACLESOFGOD”INSPIRATIONANDCRITICISM

Appendix01TheDivineOriginOfTheBible

Appendix01.1.TheHistoryOfTheBible

Appendix01.2.TheStructureOfTheBible

Appendix01.3.TheTeachingOfTheBible

Appendix01.4.SpecialCharacteristicsOfTheBible

Appendix01.5.ImpossibilityOfAccountingForTheBible

Appendix02TheFormationOfTheCanonOfTheNewTestament

Footnotes

ProfessorofDidacticandPolemicTheologyintheTheologicalSeminaryofPrincetonNewJersey,1887-1921

OTHERARTICLESONINSPIRATIONANDTHEBIBLE

1.ApologeticalValueoftheTestamentsoftheTwelvePatriarchs.(Presb.

Revelation,V,I,1880,pp.57-84.

2.SyllabusoftheCanonoftheNewTestamentintheSecondCentury,91pp.Pittsburg,1881.

3.TheCanonicityofSecondPeter,(SouthernPresby.Revelation,V,XXXIII,1882,pp.45-75.)

4.Dr.EdwinA.Abbott,ontheGenuinenessofSecondPeter,(SouthernPresby.Revelation,V,XXXIV,1883,pp.300-445.)

5.TheDescriptiveNamesAppliedtotheNewTestamentBooksbytheEarliestChristianWriters,(BibliothecaSacra,V,XLII,1885,pp.545-564.)

6.TheChristianCanon,(ThePhiladelphian,V,I,1887,pp.300-304.)

7.Paul’sDoctrineoftheOldTestament,(Presb.Quarterly,V,III,1889,pp.389-406.)

8.ThePresentProblemofInspiration,(TheHomileticRevelation,V,XXI,1891,pp.410-416.)

PREFATORYNOTEREV.BENJAMINBRECKINRIDGEWARFIELD,D.D.,LL.D.,

ProfessorofDidacticandPolemicTheologyintheTheologicalSeminaryofthePresbyterianChurchatPrinceton,NewJersey,providedinhiswillforthecollectionandpublicationofthenumerousarticlesontheologicalsubjectscontainedinencyclopaedias,reviewsandotherperiodicals,andappointedacommitteetoeditandpublishthesepapers.Inpursuanceofhisinstructions,this,thefirstvolumecontaininghisarticlesonRevelationandInspiration,hasbeenpreparedundertheeditorialdirectionofthiscommittee.Thecontentsofthesucceedingvolumeswillbeasfollows:thearticlesoncertaingreatBiblicaldoctrines,thecriticalarticlesonthePersonofChrist,thoseonhistoricaltheology,onPerfectionism,articlesonmiscellaneoustheologicalsubjects,andthe

moreimportantbookreviews.Itisproposedtopublishthesevolumesinasrapidsuccessionaspossible.Thegenerouspermissiontopublisharticlescontainedinthisvolumeisgratefullyacknowledgedasfollows:TheHowardSeveranceCo.forthearticlestakenfromtheInternationalStandardEncyclopaedia,andD.Appleton&Co.foranarticletakenfromtheUniversalCyclopediaandAtlas.TheclericalpreparationofthisvolumehasbeendonebyMissLetitiaN.Gosman,towhomthethanksofthecommitteeareherebyexpressed.ETHELBERTD.WARFIELDWILLIAMPARKARMSTRONGCASPARWISTARHODGECommittee.

BIOGRAPHICALSKETCHOFBENJAMINBRECKINRIDGEWARFIELD

BENJAMINBRECKINRIDGEWARFIELDwasbornat“Grasmere”nearLexington,Kentucky,November5,1851.Hisfather,WilliamWarfield,descendedinthepaternallinefromabodyofsouthofEnglandpuritanswhowereexpelledfromVirginiabyGovernorBerkeleywhentheyrefusedtoaccepthisproclamationofCharlesIIasking.TheyweregivenarefugebytheRomanCatholiccolonyofMarylandandsettledatAnnapolisandSouthRiver.OnthematernallinehewasdescendedfromScotch-IrishfamilieswhofirstsettledintheCumberlandValleyinPennsylvania.Hismother,MaryCabellBreckinridge,wasthedaughterofRevelationRobertJeffersonBreckinridge,D.D,,LL.D.,distinguishedasapreacher,ModeratoroftheGeneralAssemblyofthePresbyterianChurch,presidentofJeffersonCollege,Pennsylvania,founderandpresidentoftheTheologicalSeminaryatDanville,Kentucky,editoroftheSpiritoftheNineteenthCenturyandtheDanville(Kentucky)Review,ardentadvocateoftheemancipationoftheslavesandofthemaintenanceoftheUnion,temporarychairmanoftheRepublicanConventionof1864whichrenominatedAbrahamLincoln,andauthorofasystemoftheologyentitled“TheKnowledgeofGodObjectivelyandSubjectivelyConsidered.”Hermother,SophonisbaPreston,daughterofGeneralFrancisPrestonofVirginia,belongedtooneofthemostvitalstocksofthegreatUlsterimmigrationwhichsettledtheup-countryofVirginia.Toallofthesepeoplethepolitical,educationalandreligiousproblemsofthe

newcountrywereoftremendoussignificanceandthesubjectofferviddiscussionandattimesheatedcontroversy.BenjaminWarfieldattendedprivateschoolsinLexington;andreceivedhispreparationchieflyfromLewisBarbour,afterwardsprofessorofmathematicsinCentralUniversity,andJamesK.Patterson,afterwardspresidentoftheStateCollegeofKentucky.HeenteredthesophomoreclassoftheCollegeofNewJerseyatPrincetonintheautumnof1868andgraduatedwiththehighesthonorsofhisclassin1871,whenonlynineteenyearsofage.HewontheThompsonprizeforthehighestrankinthejunioryear,andprizesforessayanddebateintheAmericanWhigSociety,andwasoneoftheeditorsoftheNassauLiteraryMagazine.Hisearlytasteswerestronglyscientific.Hecollectedbirds’eggs,butterfliesandmoths,andgeologicalspecimens;studiedthefaunaandfloraofhisneighborhood;readDarwin’snewlypublishedbookswithenthusiasm;andcountedAudubon’sworksonAmericanbirdsandmammalshischieftreasure.HewassocertainthathewastofollowascientificcareerthathestrenuouslyobjectedtostudyingGreek.Butyouthfulobjectionshadlittleeffectinahouseholdwheretheshortercatechismwasordinarilycompletedinthesixthyear,followedatoncebytheproofsfromtheScriptures,andthenbythelargercatechism,withanappropriateamountofScripturememorizedinregularcourseeachSabbathafternoon.Hisspecialinterestsincollegeweremathematicsandphysics,inwhichheobtainedperfectmarks.Heintendedtoseekthefellowshipinexperimentalscience,butwasdissuadedbyhisfatheronthepleathathedidnotneedthestipendinordertopursuegraduatestudiesanditwouldbebetterforhimtospendsometimeinEuropewithoutbeingboundtoanyparticularcourseofstudy.HisdeparturewasdelayedbyfamilyillnessandhedidnotsailuntilFebruary,1872.AfterspendingsometimeinEdinburghhewenttoHeidelberg,andwritingfromthereinmidsummerheannouncedhisdecisiontoentertheChristianministry.HehadearlymadeaprofessionoffaithandunitedwiththeSecondPresbyterianChurchinLexington,butnoseriouspurposeofstudyingtheologyhadeverbeenexpressedbyhim.Theatmosphereofhishomewasoneofvitalpiety,andhismotherconstantlyspokeofherhopethathersonsmightbecomepreachersoftheGospel,butwiththeinheritanceoftheintellectualgiftsofhismother’sfamilyhecombinedthereticencewithregardtopersonalmatterswhichwascharacteristicofhisfather.Hisdecisionwas,

therefore,asurprisetohisfamilyandmostintimatefriends.InSeptember,1873,heenteredtheTheologicalSeminaryofthePresbyterianChurchatPrinceton,andwasgraduatedinMay,1876.HewaslicensedtopreachbythePresbyteryofEbenezer(Kentucky)in1875,wasstatedsupplyandreceivedacalltothepastorateoftheFirstPresbyterianChurchofDayton,Ohio,inthesummerof1876.Buthedecidedtogoabroadforfurtherstudy.OnAugust3rdhewasmarriedtoMissAnniePearceKinkead,andsoonaftersailedforEurope,studyingthefollowingwinteratLeipsic.InthecourseoftheyearhewasofferedanappointmentintheOldTestamentDepartmentattheWesternTheologicalSeminary,buthismind,despitehisearlyreluctancetothestudyofGreek,hadalreadyturnedtotheNewTestamentfield.Returninginthelatesummer,hewasforatimeassistantpastoroftheFirstPresbyterianChurchofBaltimore.AcceptingacalltobecomeinstructorinNewTestamentLanguageandLiteratureattheWesternTheologicalSeminary,Allegheny,Pennsylvania,heentereduponhisdutiesinSeptember,1878.Thefollowingyearhewasappointedprofessorandwasordained.Hehadalreadyattractedattentionbythefirstofhisscholarlypublicationsandin1880thedegreeofDoctorofDivinitywasconferreduponhimbytheCollegeofNewJersey.

ThenineyearshespentattheWesternTheologicalSeminarywerebusyyearsofteachingandstudyandproductivescholarship.Inthemhewonareputationasateacherandexegeterarelyattainedbysoyoungaman.WhenuponthedeathofDr.ArchibaldAlexanderHodgeintheautumnof1886hewascalledtosucceedhiminthehistoricChairofTheologyatPrincetonmanyofhisfriendsquestionedthewisdomofachange.ButrecallingthatDr.CharlesHodgehadbeenfirstaNewTestamentstudentandalwaysaprinceofexegetes,hedeterminedtoacceptthecall.TheyearsspentatAllegheny,usefulandfruitfulastheywere,wereyearsoftrainingandpreparationforthemorethanthirty-threeyears(1887-February,1921)spentintheprofessorshipatPrinceton.Alwaysdeeplyattachedtotheplace,lovingwithanenthusiasticdevotiontheUniversityandtheSeminary,whichhecountedinverytruthhisalmaematres,heveneratedasonlyapureandunselfishspiritcanthegreatmenandthe

hallowedmemorieswhichhavemadePrincetononeofthenotableseatsoftheologicalscholarship.Hisreverenceforthosewhohadtaughthimwasequalledbyhisadmirationofhiscolleagues,andthelovewhichhedelightedtoexpressforthosewhohadtaughthimwasconstantlyreproducedinhisaffectionforhisyoungercolleaguesandthesuccessiveclassesofstudentswhothrongedhisclassrooms.

Itmaybethatacertainintellectualausterity,aloftinessandaloofnessfromthecommonweaknessesofthehumanreason,areinseparablefromthesystemofthoughtwhichisassociatedwiththenamesofCalvinandAugustineandPaul,butitisneverreallyincarnatedinagreatthinkerwithoutitsinevitablecounterpoiseofthetenderesthumansympathies.InBenjaminWarfieldsuchsympathiesfoundexpressioninaloveformen,andespeciallyofchildren,inaheartopentoeveryappeal,andastrong,ifundemonstrative,supportofsuchcausesashomeandforeignmissionsandespeciallyoftheworkforthefreedmen.Alwaysadiligentstudent,healsoreadwidelyoveranunusualrangeofgeneralliterature,includingpoetry,fictionanddrama,andoftendrewillustrationsfromthemostunexpectedsources.Heappreciatedinaveryhighdegreethevalueofanorganforthediscussionofthetheologicalquestionsofhistime.In1889hebecameoneoftheeditorsofthePresbyterianReviewinsuccessiontoDr.FrancisL.Patton.WhenthatreviewwasdiscontinuedheplannedandfortwelveyearsconductedthePresbyterianandReformedReview,whichin1902wastakenoverbytheFacultyofPrincetonTheologicalSeminaryandrenamedthePrincetonTheologicalReview.Inthesereviewswaspublishedalargepartofthematerialgatheredintothisandsucceedingvolumes.Otherportionsaretakenfromvariousencyclopaediasanddictionaries,reviews,magazinesandotherpublicationstowhichhewasafrequentcontributor.Healsopublishedthefollowingvolumes:“IntroductiontotheTextualCriticismoftheNewTestament”(1886);“OntheRevisionoftheConfessionofFaith”(1890);“TheGospeloftheIncarnation”(1893);“TwoStudiesintheHistoryofDoctrine”(1893);“TheRightofSystematicTheology”(1897);“TheSignificanceoftheWestminsterStandards”(1898);“ActsandPastoralEpistles”(1902);“ThePowerofGodUntoSalvation”(1903);“TheLordofGlory”(1907);“CalvinasaTheologianandCalvinismToday”(1909);“HymnsandReligiousVerses”

(1910);“TheSaviouroftheWorld”(1914);“ThePlanofSalvation”(1915);“FaithandLife”(1916);“CounterfeitMiracles”(1918).HereceivedfromtheCollegeofNewJerseythedegreeofDoctorofDivinityin1880;thatofDoctorofLawsin1892;andthatofDoctorofLawsfromDavidsonCollegein1892;thatofDoctorofLettersfromLafayetteCollegein1911;andthatofSacraeTheologiaeDoctorfromtheUniversityofUtrechtin1913.HewasstrickenwithanginapectorisonDecember24,1920,anddiedonFebruary16,1921,atPrinceton.E.D.W.

TheBiblicalIdeaOfRevelation

1.THENATUREOFREVELATION2.THEPROCESSOFREVELATION3.MODESOFREVELATION4.BIBLICALTERMINOLOGY

TheNatureOfRevelation

I.THENATUREOFREVELATION

THEreligionoftheBibleisafranklysupernaturalreligion.Bythisisnotmeantmerelythat,accordingtoit,allmen,ascreatures,live,moveandhavetheirbeinginGod.Itismeantthat,accordingtoit,Godhasintervenedextraordinarily,inthecourseofthesinfulworld'sdevelopment,forthesalvationofmenotherwiselost.InEdentheLordGodhadbeenpresentwithsinlessmaninsuchasenseastoformadistinctelementinhissocialenvironment(Gen.iii.8).ThisintimateassociationwasbrokenupbytheFall.ButGoddidnotthereforewithdrawHimselffromconcernmentwithmen.Rather,Hebeganatonceaseriesofinterventionsinhumanhistorybymeansofwhichmanmightberescuedfromhissinand,despiteit,broughttotheenddestinedforhim.TheseinterventionsinvolvedthesegregationofapeopleforHimself,bywhomGodshouldbeknown,andwhosedistinctionshouldbethatGodshouldbe"nighunto

them"asHewasnottoothernations(Deut.iv.7;Ps.cxlv.18).ButthispeoplewasnotpermittedtoimaginethatitoweditssegregationtoanythinginitselffittedtoattractordeterminetheDivinepreference;noconsciousnesswasmorepoignantinIsraelthanthatJehovahhadchosenit,notitHim,andthatJehovah'schoiceofitrestedsolelyonHisgraciouswill.NorwasthispeoplepermittedtoimaginethatitwasforitsownsakealonethatithadbeensingledouttobethesolerecipientoftheknowledgeofJehovah;itwasmadeclearfromthebeginningthatGod'smysteriouslygraciousdealingwithithadasitsultimateendtheblessingofthewholeworld(Gen.xii.2.3;xvii.4.5.6.16;xviii.18;xxii.18;cfRom.iv.13),thebringingtogetheragainofthedividedfamiliesoftheearthunderthegloriousreignofJehovah,andthereversalofthecurseunderwhichthewholeworldlayforitssin(Gen.xii.3).Meanwhile,however,JehovahwasknownonlyinIsrael.ToIsraelGodshowedHiswordandmadeknownHisstatutesandjudgments,andafterthisfashionHedealtwithnoothernation;andthereforenoneotherknewHisjudgments(Ps.cxlvii.19f.).Accordingly,whenthehopeofIsrael(whowasalsothedesireofallnations)came,HisownlipsunhesitatinglydeclaredthatthesalvationHebrought,thoughofuniversalapplication,was"fromtheJews"On.iv.221).Andthenationstowhichthissalvationhadnotbeenmadeknownaredeclaredbythechiefagentinitsproclamationtothemtobe,meanwhile,"faroff,""havingnohope"and"withoutGodintheworld"(Eph.ii.12),becausetheywerealiensfromthecommonwealthofIsraelandstrangersfromthecovenantofthepromise.

ThereligionoftheBiblethusannouncesitself,notastheproductofmen'ssearchafterGod,ifhaplytheymayfeelafterHimandfindHim,butasthecreationinmenofthegraciousGod,formingapeopleforHimself,thattheymayshowforthHispraise.Inotherwords,thereligionoftheBiblepresentsitselfasdistinctivelyarevealedreligion.Orrather,tospeakmoreexactly,itannouncesitselfastherevealedreligion,astheonlyrevealedreligion;andsetsitselfassuchoveragainstallotherreligions,whicharerepresentedasallproducts,inasenseinwhichitisnot,oftheartanddeviceofman.

Itisnot,however,impliedinthisexclusiveclaimtorevelation-whichismadebythereligionoftheBibleinallthestagesofitshistory-thatthelivingGod,whomadetheheavenandtheearthandtheseaandallthatinthemis,hasleftHimselfwithoutwitnessamongthepeoplesoftheworld(Actsxiv.17).Itisassertedindeed,thatintheprocessofHisredemptivework,Godsufferedforaseasonallthenationstowalkintheirownways;butitisaddedthattononeofthemhasHefailedtodogood,andtogivefromheavenrainsandfruitful

seasons,fillingtheirheartswithfoodandgladness.AndnotonlyisHerepresentedasthusconstantlyshowingHimselfinHisprovidencenotfarfromanyoneofthem,thuswooingthemtoseekHimifhaplytheymightfeelafterHimandfindHim(Actsxvii.27),butasfromthefoundationoftheworldopenlymanifestingHimselftothemintheworksofHishands,inwhichHiseverlastingpowerandDivinityareclearlyseen(Rom.i.20).ThatmenatlargehavenotretainedHimintheirknowledge,orservedHimastheyought,isnotduethereforetofailureonHisparttokeepopenthewaytoknowledgeofHim,buttothedarkeningoftheirsenselessheartsbysinandtothevanityoftheirsin-deflectedreasonings(Rom.i.21ff.),bymeansofwhichtheyhavesupplantedthetruthofGodbyalieandhavecometoworshipandservethecreatureratherthantheever-blessedCreator.Itis,indeed,preciselybecauseintheirsintheyhavethushelddownthetruthinunrighteousnessandhaverefusedtohaveGodintheirknowledge(soitisintimated);andbecause,moreover,intheirsin,therevelationGodgivesofHimselfinHisworksofcreationandprovidencenolongersufficesformen'sneeds,thatGodhasintervenedsupernaturallyinthecourseofhistorytoformapeopleforHimself,throughwhomatlengthalltheworldshouldbeblessed.

Itisquiteobviousthattherearebroughtbeforeusintheseseveralrepresentationstwospeciesorstagesofrevelation,whichshouldbediscriminatedtoavoidconfusion.ThereistherevelationwhichGodcontinuouslymakestoallmen:byitHispowerandDivinityaremadeknown.AndthereistherevelationwhichHemakesexclusivelytoHischosenpeople:throughitHissavinggraceismadeknown.BothspeciesorstagesofrevelationareinsisteduponthroughouttheScriptures.Theyare,forexample,broughtsignificantlytogetherinsuchadeclarationaswefindinPs.xix:"TheheavensdeclarethegloryofGod...theirlineisgoneoutthroughalltheearth"(vers.1.4);"ThelawofJehovahisperfect,restoringthesoul"(ver.7).ThePsalmisttakeshisbeginningherefromthepraiseofthegloryofGod,theCreatorofallthatis,whichhasbeenwrittenupontheveryheavens,thatnonemayfailtoseeit.Fromthisherises,however,quicklytothemorefull-throatedpraiseofthemercyofJehovah,thecovenantGod,whohasvisitedHispeoplewithsavinginstruction.Uponthishigherrevelationthereisfinallybasedaprayerforsalvationfromsin,whichendsinagreatthreefoldacclamation,instinctwithadoringgratitude:"OJehovah,myrock,andmyredeemer"(ver,14)."Theheavens,"commentsLordBacon,"indeedtellofthegloryofGod,butnotofHiswillaccordingtowhichthepoetpraystobepardonedandsanctified."Insocommenting,LordBacontouchestheexactpointofdistinctionbetweenthetwo

speciesorstagesofrevelation.Theoneisadaptedtomanasman;theothertomanassinner;andsinceman,onbecomingsinner,hasnotceasedtobeman,buthasonlyacquirednewneedsrequiringadditionalprovisionstobringhimtotheendofhisexistence,sotherevelationdirectedtomanassinnerdoesnotsupersedethatgiventomanasman,butsupplementsitwiththesenewprovisionsforhisattainment,inhisnewconditionofblindness,helplessnessandguiltinducedbysin,oftheendofhisbeing.

Thesetwospeciesorstagesofrevelationhavebeencommonlydistinguishedfromoneanotherbythedistinctivenamesofnaturalandsupernaturalrevelation,orgeneralandspecialrevelation,ornaturalandsoteriologicalrevelation.Eachofthesemodesofdiscriminatingthemhasitsparticularfitnessanddescribesarealdifferencebetweenthetwoinnature,reachorpurpose.Theoneiscommunicatedthroughthemediaofnaturalphenomena,occurringinthecourseofNatureorofhistory;theotherimpliesaninterventioninthenaturalcourseofthingsandisnotmerelyinsourcebutinmodesupernatural.Theoneisaddressedgenerallytoallintelligentcreatures,andisthereforeaccessibletoallmen;theotherisaddressedtoaspecialclassofsinners,towhomGodwouldmakeknownHissalvation.TheonehasinviewtomeetandsupplythenaturalneedofcreaturesforknowledgeoftheirGod;theothertorescuebrokenanddeformedsinnersfromtheirsinanditsconsequences.But,thoughthusdistinguishedfromoneanother,itisimportantthatthetwospeciesorstagesofrevelationshouldnotbesetinoppositiontooneanother,ortheclosenessoftheirmutualrelationsortheconstancyoftheirinteractionbeobscured.Theyconstitutetogetheraunitarywhole,andeachisincompletewithouttheother.Initsmostgeneralidea,revelationisrootedincreationandtherelationswithHisintelligentcreaturesintowhichGodhasbroughtHimselfbygivingthembeing.Itsobjectistorealizetheendofman'screation,tobeattainedonlythroughknowledgeofGodandperfectandunbrokencommunionwithHim.Ontheentranceofsinintotheworld,destroyingthiscommunionwithGodandobscuringtheknowledgeofHimderivedfromNature,anothermodeofrevelationwasnecessitated,havingalsoanothercontent,adaptedtothenewrelationtoGodandthenewconditionsofintellect,heartandwillbroughtaboutbysin.Itmustnotbesupposed,however,thatthisnewmodeofrevelationwasanexpostfactoexpedient,introducedtomeetanunforeseencontingency.Theactualcourseofhumandevelopmentwasinthenatureofthecasetheexpectedandtheintendedcourseofhumandevelopment,forwhichmanwascreated;andrevelation,therefore,initsdoubleformwastheDivinepurposeformanfromthebeginning,andconstitutesaunitaryprovisionfortherealizationoftheendofhis

creationintheactualcircumstancesinwhichheexists.Wemaydistinguishinthisunitaryrevelationthetwoelementsbythecooperationofwhichtheeffectisproduced;butweshouldbearinmindthatonlybytheircooperationistheeffectproduced.Withoutspecialrevelation,generalrevelationwouldbeforsinfulmenincompleteandineffective,andcouldissue,asinpointoffactithasissuedwhereveritalonehasbeenaccessible,onlyinleavingthemwithoutexcuse(Rom.i.20).Withoutgeneralrevelation,specialrevelationwouldlackthatbasisinthefundamentalknowledgeofGodasthemightyandwise,righteousandgood,makerandrulerofallthings,apartfromwhichthefurtherrevelationofthisgreatGod'sinterventionsintheworldforthesalvationofsinnerscouldnotbeeitherintelligible,credibleoroperative.

OnlyinEdenhasgeneralrevelationbeenadequatetotheneedsofman.Notbeingasinner,maninEdenhadnoneedofthatgraceofGoditselfbywhichsinnersarerestoredtocommunionwithHim,orofthespecialrevelationofthisgraceofGodtosinnerstoenablethemtolivewithGod.Andnotbeingasinner,maninEden,ashecontemplatedtheworksofGod,sawGodintheuncloudedmirrorofhismindwithaclarityofvision,andlivedwithHimintheuntroubleddepthsofhisheartwithatrustfulintimacyofassociation,inconceivabletosinners.Nevertheless,therevelationofGodinEdenwasnotmerely"natural."Notonlydoestheprohibitionoftheforbiddenfruitinvolveapositivecommandment(Gen.ii.16),butthewholehistoryimpliesanimmediacyofintercoursewithGodwhichcannoteasilybesettothecreditofthepicturesqueartofthenarrative,orbefullyaccountedforbythevividnessoftheperceptionofGodinHisworkspropertosinlesscreatures.TheimpressionisstrongthatwhatismeanttobeconveyedtousisthatmandweltwithGodinEden,andenjoyedwithHimimmediateandnotmerelymediatecommunion.Inthatcase,wemayunderstandthatifmanhadnotfallen,hewouldhavecontinuedtoenjoyimmediateintercoursewithGod,andthatthecessationofthisimmediateintercourseisduetosin.Itisnotthenthesupernaturalnessofspecialrevelationwhichisrootedinsin,but,ifwemaybeallowedtheexpression,thespecialnessofsupernaturalrevelation.Hadmannotfallen,heavenwouldhavecontinuedtolieabouthimthroughallhishistory,asitlayabouthisinfancy;everymanwouldhaveenjoyeddirectvisionofGodandimmediatespeechwithHim.Manhavingfallen,thecherubimandtheflameofasword,turningeveryway,keepthepath:andGodbreaksHiswayinaround-aboutfashionintoman'sdarkenedhearttorevealthereHisredemptivelove.ByslowstepsandgradualstagesHeatonceworksoutHissavingpurposeandmoldstheworldforitsreception,choosingapeopleforHimselfandtrainingitthroughlongandwearyages,untilatlast

whenthefulnessoftimehascome,HebaresHisarmandsendsouttheproclamationofHisgreatsalvationtoalltheearth.

Certainly,fromthegateofEdenonward,God'sgeneralrevelationceasedtobe,inthestrictsense,supernatural.Itis,ofcourse,notmeantthatGoddesertedHisworldandleftittofesterinitsiniquity.Hisprovidencestillruledoverall,leadingsteadilyonwardtothegoalforwhichmanhadbeencreated,andoftheattainmentofwhichinGod'sowngoodtimeandwaytheverycontinuanceofmen'sexistence,underGod'sprovidentialgovernment,wasapledge.AndHisSpiritstilleverywherewroughtupontheheartsofmen,stirringupalltheirpowers(thoughcreatedintheimageofGod,marredandimpairedbysin)totheirbestactivities,andtosuchsplendideffectineverydepartmentofhumanachievementastocommandtheadmirationofallages,andinthehighestregionofall,thatofconduct,tocalloutfromanapostletheencomiumthatthoughtheyhadnolawtheydidbynature(observetheword"nature")thethingsofthelaw.Allthis,however,remainswithinthelimitsofNature,thatistosay,withinthesphereofoperationofDivinelydirectedandassistedsecondcauses.ItillustratesmerelytheheightstowhichthepowersofmanmayattainundertheguidanceofprovidenceandtheinfluencesofwhatwehavelearnedtocallGod's"commongrace."Nowhere,throughoutthewholeethnicdomain,aretheconceptionsofGodandHiswaysputwithinthereachofman,throughGod'srevelationofHimselfintheworksofcreationandprovidence,transcended;nowhereistheslightestknowledgebetrayedofanythingconcerningGodandHispurposes,whichcouldbeknownonlybyitsbeingsupernaturallytoldtomen.Oftheentirebodyof"savingtruth,"forexample,whichistheburdenofwhatwecall"specialrevelation,"thewholeheathenworldremainedintotalignorance.Andevenitsholdonthegeneraltruthsofreligion,notbeingvitalizedbysupernaturalenforcements,grewweak,anditsknowledgeoftheverynatureofGoddecayed,untilitranouttothedreadfulissuewhichPaulsketchesforusinthatinspiredphilosophyofreligionwhichheincorporatesinthelatterpartofthefirstchapteroftheEpistletotheRomans.

Behindeventheethnicdevelopment,therelay,ofcourse,thesupernaturalintercourseofmanwithGodwhichhadobtainedbeforetheentranceofsinintotheworld,andthesupernaturalrevelationsatthegateofEden(Gen.iii.8),andatthesecondoriginofthehumanrace,theFlood(Gen.viii.21,22;ix.1-17).Howlongthetraditionofthisprimitiverevelationlingeredinnooksandcornersoftheheathenworld,conditioningandvitalizingthenaturalrevelationofGodalwaysaccessible,wehavenomeansofestimating.Neitherisiteasytomeasure

theeffectofGod'sspecialrevelationofHimselftoHispeopleuponmenoutsidetheboundsof,indeed,butcomingintocontactwith,thischosenpeople,orsharingwiththemacommonnaturalinheritance.LotandIshmaelandEsaucanscarcelyhavebeenwhollyignorantofthewordofGodwhichcametoAbrahamandIsaacandJacob;norcouldtheEgyptiansfromwhosehandsGodwrestedHispeoplewithamightyarmfailtolearnsomethingofJehovah,anymorethanthemixedmultitudeswhowitnessedtheministryofChristcouldfailtoinfersomethingfromHisgraciouswalkandmightyworks.ItisnaturaltoinferthatnonationwhichwasintimatelyassociatedwithIsrael'slifecouldremainentirelyunaffectedbyIsrael'srevelation.Butwhateverimpressionswerethusconveyedreachedapparentlyindividualsonly:theheathenwhichsurroundedIsrael,eventhosemostcloselyaffiliatedwithIsrael,remainedheathen;theyhadnorevelation.InthesporadicinstanceswhenGodvisitedanalienwithasupernaturalcommunication-suchasthedreamssenttoAbimelech(Gen.xx.)andtoPharaoh(Gen.xl.xli.)andtoNebuchadnezzar(Dan,ii.1ff.)andtothesoldierinthecampoftheMidian(Jgs.vii.13)-itwasintheinterests,notoftheheathenworld,butofthechosenpeoplethattheyweresent;andtheseinstancesderivetheirsignificancewhollyfromthisfact.Thereremain,nodoubt,themysteriousfigureofMelchizedek,perhapsalsoofJethro,andthestrangeapparitionofBalaam,whoalso,however,appearinthesacrednarrativeonlyinconnectionwiththehistoryofGod'sdealingswithHispeopleandintheirinterest.TheirunexplainedappearancecannotinanyeventavailtomodifythegeneralfactthatthelifeoftheheathenpeopleslayoutsidethesupernaturalrevelationofGod.Theheathenweresufferedtowalkintheirownways(Actsxiv.16).

TheProcessOfRevelation

Meanwhile,however,Godhadnotforgottenthem,butwaspreparingsalvationforthemalsothroughthesupernaturalrevelationofHisgracethatHewasmakingtoHispeople.AccordingtotheBiblicalrepresentation,inthemidstofandworkingconfluentlywiththerevelationwhichHehasalwaysbeengivingofHimselfontheplaneofNature,GodwasmakingalsofromtheveryfallofmanafurtherrevelationofHimselfontheplaneofgrace.IncontrastwithHis

general,naturalrevelation,inwhichallmenbyvirtueoftheirverynatureasmenshare,thisspecial,supernaturalrevelationwasgrantedatfirstonlytoindividuals,thenprogressivelytoafamily,atribe,anation,arace,until,whenthefulnessoftimewascome,itwasmadethepossessionofthewholeworld.ItmaybedifficulttoobtainfromScriptureaclearaccountofwhyGodchosethustogivethisrevelationofHisgraceonlyprogressively;or,tobemoreexplicit,throughtheprocessofahistoricaldevelopment.Suchis,however,theordinarymodeoftheDivineworking:itissothatGodmadetheworlds,itissothatHecreatesthehumanraceitself,therecipientofthisrevelation,itissothatHebuildsupHiskingdomintheworldandintheindividualsoul,whichonlygraduallycomeswhethertotheknowledgeofGodortothefruitionofHissalvation.Astothefact,theScripturesareexplicit,tracingforus,orratherembodyingintheirowngrowth,therecordofthesteadyadvanceofthisgraciousrevelationthroughdefinitestagesfromitsfirstfaintbeginningstoitsgloriouscompletioninJesusChrist.

SoexpressisitsrelationtothedevelopmentofthekingdomofGoditself,orrathertothatgreatseriesofDivineoperationswhicharedirectedtothebuildingupofthekingdomofGodintheworld,thatitissometimesconfoundedwiththem,orthoughtofassimplytheirreflectioninthecontemplatingmindofman.Thusitisnotinfrequentlysaidthatrevelation,meaningthisspecialredemptiverevelation,hasbeencommunicatedindeeds,notinwords;anditisoccasionallyelaboratelyarguedthatthesolemannerinwhichGodhasrevealedHimselfastheSaviourofsinnersisjustbyperformingthosemightyactsbywhichsinnersaresaved.Thisisnot,however,theBiblicalrepresentation.Revelationis,ofcourse,oftenmadethroughtheinstrumentalityofdeeds;andtheseriesofHisgreatredemptiveactsbywhichHesavestheworldconstitutesthepreeminentrevelationofthegraceofGod-sofarastheseredemptiveactsareopentoobservationandareperceivedintheirsignificance.Butrevelation,afterall,isthecorrelateofunderstandingandhasasitsproximateendjusttheproductionofknowledge,thoughnot,ofcourse,knowledgeforitsownsake,butforthesakeofsalvation.TheseriesoftheredemptiveactsofGod,accordingly,canproperlybedesignated"revelation"onlywhenandsofarastheyarecontemplatedasadaptedanddesignedtoproduceknowledgeofGodandHispurposeandmethodsofgrace.Nobareseriesofunexplainedactscanbethought,however,adaptedtoproduceknowledge,especiallyiftheseactsbe,asinthiscase,ofahighlytranscendentalcharacter.Norcanthisparticularseriesofactsbethoughttohaveasitsmaindesigntheproductionofknowledge;itsmaindesignisrathertosaveman.NodoubttheproductionofknowledgeoftheDivinegraceisoneof

themeansbywhichthismaindesignoftheredemptiveactsofGodisattained.Butthisonlyrendersitthemorenecessarythattheproximateresultofproducingknowledgeshouldnotfail;anditisdoubtlessforthisreasonthattheseriesofredemptiveactsofGodhasnotbeenlefttoexplainitself,buttheexplanatorywordhasbeenaddedtoit.Revelationthusappears,however,notasthemerereflectionoftheredeemingactsofGodinthemindsofmen,butasafactorintheredeemingworkofGod,acomponentpartoftheseriesofHisredeemingacts,withoutwhichthatserieswouldbeincompleteandsofarinoperativeforitsmainend.ThustheScripturesrepresentit,notconfoundingrevelationwiththeseriesoftheredemptiveactsofGod,butplacingitamongtheredemptiveactsofGodandgivingitafunctionasasubstantiveelementintheoperationsbywhichthemercifulGodsavessinfulmen.ItisthereforenotmadeevenamereconstantaccompanimentoftheredemptiveactsofGod,givingtheirexplanationthattheymaybeunderstood.Itoccupiesafarmoreindependentplaceamongthemthanthis,andasfrequentlyprecedesthemtopreparetheirwayasitaccompaniesorfollowsthemtointerprettheirmeaning.Itis,inoneword,itselfaredemptiveactofGodandbynomeanstheleastimportantintheseriesofHisredemptiveacts.

Thismight,indeed,havebeeninferredfromitsverynature,andfromthenatureofthesalvationwhichwasbeingwroughtoutbytheseredemptiveactsofGod.OneofthemostgrievousoftheeffectsofsinisthedeformationoftheimageofGodreflectedinthehumanmind,andtherecanbenorecoveryfromsinwhichdoesnotbringwithitthecorrectionofthisdeformationandthereflectioninthesoulofmanofthewholegloryoftheLordGodAlmighty.Manisanintelligentbeing;hissuperiorityoverthebruteisfound,amongotherthings,preciselyinthedirectionofallhislifebyhisintelligence;andhisblessednessisrootedinthetrueknowledgeofhisGod-forthisislifeeternal,thatweshouldknowtheonlytrueGodandHimwhomHehassent.Dealingwithmanasanintelligentbeing,GodtheLordhassavedhimbymeansofarevelation,bywhichhehasbeenbroughtintoanevermoreandmoreadequateknowledgeofGod,andbeenledevermoreandmoretodohispartinworkingouthisownsalvationwithfearandtremblingasheperceivedwithevermoreandmoreclearnesshowGodisworkingitoutforhimthroughmightydeedsofgrace.

Thisisnottheplacetotrace,eveninoutline,fromthematerialpointofview,thedevelopmentofGod'sredemptiverevelationfromitsfirstbeginnings,inthepromisegiventoAbraham-orratherinwhathasbeencalledtheProtevangeliumatthegateofEden-toitscompletionintheaccentandworkofChristandtheteachingofHisapostles;asteadilyadvancingdevelopment,

which,asitliesspreadouttoviewinthepagesofScripture,takestothosewholookatitfromtheconsummationbackward,theappearanceoftheshadowcastathwartprecedingagesbythegreatfigureofChrist.Evenfromtheformalpointofview,however,therehasbeenpointedoutaprogressiveadvanceinthemethodofrevelation,consonantwithitsadvanceincontent,orratherwiththeadvancingstagesofthebuildingupofthekingdomofGod,tosubservewhichisthewholeobjectofrevelation.Threedistinctstepsinrevelationhavebeendiscriminatedfromthispointofview.TheyaredistinguishedpreciselybytheincreasingindependenceofrevelationofthedeedsconstitutingtheseriesoftheredemptiveactsofGod,inwhich,nevertheless,allrevelationisasubstantialelement.Discriminationslikethismustnotbetakentooabsolutely;andinthepresentinstancethechronologicalsequencecannotbepressed.But,withmuchinterlacing,threegenerallysuccessivestagesofrevelationmayberecognized,producingperiodsatleastcharacteristicallyofwhatwemaysomewhatconventionallycalltheophany,prophecyandinspiration.WhatmaybesomewhatindefinitelymarkedoffasthePatriarchalageischaracteristically"theperiodofOutwardManifestations,andSymbols,andTheophanies":duringit"Godspoketomenthroughtheirsenses,inphysicalphenomena,astheburningbush,thecloudypillar,orinsensuousforms,asmen,angels,etc....InthePropheticage,onthecontrary,theprevailingmodeofrevelationwasbymeansofinwardpropheticinspiration":GodspoketomencharacteristicallybythemovementsoftheHolySpiritintheirhearts."Prevailingly,atanyratefromSamueldownwards,thesupernaturalrevelationwasarevelationintheheartsoftheforemostthinkersofthepeople,or,aswecallit,propheticinspiration,withouttheaidofexternalsensuoussymbolsofGod"(A.B.Davidson,OTProphecy,1903,p.148;cf.pp.12-14,145ff.).ThisinternalmethodofrevelationreachesitsculminationintheNewTestamentperiod,whichispreeminentlytheageoftheSpirit.Whatisespeciallycharacteristicofthisageisrevelationthroughthemediumofthewrittenword,whatmaybecalledapostolicasdistinguishedfrompropheticinspiration.TherevealingSpiritspeaksthroughchosenmenasHisorgans,butthroughtheseorgansinsuchafashionthatthemostintimateprocessesoftheirsoulsbecometheinstrumentsbymeansofwhichHespeaksHismind.Thusatalleventstherearebroughtclearlybeforeusthreewell-markedmodesofrevelation,whichwemayperhapsdesignaterespectively,notwithperfectdiscrimination,itistrue,butnotmisleadingly,(1)externalmanifestations,(2)internalsuggestion,and(3)concursiveoperation.

ModesOfRevelation

Theophanymaybetakenasthetypicalformof"externalmanifestation";butbyitssidemayberangedallofthosemightyworksbywhichGodmakesHimselfknown,includingexpressmiracles,nodoubt,butalongwiththemeverysupernaturalinterventionintheaffairsofmen,bymeansofwhichabetterunderstandingiscommunicatedofwhatGodisorwhat,areHispurposesofgracetoasinfulrace.Under"internalsuggestion"maybesubsumedallthecharacteristicphenomenaofwhatismost.properlyspokenofas"prophecy":visionsanddreams,which,accordingtoafundamentalpassage(Num.xii.6),constitutethetypicalformsofprophecy,andwiththemthewhole"propheticword,"whichsharesitsessentialcharacteristicwithvisionsanddreams,sinceitcomesnotbythewillofmanbutfromGod.By"concursiveoperation"maybemeantthatformofrevelationillustratedinaninspiredpsalmorepistleorhistory,inwhichnohumanactivity-noteventhecontrolofthewill-issuperseded,buttheHolySpiritworksin,withandthroughthemallinsuchamannerastocommunicatetotheproductqualitiesdistinctlysuperhuman.ThereisnoageinthehistoryofthereligionoftheBible,fromthatofMosestothatofChristandHisapostles,inwhichallthesemodesofrevelationdonotfindplace.Oneoranothermayseemparticularlycharacteristicofthisageorofthat;buttheyalloccurineveryage.Andtheyoccursidebyside,broadlyspeaking,onthesamelevel.Nodiscriminationisdrawnbetweentheminpointofworthinessasmodesofrevelation,andmuchlessinpointofpurityintherevelationscommunicatedthroughthem.ThecircumstancethatGodspoketoMoses,notbydreamorvisionbutmouthtomouth,is,indeed,advertedto(Num.xii.8)asaproofofthepeculiarfavorshowntoMosesandevenofthesuperiordignityofMosesaboveotherorgansofrevelation:GodadmittedhimtoanintimacyofintercoursewhichHedidnotaccordtoothers.ButthoughMoseswasthusdistinguishedaboveallothersinthedealingsofGodwithhim,nodistinctionisdrawnbetweentherevelationsgiventhroughhimandthosegiventhroughotherorgansofrevelationinpointeitherofDivinityorofauthority.AndbeyondthiswehavenoScripturalwarranttogoonincontrastingonemodeofrevelationwithanother.DreamsmayseemtouslittlefittedtoserveasvehiclesofDivinecommunications.ButthereisnosuggestioninScripturethatrevelationsthroughdreamsstandonalowerplanethananyothers;andweshouldnotfailtorememberthattheessentialcharacteristicsofrevelationsthroughdreamsaresharedbyallformsofrevelationinwhich(whetherweshouldcallthemvisionsornot)theimagesorideaswhichfill,orpassinprocessionthrough,the

consciousnessaredeterminedbysomeotherpowerthantherecipient'sownwill.Itmayseemnaturaltosupposethatrevelationsriseinrankinproportiontothefulnessoftheengagementofthementalactivityoftherecipientintheirreception.ButweshouldbearinmindthattheintellectualorspiritualqualityofarevelationisnotderivedfromtherecipientbutfromitsDivineGiver.ThefundamentalfactinallrevelationisthatitisfromGod.Thisiswhatgivesunitytothewholeprocessofrevelation,giventhoughitmaybe-indiversportionsandindiversmannersanddistributedthoughitmaybethroughtheagesinaccordancewiththemerewillofGod,orasitmayhavesuitedHisdevelopingpurpose-thisanditsunitaryend,whichiseverthebuildingupofthekingdomofGod.Inwhateverdiversityofforms,bymeansofwhatevervarietyofmodes,inwhateverdistinguishablestagesitisgiven,itisevertherevelationoftheOneGod,anditisevertheoneconsistentlydevelopingredemptiverevelationofGod.

Onaprimafacieviewitmayindeedseemlikelythatadifferenceinthequalityoftheirsupernaturalnesswouldinevitablyobtainbetweenrevelationsgiventhroughsuchdivergentmodes.Thecompletelysupernaturalcharacterofrevelationsgivenintheophaniesisobvious.HewhowillnotallowthatGodspeakstoman,tomakeknownHisgraciouspurposestowardhim,hasnootherrecourseherethantopronouncethestorieslegendary.Theobjectivityofthemodeofcommunicationwhichisadoptedisintense,anditisthrownuptoobservationwiththegreatestemphasis.IntothenaturallifeofmanGodintrudesinapurelysupernaturalmanner,bearingapurelysupernaturalcommunication.Inthesecommunicationswearegivenaccordinglyjustaseriesof"nakedmessagesofGod."ButnoteveninthePatriarchalagewereallrevelationsgivenintheophaniesorobjectiveappearances.Thereweredreams,andvisions,andrevelationswithoutexplicitintimationinthenarrativeofhowtheywerecommunicated.Andwhenwepassoninthehistory,wedonot,indeed,leavebehindustheophaniesandobjectiveappearances.ItisnotonlymadetheverycharacteristicofMoses,thegreatestfigureinthewholehistoryofrevelationexceptonlythatofChrist,thatheknewGodfacetoface(Deut.xxxiv.10),andGodspoketohimmouthtomouth,evenmanifestly,andnotindarkspeeches(Num.xii.8);butthroughoutthewholehistoryofrevelationdowntotheappearanceofJesustoPaulontheroadtoDamascus,GodhasshownHimselfvisiblytoHisservantswheneverithasseemedgoodtoHimtodosoandhasspokenwiththeminobjectivespeech.Nevertheless,itisexpresslymadethecharacteristicofthePropheticagethatGodmakesHimselfknowntoHisServants"inavision,""inadream"(Num.xii.6).Andalthough,throughoutits

entireduration,God,infulfilmentofHispromise(Deut.xviii.18),putHiswordsinthemouthsofHisprophetsandgavethemHiscommandmentstospeak,yetitwouldseeminherentintheveryemploymentofmenasinstrumentsofrevelationthatthewordsofGodgiventhroughthemarespokenbyhumanmouths;andthepurityoftheirsupernaturalnessmayseemsofarobscured.AndwhenitisnotmerelythemouthsofmenwithwhichGodthusservesHimselfinthedeliveryofHismessages,buttheirmindsandheartsaswell-theplayoftheirreligiousfeelings,ortheprocessesoftheirlogicalreasoning,orthetenacityoftheirmemories,as,say,inapsalmorinanepistle,orahistory-thesupernaturalelementinthecommunicationmayeasilyseemtoretirestillfartherintothebackground.Itcanscarcelybeamatterofsurprise,therefore,thatquestionhasbeenraisedastotherelationofthenaturalandthesupernaturalinsuchrevelations,and,inmanycurrentmannersofthinkingandspeakingofthem,thecompletenessoftheirsupernaturalnesshasbeenlimitedandcurtailedintheinterestsofthenaturalinstrumentalitiesemployed.TheplausibilityofsuchreasoningrendersitthemorenecessarythatweshouldobservetheunvaryingemphasiswhichtheScripturesplaceupontheabsolutesupernaturalnessofrevelationinallitsmodesalike.IntheviewoftheScriptures,thecompletelysupernaturalcharacterofrevelationisinnowaylessenedbythecircumstancethatithasbeengiventhroughtheinstrumentalityofmen.Theyaffirm,indeed,withthegreatestpossibleemphasisthattheDivineworddeliveredthroughmenisthepurewordofGod,dilutedwithnohumanadmixturewhatever.

Wehavealreadybeenledtonotethatevenontheoccasionwhen-Mosesisexaltedaboveallotherorgansofrevelation(Num.xii.6ff.),inpointofdignityandfavor,nosuggestionwhateverismadeofanyinferiority,ineitherthedirectnessorthepurityoftheirsupernaturalness,attachingtootherorgansofrevelation.TheremightneverafterwardariseaprophetinIsraellikeuntoMoses,whomtheLordknewfacetoface(Deut.xxxiv.10).ButeachofthewholeseriesofprophetsraisedupbyJehovahthatthepeoplemightalwaysknowHiswillwastobelikeMosesinspeakingtothepeopleonlywhatJehovahcommandedthem(Deut.xviii.15,18,20).Inthisgreatpromise,securingtoIsraelthesuccessionofprophets,thereisalsoincludedadeclarationofpreciselyhowJehovahwouldcommunicateHismessagesnotsomuchtothemasthroughthem."Iwillraisethemupaprophetfromamongtheirbrethren,likeuntothee,"weread(Deut.xviii.18),"andIwillputmywordsinhismouth,andheshallspeakuntothemallthatIshallcommandhim."TheprocessofrevelationthroughtheprophetswasaprocessbywhichJehovahputHiswordsinthemouthsoftheprophets,andtheprophetsspokepreciselythesewordsandno

others.Sotheprophetsthemselveseverasserted."ThenJehovahputforthhishand,andtouchedmymouth,"explainsJeremiahinhisaccountofhowhereceivedhisprophecies,"andJehovahsaiduntome,Behold,Ihaveputmywordsinthymouth"(Jer.i.9;cf.v.14;Isa.li.16;lix.21;Num.xxii.35;xxiii.5,12,16).Accordingly,thewords"withwhich"theyspokewerenottheirownbuttheLord's:"Andhesaiduntome,"recordsEzekiel,"Sonofman,go,gettheeuntothehouseofIsrael,andspeakwithmywordsuntothem"(Ezk.iii.4).Itisaprocessofnothingotherthan"dictation"whichisthusdescribed(2S.xiv.3,19),though,ofcourse,thequestionmayremainopenoftheexactprocessesbywhichthisdictationisaccomplished.Thefundamentalpassagewhichbringsthecentralfactbeforeusinthemostvividmanneris,nodoubt,theaccountofthecommissioningofMosesandAarongiveninEx.iv.10-17;vii.1-7.Here,inthemostexpresswords,JehovahdeclaresthatHewhomadethemouthcanbewithittoteachitwhattospeak,andannouncestheprecisefunctionofaprophettobethatheis"amouthofGod,"whospeaksnothisownbutGod'swords.Accordingly,theHebrewnamefor"prophet"(nābhī'),whatevermaybeitsetymology,meansthroughouttheScripturesjust"spokesman,"thoughnot"spokesman"ingeneral,butspokesmanbywayofeminence,thatis,God'sspokesman;andthecharacteristicformulabywhichapropheticdeclarationisannouncedis:"ThewordofJehovahcametome,"orthebrief"saithJehovah"(hwhyman,ne'umYahweh).Innocasedoesaprophetputhiswordsforwardashisownwords.Thatheisaprophetatallisduenottochoiceonhisownpart,buttoacallofGod,obeyedoftenwithreluctance;andheprophesiesorforbearstoprophesy,notaccordingtohisownwillbutastheLordopensandshutshismouth(Ezk,iii.26f.)andcreatesforhimthefruitofthelips(Isa.lvii.19;cf.vi.7;l.4).Incontrastwiththefalseprophets,hestrenuouslyassertsthathedoesnotspeakoutofhisownheart("heart"inBiblicallanguageincludesthewholeinnerman),butallthatheproclaimsisthepurewordofJehovah.

Thefundamentalpassagedoesnotquiteleavethematter,however,withthisgeneraldeclaration.ItdescribesthecharacteristicmannerinwhichJehovahcommunicatesHismessagestoHisprophetsasthroughthemediumofvisionsanddreams.Neithervisionsinthetechnicalsenseofthatword,nordreams,appear,however,tohavebeenthecustomarymodeofrevelationtotheprophets,therecordofwhoserevelationshascomedowntous.But,ontheotherhand,therearenumerousindicationsintherecordthattheuniversalmodeofrevelationtothemwasonewhichwasinsomesenseavision,andcanbeclassedonlyinthecategorydistinctivelysocalled.

Thewholenomenclatureofprophecypresupposes,indeed,itsvision-form.Prophecyisdistinctivelyaword,andwhatisdeliveredbytheprophetsisproclaimedasthe"wordofJehovah.”Thatitshouldbeannouncedbytheformula,"ThussaiththeLord,"is,therefore,onlywhatweexpect;andwearepreparedforsuchadescriptionofitsprocessas:"TheLordJehovah...wakenethmineeartohear."He"hathopenedmineear"(Isa.l.4.5).Butthisisnotthewayofspeakingoftheirmessageswhichismostusualintheprophets.Ratheristhewholebodyofprophecycursorilypresentedasathingseen.Isaiahplacesattheheadofhisbook:"ThevisionofIsaiah...whichhesaw"(cf.Isa.xxix.10,11;Ob.ver.1);andthenproceedstosetattheheadofsubordinatesectionstheremarkablewords,"ThewordthatIsaiah...saw"(ii.1);"theburden[margin"oracle"]...whichIsaiah...didsee"(xiii.1).Similarlytherestandattheheadofotherprophecies:"thewordsofAmos...whichhesaw"(Am.i.1);"thewordofJehovahthatcametoMicah...whichhesaw"(Mic.i.1);"theoraclewhichHabakkuktheprophetdidsee"(Hab.i.1margin);andelsewheresuchlanguageoccursasthis:"thewordthatJehovahhathshowedme"(Jer.xxxviii.21);"theprophetshaveseen...oracles"(Lam.ii.14);"thewordofJehovahcame...andIlooked,and,behold"(Ezk,i.3,4);"Woeuntothefoolishprophets,thatfollowtheirownspirit,andhaveseennothing"(Ezk.xiii.3);"I...willlookforthtoseewhathewillspeakwithme,...Jehovah...said,Writethevision"(Hab.ii.1f.).Itisaninadequateexplanationofsuchlanguagetosupposeitmerelyarelicofatimewhenvisionwasmorepredominantlythe,formofrevelation.Thereisnoproofthatvisioninthetechnicalsenseeverwasmorepredominantlytheformofrevelationthaninthedaysofthegreatwritingprophets;andsuchlanguage;iswehavequotedtooobviouslyrepresentsthelivingpointofviewoftheprophetstoadmitofthesuppositionthatitwasmerelyconventionalontheirlips.Theprophets,inaword,representtheDivinecommunicationswhichtheyreceivedasgiventotheminsomesenseinvisions.

Itispossible,nodoubt,toexaggeratethesignificanceofthis.Itisanexaggeration,forexample,toinsistthatthereforealltheDivinecommunicationsmadetotheprophetsmusthavecometotheminexternalappearancesandobjectivespeech,addressedtoandreceivedbymeansofthebodilyeyeandear.Thiswouldbetobreakdownthedistinctionbetweenmanifestationandrevelation,andtoassimilatethemodeofpropheticrevelationtothatgrantedtoMoses,thoughtheseareexpresslydistinguished(Num.xii.6-8).Itisalsoanexaggerationtoinsistthatthereforethepropheticstatemustbeconceivedasthatofstrictecstasy,involving,thecompleteabeyanceofallmentallifeonthepartoftheprophet(amentia),andpossiblyalsoaccompanyingphysicaleffects.Itis

quiteclearfromtherecordswhichtheprophetsthemselvesgiveusoftheirrevelationsthattheirintelligencewasalertinallstagesoftheirreceptionofthem.Thepurposeofboththeseextremeviewsisthegoodoneofdoingfulljusticetotheobjectivityoftherevelationsvouchsafedtotheprophets.Iftheserevelationstookplaceentirelyexternallytotheprophet,whomerelystoodoffandcontemplatedthem,oriftheywereimplantedintheprophetsbyaprocesssoviolentasnotonlytosupersedetheirmentalactivitybut,forthetimebeing,toannihilateit,itwouldbequiteclearthattheycamefromasourceotherthantheprophets'ownminds.ItisundoubtedlythefundamentalcontentionoftheprophetsthattherevelationsgiventhroughthemarenottheirownbutwhollyGod's.ThesignificantlanguagewehavejustquotedfromEzk.xiii.3:"Woeuntothefoolishprophets,thatfollowtheirownspirit,andhaveseennothing,"isatypicalutteranceoftheirsenseofthecompleteobjectivityoftheirmessages.Whatdistinguishesthefalseprophetsispreciselythatthey"prophesyoutoftheirownheart"(Ezk.xiii.2-17),or,todrawtheantithesissharply,that"theyspeakavisionoftheirownheart,andnotoutofthemouthofJehovah"(Jer.xxiii.16.26;xiv.14).Buttheseextremeviewsfailtodojustice,theonetotheequallyimportantfactthatthewordofGod,giventhroughtheprophets,comesasthepureandunmixedwordofGodnotmerelyto,butfrom,theprophets;andtheothertotheequallyobviousfactthattheintelligenceoftheprophetsisalertthroughoutthewholeprocessofthereceptionanddeliveryoftherevelationmadethroughthem.

Thatwhichgivestoprophecyasamodeofrevelationitsplaceinthecategoryofvisions,strictlysocalled,anddreams,isthatitshareswiththemthedistinguishingcharacteristicwhichdeterminestheclass.Inthemallalikethemovementsofthemindaredeterminedbysomethingextraneoustothesubject'swill,orrather,sincewearespeakingofsupernaturallygivendreamsandvisions,extraneoustothetotalityofthesubject'sownpsychoses.Apowernothimselftakespossessionofhisconsciousnessanddeterminesitaccordingtoitswill.Thatpower,inthecaseoftheprophets,wasfullyrecognizedandenergeticallyassertedtobeJehovahHimselfor,tobemorespecific,theSpiritofJehovah(1S.x.6.10;Neh.ix.30;Zec.vii.12;Joelii.28.20).Theprophetsweretherefore‘menoftheSpirit’(Hos.ix.7).WhatconstitutedthemprophetswasthattheSpiritwasputuponthem(Isa.xlii.1)orpouredoutonthem(Joelii.28,29),andtheywereconsequentlyfilledwiththeSpirit(Mic.iii.8),or,inanotherbutequivalentlocution,that"thehand"oftheLord,or"thepowerofthehand"oftheLord,wasuponthem(2K.iii.15;Ezk.i.3;iii.14.22;xxxiii.22;xxxvii.1;xl.1),thatistosay,theywereunderthedivinecontrol.Thiscontrolis

representedascompleteandcompelling,sothat,underit,theprophetbecomesnotthe"mover,"butthe"moved"intheformationofhismessage.TheapostlePeterverypurelyreflectsthepropheticconsciousnessinhiswell-knowndeclaration:‘Noprophecyofscripturecomesofprivateinterpretation;forprophecywasneverbroughtbythewillofman;butitwasasbornebytheHolySpiritthatmenspokefromGod'(2Pet.i.20.21).

WhatthislanguageofPeteremphasizes-andwhatisemphasizedinthewholeaccountwhichtheprophetsgiveoftheirownconsciousness-is,tospeakplainly,thepassivityoftheprophetswithrespecttotherevelationgiventhroughthem.Thisisthesignificanceofthephrase:‘itwasasbornebytheHolySpiritthatmenspokefromGod.'Tobe"borne"(fe,rein,phérein)isnotthesameastobeled(a;gein,ágein),muchlesstobeguidedordirected(o`dhgei/n,hodēgeín):hethatis"borne"contributesnothing,tothemovementinduced,butistheobjecttohemoved.Theterm"passivity"is,perhaps,however,liabletosomemisapprehension,andshouldnotbeoverstrained.Itisnotintendedtodenythattheintelligenceoftheprophetswasactiveinthereceptionoftheirmessage;itwasbymeansoftheiractiveintelligencethattheirmessagewasreceived:theirintelligencewastheinstrumentofrevelation.Itisintendedtodenyonlythattheirintelligencewasactiveintheproductionoftheirmessage:thatitwascreativelyasdistinguishedfromreceptivelyactive.Forreceptionitselfisakindofactivity.Whattheprophetsaresolicitousthattheirreadersshallunderstandisthattheyareinnosenseco-authorswithGodoftheirmessages.Theirmessagesaregiventhem,giventhementire,andgiventhempreciselyastheyaregivenoutbythem.Godspeaksthroughthem:theyarenotmerelyHismessengers,but"Hismouth."Butatthesametimetheirintelligenceisactiveinthereception,retentionandannouncingoftheirmessages,contributingnothingtothembutpresentingfitinstrumentsforthecommunicationofthem-instrumentscapableofunderstanding,respondingprofoundlytoandzealouslyproclaimingthem.

Thereis,nodoubt,anotunnaturalhesitancyabroadinthinkingoftheprophetsasexhibitingonlysuchmerelyreceptiveactivities.Intheinterestsoftheirpersonalities,weareaskednottorepresentGodasdealingmechanicallywiththem,pouringHisrevelationsintotheirsoulstobesimplyreceivedasinsomanybuckets,orviolentlywrestingtheirmindsfromtheirownproperactionthatHemaydoHisownthinkingwiththem.Mustwenotrathersuppose,weareasked,thatallrevelationsmusthe"psychologicallymediated,"mustbegiven"afterthemodeofmoralmediation,"andmustbemadefirstofalltheirrecipients'"ownspiritualpossession"?Andisnot,inpointoffact,the

personalityofeachprophetclearlytraceableinhismessage,andthattosuchanextentastocompelustorecognizehimasinatruesenseitsrealauthor?Theplausibilityofsuchquestioningsshouldnotbepermittedtoobscurethefactthatthemodeofthecommunicationofthepropheticmessageswhichissuggestedbythemisdirectlycontradictedbytheprophets'ownrepresentationsofthenrelationstotherevealingSpirit.Intheprophets'ownviewtheywerejustinstrumentsthroughwhomGodgaverevelationswhichcame,fromthem,notastheirownproduct,butasthepurewordofJehovah.Neithershouldtheplausibilityofsuchquestioningsblindustotheirspeciousness.Theyexploitsubordinateconsiderations,whicharenotwithouttheirvalidityintheirownplaceandundertheirownlimitingconditions,asiftheywerethedeterminingoreventhesoleconsiderationsinthecase,andinneglectofthereallydeterminingconsiderations.GodisHimselftheauthoroftheinstrumentsHeemploysforthecommunicationofHismessagestomenandhasframedthemintopreciselytheinstrumentsHedesiredfortheexactcommunicationofHismessage.ThereisjustgroundfortheexpectationthatHewillusealltheinstrumentsHeemploysaccordingtotheirnatures;intelligentbeingsthereforeasintelligentbeings,moralagentsasmoralagents.Butthereisnojustgroundfor,assertingthatGodisincapableofemployingtheintelligentbeingsHehasHimselfcreatedandformedtoHiswill,toproclaimHismessagespurelyasHegivesthemtothem;orofmakingtrulythepossessionofrationalmindsconceptionswhichtheyhave.themselveshadnopartincreating.AndthereisnogroundforimaginingthatGodisunabletoframeHisownmessageinthelanguageoftheorgansofHisrevelationwithoutitstherebyceasingtobe,becauseexpressedinafashionnaturaltotheseorgans,thereforepurelyHismessage.OnewouldsupposeittolieintheverynatureofthecasethatiftheLordmakesanyrevelationtomen,Hewoulddoitinthelanguageofmen;or,toindividualizemoreexplicitly,inthelanguageofthemanHeemploysastheorganofHisrevelation;andthatnaturallymeans,notthelanguageofhisnationorcirclemerely,buthisownparticularlanguage,inclusiveofallthatgivesindividualitytohisself-expression.Wemayspeakofthis,ifwewill,as"theaccommodationoftherevealingGodtotheseveralpropheticindividualities."Butweshouldavoidthinkingofit.externallyandthereforemechanically,asiftherevealingSpiritartificiallyphrasedthemessagewhichHegivesthrougheachprophetintheparticularformsofspeechpropertotheindividualityofeach,soastocreatetheillusionthatthemessagecomesoutoftheheartoftheprophethimself.Preciselywhattheprophetsaffirmisthattheirmessagesdonotcomeoutoftheirownheartsanddonotrepresenttheworkingsoftheirownspirits.Noristhereanyillusioninthephenomenonwearecontemplating;anditisamuchmore

intimate,and,wemayadd,amuchmoreinterestingphenomenonthananexternal"accommodation"ofspeechtoindividualhabitudes.Itincludes,ontheonehand,the"accommodation"oftheprophet,throughhistotalpreparation,tothespeechinwhichtherevelationtobegiventhroughhimistobeclothed;andontheotherinvolveslittlemorethantheconsistentcarryingintodetailofthebroadprinciplethatGodusestheinstrumentsHeemploysinaccordancewiththeirnatures.

Nodoubt,onadequateoccasion,theverystonesmightcryoutbythepowerofGod,anddumbbeastsspeak,andmysteriousvoicessoundforthfromthevoid;andtherehavenotbeenlackinginstancesinwhichmenhavebeencompelledbythesamepowertospeakwhattheywouldnot,andinlanguageswhoseverysoundswerestrangetotheirears.ButordinarilywhenGodtheLordwouldspeaktomenHeavailsHimselfoftheservicesofahumantonguewithwhichtospeak,andHeemploysthistongueaccordingtoitsnatureasatongueandaccordingtotheparticularnatureofthetonguewhichHeemploys.Itisvaintosaythatthemessagedeliveredthroughtheinstrumentalityofthistongueisconditionedatleastinitsformbythetonguebywhichitisspoken,ifnot,indeed,limited,curtailed,insomedegreedeterminedeveninitsmatter,byit.NotonlywasitGodtheLordwhomadethetongue,andwhomadethisparticulartonguewithallitspeculiarities,notwithoutregardtothemessageHewoulddeliverthroughit;butHiscontrolofitisperfectandcomplete,anditisasabsurdtosaythatHecannot.speakHismessagebyitpurelywithoutthatmessagesufferingchangefromthepeculiaritiesofitstoneandmodesofenunciation,asitwouldbetosaythatnonewtruthcanbeannouncedinanylanguagebecausetheelementsofspeechbythecombinationofwhichthetruthinquestionisannouncedarealreadyinexistencewiththeirfixedrangeofconnotation.Themarksoftheseveralindividualitiesimprintedonthemessagesoftheprophets,inotherwords,areonlyapartofthegeneralfactthatthesemessagesarecouchedinhumanlanguage,andinnowaybeyondthatgeneralfactaffecttheirpurityasdirectcommunicationsfromGod.

Anewsetofproblemsisraisedbythemodeofrevelationwhichwehavecalled"concursiveoperation."Thismodeofrevelationdiffersfromprophecy,properlysocalled,preciselybytheemploymentinit,asisnotdoneinprophecy,ofthetotalpersonalityoftheorganofrevelation,asafactor.IthasbeencommontospeakofthemodeoftheSpirit'sactioninthisformofrevelation,therefore,asanassistance,asuperintendence,adirection,acontrol,themeaningbeingthattheeffectaimedat-thediscoveryandenunciationofDivinetruth-isattained

throughtheactionofthehumanpowers-historicalresearch,logicalreasoning,ethicalthought,religiousaspiration-actingnotbythemselves,however,butundertheprevailingassistance,superintendence,direction,controloftheDivineSpirit.Thismannerofspeakinghastheadvantageofsettingthismodeofrevelationsharplyincontrastwithpropheticrevelation,asinvolvingmerelyadetermining,andnot,asinpropheticrevelation,asupercessiveactionoftherevealingSpirit.Wearewarned,however,againstpressingthisdiscriminationtoofarbytheinclusionofthewholebodyofScriptureinsuchpassagesas2Pet.i.20f.inthecategoryofprophecy,andtheassignmentoftheiroriginnottoamere"leading"buttothe"bearing"oftheHolySpirit.Inanyeventsuchtermsasassistance,superintendence,direction,control,inadequatelyexpressthenatureoftheSpirit'sactioninrevelationby"concursiveoperation."TheSpiritisnottobeconceivedasstandingoutsideofthehumanpowersemployedfortheeffectinview,readytosupplementanyinadequaciestheymayshowandtosupplyanydefectstheymaymanifest,butasworkingconfluentlyin,withandbythem,elevatingthem,directingthem,controllingthem,energizingthem,sothat,asHisinstruments,theyriseabovethemselvesandunderHisinspirationdoHisworkandreachHisaim.Theproduct,therefore,whichisattainedbytheirmeansisHisproductthroughthem.Itisthisfactwhichgivestotheprocesstherighttobecalledactively,andtotheproducttherighttobecalledpassively,arevelation.Althoughthecircumstancethatwhatisdoneisdonebyandthroughtheactionofhumanpowerskeepstheproductinformandqualityinatruesensehuman,yettheconfluentoperationoftheHolySpiritthroughoutthewholeprocessraisestheresultabovewhatcouldbyanypossibilitybeachievedbymerehumanpowersandconstitutesitexpresslyasupernaturalproduct.Thehumantraitsaretraceablethroughoutitswholeextent,butatbottomitisaDivinegift,andthelanguageofPaulisthemostpropermodeofspeechthatcouldbeappliedtoit:"Whichthingsalsowespeak,notinwordswhichman'swisdomteacheth,butwhichtheSpiritteacheth"(1Cor.ii.13);"ThethingswhichIwriteuntoyou...arethecommandmentoftheLord"(1Cor.xiv.37).

ItissupposedthatalltheformsofspecialorredemptiverevelationwhichunderlieandgiveitscontenttothereligionoftheBiblemaywithoutviolencebesubsumedunderoneoranotherofthesethreemodes-externalmanifestation,internalsuggestion,andconcursiveoperation.All,thatis,excepttheculminatingrevelation,notthrough,butin,JesusChrist.AsinHisperson,inwhichdwellsallthefulnessoftheGodheadbodily,Herisesaboveallclassificationandissuigeneris;sotherevelationaccumulatedinHimstandsoutsideallthediversportionsanddiversmannersinwhichotherwiserevelationhasbeengivenand

stunsupinitselfallthathasbeenorcanbemadeknownofGodandofHisredemption.HedoesnotsomuchmakearevelationofGodasHimselfistherevelationofGod;HedoesnotmerelydiscloseGod'spurposeofredemption,HeisuntouswisdomfromGod,andrighteousnessandsanctificationandredemption.ThetheophaniesarebutfaintshadowsincomparisonwithHismanifestationofGodintheflesh.TheprophetscouldprophesyonlyastheSpiritofChristwhichwasinthemtestified,revealingtothemastoservantsoneoranotherofthesecretsoftheLordJehovah;fromHimasHisSon,Jehovahhasnosecrets,butwhatsoevertheFatherknowsthattheSonknowsalso.WhatevertruthmenhavebeenmadepartakersofbytheSpiritoftruthisHis(forallthingswhatsoevertheFatherhathareHis)andistakenbytheSpiritoftruthanddeclaredtomenthatHemaybeglorified.Nevertheless,thoughallrevelationisthussummedupinHim,weshouldnotfailtonoteverycarefullythatitwouldalsobeallsealedupinHim-solittleisrevelationconveyedbyfactalone,withouttheword-haditnotbeenthustakenbytheSpiritoftruthanddeclareduntomen.TheentiretyoftheNewTestamentisbuttheexplanatorywordaccompanyingandgivingitseffecttothefactofChrist.Andwhenthisfactwasinallitsmeaningmadethepossessionofmen,revelationwascompletedandinthatsenseceased.JesusChristisnolesstheendofrevelationthanHeistheendofthelaw.

BiblicalTerminology

Thereisnotmuchadditionaltobelearnedconcerningthenatureandprocessesofrevelation,fromthetermscurrentlyemployedinScripturetoexpresstheidea.Theseternsareordinarilythecommonwordsfordisclosing,makingknown,makingmanifest,appliedwithmoreorlessheightenedsignificancetosupernaturalactsoreffectsinkind.IntheEnglishBible(AV)theverb"reveal"occursaboutfifty-onetimes,ofwhichtwenty-twoareintheOldTestamentandtwenty-nineintheNewTestament.IntheOldTestamentthewordisalwaystherenderingofaHebrewtermhl'G',gālāh,oritsAramaicequivalenthl'G>,gelāh,therootmeaningofwhichappearstobe"nakedness."Whenappliedtorevelation,itseemstohintattheremovalofobstaclestoperceptionortheuncoveringofobjectstoperception.IntheNewTestamenttheword"reveal"isalways(withthesingleexceptionofLk.ii.35)therenderingofaGreektermavpokalu,ptw,apokalúptō(butin2Thess.i.7;1Pet.iv.13thecorrespondingnounavpoka,luyij,apokálupsis),whichhasaverysimilarbasalsignificancewithitsHebrewparallel.AsthisHebrewwordformednosubstantiveinthissense,thenoun"revelation"doesnotoccurintheEnglishOldTestament,theideabeingexpressed,however,byotherHebrewtermsvariouslyrendered.ItoccursintheEnglishNewTestament,ontheotherhand,aboutadozentimes,andalwaysastherenderingofthesubstantivecorrespondingtotheverbrendered"reveal"(apokálupsis).OnthefaceoftheEnglishBible,theterms"reveal,""revelation"bearthereforeuniformlythegeneralsenseof"disclose,""disclosure."TheideaisfoundintheBible,however,muchmorefrequentlythantheterms"reveal,""revelation"inEnglishversions.Indeed,the,HebrewandGreektermsexclusivelysorenderedoccurmorefrequentlyinthissensethaninthisrenderingintheEnglishBible.Andbytheirsidetherestandvariousothertermswhichexpressinonewayoranotherthegeneralconception.

IntheNewTestamenttheverbfanero,w,phaneróō,withthegeneralsenseofmakingmanifest,manifesting,isthemostcommonofthese.Itdiffersfromapokalúptōthemoregeneralandexternaltermfromthemorespecialandinward.Othertermsalsoareoccasionallyused:evpifa,neia,epipháneia,"manifestation"(2Thess.ii.8;1Tim.vi.14;2Tim.i.10;iv.1;Tit.ii.13;cf.evpifai,nw,epiphaínō,Tit.ii.11;iii.4);deiknu,w,deiknúō(Rev,i.1;xvii.1;xxii.1.6.8;cf.Actsix.16;1Tim,iv.15);evxhge,omai,exēgéomai(Jn.i.18),ofwhich,however,onlyoneperhaps-crhmati,zw,chrēmatízō(Mt.ii.12.22;Lk.ii.

26;Actsx.22;Heb.viii.5;xi.7;xii.25);crhmatismo,j,chrēmatismós(Rom.xi.4)-callsforparticularnoticeasinaspecialway,accordingtoitsusage,expressingtheideaofaDivinecommunication.

IntheOldTestament,thecommonHebrewverbfor"seeing"(ha'r',rā'āh)isusedinasappropriatestems,withGodasthesubject,for"appearing.""showing":"theLordappearedunto...";"thewordwhichtheLordshowedme."Andfromthisverbnotonlyisanactivesubstantiveformedwhichsuppliedthemoreancientdesignationoftheofficialorganorrevelation:haero,rō'eh,"seer";butalsoobjectivesubstantives,ha'r>m;,mar'āh,andha<r>m;,mar'ehwhichwereusedtodesignatethethingseeninarevelation-the"vision."Bythesideofthesetermstherewereothersinuse,derivedfromarootwhichsuppliestotheAramaicitscommonwordfor"seeing,"butinHebrewhasasomewhatmorepregnantmeaning,hw'x',ḥāzāh.Itsactivederivative,hw,xo,ḥōzeh,wasadesignationofaprophetwhichremainedinoccasionaluse,alternatingwiththemorecustomaryaybin',nābhī,longafterha'ro,rō'eh,hadbecomepracticallyobsolete;anditspassivederivativesḥāzōn,ḥizzāyōn,ḥāzūth,maḥăzehprovidedtheordinarytermsforthesubstanceoftherevelationor"vision."Thedistinctionbetweenthetwosetsofterms,derivedrespectivelyfromrā'āhandḥāzāh,whilenottobeundulypressed,seemstolieinthedirectionthattheformersuggestsexternalmanifestationsandthelatterinternalrevelations.Therō'ehishetowhomDivinemanifestations,theḥōzehhetowhomDivinecommunications,havebeenvouchsafed;themar'ehisanappearance,thehāzōnanditscompanionsavision.Itmaybeofinteresttoobservethatmar'āhisthetermemployedinNum.xii.6,whileitisḥāzōnwhichcommonlyoccursintheheadingsofthewrittenpropheciestoindicatetheirrevelatorycharacter.Fromthisitmaypossiblybeinferredthatintheformerpassageitisthemode,inthelatterthecontentsoftherevelationthatisemphasized.PerhapsalikedistinctionmaybetracedbetweentheḥāzōnofDan.viii.15andthemar'ehofthenextverse.Theordinaryverbfor"knowing,"[d;y",yādha',expressinginitscausativestemstheideaofmakingknown,informing,isalsoverynaturallyemployed,withGodasitssubject,inthesenseofrevealing,andthat,inaccordancewiththenaturalsenseoftheword,withatendencytopregnancyofimplication,ofrevealingeffectively,ofnotmerelyuncoveringtoobservation,butmakingtoknow.Accordingly,itisparallelednotmerelywithhl'G",gālāh(Ps.xcviii.2:'TheLordhathmadeknownhissalvation;hisrighteousnesshathhedisplayedinthesightofthenation'),butalsowithsuchtermsasdm;l',lāmadh(Ps.xxv.4:'Makeknowntomethyways,OLord:teachmethypaths').Thisverbyādha'formsnosubstantiveinthesenseof"revelation"(cf.t[;D;,da'ath,Num.xxiv.

16;Ps.xix,3).

Themostcommonvehiclesoftheideaof"revelation"intheOldTestamentare,however,twoexpressionswhichareyettobementioned.Thesearethephrase,"wordofJehovah."andthetermcommonlybutinadequatelyrenderedintheEnglishversionsby"law."Theformer(debharYahwehvariedtodebhar'Ělōhīmordebharhā-'Ělōhīm;cf.ne'umYahweh,massa,Yahweh)occursscoresoftimesandisatoncethesimplestandthemostcolorlessdesignationofaDivinecommunication.Bythelatter(tōrāh),thepropermeaningofwhichis"instruction,"astrongimplicationofauthoritativenessisconveyed;and,inthissense,itbecomeswhatmaybecalledthetechnicaldesignationofaspecificallyDivinecommunication.Thetwoarenotinfrequentlybroughttogether,asinIsa.i.10:"HearthewordofJehovah,yerulersofSodom;giveearuntothelaw[margin"teaching"]ofourGod,yepeopleofGomorrah";orIsa.ii.3;Mic.iv.2;"ForoutofZionshallgoforththelaw[margin"instruction"],andthewordofJehovahfromJerusalem."BothtermsareusedforanyDivinecommunicationofwhateverextent;andbothcametobeemployedtoexpresstheentirebodyofDivinerevelation,conceivedasaunitarywhole.Inthiscomprehensiveusage,theemphasisoftheonecametofallmoreonthegraciousness,andoftheothermoreontheauthoritativenessofthisbodyofDivinerevelation;andbothpassedintotheNewTestamentwiththeseimplications."ThewordofGod,"orsimply"theword,"comesthustomeanintheNewTestamentjustthegospel,“thewordoftheproclamationofredemption,thatis,allthatwhichGodhastosaytoman,andcausestobesaid"lookingtohissalvation.Itexpresses,inaword,preciselywhatwetechnicallyspeakofasGod'sredemptiverevelation."Thelaw,"ontheotherhand,meansinthisNewTestamentuse,justthewholebodyoftheauthoritativeinstructionwhichGodhasgivenmen.Itexpresses,inotherwords,whatwecommonlyspeakofasGod'ssupernaturalrevelation.Thetwothings,ofcourse,arethesame:God'sauthoritativerevelationisHisgraciousrevelation;God'sredemptiverevelationisHissupernaturalrevelation.Thetwotermsmerelylookattheoneaggregateofrevelationfromtwoaspects,andeachemphasizesitsownaspectofthisoneaggregatedrevelation.

Now,thisaggregatedrevelationlaybeforethemenoftheNewTestamentinawrittenform,anditwasimpossibletospeakfreelyofitwithoutconsciousnessofandatleastoccasionalreferencetoitswrittenform.AccordinglywehearofaWordofGodthatiswritten(Jn.xv.25;1Cor.xv.54),andtheDivineWordisnaturallycontrastedwithmeretradition,asifitswrittenformwereofitsveryidea(Mk.vii.10);indeed,thewrittenbodyofrevelation-withanemphasison

itswrittenform-isdesignatedexpressly‘thepropheticword'(2Pet.i.19).Moredistinctlystill,"theLaw"comestobethoughtofasawritten,notexactly,code,butbodyofDivinelyauthoritativeinstructions.Thephrase,"Itiswritteninyourlaw"(Jn.x.34;xv.25;Rom.iii.19;1Cor.xiv.21),acquirestheprecisesenseof,"ItissetforthinyourauthoritativeScriptures,allthecontentofwhichis‘law,'thatis,Divineinstruction."Thus"theWordofGod,""theLaw,"cametomeanjustthewrittenbodyofrevelation,whatwecall,andwhattheNewTestamentwriterscalled,inthesamehighsensewhichwegivetheterm,"theScriptures."These"Scriptures"arethusidentifiedwiththerevelationofGod,conceivedasawell-definedcorpus,andtwoconceptionsrisebeforeuswhichhavehadadeterminingparttoplayinthehistoryofChristianity-theconceptionofanauthoritativeCanonofScripture,andtheconceptionofthisCanonofScriptureasjusttheWordofGodwritten.Theformerconceptionwasthrownintoprominenceinoppositiontothegnosticheresiesintheearliestageofthechurch,andgaverisetoarichlyvariedmodeofspeechconcerningtheScriptures,emphasizingtheirauthorityinlegallanguage,whichgoesbacktoandrestsontheBiblicalusageof"Law."ThelatteritwaslefttotheReformationtodojusticetoinitsstruggleagainst,ontheoneside,theRomishdepressionoftheScripturesinfavorofthetraditionsofthechurch,andontheothersidetheEnthusiasts'supercessionofthemintheinterestsofthe"innerWord."WhenTertullian,ontheonehand,speaksoftheScripturesasan"Instrument,"alegaldocument,histerminologyhasanexpresswarrantintheScriptures'ownusageoftōrāh,"law,"todesignatetheirentirecontent.AndwhenJohnGerhardarguesthat"betweentheWordofGodandSacredScripture,takeninamaterialsense,thereisnorealdifference,"heisonlydeclaringplainlywhatisdefinitelyimpliedintheNewTestamentuseof"theWordofGod"withthewrittenrevelationinmind.WhatisimportanttorecognizeisthattheScripturesthemselvesrepresenttheScripturesasnotmerelycontaininghereandtheretherecordofrevelations-"wordsofGod,"tōrōth-givenbyGod,butasthemselves,inalltheirextent,arevelation,anauthoritativebodyofgraciousinstructionsfromGod;or,sincetheyalone,ofalltherevelationswhichGodmayhavegiven,areextant-ratherastheRevelation,theonly"WordofGod"accessibletomen,inalltheirparts"law."thatis,authoritativeinstructionfromGod.

LITERATURE-HermanWitsius,"DeProphetisetProphetia"inMiscell.Sacr.,I,Leiden,1736.1-318;G.F.Oehler,TheologyoftheOT,ET,Edinburgh,1874,I,partI(andtheappropriatesectionsinotherBib.Theologies);H.Bavinck,GereformeerdeDognzatiek2,I,Kampen,1906,290-406(andtheappropriate

sectionsinotherdogmatictreatises);H.Voigt,Fundamentaldogmatik,Gotha,1874,173ff;A.Kuyper,EncyclopaediaofSacredTheology,ET,NewYork,1898,div.III,ch.11;A.E.Krauss,DieLehrevonderOffenbarung,Gotha,1868;C.F.Fritzsche,Derevelationisnotionebiblica,Leipzig,1828;E.W.Hengstenberg,TheChristologyoftheOT,ET2,Edinburgh,1868,IV,Appendix6,pp.396-444;E.König,DerOffenbarungsbegriffdesAT,Leipzig,1882;A.B.Davidson,OTProphecy,1903;W.J.Beecher,TheProphetsandthePromise,NewYork,1905;JamesOrr,TheChristianViewofGodandtheWorld,1893,asperIndex,"Revelation,"andRevelationandInspiration,LondonandNewYork,1910.Also:T.Christlieb,ModernDoubtandChristianBelief,ET,NewYork,1874;G.P.Fisher,TheNatureandMethodofRevelation,NewYork,1890;C.M.Mead,SupernaturalRevelation,1889;J.Quirmbach,DieLehredesh.Paulusvondernaturlichen,Gotteserkenntnis,etc.,Freiburg,1906.

TheIdeaOfRevelationAndTheoriesOfRevelation

REVELATION[fromLatinrevela’tio,anunveiling,revealing,derivativeofrevela’re,unveil;re-,back+vela’re,toveil,derivativeofve’lum,aveil]:initsactivemeaning,theactofGodbywhichhecommunicatestomanthetruthconcerninghimself-hisnature,works,will,orpurposes;inthepassivemeaning,theknowledgeresultantuponsuchactivityofGod.Thetermiscommonlyemployedintwosenses:awider—generalrevelation;andanarrower—specialrevelation.InitswidersenseitincludesallmodesinwhichGodmakeshimselfknowntomen;or,passively,allknowledgeconcerningGodhoweverattained,inasmuchasitisconceivedthatallsuchknowledgeis,inonewayoranother,wroughtbyhim.Initsnarrowersenseitisconfinedtothecommunicationofknowledgeinasupernaturalasdistinguishedfromanaturalmode;or,passively,totheknowledgeofGodwhichhasbeensupernaturallymadeknowntomen.Therealityofgeneralrevelationisdisputedbynonebuttheanti-theistandagnostic,ofwhomonedeniestheexistenceofaGodtomakehimselfknown,andtheotherdoubtsthecapacityofthehumanintellect,iftherebeaGod,toreadthevestigeshehasleftofhimselfinhishandiwork.

MosttypesofmoderntheologyexplicitlyallowthatallknowledgeofGodrestsonrevelation;thatGodcanbeknownonlybecauseandsofarasherevealshimself.Inthistheextremest“liberals,”suchasBiedermann,Lipsius,andPfleiderer,agreewiththeextremest“conservatives.”Revelationiseverywhererepresentedastheimplicationoftheism,andasnecessarytotheverybeingofreligion:“ThemanwhodoesnotbelievethatGodcanspeaktohimwillnotspeaktoGod”(A.M.Fairbairn).Itisonlywithreferencetotherealityofspecialrevelationthatdebateconcerningrevelationcontinues;anditisthisthatChristianapologeticsneedstovalidate.Here,too,thecontroversyisultimatelywithanti-theisticpresuppositions,withthepostulatesofanextremedeismorofanessentialpantheism;butitisproximatelywithallthosetypesofthoughtwhichseektomediatebetweendeisticorpantheizingconceptionsandthoseofatrulyChristiantheism.Intheeighteenthcenturythedebatewaschieflywithdeisminitsone-sidedemphasisuponthedivinetranscendence,andwiththeseveralcompromisingschemeswhichgrewupinthecourseoftheconflict,suchaspurerationalismanddogmatisticrationalism.Thedeistdeniedtherealityofallspecialrevelation,onthegroundsthatitwasnotnecessaryformanandwaseithermetaphysicallyimpossibleormorallyunworthyofGod.Convincedoftherealityofspecialrevelation,therationaliststilldenieditsnecessity,whilethedogmatist,admittingalsoitsnecessity,deniedthatitconstitutedtheauthoritativegroundoftheacceptanceoftruth.Kant’scriticismstruckatwofoldblowatrationalism.Onthenegativesidehistreatmentofthetheisticproofsdiscreditedthebasisofnatural(general)revelation,inwhichtherationalistplacedhiswholeconfidence.ThusthewaywaspreparedforphilosophicalagnosticismandforthatChristianagnosticismwhichisexemplifiedintheschoolofRitschl.Onthepositivesidehepreparedthewayfortheidealisticphilosophy,whosefundamentallypantheisticpresuppositionsintroducedaradicalchangeintheformofthecontroversyconcerningtherealityofaspecialrevelationwithoutinanywayalteringitsessence.Insteadofdenyingthesupernaturalwiththedeists,thisnewmodeofthoughtformallydeniedthenatural.AllthoughtwasconceivedastheimmanentworkofGod.Thischangeofpositionantiquatedtheformsofstatementandargumentwhichhadbeenwroughtoutagainstthedeists;butthe

questionatissuestillremainedthesame—whetherthereisanyspecialrevelationofGodpossible,actual,extant,whethermanhasreceivedanyotherknowledgeofGodthanwhatisexcogitablebythenormalactionofhisownunaidedfaculties.Men’sontologyofthehumanfacultiesandactivitieswaschanged;itwasnowaffirmedthatallthattheyexcogitatedwasofGod,andthenaturalwasaccordinglylabeledsupernatural.Butaspecialsupernaturalinterpositionforanewgiftofknowledgecontinuedtobedeniedasstrenuouslyasbefore.Thusithascomeaboutthat,inthenineteenthcentury,thecontroversyastospecialrevelationisnolongerchieflywiththeone-sidedemphasisuponthetranscendenceofGodofthedeist,butwiththeequallyone-sidedemphasisupontheimmanenceofGodofthepantheist,andwiththevariouscompromisingschemeswhichhavegrownupinthecourseoftheconflict,througheffortstomediatebetweenpantheismandatrulyChristiantheism.ItisnolongernecessarytoprovethatGodmayanddoesspeakinthesoulsofmen;itisadmittedonallhandsthatherevealshimselfunceasinglythroughalltheactivitiesofcreaturelyminds.ThetaskhascometobetodistinguishbetweenGod’sgeneralandGod’sspecialrevelations,toprovethepossibilityandactualityofthelatteralongsideoftheformer,andtovindicateforitasupernaturalnessofamoreimmediateorderthanthatwhichisfreelyattributedtoallthethoughtofmanconcerningdivinethings.

Inordertodefendtheideaofdistinctivelysupernaturalrevelationagainstthisinsidiousundermining,ithasbecomenecessary,indefiningitinitshighestandstrictestsense,toemphasizethesupernaturalinthemodeofknowledgeandnotmerelyinitssource.Whenstressislaiduponthesourceonlywithouttakingintoaccountthemodeofknowledge,thewayliesopentothosewhopostulateimmanentdeityinallhumanthoughttoconfoundthecategoriesofreasonandrevelation,andsopracticallytodoawaywiththelatteraltogether.Evenwhenthedataonwhichourfacultiesworkbelongtoadistinctivelysupernaturalorder,yetsolongasthemodeofacquisitionofknowledgefromthemisconceivedaspurelyhuman,theresultantknowledgeremainsnaturalknowledge;and,sinceintuitionisapurelyhumanmodeofknowledge,so-calledintuitionsofdivinetruthwouldformnoexceptiontothisclassification.OnlysuchknowledgeasisimmediatelycommunicatedbyGodis,inthe

highestandstrictestsense,supernaturallyrevealed.Thedifferentiaofrevelationinitsnarrowestandstrictestsense,therefore,isnotmerelythattheknowledgesodesignatedhasGodforitssource,normerelythatitbecomesthepropertyofmenbyasupernaturalagency,butfurtherthatitdoesnotemergeintohumanconsciousnessasanacquisitionofthehumanfaculties,pureandsimple.

Suchaconceptionmaygiveusanarrowercategorythanthatusuallycalledspecialrevelation.IncontendingforitsrealityitisbynomeansdeniedthatthereareotherrevelationsofGodwhichmaydeservethenameofspecialorsupernaturalinadistinctivesense.ItisonlyaffirmedthatamongtheothermodesinwhichGodhasrevealedhimselfthereexistsalsothismodeofrevelation,viz.,adirectandimmediatecommunicationoftruth,notonlyfromGodbutbyGod,tomindswhichoccupyrelativelytotheattainmentofthistruthapassiveorreceptiveattitude,sothatthemodeofitsacquisitionisassupernaturalasitssource.IntheknowledgeofGodwhichisacquiredbymaninthenormaluseofhisownfaculties—naturally,therefore,astomode—somedeservesthenameofspecialandsupernaturalabovetherest,becausethedatauponwhichthehumanfacultiesworkinacquiringitbelongtoasupernaturalorder.Suchknowledgeformsanintermediateclassbetweenthatobtainedbythefacultiesworkinguponnaturaldataandthatobtainedinasupernaturalmodeaswellasfromasupernaturalsource.Again,intheknowledgeofGod,communicatedbytheobjectiveactivitiesofhisSpirituponthemindsofspecialorgansofrevelation—supernaturally,thus,astoimmediateoriginaswellastoultimatesource—somemayemergeintoconsciousnessalongthelinesoftheordinaryactionofthehumanfaculties.Suchknowledgewouldformastillhigherintermediateclass—betweenthatobtainedbythenaturalfacultiesworkingaccordingtotheirnativepowersonsupernaturaldataandthatobtainedinapurelysupernaturalmode,aswellasfromasupernaturalsourceandbyasupernaturalagency.Thesemodesofrevelationarenottobeoverlooked.ButneitherisittobeoverlookedthatamongthewaysinwhichGodhasrevealedhimselfisalsothisway—thathehasspokentomanasSpirittospirit,mouthtomouth,andhasmadehimselfandhisgraciouspurposesknowntohiminanimmediateanddirectwordofGod,whichissimplyreceivedandnotinanysenseattainedbyman.Inthese

revelationswereachtheculminatingcategoryofspecialrevelation,inwhichitspeculiarcharacterismostclearlyseen.Anditisthesedirectrevelationswhichmodernthoughtfindsmostdifficulttoallowtobereal,andwhichChristianapologistsmustespeciallyvindicate.

TheoriesOfRevelation

Inthestateofthecasewhichhasjustbeenpointedout,itisamatterofcoursethatrecenttheoriesofrevelationshouldveryfrequentlyleavenoorbutlittleplaceforthehighestformofrevelation,thatbythedirectwordofGod.Thelowestclassoftheoriesrepresentrevelationastakingplaceonlythroughthepurelynaturalactivitiesofthehumanmind,anddenytherealityofanyspecialactionoftheDivineSpiritdirectlyonthemindinthecommunicationofrevealedtruth.Thosewhosharethisgeneralpositionmaydifferverygreatlyintheirpresuppositions.Theymay,fromafundamentallydeisticstandpoint,jealouslyguardtheprocessesofhumanthoughtfromallintrusiononthepartofGod;ortheymay,fromafundamentallypantheisticstandpoint,lookuponallhumanthoughtasonlytheunfoldingofthedivinethought.TheymaydifferalsoverygreatlyastothenatureandsourceoftheobjectivedataonwhichthemindissupposedtoworkinobtainingitsknowledgeofGod.Buttheyareatoneinconceivingthatwhichfromthedivinesideisspokenofasrevelation,asonthehumanside,simplythenaturaldevelopmentofthemoralandreligiousconsciousness.TheextremedeistictheoryallowsthepossibilityofnoknowledgeofGodexceptwhatisobtainedbythehumanmindworkinguponthedatasuppliedbycreationtotheexclusionofprovidentialgovernment.Modernspeculativetheistscorrectthedeisticconceptionbypostulatinganimmanentdivineactivity,bothinexternalprovidenceandinmentalaction.Thedataonwhichthemindworksaresupplied,accordingtothem,notonlybycreation,butalsobyGod’smoralgovernment;andthetheorygradesupwardinproportionassomethinglikeaspecialprovidenceisadmittedinthepeculiarfunctionascribedtoIsraelindevelopingtheideaofGod,andthesignificanceofJesusChristastheembodimentoftheperfectrelationbetweenGodandmanis

recognized.(Biedermann,“Christl.Dogmatik,”1:,264;Lipsius,“Dogmatik,”41;Pfleiderer,“Religionsphilosophie,”4:,46.)TheschoolofRitschl,thoughtheyspeakofa“positiverevelation”inJesusChrist,makenorealadvanceuponthis.DenyingnotonlyallmysticalconnectionofthesoulwithGod,butalsoallrationalknowledgeofdivinethings,theyconfinethedataofrevelationtothehistoricalmanifestationofChrist,whichmakesanimpressiononthemindsofmensuchasjustifiesusinspeakingofhimasrevealingGodtous.(Herrmann,“DerBegriffderOffenbarung,”and“DerVerkehrdesChristenmitGott”;Kaftan,“DasWesen,”etc.)Weareonhigherground,however,althoughstillmovinginessentiallythesamecircleofconceptionsastothenatureofrevelation,whenwerisetothetheorywhichidentifiesrevelationstrictlywiththeseriesofredemptiveacts(Koehler,“Stud.undKritiken,”1852,p.875).Fromthispointofview,astrulyasfromthatofthedeistorspeculativetheist,revelationisconfinedtothepurelyexternalmanifestationofGodinaseriesofacts.ItisdifferentiatedfromtheconceptionsofthedeistandspeculativetheistonlyinthenatureoftheworksofGod,whicharesupposedtosupplythedatawhichareobservedandworkedintoknowledgebytheunaidedactivitiesofthehumanmind.InemphasizingherethoseactsofaspecialprovidencewhichconstitutetheredemptiveactivityofGod,thistheoryforthefirsttimelaysthefoundationforadistinctionbetweengeneralandspecialrevelation;anditgradesupwardinproportionasthetrulymiraculouscharacterofGod’sredemptiveworkisrecognized,andactsofatrulymiraculousnatureareincludedinit.Anditrisesaboveitselfinproportionas,alongwiththesupernaturalcharacteroftheseriesofobjectiveactswithwhichitformallyidentifiesrevelation,itrecognizesanimmediateactionofGod’sSpiritonthemindofman,preparing,fitting,andenablinghimtoapprehendandinterpretarighttherevelationmadeobjectivelyintheredemptiveacts.J.Chr.K.Hofmanninhisearlierwork,“ProphecyandFulfillment,”announcesthistheoryinalowerform,butcorrectsitinhislater“Schriftbeweis.”RichardRothe(“ZurDogmatik,”p.54)isanoutstandingexampleofoneofitshigherforms.Tohimrevelationconsistsfundamentallyinthe“manifestation”ofGodintheseriesofredemptiveacts,bywhichGodentersintonaturalhistorybymeansofanunambiguouslysupernatural

andpeculiarlydivinehistory,andwhichmanisenabledtounderstandandrightlytointerpretbyvirtueofaninwardworkoftheDivineSpiritthatRothecalls“inspiration.”ButthisinternalactionoftheSpiritdoesnotcommunicatenewtruth;itonlyenablesthesubjecttocombinetheelementsofknowledgenaturallyreceivedintoanewcombination,fromwhichspringsanessentiallynewthoughtwhichheisclearlyconsciousthathedidnotproduce.ThetheorypropoundedbyProf.A.B.Bruceinhiswell-knownlectureson“TheChiefEndofRevelation”standspossiblyonestagehigherthanRothe’s,towhichitbearsaveryexpressrelation.Dr.Brucespeakswithgreatcircumspection.Herepresentsrevelationasconsistinginthe“self-manifestationofGodinhumanhistoryastheGodofagraciouspurpose—themanifestationbeingmadenotmerelyorchieflybywords,butveryspeciallybydeeds”(p.155);whilehelooksupon“inspiration”as“notenablingtheprophetstooriginateanewideaofGod,”but“ratherasassistingthemtoreadarightthedivinenameandnature.”Dr.Brucetranscendsthepositionoftheclassoftheoristshereunderconsiderationinproportionashemagnifiestheofficeofinner“inspiration,”and,aboveall,inproportiontotheextentofmeaningwhichheattachestothesavingclausethatrevelationisnotmerelybyword,butalsobydeed.ThetheorycommendedbythegreatnameofBishopB.F.Westcott(“TheGospelofLife”)isquitesimilartoDr.Bruce’s.

Bythesetransitionaltheorieswearealreadycarriedwellintoasecondclassoftheories,whichrecognizethatrevelationisfundamentallytheworkoftheSpiritofGodindirectcommunicationwiththehumanmind.AtitslowestlevelthisconceptionneednotriseabovethepantheisticpostulateoftheunfoldingofthelifeandthoughtofGodwithintheworld.TheDivineSpiritstirsmen’shearts,andfeelingsandideasspringup,whicharenolessrevelationsofGodthanmovementsofthehumansoul.AhigherlevelisattainedwhentheactionofGodisconceivedasworkingintheheartofmananinwardcertaintyofdivinelife-as,forexample,bySchultz(“OldTestamentTheology”);revelationbeingconfinedasmuchaspossibletotheinnerlifeofmanapparentlytoavoidtherecognitionofobjectivemiracle.Astillhigherlevelisreachedwhere:theactionoftheSpiritisthoughtof—afterthefashionofRothe,forexample—asanecessaryaidgrantedtocertainmentoenablethemtoapprehendand

interpretarighttheobjectivemanifestationofGod.ThetheoryrisesincharacterinproportionasthenecessityofthisactionoftheSpirit,itsrelativeimportance,andthenatureoftheeffectproducedbyitaremagnified.Solong,however,asitconceivesofthisworkoftheSpiritassecondary,andordinarilyifnotinvariablysuccessivetotheseriesofredemptiveactsofGod,whicharethoughttoconstitutetherealcoreoftherevelation,itfallsshortofthebiblicalidea.Accordingtothebiblicalrepresentations,thefundamentalelementinrevelationisnottheobjectiveprocessofredemptiveacts,buttherevealingoperationsoftheSpiritofGod,whichrunthroughthewholeseriesofmodesofcommunicationpropertoSpirit,culminatingincommunicationsbytheobjectiveword.ThecharacteristicelementintheBibleideaofrevelationinitshighestsenseisthattheorgansofrevelationarenotcreativelyconcernedintherevelationsmadethroughthem,butoccupyareceptiveattitude.Thecontentsoftheirmessagesarenotsomethingthoughtout,inferred,hoped,orfearedbythem,butsomethingconveyedtothem,oftenforceduponthembytheirresistiblemightoftherevealingSpirit.NoconceptioncandojusticetotheBibleideaofrevelationwhichneglectsthesefacts.Norisjusticedoneeventotherationalideaofrevelationwhentheyareneglected.Here,too,wemustinterpretbythehighestcategoryinourreach.“Canmancommunewithman,”ithasbeeneloquentlyasked,“throughthehighgiftoflanguage,andistheInfinitemindnottoexpressitself,orisittodosobutfaintlyoruncertainly,throughdumbmaterialsymbols,neverbyblessedspeech?”(W.Morrison,“FootprintsoftheRevealer,”p.52.)

TheDoctrineOfRevelation

ThedoctrineofrevelationwhichhasbeenwroughtoutbyChristianthinkersintheirefforttodojusticetoallthebiblicalfacts,includesthefollowingfeatures.Godhasneverlefthimselfwithoutawitness.Intheactofcreationhehasimpressedhimselfontheworkofhishands.Inhisworkofprovidencehemanifestshimselfastherighteousruleroftheworld.ThroughthisnaturalrevelationmeninthenormaluseofreasonrisetoaknowledgeofGod—anotitiaDeiacquisita,basedonthenotitia

Deiinsita—whichistrustworthyandvaluable,butisinsufficientfortheirnecessitiesassinners,andbyitsveryinsufficiencyawakensalongingforafullerknowledgeofGodandhispurposes.TothispurelynaturalrevelationGodhasaddedarevelationofhimselfastheGodofgrace,inaconnectedseriesofredemptiveacts,whichconstituteasawholethemightyprocessofthenewcreation.ToeventhenaturalmindcontemplatingthisseriesofsupernaturalactswhichculminateinthecomingofChrist,ahigherknowledgeofGodshouldbeconveyedthanwhatisattainablefrommerenature,thoughitwouldbelimitedtothecapacityofthenaturalmindtoapprehenddivinethings.IntheprocessofthenewcreationGod,however,worksalsoinwardlybyhisregeneratinggrace,creatingnewheartsinmenandilluminatingtheirmindsforapprehendingdivinethings:thus,overagainstthenewmanifestationofhimselfintheseriesofredemptiveacts,hecreatesanewsubjecttoapprehendandprofitbythem.Butneitherbythepresentationofsupernaturalfactstothemindnorbythebreakingofthepowerofsinwithin,bywhichtheeyesofthemindwereholdenthattheyshouldnotsee,isthehumanmindenabledtoriseaboveitself,thatitmayknowasGodknows,unravelthemanifestationofhisgraciouspurposesfromtheincompletedpatternwhichheisweavingintothefabricofhistory,oreveninterpretarightanunexplainedseriesofmarvelousfactsinvolvingmysterieswhich“angelsdesiretolookinto.”ItmaybedoubtedwhethereventhesupremerevelationofGodinJesusChristcouldhavebeenknownassuchintheabsenceofpreparatory,accompanyingandsucceedingexplanatoryrevelationsinwords:“thekingdomofGodcomethnotwithobservation.”Godhastherefore,inhisinfinitemercy,addedarevelationofhimself,strictlysocalled,communicatingbyhisSpiritdirectlytomenknowledgeconcerninghimself,hisworks,will,andpurposes.Themodesofcommunicationmaybevarious—bydreamsorvisions,inecstasyortheophany,byinwardguidance,orbythesimpleobjectiveword;butinallcasestheobjectandresultarethedirectsupernaturalcommunicationofspecialknowledge.

Ofthisspecialrevelationitistobesaid:

(1)Itwasnotgivenallatonce,butprogressively,“bydiversportionsandindiversmanners,”intheformofaregularhistoricaldevelopment.

(2)ItsprogressiveunfoldingstandsinaveryexpressrelationtotheprogressofGod’sredemptivework.Ifitisnottobeconceived,ontheonehand,however,asanisolatedact,whollyoutofrelationtoGod’sredemptivework,neitherisittobesimplyidentifiedwiththeseriesofhisredemptiveacts.Thephrase,“revelationisforredemptionandnotforinstruction,”presentsafalseantithesis.Revelationassuchiscertainlyjust“tomakewise,”thoughitistomakewiseonly“untosalvation.”Itisnotanalternativenamefortheredemptiveprocess,butaspecificpartoftheredemptiveprocess.Nordoesitmerelygrowoutoftheredemptiveactsastheiraccompanyingorfollowingexplanation;itisratheritselfoneoftheredemptiveacts,andtakesitsplacealongwiththeotherredemptiveacts,cooperativewiththemtotheonegreatend.

(3)Itsrelationtomiracleshasoftenbeenveryunnecessarilyconfusedbyone-sidedstatements.Miraclesarenotmerelycredentialsofrevelation,butvehiclesofrevelationaswell;buttheyareprimarilycredentials;andsomeofthemaresobarely“signs”astoservenootherpurpose.AsworksofGod,however,theyareinevitablyrevelatoryofGod.Becausethenatureoftheactsperformednecessarilyrevealsthecharacteroftheactorisnoproof,nevertheless,thattheirprimarypurposewasself-revelation;butthisfactgivesthemaplaceinrevelationitself;andasrevelationasawholeisasubstantialpartoftheredemptiveworkofGod,alsointheredemptiveworkofGod.

(4)Itsrelationtopredictiveprophecyisinsomerespectsdifferent.Asarule,atallevents,predictiveprophecyisprimarilyapartofrevelation,andbecomesacredentialofitonlysecondarily,onaccountofthenatureoftheparticularrevelationwhichitconveys.Whenarevelationis,initsverycontents,suchascouldcomeonlyfromGod,itobviouslybecomesacredentialofitselfasarevelation,andcarrieswithitanevidenceofthedivinecharacterofthewholebodyofrevelationwithwhichitstandsinorganicconnection.

(5)ItsrelationtotheScripturesisalreadyapparentfromwhathasbeensaid.Asrevelationdoesnotexistsolelyfortheincreaseofknowledge,butbyincreasingknowledgetobuildupthekingdomofGod,soneitherdiditcomeintobeingfornootherpurposethantheproductionoftheScriptures.TheScripturesalsoareameanstotheone

end,andexistonlyasapartofGod’sredemptivework.Butif,thus,theScripturescannotbeexaltedasthesoleendofrevelation,neithercantheybedegradedintothemerehumanrecordofrevelation.TheyarethemselvesasubstantialpartofGod’srevelation;oneformwhichhisrevealingactivitychoseforitself;andthatitsfinalandcompleteform,adoptedassuchfortheverypurposeofmakingGod’srevealedwillthepermanentanduniversalpossessionofman.AmongthemanifoldmethodsofGod’srevelation,revelationthrough“inspiration”thustakesitsnaturalplace;andtheScriptures,astheproductofthis“inspiration,”becomethusaworkofGod;notonlyasubstantialpartofrevelation,but,alongwiththerestofrevelation,asubstantialpartofhisredemptivework,AlongwiththeotheractsofGodwhichmakeuptheconnectedseriesofhisredemptiveacts,thegivingoftheScripturesranksasanelementofthebuildingupofthekingdomofGod.ThatwithinthelimitsofScripturethereappearstherecordofrevelationsinanarrowerandstrictersenseoftheterm,innowisevoidsitsclaimtobeitselfrevelation.ScripturerecordsthesequenceofGod’sgreatredeemingacts.Butitismuchmorethanmerely“therecord,theinterpretation,andtheliteraryreflectionofGod’sgraceinhistory.”ScripturerecordsthedirectrevelationswhichGodgavetomenindayspast,sofarasthoserevelationswereintendedforpermanentanduniversaluse.Butitismuchmorethanarecordofpastrevelations.ItisitselfthefinalrevelationofGod,completing:thewholedisclosureofhisunfathomablelovetolostsinners,thewholeproclamationofhispurposesofgrace,andthewholeexhibitionofhisgraciousprovisionsfortheirsalvation.

TheInspirationOfTheBible

THEsubjectoftheInspirationoftheBibleisonewhichhasbeenmuchconfusedinrecentdiscussion.Hewho,seekingtolearnthetruth,shouldgatherabouthimthelatesttreatises,bearingsuchtitlesas,“Inspiration,andotherLectures,”“InspirationandtheBible,”“WhatisInspiration?”“HowdidGodinspiretheBible?”“TheOraclesofGod?”f4—wouldfindhimselfledbythemineveryconceivabledirectionatonce.Nowonderifheshouldstandstock-stillinthemidstofhiswould-beguides,

confoundedbytheBabelofvoices.Theoldformula,quothominestotsententiæ,seemsnolongeradequate.Whereverfive“advancedthinkers”assemble,atleastsixtheoriesastoinspirationarelikelytobeventilated.Theydifferineveryconceivablepoint,orineveryconceivablepointsaveone.Theyagreethatinspirationislesspervasiveandlessdeterminativethanhasheretoforebeenthought,orthanisstillthoughtinlessenlightenedcircles.TheyagreethatthereislessofthetruthofGodandmoreoftheerrorofmanintheBiblethanChristianshavebeenwonttobelieve.TheyagreeaccordinglythattheteachingoftheBiblemaybe,inthis,that,ortheother,—here,there,orelsewhere,—safelyneglectedoropenlyrepudiated.Sosoonasweturntotheconstructiveside,however,andaskwhereintheinspirationoftheBibleconsists;howfaritguaranteesthetrustworthinessoftheBible’steaching;inwhatofitselementsistheBibleadivinelysafeguardedguidetotruth:theconcurrenceendsandhopelessdissensionsetsin.TheyagreeonlyintheircommondestructiveattitudetowardssomehigherviewoftheinspirationoftheBible,ofthepresenceofwhicheachoneseemssupremelyconscious.Itisuponthisfactthatweneedfirstofalltofixourattention.Itisnotofthevariegatedhypothesesofhisfellowtheorizers,butofsomehighdoctrineofinspiration,thecommonobjectofattackofthemall,thateachnewtheorizeronthesubjectofinspirationisespeciallyconscious,asstandingoveragainsthim,withreferencetowhichheistoorienthimself,andagainsttheclaimsofwhichheistodefendhisnewhypothesis.Thustheythemselvesintroduceustothefactthatoveragainstthenumberlessdiscordanttheoriesofinspirationwhichvexourtime,therestandsawell-definedchurch-doctrineofinspiration.Thischurch-doctrineofinspirationdiffersfromthetheoriesthatwouldfainsupplantit,inthatitisnottheinventionnorthepropertyofanindividual,butthesettledfaithoftheuniversalchurchofGod;inthatitisnotthegrowthofyesterday,buttheassuredpersuasionofthepeopleofGodfromthefirstplantingofthechurchuntilto-day;inthatitisnotaproteanshape,varyingitsaffirmationstofiteverynewchangeintheever-shiftingthoughtofmen,butfromthebeginninghasbeenthechurch’sconstantandabidingconvictionastothedivinityoftheScripturescommittedtoherkeeping.Itiscertainlyamostimpressivefact,—thiswell-defined,aboriginal,stabledoctrineofthechurchastothenatureandtrustworthinessoftheScripturesofGod,whichconfronts

withitsgentlebutsteadypersistenceofaffirmationallthetheoriesofinspirationwhichtherestlessenergyofunbelievingandhalf-believingspeculationhasbeenabletoinventinthisagitatednineteenthcenturyofours.SurelytheseekerafterthetruthinthematteroftheinspirationoftheBiblemaywelltakethischurch-doctrineashisstarting-point.

Whatthischurch-doctrineis,itisscarcelynecessaryminutelytodescribe.ItwillsufficetoremindourselvesthatitlooksupontheBibleasanoracularbook,—astheWordof.GodinsuchasensethatwhateveritsaysGodsays,—notabook,then,inwhichonemay,bysearching,findsomewordofGod,butabookwhichmaybefranklyappealedtoatanypointwiththeassurancethatwhateveritmaybefoundtosay,that:istheWordofGod.WeareallofusmembersinparticularofthebodyofChristwhichwecallthechurch:andthelifeofthechurch,andthefaithofthechurch,andthethoughtofthechurchareournaturalheritage.Weknowhow,asChristianmen,weapproachthisHolyBook,—howunquestioninglywereceiveitsstatementsoffact,bowbeforeitsenunciationsofduty,tremblebeforeitsthreatenings,andrestuponitspromises.Or,ifthesubtlespiritofmoderndoubthasseepedsomewhatintoourhearts,ourmemorywilleasilyrecallthosehappierdayswhenwestoodachildatourChristianmother’sknee,withlispinglipsfollowingthewordswhichherslowfingertraceduponthisopenpage,—wordswhichwerehersupportineverytrialand,asshefondlytrusted,weretobeourguidethroughoutlife.Motherchurchwasspeakingtousinthatmaternalvoice,commendingtoushervitalfaithintheWordofGod.Howoftensincethenhasitbeenourownlot,inourturn,tospeaktoothersallthewordsofthislife!AswesitinthemidstofourpupilsintheSabbath-school,orinthecentreofourcircleathome,orperchanceatsomebedsideofsicknessorofdeath;oraswemeetourfellow-manamidthebusyworkoftheworld,hemmedinbytemptationorweigheddownwithcare,andwouldfainputbeneathhimsomefirmsupportandstay:inwhatspiritdoweturntothisBiblethen?withwhatconfidencedowecommenditseverywordtothosewhomwewouldmakepartakersofitscomfortorofitsstrength?InsuchscenesastheseisrevealedthevitalfaithofthepeopleofGodinthesuretyandtrustworthinessoftheWordofGod.

Nordoweneedtodomorethanremindourselvesthatthisattitudeof

entiretrustineverywordoftheScriptureshasbeencharacteristicofthepeopleofGodfromtheveryfoundationofthechurch.ChristendomhasalwaysreposeduponthebeliefthattheutterancesofthisbookareproperlyoraclesofGod.ThewholebodyofChristianliteraturebearswitnesstothisfact.Wemaytraceitsstreamtoitssource,andeverywhereitisvocalwithalivingfaithinthedivinetrustworthinessoftheScripturesofGodineveryoneoftheiraffirmations.ThisisthemurmurofthelittlerillsofChristianspeechwhichfindtheirtenuouswaythroughtheparchedheathenlandoftheearlysecondcentury.AndthisisthemightyvoiceofthegreatriverofChristianthoughtwhichsweepsthroughtheages,freightedwithblessingsformen.Dr.Sanday,inhisrecentBamptonLectureson“Inspiration”—inwhich,unfortunately,hedoesnotteachthechurch-doctrine—isdriventoadmitthatnotonlymay“testimoniestothegeneraldoctrineofinspiration”fromtheearliestFathers,“bemultipliedtoalmostanyextent;but[that]therearesomewhichgofurtherandpointtoaninspirationwhichmightbedescribedas‘verbal’”;“nordoesthisidea,”headds,“Comeintentativelyandbydegrees,butalmostfromtheveryfirst.”f5Hemighthavesparedtheadverb“almost.”Theearliestwritersknownootherdoctrine.IfOrigenassertsthattheHolySpiritwasco-workerwiththeEvangelistsinthecompositionoftheGospel,andthat,therefore,lapseofmemory,errororfalsehoodwasimpossibletothem,f6andifIrenæus,thepupilofPolycarp,claimsforChristiansaclearknowledgethat“theScripturesareperfect,seeingthattheyarespokenbyGod’sWordandhisSpirit”;f7nolessdoesPolycarp,thepupilofJohn,considertheScripturestheveryvoiceoftheMostHigh,andpronouncehimthefirst-bornofSatan,“whosoeverpervertstheseoraclesoftheLord.”f8NordothelaterFathersknowadifferentdoctrine.Augustine,forexample,affirmsthathedeferstothecanonicalScripturesaloneamongbookswithsuchreverenceandhonorthathemost“firmlybelievesthatnooneoftheirauthorshaserredinanything,inwriting.”f9TopreciselythesameeffectdidtheReformersbelieveandteach.LutheradoptsthesewordsofAugustine’sashisown,anddeclaresthatthewholeoftheScripturesaretobeascribedtotheHolyGhost,andthereforecannoterr.f10CalvindemandsthatwhateverispropoundedinScripture,“withoutexception,”shallbehumblyreceivedbyus,—thattheScripturesasawholeshallbereceivedbyuswiththesamereverencewhichwegivetoGod,“becausetheyhave

emanatedfromhimalone,andaremixedwithnothinghuman.”f11ThesaintlyRutherford,whospeaksoftheScripturesasamoresurewordthanadirectoraclefromheaven,f12andBaxter,whoaffirmsthat“allthattheholywritershaverecordedistrue(andnofalsehoodintheScripturesbutwhatisfromtheerrorsofscribesandtranslators),”f13handdownthissupremetrustintheScripturewordtoourownday—toourownCharlesHodgeandHenryB.Smith,theoneofwhomassertsthattheBible“givesustruthwithouterror,”f14andtheother,that“allthebooksoftheScriptureareequallyinspired;…allalikeareinfallibleinwhattheyteach;…theirassertionsmustbefreefromerror.”f15SuchtestimoniesaresimplytheformulationbythetheologiansofeachageoftheconstantfaithofChristiansthroughoutallages.

IfwewouldestimateatitsfullmeaningthedepthofthistrustintheScriptureword,weshouldobserveChristianmenatworkuponthetextofScripture.Thereisbutoneview-pointwhichwillaccountfororjustifytheminuteandlovingpainswhichhavebeenexpendeduponthetextofScripture,bythelonglineofcommentatorsthathasextendedunbrokenlyfromthefirstChristianagestoourown.Theallegoricalinterpretationwhichriotedintheearlydaysofthechurchwasthedaughterofreverenceforthebiblicalword;aspuriousdaughteryoumaythink,butnonethelessundeniablyadirectoffspringoftheawewithwhichthesacredtextwasregardedastheutterancesofGod,and,assuch,pregnantwithinexhaustiblesignificance.ThepatientandanxiouscarewithwhichtheBibletextisscrutinizedtodaybyscholars,ofadifferentspiritnodoubtfromthoseoldallegorizers,butofequalreverenceforthetextofScripture,betraysthesamefundamentalviewpoint,—towhichtheBibleistheWordofGod,everydetailofthemeaningofwhichisofinestimablepreciousness.NodoubttherehavebeenmenwhohavebusiedthemselveswiththeinterpretationofScripture,whohavenotapproacheditinsuchaspiritorwithsuchexpectations.ButitisnottheJowetts,withtheirsuperciliousdoubtswhetherPaulmeantverymuchbywhathesaid,whorepresentthespiritofChristianexposition.ThisisrepresentedratherbytheBengels,whocountnolaborwasted,intheireffortstodistillfromtheverywordsofHolyWritthehoneywhichtheSpirithashiddeninthemforthecomfortandthedelightofthesaints.ItisrepresentedratherbytheWestcotts,whobearwitnesstotheirown

experienceofthe“senseofrestandconfidencewhichgrowsfirmerwithincreasingknowledge,”astheirpatientinvestigationhasdugdeeperanddeeperforthetreasureshidinthewordsandclausesandsentencesoftheEpistlesofJohn,f16—tothesureconvictionwhichfortyyearsofstudyoftheEpistletotheHebrewshasbroughtthemthat“wecomenearertothemeaningofScripturebytheclosestattentiontothesubtletiesandminutevariationsofwordsandorder.”ItwasajustremarkofoneofthewisestmenIeverknew,Dr.WistarHodge,thatthisis“ahightestimonytoverbalinspiration.”f17

Ofcoursethechurchhasnotfailedtobringthis,hervitalfaithinthedivinetrustworthinessoftheScriptureword,toformalexpressioninhersolemncreeds.ThesimplefaithoftheChristianpeopleisalsotheconfessionaldoctrineoftheChristianchurches.Theassumptionofthedivineauthorityofthescripturalteachingunderliesallthecredalstatementsofthechurch;allofwhichareformallybasedupontheScriptures.Andfromthebeginning,itfindsmoreorlessfullexpressioninthem.Already,insomeoftheformulasoffaithwhichunderlietheApostles’Creeditself,wemeetwiththephrase“accordingtotheScriptures”asvalidatingtheitemsofbelief;whileintheNiceno-ConstantinopolitanCreed,amidthemeagreclausesoutliningonlywhatisessentialtothedoctrineoftheHolySpirit,placeisgiventothedeclarationthatHeistobefoundspeakingintheprophets—“whospakebytheprophets.”ItwasinconsciousdependenceupontheimmemorialteachingofthechurchthattheCouncilofTrentdefineditasoffaithintheChurchofRome,thatGodistheauthorofScripture,—adeclarationwhichhasbeenrepeatedinourowndaybytheVaticanCouncil,withsuchfullexplanationsasareincludedintheserichwords:“Thechurchholds”thebooksoftheOldandNewTestaments,“tobesacredandcanonical,notbecause,havingbeencarefullycomposedbymerehumanindustry,theywereafterwardsapprovedbyherauthority;normerelybecausetheycontainrevelationwithnoadmixtureoferror;butbecause,havingbeenwrittenbytheinspirationoftheHolyGhost,theyhaveGodfortheirauthor.”NeedlesstosaythatanolessfirmconvictionoftheabsoluteauthorityofScriptureunderliesalltheProtestantcreeds.Beforeallelse,Protestantismis,initsveryessence,anappealfromallotherauthoritytothedivineauthorityofHolyScripture.

TheAugsburgConfession,thefirstProtestantcreed,is,therefore,commendedtoconsideration,onlyonthegroundthatitis“drawnfromtheHolyScripturesandthepurewordofGod.”ThelaterLutherancreeds,andespeciallytheReformedcreeds,growprogressivelymoreexplicit.Itisourspecialfelicity,thatasReformedChristians,andheirsoftherichestandfullestformulationofReformedthought,wepossessinthatpreciousheritage,theWestminsterConfession,themostcomplete,themostadmirable,themostperfectstatementoftheessentialChristiandoctrineofHolyScripturewhichhaseverbeenformedbyman.Herethevitalfaithofthechurchisbroughttofullexpression;theScripturesaredeclaredtobethewordofGodinsuchasensethatGodistheirauthor,andthey,becauseimmediatelyinspiredbyGod,areofinfallibletruthanddivineauthority,andaretobebelievedtobetruebytheChristianman,inwhatsoeverisrevealedinthem,fortheauthorityofGodhimselfspeakingtherein.

Thus,ineverywaypossible,thechurchhasbornehertestimonyfromthebeginning,andstillinourday,toherfaithinthedivinetrustworthinessofherScriptures,inalltheiraffirmationsofwhateverkind.Atnoagehasitbeenpossibleformentoexpresswithoutrebukethefaintestdoubtastotheabsolutetrustworthinessoftheirleastdeclaration.Tertullian,writingattheopeningofthethirdcentury,suggests,withevidenthesitationandtimidity,thatPaul’slanguageintheseventhchapterofFirstCorinthiansmaybeintendedtodistinguish,inhisremarksonmarriageanddivorce,betweenmattersofdivinecommandmentandofhumanarrangement.Dr.Sandayisobligedtocommentonhislanguage:“AnyseemingdepreciationofScripturewasasunpopulareventhenasitisnow.”f18ThechurchhasalwaysbelievedherScripturestobethebookofGod,ofwhichGodwasinsuchasensetheauthorthateveryoneofitsaffirmationsofwhateverkindistobeesteemedastheutteranceofGod,ofinfallibletruthandauthority.

Inthewholehistoryofthechurchtherehavebeenbuttwomovementsofthought,tendingtoalowerconceptionoftheinspirationandauthorityofScripture,whichhaveattainedsufficientproportionstobringthemintoviewinanhistoricalsketch.

(1)ThefirstofthesemaybecalledtheRationalisticview.ItscharacteristicfeatureisanefforttodistinguishbetweeninspiredanduninspiredelementswithintheScriptures.WithforerunnersamongtheHumanists,thismodeofthoughtwasintroducedbytheSocinians,andtakenupbytheSyncretistsinGermany,theRemonstrantsinHolland,andtheJesuitsintheChurchofRome.Inthegreatlife-and-deathstruggleoftheeighteenthcenturyitobtainedgreatvogueamongthedefendersofsupernaturalreligion,intheirdesperateeffortstosavewhatwasofevenmoreimportance,—justasahard-pressedarmymayyieldtothefoemanyanoutpostwhichjustlybelongstoit,intheefforttosavethecitadel.Inthenineteenthcenturyithasretainedastronghold,especiallyuponapologeticalwriters,chieflyinthethreeformswhichaffirmrespectivelythatonlythemysteriesofthefaithareinspired,i.e.thingsundiscoverablebyunaidedreason,thattheBibleisinspiredonlyinmattersoffaithandpractice,¾andthattheBibleisinspiredonlyinitsthoughtsorconcepts,notinitswords.Butalthoughthislegacyfromtherationalismofaneviltimestillmakesitsappearanceinthepagesofmanytheologicalwriters,andhasnodoubtaffectedthefaithofaconsiderablenumberofChristians,ithasfailedtosupplantineitherthecreedsofthechurchortheheartsofthepeoplethechurch-doctrineoftheplenaryinspirationoftheBible,i.e.thedoctrinethattheBibleisinspirednotinpartbutfully,inallitselementsalike,—thingsdiscoverablebyreasonaswellasmysteries,mattersofhistoryandscienceaswellasoffaithandpractice,wordsaswellasthoughts.

(2)ThesecondoftheloweredviewsofinspirationmaybecalledtheMysticalview.ItscharacteristicconceptionisthattheChristianmanhassomethingwithinhimself,—callitenlightenedreason,spiritualinsight,theChristianconsciousness,thewitnessoftheSpirit,orcallitwhatyouwill,—tothetestofwhichevery“externalrevelation”istobesubjected,andaccordingtothedecisionofwhicharethecontentsoftheBibletobevalued.Veryvariedformshavebeentakenbythisconception;andmoreorlessexpressionhasbeengiventoit,inoneformoranother,ineveryage.Initsextremermanifestations,ithasformerlytendedtoseveritselffromthemainstreamofChristianthoughtandeventoformseparatedsects.Butinourowncentury,throughthegreatgeniusofSchleiermacherithasbrokeninuponthechurchlikeaflood,andwashedintoevery

corneroftheProtestantworld.Asaconsequence,wefindmeneverywherewhodesiretoacknowledgeasfromGodonlysuchScriptureas“findsthem,”—whoeasttheclearobjectiveenunciationofGod’swilltothemercyofthecurrentsofthoughtandfeelingwhichsweepupanddownintheirownsouls,—who“persist”sometimes,touseasharpbutsadlytruephraseofRobertAlfredVaughan’s,“intheirconceitedrejectionofthelightwithoutuntiltheyhaveturnedintodarknesstheirlightwithin.”WegrieveovertheinroadswhichthisessentiallynaturalisticmodeofthoughthasmadeintheChristianthinkingoftheday.Butgreatanddeplorableastheyhavebeen,theyhavenotbeensoextensiveastosupplantthechurch-doctrineoftheabsoluteauthorityoftheobjectiverevelationofGodinhisWord,ineitherthecreedsofthechurch,ortheheartsofthepeople.Despitetheseattemptstointroduceloweredconceptions,thedoctrineoftheplenaryinspirationoftheScriptures,whichlooksuponthemasanoracularbook,inallitspartsandelements,alike,ofGod,trustworthyinallitsaffirmationsofeverykind,remainsto-day,asithasalwaysbeen,thevitalfaithofthepeopleofGod,andtheformalteachingoftheorganizedchurch.

Themorewecontemplatethischurch-doctrine,themorepressingbecomesthequestionofwhataccountwearetogiveofit,—itsoriginandpersistence.Howshallweaccountfortheimmediateadoptionofsodevelopedadoctrineofinspirationintheveryinfancyofthechurch,andforthetenaciousholdwhichthechurchhaskeptuponitthroughsomanyages?Theaccountissimpleenough,andcapableofinclusioninasinglesentence:thisisthedoctrineofinspirationwhichwasheldbythewritersoftheNewTestamentandbyJesusasreportedintheGospels.Itisthissimplefactthathascommendedittothechurchofallagesasthetruedoctrine;andinitwemaysurelyrecognizeanevenmoreimpressivefactthanthatoftheexistenceofastable,abidingchurch-doctrinestandingoveragainstthemanytheoriesoftheday,—thefact,namely,thatthischurchdoctrineofinspirationwastheBibledoctrinebeforeitwasthechurch-doctrine,andisthechurch-doctrineonlybecauseitistheBibledoctrine.Itisuponthisfactthatweshouldnowfixourattention.

Inthelimitedspaceatourdisposalweneednotattemptanythinglikeadetailedproofthatthechurch-doctrineoftheplenaryinspirationofthe

BibleistheBible’sowndoctrineofinspiration.Andthisespeciallyforthreeveryobviousreasons:

First,becauseitcannotbenecessarytoprovethistoourselves.WehavetheBibleinourhands,andweareaccustomedtoreadit.ItisenoughforustoaskourselveshowtheapostlesandourLord,asrepresentedinitspages,conceivedofwhattheycalled“theScriptures,”fortheanswertocomeatoncetoourminds.AsreadersoftheNewTestament,weknowthattothemenoftheNewTestament“theScriptures”weretheWordofGodwhichcouldnotbebroken,i.e.whoseeverywordwastrustworthy;andthatasimple“Itiswritten”wasthereforetothemtheendofallstrife.Theproofofthisispervasiveandleveltotheapprehensionofeveryreader.Itwouldbeaninsulttoourintelligencewerewetopresumethatwehadnotobservedit,orcouldnotapprehenditsmeaning.

Secondly,itisnotnecessarytoprovethattheNewTestamentregards“Scripture”asthemereWordofGod,inthehighestandmostrigidsense,tomodernbiblicalscholarship.AmonguntrammelledstudentsoftheBible,itispracticallyamatterofcommonconsentthatthewritersoftheNewTestamentbookslookeduponwhattheycalled“Scripture”asdivinelysafeguardedinevenitsverbalexpression,andasdivinelytrustworthyinallitsparts,inallitselements,andinallitsaffirmationsofwhateverkind.Thisis,ofcourse,thejudgmentofallthosewhohaveadoptedthisdoctrineastheirown,becausetheyapprehendittobethebiblicaldoctrine.Itisalsothejudgmentofallthosewhocanbringthemselvestorefuseadoctrinewhichtheyyetperceivetobeabiblicaldoctrine.Whetherweappeal,amongmenofthisclass,tosuchstudentsofamoreevangelicaltendency,asTholuck,Rothe,Farrar,Sanday,ortosuchextremerwritersasRiehm,Reuss,Pfleiderer,Keunen,theywillagreeintellingusthatthehighdoctrineofinspirationwhichwehavecalledthechurch-doc-trinewasheldbythewritersoftheNewTestament.ThisiscommongroundbetweenbelievingandunbelievingstudentsoftheBible,andneeds,therefore,nonewdemonstrationintheforumofscholarship.Letuspausehere,therefore,onlylongenoughtoallowHermannSchultz,surelyafairexampleofthe“advanced”school,totelluswhatistheconclusioninthismatterofthestrictestandcoldestexegeticalscience.“TheBookoftheLaw,”hetellsus,“seemedalreadytothelaterpoetsoftheOldTestament,the‘WordofGod.’Thepost-

canonicalbooksofIsraelregardtheLawandtheProphetsinthismanner.AndforthemenoftheNewTestament,theHolyScripturesoftheirpeoplearealreadyGod’swordinwhichGodhimselfspeaks.”Thisview,whichlookeduponthescripturalbooksasverballyinspired,headds,wastherulingoneinthetimeofChrist,wassharedbyalltheNewTestamentmen,andbyChristhimself,asapiousconception,andwasexpresslytaughtbythemorescholasticwritersamongthem.f19Itishardlynecessarytoprovewhatissofranklyconfessed.

ThethirdreasonwhyitisnotnecessarytooccupyourtimewithaformalproofthattheBibledoesteachthisdoctrine,arisesfromthecircumstancethateventhosewhoseektoridthemselvesofthepressureofthisfactuponthem,areobservedtobeunabletoprosecutetheirargumentwithoutanimpliedadmissionofitasafact.Thisistrue,forexample,ofDr.Sanday’sendeavorstomeettheappealofthechurchtoourLord’sauthorityindefenceofthedoctrineofplenaryinspiration.f20Headmitsthattheonesupportwhichhasbeensoughtbythechurchofallagesforitshighdoctrinehasbeenthe“extenttowhichitwasrecognizedinthesayingsofChristhimself.”Asoveragainstthishebeginsbysuggesting“that,whateverviewourLordhimselfentertainedastotheScripturesoftheOldTestament,therecordofhiswordshascertainlycomedowntousthroughthemediumofpersonswhosharedthecurrentviewonthesubject.”ThissurelyamountstoafulladmissionthatthewritersoftheNewTestamentatleast,heldandtaughttheobnoxiousdoctrine.Heendswiththeremarkthat“whendeductionshavebeenmade…therestillremainsevidenceenoughthatourLord,whileonearthdidusethecommonlanguageofhiscontemporariesinregardtotheOldTestament.”ThissurelyamountstoafulladmissionthatChristaswellashisreporterstaughttheobnoxiousdoctrine.

Thiswillbefoundtobeatypicalease.EveryattempttoescapefromtheauthorityoftheNewTestamentenunciationofthedoctrineofplenaryinspiration,inthenatureofthecasebeginsbyadmittingthatthisis,inveryfact,theNewTestamentdoctrine.ShallwefollowDr.Sanday,andappealfromtheapostlestoChrist,andthencallintheideaofkenosis,andaffirmthatinthedaysofhisflesh,Christdidnotspeakoutofthefulnessandpurityofhisdivineknowledge,butonbecomingmanhadshrunktoman’scapacity,andin

suchmattersasthiswaslimitedinhisconceptionsbytheknowledgeandopinionscurrentinhisdayandgeneration?Insosaying,weadmit,ashasalreadybeenpointedout,notonlythattheapostlestaughtthishighdoctrineofinspiration,butalsothatChristtoo,inwhateverhumiliationhedidit,yetactuallytaughtthesame.Shallwethentakerefugeintheideaofaccommodation,andexplainthat,insospeakingoftheScriptures,Christandhisapostlesdidnotintendtoteachthedoctrineofinspirationimplicated,butmerelyadopted,asamatterofconvenience,thecurrentlanguage,astoScripture,ofthetime?Insospeaking,also,weadmitthattheactuallanguageofChristandhisapostlesexpressesthathighviewofinspirationwhichwasconfessedlythecurrentviewoftheday—whetherasamatterofconvenienceorasamatteroftruth,theChristianconsciousnessmaybesafelylefttodecide.ShallwethenremindourselvesthatJesushimselfcommittednothingtowriting,andappealtotheuncertaintieswhichareaccustomedtoattendtherecordofteachingatsecond-hand?Thus,too,weallowthatthewordsofChristastransmittedtousdoteachtheobnoxiousdoctrine.Arewe,then,tofallbackupontheobservationthatthedoctrineofplenaryinspirationisnottaughtwithequalplainnessineverypartoftheBible,butbecomesclearonlyinthelaterOldTestamentbooks,andisnotexplicitlyenunciatedexceptinthemorescholasticoftheNewTestamentbooks?Inthis,too,weadmitthatitistaughtintheScriptures;whilethefactthatitistaughtnotallatonce,butwithprogressiveclearnessandfulness,isaccordantwiththenatureoftheBibleasabookwrittenintheprocessoftheagesandprogressivelydevelopingthetruth.Then,shallweaffirmthatourdoctrineofinspirationisnottobederivedsolelyfromtheteachingsoftheBible,butfromitsteachingsandphenomenainconjunction;andsocallinwhatwedeemthephenomenaoftheBibletomodifyitsteaching?DowenotseethattheverysuggestionofthisprocessadmitsthattheteachingoftheBible,whentakenalone,i.e.,initspurityandjustasitis,givesustheunwelcomedoctrine?Shallwe,then,takecounselofdesperationandassertthatallappealtotheteachingoftheScripturesthemselvesintestimonytotheirowninspirationisanargumentinacircle,appealingtotheirinspirationtovalidatetheirinspiration?Eventhisdesperatelyillogicalshifttoberidofthescripturaldoctrineofinspiration,obviouslyinvolvestheconfessionthatthisisthescripturaldoctrine.No,theissueisnot,WhatdoestheBibleteach?but,Iswhatthe

Bibleteachestrue?Anditisamazingthatanyorallofsuchexpedientscanblindtheeyesofanyonetothestringencyofthisissue.

EvenadetailedattempttoexplainawaythetextswhichteachthedoctrineoftheplenaryinspirationandunvaryingtruthofScripture,involvestheadmissionthatintheirobviousmeaningsuchtextsteachthedoctrinewhichitissoughttoexplainaway.AndthinkofexplainingawaythetextswhichinculcatethedoctrineoftheplenaryinspirationoftheScriptures!Theefforttodosoisfoundeduponaninexplicablyoddmisapprehension—themisapprehensionthattheBiblewitnessestoitsplenaryinspirationonlyinatexthereandthere:textsofexceptionalclearnessaloneprobablybeinginmind,—suchasourSaviour’sdeclarationthattheScripturescannotbebroken;orPaul’s,thateveryscriptureisinspiredofGod;orPeter’s,thatthemenofGodspakeastheyweremovedbytheHolyGhost.Suchtexts,nodoubt,doteachthedoctrineofplenaryinspiration,andaresadlyinneedofexplainingawayatthehandsofthosewhowillnotbelievethisdoctrine.As,indeed,wemaylearnfromDr.Sanday’streatmentofoneofthem,thatinwhichourLorddeclaresthattheScripturescannotbebroken.Dr.Sandaycanonlyspeakofthisas“apassageofpeculiarstrangenessanddifficulty”;“because,”hetellsus,“itseemstomeanthatthedictaofScripture,evenwhereweshouldnaturallytakethemasfigurative,mustbetrue.”Needlesstosaythattheonly“strangenessanddifficulty”inthetextarisesfromtheunwillingnessofthecommentatortoapproachtheScriptureswiththesimpletrustintheirdetaileddivinetrustworthinessandauthoritywhichcharacterizedallourLord’sdealingswiththem.

ButnogrossermisconceptioncouldbeconceivedthanthattheScripturesbearwitnesstotheirownplenaryinspirationintheseoutstandingtextsalone.ThesearebuttheculminatingpassagesofapervasivetestimonytothedivinecharacterofScripture,whichfillsthewholeNewTestament;andwhichincludesnotonlysuchdirectassertionsofdivinityandinfallibilityforScriptureasthese,but,alongwiththem,anendlessvarietyofexpressionsofconfidencein,andphenomenaofuseof,Scripturewhichareirresistibleintheirteachingwhenitisoncefairlyapprehended.Theinductionmustbebroadenoughtoembrace,andgivetheirfullweightto,agreatvarietyofsuchfactsasthese:theloftytitleswhicharegiventoScripture,andbywhichitiscited,suchas“Scripture,”

“theScriptures,”eventhatalmostawfultitle,“theOraclesofGod”;thesignificantformulæbywhichitisquoted,“Itiswritten,”“Itisspoken,”“Itsays,”“Godsays”;suchmodesofadducingitasbetraythattothewriter“Scripturesays”isequivalentto“Godsays,”andevenitsnarrativepartsareconceivedasdirectutterancesofGod;theattributiontoScripture,assuch,ofdivinequalitiesandacts,asinsuchphrasesas“theScripturesforesaw”;theascriptionoftheScriptures,inwholeorintheirseveralpartsasoccasionallyadduced,totheHolySpiritastheirauthor,whilethehumanwritersaretreatedasmerelyhismediaofexpression;thereverenceandtrustshown,andthesignificanceandauthorityascribed,totheverywordsofScripture;andthegeneralattitudeofentiresubjectiontoeverydeclarationofScriptureofwhateverkind,whichcharacterizeseverylineoftheNewTestament.TheefforttoexplainawaytheBible’switnesstoitsplenaryinspirationremindsoneofamanstandingsafelyinhislaboratoryandelaboratelyexpounding—possiblybytheaidofdiagramsandmathematicalformulæ—howeverystoneinanavalanchehasadefinedpathwayandmayeasilybedodgedbyoneofsomepresenceofmind.Wemayfancysuchanelaboratetrifler’striumphashewouldanalyzetheavalancheintoitsconstituentstones,anddemonstrateofstoneafterstonethatitspathwayisdefinite,limited,andmayeasilybeavoided.Butavalanches,unfortunately,donotcomeuponus,stonebystone,oneatatime,courteouslyleavingusopportunitytowithdrawfromthepathwayofeachinturn:butallatonce,inaroaringmassofdestruction.Justsowemayexplainawayatextortwowhichteachplenaryinspiration,toourownclosetsatisfaction,dealingwiththemeachwithoutreferencetoitsrelationtotheothers:butthesetextsofours,again,unfortunatelydonotcomeuponusinthisartificialisolation;neitheraretheyfewinnumber.Therearescores,hundreds,ofthem:andtheycomeburstinguponusinonesolidmass.Explainthemaway?WeshouldhavetoexplainawaythewholeNewTestament.Whatapityitisthatwecannotseeandfeeltheavalancheoftextsbeneathwhichwemayliehopelesslyburied,asclearlyaswemayseeandfeelanavalancheofstones!Letus,however,butopenoureyestothevarietyandpervasivenessoftheNewTestamentwitnesstoitshighestimateofScripture,andweshallnolongerwonderthatmodernscholarshipfindsitselfcompelledtoallowthattheChristianchurchhasreadherrecordscorrectly,andthatthechurch-doctrineofinspirationissimplya

transcriptofthebiblicaldoctrine;norshallweanylongerwonderthatthechurch,receivingtheseScripturesasherauthoritativeteacherofdoctrine,adoptedintheverybeginningsofherlife,thedoctrineofplenaryinspiration,andhashelditwithatenacitythatknowsnowavering,untilthepresenthour.But,wemaybereminded,thechurchhasnotheldwithsuchtenacitytoalldoctrinestaughtintheBible.Howarewetoaccount,then,forthesingularconstancyofitsconfessionoftheBible’sdoctrineofinspiration?Theaccounttobegivenisagainsimple,andcapableofbeingexpressedinasinglesentence.Itisduetoaninstinctivefeelinginthechurch,thatthetrustworthinessoftheScripturesliesatthefoundationoftrustintheChristiansystemofdoctrine,andisthereforefundamentaltotheChristianhopeandlife.Itisduetothechurch’sinstinctthatthevalidityofherteachingofdoctrineasthetruthofGod,—totheChristian’sinstinctthatthevalidityofhishopeintheseveralpromisesofthegospel,—restsonthetrustworthinessoftheBibleasarecordofGod’sdealingsandpurposeswithmen.

Individualsmaycallinquestionthesoundnessoftheseinstinctivejudgments.And,indeed,thereisasenseinwhichitwouldnotbetruetosaythatthetruthofChristianteachingandthefoundationsoffaitharesuspendeduponthedoctrineofplenaryinspiration,oruponanydoctrineofinspirationwhatever.Theyrestratheruponthepreviousfactofrevelation:anditisimportanttokeepourselvesremindedthatthesupernaturaloriginandcontentsofChristianity,notonlymaybevindicatedapartfromanyquestionoftheinspirationoftherecord,but,inpointoffact,alwaysarevindicatedpriortoanyquestionoftheinspirationoftherecord.WecannotraisethequestionwhetherGodhasgivenusanabsolutelytrustworthyrecordofthesupernaturalfactsandteachingsofChristianity,beforeweareassuredthattherearesupernaturalfactsandteachingstoberecorded.ThefactthatChristianityisasupernaturalreligionandthenatureofChristianityasasupernaturalreligion,aremattersofhistory;andareindependentofany,andofevery,theoryofinspiration.ButthislineofremarkisofmoreimportancetotheChristianapologist

thantotheChristianbeliever,assuch;andtheinstinctofthechurchthatthevalidityofherteaching,andtheinstinctoftheChristianthatthevalidityofhishope,areboundupwiththetrustworthinessoftheBible,isaperfectlysoundone.Thisforthreereasons:

First,becausetheaverageChristianmanisnotandcannotbeafullyfurnishedhistoricalscholar.IffaithinChrististobealwaysandonlytheproductofathoroughhistoricalinvestigationintotheoriginsofChristianity,therewouldcertainlybefewwhocouldventuretopreachChristandhimcrucifiedwithentireconfidence;therewouldcertainlybefewwhowouldbeabletotrusttheiralltohimwithentiresecurity.TheChristianscholardesires,and,thankGod,isabletosupply,athoroughlytrustworthyhistoricalvindicationofsupernaturalChristianity.ButtheChristianteacherdesires,and,thankGod,isabletolayhishandsupon,athoroughlytrustworthyrecordofsupernaturalChristianity;andtheChristianmanrequires,and,thankGod,has,athoroughlytrustworthyBibletowhichhecangodirectlyandatonceineverytimeofneed.Though,then,intheabstract,wemaysaythattheconditionofthevalidityoftheChristianteachingandoftheChristianhope,isnomorethanthefactofthesupernaturalismofChristianity,historicallyvindicated;practicallywemustsaythattheconditionofthepersistenceofChristianityasareligionforthepeople,istheentiretrustworthinessoftheScripturesastherecordofthesupernaturalrevelationwhichChristianityis.

Secondly,themerelyhistoricalvindicationofthesupernaturaloriginandcontentsofChristianity,whilethoroughandcompleteforChristianityasawhole,andforallthemainfactsanddoctrineswhichenterintoit,doesnotbyitselfsupplyafirmbasisoftrustforallthedetailsofteachingandalltheitemsofpromiseuponwhichtheChristianmanwouldfainlean.Christianitywouldbegiventous;butitwouldbegiventous,notintheexactformorinallthefulnesswithwhichGodgaveittohisneedychildrenthroughhisservants,theprophets,andthroughhisSonandhisapostles;butwiththemarksofhumanmisapprehension,exaggeration,andminimizinguponit,andofwhateverattritionmayhavebeenwroughtuponitbyitspassagetousthroughtheages.Thatthechurchmayhaveunsulliedassuranceinthedetailsofitsteaching,—thattheChristianmanmayhaveunshakenconfidenceinthedetailsofthe

promisestowhichhetrusts,—theyneed,andtheyknowthattheyneed,athoroughlytrustworthyWordofGodinwhichGodhimselfspeaksdirectlytothemallthewordsofthislife.

Thirdly,inthecircumstancesofthepresentcase,wecannotfallbackfromtrustintheBibleupontrustinthehistoricalvindicationofChristianityasarevelationfromGod,inasmuchas,sinceChristandhisapostlesarehistoricallyshowntohavetaughttheplenaryinspirationoftheBible,thecreditofthepreviousfactofrevelation—evenofthesupremerevelationinChristJesus—isimplicatedinthetruthofthedoctrineofplenaryinspiration.ThehistoricalvindicationofChristianityasarevelationfromGod,vindicatesasthetruthofGodallthecontentsofthatrevelation;and,amongthesecontents,vindicates,asdivinelytrue,theteachingofChristandhisapostles,thattheScripturesaretheveryWordofGod,tobetrustedassuchinallthedetailsoftheirteachingandpromises.Theinstinctofthechurchisperfectlysound,therefore,whensheclingstothetrustworthinessoftheBible,aslyingatthefoundationofherteachingandherfaith.

