we if Maney ae 18 CM Ae ee ae “a lies ‘ Cane EE Me MN Cee a leer. asia Pc hemes ‘ J . See. Fi acs WM Abe ee] wld =. ee 4 tna i nin foa8 ii ted a a A ‘ . RH AL és ESS MA tis Nabashal BE beige : 4 NLD Ao fi \ i wet ; A om ‘ a eBay BWR Rs teres 1s Seti Wavirts inna ant od PRI aa @ “EoLocicat sew” BS 4-80 W277 copy 5 e\ ri . Le am a)' { at » o] ye ” i i? Me a’? we Cee a) A sry ; i eo : #, oF a ; } J i U i aioe Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2021 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/revelationinspirOOwart /. j “ow REVELATION AND INSPIRATION BY / V BENJAMIN BRECKINRIDGE WARFIELD Professor of Didactic and Polemic Theology an the Theological Seminary of Princeton New Jersey, 1887-1921 NEW YORK OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS AMERICAN BRANCH: 35 West 32npD STREET LONDON, TORONTO, MELBOURNE & BOMBAY ERE PIO COPYRIGHT, 1927, By Oxrorp UNIVERSITY PREss AMERICAN BRANCH Copy S. PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA aep ze) Sine} ine) oS taeh tae ERRATA . 19, lines 27-28, read (7 ox, n?’'um Yahweh). . 127, note 19, read omgen. . 184, line 8, read év. . 201, note 51, read és. . 369, line 1, read rotrwr. . 379, line 34, read 45:7. ee er a) 4 PREFATORY NOTE Rev. BENJAMIN BRECKINRIDGE WARFIELD, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Didactic and Polemic Theology in the Theological Seminary of the Presbyterian Church at Princeton, New Jersey, provided in his will for the collection and publication of the numerous articles on theological subjects contained in encyclopaedias, reviews and other periodicals, and appointed a committee to edit and publish these papers. In pursuance of his instructions, this, the first volume containing his articles on Revelation and Inspiration, has been prepared under the edi- torial direction of this committee. The contents of the succeeding volumes will be as follows: the articles on certain great Biblical doctrines, the critical ar- ticles on the Person of Christ, those on historical theology, on Perfectionism, articles on miscellaneous theological subjects, and the more important book reviews. It is proposed to publish these volumes in as rapid succes- sion as possible. The generous permission to publish articles contained in this volume is gratefully acknowledged as follows: The Howard-Severance Co. for the articles taken from the Inter- national Standard Encyclopaedia, and D. Appleton & Co. for an article taken from the Universal Cyclopedia and Atlas. The clerical preparation of this volume has been done by Miss Letitia N. Gosman, to whom the thanks of the committee are hereby expressed. ETHELBERT D. WARFIELD WILLIAM ParK ARMSTRONG Caspar Wistar Hopcer Committee. ill BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF BENJAMIN BRECKINRIDGE WARFIELD BENJAMIN BRECKINRIDGE WARFIELD was born at “ Gras- mere ” near Lexington, Kentucky, November 5, 1851. His father, William Warfield, descended in the paternal line from a body of south of England puritans who were ex- pelled from Virginia by Governor Berkeley when they refused to accept his proclamation of Charles II as king. They were given a refuge by the Roman Catholic colony of Maryland and settled at Annapolis and South River. On the maternal line he was descended from Scotch-Irish families who first settled in the Cumberland Valley in Pennsylvania. His mother, Mary Cabell Breckinridge, was the daughter of Rev. Robert Jefferson Breckinridge, D.D., LL.D., distin- guished as a preacher, Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, president of Jefferson College, Penn- sylvania, founder and president of the Theological Seminary at Danville, Kentucky, editor of the Spirit of the Nineteenth Century and the Danville (Kentucky) Review, ardent advo- cate of the emancipation of the slaves and of the maintenance of the Union, temporary chairman of the Republican Conven- tion of 1864 which renominated Abraham Lincoln, and author of a system of theology entitled ‘“ The Knowledge of God Ob- jectively and Subjectively Considered.” Her mother, Sophon- isba Preston, daughter of General Francis Preston of Virginia, belonged to one of the most vital stocks of the great Ulster immigration which settled the up-country of Virginia. To all of these people the political, educational and religious prob- lems of the new country were of tremendous significance and the subject of fervid discussion and at times heated con- troversy. Benjamin Warfield attended private schools in Lexington; and received his preparation chiefly from Lewis Barbour, after- Vv vil BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH wards professor of mathematics in Central University, and James K. Patterson, afterwards president of the State College of Kentucky. He entered the sophomore class of the College of New Jersey at Princeton in the autumn of 1868 and graduated with the highest honors of his class in 1871, when only nine- teen years of age. He won the Thompson prize for the highest rank in the junior year, and prizes for essay and debate in the American Whig Society, and was one of the editors of the Nassau Literary Magazine. His early tastes were strongly scientific. He collected birds’ egos, butterflies and moths, and geological specimens; studied the fauna and flora of his neighborhood; read Darwin’s newly published books with enthusiasm; and counted Audubon’s works on American birds and mammals his chief treasure. He was so certain that he was to follow a scientific career that he strenuously objected to studying Greek. But youthful objec- tions had little effect in a household where the shorter cate- chism was ordinarily completed in the sixth year, followed at once by the proofs from the Scriptures, and then by the larger catechism, with an appropriate amount of Scripture memo- rized in regular course each Sabbath afternoon. His special interests in college were mathematics and phys- ics, in which he obtained perfect marks. He intended to seek the fellowship in experimental science, but was dissuaded by his father on the plea that he did not need the stipend in order to pursue graduate studies and it would be better for him to spend some time in Europe without being bound to any par- ticular course of study. His departure was delayed by family illness and he did not sail until February, 1872. After spending some time in Edin- burgh he went to Heidelberg, and writing from there in mid- summer he announced his decision to enter the Christian min- istry. He had early made a profession of faith and united with the Second Presbyterian Church in Lexington, but no serious purpose of studying theology had ever been expressed by him. The atmosphere of his home was one of vital piety, and his mother constantly spoke of her hope that her sons might be- BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Vil come preachers of the Gospel, but with the inheritance of the intellectual gifts of his mother’s family he combined the reti- cence with regard to personal matters which was characteristic of his father. His decision was, therefore, a surprise to his fam- ily and most intimate friends. In September, 1873, he entered the Theological Seminary of the Presbyterian Church at Princeton, and was graduated in May, 1876. He was licensed to preach by the Presbytery of Ebenezer (Kentucky) in 1875, was stated supply and received a call to the pastorate of the First Presbyterian Church of Day- ton, Ohio, in the summer of 1876. But he decided to go abroad for further study. On August 8rd he was married to Miss Annie Pearce Kinkead, and soon after sailed for Europe, studying the following winter at Leipsic. In the course of the year he was offered an appointment in the Old Testament Department at the Western Theological Seminary, but his mind, despite his early reluctance to the study of Greek, had already turned to the New Testament field. Returning in the late summer, he was for a time assistant pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Baltimore. Accept- ing a call to become instructor in New Testament Language and Literature at the Western Theological Seminary, Alle- gheny, Pennsylvania, he entered upon his duties in September, 1878. The following year he was appointed professor and was ordained. He had already attracted attention by the first of his scholarly publications and in 1880 the degree of Doctor of Di- vinity was conferred upon him by the College of New Jersey. The nine years he spent at the Western Theological Semi- nary were busy years of teaching and study and productive scholarship. In them he won a reputation as a teacher and exe- gete rarely attained by so young a man. When upon the death of Dr. Archibald Alexander Hodge in the autumn of 1886 he was called to succeed him in the historic Chair of Theology at Princeton many of his friends questioned the wisdom of a change. But recalling that Dr. Charles Hodge had been first a New Testament student and always a prince of exegetes, he determined to accept the call. vill BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH The years spent at Allegheny, useful and fruitful as they were, were years of training and preparation for the more than thirty-three years (1887—February, 1921) spent in the profes- sorship at Princeton. Always deeply attached to the place, lov- ing with an enthusiastic devotion the University and the Seminary, which he counted in very truth his almae matres, he venerated as only a pure and unselfish spirit can the great men and the hallowed memories which have made Princeton one of the notable seats of theological scholarship. His reverence for those who had taught him was equalled by his admiration of his colleagues, and the love which he delighted to express for those who had taught him was constantly reproduced in his affection for his younger colleagues and the successive classes of students who thronged his classrooms. It may be that a certain intellectual austerity, a loftiness and aloofness from the common weaknesses of the human rea- son, are inseparable from the system of thought which is asso- ciated with the names of Calvin and Augustine and Paul, but it is never really incarnated in a great thinker without its in- evitable counterpoise of the tenderest human sympathies. In Benjamin Warfield such sympathies found expression in a love for men, and especially of children, in a heart open to every ap- peal, and a strong, if undemonstrative, support of such causes as home and foreign missions and especially of the work for the freedmen. Always a diligent student, he also read widely over an unusual range of general literature, including poetry, fiction and drama, and often drew illustrations from the most unexpected sources. He appreciated in a very high degree the value of an organ for the discussion of the theological questions of his time. In 1889 he became one of the editors of the Presbyterian Review in succession to Dr. Francis L. Patton. When that review was discontinued he planned and for twelve years conducted the Presbyterian and Reformed Review, which in 1902 was taken over by the Faculty of Princeton Theological Seminary and renamed the Princeton Theological Review. In these reviews was published a large part of the material BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 1x gathered into this and succeeding volumes. Other portions are taken from various encyclopaedias and dictionaries, reviews, magazines and other publications to which he was a frequent contributor. He also published the following volumes: “ Intro- duction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament ” (1886) ; “ On the Revision of the Confession of Faith ” (1890) ; “The Gospel of the Incarnation ” (1893) ; “ Two Studies in the History of Doctrine ” (1893) ; ‘ The Right of Systematic The- ology ” (1897); ‘ The Significance of the Westminster Stand- ards”’ (1898); ‘“‘ Acts and Pastoral Epistles” (1902); ‘ The Power of God Unto Salvation ” (1903) ; ‘The Lord of Glory ” (1907); “Calvin as a Theologian and Calvinism Today ” (1909); ““ Hymns and Religious Verses” (1910); ‘‘ The Sav- iour of the World ” (1914); “ The Plan of Salvation ” (1915) ; “Faith and Life” (1916) ; “ Counterfeit Miracles ” (1918). He received from the College of New Jersey the degree of Doctor of Divinity in 1880; that of Doctor of Laws in 1892; and that of Doctor of Laws from Davidson College in 1892; that of Doctor of Letters from Lafayette College in 1911; and that of Sacrae Theologiae Doctor from the University of Utrecht in 1918. He was stricken with angina pectoris on December 24, 1920, and died on February 16, 1921, at Princeton. E. D. W. 7 Me x _ an st) ea ae ot iv Foe a4 a ‘ e . - pal “ Gas, ic - jis vee; i , , fi a mii ht aati asia ee bi j a) ' ‘ Uva 7A 4) a) f ie i nie, ey ual re Py ‘oly ; AS \ ye i ¥ 7 ¥ i . : Mai :. vy 7 By Fe ag } ay ve t ake eh 4 4: ‘ ,) M A ms : ¢ ‘ wa ' , ¢ ‘ ' ; U } ” th ey 7 ha 4 .} mh Nia ru rt We ma, : ai aim) ‘ r : [ A ‘ f net if f 5 : Ft } 44 atu a wre \ ‘ +s a ae Ri I eh jk eo iyo) ais ae pl : cyt be 7 “tl vie ee Hy Ys sini es! e 7 us ve he: ; eA: WM f Baerni iy at ae yt } " } yey , aie e ve vs, : ae , ida Sabie sy i ie i oe ; ane ei vs 1am ‘ kee Pid Mins a hy i ary | ) ny y : { ST 4 ‘wie the area be, A Ls ‘ ad a Cote aie Mele ly othe pride’ ifti LA i hea ; ys 4 ' a ee ( a) ‘ La phe a Bo gS ee a we ath a te aa H AN : Ne au el a mais Lal ‘ uy (7 ne ee = j/ } : a Kr NA A, ay Y ea, , : ae ba es Mt se Re aS ead eit ee ORME Coote act ots.) wi es ’ " o ; Low So ey nid bye at fo | : hy ; ") th ae eaten ea { ‘ i f ze y Ate a J Pnee * A i * oy oy 1 ( mAs va - é v- Cran 4. sna CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE ie ee OTBUICATL DEA OFZ NEVELATION |. v.niine ake 3 Il. Tue Ipna or REVELATION AND THEORIES OF EGE BIA O Napisy har Bereta co) 10) ec eG OF Til. Tum INSPIRATION oF THE BIBLE ............. ot TV. Tre Brericat Ipea or INSPIRATION ........... 77 V. “Scripture,” “ THe Scriptures,’ In tHe New PES TAM NTN do ter icaei ie (ieciitz. Sek Rae tm Hee 115 VI. Tue Reat PRoBLEM oF INSPIRATION .......... 169 Vie ss ODSINSRIRED) SCRIPTURE (20) ieee iin ae, 229 VIII. “IvSays: ” “Scrrprurs Says: ’”“ Gop Says” .. 283- TEX ent e ORACLHS OF: GOD 22) ck). ioe oon XSePLNSPIRATION. AND: CRITICIGM¥ minis eye ereien tak 395 APPENDIX Ty Loe Divine, ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE... 6.4208 c. 429, II. THe Canon oF THE NEW TESTAMENT ........ 451 xl ma ies Wis ( x Rise he? nf vis WEAR rt i 1 ; ; ; are | Mag a is med i ny . es : ~ ) ; ; = al | ait n wit) fe ‘¢ , | ft yf , 6 i ee be | ’ he ‘ia, THN uaa eee ls Lh Ota E gk a ea a Ve ba ns ae y aa i. a, oat: ’ : A 7 al ji mie | io ve vy . "h 7 ye 4 ») iy J Why yt oh LP Sih bance ae ; x Fy ‘9 a : ee, hk AAA eC ‘Nap . Gee A ota, : sy ‘ i ; j vil ‘ f, a’ C it it : ! { A ‘oy ‘ 4 i a ‘ : t : : : ait i . ’ J ry r a” 4 i . rl ‘ 0 : 4 - 5s a d ‘ ion i! ’ : -* Ms . h ia f i te \ . ‘ , 4 ' ' a , & ; iy 7 Wer ; ae / Tha i) ait AAe ag ; n 1 Rouge ‘ ; oy 7 ’ q , 7 i - RY eit sir} "> ¥ ie , 7 2 in@ : “ra = 0 pe» \ , are ao « - - ms i re a tS } lie SUP?) ee ae we R amas ‘ ve Fi 7 ren | r T : 7 7 7 a : i‘ ; * oo ae a LNs Ai 7 7 i i ij in rary i 7) 7 ; J Fl ' dine me ses t ee er ras ‘oh Ari ci . pu oe aay OTHER ARTICLES ON INSPIRATION AND I. 1 III. VE Vie VI. VII. THE BIBLE Apologetical Value of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. (Presb. Rev., V. I, 1880, pp. 57-84.) Syllabus of the Canon of the New Testament in the Second Century. 91 pp. Pittsburgh, 1881. The Canonicity of Second Peter. (Southern Presb. Rev., V. XXXII, 1882, pp. 45-75.) Dr. Edwin A. Abbott on the Genuineness of Second Peter. (Southern Presb. Rev., V. XXXIV, 1888, pp. 390-445. ) The Descriptive Names Applied to the New Testament Books by the Earliest Christian Writers. (Bibliotheca Sacra, V. XLII, 1885, pp. 545-564.) The Christian Canon. (The Philadelphian, V. I, 1887, pp. 300-304. ) . Paul’s Doctrine of the Old Testament. (Presb. Quar- terly, V. III, 1889, pp. 389-406. ) The Present Problem of Inspiration. (The Homiletic Rev., V. X XI, 1891, pp. 410-416.) Xlil @ Pi ai ve > pw y 5 Ley : Wy qe 0 a ‘hee 7 at ytd Mice : 1) Veo prey? > vig i yr. °" 4 ¢ ’ > cial \ » , ‘ ‘ ay + ‘A " bik [ ‘ > 2. Y AL 0 ihe b q ) sd a . , ; m8 . TN sf wand! 7 i Fe va | j i [ T , y) j a? ril j ' ‘ 4 i A ‘; Daas + i) { ' \ 7 “4 - mo ; : Sy ; 4 * . id ’ a iA, ¢ ‘ r i ae r id % itso vi nc SY EPR eee ae | Lf / iy . ae "1 rar > \ day’ * , * a ¢ 4 i in pi Wer ay nr eh f heey i Af ie i Ye > PSE ROers 5 s Nad dha’ ey j wi, ; , -, rye: Owe - i. a Lr 7 Pe amet i re Te Wcrph WE st ei Aa Sh LN tL yO) Coe Re ee eet RN i , ‘ He vi Fi ; ae mA) mM} \™ ie ot ¥ ; oe i rio ia ae he 0 ar Beet: et oe ‘ i iy ut rf Ay NEN 8 ta md ha a a Sain, pi eel Tee ca OS TY ERIN oo Ay ’ j 7 ap Kod *) ote gta te ee, ] cir I THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF REVELATION wa > } d ¥ rit _ % aye . ‘ i vie LY TAA: ~ 9, Wt hie : ; 1 4 j a ¢ i A i a ye ‘ @ 4d J = 3s gyi Ua 4 nS pee: THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF REVELATION * I. Tue Nature or REVELATION Tuereligion of the Bible is a frankly supernatural religion. ~~ By this is not meant merely that, according to it, all men, as creatures, live, move and have their being in God. It is meant that, according to it, God has intervened extraordinarily, in the course of the sinful world’s development, for the salvation of men otherwise lost. In Eden the Lord God had been present with sinless man in such a sense as to form a distinct element in his social environment (Gen. iii. 8). This intimate associa- tion was broken up by the Fall. But God did not therefore withdraw Himself from concernment with men. Rather, He began at once a series of interventions in human history by means of which man might be rescued from his sin and, de- spite it, brought to the end destined for him. These interven- tions involved the segregation of a people for Himself, by whom God should be known, and whose distinction should be that God should be “nigh unto them ” as He was not to other nations (Deut. iv. 7; Ps. exlv. 18). But this people was not permitted to imagine that it owed its segregation to anything in itself fitted to attract or determine the Divine preference; no consciousness was more poignant in Israel than that Jeho- vah had chosen it, not it Him, and that Jehovah’s choice of it rested solely on His gracious will. Nor was this people per- mitted to imagine that it was for its own sake alone that it had been singled out to be the sole recipient of the knowledge of Jehovah; it was made clear from the beginning that God’s mysteriously gracious dealing with it had as its ultimate end the blessing of the whole world (Gen. xil. 2.3; xvii. 4.5.6.16; 1 Article “ Revelation,” from The International Standard Bible Encyclo- paedia, James Orr, General Editor, v. 4, pp. 2573-2582. Pub. Chicago, 1915, by The Howard-Severance Co. 3 4 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION Xvill. 18; xxii. 18; cf Rom. iv. 13), the bringing together again of the divided families of the earth under the glorious reign of Jehovah, and the reversal of the curse under which the whole world lay for its sin (Gen. xii. 3). Meanwhile, however, Jehovah was known only in Israel. To Israel God showed His word and made known His statutes and judgments, and after this fashion He dealt with no other nation; and therefore none other knew His judgments (Ps. exlvii. 19f.). Accordingly, when the hope of Israel (who was also the desire of all nations) came, His own lips unhesitatingly declared that the salvation He brought, though of universal application, was “from the Jews” (Jn. iv. 22). And the nations to which this salvation had not been made known are declared by the chief agent in its proclamation to them to be, meanwhile, “ far off,” “having no hope ” and “ without God in the world” (Eph. ii. 12), be- cause they were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenant of the promise. The religion of the Bible thus announces itself, not as the product of men’s search after God, if haply they may feel after Him and find Him, but as the creation in men of the gracious God, forming a people for Himself, that they may show forth His praise. In other words, the religion of the Bible presents itself as distinctively a revealed religion. Or rather, to speak more exactly, it announces itself as the revealed religion, as the only revealed religion; and sets itself as such over against all other religions, which are represented as all products, in a sense in which it is not, of the art and device of man. It is not, however, implied in this exclusive claim to revela- tion — which is made by the religion of the Bible in all the stages of its history —that the living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that in them is, has left Himself without witness among the peoples of the world (Acts xiv. 17). It is asserted indeed, that in the process of His redemptive work, God suffered for a season all the nations to walk in their own ways; but it is added that to none of them has He failed to do good, and to give from heaven rains and fruitful seasons, filling their hearts with food and gladness. THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF REVELATION 5 And not only is He represented as thus constantly showing Himself in His providence not far from any one of them, thus wooing them to seek Him if haply they might feel after Him and find Him (Acts xvil. 27), but as from the foundation of the world openly manifesting Himself to them in the works of His hands, in which His everlasting power and Divinity are clearly seen (Rom. i. 20). That men at large have not retained Him in their knowledge, or served Him as they ought, is not due therefore to failure on His part to keep open the way to knowledge of Him, but to the darkening of their senseless hearts by sin and to the vanity of their sin-deflected reason- ings (Rom. i. 21 ff.), by means of which they have supplanted the truth of God by a lie and have come to worship and serve the creature rather than the ever-blessed Creator. It is, indeed, precisely because in their sin they have thus held down the truth in unrighteousness and have refused to have God in their knowledge (so it is intimated) ; and because, moreover, in their sin, the revelation God gives of Himself in His works of crea- tion and providence no longer suffices for men’s needs, that God has intervened supernaturally in the course of history to form a people for Himself, through whom at length all the world should be blessed. It is quite obvious that there are brought before us in these several representations two species or stages of revelation, which should be discriminated to avoid confusion. There is the revelation which God continuously makes to all men: by it His power and Divinity are made known. And there is the revela- tion which He makes exclusively to His chosen people: through it His saving grace is made known. Both species or stages of revelation are insisted upon throughout the Scriptures. They are, for example, brought significantly together in such a dec- laration as we find in Ps. xix: ‘‘ The heavens declare the glory of God . . . their line is gone out through all the earth ” (vers. 1.4); “ The law of Jehovah is perfect, restoring the soul” (ver. 7). The Psalmist takes his beginning here from the praise of the glory of God, the Creator of all that 1s, which has been written upon the very heavens, that none may fail to see it. 6 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION From this he rises, however, quickly to the more full-throated praise of the mercy of Jehovah, the covenant God, who has visited His people with saving instruction. Upon this higher revelation there is finally based a prayer for salvation from sin, which ends in a great threefold acclamation, instinct with adoring gratitude: “O Jehovah, my rock, and my redeemer ”’ (ver, 14). “ The heavens,” comments Lord Bacon, “ indeed tell of the glory of God, but not of His will according to which the poet prays to be pardoned and sanctified.” In so commenting, Lord Bacon touches the exact point of distinction between the two species or stages of revelation. The one is adapted to man as man; the other to man as sinner; and since man, on becom- ing sinner, has not ceased to be man, but has only acquired new needs requiring additional provisions to bring him to the end of his existence, so the revelation directed to man as sinner does not supersede that given to man as man, but supplements it with these new provisions for his attainment, in his new condi- tion of blindness, helplessness and guilt induced by sin, of the end of his being. These two species or stages of revelation have been com- monly distinguished from one another by the distinctive names of natural and supernatural revelation, or general and special revelation, or natural and soteriological revelation. Each of these modes of discriminating them has its particular fitness and describes a real difference between the two in nature, reach or purpose. The one is communicated through the media of natural phenomena, occurring in the course of Nature or of history; the other implies an intervention in the natural course of things and is not merely in source but in mode supernatural. The one is addressed generally to all intelligent creatures, and is therefore accessible to all men; the other is addressed to a special class of sinners, to whom God would make known His salvation. The one has in view to meet and supply the natural need of creatures for knowledge of their God; the other to res- cue broken and deformed sinners from their sin and its conse- quences. But, though thus distinguished from one another, it is important that the two species or stages of revelation should THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF REVELATION ff not be set in opposition to one another, or the closeness of their mutual relations or the constancy of their interaction be ob- scured. They constitute together a unitary whole, and each is incomplete without the other. In its most general idea, revela- tion is rooted in creation and the relations with His intelligent creatures into which God has brought Himself by giving them being. Its object is to realize the end of man’s creation, to be attained only through knowledge of God and perfect and un- broken communion with Him. On the entrance of sin into the world, destroying this communion with God and obscuring the knowledge of Him derived from Nature, another mode of reve- lation was necessitated, having also another content, adapted to the new relation to God and the new conditions of intellect, heart and will brought about by sin. It must not be supposed, however, that this new mode of revelation was an ex post facto expedient, introduced to meet an unforeseen contingency. The actual course of human development was in the nature of the case the expected and the intended course of human develop- ment, for which man was created; and revelation, therefore, in its double form was the Divine purpose for man from the beginning, and constitutes a unitary provision for the realiza- tion of the end of his creation in the actual circumstances in which he exists. We may distinguish in this unitary revelation the two elements by the cooperation of which the effect is pro- duced; but we should bear in mind that only by their codpera- tion is the effect produced. Without special revelation, general revelation would be for sinful men incomplete and ineffective, and could issue, as in point of fact it has issued wherever it alone has been accessible, only in leaving them without excuse (Rom. i. 20). Without general revelation, special revelation would lack that basis in the fundamental knowledge of God as the mighty and wise, righteous and good, maker and ruler of all things, apart from which the further revelation of this great God’s interventions in the world for the salvation of sinners could not be either intelligible, credible or operative. Only in Eden has general revelation been adequate to the needs of man. Not being a sinner, man in Eden had no need of 8 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION that grace of God itself by which sinners are restored to com- munion with Him, or of the special revelation of this grace of God to sinners to enable them to live with God. And not being a sinner, man in Eden, as he contemplated the works of God, saw God in the unclouded mirror of his mind with a clarity of vision, and lived with Him in the untroubled depths of his heart with a trustful intimacy of association, inconceivable to sinners. Nevertheless, the revelation of God in Eden was not merely “ natural.” Not only does the prohibition of the forbid- den fruit involve a positive commandment (Gen. 11. 16), but the whole history implies an immediacy of intercourse with God which cannot easily be set to the credit of the picturesque art of the narrative, or be fully accounted for by the vividness of the perception of God in His works proper to sinless crea- tures. The impression is strong that what is meant to be con- veyed to us is that man dwelt with God in Eden, and enjoyed with Him immediate and not merely mediate communion. In that case, we may understand that if man had not fallen, he would have continued to enjoy immediate intercourse with God, and that the cessation of this immediate intercourse is due to sin. It is not then the supernaturalness of special revela- tion which is rooted in sin, but, if we may be allowed the ex- pression, the specialness of supernatural revelation. Had man not fallen, heaven would have continued to le about him through all his history, as it lay about his infancy; every man would have enjoyed direct vision of God and immediate speech with Him. Man having fallen, the cherubim and the flame of a sword, turning every way, keep the path: and God breaks His way in a round-about fashion into man’s darkened heart to re- veal there His redemptive love. By slow steps and gradual stages He at once works out His saving purpose and molds the world for its reception, choosing a people for Himself and train- ing it through long and weary ages, until at last when the ful- ness of time has come, He bares His arm and sends out the. proclamation of His great salvation to all the earth. Certainly, from the gate of Eden onward, God’s general revelation ceased to be, in the strict sense, supernatural. It is, THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF REVELATION 9 of course, not meant that God deserted His world and left it to fester in its iniquity. His providence still ruled over all, lead- ing steadily onward to the goal for which man had been cre- ated, and of the attainment of which in God’s own good time and way the very continuance of men’s existence, under God’s providential government, was a pledge. And His Spirit still everywhere wrought upon the hearts of men, stirring up all their powers (though created in the image of God, marred and impaired by sin) to their best activities, and to such splendid effect in every department of human achievement as to com- mand the admiration of all ages, and in the highest region of all, that of conduct, to call out from an apostle the encomium that though they had no law they did by nature (observe the word “nature’’) the things of the law. All this, however, re- mains within the limits of Nature, that is to say, within the sphere of operation of Divinely directed and assisted second causes. It illustrates merely the heights to which the powers of man may attain under the guidance of providence and the influences of what we have learned to call God’s “ common grace.” Nowhere, throughout the whole ethnic domain, are the conceptions of God and His ways put within the reach of man, through God’s revelation of Himself in the works of creation and providence, transcended; nowhere is the slightest knowl- edge betrayed of anything concerning God and His purposes, which could be known only by its being supernaturally told to men. Of the entire body of “ saving truth,” for example, which is the burden of what we call “ special revelation,” the whole heathen world remained in total ignorance. And even its hold on the general truths of religion, not being vitalized by super- natural enforcements, grew weak, and its knowledge of the very nature of God decayed, until it ran out to the dreadful issue which Paul sketches for us in that inspired philosophy of reli- gion which he incorporates in the latter part of the first chap- ter of the Epistle to the Romans. Behind even the ethnic development, there lay, of course, the supernatural intercourse of man with God which had ob- tained before the entrance of sin into the world, and the super- 10 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION natural revelations at the gate of Eden (Gen. iii. 8), and at the second origin of the human race, the Flood (Gen. vii. 21.22; ix. 1-17). How long the tradition of this primitive revelation lingered in nooks and corners of the heathen world, condition- ing and vitalizing the natural revelation of God always acces- sible, we have no means of estimating. Neither is it easy to measure the effect of God’s special revelation of Himself to His people upon men outside the bounds of, indeed, but com- ing into contact with, this chosen people, or sharing with them a common natural inheritance. Lot and Ishmael and Esau can scarcely have been wholly ignorant of the word of God which came to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob; nor could the Egyp- tians from whose hands God wrested His people with a mighty arm fail to learn something of Jehovah, any more than the mixed multitudes who witnessed the ministry of Christ could fail to infer something from His gracious walk and mighty works. It is natural to infer that no nation which was inti- mately associated with Israel’s life could remain entirely un- affected by Israel’s revelation. But whatever impressions were thus conveyed reached apparently individuals only: the heathen which surrounded Israel, even those most closely af- fihated with Israel, remained heathen; they had no revelation. In the sporadic instances when God visited an alien with a supernatural communication — such as the dreams sent to Abimelech (Gen. xx.) and to Pharaoh (Gen. xl. xli.) and to Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 11. 1 ff.) and to the soldier in the camp of Midian (Jgs. vil. 13) —it was in the interests, not of the heathen world, but of the chosen people that they were sent; and these instances derive their significance wholly from this fact. There remain, no doubt, the mysterious figure of Mel- chizedek, perhaps also of Jethro, and the strange apparition of Balaam, who also, however, appear in the sacred narrative only in connection with the history of God’s dealings with His peo- ple and in their interest. Their unexplained appearance cannot in any event avail to modify the general fact that the life of the heathen peoples lay outside the supernatural revelation of God. The heathen were suffered to walk in their own ways (Acts xiv. 16). THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF REVELATION 11 Il. Tue Process oF REVELATION Meanwhile, however, God had not forgotten them, but was preparing salvation for them also through the supernatural revelation of His grace that He was making to His people. Ac- cording to the Biblical representation, in the midst of and working confluently with the revelation which He has always been giving of Himself on the plane of Nature, God was mak- ing also from the very fall of man a further revelation of Him- self on the plane of grace. In contrast with His general, natu- ral revelation, in which all men by virtue of their very nature as men share, this special, supernatural revelation was granted at first only to individuals, then progressively to a family, a tribe, a nation, a race, until, when the fulness of time was come, it was made the possession of the whole world. It may be diffi- cult to obtain from Scripture a clear account of why God chose thus to give this revelation of His grace only progressively; or, to be more explicit, through the process of a historical develop- ment. Such is, however, the ordinary mode of the Divine work- ing: it is so that God made the worlds, it is so that He creates the human race itself, the recipient of this revelation, it 1s so that He builds up His kingdom in the world and in the indi- vidual soul, which only gradually comes whether to the knowl- edge of God or to the fruition of His salvation. As to the fact, the Scriptures are explicit, tracing for us, or rather embodying in their own growth, the record of the steady advance of this gracious revelation through definite stages from its first faint beginnings to its glorious completion in Jesus Christ. So express is its relation to the development of the kingdom of God itself, or rather to that great series of Divine opera- tions which are directed to the building up of the kingdom of God in the world, that it is sometimes confounded with them, or thought of as simply their reflection in the contemplating mind of man. Thus it is not infrequently said that revelation, meaning this special redemptive revelation, has been commu- nicated in deeds, not in words; and it is occasionally elabo- rately argued that the sole manner in which God has revealed Himself as the Saviour of sinners is just by performing those 12 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION mighty acts by which sinners are saved. This is not, however, the Biblical representation. Revelation is, of course, often made through the instrumentality of deeds; and the series of His great redemptive acts by which He saves the world consti- tutes the preéminent revelation of the grace of God — so far as these redemptive acts are open to observation and are per- ceived in their significance. But revelation, after all, is the cor- relate of understanding and has as its proximate end just the production of knowledge, though not, of course, knowledge for its own sake, but for the sake of salvation. The series of the redemptive acts of God, accordingly, can properly be desig- nated “‘ revelation”? only when and so far as they are contem- plated as adapted and designed to produce knowledge of God and His purpose and methods of grace. No bare series of unex- plained acts can be thought, however, adapted to produce knowledge, especially if these acts be, as in this case, of a highly transcendental character. Nor can this particular series of acts be thought to have as its main design the production of knowl- edge; its main design is rather to save man. No doubt the pro- duction of knowledge of the Divine grace is one of the means by which this main design of the redemptive acts of God is at- tained. But this only renders it the more necessary that the proximate result of producing knowledge should not fail; and it is doubtless for this reason that the series of redemptive acts of God has not been left to explain itself, but the explanatory word has been added to it. Revelation thus appears, however, not as the mere reflection of the redeeming acts of God in the minds of men, but as a factor in the redeeming work of God, a component part of the series of His redeeming acts, without which that series would be incomplete and so far inoperative for its main end. Thus the Scriptures represent it, not con- founding revelation with the series of the redemptive acts of God, but placing it among the redemptive acts of God and giv- ing it a function as a substantive element in the operations by which the merciful God saves sinful men. It is therefore not made even a mere constant accompaniment of the redemptive acts of God, giving their explanation that they may be under- THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF REVELATION 13 stood. It occupies a far more independent place among them than this, and as frequently precedes them to prepare their way as it accompanies or follows them to interpret their meaning. It is, in one word, itself a redemptive act of God and by no means the least important in the series of His redemptive acts. This might, indeed, have been inferred from its very na- ture, and from the nature of the salvation which was being wrought out by these redemptive acts of God. One of the most grievous of the effects of sin is the deformation of the image of God reflected in the human mind, and there can be no recov- ery from sin which does not bring with it the correction of this deformation and the reflection in the soul of man of the whole glory of the Lord God Almighty. Man is an intelligent being; his superiority over the brute is found, among other things, precisely in the direction of all his life by his intelligence; and his blessedness is rooted in the true knowledge of his God — for this is life eternal, that we should know the only true God and Him whom He has sent. Dealing with man as an intelligent being, God the Lord has saved him by means of a revelation, by which he has been brought into an ever more and more ade- quate knowledge of God, and been led ever more and more to do his part in working out his own salvation with fear and trembling as he perceived with ever more and more clearness how God is working it out for him through mighty deeds of erace. This is not the place to trace, even in outline, from the ma- terial point of view, the development of God’s redemptive reve- lation from its first beginnings, in the promise given to Abra- ham — or rather in what has been called the Protevangelium at the gate of Eden — to its completion in the advent and work of Christ and the teaching of His apostles; a steadily advanc- ing development, which, as it lies spread out to view in the pages of Scripture, takes to those who look at it from the con- summation backward, the appearance of the shadow cast athwart preceding ages by the great figure of Christ. Even from the formal point of view, however, there has been pointed out a progressive advance in the method of revelation, conso- 14 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION nant with its advance in content, or rather with the advancing stages of the building up of the kingdom of God, to subserve which is the whole object of revelation. Three distinct steps in ~ revelation have been discriminated from this point of view. They are distinguished precisely by the increasing independ- ence of revelation of the deeds constituting the series of the re- demptive acts of God, in which, nevertheless, all revelation 1s a substantial element. Discriminations like this must not be taken too absolutely; and in the present instance the chrono- logical sequence cannot be pressed. But, with much interlacing, three generally successive stages of revelation may be recog- nized, producing periods at least characteristically of what we may somewhat conventionally call theophany, prophecy and inspiration. What may be somewhat indefinitely marked off as the Patriarchal age is characteristically ‘the period of Out- ward Manifestations, and Symbols, and Theophanies’”’: dur- ing it “God spoke to men through their senses, in physical phenomena, as the burning bush, the cloudy pillar, or in sensu- ous forms, as men, angels, ete. . . . In the Prophetic. age, on the contrary, the prevailing mode of revelation was by means of inward prophetic inspiration ”: God spoke to men charac- teristically by the movements of the Holy Spirit in their hearts. “ Prevailingly, at any rate from Samuel downwards, the supernatural revelation was a revelation in the hearts of the foremost thinkers of the people, or, as we call it, prophetic inspiration, without the aid of external sensuous symbols of God” (A. B. Davidson, OT Prophecy, 1903, p. 148; ef. pp. 12- 14, 145 ff.). This internal method of revelation reaches its cul- mination in the New Testament period, which is preéminently the age of the Spirit. What is especially characteristic of this age is revelation through the medium of the written word, what may be called apostolic as distinguished from prophetic inspiration. The revealing Spirit speaks through chosen men as His organs, but through these organs in such a fashion that the most intimate processes of their souls become the instru- ments by means of which He speaks His mind. Thus at all events there are brought clearly before us three well-marked THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF REVELATION 15 modes of revelation, which we may perhaps designate respec- tively, not with perfect discrimination, it is true, but not mis- leadingly, (1) external manifestations, (2) internal suggestion, and (38) concursive operation. III. Mopts or REVELATION Theophany may be taken as the typical form of “ external manifestation”; but by its side may be ranged all of those mighty works by which God makes Himself known, including express miracles, no doubt, but along with them every super- natural intervention in the affairs of men, by means of which a better understanding is communicated of what God is or what are His purposes of grace to a sinful race. Under “ inter- nal suggestion ” may be subsumed all the characteristic phe- nomena of what is most properly spoken of as “ prophecy ”’: visions and dreams, which, according to a fundamental pas- sage (Num. xi. 6), constitute the typical forms of prophecy, and with them the whole “ prophetic word,” which shares its essential characteristic with visions and dreams, since it comes not by the will of man but from God. By “ concursive opera- tion”? may be meant that form of revelation illustrated in an inspired psalm or epistle or history, in which no human activity | —not even the control of the will —is superseded, but the Holy Spirit works in, with and through them all in such a manner as to communicate to the product qualities distinctly superhu- man. There is no age in the history of the religion of the Bible, from that of Moses to that of Christ and His apostles, in which all these modes of revelation do not find place. One or another may seem particularly characteristic of this age or of that; but they all occur in every age. And they occur side by side, broadly speaking, on the same level. No discrimination is drawn. be- tween them in point of worthiness as modes of revelation, and much less in point of purity in the revelations communicated through them. The circumstance that God spoke to Moses, not by dream or vision but mouth to mouth, is, indeed, adverted to (Num. xi. 8) as a proof of the peculiar favor shown to Moses 16 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION and even of the superior dignity of Moses above other organs of revelation: God admitted him to an intimacy of intercourse which He did not accord to others. But though Moses was thus distinguished above all others in the dealings of God with him, no distinction is drawn between the revelations given through him and those given through other organs of revelation in point either of Divinity or of authority. And beyond this we have no Scriptural warrant to go on in contrasting one mode of revela- tion with another. Dreams may seem to us little fitted to serve as vehicles of Divine communications. But there is no sug- gestion in Scripture that revelations through dreams stand on a lower plane than any others; and we should not fail to remember that the essential characteristics of revelations through dreams are shared by all forms of revelation in which (whether we should call them visions or not) the images or ideas which fill, or pass in procession through, the conscious- ness are determined by some other power than the recipient’s own will. It may seem natural to suppose that revelations rise in rank in proportion to the fulness of the engagement of the mental activity of the recipient in their reception. But we should bear in mind that the intellectual or spiritual quality of a revelation is not derived from the recipient but from its Di- vine Giver. The fundamental fact in all revelation is that it is from God. This is what gives unity to the whole process of ~ revelation, given though it may be in divers portions and in divers manners and distributed though it may be through the ages in accordance with the mere will of God, or as it may have suited His developing purpose — this and its unitary end, which is ever the building up of the kingdom of God. In what- ever diversity of forms, by means of whatever variety of modes, in whatever distinguishable stages it is given, it is ever the revelation of the One God, and it is ever the one consistently developing redemptive revelation of God. On a prima facie view it may indeed seem likely that a dif- ference in the quality of their supernaturalness would inevita- bly obtain between revelations given through such divergent modes. The completely supernatural character of revelations THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF REVELATION ey, given in theophanies is obvious. He who will not allow that God speaks to man, to make known His gracious purposes to- ward him, has no other recourse here than to pronounce the stories legendary.. The objectivity of the mode of communica- tion which is adopted is intense, and it is thrown up to obser- vation with the greatest emphasis. Into the natural life of man God intrudes in a purely supernatural manner, bearing a purely supernatural communication. In these communications we are given accordingly just a series of “naked messages of God.” But not even in the Patriarchal age were all revelations given in theophanies or objective appearances. There were dreams, and visions, and revelations without explicit intimation in the narrative of how they were communicated. And when we pass on in the history, we do not, indeed, leave behind us theoph- anies and objective appearances. It is not only made the very characteristic of Moses, the greatest figure in the whole history of revelation except only that of Christ, that he knew God face to face (Deut. xxxiv. 10), and God spoke to him mouth to mouth, even manifestly, and not in dark speeches (Num. xii. 8); but throughout the whole history of revelation down to the appearance of Jesus to Paul on the road to Damascus, God has shown Himself visibly to His servants whenever it has seemed good to Him to do so and has spoken with them in ob- jective speech. Nevertheless, it is expressly made the charac- teristic of the Prophetic age that God makes Himself known to His Servants “in a vision,” “in a dream” (Num. xii. 6). And although, throughout its entire duration, God, in fulfil- ment of His promise (Deut. xviii. 18), put His words in the mouths of His prophets and gave them His commandments to speak, yet it would seem inherent in the very employment of men as instruments of revelation that the words of God given through them are spoken by human mouths; and the purity of their supernaturalness may seem so far obscured. And when it is not merely the mouths of men with which God thus serves Himself in the delivery of His messages, but their minds and hearts as well — the play of their religious feelings, or the proc- esses of their logical reasoning, or the tenacity of their mem- 18 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION ories, as, say, in a psalm or in an epistle, or a history — the supernatural element in the communication may easily seem to retire still farther into the background. It can scarcely be a matter of surprise, therefore, that question has been raised as to the relation of the natural and the supernatural in such reve- lations, and, in many current manners of thinking and speak- ing of them, the completeness of their supernaturalness has been limited and curtailed in the interests of the natural in- strumentalities employed. The plausibility of such reasoning renders it the more necessary that we should observe the unvarying emphasis which the Scriptures place upon the ab- solute supernaturalness of revelation in all its modes alike. In the view of the Scriptures, the completely supernatural character of revelation is in no way lessened by the circum- stance that it has been given through the instrumentality of men. They affirm, indeed, with the greatest possible emphasis that the Divine word delivered through men is the pure word of God, diluted with no human admixture whatever. . We have already been led to note that even on the occasion when Moses is exalted above all other organs of revelation (Num. xu. 6 ff.), in point of dignity and favor, no suggestion whatever is made of any inferiority, in either the directness or the purity of their supernaturalness, attaching to other organs of revelation. There might never afterward arise a prophet in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face (Deut. xxxiv. 10). But each of the whole series of prophets raised up by Jehovah that the people might always know His will was to be like Moses in speaking to the people only what Jehovah commanded them (Deut. xviii. 15.18.20). In this great promise, securing to Israel the succession of prophets, there is also included a declaration of precisely how Jehovah would communicate His messages not so much to them as through them. “ I will raise them up a prophet from among their breth- ren, like unto thee,” we read (Deut. xviii. 18), “ and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.” The process of revelation through the THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF REVELATION 19 prophets was a process by which Jehovah put His words in the mouths of the prophets, and the prophets spoke precisely these words and no others. So the prophets themselves ever asserted. “Then Jehovah put forth his hand, and touched my mouth,” explains Jeremiah in his account of how he received his prophe- cies, ‘ and Jehovah said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth ” (Jer. 1.9; ef, v. 14; Isa. li. 16; lix. 21; Num. xxil. 35; xxill. 5.12.16). Accordingly, the words “ with which ” they spoke were not their own but the Lord’s: ‘‘ And he said unto me,’ records Ezekiel, “ Son of man, go, get thee unto the house of Israel, and speak with my words unto them” (Ezk. ii. 4). It is a process of nothing other than “ dictation ” which is thus described (2S. xiv. 3.19), though, of course, the question may remain open of the exact processes by which this dictation 1s accomplished. The fundamental passage which brings the cen- tral fact before us in the most vivid manner is, no doubt, the account of the commissioning of Moses and Aaron given in Ex. iv. 10-17; vii. 1-7. Here, in the most express words, Jehovah declares that He who made the mouth can be with it to teach it what to speak, and announces the precise function of a prophet to be that he is “a mouth of God,” who speaks not his own but God’s words. Accordingly, the Hebrew name for “ prophet ” (nabhi’), whatever may be its etymology, means throughout the Scriptures just ‘spokesman,’ though not “spokesman ” in general, but spokesman by way of eminence, that is, God’s spokesman; and the characteristic formula by which a prophetic declaration is announced is: “ The word of Jehovah came to me,” or the brief “saith Jehovah” (sy px, n’eum Yahweb). In no case does a prophet put his words forward as his own words. That he is a prophet at all is due not to choice on his own part, but to a call of God, obeyed often with reluctance; and he prophesies or forbears to prophesy, not according to his own will but as the Lord opens and shuts his mouth (Ezk, 111. 26 f.) and creates for him the fruit of the lips (Isa. Iv. 19; ef. vi. 7; 1. 4). In contrast with the false prophets, he strenuously asserts that he does not speak out of his own heart (“ heart ” in Biblical language includes the whole 20 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION inner man), but all that he proclaims is the pure word of Jehovah. The fundamental passage does not quite leave the matter, however, with this general declaration. It describes the charac- teristic manner in which Jehovah communicates His messages to His prophets as through the medium of visions and dreams. Neither visions in the technical sense of that word, nor dreams, appear, however, to have been the customary mode of revela- tion to the prophets, the record of whose revelations has come down to us. But, on the other hand, there are numerous indica- tions in the record that the universal mode of revelation to them was one which was in some sense a vision, and can be classed only in the category distinctively so called. The whole nomenclature of prophecy presupposes, indeed, its vision-form. Prophecy is distinctively a word, and what is delivered by the prophets is proclaimed as the “ word of Je- hovah.” That it should be announced by the formula, “ Thus saith the Lord,” is, therefore, only what we expect; and we are prepared for such a description of its process as: ‘‘ The Lord Jehovah . . . wakeneth mine ear to hear.” He “ hath opened mine ear ” (Isa. 1. 4.5). But this is not the way of speak- ing of their messages which is most usual in the prophets. ' Rather is the whole body of prophecy cursorily presented as a thing seen. Isaiah places at the head of his book: ‘‘ The vision of Isaiah . . . which he saw ” (cf. Isa. xxix. 10.11; Ob. ver. 1) ; and then proceeds to set at the head of subordinate sections the remarkable words, “The word that Isaiah . . . saw” (ii. 1); “the burden [margin “ oracle”] ... which Isaiah .. . did see”? (xl. 1). Similarly there stand at the head of other prophecies: ‘“‘ the words of Amos . . . which he saw” (Am. i. 1); “the word of Jehovah that came to Micah . . . which he saw” (Mic. i. 1); “the oracle which Habakkuk the prophet did see”’ (Hab. 1. 1 margin); and elsewhere such language oc- curs as this: “ the word that Jehovah hath showed me” (Jer. Xxxvlll. 21); “the prophets have seen . . . oracles” (Lam. ii. 14); “the word of Jehovah came . . . and I looked, and, be- hold ” (Eizk, 1. 3.4) ; “ Woe unto the foolish prophets, that fol- THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF REVELATION 21 low their own spirit, and have seen nothing” (Ezk. xiii. 3); “T .. . willlook forth to see what he will speak with me, .. . Jehovah ... said, Write the vision” (Hab. 11. 1f.). It is an inadequate explanation of such language to suppose it merely a relic of a time when vision was more predominantly the form of revelation. There is no proof that vision in the technical sense ever was more predominantly the form of revelation than in the days of the great writing prophets; and such language as we have quoted too obviously represents the living point of view of the prophets to admit of the supposition that it was merely conventional on their lips. The prophets, in a word, represent the Divine communications which they received as given to them in some sense in visions. It is possible, no doubt, to exaggerate the significance of this. It is an exaggeration, for example, to insist that therefore all the Divine communications made to the prophets must have come to them in external appearances and objective speech, addressed to and received by means of the bodily eye and ear. This would be to break down the distinction between manifestation and revelation, and to assimilate the mode of prophetic revelation to that granted to Moses, though these are expressly distinguished (Num. xii. 6-8). It is also an ex- aggeration to insist that therefore the prophetic state must be conceived as that of strict ecstasy, involving the complete abeyance of all mental life on the part of the prophet (amen- tia), and possibly also accompanying physical effects. It is quite clear from the records which the prophets themselves give us of their revelations that their intelligence was alert in all stages of their reception of them. The purpose of both these extreme views is the good one of doing full justice to the objec- tivity of the revelations vouchsafed to the prophets. If these revelations took place entirely externally to the prophet, who merely stood off and contemplated them, or if they were im- planted in the prophets by a process so violent as not only to supersede their mental activity but, for the time being, to an- nihilate it, it would be quite clear that they came from a source other than the prophets’ own minds. It is undoubtedly the fun- a REVELATION AND INSPIRATION damental contention of the prophets that the revelations given through them are not their own but wholly God’s. The signifi- cant language we have just quoted from Ezk. xii. 3: “ Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing,” is a typical utterance of their sense of the com- plete objectivity of their messages. What distinguishes the false prophets is precisely that they “ prophesy out of their own heart ” (Ezk. xiii. 2-17), or, to draw the antithesis sharply, that “ they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of Jehovah ” (Jer. xxiii. 16.26; xiv. 14). But these extreme views fail to do justice, the one to the equally impor- tant fact that the word of God, given through the prophets, comes as the pure and unmixed word of God not merely to, but from, the prophets; and the other to the equally obvious © fact that the intelligence of the prophets is alert throughout the whole process of the reception and delivery of the revela- tion made through them. : That which gives to prophecy as a mode of revelation its place in the category of visions, strictly so called, and dreams, is that it shares with them the distinguishing characteristic which determines the class. In them all alike the movements of the mind are determined by something extraneous to the subject’s will, or rather, since we are speaking of supernatu- rally given dreams and visions, extraneous to the totality of the subject’s own psychoses. A power not himself takes posses- sion of his consciousness and determines it according to its will. That power, in the case of the prophets, was fully recognized and energetically asserted to be Jehovah Himself or, to be more specific, the Spirit of Jehovah (1S. x. 6.10; Neh. ix. 30; Zec. vil. 12; Joel ii. 28.29). The prophets were therefore ‘men of the Spirit’ (Hos. ix. 7). What constituted them prophets was that the Spirit was put upon them (Isa. xlii. 1) or poured out on them (Joel ii. 28.29), and they were consequently filled with the Spirit (Mice. ii. 8), or, in another but equivalent locu- tion, that “ the hand ” of the Lord, or “ the power of the hand ” of the Lord, was upon them (2 K. iii. 15; Ezk. i. 3; iii. 14.22: XXXlll. 22; xxxvii. 1; xl. 1), that is to say, they were under the THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF REVELATION 23 divine control. This control is represented as complete and compelling, so that, under it, the prophet becomes not the “mover,” but the “ moved ” in the formation of his message. The apostle Peter very purely reflects the prophetic conscious- ness in his well-known declaration: ‘ No prophecy of seripture comes..of. private interpretation; for prophecy was never brought by the will of man; but it was as borne by the Holy Spirit that-men spoke from God’ (2 Pet. i. 20.21). What this language of Peter emphasizes — and what is em- phasized in the whole account which the prophets give of their own consciousness — is, to speak plainly, the passivity of the prophets with respect to the revelation given through them. This is the significance of the phrase: ‘it was as borne by the Holy Spirit that men spoke from God.’ To be “ borne ” ( g€peur, phérein) is not the same as to be led (ayew, dgein), much less to be guided or directed (odnyetv, hodégein): he that is “borne ” contributes nothing to the movement induced, but is the object to be moved. The term “ passivity ” 1s, perhaps, however, liable to some misapprehension, and should not be overstrained. It is not intended to deny that the intelligence of the prophets was active in the reception of their message; it was by means of their active intelligence that their message was received: their intelligence was the instrument of revela- tion. It is intended to deny only that their intelligence was _active in the production of their message: that it was creatively ‘as distinguished from receptively active. For reception itself is a kind of activity. What the prophets are solicitous that their readers shall understand is that they are in no sense co-authors with God of their messages. Their messages are given them, given them entire, and given them precisely as they are given out by them. God speaks through them: they are not merely His messengers, but “‘ His mouth.” But at the same time their intelligence is active in the reception, retention and announc- ing of their messages, contributing nothing to them but pre- senting fit instruments for the communication of them — in- struments capable of understanding, responding profoundly to and zealously proclaiming them. 24. REVELATION AND INSPIRATION There is, no doubt, a not unnatural hesitancy abroad in thinking of the prophets as exhibiting only such merely recep- tive activities. In the interests of their personalities, we are asked not to represent God_as dealing mechanically with them, pouring His revelations into their souls to be simply received as in so many buckets, or violently wresting their minds from their own proper action that He may do His own thinking with them. Must we not rather suppose, we are asked, that all reve- lations must be “ psychologically mediated,’ must be given “after the mode of moral mediation,” and must be made first of all their recipients’ “ own spiritual possession”’ ? And is not, in point of fact, the personality of each prophet clearly trace- able in his message, and that to such an extent as to compel us to recognize him as in a true sense its real author? The plausi- bility of such questionings should not be permitted to obscure the fact that the mode of the communication of the prophetic messages which is suggested by them is directly contradicted by the prophets’ own representations of their relations to the revealing Spirit. In the prophets’ own view they were just in- struments through whom God gave revelations which came from them, not as their own product, but as the pure word of Jehovah. Neither should the plausibility of such questionings blind us to their speciousness. They exploit subordinate con- siderations, which are not without their validity in their own place and under their own limiting conditions, as if they were the determining or even the sole considerations in the case, and in neglect of the really determining considerations, God is Him- self the author of the instruments He employs for the commu- nication of His messages to men and has framed them into precisely the instruments He desired for the exact communica- tion of His message. There is just ground for the expectation that He will use all the instruments He employs according to their natures; intelligent beings therefore as intelligent beings, moral agents as moral agents. But there is no just ground for asserting that God is incapable of employing the intelligent beings He has Himself created and formed to His will, to pro- claim His messages purely as He gives them to them; or of THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF REVELATION 25 making truly the possession of rational minds conceptions which they have themselves had no part in creating. And there is no ground for imagining that God is unable to frame His own message in the language of the organs of His revelation with- out its thereby ceasing to be, because expressed in a fashion natural to these organs, therefore purely His message. One would suppose it to lie in the very nature of the case that if the Lord makes any revelation to men, He would do it in the lan- guage of men; or, to individualize more explicitly, in the lan- guage of the man He employs as the organ of His revelation; and that naturally means, not the language of his nation or circle merely, but his own particular language, inclusive of all that gives individuality to his self-expression. We may speak of this, if we will, as “ the accommodation of the revealing God to the several prophetic individualities.” But we should avoid thinking of it externally and therefore mechanically, as if the revealing Spirit artificially phrased the message which He gives through each prophet in the particular forms of speech proper to the individuality of each, so as to create the illusion that the message comes out of the heart of the prophet himself. Precisely what the prophets affirm is that their messages do not come out of their own hearts and do not represent the work- ings of their own spirits. Nor is there any illusion in the phe- nomenon we are contemplating; and it 1s a much more inti- nate, and, we may add, a much more interesting phenomenon \than an external ‘‘ accommodation” of speech to individual habitudes. It includes, on the one hand, the “ accommodation. ”’~ of the prophet, through his total preparation, to the speech in which the revelation to be given through him is to be clothed; and on the other involves little more than the consistent carry-” ing into detail of the broad principle that God uses the instru- ments He employs in accordance with their natures. No doubt, on adequate occasion, the very stones might cry out by the power of God, and dumb beasts speak, and mysteri- ous voices sound forth from the void; and there have not been lacking instances in which men have been compelled by the same power to speak what they would not, and in languages %6 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION whose very sounds were strange to their ears. But ordinarily when God the Lord would speak to men He avails Himself of the services of a human tongue with which to speak, and He employs this tongue according to its nature as a tongue and ac- cording to the particular nature of the tongue which He em- ploys. It is vain to say that the message delivered through the instrumentality of this tongue is conditioned at least in its form by the tongue by which it is spoken, if not, indeed, lim- ited, curtailed, in some degree determined even in its matter, by it. Not only was it God the Lord who made the tongue, and who made this particular tongue with all its peculiarities, not without regard to the message He would deliver through it; but His control of it is perfect and complete, and it is as absurd to say that He cannot speak His message by it purely without that message suffering change from the peculiarities of its tone and modes of enunciation, as it would be to say that no new truth can be announced in any language because the elements of speech by the combination of which the truth in question is announced are already in existence with their fixed range of connotation. The marks of the several individualities im- printed on the messages of the prophets, in other words, are only a part of the general fact that these messages are couched in human language, and in no way beyond that general fact affect their purity as direct communications from God. A new set of problems is raised by the mode of revelation which we have called “ concursive operation.” This mode of revelation differs from prophecy, properly so called, precisely by the employment in it, as is not done in prophecy, of the total personality of the organ of revelation, as a factor. It has been common to speak of the mode of the Spirit’s action in this form of revelation, therefore, as an assistance, a superintend- ence, a direction, a control, the meaning being that the effect aimed at — the discovery and enunciation of Divine truth — is attained through the action of the human powers — histori- cal research, logical reasoning, ethical thought, religious as- piration — acting not by themselves, however, but under the THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF REVELATION 27 prevailing assistance, superintendence, direction, control of the Divine Spirit. This manner of speaking has the advantage of setting this mode of revelation sharply in contrast with prophetic revelation, as involving merely a determining, and not, as in prophetic revelation, a supercessive action of the re- vealing Spirit. We are warned, however, against pressing this discrimination too far by the inclusion of the whole body of Scripture in such passages as 2 Pet. i. 20 f. in the category of prophecy, and the assignment of their origin not to a mere “leading ” but to the “bearing” of the Holy Spirit. In any event such terms as assistance, superintendence, direction, con- trol, inadequately express the nature of the Spirit’s action in revelation by ‘‘ concursive operation.” The Spirit is not to be conceived as standing outside of the human powers employed for the effect in view, ready to supplement any inadequacies they may show and to supply any defects they may manifest, but as working confluently in, with and by them, elevating them, directing them, controlling them, energizing them, so that, as His instruments, they rise above themselves and under His inspiration do His work and reach His aim. The product, therefore, which is attained by their means is His product through them. It is this fact which gives to the process the right to be called actively, and to the product the right to be called passively, a revelation. Although the circumstance that what is done is done by and through the action of human powers keeps the product in form and quality in a true sense human, yet the confluent operation of the Holy Spirit throughout the whole process raises the result above what could by any possibility be achieved by mere human powers and constitutes it expressly a supernatural product. The human traits are traceable through- out its whole extent, but at bottom it is a Divine gift, and the language of Paul is the most proper mode of speech that could be applied to it: “ Which things also we speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth ” (1 Cor. 11. 18); “ The things which I write unto you... . are the commandment of the Lord ” (1 Cor. xiv. 37). It is supposed that all the forms of special or redemptive 28 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION revelation which underlie and give its content to the religion of the Bible may without violence be subsumed under one or an- other of these three modes — external manifestation, internal suggestion, and concursive operation. All, that is, except the culminating revelation, not through, but in, Jesus Christ. As in His person, in which dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, He rises above all classification and is sui generis; so the revelation accumulated in Him stands outside all the divers portions and divers manners in which otherwise revelation has been given and sums up in itself all that has been or can be made known of God and of His redemption. He does not so much make a revelation of God as Himself is the revelation of God; He does not merely disclose God’s purpose of redemp- tion, He is unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption. The theophanies are but faint shadows in comparison with His manifestation of God in the flesh. The prophets could prophesy only as the Spirit of Christ which was in them testified, revealing to them as to servants one or another of the secrets of the Lord Jehovah; from Him as His Son, Jehovah has no secrets, but whatsoever the Father knows that the Son knows also. Whatever truth men have been made partakers of by the Spirit of truth is His (for all things whatsoever the Father hath are His) and is taken by the Spirit of truth and declared to men that He may be glori- fied. Nevertheless, though all revelation is thus summed up in Him, we should not fail to note very carefully that it would also be all sealed up in Him —so little is revelation conveyed by fact alone, without the word — had it not been thus taken by the Spirit of truth and declared unto men. The entirety of the New Testament is but the explanatory word accompanying and giving its effect to the fact of Christ. And when this fact was in ali its meaning made the possession of men, revelation was completed and in that sense ceased. Jesus Christ is no less the end of revelation than He is the end of the law. THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF REVELATION 29 IV. BrBpuicaL TERMINOLOGY There is not much additional to be learned concerning the nature and processes of revelation, from the terms currently employed in Scripture to express the idea. These terms are or- dinarily the common words for disclosing, making known, mak- ing manifest, applied with more or less heightened significance to supernatural acts or effects in kind. In the English Bible (AV ) the verb “ reveal ” occurs about fifty-one times, of which twenty-two are in the Old Testament and twenty-nine in the New Testament. In the Old Testament the word is always the rendering of a Hebrew term m3, galah, or its Aramaic equiv- alent ma, g‘lah, the root meaning of which appears to be “nakedness.” When applied to revelation, it seems to hint at the removal of obstacles to perception or the uncovering of ob- jects to perception. In the New Testament the word “ reveal ” is always (with the single exception of Lk. ii. 35) the rendering of a Greek term azoxadtrrw, apokaliptd (but in 2 Thess. i. 7; 1 Pet. iv. 18 the corresponding noun 470Kxadvp1s, apokdlupsis), which has a very similar basal significance with its Hebrew parallel. As this Hebrew word formed no substantive in this sense, the noun “ revelation ”’ does not occur in the English Old Testament, the idea being expressed, however, by other Hebrew terms variously rendered. It occurs in the English New Testament, on the other hand, about a dozen times, and al- ways as the rendering of the substantive corresponding to the verb rendered “ reveal ” (apokdlupsis). On the face of the Eng- lish Bible, the terms “ reveal,” “ revelation ” bear therefore uni- formly the general sense of “ disclose,” ‘ disclosure.” The idea is found in the Bible, however, much more frequently than the terms “reveal,” “ revelation ” in English versions. Indeed, the Hebrew and Greek terms exclusively so rendered occur more frequently in this sense than in this rendering in the English Bible. And by their side there stand various other terms which express in one way or another the general conception. In the New Testament the verb davepow, phanerdd, with the general sense of making manifest, manifesting, is the most 30 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION common of these. It differs from apokalupto as the more gen- eral and external term from the more special and inward. Other terms also are occasionally used: érubavera, epiphanea, ‘“ manifestation ” (2 Thess. ii. 8; 1 Tim. vi. 14; 2 Tim. 1. 10; iv. 1; Tit. ii. 13; cf. émidaivw, epiphaind, Tit. 11. 11; ii. 4); Sexviw, deiknid (Rev. i. 1; xvii. 1; xxii. 1.6.8; cf. Acts ix. 16; 1 Tim. iv. 15); é&myéowar, exégéomai (Jn. i. 18), of which, however, only one perhaps — ypnuarifw, chrématizo (Mt. u. 12.22 Lk. i. 26-TActsexm22) Heb. vill co spexliel sit eee xpnuatiouos , chrématismés (Rom. xi. 4) — calls for particu- lar notice as in a special way, according to its usage, express- ing the idea of a Divine communication. In the Old Testament, the common Hebrew verb for “ see- ing” (M89, raah) is used in its appropriate stems, with God as the subject, for “ appearing,” “showing”: “the Lord ap- peared unto .. .”; “the word which the Lord showed me.” And from this verb not only is an active substantive formed which supplied the more ancient designation of the official or- gan or revelation: M8", rd’eh, “seer ’’; but also objective sub- stantives, M82, mar’ah, and A8V3, mar’eh which were used to designate the thing seen in a revelation — the “ vision.” By the side of these terms there were others in use, derived from a root which supplies to the Aramaic its common word for “seeing,” but in Hebrew has a somewhat more pregnant meaning, NM, hazah. Its active derivative, Min, hézeh, was a designation of a prophet which remained in occasional use, alternating with the more customary S33, nabhi, long after M8", ro’eh, had become practically obsolete; and its passive derivatives hazon, hizzayon, hazuth, mahazeh provided the or- dinary terms for the substance of the revelation or “ vision.” The distinction between the two sets of terms, derived respec- tively from ra@’ah and hazah, while not to be unduly pressed, seems to lie in the direction that the former suggests external manifestations and the latter internal revelations. The ro’eh is he to whom Divine manifestations, the hozeh he to whom Di- vine communications, have been vouchsafed; the mar’eh is an appearance, the hazon and its companions a vision. It may be THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF REVELATION BA of interest to observe that mar’ah is the term employed in Num. xii. 6, while it is hazon which commonly occurs in the headings of the written prophecies to indicate their revelatory character. From this it may possibly be inferred that in the former passage it is the mode, in the latter the contents of the revelation that is emphasized. Perhaps a like distinction may be traced between the hazon of Dan. viii. 15 and the mar’eh ot the next verse. The ordinary verb for “ knowing,” 97, yadha’, expressing in its causative stems the idea of making known, informing, is also very naturally employed, with God as its subject, in the sense of revealing, and that, in accordance with the natural sense of the word, with a tendency to pregnancy of implication, of revealing effectively, of not merely uncovering to observation, but making to know. Accordingly, it is paral- leled not merely with 33, ga@lah (Ps. xeviii. 2: ‘ The Lord hath made known his salvation; his righteousness hath he dis- played in the sight of the nation’), but also with such terms as 129, lamadh (Ps. xxv. 4: ‘Make known to me thy ways, O Lord: teach me thy paths’). This verb yadha‘ forms no sub- stantive in the sense of “revelation” (cf. 2", da‘ath, Num. Monel PS) XIX, 3). The most common vehicles of the idea of “revelation ” in the Old Testament are, however, two expressions which are yet to be mentioned. These are the phrase, ‘“ word of Jehovah,” and the term commonly but inadequately rendered in the Eng- lish versions by “law.” The former (d’bhar Yahweh, varied to d’bhar ’Elohim or d*bhar ha-’Elohim; cf. n’um Yahweh, massa, Yahweh) occurs scores of times and is at once the sim- plest and the most colorless designation of a Divine communi- cation. By the latter (torah), the proper meaning of which is “instruction,” a strong implication of authoritativeness is con- veyed; and, in this sense, it becomes what may be called the technical designation of a specifically Divine communication. The two are not infrequently brought together, as in Isa. 1. 10: “ Hear the word of Jehovah, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law [margin “ teaching ”] of our God, ye people of Gomor- Manse sory isa. io Viceiv. 2; “For outvot*Zion shall go >) 32 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION forth the law [margin “ instruction ”’], and the word of Jeho- vah from Jerusalem.” Both terms are used for any Divine com- munication of whatever extent; and both came to be employed to express the entire body of Divine revelation, conceived as a unitary whole. In this comprehensive usage, the emphasis of the one came to fall more on the graciousness, and of the other more on the authoritativeness of this body of Divine revela- tion; and both passed into the New Testament with these im- plications. “ The word of God,” or simply “ the word,” comes thus to mean in the New Testament just the gospel, “ the word of the proclamation of redemption, that is, all that which God has to say to man, and causes to be said ” looking to his salva- tion. It expresses, in a word, precisely what we technically speak of as God’s redemptive revelation. “ The law,” on the other hand, means in this New Testament use, just the whole body of the authoritative instruction which God has given men. It expresses, in other words, what we commonly speak of as God’s supernatural revelation. The two things, of course, are the same: God’s authoritative revelation is His gracious revelation; God’s redemptive revelation is His supernatural revelation. The two terms merely look at the one aggregate of revelation from two aspects, and each emphasizes its own as- pect of this one aggregated revelation. Now, this aggregated revelation lay before the men of the New Testament in a written form, and it was impossible to speak freely of it without consciousness of and at least occa- sional reference to its written form. Accordingly we hear of a Word of God that is written (Jn. xv. 25; 1 Cor. xv. 54), and the Divine Word is naturally contrasted with mere tradition, as if its written form were of its very idea (Mk. vii. 10); indeed, the written body of revelation — with an emphasis on its written form — is designated expressly ‘ the prophetic word’ (2 Pet. i. 19). More distinetly still, “ the Law ” comes to be thought of as a written, not exactly, code, but body of Divinely authorita- tive instructions. The phrase, “ It is written in your law ” (Jn. x. 34; xv. 25; Rom. 11. 19; 1 Cor. xiv. 21), acquires the precise sense of, “It is set forth in your authoritative Scriptures, all THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF REVELATION De the content of which is ‘ law,’ that is, Divine instruction.” Thus “the Word of God,” “ the Law,” came to mean just the written body of revelation, what we call, and what the New Testament writers called, in the same high sense which we give the term, “the Scriptures.” These “ Scriptures ” are thus identified with the revelation of God, conceived as a well-defined corpus, and two conceptions rise before us which have had a determining part to play in the history of Christianity — the conception of an authoritative Canon of Scripture, and the conception of this Canon of Scripture as just the Word of God written. The former conception was thrown into prominence in opposition to the gnostic heresies in the earliest age of the church, and gave rise to a richly varied mode of speech concerning the Scriptures, emphasizing their authority in legal language, which goes back to and rests on the Biblical usage of “ Law.” The latter it was left to the Reformation to do justice to in its struggle against, on the one side, the Romish depression of the Scriptures in favor of the traditions of the church, and on the other side the Enthusiasts’ supercession of them in the inter- ests of the “inner Word.” When Tertullian, on the one hand, speaks of the Scriptures as an “ Instrument,” a legal docu- ment, his terminology has an express warrant in the Scriptures’ own usage of torah, “ law,’ to designate their entire content. And when John Gerhard argues that “ between the Word of God and Sacred Scripture, taken in a material sense, there is no real difference,” he is only declaring plainly what is defi- nitely implied in the New Testament use of “the Word of God” with the written revelation in mind. What is important > to recognize is that the Scriptures themselves represent the Scriptures as not merely containing here and there the record of revelations — “ words of God,” toroth — given by God, but as themselves, in all their extent, a revelation, an authoritative body of gracious instructions from God; or, since they alone, of all the revelations which God may have given, are extant —rather as the Revelation, the only “ Word of God” acces- sible to men, in all their parts “ law,” that is, authoritative in- struction from God. 34 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION LITERATURE. — Herman Witsius, ‘“ De Prophetis et Prophetia ” in Miscell. Sacr., I, Leiden, 1736, 1-318; G. F. Oehler, Theology of the OT, ET, Edinburgh, 1874, I, part I (and the appropriate sections in other Bib. Theologies) ; H. Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek?, I, Kampen, 1906, 290-406 (and the appropriate sections in other dog- matic treatises); H. Voigt, Fundamentaldogmatik, Gotha, 1874, 173 ff; A. Kuyper, Encyclopaedia of Sacred Theology, ET, New York, 1898, div. III, ch. 11; A. E. Krauss, Die Lehre von der Offen- barung, Gotha, 1868; C. F. Fritzsche, De revelationis notione biblica, Leipzig, 1828; E. W. Hengstenberg, The Christology of the OT, ET?, Edinburgh, 1868, IV, Appendix 6, pp. 396-444; E. Konig, Der Offen- barungsbegriff des AT, Leipzig, 1882; A. B. Davidson, OT Prophecy, 1903; W. J. Beecher, The Prophets and the Promise, New York, 1905; James Orr, The Christian View of God and the World, 1893, as per Index, “ Revelation,” and Revelation and Inspiration, London and New York, 1910. Also: T. Christlieb, Modern Doubt and Christian Belief, ET, New York, 1874; G. P. Fisher, The Nature and Method of Revelation, New York, 1890; C. M. Mead, Supernatural Revela- tion, 1889; J. Quirmbach, Die Lehre des h. Paulus von der natiir- lichen Gotteserkenntnis, etc., Freiburg, 1906. II THE IDEA OF REVELATION AND THEORIES OF REVELATION 'é@y vir ' ie LD. a _ 4 ” ay an ie ‘, , r AM an ae ae mere.) ol : WSS Als At ant J ae fi 4 ‘4 ; } 4 i \ vA : | me ALA Me ; yy j i . ‘ i i ; WY ae as WB? aS 4 : A SAT UMA Y p baie ‘ Ay ‘y ; a _ AAR OERS te Paes tm mm inti) e fl \ an | 1 we L c ¥ i ‘ae th j ie ayo? es) v A) at ta ent , . i : | ae ; Dat 7 a - iT; vv 7 ea DARN lhe PN . Ap 5 if . 7) i 1 y by). A t L ‘ i i ay ‘5 eae uP i i ¥" i Ke , ry i un aA Ya r : ; Tt ~~ rad Au ie i) aay 4 LI Bes ‘VA ae ian) 7" ie Pa ey aM , ON, ny h oy f Th ul A : Dat Wy oe ' f ; cer) ay eh ‘¢arae aa A em fans mh v ae Wee i Mor jeg br 1 TAWLe i 7 , | “se ; aaa a) ’ nN dH ix Pata at ut Wis uh 7 ta hh Ril 7) ? : i De) ' ; . } , f Diy 1 bel va a tay \iee V ‘vn | 1 ii n he f, 1 Oy yi Wf id 4 i A > y ie Leh ‘ " » d ‘s paar Bt if ; AV ir? Ses 4 bah! ig Be a if VR ae ay i: a ’ tak rr Bee , ONY f \ i ee i Ne Biel ale y : \ ; i , aC WARY ; % a rR tate GPR TT f iw i ( tan j ‘ 4 i +3) vy Shad ing Bd Wve wr a ; ] f ia is 4 TH Y * 1 va) - ‘ Ny ney : nM ty xt Ls Ay PY ryt h: are Ae ed ig . . . 1's ROG ANIA PA Na wus ' ae i i) Aw a ae ie ats Ri 4 A att By, sent is My tay ' i , ‘ ! fait! 4 ti “ We Ms ey | Sy yy ted Ape Ath "% it ae vt SAS ay) in tA vay as nee My ha a ee he po 4 r AS AP, om ate As te ah) € te a r fat ‘ oy i ey BRS ph 8) pte NRO yt Se thee ‘ , ‘ pel at ; f , ac AL i 1S tek i i ee a nn ae ae wis i ws ; : DM } ii iy ONG 2 oy ae, in ti! h 7 * Ne ’ i i RAABA! { Ry i bh tae itn if nG ai ; : , : ‘ iavint es ps hy \ A Nay i ae Ms io sy va A eR oie ‘ . : i 7 oe j : Ati ") i; i : 4 nly i oN ‘ Aad ua +, ( ; ah COS oid er ian NER Ti ui tok I ‘ ate = TAY ON he i (sie ae j { ; id AM Pes Ven Ih we) as ; . y i Ree (hy 7 Pein’ eer aul f : i ’ rvs W anh ae WA Pa the ‘ Ak ‘ 5 ma pet ht he te an sie \ ‘ 7 ert ‘ iN wi ovine aD os a : iit / rae : Pry i a Dad i : / ‘ a 1 i AY i ‘ as | a ae at) My u oR 7 y a F boast i 4 4 ; ; } ‘ Ca ¥S ic Tek! . J ‘ ’ . t : Fe) i : j oy \ i) Wy ‘bd yp? 1 © Lf ; a. . if f my as i Ul 5) i tp Ny , , ren nf | i 7 7 iy by ‘ lia ith, ih t [ i f } al pt ; j ry eel 5 ‘ Cif ae, Ph A , Wak A “a , a eo aA RRR: 7 Hiei ba leo " 7 Pie " ! J } uf Ay J as) a I Tan) 8 1a age 1 ‘ vay ay i} Vevey Reh my ; ‘ ‘1 Wry ivi | i ‘ \ a eth } 1 } Aare A La Ai! wae i, Vey : iN ae iy € ‘ Tt y wg | f , i) t ii ~~ J ) Al Wi GRY (pee One : Joa Weer 1 ¥ ee: » Lida fie bey ) ee nnd 4 Al my ¥) if 4 {! alt aeNe i? nd Nora ‘ { - : Vie A - wae ¢ hs] 7 Ft At tip! ri if ; : : his $e Vd Vuh aM car dAON « , REIL he NAN, ‘i es le, ) } ' ery ; (a t s ae" 1 a bs ee : } : i hy Nay ve mee ¥ Une We a i Tie ia yeu ; ‘ r i ‘ ‘ Y i; iia ‘ ay nde A<)i w \ ab ee ae if al) Ty v 7 ih , ‘ i ' 2 ie 4) | ry 7 > hie , 7y AG om t me va y a he BE Aik SOWA Rey sy Mae! doll A ag 4 ‘ iA yee) 4 ; , boa ie "i Ls Ay "4 F h y4 % bin Cave . A ¢ ua \ ry i P y i 3. y t 1 oe : y i] Ned wy bis oe a yi aroma ene ») ’ yon ae! tas $ % Las’ o 7 a, \ bial? Pa oan & 3 ’ rd ay! uf 7 Vite ‘ie ar Lb ie > We } ’ As i aN as, f Te ’ iets ru By, LA ys ‘ At ‘ , i ‘ i } ar ; yy ih Ike nn ‘hy ii A vee ay G A up Ms ay , ae ¢ ’ ue ay! oe YA yt ALS 6/12 er ana al vis yi ry a a | mee STAY Mh THE IDEA OF REVELATION AND THEORIES OF REVELATION * REVELATION [from Latin revela’tio, an unveiling, revealing, derivative of revela’re, unveil; re-, back + vela’re, to veil, de- rivative of ve’lum, a veil]: in its active meaning, the act of God by which he communicates to man the truth concerning himself — his nature, works, will, or purposes; in the passive meaning, the knowledge resultant upon such activity of God. The term is commonly employed in two senses: a wider — gen- —eral revelation; and a narrower — special revelation. In its wider sense it includes all modes in which God makes himself known to men; or, passively, all knowledge concerning God however attained, inasmuch as it is conceived that all such knowledge is, in one way or another, wrought by him. In its narrower sense it is confined to the communication of knowl- edge in a supernatural as distinguished from a natural mode; or, passively, to the knowledge of God which has been super- naturally made known to men. The reality of general revela- tion is disputed by none but the anti-theist and agnostic, of whom one denies the existence of a God to make himself known, and the other doubts the capacity of the human intel- lect, if there be a God, to read the vestiges he has left of him- self in his handiwork. Most types of modern theology explicitly allow that all knowledge of God rests on revelation; that God can be known only because and so far as he reveals himself. In this the extremest “liberals,” such as Biedermann, Lipsius, and Pfleiderer, agree with the extremest “ conservatives.” Revelation is everywhere represented as the implication of theism, and as necessary to the very being of religion: “ The man who does not believe that God can speak to him will not 1 Article “ Revelation,” from Universal Cyclopedia and Atlas, R. Johnson ed. v. 10, pp. 79-81. Pub. N. Y., 1909, by D. Appleton and Co. 37 38 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION speak to God” (A. M. Fairbairn). It is only with reference to the reality of special revelation that debate concerning revela- tion continues; and it is this that Christian apologetics needs to validate. Here, too, the controversy is ultimately with anti- theistic presuppositions, with the postulates of an extreme de- ism or of an essential pantheism; but it is proximately with all those types of thought which seek to mediate between deistic or pantheizing conceptions and those of a truly Christian theism. In the eighteenth century the debate was chiefly with deism in its one-sided emphasis upon the divine transcendence, and with the several compromising schemes which grew up in the course of the conflict, such as pure rationalism and dogmatistic rationalism. The deist denied the reality of all special revela- tion, on the grounds that it was not necessary for man and was either metaphysically impossible or morally unworthy of God. Convinced of the reality of special revelation, the rationalist still denied its necessity, while the dogmatist, admitting also its necessity, denied that it constituted the authoritative ground of the acceptance of truth. Kant’s criticism struck a twofold blow at rationalism. On the negative side his treat- ment of the theistic proofs discredited the basis of natural (general) revelation, in which the rationalist placed his whole confidence. Thus the way was prepared for philosophical ag- nosticism and for that Christian agnosticism which is exempli- fied in the school of Ritschl. On the positive side he prepared the way for the idealistic philosophy, whose fundamentally pantheistic presuppositions introduced a radical change in the form of the controversy concerning the reality of a special reve- lation without in any way altering its essence. Instead of deny- ing the supernatural with the deists, this new mode of thought formally denied the natural. All thought was conceived as the immanent work of God. This change of position antiquated the forms of statement and argument which had been wrought out against the deists; but the question at issue still remained the same — whether there is any special revelation of God possi- ble, actual, extant, whether man has received any other knowl- THE IDEA AND THEORIES OF REVELATION og edge of God than what is excogitable by the normal action of his own unaided faculties. Men’s ontology of the human facul- ties and activities was changed; it was now affirmed that all that they excogitated was of God, and the natural was accord- ingly labeled supernatural. But a special supernatural inter- position for a new gift of knowledge continued to be denied as strenuously as before. Thus it has come about that, in the nine- teenth century, the controversy as to special revelation is no longer chiefly with the one-sided emphasis upon the transcend- ence of God of the deist, but with the equally one-sided em- phasis upon the immanence of God of the pantheist, and with the various compromising schemes which have grown up in the course of the conflict, through efforts to mediate between pan- theism and a truly Christian theism. It is no longer necessary to prove that God may and does speak in the souls of men; it is admitted on all hands that he reveals himself unceasingly through all the activities of creaturely minds. The task has come to be to distinguish between God’s general and God’s special revelations, to prove the possibility and actuality of the latter alongside of the former, and to vindicate for it a su- pernaturalness of a more immediate order than that which is freely attributed to all the thought of man concerning divine things. In order to defend the idea of distinctively supernatural revelation against this insidious undermining, it has become necessary, in defining it in its highest and strictest sense, to em- phasize the supernatural in the mode of knowledge and not merely in its source. When stress is Jaid upon the source only without taking into account the mode of knowledge, the way lies open to those who postulate immanent deity in all human thought to confound the categories of reason and revelation, and so practically to do away with the latter altogether. Even when the data on which our faculties work belong to a distine- tively supernatural order, yet so long as the mode of acquisi- tion of knowledge from them is conceived as purely human, the resultant knowledge remains natural knowledge; and, since in- tuition is a purely human mode of knowledge, so-called intui- 40 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION tions of divine truth would form no exception to this classifi- cation. Only such knowledge as is immediately communicated by God is, in the highest and strictest sense, supernaturally revealed. The differentia of revelation in its narrowest and strictest sense, therefore, is not merely that the knowledge so designated has God for its source, nor merely that it becomes the property of men by a supernatural agency, but further that it does not emerge into human consciousness as an acquisi- tion of the human faculties, pure and simple. Such a conception may give us a narrower category than that usually called special revelation. In contending for its reality it is by no means denied that there are other revelations of God which may deserve the name of special or supernatural in a distinctive sense. It is only affirmed that among the other modes in which God has revealed himself there exists also this mode of revelation, viz., a direct and immediate communica- tion of truth, not only from God but by God, to minds which occupy relatively to the attainment of this truth a passive or receptive attitude, so that the mode of its acquisition is as su- pernatural as its source. In the knowledge of God which is acquired by man in the normal use of his own faculties — naturally, therefore, as to mode — some deserves the name of special and supernatural above the rest, because the data upon which the human faculties work in acquiring it belong to a supernatural order. Such knowledge forms an intermediate class between that obtained by the faculties working upon nat- ural data and that obtained in a supernatural mode as well as from a supernatural source. Again, in the knowledge of God, communicated by the objective activities of his Spirit upon the minds of special organs of revelation — supernaturally, thus, as to immediate origin as well as to ultimate source — some may emerge into consciousness along the lines of the or- dinary action of the human faculties. Such knowledge would form a still higher intermediate class — between that obtained by the natural faculties working according to their native pow- ers on supernatural data and that obtained in a purely super- natural mode, as well as from a supernatural source and by a THE IDEA AND THEORIES OF REVELATION Al supernatural agency. These modes of revelation are not to be overlooked. But neither is it to be overlooked that among the ways in which God has revealed himself is also this way — that he has spoken to man as Spirit to spirit, mouth to mouth, and has made himself and his gracious purposes known to him in an immediate and direct word of God, which is simply re-_ ceived and not in any sense attained by man. In these revela- tions we reach the culminating category of special revelation, in which its peculiar character is most clearly seen. And it is these direct revelations which modern thought finds most diffi- cult to allow to be real, and which Christian apologists must especially vindicate. THEORIES OF REVELATION In the state of the case which has just been pointed out, it is a matter of course that recent theories of revelation should very frequently leave no or but little place for the highest form of revelation, that by the direct word of God. The lowest class of theories represent revelation as taking place only through the purely natural activities of the human mind, and deny the reality of any special action of the Divine Spirit directly on the mind in the communication of revealed truth. Those who share this general position may differ very greatly in their presuppo- sitions. They may, from a fundamentally deistic standpoint, jealously guard the processes of human thought from all intru-: sion on the part of God; or they may, from a fundamentally pantheistic standpoint, look upon all human thought as only the unfolding of the divine thought. They may differ also very greatly as to the nature and source of the objective data on which the mind is supposed to work in obtaining its knowledge of God. But they are at one in conceiving that which from the divine side is spoken of as revelation, as on the human side, simply the natural development of the moral and religious con- sciousness. The extreme deistic theory allows the possibility of no knowledge of God except what is obtained by the human mind working upon the data supplied by creation to the exclu- 42 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION sion of providential government. Modern speculative theists correct the deistic conception by postulating an immanent di- vine activity, both in external providence and in mental ac- tion. The data on which the mind works are supplied, accord- ing to them, not only by creation, but also by God’s moral government; and the theory grades upward in proportion as something like a special providence is admitted in the peculiar function ascribed to Israel in developing the idea of God, and the significance of Jesus Christ as the embodiment of the per- fect relation between God and man is recognized. (Bieder- mann, “ Christl. Dogmatik,” 1., 264; Lipsius, ‘ Dogmatik,” 41; Pfleiderer, “ Religionsphilosophie,”’ iv., 46.) The school of Ritschl, though they speak of a “ positive revelation ” in Jesus Christ, make no real advance upon this. Denying not only all mystical connection of the soul with God, but also all rational knowledge of divine things, they confine the data of revelation to the historical manifestation of Christ, which makes an 1m- pression on the minds of men such as justifies us in speaking of him as revealing God to us. (Herrmann, “ Der Begriff der Of- fenbarung,” and “ Der Verkehr des Christen mit Gott ”; Kaf- tan, “ Das Wesen,” etc. ) We are on higher ground, however, although still moving in essentially the same circle of conceptions as to the nature of revelation, when we rise to the theory which identifies reve- lation strictly with the series of redemptive acts (Koehler, “Stud. und Kritiken,” 1852, p. 875). From this point of view, as truly as from that of the deist or speculative theist, revela- tion is confined to the purely external manifestation of God in a series of acts. It is differentiated from the conceptions of the deist and speculative theist only in the nature of the works of God, which are supposed to supply the data which are observed and worked into knowledge by the unaided activities of the hu- man mind. In emphasizing here those acts of a special provi- dence which constitute the redemptive activity of God, this theory for the first time lays the foundation for a distinction between general and special revelation; and it grades upward in proportion as the truly miraculous character of God’s re- THE IDEA AND THEORIES OF REVELATION 43 demptive work is recognized, and acts of a truly miraculous nature are included in it. And it rises above itself in proportion as, along with the supernatural character of the series of objec- tive acts with which it formally identifies revelation, it recog- nizes an immediate action of God’s Spirit on the mind of man, preparing, fitting, and enabling him to apprehend and interpret aright the revelation made objectively in the redemptive acts. J. Chr. K. Hofmann in his earlier work, “ Prophecy and Fulfill- ment,” announces this theory in a lower form, but corrects it in his later “ Schriftbeweis.” Richard Rothe (‘ Zur Dogmatik,”’ p. 04) is an outstanding example of one of its higher forms. To him revelation consists fundamentally in the “ manifestation ” of God in the series of redemptive acts, by which God enters into natural history by means of an unambiguously supernatu- ral and peculiarly divine history, and which man is enabled to understand and rightly to interpret by virtue of an inward work of the Divine Spirit that Rothe calls “ inspiration.” But this internal action of the Spirit does not communicate new truth; it’only enables the subject to combine the elements of knowledge naturally received into a new combination, from which springs an essentially new thought which he is clearly conscious that he did not produce. The theory propounded by Prof. A. B. Bruce in his well-known lectures on “ The Chief End of Revelation” stands possibly one stage higher than Rothe’s, to which it bears a very express relation. Dr. Bruce speaks with great circumspection. He represents revelation as consisting in the “ self-manifestation of God in human history as the God of a gracious purpose — the manifestation being made not merely or chiefly by words, but very specially by deeds” (p. 155); while he looks upon “ inspiration” as “ not enabling the prophets to originate a new idea of God,’ but “rather as assisting them to read aright the divine name and nature.” Dr. Bruce transcends the position of the class of the- orists here under consideration in proportion as he magnifies the office of inner “ inspiration,” and, above all, in proportion to the extent of meaning which he attaches to the saving clause that revelation is not merely by word, but also by deed. The 44 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION theory commended by the great name of Bishop B. F. Westcott (“ The Gospel of Life ’’) is quite similar to Dr. Bruce’s. By these transitional theories we are already carried well into a second class of theories, which recognize that revelation is fundamentally the work of the Spirit of God in direct com- munication with the human mind. At its lowest level this con- ception need not rise above the pantheistic postulate of the un- folding of the life and thought of God within the world. The Divine Spirit stirs men’s hearts, and feelings and ideas spring up, which are no less revelations of God than movements of the human soul. A highér level is attained when the action of God is conceived as working in the heart of man an inward cer- tainty of divine life — as, for example, by Schultz (“ Old Tes- tament Theology”); revelation being confined as much as possible to the inner life of man apparently to avoid the recog- nition of objective miracle. A still higher level is reached where the action of the Spirit is thought of — after the fashion of Rothe, for example — as a necesary aid granted to certain men to enable them to‘apprehend and interpret aright the objective manifestation of God. The theory rises in character in propor- tion as the necessity of this action of the Spirit, its relative im- portance, and the nature of the effect produced by it are mag- nified. So long, however, as it conceives of this work of the Spirit as secondary, and ordinarily if not invariably successive to the series of redemptive acts of God, which are thought to constitute the real core of the revelation, it falls short of the biblical idea. According to the biblical representations, the fun- damental element in revelation is not the objective process of redemptive acts, but the revealing operations of the Spirit of God, which run through the whole series of modes of commu- nication proper to Spirit, culminating in communications by the objective word. The characteristic element in the Bible’ idea of revelation in its highest sense is that the organs of reve- | lation are not creatively concerned in the revelations made | through them, but occupy a receptive attitude. The contents of | their messages are not something thought out, inferred, hoped, | or feared by them, but something conveyed to them, often ‘ THE IDEA AND THEORIES OF REVELATION 46 forced upon them by the irresistible might of the revealing Spirit. No conception can do justice to the Bible idea of reve- lation which neglects these facts. Nor is justice done even to the rational idea of revelation when they are neglected. Here, too, we must interpret by the highest category in our reach. “Can man commune with man,” it has been eloquently asked, “through the high gift of language, and is the Infinite mind not to express itself, or is it to do so but faintly or uncertainly, through dumb material symbols, never by blessed speech? ”’ (W. Morrison, “ Footprints of the Revealer,” p. 52.) Tue DoctRINE oF REVELATION -The doctrine of-revelation which has been wrought out by Christian thinkers in their effort to do justice to all the bibli- cal facts, includes the following features. God has never left himself without a witness. In the act of creation he has im- pressed himself on the work of his hands. In his work of provi- dence he manifests himself as the righteous ruler of the world. Through this natural revelation men in the normal use of rea- son rise to a knowledge of God — a notitia Dei acquisita, based on the notitia Dei insita — which is trustworthy and valuable, but is insufficient for their necessities as sinners, and by its very insufficiency awakens a longing for a fuller knowledge of God and his purposes. To this purely natural revelation God has added a’ revelation of himself as the God of grace, in a con- nected series of redemptive acts, which constitute as a whole the mighty process of the new creation. To even the natural mind contemplating this seriés of supernatural acts which cul- minate in the coming of Christ, a higher knowledge of God should be conveyed than what is attainable from mere nature, though it would be limited to the capacity of the natural mind to apprehend divine things. In the process of the new creation God, however, works also inwardly by his regenerating grace, creating new hearts in men and illuminating their minds for apprehending divine things: thus, over against the new mani- festation of himself in the series of redemptive acts, he creates 46 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION a new subject to apprehend and profit by them. But neither by the presentation of supernatural facts to the mind nor by the breaking of the power of sin within, by which the eyes of the mind were holden that they should not see, is the human mind enabled to rise above itself, that it may know as God knows, unravel the manifestation of his gracious purposes from the in- completed pattern which he is weaving into the fabric of his- tory, or even interpret aright an unexplained series of marvel- ous facts involving mysteries which “ angels desire to look into.” It may be doubted whether even the supreme revelation of God in Jesus Christ could have been known as such in the absence of preparatory, accompanying and succeeding explan- atory revelations in words: ‘‘ the kingdom of God cometh not with observation.”’ God has therefore, in his infinite mercy, _added a revelation of himself, strictly so called, communicat- ing by his Spirit.directly to men knowledge concerning himself, his works, will, and purposes. The modes of communication may be various — by dreams or visions, in ecstasy or theoph- any, by inward guidance, or by the simple objective word; but in all cases the object and result are the direct supernatural communication of special knowledge. | Of this special revelation it is to be said: (1) It was not given all at once, but progressively, “ by divers portions and in divers manners,” in the form of a regular historical develop- ment. (2) Its progressive unfolding stands in a very express re- lation to the progress of God’s redemptive work. If it is not to be conceived, on the one hand, however, as an isolated act, wholly out of relation to God’s redemptive work, neither is it to be simply identified with the series of his redemptive acts. The phrase, “ revelation is for redemption and not for instruc- tion,’ presents a false antithesis. Revelation as such is cer- tainly just “to make wise,” though it is to make wise only “unto salvation.” It isnot an alternative name for the redemp- tive process, but a specific part of the redemptive process. Nor does it merely grow out of the redemptive acts as their accom- panying or following explanation; it is rather itself one of the redemptive acts, and takes its place along with the other re- THE IDEA AND THEORIES OF REVELATION 47 demptive acts, co-operative with them to the one great end. (3) Its relation to miracles has often been very unnecessarily confused by one-sided statements. Miracles are not merely credentials of revelation, but vehicles of revelation as well; but they are primarily crederitials; and some of them are so barely “ signs” as to serve no other purpose. As works of God, however, they are inevitably revelatory of God. Because the nature of the acts performed necessarily reveals the character of the actor is no proof, nevertheless, that their primary pur- pose was self-revelation; but this fact gives them a place in revelation itself; and as revelation as a whole is a substantial part of the redemptive work of God, also in the redemptive work of God. (4) Its relation to predictive prophecy is in some respects different. As a rule, at all events, predictive prophecy is primarily a part of revelation, and becomes a credential of it only secondarily, on account of the nature of the particular revelation which it conveys. When a revelation is, in its very contents, such as could come only from God, it obviously be- comes a credential of itself as a revelation, and carries with it an evidence of the divine character of the whole body of reve- lation with which it stands in organic connection. (5) Its rela- tion to the Scriptures is already apparent from what has been said. As revelation does not exist solely for the increase. of _knowledge,. but by increasing knowledge to build up the king- dom of God, so neither did it come into being for no other pur- pose than the production of the Scriptures. The Scriptures also are a means to the one end, and exist only.as a part of God’s redemptive work. But if, thus, the Scriptures can not be ex- alted as the sole end of revelation, neither can they be degraded into the mere human record of revelation. They are themselves a substantial part of God’s revelation; one form which his re- vealing activity chose for itself; and that its final and complete form, adopted as such for the very purpose of making God’s re- vealed will the permanent and universal possession of man. Among the manifold methods of God’s revelation, revelation through “ inspiration” thus takes its natural place; and the Scriptures, as the product of this “ inspiration,’ become thus 48 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION a work of God; not only a substantial part of revelation, but, along with the rest of revelation, a substantial part of his re- demptive work. Along with the other acts of God which make up the connected series of his redemptive acts, the giving of the Scriptures ranks as an element of the building up of the king- dom of God. That within the limits of Scripture there appears the record of revelations in a narrower and stricter sense of the term, in nowise voids its claim to be itself revelation. Scripture records the sequence of God’s great redeeming acts. But it is much more than merely “ the record, the interpretation, and the literary reflection of God’s grace in history.” Scripture re- cords the direct revelations which God gave to men in days past, so far as those revelations were intended for permanent and universal use. But it is much more than a record of past revelations. It is itself the final revelation of God, completing the whole disclosure of his unfathomable love to lost sinners, the whole proclamation of his purposes of grace, and the whole exhibition of his gracious provisions for their salvation. ITI THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE hy | 1 ' fad du nhs 1 . a ae a: - ¢ ‘ ? 7 DS. Pa ‘ i h Ti . ' ‘ ite — ‘ ohn ; ? - im hip A 7 ie ity a he | i we bee AT | \j ’ i] ivi \ ie ‘ j : i ‘\ ey P's - } y a a) whl f ' aN, 24 tat i why EN i ee ets . . i ne = i » — Maes x Ades 0 Ati : 4,4 ad oo rug 7 _ Air bs ; ; se - yan eae ah a ae one te *y ‘ : : ve j { f 1s a | : ; wel , Ly tas ‘4 Ha '- hi ee | rm ha if ' ; 7 i 7, Meee, P . ae! Mh et Tm Al Weenie 4h Ps i \ THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE* THE subject of the Inspiration of the Bible is one which has been much confused in recent discussion. He who, seeking to learn the truth, should gather about him the latest treatises, bearing such titles as, ‘ Inspiration, and other Lectures,” ‘“ In- spiration and the Bible,” “ What is Inspiration? ” “ How did God inspire the Bible?” “The Oracles of God?” ? — would find himself led by them in every conceivable direction at once. No wonder if he should stand stock-still in the midst of his would-be guides, confounded by the Babel of voices. The old formula, quot homines tot sententie, seems no longer adequate. Wherever five “ advanced thinkers ”’ assemble, at least six the- ories as to inspiration are likely to be ventilated. They differ in every conceivable point, or in every conceivable point save one. They agree that inspiration is less pervasive and less de- terminative than has heretofore been thought, or than is still thought in less enlightened circles. They agree that there is less of the truth of God and more of the error of man in the Bible than Christians have been wont to believe. They agree accordingly that the teaching of the Bible may be, in this, that, or the other, — here, there, or elsewhere, — safely neglected or openly repudiated. So soon as we turn to the constructive side, however, and ask wherein the inspiration of the Bible con- sists; how far it guarantees the trustworthiness of the Bible’s teaching; in what of its elements is the Bible a divinely safe- guarded guide to truth: the concurrence ends and hopeless dis- sension sets in. They agree only in their common destructive at- titude towards some higher view of the inspiration of the Bible, of the presence of which each one seems supremely conscious. 1 A lecture. From “ Bibliotheca Sacra,” v. 51, 1894, pp. 614-640. Pub. also in “ King’s Own,” v. 6, Lond. 1895, pp. 791-794, 833-840, 926-933. 