Muchlesscanshebeshakenfromthisinstinctiveconvictionbytherepresentationsofindividualthinkerswhogoyetastepfurther,and,refusingtopintheirfaitheithertotheBibleortohistory,affirmthat“theessenceofChristianity”issecurelyintrenchedinthesubjectivefeelingsofman,eitherassuch,orasChristianmantaughtbytheHolyGhost;andthereforethatthereisbynomeansneededaninfallibleobjectiveruleoffaithinordertopropagateorpreserveChristiantruthintheworld.Itisunnecessarytosaythat“theessenceofChristianity”asconceivedbytheseindividuals,includeslittlethatischaracteristicofChristiandoctrine,life,orhope,asdistinctfromwhatistaughtbyotherreligionsorphilosophies.Anditisperhapsequallyunnecessarytoremindourselvesthatsuchindividuals,havinggonesofar,tendtotakeafurtherstepstill,andtodiscardtherecordswhichtheythusjudgetobeunnecessary.Thus,theremaybefoundevenmenstillprofessinghistoricalChristianity,whoreasonthemselvesintotheconclusionthat“inthenatureofthecase,noexternalauthoritycanpossiblybeabsoluteinregardtospiritualtruth”;f21justasmenhavebeenknowntoreasonthemselvesintotheconclusionthattheexternalworldhasnoobjectiverealityandisnaughtbuttheprojectionoftheirownfaculties.Butasinthe

onecase,sointheother,thecommonsenseofmenrecoilsfromsuchsubtleties;anditremainstheprofoundpersuasionoftheChristianheartthatwithoutsuchan“externalauthority”asathoroughlytrustworthyBible,thesoulisleftwithoutsuregroundforaproperknowledgeofitself,itscondition,anditsneed,orforaproperknowledgeofGod’sprovisionsofmercyforitandhispromisesofgracetoit,—withoutsureground,inaword,foritsfaithandhope.AdolpheMonodgivesvoicetonomorethanthecommonChristianconviction,whenhedeclaresthat,“IffaithhasnotforitsbasisatestimonyofGodtowhichwemustsubmit,astoanauthorityexteriortoourpersonaljudgment,andindependentofit,thenfaithisnofaith.”f22“ThemoreIstudytheScriptures,theexampleofChrist,andoftheapostles,andthehistoryofmyownheart,”headds,“themoreIamconvinced,thatatestimonyofGod,placedwithoutusandaboveus,exemptfromallintermixtureofsinanderrorwhichbelongtoafallenrace,andreceivedwithsubmissiononthesoleauthorityofGod,isthetruebasisoffaith.”f23

Itisdoubtlesstheprofoundandineradicableconviction,soexpressed,oftheneedofaninfallibleBible,ifmenaretoseekandfindsalvationinGod’sannouncedpurposeofgrace,andpeaceandcomfortinhispastdealingswithhispeople,thathasoperatedtokeeptheformulasofthechurchesandtheheartsofthepeopleofGod,throughsomanyages,truetotheBibledoctrineofplenaryinspiration.InthatdoctrinemenhavefoundwhattheirheartshavetoldthemwastheindispensablesafeguardofasurewordofGodtothem,—awordofGodtowhichtheycouldresortwithconfidenceineverytimeofneed,towhichtheycouldappealforguidanceineverydifficulty,forcomfortineverysorrow,forinstructionineveryperplexity;onwhose“ThussaiththeLord”theycouldsafelyrestalltheiraspirationsandalltheirhopes.SuchaWordofGod,eachoneofusknowsheneeds,—notaWordofGodthatspeakstousonlythroughthemediumofourfellow-men,menoflikepassionsandweaknesseswithourselves,sothatwehavetofeelourwaybacktoGod’swordthroughthechurch,throughtradition,orthroughtheapostles,standingbetweenusandGod;butaWordofGodinwhichGodspeaksdirectlytoeachofoursouls.SuchaWordofGod,Christandhisapostlesofferus,whentheygiveustheScriptures,notasman’sreporttousofwhatGodsays,butastheveryWordofGoditself,spokenbyGodhimself

throughhumanlipsandpens.Ofsuchapreciouspossession,giventoherbysuchhands,thechurchwillnotlightlypermitherselftobedeprived.Thusthechurch’ssenseofherneedofanabsolutelyinfallibleBible,hasco-operatedwithherreverencefortheteachingoftheBibletokeephertrue,inallages,totheBibledoctrineofplenaryinspiration.

What,indeed,wouldthechurchbe—whatwouldwe,asChristianmen,be—withoutourinspiredBible?Manyofushave,nodoubt,readJeanPaulRichter’svisionofadeadChrist,andhaveshudderedathispicturesofthewoeofaworldfromwhichitsChristhasbeenstolenaway.ItwouldbeathemeworthyofsomelikegeniustoportrayforusthevisionofadeadBible,—thevisionofwhatthisworldofourswouldbe,hadtherebeennolivingWordofGodeastintoitstroubledwaterswithitsvoiceofpower,crying,“Peace!Bestill!”WhatdoesthisChristianworldofoursnotowetothisBible!AndtothisBibleconceived,notasapartoftheworld’sliterature,—theliteraryproductoftheearliestyearsofthechurch;notasabookinwhich,bysearching,wemayfindGodandperchancesomewhatofGod’swill:butastheveryWordofGod,instinctwithdivinelifefromthe“Inthebeginning”ofGenesistothe“Amen”oftheApocalypse,—breathedintobyGod,andbreathingoutGodtoeverydevoutreader.Itisbecausemenhavesothoughtofitthatithasprovedaleaventoleaventhewholelumpoftheworld.Wedonothalfrealizewhatweowetothisbook,thustrustedbymen.Wecanneverfullyrealizeit.Forwecannevereveninthoughtunravelfromthiscomplexwebofmoderncivilization,allthethreadsfromtheBiblewhichhavebeenwovenintoit,throughoutthewholepast,andnowenterintoitsveryfabric.And,thankGod,muchlesscanweeveruntwinetheminfact,andseparateourmodernlifefromallthoseBibleinfluencesbywhichaloneitisblessed,andsweetened,andmadealifewhichmenmaylive.Dr.GardinerSpringpublished,yearsago,aseriesoflecturesinwhichhesoughttotakesomeaccountoftheworld’sobligationstotheBible,—tracinginturntheservicesithasrenderedtoreligion,tomorals,tosocialinstitutions,tocivilandreligiousliberty,tothefreedomofslaves,totheemancipationofwomanandthesweeteningofdomesticlife,topublicandprivatebeneficence,toliteraryandscientificprogress,andthelike.”f24AndAdolpheMonod,inhisowninimitablestyle,hasdonesomethingtoawakenusasindividualstowhatweowetoafullytrusted

Bible,inthedevelopmentofourcharacterandreligiouslife.f25Insuchmatters,however,wecantrustourimaginationsbetterthanourwords,toremindusoftheimmensityofourdebt.

LetitsufficetosaythattoaplenarilyinspiredBible,humblytrustedassuch,weactually,andasamatteroffact,oweallthathasblessedourliveswithhopesofanimmortalityofbliss,andwiththepresentfruitionoftheloveofGodinChrist.Thisisnotanexaggeration.WemaysaythatwithoutaBiblewemighthavehadChristandallthathestandsfortooursouls.Letusnotsaythatthismightnothavebeenpossible.Butneitherletusforgetthat,inpointoffact,itistotheBiblethatweoweitthatweknowChristandarefoundinhim.AndmayitnotbefairlydoubtedwhetheryouandI,—howeveritmayhavebeenwithothers,—wouldhavehadChristhadtherebeennoBible?WemustnotatanyrateforgetthosenineteenChristiancenturieswhichstretchbetweenusandChrist,whoseChristianlightwewoulddomuchtoblotoutandsinkinadreadfuldarknessifwecouldblotouttheBible.EvenwiththeBible,andallthathadcomefromtheBibletoformChristianlivesandinformaChristianliterature,afteramillenniumandahalfthedarknesshadgrownsodeepthataReformationwasnecessaryifChristiantruthwastopersist,—aLutherwasnecessary,raisedupbyGodtorediscovertheBibleandgiveitbacktoman.SupposetherehadbeennoBibleforLuthertorediscover,andonthelinesofwhichtorefoundthechurch,—andnoBibleintheheartsofGod’ssaintsandinthepagesofChristianliterature,persistingthroughthosedarkeragestoprepareaLuthertorediscoverit?ThoughChristhadcomeintotheworldandhadlivedanddiedforus,mightitnotbetous,—youandme,Imean,whoarenotlearnedhistoriansbutsimplemenandwomen,—mightitnotbetousasthoughhehadnotbeen?Or,ifsomefaintechoofaSonofGodofferingsalvationtomencouldstillbefaintlyheardevenbysuchdullearsasours,soundingdowntheages,whowouldhaveearstocatchthefulnessofthemessageoffreegracewhichhebroughtintotheworld?whocouldassureourdoubtingsoulsthatitwasnotallapleasantdream?whocouldcleansethemessagefromtheever-gatheringcorruptionsofthemultiplyingyears?No:whatevermightpossiblyhavebeenhadtherebeennoBible,itisactuallytotheBiblethatyouandIoweitthatwehaveaChrist,—aChristtolove,totrustandtofollow,aChristwithoutusthe

groundofoursalvation,aChristwithinusthehopeofglory.OurefforthasbeentobringclearlyoutwhatseemtobethreeveryimpressivefactsregardingtheplenaryinspirationoftheScriptures,—thefacts,namely,thatthisdoctrinehasalwaysbeen,andisstill,thechurch-doctrineofinspiration,aswellthevitalfaithofthepeopleofGodastheformulatedteachingoftheofficialcreeds;thatitisundeniablythedoctrineofinspirationheldbyChristandhisapostles,andcommendedtousastruebyalltheauthoritywhichwewillallowtoattachtotheirteaching;andthatitisthefoundationofourChristianthoughtandlife,withoutwhichwecouldnot,orcouldonlywithdifficulty,maintaintheconfidenceofourfaithandthesuretyofourhope.Onsuchgroundsastheseisnotthisdoctrinecommendedtousastrue?

But,itmaybesaid,therearedifficultiesintheway.Ofcoursethereare.Therearedifficultiesinthewayofbelievinganything.TherearedifficultiesinthewayofbelievingthatGodis,orthatJesusChristisGod’sSonwhocameintotheworldtosavesinners.Therearedifficultiesinthewayofbelievingthatweourselvesreallyexist,orthatanythinghasrealexistencebesidesourselves.Whenmengivetheirundividedattentiontothesedifficulties,theymaybecome,andtheyhavebecome,soperplexedinmind,thattheyhavefeltunabletobelievethatGodis,orthattheythemselvesexist,orthatthereisanyexternalworldwithoutthemselves.Itwouldbeastrangethingifitmightnotsofarewithplenaryinspirationalso.Difficulties?Ofcoursetherearedifficulties.Itisnothingtothepurposetopointoutthisfact.Dr.J.OswaldDykessayswithadmirabletruth:“Ifmenmusthaveareconciliationforallconflictingtruthsbeforetheywillbelieveany;iftheymustseehowthepromisesofGodaretobefulfilledbeforetheywillobeyhiscommands;ifdutyistohanguponthesatisfyingoftheunderstanding,insteadofthesubmissionofthewill,—thenthegreaternumberofuswillfindtheroadoffaithandtheroadofdutyblockedattheoutset.”f26Thesewisewordshavetheirapplicationalsotoourpresentsubject.Thequestionisnot,whetherthedoctrineofplenaryinspirationhasdifficultiestoface.Thequestionis,whetherthesedifficultiesaregreaterthanthedifficultyofbelievingthatthewholechurchofGodfromthebeginninghasbeendeceivedinherestimateoftheScripturescommittedtohercharge—aregreaterthanthe

difficultyofbelievingthatthewholecollegeoftheapostles,yesandChristhimselfattheirhead,werethemselvesdeceivedastothenatureofthoseScriptureswhichtheygavethechurchasitspreciouspossession,andhavedeceivedwiththemtwentyChristiancenturies,andarelikelytodeceivetwentymorebeforeourboastedadvancinglighthascorrectedtheirerror,—aregreaterthanthedifficultyofbelievingthatwehavenosurefoundationforourfaithandnocertainwarrantforourtrustinChristforsalvation.WebelievethisdoctrineoftheplenaryinspirationoftheScripturesprimarilybecauseitisthedoctrinewhichChristandhisapostlesbelieved,andwhichtheyhavetaughtus.ItmaysometimesseemdifficulttotakeourstandfranklybythesideofChristandhisapostles.Itwillalwaysbefoundsafe.

TheBiblicalIdeaOfInspiration

INSPIRATIONF27

THEword“inspire”anditsderivativesseemtohavecomeintoMiddleEnglishfromtheFrench,andhavebeenemployedfromthefirst(earlyinthefourteenthcentury)inaconsiderablenumberofsignifications,physicalandmetaphorical,secularandreligious.Thederivativeshavebeenmultipliedandtheirapplicationsextendedduringtheprocessionoftheyears,untiltheyhaveacquiredaverywideandvarieduse.Underlyingalltheiruse,however,istheconstantimplicationofaninfluencefromwithout,producinginitsobjectmovementsandeffectsbeyonditsnative,oratleastitsordinarypowers.Thenoun“inspiration,”althoughalreadyinuseinthefourteenthcentury,seemsnottooccurinanybutatheologicalsenseuntillateinthesixteenthcentury.Thespecificallytheologicalsenseofallthesetermsisgoverned,ofcourse,bytheirusageinLatintheology;andthisrestsultimatelyontheiremploymentintheLatinBible.IntheVulgateLatinBibletheverbinspiro(<010207>Genesis2:7;Wisd.15:11;Ecclus.4:12;<550316>2Timothy3:16;<610121>2Peter1:21)andthenouninspiratio(<102216>2Samuel22:16;<183208>Job32:8;<191701>Psalm17:16;<441725>Acts17:25)bothoccurfourorfivetimesinsomewhatdiverseapplications.Inthedevelopmentofatheologicalnomenclature,however,theyhaveacquired(alongwithotherlessfrequentapplications)atechnicalsensewithreferencetotheBiblicalwritersortheBiblicalbooks.TheBiblicalbooksarecalledinspiredastheDivinelydeterminedproductsofinspiredmen;theBiblicalwritersarecalledinspiredasbreathedintobytheHolySpirit,sothattheproductoftheiractivitiestranscendshumanpowersandbecomesDivinelyauthoritative.Inspirationis,therefore,usuallydefinedasasupernaturalinfluenceexertedonthesacredwritersbytheSpiritofGod,byvirtueofwhichtheirwritingsaregivenDivinetrustworthiness.Meanwhile,forEnglish-speakingmen,thesetermshavevirtuallyceasedtobeBiblicalterms.TheynaturallypassedfromtheLatinVulgateintotheEnglishversionsmadefromit(mostfullyintotheRheims-Douay:<183208>Job32:8;Wisd.15:11;Ecclus.4:12;<550316>2Timothy3:16;<610121>2Peter1:21).ButinthedevelopmentoftheEnglishBiblethey

havefoundever-decreasingplace.IntheEnglishversionsoftheApocrypha(bothAuthorizedVersionandRevisedVersion)“inspired”isretainedinWisd.15:11;butinthecanonicalbooksthenominalformaloneoccursintheAuthorizedVersionandthatonlytwice:<183208>Job32:8,“Butthereisaspiritinman:andtheinspirationoftheAlmightygiveththemunderstanding”;and<550316>2Timothy3:16,“AllscriptureisgivenbyinspirationofGod,andisprofitablefordoctrine,forreproof,forcorrection,forinstructioninrighteousness.”TheRevisedVersionremovestheformeroftheseinstances,substituting“breath”for“inspiration”;andaltersthelattersoastoread:“EveryscriptureinspiredofGodisalsoprofitableforteaching,forreproof,forcorrection,forinstructionwhichisinrighteousness,”withamarginalalternativeintheformof,“EveryscriptureisinspiredofGodandprofitable,”etc.Theword“inspiration”thusdisappearsfromtheEnglishBible,andtheword“inspired”isleftinitonlyonce,andthen,letitbeadded,byadistinctandevenmisleadingmistranslation.

FortheGreekwordinthispassage—qeo>pneustos,theópneustos—distinctlydoesnotmean“inspiredofGod.”ThisphraseisrathertherenderingoftheLatin,divinitusinspirata,restoredfromtheWyclif(“AllScriptureofGodynspyridis…”)andRhemish(“AllScriptureinspiredofGodis…”)versionsoftheVulgate.TheGreekworddoesnotevenmean,astheAuthorizedVersiontranslatesit,“givenbyinspirationofGod,”althoughthatrendering(inheritedfromTindale:“AllScripturegivenbyinspirationofGodis…”anditssuccessors;cf.Geneva:“ThewholeScriptureisgivenbyinspirationofGodandis…”)hasatleasttosayforitselfthatitisasomewhatclumsy,perhaps,butnotmisleading,paraphraseoftheGreekterminthetheologicallanguageoftheday.TheGreektermhas,however,nothingtosayofinspiringorofinspiration:itspeaksonlyofa“spiring”or“spiration.”WhatitsaysofScriptureis,notthatitis“breathedintobyGod”oristheproductoftheDivine“inbreathing”intoitshumanauthors,butthatitisbreathedoutbyGod,“God-breathed,”theproductofthecreativebreathofGod.Inaword,whatisdeclaredbythisfundamentalpassageissimplythattheScripturesareaDivineproduct,withoutanyindicationofhowGodhasoperatedinproducingthem.Notermcouldhavebeenchosen,however,whichwouldhavemoreemphaticallyassertedtheDivineproductionof

Scripturethanthatwhichishereemployed.The“breathofGod”isinScripturejustthesymbolofHisalmightypower,thebearerofHiscreativeword.“BythewordofJehovah,”wereadinthesignificantparallelof<193306>Psalm33:6,“weretheheavensmade,andallthehostofthembythebreathofhismouth.”AnditisparticularlywheretheoperationsOfGodareenergeticthatthisterm(whetherjæWr,ruah,orhm;v;n],neshamah)isemployedtodesignatethem—God’sbreathistheirresistibleoutflowofHispower.WhenPauldeclares,then,that“everyscripture,”or“allscripture”istheproductoftheDivinebreath,“isGodbreathed,”heassertswithasmuchenergyashecouldemploythatScriptureistheproductofaspecificallyDivineoperation.

(1)<550316>2Timothy3:16:InthepassageinwhichPaulmakesthisenergeticassertionoftheDivineoriginofScriptureheisengagedinexplainingthegreatnessoftheadvantageswhichTimothyhadenjoyedforlearningthesavingtruthofGod.Hehadhadgoodteachers;andfromhisveryinfancyhehadbeen,byhisknowledgeoftheScriptures,madewiseuntosalvationthroughfaithinJesusChrist.Theexpression,“sacredwritings,”hereemployed(ver.15),isatechnicalone,notfoundelsewhereintheNewTestament,itistrue,butoccurringcurrentlyinPhiloandJosephustodesignatethatbodyofauthoritativebookswhichconstitutedtheJewish“Law.”ItappearshereanarthrouslybecauseitissetincontrastwiththeoralteachingwhichTimothyhadenjoyed,assomethingstillbetter:hehadnotonlyhadgoodinstructors,butalsoalways“anopenBible,”asweshouldsay,inhishand.ToenhanceyetfurtherthegreatadvantageofthepossessionoftheseSacredScripturestheapostleaddsnowasentencethrowingtheirnaturestronglyuptoview.TheyareofDivineoriginandthereforeofthehighestvalueforallholypurposes.

Thereisroomforsomedifferenceofopinionastotheexactconstructionofthisdeclaration.Shallwerender”EveryScripture”or“AllScripture”?Shallwerender“Every[orall]ScriptureisGod-breathedand[therefore]profitable,”or“Every[orall]Scripture,beingGod-breathed,isaswellprofitable”?Nodoubtbothquestionsareinteresting,butforthemainmatternowengagingourattentiontheyarebothindifferent.WhetherPaul,lookingbackattheSacredScriptureshehadjustmentioned,makestheassertion

heisabouttoadd,ofthemdistributively,ofalltheirparts,orcollectively,oftheirentiremass,isofnomoment:tosaythateverypartoftheseSacredScripturesisGod-breathedandtosaythatthewholeoftheseSacredScripturesisGod-breathed,is,forthemainmatter,allone.Noristhedifferencegreatbetweensayingthattheyareinalltheirparts,orintheirwholeextent,God-breathedandthereforeprofitable,andsayingthattheyareinalltheirparts,orintheirwholeextent,becauseGod-breathedaswellprofitable.InbothcasestheseSacredScripturesaredeclaredtoowetheirvaluetotheirDivineorigin;andinbothcasesthistheirDivineoriginisenergeticallyassertedoftheirentirefabric.Onthewhole,thepreferableconstructionwouldseemtobe,“EveryScripture,seeingthatitisGod-breathed,isaswellprofitable.”Inthatcase,whattheapostleassertsisthattheSacredScriptures,intheireveryseveralpassage—foritisjust“passageofScripture”which“Scripture”inthisdistributiveuseofitsignifies—istheproductofthecreativebreathofGod,and,becauseofthisitsDivineorigination,isofsupremevalueforallholypurposes.

ItistobeobservedthattheapostledoesnotstopheretotelluseitherwhatparticularbooksenterintothecollectionwhichhecallsSacredScriptures,orbywhatpreciseoperationsGodhasproducedthem.Neitherofthesesubjectsenteredintothematterhehadatthemomentinhand.ItwasthevalueoftheScriptures,andthesourceofthatvalueintheirDivineorigin,whichherequiredatthemomenttoassert;andthesethingsheasserts,leavingtootheroccasionsanyfurtherfactsconcerningthemwhichitmightbewelltoemphasize.ItisalsotobeobservedthattheapostledoesnottellushereeverythingforwhichtheScripturesaremadevaluablebytheirDivineorigination.Hespeakssimplytothepointimmediatelyinhand,andremindsTimothyofthevaluewhichtheseScriptures,byvirtueoftheirDivineorigin,haveforthe“manofGod.”Theirspiritualpower,asGod-breathed,isallthathehadoccasionheretoadvertto.WhateverotherqualitiesmayaccruetothemfromtheirDivineorigin,heleavestootheroccasionstospeakof

(2)<610119>2Peter1:19-21:WhatPaultellshereabouttheDivineoriginoftheScripturesisenforcedandextendedbyastrikingpassagein2Peter(<610119>2Peter1:19-21).Peterisassuringhisreadersthatwhathadbeenmadeknowntothemof“thepowerandcomingofour

LordJesusChrist”didnotreston“cunninglydevisedfables.”HeoffersthemthetestimonyofeyewitnessesofChrist’sglory.Andthenheintimatesthattheyhavebettertestimonythaneventhatofeyewitnesses.“Wehave,”sayshe,“thepropheticword”(Englishversions,unhappily,“thewordofprophecy”):andthis,hesays,is“moresure,”andthereforeshouldcertainlybeheeded.Herefers,ofcourse,totheScriptures.Ofwhatother“propheticword”couldhe,overagainstthetestimonyoftheeyewitnessesofChrist’s“excellentglory”(AuthorizedVersion)saythat“wehave”it,thatis,itisinourhands?Andheproceedsatoncetospeakofitplainlyas“Scripturalprophecy.”Youdowell,hesays,topayheedtothepropheticword,becauseweknowthisfirst,that“everyprophecyofscripture…”Itadmitsofmorequestion,however,whetherbythisphrasehemeansthewholeofScripture,designatedaccordingtoitscharacter,asprophetic,thatis,ofDivineorigin;oronlythatportionofScripturewhichwediscriminateasparticularlyprophetic,theimmediaterevelationscontainedinScripture.Theformeristhemorelikelyview,inasmuchastheentiretyofScriptureiselsewhereconceivedandspokenofasprophetic.Inthatcase,whatPeterhastosayofthis“everyprophecyofscripture”—theexactequivalent,itwillbeobserved,inthiscaseofPaul’s“everyscripture”(<550316>2Timothy3:16)—appliestothewholeofScriptureinallitsparts.Whathesaysofitisthatitdoesnotcome“ofprivateinterpretation”;thatis,itisnottheresultofhumaninvestigationintothenatureofthings,theproductofitswriters’ownthinking.ThisisasmuchastosayitisofDivinegift.Accordingly,heproceedsatoncetomakethisplaininasupportingclausewhichcontainsboththenegativeandthepositivedeclaration:“Fornoprophecyevercame[margin“wasbrought”]bythewillofman,butitwasasbornebytheHolySpiritthatmenspokefromGod.”Inthissingularlypreciseandpregnantstatementthereareseveralthingswhichrequiretobecarefullyobserved.Thereis,firstofall,theemphaticdenialthatprophecy—thatistosay,onthehypothesisuponwhichweareworking,Scripture—owesitsorigintohumaninitiative:“Noprophecyeverwasbrought—‘came’isthewordusedintheEnglishversiontext,with‘wasbrought’inRevisedVersionmargin—bythewillofman.”Then,thereistheequallyemphaticassertionthatitssourceliesinGod:itwasspokenbymen,indeed,butthemenwho

spokeit“spakefromGod.”Andaremarkableclauseishereinserted,andthrownforwardinthesentencethatstressmayfallonit,whichtellsushowitcouldbethatmen,inspeaking,shouldspeaknotfromthemselves,butfromGod:itwas“asborne”—itisthesamewordwhichwasrendered“wasbrought”above,andmightpossiblyberendered“brought”here—“bytheHolySpirit”thattheyspoke.SpeakingthusunderthedetermininginfluenceoftheHolySpirit,thethingstheyspokewerenotfromthemselves,butfromGod.

HereisasdirectanassertionoftheDivineoriginofScriptureasthatof<550316>2Timothy3:16.ButthereismoreherethanasimpleassertionoftheDivineoriginofScripture.WeareadvancedsomewhatinourunderstandingofhowGodhasproducedtheScriptures.Itwasthroughtheinstrumentalityofmenwho“spakefromhim.”Morespecifically,itwasthroughanoperationoftheHolyGhostonthesemenwhichisdescribedas“bearing”them.Thetermhereusedisaveryspecificone.Itisnottobeconfoundedwithguiding,ordirecting,orcontrolling,orevenleadinginthefullsenseofthatword.Itgoesbeyondallsuchterms,inassigningtheeffectproducedspecificallytotheactiveagent.Whatis“borne”istakenupbythe“bearer,”andconveyedbythe“bearer’s”power,notitsown,tothe“bearer’s”goal,notitsown.ThemenwhospokefromGodareheredeclared,therefore,tohavebeentakenupbytheHolySpiritandbroughtbyHispowertothegoalofHischoosing.ThethingswhichtheyspokeunderthisoperationoftheSpiritwerethereforeHisthings,nottheirs.Andthatisthereasonwhichisassignedwhy“thepropheticword”issosure.Thoughspokenthroughtheinstrumentalityofmen,itis,byvirtueofthefactthatthesemenspoke“asbornebytheHolySpirit,”animmediatelyDivineword.Itwillbeobservedthattheproximatestressislaidhere,notonthespiritualvalueofScripture(thoughthat,too,isseeninthebackground),butontheDivinetrustworthinessofScripture.BecausethisisthewayeveryprophecyofScripture“hasbeenbrought,”itaffordsamoresurebasisofconfidencethaneventhetestimonyofhumaneyewitnesses.Ofcourse,ifwedonotunderstandby“thepropheticword”heretheentiretyofScripturedescribed,accordingtoitscharacter,asrevelation,butonlythatelementinScripturewhichwecallspecificallyprophecy,thenitisdirectlyonlyofthatelementinScripturethatthesegreatdeclarationsaremade.Inany

event,however,theyaremadeofthepropheticelementinScriptureaswritten,whichwastheonlyforminwhichthereadersofthisEpistlepossessedit,andwhichisthethingspecificallyintimatedinthephrase“everyprophecyofscripture.”Thesegreatdeclarationsaremade,therefore,atleastoflargetractsofScripture;andiftheentiretyofScriptureisintendedbythephrase“thepropheticword,”theyaremadeofthewholeofScripture.(3)<431034>John10:34f.:HowfarthesupremetrustworthinessofScripture,thusasserted,extendsmaybeconveyedtousbyapassageinoneofOurLord’sdiscoursesrecordedbyJohn(<431034>John10:34-35).TheJews,offendedbyJesus’“makinghimselfGod,”wereintheacttostoneHim,whenHedefendedHimselfthus:Isitnotwritteninyourlaw,Isaid,Yearegods?Ifhecalledthemgods,untowhomthewordofGodcame(andthescripturecannotbebroken),sayyeofhim,whomtheFathersanctified[margin“consecrated”]andsentuntotheworld,Thoublasphemest;becauseIsaid,IamtheSonofGod?“Itmaybethoughtthatthisdefenceisinadequate.Itcertainlyisincomplete:JesusmadeHimselfGod(<431033>John10:33)inafarhighersensethanthatinwhich“Yearegods”wassaidofthose“untowhomthewordofGodcame”:Hehadjustdeclaredinunmistakableterms,“IandtheFatherareone”Butitwasquitesufficientfortheimmediateendinview—torepelthetechnicalchargeofblasphemybasedonHismakingHimselfGod:itisnotblasphemytocalloneGodinanysenseinwhichhemayfitlyreceivethatdesignation;andcertainlyifitisnotblasphemytocallsuchmenasthosespokenofinthepassageofScriptureadducedgods,becauseoftheirofficialfunctions,itcannotbeblasphemytocallHimGodwhomtheFatherconsecratedandsentintotheworld.Thepointforustonote,however,ismerelythatJesus’defencetakestheformofanappealtoScripture;anditisimportanttoobservehowHemakesthisappeal.Inthefirstplace,HeadducestheScripturesaslaw:“Isitnotwritteninyourlaw?”Hedemands.ThepassageofScripturewhichHeadducesisnotwritteninthatportionofScripturewhichwasmorespecificallycalled“theLaw,”thatistosay,thePentateuch;norinanyportionofScriptureofformallylegalcontents.ItiswrittenintheBookofPsalms;andinaparticularpsalmwhichisasfaraspossiblefrom

presentingtheexternalcharacteristicsoflegalenactment(<198206>Psalm82:6).WhenJesusadducesthispassage,then,aswritteninthe“law”oftheJews,Hedoesit,notbecauseitstandsinthispsalm,butbecauseitisapartofScriptureatlarge.Inotherwords,HehereascribeslegalauthoritytotheentiretyofScripture,inaccordancewithaconceptioncommonenoughamongtheJews(cf.<431234>John12:34),andfindingexpressionintheNewTestamentoccasionally,bothonthelipsofJesusHimself,andinthewritingsoftheapostles.Thus,onalateroccasion(<431525>John15:25),Jesusdeclaresthatitiswritteninthe“law”oftheJews,“Theyhatedmewithoutacause,”aclausefoundin<193519>Psalm35:19.AndPaulassignspassagesbothfromthePsalmsandfromIsaiahto“theLaw”(<461421>1Corinthians14:21;<450319>Romans3:19),andcanwritesuchasentenceasthis(<480421>Galatians4:21f.):“Tellme,yethatdesiretobeunderthelaw,doyenothearthelaw?Foritiswritten…”quotingfromthenarrativeofGenesis.WehaveseenthattheentiretyofScripturewasconceivedas“prophecy”;wenowseethattheentiretyofScripturewasalsoconceivedas“law”:thesethreeterms,thelaw,prophecy,Scripture,wereindeed,materially,strictsynonyms,asourpresentpassageitselfadvisesus,byvaryingtheformulaofadductionincontiguousversesfrom“law”to“scripture”AndwhatisthusimpliedinthemannerinwhichScriptureisadduced,isimmediatelyafterwardspokenoutinthemostexplicitlanguage,becauseitformsanessentialelementinOurLord’sdefence.Itmighthavebeenenoughtosaysimply,“Isitnotwritteninyourlaw?”ButOurLord,determinedtodriveHisappealtoScripturehome,sharpensthepointtotheutmostbyaddingwiththehighestemphasis:“andthescripturecannotbebroken.”Thisisthereasonwhyitisworthwhiletoappealtowhatis“writteninthelaw,”because“thescripturecannotbebroken.”Theword“broken”hereisthecommononeforbreakingthelaw,ortheSabbath,orthelike(<430518>John5:18;7:23;<400519>Matthew5:19),andthemeaningofthedeclarationisthatitisimpossiblefortheScripturetobeannulled,itsauthoritytobewithstood,ordenied.Themovementofthoughtistotheeffectthat,becauseitisimpossiblefortheScripture—thetermisperfectlygeneralandwitnessestotheunitarycharacterofScripture(itisall,forthepurposeinhand,ofapiece)tobewithstood,thereforethis

particularScripturewhichiscitedmustbetakenasofirrefragableauthority.Whatwehavehereis,therefore,thestrongestpossibleassertionoftheindefectibleauthorityofScripture;preciselywhatistrueofScriptureisthatit“cannotbebroken.”Now,whatistheparticularthinginScripture,fortheconfirmationofwhichtheindefectibleauthorityofScriptureisthusinvoked?Itisoneofitsmostcasualclauses—morethanthat,theveryformofitsexpressioninoneofitsmostcasualclauses.Thismeans,ofcourse,thatintheSaviour’sviewtheindefectibleauthorityofScriptureattachestotheveryformofexpressionofitsmostcasualclauses.ItbelongstoScripturethroughandthrough,downtoitsmostminuteparticulars,thatitisofindefectibleauthority.

Itissometimessuggested,itistrue,thatOurLord’sargumenthereisanargumentumadhominem,andthathiswords,therefore,expressnotHisownviewoftheauthorityofScripture,butthatofHisJewishopponents.ItwillscarcelybedeniedthatthereisaveinofsatirerunningthroughOurLord’sdefence:thattheJewssoreadilyallowedthatcorruptjudgesmightproperlybecalled“gods,”butcouldnotendurethatHewhomtheFatherhadconsecratedandsentintotheworld;shouldcallHimselfSonofGod,wasasomewhatpungentfacttothrowupintosuchahighlight.ButtheargumentfromScriptureisnotadhominembuteconcessu;ScripturewascommongroundwithJesusandHisopponents.Ifproofwereneededforsoobviousafact,itwouldbesuppliedbythecircumstancethatthisisnotanisolatedbutarepresentativepassage.TheconceptionofScripturethrownupintosuchclearviewheresuppliesthegroundofallJesus’appealstoScripture,andofalltheappealsoftheNewTestamentwritersaswell.Everywhere,toHimandtothemalike,anappealtoScriptureisanappealtoanindefectibleauthoritywhosedeterminationisfinal;bothHeandtheymaketheirappealindifferentlytoeverypartofScripture,toeveryelementinScripture,toitsmostincidentalclausesaswellastoitsmostfundamentalprinciples,andtotheveryformofitsexpression.ThisattitudetowardScriptureasanauthoritativedocumentis,indeed,alreadyintimatedbytheirconstantdesignationofitbythenameofScripture,theScriptures,thatis“theDocument,”bywayofeminence;andbytheircustomarycitationofitwiththesimpleformula,“Itiswritten.”Whatiswritteninthisdocument

admitssolittleofquestioningthatitsauthoritativenessrequirednoasserting,butmightsafelybetakenforgranted.BothmodesofexpressionbelongtotheconstantlyillustratedhabitudesofOurLord’sspeech.ThefirstwordsHeisrecordedasutteringafterHismanifestationtoIsraelwereanappealtotheunquestionableauthorityofScripture;toSatan’stemptationsHeopposednootherweaponthanthefinal“Itiswritten”!(<400404>Matthew4:4,7,10;<420404>Luke4:4.8).AndamongthelastwordswhichHespoketoHisdisciplesbeforeHewasreceivedupwasarebuketothemfornotunderstandingthatnilthings“whicharewritteninthelawofMoses,andtheprophets,andpsalms”concerningHim—thatis(ver.45)intheentire“Scriptures”—“mustneedsbe”(veryemphatic)“fulfilled”(<422444>Luke24:44).“Thusitiswritten,”saysHe(ver.46),asrenderingalldoubtabsurd.For,asHehadexplainedearlieruponthesameday(<422425>Luke24:25ff.),itarguesonlythatoneis“foolishandslowatheart”ifhedoesnot“believein”(ifhisfaithdoesnotrestsecurelyon,asonafirmfoundation)“all”(withoutlimitofsubject-matterhere)“thattheprophets”(explainedinver.27asequivalentto“allthescriptures”)“havespoken.”ThenecessityofthefulfilmentofallthatiswritteninScripture,whichissostronglyassertedintheselastinstructionstoHisdisciples,isfrequentlyadvertedtobyOurLord.Herepeatedlyexplainsofoccurrencesoccasionallyhappeningthattheyhavecometopass“thatthescripturemightbefulfilled”(<411449>Mark14:49;<431318>John13:18;17:12;cf.12:14;<410912>Mark9:12,13).OnthebasisofScripturaldeclarations,therefore,Heannounceswithconfidencethatgiveneventswillcertainlyoccur:“Allyeshallbeoffended[literally“scandalized”]inmethisnight:foritiswritten…”(<402631>Matthew26:31;<411427>Mark14:27;cf.<422017>Luke20:17).AlthoughholdingatHiscommandamplemeansofescape,Hebowsbeforeon-comingcalamities,for,Heasks,howotherwise“shouldthescripturesbefulfilled,thatthusitmustbe?”(<402654>Matthew26:54).ItisnotmerelythetwodiscipleswithwhomHetalkedonthewaytoEmmaus(<422425>Luke24:25)whomHerebukesfornottrustingthemselvesmoreperfectlytotheteachingofScripture.“Yesearchthescriptures,”HesaystotheJews,intheclassicalpassage(<430539>John5:39),“becauseyethinkthatinthemyehaveeternallife;andthesearetheywhichbearwitnessofme;andyewillnot

cometome,thatyemayhavelife!“Thesewordssurelywerespokenmoreinsorrowthaninscorn:thereisnoblameimpliedeitherforsearchingtheScripturesorforthinkingthateternallifeistobefoundinScripture;approvalrather.WhattheJewsareblamedforisthattheyreadwithaveillyingupontheirheartswhichHewouldfaintakeaway(<470315>2Corinthians3:15f.).“Yesearchthescriptures”—thatisright:and“evenyou”(emphatic)“thinktohaveeternallifeinthem”—thatisright,too.But“itistheseveryScriptures”(veryemphatic)“whicharebearingwitness”(continuousprocess)“ofme;and”(hereisthemarvel!)“yewillnotcometomeandhavelife!”—thatyoumay,thatis,reachtheveryendyouhavesoproperlyinviewinsearchingtheScriptures.Theirfailureisdue,nottotheScripturesbuttothemselves,whoreadtheScripturestosuchlittlepurpose.

QuitesimilarlyOurLordoftenfindsoccasiontoexpresswonderatthelittleeffecttowhichScripturehadbeenread,notbecauseithadbeenlookedintotoocuriously,butbecauseithadnotbeenlookedintoearnestlyenough,withsufficientlysimpleandrobusttrustinitseverydeclaration.“Haveyenotreadeventhisscripture?”Hedemands,asHeadducesPsalm118,toshowthattherejectionoftheMessiahwasalreadyintimatedinScripture(<411210>Mark12:10;<402142>Matthew21:42variestheexpressiontotheequivalent:“Didyeneverreadinthescriptures?”).AndwhentheindignantJewscametoHimcomplainingoftheHosannaswithwhichthechildrenintheTemplewereacclaimingHim,anddemanding,“Hearestthouwhatthesearesaying?”Hemetthem(<402116>Matthew21:16)merelywith,“Yea”didyeneverread,Outofthemouthsofbabesandsucklingsthouhastperfectedpraise?”TheunderlyingthoughtofthesepassagesisspokenoutwhenHeintimatesthatthesourceofallerrorinDivinethingsisjustignoranceoftheScriptures:“Yedoerr,”HedeclarestoHisquestioners,onanimportantoccasion,“notknowingthescriptures”(<402229>Matthew22:29);or,asitisput,perhapsmoreforcibly,ininterrogativeform,initsparallelinanotherGospel:“Isitnotforthiscausethatyeerr,thatyeknownotthescriptures?”(<411224>Mark12:24).Clearly,hewhorightlyknowstheScripturesdoesnoterr.TheconfidencewithwhichJesusrestedonScripture,initseverydeclaration,isfurtherillustratedinapassagelike

<401904>Matthew19:4.CertainPhariseeshadcometoHimwithaquestionondivorceandHemetthemthus:“Haveyenotread,thathewhomadethemfromthebeginningmadethemmaleandfemale,andsaid,Forthiscauseshallamanleavehisfatherandmother,andshallcleavetohiswife;andthetwoshallbecomeoneflesh?…WhatthereforeGodhathjoinedtogether,letnotmanputasunder.”Thepointtobenotedistheexplicitreferenceof<010224>Genesis2:24toGodasitsauthor:“Hewhomadethem…said”;“whatthereforeGodhathjoinedtogether.”YetthispassagedoesnotgiveusasayingofGod’srecordedinScripture,butjustthewordofScriptureitself,andcanbetreatedasadeclarationofGod’sonlyonthehypothesisthatallScriptureisadeclarationofGod’s.TheparallelinMark(<411005>Mark10:5ff.)justastruly,thoughnotasexplicitly,assignsthepassagetoGodasitsauthor,citingitasauthoritativelawandspeakingofitsenactmentasanactofGod’s.AnditisinterestingtoobserveinpassingthatPaul,havingoccasiontoquotethesamepassage(<460616>1Corinthians6:16),alsoexplicitlyquotesitasaDivineword:“For,Thetwain,saithhe,shallbecomeoneflesh”—the“he”here,inaccordancewithausagetobenotedlater,meaningjust“God.”

ThusclearisitthatJesus’occasionaladductionofScriptureasanauthoritativedocumentrestsonanascriptionofittoGodasitsauthor.HistestimonyisthatwhateverstandswritteninScriptureisawordofGod.NorcanweevacuatethistestimonyofitsforceonthepleathatitrepresentsJesusonlyinthedaysofHisflesh,whenHemaybesupposedtohavereflectedmerelytheopinionsofHisdayandgeneration.TheviewofScriptureHeannounceswas,nodoubt,theviewofHisdayandgenerationaswellasHisownview.ButthereisnoreasontodoubtthatitwasheldbyHim,notbecauseitwasthecurrentview,butbecause,inHisDivine-humanknowledge,Heknewittobetrue;for,eveninHishumiliation,Heisthefaithfulandtruewitness.AndinanyeventweshouldbearinmindthatthiswastheviewoftheresurrectedaswellasofthehumiliatedChrist.ItwasafterHehadsufferedandhadrisenagaininthepowerofHisDivinelifethatHepronouncedthosefoolishandslowofheartwhodonotbelieveallthatstandswritteninalltheScriptures(<422425>Luke24:25);andthatHelaiddownthesimple“Thusitiswritten”asthesufficientgroundofconfidentbelief(<422446>Luke

24:46).NorcanweexplainawayJesus’testimonytotheDivinetrustworthinessofScripturebyinterpretingitasnotHisown,butthatofHisfollowers,placedonHislipsintheirreportsofHiswords.Notonlyisittooconstant,minute,intimateandinpartincidental,andtherefore,asitwere,hidden,toadmitofthisinterpretation;butitsopervadesallourchannelsofinformationconcerningJesus’teachingastomakeitcertainthatitcomesactuallyfromHim.ItbelongsnotonlytotheJesusofourevangelicalrecordsbutaswelltotheJesusoftheearliersourceswhichunderlieourevangelicalrecords,asanyonemayassurehimselfbyobservingtheinstancesinwhichJesusadducestheScripturesasDivinelyauthoritativethatarerecordedinmorethanoneoftheGospels(e.g.“Itiswritten,”<400404>Matthew4:4,7,10[<420404>Luke4:4,8,10];<401110>Matthew11:10;[<420727>Luke7:27];Mark21:13[<421946>Luke19:46;<411117>Mark11:17];<402631>Matthew26:31[<411421>Mark14:21];“thescripture”or“thescriptures,”<401904>Matthew19:4[<411009>Mark10:9];<402142>Matthew21:42[<411210>Mark12:10;<422017>Luke20:17];Mark22:29[<411224>Mark12:24;<422037>Luke20:37];<402656>Matthew26:56[<411449>Mark14:49;<422444>Luke24:44]).ThesepassagesalonewouldsufficetomakecleartousthetestimonyofJesustoScriptureasinallitspartsanddeclarationsDivinelyauthoritative.TheattempttoattributethetestimonyofJesustoHisfollowershasinitsfavoronlytheundeniablefactthatthetestimonyofthewritersoftheNewTestamentistopreciselythesameeffectasHis.They,too,cursorilyspeakofScripturebythatpregnantnameandadduceitwiththesimple“Itiswritten,”withtheimplicationthatwhateverstandswritteninitisDivinelyauthoritative.AsJesus’officiallifebeginswiththis“Itiswritten”(<400404>Matthew4:4),sotheevangelicalproclamationbeginswithan“Evenasitiswritten”(<410102>Mark1:2);andasJesussoughtthejustificationofHisworkinasolemn“Thusitiswritten,thattheChristshouldsuffer,andriseagainfromthedeadthethirdday”(<422446>Luke24:46ff.),sotheapostlessolemnlyjustifiedtheGospelwhichtheypreached,detailafterdetail,byappealtotheScriptures,“ThatChristdiedforoursinsaccordingtothescriptures”and“Thathehathbeenraisedonthethirddayaccordingtothescriptures”(<461503>1Corinthians15:3,4;cf.<440835>Acts8:35;17:3;26:22,andalso

<450117>Romans1:17;3:4,10;4:17;11:26;14:11;<460119>1Corinthians1:19;2:9;3:19;15:45;<480310>Galatians3:10,13;4:22.27).WherevertheycarriedthegospelitwasasagospelrestingonScripturethattheyproclaimedit(<441702>Acts17:2;18:24,28);andtheyencouragedthemselvestotestitstruthbytheScriptures(<441711>Acts17:11).Theholinessoflifetheyinculcated,theybasedonScripturalrequirement(<600116>1Peter1:16),andtheycommendedtheroyallawoflovewhichtheytaughtbyScripturalsanction(<590208>James2:8).EverydetailofdutywassupportedbythembyanappealtoScripture(<442305>Acts23:5;<451219>Romans12:19).ThecircumstancesoftheirlivesandtheeventsoccasionallyoccurringaboutthemarereferredtoScripturefortheirsignificance(<450226>Romans2:26;8:36;9:33;11:8;15:9,21;<470413>2Corinthians4:13).AsOurLorddeclaredthatwhateverwaswritteninScripturemustneedsbefulfilled(<402654>Matthew26:54;<422237>Luke22:37;24:44),soHisfollowersexplainedoneofthemoststartlingfactswhichhadoccurredintheirexperiencebypointingoutthat“itwasneedfulthatthescriptureshouldbefulfilled,whichtheHolySpiritspakebeforebythemouthofDavid”(<440116>Acts1:16).HerethegroundofthisconstantappealtoScripture,sothatitisenoughthatathing“iscontainedinscripture”(<600206>1Peter2:6)forittobeofindefectibleauthority,isplainlyenoughdeclared:Scripturemustneedsbefulfilled,forwhatiscontainedinitisthedeclarationoftheHolyGhostthroughthehumanauthor.WhatScripturesays,Godsays;andaccordinglywereadsuchremarkabledeclarationsasthese:“ForthescripturesaithuntoPharaoh,ForthisverypurposedidIraisetheeup”(<450917>Romans9:17);“Andthescripture,foreseeingthatGodwouldjustifytheGentilesbyfaith,preachedthegospelbeforehanduntoAbraham,…Intheeshallallthenationsbeblessed”(<480308>Galatians3:8).ThesearenotinstancesofsimplepersonificationofScripture,whichisitselfasufficientlyremarkableusage(<411528>Mark15:28;<430738>John7:38.42;19:37;<450403>Romans4:3;10:11;11:2;<480430>Galatians4:30;<540518>1Timothy5:18:<590223>James2:23;4:5f.),vocalwiththeconvictionexpressedbyJames(<590405>James4:5)thatScripturecannotspeakinvain.Theyindicateacertainconfusionincurrentspeechbetween“Scripture”and“God,”theoutgrowthofadeep-seatedconvictionthatthewordofScriptureisthewordofGod.Itwasnot“Scripture”thatspoketoPharaoh,orgavehis

greatpromisetoAbraham,butGod.But“Scripture”and“God”laysoclosetogetherinthemindsofthewritersoftheNewTestamentthattheycouldnaturallyspeakof“Scripture”doingwhatScripturerecordsGodasdoing.Itwas,however,evenmorenaturaltothemtospeakcasuallyofGodsayingwhattheScripturessay;andaccordinglywemeetwithformsofspeechsuchasthese:“Wherefore,evenastheHolySpiritsaith,To-dayifyeshallhearHisvoice,”etc.(<580307>Hebrews3:7,quoting<199507>Psalm95:7);“ThouartGod…whobythemouthofthyservantDavidhastsaid,Whydidtheheathenrage,”etc.(<440425>Acts4:25AuthorizedVersion,quoting<190201>Psalm2:1);“Hethatraisedhimfromthedead…hathspokenonthiswise,Iwillgiveyou…becausehesaithalsoinanother[place]…”(<441334>Acts13:34,quoting<230403>Isaiah4:3and<191610>Psalm16:10),andthelike.ThewordsputintoGod’smouthineachcasearenotwordsofGodrecordedintheScriptures,butjustScripturewordsinthemselves.Whenwetakethetwoclassesofpassagestogether,intheoneofwhichtheScripturesarespokenofasGod,whileintheotherGodisspokenofasifHeweretheScriptures,wemayperceivehowclosetheidentificationofthetwowasinthemindsofthewritersoftheNewTestament.Thisidentificationisstrikinglyobservableincertaincatenaeofquotations,inwhichtherearebroughttogetheranumberofpassagesofScripturecloselyconnectedwithoneanother.ThefirstchapteroftheEpistletotheHebrewssuppliesanexample.Wemaybeginwithver.5.“Foruntowhichoftheangelssaidhe”—thesubjectbeingnecessarily“God”—“atanytime,ThouartmySon,thisdayhaveIbegottenthee?”—thecitationbeingfrom<190207>Psalm2:7andveryappropriateinthemouthofGod—“andagain,IwillbetohimaFather,andheshallbetomeaSon?”—from<100714>2Samuel7:14,againadeclarationofGod’sown—“Andwhenheagainbringethinthefirstbornintotheworldhesaith,AndletalltheangelsofGodworshiphim”—from<053243>Deuteronomy32:43,Septuagint,or<199707>Psalm97:7,inneitherofwhichisGodthespeaker—“Andoftheangelshesaith,Whomakethhisangelswinds,andhisministersaflameoffire”—from<19A404>Psalm104:4,whereagainGodisnotthespeakerbutisspokenofinthethirdperson—“butoftheSonhesaith.Thythrone,OGod,etc.”—from<194506>Psalm45:6,7whereagainGodisnotthespeaker,butisaddressed—“And,Thou,Lord,inthebeginning,”etc.—from<19A225>Psalm102:25-27,whereagain

Godisnotthespeakerbutisaddressed—“Butofwhichoftheangelshathhesaidatanytime,Sitthouonmyrighthand?”etc.—from<19B001>Psalm110:1,inwhichGodisthespeaker.HerewehavepassagesinwhichGodisthespeakerandpassagesinwhichGodisnotthespeaker,butisaddressedorspokenof,indiscriminatelyassignedtoGod,becausetheyallhaveitincommonthattheyarewordsofScripture,andaswordsofScripturearewordsofGod.Similarlyin<451509>Romans15:9ff.wehaveaseriesofcitationsthefirstofwhichisintroducedby“asitiswritten,”andthenexttwoby“againhesaith,”and“again,”andthelastby“andagain,Isaiahsaith,”thefirstbeingfrom<191849>Psalm18:49;thesecondfrom<053243>Deuteronomy32:43;thethirdfrom<19B701>Psalm117:1;andthelastfrom<231110>Isaiah11:10.Onlythelast(theonlyonehereassignedtothehumanauthor)isawordofGodinthetextoftheOldTestament.ThisviewoftheScripturesasacompactmassofwordsofGodoccasionedtheformationofadesignationforthembywhichthistheircharacterwasexplicitlyexpressed.Thisdesignationis“thesacredoracles,”“theoraclesofGod.”ItoccurswithextraordinaryfrequencyinPhilo,whoverycommonlyreferstoScriptureas“thesacredoracles”andcitesitsseveralpassagesaseachan“oracle.”Sharing,astheydo,Philo’sconceptionoftheScripturesas,inalltheirparts,awordofGod,theNewTestamentwritersnaturallyalsospeakofthemunderthisdesignation.Theclassicalpassageis<450302>Romans3:2(cf.<580512>Hebrews5:12;<440738>Acts7:38).HerePaulbeginsanenumerationoftheadvantageswhichbelongedtothechosenpeopleaboveothernations;and,afterdeclaringtheseadvantagestohavebeengreatandnumerous,heplacesfirstamongthemalltheirpossessionoftheScriptures:“WhatadvantagethenhaththeJew?orwhatistheprofitofcircumcision?Mucheveryway:firstofall,thattheywereintrustedwiththeoraclesofGod.”Thatby“theoraclesofGod”herearemeantjusttheHolyScripturesintheirentirety,conceivedasadirectDivinerevelation,andnotanyportionsofthem,orelementsinthemmoreespeciallythoughtofasrevelatory,isperfectlyclearfromthewidecontemporaryuseofthisdesignationinthissensebyPhilo,andisputbeyondquestionbythepresenceintheNewTestamentofhabitudesofspeechwhichrestonandgrowoutoftheconceptionofScriptureembodiedinthisterm.Fromthepointofviewofthis

designation,ScriptureisthoughtofasthelivingvoiceofGodspeakinginnilitspartsdirectlytothereader;and,accordingly,itiscitedbysomesuchformulaas“itissaid,”andthismodeofcitingScripturedulyoccursasanalternativeto“itiswritten”(<420412>Luke4:12,replacing“itiswritten”inMatthew;<580315>Hebrews3:15;cf.<450418>Romans4:18).ItisduealsotothispointofviewthatScriptureiscited,notaswhatGodortheHolySpirit“said,”butwhatHe“says,”thepresenttenseemphasizingthelivingvoiceofGodspeakinginScripturestotheindividualsoul(<580307>Hebrews3:7;<441335>Acts13:35;<580107>Hebrews1:7,8,10;<451510>Romans15:10).AndespeciallythereisduetoitthepeculiarusagebywhichScriptureiscitedbythesimple“saith,”withoutexpressedsubject,thesubjectbeingtoowellunderstood,whenScriptureisadduced,torequirestating;forwhocouldbethespeakerofthewordsofScripturebutGodonly(<451510>Romans15:10;<460616>1Corinthians6:16;<470602>2Corinthians6:2;<480316>Galatians3:16;<490408>Ephesians4:8;5:14)?Theanalogiesofthispregnantsubjectless“saith”areverywidespread.ItwaswithitthattheancientPythagoreansandPlatonistsandthemediaevalAristoteliansadducedeachtheirmaster’steaching;itwaswithitthat,incertaincircles,thejudgmentsofHadrian’sgreatjuristSalviusJulianuswerecited;AfricanstylistswereevenaccustomedtoreferbyittoSallust,theirgreatmodel.Thereisatendency,croppingoutoccasionally,intheoldTestament,toomitthenameofGodassuperfluous,whenHe,asthegreatlogicalsubjectalwaysinmind,wouldbeeasilyunderstood(cf.<182023>Job20:23;21:17;<19B402>Psalm114:2;<250422>Lamentations4:22).So,too,whentheNewTestamentwritersquotedScripturetherewasnoneedtosaywhoseworditwas:thatlaybeyondquestionineverymind.Thisusage,accordingly,isaspeciallystrikingintimationofthevividsensewhichtheNewTestamentwritershadoftheDivineoriginoftheScriptures,andmeansthatincitingthemtheywereacutelyconsciousthattheywerecitingimmediatewordsofGod.HowcompletelytheScripturesweretothemjustthewordofGodmaybeillustratedbyapassagelike<480316>Galatians3:16:“Hesaithnot,Andtoseeds,asofmany;butasofone,Andtothyseed,whichisChrist.”WehaveseenOurLordhanginganargumentontheverywordsofScripture(<431034>John10:34);elsewhereHisreasoningdependsontheparticulartense(<402232>Matthew22:32)orword

(<402243>Matthew22:43)usedinScripture.HerePaul’sargumentrestssimilarlyonagrammaticalform.NodoubtitisthegrammaticalformofthewordwhichGodisrecordedashavingspokentoAbrahamthatisinquestion.ButPaulknowswhatgrammaticalformGodemployedinspeakingtoAbrahamonlyastheScriptureshavetransmittedittohim;and,aswehaveseen,incitingthewordsofGodandthewordsofScripturehewasnotaccustomedtomakeanydistinctionbetweenthem.ItisprobablytheScripturalwordasaScripturalword,therefore,whichhehashereinmind:though,ofcourse,itispossiblethatwhatheherewitnessestoisratherthedetailedtrustworthinessoftheScripturalrecordthanitsdirectdivinity—ifwecanseparatetwothingswhichapparentlywerenotseparatedinPaul’smind.Thismuchwecanatleastsaywithoutstraining,thatthedesignationofScriptureas“scripture”anditscitationbytheformula,“Itiswritten,”attestprimarilyitsindefectibleauthority;thedesignationofitas“oracles”andtheadductionofitbytheformula,“Itsays,”attestprimarilyitsimmediatedivinity.Itsauthorityrestsonitsdivinityanditsdivinityexpressesitselfinitstrustworthiness;andtheNewTestamentwritersinalltheiruseofittreatitaswhattheydeclareittobe—aGod-breatheddocument,which,becauseGod-breathed,asthroughandthroughtrustworthyinallitsassertions,authoritativeinallitsdeclarations,anddowntoitslastparticular,theverywordofGod,His“oracles.”

ThattheScripturesarethroughoutaDivinebook,createdbytheDivineenergyandspeakingintheireverypartwithDivineauthoritydirectlytotheheartofthereaders,isthefundamentalfactconcerningthemwhichiswitnessedbyChristandthesacredwriterstowhomweowetheNewTestament.ButthestrengthandconstancywithwhichtheybearwitnesstothisprimaryfactdonotpreventtheirrecognizingbythesideofitthattheScriptureshavecomeintobeingbytheagencyofmen.ItwouldbeinexacttosaythattheyrecognizeahumanelementinScripture”theydonotparcelScriptureout,assigningportionsofit,orelementsinit,respectivelytoGodandman.IntheirviewthewholeofScriptureinallitspartsandinallitselements,downtotheleastminutiae,informofexpressionaswellasinsubstanceofteaching,isfromGod;butthewholeofithasbeengivenbyGodthroughtheinstrumentalityofmen.Thereis,therefore,intheirview,not,indeed,ahumanelementoringredientin

Scripture,andmuchlesshumandivisionsorsectionsofScripture,butahumansideoraspecttoScripture;andtheydonotfailtogivefullrecognitiontothishumansideoraspect.Inoneoftheprimarypassageswhichhasalreadybeenbeforeus,theirconceptionisgiven,ifsomewhatbroadandverysuccinct,yetclearexpression.No‘prophecy,’Petertellsus(<610121>2Peter1:21),‘evercamebythewillofman;butasbornebytheHolyGhost,menspakefromGod.’HerethewholeinitiativeisassignedtoGod,andsuchcompletecontrolofthehumanagentsthattheproductistrulyGod’swork.Themenwhospeakinthis“prophecyofscripture”speaknotofthemselvesoroutofthemselves,butfrom“God”:theyspeakonlyastheyare“bornebytheHolyGhost.”Butitisthey,afterall,whospeak.Scriptureistheproductofman,butonlyofmanspeakingfromGodandundersuchacontroloftheHolySpiritasthatintheirspeakingtheyare“borne”byHim.TheconceptionobviouslyisthattheScriptureshavebeengivenbytheinstrumentalityofmen;andthisconceptionfindsrepeatedincidentalexpressionthroughouttheNewTestament.

Itisthisconception,forexample,whichisexpressedwhenOurLord,quotingPsalm110:,declaresofitswordsthat“DavidhimselfsaidintheHolySpirit”(<411236>Mark12:36).ThereisacertainemphasishereonthewordsbeingDavid’sownwords,whichisduetotherequirementsoftheargumentOurLordwasconducting,butwhichnonethelesssincerelyrepresentsOurLord’sconceptionoftheirorigin.TheyareDavid’sownwordswhichwefindinPsalm110:,therefore;buttheyareDavid’sownwords,spokennotofhisownmotionmerely,but“intheHolySpirit,”thatistosay—wecouldnotbetterparaphraseit—“asbornebytheHolySpirit.”Inotherwords,theyare“God-breathed”wordsandthereforeauthoritativeinasenseabovewhatanywordsofDavid,notspokenintheHolySpirit,couldpossiblybe.Generalizingthematter,wemaysaythatthewordsofScriptureareconceivedbyOurLordandtheNewTestamentwritersasthewordsoftheirhumanauthorswhenspeaking“intheHolySpirit,”thatistosay,byHisinitiativeandunderHiscontrollingdirection.Theconceptionfindsevenmorepreciseexpression,perhaps,insuchastatementaswefind—itisPeterwhoisspeakinganditisagainapsalmwhichiscited—in<440116>Acts1:16,“TheHolySpiritspakebythemouthofDavid.”HeretheHolySpiritisadduced,ofcourse,astherealauthorofwhatissaid(andhencePeter’scertaintythatwhatissaid

willbefulfilled);butDavid’smouthisexpresslydesignatedastheinstrument(itistheinstrumentalprepositionthatisused)bymeansofwhichtheHolySpiritspeakstheScriptureinquestion.HedoesnotspeaksavethroughDavid’smouth.Accordingly,in<440425>Acts4:25,‘theLordthatmadetheheavenandearth,’actingbyHisHolySpirit,isdeclaredtohavespokenanotherpsalm‘throughthemouthof…David,His“servant”;andin<401335>Matthew13:35stillanotherpsalmisadducedas“spokenthroughtheprophet”(cf.<401305>Matthew13:5).IntheveryactofenergeticallyassertingtheDivineoriginofScripturethehumaninstrumentalitythroughwhichitisgivenisconstantlyrecognized.TheNewTestamentwritershave,therefore,nodifficultyinassigningScripturetoitshumanauthors,orindiscoveringinScripturetraitsduetoitshumanauthorship.Theyfreelyquoteitbysuchsimpleformulaeasthese:“Mosessaith”(<451019>Romans10:19);“Mosessaid”(<402224>Matthew22:24;<410710>Mark7:10;<440322>Acts3:22);“Moseswriteth”(<451005>Romans10:5);“Moseswrote”(<411219>Mark12:19;<422028>Luke20:28);“Isaiah…saith”(<451020>Romans10:20);“Isaiahsaid”(<431239>John12:39);“Isaiahcrieth”(<450927>Romans9:27);“Isaiahhathsaidbefore”(<450929>Romans9:29);“saidIsaiahtheprophet”(<430123>John1:23);“didIsaiahprophesy”(<410706>Mark7:6;<401507>Matthew15:7);“Davidsaith”(<422042>Luke20:42;<440225>Acts2:25;<451109>Romans11:9);“Davidsaid”(<411236>Mark12:36).ItistobenotedthatwhenthusScriptureisadducedbythenamesofitshumanauthors,itisamatterofcompleteindifferencewhetherthewordsadducedarecommentsoftheseauthorsordirectwordsofGodrecordedbythem.AstheplainestwordsofthehumanauthorsareassignedtoGodastheirrealauthor,sothemostexpresswordsofGod,repeatedbytheScripturalwriters,arecitedbythenamesofthesehumanwriters(<401507>Matthew15:7;<410706>Mark7:6;<451005>Romans10:5,19,20;cf.<410710>Mark7:10fromtheDecalogue).Tosaythat“Moses”or“Davidsays,”isevidentlythusonlyawayofsayingthat“Scripturesays,“whichisthesameastosaythat”Godsays.”SuchmodesofcitingScripture,accordingly,carryuslittlebeyondmerelyconnectingthename,orperhapswemaysaytheindividuality,oftheseveralwriterswiththeportionsofScripturegiventhrougheach.Howitwasgiventhroughthem

isleftmeanwhile,ifnotwithoutsuggestion,yetwithoutspecificexplanation.Weseemsafeonlyininferringthismuch:thatthegiftofScripturethroughitshumanauthorstookplacebyaprocessmuchmoreintimatethancanbeexpressedbytheterm“dictation,”andthatittookplaceinaprocessinwhichthecontroloftheHolySpiritwastoocompleteandpervasivetopermitthehumanqualitiesofthesecondaryauthorsinanywaytoconditionthepurityoftheproductasthewordofGod.TheScriptures,inotherwords,areconceivedbythewritersoftheNewTestamentasthroughandthroughGod’sbook,ineverypartexpressiveofHismind,giventhroughmenafterafashionwhichdoesnoviolencetotheirnatureasmen,andconstitutesthebookalsomen’sbookaswellasGod’s,ineverypartexpressiveofthemindofitshumanauthors.

IfweattempttogetbehindthisbroadstatementandtoobtainamoredetailedconceptionoftheactivitiesbywhichGodhasgiventheScriptures,wearethrownbackuponsomewhatgeneralrepresentations,supportedbytheanalogyofthemodesofGod’sworkinginotherspheresofHisoperation.Itisverydesirablethatweshouldfreeourselvesattheoutsetfrominfluencesarisingfromthecurrentemploymentoftheterm“inspiration”todesignatethisprocess.ThistermisnotaBiblicaltermanditsetymologicalimplicationsarenotperfectlyaccordantwiththeBiblicalconceptionofthemodesoftheDivineoperationingivingtheScriptures.TheBiblicalwritersdonotconceiveoftheScripturesasahumanproductbreathedintobytheDivineSpirit,andthusheightenedinitsqualitiesorendowedwithnewqualities;butasaDivineproductproducedthroughtheinstrumentalityofmen.Theydonotconceiveofthesemen,bywhoseinstrumentalityScriptureisproduced,asworkingupontheirowninitiative,thoughenergizedbyGodtogreatereffortandhigherachievement,butasmovedbytheDivineinitiativeandbornebytheirresistiblepoweroftheSpiritofGodalongwaysofHischoosingtoendsofHisappointment.Thedifferencebetweenthetwoconceptionsmaynotappeargreatwhenthemindisfixedexclusivelyuponthenatureoftheresultingproduct.Buttheyaredifferingconceptions,andlookattheproductionofScripturefromdistinctpointsofview—thehumanandtheDivine;andtheinvolvedmentalattitudestowardtheoriginofScriptureareverydiverse.Theterm“inspiration”istoofirmlyfixed,in

boththeologicalandpopularusage,asthetechnicaldesignationoftheactionofGodingivingtheScriptures,tobereplaced;andwemaybethankfulthatitsnativeimplicationslieascloseastheydototheBiblicalconceptions.Meanwhile,however,itmaybejustlyinsistedthatitshallreceiveitsdefinitionfromtherepresentationsofScripture,andnotbepermittedtoimposeuponourthoughtideasoftheoriginofScripturederivedfromananalysisofitsownimplications,etymologicalorhistorical.TheScripturalconceptionoftherelationoftheDivineSpirittothehumanauthorsintheproductionofScriptureisbetterexpressedbythefigureof“bearing”thanbythefigureof“inbreathing”;andwhenourBiblicalwritersspeakoftheactionoftheSpiritofGodinthisrelationasabreathing,theyrepresentitasa“breathingout”oftheScripturesbytheSpirit,andnota“breathinginto”theScripturesbyHim.

Sosoon,however,asweseriouslyendeavortoformforourselvesaclearconceptionoftheprecisenatureoftheDivineactioninthis“breathingout”oftheScriptures—this“bearing”ofthewritersoftheScripturestotheirappointedgoaloftheproductionofabookofDivinetrustworthinessandindefectibleauthority—webecomeacutelyawareofamoredeeplylyingandmuchwiderproblem,apartfromwhichthisoneofinspiration,technicallysocalled,cannotbeprofitablyconsidered.ThisisthegeneralproblemoftheoriginoftheScripturesandthepartofGodinallthatcomplexofprocessesbytheinteractionofwhichthesebooks,whichwecallthesacredScriptures,withalltheirpeculiarities,andalltheirqualitiesofwhateversort,havebeenbroughtintobeing.For,ofcourse,thesebookswerenotproducedsuddenly,bysomemiraculousact—handeddowncompleteoutofheaven,asthephrasegoes;but,likeallotherproductsoftime,aretheultimateeffectofmanyprocessescooperatingthroughlongperiods.Thereistobeconsidered,forinstance,thepreparationofthematerialwhichformsthesubject-matterofthesebooks:inasacredhistory,say,forexample,tobenarrated;orinareligiousexperiencewhichmayserveasanormforrecord;orinalogicalelaborationofthecontentsofrevelationwhichmaybeplacedattheserviceofGod’speople;orintheprogressiverevelationofDivinetruthitself,supplyingtheirculminatingcontents.Andthereisthepreparationofthementowritethesebookstobeconsidered,apreparationphysical,intellectual,spiritual,whichmusthaveattendedthemthroughouttheir

wholelives,and,indeed,musthavehaditsbeginningintheirremoteancestors,andtheeffectofwhichwastobringtherightmentotherightplacesattherighttimes,withtherightendowments,impulses,acquirements,towritejustthebookswhichweredesignedforthem.When“inspiration,”technicallysocalled,issuperinducedonlinesofpreparationlikethese,ittakesonquiteadifferentaspectfromthatwhichitbearswhenitisthoughtofasanisolatedactionoftheDivineSpiritoperatingoutofallrelationtohistoricalprocesses.Representationsaresometimesmadeasif,whenGodwishedtoproducesacredbookswhichwouldincorporateHiswill—aseriesofletterslikethoseofPaul,forexample—HewasreducedtothenecessityofgoingdowntoearthandpainfullyscrutinizingthemenHefoundthere,seekinganxiouslyfortheonewho,onthewhole,promisedbestforHispurpose;andthenviolentlyforcingthematerialHewishedexpressedthroughhim,againsthisnaturalbent,andwithaslittlelossfromhisrecalcitrantcharacteristicsaspossible.Ofcourse,nothingofthesorttookplace.IfGodwishedtogiveHispeopleaseriesofletterslikePaul’s,HepreparedaPaultowritethem,andthePaulHebroughttothetaskwasaPaulwhospontaneouslywouldwritejustsuchletters.

Ifwebearthisinmind,weshallknowwhatestimatetoplaceuponthecommonrepresentationtotheeffectthatthehumancharacteristicsofthewritersmust,andinpointoffactdo,conditionandqualifythewritingsproducedbythem,theimplicationbeingthat,therefore,wecannotgetfrommanapurewordofGod.Aslightthatpassesthroughthecoloredglassofacathedralwindow,wearetold,islightfromheaven,butisstainedbythetintsoftheglassthroughwhichitpasses;soanywordofGodwhichispassedthroughthemindandsoulofamanmustcomeoutdiscoloredbythepersonalitythroughwhichitisgiven,andjusttothatdegreeceasestobethepurewordofGod.ButwhatifthispersonalityhasitselfbeenformedbyGodintopreciselythepersonalityitis,fortheexpresspurposeofcommunicatingtothewordgiventhroughitjustthecoloringwhichitgivesit?Whatifthecolorsofthestained-glasswindowhavebeendesignedbythearchitectfortheexpresspurposeofgivingtothelightthatfloodsthecathedralpreciselythetoneandqualityitreceivesfromthem?WhatifthewordofGodthatcomestoHispeopleisframedbyGodintothewordofGoditis,preciselybymeansofthe

qualitiesofthemenformedbyHimforthepurpose,throughwhichitisgiven?WhenwethinkofGodtheLordgivingbyHisSpiritabodyofauthoritativeScripturestoHispeople,wemustrememberthatHeistheGodofprovidenceandofgraceaswellasofrevelationandinspiration,andthatHeholdsallthelinesofpreparationasfullyunderHisdirectionasHedoesthespecificoperationwhichwecalltechnically,inthenarrowsense,bythenameof“inspiration.”TheproductionoftheScripturesis,inpointoffact,alongprocess,inthecourseofwhichnumerousandveryvariedDivineactivitiesareinvolved,providential,gracious,miraculous,allofwhichmustbetakenintoaccountinanyattempttoexplaintherelationofGodtotheproductionofScripture.WhentheyarealltakenintoaccountwecannolongerwonderthattheresultantScripturesareconstantlyspokenofasthepurewordofGod.Wewonder,rather,thatanadditionaloperationofGod—whatwecallspecifically“inspiration,”initstechnicalsense—wasthoughtnecessary.Consider,forexample,howapieceofsacredhistory—saytheBookofChronicles,orthegreathistoricalwork,GospelandActs,ofLuke—isbroughttothewriting.Thereisfirstofallthepreparationofthehistorytobewritten:GodtheLordleadsthesequenceofoccurrencesthroughthedevelopmentHehasdesignedforthemthattheymayconveytheirlessonstoHispeople:a“teleological”or“aetiological”characterisinherentintheverycourseofevents.ThenHepreparesaman,bybirth,training,experience,giftsofgrace,and,ifneedbe,ofrevelation,capableofappreciatingthishistoricaldevelopmentandeagertosearchitout,thrillinginallhisbeingwithitslessonsandbentuponmakingthemclearandeffectivetoothers.When,then,byHisprovidence,Godsetsthismantoworkonthewritingofthishistory,willthere

notbespontaneouslywrittenbyhimthehistorywhichitwasDivinelyintendedshouldbewritten?Orconsiderhowapsalmistwouldbepreparedtoputintomovingverseapieceofnormativereligiousexperience:howhewouldbebornwithjusttherightqualityofreligioussensibility,ofparentsthroughwhomheshouldreceivejusttherighthereditarybent,andfromwhomheshouldgetpreciselytherightreligiousexampleandtraining,incircumstancesoflifeinwhichhisreligioustendenciesshouldbedevelopedpreciselyonrightlines;howhewouldbebroughtthroughjusttherightexperiencestoquickeninhim

thepreciseemotionshewouldbecalledupontoexpress,andfinallywouldbeplacedinpreciselytheexigencieswhichwouldcallouttheirexpression.Orconsidertheprovidentialpreparationofawriterofadidacticepistle—bymeansofwhichheshouldbegiventheintellectualbreadthandacuteness,andbetrainedinhabitudesofreasoning,andplacedinthesituationswhichwouldcalloutpreciselytheargumentativepresentationofChristiantruthwhichwasrequiredofhim.WhenwegivedueplaceinourthoughtstotheuniversalityoftheprovidentialgovernmentofGod,totheminutenessandcompletenessofitssway,andtoitsinvariableefficacy,wemaybeinclinedtoaskwhatisneededbeyondthismereprovidentialgovernmenttosecuretheproductionofsacredbookswhichshouldbeineverydetailabsolutelyaccordantwiththeDivinewill.

Theansweris,Nothingisneededbeyondmereprovidencetosecuresuchbooks—providedonlythatitdoesnotlieintheDivinepurposethatthesebooksshouldpossessqualitieswhichriseabovethepowersofmentoproduce,evenunderthemostcompleteDivineguidance.Forprovidenceisguidance;andguidancecanbringoneonlysofarashisownpowercancarryhim.Ifheightsaretobescaledaboveman’snativepowertoachieve,thensomethingmorethanguidance,howevereffective,isnecessary.Thisisthereasonforthesuperinduction,attheendofthelongprocessoftheproductionofScripture,oftheadditionalDivineoperationwhichwecalltechnically“inspiration.”Byit,theSpiritofGod,flowingconfluentlyinwiththeprovidentiallyandgraciouslydeterminedworkofmen,spontaneouslyproducingundertheDivinedirectionsthewritingsappointedtothem,givestheproductaDivinequalityunattainablebyhumanpowersalone.Thusthesebooksbecomenotmerelythewordofgodlymen,buttheimmediatewordofGodHimself,speakingdirectlyassuchtothemindsandheartsofeveryreader.Thevalueof“inspiration”emerges,thus,astwofold.Itgivestothebookswrittenunderits“bearing”aqualitywhichistrulysuperhuman;atrustworthiness,anauthority,asearchingness,aprofundity,aprofitablenesswhichisaltogetherDivine.AnditspeaksthisDivinewordimmediatelytoeachreader’sheartandconscience;sothathedoesnotrequiretomakehiswaytoGod,painfully,perhapsevenuncertainly,throughthewordsofHisservants,thehumaninstrumentsinwritingthe

Scriptures,butcanlistendirectlytotheDivinevoiceitselfspeakingimmediatelyintheScripturalwordtohim.

ThatthewritersoftheNewTestamentthemselvesconceivetheScripturestohavebeenproducedthusbyDivineoperationsextendingthroughtheincreasingagesandinvolvingamultitudeofvariedactivities,canbemadeclearbysimplyattendingtotheoccasionalreferencestheymaketothisorthatstepintheprocess.Itlies,forexample,onthefaceoftheirexpositions,thattheylookedupontheBiblicalhistoryasteleological.Notonlydotheytellusthat“whatsoeverthingswerewrittenaforetimewerewrittenforourlearning,thatthroughpatienceandthroughcomfortofthescriptureswemighthavehope”(<451504>Romans15:4;cf.<450423>Romans4:23,24);theyspeakalsoofthecourseofthehistoricaleventsthemselvesasguidedforourbenefit:“Nowthesethingshappeneduntothembywayofexample”—inatypicalfashion,insuchawaythat,astheyoccurred,atypicalcharacter,orpredictivereferenceimpresseditselfuponthem;thatistosay,briefly,thehistoryoccurredasitdidinordertobearamessagetous—“andtheywerewrittenforouradmonition,uponwhomtheendsoftheagesarecome”(<461011>1Corinthians10:11;cf.ver.6).Accordingly,ithasbecomeacommonplaceofBiblicalexpositionthat“thehistoryofredemptionitselfisatypicallyprogressiveone”(Küper),andis“inamannerimpregnatedwiththepropheticelement,”soastoforma“partofagreatplanwhichstretchesfromthefallofmantothefirstconsummationofallthingsinglory;and,insofarasitrevealsthemindofGodtowardman,carriesarespecttothefuturenotlessthantothepresent”(P.Fairbairn).ItliesequallyonthefaceoftheNewTestamentallusionstothesubjectthatitswritersunderstoodthatthepreparationofmentobecomevehiclesofGod’smessagetomanwasnotofyesterday,buthaditsbeginningsintheveryoriginoftheirbeing.ThecallbywhichPaul,forexample,wasmadeanapostleofJesusChristwassuddenandapparentlywithoutantecedents;butitispreciselythisPaulwhoreckonsthiscallasonlyonestepinalongprocess,thebeginningsofwhichantedatedhisownexistence:“ButwhenitwasthegoodpleasureofGod,whoseparatedme,evenfrommymother’swomb,andcalledmethroughhisgrace,torevealhisSoninme”(<480115>Galatians1:15,6;cf.<240105>Jeremiah1:5;<234901>Isaiah49:1,).Therecognitionbythe

writersoftheNewTestamentoftheexperiencesofGod’sgrace,whichhadbeenvouchsafedtothemasanintegralelementintheirfittingtobethebearersofHisgospeltoothers,findssuchpervasiveexpressionthattheonlydifficultyistoselectfromthemassthemostillustrativepassages.SuchastatementasPaulgivesintheopeningversesof2Corinthiansisthoroughlytypical.Thereherepresentsthathehasbeenafflictedandcomfortedtotheendthathemight“beabletocomfortthemthatareinanyaffliction,throughthecomfortwherewith”hehadhimselfbeen“comfortedofGod.”For,heexplains,“Whetherweareafflicted,itisforyourcomfortandsalvation;orwhetherwearecomforted,itisforyourcomfort,whichworkethinthepatientenduringofthesamesufferingswhichwealsosuffer”(<470104>2Corinthians1:4-6).Itisbeyondquestion,therefore,thattheNewTestamentwriters,whentheydeclaretheScripturestobetheproductoftheDivinebreath,andexplainthisasmeaningthatthewritersoftheseScriptureswrotethemonlyasbornebytheHolySpiritinsuchafashionthattheyspoke,notoutofthemselves,but“fromGod,”arethinkingofthisoperationoftheSpiritonlyasthefinalactofGodintheproductionoftheScriptures,superinduceduponalongseriesofprocesses,providential,gracious,miraculous,bywhichthematterofScripturehadbeenpreparedforwriting,andthemenforwritingit,andthewritingofithadbeenactuallybroughttopass.ItisthisfinalactintheproductionofScripturewhichistechnicallycalled“inspiration”;andinspirationisthusbroughtbeforeusas,inthemindsofthewritersoftheNewTestament,thatparticularoperationofGodintheproductionofScripturewhichtakeseffectattheverypointofthewritingofScripture—understandingtheterm“writing”hereasinclusiveofalltheprocessesoftheactualcompositionofScripture,theinvestigationofdocuments,thecollectionoffacts,theexcogitationofconclusions,theadaptationofexhortationsasmeanstoendsandthelike—withtheeffectofgivingtotheresultantScriptureaspecificallysupernaturalcharacter,andconstitutingitaDivine,aswellashuman,book.ObviouslythemodeofoperationofthisDivineactivitymovingtothisresultisconceived,infullaccordwiththeanalogyoftheDivineoperationsinotherspheresofitsactivity,inprovidenceandingracealike,asconfluentwiththehumanactivitiesoperativeinthecase;as,inaword,ofthenatureofwhathascometobeknownas“immanentaction.”

Itwillnotescapeobservationthatthus“inspiration”ismadeamodeof“revelation.”Weareoftenexhorted,tobesure,todistinguishsharplybetween“inspiration”and“revelation”;andtheexhortationisjustwhen“revelation”istakeninoneofitsnarrowersenses,of,say,anexternalmanifestationofGod,orofanimmediatecommunicationfromGodinwords.But“inspiration”doesnotdifferfrom“revelation”inthesenarrowedsensesasgenusfromgenus,butasaspeciesofonegenusdiffersfromanother.ThatoperationofGodwhichwecall“inspiration,”thatistosay,thatoperationoftheSpiritofGodbywhichHe“bears”menintheprocessofcomposingScripture,sothattheywrite,notofthemselves,but“fromGod,”isoneofthemodesinwhichGodmakesknowntomenHisbeing,Hiswill,Hisoperations,Hispurposes.Itisasdistinctlyamodeofrevelationasanymodeofrevelationcanbe,andthereforeitperformsthesameofficewhichallrevelationperforms,thatistosay,intheexpresswordsofPaul,itmakesmenwise,andmakesthemwiseuntosalvation.All“special”or“supernatural”revelation(whichisredemptiveinitsveryidea,andoccupiesaplaceasasubstantialelementinGod’sredemptiveprocesses)haspreciselythisforitsend;andScripture,asamodeoftheredemptiverevelationofGod,findsitsfundamentalpurposejustinthis:ifthe“inspiration”bywhichScriptureisproducedrendersittrustworthyandauthoritative,itrendersittrustworthyandauthoritativeonlythatitmaythebetterservetomakemenwiseuntosalvation.Scriptureisconceived,fromthepointofviewofthewritersoftheNewTestament,notmerelyastherecordofrevelations,butasitselfapartoftheredemptiverevelationofGod;notmerelyastherecordoftheredemptiveactsbywhichGodissavingtheworld,butasitselfoneoftheseredemptiveacts,havingitsownparttoplayinthegreatworkofestablishingandbuildingupthekingdomofGod.WhatgivesitaplaceamongtheredemptiveactsofGodisitsDivineorigination,takeninitswidestsense,asinclusiveofalltheDivineoperations,providential,graciousandexpresslysupernatural,bywhichithasbeenmadejustwhatitis—abodyofwritingsabletomakewiseuntosalvation,andprofitableformakingthemanofGodperfect.Whatgivesititsplaceamongthemodesofrevelationis,however,specificallytheculminatingoneoftheseDivineoperations,whichwecall“Inspiration”;thatistosay,theactionoftheSpiritofGodinso“bearing’”itshumanauthorsintheirworkof

producingScripture,asthatintheseScripturestheyspeak,notoutofthemselves,but“fromGod.”ItisthisactbyvirtueofwhichtheScripturesmayproperlybecalled“God-breathed.”IthasbeencustomaryamongacertainschoolofwriterstospeakoftheScriptures,becausethus“inspired,”asaDivine-humanbook,andtoappealtotheanalogyofOurLord’sDivine-humanpersonalitytoexplaintheirpeculiarqualitiesassuch.Theexpressioncallsattentiontoanimportantfact,andtheanalogyholdsgoodacertaindistance.TherearehumanandDivinesidestoScripture,and,aswecursorilyexamineit,wemayperceiveinit,alternately,traitswhichsuggestnowtheone,nowtheotherfactorinitsorigin.ButtheanalogywithOurLord’sDivine-humanpersonalitymayeasilybepressedbeyondreason.ThereisnohypostaticunionbetweentheDivineandthehumaninScripture;wecannotparallelthe“inscripturation”oftheHolySpiritandtheincarnationoftheSonofGod.TheScripturesaremerelytheproductofDivineandhumanforcesworkingtogethertoproduceaproductintheproductionofwhichthehumanforcesworkundertheinitiationandprevalentdirectionoftheDivine:thepersonofOurLordunitesinitselfDivineandhumannatures,eachofwhichretainsitsdistinctnesswhileoperatingonlyinrelationtotheother.Betweensuchdiversethingstherecanexistonlyaremoteanalogy;and,inpointoffact,theanalogyinthepresentinstanceamountstonomorethanthatinbothcasesDivineandhumanfactorsareinvolved,thoughverydifferently.IntheonetheyunitetoconstituteaDivine-humanperson,intheothertheycoöperatetoperformaDivine-humanwork.Evensodistantananalogymayenableus,however,torecognizethatas,inthecaseofOurLord’sperson,thehumannatureremainstrulyhumanwhileyetitcanneverfallintosinorerrorbecauseitcanneveractoutofrelationwiththeDivinenatureintoconjunctionwithwhichithasbeenbrought;sointhecaseoftheproductionofScripturebytheconjointactionofhumanandDivinefactors,thehumanfactorshaveactedashumanfactors,andhavelefttheirmarkontheproductassuch,andyetcannothavefallenintothaterrorwhichwesayitishumantofallinto,becausetheyhavenotactedapartfromtheDivinefactors,bythemselves,butonlyundertheirunerringguidance.TheNewTestamenttestimonyistotheDivineoriginandqualitiesof

“Scripture”;and“Scripture”tothewritersoftheNewTestamentwasfundamentally,ofcourse,theOldTestament.Intheprimarypassage,inwhichwearetoldthat“every”or“allScripture”is“God-breathed,”thedirectreferenceistothe“sacredwritings”whichTimothyhadhadinknowledgesincehisinfancy,andthesewere,ofcourse,justthesacredbooksoftheJews(<550316>2Timothy3:16).WhatisexplicithereisimplicitinalltheallusionstoinspiredScripturesintheNewTestament.Accordingly,itisfrequentlysaidthatourentiretestimonytotheinspirationofScriptureconcernstheOldTestamentalone.Inmanyways,however,thisisoverstated.Ourpresentconcernisnotwiththeextentof“Scripture”butwiththenatureof“Scripture”;andwecannotpresentheretheconsiderationswhichjustifyextendingtotheNewTestamenttheinspirationwhichtheNewTestamentwritersattributetotheOldTestament.Itwillnotbeoutofplace,however,topointoutsimplythattheNewTestamentwritersobviouslythemselvesmadethisextension.Theydonotforaninstantimaginethemselves,asministersofanewcovenant,lessinpossessionoftheSpiritofGodthantheministersoftheoldcovenant:theyfreelyrecognize,indeed,thattheyhavenosufficiencyofthemselves,buttheyknowthatGodhasmadethemsufficient(<470305>2Corinthians3:5,6).Theyprosecutetheirworkofproclaimingthegospel,therefore,infullconfidencethattheyspeak“bytheHolySpirit”(<600112>1Peter1:12),towhomtheyattributeboththematterandformoftheirteaching(<460213>1Corinthians2:13).They,therefore,speakwiththeutmostassuranceoftheirteaching(<480107>Galatians1:7,8);andtheyissuecommandswiththecompletestauthority(<520402>1Thessalonians4:2,14,<530306>2Thessalonians3:6,12),makingit,indeed,thetestofwhetheronehastheSpiritthatheshouldrecognizewhattheydemandascommandmentsofGod(<461437>1Corinthians14:37).Itwouldbestrange,indeed,ifthesehighclaimsweremadefortheiroralteachingandcommandmentsexclusively.Inpointoffact,theyaremadeexplicitlyalsofortheirwritteninjunctions.Itwas“thethings”whichPaulwas“writing,”therecognitionofwhichascommandsoftheLord,hemakesthetestofaSpirit-ledman(<461437>1Corinthians14:37).Itishis“wordbythisepistle,”obediencetowhichhemakestheconditionofChristiancommunion(<530314>2Thessalonians3:14).Thereseemsinvolvedinsuchanattitudetowardtheirownteaching,oralandwritten,aclaimonthepartoftheNew

Testamentwriterstosomethingverymuchlikethe“inspiration”whichtheyattributetothewritersoftheOldTestament.

AndalldoubtisdispelledwhenweobservetheNewTestamentwritersplacingthewritingsofoneanotherinthesamecategoryof“Scripture”withthebooksoftheOldTestament.ThesamePaulwho,in<550316>2Timothy3:16,declaredthat‘every’or‘allscriptureisGod-breathed’hadalreadywrittenin<540518>1Timothy5:18:“Forthescripturesaith,Thoushallnotmuzzletheoxwhenhetreadethoutthecorn.And,Thelaborerisworthyofhishire.”ThefirstclausehereisderivedfromDeuteronomyandthesecondfromtheGospelofLuke,thoughbotharecitedastogetherconstituting,orbetter,formingpartofthe“Scripture”whichPauladducesassoauthoritativeasbyitsmerecitationtoendallstrife.Whoshallsaythat,inthedeclarationofthelaterepistlethat“all”or“every”ScriptureisGod-breathed,PauldidnothaveLuke,and,alongwithLuke,whateverothernewbooksheclassedwiththeoldunderthenameofScripture,inthebackofhismind,alongwiththoseoldbookswhichTimothyhadhadinhishandsfrominfancy?AndthesamePeterwhodeclaredthatevery“prophecyofscripture”wastheproductofmenwhospoke“fromGod,”being‘borne’bytheHolyGhost(<610121>2Peter1:21),inthissameepistle(<610316>2Peter3:16),placesPaul’sEpistlesinthecategoryofScripturealongwithwhateverotherbooksdeservethatname.ForPaul,sayshe,wrotetheseepistles,notoutofhisownwisdom,but“accordingtothewisdomgiventohim,”andthoughtherearesomethingsinthemhardtobeunderstood,yetitisonly“theignorantandunstedfast”whowrestthesedifficultpassages—aswhatelsecouldbeexpectedofmenwhowrest“alsotheotherScriptures”(obviouslytheOldTestamentismeant)—“untotheirowndestruction”?IsitpossibletosaythatPetercouldnothavehadtheseepistlesofPaulalsolurkingsomewhereinthebackofhismind,alongwith“theotherscriptures,”whenhetoldhisreadersthatevery“prophecyofscripture”owesitsorigintotheprevailingoperationoftheHolyGhost?WhatmustbeunderstoodinestimatingthetestimonyoftheNewTestamentwriterstotheinspirationofScriptureisthat“Scripture”stoodintheirmindsasthetitleofaunitarybodyofbooks,throughoutthegiftofGodthroughHisSpirittoHispeople;butthatthisbodyofwritingswasatthesametimeunderstoodtobeagrowingaggregate,sothatwhatissaidofitappliesto

thenewbookswhichwerebeingaddedtoitastheSpiritgavethem,asfullyastotheoldbookswhichhadcomedowntothemfromtheirhoarypast.Itisamerematterofdetailtodeterminepreciselywhatnewbookswerethusincludedbytheminthecategory“Scripture.”Theytellussomeofthemthemselves.Thosewhoreceivedthemfromtheirhandstellusofothers.AndwhenweputthetwobodiesoftestimonytogetherwefindthattheyconstitutejustourNewTestament.ItisnopressureofthewitnessofthewritersoftheNewTestamenttotheinspirationoftheScripture,therefore,tolookuponitascoveringtheentirebodyof“Scriptures,”thenewbookswhichtheywerethemselvesaddingtothisaggregate,aswellastheoldbookswhichtheyhadreceivedasScripturefromthefathers.Whatevercanlayclaimbyjustrighttotheappellationof“Scripture,”asemployedinitseminentsensebythosewriters,canbythesamejustrightlayclaimtothe“inspiration”whichtheyascribetothisScripture.

LITERATURE.—J.Gerhard,“LociTheolog.,”LocusI;F.Turretin,“Instit.Theol.,”LocusII;B.deMoor,“Comm.inJ.MarckiiComp.,”cap.ii;C.Hodge,“Syst.Theol.,”NewYork,1871,I,151-86;HenryB.Smith,“TheInspirationoftheHolyScriptures,”NewYork,1855,newed.,Cincinnati,1891;A.Kuyper,“EncyclopediederheiligeGodgeleerdheid,”1888-89,II,347ft.,ET;“EncofSacredTheol.,”NewYork,1898,341-563;also“DeSchrifthetwoordGods,”Tiel,1870;H.Bavinck,“GereformeerdeDogmatiek2,”Kampen,1906,I,406-527;R.Haldane,“TheVerbalInspirationoftheScripturesEstablished,”Edinburgh,1830;J.T.Beck,“EinleitungindasSystemderchristlichenLehre,”Stuttgart,1838,2ded.,1870;A.G.Rudelbach,”DieLehrevonderInspirationderheil.Schrift,”ZeitschriftfürdiegesammteLutherischeTheologieundKirche,1840,1,1841,1,1842,1;S.R.L.Gaussen,“Théopneustieouinspirationplénièredessaintesécritures2,”Paris,1842,ETbyE.N.Kirk,NewYork,1842;also“Theopneustia;thePlenaryInspirationoftheHolyScriptures,”DavidScott’str.,reëditedandrevisedbyB.W.Carr,withaprefacebyC.H.Spurgeon,London,1888;WilliamLee,“TheInspirationoftheHolyScriptures,”DonellanLecture,1852,NewYork,1857;JamesBannerman,“Inspiration:theInfallibleTruthand

DivineAuthorityoftheHolyScriptures,”Edinburgh,1865;F.L.Patton,“TheInspirationoftheScriptures,”Philadelphia,1869(reviewingLeeandBannerman);CharlesElliott,“ATreatiseontheInspirationoftheHolyScriptures,”Edinburgh,1877;A.A.HodgeandB.B.Warfield,“Inspiration,”PresbyterianReview,April,1881,alsotract,Philadelphia,1881;R.Watts,“TheRuleofFaithandtheDoctrineofInspiration,”Edinburgh,1885;A.Cave,“TheInspirationoftheOTInductivelyConsidered,”London,1888;B.Manly,“TheBibleDoctrineofInspiration,”NewYork,1888;W.Rohnert,“DieInspirationderheiligenSchriftundihreBestreiter,”Leipzig,1889;A.W.Dieckhoff,“DieInspirationundIrrthumlosigkeitderheiligenSchrift,”Leipzig,1891;J.Wichelhaus,“DieLehrederheiligenSchrift,”Stuttgart,1892;J.Macgregor,“TheRevelationandtheRecord,”Edinburgh,1893;J.Urquhart,“TheInspirationandAccuracyoftheHolyScriptures,”London,1895;C.Pesch,“DeInspirationeSacraeScripturae,”Freiburg,1906;JamesOrr,“RevelationandInspiration,”London,1910.

“Scripture,”“TheScriptures,”InTheNewTestament

THEscopeofthisarticledoesnotpermitthefulldiscussioninitoftheemploymentofScripture,oroftheestimateputuponScripture,byeitherourLordorthewritersoftheNewTestament.Itisstrictlylimitedtowhatisnecessarytoexhibittheuseoftheterms‘Scripture,’‘TheScriptures,’intheNewTestamentandthemoreimmediateimplicationsofthisuse.Thisusewasaninheritance,notaninvention.Theideaofa‘canon’of‘SacredScriptures,’and,withtheidea,the‘canon’itselfwerederivedbyChristianityfromJudaism.TheJewspossessedabodyofwritings,consistingof‘Law,Prophetsand(other)Scriptures(K’thubhim),’thoughtheywereoftencalledforbrevity’ssakemerely‘theLawandtheProphets’orevensimply‘theLaw.’These‘SacredScriptures”

(vdO,Qjæybet]ki),—or,astheywereveryfrequentlypregnantlycalled,this‘Scripture’(bytkh),orthese‘Books’(µyrpsh)or,evensometimes,inthesingular,this‘Book’(rpsh)—werelookeduponasalldrawingtheiroriginfromdivineinspirationandaspossessedinalltheirextentofdivineauthority.WhateverstoodwritteninthemwasawordofGod,andwasthereforereferredtoindifferentlyassomethingwhich‘theScripturesays’(arqrmaorbytkhrmaorarqbytk)or‘theAll-mercifulsays’(anmjrrma),orevensimply‘Hesays’(rmwaawhˆkormerelyrmwaw)—thatGodisthespeakerbeingtoofullyunderstoodtorequireexplicitexpression.EverypreceptordogmawassupposedtobegroundedinScripturalteaching,andpossessedauthorityonlyasbuttressedbyaScripturalpassage,introducedcommonlybyoneoftheformulas,‘foritissaid’(rmanç)or‘asitiswritten’(bytkdorbytkdk),thoughofcourseagreatvarietyoflessfrequentlyoccurringsimilarformulasofadductionarefound.Greek-speakingJewsnaturallytendedmerelytoreproduceintheirnewlanguagethedesignationsandformsofadductionofthesacredbookscurrentamongtheircompatriots.ThisprocesswasnodoubtfacilitatedbytheexistenceamongtheGreeksthemselvesofapregnantlegislativeuseofgra>fwgrafh>,gra>mma,inwhichtheywerealreadyfreightedwithacertainimplicationofauthority.f30Butitisveryeasytomaketoomuchofthis(ase.g.,Deissmanndoes),andthesimplefactshouldnotbeobscuredthattheGreek-speakingJewsfollowtheusageoftheJewsingeneral.ItmaynodoubtverypossiblybedueinparttohisGraecizingtendenciesthattheScripturesarespokenofbyJosephusapparentlywithpredilectionasthe“SacredBooks”(iJerai<bi>bloioriJera<bibli>a);or“SacredScriptures”(iJrea<gra>mmata)ormorefullystillasthe“BooksoftheSacredScriptures”(aiJiJerw~ngrafw~nbi>bloi);andquotedwiththeformulage>graptaiormorefrequentlyajnage>graptai—allofwhichareformswhichwouldbefamiliartoGreekears,withageneralimplicationofauthority.f31Perhaps,however,theinfluenceoftheGreekusageismoreclearlytraceableincertainpassagesoftheLXXinwhichgrafh>mayseemtohoverbetweenthepregnantGreeksenseofauthoritative‘ordinance,’andthepregnantHebrewsenseofauthoritative‘Scripture.’When,forexample,wereadin<131515>1Chronicles15:15,“AndthesonsoftheLevitestookuponthemselveswithstavestheArkofGod,wjvejnetei>latoMwush~vejnlo>gw|qeou~kata<th<ngrafh>n,”wescarcelyknowwhetherwearetotranslatethekata<th<ngrafh>n,(whichhasnoequivalentintheHebrew)by“accordingtotheprecept,”orby“accordingtotheScriptures.”Somethingofthesamehesitancyisfeltwithreferencetothesimilarpassages:<143005>2Chronicles30:5,

“Becausethemultitudehadnotdoneitlatelykata<th<ngrafh>n”(=bWtK;Kæ);<143018>2Chronicles30:18,“Buttheyatethepassoverkata<th<ngrafh>n”(=bWtKKæaOlB]);2Esdr.6:18,“AndtheyestablishedthepriestsintheircoursesandtheLevitesintheirdivisionsfortheserviceofGodinJerusalem,kata<th<ngrafh>nbi>blouMwush~”(=btæk]Kihv,mrpæs]);<132819>1Chronicles28:19,“AllthesethingsDavidgavetoSolomonejngrafh~|ceiro<vkuri>ou”(=h/;hy]dYæmibt;k]Bi):<143504>2Chronicles35:4,“Prepareyourselves…kata<th<ngrafh>nDaui<d…kai<dia<ceiro<vSalwmw<n”(=hOmlv]bTæk]mibiWrywid;kt;k]Ki);1Esdr.1:4,“kata<th<ngrafh<nDaui<d”ktl;andespeciallytheveryinstructivepassage2Esdr.7:22,“Forwhichthereisno“grafh>.”Similarlyin2Esdr.3:2,“kata<ta<gegramme>na(=bWtK;Kæ)inthelawofMoses,”ta<gegramme>namightverywellappealtoaGreekearassimply“theperceptions”;andthereareaseriesofpassagesinwhich“ge>graptaimightveryreadilybetakenintheGreeksenseof“itisprescribed,”suchas<060904>Joshua9:4,(8:31),<121406>2Kings14:6,23:21,<142318>2Chronicles23:18,25:4,<161034>Nehemiah10:34,(35),35,(37),Tob.1:6.Shouldthisinterpretationbeputonthesepassages,therewouldbeleftintheLXXlittleunalloyedtraceofthepeculiarJewishusageofpregnantlyreferringtoScriptureassuchbythatterm,andcitingitwiththeauthoritative‘Itiswritten.’Forclearinstancesoftheformerusageweshouldhavetogoto4Macc.18:14,andofthelatterto<270913>Daniel9:13,andtotheGreekadditionstoJob(<184201>Job42:18).f32PhiloontheotherhandisabsolutelydeterminedinhisusagebyhisinheritedJewishhabitsofthought.WithhimtheSacredbooksarebypredilectionabodyofdivineOraclesandaredesignatedordinarilyeitheroJlo>govwithvariousadjectivalenhancements—‘prophetic,’‘divine,’‘sacred’—or,perhapsevenmorecommonly,“theOracles,”oreven“theOracle,”(oiJcrhsmoi>,ta>lo>gia,oJgrhsmo>vto<lo>gion,orevenpossiblytheanarthrouscrhsmo>v,lo>gwn)andareadduced(asisalsomostfrequentlythecaseintheMishna,cf.Edersheimascited)ratherwiththeformula,“Asitissaid,”thanwiththe“Asitiswritten”whichwouldmorenaturallyconveytoGreekearsthesenseofauthoritativedeclarations.OfcoursePhiloalsospeaksonoccasion(forthistooisatrulyJewishmodeofspeech)ofthese“Oracles”as“theSacredBooks”(iJaiJerai<bi>bloi.

DeVitaMoysis,”3:23,Mangey2:163;“Quoddet.pot.insid.”44,Mangey1:222),oras“theSacredScriptures”(aijiJerw>tataigrafai>,“DeAbrah.”1:Mangeyii,2;iJepa<grafai>,“Quisrerumdiv.heres.”32,Mangey1:495;ta<iJerai<gra>mmata,“Legat.adCaium,”29,Mangey2:574);andadducesthemwiththepregnantge>graptai.Butthecomparativeinfrequencyofthesedesignationsinhispagesisverynoticeable.f33WhatitisofimportanceespeciallytonoteisthattherewasnothingleftforChristianitytoinventinthewayofdesignatingtheSacredBookstakenoverfromtheJewishChurchpregnantlyas“Scripture,”andcurrentlyadducingtheirauthoritywiththepregnant‘Itiswritten.’TheChristianwritersmerelycontinuedintheirentiretytheestablishedusagesoftheSynagogueinthismatter,alreadypreparedtotheirhandsinHebrewandGreekalike.ThereisprobablynotasinglemodeofalludingtoorcitingScriptureinalltheNewTestamentwhichdoesnotfinditsexactparallelamongtheRabbis.f34TheNewTestamentsofarevincesitselfathoroughlyJewishbook.Theseveraltermsmadeuseofinit,tobesure,asitwasnaturaltheyshouldbe,areemployedwithsomesensitivenesstotheirinherentimplicationsasGreekwords;andtheGreeklegislativeuseofsomeofthemgavethemnodoubtpeculiarfitnessfortheserviceaskedofthem,andlentthemaspecialsignificancetoGentilereaders.ButtheapplicationmadeofthembytheNewTestamentwritersneverthelesshasitsrootssetinthesoilofJewishthought,fromwhichtheyderiveafulleranddeepermeaningthantheirmostpregnantclassicalusagecouldaccordthem.Amongthesetermsthosewhichmoreparticularlyclaimourattentionatthemomentarethetwosubstantivesgrafh>andgra>mma,withtheirvariousqualifications,andthecognateverbalformsemployedincitingwritingspregnantlydesignatedbythesesubstantives.ThereisnothingintheNewTestamentusageofthesetermspeculiartoitself;andthroughouttheNewTestamentanydifferencesthatmaybeobservedintheiremploymentbytheseveralwritersareindicativemerelyofvaryinghabitsofspeechwithinthelimitsofonewell-settledgeneralusage.

TotheNewTestamentwritersastootherJews,theSacredBooksofwhatwasintheircirclenowcalledtheOldCovenant(<470314>2Corinthians3:14),describedaccordingtotheircontentsas“theLaw,theProphetsand

thePsalms”(<422444>Luke24:44)—ormorebrieflyas“theLawandtheProphets”(<400712>Matthew7:12,<421616>Luke16:16,cf.<442823>Acts28:23,<421629>Luke16:29-31)ormerelyas“theLaw”(<431034>John10:34,<461421>1Corinthians14:21)oreven“theProphets,”(<451626>Romans16:26),f35—were,whenthoughtofaccordingtotheirnature,abodyof“SacredScriptures”(<450102>Romans1:2,<550316>2Timothy3:16),or,withtheomissionoftheunnecessarybecausewell-understoodadjective,bywayofeminence,“theScriptures,”“theScripture,”“Scripture,”(<402229>Matthew22:29,<431035>John10:35,<600206>1Peter2:6).Foremploymentinthisdesignation,eitherofthesubstantives,grafh>orgra>mma,wouldapparentlyhavebeenavailable;althoughofcoursewithslightlydifferingsuggestionsarisingfromthedifferingimplicationsoftheformsandtherespectivegeneralusagesofthewords.InPhiloandJosephusthemoreusualofthetwointhisapplicationisgra>mma,or,tospeakmoreexactly,gra>mmata,—foralthoughgra>mmaissometimesinlaterGreeksoemployedinthesingularf36itisinthepluralthatthistermmostproperlydenotesthatcongeriesofalphabeticalsignswhichconstitutesabook(cf.Latin,literae).IntheNewTestamentonthecontrary,thisformisrare.Thecompletephrase,iJera>gra>mmata,whichisfoundalsobothinJosephus(e.g.“Antt.”proem.3;3:7,6;10:10,4;13:5,8)andinPhilo(e.g.,“DeVitaMoys.”1:2,”Legat.adCaium,”29)occursin<550315>2Timothy3:15asthecurrenttitleoftheSacredBooks,freightedwithallitsimplicationsassuch,orratherwiththoseimplicationsemphasizedbyitsanarthrousemployment,andparticularlyadvertedtointheimmediatecontext(verse16).f37ElsewhereintheNewTestament,however,gra>mmata,scarcelyoccursasadesignationofScripture.In<430547>John5:47,“Butifyebelievenothis(Moses’)writings,howshallyebelievemy(Jesus’)words?”tobesurewemustneedshesitatebeforewerefusetogivetoitthisitsmostpregnantsense,especiallysincethereappearstobeanimplicationpresentthatitwouldbemorereprehensibletorefusetrusttothese“writings”ofMosesthantothe”words”ofJesusHimself.Butonthewhole,thetendencyofthemostrecentexegesistoseein“hiswritings”herelittlemorethananotherwayofsaying“whathewrote,”seemsjustified.Theonlyotherpassagewhichcancomeintoconsiderationis<430715>John7:15,“Howknoweththismangra>mmata,nothavinglearned?”inwhichsomecommentatorsstill

seeareferencetoiJera<gra>mmata(<550315>2Timothy3:15)fromwhichtheJewishgrammatei~vderivedtheirtitle”(Th.Zahn,”Einleitung,”2:99).Mostreaders,however,doubtlesswillagreethat“letters”ingeneralaremorenaturallymeant(cf.<442624>Acts26:24andMeyer’sjudiciousnote),f38Practically,therefore,gra>mmaiseliminated;andgrafh>,grafai>,intheirvarieduses,remainthesoletermsemployedintheNewTestamentinthesenseof“Scripture,”“Scriptures.”Thisterm,insingularorplural,occursintheNewTestamentsomefiftytimes(Gospelstwenty-three,Actsseven,CatholicEpistlessix,Paulfourteen)andineverycasebearsthetechnicalsenseinwhichitreferstotheScripturesbywayofeminence,theScripturesoftheOldTestament.Thisstatementrequiresonlysuchmodificationasisinvolvedinnotingthatfrom<610316>2Peter3:16(cf.<540518>1Timothy5:18)itbecomesapparentthattheNewTestamentwriterswereperfectlyawarethattheterm“Scripture”initshighsensewasequallyapplicabletotheirownwritingsastothebooksincludedintheOldTestament;or,tobemoreprecise,thatitincludedwithinitselfalongwiththewritingswhichconstitutedtheOldTestamentthosealsowhichtheywereproducing,assharingwiththeOldTestamentbooksthehighfunctionsoftheauthoritativewrittenwordofGod.f39NomodificationneedstobemadeforthebenefitofthefewpassagesinwhichwordsareadducedasScripturalwhicharenoteasilyidentifiedintheOldTestamenttext.f40Theonlypassageswhichcomestrictlyunderconsiderationhereare<430738>John7:38and<590405>James4:5,towhichmaybeaddedasessentiallyofthesamekind(althoughthetermgrafh>doesnotoccurinconnectionwiththem),<460209>1Corinthians2:9,and<420949>Luke9:49.Itisenoughtoremarkastothesepassagesthat,howeverdifficultitmaybetoidentifywithcertaintythepassagesreferredto,thereisnoreasontodoubtthatOldTestamentpassageswereinmindandwereintendedtobereferredtoineverycase(seeMayoron<590405>James4:5,andcf.Lightfooton<460209>1Corinthians2:9,Westcotton<430738>John7:38,Godeton<421149>Luke11:49).Intwentyoutofthefiftyinstancesinwhichgrafh>,grafai>occurintheNewTestament,itisthepluralformwhichisemployed:andinallthesecasesexcepttwothearticleispresent,—aiJgrafai>thewell-known

ScripturesoftheJewishpeople,orratherofthewriterandhisreadersalike.Thetwoexceptions,moreover,areexceptionsinappearanceonly,sinceinbothcasesadjectivaldefinitionsarepresent,raisinggrafai>tothesameheighttowhichthearticlewouldhaveelevatedit,andgivingitthevalueofapropername(grafai>aJgi>ai,<450102>Romans1:2,herefirstinextantliterature;grafai<,profhtikai>,<451626>Romans16:26).Thesingularformoccurssomethirtytimes,andlikewisewiththearticleineveryinstanceexceptthesefour:<431937>John19:37‘anotherScripture’;<550316>2Timothy3:16‘everyScripture,’or‘allScripture’;<600206>1Peter2:6‘itiscontainedinScripture’;<610120>2Peter1:20‘noprophecyofScripture.’Heretootheexceptions,obviously,areonlyapparent,thenounbeingdefiniteineverycasewhetherbytheeffectofitsadjunct,orastheresultofitsuseasaquasi-proper-name.Thedistributionofthesingularandpluralformsisperhapsworthnoting.InActsthesingular(3)andplural(4)occurwithalmostequalfrequency:thepluralprevailsintheSynopticGospels(Matthewpluralonly;Markplural2to1;Luke3to1),whilethesingularprevailsintherestoftheNewTestament(John11to1;James3to1;Peter2to1,Paul9to5).IntheGospels,thepluralformoccursexclusivelyinMatthew,prevailinglyinMarkandLuke,andrarelyinJohn,ofwhomthesingularischaracteristic.TheusageoftheGospelsindetailisasfollows:aiJgrafai<402142>Matthew21:42,22:29,26:54,56,<411224>Mark12:24,14:49,<422427>Luke24:27,32,45,<430539>John5:39;hJJgrafh><411210>Mark12:10,<420421>Luke4:21,<430222>John2:22,7:38,42,modificationasisinvolvedinnotingthatfrom<610316>2Peter3:16(cf.<540518>1Timothy5:18)itbecomesapparentthattheNewTestamentwriterswereperfectlyawarethattheterm“Scripture”initshighsensewasequallyapplicabletotheirownwritingsastothebooksincludedintheOldTestament;or,tobemoreprecise,thatitincludedwithinitselfalongwiththewritingswhichconstitutedtheOldTestamentthosealsowhichtheywereproducing,assharingwiththeOldTestamentbooksthehighfunctionsoftheauthoritativewrittenwordofGod.f39NomodificationneedstobemadeforthebenefitofthefewpassagesinwhichwordsareadducedasScripturalwhicharenoteasilyidentifiedintheOldTestamenttext.f40Theonlypassageswhichcomestrictlyunderconsiderationhereare<430738>John7:38and<590405>James4:5,towhichmaybeaddedas

essentiallyofthesamekind(althoughthetermgrafh>doesnotoccurinconnectionwiththem),<460209>1Corinthians2:9,and<420949>Luke9:49.Itisenoughtoremarkastothesepassagesthat,howeverdifficultitmaybetoidentifywithcertaintythepassagesreferredto,thereisnoreasontodoubtthatOldTestamentpassageswereinmindandwereintendedtobereferredtoineverycase(seeMayoron<590405>James4:5,andcf.Lightfooton<460209>1Corinthians2:9,Westcotton<430738>John7:38,Godeton<421149>Luke11:49).Intwentyoutofthefiftyinstancesinwhichgrafh>,grafai>occurintheNewTestament,itisthepluralformwhichisemployed:andinallthesecasesexcepttwothearticleispresent,—aiJgrafai>thewell-knownScripturesoftheJewishpeople,orratherofthewriterandhisreadersalike.Thetwoexceptions,moreover,areexceptionsinappearanceonly,sinceinbothcasesadjectivaldefinitionsarepresent,raisinggrafai>tothesameheighttowhichthearticlewouldhaveelevatedit,andgivingitthevalueofapropername(grafai>aJgi>ai,<450102>Romans1:2,herefirstinextantliterature;grafai<,profhtikai>,<451626>Romans16:26).Thesingularformoccurssomethirtytimes,andlikewisewiththearticleineveryinstanceexceptthesefour:<431937>John19:37‘anotherScripture’;<550316>2Timothy3:16‘everyScripture,’or‘allScripture’;<600206>1Peter2:6‘itiscontainedinScripture’;<610120>2Peter1:20‘noprophecyofScripture.’Heretootheexceptions,obviously,areonlyapparent,thenounbeingdefiniteineverycasewhetherbytheeffectofitsadjunct,orastheresultofitsuseasaquasi-propername.Thedistributionofthesingularandpluralformsisperhapsworthnoting.InActsthesingular(3)andplural(4)occurwithalmostequalfrequency:thepluralprevailsintheSynopticGospels(Matthewpluralonly;Markplural2to1;Luke3to1),whilethesingularprevailsintherestoftheNewTestament(John11to1;James3to1;Peter2to1,Paul9to5).IntheGospels,thepluralformoccursexclusivelyinMatthew,prevailinglyinMarkandLuke,andrarelyinJohn,ofwhomthesingularischaracteristic.TheusageoftheGospelsindetailisasfollows:aiJgrafai<402142>Matthew21:42,22:29,26:54,56,<411224>Mark12:24,14:49,<422427>Luke24:27,32,45,<430539>John5:39;hJJgrafh><411210>Mark12:10,<420421>Luke4:21,<430222>John2:22,7:38,42,10:35,13:18,17:12,19:24,28,36,20:9;anarthrousgrafh>,<431937>John19:37(butwitheJte>ra).Nodistinctionistraceable

betweentheusageoftheEvangeliststhemselvesandthatoftheLordasreportedbythem.MatthewandMarkdonotontheirownaccountusethetermatall,butonlyreportitasusedbyourLord:inLukeandJohnontheotherhanditoccursnotonlyinreportsofourLord’ssayings(<420421>Luke4:21,<430539>John5:39,7:38,42,10:35,13:18,17:12),andofthesayingsofothers(<422432>Luke24:32),butalsointhenarrativeoftheEvangelists(<422427>Luke24:27,45,<430222>John2:22,19:24,28,36,37,20:9).ToourLordisascribedtheuseindifferentlyoftheplural(<402142>Matthew21:42,22:29,26:54,56,<411224>Mark12:24,14:49,<430539>John5:39)andthesingular(<411210>Mark12:10,<420421>Luke4:21,<430738>John7:38,42,10:35,13:18,17:12),andthatinalltheformsofapplicationinwhichthetermoccursintheGospels.SofarasHisusageoftheterm“Scripture”isconcerned,ourLordisrepresentedbytheEvangelists,thus,asoccupyingpreciselythesamestandpointandemployingpreciselythesameformsofdesignation,withpreciselythesameimplications,whichcharacterizedthedevoutJewishusageofHisday.“Jesus,”saysB.Weiss,therefore,withsubstantialtruth,“acknowledgedtheScripturesoftheOldTestamentintheirentireextentandtheircompletesacredness.‘TheScripturecannotbebroken,’Hesays(<431035>John10:35)andforthwithgroundsHisargumentuponitslanguage.”f41ThatwemaygathertheprecisesignificanceofhJJgrafh>,asadesignationoftheScriptures,itwillbewelltoattendsomewhatmorecloselytotheoriginoftheterminGreekspeechandtotheimplicationsitgatheredtoitselfinitsapplicationtoliterarydocuments.Itshistoryinitsliteraryapplicationdoesnotseemtohavebeenpreciselythesameasthatofitscongener,to<gra>mma,ta<gra>mmata.Gra>mmaappearstohavebecomecurrentfirstinthisreferenceastheappropriateappellationofanalphabeticalsign,andtohavegrowngraduallyupwardfromthislowlyemploymenttodesignateadocumentoflessorgreaterextent,becausesuchdocumentsareultimatelymadeupofalphabeticalsigns.Although,therefore,thesingular,to<gra>mma,cametobeusedofanywrittenthing—fromasimplealphabeticalcharacteruptocompleteworks,orevenunitarycombinationsofworks,liketheScriptures,—itisapparentlywhenappliedtowritings,mostnaturallyemployedofbriefpieceslikeshortinscriptionsorproverbs,ortotheshorterportionsofdocumentssuchastheclausesoftreaties,andthelike;althoughitisalso

usedofthoselongerformalsectionsofliteraryworkswhicharemorecommonlydesignatedtechnically“Books.”Itisrathertheplural,ta<gra>mmata,whichseemstosuggestitselfmostreadilynotonlyforextendedtreatises,butindeedforcompletedocumentsofallkinds.Whensoemployed,thepluralformisaccordinglynottobepressed.Suchaphraseas“Moses’gra>mmata”(<430547>John5:47)forexample,neednotimplythatMoseswrotemorethanone“work”;itwouldrathermasswhatever‘writings’ofMosesareinmindintoasingle‘writing,’andwouldmostnaturallymeanjust,say,“thePentateuch.”SuchaphraseasiJera<gra>mmata(<550315>2Timothy3:15),again,neednotbringtheOldTestamentbooksbeforeourcontemplationintheirplurality,asa“Divinelibrary”;butmoreprobablyconceivesthemtogetherinthemass,asconstitutingasinglesacreddocument,thoughtofasaunitarywhole.Ontheotherhand,grafh>,initsliteraryapplication,seemstohavesprungsomewhatlightlyacrosstheinterveningsteps,todesignatewhichgra>mmaismostappropriatelyused,andtohavebeencarriedatonceoverfromthe‘writing’inthesenseofthescripttothe‘writing’inthesenseofthescriptureordocument.Althoughthereforeitofcourseexhibitsmoreapplicationsparallelwiththoseofgra>mmathanofanyotherterm,itstruesynonymyinitshigherliteraryuseisratherwithsuchtermsashJbi>blov(to<bibli>on)andoJlo>gov,incommonwithwhichitmostnaturallydesignatesacompleteliterarypiece,whether“Treatise”or“Book.”Eachoftheseterms,ofcourse,preservesinallitsapplicationssomethingoftheflavoroftheprimitiveconceptionwhichwasboundupwithit.Whenthoughtoffromthematerialpointofview,as,sotosay,somuchpaper,or,tospeakmorerespectfully,fromthepointofsightofitsextent,aliteraryworkwasaptthereforetobespokenofasabi>blov(bibli>on).Whenthoughtofasarationalproduct,thoughtpresentedinwords,itwasapttobespokenofasalo>gov.Intermediatebetweenthetwostoodgrafh>(gra>mma)whichwasapttocometothelipswhentheworkwasthoughtofas,sotospeak,somuch‘writing.’Asbetweenthetwoterms,grafh>andgra>mma,Dr.Westcott(on<430547>John5:47)suggeststhatthelatter‘marksratherthespecificform,’theformer’thescopeoftherecord’;andthisseemssofarjustthattogra>mmathereclingsastrongflavorofthe‘letters’ofwhichthedocumentismadeup,whilegrafh>looksrathertothecompletenessofthe‘scripture.’Tobothalikesomuchoftheimplicationofspecificformclingsastolendthem

naturallytonationalandlegislativeemploymentwiththeimplicationofthe”certascriptio.”F42Toputthegeneralmatterinanutshell,bi>blov(bibli>on)mayperhapsbesaidtobethemoreexactwordforthe‘book’;grafh>(gra>mma)forthe‘document’inscribedinthe‘book’;lo>govforthe‘treatise’whichthe‘document’records;whileasbetweengrafh>andgra>mma,gra>mma,preservingthestrongermaterialflavor,gravitatessomewhattowardsbi>blov(bibli>on)whilegrafh>lookssomewhatupwardstowardslo>gov.Wheninthedevelopmentofthepublishers’trade,the“great-book-system”ofmakingbooksgavewayforthepurposesofconveniencetothe“small-book-system,”andlongworkscametobebrokenupinto“Books,”eachofwhichconstituteda‘volume,’f43these“Books”attachedtothemselvesthiswholeseriesofdesignationsandwerecalledalike,—ineachcasewithitsownappropriateimplications—bi>bloi(bibli>a)grafai>(gra>mmata)andlo>goi:bi>bloi(bibli>a)becauseeachbookwaswrittenonaseparaterollofpapyrusandconstitutedone‘paper’or‘volume’;grafai>(gra>mmata)becauseeachbookwasaseparatedocument,adistinct‘scripture’;andlo>goibecauseeachbookwasadistinct‘discourse’orrationalwork.Smallersectionsthanthese“Books”wereproperlycalledperioca>v,to>pouv,cwri>a,gra>mmata(whichlastistheappropriatewordfor‘clauses’)butveryseldomifeverintheclassics,grafa>v.f44Thecurrentsensesoftheseseveraltermsare,ofcourse,moreorlessreflectedastheyoccurinthepagesoftheNewTestament.Inthecaseofsomeofthem,theNewTestamentusagesimplycontinuesthatofprofaneGreek;inthecaseofothers,newimplicationsenterinwhich,whilenotsuperseding,profoundlymodifytheirfundamentalsignificance;inyetothercases,thereisadevelopmentofusagebeyondwhatistraceableinprofaneGreek.Thepassagesinwhichtwoormoreofthetermsinquestionarebroughttogetherare,naturally,especiallyinstructive.Whenweread,forexample,in<420304>Luke3:4seq.wJvge>graptaiejnbi>blw|lo>gwnJHsai`>outou~profh>tou,weperceiveatoncethatwhatisquotedisabodyoflo>goiwhicharefoundinwrittenformgrafh>:cf.<461554>1Corinthians15:54,oJlo>govoJgegramme>nov)inthebi>blov:thebi>blovisthevolumewhichcontainsthegrafh>,whichconveysor,perhapsbetter,recordsthelo>goi.Soagainwhenwereadin<420417>Luke4:17seq.thattherewasdeliveredtoourLordthebibli>onofIsaiah,onopeningwhichhefoundtheto>pon,whereagiven

thingh+ngegramme>non,andthenclosingthebibli>onheremarkedhJgrafh>au[thisfulfilledinyourears,weperceivethatthebibli>onistheconcretevolume—athingtobehandled,openedandclosed(cf.<660503>Revelation5:3,4,5,10:8,20:12),themannerofopeningandclosingbeing,ofcourse,unrollingandrolling(<660614>Revelation6:14,cf.<581007>Hebrews10:7,Birt,“DasantikeBuchwesen,”116);andthatthegrafh>isthedocumentwritteninthisbibli>on,whilethevariouspartsofthisgrafh>areformallyto>poi,orwhenattentionisdirectedtotheiressentialqualityassharersintheauthorityofthewhole,grafai<(cf.<440116>Acts1:16,“Thegrafh>whichtheHolySpiritspakethroughthemouthof”thewriter).Asmightbeinferredfromtheseexamples,bi>blovandbibli>onretainintheNewTestamenttheircurrentsignificationsinprofaneGreek.Theirapplicationtosacredratherthantosecularbooksinnowaymodifiedtheirgeneralsense.f45Itbrought,however,tothemarichnessofassociationwhichpreparedthewayforthatpregnantemploymentofthem—beginningnotindeedintheNewTestamentbutinevenearlierHellenisticwritings—todesignateinitssimpleabsolutenessthesacredvolume,fromwhichultimatelyourcommonterm“TheBible”issupposedtohavedescended.f46ThroughouttheNewTestamentthebi>blovorbibli>onwhenappliedtoliteraryentitiesisjustthe“volume,”thatistosay,theconcreteobject,the“book”inthehandleablesense.Whenwereadofthebi>blovofthewordsofIsaiah(<420304>Luke3:4),orofMoses(<411226>Mark12:26)orofthePsalms(<422042>Luke20:42,<440120>Acts1:20)oroftheProphets,i.e.,oftheTwelve“MinorProphets”(<440742>Acts7:42),themeaningissimplythateachofthesewritingsorcollectionsofwritingsformedasinglevolume.f47Similarlywhenwereadofthebibli>onofIsaiah(<420417>Luke4:17)oroftheLaw(<480310>Galatians3:10),whatismeantineachcaseisthevolumeformedbythedocumentordocumentsnamed.TheGospelofJohn(<432030>John20:30,21:25)andtheBookofRevelation(<660111>Revelation1:11,22:7,9,10,18,19)arespokenofaseachabibli>onagainbecauseeachexistedinseparationasaconcreteunity.Accordinglybi>bloiarethingswhichmaybeburned(<441919>Acts19:19);bibli>a,thingswhichmaybesprinkled(<580919>Hebrews9:19)orcarriedabout(<550413>2Timothy4:13),andmaybemadeofparchment(<550413>2Timothy4:13).TheBookofLifepresenteditselftotheimaginationasavolumeinwhichnamesmay

beinscribed(bi>blov,<500403>Philippians4:3,<660305>Revelation3:5,20:15;bibli>on,<661308>Revelation13:8,17:8,20:12,21:27);theBookofDestinyasavolumeinwhichissetdownwhatistocometopass(bibli>on,<581007>Hebrews10:7,<660501>Revelation5:1,2,3,4,5,8,9,10:8).Thereisnoessentialdifferenceinfundamentalimplicationwhenin<401907>Matthew19:7,<411004>Mark10:4ffbibli>onisusedfora“bill”ofdivorcement,orin<400101>Matthew1:1,bi>blov,undertheinfluenceoftheLXX,isemployedofagenealogicalregister.Inbothinstancesitwouldbeunderstoodthatthedocumentinquestionoccupiedaseparatepieceofpapyrusorparchmentandwasthereforeanentire“paper.”

ThereisamuchmoremarkedenhancementofsenseapparentintheNewTestamentuseoflo>gov.In<440101>Acts1:1,tobesure,itoccursinthesimpleclassicalsenseof“Book”;LukemerelypointstohisGospelas“thefirstBook”ofanextendedhistoricaltreatiseofwhichActsis“thesecondBook”.andthereisnoimplicationofdeepermeaning.Theordinaryusageoflo>gov,however,intheNewTestament,istoexpress,inaccordancewithitsemploymentintheOldTestamentofthePropheticword,the,ora,revelationfromGod,withno,oraveryindistinct,referencetoawrittenform.TheDivineWordwas,however,inthehandsoftheNewTestamentwritersinawrittenformandallusiontothiscouldnotalwaysfail.Inpassageslike<431525>John15:25,<461554>1Corinthians15:54,thelo>govthatiscitedisdistinctlydeclaredtobewritten:“thatthelo>govmaybefulfilledthatiswrittenintheirLaw”;“thenshallcometopassthelo>govthatiswritten”;andwiththesetheremaybeconnectedsuchpassagesas<431238>John12:38,(cf.<420406>Luke4:6):“thatthewordofIsaiahtheprophetmightbefulfilled,”since,althoughitisnotexpresslystated,thislo>govtoowasinthehandsoftheNewTestamentwritersinawrittenform.Inthisusagelo>govisaparticularpassageofScriptureviewedasadivinedeclaration.In<401506>Matthew15:6(ifthisreadingbeaccepted),<410713>Mark7:13(cf.<430538>John5:38,10:35,<451309>Romans13:9,<480514>Galatians5:14)inaccordancewithafamiliarusage(cf.<023428>Exodus34:28,oiJde>kalo>gov),thespecificreferenceistoadivinecommandment;butthiscommandmentisthrownupinsharpcontrastwith“tradition”andisthoughtofdistinctly

asawrittenone.Itisonlyinapassagelike<610119>2Peter1:19thatlo>govcomestomeantheentireOldTestament,afterthefashionofPhilo,f48withtheemphasisuponitsdivinecharacter:thatby“thepropheticword”hereismeantnotthepropheticportionofScripturebuttheScripturesasawhole,conceivedinaccordancewiththeirnatureas“prophetic,”thatistosayasabodyofrevelation,ismadeplainbythesubsequentcontext,wherethisprophecyisdefinedbytheexegeticalgenitiveasjustthatprophecywhichisScripturepa~saprofhtei>agrafh~v).Thuslo>gov,undertheinfluenceoftheOldTestamentusageofthe“WordofJehovah,”comestomeanintheNewTestamentspecificallyadivinerevelation,andisappliedtotheOldTestamenttodesignateit,aswrittenintheBookswhichIconstituteit,therevealedWordofGod.f49

Thelo>gov,now,whichwascontainedinthebi>blov(bibli>on)(<420304>Luke3:4),andofcoursecontainedinitonlyinwrittenform,was,naturally,conceived,astrulybytheNewTestamentwritersasbyGreekwritersingeneral,asagrafh>,(orinthepluralgrafai>).Thereseemstobenoreasoninherentinthecase,accordingly,whygrafh>shouldnotoccurintheNewTestamentinitssimpleclassicalsenseofa“Treatise”or(aslo>govdoes,<440101>Acts1:1)ofa“Book”orformaldivisionofatreatise.ItmayveryproperlybeconsideredthereforemerelyanaccidentthatnoinstancesarefoundintheNewTestamentofthisgeneralusageofthetermwithoutfurtherimplications.f50ItsooccursinJosephus(“Ant.”III.8:10;IV.8:44,ofbooksofhisown)andinPhilo(“DeSomniis,”adinit.,JHme<nou+npro<tau>thvgrafh<periei~ce—i.e.,theprecedingBookoftheTreatiseinhand);anditisrepeatedlyusedIintheLXXtodesignateanypieceofwriting(cf.<140211>2Chronicles2:11,<160764>Nehemiah7:64,<270505>Daniel5:5,1Macc.14:27,48).Inpointoffact,however,grafh>(grafai>)appearsintheNewTestamentonlyinitsapplicationtotheSacredScriptures,andonlyinitshightechnicalsignificanceof“Scripture”bywayofeminence.Itmaybesurmisedthatthelong-establishedemploymentofthetermasadesignationoftheScripturestendedtowithdrawitfromcommonuseonthelipsofthosetowhomtheseScriptureswereathingapart.ItmayevenseemthatacertaintendencyisobservableintheNewTestamentwriterstodistinguishbetweengrafh>(grafai>)andgra>mma(gra>mmata)infavoroftheformerasthetechnicaldesignationoftheScripture,whilethe

latterismorefreelyemployedforgeneraluses.Certainlygra>mmataoccursoccasionallyintheNewTestamentfornon-sacredwritings(<442821>Acts28:21,<421606>Luke16:6,7)andforsacredwritingsindeedbutwithoutstressontheirsacredness(<430547>John5:47,cf.7:15),whileitisonlyrarelymetwithinthepregnantsenseofScripture(<550315>2Timothy3:15only)andthenonlyinanestablishedphrasewhichmaybesupposedtohaveobtainedastandingofitsown.Thereseemsalsoingra>mmaanaturallystrongerimplicationofthematerialelementsofthescript,whichmayhaveformedthepointofdepartureforadepreciatoryemploymentofthetermtodesignatethe“mereletter”asdistinguishedfromthe“spirit”(cf.<450227>Romans2:27,29,7:6,<470306>2Corinthians3:6,7).OntheotherhandthefreeemploymentbylaterChristianwritersofgrafh>,grafaiofsecularcompositions,andofbothgra>mmaandgra>mmatainthehightechnicalsenseof”Scripture,”sofarmilitatesagainstthesuppositionthatalreadyinNewTestamentGreektheformerwerehardeningintotheexclusivetechnicaldesignationsof“Scripture.”MeanwhilethesimplefactremainsthatintheNewTestamentwhilegra>mmataisusedfreely,andwithasingleexceptionexclusively,withoutimplicationofsacredness,grafh>andgrafai>areemployedsolelyastechnicaldesignationsofSacredScriptureandtaketheircolorinalltheiroccurrencesfromthishigherplaneofusage.ThroughouttheNewTestamentthegrafh>whichaloneisinquestionisconceivedasratherthewordoftheHolySpiritthanofitshumanauthorsthroughwhommerelyitisspoken(<440116>Acts1:16),andisthereforeeveradducedasofindefectible,becauseofDivine,authority.Itissomewhatremarkablethatevenonthishighplaneofitstechnicalapplication,inwhichitdesignatesnothingbuttheSacredScriptures,grafh>neveroccursintheNewTestament,inaccordancewithitsmostnaturaland,intheclassics,itsmostfrequentsenseof“Treatise,”asatermtodescribetheseveralbooksofwhichtheOldTestamentiscomposed.Itistempting,nodoubt,toseektogiveitthissenseinsomeofthepassageswhere,occurringinthesingular,ityetdoesnotappeartodesignatetheScripturesasawhole;andevenDr.Hortseemsforamomentalmostinclinedtoyieldtothetemptation.f51Itismoretemptingstilltoassumethatbehindthefrequentuseoftheplural,aiJgrafai>,todesignatetheScripturesasawhole,thereliesapreviouscurrentusageby

whicheachBookwhichentersintothecompositionoftheseScriptureswasdesignatedbythesingularhJgrafh>.InnosinglepassagewherethesingularhJgrafh>occurs,however,doesitseempossibletogiveitareferencetotheBookofScripturetowhichtheappealismade.AndthefrequentemploymentinprofaneGreekofgrafai>inthepluralforasingledocumentf52discouragestheassumptionthatit,liketa<bibli>a,hasreference,whenusedasadesignationofScripture,toitscompositecharacterasa“DivineLibrary.”Itistruethatinoneuniquepassage,<610316>2Peter3:16,f53aiJgrafaibearsapluralsignification.Buttheitemsofwhichthispluralisformed,asthegrammaticalconstructionimplies,arenot“treatises”(Huther,Kühl)but“passages”(DeWette).Petersaysthattheunlearnedandunstable,ofcourse,wrestedthehardsayingsofPaul’sletters,astheywereaccustomedtowrestloipa<vgrafa>vi.e.,“theotherScripturalstatements,”f54duereverenceforwhichshouldhaveprotectedthemfromsuchtreatment,theimplicationbeingthatnopartofScripturewassafeintheirhands.Thisisasufficientlyremarkableuseoftheplural,nootherexampleofwhichoccursintheNewTestament;itis,however,anentirelylegitimateuseofthepluralf55andinitscontextaperfectlynaturalone,which,nevertheless,justbecauseitisaspecialusagedeterminedbyitscontext,standssomewhatapartfromthegeneraltechnicaluseofaiJgrafai>todesignatethebodyofScripturesandcannotguideustoitsinterpretation.InnootherpassagewhereaiJgrafai>occursistheretheslightesthintthatitspluralformisdeterminedbytheconceptionoftheScripturesasacongeriesofauthoritativepassages;thisinterpretationofthecurrentpluralformmayindeedbesetasideatonceasoutsideofthepossibilitiesofthecase.

Ifwemaynotspeakquitesodecisivelyofthepossibilityofthepluralformrestingonaconceptionof“theScriptures”asmadeupofacollectionofBooks,itmayatleastbesaidthatthereisnothingintheNewTestamentuseofthetermtoremovethegeneralunlikelihoodofthatconstructionofit.Thereareindeedtwoorthreepassagesinwhichgrafai>mightappearatfirstsighttodesignateabodyofdocuments.Suchare,forexample,<451626>Romans16:26,wherewereadofgrafai>profhtikai>,andespecially<402656>Matthew26:56,wherewereadofgrafai<tw~nprofhtw~n.Inthecaseof<451626>Romans16:26,

however,theverynaturalimpressionthatherewehavementionoftheseveralbookswhichconstitutethesecondofthesectionsoftheJewishcanon,knownas“TheProphets,”isalmostcertainlyanerror(cf.Vaughaninloc.).Itisveryunlikely

thatthe“propheticwritings”withthismentionofwhichthisepistleclosesareanyotherthanthe“HolyScriptures”oftheprophetswithmentionofwhichitopens(<450102>Romans1:2);anditisquiteclearthatthese“HolyScriptures”aremuchmoreinclusivethanthewritingsofthesecondsectionoftheJewishcanon,—thattheyembraceinfacttheentiretyofScripture,thoughtofhereasofprophetic,thatis,revelatory,character(cf.Meyer,Weiss,Oltramareinloc.;Bleekon<580101>Hebrews1:1).Norneedthe”Scripturesoftheprophets”of<402656>Matthew26:56haveanydifferentmeaning(cf.Sweteon<411449>Mark14:49,Morrisoninloc.).Itisquitetruethattheterm”TheProphets”issometimesinMatthew(<400517>Matthew5:17,7:12,22:40)andintheotherGospels(<421616>Luke16:16,29,31,24:44,<430145>John1:45)andintherestoftheNewTestament(<440742>Acts7:42,13:15,24:14,28:23,<450321>Romans3:21)atechnicaltermdesignatingthesecondsectionoftheJewishcanon;butitisequallytruethatitissometimesusedmuchmoreinclusively.Forexamplein<400223>Matthew2:23thereferenceseemstobequitegenerallytotheOldTestamentconsideredasapropheticbook(cf.Meyerinloc.);andin<401113>Matthew11:13,“alltheprophetsandeventhelawprophesied,”thePentateuchisexpresslyincludedwithinthepropheticword(cf.<610119>2Peter1:19).Passageslike<420170>Luke1:70,11:50showthatbythesewritersthewholeOldTestamentrevelationwasthoughtofaspropheticincharacter,while<421831>Luke18:31iscertainlyentirelygeneral(cf.<440324>Acts3:24).Themostinstructivepassages,however,aredoubtlessthosewhichfollowoneanothersocloselyin<422425>Luke24:25,27,44.Itcanhardlybedoubtedthatthesamebodyofbooksisintendedinallthreeofthesereferences,whichmerelyprogressivelydiscriminatebetweenthepartswhichmakeupthewhole.Thesimple“prophets”thusbecomesfirst“Mosesandindeedalltheprophets”(cf.Hahninloc.)—furtherdefinedasthe“wholeScripture”—andthen“theLawofMoses,andtheProphetsandthePsalms.”Theterm“theProphets”occursthusinthisbriefcontextin

threesensesofvaryinginclusiveness,andapparentlylendsitselfasreadilytothewidestastothenarrowestapplication.Inthesecircumstancesthereseemsnoreasonwhyin<402656>Matthew26:56“theScripturesoftheProphets”shouldbenarrowedbeyondtheinclusivenessofthesuggestionof“theScriptures”oftheimmediatelyprecedingcontext(<402654>Matthew26:54)orofitsownparallelin<411449>Mark14:49.Inotherwordsthereiseveryreasontobelievethatinthispassagethedefiningadjunct“oftheProphets”doesnotdiscriminateamongthebookswhichmakeuptheScripturesandsingleoutcertainoftheseasprophetic,butratherdescribestheentirebodyofScriptureaspropheticinoriginandcharacter,thatistosayasarevelationfromGod.f56Grafai>doesnothere,then,mean“books”“treatises,”butaiJgrafai>,asinverse54andintheparallelpassage,<411449>Mark14:49,meanstheoneDivinebook.That<422427>Luke24:27,ejnpa>saivtai~vgrafai~v,lendsitselfreadilytothesameinterpretationrequiresnoargumenttoshow.Ifgrafai>isemployedinasingularsense,thenpa~saiaiJgrafai>meansjustthewholeofthedocumentsodesignated,andistheexactequivalentofpa~sahJgrafh>orpa~sagrafh>(<550316>2Timothy3:16takenasapropernoun).Thetruthseemstobe,therefore,thatasthereisnoexampleintheNewTestamentoftheuseofhJgrafh>inthesenseofoneoftheBooksofScripture,sothereisnotraceinitsuseofaiJgrafai>ofanunderlyingconsciousnessofthecompositionoftheScripturesoutofabodyofsuchBooks.f57WhetherthepluralaiJgrafai>,orthesingularhJgrafh>,isemployed,therefore,themeaningisthesame;ineithercasetheapplicationofthetermtotheOldTestamentwritingsbythewritersoftheNewTestamentistheoutgrowthoftheirconceptionoftheseOldTestamentwritingsasaunitarywhole,anddesignatesthisbodyofwritingsinitsentiretyastheone,well-known,authoritativedocumentationoftheDivinerevelation.ThisisthefundamentalfactwithrespecttotheuseofthesetermsintheNewTestamentfromwhichalltheotherfactsoftheirusageflow.Insayingthis,wearebroughtatonce,however,facetofacewithwhatisprobablythemostremarkablefactabouttheusageofhJgrafh>intheNewTestament.Thisisitsoccasionalemploymenttorefer,notmerely,aswastobeexpectedfromitsformandprevioushistory,toScriptureasa

whole,norevenas,haditsooccurredintheNewTestament,wouldhavebeenonlyacontinuationofitsprofaneusage,totheseveraltreatiseswhichmakeupthatwhole,buttoindividualpassagesofScripture.ThisemploymentfindssolittlesupportinprofaneGreek,inwhichgra>mmaratherthangrafh>isthecurrentformfortheadductionofclausesorfragmentaryportionsofdocuments,f58thatithasoftenbeenrepresentedasapeculiarityoftheNewTestamentandPatristicGreek.Thus,forexample,wereadinStephens’“Thesaurus”(subvoc.):“IntheNewTestamentandecclesiasticalbooks,hJgrafh>andaiJgrafai>areusedofthesacredwritingswhicharecommonlycalled‘TheHolyScriptures.’Butgrafh>issometimesintheNewTestamentemployedpeculiarlyofaparticularpassageofScripture.”AndSchaeferaddstothismerelyareferencetoapassageinoneoftheorationsofValckenaer,wherecommentingon<441702>Acts17:2-3,heremarksthat,intheNewTestament,“passagesoftheOldTestamentsuchasarealsodesignatedperioca>v,to>pouvandcwri>aaresometimesalsocalledgrafa>v.”f59Theusagedoesnotseem,however,tobepeculiartotheNewTestamentandtheChurchFathers:itoccursalso,thoughrarely,intheLXXandPhilo,andmayclaimthereforetobeatleastHellenistic.f60ItisprobablytheoutgrowthofthehabitoflookingupontheScripturesasaunitarybookofdivineoracles,everypartandpassageofwhichisclothedwiththeauthoritywhichbelongstothewhole,andwhichisofcoursemanifestedinallitsparts.Nodoubtthisextensionofgrafh>fromadesignationofScriptureasawholetoadesignationofanygivenfragmentofScripture,howeversmall,wasmediatedbythecircumstancethatinadducingtheauthorityof‘Scripture’foranydoctrineorpractice,itwasalwaysinevitablynotthewholeof‘Scripture’butsomespecialdeclarationof‘Scripture’whichwasespeciallyinmindasbearingupontheparticularpointat.themomentinhand.Thetransitionwaseasyfromsaying“TheScripturesays,namelyinthisorthatpassage,”tosayingofthisandthatpassagespecifically,“ThisScripturesays”and“AnotherScripturesays.”When

theentiretyofScriptureis“Scripture”tous,eachpassagemayreadilybeadducedas“Scripture”also,because“Scripture”isconceivedasspeakinginandthrougheachpassage.Astepsoinvitingwassuretobetakensoonerorlater.Wheneverthereforegrafh>occursofaparticularpassage

ofScripture,sofarfromthrowingindoubtitsusageofScriptureasawhole,conceivedasaunitaryDivineauthority,itratherpresupposesthisusageandisanoutgrowthofit.ItcannotsurpriseusthereforethathJgrafh>occursintheNewTestamentsidebysideinthetwosenses,anddesignatesindifferentlyeitherScriptureasawhole,oraparticularpassageofScripture,thatis,isusedindifferently“collectively”asithasnotveryexactlybeencalled,and“particularly.”

Ithasoften,nodoubt,beencalledinquestionwhetherboththesesensesdooccursidebysideintheNewTestament.Possiblyadesiretoerectsomewell-markedanduniformdistinctionbetweentheusageofthepluralaiJgrafai>andthesingularhJgrafh>hasnotbeenwhollywithoutitsinfluencehere.AtalleventsthesuggestionhaseverynowandthenbeenmadethatthesingularhJgrafh>bearsintheNewTestamenttheuniformsenseof‘apassageofScripture,’whileitistheplural,aiJgrafai>,alonewhichdesignatestheScripturesintheirentirety.ThefamousRationalistdivine,JohannesSchulthess,forexample,havingoccasiontocommentbrieflyonthewordspa~sagrafh<Qeo>pneustov,<550316>2Timothy3:16,amongotherassertionsofequalinsecurity,makesthisone:grafh<inthesingularnevermeansintheNewTestamentbi>blovmuchlesstheentiretyoftw~niJerw~ngramma>twn,butsomeparticularpassage.”f61Hithertoithasbeenthoughtenoughtomeetsuchassertionswithamereexpressionofdissent.ChristiaanSepp,forexample,meetsthisonewithequalbrevityandpointbythesimpleobservation:“Passageslike<431035>John10:35provethecontrary.”f62Butanewfacehasbeenputuponthematterbythepowerfuladvocacyotheproposition“thatthesingulargrafh>intheNewTestamentalwaysmeansaparticularpassageofScripture,”bythelateBishopLightfootinacommenton<480322>Galatians3:22whichhasonthisaccountbecomefamous.Wemustbelieve,however,thatitistheweightofDr.Lightfoot’sjustlygreatauthorityratherthantheinherentreasonablenessofthedoctrinewhichhasgiventhisopinionthegreatvoguewhichitappearstoenjoyatpresentamongEnglish-speakingscholars.Itwasatonceconfuted,itistrue,byDr.C.J.Vaughaninanoteon<450403>Romans4:3;andinhisownnoteonthispassageDr.Lightfootseemedalmost(notquite)persuadedtoadmitadoubtastotheusageofJohn,whilereiterating,withrespecttoPaulatleast,thatinthematteroftheuseof

grafh>inthesingularofasinglepassageofScripture“practiceisabsoluteanduniform.”Dr.WestcotttookhisstandbyDr.Lightfoot’sside(seeon<430222>John2:22,10:35)andlaboredtoshowthatJohn’susageconformstothecanonasserted;andDr.Hort,thoughwithsomeapparenthesitationwithrespecttoJohnandPaul—theonlyportionsoftheNewTestament,itwillbenoticed,ofwhichDrs.WestcottandLightfootexpressassurance—inclinedonthewholetogivehisassenttotheirgeneraljudgment(on<600206>1Peter2:6).Withmorehesitancy,Dr.Sweteremarksmerelythatgrafh>isaportionofScripture,”atleast“almostalwayswhenthesingularisused”(on<411210>Mark12:10).Generalagreementintheviewinquestionisexpressedalso,forexample,byPage(<440116>Acts1:16),Knowling(<440832>Acts8:32),Plummer(<420421>Luke4:21),A.Stewart(Hastings’BD.I286).Itisdifficulttobelieve,however,thatthereasonsassignedforthisviewaresufficienttobeartheweightofthejudgmentfoundedonthem.Theysuffice,certainly,toshow—whatisinitselfsufficientlyremarkable,—thathJgrafh>isrepeatedlyemployedintheNewTestamentofaparticularpassageofScripture.Buttheattempttocarrythisusagethroughalltheinstancesinwhichthesingularappearsinvolvesaviolenceofexegeticalprocedurewhichbreaksdownofitself.Outofthethirtyinstancesinwhichthesingular,hJgrafh>occurs,aboutascoreproveutterlyintractabletotheproposedinterpretation,-thesenineteentowit:<430222>John2:22,7:38,42,10:35,17:12,19:28,20:9,<440832>Acts8:32,<450403>Romans4:3,9:17,10:11,11:2,<480308>Galatians3:8,22,4:30,<540518>1Timothy5:18,<590405>James4:5,<600206>1Peter2:6,<610120>2Peter1:20.f63Inpointoffact,therefore,insometwo-thirdsoftheinstanceswheregrafh>isemployedinthesingular,itsreferenceistotheScriptureasawhole,tothatunitarywrittenauthoritytowhichfinalappealwasmade.Insomeofthesepassagesitisnolessthanimpossibletotakeitotherwise.In<430222>John2:22,forexample,thereisabsolutelynodefinitepassagesuggested,andWestcottseeksonetowhichtoassignthereferenceonlyunderthepressureoftheory.Thesameistrueof<432009>John20:9,wherethereferenceisquiteasbroadasin<422445>Luke24:45.In<431035>John10:35theargumentdependsuponthewidereferencetoScriptureasawhole,whichformsitsmajorpremise.In

<480322>Galatians3:22thereisabsolutelynothingtosuggestareferencetoaspecialtextratherthantothegeneraltenorofScripture,andLightfootsuppliesaspecialtextonlyconjecturallyandwithhesitation.ThepersonificationofScriptureinsuchpassagesas<590405>James4:5,<480308>Galatians3:8carrieswithitthesameimplication.Andtheanarthroususeofgrafh>in<600206>1Peter2:6,<610120>2Peter1:20,cf.<550316>2Timothy3:16,isexplicableonlyonthepresuppositionthathJgrafh>hadbecomesomuchtheproperdesignationofScripturethatthetermhadacquiredthevalueofapropername,andwasthereforetreatedasdefinitewithout,aswith,thearticle.Ifanythingwereneededtorenderthissuppositioncertain,itwouldbesuppliedbythestraitstowhichexpositorsarebroughtwhoseektogetalongwithoutit.f64Dr.Hort,forexample,afterdecliningtounderstandgrafh>in<600206>1Peter2:6ofScriptureingeneral,becausehedoesnotfind“adistinctandrecognizeduseofthissort,”finallysuggeststhatweshouldrender“simply,‘inwriting,’”sothat“perie>ceiejngrafh~|shallbeheldequivalentto‘itstandswritten.’”Butheiscompelledtoadd:“Thatthequotationwasauthoritative,thoughnotexpressed,wasdoubtlessimplied,inaccordancewiththefamiliarJewishuseofthewords‘said,’‘written,’”—apparentlynotrealizingthat,ifthequotationisauthoritativethen,“Itstandswritten”istheequivalentoftheauthoritativeemploymentofthisphraseintheadductionofwhatisspecificallyScripture,andthereforemeansheredistinctlynot,“Itstandswritten—somewhere,”but”Itstandswritteninthe(technicallyso-called)Scripture.”Thisseems,therefore,tobeonlyaroundaboutwayofsayingthatgrafh>heremeansanddefinitelyreferstotheauthoritativeScripture,andnotany‘writing’indifferently.Thesameisinevitablytrueof<610120>2Peter1:20.Itisimpossiblethatby“everyprophecyofScripture”thewritercanhavemeant“everyprophecywhichhasbeenreducedtowriting.”f65HeundoubtedlyintendedtheprophecieswrittenintheOldTestamentalone(cf.,Bigg,Kübel,Keilinloc.);andthisisbutanotherwayofsayingthatanarthrousgrafh>istohimatechnicaldesignationoftheOldTestament,or,inotherwords,thatheusesitwithpreciselytheimplicationswithwhichweemploytheterm,“Scripture.”f66Inthepresenceofsuchpassagesasthesethereseemstobenoreasonwhyweshouldfailtorecognizethattheemploymentofgrafh>intheNewTestamentsofarfollowsitsprofaneusage,inwhichit

isappliedtoentiredocumentsandcarrieswithitageneralimplicationofcompleteness,thatitinitsmostcommonreferencedesignatestheOldTestamenttowhichitisappliedinitscompletenessasaunitarywhole.f67Ithasseemedworthwhiletoentersomewhatfullyuponthismatter,notonlyonaccountofitsintrinsicinterestandtheimportancegivenitinrecentexpositions,butalsobecausetheissuethrowsintoahighlightwhatisafterallthefundamentalfactabouttheNewTestamentuseofhJgrafh>,aiJgrafai>Thisistheimplicationwhichtheybearnotonlyoftheuniquenessofthebodyofreligiouswritingswhichtheydesignate,entitlingthemtobespokenofastogether,inasupereminentsense,“theScriptures,”orrather“theScripture,”oreven“Scripture”;butalso,alongwiththis,oftheirirreducibleunity,—asconstitutingintheirentiretyasingledivinelyauthoritative“writing.”Franckeisquitewithinthelimitsofclearfact,whenheremarks,f68“ThecontemplationoftheentirebodyofScriptureasaunitaryword,inallitspartsequallyrestinguponasingleauthority,andthereforepossessingthesameauthorityeverywhere,formsthemostessentialpresuppositionofthedesignationofthecollectionofthewrittenwordasthegrafh>.”ItonlyneedstobeaddedthatthesameistrueofitsdesignationasaiJgrafai>Whatrequiresemphasis,inaword,isthatthetwodesignationshJgrafh>andaiJgrafai>are,sofarasourevidencegoes,strictlyparallel;andneitheristobederivedfromtheother.ThattheapplicationofaiJgrafai>totheScripturesdoesnotrestonapreviousapplicationofhJgrafh>toeachoftheBooksofScripture,wehavealreadyhadoccasiontoshow.ItisequallyimportanttoobservethattheapplicationtoScriptureofhJgrafh>isnotasubsequentdevelopmentrestingonaprevioususagebywhichScripturewasknownasaiJgrafai>.Thecontraryassumptionisoftentacitlymadeanditissometimesquiteplainlyexpressed,as,forexample,intheconcludingwordsofDr.Lightfoot’snoteon<480322>Galatians3:22,wherehetellsusthat“thetransitionfromthe‘Scriptures’tothe‘Scripture’isanalogoustothetransitionfromta<bibli>atothe‘Bible.’”Preciselywhatismeantbythelastclauseofthisstatementisperhapsnotperfectlyclear.Itisobvious,ofcourse,thatthedesignationoftheScriptureasta<bibli>aantedatesthemisunderstandingofthistermasafemininesingular,whencearosetheLatin“Biblia”andour“Bible”treatedasasingularif

thisbereallythehistoryoftheoriginoftheselatterterms;butDr.LightfootcanhardlyhavemeantthattheuseofhJgrafh>asadesignationoftheScripturearosesimilarlythroughamisunderstandingofaiJgrafai>asasingular.Itwouldseemthathecanonlyhavemeantthattheprogresswasinbothcasesfromaviewofthesacredbookswhichwasfullyconsciousoftheirpluralitytoaconceptionofthemwhichhasswalloweduptheirpluralityinaunitarywhole.Thereisnoproof,however,thatsuchamovementofthoughttookplaceineithercase.ThefactseemstobethataiJgrafai>wasusedfromitsearliestapplicationtoScriptureinasingularsense,inaccordancewithacurrentusageoftheterminprofaneGreek.AndwelackevidencethattheScriptureswereknownasta<bibli>abeforetheywereknownashJbi>blov.f69ThesetwomodesofspeakingofScriptureappeartohavebeenratherparallelthanconsecutiveusages.AnditisprobablethatthesameistrueofthedesignationsaiJgrafai>andhJgrafh>aswell.ItistrueenoughthatwemeetwithaiJgrafai>,thoughsomewhatrarelyandperhapsordinarilyinthephrase[aiJ]iJerai<grafai>,inPhilof70andJosephus,whereashJgrafh>ofScriptureingeneralissaidtooccurfirstintheNewTestament.f71Butitisnotprobablethatwearewitnessesofthebirthofanewusageineithercase;andtheevidenceistoomeagretojustifyapronouncementontherelativeagesofthetwoforms.AndinproportionaswerecognizethesingularsenseofaiJgrafai>andtherootingofbothusagesinaprecedentJewishmodeofcitingScriptureastheunitaryLawofGod,doesalltheprobabilityoftheproposeddevelopmentpassaway.InanyeventwhentheNewTestamentwasinprocessofwritingitwasmuchtoolateinthedaytospeakoftheformationofasenseoftheunitaryuniquenessoftheOldTestamentoroftheriseofausageindesignatingtheOldTestamentinwhichthatsensewouldfirstcometoitsmanifestation.BoththatsenseandmodesofexpressingitwereaninheritanceoftheNewTestamentwritersfromaremotepast,andfindmanifestationinthewholebodyofJewishliterature,notmerelyintheusageoftheRabbis,butinthepagesofPhiloaswell.ThetruthseemstobethatwhetheraiJgrafai>isusedorhJgrafh>oranarthrousgrafh>theimplicationisthesame.IneacheasealiketheOldTestamentisthoughtofasasingledocument,setoveragainstallotherdocumentsbyreasonofitsuniqueauthoritybaseduponitsDivineorigin,onthegroundofwhichitisconstitutedineverypartanddeclarationthefinalarbiterof

beliefandpractice.Weneednot,then,seektodiscoversubtlereasonsforthedistributionoftheseformsthroughtheNewTestament,askingwhytrulyanarthrousgrafh>isemployedonlybyPeter(of.<550316>2Timothy3:16);whyJohnandPaulprevailinglyusethesingular,MatthewuniformlyandMarkandLukeprevailinglytheplural;andwhyourLordisreportedasemployingthetwonumbersindifferently.Thesethingsareatmostmattersofliteraryhabit;atleast,mattersofchanceandoccasion,likeourownindifferentuseof‘TheScriptures,’‘TheScripture,’‘Scripture.’

OneoftheoutgrowthsoftheconceptionoftheOldTestamentasaunitaryDivinedocument,ofindefectibleauthorityinallitspartsanddeclarations,wasthehabitofadducingitfortheordinarypurposesofinstructionordebatebysuchsimpleformulasas‘Itissaid,’‘Itiswritten,’withthepregnantimplicationthatwhatisthusadducedas‘said’or‘written’is‘said’or‘written’byanauthorityrecognizedasDivineandfinal.Bothoftheseusagesarerichlyillustratedinavarietyofformsandwithallhighimplications,notonlyintheNewTestamentatlarge,butalsointheGospels,andnotonlyinthecommentsbytheEvangelistsbutalsoinreportedsayingsofourLord.Weareconcernedhereparticularlyonlywiththeformula“Itiswritten,”inwhichtheconsciousnessofthewrittenform,thedocumentarycharacter,oftheauthorityappealedtoismostdistinctlyexpressed.Initsmostcommonform,thisformulaisthesimplege>graptai,usedeitherabsolutely,or,withnoneofitsauthoritativeimplicationstherebyevacuated,withmoreorlessprecisedefinitionoftheplacewherethecitedwordscanbefoundwritten.ByitssidethereoccursinJohntheresolvedformulagegramme>nonejsti>n;andinthelatterpartofLukethereisatendencytoadduceScripturebymeansofaparticipialconstruction.f72ThesemodesofcitationhaveanalogiesinprofaneGreek,especiallyinlegislativeusage.f73But,asCremerpointsout,theirusewithreferencetotheDivineScriptures,asitinvolvestheadductionofanauthoritywhichrisesimmeasurablyabovealllegislativeauthority,soisfreightedwithasignificancetowhichtheprofaneusageaffordsnokey.IntheGospels,—ifwemaytaketheGospelsasanexampleofthewhole—ofthetwoforms,ge>graptaialoneoccursinMatthew(<400205>Matthew2:5,4:6inthenarrative;4:4,4:7,10,11:10,21:13,26:24,31inthereportofourLord’swords)andinMark

(<410102>Mark1:2inthenarrative;7:6,9:12,13,11:17,14:21,27inthereportofourLord’swords),andpredominantlyinLuke(<420223>Luke2:23,3:4,4:10inthenarrative;<420404>Luke4:4,8,7:27,10:20,19:46,24:46inthereportofourLord’swords),butonlyonceinJohn(<430817>John8:17inthereportofourLord’swords).InthelatterpartofLukethecitationofScriptureisaccomplishedbytheaidoftheparticiplegegramme>non([cf.<430417>John4:17,18:31,20:17,21:22,22:37,24:44),whileinJohntheplaceoftheformulage>graptai(<430817>John8:17only)istakenbytheresolvedformgegramme>nonejstin(<430217>John2:17,6:31,10:34,12:14,cf.16,inthenarrative;<430645>John6:45,[<430817>John8:17,cf.15:25,inthereportofourLord’swords).Thesignificanceoftheseformulasisperhapsmostmanifestwhentheyareusedabsolutely,wheretheystandaloneinbareauthoritativeness,withoutindicationofanykindwhencethecitationadducedisderived,thebaldadductionbeingindicationenoughthatitistheDivineauthorityofScripturetowhichappealismade.InstancesofthisusagearefoundintheGospelsforge>graptaiin<400404>Matthew4:4,6,7,10,11:10,21:13,26:24,31,in<410706>Mark7:6,9:12,13,11:17,14:21,27,in<420404>Luke4:4,8,10,7:27,19:46,20:17,22:37;forgegramme>nonejstinin<430217>John2:17,6:31,12:14,[16].InonlyasinglepassageeachinMatthewandMarkisthereaddedanindicationofthesourceofthecitation(<400205>Matthew2:5,“itiswrittenthroughtheprophet”;<410102>Mark1:2,“itiswritteninIsaiahtheprophet”).InLukesuchdefiningadjunctsaremorefrequent(<420223>Luke2:23,inthelawoftheLord;<420304>Luke3:4,inthebookofthewordsofIsaiahtheprophet;<231026>Isaiah10:26,inthelaw;<231803>Isaiah18:31,throughtheprophet;<232404>Isaiah24:44,inthelawofMosesandtheprophetsandthepsalms,i.e.,inScripture,verse45).InJohnalsosuchdefinitionsarenotrelativelyrare(<430645>John6:45,intheprophets;<430817>John8:17,inyourlaw;<431034>John10:34,inyourlaw;<431525>John15:25,inthelaw).Thesefullerpassageswhiletheyidentifythedocumentfromwhichthecitationisdrawn,innowisesuggestthatthenecessityforsuchidentificationwasfelt;bytheirrelativeinfrequencytheyratheremphasizehowunnecessarysuchspecificationwasexceptasanadditionalsolemninvocationoftherecognizedsourceofallreligiousauthority.Thebare“Itiswritten”wasthedecisiveadduction

oftheindefectibleauthorityoftheScripturesofGod,clothedassuch,inalltheirpartsandinalltheirdeclarations,withHisauthority.WecouldscarcelyimagineausagewhichwouldmoreilluminatinglyexhibittheestimateputuponScriptureastheexpressedmindofGodortherootedsenseofitsunityanditsequalauthoritativenessinallitsparts.f74Weshouldnotpasslightlyoverthishighimplicationoftheemploymentofabsolutege>graptaitoadducetheScripturalword,andespeciallythesuggestionsofitsrelativefrequency.NobetterindexcouldbeaffordedofthesenseoftheunitaryauthorityofthedocumentsocitedwhichdominatedthemindsofthewritersoftheNewTestamentandofourLordasreportedbythem.Theconsciousnessofthehumanauthors,throughwhomtheScriptureswerecommittedtowriting,retiresintothebackground;thoughtisabsorbedinthecontemplationofthedivineauthoritywhichliesbehindthemandexpressesitselfthroughthem.Evenwhenexplanatoryadjunctsareaddedindicatingwherethewordstowhichappealismadearetobefoundwritten,theyaresoframedasnottolessenthisimplication.Commonlythereisgivenonlyabarereferencetothewrittensourceofthewordsinmind;f75andwhenthehumanauthorsarenamed,itisnotsomuchastheresponsibleauthorsofthewordsadducedastheintermediariesthroughwhomtheDivineauthorityexpressesitself.f76IntheparallelusagebywhichtheScripturesareappealedtoby“Itissaid”andsimilarformulastheimplicationinquestionisperhapsevenmoreclear.InMatthew,forexample,Scriptureisoftencitedas“whatwasspokenthrough(dia>)theprophets(<400223>Matthew2:23)ortheprophet(<401335>Matthew13:35,21:4),ormorespecificallythroughthisorthatprophet—Isaiah([3:3],4:14,8:17,12:17,cf.<431238>John12:38),orJeremiah(<240217>Jeremiah2:17,27:9)orDaniel(24:15).Inafewpassagesofthiskindtheimplicationisexplicitlyfilledout,andwereadthattheScriptureisspoken“bytheLord”(uJpo<kuri>on)through(dia>)theprophet(1:22,2:15,cf.,22:31,“HaveyenotreadwhatwasspokenbyGodtoyou,”thatis,intheirScriptures;<440116>Acts1:16,“TheScriptureswhichtheHolyGhostspokebeforethroughthewordsofDavid”;<442825>Acts28:25,“TheHolyGhostspokethroughIsaiahtheprophettoyourfathers”).Asimilar

useofeijrhme>nonorei]rhtaioccursinthewritingsofLuke,whetherabsolutely(<420412>Luke4:12,[<450418>Romans4:18])orwithindicationoftheplacewhereitissaid(<420224>Luke2:24,<441340>Acts13:40);andheretoowefindoccasionallyasuggestionthatthehumanspeakerisonlytheintermediaryofthetruespeaker,God(<440216>Acts2:16,dia>theprophetJoel).Itispossibly,however,notintheGospelsthatthegeneralusageillustratedbythesepassagesfindsitsfullestormostemphaticexpression;butratherintheEpistletotheHebrews,wheretheScripturesarelookeduponalmostexclusivelyfromthepointofsightofthisusage.ItsheightperhapsisattainedinthedesignationofScriptureasta<lo>gia(<450302>Romans3:2,cf.<440738>Acts7:38,<580512>Hebrews5:12,<600411>1Peter4:11)andthecurrentcitationofitbythesubjectlessfhi>n(<460616>1Corinthians6:16)orle>gei(<451510>Romans15:10,<470602>2Corinthians6:2,<480316>Galatians3:16,<490408>Ephesians4:8,5:14),theauthoritativesubjectbeingtakenforgranted.f77IntheGospels,however,wehavesufficientillustrationofthesamegeneralmethodofdealingwithScripture,sidebysidewiththeirtreatmentofitasdocumentaryauthority,toevincethattheirwritersandJesusasreportedbythem,sharedthesamefundamentalviewpoint.f78

OnTheTerms“Bible,”“HolyBible.”

Thepurposeofthefollowingnoteissimplytobringtogetherwhatseemstobecurrentlyknownoftheoriginoftheterms“Bible,”“HolyBible.”Noattempthasbeenmadetogobehindtheuniversallyaccessiblesourcesofinformationuponwhichthegeneralpublicdepends,inordertogatheradditionalmaterial.Theobjectinviewismerelytomakeplainhowincompletetheaccessibleknowledgeofthehistoryofthesetermsis.ItisremarkablethattermsdailyonthelipsoftheentireWesternworldshouldhavebeenleftuntilto-daywithoutadequatehistoricalexplanation.Thefactis,however,beyonddoubt.InashortletterprintedinTheExpositoryTimesafewyearsago.f79Eb.Nestleremarksthat“nobodyasyetknowshowtheword‘Bible’founditswayintothe

Europeanlanguages”andrepresentsevenTheodorZahnasdecliningthetaskofworkingoutthestory.f80Theaccountwhichisordinarilygivenisthatbibli>a,wascurrentinGreekinthesenseof“theBible”;thatthiswastakenoverintoLatinasafemininesingular,“Biblia”;andthatthisforminturnpassedthenceintotheseveralWesternlanguages.f81Thereisnostepofthispresumedprocess,however,whichisbeyonddispute,andagreatobscurityrestsuponthewholesubject.

Th.Zahnf82entersastrongdenialwithrespecttothebasisofthedevelopmentwhichisassumed.“Forta<bibli>a,asadesignationoftheOldTestament,”hesays,“nousagecanbeadduced.”Morebroadlystill:“Themediaevalandmodernemploymentofta<bibli>ainthesenseofaiJgrafai>,hJgrafh>,thatis‘Bible,’isaltogetheralientotheancientchurch.”ThecurrentrepresentationonthefaithofSuicerf83thatta<bibli>aoccursfirstinthesenseof‘Bible’inChrysostom,hecontinues,is”onlyawidely-spreaderror”;thepassagesSuicerquotesdonotsupporttherepresentation.

TojustifythislastassertionZahnexaminesthethreepassageswhichSuicerquotesfromChrysostominsupportofhisstatementthat“ScripturaSacraiscalledbibli>asimpliciter,”.andconcludesthatnooneofthememploystheterminthat.sense.Inoneofthem—Hom.10inGenes.(Montfaucon,4:81)notbibli>asimpliciter,butqei~abibli>aisused.Inanother—Hom.2oncertainpassagesofGenesis(Montfaucon,4:652)—ChrysostomdeclaresthattheJewshavenodoubtta<bibli>a,butweChristiansalonetw~nbibli>wnqhsauro>v,—theyta<gra>mmata,we,however,bothta<gra>mmataandta<noh>mata—nottheBiblebutthePentateuchbeinginmindandtheverypointofthestatementrequiringustotakethe“Books”asmerelysomuchpaper,asthe“letters”asonlysomuchink.Itisonthethirdpassage,however,thatSuicerlaysmoststress,remarkingofit,here“bibli>aisusedabsolutelyandmeansSacraBiblia.”Itisfoundin“Hom.9:inEpist.adColoss.”(Montfaucon11:391)andrunsasfollows:“Delaynot,Ibeseechthee:thouhasttheoracles(lo>gia)ofGod.…Hear,Ibeseechyou,allyewhoarecarefulforthislife,andprocurebibli>afa>rmakath~vyuch~v.…Ifyouwillhavenothingelse,get,then,theNew[Testament:th<nkainh>nusedabsolutelyasfrequentlyinChrysostom],theApostle,theActs,theGospels,constantteachers,…Thisisthecauseofallourevils,—

ignoranceofta<vgrafa>v.”Zahnremarks:“Itisevidentthattheanarthrousbibli>ahereisnotanameoftheBible,butdesignatesthecategory‘Books,’towhich,amongothers,theNewTestamentbelongs;bookstoocanbemeansofgraceandconstantteachers.”

TheaveragereaderwillnodoubtfeelthatinhisexaminationofthesepassagesZahnpresseshisthesisalittletoofar.

ThecontrastinthesecondpassagebetweentheBooksandtheTreasurehiddeninthem,betweentheLetterandtheSense,ofcourse,throwstheemphasisonthemereBooksandthemereLetter.Butthis,sofarfromexcluding,presupposesrather,thetechnicalusageoftheseterms,ta<bibli>a,ta<gra>mmata,tomean“Bible,”“Scripture.”ThetermsareusedherecertainlywithprimaryreferencetotheOldTestament.ButthisisnottotheexclusionoftheNew.Inthethirdpassage—inwhichtherichseriesofdesignationsofScripturebroughttogethershouldbeobserved:“theOraclesofGod,”“theNew[Testament],”“theScriptures,”—itisclearenough,nodoubt,thatbibli>aisprimarilyacommonnoun.Butitdoesnotseemclearthatitdoesnotcontaininitselfasuggestionofitsuseasapropernoun.BeyondquestionChrysostommeansbythesebibli>ajusttheBible;justthe“OraclesofGod”ofwhichhehadspokenimmediatelybefore,inclusiveoftheNewTestamentofwhichheimmediatelyafterwardsspeaks,andconstituting“theScriptures”ofwhichhespeakssomewhatfurtheron.HespeaksoftheseBiblebooksasremedial,andofcoursehespeaksgenerallywithoutanarticle.ThecaseisliketheanarthrousiJera<gra>mmataof<550316>2Timothy3:16,ortheanarthrous‘Bible’whenwecongratulateourselvesthatwelive“inalandofanopenBible”;inbothofwhichinstancesthetermistechnicalenough.WhenChrysostomexhortedhishearerstogetforthemselvesbibli>awhichwillbemedicamentsfortheirsouls,theycaughtunderthecommonnounbibli>atheimplicationofthetechnicalta<bibli>a.ThesepassagesofChrysostom,afterallwouldseemthentobearwitnesstothecurrencyofthetermta<bibli>aasthesynonymofaiJgrafai>,hJgrafh.

ButwhyshouldweconfineourselvestothepassagescitedbySuicer?Sophoclesdefinesta<bibli>a,ifnot,likeSuicer,asthesacredBooksoftheChristians,yet,similiarly,as“theSacredBooksoftheHebrews,”quotingforhisdefinitiontheProloguetoEcclesiasticus,1Macc.12:9(ta<

a[gia),Josephus,“Contr.Apion.,”1:8;andClem.Alex.[Migne]1:668B,Origen,[Migne]1:1276,C.ThethreeJewishcitationswemayleaveforthemomenttooneside:inanycasetheydonotpresentuswithanabsoluteta<bibli>a,meaning“theScriptures.”ClementandOrigentakeusbacktwohundredyearsbeforeChrysostom.

InthepassagecitedfromClement-itis“Paedagog.”3:12:med.—ClementisspeakingofthegoodnessoftheInstructorinsettingforthhissalutarycommandmentsinthegreatvarietyoftheScriptures.HehadadducedourLord’sgreatsummaryoftheLaw(<402237>Matthew22:37-40)andHisinjunctiontotherichyoungman“tokeepthecommandments”;andtakinganewbeginningfromthisinjunction,heenlargesontheDecalogue.“Thesethings,”heremarks,“aretobeobserved,”—andnottheseonly,butalongwiththem,“whatsoeverelseweseeprescribedforusaswereadta<bibli>a.”Forexamplethereis<230110>Isaiah1:10,17,18,andthedeclarationofScripturethat“goodworksareanacceptableprayertotheLord”—whateverthepassagemaybewhichClementmayhavehadinmindwhenhewrotethis.Itisscarcelydisputablethatbyta<bibli>ahere,usedabsolutely,thereismeantjust“theSacredBooks,”thatistosay,“theBible.”TheimmediatelyprecedingreferenceistotheDecalogue,andtheimmediatelycontiguousonesaretotheOldTestament.Butitseemshardlypossibletocontendthatta<bibli>athereforemeanshereeithertheDecalogue,orthePentateuch,ortheOldTestament,distinctively.ItisaltogethermoreprobablethatitisequallycomprehensivewiththeaiJgrafaiofthecloselyprecedingcontext.WecannotaccordwithSophocles’opinion,then,thatta<bibli>aheremeans“theSacredBooksoftheHebrews”:itseemstoustomean“theSacredBooksoftheChristians.”

ThepassagecitedbySophoclesfromOrigenis“ContraCelsum”5:60(Ed.Koetschau,1899,2:p.63:22,23).InittheHebrewScripturesareclearlyreferredtobyta<bibli>a.ItdeclaresthatJewsandChristiansalike“confessthatta<bibli>awerewrittenbytheDivineSpirit.”Butitdoesnotfollowthatta<bibli>ameanswithOrigentheOldTestamentasdistinguishedfromtheNew,thoughKoetschauseemsinclinedtoholdthistobethefact.“TheBooksoftheHolyScriptures,”hewrites(Prolegom.1:p.32),“arewithOrigengenerallydesignated

qei~abibli>a,grafh>(grafai>)orgra>mmata;thoseoftheOldTestament,bibli>a,palaia<grafh>orpalaiagra>mmata.”Thiswouldseemtosaythattheabsoluteta<bibli>awithOrigenisthesynonymnotofhJgrafh>butofhJpalaia<grafh>,notofta<gra>mmatabutofth<palaiagra>mmata.ThereseemstobenothingintheContra“Celsum,”tobesure,whichwilldecisivelyrefutethisopinion.Therewereadof”thesacredbibli>aoftheJews”or”oftheHebrews”(Koetschau,1:304,26;305,6):of“thebibli>awhichtheprophetswroteinHebrew”(ii.208,22;cf.,1:291,12),orsimplyof“thebibli>aoftheJews”(ii.93,18);butnowhereelsethanin5:60(sofarasKoetschau’sconfessedlyincompleteindexindicates)dowemeetwithabsoluteta<bibli>ainthesenseof“TheScriptures.”f84Butwhatshallwemakeofapassagelikethefollowingfromthe‘FourteenthHomilyonJeremiah’(§12:Ed.Klostermann,1901,p.117,line4)?“‘Forthysins,then,willIgivethytreasuresforaspoil.’AndhegavethetreasuresoftheJewstous,fortheywerethefirsttobelieveta>lo>giatou~qeou~,andonlyafterthemdidwebelieve,Godhavingtakenthelo>giaawayfromthemandgiventhemtous.Andwesaythat‘thekingdomshallbetakenawayfromthembyGodandgiventoanationbringingforththefruitsthereof’hasbeensaidbytheSaviourandshallbefulfilled.NotthathJgrafh>hasbeentakenawayfromthem,butnow,thoughtheyhavetheLawandtheProphetstheydonotunderstandthemeaningthatisinthem.Fortheyhaveta<bibli>a.ButhowwasthekingdomofGodtakenfromthem?Themeaningtw~ngrafw~nwastakenfromthem,”etc.Itisworthwhiletopauseandnotetherichsynonymyof“theScriptures”here.And,notingit,wemaywellaskwhether,ifta<bibli>a,becauseitisusedherewiththeeyeontheHebrewScriptures,istobetakenasmeaningdistinctivelytheHebrewScriptures,thissameisnottruealsoofta>lo>giaandhJgrafh>andaiJgrafai.Thereisasubtleproprietyintheadjustmentofthesethreetermstotheexactplaceinwhicheachappearsintheargument.Lo>giaemphasizesthedivineoriginoftheScriptures;bibli>alooksuponthemfromthepointofviewoftheirexternalform;grafh>,oftheirsignificantcontents.Thetermscouldnotbeinterchangedwithoutsomelossofexactnessofspeech:bibli>aaccordinglystandswhereitdoesbecauseitexpressestheexternaliaoftheScriptures,setsthembeforeusas“nothingbutbooks”—somuchpaper.Butintheirgeneralconnotationthethreetermsarecoextensive,andthereisnoreasonfornarrowingta<bibli>ato

“theOldTestament”becauseitreferstotheOldTestamenthere,whichwillnotapplyaswelltota>lo>giaandtohJgrafh>,aiJgrafai.Thereispreservedforusinthe“Philocalia”(Ch.5.,ed.Robinson,1893,pp.43-48)aremarkablefragmentoftheFifthBookofOrigen’s‘CommentaryonJohn’(ed.Preuschen,1903,pp.100-105),inwhichOrigen,speakingtothetext,”Ofthemakingofmanybooksthereisnoend,”ringsthechangesonbibli>onandbibli>aandleavesastrongimpressiononthereader’smindthattohimta<bibli>awouldbeexactlysynonymouswithta<qei~abibli>a.“Butsince,”sayshe(Preuschen,p.103,12),“theproofsofthismustbedrawnfromth~vqei>avgrafh~v,itwillbemostsatisfactorilyestablishedifIamabletoshowthatitisnotinoneBookonlythatitiswrittenamongusconcerningChrist—takingta<bibli>ainitscommonsense.ForwefinditwritteninthePentateuch,”etc.Origenhere,bytellingusthatta<bibli>ahasacommonsense,tellsusalsothatithasaspecialsense,andthatinthisspecialsenseitincludesaliketheNewTestamentinwhichweshouldexpecttofindChristspokenof,andthePentateuchwherealsoHeisspokenof;inaworditistheexactsynonymofhJqei>agrafh>.f85IfwedonotquitelearnfromClementandOrigen,therefore,—asSophocleswouldhaveuslearn-that,becauseitisusedoftheSacredBooksoftheHebrews,ta<bibli>ameansdistinctivelythe“SacredBooksoftheHebrews,”wedolearnwhatZahnwouldnothaveuslearn,thatitisusedabsolutelyinthesenseof“theSacredScriptures.”Wemustnowtakenoteofthefact,however,thatZahn’sprimaryobjectwastodenynotthatta<bibli>a,absolutelyused,couldmean“theSacredBooks,”butpreciselythatitcouldmeantheSacredBooksoftheHebrews—theOldTestament.Hisprimarystatementisthatnousagecanbeadducedofta<bibli>aasadesignationdistinctivelyoftheOldTestament.HeisdiscussingthereadingofaclauseinIIClemensRomans14:Thisclausecouplestogether(intheConstantinopleMS.followedbyLightfoot)ta<bibli>akai<oiJajpo>stoloi,which,asLightfootremarks,isaroughdesignationoftheOldandNewTestaments.OnthetestimonyoftheSyriacversionZahnreadsta<bibli>atw~nprofhtw~nkai<oiJajpo>stoloi,andtostrengthenhispositionarguesthatabsoluteta<bibli>afor“theOldTestament”isunexampled.Wehavealreadyseenenoughtoprovetousthatabsoluteta<bibli>awasquitereadilyusedtodesignatetheOld

Testament—becausetheOldTestamentwaspartoftheScriptures,thatisofta<bibli>aintheirpregnantsense.Butwhetherta<bibli>awasuseddistinctivelyoftheOldTestament—whentheOldTestamentwassetoveragainsttheNew—isanotherquestion.

Thisquestionneednotwaitlong,however,forananswer.Itcannotbedoubted,anditisnotdoubted,thattheJewscalledtheirsacredwritings,bywayofeminence,“theBooks.”AsZahnveryexactlydeclaresf86theHebrewµyrpsh(MishnaMegilla1:8)certainlyunderliestheusageofaiJgrafai>,hJgrafh>inthegeneralsenseof“theBible.”Theantiquityofthisphrasemaybeestimatedfromitsoccurrencein<270902>Daniel9:2:“IDanielunderstoodby‘theBooks’…”:“thatis,”saysDriver,commentingonthepassage,“thesacredbooks,theScriptures”(cf.rpsin<194008>Psalm40:8,<232918>Isaiah29:18).TheGreekrenderingofthispassagegivesustobesureaiJbi>bloiratherthanta<bibli>a.Butalreadyin1Macc.12:9wehavethefullphraseofwhichta<bibli>aisthenaturalabbreviation—ta<bibli>ata<a[gia,whileJosephusgivesustheparallelta<iJera<bibli>a:andfromthesephrasesta<bibli>acouldnotfailtobeextracted,justasgrafai,wasextractedfromaiJa[giaigrafai,aiJiJerai<grafai,andthelike.Wemeetwithnosurprisethereforetheappearanceofta<bibli>ainIIClems.xiv,asadistinctivedesignationoftheOldTestament.Itonlyadvertisestous,whatweknewbeforehand,thattheOldTestamentwas“theBooks”beforebothOldandNewTestamentsweresubsumedunderthattitle,andthatusage,inacommunitymadeuppartlyofJews,foratimeconserved,withoutprejudicetotheequalauthorityoftheNewTestamentBooks,somelingeringreminiscenceoftheolderhabitofspeech.HoweasilytheOldTestamentmightcontinuetobecalledta<bibli>aafterthetermhadcometoincludeNewBooksaswell,maybeillustratedbyatendencywhichisobservableintheearlierEnglishusageoftheword“Bible”(persistingevenyetdialectically)toemployitoftheOldTestamentdistinctively—asinthephrase“TheBibleandtheTestament,”—not,ofcourse,withanyimplicationofinferiorityfortheNewTestamentbooks.f87HowlongsuchatendencytothinkoftheOldTestamentespeciallywhenthetermta<bibli>awasheardcontinuedtomanifestitselfintheearlychurch,itwouldrequireadelicateinvestigationtodetermine.Itisenoughforthemomenttonotethat2Clems.xiv

witnessestothepresenceofsuchatendencyinthefirstage,whilesuchphrasesasmeetusinMelitoofSardisf88—ta<palaia<bibli>a,ta<th~vpalaia~vdiaqh>khvbibli>a—warnusthatthenewconditionsoftheNewCovenantwithitsNewBookswerealreadyrequiringadistinction,amongtheta<bibli>abywayofeminence,betweentheNewandtheOldBookswhichmadeupthewhole.Ta<bibli>ainawordtoJewandChristianalikemeantjust“theHolyBooks,”“theBooks”bywayofeminence,bythesideofwhichcouldstandnoothers;andthoughearandlipneededaspacetoadjustthemselvestotheincreasedcontentofthephrasewhenChristianitycamebringingwithititscontributiontotheunitarycollection,yettheadjustmentwasquicklymadeandifthememoryoftheearlierusagepersistedforawhile,ta<bibli>ainChristiancirclesmeantfromthebeginninginprinciplethewholebodyofSacredBooksandrapidlycametomeaninpracticenothingless.

WecannotagreewithZahn,then,thattheusageofta<bibli>aintheearlychurchprovidesnobasisuponwhichthedevelopmentofourterm“Bible”couldhavetakenplace.Butwhenwecometotakethenextstepinthedevelopmentofthatterm,weareconstrainedtoassenttoNestle’sdeclarationthatnobodyknowshowtheterm“Bible”founditswayintotheEuropeanlanguages.TheLatinsdidnottakeovertheGreekwordbibli>a,oritscognatebib>bloi,todesignatetheBiblicalbooks.TheyhadintheirownLiberatermwhich-hadalreadyacquiredapregnantsense“inreligionandpubliclaw”—asexpressing“areligiousbook,Scripture,astatutebook,codex”f89;andwhichthereforereadilylentitselftoemploymentastherepresentativeofthepregnantGreektermswhichittranslates,thoughitscarcelyseemstohaveattainedsoabsoluteause.AccordinglywefindinuseintheearlychurchsidebysidewithsuchGreekphrasesasta<bibli>ath~vpalaia~v,th~vkainh~vdiaqh>khv,theLatinphrases,Libriveteris,novitestamenti,(fæderis):f90andoveragainsttheGreekbibli>akanonok>a,theLatinlibriregulares,orasRufinusputsit,libriintercanonemconclusi.f91JeromegavecurrencytotheveryappropriatetermBibliothecaasthedesignationofthecorpusoftheSacredBooks;andthistermbecamelaterthetechnicaltermperhapsmostfrequentlyemployed,sothatMartianaeusinhis“ProlegomenaindivinambibliothecamHieron.”1:§1,f92speakingdenomineeBibliothecaeDivinæ,canveryfairlysay,”amongtheancients,thesacred

volumewhichwe,atthepresenttime,callBiblia,obtainedthenameofBibliothecaDivina.”f93Thereisnotraceofsuchawordas“Biblia”inPatristicLatin,andnosuchwordisenteredintheLatinLexicons,—noteveninthegreatLatin“Thesaurus”nowpublishingbytheGermanUniversities.WeshallhavetocometoDuCange’s“Gloss.Med.etInf.Latinitatis”todiscoverit.AndwhenwediscoveritwearetoldverylittleaboutitexceptofitsexistenceintheLatinoftheearlymiddleages,andshortlyafterwardsinthevernacularsoftheWest.

ThereseemstobenoseriousinherentdifficultyinconceivingthepassageofaGreekneuterpluralintoLatinasafemininesingular.Thethingappearsnottobeunexampled,andsomighthavehappenedtobibli>a.Whatwelackisclearevidencethatbibli>adidpassinto“Biblia,”andexactinformationofthestagesandprocessesbywhichthefeatwasaccomplished.AndthedifficultyoftheproblemisvastlyincreasedbythecircumstancesthatthetimewhenthetransferenceissupposedtohavetakenplacewasnotatimewhentherewasrichintercoursebetweentheEastandtheWest,inwhichborrowingoftermswouldhavebeeneasyandnatural;andthattherewasnoobviousneeduponthepartoftheWestforsuchaterm,whichwouldrenderitsborrowingofitnatural.YetthetermissupposedtohavebeentakenoverwithsuchcompletenessandheartinessastohavebecometheparentofthecommonnomenclatureoftheScripturesinalltheWesternlanguages.f94Thedifficultiesraisedbytheseconsiderationsaresogreatthatonefindshimselfquestioningwhethertheoriginoftheterm“Biblia”inMediaevalLatinandofitsdescendantsintheWesternlanguagescanbeaccountedforafterthefashionsuggested,andwhethersomeotherconjecturalexplanationoftheiroriginmightnotwiselybesoughtfor—as,forexample,acontractionofthecommonlycurrentterm“bibliotheca.”f95asSomecolormightbelenttosuchaconjecturebythefactthat“Biblia”anditsdescendantsseemtohavebeenfromthefirstinusenotmerelyinanecclesiasticalbutalsoinacommonsense—asdesignations,thatis,notmerelyoftheScripturesbutofanylargebook.f96Appealmightbemadealsototheeasewithwhichthetwoterms‘Biblia’and‘Bibliotheca’tookonetheother’splacedownatleasttothefifteenthcentury.f97Whatweneed,however,isnotconjecturesbutaseriesofascertainedfacts,andtheseareatthemomentatourdisposalinveryinsufficientmeasure.

DuCangecantellusonlythattheword“Biblia”occursinthe“ImitatioChristi”I1:3,f98andinthe“DiariumBelliHussitici,”addingaquotationfromaChronicle,attheyear1228,totheeffectthat“Stephen,archibishopofCanterbury…madepostilssupertotamBibliam.”TothisDiefenbachinthe“Glossarium,”whichhepublished(1857)asasupplementtoDuCange,merelyaddsanintimationthatcertainfifteenthcenturyglossariescontain“Biblia”inthesenseofa“largebook,”f99asalso“Biblie”and“Bibel”(German).Beckerinhis“CatalogiBibliothecarumAntiqui”isabletociteearlierexamplesof“Biblia”fromoldcataloguesoflibraries.Theearliest—fromtheninthcentury—comesfromthecatalogueofanunknownFrenchlibrary;nextinagearetwotwelfthcenturyexamples-onefromMonteCassiroandtheotherfromStederburginBrunswick.TheEnglishLatincataloguesinwhichhefindsitbeginwithoneofthebooksatDurham,datingfrom1266,f100andbythattimethewordwasalreadyinuseinEnglish,f101andofcourseinFrench,f102sincetheEnglishusagerestsontheFrench.HowearlyitappearsinthemodernEuropeanlanguageswelackdatatoinformus.TheGermanexampleswhichDiefenbachquotesarefromthefifteenthcenturyandthosewhichHeynegivesfromthesixteenth,f103whileGrimmcitesnoneearlierthantheseventeenth.ButiftheLow-German“Fibel”isreallyaderivativeof“Bibel,”thecommonuseof“Bibel”musthaveantedatedthefifteenthcentury.f104LittrégivesnoFrenchexampleearlierthanJoinville,whowroteatthebeginningofthefourteenthcentury(1309).ItsFrenchusagemustgowellbackofthis,however,foraswehaveseenithadcomefromFrenchintoMiddleEnglishbythatdate.ThenameinordinaryusethroughouttheMiddleAgesforwhatwecallthe“Bible”was“Bibliotheca,”andweaccordinglyfindthatinOldEnglish(Anglo-Saxon)“bibliothéce”aloneoccursinthissense.f105Fromthefourteenthcenturyon,however,“Bible”takestheplaceof“Bibliothéce.”Chaucerusesitfreelyinboththeecclesiasticalandcommonsenses.f106Purveyusesitasawordwell-knownincommoncurrency,referringnaturallyto“theBiblelatetranslated,”andtothat“simplecreature”(ashecalledhimself)“whohathtranslatedtheBibleoutoftheLatinintotheEnglish.”TherapiditywithwhichthetermenteredintogeneralusagemaybedivinedfromtheexamplesgivenbyRichardsonandMurray.

Theselexicographersrecordnoexample,however,oftheoccurrenceofthecompoundterm,“TheHolyBible.”ItseemsthatthiscombinationwassomewhatlateinestablishingitselfasthestateddesignationofthesacredbookinEnglish.Itfirstfindsaplaceonthetitle-pageofanEnglishBibleintheso-called“Bishops’Bible,”theearliestissueofwhichdatesfrom1568:“The.holie.Bible.|conteynyngtheolde|Testamentandthenewe.”|f107It,ofcourse,continuesonthetitle-pagesofthenumeroussubsequentissuesofthisedition,f108butitdoesnototherwiseoccuronthetitle-pageofEnglishBiblesuntiltheappearanceoftheDouaiOldTestamentof1610:“The|HolieBible|…”TheRheimstranslators,intheprefaceoftheirNewTestament,publishedin1582,hadindeedspokenof“theholyBible”as“longsincetranslatedbyusintoEnglish,andtheOldTestamentlyingbyusforlackeofgoodemeanestopublishthewholeinsuchsortasaworkeofsogreatchargeandimportancerequireth”;fromwhichwemaylearnthat,thoughthevolumeof1610containsonlytheOldTestament,theterm“TheHolieBible”uponitstitleisnottobeconfinedtotheOldTestament,assometimesthephrasewasconfinedinitsOldEnglishuse.f109Theadoptionoftheterm“TheHolyBible”forthetitle-pageofKingJames’versionof1611:“The|HolyBible,|conteyningtheOldTestament,|andtheNew|,”finallyfixeditasthetechnicaldesignationofthebookinEnglish.

ItisnaturaltoassumethatthecurrenttitleoftheVulgateLatinBiblewithwhichwearefamiliar—“BibliaSacra”—laybehindthisEnglishdevelopment;butitwouldbeamistaketosupposethatthiswasbyanymeanstheconstantdesignationoftheLatinBibleintheearliercenturiesofitsprinting.AhastyglanceoverthelistsofeditionsrecordedinMasch’sLeLong(iii.)indeedleavestheimpressionthatitwasonlyafterthepublicationofthe“authorized”Romaneditionof1590,“BibliaSacraVulgataeEditionis,”thatthisdesignationfinallyestablisheditselfasregular;thoughitwas,ofcourse,frequentlyemployedbeforethat.TheoriginaleditionofJohnFustandPeterSchoefferindeedisdescribedbyLeLong(p.98)as“BibliaSacraLatinajuxtaVulgatameditionemIIvol.infolio.”AndthetitleofthegreatComplutensianPolyglot(1514-1517)isgivenas“BibliaSacra.”f110Butthesearenottheactualtitlesofthesebooks,andit

isnotuntilneartheopeningofthesecondquarterofthesixteenthcenturythat“BibliaSacra”beginstoappearonthetitle-pagesoftheLatinBibleswhichwerepouringfromthepress.f111Osiander’sedition(Norimbergae,1522)hasit:“BibliasacrautriusqueTestamenti,”(p.309),andofcoursetransmittedittoitsreprints(1523,1527,1529,1530,1543,1559,1564);Knoblauch’scontemporaryedition,ontheotherhand,(Argentorati,1522)hasrather:“BibliasacraescripturaeVeterisomnia”(p.314).f112AmongCatholiceditions,oneprintedatColognein1527:“BibliasacrautriusqueTestamenti”(p.178),seemstobetheearliestrecordedbyLeLong,whichhasthisdesignation.Itseemstohavebeen,however,aPariseditionofthenextyear(1528):“Bibliasacra:integrumutriusquetestamenticorpuscompletens,”(repeatedin1534,1543,1548,1549,1550,1551,1552,1560)whichsetthefashionofit.Somewhatequivalentformsappearbyitsside,suchas:”BibliaBibliorumopussacrosanctum”(Lugduni,1532),“BibliesacreTextus”(Lugduni,1531),andespecially“BibliaSacrosancta”(Lugduni,1532,1535,1536,1544,1546,1556,1562:Basiliae1547,1551,1557,1562,1569,1578).Butnoneofthesebecamefixedasthetechnicaldesignationofthevolume,asBibliaSacratendedtobecomefromtheopeningofthesecondquarterofthesixteenthcentury,andendedbyfairlybecomingbeforethatcenturyclosed.

TheRomancelanguagesseemtohavefollowedthisgrowingLatincustominthedesignationoftheirBibles,althoughexamplesofthesimplenomenclaturepersist(e.g.,LaBiblequiestroutelasainteescriture,Geneva,1562,1622,1638,1657,etc.).AmongtheTeutonicraces,otherthantheEnglish,however,ithasbeenslowerintakingroot.GermanBiblesstillcallthemselves“Biblia,dasist:diegantzeHeiligeSchrift,”orinmoremodernform,“DieBibel,oderdieganzeHeiligeSchrift,”andDutchBiblessimiliarly,“Biblia,datisdegantscheH.Schrifture,”ormoremodernly,“Bijbel,datisdeganscheHeiligeSchrift.”Doubtless“dieheiligeBibel”or“deheiligeBybel”—thoughnotunexampled,—wouldseemsomewhatharshandunusualtoTeutonicears.Strangetosaytheywouldtakemorekindlyapparentlytosuchaphraseas“DasheiligeBibelbuch.”Ourcommonphrase,“TheHolyBible,”thusrevealsitselfasprobablyasixteenthcenturyusage,whichhasnotyetbeenmadethecommon

propertyoftheChristianworld.Initssubstantive,itrestsonanasyetinsufficientlyexplainedmediaevalusage,notyettracedfurtherbackthantheninthcentury.ThisusageinturniscommonlyassignedforitsorigintoaborrowingfromtheGreekchurchesoftheircustomaryuseofta<bibli>atodesignatetheScriptures.BehindthisliesaJewishmannerofspeech.Thisappearstobeallthatcanasyetbeaffirmedoftheoriginofourcommonterm:”TheHolyBible.”

TheRealProblemOfInspiration

Agreatdealisbeingsaidoflateof"thepresentproblemofinspiration,"withageneralimplicationthattheChristiandoctrineoftheplenaryinspirationoftheScriptureshasbeenbroughtintostraitsbymoderninvestigation,andneedsnowtoadaptitselftocertainassuredbutdamagingresultsofthescientificstudyoftheBible.Thus,becauseofanassumed"presentdistress,"CanonCheyne,inapaperreadattheEnglishChurchCongressof1888,commendedamostrevolutionarybookofMr.R.F.Horton's,called"InspirationandtheBible,"2whichexplainsawayinspirationproperlysocalledaltogether,asthebestbookhecouldthinkofonthesubject.AndMr.CharlesGoredefendstheconcessivemethodoftreatingthesubjectofinspirationadoptedin"LuxMundi,"bythepleathatthepurposeofthewritersofthatvolume"was'tosuccouradistressedfaith,'byendeavoringtobringtheChristiancreedintoitsrightrelationtothemoderngrowthofknowledge,scientific,historical,critical."3Onoursideofthewater,Dr.WashingtonGladdenhaspublishedavolumewhichbeginsbypresentingcertain"new"viewsofthestructureofthebooksoftheBibleasestablishedfacts,andproceedstotheconclusionthat:"Evidentlyneitherthetheoryofverbalinspirationnorthetheoryofplenaryinspirationcanbemadetofitthefactswhichacarefulstudyofthewritingsthemselvesbringsbeforeus.Thesewritingsarenotinspiredinthesensewhichwehavecommonlygiventothatword."AccordinglyherecommendsthatunderthepressureofthesenewviewsweadmitnotonlythattheBibleisnot"infallible,"butthatitslawsare"inadequate"and"morallydefective,"anditsuntrustworthinessasareligiousteacherissogreatthatitgivesusinplaces"blurredanddistortedideasaboutGodandHistruth.”4AndProf.JosephH.Thayerhaspublishedalecturewhichrepresentsasnecessitatedbythefactsasnowknown,suchachangeofattitudetowardstheBibleaswillrejectthewholeReformeddoctrineoftheScripturesinfavorofa

more"Catholic"viewwhichwilllookuponsomeofthehistoryrecordedintheBibleasonly"fairlytrustworthy,"andwillexpectnointelligentreadertoconsidertheexegesisoftheNewTestamentwriterssatisfactory.5AradicalchangeinourconceptionoftheScripturesastheinspiredWordofGodisthuspresseduponusasnownecessarybyaconsiderablenumberofwriters,representingquiteavarietyofschoolsofChristianthought.

Neverthelessthesituationisnotonewhichcanbefairlydescribedasputtingtheolddoctrineofinspirationinjeopardy.Theexactstateofthecaseisratherthis:thataspecialschoolofOldTestamentcriticism,whichhas,forsomeyears,beengainingsomewhatwidespreadacceptanceofitsresults,hasbeguntoproclaimthattheseresultshavingbeenaccepted,a"changedviewoftheBible"followswhichimpliesareconstructeddoctrineofinspiration,and,indeed,alsoawholenewtheology.ThatthischangedviewoftheBibleinvolveslossesisfranklyadmitted.ThenatureoftheselossesisstatedbyDr.Sandayinaveryinterestinglittlebook6withanevidentefforttoavoidasfaraspossible"makingsadtheheartoftherighteouswhomtheLordhathnotmadesad,"asconsistingchieflyinmaking"theintellectualsideoftheconnectionbetweenChristianbeliefandChristianpracticeamatterofgreaterdifficultythanithashithertoseemedtobe,"inrenderingit"lesseasytofindprooftextsforthisorthat,"andinmakingtheuseoftheBiblesomuchlesssimpleandlessdefiniteinitsdetailsthat"lesseducatedChristianswillperhapspaymoredeferencetotheopinionofthemoreeducated,andtotheadvancingconsciousnessoftheChurchatlarge."Ifthismeansallthatitseemstomean,itsproclamationofanindefiniteGospelekedoutbyanappealtotheChurchandascholastichierarchy,involvesamuchgreaterlossthanDr.Sandayappearstothink-alossnotmerelyoftheProtestantdoctrineoftheperspicuityoftheScriptures,butwithitofallthatthatdoctrineismeanttoexpressandsafeguard-thelossoftheBibleitselftotheplainChristianmanforallpracticaluses,andthedeliveryofhisconscienceovertothetendermerciesofhishumaninstructors,whetherecclesiasticalorscholastic.Dr.Briggsismorebluntandmoreexplicitinhisdescriptionofthechangeswhichhethinkshavebeenwrought."Iwilltellyouwhatcriticismhasdestroyed,"hesaysinanarticlepublishedacoupleofyearsago."IthasdestroyedmanyfalsetheoriesabouttheBible;ithasdestroyedthedoctrineofverbalinspiration;ithasdestroyedthetheoryofinerrancy;ithasdestroyedthefalsedoctrinethatmakestheinspirationdependuponitsattachmenttoaholyman."7Andhegoesontoremarkfurther"thatBiblicalcriticismisatthebottom"ofthe"reconstructionthatisgoingonthroughouttheChurch"-"thedemandforrevisionofcreedsandchangeinmethodsofworshipandChristianwork."Itisclearenough,then,that

aproblemhasbeenraisedwithreferencetoinspirationbythistypeofcriticism.Butthisisnotequivalenttosayingthattheestablisheddoctrineofinspirationhasbeenputinjeopardy.Forthereiscriticismandcriticism.Andthoughitmaynotbeunnaturalforthesescholarsthemselvestoconfoundtheclaimsofcriticismwiththevalidityoftheirowncriticalmethodsandthesoundnessoftheirowncriticalconclusions,theChristianworldcanscarcelybeexpectedtoacquiesceintheidentification.Ithasallalongbeenpointingoutthattheyweretravelingonthewrongroad;andnowwhentheirconclusionsclashwithwell-establishedfacts,wesimplynotethatthewrongroadhasnotunnaturallyledthemtothewronggoal.Inaword,itisnottheestablisheddoctrineofinspirationthatisbroughtintodistressbytheconflict,buttheschoolofOldTestamentcriticismwhichisatpresentfashionable.ItisnowadmittedthattheinevitableissueofthistypeofcriticismcomesintocollisionwiththeestablishedfactoftheplenaryinspirationoftheBibleandthewell-groundedReformeddoctrineofHolyScripturebasedonthisfact.8Thecryistherefore,andsomewhatimpatiently,raisedthatthisfactandthisdoctrinemust"getoutoftheway,"andpermitcriticismtorushontoitsbittergoal.Butfactsaresomewhatstubbornthings,andaresometimesfoundtoproveratherthetestoftheorieswhichseektomakethemtheirsport.

Nevertheless,thoughthestrainofthepresentproblemshouldthusbethrownupontheshoulderstowhichitbelongs,itisimportanttokeepourselvesremindedthatthedoctrineofinspirationwhichhasbecomeestablishedintheChurch,isopentoalllegitimatecriticism,andistocontinuetobeheldonlyas,andsofaras,itiseveranewcriticallytestedandapproved.AndinviewofthelargebodiesofrealknowledgeconcerningtheBiblewhichthelaborsofagenerationofdiligentcriticalstudyhaveaccumulated,andofthedifficultywhichisalwaysexperiencedintheassimilationofnewknowledgeanditscorrelationwithpreviouslyascertainedtruth,itisbecomingtotakethisoccasiontoremindourselvesofthefoundationsonwhichthisdoctrinerests,withaviewtoinquiringwhetheritisreallyendangeredbyanyassuredresultsofrecentBiblicalstudy.Forsuchaninvestigationwemuststart,ofcourse,fromaclearconceptionofwhattheChurchdoctrineofinspirationis,andofthebasisonwhichitisheldtobethetruthofGod.Onlythuscanwebeinapositiontojudgehowitcanbeaffectedoncriticalgrounds,andwhethermodernBiblicalcriticismhasreachedanyassuredresultswhichmustormay"destroy"it.

TheChurch,then,hasheldfromthebeginningthattheBibleistheWordofGodinsuchasensethatitswords,thoughwrittenbymenandbearingindelibly

impresseduponthemthemarksoftheirhumanorigin,werewritten,nevertheless,undersuchaninfluenceoftheHolyGhostastobealsothewordsofGod,theadequateexpressionofHismindandwill.Ithasalwaysrecognizedthatthisconceptionofco-authorshipimpliesthattheSpirit'ssuperintendenceextendstothechoiceofthewordsbythehumanauthors(verbalinspiration9),andpreservesitsproductfromeverythinginconsistentwithadivineauthorship-thussecuring,amongotherthings,thatentiretruthfulnesswhichiseverywherepresupposedinandassertedforScripturebytheBiblicalwriters(inerrancy).Whateverminorvariationsmaynowandagainhaveenteredintothemodeofstatement,thishasalwaysbeenthecoreoftheChurchdoctrineofinspiration.Andalongwithmanyothermodesofcommendinganddefendingit,theprimarygroundonwhichithasbeenheldbytheChurchasthetruedoctrineisthatitisthedoctrineoftheBiblicalwritersthemselves,andhasthereforethewholemassofevidenceforitwhichgoestoshowthattheBiblicalwritersaretrustworthyasdoctrinalguides.ItisthetestimonyoftheBibleitselftoitsownoriginandcharacterastheOraclesoftheMostHigh,thathasledtheChurchtoheracceptanceofitassuch,andtoherdependenceonitnotonlyforherdoctrineofScripture,butforthewholebodyofherdoctrinalteaching,whichislookeduponbyherasdivinebecausedrawnfromthisdivinelygivenfountainoftruth.

Nowifthisdoctrineistobeassailedoncriticalgrounds,itisveryclearthat,firstofall,criticismmustberequiredtoproceedagainsttheevidenceonwhichitisbased.Thisevidence,itisobvious,istwofold.First,thereistheexegeticalevidencethatthedoctrineheldandtaughtbytheChurchisthedoctrineheldandtaughtbytheBiblicalwritersthemselves.Andsecondly,thereisthewholemassofevidence-internalandexternal,objectiveandsubjective,historicalandphilosophical,humananddivine-whichgoestoshowthattheBiblicalwritersaretrustworthyasdoctrinalguides.Iftheyaretrustworthyteachersofdoctrineandiftheyheldandtaughtthisdoctrine,thenthisdoctrineistrue,andistobeacceptedandacteduponastruebyusall.Inthatcase,anyobjectionsbroughtagainstthedoctrinefromotherspheresofinquiryareinoperative;itbeingasettledlogicalprinciplethatsolongastheproperevidencebywhichapropositionisestablishedremainsunrefuted,allso-calledobjectionsbroughtagainstitpassoutofthecategoryofobjectionstoitstruthintothecategoryofdifficultiestobeadjustedtoit.Ifcriticismistoassailthisdoctrine,therefore,itmustproceedagainstandfairlyovercomeoneortheotherelementofitsproperproof.ItmusteithershowthatthisdoctrineisnotthedoctrineoftheBiblicalwriters,orelseitmustshowthattheBiblicalwritersarenottrustworthyasdoctrinalguides.Ifafaircriticismevincesthatthisisnotthedoctrineofthe

Biblicalwriters,thenofcourseithas"destroyed"thedoctrinewhichisconfessedlybasedonthatsupposition.Failinginthis,however,itcan"destroy"thedoctrine,strictlyspeaking,onlybyunderminingitsfoundationinourconfidenceinthetrustworthinessofScriptureasawitnesstodoctrine.Thepossibilityofthislatteralternativemust,nodoubt,befirmlyfacedinourinvestigationofthephenomenaoftheBible;buttheweightoftheevidence,beitsmallorgreat,forthegeneraltrustworthinessoftheBibleasasourceofdoctrine,throwsitself,intheformofapresumption,againsttherealityofanyphenomenaallegedtobediscoveredwhichmakeagainstitstestimony.Nodoubtthispresumptionmaybeovercomebycleardemonstration.Butcleardemonstrationisrequisite.For,certainly,ifitiscriticallyestablishedthatwhatissometimescalled,notwithoutatouchofscorn,"thetraditionaldoctrine,"isjusttheBible'sowndoctrineofinspiration,therealconflictisnolongerwith"thetraditionaltheoryofinspiration,"butwiththecredibilityoftheBible.ThereallydecisivequestionamongChristianscholars(amongwhomalone,itwouldseem,couldaquestionofinspirationbeprofitablydiscussed),isthusseentobe,"WhatdoesanexactandscientificexegesisdeterminetobetheBiblicaldoctrineofinspiration?"

TheBiblicalDoctrineOfInspirationClear

Thereplytothisquestionis,however,scarcelyopentodoubt.Thestricterandthemorescientifictheexaminationismade,themorecertaindoesitbecomethattheauthorsoftheNewTestamentheldadoctrineofinspirationquiteashighastheChurchdoctrine.Thismaybesaid,indeed,tobegenerallyadmittedbyuntrammeledcritics,whetherofpositiveorofnegativetendencies.Thus,forinstance-toconfineourexamplestoafewofthosewhoarenotablepersonallytoacceptthedoctrineoftheNewTestamentwriters-ArchdeaconFarrarisabletoadmitthatPaul"shared,doubtless,intheviewsofthelaterJewishschools-theTanaimandAmoraim-onthenatureofinspiration.Theseviews...madethewordsofScripturecoextensiveandidenticalwiththewordsofGod."10SoalsoOttoPfleidererallowsthatPaul"fullysharedtheassumptionofhisopponents,theirrefragableauthorityoftheletterastheimmediatelyrevealedWordofGod."11Similarly,TholuckrecognizesthattheapplicationoftheOldTestamentmadebytheauthoroftheEpistletotheHebrews,"restsonthestrictestviewofinspiration,sincepassageswhereGodisnotthespeakerare

citedaswordsofGodoroftheHolyGhost(i.6,7,8,iv.4,7,vii.21,iii.7,x.15)."12ThisfactisworkedoutalsowithconvincingclearnessbythewriterofanoddandsufficientlyfreeScotchbookpublishedafewyearsago,13whoformulateshisconclusioninthewords:"ThereisnodoubtthattheauthorofHebrews,incommonwiththeotherNewTestamentwriters,regardsthewholeOldTestamentashavingbeendictatedbytheHolyGhost,or,asweshouldsay,plenarily,and,asitwere,mechanicallyinspired."AndmorerecentlystillProf.Stapfer,ofParis,14thoughhimselfdenyingtherealitynotonlyofaninfallibilityfortheBible,butalsoofanyinspirationforitatall,declaringthat"thedoctrineofanInspirationdistinctfromRevelationandlegitimatingit,isanerror"-yetcannotdenythatPaulheldadifferentdoctrine-adoctrinewhichmadetheOldTestamenttohimthedivineWordandtheterm,"Itiswritten,"equivalentto"Godsays."15

Adetailedstatementoftheevidenceisscarcelyneededtosupportapositionallowedbysuchgeneralconsent.Butitwillnotbeimpropertoadjoinabriefoutlineofthegroundsonwhichthegeneralconsentrests.Inthecircumstances,however,wemayventuretodispensewithanargumentdrawnupfromourownpointofview,16andcontentourselveswithanextractfromthebriefstatementofthegroundsofhisdecisiongivenbyanotherofthosecriticalscholarswhodonotbelievethedoctrineofplenaryinspiration,butyetfindthemselvesconstrainedtoallowthatitisthedoctrineoftheNewTestamentwriters.RichardRothe17seeks,wrongly,toseparateChrist'sdoctrineoftheOldTestamentfromthatoftheapostles;ourLordobviouslyspokeoftheScripturesofHispeopleoutofthesamefundamentalconceptionoftheirnatureanddivinityasHisapostles.Buthemoresatisfactorilyoutlinesthedoctrineoftheapostlesasfollows:

"WefindintheNewTestamentauthorsthesametheoreticalviewoftheOldTestamentandthesamepracticeastoitsuse,asamongtheJewsofthetimeingeneral,althoughatthesametimeinthehandlingofthesameconceptionsandprinciplesonbothsides,thewholedifferencebetweenthenewChristianspiritandthatofcontemporaryJudaismappearsinsharpdistinctness.OurauthorslookuponthewordsoftheOldTestamentasimmediatewordsofGod,andadducethemexpresslyassuch,eventhoseofthemwhicharenotatallrelatedasdirectsayingsofGod.TheyseenothingatallinthesacredvolumewhichissimplythewordofitshumanauthorandnotatthesametimetheveryWordofGodHimself.Inallthatstands'written'GodHimselfspeakstothem,andsoentirelyaretheyhabituatedtothinkonlyofthisthattheyreceivethesacredWordwrittenitself,assuch,asGod'sWord,andhearGodspeakinginit

immediately,withoutanythoughtofthehumanpersonswhoappearinitasspeakingandacting.ThehistaricalconceptionoftheirBibleisaltogetherforeigntothem.Thereforetheycitetheabstracth`grafh,orai`grafai,orgrafai.a`gi,ai(Rom.1.2),oragainta.i`era.gra,mmata(2Tim.iii.15),withoutnaminganyspecialauthor,asself-evidentlyGod'sWord,e.g.,Johnvii.38,x.35,xix.36,37,xx.9;Actsi.16;Jamesii.8;Rom.ix.17;Gal.iii.8,22,iv.30;1Pet.ii.6;2Pet.i.20,etc.;andintroduceOldTestamentcitationswiththeformulas,nowthatGod(Matt.i.22,ii.15;Actsiv.25,xiii.34;Rom.i.2),nowthattheHolySpirit(Actsi.16,xxviii.25;Heb.iii.7,ix.8,x.15;cf.alsoActsiv.25;1Pet.i.11;2Pet.i.20)sospeaksorhasspoken.TheEpistletotheHebrewsunhesitatinglyadduceswithao`qeo.jle,geiandthelike,evenpassagesinwhichGodisspokenofexpresslyinthethirdperson(i.6,7,8seq.,iv.4,7,vii.21,x.30),andeven(i.10)citesapassageinwhichintheOldTestamenttextGodHimself(accordingtotheviewoftheauthoritis,however,theSonofGod)isaddressed,asawordspokenbyGod.In2Tim.iii.16thei`era.gra,mmata(verse15)areexpresslycalledqeo,pneusta,howeverthesentencemaybeconstruedorexpounded;andhoweverlittleaspecialtheoryoftheinspirationoftheBiblecanbedrawnfromanexpressionofsuchbreadthofmeaning,neverthelessthisdatumavailstoprovethattheauthorsharedingeneraltheviewofhisJewishcontemporariesastothepeculiarcharacteroftheOldTestamentbooks,anditisofespecialimportanceinasmuchasitattributestheinspiration,withouttheleastambiguity,directlytothewritingsthemselves,andnotmerelytotheirauthors,theprophets.Nodoubt,intheteachingoftheapostlestheconceptionofpropheticinspirationtowhichitcausallyattributestheOldTestament,hasnotyetthesharpexactnessofourecclesiasticaldogmaticconception;butitstands,nevertheless,inaveryexpressanalogywithit....Moreover,itmustbeallowedthattheapostolicalwriters,althoughtheynowheresayitexpressly,referthepropheticinspirationalsototheactusscribendioftheBiblicalauthors.ThewholestyleandmethodoftheirtreatmentoftheOldTestamenttextmanifestlypresupposesinthemthisviewofthismatter,whichwasatthetimetheusualoneintheJewishschools.WithPaulparticularlythisiswhollyincontrovertiblythecase.Foronlyonthatviewcouldhe,insuchpassagesasRom.iv.23,24,xv.4;1Cor.ix.10,x.11-inwhichhedistinguishesbetweentheoccurrenceoftheOldTestamentfactsandtherecordingofthem-maintainofthelatterthatitwasdonewithexpressteleologicalreferencetotheneedsoftheNewTestamentbelievers,atleastsofarastheselectionofthemattertobedescribedisconcerned;andonlyonthatviewcouldheargueonthedetailsoftheletteroftheOldTestamentScriptures,ashedoesinGal.iii.15,16.Wecan,moreover,tracethecontinuanceofthisviewintheoldestpost-apostolicalChurch....SofarastheOldTestamentisconcerned,

ourecclesiastical-dogmaticdoctrineofinspirationcan,therefore,inveryfact,appealtotheauthority,notindeedoftheRedeemerHimself-forHestandsinanentirelyneutralattitudetowardsit-butnodoubtoftheapostles."

AkeencontroversialistlikeRothedoesnotfail,ofcourse-asthereaderhasnodoubtobserved-toaccompanyhisexpositionoftheapostolicdoctrinewithmanyturnsofexpressiondesignedtolessenitsauthorityintheeyesofthereader,andtopreparethewayforhisownrefusaltobeboundbyit;butneitherdoeshefailtomakeitclearthatthisdoctrine,althoughitisunacceptabletohim,istheapostles'doctrine.Theapostles'doctrine,letitbeobservedthatwesay.ForevensobaldastatementasRothe'swillsufficetouncoverthefallacyoftheassertion,whichissooftenmade,thatthedoctrineofverbalinspirationisbasedonafewisolatedstatementsofScripturetotheneglect,ifnottotheoutrage,ofitsphenomena-aformofremarkintowhichevensosoberawriterasDr.W.G.Blaikiehaslatelypermittedhimselftofall.18Nothing,obviously,couldbemoreoppositetothefact.ThedoctrineofverbalinspirationisbasedonthebroadfoundationofthecarefullyascertaineddoctrineoftheScripturewritersonthesubject.ItisaproductofBiblicalTheology.Andifmenwillreallyask,not,"Whatdothecreedsteach?Whatdothetheologianssay?WhatistheauthorityoftheChurch?but,WhatdoestheBibleitselfteachus?"and"fencingofffromtheScripturesallthespeculations,allthedogmaticelaborations,allthedoctrinaladaptationsthathavebeenmadeinthehistoryofdoctrineintheChurch,""limitthemselvesstrictlytothetheologyoftheBibleitself"-accordingtotheexcellentprogrammeoutlinedbyDr.Briggs19-itistothedoctrineofverbalinspiration,aswehaveseen,thattheymustcome.ItisnotBiblicalcriticismthathas"destroyed"verbalinspiration,butDr.Briggs'scholastictheoriesthathavedrawnhimawayinthismatterfromthepuredeliverancesofBiblicalTheology.20

Muchmore,ofcourse,doessuchastatementasevenRothe'suncovertheevendeepererroroftheassertionlatterlybecomingmuchtoocommon,that,thedoctrineofverbalinspiration,asarecentwriterputsit,21"isbasedwhollyuponanaprioriassumptionofwhatinspirationmustbe,andnotupontheBibleasitactuallyexists."Itisbasedwhollyuponanexegeticalfact.ItisbasedontheexegeticalfactthatourLordandHisapostlesheldthisdoctrineofScripture,andeverywheredealwiththeScripturesoftheOldTestamentinaccordancewithit,astheveryWordofGod,evenintheirnarrativeparts.Thisisacommonplaceofexegeticalscience,thecommonpossessionofthecriticalschoolsoftheleftandoftheright,aprominentandunmistakabledeliveranceofBiblicalTheology.

Andontheestablishmentofitassuch,therealissueisbroughtoutplainlyandstringently.Ifcriticismhasmadesuchdiscoveriesastonecessitatetheabandonmentofthedoctrineofplenaryinspiration,itisnotenoughtosaythatwearecompelledtoabandononlya"particulartheoryofinspiration,"thoughthatistrueenough.Wemustgoontosaythatthat"particulartheoryofinspiration"isthetheoryoftheapostlesandoftheLord,andthatinabandoningitweareabandoningthemasourdoctrinalteachersandguides,asour"exegetes,"inthedeepandrichsenseofthatwordwhichDr.Vincentvindicatesforit.22Thisrealissueistobekeptclearlybeforeus,andfacedcourageously.Nothingisgainedbyclosingoureyestotheseriousnessoftheproblemwhichweareconfronting.Statedplainlyitisjustthis:AretheNewTestamentwriterstrustworthyguidesindoctrine?Orareweatlibertytorejecttheirauthority,andframecontrarydoctrinesforourselves?Ifthelatterpathwaybetaken,certainlythedoctrineofplenaryinspirationisnottheonlydoctrinethatis"destroyed,"andthelaborofrevisingourcreedsmayaswellbesavedandtheshorterprocessadoptedofsimplythrowingthemaway:NowonderwearetoldthatthesameadvanceinknowledgewhichrequiresachangedviewoftheBiblenecessitatesalsoawholenewtheology.IftheNewTestamentwritersarenottrustworthyasteachersofdoctrineandwehavetogoelsewhereforthesourceandnormoftruthastoGodanddutyandimmortality,itwillnotbestrangeifaverydifferentsystemofdoctrinefromthatdeliveredbytheScripturesanddocilelyreceivedfromthembytheChurch,results.

Andnow,havinguncoveredthepreciseissuewhichisinvolvedintherealproblemofinspiration,letuslookatitatvariousanglesandthusemphasizeinturntwoorthreeofthemoreimportantresultsthatspringfromit.

ModificationsOfTheBiblicalDoctrineUndermineTheAuthorityOfTheScriptures

First,weemphasizethefactthat,thisbeingtherealstateofthecase,wecannotmodifythedoctrineofplenaryinspirationinanyofitsessentialelementswithoutunderminingourconfidenceintheauthorityoftheapostlesasteachersofdoctrine.

Logically,thisisanimmediatecorollaryofthepropositionalreadymadegood.Historically,itisattestedbythedriftageofeveryschoolofthoughtwhichhassoughttofindagroundoffaithinanylowerthantheChurch'sdoctrineofaplenarilyinspiredBible.Theauthoritywhichcannotassureofahardfactissoonnottrustedforaharddoctrine.Soonerorlater,ingreaterorlessdegree,theauthorityoftheBibleindoctrineandlifeisreplacedbyorsubordinatedtothatofreason,orofthefeelings,orofthe"Christianconsciousness"-the"consciousexperiencebytheindividualoftheChristianfaith"orofthatcorporateChristianconsciousnesswhichsoeasilyhardensintosimpleecclesiasticaldomination.WhatwearetoacceptasthetruthofGodisacomparativelyeasyquestion,ifwecanopenourBibleswiththeconfidentbeliefthatwhatwereadthereiscommendedtousbyafullycredible"ThussaiththeLord."Butinproportionasweallowthisorthatelementinitnottobesafeguardedtousbythisdivineguarantee,dowebegintodoubtthetrustworthinessofmoreandmoreofthemessagedelivered,andtoseekothergroundsofconfidencethanthesimple"Itiswritten"whichsufficedfortheneedsofourLordandHisapostles.WehaveseenDr.Sandaypointingto"theadvancingconsciousnessoftheChurchatlarge,"alongwiththeconsensusofscholars,asthegroundofacceptanceofdoctrinesastrue,whichwillbemoreandmoreturnedtowhenmencannolongerapproachtheBiblesosimplyasheretofore.Thisisthenaturaldirectioninwhichtolook,formentrainedtolaythatgreatstressoninstitutionalChristianitywhichleadsMr.Goretodescribethepresentsituationasoneinwhich"itisbecomingmoreandmoredifficulttobelieveintheBiblewithoutbelievingintheChurch."23AccordinglyDr.SterrettalsoharmonizeshisHegelianismandChurchlinessinfindingthegroundofChristiancertitudeinthe"communalChristianconsciousness,"whichisdefinedastheChurch,as"objective,authoritativereasonforeveryChristian,"towhichhemustsubordinatehisindividualreason.24Menofmoreindividualistictrainingfallbackratheronpersonal

reasonortheindividual"Christianconsciousness";butallalikeretiretheBibleasasourceofdoctrinebehindsomeothersafeguardoftruth.

ItmaynotbewithoutinterestorvaluetosubjectthevariouspathwayswhichmentreadinseekingtojustifyalowerviewofScripturethanthatheldandtaughtbytheNewTestamentwriters,toasomewhatclosescrutiny,withaviewtoobservinghownecessarilytheylogicallyinvolveagradualunderminingofthetrustworthinessofthosewritersasteachersofdoctrine.Fromthepurelyformalpointofviewpropertoourpresentpurpose,fourtypesofproceduremayberecognized.

ChristVersusTheApostles

1.Thereisfirst,that,ofwhichRichardRotheisanexample,whichproceedsbyattemptingtoestablishadistinctionbetweentheteachingofChristandtheteachingofHisapostles,andrefusingthelatterinfavoroftheformer.

Aswehavealreadyremarked,thisdistinctioncannotbemadegood.Rothe'sattempttoestablishitproceedsonthetwofoldground,ontheonehand,ofanassertedabsencefromourLord'sdealingswiththeScripturesofthoseextremefactsofusageofitastheWordofGod,andofthoseextremestatementsconcerningitsdivinecharacter,onthegroundofwhichintheapostles'dealingwithitwemustrecognizetheirhighdoctrineofScripture;andontheotherhand,ofanassertedpresenceinChrist'sremarksconcerningScriptureofhintsthatHedidnotsharetheconceptionofScripturebelongingtocontemporaryJudaism,whichconceptionweknowtohavebeenthesamehighdoctrinethatwasheldbytheapostles.Heinfers,therefore,thattheapostles,inthismatter,representonlythecurrentJewishthoughtinwhichtheywerebred,whileChrist'sdivineoriginalitybreaksawayfromthisandcommendstousanewandmoreliberalway.

Butinordertomakeoutthefirstmemberofthetwofoldgroundonwhichhebasesthisconclusion,Rothehastoproceedbyexplainingaway,bymeansofartificialexegeticalexpedients,anumberoffactsofusageanddeliverancesastoScripture,inwhichourLord'sdealingswithScriptureculminate,andwhicharealtogethersimilarincharacterandforcetothoseonthebasisofwhichheinfers

theapostles'highdoctrine.ThesearesuchpassagesasthequotationinMatt.xix.4,5,ofAdam'swordsasGod'sWord,whichLechlerappealstoasdecisivejustasRotheappealstosimilarpassagesintheepistles-butwhichRothesetsasideinafootnotesimplywiththeremarkthatitisnotdecisivehere;theassertioninJohnx.35,thatthe"Scripturecannotbebroken,"whichhesetsasideasprobablynotastatementofChrist'sownopinionbutanargumentumadhominem,andasinanycasenotavailablehere,sinceitdoesnotexplicitlyassertthattheauthorityitascribestoScriptureisdue"toitsoriginationbyinspiration"-butwhich,asDr.RobertWattshasshownanew,25isconclusiveforourSaviour'sviewoftheentireinfallibilityofthewholeOldTestament;theassertioninMatt.v.18(andinLukexvi.17)thatnot"onejotoronetittle(ivw/tae]nh'mi,akerai,a)shallpassawayfromthelawtillallbefulfilled,"whichhesetsasidewiththeremarkthatitisnotthelaw-codex,butthelawitself,thatisherespokenof,forgetfulofthefactthatitisthelawitselfaswrittenthattheLordhasinmind,inwhichformalone,moreover,do"yodhsandhorns"belongtoit;theassertioninMatt.xxii.43,thatitwas"intheSpirit"thatDavidcalledtheMessiah,"Lord,"intheonehundredthandtenthPsalm,whichhesetsasidewiththeremarkthatthisdoesprovethatJesuslookeduponDavidasaprophet,butnotnecessarilythatheconsideredtheonehundredandtenthPsalminspired,asindeedhedoesnotsaygra,feibutkalei/-forgetfulagainthatitistothewrittenDavidalonethatChristmakesHisappealandontheverylanguagewritteninthePsalmthatHefoundsHisargument.

Noless,inordertomakeoutthesecondmemberofthegroundonwhichhebaseshisconclusion,doesRotheneedtopresspassageswhichhaveastheirwholeintentandeffecttorebukethescribesforfailuretounderstandandproperlytouseScripture,intoindicationsofrejectiononChrist'spartoftheauthorityoftheScripturestowhichbothHeandthescribesappealed.Lestitshouldbethoughtincrediblethatsuchaconclusionshouldbedrawnfromsuchpremises,wetranscribeRothe'swholestatement.

"Ontheotherhand,weconcludewithgreatprobabilitythattheRedeemerdidnotsharetheconceptionofHisIsraelitishcontemporariesastotheinspirationoftheirBible,asstatedabove,fromthefactthatHerepeatedlyexpresseshisdissatisfactionwiththemannerusualamongthemoflookinguponandusingthesacredbooks.HetellsthescribestotheirfacethattheydonotunderstandtheScriptures(Matt.xxii.29;Markxii.24),andthatitisdelusionforthemtothinktopossesseternallifeinthem,thereforeinabook(Johnv.39),evenasHealso(inthesameplace)seemstospeakdisapprovinglyoftheirsearchingofthe

Scriptures,becauseitproceedsfromsuchapervertedpointofview."26

ThusJesus'appealtotheScripturesastestifyingtoHim,andHisrebuketotheJewsfornotfollowingthemwhileprofessingtohonorthem,aremadetododutyasaproofthatHedidnotascribeplenaryauthoritytothem.27

Furthermore,Rothe'swholetreatmentofthematteromitsaltogethertomakeaccountofthegreatdecisiveconsiderationofthegeneraltoneandmannerofChrist'sallusionsandappealtotheScriptures,whichonlyculminateinsuchpassagesashehasattemptedtoexplainaway,andwhichnotonlyareinconsistentwithanyotherthanthesamehighviewoftheirauthority,trustworthinessandinspiration,asthatwhichRotheinfersfromsimilarphenomenatohavebeentheconceptionoftheapostles,butalsoarenecessarilyfoundedonitasitsnaturalexpression.ThedistinctionattemptedtobedrawnbetweenChrist'sdoctrineofHolyScriptureandthatofHisapostlesiscertainlyinconsistentwiththefacts.

ButwearemoreconcernedatpresenttopointoutthattheattempttodrawthisdistinctionmustresultinunderminingutterlyallconfidenceintheNewTestamentwritersasteachersofdoctrine.Sofarastheapostlesareconcerned,indeed,itwouldbemorecorrecttosaythatitistheoutgrowthandmanifestationofanalreadypresentdistrustofthemasteachersofdoctrine.ItsveryprincipleisappealfromapostolicteachingtothatofChrist,onthegroundthattheformerisnotauthoritative.Howfarthisrejectionofapostolicauthoritygoesisevidencedbythemodeoftreatmentvouchsafedtoit.Immediatelyondrawingouttheapostles'doctrineofinspiration,Rotheasks,"Butnowwhatdogmaticvaluehasthisfact?

Andonthegroundthat"bytheirfruitsyeshallknowthem,"heproceedstodeclarethattheapostles'doctrineofScriptureledthemintosuchageneraluseandmodeofinterpretationofScriptureasRothedeemswhollyunendurable.28Itisnot,then,merelytheteachingoftheapostlesastowhattheScripturesare,buttheirteachingastowhatthoseScripturesteach,inwhichRothefindsthemuntrustworthy.Itwouldbeimpossiblebutthatthecankershouldeatstillmoredeeply.

NorisitpossibletopreventitfromspreadingtotheunderminingofthetrustworthinessofeventheLord'steachingitself,forthemagnifyingofwhichthedistinctionpurportstobedrawn.Theartificialmannerinwhichthe

testimonyoftheLordtotheauthorityoftheScripturesisexplainedawayintheattempttoestablishthedistinction,mightbepleadedindeedasanindicationthattrustinitwasnotverydeeplyrooted.AndthereareotherindicationsthathadtheLordbeenexplainedtobeoftheapostles'mindastoScripture,awaywouldhavebeenfoundtofreeusfromthedutyoffollowingHisteaching.29ForevenHisexegesisisdeclarednottobeauthoritative,seeingthat"exegesisisessentiallyascientificfunction,andconditionedontheexistenceofscientificmeans,whichinrelationtotheOldTestamentwerecompletelyatthecommandofJesusaslittleasofHiscontemporaries";andtheprincipleofpartiallimitationatleasttotheoutlookofHisdaywhichisinvolvedinsuchastatementisfullyacceptedbyRothe.30Allthismay,however,bethoughtmoreorlesspersonaltoRothe'sownmentalattitude,whereastheultimateunderminingofourLord'sauthorityasteacherofdoctrine,aswellasthatofHisapostles,islogicallyessentialtothepositionassumed.

ThismaybemadeplainatoncebytheveryobviousremarkthatwehavenoChristexcepttheonewhomtheapostleshavegiventous.JesusHimselfleftnotreatisesondoctrine.Heleftnowrittendialogues.WearedependentontheapostlesforourwholeknowledgeofHim,andofwhatHetaught.TheportraitureofJesuswhichhasglorifiedtheworld'sliteratureaswellasblessedallagesandraceswiththerevelationofaGod-mancomedownfromheaventosavetheworld,islimnedbyhisfollowers'pencilsalone.TherecordofthatteachingwhichfellfromHislipsaslivingwater,whichifamandrinkofheshallneverthirstagain,isarecordbyhisfollowers'pensalone.Theyhavepaintedforus,ofcourse,theJesusthattheyknew,andastheyknewHim.Theyhaverecordedforustheteachingsthattheyheard,andastheyheardthem.Whateveruntrustworthinessattachestothemasdeliverersofdoctrine,mustinsomemeasureshakealsoourconfidenceintheirreportofwhattheirMasterwasandtaught.

Butthelogiccutsevendeeper.FornotonlyhavewenoChristbutHimwhomwereceiveattheapostles'hands,butthisChristiscommittedtothetrustworthinessoftheapostlesasteachers.Hiscreditisinvolvedintheircredit.HerepresentsHiswordsonearthasbutthefoundationofonegreattempleofdoctrine,theedificeofwhichwastobebuiltupbyHimthroughtheirmouths,astheyspokemovedbyHisSpirit;andthusHemakesHimselfanaccomplicebeforethefactinalltheytaught.Inproportionastheyarediscreditedasdoctrinalguides,inthatproportionHeisdiscreditedwiththem.BythepromiseoftheSpirit,HehasforeverboundHistrustworthinesswithindissolublebands

tothetrustworthinessofHisaccreditedagentsinfoundingHisChurch,andespeciallybythatgreatpromiserecordedforusinJohnxvi.12-15:"Ihaveyetmanythingstosayuntoyou,butyecannotbearthemnow.Howbeitwhenhe,theSpiritoftruth,iscome,hewillguideyouintoalltruth;forheshallnotspeakofhimself;butwhatsoeverheshallhear,thatshallhespeak:andhewillshowyouthingstocome.Heshallglorifyme:forheshallreceiveofmine,andshallshowituntoyou.AllthingsthattheFatherhatharemine:thereforesaidI,thatheshalltakeofmineandshallshowituntoyou."SaysDr.C.W.Hodge:31

"ItisimpossibletoconceivehowtheauthorityoftheMastercouldbeconveyedtotheteachingofthedisciplesmoreemphaticallythanisheredonebyChrist.HeidentifiesHisteachingandtheteachingoftheSpiritaspartsofonewhole;HisteachingiscarryingoutMyteaching,itiscallingtoremembrancewhatIhavetoldyou;itiscompletingwhatIhavebegun.Andtomaketheunityemphatic,HeexplainswhyHehadreservedsomuchofHisownteaching,andcommittedtheworkofrevelationtotheSpirit.He,inHisincarnationandlife,comprisedallsavingtruth.HewastherevealerofGodandthetruthandthelife.ButwhilesomethingsHehadtaughtwhileyetwiththem,Hehadmanythingstosaywhichmustbepostponedbecausetheycouldnotyetbearthem....IfChristhasreferredustotheapostlesasteachersofthetruthswhichHewouldhaveusknow,certainlythisprimarytruthoftheauthorityoftheScripturesthemselvescanbenoexception.Allquestionsastotheextentofthisinspiration,astoitsexclusiveauthority,astowhetheritextendstowordsaswellasdoctrines,astowhetheritisinfallibleorinerrant,ornot,aresimplyquestionstobereferredtotheWorditself."

InsuchcircumstancestheattempttodiscriminateagainsttheteachingoftheapostlesinfavorofthatofChrist,istocontradicttheexpressteachingofChristHimself,andthustoundermineourconfidenceinit.WecannotbothbelieveHimandnotbelieveHim.Thecry,"BacktoChrist!"awayfromalltheimaginationsofmen'sheartsandthecobwebtheorieswhichtheyhavespun,mustbeeverthecryofeveryChristianheart.Butthecry,"BacktoChrist!"awayfromtheteachingsofHisapostles,whoseteachingsHeHimselfrepresentsasHisown,onlydeliveredbyHisSpiritthroughtheirmouths,isaninvitationtodesertChristHimself.ItisaninvitationtodrawbackfromtheChristoftheBibletosomeChristofourownfancy,fromtheonlyrealtosomeimaginaryChrist.ItistounderminethecreditofthewholehistoricalrevelationinandthroughtheChristofGod,andtocastusfortheascertainmentandauthenticationoftruthonthenativepowersofourownminds.

AccommodationOrIgnorance?

2.AnothermethodisthatofthosewhoseektopreservethemselvesfromthenecessityofacceptingthedoctrineofinspirationheldbythewritersoftheNewTestament,byrepresentingitasmerelyamatterofaccommodationtotheprejudicesoftheJews,naturallyifnotnecessarilyadoptedbythefirstpreachersoftheGospelintheireffortstocommendtotheircontemporariestheirnewteachingastothewayoflife.

ThispositionisquitebaldlystatedbyarecentScotchwriter,towhosebook,writtenwithafrankboldness,aforceandalogicalacumenwhicharefarabovethecommon,toolittleheedhasbeenpaidasanindicationofthedriftofthetimes.32SaysMr.JamesStuart:

"TheapostleshadnotmerelytorevealtheGospelschemeofsalvationtotheirownandallsubsequentages,buttheyhadtopresentitinsuchaform,andsupportitbysucharguments,asshouldcommendittotheirmoreimmediatehearersandreaders.Notwithstandingitsessentiallyuniversalcharacter,theGospel,asitappearsintheNewTestament,iscouchedinaparticularform,suitedtothespecialcircumstancesofaparticularageandnation.BeforetheGospelcouldreachtheheartsofthosetowhomitwasfirstaddressed,prejudiceshadtobeovercome,prepossessionshadtobecountedonanddealtwith.Theapostles,infact,hadjusttotakethemenoftheirtimeastheyfoundthem,adaptingtheirteachingaccordingly.Notonlyso,butthereisevidencethattheapostleswerethemselves,toaverygreatextent,menoftheirowntime,sharingmanyofthecommonopinionsandeventhecommonprejudices,sothat,inarguingexconcessis,theywerearguingupongroundsthatwouldappeartothemselvesjustandtenable.NowoneofthethingsuniversallyconcededinapostolictimeswastheinspirationandauthorityoftheOldTestament;anotherwasthelegitimacyofcertainmodesofinterpretingandapplyingtheOldTestament.ThelaterJews,asiswellknown,cherishedasuperstitiousreverenceandattachedanoverwhelmingimportancetotheletteroftheOldTestament,whichtheyregardedasthe'WordofGod'inthefullestandmostabsolutesensethatcanpossiblybeputuponsuchanexpression.Thedoctorstaughtandthepeoplebelievedthatthesacredwritingswerenotonlyinspired,butinspiredtotheutmostpossibleorconceivableextent.InthecompositionofScripture,the

humanauthorwasnowhere,andtheinspiringSpiriteverywhere;notthethoughtsalone,buttheverywordsofScriptureweretheWordofGod,whichHecommunicatedbythemouthofthehumanauthor,whomerelydischargedthedutyofspokesmanandamanuensis,sothatwhattheScripturecontainsistheWordofGodinascompleteandfullasenseasifithadbeendictatedbythelipsofGodtothehumanauthors,andrecordedwithsomethingapproachingtoperfectaccuracy....SuchbeingtheprevalentviewoftheinspirationandauthorityoftheOldTestamentwritings,whatcouldbemorenaturalthanthattheapostlesshouldmakeuseofthesewritingstoenforceandcommendtheirownideas?AndiftheOldTestamentweretobeusedforsuchapurposeatall,evidentlyitmustbeusedaccordingtotheacceptedmethods;fortohavefollowedanyother-assumingthepossibilityofsuchathing-wouldhavedefeatedtheobjectaimedat,whichwastoaccommodatetheGospeltoestablishedprejudices."

Now,heretoo,thefirstremarkwhichneedstobemadeisthattheassertionof"accommodation"onthepartoftheNewTestamentwriterscannotbemadegood.Toprove"accommodation,"twothingsneedtobeshown:first,thattheapostlesdidnotsharetheseviews,and,secondly,thattheyneverthelessaccommodatedtheirteachingtothem."Accommodation"properlysocalledcannottakeplacewhentheviewsinquestionaretheproperviewsofthepersonsthemselves.ButevenintheaboveextractMr.StuartisledtoallowthattheapostlessharedthecurrentJewishviewoftheScriptures,andatalaterpoint33hedemonstratesthisinanargumentofsingularlucidity,althoughinitscourseheexaggeratesthecharacteroftheirviewsinhisefforttofixastigmaofmechanicalnessonthem.Withwhatpropriety,then,canhespeakof"accommodation"inthecase?Thefactisthatthetheoryof"accommodation"ispresentedbyMr.Stuartonlytoenablehimthemoreeasilytorefusetobeboundbytheapostolicteachinginthismatter,andassuchithasservedhimasasteppingstonebywhichhehasattainedtoanevenmoredrasticprinciple,onwhichhepracticallyacts:thatwhenevertheapostlescanbeshowntoagreewiththeircontemporaries,theirteachingmaybeneglected.Insuchcases,heconceivesoftheNewTestamentwriters"beinginspiredandguidedbycurrentopinion,"34andreasonsthus:35

"NowitisunquestionablethattheNewTestamentwritersinsoregardingtheOldTestamentwerenotenunciatinganewtheoryofinspirationorinterpretation,theyweresimplyadoptingandfollowingoutthecurrenttheory....Inmattersofthiskind...theNewTestamentwriterswerecompletelydominatedbythespirit

oftheage,sothattheirtestimonyonthequestionofScriptureinspirationpossessesnoindependentvalue.""IfthesepopularnotionswereinfalliblycorrectbeforetheyweretakenupandembodiedintheNewTestamentwritings,theyareinfalliblycorrectstill;iftheywereincorrectbeforetheyweretakenupandembodiedintheNewTestamentwritings,theyareincorrectstill."36

Thisiscertainlymostremarkableargumentation,andtheprincipleassertedisprobablyoneofthemostsingulartowhichthinkingmenevercommittedthemselves,viz.,thatabodyofreligiousteachers,claimingauthorityforthemselvesassuch,aretrustworthyonlywhentheyteachnovelties.ItistheapotheosisoftheoldAthenianandnewmodernspirit,whichhasleisureandheart"fornothingelsebuteithertotellorhearsomenewthing."Nevertheless,itisaprinciplefarfromuncommonamongthosewhoareseekingjustificationforthemselvesinrefusingtheleadershipoftheNewTestamentwritersinthematteroftheauthorityandinspirationoftheScriptures.And,oflate,itis,ofcourse,takinguponitselfincertainquartersanewform,theformimposedbythenewviewoftheoriginofChristianthoughtinHellenicsources,whichhasbeengivensuchvoguebyDr.HarnackandrenderedpopularinEnglish-speakinglandsbythewritingsofthelateDr.Hatch.Forexample,wefinditexpressedinthisformintherecentvaluablestudiesontheFirstEpistleofClementofRome,byLic.Wrede.37Clement'sviewsoftheOldTestamentScripturesarerecognizedasofthehighestorder;helooksuponthemasamarvelousandinfalliblebookwhoseverylettersaresacred,asaveritableoracle,themostpreciouspossessionoftheChurch.ThesehighviewsweresharedbythewholeChurchofhisday,and,indeed,ofthepreviousage:"TheviewwhichClementhasoftheOldTestament,andtheusewhichhemakesofit,showinthemselvesnoessentialpeculiaritiesincomparisonwiththemostnearlyrelatedChristianwritings,especiallythePaulineepistles,theEpistletotheHebrewsandtheEpistleofBarnabas."Andyet,accordingtoWrede,thisviewrestson"theHellenisticconceptionofinspiration,accordingtowhichtheindividualwriterswerepassiveinstrumentsofGod."38Whether,however,thecontemporaryinfluenceisthoughttobeJewishorGreek,itisobviousthattheappealtoitinsuchmattershas,asitsonlyintention,tofreeusfromthedutyoffollowingtheapostlesandcanhaveasitsonlyeffecttounderminetheirauthority.Wemaynodoubtsupposeatthebeginningthatweseekonlytoseparatethekernelfromthehusk;butaprinciplewhichmakeshuskofallthatcanbeshowntohaveanythingincommonwithwhatwasbelievedbyanybodyofcontemporaries,HebreworGreek,issoverydrasticthatitwillleavenothingwhichwecansurelytrust.OnthisprincipletheGoldenRuleitselfisnotauthoritative,becausesomethinglikeitmaybefoundin

Jewishtraditionandamongtheheathensages.Itcertainlywillnotservetomakenoveltythetestofauthority.

Fromtheethicalpointofview,however,thistheoryispreferabletothatof"accommodation,"anditisprobablethatpart,atleast,oftheimpulsewhichledMr.Stuarttosubstituteitforthetheoryof"accommodation,"withwhichhebegan,arosefromamoreorlessclearperceptionofthemoralimplicationsofthetheoryof"accommodation."Undertheimpulseofthattheoryhehadbeenledtospeakoftheprocedureoftheapostlesinsuchlanguageasthis:"ThesoleprinciplethatregulatesalltheirappealstotheOldTestament,isthatofobtaining,atwhatevercost,supportfortheirownfavoriteideas."39IsitanywonderthatthereactiontookplaceandanattemptwasmadetoshifttheburdenfromtheveracitytotheknowledgeoftheNewTestamentwriters?40InMr.Stuart'scaseweseeveryclearly,then,theeffectofadoctrineof"accommodation"onthecreditoftheNewTestamentwriters.Hiswholebookiswritteninordertoassignreasonwhyhewillnotyieldauthoritytothesewritersintheirdoctrineofasacrificialatonement.ThiswasduetotheirJewishtypeofthought.Butwhenthedoctrineofaccommodationistriedasagroundfortherejectionoftheirauthority,itisfoundtocuttoodeeplyevenforMr.Stuart.HewishestoberidoftheauthorityoftheNewTestamentwriters,nottoimpeachtheirveracity;andsohediscardsitinfavorofthelessplausible,indeed,butalsolessdeeplycuttingcanon,thattheapostlesarenottobefollowedwhentheyagreewithcontemporarythought,becauseintheseelementstheyareobviouslyspeakingoutoftheirownconsciousness,astheproductsoftheirday,andnotasproclaimersofthenewrevelationinChrist.Theirinspiration,inaword,"wasnotplenaryoruniversal-extending,thatis,toallmatterswhateverwhichtheyspeakabout-butpartialorspecial,beinglimitedtosecuringtheaccuratecommunicationofthatplanofsalvationwhichtheyhadsoprofoundlyexperienced,andwhichtheywerecommissionedtoproclaim."41Inallelse"theNewTestamentwritersaresimplyonalevelwiththeircontemporaries."ItmaynotbeuninstructivetonotethatundersuchaformulaMr.Stuartnotonlyrejectstheteachingsofthesewritersastothenatureandextentofinspiration,butalsotheirteachingastothesacrificialnatureoftheveryplanofsalvationwhichtheywerespeciallycommissionedtoproclaim.Butwhatitisourbusinessatpresenttopointoutisthatthedoctrineofaccommodationissoobviouslyablowatnotonlythetrustworthiness,buttheveryveracityoftheNewTestamentauthors,thatMr.Stuart,evenafterassertingit,isledtopermitittofallintoneglect.

Andmustitnotbeso?Itmaybeeasyindeedtoconfuseitwiththatprogressive

methodofteachingwhicheverywiseteacheruses,andwhichourLordalsoemployed(Johnxvi.12seq.);itmaybeeasytorepresentitasnothingmorethanthatharmlesswisdomwhichtheapostleproclaimedastheprincipleofhislife,ashewentabouttheworldbecomingallthingstoallmen.Buthowdifferentitisfromeither!Itisonethingtoadapttheteachingoftruthtothestageofreceptivityofthelearner;itisanotherthingtoadopttheerrorsofthetimeastheverymattertobetaught.Itisonethingtorefrainfromunnecessarilyarousingtheprejudicesofthelearner,thatmorereadyentrancemaybefoundforthetruth;itisanotherthingtoadoptthoseprejudicesasourown,andtoinculcatethemastheverytruthsofGod.ItwasonethingforPaultobecome"allthingstoallmen"thathemightgainthemtothetruth;itwasanotherforPetertodissembleatAntioch,andsoconfirmmenintheirerror.TheaccommodationattributedtotheNewTestamentwritersisamethodbywhichtheydidanddonotundeceivebutdeceive;notamethodbywhichtheyteachthetruthmorewinninglyandtomore;butamethodbywhichtheymaybeheldtohavetaughtalongwiththetruthalsoerror.Theveryobjectofattributingittothemistoenableustoseparatetheirteachingintotwoparts-thetrueandthefalse;andtojustifyusinrefusingapartwhileacceptingapartattheirhands.Atthebestitmustsounderminethetrustworthinessoftheapostlesasdeliverersofdoctrineastosubjecttheirwholeteachingtoourjudgmentfortheseparationofthetruefromthefalse;attheworst,itmustdestroytheirtrustworthinessbydestroyingourconfidenceintheirveracity.Mr.Stuartchosethebetterpath;buthedidso,asallwhofollowhimmust,bydesertingtheprincipleofaccommodation,whichleadsitselfalongtheworseroad.WithitasastartingpointwemustimpeachtheNewTestamentwritersaslackingeitherknowledgeorveracity.

TeachingVersusOpinion

3.Athirdtypeofprocedure,indefenseofrefusaltobeboundbythedoctrineoftheNewTestamentwritersastoinspiration,proceedsbydrawingadistinctionbetweenthebeliefandtheteachingofthesewriters;andaffirmingthat,althoughitistruethattheydidbelieveandholdahighdoctrineofinspiration,yettheydonotexplicitlyteachit,andthatwearebound,notbytheiropinions,butonlybytheirexplicitteaching.

Thisappearstobetheconceptionwhichunderliesthetreatmentofthematterby

Archdeacon(thenCanon)Farrar,inhis"LifeandWorkofSt.Paul."SpeakingofPaul'sattitudetowardsScripture,Dr.Farrarsays:42

"Heshared,doubtless,intheviewsofthelaterJewishschools-theTanaimandAmoraim-onthenatureofinspiration.Theseviews,whichwefindalsoinPhilo,madethewordsofScripturecoextensiveandidenticalwiththewordsofGod,andintheclumsyandfeeblehandsofthemorefanaticalTalmudistsoftenattachedtothedeadletteranimportancewhichstifledordestroyedthelivingsense.Butasthisextremeandmechanicalliteralism-thisclaimtoabsoluteinfallibilityeveninaccidentaldetailsandpassingallusions-thissuperstitiousadorationofthelettersandvocablesofScripture,asthoughtheywerethearticulatevocablesandimmediateautographofGod-findsnoencouragementinanypartofScripture,andverydistinctdiscouragementinmorethanoneoftheutterancesofChrist,sothereisnotasinglepassageinwhichanyapproachtoitisdogmaticallystatedinthewritingsofSt.Paul."

Thispassagelackssomewhatmoreinpointofclearnessthanitdoesinpointofrhetoricalfire.Butthreethingsseemtobesufficientlyplain:(1)ThatDr.FarrarthinksthatPaulsharedtheviewsoftheTanaim,theAmoraimandPhiloastothenatureofinspiration.(2)ThatheadmitsthattheseviewsclaimedforScripture"absoluteinfallibilityeveninaccidentaldetailsandpassingallusions."(3)ThatneverthelesshedoesnotfeelboundtoacceptthisdoctrineatPaul'shands,because,thoughPaulheldit,heisthoughtnottohave"dogmaticallystated"it.

Now,thedistinctionwhichisheredrawnseems,ingeneral,areasonableone.Nooneislikelytoassertinfallibilityfortheapostlesinaughtelsethanintheirofficialteaching.Andwhatevertheymaybeshowntohaveheldapartfromtheirofficialteaching,mayreadilybelookeduponwithonlythatrespectwhichwecertainlymustaccordtotheopinionsofmenofsuchexceptionalintellectualandspiritualinsight.ButitismoredifficulttofollowDr.Farrarwhenitisaskedwhetherthisdistinctioncanbeestablishedinthepresentmatter.ItdoesnotseemtobetruethattherearenodidacticstatementsastoinspirationinPaul'sletters,orintherestoftheNewTestament,suchasimplicateandcarryintothesphereofmatterstaught,thewholedoctrinethatunderliestheirtreatmentofScripture.Theassertionintheterm"theopneustic"insuchapassageasIITim.iii.16,forexample,cannotbevoidedbyanyconstructionofthepassage;andthedoctrinetaughtintheassertionmustbeunderstoodtobethedoctrinewhichthattermconnotedtoPaulwhousesit,notsomeotherdoctrinereadintoitbyus.

ItisfurthernecessarytoinquirewhatsourceswehaveinacaselikethatofPaul,toinformusastowhathisopinionswere,apartfromandoutsideofhisteachings.Itmightconceivablyhavehappenedthatsomeofhiscontemporariesshouldhaverecordedforussomeaccountofopinionsheldbyhimtowhichhehasgivennoexpressioninhisepistles;orsomeaccountofactionsperformedbyhiminvolvingthemanifestationofjudgment-somewhatsimilar,say,toPaul'sownaccountofPeter'sconductinAntioch(Gal.ii.11seq.).Apresumptionmaybeheldtoliealsothathesharedtheordinaryopinionsofhisdayincertainmatterslyingoutsidethescopeofhisteachings,as,forexample,withreferencetotheformoftheearth,oritsrelationtothesun;anditisnotinconceivablethattheformofhislanguage,whenincidentallyadvertingtosuchmatters,mightoccasionallyplayintothehandsofsuchapresumption.Butitisneitheronthegroundofsuchapresumption,noronthegroundofsuchexternaltestimony,thatDr.FarrarascribestohimviewsastoinspirationsimilartothoseofhisJewishcontemporaries.ItisdistinctlyonthegroundofwhathefindsonastudyofthebodyofofficialteachingwhichPaulhaslefttous.Dr.FarrardiscoversthattheseviewsastothenatureofScripturesounderlie,aresoassumedin,aresoimpliedby,aresointerwovenwithPaul'sofficialteachingthatheisunwillinglydriventoperceivethattheywerePaul'sopinions.Withwhatcolorofreasonthencantheybeseparatedfromhisteaching?

Thereisraisedhere,moreover,averyimportantandfar-reachingquestion,whichfewwillbeabletodecideinDr.Farrar'ssense.WhatistaughtintheNewTestament?Andwhatisthemodeofitsteaching?IfwearetofallinwithDr.Farrarandsaythatnothingistaughtexceptwhatis"dogmaticallystated"informaldidacticform,theoccasionalcharacteroftheNewTestamentepistleswouldbecomeasourceofgravelosstous,insteadof,asitotherwiseis,asourceofimmensegain;theparabolicclothingofmuchofChrist'steachingwouldbecomeadevicetowithholdfromusallinstructiononthemattersofwhichtheparablestreat;andallthatismostfundamentalinreligioustruth,which,asarule,isratherassumedeverywhereinScriptureasabasisforparticularapplicationsthanformallystated,wouldberemovedoutofthesphereofBiblicaldoctrine.Sucharule,inaword,wouldoperatetoturnthewholeofBiblicalteachingonitshead,andtoreduceitfromabodyofprinciplesinculcatedbymeansofexamplesintoamerecongeriesofinstanceshungintheair.ThewholeadvanceintheattitudeofDogmaticstowardstheScriptureswhichhasbeenmadebymodernscholarshipis,moreover,endangeredbythisposition.Itwasthefaultoftheolderdogmatiststodependtoomuchonisolatedproof-textsfortheframinganddefenseofdoctrine.Dr.Farrarwouldhaveusreturntothis

method.Thealternative,commendedjustlytousbythewholebodyofmodernscholarship,is,asSchleiermacherputsit,toseek"aformofScriptureproofonalargerscalethancanbegotfromsingletexts,"tobuildoursystematictheology,inaword,onthebasis,notoftheoccasionaldogmaticstatementsofScripturealone,takenseparatelyand,asitwere,inshreds,butonthebasisofthetheologiesoftheScripture-toreproducefirstthetheologicalthoughtofeachwriterorgroupofwritersandthentocombinetheseseveraltheologies(eachaccordingtoitsduehistoricalplace)intotheoneconsistentsystem,consentaneouspartsofwhichtheyarefoundtobe.43Inrejectingthismethod,Dr.FarrardiscreditsthewholescienceofBiblicalTheology.Fromitsstandpointitisincrediblethatoneshouldattributelessimportanceandauthoritativenesstothefundamentalconceptionsthatunderlie,colorandgiveformtoallofPaul'steachingthantothechancedidacticstatementshemayhavebeenledtomakebythisorthatcircumstanceatthecallofwhichhislettershappenedtobewritten.Thiscertainlywouldbetithingmintandaniseandcumminandomittingtheweightiermattersofthelaw.

Thatthismodeofpresentingthemattermustlead,nolessthantheotherswhichhavealreadycomeunderreview,tounderminingtheauthority.oftheNewTestamentwritersasdeliverersofdoctrine,mustalreadybeobvious.Itbeginsbydiscreditingthemasleadersindoctrinalthoughtandsubstitutingforthisasporadicauthorityinexplicitdogmaticstatements.InDr.Farrar'sownhandsitproceedsbyquiteunderminingourconfidenceintheapostlesasteachers,throughanaccusationlodgedagainstthem,notonlyofholdingwrongviewsindoctrine,butevenofcherishingasfundamentalconceptionstheologicalfancieswhichareintheirveryessencesuperstitiousandidolatrous;andintheirinevitableoutcomeruinoustofaithandhonor.ForDr.Farrardoesnotmincematterswhenheexpresseshisopinionofthatdoctrineofinspiration-initsnatureanditspropereffects-whichPhiloheldandtheJewishRabbisandinwhichPaul,accordingtohisexpressedconviction,shared."TosaythateverywordandsentenceandletterofScriptureisdivineandsupernatural,isamechanicalanduselessshibboleth,nay,more,ahumanidol,and(constructively,atleast)adreadfulblasphemy."Itisasuperstitious-hetellsusthathehadalmostsaidfetish-worshiping-dogma,and"notonlyunintelligible,butprofoundlydangerous."It"hasinmanyagesfilledtheworldwithmiseryandruin,"and"hasdonemorethananyotherdogmatocorruptthewholeofexegesiswithdishonestcasuistry,andtoshaketoitscentrethereligiousfaithofthousands,alikeofthemostignorantandofthemostcultivated,inmanycenturies,andmostofallinourown."44YetthesearetheviewswhichDr.

FarrarisforcedtoallowthatPaulshared!ForPhilo"heldthemostrigidviewsofinspiration";thanhimindeed"Aqibahimselfusednostrongerlanguageonthesubject"45-Aqiba,"thegreatestoftheTanaites";46anditwastheviewsoftheTanaim,AmoraimandPhilo,whichDr.Farrartellsustheapostleshared.HowafterthisDr.Farrarcontinuestolookuponeventhe"dogmaticstatements"ofPaulasauthoritative,itishardtosee.ByconstructionhewasafetishworshiperandplacedScriptureuponanidol'spedestal.Thedoctrineswhichheheldandwhichunderliehisteachingwereunintelligible,useless,idolatrous,blasphemousandprofoundlydangerous,andactuallyhaveshakentoitscentrethereligiousfaithofthousands.Onsuchatreewhatotherthanevilfruitscouldgrow?

NodoubtsomethingofthismaybeattributedtotheexaggerationcharacteristicofDr.Farrar'slanguageandthought.ObviouslyPaul'sviewofinspirationwasnotaltogetheridenticalwiththatofcontemporaryJudaism;itdifferedfromitsomewhatinthesamewaythathisuseofScripturedifferedfromthatoftheRabbisofhisday.ButitisonewithPhilo'sandAqiba'sonthepointwhichwithDr.Farrarisdecisive:alikewiththemhelookeduponScriptureas"absolutelyinfallible,eveninaccidentaldetailsandpassingallusions,"astheveryWordofGod,His"Oracles,"tousehisownhighphrase,andthereforeDr.Farrartreatsthetwoviewsasessentiallyone.Butthesituationisonlymodified,notrelieved,bytherecognitionofthisfact.

Inanyeventthepathwayonwhichweenterwhenwebegintodistinguishbetweenthedidacticstatementsandthefundamentalconceptionsofabodyofincidentalteaching,withaviewtoacceptingtheformerandrejectingthelatter,cannotbutleadtoageneralunderminingoftheauthorityofthewhole.Onlyifwecouldbelieveinaquitemechanicalandmagicalprocessofinspiration(frombelievinginwhichDr.Farrarisnodoubtveryfar)bywhichthesubject's"dogmaticalstatements"werekeptentirelyseparatefromandunaffectedbyhisfundamentalconceptions,couldsuchanattitudebelogicallypossible.Inthatcaseweshouldhavetoviewthese"dogmaticalstatements"asnotPaul'satall,standing,astheydoexhypothesi,whollydisconnectedwithhisownfundamentalthought,butasspokenthroughhimbyanovermasteringspiritualinfluence;asaphenomenon,inaword,similartotheoraclesofheathenshrines,andwithoutanalogyinScriptureexceptperhapsinsuchcasesasthatofBalaam.Inproportionaswedrawbackfromsomagicalaconceptionofthemodeofinspiration,inthatproportionourrefusalofauthoritytothefundamentalconceptionsoftheNewTestamentwritersmustinvadealsotheir"dogmaticalstatements."Wemustlogically,inaword,ascribelikeauthoritytothewhole

bodyoftheirteaching,initsfoundationandsuperstructurealike,orwemustwithholditinequalmeasurefromall;or,ifwewithholditfromoneandnottheother,thediscriminationwouldmostnaturallybemadeagainstthesuperstructureratherthanagainstthefoundation.

FactsVersusDoctrine

4.Finally,aneffortmaybemadetojustifyourholdingalowerdoctrineofinspirationthanthatheldbythewritersoftheNewTestament,byappealingtotheso-calledphenomenaoftheScripturesandopposingthesetothedoctrineoftheScriptures,withtheexpectation,apparently,ofjustifyingamodificationofthedoctrinetaughtbytheScripturesbythefactsembeddedintheScriptures.

Theessentialprincipleofthismethodofprocedureissharedbyverymanywhocouldscarcelybesaidtobelongtotheclasswhoareheremorespecificallyinmind,inasmuchastheydonotbeginbyexplicitlyrecognizingthedoctrineofinspirationheldbytheNewTestamentwriterstobethathighdoctrinewhichtheChurchandthebestscientificexegesisagreeinunderstandingthemtoteach.47EveryattempttodetermineormodifytheBiblicaldoctrineofinspirationbyanappealtotheactualcharacteristicsoftheBiblemustindeedproceedonanidenticalprinciple.Itfinds,perhaps,asplausibleaformofassertionpossibletoitinthedeclarationofDr.MarvinR.Vincent48that"ouronlysafeprincipleisthatinspirationisconsistentwiththephenomenaofScripture"-towhichoneofskepticalturnmightrespondthatwhethertheinspirationclaimedbyScriptureisconsistentwiththephenomenaofScriptureafterallrequiressomeproof,whileoneofamorebelievingframemightrespondthatitisasaferprinciplethatthephenomenaofScriptureareconsistentwithitsinspiration.ItscrudestexpressionmaybeseeninsuchabookasMr.Horton's"InspirationandtheBible,"whichwehavealreadyhadoccasiontomention.Mr.Hortonchoosestoretaintheterm,"inspiration,"asrepresenting"thecommonsenseofChristiansofallagesandinallplaces"astothenatureoftheirScriptures,49butassertsthatthistermistobeunderstoodtomeanjustwhattheBibleis-thatistosay,whateveranygivenwriterchoosestothinktheBibletobe.WhenPaulaffirmsinIITim.iii.16thateveryScriptureis"inspiredbyGod,"therefore,wearenottoenterintoaphilologicalandexegeticalinvestigationtodiscoverwhatPaulmeanttoaffirmbytheuseofthisword,butsimplytosaythatPaulmusthavemeanttoaffirm

theBibletobewhatwefindittobe.Surelynowaycouldbeinventedwhichwouldmoreeasilyenableustosubstituteourthoughtfortheapostles'thought,andtoproclaimourcruditiesunderthesanctionoftheirgreatnames.Operatingbyit,Mr.HortonisenabledtoassertthattheBibleis"inspired,"andyettoteachthatGod'shandhasentereditonlyinaprovidentialway,byHisdealingsthroughlongageswithapeoplewhograduallywroughtoutahistory,conceivedhopes,andbroughtallthroughnaturalmeanstoanexpressioninafaultyandoftenself-contradictoryrecord,whichwecallinspiredonly"becausebyreadingitandstudyingitwecanfindourwaytoGod,wecanfindwhatisHiswillforusandhowwecancarryoutthatwill."50Themostnaiveexpressionoftheprincipleinquestionmaybefoundinsuchastatementasthefollowing,fromthepenofDr.W.G.Blaikie:"Inourmodeofdealingwiththisquestionthemaindifferencebetweenusis,thatyoulayyourstressoncertaingeneralconsiderations,andoncertainspecificstatementsofScripture.We,ontheotherhand,whileacceptingthespecificstatements,laygreatstressalsoonthestructureofScriptureaswefindit,oncertainphenomenawhichlieonthesurface,andontheinextricabledifficultieswhichareinvolvedincarryingoutyourviewindetail."51ThisstatementjustlycalledouttherebukeofDr.RobertWatts,52that"whiletheprincipleofyourtheoryisamereinferencefromapparentdiscrepanciesnotasyetexplained,theprincipleofthetheoryyouopposeistheformallyexpressedutterancesofprophetsandapostles,andofChristHimself."

Underwhateversafeguards,indeed,itmaybeattempted,andwithwhatevercautionitmaybeprosecuted,theefforttomodifytheteachingofScriptureastoitsowninspirationbyanappealtotheobservedcharacteristicsofScripture,isanattemptnottoobtainaclearerknowledgeofwhattheScripturesteach,buttocorrectthatteaching.AndtocorrecttheteachingofScriptureistoproclaimScriptureuntrustworthyasawitnesstodoctrine.TheprocedureinquestionispreciselysimilartosayingthattheBible'sdoctrineofcreationistobederivednotalonefromtheteachingsoftheBibleastocreation,butfromthefactsobtainedthroughascientificstudyofcreation;thattheBible'sdoctrineastomanistobefoundnotintheBible'sdeliverancesonthesubject,but"whileacceptingthese,welaygreatstressalsoonthestructureofmanaswefindhim,andontheinextricabledifficultieswhichareinvolvedincarryingouttheBible'steachingindetail";thattheBible'sdoctrineofjustificationistobeobtainedbyretainingthetermascommendedbythecommonsenseoftheChristianworldandunderstandingbyitjustwhatwefindjustificationtobeinactuallife.ItispreciselysimilartosayingthatMr.Darwin'sdoctrineofnaturalselectionistobe

determinednotsolelybywhatMr.Darwinsaysconcerningit,butequallybywhatwe,inourownindependentstudyofnature,findtobetrueastonaturalselection.Ahistorianofthoughtwhoproceededonsuchaprinciplewouldscarcelyreceivethecommendationofstudentsofhistory,howevermuchhiswritingsmightservecertainpartyends.Whodoesnotseethatunderlyingthiswholemethodofprocedure-initsbestandinitsworstestatealike-thereisapparentanunwillingnesstocommitourselveswithoutreservetotheteachingoftheBible,eitherbecausethatteachingisdistrustedoralreadydisbelieved;andthatitisagravelogicalerrortosupposethattheteachingoftheBibleastoinspirationcanbecorrectedinthiswayanyotherwisethanbyshowingitnottobeinaccordancewiththefacts?Theproposedmethod,therefore,doesnotconductustoasomewhatmodifieddoctrineofinspiration,buttoadisproofofinspiration;bycorrectingthedoctrinedeliveredbytheBiblicalwriters,itdiscreditsthosewritersasteachersofdoctrine.

Letitnotbesaidthatinspeakingthuswearerefusingtheinductivemethodofestablishingdoctrine.Wefollowtheinductivemethod.WhenweapproachtheScripturestoascertaintheirdoctrineofinspiration,weproceedbycollectingthewholebodyofrelevantfacts.Everyclaimtheymaketoinspirationisarelevantfact;everystatementtheymakeconcerninginspirationisarelevantfact;everyallusiontheymaketothesubjectisarelevantfact;everyfactindicativeoftheattitudetheyholdtowardsScriptureisarelevantfact.Butthecharacteristicsoftheirownwritingsarenotfactsrelevanttothedeterminationoftheirdoctrine.Norletitbesaidthatwearedesirousofdeterminingthetrue,asdistinguishedfromtheScriptural,doctrineofinspirationotherwisethaninductively.Weareaverse,however,tosupposingthatinsuchaninquirytherelevant"phenomena"ofScripturearenotfirstofallandbeforealltheclaimsofScriptureandsecondonlytothemitsuseofpreviousScripture.Andweareaversetoexcludingtheseprimary"phenomena"andbuildingourdoctrinesolelyormainlyuponthecharacteristicsandstructureofScripture,especiallyasdeterminedbysomespecialschoolofmodernresearchbycriticalmethodscertainlynotinfallibleandtothebestofourownjudgmentnotevenreasonable.Andwearecertainlyaversetosupposingthatthisinduction,ifitreachesresultsnotabsolutelyconsentaneouswiththeteachingsofScriptureitself,hasdoneanythingotherthandiscreditthoseteachings,orthatindiscreditingthem,ithasescapeddiscreditingthedoctrinalauthorityofScripture.

NoragainisittobethoughtthatwerefusetousetheactualcharacteristicsofScriptureasanaidin,andacheckupon,ourexegesisofScripture,asweseekto

discoveritsdoctrineofinspiration.Wedonotsimplyadmit,onthecontrary,weaffirmthatineveryspheretheobservedfactmaythrowabroadandmosthelpfullightuponthewrittentext.ItissointhenarrativeofcreationinthefirstchapterofGenesis;whichisonlybeginningtobeadequatelyunderstoodasscienceismakingherfirststepsinreadingtherecordsofGod'screativehandinthestructureoftheworlditself.Itispreeminentlysointhewrittenprophecies,thedarksayingsofwhicharenotseldomfirstilluminatedbythelightcastbackuponthembytheirfulfillment.AsScriptureinterpretsScripture,andfulfillmentinterpretsprediction,somayfactinterpretassertion.AndthisisastrueasregardstheScripturalassertionofthefactofinspirationaselsewhere.NocarefulstudentoftheBibledoctrineofinspirationwillneglectanxiouslytotryhisconclusionsastotheteachingsofScripturebytheobservedcharacteristicsand"structure"ofScripture,andintryinghemayandnodoubtwillfindoccasiontomodifyhisconclusionsasatfirstapprehended.Butitisonethingtocorrectourexegeticalprocessesandsomodifyourexegeticalconclusionsinthenewlightobtainedbyastudyofthefacts,andquiteanothertomodify,bythefactsofthestructureofScripture,theScripturalteachingitself,asexegeticallyascertained;anditistothislatterthatweshouldbeledbymakingthefactsofstructureandthefactsembeddedinScriptureco-factorsofthesamerankintheso-calledinductiveascertainmentofthedoctrineofinspiration.Directexegesisafterallhasitsrights:wemayseekaidfromeveryquarterinoureffortstoperformitsprocesseswithprecisionandobtainitsresultswithpurity;butwecannotallowitsresultstobe"modified"byextraneousconsiderations.LetusbyallmeansbecarefulindeterminingthedoctrineofScripture,butletusalsobefullyhonestindeterminingit;andifwecountitacrimetopermitourascertainmentofthefactsrecordedinScripturetobeundulyswayedbyourconceptionofthedoctrinetaughtinScripture,letuscountitequallyacrimetopermitourascertainmentofitsdoctrinetobeundulyswayedorcoloredbyourconceptionofthenatureofthefactsofitsstructureorofthefactsembeddedinitsrecord.Wecannot,therefore,appealfromthedoctrineofScriptureasexegeticallyestablishedtothefactsofthestructureofScriptureorthefactsembeddedinScripture,inthehopeofmodifyingthedoctrine.IftheteachingandthefactsofScriptureareinharmonytheappealisuseless.Iftheyareindisharmony,wecannotfollowboth-wemustchooseoneandrejecttheother.AndtheattempttomakethefactsofScriptureco-factorsofequalrankwiththeteachingofScriptureinascertainingthetruedoctrineofinspiration,isreallyanattempttomodifythedoctrinetaughtbyScripturebyanappealtothefacts,whileconcealingfromourselvesthefactthatwehavemodifiedit,andinmodifyingcorrectedit,and,ofcourse,incorrectingit,discreditedScriptureasateacherofdoctrine.

Probablythesefourtypesofprocedurewillincludemostofthemethodsbywhichmenareto-dayseekingtofreethemselvesfromthenecessityoffollowingtheScripturaldoctrineofinspiration,whileyetlookingtoScriptureasthesourceofdoctrine.IsitnotplainthatoneveryoneofthemtheoutcomemustbetodiscreditScriptureasadoctrinalguide?Thehumanmindisverysubtle,butwithallitssubtletyitwillhardlybeabletofindawaytorefusetofollowScriptureinoneofthedoctrinesitteacheswithoutunderminingitsauthorityasateacherofdoctrine.

ImmenseWeightOfEvidenceForTheBiblicalDoctrine

Itisonlytoturnanotherfaceofthepropositionwithwhichwearedealingtowardsus,toemphasizenexttheimportantfact,that,thestateofthecasebeingsuchaswehavefoundit,theevidenceforthetruthofthedoctrineoftheplenaryinspirationofScriptureisjustthewholebodyofevidencewhichgoestoshowthattheapostlesaretrustworthyteachersofdoctrine.

LanguageissometimesmadeuseofwhichwouldseemtoimplythattheamountorweightoftheevidenceofferedforthetruthofthedoctrinethattheScripturesaretheWordofGodinsuchasensethattheirwordsdeliverthetruthofGodwithouterror,issmall.ItisonthecontraryjustthewholebodyofevidencewhichgoestoprovethewritersoftheNewTestamenttobetrustworthyasdeliverersofdoctrine.ItisjustthesameevidenceinamountandweightwhichisadducedinfavorofanyotherBiblicaldoctrine.ItisthesameweightandamountofevidencepreciselywhichisadducibleforthetruthofthedoctrinesoftheIncarnation,oftheTrinity,oftheDivinityofChrist,ofJustificationbyFaith,ofRegenerationbytheHolySpirit,oftheResurrectionoftheBody,ofLifeEverlasting.Itis,ofcourse,notabsurdlyintendedthateveryBiblicaldoctrineistaughtintheScriptureswithequalclearness,withequalexplicitness,withequalfrequency.Somedoctrinesarestatedwithanexplicitprecisionthatleaveslittletosystematictheologyinitseffortstodefinethetruthonallsides,excepttorepeatthewordswhichtheBiblicalwritershaveusedtoteachit-asforexamplethedoctrineofJustificationbyFaith.OthersarenotformulatedinScriptureatall,butaretaughtonlyintheirelements,whichthesystematicianmustcollectandcombineandsoarrivefinallyatthedoctrine-asforexamplethedoctrineoftheTrinity.SomeareadvertedtosofrequentlyastoformthewholewarpandwoofofScripture-asforexamplethedoctrineofredemptioninthebloodofChrist.Othersarebarelyalludedtohereandthere,inconnectionswherethestressisreallyonothermatters-asforexamplethedoctrineofthefalloftheangels.Buthoweverexplicitlyorincidentally,howeverfrequentlyorrarely,howeveremphaticallyorallusively,theymaybetaught,whenexegesishasoncedoneitsworkandshownthattheyaretaughtbytheBiblicalwriters,allthesedoctrinesstandassupportedbythesameweightandamountofevidence-the

evidenceofthetrustworthinessoftheBiblicalwritersasteachersofdoctrine.Wecannotsaythatwewillbelievethesewriterswhentheyassertadoctrineahundredtimesandwewillnotbelievethemiftheyassertitonlytentimesoronlyonce;thatwewillbelievetheminthedoctrinestheymakethemainsubjectsofdiscourse,butnotinthosewhichtheyadverttoincidentally;thatwewillbelievetheminthosethattheyteachasconclusionsofformalarguments,butnotinthosewhichtheyuseaspremiseswherewithtoreachthoseconclusions;thatwewillbelievetheminthosetheyexplicitlyformulateanddogmaticallyteach,butnotinthosewhichtheyteachonlyintheirseparatepartsandelements.Thequestionisnothowtheyteachadoctrine,butdotheyteachit;andwhenthatquestionisoncesettledaffirmatively,theweightofevidencethatcommendsthisdoctrinetousastrueisthesameineverycase;andthatisthewholebodyofevidencewhichgoestoshowthattheBiblicalwritersaretrustworthyasteachersofdoctrine.TheBiblicaldoctrineofinspiration,therefore,hasinitsfavorjustthiswholeweightandamountofevidence.ItfollowsontheonehandthatitcannotrationallyberejectedsaveonthegroundofevidencewhichwilloutweighthewholebodyofevidencewhichgoestoauthenticatetheBiblicalwritersastrustworthywitnessestoandteachersofdoctrine.Anditfollows,ontheotherhand,thatiftheBiblicaldoctrineofinspirationisrejected,ourfreedomfromitstrammelsisboughtlogicallyatthesomewhatseriouscostofdiscreditingtheevidencewhichgoestoshowthattheBiblicalwritersaretrustworthyasteachersofdoctrine.Inthissense,thefortunesofdistinctiveChristianityareboundupwiththoseoftheBiblicaldoctrineofinspiration.

LetitnotbesaidthatthuswefoundthewholeChristiansystemuponthedoctrineofplenaryinspiration.WefoundthewholeChristiansystemonthedoctrineofplenaryinspirationaslittleaswefoundituponthedoctrineofangelicexistences.Weretherenosuchthingasinspiration,Christianitywouldbetrue,andallitsessentialdoctrineswouldbecrediblywitnessedtousinthegenerallytrustworthyreportsoftheteachingofourLordandofHisauthoritativeagentsinfoundingtheChurch,preservedinthewritingsoftheapostlesandtheirfirstfollowers,andinthehistoricalwitnessofthelivingChurch.InspirationisnotthemostfundamentalofChristiandoctrines,noreventhefirstthingweproveabouttheScriptures.ItisthelastandcrowningfactastotheScriptures.Thesewefirstproveauthentic,historicallycredible,generallytrustworthy,beforeweprovetheminspired.Andtheproofoftheirauthenticity,credibility,generaltrustworthinesswouldgiveusafirmbasisforChristianitypriortoanyknowledgeonourpartoftheirinspiration,andapartindeedfromtheexistence

ofinspiration.Thepresentwriter,inordertopreventallmisunderstanding,desirestorepeatherewhathehassaidoneveryproperoccasion-thatheisfarfromcontendingthatwithoutinspirationtherecouldbenoChristianity."Withoutanyinspiration,"headded,whenmakingthisaffirmationonhisinductionintotheworkofteachingtheBible53-"withoutanyinspirationwecouldhavehadChristianity;yea,andmencouldstillhaveheardthetruthandthroughitbeenawakened,andjustified,andsanctified,andglorified.Theveritiesofourfaithwouldremainhistoricallyproventous-sobountifulhasGodbeeninHisfosteringcare-evenhadwenoBible;andthroughthoseverities,salvation."WeareinentireharmonyinthismatterwithwhatweconceivetobetheverytruestatementrecentlymadebyDr.GeorgeP.Fisher,that"iftheauthorsoftheBiblewerecrediblereportersofrevelationsofGod,whetherintheformofhistoricaltransactionsofwhichtheywerewitnesses,orofdivinemysteriesthatwereunveiledtotheirminds,theirtestimonywouldbeentitledtobelief,eveniftheywereshutuptotheirunaidedfacultiesincommunicatingwhattheyhadthusreceived."54Weareinentiresympathyinthismatter,therefore,withtheprotestwhichDr.MarcusDodsraisedinhisfamousaddressatthemeetingoftheAllianceoftheReformedChurchesatLondon,againstrepresentingthat"theinfallibilityoftheBibleisthegroundofthewholeChristianfaith."55Wejudgewithhimthatitisveryimportantindeedthatsuchamisapprehension,ifitisanywherecurrent,shouldbecorrected.WhatweareatpresentarguingissomethingentirelydifferentfromsuchanoverstrainedviewoftheimportanceofinspirationtotheveryexistenceofChristianfaith,andsomethingwhichhasnoconnectionwithit.WedonotthinkthatthedoctrineofplenaryinspirationisthegroundofChristianfaith,butifitwasheldandtaughtbytheNewTestamentwriters,wethinkitanelementintheChristianfaith;averyimportantandvaluableelement;56anelementthatappealstoouracceptanceonpreciselythesamegroundaseveryotherelementofthefaith,viz.,onthegroundofourrecognitionofthewritersoftheNewTestamentastrustworthywitnessestodoctrine;anelementoftheChristianfaith,therefore,whichcannotberejectedwithoutlogicallyunderminingourtrustinalltheotherelementsofdistinctiveChristianitybyunderminingtheevidenceonwhichthistrustrests.Wemustindeedprovetheauthenticity,credibilityandgeneraltrustworthinessoftheNewTestamentwritingsbeforeweprovetheirinspiration;andevenweretheynotinspiredthisproofwouldremainvalidandweshouldgivethemaccordanttrust.Butjustbecausethisproofisvalid,wemusttrustthesewritingsintheirwitnesstotheirinspiration,iftheygivesuchwitness;andifwerefusetotrustthemhere,wehaveinprinciplerefusedthemtrusteverywhere.Insuchcircumstancestheirinspirationisboundupinseparablywiththeirtrustworthiness,andthereforewith

allelsethatwereceiveontrustfromthem.

Ontheotherhand,weneedtoremindourselvesthattosaythattheamountandweightoftheevidenceofthetruthoftheBiblicaldoctrineofinspirationismeasuredbytheamountandweightoftheevidenceforthegeneralcredibilityandtrustworthinessoftheNewTestamentwritersaswitnessestodoctrine,isanunderstatementratherthananoverstatementofthematter.ForifwetrustthematallwewilltrustthemintheaccounttheygiveofthepersonandinthereporttheygiveoftheteachingofChrist;whereupon,astheyreportHimasteachingthesamedoctrineofScripturethattheyteach,wearebroughtfacetofacewithdivinetestimonytothisdoctrineofinspiration.Theargument,then,takestheformgivenitbyBishopWordsworth:"TheNewTestamentcanonizestheOld;theINCARNATEWORDsetsHissealontheWRITTENWORD.TheIncarnateWordisGod;therefore,theinspirationoftheOldTestamentisauthenticatedbyGodHimself."57And,again,thegeneraltrustworthinessofthewritersoftheNewTestamentgivesustherightandimposesonusthedutyofacceptingtheirwitnesstotherelationtheHolyGhostbearstotheirteaching,as,forexample,whenPaultellsusthatthethingswhichtheyutteredtheyuttered"notinwordstaughtbyhumanwisdom,butinthosetaughtbytheSpirit;joiningSpirit-giventhingswithSpirit-giventhings"(ICor.ii.13),andPeterassertsthattheGospelwaspreachedbythem"intheHolySpirit"(IPeteri.12);andthisrelationassertedtoexistbetweentheHolyGhostandtheirteaching,whetheroralorwritten(ICor.xiv.37;IIThess.ii.15,iii.6-14),givesthesanctionoftheHolyGhosttotheirdoctrineofHolyScripture,whateverthatisfoundtobe.Sothat,eventhoughwebeginonthelowestground,wemayfindourselvescompelledtosay,asBishopWilberforcefoundhimselfcompelledtosay:"Inbrief,mybeliefisthis:ThewholeBiblecomestousas'theWordofGod'underthesanctionofGod,theHolyGhost."58TheweightofthetestimonytotheBiblicaldoctrineofinspiration,inaword,isnolessthantheweighttobeattachedtothetestimonyofGod-GodtheSonandGodtheSpirit.

Butourpresentpurposeisnottodrawoutthefullvalueofthetestimony,butsimplytoemphasizethefactthatontheemergenceoftheexegeticalfactthattheScripturesoftheNewTestamentteachthisdoctrine,theamountandweightofevidenceforitstruthmustbeallowedtobethewholeamountandweightoftheevidencethatthewritersoftheNewTestamentaretrustworthyasteachersofdoctrine.Itisnotonsomeshadowyanddoubtfulevidencethatthedoctrineisbased-notonanaprioriconceptionofwhatinspirationoughttobe,notona"tradition"ofdoctrineintheChurch,thoughalltheaprioriconsiderationsand

thewholetraditionofdoctrineintheChurcharealsothrowninthescaleforandnotinthatagainstthisdoctrine;butfirstontheconfidencewhichwehaveinthewritersoftheNewTestamentasdoctrinalguides,andultimatelyonwhateverevidenceofwhateverkindandforceexiststojustifythatconfidence.Inthissense,werepeat,thecauseofdistinctiveChristianityisboundupwiththecauseoftheBiblicaldoctrineofinspiration.WeacceptChristianityinallitsdistinctivedoctrinesonnoothergroundthanthecredibilityandtrustworthinessoftheBibleasaguidetotruth;andonthissamegroundwemustequallyacceptitsdoctrineofinspiration."Ifwemaynotacceptitsaccountofitself,"asksDr.Purves,pointedly,"whyshouldwecaretoascertainitsaccountofotherthings?"59

ImmensePresumptionAgainstAllegesFactsContradictoryOfTheBiblicalDoctrine

Weareagainmakingnonewaffirmationbutonlylookingfromaslightlydifferentangleuponthesamepropositionwithwhichwehavebeendealingfromthefirst,whenweemphasizenextthefact,thatthestateofthecasebeingaswehavefoundit,weapproachthestudyoftheso-called"phenomena"oftheScriptureswithaverystrongpresumptionthattheseScripturescontainnoerrors,andthatany"phenomena"apparentlyinconsistentwiththeirinerrancyaresoinappearanceonly:apresumptionthemeasureofwhichisjustthewholeamountandweightofevidencethattheNewTestamentwritersaretrustworthyasteachersofdoctrine.

ItseemstobeoftentacitlyassumedthattheBiblicaldoctrineofinspirationcannotbeconfidentlyascertaineduntilallthefactsconcerningthecontentsandstructureandcharacteristicsofScripturearefullydeterminedandallowedfor.Thisisobviouslyfallacious.WhatPaul,forexample,believedastothenatureofScriptureisobviouslyaneasilyseparablequestionfromwhatthenatureofScripturereallyis.Ontheotherhand,theassumptionthatwecannotconfidentlyaccepttheBiblicaldoctrineofinspirationastrueuntilcriticismandexegesishavesaidtheirlastworduponthestructure,thetext,andthecharacteristicsofScripture,eventothemostminutefact,ismoreplausible.Butitisfarfromobviouslytrue.Somethingdependsuponourestimateoftheforceofthemassofevidencewhichgoestoshowthetrustworthinessoftheapostlesasteachersoftruth,andoftheclearnesswithwhichtheyannouncetheirteachingastoinspiration.Itisconceivable,forexample,thattheforceoftheevidenceoftheir

trustworthinessmaybesogreatthatweshouldbefullyjustifiedinyieldingimplicitconfidencetotheirteaching,eventhoughmanyandseriousdifficultiesshouldstandinthewayofacceptingit.This,indeed,isexactlywhatwedoinourordinaryuseofScriptureasasourceofdoctrine.WhodoubtsthatthedoctrinesoftheTrinityandoftheIncarnationpresentdifficultiestorationalconstruction?Whodoubtsthatthedoctrinesofnativedemeritandtotaldepravity,inabilityandeternalpunishmentraiseobjectionsinthenaturalheart?Weacceptthesedoctrinesandotherswhichoughttobemuchhardertocredit,suchastheBiblicalteachingthatGodsolovedsinfulmanastogiveHisonly-begottenSontodieforhim,notbecausetheiracceptanceisnotattendedwithdifficulties,butbecauseourconfidenceintheNewTestamentasadoctrinalguideissogroundedinunassailableandcompellingevidence,thatwebelieveitsteachingsdespitethedifficultieswhichtheyraise.WedonotandwecannotwaituntilallthesedifficultiesarefullyexplainedbeforeweyieldtotheteachingoftheNewTestamentthefullestconfidenceofourmindsandhearts.HowthencanitbetruethatwearetowaituntilalldifficultiesareremovedbeforewecanacceptwithconfidencetheBiblicaldoctrineofinspiration?Inrelationtothisdoctrinealone,arewetoassumethepositionthatwewillnotyieldfaithinresponsetodueandcompellingevidenceofthetrustworthinessoftheteacher,untilalldifficultiesareexplainedtooursatisfaction?-thatwemustfullyunderstandandcomprehendbeforewewillbelieve?Oristhepointthis-thatwecansupposeourselvespossiblymistakenineverythingelseexceptourdeterminationofthecharacteristicsandstructureofScriptureandthefactsstatedtherein?SurelyifwedonotneedtowaituntilweunderstandhowGodcanbebothoneandthree,howChristcanbebothhumananddivine,howmancanbebothunableandresponsible,howanactcanbebothfreeandcertain,howmancanbebothasinnerandrighteousinGod'ssight,beforeweaccept,ontheauthorityoftheteachingofScripture,thedoctrinesoftheTrinity,oftheIncarnation,ofman'sstateasasinner,ofGod'seternalpredestinationoftheactsoffreeagents,andofacceptanceonthegroundofChrist'srighteousness,becauseoftheweightoftheevidencewhichgoestoprovethatScripturetrustworthyasateacherofdivinetruth;wemayonthesamecompellingevidenceaccept,infullconfidence,theteachingofthesameScriptureastothenatureofitsowninspiration,priortoafullunderstandingofhowallthephenomenaofScripturearetobeadjustedtoit.

Nodoubtitisperfectlytrueandistobekeptinmindthattheclaimofawritingtobeinfalliblemaybemistakenorfalse.SuchaclaimhasbeenputforthinbehalfofandbyotherwritingsbesidestheBible,andhasbeenfoundutterly

inconsistentwiththeobservedcharacteristicsofthosewritings.AnaprioripossibilitymaybeassertedtoexistinthecaseoftheBible,thatacomparisonofitsphenomenawithitsdoctrinemaybringoutaglaringinconsistency.ThetestofthetruthoftheclaimsoftheBibletobeinspiredofGodthroughcomparisonwithitscontents,characteristicsandphenomena,theBiblecannotexpecttoescape;andtheloversoftheBiblewillbethelasttodenythevalidityofit.ByallmeansletthedoctrineoftheBiblebetestedbythefactsandletthetestbemadeallthemore,nottheless,stringentandpenetratingbecauseofthegreatissuesthathanguponit.Ifthefactsareinconsistentwiththedoctrine,letusallknowit,andknowitsoclearlythatthematterisputbeyonddoubt.Butletusnotconcealfromourselvesthegreatnessoftheissuesinvolvedinthetest,lestweapproachthetestintoolightaspirit,andmakeshipwreckoffaithinthetrustworthinessoftheapostlesasteachersofdoctrine,withtheeasyindifferenceofamanwhocorrectstheincidentalerrorsofapieceofgossip.NoristhisappealtotheseriousnessoftheissuesinvolvedinanysenseanappealtodealdeceitfullywiththefactsconcerningorstatedintheBible,throughfearofdisturbingourconfidenceinacomfortabledoctrineofitsinfallibility.Itissimplyanappealtocommonsense.Ifyouaretoldthatamaliciousliehasbeenutteredbysomeunknownpersonyoumayeasilyyieldthereportalanguidprovisionalassent;suchthingsarenotimpossible,unfortunatelyinthissinfulworldnotunexampled.Butifitistoldyouofyourlovedandtrustedfriend,youwillprobablydemandthemoststringentproofatthepointofyourwalkingstick.Sofarasthis,RobertBrowninghasmissedneithernaturenorrightreason,whenhemakeshisFerishtahpointouthowmuchmoreevidencewerequireinproofofafactwhichbringsuslossthanwhatissufficienttocommand

TheeasyacquiescenceofmankindInmattersnowiseworthdispute."

Ifitisrighttotestmostcarefullytheclaimofeverysettledandacceptedfaithbyeveryfactassertedinrebuttalofit,itmustbeequallyright,nayincumbent,toscrutinizemostcloselytheevidenceforanassertedfact,which,ifgenuine,woundsinitsvitalssomeimportantinterest.IfitwouldbeacrimetorefusetoconsidermostcarefullyandcandidlyanyphenomenaofScriptureassertedtobeinconsistentwithitsinerrancy,itwouldbeequallyacrimetoaccepttheassertedrealityofphenomenaofScripture,which,ifreal,strikeatthetrustworthinessoftheapostolicwitnesstodoctrine,onanyevidenceoflessthandemonstrativeweight.

ButweapproachtheconsiderationofthesephenomenaallegedtobeinconsistentwiththeBiblicaldoctrineofinspirationnotonlythuswithwhatmaybecalled,thoughinahighsense,asentimentalpresumptionagainsttheirreality.Thepresumptionisaneminentlyrationalone,andiscapableofsomewhatexactestimation.WedonotadoptthedoctrineoftheplenaryinspirationofScriptureonsentimentalgrounds,noreven,aswehavealreadyhadoccasiontoremark,onaprioriorgeneralgroundsofwhateverkind.WeadoptitspecificallybecauseitistaughtusastruthbyChristandHisapostles,intheScripturalrecordoftheirteaching,andtheevidenceforitstruthis,therefore,aswehavealsoalreadypointedout,preciselythatevidence,inweightandamount,whichvindicatesforusthetrustworthinessofChristandHisapostlesasteachersofdoctrine.Ofcourse,thisevidenceisnotinthestrictlogicalsense"demonstrative;"itis"probable"evidence.Itthereforeleavesopenthemetaphysicalpossibilityofitsbeingmistaken.Butitmaybecontendedthatitisaboutasgreatinamountandweightas"probable"evidencecanbemade,andthatthestrengthofconvictionwhichitisadaptedtoproducemaybeandshouldbepracticallyequaltothatproducedbydemonstrationitself.Butwhateverweightithas,andwhateverstrengthofconvictionitisadaptedtoproduce,itiswiththisweightofevidencebehindusandwiththisstrengthofconvictionastotheunrealityofanyallegedphenomenacontradictoryoftheBiblicaldoctrineofinspiration,thatweapproachthestudyofthecharacteristics,thestructure,andthedetailedstatementsoftheBible.Theirstudyisnottobeneglected;wehavenotattainedthrough"probable"evidenceapodeicticcertaintyoftheBible'sinfallibility.ButneitheristherealityoftheallegedphenomenainconsistentwiththeBible'sdoctrine,tobeallowedwithoutsufficientevidence.TheirrealitycannotbelogicallyorrationallyrecognizedunlesstheevidenceforitbegreaterinamountandweightthanthewholemassofevidenceforthetrustworthinessoftheBiblicalwritersasteachersofdoctrine.

ItisnottobethoughtthatthisamountstoarecommendationofstrainedexegesisinordertoridtheBibleofphenomenaadversetothetruthoftheBiblicaldoctrineofinspiration.Itamountstoarecommendationofgreatcareintheexegeticaldeterminationoftheseallegedphenomena;itamountstoarecommendationtoallowthatourexegesisdeterminingthesephenomenaisnotinfallible.Butitisfarfromrecommendingeitherstrainedorartificialexegesisofanykind.WearenotboundtoharmonizetheallegedphenomenawiththeBibledoctrine;andifwecannotharmonizethemsavebystrainedorartificialexegesistheywouldbebetterleftunharmonized.Wearenotbound,however,ontheotherhand,tobelievethattheyareunharmonizable,becausewecannotharmonize

themsavebystrainedexegesis.Ourindividualfertilityinexegeticalexpedients,ourindividualinsightintoexegeticaltruth,ourindividualcapacityofunderstandingarenotthemeasureoftruth.Ifwecannotharmonizewithoutstraining,letusleaveunharmonized.Itisnotnecessaryforustoseetheharmonythatitshouldexistorevenberecognizedbyusasexisting.Butitisnecessaryforustobelievetheharmonytobepossibleandreal,providedthatwearenotpreparedtosaythatweclearlyseethatonanyconceivablehypothesis(conceivabletousorconceivabletoanyotherintelligentbeings)theharmonyisimpossible-ifthetrustworthinessoftheBiblicalwriterswhoteachusthedoctrineofplenaryinspirationisreallysafeguardedtousonevidencewhichwecannotdisbelieve.Inthatcaseeveryunharmonizedpassageremainsacaseofdifficultharmonyanddoesnotpassintothecategoryofobjectionstoplenaryinspiration.Itcanpassintothecategoryofobjectionsonlyifwearepreparedtoaffirmthatweclearlyseethatitis,onanyconceivablehypothesisofitsmeaning,clearlyinconsistentwiththeBiblicaldoctrineofinspiration.InthatcasewewouldnodoubtneedtogiveuptheBiblicaldoctrineofinspiration;butwithitwemustalsogiveupourconfidenceintheBiblicalwritersasteachersofdoctrine.Andifwecannotreasonablygiveupthislatter,neithercanwereasonablyallowthatthephenomenaapparentlyinconsistentwiththeformerarereal,orreallyinconsistentwithit.AndthisisbuttosaythatweapproachthestudyofthesephenomenawithapresumptionagainsttheirbeingsuchaswilldisprovetheBiblicaldoctrineofinspiration-or,wemayadd(forthisisbutthesamethingindifferentwords),correctormodifytheBiblicaldoctrineofinspiration-whichismeasuredpreciselybytheamountandweightoftheevidencewhichgoestoshowthattheBibleisatrustworthyguidetodoctrine.