2 Titles of recent treatises by Rooke, Horton, DeWitt, Smyth, and Sanday respectively. " 51 52 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION It is upon this fact that we need first of all to fix our atten- tion. It is not of the variegated hypotheses of his fellow-the- orizers, but of some high doctrine of inspiration, the common object of attack of them all, that each new theorizer on the subject of inspiration is especially conscious, as standing over against him, with reference to which he is to orient himself, and against the claims of which he is to defend his new hy- pothesis. Thus they themselves introduce us to the fact that over against the numberless discordant theories of inspiration which vex our time, there stands a well-defined church-doc- trine of inspiration. This church-doctrine of inspiration differs from the theories that would fain supplant it, in that it is not the invention nor the property of an individual, but the settled faith of the universal church of God; in that it is not the growth of yesterday, but the assured persuasion of the people of God from the first planting of the church until to-day; in that it is not a protean shape, varying its affirmations to fit every new change in the ever-shifting thought of men, but from the beginning has been the church’s constant and abiding conviction as to the divinity of the Scriptures committed to her keeping. It is certainly a most impressive fact, — this well- defined, aboriginal, stable doctrine of the church as to the na- ture and trustworthiness of the Scriptures of God, which con- fronts with its gentle but steady persistence of affirmation all the theories of inspiration which the restless energy of unbe- heving and half-believing speculation has been able to invent in this agitated nineteenth century of ours. Surely the seeker after the truth in the matter of the inspiration of the Bible may well take this church-doctrine as his starting-point. What this church-doctrine is, it is scarcely necessary mi- nutely to describe. It will suffice to remind ourselves that it looks upon the Bible as an oracular book, — as the Word of God in such a sense that whatever it says God says, — not a book, then, in which one may, by searching, find some word of God, but a book which may be frankly appealed to at any point with the assurance that whatever it may be found to say, that is the Word of God. We are all of us members in particular of THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE ah the body of Christ which we call the church: and the life of the church, and the faith of the church, and the thought of the church are our natural heritage. We know how, as Christian ‘men, we approach this Holy Book, — how unquestioningly we receive its statements of fact, bow before its enunciations of duty, tremble before its threatenings, and rest upon its prom- ises. Or, if the subtle spirit of modern doubt has seeped some- what into our hearts, our memory will easily recall those hap- pier days when we stood a child at our Christian mother’s knee, with lisping lips following the words which her slow finger traced upon this open page, — words which were her support in every trial and, as she fondly trusted, were to be our guide throughout life. Mother church was speaking to us in that maternal voice, commending to us her vital faith in the Word of God. How often since then has it been our own lot, in our turn, to speak to others all the words of this life! As we sit in the midst of our pupils in the Sabbath-school, or in the centre of our circle at home, or perchance at some bedside of sickness or of death; or as we meet our fellow-man amid the busy work of the world, hemmed in by temptation or weighed down with care, and would fain put beneath him some firm support and stay: in what spirit do we turn to this Bible then? with what confidence do we commend its every word to those whom we would make partakers of its comfort or of its strength? In such scenes as these is revealed the vital faith of the people of God in the surety and trustworthiness of the Word of God. Nor do we need to do more than remind ourselves that this attitude of entire trust in every word of the Scriptures has been characteristic of the people of God from the very foundation of the church. Christendom has always reposed upon the belief that the utterances of this book are properly oracles of God. The whole body of Christian literature bears witness to this fact. We may trace its stream to its source, and everywhere it is vocal with a living faith in the divine trustworthiness of the Scriptures of God in every one of their affirmations. This is the murmur of the little rills of Christian speech which find their 54. REVELATION AND INSPIRATION tenuous way through the parched heathen land of the early second century. And this is the mighty voice of the great river of Christian thought which sweeps through the ages, freighted with blessings for men. Dr. Sanday, in his recent Bampton Lectures on “ Inspiration ’” — in which, unfortunately, he does not teach the church-doctrine — is driven to admit that not only may “ testimonies to the general doctrine of inspiration ” from the earliest Fathers, “be multiplied to almost any ex- tent; but [that] there are some which go further and point to an inspiration which might be described as ‘ verbal’”’; “ nor does this idea,” he adds, ‘“ come in tentatively and by degrees, but almost from the very first.” * He might have spared the ad- verb “ almost.” The earliest writers know no other doctrine. If Origen asserts that the Holy Spirit was co-worker with the Evangelists in the composition of the Gospel, and that, there- fore, lapse of memory, error or falsehood was impossible to them,* and if Irenzeus, the pupil of Polycarp, claims for Chris- tians a clear knowledge that “‘ the Scriptures are perfect, seeing that they are spoken by God’s Word and his Spirit ”’;° no less does Polycarp, the pupil of John, consider the Scriptures the very voice of the Most High, and pronounce him the first-born of Satan, “ whosoever perverts these oracles of the Lord.” ® Nor do the later Fathers know a different doctrine. Augustine, for example, affirms that he defers to the canonical Scriptures alone among books with such reverence and honor that he most “firmly believes that no one of their authors has erred in any- thing, in writing.” * To precisely the same effect did the Re- formers believe and teach. Luther adopts these words of Augus- tine’s as his own, and declares that the whole of the Scriptures are to be ascribed to the Holy Ghost, and therefore cannot err.® Calvin demands that whatever is propounded in Scripture, 3 Sanday, “ Inspiration,” p. 34. 4 On Matt. xvi. 12 and Jno. vi. 18. 5 Adv. Haer, 11. 28. 6 Ep. ad Phil., cap. vii. 7 Ep. ad Hier. Ixxxii. 3. 8 “ Works” (St. Louis ed.), xix. 305; (Erlangen ed.), xxxvil. 11 and xxxviii. 33. THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE 535) “without exception,” shall be humbly received by us, — that the Scriptures as a whole shall be received by us with the same reverence which we give to God, “‘ because they have emanated from him alone, and are mixed with nothing human.” ® The saintly Rutherford, who speaks of the Scriptures as a more sure word than a direct oracle from heaven,’ and Baxter, who affrms that “all that the holy writers have recorded is true (and no falsehood in the Scriptures but what is from the errors of scribes and translators), ‘* hand down this supreme trust in the Scripture word to our own day — to our own Charles Hodge and Henry B. Smith, the one of whom asserts that the Bible “ gives us truth without error,” ” and the other, that “ all the books of the Scripture are equally inspired; . . . all alike are infallible in what they teach; . . . their assertions must be free from error.” ** Such testimonies are simply the formula- tion by the theologians of each age of the constant faith of Christians throughout all ages. If we would estimate at its full meaning the depth of this trust in the Scripture word, we should observe Christian men at work upon the text of Scripture. There is but one view-point which will account for or justify the minute and loving pains which have been expended upon-the text of Scripture, by the long line of commentators that has extended unbrokenly from the first Christian ages to our own. The allegorical interpreta- tion which rioted in the early days of the church was the daughter of reverence for the biblical word; a spurious daugh- ter you may think, but none the less undeniably a direct off- spring of the awe with which the sacred text was regarded as the utterances of God, and, as such, pregnant with inexhaust- ible significance. The patient and anxious care with which the Bible text is scrutinized today by scholars, of a different spirit no doubt from those old allegorizers, but of equal reverence for 9 “Institutes,” i. 18; “Commentary on Romans,” xv. 4, and on 2 Tim. i. 16. 10 “ Free Disputation against Pretended Liberty of Conscience,” p. 373. 11 “ Works,” xv. 65. 12 Henry B. Smith, “ Sermon on Inspiration ” (Cincinnati ed.), p. 19. 13 Charles Hodge, “ Syst. Theol.,” i. 163. 56 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION the text of Scripture, betrays the same fundamental view- point, — to which the Bible is the Word of God, every detail of the meaning of which is of inestimable preciousness. No doubt there have been men who have busied themselves with the interpretation of Scripture, who have not approached it in such a spirit or with such expectations. But it is not the Jow- etts, with their supercilious doubts whether Paul meant very much by what he said, who represent the spirit of Christian ex- position. This is represented rather by the Bengels, who count no labor wasted, in their efforts to distill from the very words of Holy Writ the honey which the Spirit has hidden in them for the comfort and the delight of the saints. It is represented rather by the Westcotts, who bear witness to their own experi- ence of the “sense of rest and confidence which grows firmer with increasing knowledge,” as their patient investigation has dug deeper and deeper for the treasures hid in the words and clauses and sentences of the Epistles of John,’* — to the sure conviction which forty years of study of the Epistle to the Hebrews has brought them that ‘‘ we come nearer to the mean- ing of Scripture by the closest attention to the subtleties and minute variations of words and order.” It was a just remark of one of the wisest men I ever knew, Dr. Wistar Hodge, that this is “ a high testimony to verbal inspiration.” *° Of course the church has not failed to bring this, her vital faith in the divine trustworthiness of the Scripture word, to formal expression in her solemn creeds. The simple faith of the Christian people is also the confessional doctrine of the Chris- tian churches. The assumption of the divine authority of the scriptural teaching underlies all the credal statements of the church; all of which are formally based upon the Scriptures. And from the beginning, it finds more or less full expression in them. Already, in some of the formulas of faith which underlie the Apostles’ Creed itself, we meet with the phrase “ according to the Scriptures” as validating the items of belief; while in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, amid the meagre clauses 14 B. F. Westcott, “‘ The Epistles of St. John,” p. vi. 15 C, Wistar Hodge, “ Presbyterian and Reformed Review,” ii. 330. : THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE 57 outlining only what is essential to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, place is given to the declaration that He is to be found speaking in the prophets — “ who spake by the prophets.” It was in conscious dependence upon the immemorial teaching of the church that the Council of Trent defined it as of faith in the Church of Rome, that God is the author of Scripture, — a declaration which has been repeated in our own day by the Vatican Council, with such full explanations as are included in these rich words: “The church holds” the books of the Old and New Testaments, “to be sacred and canonical, not be- cause, having been carefully composed by mere human indus- try, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor merely because they contain revelation with no admixture of error; but because, having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author.’ Needless to say that a no less firm conviction of the absolute authority of Scripture underlies all the Protestant creeds. Before all else, Protestantism is, in its very essence, an appeal from all other authority to the divine authority of Holy Scripture. The Augs- burg. Confession, the first Protestant creed, is, therefore, com- mended to consideration, only on the ground that it is “ drawn from the Holy Scriptures and the pure word of God.” The later Lutheran creeds, and especially the Reformed creeds, grow progressively more explicit.,It is our special felicity, that as Reformed Christians, and heirs of the richest and fullest formulation of Reformed thought, we possess in that precious ' heritage, the Westminster Confession, the most complete, the most admirable, the most perfect statement of the essential Christian doctrine of Holy Scripture which has ever been formed by man. Here the vital faith of the church is brought to full expression; the Scriptures are declared to be the word of God in such a sense that God is their author, and they, because immediately inspired by God, are of infallible truth and divine authority, and are to be believed to be true by the Christian man, in whatsoever is revealed in them, for the authority of God himself speaking therein. Thus, in every way possible, the church has borne her testi- 58 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION mony from the beginning, and still in our day, to her faith in the divine trustworthiness of her Scriptures, in all their affir- mations of whatever kind. At no age has it been possible for men to express without rebuke the faintest doubt as to the absolute trustworthiness of their least declaration. Tertul¥ lian, writing at the opening of the third century, suggests, with evident hesitation and timidity, that Paul’s language in the seventh chapter of First Corinthians may be intended to dis- tinguish, in his remarks on marriage and divorce, between mat- ters of divine commandment and of human arrangement. Dr. Sanday is obliged to comment on his language: “ Any seeming depreciation of Scripture was as unpopular even then as it is now.” *® The church has always believed her Scriptures to be the book of God, of which God was in such a sense the author that every one of its affirmations of whatever kind is to be esteemed as the utterance of God, of infallible truth and authority. In the whole history of the church there have been but two movements of thought, tending to a lower conception of the inspiration and authority of Scripture, which have attained sufficient proportions to bring them into view in an historical sketch. (1) The first of these may be called the Rationalistic view. Its characteristic feature is an effort to distinguish between inspired and uninspired elements within the Scriptures. With forerunners among the Humanists, this mode of thought was introduced by the Socinians, and taken up by the Syncretists in Germany, the Remonstrants in Holland, and the Jesuits in the Church of Rome. In the great life-and-death struggle of the eighteenth century it obtained great vogue among the de- fenders of supernatural religion, in their desperate efforts to save what was of even more importance, — just as a hard- pressed army may yield to the foe many an outpost which justly belongs to it, in the effort to save the citadel. In the nine- teenth century it has retained a strong hold, especially upon apologetical writers, chiefly in the three forms which affirm re- 16 Sanday, “ Inspiration,’”’p. 42 (note). THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE 59 spectively that only the mysteriés of the faith are inspired, i. e. things undiscoverable by.unaided reason, — that the Bible is inspired only in matters of faith and practice, — and that the Bible is inspired only in its thoughts or concepts, not in its words. But although this legacy from the rationalism of an evil time still makes its appearance in the pages of many theologi- cal writers, and has no doubt affected the faith of a consider- able number of Christians, it has failed to supplant in either the creeds of the church or the hearts of the people the church- doctrine of the plenary inspiration of the Bible, i. e. the doc- trine that the Bible is inspired not in part but fully, in all its _elements alike, — things discoverable by reason as well as mys- teries, matters of history and science as well as of faith and practice, words as well as thoughts. (2) The second of the lowered views of inspiration may be called the Mystical view. Its characteristic conception is that the Christian man has something within himself, — call it en- lightened reason, spiritual insight, the Christian consciousness, the witness of the Spirit, or call it what you will, — to the test of which every “ external revelation” is to be subjected, and according to the decision of which are the contents of the Bible to be valued. Very varied forms have been taken by this con- ception; and more or less expression has been given to it, in one form or another, in every age. In its extremer manifesta- tions, it has formerly tended to sever itself from the main stream of Christian thought and even to form separated sects. But in our own century, through the great genius of Schleier- macher it has broken in upon the church like a flood, and washed into every corner of the Protestant world. As a conse- quence, we find men everywhere who desire to acknowledge as from God only such Scripture as “ finds them,’ — who cast the clear objective enunciation of God’s will to the mercy of the currents of thought and feeling which sweep up and down in their own souls, — who “ persist’? sometimes, to use a sharp but sadly true phrase of Robert Alfred Vaughan’s, “in their conceited rejection of the light without until they have turned into darkness their light within.” We grieve over the inroads 60 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION which this essentially naturalistic mode of thought has made in the Christian thinking of the day. But great and deplorable as they have been, they have not been so extensive as to sup- plant the church-doctrine of the absolute authority of the ob- jective revelation of God in his Word, in either the creeds of the church, or the hearts of the people. Despite these attempts to introduce lowered conceptions, the doctrine of the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, which looks upon them as an oracular book, in all its parts and elements, alike, of God, trust- worthy in all its affirmations of every kind, remains to-day, as it has always been, the vital faith of the people of God, and the formal teaching of the organized church. The more we contemplate this church-doctrine, the more pressing becomes the question of what account we are to give of it, —its origin and persistence. How shall we account for the immediate adoption of so developed a doctrine of inspira- tion in the very infancy of the church, and for the tenacious hold which the church has kept upon it through so many ages? The account is simple enough, and capable of inclusion in a single sentence: this is the doctrine of inspiration which was held by the writers of the New Testament and by Jesus as re- ported in the Gospels. It is this simple fact that has com- mended it to the church of all ages as the true doctrine; and in it we may surely recognize an even more impressive fact than that of the existence of a stable, abiding church-doctrine stand- ing over against the many theories of the day,—the fact, namely, that this church-doctrine of inspiration was the Bible doctrine before it was the church-doctrine, and is the church- doctrine only because it is the Bible doctrine. It is upon this fact that we should now fix our attention. In the limited space at our disposal we need not attempt anything like a detailed proof that the church-doctrine of the plenary inspiration of the Bible is the Bible’s own doctrine of inspiration. And this especially for three very obvious rea- sons: First, because it cannot be necessary to prove this to our- THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE 61 selves. We have the Bible in our hands, and we are accustomed to read it. It is enough for us to ask ourselves how the apostles and our Lord, as represented in its pages, conceived of what they called “ the Scriptures,” for the answer to come at once to our minds. As readers of the New Testament, we know that to the men of the New Testament “the Scriptures” were the Word of God which could not be broken, i. e. whose every word was trustworthy; and that a simple “ It is written ” was there- fore to them the end of all strife. The proof of this is pervasive and level to the apprehension of every reader. It would be an insult to our intelligence were we to presume that we had not observed it, or could not apprehend its meaning. Secondly, it is not necessary to prove that the New Testa- ment regards “Scripture” as the mere Word of God, in the highest and most rigid sense, to modern biblical scholarship. Among untrammelled students of the Bible, it is practically a matter of common consent that the writers of the New Tes- tament books looked upon what they called “Scripture” as divinely safeguarded in even its verbal expression, and as di- vinely trustworthy in all its parts, in all its elements, and in all its affirmations of whatever kind. This is, of course, the judgment of all those who have adopted this doctrine as their own, because they apprehend it to be the biblical doctrine. It is also the judgment of all those who can bring themselves to refuse a doctrine which they yet perceive to be a biblical doc- trine. Whether we appeal, among men of this class, to such students of a more evangelical tendency, as Tholuck, Rothe, Farrar, Sanday, or to such extremer writers as Riehm, Reuss, Pfleiderer, Keunen, they will agree in telling us that the high doctrine of inspiration which we have called the church-doc- trine was held by the writers of the New Testament. This 1s common ground between believing and unbelieving students of the Bible, and needs, therefore, no new demonstration in the forum of scholarship. Let us pause here, therefore, only long enough to allow Hermann Schultz, surely a fair example of the “advanced ” school, to tell us what is the conclusion in this matter of the strictest and coldest exegetical science. “The 62 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION Book of the Law,” he tells us, “seemed already to the later poets of the Old Testament, the ‘Word of God.’ The post- canonical books of Israel regard the Law and the Prophets in this manner. And for the men of the New Testament, the Holy Scriptures of their people are already God’s word in which God himself speaks.” This view, which looked upon the scriptural books as verbally inspired, he adds, was the ruling one in the time of Christ, was shared by all the New Testament men, and by Christ himself, as a pious conception, and was expressly taught by the more scholastic writers among them.*’ It is hardly necessary to prove what is so frankly confessed. The third reason why it is not necessary to occupy our time with a formal proof that the Bible does teach this doctrine, arises from the circumstance that even those who seek to rid themselves of the pressure of this fact upon them, are observed to be unable to prosecute their argument without an implied admission of it as a fact. This is true, for example, of Dr. San- day’s endeavors to meet the appeal of the church to our Lord’s authority in defence of the doctrine of plenary inspiration.” He admits that the one support which has been sought by the church of all ages for its high doctrine has been the “ extent to which it was recognized in the sayings of Christ himself.” As over against this he begins by suggesting “ that, whatever view our Lord himself entertained as to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, the record of his words has certainly come down to us through the medium of persons who shared the current view on the subject.” This surely amounts to a full admission that the writers of the New Testament at least, held and taught the obnoxious doctrine. He ends with the remark that “ when de- ductions have been made... there still remains evidence enough that our Lord, while on earth did use the common lan- guage of his contemporaries in regard to the Old Testament.” This surely amounts to a full admission that Christ as well as his reporters taught the obnoxious doctrine. This will be found to be a typical case. Every attempt to 17 Hermann Schultz, “ Grundriss d. Evang. Dogmatik,” p. 7. 18 “ Inspiration,” p. 393 seq. THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE 63 escape from the authority of the New Testament enunciation of the doctrine of plenary inspiration, in the nature of the case begins by admitting that this is, in very fact, the New Testa- ment doctrine. Shall we follow Dr. Sanday, and appeal from the apostles to Christ, and then call in the idea of kenosis, and affirm that in the days of his flesh, Christ did not speak out of the fulness and purity of his divine knowledge, but on be- coming man had shrunk to man’s capacity, and in such mat- ters as this was limited in his conceptions by the knowledge and opinions current in his day and generation? In so saying, we admit, as has already been pointed out, not only that the apostles taught this high doctrine of inspiration, but also that Christ too, In whatever humiliation he did it, yet actually taught the same. Shall we then take refuge in the idea of ac- commodation, and explain that, in so speaking of the Scrip- tures, Christ and his apostles did not intend to teach the doc- trine of inspiration implicated, but merely adopted, as a matter of convenience, the current language, as to Scripture, of the time? In so speaking, also, we admit that the actual language of Christ and his apostles expresses that high view of inspira- tion which was confessedly the current view of the day — whether as a matter of convenience or as a matter of truth, the Christian consciousness may be safely left to decide. Shall we then remind ourselves that Jesus himself committed nothing to writing, and appeal to the uncertainties which are accus- tomed to attend the record of teaching at second-hand? Thus, too, we allow that the words of Christ as transmitted to us do teach the obnoxious doctrine. Are we, then, to fall back upon the observation that the doctrine of plenary inspiration is not taught with equal plainness in every part of the Bible, but be- comes clear only in the later Old Testament books, and is not explicitly enunciated except in the more scholastic of the New Testament books? In this, too, we admit that it is taught in the Scriptures; while the fact that it is taught not all at once, but with progressive clearness and fulness, is accordant with the nature of the Bible as a book written in the process of the ages and progressively developing the truth. Then, shall we affirm 64. REVELATION AND INSPIRATION that our doctrine of inspiration is not to be derived solely from the teachings of the Bible, but from its teachings and phenom- ena in conjunction; and so call in what we deem the phenom- ena of the Bible to modify its teaching? Do we not see that the very suggestion of this process admits that the teaching of the Bible, when taken alone, i. e., in its purity and just as it is, gives us the unwelcome doctrine? Shall we, then, take counsel of desperation and assert that all appeal to the teaching of the Scriptures themselves in testimony to their own inspiration 1s an argument in a circle, appealing to their inspiration to vali- date their inspiration? Even this desperately illogical shift to be rid of the scriptural doctrine of inspiration, obviously in- volves the confession that this is the scriptural doctrine. No, the issue is not, What does the Bible teach? but, Is what the Bible teaches true? And it is amazing that any or all of such expedients can blind the eyes of any one to the stringency of this issue. Even a detailed attempt to explain away the texts which teach the doctrine of the plenary inspiration and unvarying truth of Scripture, involves the admission that in their obvious meaning such texts teach the doctrine which it is sought to ex- plain away. And think of explaining away the texts which in- culcate the doctrine of the plenary inspiration of the Scrip- tures! The effort to do so is founded upon an inexplicably odd misapprehension — the misapprehension that the Bible wit- nesses to its plenary inspiration only in a text here and there: texts of exceptional clearness alone probably being in mind, — such as our Saviour’s declaration that the Scriptures cannot be broken; or Paul’s, that every scripture is inspired of God; or Peter’s, that the men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Such texts, no doubt, do teach the doctrine of plenary inspiration, and are sadly in need of explaining away at the hands of those who will not believe this doctrine. As, in- deed, we may learn from Dr. Sanday’s treatment of one of them, that in which our Lord declares that the Scriptures can- not be broken. Dr. Sanday can only speak of this as “ a passage of peculiar strangeness and difficulty ”; ‘ because,” he tells us, THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE 65 ‘it seems to mean that the dicta of Scripture, even where we should naturally take them as figurative, must be true.” Need- less to say that the only “strangeness and difficulty ” in the text arises from the unwillingness of the commentator to ap- proach the Scriptures with the simple trust in their detailed divine trustworthiness and authority which characterized all our Lord’s dealings with them. But no grosser misconception could be conceived than that the Scriptures bear witness to their own plenary inspiration in these outstanding texts alone. These are but the culminating passages of a pervasive testimony to the divine character of Scripture, which fills the whole New Testament; and which in- cludes not only such direct assertions of divinity and infallibil- ity for Scripture as these, but, along with them, an endless variety of expressions of confidence in, and phenomena of use of, Scripture which are irresistible in their teaching when it is once fairly apprehended. The induction must be broad enough to embrace, and give their full weight to, a great variety of such facts as these: the lofty titles which are given to Scrip- ture, and by which it is cited, such as “ Scripture,” “ the Scrip- tures,’ even that almost awful title, “ the Oracles of God”’; the significant formule by which it is quoted, ‘“ It is written,” “ It is spoken,” “ It says,” “God says”; such modes of adducing it as betray that to the writer “Scripture says” is equivalent to “ God says,” and even its narrative parts are conceived as direct utterances of God; the attribution to Scripture, as such, of divine qualities and acts, as in such phrases as “ the Scrip- tures foresaw ”; the ascription of the Scriptures, in whole or in their several parts as occasionally adduced, to the Holy Spirit as their author, while the human writers are treated as merely his media of expression; the reverence and trust shown, and the significance and authority ascribed, to the very words of Scripture; and the general attitude of entire subjection to every declaration of Scripture of whatever kind, which charac- terizes every line of the New Testament. The effort to explain away the Bible’s witness to its plenary inspiration reminds one of a man standing safely in his laboratory and elaborately ex- 66 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION pounding — possibly by the aid of diagrams and mathematical formule —how every stone in an avalanche has a defined pathway and may easily be dodged by one of some presence of mind. We may fancy such an elaborate trifler’s triumph as he would analyze the avalanche into its constituent stones, and demonstrate of stone after stone that its pathway is definite, limited, and may easily be avoided. But avalanches, unfortu- nately, do not come upon us, stone by stone, one at a time, courteously leaving us opportunity to withdraw from the path- way of each in turn: but all at once, in a roaring mass of de- struction. Just so we may explain away a text or two which teach plenary inspiration, to our own closet satisfaction, deal- ing with them each without reference to its relation to the others: but these texts of ours, again, unfortunately do not come upon us in this artificial isolation; neither are they few in number. There are scores, hundreds, of them: and they come bursting upon us in one solid mass. Explain them away’? We should have to explain away the whole New Testament. What a pity it is that we cannot see and feel the avalanche of texts beneath which we may lie hopelessly buried, as clearly as we may see and feel an avalanche of stones! Let us, however, but open our eyes to the variety and pervasiveness of the New Tes- tament witness to its high estimate of Scripture, and we shall no longer wonder that modern scholarship finds itself com- pelled to allow that the Christian church has read her records correctly, and that the church-doctrine of inspiration is simply a transcript of the biblical doctrine; nor shall we any longer wonder that the church, receiving these Scriptures as her au- thoritative teacher of doctrine, adopted in the very beginnings of her life, the doctrine of plenary inspiration, and has held it with a tenacity that knows no wavering, until the present hour. But, we may be reminded, the church has not held with such tenacity to all doctrines taught in the Bible. How are we to account, then, for the singular constancy of its confession of the Bible’s doctrine of inspiration? The account to be given is again simple, and capable of being expressed in a single sen- tence. It is due to an instinctive feeling in the church, that the THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE 67 trustworthiness of the Scriptures lies at the foundation of trust in the Christian system of doctrine, and is therefore funda- mental to the Christian hope and life. It is due to the church’s instinct that the validity of her teaching of doctrine as the truth of God, — to the Christian’s instinct that the validity of his hope in the several promises of the gospel, — rests on the trustworthiness of the Bible as a record of God’s dealings and purposes with men. Individuals may call in question the soundness of these in- stinctive judgments. And, indeed, there is a sense in which it would not be true to say that the truth of Christian teaching and the foundations of faith are suspended upon the doctrine of plenary inspiration, or upon any doctrine of inspiration whatever. They rest rather upon the previous fact of revela- tion: and it is important to keep ourselves reminded that the supernatural origin and contents of Christianity, not only may be vindicated apart from any question of the inspiration of the record, but, in point of fact, always are vindicated prior to any question of the inspiration of the record. We cannot raise the question whether God has given us an absolutely trustworthy record of the supernatural facts and teachings of Christianity, before we are assured that there are supernatural facts and teachings to be recorded. The fact that Christianity is a super- natural religion and the nature of Christianity as a supernatu- ral religion, are matters of history; and are independent of any, and of every, theory of inspiration. But this line of remark is of more importance to the Chris- tian apologist than to the Christian believer, as such; and the instinct of the church that the validity of her teaching, and the instinct of the Christian that the validity of his hope, are bound up with the trustworthiness of the Bible, is a perfectly sound one. This for three reasons: First, because the average Christian man is not and cannot be a fully furnished historical scholar. If faith in Christ is to be always and only the product of a thorough historical investiga- tion into the origins of Christianity, there would certainly be few who could venture to preach Christ and him crucified with 68 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION entire confidence; there would certainly be few who would be able to trust their all to him with entire security. The Christian scholar desires, and, thank God, is able to supply, a thoroughly trustworthy historical vindication of supernatural Christian- ity. But the Christian teacher desires, and, thank God, is able to lay his hands upon, a thoroughly trustworthy record of su- pernatural Christianity; and the Christian man requires, and, thank God, has, a thoroughly trustworthy Bible to which he can go directly and at once in every time of need. Though, then, in the abstract, we may say that the condition of the validity of the Christian teaching and of the Christian hope, js no more than the fact of the supernaturalism of Christianity, historically vindicated; practically we must say that the con- dition of the persistence of Christianity as a religion for the people, is the entire trustworthiness of the Scriptures as the record of the supernatural revelation which Christianity is. Secondly, the merely historical vindication of the super- natural origin and contents of Christianity, while thorough and complete for Christianity as a whole, and for all the main facts and doctrines which enter into it, does not by itself supply a firm basis of trust for all the details of teaching and all the items of promise upon which the Christian man would fain lean. Christianity would be given to us; but it would be given to us, not in the exact form or in all the fulness with which God gave it to his needy children through his servants, the prophets, and through his Son and his apostles; but with the marks of human misapprehension, exaggeration, and minimizing upon it, and of whatever attrition may have been wrought upon it by its passage to us through the ages. That the church may have unsullied assurance in the details of its teaching, — that the Christian man may have unshaken confidence in the details of the promises to which he trusts,— they need, and they know that they need, a thoroughly trustworthy Word of God in which God himself speaks directly to them all the words of this life. Thirdly, in the circumstances of the present case, we can- not fall back from trust in the Bible upon trust in the historical THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE 69 vindication of Christianity as a revelation from God, inasmuch as, since Christ and his apostles are historically shown to have taught the plenary inspiration of the Bible, the credit of the previous fact of revelation — even of the supreme revelation in Christ Jesus — is implicated in the truth of the doctrine of plenary inspiration. The historical vindication of Christianity as a revelation from God, vindicates as the truth of God all the contents of that revelation; and, among these contents, vindi- cates, as divinely true, the teaching of Christ and his apostles, that the Scriptures are the very Word of God, to be trusted as such in all the details of their teaching and promises. The in- stinct of the church is perfectly sound, therefore, when she clings to the trustworthiness of the Bible, as lying at the foun- dation of her teaching and her faith. Much less can she be shaken from this instinctive convic- tion by the representations of individual thinkers who go yet a step further, and, refusing to pin their faith either to the Bible or to history, affirm that “ the essence of Christianity ” is se- curely intrenched in the subjective feelings of man, either as such, or as Christian man taught by the Holy Ghost; and therefore that there is by no means needed an infallible objec- tive rule of faith in order to propagate or preserve Christian truth in the world. It is unnecessary to say that “ the essence of Christianity ” as conceived by these individuals, includes little that is characteristic of Christian doctrine, life, or hope, as distinct from what is taught by other religions or philoso- phies. And it is perhaps equally unnecessary to remind our- selves that such individuals, having gone so far, tend to take a further step still, and to discard the records which they thus judge to be unnecessary. Thus, there may be found even men still professing historical Christianity, who reason themselves into the conclusion that “in the nature of the case, no external authority can possibly be absolute in regard to spiritual truth ”’; ® just as men have been known to reason themselves into the conclusion that the external world has no objective reality and is naught but the projection of their own faculties. 19 Professor W. F. Adeney, “ Faith and Criticism,” p. 90. 70 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION But as in the one case, so in the other, the common sense of men recoils from such subtleties; and it remains the profound persuasion of the Christian heart that without such an “ exter- nal authority ” as a thoroughly trustworthy Bible, the soul is left without sure ground for a proper knowledge of itself, its condition, and its need, or for a proper knowledge of God’s pro- visions of mercy for it and his promises of grace to it, — with- out sure ground, in a word, for its faith and hope. Adolphe Monod gives voice to no more than the common Christian con- viction, when he declares that, “ If faith has not for its basis a testimony of God to which we must submit, as to an authority exterior to our personal judgment, and independent of it, then faith is no faith.” °° “ The more I study the Scriptures, the ex- ample of Christ, and of the apostles, and the history of my own heart,’ he adds, ‘‘ the more I am convinced, that a testimony of God, placed without us and above us, exempt from all inter- mixture of sin and error which belong to a fallen race, and re- ceived with submission on the sole authority of God, is the true basis of faith.” *1 It is doubtless the profound and ineradicable conviction, so expressed, of the need of an infallible Bible, if men are to seek and find salvation in God’s announced purpose of grace, and peace and comfort in his past dealings with his people, that has operated to keep the formulas of the churches and the hearts of the people of God, through so many ages, true to the Bible doctrine of plenary inspiration. In that doctrine men have found what their hearts have told them was the indispensable safeguard of a sure word of God to them, — a word of God to which they could resort with confidence in every time of need, to which they could appeal for guidance in every difficulty, for comfort in every sorrow, for instruction in every perplexity; on whose “ Thus saith the Lord ” they could safely rest all their aspirations and all their hopes. Such a Word of God, each one of us knows he needs, — not a Word of God that speaks to us only through the medium of our fellow-men, men of like pas- sions and weaknesses with ourselves, so that we have to feel 20 “ Tife of Adolphe Monod,” p. 224. 21 Ihid., p. 357. THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE Fl our way back to God’s word through the church, through tradi- tion, or through the apostles, standing between us and God; but a Word of God in which God speaks directly to each of our souls. Such a Word of God, Christ and his apostles offer us, when they give us the Scriptures, not as man’s report to us of what God says, but as the very Word of God itself, spoken by God himself through human lips and pens. Of such a precious possession, given to her by such hands, the church will not lightly permit herself to be deprived. Thus the church’s sense of her need of an absolutely infallible Bible, has co-operated with her reverence for the teaching of the Bible to keep her true, in all ages, to the Bible doctrine of plenary inspiration. What, indeed, would the church be — what would we, as Christian men, be — without our inspired Bible? Many of us have, no doubt, read Jean Paul Richter’s vision of a dead Christ, and have shuddered at his pictures of the woe of a world from which its Christ has been stolen away. It would be a theme worthy of some like genius to portray for us the vision of a dead Bible, — the vision of what this world of ours would be, had there been no living Word of God cast into its troubled waters with its voice of power, crying, ‘“ Peace! Be still! ” What does this Christian world of ours not owe to this Bible! And to this Bible conceived, not as a part of the world’s litera- ture, — the literary product of the earliest years of the church; not as a book in which, by searching, we may find God and per- chance somewhat of God’s will: but as the very Word of God, instinct with divine life from the “ In the beginning ” of Gene- sis to the “ Amen ” of the Apocalypse, — breathed into by God, and breathing out God to every devout reader. It is because men have so thought of it that it has proved a leaven to leaven the whole lump of the world. We do not half realize what we owe to this book, thus trusted by men. We can never fully realize it. For we can never even in thought unravel from this complex web of modern civilization, all the threads from the Bible which have been woven into it, throughout the whole past, and now enter into its very fabric. And, thank God, much less can we ever untwine them in fact, and separate our mod- Lh REVELATION AND INSPIRATION “ern life from all those Bible influences by which alone it is blessed, and sweetened, and made a life which men may live. Dr. Gardiner Spring published, years ago, a series of lectures in which he sought to take some account of the world’s obliga- tions to the Bible, — tracing in turn the services it has ren- dered to religion, to morals, to social institutions, to civil and religious liberty, to the freedom of slaves, to the emancipation of woman and the sweetening of domestic life, to public and private beneficence, to literary and scientific progress, and the like.*? And Adolphe Monod, in his own inimitable style, has done something to awaken us as individuals to what we owe to a fully trusted Bible, in the development of our character and religious life.** In such matters, however, we can trust our 1m- aginations better than our words, to remind us of the immen- sity of our debt. Let it suffice to say that to a plenarily inspired Bible, hum- bly trusted as such, we actually, and as a matter of fact, owe all that has blessed our lives with hopes of an immortality of bliss, and with the present fruition of the love of God in Christ. This is not an exaggeration. We may say that without a Bible we might have had Christ and all that he stands for to our souls. Let us not say that this might not have been possible. But neither let us forget that, in point of fact, it is to the Bible that we owe it that we know Christ and are found in him. And may it not be fairly doubted whether you and I, — however it may have been with others, — would have had Christ had there been no Bible? We must not at any rate forget those nineteen Christian centuries which stretch between us and Christ, whose Christian light we would do much to blot out and sink in a dreadful darkness if we could blot out the Bible. Even with the Bible, and all that had come from the Bible to form Christian lives and inform a Christian literature, after a millennium and a half the darkness had grown so deep that a Reformation was necessary if Christian truth was to persist, —a Luther was necessary, raised up by God to rediscover the Bible and give it 22 Gardiner Spring, “ Obligations of the World to the Bible.” (New York: M. W. Dodd. 1855.) 23 Adolphe Monod, “ L’Inspiration prouvée par ses Giuvres.” THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE te back to man. Suppose there had been no Bible for Luther to rediscover, and on the lines of which to refound the church, — and no Bible in the hearts of God’s saints and in the pages of Christian literature, persisting through those darker ages to prepare a Luther to rediscover it? Though Christ had come into the world and had lived and died for us, might it not be to us, — you and me, I mean, who are not learned historians but simple men and women, — might it not be to us as though he had not been? Or, if some faint echo of a Son of God offer- ing salvation to men could still be faintly heard even by such dull ears as ours, sounding down the ages, who would have ears to catch the fulness of the message of free grace which he brought into the world? who could assure our doubting souls that it was not all a pleasant dream? who could cleanse the message from the ever-gathering corruptions of the multiplying years? No: whatever might possibly have been had there been no Bible, it is actually to the Bible that you and I owe it that we have a Christ, —a Christ to love, to trust and to follow, a Christ without us the ground of our salvation, a Christ within us the hope of glory. in Our effort has been to bring clearly out what seem to be | three very impressive facts regarding the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, — the facts, namely, that this doctrine has always been, and is still, the church-doctrine of inspiration, as well the vital faith of the people of God as the formulated teaching of the official creeds; that it is undeniably the doc- trine of inspiration held by Christ and his apostles, and com- mended to us as true by all the authority which we will allow to attach to their teaching; and that it is the foundation of our Christian thought and life, without which we could not, or could only with difficulty, maintain the confidence of our faith and the surety of our hope. On such grounds as these is not this doctrine commended to us as true? But, it may be said, there are difficulties in the way. Of course there are. There are difficulties in the way of believing anything. There are difficulties in the way of believing that God is, or that Jesus Christ is God’s Son who came into the world to save sinners. There are difficulties in the way of be- 74 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION lieving that we ourselves really exist, or that anything has real existence besides ourselves. When men give their undivided attention to these difficulties, they may become, and they have become, so perplexed in mind, that they have felt unable to be- lieve that God is, or that they themselves exist, or that there is any external world without themselves. It would be a strange - thing if it might not so fare with plenary inspiration also. Dif* ficulties? Of course there are difficulties. It is nothing to the purpose to point out this fact. Dr. J. Oswald Dykes says with admirable truth: “If men must have a reconciliation for all conflicting truths before they will believe any; if they must see how the promises of God are to be fulfilled before they will obey his commands; if duty is to hang upon the satisfying of the understanding, instead of the submission of the will, — then the greater number of us will find the road of faith and the road of duty blocked at the outset.” ** These wise words have their application also to our present subject. The ques- tion is not, whether the doctrine of plenary inspiration has dif- ficulties to face. The question is, whether these difficulties are greater than the difficulty of believing that the whole church of God from the beginning has been deceived in her estimate of the Scriptures committed to her charge — are greater than the difficulty of believing that the whole college of the apostles, yes and Christ himself at their head, were themselves deceived as to the nature of those Scriptures which they gave the church as its precious possession, and have deceived with them twenty Christian centuries, and are likely to deceive twenty more be- fore our boasted advancing light has corrected their error, — are greater than the difficulty of believing that we have no sure foundation for our faith and no certain warrant for our trust in Christ for salvation. We believe this doctrine of the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures primarily because it is the doc- trine which Christ and his apostles believed, and which they have taught us. It may sometimes seem difficult to take our stand frankly by the side of Christ and his apostles. It will always be found safe. 24 J. Oswald Dykes, “ Abraham,” etc. (1877), p. 257. IV _ THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF INSPIRATION i a6 Mi if 1 yn fark) INSPIRATION * THE word “ inspire ” and its derivatives seem to have come into Middle English from the French, and have been employed from the first (early in the fourteenth century) in a consider- able number of significations, physical and metaphorical, secu- lar and religious. The derivatives have been multiplied and their applications extended during the procession of the years, until they have acquired a very wide and varied use. Under- lying all their use, however, is the constant implication of an influence from without, producing in its object movements and effects beyond its native, or at least its ordinary powers. The noun “ inspiration,” although already in use in the fourteenth century, seems not to occur in any but a theological sense until late in the sixteenth century. The specifically theological sense of all these terms is governed, of course, by their usage in Latin theology; and this rests ultimately on their employment in the Latin Bible. In the Vulgate Latin Bible the verb inspiro (Gen. Me, \Wisds xy. 11; Beclussiv. 12:2 Pim Jin. 16; 2 Pet.i, 21) and the noun inspiratio (2 Sam. xxii. 16; Job xxxii. 8; Ps. xvu. 16; Acts xvil. 25) both occur four or five times in somewhat diverse applications. In the development of a theological no- menclature, however, they have acquired (along with other less frequent applications) a technical sense with reference to the Biblical writers or the Biblical books. The Biblical books are called inspired as the Divinely determined products of in- spired men; the Biblical writers are called inspired as breathed into by the Holy Spirit, so that the product of their activities transcends human powers and becomes Divinely authoritative. Inspiration is, therefore, usually defined as a supernatural in- 1 Article “Inspiration,” from The International Standard Bible Encyclo- paedia, James Orr General Editor, v. 3, pp. 1473-1483. Pub. Chicago, 1915, by The Howard-Severance Co. rire 78 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION fluence exerted on the sacred writers by the Spirit of God, by virtue of which their writings are given Divine trustworthiness. Meanwhile, for English-speaking men, these terms have virtually ceased to be Biblical terms. They naturally passed from the Latin Vulgate into the English versions made from it (most fully into the Rheims-Douay: Job xxxii. 8; Wisd. xv. 11; Eeclus. iv. 12::2:Timy 1116; 2 Pet: 1221) Butinei nese. velopment of the English Bible they have found ever-decreas- ing place. In the English versions of the Apocrypha (both Au- thorized Version and Revised Version) “ inspired” is retained in Wisd. xv. 11; but in the canonical books the nominal form alone occurs in the Authorized Version and that only twice: Job xxxil. 8, “ But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding”; and 2 Tim. iii. 16, “ All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profit- able for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” The Revised Version removes the former of these instances, substituting “ breath ” for “ inspiration ”; and alters the latter so as to read: “ Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for in- struction which is in righteousness,” with a marginal alterna- tive in the form of, “ Every scripture is inspired of God and profitable,” ete. The word “ inspiration ” thus disappears from the English Bible, and the word “inspired” is left in it only once, and then, let it be added, by a distinct and even mislead- ing mistranslation. For the Greek word in this passage — Oedmvevotos, thed- pneustos — very distinctly does not mean “ inspired of God.” This phrase is rather the rendering of the Latin, divinitus in- spirata, restored from the Wyclif (“ Al Scripture of God yn- spyridis ...”) and Rhemish (“ All Scripture inspired of God is...) versions of the Vulgate. The Greek word does not even mean, as the Authorized Version translates it, “ given by inspiration of God,” although that rendering (inherited from Tindale: “ All Scripture given by inspiration of God is. . .” and its successors; cf. Geneva: ‘ The whole Scripture is given by inspiration of God andis . . .”’) has at least to say for itself INSPIRATION 79 that it is a somewhat clumsy, perhaps, but not misleading, paraphrase of the Greek term in the theological language of the day. The Greek term has, however, nothing to say of inspir- ing or of zspiration: it speaks only of a “ spiring”’ or “ spira- tion.” What it says of Scripture is, not that it is “ breathed into by God” or is the product of the Divine “ inbreathing ” into its human authors, but that it is breathed out by God, “ God- breathed,” the product of the creative breath of God. In a word, what is declared by this fundamental passage is simply that the Scriptures are a Divine product, without any indica- tion of how God has operated in producing them. No term could have been chosen, however, which would have more em- phatically asserted the Divine production of Scripture than that which is here employed. The “ breath of God ” is in Serip- ture just the symbol of His almighty power, the bearer of His creative word. “ By the word of Jehovah,” we read in the sig- nificant parallel of Ps. xxxiil. 6, “ were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.” And it is particularly where the operations of God are energetic that this term (whether M9, rath, or 2W3, n°shamah) is employed to designate them — God’s breath is the irresistible outflow of His power. When Paut declares, then, that “ every scripture,’ or “all scripture” is the product of the Divine breath, “1s God-breathed,” he asserts with as much energy as he could employ that Seripture is the product of a specifically Divine operation. (1) 2 Tim. ii. 16: In the passage in which Paul makes this energetic assertion of the Divine origin of Scripture he is en- gaged in explaining the greatness of the advantages which Tim- othy had enjoyed for learning the saving truth of God. He had had good teachers; and from his very infancy he had been, by his knowledge of the Scriptures, made wise unto salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. The expression, “sacred writ- ings,” here employed (ver. 15), is a technical one, not found elsewhere in the New Testament, it is true, but occurring cur- rently in Philo and Josephus to designate that body of authori- tative books which constituted the Jewish “ Law.” It appears 80 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION here anarthrously because it is set in contrast with the oral teaching which Timothy had enjoyed, as something still bet- ter: he had not only had good instructors, but also always “ an open Bible,” as we should say, in his hand. To enhance yet fur- ther the great advantage of the possession of these Sacred Scriptures the apostle adds now a sentence throwing their na- ture strongly up to view. They are of Divine origin and there- fore of the highest value for all holy purposes. There is room for some difference of opinion as to the exact construction of this declaration. Shall we render “ Every Scrip- ture” or “ All Seripture” ? Shall we render ‘‘ Every [or all] Scripture is God-breathed and [therefore] profitable,’ or “ Every [or all] Scripture, being God-breathed, is as well prof- itable”’? ? No doubt both questions are interesting, but for the main matter now engaging our attention they are both indif- ferent. Whether Paul, looking back at the Sacred Scriptures he had just mentioned, makes the assertion he is about to add, of them distributively, of all their parts, or collectively, of their entire mass, is of no moment: to say that every part of these Sacred Scriptures is God-breathed and to say that the whole of these Sacred Scriptures is God-breathed, is, for the main mat- ter, all one. Nor is the difference great between saying that they are in all their parts, or in their whole extent, God- breathed and therefore profitable, and saying that they are in all their parts, or in their whole extent, because God-breathed as well profitable. In both cases these Sacred Scriptures are declared to owe their value to their Divine origin; and in both cases this their Divine origin is energetically asserted of their entire fabric. On the whole, the preferable construction would seem to be, “ Every Scripture, seeing that it is God-breathed, is as well profitable.” In that case, what the apostle asserts is that the Sacred Scriptures, in their every several passage — for it is just “passage of Scripture”? which “Scripture” in this distributive use of it signifies —1s the product of the creative breath of God, and, because of this its Divine origination, is of supreme value for all holy purposes. It is to be observed that the apostle does not stop here to INSPIRATION 81 tell us either what particular books enter into the collection which he calls Sacred Scriptures, or by what precise operations God has produced them. Neither of these subjects entered into the matter he had at the moment in hand. It was the value of the Scriptures, and the source of that value in their Divine origin, which he required at the moment to assert; and these things he asserts, leaving to other occasions any further facts concerning them which it might be well to emphasize. It is also to be observed that the apostle does not tell us here every- thing for which the Scriptures are made valuable by their Di- vine origination. He speaks simply to the point immediately in hand, and reminds Timothy of the value which these Scrip- tures, by virtue of their Divine origin, have for the ‘“ man of God.” Their spiritual power, as God-breathed, is all that he had occasion here to advert to. Whatever other qualities may accrue to them from their Divine origin, he leaves to other oc- casions to speak of. (2) 2 Pet. i. 19-21: What Paul tells here about the Divine origin of the Scriptures is enforced and extended by a striking passage in 2 Pet. (1. 