Theimportanceofemphasizingthese,asitwouldseem,veryobviousprinciples,doesnotariseoutofneedforaverygreatpresumptioninordertoovercomethedifficultiesarisingfromthe"phenomena"ofScripture,asoveragainstitsdoctrineofinspiration.Suchdifficultiesarenotspeciallynumerousorintractable.Dr.CharlesHodgejustlycharacterizesthosethathavebeenadducedbydisbelieversintheplenaryinspirationoftheScriptures,as"forthemostparttrivial,""onlyapparent,"andmarvelouslyfew"ofanyrealimportance."Theybear,headds,aboutthesamerelationtothewholethataspeckofsandstonedetectedhereandthereinthemarbleoftheParthenonwouldbeartothatbuilding.60Theydonotforthemostpartrequireexplainingaway,butonlytobefairlyunderstoodinordertovoidthem.Theyconstitutenorealstrainuponfaith,butwhenapproachedinacandidspiritoneisleftcontinuallymarvelingattheexcessivefewnessofthosewhichdonot,likeghosts,meltawayfromvisionas

soonasfaced.Moreover,aseverystudentofthehistoryofexegesisandcriticismknows,theyareaprogressivelyvanishingquantity.Thosewhichseemedmostobviousandintractableagenerationortwoago,remainto-dayasonlytooreadilyforgottenwarningsagainsttheineradicableandinordinatedogmatismoftheopponentsoftheinerrancyoftheBible,whoover-ridecontinuallyeverycanonofhistoricalandcriticalcautionintheireagerviolenceagainstthedoctrinethattheyassail.Whatscorntheyexpressedof"apologists"whodoubtedwhetherLukewascertainlyinerrorinassigninga"pro-consul"toCyprus,whetherhewasinerrorinmakingLysaniasacontemporarytetrarchwiththeHerodianrulers,andthelike.HoweasilythatscornisforgottenastheprogressofdiscoveryhasonebyonevindicatedtheassertionsoftheBiblicalhistorians.Thematterhascometosuchapass,indeed,intheprogressofdiscovery,thatthereisasenseinwhichitmaybesaidthatthedoctrineoftheinerrancyoftheBiblecannowbebased,withconsiderableconfidence,onitsobserved"phenomena."Whatmarvelousaccuracyischaracteristicofitshistorians!Dr.Fisher,inapaperalreadyreferredto,inviteshisreaderstoreadArchibaldForbes'articleintheNineteenthCenturyforMarch,1892,on"NapoleontheThirdatSedan,"thattheymaygainsomeideaofhowthetruthofhistoryastothesalientfactsmaybepreservedamid"hopelessandbewilderingdiscrepanciesinregardtodetails,"inthereportsofthemosttrustworthyeye-witnesses.Thearticleisinstructiveinthisregard.Anditisinstructiveinanotherregardalso.Whatacontrastexistsbetweenthismassof"hopelessandbewilderingdiscrepanciesinregardtodetails,"amongtheaccountsofasingleimportanttransaction,writtenbycarefulandwatchfuleye-witnesses,whowereonthegroundfortheprecisepurposeofgatheringthefactsforreport,andwhowereseekingtogiveanexactandhonestaccountoftheeventswhichtheywitnessed,andthemarvelousaccuracyoftheBiblicalwriters!Ifthese"hopelessandbewilderingdiscrepancies"areconsistentwiththehonestyandtruthfulnessandgeneraltrustworthinessoftheuninspiredwriters,mayitnotbearguedthatthesomuchgreateraccuracyattainedbytheBiblicalwriterswhendescribingnotoneeventbutthehistoryofages-andahistoryfilledwithpitfallsfortheunwary-hassomethingmorethanhonestyandtruthfulnessbehindit,andwarrantstheattributiontothemofsomethingmorethangeneraltrustworthiness?And,ifinthemidstofthismarvelofgeneralaccuracythereremainhereandthereafewdifficultiesasyetnotfullyexplainedinharmonywithit,orifinthecourseofthehistoricalvindicationofitingeneralararedifficulty(asinthecaseofsomeofthestatementsofDaniel)seemstoincreaseinsharpness,arewetothrowourselveswithdesperatepersistencyintothese"lastditches"andstrivebyourincreasedmsistenceupontheimpregnabilityofthemtoconcealfrommenthat

themainarmyhasbeenbeatenfromthefield?Isitnotmorereasonabletosupposethatthesedifficulties,too,willreceivetheirexplanationwithadvancingknowledge?AndisitnottheheightoftheunreasonabletotreatthemliketheSibyllinebooksasofever-increasingimportanceinproportiontotheirdecreasingnumber?Theimportanceofkeepinginmindthatthereisapresumptionagainsttherealityofthese"inconsistentphenomena,"andthatthepresumptionisofaweightmeasurableonlybytheweightofevidencewhichvindicatesthegeneraltrustworthinessoftheBibleasateacherofdoctrine,doesnotarisefromtheneedofsogreatapresumptioninordertoovercometheweightoftheallegedopposingfacts.Thosefactsarenotspeciallynumerous,importantorintractable,andtheyare,intheprogressofresearch,avanishingquantity.

Theimportanceofkeepinginmindtheprincipleinquestionarisesratherfromtheimportanceofpreservingacorrectlogicalmethod.TherearetwowaysofapproachingthestudyoftheinspirationoftheBible.OneproceedsbyobtainingfirstthedoctrineofinspirationtaughtbytheBibleasapplicabletoitself,andthentestingthisdoctrinebythefactsastotheBibleasascertainedbyBiblicalcriticismandexegesis.Thisisgoodlogicalprocedure;andinthepresenceofavastmassofevidenceforthegeneraltrustworthinessoftheBiblicalwritingsaswitnessesofdoctrine,andfortheappointmentoftheirwritersasteachersofdivinetruthtomen,andforthepresenceoftheHolySpiritwithandinthemaidingthemintheirteaching(inwhateverdegreeandwithwhatevereffect)-itwouldseemtobetheonlylogicalandpropermodeofapproachingthequestion.TheothermethodproceedsbyseekingthedoctrineofinspirationinthefirstinstancethroughacomprehensiveinductionfromthefactsastothestructureandcontentsoftheBible,asascertainedbycriticalandexegeticalprocesses,treatingallthesefactsasco-factorsofthesamerankfortheinduction.IfinthisprocessthefactsofstructureandthefactsembeddedintherecordofScripture-whicharecalled,one-sidedlyindeedbutcommonly,bytheclassofwriterswhoadoptthisprocedure,"thephenomena"ofScripture-aloneareconsidered,itwouldbedifficulttoarriveataprecisedoctrineofinspiration,atthebest:though,aswehavealreadypointedout,adegreeandkindofaccuracymightbevindicatedfortheScriptureswhichmightleadustosuspectandtoformulateasthebestaccountofit,somedivineassistancetothewriters'memory,mentalprocessesandexpression.IftheBiblicalfactsandteachingaretakenasco-factorsintheinduction,theprocedure(aswehavealreadypointedout)isliabletothedangerofmodifyingtheteachingbythefactswithoutclearrecognitionofwhatisbeingdone;theresultofwhichwouldbethelossfromobservationofonemainfactof

errancy,viz.,theinaccuracyoftheteachingoftheScripturesastotheirowninspiration.Thiswouldvitiatethewholeresult:andthisvitiationoftheresultcanbeavoidedonlybyascertainingseparatelytheteachingofScriptureastoitsowninspiration,andbyaccountingtheresultsofthisascertainmentoneofthefactsoftheinduction.Thenweareinapositiontojudgebythecomparisonofthisfactwiththeotherfacts,whetherthisfactofteachingisinaccordorindisaccordwiththosefactsofperformance.Ifitisindisaccord,thenofcoursethisdisaccordisthemainfactorinthecase:thewritersareconvictedoffalseteaching.Ifitisinaccord,then,iftheteachingisnotprovedbytheaccord,itisatleastleftcredible,andmaybebelievedwithwhateverconfidencemaybejustifiedbytheevidencewhichgoestoshowthatthesewritersaretrustworthyasdeliverersofdoctrine.Andifniceanddifficultquestionsariseinthecomparisonofthefactofteachingwiththefactsofperformance,itisinevitablethattherelativeweightoftheevidenceforthetrustworthinessofthetwosetsoffactsshouldbethedecidingfactorindeterminingthetruth.Thisisasmuchastosaythattheassertedfactsastoperformancemustgivewaybeforethefactastoteaching,unlesstheevidenceonwhichtheyarebasedasfactsoutweighstheevidenceonwhichtheteachingmaybeaccreditedastrue.Butthiscorrectionofthesecondmethodofprocedure,bywhichaloneitcanbemadelogicalinformorvalidinresult,amountstonothinglessthansettingitasidealtogetherandrevertingtothefirstmethod,accordingtowhichtheteachingofScriptureisfirsttobedetermined,andthenthisteachingtobetestedbythefactsofperformance.

Theimportanceofproceedingaccordingtothetruelogicalmethodmaybeillustratedbytheobservationthattheconclusionsactuallyarrivedatbystudentsofthesubjectseempracticallytodependonthelogicalmethodadopted.Infact,thedifferencehereseemsmainlyadifferenceinpointofview.IfwestartfromtheScripturedoctrineofinspiration,weapproachthephenomenawiththequestionwhethertheywillnegativethisdoctrine,andwefindnoneabletostandagainstit,commendedtousastrue,asitis,bythevastmassofevidenceavailabletoprovethetrustworthinessoftheScripturalwritersasteachersofdoctrine.Butifwestartsimplywithacollectionofthephenomena,classifyingandreasoningfromthem,whetheraloneorinconjunctionwiththeScripturalstatements,itmayeasilyhappenwithus,asithappenedwithcertainofold,thatmeetingwithsomethingshardtobeunderstood,wemaybeignorantandunstableenoughtowrestthemtoourownintellectualdestruction,andsoapproachtheBiblicaldoctrineofinspirationsetuponexplainingitaway.ThevalueofhavingtheScripturedoctrineasaclueinourhands,isthusfairlyillustratedbytheineradicableinabilityofthewholenegativeschoolto

distinguishbetweendifficultiesandprovederrors.IfthenweaskwhatwearetodowiththenumerousphenomenaofScriptureinconsistentwithverbalinspiration,which,soitisalleged,"criticism"hasbroughttolight,wemustreply:ChallengetheminthenameoftheNewTestamentdoctrine,andaskfortheircredentials.Theyhavenocredentialsthatcanstandbeforethatchallenge.NosingleerrorhasasyetbeendemonstratedtooccurintheScripturesasgivenbyGodtoHisChurch.Andeverycriticalstudentknows,asalreadypointedout,thattheprogressofinvestigationhasbeenacontinuousprocessofremovingdifficulties,untilscarcelyashredoftheoldlistof"BiblicalErrors"remainstohidethenakednessofthismoribundcontention.Tosaythatwedonotwishtomakeclaims"forwhichwehaveonlythistourge,thattheycannotbeabsolutelydisproved,"isnottothepoint;whatistothepointistosay,thatwecannotsetasidethepresumptionarisingfromthegeneraltrustworthinessofScripture,thatitsdoctrineofinspirationistrue,byanyarrayofcontradictoryfacts,eachoneofwhichisfairlydisputable.Wemusthaveindisputableerrors-whicharenotforthcoming.

TherealproblembroughtbeforetheChurchesbythepresentdebateoughtnowtobesufficientlyplain.InitsdeepestessenceitiswhetherwecanstilltrusttheBibleasaguideindoctrine,asateacheroftruth.ItisnotsimplywhetherwecanexplainawaytheBiblicaldoctrineofinspirationsoastoallowustotakeadifferentviewfromwhathasbeencommonofthestructureandcharacteristicsoftheBible.Nor,ontheotherhand,isitsimplywhetherwemayeasilyexplainthefacts,establishedasfacts,embeddedinScripture,consistentlywiththeteachingofScriptureastothenature,extentandeffectsofinspiration.ItisspecificallywhethertheresultsproclaimedbyaspecialschoolofBiblicalcriticism-whichareofsuchacharacter,asisnowadmittedbyall,astonecessitate,ifadopted,anewviewoftheBibleandofitsinspiration-restonabasisofevidencestrongenoughtomeetandovercometheweightofevidence,whateverthatmaybeinkindandamount,whichgoestoshowthattheBiblicalwritersaretrustworthyasteachersofdoctrine.Ifweanswerthisquestionintheaffirmative,thennodoubtweshallhavenotonlyanewviewoftheBibleandofitsinspirationbutalsoawholenewtheology,becausewemustseekanewbasisfordoctrine.Butifweansweritinthenegative,wemaypossessoursoulsinpatienceandbeassuredthattheScripturesareastrustworthywitnessestotruthwhentheydeclareadoctrineofInspirationaswhentheydeclareadoctrineofIncarnationorofRedemption,eventhoughintheonecaseasintheotherdifficultiesmayremain,thefullexplanationofwhichisnotyetcleartous.Therealquestion,inaword,isnotanewquestionbuttheperennialoldquestion,

whetherthebasisofourdoctrineistobewhattheBibleteaches,orwhatmenteach.Andthisisaquestionwhichistobesettledontheoldmethod,viz.,onourestimateoftheweightandvalueoftheevidencewhichplacestheBibleinourhandsasateacherofdoctrine.

Endnotes:

1. FromThePresbyterianandReformedReview,v.iv,1893.pp.177-221.2. "InspirationandtheBible."AnInquiry.ByRobertF.Horton,M.A.,Late

FellowofNewCollege,Oxford.FourthEdition.London:T.FisherUnwin,1889.

3. "LuxMundi."TenthEdition.London:JohnMurray,1890.P.xi.4. "WhoWrotetheBible?"ABookforthePeople.ByWashingtonGladden.

Boston:Houghton,Mifflin&Co.,1891.Seepp.61(cf.pp.57,92seq.),21,25,154(cf.pp.105,166,37,etc.).

5. "TheChangeofAttitudeTowardstheBible."Alecture,etc.ByJosephHenryThayer,ProfessorinHarvardUniversity.Boston:Houghton,Mifflin&Co.,1891.Seepp.9,10,22,52,65.

6. "TheOraclesofGod"(Longmans,1891),pp.5,45,76.7. ThearticleappearedinTheChristianUnion,butwequoteitfromPublic

Opinion,vol.x.No.24(March25,1891),p.576.8. Thisremark,ofcourse,doesnotimplythattherearenonewhoassertthat

theresultsofthistypeofcriticismleave"inspiration"untouched.Dr.Driverdoesnotstandalonewhenhesays,inthePrefacetohis"IntroductiontotheLiteratureoftheOldTestament":"CriticisminthehandsofChristianscholarsdoesnotbanishordestroytheinspirationoftheOldTestament;itpresupposesit"(p.xix).ButProf.Driverwouldbethelasttomaintainthatthe"inspiration"whichcriticismleavestotheOldTestamentiswhattheChurchhasunderstoodbytheplenaryinspirationoftheBible.Accordingly,Prof.RobertsonspeaksdirectlytothepointwhenheremarksinthePrefacetohis"EarlyReligionofIsrael"(p.xi),that"suchscholarswoulddoaninvaluableservicetotheChurch,atthepresenttime,iftheywouldexplainwhattheymeanbyinspirationinthisconnection."Theeffortstodothis,onoursideofthewater,arenotreassuring.OntherelationofthenewviewstoinspirationseethelucidstatementbyDr.E.C.BissellinTheHartfordSeminaryRecord,n.1.

9. Itoughttobeunnecessarytoprotestagainagainstthehabitofrepresentingtheadvocatesof"verbalinspiration"asteachingthatthemodeof

inspirationwasbydictation.Thematterisfullyexplainedinthepaper:"Inspiration."ByProfs.A.A.HodgeandB.B.Warfield.Philadelphia:PresbyterianBoardofPublication,1881,pp.19seq.

10. "LifeofPaul,"i.49.11. "Paulinism,"i.88.12. "OldTestamentintheNew,"BibliothecaSacra,xi.612.13. "PrinciplesofChristianity,"byJamesStuart(1888),p.346.14. "SeancedeRentreedesCoursdelaFacultedeTheologieProtestantede

Paris,leMardi3Novembre,"1891.Leçond'OuverturedeM.leProf.Edm.Stapfer.Paris:Fischbacher,1891.Pp.26,42.

15. ComparealsoKuenen,"Prophets,"p.449;Reuss,"HistoryofChristianTheologyintheApostolicAge,"i.p.352seq.;Riehm,"DerLehrbegr.desHebräerbriefes,"i.pp.173,177,etc.

16. ThosewhowishtoseeaveryconclusiveandthoroughstatementofPaul'sdoctrineofinspirationshouldconsultDr.Purves'spaperon"St.PaulandInspiration,"publishedinThePresbyterianandReformedRev.,January,1893.ForourLord'sdoctrine,seeDr.Caven'spaperon"OurLord'sTestimonytotheOldTestament,"inthenumberoftheReviewforJuly,1892.

17. "ZurDogmatik,"p.177seq.18. "LettertotheRev.AndrewA.Bonar,D.D.,"etc.Edinburgh,1890.19. "TheEdwardRobinsonChairofBiblicalTheologyintheUnion

TheologicalSeminary,"NewYork(1891),pp.5,6.20. ThesubstanceofsomeoftheprecedingparagraphswasprintedinThe

HomileticalReviewforMay,1891,underthetitleof"ThePresentProblemofInspiration."

21. "Exegesis."AnAddressdeliveredattheOpeningoftheAutumnTermofUnionTheologicalSeminary,September24,1891.ByMarvinR.Vincent,D.D.,ProfessorofSacredLiterature.NewYork:C.Scribner'sSons,1891.P.40.

22. Op.cit.,p.5seq.23. "LuxMundi."AmericanEd.NewYork:JohnW.LovellCo.P.283.24. "ReasonandAuthorityinReligion."ByJ.MacBrideSterrett,D.D.,

ProfessorinSeaburyDivinitySchool.NewYork:T.Whittaker,1891.P.176.

25. "FaithandInspiration."TheCareyLecturesfor1884.ByRobertWatts,D.D.London:Hodder&Stoughton,1885.P.139."Thesolequestionis:What,accordingtothelanguageemployedbyHim,wasHisestimateoftheOldTestamentScripture?ItwillbeobservedthatHedoesnotsingleoutthe

passageonwhichHebasesHisargument,andtestifyofitthatitisunbreakable,makingitsinfallibilitydependonHisauthority.Statedformally,Hisargumentisasfollows:Major-TheScripturecannotbebroken.Minor-'IsaidyeareGod's,'iswritteninyourlaw,whichisScripture.Conclusion-'IsaidyeareGod's'cannotbebroken....HearguestheinfallibilityoftheclauseonwhichHefoundsHisargumentfromtheinfallibilityoftherecordinwhichitoccurs.AccordingtoHisinfallibleestimate,itwassufficientproofoftheinfallibilityofanysentenceorphraseofaclause,toshowthatitconstitutedaportionofwhattheJewscalled'theScripture'(h`grafh,)."

26. "ZurDogmatik,"p.177.27. CompareMeyer,inloc.(E.T.,i.p.262,note):"EvenRothe...takes

dokei/teinthesenseofadelusion,namely,thattheypossessedeternallifeinabook.SuchexplanationsareopposedtothehighvenerationmanifestedbyJesustowardstheHolyScriptures,especiallyapparentinJohn...."

28. Op.cit.,pp.181,182.29. Op.cit.,pp.174,175.30. EvenonanextremeKenoticview,itis,however,notsocertainthaterror

shouldbeattributedtotheGod-man.Prof.Gretillat,ofNeuchatel,aKenotistofthetypeofGessandhisowncolleagueGodet,isabletoteachthat"byreasonoftherelationwhichunitestheintelligencewiththewill,"ourLordmustneedsbefreenotonlyfromsin,butalsofromallerror(ExposédeTheol.Syst.,iv.288).TholuckoccupiedapositionsimilartoRothe's;yetheremindsusthat:"Proofsmightbebroughttoshowthat,eveninquestionspertainingtolearnedexegesis"-whicharesuchasourLordneededtolearnasaman-"suchasthoseconcerningthehistoricalconnectionofapassage,theauthorandageofabook,anoriginalspiritualdiscernmentwithoutthecultureoftheschoolsmayoftendivinethetruth"("CitationsoftheOldTestamentintheNew,"tr.inBibliothecaSacra,xi.p.615).

31. Sermonon"ThePromiseoftheSpirit,"inthevolume:"PrincetonSermons."BytheFacultyoftheSeminary.NewYork:FlemingH.RevellCo.,1893.P.33.Thewholeofthisnoblesermonshouldberead.

32. "ThePrinciplesofChristianity."BeinganEssaytowardsaMoreCorrectApprehensionofChristianDoctrine,MainlySoteriological.ByJamesStuart,M.A.London:Williams&Norgate,1588.P.67seq.

33. P.345seq.34. P.213.35. Pp.348,349.

36. P.70.Theimmediatereferenceoftheselastwordsistomattersofcriticismandexegesis;butaccordingtothecontextualconnectiontheywouldalsobeusedofmattersofinspiration.

37. "UntersuchungenzumerstenKlemensbriefe."VonLic.Theol.W.Wrede,PrivatdocentderTheologieinGottingen.Gottingen:VanderhoeckdcRuprecht'sVerlag,1891.Pp.60,75seq.

38. ComparethereviewofWredebyProf.H.M.Scott,inThePresbyterianandReformedReview,January,1893,p.163.

39. P.66.40. P.353.41. P.258.42. Op.cit.,Vol.i.p.49.43. ThepresentwriterhastriedtostatethetruerelationsofSystematicand

Biblicaltheologyinadiscussionof"TheIdeaofSystematicTheologyConsideredasaScience"(InauguralAddress),pp.22-28.A.D.F.Randolph&Co.,1888.Heventurestoreferthereadertoit.

44. "Inspiration."AClericalSymposium.BytheRev.ArchdeaconFarrarandothers.London:JamesNisbetandCo.,1888.2ded.Pp.219,241.

45. "HistoryofInterpretation."BamptonLectures.ByF.W.Farrar,D.D.London:Macmillan,1880.P.147.

46. P.71.47. OnthecontrarythesewritersusuallyminimizetheBiblicaldefinitionof

inspiration.ThusDr.MarvinR.Vincent,whoisimmediatelytobequoted(op.c.p.15),tellsus"Scripturedoesnotdefinethenatureandextentofitsowninspiration.Theoft-quotedpassageofIITim.iii.16reallygivesusnolightonthatpoint...Thepassagedoesindeedpointoutcertaineffectswhichattendtheuseofinspiredwritings...Butafterall,wearenonearerthanevertoananswertothequestion,Whatisinspiration?...Sothatwemustfallbackonthefacts,onthephenomenaoftheBibleaswehaveit."Butthedeckisnotclearedbysuchremarks;afterall,PauldoesassertsomethingbycallingtheScripturesTheopneustic,andwhatthethingisthatheassertsintheuseofthispredicate,isnotdiscoverablefromanexaminationintowhattheScripturesare,butonlybyanexaminationintowhatPaulmeans;butwhatPaulunderstandsbytheopneustic,Dr.Vincentmakesnoefforttoinvestigate.Thiswholeprocedureistypical.Thus,forexample,theRev.J.PatersonSmyth,inhisrecentbook,"HowGodInspiredtheBible"(p.64),proceedsinanexactlysimilarmanner."OurtheoryofinspirationmustbelearnedfromthefactspresentedintheBible,andinordertobecorrectitmustbeconsistentwithallthesefacts...I

wanttofindoutwhatIcanaboutinspiration.Godhasnowhererevealedtomeexactlywhatitis.Hehastoldmeitisadivineinfluence,anin-breathingoftheHolyGhostonthespiritoftheancientwriters.ButIcannottellhowmuchthatmeansorwhateffectsIshouldexpectfromit.Ihave,therefore,nowayoffindingoutexceptbyexaminingthephenomenapresentedbytheBibleitself."ThismethodamountssimplytodiscardingtheguidanceofthedoctrineofScriptureinfavorofourowndoctrinefoundedonourexaminationofthenatureofScripture.Mr.SmythcannotclosehiseyestocertainoutstandingfactsonthesurfaceofScripture,indicatoryofthedoctrineastoScriptureheldbytheBiblicalwriters(pp.36and106),thoughhemakesnoefforttocollectandestimateallsuchphenomena.Andwhenherealizesthatsomemaybeaffectedevenbyhismeagrestatementofthemsofarastosaythat"thestrongexpressionsjustherequotedfromsomeoftheBiblewriters,andevenfromourLordHimself,convincemethatthetheoryofverbalinspirationismostprobablytrue,"hehasonlysuchananswerasthefollowing:"Well,reader,youwillfindagoodmanythoughtfulpeopledisagreeingwithyou.Why?Because,whilefullyreceivingtheseargumentsasaproofofGod'sinspirationoftheBible,theyhavelookedalittlefurtherthanthesurfacetojudgehowmuchGod'sinspirationimplies,andtheycannotbelievefromtheirexaminationofScripturethatitimplieswhatisknownasverbalinspiration"(p.109).Mr.Smythmeansby"verbalinspiration"thetheoryofmechanicaldictation.Butputtingthatasideasamanofstraw,whatitisdifficultforustounderstandishow"thoughtfulpeople"canframeatheoryofinspirationafteronlysuchshallowinvestigationoftheScripturaldoctrineofinspiration,andhow"thoughtfulpeople"canassigntheirinabilitytobelieveadoctrine,aninabilitybasedontheirownconceptionofwhatScriptureis,asanyproofthatthatdoctrineisnottaughtbythe"strongexpressions"oftheBiblewritersandtheLordHimself.IsitanymorerationalistictocorrecttheScripturaldoctrineoftheoriginoftheuniversefromourinvestigationsofthenatureofthings,thanitistocorrecttheScripturaldoctrineofinspirationfromourinvestigationsofthenatureofScripture?

48. Mag.ofChristianLit.,April,1892.49. Op.cit.,p.5.50. Op.cit.,p.240.51. "ALettertotheRev.AndrewA.Bonar,D.D."ByWilliamG.Blaikie,D.D.,

LL.D.2ded.Edinburgh:Macniven&Wallace,1890.P.5.52. "ALettertotheRev.Prof.WilliamG.Blaikie,D.D.,LL.D."ByRobert

Watts,D.D.,LL.D.Edinburgh:R.W.Hunter,1890.P.30.53. "DiscoursesOccasionedbytheInaugurationofBenj.B.Warfield,D.D.,to

theChairofNewTestamentExegesisandLiteratureintheWesternTheologicalSeminary,April25,1880."Pittsburgh,1880.P.46.Cf."Inspiration."ByProf.A.A.HodgeandProf.B.B.Warfield.Philadelphia:PresbyterianBoardofPublication,1881.Pp.7,8(alsoinThePresbyterianReviewforApril,1881).Also,"TheInspirationoftheScriptures."ByFrancisL.Patton,D.D.Philadelphia:PresbyterianBoardofPublication,1869.Pp.22,23,54.

54. TheCongregationalist,Nov.3,1892;TheMagazineofChristianLiterature,Dec.,1892,p.236,firstcolumn.Thiswholecolumnshouldberead;itsstatementandillustrationarealikeadmirable.

55. ThisaddressmaybemostconvenientlyconsultedinTheExpositorforOctober,1888,pp.301,302.InexpressingourconcurrencewithportionsofthisaddressandofDr.Fisher'spapersjustquoted,wearenottobeunderstood,ofcourse,asconcurringwiththeirwholecontents.

56. HowimportantandvaluablethiselementoftheChristianfaithis,itisnotthepurposeofthispapertopointout.Letitsufficeheretosaybrieflythatitis(1)theelementwhichgivesdetailedcertitudetothedeliveryofdoctrineintheNewTestament,and(2)theelementbywhichtheindividualChristianisbroughtintoimmediaterelationtoGodintherevelationoftruththroughtheprophetsandapostles.TheimportanceofthesefactorsintheChristianlifecouldnotbeoverstated.TheimportanceoftherecognitionofplenaryinspirationtothepreservationofsounddoctrineisnegativelyillustratedbytheprogressofRationalism,asthusoutlinedbrieflybyDr.CharlesHodge("Syst.Theol.,"iii.p.195):"ThosewhoadmittedthedivineoriginoftheScripturesgotridofitsdistinctivedoctrinesbytheadoptionofalowtheoryofinspirationandbytheapplicationofarbitraryprinciplesofinterpretation.InspirationwasinthefirstinstanceconfinedtothereligiousteachingsoftheBible,thentotheideasortruths,butnottotheforminwhichtheywerepresented,nortotheargumentsbywhichtheyweresupported...Inthiswayawetspongewaspassedoverallthedoctrinesofredemptionandtheiroutlinesobliterated."ItlooksasiftheChurchwereextremelyslowinreadingthemostobviouslessonsofhistory.

57. Wordsworth,"OntheCanor,"p.51,Am.Ed.58. "LifeoftheRt.Rev.S.Wilberforce,D.D.,"Vol.III.p.149.59. "St.PaulandInspiration."InauguralAddress,etc.A.D.F.Randolph&Co.,

1892.P.52.PresbyterianandReformedReview,January,1893,p.21.60. "SystematicTheology,"i.pp.169,170:Wehavepurposelyadducedthis

passageheretoenableustoprotestagainstthemisuseofit,which,intheexigenciesofthepresentcontroversy,hasbeenmade,asifDr.Hodgewasinthispassageadmittingtherealityoftheallegederrors.Thepassageoccursinthereplytoobjectionstothedoctrine,notinthedevelopmentofthedoctrineitself,andisofthenatureofanargumentumadhominem.HowfarDr.HodgewasfromadmittingtherealityoferrorintheoriginalBiblicaltextmaybeestimatedfromthefrequencywithwhichheassertsitsfreedomfromerrorintheimmediatelyprecedingcontext-pp.152,155,163(nolessthanthreetimesonthispage),165,166,169(nolessthanfivetimes).

“God-InspiredScripture”

Thephrase,"GivenbyinspirationofGod,"or"InspiredofGod,"occurs,asiswell-known,butonceintheNewTestament-intheclassicalpassage,towit,IITim.iii.16,whichisrenderedintheAuthorizedVersion,"AllScriptureisgivenbyinspirationofGod,"andbytheRevisedVersion,"EveryScriptureinspiredofGodis,etc."TheGreekwordrepresentedbyit,andstandinginthispassageasanepithetorpredicateof"Scripture"-qeo,pneustoj-thoughoccurringhereonlyintheNewTestamentandfoundnowhereearlierinallGreekliterature,hasneverthelessnothithertoseemedofdoubtfulinterpretation.Itsform,itssubsequentusage,theimplicationsofparalleltermsandoftheanalogyoffaith,havecombinedwiththesuggestionsofthecontexttoassigntoitameaningwhichhasbeenconstantlyattributedtoitfromthefirstrecordsofChristianinterpretationuntilyesterday.

Thisunvaryingunderstandingofthewordisthusreportedbytheleadinglexicographers:Schleusner"NewTest.Lexicon."GlasgowreprintoffourthLeipzigedition,1824:"

qeo,pneustoj,ou,o`,h`,afflatudivinoactus,divinoquodamspirituafflatus,etpartimdehominibususurpatur,quorumsensusetsermonesadvimdivinamreferendisunt,v.c.poëtis,faticidis,prophetis,auguribus,quietiamqeodi,daktoivocantur,partimdeipsisrebus,notionibus,sermonibus,etscriptis,aDeosuggestis,etdivinoinstructunatis,exqeo.jetpne,wspiro,quod,utLatinumafflo,dediisspeciatimusurpatur,quorumvihominesinterdumitaagiexistimabantur,utnotionesrerum,anteaignotarum,insolitoquodammodo

conciperentatquementevehementiusconcitatainsermonessublimioresetelegantioreserumperent.Conf.Cic.proArchiac.14;Virgil.Aen.iii,358,vi,50.InN.T.semellegiturIITim.iii.16,pa/sagrafh.qeo,pneustojomnisScripturadivinitusinspirata,seu,quæestoriginisdivinæ.coll.IIPeti.21.Syrus...scriptura,quæperspiritumscriptaest.Conjunxitnempeactionemscribendicumactioneinspirandi.ApudPlutarchumT.ix.p.583.ed.Reiske.qeo,pneustoio;neiroisuntsomniaadiisimmissa."

Robinson"GreekandEnglishLexiconoftheNewTestament,"newed.,NewYork,1872:

"qeo,pneustoj(-ou,o`(h`,adj.(qeo,j(pne,w),God-inspired,inbreathedofGod,IITim.iii.16pa/sagrafh.qeo,pneustoj.-Plut.dePlacit.Philosoph.5.2,tou.jonvei,roujtou.jqeopneu,stouj.Phocylid.121th/jde.qeopneu,stousofi,hjlo,gojevsti.na;ristoj.Comp.Jos.c.Ap.1.7[ai`grafai.tw/nprofhtw/nkata.th.nevpi,pnoianth.navpo.tou/qeou/maqo,ntwn.Cic.proArch.8,'poetam...quasidivinoquodamspirituinflari."'

Thayer-Grimm"Greek-EnglishLexiconoftheNewTestament,"NewYork,1887:

"qeo,pneustoj(-on,(qeo,jandpne,w),inspiredbyGod:grafh,,i.e.thecontentsofScripture,IITim.iii.16[seepa/jI.1c.];sofi,h,[pseudo-]Phocyl.121;o;neiroi,Plut.deplac.phil.5,2,3p.904f.;[Orac.Sibyll.5,406(cf.308);Nonn.paraphr.ev.Ioan.1,99].(e;mpneustojalsoisusedpassively,buta;pneustoj(eu;pneustoj(puri,pneustoj([dusdia,pneustoj],actively[anddusana,pneustojappar.eitheract.orpass.;cf.W.96(92)note].)"

Cremer"Biblico-TheologicalLexiconofNewTestamentGreek"ed.2,E.T.,Edinburgh,1878:

"qeo,pnewstoj,promptedbyGod,divinelyinspired.IITim.iii.16,pa/sagrafh.q.InprofaneGreekitoccursonlyinPlut.deplacit.philos.v.2,o;neiroiqeo,pneustoi(katvavna,gkhngi,nontai),opposedtofusikoi,.Theformationofthewordcannotbetracedtotheuseofpne,w,butonlyofevmpne,w.Cf.Xen.Hell.vii.4,32,th.navreth.nqeo.jme.nevmpneu,saj;Plat.Conv.179B,me,nojevmpneu/saievni,oijtw/nh`rw,wnto.nqeo,n;Hom.Il.XX.110;Od.xix.138.Thesimpleverbisneverusedofdivineaction.HowmuchthewordcorrespondswiththeScripturalviewisevidentfromIIPet.i.21."

Andthecommentatorsgenerallywillbefoundtospeaknootherwise.

Thecompletenessofthislexicalconsenthasrecently,however,beenbroken,andthatbynolessanauthoritythanProf.HermannCremerhimself,thesecondeditionofwhosegreat"Biblico-theologicalLexicon"wehavejustadducedasinentireagreementwiththecurrentview.Thedateofissueofthisedition,initsoriginalGermanform,was1872.Thethirdeditionwasdelayeduntil1883.IntheintervalDr.Cremerwascalledupontowritethearticleon"Inspiration"inthesecondeditionofHerzog's"Realencyklopaedie"(Vol.vi,subvoc.,pp.746seq.),whichsawthelightin1880.Inpreparingthisarticlehewasledtotakeanentirelynewview2ofthemeaningofqeo,pnewstoj,accordingtowhichitdefinesScripture,inIITim.iii.16,notaccordingtoitsorigin,butaccordingtoitseffect-notas"inspiredofGod,"butas"inspiringitsreaders."Thestatementofhisnewviewwastransferredtothethirdeditionofhis"Lexicon"(1883;E.T.as"Supplement,"1886)verymuchintheforminwhichitappearsinHerzog;andithasretaineditsplaceinthe"Lexicon,"withpracticallynoalteration,eversince.3AsitsexpressioninHerzogwastheearliest,andthereforeishistoricallythemostimportant,andasthearticleinthe"Lexicon"iseasilyaccessibleinbothGermanandEnglish,andmoreoverdoesnotessentiallydifferfromwhatissaidinHerzog,weshallquotehereDr.Cremer'sstatementofthecaseinpreferencefromHerzog.Hesays:

"Intheologicalusage,InspirationdenotesespeciallytheinfluenceoftheHolySpiritintheoriginationofthesacredScriptures,bymeansofwhichtheybecometheexpressiontousofthewillofGod,ortheWordofGod.ThetermcomesfromtheVulgate,whichrendersIITim.iii.16pa/sagrafh.qeo,pneustoj,byomnisScripturadivinitusinspirata.WhetherthemeaningoftheGreektermisconveyedbythisisatleastquestionable.ItclearlybelongsonlytoHellenisticandChristianGreek.ThenotionthatitwasusedalsoinclassicalGreekofpoetsandseers(HutherinhisCommentary)andtoexpresswhatCicerosaysinhisproArchia,p.8,nemovirmagnussinealiquoafflatudivinounquamfuit,iscertainlywrong.Forqeo,pneustojdoesnotoccuratallinclassicalGreekorinprofaneGreekasawhole.Intheuniquepassage,Plutarch,deplacit.phil.,5,2(Mor.904,2):tou.jovnei,roujtou.jqeopneu,stoujkatvavna,gkhngi,nesqai\tou.jde.fusikou.javneidwlopoioume,nhjyuch/jto.sumfe,ronauvth/|ktl),itisveryprobablytobeascribedtothecopyist,andstands,asWyttenbachconjectures,intheplaceofqeope,mptouj.BesidesthisitoccursinPseudo-Phocylides,v.121:th/jde.qeopneu,stousofi,hjlo,gojevstina;ristoj-unlessthewholelineis,withBernays,tobedeletedasdisturbingtothesense-aswellasinthefifthbookof

the"Sibyllines,"v.308:Ku,mhdvh`mwra.su.nna,masitoi/jqeopneu,stoij,andV.406,vAlla.me,gangeneth/raqeo.npa,ntwnqeopneu,stwnvEnqusi,aijevge,raironkai.a`gi,ajevkato,mbaj.ThePseudo-Phocylideswas,however,aHellenist,andtheauthorofthefifthbookofthe"Sibyllines"was,mostprobably,anEgyptianJewlivinginthetimeofHadrian.OnChristiangroundwefinditinIITim.iii.16,whichispossiblytheearliestwrittenemploymentofittowhichwecanpoint.Wetstein,onthispassage,adducesthesentencefromtheVitaSabae16(inCoteleriiMonum.):e;fqaseth/|tou/Cuca,ritih`pa,ntwnqeopneu,stwn(pa,ntwncristofo,rwnauvtou/sunodi,ame,crio`ovnoma,twn,aswellasthedesignationofMarcusEremitaaso`qeo,pneustojavnh,r.Thatthetermhasapassivemeaning='giftedwithGod'sSpirit,''divinelyspirited,'(not'inspired'asEwaldrightlydistinguishes4)maybetakenasindubitablefrom'Sibyll.',v.406andthetwopassageslastadduced.Neverthelessgrafh.qeo,pneustojdoesnotseemeasilycapableofmeaning'inspiredbyGod'sSpirit'inthesenseoftheVulgate;whenconnectedwithsuchconceptionsasgrafh,here,na/ma,'fountain,''Sibyll.'v.308,itwouldrathersignify'breathingadivinespirit,'inkeepingwiththatreadytransitionofthepassiveintotheactivesensewhichweseeina;pneustoj(eu;pneustoj,'ill-orwell-breathed'='breathingillorwell.'CompareNonnus,paraphr.evJo.,i,102:ou-podo.ja;krouavndrome,nhnpala,mhnouvka;xiojeivmi.pela,ssaj(lu/saimou/noni`ma,ntaqeopneu,stoiopedi,lou,withv.129:bapti,zeinavpu,roisikai.ajpneu,stoisiloe,troij.Inharmonywiththis,itmightbeunderstoodalsoinPhocyl.121;theexplanation,'WisdomgiftedwiththeDivineSpirit,'atalleventshasinitsfavorthefactthatqeo,pneustojisgiventhesamesenseaswhenitisconnectedwithavnh,r(a;nqrwpoj.Certainlyatransitiontothesense,'breathedbyGod'='inspiredbyGod'seemsdifficulttoaccountfor,anditwouldfit,withoutforcing,onlyPhocyl.121,whileinIITim.iii.16,ontheassumptionofthissense,therewouldberequiredanotaltogethereasymetonyme.Thesense'breathingGod'sSpirit'ismoreoverinkeepingwiththecontext,especiallywiththewvfe,limojpro.jdidaskali,anktl)andtheta.duna,mena,sesofi,sai,v.15,aswellaswiththelanguageemployedelsewhere,e.g.,intheEpistletotheHebrews,wherewhattheScripturesaysis,asiswellknown,spokenofasthesaying,thewordoftheHolyGhost.Cf.alsoActsxxviii.25.Origenalso,inHom.21inJerem.,seemssotounderstandit:sacravoluminaSpiritusplenitudinemspirant.Letitbeaddedthattheexpression'breathedbyGod,inspiredbyGod,'thoughanoutgrowthoftheBiblicalidea,certainly,sofarasitisreferredtotheprophecywhichdoesnotariseoutofthehumanwill(IIPet.i.21),yetcanscarcelybeappliedtothewholeoftherestofthesacredScriptures-unlesswearetofindinIITim.iii.16theexpressionofaconceptionofsacredScripturesimilartothePhilonian.There

isnodoubt,however,thatthePeshitounderstooditsimply='inspiredbyGod'-yetnotdifferentlythanasinMatt.xxii.43wefind:Daui.devnpneu,matilalei/.Ittranslatesax'Wrb.KryGebt'K.luKbteK.t.a,,'foreveryScripturewhichiswrittenevnpneu,maiv-certainlykeepingprominentlyintheforegroundtheinspirationofthewriter.SimilarlytheÆthiopicrenders:'AndeveryScriptureisinthe(bythe)SpiritoftheLordandprofits';whiletheArabic(derivingfromtheoriginaltext)reads:'AndeveryScripturewhichisdivinelyofspiratio,divinamsapiensauram.'TherenderingofthePeshitoandtheexplanationsoftheGreekexegeteswouldcertainlylendgreatweighttothedivinitusinspirata,werenottheyexplicablefromthedominantideaofthetime-forwhich,itwasthought,asuitabletermwasfoundinIITim.iii.16,nowhereelseusedindeedandcoinedforthepurpose-butwhichwasitselfmoreorlesstakenoverfromtheAlexandrianJudaism,thatistosay,fromheathenism."

Here,wewillperceive,isacarefullyreasonedattempttoreversethepreviouslexicalconsensusastothemeaningofthisimportantword.Wehavenotobservedmanytracesoftheinfluenceofthisnewdeterminationofitsimport.Thepresentwriter,aftergoingoverthegroundunderProf.Cremer'sguidance,toohastilyadoptedhisconclusioninapaperon"Paul'sDoctrineoftheOldTestament"publishedinThePresbyterianQuarterlyforJuly,1899;andanadversecriticismofDr.Cremer'sreasoning,fromthepenofProf.Dr.L.Schulze,ofRostock,appearedintheTheologischesLiteraturblattforMay22,1896(xvii,21,pp.253,254),inthecourseofareviewoftheeightheditionofthe"Lexicon."Buttherehasnotmetoureyeasyetanyreallythoroughreëxaminationofthewholematter,suchasarestatementofitlikeDr.Cremer'smighthavebeenexpectedtoprovoke.Thecasesurelywarrantsandindeeddemandsit.Dr.Cremer'sstatementismorethanastatement-itisanargument;andhisconclusionisrevolutionary,notindeedastodoctrine-forthatrestsonabroaderbasisthanasingletextoranisolatedword-butastothemeaningbornebyanoutstandingNewTestamentterm.Itwouldseemthatthereis,then,noapologyneededforundertakingasomewhatminuteexaminationofthefactsinthecaseundertheguidanceofDr.Cremer'sveryfullandwell-reasonedstatement.

Itmayconduce,intheend,toclearnessofpresentationifwebeginsomewhatinmediasresbyraisingthequestionofthewidthoftheusageoftheword.IsitbroadlyaGreekword,ordistinctivelyaHellenisticword,orevenapurelyChristianword?

Sofarasappearsfromtheusageasascertained,5itwouldseemtobepost-Christian.WhetherweshouldalsocallitChristian,coinedpossiblybyPaulandusedonlyinChristiancircles,depends,inthepresentstateofourknowledge,onthedeterminationoftworathernicequestions.Oneoftheseconcernsthegenuinenessofthereadingqeopneu,stoujinthetracton"TheOpinionsofPhilosophers"(v,2,3),whichhascomedowntousamongtheworksofPlutarch,aswellasinitsdependentdocument,the"HistoryofPhilosophy"(106),transmittedamongtheworksofGalen.Theotherconcernsthecharacter,whetherJewishorJewish-Christian,ofcertainportionsofthefifthbookofthe"SibyllineOracles"andofthe"PoemofAdmonition,"onceattributedtoPhocylidesbutnowlongrecognizedtobetheworkofalateAlexandrianJew,6-inbothofwhichthewordoccurs.Dr.CremerconsidersthereadingtobefalseinthePlutarchiantract,andthinksthefifthbookofthe"Sybillines"andthePseudo-PhocylidianpoemJewishinorigin.HethereforepronouncesthewordaHellenisticone.Thesedecisions,however,canscarcelybelookeduponascertain;andtheywillbearscrutiny,especiallyastheyareaccompaniedwithsomeincidentalerrorsofstatement.

Itwouldcertainlyrequireconsiderableboldnesstodecidewithconfidenceupontheauthorshipofanygivenportionofthefifthbookofthe"Sibyllines."Friedlieb(whomDr.Cremerfollows)andBadtascribethewholebooktoaJewish,butAlexandre,ReussandDechenttoaChristianauthor;whileothersparcelitoutvariouslybetweenthetwoclassesofsources-themostassigningthesectionscontainingthewordinquestion,however,toaJewishauthor(Bleck,Lücke,Gfrörrer;Ewald,Hilgenfeld;Schürer).Schürerpracticallygivesupindespairtheproblemofdistributingthebooktoitsseveralauthors,andcontentshimselfwithsayingthatJewishpiecespreponderateandrunindatefromthefirstChristiancenturytoHadrian.7InthesecircumstancessurelyacertainamountofdoubtmayfairlybethoughttorestontheJewishorChristianoriginofourwordintheSibyllinetext.Ontheotherhand,thereseemstobeprettygoodpositivereasonforsupposingthePseudo-PhocylidianpoemtobeinitsentiretyaChristianproduction.ItsJewishoriginwasstillstrenuouslymaintainedbyBernays,8butitsrelationtothe"TeachingoftheApostles"hascausedthesubjecttobereopened,andwethinkhasbroughtittoatleastaprobablesettlementinfavorofScaliger'sopinionthatitisthework"avnwnu,mouChristiani."9Inthefaceofthisprobabilitythebrilliantandattractive,butnotalwaysentirelyconvincingconjecturesbywhichBernaysremovedsomeoftheChristiantraitsfromthetextmaynowbeneglected:andamongthemthatbywhichhediscardedthelinecontainingourword.Sofarthenasitsoccurrencein

thefifthbookofthe"Sibyllines"andinPseudo-Phocylidesisconcerned,nocompellingreasonappearswhythewordmaynotbeconsideredadistinctivelyChristianone:thoughitmustatthesametimeberecognizedthatthesectionsinthefifth"Sibyl"inwhichitoccursaremoreprobablyJewishthanChristian.

WithreferencetothePlutarchianpassagesomethingmoreneedstobesaid."Intheuniquepassage,Plutarchdeplac.phil.5,2(904F.):tw/novnei,rwntou.jme.nqeopneu,stoujkatv(avna,gkhngi,nesqai\tou.jde.fusikou,javneidwlopoioume,nhjyuch/jto.sumfe,ronauvth|/ktl)"saysDr.Cremer,"itiswiththegreatestprobabilitytobeascribedtothetranscriber,inwhosemindqeo,pneustojlayinthesenseoftheVulgaterendering,divinitusinspirata,anditstands,asWyttenbachconjectures,forqeope,mptouj."TheremarkconcerningWyttenbachiserroneous-onlyoneofaseriesofoddmisstatementswhichhavedoggedthetextualnotesonthispassage.Wyttenbachprintsqeopneu,stoujinhistextandaccompaniesitwiththistextualnote:10"qeope,mptoujreposuiteditorLips.utexGal.etMosc.Atinneutrohaecreperio.Sanenonestquarecompilatorielegantiasobtrudamus."Qeope,mptoujisthereforenotWyttenbach'sconjecture:Wyttenbachdoesnotevenacceptit,andthishasoflatebeenmadeareproachtohim:11heascribesitto"theLeipzigeditor,"thatistoChristianDanielBeck,whoseeditionofthistractwaspublishedatLeipzig,in1787.ButWyttenbachevenmoregravelymisquotesBeckthanhehashimselfbeenmisquotedbyDr.Cremer.ForBeck,whoprintsinhistext:tw/novnei,rwntou.jme.nqeopneu,stouj,annotatesasfollows:"Olim:tou/jovnei,roujtou.jqeopneu,stouj-Reddiditextiselegantioremlectionem,quaeinM.etG.est.qeopneu,stoujsapereChristianumlibrariumvideturproqeope,mptouj."12Thatistosay,WyttenbachhastransferredBeck'snoteontw/novnei,rwntou.jme.ntoqeope,mptouj.Itisthisclauseandnotqeope,mptoujthatBeckprofessestohavegotoutoftheMoscowMS.andGalen:qeope,mptoujhepresentsmerelyasapureconjecturefoundedontheoneconsiderationthatqeopneu,stoujhasaflavorofChristianscribeaboutit;andhedoesnotventuretoputqeope,mptoujintothetext.TheoddthingisthatHuttenfollowsWyttenbachinhismisrepresentationofBeck,writinginhisnote:"Beck.deditqeope,mptoujutelegantioremlectionemeMosq.etGal.sumptam.InneutrosehocreperisseW.notat,addens,nonessequarecompilatorielegantiasobtrudamus.Cors.eGal.notattw/novnei,rwntou.jme.nqeopneu,stouj."13Corsinidoesindeedsoreport,hisnoterunning:"Paulloaliter"(i.e.,fromtheordinarytextwhichhereprintsfromStephens)"Galenus,tw/novnei,rwntou.jme.nqeopneu,stouj,somniorumeaquidemquaedivinitusinspiratasint,etc."14ButthisisexactlywhatBecksays,andnothingother,exceptthatheaddsthatthisformisalsofoundinthe

MoscowMS.WemustconcludethatHutteninlookingatBeck'snotewaspreoccupiedwithWyttenbach'smisreportofit.Theupshotofthewholematteristhatthereadingqeope,mptoujwasmerelyaconjectureofBeck's,foundedsolelyonhisnotionthatqeopneu,stoujwasapurelyChristianterm,andpossessingnodiplomaticbasiswhatsoever.AccordinglyithasnotfounditswayintotheprintedtextofPlutarch:alleditions,withoneexception,downtoandincludingthoseofDübner-Döhner(Didot's"Bibliotheca")of1856andBernardakis(Teubner'sseries)of1893readqeopneu,stouj.

Anewfacehasbeenputonthematter,however,bythepublicationin1879ofDiels'"DoxographiGraeci,"inwhichthewholeclassofancientliteraturetowhichPlutarch's"Deplac.philos."belongsissubjectedtoasearchingstudy,withaviewtotracingthemutualrelationsoftheseveralpiecesandthesourcesfromwhichtheyareconstructed.15Withthisexcursioninto"highercriticism,"intowhichthereentersahighlyspeculativeelement,that,despitethescientificthoroughnessandadmirableacutenesswhichgivethewholeanunusuallyattractiveaspect,leavessomedoubtsinthemindofthesoberreader,16wehavenowhappilylittletodo.SufficeittosaythatDielslooksuponthePlutarchiantractasanepitomeofahypotheticalAëtios,madeabout150A.D.andalreadyusedbyAthenagoras(c.177A.D.):17andontheGalenictractasinitslaterportionanexcerptfromthePlutarchiantract,madeaboutA.D.500.18Inthecourseofhiswork,hehasframedandprintedacarefulrecensionofthetextofbothtracts,19andinbothofthemhereadsattheplaceofinteresttous,qeope,mptouj.20Hereforthefirst(andasyetonly21)timeqeope,mptoujmakesitsappearanceinthetextofwhatwemay,indeferencetoDiels'findingsandaftertheexampleofGerke,22call,atleast,the"[Pseudo?-]Plutarch."23Thekeytothesituation,withDiels,liesinthereadingofthePseudoGalen:forasanexcerptfromthe[Pseudo?-]PlutarchthePseudo-Galenbecomesavaluablewitnesstoitstext,andistreatedinthiscaseindeedasadeterminativewitness,inasmuchasthewholeMS.transmissionof[Pseudo?-]Plutarch,sofarasknown,readshereqeopneu,stouj.Editingqeope,mptoujinPseudo-Galen,Dielseditsitalso,onthatsoledocumentaryground,in[Pseudo?-]Plutarch,Thatwemayformsomeestimateofthelikelihoodofthenewreading,wemust,therefore,formsomeestimateofitslikelihoodinthetextofthePseudo-Galen,aswellasoftheprinciplesonwhichthetextofthe[Pseudo?-]Plutarchistobeframed.

TheeditionsofPseudo-Galen-includingthatofKühn24-havehithertoreadqeopneu,stoujatourplace,andfromthiswemaypossiblyinfer,thatthisis

thereadingofthecommonrunoftheMSS.25DielsconstructshistextforthisportionofthetreatisefromtwokindredMSS.only,andrecordsthereadingsofnoothers:asnovariationisgivenuponourword,wemayinferthatthesetwoMSS.atleastagreeinreadingqeope,mptouj.Theformerofthem(CodexLaurentianuslxxiv,3),ofthetwelfthorearlythirteenthcentury,isdescribedastranscribed"withincrediblecorruptness";thelatter(CodexLaurentianuslviii,2),ofthefifteenthcentury,aswrittenmorecarefully:bothrepresentacommonverycorruptarchetype.26Thisarchetypeisreconstructedfromtheconsentofthetwo,andwheretheydifferthepreferenceisgiventotheformer.Thetextthusframedisconfessedlycorrupt:"butthoughitmustthereforebecautiouslyused,Dielsconsidersitneverthelessatreasurehouseofthebestreadingsforthe[Pseudo?-]Plutarch.28Especiallyinthelatterpartofthe[Pseudo?-]Plutarch,wherethehelpofEusebiusandtheothereclogæfails,hethinksthecasewouldoftenbedesperateifwedidnothavethePseudo-Galen.Threeexamplesofthepreservationoftherightreadingbyitalonehegivesus,oneofthembeingourpresentpassage,inwhichhefollows,therefore,thereadingofthePseudo-GalenagainsttheentireMS.transmission.

DielsconsidersthewholeMS.transmissionofthe[Pseudo?-]PlutarchtotakeusbacktoanarchetypeofaboutA.D.1000,andselectsfromitthreecodicesasnearesttothearchetype,29viz.,A=CodexMosquensis339(nunc352)ofsaec.xi.orxii.(thesameastheMosq.quotedbyBeck),collatedbyMatthaeiandinplacesreëxaminedforDielsbyVoelkelius;B=CodexMarcianus521[xcii,7],ofsaec.xiv,verycloselyrelatedtoA,collatedbyDielshimself;andC=CodexParisinus1672ofsaec.xiii.ex.vel.xiv.inwhichisacopyofacorpusofPlutarchputtogetherbyPlanudesoracontemporary.ThroughthesethreecodiceshereachestheoriginalapographwhichstandsattherootofalltheextantMSS.,andfromit,bytheaidoftheexcerptsfromthetract-inourpassagethePseudo-Galen'sonly-heattainshistext.

Hisnoteonourreadingrunsthus:"qeope,mptoujGcf.Arist.dedivinat.2p.463b13:qeopneu,stouj(A)BC,cf.Prol.p.15.".TheparenthesisinwhichAisenclosedmeansthatAisherecitedfromthesilenceofMatthaei'scollation.30ThereferencetotheProlegomenaistothepassagealreadyalludedto,inwhichtheGalenicreadingqeope,mptoujiscitedasoneofthreechoseninstancesofexcellentreadingspreservedbyGalenalone.Thenotethererunsthus:"alterilocochristianilibrariipiusfrausnocuit.V.2,3,`Hro,filojtw/novnei,rwntou.jme.nqeopneu,stoujkatvavna,gkhngi,neqai.fuitscilicetqeope,mptouj,quodserointellectumestaWyttenbachioinindicePlutarcheo.siGalenuminspexisset,

ipsumilludqeope,mptoujinventuruserat.similifraudeversus121PhocylideisaByzantinisinsertusest,ubivoxillasacra[IITim.iii.16]I.Bernaysiointerpolationisoriginemmanifestoaperuit."Thatistosay,thereadingofthePseudo-GalenispreferredtothatoftheMSS.,becausethereadingqeopneu,stoujexplainsitselfasapiousfraudofaChristianscribe,givingaplaceinthetextofPlutarchto"thissacredword"-anotherexampleofwhichprocedureistobefoundinPseudo-Phoc.121,extrudedbyBernaysfromthetextonthisveryground.Onthisremark,asonahinge,turns,itwouldseem,thedecisionofthewholequestion.Theproblemofthereading,indeed,maybesetforthatthispointintheformofthisalternative:-Whichismostlikely,-thatqeopneu,stoujinthe[Pseudo?-]PlutarchoriginatedinthepiousfraudofaChristianscribe?-orthatqeope,mptoujinthetextofPseudo-GaleneditedbyDielsoriginatedintheerrorofacarelessscribe?

WhenweposittheprobleminthisdefiniteformwecannotfeelatallcertainthatDiels'solutionistherightone.Thereisanaprioriunlikelihoodinitsway:deliberatecorruptionoftextsisrelativelyrareandnottobeassumedwithoutgoodreason.TheparallelfromthePseudo-Phocylidesfails,nowthatitseemsprobablethatthewholepoemisofChristianorigin.Thereseemsnomotiveforsuchapiousfraudasischarged:whatgaincouldbehadfromintrudingqeopneu,stoujintothePlutarchiantext?andwhatspecialsanctityattachedtothisword?Andifasacrosanctcharacterbeattributedtotheword,coulditnotbeequallyplausiblyarguedthatitwasthereforeoffensivetotheChristianconsciousnessinthisheathenconnection,andwasaccordinglyreplacedbythelesssacredqeope,mptouj,awordofheathenassociationsandindeedwithasecondarysensenotfarfrom"extraordinary."31Orifitbenowsaidthatitisnotintendedtochargeconsciousfraud,itispertinenttoaskwhatspecialassociationsChristianshadwiththewordqeopneu,stoujinconnectionwithdreamswhichwouldcauseittoobtrudeitselfunconsciouslyinsuchaconnection.Oneisalmostequallyatalosstoaccountfortheintrusionofthewordintheplaceofthesimplerqeope,mptouj,whethertheintrusionbelookeduponasdeliberateorunconscious.Ontheotherhand,thesubstitutionofqeope,mptoujforqeopneu,stoujinthetextofPseudo-Galenseemsquitereadilyaccountable,andthatwhetheritbeattributedtotheoriginalexcerpterortosomelatercopyistofthetract.Thetermwasassociatedwithdreamsinthemindsofallacquaintedwiththeliteratureofthesubject.DielshimselfrefersustoapassageinAristotlewherethecollocationoccurs,32andfamiliarpassagesfromPhilo33andthe"Clementina"34willsuggestthemselvestoothers."Godsentdreams"musthavealmosthadtherankofa"terminustechnicus."35

Moreoverthescribehadjustwrittenthewordintheimmediatecontext,andthatnotwithoutclosecontiguitywiththewordovnei,rouj,36andmaybereadilysupposedtohavehaditstilllingeringinhismemorywhenhecametowritethesucceedingsection.Infine,theintrusionintothetextofqeopneu,stouj,ararewordandonesuggestedtoadullorinattentivescribebynothing,seemsfarlesseasytoaccountforthantheintrusionofqeope,mptouj,acommonword,anordinaryterminthisconnection,andatermsuggestedtothescribebytheimmediatecontext.Ontranscriptionalgroundscertainlytheformerappearsfarmorelikelytobeoriginal-"procliviscriptionipraestatardua."

Thedecisiveconsiderationagainstqeopneu,stoujinthemindofDiels-asithadbeenbeforehiminthemindofBeck-seemstohavebeen,indeed,nothingbuttheassumptionthatqeopneu,stouj,asadistinctivelyChristianword,mustargueaChristianhand,whereveritisfound.That,however,inourpresentstudyispreciselythematterunderinvestigation;andwemustspeciallyguardagainstpermittingtointrudedecisivelyintoourpremiseswhatweproposetoarriveatonlybywayofconclusion.Whetherthewordbegenuineinthe[Pseudo?-]Plutarchornot,isjustoneofthemostimportantfactorsindecidingwhetheritbeapeculiarlyChristianwordornot.Aninstructiveparallelmaybefoundinthetreatmentaccordedbysomegreatauthoritiestothecognatewordqeo,pnoojwhenitturnedupinaninscriptionwhichseemsobviouslyheathen.37Thisinscription,inscribed(aboutthethirdcentury)onthefaceofaman-headedsphinxatMemphis,singsthepraisesofthesphinx'sbeauty-amongtheitemsmentionedbeingthatevfu,per[q]epro,swponevceito.q[e]o[pn]oun,while,below,thebodyisthatofthelion,kingofbeasts.Boeckhcommentsonthis:"Vs.4,5,rectelegitLetronnius,quiqeo,pnoonmonetChristianumquidamsonare."ButwhyshouldLetronniusinferChristianityfromthewordqeo,pnoon,orBoeckhthinkitworthwhiletorecordthefact?Fortunatelytheheathenuseofqeo,pnoojisbeyondquestion.38Itprovidesanexcellentillustration,therefore,oftherashnessofpronouncingwordsofthiskindtobeofChristianorigin;andsuggeststhehesitancywithwhichweshouldextrudesuchawordfromthetextof[Pseudo?-]Plutarchonthesolegroundthatit"tastesofaChristianscribe."Surelyifaheathencouldinventandusetheoneword,hemightequallywellinventandusetheother.Andcertainlyitisagreatmistaketolookuponcompoundswithqe,ojofthiskindasinanysenseexclusivelyChristian.ThelonglistofheathentermsofthischaractergivenbyDr.Cremer,indeed,isitselfenoughtoindicatetheheathenfacilityfortheircoinage.Manysuchwords,wemaywellbelieve,werefoundbyChristiansreadymadetotheirhand,andhadonlytobeadaptedtotheirricherusage.Whatismoredistinctively

Christianistheparallellistofwordscompoundedwithpneu/ma39orevencristo,j40whichwereplacedbytheirside,suchas[pneumatiko,j],pneumatoki,nhtoj,pneumatofo,roj,pneumate,mforoj;cristo,grafoj,cristodi,dktoj,cristoki,nhtoj,cristo,lhptoj,cristofo,roj.

AsthereasonswhichhavebeendeterminingwithDielsinframinghistextdonotappeartousabletobeartheweightlaidonthem,wenaturallycannotadopthistextwithanyconfidence.Wedoubtwhetherqeope,mptoujwastheoriginalreadinginthePseudo-Galen;wedoubtwhether,ifthatwerethecase,weshouldonthatgroundedititinthe[Pseudo?-]Plutarch.Ourfeelingisdecidedthattheintrusionofqeope,mptoujintoatextwhichoriginallyreadqeopneu,stoujwouldbefarmoreeasilyaccountedforthanthereverse.Oneshouldbeslow,ofcourse,inrejectingareadingcommendedbysuchascholarlytactasDiels'.ButwemaytakecouragefromthefactthatBernardakis,withDiels'textbeforehim,continuestoreadqeopneu,stoujeventhoughrecognizingqeope,mptoujasthereadingofGalen.WethinkwemustbepermittedtoholdthematterstillatleastsubjudiceandtoprofessourinabilityinthecircumstancestolookuponthewordasapurelyChristianterm.41ItwouldbeinterestingtoknowwhatphraseologywasusedbyHerophilushimself(bornc.B.C.300)inthepassagewhichthe[Pseudo?-]Plutarchexcerpts.Butthisexcerptseemstobetheonlysourceofinformationwehaveinthematter,42anditwouldperhapsbeoverboldtosupposethatthecompilerhadpreservedtheverywordsofthegreatphysician.Weresuchapresumptiondeemedplausibleweshouldbeforcedtocarrybackthefirstknownuseofthewordqeopneu,stoujtothethirdcenturybeforeChrist,butnottoaprovenanceotherthanthatAlexandriawhereitsearliestuseisotherwisetraceable.PerhapsifwecannotcallitapurelyChristiantermnoryet,withDr.Cremer,anexclusivelyHellenisticone,wemayventuretothinkofit,provisionallyatleast,asbelongingtoAlexandrianGreek.WhetherweshouldalsosaytolateAlexandrianusagewillpossiblydependonthedegreeoflikelihoodweascribetoitsrepresentinginthetextofthe[Pseudo?-]PlutarchanactualusageofHerophilus.

Ourinterestindeterminingthereadinginthe[Pseudo?-]Plutarchculminates,ofcourse,initsbearingonthemeaningofqeo,pneustoj.Prof.Schulze'sremark43thatnocopyistwouldhavesubstitutedqeo,pneustojhereforqeo,pemptojiflinguisticusagehadattachedanactivesensetotheformer,isnodoubtquitejust.Thisisadmitted,indeed,byDr.Cremer,whoconsidersthatthescribetowhomthesubstitutionisthoughttobedue"hadqeo,pneustojinhismindinthesenseoftheVulgaterendering,divinitusinspirata";andonlyseekstobreaktheforceof

thisadmissionbyurgingthattheconstantexegeticaltraditionwhichassignedthismeaningtoqeo,pneustoj,restsonamisunderstandingofthewordandreadsintoitasensederivedfromAlexandrian-Jewishconceptionsofinspiration.Thisappealfromafixedlatertoanassumedoriginalsenseofthewordpossessesforce,nodoubt,onlyincasethattracesofsuchanassumedoriginalsensecanbeadduced;andmeanwhilethepresenceofqeo,pneustojasasynonymofqeo,pemptoj,eveninthevocabularyofsomewhatlatescribes,mustrankasoneitemintheevidencebywhichitsmeaningistobeascertained.Thewholefaceofthematterischanged,however,ifqeo,pneustojbeallowedtobeprobablyorevenpossiblygenuineinthe[Pseudo?-]Plutarch.InthatcaseitcouldscarcelybethoughttoreflectthelaterChristianconceptionofinspiration,imposedonPaul'stermbythinkersaffectedbyPhilo'sdoctrineofScripture,butwouldstandasanindependentbitofevidenceastotheoriginalmeaningoftheterm.Theclericalsubstitutionofqeo,pemptojforitundertheinfluenceofliteraryassociationswouldindeed,inthiscasetoo,onlywitnesstoasynonymyinthemindofthelaterscribes,whomaywellbesupposedChristiansandsharersinthecommonconceptionthatChristiansreadintoqeo,pneustoj.Buttheimplicationsofthepassageitselfwouldbevalidtestimonytotheoriginalimportofthetermhereused.Anditwouldseemquiteclearthattheimplicationsofthepassageitselfassigntoitapassivesense,andthatasensenotveryremotefromqeo,pemptoj."Herophilussays,"weread,"thattheopneusticdreams"("dreamsdivinelyinspired,"Holland;"thedreamsthatarecausedbydivineinstinct,"Goodwin),"comebynecessity;butnaturalones"("naturaldreams,"Holland;"dreamswhichhavetheiroriginfromanaturalcause,"Goodwin),"fromthesoul'simageryofwhatisfittingtoitanditsconsequences,"etc.44Thecontrastherebetweendreamsthatareqeo,pneustoiandthosethatarefusikoi,,theformerofwhichareimposedonthesoulwhilethelatterareitsownproduction,wouldseemcertainlytoimplythatqeo,pneustojhereimportssomethingnearlyakinto"God-given,"thoughnaturallywithimplicationsofitsownastothemodeofthegiving.ItmightbepossibletoreaditasdesignatingdreamsthatarebreathedintobyGod,filledwithHisinspirationandthusmadethevehiclesofHismessage,ifweotherwiseknewthatsuchistheimplicationoftheterm.Butnothingsosubtleasthisissuggestedbythelanguageasitstands,whichappearstoconveymerelythesimplenotionthattheopneusticdreamsdifferfromallnaturalones,whetherthelatterbelongtothehigherorlowerelementsofournature,inthattheycomefromGodandarethereforenotnecessarilyagreeabletothesoul'sownimage-makingfacultiesortheproductofitsimmanentdesires,buttakeformandbearameaningimposedonthemfromwithout.

TherearefewotherinstancesoftheoccurrenceofthewordwhichhavemuchchanceoflyingentirelyoutsidethesphereofinfluenceofitsuseinIITim.iii.16.Inthefirstrankofthesewillcertainlybeplacedthetwoinstancesinthefifthbookofthe"Sibyllines."TheformeroftheseoccursinadescriptionofthecityofCyme,whichiscalledthe"foolishone,"anddescribedascastdownbywickedhands,"alongwithhertheopneusticstreams(na,masiqeopneu,stoij)"nolongertoshoutherboastsintotheairbuthenceforthtoremain"deadamidtheCymeanstreams."45ThedescriptionskillfullybringstogetherallthatweknowofCyme-advertstoherformergreatness("thelargestandnoblestofalltheÆoliancities,"Strabotellsus,46andwithLesbos,"themetropolis"ofalltherest),herreputationforfolly(alsoadvertedtoandquaintlyexplainedbyStrabo),herpresentdecadence,andhersituationbyrunningwaters(atraitindicatedalsobyhercoinswhichshowthattherewasastreamnearbycalledXanthus).Ithasbeencustomarytounderstandby"thetheopneusticstreams"mentioned,somestreamsorfountainsintheneighborhoodknownforthepresumptivelyoracularpowersoftheirwaters."ButtheredoesnotseemtohavebeenpreservedanynoticeoftheexistenceofsuchoracularwatersbelongingtoCyme,anditmakesagainstthisassumptionthattheCymeans,liketherestoftheIoniansandÆolians,wereaccustomedtoresortfortheiroraclestothesomewhatdistantBranchidæ,inthesouth.48Itappearsmuchmorelikely,then,thatthestreamsadvertedtoarenaturalstreamsandstandhereonlyaspartoftheratherfullandveryexactdescriptionofthetown-thereferencebeingprimarilytotheXanthusandtoitasanelementmerelyintheexcellenceofthesituation.Inthatcase"theopneustic,"heretoo,wouldseemtomeansomethingakinto"God-given,"orperhapsmorebroadlystill"divine,"inthesenseofspeciallyexcellentanddesirable.

ThesecondSibyllinepassageisaportionofalamentoverthedestructionoftheTempleatJerusalem,wherein(wearetold)gold,"deceiveroftheworldandsouls,"wasnotworshiped,butmen"adoredinsacrifices,withpureandnoblehecatombs,thegreatFather-Godofalltheopneusticthings."49HereAlexandretranslates,"Quicælestisvitampateromnibusafflat";andTerry,"TheGodandmightymakerofallbreathingthings."50AndtheyseemsupportedintheirgeneralconceptionbythefactthatweappeartohavebeforeushereonlyaslightlyvariedformofaformulametwithelsewhereintheSibyllines.Thus,asRzachpointsout,wehaveatiii,27851acondemnationofthosewho"neitherfearnordesiretohonorthedeathlessFather-Godofallmen,"52andatiii,604,essentiallythesamephraseisrepeated.Weseem,inaword,tomeethereonlywiththeSibyllineequivalentoftheHomeric"path.ravndrw/nteqew/nte."

Accordinglyqeopneu,stwnwouldseemtostandhereinthesteadofavnqrw,pwnintheparallelpassages,andmerelytodesignatemen,doubtlesswithareminiscenceofGen.ii.7-orperhaps,morewidely,creatures,withareminiscenceofsuchapassageasPs.civ.30.IneithereventitisthecreativepowerofGodthatisprominentlyinthemindofthewriterashewritesdownthewordqeopneu,stwn,whichistohimobviouslythepropertermfor"creatures"incorrelationwiththegene,thjqeo,j.

BythesideoftheseSibyllinepassagesitisperhapsnaturaltoplacethelinefromthePseudo-Phocylides,whichmarkstheculminationofhispraiseof"speech"asthegreatestgiftofGod-aweapon,hesays,sharperthansteelandmoretobedesiredthantheswiftnessofbirds,orthespeedofhorses,orthestrengthoflions,orthehornsofbullsorthestingsofbees-"forbest[ofall]isthespeechoftheopneusticwisdom,"sothatthewisemanisbetterthanthestrongone,anditiswisdomthatrulesalikeinthefield,thecityandthesea.Itiscertainlysimplesttounderstand"theopneusticwisdom"hereshortlyas"God-givenwisdom."Undoubtedlyitisitselftheinspirerofthespeechthatmanifestsit,andwemightmanagetointerprettheqeopneu,stouassodesignatingit-"God-inspiring,God-breathingwisdom."Butthiscanscarcelybeconsiderednatural;anditequallyundoubtedlyliesmorecloselyathandtointerpretitasdesignatingthesourceofthewisdomitselfaslyinginGod.Wisdomisconceivedastheopneustic,inaword,becausewisdomitselfisthoughtofascomingfromGod,asbeingtheproductofthedivineactivity-heredesignated,assofrequentlyintheOldTestament,asoperatingasabreathing.

ApassagethathascometolightsinceDr.Cremer'sinvestigationforthisword-studywasmade,isofnotdissimilarimplication.Itisfoundintherecentlypublished"TestamentofAbraham,"53apiecewhichinitsoriginalform,itseditor,Prof.James,assignstoasecond-centuryEgyptianJewish-Christian,thoughithassufferedmuchmediævalizationintheninthortenthcentury.Itrunsasfollows:"AndMichaelthearchangelcameimmediatelywithamultitudeofangels,andtheytookhisprecioussoul(th.ntimi,anauvtou/yuch,n)intheirhandsinaGod-wovencloth(sindo,niqeou?fantw/);andtheyprepared(evkh,deusan)thebodyofrighteousAbrahamuntothethirddayofhisdeathwiththeopneusticointmentsandherbs(muri,smasiqeopneu,stoijkai.avrw,masin),andtheyburiedhiminthelandofpromise."Hereqeo,pneustojcanhardlymean"God-breathing,"and"God-imbued"isnotmuchbetter;andthoughwemightbetemptedtomakeitmean"divinelysweet"(akindofderivativesenseof"God-redolentointment";forpne,wmeansalso"tosmell,""tobreathe

ofathing"),itisdoubtlessbettertotakeitsimply,astheparallelwithqeou?fantw|/suggests,asimportingsomethingnotfarfrom"God-given."TheclothinwhichthesoulwascarrieduptoGodandtheunguentswithwhichthebodywaspreparedforburialwerealikefromGod-were"God-provided";thewordstodesignatethisbeingchosenineachcasewithnicereferencetotheirspecificapplication,butcoveringtotheirwriterlittlemorespecificmeaningthanthesimpleadjective"divine"wouldhavedone.

ItissurelyinthissamecategoryalsothatwearetoplacetheverseofNonnuswhichDr.Cremeradducesasshowingdistinctlythatthewordqeo,pneustoj"isnottobetakenasequivalenttoinspiratus,inspiredbyGod,butasrathermeaningfilledwithGod'sspiritandthereforeradiatingit."NonnusisparaphrasingJohni.27andmakestheBaptistsay:"Andhethatcomethaftermestandsto-dayinyourmidst,thetipofwhosefootIamnotworthytoapproachwithhumanhandthoughonlytoloosethethongsofthetheopneusticsandal."54HeresurelythemeaningisnotdirectlythatourLord'ssandal"radiateddivinity,"thoughcertainlythatmaybeoneoftheimplicationsoftheepithet,butmoresimplythatitpartookofthedivinityofthedivinePersonwhosepropertyitwasandincontactwithwhomithadbeen.AllaboutChristwasdivine.Weshouldnotgofarwrong,therefore,ifweinterpretedqeo,pneustojheresimplyas"divine."Whatis"divine"isnodoubt"redolentofDivinity,"butitissocallednotbecauseofwhatitdoes,butbecauseofwhatitis,andNonnus'mindwhenhecalledthesandaltheopneusticwasoccupiedratherwiththedivineinfluencethatmadethesandalwhatitwas,viz.,somethingmorethanameresandal,becauseithadtouchedthosedivinefeet,thanwithanyinfluencewhichthesandalwasnowcalculatedtoexert.ThelaterlinewhichDr.Cremerasksustocompareisnotwellcalculatedtomodifythisdecision.InitJohni.33isbeingparaphrasedandtheBaptistiscontrastinghismissionwiththatofChristwhowastobaptizewithfireandtheHolySpirit(evnpuri.bapti,zwnkai.pneu,mati).He,John,wassent,onthecontrary,hesays,tobaptizethebodyofalreadyregeneratemen,andtodoitinlaversthataredestituteofbothfireandthespirit-firelessandspiritless(avpu,roisikai.avpneu,stoisiloetroi/j).55Itmayindeedbepossibletointerpret,"unburningandunspiritualizing";butthisdoesnotseemtheexactshadeofthoughtthewordsaremeanttoexpress;thoughinanycasethebearingofthephraseonthemeaningofqeo,pneustojintheformerlineisoftheslightest.

OfthepassagescitedbyDr.CremerthereremainonlythetwohederivesfromWetstein,inwhichqeo,pneustojappearsasanepithetofcertainmen.TotheseshouldbeaddedaninscriptionfoundatBostra,inwhichacertainecclesiasticis

designatedanavrciereu.jqeo,pneustoj.56Dr.Cremerhimselfthinksitclearthatinsuchpassageswehaveapassivesense,butinterpretsitasdivinelyspirited,"enduedwiththedivinespirit,"ratherthanas"divinelyinspired,"-inaccordancewithadistinctiondrawnbyEwald.CertainlyitisdifficulttounderstandthewordinthisconnectionasexpressingsimpleoriginationbyGod;itwassomethingmorethanthemerefactthatGodmadethemthatwasintendedtobeaffirmedbycallingMarcusandAntipatertheopneusticmen.NordoesitseemverynaturaltosupposethattheintentionwastodesignatethemaspreciselywhatweordinarilymeanbyGod-inspiredmen.Itliesveryneartosuppose,therefore,thatwhatitwasintendedtosayaboutthem,isthattheywereGod-pervadedmen,meninwhomGoddweltinanespecialmanner;andthissuppositionmaybethoughttobesupportedbytheparallel,inthepassagefromthe"VitaSabae,"withcristofo,roj.Ofwhomthis"caravanofalltheopneustics,ofallhischristophers,"wascomposed,wehavenomeansofdetermining,asCotelerius'"Monumenta,"fromwhichWetsteinquotedthepassage,isnotaccessibletousaswewrite.Butthegeneralsenseoftheworddoesnotseemtobedoubtful.Ignatius,("adEphes."ix.)tellsusthatallChristiansconstitutesuchacaravan,of"God-bearersandshrine-bearers,Christ-bearers,holy-thing-bearers,completelyclothedinthecommandmentsofChrist";andZahnrightlycommentsthatthustheChristiansappearasthereal"evniqeoiorevnqousia,zontej,sincetheycarryChristandGodinthemselves."ParticularlydistinguishedChristiansmightthereforeveryproperlybeconceivedinasupereminentsenseasfilledwithGodandbearersofChrist;andthismightveryappropriatelybeexpressedbythedoubleattributionofqeo,pneustojandcristofo,roj.Onlyitwouldseemtobenecessarytounderstandthatthusasecondaryandderivedsensewouldbeattributedtoqeo,pneustoj,aboutwhichthereshouldstillclingaflavoroftheideaoforigination.Theqeo,pneustojavnh,risGod-filledbytheactofGodHimself,thatistosay,heisaGod-endowedman,onemadewhatheisbyGod'sownefficiency.Nodoubtinusagethesensemightsufferstillmoreattritionandcometosuggestlittlemorethan"divine"-whichistheepithetgiventoMarcusofScetis57byNicephorusCallistus,("H.E.,"xi,35)-o`qei/ojMa,rkoj-thatistosay"SaintMark,"ofwhicho`qeo,pneustojMa,rkojisdoubtlessaverygoodsynonym.Theconceptionconveyedbyqeo,pneustojinthisusageisthussomethingverydistinctfromthatexpressedbytheVulgaterendering,aDeoinspiratus,whentakenstrictly;thatwouldseemtorequire,asEwaldsuggests,somesuchformasqee,mpneustoj;thetheopneusticmanisnottheman"breathedintobyGod."Butitisequallydistinctfromthatexpressedbythephrase,"pervadedbyGod,"usedasanexpressionofthecharacterofthemansodescribed,withoutimplicationof

theoriginofthischaracteristic.WhatitwouldseemspecificallytoindicateisthathehasbeenframedbyGodintosomethingotherthanwhathewouldhavebeenwithoutthedivineaction.TheChristianassuchisasmuchGod-madeasthemanassuch;andthedistinguishedChristianassuchasmuchastheChristianatlarge;andtheuseofqeo,pneustojtodescribetheoneortheotherwouldappeartorestultimatelyonthisconception.Heis,inwhathehasbecome,theproductofthedivineenergy-ofthedivinebreath.

Wecannotthinkitspeakingtoostrongly,therefore,tosaythatthereisdiscoverableinnoneofthesepassagestheslightesttraceofanactivesenseofqeo,pneustoj,bywhichitshouldexpresstheidea,forexample,of"breathingthedivinespirit,"orevensuchaquasi-activeideaasthatof"redolentofGod."EverywherethewordappearsaspurelypassiveandexpressesproductionbyGod.Andifweproceedfromthesepassagestothosemuchmorenumerousones,inwhichitis,asinIITim.iii.16,anepithetorpredicateofScripture,andwherethereforeitssignificationmayhavebeenaffectedbythewayinwhichChristianantiquityunderstoodthatpassage,theimpressionofthepassivesenseofthewordgrows,ofcourse,everstronger.ThoughthesepassagesmaynotbeplacedinthefirstrankofmaterialforthedeterminationofthemeaningofIITim.iii.16,bywhichtheymayhavethemselvesbeenaffected;itismanifestlyimpropertoexcludethemfromconsiderationaltogether.Evenaspartbearersoftheexegeticaltraditiontheyareworthyofadduction:anditisscarcelyconceivablethatthetermshouldhavebeenentirelyvoidedofitscurrentsense,haditadifferentcurrentsense,bytheinfluenceofasingleemploymentofitbyPaul-especiallyifwearetobelievethatitsnaturalmeaningasusedbyhimdifferedfromthatassigneditbysubsequentwriters.ThepatristicuseoftheterminconnectionwithScripturehasthereforeitsownweight,asevidencetothenaturalemploymentofthetermbyGreek-speakingChristianwriters.

Thisuseofitdoesnotseemtooccurintheveryearliestpatristicliterature:butfromthetimeofClementofAlexandriathetermqeo,pneustojappearsasoneofthemostcommontechnicaldesignationsofScripture.Thefollowingscatteredinstances,gatheredatrandom,willservetoillustratethisuseofitsufficientlyforourpurpose.ClementofAlexandria:"Strom.,"vii.16,§101(Klotz,iii.286;Potter,894),"AccordinglythosefallfromtheireminencewhofollownotGodwhitherHeleads;andHeleadsusintheinspiredScriptures(kata.ta.jqeopneu,stoujgrafa,j)";"Strom.,"vii.16,§103(Klotz,iii.287;Potter,896),"Buttheycraveglory,asmanyaswillfullysophisticatethethingsweddedtoinspiredwords(toi/jqeopneu,stoijlo,goij)handeddownbytheblessedapostlesand

teachers,bydiversearguments,opposinghumanteachingtothedivinetraditionforthesakeofestablishingtheheresy";"Protrept."9,§87(Klotz.,i.73,74;Potter71),"Thisteachingtheapostleknowsastrulydivine(qei,an):'Thou,OTimothy,'hesays,'fromachildhastknowntheholyletterswhichareabletomaketheewiseuntosalvation,throughfaiththatisinJesusChrist';fortrulyholyarethoselettersthatsanctifyanddeify;andthewritingsorvolumesthatconsistoftheseholylettersorsyllables,thesameapostleconsequentlycalls'inspiredbyGod,seeingthattheyareprofitablefordoctrine,'etc."Origen:"DePrincipiis,"iv,8(cf.alsotitletoBookiv),"HavingthusspokenbrieflyonthesubjectoftheDivineinspirationoftheHolyScriptures(peri.tou/qeopneu,stouth/jqei,ajgrafh/j)";Migne,(11,1276),"TheJewsandChristiansagreeastotheinspirationoftheHolyScripture(qei,w|gegra,fqaipneumati),butdifferastoitsinterpretation";(12,1084),"Thereforetheinspiredbooks(qeo,pneustabibli,a)aretwenty-two";(14,1309),"TheinspiredScripture";(13,664-5),"ForwemustseekthenourishmentofthewholeinspiredScripture(pa,shjth/jqeopneu,stougrafh/j);"Hom.xx.inJoshuam,"2(Robinson's"Origen'sPhilocalia,"p.63),"LetusnotthenbestupefiedbylisteningtoScriptureswhichwedonotunderstand,butletitbetousaccordingtoourfaithbywhichwebelievethat'everyScripture,seeingthatitisinspired(qeo,pneustoj),isprofitable':foryoumustneedsadmitoneoftwothingsregardingtheseScriptures,eitherthattheyarenotinspired(qeo,pneustoi)becausetheyarenotprofitable,astheunbelievertakesit,or,asabeliever,youmustadmitthatsincetheyareinspired(qeo,pneustoi)theyareprofitable";"SelectainPsalmos,"Ps.i,3(MigneXII,ii.1080;DelaRue,527),"BeingabouttobegintheinterpretationofthePsalms,weprefixaveryexcellenttraditionhandeddownbytheHebrew58tousgenerallyconcerningthewholedivineScripture(kaqolikw/jperi.pa,shjqei,ajgrafh/j);forheaffirmedthatthewholeinspiredScripture(th.no[lhnqeo,pneustongrafh,n)....Butif'thewordsoftheLordarepurewords,finedsilver,triedastheearth,purifiedseventimes'(Ps.ii.7)andtheHolySpirithaswithallcaredictatedthemaccuratelythroughtheministersoftheword(meta.pa,shjavkribei,ajevxhtasme,nwjto.a[gionpneu/mau`pobe,blhkenauta.dia.tw/nu`phretw/ntou/lo,gou),lettheproportionneverescapeus,accordingtowhichthewisdomofGodisfirstwithrespecttothewholetheopneusticScriptureuntothelastletter(kaqvh]nevpi.pa/sane;fqasegrafh.nh`sofi,atou/qeou/qeo,pneu,stonme,critou/tuco,ntojgra,mmatoj);andhaplyitwasonthisaccountthattheSavioursaid,'Oneiotaoronelettershallnotpassfromthelawtillallbefulfilled':anditisjustsothatthedivineartinthecreationoftheworld,notonlyappearedintheheavenandsunandmoonandstars,interpenetratingtheirwholebodies,butalsoonearthdidthesameinpaltrymatter,sothatnot

eventhebodiesoftheleastanimalsaredisdainedbytheartificer....Soweunderstandconcerningallthethingswrittenbytheinspiration(evxevpipnoi,aj)oftheHolySpirit...."Athanasius(Migne,27,214):pa/sagrafh.h`mw/ntw/ncristianw/nqeo,pneusto,jevstin;(Migne,25,152):qeo,pneustojka,lei/tai;(Bened.Par.,1777,i.767):"Sayingalsomyself,'Sincemanyhavetakeninhandtosetforthtothemselvestheso-calledapocryphaandtosingthemwithth/|qeopneu,stw|grafh|/...."'CyrillusHier.,"Catechet.,"iv.33:"Thisistaughtusbyai`qeo,pneustoigrafai,ofboththeOldandNewCovenant."Basil,"OntheSpirit,"xxi(adfin.):"HowcanhewhocallsScripture'God-inspired'becauseitwaswrittenthroughtheinspirationoftheSpirit(o`qeo,pneustonth.ngrafh.novnoma,zwn(dia.th/jevpipnoi,ajtou/a`gi,oupneu,matojsuggrafei/san),usethelanguageofonewhoinsultsandbelittlesHim?""Letters,"xvii.3:"Allbreadisnutritious,butitmaybeinjurioustothesick;justso,allScriptureisGod-inspired(pa/sagrafh.qeo,pneustoj)andprofitable";(Migne,xxx.81):"ThewordsofGod-inspiredScripture(oi`th/jqeopneu,stougrafh/jlo,goi)shallstandonthetribuneofChrist";(Migne,31,744):"Foreverywordordeedmustbebelievedbythewitnessoftheqeopneu,stougrafh/j,fortheassuranceofthegoodandtheshameofthewicked";(Migne,31,1080):"Apartfromthewitnessoftheqeopneu,stwngrafw/nitisnotpossible,etc.";(Migne,31,1500):"FromwhatsortofScripturearewetodisputeatthistime?Pa,ntao`mo,tima(kai.pa,ntapneumatika,\pa,ntaqeo,pneusta(kai.pa,ntawvfe,lima";(Migne,31,1536):"Ontheinterpretationandremarkingofthenamesandtermsth/jqeopneu,stougrafh/j";(Migne,32,228):megi,sthde.o`do.jpro.jth/ntou/kah,kontojeu;resinkai.h`mele,thtw/nqeopneu,twngrafw/n.GregoryNaz.(Migne,35,504):peri.tou/qeopneu,stoutw/na`gi,wngrafw/n;(Migne,36,472,cf.37,589),peri.tw/nghsi,wnbibli,wnth/jqeopneu,stougrafh/j;(Migne,36,1589),toi/jqeopneu,stoijgrafai/j.GregoryNyssen,"AgainstEunom.,"vii.1:"Whatweunderstandofthematterisasfollows:`Hqeo,pneustojgrafh,,asthedivineapostlecallsit,istheScriptureoftheHolySpiritanditsintentionistheprofitofmen";(Migne,44,68),mo,nhjth/jqeopneu,stoudiaqh,khj.CyrillusAlex.(Migne,68,225),polumerw/jkai.polutro,pwjh`qeo,pneustojgrafh.th/jdia.cristou/swthri,ajproanafwnei/tou.jtu,pouj.NeilosAbbas(Migne,79,141,cf.529):grafh.h`qeo,pneustojouvde.nle,geiavkai,rwjktl)TheodoretofCyrrhus("H.E.",i.6;Migne,iii.920).JohnofDamascus(Migne,85,1041),etc.

If,then,wearetomakeaninductionfromtheuseoftheword,weshallfinditbearingauniformlypassivesignificance,rootedintheideaofthecreativebreathofGod.Allthatis,isGod-breathed("Sibyll."v.406);andaccordinglytherivers

thatwatertheCymeanplainareGod-breathed("Sibyll."v.308),thespicesGodprovidesforthedeadbodyofHisfriend("TestamentofAbraham,"A.xx),andaboveallthewisdomHeimplantsintheheartofman(Ps.-Phocyl.121),thedreamsHesendswithamessagefromHim(Ps.-Plut.,v.2,3)andtheScripturesHegivesHispeople(IITim.iii.16).Byanextensionofmeaningbynomeansextreme,thosewhomHehasgreatlyhonoredasHisfollowers,whomHehascreatedintoHissaints,arecalledGod-breathedmen("VitaSabae"16.InscriptioninKaibel);andeventhesandalsthathavetouchedthefeetoftheSonofGodarecalledGod-breathedsandals(Nonnus),i.e.,sandalsthathavebeenmadebythisdivinecontactsomethingotherthanwhattheywere:inboththesecases,thewordapproachingmoreorlessthebroadermeaningof"divine."Nowhereisthereatraceofsuchanactivesignificanceas"God-breathing";andthoughintheapplicationofthewordtoindividualmenandtoourLord'ssandalstheremaybeanapproachtothesenseof"God-imbued,"thissenseisattainedbyapathwayofdevelopmentfromthesimpleideaofGod-given,God-determined,andthelike.

Itiscarefullytobeobserved,ofcourse,that,althoughDr.CremerwishestoreachanactivesignificationforthewordinIITim.iii.16,hedoesnotventuretoassignanactivesensetoitimmediatelyanddirectly,butapproachesthisgoalthroughthemediumofanothersignification.Itisfullyrecognizedbyhimthatthewordisoriginallypassiveinitsmeaning;itismerelycontendedthatthisoriginalpassivesenseisnot"God-inspired,"butrather"God-filled"-asensewhich,itispleaded,willreadilypassintotheactivesenseof"God-breathing,"aftertheanalogyofsuchwordsasa;pneustoj(eu;pneustoj,whichfrom"ill-orwell-breathed"cametomean"breathingillorwell."WhatisfilledwithGodwillcertainlyberedolentofGod,andwhatisredolentofGodwillcertainlybreatheoutGod.Hisreasonsforpreferringthesenseof"giftedorfilledwithGod'sSpirit,divinelyspirited,"to"God-inspired"fortheoriginalpassiveconnotationofthewordaredrawnespeciallyfromwhathethinkstheunsuitablenessofthelatterideatosomeoftheconnectionsinwhichthewordisfound.Itisthoughtthat,asanepithetofanindividualman,asanepithetofScriptureorafountain,and(inthelatereditionsofthe"Lexicon"atleast)especially,asanepithetofasandal,"God-inspired"isincongruous,andsomethinglike"filledwithGod'sSpiritandthereforeradiatingit"issuggested.ThereisobviouslysomeconfusionherearisingfromtheverynaturalcontemplationoftheVulgatetranslation"aDeoinspiratus"asthealternativerenderingtowhatisproposed.Thereis,wemaywelladmit,nothinginthewordqeo,pneustojtowarrantthein-oftheVulgaterendering:thiswordspeaksnotofan"inspiration"byGod,butofa

"spiration"byGod.ThealternativesbroughtbeforeusbyDr.Cremer'spresentationarenottobeconfined,therefore,tothetwo,"Divinelyspirited"and"Divinelyinspired,"butmustbemadetoincludethethree,"Divinelyspirited,""Divinelyinspired,"and"Divinelyspired."ThefailureofDr.Cremertonotethisintroduces,aswesay,someconfusionintohisstatement.Weneedonlythusincidentallyrefertoitatthispoint,however.ItisofmoreimmediateimportancetoobservethatwhatwearenaturallyledtobyDr.Cremer'sremarks,istoaninvestigationofthenaturalmeaningofthewordqeo,pneustojunderthelawsofword-formation.IntheseremarksheisleaningratherheavilyonthediscussionofEwaldtowhichherefersus,anditwillconducetoabetterunderstandingofthematterifwewillfollowhisdirectionsandturntoourEwald.

Ewald,likeDr.Cremer,isdissatisfiedwiththecurrentexplanationofqeo,pneustojandseekstoobtainforitanactivesense,butisaslittleinclinedasDr.Cremertoassignanactivesensedirectlytoit.HerathercriticisesWiner,59forusinglanguagewhenspeakingofqeo,pneustojwhichwouldseemtoimplythatsuchcompoundscouldreallybeactive-asif"itweretobetakenasapassive,althoughsuchwordsaseu;pneustoj(a;pneustojareusedactively."Hecannotadmitthatanycompoundofawordlike-pneustojcanbereallyactiveinprimarymeaning,andexplainsthateu;pneustojmeansnotsomuch"breathinggood,"i.e.,propellingsomethinggoodbythebreath,as"endowedwithgoodbreath,"andexpresses,therefore,justlikea;pneustoj,"breathless,"i.e.,"dead,"asubjectivecondition,andisthereforetobecomparedwithahalf-passiveverb,asindeedtheword-formsuggests.Justso,qeo,pneustoj,hesays,isnotsomuchour"God-breathing"asour"fullofGod'sSpirit,""permeatedandanimatedbyGod'sSpirit."Thus,hesupposesqeo,pneustojtomean"blownthroughbyGod"(Gottdurchwehet,"God-pervaded"),ratherthan"blownintobyGod"(Gotteingewehet,"God-inspired")astheVulgate(inspiratus)andLuther(eingegeben)renderit-anideawhich,asherightlysays,wouldhaverequiredsomethinglikeqee,mpneustoj60(orwemaysayqeei,spneustoj)61toexpressit.

AtfirstheseemstohavethoughtthatbythisexplanationhehadremovedallimplicationastotheoriginationofScripturefromtheepithet:itexpresses,hesaid,62whatScriptureis-viz.,pervadedbyGod,fullofHisSpirit-withouttheleasthintastohowitgottobeso.Heafterwardscametoseethiswasgoingtoofar,andcontentedhimselfwithsayingthatthoughcertainlyimplicatingadoctrineoftheoriginoftheScriptures,thetermthrowstheemphasisonitsquality.63Henow,therefore,expressedhimselfthus:"Itiscertainlyundeniablethatthenewexpressionqeo,pneustoj,IITim.iii.16,isintendedtosayvery

muchwhatPhilomeant,butdidnotyetknowhowtoexpresssharplybymeansofsuchacompressedandstrongterm.Forqeo,pneustoj(likeeu;pneustoj,accurately,'well-breathed')mustmean'God-breathed'or'God-animated'(Gottbeathmet,orGottbegeistert),and,inaccordancewiththegeniusofthecompressed,clearGreekcompounds,thisincludesinitselftheimplicationthatthewordsarespokenbytheSpiritofGod,orbythosewhoareinspiredbyGod,"-athingwhich,headds,isrepeatedlyassertedinScripturetohavebeenthecase,as,forexample,inIIPet.i.21.Onanotheroccasion,64hesubstantiallyrepeatsthis,objectingtothetranslationsinspiratus,eingegeben,asintroducinganideanotlyinginthewordandliabletomislead,affirmingageneralbutnotperfectaccordoftheideainvolvedinitwithPhilo'sconceptionofScripture,andinsistingontheincompleteparallelismbetweenthetermandourdogmaticideaof"inspiration.""Thisterm,"hesays,"nodoubtexpressesonlywhatiseverywherepresupposedbyPhiloastoScriptureandrepeatedlysaidbyhiminotherwords;stillhisusageisnotyetsofardeveloped;anditisaccordantwiththisthatintheNewTestament,also,itisonlyinoneofthelatestbooksthatthewordisthusused.Thisauthorwaspossiblythefirstwhosoappliedit."Again,qeo,pneustoj"means,purelypassively,God-spirited(Gottbegeistet),orfullofGod'sSpirit,notatall,whentakenstrictly,whatwecalldiscriminatinglyGod-inspired(Gottbegeistert)orfilledwithGod'sinspiration(Begeisterung),butinitselfonly,inaquitegeneralsense,God-breathed,God-inspired(Gottbeathmet,Gottbegeistert),orfilledwiththedivinespirit.Initself,therefore,itpermitsthemostdiversapplicationsandwemustappealpurelytothecontextineachinstanceinordertoobtainitsexactmeaning."

HerewehaveinfullwhatDr.Cremersayssomuchmorebrieflyinhisarticles.Inordertoorientourselveswithreferencetoit,weshallneedtoconsiderinturnthetwopointsthatareemphasized.Theseare,first,thepassiveformandsenseoftheword;and,secondly,theparticularpassivesenseattributedtoit,towit:GottbegeistetratherthanGottbegeistert,"endowedwithGod'sSpirit,"ratherthan"inspiredbyGod."

Ontheformerpointtherewouldseemtobelittleroomfordifferenceofopinion.WestillreadinSchmiedel'sWiner:"Verbalsin-tojcorrespondsometimestoLatinparticiplesin-tus,sometimestoadjectivesin-bilis";andtheninanote(despiteEwald'slong-agoprotest),aftertheadductionofauthorities,"qeo,pneustoj,inspiratus(IITim.iii.16;passivelikee;mpneustoj,whileeu;pneustoj(a;pneustojareactive)."65TotheseThayer-Grimmaddsalsopuri,pneustojanddusdia,pneustojasusedactivelyanddusana,pneustojasused

apparentlyeitheractivelyorpassively.Ewald,however,hasalreadytaughtustolookbeneaththe"active"usageofeu;pneustojanda;pneustojforthe"half-passive"background,anditmayequallybefoundintheothercases;ineachinstanceitisastateorconditionatleast,thatisdescribedbytheword,anditisoftenonlyamatterofpointofviewwhetherwecatchthepassiveconceptionornot.Forexample,weshalllookupondusdia,pneustojasactiveorpassiveaccordingaswethinkoftheobjectitdescribesasa"slowlyevaporating"ora"slowlyevaporated"object-thatis,asanobjectthatonlyslowlyevaporates,orasanobjectthatcanbeonlywithdifficultyevaporated.Wemayprefertheformerexpression;theGreekspreferredthelatter:thatisall.WefullyaccordwithProf.Schulze,therefore,whenhesaysthatallwordscompoundedwith-pneustojhavethepassivesenseastheiroriginalimplication,andtheactivesense,whenitoccurs,isalwaysaderivedone.Onthisshowingitcannotbecontended,ofcourse,thatqeo,pneustojmaynothave,likesomeofitsrelatives,developedanactiveorquasi-activemeaning,butapassivesenseiscertainlyimpliedasitsoriginalone,andacertainpresumptionisthusraisedfortheoriginalityofthepassivesensewhichisfoundtoattachtoitinitsmostordinaryusage.66

Thisconclusionfindsconfirmationinaconsiderationwhichhasitsbearingonthesecondpointalso-theconsiderationthatcompoundsofverbalsin-tojwithqeo,jnormallyexpressaneffectproducedbyGod'sactivity.ThisisbrieflyadvertedtobyProf.Schulze,whourgesthat"thecloselyrelatedqeodi,daktoj,andmany,orrathermost,ofthecompoundsofqeo-intheFathers,bearthepassivesense,"adducinginillustration:qeo,blastoj,qeobou,lhtoj,qeoge,nhtoj,qeo,grptoj,qeo,dmhtoj,qeo,dotoj,qeodw,rhtoj,qeo,qreptoj,qeoki,nhtoj,qeo,klhtoj,qeopoi,htoj,qeofo,rhtoj,qeo,crhstoj,qeo,cristoj.ThestatementmaybemuchbroadenedandmadetocoverthewholebodyofsuchcompoundsoccurringinGreekliterature.Letanyonerunhiseyedownthelistofcompoundsofqeo,jwithverbalsin-tojastheyoccuronthepagesofanyGreekLexicon,andhewillbequicklyconvincedthatthenotionnormallyexpressedisthatofaresultproducedbyGod.ThesixtheditionofLiddellandScotthappenstobetheonelyingathandaswewrite;andinitwefindentered(ifwehavecountedaright),someeighty-sixcompoundsofthistype,ofwhich,atleast,seventy-fivebearquitesimplythesenseofaresultproducedbyGod.Weadjointhelist:qeh,latoj,qeoba,staktoj,qeo,blustoj,qeobou,lhtoj,qeobra,beutoj,qeoge,nhtoj,qeo,gnwstoj,qeo,graptoj,qeodek,toj,qeodi,daktoj,qeo,dmhtoj,qeoo,mhtoj,qeo,dotoj,qeodw,rhtoj,qeo,qetoj,qeokata,ratoj,qeokataskeu,astoj,qeoke,leustoj,qeoki,nhtoj,qeo,klhtoj,qeo,kmhtoj,qeo,krantoj,qeo,kritoj,

qeo,kthtoj,qeo,ktistoj,qeo,ktitoj,qeokube,rnhtoj,qeoku,rwtoj,qeo,lektoj,qeo,lhptoj,qeomaka,ristoj,qeomi,shtoj,qeo,mustoj,qeo,paistoj,qeopara,dotoj,qeopa,raktoj,qeo,pemptoj,qeope,ratoj,qeo,plhktoj,qeo,ploutoj,qeopoi,htoj,qeopo,nhtoj,qeopro,sdektoj,qeo,ptustoj,qeo,rghtoj,qeo,rrhtoj,qe,ortoj,qeo,sdotoj,qeo,streptoj,qeosth,riktoj,qeostu,ghtoj,qeosu,llektoj,qeosu,mfutoj,qeosu,naktoj,qeo,sutoj,qeosfra,gistoj,qeo,swstoj,qeote,ratoj,qeo,teuktoj,qeoti,mhtoj,qeo,treptoj,qeotu,pwtoj,qeou?po,statoj,qeou<fantoj,qeo,fantoj,qeo,fqegktoj,qeofi,lhtoj,qeo,foitoj,qeofo,rhtoj,qeofrou,rhtoj,qeofu,laktoj,qeoco,lwtoj,qeo,crhstoj,qeo,cristoj.Theeleveninstancesthatremain,asinsomesortexceptionstothegeneralrule,includecasesofdifferentkinds.Insomeofthemtheverbalisderivedfromadeponentverbandisthereforepassiveonlyinform,butnaturallybearsanactivesense:suchareqeodh,lhtoj(God-injuring),qeomi,mhtoj(God-imitating),qeo,septoj(fearedasGod).Othersmaypossiblybereallypassives,althoughwepreferanactiveforminEnglishtoexpresstheideainvolved:suchare,perhaps,qeo,klutov("Godheard,"whereweshouldrathersay,"callingonthegods"),qeoko,llhtoj("God-joined,"whereweshouldrathersay,"unitedwithGod"),qeo,preptoj("God-distinguished,"whereweshouldrathersay,"meetforagod").Thereremainonlythesefive:qeai,thtoj("obtainedfromGod"),qeo,qutov("offeredtothegods"),qeora,stojandthemoreusualqeo,rrotoj("flowingfromthegods"),andqeocw,rhtoj("containingGod").Inthesetherelationofqeo,jtotheverbalideaisclearlynotthatofproducingcausetotheexpressedresult,butsomeother:perhapswhatweneedtorecognizeisthattheverbalhereinvolvesarelationwhichweordinarilyexpressbyapreposition,andthatthesensewouldbesuggestedbysomesuchphrasesas"God-asked-of,""God-offered-to,"''God-flowedfrom,""God-made-room-for."Inanyevent,thesefewexceptionalcasescannotavailtosetasidethenormalsenseofthiscompound,asexhibitedintheimmensemajorityofthecasesofitsoccurrence.Ifanalogyistocountforanything,itswholeweightisthrownthusinfavoroftheinterpretationwhichseesinqeo,pneustoj,quitesimply,thesenseof"Godbreathed,"i.e.,producedbyGod'screativebreath.

Ifweask,then,whataccountistobegivenofEwald'sand,afterhim,Prof.Cremer'swish,totakeitinthespecificsenseof"God-spirited,"thatis,"imbuedwiththeSpiritofGod,"wemayeasilyfeelourselvessomewhatpuzzledtoreturnasatisfactoryanswer.Weshoulddoubtlessnotgofarwronginsaying,asalreadysuggested,thattheiractionisproximatelyduetotheirnothavingbroughtallthealternativesfairlybeforethem.Theyseemtohaveworked,aswehavesaid,onthehypothesisthattheonlychoicelaybetweentheVulgaterendering,"God-inspired,"andtheirown"God-imbued."Ewald,aswehaveseen,argues(andas

wethinkrightly)that"God-inspired"isscarcelyconsonantwiththeword-form,butwouldhaverequiredsomethinglikeqee,mpneustoj.SimilarlywemayobserveDr.Cremerinthesecondeditionofhis"Lexicon"(whenhewasarguingforthecurrentconception)sayingthat"theformationofthewordcannotbetracedtotheuseofpne,w,butonlyofevmpne,w,"andsupportingthisbytheremarkthat"thesimpleverbisneverusedofdivineaction";andthroughouthislaterarticle,operatingonthepresumptionthattherendering"inspired"solelywillcomeintocomparisonwithhisownnewlyproposedone.Allthisseemstobedue,notmerelytothetraditionalrenderingoftheworditself,butalsototheconceptionofthenatureofthedivineactioncommonlyexpressedbytheterm,"inspiration,"andindeedtothedoctrineofHolyScripture,dominantinthemindsofthesescholars.67Ifwewillshakeourselvesloosefromtheseobscuringprepossessionsandconsiderthetermwithoutpreoccupationofmind,itwouldseemthatthesimplerendering"God-breathed"wouldcommenditselfpowerfullytous:certainlynot,withtheVulgateandLuther,"God-inbreathed,"sincethepreposition"in"iswhollylackinginthetermandisnotdemandedforthesenseinanyofitsapplications;butequallycertainlynot"God-imbued"or"God-infused"inthesenseofimbuedorinfusedwith(ratherthanby)God,since,accordingtoallanalogy,aswellasaccordingtothesimplestconstructionofthecompound,therelationof"God"totheactexpressedisthatof"agent."Onanyothersuppositionthanthatthisthirdandassuredlythemostnaturalalternative,"God-breathed,"wasnotbeforetheirminds,thewholetreatmentofEwaldandDr.Cremerwillremainsomewhatinexplicable.

*****Whyotherwise,forexample,shouldthelatterhaveremarked,thatthe"wordmustbetracedtotheuseofevmpne,wandnottothesimpleverbpne,w?"Dr.Cremer,itistrue,adds,aswehavesaid,thatthesimpleverbisneverusedofdivineaction.Inanycase,however,thisstatementisoverdrawn.Notonlyispne,wappliedinaphysicalsensetoGodinsuchpassagesoftheLXX.asPs.cxlvii.7(18)(pneu,seito.pneu/maauvtou/)andIsa.xl.24,andofSymmachusandTheodotionasIsa.xl.7;andnotonlyintheearliestFathersisitusedofthegreatestgiftsofChristtheDivineLord,insuchpassagesasIgn.,"Eph."17:-"ForthiscausetheLordreceivedointmentonHishead,thatHemightbreatheincorruptionuponHisChurch(i[napne,h|th/|evkklhsi,a|ajfqarsi,an)";butinwhatmayberightlycalledthenormativepassage,Gen.ii.7,itispracticallyjustified,initsapplicationtoGod,bytheLXX.useofpnoh,intheobjectiveclause,andactuallyemployedfortheverbitselfbybothSymmachusandTheodotion.Andifwewillpenetratebeneaththemerematteroftheusageofawordtotheconceptionitself,nothingcouldbemoremisleadingthansucha

remarkasDr.Cremer's.ForsurelytherewasnoconceptionmoredeeplyrootedintheHebrewmind,atleast,thanthatofthecreative"breathofGod";andthisconceptionwasassuredlynotwhollyunknowneveninethniccircles.ToaHebrew,atallevents,the"breathofGod"wouldseemself-evidentlycreative;andnolocutionwouldmorereadilysuggestitselftohimasexpressiveoftheDivineactof"making"thanjustthatbywhichitwouldbeaffirmedthatHebreathedthingsintoexistence.The"breathoftheAlmighty"-pnoh.pantokra,toroj-wastraditionallyinhismouthasthefitdesignationofthecreativeact(Jobxxxii.8,xxxiii.4);andnotonlywasheaccustomedtothinkofmanowinghisexistencetothebreathingofthebreathofGodintohisnostrils(Gen.ii.7,especiallySymm.Theod.)andofhislifeasthereforethe"breathofGod"(pneu/maqei/oj,LXX.,Jobxxvii.8),whichGodneedsbuttodrawbacktoHimselfthatallfleshshouldperish(Jobxxxiv.14):butheconceivedalsothatitwasbythebreathofGod'smouth(pneu,matitou/stw,matoj,Ps.xxxiii.6),thatallthehostsoftheheavensweremade,andbythesendingforthofHisbreath,(pneu/ma,Ps.civ.30)thatthemultiplicityofanimallifewascreated.ByHisbreatheven(pnoh,,Jobxxxvii.10),hehadbeentold,theiceisformed;andbyHisbreath(pneu/ma,Isa.xi.5,cf.Jobiv.9)allthewickedareconsumed.ItisindeedthewholeconceptionoftheSpiritofGodastheexecutiveoftheGodheadthatisinvolvedhere:theconceptionthatitistheSpiritofGodthatistheactiveagentintheproductionofallthatis.TotheHebrewconsciousness,creationitselfwouldthusnaturallyappearas,notindeedan"inspiration,"andmuchlessan"infusionoftheDivineessence,"butcertainlya"spiration";andallthatexistswouldappealtoitas,therefore,inthepropersensetheopneustic,i.e.,simply,"breathedbyGod,"producedbythecreativebreathoftheAlmighty,thepnoh.pantokra,toroj.

Thiswouldnot,itneedstoberemembered,necessarilyimplyan"immediatecreation,"aswecallit.WhenElihudeclaresthatitisthebreathoftheAlmightythathasgivenhimlifeorunderstanding(Jobxxxii.8,xxxiii.4),heneednotbereadasexcludingthesecondcausesbywhichhewasbroughtintoexistence;norneedthePsalmist(civ.30)beunderstoodtoteachan"immediatecreation"ofthewholeexistinganimalmass.ButeachcertainlymeanstosaythatitisGodwhohasmadeallthesethings,andthatbyHisbreath:Hebreathedthemintobeing-theyareallqeo,pneustoi.Sofarfromthewordpresentingadifficultythereforefromthepointofviewofitsconception,itisjust,afterthenatureofGreekcompounds,theappropriatecrystallizationintooneconcisetermofaconceptionthatwasarulingideaineveryJewishmind.Particularly,then,ifwearetosuppose(withbothEwaldandCremer)thatthewordisacoinageofPaul's,or

evenofHellenisticorigin,nothingcouldbemorenaturalthanthatitshouldhaveenshrinedinittheHebraicconvictionthatGodproducesallthatHewouldbringintobeingbyamerebreath.Fromthispointofview,therefore,thereseemsnooccasiontoseekbeyondthebareformoftheworditselfforasensetoattributetoit.Ifwecannotnaturallygiveitthemeaningof"God-inspired,"wecertainlydonotneedtogosofarafieldastoattributetoitthesenseof"filledwithGod":thenaturalsensewhichbelongstoitbyvirtueofitsformation,andwhichiscommendedtousbytheanalogyoflikecompounds,isalsomostconsonantwiththethought-formsofthecirclesinwhichitperhapsaroseandcertainlywasalmostexclusivelyused.Whatthewordnaturallymeansfromthispointofviewalso,is"God-spirated,""God-breathed,""producedbythecreativebreathoftheAlmighty."

Thusitappearsthatsuchaconceptionas"God-breathed"lieswellwithinthegeneralcircleofideasoftheHellenisticwriters,whocertainlymostprevailinglyusetheword.AnapplicationofthisconceptiontoScripture,suchasismadeinIITim.iii.16,wasnolessconsonantwiththeideasconcerningtheoriginandnatureofScripturewhichprevailedinthecirclesoutofwhichthatepistleproceeded.Thismayindeedbefairlyheldtobegenerallyconceded.

ThemainobjectofEwald'searliertreatmentofthispassage,tobesure,wastovoidthewordqeo,pneustojofallimplicationastotheoriginationofScripture.Byassigningtoitthesenseof"God-pervaded,""fullofGod'sSpirit,"hesupposedhehadmadeitadescriptionofwhatScriptureis,withouttheleastsuggestionofhowitcametobesuch;andhedidnothesitateaccordingly,toaffirmthatithadnothingwhatevertosayastotheoriginofScripture."Butheafterwards,aswehavealreadypointedout,sawtheerrorofthisposition,andsofarcorrecteditastoexplainthat,ofcourse,thetermqeo,pneustojincludesinitselftheimplicationthatthewordssodesignatedarespokenbytheSpiritofGodorbymeninspiredbyGod-inaccordancewithwhatisrepeatedlysaidelsewhereinScripture,as,forexample,inIIPet.i.21-yetstilltoinsistthatitthrowsitschiefemphasisratheronthenaturethantheoriginofthesewords.69AndheneverthoughtofdenyingthatinthecirclesinwhichthewordwasusedinapplicationtoScripture,theideaoftheoriginationofScripturebytheactofGodwascurrentandindeeddominant.Philo'scompleteidentificationofScripturewiththespokenwordofGodwasindeedthesubjectundertreatmentbyhim,whenhepennedthenotefromwhichwehavelastquoted;andhedidnotfailexplicitlytoallowthattheconceptionsofthewriterofthepassageinIITimothywereverycloselyrelatedtothoseofPhilo."Itiscertainlyundeniable,"

hewrites,"thatthenewtermqeo,pneustoj,IITim.iii.16,isintendedtoexpressverymuchwhatPhilomeant,anddidnotyetknowhowtosaysharplybymeansofsocompressedanddirectaterm";andagain,inanotherplace,"thisterm,nodoubt,embodiesonlywhatiseverywherepresupposedbyPhiloastotheScriptures,andisrepeatedlyexpressedbyhiminotherwords;yethisusageisnotyetsofardeveloped;anditisinaccordancewiththisthatintheNewTestament,too,itisonlyoneofthelatestwritingswhichusestheterminthisway."70

Itwouldseem,tobesure,thatitispreciselythisaffinitywithPhilo'sconceptionofScripturewhichDr.Cremerwishestoexcludeinhistreatmentoftheterm."Letitbeadded,"hewrites,nearthecloseoftheextractfromhisHerzogarticlewhichwehavegivenabove,"thattheexpression'breathedbyGod,inspiredbyGod,'thoughanoutgrowthoftheBiblicalidea,certainly,sofarasitisreferredtotheprophecywhichdoesnotariseoutofthehumanwill(IIPet.i.20),yetcanscarcelybeappliedtothewholeoftherestofScripture-unlesswearetofindinIITim.iii.16theexpressionofaconceptionofsacredScripturesimilartothePhilonian."Andalittlelaterheurgesagainstthetestimonyoftheexegeticaltraditiontothemeaningoftheword,thatitwasaffectedbytheconceptionsofAlexandrianJudaism-thatis,hesuggests,practicallyofheathenism.ThereobviouslyliesbeneaththismodeofrepresentationanattempttorepresenttheideaofthenatureandoriginofScriptureexhibitedintheNewTestament,asstandinginsomefundamentaldisaccordwiththatofthePhiloniantracts;andtheassimilationoftheconceptionexpressedinIITim.iii.16tothelatterasthereforeitsseparationfromtheformer.SomethinglikethisisaffirmedalsobyHoltzmannwhenhewrites:71"ItisaccordinglyclearthattheauthorsharestheJewishconceptionofthepurelysupernaturaloriginoftheScripturesinitsstraitestacceptation,accordingtowhich,therefore,thetheopneustyisascribedimmediatelytotheScripturesthemselves,andnotmerely,asinIIPet.i.21,totheirwriters;andsofarasthethingitselfisconcernedthereisnothingincorrectimpliedinthetranslation,totaScriptura."ThenotionthattheBiblicalandthePhilonianideasofScripturesomewhatmarkedlydifferisapparentlycommontothetwowriters:onlyHoltzmannidentifiestheideaexpressedinIITim.iii.16withthePhilonian,andthereforepronouncesittobeamarkoflateoriginforthatepistle;whileCremerwishestodetachitfromthePhilonian,thathemaynotbeforcedtorecognizethePhilonianconceptionaspossessingNewTestamentauthorization.

NosuchfundamentaldifferencebetweenthePhilonianandNewTestament

conceptionsasishereerected,however,canpossiblybemadeout;thoughwhateverminordifferencesmaybetraceablebetweenthegeneralNewTestamentconceptionandtreatmentofScriptureandthatofPhilo,itremainsaplainmatteroffactthatnoothergeneralviewofScripturethantheso-calledPhilonianisdiscernibleintheNewTestament,allofwhosewriters-asistrueofJesuslIimselfalso,accordingtoHisreportedwords,-consistentlylookuponthewrittenwordsofScriptureastheexpressutterancesofGod,owingtheirorigintoHisdirectspirationandtheircharactertothistheirdivineorigin.ItispeculiarlyabsurdtocontrastIIPet.i.21withIITim.iii.16(asHoltzmanndoesexplicitlyandtheothersimplicitly),onthegroundofadifferenceofconceptionasto"inspiration,"shownintheascriptionofinspirationintheformerpassagetothewriters,inthelatterimmediatelytothewordsofScripture.Itis,onthefaceofit,the"wordofprophecy"towhichPeterascribesdivinesurety;itiswrittenprophecywhichhedeclarestobeofno"privateinterpretation";andifheproceedstoexhibithowGodproducedthissurewrittenwordofprophecy-viz.,throughmenofGodcarriedonward,apartfromtheirownwill,bythedeterminingpoweroftheHolyGhost72-surelythisexpositionofthemodeofthedivineactioninproducingtheScripturescanonlybytheutmostconfusionofideasbepleadedasadenialofthefactthattheScriptureswereproducedbytheDivineaction.ToPeterastrulyastoPaul,andtothePauloftheearlierepistlesastrulyastothePaulofIITimothy,orastoPhilohimself,theScripturesaretheproductoftheDivineSpirit,andwouldbemostappropriatelydescribedbytheepithetof"God-breathed,"i.e.,producedbythebreath,theinspiration,ofGod.

TheentiredistinctionwhichitissoughttoerectbetweentheNewTestamentandthePhilonicconceptionsofScripture,asiftotheNewTestamentwriterstheScriptureswerelesstheoraclesofGodthantoPhilo,andowedtheiroriginlessdirectlytoGod'saction,andmightthereforebetreatedaslessdivineincharacteroroperation,hangsinthemereair.TheremaybefairlyrecognizedcertaindifferencesbetweentheNewTestamentandthePhilonicconceptionsofScripture;buttheycertainlydonotmoveinthisfundamentalregion.Theepithet"God-breathed,""producedbythecreativebreathoftheAlmighty,"commendsitself,therefore,asonewhichwouldlienearathandandwouldreadilyexpressthefundamentalviewastotheoriginationofScripturecurrentamongthewholebodyofNewTestamentwriters,aswellasamongthewholemassoftheirJewishcontemporaries,amidwhomtheywerebred.Thedistinctionbetweentheinspirationofthewritersandthatoftherecord,isasubtletyoflatertimesofwhichtheywereguiltless:asisalsothedistinctionbetweentheoriginationofScripturebytheactionoftheHolyGhostandtheinfusingoftheHolySpiritinto

Scripturesoriginatingbyhumanactivity.Tothewritersofthisageofsimplerfaith,theScripturesarepenetratedbyGodbecausetheyweregivenbyGod:andthequestionoftheireffects,orevenoftheirnature,wasnotconsciouslyseparatedfromthequestionoftheirorigin.Theonesufficientanddecisivefactconcerningthemtothesewriters,inclusiveofallelseanddeterminativeofallelsethatwastrueofthemastheWordofGod,wasthattheywere"God-given,"or,moreprecisely,theproductofGod'screative"breath."

InthesecircumstancesitcanhardlybeneedfultopausetopointoutindetailhowcompletelythisconceptionaccordswiththewholeNewTestamentdoctrineofScripture,andwiththeentirebodyofphraseologycurrentlyusedinittoexpressitsdivineorigination.WeneedonlyrecallthedeclarationsthattheHolySpiritistheauthorofScripture(Heb.iii.7,x.15),"inwhom"itis,therefore,thatitshumanauthorsspeak(Matt.xxii.43;Markxii.36),becauseitisHethatspeakswhattheyspeak"throughthem"(Actsi.16,iv.25),theybeingbutthemediaofthepropheticword(Matt.i.22,ii.15,iii.3,iv.14,viii.17,xii.17,xiii.35,xxi.4,xxiv.15,xxvii.9,Lukexviii.31,Actsii.16,xxvii.25,Rom.i.2,Lukei.76,Actsi.16,iii.18,21).ThewholeunderlyingconceptionofsuchmodesofexpressionisinprinciplesetforthinthecommandofJesustoHisdisciplesthat,intheirtimesofneed,theyshoulddependwhollyontheDivineSpiritspeakinginthem(Matt.x.20;Markxiii.11;cf.Lukei.41,67,xii.12;Actsiv.8):andperhapsevenmoredecidedlystillinPeter'sdescriptionoftheprophetsofScriptureas"bornebytheHolyGhost,"aspneumato,foroi,whosewordsare,therefore,ofno"privateinterpretation,"andofthehighestsurety(IIPet.i.21).InallsuchexpressionsthemainaffirmationisthatScripture,astheproductoftheactivityoftheSpirit,isjustthe"breathofGod";andthehighestpossibleemphasisislaidontheiroriginationbythedivineagencyoftheSpirit.TheprimarycharacteristicofScriptureinthemindsoftheNewTestamentwritersisthusrevealedas,inaword,itsDivineorigin.

Thatthiswasthesoledominatingconceptionattachedfromthebeginningtothetermqeo,pneustojasanepithetofScripture,isfurtherwitnessedbytheunbrokenexegeticaltraditionofitsmeaninginthesolepassageoftheNewTestamentinwhichitoccurs.Dr.Cremeradmitsthatsuchistheexegeticaltradition,thoughheseekstobreaktheweightofthisfactbypleadingthattheunanimityofthepatristicinterpretationofthepassageisduerathertopreconceivedopinionsonthepartoftheFathersastothenatureofScripture,derivedfromAlexandrianJudaism,thantothenaturaleffectontheirmindsofthepassageitself.HerewearepointedtotheuniversalconsentofJewishandChristianstudentsoftheWord

astothedivineoriginoftheScripturestheyheldincommon-afactimpressiveenoughofitself-asareasonfordiscreditingthetestimonyofthelatterastothemeaningofafundamentalpassagebearingonthedoctrineofHolyScripture.OneistemptedtoaskwhetheritcanbereallyprovedthatthetheologyofAlexandrianJudaismexercisedsouniversalandabsoluteadominionoverthethinkingoftheChurch,thatitislikelytobeduetoitsinfluencealonethattheChristiandoctrineofinspirationtookshape,indespite(aswearetold)ofthenaturalimplicationsoftheChristiandocumentsthemselves.Andoneisverylikelytoinsistthat,whatevermaybeitsorigin,thisconceptionofthedivineoriginationofScripturewascertainlysharedbytheNewTestamentwritersthemselves,andmayverywellthereforehavefoundexpressioninIITim.iii.16-whichwouldthereforeneednoadjustmenttocurrentideastomakeitteachit.Atallevents,itisadmittedthatthisviewoftheteachingofIITim.iii.16issupportedbytheunbrokenexegeticaltradition;andthisfactcertainlyrequirestobetakenintoconsiderationindeterminingthemeaningoftheword.

ItisquitetruethatDr.Cremerinonesentencedoesnotseemtokeepinmindtheunbrokennessoftheexegeticaltradition.Weread:"Origenalso,in'Hom.21inJerem.',seemsso[i.e.,asDr.Cremerdoes]tounderstandit[thatis,qeo,pneustoj]:-sacravoluminaspiritusplenitudinemspirant."TheunwaryreadermayinferfromthisthatthesewordsofOrigenareexplanatoryofIITim.iii.16,andthattheythereforebreaktheexegeticaltraditionandshowthatOrigenassignedtothatpassagethemeaningthat"theHolyScripturesbreatheouttheplenitudeoftheSpirit."Suchis,however,notthecase.OrigenisnotherecommentingonIITim.iii.16,butonlyfreelyexpressinghisownnotionastothenatureofScripture.Hiswordsheredonot,therefore,breaktheconstancyoftheexegeticaltradition,butattheworstonlytheuniversalityofthatPhilonianconceptionofScripture,totheuniversalityofwhichamongtheFathers,Dr.Cremerattributestheunbrokennessoftheexegeticaltradition.Whatresultsfromtheiradductionis,then,notaweakeningofthepatristictestimonytothemeaningofqeo,pneustojinIITim.iii.16,but(attheworst)apossiblehintthatDr.Cremer'sexplanationoftheunanimityofthattestimonymaynot,afterall,beapplicable.WhencommentingonIITim.iii.16,Origenuniformlytakesthewordqeo,pneustojasindicatoryoftheoriginofScripture;thoughwhenhimselfspeakingofwhatScriptureis,hemaysometimesspeakasDr.Cremerwouldhavehimspeak.ItlooksasifhisinterpretationofIITim.iii.16wereexpositoryofitsmeaningtohimratherthanimpositoryofhisviewsonit.Letus,bywayofillustration,placeafullercitationofOrigen'swords,inthepassageadducedbyDr.Cremer,sidebysidewithapassagedirectlydealingwithIITim.iii.16,and

notetheresult.

SecundumistiusmodiexpositionesdecetsacraslitterascredereneeunumquidemapicemhaberevacuumsapientiaDei.Quienimmihihominipræcipitdicens:Nonapparebisanteconspectummeumvacuus,multoplushocipseagit,nealiquidvacuumloquatur.Explenitudineejusaccipientesprophetæ,ea,quæerantdeplenitudinesumpta,cecinerunt:etidcircosacravoluminaspiritusplenitudinemspirant,nihilqueestsiveinprophetia,siveinlege,siveinevangelio,siveinapostolo,quodnonaplenitudinedivinæmajestatisdescendat.Quamobremspirantinscripturissanctishodiequeplenitudinisverba.Spirantautemhis,quihabentetoculosadvidendacoelestiaetauresadaudiendadivina,etnaresadea,quæsuntplenitudinis,sentienda(Origen,"inJeremiamHomilia,"xxi,2.Wirceburged.,1785,ix,733).

HereOrigeniswritingquitefreely:andhisthemeisthedivinefullnessofScripture.ThereisnothinginScripturewhichisvainoremptyandallitsfullnessisderivedfromHimfromwhomitisdippedbytheprophets.Contrasthismanner,now,whenheisexpoundingIITim.iii.16.

"LetusnotbestupefiedbyhearingScriptureswhichwedonotunderstand;butletitbetousaccordingtoourfaith,bywhichalsowebelievethateveryScripturebecauseitistheopneustic(pa/sagrafh.qeo,pneustojou=sa)isprofitable.ForyoumustneedsadmitoneoftwothingsregardingtheseScriptures:eitherthattheyarenottheopneusticsincetheyarenotprofitable,astheunbelievertakesit;or,asabeliever,youmustadmitthatsincetheyaretheopneustic,theyareprofitable.Itistobeadmitted,ofcourse,thattheprofitisoftenreceivedbyusunconsciously,justasoftenweareassignedcertainfoodforthebenefitoftheeyes,andonlyaftertwoorthreedaysdoesthedigestionofthefoodthatwastobenefittheeyesgiveusassurancebytrialthattheeyesarebenefited....So,then,believealsoconcerningthedivineScriptures,thatthysoulisprofited,evenifthyunderstandingdoesnotperceivethefruitoftheprofitthatcomesfromtheletters,fromthemerebarereading"[Origen,"Hom.XXinJosuam"2,inJ.A.Robinson'sOrigen's"Philocalia,"p.63).

ItisobviousthathereOrigendoesnotunderstandIITim.iii.16,toteachthatScriptureisinspiredonlybecauseitisprofitable,andthatwearetodetermineitsprofitablenessfirstanditsinspirationtherefrom;whathedrawsfromthepassageisthatScriptureisprofitablebecauseitisinspired,andthatthoughwemaynotseeinanyparticularcasehow,oreventhat,itisprofitable,wemuststillbelieve

ittobeprofitablebecauseitisinspired,i.e.,obviouslybecauseitisgivenofGodforthatend.

ItseemedtobenecessarytoadduceatsomelengththesepassagesfromOrigen,inasmuchasthepartialadductionofoneofthem,alone,byDr.Cremermightprovemisleadingtotheunwaryreader.ButthereappearstobenoneedofmultiplyingpassagesfromtheotherearlyexpositorsofIITim.iii.16,seeingthatitisfreelyconfessedthattheexegeticaltraditionrunsallinonegroove.Wemaydifferastotheweightweallowtothisfact;butsurelyasapieceoftestimonycorroborativeofthemeaningofthewordderivedfromotherconsiderations,itisworthnotingthatithasfromthebeginningbeenunderstoodonlyinoneway-evenbythose,suchasOrigenandwemayaddClement,whomaynotthemselvesbeabsolutelyconsistentinpreservingthepointofviewtaughttheminthispassage.73

Thefinaltestofthesenseassignedtoanywordis,ofcourse,derivedfromitsfitnesstothecontextinwhichitisfound.AndDr.Cremerdoesnotfailtourgewithreferencetoqeo,pneustojinIITim.iii.16,thatthemeaningheassignstoitcorrespondswellwiththecontext,especiallywiththesucceedingclauses;aswellas,headds,withthelanguageelsewhereintheNewTestament,as,forexample,intheEpistletotheHebrews,wherewhatScripturesaysisspokenofastheutterance,thesayingoftheHolyGhost,withwhichhewouldfurthercompareevenActsxxviii.25.

ThatthewordsofScriptureareconceived,notonlyinHebrewsbutthroughouttheNewTestament,astheutterancesoftheHolyGhostisobviousenoughandnottobedenied.ButitisequallyobviousthatthegroundofthisconceptioniseverywheretheascriptionofthesewordstotheHolyGhostastheirresponsibleauthor:litterascriptamanetandremainswhatitwaswhenwritten,viz.,thewordsofthewriter.ThefactthatallScriptureisconceivedasabodyofOraclesandapproachedwithaweastheutterancesofGodcertainlydoesnotintheleastsuggestthattheseutterancesmaynotbedescribedasGod-givenwordsorthrowapreferenceforaninterpretationofqeo,pneustojwhichwouldtransmuteitintoanassertionthattheyareratherGod-givingwords.

Andthesamemaybesaidofthecontextualargument.Naturally,ifqeo,pneustojmeans"God-giving,"itwouldasanepithetorpredicateofScriptureserveverywelltolayafoundationfordeclaringthis"God-givingScripture"alsoprofitable,etc.Butanequalfoundationforthisdeclarationislaidbythedescriptionofitas

"God-given."ThepassagejustquotedfromOrigenwillaloneteachusthis.Allthatcanbesaidonthisscoreforthenewinterpretation,therefore,isthatitalsocouldbemadeaccordantwiththecontext;andasmuch,andmuchmore,canbesaidfortheold.Weleavethematterinthisform,sinceobviouslyadetailedinterpretationofthewholepassagecannotbeenteredintohere,butmustbereservedforalateroccasion.Itmaywellsufficetosaynowthatobviouslynoadvantagecanbeclaimedforthenewinterpretationfromthispointofview.Thequestionis,afterall,notwhatcanthewordbemadetomean,butwhatdoesitmean;andthewitnessofitsusageelsewhere,itsformandmodeofcomposition,andthesensegivenitbyitsreadersfromthefirst,supplyheretheprimaryevidence.Onlyifthesensethuscommendedtouswereunsuitabletothecontextwouldwebejustifiedinseekingfurtherforanewinterpretation-thusdemandedbythecontext.Thiscanbynomeansbeclaimedinthepresentinstance,andnothingcanbedemandedofusbeyondshowingthatthemorenaturalcurrentsenseofthewordisaccordantwiththecontext.

Theresultofourinvestigationwouldseemthus,certainly,todiscreditthenewinterpretationofqeo,pneustojofferedbyEwaldandCremer.FromallpointsofapproachalikeweappeartobeconductedtotheconclusionthatitisprimarilyexpressiveoftheoriginationofScripture,notofitsnatureandmuchlessofitseffects.Whatisqeo,pneustojis"God-breathed,"producedbythecreativebreathoftheAlmighty.AndScriptureiscalledqeo,pneustojinordertodesignateitas"God-breathed,"theproductofDivinespiration,thecreationofthatSpiritwhoisinallspheresoftheDivineactivitytheexecutiveoftheGodhead.ThetraditionaltranslationofthewordbytheLatininspiratusaDeoisnodoubtalsodiscredited,ifwearetotakeitatthefootoftheletter.ItdoesnotexpressabreathingintotheScripturesbyGod.Buttheordinaryconceptionattachedtoit,whetheramongtheFathersortheDogmaticians,isingeneralvindicated.WhatitaffirmsisthattheScripturesowetheirorigintoanactivityofGodtheHolyGhostandareinthehighestandtruestsenseHiscreation.ItisonthisfoundationofDivineoriginthatallthehighattributesofScripturearebuilt.

Endnotes:

1. FromThePresbyterianandReformedReview,v.XT,pp.89-130.2. Thenoveltyoftheviewinquestionmustnotbepressedbeyondmeasure.It

wasanewviewinthesenseofthetext,but,asweshallsubsequentlysee,itwasnoinventionofProf.Cremer's,butwasderivedbyhimfromEwald.

3. Thatisatleasttotheeighthedition(1895),whichisthelastwehaveseen.ThechiefdifferencesbetweentheHerzogand"Lexicon"articlesarefoundatthebeginningandend-thelatterbeingfulleratthebeginningandtheformerattheend.The"Lexicon"articleopensthus:"qeo,pneustoj,-on,giftedwithGod'sSpirit,breathingtheDivineSpirit(butnot,asWeissstillmaintains=inspiredbyGod).ThetermbelongsonlytoHellenisticandEcclesiasticalGreek,andaspeculiartheretoisconnectedwithexpressionsbelongingtothesphereofheathenprophecyandmysteries,qeofo,roj,qeofo,rhtoj,qeoforou,menoj,qeh,latoj,qeoki,nhtoj,qeode,gmwn,qeode,ktwr,qeopro,poj,qeo,mantij,qeo,frwn,qeofra,dmwn,qeofradh,j,e;nqeoj,evnqousiasth,j,etal.,towhichHellenisticGreekaddstwonewwords,qeo,pneustojandqeodi,daktoj,without,however,denotingwhattheothersdo-anecstaticstate."Thecentralcoreofthearticlethenrunsparallelinbothforms.Nothingisaddedinthe"Lexicon,"except(inthelatereditions)immediatelyafterthequotationsfromNonnusthissinglesentence:"ThisusageinNonnusshowsjustthatitisnottobetakenas=inspiratus,inspiredbyGodbutas=filledwithGod'sSpiritandthereforeradiatingit."Thenfollowsimmediatelythenextsentence,preciselyasinHerzog,withwhichthe"Lexicon"articlethenrunsparalleltothequotationfromOrigen,immediatelyafterwhichitbreaksoff.

4. Thecontrastisbetween"gottlichbegeistet"and"gottlichbegeistert."ThereferencetoEwaldisgiveninthe"Lexicon":Jahrb.f.bibl.Wissenschaft,vii.68.seq.;ix.91seq.

5. OfwhichthefactsgivenbyCremermayforthepresentbetakenasafairconspectus,onlyaddingthatthewordoccursnotonlyintheeditionsofPlutarch,"Deplac.phil.,"v.2,3,butalsointheprintedtextofthedependentdocumentprintedamongGalen'sworksunderthetitleof"Dehist.phil.,"106.

6. Cf.Mahaffy,"HistoryofGreekLiterature"(Americaned.),i.188,note1.7. "TheJewishPeopleintheTimeofJesusChrist,"E.T.,II,iii.286,whence

theaccountgiveninthetextisderived.8. Seehis"GesammelteAbhandlungen,"editedbyUsenerin1885.Usener's

Prefaceshouldbealsoconsulted.9. SoHarnack,"TheologischeLiteraturzeitung,"1885,No.7,p.160:also,J.

R.Harris,"TheTeachingoftheApostlesandtheSibyllineBooks"(Cambridge,1888):bothgiveinternalevidencesoftheChristianoriginofthebook.Cf.whatwehavesaidinTheAndoverReviewforAugust,1886,p.219.

10. Oxford8voedition,1795-1830,Vol.iv,ii.650.

11. AsbyDielsinhis"DoxographiGraci,"p.15:"fuitscilicetqeope,mptouj,quodserointellectumestaWyttenbachioinindicePlutarcheo.siGalenuminspexissit,ipsumilludqeope,mptoujinventuruserat."ButDiels'presentationofGalenwasscarcelyopentoWyttenbach'sinspection:andtheeditionsthenextantreadqeopneu,stoujasCorsinirightlytellsus.

12. "PlutarchidePhysicisPhilosophorumDecretis,"ed.Chr.Dan.Beckius,Leipzig,1787.

13. Tübingen,1791-1804,Vol.XII(1800),p.467.14. "PlutarchidePlacitisPhilosophorumLibb.v."(Florentiæ,1750).15. AveryclearaccountofDiels'mainconclusionsisgivenbyFranzSusemihl

inhis"GeschichtederGriechischenLiteraturinderAlexandrinerzeit"(Leipzig,1891-1892),ii.pp.250,251,aswellasinBursian'sJahresberichtfor1881(VII,i.289seq.).AsomewhatlessflatteringnoticebyMaxHeinzeappearsinBursianfor1880,p.3seq.Cf.Gerke,subvoc."Aëtios,"intheneweditionofPauly's"Real-Encyclopaedie"(Wissowa'sed.,1894),I,i.705a.

16. Cf.theremarksofMaxHeinzeasabove.17. Itwouldbepossibletohold,ofcourse,thatAthenagorasusednotthe

[Pseudo?-]Plutarch,butthehypotheticalAëtios,ofwhichDielsconsiderstheformeranexcerpt:butDielsdoesnothimselfsojudge:"ancepsestquæstioutrumexcerpseritAthenagorasPlutarchiPlacitaanmaiusilludopus,cuiusillaestepitome.illudmihiprobatur,hocR.Volkmanno'LebenPlut.,'i.169...."(p.51).

18. TherelationofthePseudo-Galentothe[Pseudo?-]PlutarchDielsexpressesthus:"AlterliberquoduceexgeneraliphysicorumtanquampromulsideadlargioremdapamGalenustraducitest'PlutarchusdePlacidisphilosophorumphysicis.'Undecuminprioribuspaucasuspensamanuutcondimentumadspersasint(c.5,20,21),jamac.25adfinemPlutarchusitaregnat,nihilaliudutprætereaadscitumesseappareat...ergofœdioribusByzantiorumsoloecismisamputatishancpartemadcodicumfidemdescripsimus,nonnullisPlutarcheæemendationisauxilium,pluribusfortassehumanæperversitatisinsignetestimonium"(pp.252,253).

19. Plutarch's,pp.267seq.;Galen's,pp.595seq.20. Plutarch's"Ep.,"v.2,3(p.416);Galen's"Hist.Phil.,"106(p.640).21. ForBernardakisreadsqeopneu,stoujinhistext(Teubnerseries,Plutarch's

"Moralia,"v.351),recognizingatthesametimeinanotethatthereadingofGalenisqeope,mptouj.

22. InPauly's"Real-Encyclopædie,"newed.,s.v.23. Itisnotmeant,ofcourse,thatDielswasthefirsttodenythetractto

Plutarch.Ithasalwaysbeenundersuspicion.Wyttenbach,forexample,rejectsitsPlutarchianclaimwithdecision,andspeaksofthetractinatoneofstudiedcontempt,whichis,indeed,reflectedinthenotealreadyquotedfromhim,intheremarkthatwewouldnotbejustifiedinobtrudingeleganciesonamerecompiler.Cf.i.p.xli:"Porro,siquidhocest,spuriusliberutriusquenomineperperamferturidem,PlutarchiquidiciturDePhilosophorumPlacitis,GaleniHistoriaphilosophiæ."

24. DielsdoesnotthinkhighlyofthisportionofKahn'sedition:"Kuehnius,quiprioribussuicorporisvoluminibusmanumsubindeadmovitquamvisparumfelicem,postremourgentitypothetæneinspectasquidemCharterianaeplagulastypisdiscribendastradidissefertur.nequealiterexplicaripotest,quodeditioambitiosesusceptatammisereabsolutaest"(p.241,2).

25. ThoughDielsinformsusthattheeditorshavemadeverylittleefforttoascertainthereadingsoftheMSS.

26. "Exarchetypohaudvetustoeodemquemendosissimoquattuorexemplatranscriptaesse,acfideliusquidemLaur.A,peritiussedinterpolateLaur.B."(p.241).

27. Diels'languageis:"dolendumsaneestlibricondicionemtamessedesperatamutetiamPlutarcheoarchetypocomparatohaudsemelplaneincertushæreas,quidsibivelitcompilator"(p.12).

28. "Verumquamvissitsummaopuscautioneneventosinebuloniscommentaprosinceramemoriaamplexemur,inesttameninGalenooptimarumlectionumpæneintactusthesaurus"(p.13).

29. "Codicesmanuscriptiquotquotnotisuntexarchetypocircamillesimumannumscriptodeductisunt"(p.33)."duoautemsuntrecensendiPlutarchiinstrumenta...unumrecentiusexcodicispetendum,interquosABCarchetypoproximosexceterorumturbasegregavi...alterumgenusestexcerptorum..."(p.42).

30. ThereadingsofAaredrawnfromacollationofitwiththeFrankforteditionof1620publishedbyC.F.Matthæiinhis"LectionesMosquenses."Inanumberofimportantreadings,theMS.hasbeenreinspectedforDielsbyVoelkelwiththeresultofthrowingsomedoubtonthecompletenessofMatthæi'scollation.AccordinglytheMS.iscitedinparenthesiswheneveritiscitedesilentio(seeDiels,p.33).

31. Thegeneraluseofqeo,pemptojisillustratedintheLexicons,bythecitationofArist.,"Ethic.Nic.,"i.9,3,wherehappinessisspokenofasqeo,pemptojincontrasttotheattainmentofvirtueineffort;Longinus,c.34,wherewereadofqeo,pemptatinadwrh,mataincontrastwithavnqrw,pina;Themist,"Or."13,p.178D,whereo`q)neani,ojisfound;Dion.Hal.,T.14.Liddell

andScottquoteforthesecondarysenseof"extraordinary,"Longus,3,18;Artem.,i.7.

32. Arist.,dedivinat,2p.463613:o[lwjdvevpei.kai.tw/na;llwnzw,wnovneirw,tteitina.(qeo,pemptame.nouvka;nei;hta.evnu,pni,a(ouvde.ge,gonetou,touca,rin(diamo,niame,noi\h`ga.rfu,sijdaimoni,a(avllvouvqei,a.

33. Cf.Philo'stractperi.tou/qeope,mptoujei;naitou.jovnei,rouj(Mangey.,1.620).Itsopeningwordsrun(Yonge'stranslation,ii.292):"Thetreatisebeforethisonehascontainedouropinionsastothoseoftw/novnei,rwnqeope,mptwnclassedinthefirstspecies...whicharedefinedasdreamsinwhichtheDeitysendstheappearancesbeheldindreamsaccordingtohisownsuggestion(to.qei/onkata.th.nivdi,anu`pobolhjta.jevntoi/ju[pnoijejpipe,mpeinfantasi,aj),"whereasthislatertreatiseistodiscussthesecondspeciesofdreams,inwhich,"ourmindbeingmovedalongwiththatoftheuniverse,hasseemedtobehurriedawayfromitselfandtobeGod-borne(qeoforei/swqai)soastobecapableofpreapprehensionandforeknowledgeofthefuture."Cf.also§22,th/jqeope,mptoufantasi,aj:§33,qeope,mptoujovnei,rouj:ii.§1,tw/nqeope,mptwnovnei,rwn.ThesuperficialparallelismofPhilowithwhatiscitedfromHerophilusiscloseenoughfullytoaccountforascribeharkingbacktoPhilo'slanguage-orevenforthecompilerofthePseudo-Galendoingso.

34. "ClementineHomilies,"xvii.15:"AndSimonsaid:'Ifyoumaintainthatapparitionsdonotalwaysrevealthetruth,yetforallthatvisionsanddreams,beingGod-sent(ta.o`ra,matakai.ta.evnu,pniaqeo,pemptao;ntaouvyeu,detai)donotspeakfalselyinregardtothosematterswhichtheywishtotell.'AndPetersaid:'Youwererightinsayingthat,beingGod-sent,theydonotspeakfalsely(qeo,pemptaovntaouvyeu,detai.ButitisuncertainifhewhoseeshasseenaGod-sentdream(eivo`ivdw.nqeo,pemptonevw,rakeno;neiron)."Whathascometothe"ClementineHomilies"issurelyalreadyaChristiancommonplace.

35. TheimmediatelyprecedingparagraphinthePseudo-Galen(§105),correspondingwith[Pseudo?-]Plutarch,v.i.1,2.3iseditedbyDielsthus:Pla,twnkai.oi`Stwikoi.th.nmantikh.neivsa,gousi\kai.ga.rqeo,pemptonei=nai(o[perevsti.nevnqeastiko.nkai.kata.to.qeio,tatonth/jyuch/j(o[perevsti.nevnqousiastiko,n(kai.to.ovneiropuliko.nkai.to.avstronomiko.nkai.to.ovrneoskopiko,n)Xenofa,nhjkai.vEpi,kourojavnairou/sith.nmantikh,n)Puqago,rajde,mo,nonto.qutiko.nouvkevgkri,nei)vAristote,lhjkai.Dikai,arcojtou.jovnei,roujeivsa,gousin(avqa,natonme,nth.nyuch.nouvnomi,zontevjqei,oude,tinojmete,xein)Surelythescribe

orcompilerwhocouldtransmutethesectionperi.mantikh/jinthe[Pseudo?-]Plutarchintothis,withitsintrudedqeo,pemptonbeforehimanditsallusiontoAristotleondreams,mightbecreditedwithoutmuchrashnesswiththeintrusionofqeope,mptoujintothenextsection.