19-21). Peter is assuring his readers that what had been made known to them of “ the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ ” did not rest on “ cunningly devised fables.” He offers them the testimony of eyewitnesses of Christ’s glory. And then he intimates that they have better testimony than even that of eyewitnesses. ‘‘ We have,” says he, “the prophetic word” (English versions, unhappily, “the word of prophecy’): and this, he says, is “ more sure,’ and therefore should certainly be heeded. He refers, of course, to the Scriptures. Of what other “ prophetic word ” could he, over against the testimony of the eyewitnesses of Christ’s “ excel- lent glory ’’ (Authorized Version) say that “ we have ” it, that is, it is in our hands? And he proceeds at once to speak of it plainly as “ Scriptural prophecy.” You do well, he says, to pay heed to the prophetic word, because we know this first, that “every prophecy of scripture .. .” It admits of more ques- tion, however, whether by this phrase he means the whole of Scripture, designated according to its character, as prophetic, 82 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION that is, of Divine origin; or only that portion of Scripture which we discriminate as particularly prophetic, the immedi- ate revelations contained in Scripture. The former is the more likely view, inasmuch as the entirety of Scripture is elsewhere conceived and spoken of as prophetic. In that case, what Peter has to say of this “ every prophecy of scripture’ — the exact equivalent, it will be observed, in this case of Paul’s “ every scripture ” (2 Tim, iii. 16) — applies to the whole of Scripture in all its parts. What he says of it is that it does not come “ of private interpretation ”; that is, it is not the result of human investigation into the nature of things, the product of its writ- ers’ own thinking. This is as much as to say it is of Divine gift. Accordingly, he proceeds at once to make this plain in a sup- porting clause which contains both the negative and the posi- tive declaration: ‘‘ For no prophecy ever came [margin “ was brought ”] by the will of man, but it was as borne by the Holy Spirit that men spoke from God.” In this singularly precise and pregnant statement there are several things which require to be carefully observed. There is, first of all, the emphatic de- nial that prophecy — that is to say, on the hypothesis upon which we are working, Scripture — owes its origin to human initiative: “No prophecy ever was brought —‘ came’ is the word used in the English version text, with ‘ was brought’ in Revised Version margin — by the will of man.” Then, there is the equally emphatic assertion that its source hes in God: it was spoken by men, indeed, but the men who spoke it “ spake from God.” And a remarkable clause is here inserted, and thrown forward in the sentence that stress may fall on it, which tells us how it could be that men, in speaking, should speak not from themselves, but from God: it was “ as borne ” —it is the same word which was rendered “ was brought” above, and might possibly be rendered “ brought’ here —“ by the Holy Spirit ” that they spoke. Speaking thus under the determining influence of the Holy Spirit, the things they spoke were not from themselves, but from God. Here is as direct an assertion of the Divine origin of Scrip- ture as that of 2 Tim. i. 16. But there is more here than a INSPIRATION 83 simple assertion of the Divine origin of Scripture. We are ad- vanced somewhat in our understanding of how God has pro- duced the Scriptures. It was through the instrumentality of men who “spake from him.” More specifically, it was through an operation of the Holy Ghost on these men which is de- scribed as “ bearinig”’ them. The term here used is a very spe- cific one. It is not to be confounded with guiding, or directing, or controlling, or even leading in the full sense of that word. It goes beyond all such terms, in assigning the effect produced specifically to the active agent. What is “borne” is taken up by the “ bearer,” and conveyed by the “ bearer’s ” power, not its own, to the “ bearer’s” goal, not its own. The men who spoke from God are here declared, therefore, to have been taken up by the Holy Spirit and brought by His power to the goal of His choosing. The things which they spoke under this operation of the Spirit were therefore His things, not theirs. And that is the reason which is assigned why “ the prophetic word ”’ is so sure. Though spoken through the instrumentality of men, it is, by virtue of the fact that these men spoke “as borne by the Holy Spirit,” an immediately Divine word. It will be observed that the proximate stress is laid here, not on the spiritual value of Scripture (though that, too, is seen in the background), but on the Divine trustworthiness of Scripture. Because this is the way every prophecy of Scripture “ has been brought,” it affords a more sure basis of confidence than even the testimony of human eyewitnesses. Of course, if we do not understand by ‘the prophetic word” here the entirety of Scripture described, according to its character, as revelation, but only that element in Scripture which we call specifically prophecy, then it is directly only of that element in Scripture that these great declarations are made. In any event, however, they are made of the prophetic element in Scripture as written, which was the only form in which the readers of this Epistle possessed it, and which is the thing specifically intimated in the phrase ‘‘ every prophecy of scripture.” These great declara- tions are made, therefore, at least of large tracts of Scripture; and if the entirety of Scripture is intended by the phrase 84. REVELATION AND INSPIRATION “the prophetic word,” they are made of the whole of Scrip- ture. (3) Jn. x. 34f.: How far the supreme trustworthiness of Scripture, thus asserted, extends may be conveyed to us by a passage in one of Our Lord’s discourses recorded by John (Jn. x, 34-85). The Jews, offended by Jesus’ “ making himself God,” were in the act to stone Him, when He defended Himself thus: “Ts it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the scrip- ture cannot be broken), say ye of him, whom the Father sanc- tified [margin “ consecrated ”] and sent unto the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, Iam the Son of God?” It may be thought that this defence is inadequate. It certainly is incom- plete: Jesus made Himself God (Jn. x. 33) in a far higher sense than that in which “ Ye are gods” was said of those “unto whom the word of God came”: He had just declared in unmistakable terms, “I and the Father are one.” But it was quite sufficient for the immediate end in view — to repel the technical charge of blasphemy based on His making Himself God: it is not blasphemy to call one God in any sense in which he may fitly receive that designation; and certainly if it is not blasphemy to call such men as those spoken of in the passage of Scripture adduced gods, because of their official functions, it cannot be blasphemy to call Him God whom the Father con- secrated and sent into the world. The point for us to note, how- ever, is merely that Jesus’ defence takes the form of an appeal to Seripture; and it is important to observe how He makes this appeal. In the first place, He adduces the Scriptures as law: “Ts it not written in your law?” He demands. The passage of Seripture which He adduces is not written in that portion of Seripture which was more specifically called “the Law,” that is to say, the Pentateuch; nor in any portion of Scripture of formally legal contents.,/It is written in the Book of Psalms; and in a particular psalm which is as far as possible from pre- senting the external characteristics of legal enactment (Ps. Ixxxl. 6). When Jesus adduces this passage, then, as written in the “ law ” of the Jews, He does it, not because it stands in this INSPIRATION 85 psalm, but because it is a part of Scripture at large. In other words, He here ascribes legal authority to the entirety of Scrip- ture, In accordance with a conception common enough among the Jews (cf. Jn. xi. 34), and finding expression in the New Testament occasionally, both on the lips of Jesus Himself, and in the writings of the apostles. Thus, on a later occasion (Jn. xv. 25), Jesus declares that it is written in the “law” of the Jews, “ They hated me without a cause,” a clause found in Ps. xxxv. 19. And Paul assigns passages both from the Psalms and from Isaiah to “the Law ” (1 Cor. xiv. 21; Rom. iti. 19), and can write such a sentence as this (Gal. iv. 21 f.): “ Tell me, ye ‘ that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written .. .” quoting from the narrative of Genesis. We have seen that the entirety of Scripture was conceived as “ prophecy ”’; we now see that the entirety of Scripture was also conceived as “ law ”’: these three terms, the law, prophecy, Seripture,.were indeed, materially, strict synonyms, as our present passage itself advises us, by varying the formula of adduction in contiguous verses from “law” to “ scripture.” And what is thus implied in the manner in which Scripture is adduced, is immediately afterward spoken out in the most ex- plicit language, because it forms an essential element in Our Lord’s defence. It might have been enough to say simply, “ Is it not written in your law? ”’ But Our Lord, determined to drive His appeal to Scripture home, sharpens the point to the ut- most by adding with the highest emphasis: “ and the scripture cannot be broken.” This is the reason why it is worth while to appeal to what is “ written in the law,” because‘ the scripture _cannot be broken.” The word “broken” here is the common one for breaking the law, or the Sabbath, or the like (Jn. v. 18; vil. 23; Mt. v. 19), and the meaning of the declaration is that it is impossible for the Scripture to be annulled, its authority to be withstood, or denied. The movement of thought is to the effect that, because it is impossible for the Scripture — the term is perfectly general and witnesses to the unitary charac- ter of Scripture (it is all, for the purpose in hand, of a piece) — to be withstood, therefore this particular Scripture which is 86 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION cited must be taken as of irrefragable authority. What we have . here is, therefore, the strongest possible assertion of the inde fectible authority of Scripture; precisely what is true of Scrip- ture is that it “ cannot be broken.’ Now, what is the particular thing in Scripture, for the confirmation of which the indefect- ible authority of Scripture is thus invoked? It is one of its most casual clauses — more than that, the very form of its ex- pression in one of its most casual clauses. This means, of course, that in the Saviour’s view the indefectible authority of Scripture attaches to the very form of expression of its most casual clauses. It belongs to Scripture through and through, down to its most minute particulars, that it is of indefectible authority. It is sometimes suggested, it is true, that Our Lord’s argu- ment here is an argumentum ad hominem, and that his words, therefore, express not His own view of the authority of Scrip- ture, but that of His Jewish opponents. It will scarcely be de- nied that there is a vein of satire running through Our Lord’s defence: that the Jews so readily allowed that corrupt judges might properly be called “ gods,” but could not endure that He whom the Father had consecrated and sent into the world should call Himself Son of God, was a somewhat pungent fact to throw up into such a high hght. But the argument from Scripture is not ad hominem but e concessu; Scripture was common ground with Jesus and His opponents. If proof were needed for so obvious a fact, it would be supplied by the cir- cumstance that this is not an isolated but a representative pas- sage. The conception of Scripture thrown up into such clear view here supplies the ground of all Jesus’ appeals to Scerip- ture, and of all the appeals of the New Testament writers as well. Everywhere, to Him and to them alike, an appeal to Serip- ture is an appeal to an indefectible authority whose determina- tion is final; both He and they make their appeal indifferently to every part of Scripture, to every element in Scripture, to its most incidental clauses as well as to its most fundamental prin- ciples, and to the very form of its expression. This attitude toward Scripture as an authoritative document is, indeed, al- INSPIRATION 87 ready intimated by their constant designation of it by the name of Scripture, the Scriptures, that is ‘ the Document,” by way of eminence; and by their customary citation of it with the simple formula, “It is written.” What is written in this document admits so little of questioning that its authoritative- ness required no asserting, but might safely be taken for granted. Both modes of expression belong to the constantly illustrated habitudes of Our Lord’s speech. The first words He is recorded as uttering after His manifestation to Israel were an appeal to the unquestionable authority of Scripture; to Satan’s temptations He opposed no other weapon than the final “Tt is written” ! (Mt. iv. 4.7.10; Lk. iv. 4.8). And among the last words which He spoke to His disciples before He was re- ceived up was a rebuke to them for not understanding that all things ‘“ which are written in the law of Moses, and the proph- ets, and psalms ” concerning Him — that is (ver. 45) in the en- tire “ Scriptures ” — “ must needs be” (very emphatic) “ ful- filled’ (Lk. xxiv. 44). “ Thus it is written,” says He (ver. 46), as rendering all doubt absurd. For, as He had explained earlier upon the same day (Lk. xxiv. 25 ff.), it argues only that one is “foolish and slow at heart ” if he does not “ believe in” (if his faith does not rest securely on, as on a firm foundation) “all” (without limit of subject-matter here) “ that the prophets ”’ (explained in ver. 27 as equivalent to “all the scriptures ’’) “have spoken.” The necessity of the fulfilment of all that is written in Scripture, which is so strongly asserted in these last instruc- tions to His disciples, is frequently adverted to by Our Lord. He repeatedly explains of occurrences occasionally happening that they have come to pass “ that the scripture might be ful- filled ”’ (Mk. xiv. 49; Jn. xiii. 18; xvii. 12; ef. xii. 14; Mk. ix. 12.13). On the basis of Scriptural declarations, therefore, He announces with confidence that given events will certainly oc- cur: “ All ye shall be offended [literally ‘“scandalized ”] in me this night: for it is written .. .” (Mt. xxvi. 31; Mk. xiv. 27; ef. Lk. xx. 17). Although holding at His command ample means of escape, He bows before on-coming calamities, for, He 88 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION asks, how otherwise “should the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?” (Mt. xxvi. 54). It is not merely the two dis- ciples with whom He talked on the way to Emmaus (Lk. xxiv. 25) whom He rebukes for not trusting themselves more per- fectly to the teaching of Scripture. ‘‘ Ye search the scriptures,” He says to the Jews, in the classical passage (Jn. v. 39), “ be- cause ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me; and ye will not come to me, that ye may have life! ” These words surely were spoken more in sorrow than in scorn: there is no blame implied either for searching the Scriptures or for thinking that eternal life is to be found in Scripture; approval rather. What the Jews are blamed for is that they read with a veil lying upon their hearts which He would fain take away (2 Cor. ili. 15 f.). “ Ye search the scriptures ” — that is right: and “even you” (emphatic) “think to have eternal life in them ” — that is right, too. But “it is these very Scriptures” (very emphatic) ‘“ which are bearing witness” (continuous process) “of me; and” (here is the marvel!) “ ye will not come to me and have life! ” — that you may, that is, reach the very end you have so properly in view in searching the Scriptures. Their failure is due, not to the Scriptures but to themselves, who read the Scriptures to such little purpose. Quite similarly Our Lord often finds occasion to express wonder at the little effect to which Scripture had been read, not because it had been looked into too curiously, but because it had not been looked into earnestly enough, with sufficiently simple and robust trust in its every declaration. “‘ Have ye not read even this scripture?’”’ He demands, as He adduces Ps. exvill. to show that the rejection of the Messiah was already intimated in Scripture (Mk. xii. 10; Mt. xxi. 42 varies the ex- pression to the equivalent: ‘‘ Did ye never read in the scrip- tures? ’’). And when the indignant Jews came to Him com- plaining of the Hosannas with which the childrenin the Temple were acclaiming Him, and demanding, “ Hearest thou what these are saying?” He met them (Mt. xxi. 16) merely with, “Yea: did ye never read, Out of the mouths of babes INSPIRATION 89 and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?” The underlying thought of these passages is spoken out when He intimates that the source of all error in Divine things is just ignorance of the Scriptures: “ Ye do err,’ He declares to His questioners, on an important occasion, “ not knowing the scriptures” (Mt. xxlil. 29); or, as it is put, perhaps more forcibly, in interroga- tive form, in its parallel in another Gospel: “Is it not for this cause that ye err, that ye know not the scriptures? ” (Mk. xii. 24). Clearly, he who rightly knows the Scriptures does not err. The confidence with which Jesus rested on Scripture, in its every declaration, is further illustrated in a passage like Mt. xix. 4, Certain Pharisees had come to Him with a question on divorce and He met them thus: “ Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and fe- male, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh? . . . What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” The point to be noted is the explicit reference of Gen. ii. 24 to God as its author: “ He who made them ... said”’; “ what therefore God hath joined together.” Yet this passage does not give us a saying of God’s recorded in Scripture, but just the word of Scripture itself, and can be treated as a declaration of God’s only on the hypothesis that all Scripture is a declaration of God’s. The parallel in Mk. (x. 5 ff.) just as truly, though not as explicitly, assigns the passage to God as its author, citing it as authoritative law and speak- ing of its enactment as an act of God’s. And it is interesting to observe in passing that Paul, having occasion to quote the same passage (1 Cor. vi. 16), also explicitly quotes it as a Di- vine word: ‘“ For, The twain, saith he, shall become one flesh ” — the “he” here, in accordance with a usage to be noted later, meaning just “ God.” Thus clear is it that Jesus’ occasional adduction of Scrip- ture as an authoritative document rests on an ascription of it to God as its author. His testimony is that. whatever. stands written in Scripture is a word of God. Nor can we evacuate this testimony of its force on the plea that it represents Jesus only 90 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION in the days of His flesh, when He may be supposed to have re- flected merely the opinions of His day and generation. The view of Scripture He announces was, no doubt, the view of His day and generation as well as His own view. But there is no reason to doubt that it was held by Him, not because it was the current view, but because, in His Divine-human knowledge, He knew it to_be true; for, even in His humiliation, He is the faithful and true witness. And in any event we should bear in mind that this was the view of the resurrected as well as of the humiliated Christ. It was after He had suffered and had risen again in the power of His Divine life that He pronounced those foolish and slow of heart who do not believe all that stands written in all the Seriptures (Lk. xxiv. 25); and that He laid down the simple ‘“ Thus it is written ” as the sufficient ground of confident belief (Lk. xxiv. 46). Nor can we explain away Jesus’ testimony to the Divine trustworthiness of Scripture by interpreting it as not His own, but that of His followers, placed on His lips in their reports of His words. Not only is it too con- stant, minute, intimate and in part incidental, and therefore, as it were, hidden, to admit of this interpretation; but it so pervades all our channels of information concerning Jesus’ teaching as to make it certain that it comes actually from Him. It belongs not only to the Jesus of our evangelical records but as well to the Jesus of the earlier sources which underlie our evangelical records, as anyone may assure himself by observing the instances in which Jesus adduces the Scriptures as Divinely authoritative that are recorded in more than one of the Gospels (e.g. “It is written,” Mt. iv. 4.7.10 [Lk. iv. 4.8.10]; Mt. xi. 10; [ Lk, vi. 27] ; Mt. xxi, 13. [uk. xix, 46; Mk. 31517); Mite ol [Mk. xiv. 21]; “the scripture” or “the scriptures,’ Mt. xix. 4 [Mk. x. 9); Mt. xxi: 42 (Mk. xu. 10; Lkiixxo 7s xxu. 29 [Mk. xn..24>> Lk. xx. 37]; Mt. xxvi, 56:1 Mik. xiv Lk. xxiv. 44]). These passages alone would suffice to make clear to us the testimony of Jesus to Scripture as in all its parts and declarations Divinely authoritative. The attempt to attribute the testimony of Jesus to His fol- lowers has in its favor only the undeniable fact that the testi- INSPIRATION 91 mony of the writers of the New Testament is to precisely the same effect as His. They, too, cursorily speak of Scripture by that pregnant name and adduce it with the simple “ It is writ- ten,” with the implication that whatever stands written in it is Divinely authoritative. As Jesus’ official life begins with this “Tt is written” (Mt. iv. 4), so the evangelical proclamation begins with an “ Even as it is written ” (Mk. i. 2); and as Jesus sought the justification of His work in a solemn “ Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day ” (Lk. xxiv. 46 ff.), so the apostles solemnly justified the Gospel which they preached, detail after detail, by appeal to the Scriptures, ‘‘ That Christ died for our sins ac- cording to the scriptures’ and “ That he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures” (1 Cor. xv. 3.4; ef. NCUSBVIIIN OO eXVill os XXVi. 22, and also: Romi 1 L/7 ane 410; iveeliseexd oO + xiveslie) 16 Cor. 1.019 11097 1119 xvi4o. Galan. 10.13; iv. 22.27). Wherever they carried the gospel it was as a gospel resting on Scripture that they proclaimed it (Acts xvii. 2; xvill. 24.28); and they encouraged themselves to test its truth by the Scriptures (Acts xvi. 11). The holiness of life they inculcated, they based on Scriptural requirement (1 Pet. i. 16), and they commended the royal law of love which they taught by Scriptural sanction (Jas. 11. 8). Every detail of duty was supported by them by an appeal to Scripture (Acts xxi. 5; Rom. xil. 19). The circumstances of their lives and the events occasionally occurring about them are referred to Scrip- ture for their significance (Rom. i. 26; viii. 36; ix. 33; xi. 8; xv. 9.21; 2 Cor. iv. 13). As Our Lord declared that whatever was written in Scripture must needs be fulfilled (Mt. xxvi. 54; Lk. xxii. 37; xxiv. 44), so His followers explained one of the most startling facts which had occurred in their experience by pointing out that “it was needful that the scripture should be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spake before by the mouth of David” (Acts i. 16). Here the ground of this constant appeal to Scripture, so that it is enough that a thing “1s contained in scripture” (1 Pet. ii. 6) for it to be of indefectible authority, is plainly enough declared: Scripture must needs be fulfilled, 92 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION for what is contained in it is the declaration of the Holy Ghost through the human author. What Scripture says, God says; and accordingly we read such remarkable declarations as these: “ For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up ” (Rom. ix. 17); “ And the scripture, fore- seeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, ... In thee shall all the nations be blessed ” (Gal. iii. 8). These are not instances of simple personification of Scripture, which is itself a sufficiently remarkable usage (Mk. xv. 28; Jn. vii. 38.42; xix. 37; Rom. iv. 97 Kell oxin2-| GalhivesOmiiniay Loe dass eo cn eee vocal with the conviction expressed by James (ir. 5) that Scripture cannot. speak.in-vain. They indicate a certain con- fusion in current speech between “ Scripture ” and “ God,” the outgrowth of a deep-seated conviction that the word of Scrip- ture is the word of God. It was not “ Scripture ’”’ that spoke to Pharaoh, or gave his great promise to Abraham, but God. But “Scripture ”’ and “God” lay so close together in the minds of the writers of the New Testament that they could naturally speak of “Scripture ” doing what Scripture records God as do- ing. It was, however, even more natural to them to speak casu- ally of God saying what the Scriptures say; and accordingly we meet with forms of speech such as these: “ Wherefore, even as the Holy Spirit saith, To-day if ye shall hear His voice,” etc. (Heb. 111. 7, quoting Ps. xev. 7); “ Thou art God . . . who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage,” ete. (Acts iv. 25 Authorized Version, quoting Ps. 11. 1); “He that raised him from the dead... hath spoken on this wise, I will give you . . . because he saith also in another [place] .. .” (Acts xi. 34, quoting Isa. lv. 3 and Ps. xvi. 10), and the like. The words put into God’s mouth in each case are not words of God recorded in the Scriptures, but just Seripture words in themselves. When we take the two classes of passages together, in the one of which the Scriptures are spoken of as God, while in the other God is spoken of as if He were the Scriptures, we may perceive how close the identi- fication of the two was in the minds of the writers of the New Testament. INSPIRATION 93 This identification is strikingly observable in certain ca- tenae of quotations, in which there are brought together a number of passages of Scripture closely connected with one an- other. The first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews supplies an example. We may begin with ver. 5: “ For unto which of the angels said he” — the subject being necessarily “‘ God ”’ — “at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? ” — the citation being from Ps. ii. 7 and very appropri- ate in the mouth of God— “and again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?” — from 2 §. vii. 14, again a declaration of God’s own — “ And when he again bring- eth in the firstborn into the world he saith, And let all the an- gels of God worship him ” — from Deut. xxxii. 48, Septuagint, or Ps. xevii. 7, in neither of which is God the speaker — “ And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire’ — from Ps. civ. 4, where again God is not the speaker but is spoken of in the third person — “ but of the Son he saith. Thy throne, O God, ete.” — from Ps. xlv. 6.7 where again God is not the speaker, but is addressed — “And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning,” ete. — from Ps. cii. 25- 27, where again God is not the speaker but is addressed — “ But of which of the angels hath he said at any time, Sit thou on my right hand? ” etc. — from Ps. ex. 1, in which God is the speaker. Here we have passages in which God is the speaker and passages in which God is not the speaker, but is addressed or spoken of, indiscriminately assigned to God, because they all have it in common that they are words of Scripture, and as words of Scripture are words of God. Similarly in Rom. xv. 9 ff. we have a series of citations the first of which is introduced by “as it is written,” and the next two by “again he saith,” and “again,” and the last by ‘and again, Isaiah saith,” the first being from Ps. xvili. 49; the second from Deut. xxxii. 43; the third from Ps. exvii. 1; and the last from Isa. xi. 10. Only the last (the only one here assigned to the human author) is a word of God in the text of the Old Testament. This view of the Scriptures as a compact mass of words of God occasioned the formation of a designation for them by 94 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION which this their character was explicitly expressed. This des- ignation is “ the sacred oracles,” “ the oracles of God.” It oc- curs with extraordinary frequency in Philo, who very com- monly refers to Scripture as “ the sacred oracles”’ and cites its several passages as each an “ oracle.” Sharing, as they do, Philo’s conception of the Scriptures as, in all their parts, a word of God, the New Testament writers naturally also speak of them under this designation. The classical passage 1s Rom. ili. 2 (ef. Heb. v. 12; Acts vii. 88). Here Paul begins an enu- meration of the advantages which belonged to the chosen peo- ple above other nations; and, after declaring these advantages to have been great and numerous, he places first among them all their possession of the Scriptures: “ What advantage then hath the Jew? or what is the profit of circumcision? Much every way: first of all, that they were intrusted with the oracles of God.” That by “ the oracles of God ” here are meant just the Holy Scriptures in their entirety, conceived as a direct Divine revelation, and not any portions of them, or elements in them more especially thought of as revelatory, is perfectly clear from the wide contemporary use of this designation in this sense by Philo, and is put beyond question by the presence in the New Testament of habitudes of speech which rest on and grow out of the conception of Scripture embodied in this term. From the point of view of this designation, Scripture is thought of as the living voice of God speaking in all its parts directly to the reader; and, accordingly, it is cited by some such formula as “it is said,” and this mode of citing Scripture duly occurs as an alternative to “it is written ” (Lk. iv. 12, replacing “it is written ” in Mt.; Heb. iii. 15; ef. Rom. iv. 18). It is due also to this point of view that Scripture is cited, not as what God or the Holy Spirit “ said,” but what He “ says,” the present tense emphasizing the living voice of God speaking in Scriptures to the individual soul (Heb. iii. 7; Acts xiii. 835; Heb. i. 7. 8. 10; Rom. xv. 10). And especially there is due to it the peculiar usage by which Scripture is cited by the simple “ saith,” with- out expressed subject, the subject being too well understood, when Scripture is adduced, to require stating; for who could INSPIRATION 95 be the speaker of the words of Scripture but God only (Rom. veel Us la@or evi 16:52) Cor vir 2aGalvilitO ei pinive >; Ve 14)? The analogies of this pregnant subjectless “saith” are very widespread. It was with it that the ancient Pythagoreans and Platonists and the mediaeval Aristotelians adduced each their master’s teaching; it was with it that, in certain circles, the judgments of Hadrian’s great jurist Salvius Julianus were cited; African stylists were even accustomed to refer by it to Sallust, their great model. There is a tendency, cropping out occasionally, in the old Testament, to omit the name of God as superfluous, when He, as the great logical subject always in mind, would be easily understood (cf. Job xx. 23; xxi. 17; Ps. exiv. 2; Lam. iv. 22). So, too, when the New Testament writers quoted Scripture there was no need to say whose word it was: that lay beyond question in every mind. This usage, accord- ingly, is a specially striking intimation of the vivid sense which the New Testament writers had of the Divine origin of the Scriptures, and means that in citing them they were acutely conscious that they were citing immediate words of God. How completely the Scriptures were to them just the word of God may be illustrated by a passage like Gal. ii. 16: “ He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” We have seen Our Lord hanging an argument on the very words of Scripture (Jn. x. 34); elsewhere His reason- ing depends on the particular tense (Mt. xxii. 32) or word (Mt. xxii. 48) used in Scripture. Here Paul’s argument rests similarly on a grammatical form. No doubt it is the grammati- cal form of the word which God is recorded as having spoken to Abraham that is in question. But Paul knows what gram- matical form God employed in speaking to Abraham only as the Scriptures have transmitted it to him; and, as we have seen, in citing the words of God and the words of Scripture he was not accustomed to make any distinction between them. It is probably the Scriptural word as a Scriptural word, therefore, which he has here in mind: though, of course, it is possible that what he here witnesses to is rather the detailed trust- worthiness of the Scriptural record than its direct divinity — 96 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION if we can separate two things which apparently were not sepa- rated in Paul’s mind. This much we can at least say without. straining, that the designation of Scripture as “ scripture ” and its citation by the formula, “It is written,’ attest pri- marily its indefectible authority; the designation of it as “oracles”? and the adduction of it by the formula, “ It says,” attest primarily its immediate divinity. Its authority rests on its divinity and its divinity expresses itself in its trustworthi- ness; and the New Testament writers in all their use of it treat it as what they declare it to be — a God-breathed docu- ment, which, because God-breathed, as through and through trustworthy in all its assertions, authoritative in all its declara- tions, and down to its last particular, the very word of God, His “ oracles.” | That the Seriptures are throughout a Divine book, created by the Divine energy and speaking in their every part with Di- vine authority directly to the heart of the readers, is the funda- mental fact concerning them which is witnessed by Christ and the sacred writers to whom we owe the New Testament. But the strength and constancy with which they bear witness to this primary fact do not prevent their recognizing by the side of it that the Scriptures have come into being by the agency of men. It would be inexact to say that they recognize a human element in Scripture: they do not parcel Scripture out, assign- ing portions of it, or elements in it, respectively to God and man. In their view the whole of Scripture in all its parts and in all its elements, down to the least minutiae, in form of expres- sion as well as in substance of teaching, is from God; but the whole of it has been given by God through the instrumentality of men. There is, therefore, in their view, not, indeed, a human element or ingredient in Scripture, and much less human divi- sions or sections of Scripture, but a human side or aspect to Scripture; and they do not fail to give full recognition to this human side or aspect. In one of the primary passages which has already been before us, their conception is given, if some- what broad’and very succinct, yet clear expression. No ‘ proph- ecy, Peter tells us (2 Pet. i. 21), ‘ever came by the will of INSPIRATION 97 man; but as borne by the Holy Ghost, men spake from God.’ Here the whole initiative is assigned to God, and such com- plete control of the human agents that the product is truly God’s work. The men who speak in this “ prophecy of scrip- ture ” speak not of themselves or out of themselves, but from “God”: they speak only as they are “borne by the Holy Ghost.” But it is they, after all, who speak. Scripture is the product of man, but only of man speaking from God and under such a control of the Holy Spirit as that in their speak- ing they are “borne” by Him. The conception obviously is that the Scriptures have been given by the instrumentality of men; and this conception finds repeated incidental expression throughout the New Testament. It is this conception, for example, which is expressed when Our Lord, quoting Ps. ex., declares of its words that ‘ David himself said in the Holy Spirit ” (Mk. xii. 36). There is a cer- tain emphasis here on the words being David’s own words, which is due to the requirements of the argument Our Lord was conducting, but which none the less sincerely represents Our Lord’s conception of their origin. They are David’s own words which we find in Ps. ex., therefore; but they are David’s own words, spoken not of his own motion merely, but “in the _ Holy Spirit,” that is to say — we could not better paraphrase it — “as borne by the Holy Spirit.” In other words, they are “God-breathed ” words and therefore authoritative in a sense above what any words of David, not spoken in the Holy Spirit, could possibly be. Generalizing the matter, we may say that the words of Scripture are conceived by Our Lord and the New Testament writers as the words of their human authors when speaking “in the Holy Spirit,” that is to say, by His initiative and under His controlling direction. The conception finds even more precise expression, perhaps, in such a statement as we find — it is Peter who is speaking and it is again a psalm which is cited — in Acts 1. 16, “ The Holy Spirit spake by the mouth of David.” ‘Here the Holy Spirit is adduced, of course, as “the real author of what is said (and hence Peter’s certainty that what is said will be fulfilled) ; but David’s mouth is ex- 98 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION pressly designated as the instrument (it is the instrumental preposition that is used) by means of which the Holy Spirit speaks the Scripture in question. He does not speak save through David’s mouth. Accordingly, in Acts iv. 25, ‘ the Lord that made the heaven and earth,’ acting by His Holy Spirit, is declared to have spoken another psalm ‘ through the mouth of ... David,’ His “ servant”; and in Mt. xii. 35 still another psalm is adduced as “spoken through the prophet” (cf. Mt. ii. 5). In the very act of energetically asserting the Divine origin of Scripture the human instrumentality through which it is given is constantly recognized. The New Testament writ- ers have, therefore, no difficulty in assigning Scripture to its human authors, or in discovering in Scripture traits due to its human authorship. They freely quote it by such simple for- mulae as these: “‘ Moses saith” (Rom. x. 19); “ Moses said ”’ (Mt. xxii. 24; Mk. vii. 10; Acts iii. 22); ‘“ Moses writeth ” (Rom. x. 5)5 2" Moses: wrote 7) (Vi kivsa1ie 1 Oak expe ““Tsaiah © .. saith’? ( Rom ix)20).. Isaiah © saids iG) nee 39); “Isaiah crieth”’ (Rom. ix. 27); “ Isaiah hath said be- fore”? (Rom. ix. 29); “said Isaiah the prophet ” (Jn. 1. 23); “did Isaiah prophesy” (Mk. vii. 6; Mt. xv. 7); “ David saith ’’ (Lk. xx. 42; Acts 1.25; Rom. x1. 9); “ David said? (Mk. xu. 36). It is to be noted that when thus Scripture is ad- duced by the names of its human authors, it is a matter of com- plete indifference whether the words adduced are comments of these authors or direct words of God recorded by them. As the plainest words of the human authors are assigned to God as their real author, so the most express words of God, repeated by the Scriptural writers, are cited by the names of these hu- man writers (Mt. xv. 7; Mk. vu. 6; Rom. x. 5.19.20; cf. Mk. vu. 10 from the Decalogue). To say that ‘‘ Moses ” or “‘ David says,” is evidently thus only a way of saying that “ Scripture says,’ which is the same as to say that ‘“‘ God says.” Such modes of citing Scripture, accordingly, carry us little beyond merely connecting the name, or perhaps we may say the individuality, of the several writers with the portions of Scripture given through each. How it was given through them is left mean- INSPIRATION 99 while, if not without suggestion, yet without specific explana- tion. We seem safe only in inferring this much: that the gift of Scripture through its human authors took place by a process much more intimate than can be expressed by the term “ dic- tation,” and that it took place in a process in which the control of the Holy Spirit was too complete and pervasive to permit the human qualities of the secondary authors in any way to condition the purity of the product as the word of God. The Scriptures, in other words, are conceived by the writers of the New Testament as through and through God’s book, in every part expressive of His mind, given through men after a fashion which does no violence to their nature as men, and constitutes the book also men’s book as well as God’s, in every part expres- sive of the mind of its human authors. If we attempt to get behind this broad statement and to obtain a more detailed conception of the activities by which God has given the Scriptures, we are thrown back upon some- _what general representations, supported by the analogy of the modes of God’s working in other spheres of His operation. It is very desirable that we should free ourselves at the outset from influences arising from the current employment of the term “inspiration” to designate this process. This term is not a Biblical term and its etymological implications are not per- fectly accordant with the Biblical conception of the modes of the Divine operation in giving the Scriptures. The Biblical writers do not conceive of the Scriptures as a human product breathed into by the Divine Spirit, and thus heightened in its qualities or endowed with new qualities; but as a Divine prod- uct produced through the instrumentality of men. They do not conceive of these men, by whose instrumentality Scripture is produced, as working upon their own initiative, though ener- gized by God to greater effort and higher achievement, but as moved by the Divine initiative and borne by the irresistible power of the Spirit of God along ways of His choosing to ends of His appointment. The difference between the two concep- tions may not appear great when the mind is fixed exclusively upon the nature of the resulting product. But they are differ- 100 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION ing conceptions, and look at the production of Scripture from distinct points of view — the human and the Divine; and the involved mental attitudes toward the origin of Scripture are very diverse. The term “inspiration” is too firmly fixed, in both theological and popular usage, as the technical designa- tion of the action of God in giving the Scriptures, to be re- placed; and we may be thankful that its native implications lie as close as they do to the Biblical conceptions. Meanwhile, however, it may be justly insisted that it shall receive its defi- nition from the representations of Scripture, and not be per- mitted to impose upon our thought ideas of the origin of Scripture derived from an analysis of its own implications, etymological or historical. The Scriptural conception of the re- lation of the Divine Spirit to the human authors in the produc- tion of Scripture is better expressed by the figure of “ bearing ” than by the figure of “ inbreathing”’; and when our Biblical writers speak of the action of the Spirit of God in this relation as a breathing, they represent it as a “ breathing out” of the Scriptures by the Spirit, and not a “ breathing into ”’ the Scrip- tures by Him. So soon, however, as we seriously endeavor to form for our- selves a clear conception of the precise nature of the Divine ac- tion in this “ breathing out ” of the Scriptures — this “ bear- ing” of the writers of the Scriptures to their appointed goal of the production of a book of Divine trustworthiness and inde- fectible authority — we become acutely aware of a more deeply lying and much wider problem, apart from which this one of inspiration, technically so called, cannot be profitably considered. This is the general problem of the origin of the Scriptures and the part of God in all that complex of processes by the interaction of which these books, which we call the sacred Scriptures, with all their peculiarities, and all their qualities of whatever sort, have been brought into being. For, of course, these books were not produced suddenly, by some miraculous act — handed down complete out of heaven, as the phrase goes; but, like all other products of time, are the ulti- mate effect of many processes cooperating through long pe- INSPIRATION 101 riods. There is to be considered, for instance, the preparation of the material which forms the subject-matter of these books: in a sacred history, say, for example, to be narrated; or in a religious experience which may serve as a norm for record; or in a logical elaboration of the contents of revelation which may be placed at the service of God’s people; or in the progres- sive revelation of Divine truth itself, supplying their culminat- ing contents. And there is the preparation of the men to write these books to be considered, a preparation physical, intellec- tual, spiritual, which must have attended them throughout their whole lives, and, indeed, must have had its beginning in their remote ancestors, and the effect of which was to bring the right men to the right places at the right times, with the right endowments, impulses, acquirements, to write just the books which were designed for them. When “ inspiration,” techni- cally so called, is superinduced on lines of preparation like these, it takes on quite a different aspect from that which it bears when it is thought of as an isolated action of the Divine Spirit operating out of all relation to historical processes. Rep- resentations are sometimes made as if, when God wished to produce sacred books which would incorporate His will—a series of letters like those of Paul, for example — He was re- duced to the necessity of going down to earth and painfully scrutinizing the men He found there, seeking anxiously for the one who, on the whole, promised best for His purpose; and then violently forcing the material He wished expressed through him, against his natural bent, and with as little loss from his recalcitrant characteristics as possible. Of course, nothing of the sort took place. If God wished to give His peo- ple a series of letters like Paul’s, He prepared a Paul to write them, and the Paul He brought to the task was a Paul who spontaneously would write just such letters. If we bear this in mind, we shall know what estimate to place upon the common representation to the effect that the human characteristics of the writers must, and in point of fact do, condition and qualify the writings produced by them, the implication being that, therefore, we cannot get from man a 102 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION pure word of God. As light that passes through the colored glass of a cathedral window, we are told, is light from heaven, but is stained by the tints of the glass through which it passes; so any word of God which is passed through the mind and soul of a man must come out discolored by the personality through which it is given, and just to that degree ceases to be the pure word of God. But what if this personality has itself been formed by God into precisely the personality it is, for the ex- press purpose of communicating to the word given through it just the coloring which it gives it? What if the colors of the stained-glass window have been designed by the architect for the express purpose of giving to the light that floods the cathe- dral precisely the tone and quality it receives from them? What if the word of God that comes to His people is framed by God into the word of God it is, precisely by means of the qual- ities of the men formed by Him for the purpose, through which it is given? When we think of God the Lord giving by His Spirit a body of authoritative Scriptures to His people, we must remember that He is the God of providence and of grace as well as of revelation and inspiration, and that He holds all the lines of preparation as fully under His direction as He does the specific operation which we call technically, in the narrow sense, by the name of “inspiration.” The production of the Scriptures is, in point of fact, a long process, in the course of which numerous and very varied Divine activities are involved, providential, gracious, miraculous, all of which must be taken into account in any attempt to explain the relation of God to the production of Scripture. When they are all taken into ac- count we can no longer wonder that the resultant Scriptures are constantly spoken of as the pure word of God. We wonder, rather, that an additional operation of God— what we call specifically “ inspiration,” in its technical sense — was thought necessary. Consider, for example, how a piece of sacred history —say the Book of Chronicles, or the great historical work, Gospel and Acts, of Luke — is brought to the writing. There is first of all the preparation of the history to be written: God the Lord leads the sequence of occurrences through the develop- INSPIRATION 103 ment He has designed for them that they may convey their lessons to His people: a “ teleological” or “ aetiological ”’ char- acter is inherent in the very course of events. Then He pre- pares a man, by birth, training, experience, gifts of grace, and, if need be, of revelation, capable of appreciating this historical development and eager to search it out, thrilling in all his be- ing with its lessons and bent upon making them clear and effec- tive to others. When, then, by His providence, God sets this man to work on the writing of this history, will there not be spontaneously written by him the history which it was Di- vinely intended should be written? Or consider how a psalmist would be prepared to put into moving verse a piece of norma- tive religious experience: how he would be born with just the right quality of religious sensibility, of parents through whom he should receive just the right hereditary bent, and from whom he should get precisely the right religious example and training, in circumstances of life in which his religious tend- encies should be developed precisely on right lines; how he would be brought through just the right experiences to quicken in him the precise emotions he would be called upon to express, and finally would be placed in precisely the exigencies which would call out their expression. Or consider the providential preparation of a writer of a didactic epistle —— by means of which he should be given the intellectual breadth and acute- ness, and be trained in habitudes of reasoning, and placed in the situations which would call out precisely the argumenta- tive presentation of Christian truth which was required of him. When we give due place in our thoughts to the universality of the providential government of God, to the minuteness and completeness of its sway, and to its invariable efficacy, we may be inclined to ask what is needed beyond this mere providen- tial government to secure the production of sacred books which should be in every detail absolutely accordant with the Divine will. The answer is, Nothing is needed beyond mere providence to secure such books — provided only that it does not lie in the Divine purpose that these books should possess qualities which 104 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION rise above the powers of men to produce, even under the most complete Divine guidance. For providence is guidance; and guidance can bring one only so far as his own power can carry him. If heights are to be scaled above man’s native power to achieve, then something more than guidance, however effec- tive, is necessary. This is the reason for the superinduction, at the end of the long process of the production of Scripture, of the additional Divine operation which we call technically “ in- spiration.” By it, the Spirit of God, flowing confluently in with the providentially and graciously determined work of men, spontaneously producing under the Divine directions the writ- ings appointed to them, gives the product a Divine quality un- attainable by human powers alone. Thus these books become not merely the word of godly men, but the immediate word of God Himself, speaking directly as such to the minds and hearts of every reader. The value of “ inspiration ” emerges, thus, as twofold. It gives to the books written under its “ bearing” a quality which is truly superhuman; a trustworthiness, an au- thority, a searchingness, a profundity, a profitableness which is altogether Divine. And it speaks this Divine word immedi- ately to each reader’s heart and conscience; so that he does not require to make his way to God, painfully, perhaps even un- certainly, through the words of His servants, the human in- struments in writing the Scriptures, but can listen directly to the Divine voice itself speaking immediately in the Scriptural word to him. That the writers of the New Testament themselves con- ceive the Scriptures to have been produced thus by Divine op- erations extending through the increasing ages and involving a multitude of varied activities, can be made clear by simply attending to the occasional references they make to this or that step in the process. It lies, for example, on the face of their expositions, that they looked upon the Biblical history as tele- ological. Not only do they tell us that “ whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that through patience and through comfort of the scriptures we might have hope” (Rom. xv. 4; cf. Rom. iv. 23.24) ; they speak also of the INSPIRATION 105 course of the historical events themselves as guided for our benefit: “ Now these things happened unto them by way of example” — in a typical fashion, in such a way that, as they occurred, a typical character, or predictive reference impressed itself upon them; that is to say, briefly, the history occurred as it did in order to bear a message to us — “ and they were writ- ten for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come” (1 Cor. x. 11; cf. ver. 6). Accordingly, it has become a commonplace of Biblical exposition that “the history of re- demption itself is a typically progressive one” (Kiiper), and is “in a manner impregnated with the prophetic element,” so as to form a “ part of a great plan which stretches from the fall of man to the first consummation of all things in glory; and, in so far as it reveals the mind of God toward man, car- ries a respect to the future not less than to the present ” (P. Fairbairn). It les equally on the face of the New Testa- ment allusions to the subject that its writers understood that the preparation of men to become vehicles of God’s message to man was not of yesterday, but had its beginnings in the very origin of their being. The call by which Paul, for example, was made an apostle of Jesus Christ was sudden and apparently without antecedents; but it 1s precisely this Paul who reckons this call as only one step in a long process, the beginnings of which antedated his own existence: “ But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me, even from my mother’s womb, and called me through his grace, to reveal his Son in me” (Gal. 1. 15.16; cf. Jer. 1. 5; Isa. xlix. 1.5). The recognition by the writers of the New Testament of the experiences of God’s grace, which had been vouchsafed to them as an integral element in their fitting to be the bearers of His gospel to others, finds such pervasive expression that the only difficulty is to select from the mass the most illustrative passages. Such a statement as Paul gives in the opening verses of 2 Cor. is thor- oughly typical. There he represents that he has been afflicted and comforted to the end that he might “be able to comfort them that are in any affliction, through the comfort where- with” he had himself been “ comforted of God.” For, he ex- 106 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION plains, ‘‘ Whether we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; or whether we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which worketh in the patient enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer” (2 Cor. i. 4-6). It is beyond question, therefore, that the New Testament writers, when they declare the Scriptures to be the product of the Divine breath, and ex- plain this as meaning that the writers of these Scriptures wrote them only as borne by the Holy Spirit in such a fashion that they spoke, not out of themselves, but “ from God,” are think- ing of this operation of the Spirit only as the final act of God in the production of the Scriptures, superinduced upon a long series of processes, providential, gracious, miraculous, by which the matter of Scripture had been prepared for writing, and the men for writing it, and the writing of it had been actually brought to pass. It is this final act in the production of Scrip- ture which is technically called “ inspiration ”’; and inspiration is thus brought before us as, in the minds of the writers of the New Testament, that particular operation of God in the pro- duction of Scripture which takes effect at the very point of the writing of Scripture — understanding the term “ writing” here as inclusive of all the processes of the actual composition of Scripture, the investigation of documents, the collection of facts, the excogitation of conclusions, the adaptation of ex- hortations as means to ends and the like — with the effect of giving to the resultant Scripture a specifically supernatural character, and constituting it a Divine, as well as human, book. Obviously the mode of operation of this Divine activity moving to this result is conceived, in full accord with the anal- ogy of the Divine operations in other spheres of its activity, in providence and in grace alike, as confluent with the human activities operative in the case; as, in a word, of the nature of what has come to be known as “ immanent action.” It will not escape observation that thus “ inspiration ” is made a mode of “revelation.” We are often exhorted, to be sure, to distinguish sharply between “ inspiration ” and “ reve- lation”; and the exhortation is just when “revelation ” is taken in one of its narrower senses, of, say, an external mani- INSPIRATION 107 festation of God, or of an immediate communication from God in words. But “ inspiration ” does not differ from “ revelation ” in these narrowed senses as genus from genus, but as a species of one genus differs from another. That operation of God which we call “inspiration,” that is to say, that operation of the Spirit of God by which He “ bears ”’ men in the process of com- posing Scripture, so that they write, not of themselves, but “from God,” is one of the modes in which God makes known to men His being, His will, His operations, His purposes. It is as distinctly a mode of revelation as any mode of revelation can be, and therefore it performs the same office which all reve- lation performs, that is to say, in the express words of Paul, it makes men wise, and makes them wise unto salvation. All “special” or “ supernatural ” revelation (which is redemptive in its very idea, and occupies a place as a substantial element in God’s redemptive processes) has precisely this for its end; and Scripture, as a mode of the redemptive revelation of God, finds its fundamental purpose just in this: if the “ inspira- tion’ by which Scripture is produced renders it trustworthy and authoritative, it renders it trustworthy and authoritative only that it may the better serve to make men wise unto salva- tion. Scripture is conceived, from the point of view of the writ- ers of the New Testament, not merely as the record of revela- tions, but as itself a part of the redemptive revelation of God; not merely as the record of the redemptive acts by which God is saving the world, but as itself one of these redemptive acts, haying its own part to play in the great work of establishing and building up the kingdom of God. What gives it a place among the redemptive acts of God is its Divine origination, taken in its widest sense, as inclusive of all the Divine opera- tions, providential, gracious and expressly supernatural, by which it has been made just what it is—a body of writings able to make wise unto salvation, and profitable for making the man of God perfect. What gives it its place among the modes of revelation is, however, specifically the culminating one of these Divine operations, which we call “ Inspiration ”’; that is to say, the action of the Spirit of God in so “ bearing ” 108 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION its human authors in their work of producing Scripture, as that in these Scriptures they speak, not out of themselves, but “from God.” It is this act by virtue of which the Scriptures may properly be called “ God-breathed.” It has been customary among a certain school of writers to speak of the Scriptures, because thus “ inspired,” as a Divine- human book, and to appeal to the analogy of Our Lord’s Di- vine-human personality to explain their peculiar qualities as such. The expression calls attention to an important fact, and the analogy holds good a certain distance. There are human and Divine sides to Scripture, and, as we cursorily examine it, we may perceive in it, alternately, traits which suggest now the one, now the other factor in its origin. But the analogy with Our Lord’s Divine-human personality may easily be pressed beyond reason. There is no hypostatic union between the Di- vine and the human in Scripture; we cannot parallel the “ in- scripturation ” of the Holy Spirit and the incarnation of the Son of God. The Scriptures are merely the product of Divine and human forces working together to produce a product in the production of which the human forces work under the initia- tion and prevalent direction of the Divine: the person of Our Lord unites in itself Divine and human natures, each of which retains its distinctness while operating only in relation to the other. Between such diverse things there can exist only a re- mote analogy; and, in point of fact, the analogy in the present instance amounts to no more than that in both cases Divine and human factors are involved, though very differently. In the one they unite to constitute a Divine-human person, in the other they codperate to perform a Divine-human work. Even so distant an analogy may enable us, however, to recognize that as, in the case of Our Lord’s person, the human nature remains truly human while yet it can never fall into sin or error because it can never act out of relation with the Divine nature into conjunction with which it has been brought; so in the case of the production of Scripture by the conjoint action of human and Divine factors, the human factors have acted as human factors, and have left their mark on the product as such, INSPIRATION 109 and yet cannot have fallen into that error which we say it is human to fall into, because they have not acted apart from the Divine factors, by themselves, but only under their unerring guidance. | The New Testament testimony is to the Divine origin and qualities of “Scripture”; and “Scripture” to the writers of the New Testament was fundamentally, of course, the Old Tes- tament. In the primary passage, in which we are told that “every ” or “all Scripture ” is “ God-breathed,” the direct ref- erence is to the “ sacred writings ” which Timothy had had in knowledge since his infancy, and these were, of course, just the sacred books of the Jews (2 Tim. ii. 16). What is explicit here is implicit in all the allusions to inspired Scriptures in the New Testament. Accordingly, it is frequently said that our entire testimony to the inspiration of Scripture concerns the Old Tes- tament alone. In many ways, however, this is overstated. Our present concern is not with the extent of “ Scripture’ but with the nature of “Scripture”; and we cannot present here the considerations which justify extending to the New Testament the inspiration which the New Testament writers attribute to the Old Testament. It will not be out of place, however, to point out simply that the New Testament writers obviously themselves made this extension. They do not for an instant imagine themselves, as ministers of a new covenant, less in possession of the Spirit of God than the ministers of the old covenant: they freely recognize, indeed, that they have no suf- ficiency of themselves, but they know that God has made them sufficient (2 Cor. il. 5.6). They prosecute their work of pro- claiming the gospel, therefore, in full confidence that they speak “by the Holy Spirit” (1 Pet. i. 12), to whom they at- tribute both the matter and form of their teaching (1 Cor. 11. 