36. Cf.ingeneralE.Thramer.HastingsERE,VI,p.542.37. ItisdulyrecordedinBoeckh,"CorpusInscript.Grace,"4700b.(Add.iii).

ItisalsoprintedbyKaibel,"EpigrammataGræca"(Berlin,1878),p.428,butnotasaChristianinscription,butundertheheadof"Epigrammatadedicatoria:V.proscynemata."

38. Porphyry:"Ant.Nymph.,"116:h`gou/ntoga.rprosiza,neintw|/u[datita.jyuca.jqeopno,w|o;nti(w[jfhsino`Noumh,nioj\dia.tou/tole,gwnkai.to.nprofh,thneivrhke,nai(evmfe,resqaievpa,notou/u[datojqeou/pneu/ma-apassageremarkableforcontaininganappealtoMoses(Gen.i.5)byaheathensage."God-breathedwater"isrenderedbyHolstenius:"aquæquædivinospiritufoveretur";byGesnerus:"aquædivinitusafliatæ";byThomasTaylor:"waterwhichisinspiredbydivinity."Pisid."Hexaem.,"1489:h`qeo,pnoujavkro,thj(quotedunverifiedfromHase-Dindorf'sStephens).TheChristianusageisillustratedbythefollowingcitations,takenfromSophocles:HermesTris.,"Poem,"17.14:th/ja;lhqei,aj;AnastasiusofSinai,Migne,89.1169A:Thosewhodonothaveflesh,loveofGod,"these,havingadiabolicalwillanddoingthedesiresoftheirflesh,paraito/ntaiw`jponhro.nto.qeo,moion,kai.qeo,ktiston(kai.qeo,moionth/jnoera/jkai.qeocara,ktouh`mw/nyuch/jo`mologei/nevnCristw|/(kai.th.nzwopoio.nau`th/jkai.sustatikh.nqeo,pnounevse,rgeian."

39. pneumatofo,rojandpneumatoforei/sqaiarepre-ChristianJewishwords,alreadyusedintheLXX.(Hos.ix.7,Zeph,iii.4,Jer.ii.24).Compoundsofqeo,jfoundintheLXX.areqeo,ktistoj,IIMace.vi.23;qeomacei/n,IIMacc.vii.19[qeoma,cojSm.,Jobxxvi.5,etal.];qeose,beia,Gen.xx.11etal.;qeosebh,jEx.xviii.21etal.

40. Noderivativeofcristo,jexceptcristiano,jisfoundintheNewTestament.ThecompoundsarepurelyPatristic.SeeLightfoot'snoteonIgnatius,Eph.ix;Phil.viiiandthenoteinMigne's"Pat.Gram.,"xi.1861,atAdamantii"Dialogusderectafide,"§5.

41. IntheHase-DindorfStephens,sub-voc.qeo,pneustoj,thepassage,fromthe[Pseudo?-]Plutarchisgivenwithinsquarebracketsinthisform:["Plut.Mor.p.904F:tou.jovnei,roujtou.jqeoplou,touj]."Whatistobemadeofthisnewreading,wedonotknow.Onewonderswhetheritisanewconjectureoramisprint.Noearlierreferenceisgivenforqeo,ploutojinthe"Thesaurus"thanChrysostom:"ItaJobumappellatJo.Chrystom,Vol.iv,p.

297,Suicer."SophoclescitesalsoAnast.Sinai.fortheword:HexæmeronXIIadfin.(Migne,1076D.,Vol.89):o[pwjtou/tokatabalw.nevntai/jyucai/jtrapezisw/nsw/na;rvr`wnsedivauvtw/nth.nqeo,ploutonkataplouth,sw.

42. SoitmaybeconfidentlyinferredfromthesummaryofwhatweknowofHerophilusgiveninSusemihl's"GeschichtederGriechisch.Literaturind.Alexandrinerzeit,"Vol.i,p.792,orfromMarx's"DeHerophili...vitascriptisatqueinmedicinamentis"(Göttingen,1840),p.38.InbothcasesHerophilus'doctrineofdreamsisgatheredsolelyfromourexcerpts-inthecaseofSusemihlfrom"Aëtius"andinthecaseofMarxprimarilyfromGalenwiththesupportofPlutarch.

43. Loc.cit.44. Inthecommontextthepassagegoesontotellusofthedreamsofmixed

nature,i.e.,presumablypartlydivineandpartlyhumaninorigin.Buttheideaitselfseemsincongruousandthedescriptiondoesnotverywellfitthecategory.Diels,therefore,conjecturespneumatikou,vinitsplaceinwhichcasetherearethreecategoriesintheenumeration:Theopneustic,physical(i.e.,theproductoftheyuch,orlowernature),andpneumatic,ortheproductofthehighernature.ThewholepassageinDiels'recensionrunsasfollows:Aët.'Plac.,'p.416(Pseudo-Plut.,V.2,3):`Hrofilojtw/novnei,rwntou.jme.nqeope,mptoujkatvavna,gkhngi,nesqai(tou.jde.fusikou.javneidwlopoioume,nhjyuch/j(to.sumfe,ronauvth|/kai.to.pa,ntwjevso,menon(tou.jde.sugkramatikou.j[pneumatikou.j?Diels,butthisisscarcelytherightcorrection,cf.Susemihl,"Gesch.d.Gr.Lit.,"etc.i.792][evktou/au`toma,tou]katveivdw,lwnpro,sptwsin,o[tana[boulo,meqable,pwmen(w`jevpi.tw/nta.jevrwme,najo`rw,ntwnevnu[pnw|gi,netai."

45. V.308seq.Thefulltext,inRzach'sedition,runs:

Ku,mhdvh`mwrh.su.nna,masinoi-jqeopneu,stoijvEnpala,maijavqe,wnavndrw/nkai.avqe,smwnvRifqei/jjouvke;titi,ssonevjaivqe,rar`h/maprodw,sei\vAlla.menei/nekrh.evni,na,masikumai,oisin.

46. Strabo,"RerumGeographicarum,"liberxiii,iii.6,pp.622,623(Amsterdamed.,1707,p.924).AgoodsummarymaybereadinSmith's"DictionaryofGreekandRomanGeography,"i.724,725.

47. Alexandretranslates"plenisnuminelymphis";Dr.Terry,"inspiredstreams."

48. SoHerodotusobserves(i,157).49. p,408seq.InRzach'stextthelinesrun:

Ouvga.ravkhde,stwjaivnei/qeo.nevxavfanou/jgh/jouvde.pe,trhnpoi,hsesofo.jte,ktwnpara.tou,toivjouvcruso.nko,smouavpa,thnyucw/ntvevseba,sqh(avlla.me,gangeneth/raqeo.npa,ntwnqeopneu,stwnevnqusi,aijevge,rairva`gi,aivjkalai/jqve`kato,mbaij.

50. Inthissecondedition,Dr.Terryhasalteredthisto"TheMightyFather,GodofallthingsGod-inspired":butthisscarcelyseemsanimprovement.

51. ouvde.fobhqei.javqa,natongeneth/raqeo.npa,ntwnavnqrw,pwnouvke;qelejtima/n.RzachcomparesalsoXenophon."Fragm.,"i.1,M.,ei]jqeo.je;nteqeoi-sikai.avnqrw,poisime,gistoj\

52. Terry,Ed.2:"theimmortalFather,Godofallmankind."53. RecensionA,chap.xx.p.103,ed.James.54. NonniPanopolitani"ParaphrasisinJoannem"(i.27),inMigne,xliii.753:

Kai.ovpi,sterojo[stiji`ka,neiSh,meronu`mei,wnme,soji[statai(ou-podo.ja]krou(vAndrome,hnpala,mhnouvka[xio,jeivmipela,ssaj(Lu/saimou/noni`ma,ntaqeopneu,stoiopedi,lou)

55. Op.cit.,p.756.56. ItisgiveninKaibel's"EpigrammataGræca,"p.477.Waddingtonsupposes

thepersonmeanttobeacertainArchbishopofBostra,ofdate457-474,anopponentofOrigenism,whoiscommemoratedintheGreekChurchonJune13.Theinscriptionrunsasfollows:

Do,xhj]ovrqoto[n]outami,hjkai.u`pe,rmacojevsqlo,j,avrciereu.jqeo,pneustojevdei,matoka,lloja;metronvAnti,patr]o[j]kluto,mhtijaveqlofo,roujmetvavgw/navjku[d]ai,nwnmega,lwjqeomh,toraparqe,nona`gnh,nMari,anpolu,umnon(avkh,ratonavglao,dwron\

57. Wetsteincitestheexpressionasapplied(where,hedoesnotsay)to"MarcusÆgyptus,"bywhichhemeans,wesuppose,MarcusofScetis,mentionedbySozomen,H.E.,vi.29,andNicephorusCallistus,H.E.,xi.35.Dr.CremertransmutesthedesignationintoMarcusEremita,whois

mentionedbyNicephorusCallistus,H.E.,xiv.30,54,andwhosewritingsarecollectedinMigne,lxv.905seq.Thetwoareoftenidentified,butareseparatelyenteredinSmithandWace.

58. ThatisdoubtlesstheJewishteachertowhomheelsewhererefers,as,e.g.,"DePrincipiis,"iv.20(Ante-NiceneLibrary,N.Y.ed.,iv.375),wherethesamegeneralsubjectisdiscussed.

59. "Jahrb.f.bibl.Wissenschaft,"vii.114.60. Inanoteonp.89,Ewaldaddsastoqee,mpneustojthatitiscertainlytrue

thatsuchcompoundsarenotcommon,andthatthisparticularonedoesnotoccur:butthattheyarepossibleisshownbytheoccurrenceofsuchexamplesasqeosu,naktovjqeokataskeu,astoj,inwhichtheprepositionoccurs:anddemLautenach,theformationislikeqeh,latoj.Thereseemstobenoreason,wemayadd,why,ifitwereneeded,weshouldnothavehadaqee,mpneustojbythesideofqeo,pneustoj,justasbythesideofpneumatofo,rojwehavepneumate,mforoj("EtymologicumMagnum,"677,28;JohnofDamascus,inMigne,96,837c.:+Hseprofhtw/npneumate,mforonsto,ma).

61. Fornotevenqeempne,wwouldproperlysignify"breatheinto"butrather"breathein,""inhale."Itisbyasomewhatillogicalextensionofmeaningthattheverbanditsderivatives(e;mpneusij(e;mpnoia)areusedinthetheologicalsenseof"inspiration,"inwhichsensetheydonotoccur,however,eitherintheLXX.ortheNewTestament.IntheLXX.e;mpneusijmeansa"blast,"a"blowing"(Ps.xvii.(xviii.)15;cf.theparticipleevmpne,wn,Actsix.l);e;mpnouj,"living,""breathing"(IIMace.vii.5,xiv.45);andtheparticiplepa/nevmpne,on,"everyliving,breathingthing"(Deut.xx.16;Josh.x.28,30,35,37,39,40;xi.14;Wisd.xv.11).vEispne,wisproperlyusedbytheclassicsinthesenseof"breathinginto,""inspiring":itisnotfoundinitselforderivativesinLXX.ortheNewTestament-thoughitoccursinAq.atEx.i.5.Howeasilyandinwhatafullsense,however,evmpne,wisusedbyecclesiasticalwritersfor"inspire"maybenotedfromsuchexamplesasIgn."adMag.,"8:"Forthedivine(qeio,tatoi)prophetslivedafterChrist;forthiscausealsotheywerepersecuted,beinginspiredbyHisgrace(evmneo,menoiu`po.th/jca,ritojauvtou/)forthefullpersuasionofthosethataredisobedient."Theoph.ofAntioch,"ad.Autol.,"ii.9:"ButthemenofGod,pneumatofo,roioftheHolyGhost,andbecomingprophetsu`pvauvtou/tou/qeou/evmpneusqe,ntejkai.sofisqe,ntej,becameqeodi,daktoiandholyandrighteous."Themostnaturaltermfor"inspired"inclassicGreekonewouldbeapttothink,wouldbee;nqeoj(e;nqouj),withto.e;nqeonfor

"inspiration";andafterit,participialorotherderivativesofevnqousia,zw:butbotheivspne,wandevmpne,wwereusedforthe"inspiration"thatconsistedof"breathinginto"eveninprofaneGreek.

62. P.8863. "GeschichtedesVolkesIsrael,"vi.245,note.64. "Jahrb.f.bibl.Wissenschaft,"ix.91.65. Sec.16,2,p.135.Cf.Thayer'sWiner,p.96;Moulton's,p.120.Also

Thayer'sButtmann,p.190.ThebestliteratureofthesubjectwillbefoundadducedbyWiner.

66. Compoundsof-pneustojdonotappeartobeverycommon.LiddellandScott(ed.6)donotrecordeitheravna,-ordia,-orevpi,-oreveneu;-;thoughthecognatesarerecorded,andfurthercompoundspresupposingthem.Therarewordeu;pneustojmightequallywellexpress"breathing-well"quasi-actively,or"well-aired"passively;justasa;pneustojisactuallyusedinthetwosensesof"breathless"and"unventilated":andasimilardoublesensebelongstodusana,pneustoj.;Empneustojdoesnotseemtooccurinahighersense;itsonlyrecordedusageisillustratedbyAthenaeus,iv.174,whereitisconnectedwitho;rganainthesenseofwind-instruments:itscognatesareusedof"inspiration."Onlypuri,pneustoj=puri,pnooj="fire-breathing"isdistinctivelyactiveinusage:cf.avna,pneustoj,poeticfora;pneustoj="breathless."

67. Twofundamentalideas,lyingattherootofalltheirthinkingofScripture,seemtohavecoloredsomewhattheirdealingwiththisterm:theoldLutherandoctrineoftheWordofGod,andthemodernrationalizingdoctrineofthenatureoftheDivineinfluenceexertedintheproductionofScripture.OnaccountofthelatterpointofviewtheyseemdeterminednottofindinScriptureitselfanydeclarationthatwillshutthemupto"aPhilonianconceptionofScripture"astheOraclesofGod-theveryutterancesoftheMostHigh.Bytheformertheyseempredisposedtodiscoverinitdeclarationsofthewonder-workingpoweroftheWord.ThereadercannotavoidbecomingawareoftheinfluenceofboththesedogmaticconceptionsinbothEwald'sandCremer'sdealingwithqeo,pneustoj.Butitisnotnecessarytolaystressonthis.

68. "Jahrb.f.bibl.Wissenschaft,"vii.88,114.69. "GeschichtedesVolkesIsrael,"i.245,note.70. "Jahrb.,"etc.,ix.92.71. "DiePastoralbriefe"u.s.w.,p.163.72. Fortheimplicationsofthetermfero,menoihere(asdistinguishedfrom

avgo,menoi)consultthefruitfuldiscussionofthewordsinSchmidt's

"Synonymik."73. Cf.Prof.Schulze,loc.cit.:"Further,itshouldnotbelostsightof(andDr.

Cremerdoesnotdoso)howtheChurchinitsdefendershasunderstoodthisword.TherecanbenodoubtthatintheconflictwithMontanism,thetraditionaldoctrineoftheopneustywasgroundedintheconceptionofqeo,pneustoj,butneverthatoftheScripturesbreathingouttheSpiritofGod.ThepassagewhichCremeradducesfromOrigengivesnointerpretationofthisword,butonlypointstoaqualityofScriptureconsequentontheirdivineoriginationbytheHolySpirit:andelsewherewhenheadducestheruleoffaith,thewordsrun,quodperspiritumdeisacræscripturæconscriptæsint,oraverbodeietspiritadeidictæsunt:justasClem.Alex.also,when,inCoh.71,heiscommentingonthePaulinepassage,takesthewordintheusualway,andyet,likeOrigen,makesaninferencefromtheGod-likeness(asqeopoiei/n)inPlato'smanner,fromthewholepassage-thoughnotderivingitfromtheworditself.FortheuseofthewordinOrigen,weneedtonote:Sel.inPs.,ii.527;Hom.inJoh.,vi.134,Ed.delaR."

“ItSays;”“ScriptureSays;”“GodSays”

ITwouldbedifficulttoinventmethodsofshowingprofoundreverenceforthetextofScriptureastheveryWordofGod,whichwillnotbefoundtobecharacteristicofthewritersoftheNewTestamentindealingwiththeOld.AmongtherichvarietyoftheindicationsoftheirestimateofthewrittenwordsoftheOldTestamentasdirectutterancesofJehovah,thereareinparticulartwoclassesofpassages,eachofwhich,whentakenseparately,throwsintotheclearestlighttheirhabitualappealtotheOldTestamenttextastoGodHimselfspeaking,while,together,theymakeanirresistibleimpressionoftheabsoluteidentificationbytheirwritersoftheScripturesintheirhandswiththelivingvoiceofGod.InoneoftheseclassesofpassagestheScripturesarespokenofasiftheywereGod;intheother,GodisspokenofasifHeweretheScriptures:inthetwotogether,GodandtheScripturesarebroughtintosuchconjunctionastoshowthatinpointofdirectnessofauthoritynodistinctionwasmadebetweenthem.

Examplesofthefirstclassofpassagesaresuchasthese:Gal.iii.8,"TheScripture,foreseeingthatGodwouldjustifytheheathenthroughfaith,preachedbeforethegospeluntoAbraham,saying,Intheeshallallthenationsbeblessed"(Gen.xii.1-3);Rom.ix.17,"TheScripturesaithuntoPharaoh,EvenforthissamepurposehaveIraisedtheeup"(Ex.ix.16).Itwasnot,however,theScripture(whichdidnotexistatthetime)that,foreseeingGod'spurposesofgraceinthefuture,spokethesepreciouswordstoAbraham,butGodHimselfinHisownperson:itwasnotthenotyetexistentScripturethatmadethisannouncementtoPharaoh,butGodHimselfthroughthemouthofHisprophetMoses.Theseactscouldbeattributedto"Scripture"onlyastheresultofsuchahabitualidentification,inthemindofthewriter,ofthetextofScripturewithGodasspeaking,thatitbecamenaturaltousetheterm"Scripturesays,"whenwhatwasreallyintendedwas"God,asrecordedinScripture,said."

Examplesoftheotherclassofpassagesaresuchasthese:Matt.xix.4,5,"Andheansweredandsaid,Haveyenotreadthathewhichmadethemfromthebeginningmadethemmaleandfemale,andsaid,Forthiscauseshallamanleavehisfatherandmother,andshallcleavetohiswife,andthetwainshallbecomeoneflesh?"(Gen.ii.24);Heb.iii.7,"Wherefore,evenastheHolyGhostsaith,To-dayifyeshallhearhisvoice,"etc.(Ps.xcv.7);Actsiv.24,25,

"ThouartGod,whobythemouthofthyservantDavidhastsaid,Whydotheheathenrageandthepeopleimaginevainthings"(Ps.ii.1);Actsxiii.34,35,"Hethatraisedhimupfromthedead,nownomoretoreturntocorruption,...hathspokeninthiswise,IwillgiveyoutheholyandsureblessingsofDavid"(Isa.lv.3);"becausehesaithalsoinanother[Psalm],Thouwiltnotgivethyholyonetoseecorruption"(Ps.xvi.10);Heb.i.6,"Andwhenheagainbringethinthefirstbornintotheworld,hesaith,AndletalltheangelsofGodworshiphim"(Deut.xxxii.43);"andoftheangelshesaith,Whomakethhisangelswings,andhisministersaflameoffire"(Ps.civ.4);"butoftheSon,Hesaith,Thythrone,OGod,isforeverandever,"etc.,(Ps.xlv.7)and,"Thou,Lord,inthebeginning,"etc.(Ps.cii.26).ItisnotGod,however,inwhosemouththesesayingsareplacedinthetextoftheOldTestament:theyarethewordsofothers,recordedinthetextofScriptureasspokentoorofGod.TheycouldbeattributedtoGodonlythroughsuchhabitualidentification,inthemindsofthewriters,ofthetextofScripturewiththeutterancesofGodthatithadbecomenaturaltousetheterm"Godsays"whenwhatwasreallyintendedwas"Scripture,theWordofGod,says."

Thetwosetsofpassages,together,thusshowanabsoluteidentification,inthemindsofthesewriters,of"Scripture"withthespeakingGod.

Inthesamelinewiththesepassagesarecommonlyrangedcertainothers,inwhichScriptureseemstobeadducedwithasubjectlessle,geiorfhsi,,theauthoritativesubject-whetherthedivinelygivenWordorGodHimself-beingtakenforgranted.Amongthesehavebeencountedsuchpassages,forexample,asthefollowing:Rom.ix.15,"ForhesaithtoMoses,IwillhavemercyonwhomIhavemercy,andIwillhavecompassiononwhomIhavecompassion"(Ex.xxxiii.19);Rom.xv.10,"Andagainhesaith,Rejoice,yeGentiles,withhispeople"(Deut.xxxii.43);andagain,"PraisetheLord,allyeGentiles;andletallthepeoplepraisehim"(Ps.cvii.1);Gal.iii.16,"Hesaithnot,Andtoseeds,asofmany;butasofone,Andtothyseed(Gen.xiii.15),whichisChrist";Eph.iv.8,"Whereforehesaith,Whenheascendedonhigh,heledcaptivitycaptive,andgavegiftsuntomen"(Ps.lxviii.18);Eph.v.14,"Whereforehesaith,AwakethouthatsleepestandarisefromthedeadandChristshallshineuponthee"(Isa.Ix.1);ICor.vi.16,"Forthetwain,saithhe,shallbecomeoneflesh"(Gen.ii.24);ICor.xv.27,"Butwhenhesaith,Allthingsareputinsubjection"(Ps.viii.7);IICor.vi.2,"Forhesaith,Atanacceptabletime,Ihearkeneduntothee,andinadayofsalvationdidIsuccorthee"(Isa.xlix.8);Heb.viii.5,"Forsee,saithhe,thatthoumakeallthingsaccordingtothepatternthatwasshowedtheeinthe

mount"(Ex.xxv.40);Jamesiv.6,"Whereforehesaith,Godresisteththeproudbutgivethgracetothehumble"(Prov.iii.34).

Thereisroomfordifferenceofopinion,ofcourse,whetherallthesepassagesarecasesinpoint.Andtherehascertainlyalwaysexistedsomedifferenceofopinionamongcommentatorsastothepropersubaudituminsuchinstancesasareallowed.ThestateofthecasewouldseemtobefairlyindicatedbyAlexanderButtmann,whenhesays:

"Thepredicatesle,geiorfhsi,nareoftenfoundintheNewTestamentinquotations,o`qeo,jorevenmerelyh`grafh,beingalwaystobesuppliedassubject;asICor.vi.16,IICor.vi.2,Gal.iii.16,Eph.iv.8,v.14,Heb.viii.5,iv.3(ei;rhken).Thesesubjectsarealsoexpressed,asinGal.iv.30,ITim.v.18,ortobesuppliedfromtheprecedingcontext,asinHeb.i.5seq."2

Ofthealternativesthusoffered,Jelfapparentlypreferstheone:

"IntheNewTestamentwemustsupplyprofhth,j(h`grafh,(pneu/ma,etc.,beforefhsi,(le,gei(marturei/."3

WinerandBlasstaketheother:

"Theformulasofcitation-le,gei,IICor.vi.2,Gal.iii.16,Eph.iv.8al.,fhsi,,ICor.vi.16,Heb.viii.5;ei;rhke,Heb.iv.4(cf.theRabbinicalrmwaw);marturei/,Heb.vii.17(ei=pe,ICor.xv.27)-areprobablyinnoinstanceimpersonalinthemindsoftheNewTestamentwriters.Thesubject(o`qeo,j)isusuallycontainedinthecontext,eitherdirectlyorindirectly;inICor.vi.16andMatt.xix.5,fhsi,,thereisanapostolicellipsis(ofo`qeo,j);inHeb.vii.17,thebestauthoritieshavemarturei/tai."4

"Intheformulasofcitationsuchasle,gei,IICor.vi.2,Gal.iii.16,etc.;fhsi,n,ICor.vi.16,Heb.viii.5;ei;rhke,Heb.iv.4-o`qeo,jistobeunderstood('Hesays');inIICor.x.10,fhsi,n(aDE,etc.[?],'onesays'),appearstobeawrongreadingforfasi,n(B),unlessperhapsatijhasdroppedout(butcp.Clem.Hom.,xi.9adinit.)."5

ThecommentatorscommonlyrangethemselveswithWinerandBlass.Thus,onRom.ix.15,SandayandHeadlamcomment:"le,geiwithoutanominativeforqeo.jle,geiisacommonidiominquotations,"referringtoRom.xv.10asaparallelcase.OnGal.iii.16,Meyersays:"sc.qeo,j,whichisderivedfromthe

historicalreferenceofthepreviousevrvr`e,qhsan,sowellknowntothereader";andAlford:"viz.,Hewhogavethepromises-God";andSieffert:"ouvle,geisc.qeo,jwhichflowsoutofthehistoricalrelation(knowntothereader)oftheprecedingevrvr`e,qhsan(cf.Eph.iv.8,v.14)."OnEph.iv.8,Meyer'scommentruns:"Whosaysit(comp.v.14)isobviousofitself,namely,God,whosewordtheScriptureis.SeeonICor.vi.16;Gal.iii.16;thesupplyingh`grafh,orto.pneu/mamusthavebeensuggestedbythecontext(Rom.xv.10).Themannerofcitationwiththesimplele,gei,obviouslymeantofGod,hasasitsnecessarypresupposition,inthemindofthewriterandreaders,theTheopneustiaoftheOldTestament."Haupt,similarly:"Theintroductionofacitationwiththesimplele,gei,withwhich,ofcourse,'God'istobesuppliedassubject,not'theScripture,'isfoundinPaulagainv.14,IICor.vi.2,Rom.xv.10;similarlyfhsi,,ICor.vi.16(ei=penwiththeadditiono`qeo,j,IICor.vi.16)."AsimilarcommentisgivenbyEllicott,whoaddsatEph.v.14:"scil.o`qeo,j,accordingtotheusualformofSt.Paul'squotations;seenotesonchap.iv.8andonGal.iii.16":thoughonICor.vi.16hespeakswithlessdecision:"Itmaybedoubtedwhatnominativeistobesuppliedtothispracticallyimpersonalverb,whetherh`grafh,(comp.Johnvii.38,Rom.iv.3,ix.17,al.)oro`qeo,j(comp.Matt.xix.5,IICor.vi.2,wherethisnominativeisdistinctlysuggestedbythecontext):thelatterisperhapsthemorenatural:comp.Winer,Gr.,§58,9,andnotesonEph.iv.8."OnICor.vi.16,Edwardscomments:"sc.o`qeo,j,asinRom.ix.15.Cf.Matt.xix.4,5,whereo`poi,hsajsuppliesanom.toei=pen.SimilarlyinPhiloandBarnabasfhsi,introducescitationsfromScripture."OnIICor.vi.2,Waitesays:"AstatementofGodHimselfisadduced";andDeWette:"sc.qeo,j,whoHimselfspeaks."OnHeb.viii.5,Bleekcomments:"Thatthereistobeunderstoodasthesubjectoffhsi,,not,asBohmethinks,h`grafh,,buto`qeo,j,canleastofallbedoubtfulhere,whereactualwordsofGodareadduced";andWeiss:"Thisstatementisnowestablished(ga,r)byappealtoEx.xxv.40,whichpassageischaracterizedonlybytheinterpolatedfhsi,n(cf.Actsxxv.22)asadivineoracle....Thesubjectof(fhsi,nis,ofcourse,God,neithero`crhmatismo,j(Lün.)norh`grafh,(Bhm.)."OnJamesiv.6,Mayorcomments:"ThesubjectunderstoodisprobablyGod,asabove,i.12,evphggei,lato,andEph.iv.8,v.14,wherethesamephraseoccurs;otherstakeitash`grafh,.Cf.above,v.5."6

Mostofthesepassageshave,ontheotherhand,beenexplainedbysomecommentatorsonthesuppositionthatitish`grafh,thatistobesupplied,ashassufficientlyappearedindeedfromthecontroversialremarksinthenotesquotedabove.Thiscircumstancemaybetakenasprecludingthenecessityofadducingexampleshere.7Sufficeittosaythatthosesofillinginthesubauditumare

entirelyatonewiththecommentatorsalreadyquotedinlookinguponthecitationsastreatedbytheNewTestamentwritersasofdivineauthority,itbeing,intheirapprehension,alloneinthisregardwhetherthesubauditumisconceivedash`grafh,oraso`qeo,j.

Inthemeantime,however,therehasoccasionallyshoweditselfatendencytotreatthesesubjectlessverbsmoreorlessastrueimpersonals.ThuswereadinDelitzsch'snoteonHeb.viii.5:"For'see,'saithHe,i.e.,o`qeo,j,ortakingfhsi,impersonally(thatis,withoutadefinitesubject),'itissaid'(i.e.,inScripture),(Bernhardy,'Synt.,'419)."SoKernonJamesiv.6comments:"le,geihereimpersonaliter,insteadoftheforegoingle,geih`grafh,";andaccordinglyBeyschlag,inhisrecentcommentarysays:"tole,gei(h`grafh,istobesupplied,oritistobetakenwithKernimpersonally."SimilarlyGodetonICor.vi.16says:"Thesubjectoftheverbfhsi,n,sayshe,maybeeitherAdamorMoses,orScripture,orGodHimself,orfinally,asisshownbyHeinrici,theverbmaybeasimpleformulaofquotationlikeour'Itissaid.'ThisformisfrequentlyfoundinPhilo."8SomesuchusageasisheresupposedmayseemactuallytooccurinthecommontextofWisdomxv.129andIICor.x.10.10Butinbothpassagesthetruereadingisprobablyfasi,n;inneitherinstanceisitclearthat,iffhsi,nberead,ithasnosubjectimpliedinthecontext;iffhsi,nbereadandtakenasequivalenttofasi,nitstillisnotpurelyindefinite;andinanycasetheinstancesarenotparallel,inasmuchasinneitherofthesepassagesisitScripture,orindeedanydocument,thatisadduced.

Thefactthatafewveryablecommentatorshavetakenthisunlikelylineofexpositionwouldcallfornothingmorethanthisincidentalremark,werenotourattentionattractedsomewhatviolentlytoitbythedogmatictoneandextremityofcontentionofarecentcommentatorwhohasadoptedthisopinion.WerefertoDr.T.K.Abbott'scommentonEph.iv.8,inhiscontributionto"TheInternationalCriticalCommentary."Itrunstoaconsiderablelength,butasonthisveryaccountitopensoutsomewhatmorefullythanusualthisratherunwontedviewoftheconstruction,weshallventuretoquoteitinextenso.Dr.Abbottsays:

"Dio.le,gei.'Whereforeitsaith'='itissaid.'Ifanysubstantiveistobesupplied,itish`grafh,;buttheverbmaywellbetakenimpersonally,justasincolloquialEnglishonemayoftenhear:'itsays'orthelike.Manyexpositorssupply,however,o`qeo,j.Meyerevensays,'Whosaysitisobviousofitself,namely,God,whosewordtheScriptureis.11SimilarlyAlford12andEllicott.13Ifit

wereSt.Paul'shabittointroducequotationsfromtheOldTestament,bywhomsoeverspokenintheoriginaltext,withtheformulao`Qeo.jle,gei,thenthissupplementheremightbedefended.Butitisnot.Inquotinghesometimessaysle,gei,frequentlyh`grafh.le,gei,atothertimesDabi.dle,gei,`Hsai<ajle,gei.Thereisnotasingleinstanceinwhicho`Qeo,jiseitherexpressedorimpliedasthesubject,exceptwhereintheoriginalcontextGodisthespeaker,asinRom.ix.15.Evenwhenthatisthecasehedoesnothesitatetouseadifferentsubject,asinRom.x.19,20:'Mosessaith,''Isaiahisverybold,andsaith';Rom.ix.17,'TheScripturesaithtoPharaoh.'

"Thisbeingthecase,wearecertainlynotjustifiedinforcingupontheapostlehereandinchap.v.14aformofexpressionconsistentonlywiththeextremeviewofverbalinspiration.WhenMeyer(followedbyAlfordandEllicott)saysthath`grafh,mustnotbesuppliedunlessitisgivenbythecontext,thereplyisobvious,namely,that,asabovestated,h`grafh.le,geidoes,infact,oftenoccur,andthereforetheapostlemighthaveusedithere,whereaso`Qeo.jle,geidoesnotoccur(exceptincasesunlikethis),andwehavereasontobelievecouldnotbeusedbySt.Paulhere.Itissomeadditionalconfirmationofthisthatbothhereandinchap.v.14(ifthatisaBiblicalquotation)hedoesnothesitatetomakeimportantalterations.ThisistheviewtakenbyBraune,Macpherson,Moule;thelatter,however,addingthatforSt.Paul'thewordoftheScriptureandthewordofitsAuthorareconvertibleterms.'

"Itisobjectedthatalthoughfhsi,isusedimpersonally,le,geiisnot.Thepresentpassageandchap.v.1414areenoughtoprovetheusageforSt.Paul,andthereareotherpassagesinhisEpistleswherethissenseisatleastapplicable;cf.Rom.xv.10,wherele,geiisparalleltoge,graptaiinver.9;Gal.iii.16,whereitcorrespondstoevrvr`h,qhsan.But,infact,theimpersonaluseoffhsi,inGreekauthorsisquitedifferent,namely=fasi,,'theysay'(soIICor.x.10).Classicalauthorshadnoopportunityofusingle,geiasitisusedhere,astheydidnotpossessanycollectionofwritingswhichcouldbereferredtoash`grafh,,orbyanylikeword.Theycouldsay:o`no,mojle,geiandto.lego,menon."

Itisnot,itwillbeobserved,thefactthatDr.Abbottdecidesagainstthesubauditum,o`qeo,j,inthesepassages,whichcallsforremark.Ashehimselfpointsout,manyothershavebeenbeforehiminthis.Itistheextremityofhisopinionthatfirstofallattractsattention.Foritistobenoticedthat,thoughhesometimesspeaksasifheunderstoodanimpliedh`grafh,,orsomeliketerm,asthesubjectofle,gei,thatisnothisrealcontention.Whatheproposesistotake

theverbwhollyindefinitely-asequivalentto"itissaid,"asifthesourceofthequotationwereunimportantanditsauthorityinsignificant.Thisinterpretationofhisproposalisplacedbeyonddoubtbyhisremarksonchap.v.14.Thereweread:

"Dio.le,gei.'Whereforeitissaid.'ItisgenerallyheldthatthisformulaintroducesaquotationfromcanonicalScripture....Thedifficultiesdisappearwhenwerecognizethatle,geineednotbetakentomeano`Qeo.jle,gei-anassertionwhichhasbeenshowniniv.8tobeuntenable.Itmeans,'itsays,'or'itissaid,'andthequotationmayprobablybefromsomeliturgicalformulaorhymn-asuppositionwithwhichitsrhythmicalcharacteragreesverywell....Theodoretmentionsthisopinion....Stieradoptsasimilarview,butendeavorstosavethesupposedlimitationoftheuseofle,geibysayingthatintheChurchtheSpiritspeaks.AsthereareintheChurchprophetsandpropheticspeakersandpoets,sothereareliturgicalexpressionsandhymnswhichareholywords.Comparingvv.18,19,Col.iii.16,itmaybesaidthattheapostleisheregivingusanexampleofthisself-admonitionbynewspiritualsongs."

Soextremeanopinion,aswehavealreadyhinted,naturallyfinds,however,littlesupportinthecommentators,eveninthosequotedtobuttressit,-ofcourse,initsfundamentalpoint.Braunesays:"Wemustnaturallysupplyh`grafh,,theScripture,withle,gei,'saith,'(Jamesiv.6,Rom.xv.10,Gal.iii.16,ICor.vi.16:fhsi,n),andnoto`qeo,j(Meyer,Schenkel15),oro`le,gwn(Bleek:thewriter)":towhichDr.M.T.Riddle,histranslator,however,adds:"ThefactthatPaulfrequentlysuppliesh`grafh,(Rom.iv.3,ix.17,x.11,Gal.iv.30,ITim.v.18)isagainstBraune'sview;forinsomeofthesepassagesthereisareasonforitsinsertion(see"Romans,"p.314),andastheScripturesareGod'sWord(Meyer),thenaturalaimandobvioussubjectiso`qeo,j.SoAlford,Ellicottandmost."Moule'scommentruns:"Whereforehesaith]Orit,i.e.,theScripture,saith.St.Paul'susageinquotationleavesthesubjectoftheverbundeterminedhereandinsimilarcases(see,e.g.,chap.v.1416).ForhimthewordoftheScriptureandthewordofitsauthorareconvertibleterms."Macphersonalone,ofthoseappealedtobyDr.Abbott,supports,inasomewhatcarelesslywrittennote,theindefiniteinterpretationputforwardbyDr.Abbott,-beingmisledapparentlybyremarksofLightfoot'sandWestcott's.Hiscommentruns:

"Averysimplequotationformulaishereemployed,thesinglewordle,gei.Itisalsosimilarlyused(chap.v.14;IICor.vi.2;Gal.iii.16;Rom.xv.10).17Thiswordisfrequentlyemployedinthefullerformula,TheScripturesaith,le,geih`

grafh,(Rom.iv.3,x.11,xi.2;Jas.ii.23,etc.);orthenameofthewriteroftheparticularscripture,Esaias,David,theHolySpirit,thelaw(Rom.xv.12;Actsxiii.35;Heb.iii.7;ICor.xiii.34,etc.).18Ofle,gei,fhsi,,ei;rhke,andsimilarwordsthusused,Winer("Grammar,"p.656,1882)saysthatprobablyinnoinstancearetheyimpersonalinthemindsoftheNewTestamentwriters,butthatthesubject,o`qeo,j,issomewhereinthecontext,andistobesupplied.19Onthecontrary,Lightfoot,inhisnoteonGal.iii.16,remarksthatle,gei,liketheAtticfhsi,,seemstobeusedimpersonally,thenominativebeinglostsightof.Inourpassagewehavenonominativeinthecontextwhichwecansupply,anditseemsbettertorenderthephraseimpersonally,Itissaid.ThesamewordisusedveryfrequentlyintheEpistletotheHebrews,butalwayswithGodorChristunderstoodfromtheimmediatecontext.Westcottverycorrectlyremarks(p.457)thattheuseoftheformulainEph.iv.8,v.14,seemstobeofadifferentkind."20

Outsideofthesecommentatorsquotedbyhimself,however,Prof.Abbott'sextremeviewhas(ashas,indeed,alreadyincidentallyappeared)thepowerfulsupportofLightfootandHeinrici.TheformerexpresseshisopinionnotonlyinhisnoteonGal.iii.16,towhichMacphersonrefers,butmorefullyandargumentativelyinhisnoteonICor.vi.16printedinhisposthumous"NotesontheEpistlesofSt.Paul."Intheformeroftheseplaceshesays:

"ouvle,geiseemstobeusedimpersonally,liketheAtticfhsi,inquotinglegaldocuments,thenominativebeinglostsightof.Ifso,weneednotinquirewhethero`qeo,jorh`grafh,istobeunderstood.Comp.le,gei,Rom.xv.10,Eph.iv.8,v.14;andfhsi,n,ICor.vi.16,IICor.x.10(v.l)."

Inthelatter,speakingmoreatlarge"astotheauthorityassignedtothepassage"quotedbySt.Paul,hesays:

"Whatarewetounderstandbyfhsi,n?Iso`qeo,jtobesuppliedorh`grafh,?Tothisquestionitissafesttoreplythatwecannotdecide.Thefactisthat,likele,gei,fhsi,nwhenintroducingaquotationseemstobeusedimpersonally.ThisusageiscommoninBiblicalGreek(le,gei,Rom.xv.10,Gal.iii.16,Eph.iv.8,v.14;fhsi,n,Heb.viii.5,IICor.x.10(v.l.),morecommoninclassicalGreek.Alford,afterMeyer,objectstorenderingfhsi,nimpersonallyhere,ascontrarytoSt.Paul'susage.ButtheonlyotheroccurrenceofthephraseinSt.PaulisIICor.x.10,whereheisnotintroducingScripture,buttheobjectionsofhumancriticsandofmorethanonecritic.Ifthenfhsi,nbereadthereatall,itmustbeimpersonal.Theapostle'sanalogoususeofle,geipointstothesame

conclusion.InEph.v.14itintroducesaquotationwhichiscertainlynotinScripture,andapparentlybelongedtoanearlyChristianhymn.WegatherthereforethatSt.Paul'susagedoesnotsuggestanyrestrictionheretoo`qeo,jorh`grafh,.Butwecannotdoubtfromthecontextthatthequotationismeanttobeauthoritative."

InhisowncommentaryonICorinthians(1880),Heinriciwritesasfollows:

"Tofhsi,,justastole,gei(IICor.vi.2,Gal.iii.16)nothingatallistobesupplied,butlikeinquititstands,sometimesastheintroductiontoanobjection(IICor.x.10,whereHolstenreferstoBentleyonHorat.,Serm.,i,4,78),sometimesasageneralformulaofcitation.ItisespeciallyoftenusedinthelattersensebyPhilo,inthequotationofScripturepassages,andbyArrian-Epictetus,whosuppliesmanymostinterestingparallelstothePaulineformsofspeech.Schweighauser,inhisIndex,underfhsi,,remarksofit:necenimsemperinproferendaobjectionelocumhabetillaformula,verumetiamincitandoexemploadidquodagiturpertinente.J.G.Muffler(PhilotheJew'sBookontheCreation,Berlin,1841,p.44)saysthatfhsi,,aftertheexampleofPlato(?),becamegraduallyamongtheHellenisticJewsthestandingformulaofcitation."

InhiseditionofMeyer's"CommentaryonICorinthians"(eighthedition,1896),thisnotereappearsinthisform:

"fhsi,n).Who?Accordingtotheusualview,God,whosewordsthesayingsoftheScriptureare,evenwhenthey,likeGen.ii.24throughAdam,arespokenthroughanother.Winer,7§58,9,486:Buttmann,117.Buttheimpersonalsense'esheisst,''inquit,'liesnearerthePaulineusage;hecoincidesinthiswithArrian-EpictetusandPhilo,withwhomfhsi,sometimesintroducesanobjection,sometimesisthecustomaryformulaofcitation.Cf.IICor.x.10,vi.2,ICor.xv.27,Eph.iv.8;Winer,asabove;Muller,inPhilo,Deop.mund.,44;Heinrici,i.181.Inaccordancewiththis,aretheothersupplementsofsubject-h`grafh,orto.pneu/ma(Ruckert)-tobeestimated."

Evenintheextremityofhiscontention,therefore,Dr.Abbott,itseems,isnotwithoutsupport-onthephilologicalside,atleast-inpreviouscommentatorsofthehighestrank.

Hehimselfdoesnotseem,however,quiteclearinhisownmind:andhisconfusionofbothconsiderationsandcommentatorswhichmakeforthe

fundamentallydiversepositionsthatthereistobesuppliedwithle,geisomesuchsubjectash`grafh,,andthatthereisnothingatalltobesuppliedbutthewordistobetakenwithentireindefiniteness,isindicatoryofthemainthingthatcallsforremarkinDr.Abbott'snote.For,whyshouldthisconfusiontakeplace?Itisquiteevidentthatininterpretingthephrasethefundamentaldistinctionliesbetweentheviewwhichsupposesthatasubjecttole,geiissoimpliedastobesuggestedeitherbythecontextorbythemindofthereaderfromthenatureofthecase,andthatwhichtakesle,geiasacaseoftrueimpersonalusage,ofentirelyindefinitesubject.Itisaminordifferenceamongtheadvocatesofthefirstoftheseviews,whichseparatesthemintotwoparties-thosewhichwouldsupplyassubjecto`qeo,j,andthosewhichwouldsupplyh`grafh,.Thatoneofthesesubdivisionsofthefirstclassofviewsshouldbeviolentlytornfromitstruecomradeshipandconfusedwiththesecondview,betraysapreoccupationonDr.Abbott'spart,whendealingwiththispassage,withconsiderationsnotofpurelyexegeticalorigin.Heisforthemomentlessconcernedwithascertainingthemeaningoftheapostlethanwithrefutingaspecialinterpretationofhiswords:andthereforeeverythingwhichstandsopposedinanymeasuretotheobnoxiousinterpretationappearstohimtobe"onhisside."Putsomewhatbrusquely,thisisasmuchastosaythatDr.Abbottisinthisnotedominatedbydogmaticprejudice.

Theredonotlackotherindicationsofthisfact.Themostobtrusiveofthemisnaturallythelanguage-scarcelytobecalledperfectlycalm-withwhichthesecondparagraphofthenoteopens:"Wearecertainlynotjustifiedinforcingupontheapostlehereandinchap.v.14aformofexpressionconsistentonlywiththeextremeviewofverbalinspiration."Certainlynot.Butbecausewechancenottolike"theextremeviewofverbalinspiration,"arewejustifiedinforbiddingtheapostletouseaformofexpressionconsistentonlywithit,andforcinguponhimsomeotherformofexpressionwhichwemayconsiderconsistentwithaviewofinspirationwhichwelikebetter?Woulditnotbebettertopermittheapostletochoosehisownformofexpressionandconfineourselves,asexpositors,toascertainingfromhisformofexpressionwhatviewofinspirationlayinhismind,ratherthanseektoforcehishandintoconsistencywithourpreconceivedideas?Thewholestructureofthenoteevinces,however,thatitwasnotwritteninthispurelyexpositoryspirit.Thusonlycanbeexplainedacertainexaggerateddogmatisminitslanguage,asifdoubtweretobesilencedbydecisionofmannerifnotbydecisivenessofevidence.Soalsoprobablyistobeexplainedacertainnarrownessintheappealtousage-thatrockonwhichmuchfactitiousexegesissplits.Only,itisintimated,incase"it

wereSt.Paul'shabittointroducequotationsfromtheOldTestament,bywhomsoeverspokenintheoriginaltext,withtheformulao`qeo.jle,gei,""couldthissupplementherebedefended."OneasksinastonishmentwhetherSt.PaulreallycouldmakeknownhisestimateofScriptureastheveryvoiceofGodwhichmightnaturallybequotedwiththeformula"Godsays,"andsorendertheoccurrenceofthatformulaoccasionallyinhiswritingsnomatterofsurprise,onlybyahabitualuseofthisexactformulainquotingScripture.AndonenoteswithoutsurprisethatthenarrownessofDr.Abbott'srulefortheadductionofusagesuppliesnobartohispracticewhenheisarguing"ontheotherside."Attheopeningoftheverynextparagraphweread,"Itisobjectedthatalthoughfhsi,isusedimpersonally,le,geiisnot":andtothistheanswerisreturned,"Thepresentpassageandchap.v.14aresufficienttoprovetheusageforSt.Paul";withthesupplement,"Andthereareotherpassagesinhisepistleswherethissenseisatleastapplicable";andfurther,"Butinfact,theimpersonaluseoffhsi,inGreekauthorsisquitedifferent."OnefanciesDr.Abbottmusthavehadagrimcontroversialsmileuponhisfeatureswhenhewrotethatlastclause,whichpleadsthatthemeaningassignedtole,geihereisabsolutelyunexampledinGreekliterature,notonlyforle,geibutevenforfhsi,,asareasonforacceptingitforle,geihere!Butapartfromthisremarkableinstanceofskillinmarshalingadversefacts-askillnotunexampledelsewhereinthecourseofthisnote,asanyonewhowilltakethetroubletoexaminetheproof-textsadducedinitwillquicklylearn-mightnottheadvocatesofthesupplement,o`qeo,j,sayequallythat"thepresentpassageandchap.v.14aresufficienttoprovetheusageforSt.Paul,andthereareotherpassagesinhisepistleswherethissenseisatleastapplicable."Andmighttheynotsupportthisstatementwithbetterproof-textsthanthoseadducedbyDr.Abbott,orindeedwiththesamewithbetterright;aswellaswithamoreapplicablesupplementaryremarkthantheonewithwhichhereallysubvertshiswholereasoning-suchasthis,forexample,thatelsewhere,intheNewTestament,asforinstanceintheEpistletotheHebrews,theusagecontendedforundoubtedlyoccurs,andasatisfactorybasisislaidforitinthewholeattitudeoftheentirebodyofNewTestamentwriters,inclusiveofPaul,towardtheOldTestament?Certainly,reasoningsoone-sidedanddominatedbypreconceivedopinionssoblindingisthoroughlyinconclusive.Thenoteis,indeed,aneminentexampleofthatformofargumentationwhich,toinvertaphraseofOmarKhayyam's,"goesoutatthesamedooratwhichitcamein":andeventhoughitscontentionshouldprovesound,canitselfaddnothingtothegroundsonwhichweembraceit.Atbestitmayserveasthestarting-pointofafreshinvestigationintotheproperinterpretationofthephrasewithwhichitdeals.

Forsuchafreshinvestigationweshouldneedtogiveourattentionparticularlytotwoquestions.ThefirstwouldinquireintothelightthrownbyPaul'smethodofintroducingquotationsfromtheOldTestament,uponhisestimateofthetextoftheOldTestament,-withaviewtodeterminingwhetheritneedcausesurprisetofindhimadducingitwithsuchaformulaas"Godsays."Subsidiarytothisitmightbeinquiredwhetheritisaccuratetosaythat"thereisnotasingleinstanceinwhicho`qeo,jiseitherexpressedorimpliedasthesubject,exceptwhereintheoriginalcontextGodisthespeaker,"andfurther,ifPaul'susageelsewherecanbeaccuratelysodescribed,whetherthatfactwillwarrantusindenyingsuchaninstancetoexistinEph.iv.8.Thesecondquestionwouldinquireintothegeneralusageofthesubjectlessle,geiorfhsi,inandoutoftheNewTestament,withaviewtodiscoveringwhatlightmaybethrownbyitupontheinterpretationofthepassagesinquestion.ItmightbeincidentallyaskedinthisconnectionwhetheritisacompleteaccounttogiveoffhsiinprofaneGreektosaythatthe"impersonaluseoffhsi,inGreekauthorsisquitedifferentfromthatoftheNewTestament,inasmuchaswiththemfhsi,=fasi,,'theysay."'

Itisreallysomewhatdiscouragingatthislatedatetofindittreatedasstillanopenquestion,howPaulesteemedthewrittenwordsoftheOldTestament.Anditbringsus,astheFrenchsay,somethingakintostupefaction,whenDr.AbbottgoesfurtheranduseslanguageconcerningPaul'sattitudetowardtheOldTestamenttextwhichimpliesthatPaulhabituallydistinguished,inpointofauthority,betweenthosepassages"whereintheoriginalcontextGodisthespeaker"andtherestofthevolume,sothat"wehavereasontobelieve"thattheformulao`qeo.jle,gei"couldnotbeusedbyPaul"inintroducingScripturallanguagenotrecordedasspokenbyGodintheoriginalcontext.Heevensuggests,indeed,thatPaulshowsanunderlyingdoubtastotheDivinesourceofeventhewordsattributedtoGodintheOldTestamenttext-"nothesitatingtouseadifferentsubject"whenquotingthem,"asinRom.x.19,20,'Mosessaith,''Isaiahisveryboldandsaith';Rom.ix.17,'TheScripturesaithtoPharaoh"'-anddealswiththetextofotherportionswithafreedomwhichexhibitshislittlerespectforthem-"nothesitatingtomakeimportantalterations"inthem.ItwouldseemtorequireadogmaticprejudiceoftheveryfirstordertoblindonetoafactsoobviousasthatwithPaul"Scripture,"assuch,isconceivedeverywhereastheauthoritativedeclarationofthetruthandwillofGod-ofwhichfact,indeed,nobetterevidencecanbeneededthantheverytextsquotedbyDr.Abbottinacontrarysense.

For,whenPaul,inRom.ix.15,supportshisabhorrentrejectionofthe

suppositionthattheremaybeunrighteousnesswithGod,withthedivinedeclarationtakenfromEx.xxxiii.19,introducedwiththeformula,"Forhe"-thatis,asDr.Abbottrecognizes,God-"saithtoMoses,"andthenimmediately,inRom.ix.17,supportstheteachingofthisdeclarationwiththefurtherwordofGodtakenfromEx.ix.16,introducedwiththeformula,"FortheScripturesaithuntoPharaoh"-theonethingwhichisthrownintoareliefaboveallothersisthat,withPaul,"Godsaith"and"Scripturesaith"aresynonymousterms,sosynonymousinhishabitualthoughtthathecouldnotonlyrangethetwotogetherinconsecutiveclauses,butusethesecondinamannerinwhich,takenliterally,itismeaninglessandcanconveyanappropriatesenseonlywhentranslatedbackintoitsequivalentof"Godsaith."Thepresenttenseinbothformulas,moreover,advisesusthat,despitethefactthatinbothinstancestheyarewordsspokenbyGodwhicharecited,itisratheraspartofthatScripturewhichtoPaul'sthinkingistheever-presentandever-speakingwordofGodthattheyareadduced.ItisnotaswordswhichGodoncespoke(ei=pen,LXX.)toMosesthattheformerpassageishereadduced,butaslivingwordsstillspeakingtous-itisnotaswordsMoseswasoncecommandedtospeaktoPharaohthatthesecondishereadduced,butaswordsrecordedintheever-livingScriptureforouradmonitionuponwhomtheendsoftheworldhavecome.TheyarethusnotassignedtoScriptureinordertolowertheirauthority:butratherasamarkoftheirabidingauthority.AndsimilarlywheninthatcatenaofquotationsinRom.x.16-21,wereadatver.19,"firstMosessaith,"andthenatver.20,"andIsaiahisveryboldandsaith,"bothadducingwordsofGod-theimplicationisnotthatPaullooksuponthemassomethinglessthanthewordsofGodandsocitesthembythenamesofthesehumanauthors;butthatitisallonetohimtosay,"Godsays,"and"Mosessays,"or"Isaiahsays":andthereforeinthiscatenaofquotations-inwhichareincludedfour,nottwo,quotations-allthecitationsaretreatedasalikeauthoritative,thoughsomeareintheoriginalcontextwordsofGodandothers(ver.16)wordsoftheprophet-andthoughsomeareadducedbythenameoftheprophetandsomewithoutassignmenttoanydefinitelynamedhumansource.Thesameimplication,again,underliesthefactthatinthecatenaofquotationsonRom.xv.9seq.,thefirstisintroducedbykaqw.jge,graptai,thenexttwobykai.pa,linle,geiandkai.pa,lin,andthelastbykai.pa,lin`Hsai<ajle,gei-thefirstbeingfromPs.lxxviii.50,thesecondfromDeut.xxxii.43,thethirdfromPs.cxvii.1,andonlythelastfromIsaiah-Isa.xi.10:clearlyitisallonetothemindofPaulhowScriptureisadduced-itisthefactthatitisScripturethatisimportant.SoalsoitisnomoretruethatinGal.iii.16,thele,gei"correspondstoevrvr`h,qhsan"oftheimmediatelyprecedingcontext,thanthatitstandsinlinewiththe"andtheScriptureforeseeingthatGodwouldjustifytheGentilesby

faith,preachedtheGospelbeforehanduntoAbraham"ofiii.8-athingwhichtheScriptureassuchcertainlydidnotdo;andwiththe"foritiswritten"ofiii.10andiii.13,andtheunheraldedquotationsoftheScripturesasunquestionedauthorityofiii.11andiii.12;andwiththegeneralappealiniii.22totheteachingofScriptureasawholeasthesoletestimonyneeded:theeffectofthewholebeingtoevinceintheclearestmannerthattoPaulthewholetextofScripture,inclusiveofGen.xii.3,Deut.xxvii.26,Hab.ii.4,Lev.xviii.5,andGen.xxii.18,wasassuchthelivingwordofthelivingGodprofitabletoallagesalikefordivineinstruction.

Weneednotgo,indeed,beyondthefirstsentenceofthisEpistletotheRomansfromwhichallbutoneofDr.Abbott'scitationsaredrawn,tolearnPaul'sconceptionofScriptureasthecrystallizedvoiceofGod.Therehedeclareshimselftohavebeen"separateduntothegospelofGodwhichhepromisedaforebyhisprophetsintheHolyScriptures"(Rom.i.2).Dr.GeorgeT.Purves,inasingularlywell-consideredandimpressivepaperon"St.PaulandInspiration,"printedinThePresbyterianandReformedReviewforJanuary,1893,21justlydrawsoutthemeaningofthiscompressedstatementthus:

"NotonlydidMosesandtheprophetsspeakfromGod,butthesacredScripturesthemselveswereinsomewaycomposedunderdivinecontrol.HenotonlyaffirmswithPeterthat'movedbytheHolyGhost,menspakefromGod,'butthat'theScripturesthemselvesareinspiredbyGod.'Paulplainlyrecognizesthehumanauthorshipofthebooks,andquotesMosesandDavidandIsaiahasspeakingtherein.Butnotonlythroughthem,butinthesebooksoftheirsdidGodalsospeak.ManyreadersnoticethefirstpartofPaul'sstatement,butnotthesecond.Godspake'throughtheprophetsintheHolyScriptures."'

ThisemphasisonthewrittenScripturesasthemselvestheproductofadivineactivity,makingthemassuchthedivinevoicetous,ischaracteristicofthewholetreatmentofScripturebyPaul(ICor.x.11,Rom.xv.4,iv.23,ICor.ix.10,iv.6):anditisthoroughlyaccordantwiththepointofviewsoexhibited,thatheexplicitlydeclares,notofthewritersofScripture,butofthesacredwritingsthemselves,thattheyaretheopneustic-breathedout,orbreathedintobyGod(IITim.iii.16).Forheappliesthisepithetnotto"everyprophet,"butto"everyScripture"-thatis,saysDr.Purves,to"thewholecollectiontowhichhehadjustreferredasthe'sacredwritings,'andalltheirparts":thesewritingsaretheopneustic."Bytheirinspiration,heevidentlymeant,"continuesDr.Purvesjustly,"that,aswritings,theyweresocomposedunderGod'sparticulardirection

thatbothinsubstanceandinformtheywerethespecialutterancesofHismindandwill."

ItcouldbenothingmorethananaccidentifPaul,underthedominanceofsuchaconceptionofScripture,hasnowherehappenedtoadducefromitapassage,takenoutofacontextinwhichGodisnotexpresslymadeintheOldTestamentnarrativeitselfthespeaker,withtheformula,o`qeo.jle,gei,expressedorimplied.Ifnoinstanceofsuchanadductionoccurs,itisworthwhiletonotethatfact,tobesure,asoneofthecuriousaccidentsofliteraryusage;butasthereisnoreasontodoubtthatsuchaformulawouldbeentirelynaturalonthelipsofPaul,sothereisnoproprietyincallingitimpossibleinPaul,oreveninerectingadistinctionbetweenhimandotherNewTestamentwritersonthegroundthattheydoandhedoesnotquoteScripturebysuchaformula.Asamatteroffact,thedistinctionsuggestedbetweenpassagesinScripture"whereintheoriginalcontextGodisthespeaker"andpassageswhereHeisnotthespeaker-asiftheonecouldbecitedwitha"Godsays,"andtheothernot,-isforeigntoPaul'sconceptionandusage,ashasabundantlyappearedalready:sothatwhateverpassagesoftheformerkindoccur-"asinRom.ix.15,"saysDr.Abbott-arereallypassagesinwhichScriptureisquotedwitha"Godsays."Itcannotbeheldtobecertain,moreover,thatpassagesdonotoccurinwhichthe"Godsays"introduceswordsnotascribedtoGodintheoriginalcontext-solong,atleast,asitisnotobviousthat"God"isnotthesubaudituminpassageslikeActsxiii.35,Rom.xv.10,Gal.iii.16.Itisnodoubt,however,alsoworthobservingthatitisequallymatteroffact,thatitisrathertotheEpistletotheHebrewsthantothosethatbearthenameofPaulthatweshallneedtogotofindabodyofexplicitinstancesoftheusageinquestion.Thisis,aswehavesaid,aninterestingfactofliteraryusage,butitisnottobepressedintoanindicationofadivergentpointofviewtoward"Scripture"betweentheEpistletotheHebrewsandtheepistlesthatbearPaul'sname.

EvenDr.Westcottseems,tobesure,sotopressit.Intheinterestingdissertation"OntheUseoftheOldTestamentintheEpistle,"whichhehasappendedtohis"CommentaryontheEpistletotheHebrews,"hesetsoutinsomedetailthefactsthatbearonthemodeinwhichthatepistlecitestheOldTestament:

"Thequotations,"hetellsus,"arewithoutexceptionmadeanonymously.Thereisnomentionanywhereofthenameofthewriter(iv.7isnoexceptiontotherule).Godispresentedasthespeakerthroughthepersonoftheprophet,exceptintheoneplacewhereHeisdirectlyaddressed(ii.6)....Intwoplacesthe

wordsareattributedtoChrist....IntwootherplacestheHolySpiritspeciallyisnamedasthespeaker....ButitisworthyofnoticethatineachofthesetwocasesthewordsarealsoquotedasthewordsofGod(iv.7,viii.8).ThisassignmentofthewrittenwordtoGod,astheInspirerofthemessage,ismostremarkablewhenthewordsspokenbytheprophetinhisownpersonaretreatedasdivinewords-aswordsspokenbyMoses:i.6(Deut.xxxii.43);iv.4,comp.vv.5,7,8(Gen.ii.2);x.30(Deut.xxxii.36);andbyIsaiah:ii.13(Isa.viii.17f),comp.alsoxiii.5(Deut.xxxi.6).Generallyitmustbeobservedthatnodifferenceismadebetweenthewordspokenandthewordwritten.ForusandforallagestherecordisthevoiceofGod.TherecordisthevoiceofGod,andasanecessaryconsequencetherecordisitselfliving....Theconstantuseofthepresenttenseinquotationsemphasizesthistruth:ii.11,iii.7,xii.5.Comp.xii.26."22

EverycarefulstudentwillrecognizethisatonceasaveryclearandverytruestatementoftheattitudeoftheauthoroftheEpistletotheHebrewstowardtheOldTestament.ButwecannothelpthinkingthatDr.WestcottovershootsthemarkwhenhethrowsitintostrongcontrastwiththeattitudeoftherestoftheNewTestamentwriterstotheOldTestament.Whenhesays,forexample:"ThereisnothingreallyparalleltothisgeneralmodeofquotationintheotherbooksoftheNewTestament"-meaningapparentlytosuggest,asthesubsequentcontextindicates,thattheauthorofthisEpistleexhibitsanidentificationinhismindofthewrittentextoftheScriptureswiththevoiceofGodwhichisforeigntotheotherwritersoftheNewTestament-hewouldseemtohaveattachedfartoogreatsignificancetowhatis,afterall,sofarasitisreal,nothingmorethanoneofthosesurfacedifferencesofindividualusagewhicharealwaysobservableamongwriterswhosharethesamefundamentalview-point,orevenindifferenttreatisesfromthesamehand.EntirelyatoneinlookingupontheScripturesasnothinglessthanta.lo,giatou/qeou/(Rom.iii.2,Heb.v.1223)-inalltheirpartsandphrasestheutteranceofGod-theepistlesthatbearthenameofPaulandthisepistleyetchancetodifferintheprevalentmodeinwhichthese"oracles"areadduced:theoneinitsformulasofcitationemphasizingthesolefactthattheyare"oracles"itisquoting,theothers,thatthese"oracles"liebeforetheminwrittenform.Letthefactofthisdifference,ofcourse,benoted:butletitnotbeoverstrainedand,asifitwerethesolerelevantfactinthefieldofview,madetobearthewholeweightofatheoryoftherelationsofthetwointheirattitudetowardScripture.

Impossibleassuchaprocedureshouldbeinanycase,itbecomesdoublyso

whenwenotetheextremelynarrowandinsecurebasisfortheconclusiondrawn,whichisofferedbythedifferencesinusageadducedbetweenHebrewsandtherestoftheNewTestament-whichmeansforusprimarilytheepistlesthatbearthenameofPaul.SaysDr.Westcottinimmediatesequencetowhatwehavequotedfromhim:

"ThereisnothingreallyparalleltothisgeneralmodeofquotationintheotherbooksoftheNewTestament.Wherethewordle,geioccurselsewhere,itisforthemostpartcombinedeitherwiththenameoftheprophetorwith'Scripture':e.g.,Rom.x.16,`Hsai<aj;x.19,Mwush/jle,gei;xi.9,Dauei.dle,gei;iv.3,h`grafh.le,gei;ix.17,le,geih`grafh,,etc.WhereGodisthesubject,asisrarelythecase,thereferenceistowordsdirectlyspokenbyGod:IICor.vi.2,le,geiga.r(o`qeo,j);Rom.ix.15,tw|/Mwusei/;ix.25,evntw|/`Wshe.le,gei.Comp.Rom.xv.9-12(lge,graptai)))le,gei)))`Hsai<ajle,gei).ThetwopassagesintheEpistletotheEphesians(iv.8,v.14,dio.le,gei)appeartobedifferentinkind."

ThelastremarkisapparentlyintendedtoexcludeEph.iv.8andv.14fromconsideration.24Theimmediatelyprecedingoneseemsintendedtosuggestthatthesubjecttobesuppliedtole,geiinRom.xv.10,whichcarrieswithitalsoRom.xv.11,ish`grafh,;ifwerathersupplywithSanday-Headlamqeo,j,thiscitationwouldaffordaninstancetothecontrary.Othercasessimilartothis,e.g.,Actsxiii.3525and(withtheparallelfhsi,)ICor.vi.16,26aresimplypassedbyinsilence.Ifsuchcaseswereconsidered,perhapstheinductionwouldbedifferent.

Itispossible,ontheotherhand,thattheusageoftheEpistletotheHebrewsalsoisconceivedbyDr.Westcottashadetoonarrowly.Itscarcelyseemssufficienttosayofii.6,forexample,thatthispassageisnotanexceptiontothemoregeneralusageoftheEpistleinasmuchasitis"theoneplacewhereGodisdirectlyaddressed"-andisthereforenotascribedtoHim,butto"someonesomewhere."AccordingtoDr.Westcott'sownexposition,27wehaveini.10alsowordsaddressedtoGodandyetcitedasspokenbyGod,andinanumberofpassageswordsspokenofGodneverthelesscitedasspokenbyHim;and,inaword,thefundamentalprincipleofthemodeofquotationusedbythisEpistleisthatthewordsofScriptureassucharethelivingwordsofGodandarecitedassuchindifferently-whetherintheoriginalcontextspokenbyHimorbyanotherofHim,toHim,orapartfromHim.Inanyevent,therefore,thecitationinthepresentpassagebytheformula"someonehathsomewherebornewitness"isan

exceptiontothegeneralusageoftheEpistle,andevidencesthattheauthorofit,thoughconceivingScriptureassuchasabodyofdivineoracles,didnotreallylosesightofthefactthattheseoraclesweredeliveredthroughmen,andmightthereforebecitedonoccasionasthedeliverancesofthesemen.Inotherwords,hereisamodeofcitationoftheorderaffirmedtobecharacteristicofthelettersbearingthenameofPaul.Itisatleastnotbeyondthelimitsofpossibilitythatanothersuchinstanceoccursiniv.7:"sayinginDavid."Nodoubt,"inDavid,"maybetakenhere,asDr.Westcotttakesit,asmeaning"inthepersonofDavid,"i.e.,throughhispropheticutterances;butitseems,onthewhole,muchmorenaturaltotakeitasparalleltoevnth|/bi,blw|Mwuse,wj(Markxii.26),evntw|/`Wshe,(Rom.ix.25),andasmeaning"inthebookofDavid"28-exhibitingtheconsciousnessoftheauthorthatheisquotingnotmerely"God,"butGodinthewrittenScripture-writtenbythehandofmen.Thisisthemoreworthinsistingonthatitisreallynotabsolutelycertainthatthesubjectofthele,gwnhereisimmediately"God"atall.Thereisnosubjectexpressedeitherforitortheo`ri,zeionwhichitdepends;andwhenwegobackinthecontextforanexpresssubjectiteludesus,andweshallnotfindituntilwearriveatthe"evenastheHolyGhostsaith"ofiii.7.Fromthatpointon,wehaveaseriesofquotations,introduced,quiteinthemannerofPhilo,withformulæwhichpuzzleusastotheirreference-whethertoGod,whoisthegeneralsubjectofthewholecontext,ortoScripture,conceivedasthevoiceofGod(e.g.,iii.15,evntw|/le,gesqai-bywhom?God?or"theScripture"alreadyquoted?iv.4,ei;rhken-who?God?orScripture?iv.5,kai.evntou,tw|pa,lin).Somethingofthesamekindmeetsusintheeighthchapter,wherequiteinthemannerofPhilo,webeginatver.5:"EvenasMoseswasoracularlywarnedwhenabouttomakethetabernacle,for'see,'fhsi,n,etc."andproceedatver.8,withasubjectlessle,gei,toclosewithver.13withanequallysubjectlessevntw|/le,gein.Itcertainlyisnotobviousthatthesubjecttobesuppliedtothesethreeverbsis"God"ratherthan"oracularScripture."

Onecanbutfeelthatwithadueregardtothesetwoclassesofneglectedfacts,asomewhatbroadercomparisonoftheusageoftheEpistletotheHebrewsandthatofthoselettersthatbearthenameofPaulwouldnotleaveanimpressionofsuchsharpandindubitabledivergenceinpointofviewasDr.Westcott'sstatementisapttosuggest.IntheEpistletotheHebrews,theverble,gwisusedtointroducecitations,(1)withexpressedsubject:ii.6,"Butsomeonesomewherehathbornewitness,saying....";iii.7,"EvenastheHolyGhostsaith....";vi.14,"God....swarebyhimself,saying....":(2)withsubjecttobesuppliedfromtheprecedingcontext:i.6,"Andwhenhe(God)againbringethinthefirstborn

intotheworld,hesaith...;i.7,"Andoftheangelshe(God)saith....";ii.12,"He(Christ)isnotashamedtocallthembrethren,saying....";v.6,"Ashe(God)saithalsoinanotherplace....":(3)withsubjecttobesuppliedfromthegeneralknowledgeofthereader:x.5,"Whereforewhenhe(Christ)comethintotheworld,hesaith....";x.8,"Saying(Christ)above....";xii.26,"Butnowhathhe(God)promised,saying....":(4)withoutobvioussubject:iii.15,"Whileitissaid,Today,etc."(bywhom?God?ortheScripturequoted,iii.7seq.?);iv.7,"He[orit?]againdefinethacertaintime,sayinginDavid....";viii.8,"Forfindingfaultwiththem,he[orit?]saith...."(cf.viii.13,"inthathe[orit?]saith...).Ontheotherhand,intheepistlesthatbearthenameofPaulwemaydistinguishsomefourcasesoftheadductionofScripturebytheformulale,gei.(1)Sometimes,quotingScriptureasadivinewhole,theformularunsh`grafh.le,geiorle,geih`grafh,:Rom.iv.3,ix.17(le,geih`grafh,tw|/Faraw|<),xi.2(h`grafh.evn`Hlei,a),Gal.iv.30,ITim.v.18.(2)Sometimesitisadducedbythenameoftheauthor:Dauei.dle,gei,Rom.iv.6,xi.9;`Hsai,ajle.gei,Rom.x.16,20,xv.12.(3)Sometimesitisquotedbyitscontents:o`no,mojle,gei,Rom.iii.19,vii.7,ICor.ix.8,10,xiv.34;therighteousnessthatisoffaithle,gei,Rom.x.6(cf.ver.10);o`crhmatismo,jle,gei,Rom.xi.4.(4)Sometimesitisadducedbytheverble,geiwithoutexpressedsubject.(A)Insomeofthesecasesthesubjectisplainlyindicatedintheprecedingcontext:Rom.ix.25="God,"fromver.22;x.10="therighteousnessoffaith,"(?)fromver.6;x.21="Isaiah,"fromver.20.(B)Inothersitislessclearlyindicatedandisnotaltogetherobvious:[Actsxiii.34="God,"fromei;rhken?];Rom.ix.15="God,"fromver.14?;Rom.xv.10="Scripture,"fromge,graptai?;IICor.vi.2="God,"fromprecedingcontext;Gal.iii.16="God,"fromthepromises?;Eph.iv.8andv.12.Itshouldbeaddedthatparalleltotheuseofthesubjectlessfhsi,inHeb.viii.5wehavethesimilaruseofitinICor.vi.16.

Whenweglanceoverthesetwolistsofphenomenaweshallcertainlyrecognizeadifferencebetweenthem:butthedifferenceisnotsuggestiveofsuchanextremedistinctionasDr.Westcottappearstoindicate.Thefactisthatforitsproperestimationwemustrisetoahigherviewpointandlookuponthetwolistsinthelightofamuchlargerfact.Forwecannotsafelystudythisdifferenceofusageasanisolatedphenomenon:andweshallgetthekeytoitsinterpretationintoourhandsonlywhenwecorrelateitwithamoregeneralviewoftheestimateofScriptureandmodeofadducingScriptureprevalentatthetimeandinthecircleswhicharerepresentedbytheseepistles.Dr.Westcottalreadypointsthewaytothiswideroutlook,whenattheendofhisdiscussionheaddsthesewords:

"ThemethodofcitationonwhichwehavedweltispeculiartotheEpistle[totheHebrews]amongthewritingsoftheNewTestament;butitisinterestingtonoticethatthereisintheEpistleofClementapartialcorrespondencewithit.ClementgenerallyquotestheLXX.anonymously.HeattributesthepropheticwordstoGod(15,21,46),toChrist(16,22),totheHolyWord(13,56),totheHolySpirit(13,16).Buthealso,thoughrarely,referstothewriters(26,Job;52,David),andtoBooks(57,Proverbs,'theallvirtuousWisdom'),andnotunfrequentlyusesthefamiliarformge,graptai(14,39,etc.).ThequotationsintheEpistleofBarnabasarealsocommonlyanonymous,butBarnabasmentionsseveralnamesofthesacredwriters,andgivespassagesfromtheLaw,theProphetsandthePsalmswiththeformula,'theProphetsaith'(vi.8;2;4,6)."

And,heshouldhaveadded,BarnabasalsorepeatedlyadduceswhatheheldtobetheWordofGodwiththeformulasge,graptai(iv.3,14,v.2,xi.1,xiv.6,xv.1,xvi.6)andle,geih`grafh,(iv.7,11,v.4,vi.12,xiii.2,xv.5):andindeedpassesfromtheonemodeofcitationtotheotherwithouttheleastjar,as.forexample,inchap.v.:"Foritiswrittenconcerninghim,somethingsindeedwithrespecttoIsrael,andsomewithrespecttous.Foritsaiththis(Isa.liii.5,7).....AndtheScripturesaith(Prov.i.17)....Andstillalsothis(Jer.i.25).....ForGodsaith(Zech.xiii.6).....Fortheprophesiersaith(Ps.xxii.21,etc.).....Andagainitsaith(Isa.1.6)."Thoughadvertingthustothesefacts,however,Dr.Westcottquitemissestheirsignificance.Whattheymeanisshortlythis:thatthetwomodesofcitingScripturethoughttodistinguishHebrewsandthelettersthatbearthenameofPaul,donotimplywell-markeddistinctivemodesofconceivingScripture;butcoexistreadilywithinthelimitsofonebriefletter,liketheletterofClementorthatofBarnabas.Nowonder,whenlaidsidebyside,wefoundtheusagesofthetwotopresentnosharplymarkeddivisionline,buttocrumbleintooneanotheralongtheedges.AndwhenwelookbeyondClementandBarnabasandtakeageneralglanceovertheliteratureofthetime,itiseasilyseenthatwearelookinginthetwocasesonlyattwofragmentsofonefact,andareseeingineachonlyoneoftheeverywherecurrentmethodsofcitingScriptureastheveryWordofGod.Itseemsinconceivablethatonecouldrisefromreading,say,twentypagesofPhilo,forexample,withoutbeingfullyconvincedofthis.

Philo'sfundamentalconceptionofScriptureisthatitisabookoforacles;eachpassageofitisacrhsmo,jorlo,gion,andthewholeisthereforeoi`crhsmoi,orta.lo,gia:hecurrentlyquotesit,accordingly,as"thelivingvoice"ofGod,andwholetreatisesofhismaybereadwithoutmeetingwithasinglecitationintroducedbyge,graptaiorwiththeScripturesoncecalledh`grafh,.

Nevertheless,whenoccasionserves,headducesScripturereadilyenoughash`grafh,,andcitesitwithge,graptai,andcallsitta.gra,mmata.WehavenomorereasonforassumingthatsuchmodesofcitingScripturewouldhavebeenforeigntotheauthoroftheEpistletotheHebrews(whosemodeofcitingScriptureismarkedlyPhilonic)thanwehaveforassumingthattheauthorofthetractdeMutationeNominum,inwhichtheydonotoccur,butwhereScriptureisalmostexclusivelyoi`chsmoi,,ortheauthorofthetractsdeSomniis,whereagaintheydonotoccur,butwhereScriptureisalmostexclusivelyo`i`ero.j(oro`qei/oj)lo,goj(i.14,22,33,35,37,39,42,ii.4,9,37,etc.;i.33,ii.37)-whichdesignationsarerareagainindeMutationeNominum(o`q)l),20;o`i`)l.,38)-heldadifferentconceptionofScripturefromtheauthorofthetractdeLegationeadCaium(§29)orthetractdeAbrahamo(§1),inwhichtheScripturesarespokenofasta.gra,mmataorai`grafai,.Thereisnoreason,inaword,why,iftheEpistletotheHebrewshadcontainedevenasingleotherverse,itmightnothavepresentedthe"exotic,"h`grafh,orge,graptai.BecausePhiloortheauthorofthisEpistlewasespeciallyaccustomedtolookonScriptureasabodyoforaclesandtociteitaccordingly,isnoreasonwhyheshouldforgetthatitisabodyofwrittenoraclesandbeincapableonoccasionofcitingitfromthatpointofview.SimilarlybecausePaulordinarilycitesScriptureaswrittenisnoreasonwhyheshouldnotbefirmlyconvincedthatwhatiswritteninitisoracles,orshouldnotoccasionallyciteitfromthatpointofview.Inaword,thetwomodesofcitingScripturebroughtintocontrastbyBishopWestcottarenottwomutuallyexclusivewaysofcitingScripture,buttwomutuallycomplementarymethods.Theuseoftheonebyanywriterdoesnotarguethattheotherisforeigntohim;ifwehaveenoughwrittenmaterialfromhishand,wearesurerathertofindinhimtracesoftheotherusagealso.ThisisthemeaningofthepresenceintheEpistletotheHebrewsofsuggestiveinstancesofanapproachtothecitationofScriptureasadocument:andofthepresenceintheepistlesbearingthenameofPaulofinstancesofmodesofcitationwhichhintofhisconceptionofScriptureasanoracularbook.Whereandwhenthesenseoftheoracularcharacterofthesourceofthequotationispredominatinglyinmindittendstobequotedwiththesimplefhsi,orle,gei,withtheimplicationthatitisGodthatsaysit:thisismostrichlyexhibitedinPhilo,and,withinthelimitsoftheNewTestament,mostprevailinglyintheEpistletotheHebrews.Whereandwhen,ontheotherhand,theconsciousnessthatitisfromawrittensourcethattheauthoritativewordsaredrawnispredominantinthemind,ittendstobequotedwiththesimplege,graptaiorthemoreformalh`grafh.le,gei:thisisthemodeinwhichitismostcommonlycitedintheepistlesthatbearthenameofPaul.BothmodesofcitationrestonthecommonconsciousnessoftheDivineauthorityofthematter

cited,andhavenotendencytoexcludeoneanother:theyappearsidebysideinthesamewriter,andmustbeheldtopredominatevariouslyindifferentwritersonlyaccordingtotheirprevailinghabitsofspeakingofScripture,andatdifferenttimesinthesamewriteraccordingasthecircumstancesunderwhichhewaswritingthrewtheemphasisinhismindtemporarilyupontheScripturesaswrittenoraclesoraswrittenoracles.

FromthispointofviewwemayestimateDr.Westcott'sremark:"Norcanitbemaintainedthatthedifferenceofusageistobeexplainedbythedifferenceofreaders,asbeing[inHebrews]Jews,forintheGospelsge,graptaiisthecommonformula(ninetimesinSt.Matthew)."Thisremark,likehiswholetreatmentofthesubject,seemsconceivedinaspiritwhichistoohardandnarrow,toodrilystatistical.Noone,doubtless,wouldcontendthatthedifferenceofreadersdirectlyproducedthedifferenceofusage,asiftheScripturesmustbequotedtoJewsas"oraclesofGod,"andtoGentilesas"writtendocuments."Butitisfarfromobviousthatthedifferenceofreadersmaynot,afterall,havehadverymuchtodowiththeprevalenceoftheonemodeofcitationintheEpistletotheHebrewsandoftheotherintheepistlesthatbearthenameofPaul.TheJewswerecertainlyaccustomedtothecurrentcitationoftheScripturesasthelivingvoiceofGodinoraculardeliverances-astheusageofPhilosufficientlyindicates:anditmaybethatthiswassubtlyfeltthemostimpressivemethodofadducingthewordsoftheHolyBookwhenaddressingJews.Ontheotherhand,theheathenwereaccustomedtoauthoritativedocuments,citedcurrently,withanimplicationoftheirauthority,bytheformulage,graptai:29anditmaywellbethatthissubtlysuggesteditselfasthemosttellingwayofadducingScriptureasauthoritativelawtotheGentiles.Weneednotridesuchanotiontoohard:butitatleastseemsfarfrominconceivablethattheselfsamewriter,addressing,ontheonehand,abodyofdevoutJews,and,ontheother,abodyoflaw-lovingRomans,mightfindhimselfusingalmostunconsciouslymodesofadducingScripturesuggestive,intheonecase,oflovingaweinitspresenceand,intheother,ofitsbindingauthorityovertheconscience.Bethisasitmay,however,itisquiteclearthatthefactthatPaulordinarilyadducesScripturewith"theforms(kaqw.j)ge,graptai(sixteentimesintheEpistletotheRomans),h`grafh.le,gei,andthelike,whichneveroccurintheEpistletotheHebrews,"impliesnofar-reachingdifferenceofconceptiononhispartfromthatexhibitedbythatEpistle,astothefundamentalcharacteroftheScripturesasanoracularbook-which,onthecontrary,isjustwhathecallsthem(Rom.iii.2)-andcertainlyraisesnopresumptionagainsthisoccasionallyquotingthemasanoracularbookwiththeformulasocharacteristicoftheEpistletotheHebrews,o`qeo.jle,gei,orits

equivalents.Andthefactthat"PaulnotunfrequentlyquotesthewordsofGodas'Scripture'simply(e.g.,Rom,ix.17)"sofarfromraisingapresumptionthathewouldnotquote"Scripture"as"wordsofGod,"actuallydemonstratesthecontrary,asitonlyinanotherwayindicatestheidentificationonhispartofthewrittenwordwiththevoiceofthespeakingGod.

IfweapproachthestudyofsuchtextsasEph.iv.8,v.14,therefore,fromthepointofviewofthePaulineconceptionofScripture,thereisnoreasonwhytheyshouldnotbeunderstoodasadducingScripturewithahigh"Godsays."Tosaythat"wehavereasontobelieve"thatsuchaformula"couldnotbeusedbyPaul,"isaswideofthemarkascouldwellbe.TosaythatitisaformulamoreinaccordancewiththepointofviewoftheEpistletotheHebrews,istoconfoundmereoccasionaldifferencesinusagewithfundamentaldifferencesinconception.ToPaul,too,theScripturesareabookoforacles,andthoughhecitesthemordinarilyaswrittenoraclesthereisnoreasonwhyheshouldnotoccasionallycitethemmerelyasoracles.Andinanycase,whetherwetakethesubaudituminsuchpassagesas"God,"or"Scripture,"orprefertorendersimplyby"it,"fromPaul'spointofviewthemeaningisallone:inanycase,ScriptureistohimtheauthoritativedictumofGodandwhatitsaysisadducedastheauthoritativewordthatendsallstrife.

Inseekingtoestimatethelikelihoodsastothemeaningofsuchalocutionasthedio.le,geiofEph.iv.8,v.14,weshouldnotlosefromsight,ontheotherhand,thefactthattheGreeklanguagewasnotpartialtotrue"impersonals,"thatis,absolutelyindefiniteusesofitsverbs.SaysJelf:

"Ofimpersonalverbs(inEnglish,verbswiththeindefiniteit)theGreeklanguagehasbutfew."30

SaysKühner:

"Impersonalverbs,bywhichweunderstandaverbagreeingwiththeindefinitepronounit,arenotknowntotheGreeklanguage:forexpressionslikedei/(crh,...le,getai,etc....theGreekalwaysconceivedaspersonal,inthattheinfinitiveorsubjoinedsentencewasconsideredthesubjectoftheseverbs."31

Nodoubt,thesubjectoftensuffersellipsis-especiallywhenitmaybecounteduponreadilytosuggestitself,eitheroutofthepredicateitself,oroutofthecontext,oroutoftheknowledgeofthereader:andnodoubtthisimpliedsubject

issometimestheindefinitetij.ButitremainstruethatasyettherehasturnedupnosingleinstanceinallGreekliteratureofle,geiinthepurelyindefinitesenseof"someonesays,"equivalentto"itissaid"inthemeaningofgeneralrumor,orofacommonproverb,oracurrentsaying;andthoughtherehavebeenpointedoutinstancesofsomethinglikethisinthecaseofthekindredwordfhsi,,itstillremainssomewhatdoubtfulpreciselyhowtheyaretobeinterpreted.Theformscommonlyusedtoexpressthisideaareeithertheexpressedtiv,orthethirdpersonplural,asle,gousi(fasi,(ovnoma,zousin,orthethirdpersonsingularpassive,asle,getai,orthesecondpersonsingularoptativeorindicativeofthehistoricaltenses,asfai,hvja;n,=dicas,orthelike.32

Wefindit,indeed,occasionallyassertedthat(fhsi,isusedsometimesorfrequentlyasapureimpersonal,inthesenseof"itissaid."ThepassagefromBernhardy,tobesure,towhichreferencehasbeenmadeinsupportofthisassertion,bymorethanoneofthecommentatorsadducedabove,hasitsprimaryinterestnotinthispoint,butinthedifferentoneoftheuseofthesingularfhsi,fortheplural-liketheLatininquit,andtheEnglish"says"inthatvulgarcolloquiallocutioninwhichitismadetododutynotonlyintheform"hesays,"butalsoinsuchformsas"Isays"and"yousays,"andeven"theysays"and"wesays."WhatBernhardyremarksis:33

"TherhetoricalemploymentofthesingularforthepluralrestsontheGreekpeculiarity(K.3,5;6,13c.)ofclearlyconceivingandrepresentingthemultitudebymeansoftheindividual.Areadyinstanceofthisissuppliedbytheformulafhsi,,liketheLatininquitanexpressionforallpersonsandnumbersfordesignatinganindefinitespeaker(denbeliebigenRedner)-'heisstes';andbythemoreclassiceivpe,moiinappealtothemultitudeinAtticlife,Arist.(asPac.,385,eivpe,moiti,pa,scetvw;ndrej;coll.Eccl.,741),Plat.(clearlyinaturnlikeeivpe,moi,w=Sw,krate,jtekai.u`mei/joi`a;lloi),Demosth.,Phil.i,p.45;Chers.,p.108;Timocr.,p.718."34

Theusageoffhsi,heremoreparticularlyadvertedto-forallnumbersandpersons-seemsanotuncommonone.Instancesmaypossiblybefoundinthe"Discourses"ofEpictetusi.29,34(Schenkl,p.95)."Evenathletesaredissatisfiedwithslightyoungmen:'Hecannotliftme,'fhsi,,"wherefhsi,mightperhapsberenderedbyourvernacular,"saysthey,"referringto"theathletes."Again,iv.9,15(Schenkl,p.383):"Butlearnfromwhatthetrainersofboysdo.Theboyhasfallen:'Rise,'fhsi,,'wrestleagain,tillyoubecomestrong!"'wherewemaypossiblyhaveanother'saysthey,'viz.,thetrainers.Possiblyagainii.10,

20(Schenkl,p.133),"Butconsider,ifyourefereverythingtoasmallcoin,notevenhewholoseshisnoseisinyouropiniondamaged.'Yes,'fhsi,,'forheismutilatedinhisbody,"'wherepossiblyfhsi,is"saysyou,"referringtothecollocutor,addressedintheprecedingcontextinthesecondperson-though,nodoubt,anotherexplanationisherepossible.Indeed,innooneoftheinstancescitedisitimpossibletoconceiveasingularsubjectderivedfromthecontextualpluralasspeciallyinmind.Iffhsi,weregenuineinWisdomxv.12,35IICor.x.10,36thesemightwellsupplyotherinstances-the"saysthey"ineachcasecontinuingthecontextualorimplicatedplural.Butinnoneoftheseinstances,itistobeobserved,wouldthesubjectbeconceivedasinthestrictsense"indefinite."Itisaperfectlydefinitesubjectthatispresenttothemindofthewriter,giveneitherintheimmediatecontextorinthethoroughunderstandingthatexistsbetweenthewriterandreader.ThereisinthemnothingwhateverofthevaguenessthatattachestotheFrench"ondit,"ortheGerman"mansagt,"ortheEnglish"itissaid."TheGreekshadotherlocutionsforexpressingthisidea,andifitwaseverexpressedbythesimplefhsi,,onlytheslightesttracesofitremainintheirextantliterature.

IntheseventheditionoftheGreekLexiconofLiddell&Scott,37nevertheless,thisusageisexpresslyassignedtofhsi,.Weread:

"fhsi,parenthetically,theysay,itissaid,Il.5,638,Od.6,42andAtt.;butinprosealsofhsi,,likeFrenchondit,Dem.650,13,Plut.2,112C.,etc.(soLat.inquit,ait,Gronov,Liv.34,3,Bent.Hor.1Sat.4,79;-especiallyinurginganobjectionorcounterargument,v.Interpp.Pers.Sat.1,40);-soalsoe;fh,c.acc.etinf.,Xen.An.i,6,6."

Itisfarfromobvious,however,thatthepassageshereadducedwilljustifypreciselytheusagewhichtheyarecitedtoillustrate.InthepassagefromDemosthenes-e;stw,fhsi.n(u`pe.rauvtou/h`auvth.timwri,a,etc.-itseemstobequiteclear,astheprevioussentencesuggestsandtheeditorsrecognize,38thatthesubjectofthe(fhsi,ise;kastojtw/ngegrafo,twn,andisfarfromapurelyindefinitetij.ThepassagefromPlutarch("ConsolatioadApollonium,"xxi)ismorespecious.Itruns:avllvouvga.rh;lpizon(fhsi,(tau/tapei,sesqai(ouvde.prosedo,kwn;andistranslatedintheLatinversion,"At,inquiunt,præterspemmihihiccasusetexpectationemevenit";andinHolland'soldEnglishversion,"Buthaplyyouwillsay,Ineverthoughtthatthiswouldhavebefallenuntome,neitherdidIsomuchasdoubtanysuchthing."Aglanceatthecontext,however,isenoughtoshowthatthereisnopurelyindefinitefhsi,here,thoughitmaybe

thatwehavehereanotherinstanceofitsusagewithoutregardtonumberandperson.Inanycase,thesubjectisthequitedefinitelyconceivedinterlocutorofthepassage.Thatthee;fhadducedattheendofthenoteasinsomedegreeofthesamesortisnotanindefinitee;fh,buthastheClearchusoftheimmediatelyprecedingcontextasitssubject,istooobviousforremark.ClearchuswaspresentbytherequestofCyrusatthetrialofOrontes,andwhenhecameouthereportedtohisfriendsthemannerinwhichthetrialwasconducted:"Hesaid(e;fh)thatCyrusbegantospeakasfollows."Itisnotbysuchinstancesasthesethattheoccurrenceofapurelyindefinitefhsi,canbeestablished.39

Thesubjectlessfhsi,,tobesure,doesoccurverythicklyscatteredoverthefaceofGreekliterature,introducingoremphasizingquotations,oradducingobjections,orthelike:butthe"it"thatistobesuppliedtoitis,ordinarilyatleast,aquitedefiniteonewithitsowndefinitereferenceperfectlyclear.Acharacteristicinstance,oftenreferredto,isthatinDemosth.,"Leptin,"§56:40kai.ga,rtoimo,nw|tw/npa,ntwnauvtw|/tou/tvevnth|/sth,lh|ge,graptai(evpeidh.Ko,nwn(fhsi,n(hvleuqe,rwsetou.jvAqhnai,wnsumma,couj.-;Estide.tou/toto.gra,mma...."HereF.A.Wolfcomments:"Absoluteibiinterjectumestfhsi,n,aut,simavis,subaudio`gra,yaj";andSchaeferadds:"Subaudih`sth,lh."41Itdoesnotappearwhyweshouldnotrendersimply"itsays":butthis"it"issofarfroman"'indefinite'it"thatithasitsclearreferencetotheinscriptionjustmentioned.PerhapsevenmoreinstructiveisapassageinthethirdPhilippic42ofDemosthenes,whichrunsasfollows:

"Thatsuchisourpresentstate,youyourselvesarewitnesses,andneednotanytestimonyfromme.Thatourstateinformertimeswasquiteoppositetothis,Ishallnowconvinceyou,notbyanyargumentsofmine,butbyadecreeofyourancestors(gra,mmatatw/nprogo,nwn),whichtheyinscribeduponabrazencolumn(sth,lhn)erectedinthecitadel....What,then,saysthedecree(ti,ou=nle,geita.gra,mmata)?'LetArithmius,'itsays(fhsi,n),'ofZelia,thesonofPythonax,beaccountedinfamousandanenemytotheAtheniansandtheirallies,bothheandallhisrace.'...Thesentenceimportedsomewhatmore,for,inthelawsimportingcapitalcases,itisenacted(ge,graptai)that'whenthelegalpunishmentofaman'scrimecannotbeinflictedhemaybeputtodeath,'anditwasaccountedmeritorioustokillhim.'Letnottheinfamousman,'saiththelaw,'bepermittedtolive'(kai.a;timoj(fhsi,,teqna,tw),intimatingthatheisfreefromguiltwhoexecutesthissentence(tou/todh.(le,gei(kaqaro.nto.ntou,twntina.avpoktei,nantaei;nai)."

Inbothcasesitisdoubtlessenoughtorenderfhsi,,"itsays,"itsfunctionbeingineachcasetocallpointedattentiontothewordsquoted:butthe"it"isbynomeans"indefinite"inthesensethatitsreferencewasnotverydefinitelyconceived.OnthesecondinstanceofitsoccurrenceWolfcomments:"s.o`foniko.jno,moj,"43whileSchaefersays:"

"Pleonasticepositumcumge,graptaipraecesserit.Verumtamenh.l.sensumpaulomagisjuvatquamubipostei=pon,ei=te,continuosequiture;fhn(e;fh.Adfhsi,subaudio`nomoqe,thj."

Theseinstanceswillsupplyuswithtypicalexamplesofthe"absolute"fhsi,;and,inthissense,"subjectlessfhsi,"isofverycommonoccurrenceindeedinGreekliterature.

Butreally"subjectlessfhsi,,"i.e.,fhsi,withoutanyimpliedsubjectincontextorcommonknowledge,whichthereforewemusttakequiteindefinitely,isveryrareindeed,ifnotnon-existent.PerhapsoneofthemostlikelyinstancesofsuchausageisofferedusbyapassageinPlutarch's"ConsolatioadApollonium,"34.45Holland'soldversionofitrunsthus:46

"Andverilyinregardofhimwhoisnowinablessedestate,ithasnotbeennaturallforhimtoremaineinthislifelongerthanthetermeprefixedandlimiteduntohim;butafterhehadhonestlyperformedthecourseofhistime,itwasneedfullandrequisitforhimtotakethewayfortoreturneuntohisdestiniethatcalledforhimtocomeuntoher."

Fromthiswemayatleastlearnthatfhsi,nherepresentedsomedifficulty,asHollandpassesitbyunrendered.ThecommonLatinversionrestoresit,readingthelastclausethus:"Seditapostulabitnaturauthocexpletofatalequodaiuntiterconficeret,revocanteeumjamadsenatura";theGreekrunningthus:"avllveuvta,ktwjtou/tonevkplh,santipro.jth.nei`marme,nhnevpana,geinporei,an(kalou,shjauvth/j(fhsi,n,h;dhpro.je`auth,n."ThetheoryoftheLatinversionobviouslyisthatfhsi,nhereistobetakenindefinitely,thatisasanindexhandpointingtoacurrentdesignationofdeathasanenteringuponthe"fatedjourney"-h`ei`marme,nhporei,a.ThisisexplainedtousbyWyttenbach'snote:47

"fhsi,n]nondebebatoffenderevirosdoctos.Estutaitpoetailleundehocsumptumest.VidethocetReiskius.Correxiversionem.DeTragicidictoinAnimadversibusdicetur."

Accordingly,intheAnimadversions,48headdresseshimselffirsttoshowingthattheexpressionheresignalizedwasacurrentpoeticalsaying-appealingtoPlato,49Julian,Philo;andthenadds:

"Cæterumfhsi,nitaellipticeusitatumest:v.c.Plutarcho,p.135B.,50817D.,Dion.Chrys.,p.493D.,532A.,562B.NotavitetUptonusadEpict.inIndice.InannotatoribusadLambertumBosiumdeEllipsibusunusSchoettgenius,idqueexunoPauloApostolohuncusumannotavit,p.74.Et.Latineitadiciturinquit,quodmonueruntJ.F.GronoviusetA.Drakenborch.adLiviumxxxiv.3,J.A.ErnestusinClav.Cic.voceInquit."

Itdoesnotseem,however,thatWyttenbachwouldhaveusreadthefhsi,herequiteindefinitely,asadducingforexampleacurrentsaying:judgingfromhisownparaphrasethismightappeartohimasacertainexaggerationofitsimplication.Itsofficewouldseemrathertobetocallattentiontothewords,towhichitisadjoined,asquoted,andthus,inthegoodunderstandingimpliedtoexistbetweenthewriterandhisreaders,topointdefinitelytoitssource:sothatitmightbeapropernotetoittosay,"subaudio`tragiko,j,velo`poihth,j"-andthismightbedonewithaconsiderableemphasisontheo`;nay,theactualnameofthepoet,wellknowntobothwriterandreader,thoughnowlosttous,mightequallywellbethesubauditum,andsuch,indeed,maybetheimplicationofthesubauditumsuggestedbyWyttenbaeh:utaitpoetailleundehoescriptumest.Surely,aninstancelikethisisfarfromaclearcaseoftheabsolutelyindefiniteorevengenerallyundefininguseoffhsi,.

AmongthereferenceswithwhichWyttenbachsupportshisnote,themostpromisingsendsustoEpictetus,whose"Discourses"aboundinthemostvarieduseof0rlvi,andofferusatthesametimeoneofourmostvaluablesourcesofknowledgeoftheGreekincommonusenearthetimesoftheapostles.51Wemeetwithmanyinstancesherewhichithasbeencustomarytoexplainascasesoffhsi,inawhollyindefinitereference.ButthematterissomewhatcomplicatedbythefactsthatwearenotreadinghereEpictetus'"Discourses"pureandsimple,butArrian'sreportofthem;andthatArrianmayexercisehisundoubtedrighttoslipinafhsi,ofhisownwheneverhespeciallywishestokeephisreaders'attentionfixeduponthefactthattheyarehismaster'swordsheissettingdown,orperhapsevenmerelyoutoftheabidingsense,onhisownpart,thatheisreportingEpictetusandnotwritingoutofhisownmind.Whensuchafhsi,occursatthebeginningofasectionitgivesnotrouble:everyreaderrecognizesitatonceasArrian's.Butwhenitoccursunexpectedlyinthemidstofavivacious

discussion,thereaderwhoisnotcarryingwithhimthesenseofArrian'spersonality,standingbehindtheEpictetusheisattendingto,isveryapttobestumbledbyit,andtoresorttosomeexplanationofitonthetheorythatitisEpictetus'ownandistofinditsinterpretationinthecontext.AnattempthasbeenmadebySchenklintheindextohiseditionofEpictetus52todistinguishbetweentheinstancesinwhichfhsi,occurs"interEpictetiverbaabArrianoservata,"andthoseinwhichitoccurs"interArrianiverba."Itwillbefoundthatmostoftheinstanceswhereithasbeenthoughtmarkedlyindefiniteinitsreferenceareclassedbyhiminthesecondgroupandarethusmadeverydefiniteindeed-thestandingsubauditumbeing"Epictetus."Opinionswill,nodoubt,differastotheproperclassificationofanumberofthese:andinanycasemanyinstancesremainwhichcannotnaturallybesoexplained-occurringastheydointhemidstofvividlyconceiveddramaticpassages.Inthisveryvividnessofdramaticaction,however,isdoubtlesstobefoundtheexplanationoftheseinstances.Sofararetheverbsherefrombeingimpersonal,thatthespeakersintheselittledialoguesstoodoutbeforeEpictetus'mind'seyeasactualpersons;anditisthereforethathesofreelyreferstothemwithhisvividfhsi,.

Thefollowingaresomeofthemoststrikingexamplesofhisusageoftheword."Butnowweadmitthatvirtueproducesonething,andwedeclarethatapproachingneartoitisanotherthing,namelyprogressorimprovement.Suchaperson,fhsi,n,isalreadyabletoreadChrysippusbyhimself.Indeed,sir,youaremakinggreatprogress"(i,4,9).53HereSchenklsuggeststhatthefhsi,nisArrian's,andthiswouldseemtobeagoodsuggestion,asitilluminatesthepassageinmorewaysthanone.Ifnot,thesubauditumwouldseemtobethecollocutoroftheparagraph:a"someone,"nodoubt,butratherthe"someone"mostprominentinthemindofwriterandreaderinthisdiscussion."Butamanmaysay,WhenceshallIgetbreadtoeat,whenIhavenothing(kai.po,qenfa,gw(fhsi,(mhde.ne;xwn;)?"(i.9,8).Hereagainthefhsi,seemsbestexplainedasArrian's(Schenkl):ifnot,thesubauditumisagainthecollocutorprominentthroughthecontext,andonly,inthatsense,indefinite."Whomadethesethingsanddevisedthem?'Noone,'yousay(fhsi,n).Oamazingshamelessnessandstupidity"(i.16,8).Thereferenceistothecollocutor."Theyarethievesandrobbersyoumaysay(kle,ptai(fhsi,n(eijsi))))"(i.18,3).EitherArrian's(Schenkl),orwiththecollocutorasthesubauditum."Howcanyouconquertheopinionofanotherman?Byapplyingterrortoit,hereplies(fhsi,n),Iwillconquerit"(i,29,12).Subaudithecollocutor."Forwhy,amansays(fhsi,),doInotknowthebeautifulandtheugly?"(ii,11,?).EitherArrian's(Schenkl),orsubaudithecollocutor."How,hereplies(fhsi,n),amInotgood?"(ii,13,17).

EitherArrian's(Schenkl),orsubaudithecollocutor.Soalsosimilarlyinii,22,4;iii,2,5;iii,5,1,etc.Cf.alsoii,23,16;iii,3,12;9,15;20,12;26,19.Similarly,inthe"Fragments"wehavethis:"Theyareamusingfellows,saidhe(e;fh=Epictetus),whoareproudofthethingswhicharenotinourpower.Amansays,I(evgw,,fhsi,)ambetterthanyou,forIpossessmuchlandandyouarewastingwithhunger.Anothersays(a;llojle,gei).....")"Frag.,"xviii.[Schw.,16]).Herethefhsi,isbroughtinastheinitialmemberofaseriesandincontrastwitha;llojle,gei:itwouldseemtobeEpictetus'own,therefore,andtomean"saysone,"asdistinguishedfromanother;andthusitappearstobethemostlikelyinstanceofthe"indefinitefhsi,"inthewholemass.Butevenitseemsanessentiallydifferentlocutionfromthereallyindefinite"itissaid,""ondit,""mansagt."

Aglanceoverthewholeusageoffhsi,inArrian-EpictetusleavesonthemindakeensenseofthelivelywayinwhichthewordmusthavebeeninterjectedintoGreekconversation,butdoesnotgreatlyaltertheimpressionofitsessentialimplicationwhichwederivefromthegeneraluseoftheword.Takeasingleinstanceofitscurrentuseinthe"Discourses"initsrelationtokindredwords:

"SoalsoDiogenessomewheresays(poule,gei)thatthereexistsbutonemeansofobtainingfreedom-todiecontentedly,andhewrites(gra,fei)tothekingofthePersians,'YoucannotenslavethecityoftheAthenians,anymore,'sayshe(fhsi,n),'thanfishes.''How?CanInotcatchthem?''Ifyoucatchthem,'sayshe(fhsi,n),'theywillimmediatelyleaveyouandbegone,justlikefishes:forwhateveroneofthemyoucatchdies,andifthesemendiewhentheyarecaught,whatgoodwillyourpreparationsdoyou?"'(iv,1,30).

Thelivelyeffectgivenbysuchunexpectedinterpositionsoffhsi,nislostinourdecoroustranslationoftheNewTestamentexamples:butitexistsinthemtoo.Thus:"Butshe,beingurgedonbyhermother,'Giveme,'saysshe,'hereuponacharger,theheadofJohntheBaptist"'(Matt.xiv.8);"Buthe,'Master,speak,'sayshe"(Lukevii.40);"ButPetertothem,'Repent,'sayshe,'andbebaptizedeachoneofyou"'(Actsii.38);"'Letthoseamongyou,'sayshe,'thatareable,godownwithme"'(Actsxxv.5);"'To-morrow,'sayshe,'thoushalthearhim"'(Actsxxv.22);"ButPaul,'Iamnotmad,'sayshe,'mostnobleFestus"'(Actsxxvi.25).54Themainfunctionoffhsi,thenwouldappeartobetokeeptheconsciousnessofthespeakerreportedclearlybeforethemindofthereader.Itisthereforeoftenusedtomarkthetransitionfromindirecttodirectquotation:55anditlentitselfreadily,therefore,tomarktheadductionbothofobjectionsandofliterarycitations.But,onewouldimagine,itdidnotveryreadilylenditselfto

vagueandindefinitereferences.

Ifwedesiretofindcasesof"subjectlessle,gei"inanywaysimilartothoseoffhsi,,wemustapparentlyturnourbackonprofaneGreekaltogether.56WehavefortunatelyinPhilo,however,anauthor,thecircumstancesofwhosewritingmadeliteraryquotationasfrequentwithhimasoralisinthelivelypagesofEpictetus'"Discourses."AndinPhilo'streatisesle,geitakesitsplacebythesideofitsmorecommonkinsmanfhsi,,andisusedinmuchthesameway,thoughnaturallysomewhatlessfrequently.Inharmonywithhisfundamentalviewpoint-whichlookedontheScripturesasabodyoforacularsayings-PhiloadducesScripturecommonlywithverbsof"saying"-fhsi,,le,getai(le,gei(ei=pen(ge,graptaifallingintothebackground).PassagessoadducedareoftenwovenintothefabricofhisdiscussionofthecontentsofScripture;andwherethewordsadducedarewordsofaspeakerintheBiblicalnarrative,thesubjectofthefhsi,orle,geiwhichintroducesthemnaturallyisoftenthisspeaker-whetherGodorsomeotherperson.Equallyoften,however,thesubjectgivenimmediatelyorindirectlyinthecontextissomethingoutsideofthenarrativethatisdealtwith:inthiscaseitissometimesMoses,or"theprophet,"or"thelawgiver"-atothertimes,"theHolyWord,"or"thesacredWord,"or"theOracle,"or"theOracles"(o`qei/ojlo,goj(o`i`ero.jlo,goj(o`crhsmo,j(to.lo,gion(oi`crhsmoi,(ta.lo,gia)-atothertimesstillitis"God,"undervariousdesignations.Often,however,theverb-fhsi,orle,gei-standsnotonlywithoutexpressedsubject,butequallywithoutindicatedsubject.TherenderingofthesecaseshasgivenstudentsofPhilosometrouble,arisingoutoftheapparentconfusion,whenthesubjectisexpressed,ofthereferenceoftheverb,-nowtoaspeakerinthetextofScriptureandnowtotheauthoroftheparticularScripture,toGodastheauthorofallScripture,ortoScriptureitselfconceivedasalivingWord.ThisapparentconfusionisduesolelytoPhilo'sfundamentalconceptionofScriptureasanoracularbook,whichleadshimtodealwithitstextasitselftheWordofGod:hehashimselffullyexplainedthematter,57andweshouldbeabletosteerclearofseriousdifficultieswithhisexplanationinourhands.

Nevertheless,asomewhatmechanicalmodeofdealingwithhiscitationshasproduced,onmorethanoneoccasion,certainoddresults.Prof.Rylesays:58

"ThecommonestformsofquotationemployedbyPhiloarefhsi,(ei=pen(le,gei(le,getai(ge,graptaiga.r.Whetherthesubjectoffhsi,beMosesorScripturepersonifiedcannotinmanycasesbedetermined."

Innocaseisthesubjectstrictlyindeterminate,however,andthefailuretodetermineitarightmayintroduceconfusion.Thus,forexample,in"DeConfus.Ling.,"§26(Mangey,i.424),PhilomentionstheBookofJudges,andcitesitwiththesubjectlessfhsi,.Prof.Rylecommentsthus:59

"Hedoesnotmentionanyopinionastoauthorship,andintroduceshisquotationwithhisusualformulafhsi,n.WearehardlyjustifiedinassumingthatPhilointendedMosesasthesubjectoffhsi,n,andregardedhimastheauthorofJudges(soDr.Pick,JournalofBiblicalLiterature,1884).MosesisdoubtlessoftenspokenofbyPhiloasifhewerethepersonificationoftheInspiredWord;butwecannotsafelyextendthisideabeyondtherangeofthePentateuch.Allthatwecansayisthatfhsi,n,usedinthisquotationfromJudges,referseithertotheunknownwriterofthisbookortothepersonificationofHolyScripture."

Orelse,wemayadd,toGod,therealauthor,inPhilo'sconception,ofeverywordofScripture.Prof.Ryle,however,hasnotcaughtpreciselyDr.Pick'smeaning:Dr.Pickdoesnotcommithimselftotheextravagantviewthatwhereversubjectlessfhsi,occursinPhilothesubauditum"Moses"isimplied:heonlysays,indirectwords,thathere-inthisspecialpassage-"Mosesisintroducedasspeaking."Itwouldseemobviousthathehadatextbeforehimwhichread"Mosessays,"andnotsimply"says,"atthisplace.ThistextwasdoubtlessnothingotherthanYonge'sEnglishtranslation,whichreadsMoseshere,asoftenelsewherewithaslittlewarrant:"'For,'saysMoses,'Gideonswore,etc."'60Theincidentillustratestheevilofmechanicallysupplyingasupplementtothesesubjectlessverbs-whichcannotindeedbeunderstoodexceptonthebasisofPhilo'sprimaryprinciple,thatitisallonetosay"Mosessays,""theScripturesays,"or"Godsays."ThesimplefacthereisthatPhiloquotesJudges,ashedoestherestofScripture,withthesubjectless"says,"andwiththesameimplication,viz.,thatJudgesistohimapartoftheWordofGod.

Ashasbeenalreadyhinted,byallmeansthecommonestverbusedbyPhilothus,-withoutexpressedorobviouslyindicatedsubject,-tointroduceaScripturepassage,isfhsi,.Perhaps,however,theoneinstancetowhichwehaveincidentallyadvertedwillsufficetoillustratetheusage-otherinstancesofwhichmaybeseenonnearlyeverypageofPhilo'streatises.Itisofmoreinterestforustonotethatle,geiseemsalsotobeusedinthesamesubjectlessway-examplesofwhichmaybeseen,forinstance,inthefollowingplaces,"Legg.Allegor.,"i,15;ii,4;iii,8;"QuodDet.Pot.Insid.,"48;"DePosterit.Caini,"9;22;52;"DeGigant.,"11;12;"DeConfus.Ling.,"32;"DeMigrat.Abrah.,"11;

"Fragment.exJoh.Monast."(ii,668).In"Legg.Allegor.,"i,15,forinstance,wehaveastringofquotationswithoutobvioussubject,introduced,thefirstbythesubjectlessfhsi,,thenextbytheequallysubjectlessevpife,reipa,lin,andthethird(fromExod.xx.23)byle,geide.kai.evne`te,roij.In"Legg.Allegor.,"ii,4,wehaveGen.ii.19introducedbyle,geiga.rwithoutanyobvioussubject.Yongetranslatesthistooby"ForMosessays":buttoobtainwarrantforthisweshouldhavetogobacktwopagesandahalf(ofRichter'stext),quitetothebeginningofthetreatise,wherewefindanapostrophetothe"prophet."In"DePosterit.Caini,"22,le,geievpi.me.nvAbraa.mou[twj(Gen.xi.29),thoughYongesupplies"Moses"again,thatwouldseemtobedemonstrablyabsurd,asthepassageproceedstoplace"Moses,"inparallelismwithAbraham,intheobject.Similarlythepassagesadducedfrom"DeGigant.,"11and12(Num.xiv.44andDeut.xxxiv.6)areaboutMoses,anditwouldscarcelydotofillouttheellipsisofsubjectwithhisname.Examplesneednot,however,bemultiplied.

Itwouldseemquiteclearthatboththesubjectlessfhsi,frequently,andthesubjectlessle,geilessoften,occurinPhiloafterafashionquitesimilartotheinstancesadducedfromtheNewTestament.Anditwouldseemtobeequallyclearthatthelackofasubjectintheircaseisnotindicativeofindefiniteness,butratherofdefinitenessintheirreference.PhilodoesnotadducepassagesofScripturewiththebarefhsi,orle,geibecauseheknowsorcaresverylittlewhencetheycomeorwithwhatauthority;butbecauseheandhisreadersalikebothknowsowellthesourcewhencetheyarederived,andyieldsounquestionablytoitsauthority,thatitisunnecessarytopausetoindicateeither.Theuseofthebarefhsi,orle,geiincitationsfromScriptureisinhiscase,obviously,theoutgrowthandtheculminatingsignofhisabsoluteconfidenceinScriptureasthelivingvoiceofGod,fullyrecognizedassuchbothbyhimselfandhisreaders.InthesamesenseinwhichtothedyingSirWalterScotttherewasbutone"Book,"tohimandhisreaderstherewasbutoneauthoritativedivineWord,andallthatwasnecessaryinadducingitwastoindicatethefactofadduction.Thefhsi,orle,geiservesthusprimarilythefunctionof"quotationmarks"inmodernusage:butundersuchcircumstancesandwithsuchimplicationsthatbarequotationmarkscarrywiththemtheassurancethatthewordsadducedaredivinewords.

Itwouldseemtobeveryeasy,inthesecircumstances,togiveourselvesmoreuneasinessthanisatallnecessaryastotheprecisesubauditumwhichwearetoassumewiththeseverbs.Itmayserveverywelltorenderthemsimply,"Itsays,"withtheimplicationthatPhiloisusingthecodexofScriptureasthelivingvoice

ofGodspeakingtohimandhisreaders.Thecase,inaword,wouldseemtobeverysimilartothatofthecommonNewTestamentformulaofquotationge,graptai-meaningnotthatwhatisadducedissomewherewritten,butthatitistheauthoritativelawthatisbeingadduced.Justso,"Itsays,"insuchacasewouldmeannotthatsomebodyorsomethingsayswhatisadduced,butthattheWordofGodsaysit.AstheoneusageisthenaturaloutgrowthoftheconceptionoftheScripturesasawrittenauthoritativelaw,theotheristheequallynaturaloutgrowthoftheconceptionofScriptureasthelivingvoiceofGod.Howverynaturaladevelopmentthisusageis,maybeillustratedbythefactthatsomethingverysimilartoitmaybemetwithincolloquialEnglish.InthesamecircleswherewemayhearGodspokenofassimply"He,"asifitweredangeroustonameHisnametoofreely,wemayalsooccasionallyheartheBiblequotedwithasimple"Itsays,"orevenwithanelisionofthe"it,"as"'Tsays":andyetthe"it,"thoughtreatedthuscavalierly,isinrealityaveryemphatic"It"indeed-thephrasebeingtheproductofaweinthepresenceof"theBook,"andimportingthatthereisbutone"It"thatcouldbethoughtofinthecase.Somewhatsimilarly,inthecaseofPhilo,theScripturesarecitedwiththebarefhsi,(le,gei,because,inhismindandinthecircleswhichheaddressed,therestoodoutsofaraboveallothervoicesthisoneVoiceofGodembodiedinHisScriptures,thatnoneotherwouldbethoughtofinthecase.ThephraseistheoutgrowthofreverencefortheWordandofunquestioningsubmissiontoit:andthefundamentalfactisthatnospecialsubjectisexpressedsimplybecausenonewasneededanditwouldbeallonewhetherweunderstoodassubject,Moses,theprophetandlawgiver-theholyorsacredWordortheoracle–orfinally,GodHimself.Inanycase,andwithanysubauditum,therealsubjectconceivedasspeakingisGOD.61

Ifnow,inthelightofthefactswehavethusbroughttoourrecollection,weturnbacktotheNewTestamentpassagesinwhichtheOldTestamentiscitedwithasimplefhsi,orle,gei,itmaynotbeimpossibleforustoperceivetheirrealcharacterandmeaning.TherewouldseemtobeabsolutelynowarrantinGreekusagefortakingle,gei,andbutverylittle,ifany,fortakingfhsi,reallyindefinitely:andeveniftherewere,itwouldbeinconceivablethattheNewTestamentwriters,fromtheirhighconceptionof"Scripture,"shouldhaveadducedScripturewithasimple"itissaid"-somewhere,bysomeone-withoutimplicationofreverencetowardthequotedwordsorrecognitionoftheauthorityinherentinthem.ItisratherintheusageofPhilothatwefindthetrueanalogueoftheseexamples.LikePhilo,theauthoroftheEpistletotheHebrewslooksuponScriptureasanoracularbook,andallthatitsays,Godsaystohim:and

accordingly,likePhilo,headducesitswordswithasimple"itsays,"withthefullimplicationthatthis"itsays"isa"Godsays"also.WheneverthesamelocutionoccurselsewhereintheNewTestament,itbearsnaturallythesameimplication.ThereisnoreasonwhyweshouldrecognizethePhilonicfhsi,inHeb.viii.5,anddenyitinICor.vi.16:orwhyweshouldrecognizethePhilonicle,geiinHeb.viii.8anddenyitinActsxiii.35,Rom.ix.15,xv.10,IICor.vi.2,Gal.iii.16,orinEph.iv.8,v.14.OnlyincaseitwereveryclearthatPauldidnotsharethehighconceptionofScriptureasthelivingvoiceofGodwhichunderliesthisusageinPhiloandtheEpistletotheHebrews,couldwehesitatetounderstandthisphraseinhimasweunderstanditinthem.Butwehaveseenthatsuchisnotthecase:andhisuseinadducingScriptureofthesubjectlessfhsi,andle,geiquiteintheirmanneris,rightlyviewed,onlyanotherindication,amongmany,thathisconceptionofScripturewasfundamentallythesamewiththeirs,anditcannotbeexplainedawayontheassumptionthatitwasfundamentallydifferent.

ItdoesnotindeedfollowthatoneveryoccasionwhenaScripturepassageisintroducedbyafhsi,orle,geiitistobeexplainedasaninstanceofthissubjectlessusage-eventhoughasubjectforitisgivenorplainlyimpliedintheimmediatecontext.ThatisnotpossibleeveninPhilo,wheretheintroductoryformulaoftenfindsitsappropriatesubjectexpressedintheprecedingcontext.Butitdoesfollowthatweneednotandoughtnotresorttounnaturalexpedientstofindasubjectforsuchafhsi,orle,geiinthecontext,orthatacquiescing,wheneverthatseemsmorenatural,initssubjectlessness,weshouldseektoexplainawayitshighimplications.62Menmaydifferastothenumberofclearinstancesofsuchausage,thatmaybecountedintheNewTestament.Butmostwilldoubtlessagreethatsomemaybecounted:andwilldoubtlessplaceamongthemEph.iv.8andv.14.Somewillcontend,nodoubt,thatinthelatterofthesetexts,thepassageadducedisnotderivedfromtheOldTestamentatall.That,however,is"anotherstory,"onwhichwecannotenternow,butonwhichwemustbecontenttodiffer.WepauseonlytosaythatwereckonamongthereasonswhyweshouldthinkthecitationhereisderivedfromtheOldTestament,justitsadductionbydio.le,gei-whichwouldseemtoadviseusthatPaulintendedtoquotetheoracularWord.

Theremayberoomfordifferenceofopinionagainastotheprecisesubauditumwhichitwillbemostnaturaltoassumewiththesesubjectlessverbs:whethero`qeo,jorh`grafh,.Inourviewitmakesnorealdifferenceintheirimplication:for,inourview,theveryessenceofthecaseis,that,undertheforceoftheirconceptionoftheScripturesasanoracularbook,itwasallonetotheNew

Testamentwriterswhethertheysaid"Godsays"or"Scripturesays."Thisismadeveryclear,astheirrealstandpoint,bytheirdoubleidentificationofScripturewithGodandGodwithScripture,towhichweadvertedatthebeginningofthispaper,andbywhichPaul,forexample,couldsayalike"theScripturesaithtoPharaoh"(Rom.ix.17)and"God....saith,ThouwiltnotgivethyHolyOnetoseecorruption"(Actsxiii.34).WemaywellbecontentintheNewTestamentasinPhilototranslatethephrasewhereveritoccurs,"Itsays"-withtheimplicationthatthis"Itsays"isthesameas"Scripturesays,"andthatthis"Scripturesays"isthesameas"Godsays."Itisthisimplicationthatisreallythefundamentalfactinthecase.

Endnotes:

1. FromThePresbyterianandReformedReview,Vol.x,1899,pp.472-510.2. "AGrammaroftheNewTestamentGreek,"Thayer'stranslationp.134.3. Sec.373,3.4. Winer,Sec.58,9,g;p.656ofMoulton'stranslation.5. Blass'"GrammarofN.T.Greek";EnglishtranslationbyH.St.J.

Thackeray,M.A.,p.75.6. SoalsoWandel:"JamesthencitesthepassageProv.iii.24,inwhichwe

mustsimplysupply'God'tole,gei."7. Asasingleexample,take,e.g.,Oltramare,onEph.iv.8:"Dio.le,gei,scil.

h`grafh,:InaccordwiththeextremefrequencywithwhichtheNewTestamentiscited,Pauloftencitesbysayingsimplyle,gei(v.14,Rom.xv.10,IICor.vi.2,Gal.iii.16;cf.Rom.iv.3,x.17,ITim.v.18),orfhsi,(ICor.vi.16;cf.Heb.viii.15),orei;pe(ICor.xv.27).Heunderstandsthesubject,whichisunderstoodofitself,grafh,orqeo,j(seeWiner,Gr.,p.486)."

8. EarlierstillDeWetteexplainedthephraseinasomewhatsimilarway.HisnoteonEph.v.8runs:"OldTestamentsupport.dio.le,gei]therefore(becauseChristgivesthegiftsandaccordingtothepresuppositionthatallthatconcernsChristispredictedintheOldTestamentitissaid,[heisstes](cf.Gal.iii.16,ICor.vi.16-aformulaofcitation(alsov.14)likeJas.iv.6,Actsxiii.35,Heb.x.5,notelsewherefoundintheapostle(cf.,however,IICor.vi.17)..."AndagainonEph.v.14weread:"dio.le,gei]thereforeitissaid[heisstes](intheScriptures).Cf.iv.8."Hesupposesthat,inthelatterpassage,PaulconfusesacustomaryapplicationofScripturewiththeverywordsofScripture.

9. Grimm'snoteonthepassageruns:"Insteadoftherec.reading,fhsi,n,Alex.Ephr.,157,248,296,Compl.havefasi,n.Neverthelesstheauthormayherereturntothesingular,referringtothepotterbeforedepicted(seethefollowingverses).Orfhsi,maystandimpersonally,inthesenseof'heisstes,''sagtman,'Win.,p.462,6thed.;Müller,'Philo'sBuchvond.Weltschopfung,'p.44."Cf.further,below,p.316.

10. fhsi,nisplacedbyTischendorf,TregellesandWestcottandHortintheirtexts:whilefasi,nisreadbyLachmannandplacedintheirmarginsbyTregellesandWestcottandHort.TheformerisreadbyaDEFGKLP,etc.,bythecursives,andbytheVulgateandCopticversions,whilethelatteristhereadingofB,OldLatinandSyriac.Heinricipertinentlyremarks(inhisown"Commentary,"1887):"Thereadingfasi,n,whichLachmannaccepts,isjustasstronglywitnessedbyB,theItalaandPeschittoasfhsi,n(aDFGVulg.Copt.)anditalmostlooksasiffhsi,nwereacorrectionoccasionedbythesucceedingo`toiou/toj(againstMeyer)."Alford,whocontinuestoreadfhsi,nequallypertinentlyonthathypothesis,remarks:"fhsi,n,takenbyWiner(Ed.6,§58,96),DeWetteandMeyerasimpersonal,'heisstes,''mensay';butwhyshouldnotthetijofver.7,ando`toiou/tojofver.11,bethesubject?"Seefurtherbelow,p.316.

11. [Seeabove,p.287.]12. ["He(viz.,God,whosewordtheScripturesare.Seereff.[i.e.,Rom.xii.3,

IICor.x.13,iv.13,16=Paulonly],andnotes:notmerely'it,'esheisst,as,DeWette,al.:norh`grafh,:haditbeenthesubjectitmusthavebeenexpressed,asinRom.iv.3,ix.17,al.)says(viz.,Ps.lxviii.18,seebelow:notinsomeChristianhymn,asFlattandStorr-whichwouldnotagreewithle,gei,norwiththetreatmentofthecitation,whichisplainlyregardedascarryingtheweightofScripture.")]

13. ["'Hesaith,'sc.o`qeo,j,noth`grafh,.ThislatternominativeisseveraltimesinsertedbySt.Paul(Rom.iv.3,ix.17,x.11,Gal.iv.30,ITim.v.18),butisnotthereforetoberegularlysuppliedwheneverthereisanellipsis(Bos,Ellips.,p.54)withoutreferencetothenatureofthepassages.Thesurestandinfactonlyguideisthecontext;whenthataffordsnocertainhint,wefallbackuponthenaturalsubject,o`qeo,j,whosewordstheScripturesare;seenotesonGal.iii.16."Seefurtherabove,p.287.AtGal.iii.16,Ellicotthadsaid:"'Hesaithnot';noth`grafh,(Bos,Ellips.,p.54),asinRom.xv.10-wherethesubst.issuppliedfromge,graptai,ver.9-orto.pneu/ma(Ruck.,Winer,Gr.,§39,1),whichappearsarbitrary,butthenaturalsubjecto`qeo,j,asinEph.iv.8,v.14,and(fhsi,)ICor.vi.16,Heb.viii.5.SoapparentlySyr.,whichhereinsertsilliafterle,gei."Thepassagereferredto

inBos(Londoned.of1825,pp.57,58)isasfollows:"IntheNewTestament,wheretheScriptureoftheOldTestamentiscited,fhsi,orle,geioftenoccurswithh`grafh,understood-awordwhichactuallystandsinotherpassages:ICor.vi.16,Eph.v.14,Gal.iii.16.ThesamethingoccursintheGreekfathers.MarcusEremita,inhisearlieraphorisms,No.106,ouvdei.jfhsi,,strateuo,menojevmple,ketaitai/jtou~bi,oupragmatei,aij,'Noone,says(theScripture,IITim.ii.4)goinga-soldieringisentangledintheaffairsofthislife.'So,No.134:fhsi,ga.r(o`u`yw/~nevauto.ntapeinwqh,setai,'For,says(Scripture),hethatexaltethhimselfshallbebroughtlow.'Theremaybealsounderstoodprorenataeuvaggelisth,j,profhth,j(avpo,stoloj:buttheotherismoregeneralandsuitsexcellently.Schoettg."]

14. [Thetextactuallyhas"ver.14,"butweventuretocorrecttheobviousslip.]15. ["Withle,geiGodistobesuppliedassubject.Fromthiswayofadducingit,

itisalreadyclearthatthecitedwordscannotbetakenfromaChristianhymninuseintheChurchatEphesus(Storr,Flatt),butmustbelongtothesacred,God-givenScripture."Accordinglyatv.14hesays:"Inaccordancewiththeformula(le,gei,chap.iv.8)usualinadducingScripture,itcanscarcelybedoubtfulthattheapostleintendedtociteanOldTestamentpassage."]

16. Thecommentthereissimply:"hesaith]orpossiblyit(theScripture)saith."17. [Theparentheticalmarksshoulddoubtlessberemoved.]18. [Thissentenceseemsformallyincomplete;probably"isfrequently

employed"istobesuppliedfromtheprecedingclause.]19. [ThisscarcelygivesacompleteviewofWiner'sremark:hesaysthat"the

subjecto`qe,oj)isusuallycontainedinthecontext,eitherdirectlyorindirectly,"andproceedstoadducecasesofellipsis.]

20. [WhatWestcottapparentlysaysisnotthat"thetwopassagesintheEpistletotheEphesians(iv.8,v.14,dio.le,gei)appeartobedifferentinkind"fromtheusageofHebrews,butfromthecasesintherestoftheNewTestament,whereGodisthesubjectofle,geiindeed,but"thereferenceistowordsdirectlyspokenbyGod."Hepossiblymeans,"differentinkind"fromtheusagebothofHebrewsandoftherestoftheNewTestament:buthedoesnotseemtosaythisdirectly.Seepost,p.305.]

21. Vol.iv,p.13.22. Op.cit.,pp.285,286,287.23. Westcott,inloc.,"itseemsmorenaturaltoreferittothecollectedwritings

oftheOldTestament."24. WhatismeantmaypossiblybethatthesetwopassagesinEphesiansare

analogousneithertotheusageofHebrewsnortothatoftherestoftheNewTestament,butstandoutbythemselves.InthatcaseDr.Westcottprobablymeanstotakethemasinstancesoftheindefiniteuseofle,gei.Cf.above,p.293.

25. Cf.Meyer'snote:"le,gei],thesubjectisnecessarilythatofei;rhken,ver.34,andso,neitherDavid(Bengel,Heinrichsandothers),northeScriptures(Herrmann),butGod,althoughPs.xvi.10containsDavid'swordsaddressedtoGod.ButDavidisconsideredastheinterpreterofGod,whohasputtheprayerintohismouth.Comp.onMatt.xix.5."

26. Cf.Meyer'snote:"fhsi,n],whoitisthatsaysit,isself-evident,namely,God,theutterancesofScripturebeingHiswords,evenwhentheymaybespokenthroughanother,asGen.ii.24wasthroughAdam.Comp.onMatt.xix.5.SimilarlyGal.iii.16,Eph.iv.8,Heb.viii.5,ICor.xv.27.`Hgrafh,,whichisusuallysuppliedhere,wouldneedtobesuggestedbythecontext,asinRom.xv.10.Ruckertarbitrarilyprefersto.pneu/ma.""Totakeitimpersonally,'itissaid'asinIICor.x.10,accordingtothewell-knownusageintheclassics,wouldbewithoutwarrantfromanyotherinstanceofPaul'squotationsfromScripture.Comp.Winer,Gr.,p.486[Englishtranslation,656];Buttmann,Neut.Gr.,p.117[Englishtranslation,134]."

27. Forhesupposesthewordsquotedini.10tobeaddressednottoChrist,buttoGod:"GodthroughHisSpiritsospeaksinthePsalmistthatwordsnotdirectlyaddressedtoChristfindtheirfulfillmentinHim."

28. So(accordingtoLünemann),Dindorf,Schulz,Böhme,Bleek,EbrardAlford,Woerner:addLowrie,Riggenbach.

29. Cf.Deissmann,"Bibelstudien,"109;"NeueBibelstudien,"77:andalsofortheimplications,Kuyper,"EncyclopædiaofSacredTheology,"pp.433-435and444-445.

30. §373,1.obs.,1.31. "Ausfuhr.Gram.,"ii.30(§352).32. Jelf,§373,7:Kuhner,l.c.:Jannaris("AHistoricalGreekGrammar,"1161

seq.),treatstheomittedsubjectnootherwisethanKuhner.33. "Syntax.,"419.34. Thesereferencesareaddedinanote:"Vonfhsi,inspätenmanchenach

Bentley,wieDav.adCic.Tus.i.39;Wytt.adPlut.,T.vi,p.791.Voneivpe,moi,Heind.adEuthyd.,29."

35. Cf.Grimm'snote,givenabove,p.289.36. Meyer,inloc.,continuestoreadfhsi,.Hesays,"Itissaid,impersonal,as

oftenwiththeGreeks.SeeBernhardy,p.419.Thereadingfasi,n(Lachmann,followingB.Vulg.),isarashcorrection.Comp.Fritzsche,ad

Thesmoph.,p.189;Buttmann,Neut.Gram.,p.119[Englishtranslation,136]."Soinessencemostcommentators,includingFlatt,Storr,Krause,DeWette,Kling,Waite.Rückertmorewarilycomments:"fhsi,nishereproperlyrecognizedasaformulaofadduction,withoutreferencetothenumberofthosespeaking.SeeWiner(304)."Cf.above,p.289.

37. P.1665a(Oxford,1883).38. Whiston,Reiske,Weber.39. WeareindebtedtoProf.S.S.Orris,ofPrincetonUniversity,for

suggestionsinpreparingthisparagraph.Hepermitsustoaddthat,inhisopinion,"fhsi,isneverequivalenttothegeneral,indefinitetheysayoritissaid."

40. Reiske,p.477;Dindorf,ii.23.41. ReiskeandSchaefer,vi.162.42. iii.§§41,42(p.122);"OratoresAttici,"v.214.43. Reiske-Schaefer,v.579.44. Op.cit.,p.581.45. P.119F(Wyttenbach,I.ii.470).46. P.530(20-30).47. I,ii.470.48. VI,ii.791.49. Phaedo,401B.(115):"inthesearrayed,[thesoul]isreadytogoonher

journeytotheworldbelow,whenhertimecomes.You,SimmiasandCebes,andallothermen,willdepartatsometimeorother.Mealready,asthetragicpoetwouldsay,thevoiceoffatecalls(evme.de.nu/nh;dhkalei/(fai,ha;navnh.rtragiko.vjh`eivmarme,nh)."Theotherpassagesadducedwitnessonlytothecurrencyofthephraseh`evmarme,nhporei,a.ButthelanguageofbothPlutarchandPlatowouldseemtoimplythatthe"calling"iscertainlyapartofthequotation.

50. PræceptaSanit.Tuend.,135B.,ouvkata,geth.nevmh.n(e;fh(gnw,mhn.Wytt.:"e;fhnotatalteriusdictumutalibifhsi,,dequodiximus,p.119F."

51. Cf.Heinriciasabove,p.481;andBlass,"Gram.ofNewTestamentGreek,"Englishtranslation,p.2.

52. “EpictetiDissertationes,"etc.(Lipsiæ,1894),Index,pp.701,702.53. WepurposelyuseLong'stranslation,which,inalltheseinstances,proceeds

onthetheorythatthefhsi,isEpictetus'own.54. ThematterofthisinterpositionisinvestigatedforPlatobyStallbaum,p.

472D.,580D.-whereheseemstohavecollectedalltheinstancesofinterposedfame,ninPlato.Cf.alsoBornemannandSauppeonXenophon'sMemorab.,iii.5,13,andtheindicesofSchenklonArrian-Epictetusand

Thieme-SturzonXenophon(sub.voc.fa,nai).55. OnActsxxv.5,Blasshasthisnote:"5fittransitusexor.obliquainrectam,

utI.4al;hincfhsi,ninterpositumutI.4ß.,"i.e.,intheWesterntextofI,4,whichreads:"'Whichyeheard,'sayshe,'frommymouth."'Theinterpositionofa"hesays,"orsomesimilarphrase,tokeeptheconsciousnessofthehearerorreaderbrightonthefactthatthewordsbeforehimarequotedwordsis,ofcourse,agenerallinguisticandnotaspecificallyGreekusage.Itisfoundinalllanguages.AHebrewinstance,forexample,maybefoundinIKgs.ii.4.

56. Schenklcataloguesinthe"Discourses"ofEpictetustwocasesofinterpositedle,gei,quiteinthestyleoffhsi,-iii.19,1and"Fragment,"xxi.10-butinbothcasesthesubjectisexpressed.

57. In"DeVitaMosis,"iii.23.58. "PhiloandHolyScripture,"p.xlv.59. Op.cit.,p.xxv.60. Vol.ii.p.27.61. Thereverentuseofanindefinitemaybeillustratedfromthemodeof

citationadoptedinHeb.ii.6-"onehathsomewheretestified"-amodeofcitationnotuncommoninPhilo[as,forexample,deTemul.(ed.Mang.,i.365),ei=pega,rpou,tij(i.e.,Abraham,Gen.xx.12),andotherexamplesinBleek,II,i.239].Delitzschcorrectlyexplains:"Thecitationisthusintroducedwithaspecialsolemnity,theauthornamingneithertheplacewhencehetakesitnortheoriginalspeaker,butmakinguse(asPhilofrequently)ofthevaguetermpou,tij,sothattheimportanttestimonyitselfbecomesonlythemoreconspicuous,likeagrandpicturedfigureintheplainest,narrowestframe."

62. ThematterisapproachedinasensibleandhelpfulwaybyViteau,inhis"ÉtudesurleGrecduN.T.:sujet,complementetattribute"(1896),p.61.Heistreatingofthesubjecttobementallysupplied,i.e.,ofthecasewherethereadermaybefairlycountedupontosupplythesubject,andheremarks(interalia):"76(9).ThereisakindofmentalsubjectpeculiartotheNewTestament.WheneventsoftheOldTestamentarespokenof,theseeventsaresupposedtobeknowntothereaderorthehearer,whoisinvitedtosupplythesubjectoftheverbmentally....77(10).ThereisstillanotherkindofmentalsubjectpeculiartotheNewTestamentandkindredtothepreceding.InthecitationsmadebytheNewTestamentthesubjectisoftenlacking,aswellfortheverbwhichannouncesthecitationasfortheverbinthecitationitself.Thereaderissupposedtorecognizethepassageandisinvitedtosupplythesubject.(a)Fortheverbswhichannouncethecitation

thereoccurassubjects:o`qe,oj,Actsii.17;o`profh,thj,Actsvii.48;Dauei.d,Rom.iv.6;Mwu?sh/j,Rom.x.19;`Hsai,aj,Rom.xv.12;h`grafh,,Gal.iv.30.Whentheverbhasnosubject,thereaderistosupplyitmentally:Actsxiii.34,35,ei=rhkenandle,gei,thesubjectiso`qe,oj,accordingtotheLXX.,Es.lv.3,andPs.xv.10;Rom.xv.10,pa,linle,gei(o`Mwu?sh/j),accordingtoDeut.xxxii.43;Eph.iv.8,le,gei(o`qeo,jorDauei.d),accordingtoPs.lxvii.19;Eph.v.14,dio.le,gei,thosewhoregardthepassageasimitatedorpartiallycitedfromtheOldTestamentgive`Hsai,ajasthesubjectofle,gei,accordingtoIsa.lx.1,2,butifweregardthispassageascontainingsomekw/laofanearlyhymn(inimitationofIsaiah)wemustsupplyasthesubjecttij,'itissaid,''itissung'(96a);Heb.viii.5,fhsi,n(o`qe,oj),accordingtoEx.xxv.40."Wedonotaccord,ofcourse,withtheremarkonEph.v.14;andwemissinViteau'sremarkstheexpectedreferencetothedeeperfactinthecase.

TheOraclesOfGod

Thepurposeofthispaperistobringtogethersomewhatmorefullythancanbeeasilyfoundinoneplaceelsewhere,thematerialforformingajudgmentastothesensebornebytheterm[ta.]lo,gia,asitappearsinthepagesoftheNewTestament.ThistermoccursonlyfourtimesintheNewTestament.Thepassages,astranslatedbytheEnglishrevisersof1881,areasfollows:"Moses...whoreceivedlivingoraclestogiveuntous"(Actsvii.38);"They[theJews]wereintrustedwiththeoraclesofGod"(Rom.iii.2);"Whenbyreasonofthetimeyeoughttobeteachers,yehaveneedagainthatsomeoneteachyoutherudimentsofthefirstprinciplesoftheoraclesofGod"(Heb.v.12);"IfanymanspeakethlethimspeakasitwereoraclesofGod"(IPeteriv.11).Thegeneralsenseofthetermisobviousonthefaceofthings:andthecommentatorscertainlydonotgowhollywronginexplainingit.Buttheminordifferencesthatemergeintheirexplanationsarenumerous,andseemfrequentlytoevinceaninsufficientexaminationoftheusageoftheword:andthereferencesbywhichtheysupporttheirseveralviewsarenotalwaysaccessibletoreaderswhowouldfaintestthem,sothatthevaryingexplanationsstand,intheeyesofmany,asonlysomanyobiterdictabetweenwhichchoicemustbemade,ifchoiceismadeatall,purelyarbitrarily.Ithasseemed,therefore,asifitwouldnotbewithoutitsvalueiftheusageofthewordwereexhibitedinsufficientfullnesstoserveassomesortofatouchstoneoftheexplanationsthathavebeenofferedofit.Wearesure,atanyrate,thatstudentsoftheNewTestamentremotefromlibrarieswillnotbesorrytohaveathandatolerablyfullaccountoftheusageoftheword:andwearenotwithouthopethatacomprehensiveviewofitmayhelptocorrectsomelongstandingerrorsconcerningitsexactmeaning,andmay,indeed,pointnotobscurelytoitstrueconnotation-whichisnotwithoutinterestingimplications.UpheldbythishopeweshallessaytopassinrapidreviewtheusageoftheterminClassic,HellenisticandPatristicGreek,andthentoaskwhat,inthelightofthisusage,thewordislikelytohavemeanttothewritersoftheNewTestament.

I.Itmaybejustaswellattheoutsettodisabuseourmindsofanypresumptionthatadiminutivesenseisinherentinthetermlo,gion,asaresultofitsveryform.2WhetherweexplainitwithMeyer-Weiss3astheneuteroflo,giojandpointtologi,dion4astheproperdiminutiveofthisstem;orlookuponitwithSanday-Headlam5asoriginallythediminutiveoflo,goj,whoseplaceassuch

wassubsequently,viz.,whenitacquiredthespecialsenseof"oracle,"takenbythestrengtheneddiminutivelogi,dion-itremainstruethatnotraceofadiminutivesenseattachestoitaswemeetitonthepagesofGreekliterature.6

Wearepointed,tobesure,toascholiumonthe"Frogs"ofAristophanes(line942)asindicatingthecontrary.Thepassageisthewell-knownoneinwhichEuripidesismadetorespondtoÆschylus'inquiryastowhatthingshemanufactured."Notwingedhorses,"isthereply(asWheelwrighttranslatesit),"ByJupiter,norgoat-stags,suchasthou,LikepaintingsontheMediantapestry,ButasfromtheeIfirstreceivedtheart,Swellingwithboastfulpompandheavywords,Iparéditstraightandtookawayitssubstance,Withlittlewords,andwalkingdialogues,7Andwhitebeetmingled,strainingfromthebooksAjuiceofpleasantsayings,-thenIfedhimWithmonodies,mixingCtesiphon."Itisuponthewordheretranslated"withlittlewords,"butreallymeaning"verselets"(Blaydes:versiculis)-evpulli,oij-thatthescholiumoccurs.Itruns:vAnti.tou/logi,oijmikroi/j\w`jde.bre,fojbrefu,llion,kai.ei=dojeivdu,llion\ou;twkai.e;pojevpu,llion.8Thatistosay,evpu,llionisadiminutiveofthesameclassasbrefu,llionandevpu,llion,9andmeanslo,gionmikro,n.Sincetheideaofsmallnessisexplicitintheadjectiveattachedtolo,gionhere,surelyitisnotnecessarytodiscoveritalsointhenoun,10especiallywhenwhatthescholiastisobviouslystrivingtosayisnotthatevpullioijmeans"littlewordlets,"but"littleverses."Thepresenceofmikroi/jhere,ratherisconclusiveevidencethatlogi,oijbyitselfdidnotconveyadiminutivemeaningtothescholiast.Ifwearetogivelo,gionanunexampledsensehere,wemightbetemptedtotakeit,therefore,asintendedtoexpresstheidea"verses"ratherthanthetautologicaloneof"littlewords"oreven"littlemaxims"or"littlesayings."Anditmightfairlybepleadedinfavorofsodoingthatlo,gioninitscurrentsenseof"oracle"notonlyliesclosetooneoftheordinarymeaningsofe;poj("Od.,"12,266;Herod.,1,13,andoftenintheTragedians),butalso,becauseoracleswerecommonlycouchedinverse,mighteasilycometosuggestinpopularspeechtheideaof"verse,"sothatalo,gionmikro,nwouldeasilyobtrudeitselfastheexactsynonymofevpu,llion,inEuripides'sense,i.e.,inthesenseofshortbrokenverses.Thereisnoreasonapparentontheotherhandwhyweshouldfindadiminutiveimplicationinthewordashereused,andinanycase,ifthisisintended,itisasenseunillustratedbyasingleinstanceofusage.

AndtheunquestionablelearningofEustathiusseemstoassureusthattoGreekearslo,giondidnotsuggestadiminutivesenseatall.Heiscommentingonline339oftheSecondBookofthe"Iliad,"whichruns,

phvdh.sunqesi.aitekai.o[rkiabh,setaih`mi/n,

andhetellsusthato[rkioninHomerisnotadiminutive,butisaformationsimilartolo,gion,whichmeans"anoracle":Ouvcu`pokoristiko.nde.parv`Omh,rw|ouvde.)))to.i'cnion)[Wsperde.ta.o[rkiaparwno,mastaievktou/o[rkou(ou[twkai.evktou/lo,gouta.lo,giah;kounoi`crhsmoi,.11Thereisnodirectstatementhere,tobesure,thatlo,gionisnotadiminutive;thatstatementismade-withentireaccuracy-onlyofo[rkionandi;cnion:12noristhederivationsuggestedforlo,gion,asifitcamedirectlyfromlo,goj,perhapsscientificallyaccurate.Butthereiseveryindicationofclearnessofperceptioninthestatement:anditcouldscarcelybegiventheformithas,hadlo,gionstoodinEustathius'mindasthediminutiveoflo,goj.Itobviouslyrepresentedtohimnotadiminutivesynonymoflo,goj,butanequalsynonymofcrhsmo,j.Whatlo,gionstoodfor,inhismind,isveryclearlyexhibited,further,inacommentwhichhemakesonthe416thlineoftheFirstBookofthe"Odyssey,"whereTelemachusdeclaresthathedoesnot"carefordivinationssuchasmymotherseeks,summoningadivinertothehall":

ou;teqeopropi,hjevmpa,zomai(h[ntinamh,threvjme,garonkale,sasaqeopro,ponevxere,htai)

Eustathiuswishesustonotethatqeopro,pojmeansthema,ntij,qeopropi,ahisart,andqeopro,pionthemessagehedelivers,whichEustathiuscallsthecrhsmw,|dhma,andinformsusisdenominatedbytheAtticsalsolo,gion.Hesays:vIste,onde.o[tiqeopro,pojme.na;llwj(o`ma,ntij)qeopropi,ade.(h`te,cnhauvtou/)qeopro,pionde.(to.crhsmw|,dhma(o]kai.lo,gione;legonoi`vAttikoi,.13ToEustathius,thuslo,gionwassimplytheexactsynonymofthehighestwordsinusetoexpressadivinecommunicationtomen-qeopro,pion,14crhsmw|,dhma(crhsmo,j.SimilarlyHesychius'definitionruns:Lo,gia:qe,sfata(mauteu,mata,(pro)fhteu,mata(fh/mai(crhsmoi,.Inaword,lo,giondiffersfromlo,gojnotasexpressingsomethingsmallerthanit,butasexpressingsomethingmoresacred.

TheGreeksynonymyofthenotion"oracle"isatonceextraordinarilyfullandveryobscure.Itiseasytodrawupalonglistofterms-mantei/a(manteu,mata(pro,ganta(qeopro,pia(evpiqespismoi,(qe,sfata(qespi,smata(lo,gia,andthelike;butexceedinglydifficult,wedonotsaytolaydownhardandfastlinesbetweenthem,buteventoestablishanyshadesofdifferenceamongthemwhichareconsistentlyreflectedinusage.M.Bouché-Leclercq,aftercommentingonthe

povertyoftheLatinnomenclature,continuesastotheGreek:15

"TheGreekterminologyisricherandallowsanalysisofthedifferentsenses,butitisevenmoreconfusedthanabundant.TheGreeks,possessorsofaflexibletongue,capableofrenderingalltheshadesofthought,oftensquanderedtheirtreasures,broadeningthemeaningofwordsatpleasure,multiplyingsynonymswithoutdistinguishingbetweenthem,andthusdisdainingtheprecisiontowhichtheycouldattainwithouteffort.Weshallseekinvainfortermsespeciallyappropriatedtodivinationbyoracles.Fromtheverbcrh/sqai,whichsignifiesinHomer'toreveal'inageneralway,comethederivativescrhsmo,jandcrhsth,rion.Thelatter,whichdatesfromHesiodandtheHomerides,designatestheplacewherepropheciesaredispensedand,later,theresponsesthemselves,ortheinstrumentbywhichtheyareobtained.Crhsmo,j,whichcomesintocurrentusagefromthetimeofSolon,isappliedwithoutambiguitytoinspiredandversifiedprophecies,butbelongsequallytotheresponsesoftheoraclesandthoseoffreeprophets.Thewordmantei/oninthesingulardesignatesordinarilytheplaceofconsultation;butinthepluralitisappliedtothepropheciesthemselvesofwhateverorigin.Inthelastsenseithasacrowdofsynonymsofindeterminateandchangeableshadesofmeaning.Thegrammariansthemselveshavebeenobligedtorenounceimposingrulesonthecapricioususageandseekingrecognitionfortheirartificialdistinctions.Welearnoncemoretheimpossibilityoferectingprecisedefinitionsfortermswhichlackprecision."

AmongthedistinctionswhichhavebeenproposedbutwhichusagewillnotsustainisthediscriminationerectedbythescholiastonEuripides,"Phœniss.,"907,16whichwouldreserveqe,sfata(qespi,smata(crhsmoi,fororaclesdirectlyfromthegods,andassignmanteu/aiandmanteu,matatotheresponsesofthediviners.Thegrainoftruthinthisisthatinma,ntij(manteu,esqai(mantei,a,etymologically,whatismostprominentistheideaofaspecialunwontedcapacity,attentionbeingdirectedbythesewordstothestrongspiritualelevationwhichbegetsnewpowersinus.While,ontheotherhand,inqespi,zeinthereferenceisdirectlytothedivineinspiration,which,becauseitisnormallydeliveredinsong,isreferredtobysuchformsasqespiw|do,v,qespiw|,dein)Crhsmo,j,ontheotherhand,seemsanexpressionwhichinitselfhaslittledirectreferenceeithertothesourcewhenceortheforminwhichtheoraclecomes,butdescribestheoraclefromthepointofviewofwhatitisinitself-viz.,a"communication"-goingback,asitdoes,tocrh/n,theoriginalsenseofwhichseemstobe"tobestow,""tocommunicate."17lo,giondoubtlessmaybeclassedwithcrhsmo,jinthisrespect-itisparexcellencethe"utterance,"the"saying."It

wouldseemtobedistinguishedfromcrhsmo,jbyhavingevenlessreferencethanittothesourcewhence-somethingas"adeclaration"isdistinguishedfrom"amessage."Ifwesupposeaheraldcomingwiththecry,"AcommunicationfromtheLord,"andthen,afterdeliveringthemessage,adding:"ThisisHisutterance,"itmightfairlybecontendedthatinstrictprecisiontheformershouldbecrhsmo,jandthelatterlo,gion,insofarastheformertermmaykeepfaintlybeforethemindthesourceofthemessageasathinggiven,whilethelattermaydirecttheattentiontoitscontentastheverythingreceived,doubtlesswithafurtherconnotationofitsfitnesstoitshighorigin.Suchsubtletyofdistinction,however,isnotsuretostampitselfoncurrentuse,sothatbysuchetymologicalconsiderationswearenotmuchadvancedindeterminingtheordinaryconnotationofthewordsinusage.

Amuchmorefamousdiscrimination,andonewhichmuchmorenearlyconcernsusatpresent,hasbeenerectedonwhatseemstobeamisapprehensionofaconstructioninThucydides.Inapassagewhichhasreceivedthecomplimentofimitationbyanumberofhissuccessors,18thehistorianisdescribingtheagitationcausedbytheoutbreakofthePeloponnesianwar,onesymptomofwhichwasthepassionfororacleswhichwasdeveloped."AllHellas,"hesays,19"wasexcitedbythecomingconflictbetweenthetwocities.Manywerethepropheciescirculated,andmanytheoracleschantedbydiviners(kai.polla.me.nlo,giaevle,gonto(polla.de.crhsmolo,goih|=don),notonlyinthecitiesabouttoengageinthestruggle,butthroughoutHellas."Andagain,astheLacedæmoniansapproachedthecity,oneofthemarkshe,atalaterpoint,notesoftheincreasingexcitementisthat"soothsayers(crhsmologoi)wererepeatingoracles(h=|doncrhsmou,j)ofthemostdifferentkinds,whichallfoundinsomeoneorotherenthusiasticlisteners."20Onacasualglancethedistinctionappearstolieonthesurfaceoftheformerpassagethatlo,giaareoraclesinproseandcrhsmoi,oraclesinverse:andsothescholiast21onthepassage,followedbySuidas22defines.ButitisimmediatelyobviousonthemostcursoryglanceintoGreekliteraturethatthedistinctionthussuggestedwillnothold.Thecrhsmoi,are,tobesure,commonlyspokenofassung;andthegroupofwordscrhsmw|do,j(crhsmw|de,w(crhsmw|di,a(crhsmw|,dhma(crhsmw|,dhj(crhsmw|diko,j,witnessestotheintimateconnectionofthetwoideas.Butthisarisesoutofthenatureofthecase,ratherthanoutofanyspecialsenseattachedtothewordcrhsmo,j:andaccordingly,bythesideofthisgroupofwords,wehaveotherswhich,ontheonehand,compoundcrhsmo,jwithtermsnotimplicativeofsinging(crhsmhgore,w(crhsmago,rhj-crhsmodote,w(crhsmodo,thj(crhsmodo,thma-crhsmologe,w(crhsmolo,goj(crhsmologi,a(

crhsmolo,gion(crhsmologikh,(crhsmole,schj-crhsmopoio,j),and,ontheotherhand,compoundotherwordsfororacleswithwordsdenotingsinging(qespiw|de,w(qespiw|,dhma(qespiw|do,j).Thefactisthat,asJ.H.Heinr.Schmidt23pointsoutinaninterestingdiscussion,thenaturalexpressionofelevatedfeelingwasoriginallyinsong:sothatthesingercomesbeforethepoetandthepoetbeforethespeaker.Itwasthusasnaturalfortheancientstosayvati-ciniumasitisformodernstosayWeis-sagungorsooth-saying;butasthecustomofwrittenliteraturegraduallytransformedtheconsciousnessofmen,theirthoughtbecamemorelogicalandlesspictorialuntileventhePythiaceasedatlasttospeakinverse.Meanwhile,oldcustomdominatedtheoracles.Theywerechanted:theywerecouchedinverse:andthetermswhichhadbeenframedtodescribethemcontinuedtobearthisimplication.Evenwhencalledlo,gia,theyprovetobeordinarily24inverse;andthesealsoaresaidtobesung,asweread,forexample,inDioCassius(431,66and273,64):lo,giapantoi/ah|;deto.Whatappearstobeasomewhatconstantequivalenceinusageofthetwotermscrhsmo,jandlo,gion,spreadbroadlyoverthefaceofGreekliterature,seemsinanyeventtonegativetheproposeddistinction.NordoesthepassageinThucydideswhenmorecloselyexaminedaffordanyrealgroundforit.Afterall,lo,giaandcrhsmoi,arenotcontrastedinthispassage:thewordcrhsmoi,doesnotevenoccurinit.Thestressofthedistinctionfalls,indeed,notonthenouns,butontheverbs,thepointoftheremarkbeingthatoracleswerescatteredamongthepeoplebyeverypossiblemethod.25Ifweaddthatthesecondpolla,isprobablynottoberesolvedintopollou.jcrhsmou,j,26thecrhsmou,jbeingderivedfromthecrhsmw|lo,goi,butistohavelo,giasuppliedwithitfromtheprecedingclause,theassumeddistinctionbetweenlo,giaandcrhsmoi,goesupatonceinsmoke.Lo,giaalonearespokenof:andtheselo,giaaresaidtobebothspokenandsung.27

Soeasyandfrequentistheinterchangebetweenthetwotermsthatitseemsdifficulttoalloweventhemorewaryattemptsofmoderncommentatorstodiscriminatebetweenthem.Theseordinarilyturnontheideathatlo,giaisthemoregeneralandcrhsmo,jthemorespecificword,andgobacktothecarefulstudyoftheBarondeLocella,28inhiscommentonapassagein(thelater)Xenophon's"Ephesiaca."Locella'snotedoesindeedpracticallycovertheground.Hebeginsbynotingtheinterchangeofthetwowordsinthetextbeforehim.Thenheoffersthedefinitionthatoraculorumresponsaaregenericallylo,gia,whetherinproseorverse,adducingthelo,giapalaia,ofEurip.,"Heracl.,"406,andthelo,gionpuqo,crhstonofPlutarch,"Thes.,"i.55,asinstancesoflo,giaundoubtedlycouchedinverse;whileversifiedoracles,originallyin

hexametersandlateriniambictrimetersare,specifically,crhsmoi,-whencecrhsmw|de,wisvaticinor,crhsmw|di,a,vaticinium,andcrhsmw|do,j,vates.Asthusthedifferencebetweenthetwowordsisthatofgenusandspecies,theymaybeusedpromiscuouslyforthesameoracle.Itisworththetrouble,hethenremarks,toinspecthowoftenlo,gionandcrhsmo,jareinterchangedinthe"Knights"ofAristophanesbetweenverses109and1224,fromwhichtheerrorofthescholiastonThucydides,ii.8,isclearandofSuidasfollowinghim,inmakinglo,gionspecificallyanoracleinprose,andcrhsmo,joneinverse.HethenquotesEustathiusonthe"Iliad,"ii.ver.233,andonthe"Odyssey,"i.ver.1426;adducesthegloss,lo,gion(o`crhsmo,j;andaskshisreaderstonotewhatStephensadducesfromCamerariusagainstthisdistinction.29ThecontinueddesignationbyGreekwritersoftheprosePythianoraclesascrhsmoi,isadvertedto,Plutarch'stestimonybeingdwelton:andrelevantscholiaonAristophanes'"Av".,960,and"Nub.,"144,arereferredto.ItisnotstrangethatLocella'sfinding,basedonsoexhaustiveasurveyoftherelevantfacts,shouldhavedominatedlatercommentators,whodifferfromitordinarilymorebywayofslightmodificationthanofanyrealrevision-suggestingthatlo,gia,beingthemoregeneralword,issomewhatlesssacred;30orsomewhatlessprecise;31orsomewhatlessancient.32Thecommondifficultywithalltheseeffortstodistinguishthetwowordsisthatthereisnousagetosustainthem.Whenthetwowordsoccurtogetheritisnotincontrastbutinapparentlycompleteequivalence,andwhenlo,gionappearsapartfromcrhsmo,jitisinasensewhichseemsinnowaytobedistinguishablefromit.Theonlyqualificationtowhichthisstatementseemsliable,arisesfromafaintly-feltsuspicionthat,inaccordancewiththeiretymologicalimplicationsalreadysuggested,crhsmo,jhasatendencytoappearwhenthemindofthespeakerismoreuponthesourceofthe"oracle"andlo,gionwhenhismindismoreuponitssubstance.

EveninsuchararepassageasEurip.,"Heracl.,"406,wherethetwowordsoccurinquasi-contrast,wefindnofurthergroundforanintelligibledistinctionbetweenthem:

"Yetallmypreparationswellarelaid:Athensisallinarms,thevictimsreadyStandforthegodsforwhomtheymustbeslain.ByseersthecityisfilledwithsacrificeForthefoes'routandsavingofthestate.Allprophecy-chantershaveIcausedtomeet,Intooldpublicoracleshavesearched,

Andsecret,forsalvationofthisland.33Andmidtheirmanifestdiversities,Inonethingglaresthesenseofallthesame-TheybidmetoDemeter'sdaughterslay,Amaidenofahigh-bornfathersprung."34

Andordinarilytheydisplayaninterchangeabilitywhichseemsalmoststudied,itissocompleteand,asitwere,iterant.Certainly,atallevents,itisgoodadvicetofollow,togotoAristophanes'"Knights"tolearntheirusage.InthatbitingplayDemos-theAthenianpeople-ispicturedas"aSibyllianizingoldman"withwhomCleoncurriesfavorbyplyinghimwithoracles,

a|;deide.crhsmou,j\o`de.ge,rwnsibullia|/.35

Niciasstealstou.jcrhsmou,jfromCleon,andbringsto.ni`ero.ncrhsmo,ntoDemosthenes,whoimmediatelyonreadingitexclaims,w=lo,gia!36"DEM.:+Wlo,gia.Givemequickthecup!NIC.:Behold,whatsaysthecrhsmo,j?DEM.:Pouron!NIC.:Isitsostatedinthelogi,oij?DEM.:OBacis!"Tocaptheclimax,thescholiastremarksonw=lo,gia:"(manteu,mata):hewonderswhenhereadsto.ncrhsmo,n."Onlyalittlelater,37DemosthenesiscounselingtheSausageVendernotto"slightwhatthegodsbytoi/jlogi,oisihavegiven"himandreceivestheanswer:"Whatthensayso`crhsmo,j?"andafterthecontentsofitareexplainedthedeclaration,"Iamflatteredbyta.lo,gia."Asthedénouementapproaches,CleonandtheSausageVenderpleadthattheiroraclesmayatleastbeheard(lines960-961:oi`crhsmoi,).Theyarebrought,andthisabsurdsceneistheresult:"CLEON:Behold,lookhere-andyetI'venotgotall.S.V.:Ah,me!Iburst-'andyetI'venotgotall!'DEM.:Whatarethese?CLEON:Oracles(lo,gia).DEM.:All!CLEON:Doyouwonder?ByJupiter,I'vestillachestfulleft.S.V.:AndIanupperwithtwodwellingrooms.DEM.:Come,letusseewhoseoracles(oi`crhsmoi,)arethese?CLEON:MineareofBacis.DEM.:Whosearethine?S.V.:OfGlamis,hiselderbrother."Andwhentheyarereadtheyareallalikeinheroicmeasure.

ItisnotinAristophanesalone,however,thatthisequivalencemeetsus:theeasyinterchangeofthetwowordsis,wemaysay,constantthroughoutGreekliterature.Thus,forexample,inthe"Corinthiaca"ofPausanias(ii.20,10)anoracleisintroducedasto.lo,gion,andcommentedonaso`crhsmo,j.38InDiodorusSiculus,ii.14,39SemiramisissaidtohavegonetoAmmoncrhsome,nhtw|/qew|/peri.th/jivdi,ajteleuth/j,and,thenarrativecontinues,

le,getaiaujth|/gene,sqailo,gion.SimilarlyinPlutarch's"DeDefectuOrac.,"v.40wehavethethreetermsto.crhsthri,on(to.lo,gionandta.mantei/atau/taequated:in"DeMul.Virt.,"viii.41thelo,giaareexplainedbywhatwasevcrh,sqh:in"QuaestionesRomanae,"xxi.42lo,giacamebywayofacrhsmw|dei/n.Inthe"Ephesiaca"ofthelaterXenophonmetricalmanteu,mataarereceived,therecipientsofwhichareindoubtwhatta.tou/qeou/lo,giacanmean,until,onconsideration,theydiscoveralikelyinterpretationforthecrhsmo,nthatseemstomeetthewishoftheGodwhoevmanteu,sato.43

Howlittleanythingcanbederivedfromtheseparateuseoflo,giontothrowdoubtonitsequivalencewithcrhsmo,jasthusexhibited,maybeobservedfromthefollowinginstancesofitsusage,gatheredtogethersomewhatatrandom:44

Herodotus,i.64:"HepurifiedtheislandofDelos,accordingtotheinjunctionsofanoracle(evktw/nlogi,wn)";i.120:"Wehavefoundevenoraclessometimesfulfilledinunimportantways(tw/nlogi,wne;nia)";iv.178:"HereinthislakeisanislandcalledPhla,whichitissaidtheLacedæmoniansweretohavecolonizedaccordingtoanoracle(th.nnh/sonLakedaimoni,oisi,fasilo,gionei;naikti,sai)";viii.60:"Whereanoraclehassaidthatwearetoovercomeourenemies(kai.lo,gio,nevstitw/nevcqro/nkatu,perqe)";viii.62:"whichthepropheciesdeclarewearetocolonize(ta.lo,giale,gei)."Aristophanes,"Vesp.,"799:o[rato.crh/mata.lo,givw`jperai,netai;"Knights,"1050,tauti.telei/sqaita.lo,givh;dhmoidokei/.Polybius,viii.30,6:"FortheeasternquarterofTarentumisfullofmonuments,becausethosewhodietherearetothisdayallburiedwithinthewalls,inobediencetoanancientoracle(kata,tilo,gionavrcai/on)."DiodorusSiculusap.Geog.Sync.,p.194D("CorpusScriptorumHistoriaeByzantinae,"i.366),"FabiussaysanoraclecametoÆneas(Aivnei,a|gene,sqailo,gion),thataquadrupedshoulddirecthimtothefoundingofacity."Ælian,"Var.Hist.,"ii.41:"MoreoverMycerinustheEgyptian,whentherewasbroughttohimtheprophecyfromBudo(to.evkbou,thjmantei/on),predictingashortlife,andhewishedtoescapetheoracle(to.lo,gion)..."Arrian,"Expedit.Alex.,"ii.3,14(Ellendt.,1.151):w`jtou/logi,outou/evpi.th|/lu,seitou/desmou/xumbebhko,toj;vii.16,7(Ellendt.,ii.419),"ButwhenAlexanderhadcrossedtheriverTigriswithhisarmy,pushingontoBabylon,thewisemenoftheChaldeans(Caldai,wnoi`lo,gioi)methimandseparatinghimfromhiscompanionsaskedhimtocheckthemarchtoBabylon.FortheyhadanoraclefromtheirGodBelus(lo,gionevktou/qeou/tou/bh,lou)thatentranceintoBabylonatthattimewouldnotbeforhisgood.Butheansweredthemwithaverse(e;poj)ofthepoetEuripides,whichrunsthus:'Thebestma,ntijishe

whoseconclusionisgood."'Plutarch,"Nonpossesuavitervivi,"etc.,24(1103F.):"Whatofthat?(quothZeuxippus).Shallthepresentdiscoursebeleftimperfectandunfinishedbecauseofit?andfearewetoalledgetheoracleofthegods(to.lo,gionpro.jvEpi,kouronle,gontej)whenwedisputeagainsttheEpicureans?No(quothIagaine)inanywise,foraccordingtothesentenceofEmpedocles,'Agoodtaletwiceamanmaytell,andheareittoldasoftfullwell';""LifeofTheseus,"§26(p.12C,Didot,p.14),"HeappliedtohimselfacertainoracleofApollo's(lo,gio,ntipuqo,crhston)"§27(p.12E,Didot,p.14):"AtlengthTheseus,havingsacrificedtoFear,accordingtotheoracle(kata,tilo,gion)";"LifeofFabius,"§4(Didot,p.210),vEkinh,qhsande.to,tepollai.kai.tw/navporvr`h,twnkai.crhsi,mwnauvtoi/jbi,blwn(a]jSibullei,oujkalou/si\kai.le,getaisundramei/ne;niatw/navpokeime,nwnevnauvtai/jlogi,wnpro.jta.jtu,cajkai.ta.jpra,xeijevkei,naj.Pausanias,"Attica"[I.44,9](takenunverifiedfromWetstein):qu,santojAivakou/kata.dh,tilo,giontw|/Panellhni,w|Dii`,.Polyaenus,p.37(Wetstein)[I,18]:o`qeo.je;crhse-oi`pole,mioito.lo,gioneijdo,tej-tou/logi,oupeplhrwme,nou;p.347[IV,3,27],h-nde.lo,gionvApo,llwnoj.Aristeas,p.119(Wetsteln):euvcaristw/me.n(a;ndrej(u`mi/n(tw|/de.avpostei,lantima/llon\me,gistonde.tw|/qew|/(ou[tino,jevstita.lo,giatau/ta.

Asurveyofthissomewhatmiscellaneouscollectionofpassageswillcertainlyonlystrengthentheimpressionwederivedfromthoseinwhichlo,gionandcrhsmo,joccurtogether-thatinlo,gionwehaveatermexpressive,incommonusageatleast,ofthesimplenotionofadivinerevelation,anoracle,andthatindependentlyofanyaccompanyingimplicationoflengthorbrevity,poeticalorproseform,directnessorindirectnessofdelivery.Thisisthemeaningoflo,gioninthemassofprofaneGreekliterature.Aswehavealreadysuggested,thematterofthederivationofthewordisofnogreatimportancetoourinquiry:45butwemaybepermittedtoaddthattheusageseemsdistinctlyfavorabletotheviewthatitistoberegardedratheras,inorigin,theneuteroflo,giojusedsubstantively,thanthediminutiveoflo,goj.Noimplicationofbrevityseemstoattachtothewordinusage;anditsexclusiveapplicationto"oracles"mayperhapsbemosteasilyexplainedonthesuppositionthatitconnotesfundamentally"awisesaying,"andimpliesatalltimessomethingabovetheordinaryrunof"words."46

II.Itwaswiththisfixedsignificance,therefore,thatthewordpresenteditselftotheJewsofthelatercenturiesbeforeChrist,whenthechangedconditionswereforcingthemtogiveaclothinginGreekspeechtotheirconceptions,derived

fromtherevelationoftheoldcovenant;andthustopreparethewayforthelanguageofthenewcovenant.TheoldestmonumentofHellenisticGreek-theSeptuagintVersionoftheSacredBooks,madeprobablyinthecenturythatstretchedbetween250and150B.C.-is,however,peculiarlyill-adaptedtowitnesstotheHellenisticusageofthisword.Aslayinthenatureofthecase,and,asweshallseelater,wastheactualfact,totheseJewishwriterstherewereno"oracles"exceptwhatstoodwritteninthesesacredbooksthemselves,andallthatstoodwritteninthemwere"oraclesofGod."Inatranslationofthebooksthemselves,naturallythis,themostsignificantHellenisticapplicationoftheword"oracles,"couldfindlittleplace.Andthoughthetermmightbeemployedwithinthesacredbookstotranslatesuchaphraseas,say,"thewordofGod,"inoneformoranothernotinfrequentlymetwithintheirpages,thewayevenherewascloggedbythefactthattheHebrewwordsusedinthesephrasesonlyimperfectlycorrespondedtotheGreekwordlo,gion,andwerenotverynaturallyrepresentedbyit.ThoughtheordinaryHebrewverbfor"saying"-rm;a'47-towhichetymologicallycertainhighimplicationsmightbethoughttobenatural,hadsubstantivalderivatives,yetthesewerefairlyeffectuallysetasidebyatermoflowerorigin-rb'D'48-whichabsorbedverymuchthewholefieldoftheconception"word."49Thederivativesofrm;a'-rm,ao,hr'm.ai,hr'm.a,,rm'a}m;-inaccordancewiththeiretymologicalimpressofloftinessorauthority,arerelegatedtopoeticspeech(exceptrm'a}m;,whichoccursonlyinEstheri.15,ii.20,ix.32,andhasthesenseofcommandment)andareusedcomparativelyseldom.50Nevertheless,itwastooneofthesethattheSeptuaginttranslatorsfittedthewordlo,gion.Torb'D'theynaturallyconsecratedthegeneraltermslo,goj(r`h/ma(pra/gma:whiletheyadjustedlo,gionaswellasmightbetohr'm.ai,andlefttoonesidemeanwhileitsclassicalsynonyms51-exceptmantei,aanditscognates,whichtheyassigned,chiefly,ofcourse,inabadsense,totheHebrewmmqinthesenseof"divination."

hr'm.aiis,tobesure,innosenseanexactsynonymoflo,gion.Itissimplyapoeticalwordofhighimplications,prevailingly,thoughnotexclusively,usedofthe"utterances"ofGod,andapparentlyfeltbytheSeptuaginttranslatorstobearinitsbosomaspecialhintoftheauthoritativenessorawesomenessofthe"word"itdesignates.Itisusedonlysomethirty-sixtimesintheentireOldTestament(ofwhichnolessthannineteenareinPs.cxix.),anddesignatesthesolemnwordsofmen(Gen.iv.23,cf.Isa.xxix.4bis.,xxviii.23,xxxii.9;Ps.xvii.6;Deut.xxxii.2)aswellas,moreprevailingly,thoseofGod.Inadjustinglo,giontoittheinstancesofitsapplicationtohumanwordsare,ofcourse,passedbyandtranslatedeitherbylo,goj(Gen.iv.23;Isa.xxix.4bis.;Isa.xxviii.23,xxxii.9),

orr`h/ma(Deut.xxxii.2;Ps.xvii.6).Inafewotherinstances,althoughthetermisappliedto"wordsofGod,"itistranslatedbyGreekwordsotherthanlo,gion(IISam.xxii.31,LXX.r`h/ma,anditscloseparallel,Prov.xxx.5,LXX.lo,goi,thoughintheotherparallels,Ps.xii.7,xviii.31,theLXX.haslo,gia;Ps.cxix.[41]52,154,wheretheLXX.haslo,goj;inPs.cxxxviii.2,theLXX.readsto.a[gio,nsou,onwhichBæthgenremarks,inloc.,that"a[gio,nseemstobeacorruptionforlo,gion,"whichisreadherebyAquilaandtheQuinta).Intheremaininginstancesofitsoccurrences,however-andthatisinthelargemajorityofitsoccurrences-thewordisuniformlyrenderedbylo,gion(Deut.xxxiii.9;Ps.xii.7bis.,xviii.31,cv.19,cxix.11,38[41],5250,58,67,76,82,103,116,123,133,140,148,158,162,170,172,cxlvii.15;Isa.v.24).Ifthereisafringeofusageofhr'm.aithusstandingoutsideoftheusemadeoflo,gion,thereis,ontheotherside,acorrespondingstretchingoftheusemadeoflo,gionbeyondtherangeofhr'm.ai-tocoverafewpassagesjudgedbythetranslatorsofsimilarimport.Thusittranslatesrm,aoinNum.xxiv.4,16;Ps.xviii.15[xix.15],cvi.[cvii.]11,and7=rb'D'inPs.cxviii.[cxix.]25,65,107,169,[cxlvii.8];Isa.xxviii.13;anditrepresentsinafewpassagesXoyov,avariationfromtheHebrew,viz.,Ps.cxviii.[cxix.];Isa.xxx.11,27bis.Intwenty-fiveinstancesofitsthirty-nineoccurrences,however,itistherenderingofhr'm.ai.53ItisalsousedtwiceintheGreekapocrypha(Wis.xvi.11;Sir.xxxvi.19[16]),inquitethesamesense.Inalltheforty-oneinstancesofitsusage,itisneedlesstosay,itisemployedinitsnativeandonlycurrentsense,of"oracle,"asacredutteranceoftheDivineBeing,theonlyapparentexceptiontothisuniformityofusage(Ps.xviii.15[xix.15])beingreallynoexception,but,intruth,significantoftheattitudeofthetranslatorstothetexttheyweretranslating-asweshallseepresently.

WhatledtheLXX.translatorstofixuponhr'm.aiasthenearestHebrewequivalenttolo,gion,54wehavescantymaterialforjudging.Certainly,inPsalmcxix,wherethewordmostfrequentlyoccurs,itisdifficulttoerectadistinctionbetweenitsimplicationsandthoseofrb'D'withwhichitseemstobefreelyinterchanged,butwhichtheLXX.translatorskeepreasonablydistinctfromitbyrenderingitprevailinglybylo,goj,55whileequallyprevailinglyreservinglo,gionforhr'm.ai.56PerhapsthereadermayfaintlyfeeleveninthisPsalm,thathr'm.aiwastothewriterthemoresacredandsolemnword,andwasused,inhisrhetoricalvariationofhisterms,especiallywheneverthesenseoftheawesomenessofGod'swordsortheunityofthewholerevelationofGod57moreprominentlyoccupiedhismind;andthisimpressionisslightlyincreased,perhaps,inthecaseoftheinterchangeoflo,gionandlo,gojintheGreek

translation.WhenwelookbeyondthisPsalmwecertainlyfeelthatsomethingmorerequirestobesaidofhr'm.aithanmerelythatitispoetic.58Itisveryseldomappliedtohumanwordsandthenonlytothemostsolemnformsofhumanspeech-Gen.xxiv.23(LXX.,lo,goi);Deut.xxxii.2(LXX.,r`h/ma);Ps.xxvii.(LXX.,r`h/ma);cf.Isa.xxix.4bis(LXX.,lo,goi)wherethespeakerisJerusalemwhosespeechiscomparedtothemurmuringoffamiliarspiritsorofthedead,59andIsa.xxviii.23,xxxii.9,wheretheprophet'swordisinquestion.ItappearstosuggestitselfnaturallywhenGod'swordistoreceiveitshighestpraises(IISam.xxii.31;Ps.xii.7,xviii.31;Prov.xxx.5;Ps.cxxxviii.2),orwhenthewordofJehovahisconceivedaspoweroradducedinapeculiarlysolemnway(Ps.cxlvii.1860;Isa.v.24).PerhapsthemostsignificantpassageisthatinPsalmcv.19,wherethewriterwouldappeartocontrastman'swordwithGod'sword,usingfortheformerrb'D'(LXX.,lo,goj)andforthelatterhr'm.ai(LXX.,lo,gion):JosephwastriedbythewordoftheLorduntilhisownwordscametopass.61WhateverimplicationsofsuperiorsolemnityattachedtotheHebrewwordhr'm.ai,however,werenotonlypreserved,butemphasizedbytheemploymentoftheGreektermlo,giontotranslateit-atermwhichwasinapplicable,inthenatureofthecase,tohumanwords,anddesignatedwhateveritwasappliedtoastheutteranceofGod.Wemayseeitsloftyimplicationsintheapplicationgiventoitoutsidetheusageofhr'm.ai-inNum.xxiv.4,forexample,wheretheverysolemndescriptionofBalaam'sdeliverances-"oracleofthehearerofthewordsofGod"(la-yrem.ai)-isrenderedmostnaturallyfhsi.navkou,wnlo,giaivscurou/.Here,onewouldsay,wehavetheveryessenceoftheword,asdevelopedinitsclassicalusage,appliedtoBiblicalconceptions:anditisessentiallythisconceptionofthe"unspeakableoraclesofGod"(Sir.,xxxvi.19,[16])thatisconveyedbythewordineveryinstanceofitsoccurrence.

Anexceptionhasbeensometimesfound,tobesure,inPs.xviii.15(xix.14),inasmuchasinthispassagewehavethewordsofthePsalmistdesignatedasta.lo,gia:"Andthewords(ta.lo,gia)ofmymouthandthemeditationofmyheartshallbecontinuallybeforetheeforapproval,OLord,myhelpandmyredeemer."Inthispassage,however-andinIsa.xxxii.9asrenderedbyAquila,whichissimilar-wewouldseemtohavenotsomuchanexceptiontotheusageofta.lo,giaasotherwiseknown,asanextensionofit.Thetranslatorshavebynomeansusedithereofthewordsofahumanspeaker,butofwordsdeemedbythemtobethewordsofGod,andcalledta.lo,giajustbecauseconsideredthe"triedwordsofGod."Thishasalwaysbeenperceivedbythemorecarefulexpositors.ThusPhilippi62writes:

"Psalmxix.14suppliesonlyanapparentexception,sinceta.lo,giatou/sto,matojmouthere,asspokenthroughtheHolySpirit,mayberegardedasatthesametime,lo,giaqeou/."

AndMorrison:63

"InPsalmxix.15(14)thetermthusoccurs:'letthewordsofmymouth(ta.lo,giatou/sto,mato,jmou=ypi-yrem.ai,fromrm,ae),andthemeditationofmyheart,beacceptableinthysight,OLord,mystrengthandmyRedeemer.'Butevenherethetermmaybefitlyregardedashavingitsotherwiseinvariablereference.TheSeptuaginttranslatorlookeduponthesacredwriterasgivingutteranceinhisPsalm-thewordsofhismouth-todivinerthoughtsthanhisown,tothethoughtsofGodHimself.Heregardedhimas'moved'inwhathesaid,'bytheHolyGhost."'64

Inaword,wehavehereanearlyinstanceofwhatprovestobethestandingapplicationofta.lo,giaonHellenisticlips-itsapplicationtotheScripturewordassuch,asthespecialwordofGodthathadcometothem.Theonlygroundofsurprisethatcanemergewithreferencetoitsusehere,therefore,isthatinthisinstanceitoccurswithinthelimitsoftheScripturesthemselves:andthisisonlysignificantofthecustomaryemploymentoftheterminthisapplication-for,wemaywellargue,itwasonlyinsequencetosuchacustomaryemploymentofitthatthisusagecouldintrudeitselfthus,unobservedasitwere,intotheBiblicaltextitself.

Itisscarcelynecessarytodomorethanincidentallyadverttotheoccasionaloccurrenceoflo,gion=logei/onintheSeptuagintnarrative,astherenderingoftheHebrew!v,x,thatis,todesignatethebreastplateofthehighpriest,whichheworewhenheconsultedJehovah.65Bleekwrites,tobesure,asfollows:66

"HowfullythenotionofanutteranceofGodattendedthewordaccordingtotheusageoftheAlexandrianstooisshownbythecircumstancethattheLXX.employeditfortheoracularbreastplateoftheHighPriest(!v,x),Ex.xxviii.15,22seq.,xxix.5,xxxix.8seq.;Lev.viii.8;Sir.xlv.12,forwhichlogei/on,althoughfoundinCodd.Vat.andAlex.,isapparentlyalaterreading;lo,gion,towhichtheLatintranslationrationalegoesback,hasalso`osephus,"Ant.,"iii.7,5,forit:evssh,nhj(!vx)me.nkalei/tai(shmai,neide.tou/tokata.th.n`Ellh,nwnglw/ttanlo,gion;c.8,9:o[qen[Ellhnej...to.nejssh,nhnlo,gionkalou/sin;viii.3,8.AndsimilarlyapparentlyPhilo,asmaybeinferredfromhisexpositions,in

thathebringsitintoconnectionwithlo,goj,reason,althoughwithhimtoothereadingvariesbetweenthetwoforms:see"Legg.Allegor.,"iii.40,p.83,A.B.;§43,p.84,C."Vit.Mos.,"iii.11,p.670C.;§12,p.672B.;§13,p.673A."DeMonarch.,"ii.5,p.824A."

Itismuchmoreprobable,however,thatwehavehereanitacisticconfusionbythecopyists,thananapplicationbytheSeptuaginttranslatorsoflo,giontoanewmeaning.ThisconfusionmayhavehaditsinfluenceonthereadersoftheLXX.,andmayhaveaffectedinsomedegreetheirusageoftheword:butitcanhavenosignificanceforthestudyoftheuseofthewordbytheLXX.itself.

III.AmongthereadersoftheSeptuagintitisnaturallytoPhilothatwewillturnwiththehighestexpectationsoflightontheHellenisticusageoftheword:andwehavealreadyseenBleekpointingouttheinfluenceuponhimoftheLXX.useoflo,gion=logei/on.WhateverminorinfluenceofthiskindtheusageoftheSeptuagintmayhavehadonhim,however,Philo'sowngeneralemploymentofthewordcarriesondistinctlythatoftheprofaneauthors.Inhim,too,thetwowordscrhsmo,jandlo,gionappearasexactsynonyms,interchangingrepeatedlywitheachother,toexpresswhatisinthehighestsensethewordofGod,anoraclefromheaven.TheonlyrealdistinctionbetweenhisusageofthesewordsandthatofprofaneauthorsarisesfromthefactthattoPhilonothingisanoraclefromheaven,adirectwordofGod,exceptwhathefoundwithinthesacredbooksofIsrael.67AndtheonlyconfusingelementinhisusagespringsfromthefactthatthewholecontentsoftheJewishsacredbooksaretohim"oracles,"thewordofGod;sothathehasnonomenclaturebywhichtheoraclesrecordedintheScripturesmaybedistinguishedfromtheoracleswhichtheScripturesassuchare.Hehasnohigherwordsthanlo,gionandcrhsmo,jbywhichtodesignatethewordsofGodwhicharerecordedinthecourseoftheBiblicalnarrative:hecanusenolowerwordsthanthesetodesignatetheseveralpassagesofScriptureheadduces,eachoneofwhichistohimadirectwordofGod.Bothoftheseusesofthewordsmaybeillustratedfromhiswritingsalmostwithoutlimit.Afewinstanceswillsuffice.

Inthefollowing,the"oracle"isa"wordofGod"recordedintheScriptures:68

"Forheinquireswhetherthemanisstillcominghither,andthesacredoracleanswers(avpokri,netaito.lo,gion),'Heishiddenamongthestuff'(ISam.x.22)"("DeMigrat.Abrah.,"§36,pp.418E)."Forafterthewisemanheardtheoraclewhichbeingdivinelygivensaid(qespisqe,ntojlogi,outoiou,tou)'Thyrewardis

exceedinggreat'(Gen.xv.1),heinquired,saying....Andyetwhowouldnothavebeenamazedatthedignityandgreatnessofhimwhodeliveredthisoracle(tou/crhsmw|/dou,ntoj)?"("Quisrer.div.her.,"§1,pp.481D)."Andhe(God)mentionstheministrationsandservicesbywhichAbrahamdisplayedhislovetohismasterinthelastsentenceofthedivineoraclegivent0hisson(avkroteleu,tionlogi,outou/crhsqe,ntojauvtou/tw|/ui`ei/)("Quisrer.div.her.,"§2,pp.482E)."Tohim(Abraham),then,beingconsciousofsuchadisposition,anoracularcommandsuddenlycomes(qespi,zetailo,gion),whichwasneverexpected(Gen.xxii.1)...andwithoutmentioningtheoracularcommand(to.lo,gion)toanyone..."("DeAbrah.,"§32,P.,p.373E)."[Moses]hadappointedhisbrotherhigh-priestinaccordancewiththewillofGodthathadbeendeclareduntohim(kata.ta.crhsqe,ntalo,gia")("DeVitaMoysis,"iii.21,P.,p.569D)."Moses...beingperplexed...besoughtGodtodecidethequestionandtoannouncehisdecisiontohimbyanoracularcommand(crhsmw|/).AndGodlistenedtohisentreatyandgavehimanoracle(lo,gionqespi,zei)....Wemustproceedtorelatetheoracularcommands(lo,giacrhsqe,nta).Hesays...(Num.ix.10)"("DeVitaMoysis,"iii.30,P.,p.687D)."AndBalaamreplied,AllthatIhavehithertoutteredhavebeenoraclesandwordsofGod(lo,giakai.crhsmoi,),butwhatIamgoingtosayaremerelythesuggestionsofmyownmind....WhydoyougivecounselsuggestingthingscontrarytotheoraclesofGod(toi/jcrhsmoi/j)unlessindeedthatyourcounselsaremorepowerfulthanhisdecrees(logi,wn)?"("DeVitaMoysis,"i.53,P.,p.647D)."WasitnotonthisaccountthatwhenCainfanciedhehadofferedupablamelesssacrificeanoracle(lo,gion)cametohim?...Andtheoracleisasfollows(to.de.lo,gio,nevstitoio,nde)(Gen.iv.7)"("DeAgricult.,"§29,M.i.319)."AndaproofofthismaybefoundintheoracularanswergivenbyGod(to.qespisqe.nlo,gion)tothepersonwhoaskedwhatnamehehad:'IamthatIam"'("DeSomniis,"i.§40,M.1,655)."Butwhenhebecameimprovedandwasabouttohavehisnamechanged,hethenbecameamanbornofGod(a;nqrwpojqeou/)accordingtotheoraclethatwasdeliveredtohim(kata.to.crhsqe.nauvtw|/lo,gion),'IamthyGod"'("DeGigant.,"§14,M.1,271)."Forwhichreason,asacredinjunctiontothefollowingpurport(dio.kai.lo,gionevcrh,sqhtw|/sofw|/toio,nde)'GothouuptotheLord,thouandAaron,'etc.(Gen.xxiv.i.).Andthemeaningofthisinjunctionisasfollows:'Gothouup,Osoul"'("DeMigrat.Abrah.,"§31,M.1,462)."Forwhichaccountanoracleoftheall-mercifulGodhasbeengiven(lo,giontou/i[lewqeou/mesto.nh`mero,thtoj)fullofgentleness,whichshadowsforthgoodhopestothosewholoveinstructioninthesetimes,'Iwillneverleavetheenorforsakethee'(Jos.i.5)"("DeConfus.Ling.,"§32,M.i.430)."DoyounotrecollectthecaseofthesoothsayerBalaam?Heisrepresentedashearingthe

oraclesofGod(lo,giaqeou/)andashavingreceivedknowledgefromtheMostHigh,butwhatadvantagedidhereapfromsuchhearing,andwhatgoodaccruedtohimfromsuchknowledge?"("DeMutat.Nominum,"§37)."Therearethenacountlessnumberofthingswellworthyofbeingdisplayedanddemonstrated;andamongthemonewhichwasmentionedalittlewhileago;fortheoracle(to.lo,gion)callsthepersonwhowasreallyhisgrandfather,thefatherofthepractiserofvirtue,andtohimwhowasreallyhisfatherithasnotgivenanysuchtitle;foritsays,'IamtheLordGodofAbraham,thyFather'(Gen.xxviii.13),andinrealityhewashisgrandfather,and,again,'theGodofIsaac,'notaddingthistime,'thyFather'('DeSomniis,'i.§27).""AndthereissomethingcloselyresemblingthisinthepassageofScripture(lit.theoracle:to.crhsqe.nlo,gion)concerningtheHighPriest(Lev.xvi.17)"("DeSomniis,"ii.§34).

Ontheotherhand,inthefollowinginstances,thereferenceisdistinctlytoScriptureassuch:

"AndthefollowingoraclegivenwithrespecttoEnoch(to.crhsqe.nevpi.vEnw.clo,gion)provesthis:'EnochpleasedGodandhewasnotfound'(Gen.v.24)"("DeMutat.Nom.,"§4).

ItisaportionofthenarrativeScriptureswhichisthusadduced.

"ButletussticktothesubjectbeforeusandfollowtheScripture(avkolouqh,santejtw|/logi,w|)andsaythatthereissuchathingaswisdomexisting,andthathewholoveswisdomiswise"(do).

Hereto.lo,gioniseitherScriptureingeneral,or,perhapsmoreprobably,thepassagepreviouslyunderdiscussionandstillinmind(Gen.v.24).

"Marturei/de,moulo,gionto.crhsqe.nevpi.tou/vAbraa,mto,de,'HecameintotheplaceofwhichtheLordGodhadtoldhim;andhavinglookedupwithhiseyes,hesawtheplaceafaroff(Gen.xxii.9)'"("DeSomniis,"i.11).

ThisnarrativepassageofScriptureisherecitedaslo,gionto.crhsqe,n.

"Thisisaboastofagreatandmagnanimoussoul,toriseaboveallcreation,andtooverleapitsboundariesandtoclingtothegreatuncreatedGodabove,accordingtohissacredcommands(kata.ta.ji[eraju`yhgh,seij)inwhichweareexpresslyenjoined'tocleaveuntohim'(Deut.xxx.20).Thereforeheinrequitalbestowshimselfastheirinheritanceuponthosewhodocleaveuntohimandwho

servehimwithoutintermission;andthesacredScripture(lo,gion)bearsitstestimonyinbehalfofthese,whenitsays,'TheLordhimselfishisinheritance'(Deut.x.9)"("DeCongressuerud.grat.,"§24,p.443).

Heretheanarthrouslo,gionisprobablytobeunderstoodof"apassageofScripture"-viz.,thatabouttobecited.

"Moreovershe(Consideration)confirmedthisopinionofhersbythesacredscriptures(crhsmoi/j),oneofwhichraninthisform(evni.me.ntoiw|/de-withoutverb)(Deut.iv.4)....ShealsoconfirmedherstatementbyanotherpassageinScriptureofthefollowingpurport(e`te,rw|toiw/|decrhsmw|/)(Deut.xxx.15)...andinanotherpassageweread(kai.evne`te,roij)(Deut.xxx.20).AndagainthisiswhattheLordhimselfhathsaid...(Lev.x.3)...asitisalsosaidinthePsalms(Ps.cxiii.25)...butCain,thatshamelessman,thatparricide,isnowherespokenofintheLaw(ouvdamou/th/jnomoqesi,aj)asdying:butthereisanoracledeliveredrespectinghiminsuchwordsasthese(avlla.kai.lo,gione;stinevpvauvtw|/crhsqe.ntoiou/ton):'TheLordGodputamarkuponCain'(Gen.iv.15)"("DeProfug.,"§11,M.i.555).

Hereitisquestionablewhether"theLaw"(h`nomoqesi,a)isnotbroadenoughtoincludeallthepassagesmentioned-fromGenesis,LeviticusandthePsalms-asitiselsewheremadetoincludeJoshua("DeMigrat.Abrah.,"§32,M.i,464.SeeRyle:p.xix).Atallevents,whateverisinthisnomoqesi,aisacrhsqe.nlo,gion:thepassagemoreparticularlyadducedbeinganarrativeone.

"Afterthepersonwholovesvirtueseeksagoatbyreasonofhissins,butdoesnotfindone;foralreadyasthesacredScripturetellsus(w`jdhloi/to.lo,gion),'Ithathbeenburnt'(Lev.x.16)...AccordinglytheScripturesays(fhsi.nou=no`crhsmo,j)thatMoses'soughtandsoughtagain,'areasonforrepentanceforhissinsinmortallife...onwhichaccountitissaidintheScripture(dio.le,getai)(Lev.xvi.20)DeProfug.,"§28,M.i.569).

Hereto.lo,gionseemstomeannotsomuchapassageinScriptureas"Scripture"intheabstract:Lev.x.16notbeingpreviouslyquotedinthiscontext.Thesamemaybesaidofthereferenceofo`crhsmo,jinthenextclauseandofthesimplele,getailowerdown-theinterestofthepassageturningontheentireequivalenceofthethreemodesofadducingScripture.

"ThisthenisthebeginningandprefaceofthepropheciesofMosesunderthe

influenceofinspiration(th/jkatvevnqousiasmo.nprofhtei,ajMwu?se,wj).Afterthisheprophesied(qespi,zei)...aboutfood...beingfullofinspiration(ejpiqeia,saj)....Somethinking,perhaps,thatwhatwassaidtothemwasnotanoracle(ouvcrhsmou,j)....Butthefatherestablishedtheoraclebyhisprophet(to.lo,giontou/profh,tou)....Hegaveasecondinstanceofhispropheticalinspirationintheoracle(lo,gion,anarthrous)whichhedeliveredabouttheseventhday"("DeVit.Moysis,"iii.35and36).

"Andtheholyoraclethathasbeengiven(to.crhsqe.nlo,gion='thedeliveredoracle';Ryle,'theutteranceoftheoracle')willbearwitness,whichexpresslysaysthathecriedoutloudlyandbetrayedclearlybyhiscrieswhathehadsufferedfromtheconcreteevil,thatisfromthebody"("Quoddet.pot.insid.,"§14,M.L,200).

HerethenarrativeinGen.iv,somewhatbroadlytaken,includingvers.8and10,iscalledto.crhsqe.nlo,gion.

"Thereisalsosomethinglikethisinthesacredscriptureswheretheaccountofthecreationoftheuniverseisgivenanditisexpressedmoredistinctly(to.paraplh,sionkai.evntoi/jperi.th/jtou/panto.jgene,sewjcrhsqei/silogi,oijperie,cetaishmeiwde,steron).Foritissaidtothewickedman,'Othouman,thathastsinned;ceasetosin'(Gen.iv.7)"("DeSobriet.,"§10,D7.1,400).

HerethereisaformalcitationofaportionofScripture,viz.,theportion"concerningthecreationoftheuniverse,"whichmeans,probably,theBookofGenesis(seeRyle's"PhiloandHolyScripture,"p.xx);andthisiscitedasmadeupof"declaredoracles,"evntoi/jcrhsqei/silogi,oij.TheBookofGenesisisthustoPhiloabodyofcrhsqe,ntalo,gia.

"AndthisisthemeaningoftheoraclerecordedinDeuteronomy(parvo]kai.lo,gione;stitoiou/tonavnagegramme,nonevnDeuteronomi,w|),'BeholdIhaveputbeforethyfacelifeanddeath,goodandevil"'("QuodDeusImmut.,"§10,M.i.280).

Herethe"oracle"isa"written"thing;anditiswritteninawell-knownbookoforacles,viz.,in"Deuteronomy,"thesecondbookoftheLaw.Thisbook,andofcoursetheotherslikeit,consistsofwrittenoracles.

"Andthewordsofscriptureshowthis,inwhich(dhloi/de.to.lo,gionevnw-|)itisdistinctlystatedthat'theybothofthemwenttogether,andcametotheplain

whichGodhadmentionedtothem(Gen.xxii.3)"("DeMigrat.Abrah."§30,M.i.462).

"Andforthisreasonthefollowingscripturehasbeengiventomen(dio.lo,gionevcrh,sqhtoio,nde),'Returntothelandofthyfatherandtothyfamily,andIwillbewiththee'(Gen.xxxi.3)""(DeMigrat.Abrah.,"§6,M.i.440).

Here,thoughthewordsarespokeninthepersonofGod,thegeneralizeduseofthemseemstopointtotheirScripturalexpressionasthemainpoint.

"Moseschosetodelivereachofthetencommandments(e;kastonqespi,zeintw/nde,kalogi,wn)insuchaformasiftheywereaddressednottomanypersonsbuttoone"("DeDecemOracul.,"peri.tw/nDe,kaLogi,wn,§10).

"Andthesacredscripture(lo,gion,anarthrous)bearsitstestimonyinbehalfofthisassertion,whenitsays:'TheLordhimselfishisinheritance'(Deut.x.9)"("DeCongr.Erud.Grat.,"§24,M.i.538).

"ForthereisapassageinthewordofGod(lo,gionga.re;stin)that...(Lev.xxvi.3)"("Depraem.etpoen.,"§17,M.ii.424).

BothclassesofpassagesthusexistinPhilo'stextinthegreatestabundance-nomorethosewhichspeakofwordsofGodrecordedinScriptureaslo,giathanthosewhichspeakofthewordsofScriptureassuchasequallylo,gia.Norarewelefttoaccordthetwoclassesofpassagesforourselves.Philohimself,inwhatwemaycallanevenoverstrainedattemptatsystematization,elaboratelyexplainshowhedistinguishestheseveralkindsofmatterwhichconfronthiminScripture.Thefulleststatementisprobablythatinthe"DeVitaMoysis,"iii,23(Mangey,ii,163).Herehesomewhatartificiallyseparatesthreeclassesof"oracles,"allhavingequalrighttothename.Itisworthwhiletotranscribeenoughofthepassagetosetitsessentialcontentsclearlybeforeus.HeisnaturallyinthisplacespeakingdirectlyofMoses-asindeedcommonlyinhistracts,whichareconfined,generallyspeaking,toanexpositionofthePentateuch:buthiswordswillapplyalsototherestofthe"sacredbooks,"whichheuniformlytreatsastheoraclesofGodalikewiththePentateuch.69Hewrites:

"HavingshownthatMoseswasamostexcellentkingandlawgiverandhighpriest,Icomeinthelastplacetoshowthathewasalsothemostillustriousoftheprophets(profhtw/n).Iamnotunaware,then,thatallthethingsthatarewritteninthesacredbooksareoraclesdeliveredbyhim(w`jpa,ntaeivsi.crhsmoi.o;sa

evntai/ji`erai/jbi,bloijavnage,graptaicrhsqe,ntejdivauvtou/):andIwillsetforthwhatmoreparticularlyconcernshim,whenIhavefirstmentionedthisonepoint,namely,thatofthesacredoracles(tw/nlogi,wn)somearerepresentedasdeliveredinthepersonofGodbyHisinterpreter,thedivineprophet(evkprosw,poutou/qeou/dive`rmhne,wjtou/qei,ouprofh,tou),whileothersareputintheformofquestionandanswer(evkpeu,sewjkai.avpokri,sewjevqespi,sqh),andothersaredeliveredbyMosesinhisowncharacter,asadivinelypromptedlawgiverpossessedbydivineinspiration(evkprosw,pouMwu?se,wjevpiqeia,santojkai.evxauvtou/katasceqe,ntoj).

"Thereforealltheearliest[Gr.prw/ta=thefirstofthethreeclassesenumerated]oraclesaremanifestationsofthewholeofthedivinevirtuesandespeciallyofthatmercifulandboundlesscharacterbymeansofwhichHetrainsallmentovirtue,andespeciallytheracewhichisdevotedtoHisservice,towhichHelaysopentheroadleadingtohappiness.Thesecondclasshaveasortofmixtureandcommunication(mi,xinkai.koinwni,an)inthem,theprophetaskinginformationonthesubjectsastowhichheisindifficultyandGodansweringhimandinstructinghim.Thethirdsortareattributedtothelawgiver,GodhavinggivenhimashareinHisprescientpowerbymeansofwhichheisenabledtoforetellthefuture.

"Thereforewemustforthepresentpassbythefirst;fortheyaretoogreattobeadequatelypraisedbyanyman,asindeedtheycouldscarcelybepanegyrizedworthilybytheheavenitselfandthenatureoftheuniverse;andtheyarealsoutteredbythemouth,asitwere,ofaninterpreter(kai.a;llwjle,getaiw`sanei.divevrmhse,wj).But(de.)interpretationandprophecydifferfromoneanother.AndconcerningthesecondkindIwillatonceendeavortoexplainthetruth,connectingwiththemthethirdspeciesalso,inwhichtheinspiredcharacter(evnqousiw/dej)ofthespeakerisshown,accordingtowhichheismostespeciallyandappropriatelylookeduponasaprophet."70

Asomewhatdifferentdistributionofmaterial-nowfromthepointofview,notofmodeoforaculardelivery,butofnatureofcontents-isgivenattheopeningofthetract"Depraem.etpoen."(§1,init.):

"WefindthenthatinthesacredoraclesdeliveredbytheprophetMoses(tw/ndia.tou/profh,touMwu?se,wjlogi,wn)therearethreeseparatecharacters:foraportionofthemrelatestothecreationoftheworld,aportionishistorical,andthethirdportionislegislative."

Accordinglyinthetract"DeLegat.adCaium,"§31(Mangey,ii.577),wearetoldofthehighesteemtheJewsputontheirlaws:

"ForlookingupontheirlawsasoraclesdirectlygiventothembyGodHimself(qeo,crhstaga.rlo,giatou.jno,moujei;naiu1polamba,nontej)andhavingbeeninstructedinthisdoctrinefromtheirearliestinfancy,theybearintheirsoulstheimagesofthecommandmentscontainedintheselawsassacred."

Bythesideofthispassageshouldbeplaceddoubtlessanotherfromthe"DeVitaContemplativa,"§3,sinceitappearsthatwemaystilllookonthistractasPhilo's:

"Andineveryhousethereisasacredshrine...StudyinginthatplacethelawsandsacredoraclesofGodenunciatedbytheholyprophets(no,moujkai.lo,giadespisqe,ntadia.profhtw/n)andhymnsandpsalmsandallkindsofotherthingsbyreasonofwhichknowledgeandpietyareincreasedandbroughttoperfection."

ItisnotstrangethatoutofsuchaviewofScripturePhiloshouldadduceeverypartofitalikeasalo,gion.Sometimes,tobesure,hisdiscriminationofitscontentsintoclassesshowsitselfintheformulæofcitation;andweshouldguardourselvesfrombeingmisledbythis.Thus,forexample,heoccasionallyquotesalo,gion"fromthemouth(or'person')ofGod"-whichdoesnotmeanthatScripturesotherthantheseportionsthusdirectlyascribedtoGodasspeaking,arelessoracularthanthese,butonlythattheseareoraclesofhisfirstclass-thosethat"arerepresentedasdeliveredfromthepersonofGod(evkprosw,poutou/qeou/)byhisinterpreter,thedivineprophet."Asingleinstanceortwowillsufficeforexamples:

"Andthesacredoraclewhichisdeliveredas"[dele"as"]"fromthemouth"[or"person"]"oftheruleroftheuniverse(lo,gionevkprosw,pouqespisqe.ntou/tw/no[lwnh`gemo,noj)speaksofthepropernameofGodasneverhavingbeenrevealedtoanyone71whenGodisrepresentedassaying,'ForIhavenotshownthemmyname'(Gen.vi.3)"("DeMutat.Nom.,"§2)."Andtheoracles"(oi`crhsmoi,whichisastandingtermfor'theScriptures'inPhilo)"beartestimony,inwhichitissaidtoAbrahamevkprosw,poutou/qeou/(Gen.xvii.1)"(ditto,§5)."Andhe(Jeremiahtheprophet)likeamanverymuchundertheinfluenceofinspiration(a;teta.polla.evnqonsiw/n)utteredanoracleinthecharacterofGod(crhsmo,ntinaevxei/penevkprosw,poutou/qeou/)speakinginthismannerto

mostpeacefulvirtue:'Hastthounotcalledmeasthyhouse'etc.(Jer.iii.4)"("DeCherub.,"§14,AT.i.148).

Theotheroracles,deliverednotevkprosw,poutou/qeou/butindialogueorinthepersonoftheprophet,are,however,nolessoracularorauthoritative.ToPhiloallthatisinScriptureisoracular,everypassageisalo,gion,ofwhatevercharacterorlength;andthewhole,asconstitutedoftheseoracles,ista.lo,gia,orperhapsevento.lo,gion-themassoflogiaoronecontinuouslogion.

Itisnotsaid,beitobserved,thatPhilo'ssolemodeofdesignatingScripture,orevenhismostcustomarymode,isasta.lo,gia.Ashasalreadybeenstated,heusedcrhsmo,jequallyfreelywithlo,gionforpassagesofScripture,andoi`crhsmoi,apparentlyevenmorefrequentlythanta.lo,giaforthebodyofScripture.Instancesoftheuseofthetwotermsinterchangeablyinthesamepassagehavealreadybeenincidentallygiven.72Averyfewpassageswillsufficetoillustratehisconstantuseofcrhsmo,jandoi`crhsmoi,separately.

InthefollowinginstancesheadducespassagesofScripture,eachasacrhsmo,j:

Onthisaccountalsotheoracle(o`crhsmo,j)whichbearstestimonyagainstthepretendedsimplicityofCainsays,'Youdonotthinkasyousay'(Gen.iv.15)"("Quoddet.potioriinsid.,"§45,M.i.223)."AndofthesupremeauthorityofthelivingGod,thesacredscriptureisatruewitness(o`crhsmo.javlhqh.jma,rtuj)whichspeaksthus(Lev.xxv.23)"("DeCherub.,"§31,A7.i.158)."Foramanwillcomeforth,saysthewordofGod(fhsi.no`crhsmo,j)leadingahostandwarringfuriously,etc.(Num.xxiv.7)"("DePraem.etPoem,"§16,M.ii.423)."Andthesacredscripturebearswitnesstothisfact(marturei/de.o`peri.tou,twncrhsmo,j):foritsays(Num.Xxlil.19)"("DeMigrat.Abrah.,"§20,M.i.454)."Forthoughtherewasasacredscripture(crhsmou/ga.ro[ntoj)that'Thereshouldbenoharlotamongthedaughtersoftheseer,Israel'(Deut.xxiii.17)"("DeMigrat.Abrah.,"§39,M.i.472)."Andwitnessisbornetothisassertionbythescripture(ma,rtujde.kai.crhsmo,j)inwhichitissaid:'Iwillcausetolive,'etc.(Deut.xxxii.39)"("DeSomniis,"ii.44,M.i.698)."Theoracle(o`crhsmo,j)giventotheall-wiseMoses,inwhichthesewordsarecontained"("Quoddet.pot.insid.,"§34,M.i.215)."Whichalsotheoracle(o`crhsmo,j)saidtoCain"(do.,§21)."AndIknowthatthisillustriousoraclewasformerlydeliveredfromthemouthoftheprophet(sto,matidvoi=da,poteprofhtikw|/qespisqe,ntadia,purontoio,ndecrhsmo,n),'Thyfruit,'etc.,(Hos.xiv.9)"("DeMutat.Nom.,"§24,M.ii.599).Inthislastcaseitistobenoticedthatthe

"oracle"istakenfromHosea:thecorrespondingpassagein"DePlant.Noe.,"§33,NI.1,350,shouldbecompared:"Andwiththisassertion,thisoracledeliveredbyoneoftheprophetsisconsistent,etc.(Hos.xiv.9)(tou,tw|kai.para,tinitw/nprofhtw/ncrhsqe.nfuna|,deito,de)."

Twootherpassagesmaybeadducedfortheirinherentinterest.Thefirstfrom"DeProfug.,"§32(M.i.573),whereweread:

"Therearepassageswritteninthesacredscriptures(oi`avnagrafe,ntejcrhsmoi,)whichgiveproofofthesethings.Whattheyarewemustnowconsider.Nowintheverybeginningofthehistoryofthelawthereisapassagetothefollowingeffect(Gen.ii.6)(ai;detai,tijevnavrch|/nomoqesi,ajmeta.th.nkosmopoii<aneuvqu.jtoio,sde)."

Herethereisaprecisedesignationwhere,among"thewrittencrhsmoi,,"acertainone(tij)ofthemmaybefound,viz.,inthebeginningof"TheLegislation"immediatelyafter"TheCreation"(cf.Ryle,p.xxi,note1).Theotherisfromthefirstbookofthe"DeSomniis,"§27(M.i.646):

"Thesethingsarenotmymyth,butanoracle(crhsmo,j)writtenonthesacredtables(evntai/ji`erai/javnagegramme,nojsth,laij),Foritsays(Gen.xlvi.1)."

ThispassageinGenesisisthusanoracle"writteninthesacredtablets"-andthusthisphraseemergesasoneofPhilo'snamesfortheScriptures.Elsewherewereadsomewhatmoreprecisely:

"Nowthesearethosemenwhohavelivedirreproachablyandadmirably,whosevirtuesaredurablyandpermanentlyrecordedasonpillarsinthesacredscriptures(w-nta.javreta.jevntai/ji`erwta,taijevsthliteu/sqaigrafai/jsumbe,bhken)"("DeAbrah.,"§1,M.ii.2)."Thereisalsoinanotherplacethefollowingsentence(gra,mma)deeplyengraven(evsthliteume,non),(Deut.xxxii.8)""(DeCongr.Erud.Grat.,"§12,M.i.527).

The"Scriptures"thusbeartoPhiloamonumentalcharacter:theyareabodyoforacleswritten,andmore-abodyoforaclespermanentlyengravedtobealastingtestimonyforever.

ThedesignationsforScriptureinPhiloare,indeed,somewhatvarious-suchasi`erai.grafai,("Quisrerumdiv.heres,"§32M.i.495);i`erai.bi,bloi("Quoddet.pot.insid.,"§44,M.i.222);toi/ji`eroi/jgra,mmasin("Legat.adCaium.,"§29,

M.ii.574).Butprobablynoneareusedsofrequentlyas,ontheonehand,lo,goj,withvariousadjectivalenhancements-suchaso`profhtiko.jlo,goj("DePlantat.Noe,"§28,M.i.437),o`qei/ojlo,goj("Legg.Alleg.,"iii,§3,M.i.89;"DeMutat.Nom.,"§20;"DeSomniis,"i.33,ii.37),ando]i`erojlo,goj("DeEbriet.,"§36,M.i.379;"DeMut.Nominum,"§38;"DeSomniis,"i.14,22,33,35,37,39,42;ii.4,9,37,etc.);andespecially,ontheotherhand,oi`crhsmoi,,occurringattimeswithextraordinaryfrequency.73Somepassagesillustrativeofthislastusagearethefollowing:

"ForthesacredScriptures(oi`crhsmoi,)saythatheenteredintothedarkness"("DeMutat.Nom.,"§2)."Butthesacredoracles(oi`crhsmoi,)arewitnessesofthatinwhichAbrahamisaddressed(thewordsbeingputinthemouthofGod),(evnoi-jle,getaitw|/vAbraa.mevkprosw,poutou/qeou/)(Gen.xvii.1)"(do.§5)."Andthesearenotmywordsonlybutthoseofthemostholyscriptures(crhsmw/ntw/ni`erwta,twn,-anarthroustobringoutthequalityincontrasttoevmo.jmu/qoj),inwhichcertainpersonsareintroducedassaying..."(do.§28).OfIsaiahxlviii.22itissaidindo.§31:lo,gojga.ro;ntwjkai.crhsmo,jevstiqei/oj."Accordinglytheholyscriptures(oi`crhsmoi,)tellusthat..."(do.§36)."Thereforethesacredscriptures(oi`crhsmoi,)representLeahashated"(do.§44)"Forsheisrepresentedbythesacredoracles(dia.tw/ncrhsmw/n)ashavingleftoffallwomanlyways(Gen.xviii.12)"("DeEbrietat.,"§14,M.i.365)."Onwhichaccounttheholyscripture(oi`crhsmoi,)verybeautifullyrepresentitas'alittlecityandyetnotalittleone"'("DeAbrah.,"§31,M.ii.25)."Thereforethesacredscriptures(oi`crhsmoi,)say(Gen.xxiv.1)"("DeSobriet.,"§4,M.i.395)."Accordingasthesacredscriptures(oi`crhsmoi,)testify,inwhichitissaid(Ex.viii.1)"("DeConfus.Ling.,"§20,M.i.419)."Onwhichaccountitissaidinthesacredscriptures(evncrhsmoi/j)(Deut.vii.7)"("DeMigrat.Abrah.,"§11,1VI.i.445)."Godhavingdrawnupandconfirmedtheproposition,astheScriptures(oi`crhsmoi)show,inwhichitisexpresslystatedthat(Deut.xxx.4)"("DeConfus.Ling.,"§38,M,i.435).

Whenwecombinethesepassageswiththoseinwhichlo,gionoccursitwillprobablynotseemtoomuchtosaythatthedominantmethodofconceivingtheBibleinPhilo'smindwasasabookoforacles.Whetherheusesthewordlo,gionorcrhsmo,j,itis,ofcourse,allonetohim.Indeed,thatnothingshouldbelackingheoccasionallyusesalsoothersynonyms.Forexample,hereisaninstanceoftheHomericwordqeopro,pioncroppingout:"Forthereisextantanoracledeliveredtothewisemaninwhichitissaid(Lev.xxvi.12),(kai.ga,revsticrhsqe.ntw|/sofw|/qeopro,pionevnw-|le,getai)"("DeSomniis,"i,§23).

AndthisoracularconceptionofScriptureisdoubtlessthereasonwhyitissofrequentlyquotedinPhilobythesubjectlessfhsi,(le,gei(le,getai(insteadof,say,ge,graptai).Thereareingeneral,speakingbroadly,threewaysinwhichonefullyacceptingthedivineoriginanddirectdivineauthorityofScripturemayhabituallylookuponit.Hemaythinkofitasalibraryofvolumesandtheneachvolumeislikelytobespokenofbyhimasagrafh,andthewhole,becausethecollectionofvolumes,asai`grafai,,or,whentheideaofitsunityisprominentlyinmind,asitselfh`grafh,.Ontheotherhand,thesenseofitscompositecharactermaybesomewhatlostoutofhabitualthought,swallowedupintheideaofitsdivineunity,andthenitsseveralsentencesorpassagesareapttobethoughtandspokenofaseachagra,mma,andthewhole,becausemadeupofthesesentencesorpassages,asta.gra,mmata.Or,finally,thesenseofthedirectdivineutteranceofthewholetothesoul,andofitsimmediatedivineauthority,mayovershadowallelseandtheseveralsentencesorpassagesofthebookbeeachconceivedasanunmediateddivinewordcomingdirectlytothesoul-andtheneachpassageislikelytobecalledalo,gionorcrhsmo,j,andthewholevolume,becausethesumofthesepassages,ta.lo,giaoroi`crhsmoi,-oroccasionally,whenitsunityisprominentlyinmind,onegreatto.lo,gionoro`crhsmo,j.EachofthesethreewaysoflookingattheScripturesoftheOldTestamentfindsexpressioninPhilo,74inJosephusandintheNewTestament.ButitisthelastthatismostcharacteristicofthethoughtofPhilo,andthefirstpossiblyofthewritersoftheNewTestament:75whileperhapswemaysuspectthattheintermediateonewasmostcongenialtothethoughtofJosephus,who,asamanofaffairsandlettersratherthanofreligion,wouldnaturallyenvisagethewritingsoftheOldTestamentratherasdocumentsthanasoracles.

FromthissurveywemaybeabletoapprehendwithsomeaccuracyPhilo'splaceinthedevelopmentoftheusageofthewordlo,gion.HehasreceiveditdirectlyfromprofaneGreekasoneofaseriesofsynonyms-lo,gion(crhsmo,j(qeopro,pion,etc.-denotingadirectwordfromGod,an"oracle."HehasinnowaymodifieditsmeaningexceptinsofarasaheighteningofitsconnotationwasinseparablefromthetransferenceofitfromthefrivolousandambiguousoraclesofheathendomtotherevelationsoftheGodofIsrael,aheighteningwhichwas,nodoubt,aidedbytheconstantuseofthewordintheSeptuagint-Philo'sBible-totranslatetheHebrewhr'm.aiwithallitshighsuggestions.Butinthistransferencehehasneverthelessgivenitawhollynewsignificance,insofarashehasappliedittoafixedwrittenrevelationandthusimpressedonitentirelynewimplications.Inhishands,lo,gionbecomes,bythismeans,asynonymofgra,mma,andimports"apassageofScripture"-conceived,of

course,asadirectoraclefromGod.Andthepluralbecomesasynonymofta.gra,mma(ai`grafai,(oi`bi,bloi(o`lo,goj-orwhateverothertermsareusedtoexpresstheideaof"theHolyScriptures"-andimportswhatwecall"theBible,"ofcoursewiththeimplicationthatthisBibleisbutacongeriesof"oracles,"ordirectutterancesofGod,oreveninitswholeextentonegreat"oracle"orutteranceofGod-thatitis,inaword,thepureandabsolute"WordofGod."Butwhenwesaythatlo,gionisinPhilo'shandstheequivalentof"apassageofScripture,"wemustguardagainstsupposingthatthereisanyimplicationofbrevityattachingtoit:itsimplicationisthatofdirectdivineutterance,notofbrevity;and"thepassage"inmindanddesignatedbylo,gionmaybeofanylength,conceivedforthetimeandthepurposeinhandasaunitarydeliverancefromGod,uptothewholebodyofScriptureitself."Similarlyta.lo,giainPhilohasnotyethardenedintoasimplesynonymof"Scripture,"butdesignatesanybodyofthe"oracles"ofwhichthewholeScriptureiscomposed-nowthe"tencommandments,"nowtheBookofGenesis,nowthePentateuch,nowtheJewishLawingeneral."

ThereislittletraceinPhilooftheapplicationmadeintheLXX.oflo,giontothehighpriestlybreastplate,bywhichitcametomean,notonlytheoraculardeliverance,buttheplaceorinstrumentofdivination-though,quotingtheLXX.asfreelyashedoes,Philocouldnothelpoccasionallyincorporatingsuchapassageinhiswritings.Weread,forexample,inthe"Legg.Allegor.,"iii,§40(M.i.111):

"AtalleventstheHolyScripture(o`i`ero.jlo,goj),beingwellawarehowgreatisthepoweroftheimpetuosityofeachpassion,angerandappetite,putsabridleinthemouthofeach,havingappointedreason(to.nlo,gon)astheircharioteerandpilot.Andfirstofallitspeaksthusofanger,inthehopeofpacifyingandcuringit,'Andyoushallputmanifestationandtruth'[theUrimandThummim]'intheoracleofjudgment(evpi.to.lo,giontw/nkri,sewn)anditshallbeonthebreastofAaron,whenhecomesintotheHolyPlacebeforetheLord'(Ex.xxviii.30).Norbytheoracle(lo,gion)isheremeanttheorgansofspeechwhichexistinus....ForMosesherespeaksnotofarandom,spuriousoracle(lo,gion)butoftheoracleofjudgment,whichisequivalenttosayingawell-judgedandcarefullyexaminedoracle."

ThusPhilograduallytransmutesthelo,gion=logei/onofhistextintothelo,gion=crhsmo,jofhisexposition:anditisalittleremarkablehowlittleinfluencethisLXX.usagehasonhisownuseoftheword.Withhimlo,gionisdistinctivelya

passageofScripture,andthecongeriesofthesepassagesmaketa.lo,gia.

Thatthisusageisnot,however,apeculiumofPhilo'smerely,isevidencedbyastrikingpassagefromJosephus,inwhichitappearsinfulldevelopment.Forexample,weread:

"TheJews,bydemolishingthetowerofAntonia,hadmadetheirtemplesquare,thoughtheyhaditwrittenintheirsacredoracles(avnagegramme,nonevntoi/jlogi,oij)thattheircityandsanctuaryshouldbetakenwhentheirtempleshouldbecomesquare.Butwhatmoststirredthemupwasanambiguousoracle(crhsmo,j)thatwasfoundalsointheirsacredwritings(evntoi/ji`eroi/jeu`rhme,nojgra,mmasin)thataboutthattimeonefromtheircountryshouldbecomeruleroftheworld.TheJewstookthispredictiontobelongtothemselves,andmanywisemenweretherebydeceivedintheirjudgment.Nowthisoracle(to.lo,gion)certainlydenotedtheruleofVespasian"("DeBelloJud.,"vi.5,4).

InthisshortpassagewehavemostofthecharacteristicsofthePhiloneanusagerepeated:hereistheinterchangeableusageoflo,gionandcrhsmo,j,ontheonehand,andofta.lo,giaandta.gra,mmata,ontheother:thesacredwritingsoftheJewsaremadeupof"oracles,"sothateachportionofthemisalo,gionandthewholeta.lo,gia.78

IV.Thatthisemploymentofta.lo,giaasasynonymofai`grafai,wascarriedoverfromtheJewishwriterstotheearlyFathers,Dr.Lightfoothassufficientlyshowninabriefbuteffectivepassageinhisbrilliantpapersinreplytotheauthorof"SupernaturalReligion."79ItisnotnecessarytogooverthegroundafreshwhichDr.Lightfoothascovered.But,forthesakeofageneralcompletenessinthepresentationofthehistoryoftheword,itmaybepropertosetdownheresomeoftheinstancesofitsusageinthissenseamongtheearlierFathers.ClementofRome,afterhavingquotedexamplesfromtheScripturesatlength,sumsupthelessonthus:"Thehumility,therefore,andthesubmissivenessofsomanygreatmen,whohavethusobtainedagoodreport,haththroughobediencemadebetternotonlyus,butalsothegenerationswhichwerebeforeus,eventhemthatreceivedhisoraclesinfearandtruth"(c.19);again(c.53),"Foryeknow,andknowwellthesacredScriptures(ta.ji`erajgrafa,j),dearlybeloved,andyehavesearchedintotheoraclesofGod(ta.lo,giatou/qeou/)";andstillagain(c.62),"Andwehaveputyouinmindofthesethingsthemoregladly,sinceweknewwellthatwewerewritingtomenwhoarefaithfulandhighly

accountedandhavediligentlysearchedintotheoraclesoftheteachingofGod(ta.lo,giath/jpaidei,ajtou/qeou/)."ThesamephenomenonobviouslymeetsushereasinPhilo:andHarnack80andLightfoot81bothnaturallycommenttothiseffectonthemiddleinstance-theformercallingespeciallyattentiontotheequationdrawnbetweenthetwophrasesforScripture,andthelattertothefact,asshownbytheScripturesimmediatelyadduced,thatthemindofthewriterinsodesignatingScripturewasnoton"anydivinepreceptorprediction,buttheexampleofMoses."Equallystrikingly,wereadinIIClem.,xiii,"FortheGentileswhentheyhearfromourmouththeoraclesofGod,marvelatthemfortheirbeautyandgreatness.....ForwhentheyhearfromusthatGodsaith,'Itisnothankuntoyou,ifyelovethemthatloveyou,butthisisthankuntoyou,ifyouloveyourenemiesandthemthathateyou[Lukevi.32]'-whentheyhearthesethings,Isay,theymarvelattheirexceedinggoodness.""Thepointtobeobserved,"saysLightfoot,82"isthattheexpressionherereferstoanevangelicalrecord."SimilarlyPolycarp,c.vii,writes:"Foreveryone'whowillnotconfessthatJesusChristiscomeinthefleshisantichrist'(IJohniv.2,3);andwhosoevershallnotconfessthetestimonyofthecrossisofthedevil;andwhosoevershallperverttheoraclesoftheLord(ta.lo,giatou/kuri,ou)tohisownlustsandsaythereisneitherresurrectionnorjudgment,thatmanisthefirstbornofSatan."OnthispassageZahn,followedbyLightfoot,veryappropriatelyadducestheparallelinthePrefacetoIrenaeus'greatwork,"AgainstHeresies,"wherehecomplainsoftheGnostics"falsifyingtheoraclesoftheLord(ta.lo,giaKuri,ou),becomingbadexegetesofwhatiswellsaid":whilelater("Haer.,"i.8,1)thesamewriterspeaksoftheGnostics'artinadaptingthedominicaloracles(ta.kuriaka.lo,gia)totheiropinions,aphraseheequateswith"theoraclesofGod,"andusesinacontextwhichshowsthathehasthewholecomplexofScriptureinmind.Inpreciselysimilarwise,ClementofAlexandriaisfoundcallingtheScripturesthe"oraclesoftruth"("Coh.adGent.,"p.84ed.Potter),the"oraclesofGod"("QuisDiv.Sal.,"3)andthe"inspiredoracles"("Strom.,"i.392);andOrigen,"theoracles,""theoraclesofGod""DePrin.,"iv.11;inMatt.,x.§6):andBasil,the"sacredoracles,""theoraclesoftheSpirit"("Hom.,"xi.5;xii.1).ThePseudo-Ignatius("adSmyr.,"iii)writes:"Fortheoracles(ta.lo,gia)say:'ThisJesuswhowastakenupfromyouintoheaven,'etc.[Actsi.11]"-wherethetermcertainlyisjusttheequivalentofh`grafh,.83AndPhotiustellsus("Bibl.,"228)thattheScripturesrecognizedbyEphraem,PatriarchofAntioch(circa525-545A.D.),consistedoftheOldTestament,theDominicalOracles(ta.kuriaka.lo,gia)andthePreachingoftheApostles"-wheretheadjectivekuriaka,isobviouslyintendedtolimitthebroadta.lo,gia,sothatthephrasemeansjust"theGospels."

Dr.Lightfoot'sobjectinbringingtogethersuchpassages,itwillberemembered,wastofixthesenseoflo,giainthedescriptionwhichEusebiusgivesoftheworkofPapiasandinhisquotationsfromPapias'remarksabouttheGospelsofMatthewandMark.Papias'book,wearetoldbyEusebius("H.E.,"iii,39),wasentitledLogi,wnkuriakw/nevxhgh,seij-thatis,obviously,fromtheusageofthewords,itwasacommentaryontheGospels,orlesslikely,ontheNewTestament:andheisquotedasexplainingthatMatthewwroteta.lo,giaintheHebrewlanguageandthatMarkmadenoattempttoframeasu,ntaxintw/nkuriakw/nlogi,wn,84or,asisexplainedinthepreviousclause,ofta.u`po.tou/Cristou/h'lecqe,ntah'pracqe,nta-thatis,aswouldseemagaintobeobvious,eachwrotehissectionofthe"Scriptures"inthemannerdescribed.ThetemptationtoadjustthesePapianphrasestocurrenttheoriesoftheoriginoftheGospelshasprovedtoostrong,however,tobewithstoodevenbythedemonstrationofthemorenaturalmeaningofthewordsprovidedbyDr.Lightfoot'strenchanttreatment:andwestillhearofPapias'treatiseonthe"DiscoursesoftheLord,"andofthe"BookofDiscourses"whichPapiasascribestoMatthewandwhichmaywellbeidentified(wearetold)withthe"CollectionofSayingsofJesus,"whichcriticismhasunearthedaslyingbehindourpresentGospels.85Indeed,astimehasrunon,thereseemsinsomequartersevenagrowingdispositiontoneglectaltogetherthehardfactsofusagemarshaledbyDr.Lightfoot,andtogivesuchreintospeculationastothemeaningofthetermlo,giaasemployedbyPapias,thatthelastendofthematterwouldappeartothreatentobeworsethanthefirst.WeareledtousethislanguagebyarecentconstructionofAlfredResch's,publishedinthe"TheologischeStudien"dedicatedtoBernhardWeissonhisseventiethbirthday.Letus,however,permitReschtospeakforhimself.Heisremarkingontheidentificationoftheassumedfundamentalgospel(Urevangelium)withtheworkofMatthewmentionedbyPapias.Hesays:

"Thusthename-lo,gia-andtheauthor-Matthew-seemedtobefoundforthisQuellenschrift.Inthewayofthisassumptiontherestoodonlythecircumstancethatthename'lo,gia'didnotseemtofittheQuellenschriftasithadbeendrawnoutbystudyoftheGospels,madewhollyindependentlyofthenoticeofPapias-sinceityieldedatreatiseofmixednarrativeanddiscourses.ThiscircumstanceledsometocharacterizetheQuellenschrift,incorrespondencewiththenamelo,gia,asamerecollectionofdiscourses;whileothersfoundinitareasonforsharplyopposingtheidentificationoftheLogiaofMatthewandthefundamentalgospel(Urevangelium),orevenfordiscreditingthewholenoticeofPapiasasworthlessandofnousetoscholars.Noone,however,thoughtoflookingbehind

thelo,giaforthehiddenHebrewname,althoughitwascertainlyobviousthatatreatisewritteninHebrewcouldnotfailtohaveaHebrewtitle.AndImustmyselfconfessthatonlyin1895,whilethethirdvolumeofmy'AussercanonischenParalleltexte'waspassingthroughthepress,diditoccurtometoaskaftertheHebrewnameofthelo,gia.Butwiththequestiontheanswerwasself-evidentlyatoncegiven:~yrib'D.,86therefore[;Wvyeyreb.Di.Tothisanswerattacheditselfatonce,however,thereminiscenceoftitlesascribedintheOldTestamenttoawholeseriesofQuellenschriften:laWmv.yrbD,%lMh`dywdyrbD,aybNh!tnyrbD,(harh)hzthdGyrbD(cf.IChron.xxix.29);hmlvyrbDrps(IKingsxi.41);hVnmyrbD,larcyyklmyrbD(IIChron.xxxiii.I8).As,then,thereintheOldTestament,itisjusthistoricalQuellenschriftenofbiographicalcontentsthatbearthenameofmyirb'D;,sothisNewTestamentQuellenschrift,thetitle[;Wveyyreb.Di.ItcontainedthereforethehistoryofHimofwhomtheprophetshadprophesied,WhowasgreaterthanSolomon,David'sSonandDavid'sLordandtheKingofIsrael.AndastheLXX.hadtranslatedthetitlecertainlyunskillfullyenoughbylo,goi,soPapiasorhissponsor(Gewährsmann)bylo,gia.Thesense,however,oftheHebrew~yrib'D.is,asLutherverycorrectlyrendersit-'Histories.'Cf.Heftiii.812.Bythisdiscoveryoftheoriginaltitle,theNewTestamentQuellenschriftwhichfromanunknownhadalreadybecomeaknownthing,hasnowbecomefromanunnamedanamedthing.Thedesideratedxhasbeencompletelyfound."87

Criticismlikethiscertainlyscornsallfacts.TheHebrewwordrbd,meaninga"word,"passedbyaveryreadilyunderstoodprocessintothesenseof"thing."IndefiningthetermasusedinthetitleswhichReschadduces,Dr.Driversays:88"words:henceaffairs,things-insofarastheyaredone,'acts';insofarastheyarenarrated,'history."'Thewordrbdthusreadilylentitself,incombinationslikethoseadducedbyResch,toadoublemeaning:anditisapparentlyfoundinboththesesenses.Ininstancesliketl,h,qoyreb.Di(Eccl.i.l,cf.Prov.xxx.1,xxxi.5;Jer.i.1;Am.i.1;Neh.i.1)itdoubtlessmeans"wordsofKoheleth,"andthelike.IntheinstancesadducedbyResch,itisdoubtlessusedinthesecondarysenseof"history."TheGreekwordlo,goj,bywhichrbdwasordinarilytranslatedintheLXX.,whilenaturallynotrunningthroughadevelopmentofmeaningexactlyparalleltothatofrbd,yetoddlyenoughpresentedafairGreekequivalentforbothofthesesensesof-yreb.Di,usedintitles:andwhyReschshouldspeakoflo,goiasunskillfullyusedinthetitlesheadduces,doesnotappearonthesurfaceofthings.Certainly,fromHerodotusdown,oi`lo,goiborethespecificmeaningofjust"Histories,"asafterwardsitborethesenseof"prosewritings":andtheearlyGreekhistorianswerecalledaccordinglyoi`

logogra,foi.89TheLXX.translators,inaword,couldscarcelyhavefoundahappierGreekrenderingforthetitlesoftheQuellenschriftenenumeratedinIChron.xxix.29,30,etc.Who,however,couldestimatetheunskillfulnessoftranslatingyrbdinsuchtitlesbylo,gia-awordwhichhadnosuchusageandindeeddidnotreadilylenditselftoanapplicationtohuman"words?"Papias(orhissponsor)musthavebeen(asEusebiuscallshim)amanofmeancapacityindeed,sotohavegarbledMatthew'sHebrew.Itshouldbenoted,further,thatPapiasdoesnotdeclare,asReschseemstothink,thatMatthewwroteta.lo,giatou/qeou/,oreventa.kuriaka.lo,gia-itisPapias'ownbookwhosetitlecontainsthisphrase;anditwillbehardtosupposethatPapias(orhissponsor)wasamanofsuchmeancapacityastofancythesimpleta.lo,giaafairequivalentfortheHebrew[wvyyrbdinthesenseof"TheHistoryofJesus."Ifhedidso,onedoesnotwonderthathehashadtowaittwothousandyearsforareadertocatchhismeaning.Suchspeculations,intruth,servenoothergoodpurposethantoexhibithowfara-seaonemustdriftwho,leavingthemooringsofactualusage,seeksanunnaturalmeaningforthesephrases.TheirobviousmeaningisthatPapiaswrotean"ExpositionoftheGospels,"andthathespeaksofMatthew'sandMark'sbooksasthemselvessectionsofthose"Scriptures"whichhewasexpounding.Undertheguidanceoftheusageoftheword,thiswouldseemtheonlytenableopinion.90

Itisnotintended,ofcourse,toimplythatthereisnotraceamongtheFathersofanyothersenseattachingtothewordsto.lo,gion(ta.lo,gia,than"theScriptures"asawhole.OtherapplicationsofthewordswerefoundstandingsidebysidewiththisinPhilo,andtheyarefoundalsoamongtheFathers.To.lo,gion,usedofaspecifictextofScripture,forexample,isnotuncommonintheFathers.Itisfound,forinstance,inJustinMartyr,"Apol.,"i.32:"AndJessewashisforefatherkata.to.lo,gion"-towit,Isa.xi.1,justquoted.ItisfoundinClementofAlexandria("Strom.,"ii.Migne,i.949a),whereIsa.vii.9isquotedanditisadded:"Itwasthislo,gionthatHeraclitusofEphesusparaphrasedwhenhesaid...."ItisfoundrepeatedlyinEusebius'"EcclesiasticalHistory,"inwhichthePapianpassagesarepreserved,as,e.g.,ix.7,adfin.,"Sothat,accordingtothatdivine(qei/on)lo,gion,"Viz.,Matt.xxiv.24;x.1,4,"thelo,gionthusenjoiningus,"viz.,Ps.xcvii.(xcviii.)1;x.4,7,"concerningwhichacertainotherdivinelo,gionthusproclaims,"viz.,Ps.lxxxvi.(lxxxvii.)3.Ta.lo,giaisalsousedintheFathers,asinPhilo,foranybodyoftheseScripturallo,gia,howeversmallorlarge(i.e.,foranygivensectionofScripture)-as,e.g.,fortheTenCommandments.Itissoused,forinstance,inthe"ApostolicalConstitutions,"ii.26:"KeepthefearofGodbeforeyoureyes,alwaysrememberingtw/nde,katou/

qeou/logi,wn";andalsoinEusebius(H.E.,ii.18,5).So,again,wehaveseenit,modifiedbyqualifyingadjectives,usedfortheGospels-andindeeditseemstobeemployedwithoutqualificationsinthissenseinPseudo-Justin's"EpistolaadZerametSerenum"(Otto,i.70b).ItisfurthersometimesusedapparentlynotoftheScripturetextassuch,butofcertainoracularutterancesrecordedinit-as,forexample,whenJustinsaystoTrypho(c.18):"Forsinceyouhaveread,OTrypho,asyouyourselfadmitted,thedoctrinestaughtbyourSaviour,IdonotthinkthatIhavedonefoolishlyinaddingsomeshortutterancesofhis(brace,atou/evkei,noulo,gia)tothepropheticstatements"-towit,wordsofJesusrecordedinMatt.xxi,xxiiiandLukexi,hereputonalevelwiththeoraclesoftheprophets,butapparentlyenvisagedasspoken.Alltheseareusagesthathavemetusbefore.

ButtherearelowerusagesalsodiscoverableinthelaterPatristicwritersatleast.Thereisanappearancenowandthenindeedasifthewordwas,inpopularspeech,losingsomethingofitshighimplicationof"solemnoracularutterancesofGod,"andcomingtobeappliedaswelltothewordsofmeremen91-possiblyinsequencetoitsapplicationtothewordsofprophetsandapostlesassuchandthegradualwearingdown,inthecarelesspopularconsciousness,ofthedistinctionbetweentheirwordsasprophetsandapostlesandtheirwordsasmen;possibly,ontheotherhand,insequencetothefreeruseofthewordinprofanespeechandthewearingawayofitshighimportwiththelossofreverenceforthethingdesignated.Thuswereadasearlyasinthe"ActsofXanthippeandPolyxena,"editedbyProf.Jamesforthe"CambridgeTextsandStudies,"andassignedbyhimtothemiddleofthethirdcentury(c.28,p.78),thefollowingdialogue,inthecourseofaconversationbetweenPolyxenaandAndrew,"theapostleoftheLord":"Andrewsaith:'Drawnotnearme,child,buttellmewhothouartandwhence.'ThensaithPolyxena:'Iamagreatfriend-ofthesehere(xe,nhtw/nevntau/qa),butIseethygraciouscountenanceandthylogiaareasthelogiaofPaulandIpresumethee,too,tobelongtohisGod."'Ifwemayassumethistomarkatransitionstageintheusage,wemaylookuponacuriouspassageinJohnofDamascusasmarkingalmostthecompletionofthesinkingofthewordtoanequivalencetor`h,mata.Itoccursinhis"Disput.ChristianietSaraceni"(Migne,i.1588,iii.1344).TheSaracenicdisputantisrepresentedaseagertoobtainanacknowledgmentthattheWordofGod,thatisChrist,isamerecreature,andasplyingtheChristianwithajuggleonthewordlo,gia.Heaskswhetherthelo,giaofGodarecreateorincreate.Ifthereplyis"create,"therejoinderistobe:"Thentheyarenotgods,andyouhaveconfessedthatChrist,whoistheWord(lo,goj)ofGodisnotGod."If,ontheotherhand,thereplyis

"increate,"therejoinderapparentlyistobethatthelo,giaofGodneverthelessarenotproperlygods,andsoagainChristthelo,gojisnotGod.AccordinglyJohninstructstheChristiandisputanttorefusetosayeitherthattheyarecreateorthattheyareincreate,butdecliningthedilemma,toreplymerely:"Iconfessoneonlylo,gojofGodthatisincreate,butmywholeScripture(grafh,)Idonotcalllo,gia,butr`h,mataqeou/."OntheSaracenretortingthatDavidcertainlysaysta.lo,gia(notr`h,mata)oftheLordarepurelo,gia,theChristianistoreplythattheprophetspeaksheretropologikw/j,andnotkuriologikw/j,thatistosay,notbywayofadirectdeclaration,butbywayofanindirectcharacterization.Itisaremarkablelogomachythatwearethustreatedto:anditseemstoimplythatinJohn'sdaylo,giahadsunktoameresynonymofr`h,mata.Thatmenhadthenceasedtospeakofthewholegrafh,asta.qei/alo,giaweknownottohavebeenthecase:butapparentlythislanguagewasnowmadeuseofwithnomorepregnancyofmeaningthaniftheyhadsaidta.qei/ar`h,mata.92Thisprocessseemstohavecontinued,andinthefollowingpassagefromaworkoftheopeningoftheeleventhcentury-the"LifeofNilustheYounger,"publishedinthe120thvolumeofMigne's"Pat.Graec."(p.97D),-wehaveaninstanceoftheextremeextensionoftheapplicationoftheword:"ThensaiththeFathertohim:'Itisnotfittingthatthou,amanofwisdomandhigh-learning,shouldthinkorspeakta.tw/nkoinw/navnqrw,pwnlo,gia.'"93AndaccordinglywecannotbesurprisedtofindthatinmodernGreekthewordisemployedquitefreelyofhumanspeech.Jannaristellsusthatitisusedinthesenseof"maxim,"andthatincolloquialusageta.lo,giamaymean"promise"-inbothofwhichemploymentstheremayremainatraceofitsoriginalhigherimport.94WhileKontopoulosgivesastheEnglishequivalentsoflo,gion,thefollowinglist:"Asaying,aword;amaxim;amotto,anoracle;ta.qei/alo,gia,thedivineoracles,thesacredScriptures."95

Thusnotonlyalltheusagesofthewordfound,say,inPhilo,arecontinuedintheFathers,butthereisanobviousdevelopmenttobetraced.ButthisdevelopmentitselfisfoundedonandisawitnesstothecharacteristicusageofthewordamongtheFathers-that,towit,inwhichitisappliedtotheinspiredwordsofprophetsandapostles.AndbyfarthemostfrequentuseofthewordinthePatristicwritingsseemstobethatinwhichitdesignatesjusttheHolyScriptures.TheirprevailingusageisverywellillustratedbythatofEusebius.Wehavealreadyquotedanumberofpassagesfromhis"EcclesiasticalHistory"inwhichheseemstoadducespecialpassagesofScripture,eachasalo,gion.MorecommonisitforhimtorefertothewholeScripturesasta.lo,gia,orrather(forthisishisfavoriteformula)ta.qei/alo,gia-andthatwhetherhemeanstheOld

Testament(whichinthe"Praep.Evang.,"ii.6[Migne,iii.140A],hecallsta.vEbrai,wnlo,gia),ortheNewTestament,orreferstothepropheticorthenarrativeportions.Instancesmaybefoundin"H.E.,"v.,17,5,wherewearetoldthatMiltiadesleftmonumentsofhisstudyoftheqei/alo,gia;vi.23,2,wherethezealofOrigen'sfriendAmbroseforthestudyoftheqei/alo,giaismentionedasenablingOrigentowritehiscommentariesontheqei/aigrafai,;ix.9,8,whereasentencefromEx.xv.1isquotedasfromtheqei/alo,gia;x.4,28,wherePs.lvii.(lviii.),7isquotedfromtheqei/alo,gia;"PalestinianMartyrs,"xi.2,wherethedevotionofthePalestinianmartyrstotheqei/alo,giaisadvertedto.Eventhesingular-to.lo,gion-seemsoccasionallyusedbyEusebius(asbyPhilo)asadesignationofthewholeScripturefabric.Wemaysuspectthistobethecasein"H.E.,"x.4,43,whenwereadof"thecostlycedarofLebanonofwhichto.qei/onlo,gionhasnotbeenunmindful,saying,'TheforestsoftheLordshallrejoiceandthecedarsofLebanonwhichheplanted'(Ps.cv.[civ.]16)."Andwecannotdoubtitat"H.E.,"ii.10,1,wherewereadconcerningHerodAgrippa,that"ash`tw/npra,xewngrafh,relates,heproceededtoCæsareaand....to.lo,gionrelates'thattheangeloftheLordsmotehim"'-inwhichaccountitisworthwhiletoobservethecoincidenceofJosephus'narrativewithth.nqei/angrafh,n.Here,ofcourse,to.lo,gionisprimarilytheBookofActs-butasthesubsequentcontextshows,itrepresentsthatbookonlyaspartofthesacredScriptures,sothatto.lo,gionemergesasacompletesynonymofh`qei/agrafh,.WhateverotherusagemayfromtimetotimeemergeinthepagesoftheFathers,thePatristicusageoftheterm,katvevxoch,n,isasadesignationofthe"Scriptures"conceivedastheWordofGod.96

Inthelightofthesebroadfactsofusage,certainlinesmayveryreasonablybelaiddownwithinwhichourinterpretationof[ta.]lo,giaintheNewTestamentinstancesofitsoccurrenceshouldmove.Itwouldseemquitecertain,forexample,thatnolowersensecanbeattachedtoitintheseinstances,thanthatwhichitbearsuniformlyinitsclassicalandHellenisticusage:itmeans,not"words"barely,simple"utterances,"butdistinctively"oracularutterances,"divinelyauthoritativecommunications,beforewhichmenstandinaweandtowhichtheybowinhumility:andthishighmeaningisnotmerelyimplicit,butisexplicitintheterm.Itwouldseemclearagainthattherearenoimplicationsofbrevityintheterm:itmeansnotshort,pithy,pregnantsayings,buthigh,authoritative,sacredutterances;anditmaybeappliedequallywelltolongastoshortutterances-eventhoughtheyextendtopagesandbooksandtreatises.Itwouldseemtobeclearoncemorethattherearenoimplicationsinthetermofwhatmaybecalledtheliterarynatureoftheutterancestowhichitisapplied:it

characterizestheutterancestowhichitisappliedasemanationsfromGod,butwhethertheybepropheticornarrativeorlegal,pareneticorpromissoryincharacter,isentirelyindifferent:itswholefunctionisexhaustedindeclaringthemtobeGod'sownutterances.97Andstillfurther,itwouldseemtobeclearthatitisequallyindifferenttothetermwhethertheutterancessodesignatedbeoralorwrittencommunications:whetheroralorwrittenitdeclaresthemtobeGod'sownWord,andithadbecomecustomarytodesignatethewrittenWordofGodbythistermasonethatwasfeltfitlytodescribetheScripturesasanoracularbook-eitherabodyoforacles,oronecontinuousoraculardeliverancefromGod'sownlips.

ThislastusageissostrikinglycharacteristicoftheHellenisticadaptationofthetermthatacertainpresumptionliesinfavorofsounderstandingitinHellenisticwritings,whentheScripturalrevelationisinquestion:thoughthispresumptionis,ofcourse,liabletocorrectionbytheobviousimplicationsofthepassagesaswholes.InsuchapassageasRom.iii.2thispresumptionrisesveryhighindeed,anditwouldseemasifthewordheremustbereadasadesignationofthe"Scriptures"assuch,unlessverycompellingreasonstothecontrarymaybeadducedfromthecontext.ThatthemindofthewritermayseemtosometobeparticularlydwellinguponthisorthatelementinthecontentsoftheScripturescannotbetakenassuchacompellingreasontothecontrary:fornothingismorecommonthanforawritertobethinkingmoreparticularlyofoneportionofwhatheisformallyadducingasawhole.TheparaphraseofWetsteinappearsinthisaspect,therefore,veryjudicious:"TheyhavetheSacredBooks,inwhicharecontainedtheoraclesandespeciallythepropheciesoftheadventoftheMessiahandthecallingoftheGentiles;andbythesetheirmindsshouldbeprepared":though,sofarasthisparaphrasemayseemtoseparatebetweentheSacredBooksandtheOraclestheycontain,itisunfortunate.TheverypointofthisuseofthewordisthatitidentifiestheSacredBookswiththeOracles;andinthisaspectofitDr.DavidBrown'scommentismoresatisfactory:"Thatremarkableexpression,denoting'DivineCommunications'ingeneral,istransferredtothesacredScripturestoexpresstheiroracular,divinelyauthoritativecharacter."ThecaseisnotquitesosimpleinHeb.v.12:buthere,too,thewell-balancedcommentofDr.Westcottappearstoustocarryconvictionwithit:"ThephrasemightrefertothenewrevelationgivenbyChristtoHisapostles(comp.c.i.2);butitseemsmorenaturaltoreferittothecollectivewritingsoftheOldTestamentwhichtheHebrewChristiansfailedtounderstand."InActsvii.38theabsenceofthearticleintroducesnorealcomplication:itmerelyemphasizesthequalitativeaspectofthematter;whatMosesreceivedwasemphaticallyoracles-

whichisfurtherenhancedbycallingthem"lively,"i.e.,theywerenotmerelydead,butliving,effective,operativeoracles.Thespeaker'seyeisobviouslyonMosesastherecipientoftheseoracles,andontheoraclesasgivenbyGodtoMoses,asisrecordedinthePentateuch:buttheoracleshiseyeisonarethoserecordedinthePentateuch,andthatcametoMoses,notforhimself,butfortheChurchofallages-"togivetous."Herewemayhesitatetosay,indeed,thatlo,giameansjustthe"Scriptures";butwhatitmeansstandsinaveryexpressrelationtotheScriptures,andpossiblywasnotverysharplydistinguishedfromtheScripturesbythespeaker.WiththeanalogiesinPhiloclearlyinourmind,weshouldscarcelygofarwrongifweconceivedoflo,giahereasmeaningtothespeakerthoseportionsofScriptureinwhichMosesrecordedtherevelationsvouchsafedtohimbyGod-conceivedasthemselvestheserevelationsrecorded.InIPeteriv.11theinterpretationiscomplicatedbythequestionthatarisesconcerningthecharismathatisintended,aswellasbythecastingofthephraseintotheformofacomparison:"lethimspeakasitwereoraclesofGod."ItisnotclearthattheDivineScripturesassucharemeanthere;buttheterm,inanycase,retainsallitsforceasadesignationofsacred,solemndivineutterances:thespeakeristospeakasbecomesonewhosewordsarenothisown,buttheverywordsofGod-oraclesproclaimedthroughhismouth.Whetheritistheexerciseofthepropheticgiftinthestrictsensethatisadvertedto,sothatPeter'sexhortationisthattheprophetshouldcomporthimselfinhisprophesyingasbecomesonemadethevehicleoftheawfulwordsofrevelation;oronlythegiftofteachingthatisinquestion,sothatPeter'sexhortationisthathewhoproclaimsthewordofGod,eveninthislowersense,shallbearhimselfasbefitsonetowhomarecommittedtheDivineoraclesforexplanationandenforcement-mustbeleftherewithoutinvestigation.Ineithercasethetermisobviouslyusedinitshighestsenseandimpliesthatthelo,giaofGodareHisownwords,Hisawesomeutterances.

WhathasthusbeensaidinreferencetotheseNewTestamentpassagesisintendedtogonofurtherintheirexplanationthantothrowthelightoftheusageofthewordupontheirinterpretation.Intotheirdetailedexegesiswecannotnowenter.Wecannotpassbythegeneralsubject,however,withoutemphasizingthebearingthesepassageshaveontheNewTestamentdoctrineofHolyScripture.ItwillprobablyseemreasonabletomosttointerpretRom.iii.2ascertainly,Heb.v.12asprobably,andActsvii.38asverylikelymakingreferencetothewrittenScriptures;andasbearingwitnesstotheconceptionofthemonthepartoftheNewTestamentwritersas"theoraclesofGod."Thatistosay,wehaveunobtrusiveandconvincingevidenceherethattheOldTestamentScriptures,as

such,wereesteemedbythewritersoftheNewTestamentasanoracularbook,whichinitselfnotmerelycontains,butisthe"utterance,"theveryWordofGod;andistobeappealedtoassuchandassuchdeferredto,becausenothingotherthanthecrystallizedspeechofGod.WemerelyadverttothisfactherewithoutstoppingtodevelopitsimplicationsortoshowhowconsonantthisdesignationoftheScripturesasthe"OraclesofGod"iswiththeconceptionoftheHolyScripturesentertainedbytheNewTestamentwritersasotherwisemadeknowntous.WehavelatelyhadoccasiontopointoutinthisReviewsomeoftheotherwaysinwhichthisconceptionexpressesitselfintheNewTestamentwritings.98HewhocarestolookforitwillfinditinmanywayswrittenlargelyandclearlyandindeliblyonthepagesoftheNewTestament.Wecontentourselvesatthistime,however,withmerelypointingoutthatthedesignationoftheScripturesasta.lo,giatou/qeou/fairlyshoutstousoutofthepagesoftheNewTestament,thattoitswriterstheScripturesoftheOldTestamentweretheveryWordofGodinthehighestandstrictestsensethattermcanbear-theexpressutterance,inalltheirpartsandeachandeveryoftheirwords,oftheMostHigh-the"oraclesofGod."Lethimthatthinksthemsomethingotherandlessthanthis,reckon,then,withtheapostlesandprophetsoftheNewCovenant-towhosetrustworthinessaswitnessestodoctrinaltruthheowesallheknowsabouttheNewCovenantitself,andthereforeallhehopesforthroughthisNewCovenant.

Endnotes:

1. FromThePresbyterianandReformedReview,Vol.XI.1900,pp.217-260.2. Soverycommonly:as,e.g.,byGrimm("LexiconinN.T.,"s.v.),Bleek

("DerBriefandieHebräer,"ii.2,114,onHeb.v.12),Philippi("Com.onRomans,"E.T.,i.105,onRom.iii.2),Morrison("Expos.of3dChap.ofRom.,"p.14).

3. "Com.onRomans,"onRom.iii.2(E.T.,i.140,note1).4. Plato,"Eryx.,"401,E.:evta,ratte,geauvto.n)))to.logi,dion;Isocrates,

"ContraSophistas,"295B.(Didot,191):tosou,tw|de.cei,roujtw/nperi.ta.je;ridajkalindoume,nwn(o[sonou-toime.ntoiau/talogi,diadiexio,ntev)));Aristophanes,"Vesp.,"64:avllve;stinh`mi/nlogi,diongnw,mhne;con|u`mw/nme.nauvtw/nouvci.dexiw,teron.Cf.BlaydesonthepassageinAristophanes.

5. "Com.onRom.,"onRom.iii.2:"Theoldaccountoflo,gionasadiminutiveoflo,gojisprobablycorrect,thoughMey.-W.makeitneuteroflo,giojonthegroundthatlogi,dionistheproperdiminutive.The

formlogi,dionisratherastrengtheneddiminutivewhich,byaprocesscommoninlanguage,tooktheplaceoflo,gionwhenitacquiredthesenseof'oracle."'Whentheyaddthatitwasas"abriefcondensedsaying"thattheoraclewascalledlo,gion,theyhavenosupportintheliterature.

6. Jelf,wholooksuponitasadiminutive,citesitasanextremeexampleofthefactthatmanysimplediminutivesin-ionhavelosttheirdiminutiveforcesuchasqhri,on(bibli,on:lo,gion,hesays,"hasassumedapeculiarmeaning."Inanyevent,thus,nodiminutivemeaningclingstolo,gion.

7. evpulli,oijkai.peripa,toijkai.teutli,oisileukoi/j.8. Dindorf,iv.ii.p.113,online973.9. Blaydesaddssomeotherinstances:"Ejusdemformædiminutivasunt

eivdu,llion(brefu,llion(meiraku,llion(zwu<llion(kreu<llion(xenu,llion."10. Withthislo,gionmikro,ncomparethebrace,alo,giaofJustinMartyr,

"ContraTryph.,"c.18.Whentheideaofbrevityneededtobeconveyed,itwouldseemthatanadjectiveexpressiveofthisideawasrequiredtobeadded.

11. Ed.Bas.,i.177;Rom.i.233:Weigel'sLeipziged.(hereused),i.189.12. LiddellandScottsay,s.v.:"o[rkionisnotwithButtm.,"Lexil.,"s.v.,tobe

regardedasadim.ofo[rkoj,butratherasneuterofo[rkioj,withwhichi`ero,nori`era,maybesupplied";"Dim,ofi;cnojonlyinform(v.Chandler,"Accent.,"§340)."Cf.ingeneralJelf,"Grammar,"§§56,2,and335,c(Vol.i,pp.53,337).

13. Ed.Bas.,pp.1426,1427;ed.Rom.,p.69;ed.Leipzig,i.p.72.14. Ascholiumonthepassageinthe"Odyssey"bringsoutthemeaningof

qeopro,pion,towit:to.evkqeou/legome,non(evxou-kai.qeopro,pojo`ta.tou/qeou/le,gwn.Cf.alsotheHomericLexiconsontheword:e.g.,Ebeling,s.v.qeopropi,hetqeopro,pion:"Sententiadeorum,judiciumquoddii(JuppiterpotissimumetAppollo)cumvate(velcumdeo)communicant,vatescumaliishominibus,oraculum.Cf.Nægelsb.,H[omerische]Th[eologie],187.Ap.87,4ma,nteumato.evkqeou/prolego,menon.Cf.Suid,i.2,1144Hes.";andCapelleundersameheading:"AlleswasvondenGöttern(bes[onders]ApollonundZeus)angezeigtunddurchdenqeopro,pojgedeutetwird,'dievondenGötterneingegebenenOffenbarungen'(Nægelsb.zuA.385.Cf.'Hom.Th.,'S.187),alsoWeissagung,Göttergebot,Götterbeschetid,Orakel."

15. "HistoiredelaDivinationdansl'Antiquité"(Paris,Leroux,1879),Vol.ii,pp.229,230.

16. TheScholiumruns:qe,sfata(qespi,smata(crhsmoi.to.auvto.(evle,gontode.evpi.qew/nmanteu/aide.kai.manteu,mataevpi.ma,ntewnajnqro,pwn.

17. TheaboveisabstractedfromJ.H.Heinr.Schmidtinhis"HandbuchderLateinischenundGriechischenSynonymik"(1889),§21,pp.77-82.Theoriginalmeaningassignedtocrh/n(darreichen,ertheilen)issupportedbyareferencetoVaniček,p.250.SurelyitisamuchmorereasonabledeterminationthanthatofBouché-Leclercq("Hist.delaDivination,"i.192),whowouldderiveitfromacleromanticidea,asifcra,wsignifiedfirstofall"entailler."Soheconceivesavnairei/ntorefertothelot,aswesayto"drawlots,"asifthePythoness"drewherrevelationsaswedrawlots."Schmidtreferstheuseofthiswordtotheearlyideathatthewordscameupoutofthedepthsoftheearth.

18. E.g.,Polybius,3,112,8:"AlltheoraclespreservedinRomewereineverybody'smouth(pa,ntadvh=nta.parvauvtoi/jlo,giapa/sito,tedia.sto,matoj)andeverytempleandhousewasfullofprodigiesandmiracles:inconsequenceofwhichthecitywasonesceneofvows,sacrifices,supplicatoryprocessionsandprayers"(Schuchburgh'stranslation).Appian,2,115,dei,matata.ga.ra;logapolloi/jevne,pipteperi.o[lhnvItali,an)Kai(manteuma,twnpalaiw/nevpifobwte,rwnevmnhmo,neuon.Dionys.Hal.,"Ant.,"vii.68:crhsmoi,tvh;|dontoevnpolloi/jcwri,oijktl)DioCassius,431,66and273,64,wherewereadoflo,giapantoi/ah;|deto.

19. ii.8,Jowett'stranslation(i.p.99).20. ii.21,Jowett'stranslation(i.109).21. InDidot'sappendix,p.416:Lo,giaevstita.para.tou/qeou/lego,mena

katloga,dhn\crhsmoi.de.oi[tinejevmme,trwjle,gontai(qeoforoume,nwntw/nlego,ntwn.

22. Ed.Bekker,p.666:lo,giata.para.qeou/lego,menakataloga,dhn(crhsmoi.de.oi;tinejevmme,trwjle,gontaqeoforoume,nwntw/nlego,ntwn.

23. Inhis"HandbuchderLateinischenundGriechischenSynonymik"(Leipzig,1889),§21(pp.77-82).

24. SoforexampleinAristophanes'"Knights"passim(seebelow)andinPorphyry'scollectionofOracles.

25. ThisistheexplanationofCroisetintheverysensiblebriefnotehegivesonthepassageinhisattractiveeditionofThucydides(Paris,Hachette&Cie.,1886):Hesays:"lo,gia,oracles:accordingtothescholiast,oraclesinproseincontrastwithcrhsmoiororaclesinverse;butitmaybeseeninAristophanes("Knights,"999-1002),thatthetwoexpressionsweresynonyms:thedistinctionbearshereonlyonthemannerinwhichtheseoracleswerespreadamongthepeople;evle,gontosignifies:theywerehawkedaboutfrommouthtomouth,withouttheinterventionofthediviners(evle,gontointheplural,despitetheneutersubject,becauseitis

theideaofdiversitythatdominates,ratherthananideaofcollectivity;cf.Curtius"Gr.gr.,"§363,Fiem.1);h=donistheappropriatewordinspeakingofcrhsmolo,goiororacle-delivererswhosebusinesswastorecitethepropheciesinverse."

26. SostillFranzMiillerinhishandyeditionofthissecondbook(Paderborn,1886).

27. SoSteup-ClasseninthefourtheditionofClassen's"SecondBookofThucydides,"broughtoutbySteup(Berlin,1889).Theysay:"evle,gonto:theunusualpluraldoubtlessonaccountofthevarietyanddiffusionofthelo,gia:cf.5,26,2;6,62,4.Lo,gia,accordingtotheusageoftheanaphora,istobeunderstoodwithpolla,inbothinstances(B.supposestheanaphorawouldrequiretheprepositingofthenoun,asI.3;butthereneo,thjisemphasizedbykai.,whichisnotthecaseherewithlo,gia).vEle,gonto:circulatedbythemouthofthepeople,withoutfixedormetricalform,whichwouldbegiventhemorpreservedforthembythecrhsmolo,goiwhowereoccupiedprofessionallyinthecollection(hence-lo,goi)andinterpretationoftransmittedprophecies(cf.Herod.7,6,142;Schomann,Gr.Alt.,23,304).Thedistinctionisbetweenevle,gontoandh|;don,nottheobjectofthelo,gia."

28. Pp.152,153ofhiseditionofthepiece(Vienna,1796).ItisreprintedentireinPeerlkamp'sedition(Haarlem,1818)withthisadditionbythelatereditor:"lo,giaLatinisinterdumdictiones,dicta,sermones,etlogia;cf.Heins.adOvid.,Her.v.33etObserv.Misc.V.I.T.L,p.276.ApollodorusinBiblioth.saepepermutatlo,giaetcrhsmou,j,quiquumscribitI,vi.§1,toi/jde.qeoi/jlo,gionh-nmirerisinterpretemreddentemrumoreratinterdeos.Dediscriminelo,giainteretcrhsmou,jeademjamexAristophaneejusqueSchol.notaratTresling.Adv.pag.46,47,addensL.BosadRom.iii.2etAlbertiObs.Phil.pag.298seq."

29. Stephens(ed.Dindorf-Hase)merelyadducesCamerarius'testimony:"SoCam.,addingthatthediscriminationofthegrammariansisafalseone,althoughthepassageinThucydides,i(sic.)[8]seemstoagreewithit."

30. ThisseemstobewhatHaack(onThucyd.,ii.8)meanswhenhedefineslo,giaasauguria,prcesagiavatum,andcrhsmoi,asoraculadeorum.

31. ThisseemsthegistofBredow'sview(onThucyd.,ii.8):"crhsmo,jcumverbiscra/netcrei/sqaioraculorumpropriiscohaerensdefiniteoraculumdivinumvocatur;lo,gionautemapertegeneraliusvocabulorumest,sermoominosus,verbumfaticidiumquodnoninterrogatusveldeus,velvateselocutusest."PoppoandGoelleradloc.quotetheseviewsbutaddnothingofvaluetothem.

32. Bouché-LeclercqseemsalmostinclinedtoreverttoEustathius'statementandlookuponlo,gionas"anexpressionpeculiartotheAtticdialect,aspro,fanta(Herod.,v.63;ix.93)isanIonicexpression"(op.cit.,ii.130,note4).

33. crhsmw/ndvavoidou.jpa,ntajeivje;navli,saj|h'legxakai.be,bhlakai.kekrumme,na|lo,giapalaia.th|/de.gh|/swth,ria.

34. waystranslation,398seq.35. Line61.Blaydessays:"sensusest,senesenimoraculaamat."36. Line120.Wheelwright'stranslationisusedthroughout.37. Line194.38. pro,teronde.e;tito.navgw/natou/tonproesh,mhnenh`Puqi,a(kai.to.

lo,gionei;tea;llwjei;tekai.w]jsunei.jevdh,lwsen`Hro,dotoj\vAllvo[tanh`qh,leiato.na;rrenanikh,sasaevxela,sh|kai.ku/dojevnvArgei,oisina;rhtaipolla.jvArgei,wnavmfidrufe,ajto,teqh,sei)Ta.me.nevjto.e;rgontw/ngunaikw/ne;contatou/crhsmou/tau/tah=n.In.v.3,1;iv.9,4;ix.37,4inlikemannercrhsmo,jisidentifiedwithma,nteuma.

39. Bekker,i.150.40. ii.412D.41. ii.247D.avpopeirw,menoitw/nlogi,wn.vExrh,sqhga.rauvtoi/j\...42. ii.268E.avpofqe,ggesqailo,gia(kai.crhsmw|dei/ntoi/jevrwtw/sin\...43. i.6.44. Theword,aswillbeseen,isasoldasHerodotus:ontheotherhand-ifwe

maytrusttheindices-itdoesnotseemtooccurinHomer(Dunbar's"Concordance"[toOdyssey],Gehring's"Index"),Hesiod(Paulsen's"Index"),Plato(Ast's"Lexicon")orAristotle,XenophonorSophocles.

45. Seeabove,p.336.46. Dr.AddisonAlexander,withhisusualclearness,positsthealternative

admirably(onActsvii.38):"TheGreekword(lo,gia)hasbeenvariouslyexplainedasadiminutiveof(lo,goj)word,meaningabrief,condensedandfrequentutterance;orastheneuterofanadjective(lo,gioj)meaningrational,profound,wise,andasasubstantive,awisesaying."Itwouldseemdifficulttorisefromasurveyoftheclassicalusagewithoutanimpressionthatitjustifiesthelatterderivation.ThisusageisstatedwithperfectaccuracybyDeMoor("Com.inMarckiiCompend.,"i.13):to.lo,gion"whenusedsubstantivelymaybeconsideredasmoreemphaticthanto.r`h/maoreveno`lo,goj:forthistermmeanswiththeGreeksnotanykindofword,butspecificallyanoracle,adivineresponse."

47. Itoccurs,accordingtotheBrown-Gesenius"Lexicon,"nolessthan5287times;accordingtoGirdlestone("SynonymsoftheO.T.,"ed.2,p.205),it"isgenerallyrenderedintheLXX.e;pwandle,gw."Thereseemstobeinherentinthewordanundertoneofloftinessorauthoritativenessduepossiblytoitsetymologicalimplicationof"prominence."Itsderivationsareaccordinglymostlypoeticalwordsdesignatingaloftyspeechorauthoritativespeech.

48. Theverb,ofdoubtfulorigin,occursaccordingtoBrown-Gesenius,1142times,andisgenerallyrenderedintheLXX.(Girdlestone,loc.cit.)lale,w.Thenounoccurs1439timesandisrendered"generallylo,goj,sometimesr`h/ma,andin35passages,pra/gma."

49. Thereisalsothepoeticwordll;m'anditsderivativenounhL'mi-aword"usedin30passages,19ofwhichareinJoband7inDaniel,"andrenderedintheLXX.lo,gojandr`h/ma(Girdlestone).

50. rm,ao,"exceptinJosh.xxiv.27(E)usedexclusivelyinpoetry,48times,ofwhich22areinProverbsand11inJob"(DriveronDeut.xxxii.1).hr'm.ai"onlyfoundinpoetry(36times,ofwhich19areinPs.cxix.)"(DriveronDent.xxxii.2).hr'm.a,,Lam.ii.17only.rm'a]m;,Esth.i.15,ii.20,ix.32only.OnthegeneralsubjectoftheirpoeticusageseeGreen,"GeneralIntroductiontotheO.T.:TheText,"p.19;Bleek,"IntroductiontotheO.T.,"E.T.,i.98;Havernick,"Einleitung,"i.172;Gesenius,"GeschichtederhebraischenSprache,"p.22,and"Lehrgebaude,"Register,p.892;Vogel,"DeDialectoPoetica."

51. crhsmo,j,forexample,whichwehavefoundtheconstantaccompanimentoflo,gionintheclassicsandshallfindalwaysbyitssideinPhilo,doesnotoccurintheLXX.atall.Thecognatescrhmati,zw(Jer.xxxii.(25)30,xxxiii.(26)2,xxxvi.(29)23,xxxvii.(30)2,crhmatismo,j(Prov.xxiv.69(xxxi.1),IIMacc.ii.4),crhmatisthri,(IKgs.viii.6),are,however,found,andintheirhighsense.ItissomewhatoverstrainedforDelitzsch(onHeb.viii.5,E.T.,Vol.ii.32)tosay:"TheSeptuagintwordforthedeliveranceofadivineoracleorinjunctioniscrhmati,zein(tou.jlo,gouj)tini,orpro,jtina:"crhmati,zeinisfoundinthissenseonlyintheLXX.Jeremiah.AveryrichbodyofillustrationsfortheNewTestamentusages(Lukeii.26,Actsx.22,Heb.viii.5)might,however,beculledfromPhilo.

52. Insomecodd.butintheedd.weread,kata.to.e;leo,jsou.53. Thepassagesarealreadyenumeratedjustabove.54. Theotherversionsaddnothingofimportance.AtPs.cxix.41thehr'm.ai

renderede;leojbyLXX.isrenderedlo,gionbyAq.andTh.InPs.cxxxvii.(cxxxviii).2thehr'm.airenderedbyLXX.a[gion(thoughBaethgen

remarksthatthisseemsmerelyacorruptionoflo,gion)isrenderedlo,gionbyAq.andQuinta.InIsa.xxxii.9,thehr'm.airenderedinLXX.bylo,goiisgivenaslo,gionbyAq.,acasequiteparallelwithPs.xviii.15(xix.15)inLXX.InJer.viii.9thephrasehw'hy-rb;d.BiisrenderedinAq.bylo,gion.

55. ThestatisticsofthisPsalmare:hr'm.aiisused19times:beingtranslatedbylo,gion17times,viz.,atverses11,38,50,58,67,76,82,103,115,123,133,140,148,158,162,170,172;atv.41itistranslatedto.e;leoj,thoughsomecodicesreadto.nlo,gonandsometo.lo,gion;atv.154itistranslatedbylo,gon.rb'D'isused23times:beingtranslatedbylo,goj15times,viz.,atverses9,16,17,28,42,43,49,74,81,89,101,130,147,160,161;bylo,gion4times,viz.,atverses25,65,107,109;byevntolh,twice,viz.,atverses57,139;byno,mojatv.105,andbylao,jv.114(thoughsomecod.readlo,goiorlo,goj).Lo,gionisused23times:beingthetranslationofhr'm.ai17times,viz.,atverses11,38,50,58,67,76,82,103,115,123,133,140,148,158,162,170,172;ofrb'D'4times(25,65,107,169);ofds,h,once(124)andoffpvmonce(149).lo,gojisused17times:beingthetranslationofrb'D'15times,viz.,atverses9,16,17,28,42,43,49,74,81,89,101,130,147,160,161andofhr'm.aionce(154,cf.41),whileonce(42a)itisinsertedwithoutwarrantfromtheHebrew.

56. Delitzschonv.9seq.:"Theoldclassic(e.g.,xviii.31),^t,r'm.aialternatesthroughoutwithbothareintendedcollectively."Perowneonv.11:"WORD,orrather'saying,''speech,'distinctfromthewordemployed,forinstance,inv.9.BothwordsareconstantlyinterchangedthroughoutthePsalm."

57. Delitzschonv.145-152:"hr'm.aiishereasinverses140,158,thewholeWordofGod,whetherinitsrequirementsoritspromises."

58. DriveronDeut.xxxii.2:"Onlyfoundinpoetry(36times,ofwhich19areinPs.119);cf.Isa.xxviii.23,xxxii.9."

59. Onthispassagecf.Konig,"Offenbarungsbegriff,"ii.149,150.60. "TheGodofIsraelistheAlmightyGovernorofnature.ItisHewhosends

Hisfiat(!tr'm.aiafterthemannerofthermeaOYw:ofthehistoryofcreation,cf.xxxiii.9),earthward....ThewordisHismessenger(cf.incvii.20),etc."Delitzsch,inloc.

61. Itseemscertainlyinadequatetorenderhr'm.aiby"saying,"asisveryfrequentlydone,e.g.,byDr.JohnDeWittinhis"PraiseSongsofIsrael"(wehaveonlythefirsteditionathand),byDr.Maclareninthecxix.Psalm("Expositor'sBible")andbyDr.DriveratPs.cv.19;cf.cxlvii.15seq.ThisEnglishwordsuggestsnothingoftheloftyimplicationswhichseemtohaveattachedtotheHebrewterm.

62. OnRom.iii.2.

63. OnRom.iii.2(pp.14,15).64. PossiblyBleekinloc.Heb.v.12meansthesamethingwhenhesaysthe

wordstandshereof"theinspiredreligioussongofthepoet."65. Ex.xxviii.15,22,23,24,24,26,xxix.5,5A.R.,xxxv.27,xxxvi.15,16,

22,24,25,27,29,29;Lev.viii.8,8;Sir.xlv.10.AlsoinAq.:Ex.xxv.6(7),xxviii.4,xxxv.9.InSm.:Ex.xxviii.4,28.InTh.:Ex.xxv.6(7),xxviii.4,23,23,xxviii.24,26,28,xxxv.9.

66. Hebrews,pp.115,116,note.67. ItisnotintendedtodenythatPhilorecognizedacertaindivineinfluence

workingbeyondthelimitsofScripture:buthedoesthiswithoutprejudicetohissupremeregardfortheScripturesastheonlyproperoraclesofGod.Attheopeningofthetractate"QuodOmn.Prob.Lib."(§1,M.444,445),hegivesexpressioninthemostexaltedtermstohisappreciationofthevalueofGreekthought:thePythagoreansareamostsacredbrotherhood(i`erw,tatojqi,asoj)whoseteachingsareka,la,andallmenwhohavegenuinelyembracedphilosophy(filosofi,angnhsi,wjhvspa,santo)havefoundoneoftheirlo,goiaqesmo.nivsou,menoncrhsmw/|.ElsewherehespeaksofParmenides,Empedocles,ZenoandCleanthesandtheirlikeas"divihomines"constitutinga"sacercoetus"("DeProv.,"§48),whodidnotcasttheirteachingsinverseonlybecauseitwasfittingthattheyshouldnotbequitegods("DeProv.,"§42).Butevenherethecrhsmo,jisthestandardtowhichtheirteachingisonlylikened:withalltheirwisdomtheyfallshortofdeity;anditistheutteranceofdeityalonewhichis"oracular"-andthisutteranceisdiscernibleonlyintheScripturesoftheJews.WeventuretoquoteherethestatementsofProf.JamesDrummond("Philo`udæus,"i.pp.13seq.):TheScriptures"werethe'oracles,'the'sacred'or'divineword,'whoseinspirationextendedtothemostminuteparticulars.Philodistinguishesindeeddifferentkindsofinspiration,butthedistinctiondidnotaffectitsdivineauthority....CommunionbetweenGodandmanisamongthepermanentpossibilitiesofourrace;andPhilogoessofarastosaythateverygoodandwisemanhasthegiftofprophecy,whileitisimpossibleforthewickedmantobecomeaninterpreterofGod("Quisrer.div.heres."52[i.510]).ItistruethatheisreferringhereprimarilytothegoodmenintheScriptures,butheseemstoregardthemasrepresentativesofagenerallaw.Hedidnotlookuponhimselfasastrangertothisblessedinfluence,butsometimes'amoresolemnword'spokefromhisownsoul,andheventuredtowritedownwhatitsaidtohim("Cherubim,"9[i.143]).Inonepassagehefullyrecordshisexperience("Migrat.Abrah.,"7[i.441])....ElsewherehereferstothesuggestionsoftheSpiritwhichwas

accustomedtocommunewithhimunseen("DeSomniis,"ii.38[i.692])....ButheascribedtotheBiblicalwritersafullnessofthisdivineenthusiasm,andconsequentinfallibilityofutterance,whichheclaimedfornoothers."

68. Yonge'stranslation(inBohn'sEcclesiasticalLibrary)ismadeuseofinthesecitations.ThepagingofMangeyisoftengivenandsometimesthatoftheParisedition:buttheeditionofRichteristheonethathasbeenactuallyused.TheshortcomingsofYonge'stranslation(cf.Edersheim'sarticle,"Philo,"inSmithandWace's"DictionaryofChristianBiography,"iv.367A,noteo),willbeevidenttothereader;butwhenimportantforourpurposewillbecorrectablefromtheGreekclausesinserted.

69. Cf.onthismatterEdersheiminSmithandWace's"DictionaryofChristianBiography,"art."Philo"(Vol.iv.pp.386,387):Theonlybooks"ofwhichitmaywithcertaintybesaidthattheyarenotreferredtobyPhilo,areEstherandtheSongofSolomon.ThereferencetoEcclesiastesisverydoubtful,muchmoresothanthattoDaniel(p.387a)."Cf.alsoRyle,"PhiloandHolyScripture,"pp.16-35:"ItisabundantlyclearthattoPhilothePentateuchwasaBiblewithinaBible,andthatheonlyoccasionallyreferredtootherbooks,whosesanctityheacknowledged,asopportunitychancedtopresentitself"(p.27).Cf.alsoEwald,"HistoryofIsrael,"E.T.,vii.204,205:"Althoughheuses,andgenerallyintheorderinwhichtheyarenowfoundintheHebrewCanon,theotherbooksmuchlessgradatimthanthePentateuch,theirauthorsare,nevertheless,consideredbyhimasofequalholinessanddivinitywithMoses,andinasmuchasfromhiswholeviewandtreatmentoftheScriptures,hecanattributebutlittleimportancetotheirauthorsasauthors,ortotheirnamesandtemporalcircumstances,helikestocallthemallsimplyfriends,orassociates,ordisciplesofMoses,orprefersstillmoretoquotethepassagetowhichhereferssimplyasasacredsong,sacredword,etc.""ItisonlythebookswhichwenowfindcollectedintheHebrewCanonwhichheregardedasholy,andhewasbothsufficientlylearnedandcarefulnottorankalltheotherswhichwereatthattimegraduallyappendedtotheGreekBibleuponanequalitywiththem."Cf.alsoLee,"TheInspirationofHolyScripture,"pp.69,70.

70. CompareEwald,"TheHistoryofIsrael,"E.T.,vii.203,204:"ThesacredScripturesaretoPhilosoimmediatelydivineandholy,thatheconsistentlyfindsinthemsimplythedivinewordratherthanScripture,andthereforereallyeverywherespeakslessoftheSacredScripturesthanofdivineoracles[crhsmoi,(lo,gia]ofwhichtheywerewhollycomposed,or,whenhedesirestodesignatethembrieflyasawhole,ofthesacredanddivineWord,asifthesameLogos,ofwhomhespeakssomuchelsewhere,were

symbolizedandincorporatedinthemforalltime,asfarasthatispossibleinabook[o`i`ero.j,morerarelyo`qei/ojlo,goj,likewiseo`ovrqo.jlo,goj(e.g.,i.308,27;681,17;cf.esp.,ii.163,44)istheexpressionwhichheconstantlyusesinthiscase;cf.esp.i.676,37seq.;677,12].Itistruethatinthecaseofthegeneralsubjectmatter,ofthePentateuchforinstance,hemakesacertaindistinction,inasmuchassomeoftheoraclescometotheprophet,asamereinterpreterdirectlyasfromthepresenceandvoiceofGodalone,whileothersarerevealedtohimbyGodinanswertohisinterrogations,andagainothershavetheirorigininhimselfwheninaninspiredstateofmind.ButhemakesthisthreefolddistinctionsimplybecausehefounditinreadingparticularpassagesoftheBible,andnotwithaviewoffurtherreflectinguponitanddrawingreferencesfromit.Onthecontrary,heregardsandtreatsallthesentencesandwordsoftheScriptureasonaperfectequalityandteachesexpresslythatsacredScripturemustbeinterpretedandapplied,asformingeventoitssmallestparticles,oneinseparablewhole[cf.esp."Auch.,"ii.170,212seq.;inotherrespects,cf.i.554,14,andmanyotherpassagesofasimilarcharacter]."

71. Thetranslationhereisunusuallyexpanded:theGreekrunsDhloi/de.kai.l)e)p(q)t)t)o[)h`)peri.tou/medeni.tou/dedhlw/sqaio;noma,tiauvtou/ku,rion(ktl)

72. "DeProfug.,"§§11and28;"DeVitaMoysis,"i.53;iii.23,30,35,36.73. Philo'sdesignationsofScripturehavebeencollectedbyCl.Frees

Hornemann,inhis"Observationesadillustr.doctr.deCan.V.T.ex.Philone"(1775);morebrieflybyEichhorninhis"Einl.ind.A.Test.";andinanotaltogethercompleteorexactlistbyRyle,"PhiloandHolyScripture."

74. Astografai,,see"Quisrerumdiv.heres,"§32(Mangey,i.495),parvo]kai.evni`erai/jgrafai/jle,getai;"DeAbrah.,"§1(M.ii.2),"Nowthesearethosemenwhohavelivedirreproachably...whosevirtuesaredurablyandpermanentlyrecordedasonpillars,evntai/ji`erwta,taijgrafai/j."Astogra,mma(gra,mmata,see"DeCongr.Erud.Grat.,"§12(M.1.527),;Estide.kai.evte,rwqito.gra,mmatou/toevsthliteume,non(Deut.xxxii.8)";"QuodDeusImmut.,"§2(M.i.273),"ForinthefirstbookofKings(=ISam.i.20),she(Hannah)speaksinthismanner:'Igivehim(Samuel)untotheefreely,'theexpressionhereusedbeingequivalentto'Igivehimuntotheewhomthouhastgivenuntome,'kata.to.i`erw,tatonMwu?se,wjgra,mmatou/to,'Mygiftsandmyofferings,andmyfirstfruits,yeshallobservetoofferuntome"';"Legat.adCaium,"§29(M.ii.574),"YouhaveneverbeentrainedintheknowledgeofthesacredScriptures(toi/ji`eroi/jgra,mmasin";

"DeVitaM.,"iii.39;etc.75. IntheNewTestamentgra,mmadoesnotoccurinthesenseofapassageof

Scripture-asindeedta.gra,mmataoccursofScriptureonlyinIITim.iii.15,cf.Johnv.47.Theplaceofgra,mmainthissenseistakenintheNewTestamentbygrafh,,thoughitisextremetosaywithLightfootonGal.iii.22(cf.WestcottonJohnii.22)thatgrafh,,alwaysintheNewTestamentreferstoaparticularpassage.Ontheotherhandthisuseofgrafh,isfarfrompeculiartotheNewTestamentasseemstobeimpliedbyStephens("Thes."sub.voc.).NotonlydoesitoccurfamiliarlyintheFathers,ase.g.(fromSophocles):Clems.Rom.,ii.2;JustinMart.,"Advs.Tryph.,"cc.56,65(averyinstructivecase),69,71(cf.Otto'snotehere)andelsewhere;Clems.Alex.,"CohortadGentes.,"ix.adinit.:butalsoinPhilo,ase.g.,"DePraem.etPoem,"§11neartheend(M.ii.418):"BeingcontinuallydevotedtothestudyoftheHolyScripturesbothintheirliteralsenseandalsointheallegoriesfigurativelycontainedinthem(evntai/jr`htai/jgrafai/jkai.evntai/ju`po,noianavllhgori,aij),"and"Quisrerumdiv.her.,"§53(M.i.511):"Andthehistorianconnectswithhisprecedingaccountwhatfollowsinconsistencywithit,saying...(to.de.avko,louqonprosufai,neith|/grafh|/fa,skwn)."OfcoursePhilosometimesusesh`grafh,inthenon-technicalsensealso,ofahumantreatise:thusattheopeningof"DeSomniis"hereferstowhatwascontainedintheprecedingtreatiseh`me.nou=npro.tau,thjgrafh.periei/ce).Whatissaidinthetextisnotintendedtotraversesuchfactsasthese,indicatingotherusages;butismeantonlytosuggestinabroadwaywhatseemstobetheprimarydistinctionbetweenthethreeusages;thesubsequentdevelopmentundergonebythemisanotherstory.

76. Thusofthepassagecitedabove:in"Quoddetpot.insid.,"§14,thereferenceistothenarrativeofGen.iv;in"DeVitaMoysis,"iii.35,tothewholelegislationconcerningfood;in"DeProfug.,"§28,and"DeMutat.Nom.,"§4,apparentlytothewholeBible.

77. "DeDecemOraculis,"titleand§10;"DeSobrietate,"§10;"DePraem.etPoen.,"§1;"DeVitaMoysis,"iii.§23;"DeLegat.adCaium,"§31;"DeVitaContemplativa,"§3.

78. Cf.theechoofJosephus'languageinTacitus,"Hist.,"v.13:"Pluribuspersuasioinerat,antiquissacerdotumlitteris(=evntoi/ji`eroi/jgra,mmasi)contineri,eoipsotemporeforeutvalesceretOriensprofectiqueJudæarerumpotirentur.Quaeambages(=crhsmo.javmfi,boloj=to.lo,gion)VespasianumetTitumpraedixerant."

79. TheContemporaryReview,August,1875,p.400;"Essaysonthework

entitledSupernaturalReligion"(1889),p.173.80. Inloc.81. Loc.cit.82. Inloc.83. Cf.whatProf.RopessaysofthispassageinTheAmericanJournalof

Theology,October,1899(iii.698)andhisstricturesonResch'suseofit.84. Orlo,gwn,asisreadbybothSchweglerandHeinichen:contraRouth,

LightfootandGebhardt-Harnack.85. Ifthereeverwassucha"CollectionofSayingsofJesus,"thenaturaltitleof

itwouldcertainlynotbeta.kuriaka.lo,gia,butsomethingliketheh`su,ntaxijtw/nkuriakw/nlo,gwnwhichPapiassays(ifweadoptthereadinglo,gwn)Markdidnotwrite.Weobservewithastonishment,thevenerableProf.Godetsaying,inhisrecentvolumeontheGospels,thattheexistenceofsuchcollectionsoflo,giaisnowputbeyonddoubtbythediscoveryoftheOxyrhynchusfragment.Thelastwordhasdoubtlessnotbeensaidastothenatureandoriginofthisfragment:butthatitwasacollectionofLOGIArestssolelyontheascriptionofthattitletoitbyitseditors-aproceedingwhichinturnrestssolelyontheirtraditionalmisunderstandingofthePapianphrase.AndthatMatthew's"Logia"were"Logia"liketheseisscarcelyasupposablecasetoacriticofProf.Godet'sviews.MeanwhilewecannotbutaccountitunfortunatethatMessrs.GrenfellandHuntshouldhaveattachedsomisleadingatitletotheirvaluablediscovery:towhichitissuitableonlyinoneaspect,viz.,asdescribingthese"sayings"ofJesusas(intheconceptionofthecompiler,astheconstantle,geishows)"oracularutterances"ofpresentandcontinuousauthority.

86. WhyshouldResch,wemayask,thinkofrbdinsteadofhrmaastheHebreworiginaloflo,gion?Cf.abovep.353.

87. Op.cit.,p.121seq.88. "Introduction,"lasted.,527,note1.89. SeeLiddellandScott,sub.voc.,iv.andv.90. Wemustaccountit,then,asonlyanotherinstanceofthatexcessofcaution

whichcharacterizeshisapplicationofthe"apologetical"resultsofinvestigation,whenDr.Sandaystillholdsbackfromthisconclusionandwritesthus:"Thewordlo,gia,indeed,means'oracles'andnot'discourses.'Butwhiletheterm'theoracles'mightwellfromthefirsthavebeenappliedtoourLord'swordsitishardlylikelythatitshouldsoearlyhavebeenappliedtoawritingoftheNewTestamentassuch.Moreover,evenwhentheinspirationoftheNewTestamenthadcometobeasclearlyrecognizedasthatoftheOldTestament,theterm'theoracles'wouldnothavebeena

fittingoneforasinglework,simplyonthegroundthatitformedpartofthecollection"(Hastings'"BibleDictionary,"ii.p.235a).ApartaltogetherfromthefactthatthesecaveatsarefoundedonademonstrablymistakenconceptionoftheoriginoftheNewTestamentCanon,theyareinthemselvesinvalid.Thetermlo,giawascontemporaneouslyappliedtowritingsoftheNewTestamentassuch-asaglanceatIIClem.xiii.andPolycarpvii.willshow-andasLightfoot'snoteontheformerpassage,correctinghislesscarefulearliernoteonthelatterpassage,pointsout.Andthatta.lo,giacouldeasilyrefertoanydefiniteportionofthecongeriesof"oracles"knownalsoas"Scripture,"Philo'susageasindicatedabove(p.374)sufficientlyexhibits.Fortherest,itcannotbedoubtedthatPapiaswasunderstoodbyallhisearlyreaderstomeanbyhista.lo,giaofMatthew,justMatthew'sGospel.Thishasbeensufficientlyshown("Einleitung,"ii.265)byZahn,whoinhisrichandfundamentallyrightremarksonthesubjectbothhereandelsewhere(e.g.,pp.254seq.and"Geschichted.Kanons,"i.857seq.,ii.790seq.)suppliesanotherinstanceofhownearagreatscholarcancometothetruthofamatterwithoutpreciselyadoptingit.

91. Inthethirty-fifthchapterofthefourthbookofOrigen's"AgainstCelsus,"thereisapassagewhichisgiventhisappearanceinDr.Crombie'sexcellentEnglishtranslation,printedinthe"Ante-NiceneLibrary"(Am.Ed.,iv.512):"AndyetifCelsushadwishedhonestlytooverturnthegenealogywhichhedeemedtheJewstohavesoshamelesslyarrogated,inboastingofAbrahamandhisdescendants(astheirprogenitors),heoughttohavequotedallthepassagesbearingonthesubject;and,inthefirstplace,tohaveadvocatedhiscausewithsuchargumentsashethoughtlikelytobeconvincing,andinthenexttohavebravelyrefuted,bymeansofwhatappearedtohimtobethetruemeaning,andbyargumentsinitsfavor,theerrorsexistingonthesubject(kai.toi/ju`pe.rauvth/jlogi,oijta.kata.to.nto,pon)."Therenderirgoflogi,oijhereby"arguments,"however,iscertainlywrong.ThewholecontextisspeakingofCelsus'misrepresentationoftheteachingoftheHebrewScriptures;andwhatOrigenwouldhavehimdoistopointoutthepassagesinthemwhichwillbearouthisallegations.AccordingtoKoetschau'sindexthewordoccursbuttwiceelsewhereinthetreatise"AgainstCelsus,"viz.,V.xxix.adfin.,andVI.lxxvii.neartheend(insertedbyKoetschaufromPhiloc.85,16):andinbothofthesecasesthehighmeaningofthewordisunmistakable.

92. Dr.F.W.Farrar,withhisfatalfacilityforquotingphrasesinsensesfarotherthanthoseattachedtothembytheirauthors(otherinstancesmeetusinhisdealingwiththeformula"ScripturacomplectiturVerbumDei"andwiththe

word"Inspiration"inthesamecontext,-seepp.369,370ofworkcited)makesathoroughlywronguseofthispassage("Hist.ofInterpretation,"p.374,note2).Hesays:"ButasfarbackastheeighthcenturytheeminentlyorthodoxFather,St.JohnofDamascus,hadsaid,'WeapplynottothewrittenwordofScripturethetitleduetotheIncarnateWordofGod.'HesaysthatwhentheScripturesarecalledlo,giaqeou/thephraseisonlyfigurative,'Disput.ChristianietSaraceni'(seeLupton,St.JohnofDamascus,p.95)."ButJohnsaystheScripturesarecalledwithoutfigurer`h,matatou/qeou/:heonlymeanstosaytheyarenotGod'sWordinthesamesensethattheLogosis:incomparisonwithHimwhoistheonlyincarnateWordofGod,theyareonlyfigurativelywordsofGod,buttheyarerealwordsofGod,nevertheless,Hisr`h,mata,bywhichdesignation,ratherthanlo,gia,Johnwouldhavethemcalled,nottoavoidconfessingthemtobeGod'sutterances,buttoescapeaMoslemjibe.

93. Aninstanceofthesecularuseofthewordinthisloweredmeaning,isfounddoubtlessintheScholiumonthe"Frogs"ofAristophanesadducedabove,p.336.ThedateofthisScholiumisuncertain,butitseemstobelongtothelaterstrataoftheScholia.Itisnotfoundinthe"RavennaMS.,"whichRutherfordispublishing;norinthe"Venetus"(Marc.474),cf.Blaydes,"Ranae,"p.391;norindeedinfouroutofthesixMSS.usedbyDindorf(iv.2,p.113).

94. Inhis"ConciseDictionaryofEnglishandModernGreek,"sub.vocc."word"and"saying."

95. Inhis"NewLexiconofModernGreekandEnglish,"subvoc.96. Sophocles,inhis"Lexicon,"givesalsothefollowingreferencesforthis

sense:TitusofBostra(Migne,xviii.1253B);SerapionofEgypt(Migne,xl.908C,909B).Referencesmightbeadded,apparently,indefinitely.

97. ItisthereforeaperfectlyblindcommentthatwemeetwithinGerhardHeine'srecent"SynonymikdesN.T.Griechisch"(1898),p.157-whenincontrasttolo,gojasthe"reasonableexpression"ofthenou/jto.lo,gionissaidtobe"moretheseparateutterance,withthe(occasional?)accessorynotionofpromise(Rom.iii.2)."

98. Seearticleentitled,"ItSays;ScriptureSays;GodSays,"inthenumberofthisReviewforJuly,1899,andalsoarticleentitled,"God-InspiredScripture,"inthenumberforJanuary,1900.

InspirationAndCriticism

Thepurposeofthispaperistobringtogethersomewhatmorefullythancanbeeasilyfoundinoneplaceelsewhere,thematerialforformingajudgmentastothesensebornebytheterm[ta.]lo,gia,asitappearsinthepagesoftheNewTestament.ThistermoccursonlyfourtimesintheNewTestament.Thepassages,astranslatedbytheEnglishrevisersof1881,areasfollows:"Moses...whoreceivedlivingoraclestogiveuntous"(Actsvii.38);"They[theJews]wereintrustedwiththeoraclesofGod"(Rom.iii.2);"Whenbyreasonofthetimeyeoughttobeteachers,yehaveneedagainthatsomeoneteachyoutherudimentsofthefirstprinciplesoftheoraclesofGod"(Heb.v.12);"IfanymanspeakethlethimspeakasitwereoraclesofGod"(IPeteriv.11).Thegeneralsenseofthetermisobviousonthefaceofthings:andthecommentatorscertainlydonotgowhollywronginexplainingit.Buttheminordifferencesthatemergeintheirexplanationsarenumerous,andseemfrequentlytoevinceaninsufficientexaminationoftheusageoftheword:andthereferencesbywhichtheysupporttheirseveralviewsarenotalwaysaccessibletoreaderswhowouldfaintestthem,sothatthevaryingexplanationsstand,intheeyesofmany,asonlysomanyobiterdictabetweenwhichchoicemustbemade,ifchoiceismadeatall,purelyarbitrarily.Ithasseemed,therefore,asifitwouldnotbewithoutitsvalueiftheusageofthewordwereexhibitedinsufficientfullnesstoserveassomesortofatouchstoneoftheexplanationsthathavebeenofferedofit.Wearesure,atanyrate,thatstudentsoftheNewTestamentremotefromlibrarieswillnotbesorrytohaveathandatolerablyfullaccountoftheusageoftheword:andwearenotwithouthopethatacomprehensiveviewofitmayhelptocorrectsomelongstandingerrorsconcerningitsexactmeaning,andmay,indeed,pointnotobscurelytoitstrueconnotation-whichisnotwithoutinterestingimplications.UpheldbythishopeweshallessaytopassinrapidreviewtheusageoftheterminClassic,HellenisticandPatristicGreek,andthentoaskwhat,inthelightofthisusage,thewordislikelytohavemeanttothewritersoftheNewTestament.