13). They, therefore, speak with the utmost assurance of their teaching (Gal. i. 7.8); and they issue commands with the com- pletest authority (1 Thess. iv. 2.14; 2 Thess. ili. 6.12), making it, indeed, the test of whether one has the Spirit that he should recognize what they demand as commandments of God (1 Cor. xiv. 37). It would be strange, indeed, if these high claims were 110 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION made for their oral teaching and commandments exclusively. In point of fact, they are made explicitly also for their written injunctions. It was “the things” which Paul was “ writing,” the recognition of which as commands of the Lord, he makes the test of a Spirit-led man (1 Cor. xiv. 37). It is his “ word by this epistle,’” obedience to which he makes the condition of Christian communion (2 Thess. iii. 14). There seems involved in such an attitude toward their own teaching, oral and writ- ten, a claim on the part of the New Testament writers to some- thing very much like the “ inspiration ” which they attribute to the writers of the Old Testament. And all doubt is dispelled when we observe the New Testa- ment writers placing the writings of one another in the same category of “ Scripture ” with the books of the Old Testament. The same Paul who, in 2 Tim. iii. 16, declared that ‘ every’ or ‘all scripture is God-breathed’ had already written in 1 Tim. v. 18: “ For the scripture saith, Thou shall not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. And, The laborer is worthy of his hire.” The first clause here is derived from Deuteronomy and the second from the Gospel of Luke, though both are cited as together constituting, or better, forming part of the “ Scrip- ture’ which Paul adduces as so authoritative as by its mere citation to end all strife. Who shall say that, in the declaration of the later epistle that “all” or “ every” Scripture is God- breathed, Paul did not have Luke, and, along with Luke, what- ever other new books he classed with the old under the name of Scripture, in the back of his mind, along with those old books which Timothy had had in his hands from infancy? And the same Peter who declared that every “ prophecy of scripture ”’ was the product of men who spoke “ from God,” being ‘ borne’ by the Holy Ghost (2 Pet. i. 21), in this same epistle (ii. 16), places Paul’s Epistles in the category of Scripture along with whatever other books deserve that name. For Paul, says he, wrote these epistles, not out of his own wisdom, but “ accord- ing to the wisdom given to him,” and though there are some things in them hard to be understood, yet it is only “ the igno- rant and unstedfast ’ who wrest these difficult passages — as INSPIRATION 111 what else could be expected of men who wrest “ also the other Scriptures ” (obviously the Old Testament is meant) — “ unto their own destruction” ? Is it possible to say that Peter could not have had these epistles of Paul also lurking somewhere in the back of his mind, along with “ the other scriptures,” when he told his readers that every “ prophecy of scripture ” owes its origin to the prevailing operation of the Holy Ghost? What must be understood in estimating the testimony of the New Testament writers to the inspiration of Scripture is that “Scripture ” stood in their minds as the title of a unitary body of books, throughout the gift of God through His Spirit to His people; but that this body of writings was at the same time understood to be a growing aggregate, so that what is said of it applies to the new books which were being added to it as the Spirit gave them, as fully as to the old books which had come down to them from their hoary past. It is a mere matter of de- tail to determine precisely what new books were thus included by them in the category “Scripture.” They tell us some of them themselves. Those who received them from their hands tell us of others. And when we put the two bodies of testimony together we find that they constitute just our New Testament. It is no pressure of the witness of the writers of the New Tes- tament to the inspiration of the Scripture, therefore, to look upon it as covering the entire body of “Scriptures,” the new books which they were themselves adding to this aggregate, as well as the old books which they had received as Scripture from the fathers. Whatever can lay claim by just right to the appellation of ‘“ Scripture,” as employed in its eminent sense by those writers, can by the same just right lay claim to the “inspiration ” which they ascribe to this Scripture.” LiterRAturRE. — J. Gerhard, “ Loci Theolog.,”’ Locus I; F. Turretin, “TInstit.Theol.,” Locus II; B. de Moor, “ Comm. in J. Marckii Comp.,” cap. 11; C. Hodge, ‘“‘ Syst. Theol.,”” New York, 1871, I, 151-86; Henry B. Smith, “ The Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures,” New York, 1855, new ed., Cincinnati, 1891; A. Kuyper, “ Encyclopedie der heilige Godgeleerdheid,” 1888-89, II, 347 ff., ET; “ Enc of Sacred Theol.,” 112 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION New York, 1898, 341-563; also “‘ De Schrift het woord Gods,” Tiel, 1870; H. Bavinck, “ Gereformeerde Dogmatiek?,” Kampen, 1906, I, 406-527; R. Haldane, ‘“ The Verbal Inspiration of the Scriptures Established,’ Edinburgh, 1830; J. T. Beck, “ Einleitung in das Sys- tem der christlichen Lehre,’ Stuttgart, 1838, 2d ed., 1870; A. G. Rudelbach, “ Die Lehre von der Inspiration der heil. Schrift,” Zevt- schrift fiir die gesammte Lutherische Theologie und Kirche, 1840, 1, 1841, 1, 1842, 1; S. R. L. Gaussen, “ Théopneustie ou inspiration pléniére des saintes écritures?,” Paris, 1842, ET by E. N. Kirk, New York, 1842; also “ Theopneustia; the Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures,’ David Scott’s tr., reédited and revised by B. W. Carr, with a preface by C. H. Spurgeon, London, 1888; William Lee, “The Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures,” Donellan Lecture, 1852, New York, 1857; James Bannerman, “ Inspiration: the Infallible Truth and Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures,’”’ Edinburgh, 1865; F. L. Patton, ‘“ The Inspiration of the Scriptures,” Philadel- phia, 1869 (reviewing Lee and Bannerman); Charles Elliott, “A Treatise on the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures,” Edinburgh, 1877; A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, ‘“‘ Inspiration,” Presbyterran Review, April, 1881, also tract, Philadelphia, 1881; R. Watts, “‘ The Rule of Faith and the Doctrine of Inspiration,” Edinburgh, 1885; A. Cave, “ The Inspiration of the OT Inductively Considered,” Lon- don, 1888; B. Manly, “The Bible Doctrine of Inspiration,’ New York, 1888; W. Rohnert, ‘‘ Die Inspiration der heiligen Schrift und ihre Bestreiter,” Leipzig, 1889; A. W. Dieckhoff, “ Die Inspiration ~ und Irrthumlosigkeit der heiligen Schrift,” Leipzig, 1891; J. Wichel- haus, ‘‘ Die Lehre der heiligen Schrift,” Stuttgart, 1892; J. Mac- gregor, ‘The Revelation and the Record,’ Edinburgh, 1893; J. Urquhart, ‘ The Inspiration and Accuracy of the Holy Scriptures,” London, 1895; C. Pesch, ‘‘De Inspiratione Sacrae Scripturae,” Freiburg, 1906; James Orr, “ Revelation and Inspiration,” London, 1910. Vv poORIRTURE, LORY SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT “SCRIPTURE,” “THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT! THE scope of this article does not permit the full discus- sion in it of the employment of Scripture, or of the estimate put upon Scripture, by either our Lord or the writers of the New Testament. It is strictly limited to what is necessary to exhibit the use of the terms ‘Scripture,’ ‘The Scriptures,’ in the New Testament and the more immediate implications of this use. Abas use was an inheritance, not an invention. The idea oY a ‘canon’ of ‘Sacred Scriptures,’ and, with the idea, the ‘canon’ itself were derived by Christianity from Judaism. The Jews possessed a body of writings, consisting of ‘ Law, Prophets ae (other) Scriptures (K’thubhim),’ though they were often called for brevity’s sake merely ‘the Law and the Prophets’ or even simply ‘the Law.’ These ‘Sacred Scriptures”’ (wpm ‘3n3), — or, as they were very frequently pregnantly called, this ‘Scripture’ (=n="), or these ‘Books’ (a207) or, even sometimes, in the singular, this ‘Book’ (p05) — were looked upon as all drawing their origin from divine inspiration and as possessed in all their extent of divine authority. Whatever stood written in them was a word of God, and was therefore referred to indifferently as something which ‘the Scripture says’ ("Pp 78 or 3N57 7X or xp an>) or ‘the All-merciful says’ (s2mm 7x), or even simply ‘He says’ ("#8 xn 72 or merely 7") — that God is the speaker being too fully understood to require explicit expression. Every precept or dogma was supposed to be grounded in Scriptural teaching, and possessed authority only as buttressed by a Scriptural passage, introduced com- 1 A condensation of this article was published in Dr. Hastings’ “ Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels,’”’ sub voc. Scripture. It has been thought desirable after this interval to print the entire article. (From The Princeton Theological Review v. VIII, 1910, pp. 561-612.) 115 116 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION monly by one of the formulas, ‘for it is said’ (m#s2w), or ‘as 1t is written’ (s'n25 or >n2">), though of course a great variety of less frequently occurring similar formulas of adduction are found.” Greek-speaking Jews naturally tended merely to repro- duce in their new language the designations and forms of adduction of the sacred books current among their compa- triots. This process was no doubt facilitated by the existence among the Greeks themselves of a pregnant legislative use of ypadw, ypadn, yeauua, in which they were already freighted with a certain implication of authority.® But it is very easy to make too much of this (as e. g., Deissmann does), and the simple fact should not be obscured that the Greek-speaking Jews follow the usage of the Jews in general. It may no doubt very possibly be due in part to his Graecizing tendencies that the Scriptures are spoken of by Josephus apparently with predilection as the ‘‘Sacred Books’’ (tepat GiBror or tepa 6.Brta) or ‘‘ Sacred Scriptures”’ (tepd ypauuara) or more fully still as the ‘‘ Books of the Sacred Scriptures”’ (ai tep@v ypadav GiBror); and quoted with the formula yéypamra: or more fre- quently avayéypamrra: — all of which are forms which would be familiar to Greek ears, with a general implication of au- thority.* Perhaps, however, the influence of the Greek usage is more clearly traceable in certain passages of the LX X in which ypa@n may seem to hover between the pregnant Greek 2 Edersheim, “Life and Times of Jesus,” etc., Ed. 1, I. p. 187, note 2; ef., in general, Surenhusius, “WM "BD sive BiBdros xaraddXay7fs (1713), pp. 1-36; Dépke, ‘“Hermeneutik der NT. Schriftsteller”’ (1829), I. pp. 60-69; Pinner, Translation of the Tract Berachoth, Introd. p. 21b; Zunz, ‘‘ Gottesdienstliche Vortrige der Juden,” p. 44; Weber, “ Jiidische Theologie”’ (1897) § 20, p. 80 segq.; Schirer, ‘Jewish People” II. i. p. 311; Buhl, “Canon and Text,” §2; Ryle, ‘Canon of O. T.,’’ Excursus E. 8 Cf. the passages in the Lexicons, and especially in Deissmann, “Bible Studies,” 112, 249, and Cremer, “Biblico-Theol. Lex.” sub voce. especially the later eds. 4Cf. Deissmann, “Bible Studies,” p. 149, note 4. For Josephus’ use of Scripture, in general, see Gerlach, ‘Die Weissagungen d. AT. in d. Schrift. d. ¥. Josephus (1863), and Dienstfertig, ‘Die Prophetologie in d. Religionsphi- losophie d. ersten nachchristlichen Jahrhunderts”’ (1892), the latter of whom discusses Philo’s ideas of Scripture also. “THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 117 sense of authoritative ‘ordinance,’ and the pregnant Hebrew sense of authoritative ‘Scripture.’ When, for example, we read in I Chron. xv. 15, ‘* And the sons of the Levites took upon themselves with staves the Ark of God, ws évereiNato Mwvons &v OYw Beod KaTa THY ypadny,’’ we scarcely know whether we are to translate the xara Tv ypadnyv (which has no equivalent in the Hebrew) by “‘ according to the precept,”’ or by “‘ according to the Scriptures.’’? Something of the same hesitancy is felt with reference to the similar passages: II Chron. xxx. 5, ‘‘ Because the multitude had not done it lately xara THY ypadnv’’ (= sinsz); II Chron. xxx. 18, ‘‘ But they ate the passover wapa rv ypadnv’’ (= sinzD X53); II Esdr. vi. 18, ‘‘ And they established the priests in their courses and the Levites in their divisions for the service of God in Jerusalem, xara 77v ypadny Bib\ov Mwvon”’ (= an23 mv pe); I Chron. xxviii. 19, ‘‘ All these things David gave to Solomon é& ypad7 xerpos Kupiov’’ (= mint 79 sn>3): IT Chron. xxxv. 4, ‘‘ Prepare yourselves... kata tHv ypadny Aavid... Kal dua xelpos Datwuwv’’ (= rib smoen1 717 sm22); I Esdr.i. 4, “kata THY ypapdyy Aavid’’ xr; and especially the very instruc- tive passage ITI Esdr. vii. 22, ‘‘ For which there is no ypad7.”’ Similarly in II Esdr. i. 2, ‘‘xara ta yeypaupéeva (= 31ND) in the law of Moses,” ra yeypauyéeva might very well appeal to a Greek ear as simply ‘‘the prescriptions’’; and there are a series of passages in which yéyparrat might very readily be taken in the Greek sense of ‘‘it is prescribed,’’ such as Josh. Perera viileo lon eWingsixiv. O,ixxn 21) 1 Chron: xxi118; xxv. 4, Neh. x. 34, (85), 35, (87), Tob. i. 6. Should this inter- pretation be put on these passages, there would be left in the LXX little unalloyed trace of the peculiar Jewish usage of pregnantly referring to Scripture as such by that term, and citing it with the authoritative ‘It is written.’ For clear in- stances of the former usage we should have to go to TV Macc. xvill. 14, and of the latter to Dan. ix. 13, and to the Greek additions to Job (xli. 18).° Philo on the other hand is abso- 5 TV Mace. xviii. 14, “‘And he reminded you of ‘Heatov ypadjv which says, Though you pass through fire, &c.’’; Dan. ix. 18, ‘‘ Kaas yeyparra: in the law 118 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION lutely determined in his usage by his inherited Jewish habits of thought. With him the Sacred books are by predilection a body of divine Oracles and are designated ordinarily either 6 \dyos with various adjectival enhancements — ‘ prophetic,’ ‘divine,’ ‘sacred’ — or, perhaps even more commonly, ‘“‘the Oracles,” or even “‘the Oracle,” (oi xpnopol, Ta NOyLa, 6 xpNo- uos, 70 AOyvov, or even possibly the anarthrous xpyopos, Ndyuor) ; and are adduced (as is also most frequently the case in the Mishna, cf. Edersheim as cited) rather with the formula, ‘* As it is said,’ than with the “‘ As it is written’’ which would more naturally convey to Greek ears the sense of authorita- tive declarations. Of course Philo also speaks on occasion (for this too is a truly Jewish mode of speech) of these ‘‘ Oracles’”’ as ‘‘the Sacred Books”’ (ta tepat BiBdou. “De Vita Moysis,”’ iii. 23, Mangey ii. 163; “Quod det. pot. insid.” 44, Mangey i. 222), or as ‘“‘the Sacred Scriptures”’ (ai tepwrarat ypadat, “ De Abrah.”’ i, Mangey ii. 2; iepai ypadat, ““ Quis rerum div. heres.”’ 32, Mangey i. 495; 7a tepa ypaupara, “ Legat. ad Caium,” 29, Mangey ii. 574); and adduces them with the pregnant yéypar- tat. But the comparative infrequency of these designations in his pages is very noticeable.°® What it is of importance especially to note is that there was nothing left for Christianity to invent in the way of designating the Sacred Books taken over from the Jewish Church pregnantly as “Scripture,” and currently adducing their authority with the pregnant ‘It is written.’ The Chris- tian writers merely continued in their entirety the established usages of the Synagogue in this matter, already prepared to their hands in Hebrew and Greek alike. There is probably not a single mode of alluding to or citing Scripture in all the of Moses, all this evil is come upon us”’; Job xhi. 18, ‘And Job died an old man and full of days, yéypamrra 6¢ that he shall rise again along with those whom the Lord will raise.” 6 Philo’s designations of Scripture have been collected by Hornemann, ‘‘ Ob- servationes ad illustr. doctr. de V. T. ex Philone”’ (1775); more briefly by Eichhorn, ‘‘Einleitung in d. A. T.;”’ and less satisfactorily by Ryle, ‘‘ Philo and Holy Scripture.”’ Cf. The Presbyterian and Reformed Review, x. 504 (July, 1899) and xi. 235 (April, 1900). “THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 119 New Testament which does not find its exact parallel among the Rabbis.’ The New Testament so far evinces itself a thor- oughly Jewish book. The several terms made use of in it, to be sure, as it was natural they should be, are employed with some sensitiveness to their inherent implications as Greek words; and the Greek legislative use of some of them gave them no doubt peculiar fitness for the service asked of them, and lent them a special significance to Gentile readers. But the application made of them by the New Testament writers nevertheless has its roots set in the soil of Jewish thought, from which they derive a fuller and deeper meaning than their most pregnant classical usage could accord them. Among these terms those which more particularly claim our atten- tion at the moment are the two substantives ypady and yeayya, with their various qualifications, and the cognate verbal forms employed in citing writings pregnantly desig- nated by these substantives. There is nothing in the New Testament usage of these terms peculiar to itself; and through- out the New Testament any differences that may be observed in their employment by the several writers are indicative merely of varying habits of speech within the limits of one well-settled general usage. To the New Testament writers as to other Jews, the Sacred Books of what was in their circle now called the Old Covenant (II Cor. ii. 14), described according to their con- tents as “‘the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms” (Lk. xxiv. 44) — or more briefly as ‘‘the Law and the Prophets”’ (Matt. vim uke xviee LO eclasActsi xxvinle 23, Lk xvi.e29-31) or merely as ‘‘the Law” (Jno. x. 34, I Cor. xiv. 21) or even “the Prophets,” (Rom. xvi. 26),> — were, when thought of accord- ing to their nature, a body of ‘‘Sacred Scriptures’’ (Rom. i. 2, II Tim. ii. 16), or, with the omission of the unnecessary be- 7 This has been shown in detail by, for example, Surenhusius and Dépke, as cited above. 8 Sometimes the whole is spoken of, in accordance with its character as reve- lation, as “‘prophetical Scriptures” or ‘‘the Scriptures of the prophets”’ (cf. Matt. li. 23, xi. 18, xxvi. 56; Lk. i. 70, xviii. 31, xxiv. 25, 27; Acts ili. 24, xiii. 27; Rom. i. 2, Xvi. 26). 120 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION cause well-understood adjective, by way of eminence, “‘the Scriptures,’ ‘“‘the Scripture,”’ ‘‘Scripture,”’ (Matt. xxi. 29, Jno. x. 35, I Pet. ii. 6). For employment in this designation, either of the substantives, ypad7 or ypauya, would apparently have been available; although of course with slightly differ- ing suggestions arising from the differing implications of the forms and the respective general usages of the words. In Philo and Josephus the more usual of the two in this application is ypauma, or, to speak more exactly, ypauuara, — for although yoda is sometimes in later Greek so employed in the singu- lar ° it is in the plural that this term most properly denotes that congeries of alphabetical signs which constitutes a book (cf. Latin, literae). In the New Testament on the contrary, this form is rare. The complete phrase, ieod ypaupata, which is found also both in Josephus (e.g. “‘ Antt.’’ proem. 3; iii. 7, 6; x. 10, 4; xiii. 5,8) and in Philo (e. g., ‘‘ De Vita Moys.’’i. 2, ‘‘ Legat. ad Caium,” 29) occurs in II Tim. iii. 15 as the current title of the Sacred Books, freighted with all its implications as such, or rather with those implications emphasized by its anar- throus employment, and particularly adverted to in the im- mediate context (verse 16).’° Elsewhere in the New Testament, however, ypaupara scarcely occurs as a designation of Scrip- ture. In Jno. v. 47, ‘‘ But if ye believe not his (Moses’) writ- ings, how shall ye believe my (Jesus’) words ?’’ to be sure we must needs hesitate before we refuse to give to it this its most pregnant sense, especially since there appears to be an implication present that it would be more reprehensible to refuse trust to these ‘‘ writings”’ of Moses than to the ‘“‘ words”’ * Strabo, “Geog.” i. 7, ““Hecataeus left a yodupya believed to be his from his other ypa¢7.”’ Callimachus, “ Epigr.’”’ xxiv. 4, ‘‘Plato’s ré wep! wuxfs yoduma. In the Church Fathers 76 6etov (or iepdv) ypaupa occurs frequently for ‘Holy Scripture,” e. g. Greg. Thaumat. in “Orig. orat. paneg. VI. ad fin.;’’ Epiphan. “Adv. Her.’ III, ii. (Ixxx. A.); Cyr. Al. ‘‘Epistula 50” (formerly 44): in Cyr. Al. “De Adver.” p. 44, the N. T. is the véov ypdumua; in Eus. h. e. x. 4fin, rv rerrapwr ebayyeNiwy TO ypaupa is the Gospels, ete. 10 H. Holtzmann accordingly accurately comments on this passage: ‘“‘The writer shares the Jewish view of the purely supernatural origin of Scripture in its strictest form, according to which ‘theopneustie’ is ascribed directly to the Scriptures.” (“N. T. Theologie”’ ii. 261). “THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 121 of Jesus Himself. But on the whole, the tendency of the most recent exegesis to see in “his writings” here little more than another way of saying ‘“‘ what he wrote,’’ seems justified. The only other passage which can come into consideration is Jno. vil. 15, ‘‘ How knoweth this man ypauuara, not having learned ?’”’ in which some commentators still see a reference to ‘‘the iepa yoauuara (II Tim. iii. 15) from which the Jewish ypauparets derived their title’’ (Th. Zahn, ‘ Einleitung,’ ii. 99). Most readers, however, doubtless will agree that ‘‘letters’’ in general are more naturally meant (cf. Acts xxvi. 24 and Meyer’s judicious note). Practically, therefore, ypadupa is eliminated; and ypad7, yeadai, in their varied uses, remain the sole terms employed in the New Testament in the sense of ‘‘Scripture,” ‘‘Scriptures.”’ This term, in singular or plural, occurs in the New Testa- ment some fifty times (Gospels twenty-three, Acts seven, Catholic Epistles six, Paul fourteen) and in every case bears the technical sense in which it refers to the Scriptures by way of eminence, the Scriptures of the Old Testament. This state- ment requires only such modification as is involved in noting that from II Pet. iii. 16 (cf. I Tim. v. 18) it becomes apparent that the New Testament writers were perfectly aware that the term “‘Scripture’’ in its high sense was equally applicable to their own writings as to the books included in the Old Testament; or, to be more precise, that it included within itself along with the writings which constituted the Old Tes- tament those also which they were producing, as sharing with the Old Testament books the high functions of the authori- tative written word of God.” No modification needs:to be 11 For the currency of this sense, cf. G. Milligan, “Selections from the Greek Papyri,”’ p. 58, where commenting on the phrase 7 idéros ypauuara, he remarks: “The phrase occurs in countless papyrus documents written either in whole or in part by a scribe on behalf of the ‘unlettered’ author. Cf. the use of the corre- sponding adjective a&ypdauparos in Acts iv. 13 (ef. Jno. vil. 15, Ac. xxvi. 24) = ‘un- acquainted with literature or Rabbinical learning.’”’ 12 On the significance of the plural ai ypadai in 2 Pet. i. 16, see below p. 132. There is no justification for attempting to lower the high implication of the term here (e. g. Huther, Spitta, Mayor in loc., Ladd “Doct. of Sacred Scrip- ture,” I. p. 211, note). The inclusion of New Testament books within the category 122 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION made for the benefit of the few passages in which words are adduced as Scriptural which are not easily identified in the Old Testament text.’® The only passages which come strictly under consideration here are Jno. vii. 38 and Jas. iv. 5, to which may be added as essentially of the same kind (although the term ypad7n does not occur in connection with them), I Cor. ii. 9, and Lk. ix. 49. It is enough to remark as to these passages that, however difficult it may be to identify with certainty the passages referred to, there is no reason to doubt that Old Testament passages were in mind and were intended to be referred to in every case (see Mayor on Jas. iv. 5, and cf. Lightfoot on I Cor. ii. 9, Westcott on Jno. vii. 38, Godet on Lk. xi. 49). In twenty out of the fifty instances in which ypabn, ypadati occur in the New Testament, it is the plural form which is employed: and in all these cases except two the article is present, — ai ypadat the well-known Scriptures of the Jewish people, or rather of the writer and his readers alike. The two exceptions, moreover, are exceptions in ap- pearance only, since in both cases adjectival definitions are present, raising ypadai to the same height to which the article would have elevated it, and giving it the value of a proper name (ypadal ayia, Rom. i. 2, here first in extant literature; ypadat, mpopytixat, Rom. xvi. 26). The singular form occurs some thirty times, and likewise with the article in every in- stance except these four: John xix. 37 ‘another Scripture’; II Tim. iii, 16 ‘every Scripture,’ or ‘all Scripture’; I Pet. ii. 6 ‘it is contained in Scripture’; II Pet. i. 20 ‘no prophecy of Scripture.’ Here too the exceptions, obviously, are only ap- parent, the noun being definite in every case whether by the effect of its adjunct, or as the result of its use as a quasi- proper-name. The distribution of the singular and plural forms is perhaps worth noting. In Acts the singular (8) and plural (4) occur with almost equal frequency: the plural prevails in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. plural only; Mk. plural 2 to 1; of ‘Scripture’ is witnessed also in 1 Tim. v. 18, Ep. Barnabas iv. 14, 2 Clem. Rom. ii. 4, and in the later Fathers passim. It is as early as literary Christianity. 18 See them in Hiihn, “ Die alttestamentlichen Citate,’”’ 270. “THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 123 Lk. 3 to 1), while the singular prevails in the rest of the New Testament (Jno. 11 to 1; James 3 to 1; Peter 2 to 1, Paul 9 to 5). In the Gospels, the plural form occurs exclusively in Matthew, prevailingly in Mark and Luke, and rarely in John, of whom thesingular is characteristic. The usage of the Gospels in detail is as follows: aiypadai, Matt. xxi. 42, xxii. 29, xxvi. 54, 56, Mk. xii. 24, xiv. 49, Lk. xxiv. 27, 32, 45, Jno. v. 39; 7 oaon Vike xl Ow lkaive 2t Jnoe ll. 22) Vil3s 420 xo: xl. 18, xvil. 12, xix. 24, 28, 36, xx. 9; anarthrous ypa¢y, Jno. xix. 37 (but with érépa). No distinction is traceable between the usage of the Evangelists themselves and that of the Lord as reported by them. Matthew and Mark do not on their own account use the term at all, but only report it as used by our Lord: in Luke and John on the other hand it occurs not only in reports of our Lord’s sayings (Lk. iv. 21, Jno. v. 39, vii. 38, 42, x. 35, xiii. 18, xvii. 12), and of the sayings of others (Lk. xxlv. 32), but also in the narrative of the Evangelists (Lk. MIVA (Ory NOs lee, X1X 024,125) 50; 045 XX.9)) Loour Lord is ascribed the use indifferently of the plural (Matt. xxi. 42, Xxll. 29, xxvi. 54, 56, Mk. xii. 24, xiv. 49, Jno. v. 39) and the Sid ata Viker Xie Ow Lkeiv 21d NOm VilwoS 642ex 4 O0, a xIil 18, xvi. 12), and that in all the forms of application in which the term occurs in the Gospels. So far as His usage of the term ‘‘Seripture’’ is concerned, our Lord is represented by the Evangelists, thus, as occupying precisely the same stand- point and employing precisely the same forms of designation, with precisely the same implications, which characterized the devout Jewish usage of His day. ‘‘Jesus,”’ says B. Weiss, therefore, with substantial truth, ‘‘acknowledged the Scrip- tures of the Old Testament in their entire extent and their complete sacredness. ‘The Scripture cannot be broken,’ He says (Jno. x. 35) and forthwith grounds His argument upon its language.’”’ 4 “Tas Leben Jesu,” I. 441-442, E. T. II. 62-63. Cf. Haupt, “Die alttest. Citate in d. vier Evang.”’ pp. 201-203: ‘‘We recognize first what no doubt scarcely requires proof, that Jesus treats the Old Testament in its entirety as the Word of God. Down to the smallest letter and most casual word (Matt. v. 18; Jno. x. 34) it is to Him truth, and that, religious truth.” ‘An isolated expression of 124 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION That we may gather the precise significance of 7 ypad7, at ypadai, as a designation of the Scriptures, it will be well to attend somewhat more closely to the origin of the term in Greek speech and to the implications it gathered to itself in its application to literary documents. Its history in its liter- ary application does not seem to have been precisely the same as that of its congener, To ypaupua, Ta yoaupata. paupya ap- pears to have become current first in this reference as the appropriate appellation of an alphabetical sign, and to have grown gradually upward from this lowly employment to des- ignate a document of less or greater extent, because such documents are ultimately made up of alphabetical signs. Al- though, therefore, the singular, 7o ypauua, came to be used of any written thing — from a simple alphabetical character up to complete works, or even unitary combinations of works, like the Scriptures, — it is apparently when applied to writ- ings, most naturally employed of brief pieces like short in- scriptions or proverbs, or to the shorter portions of documents such as the clauses of treaties, and the like; although it is also used of those longer formal sections of literary works which are more commonly designated technically ‘‘ Books.” It is rather the plural, Ta ypadupuara, which seems to suggest itself most readily not only for extended treatises, but indeed for complete documents of all kinds. When so employed, the plural form is accordingly not to be pressed. Such a phrase as ““Moses’ ypaupara’’ (Jno. v. 47) for example, need not imply that Moses wrote more than one “ work’’; it would rather mass whatever ‘writings’ of Moses are in mind into a single ‘writing,’ and would most naturally mean just, say, ‘‘the Pentateuch.’’ Such a phrase as iepa ypaupyara (II Tim. iii. 15), precisely the book most subjective in its character in the whole canon is made use of and applied as meeting the case.” Cf. also Franke, “‘ Das Alt-Test. bei Johan.” pp. 46, 48; H. Holtzmann, “N. T. Theologie,” I. 45, 115; P. Gennrich, “‘ Der Kampf um die Schrift,’ &c. 1898, p. 72: “In this late-Jewish, wholly unhistorical tradition, Jesus Himself and the oldest Christian authors were brought up; for them the whole Old Testament literature is already inspired (@eéxvevaros 2 Tim. ili. 16), every word, even those of the Psalms and of the Historical Books, an oracle.” “THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 125 again, need not bring the Old Testament books before our contemplation in their plurality, as a “ Divine library’”’; but more probably conceives them together in the mass, as con- stituting a single sacred document, thought of as a unitary whole. On the other hand, ypad7, in its literary application, seems to have sprung somewhat lightly across the interven- ing steps, to designate which ypdyua is most appropriately used, and to have been carried at once over from the ‘ writing’ in the sense of the script to the ‘writing’ in the sense of the scripture or document. Although therefore it of course ex- hibits more applications parallel with those of ypdauua than of any other term, its true synonymy in its higher literary use is rather with such terms as 77 BiGXos (76 BiGAtov) and 6 dyos, in common with which it most naturally designates a com- plete literary piece, whether ‘‘ Treatise’’ or ‘‘ Book.’’ Each of these terms, of course, preserves in all its applications some- thing of the flavor of the primitive conception which was bound up with it. When thought of from the material point of view, as, so to say, so much paper, or, to speak more re- spectfully, from the point of sight of its extent, a literary work was apt therefore to be spoken of as a BiGXos (B.GNior). When thought of as a rational product, thought presented in words, it was apt to be spoken of as a Noyos. Intermediate between the two stood ypad7n (vypauua) which was apt to come to the lips when the work was thought of as, so to speak, so much ‘writing.’ As between the two terms, ypad7 and ypaupa, Dr. Westcott (on Jno. v. 47) suggests that the latter ‘marks rather the specific form,’ the former ‘the scope of the record’ ; and this seems so far just that to ypauya there clings a strong flavor of the ‘letters’ of which the document is made up, while ypady looks rather to the completeness of the ‘scrip- ture.’ To both alike so much of the implication of specific form clings as to lend them naturally to national and legisla- tiveemployment with theimplication of the “ certascriptio.”’® 15 We meet the two words in a single context in Strabo, “Geog.” iI. 7 (Ed. Didot, p. 5, line 50, seq.) where we are told that Hecataeus “‘left a yeauya which is believed to be his ék rijs &\Ans abrod ypadjs.”’ Here ypauua appears to be used where 126 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION To put the general matter in a nutshell, Bi6dos (B:BXiov) may perhaps be said to be the more exact word for the ‘book’; ypabhn (ypauua) for the ‘document’ inscribed in the ‘book’; oyos for the ‘treatise’ which the ‘document’ records; while as between ypady and ypauua, ypauua, preserving thestronger material flavor, gravitates somewhat towards BiBdos (B.BXiLov) while ypad7 looks somewhat upwards towards \oyos. When in the development of the publishers’ trade, the “‘ great-book- system’’ of making books gave way for the purposes of con- venience to the ‘‘small-book-system,”’ and long works came to be broken up into ‘ Books,’’ each of which constituted a ‘volume,’ ’® these ‘‘Books’’ attached to themselves this whole series of designations and were called alike, — in each case with its own appropriate implications — BiBror, (B.GALa) ypapai (ypaupara) and doyor: BiGAor (B.GAia) because each book was written on a separate roll of papyrus and consti- tuted one ‘paper’ or ‘volume’; ypadai (ypauuara) because each book was a separate document, a distinct ‘scripture’ ; and \déyou because each book was a distinct ‘discourse’ or rational work. Smaller sections than these ‘‘ Books’’ were properly called zepioxas, Tomous, xwpia, ypauwata (which last is the appropriate word for ‘ clauses’) but very seldom if ever in the classics, ypadas.”’ The current senses of these several terms are, of course, more or less reflected as they occur in the pages of the New Testament. In the case of some of them, the New Testament usage simply continues that of profane Greek; in the case of others, new implications enter in which, while not supersed- ing, profoundly modify their fundamental significance; in yet other cases, there is a development of usage beyond what is traceable in profane Greek. The passages in which two or the mind is on the concrete object, and ypa¢% where it rests rather on the con- tents: that is, ypa4upa seems to reach down towards BiBXos (6.BXlov), ypadh upwards towards doyos. Does the singular ypa¢7y bear here a plural or ‘‘collective’”’ sense (Latin version: ex ceteris ejus scriptis)? 16 Cf, Birt, “Das antike Buchwesen,” 479. 17 Cf., however, Eur. “Hipp.” 1311, where Phaedra is said to have written pevdeis ypadas which may mean “‘false statements.” “THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 127 more of the terms in question are brought together are, natu- rally, especially instructive. When we read, for example, in Lk. ui. 4 seq. as yéyparrar &v BiB\w ANOywv ‘Hoatov tod rpodn- Tov, we perceive at once that what is quoted is a body of doyou which are found in written form (ypad7: cf. I Cor. xv. 54, 6 NOYos 6 YeYpapmmevos) in a PiBdos: the BiBros is the volume which contains the ypad7, which conveys or, perhaps better, records the Adoyou. So again when we read in Lk. iv. 17 seq. that there was delivered to our Lord the 6:8Xiov of Isaiah, on opening which he found the ré7ov, where a given thing jv vyeypaupevoy, and then closing the 6.6\tov he remarked 7 ypad7 airy is fulfilled in your ears, we perceive that the $.GXior is the concrete volume — a thing to be handled, opened and closed (cf. Rev. v. 3, 4, 5, x. 8, xx. 12), the manner of opening and closing being, of course, unrolling and rolling (Rev. vi. 14, cf. Heb. x. 7, Birt, “‘Das antike Buchwesen,’’ 116); and that the ypad7 is the document written in this 6.GAtov; while the various parts of this ypad7 are formally ré7o, or when attention is directed to their essential quality as sharers in the authority of the whole, ypadai (cf. Acts i. 16, ‘“‘ The ypadn which the Holy Spirit spake through the mouth of” the writer). As might be inferred from these examples, BiGd\os and G.Bdtoy retain in the New Testament their current signifi- cations in profane Greek. Their application to sacred rather than to secular books in no way modified their general sense.”® It brought, however, to them a richness of association which prepared the way for that pregnant employment of them — beginning not indeed in the New Testament but in even earlier Hellenistic writings — to designate in its simple ab- soluteness the sacred volume, from which ultimately our common term “‘ The Bible”’ is supposed to have descended.” 18 They may, of course, be applied even in profane Greek to ‘‘sacred”’ books. Thus a magical formula among the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (Grenfell & Hunt, “Oxyrhynchus Papyri,’’ vi. p. 100, etc.) represents itself as an dvrliypadov tepas BiBdov., 19 Ai BiBdo. (= S755") used absolutely, for the Old Testament as a whole, occurs in Dan. ix. 2 (cf. Driver in loc.). ‘H BiBdos absolutely for the Old Testa- 128 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION Throughout the New Testament the SiGdos or 6.6Atov when applied to literary entities is just the “volume,” that is to say, the concrete object, the ‘‘book”’ in the handleable sense. When we read of the GiBXos of the words of Isaiah (Lk. iu. 4), or of Moses (Mk. xii. 26) or of the Psalms (Lk. xx. 42, Acts 1. 20) or of the Prophets, i. e., of the Twelve ‘‘ Minor Prophets”’ (Acts vil. 42), the meaning is simply that each of these writ- ings or collections of writings formed a single volume.” Simi- larly when we read of the @:8dtov of Isaiah (Lk. iv. 17) or of the Law (Gal. iii. 10), what is meant in each case is the vol- ume formed by the document or documents named. The Gospel of John (Jno. xx. 30, xxi. 25) and the Book of Reve- lation (Rev. 1. 11, xxii. 7, 9, 10, 18, 19) are spoken of as each a B.Bdtov again because each existed in separation as a con- crete unity. Accordingly BiS\o are things which may be burned (Acts xix. 19); 6.GAta, things which may be sprinkled (Heb. ix. 19) or carried about (II Tim. iv. 13), and may be made of parchment (II Tim. iv. 13). The Book of Life pre- sented itself to the imagination as a volume in which names may be inscribed (GiSdos, Phil. iv. 3, Rev. i. 5, xx. 15; B.6- Aiov, Rev. xill. 8, xvii. 8, xx. 12, xxi. 27); the Book of Destiny as a volume in which is set down what is to come to pass (BiBAtov, Heb. x. 7, Rev. v. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, x. 8). There is no essential difference in fundamental implication when in Matt. xix. 7, Mk. x. 4 6:8Xéiov is used for a “‘bill’’ of divorcement, or in Matt.1. 1, Gi6Xos, under the influence of the LX X, is em- ployed of a genealogical register. In both instances it would ment as a whole occurs first, apparently, in the “Letter of Aristeas’’ § 316 (cf. Thackeray, Jewish Quarterly Review, April, 1903, p. 391). Ta B:BAta absolutely of the Old Testament as a whole apparently occurs first in 2 Clem. xiv. 2 (cf. Light- foot in loco). It has been customary to say that from the time of Chrysostom (Hom. 9 in Coloss., Hom. 10 in Genesim) ra BiBdia occurs absolutely for the Scriptures as a whole (cf. Suicer, ‘Thesaur. Eccles.’ I. 687, 696; Reuss, “Hist. of the New Testament,” § 320, E. T., p. 326). This usage is already found, however, in Clement Alex. and in Origen (ed. Lommatsch, i. 607). On the general subject see the detached note at the end of this article on the terms ‘Bible,’ ‘Holy Bible’ (page 149). 20 Cf. Birt, “Das antike Buchwesen,” 478-481, and especially Jerome, “Praef. Psal.”’ and “Ep. ad Marcellam” as cited by Birt. “THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 129 be understood that the document in question occupied a separate piece of papyrus or parchment and was therefore an entire “‘ paper.” There is a much more marked enhancement of sense ap- parent in the New Testament use of \oyos. In Actsi. 1, to be sure, it occurs in the simple classical sense of ‘‘ Book’’; Luke merely points to his Gospel as “the first Book” of an ex- tended historical treatise of which Acts is ‘‘ the second Book’’; and there is no implication of deeper meaning. The ordinary usage of \oyos, however, in the New Testament, is to express, in accordance with its employment in the Old Testament of the Prophetic word, the, or a, revelation from God, with no, or a very indistinct, reference to a written form. The Divine Word was, however, in the hands of the New Testament writers in a written form and allusion to this could not always fail. In passages like Jno. xv. 25, I Cor. xv. 54, the Aoyos that is cited is distinctly declared to be written: ‘“‘that the Adyos may be fulfilled that is written in their Law’’; ‘“‘then shall come to pass the Adyos that is written’’; and with these there may be connected such passages as Jno. xii. 38, (ef. Lk. iv. 6): ‘‘that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled,’ since, although it is not expressly stated, this \oyos too was in the hands of the New Testament writers in a written form. In this usage doyos is a particular passage of Scripture viewed as a divine declaration. In Matt. xv. 6 (if this reading be ac- cepted), Mk. vii. 13 (cf. Jno. v. 38, x. 35, Rom. xiii. 9, Gal. v. 14) in accordance with a familiar usage (cf. Ex. xxxiv. 28, oi déxa \dyou), the specific reference is to a divine command- ment; but this commandment is thrown up in sharp contrast with ‘‘tradition’’ and is thought of distinctly as a written one. It is only in a passage like II Pet. 1. 19 that \oyos comes to mean the entire Old Testament, after the fashion of Philo,” with the emphasis upon its divine character: that by ‘‘the prophetic word’’ here is meant not the prophetic portion of 21H. g. ‘De Plantat. Noe,” 28, Mangey i. 347: ‘The prophetic word (6 rpodn- TiKds Novos) seems to dignify the number four often throughout the voyofecias, and especially in the catalogue of the creation of the universe.” 130 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION Scripture but the Scriptures as a whole, conceived in accord- ance with their nature as ‘‘prophetic,’’ that is to say as a body of revelation, is made plain by the subsequent context, where this prophecy is defined by the exegetical genitive as just that prophecy which is Scripture raca mpogyreia ypadjs). Thus \dyos, under the influence of the Old Testament usage of the ‘‘ Word of Jehovah,’’ comes to mean in the New Testa- ment specifically a divine revelation, and is applied to the Old Testament to designate it, as written in the Books which constitute it, the revealed Word of God.” The ddyos, now, which was contained in the BiBros (6.B- Atov) (Lk. i. 4), and of course contained in it only in written form, was, naturally, conceived, as truly by the New Testa- ment writers as by Greek writers in general, as a ypad7, (or in the plural ypadat). There seems to be no reason inherent in the case, accordingly, why ypad7 should not occur in the New Testament in its simple classical sense of a ‘‘ Treatise”’ or (as Adyos does, Acts i. 1) of a ‘‘ Book”’ or formal division of a treatise. It may very properly be considered therefore merely an accident that no instances are found in the New Testa- ment of this general usage of the term without further im- plications.”’ It so occurs in Josephus (“‘ Antt.’’ III. viii. 10; 1V. vill. 44, of books of his own) and in Philo (“De Somniis,”’ ad init., ‘H pév otv mpd TavTns ypad7 meprecxe — i. e., the preced- ing Book of the Treatise in hand); and it is repeatedly used in the LX X to designate any piece of writing (cf. II Chron. li. 11, Neh. vil. 64, Dan. v. 5, I Macc. xiv. 27, 48). In point of fact, however, ypad7 (ypadat) appears in the New Testa- ment only in its application to the Sacred Scriptures, and only in its high technical significance of ‘Scripture’? by way of eminence. It may be surmised that the long-established employment of the term as a designation of the Scriptures tended to withdraw it from common use on the lips of those 2 This idea is still more emphatically expressed by the kindred term \éyia, Rom. ui. 2, cf. Heb. v. 12, Acts vii. 38, the current use of which in this sense by Philo is adverted to above (p. 118, note 6). See The Presbyterian and Reformed Review for April 1900, pp. 217 seq. 3 Cf, Zahn, “ Einleitung,’’ II. 99, 108, note 12. “THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 131 to whom these Scriptures were a thing apart. It may even seem that a certain tendency is observable in the New Testa- ment writers to distinguish between ypadn (ypadai) and yoduua (ypaupara) in favor of the former as the technical designation of the Scripture, while the latter is more freely employed for general uses. Certainly ypaduuara occurs occa- sionally in the New Testament for non-sacred writings (Acts xxvill. 21, Lk. xvi. 6, 7) and for sacred writings indeed but without stress on their sacredness (Jno. v. 47, ef. vu. 15), while it is only rarely met with in the pregnant sense of Serip- ture (II Tim. 111. 15 only) and then only in an established phrase which may be supposed to have obtained a standing of its own. There seems also in ypaupya a naturally stronger impli- cation of the material elements of the script, which may have formed the point of departure for a depreciatory employment of the term to designate the ‘‘ mere letter’’ as distinguished irommilen spirits Cle ROM. 2/4, 29) Vil..0, 11 Corso. 7). On the other hand the free employment by later Christian writers of ypadn, ypadat of secular compositions, and of both ypaupyaandypauuarainthe high technical sense of‘ Scripture,”’ so far militates against the supposition that already in New Testament Greek the former were hardening into the exclu- sive technical designations of ‘‘Scripture.’’?’ Meanwhile the simple fact remains that in the New Testament while ypau- para is used freely, and with a single exception exclusively, without implication of sacredness, ypad7n and ypadai are em- ployed solely as technical designations of Sacred Scripture and take their color in all their occurrences from this higher plane of usage. Throughout the New Testament the ypad7 which alone is in question is conceived as rather the word of the Holy Spirit than of its human authors through whom merely it is spoken (Acts i. 16), and is therefore ever adduced as of indefectible, because of Divine, authority. It is somewhat remarkable that even on this high plane of its technical application, in which it designates nothing but the Sacred Scriptures, ypad7 never occurs in the New Testament, in accordance with its most natural and, in the 132 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION classics, its most frequent sense of “‘ Treatise,” as a term to describe the several books of which the Old Testament is composed. It is tempting, no doubt, to seek to give it this sense in some of the passages where, occurring in the singular, it yet does not appear to designate the Scriptures as a whole; and even Dr. Hort seems for a moment almost inclined to yield to the temptation.” It is more tempting still to assume that behind the frequent use of the plural, ait ypadat, to desig- nate the Scriptures as a whole, there lies a previous current usage by which each Book which enters into the composition of these Scriptures was designated by the singular 7 ypag7n. In no single passage where the singular 7 ypad7 occurs, how- ever, does it seem possible to give it a reference to the Book of Scripture to which the appeal is made. And the frequent employment in profane Greek of ypadai in the plural for a single document * discourages the assumption that it, like Ta B.GAta, has reference, when used as a designation of Scrip- ture, to its composite character as a “‘ Divine Library.’’ It is true that in one unique passage, II Pet. iii. 16,”° ai ypadat bears a plural signification. But the items of which this plural is formed, as the grammatical construction implies, are not ‘‘treatises’’ (Huther, Kiihl) but‘‘ passages’’ (De Wette). Peter says that the unlearned and unstable, of course, wrested the hard sayings of Paul’s letters, as they were accustomed to wrest tas Aowras ypadas, 1. e., ‘the other Scriptural state- ments,’ ” due reverence for which should have protected 24 On I Pet. ii. 6: note the “ probably.”’ 25 E. g. of a letter, Euripides, ‘‘Iph. in Taur.”’ 735, ‘‘Let him give an oath to me that he will bear ras ypadds to Argos”’; “Iph. in Aul.’’ 363 (a line of doubtful genuineness), where Agamemnon is said to be secretly devising &\\as ypadas; of a book, Georg. Sync., p. 168 ray & Trav Kehadriwvos ypaddv mpos tov Avddwpov dra- dwviar. *6 On the meaning of this passage, see especially Bigg, in loc., and cf. Chase, Hastings’, B. D., 11. 810. 27 For ypadal in the sense of ‘‘statements,” cf. Eurip. “‘ Hipp.’ 1311, where Phaedra is said, under the fear of disgrace, to have written wevdets ypadas, probably not a “‘lying tablet”’ (ypadai in its singular sense as in note 25 above) but ‘‘false statements.’”’ Cf. also Philo, “‘De Praem. et Poen.”’ 11. near the end (Mangey, ii. 418), where he distributes the contents of the sacred volume into “THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 133 them from such treatment, the implication being that no part of Scripture was safe in their hands. This is a sufficiently remarkable use of the plural, no other example of which oc- curs in the New Testament; it is, however, an entirely legiti- mate use of the plural * and in its context a perfectly natural one, which, nevertheless, just because it is a special usage de- termined by its context, stands somewhat apart from the general technical use of ai ypadai to designate the body of Scriptures and cannot guide us to its interpretation. In no other passage where ai ypadat occurs is there the slightest hint that its plural form is determined by the conception of the Scriptures as a congeries of authoritative passages; this interpretation of the current plural form may indeed be set aside at once as outside of the possibilities of the case. If we may not speak quite so decisively of the possibility of the plural form resting on a conception of ‘‘ the Scriptures”’ as made up of a collection of Books, it may at least be said that there is nothing in the New Testament use of the term to remove the general unlikelihood of that construction of it. There are indeed two or three passages in which ypadai might appear at first sight to designate a body of documents. Such are, for example, Rom. xvi. 26, where we read of ypadal mpopyrikat, and especially Matt. xxvi. 56, where we read of at ypadat Tov mpodntav. In the case of Rom. xvi. 26, however, al pnral ypadai and ai xa’ drdvocay adAnyopiat, Which may perhaps be taken as “literal statements” and ‘‘covert allegories.’”? The use of ypa¢7 in the sense of a ““passage’”’ of Scripture is found in Philo, the LX X and frequently in the New Testament (see below). 28 Accordingly ypadat is quite freely used by the Church Fathers of a plurality of passages of Scripture. The famous words in Polycarp “‘ Ad Phil.,”’ xii. 1 are prob- ably not a case in point: ut his Scripturis dictum est here apparently refers back to the in sacris libris which just precedes them and not forward to the two pas- sages adduced. From Justin on, however, numerous examples present themselves. Cf. e. g. Justin, ‘Contra Tryph.” 65 (Otto. p. 230): ‘And Trypho said, Being importuned by so many Scriptures (rév rocobtrwyv ypaddv) I do not know what to say about the Scripture (77s ypadjs) which Isaiah said, according to which God says He will not give His glory to another.” Again, ‘Cont. Tryph.” 71 (Otto. p. 255, cf. note): They have taken away zodAds ypadds from the LXX translation. Again, Clem. Alex. “Cohort. ad Gentes,” 9 ad init. (Migne, i. 192D), “I could adduce pupias ypa¢ds not one of which shall pass away.” 134 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION the very natural impression that here we have mention of the several books which constitute the second of the sections of the Jewish canon, known as ‘‘ The Prophets,” is almost cer- tainly an error (cf. Vaughan 2n loc.). It is very unlikely that the ‘‘prophetic writings’’ with this mention of which this epistle closes are any other than the ‘‘ Holy Scriptures”’ of the prophets with mention of which it opens (Rom. i. 2); and it is quite clear that these ‘‘ Holy Scriptures”’ are much more inclusive than the writings of the second section of the Jew- ish canon, — that they embrace in fact the entirety of Scrip- ture, thought of here as of prophetic, that is, revelatory, character (cf. Meyer, Weiss, Oltramare in loc.; Bleek on Heb. 1.1). Nor need the‘‘ Scriptures of the prophets’’ of Matt. xxvi. 56 have any different meaning (cf. Swete on Mk. xiv. 49, Morrison in loc.). Itis quite true that the term ‘‘ The Prophets”’ is sometimes in Matthew (v. 17, vii. 12, xxii. 40) and in the other Gospels (Lk. xvi. 16, 29, 31, xxiv. 44, Jno. 1. 45) and in the rest of the New Testament (Acts vil. 42, xiii. 15, xxiv. 14, Xxvill. 23, Rom. i. 21) a technical term designating the second section of the Jewish canon; but it is equally true that it is sometimes used much more inclusively. For example in Matt. li. 23 the reference seems to be quite generally to the Old Testament considered as a prophetic book (cf. Meyer in loc.) ; and in Matt. xi. 13, ‘all the prophets and even the law proph- esied,’’ the Pentateuch is expressly included within the pro- phetic word (cf. II Pet. 1. 19). Passages like Lk. i. 70, xi. 50 show that by these writers the whole Old Testament reve- lation was thought of as prophetic in character, while Lk. Xvill. 31 is certainly entirely general (cf. Acts iii. 24). The most instructive passages, however, are doubtless those which follow one another so closely in Lk. xxiv. 25, 27, 44. It can hardly be doubted that the same body of books is intended in all three of these references, which merely progressively discriminate between the parts which make up the whole. The simple ‘‘prophets’’ thus becomes first ‘‘ Moses and in- deed all the prophets”’ (cf. Hahn zn loc.) — further defined as the “whole Scripture’? — and then ‘‘the Law of Moses, and “THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 135 the Prophets and the Psalms.’ The term ‘‘the Prophets’’ occurs thus in this brief context in three senses of varying inclusiveness, and apparently lends itself as readily to the widest as to the narrowest application. In these circumstances there seems no reason why in Matt. xxvi. 56 “‘ the Scriptures of the Prophets”’ should be narrowed beyond the inclusiveness of the suggestion of ‘‘the Scriptures’’ of the immediately pre- ceding context (xxvi. 54) or of its own parallel in Mk. xiv. 49. In other words there is every reason to believe that in this passage the defining adjunct ‘‘of the Prophets’’ does not dis- criminate among the books which make up the Scriptures and single out certain of these as prophetic, but rather de- scribes the entire body of Scripture as prophetic in origin and character, that is to say as a revelation from God.” Tpadai does not here, then, mean ‘“‘books’’ ‘‘treatises,’’ but at ypadai, as in verse 54 and in the parallel passage, Mk. xiv. 49, means the one Divine book. That Lk. xxiv. 27, év tacats Tats ypadats, lends itself readily to the same interpretation requires no argument to show. If ai ypagai is employed in a singular sense, then 7acar ai ypadat means just the whole of the document so designated, and is the exact equivalent of Taga 7 Ypady or taoa ypady (II Tim. iii. 16 taken as a proper noun). The truth seems to be, therefore, that as there is no example in the New Testament of the use of 7 ypady in the sense of one of the Books of Scripture, so there is no trace in its use of ai ypadai of an underlying consciousness of the com- position of the Scriptures out of a body of such Books.” Whether the plural ai ypadat, or the singular 7 ypad, is em- ployed, therefore, the meaning is the same; in either case the 29 On this conception of the whole Old Testament as a prophetic book, cf. Willis J. Beecher, “The Prophets and the Promise,” 1905, pp. 168 seq. 80 In Patristic usage, on the contrary, a very large variety of applications of % ypabn and ai ypadat, in the sense of Biblical Books or more or less extensive . collections of Biblical Books, is found. Thus for example, in Athan. ‘‘Epist. Encyel.” 1 ad init. we meet with 7 Geta rv Kpirévy pad7: in Kus. h. e. ii. 11 with TOD evayyediov ypady; in ibid. 1. 1. 