I.Itmaybejustaswellattheoutsettodisabuseourmindsofanypresumptionthatadiminutivesenseisinherentinthetermlo,gion,asaresultofitsveryform.2WhetherweexplainitwithMeyer-Weiss3astheneuteroflo,giojandpointtologi,dion4astheproperdiminutiveofthisstem;orlookuponitwithSanday-Headlam5asoriginallythediminutiveoflo,goj,whoseplaceassuch

wassubsequently,viz.,whenitacquiredthespecialsenseof"oracle,"takenbythestrengtheneddiminutivelogi,dion-itremainstruethatnotraceofadiminutivesenseattachestoitaswemeetitonthepagesofGreekliterature.6

Wearepointed,tobesure,toascholiumonthe"Frogs"ofAristophanes(line942)asindicatingthecontrary.Thepassageisthewell-knownoneinwhichEuripidesismadetorespondtoÆschylus'inquiryastowhatthingshemanufactured."Notwingedhorses,"isthereply(asWheelwrighttranslatesit),"ByJupiter,norgoat-stags,suchasthou,LikepaintingsontheMediantapestry,ButasfromtheeIfirstreceivedtheart,Swellingwithboastfulpompandheavywords,Iparéditstraightandtookawayitssubstance,Withlittlewords,andwalkingdialogues,7Andwhitebeetmingled,strainingfromthebooksAjuiceofpleasantsayings,-thenIfedhimWithmonodies,mixingCtesiphon."Itisuponthewordheretranslated"withlittlewords,"butreallymeaning"verselets"(Blaydes:versiculis)-evpulli,oij-thatthescholiumoccurs.Itruns:vAnti.tou/logi,oijmikroi/j\w`jde.bre,fojbrefu,llion,kai.ei=dojeivdu,llion\ou;twkai.e;pojevpu,llion.8Thatistosay,evpu,llionisadiminutiveofthesameclassasbrefu,llionandevpu,llion,9andmeanslo,gionmikro,n.Sincetheideaofsmallnessisexplicitintheadjectiveattachedtolo,gionhere,surelyitisnotnecessarytodiscoveritalsointhenoun,10especiallywhenwhatthescholiastisobviouslystrivingtosayisnotthatevpullioijmeans"littlewordlets,"but"littleverses."Thepresenceofmikroi/jhere,ratherisconclusiveevidencethatlogi,oijbyitselfdidnotconveyadiminutivemeaningtothescholiast.Ifwearetogivelo,gionanunexampledsensehere,wemightbetemptedtotakeit,therefore,asintendedtoexpresstheidea"verses"ratherthanthetautologicaloneof"littlewords"oreven"littlemaxims"or"littlesayings."Anditmightfairlybepleadedinfavorofsodoingthatlo,gioninitscurrentsenseof"oracle"notonlyliesclosetooneoftheordinarymeaningsofe;poj("Od.,"12,266;Herod.,1,13,andoftenintheTragedians),butalso,becauseoracleswerecommonlycouchedinverse,mighteasilycometosuggestinpopularspeechtheideaof"verse,"sothatalo,gionmikro,nwouldeasilyobtrudeitselfastheexactsynonymofevpu,llion,inEuripides'sense,i.e.,inthesenseofshortbrokenverses.Thereisnoreasonapparentontheotherhandwhyweshouldfindadiminutiveimplicationinthewordashereused,andinanycase,ifthisisintended,itisasenseunillustratedbyasingleinstanceofusage.

AndtheunquestionablelearningofEustathiusseemstoassureusthattoGreekearslo,giondidnotsuggestadiminutivesenseatall.Heiscommentingonline339oftheSecondBookofthe"Iliad,"whichruns,

phvdh.sunqesi.aitekai.o[rkiabh,setaih`mi/n,

andhetellsusthato[rkioninHomerisnotadiminutive,butisaformationsimilartolo,gion,whichmeans"anoracle":Ouvcu`pokoristiko.nde.parv`Omh,rw|ouvde.)))to.i'cnion)[Wsperde.ta.o[rkiaparwno,mastaievktou/o[rkou(ou[twkai.evktou/lo,gouta.lo,giah;kounoi`crhsmoi,.11Thereisnodirectstatementhere,tobesure,thatlo,gionisnotadiminutive;thatstatementismade-withentireaccuracy-onlyofo[rkionandi;cnion:12noristhederivationsuggestedforlo,gion,asifitcamedirectlyfromlo,goj,perhapsscientificallyaccurate.Butthereiseveryindicationofclearnessofperceptioninthestatement:anditcouldscarcelybegiventheformithas,hadlo,gionstoodinEustathius'mindasthediminutiveoflo,goj.Itobviouslyrepresentedtohimnotadiminutivesynonymoflo,goj,butanequalsynonymofcrhsmo,j.Whatlo,gionstoodfor,inhismind,isveryclearlyexhibited,further,inacommentwhichhemakesonthe416thlineoftheFirstBookofthe"Odyssey,"whereTelemachusdeclaresthathedoesnot"carefordivinationssuchasmymotherseeks,summoningadivinertothehall":

ou;teqeopropi,hjevmpa,zomai(h[ntinamh,threvjme,garonkale,sasaqeopro,ponevxere,htai)

Eustathiuswishesustonotethatqeopro,pojmeansthema,ntij,qeopropi,ahisart,andqeopro,pionthemessagehedelivers,whichEustathiuscallsthecrhsmw,|dhma,andinformsusisdenominatedbytheAtticsalsolo,gion.Hesays:vIste,onde.o[tiqeopro,pojme.na;llwj(o`ma,ntij)qeopropi,ade.(h`te,cnhauvtou/)qeopro,pionde.(to.crhsmw|,dhma(o]kai.lo,gione;legonoi`vAttikoi,.13ToEustathius,thuslo,gionwassimplytheexactsynonymofthehighestwordsinusetoexpressadivinecommunicationtomen-qeopro,pion,14crhsmw|,dhma(crhsmo,j.SimilarlyHesychius'definitionruns:Lo,gia:qe,sfata(mauteu,mata,(pro)fhteu,mata(fh/mai(crhsmoi,.Inaword,lo,giondiffersfromlo,gojnotasexpressingsomethingsmallerthanit,butasexpressingsomethingmoresacred.

TheGreeksynonymyofthenotion"oracle"isatonceextraordinarilyfullandveryobscure.Itiseasytodrawupalonglistofterms-mantei/a(manteu,mata(pro,ganta(qeopro,pia(evpiqespismoi,(qe,sfata(qespi,smata(lo,gia,andthelike;butexceedinglydifficult,wedonotsaytolaydownhardandfastlinesbetweenthem,buteventoestablishanyshadesofdifferenceamongthemwhichareconsistentlyreflectedinusage.M.Bouché-Leclercq,aftercommentingonthe

povertyoftheLatinnomenclature,continuesastotheGreek:15

"TheGreekterminologyisricherandallowsanalysisofthedifferentsenses,butitisevenmoreconfusedthanabundant.TheGreeks,possessorsofaflexibletongue,capableofrenderingalltheshadesofthought,oftensquanderedtheirtreasures,broadeningthemeaningofwordsatpleasure,multiplyingsynonymswithoutdistinguishingbetweenthem,andthusdisdainingtheprecisiontowhichtheycouldattainwithouteffort.Weshallseekinvainfortermsespeciallyappropriatedtodivinationbyoracles.Fromtheverbcrh/sqai,whichsignifiesinHomer'toreveal'inageneralway,comethederivativescrhsmo,jandcrhsth,rion.Thelatter,whichdatesfromHesiodandtheHomerides,designatestheplacewherepropheciesaredispensedand,later,theresponsesthemselves,ortheinstrumentbywhichtheyareobtained.Crhsmo,j,whichcomesintocurrentusagefromthetimeofSolon,isappliedwithoutambiguitytoinspiredandversifiedprophecies,butbelongsequallytotheresponsesoftheoraclesandthoseoffreeprophets.Thewordmantei/oninthesingulardesignatesordinarilytheplaceofconsultation;butinthepluralitisappliedtothepropheciesthemselvesofwhateverorigin.Inthelastsenseithasacrowdofsynonymsofindeterminateandchangeableshadesofmeaning.Thegrammariansthemselveshavebeenobligedtorenounceimposingrulesonthecapricioususageandseekingrecognitionfortheirartificialdistinctions.Welearnoncemoretheimpossibilityoferectingprecisedefinitionsfortermswhichlackprecision."

AmongthedistinctionswhichhavebeenproposedbutwhichusagewillnotsustainisthediscriminationerectedbythescholiastonEuripides,"Phœniss.,"907,16whichwouldreserveqe,sfata(qespi,smata(crhsmoi,fororaclesdirectlyfromthegods,andassignmanteu/aiandmanteu,matatotheresponsesofthediviners.Thegrainoftruthinthisisthatinma,ntij(manteu,esqai(mantei,a,etymologically,whatismostprominentistheideaofaspecialunwontedcapacity,attentionbeingdirectedbythesewordstothestrongspiritualelevationwhichbegetsnewpowersinus.While,ontheotherhand,inqespi,zeinthereferenceisdirectlytothedivineinspiration,which,becauseitisnormallydeliveredinsong,isreferredtobysuchformsasqespiw|do,v,qespiw|,dein)Crhsmo,j,ontheotherhand,seemsanexpressionwhichinitselfhaslittledirectreferenceeithertothesourcewhenceortheforminwhichtheoraclecomes,butdescribestheoraclefromthepointofviewofwhatitisinitself-viz.,a"communication"-goingback,asitdoes,tocrh/n,theoriginalsenseofwhichseemstobe"tobestow,""tocommunicate."17lo,giondoubtlessmaybeclassedwithcrhsmo,jinthisrespect-itisparexcellencethe"utterance,"the"saying."It

wouldseemtobedistinguishedfromcrhsmo,jbyhavingevenlessreferencethanittothesourcewhence-somethingas"adeclaration"isdistinguishedfrom"amessage."Ifwesupposeaheraldcomingwiththecry,"AcommunicationfromtheLord,"andthen,afterdeliveringthemessage,adding:"ThisisHisutterance,"itmightfairlybecontendedthatinstrictprecisiontheformershouldbecrhsmo,jandthelatterlo,gion,insofarastheformertermmaykeepfaintlybeforethemindthesourceofthemessageasathinggiven,whilethelattermaydirecttheattentiontoitscontentastheverythingreceived,doubtlesswithafurtherconnotationofitsfitnesstoitshighorigin.Suchsubtletyofdistinction,however,isnotsuretostampitselfoncurrentuse,sothatbysuchetymologicalconsiderationswearenotmuchadvancedindeterminingtheordinaryconnotationofthewordsinusage.

Amuchmorefamousdiscrimination,andonewhichmuchmorenearlyconcernsusatpresent,hasbeenerectedonwhatseemstobeamisapprehensionofaconstructioninThucydides.Inapassagewhichhasreceivedthecomplimentofimitationbyanumberofhissuccessors,18thehistorianisdescribingtheagitationcausedbytheoutbreakofthePeloponnesianwar,onesymptomofwhichwasthepassionfororacleswhichwasdeveloped."AllHellas,"hesays,19"wasexcitedbythecomingconflictbetweenthetwocities.Manywerethepropheciescirculated,andmanytheoracleschantedbydiviners(kai.polla.me.nlo,giaevle,gonto(polla.de.crhsmolo,goih|=don),notonlyinthecitiesabouttoengageinthestruggle,butthroughoutHellas."Andagain,astheLacedæmoniansapproachedthecity,oneofthemarkshe,atalaterpoint,notesoftheincreasingexcitementisthat"soothsayers(crhsmologoi)wererepeatingoracles(h=|doncrhsmou,j)ofthemostdifferentkinds,whichallfoundinsomeoneorotherenthusiasticlisteners."20Onacasualglancethedistinctionappearstolieonthesurfaceoftheformerpassagethatlo,giaareoraclesinproseandcrhsmoi,oraclesinverse:andsothescholiast21onthepassage,followedbySuidas22defines.ButitisimmediatelyobviousonthemostcursoryglanceintoGreekliteraturethatthedistinctionthussuggestedwillnothold.Thecrhsmoi,are,tobesure,commonlyspokenofassung;andthegroupofwordscrhsmw|do,j(crhsmw|de,w(crhsmw|di,a(crhsmw|,dhma(crhsmw|,dhj(crhsmw|diko,j,witnessestotheintimateconnectionofthetwoideas.Butthisarisesoutofthenatureofthecase,ratherthanoutofanyspecialsenseattachedtothewordcrhsmo,j:andaccordingly,bythesideofthisgroupofwords,wehaveotherswhich,ontheonehand,compoundcrhsmo,jwithtermsnotimplicativeofsinging(crhsmhgore,w(crhsmago,rhj-crhsmodote,w(crhsmodo,thj(crhsmodo,thma-crhsmologe,w(crhsmolo,goj(crhsmologi,a(

crhsmolo,gion(crhsmologikh,(crhsmole,schj-crhsmopoio,j),and,ontheotherhand,compoundotherwordsfororacleswithwordsdenotingsinging(qespiw|de,w(qespiw|,dhma(qespiw|do,j).Thefactisthat,asJ.H.Heinr.Schmidt23pointsoutinaninterestingdiscussion,thenaturalexpressionofelevatedfeelingwasoriginallyinsong:sothatthesingercomesbeforethepoetandthepoetbeforethespeaker.Itwasthusasnaturalfortheancientstosayvati-ciniumasitisformodernstosayWeis-sagungorsooth-saying;butasthecustomofwrittenliteraturegraduallytransformedtheconsciousnessofmen,theirthoughtbecamemorelogicalandlesspictorialuntileventhePythiaceasedatlasttospeakinverse.Meanwhile,oldcustomdominatedtheoracles.Theywerechanted:theywerecouchedinverse:andthetermswhichhadbeenframedtodescribethemcontinuedtobearthisimplication.Evenwhencalledlo,gia,theyprovetobeordinarily24inverse;andthesealsoaresaidtobesung,asweread,forexample,inDioCassius(431,66and273,64):lo,giapantoi/ah|;deto.Whatappearstobeasomewhatconstantequivalenceinusageofthetwotermscrhsmo,jandlo,gion,spreadbroadlyoverthefaceofGreekliterature,seemsinanyeventtonegativetheproposeddistinction.NordoesthepassageinThucydideswhenmorecloselyexaminedaffordanyrealgroundforit.Afterall,lo,giaandcrhsmoi,arenotcontrastedinthispassage:thewordcrhsmoi,doesnotevenoccurinit.Thestressofthedistinctionfalls,indeed,notonthenouns,butontheverbs,thepointoftheremarkbeingthatoracleswerescatteredamongthepeoplebyeverypossiblemethod.25Ifweaddthatthesecondpolla,isprobablynottoberesolvedintopollou.jcrhsmou,j,26thecrhsmou,jbeingderivedfromthecrhsmw|lo,goi,butistohavelo,giasuppliedwithitfromtheprecedingclause,theassumeddistinctionbetweenlo,giaandcrhsmoi,goesupatonceinsmoke.Lo,giaalonearespokenof:andtheselo,giaaresaidtobebothspokenandsung.27

Soeasyandfrequentistheinterchangebetweenthetwotermsthatitseemsdifficulttoalloweventhemorewaryattemptsofmoderncommentatorstodiscriminatebetweenthem.Theseordinarilyturnontheideathatlo,giaisthemoregeneralandcrhsmo,jthemorespecificword,andgobacktothecarefulstudyoftheBarondeLocella,28inhiscommentonapassagein(thelater)Xenophon's"Ephesiaca."Locella'snotedoesindeedpracticallycovertheground.Hebeginsbynotingtheinterchangeofthetwowordsinthetextbeforehim.Thenheoffersthedefinitionthatoraculorumresponsaaregenericallylo,gia,whetherinproseorverse,adducingthelo,giapalaia,ofEurip.,"Heracl.,"406,andthelo,gionpuqo,crhstonofPlutarch,"Thes.,"i.55,asinstancesoflo,giaundoubtedlycouchedinverse;whileversifiedoracles,originallyin

hexametersandlateriniambictrimetersare,specifically,crhsmoi,-whencecrhsmw|de,wisvaticinor,crhsmw|di,a,vaticinium,andcrhsmw|do,j,vates.Asthusthedifferencebetweenthetwowordsisthatofgenusandspecies,theymaybeusedpromiscuouslyforthesameoracle.Itisworththetrouble,hethenremarks,toinspecthowoftenlo,gionandcrhsmo,jareinterchangedinthe"Knights"ofAristophanesbetweenverses109and1224,fromwhichtheerrorofthescholiastonThucydides,ii.8,isclearandofSuidasfollowinghim,inmakinglo,gionspecificallyanoracleinprose,andcrhsmo,joneinverse.HethenquotesEustathiusonthe"Iliad,"ii.ver.233,andonthe"Odyssey,"i.ver.1426;adducesthegloss,lo,gion(o`crhsmo,j;andaskshisreaderstonotewhatStephensadducesfromCamerariusagainstthisdistinction.29ThecontinueddesignationbyGreekwritersoftheprosePythianoraclesascrhsmoi,isadvertedto,Plutarch'stestimonybeingdwelton:andrelevantscholiaonAristophanes'"Av".,960,and"Nub.,"144,arereferredto.ItisnotstrangethatLocella'sfinding,basedonsoexhaustiveasurveyoftherelevantfacts,shouldhavedominatedlatercommentators,whodifferfromitordinarilymorebywayofslightmodificationthanofanyrealrevision-suggestingthatlo,gia,beingthemoregeneralword,issomewhatlesssacred;30orsomewhatlessprecise;31orsomewhatlessancient.32Thecommondifficultywithalltheseeffortstodistinguishthetwowordsisthatthereisnousagetosustainthem.Whenthetwowordsoccurtogetheritisnotincontrastbutinapparentlycompleteequivalence,andwhenlo,gionappearsapartfromcrhsmo,jitisinasensewhichseemsinnowaytobedistinguishablefromit.Theonlyqualificationtowhichthisstatementseemsliable,arisesfromafaintly-feltsuspicionthat,inaccordancewiththeiretymologicalimplicationsalreadysuggested,crhsmo,jhasatendencytoappearwhenthemindofthespeakerismoreuponthesourceofthe"oracle"andlo,gionwhenhismindismoreuponitssubstance.

EveninsuchararepassageasEurip.,"Heracl.,"406,wherethetwowordsoccurinquasi-contrast,wefindnofurthergroundforanintelligibledistinctionbetweenthem:

"Yetallmypreparationswellarelaid:Athensisallinarms,thevictimsreadyStandforthegodsforwhomtheymustbeslain.ByseersthecityisfilledwithsacrificeForthefoes'routandsavingofthestate.Allprophecy-chantershaveIcausedtomeet,Intooldpublicoracleshavesearched,

Andsecret,forsalvationofthisland.33Andmidtheirmanifestdiversities,Inonethingglaresthesenseofallthesame-TheybidmetoDemeter'sdaughterslay,Amaidenofahigh-bornfathersprung."34

Andordinarilytheydisplayaninterchangeabilitywhichseemsalmoststudied,itissocompleteand,asitwere,iterant.Certainly,atallevents,itisgoodadvicetofollow,togotoAristophanes'"Knights"tolearntheirusage.InthatbitingplayDemos-theAthenianpeople-ispicturedas"aSibyllianizingoldman"withwhomCleoncurriesfavorbyplyinghimwithoracles,

a|;deide.crhsmou,j\o`de.ge,rwnsibullia|/.35

Niciasstealstou.jcrhsmou,jfromCleon,andbringsto.ni`ero.ncrhsmo,ntoDemosthenes,whoimmediatelyonreadingitexclaims,w=lo,gia!36"DEM.:+Wlo,gia.Givemequickthecup!NIC.:Behold,whatsaysthecrhsmo,j?DEM.:Pouron!NIC.:Isitsostatedinthelogi,oij?DEM.:OBacis!"Tocaptheclimax,thescholiastremarksonw=lo,gia:"(manteu,mata):hewonderswhenhereadsto.ncrhsmo,n."Onlyalittlelater,37DemosthenesiscounselingtheSausageVendernotto"slightwhatthegodsbytoi/jlogi,oisihavegiven"himandreceivestheanswer:"Whatthensayso`crhsmo,j?"andafterthecontentsofitareexplainedthedeclaration,"Iamflatteredbyta.lo,gia."Asthedénouementapproaches,CleonandtheSausageVenderpleadthattheiroraclesmayatleastbeheard(lines960-961:oi`crhsmoi,).Theyarebrought,andthisabsurdsceneistheresult:"CLEON:Behold,lookhere-andyetI'venotgotall.S.V.:Ah,me!Iburst-'andyetI'venotgotall!'DEM.:Whatarethese?CLEON:Oracles(lo,gia).DEM.:All!CLEON:Doyouwonder?ByJupiter,I'vestillachestfulleft.S.V.:AndIanupperwithtwodwellingrooms.DEM.:Come,letusseewhoseoracles(oi`crhsmoi,)arethese?CLEON:MineareofBacis.DEM.:Whosearethine?S.V.:OfGlamis,hiselderbrother."Andwhentheyarereadtheyareallalikeinheroicmeasure.

ItisnotinAristophanesalone,however,thatthisequivalencemeetsus:theeasyinterchangeofthetwowordsis,wemaysay,constantthroughoutGreekliterature.Thus,forexample,inthe"Corinthiaca"ofPausanias(ii.20,10)anoracleisintroducedasto.lo,gion,andcommentedonaso`crhsmo,j.38InDiodorusSiculus,ii.14,39SemiramisissaidtohavegonetoAmmoncrhsome,nhtw|/qew|/peri.th/jivdi,ajteleuth/j,and,thenarrativecontinues,

le,getaiaujth|/gene,sqailo,gion.SimilarlyinPlutarch's"DeDefectuOrac.,"v.40wehavethethreetermsto.crhsthri,on(to.lo,gionandta.mantei/atau/taequated:in"DeMul.Virt.,"viii.41thelo,giaareexplainedbywhatwasevcrh,sqh:in"QuaestionesRomanae,"xxi.42lo,giacamebywayofacrhsmw|dei/n.Inthe"Ephesiaca"ofthelaterXenophonmetricalmanteu,mataarereceived,therecipientsofwhichareindoubtwhatta.tou/qeou/lo,giacanmean,until,onconsideration,theydiscoveralikelyinterpretationforthecrhsmo,nthatseemstomeetthewishoftheGodwhoevmanteu,sato.43

Howlittleanythingcanbederivedfromtheseparateuseoflo,giontothrowdoubtonitsequivalencewithcrhsmo,jasthusexhibited,maybeobservedfromthefollowinginstancesofitsusage,gatheredtogethersomewhatatrandom:44

Herodotus,i.64:"HepurifiedtheislandofDelos,accordingtotheinjunctionsofanoracle(evktw/nlogi,wn)";i.120:"Wehavefoundevenoraclessometimesfulfilledinunimportantways(tw/nlogi,wne;nia)";iv.178:"HereinthislakeisanislandcalledPhla,whichitissaidtheLacedæmoniansweretohavecolonizedaccordingtoanoracle(th.nnh/sonLakedaimoni,oisi,fasilo,gionei;naikti,sai)";viii.60:"Whereanoraclehassaidthatwearetoovercomeourenemies(kai.lo,gio,nevstitw/nevcqro/nkatu,perqe)";viii.62:"whichthepropheciesdeclarewearetocolonize(ta.lo,giale,gei)."Aristophanes,"Vesp.,"799:o[rato.crh/mata.lo,givw`jperai,netai;"Knights,"1050,tauti.telei/sqaita.lo,givh;dhmoidokei/.Polybius,viii.30,6:"FortheeasternquarterofTarentumisfullofmonuments,becausethosewhodietherearetothisdayallburiedwithinthewalls,inobediencetoanancientoracle(kata,tilo,gionavrcai/on)."DiodorusSiculusap.Geog.Sync.,p.194D("CorpusScriptorumHistoriaeByzantinae,"i.366),"FabiussaysanoraclecametoÆneas(Aivnei,a|gene,sqailo,gion),thataquadrupedshoulddirecthimtothefoundingofacity."Ælian,"Var.Hist.,"ii.41:"MoreoverMycerinustheEgyptian,whentherewasbroughttohimtheprophecyfromBudo(to.evkbou,thjmantei/on),predictingashortlife,andhewishedtoescapetheoracle(to.lo,gion)..."Arrian,"Expedit.Alex.,"ii.3,14(Ellendt.,1.151):w`jtou/logi,outou/evpi.th|/lu,seitou/desmou/xumbebhko,toj;vii.16,7(Ellendt.,ii.419),"ButwhenAlexanderhadcrossedtheriverTigriswithhisarmy,pushingontoBabylon,thewisemenoftheChaldeans(Caldai,wnoi`lo,gioi)methimandseparatinghimfromhiscompanionsaskedhimtocheckthemarchtoBabylon.FortheyhadanoraclefromtheirGodBelus(lo,gionevktou/qeou/tou/bh,lou)thatentranceintoBabylonatthattimewouldnotbeforhisgood.Butheansweredthemwithaverse(e;poj)ofthepoetEuripides,whichrunsthus:'Thebestma,ntijishe

whoseconclusionisgood."'Plutarch,"Nonpossesuavitervivi,"etc.,24(1103F.):"Whatofthat?(quothZeuxippus).Shallthepresentdiscoursebeleftimperfectandunfinishedbecauseofit?andfearewetoalledgetheoracleofthegods(to.lo,gionpro.jvEpi,kouronle,gontej)whenwedisputeagainsttheEpicureans?No(quothIagaine)inanywise,foraccordingtothesentenceofEmpedocles,'Agoodtaletwiceamanmaytell,andheareittoldasoftfullwell';""LifeofTheseus,"§26(p.12C,Didot,p.14),"HeappliedtohimselfacertainoracleofApollo's(lo,gio,ntipuqo,crhston)"§27(p.12E,Didot,p.14):"AtlengthTheseus,havingsacrificedtoFear,accordingtotheoracle(kata,tilo,gion)";"LifeofFabius,"§4(Didot,p.210),vEkinh,qhsande.to,tepollai.kai.tw/navporvr`h,twnkai.crhsi,mwnauvtoi/jbi,blwn(a]jSibullei,oujkalou/si\kai.le,getaisundramei/ne;niatw/navpokeime,nwnevnauvtai/jlogi,wnpro.jta.jtu,cajkai.ta.jpra,xeijevkei,naj.Pausanias,"Attica"[I.44,9](takenunverifiedfromWetstein):qu,santojAivakou/kata.dh,tilo,giontw|/Panellhni,w|Dii`,.Polyaenus,p.37(Wetstein)[I,18]:o`qeo.je;crhse-oi`pole,mioito.lo,gioneijdo,tej-tou/logi,oupeplhrwme,nou;p.347[IV,3,27],h-nde.lo,gionvApo,llwnoj.Aristeas,p.119(Wetsteln):euvcaristw/me.n(a;ndrej(u`mi/n(tw|/de.avpostei,lantima/llon\me,gistonde.tw|/qew|/(ou[tino,jevstita.lo,giatau/ta.

Asurveyofthissomewhatmiscellaneouscollectionofpassageswillcertainlyonlystrengthentheimpressionwederivedfromthoseinwhichlo,gionandcrhsmo,joccurtogether-thatinlo,gionwehaveatermexpressive,incommonusageatleast,ofthesimplenotionofadivinerevelation,anoracle,andthatindependentlyofanyaccompanyingimplicationoflengthorbrevity,poeticalorproseform,directnessorindirectnessofdelivery.Thisisthemeaningoflo,gioninthemassofprofaneGreekliterature.Aswehavealreadysuggested,thematterofthederivationofthewordisofnogreatimportancetoourinquiry:45butwemaybepermittedtoaddthattheusageseemsdistinctlyfavorabletotheviewthatitistoberegardedratheras,inorigin,theneuteroflo,giojusedsubstantively,thanthediminutiveoflo,goj.Noimplicationofbrevityseemstoattachtothewordinusage;anditsexclusiveapplicationto"oracles"mayperhapsbemosteasilyexplainedonthesuppositionthatitconnotesfundamentally"awisesaying,"andimpliesatalltimessomethingabovetheordinaryrunof"words."46

II.Itwaswiththisfixedsignificance,therefore,thatthewordpresenteditselftotheJewsofthelatercenturiesbeforeChrist,whenthechangedconditionswereforcingthemtogiveaclothinginGreekspeechtotheirconceptions,derived

fromtherevelationoftheoldcovenant;andthustopreparethewayforthelanguageofthenewcovenant.TheoldestmonumentofHellenisticGreek-theSeptuagintVersionoftheSacredBooks,madeprobablyinthecenturythatstretchedbetween250and150B.C.-is,however,peculiarlyill-adaptedtowitnesstotheHellenisticusageofthisword.Aslayinthenatureofthecase,and,asweshallseelater,wastheactualfact,totheseJewishwriterstherewereno"oracles"exceptwhatstoodwritteninthesesacredbooksthemselves,andallthatstoodwritteninthemwere"oraclesofGod."Inatranslationofthebooksthemselves,naturallythis,themostsignificantHellenisticapplicationoftheword"oracles,"couldfindlittleplace.Andthoughthetermmightbeemployedwithinthesacredbookstotranslatesuchaphraseas,say,"thewordofGod,"inoneformoranothernotinfrequentlymetwithintheirpages,thewayevenherewascloggedbythefactthattheHebrewwordsusedinthesephrasesonlyimperfectlycorrespondedtotheGreekwordlo,gion,andwerenotverynaturallyrepresentedbyit.ThoughtheordinaryHebrewverbfor"saying"-rm;a'47-towhichetymologicallycertainhighimplicationsmightbethoughttobenatural,hadsubstantivalderivatives,yetthesewerefairlyeffectuallysetasidebyatermoflowerorigin-rb'D'48-whichabsorbedverymuchthewholefieldoftheconception"word."49Thederivativesofrm;a'-rm,ao,hr'm.ai,hr'm.a,,rm'a}m;-inaccordancewiththeiretymologicalimpressofloftinessorauthority,arerelegatedtopoeticspeech(exceptrm'a}m;,whichoccursonlyinEstheri.15,ii.20,ix.32,andhasthesenseofcommandment)andareusedcomparativelyseldom.50Nevertheless,itwastooneofthesethattheSeptuaginttranslatorsfittedthewordlo,gion.Torb'D'theynaturallyconsecratedthegeneraltermslo,goj(r`h/ma(pra/gma:whiletheyadjustedlo,gionaswellasmightbetohr'm.ai,andlefttoonesidemeanwhileitsclassicalsynonyms51-exceptmantei,aanditscognates,whichtheyassigned,chiefly,ofcourse,inabadsense,totheHebrewmmqinthesenseof"divination."

hr'm.aiis,tobesure,innosenseanexactsynonymoflo,gion.Itissimplyapoeticalwordofhighimplications,prevailingly,thoughnotexclusively,usedofthe"utterances"ofGod,andapparentlyfeltbytheSeptuaginttranslatorstobearinitsbosomaspecialhintoftheauthoritativenessorawesomenessofthe"word"itdesignates.Itisusedonlysomethirty-sixtimesintheentireOldTestament(ofwhichnolessthannineteenareinPs.cxix.),anddesignatesthesolemnwordsofmen(Gen.iv.23,cf.Isa.xxix.4bis.,xxviii.23,xxxii.9;Ps.xvii.6;Deut.xxxii.2)aswellas,moreprevailingly,thoseofGod.Inadjustinglo,giontoittheinstancesofitsapplicationtohumanwordsare,ofcourse,passedbyandtranslatedeitherbylo,goj(Gen.iv.23;Isa.xxix.4bis.;Isa.xxviii.23,xxxii.9),

orr`h/ma(Deut.xxxii.2;Ps.xvii.6).Inafewotherinstances,althoughthetermisappliedto"wordsofGod,"itistranslatedbyGreekwordsotherthanlo,gion(IISam.xxii.31,LXX.r`h/ma,anditscloseparallel,Prov.xxx.5,LXX.lo,goi,thoughintheotherparallels,Ps.xii.7,xviii.31,theLXX.haslo,gia;Ps.cxix.[41]52,154,wheretheLXX.haslo,goj;inPs.cxxxviii.2,theLXX.readsto.a[gio,nsou,onwhichBæthgenremarks,inloc.,that"a[gio,nseemstobeacorruptionforlo,gion,"whichisreadherebyAquilaandtheQuinta).Intheremaininginstancesofitsoccurrences,however-andthatisinthelargemajorityofitsoccurrences-thewordisuniformlyrenderedbylo,gion(Deut.xxxiii.9;Ps.xii.7bis.,xviii.31,cv.19,cxix.11,38[41],5250,58,67,76,82,103,116,123,133,140,148,158,162,170,172,cxlvii.15;Isa.v.24).Ifthereisafringeofusageofhr'm.aithusstandingoutsideoftheusemadeoflo,gion,thereis,ontheotherside,acorrespondingstretchingoftheusemadeoflo,gionbeyondtherangeofhr'm.ai-tocoverafewpassagesjudgedbythetranslatorsofsimilarimport.Thusittranslatesrm,aoinNum.xxiv.4,16;Ps.xviii.15[xix.15],cvi.[cvii.]11,and7=rb'D'inPs.cxviii.[cxix.]25,65,107,169,[cxlvii.8];Isa.xxviii.13;anditrepresentsinafewpassagesXoyov,avariationfromtheHebrew,viz.,Ps.cxviii.[cxix.];Isa.xxx.11,27bis.Intwenty-fiveinstancesofitsthirty-nineoccurrences,however,itistherenderingofhr'm.ai.53ItisalsousedtwiceintheGreekapocrypha(Wis.xvi.11;Sir.xxxvi.19[16]),inquitethesamesense.Inalltheforty-oneinstancesofitsusage,itisneedlesstosay,itisemployedinitsnativeandonlycurrentsense,of"oracle,"asacredutteranceoftheDivineBeing,theonlyapparentexceptiontothisuniformityofusage(Ps.xviii.15[xix.15])beingreallynoexception,but,intruth,significantoftheattitudeofthetranslatorstothetexttheyweretranslating-asweshallseepresently.

WhatledtheLXX.translatorstofixuponhr'm.aiasthenearestHebrewequivalenttolo,gion,54wehavescantymaterialforjudging.Certainly,inPsalmcxix,wherethewordmostfrequentlyoccurs,itisdifficulttoerectadistinctionbetweenitsimplicationsandthoseofrb'D'withwhichitseemstobefreelyinterchanged,butwhichtheLXX.translatorskeepreasonablydistinctfromitbyrenderingitprevailinglybylo,goj,55whileequallyprevailinglyreservinglo,gionforhr'm.ai.56PerhapsthereadermayfaintlyfeeleveninthisPsalm,thathr'm.aiwastothewriterthemoresacredandsolemnword,andwasused,inhisrhetoricalvariationofhisterms,especiallywheneverthesenseoftheawesomenessofGod'swordsortheunityofthewholerevelationofGod57moreprominentlyoccupiedhismind;andthisimpressionisslightlyincreased,perhaps,inthecaseoftheinterchangeoflo,gionandlo,gojintheGreek

translation.WhenwelookbeyondthisPsalmwecertainlyfeelthatsomethingmorerequirestobesaidofhr'm.aithanmerelythatitispoetic.58Itisveryseldomappliedtohumanwordsandthenonlytothemostsolemnformsofhumanspeech-Gen.xxiv.23(LXX.,lo,goi);Deut.xxxii.2(LXX.,r`h/ma);Ps.xxvii.(LXX.,r`h/ma);cf.Isa.xxix.4bis(LXX.,lo,goi)wherethespeakerisJerusalemwhosespeechiscomparedtothemurmuringoffamiliarspiritsorofthedead,59andIsa.xxviii.23,xxxii.9,wheretheprophet'swordisinquestion.ItappearstosuggestitselfnaturallywhenGod'swordistoreceiveitshighestpraises(IISam.xxii.31;Ps.xii.7,xviii.31;Prov.xxx.5;Ps.cxxxviii.2),orwhenthewordofJehovahisconceivedaspoweroradducedinapeculiarlysolemnway(Ps.cxlvii.1860;Isa.v.24).PerhapsthemostsignificantpassageisthatinPsalmcv.19,wherethewriterwouldappeartocontrastman'swordwithGod'sword,usingfortheformerrb'D'(LXX.,lo,goj)andforthelatterhr'm.ai(LXX.,lo,gion):JosephwastriedbythewordoftheLorduntilhisownwordscametopass.61WhateverimplicationsofsuperiorsolemnityattachedtotheHebrewwordhr'm.ai,however,werenotonlypreserved,butemphasizedbytheemploymentoftheGreektermlo,giontotranslateit-atermwhichwasinapplicable,inthenatureofthecase,tohumanwords,anddesignatedwhateveritwasappliedtoastheutteranceofGod.Wemayseeitsloftyimplicationsintheapplicationgiventoitoutsidetheusageofhr'm.ai-inNum.xxiv.4,forexample,wheretheverysolemndescriptionofBalaam'sdeliverances-"oracleofthehearerofthewordsofGod"(la-yrem.ai)-isrenderedmostnaturallyfhsi.navkou,wnlo,giaivscurou/.Here,onewouldsay,wehavetheveryessenceoftheword,asdevelopedinitsclassicalusage,appliedtoBiblicalconceptions:anditisessentiallythisconceptionofthe"unspeakableoraclesofGod"(Sir.,xxxvi.19,[16])thatisconveyedbythewordineveryinstanceofitsoccurrence.

Anexceptionhasbeensometimesfound,tobesure,inPs.xviii.15(xix.14),inasmuchasinthispassagewehavethewordsofthePsalmistdesignatedasta.lo,gia:"Andthewords(ta.lo,gia)ofmymouthandthemeditationofmyheartshallbecontinuallybeforetheeforapproval,OLord,myhelpandmyredeemer."Inthispassage,however-andinIsa.xxxii.9asrenderedbyAquila,whichissimilar-wewouldseemtohavenotsomuchanexceptiontotheusageofta.lo,giaasotherwiseknown,asanextensionofit.Thetranslatorshavebynomeansusedithereofthewordsofahumanspeaker,butofwordsdeemedbythemtobethewordsofGod,andcalledta.lo,giajustbecauseconsideredthe"triedwordsofGod."Thishasalwaysbeenperceivedbythemorecarefulexpositors.ThusPhilippi62writes:

"Psalmxix.14suppliesonlyanapparentexception,sinceta.lo,giatou/sto,matojmouthere,asspokenthroughtheHolySpirit,mayberegardedasatthesametime,lo,giaqeou/."

AndMorrison:63

"InPsalmxix.15(14)thetermthusoccurs:'letthewordsofmymouth(ta.lo,giatou/sto,mato,jmou=ypi-yrem.ai,fromrm,ae),andthemeditationofmyheart,beacceptableinthysight,OLord,mystrengthandmyRedeemer.'Butevenherethetermmaybefitlyregardedashavingitsotherwiseinvariablereference.TheSeptuaginttranslatorlookeduponthesacredwriterasgivingutteranceinhisPsalm-thewordsofhismouth-todivinerthoughtsthanhisown,tothethoughtsofGodHimself.Heregardedhimas'moved'inwhathesaid,'bytheHolyGhost."'64

Inaword,wehavehereanearlyinstanceofwhatprovestobethestandingapplicationofta.lo,giaonHellenisticlips-itsapplicationtotheScripturewordassuch,asthespecialwordofGodthathadcometothem.Theonlygroundofsurprisethatcanemergewithreferencetoitsusehere,therefore,isthatinthisinstanceitoccurswithinthelimitsoftheScripturesthemselves:andthisisonlysignificantofthecustomaryemploymentoftheterminthisapplication-for,wemaywellargue,itwasonlyinsequencetosuchacustomaryemploymentofitthatthisusagecouldintrudeitselfthus,unobservedasitwere,intotheBiblicaltextitself.

Itisscarcelynecessarytodomorethanincidentallyadverttotheoccasionaloccurrenceoflo,gion=logei/onintheSeptuagintnarrative,astherenderingoftheHebrew!v,x,thatis,todesignatethebreastplateofthehighpriest,whichheworewhenheconsultedJehovah.65Bleekwrites,tobesure,asfollows:66

"HowfullythenotionofanutteranceofGodattendedthewordaccordingtotheusageoftheAlexandrianstooisshownbythecircumstancethattheLXX.employeditfortheoracularbreastplateoftheHighPriest(!v,x),Ex.xxviii.15,22seq.,xxix.5,xxxix.8seq.;Lev.viii.8;Sir.xlv.12,forwhichlogei/on,althoughfoundinCodd.Vat.andAlex.,isapparentlyalaterreading;lo,gion,towhichtheLatintranslationrationalegoesback,hasalso`osephus,"Ant.,"iii.7,5,forit:evssh,nhj(!vx)me.nkalei/tai(shmai,neide.tou/tokata.th.n`Ellh,nwnglw/ttanlo,gion;c.8,9:o[qen[Ellhnej...to.nejssh,nhnlo,gionkalou/sin;viii.3,8.AndsimilarlyapparentlyPhilo,asmaybeinferredfromhisexpositions,in

thathebringsitintoconnectionwithlo,goj,reason,althoughwithhimtoothereadingvariesbetweenthetwoforms:see"Legg.Allegor.,"iii.40,p.83,A.B.;§43,p.84,C."Vit.Mos.,"iii.11,p.670C.;§12,p.672B.;§13,p.673A."DeMonarch.,"ii.5,p.824A."

Itismuchmoreprobable,however,thatwehavehereanitacisticconfusionbythecopyists,thananapplicationbytheSeptuaginttranslatorsoflo,giontoanewmeaning.ThisconfusionmayhavehaditsinfluenceonthereadersoftheLXX.,andmayhaveaffectedinsomedegreetheirusageoftheword:butitcanhavenosignificanceforthestudyoftheuseofthewordbytheLXX.itself.

III.AmongthereadersoftheSeptuagintitisnaturallytoPhilothatwewillturnwiththehighestexpectationsoflightontheHellenisticusageoftheword:andwehavealreadyseenBleekpointingouttheinfluenceuponhimoftheLXX.useoflo,gion=logei/on.WhateverminorinfluenceofthiskindtheusageoftheSeptuagintmayhavehadonhim,however,Philo'sowngeneralemploymentofthewordcarriesondistinctlythatoftheprofaneauthors.Inhim,too,thetwowordscrhsmo,jandlo,gionappearasexactsynonyms,interchangingrepeatedlywitheachother,toexpresswhatisinthehighestsensethewordofGod,anoraclefromheaven.TheonlyrealdistinctionbetweenhisusageofthesewordsandthatofprofaneauthorsarisesfromthefactthattoPhilonothingisanoraclefromheaven,adirectwordofGod,exceptwhathefoundwithinthesacredbooksofIsrael.67AndtheonlyconfusingelementinhisusagespringsfromthefactthatthewholecontentsoftheJewishsacredbooksaretohim"oracles,"thewordofGod;sothathehasnonomenclaturebywhichtheoraclesrecordedintheScripturesmaybedistinguishedfromtheoracleswhichtheScripturesassuchare.Hehasnohigherwordsthanlo,gionandcrhsmo,jbywhichtodesignatethewordsofGodwhicharerecordedinthecourseoftheBiblicalnarrative:hecanusenolowerwordsthanthesetodesignatetheseveralpassagesofScriptureheadduces,eachoneofwhichistohimadirectwordofGod.Bothoftheseusesofthewordsmaybeillustratedfromhiswritingsalmostwithoutlimit.Afewinstanceswillsuffice.

Inthefollowing,the"oracle"isa"wordofGod"recordedintheScriptures:68

"Forheinquireswhetherthemanisstillcominghither,andthesacredoracleanswers(avpokri,netaito.lo,gion),'Heishiddenamongthestuff'(ISam.x.22)"("DeMigrat.Abrah.,"§36,pp.418E)."Forafterthewisemanheardtheoraclewhichbeingdivinelygivensaid(qespisqe,ntojlogi,outoiou,tou)'Thyrewardis

exceedinggreat'(Gen.xv.1),heinquired,saying....Andyetwhowouldnothavebeenamazedatthedignityandgreatnessofhimwhodeliveredthisoracle(tou/crhsmw|/dou,ntoj)?"("Quisrer.div.her.,"§1,pp.481D)."Andhe(God)mentionstheministrationsandservicesbywhichAbrahamdisplayedhislovetohismasterinthelastsentenceofthedivineoraclegivent0hisson(avkroteleu,tionlogi,outou/crhsqe,ntojauvtou/tw|/ui`ei/)("Quisrer.div.her.,"§2,pp.482E)."Tohim(Abraham),then,beingconsciousofsuchadisposition,anoracularcommandsuddenlycomes(qespi,zetailo,gion),whichwasneverexpected(Gen.xxii.1)...andwithoutmentioningtheoracularcommand(to.lo,gion)toanyone..."("DeAbrah.,"§32,P.,p.373E)."[Moses]hadappointedhisbrotherhigh-priestinaccordancewiththewillofGodthathadbeendeclareduntohim(kata.ta.crhsqe,ntalo,gia")("DeVitaMoysis,"iii.21,P.,p.569D)."Moses...beingperplexed...besoughtGodtodecidethequestionandtoannouncehisdecisiontohimbyanoracularcommand(crhsmw|/).AndGodlistenedtohisentreatyandgavehimanoracle(lo,gionqespi,zei)....Wemustproceedtorelatetheoracularcommands(lo,giacrhsqe,nta).Hesays...(Num.ix.10)"("DeVitaMoysis,"iii.30,P.,p.687D)."AndBalaamreplied,AllthatIhavehithertoutteredhavebeenoraclesandwordsofGod(lo,giakai.crhsmoi,),butwhatIamgoingtosayaremerelythesuggestionsofmyownmind....WhydoyougivecounselsuggestingthingscontrarytotheoraclesofGod(toi/jcrhsmoi/j)unlessindeedthatyourcounselsaremorepowerfulthanhisdecrees(logi,wn)?"("DeVitaMoysis,"i.53,P.,p.647D)."WasitnotonthisaccountthatwhenCainfanciedhehadofferedupablamelesssacrificeanoracle(lo,gion)cametohim?...Andtheoracleisasfollows(to.de.lo,gio,nevstitoio,nde)(Gen.iv.7)"("DeAgricult.,"§29,M.i.319)."AndaproofofthismaybefoundintheoracularanswergivenbyGod(to.qespisqe.nlo,gion)tothepersonwhoaskedwhatnamehehad:'IamthatIam"'("DeSomniis,"i.§40,M.1,655)."Butwhenhebecameimprovedandwasabouttohavehisnamechanged,hethenbecameamanbornofGod(a;nqrwpojqeou/)accordingtotheoraclethatwasdeliveredtohim(kata.to.crhsqe.nauvtw|/lo,gion),'IamthyGod"'("DeGigant.,"§14,M.1,271)."Forwhichreason,asacredinjunctiontothefollowingpurport(dio.kai.lo,gionevcrh,sqhtw|/sofw|/toio,nde)'GothouuptotheLord,thouandAaron,'etc.(Gen.xxiv.i.).Andthemeaningofthisinjunctionisasfollows:'Gothouup,Osoul"'("DeMigrat.Abrah.,"§31,M.1,462)."Forwhichaccountanoracleoftheall-mercifulGodhasbeengiven(lo,giontou/i[lewqeou/mesto.nh`mero,thtoj)fullofgentleness,whichshadowsforthgoodhopestothosewholoveinstructioninthesetimes,'Iwillneverleavetheenorforsakethee'(Jos.i.5)"("DeConfus.Ling.,"§32,M.i.430)."DoyounotrecollectthecaseofthesoothsayerBalaam?Heisrepresentedashearingthe

oraclesofGod(lo,giaqeou/)andashavingreceivedknowledgefromtheMostHigh,butwhatadvantagedidhereapfromsuchhearing,andwhatgoodaccruedtohimfromsuchknowledge?"("DeMutat.Nominum,"§37)."Therearethenacountlessnumberofthingswellworthyofbeingdisplayedanddemonstrated;andamongthemonewhichwasmentionedalittlewhileago;fortheoracle(to.lo,gion)callsthepersonwhowasreallyhisgrandfather,thefatherofthepractiserofvirtue,andtohimwhowasreallyhisfatherithasnotgivenanysuchtitle;foritsays,'IamtheLordGodofAbraham,thyFather'(Gen.xxviii.13),andinrealityhewashisgrandfather,and,again,'theGodofIsaac,'notaddingthistime,'thyFather'('DeSomniis,'i.§27).""AndthereissomethingcloselyresemblingthisinthepassageofScripture(lit.theoracle:to.crhsqe.nlo,gion)concerningtheHighPriest(Lev.xvi.17)"("DeSomniis,"ii.§34).

Ontheotherhand,inthefollowinginstances,thereferenceisdistinctlytoScriptureassuch:

"AndthefollowingoraclegivenwithrespecttoEnoch(to.crhsqe.nevpi.vEnw.clo,gion)provesthis:'EnochpleasedGodandhewasnotfound'(Gen.v.24)"("DeMutat.Nom.,"§4).

ItisaportionofthenarrativeScriptureswhichisthusadduced.

"ButletussticktothesubjectbeforeusandfollowtheScripture(avkolouqh,santejtw|/logi,w|)andsaythatthereissuchathingaswisdomexisting,andthathewholoveswisdomiswise"(do).

Hereto.lo,gioniseitherScriptureingeneral,or,perhapsmoreprobably,thepassagepreviouslyunderdiscussionandstillinmind(Gen.v.24).

"Marturei/de,moulo,gionto.crhsqe.nevpi.tou/vAbraa,mto,de,'HecameintotheplaceofwhichtheLordGodhadtoldhim;andhavinglookedupwithhiseyes,hesawtheplaceafaroff(Gen.xxii.9)'"("DeSomniis,"i.11).

ThisnarrativepassageofScriptureisherecitedaslo,gionto.crhsqe,n.

"Thisisaboastofagreatandmagnanimoussoul,toriseaboveallcreation,andtooverleapitsboundariesandtoclingtothegreatuncreatedGodabove,accordingtohissacredcommands(kata.ta.ji[eraju`yhgh,seij)inwhichweareexpresslyenjoined'tocleaveuntohim'(Deut.xxx.20).Thereforeheinrequitalbestowshimselfastheirinheritanceuponthosewhodocleaveuntohimandwho

servehimwithoutintermission;andthesacredScripture(lo,gion)bearsitstestimonyinbehalfofthese,whenitsays,'TheLordhimselfishisinheritance'(Deut.x.9)"("DeCongressuerud.grat.,"§24,p.443).

Heretheanarthrouslo,gionisprobablytobeunderstoodof"apassageofScripture"-viz.,thatabouttobecited.

"Moreovershe(Consideration)confirmedthisopinionofhersbythesacredscriptures(crhsmoi/j),oneofwhichraninthisform(evni.me.ntoiw|/de-withoutverb)(Deut.iv.4)....ShealsoconfirmedherstatementbyanotherpassageinScriptureofthefollowingpurport(e`te,rw|toiw/|decrhsmw|/)(Deut.xxx.15)...andinanotherpassageweread(kai.evne`te,roij)(Deut.xxx.20).AndagainthisiswhattheLordhimselfhathsaid...(Lev.x.3)...asitisalsosaidinthePsalms(Ps.cxiii.25)...butCain,thatshamelessman,thatparricide,isnowherespokenofintheLaw(ouvdamou/th/jnomoqesi,aj)asdying:butthereisanoracledeliveredrespectinghiminsuchwordsasthese(avlla.kai.lo,gione;stinevpvauvtw|/crhsqe.ntoiou/ton):'TheLordGodputamarkuponCain'(Gen.iv.15)"("DeProfug.,"§11,M.i.555).

Hereitisquestionablewhether"theLaw"(h`nomoqesi,a)isnotbroadenoughtoincludeallthepassagesmentioned-fromGenesis,LeviticusandthePsalms-asitiselsewheremadetoincludeJoshua("DeMigrat.Abrah.,"§32,M.i,464.SeeRyle:p.xix).Atallevents,whateverisinthisnomoqesi,aisacrhsqe.nlo,gion:thepassagemoreparticularlyadducedbeinganarrativeone.

"Afterthepersonwholovesvirtueseeksagoatbyreasonofhissins,butdoesnotfindone;foralreadyasthesacredScripturetellsus(w`jdhloi/to.lo,gion),'Ithathbeenburnt'(Lev.x.16)...AccordinglytheScripturesays(fhsi.nou=no`crhsmo,j)thatMoses'soughtandsoughtagain,'areasonforrepentanceforhissinsinmortallife...onwhichaccountitissaidintheScripture(dio.le,getai)(Lev.xvi.20)DeProfug.,"§28,M.i.569).

Hereto.lo,gionseemstomeannotsomuchapassageinScriptureas"Scripture"intheabstract:Lev.x.16notbeingpreviouslyquotedinthiscontext.Thesamemaybesaidofthereferenceofo`crhsmo,jinthenextclauseandofthesimplele,getailowerdown-theinterestofthepassageturningontheentireequivalenceofthethreemodesofadducingScripture.

"ThisthenisthebeginningandprefaceofthepropheciesofMosesunderthe

influenceofinspiration(th/jkatvevnqousiasmo.nprofhtei,ajMwu?se,wj).Afterthisheprophesied(qespi,zei)...aboutfood...beingfullofinspiration(ejpiqeia,saj)....Somethinking,perhaps,thatwhatwassaidtothemwasnotanoracle(ouvcrhsmou,j)....Butthefatherestablishedtheoraclebyhisprophet(to.lo,giontou/profh,tou)....Hegaveasecondinstanceofhispropheticalinspirationintheoracle(lo,gion,anarthrous)whichhedeliveredabouttheseventhday"("DeVit.Moysis,"iii.35and36).

"Andtheholyoraclethathasbeengiven(to.crhsqe.nlo,gion='thedeliveredoracle';Ryle,'theutteranceoftheoracle')willbearwitness,whichexpresslysaysthathecriedoutloudlyandbetrayedclearlybyhiscrieswhathehadsufferedfromtheconcreteevil,thatisfromthebody"("Quoddet.pot.insid.,"§14,M.L,200).

HerethenarrativeinGen.iv,somewhatbroadlytaken,includingvers.8and10,iscalledto.crhsqe.nlo,gion.

"Thereisalsosomethinglikethisinthesacredscriptureswheretheaccountofthecreationoftheuniverseisgivenanditisexpressedmoredistinctly(to.paraplh,sionkai.evntoi/jperi.th/jtou/panto.jgene,sewjcrhsqei/silogi,oijperie,cetaishmeiwde,steron).Foritissaidtothewickedman,'Othouman,thathastsinned;ceasetosin'(Gen.iv.7)"("DeSobriet.,"§10,D7.1,400).

HerethereisaformalcitationofaportionofScripture,viz.,theportion"concerningthecreationoftheuniverse,"whichmeans,probably,theBookofGenesis(seeRyle's"PhiloandHolyScripture,"p.xx);andthisiscitedasmadeupof"declaredoracles,"evntoi/jcrhsqei/silogi,oij.TheBookofGenesisisthustoPhiloabodyofcrhsqe,ntalo,gia.

"AndthisisthemeaningoftheoraclerecordedinDeuteronomy(parvo]kai.lo,gione;stitoiou/tonavnagegramme,nonevnDeuteronomi,w|),'BeholdIhaveputbeforethyfacelifeanddeath,goodandevil"'("QuodDeusImmut.,"§10,M.i.280).

Herethe"oracle"isa"written"thing;anditiswritteninawell-knownbookoforacles,viz.,in"Deuteronomy,"thesecondbookoftheLaw.Thisbook,andofcoursetheotherslikeit,consistsofwrittenoracles.

"Andthewordsofscriptureshowthis,inwhich(dhloi/de.to.lo,gionevnw-|)itisdistinctlystatedthat'theybothofthemwenttogether,andcametotheplain

whichGodhadmentionedtothem(Gen.xxii.3)"("DeMigrat.Abrah."§30,M.i.462).

"Andforthisreasonthefollowingscripturehasbeengiventomen(dio.lo,gionevcrh,sqhtoio,nde),'Returntothelandofthyfatherandtothyfamily,andIwillbewiththee'(Gen.xxxi.3)""(DeMigrat.Abrah.,"§6,M.i.440).

Here,thoughthewordsarespokeninthepersonofGod,thegeneralizeduseofthemseemstopointtotheirScripturalexpressionasthemainpoint.

"Moseschosetodelivereachofthetencommandments(e;kastonqespi,zeintw/nde,kalogi,wn)insuchaformasiftheywereaddressednottomanypersonsbuttoone"("DeDecemOracul.,"peri.tw/nDe,kaLogi,wn,§10).

"Andthesacredscripture(lo,gion,anarthrous)bearsitstestimonyinbehalfofthisassertion,whenitsays:'TheLordhimselfishisinheritance'(Deut.x.9)"("DeCongr.Erud.Grat.,"§24,M.i.538).

"ForthereisapassageinthewordofGod(lo,gionga.re;stin)that...(Lev.xxvi.3)"("Depraem.etpoen.,"§17,M.ii.424).

BothclassesofpassagesthusexistinPhilo'stextinthegreatestabundance-nomorethosewhichspeakofwordsofGodrecordedinScriptureaslo,giathanthosewhichspeakofthewordsofScriptureassuchasequallylo,gia.Norarewelefttoaccordthetwoclassesofpassagesforourselves.Philohimself,inwhatwemaycallanevenoverstrainedattemptatsystematization,elaboratelyexplainshowhedistinguishestheseveralkindsofmatterwhichconfronthiminScripture.Thefulleststatementisprobablythatinthe"DeVitaMoysis,"iii,23(Mangey,ii,163).Herehesomewhatartificiallyseparatesthreeclassesof"oracles,"allhavingequalrighttothename.Itisworthwhiletotranscribeenoughofthepassagetosetitsessentialcontentsclearlybeforeus.HeisnaturallyinthisplacespeakingdirectlyofMoses-asindeedcommonlyinhistracts,whichareconfined,generallyspeaking,toanexpositionofthePentateuch:buthiswordswillapplyalsototherestofthe"sacredbooks,"whichheuniformlytreatsastheoraclesofGodalikewiththePentateuch.69Hewrites:

"HavingshownthatMoseswasamostexcellentkingandlawgiverandhighpriest,Icomeinthelastplacetoshowthathewasalsothemostillustriousoftheprophets(profhtw/n).Iamnotunaware,then,thatallthethingsthatarewritteninthesacredbooksareoraclesdeliveredbyhim(w`jpa,ntaeivsi.crhsmoi.o;sa

evntai/ji`erai/jbi,bloijavnage,graptaicrhsqe,ntejdivauvtou/):andIwillsetforthwhatmoreparticularlyconcernshim,whenIhavefirstmentionedthisonepoint,namely,thatofthesacredoracles(tw/nlogi,wn)somearerepresentedasdeliveredinthepersonofGodbyHisinterpreter,thedivineprophet(evkprosw,poutou/qeou/dive`rmhne,wjtou/qei,ouprofh,tou),whileothersareputintheformofquestionandanswer(evkpeu,sewjkai.avpokri,sewjevqespi,sqh),andothersaredeliveredbyMosesinhisowncharacter,asadivinelypromptedlawgiverpossessedbydivineinspiration(evkprosw,pouMwu?se,wjevpiqeia,santojkai.evxauvtou/katasceqe,ntoj).

"Thereforealltheearliest[Gr.prw/ta=thefirstofthethreeclassesenumerated]oraclesaremanifestationsofthewholeofthedivinevirtuesandespeciallyofthatmercifulandboundlesscharacterbymeansofwhichHetrainsallmentovirtue,andespeciallytheracewhichisdevotedtoHisservice,towhichHelaysopentheroadleadingtohappiness.Thesecondclasshaveasortofmixtureandcommunication(mi,xinkai.koinwni,an)inthem,theprophetaskinginformationonthesubjectsastowhichheisindifficultyandGodansweringhimandinstructinghim.Thethirdsortareattributedtothelawgiver,GodhavinggivenhimashareinHisprescientpowerbymeansofwhichheisenabledtoforetellthefuture.

"Thereforewemustforthepresentpassbythefirst;fortheyaretoogreattobeadequatelypraisedbyanyman,asindeedtheycouldscarcelybepanegyrizedworthilybytheheavenitselfandthenatureoftheuniverse;andtheyarealsoutteredbythemouth,asitwere,ofaninterpreter(kai.a;llwjle,getaiw`sanei.divevrmhse,wj).But(de.)interpretationandprophecydifferfromoneanother.AndconcerningthesecondkindIwillatonceendeavortoexplainthetruth,connectingwiththemthethirdspeciesalso,inwhichtheinspiredcharacter(evnqousiw/dej)ofthespeakerisshown,accordingtowhichheismostespeciallyandappropriatelylookeduponasaprophet."70

Asomewhatdifferentdistributionofmaterial-nowfromthepointofview,notofmodeoforaculardelivery,butofnatureofcontents-isgivenattheopeningofthetract"Depraem.etpoen."(§1,init.):

"WefindthenthatinthesacredoraclesdeliveredbytheprophetMoses(tw/ndia.tou/profh,touMwu?se,wjlogi,wn)therearethreeseparatecharacters:foraportionofthemrelatestothecreationoftheworld,aportionishistorical,andthethirdportionislegislative."

Accordinglyinthetract"DeLegat.adCaium,"§31(Mangey,ii.577),wearetoldofthehighesteemtheJewsputontheirlaws:

"ForlookingupontheirlawsasoraclesdirectlygiventothembyGodHimself(qeo,crhstaga.rlo,giatou.jno,moujei;naiu1polamba,nontej)andhavingbeeninstructedinthisdoctrinefromtheirearliestinfancy,theybearintheirsoulstheimagesofthecommandmentscontainedintheselawsassacred."

Bythesideofthispassageshouldbeplaceddoubtlessanotherfromthe"DeVitaContemplativa,"§3,sinceitappearsthatwemaystilllookonthistractasPhilo's:

"Andineveryhousethereisasacredshrine...StudyinginthatplacethelawsandsacredoraclesofGodenunciatedbytheholyprophets(no,moujkai.lo,giadespisqe,ntadia.profhtw/n)andhymnsandpsalmsandallkindsofotherthingsbyreasonofwhichknowledgeandpietyareincreasedandbroughttoperfection."

ItisnotstrangethatoutofsuchaviewofScripturePhiloshouldadduceeverypartofitalikeasalo,gion.Sometimes,tobesure,hisdiscriminationofitscontentsintoclassesshowsitselfintheformulæofcitation;andweshouldguardourselvesfrombeingmisledbythis.Thus,forexample,heoccasionallyquotesalo,gion"fromthemouth(or'person')ofGod"-whichdoesnotmeanthatScripturesotherthantheseportionsthusdirectlyascribedtoGodasspeaking,arelessoracularthanthese,butonlythattheseareoraclesofhisfirstclass-thosethat"arerepresentedasdeliveredfromthepersonofGod(evkprosw,poutou/qeou/)byhisinterpreter,thedivineprophet."Asingleinstanceortwowillsufficeforexamples:

"Andthesacredoraclewhichisdeliveredas"[dele"as"]"fromthemouth"[or"person"]"oftheruleroftheuniverse(lo,gionevkprosw,pouqespisqe.ntou/tw/no[lwnh`gemo,noj)speaksofthepropernameofGodasneverhavingbeenrevealedtoanyone71whenGodisrepresentedassaying,'ForIhavenotshownthemmyname'(Gen.vi.3)"("DeMutat.Nom.,"§2)."Andtheoracles"(oi`crhsmoi,whichisastandingtermfor'theScriptures'inPhilo)"beartestimony,inwhichitissaidtoAbrahamevkprosw,poutou/qeou/(Gen.xvii.1)"(ditto,§5)."Andhe(Jeremiahtheprophet)likeamanverymuchundertheinfluenceofinspiration(a;teta.polla.evnqonsiw/n)utteredanoracleinthecharacterofGod(crhsmo,ntinaevxei/penevkprosw,poutou/qeou/)speakinginthismannerto

mostpeacefulvirtue:'Hastthounotcalledmeasthyhouse'etc.(Jer.iii.4)"("DeCherub.,"§14,AT.i.148).

Theotheroracles,deliverednotevkprosw,poutou/qeou/butindialogueorinthepersonoftheprophet,are,however,nolessoracularorauthoritative.ToPhiloallthatisinScriptureisoracular,everypassageisalo,gion,ofwhatevercharacterorlength;andthewhole,asconstitutedoftheseoracles,ista.lo,gia,orperhapsevento.lo,gion-themassoflogiaoronecontinuouslogion.

Itisnotsaid,beitobserved,thatPhilo'ssolemodeofdesignatingScripture,orevenhismostcustomarymode,isasta.lo,gia.Ashasalreadybeenstated,heusedcrhsmo,jequallyfreelywithlo,gionforpassagesofScripture,andoi`crhsmoi,apparentlyevenmorefrequentlythanta.lo,giaforthebodyofScripture.Instancesoftheuseofthetwotermsinterchangeablyinthesamepassagehavealreadybeenincidentallygiven.72Averyfewpassageswillsufficetoillustratehisconstantuseofcrhsmo,jandoi`crhsmoi,separately.

InthefollowinginstancesheadducespassagesofScripture,eachasacrhsmo,j:

Onthisaccountalsotheoracle(o`crhsmo,j)whichbearstestimonyagainstthepretendedsimplicityofCainsays,'Youdonotthinkasyousay'(Gen.iv.15)"("Quoddet.potioriinsid.,"§45,M.i.223)."AndofthesupremeauthorityofthelivingGod,thesacredscriptureisatruewitness(o`crhsmo.javlhqh.jma,rtuj)whichspeaksthus(Lev.xxv.23)"("DeCherub.,"§31,A7.i.158)."Foramanwillcomeforth,saysthewordofGod(fhsi.no`crhsmo,j)leadingahostandwarringfuriously,etc.(Num.xxiv.7)"("DePraem.etPoem,"§16,M.ii.423)."Andthesacredscripturebearswitnesstothisfact(marturei/de.o`peri.tou,twncrhsmo,j):foritsays(Num.Xxlil.19)"("DeMigrat.Abrah.,"§20,M.i.454)."Forthoughtherewasasacredscripture(crhsmou/ga.ro[ntoj)that'Thereshouldbenoharlotamongthedaughtersoftheseer,Israel'(Deut.xxiii.17)"("DeMigrat.Abrah.,"§39,M.i.472)."Andwitnessisbornetothisassertionbythescripture(ma,rtujde.kai.crhsmo,j)inwhichitissaid:'Iwillcausetolive,'etc.(Deut.xxxii.39)"("DeSomniis,"ii.44,M.i.698)."Theoracle(o`crhsmo,j)giventotheall-wiseMoses,inwhichthesewordsarecontained"("Quoddet.pot.insid.,"§34,M.i.215)."Whichalsotheoracle(o`crhsmo,j)saidtoCain"(do.,§21)."AndIknowthatthisillustriousoraclewasformerlydeliveredfromthemouthoftheprophet(sto,matidvoi=da,poteprofhtikw|/qespisqe,ntadia,purontoio,ndecrhsmo,n),'Thyfruit,'etc.,(Hos.xiv.9)"("DeMutat.Nom.,"§24,M.ii.599).Inthislastcaseitistobenoticedthatthe

"oracle"istakenfromHosea:thecorrespondingpassagein"DePlant.Noe.,"§33,NI.1,350,shouldbecompared:"Andwiththisassertion,thisoracledeliveredbyoneoftheprophetsisconsistent,etc.(Hos.xiv.9)(tou,tw|kai.para,tinitw/nprofhtw/ncrhsqe.nfuna|,deito,de)."

Twootherpassagesmaybeadducedfortheirinherentinterest.Thefirstfrom"DeProfug.,"§32(M.i.573),whereweread:

"Therearepassageswritteninthesacredscriptures(oi`avnagrafe,ntejcrhsmoi,)whichgiveproofofthesethings.Whattheyarewemustnowconsider.Nowintheverybeginningofthehistoryofthelawthereisapassagetothefollowingeffect(Gen.ii.6)(ai;detai,tijevnavrch|/nomoqesi,ajmeta.th.nkosmopoii<aneuvqu.jtoio,sde)."

Herethereisaprecisedesignationwhere,among"thewrittencrhsmoi,,"acertainone(tij)ofthemmaybefound,viz.,inthebeginningof"TheLegislation"immediatelyafter"TheCreation"(cf.Ryle,p.xxi,note1).Theotherisfromthefirstbookofthe"DeSomniis,"§27(M.i.646):

"Thesethingsarenotmymyth,butanoracle(crhsmo,j)writtenonthesacredtables(evntai/ji`erai/javnagegramme,nojsth,laij),Foritsays(Gen.xlvi.1)."

ThispassageinGenesisisthusanoracle"writteninthesacredtablets"-andthusthisphraseemergesasoneofPhilo'snamesfortheScriptures.Elsewherewereadsomewhatmoreprecisely:

"Nowthesearethosemenwhohavelivedirreproachablyandadmirably,whosevirtuesaredurablyandpermanentlyrecordedasonpillarsinthesacredscriptures(w-nta.javreta.jevntai/ji`erwta,taijevsthliteu/sqaigrafai/jsumbe,bhken)"("DeAbrah.,"§1,M.ii.2)."Thereisalsoinanotherplacethefollowingsentence(gra,mma)deeplyengraven(evsthliteume,non),(Deut.xxxii.8)""(DeCongr.Erud.Grat.,"§12,M.i.527).

The"Scriptures"thusbeartoPhiloamonumentalcharacter:theyareabodyoforacleswritten,andmore-abodyoforaclespermanentlyengravedtobealastingtestimonyforever.

ThedesignationsforScriptureinPhiloare,indeed,somewhatvarious-suchasi`erai.grafai,("Quisrerumdiv.heres,"§32M.i.495);i`erai.bi,bloi("Quoddet.pot.insid.,"§44,M.i.222);toi/ji`eroi/jgra,mmasin("Legat.adCaium.,"§29,

M.ii.574).Butprobablynoneareusedsofrequentlyas,ontheonehand,lo,goj,withvariousadjectivalenhancements-suchaso`profhtiko.jlo,goj("DePlantat.Noe,"§28,M.i.437),o`qei/ojlo,goj("Legg.Alleg.,"iii,§3,M.i.89;"DeMutat.Nom.,"§20;"DeSomniis,"i.33,ii.37),ando]i`erojlo,goj("DeEbriet.,"§36,M.i.379;"DeMut.Nominum,"§38;"DeSomniis,"i.14,22,33,35,37,39,42;ii.4,9,37,etc.);andespecially,ontheotherhand,oi`crhsmoi,,occurringattimeswithextraordinaryfrequency.73Somepassagesillustrativeofthislastusagearethefollowing:

"ForthesacredScriptures(oi`crhsmoi,)saythatheenteredintothedarkness"("DeMutat.Nom.,"§2)."Butthesacredoracles(oi`crhsmoi,)arewitnessesofthatinwhichAbrahamisaddressed(thewordsbeingputinthemouthofGod),(evnoi-jle,getaitw|/vAbraa.mevkprosw,poutou/qeou/)(Gen.xvii.1)"(do.§5)."Andthesearenotmywordsonlybutthoseofthemostholyscriptures(crhsmw/ntw/ni`erwta,twn,-anarthroustobringoutthequalityincontrasttoevmo.jmu/qoj),inwhichcertainpersonsareintroducedassaying..."(do.§28).OfIsaiahxlviii.22itissaidindo.§31:lo,gojga.ro;ntwjkai.crhsmo,jevstiqei/oj."Accordinglytheholyscriptures(oi`crhsmoi,)tellusthat..."(do.§36)."Thereforethesacredscriptures(oi`crhsmoi,)representLeahashated"(do.§44)"Forsheisrepresentedbythesacredoracles(dia.tw/ncrhsmw/n)ashavingleftoffallwomanlyways(Gen.xviii.12)"("DeEbrietat.,"§14,M.i.365)."Onwhichaccounttheholyscripture(oi`crhsmoi,)verybeautifullyrepresentitas'alittlecityandyetnotalittleone"'("DeAbrah.,"§31,M.ii.25)."Thereforethesacredscriptures(oi`crhsmoi,)say(Gen.xxiv.1)"("DeSobriet.,"§4,M.i.395)."Accordingasthesacredscriptures(oi`crhsmoi,)testify,inwhichitissaid(Ex.viii.1)"("DeConfus.Ling.,"§20,M.i.419)."Onwhichaccountitissaidinthesacredscriptures(evncrhsmoi/j)(Deut.vii.7)"("DeMigrat.Abrah.,"§11,1VI.i.445)."Godhavingdrawnupandconfirmedtheproposition,astheScriptures(oi`crhsmoi)show,inwhichitisexpresslystatedthat(Deut.xxx.4)"("DeConfus.Ling.,"§38,M,i.435).

Whenwecombinethesepassageswiththoseinwhichlo,gionoccursitwillprobablynotseemtoomuchtosaythatthedominantmethodofconceivingtheBibleinPhilo'smindwasasabookoforacles.Whetherheusesthewordlo,gionorcrhsmo,j,itis,ofcourse,allonetohim.Indeed,thatnothingshouldbelackingheoccasionallyusesalsoothersynonyms.Forexample,hereisaninstanceoftheHomericwordqeopro,pioncroppingout:"Forthereisextantanoracledeliveredtothewisemaninwhichitissaid(Lev.xxvi.12),(kai.ga,revsticrhsqe.ntw|/sofw|/qeopro,pionevnw-|le,getai)"("DeSomniis,"i,§23).

AndthisoracularconceptionofScriptureisdoubtlessthereasonwhyitissofrequentlyquotedinPhilobythesubjectlessfhsi,(le,gei(le,getai(insteadof,say,ge,graptai).Thereareingeneral,speakingbroadly,threewaysinwhichonefullyacceptingthedivineoriginanddirectdivineauthorityofScripturemayhabituallylookuponit.Hemaythinkofitasalibraryofvolumesandtheneachvolumeislikelytobespokenofbyhimasagrafh,andthewhole,becausethecollectionofvolumes,asai`grafai,,or,whentheideaofitsunityisprominentlyinmind,asitselfh`grafh,.Ontheotherhand,thesenseofitscompositecharactermaybesomewhatlostoutofhabitualthought,swallowedupintheideaofitsdivineunity,andthenitsseveralsentencesorpassagesareapttobethoughtandspokenofaseachagra,mma,andthewhole,becausemadeupofthesesentencesorpassages,asta.gra,mmata.Or,finally,thesenseofthedirectdivineutteranceofthewholetothesoul,andofitsimmediatedivineauthority,mayovershadowallelseandtheseveralsentencesorpassagesofthebookbeeachconceivedasanunmediateddivinewordcomingdirectlytothesoul-andtheneachpassageislikelytobecalledalo,gionorcrhsmo,j,andthewholevolume,becausethesumofthesepassages,ta.lo,giaoroi`crhsmoi,-oroccasionally,whenitsunityisprominentlyinmind,onegreatto.lo,gionoro`crhsmo,j.EachofthesethreewaysoflookingattheScripturesoftheOldTestamentfindsexpressioninPhilo,74inJosephusandintheNewTestament.ButitisthelastthatismostcharacteristicofthethoughtofPhilo,andthefirstpossiblyofthewritersoftheNewTestament:75whileperhapswemaysuspectthattheintermediateonewasmostcongenialtothethoughtofJosephus,who,asamanofaffairsandlettersratherthanofreligion,wouldnaturallyenvisagethewritingsoftheOldTestamentratherasdocumentsthanasoracles.

FromthissurveywemaybeabletoapprehendwithsomeaccuracyPhilo'splaceinthedevelopmentoftheusageofthewordlo,gion.HehasreceiveditdirectlyfromprofaneGreekasoneofaseriesofsynonyms-lo,gion(crhsmo,j(qeopro,pion,etc.-denotingadirectwordfromGod,an"oracle."HehasinnowaymodifieditsmeaningexceptinsofarasaheighteningofitsconnotationwasinseparablefromthetransferenceofitfromthefrivolousandambiguousoraclesofheathendomtotherevelationsoftheGodofIsrael,aheighteningwhichwas,nodoubt,aidedbytheconstantuseofthewordintheSeptuagint-Philo'sBible-totranslatetheHebrewhr'm.aiwithallitshighsuggestions.Butinthistransferencehehasneverthelessgivenitawhollynewsignificance,insofarashehasappliedittoafixedwrittenrevelationandthusimpressedonitentirelynewimplications.Inhishands,lo,gionbecomes,bythismeans,asynonymofgra,mma,andimports"apassageofScripture"-conceived,of

course,asadirectoraclefromGod.Andthepluralbecomesasynonymofta.gra,mma(ai`grafai,(oi`bi,bloi(o`lo,goj-orwhateverothertermsareusedtoexpresstheideaof"theHolyScriptures"-andimportswhatwecall"theBible,"ofcoursewiththeimplicationthatthisBibleisbutacongeriesof"oracles,"ordirectutterancesofGod,oreveninitswholeextentonegreat"oracle"orutteranceofGod-thatitis,inaword,thepureandabsolute"WordofGod."Butwhenwesaythatlo,gionisinPhilo'shandstheequivalentof"apassageofScripture,"wemustguardagainstsupposingthatthereisanyimplicationofbrevityattachingtoit:itsimplicationisthatofdirectdivineutterance,notofbrevity;and"thepassage"inmindanddesignatedbylo,gionmaybeofanylength,conceivedforthetimeandthepurposeinhandasaunitarydeliverancefromGod,uptothewholebodyofScriptureitself."Similarlyta.lo,giainPhilohasnotyethardenedintoasimplesynonymof"Scripture,"butdesignatesanybodyofthe"oracles"ofwhichthewholeScriptureiscomposed-nowthe"tencommandments,"nowtheBookofGenesis,nowthePentateuch,nowtheJewishLawingeneral."

ThereislittletraceinPhilooftheapplicationmadeintheLXX.oflo,giontothehighpriestlybreastplate,bywhichitcametomean,notonlytheoraculardeliverance,buttheplaceorinstrumentofdivination-though,quotingtheLXX.asfreelyashedoes,Philocouldnothelpoccasionallyincorporatingsuchapassageinhiswritings.Weread,forexample,inthe"Legg.Allegor.,"iii,§40(M.i.111):

"AtalleventstheHolyScripture(o`i`ero.jlo,goj),beingwellawarehowgreatisthepoweroftheimpetuosityofeachpassion,angerandappetite,putsabridleinthemouthofeach,havingappointedreason(to.nlo,gon)astheircharioteerandpilot.Andfirstofallitspeaksthusofanger,inthehopeofpacifyingandcuringit,'Andyoushallputmanifestationandtruth'[theUrimandThummim]'intheoracleofjudgment(evpi.to.lo,giontw/nkri,sewn)anditshallbeonthebreastofAaron,whenhecomesintotheHolyPlacebeforetheLord'(Ex.xxviii.30).Norbytheoracle(lo,gion)isheremeanttheorgansofspeechwhichexistinus....ForMosesherespeaksnotofarandom,spuriousoracle(lo,gion)butoftheoracleofjudgment,whichisequivalenttosayingawell-judgedandcarefullyexaminedoracle."

ThusPhilograduallytransmutesthelo,gion=logei/onofhistextintothelo,gion=crhsmo,jofhisexposition:anditisalittleremarkablehowlittleinfluencethisLXX.usagehasonhisownuseoftheword.Withhimlo,gionisdistinctivelya

passageofScripture,andthecongeriesofthesepassagesmaketa.lo,gia.

Thatthisusageisnot,however,apeculiumofPhilo'smerely,isevidencedbyastrikingpassagefromJosephus,inwhichitappearsinfulldevelopment.Forexample,weread:

"TheJews,bydemolishingthetowerofAntonia,hadmadetheirtemplesquare,thoughtheyhaditwrittenintheirsacredoracles(avnagegramme,nonevntoi/jlogi,oij)thattheircityandsanctuaryshouldbetakenwhentheirtempleshouldbecomesquare.Butwhatmoststirredthemupwasanambiguousoracle(crhsmo,j)thatwasfoundalsointheirsacredwritings(evntoi/ji`eroi/jeu`rhme,nojgra,mmasin)thataboutthattimeonefromtheircountryshouldbecomeruleroftheworld.TheJewstookthispredictiontobelongtothemselves,andmanywisemenweretherebydeceivedintheirjudgment.Nowthisoracle(to.lo,gion)certainlydenotedtheruleofVespasian"("DeBelloJud.,"vi.5,4).

InthisshortpassagewehavemostofthecharacteristicsofthePhiloneanusagerepeated:hereistheinterchangeableusageoflo,gionandcrhsmo,j,ontheonehand,andofta.lo,giaandta.gra,mmata,ontheother:thesacredwritingsoftheJewsaremadeupof"oracles,"sothateachportionofthemisalo,gionandthewholeta.lo,gia.78

IV.Thatthisemploymentofta.lo,giaasasynonymofai`grafai,wascarriedoverfromtheJewishwriterstotheearlyFathers,Dr.Lightfoothassufficientlyshowninabriefbuteffectivepassageinhisbrilliantpapersinreplytotheauthorof"SupernaturalReligion."79ItisnotnecessarytogooverthegroundafreshwhichDr.Lightfoothascovered.But,forthesakeofageneralcompletenessinthepresentationofthehistoryoftheword,itmaybepropertosetdownheresomeoftheinstancesofitsusageinthissenseamongtheearlierFathers.ClementofRome,afterhavingquotedexamplesfromtheScripturesatlength,sumsupthelessonthus:"Thehumility,therefore,andthesubmissivenessofsomanygreatmen,whohavethusobtainedagoodreport,haththroughobediencemadebetternotonlyus,butalsothegenerationswhichwerebeforeus,eventhemthatreceivedhisoraclesinfearandtruth"(c.19);again(c.53),"Foryeknow,andknowwellthesacredScriptures(ta.ji`erajgrafa,j),dearlybeloved,andyehavesearchedintotheoraclesofGod(ta.lo,giatou/qeou/)";andstillagain(c.62),"Andwehaveputyouinmindofthesethingsthemoregladly,sinceweknewwellthatwewerewritingtomenwhoarefaithfulandhighly

accountedandhavediligentlysearchedintotheoraclesoftheteachingofGod(ta.lo,giath/jpaidei,ajtou/qeou/)."ThesamephenomenonobviouslymeetsushereasinPhilo:andHarnack80andLightfoot81bothnaturallycommenttothiseffectonthemiddleinstance-theformercallingespeciallyattentiontotheequationdrawnbetweenthetwophrasesforScripture,andthelattertothefact,asshownbytheScripturesimmediatelyadduced,thatthemindofthewriterinsodesignatingScripturewasnoton"anydivinepreceptorprediction,buttheexampleofMoses."Equallystrikingly,wereadinIIClem.,xiii,"FortheGentileswhentheyhearfromourmouththeoraclesofGod,marvelatthemfortheirbeautyandgreatness.....ForwhentheyhearfromusthatGodsaith,'Itisnothankuntoyou,ifyelovethemthatloveyou,butthisisthankuntoyou,ifyouloveyourenemiesandthemthathateyou[Lukevi.32]'-whentheyhearthesethings,Isay,theymarvelattheirexceedinggoodness.""Thepointtobeobserved,"saysLightfoot,82"isthattheexpressionherereferstoanevangelicalrecord."SimilarlyPolycarp,c.vii,writes:"Foreveryone'whowillnotconfessthatJesusChristiscomeinthefleshisantichrist'(IJohniv.2,3);andwhosoevershallnotconfessthetestimonyofthecrossisofthedevil;andwhosoevershallperverttheoraclesoftheLord(ta.lo,giatou/kuri,ou)tohisownlustsandsaythereisneitherresurrectionnorjudgment,thatmanisthefirstbornofSatan."OnthispassageZahn,followedbyLightfoot,veryappropriatelyadducestheparallelinthePrefacetoIrenaeus'greatwork,"AgainstHeresies,"wherehecomplainsoftheGnostics"falsifyingtheoraclesoftheLord(ta.lo,giaKuri,ou),becomingbadexegetesofwhatiswellsaid":whilelater("Haer.,"i.8,1)thesamewriterspeaksoftheGnostics'artinadaptingthedominicaloracles(ta.kuriaka.lo,gia)totheiropinions,aphraseheequateswith"theoraclesofGod,"andusesinacontextwhichshowsthathehasthewholecomplexofScriptureinmind.Inpreciselysimilarwise,ClementofAlexandriaisfoundcallingtheScripturesthe"oraclesoftruth"("Coh.adGent.,"p.84ed.Potter),the"oraclesofGod"("QuisDiv.Sal.,"3)andthe"inspiredoracles"("Strom.,"i.392);andOrigen,"theoracles,""theoraclesofGod""DePrin.,"iv.11;inMatt.,x.§6):andBasil,the"sacredoracles,""theoraclesoftheSpirit"("Hom.,"xi.5;xii.1).ThePseudo-Ignatius("adSmyr.,"iii)writes:"Fortheoracles(ta.lo,gia)say:'ThisJesuswhowastakenupfromyouintoheaven,'etc.[Actsi.11]"-wherethetermcertainlyisjusttheequivalentofh`grafh,.83AndPhotiustellsus("Bibl.,"228)thattheScripturesrecognizedbyEphraem,PatriarchofAntioch(circa525-545A.D.),consistedoftheOldTestament,theDominicalOracles(ta.kuriaka.lo,gia)andthePreachingoftheApostles"-wheretheadjectivekuriaka,isobviouslyintendedtolimitthebroadta.lo,gia,sothatthephrasemeansjust"theGospels."

Dr.Lightfoot'sobjectinbringingtogethersuchpassages,itwillberemembered,wastofixthesenseoflo,giainthedescriptionwhichEusebiusgivesoftheworkofPapiasandinhisquotationsfromPapias'remarksabouttheGospelsofMatthewandMark.Papias'book,wearetoldbyEusebius("H.E.,"iii,39),wasentitledLogi,wnkuriakw/nevxhgh,seij-thatis,obviously,fromtheusageofthewords,itwasacommentaryontheGospels,orlesslikely,ontheNewTestament:andheisquotedasexplainingthatMatthewwroteta.lo,giaintheHebrewlanguageandthatMarkmadenoattempttoframeasu,ntaxintw/nkuriakw/nlogi,wn,84or,asisexplainedinthepreviousclause,ofta.u`po.tou/Cristou/h'lecqe,ntah'pracqe,nta-thatis,aswouldseemagaintobeobvious,eachwrotehissectionofthe"Scriptures"inthemannerdescribed.ThetemptationtoadjustthesePapianphrasestocurrenttheoriesoftheoriginoftheGospelshasprovedtoostrong,however,tobewithstoodevenbythedemonstrationofthemorenaturalmeaningofthewordsprovidedbyDr.Lightfoot'strenchanttreatment:andwestillhearofPapias'treatiseonthe"DiscoursesoftheLord,"andofthe"BookofDiscourses"whichPapiasascribestoMatthewandwhichmaywellbeidentified(wearetold)withthe"CollectionofSayingsofJesus,"whichcriticismhasunearthedaslyingbehindourpresentGospels.85Indeed,astimehasrunon,thereseemsinsomequartersevenagrowingdispositiontoneglectaltogetherthehardfactsofusagemarshaledbyDr.Lightfoot,andtogivesuchreintospeculationastothemeaningofthetermlo,giaasemployedbyPapias,thatthelastendofthematterwouldappeartothreatentobeworsethanthefirst.WeareledtousethislanguagebyarecentconstructionofAlfredResch's,publishedinthe"TheologischeStudien"dedicatedtoBernhardWeissonhisseventiethbirthday.Letus,however,permitReschtospeakforhimself.Heisremarkingontheidentificationoftheassumedfundamentalgospel(Urevangelium)withtheworkofMatthewmentionedbyPapias.Hesays:

"Thusthename-lo,gia-andtheauthor-Matthew-seemedtobefoundforthisQuellenschrift.Inthewayofthisassumptiontherestoodonlythecircumstancethatthename'lo,gia'didnotseemtofittheQuellenschriftasithadbeendrawnoutbystudyoftheGospels,madewhollyindependentlyofthenoticeofPapias-sinceityieldedatreatiseofmixednarrativeanddiscourses.ThiscircumstanceledsometocharacterizetheQuellenschrift,incorrespondencewiththenamelo,gia,asamerecollectionofdiscourses;whileothersfoundinitareasonforsharplyopposingtheidentificationoftheLogiaofMatthewandthefundamentalgospel(Urevangelium),orevenfordiscreditingthewholenoticeofPapiasasworthlessandofnousetoscholars.Noone,however,thoughtoflookingbehind

thelo,giaforthehiddenHebrewname,althoughitwascertainlyobviousthatatreatisewritteninHebrewcouldnotfailtohaveaHebrewtitle.AndImustmyselfconfessthatonlyin1895,whilethethirdvolumeofmy'AussercanonischenParalleltexte'waspassingthroughthepress,diditoccurtometoaskaftertheHebrewnameofthelo,gia.Butwiththequestiontheanswerwasself-evidentlyatoncegiven:~yrib'D.,86therefore[;Wvyeyreb.Di.Tothisanswerattacheditselfatonce,however,thereminiscenceoftitlesascribedintheOldTestamenttoawholeseriesofQuellenschriften:laWmv.yrbD,%lMh`dywdyrbD,aybNh!tnyrbD,(harh)hzthdGyrbD(cf.IChron.xxix.29);hmlvyrbDrps(IKingsxi.41);hVnmyrbD,larcyyklmyrbD(IIChron.xxxiii.I8).As,then,thereintheOldTestament,itisjusthistoricalQuellenschriftenofbiographicalcontentsthatbearthenameofmyirb'D;,sothisNewTestamentQuellenschrift,thetitle[;Wveyyreb.Di.ItcontainedthereforethehistoryofHimofwhomtheprophetshadprophesied,WhowasgreaterthanSolomon,David'sSonandDavid'sLordandtheKingofIsrael.AndastheLXX.hadtranslatedthetitlecertainlyunskillfullyenoughbylo,goi,soPapiasorhissponsor(Gewährsmann)bylo,gia.Thesense,however,oftheHebrew~yrib'D.is,asLutherverycorrectlyrendersit-'Histories.'Cf.Heftiii.812.Bythisdiscoveryoftheoriginaltitle,theNewTestamentQuellenschriftwhichfromanunknownhadalreadybecomeaknownthing,hasnowbecomefromanunnamedanamedthing.Thedesideratedxhasbeencompletelyfound."87

Criticismlikethiscertainlyscornsallfacts.TheHebrewwordrbd,meaninga"word,"passedbyaveryreadilyunderstoodprocessintothesenseof"thing."IndefiningthetermasusedinthetitleswhichReschadduces,Dr.Driversays:88"words:henceaffairs,things-insofarastheyaredone,'acts';insofarastheyarenarrated,'history."'Thewordrbdthusreadilylentitself,incombinationslikethoseadducedbyResch,toadoublemeaning:anditisapparentlyfoundinboththesesenses.Ininstancesliketl,h,qoyreb.Di(Eccl.i.l,cf.Prov.xxx.1,xxxi.5;Jer.i.1;Am.i.1;Neh.i.1)itdoubtlessmeans"wordsofKoheleth,"andthelike.IntheinstancesadducedbyResch,itisdoubtlessusedinthesecondarysenseof"history."TheGreekwordlo,goj,bywhichrbdwasordinarilytranslatedintheLXX.,whilenaturallynotrunningthroughadevelopmentofmeaningexactlyparalleltothatofrbd,yetoddlyenoughpresentedafairGreekequivalentforbothofthesesensesof-yreb.Di,usedintitles:andwhyReschshouldspeakoflo,goiasunskillfullyusedinthetitlesheadduces,doesnotappearonthesurfaceofthings.Certainly,fromHerodotusdown,oi`lo,goiborethespecificmeaningofjust"Histories,"asafterwardsitborethesenseof"prosewritings":andtheearlyGreekhistorianswerecalledaccordinglyoi`

logogra,foi.89TheLXX.translators,inaword,couldscarcelyhavefoundahappierGreekrenderingforthetitlesoftheQuellenschriftenenumeratedinIChron.xxix.29,30,etc.Who,however,couldestimatetheunskillfulnessoftranslatingyrbdinsuchtitlesbylo,gia-awordwhichhadnosuchusageandindeeddidnotreadilylenditselftoanapplicationtohuman"words?"Papias(orhissponsor)musthavebeen(asEusebiuscallshim)amanofmeancapacityindeed,sotohavegarbledMatthew'sHebrew.Itshouldbenoted,further,thatPapiasdoesnotdeclare,asReschseemstothink,thatMatthewwroteta.lo,giatou/qeou/,oreventa.kuriaka.lo,gia-itisPapias'ownbookwhosetitlecontainsthisphrase;anditwillbehardtosupposethatPapias(orhissponsor)wasamanofsuchmeancapacityastofancythesimpleta.lo,giaafairequivalentfortheHebrew[wvyyrbdinthesenseof"TheHistoryofJesus."Ifhedidso,onedoesnotwonderthathehashadtowaittwothousandyearsforareadertocatchhismeaning.Suchspeculations,intruth,servenoothergoodpurposethantoexhibithowfara-seaonemustdriftwho,leavingthemooringsofactualusage,seeksanunnaturalmeaningforthesephrases.TheirobviousmeaningisthatPapiaswrotean"ExpositionoftheGospels,"andthathespeaksofMatthew'sandMark'sbooksasthemselvessectionsofthose"Scriptures"whichhewasexpounding.Undertheguidanceoftheusageoftheword,thiswouldseemtheonlytenableopinion.90

Itisnotintended,ofcourse,toimplythatthereisnotraceamongtheFathersofanyothersenseattachingtothewordsto.lo,gion(ta.lo,gia,than"theScriptures"asawhole.OtherapplicationsofthewordswerefoundstandingsidebysidewiththisinPhilo,andtheyarefoundalsoamongtheFathers.To.lo,gion,usedofaspecifictextofScripture,forexample,isnotuncommonintheFathers.Itisfound,forinstance,inJustinMartyr,"Apol.,"i.32:"AndJessewashisforefatherkata.to.lo,gion"-towit,Isa.xi.1,justquoted.ItisfoundinClementofAlexandria("Strom.,"ii.Migne,i.949a),whereIsa.vii.9isquotedanditisadded:"Itwasthislo,gionthatHeraclitusofEphesusparaphrasedwhenhesaid...."ItisfoundrepeatedlyinEusebius'"EcclesiasticalHistory,"inwhichthePapianpassagesarepreserved,as,e.g.,ix.7,adfin.,"Sothat,accordingtothatdivine(qei/on)lo,gion,"Viz.,Matt.xxiv.24;x.1,4,"thelo,gionthusenjoiningus,"viz.,Ps.xcvii.(xcviii.)1;x.4,7,"concerningwhichacertainotherdivinelo,gionthusproclaims,"viz.,Ps.lxxxvi.(lxxxvii.)3.Ta.lo,giaisalsousedintheFathers,asinPhilo,foranybodyoftheseScripturallo,gia,howeversmallorlarge(i.e.,foranygivensectionofScripture)-as,e.g.,fortheTenCommandments.Itissoused,forinstance,inthe"ApostolicalConstitutions,"ii.26:"KeepthefearofGodbeforeyoureyes,alwaysrememberingtw/nde,katou/

qeou/logi,wn";andalsoinEusebius(H.E.,ii.18,5).So,again,wehaveseenit,modifiedbyqualifyingadjectives,usedfortheGospels-andindeeditseemstobeemployedwithoutqualificationsinthissenseinPseudo-Justin's"EpistolaadZerametSerenum"(Otto,i.70b).ItisfurthersometimesusedapparentlynotoftheScripturetextassuch,butofcertainoracularutterancesrecordedinit-as,forexample,whenJustinsaystoTrypho(c.18):"Forsinceyouhaveread,OTrypho,asyouyourselfadmitted,thedoctrinestaughtbyourSaviour,IdonotthinkthatIhavedonefoolishlyinaddingsomeshortutterancesofhis(brace,atou/evkei,noulo,gia)tothepropheticstatements"-towit,wordsofJesusrecordedinMatt.xxi,xxiiiandLukexi,hereputonalevelwiththeoraclesoftheprophets,butapparentlyenvisagedasspoken.Alltheseareusagesthathavemetusbefore.

ButtherearelowerusagesalsodiscoverableinthelaterPatristicwritersatleast.Thereisanappearancenowandthenindeedasifthewordwas,inpopularspeech,losingsomethingofitshighimplicationof"solemnoracularutterancesofGod,"andcomingtobeappliedaswelltothewordsofmeremen91-possiblyinsequencetoitsapplicationtothewordsofprophetsandapostlesassuchandthegradualwearingdown,inthecarelesspopularconsciousness,ofthedistinctionbetweentheirwordsasprophetsandapostlesandtheirwordsasmen;possibly,ontheotherhand,insequencetothefreeruseofthewordinprofanespeechandthewearingawayofitshighimportwiththelossofreverenceforthethingdesignated.Thuswereadasearlyasinthe"ActsofXanthippeandPolyxena,"editedbyProf.Jamesforthe"CambridgeTextsandStudies,"andassignedbyhimtothemiddleofthethirdcentury(c.28,p.78),thefollowingdialogue,inthecourseofaconversationbetweenPolyxenaandAndrew,"theapostleoftheLord":"Andrewsaith:'Drawnotnearme,child,buttellmewhothouartandwhence.'ThensaithPolyxena:'Iamagreatfriend-ofthesehere(xe,nhtw/nevntau/qa),butIseethygraciouscountenanceandthylogiaareasthelogiaofPaulandIpresumethee,too,tobelongtohisGod."'Ifwemayassumethistomarkatransitionstageintheusage,wemaylookuponacuriouspassageinJohnofDamascusasmarkingalmostthecompletionofthesinkingofthewordtoanequivalencetor`h,mata.Itoccursinhis"Disput.ChristianietSaraceni"(Migne,i.1588,iii.1344).TheSaracenicdisputantisrepresentedaseagertoobtainanacknowledgmentthattheWordofGod,thatisChrist,isamerecreature,andasplyingtheChristianwithajuggleonthewordlo,gia.Heaskswhetherthelo,giaofGodarecreateorincreate.Ifthereplyis"create,"therejoinderistobe:"Thentheyarenotgods,andyouhaveconfessedthatChrist,whoistheWord(lo,goj)ofGodisnotGod."If,ontheotherhand,thereplyis

"increate,"therejoinderapparentlyistobethatthelo,giaofGodneverthelessarenotproperlygods,andsoagainChristthelo,gojisnotGod.AccordinglyJohninstructstheChristiandisputanttorefusetosayeitherthattheyarecreateorthattheyareincreate,butdecliningthedilemma,toreplymerely:"Iconfessoneonlylo,gojofGodthatisincreate,butmywholeScripture(grafh,)Idonotcalllo,gia,butr`h,mataqeou/."OntheSaracenretortingthatDavidcertainlysaysta.lo,gia(notr`h,mata)oftheLordarepurelo,gia,theChristianistoreplythattheprophetspeaksheretropologikw/j,andnotkuriologikw/j,thatistosay,notbywayofadirectdeclaration,butbywayofanindirectcharacterization.Itisaremarkablelogomachythatwearethustreatedto:anditseemstoimplythatinJohn'sdaylo,giahadsunktoameresynonymofr`h,mata.Thatmenhadthenceasedtospeakofthewholegrafh,asta.qei/alo,giaweknownottohavebeenthecase:butapparentlythislanguagewasnowmadeuseofwithnomorepregnancyofmeaningthaniftheyhadsaidta.qei/ar`h,mata.92Thisprocessseemstohavecontinued,andinthefollowingpassagefromaworkoftheopeningoftheeleventhcentury-the"LifeofNilustheYounger,"publishedinthe120thvolumeofMigne's"Pat.Graec."(p.97D),-wehaveaninstanceoftheextremeextensionoftheapplicationoftheword:"ThensaiththeFathertohim:'Itisnotfittingthatthou,amanofwisdomandhigh-learning,shouldthinkorspeakta.tw/nkoinw/navnqrw,pwnlo,gia.'"93AndaccordinglywecannotbesurprisedtofindthatinmodernGreekthewordisemployedquitefreelyofhumanspeech.Jannaristellsusthatitisusedinthesenseof"maxim,"andthatincolloquialusageta.lo,giamaymean"promise"-inbothofwhichemploymentstheremayremainatraceofitsoriginalhigherimport.94WhileKontopoulosgivesastheEnglishequivalentsoflo,gion,thefollowinglist:"Asaying,aword;amaxim;amotto,anoracle;ta.qei/alo,gia,thedivineoracles,thesacredScriptures."95

Thusnotonlyalltheusagesofthewordfound,say,inPhilo,arecontinuedintheFathers,butthereisanobviousdevelopmenttobetraced.ButthisdevelopmentitselfisfoundedonandisawitnesstothecharacteristicusageofthewordamongtheFathers-that,towit,inwhichitisappliedtotheinspiredwordsofprophetsandapostles.AndbyfarthemostfrequentuseofthewordinthePatristicwritingsseemstobethatinwhichitdesignatesjusttheHolyScriptures.TheirprevailingusageisverywellillustratedbythatofEusebius.Wehavealreadyquotedanumberofpassagesfromhis"EcclesiasticalHistory"inwhichheseemstoadducespecialpassagesofScripture,eachasalo,gion.MorecommonisitforhimtorefertothewholeScripturesasta.lo,gia,orrather(forthisishisfavoriteformula)ta.qei/alo,gia-andthatwhetherhemeanstheOld

Testament(whichinthe"Praep.Evang.,"ii.6[Migne,iii.140A],hecallsta.vEbrai,wnlo,gia),ortheNewTestament,orreferstothepropheticorthenarrativeportions.Instancesmaybefoundin"H.E.,"v.,17,5,wherewearetoldthatMiltiadesleftmonumentsofhisstudyoftheqei/alo,gia;vi.23,2,wherethezealofOrigen'sfriendAmbroseforthestudyoftheqei/alo,giaismentionedasenablingOrigentowritehiscommentariesontheqei/aigrafai,;ix.9,8,whereasentencefromEx.xv.1isquotedasfromtheqei/alo,gia;x.4,28,wherePs.lvii.(lviii.),7isquotedfromtheqei/alo,gia;"PalestinianMartyrs,"xi.2,wherethedevotionofthePalestinianmartyrstotheqei/alo,giaisadvertedto.Eventhesingular-to.lo,gion-seemsoccasionallyusedbyEusebius(asbyPhilo)asadesignationofthewholeScripturefabric.Wemaysuspectthistobethecasein"H.E.,"x.4,43,whenwereadof"thecostlycedarofLebanonofwhichto.qei/onlo,gionhasnotbeenunmindful,saying,'TheforestsoftheLordshallrejoiceandthecedarsofLebanonwhichheplanted'(Ps.cv.[civ.]16)."Andwecannotdoubtitat"H.E.,"ii.10,1,wherewereadconcerningHerodAgrippa,that"ash`tw/npra,xewngrafh,relates,heproceededtoCæsareaand....to.lo,gionrelates'thattheangeloftheLordsmotehim"'-inwhichaccountitisworthwhiletoobservethecoincidenceofJosephus'narrativewithth.nqei/angrafh,n.Here,ofcourse,to.lo,gionisprimarilytheBookofActs-butasthesubsequentcontextshows,itrepresentsthatbookonlyaspartofthesacredScriptures,sothatto.lo,gionemergesasacompletesynonymofh`qei/agrafh,.WhateverotherusagemayfromtimetotimeemergeinthepagesoftheFathers,thePatristicusageoftheterm,katvevxoch,n,isasadesignationofthe"Scriptures"conceivedastheWordofGod.96

Inthelightofthesebroadfactsofusage,certainlinesmayveryreasonablybelaiddownwithinwhichourinterpretationof[ta.]lo,giaintheNewTestamentinstancesofitsoccurrenceshouldmove.Itwouldseemquitecertain,forexample,thatnolowersensecanbeattachedtoitintheseinstances,thanthatwhichitbearsuniformlyinitsclassicalandHellenisticusage:itmeans,not"words"barely,simple"utterances,"butdistinctively"oracularutterances,"divinelyauthoritativecommunications,beforewhichmenstandinaweandtowhichtheybowinhumility:andthishighmeaningisnotmerelyimplicit,butisexplicitintheterm.Itwouldseemclearagainthattherearenoimplicationsofbrevityintheterm:itmeansnotshort,pithy,pregnantsayings,buthigh,authoritative,sacredutterances;anditmaybeappliedequallywelltolongastoshortutterances-eventhoughtheyextendtopagesandbooksandtreatises.Itwouldseemtobeclearoncemorethattherearenoimplicationsinthetermofwhatmaybecalledtheliterarynatureoftheutterancestowhichitisapplied:it

characterizestheutterancestowhichitisappliedasemanationsfromGod,butwhethertheybepropheticornarrativeorlegal,pareneticorpromissoryincharacter,isentirelyindifferent:itswholefunctionisexhaustedindeclaringthemtobeGod'sownutterances.97Andstillfurther,itwouldseemtobeclearthatitisequallyindifferenttothetermwhethertheutterancessodesignatedbeoralorwrittencommunications:whetheroralorwrittenitdeclaresthemtobeGod'sownWord,andithadbecomecustomarytodesignatethewrittenWordofGodbythistermasonethatwasfeltfitlytodescribetheScripturesasanoracularbook-eitherabodyoforacles,oronecontinuousoraculardeliverancefromGod'sownlips.

ThislastusageissostrikinglycharacteristicoftheHellenisticadaptationofthetermthatacertainpresumptionliesinfavorofsounderstandingitinHellenisticwritings,whentheScripturalrevelationisinquestion:thoughthispresumptionis,ofcourse,liabletocorrectionbytheobviousimplicationsofthepassagesaswholes.InsuchapassageasRom.iii.2thispresumptionrisesveryhighindeed,anditwouldseemasifthewordheremustbereadasadesignationofthe"Scriptures"assuch,unlessverycompellingreasonstothecontrarymaybeadducedfromthecontext.ThatthemindofthewritermayseemtosometobeparticularlydwellinguponthisorthatelementinthecontentsoftheScripturescannotbetakenassuchacompellingreasontothecontrary:fornothingismorecommonthanforawritertobethinkingmoreparticularlyofoneportionofwhatheisformallyadducingasawhole.TheparaphraseofWetsteinappearsinthisaspect,therefore,veryjudicious:"TheyhavetheSacredBooks,inwhicharecontainedtheoraclesandespeciallythepropheciesoftheadventoftheMessiahandthecallingoftheGentiles;andbythesetheirmindsshouldbeprepared":though,sofarasthisparaphrasemayseemtoseparatebetweentheSacredBooksandtheOraclestheycontain,itisunfortunate.TheverypointofthisuseofthewordisthatitidentifiestheSacredBookswiththeOracles;andinthisaspectofitDr.DavidBrown'scommentismoresatisfactory:"Thatremarkableexpression,denoting'DivineCommunications'ingeneral,istransferredtothesacredScripturestoexpresstheiroracular,divinelyauthoritativecharacter."ThecaseisnotquitesosimpleinHeb.v.12:buthere,too,thewell-balancedcommentofDr.Westcottappearstoustocarryconvictionwithit:"ThephrasemightrefertothenewrevelationgivenbyChristtoHisapostles(comp.c.i.2);butitseemsmorenaturaltoreferittothecollectivewritingsoftheOldTestamentwhichtheHebrewChristiansfailedtounderstand."InActsvii.38theabsenceofthearticleintroducesnorealcomplication:itmerelyemphasizesthequalitativeaspectofthematter;whatMosesreceivedwasemphaticallyoracles-

whichisfurtherenhancedbycallingthem"lively,"i.e.,theywerenotmerelydead,butliving,effective,operativeoracles.Thespeaker'seyeisobviouslyonMosesastherecipientoftheseoracles,andontheoraclesasgivenbyGodtoMoses,asisrecordedinthePentateuch:buttheoracleshiseyeisonarethoserecordedinthePentateuch,andthatcametoMoses,notforhimself,butfortheChurchofallages-"togivetous."Herewemayhesitatetosay,indeed,thatlo,giameansjustthe"Scriptures";butwhatitmeansstandsinaveryexpressrelationtotheScriptures,andpossiblywasnotverysharplydistinguishedfromtheScripturesbythespeaker.WiththeanalogiesinPhiloclearlyinourmind,weshouldscarcelygofarwrongifweconceivedoflo,giahereasmeaningtothespeakerthoseportionsofScriptureinwhichMosesrecordedtherevelationsvouchsafedtohimbyGod-conceivedasthemselvestheserevelationsrecorded.InIPeteriv.11theinterpretationiscomplicatedbythequestionthatarisesconcerningthecharismathatisintended,aswellasbythecastingofthephraseintotheformofacomparison:"lethimspeakasitwereoraclesofGod."ItisnotclearthattheDivineScripturesassucharemeanthere;buttheterm,inanycase,retainsallitsforceasadesignationofsacred,solemndivineutterances:thespeakeristospeakasbecomesonewhosewordsarenothisown,buttheverywordsofGod-oraclesproclaimedthroughhismouth.Whetheritistheexerciseofthepropheticgiftinthestrictsensethatisadvertedto,sothatPeter'sexhortationisthattheprophetshouldcomporthimselfinhisprophesyingasbecomesonemadethevehicleoftheawfulwordsofrevelation;oronlythegiftofteachingthatisinquestion,sothatPeter'sexhortationisthathewhoproclaimsthewordofGod,eveninthislowersense,shallbearhimselfasbefitsonetowhomarecommittedtheDivineoraclesforexplanationandenforcement-mustbeleftherewithoutinvestigation.Ineithercasethetermisobviouslyusedinitshighestsenseandimpliesthatthelo,giaofGodareHisownwords,Hisawesomeutterances.

WhathasthusbeensaidinreferencetotheseNewTestamentpassagesisintendedtogonofurtherintheirexplanationthantothrowthelightoftheusageofthewordupontheirinterpretation.Intotheirdetailedexegesiswecannotnowenter.Wecannotpassbythegeneralsubject,however,withoutemphasizingthebearingthesepassageshaveontheNewTestamentdoctrineofHolyScripture.ItwillprobablyseemreasonabletomosttointerpretRom.iii.2ascertainly,Heb.v.12asprobably,andActsvii.38asverylikelymakingreferencetothewrittenScriptures;andasbearingwitnesstotheconceptionofthemonthepartoftheNewTestamentwritersas"theoraclesofGod."Thatistosay,wehaveunobtrusiveandconvincingevidenceherethattheOldTestamentScriptures,as

such,wereesteemedbythewritersoftheNewTestamentasanoracularbook,whichinitselfnotmerelycontains,butisthe"utterance,"theveryWordofGod;andistobeappealedtoassuchandassuchdeferredto,becausenothingotherthanthecrystallizedspeechofGod.WemerelyadverttothisfactherewithoutstoppingtodevelopitsimplicationsortoshowhowconsonantthisdesignationoftheScripturesasthe"OraclesofGod"iswiththeconceptionoftheHolyScripturesentertainedbytheNewTestamentwritersasotherwisemadeknowntous.WehavelatelyhadoccasiontopointoutinthisReviewsomeoftheotherwaysinwhichthisconceptionexpressesitselfintheNewTestamentwritings.98HewhocarestolookforitwillfinditinmanywayswrittenlargelyandclearlyandindeliblyonthepagesoftheNewTestament.Wecontentourselvesatthistime,however,withmerelypointingoutthatthedesignationoftheScripturesasta.lo,giatou/qeou/fairlyshoutstousoutofthepagesoftheNewTestament,thattoitswriterstheScripturesoftheOldTestamentweretheveryWordofGodinthehighestandstrictestsensethattermcanbear-theexpressutterance,inalltheirpartsandeachandeveryoftheirwords,oftheMostHigh-the"oraclesofGod."Lethimthatthinksthemsomethingotherandlessthanthis,reckon,then,withtheapostlesandprophetsoftheNewCovenant-towhosetrustworthinessaswitnessestodoctrinaltruthheowesallheknowsabouttheNewCovenantitself,andthereforeallhehopesforthroughthisNewCovenant.

Endnotes:

1. FromThePresbyterianandReformedReview,Vol.XI.1900,pp.217-260.2. Soverycommonly:as,e.g.,byGrimm("LexiconinN.T.,"s.v.),Bleek

("DerBriefandieHebräer,"ii.2,114,onHeb.v.12),Philippi("Com.onRomans,"E.T.,i.105,onRom.iii.2),Morrison("Expos.of3dChap.ofRom.,"p.14).

3. "Com.onRomans,"onRom.iii.2(E.T.,i.140,note1).4. Plato,"Eryx.,"401,E.:evta,ratte,geauvto.n)))to.logi,dion;Isocrates,

"ContraSophistas,"295B.(Didot,191):tosou,tw|de.cei,roujtw/nperi.ta.je;ridajkalindoume,nwn(o[sonou-toime.ntoiau/talogi,diadiexio,ntev)));Aristophanes,"Vesp.,"64:avllve;stinh`mi/nlogi,diongnw,mhne;con|u`mw/nme.nauvtw/nouvci.dexiw,teron.Cf.BlaydesonthepassageinAristophanes.

5. "Com.onRom.,"onRom.iii.2:"Theoldaccountoflo,gionasadiminutiveoflo,gojisprobablycorrect,thoughMey.-W.makeitneuteroflo,giojonthegroundthatlogi,dionistheproperdiminutive.The

formlogi,dionisratherastrengtheneddiminutivewhich,byaprocesscommoninlanguage,tooktheplaceoflo,gionwhenitacquiredthesenseof'oracle."'Whentheyaddthatitwasas"abriefcondensedsaying"thattheoraclewascalledlo,gion,theyhavenosupportintheliterature.

6. Jelf,wholooksuponitasadiminutive,citesitasanextremeexampleofthefactthatmanysimplediminutivesin-ionhavelosttheirdiminutiveforcesuchasqhri,on(bibli,on:lo,gion,hesays,"hasassumedapeculiarmeaning."Inanyevent,thus,nodiminutivemeaningclingstolo,gion.

7. evpulli,oijkai.peripa,toijkai.teutli,oisileukoi/j.8. Dindorf,iv.ii.p.113,online973.9. Blaydesaddssomeotherinstances:"Ejusdemformædiminutivasunt

eivdu,llion(brefu,llion(meiraku,llion(zwu<llion(kreu<llion(xenu,llion."10. Withthislo,gionmikro,ncomparethebrace,alo,giaofJustinMartyr,

"ContraTryph.,"c.18.Whentheideaofbrevityneededtobeconveyed,itwouldseemthatanadjectiveexpressiveofthisideawasrequiredtobeadded.

11. Ed.Bas.,i.177;Rom.i.233:Weigel'sLeipziged.(hereused),i.189.12. LiddellandScottsay,s.v.:"o[rkionisnotwithButtm.,"Lexil.,"s.v.,tobe

regardedasadim.ofo[rkoj,butratherasneuterofo[rkioj,withwhichi`ero,nori`era,maybesupplied";"Dim,ofi;cnojonlyinform(v.Chandler,"Accent.,"§340)."Cf.ingeneralJelf,"Grammar,"§§56,2,and335,c(Vol.i,pp.53,337).

13. Ed.Bas.,pp.1426,1427;ed.Rom.,p.69;ed.Leipzig,i.p.72.14. Ascholiumonthepassageinthe"Odyssey"bringsoutthemeaningof

qeopro,pion,towit:to.evkqeou/legome,non(evxou-kai.qeopro,pojo`ta.tou/qeou/le,gwn.Cf.alsotheHomericLexiconsontheword:e.g.,Ebeling,s.v.qeopropi,hetqeopro,pion:"Sententiadeorum,judiciumquoddii(JuppiterpotissimumetAppollo)cumvate(velcumdeo)communicant,vatescumaliishominibus,oraculum.Cf.Nægelsb.,H[omerische]Th[eologie],187.Ap.87,4ma,nteumato.evkqeou/prolego,menon.Cf.Suid,i.2,1144Hes.";andCapelleundersameheading:"AlleswasvondenGöttern(bes[onders]ApollonundZeus)angezeigtunddurchdenqeopro,pojgedeutetwird,'dievondenGötterneingegebenenOffenbarungen'(Nægelsb.zuA.385.Cf.'Hom.Th.,'S.187),alsoWeissagung,Göttergebot,Götterbeschetid,Orakel."

15. "HistoiredelaDivinationdansl'Antiquité"(Paris,Leroux,1879),Vol.ii,pp.229,230.

16. TheScholiumruns:qe,sfata(qespi,smata(crhsmoi.to.auvto.(evle,gontode.evpi.qew/nmanteu/aide.kai.manteu,mataevpi.ma,ntewnajnqro,pwn.

17. TheaboveisabstractedfromJ.H.Heinr.Schmidtinhis"HandbuchderLateinischenundGriechischenSynonymik"(1889),§21,pp.77-82.Theoriginalmeaningassignedtocrh/n(darreichen,ertheilen)issupportedbyareferencetoVaniček,p.250.SurelyitisamuchmorereasonabledeterminationthanthatofBouché-Leclercq("Hist.delaDivination,"i.192),whowouldderiveitfromacleromanticidea,asifcra,wsignifiedfirstofall"entailler."Soheconceivesavnairei/ntorefertothelot,aswesayto"drawlots,"asifthePythoness"drewherrevelationsaswedrawlots."Schmidtreferstheuseofthiswordtotheearlyideathatthewordscameupoutofthedepthsoftheearth.

18. E.g.,Polybius,3,112,8:"AlltheoraclespreservedinRomewereineverybody'smouth(pa,ntadvh=nta.parvauvtoi/jlo,giapa/sito,tedia.sto,matoj)andeverytempleandhousewasfullofprodigiesandmiracles:inconsequenceofwhichthecitywasonesceneofvows,sacrifices,supplicatoryprocessionsandprayers"(Schuchburgh'stranslation).Appian,2,115,dei,matata.ga.ra;logapolloi/jevne,pipteperi.o[lhnvItali,an)Kai(manteuma,twnpalaiw/nevpifobwte,rwnevmnhmo,neuon.Dionys.Hal.,"Ant.,"vii.68:crhsmoi,tvh;|dontoevnpolloi/jcwri,oijktl)DioCassius,431,66and273,64,wherewereadoflo,giapantoi/ah;|deto.

19. ii.8,Jowett'stranslation(i.p.99).20. ii.21,Jowett'stranslation(i.109).21. InDidot'sappendix,p.416:Lo,giaevstita.para.tou/qeou/lego,mena

katloga,dhn\crhsmoi.de.oi[tinejevmme,trwjle,gontai(qeoforoume,nwntw/nlego,ntwn.

22. Ed.Bekker,p.666:lo,giata.para.qeou/lego,menakataloga,dhn(crhsmoi.de.oi;tinejevmme,trwjle,gontaqeoforoume,nwntw/nlego,ntwn.

23. Inhis"HandbuchderLateinischenundGriechischenSynonymik"(Leipzig,1889),§21(pp.77-82).

24. SoforexampleinAristophanes'"Knights"passim(seebelow)andinPorphyry'scollectionofOracles.

25. ThisistheexplanationofCroisetintheverysensiblebriefnotehegivesonthepassageinhisattractiveeditionofThucydides(Paris,Hachette&Cie.,1886):Hesays:"lo,gia,oracles:accordingtothescholiast,oraclesinproseincontrastwithcrhsmoiororaclesinverse;butitmaybeseeninAristophanes("Knights,"999-1002),thatthetwoexpressionsweresynonyms:thedistinctionbearshereonlyonthemannerinwhichtheseoracleswerespreadamongthepeople;evle,gontosignifies:theywerehawkedaboutfrommouthtomouth,withouttheinterventionofthediviners(evle,gontointheplural,despitetheneutersubject,becauseitis

theideaofdiversitythatdominates,ratherthananideaofcollectivity;cf.Curtius"Gr.gr.,"§363,Fiem.1);h=donistheappropriatewordinspeakingofcrhsmolo,goiororacle-delivererswhosebusinesswastorecitethepropheciesinverse."

26. SostillFranzMiillerinhishandyeditionofthissecondbook(Paderborn,1886).

27. SoSteup-ClasseninthefourtheditionofClassen's"SecondBookofThucydides,"broughtoutbySteup(Berlin,1889).Theysay:"evle,gonto:theunusualpluraldoubtlessonaccountofthevarietyanddiffusionofthelo,gia:cf.5,26,2;6,62,4.Lo,gia,accordingtotheusageoftheanaphora,istobeunderstoodwithpolla,inbothinstances(B.supposestheanaphorawouldrequiretheprepositingofthenoun,asI.3;butthereneo,thjisemphasizedbykai.,whichisnotthecaseherewithlo,gia).vEle,gonto:circulatedbythemouthofthepeople,withoutfixedormetricalform,whichwouldbegiventhemorpreservedforthembythecrhsmolo,goiwhowereoccupiedprofessionallyinthecollection(hence-lo,goi)andinterpretationoftransmittedprophecies(cf.Herod.7,6,142;Schomann,Gr.Alt.,23,304).Thedistinctionisbetweenevle,gontoandh|;don,nottheobjectofthelo,gia."

28. Pp.152,153ofhiseditionofthepiece(Vienna,1796).ItisreprintedentireinPeerlkamp'sedition(Haarlem,1818)withthisadditionbythelatereditor:"lo,giaLatinisinterdumdictiones,dicta,sermones,etlogia;cf.Heins.adOvid.,Her.v.33etObserv.Misc.V.I.T.L,p.276.ApollodorusinBiblioth.saepepermutatlo,giaetcrhsmou,j,quiquumscribitI,vi.§1,toi/jde.qeoi/jlo,gionh-nmirerisinterpretemreddentemrumoreratinterdeos.Dediscriminelo,giainteretcrhsmou,jeademjamexAristophaneejusqueSchol.notaratTresling.Adv.pag.46,47,addensL.BosadRom.iii.2etAlbertiObs.Phil.pag.298seq."

29. Stephens(ed.Dindorf-Hase)merelyadducesCamerarius'testimony:"SoCam.,addingthatthediscriminationofthegrammariansisafalseone,althoughthepassageinThucydides,i(sic.)[8]seemstoagreewithit."

30. ThisseemstobewhatHaack(onThucyd.,ii.8)meanswhenhedefineslo,giaasauguria,prcesagiavatum,andcrhsmoi,asoraculadeorum.

31. ThisseemsthegistofBredow'sview(onThucyd.,ii.8):"crhsmo,jcumverbiscra/netcrei/sqaioraculorumpropriiscohaerensdefiniteoraculumdivinumvocatur;lo,gionautemapertegeneraliusvocabulorumest,sermoominosus,verbumfaticidiumquodnoninterrogatusveldeus,velvateselocutusest."PoppoandGoelleradloc.quotetheseviewsbutaddnothingofvaluetothem.

32. Bouché-LeclercqseemsalmostinclinedtoreverttoEustathius'statementandlookuponlo,gionas"anexpressionpeculiartotheAtticdialect,aspro,fanta(Herod.,v.63;ix.93)isanIonicexpression"(op.cit.,ii.130,note4).

33. crhsmw/ndvavoidou.jpa,ntajeivje;navli,saj|h'legxakai.be,bhlakai.kekrumme,na|lo,giapalaia.th|/de.gh|/swth,ria.

34. waystranslation,398seq.35. Line61.Blaydessays:"sensusest,senesenimoraculaamat."36. Line120.Wheelwright'stranslationisusedthroughout.37. Line194.38. pro,teronde.e;tito.navgw/natou/tonproesh,mhnenh`Puqi,a(kai.to.

lo,gionei;tea;llwjei;tekai.w]jsunei.jevdh,lwsen`Hro,dotoj\vAllvo[tanh`qh,leiato.na;rrenanikh,sasaevxela,sh|kai.ku/dojevnvArgei,oisina;rhtaipolla.jvArgei,wnavmfidrufe,ajto,teqh,sei)Ta.me.nevjto.e;rgontw/ngunaikw/ne;contatou/crhsmou/tau/tah=n.In.v.3,1;iv.9,4;ix.37,4inlikemannercrhsmo,jisidentifiedwithma,nteuma.

39. Bekker,i.150.40. ii.412D.41. ii.247D.avpopeirw,menoitw/nlogi,wn.vExrh,sqhga.rauvtoi/j\...42. ii.268E.avpofqe,ggesqailo,gia(kai.crhsmw|dei/ntoi/jevrwtw/sin\...43. i.6.44. Theword,aswillbeseen,isasoldasHerodotus:ontheotherhand-ifwe

maytrusttheindices-itdoesnotseemtooccurinHomer(Dunbar's"Concordance"[toOdyssey],Gehring's"Index"),Hesiod(Paulsen's"Index"),Plato(Ast's"Lexicon")orAristotle,XenophonorSophocles.

45. Seeabove,p.336.46. Dr.AddisonAlexander,withhisusualclearness,positsthealternative

admirably(onActsvii.38):"TheGreekword(lo,gia)hasbeenvariouslyexplainedasadiminutiveof(lo,goj)word,meaningabrief,condensedandfrequentutterance;orastheneuterofanadjective(lo,gioj)meaningrational,profound,wise,andasasubstantive,awisesaying."Itwouldseemdifficulttorisefromasurveyoftheclassicalusagewithoutanimpressionthatitjustifiesthelatterderivation.ThisusageisstatedwithperfectaccuracybyDeMoor("Com.inMarckiiCompend.,"i.13):to.lo,gion"whenusedsubstantivelymaybeconsideredasmoreemphaticthanto.r`h/maoreveno`lo,goj:forthistermmeanswiththeGreeksnotanykindofword,butspecificallyanoracle,adivineresponse."

47. Itoccurs,accordingtotheBrown-Gesenius"Lexicon,"nolessthan5287times;accordingtoGirdlestone("SynonymsoftheO.T.,"ed.2,p.205),it"isgenerallyrenderedintheLXX.e;pwandle,gw."Thereseemstobeinherentinthewordanundertoneofloftinessorauthoritativenessduepossiblytoitsetymologicalimplicationof"prominence."Itsderivationsareaccordinglymostlypoeticalwordsdesignatingaloftyspeechorauthoritativespeech.

48. Theverb,ofdoubtfulorigin,occursaccordingtoBrown-Gesenius,1142times,andisgenerallyrenderedintheLXX.(Girdlestone,loc.cit.)lale,w.Thenounoccurs1439timesandisrendered"generallylo,goj,sometimesr`h/ma,andin35passages,pra/gma."

49. Thereisalsothepoeticwordll;m'anditsderivativenounhL'mi-aword"usedin30passages,19ofwhichareinJoband7inDaniel,"andrenderedintheLXX.lo,gojandr`h/ma(Girdlestone).

50. rm,ao,"exceptinJosh.xxiv.27(E)usedexclusivelyinpoetry,48times,ofwhich22areinProverbsand11inJob"(DriveronDeut.xxxii.1).hr'm.ai"onlyfoundinpoetry(36times,ofwhich19areinPs.cxix.)"(DriveronDent.xxxii.2).hr'm.a,,Lam.ii.17only.rm'a]m;,Esth.i.15,ii.20,ix.32only.OnthegeneralsubjectoftheirpoeticusageseeGreen,"GeneralIntroductiontotheO.T.:TheText,"p.19;Bleek,"IntroductiontotheO.T.,"E.T.,i.98;Havernick,"Einleitung,"i.172;Gesenius,"GeschichtederhebraischenSprache,"p.22,and"Lehrgebaude,"Register,p.892;Vogel,"DeDialectoPoetica."

51. crhsmo,j,forexample,whichwehavefoundtheconstantaccompanimentoflo,gionintheclassicsandshallfindalwaysbyitssideinPhilo,doesnotoccurintheLXX.atall.Thecognatescrhmati,zw(Jer.xxxii.(25)30,xxxiii.(26)2,xxxvi.(29)23,xxxvii.(30)2,crhmatismo,j(Prov.xxiv.69(xxxi.1),IIMacc.ii.4),crhmatisthri,(IKgs.viii.6),are,however,found,andintheirhighsense.ItissomewhatoverstrainedforDelitzsch(onHeb.viii.5,E.T.,Vol.ii.32)tosay:"TheSeptuagintwordforthedeliveranceofadivineoracleorinjunctioniscrhmati,zein(tou.jlo,gouj)tini,orpro,jtina:"crhmati,zeinisfoundinthissenseonlyintheLXX.Jeremiah.AveryrichbodyofillustrationsfortheNewTestamentusages(Lukeii.26,Actsx.22,Heb.viii.5)might,however,beculledfromPhilo.

52. Insomecodd.butintheedd.weread,kata.to.e;leo,jsou.53. Thepassagesarealreadyenumeratedjustabove.54. Theotherversionsaddnothingofimportance.AtPs.cxix.41thehr'm.ai

renderede;leojbyLXX.isrenderedlo,gionbyAq.andTh.InPs.cxxxvii.(cxxxviii).2thehr'm.airenderedbyLXX.a[gion(thoughBaethgen

remarksthatthisseemsmerelyacorruptionoflo,gion)isrenderedlo,gionbyAq.andQuinta.InIsa.xxxii.9,thehr'm.airenderedinLXX.bylo,goiisgivenaslo,gionbyAq.,acasequiteparallelwithPs.xviii.15(xix.15)inLXX.InJer.viii.9thephrasehw'hy-rb;d.BiisrenderedinAq.bylo,gion.

55. ThestatisticsofthisPsalmare:hr'm.aiisused19times:beingtranslatedbylo,gion17times,viz.,atverses11,38,50,58,67,76,82,103,115,123,133,140,148,158,162,170,172;atv.41itistranslatedto.e;leoj,thoughsomecodicesreadto.nlo,gonandsometo.lo,gion;atv.154itistranslatedbylo,gon.rb'D'isused23times:beingtranslatedbylo,goj15times,viz.,atverses9,16,17,28,42,43,49,74,81,89,101,130,147,160,161;bylo,gion4times,viz.,atverses25,65,107,109;byevntolh,twice,viz.,atverses57,139;byno,mojatv.105,andbylao,jv.114(thoughsomecod.readlo,goiorlo,goj).Lo,gionisused23times:beingthetranslationofhr'm.ai17times,viz.,atverses11,38,50,58,67,76,82,103,115,123,133,140,148,158,162,170,172;ofrb'D'4times(25,65,107,169);ofds,h,once(124)andoffpvmonce(149).lo,gojisused17times:beingthetranslationofrb'D'15times,viz.,atverses9,16,17,28,42,43,49,74,81,89,101,130,147,160,161andofhr'm.aionce(154,cf.41),whileonce(42a)itisinsertedwithoutwarrantfromtheHebrew.

56. Delitzschonv.9seq.:"Theoldclassic(e.g.,xviii.31),^t,r'm.aialternatesthroughoutwithbothareintendedcollectively."Perowneonv.11:"WORD,orrather'saying,''speech,'distinctfromthewordemployed,forinstance,inv.9.BothwordsareconstantlyinterchangedthroughoutthePsalm."

57. Delitzschonv.145-152:"hr'm.aiishereasinverses140,158,thewholeWordofGod,whetherinitsrequirementsoritspromises."

58. DriveronDeut.xxxii.2:"Onlyfoundinpoetry(36times,ofwhich19areinPs.119);cf.Isa.xxviii.23,xxxii.9."

59. Onthispassagecf.Konig,"Offenbarungsbegriff,"ii.149,150.60. "TheGodofIsraelistheAlmightyGovernorofnature.ItisHewhosends

Hisfiat(!tr'm.aiafterthemannerofthermeaOYw:ofthehistoryofcreation,cf.xxxiii.9),earthward....ThewordisHismessenger(cf.incvii.20),etc."Delitzsch,inloc.

61. Itseemscertainlyinadequatetorenderhr'm.aiby"saying,"asisveryfrequentlydone,e.g.,byDr.JohnDeWittinhis"PraiseSongsofIsrael"(wehaveonlythefirsteditionathand),byDr.Maclareninthecxix.Psalm("Expositor'sBible")andbyDr.DriveratPs.cv.19;cf.cxlvii.15seq.ThisEnglishwordsuggestsnothingoftheloftyimplicationswhichseemtohaveattachedtotheHebrewterm.

62. OnRom.iii.2.

63. OnRom.iii.2(pp.14,15).64. PossiblyBleekinloc.Heb.v.12meansthesamethingwhenhesaysthe

wordstandshereof"theinspiredreligioussongofthepoet."65. Ex.xxviii.15,22,23,24,24,26,xxix.5,5A.R.,xxxv.27,xxxvi.15,16,

22,24,25,27,29,29;Lev.viii.8,8;Sir.xlv.10.AlsoinAq.:Ex.xxv.6(7),xxviii.4,xxxv.9.InSm.:Ex.xxviii.4,28.InTh.:Ex.xxv.6(7),xxviii.4,23,23,xxviii.24,26,28,xxxv.9.

66. Hebrews,pp.115,116,note.67. ItisnotintendedtodenythatPhilorecognizedacertaindivineinfluence

workingbeyondthelimitsofScripture:buthedoesthiswithoutprejudicetohissupremeregardfortheScripturesastheonlyproperoraclesofGod.Attheopeningofthetractate"QuodOmn.Prob.Lib."(§1,M.444,445),hegivesexpressioninthemostexaltedtermstohisappreciationofthevalueofGreekthought:thePythagoreansareamostsacredbrotherhood(i`erw,tatojqi,asoj)whoseteachingsareka,la,andallmenwhohavegenuinelyembracedphilosophy(filosofi,angnhsi,wjhvspa,santo)havefoundoneoftheirlo,goiaqesmo.nivsou,menoncrhsmw/|.ElsewherehespeaksofParmenides,Empedocles,ZenoandCleanthesandtheirlikeas"divihomines"constitutinga"sacercoetus"("DeProv.,"§48),whodidnotcasttheirteachingsinverseonlybecauseitwasfittingthattheyshouldnotbequitegods("DeProv.,"§42).Butevenherethecrhsmo,jisthestandardtowhichtheirteachingisonlylikened:withalltheirwisdomtheyfallshortofdeity;anditistheutteranceofdeityalonewhichis"oracular"-andthisutteranceisdiscernibleonlyintheScripturesoftheJews.WeventuretoquoteherethestatementsofProf.JamesDrummond("Philo`udæus,"i.pp.13seq.):TheScriptures"werethe'oracles,'the'sacred'or'divineword,'whoseinspirationextendedtothemostminuteparticulars.Philodistinguishesindeeddifferentkindsofinspiration,butthedistinctiondidnotaffectitsdivineauthority....CommunionbetweenGodandmanisamongthepermanentpossibilitiesofourrace;andPhilogoessofarastosaythateverygoodandwisemanhasthegiftofprophecy,whileitisimpossibleforthewickedmantobecomeaninterpreterofGod("Quisrer.div.heres."52[i.510]).ItistruethatheisreferringhereprimarilytothegoodmenintheScriptures,butheseemstoregardthemasrepresentativesofagenerallaw.Hedidnotlookuponhimselfasastrangertothisblessedinfluence,butsometimes'amoresolemnword'spokefromhisownsoul,andheventuredtowritedownwhatitsaidtohim("Cherubim,"9[i.143]).Inonepassagehefullyrecordshisexperience("Migrat.Abrah.,"7[i.441])....ElsewherehereferstothesuggestionsoftheSpiritwhichwas

accustomedtocommunewithhimunseen("DeSomniis,"ii.38[i.692])....ButheascribedtotheBiblicalwritersafullnessofthisdivineenthusiasm,andconsequentinfallibilityofutterance,whichheclaimedfornoothers."

68. Yonge'stranslation(inBohn'sEcclesiasticalLibrary)ismadeuseofinthesecitations.ThepagingofMangeyisoftengivenandsometimesthatoftheParisedition:buttheeditionofRichteristheonethathasbeenactuallyused.TheshortcomingsofYonge'stranslation(cf.Edersheim'sarticle,"Philo,"inSmithandWace's"DictionaryofChristianBiography,"iv.367A,noteo),willbeevidenttothereader;butwhenimportantforourpurposewillbecorrectablefromtheGreekclausesinserted.

69. Cf.onthismatterEdersheiminSmithandWace's"DictionaryofChristianBiography,"art."Philo"(Vol.iv.pp.386,387):Theonlybooks"ofwhichitmaywithcertaintybesaidthattheyarenotreferredtobyPhilo,areEstherandtheSongofSolomon.ThereferencetoEcclesiastesisverydoubtful,muchmoresothanthattoDaniel(p.387a)."Cf.alsoRyle,"PhiloandHolyScripture,"pp.16-35:"ItisabundantlyclearthattoPhilothePentateuchwasaBiblewithinaBible,andthatheonlyoccasionallyreferredtootherbooks,whosesanctityheacknowledged,asopportunitychancedtopresentitself"(p.27).Cf.alsoEwald,"HistoryofIsrael,"E.T.,vii.204,205:"Althoughheuses,andgenerallyintheorderinwhichtheyarenowfoundintheHebrewCanon,theotherbooksmuchlessgradatimthanthePentateuch,theirauthorsare,nevertheless,consideredbyhimasofequalholinessanddivinitywithMoses,andinasmuchasfromhiswholeviewandtreatmentoftheScriptures,hecanattributebutlittleimportancetotheirauthorsasauthors,ortotheirnamesandtemporalcircumstances,helikestocallthemallsimplyfriends,orassociates,ordisciplesofMoses,orprefersstillmoretoquotethepassagetowhichhereferssimplyasasacredsong,sacredword,etc.""ItisonlythebookswhichwenowfindcollectedintheHebrewCanonwhichheregardedasholy,andhewasbothsufficientlylearnedandcarefulnottorankalltheotherswhichwereatthattimegraduallyappendedtotheGreekBibleuponanequalitywiththem."Cf.alsoLee,"TheInspirationofHolyScripture,"pp.69,70.

70. CompareEwald,"TheHistoryofIsrael,"E.T.,vii.203,204:"ThesacredScripturesaretoPhilosoimmediatelydivineandholy,thatheconsistentlyfindsinthemsimplythedivinewordratherthanScripture,andthereforereallyeverywherespeakslessoftheSacredScripturesthanofdivineoracles[crhsmoi,(lo,gia]ofwhichtheywerewhollycomposed,or,whenhedesirestodesignatethembrieflyasawhole,ofthesacredanddivineWord,asifthesameLogos,ofwhomhespeakssomuchelsewhere,were

symbolizedandincorporatedinthemforalltime,asfarasthatispossibleinabook[o`i`ero.j,morerarelyo`qei/ojlo,goj,likewiseo`ovrqo.jlo,goj(e.g.,i.308,27;681,17;cf.esp.,ii.163,44)istheexpressionwhichheconstantlyusesinthiscase;cf.esp.i.676,37seq.;677,12].Itistruethatinthecaseofthegeneralsubjectmatter,ofthePentateuchforinstance,hemakesacertaindistinction,inasmuchassomeoftheoraclescometotheprophet,asamereinterpreterdirectlyasfromthepresenceandvoiceofGodalone,whileothersarerevealedtohimbyGodinanswertohisinterrogations,andagainothershavetheirorigininhimselfwheninaninspiredstateofmind.ButhemakesthisthreefolddistinctionsimplybecausehefounditinreadingparticularpassagesoftheBible,andnotwithaviewoffurtherreflectinguponitanddrawingreferencesfromit.Onthecontrary,heregardsandtreatsallthesentencesandwordsoftheScriptureasonaperfectequalityandteachesexpresslythatsacredScripturemustbeinterpretedandapplied,asformingeventoitssmallestparticles,oneinseparablewhole[cf.esp."Auch.,"ii.170,212seq.;inotherrespects,cf.i.554,14,andmanyotherpassagesofasimilarcharacter]."

71. Thetranslationhereisunusuallyexpanded:theGreekrunsDhloi/de.kai.l)e)p(q)t)t)o[)h`)peri.tou/medeni.tou/dedhlw/sqaio;noma,tiauvtou/ku,rion(ktl)

72. "DeProfug.,"§§11and28;"DeVitaMoysis,"i.53;iii.23,30,35,36.73. Philo'sdesignationsofScripturehavebeencollectedbyCl.Frees

Hornemann,inhis"Observationesadillustr.doctr.deCan.V.T.ex.Philone"(1775);morebrieflybyEichhorninhis"Einl.ind.A.Test.";andinanotaltogethercompleteorexactlistbyRyle,"PhiloandHolyScripture."

74. Astografai,,see"Quisrerumdiv.heres,"§32(Mangey,i.495),parvo]kai.evni`erai/jgrafai/jle,getai;"DeAbrah.,"§1(M.ii.2),"Nowthesearethosemenwhohavelivedirreproachably...whosevirtuesaredurablyandpermanentlyrecordedasonpillars,evntai/ji`erwta,taijgrafai/j."Astogra,mma(gra,mmata,see"DeCongr.Erud.Grat.,"§12(M.1.527),;Estide.kai.evte,rwqito.gra,mmatou/toevsthliteume,non(Deut.xxxii.8)";"QuodDeusImmut.,"§2(M.i.273),"ForinthefirstbookofKings(=ISam.i.20),she(Hannah)speaksinthismanner:'Igivehim(Samuel)untotheefreely,'theexpressionhereusedbeingequivalentto'Igivehimuntotheewhomthouhastgivenuntome,'kata.to.i`erw,tatonMwu?se,wjgra,mmatou/to,'Mygiftsandmyofferings,andmyfirstfruits,yeshallobservetoofferuntome"';"Legat.adCaium,"§29(M.ii.574),"YouhaveneverbeentrainedintheknowledgeofthesacredScriptures(toi/ji`eroi/jgra,mmasin";

"DeVitaM.,"iii.39;etc.75. IntheNewTestamentgra,mmadoesnotoccurinthesenseofapassageof

Scripture-asindeedta.gra,mmataoccursofScriptureonlyinIITim.iii.15,cf.Johnv.47.Theplaceofgra,mmainthissenseistakenintheNewTestamentbygrafh,,thoughitisextremetosaywithLightfootonGal.iii.22(cf.WestcottonJohnii.22)thatgrafh,,alwaysintheNewTestamentreferstoaparticularpassage.Ontheotherhandthisuseofgrafh,isfarfrompeculiartotheNewTestamentasseemstobeimpliedbyStephens("Thes."sub.voc.).NotonlydoesitoccurfamiliarlyintheFathers,ase.g.(fromSophocles):Clems.Rom.,ii.2;JustinMart.,"Advs.Tryph.,"cc.56,65(averyinstructivecase),69,71(cf.Otto'snotehere)andelsewhere;Clems.Alex.,"CohortadGentes.,"ix.adinit.:butalsoinPhilo,ase.g.,"DePraem.etPoem,"§11neartheend(M.ii.418):"BeingcontinuallydevotedtothestudyoftheHolyScripturesbothintheirliteralsenseandalsointheallegoriesfigurativelycontainedinthem(evntai/jr`htai/jgrafai/jkai.evntai/ju`po,noianavllhgori,aij),"and"Quisrerumdiv.her.,"§53(M.i.511):"Andthehistorianconnectswithhisprecedingaccountwhatfollowsinconsistencywithit,saying...(to.de.avko,louqonprosufai,neith|/grafh|/fa,skwn)."OfcoursePhilosometimesusesh`grafh,inthenon-technicalsensealso,ofahumantreatise:thusattheopeningof"DeSomniis"hereferstowhatwascontainedintheprecedingtreatiseh`me.nou=npro.tau,thjgrafh.periei/ce).Whatissaidinthetextisnotintendedtotraversesuchfactsasthese,indicatingotherusages;butismeantonlytosuggestinabroadwaywhatseemstobetheprimarydistinctionbetweenthethreeusages;thesubsequentdevelopmentundergonebythemisanotherstory.

76. Thusofthepassagecitedabove:in"Quoddetpot.insid.,"§14,thereferenceistothenarrativeofGen.iv;in"DeVitaMoysis,"iii.35,tothewholelegislationconcerningfood;in"DeProfug.,"§28,and"DeMutat.Nom.,"§4,apparentlytothewholeBible.

77. "DeDecemOraculis,"titleand§10;"DeSobrietate,"§10;"DePraem.etPoen.,"§1;"DeVitaMoysis,"iii.§23;"DeLegat.adCaium,"§31;"DeVitaContemplativa,"§3.

78. Cf.theechoofJosephus'languageinTacitus,"Hist.,"v.13:"Pluribuspersuasioinerat,antiquissacerdotumlitteris(=evntoi/ji`eroi/jgra,mmasi)contineri,eoipsotemporeforeutvalesceretOriensprofectiqueJudæarerumpotirentur.Quaeambages(=crhsmo.javmfi,boloj=to.lo,gion)VespasianumetTitumpraedixerant."

79. TheContemporaryReview,August,1875,p.400;"Essaysonthework

entitledSupernaturalReligion"(1889),p.173.80. Inloc.81. Loc.cit.82. Inloc.83. Cf.whatProf.RopessaysofthispassageinTheAmericanJournalof

Theology,October,1899(iii.698)andhisstricturesonResch'suseofit.84. Orlo,gwn,asisreadbybothSchweglerandHeinichen:contraRouth,

LightfootandGebhardt-Harnack.85. Ifthereeverwassucha"CollectionofSayingsofJesus,"thenaturaltitleof

itwouldcertainlynotbeta.kuriaka.lo,gia,butsomethingliketheh`su,ntaxijtw/nkuriakw/nlo,gwnwhichPapiassays(ifweadoptthereadinglo,gwn)Markdidnotwrite.Weobservewithastonishment,thevenerableProf.Godetsaying,inhisrecentvolumeontheGospels,thattheexistenceofsuchcollectionsoflo,giaisnowputbeyonddoubtbythediscoveryoftheOxyrhynchusfragment.Thelastwordhasdoubtlessnotbeensaidastothenatureandoriginofthisfragment:butthatitwasacollectionofLOGIArestssolelyontheascriptionofthattitletoitbyitseditors-aproceedingwhichinturnrestssolelyontheirtraditionalmisunderstandingofthePapianphrase.AndthatMatthew's"Logia"were"Logia"liketheseisscarcelyasupposablecasetoacriticofProf.Godet'sviews.MeanwhilewecannotbutaccountitunfortunatethatMessrs.GrenfellandHuntshouldhaveattachedsomisleadingatitletotheirvaluablediscovery:towhichitissuitableonlyinoneaspect,viz.,asdescribingthese"sayings"ofJesusas(intheconceptionofthecompiler,astheconstantle,geishows)"oracularutterances"ofpresentandcontinuousauthority.

86. WhyshouldResch,wemayask,thinkofrbdinsteadofhrmaastheHebreworiginaloflo,gion?Cf.abovep.353.

87. Op.cit.,p.121seq.88. "Introduction,"lasted.,527,note1.89. SeeLiddellandScott,sub.voc.,iv.andv.90. Wemustaccountit,then,asonlyanotherinstanceofthatexcessofcaution

whichcharacterizeshisapplicationofthe"apologetical"resultsofinvestigation,whenDr.Sandaystillholdsbackfromthisconclusionandwritesthus:"Thewordlo,gia,indeed,means'oracles'andnot'discourses.'Butwhiletheterm'theoracles'mightwellfromthefirsthavebeenappliedtoourLord'swordsitishardlylikelythatitshouldsoearlyhavebeenappliedtoawritingoftheNewTestamentassuch.Moreover,evenwhentheinspirationoftheNewTestamenthadcometobeasclearlyrecognizedasthatoftheOldTestament,theterm'theoracles'wouldnothavebeena

fittingoneforasinglework,simplyonthegroundthatitformedpartofthecollection"(Hastings'"BibleDictionary,"ii.p.235a).ApartaltogetherfromthefactthatthesecaveatsarefoundedonademonstrablymistakenconceptionoftheoriginoftheNewTestamentCanon,theyareinthemselvesinvalid.Thetermlo,giawascontemporaneouslyappliedtowritingsoftheNewTestamentassuch-asaglanceatIIClem.xiii.andPolycarpvii.willshow-andasLightfoot'snoteontheformerpassage,correctinghislesscarefulearliernoteonthelatterpassage,pointsout.Andthatta.lo,giacouldeasilyrefertoanydefiniteportionofthecongeriesof"oracles"knownalsoas"Scripture,"Philo'susageasindicatedabove(p.374)sufficientlyexhibits.Fortherest,itcannotbedoubtedthatPapiaswasunderstoodbyallhisearlyreaderstomeanbyhista.lo,giaofMatthew,justMatthew'sGospel.Thishasbeensufficientlyshown("Einleitung,"ii.265)byZahn,whoinhisrichandfundamentallyrightremarksonthesubjectbothhereandelsewhere(e.g.,pp.254seq.and"Geschichted.Kanons,"i.857seq.,ii.790seq.)suppliesanotherinstanceofhownearagreatscholarcancometothetruthofamatterwithoutpreciselyadoptingit.

91. Inthethirty-fifthchapterofthefourthbookofOrigen's"AgainstCelsus,"thereisapassagewhichisgiventhisappearanceinDr.Crombie'sexcellentEnglishtranslation,printedinthe"Ante-NiceneLibrary"(Am.Ed.,iv.512):"AndyetifCelsushadwishedhonestlytooverturnthegenealogywhichhedeemedtheJewstohavesoshamelesslyarrogated,inboastingofAbrahamandhisdescendants(astheirprogenitors),heoughttohavequotedallthepassagesbearingonthesubject;and,inthefirstplace,tohaveadvocatedhiscausewithsuchargumentsashethoughtlikelytobeconvincing,andinthenexttohavebravelyrefuted,bymeansofwhatappearedtohimtobethetruemeaning,andbyargumentsinitsfavor,theerrorsexistingonthesubject(kai.toi/ju`pe.rauvth/jlogi,oijta.kata.to.nto,pon)."Therenderirgoflogi,oijhereby"arguments,"however,iscertainlywrong.ThewholecontextisspeakingofCelsus'misrepresentationoftheteachingoftheHebrewScriptures;andwhatOrigenwouldhavehimdoistopointoutthepassagesinthemwhichwillbearouthisallegations.AccordingtoKoetschau'sindexthewordoccursbuttwiceelsewhereinthetreatise"AgainstCelsus,"viz.,V.xxix.adfin.,andVI.lxxvii.neartheend(insertedbyKoetschaufromPhiloc.85,16):andinbothofthesecasesthehighmeaningofthewordisunmistakable.

92. Dr.F.W.Farrar,withhisfatalfacilityforquotingphrasesinsensesfarotherthanthoseattachedtothembytheirauthors(otherinstancesmeetusinhisdealingwiththeformula"ScripturacomplectiturVerbumDei"andwiththe

word"Inspiration"inthesamecontext,-seepp.369,370ofworkcited)makesathoroughlywronguseofthispassage("Hist.ofInterpretation,"p.374,note2).Hesays:"ButasfarbackastheeighthcenturytheeminentlyorthodoxFather,St.JohnofDamascus,hadsaid,'WeapplynottothewrittenwordofScripturethetitleduetotheIncarnateWordofGod.'HesaysthatwhentheScripturesarecalledlo,giaqeou/thephraseisonlyfigurative,'Disput.ChristianietSaraceni'(seeLupton,St.JohnofDamascus,p.95)."ButJohnsaystheScripturesarecalledwithoutfigurer`h,matatou/qeou/:heonlymeanstosaytheyarenotGod'sWordinthesamesensethattheLogosis:incomparisonwithHimwhoistheonlyincarnateWordofGod,theyareonlyfigurativelywordsofGod,buttheyarerealwordsofGod,nevertheless,Hisr`h,mata,bywhichdesignation,ratherthanlo,gia,Johnwouldhavethemcalled,nottoavoidconfessingthemtobeGod'sutterances,buttoescapeaMoslemjibe.