2. with 7 iepd T&v ebayyediwy ypad7; in Orig. “Contr. Cels.”’ i. 58, with 4 ebayyedix7) ypadh. In Origen, ‘‘ Contr. Cels.”’ vii. 24 and in ‘‘Fragmenta in Prov.” 2, we find 4 radad ypady, and in another place (Migne, i, 1365) the corresponding vewrepar ypadai where the plural is probably a real 136 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION application of the term to the Old Testament writings by the writers of the New Testament is the outgrowth of their con- ception of these Old Testament writings as a unitary whole, and designates this body of writings in its entirety as the one, well-known, authoritative documentation of the Divine reve- lation. This is the fundamental fact with respect to the use of these terms in the New Testament from which all the other facts of their usage flow. In saying this, we are brought at once, however, face to face with what is probably the most remarkable fact about the usage of 7 ypad7 in the New Testament. This is its occa- sional employment to refer, not merely, as was to be expected from its form and previous history, to Scripture as a whole, nor even as, had it so occurred in the New Testament, would have been only a continuation of its profane usage, to the several treatises which make up that whole, but to individual passages of Scripture. This employment finds so little sup- port in profane Greek, in which ypauya rather than ypa¢7 is the current form for the adduction of clauses or fragmentary portions of documents,” that it has often been represented as a peculiarity of the New Testament and Patristic Greek. Thus, for example, we read in Stephens’ ‘‘Thesaurus’’ (sub voc.): “‘In the New Testament and ecclesiastical books, 7 ypapn and ai ypadai are used of the sacred writings which are commonly called ‘The Holy Scriptures.’ But ypag7 is some- times in the New Testament employed peculiarly of a par- ticular passage of Scripture.’’?’ And Schaefer adds to this merely a reference to a passage in one of the orations of plural. This is also the case in, say, Eus. h. e. ii. 3 when he speaks of “‘the acknowl- edged ypadat”’ of the New Testament, and (ad init.) mentions that II Peter had been used by many wera r&v &d\d\wv ypadar. 31. g. Thucyd. v. 29: ‘‘They were angry with the Lacedemonians chiefly be- cause among other things it was provided in the treaty with Athens that the Lacedemonians and Athenians if agreed might add to or take away from them whatever they pleased: this clause (rofro 76 ypduua) aroused great uneasiness among the Peloponnesians.’”’ Cf. Philo. “De Congr. erud. grat.’”’ 12 (Mangey i. 527): ‘There is also in another place 76 ypdéupa rodro inscribed” = Deut. xxxii. 8; “Quod Deus Immut’’ 2 (Mangey i. 273): Kara 76 lepwrarov Mwictws Ypamua TOUTO. ; A eA. - —> Bae eM PPB “THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 137 Valckenaer, where commenting on Acts xvii. 2-3, he remarks that, in the New Testament, “‘ passages of the Old Testament such as are also designated zepioxds, té7ovs and xwpla are sometimes also called ypadas.” * The usage does not seem, however, to be peculiar to the New Testament and the Church Fathers: it occurs also, though rarely, in the LX X and Philo, and may claim therefore to be at least Hellenistic.*® It is prob- ably the outgrowth of the habit of looking upon the Scrip- tures as a unitary book of divine oracles, every part and pas- sage of which is clothed with the authority which belongs to the whole, and which is of course manifested in all its parts. No doubt this extension of ypa¢7 from a designation of Scrip- ture as a whole to a designation of any given fragment of Scripture, however small, was mediated by the circumstance that in adducing the authority of ‘Scripture’ for any doc- trine or practice, it was always inevitably not the whole of ‘Scripture’ but some special declaration of ‘Scripture’ which was especially in mind as bearing upon the particular point at the moment in hand. The transition was easy from say- ing ‘The Scripture says, namely in this or that passage,”’ to saying of this and that passage specifically, ‘‘ This Scrip- ture says’’ and ‘‘ Another Scripture says.’’ When the entirety of Scripture is ‘‘Scripture’’ to us, each passage may readily be adduced as ‘‘Scripture”’ also, because ‘‘Scripture”’ is con- ceived as speaking in and through each passage. A step so inviting was sure to be taken sooner or later. Whenever there- fore ypady occurs of a particular passage of Scripture, so far 82 “Ti Hemsterhusii Orationes, ...L. C. Valckenai Tres Orationes,’’ etc. Lugdunum Bat., 1784, p. 395. 33 TV Mace. xviil. 14: ‘And he reminded you of 77 ‘Hoatov ypadqv which says, Though you pass through fire.’’ Philo, ‘ Quis rerum div. her.’’ 53 (Mangey, i. 511); 7d 5& &kdNoWWor mrpocvdaiver TH yoahh packwv: eppeln mpds ’ABpaédpy; “De Praem. et poen.’’ 11 (Mangey i. 418). Cf. The Presbyterian and Reformed Review, XI (April 1900) 245-6 notes. For the possibility of a classical use of ypadai = “‘state- ments” see above p. 132 note 27. Of the ordinary Greek words for “passage” of a writing, neither ypdupa nor xwpiov occurs in the New Testament; rézos only at Lk. iv. 17 and epoxy only at Acts viii. 32 (cf. Dr. C. J. Vaughan on Rom. iv. 3 and per contra, Meyer in loc. and cf. I Pet. 1. 6 and the commentators there.) The place of all these terms is taken in the New Testament by ypad7. 138 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION from throwing in doubt its usage of Scripture as a whole, conceived as a unitary Divine authority, it rather presup- poses this usage and is an outgrowth of it. It cannot surprise us therefore that 7 ypad7 occurs in the New Testament side by side in the two senses, and designates indifferently either Scripture as a whole, or a particular passage of Scripture, that is, is used indifferently ‘‘collectively”’ as it has not very exactly been called, and “‘ particularly.”’ It has often, no doubt, been called in question whether both these senses do occur side by side in the New Testa- ment. Possibly a desire to erect some well-marked and uni- form distinction between the usage of the plural ai ypadat and the singular 7 ypadn, has not been wholly without its influence here. At all events the suggestion has every now and then been made that the singular 7 ypad7 bears in the New Testament the uniform sense of ‘a passage of Scrip- ture,’ while it is the plural, ai ypadai, alone which designates the Scriptures in their entirety. The famous Rationalist di- vine, Johannes Schulthess, for example, having occasion to comment briefly on the words raca ypad7) OcdrvevoTos, II Tim. ili. 16, among other assertions of equal insecurity, makes this one: “‘ypad7 in the singular never means in the New Testa- ment 6i6dos, much less the entirety of Tav iep@v ypayupatwr, but some particular passage.” ** Hitherto it has been thought enough to meet such assertions with a mere expression of dissent. Christiaan Sepp, for example, meets this one with equal brevity and point by the simple observation: ‘‘ Pas- sages like Jno. x. 35 prove the contrary.” *® But a new face has been put upon the matter by the powerful advocacy of the proposition ‘‘that the singular ypad7 in the New Testa- ment always means a particular passage of Scripture,’’ by the late Bishop Lightfoot in a comment on Gal. iii. 22 which has on this account become famous. We must believe, however, that it is the weight of Dr. Lightfoot’s justly great authority rather than the inherent reasonableness of the doctrine which ‘4 “ Lucubr. pro divin. discip. ac person. Jesu,” etc. Turici 1828, p. 36 note. 86 “De Leer des N. T. over de H. S. des O. V.,” Amsterdam 1849, p. 70. “THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 139 has given this opinion the great vogue which it appears to enjoy at present among English-speaking scholars. It was at once confuted, it is true, by Dr. C. J. Vaughan in a note on Rom. iv. 3; and in his own note on this passage Dr. Lightfoot seemed almost (not quite) persuaded to admit a doubt as to the usage of John, while reiterating, with respect to Paul at least, that in the matter of the use of ypa¢7 in the singular of a single passage of Scripture ‘‘ practice is absolute and uni- form.’”’ Dr. Westcott took his stand by Dr. Lightfoot’s side (see on Jno. il. 22, x. 35) and labored to show that John’s usage conforms to the canon asserted; and Dr. Hort, though with some apparent hesitation with respect to John and Paul — the only portions of the New Testament, it will be noticed, of which Drs. Westcott and Lightfoot express assurance — inclined on the whole to give his assent to their general judg- ment (on I Peter ii. 6). With more hesitancy, Dr. Swete re- marks merely that ‘‘ypa@7 is a portion of Scripture,”’ at least ‘‘almost always when the singular is used”’ (on Mk. xi. 10). General agreement in the view in question is expressed also, for example, by Page (Acts i. 16), Knowling (Acts vill. 32), Plummer (Lk. iv. 21), A. Stewart (Hastings’ BD. I 286). It is difficult to believe, however, that the reasons assigned for this view are sufficient to bear the’ weight of the judgment founded on them. They suffice, certainly, to show — what is in itself sufficiently remarkable, — that 4 ypad7 is repeatedly employed in the New Testament of a particular passage of Scripture. But the attempt to carry this usage through all the instances in which the singular appears involves a vio- lence of exegetical procedure which breaks down of itself. Out of the thirty instances in which the singular, 7 ypadn occurs, about a score prove utterly intractable to the pro- posed interpretation, — these nineteen to wit: Jno. i. 22, vii. 38, 42, x. 35, xvii. 12, xix. 28, xx. 9, Acts vill. 32, Rom. iv. Daixmlon xc lle xie2enCalaiiese22ei1v. 50, Li himivalSe Jas. iv. 5, I Pet. ii. 6, II Pet. i. 20. In point of fact, therefore, in 36 Cf. Cremer, sub. voc., who gives 17 passages, omitting of those above Jno. xvii. 12, xx. 9; T. Stephenson, “ Expository Times” xiv. 475 seq. who in a well- 140 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION some two-thirds of the instances where ypag7 is employed in the singular, its reference is to the Scripture as a whole, to that unitary written authority to which final appeal was made. In some of these passages it is no less than impossible to take it otherwise. In Jno. ii. 22, for example, there is abso- lutely no definite passage suggested, and Westcott seeks one to which to assign the reference only under the pressure of theory. The same is true of Jno. xx. 9, where the reference is quite as broad asin Lk. xxiv. 45. In Jno. x. 35 the argument depends upon the wide reference to Scripture as a whole, which forms its major premise. In Gal. i. 22 there is abso- lutely nothing to suggest a reference to a special text rather than to the general tenor of Scripture, and Lightfoot supphes a special text only conjecturally and with hesitation. The personification of Scripture in such passages as Jas. iv. 5, Gal. ii. 8 carries with it the same implication. And the anar- throus use of ypadn7 in I Pet. ii. 6, II Pet. i. 20, cf. 11 Tim. iii. 16, is explicable only on the presupposition that 7 ypad7n had become so much the proper designation of Scripture that the term had acquired the value of a proper name, and was there- fore treated as definite without, as with, the article. If any- thing were needed to render this supposition certain, it would be supplied by the straits to which expositors are brought who seek to get along without it.*” Dr. Hort, for example, after declining to understand ypad7 in I Pet. ii. 6 of Scripture in general, because he does not find ‘‘a distinct and recog- nized use of this sort,”’ finally suggests that we should render ‘‘simply, ‘in writing,’”’ so that “‘wepiéxe é€v ypady shall be held equivalent to ‘it stands written.’’’ But he is compelled to add: ‘That the quotation was authoritative, though not expressed, was doubtless implied, in accordance with the classified list gives 18 passages, omitting Jno. xx. 9; E. Hiihn, “ Die alttesta- mentlichen Citate’’ etc., 1900, p. 276, who gives 23 passages, adding Jno. xiii. 18, xix. 24, 36, Jas. 1. 8. On the general question, cf. Vaughan, on Rom. iv. 3, Meyer on Jno. x. 35, Weiss on Jno. x. 35, Kiibel on 2 Pet. i. 20, Abbott on Eph. iv. 8, Beet on Rom. ix. 17, “Encye. Bibl.” 4329, Francke, “Das A. T. bei Johan,” p. 48, Haupt, “Die alttest. Citate in d. vier Evang.,’’ p. 201. 37 Cf. Zahn, “ Hinleitung,” II, 108; Hort on I Pet. ii. 6. | ® 49 “THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 141 familiar Jewish use of the words ‘said,’ ‘written,’’?’ — ap- parently not realizing that, if the quotation is authoritative then, “‘It stands written”’ is the equivalent of the authori- tative employment of this phrase in the adduction of what is specifically Scripture, and therefore means here distinctly not, ‘‘Itstands written — somewhere,” but “It stands written in the (technically so-called) Scripture.’’ This seems, there- fore, to be only a roundabout way of saying that ypad7 here means and definitely refers to the authoritative Scripture, and not any ‘writing’ indifferently. The same is inevitably true of II Pet.i. 20. It is impossible that by ‘‘every prophecy of Scripture’”’ the writer can have meant ‘‘every prophecy which has been reduced to writing.” ** He undoubtedly in- tended the prophecies written in the Old Testament alone (cf., Bigg, Kiibel, Keil 7m loc.); and this is but another way of saying that anarthrous ypad7 is to him a technical desig- nation of the Old Testament, or, in other words, that he uses it with precisely the implications with which we employ the term, “‘Scripture.”’ * In the presence of such passages as these there seems to be no reason why we should fail to recognize that the employment of ypad7 in the New Testament so far follows its profane usage, in which it is applied to entire documents and carries with it a general implication of com- pleteness, that it in its most common reference designates the Old Testament to which it is applied in its completeness as a unitary whole.” 88 Cf. Zahn, ‘‘Einleitung,’’ II. p. 109. 39 Presumably few will take refuge in the explanation suggested by Dr. E. H. Plumptre (“‘Smith’s B. D.”’ 2874), which understands the “prophecy” here of New Testament, not Old Testament prophets and renders, every prophetic utterance arising from, resting on, a ypad7 — i. e. a passage of the Old Testament. 40 Precisely the same is true of the usage of the term in at least the earlier Patristic literature, although a contrary impression might be taken from a remark at the close of Dr. Lightfoot’s note on Gal. iii. 22. ‘H ypad7 of a passage of Scrip- ture seems to be the rarer usage in, for example, the so-called Apostolical Fathers. It occurs with certainty, only at 1 Clem. xxiii. 3 (cf. xxv. 5), 2 Clem. xiv. 1, while 7 ypady = “Scripture”? as a whole, seems to occur at least at 1 Clem. xeRIV OG XkXVe 7, xiii. 5; 2:Clemlvi8) xiv. 2; Barn: iv. 11,)v.4yvi 12, xi) 2, xvi. 5. (The plural ai ypagdat occurs in 1 Clem. xlv. 2, and in the formula ai iepai ypagai in 1 Clem. liii. 1 [Polye. xii. 1]). In the later Fathers 4 ypad4 occurs in 142 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION It has seemed worth while to enter somewhat fully upon this matter, not only on account of its intrinsic interest and the importance given it in recent expositions, but also be- cause the issue throws into a high light what is after all the fundamental fact about the New Testament use of 7 ypadn, ai ypadat. This is the implication which they bear not only of the uniqueness of the body of religious writings which they designate, entitling them to be spoken of as together, in a supereminent sense, ‘the Scriptures,’’ or rather “the Scrip- ture,”’ or even ‘“Scripture’’; but also, along with this, of their irreducible unity, — as constituting in their entirety a single divinely authoritative “ writing.’ Francke is quite within the limits of clear fact, when he remarks,” ‘“‘ The contemplation of the entire body of Scripture as a unitary word, in all its parts equally resting upon a single authority, and therefore possessing the same authority everywhere, forms the most essential presupposition of the designation of the collection of the written word as the ypadn.” It only needs to be added that the same is true of its designation as ai ypadat. What re- quires emphasis, in a word, is that the two designations 77 ypapdn and ai ypadai are, so far as our evidence goes, strictly parallel; and neither is to be derived from the other. That the application of at ypadai to the Scriptures does not rest on a previous application of 7 ypadn to each of the Books of Scripture, we have already had occasion to show. It is equally important to observe that the application to Scripture of % ypap7.is not a subsequent development resting on a previous usage by which Scripture was known as ai ypadat. The con- trary assumption is often tacitly made and it is sometimes quite plainly expressed, as, for example, in the concluding words of Dr. Lightfoot’s note on Gal. ili. 22, where he tells us that “‘the transition from the ‘Scriptures’ to the ‘Scrip- ture’ is analogous to the transition from 7a B.BXta to the ‘Bible.’”’ Precisely what is meant by the last clause of this every conceivable variety of sense and application, but in none more distinctly than of Scripture as a whole. 41 “Das A. T. bei Johan,” p. 48. “THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 143 statement is perhaps not perfectly clear. It is obvious, of course, that the designation of the Scripture as ta 6.6Ata antedates the misunderstanding of this term as a feminine singular, whence arose the Latin “‘ Biblia’’ and our “ Bible”’ treated as a singular — if this be really the history of the origin of these latter terms; but Dr. Lightfoot can hardly have meant that the use of 7 ypad7 as a designation of the Scripture arose similiarly through a misunderstanding of ai ypadai as a singular. It would seem that he can only have meant that the progress was in both cases from a view of the sacred books which was fully conscious of their plurality to a conception of them which has swallowed up their plurality in a unitary whole. There is no proof, however, that such a movement of thought took place in either case. The fact seems to be that ai ypadat was used from its earliest appli- cation to Scripture in a singular sense, in accordance with a current usage of the term in profane Greek. And we lack evidence that the Scriptures were known as 7a 6.8dta before they were known as 7) BiGXos.* These two modes of speaking of Scripture appear to have been rather parallel than con- secutive usages. And it is probable that the same is true of the designations ai ypadai and 7 ypadn as well. It is true enough that we meet with ai ypadat, though somewhat rarely and perhaps ordinarily in the phrase [ai] iepat ypadai, in Philo “ and Josephus, whereas 7 ypad7 of Scripture in general is said to occur first in the New Testament.“ But it is not 42 See above, p. 127, note 19. 48H. g. “De Abrahamo,”’ 13 (Mangey ii, 10): ai ypadai = “the Scrip- tures.” 44 Cf. Cremer, ed. 9, sub voc. ypady II: “In Philo, and as it seems, also in Josephus, the singular does not occur of the Scriptures as a whole, although the plural does. Cf. ai aroypadai 2 Mace. ii. 1, dvaypadai verse 14. The use of the singular in this sense seems accordingly to have first formed itself, or perhaps, more correctly to have manifested itself, in the New Testament community, and that in connection with its belief in the Messiah and its appeal to the Old Testa- ment.” The use of singular ypa¢7 of the Scriptures is in any event not frequent in Philo and Josephus: and Cremer’s inference is rash, even if the facts be as represented. It would be well, however, if the statement of fact were carefully verified. Cf. Josephus, ‘‘ Antt.’”’ III. i. 7, fin. where he tells us that a ypadq was 144 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION probable that we are witnesses of the birth of a new usage in either case; and the evidence is too meagre to justify a pronouncement on the relative ages of the two forms. And in proportion as we recognize the singular sense of ai ypadat and the rooting of both usages in a precedent Jewish mode of citing Scripture as the unitary Law of God, does all the probability of the proposed development pass away. In any event when the New Testament was in process of writing it was much too late in the day to speak of the formation of a sense of the unitary uniqueness of the Old Testament or of the rise of a usage in designating the Old Testament in which that sense would first come to its manifestation. Both that sense and modes of expressing it were an inheritance of the New Testament writers from a remote past, and find manifestation in the whole body of Jewish literature, not merely in the usage of the Rabbis, but in the pages of Philo as well. The truth seems to be that whether ai ypadai is used or » ypadn or anarthrous ypady the implication is the same. In each case alike the Old Testament is thought of as a single document, set over against all other documents by reason of its unique authority based upon its Divine origin, on the ground of which it is constituted in every part and declaration the final arbiter of belief and practice. We need not, then, seek to discover subtle reasons for the distribution of these forms through the New Testament, asking why truly anarthrous ypadn is employed only by Peter (cf. II Tim. ill. 16); why John and Paul prevailingly use the singular, Matthew uniformly and Mark and Luke prevailingly the plural; and why our Lord is reported as employing the two numbers indifferently. These things are at most matters of literary habit; at least, matters of chance and occasion, like our own indifferent use of ‘The Scriptures,’ ‘The Scripture,’ ‘Scripture.’ One of the outgrowths of the conception of the Old Testa- deposited in the Temple which informs us that God foretold to Moses that water should be drawn thus from the rock. By this ypa¢4 he means of course precisely what he elsewhere calls ai iepai ypadat: but he necessarily speaks of it indefinitely. “THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 145 ment as a unitary Divine document, of indefectible author- ity in allits parts and declarations, was the habit of adducing it for the ordinary purposes of instruction or debate by such simple formulas as ‘It is said,’ ‘It is written,’ with the pregnant implication that what is thus adduced as ‘said’ or ‘written’ is ‘said’ or ‘written’ by an authority recognized as Divine and final. Both of these usages are richly illus- trated in a variety of forms and with all high implications, not only inthe New Testament at large, but alsoin the Gospels, and not only in the comments by the Evangelists but also in reported sayings of our Lord. We are concerned here par- ticularly only with the formula ‘‘It is written,’’ in which the consciousness of the written form, the documentary charac- ter, of the authority appealed to is most distinctly expressed. In its most common form, this formula is the simple yéypar- Tat, used either absolutely, or, with none of its authoritative implications thereby evacuated, with more or less precise defi- nition of the place where the cited words can be found written. By its side there occurs in John the resolved formula yeypap- pevov éotiv; and in the latter part of Luke there is a tendency to adduce Scripture by means of a participial construction.” These modes of citation have analogies in profane Greek, especially in legislative usage.** But, as Cremer points out, their use with reference to the Divine Scriptures, as it in- volves the adduction of an authority which rises immeasur- 45The various formulas may be commodiously reviewed in Hihn, “Die alttestamentlichen Citate,” pp. 272 seq. 46 Of, Cremer ed. 9 sub voc. ypadw, fin.; Deissmann, “ Bible Studies,” 112, 250. A good example of the classical mode of expression may perhaps be found in the third Philippic of Demosthenes (III. 41, 42, p. 122): ‘‘That our condition was formerly quite different from this, I shall now convince you, not by any argu- ments of my own, but by a decree of your ancestors (ypaupara Tay mpoyovwr) ... What then says the decree (ra ypdumara)? .. . In the laws importing capital cases it is enacted (yéyparra)’’? Deissmann calls attention to the fact that Josephus uses yéyparra infrequently in his references to the Old Testament, preferring avayéyparrat; and refers to a passage in which he uses yéeypamracof a profane docu- ment. The passage is ‘Contr. Ap.’ IV. 18: “‘For if we may give credit to the Phoenician records (4vaypadats), it is recorded (yéyparrat) in them,” etc. It should be observed that this is not an instance of the absolute yéypamraz; but yet it is not without an implication of (notarial) authority. 146 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION ably above all legislative authority, so is freighted with a significance to which the profane usage affords no key. In the Gospels, — if we may take the Gospels as an example of the whole — of the two forms, yéypamrac alone occurs in Matthew (ii. 5, iv. 6 in the narrative; iv. 4, iv. 7, 10, xi. 10, xxi. 13, xxvi. 24, 31 in the report of our Lord’s words) and in Mark (i. 2in the narrative; viii16,1x1 12°13) x1. 7, xieeZ ae the report of our Lord’s words), and predominantly in Luke (ii. 23, iii. 4, iv. 10 in the narrative; iv. 4, 8, vu. 27, x. 20; xix. 46, xxiv. 46 in the report of our Lord’s words), but only once in John (vill. 17 in the report of our Lord’s words). In the latter part of Luke the citation of Scripture is accom- plished by the aid of the participle yeypaupévor ([cf. iv. 17 | Xvill. 31, xx. 17, xxi. 22, xxl. 37, xxiv. 44), while in John the place of the formula yéypamrat (viii. 17 only) is taken by the resolved form yeypappevoy éoriv (il. 17, vi. 31, x. 34, xii. 14, cf. 16, in the narrative; vi. 45, [ vill. 17], cf. xv.. 25) in the report of our Lord’s words). The significance of these for- mulas is perhaps most manifest when they are used abso- lutely, where they stand alone in bare authoritativeness, without indication of any kind whence the citation adduced is derived, the bald adduction being indication enough that it is the Divine authority of Scripture to which appeal is made. Instances of this usage are found in the Gospels for yeypamrat in Matt. iv. 4, 6, 7, 10, xi. 10); xxi. 13, xxvi. 24, 318 in Mk) vil 6, ixv12, 13,9x1. 17, xive21) 27 Li ee vu. 27, xix. 46, xx. 17, xxii. 37; for vyeypappeévov éortv in Jno. ii. 17, vi. 31, xii. 14, [16 ]. In only a single passage each in Mat- thew and Mark is there added an indication of the source of the citation (Matt. 11. 5, “it is written through the prophet’’; Mk. 1. 2, “it is written in Isaiah the prophet’’). In Luke such defining adjuncts are more frequent (ii. 23, in the law of the Lord; ii. 4, in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet; x. 26, in the law; xviii. 31, through the prophet; xxiv. 44, in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms, i. e., in Scripture, verse 45). In John also such definitions are not relatively rare (vi. 45, in the prophets; viii. 17, in your law; “THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, 147 x. 34, in your law; xv. 25, in the law). These fuller passages while they identify the document from which the citation is drawn, in no wise suggest that the necessity for such identi- fication was felt; by their relative infrequency they rather emphasize how unnecessary such specification was except as an additional solemn invocation of the recognized source of all religious authority. The bare “‘It is written”’ was the de- cisive adduction of the indefectible authority of the Scrip- tures of God, clothed as such, in all their parts and in all their declarations, with His authority. We could scarcely imagine a usage which would more illuminatingly exhibit the estimate put upon Scripture as the expressed mind of God or the rooted sense of its unity and its equal authoritativeness in all its parts.“ | We should not pass lightly over this high implication of the employment of absolute yéypamrac to adduce the Scrip- tural word, and especially the suggestions of its relative fre- quency. No better index could be afforded of the sense of the unitary authority of the document so cited which dominated the minds of the writers of the New Testament and of our Lord as reported by them. The consciousness of the human authors, through whom the Scriptures were committed to writing, retires into the background; thought is absorbed in the contemplation of the divine authority which lies behind them and expresses itself through them. Even when explana- tory adjuncts are added indicating where the words to which appeal is made are to be found written, they are so framed as not to lessen this implication. Commonly there is given only a bare reference to the written source of the words in mind; “ and when the human authors are named, it is not ‘7 Cf. especially Cremer, sub voc. ypadw: and A. Kuyper, “ Encyclopaedia of Sacred Theology,” pp. 433 seq., 444 seq. 48 ‘“Tn the law and the prophets and the psalms,” Lk. xxiv. 44; “in the law”’ (of the whole Old Testament), Jno. x. 34, xv. 25, 1 Cor. xiv. 21; ‘‘in the (or your, or their) law,” Lk. x. 26; Jno. viii. 17; ‘‘in the law of Moses,” 1 Cor. ix. 9; “‘in the law of the Lord,” Lk. ii. 23; ‘in the prophets,” Jno. vi. 45, Acts xx. 14; “‘in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet,’’ Luke ii. 4; ‘‘in the book of the prophets,”’ Acts vii. 42; “in the Book of Psalms,” Acts i. 20 (cf. Luke xxi. 62, Matt. xii. 36); “‘in the second Psalm,” Acts xiii. 33. The closest definitions of 148 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION so much as the responsible authors of the words adduced as the intermediaries through whom the Divine authority ex- presses itself.“* In the parallel usage by which the Scriptures are appealed to by ‘‘It is said’’ and similar formulas the im- plication in question is perhaps even more clear. In Matthew, for example, Scripture is often cited as ‘‘what was spoken through (6:4)’’ the prophets (ii. 23) or the prophet (xii. 35, xxi. 4), or more specifically through this or that prophet — Isaiah ((iii. 3], iv. 14, viii. 17, xii. 17, ef. Jno. xii. 38), or Jere- miah (ii. 17, xxvii. 9) or Daniel (xxiv. 15). In a few passages of this kind the implication is explicitly filled out, and we read that the Scripture is spoken ‘‘by the Lord”’ (i760 xupiov) through (61a) the prophet (i. 22, 1. 15, ef., xxii. 31, ‘‘ Have ye not read what was spoken by God to you,”’ that is, in their Seriptures; Acts i. 16, ‘‘ The Scriptures which the Holy Ghost spoke before through the words of David”’; xxviii. 25, ‘‘ The Holy Ghost spokethrough Isaiah the prophet to yourfathers’’). A similar use of eipnuévoy or etpnrar occurs in the writings of Luke, whether absolutely (Lk. iv. 12, [Rom. iv. 18 ]) or with indication of the place where it is said (Lk. 11. 24, Acts xiii. 40); and here too we find occasionally a suggestion that the human speaker is only the intermediary of the true speaker, God (Acts i. 16, 6ca the prophet Joel). It is possibly, how- ever, not in the Gospels that the general usage illustrated by these passages finds its fullest or most emphatic expression; but rather in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the Scrip- tures are looked upon almost exclusively from the point of sight of this usage. Its height perhaps is attained in the desig- nation of Scripture as 7a \oyra (Rom. ill. 2, cf. Acts vil. 38, Heb. v. 12, I Pet. iv. 11) and the current citation of it by the subjectless gyotv (I Cor. vi. 16) or Aéyer (Rom. xv. 10, II Cor. vi. 2, Gal. 1. 16, Eph. iv. 8, v. 14), the authoritative subject being taken for granted.” In the Gospels, however, we have place in the Gospels are probably ‘‘at the bush,” Mk. xii. 26; and “at the place,” Luke iv. 17. 49 Matt. 11. 5, “through the prophet”’; Luke xviii. 31, “‘through the prophet.” 50 Cf. The Presbyterian and Reformed Review, July 1899, p. 472, April 1900, 4 EPA Wy gt “THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 149 sufficient illustration of the same general method of dealing with Scripture, side by side with their treatment of it as documentary authority, to evince that their writers and Jesus as reported by them, shared the same fundamental view- point.” On THE Terms “ Brsue,”’ “ Hoty Bisue.”’ The purpose of the following note is simply to bring to- gether what seems to be currently known of the origin of the terms ‘‘ Bible,’”’ ‘‘ Holy Bible.’’ No attempt has been made to go behind the universally accessible sources of information upon which the general public depends, in order to gather additional material. The object in view is merely to make plain how incomplete the accessible knowledge of the history of these terms is. It 1s remarkable that terms daily on the lips of the entire Western world should have been left until to-day without adequate historical explanation. The fact is, however, beyond doubt. In a short letter printed in The Ex- pository Times a few years ago™” Eb. Nestle remarks that ‘‘nobody as yet knows how the word ‘ Bible’ found its way into the European languages”’ and represents even Theodor Zahn as declining the task of working out the story. The 51 The é6pé6n of Matt. v. 21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43 (Cf. Rom. ix. 12, 26, Gal. iii. 16) is not a formula of citation, — for which we should have the perfect, etpnxev (Heb. iv. 3, x. 9-15, xiii. 5) — but adduces the historical fact that such teaching as is adduced was given to the ancients. J. A. Alexander (on Matt. v. 21) admirably paraphrases: “‘ You have (often) heard (it said by the scribes and leading Phar- isees) that our fathers were commanded not to murder, and that consequently he who murders (in the strict sense of the term) is liable to be condemned and punished under the commandment.” The subsequent instances, though in verses 27, 31, 38, 43 more or less abridged in the introductory formula, are governed by the full formula of verse 21. In point of fact the commandments adduced, (with additions to the first and last) are all found written in the Mosaic Law. But our Lord does not say that they are found there; He merely says that His hearers had often heard from their official teachers, that they were found there — ‘‘ Ye have heard that it was commanded .. .” So Spanheim, J. A. Alexander, etc. 52 1903-4, Vol. XV. pp. 565-566. 53 What Zahn says, ‘Geschichte des N. T. Kanons”’ II. p. 944, is: ‘‘On the origin and earliest spread of the modern use of ‘ Bible’ among the Western peoples I do not venture to say anything.” 10) REVELATION AND INSPIRATION account which is ordinarily given is that 6uG\ta was current in Greek in the sense of ‘‘the Bible’’; that this was taken over into Latin as a feminine singular, ‘‘ Biblia’’; and that this form in turn passed thence into the several Western lan- guages.”! There is no step of this presumed process, however, which is beyond dispute, and a great obscurity rests upon the whole subject. Th. Zahn » enters a strong denial with respect to the basis of the development which is assumed. ‘‘For ra BiBdXia as a designation of the Old Testament,’’ he says, ‘‘no usage can be adduced.’’ More broadly still: ‘‘The mediaeval and modern employment of 7a 6.8Xia in the sense of ai ypadal, 7 ypadn, that is ‘Bible,’ is altogether alien to the ancient church.”’ The current representation on the faith of Suicer * that 7a G.GXta occurs first in the sense of ‘Bible’ in Chrysostom, he continues, is ‘‘ only a widely-spread error”’; the passages Suicer quotes do not support the representation. To justify this last assertion Zahn examines the three pas- sages which Suicer quotes from Chrysostom in support of his statement that ‘‘Scriptura Sacra is called Bi8rAta sempliciter,”’ and concludes that no one of them employs the term in that sense. In one of them — Hom. 10 in Genes. (Montfaucon, iv. 81) not B.BAta sempliciter, but Geta BiBrta is used. In another — Hom. 2 on certain passages of Genesis (Montfaucon, iv. 652) — Chrysostom declares that the Jews have no doubt Ta Buta, but we Christians alone tév BiBAtwy Onoavpds, — they Ta ypdupuara, we, however, both ra ypaupata and ra vonuara — not the Bible but the Pentateuch being in mind and the very point of the statement requiring us to take the 64 See e. g. A. Stewart, Hastings’ DB, sub voc. ‘Bible’; W. Sanday, Hastings’ ERE, sub voc. ‘Bible’; Hilgenfeld, ‘‘ Kinleitung in das N. T.’’ p. 30. 55 “Geschichte des N. T. Kanons”’ IT. pp. 943-4. 66 Credner, “Geschichte des N. T. Kanons,” 1860, p. 229: ‘‘Further it is well known that for the collection of the sacred writings in general the name ra B.BNia (Bible) occurs first in the usage of Chrysostom (cf. “Suiceri Thesaurus,’ sub voc.).” Reuss, “ History of the New Testament,’ E. T. p. 326 (§ 320): “From the time of Chrysostom the canonical collection is called simply ra @:BNa.”’ Ersch and Gruber, art. “Bibel” ad init. Neither Credner’s nor Reuss’s statement is, how- ever, quite justified by Suicer’s words. “THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 151 ‘“Books”’ as merely so much paper, as the “‘letters”’ as only so much ink. It is on the third passage, however, that Suicer lays most stress, remarking of it, here ‘‘G:8dia is used ab- solutely and means Sacra Biblia.”’ It is found in ‘‘ Hom. ix. in Epist. ad Coloss.” (Montfaucon xi. 391) and runs as follows: “Delay not, I beseech thee: thou hast the oracles (Adya) of God... . Hear, I beseech you, all ye who are careful for this life, and procure B.BdXia dapyaka THs Yuy7js.... If you will have nothing else, get, then, the New [ Testament: r7v xawnv used absolutely as frequently in Chrysostom ], the Apostle, the Acts, the Gospels, constant teachers, ... This is the cause of all our evils, — ignorance of ras ypaddas.’’ Zahn re- marks: “‘It is evident that the anarthrous 6.6Xta here is not a name of the Bible, but designates the category ‘Books,’ to which, among others, the New Testament belongs; books too can be means of grace and constant teachers.” The average reader will no doubt feel that in his exami- nation of these passages Zahn presses his thesis a little too Par. The contrast in the second passage between the Books and the Treasure hidden in them, between the Letter and the Sense, of course, throws the emphasis on the mere Books and the mere Letter. But this, so far from excluding, presupposes rather, the technical usage of these terms, 7a 6iBAla, Ta ypay- para, to mean “ Bible,’ ‘‘Scripture.’’ The terms are used here certainly with primary reference to the Old Testament. But this is not to the exclusion of the New. In the third passage — in which the rich series of designations of Scripture brought together should be observed: ‘‘the Oracles of God,” ‘‘the New [Testament |,” ‘‘the Scriptures,’’ — it is clear enough, no doubt, that 8.6dia is primarily a common noun. But it does not seem clear that it does not contain in itself a sug- gestion of its use as a proper noun. Beyond question Chrys- ostom means by these 6.Gdta just the Bible; just the ‘‘ Oracles of God” of which he had spoken immediately before, in- clusive of the New Testament of which he immediately after- wards speaks, and constituting ‘‘the Scriptures’’ of which he 152 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION speaks somewhat further on. He speaks of these Bible books as remedial, and of course he speaks generally without an article. The case is like the anarthrous lepa ypaupara of Il Tim. iii. 16, or the anarthrous ‘Bible’ when we congratulate our- selves that we live ‘‘in a land of an open Bible’’; in both of which instances the term is technical enough. When Chrys- ostom exhorted his hearers to get for themselves 6.8Ata which will be medicaments for their souls, they caught under the common noun 6.GXta the implication of the technical 7a fi- Bdtia. These passages of Chrysostom, after all would seem then to bear witness to the currency of the term 7a 6.8Xta as the synonym of ai ypadati, 7 ypadn. But why should we confine ourselves to the passages cited by Suicer? Sophocles defines ra B.BXta, if not, like Suicer, as the sacred Books of the Christians, yet, similiarly, as ‘“‘the Sacred Books of the Hebrews,’”’ quoting for his definition the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus, I Mace. xii. 9 (ra &yua), Josephus, ‘Contr. Apion.,” i. 8; and Clem. Alex. [Migne] i. 668 B, Origen, [ Migne] i. 1276, C. The three Jewish citations we may leave for the moment to one side: in any case they do not present us with an absolute 7a B.GAta, meaning ‘‘the Scriptures.’ Clement and Origen take us back two hundred years before Chrysostom. In the passage cited from Clement — it is ‘‘ Paedagog.” ili. xii. med. — Clement is speaking of the goodness of the In- structor in setting forth his salutary commandments in the great variety of the Scriptures. He had adduced our Lord’s great summary of the Law (Matt. xxii. 37-40) and His in- junction to therich young man “‘to keep the commandments” ; and taking a new beginning from this injunction, he enlarges on the Decalogue. ‘‘ These things,’’ he remarks, ‘‘are to be observed,’’ — and not these only, but along with them, ‘‘ what- soever else we see prescribed for us as we read ra BiBNXia.”’ For example there is Isaiah i. 10, 17, 18, and the declaration of Scripture that ‘‘good works are an acceptable prayer to the Lord’’ — whatever the passage may be which Clement may have had in mind when he wrote this. It is scarcely dis- “THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 153 putable that by ra G:GXta here, used absolutely, there is meant just ‘‘the Sacred Books,”’ that is to say, ‘‘the Bible.’’ The immediately preceding reference is to the Decalogue, and the immediately contiguous ones are to the Old Testament. But it seems hardly possible to contend that ra 6.GdAta therefore means here either the Decalogue, or the Pentateuch, or the Old Testament, distinctively. It is altogether more probable that it is equally comprehensive with the ai ypadat of the closely preceding context. We cannot accord with Sophocles’ opinion, then, that 7a B.GAta here means ‘‘the Sacred Books of the Hebrews’’: it seems to us to mean ‘‘the Sacred Books of the Christians.’’ The passage cited by hatha from Origen is “‘Contra Celsum”’ v. 60 (Ed. Koetschau, 1899, li. p. 63: 22. 23). In it the Hebrew Scriptures are clearly referred to by 7a 6rBria. It declares that Jews and Christians alike ‘‘confess that 7a Bi- Gta were written by the Divine Spirit.’”’ But it does not follow that 7a B.8A\ta means with Origen the Old Testament as dis- tinguished from the New, though Koetschau seems inclined to hold this to be the fact. ‘‘The Books of the Holy Scrip- tures,’ he writes (Prolegom. i. p. xxxii.), “are with Origen generally designated deta BiBrta, ypadn (ypadat) or ypappara; those of the Old Testament, 6.8ria, tahara ypadn or radara ypappara.’’ This would seem to say that the absolute 7a fu- BXta with Origen is the synonym not of 4 ypa@y but of 7 7a- Nata ypady, not of Ta ypadupyata but of Ta madara ypapmara. There seems to be nothing in the Contra “ Celsum,” to be sure, which will decisively refute this opinion. There we read of ‘‘the sacred Bi8Xta of the Jews”’ or ‘‘ of the Hebrews ’’ (Koet- schau, i. 304, 26; 305, 6): of ‘“‘the G:GAta which the prophets wrote in Hebrew” (ii. 208, 22; cf., i. 291, 12), or simply of ‘“‘the Bi8rta of the Jews”’ (ii. 93, 18); but nowhere else than in v. 60 (so far as Koetschau’s confessedly incomplete index indicates) do we meet with absolute 7a 6.6dia in the sense of ‘The Scriptures.” *’ But what shall we make of a passage like 57 At ii. 120, 22, we read of “‘the book of Genesis,” and at various passages of secular “books” (ii. 63, 4; 58, 17; 109, 15; 152, 26; 293, 1.). 154 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION the following from the ‘Fourteenth Homily on Jeremiah’ (§ 12: Ed. Klostermann, 1901, p. 117, line 4)? “‘‘ For thy sins, then, will I give thy treasures for a spoil.’ And he gave the treasures of the Jews to us, for they were the first to believe Ta \dyia Tod Geod, and only after them did we believe, God having taken the \éy.a away from them and given them to us. And we say that ‘the kingdom shall be taken away from them by God and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof’ has been said by the Saviour and shall be fulfilled. Not that 7 ypad7 has been taken away from them, but now, though they have the Law and the Prophets they do not understand the meaning that is in them. For they have ra 6.BAta. But how was the kingdom of God taken from them? The meaning tv ypadav was taken from them,” etc. It is worth while to pause and note the rich synonymy of ‘“‘the Scriptures”? here. And, noting it, we may well ask whether, if ra BiGAta, because it is used here with the eye on the He- brew Scriptures, is to be taken as meaning distinctively the Hebrew Scriptures, this same is not true also of 7a \oyra and n ypabn and ai ypadat. There is a subtle propriety in the ad- justment of these three terms to the exact place in which each appears in the argument. Aéyra emphasizes the divine origin of the Scriptures; 8.GAta looks upon them from the point of view of their external form; ypad7, of their significant contents. The terms could not be interchanged without some loss of exactness of speech: 6.8dta accordingly stands where it does because it expresses the externalia of the Scriptures, sets them before us as ‘‘nothing but books’? — so much paper. But in their general connotation the three terms are coex- tensive, and there is no reason for narrowing Ta B.BAta to ‘the Old Testament”’ because it refers to the Old Testament here, which will not apply as well to ra \oyra and to 4 ypadn, ai ypapat. There is preserved for us in the “‘ Philocalia’’ (Ch. v., ed. Robinson, 1893, pp. 48-48) a remarkable fragment of the Fifth Book of Origen’s ‘Commentary on John’ (ed. Preuschen, 1903, pp. 100-105), in which Origen, speaking to the text, ‘‘ Of the making of many books there is no end,’’ rings “THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 155 the changes on 8:GXtov and B.BAta and leaves a strong impres- sion on the reader’s mind that to him 7a 6.6\ta would be ex- actly synonymous with 7a eta BiBdia. ‘‘ But since,” says he (Preuschen, p. 103, 12), ‘‘the proofs of this must be drawn from T7s Delas ypadjs, it will be most satisfactorily established if I am able to show that it is not in one Book only that it is written among us concerning Christ — taking ra BiBdta in its common sense. For we find it written in the Pentateuch,”’ etc. Origen here, by telling us that 7a B.GX\ia has a common sense, tells us also that it has a special sense, and that in this special sense it includes alike the New Testament in which we should expect to find Christ spoken of, and the Penta- teuch where also He is spoken of; in a word it is the exact synonym of 77 deta ypady.® If we do not quite learn from Clement and Origen, there- fore, — as Sophocles would have us learn — that, because it is used of the Sacred Books of the Hebrews, 7a B.BXia means distinctively the ‘‘Sacred Books of the Hebrews,” we do learn what Zahn would not have us learn, that it is used absolutely in the sense of ‘‘the Sacred Scriptures.’’? We must now take note of the fact, however, that Zahn’s primary object was to deny not that 7a B.BdAia, absolutely used, could mean ‘‘the Sacred Books,”’ but precisely that it could mean the Sacred Books of the Hebrews — the Old Testament. His primary statement is that no usage can be adduced of 7a 6.Bria as a designation distinctively of the Old Testament. He is discussing the reading of a clause in II Clemens Rom. xiv. This clause couples together (in the Constanti- nople MS. followed by Lightfoot) ra 6iBXia Kai ot adarToXoL, which, as Lightfoot remarks, is a rough designation of the Old and New Testaments. On the testimony of the Syriac version Zahn reads ta B.BAla Tay tpodyTav Kat ot aroaToXoL, and to strengthen his position argues that absolute 7a BiBXia 58 Preuschen indexes the following further occurrences of the plural 7a BiBdia (apart from the passage, pp. 100-105) in the ‘Commentary on John:”’ p. 40, 21, Ta THs Kas SeaOhkns BrBrta; 117, 19, de’ Srdwv rdv ayiwy BiBriwv. At p. 9, 24 Origen opens an inquiry as to why raira ra BiBdia — that is the Gospels, — are called by the singular title of eayyédtov. 156 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION for ‘“‘the Old Testament”’ is unexampled. We have already seen enough to prove to us that absolute 7a BiBAta was quite readily used to designate the Old Testament — because the Old Testament was part of the Scriptures, that is of 7a 6.6\ia in their pregnant sense. But whether ra Bi6A\ta was used distinctively of the Old Testament — when the Old Testament was set over against the New —is another question. This question need not wait long, however, for an answer. It cannot be doubted, and it is not doubted, that the Jews called their sacred writings, by way of eminence, ‘‘the Books.”’ As Zahn very exactly declares * the Hebrew o™5o7 (Mishna Megilla i. 8) certainly underlies the usage of at ypadat, 7 ypad7n in the general sense of ‘‘the Bible.’’ The antiquity of this phrase may be estimated from its occurrence in Daniel ix. 2: ‘‘I Daniel understood by ‘the Books’ ...’’: ‘that is,’ says Driver, commenting on the passage, ‘“‘the sacred books, the Scriptures”’ (cf. => in Ps. xl. 8, Is. xxix. 18). The Greek rendering of this passage gives us to be sure ai BiBXo. rather than ra BiBAta. But already in I Macc. xll. 9 we have the full phrase of which ra 6.6Xia is the natu- ral abbreviation —7a B.BX\ta Ta G&yva, while Josephus gives us the parallel 7a tepa BiGAia: and. from these phrases ra 6.B8ria could not fail to be extracted, just as ypadat, was ex- tracted from ai adytar ypadat, ai iepat ypadat, and the like. We meet with no surprise therefore the appearance of Ta 6.Bria in II Clems. xiv, as a distinctive designation of the Old Testament. It only advertises to us, what we knew be- forehand, that the Old Testament was ‘‘the Books’’ before both Old and New Testaments were subsumed under that title, and that usage, in a community made up partly of Jews, for a time conserved, without prejudice to the equal authority of the New Testament Books, some lingering remi- niscence of the older habit of speech. How easily the Old Testament might continue to be called ra B.6Xla after the term had come to include New Books as well, may be illus- 59 “ Geschichte,” etc. I. 87, note 1. ELE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 157 trated by a tendency which is observable in the earlier English usage of the word “ Bible”’ (persisting even yet dia- lectically) to employ it of the Old Testament distinctively — as in the phrase ‘‘ The Bible and the Testament,’ — not, of course, with any implication of inferiority for the New Testa- ment books.” How long such a tendency to think of the Old Testament especially when the term ra 6.8d\ia was heard continued to manifest itself in the early church, it would require a delicate investigation to determine. It is enough for the moment to note that II Clems. xiv witnesses to the presence of such a tendency in the first age, while such phrases as meet us in Melito of Sardis *' — ra madara BiBNia, Ta THS TWadaas drabjKyns BiGAta — warn us that the new con- ditions of the New Covenant with its New Books were al- ready requiring a distinction, among the 7a B.BA\ia by way of eminence, between the New and the Old Books which made up the whole. Ta 6:6dta in a word to Jew and Chris- tian alike meant just ‘‘the Holy Books,” ‘‘the Books” by way of eminence, by the side of which could stand no others; and though ear and lip needed a space to adjust themselves to the increased content of the phrase when Christianity came bringing with it its contribution to the unitary collec- tion, yet the adjustment was quickly made and if the mem- ory of the earlier usage persisted for a while, 7a 6.6Xia in Christian circles meant from the beginning in principle the whole body of Sacred Books and rapidly came to mean in practice nothing less. We cannot agree with Zahn, then, that the usage of ra B.6Xta in the early church provides no basis upon which the development of our term ‘‘Bible’’ could have taken place. But when we come to take the next step in the development of that term, we are constrained to assent to Nestle’s decla- ration that nobody knows how the term “‘ Bible” found its way into the European languages. The Latins did not take 60 See the passages from the Oxford ‘Dictionary of the English Language,’’ in note 82 below. 61 Otto: ix. 414. 158 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION over the Greek word £.8Xia, or its cognate BiBdo, to desig- nate the Biblical books. They had in their own Liber a term which had already acquired a pregnant sense ‘‘in religion and public law’? — as expressing ‘‘a religious book, Scrip- ture, a statute book, codex” °; and which therefore readily lent itself to employment as the representative of the preg- nant Greek terms which it translates, though it scarcely seems to have attained so absolute a use. Accordingly we find in use in the early church side by side with such Greek phrases as Ta BiBAla THs Tadaas, THs Kaw7s Scabhkns, the Latin phrases, Libri veterts, novi testamentr, (federis):° and over against the Greek 6.8dia kavovixd, the Latin libri regulares, or as Rufinus puts it, libri inter canonem conclusi.“ Jerome gave currency to the very appropriate term Bibliotheca as the designation of the corpus of the Sacred Books; and this term became later the technical term perhaps most fre- quently employed, so that Martianaeus in his “‘ Prolegomena in divinam bibliothecam Hieron.” i. §$1,° speaking de nomine Bibliothecae Dwine, can very fairly say, ‘‘among the ancients, the sacred volume which we, at the present time, call Biblia, obtained the name of Bibliotheca Divina.” There is no trace of such a word as “‘ Biblia”’ in Patristic Latin, and no such word is entered in the Latin Lexicons, — not even in 6 Andrews’ “ Latin-English Lexicon,”’ sub voc. 6 Reuss, E. T. p. 308, § 303. 64 Reuss, p. 321, § 316. 6 Migne, “ Patrol. Lat.’’ xxviii. (“Hieron.”’ vol. 14) pp. 33-34. & M. Kahler, ““Dogmatische Zeitfragen,’’? I. p. 362, writes: ‘It was very harmlessly intended and was not in contradiction of the usage followed by Christ Himself, when the Holy Scripture was called a Bibliotheca. ... As, however, that designation ‘Bibliotheca’ never became the dominant one, and the Biblical one, ‘the Scripture,’ alone ultimately maintained itself, so the comprehensive name, ‘the Bible,’ attained general currency in the West before the ninth century.”’ On this last point, he had already said, (p. 232 note 1): ‘‘As a popular designation ‘Biblia’ was in use long before its earliest provable occurrence in the ninth cen- tury,” with appeal to: “Eb. Nestle, Beil. zur Allg. Z. 1904, No. 90, p. 117,” — an article to which we have not access, though possibly we have its essential con- tents in the contemporarily printed note in the Expository Times, mentioned at the beginning of this discussion. It can be said that ‘Bibliotheca’ never became the dominant designation of the Scriptures only in contrast with such a desig- nation as ‘‘the Scriptures.’’ “THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 159 the great Latin ‘“‘Thesaurus”’ now publishing by the German Universities. We shall have to come to Du Cange’s “Gloss. Med. et Inf. Latinitatis’’ to discover it. And when we discover it we are told very little about it except of its existence in the Latin of the early middle ages, and shortly afterwards in the vernaculars of the West. There seems to be no serious inherent difficulty in con- ceiving the passage of a Greek neuter plural into Latin as a feminine singular. The thing appears not to be unexampled, and so might have happened to 6.6Xia. What we lack is clear evidence that 8.Gdta did pass into “‘ Biblia,’’ and exact infor- mation of the stages and processes by which the feat was accomplished. And the difficulty of the problem is vastly in- creased by the circumstances that the time when the trans- ference is supposed to have taken place was not a time when there was rich intercourse between the East and the West, in which borrowing of terms would have been easy and natural; and that there was no obvious need upon the part of the West for such a term, which would render its borrow- ing of it natural. Yet the term is supposed to have been taken over with such completeness and heartiness as to have be- come the parent of the common nomenclature of the Scrip- tures in all the Western languages.” The difficulties raised by these considerations are so great that one finds himself questioning whether the origin of the term ‘‘ Biblia” in Me- diaeval Latin and of its descendants in the Western languages can be accounted for after the fashion suggested, and whether some other conjectural explanation of their origin might not wisely be sought for — as, for example, a contraction of the commonly current term ‘“bibliotheca.’’ ® Some color might be lent to such a conjecture by the fact that ‘‘ Biblia’ and its descendants seem to have been from the first in use not 67 Grimm, sub voc. ‘‘Bibel,’’ enumerates as follows: Italian, bibbia, Spanish, biblia, French, bible, Middle High German, biblie, Dutch, bijbel, Islandic, biflja, Russian and Lithuanian, biblija, Polish, biblia, Bohemian, 6ibly, etc. 68 The Latin ‘‘ Thesaurus”’ tells us that “‘ bibliotheca ’’ occurs in titles vari- ously contracted: ‘Compendia in titulis: by., byb., bybl., byblio., bibliot.,”’ and in even completer forms. 160 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION merely in an ecclesiastical but also in a common sense — as designations, that is, not merely of the Scriptures but of any large book.® Appeal might be made also to the ease with which the two terms ‘ Biblia’ and ‘ Bibliotheca’ took one the other’s place down at least to the fifteenth century.”” What we need, however, is not conjectures but a series of ascer- tained facts, and these are at the moment at our disposal in very insufficient measure. Du Cange can tell us only that the word “ Biblia”’ occurs in the “‘Imitatio Christi” I i. 3,” and in the “ Diarium Belli Hussitici,’”’ adding a quotation from a Chronicle, at the year 1228, to the effect that ‘‘Stephen, archibishop of Canter- bury ... made postils super totam Bibliam.”’ To this Diefen- bach in the ‘“Glossarium,” which he published (1857) as a supplement to Du Cange, merely adds an intimation that certain fifteenth century glossaries contain ‘‘ Biblia’’ in the sense of a “large book,’’ ” as also ‘‘Biblie” and ‘‘Bibel”’ (German). Becker in his “ Catalogi Bibliothecarum Antiqui’’ is able to cite earlier examples of “Biblia” from old catalogues of libraries. The earliest — from the ninth century — comes from the catalogue of an unknown French library; next in age are two twelfth century examples — one from Monte Cassiro and the other from Stederburg in Brunswick. The English Latin catalogues in which he finds it begin with one of the books at Durham, dating from 1266,” and by that 6° See Diefenbach’s addenda to Du Cange, sub voc. ‘‘ Biblia.”” The Oxford Dic- tionary gives English examples from the fourteenth to the sixteenth centuries: e. g. 1377, Lang. “ Piers Pl.” B. xv. 87; ‘Of this matere I mygte mak a long bible”’; 1542, Udall, Erasm. ‘‘ Apophth,” 205a, ‘‘When he had read a long bible written and sent to hym from Antipater.” (The quotation from Z. Boyd 1629 does not seem to us to belong here). 70 This is adverted to in the Oxford Dictionary, sub voc. ‘‘ Bible.’”’ The follow- ing citations are given: 1382, Wyclif, 2 Macc. ii. 13, ‘‘He makynge a litil bible (Vulg. bibliothecam) gadride of cuntrees bokis”’; c. 1425, in Wr.-Wiilcker, Voc. 648, Bibleoteca, bybulle; 1483 Cath. Angl. 31, A Bybylle, biblia, bibliotheca. 71 $1 scires totam Bibliam. 72 “Biblia, eyn gross buch.” 73 Cf. Eb. Nestle, The Expository Times, xv. pp. 565-566. The citation given in the Oxford Dictionary from an Anglo-Latin occurrence of ‘‘biblia’’ in 1095 — viz. from the Catalogue of the Lindisfarne books — Nestle shows to rest on an error. This catalogue dates from the fourteenth or fifteenth century. “THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 161 time the word was already in use in English,” and of course in French,” since the English usage rests on the French. How early it appears in the modern European languages we lack data to inform us. The German examples which Diefen- bach quotes are from the fifteenth century and those which Heyne gives from the sixteenth,” while Grimm cites none earlier than the seventeenth. But if the Low-German “‘ Fibel’’ is really a derivative of ‘‘ Bibel,’’ the common use of ‘‘ Bibel”’ must have antedated the fifteenth century.” Littré gives no French example earlier than Joinville, who wrote at the be- ginning of the fourteenth century (13809). Its French usage must go well back of this, however, for as we have seen it had come from French into Middle English by that date. The name in ordinary use throughout the Middle Ages for what we call the ‘“‘Bible’’ was ‘‘ Bibliotheca,’’ and we ac- cordingly find that in Old English (Anglo-Saxon) “ biblio- théce’’ alone occurs in this sense.” From the fourteenth ™% The Oxford Dictionary cites from c. 13800, Cursor M. 1900: ‘‘ As the bibul sais’’; from 1330, R. Brunne, Chron. 290: ‘‘The bible may not lie.” % Littré (“Dictionaire de la Langue Francaise’ I. sub voc.) cites only: “HIST. xiii’s. — Un cordelier vint 4 li au chastel de Yeres [Hiéres ] et pour en- seigner le roi, dit en son sermon, que il avoit leu la Bible et les livres qui parlent des princes mescreans, Jornv. 199.”’ To this may be added Joinville, ‘‘ Histoire de Saint Louis,’”’ Paris, Didot, 1874, p. 310 (cxi. 569): ‘ L’endemain s’ala logier li roys devant la citei d’Arsur que l’on appelle Tyri en la Bible.” On p. 320 (cxili. 583) “Bible” occurs in the sense of ‘‘ Balista,”’ cf. Du Cange, sub voc. ‘‘ Biblia I.”’ The Century and the Standard Dictionaries both record this usage for English. 76 Heyne, ‘Deutsches Wérterbuch”’ I. 1890, tells us sub voc. that Bibel is a borrowed word from the Greek neuter-plural Biblia, ‘‘ Books,” which since the late Middle-High-German, as in Middle Latin, has been looked on as a feminine singular, first in a form nearer to the Latin, and afterwards in that now current — with a reference to Diefenbach. His earliest citations are from Luther, who still has (“D. christliche Adel,’ 1520) “die biblien, das heilig gotis wort,’’ but elsewhere (“‘ Wider die himlischen Proph.’’ 1525): ‘‘aus meine verdeutschten bibel.”’ 77 Cf. F. Kluge, “Etymologisches Wérterbuch d. deutschen Sprache,’ 62. ed. 1905 sub voc. “‘Fibel,’’ where we are told that it was entered in Low-German Glossaries of the fifteenth century (first in 1419), was used by Luther, and duly | registered since Henisch 1616. Kluge classifies ‘‘ Bibel’”’ as a Middle-High-German word.” 78 The Oxford Dictionary says: “In O. E. bibliotheca alone occurs.’”’ Nestle l. c. says: ‘‘The name commonly used throughout the Middle Ages was Biblio- theca’”’; and accordingly in O. E. and all mediaeval writers this term is used for . 162 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION century on, however, ‘‘Bible”’ takes the place of ‘‘ Biblio- théce.’’ Chaucer uses it freely in both the ecclesiastical and common senses.”? Purvey uses it as a word well-known in common currency, referring naturally to ‘‘the Bible late translated,’’ and to that ‘‘simple creature”’ (as he called him- self) ‘‘who hath translated the Bible out of the Latin into the English.” The rapidity with which the term entered into general usage may be divined from the examples given by Richardson and Murray. These lexicographers record no example, however, of the occurrence of the compound term, ‘‘The Holy Bible.” It seems that this combination was somewhat late in establish- ing itself as the stated designation of the sacred book in English. It first finds a place on the title-page of an English Bible in the so-called ‘‘ Bishops’ Bible,’”’ the earliest issue of which dates from 1568: “The. holie. Bible. | conteynyng the olde | Testament and the newe.” | ® It, of course, continues on the title-pages of the numerous subsequent issues of this edition,” but it does not otherwise occur on the title-page of English Bibles until the appearance of the Douai Old Testa- ment of 1610: ‘‘The | Holie Bible | ....’? The Rheims trans- complete Mss. of Old and New Testaments. The Anglo-Saxons also used “‘ge- writ’’ when speaking of the Bible. 79In the ecclesiastical sense: ‘Canterbury Tales:” Prolog. 1. 438, ‘His studie was but litel on the Bible’’; ‘“Pardoner’s Tale,’’ 1. 4652, ‘‘Looketh the Bible, and ther ye may it leere’”’; ‘‘The Wife’s Preamble,” 1. 10729, ‘He knew of hem mo legendes and lyves | Than been of goode wyves in the Bible.” In the gen- eral sense: ‘Canterbury Tales,” Prol. to Canon’s ‘‘ Yeoman’s Tale,” 1. 17257, “To tellen al wolde passen any Bible | That owher is”; “House of Fame,” 1. 1334 (Book ii. 1. 244), If all the arms of the people he saw in his dream were described, ““men myght make of hem a Bible twenty foote thykke.”’ 80 The editio princeps of the English Bible (Coverdale, 1535) bears the title: “Biblia | The Byble: that | is the holy Scrypture of the | Olde and New Testa- ment.” Matthew’s Bible, of 1537, has: ‘The Byble, | which is all the holy Scrip- | ture: In whych are contayned the | Olde and Newe Testament —” Taverner’s Bible, of 1539, has: ‘‘The most | sacred Bible, | whiche is the holy scripture, con- | teyning the old and new testament.” The very popular and frequently re- printed “Genevan Bible” called itself, edition 1560: ‘The Bible | and | Holy Scriptures | conteyned in| the olde and Newe | Testament.” 8. WH. g. 1573, 1574, 1575 bis, 1576, 1577 bis, 1578, 1584, 1585, 1588, 1591, 1595, 1602. “THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 163 lators, in the preface of their New Testament, published in 1582, had indeed spoken of ‘“‘the holy Bible”’ as ‘‘long since translated by us into English, and the Old Testament lying by us for lacke of goode meanes to publish the whole in such sort as a worke of so great charge and importance requireth’”’ ; from which we may learn that, though the volume of 1610 contains only the Old Testament, the term ‘‘The Holie Bible’’ upon its title is not to be confined to the Old Testa- ment, as sometimes the phrase was confined in its Old Eng- lish use.” The adoption of the term ‘‘The Holy Bible”’ for the title-page of King James’ version of 1611: ‘The | Holy Bible, | conteyning the Old Testament, | and the New | ,” finally fixed it as the technical designation of the book in English. It is natural to assume that the current title of the Vul- gate Latin Bible with which we are familiar — “‘ Biblia Sacra”’ — lay behind this English development; but it would be a mistake to suppose that this was by any means the constant designation of the Latin Bible in the earlier centuries of its printing. A hasty glance over the lists of editions recorded in Masch’s Le Long (iii.) indeed leaves the impression that it was only after the publication of the “‘authorized’”?’ Roman edition of 1590, ‘‘ Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis,’’ that this designation finally established itself as regular; though it was, of course, frequently employed before that. The original edi- tion of John Fust and Peter Schoeffer indeed is described by Le Long (p. 98) as ‘“‘Biblia Sacra Latina juxta Vulgatam editionem II vol. in folio.’ And the title of the great Com- plutensian Polyglot (1514-1517) is given as ‘‘ Biblia Sacra.”’ ® But these are not the actual titles of these books, and it is 82 In the Oxford Dictionary are found the following examples of this odd usage from the sixteenth century: Rastell, ‘Bk. Purgat.”’ I. 1. ‘‘ Neyther of the bokys of the olde byble nor of the newe testament”; 1587, Golding, ‘De Mornay,’’ xxiv. 357, ‘‘Certaine bookes which we call the Bible or Olde Testament.” It may not be out of place to note that Rastell wrote as a Romanist, Golding as a Protestant controversialist. 83 This is the actual title of the Antwerp Polyglot, 1569-1572, and of Walton’s Polyglot, 1657; bu; not of the Paris Polyglot. 164 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION not until near the opening of the second quarter of the six- teenth century that ‘‘ Biblia Sacra”’ begins to appear on the title-pages of the Latin Bibles which were pouring from the press.*? Osiander’s edition (Norimbergae, 1522) has it: ‘‘ Biblia sacra utriusque Testamenti,” (p. 309), and of course transmitted it to its reprints (1523, 1527, 1529, 1530, 1548, 1559, 1564); Knoblauch’s contemporary edition, on the other hand, (Argentorati, 1522) has rather: ‘‘ Biblia sacrae scrip- turae Veteris omnia’’ (p. 314). Among Catholic editions, one printed at Cologne in 1527: ‘‘Biblia sacra utriusque Testamenti’’ (p. 178), seems to be the earliest recorded by Le Long, which has this designation. It seems to have been, however, a Paris edition of the next year (1528): “ Biblia sacra: integrum utriusque testamenti corpus completens,”’ (repeated in 1534, 1543, 1548, 1549, 1550, 1551, 1552, 1560) which set the fashion of it. Somewhat equivalent forms ap- pear by its side, such as: ‘‘ Biblia Bibliorum opus sacrosanc- tum”’ (Lugduni, 15382), ‘‘Biblie sacre Textus’”’ (Lugduni, 1531), and especially ‘‘ Biblia Sacrosancta’”’ (Lugduni, 1532, 1535, 1536, 1544, 1546, 1556, 1562: Basiliae 1547, 1551, 1557, 1562, 1569, 1578). But none of these became fixed as the technical designation of the volume, as Biblia Sacra tended to become from the opening of the second quarter of the six- teenth century, and ended by fairly becoming before that century closed. The Romance languages seem to have followed this grow- 8 The editio princeps has no title page; and the Complutensian Polyglot no general title-page. Cf. Fr. Kaulen, “Geschichte der Vulgata,”’ 1868, pp. 305-6: — ‘The first editions contain only the naked text of the Vulgate, together with the Introductions of St. Jerome and the old Argumenta, as they appear already in the ‘Codex Amiatinus.”’ A proper title is at first not present; and neither the sheets nor the pages show numeration. Instead of the title, the front page bears commonly a heading in large type: Incipit prologus sanctt iheronymi, incipit epis- tola scti theronymi ad paulinum, prologus biblie, and the like. The folio edition of Basle, 1487, bears as title merely the one word, ‘Biblia.’. . . In a Nuremberg Bible of 1471 there stands for the first time as title, ‘Biblia Vulgata’... By far the most common title is ‘Biblia Latina,’ accompanied in later editions by some addition giving the contents.” 8 Brylinger’s edition, Basiliae, 1544 (1551, 1557, 1562, 1569, 1578) has: ‘Biblia Sacrosancta’’? — “THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 165 ing Latin custom in the designation of their Bibles, although examples of the simple nomenclature persist (e. g., La Buble qui est toute la sainte escriture, Geneva, 1562, 1622, 1638, 1657, etc.). Among the Teutonic races, other than the English, however, it has been slower in taking root. German Bibles still call themselves ‘‘Biblia, das ist: die gantze Heilige Schrift,’ or in more modern form, ‘‘ Die Bibel, oder die ganze Heilige Schrift,’ and Dutch Bibles similiarly, ‘‘ Biblia, dat is de gantsche H. Schrifture,”’ or more modernly, ‘‘ Bijbel, dat is de gansche Heilige Schrift.’’ Doubtless ‘‘die heilige Bibel”’ or ‘‘de heilige Bybel’’ — though not unexampled, — would seem somewhat harsh and unusual to Teutonic ears. Strange to say they would take more kindly apparently to such a phrase as “‘ Das heilige Bibelbuch.”’ Our common phrase, ‘‘The Holy Bible,” thus reveals it- self as probably a sixteenth century usage, which has not yet been made the common property of the Christian world. In its substantive, it rests on an as yet insufficiently ex- plained mediaeval usage, not yet traced further back than the ninth century. This usage in turn is commonly assigned for its origin to a borrowing from the Greek churches of their customary use of Ta BiBAta to designate the Scriptures. Be- hind this lies a Jewish manner of speech. This appears to be all that can as yet be affirmed of the origin of our common term: ‘‘ The Holy Bible.”’ ++] iss Saeed =" le by th es a Peake alanis |i); 1s . wh + ey in ya oo y : : ‘ 1% hen art r ors “, 4 ay cA, » * int ; i Por ; 5 5 M4 Ms TRY was | a ve | _) ’ Fe ad { i 4 } 1 4 ‘ hy 1 4 Lan ; ee > Petar ee i ty he Me " Vy got Vs fs = iy i 4 , Li, ’ } i } bask a eae > ol ¢ v greater or less degree, the authority of the Bible in doctrine and life is replaced by or subordinated to that of reason, or of the feelings, or of the ‘‘ Christian consciousness ” — the “ con- scious experience by the individual of the Christian faith ”’ — or of that corporate Christian consciousness which so easily hardens into simple ecclesiastical domination. What we are to accept as the truth of God is a comparatively easy question, if we can open our Bibles with the confident belief that what we read there is commended to us by a fully credible “ Thus saith the Lord.” But in proportion as we allow this or that element in it not to be safeguarded to us by this divine guarantee, do we begin to doubt the trustworthiness of more and more of the message delivered, and to seek other grounds of confidence than the simple “ It is written ” which sufficed for the needs of our Lord and His apostles. We have seen Dr. Sanday pointing to “the advancing consciousness of the Church at large,” along 182 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION with the consensus of scholars, as the ground of acceptance of doctrines as true, which will be more and more turned to when men can no longer approach the Bible so simply as heretofore. This is the natural direction in which to look, for men trained to lay that great stress on institutional Christianity which leads Mr. Gore to describe the present situation as one in which “it is becoming more and more difficult to believe in the Bible without believing in the Church.” ** Accordingly Dr. Sterrett also harmonizes his Hegelianism and Churchliness in finding the ground of Christian certitude in the “ communal Christian consciousness,” which is defined as the Church, as “ objective, authoritative reason for every Christian,” to which he must subordinate his individual reason.** Men of more individualis- tic training fall back rather on personal reason or the individual “Christian consciousness’; but all alike retire the Bible as a source of doctrine behind some other safeguard of truth. It may not be without interest or value to subject the vari- ous pathways which men tread in seeking to justify a lower view of Scripture than that held and taught by the New Tes- tament writers, to a somewhat close scrutiny, with a view to observing how necessarily they logically involve a gradual un- dermining of the trustworthiness of those writers as teachers of doctrine. From the purely formal point of view proper to our present purpose, four types of procedure may be recognized. CHRIST VERSUS THE APOSTLES 1. There is first, that, of which Richard Rothe is an ex- ample, which proceeds by attempting to establish a distinction between the teaching of Christ and the teaching of His apos- tles, and refusing the latter in favor of the former. As we have already remarked, this distinction cannot be made good. Rothe’s attempt to establish it proceeds on the twofold ground, on the one hand, of an asserted absence from our Lord’s dealings with the Scriptures of those extreme facts 23 “ Tux Mundi.” American Ed. New York: John W. Lovell Co. P. 283. 24 “ Reason and Authority in Religion.” By J. MacBride Sterrett, D.D., Professor in Seabury Divinity School. New York: T. Whittaker, 1891. P. 176. 4 i I ie a i te a —_— —s ca." THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 183 of usage of it as the Word of God, and of those extreme state- ments concerning its divine character, on the ground of which in the apostles’ dealing with it we must recognize their high doctrine of Scripture; and on the other hand, of an asserted presence in Christ’s remarks concerning Scripture of hints that He did not share the conception of Scripture belonging to con- temporary Judaism, which conception we know to have been the same high doctrine that was held by the apostles. He infers, therefore, that the apostles, in this matter, represent only the current Jewish thought in which they were bred, while Christ’s divine originality breaks away from this and commends to us a new and more liberal way. But in order to make out the first member of the twofold ground on which he bases this conclusion, Rothe has to proceed by explaining away, by means of artificial exegetical expedi- ents, a number of facts of usage and deliverances as to Scrip- ture, in which our Lord’s dealings with Scripture culminate, and which are altogether similar in character and force to those on the basis of which he infers the apostles’ high doctrine. These are such passages as the quotation in Matt. xix. 4, 5, of Adam’s words as God’s Word, which Lechler appeals to as de- Cisive just as Rothe appeals to similar passages in the epistles —hbut which Rothe sets aside in a footnote simply with the remark that it is not decisive here; the assertion in John x. 35, that the “Scripture cannot be broken,” which he sets aside as probably not a statement of Christ’s own opinion but an argu- mentum ad hominem, and as in any case not available here, since it does not explicitly assert that the authority it ascribes to Scripture is due “ to its origination by inspiration ” — but which, as Dr. Robert Watts has shown anew,” is conclusive for 25 “ Faith and Inspiration.” The Carey Lectures for 1884. By Robert Watts, D.D, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1885. P. 139. ‘“‘ The sole question is: What, according to the language employed by Him, was His estimate of the Old Tes- tament Scripture? It will be observed that He does not single out the passage on which He bases His argument, and testify of it that it is unbreakable, mak- ing its infallibility depend on His authority. Stated formally, His argument is as follows: Major — The Scripture cannot be broken. Minor —‘I said ye are God’s,’ is written in your law, which is Scripture. Conclusion —‘I said ye are 184 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION our Saviour’s view of the entire infallibility of the whole Old Testament; the assertion in Matt. v. 18 (and in Luke xvi. 17) that not “ one jot or one tittle (tara é& # uta xepaia) shall pass away from the law till all be fulfilled,” which he sets aside with the remark that it is not the law-codex, but the law itself, that is here spoken of, forgetful of the fact that it is the law itself as written that the Lord has in mind, in which form alone, moreover, do “ yodhs and horns” belong to it; the assertion in Matt. xxii. 48, that it was “in the Spirit” that David called the Messiah, “ Lord,” in the one hundredth and tenth Psalm, which he sets aside with the remark that this does prove that Jesus looked upon David as a prophet, but not necessarily that he considered the one hundred and tenth Psalm inspired, as in- deed he does not say ypader but cadet — forgetful again that it is to the written David alone that Christ makes His appeal and on the very language written in the Psalm that He founds His argument. No less, in order to make out the second member of the ground on which he bases his conclusion, does Rothe need to press passages which have as their whole intent and effect to rebuke the scribes for failure to understand and properly to use Scripture, into indications of rejection on Christ’s part of the authority of the Scriptures to which both He and the scribes appealed. Lest it should be thought incredible that such a conclusion should be drawn from such premises, we tran- scribe Rothe’s whole statement. “On the other hand, we conclude with great probability that the Redeemer did not share the conception of His Israelitish contempo- raries as to the inspiration of their Bible, as stated above, from the fact that He repeatedly expresses his dissatisfaction with the man- ner usual among them of looking upon and using the sacred books. He tells the scribes to their face that they do not understand the God’s’ cannot be broken. . . . He argues the infallibility of the clause on which He founds His argument from the infallibility of the record in which it occurs. According to His infallible estimate, it was sufficient proof of the infallibility of any sentence or phrase of a clause, to show that it constituted a portion of © what the Jews called ‘ the Scripture’ (7 ypa¢7).” rd THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 185 Scriptures (Matt. xxii. 29; Mark xii. 24), and that it is delusion for them to think to possess eternal life in them, therefore in a book (John v. 39), even as He also (in the same place) seems to speak disapprovingly of their searching of the Scriptures, because it pro- ceeds from such a perverted point of view.” 2° Thus Jesus’ appeal to the Scriptures as testifying to Him, and His rebuke to the Jews for not following them while professing to honor them, are made to do duty as a proof that He did not ascribe plenary authority to them.”’ Furthermore, Rothe’s whole treatment of the matter omits altogether to make account of the great decisive consideration of the general tone and manner of Christ’s allusions and appeal to the Scriptures, which only culminate in such passages as he has attempted to explain away, and which not only are incon- sistent with any other than the same high view of their author- ity, trustworthiness and inspiration, as that which Rothe infers from similar phenomena to have been the conception of the apostles, but also are necessarily founded on it as its natural expression. The distinction attempted to be drawn between Christ’s doctrine of Holy Scripture and that of His apostles is certainly inconsistent with the facts. But we are more concerned at present to point out that the attempt to draw this distinction must result in undermining utterly all confidence in the New Testament writers as teachers of doctrine. So far as the apostles are concerned, indeed, it would be more correct to say that it is the outgrowth and mani- festation of an already present distrust of them as teachers of doctrine. Its very principle is appeal from apostolic teaching to that of Christ, on the ground that the former is not authorita- tive. How far this rejection of apostolic authority goes is evi- denced by the mode of treatment vouchsafed to it. Immedi- ately on drawing out the apostles’ doctrine of inspiration, Rothe asks, “ But now what dogmatic value has this fact? ”’ 26 “ Zur Dogmatik,” p. 177. 27 Compare Meyer, in loc. (EH. T., i. p. 262, note): “ Even Rothe .. . takes doxetre in the sense of a delusion, namely, that they possessed eternal life in a ‘book. Such explanations are opposed to the high veneration manifested by Jesus towards the Holy Scriptures, especially apparent in John... .” 186 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION And on the ground that “ by their fruits ye shall know them,” he proceeds to declare that the apostles’ doctrine of Scripture led them into such a general use and mode of interpretation of Scripture as Rothe deems wholly unendurable.** It is not, then, merely the teaching of the apostles as to what the Scriptures are, but their teaching as to what those Scriptures teach, in which Rothe finds them untrustworthy. It would be impossible but that the canker should eat still more deeply. Nor is it possible to prevent it from spreading to the under- mining of the trustworthiness of even the Lord’s teaching it- self, for the magnifying of which the distinction purports to be drawn. The artificial manner in which the testimony of the Lord to the authority of the Scriptures is explained away in the attempt to establish the distinction, might be pleaded indeed as an indication that trust in it was not very deeply rooted. And there are other indications that had the Lord been ex- plained to be of the apostles’ mind as to Scripture, a way would have been found to free us from the duty of following His teaching.*® For even His exegesis is declared not to be authori- tative, seeing that “ exegesis is essentially a scientific function, and conditioned on the existence of scientific means, which in relation to the Old Testament were completely at the com- mand of Jesus as little as of His contemporaries”’; and the principle of partial limitation at least to the outlook of His day which is involved in such a statement is fully accepted by Rothe.*® All this may, however, be thought more or less per- 28 Op. cit., pp. 181, 182. 29 Op. cit., pp. 174, 175. 30 Even on an extreme Kenotic view, it is, however, not so certain that error should be attributed to the God-man. Prof. Gretillat, of Neuchatel, a Kenotist of the type of Gess and his own colleague Godet, is able to teach that “by reason of the relation which unites the intelligence with the will,” our Lord must needs be free not only from sin, but also from all error (Exposé de Theol. Syst., iv. 288). Tholuck occupied a position similar to Rothe’s; yet he reminds us that: ‘‘ Proofs might be brought to show that, even in questions pertaining to learned exegesis ”” — which are such as our Lord needed to learn as a man—‘“‘such as those concerning the historical connection of a passage, the author and age of a book, an original spiritual discernment without the culture of the schools may often divine the truth” (‘“ Citations of the Old Testament in the New,” tr. in Bibliotheca Sacra, xi. p. 615). THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 187 sonal to Rothe’s own mental attitude, whereas the ultimate undermining of our Lord’s authority as teacher of doctrine, as well as that of His apostles, is logically essential to the position assumed. This may be made plain at once by the very obvious remark — that we have no Christ except the one whom the apostles have given to us. Jesus Himself left no treatises on doctrine. He left no written dialogues. We are dependent on the apostles for our whole knowledge of Him, and of what He taught. The por- traiture of Jesus which has glorified the world’s literature as well as blessed all ages and races with the revelation of a God- man come down from heaven to save the world, is limned by his followers’ pencils alone. The record of that teaching which fell from His lips as living water, which if a man drink of he shall never thirst again, is a record by his followers’ pens alone. They have painted for us, of course, the Jesus that they knew, . and as they knew Him. They have recorded for us the teach- ings that they heard, and as they heard them. Whatever un- trustworthiness attaches to them as deliverers of doctrine, must in some measure shake also our confidence in their report of what their Master was and taught. But the logic cuts even deeper. For not only have we no Christ but Him whom we receive at the apostles’ hands, but this Christ is committed to the trustworthiness of the apostles as teachers. His credit is involved in their credit. He represents His words on earth as but the foundation of one great temple of doctrine, the edifice of which was to be built up by Him through their mouths, as they spoke moved by His Spirit; and thus He makes Himself an accomplice before the fact in all they taught. In proportion as they are discredited as doctrinal guides, in that proportion He is discredited with them. By the promise of the Spirit, He has forever bound His trustworthi- ness with indissoluble bands to the trustworthiness of His ac- credited agents in founding His Church, and especially by that great promise recorded for us in John xvi. 12-15: “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you 188 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself; but whatso- ever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of ~ mine, and shall show it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine and shall show it unto you.” Says Dr. C. W. Hodge: ** ‘Tt is impossible to conceive how the authority of the Master could be conveyed to the teaching of the disciples more emphati- cally than is here done by Christ. He identifies His teaching and the teaching of the Spirit as parts of one whole; His teaching is carrying out My teaching, it is calling to remembrance what I have told you; it is completing what I have begun. And to make the unity emphatic, He explains why He had reserved so much of His own teaching, and ’ committed the work of revelation to the Spirit. He, in His incarna- tion and life, comprised all saving truth. He was the revealer of God and the truth and the life. But while some things He had taught while yet with them, He had many things to say which must be post- poned because they could not yet bear them. . . . If Christ has re- ferred us to the apostles as teachers of the truths which He would have us know, certainly this primary truth of the authority of the Scriptures themselves can be no exception. All questions as to the ex- tent of this inspiration, as to its exclusive authority, as to whether it extends to words as well as doctrines, as to whether it is infallible or inerrant, or not, are simply questions to be referred to the Word itself.” In such circumstances the attempt to discriminate against the teaching of the apostles in favor of that of Christ, is to con- tradict the express teaching of Christ Himself, and thus to un- dermine our confidence in it. We cannot both believe Him and not believe Him. The ery, “ Back to Christ! ” away from all the imaginations of men’s hearts and the cobweb theories which they have spun, must be ever the ery of every Christian heart. But the ery, “ Back to Christ! ” away from the teachings of His apostles, whose teachings He Himself represents as His 81 Sermon on “ The Promise of the Spirit,” in the volume: “ Princeton Sermons.” By the Faculty of the Seminary. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1893. P. 33. The whole of this noble sermon should be read. as THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 189 own, only delivered by His Spirit through their mouths, is an invitation to desert Christ Himself. It is an invitation to draw back from the Christ of the Bible to some Christ of our own fancy, from the only real to some imaginary Christ. It is to undermine the credit of the whole historical revelation in and through the Christ of God, and to cast us for the ascertainment and authentication of truth on the native powers of our own minds. ACCOMMODATION OR IGNORANCE? 2. Another method is that of those who seek to preserve themselves from the necessity of accepting the doctrine of in- spiration held by the writers of the New Testament, by repre- senting it as merely a matter of accommodation to the preju- — dices of the Jews, naturally if not necessarily adopted bythe . first preachers of the Gospel in their efforts to commend to their contemporaries their new teaching as'to the way of life. This position is quite baldly stated by a recent Scotch writer, to whose book, written with a frank boldness, a force and a logical acumen which are far above the common, too little heed has been paid as an indication of the drift of the times.’ Says Mr. James Stuart: “The apostles had not merely to reveal the Gospel scheme of salvation to their own and all subsequent ages, but they had to pre- sent it in such a form, and support it by such arguments, as should commend it to their more immediate hearers and readers. Notwith- standing its essentially universal character, the Gospel, as it appears in the New Testament, is couched in a particular form, suited to the special circumstances of a particular age and nation. Before the Gospel could reach the hearts of those to whom it was first addressed, prejudices had to be overcome, prepossessions had to be counted on and dealt with. The apostles, in fact, had just to take the men of their time as they found them, adapting their teaching accordingly. Not only so, but there is evidence that the apostles were themselves, to a very great extent, men of their own time, sharing many of the 82 “The Principles of Christianity.” Being an Essay towards a More Cor- rect Apprehension of Christian Doctrine, Mainly Soteriological. By James Stuart, M.A. London: Williams & Norgate, 1888. P. 67 seq. 190 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION common opinions and even the common prejudices, so that, in argu- ing ex concessis, they were arguing upon grounds that would appear to themselves just and tenable. Now one of the things universally conceded in apostolic times was the inspiration and authority of the Old Testament; another was the legitimacy of certain modes of in- terpreting and applying the Old Testament. The later Jews, as is well known, cherished a superstitious reverence and attached an overwhelming importance to the letter of the Old Testament, which they regarded as the ‘ Word of God’ in the fullest and most absolute sense that can possibly be put upon such an expression. The doctors taught and the people believed that the sacred writings were not only inspired, but inspired to the utmost possible or conceivable ex- tent. In the composition of Scripture, the human author was nowhere, and the inspiring Spirit everywhere; not the thoughts alone, but the very words of Scripture were the Word of God, which He communi- cated by the mouth of the human author, who merely discharged the duty of spokesman and amanuensis, so that what the Scripture con- tains is the Word of God in as complete and full a sense as if it had been dictated by the lips of God to the human authors, and recorded with something approaching to perfect accuracy. . . . Such being the prevalent view of the inspiration and authority of the Old Testa- ment writings, what could be more natural than that the apostles should make use of these writings to enforce and commend their own ideas? And if the Old Testament were to be used for such a purpose at all, evidently it must be used according to the accepted methods; for to have followed any other — assuming the possibility of such a thing — would have defeated the object aimed at, which was to ac- commodate the Gospel to established prejudices.” Now, here too, the first remark which needs to be made is that the assertion of “ accommodation” on the part of the New Testament writers cannot be made good. To prove “ ac- commodation,” two things need to be shown: first, that the _ apostles did not share these views, and, secondly, that they ' nevertheless accommodated their teaching to them. “ Accom- modation” properly so called cannot take place when the views in question are the proper views of the persons them- selves. But even in the above extract Mr. Stuart is led to allow that the apostles shared the current Jewish view of the Scrip- THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 191 tures, and at a later point ** he demonstrates this in an argu- ment of singular lucidity, although in its course he exaggerates the character of their views in his effort to fix a stigma of mechanicalness on them. With what propriety, then, can he speak of “ accommodation ” in the case? The fact is that the theory of “accommodation ” is presented by Mr. Stuart only to enable him the more easily to refuse to be bound by the apostolic teaching in this matter, and as such it has served him as a stepping stone by which he has attained to an even more drastic principle, on which he practically acts: that when- | ever the apostles can be shown to agree with their contempo- raries, their teaching may be neglected. In such cases, he con- celves of the New Testament writers “ being inspired and guided by current opinion,” ** and reasons thus: *° “Now it is unquestionable that the New Testament writers in so regarding the Old Testament were not enunciating a new theory of inspiration or interpretation, they were simply adopting and follow- ing out the current theory. . . . In matters of this kind . . . the New Testament writers were completely dominated by the spirit of the age, so that their testimony on the question of Scripture inspira- tion possesses no independent value.” ‘“‘ If these popular notions were infallibly correct before they were taken up and embodied in the New Testament writings, they are infallibly correct still; if they were incorrect before they were taken up and embodied in the New Testament writings, they are incorrect still.” °° This is certainly most remarkable argumentation, and the principle asserted is probably one of the most singular to which thinking men ever committed themselves, viz., that a body of religious teachers, claiming authority for themselves as such, are trustworthy only when they teach novelties. It is the apotheosis of the old Athenian and new modern spirit, which has leisure and heart “ for nothing else but either to tell or 83 P, 345 seq. 34 P. 213. 85 Pp, 348, 349. 36 P, 70. The immediate reference of these last words is to matters of criti- cism and exegesis; but according to the contextual connection they would also be used of matters of inspiration. 192 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION hear some new thing.” Nevertheless, it is a principle far from uncommon among those who are seeking justification for them- selves in refusing the leadership of the New Testament writers in the matter of the authority and inspiration of the Scrip- tures. And, of late, it is, of course, taking upon itself in certain quarters a new form, the form imposed by the new view of the origin of Christian thought in Hellenic sources, which has been given such vogue by Dr. Harnack and rendered popular in English-speaking lands by the writings of the late Dr. Hatch. For example, we find it expressed in this form in the recent valuable studies on the First Epistle of Clement of Rome, by Lic. Wrede.*’? Clement’s views of the Old Testament Scriptures are recognized as of the highest order; he looks upon them as a marvelous and infallible book whose very letters are sacred, as a veritable oracle, the most precious possession of the Church. These high views were shared by the whole Church of his day, and, indeed, of the previous age: “The view which Clement has of the Old Testament, and the use which he makes of it, show in themselves no essential peculiarities in compari- son with the most nearly related Christian writings, especially the Pauline epistles, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epis- tle of Barnabas.” And yet, according to Wrede, this view rests on “the Hellenistic conception of inspiration, according to which the individual writers were passive instruments of God.” ** Whether, however, the contemporary influence is thought to be Jewish or Greek, it is obvious that the appeal to it in such matters has, as its only intention, to free us from the duty of following the apostles and can have as its only effect to undermine their authority. We may no doubt suppose at the beginning that we seek only to separate the kernel from the husk; but a principle which makes husk of all that can be shown to have anything in common with what was believed by any body of contemporaries, Hebrew or Greek, is so very 87 “ Untersuchungen zum ersten Klemensbriefe.” Von Lic. Theol. W. Wrede, Privatdocent der Theologie in Gottingen. Gottingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht’s Verlag, 1891. Pp. 60, 75 seq. 88 Compare the review of Wrede by Prof. H. M. Scott, in The Presbyterian and Reformed Review, January, 1893, p. 163. THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 193 drastic that it will leave nothing which we can surely trust. On this principle the Golden Rule itself is not authoritative, be- cause something like it may be found in Jewish tradition and among the heathen sages. It certainly will not serve to make novelty the test of authority. From the ethical point of view, however, this theory is pref- erable to that of “ accommodation,” and it is probable that part, at least, of the impulse which led Mr. Stuart to substitute it for the theory of “accommodation,” with which he began, ~ arose from a more or less clear perception of the moral implica- tions of the theory of ‘ accommodation.” Under the impulse of that theory he had been led to speak of the procedure of the: apostles in such language as this: ‘“ The sole principle that regulates all their appeals to the Old Testament, is that of ob- taining, at whatever cost, support for their own favorite ideas.” *° Is it any wonder that the reaction took place and an attempt was made to shift the burden from the veracity to the knowledge of the New Testament writers? *° In Mr. Stuart’s case we see very clearly, then, the effect of a doctrine of “ ac- commodation ” on the credit of the New Testament writers. His whole book is written in order to assign reason why he will not yield authority to these writers in their doctrine of a sacri- ficial atonement. This was due to their Jewish type of thought. But when the doctrine of accommodation is tried as a ground for the rejection of their authority, it is found to cut too deeply even for Mr. Stuart. He wishes to be rid of the authority of the New Testament writers, not to impeach their veracity; and so he discards it in favor of the less plausible, indeed, but also less deeply cutting canon, that the apostles are not to be followed when they agree with contemporary thought, because in these elements they are obviously speaking out of their own con- sciousness, as the products of their day, and not as proclaimers of the new revelation in Christ. Their inspiration, in a word, “was not plenary or universal — extending, that is, to all mat- ters whatever which they speak about — but partzal or special, being limited to securing the accurate communication of that 39 P. 66. 40 P. 353. 194 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION plan of salvation which they had so profoundly experienced, and which they were commissioned to proclaim.” ** In all else “the New Testament writers are simply on a level with their contemporaries.” It may not be uninstructive to note that un- der such a formula Mr. Stuart not only rejects the teachings of these writers as to the nature and extent of inspiration, but also their teaching as to the sacrificial nature of the very plan of salvation which they were specially commissioned to pro- claim. But what it is our business at present to point out 1s that the doctrine of accommodation is so obviously a blow at not only the trustworthiness, but the very veracity of the New Testament authors, that Mr. Stuart, even after asserting it, is led to permit it to fall into neglect. And must it not be so? It may be easy indeed to confuse it with that progressive method of teaching which every wise. teacher uses, and which our Lord also employed (John xvi. 12 seq.) ; it may be easy to represent it as nothing more than that harmless wisdom which the apostle proclaimed as the principle of his life, as he went about the world becoming all things to all men. But how different it is from either! It is one thing to adapt the teaching of truth to the stage of receptivity of the learner; it is another thing to adopt the errors of the time as the very matter to be taught. It is one thing to refrain from unnecessarily arousing the prejudices of the learner, that © more ready entrance may be found for the truth; it is another thing to adopt those prejudices as our own, and to inculcate them as the very truths of God. It was one thing for Paul to become “ all things to all men ” that he might gain them to the truth; it was another for Peter to dissemble at Antioch, and so confirm men in their error. The accommodation attributed to the New Testament writers is a method by which they did and do not undeceive but deceive; not a method by which they teach the truth more winningly and to more; but a method by which they may be held to have taught along with the truth also error. The very object of attributing it to them is to en- able us to separate their teaching into two parts— the true 41 VP, 258. THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 195 and the false; and to justify us in refusing a part while accept- ing a part at their hands. At the best it must so undermine the trustworthiness of the apostles as deliverers of doctrine as to subject their whole teaching to our judgment for the separa- tion of the true from the false; at the worst, it must destroy their trustworthiness by destroying our confidence in their veracity. Mr. Stuart chose the better path; but he did so, as all who follow him must, by deserting the principle of aecommoda- . tion, which leads itself along the worse road. With it as a start- ing point we must impeach the New Testament writers as lack- ing either knowledge or veracity. | TEACHING VERSUS OPINION 3. A third type of procedure, in defense of refusal to be bound by the doctrine of the New Testament writers as to in- spiration, proceeds by drawing a distinction between the belief and the teaching of these writers; and affirming that, although it is true that they did believe and hold a high doctrine of in- spiration, yet they do not explicitly teach it, and that we are bound, not by their opinions, but only by their explicit teaching. This appears to be the conception which underlies the treat- ment of the matter by Archdeacon (then Canon) Farrar, in his “ Life and Work of St. Paul.” Speaking of Paul’s attitude towards Scripture, Dr. Farrar says: * “He shared, doubtless, in the views of the later Jewish schools —the Tanaim and Amoraim — on the nature of inspiration. These views, which we find also in Philo, made the words of Scripture co- extensive and identical with the words of God, and in the clumsy and feeble hands of the more fanatical Talmudists often attached to the dead letter an importance which stifled or destroyed the living sense. But as this extreme and mechanical literalism — this claim to absolute infallibility even in accidental details and passing allu- sions — this superstitious adoration of the letters and vocables of Scripture, as though they were the articulate vocables and immedi- 42 Op. cit., Vol. i. p. 49. 196 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION ate autograph of God —finds no encouragement in any part of Scripture, and very distinct discouragement in more than one of the utterances of Christ, so there is not a single passage in which any approach to it is dogmatically stated in the writings of St. Paul.” This passage lacks somewhat more in point of clearness than it does in point of rhetorical fire. But three things seem to be suf- ficiently plain: (1) That Dr. Farrar thinks that Paul shared the views of the Tanaim, the Amoraim and Philo as to the nature of inspiration. (2) That he admits that these views claimed for Scripture “ absolute infallibility even in accidental details and passing allusions.” (8) That nevertheless he does not feel bound to accept this doctrine at Paul’s hands, because, though Paul held it, he is thought not to have “ dogmatically stated ” it. ) Now, the distinction which is here drawn seems, in general, a reasonable one. No one is likely to assert infallibility for the apostles in aught else than in their official teaching. And what- ever they may be shown to have held apart from their official teaching, may readily be looked upon with only that respect which we certainly must accord to the opinions of men of such exceptional intellectual and spiritual insight. But it is more difficult to follow Dr. Farrar when it is asked whether this dis- tinction can be established in the present matter. It does not seem to be true that there are no didactic statements as to in- spiration in Paul’s letters, or in the rest of the New Testament, such as implicate and carry into the sphere of matters taught, the whole doctrine that underlies their treatment of Scripture. The assertion in the term “ theopneustic ” in such a passage as II Tim. i. 16, for example, cannot be voided by any construc- tion of the passage; and the doctrine taught in the assertion must be understood to be the doctrine which that term con- noted to Paul who uses it, not some other doctrine read into it by us. It is further necessary to inquire what sources we have in a case like that of Paul, to inform us as to what his opinions were, apart from and outside of his teachings. It might con- ceivably have happened that some of his contemporaries THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 197 _ should have recorded for us some account of opinions held by him to which he has given no expression in his epistles; or some account of actions performed by him involving the mani- festation of judgment — somewhat similar, say, to Paul’s own account of Peter’s conduct in Antioch (Gal. 11. 11 seqg.). A pre- sumption may be held to lie also that he shared the ordinary opinions of his day in certain matters lying outside the scope - of his teachings, as, for example, with reference to the form of the earth, or its relation to the sun; and it is not inconceivable that the form of his language, when incidentally adverting to such matters, might occasionally play into the hands of such a presumption. But it is neither on the ground of such a pre- sumption, nor on the ground of such external testimony, that Dr. Farrar ascribes to him views as to inspiration similar to those of his Jewish contemporaries. It is distinctly on the. ground of what he finds on a study of the body of official teach- ing which Paul has left to us. Dr. Farrar discovers that these views as to the nature of Scripture so underlie, are so assumed in, are so implied by, are so interwoven with Paul’s official teaching that he is unwillingly driven to perceive that they were Paul’s opinions. With what color of reason then can they be separated from his teaching? There is raised here, moreover, a very important and far- reaching question, which few will be able to decide in Dr. Farrar’s sense. What is taught in the New Testament? And what is the mode of its teaching? If we are to fall in with Dr. Farrar and say that nothing is taught except what is “ dog- matically stated ” in formal didactic form, the occasional char- acter of the New Testament epistles would become a source of grave loss to us, instead of, as it otherwise is, a source of im- mense gain; the parabolic clothing of much of Christ’s teach- ing would become a device to withhold from us all instruction on the matters of which the parables treat; and all that is most fundamental in religious truth, which, as a rule, is rather as- sumed everywhere in Scripture as a basis for particular appli- cations than formally stated, would be removed out of the sphere of Biblical doctrine. Such a rule, in a word, would op- 198 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION erate to turn the whole of Biblical teaching on its head, and to reduce it from a body of principles inculeated by means of ex- amples into a mere congeries of instances hung in the air. The whole advance in the attitude of Dogmatics towards the Scrip- tures which has been made by modern scholarship is, moreover, endangered by this position. It was the fault of the older dog- matists to depend too much on isolated proof-texts for the framing and defense of doctrine. Dr. Farrar would have us re- turn to this method. The alternative, commended justly to us by the whole body of modern scholarship, is, as Schleiermacher puts it, to seek “ a form of Scripture proof on a larger scale than can be got from single texts,” to build our systematic theology, in a word, on the basis, not of the occasional dogmatic state- ments of Scripture alone, taken separately and, as it were, in shreds, but on the basis of the theologies of the Scripture — to reproduce first the theological thought of each writer or group of writers and then to combine these several theologies (each according to its due historical place) into the one consistent system, consentaneous parts of which they are found to be.** In rejecting this method, Dr. Farrar discredits the whole sci- ence of Biblical Theology. From its standpoint it is incredible that one should attribute less importance and authoritative- ness to the fundamental conceptions that underlie, color and give form to all of Paul’s teaching than to the chance didactic statements he may have been led to make by this or that cir- cumstance at the call of which his letters happened to be writ- ten. This certainly would be tithing mint and anise and cum- min and omitting the weightier matters of the law. That this mode of presenting the matter must lead, no less than the others which have already come under review, to un- dermining the authority of the New Testament writers as de- liverers of doctrine, must already be obvious. It begins by dis- crediting them as leaders in doctrinal thought and substituting for this a sporadic authority in explicit dogmatic statements. 43 The present writer has tried to state the true relations of Systematic and Biblical theology in a discussion of ‘“‘ The Idea of Systematic Theology Consid- ered as a Science” (Inaugural Address), pp. 22-28. A. D. F. Randolph & Co., 1888. He ventures to refer the reader to it. THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 199 In Dr. Farrar’s own hands it proceeds by quite undermining our confidence in the apostles as teachers, through an accusa- tion lodged against them, not only of holding wrong views in doctrine, but even of cherishing as fundamental conceptions theological fancies which are in their very essence superstitious and idolatrous, and in their inevitable outcome ruinous to faith and honor. For Dr. Farrar does not mince matters when he ex- presses his opinion of that doctrine of inspiration — in its na- ture and its proper effects — which Philo held and the Jewish Rabbis and in which Paul, according to his expressed convic- . tion, shared. “To say that every word and sentence and letter of Scripture is divine and supernatural, is a mechanical and useless shibboleth, nay, more, a human idol, and (construc- tively, at least) a dreadful blasphemy.” It is a superstitious — he tells us that he had almost said fetish-worshiping — dogma, and “not only unintelligible, but profoundly dangerous.” It “has in many ages filled the world with misery and ruin,” and “has done more than any other dogma to corrupt the whole of exegesis with dishonest casuistry, and to shake to its centre the religious faith of thousands, alike of the most ignorant and of the most cultivated, in many centuries, and most of all in our own.” *# Yet these are the views which Dr. Farrar is forced to allow that Paul shared! For Philo “ held the most rigid views of inspiration”; than him indeed “ Aqiba himself used no stronger language on the subject ” *° — Aqiba, “ the greatest of the Tanaites’’; “© and it was the views of the Tanaim, Amo- raim and Philo, which Dr. Farrar tells us the apostle shared. How after this Dr. Farrar continues to look upon even the “ dogmatic statements” of Paul as authoritative, it is hard to see. By construction he was a fetish worshiper and placed Scripture upon an idol’s pedestal. The doctrines which he held and which underlie his teaching were unintelligible, useless, idolatrous, blasphemous and profoundly dangerous, and actu- 44 “Inspiration.” A Clerical Symposium. By the Rev. Archdeacon Farrar and others. London: James Nisbet and Co., 1888. 2d ed. Pp. 219, 241. 45 “ History of Interpretation.” Bampton Lectures. By F. W. Farrar, D.D. London: Macmillan, 1880. P. 147. 46° P2 71. 200 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION ally have shaken to its centre the religious faith of thousands. On such a tree what other than evil fruits could grow? No doubt something of this may be attributed to the ex- aggeration characteristic of Dr. Farrar’s language and thought. Obviously Paul’s view of inspiration was not altogether identi- cal with that of contemporary Judaism; it differed from it ‘somewhat in the same way that his use of Scripture differed from that of the Rabbis of his day. But it is one with Philo’s and Aqiba’s on the point which with Dr. Farrar is decisive: alike with them he looked upon Scripture as “ absolutely infal- lible, even in accidental details and passing allusions,” as the very Word of God, His “ Oracles,” to use his own high phrase, and therefore Dr. Farrar treats the two views as essentially one. But the situation is only modified, not relieved, by the recog- nition of this fact. In any event the pathway on which we enter when we begin to distinguish between the didactic statements and the funda- mental conceptions of a body of incidental teaching, with a view to accepting the former and rejecting the latter, cannot but lead to a general undermining of the authority of the whole. Only if we could believe in a quite mechanical and magi- cal process of inspiration (from believing in which Dr. Farrar is no doubt very far) by which the subject’s “ dogmatical state- ments” were kept entirely separate from and unaffected by his fundamental conceptions, could such an attitude be logi- cally possible. In that case we should have to view these “ dog- matical statements ” as not Paul’s at all, standing, as they do ex hypothesi, wholly disconnected with his own fundamental thought, but as spoken through him by an overmastering spir- itual influence; as a phenomenon, in a word, similar to the oracles of heathen shrines, and without analogy in Scripture except perhaps in such cases as that of Balaam. In proportion as we draw back from so magical a conception of the mode of inspiration, in that proportion our refusal of authority to the fundamental conceptions of the New Testament writers must invade also their “ dogmatical statements.” We must logically, in a word, ascribe like authority to the whole body of their i ; f if THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 201 teaching, in its foundation and superstructure alike, or we must withhold it in equal measure from all; or, if we withhold it from one and not the other, the discrimination would most naturally be made against the superstructure rather than against the foundation. Facts versus DoctRiINE 4, Finally, an effort may be made to justify our holding a lower doctrine of inspiration than that held by the writers of the New Testament, by appealing to the so-called phenomena of the Scriptures and opposing these to the doctrine of the Scriptures, with the expectation, apparently, of justifying a modification of the doctrine taught by the Scriptures by the facts embedded in the Scriptures, The essential principle of this method of procedure is shared by very many who could scarcely be said to belong to the class who are here more specifically in mind, inasmuch as they do not begin by explicitly recognizing the doctrine of inspiration held by the New Testament writers to be that high doctrine which the Church and the best scientific exegesis agree in un- derstanding them to teach.*? Every attempt to determine or 47 On the contrary these writers usually minimize the Biblical definition of inspiration. Thus Dr. Marvin R. Vincent, who is immediately to be quoted (op. c. p. 15), tells us “ Scripture does not define the nature and extent of its own inspiration. The oft-quoted passage of II Tim. ii. 16 really gives us no light on that point. ... The passage does indeed point out certain effects which attend the use of inspired writings. . . . But after all, we are no nearer than ever to an answer to the question, What zs inspiration? . .. So that we must fall back on the facts, on the phenomena of the Bible as we have it.” But the deck is not cleared by such remarks; after all, Paul does assert something by calling the Scriptures Theopneustic, and what the thing is that he asserts in the use of this predicate, is not discoverable from an examination into what the Scriptures are, but only by an examination into what Paul means; but what Paul understands by theopneustic, Dr. Vincent makes no effort to investigate. This whole procedure is typical. Thus, for example, the Rev. J. Paterson Smyth, in his recent book, “ How God Inspired the Bible” (p. 64), proceeds in an exactly similar manner. “ Our theory of inspiration must be learned from the facts presented in the Bible, and in order to be correct it must be consistent with all these facts. . . . I want to find out what I can about inspiration. God has nowhere revealed to me exactly what it is. He has told me it is a divine 202 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION . modify the Biblical doctrine of inspiration by an appeal -to the actual characteristics of the Bible must indeed proceed on an identical principle. It finds, perhaps, as plausible a form of as- sértion possible to it in the declaration of Dr. Marvin R. Vin- cent ** that “our only safe principle is that inspiration is con- sistent with the phenomena of Scripture ’’ — to which one of skeptical turn might respond that whether the inspiration claimed by Scripture is consistent with the phenomena of Scripture after all requires some proof, while one of a more believing frame might respond that it is a safer principle that the phenomena of Scripture are consistent with its inspiration. Its crudest expression may be seen in such a book as Mr. Hor- ton’s ‘ Inspiration and the Bible,” which we have already had influence, an in-breathing of the Holy Ghost on the spirit of the ancient writers. But I cannot tell how much that means or what effects I should expect from it. I have, therefore, no way of finding out except by examining the phenomena presented by the Bible itself.” This method amounts simply to discarding the guidance of the doctrine of Scripture in favor of our own doctrine founded on our examination of the nature of Scripture. Mr. Smyth cannot close his eyes to certain outstanding facts on the surface of Scripture, indicatory of the doctrine as to Scripture held by the Biblical writers (pp. 36 and 106), though he makes no effort to collect and estimate all such phenomena. And when he realizes that some may be affected even by his meagre statement of them so far as to say that “the strong expressions just here quoted from some of the Bible writers, and even from our Lord Himself, convince me that the theory of verbal in- spiration 1s most probably true,” he has only such an answer as the following: “ Well, reader, you will find a good many thoughtful people disagreeing with you. Why? Because, while fully receiving these arguments as a proof of God’s inspiration of the Bible, they have looked a little further than the surface to judge how much God’s inspiration implies, and they cannot believe from their examination of Scripture that it implies what is known as verbal inspiration ” (p. 109). Mr. Smyth means by “ verbal inspiration ” the theory of mechanical dictation. But putting that aside as a man of straw, what it is difficult for us to understand is how “ thoughtful people ” can frame a theory of inspiration after only such shallow investigation of the Scriptural doctrine of inspiration, and how “thoughtful people” can assign their inability to believe a doctrine, an inability based on their own conception of what Scripture is, as any proof that that doctrine is not taught by the “strong expressions” of the Bible writers and the Lord Himself. Is it any more rationalistic to correct the Scriptural doc- trine of the origin of the universe from our investigations of the nature of things, than it is to correct the Scriptural doctrine of inspiration from our in- vestigations of the nature of Scripture? 