93. Aninstanceofthesecularuseofthewordinthisloweredmeaning,isfounddoubtlessintheScholiumonthe"Frogs"ofAristophanesadducedabove,p.336.ThedateofthisScholiumisuncertain,butitseemstobelongtothelaterstrataoftheScholia.Itisnotfoundinthe"RavennaMS.,"whichRutherfordispublishing;norinthe"Venetus"(Marc.474),cf.Blaydes,"Ranae,"p.391;norindeedinfouroutofthesixMSS.usedbyDindorf(iv.2,p.113).

94. Inhis"ConciseDictionaryofEnglishandModernGreek,"sub.vocc."word"and"saying."

95. Inhis"NewLexiconofModernGreekandEnglish,"subvoc.96. Sophocles,inhis"Lexicon,"givesalsothefollowingreferencesforthis

sense:TitusofBostra(Migne,xviii.1253B);SerapionofEgypt(Migne,xl.908C,909B).Referencesmightbeadded,apparently,indefinitely.

97. ItisthereforeaperfectlyblindcommentthatwemeetwithinGerhardHeine'srecent"SynonymikdesN.T.Griechisch"(1898),p.157-whenincontrasttolo,gojasthe"reasonableexpression"ofthenou/jto.lo,gionissaidtobe"moretheseparateutterance,withthe(occasional?)accessorynotionofpromise(Rom.iii.2)."

98. Seearticleentitled,"ItSays;ScriptureSays;GodSays,"inthenumberofthisReviewforJuly,1899,andalsoarticleentitled,"God-InspiredScripture,"inthenumberforJanuary,1900.

Appendix01TheDivineOriginOfTheBible

WhentheChristianassertshisfaithinthedivineoriginofhisBible,hedoesnotmeantodenythatitwascomposedandwrittenbymenorthatitwasgivenbymentotheworld.Hebelievesthatthemarksofitshumanoriginareineradicablystampedoneverypageofthewholevolume.Hemeanstostateonlythatitisnotmerelyhumaninitsorigin.Ifaskedwhereandhowthedivinehasenteredthisdivine-humanbook,hemustreply:"Everywhere,andinalmosteverywayconceivable."Throughoutthewholepreparationofthematerialtobewrittenandofthementowriteit;throughoutthewholeprocessofthegatheringandclassificationanduseofthematerialbythewriters;throughoutthewholeprocessoftheactualwriting,-heseesatworkdivineinfluencesofthemostvariedkinds,extendingallthewayfromsimplyprovidentialsuperintendenceandspiritualilluminationtodirectrevelationandinspiration.

ItisofgreatimportancetodistinguishbetweenthesevariouswaysinwhichthedivinehasbeenactiveinoriginatingtheScriptures,butitisofvastlygreaterimportancetofixthepreviousfactthatitisintheScripturesatallandhasenteredtheminanyway.Thepresentessayaims,therefore,withoutraisinganyofthemanyquestionswhichconcernthedistinguishingofthevariousactivitiesofGodinoriginatinghisScriptures,tobusyitselfwiththeonepreviousquestion:IstherereasontobelievethatGodhasbeenconcernedatallintheoriginoftheBible?

Thequestionthusproposedisaverygeneralone.Anditisaveryimmenseone-almostlimitless.Itis,ofcourse,utterlyimpossibletodomorethantouchuponitinanyreasonablespace,andallthatcouldbeurgedinasinglepaperorinanyreasonablycircumscribedseriesofpaperswouldbearaverysmallproportiontoallthatmightbeurged-tothemightycasethatcouldbemadeout.Noattemptcanbemade,therefore,towardfullnessoftreatment.Aseriesofpropositionsmostbaldlystatedwillonlybelaiddownoneaftertheother,anditwillbelefttothereadertodevelopandillustratethemandbringouttheircombinedforce,whichwill,however,itishoped,beimmediatelypartlyevidentfromtheirsimplestatement.Aneffortwillalsobemade,inthechoiceofthepropositionsandtheirordering,toframeanargumentofakindwhichwilldemand,asofright,entranceintoeverymind;one,therefore,whichwilldependforitsforceonnooriginalassumptions,butwillbeginratherwithsimpleandpatentfacts-willsimplyputthesefactstogetherandtheninquirewhatkindoffactstheyareandwhattheyimply.Thusthereasoningwilltaketheformofaninquiryratherthananargument-ofaninductionratherthanademonstration.Theconclusionsreachedmaynotbesosharplyandaccuratelydefinedasifreachedbyother

methods,buttheyhavetheadvantageofbeingobtainedbyaprocesstoeverystepofwhicheveryman'smindoughttobeopen.

OurpurposeistolookupontheBiblesimplyasoneofthefactsoftheuniverse,ofwhicheverytheoryoftheuniversemusttakeaccount,andforwhich,justassurelyasforgravitation,itmustmakeaccountoritselfdie,andthenask(andpressthequestion):Whatkindofacausemustbeassumedtoaccountforitjustasitisandjustasitaroseintheworld?Thuswemayinductivelycometoananswertothequery:"Mustweassumesuperhumanactivitiesatworkinthegenesisofthisbook?"

Withoutfurtherintroduction,webegintheinquiryatonce.

Appendix01.1.TheHistoryOfTheBible

1.ThebasalfactfromwhichourinquirytakesitsstartistheveryindisputableandpatentonethatintheworldthereissuchabookasTHEBIBLE.Thereisadefinitevolume,wellknownandalwaysthesameincontents,aboutwhichthereneedbenomistake,whichgoesunderthisname,andunderthisnameisaccessibletoall.Thisverypatentfactisthefirstthatweneedtonotice.

2.Itisanotherfact,hardlylesspatentthanthelast,thatthisbookoccupiesauniquepositionintheworldofcivilizedman.Nootherbookstandsto-dayamongmenforwhattheBiblestandsfor.Wearenotassertingherethatithasarighttothepositionitoccupiesorthepoweritexerts:wesimplyassertthatitisundeniablethatitholdsthatpositionandexercisesthatpower.

Thelegislationofcivilizednationsisprofoundlyaffectedbyitsteaching;thesocialhabitsofculturedpeoplearelargelydeterminedbyitsschemeoflife;thegovernmentalformsofpowerfulcountriesarebuiltonitsprinciples,andtheirfunctionsarecarriedonunderitssanctions.Rulersareentrustedwiththeexerciseoftheirpowers,witnessesarecreditedinthedepositionoftheirtestimony,onlyafteroathsswornuponoraccordingtoit.Everywhereithaspercolatedthroughthefabricofcivilization,andmodernsocietyisbuiltupuponthelinesdrawnbyit.

Stillfurther,whereitmostdominates,thereismostlife.ItisthegreatProtestantnations-thosewhomostrestuponthisbook-whicharethemostprominentnations,themostfullofaboundinglifeandenterprisingenergy,themostimpressiveonthedestiniesofman.Itiseventhepioneerofcivilization;insteadoffollowing,itbreaksthewayformaterialadvancement.Gowhereyouwill,ifyoufindlife,youwillfindalsotheBible;andyouwillfinditintheverymidstoftheorganism.Youwillfinditinthehalloflegislation,andinthelawsthatarethereframed;inthecourtsofjustice,andinthejusticethatisthereadministered;inthecollegesoflearning,andinthelearningthatisthereimparted;atthehome-firesides,andinthemoraltrainingandhomelyvirtueswhicharethereinculcated.Inaword,itis,asnootherbookhaseverbeentoasinglenation,boundupwithallcivilizationandprogressandculture.

3.Itisworthournotice,stillfurther,thatthispositionofpowerandinfluencehasbeenattainedandheldbytheBiblethroughamostremarkablehistory.Confinedforagestoarough,isolatedcorneroftheglobe,inthekeepingofasmallandpeculiartribeofmen,italmostwithoutamoment'swarning,likeagreatlakereceivinganewaccessionofwaters,immediatelyoncompletion,burstallboundariesanddelugedtheworld.Itcamecommendedbynoexternalpompofappearance,attendedwithnoforceofarms.Aloneandsingle-handed,inthefaceofstingingcontemptandbloodthirstycruelty,itopposedancientprejudices,long-settledhabits,customsandreligions,everyconsiderationofself-interestorindulgenceorsafety,andsweptthemawaylikesomanystraws.Byitssimple,despisedpresenceamongmenitconquered.Itmatterednotwhereitwent;humansocietyineverystageofdevelopment,undereveryformofadministration,andcomposedofeveryraceofmen,everywherealikeyieldeditselftoit.

Wecannotoverstatethecase;itisevenimpossibleforustomentallyrealizetheprofundityofthechangeinduced.Lookonlyatthestrawsofexternalactionwhich,veeringsuddenlyaround,advertisetousthechangeofwindbeneathandbehind.Seetherevolutioninthesentimentwhichthesightofacrosskindled.

Whocanestimate,again,theprofoundrevolutionwhichwasnecessaryinmen'sveryhabitsofthought,intheirinmostconsciousness,beforesacrificialordinancescouldfallintoneglect.Justthinkofit.Fromthebeginningoftheworldsacrificeshadbeenuniversal.Menknew,andhadfromthebeginningknown,nootherwaytoexpressthedeepestfactsoftheirconsciences.Thehabithadbeengroundinupontheracenotonlyforalifetime,butforaworld-time.

Everybodyeverywherespontaneouslyfledtothisriteasthefitexpressionofthesenseofsinandthehopeofdeliverance.Andyet,inlittlemorethanfiftyyearsaftertheintroductionofChristianityintohisprovince,Plinycomplainsthatithadalmostputastoptosacrificesthere.Aworld-habit,dominantfromthebeginning,thusrolledbackuponitselfinasinglegeneration!Wecannotpossiblyappreciatethegreatnessofthisconquest.Sacrificeshadbeenalmostthewholelifeofthepeople:fromchildhoodsacrificeshadmeteachmanineveryform,ineveryquarter,ineveryact,ineverydutyofeveryday'sbusiness.Notonlycouldhenotengageinanyofthegraverdutiesofthecitizenwithoutbeingconfrontedwiththemeverywhere;hecouldnotrisefromhisbedinthemorning,retiretoitatnight,partakeofhisnecessarysustenance,withoutarecognitionofagodortheperformanceofariteateverystep.AndyetChristianitycame,notunderminingtheprinciplewhichunderlaysacrifices,butemphasizingit,andstilltheyfledawayfromitspresence.

Beneathsuchexternalchanges,conceive,ifyoucan,theimmenserevolutionthatwaswrought.Notonlywasthewholepracticeofreligionaltered,butalsothewholetheoryofreligion;notonlythewholepracticeofmorals,butthewholetheoryofmorals.Vicesinformerreputeweresuddenlyraisedtothehighestpinnacleofvirtues;virtuesinformerreputewerethrustdowntothelowesthellofvices.Everythingwasoverturned.

Isitaskedwhetherthehumanmeansemployedingainingthisgrandvictorywerenotsufficienttoaccountforit?Lookatthem.AdozenignorantpeasantsproclaimingacrucifiedJewasthefounderofanewfaith;bearingasthesymboloftheirworshipaninstrumentwhichwasthesignofignominy,slaveryandcrime;preachingwhatmusthaveseemedanabsurddoctrineofhumility,patientsufferingandlovetoenemies-gracesundreamedofbefore;demandingwhatmusthaveseemedanabsurdworshipforonewhohaddiedlikeamalefactorandaslave,andmakingwhatmusthaveseemedanabsurdpromiseofeverlastinglifethroughonewhohadhimselfdied,andthatbetweentwothieves.

Didtheirvoicesfallonwillingordocileears?Thiswastheageofthoseprincesofscoffers,CelsusandLucian.

Didtheyprosecutetheirworkinpeaceandquietude?Theywerethrowntothelionsuntiltheverybeastsweresatiatedwiththeirprey.TheirbloodseemedonlytowaterthefieldoftheLord.

Thus,inthefaceofalldiscouragementandcruelpersecution,theBiblefounditselfestablishedwithincrediblerapidityintheheartsofanimmenseChristendom.Inlessthanseventyyearsitwasknownoverallthethenknownworld;withinlittlemorethanasinglecenturyithadwontoitself"almostthegreaterpartofthewholestate."

Doyousaythatthis,despiteallappearances,musthavebeenanexceptionalageandanexceptionalexperience?Wereplythatitistheexperienceoftheages.WhencorruptionhadbroughtbackanageofdarknessandtheBiblewasoncemorelostfromreallife,itrequiredbutaLuthertotearofftheveilforittore-enactthesamehistoryandsowEuropewiththebloodofitsvotariestillaharvestcouldbereapedofequalvictory.Itcannotbenecessarytorepeatthestoryofthenobleconflict.Youknowitwell,andknowthatitwasaBiblewarandaBiblevictory.Thesamehistoryisevennowworkingitselfoutaboutus.Madagascar,underoureyes,hasrepeatedit.Everycorneroftheglobehasfeltthetinglingofthemightyimpulse.Evenhere,inAmerica,wearelivingamidhistoricalwonders,oureyesunopenedtothesight.RapidlyasthepopulationoftheUnitedStateshasgrownsince1800,theproportionateincreaseofthevotariesoftheBiblehasoutstrippedit.Yetsoquietlyhasitallbeendonethatweliveutterlyobliviousofituntil,throughpainfullygatheredstatistics,thefactismadetolookussquarelyintheface.

Howcertainafact,then,itisthattheBiblehasreacheditspresentwonderfulpositionandinfluencethroughamostremarkablehistory,andahistorywhichitisstillcontinuingonexactlythesamelines!

4.Itisimportanttonote,next,thatthroughoutallthishistory,andstillto-day,thisgreatinfluencewhichtheBiblehasexertedhasbeen,andisstill,purelyandonlybeneficent.Allitspowerhasbeenexertedinthedirectionoftheelevationofmanandlovingministrytohisneeds.Ofcourseweareinnodangerofforgettingthatthetruthofthisstatementhasbeenoflatechallengedinsomequarters.Butneithercanweforgetthreeotherfacts:1.Thatitisnotchallengedbythewell-informedandunprejudicedevenamongthosewhodenythedivineoriginoftheBible.2.ThatthemethodsbywhichitisattemptedtomaketheBibleappearinanyotherrôlethanthatofacornucopiaofgoodformanwill(asDr.Fisherhaslatelyveryclearlyshown)availequallytoprovethatloveisacurseandthehouseholdfireside,withallitsblessings,averynestofcorruption.Ofcourse,itisnotdenied,eitherofloveoroftheBible,thatitsometimeshasbeenthecauseofpain;eachhasoftenennobledmanthroughthepainandself-

sacrificecalledoutbyit.Norisitdeniedofeitherthatithasbeenmadeattimestheexcuseofcrime,butbothhavecriedoutuponthewickednesswhichwouldhidebehindtheirsacredskirts.3.ThatthosewhoputforththechallengehavebeenledtodoitonlybecausetheteachingoftheBiblehassoleavenedsocietyandtheusagesofmodernlifethatitisalmostimpossibleformentobelievethattheworldcouldeverhaveexistedwithouttherestrainingandennoblinginfluenceswhichnowseemnaturallytodominateus,andyetwhichreallyhavetheirrootintheBible.Atruepictureoftheboonwhichthisbookhasreallybeentotheworldcanbeobtainedonlybyanexaminationoftwoclassesoffacts-thosebelongingtotheconditionofsocietybeforeitenteredintoitsbeneficentreignontheonehand,andontheotherthosebelongingtotheconditionintowhichsocietylapseswhenevertheBibleinanydegreelosesitsholduponmen.TheshamelessnessofRomansocietyundertheearlyemperorswillgiveusthenormoftheone;thehorrorsoftheItalianrenascenceandoftheFrenchRevolutionwillgiveusthenormoftheother.ItisnotnecessarytostopnowtopollutethesepageswiththerecitalofthedepthsofdegradationfromwhichtheBiblerescuedman,andfromwhichitspotentinfluence(witnesstheItalianrenascenceandtheReignofTerror)alonekeepshimrescued:theymaybereadinanyaccreditedhistoryofthetimes,anditiscertainlyjustifiabletoassumeasfactwhatisrecognizedasfactbyallcompetenthistorians.

Thus,then,theBibleisseentotreadtheageslikethefabledgoddessunderwhosebeneficentfootfallsprangbeautifulflowerswherevershewent.Hospitalsandasylumsandrefugesforthesick,themiserableandtheafflictedgrowlikeheaven-bedewedblossomsinitspath.Woman,whoseequalitywithmanPlatoconsideredasuremarkofsocialdisorganization,hasbeenelevated;slaveryhasbeendrivenfromcivilizedground;lettershavebeengivenbyChristianmissionaries,undertheinfluenceoftheBibleandinordertoitspublication,towholepeoplesandraces.Whocanestimatethatboon?ThusCyrilandMethodiusgavealphabetandwrittenlanguagetothevasthordesoftheSclaves;thusUlphilas,tothewholeraceofTeutons;thusevenEgypt,motherofletters,firstreceivedamanageablealphabet.Thusstillto-daytribesandpeoplessunkinbarbarismarebeingliftedbytheBibletotheranksofliterarynations.Sotheworkgoeson,andstillto-day,aseverbefore,theBiblestandsinalltheworldexercisingeverywhereitsimmensepowerintherestrainingofallevilpassions,intheadvancementofallthatisgoodandtenderandelevating,inpouringoutbenefitsunspeakabletotheindividualandthestate.

5.AllthisimmenseinfluenceforgoodwhichtheBibleisexercisingoverthe

mindsandheartsofmenisduetoamostdeep-seatedandsteadfastconvictionintheirmindsthatitisfromGodandconstitutesalawgivenfromheavenforamendingthelivesandamelioratingtheconditionofmen.

Ifthisbeafanaticism,itisamostbeneficentandamostremarkablefanaticism,farfromeasytoaccountforonthehypothesisthatitisafanaticism.DidmenrushtoembraceadelusionwhichhadnothingtocommendittothemamidthescoffsofCelsusandtheridiculeofLucian,againsttheireveryinterestandagainsttheireveryinclination,andthatwhenthemajestyofRomewasunsheathedtofrightthembackandthejawsofthelionsyawnedtoengulfthem?Mendonotusuallyspringsotodieforadelusionwhichofferssolittleandthreatenssomuch.Then,too,howhasthefanaticismsogrown?Howisitthatitstillholdscaptivesomanymillionsofthosewhoseintellectisoftheclearestandwhosecultureisofthehighest?Howisitthatitstillembracesthecivilizedworld?But,howeveritbeattemptedtoaccountforit,hereisthefact.ThegreatinfluencewhichtheBiblehaseverexercisedhasbeenalways,andstillisaccountedforbythosewhoyieldtoitontheirsincereconvictionthatthisbook,whichdifferssoinpowerfromallothervolumes,differsfromthemequallyinorigin,beingaloneofbooksGod'sbook,whileallothersaremen's.

6.Thisconvictionistracedbythemnotsolelytothevisiblepowerandinfluenceofthebook,norsolely,conjoinedwiththat,tothemanifestgrandeuranddivinityofitscontentsandcharacter,butalso(continuingtodwellnowonexternalparticulars)tomarvelouscircumstanceswhichattendedthegivingofthismarvelousbooktotheworld.ThosewhowroteitslatterportionandsentthewholeabroadassertedthattheyactedundercommissionfromGodandauthenticatedtheirmissionbyaseriesofastoundingmiracles.ThusthemiracleofthebookisappropriatelybelievedtohavesprungfromthecenterofaGod-endowedcompany.

Wecannotpausenowtoprovethatthesemiraclesreallyoccurred.Allthatcanbesaidisthatthetestimonytheyrestonisirrefragable,andthattheymustbeadmittedtohaveoccurredorthefoundationsofallhistoryaresweptawayatastroke.ItisenoughheretonotehowappropriatelythewonderfulhistorywhichhasbeenwroughtoutbytheBibleismadetospringfromopenmiracles.Allishereconsistentandappropriate;andifthosemiracleswhichareassertedtohavehappenedreallyhappened,allisexplainedandconstitutesaharmoniouswhole.Otherwise,wearelandedingreatdifficultiesandinconsistencies.

Ifwewillponderthefactswhichwehavesobaldlystated,itseemsthatwemustconcludethattheexternalhistoryofthisbookissuchaswillsoharmonizewithasupernaturaloriginforitastotakeawayallstrangenessfromtheassertionofsuchanorigin.Andwhatisthatbutsayingthatthehistoryofthebooksuggestsasupernaturaloriginforit-evenraisesapresumptioninfavorofsuchanoriginforit?Thisbookiscertainlyuniqueinthepoweritpossesses:isitnotuniqueinitssourceofpower?Itiscertainlyfurnishedwithaninfluencepossessedbynootherbook.Whencecameit?

Appendix01.2.TheStructureOfTheBible

Andnowletusopenthevolumeandseewhatkindofabookthisiswhichhasexertedsuchremarkablepowerthroughsolongandsowonderfulahistory.Wehaveall,doubtless,anotionofthekindofbookavolumeislikelytobewhichwillexercisevastinfluenceovermen-amasterlyargument,say,wellorderedandsetfoursquareagainstallpossibleopposition,eachpartfittedwithconsummateskilltoeachotherpart,andthewholedrivenwithrelentlessforceandunswervingpurposestraighttotheintendedgoal;orafervidappeal,say,basedontheprimalemotionsoftheheart,withburningandwell-chosenwordstouchingeachstringofthatmysticharp,beatingoutfromthemalloneburstofansweringmusic.Aconsummatemasterofthoughtandspeechmaybethusconceivedofassocatchingthehumanheartastoholditalmostpermanently.Yethisinfluencewouldbelimited-notably,bythis:theradiusofthecircleofhissympathies.Certainlynomanhasyetarisenabletoframeawritingofuniversalandage-longinfluence,simplybecausenoonehasarisenyetwhollyabovetheenvironmentofthesocialcustomsandage-influenceinwhichhewasbred.Andcertainlyitisinconceivablethatabookshouldexertgreatinfluenceoverawideexpanseofterritoryandthroughlongstretchesoftimewhichwasnotconsciouslyframedforinfluencebyanintelligentandcompetentmind.Allthisbeingtrue,itisassuredlyworthourmostseriousattentionthattheBibleistheonlybookinexistencewhichhasanypretensionstobeinguniversalandlastinginitsinfluence;andyet,ifitbenotofsuperhumanorigin,itcouldnothavebeenframedconsciouslyforinfluence.Letuslookintothisfactsomewhatmoreclosely.

7.Onfirstthrowingopenthiswonderfulvolumewearestruckimmediatelywiththefactthatitisnotabook,butratheracongeriesofbooks.Nolessthansixty-sixseparatebooks,oneofwhichconsistsitselfofonehundredandfiftyseparatecompositions,immediatelystareusintheface.Thesetreatisescomefromthehandsofatleastthirtydistinctwriters,scatteredoveraperiodofsomefifteenhundredyears,andembracespecimensofnearlyeverykindofwritingknownamongmen.Histories,codesoflaw,ethicalmaxims,philosophicaltreatises,discourses,dramas,songs,hymns,epics,biographies,lettersbothofficialandpersonal,vaticinations,-everykindofcompositionknownbeneathheavenseemsgatheredhereinonevolume.

Theirwriters,too,wereoflikediversekinds.ThetimeoftheirlaborsstretchesfromthehoarypastofEgypttoandbeyondthebrightsplendorofRomeunderAugustus.Theyappeartohavebeenofeverysortoftemperament,ofeverydegreeofendowment,ofeverytimeoflife,ofeverygradeofattainment,ofeveryconditioninthesocialscale.Lookedatfromapurelyexternalpointofview,thevolumeisaroughbaleofdriftfromtheseaofTime,aconglomerateofdébrisbroughtdownbythewatersandcastinaheaptogether.Nay,notonlyarethereheterogeneous,butseeminglypositivelyconflicting,elementsinit.OnehalfisamassofHebrewwritingsheldsacredbyaracewhichcannotlookwithpatienceontheotherhalf,whichisamassofGreekwritingsclaimingtosetasidethelegislationofalargepartofitsfellow.Yetitisthiscongeriesofvolumeswhichhashad,andstillhas,thisimmenseinfluence.TheHebrewhalfneverconqueredtheworlduntiltheGreekhalfwasaddedtoit;theGreekhalfdidnotconquersavebytheaidoftheHebrewhalf.Thewholemass,inallitsdivinity,hasattainedthekingship.

Thequestionwhichwillnotdownis,Canthemiraculouspowerofthisbookbeexplainedbythemeasureofpowertowhichotherbooksareabletoattain?Wheredoesthisbook,seeminglythuscasttogetherbysomewhirlpooloftime,getitsinfluence?Ifinfluenceisnotnaturaltosuchavolume,mustitnotpointtosomethingsupernaturalinit?Whencecameit?

8.Wemaylook,however,onastillgreaterwonder.Letusoncepenetratebeneathallthisprimaldiversityandobservetheinternalcharacterofthevolume,andamoststrikingunityisfoundtopervadethewhole;sothat,inspiteofhavingbeenthusmadeupofsuchdiverseparts,itformsbutoneorganicwhole.Thepartsaresolinkedtogetherthattheabsenceofanyonebookwouldintroduceconfusionanddisorder.Thesamedoctrineistaughtfrombeginningto

end,runninglikeagoldenthreadthroughthewholeandstringingbookafterbookuponitselflikesomanypearls.Eachbook,indeed,addssomethinginclearness,definition,orevenincrement,towhattheothersproclaim;butthedevelopmentisorderlyandconstantlyprogressive.Onestepleadsnaturallytothenext;thepearlsarecertainlychosenintheorderofstringing.

Anunbrokenhistoricalcontinuitypervadesthewholebook.Itisevenastonishinghowaccuratelythepartshistoricallydovetailtogether,jagtojag,intooneconnectedandconsistentwhole.Malachiendswithafinger-postpointingthroughthesilentagestoapathclearlyseenintheGospels.TheNewTestamentfitsontotheOldsilentlyandnoiselessly,butexactly,justasonestoneoftheJewishtemplefitteditsfellowpreparedforitbyexactmeasurementinthequarries;sothat,onanycarefulconsiderationofthetwocoexistingphenomena-utterdiversityinoriginofthesebooks,andyetutternicetyofcombinationofonewithall-itisasimpossibletodoubtthattheyweremeanteachfortheother,wereconsciouslyframedeachforitsplace,asitistodoubtthatthevariouspartsofacomplicatedmachine,whenbroughtfromthefactoryandsetupinitsplaceoffutureusefulness,wereallcarefullyframedforoneanother.

Butjustseewherethislandsus.Unlesswearepreparedtoallowtoamansomefifteenhundredyearsofconsciousexistenceandintellectualsupervisionofthework,weareshutupheretotheadmissionofasuperhumanoriginforthisbook.Itisdifficulttoseehowthisargumentcanbereallyescaped.Itwillbeperceivedthatitisanalogoustowhatisoftenurgedfromthephenomenaofthenaturaluniversetoproveforitadivineorigin.Indeed,alltheargumentsurgedintheonespherearealsocapableofbeingurgedintheother.ThegradualframingoftheBiblethroughaperiodoffifteenhundredyearsexcludeshumansupervision.Now,theBible,asawhole,isaresultoraneffectintheuniverse,anditmusthavehad,assuch,anadequatecause,which,sincetheresultisanintelligentone,musthavebeenanintelligentcause:thereistheontologicalargument,anditprovesasuperhumanintelligentcausefortheBible.Itconsistsoforderlyarrangedparts,ofanorderlydevelopedscheme:thereisthecosmologicalargument,andagainitprovestheactivityofanintelligentcause(andmuchelsenotnowtobebroughtout)ofatleastfifteenhundredyears'duration.Itisitselfacauseofmarvelouseffectsintheworldfortheproductionofwhichitismostadmirablydesigned,anditswholeinnerharmonyandallitsinnerrelationsaremostdeeplygravenwiththemarksofadesignkeptconstantlybeforesomeintelligentmindforatleastfifteenhundredyears:thereistheargumentfrom

design,attainingequallyfar-reachingandcogentconclusionsasintherealmofnature.Theanalogyneednot,however,bedrawnoutfurther.AnatheistofthepresentdayspokeonlysobertruthwhenhedeclaredthatthedivineoriginoftheBibleandthedivineoriginoftheworldmuststandorfalltogether.Theargumentswhichwillprovetheoneprovealsotheother.Butlerprovedthispropositionlongago.Itstandsindubitable;sothatabsoluteatheismorChristianitymustbeouronlychoice.

9.AnotherpointinwhichtheunityoftheBibleisstrikinglyapparentneedsourattentionnext:amidallthediversityofitssubject-matter,itmayyetbesaidthatalmostthewholebookistakenupwiththeportraitureofoneperson.Onitsfirstpagehecomesforamomentbeforeourastonishedeyes;onthelasthelingersstillbeforetheiradoringgaze.AndfromthatfirstwordinGenesiswhichdescribeshimasthe"seedofthewoman"andatthesametimeherdeliverer-withoccasionalmomentsofabsence,justastheprincipalcharacterofaplayisnotalwaysonthestage,andyetwithconstantdevelopmentofcharacter-totheend,whereheisdiscoveredsittingonthegreatwhitethroneandjudgingthenations,theoneconsistentbutgraduallydevelopedportraituregrowsbeforeoureyes.Notafalsestrokeismade.Everytouchofthepencilisplacedjustwhereitoughttostandaspartofthewhole.Thereisnowheretheslightesttraceofwaveringorhesitancyofhand.Thedraughtsmaniscertainlyaconsummateartist.And,astheresultofitall,theworldispossessedofthestrongest,mostconsistent,mostnobleliteraryportraituretobefoundinallherliterature.

Yetweareaskedtobelievethatthisgrandresulthasbeenattained,notbytheskilledlimningofaMichelangelo,butbythedisconnecteddabblingsofascoreandahalfofuntrainedforgers,who,moreover,wereeveratcross-purposeswitheachother.Why,ifthecreationandsuccessfuldramatization,throughafewshortyears,ofsuchacharacterasHamletrequiredthegeniusofaShakespeare,whatgeniuswasrequiredforthisastoundinglysuccessfulcreationanddramatizationofsuchacharacterasthatoftheGOD-MANthroughtheagesofagesandaeonsofaeons-fromthetimewhenathisFather'ssidehesat,coequalwithhim,beforeallworlds,tothetimewhenthesesameworldsshallbeswallowedupinthefinalfire!Oneshouldcertainlyratherriskhissanityintheassertionthattheplayof"Hamlet"hadformeditselfbythefortuitousconcourseofthealphabeticalsignsandmadeitsownportraitureofthesubtleDane,thanontheassertionthatthisportraitureoftheGOD-MANhadbeenattainedapartfromtheconstantsupervisionandactivelaborofaconsummatemind.Ifweshouldthusconsiderthisportraitureonlyasafiction,itwoulddemandforitsauthor

somethingmorethanhasyetbeenseeninman.AsitisundeniablenowthatitoccupiesthechiefestportionoftheBiblefromGenesistoRevelation,andbindstheportionsitoccupiestogetherasaconsistentdramatizationofitself,itisequallyundeniablethattheseportionsoftheBible,atanyrate,owetheirorigintoamindabletosuperintendtheircompositionforatleastfifteenhundredyearswithageniushithertounexampledamongmen.

10.Oneotherbondofconnectionbetweenthepartsofthevolumemustneedsbeadvertedtobriefly-thatformedbynumerouspredictionsofcomingeventsgivenintheearlierportionsandaccountsofthefulfillmentoftheminlaterportions,bywhichtheselaterportionsareprovedtobebuttheintendedoutgrowthandconclusionoftheformer.Thesepredictionsrunthroughanimmenserangebothoftimeandofcircumstance,andaremadetoopreciseanddetailedinform,andtoopreciseanddetailedintheaccountoftheirfulfillment,forittobepossibletodoubt,ontheonehand,thattheywererealpredictions,or,ontheother,thattheywerereallyfulfilled.Thusthevariousbooksaredrawnclosetogether;andiftheBible,externallyconsidered,maybelikenedtoabaleofdrift,theseprophecies,giveninonepartandreachingtheirfulfillmentinanother,arethestrongcordswhichbindthebalesecurelytogetherandmakeitonewhole.Theunityinducedbythismeansis,indeed,completeandmostconclusivetoitsowndivineorigin.

11.Thusweareledtoappealtoprophecy,andthatnotonlytoprovetheunityoftheplanofScripture,but,independentofandfarabovethat-byitsverynatureaspredictionofthingsyethiddeninthefuture-asanirrefragableproofofthedivineoriginofthewholeoftheclosely-knitvolumeinwhichitfindsplace.Itisnotafunctionofhumanintellecttoreadthesecretsofunbornages;andtheexistenceinthisbookofaccurate,detailedpredictionsofevenunimportantandcertainlyincalculableeventsofthefarfuturedemonstratesitsdivineorigin.

Itis,ofcourse,impossibleinthisbriefessaytoillustratethecharacterandconvincingnessofScriptureprophecy,oreventoindicateinstancesofitsunquestionablefulfillmentindetail.Weretherespace,wemightpointtotheimmensenumberofindependentpredictions,seeminglyopposite,orevencontradictory,tooneanother,beforetheirfulfillment,foundonthecomingofChristtobeharmoniouslygatheredupandfulfilledinhisuniquepersonalityandwork-predictionscoveringnotonlythegreatoutlinesofhisworkandthemarkedtraitsofhisperson,butpublishingagesbeforehandtheveryvillageinwhichheshouldfirstseethelight,thehomageontheonehand,andtheabuseon

theother,whichheshouldreceive,thelifeheshouldliveandthedeathheshoulddie,eventothemostminutedescriptionofthepainsheshouldsufferandthescoffsheshouldendureashehunguponthetree-yea,eventheexactpriceofhisbloodandfateofhisbetrayer.Or,again,wemightpointtothatever-livingwitnesstothetruthofprophecyintheJewishraceuponwhomeverythingthathasbeenprophesiedhasbeenandisbeingdulyfulfilled;or,again,toaninfinitemultitudeofminutedetailsofpredictionstouchingmanyracesandnationswhichhavewithinfinitemightfulfilledthemselveseverywhere.Spacewouldfail,however,forsuchanenumeration.Anditisthelessnecessary,nowthatthefeverishefforts,onthepartofthosewhowishtoescapefromthepoweroftheBible,toassignlaterdatestothepropheticalbooksthanmostcogentprooffrommanyquarterswillallow,amounttoanadmissionthatthepropheticalelementinthemcannotbedenied.Inprophecy,therefore,wehaveacontinualmiraclesetinthemidstoftheBible,tostandinallagesasasureproofthatitcomesfromGod.Aseachpredictionisinturnfulfilledbeforetheeyesofeachagewhichwitnessesit,amiracleperformsitself(andattestsitselfintheact)whichisascogentandsufficientevidenceofthedivineoriginoftheBibleasifallthemiraclesoftheapostolicalagewererewroughtinourpresencetoreaffirmitsteaching.Thuswesee,inperhapsanewlight,themeaningofourLord'spregnantsaying:"IftheyhearnotMosesandtheprophets,neitherwilltheybepersuaded,thoughonerisefromthedead."

As,then,whenweconsideredtheexternalhistoryoftheBible,weweredrivenback,stepbystep,throughmarvelouscircumstancestoopenmiraclesofpowerproclaiminganddemonstratingthedivineoriginofthebook,sohere,assoonaswelookwithinitineventhemostcursoryway,werepeatthesameprocessandmovebackfrommarveltomarvel,untilwereachtheopenmiracleofprophecy,againindependentlyprovingthedivineoriginofthebookafterafashionwhichcannotbeescapedorlegitimatelyquestioned.

Appendix01.3.TheTeachingOfTheBible

Thesameprocessisonlyagainrepeated,andcumulativeevidenceforthedivineoriginoftheBibleobtained,whenwelooksomewhatdeeperintoitscontentsandaskafterthecharacterandwitnessofitsteaching-asubjectbroadastheearthitselfandfullofself-evidence,butuponwhichwehaveasyetnotevencastaglance.ThecharacterandthenatureofthecontentsoftheBiblealoneareenoughtoproveitsdivineorigin.Ifmencannothavemadethemiraclesofpowerbywhichitspublicationtotheworldwasaccompanied,northemiraclesofprophecybywhichitsprogressthroughtheworldhasbeenaccompanied,nomorecantheyhavemanufacturedthemiraclesofteachingofwhichitscontentsconsist.Independentlyofallotherevidence,themiracleofthecontentsdemandsadivineorigin.This,again,maybemadeplainerbysomespecifications,whichagain,however,mustbepresentedinaverynakedandfragmentaryway.

12.Letusnote,then,firstofall,theunspeakableelevationandgrandeurbothoftheteachingitselfwhichthisbookpresentsandoftheassumptionsonwhichitbasesthatteaching.

TheconceptionofGodwhichisherepresented-howunutterablydivineisit!ApartfromtheBible,manhasneverreachedtosuchaconception.Thiselementofit,andthatelementofit,has,indeed,throughthevoiceofnature,separatelydawneduponhissoul;butthecompleteidealisconveyedtohimonlybythisbook.Infiniteandeternalspirit-pureandineffable-unlimitedbymatter,orspaceortime,infinite,eternalandunchangeableinessenceandattributes!Andwhatacircleofattributes!Infinitepower,infinitewisdom,infinitejustice,infiniteholiness,infinitegoodness,infinitemercy,infinitepity,infinitelove!Verily,ifthisconceptionbenotatrueimageofareallyexistentGod,thehumanheartmustsayitoughttobe.AndthisistheconceptionofGodwhichtheBibleholdsupbeforeus-morethanthat,whichitdramatizesthroughaninfiniteseriesofinfinitelyvariedactionsthroughaperiodofmillenniumsofyearsinperfectconsistencyofcharacter.EverywhereinitspagesGodappearsastheall-powerful,all-wise,necessarilyjustandholyOne;everywhereastheall-good,all-merciful,necessarilypitifulandlovingOne.Neverisasingleoneoftheseineffableperfectionslostorhiddenorveiled.

TheBible'sconceptionofthenatureofmanisoflikenobility.Framedinthe

imageofGod,hewasmadelikehimnotonlyinthepassivequalities,butalsoinhisendowmentofactivecapacities.Evenfreedomofaction-unboundabilitytochoosehisownfuture–wereplacedinhisgrasp.So,also,theBible'steachingastothedutiesthatman,evenafterhehasmadehisfatalchoice,owestoGodandhisneighbor,allfoundedontheprincipleoflove;itsteachingastothepossibilitiesbeforemanandthedestinyinstoreforhim,culminatinginthepossibilityofhisenthronementasco-ruleroftheuniversewithhisdivineRedeemer;itsteachingastotherelationofmantothephysicalandirrationaluniverseasresponsibleheadoverit;itsteachingastotheoriginofthisuniverseitselfanditspurposeanddestiny,-allreachtheacmeofgrandeur.Theseinstancesmustserveusasspecimensofthegrandeurofitsteaching.

13.Wemustnote,stillfurther,thatboththegeneraltenoroftheBibleanditsspecialassertionsareallinpreciseaccord"withwhattheprofoundestlearningshowstobetheactualstateoftheuniverse,aswellaswhatthedeepestandlargestexperienceestablishesastheactualcourseofnature."AnditisaverypertinentquestionhowithappensthattheBiblewasable,aloneofancientbooks,toforestalltheconclusionsofthelatestscienceofthenineteenthcentury.Ithastakenscientificthoughtuptoto-daytobringitsconceptionsoftheoriginoftheworldtothepointatwhichMosesstoodsomethreemillenniumsago.This,again,mustserveusnowasaspecimenfact(amongamultitude)provingthat"whoeverwrotethisbookknewmorethanweknow,andknewitdistinctlywhenweknewnothing."

Yet,althoughpossessedofaknowledgethusunspeakablyadvancedbeyondalloftheirtime,thewritersofthisbookdonotseemtohavebeenproudoftheirpossessionoranxioustodisplayit;theydonotevenformallytransmittheirknowledge,butsimplyactandspeakonitspresupposition;sothatwhenwereachanequalstageofadvancementtotheirs,withouthavingbeenhithertoconsciousofitspresence,wesuddenlyfindittherecontinuallyimpliedandconstantlyunderlyingeverypart.Itisthusalwaysmostdeeplyfeltbythosemostconversantwiththeprogressofknowledge,andyetdoesnotinanydegreeclogtheunderstandingofthebookforthepurposeforwhichitwasgivenbythosewhoareasyetignorantofthebasisofphysicalorphilosophicalfactassumed.

14.Thusweareledtotakenoteofanothergeneralcharacteristicofbiblicalteaching-thefactthatallitsgreattruthsareuniversaltruths;i.e.,truthscapableofreachingandmakingentranceintoandtakingastrongholdupontheheartofmanasman,andofallmenequally,independentlyoftheirrace-affinities,

intellectualadvancementorsocialstanding.Thatthisshouldbesoisundoubtedlyagreatwonder,anditisredoubledwhenwerememberthatitiscorrelatedwithgreatandremarkableknowledge.Usually,whentheprofoundphilosopherspeaks,heneedsphilosophersforhisaudience;andyethereisabookwhichnaturallyandwithouteffortbetraysacquaintancewiththedeepestreachesofmoderndiscovery,andyetinitseveryaccentspeakshometothechildasreadilyastothesage.

Instillanotherrespectthissamefact-namely,thatthetruthsoftheBible"findus"-hasprobativeforce,since,herefrom,itisequallyevidentthattheBibleissuitedtomanandthatitsassertedtruthsareinstinctivelyrecognizedbymanasactualtruths.TheBiblethuscertainlycomeswithamessagetoman-onethatisrecognizedbyeachmanwhoneedsitswordsasspeciallyforhim,andthatiswitnessedtoinstinctivelybyeachastrue.Howdoesithappenthatthisbook,aloneamongbooks,reachestheheartalikeoftheBushmanandofaNewton?ofasavagelostinthehorrorsofsavageryandofaFaradaysittingaloftonthecalmandclearifsomewhatchillheightsofscience?Thisuniversalityofeffectseemstoproveacorrespondinguniversalityofintention.Butwhoofmenhaseverbeenabletoholdbeforehimasrecipientsofhisbookallmenofallages?Whohasbeenabletocalculateupontheheartsandcharactersofmenremovedfromhimbysuchstretchesofbothtimeandcircumstance?Whocouldhavebeenabletoadaptamessagepennedinacorner,agesagone,tothementalpositionofthenineteenthcenturyandtheheartsofaNewtonandaFaraday?YetwemustassumefortheBibleanauthorwhowascapableofthis.WasMosescapableofit?Wasananonymousforgerofhisname?

15.Wemust,however,turntonoteanothergeneralcharacteristicofScripture-theremarkablesimplicityofitsmannerandthetransparenthonestyofitstone;sothatitswords,evenwhendescribingthemostuttermarvels,possessthatcalm,quietringwhichstampsthemwithindubitabletruthfulness.Ifweareaskedwhywetrustafriendinwhomwehaveeveryconfidence,andcredithiseverystatement,wemaybesomewhatatalossforadefiniteanswer."Weknowhim,"wesay.Thissameevidenceisgoodalsoforabook.Wemayjudgeofthetruthfulnessofmen'swritingsbyallthoselittleintangiblecharacteristicswhichwhenunitedgotowardmakingaverystrongimpressionofactualproof,butwhichonebyonearealmosttoosmalltoadduceorevennotice,justaswemayjudgeofthetrustinessofmen'scharactersbyalltheinnumerablelooks,gestures,chanceexpressions,littlecircumstanceswhichmaketheirdueimpressiononus.Combined,theyareconvincing,thougheachbyitselfmightseemambiguousor

valueless.Theconclusionineachcaseis,however,validandrational,andtheevidenceisunmistakablygoodevidence.Now,fortheBible,thisevidenceisunusuallystrong;andthusithappensthatmenwhodonotknowhowtoreason,andwhoareincapableoffollowingaclosely-reasonedargument,areacceptingtheBibleonallsidesofusontrulyrationalandvalidevidence,andacceptingitonlikeevidenceasdivine.Theyarecontinuallyreadingaccountsofmiraclessonumerousandsostrikingthatthewitnessesofthemcouldnotbemistaken;soembeddedinanarrativeofsuchartlessness,gravity,honesty,intelligence,straightforwardnessaspalpablytobeneitherfraudnorfancythattheyformpartandparcelofitandareabsolutelyinseparablefromit;soembeddedinanarrativewhichapprovesitselfbyathousandsimpleandinimitablehintsandtraitstobetransparentlytruthfulandtrustworthythattheymuststandorfallwithit.Now,thisismostrationalevidence,andevidencesostrongthatitisasdifficultforthehonestmindtoresistitasitisforustoexpressit.

16.Itbecomessurely,then,ofsufficientimportancetojustifyspecialnoticethatinthemidstofthisnarrative,andscatteredallthroughit,wefindcalmandsimple,butfrequent,constant,andsteadfast,assertionsofadivineoriginforitself.Sohonestandtransparentlytruthfulanarrative,filledwithmarkseverywhereofsuperhumanknowledge,naturallyenoughdoesnot,intheprideofhumannature,claimallthissuperhumanknowledgeforitshumanauthors,butascribesitalltoGod;naturallyenoughemptiesitshumanauthorsofanycreditforknowledgebeforethetimeofknowledgeandplansbeyondthereachofmanandascribesitalltoGod.Anditsveryhonestyandsimplicityofstatement,thetransparenthonestyofthisstatement,provestheassertiontruthfulandtrustworthy.Here,then,oncemore,wereachthroughorderlysteps,exhibitingateachstagemarksofGod'shand,theassertionofadivineorigin;here,oncemore,afterwalkingthroughtheaislesandnaveandchoirofagrandcathedralfilledallalongwiththemarksofgeniusinitsplanningandexecution,wereachagainthewall,and,lo!onitthemarksofthechiselandthesuperscriptionoftheArchitectthatproveitwasmadebyacompetentmindanddidnotgrow.

Itisverydifficulttoseebutthattheargument,iffullydrawnoutandillustrated,isconclusive.

Appendix01.4.SpecialCharacteristicsOfTheBible

Another,andanevenmorecogent,argumentmightbepresentedfromaconsiderationofsomespecialcharacteristicseitherofthewholeBibleorofsomeofitsparts-anargumenthithertountouched.Thisargumentwouldsoon,however,growmuchtoovasttobeincludedinthisessay.Wemustcontentourselveswithonlypointingatadistancetoonlyoneparticularwhichmight,weretherespace,beurgedmostconvincingly.

17.Werefertotheprogressivecharacteroftheteachingincludedinthisbook,withthespecialcaseswhichmightbeadducedunderthathead.Itbeginswithfirstprinciplesexpressedinoutwardsymbol,andadvancesgraduallytothefullsystem,workingoutitsapproachesinhistorybeforedeliveringitindogma.Wedonoturgesimplythatthisprogressiveschemeisconsistentwithadivineoriginforit;weurgethatthissupremelywisemethodofdeliveringtruthandtrainingapeople,takeninconnectionwiththeunityofthesystemthroughoutthewhole,isconsistentwithnothingelse.NodoctrinairemadethisBible-seewhatkindofworktheydointhehistoryofMiddle-AgeFlorenceandRevolutionaryFrance-butamostconsummatestatesmanwhoknewwhatwasinmanandhowtomouldhimtohispurposes.

Wewouldappeal,inthisconnection-progressiveness-speciallytothepracticalandpracticablecharacterofOld-Testamentlegislation.Andthusweareledtoassertthatthoseverypassagesconcerningpolygamyandkindredthemes(whichhavebeenmadeanoccasionofgibeagainsttheScriptures)arethemselvesamostcogentargumentfortheirdivineorigin.WeAmericansoughttoknowbythistimethatthebestwaytosecurepolygamyunharmedandenshrineitunconquerablyundertheprotectionofanationistowriteonthestatute-booksinoperativelawsagainstit.TheBiblewasframedbytoowiseastatesmantofallintothaterror,andwewhoenjoyChristianhomesto-dayhavetothankGodforit.Theunspeakablewisdomofdealingatthatage,andunderthosecircumstances,withpolygamy,divorce,slaverybyregulativelaws,whichinregulatingdiscouraged,andindiscouragingdestroyedthem,makesstronglyforasuperhumanoriginofthelegislation.

So,again,growingoutofthissameprogressivesystem,wecouldappealmoststronglytotheritualisticsystemofsymbolicalworshipgiventotheJewsandbylawsecuredfromfailure,bywhichobjectlessons-allschoolmasterstoleadto

somethingbetterandhigher-wereineffaceablytaughttoawholenation,whichwasthuspreparedtoreceivethespirituallessonmeantforit.

StillagainweshouldappealtothewisemethodofNew-Testamentlegislationthroughgreatprinciplesratherthanspecificordinances,thussecuringabsoluteuniversalityinconnectionwithperfectdefiniteness;oragaintotheremarkabletendernessandbeautyofthislegislation,especiallyapparentinthecasesofslaves,wivesandchildrenandtemporalrulers-aphenomenonintheagewhenitwasgivenenoughofitselftosuggestadivineoriginfortheonebookwhichcontainsit;orstillagaintothewisesilenceofthesamelegislationonmanysubjectsonwhichitmusthavebeenverytemptingthentolegislate,butlegislationonwhichwecanseenowwouldhaveimperiledthesuccessofthemainpurposeforwhichthebookwasgivenandobtainednocorrespondinggain.

Onalltheseandlikepoints,however,itisnotnowpossibletotouch.Wepasson,therefore,toourlastremark.

Appendix01.5.ImpossibilityOfAccountingForTheBible

18.ThattheBible,thusstandingintheworld,beingofsuchsort,andhavinghadsuchahistory,hasyettobeaccountedforonthehypothesisthatithadonlyahumanorigin.Hereitstands,justsuchafactintheuniverse,asubstantivething,tangibleandthatcanbeexamined.Theingenuityofmenhasbeenfeverishlybusywithitthesehundredsofyears.YettheworldstillawaitsatheorywhichwillrenderanadequateaccountofitonanyotherhypothesisthanthatitcamefromGod.Theorieshavebeenattempted,butoneafteranothertheyhavebrokendownoftheirownweightorhavehadjusticeexecuteduponthembyfellow-unbelievinghandsamidtheplauditsofallmenofallparties.Thusithappensthatuptoto-daynohypothesisexceptthatofsuperhumaninterferencehasbeenabletostandahalfcenturyasanaccountoftheoriginofthisbook.Whatisthisbuttheconfessionthatwithouttheassumptionofsuperhumaninterferencethisbookcannotbeaccountedfor?thatthesemiraculousclaimsandthesemiraculousassertionscannotberationallyorsatisfactorilyexplainedaway?LookforonemomentattheeffortsmadetoaccountonnaturalgroundsforthemiraculouselementintheNewTestament.First,aschoolarosewhichtriedto

workontheassumptionthatwheneveramiracleisrecordedtheeventdescribeddidreallyhappen,indeed,butthatithasbeenexaggeratedlyandmistakenlydescribedasmiraculous,andnotmerelynatural,bytheNew-Testamentwriters.Thesickwerehealed,butbymedicinalmeans;thedeadwereraised,butonlyfromseeming,notreal,death.Thatattempttoexplainawaythemiraculousfailed,asrequiringasgreataseriesofmiraclesofwonderfulcoincidencesasitexplainedaway.Anotherthenarosewhichwishedtoaccountforitallasaseriesofmyths,holdingthattherewasakerneloftruthineacheventdescribed,butthatthiskernelhadgatheredmuchfalsehoodarounditasitrolledthroughtime,frommouthtomouth,beforeitgotrecordedinourBible,justasasnowballgrowsalmostunrecognizablygreaterasitrollsdownalongslope.Butthisattemptwaswreckedhopelesslyonthelackofasoilforthemythstogrowin(thatis,ofsnowtoframetheballsof)andoftimeforthemtoincreasein(thatis,ofanyhillforthemtorolldown).Thenanotherroseonitsruins-anelaboratetheoryofpartystrifesandforgeriesandre-forgeriesofbooksineveryconceivableinterest;sothatthesamematerialwasworkedoverandoveragainbyfalseanddesigningmen,toserveeachnewnotion,untilthefinaloutcomewasourNewTestament.Againthistheorywaswreckedonthelackoftimeforallthiselaborateprocessbeforethedateatwhichadequateproofisinhandfortheexistenceofthebooks.Thewholeelaborateschemefallswiththefailureoftheattemptedrapeofthesecondcentury.Itcannotbetrueunlessallhistoryisfalse.

TimeislackingfortheNewTestamenttohavegrownin,ifconsideredaproductoftime;whence,then,cameit?Soilislackingforittohavedevelopedin,ifconsideredahumandevelopment;then,whencecameit?AllschemeswhichhavehithertobeeninventedtoaccountforitsoriginwithoutGodhavepitiablyfailed,andthereisnoparticularreasontolookforanythingmorecogenttobeadvancedinthefuture.If,however,thisbookcannotbeaccountedforapartfromGod,weseemshutuptoaccountforitasfromhim.Certainly,theonlyrationalcourseistoacceptitasfromhimuntilitisabletoberationallyaccountedforwithouthisinterference.

Withthiswemayfitlycloseourinquiry.Thequerywithwhichwestartedseemsabundantlyanswered.AsupernaturaloriginfortheBibleappearscumulativelyproven.

Inclosing,itwouldbewellforustotakenoteofoneortwofactsinregardtotheargumentwhichhasbeenoffered.Letitbeobserved,then:

1.ThatnoattempthasbeenmadetodistinguishbetweenasuperhumanandadivineoriginfortheBible.Thisisnotbecausethetwoarenotseparable,butonlybecausetheyare,inourpresentargument,practicallythesame.

2.Thatnoattempthasbeenmadetodistinguishbetweenthedivineoriginofthesystemandthatofthebooksrecordingthatsystem.This,again,isnotbecausethetwoarenotseparable,butonlybecause,sofarastheargumenthasbeenpressed-thoughnotmuchfarther-thetwoneednotbepracticallyseparated.

3.ThatnoquestionhasbeenraisedastotheextentofthedivineintheBible.Thisisduetothreefacts:Becausethisquestionneednotberaisedprimarilyfortheestablishmentofthefaith,butisnecessarilyaconsequentonetoberaisedafterthegeneraldivineoriginofthebookisadmitted;because,again,thehumbleChristianoftenlooksuponanddrawslifefromtheBiblewithoutraisingthisquestion,simplyacceptingwhathereadsasdivinelygiventostrengthenhisfaith;andbecause,again,itwasimpossibleinoneessaytotreatbothquestions.

4.That,nevertheless,thefactsandargumentswhichhavebeenadducedinageneralwaytoprovethegeneraldivineoriginoftheBiblenotonlypreparetheway,buteven,narrowlyquestioned,willraiseastrongpresumption,forthefurtherconclusionsthatthisbookhasbeennotonlyinageneralwaygivenbyGod,butalsospecificallyinspiredinthegiving,thatthusitseverywordisfromhim,andthatitisworthyofourreverentandlovingcredenceinitseveryparticular.

Appendix02TheFormationOfTheCanonOfTheNewTestament

InordertoobtainacorrectunderstandingofwhatiscalledtheformationoftheCanonoftheNewTestament,itisnecessarytobeginbyfixingveryfirmlyinourmindsonefactwhichisobviousenoughwhenattentionisoncecalledtoit.Thatis,thattheChristianchurchdidnotrequiretoformforitselftheideaofa"canon"—or,asweshouldmorecommonlycallit,ofa"Bible"—thatis,ofacollectionofbooksgivenofGodtobetheauthoritativeruleoffaithandpractice.ItinheritedthisideafromtheJewishchurch,alongwiththethingitself,theJewishScriptures,orthe"CanonoftheOldTestament."Thechurchdidnot

growupbynaturallaw:itwasfounded.AndtheauthoritativeteacherssentforthbyChristtofoundHischurch,carriedwiththem,astheirmostpreciouspossession,abodyofdivineScriptures,whichtheyimposedonthechurchthattheyfoundedasitscodeoflaw.NoreaderoftheNewTestamentcanneedproofofthis;oneverypageofthatbookisspreadtheevidencethatfromtheverybeginningtheOldTestamentwasascordiallyrecognizedaslawbytheChristianasbytheJew.TheChristianchurchthuswasneverwithouta"Bible"ora"canon."

ButtheOldTestamentbookswerenottheonlyoneswhichtheapostles(byChrist'sownappointmenttheauthoritativefoundersofthechurch)imposedupontheinfantchurches,astheirauthoritativeruleoffaithandpractice.Nomoreauthoritydweltintheprophetsoftheoldcovenantthaninthemselves,theapostles,whohadbeen"madesufficientasministersofanewcovenant"[2Cor.3:6];for(asoneofthemselvesargued)"ifthatwhichpassethawaywaswithglory,muchmorethatwhichremainethisinglory."[2Cor.3:11]Accordinglynotonlywasthegospeltheydelivered,intheirownestimation,itselfadivinerevelation,butitwasalsopreached"intheHolyGhost"(IPet.i.12);notmerelythematterofit,buttheverywordsinwhichitwasclothedwere"oftheHolySpirit"(ICor.ii.13).Theirowncommandswere,therefore,ofdivineauthority(IThess.iv.2),andtheirwritingswerethedepositoryofthesecommands(IIThess.ii.15)."Ifanymanobeyethnotourwordbythisepistle,"saysPaultoonechurch(IIThess.iii.14),"notethatman,thatyehavenocompanywithhim."ToanotherhemakesitthetestofaSpirit-ledmantorecognizethatwhathewaswritingtothemwas"thecommandmentsoftheLord"(ICor.xiv.37).Inevitably,suchwritings,makingsoawfulaclaimontheiracceptance,werereceivedbytheinfantchurchesasofaqualityequaltothatoftheold"Bible";placedalongsideofitsolderbooksasanadditionalpartoftheonelawofGod;andreadassuchintheirmeetingsforworship—apracticewhichmoreoverwasrequiredbytheapostles(IThess.v.27;Col.iv.16;Rev.i.3).Intheapprehension,therefore,oftheearliestchurches,the"Scriptures"werenotaclosedbutanincreasing"canon."Suchtheyhadbeenfromthebeginning,astheygraduallygrewinnumberfromMosestoMalachi;andsuchtheyweretocontinueaslongasthereshouldremainamongthechurches"menofGodwhospakeastheyweremovedbytheHolyGhost."

Wesaythatthisimmediateplacingofthenewbooks—giventhechurchunderthesealofapostolicauthority—amongtheScripturesalreadyestablishedassuch,wasinevitable.Itisalsohistoricallyevincedfromtheverybeginning.

ThustheapostlePeter,writinginA.D.68,speaksofPaul'snumerouslettersnotincontrastwiththeScriptures,butasamongtheScripturesandincontrastwith"theotherScriptures"(IIPet.iii.16)—thatis,ofcourse,thoseoftheOldTestament.InlikemannertheapostlePaulcombines,asifitwerethemostnaturalthingintheworld,thebookofDeuteronomyandtheGospelofLukeunderthecommonheadof"Scripture"(ITim.v.18):"FortheScripturesaith,Thoushaltnotmuzzletheoxwhenhetreadethoutthecorn"[Deut.xxv.4];and,"Thelaborerisworthyofhishire"(Lukex.7).ThelineofsuchquotationsisneverbrokeninChristianliterature.PolycarpinA.D.115unitesthePsalmsandEphesiansinexactlysimilarmanner:"Inthesacredbooks...asitissaidintheseScriptures,'Beyeangryandsinnot,'and'Letnotthesungodownuponyourwrath.'"So,afewyearslater,theso-calledsecondletterofClement,afterquotingIsaiah,adds(ii.4):"AndanotherScripture,however,says,'Icamenottocalltherighteous,butsinners'"—quotingfromMatthew—abookwhichBarnabas(circa97-106A.D.)hadalreadyadducedasScripture.Afterthissuchquotationsarecommon.

Whatneedsemphasisatpresentaboutthesefactsisthattheyobviouslyarenotevidencesofagradually-heighteningestimateoftheNewTestamentbooks,originallyreceivedonalowerlevelandjustbeginningtobetentativelyaccountedScripture;theyareconclusiveevidencesratheroftheestimationoftheNewTestamentbooksfromtheverybeginningasScripture,andoftheirattachmentasScripturetotheotherScripturesalreadyinhand.TheearlyChristiansdidnot,then,firstformarival"canon"of"newbooks"whichcameonlygraduallytobeaccountedasofequaldivinityandauthoritywiththe"oldbooks";theyreceivednewbookafternewbookfromtheapostolicalcircle,asequally"Scripture"withtheoldbooks,andaddedthemonebyonetothecollectionofoldbooksasadditionalScriptures,untilatlengththenewbooksthusaddedwerenumerousenoughtobelookeduponasanothersectionoftheScriptures.

TheearliestnamegiventothisnewsectionofScripturewasframedonthemodelofthenamebywhichwhatweknowastheOldTestamentwasthenknown.Justasitwascalled"TheLawandtheProphetsandthePsalms"(or"theHagiographa"),ormorebriefly"TheLawandtheProphets,"orevenmorebrieflystill"TheLaw";sotheenlargedBiblewascalled"TheLawandtheProphets,withtheGospelsandtheApostles"(soClementofAlexandria,Strom.vi.11,88;Tertullian,DePrms.Men36),ormostbriefly"TheLawandtheGospel"(soClaudiusApolinaris,Irenaeus);whilethenewbooksapartwere

called"TheGospelandtheApostles,"ormostbrieflyofall"TheGospel."ThisearliestnameforthenewBible,withallthatitinvolvesastoitsrelationtotheoldandbrieferBible,istraceableasfarbackasIgnatius(A.D.115),whomakesuseofitrepeatedly(e.g.,adPhilad.5;adSmyrn.7).InonepassagehegivesusahintofthecontroversieswhichtheenlargedBibleoftheChristiansarousedamongtheJudaizers(adPhilad.6)."WhenIheardsomesaying,"hewrites,"'UnlessIfinditintheOld[Books]IwillnotbelievetheGospel'onmysaying,'Itiswritten.'theyanswered,'Thatisthequestion.'Tome,however,JesusChrististheOld[Books];hiscrossanddeathandresurrectionandthefaithwhichisbyhim,theundefiledOld[Books]—bywhichIwish,byyourprayers,tobejustified.Thepriestsindeedaregood,buttheHighPriestbetter,"etc.HereIgnatiusappealstothe"Gospel"asScripture,andtheJudaizersobject,receivingfromhimtheanswerineffectwhichAugustineafterwardformulatedinthewellknownsayingthattheNewTestamentlieshiddenintheOldandtheOldTestamentisfirstmadeclearintheNew.Whatweneednowtoobserve,however,isthattoIgnatiustheNewTestamentwasnotadifferentbookfromtheOldTestament,butpartoftheonebodyofScripturewithit;anaccretion,sotospeak,whichhadgrownuponit.

Thisisthetestimonyofalltheearlywitnesses—eventhosewhichspeakforthedistinctivelyJewish-Christianchurch.Forexample,thatcuriousJewish-Christianwriting,"TheTestamentsoftheXII.Patriarchs"(Beni.11),tellsus,underthecoverofanexpostfactoprophecy,thatthe"workandword"ofPaul,i.e.,confessedlythebookofActsandPaul'sEpistles,"shallbewrittenintheHolyBooks,"i.e.,asisunderstoodbyall,madeapartoftheexistentBible.SoevenintheTalmud,inasceneintendedtoridiculea"bishop"ofthefirstcentury,heisrepresentedasfindingGalatiansby"sinkinghimselfdeeper"intothesame"Book"whichcontainedtheLawofMoses(Babl.Shabbath,116aandb).Thedetailscannotbeenteredintohere.Letitsufficetosaythat,fromtheevidenceofthefragmentswhichalonehavebeenpreservedtousoftheChristianwritingsofthatveryearlytime,itappearsthatfromthebeginningofthesecondcentury(andthatisfromtheendoftheapostolicage)acollection(Ignatius,IIClement)of"NewBooks"(Ignatius),calledthe"GospelandApostles"(Ignatius,Marcion),wasalreadyapartofthe"Oracles"ofGod(Polycarp,Papias,IIClement),or"Scriptures"(ITim.,IIPet.,Barn.,Polycarp,IIClement),orthe"HolyBooks"or"Bible"(Testt.XII.Patt.).

Thenumberofbooksincluded-inthisaddedbodyofNewBooks,attheopeningofthesecondcentury,cannotbesatisfactorilydeterminedbytheevidenceof

thesefragmentsalone.Thesectionofitcalledthe"Gospel"includedGospelswrittenby"theapostlesandtheircompanions"(Justin),whichbeyondlegitimatequestionwereourfourGospelsnowreceived.Thesectioncalled"theApostles"containedthebookofActs(TheTestt.XII.Patt.)andepistlesofPaul,John,PeterandJames.Theevidencefromvariousquartersisindeedenoughtoshowthatthecollectioningeneralusecontainedallthebookswhichweatpresentreceive,withthepossibleexceptionsofJude,IIandIIIJohnandPhilemon.Anditismorenaturaltosupposethatfailureofveryearlyevidenceforthesebriefbookletsisduetotheirinsignificantsizeratherthantotheirnonacceptance.

Itistobeborneinmind,however,thattheextentofthecollectionmayhave—andindeedishistoricallyshownactuallytohavevariedindifferentlocalities.TheBiblewascirculatedonlyinhandcopies,slowlyandpainfullymade;andanincompletecopy,obtainedsayatEphesusinA.D.68,wouldbelikelytoremainformanyyearstheBibleofthechurchtowhichitwasconveyed;andmightindeedbecometheparentofothercopies,incompletelikeitself,andthusthemeansofprovidingawholedistrictwithincompleteBibles.Thus,whenweinquireafterthehistoryoftheNewTestamentCanonweneedtodistinguishsuchquestionsasthese:(1)WhenwastheNewTestamentCanoncompleted?(2)Whendidanyonechurchacquireacompletedcanon?(3)Whendidthecompletedcanon—thecompleteBible—obtainuniversalcirculationandacceptance?(4)OnwhatgroundandevidencedidthechurcheswithincompleteBiblesaccepttheremainingbookswhentheyweremadeknowntothem?

TheCanonoftheNewTestamentwascompletedwhenthelastauthoritativebookwasgiventoanychurchbytheapostles,andthatwaswhenJohnwrotetheApocalypse,aboutA.D.98.WhetherthechurchofEphesus,however,hadacompletedCanonwhenitreceivedtheApocalypse,ornot,woulddependonwhethertherewasanyepistle,saythatofJude,whichhadnotyetreacheditwithauthenticatingproofofitsapostolicity.Thereisroomforhistoricalinvestigationhere.CertainlythewholeCanonwasnotuniversallyreceivedbythechurchestillsomewhatlater.TheLatinchurchofthesecondandthirdcenturiesdidnotquiteknowwhattodowiththeEpistletotheHebrews.TheSyrianchurchesforsomecenturiesmayhavelackedthelesseroftheCatholicEpistlesandRevelation.ButfromthetimeofIreanaeusdown,thechurchatlargehadthewholeCanonaswenowpossessit.Andthoughasectionofthechurchmaynotyethavebeensatisfiedoftheapostolicityofacertainbookorofcertainbooks;andthoughafterwardsdoubtsmayhaveariseninsectionsofthechurchastotheapostolicityofcertainbooks(ase.g.ofRevelation):yetinnocasewasitmore

thanarespectableminorityofthechurchwhichwasslowinreceiving,orwhichcameafterwardtodoubt,thecredentialsofanyofthebooksthatthenasnowconstitutedtheCanonoftheNewTestamentacceptedbythechurchatlarge.Andineverycasetheprincipleonwhichabookwasaccepted,ordoubtsagainstitlaidaside,wasthehistoricaltraditionofapostolicity.

Letit,however,beclearlyunderstoodthatitwasnotexactlyapostolicauthorshipwhichintheestimationoftheearliestchurches,constitutedabookaportionofthe"canon."Apostolicauthorshipwas,indeed,earlyconfoundedwithcanonicity.ItwasdoubtastotheapostolicauthorshipofHebrews,intheWest,andofJamesandJude,apparently,whichunderlaytheslownessoftheinclusionofthesebooksinthe"canon"ofcertainchurches.Butfromthebeginningitwasnotso.Theprincipleofcanonicitywasnotapostolicauthorship,butimpositionbytheapostlesas"law."HenceTertullian'snameforthe"canon"is"instrumentum";andhespeaksoftheOldandNewInstrumentaswewouldoftheOldandNewTestament.ThattheapostlessoimposedtheOldTestamentonthechurcheswhichtheyfounded—astheir"Instrument,"or"Law,"or"Canon"—canbedeniedbynone.Andinimposingnewbooksonthesamechurches,bythesameapostolicalauthority,theydidnotconfinethemselvestobooksoftheirowncomposition.ItistheGospelaccordingtoLuke,amanwhowasnotanapostle,whichPaulparallelsinITim.v.18withDeuteronomyasequally"Scripture"withit,inthefirstextantquotationofaNewTestamentbookasScripture.TheGospelswhichconstitutedthefirstdivisionoftheNewBooks,—of"TheGospelandtheApostles,"—Justintellsuswere"writtenbytheapostlesandtheircompanions."Theauthorityoftheapostles,asbydivineappointmentfoundersofthechurch,wasembodiedinwhateverbookstheyimposedonthechurchaslaw,notmerelyinthosetheythemselveshadwritten.

Theearlychurches,inshort,received,aswereceive,intotheNewTestamentallthebookshistoricallyevincedtothemasgivenbytheapostlestothechurchesastheircodeoflaw;andwemustnotmistakethehistoricalevidencesoftheslowcirculationandauthenticationofthesebooksoverthewidely-extendedchurch,evidenceofslownessofthe"canonization"ofthesebooksbytheauthorityortasteofthechurchitself.

FOOTNOTESFt1—Article“Revelation,”fromTheInternationalStandardBibleEncyclopaedia,JamesOrr,GeneralEditor,v4,pp.2573-2582.Pub.Chicago,

1915,byTheHoward-SeveranceCo.Ft2—Article“Revelation,”fromUniversalCyclopædiaandAtlas,R.Johnsoned.v.10,pp.79-81.Pub.N.Y.,1909,byD.AppletonandCo.Ft3—Alecture.From“BibliothecaSacra,”v.51,1894,pp.614-640.Pub.alsoin“King’sOwn,”v.6,Lond.1895,pp.791-794,833-840,926-933.Ft4—TitlesofrecenttreatisesbyRooke,Horton,DeWitt,Smyth,andSandayrespectively.Ft5—Sanday,“Inspiration,”p.34.Ft6—On<401612>Matthew16:12and<430618>John6:18.Ft7—Adv.Haer,2:28.Ft8—Ep.adPhilippians,cap.7:Ft9—Ep.adHier.82:3.Ft10—“Works”(St.Louised.),19:305;(Erlangened.),37:11and38:Ft11—Institutes,”1:18;“CommentaryonRomans,”15:4,andon<550316>2Timothy3:16.Ft12—FreeDisputationagainstPretendedLibertyofConscience,”p.373.Ft13—“Works”,15:65.Ft14—HenryB.Smith,“SermononInspiration”(Cincinnatied.),p.19.Ft15—CharlesHodge,“Syst.Theol.,”1:163.Ft16—B.F.Westcott,“TheEpistlesofSt.John,”p.vi,Ft17—C.WistarHodge,“PresbyterianandReformedReview,”2:330.Ft18—Sanday,“Inspiration,”p.42(note)Ft19—HermannSchultz,“Grundrissd.Evang.Dogmatik,”p.7.Ft20—“Inspiration,”p.393seq.Ft21—ProfessorW.F.Adeney,“FaithandCriticism,”p.90.Ft22—“LifeofAdolpheMonod,”p.224.21Ft23—Ibid.,p.357.Ft24—GardinerSpring,“ObligationsoftheWorldtotheBible.”(NewYork”M.W.Dodd.1855.)Ft25—AdolpheMonod,“L’InspirationprouvréeparsesŒuvres.”Ft26—J.OswaldDykes,“Abraham,”etc.(1877),p.257.

Ft27—Article“Inspiration,”fromTheInternationalStandardBibleEncyclopaedia,JamesOrrGeneralEditor,5:3,pp.1473-1483.Pub.Chicago,1915,byTheHoward-SeveranceCo.77.Ft28—AcondensationofthisarticlewaspublishedinDr.Hastings’“DictionaryofChristandtheGospels,”subvoc.Scripture.Ithasbeenthoughtdesirableafterthisintervaltoprinttheentirearticle.(FromThePrincetonTheologicalReviewv.VIII,1910,pp.561-612.)Ft29—Edersheim,“LifeandTimesofJesus,”etc.,Ed.1,I.p.187,note2;cf.,ingeneral,Surenhusius,hwçmhrpssivebi>blovkatallagh~v(1713),pp.1-36;Döpke,“HermeneutikderNT.Schriftsteller”(1829),I.pp.60-69;Pinner,

TranslationoftheTractBerachoth,Introd.p.21b;Zunz,“GottesdienstlicheVorträgederJuden,”p.44;Weber,“JüdischeTheologie”(1897)§20,p.80seq.;Schürer,“JewishPeople”II.1:p.311;Buhl,“CanonandText,”§2;Ryle,“CanonofO.T.,”ExcursusE.Ft30—Cf.thepassagesintheLexicons,andespeciallyinDeissmann,“BibleStudies,”112,249,andCremer,“Biblico-Theol.Lex.”subvocc.especiallythelatereds.Ft31—Cf.Deissmann,“BibleStudies,”p.149,note4.ForJosephus’useofScripture,ingeneral,seeGerlach,“DieWeissagungend.AT.ind.Schrift.d.F.Josephus(1863),andDienstfertig,“DieProphetologieind.Religionsphilosophied.erstennachchristlichenJahrhunderts”(1892),thelatterofwhomdiscussesPhilo’sideasofScripturealso.Ft32—4Macc.18:14,“AndheremindedyouofJHsai`>ougrafh>nwhichsays,Thoughyoupassthroughfire,&c.”;<270913>Daniel9:13,“Kaqw<vge>graptaiinthelawofMoses,allthiseviliscomeuponus”;<184201>Job42:18,“AndJobdiedanoldman42:18,“AndJobdiedandoldmanandfullofdays,“ge>graptaide<thatheshallriseagainalongwiththosewhomtheLordwillraise.”Ft33—Philo’sdesignationsofScripturehavebeencollectedbyHornemann,“Observationesadillustr,doctr,deV.T.exPhilone”(1775);morebrieflybyEichhorn,“Einleitungind.A.T.;”andlesssatisfactorilybyRyle,“PhiloandHolyScripture.”Cf.ThePresbyterianandReformedReview,10:504(July,1899)and11:235(April,1900).Ft34—Thishasbeenshownindetailby,forexample,SurenhusiusandDöpke,ascitedabove.Ft35—Sometimesthewholeisspokenof,inaccordancewithitscharacterasrevelation,as“propheticalScriptures”or“theScripturesoftheprophets”(cf.<400223>Matthew2:23,11:13,26:56;<420170>Luke1:70,18:31,24:25,27;<440324>Acts3:24,13:27;<450102>Romans1:2,16:26).Ft36—Strabo,“Geog.”1:7,“Hecataeusleftagra>mmabelievedtobehisfromhisothergrafh>“Callimachus,“Epigr.”24:4,“Plato’s75to<peri<yuch~vgra>mma.IntheChurchFathersto<qew~n(oriJero<n)gra>mmaoccursfrequentlyfor“HolyScripture,”e.g.Greg.Thaumat.in“Orig.orat.paneg.VI.adfin.;”Epiphan.“Adv.Hær.”III,2:(lxxx.A.);Cyr.A1.“Epistula50”(formerly44):inCyr.A1.

“DeAdver.”p.44,theN.T.isthene>ongra>mma;inEus.h.e.10:4fin,tw~ntetta>rwneujaggeli>wnto<gra>mmaistheGospels,etc.Ft37—H.Holtzmannaccordinglyaccuratelycommentsonthispassage:“ThewritersharestheJewishviewofthepurelysupernaturaloriginofScriptureinitsstrictestform,accordingtowhich‘theopneustie’isascribeddirectlytotheScriptures.”(“N.T.Theologie”2:261).Ft38—Forthecurrencyofthissense,cf.G.Milligan,“SelectionsfromtheGreekPapyri,”p.58,wherecommentingonthephrasemh<ijdo>tovgra>mmata,heremarks:“Thephraseoccursincountlesspapyrusdocumentswritteneitherinwholeorinpartbyascribeonbehalfofthe‘unlettered’author.Cf.theuseofthecorrespondingadjectiveajgra>mmatovin<440413>Acts4:13(cf.<430715>John7:15,Ac.26:24)=‘unacquaintedwithliteratureorRabbinicallearning.’”Ft39—OnthesignificanceofthepluralaiJgrafai>in<610316>2Peter3:16,seebelowp.132.Thereisnojustificationforattemptingtolowerthehighimplicationofthetermhere(e.g.Huther,Spitta,Mayorinloc.,Ladd“Doct.ofSacredScripture,”I.p.211,note).TheinclusionofNewTestamentbookswithinthecategoryof‘Scripture’iswitnessedalsoin<540518>1Timothy5:18,Ep.Barnabas4:14,2Clem.<450204>Romans2:4,andinthelaterFatherspassim.ItisasearlyasliteraryChristianity.Ft40—SeetheminHühn,“DiealttestamentlichenCitate,”270.Ft41—“DasLebenJesu,”I.441-442,E.T.II.6263.Cf.Haupt,“Diealttest.Citateind.vierEvang.”pp.201-203:“Werecognizefirstwhatnodoubtscarcelyrequiresproof,thatJesustreatstheOldTestamentinitsentiretyastheWordofGod.Downtothesmallestletterandmostcasualword(<400518>Matthew5:18;<431034>John10:34)itistoHimtruth,andthat,religionstruth.”“Anisolatedexpressionofpreciselythebookmostsubjectiveinitscharacterinthewholecanonismadeuseofandappliedasmeetingthecase.”Cf.alsoFranke,“DasAlt-Test.beiJohan.”pp.46,48;H.Holtzmann,“N.T.Theologic,”I.45,115;P.Gennrich,“DerKampfumdieSchrift,”&c.1898,p.72:“Inthislate-Jewish,whollyunhistoricaltradition,JesusHimselfandtheoldestChristianauthorswerebroughtup;forthemthewholeOldTestamentliteratureisalreadyinspired(qeo>pneustov<550316>2Timothy3:16),everyword,eventhoseofthePsalmsandoftheHistoricalBooks,anoracle.”Ft42—Wemeetthetwowordsinasinglecontextin

Strabo,“Geog.”iI.7(Ed.Didot,p.5,line50,seq.)wherewearetoldthatHecataeus“leftagra>mmawhichisbelievedtobehisejkth~va]llhvaujtou~grafh~v.”Heregra>mmaappearstobeusedwherethemindisontheconcreteobject,andgrafh>whereitrestsratheronthecontents:thatis,gra>mmaseemstoreachdowntowardsbi>blov(bibli>on),grafh>upwardstowardslo>gov.Doesthesingulargrafh>bearhereapluralor“collective”sense(Latinversion:exceterisejusscriptis)?Ft43—Cf.Birt,“DasantikeBuchwescn,”479Ft44—Cf.,however,Eur.“Hipp.”1311,wherePhaedraissaidtohavewrittenyeudei~vgrafa>vwhichmaymean“falsestatements.”Ft45—Theymay,ofcourse,beappliedeveninprofaneGreekto“sacred”books.ThusamagicalformulaamongtheOxyrhynchusPapyri(Grenfell&Hunt,“OxyrhynchusPapyri,”6:p.100,etc.)representsitselfasajnti>grafoniJepa~vbi>blou.Ft46—Aijbi>bloi(=µyr]p;S]hæ)usedabsolutely,fortheOldTestamentasawhole,occursin<270902>Daniel9:2(cf.Driverinloc.).(JHbi>blovabsolutelyfortheOldTestamentasawholeoccursfirst,apparently,inthe“LetterofAristeas”§316(cf.Thackeray,JewishQuarterlyReview,April,1903,p.391).Ta<bibli>aabsolutelyoftheOldTestamentasawholeapparentlyoccursfirstin2Clem.14:2(cf.Lightfootinloco).IthasbeencustomarytosaythatfromthetimeofChrysostom(Hom.9inColoss.,Hom.10inGenesim)ta<bibli>aoccursabsolutelyfortheScripturesasawhole(cf.Suicer,“Thesaur.Eccles.”I.687,696;Reuss,“Hist.oftheNewTestament,”§320,E.T.,p.326).Thisusageisalreadyfound,however,inClementAlex.andinOrigen(ed.Lommatsch,1:607).Onthegeneralsubjectseethedetachednoteattheendofthisarticleontheterms‘Bible,’‘HolyBible’(page149).Ft47—Cf.Birt,“DasantikeBuchwesen/’478-481,andespeciallyJerome,“Praef.Psal.”and“Ep.adMarcellam”ascitedbyBirt.Ft48—E.g.“DePlantat.Noe,”28,Mangey1:347:“Thepropheticword(oJprofhtiko<vlo>gov)seemstodignifythenumberfouroftenthroughoutthenomoqesi>av,andespeciallyinthecatalogueofthecreationoftheuniverse.”Ft49—Thisideaisstillmoreemphaticallyexpressedbythekindredtermlo>gov,<450302>Romans3:2,cf.<580512>Hebrews5:12,<440738>Acts7:38,thecurrentuseofwhichinthissensebyPhiloisadvertedtoabove(p.118,note6).SeeThePresbyterianandReformedReviewforApril1900,pp.217seq.Ft50—Cf.Zahn,“Einleitung,”II.99,108,note12.Ft51—On<600206>1Peter2:6:notethe“probably.”

Ft52—E.g.ofaletter,Euripides,“Iph.inTaur.”735,“Lethimgiveanoathtomethathewillbearta<vgrafa>stoArgos”;“Iph.inAul.”363(alineofdoubtfulgenuineness),whereAgamemnonissaidtobesecretlydevisinga]llavgrafa>v;oiJofabook,Georg.Sync.,p.168th<nejktw~nKefali>wnovgrafw~npro<vto<nDio>wrondiafwni>an.Ft53—Onthemeaningofthispassage,seeespeciallyBigg,inloc.,andcf.Chase,Hastings’,B.D.,3:810.Ft54—Forgrafai>inthesenseof“statements,”cf.Eurip.“Hipp.”1311,wherePhaedraissaid,underthefearofdisgrace,tohavewrittenyeudei~vgrafai>,probablynota“lyingtablet”(grafai>initssingularsenseasinnote25above)but“falsestatements.”Cf.alsoPhilo,“DePraem.etPoen.”11.neartheend(Mangey,2:418),wherehedistributesthecontentsofthesacredvolumeintoaarJhtaigrafai>andaiJkaqjuJpo>noianajllhgori>ai,whichmayperhapsbetakenas“literalstatements”and“covertallegories.”Theuseofgrafh>inthesenseofa“passage”ofScriptureisfoundinPhilo,theLXXandfrequentlyintheNewTestament(seebelow).Ft55—Accordinglygrafai>isquitefreelyusedbytheChurchFathersofapluralityofpassagesofScripture.ThefamouswordsinPolycarp“AdPhilippians,”12:1areprobablynotacaseinpoint:uthisScripturisdictumesthereapparentlyrefersbacktotheinsacrislibriswhichjustprecedesthemandnotforwardtothetwopassagesadduced.FromJustinon,however,numerousexamplespresentthemselves.Cf.e.g..Justin,“ContraTryph.”65(Otto.p.230):“AndTryphosaid,BeingimportunedbysomanyScriptures(tw~ntosou>twngrafw~n)IdonotknowwhattosayabouttheScripture(th~vgrafh~v)whichIsaiahsaid,accordingtowhichGodsaysHewillnotgiveHisglorytoanother.”Again,“Cont.Tryph.”71(Otto.p.255,cf.note):Theyhavetakenawaypolla<vgrafa>vfromtheLXXtranslation.Again,Clem.Alex.“Cohort.adGentes,”9adinit.(Migne,1:192D),“Icouldadducemuri>avgrafa>vnotoneofwhichshallpassaway.”Ft56—OnthisconceptionofthewholeOldTestamentasapropheticbook,cf.WillisJ.Beecher,“TheProphetsandthePromise,”1905,pp.168seq.Ft57—InPatristicusage,onthecontrary,averylargevarietyofapplicationsofhJgrafh>andaiJgrafai>,inthesenseofBiblicalBooksormoreorlessextensivecollectionsofBiblicalBooks,isfound.Thusforexample,inAthan.“Epist.Encycl.”1adinit.wemeetwithhJqei>atw~nKritw~ngrafh>:inEus.h.e.3:11withhJntou~eujaggeli>ougrafh>,in

ibid.2:i.2.withhJiJera<tw~neujaggeki>wngrafh>;inOrig.“Contr.Cels.”1:58,withhJeujagelikkh<grafh>.InOrigen,“Contr.Cels.”7:24andin“FragmentainProverbs”2,wefindhJpalaia<grafh>,andinanotherplace(Migne,1:1365n)thecorrespondingnew>teraigrafai>wherethepluralisprobablyarealplural.Thisisalsothecasein,say,Eus.h.e.3:3whenhespeaksof“theacknowledgedgrafai>“oftheNewTestament,and(adinit.)mentionsthat2Peterhadbeenusedbymanymeta<tw~na]llwngrafw~n.Ft58—E.g.Thucyd.v.29:“TheywereangrywiththeLacedemonianschieflybecauseamongotherthingsitwasprovidedinthetreatywithAthensthattheLacedemoniansandAtheniansifagreedmightaddtoortakeawayfromthemwhatevertheypleased:thisclause(tou~toto<gra>mma)arousedgreatuneasinessamongthePeloponnesians.”Cf.Philo.“DeCongr.erud.grat.”12(Mangey1:527):“Thereisalsoinanotherplaceto<gra>mmainscribed”=<053208>Deuteronomy32:8;“QuodDeusImmut”2(Mangey1:273):Kata<to<iJerw>tatonMwu`se>wvgra>mmatou~to.Ft59—“TiHemsterhusiiOrationes,…L.C.ValckenaiTresOrationes,”etc.LugdunumBat.,1784,p.395.Ft60—4Macc.18:14:“Andheremindedyouofth\nJHsai`>ougrafh>nwhichsays,“Thoughyoupassthroughfire.”Philo,“Quisrerumdiv.her.”53(Mangey,1:511);to<de<ajko>louqonprosufai>neith~|graf~|fa>dkwn:ejrjrJe>qhjAbraa>m;“DePraem.Etpoen.”11(Mangey2:418).Cf.ThePresbyterianandReformedReview,XI(April1900)245-6notes.Forthepossibilityofaclassicaluseofgrafai>=“statements”seeabovep.132note27.OftheordinaryGreekwordsfor“passage”ofawriting,neithergra>mmanorcwri>onoccursintheNewTestament;to>povonlyat<420417>Luke4:17andperioch>onlyat<440832>Acts8:32(cf.Dr.C.J.Vaughanon<450403>Romans4:3andpercontra,Meyerinloc.andcf.<600206>1Peter2:6andthecommentatorsthere.)TheplaceofallthesetermsistakenintheNewTestamentbygrafh>.Ft61—“Lucubr.prodivin,discip,acperson.Jesu,”etc.Turici1828,p.36note.Ft62—“DeLeerdesN.T.overdeH.S.desO.V.,”Amsterdam1849,p.70.Ft63—Cf.Cremer,sub.voc.,whogives17passages,omittingofthoseabove<431712>John17:12,20:9;T.Stephenson,“ExpositoryTimes”14:475seq.whoinawell-classifiedlistgives18passages,omitting<432009>John20:9;E.Hühn,“DiealttestamentlichenCitate”etc.,

1900,p.276,whogives23passages,adding<431318>John13:18,19:24,36,<590208>James2:8.Onthegeneralquestion,cf.Vaughan,on<450403>Romans4:3,Meyeron<431035>John10:35,Weisson<431035>John10:35,Kübelon<610120>2Peter1:20,Abbotton<490408>Ephesians4:8,Beeton<450917>Romans9:17,“Encyc.Bibl.”4329,Francke,“DasA.T.beiJohan,”p.48,Haupt,“Diealttest.Citateind.vierEvang.,”p.201.Ft64—Cf.Zahn,“Einleitung,”II,108;Horton<600206>1Peter2:6.Ft65—Cf.Zahn,“Einleitung,”II.p.109.Ft66—PresumablyfewwilltakerefugeintheexplanationsuggestedbyDr.E.ILPlumptre(“Smith’sB.D.”2874),whichunderstandsthe”prophecy”hereofNewTestament,notOldTestamentprophetsandrenders,everypropheticutterancearisingfrom,restingon,agrafh>—i.e.apassageoftheOldTestament.Ft67—PreciselythesameistrueoftheusageoftheterminatleasttheearlierPatristicliterature,althoughacontraryimpressionmightbetakenfromaremarkatthecloseofDr.Lightfoot’snoteon<480322>Galatians3:22.JHgrafh>ofapassageofScriptureseemstobetherarerusagein,forexample,theso-calledApostolicalFathers.Itoccurswithcertainty,onlyat1Clem.23:3(cf.25:5),2Clem.14:1,whilehJgrafh>=“Scripture”asawhole,seemstooccuratleastat1Clem.34:6,35:7,42:5;2Clem.6:8,14:2;Barn.4:11,5:4,6:12,13:2,16:5.(ThepluralaiJgrafai>occursin1Clem.45:2,andintheformulaaiJiJerai<grafai>in1Clem.53:1[Polyc.12:1]).InthelaterFathershJgrafh>occursineveryconceivablevarietyofsenseandapplication,butinnonemoredistinctlythanofScriptureasawhole.Ft68—“DasA.T.beiJohan,”p.48.Ft69—Seeabove,p.127,note19.Ft70—E.g.“DeAbrahamo,”13(Mangeyii,10):aiJgrafai>=“theScriptures.”Ft71—Cf.Cremer,ed.9,subvoc.grafh>II:“InPhilo,andasitseems,alsoinJosephus,thesingulardoesnotoccuroftheScripturesasawhole,althoughthepluraldoes.Cf.aijajpografai>2Macc.2:1,ajnagrafai>verse14.Theuseofthesingularinthissenseseemsaccordinglytohavefirstformeditself,orperhaps,morecorrectlytohavemanifesteditself,intheNewTestamentcommunity,andthatinconnectionwithitsbeliefintheMessiahanditsappealtotheOldTestament.”Theuseofsingulargrafh>oftheScripturesisinanyeventnotfrequentinPhiloandJosephus:andCremer’sinferenceisrash,evenifthefactsbeasrepresented.Itwouldbewell,however,ifthestatement

offactwerecarefullyverified.Cf.Josephus.“Antt.”III.1:7,fin.wherehetellsusthatagrafh>wasdepositedintheTemplewhichinformsusthatGodforetoldtoMosesthatwatershouldbedrawnthusfromtherock.Bythisgrafh>hemeansofcoursepreciselywhatheelsewherecallsaiJiJerai<grafai>,buthenecessarilyspeaksofitindefinitely.Ft72—ThevariousformulasmaybecommodiouslyreviewedinHühn,“DiealttestamentlichenCitate,”pp.272seq.Ft73—Cf.Cremered.9subvoc.gra>fw,fin.;Deissmann,“BibleStudies,”112,250.AgoodexampleoftheclassicalmodeofexpressionmayperhapsbefoundinthethirdPhilippicofDemosthenes(III.41,42,p.122):“Thatourconditionwasformerlyquitedifferentfromthis,Ishallnowconvinceyou,notbyanyargumentsofmyown,butbyadecreeofyourancestors(gra>mmatatw~nprogo>nwn)…Whatthensaysthedecree(ta<progo>nwn)?…Inthelawsimportingcapitalcasesitisenacted(ge>graptai)”DeissmanncallsattentiontothefactthatJosephususesge>graptaiinfrequentlyinhisreferencestotheOldTestament,preferringajnage>graptaiandreferstoapassageinwhichheusesge>graptaiofaprofanedocument.Thepassageis“Contr.Ap.”IV.18:“ForifwemaygivecredittothePhoenicianrecords(ajnagrafai~v),itisrecorded(ge>graptai)inthem,”etc.Itshouldbeobservedthatthisisnotaninstanceoftheabsolutege>graptai;butyetitisnotwithoutanimplicationof(notarial)authorityFt74—Cf.especiallyCremer,subvoc.gra>fw:andA.Kuyper,“EncyclopaediaofSacredTheology,”pp.433seq.,444seq.Ft75—“Inthelawandtheprophetsandthepsalms,”<422444>Luke24:44;“inthelaw”(ofthewholeOldTestament),<431034>John10:34,15:25,<461421>1Corinthians14:21;“inthe(oryour,ortheir)law,”<421026>Luke10:26;<430817>John8:17;“inthelawofMoses,”<460909>1Corinthians9:9;“inthelawoftheLord,”<420223>Luke2:23;“intheprophets,”<430645>John6:45,<442014>Acts20:14;“inthebookofthewordsofIsaiahtheprophet,”<420304>Luke3:4;“inthebookoftheprophets,”<440742>Acts7:42;“intheBookofPsalms,”<440120>Acts1:20(cf.<422106>Luke21:62,<401236>Matthew12:36);“inthesecondPsalm,”<441333>Acts13:33.TheclosestdefinitionsofplaceintheGospelsareprobably“atthebush,”<411226>Mark12:26;and“attheplace,”<420417>Luke4:17.Ft76—<400205>Matthew2:5,“throughtheprophet”;<421831>Luke18:31,

“throughtheprophet.”Ft77—Cf.ThePresbyterianandReformedReview,July1899,p.472,April1900,p.217.Ft78—TheejrjrJe>qhof<400521>Matthew5:21,27,31,33,38,43(Cf.<450912>Romans9:12,26,<480316>Galatians3:16)isnotaformulaofcitation,—forwhichweshouldhavetheperfect,ei]rhken(<580403>Hebrews4:3,10:9-15,13:5)—butadducesthehistoricalfactthatsuchteachingasisadducedwasgiventotheancients.J.A.Alexander(on<400521>Matthew5:21)admirablyparaphrases:“Youhave(often)heard(itsaidbythescribesandleadingPharisees)thatourfatherswerecommandednottomurder,andthatconsequentlyhewhomurders(inthestrictsenseoftheterm)isliabletobecondemnedandpunishedunderthecommandment.”Thesubsequentinstances,thoughinverses27,31,38,43moreorlessabridgedintheintroductoryformula,aregovernedbythefullformulaofverse21.Inpointoffactthecommandmentsadduced,(withadditionstothefirstandlast)areallfoundwrittenintheMosaicLaw.ButourLorddoesnotsaythattheyarefoundthere;HemerelysaysthatHishearershadoftenheardfromtheirofficialteachers,thattheywerefoundthere—“Yehaveheardthatitwascommanded…”SoSpanheim,J.A.Alexander,etc.Ft79—1903-4,Vol.XV.pp.565-566.Ft80—WhatZahnsays,“GeschichtedesN.T,Kanons”II.p.944,is:“Ontheoriginandearliestspreadofthemodernuseof‘Bible’amongtheWesternpeoplesIdonotventuretosayanything.”Ft81—Seee.g.A.Stewart,Hastings’DB,subvoc.‘Bible’;W.Sanday,Hastings’ERE,subvoc.‘Bible’;Hilgenfeld,“EinleitungindasN.T.”p.30.Ft82—“GeschichtedesN.T.Kanons”II.pp.943-4.Ft83—Credner,“GeschichtedesN.T.Kanons,”1860,p.229:“Furtheritiswellknownthatforthecollectionofthesacredwritingsingeneralthenameta<bibli>a(Bible)occursfirstintheusageofChrysostom(cf.‘SuiceriThesaurus,’subvoc.).”Reuss,“HistoryoftheNewTestament,”E.T.p.326(§320):“FromthetimeofChrysostomthecanonicalcollectioniscalledsimplyta<bibli>a.”ErschandGruber,art.“Bibel”adinit.NeitherCredner’snorReuss’sstatementis,however,quitejustifiedbySuicer’swords.Ft84—At2:120,22,wereadof“thebookofGenesis,”andatvariouspassagesofsecular“books”(ii.63,4;58,17;109,15;152,26,293,1.).Ft85—Preuschenindexesthefollowingfurtheroccurrencesoftheplural(apartfromthepassage,pp.100-105)inthe“CommentaryonJohn:”p.40,21,ta<th~vkainh~vdiaqh>khvbibli>a;117,19,dijo[lwntw~naJgi>wnbibli>wn.Atp.9,24

Origenopensaninquiryastowhytau~tata<bibli>a—thatistheGospels,—arecalledbythesingulartitleofeujagge’lion.Ft86—“Geschichte,”etc.I.87,note1.Ft87—SeethepassagesfromtheOxford“DictionaryoftheEnglishLanguage,”innote82below.Ft88—Otto:9:414.Ft89—Andrews’“Latin-EnglishLexicon,”subvoc.Ft90—Reuss,E.T.p.308,§303.Ft91—Reuss,p.321,§316.Ft92—Migne,“Patrol.Lat.”28:(“Hieron.”vol.14)pp.33-34.Ft93—M.Kähler,“DogmatischeZeitfragen,’’2I.p.362,writes:“ItwasveryharmlesslyintendedandwasnotincontradictionoftheusagefollowedbyChristHimself,whentheHolyScripturewascalledaBibliotheca.…As,however,thatdesignation‘Bibliotheca’neverbecamethedominantone,andtheBiblicalone,‘theScripture,’aloneultimatelymaintaineditself,sothecomprehensivename,‘theBible,’attainedgeneralcurrencyintheWestbeforetheninthcentury.”Onthislastpoint,hehadalreadysaid,(p.232note1):“Asapopulardesignation‘Biblia’wasinuselongbeforeitsearliestprovableoccurrenceintheninthcentury,”withappealto:“Eb.Nestle,Beil.zurAllg.Z.1904,No.90,p.117,”—anarticletowhichwehavenotaccess,thoughpossiblywehaveitsessentialcontentsinthecontemporarilyprintednoteintheExpositoryTimes,mentionedatthebeginningofthisdiscussion.Itcanbesaidthat‘Bibliotheca’neverbecamethedominantdesignationoftheScripturesonlyincontrastwithsuchadesignationas“theScriptures.”Ft94—Grimm,subvoc.“Bibel,”enumeratesasfollows:Italian,bibbia,Spanish,biblia,French,bible,MiddleHighGerman,biblie,Dutch,bijbel,Islandic,biflja,RussianandLithuanian,biblija,Polish,biblia,Bohemian,biblj,etc.Ft95—TheLatin“Thesaurus”tellsusthat“bibliotheca”occursintitlesvariouslycontracted:“Compendiaintitulis:by.,byb.,bybl.,byblio.,bibliot.,”andinevencompleterforms.Ft96—SeeDiefenbach’saddendatoDuCange,subvoc.“Biblia.”TheOxfordDictionarygivesEnglishexamplesfromthefourteenthtothesixteenthcenturies:e.g.1377,Lang.“PiersPl.”B.15:87;“OfthismatereImygtemakalongbible”;1542,Udall,Erasm.“Apophth,”205a,“WhenhehadreadalongbiblewrittenandsenttohymfromAntipater.”(ThequotationfromZ.Boyd1629doesnotseemtoustobelonghere).Ft97—ThisisadvertedtointheOxfordDictionary,subvoc.“Bible.”Thefollowingcitationsaregiven:1382,Wyclif,2Macc.2:13,“Hemakyngealitilbible(Vulg.bibliothecam)

gadrideofcuntreesbokis”;100:1425,inWr.-Wülcker,Voc.648,Bibleoteca,bybulle;1483Cath.Angl.31,ABybylle,biblia,bibliotheca.Ft98—SiscirestotamBibliam.Ft99—“Biblia,eyngrossbuch.”Ft100—Cf.Eb.Nestle,TheExpositoryTimes,15:pp.565-566.ThecitationgivenintheOxfordDictionaryfromanAnglo-Latinoccurrenceof“biblia”in1095—viz.fromtheCatalogueoftheLindisfarnebooks—Nestleshowstorestonanerror.Thiscataloguedatesfromthefourteenthorfifteenthcentury.Ft101—TheOxfordDictionarycitesfrom100:1300,CursorM.1900:“Asthebibulsais”;from1330,R.Brunne,Chronicles290:“Thebiblemaynotlie.”Ft102—Littré(“DictionairedelaLangueFrançaise”I.subvoc.)citesonly:“HIST.xiiies.—UncordeliervintàliauchasteldeYeres[Hières]etpourenseignerleroi,ditensonsermon,queilavoitleulaBibleetleslivresquiparlentdesprincesmescreans,JOINV.199.”TothismaybeaddedJoinville,“HistoiredeSaintLouis,”Paris,Didot,1874,p.310(cxi.569):“L’endemains’alalogierliroysdevantlaciteid’Arsurquel’onappelleTyrienlaBible.”Onp.320(cxiii.583)“Bible”occursinthesenseof“Balista,”of.DuCange,subvoc.“BibliaI.”TheCenturyandtheStandardDictionariesbothrecordthisusageforEnglish.Ft103—Heyne,“DeutschesWörterbuch”I.1890,tellsussubvoc.thatBibelisaborrowedwordfromtheGreekneuter-pluralBiblia,“Books,”whichsincethelateMiddle-High-German,asinMiddleLatin,hasbeenlookedonasafemininesingular,firstinaformnearertotheLatin,andafterwardsinthatnowcurrent—withareferencetoDiefenbach.HisearliestcitationsarcfromLuther,whostillhas(“D.christlicheAdel,”1520)“diebiblien,dasheiliggotiswort,”butelsewhere(“WiderdiehimlischenProph.”1525):“ausmeineverdeutsohtenbibel.”Ft104—Cf.F.Kluge,“EtymologischesWörterbuchd.deutschenSprache,”62.ed.1905subvoc.“Fibel,”wherewearetoldthatitwasenteredinLow-GermanGlossariesofthefifteenthcentury(firstin1419),wasusedbyLuther,anddulyregisteredsinceHenisch1616.Klugeclassifies“Bibel”asaMiddle-High-Germanword.”Ft105—TheOxfordDictionarysays:“InO.E.bibliothecaaloneoccurs.”Nestle50:100:says:“ThenamecommonlyusedthroughouttheMiddleAgeswasBibliotheca”;andaccordinglyinO.E.andallmediaevalwritersthistermisusedforcompleteMss.ofOldandNewTestaments.TheAnglo-Saxonsalsoused“gewrit”whenspeakingoftheBible.Ft106—Intheecclesiasticalsense:“CanterburyTales:”Prolog.1.438,“Hisstudiewas

butlitelontheBible”;“Pardoner’sTale,”I.4652,“LookeththeBible,andtheryemayitleere”;“TheWife’sPreamble,”1.10729,“Heknewofhemmolegendesandlyres|ThanbeenofgoodewyvesintheBible.”Inthegeneralsense:“CanterburyTales,”Prol.toCanon’s“Yeoman’sTale,”1.17257,“TotellenalwoldepassenanyBible|Thatowheris”;“HouseofFame,”1.1334(Book3:1.244),Ifallthearmsofthepeoplehesawinhisdreamweredescribed,“menmyghtmakeofhemaBibletwentyfootethykke.”Ft107—TheeditioprincepsoftheEnglishBible(Coverdale,1535)bearsthetitle:“Biblia|TheByble:that|istheholyScryptureofthe|OldeandNewTestament.”Matthew’sBible,of1537,has:“TheByble,|whichisalltheholyScrip-|ture:Inwhycharecontaynedthe|OldeandNeweTestament—”Taverner’sBible,of1539,has:“Themost|sacredBible,|whicheistheholyscripture,con-|teyningtheoldandnewtestament.”Theverypopularandfrequentlyreprinted“GenevanBible”calleditself,edition1560:“TheBible|and|HolyScriptures|conteynedin|theoldeandNewe|Testament.”Ft108—E.g.1573,1574,1575bis,1576,1577bis,1578,1584,1585,1588,1591,1595,1602.Ft109—IntheOxfordDictionaryarefoundthefollowingexamplesofthisoddusagefromthesixteenthcentury:Rastell,“Bk.Purgat.”I.1.“Neytherofthebokysoftheoldebyblenorofthenewetestament”;1587,Golding,“DeMornay,”24:357,“CertainebookeswhichwecalltheBibleorOldeTestament.”ItmaynotbeoutofplacetonotethatRastellwroteasaRomanist,GoldingasaProtestantcontroversialist.Ft110—ThisistheactualtitleoftheAntwerpPolyglot,1569-1572,andofWalton’sPolyglot,1657;butnotoftheParisPolyglot.Ft111—Theeditioprincepshasnotitlepage;andtheComplutensianPolyglotnogeneraltitle-page.Cf.Fr.Kaulen,“GeschichtederVulgata,”1868,pp.305-6:—“ThefirsteditionscontainonlythenakedtextoftheVulgate,togetherwiththeIntroductionsofSt.JeromeandtheoldArgumenta,astheyappearalreadyinthe“CodexAmiatinus.”Apropertitleisatfirstnotpresent;andneitherthesheetsnorthepagesshownumeration.Insteadofthetitle,thefrontpagebearscommonlyaheadinginlargetype:Incipitprologussanctiiheronymi,incipitepistolasctiiheronymiadpaulinum,prologusbiblie,andthelike.ThefolioeditionofBasle,1487,bearsastitlemerelytheoneword,‘Biblia.’…InaNurembergBibleof1471therestandsforthefirsttimeastitle,‘Biblia

Vulgata’…Byfarthemostcommontitleis‘BibliaLatina,’accompaniedinlatereditionsbysomeadditiongivingthecontents.Ft112—Brylinger’sedition,Basiliae,1544(1551,1557,1562,1569,1578)has:“BibliaSacrosancta”—Ft113—FromThePresbyterianandReformedReview,v.iv,1893.pp.177-221.Ft114—“InspirationandtheBible.”AnInquiry.ByRobertF.Horton,M.A.,LateFellowofNewCollege,Oxford.FourthEdition.London:T.FisherUnwin,1889.Ft115—“LuxMundi,”TenthEdition.London:JohnMurray,1890.p.11:Ft116—“WhoWrotetheBible?”ABookforthePeople.ByWashingtonGladden.Boston:Houghton,Mifflin&Co.,1891.Seepp.61(cf.pp.57,92seq.),21,25,154(cf.pp.105,166,37,etc.).Ft117—“TheChangeofAttitudeTowardstheBible.”Alecture,etc.ByJosephHenryThayer,ProfessorinHarvardUniversity.Boston:Houghton,Mifflin&Co.,1891.Seepp.9,10,22,52,65.Ft118—“TheOraclesofGod”(Longmans,1891),pp.5,45,76.Ft119—ThearticleappearedinTheChristianUnion,butwequoteitfromPublicOpinion,vol.10:No.24(March25,1891),p.576.Ft120—Thisremark,ofcourse,doesnotimplythattherearenonewhoassertthattheresultsofthistypeofcriticismleave“inspiration”untouched.Dr.Driverdoesnotstandalonewhenhesays,inthePrefacetohis“IntroductiontotheLiteratureoftheOldTestament”;“CriticisminthehandsofChristianscholarsdoesnotbanishordestroytheinspirationoftheOldTestament;itpresupposesit(p.xix).ButProf.Driverwouldbethelasttomaintainthatthe“inspiration”whichcriticismleavestotheOldTestamentiswhattheChurchhasunderstoodbytheplenaryinspirationoftheBible.Accordingly,Prof.RobertsonspeaksdirectlytothepointwhenheremarksinthePrefacetohis“EarlyReligionofIsrael”(p.xi),that“suchscholarswoulddoaninvaluableservicetotheChurch,atthepresenttime,iftheywouldexplainwhattheymeanbyinspirationinthisconnection.”Theeffortstodothis,onoursideofthewater,arenotreassuring.OntherelationofthenewviewstoinspirationseethelucidstatementbyDr.E.C.BissellinTheHartfordSeminaryRecord,2:1.Ft121—Itoughttobeunnecessarytoprotestagainagainstthehabitofrepresentingtheadvocatesof“verbalinspiration”asteachingthatthemodeofinspirationwasbydictation.Thematterisfullyexplainedinthepaper:“Inspiration.”ByProfs.A.A.

HodgeandB.B.Warfield.Philadelphia:PresbyterianBoardofPublication,1881,pp.19seq.Ft122—“LifeofPaul,”1:49.Ft123—“Paulinism,”1:88.Ft124—“OldTestamentintheNew,”BibliothecaSacra,11:612.Ft125—“PrinciplesofChristianity,”byJamesStuart(1888),p.346.Ft126—“SéancedeRentréedesCoursdelaFacultédeThéologieProtestantedeParis,leMardi3Novembre,”1891.Leçond’OuverturedeM.LeProf.Edm.Stapfer.Paris:Fischbacher,1891.Pp.26,42.Ft127—ComparealsoKuenen,“Prophets,”p.449;Reuss,”HistoryofChristianTheologyintheApostolicAge,”1:p.352seq.;Riehm,“DerLehrbegr.DesHebräerbriefcs,”1:pp.173,177,etc.Ft128—ThosewhowishtoseeaveryconclusiveandthoroughstatementofPaul’sdoctrineofinspirationshouldconsultDr.Purves’spaperon“St.PaulandInspiration,”publishedinThePresbyterianandReformedRevelation,January,1893.ForourLord’sdoctrine,seeDr.Caven’spaperon“OurLord’sTestimonytotheOldTestament,”inthenumberoftheReviewforJuly,1892.Ft129—“ZurDogmatik,”p.177seq.Ft130—“LettertotheRevelationAndrewA.Bonar,D.D.,”etc.Edinburgh,1890Ft131—“TheEdwardRobinsonChairofBiblicalTheologyintheUnionTheologicalSeminary,”NewYork(1891),pp.5,6.Ft132—ThesubstanceofsomeoftheprecedingparagraphswasprintedinTheHomileticalReviewforMay,1891,underthetitleof“ThePresentProblemofInspiration.”Ft133—“Exegesis.”AnAddressdeliveredattheOpeningoftheAutumnTermofUnionTheologicalSeminary,September24,1891.ByMarvinR.Vincent,D.D.,ProfessorofSacredLiterature.NewYork:C.Scribner’sSons,1891,P.40.Ft134—Op.cit.,p.5seq.Ft135—“LuxMundi.”AmericanEd.NewYork:JohnW.LovellCo.P.283.Ft136—“ReasonandAuthorityinReligion.”ByJ.MacBrideSterrett,D.D.,ProfessorinSeaburyDivinitySchool.NewYork:T.Whittaker,1891,P.176.Ft137—“FaithandInspiration.”TheCareyLecturesfor1884.ByRobertWatts,D.D.London:Hodder&Stoughton,1885,p.139.“Thesolequestionis:What,accordingtothelanguageemployedbyHim,wasHisestimateoftheOldTestamentScripture?ItwillbeobservedthatHedoesnotsingleoutthepassageonwhichHebasesHisargument,andtestifyof

itthatitisunbreakable,makingitsinfallibilitydependonHisauthority.Statedformally,Hisargumentisasfollows:Major—TheScripturecannotbebroken.Minor—‘IsaidyeareGod’s,’iswritteninyourlaw,whichisScripture.Conclusion—‘IsaidyeareGod’s’cannotbebroken.…HearguestheinfallibilityoftheclauseonwhichHefoundsHisargumentfromtheinfallibilityoftherecordinwhichitoccurs.AccordingtoHisinfallibleestimate,itwassufficientproofoftheinfallibilityofanysentenceorphraseofaclause,toshowthatitconstitutedaportionofwhattheJewscalled‘theScripture’(hJgrafh>).”Ft138—“ZurDogmatik,”p.177.Ft139—CompareMeyer,inloc.(E.T.,1:p.262,note):“EvenRothe…takesdokei~teinthesenseofadelusion,namely,thattheypossessedeternallifeinabook.SuchexplanationsareopposedtothehighvenerationmanifestedbyJesustowardstheHolyScriptures,especiallyapparentinJohn.…”Ft140—Op.cit.,pp.181,182.Ft141—Op.cit.,pp.174,175.Ft142—EvenonanextremeKenoticview,itis,however,notsocertainthaterrorshouldbeattributedtotheGod-man.Prof.Gretillat,ofNeuchatel,aKenotistofthetypeofGessandhisowncolleagueGodet,isabletoteachthat“byreasonoftherelationwhichunitestheintelligencewiththewill,”ourLordmustneedsbefreenotonlyfromsin,butalsofromallerror(ExposédeTheol.Syst.,4:288).TholuckoccupiedapositionsimilartoRothe’s;yetheremindsusthat:“Proofsmightbebroughttoshowthat,eveninquestionspertainingtolearnedexegesis”—whicharesuchasourLordneededtolearnasaman—“suchasthoseconcerningthehistoricalconnectionofapassage,theauthorandageofabook,anoriginalspiritualdiscernmentwithoutthecultureoftheschoolsmayoftendivinethetruth”(“CitationsoftheOldTestamentintheNew,”tr.inBibliothecaSacra,11:p.615).Ft143—Sermonon“ThePromiseoftheSpirit,”inthevolume:“PrincetonSermons.”BytheFacultyoftheSeminary.NewYork:FlemingH.RevellCo.,1893.P.33.Thewholeofthisnoblesermonshouldberead.Ft144—“ThePrinciplesofChristianity.”BeinganEssaytowardsaMoreCorrectApprehensionofChristianDoctrine,MainlySoteriological.ByJamesStuart,M.A.London:Williams&Norgate,1888.P.67seq.Ft145—P.345seq.Ft146—P.213.Ft147—Pp.348,349Ft148—P.70.Theimmediatereferenceoftheselastwordsistomattersofcriticismandexegesis;butaccordingtothecontextualconnectiontheywouldalsobeusedofmattersofinspiration.Ft149—“Untersuchungenzumersten

Klemensbriefe.”VonLic.Theol.W.Wrede,PrivatdocentderTheologicinGöttingen.Göttingen:Vanderhoeck&Ruprecht’sVerlag,1891.Pp.60,75seq.Ft150—ComparethereviewofWredebyProf.H.M.Scott,inThePresbyterianandReformedReview,January,1893,p.163.Ft151—P.66.Ft152—P.353.Ft153—P.258.Ft154—Op.cit.,Vol.I,p.49.Ft155—ThepresentwriterhastriedtostatethetruerelationsofSystematicandBiblicaltheologyinadiscussionof“TheIdeaofSystematicTheologyConsideredasaScience”(InauguralAddress),pp.22-28.A.D.F.Randolph&Co.,1888.Heventurestoreferthereadertoit.Ft156—“Inspiration.”AClericalSymposium.BytheRevelationArchdeaconFarrarandothers.London:JamesNisbetandCo.,1888,2ded.Pp.219,241.Ft157—“HistoryofInterpretation.”BamptonLectures.ByF.W.Farrar,D.D.London:Macmillan,1880.P.147.Ft158—P.71.Ft159—OnthecontrarythesewritersusuallyminimizetheBiblicaldefinitionofinspiration.ThusDr.MarvinR.Vincent,whoisimmediatelytobequoted(op.100:p.15),tellsus“Scripturedoesnotdefinethenatureandextentofitsowninspiration.Theoft-quotedpassageof<550316>2Timothy3:16reallygivesusnolightonthatpoint.…Thepassagedoesindeedpointoutcertaineffectswhichattendtheuseofinspiredwritings.…Butafterall,wearenonearerthanevertoananswertothequestion,Whatisinspiration?…Sothatwemustfallbackonthefacts,onthephenomenaoftheBibleaswehaveit.”Butthedeckisnotclearedbysuchremarks;afterall,PauldoesassertsomethingbycallingtheScripturesTheopneustic,andwhatthethingisthatheassertsintheuseofthispredicate,isnotdiscoverablefromanexaminationintowhattheScripturesare,butonlybyanexaminationintowhatPaulmeans;butwhatPaulunderstandsbytheopneustic,Dr.Vincentmakesnoefforttoinvestigate.Thiswholeprocedureistypical.Thus,forexample,theRevelationJ.PatersonSmyth,inhisrecentbook,“HowGodInspiredtheBible”(p.64),proceedsinanexactlysimilarmanner.“OurtheoryofinspirationmustbelearnedfromthefactspresentedintheBible,andinordertobecorrectitmustbeconsistentwithallthesefacts.…IwanttofindoutwhatIcanaboutinspiration.Godhasnowhererevealedtomeexactlywhatitis.Hehastoldmeitisadivineinfluence,anin-breathingoftheHolyGhostonthespiritoftheancientwriters.ButIcannottellhowmuchthatmeansorwhateffectsIshouldexpectfromit.Ihave,therefore,nowayoffindingoutexceptbyexaminingthephenomena

presentedbytheBibleitself.”ThismethodamountssimplytodiscardingtheguidanceofthedoctrineofScriptureinfavorofourowndoctrinefoundedonourexaminationofthenatureofScripture.MarkSmythcannotclosehiseyestocertainoutstandingfactsonthesurfaceofScripture,indicatoryofthedoctrineastoScriptureheldbytheBiblicalwriters(pp.36and106),thoughhemakesnoefforttocollectandestimateallsuchphenomena.Andwhenherealizesthatsomemaybeaffectedevenbyhismeagrestatementofthemsofarastosaythat“thestrongexpressionsjustherequotedfromsomeoftheBiblewriters,andevenfromourLordHimself,convincemethatthetheoryofverbalinspirationismostprobablytrue,”hehasonlysuchananswerasthefollowing:“Well,reader,youwillfindagoodmanythoughtfulpeopledisagreeingwithyou.Why?Because,whilefullyreceivingtheseargumentsasaproofofGod’sinspirationoftheBible,theyhavelookedalittlefurtherthanthesurfacetojudgehowmuchGod’sinspirationimplies,andtheycannotbelievefromtheirexaminationofScripturethatitimplieswhatisknownasverbalinspiration”(p.109).MarkSmythmeansby“verbalinspiration”thetheoryofmechanicaldictation.Butputtingthatasideasamanofstraw,whatitisdifficultforustounderstandishow“thoughtfulpeople”canframeatheoryofinspirationafteronlysuchshallowinvestigationoftheScripturaldoctrineofinspiration,andhow“thoughtfulpeople”canassigntheirinabilitytobelieveadoctrine,aninabilitybasedontheirownconceptionofwhatScriptureis,asanyproofthatthatdoctrineisnottaughtbythe“strongexpressions”oftheBiblewritersandtheLordHimself.IsitanymorerationalistictocorrecttheScripturaldoctrineoftheoriginoftheuniversefromourinvestigationsofthenatureofthings,thanitistocorrecttheScripturaldoctrineofinspirationfromourinvestigationsofthenatureofScripture?Ft160—Mag.ofChristianLit.,April,1892.Ft161—Op.cit.,p.5.Ft162—Op.cit.,p.240.Ft163—“LettertotheRevelationAndrewA.Bonar,D.D.”ByWilliamG.Blaikie,D.D.,LL.D.2ded.Edinburgh:Macniven&Wallace,1890.P.5.Ft164—ByRobertWatts,D.D.,LL.D.Edinburgh:R.W.Hunter,1890.P.30.Ft165—“DiscoursesOccasionedbytheInaugurationofBenj.B.Warfield,D.D.,totheChairofNewTestamentExegesisandLiteratureintheWestern

TheologicalSeminary,April25,1880.”Pittsburgh,1880.P.46.Cf.“Inspiration.”ByProf.A.A.HodgeandProf.B.B.Warfield.Philadelphia:PresbyterianBoardof:Publication,1881.Pp.7,8(alsoinThePresbyterianReviewforApril,1881).Also“TheInspirationoftheScriptures.”ByFrancisL.Patton,D.D.Philadelphia:PresbyterianBoardofPublication,1869.Pp.22,23,54.Ft166—TheCongregationalist,Nov.3,1892;TheMagazineofChristianLiterature,Dec.,1892,p.236,firstcolumn.Thiswholecolumnshouldberead;itsstatementandillustrationarealikeadmirable.Ft167—ThisaddressmaybemostconvenientlyconsultedinTheExpositorforOctober,1888,pp.301,302.InexpressingourconcurrencewithportionsofthisaddressandofDr.Fisher’spaperslustquoted,wearenottobeunderstood,ofcourse,asconcurringwiththeirwholecontents.Ft168—HowimportantandvaluablethiselementoftheChristianfaithis,itisnotthepurposeofthispapertopointout.Letitsufficeheretosaybrieflythatitis(1)theelementwhichgivesdetailedcertitudetothedeliveryofdoctrineintheNewTestament,and(2)theelementbywhichtheindividualChristianisbroughtintoimmediaterelationtoGodintherevelationoftruththroughtheprophetsandapostles.TheimportanceofthesefactorsintheChristianlifecouldnotbeoverstated.TheimportanceoftherecognitionofplenaryinspirationtothepreservationofsounddoctrineisnegativelyillustratedbytheprogressofRationalism,asthusoutlinedbrieflybyDr.CharlesHodge(“Syst.Theol.,”3:p.195):“ThosewhoadmittedthedivineoriginoftheScripturesgotridofitsdistinctivedoctrinesbytheadoptionofalowtheoryofinspirationandbytheapplicationofarbitraryprinciplesofinterpretation.InspirationwasinthefirstinstanceconfinedtothereligiousteachingsoftheBible,thentotheideasortruths,butnottotheforminwhichtheywerepresented,nortotheargumentsbywhichtheyweresupported.…Inthiswayawetspongewaspassedoverallthedoctrinesofredemptionandtheiroutlinesobliterated.”ItlooksasiftheChurchwereextremelyslowinreadingthemostobviouslessonsofhistory.Ft169—Wordsworth,“OntheCanon,”p.51,AmosEd.Ft170—“LifeoftheRt.Rev.S.Wilberforce,D.D.,”Vol.III.p.149.Ft171—“St.PaulandInspiration.”InauguralAddress,etc.A.D.F.Randolph&Co.,1892.P.52.PresbyterianandReformedReview,January,1893,p:21.Ft172—“SystematicTheology,”1:

pp.169,170:Wehavepurposelyadducedthispassageheretoenableustoprotestagainstthemisuseofit,which,intheexigenciesofthepresentcontroversy,hasbeenmade,asifDr.Hodgewasinthispassageadmittingtherealityoftheallegederrors.Thepassageoccursinthereplytoobjectionstothedoctrine,notinthedevelopmentofthedoctrineitself,andisofthenatureofanargumentumadhominem.HowfarDr.HodgewasfromadmittingtherealityoferrorintheoriginalBiblicaltextmaybeestimatedfromthefrequencywithwhichheassertsitsfreedomfromerrorintheimmediatelyprecedingcontext-pp.152,155,163(nolessthanthreetimesonthispage),165,166,169(nolessthanfivetimes).Ft173—FromThePresbyterianandReformedReview,v.XI,pp.89-130.Ft174—Thenoveltyoftheviewinquestionmustnotbepressedbeyondmeasure.Itwasanewviewinthesenseofthetext,but,asweshallsubsequentlysee,itwasnoinventionofProf.Cremer’s,butwasderivedbyhimfromEwald.Ft175—Thatisatleasttotheeighthedition(1895),whichisthelastwehaveseen.ThechiefdifferencesbetweentheHerzogand“Lexicon”articlesarefoundatthebeginningandend—thelatterbeingfulleratthebeginningandtheformerattheend.The“Lexicon”articleopensthus:qeo>pneustov,-on,giftedwithGod’sSpirit,breathingtheDivineSpirit(butnot,asWeissstillmaintains=inspiredbyGod.ThetermbelongsonlytoHellenisticandEcclesiasticalGreek,andaspeculiartheretoisconnectedwithexpressionsbelongingtothesphereofheathenprophecyandmysteries,qeof>rov,qeofo>rhtov,qeoforou>menov,qeh>latov,qeoki>nhtov,qeode>gmwn,qeode>ktwr,qeopro>pov,qeo>mantiv,qeo>frwn,qeofra>dmwn,qeofradh>v,e]qneov,ejjnqeousiasth>v,etal.,towhichHellenisticGreekaddstwonewwords,qeo/pneustojandqeodi/daktoj,without,however,denotingwhattheothersdo—anecstaticstate.”Thecentralcoreofthearticlethenrunsparallelinbothforms.Nothingisaddedinthe“Lexicon,”except(inthelatereditions)immediatelyafterthequotationsfromNonnusthissinglesentence:“ThisusageinNonnusshowsjustthatitisnottobetakenas=inspiratus,inspiredbyGodbutas=filledwithGod’sSpiritandthereforeradiatingit.”Thenfollowsimmediatelythenextsentence,preciselyasinHerzog,withwhichthe“Lexicon”articlethenrunsparalleltothequotationfromOrigen,immediatelyafterwhichitbreaksoff.Ft176—Thecontrastisbetween“göttlichbegeistet”and“göttlichbegeistert.”ThereferencetoEwaldisgiveninthe“Lexicon”:Jahrb.f.bibl.Wissenschaft,

7:68.seq.;9:91seq.Ft177—OfwhichthefactsgivenbyCremermayforthepresentbetakenasafairconspectus,onlyaddingthatthewordoccursnotonlyintheeditionsofPlutarch,“Deplac.phil.,”v.2,3,butalsointheprintedtextofthedependentdocumentprintedamongGalen’sworksunderthetitleof“Dehist.phil.,”106.Ft178—Cf.Mahaffy,“HistoryofGreekLiterature”(Americaned.),1:188,note1.Ft179—“TheJewishPeopleintheTimeofJesusChrist,”E.T.,II,3:286,whencetheaccountgiveninthetextisderived.Ft180—Seehis“GesammelteAbhandlungen,”editedbyUsenerin1885.Usener’sPrefaceshouldbealsoconsulted.Ft181—SoHarnack,“TheologischeLiteraturzeitung,”1885,No.7,p.160:also,J.R.Harris,“TheTeachingoftheApostlesandtheSibyllineBooks”(Cambridge,1888):bothgiveinternalevidencesoftheChristianoriginofthebook.Cf.whatwehavesaidinTheAndoverReviewforAugust,1886,p.219.Ft182—Oxford8voedition,1795-1830,Vol.IV,2:650.Ft183—AsbyDielsinhis“DoxographiGraci,”p.15:“fuitscilicetqeope>mptouv,quodserointellectumestaWyttenbachioinindicePlutarcheo.siGalenuminspexissit,ipsurailludqeope/mptoujinventuruserat.”ButDiels’presentationofGalenwasscarcelyopentoWyttenbach’sinspection:andtheeditionsthenextantreadqeopneu><>stouvasCorsinirightlytellsus.Ft184—“PlutarchidePhysicisPhilosophorumDecretis,”ed.Chr.DanielBeckius,Leipzig,1787.Ft185—Tübingen,1791-1804,Vol.XII(1800),p.467.Ft186—“PlutarchidePlacitisPhilosophorumLibb.v.”(Florentine,1750).Ft187—AveryclearaccountofDiels’mainconclusionsisgivenbyFranzSuscmihlinhis“GeschichtederGriechischenLiteraturinderAlexandrinerzeit”(Leipzig,18911892),2:pp.250,251,aswellasinBursian’sJahresberichtfor1881(VII,1:289seq.).AsomewhatlessflatteringnoticebyMaxHeinzeappearsinBursianfor1880,p.3seq.Cf.Gerke,subvoc.“Aëtios,”intheneweditionofPauly’s“RealEncyclopædie”(Wissowa’sed.,1894),I,1:705a.Ft188—Cf.theremarksofMaxHeinzeasabove.Ft189—Itwouldbepossibletohold,ofcourse,thatAthenagorasusednotthe[Pseudo?-]Plutarch,butthehypotheticalAëtios,ofwhichDielsconsiderstheformeranexcerpt:butDielsdoesnothimselfsojudge:“ancepsestquæstioutrumexcerpseritAthenagorasPlutarchiPlacitaanmaiusilludopus,cuiusillaestepitome,illudmihiprobatur,hocR.Volkmanno‘Leben

Plut.,’1:169.…”(p.51).Ft190—TherelationofthePseudo-Galentothe[Pseudo?-]PlutarchDielsexpressesthus:“AlterliberquoduceexgeneraliphysicorumtanquampromulsideadlargioremdapamGalenustraducitest‘PlutarchusdePlacidisphilosophorumphysicis.’Undecuminprioribuspaucasuspensamanuutcondimentumadspersasint(c.5,20,21),jama100:25adfinemPlutarchusitaregnat,nihilaliudutprætereaadscitumesseappareat…ergofœdioribusByzantiorumsoloecismisamputateshancpartemadcodicumfidemdescripsimus,nonnullisPlutarcheæemendationisauxilium,pluribusfortassehumanmperversitatisinsignetestimonium”(pp.252,253).Ft191—Plutarch’s,pp.267seq.;Galen’s,pp.595seq.Ft192—Plutarch’s“Ep.,”5:2,3(p.416);Galen’s“Hist.Philippians,”106(p.640).Ft193—ForBernardakisreadsqeopneu/stoujinhistext(Teubnerseries,Plutarch’s“Moralia,”v.351),recognizingatthesametimeinanotethatthereadingofGalenisqeope>mptouv.Ft194—InPauly’s“Real-Encyclopædie,”newed.,s.v.Ft195—Itisnotmeant,ofcourse,thatDielswasthefirsttodenythetracttoPlutarch.Ithasalwaysbeenundersuspicion.Wyttenbach,forexample,rejectsitsPlutarchianclaimwithdecision,andspeaksofthetractinatoneofstudiedcontempt,whichis,indeed,reflectedinthenotealreadyquotedfromhim,intheremarkthatwewouldnotbejustifiedinobtrudingeleganciesonamerecompiler.Cf.1:p.xli:“Porro,siquidhocest,spuriusliberutriusquenomineperperamferturidem,PlutarchiquidiciturDePhilosophorumPlacitis,GaleniHistoriaphilosophiæ.”Ft196—DielsdoesnotthinkhighlyofthisportionofKühn’sedition:“Kuehnius,quiprioribussuicorporisvoluminibusmanumsubindeadmovitquamvisparumfelicem,postremourgentitypothetæneinspectasquidemCharterianæplagulastypisdiscribendastradidissefertur,nequealiterexplicaripotest,quodeditioambitiosesusceptatammisereabsolutaest”(p.241,2).Ft197—ThoughDielsinformsusthattheeditorshavemadeverylittleefforttoascertainthereadingsoftheMSS.Ft198—“Exarchetypohaudvetustoeodemquemendosissimoquattuorexemplatranscriptaesse,acfideliusquidemLaur.A,peritiussedinterpolateLaur.B.”(p.241).Ft199—Diels’languageis:“dolendumsaneestlibricondicionemtamessedesperatamutetiamPlutarcheoarchetypecomparatohaudsemelplaneincertushæreas,quidsibivelitcompilator”(p.12).Ft200—“Verumquamvissitsummaopuscautioneneventosinebuloniscommentaprosinceramemoriaamplexemur,inesttamenin

Galenooptimarumlectionumproneintactusthesaurus”(p.13).Ft201—“Codicesmanuscriptiquotquotnotisuntexarchetypecircamillesimumannumscriptodeductisunt”(p.33).“duoautemsuntrecensendiPlutarchiinstrumenta…unumrecentiusexcodicispetendum,interquosABCarchetypeproximosexceterorumturbasegregavi…alterumgenusestexcerptorum…”(p.42).Ft202—ThereadingsofAaredrawnfromacollationofitwiththeFrankforteditionof1620publishedbyC.F.Matthæiinhis“LectionesMosquenses.”Inanumberofimportantreadings,theMS.hasbeenreinspectedforDielsbyVoelkelwiththeresultofthrowingsomedoubtonthecompletenessofMatthæi’scollation.AccordinglytheMS.iscitedinparenthesiswheneveritiscitedesilentio(seeDiels,p.33).Ft203—Thegeneraluseofqeo>pemptovisillustratedintheLexicons,bythecitationofArist.,“Ethic.Nic.,”1:9,3,wherehappinessisspokenofasqeopneu>stouvincontrasttotheattainmentofvirtueineffort;Longinus,100:34,wherewereadofqeo>pempta>tinadwrh>matainxontrastwithajnqrw>pina;Themist,“Or.”13,p.178D,where50.oJQ.neani>ovisfound;Dion.Hal.,T.14.LiddellandScottquoteforthesecondarysenseof“extraordinary,”Longus,3,18;Artem.,1:7.Ft204—Arist.,dedivinat,2p.463b13:o[lwvdjejpei<kai<tw~na]llwnzw>wnojnrirw>tteitina<,qeo>pemptame<noujka]nei]hta<ejnu>pni>a,tou>toca>rin,diamo>niame>toi’hJga<rfu>sivdiamoni>a.a]lljouj.Ft205—Cf.Philo’stractperi<tou~qeope>mptouvei]naitou>vojnei>rouv(Mangey.,1:620).Itsopeningwordsrun(Yonge’stranslation,2:292):“Thetreatisebeforethisonehascontainedouropinionsastothoseoftw~nojnei>rwnqeope>mptwnclassedinthefirstspecies…whicharedefinedasdreamsinwhichtheDeitysendstheappearancesbeheldindreamsaccordingtohisownsuggestion(to<qei~onkata<th<niJdi>anujpobolh<vta<vejnu]pnoivejpipr.m[einfantasi>av),”whereasthislatertreatiseistodiscussthesecondspeciesofdreams,inwhich,“ourmindbeingmovedalongwiththatoftheuniverse,hasseemedtobehurriedawayfromitselfandtobeGod-borne(qeoforei~sqai)soastobecapableofpreapprehensionandforeknowledgeofthefuture.”Cf.also§22,th~vqeope>mptwnfantasi>sn:§33,qeope>mptouvojnei>rouv:2:§1,th~vqeope>mptwnojnei>rwn.ThesuperficialparallelismofPhilowithwhatiscitedfromHerophilusiscloseenoughfullytoaccountforascribeharkingbacktoPhilo’slanguage—orevenforthecompilerofthePseudoGalendoingso.Ft206—

“ClementineHomilies,”17:15:“AndSimonsaid:‘Ifyoumaintainthatapparitionsdonotalwaysrevealthetruth,yetforallthatvisionsanddreams,beingGod-sent(ta<oJra>matakai<ta<ejnu>pniaqeo>pemptao]ntaoujyeu>detai)donotspeakfalselyinregardtothosematterswhichtheywishtotell.’AndPetersaid:‘Youwererightinsayingthat,beingGod-sent,theydonotspeakfalsely(qeo>pemptao]ntaoujyeu>detai.ButitisuncertainifhewhoseeshasseenaGod-sentdream(eijoJiJd<nqeo>pemptonejw>rakeno]neiron).”Whathascometothe“ClementineHomilies”issurelyalreadyaChristiancommonplace.Ft207—TheimmediatelyprecedingparagraphinthePseudo-Galen(§105),correspondingwith[Pseudo?-]Plutarch,5:1:1,2.3iseditedbyDielsthus:Pla>twnkai<oi*Stwikoi<th<nmanikh<neijsagousi:kai<ga<rqeo>pemptonei+nai,o[perejsti<nejnqeastiko<nkai<kata<ta<th~vyuch~v,o[perejsti<nejnqousiastoko>n,kai<to<ojneiropulikp<nto<ajstronomiko<nkai<to<ojrneoskopiko>n.X-Xenofa>nhvkai<jEpi>kourovajnairou~vth<nmantikh>n.Puqago>ravde>mo>nonto<oujkrjgkri>nei.jAristote>lhvkai<Dikai>arcovtou<vojnei>rouveijsa>gousin,ajqa>natonme>nth<nyuch<noujnomi>zontev,qei>oude>tinovmete>.thesxribeorxompilerwhoxouldtransmutethesextionper<mantikh~vinthe[Pseudo?-]Plutarchintothis,withitsintrudedqeo>pemptonbeforehimanditsallusiontoAristotleondreams,mightbecreditedwithoutmuchrashnesswiththeintrusionofqeope/mptoujintothenextsection.Ft208—Cf.ingeneralE.Thrämer.HastingsERE,VI,p.542.Ft209—ItisdulyrecordedinBoeckh,“CorpusInscript.Græca,”4700b.(Add.iii).ItisalsoprintedbyKaibel,“EpigrammataGræca”(Berlin,1878),p.428,butnotasaChristianinscription,butundertheheadof“Epigrammatadedicatoria:V.proscynemata.”Ft210—Porphyry:“Ant.Nymph.,”116:hJgou~ntoga<rprosiza>neintw~|u[datita<vyuca<vqwopneo>w|o[nti,w[vfhsinoJNoumh>niov:dia<tou~tole>gwnkai<to<nprofh>thneijrhke>nai,ejmfe>resqaiejpa>notou~u[datovpneu~ma—apassageremarkableforcontaininganappealtoMoses(Gen1:5)byaheathensage.“Godbreathedwater”isrenderedbyHolstenius:“aquæquædivinospiritufoveretur”;byGesnerus:“aquædivinitusaffiatæ”;byThomasTaylor:“waterwhichisinspiredbydivinity.”Pisid.“Hexæm.,”1489:hJqeo>pnouvajkro>>thv(quoted

unverifiedfromHase-Dindorf’sStephens).TheChristianusageisillustratedbythefollowingcitations,takenfromSophocles:HermesTris.,“Poem,”17.14:th~va]lhqeiv;AnastasiusofSinai,Migne,89.1169A:ThosewhodonothavetheloveofGod,“these,havingadiabolicalwillanddoingthedesiresoftheirflesh,paraitou~ntaiwJvponhro<nto<qeo>moion,kai<qeo>ktiston,kai<qeo>moionth~vnoera~vqeocara>ktouhJmw~nyuch~voJmologei~nejnCristw~|,kai<th<naujth~vkai<sustatikh<nqeo>pnounejne>rgeian.”Ft211—pneumatofo>rovandpneumatoforei~sqaiarepre-ChristianJewishwords,alreadyusedintheLXX.(<280907>Hosea9:7,<360304>Zephaniah3:4,<240224>Jeremiah2:24).Compoundsofqeo>vfoundintheLXX.areqeo>ktistov,IIMacc.6:23;qeomacei~n,IIMacc.7:19[qeoma>covSm.,<182605>Job26:5,etal.];qeose>beiaa,<012011>Genesis20:11etal.;qeosebh>j<021821>Exodus18:21etal.Ft212—Noderivativeofcristo>vexceptcristiano>visfoundintheNewTestament.ThecompoundsarepurelyPatristic.SeeLightfoot’snoteonIgnatius,Ephesiansix;PhilippiansviiiandthenoteinMigne’s“Pat.Græc.,”11:1861,atAdamantii“Dialogusderectafide,”§5.Ft213—IntheHase-DindorfStephens,sub-voc.qeo/pneustoj,thepassage,fromthe[Pseudo?-]Plutarchisgivenwithinsquarebracketsinthisform:[“Plut.Mor.p.904F:tou<vojnei>rouvtou<vqeoplou>touv].”Whatistobemadeofthisnewreading,wedonotknow.Onewonderswhetheritisanewconjectureoramisprint.Noearlierreferenceisgivenforqeoplou/toujinthe“Thesaurus”thanChrysostom:“ItaJobumappellatJo.Chrystom,Vol.iv,p.297,Suicer.”SophoclescitesalsoAnast.Sinai.fortheword:HexæmeronXIIadfin.(Migne,1076D.,Vol.89):o[pwvtou~tokatabalw<nejntai~vyucai~vtrapezisw~nsw~na]rjrJwnsedijaujtw~nth<nqeo>ploutonkataplouth>sw.Ft214—SoitmaybeconfidentlyinferredfromthesummaryofwhatweknowofHerophilusgiveninSusemihl’s“GeschichtederGriechisch.Literaturind.Alexandrinerzeit,”Vol.i,p.792,orfromMarx’s“DeHerophili...vitascriptisatqueinmedicinamentis”(Göttingen,1840),p.38.InbothcasesHerophilus’doctrineofdreamsisgatheredsolelyfromourexcerpts—inthecaseofSusemihlfrom“Aëtius”andinthecaseofMarxprimarilyfromGalenwiththesupportofPlutarch.Ft215—Loc.cit.Ft216—Inthecommontextthepassagegoesontotellusofthedreamsofmixednature,i.e.,presumablypartlydivineandpartlyhumaninorigin.Butthe

ideaitselfseemsincongruousandthedescriptiondoesnotverywellfitthecategory.Diels,therefore,conjecturespneumatikou>vinitsplaceinwhichcasetherearethreecategoriesintheenumeration:Theopneustic,physical(i.e.,theproductoftheyuxh/orlowernature),andpneumatic,ortheproductofthehighernature.ThewholepassageinDiels’recensionrunsasfollows:Aët.‘Plac.,’p.416(PseudoPlut.,5:2,3)(Hro>filovtw~nojneirontou<vme<nqeope>mptouvkatjajna>gkhngi>nesqai>,tou<vde<fusikou<vajneidwlopoioume>nhvyuch~vo<sumfe>ronaujth~|kai<to<pa>ntwvejso>menon,tou<vde<sugkramatikoi<v[pneumatikou<v?Diels,butthisisscarcelytherightcorrection,el.Susemihl,“Gesch.d.Gr.Lit.,”etc.1:792][ejktou~aujtoma>tou]katjeijdw>lwnpro>sptwsin,o[tana[boulo>meqable>pwmen,wJvejpi<tw~nta<veJrwme>navoJrw>ntwnejnu[pnw|.Ft217—V.308seq.Thefulltext,inRzach’sedition,runs:Ku>mhdjhJmwrh<su<nna>masinoi+vqeopneu>stoivjEnpala>maivajle>wnajndrw~najdi>kwnkai<ajqe>smwnjRifqei~sjoujke[titi>ssonejsaijqe>rarJn~maprodw>sei:jAlla<menei~nekrh<ejni>na>masikumai>oisin.Ft218—Strabo,“RerumGeographicarum,”liberxiii,3:6,pp.622,623(Amsterdamed.,1707,p.924).AgoodsummarymaybereadinSmith’s“DictionaryofGreekandRomanGeography,”1:724,725.Ft219—Alexandretranslates“plenisnuminelymphis”;Dr.Terry,“inspiredstreams.”Ft220—SoHerodotusobserves(i,157).Ft221—V.408seq.InRzach’stextthelinesrun:Oujga<rajkhde<stwvaijnei~qeo<nejxajfanou~vgh~voujde<pe>trnhpoi>hsesofo<vte>kywnpara<tou>touvoujcruso<nko>smouajpa>thnyucw~ntjejssba>sqn,ajlla<me<gangeneth~raqeo<npa>ntwnqeopneu>stwnejnqusi>aive>ge>rairjaJgi>aivkalai~vqjejkato>mbav.Ft222—Inthissecondedition,Dr.Terryhasalteredthisto“TheMightyFather,GodofallthingsGodinspired”:butthisscarcelyseemsanimprovement.Ft223—oujdejfobhqei<vajqa>natongeneth~raqeo<npa>ntwnajnqrw>pwne]qelevtima~n.RzachcomparesalsoXenophon.“Fragm.,”1:1,M.,eijvqeo<ve]nteqeoi+sikai<ajnqrw>poisime>gistov:Ft224—Terry,Ed.2:“theimmortalFather,Godofallmankind.”Ft225—RecensionA,chap.20:p.103,ed.James.Ft226—NonniPanopolitani“ParaphrasisinJoannem”(i.27),inMigne,43:753:Kai<ojpi>sterovo[stiniiJka>neiSh>meronuJmei>wnme>sovi[statai,ou=podo<va]krou,jAndrome>hnpala>mhnoujka]xio>veijmipela>sav,Lu~saimou~noniiJma>ntaqeopneu>stoiopedi>lou.Ft227—

Op.cit.,p.756.Ft228—ItisgiveninKaibel’s“EpigrammataGræca,”p.477.WaddingtonsupposesthepersonmeanttobeacertainArchbishopofBostra,ofdate457-474,anopponentofOrigenism,whoiscommemoratedintheGreekChurchonJune13.Theinscriptionrunsasfollows:Do>xhv]ojrqoto>[[n]outami>hvkai<uJpe>rmacovejsqlo>vajrciereu<vqeo>pneustotejdei>matoka>llova]metronjAnti>patr]o[v]kluto>mhtivajeqlofo>rouvmetjajgw~nav,ku[d<]aijnwnmega>lwvqeomh>toraparqe>nonaJgnh>nMari>anpolu>umnon,ajkh>ratonajglao>dwron:Ft229—Wetsteincitestheexpressionasapplied(where,hedoesnotsay)to“MarcusÆgyptus,”bywhichhemeans,wesuppose,MarcusofScetis,mentionedbySozomen,H.E.,6:29,andNicephorusCallistus,H.E.,11:35.Dr.CremertransmutesthedesignationintoMarcusEremita,whoismentionedbyNicephorusCallistus,H.E.,14:30,54,andwhosewritingsarecollectedinMigne,65:905seq.Thetwoareoftenidentified,butareseparatelyenteredinSmithandWace.Ft230—ThatisdoubtlesstheJewishteachertowhomheelsewhererefers,as,e.g.,“DePrincipiis,”4:20(Ante-NiceneLibrary,N.Y.ed.,4:375),wherethesamegeneralsubjectisdiscussed.Ft231—“Jahrb.f.bibl.Wissenschaft,”7:114.Ft232—Inanoteonp.89,Ewaldaddsastoqee>pneustovthatitiscertainlytruethatsuchcompoundsarenotcommon,andthatthisparticularonedoesnotoccur:butthattheyarepossibleisshownbytheoccurrenceofsuchexamplesasqeo>pneustov:qeokataskeu>astov,inwhichtheprepositionoccurs:anddemLautenach,theformationislikeqeh>latov.Thereseemstobenoreason,wemayadd,why,ifitWereneeded,weshouldnothavehadaqee>mpneustovbythesideofqeo>pneustov,justasbythesideofpneumatofo>rovwehavepneumate>mforov(“EtymologicumMagnum,”677,28;JohnofDamascus,inMigne,96,837c.JH?seprofhtw~npneumate>mforonsto>ma.Ft233—Fornotevenqee>mpne>wwouldproperlysignify“breatheinto”butrather“breathein,”“inhale.”Itisbyasomewhatillogicalextensionofmeaningthattheverbanditsderivatives(e]mpneusiv,e]mpnoia)areusedinthetheologicalsenseof“inspiration,”inwhichsensetheydonotoccur,however,eitherintheLXX.ortheNewTestament.IntheLXX.e]mpneusivmeansa“blast,”a“blowing”(<191715>Psalm17:15(18.);cf.theparticipleejmpne>wn,<440901>Acts9:1);e]mpnouv,“living,”“breathing”(2Macc.7:5,14:45);andtheparticipleejmpne>on,“every

living,breathingthing”(<052016>Deuteronomy20:16;<061028>Joshua10:28,30,35,37,39,40;11:14;Wisd.15:11).jEispne>wisproperlyusedbytheclassicsinthesenseof“breathinginto,”“inspiring”:itisnotfoundinitselforderivativesinLXX.ortheNewTestament—thoughitoccursinAq.at<020105>Exodus1:5.Howeasilyandinwhatafullsense,however,ejmpne>wisusedbyecclesiasticalwritersfor“inspire”maybenotedfromsuchexamplesasIgn.“adMag.,”8:“Forthedivine(qeio>tatoi)prophetslivedafterChrist;forthiscausealsotheywerepersecuted,beinginspiredbyHisgrace(ejmpneo>menoiuJpo<th~vca>ritovaujtou~)forthefullpersuasionofthosethataredisobedient.”Theoph.ofAntioch,“ad.Autol.,”2:9:“ButthemenofGod,pneumatofo>roioftheHolyGhost,andbecomingprophetsuJpjaujtou~tou~qeou~ejmpneusqe>ntevkai<sofisqe>ntev,becameqeodi>daktoiandholyandrighteous.”Themostnaturaltermfor“inspired”inclassicGreekonewouldbeapttothink,wouldbee]nqeov(e]nqouv),withto<e]nqeonfor“inspiration”;andafterit,participialorotherderivativesofejnqousia>zw:butbotheijspne>wandejmpne>wwereusedforthe“inspiration”thatconsistedof“breathinginto”eveninprofaneGreek.Ft234—P.88.Ft235—“GeschichtedesVolkesIsrael,”6:245,note.Ft236—“Jahrb.f.bibl.Wissenschaft,”9:91.Ft237—Sec.16,2,p.135.Cf.Thayer’sWiner,p.96;Moulton’s,p.120.AlsoThayer’sButtmann,p.190.ThebestliteratureofthesubjectwillbefoundadducedbyWiner.Ft238—Compoundsof-pneustovdonotappeartobeverycommon.LiddellandScott(ed.6)donotrecordeitherajna>-ordia.>orejpi>oreveneu];thoughthecognatesarerecorded,andfurthercompoundspresupposingthem.Therareworde]upneustovmightequallywellexpress“breathing-well”