48 Mag. of Christian Lit., April, 1892. THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 203 occasion to mention. Mr. Horton chooses to retain the term, “inspiration,’ as representing ‘‘ the common sense of Chris- tians of all ages and in all places” as to the nature of their. Scriptures,*® but asserts that this term is to be understood to mean just what the Bible 1s — that is to say, whatever any — given writer chooses to think the Bible to be. When Paul af- firms in II Tim. ui. 16 that every Scripture is “inspired by God,” therefore, we are not to enter into a philological and ex- egetical investigation to discover what Paul meant to affirm by the use of this word, but simply to say that Paul must have meant to affirm the Bible to be what we find it to be. Surely no way could be invented which would more easily enable us to substitute our thought for the apostles’ thought, and to pro- claim our crudities under the sanction of their great names. Operating by it, Mr. Horton is enabled to assert that the Bible is “ inspired,” and yet to teach that God’s hand has entered it only in a providential way, by His dealings through long ages with a people who gradually wrought out a history, conceived hopes, and brought all through natural means to an expression in a faulty and often self-contradictory record, which we call inspired only “ because by reading it and studying it we can find our way to God, we can find what is His will for us and how we can carry out that will.” °° The most naive expression of the principle in question may be found in such a statement as the following, from the pen of Dr. W. G. Blaikie: “In our mode of dealing with this question the main difference between us is, that you lay your stress on certain general considerations, and on certain specific statements of Scripture. We, on the other hand, while accepting the specific statements, lay great stress also on the structure of Scripture as we find it, on certain phenomena which lie on the surface, and on the inextricable difficulties which are involved in carrying out your view in de- tail.” °* This statement justly called out the rebuke of Dr. PROD ECit, D..0! Pepa cit. p.. 240. 51 “ Letter to the Rev. Andrew A. Bonar, D.D.” By William G. Blaikie, D.D., LL.D. 2d ed. Edinburgh: Macniven & Wallace, 1890. P. 5. 204 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION Robert Watts,” that “ while the principle of your theory is a mere inference from apparent discrepancies not as yet ex- plained, the principle of the theory you oppose is the formally expressed utterances of prophets and apostles, and of Christ Himself.” Under whatever safeguards, indeed, it may be attempted, and with whatever caution it may be prosecuted, the effort to modify the teaching of Scripture as to its own inspiration by an appeal to the observed characteristics of Scripture, is an at- tempt not to obtain a clearer knowledge of what the Scriptures teach, but to correct that teaching. And to correct the teaching of Scripture is to proclaim Scripture untrustworthy as a wit- ness to doctrine. The procedure in question is precisely similar to saying that the Bible’s doctrine of creation is to be derived not alone from the teachings of the Bible as to creation, but from the facts obtained through a scientific study of creation; that the Bible’s doctrine as to man is to be found not in the Bible’s deliverances on the subject, but “ while accepting these, we lay great stress also on the structure of man as we find him, and on the inextricable difficulties which are involved in carry- ing out the Bible’s teaching in detail”; that the Bible’s doc- trine of justification is to be obtained by retaining the term as commended by the common sense of the Christian world and understanding by it just what we find justification to be in actual life. It is precisely similar to saying that Mr. Darwin’s doctrine of natural selection is to be determined not solely by what Mr. Darwin says concerning it, but equally by what we, in our own independent study of nature, find to be true as to natural selection. A historian of thought who proceeded on such a principle would scarcely receive the commendation of students of history, however much his writings might serve certain party ends. Who does not see that underlying this whole method of procedure — in its best and in its worst estate alike — there is apparent an unwillingness to commit ourselves with- out reserve to the teaching of the Bible, either because that 52 “ A Letter to the Rey. Prof. William G. Blaikie, D.D., LL.D.” By Robert Watts, D.D., LL.D. Edinburgh: R. W. Hunter, 1890. P. 30. THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 205 teaching is distrusted or already disbelieved; and that it is a grave logical error to suppose that the teaching of the Bible as to inspiration can be corrected in this way any otherwise than by showing it not to be in accordance with the facts? The pro- posed method, therefore, does not conduct us to a somewhat modified doctrine of inspiration, but to a disproof of inspira- tion; by correcting the doctrine delivered by the Biblical writ- ers, it discredits those writers as teachers of doctrine. Let it not be said that in speaking thus we are refusing the inductive method of establishing doctrine. We follow the in- - ductive method. When we approach the Scriptures to ascertain their doctrine of inspiration, we proceed by collecting the whole body of relevant facts. Every claim they make to inspiration is - a relevant fact; every statement they make concerning inspira- tion is a relevant fact; every allusion they make to the subject is a relevant fact; every fact indicative of the attitude they hold towards Scripture is a relevant fact. But the characteris- tics of their own writings are not facts relevant to the deter- mination of their doctrine. Nor let it be said that we are desirous of determining the true, as distinguished from the Scriptural, doctrine of inspiration otherwise than inductively. We are averse, however, to supposing tnat in such an inquiry the relevant “ phenomena ”’ of Scripture are not first of all and before all the claims of Scripture and second only to them its use of previous Scripture. And we are averse to excluding these primary “phenomena” and building our doctrine solely or mainly upon the characteristics and structure of Scripture, es- pecially as determined by some special school of modern re- search by critical methods certainly not infallible and to the best of our own judgment not even reasonable. And we are certainly averse to supposing that this induction, if it reaches results not absolutely consentaneous with the teachings of Scripture itself, has done anything other than discredit those teachings, or that in discrediting them, it has escaped discredit- ing the doctrinal authority of Scripture. Nor again is it to be thought that we refuse to use the ac- tual characteristics of Scripture as an aid in, and a check upon, 206 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION our exegesis of Scripture, as we seek to discover its doctrine of inspiration. We do not simply admit, on the contrary, we affirm that in every sphere the observed fact may throw a broad and most helpful light upon the written text. It is so in the narrative of creation in the first chapter of Genesis; which is only begin- ning to be adequately understood as science is making her first steps in reading the records of God’s creative hand in the struc- ture of the world itself. It is preéminently so in the written prophecies, the dark sayings of which are not seldom first illu- minated by the light cast back upon them by their fulfillment. As Scripture interprets Scripture, and fulfillment interprets prediction, so may fact interpret assertion. And this is as true as regards the Scriptural assertion of the fact of inspiration as elsewhere. No careful student of the Bible doctrine of inspira- tion will neglect anxiously to try his conclusions as to the teach- ings of Scripture by the observed characteristics and “ struc- ture” of Seripture, and in trying he may and no doubt will find occasion to modify his conclusions as at first apprehended. But it is one thing to correct our exegetical processes and so modify our exegetical conclusions in the new light obtained by a study of the facts, and quite another to modify, by the facts of the structure of Scripture, the Scriptural teaching itself, as exegeti- cally ascertained; and it is to this latter that we should be led by making the facts of structure and the facts embedded in Scripture co-factors of the same rank in the so-called inductive ascertainment of the doctrine of inspiration. Direct exegesis af- ter all has its rights: we may seek aid from every quarter in our efforts to perform its processes with precision and obtain its re- sults with purity; but we cannot allow its results to be “ modi- fied” by extraneous considerations. Let us by all means be careful in determining the doctrine of Scripture, but let us also be fully honest in determining it; and if we count it a crime to permit our ascertainment of the facts recorded in Scripture ta be unduly swayed by our conception of the doctrine taught in Scripture, let us count it equally a crime to permit our ascer- tainment of its doctrine to be unduly swayed or colored by our conception of the nature of the facts of its structure or of the THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 207 facts embedded in its record. We cannot, therefore, appeal from the doctrine of Scripture as exegetically established to the facts of the structure of Scripture or the facts embedded in Scrip- ture, in the hope of modifying the doctrine. If the teaching and the facts of Scripture are in harmony the appeal is useless. If they are in disharmony, we cannot follow both — we must choose one and reject the other. And the attempt to make the facts of Scripture co-factors of equal rank with the teaching of Scripture in ascertaining the true doctrine of inspiration, is really an attempt to modify the doctrine taught by Scripture by an appeal to the facts, while concealing from ourselves the fact that we have modified it, and in modifying corrected it, and, of course, in correcting it, discredited Scripture as a teacher of doctrine. Probably these four types of procedure will include most of the methods by which men are to-day seeking to free them- selves from the necessity of following the Scriptural doctrine of inspiration, while yet looking to Scripture as the source of doctrine. Is it not plain that on every one of them the outcome must be to discredit Scripture as a doctrinal guide? The hu- man mind is very subtle, but with all its subtlety it will hardly be able to find a way to refuse to follow Scripture in one of the — doctrines it teaches without undermining its authority as a teacher of doctrine. II IMMENSE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE FOR THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE It is only to turn another face of the proposition with which we are dealing towards us, to emphasize next the im- portant fact, that, the state of the case being such as we have found it, the evidence for the truth of the doctrine of the plenary inspiration of Scripture is just the whole body of evidence which goes to show that the apostles are trust- worthy teachers of doctrine. 208 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION Language is sometimes made use of which would seem to imply that the amount or weight of the evidence offered for the truth of the doctrine that the Scriptures are the Word of God in such a sense that their words deliver the truth of God without error, is small. It is on the contrary just the whole body of evidence which goes to prove the writers of the New Testament to be trustworthy as deliver- ers of doctrine. It is just the same evidence in amount and weight which is adduced in favor of any other Biblical doctrine. It is the same weight and amount of evidence pre- cisely which is adducible for the truth of the doctrines of the Incarnation, of the Trinity, of the Divinity of Christ, of Justification by Faith, of Regeneration by the Holy Spirit, of the Resurrection of the Body, of Life Everlasting. It is, of course, not absurdly intended that every Biblical doctrine is taught in the Scriptures with equal clearness, with equal explicitness, with equal frequency. Some doctrines are stated with an explicit precision that leaves little to sys- tematic theology in its efforts to define the truth on all sides, — except to repeat the words which the Biblical writers have used to teach it — as for example the doctrine of Justifica- tion by Faith. Others are not formulated in Scripture at all, but are taught only in their elements, which the systemati- cian must collect and combine and so arrive finally at the doctrine — as for example the doctrine of the Trinity. Some are adverted to so frequently as to form the whole warp and woof of Scripture — as for example the doctrine of redemp- tion in the blood of Christ. Others are barely alluded to here and there, in connections where the stress is really on other matters — as for example the doctrine of the fall of the angels. But however explicitly or incidentally, however fre- quently or rarely, however emphatically or allusively, they may be taught, when exegesis has once done its work and shown that they are taught by the Biblical writers, all these doctrines stand as supported by the same weight and amount of evidence — the evidence of the trustworthiness of the Biblical writers as teachers of doctrine. We cannot say that THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 209 we will believe these writers when they assert a doctrine a hundred times and we will not believe them if they assert it only ten times or only once; that we will believe them in the doctrines they make the main subjects of discourse, but not in those which they advert to incidentally; that we will believe them in those that they teach as conclusions of formal arguments, but not in those which they use as premises wherewith to reach those conclusions; that we will believe them in those they explicitly formulate and dog- matically teach, but not in those which they teach only in © their separate parts and elements. The question is not how they teach a doctrine, but do they teach it; and when that question is once settled affirmatively, the weight of evidence that commends this doctrine to us as true is the same in every case; and that is the whole body of evidence which goes to show that the Biblical writers are trustworthy as teachers of doctrine. The Biblical doctrine of inspiration, therefore, has in its favor just this whole weight and amount of evidence. It follows on the one hand that it cannot ra- tionally be rejected save on the ground of evidence which will outweigh the whole body of evidence which goes to authenticate the Biblical writers as trustworthy witnesses to and teachers of doctrine. And it follows, on the other hand, that if the Biblical doctrine of inspiration is rejected, our freedom from its trammels is bought logically at the some- what serious cost of discrediting the evidence which goes to show that the Biblical writers are trustworthy as teachers of doctrine. In this sense, the fortunes of distinctive Chris- tianity are bound up with those of the Biblical doctrine of inspiration. Let it not be said that thus we found the whole Christian | system upon the doctrine of plenary inspiration. We found the whole Christian system on the doctrine of plenary in- spiration as little as we found it upon the doctrine of angelic existences. Were there no such thing as inspiration, Christianity would be true, and all its essential doctrines would be credibly witnessed to us in the generally trust- 210 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION worthy reports of the teaching of our Lord and of His authoritative agents in founding the Church, preserved in the writings of the apostles and their first followers, and in the historical witness of the living Church. Inspiration is not the most fundamental of Christian doctrines, nor even the first thing we prove about the Scriptures. It is the last and crowning fact as to the Scriptures. These we first prove authentic, historically credible, generally trustworthy, be- fore we prove them inspired. And the proof of their authentic- ity, credibility, general trustworthiness would give us a firm basis for Christianity prior to any knowledge on our part of their inspiration, and apart indeed from the existence of inspiration. The present writer, in order to prevent all misunderstanding, desires to repeat here what he has said on every proper occasion — that he is far from contending that without inspiration there could be no Christianity. “Without any inspiration,’ he added, when making this affirmation on his induction into the work of teaching the Bible ® — ‘‘without any inspiration we could have had Christianity; yea, and men could still have heard the truth and through it been awakened, and justified, and sanctified, and glorified. The verities of our faith would remain his- torically proven to us — so bountiful has God been in His fostering care — even had we no Bible; and through those verities, salvation.’”’ We are in entire harmony in this matter with what we conceive to be the very true statement re- cently made by Dr. George P. Fisher, that ‘‘if the authors of the Bible were credible reporters of revelations of God, whether in the form of historical transactions of which they were witnesses, or of divine mysteries that were unveiled to their minds, their testimony would be entitled to belief, 53 “Discourses Occasioned by the Inauguration of Benj. B. Warfield, D.D.; to the Chair of New Testament Exegesis and Literature in the Western Theo- logical Seminary, April 25, 1880.” Pittsburgh, 1880. P. 46. Cf. “Inspiration.” By Prof. A. A. Hodge and Prof. B. B. Warfield. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1881. Pp. 7, 8 (also in The Presbyterian Review for April, 1881). Also, “The Inspiration of the Scriptures.” By Francis L. Patton, D.D. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1869. Pp. 22, 23, 54. THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 211 even if they were shut up to their unaided faculties in com- municating what they had thus received.” ** We are in en- tire sympathy in this matter, therefore, with the protest which Dr. Marcus Dods raised in his famous address at the meeting of the Alliance of the Reformed Churches at London, against representing that ‘‘the infallibility of the Bible is the ground of the whole Christian faith.’ > We judge with him that it is very important indeed that such a misapprehen- sion, if it is anywhere current, should be corrected. What we are at present arguing is something entirely different from such an overstrained view of the importance of inspiration to the very existence of Christian faith, and something which has no connection with it. We do not think that the doctrine of plenary inspiration is the ground of Christian faith, but if it was held and taught by the New Testament writers, we think it an element in the Christian faith; a very important and valuable element; *® an element that appeals to our acceptance on precisely the same ground as every 54 The Congregationalist, Nov. 3, 1892; The Magazine of Christian Literature, Dec., 1892, p. 236, first column. This whole column should be read; its statement and illustration are alike admirable. 55 This address may be most conveniently consulted in The Expositor for October, 1888, pp. 301, 302. In expressing our concurrence with portions of this address and of Dr. Fisher’s papers just quoted, we are not to be understood, of course, as concurring with their whole contents. 66 How important and valuable this element of the Christian faith is, it is not the purpose of this paper to point out. Let it suffice here to say briefly that it is (1) the element which gives detailed certitude to the delivery of doctrine in the New Testament, and (2) the element by which the individual Christian is brought into immediate relation to God in the revelation of truth through the prophets and apostles. The importance of these factors in the Christian life could not be overstated. The importance of the recognition of plenary inspiration to the preser- vation of sound doctrine is negatively illustrated by the progress of Rationalism, as thus outlined briefly by Dr. Charles Hodge (‘‘Syst. Theol.,” iii. p. 195): “Those who admitted the divine origin of the Scriptures got rid of its distinctive doctrines by the adoption of a low theory of inspiration and by the application of arbitrary principles of interpretation. Inspiration was in the first instance confined to the religious teachings of the Bible, then to the ideas or truths, but not to the form in which they were presented, nor to the arguments by which they were sup- ported. ... In this way a wet sponge was passed over all the doctrines of re- demption and their outlines obliterated.”’ It looks as if the Church were extremely slow in reading the most obvious lessons of history. 212 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION other element of the faith, viz., on the ground of our recogni- tion of the writers of the New Testament as trustworthy witnesses to doctrine; an element of the Christian faith, therefore, which cannot be rejected without logically under- mining our trust in all the other elements of distinctive Christianity by undermining the evidence on which this trust rests. We must indeed prove the authenticity, credi- bility and general trustworthiness of the New Testament writings before we prove their inspiration; and even were they not inspired this proof would remain valid and we should give them accordant trust. But just because this proof is valid, we must trust these writings in their witness to their inspiration, if they give such witness; and if we re- fuse to trust them here, we have in principle refused them trust everywhere. In such circumstances their inspiration is bound up inseparably with their trustworthiness, and there- fore with all else that we receive on trust from them. On the other hand, we need to remind ourselves that to say that the amount and weight of the evidence of the truth of the Biblical doctrine of inspiration is measured by the amount and weight of the evidence for the general credi- bility and trustworthiness of the New Testament writers as witnesses to doctrine, is an understatement rather than an overstatement of the matter. For if we trust them at all we will trust them in the account they give of the person and in the report they give of the teaching of Christ; whereupon, as they report Him as teaching the same doctrine of Scrip- ture that they teach, we are brought face to face with divine testimony to this doctrine of inspiration. The argument, then, takes the form given it by Bishop Wordsworth: ‘‘ The New Testament canonizes the Old; the INCARNATE Worpb sets His seal on the WrittEN Worp. The Incarnate Word is God; therefore, the inspiration of the Old Testament is authenticated by God Himself.” °’? And, again, the general trustworthiness of the writers of the New Testament gives us the right and imposes on us the duty of accepting their 57 Wordsworth, ‘“‘On the Canor,” p. 51, Am. Ed. THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION _ 213 witness to the relation the Holy Ghost bears to their teach- ing, as, for example, when Paul tells us that the things which they uttered they uttered ‘‘not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit; joining Spirit- given things with Spirit-given things’’ (1 Cor. ii. 13), and Peter asserts that the Gospel was preached by them ‘‘in the Holy Spirit’? (I Peter i. 12); and this relation asserted | to exist between the Holy Ghost and their teaching, whether oral or written (I Cor. xiv. 37; II Thess. 11. 15, 11. 6-14), gives the sanction of the Holy Ghost to their doctrine of Holy Scripture, whatever that is found to be. So that, even though we begin on the lowest ground, we may find ourselves compelled to say, as Bishop Wilberforce found himself com- pelled to say: ‘‘In brief, my belief is this: The whole Bible comes to us as ‘the Word of God’ under the sanction of God, the Holy Ghost.’’ °* The weight of the testimony to the Biblical doctrine of inspiration, in a word, is no less than the weight to be attached to the testimony of God— God the Son and God the Spirit. 7 But our present purpose is not to draw out the full value of the testimony, but simply to emphasize the fact that on the emergence of the exegetical fact that the Scriptures of the New Testament teach this doctrine, the amount and weight of evidence for its truth must be allowed to be the whole amount and weight of the evidence that the writers of the New Testament are trustworthy as teachers of doc- trine. It is not on some shadowy and doubtful evidence that the doctrine is based — not on an a priort conception of what inspiration ought to be, not on a ‘“‘tradition”’ of doc- trine in the Church, though all the a priorz considerations and the whole tradition of doctrine in the Church are also thrown in the scale for and not in that against this doctrine; but first on the confidence which we have in the writers of the New Testament as doctrinal guides, and ultimately on whatever evidence of whatever kind and force exists to justify that confidence. In this sense, we repeat, the cause of 88 “Life of the Rt. Rev. S. Wilberforce, D.D.,” Vol. III. p. 149. 214 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION distinctive Christianity is bound up with the cause of the Biblical doctrine of inspiration. We accept Christianity in all its distinctive doctrines on no other ground than the credi- bility and trustworthiness of the Bible as a guide to truth; and on this same ground we must equally accept its doctrine of inspiration. ‘‘If we may not accept its account of itself,’’ asks Dr. Purves, pointedly, ‘‘why should we care to ascer- tain its account of other things?’’ ® ° Ill IMMENSE PRESUMPTION AGAINST ALLEGED Facts CONTRADICTORY OF THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE We are again making no new affirmation but only looking from a slightly different angle upon the same proposition with which we have been dealing from the first, when we emphasize next the fact, that the state of the case being as we have found it, we approach the study of the so-called ‘““phenomena”’ of the Scriptures with a very strong presump- tion that these Scriptures contain no errors, and that any ‘“phenomena”’ apparently inconsistent with their inerrancy are so in appearance only: a presumption the measure of which is just the whole amount and weight of evidence that the New Testament writers are trustworthy as teachers of doctrine. It seems to be often tacitly assumed that the Biblical doctrine of inspiration cannot be confidently ascertained until all the facts concerning the contents and structure and characteristics of Scripture are fully determined and allowed for. This is obviously fallacious. What Paul, for example, believed as to the nature of Scripture is obviously an easily separable question from what the nature of Scripture really is. On the other hand, the assumption that we cannot con- fidently accept the Biblical doctrine of inspiration as true 59 “St. Paul and Inspiration.”’ Inaugural Address, ete. A. D. F. Randolph & Co., 1892. P. 52. Presbyterian and Reformed Review, January, 1893, p. 21. THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 215 until criticism and exegesis have said their last word upon the structure, the text, and the characteristics of Scripture, even to the most minute fact, is more plausible. But it is far from obviously true. Something depends upon our estimate of the force of the mass of evidence which goes to show the trustworthiness of the apostles as teachers of truth, and of the clearness with which they announce their teaching as to inspiration. It is conceivable, for example, that the force of the evidence of their trustworthiness may be so great that we should be fully justified in yielding implicit confi- dence to their teaching, even though many and serious diffi- culties should stand in the way of accepting it. This, indeed, is exactly what we do in our ordinary use of Scripture as a source of doctrine. Who doubts that the doctrines of the - Trinity and of the Incarnation present difficulties to rational construction? Who doubts that the doctrines of native de- merit and total depravity, inability and eternal punishment raise objections in the natural heart? We accept these doc- trines and others which ought to be much harder to credit, such as the Biblical teaching that God so loved sinful man as to give His only-begotten Son to die for him, not because their acceptance is not attended with difficulties, but be- cause our confidence in the New Testament as a doctrinal guide is so grounded in unassailable and compelling evidence, that we believe its teachings despite the difficulties which they raise. We do not and we cannot wait until all these difficulties are fully explained before we yield to the teaching of the New Testament the fullest confidence of our minds and hearts. How then can it be true that we are to wait until all difficulties are removed before we can accept with con- fidence the Biblical doctrine of inspiration? In relation to this doctrine alone, are we to assume the position that we will not yield faith in response to due and compelling evi- dence of the trustworthiness of the teacher, until all diff- culties are explained to our satisfaction? — that we must fully understand and comprehend before we will believe? Or is the point this — that we can suppose ourselves possibly 216 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION mistaken in everything else except our determination of the characteristics and structure of Scripture and the facts stated therein? Surely if we do not need to wait until we understand how God can be both one and three, how Christ can be both human and divine, how man can be both un- able and responsible, how an act can be both free and cer- tain, how man can be both a sinner and righteous in God’s sight, before we accept, on the authority of the teaching of Scripture, the doctrines of the Trinity, of the Incarnation, of man’s state as a sinner, of God’s eternal predestination of the acts of free agents, and of acceptance on the ground of Christ’s righteousness, because of the weight of the evidence which goes to prove that Scripture trustworthy as a teacher of divine truth; we may on the same compelling evidence accept, in full confidence, the teaching of the same Scrip- ture as to the nature of its own inspiration, prior to a full - understanding of how all the phenomena of Scripture are to be adjusted to it. No doubt it is perfectly true and is to be kept in mind -that the claim of a writing to be infallible may be mistaken or false. Such a claim has been put forth in behalf of and by other writings besides the Bible, and has been found utterly inconsistent with the observed characteristics of those writings. An a priorz possibility may be asserted to exist in the case of the Bible, that a comparison of its phenomena with its doctrine may bring out a glaring inconsistency. The test of the truth of the claims of the Bible to be inspired of God through comparison with its contents, characteristics and phenomena, the Bible cannot expect to escape; and the lovers of the Bible will be the last to deny the validity of it. By all means let the doctrine of the Bible be tested by the facts and let the test be made all the more, not the less, ‘stringent and penetrating because of the great issues that hang upon it. If the facts are inconsistent with the doctrine, let us all know it, and know it so clearly that the matter is put beyond doubt. But let us not conceal from ourselves the greatness of the issues involved:in the test, lest we approach THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 217 the test in too light a spirit, and make shipwreck of faith in the trustworthiness of the apostles as teachers of doctrine, with the easy indifference of a man who corrects the inci- dental errors of a piece of gossip. Nor is this appeal to the seriousness of the issues involved in any sense an appeal to deal deceitfully with the facts concerning or stated in the Bible, through fear of disturbing our confidence in a com- fortable doctrine of its infallibility. It is simply an appeal to common sense. If you are told that a malicious lie has been uttered by some unknown person you may easily yield the report a languid provisional assent; such things are not im- possible, unfortunately in this sinful world not unexampled. But if it is told you of your loved and trusted friend, you will probably demand the most stringent proof at the point of your walking stick. So far as this, Robert Browning has missed neither nature nor right reason, when he makes his Ferishtah point out how much more evidence we require in proof of a fact which brings us loss than what is sufficient _ to command “The easy acquiescence of mankind In matters nowise worth dispute.” If it is right to test most carefully the claim of every settled and accepted faith by every fact asserted in rebuttal of it, © it must be equally right, nay incumbent, to scrutinize most closely the evidence for an asserted fact, which, if genuine, wounds in its vitals some important interest. If it would be a crime to refuse to consider most carefully and candidly any phenomena of Scripture asserted to be inconsistent with its inerrancy, it would be equally a crime to accept the asserted reality of phenomena of Scripture, which, if real, strike at the trustworthiness of the apostolic witness to doc- trine, on any evidence of less than demonstrative weight. But we approach the consideration of these phenomena alleged to be inconsistent with the Biblical doctrine of in- spiration not only thus with what may be called, though in a high sense, a sentimental presumption against their reality. 21Sss REVELATION AND INSPIRATION The presumption is an eminently rational one, and is capable of somewhat exact estimation. We do not adopt the doctrine of the plenary inspiration of Scripture on sentimental grounds, nor even, as we have already had occasion to re- mark, on a priori or general grounds of whatever kind. We adopt it specifically because it is taught us as truth by Christ and His apostles, in the Scriptural record of their teaching, and the evidence for its truth is, therefore, as we have also already pointed out, precisely that evidence, in weight and amount, which vindicates for us the trust- worthiness of Christ and His apostles as teachers of doctrine. Of course, this evidence is not in the strict logical sense ‘‘demonstrative;” it is ‘‘probable’”’ evidence. It therefore leaves open the metaphysical possibility of its being mis- taken. But it may be contended that it is about as great in amount and weight as ‘‘probable”’ evidence can be made, and that the strength of conviction which it is adapted to produce may be and should be practically equal to that produced by demonstration itself. But whatever weight it has, and whatever strength of conviction it is adapted to produce, it is with this weight of evidence behind us and with this strength of conviction as to the unreality of any alleged phenomena contradictory of the Biblical doctrine of inspiration, that we approach the study of the character- istics, the structure, and the detailed statements of the Bible. Their study is not to be neglected; we have not attained through ‘“‘probable”’ evidence apodeictic certainty of the Bible’s infallibility. But neither is the reality of the alleged phenomena inconsistent with the Bible’s doctrine, to be allowed without sufficient evidence. Their reality can- not be logically or rationally recognized unless the evidence for it be greater in amount and weight than the whole mass of evidence for the trustworthiness of the Biblical writers as teachers,of doctrine. It is not to be thought that this amounts to a recom- mendation of strained exegesis in order to rid the Bible of ' phenomena adverse to the truth of the Biblical doctrine of THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 219 inspiration. It amounts to a recommendation of great care in the exegetical determination of these alleged phenomena; it amounts to a recommendation to allow that our exegesis determining these phenomena is not infallible. But it is far from recommending either strained or artificial exegesis of any kind. Weare not bound to harmonize the alleged phenom- ena with the Bible doctrine; and if we cannot harmonize them save by strained or artificial exegesis they would be better left unharmonized. We are not bound, however, on the other hand, to believe that they are unharmonizable, | because we cannot harmonize them save by strained exege- sis. Our individual fertility in exegetical expedients, our indi- vidual insight into exegetical truth, our individual capacity of understanding are not the measure of truth. If we cannot harmonize without straining, let us leave unharmonized. It is not necessary for us to see the harmony that it should exist or even be recognized by us as existing. But it is neces- sary for us to believe the harmony to be possible and real, provided that we are not prepared to say that we clearly see that on any conceivable hypothesis (conceivable to us or conceivable to any other intelligent beings) the harmony is impossible — if the trustworthiness of the Biblical writers who teach us the doctrine of plenary inspiration is really safeguarded to us on evidence which we cannot disbelieve. In that case every unharmonized passage remains a case of difficult harmony and does not pass into the category of objections to plenary inspiration. It can pass into the cate- gory of objections only if we are prepared to affirm that we clearly see that it is, on any conceivable hypothesis of its meaning, clearly inconsistent with the Biblical doctrine of inspiration. In that case we would no doubt need to give up the Biblical doctrine of inspiration; but with it we must also give up our confidence in the Biblical writers as teachers of doctrine. And if we cannot reasonably give up this latter, neither can we reasonably allow that the phenomena ap- parently inconsistent with the former are real, or really in- consistent with it. And this is but to.say that we approach 220 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION the study of these phenomena with a presumption against their being such as will disprove the Biblical doctrine of inspiration — or, we may add (for this is but the same thing in different words), correct or modify the Biblical doctrine of inspiration — which is measured precisely by the amount and weight of the evidence which goes to show that the Bible is a trustworthy guide to doctrine. The importance of emphasizing these, as it would seem, very obvious principles, does not arise out of need for a very great presumption in order to overcome the difficulties arising from the ‘‘phenomena”’ of Scripture, as over against its doctrine of inspiration. Such difficulties are not specially numerous or intractable. Dr. Charles Hodge justly charac- terizes those that have been adduced by disbelievers in the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, as ‘‘for the most part trivial,’ ‘only apparent,’’ and marvelously few “‘of any real importance.’”’ They bear, he adds, about the same relation to the whole that a speck of sandstone detected here and there in the marble of the Parthenon would bear to that building.” They do not for the most part require explaining away, but only to be fairly understood in order to void them. They constitute no real strain upon faith, but when ap- proached in a candid spirit one is left continually marveling at the excessive fewness of those which do not, like ghosts, melt away from vision as soon as faced. Moreover, as every student of the history of exegesis and criticism knows, they are a progressively vanishing quantity. Those which seemed most obvious and intractable a generation or two ago, re- main to-day as only too readily forgotten warnings against 60 “Systematic Theology,” i. pp. 169, 170: We have purposely adduced this passage here to enable us to protest against the misuse of it, which, in the exigen- cies of the present controversy, has been made, as if Dr. Hodge was in this pas- sage admitting the reality of the alleged errors. The passage occurs in the reply to objections to the doctrine, not in the development of the doctrine itself, and is of the nature of an argumentum ad hominem. How far Dr. Hodge was from admitting the reality of error in the original Biblical text may be estimated from the frequency with which he asserts its freedom from error in the immediately preceding context — pp. 152, 155, 163 (no less than three times on this page), 165, 166, 169 (no less than five times). THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 221 the ineradicable and inordinate dogmatism of the oppon- ents of the inerrancy of the Bible, who over-ride continually every canon of historical and critical caution in their eager violence against the doctrine that they assail. What scorn they expressed of ‘‘apologists’”? who doubted whether Luke was certainly in error in assigning a ‘‘ pro-consul”’ to Cyprus, whether he was in error in making Lysanias a contemporary © tetrarch with the Herodian rulers, and the like. How easily - that scorn is forgotten as the progress of discovery has one by one vindicated the assertions of the Biblical historians. The matter has come to such a pass, indeed, in the progress of discovery, that there is a sense in which it may be said that the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible can now be based, with considerable confidence, on its observed ‘‘ pheno- mena.’ What marvelous accuracy is characteristic of its historians! Dr. Fisher, in a paper already referred to, invites his readers to read Archibald Forbes’ article in the Nineteenth Century) tor March) 91892) .0n 15) Napoleon’) the” Third) ata Sedan,’”’ that they may gain some idea of how the truth of history as to the salient facts may be preserved amid ‘‘hope- — less and bewildering discrepancies in regard to details,’’ in the reports of the most trustworthy eye-witnesses. The article is instructive in this regard. And it is instructive in another regard also. What a contrast exists between this mass of “hopeless and bewildering discrepancies in regard to details,’”’? among the accounts of a single important trans- action, written by careful and watchful eye-witnesses, who were on the ground for the precise purpose of gathering the facts for report, and who were seeking to give an exact and honest account. of the events which they witnessed, and the marvelous accuracy of the Biblical writers! If these ‘‘ hope- less and bewildering discrepancies”’ are consistent with the honesty and truthfulness and general trustworthiness of the uninspired writers, may it not be argued that the so much greater accuracy attained by the Biblical writers when describing not one event but the history of ages — and a history filled with pitfalls for the unwary — has something 222 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION more than honesty and truthfulness behind it, and warrants the attribution to them of something more than general trust- worthiness? And, if in the midst of this marvel of general accuracy there remain here and there a few difficulties as yet not fully explained in harmony with it, or if in the course of the historical vindication of it in general a rare difficulty (as in the case of some of the statements of Daniel) seems to increase in sharpness, are we to throw ourselves with desperate persistency into these ‘‘last ditches” and strive by our increased insistence upon the impregnability of them to conceal from men that the main army has been beaten from the field? Is it not more reasonable to suppose that these difficulties, too, will receive their explanation with advancing knowledge? And is it not the height of the un- reasonable to treat them like the Sibylline books as of ever- increasing importance in proportion to their decreasing number? The importance of keeping in mind that there is a presumption against the reality of these ‘‘inconsistent phenomena,” and that the presumption is of a weight measurable only by the weight of evidence which vindicates the general trustworthiness of the Bible as a teacher of doctrine, does not arise from the need of so great a presump- tion in order to overcome the weight of the alleged opposing facts. Those facts are not specially numerous, important or intractable, and they are, in the progress of research, a vanishing quantity. The importance of keeping in mind the principle in question arises rather from the importance of preserving a correct logical method. There are two ways of approaching the study of the inspiration of the Bible. One proceeds by obtaining first the doctrine of inspiration taught by the Bible as applicable to itself, and then testing this doctrine by the facts as to the Bible as ascertained by Biblical criticism and exegesis. This is good logical procedure; and in the presence of a vast mass of evidence for the general trust- worthiness of the Biblical writings as witnesses of doctrine, and for the appointment of their writers as teachers of . ; . f J ‘ f , ¥ THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 223 divine truth to men, and for the presence of the Holy Spirit with and in them aiding them in their teaching (in whatever degree and with whatever effect) — it would seem to be the only logical and proper mode of approaching the question. The other method proceeds by seeking the doctrine of inspiration in the first instance through a comprehensive induction from the facts as to the structure and contents of the Bible, as ascertained by critical and exegetical processes, treating all these facts as co-factors of the same rank for the induction. If in this process the facts of structure and the facts embedded in the record of Scripture — which are called, one-sidedly indeed but commonly, by the class of writers who adopt this procedure, ‘‘the phenomena” of Scripture — alone are considered, it would be difficult to arrive at a precise doctrine of inspiration, at the best: though, as we have already pointed out, a degree and kind of accuracy might be vindicated for the Scriptures which might lead us to suspect and to formulate as the best account of it, some divine assistance to the writers’ memory, mental processes and expression. If the Biblical facts and teaching are taken as co-factors in the induction, the procedure (as we have already pointed out) is liable to the danger of modifying the teaching by the facts without clear recognition of what is being done; the result of which would be the loss from observation of one main fact of errancy, viz., the inaccuracy of the teaching of the Scriptures as to their own inspiration. This would vitiate the whole result: and this vitiation of the result can be avoided only by ascertaining separately the teaching of Scripture as to its own inspiration, and by ac- counting the results of this ascertainment one of the facts of the induction. Then we are in a position to judge by the comparison of this fact with the other facts, whether this fact of teaching is in accord or in disaccord with those facts of performance. If it is in disaccord, then of course this dis- accord is the main factor in the case: the writers are con- victed of false teaching. If it is in accord, then, if the teaching is not proved by the accord, it is at least. left credible, and 224 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION may be believed with whatever confidence may be justified by the evidence which goes to show that these writers are trustworthy as deliverers of doctrine. And if nice and difh- cult questions arise in the comparison of the fact of teaching with the facts of performance, it is inevitable that the rela- tive weight of the evidence for the trustworthiness of the two sets of facts should be the deciding factor in determining the truth. This is as much as to say that the asserted facts as to performance must give way before the fact as to teach- ing, unless the evidence on which they are based as facts outweighs the evidence on which the teaching may be ac- credited as true. But this correction of the second method of procedure, by which alone it can be made logical in form or valid in result, amounts to nothing less than setting it aside altogether and reverting to the first method, according to which the teaching of Scripture is first to be determined, and then this teaching to be tested by the facts of per- formance. The importance of proceeding according to the true logical method may be illustrated by the observation that the conclusions actually arrived at by students of the sub- ject seem practically to depend on the logical method adopted. In fact, the difference here seems mainly a differ- ence in point of view. If we start from the Scripture doctrine of inspiration, we approach the phenomena with the ques- tion whether they will negative this doctrine, and we find none able to stand against it, commended to us as true, as it is, by the vast mass of evidence available to prove the trustworthiness of the Scriptural writers as teachers of doc- trine. But if we start simply with a collection of the phenom- ena, classifying and reasoning from them, whether alone or in conjunction with the Scriptural statements, it may easily happen with us, as it happened with certain of old, that meeting with some things hard to be understood, we may be ignorant and unstable enough to wrest them to our own intellectual destruction, and so approach the Biblical doctrine of inspiration set upon explaining it away. The THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 220 value of having the Scripture doctrine as a clue in our hands, is thus fairly illustrated by the ineradicable inability of the whole negative school to distinguish between difficulties and proved errors. If then we ask what we are to do with the numerous phenomena of Scripture inconsistent with verbal inspiration, which, so it is alleged, ‘‘criticism”’ has brought to light, we must reply: Challenge them in the name of the New Testament doctrine, and ask for their credentials. They have no credentials that can stand before that chal- lenge. No single error has as yet been demonstrated to occur in the Scriptures as given by God to His Church. And every critical student knows, as already pointed out, that the — progress of investigation has been a continuous process of removing difficulties, until scarcely a shred of the old list of ‘Biblical Errors’? remains to hide the nakedness of this moribund contention. To say that we do not wish to make claims ‘‘for which we have only this to urge, that they can- not be absolutely disproved,” is not to the point; what is to the point is to say, that we cannot set aside the presumption arising from the general trustworthiness of Scripture, that its doctrine of inspiration is true, by any array of contra- dictory facts, each one of which is fairly disputable. We must have indisputable errors — which are not forthcoming. The real problem brought before the Churches by the present debate ought now to be sufficiently plain. In its deepest essence it is whether we can still trust the Bible as a guide in doctrine, as a teacher of truth. It is not simply whether we can explain away the Biblical doctrine of in- spiration so as to allow us to take a different view from what has been common of the structure and characteristics of the Bible. Nor, on the other hand, is it simply whether we may easily explain the facts, established as facts, embedded in Scripture, consistently with the teaching of Scripture as to the nature, extent and effects of inspiration. It is specifically whether the results proclaimed by a special school of Biblical criticism — which are of such a character, as is now ad- mitted by all, as to necessitate, if adopted, a new view of the 226 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION Bible and of its inspiration — rest on a basis of evidence strong enough to meet and overcome the weight of evidence, whatever that may be in kind and amount, which goes to show that the Biblical writers are trustworthy as teachers of doctrine. If we answer this question in the affirmative, then no doubt we shall have not only a new view of the Bible and of its inspiration but also a whole new theology, because we must seek a new basis for doctrine. But if we answer it in the negative, we may possess our souls in patience and be assured that the Scriptures are as trustworthy witnesses to truth when they declare a doctrine of Inspiration as when they declare a doctrine of Incarnation or of Redemption, even though in the one case as in the other difficulties may remain, the full explanation of which is not yet clear to us. The real question, in a word, is not a new question but the perennial old question, whether the basis of our doctrine is to be what the Bible teaches, or what men teach. And this is a question which is to be settled on the old method, viz., on our estimate of the weight and value of the evidence which places the Bible in our hands as a teacher of doctrine. VII “GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” ~ ft “GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” THE phrase, ‘‘ Given by inspiration of God,” or ‘‘ Inspired of God,” occurs, as is well-known, but once in the New Testa- ment — in the classical passage, to wit, II Tim. ii. 16, which is rendered in the Authorized Version, ‘‘ All Scripture 7s given by inspiration of God,’ and by the Revised Version, ‘‘ Every Scripture inspired of God is, ete.’’ The Greek word repre- sented by it, and standing in this passage as an epithet or predicate of ‘‘Scripture’’ — @eémrvevaros — though occurring here only in the New Testament and found nowhere earlier in all Greek literature, has nevertheless not hitherto seemed of doubtful interpretation. Its form, its subsequent usage, the implications of parallel terms and of the analogy of faith, have combined with the suggestions of the context to assign to it a meaning which has been constantly attributed to it from the first records of Christian interpretation until yesterday. This unvarying understanding of the word is thus re- ported by the leading lexicographers: Schleusner ‘ New Test. Lexicon.’ Glasgow reprint of fourth Leipzig edition, 1824: ‘“Oedrvevatos, ov, 6, 4, afflatu divino actus, divino quodam spiritu afflatus, et partim de hominibus usurpatur, quorum sensus et sermones ad vim divinam referendi sunt, v. c. poétrs, faticidis, prophetis, auguri- bus, qui etiam eodidaxror vocantur, partim de 7zpsis rebus, notronibus, sermonibus, et scriptis, a Deo suggestis, et divino instructu natis, ex Beds et mvéw spiro, quod, ut Latinum afflo, de diis speciatim usurpatur, quorum vi homines interdum ita agi existimabantur, ut notiones rerum, antea ignotarum, insolito quodam modo conciperent atque mente vehementius concitata in sermones sublimiores et elegantiores erumperent. Conf. Cic. pro Archia c. 14; Virgil. Aen. 111, 358, vi, 50. In N. T. semel legitur I] Tim. i. 16, raca ypad7 Oedrvevoros omnis 1 From The Presbyterian and Reformed Review, v. XI, pp. 89-1380. 229 230 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION Scriptura divinitus inspirata, seu, que est originis divine. coll. IT Pet i. 21. Syrus.... scriptura, que per spiritum scripta est. Conjunxit nempe actionem scribendi cum actione inspirandi. Apud Plutarchum T. ix. p. 583. ed. Reiske. Oedrvevator dverpor sunt somnia a diis immissa.”’ Robinson ‘‘Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testa- ment,’’ new ed., New. York, 1872: ““Bedrvevatos, ov, 6, 7, Adj. (eds, rvew), God-inspired, inbreathed of God, II Tim. iii. 16 raca ypady Gedrvevoros. — Plut. de Placit. Philo- soph. 5. 2, rovs dvelpous tovs Peorvevarous. Phocylid. 121 ris bé beomvebarou codins Aoyos éotiv apioros. Comp. Jos. c. Ap. 1. 7 [at ypadai] rav TpopnTav Kata THy érlrvoray THY ad TOD Beod uabovTwy. Cic. pro Arch. 8, ‘poetam ... quasi divino quodam spiritu inflari.’”’ Thayer-Grimm “Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testa- ment,’ New York, 1887: ““Oedrvevotos, —ov, (Beds and rvéw), inspired by God: ypad@n, 1. e. the contents of Scripture, II Tim. ili. 16 [see was I. 1 c.]; codin, [pseudo-] Phocyl. 121; dvecpo., Plut. de plac. phil. 5, 2, 3 p. 904f.; [Orac. Sibyll. 5, 406 (cf. 308); Nonn. paraphr. ev. Ioan. 1, 99]. (€uavevoros also is used passively, but a&vevoros, ejrvevotos, tupimvevaTos, [dvadtarrvevoros |, actively [and dvcavarvevoros appar. either act. or pass.; cf. W. 96 (92) note ].)”’ Cremer “ Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek”’ ed. 2, E. T., Edinburgh, 1878: ““Oedrvevatos, prompted by God, divinely inspired. II Tim. ii. 16, taca ypady 6. In profane Greek it occurs only in Plut. de placit. philos. v. 2, dverpor OedrrvevaTor (kar’ avayKny yivovrat), opposed to dvorxoi. The formation of the word cannot be traced to the use of rvéw, but only of éumvéw. Cf. Xen. Hell. vil. 4, 32, trav dperjv Beds wev Eurrvevboas; Plat. Conv. 179 B, pevos Eurrvedoar éeviors TY Apwwv Tov Oedv; Hom. JI. xx. 110; Od. xix. 138. The simple verb is never used of divine action. How much the word corresponds with the Scriptural view is evident from Li Peveae 2 ives And the commentators generally will be found to speak no otherwise. The completeness of this lexical consent has recently, how- ever, been broken, and that by no less an authority than Prof. “GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 231 Hermann Cremer himself, the second edition of whose great “ Biblico-theological Lexicon”? we have just adduced as in entire agreement with the current view. The date of issue of this edition, in its original German form, was 1872. The third edition was delayed until 1883. In the interval Dr. Cremer was called upon to write the article on ‘‘Inspiration”’ in the second edition of Herzog’s “‘ Realencyklopedie” (Vol. vi, sub voc., pp. 746 seg.), which saw the light in 1880. In preparing this article he was led to take an entirely new view ” of the meaning of Oedmvevotros, according to which it defines Scrip- ture, in II Tim. ii. 16, not according to its origin, but accord- ing to its effect — not as “inspired of God,”’ but as ‘inspiring its readers.’’ The statement of his new view was transferred to the third edition of his ‘‘ Lexicon” (1883; E. T. as “‘Supple- ment,’’ 1886) very much in the form in which it appears in Herzog; and it has retained its place in the “‘ Lexicon,” with practically no alteration, ever since.*? As its expression in Herzog was the earliest, and therefore is historically the most important, and as the article in the “ Lexicon” is easily acces- sible in both German and English, and moreover does not 2 The novelty of the view in question must not be pressed beyond measure. It was a new view in the sense of the text, but, as we shall subsequently see, it was no invention of Prof. Cremer’s, but was derived by him from Ewald. 3 That is at least to the eighth edition (1895), which is the last we have seen. The chief differences between the Herzog and “Lexicon”’ articles are found at the beginning and end — the latter being fuller at the beginning and the former at the end. The ‘‘ Lexicon” article opens thus: ‘‘ Qeémvevaros, -ov, gifted with God’s Spirit, breathing the Divine Spirit (but not, as Weiss still maintains = inspired by God). The term belongs only to Hellenistic and Ecclesiastical Greek, and as peculiar thereto is connected with expressions belonging to the sphere of heathen prophecy and mysteries, deoddpos, Geoddopynros, Peopopobuevos, OenAaTOS, Oeoxivntos, Heo- déyuwv, OeodexTwp, Oeompdb7ros, Deduavris, Oeddpwv, Oeoppabuwv, Oeoppadrys, EvOeos, EvOovota- orns, et al., to which Hellenistic Greek adds two new words, Oeérvevoros and Geodidaxros, without, however, denoting what the others do — an ecstatic state.” The central core of the article then runs parallel in both forms. Nothing is added in the “Lexicon,” except (in the later editions) immediately after the quotations from Nonnus this single sentence: “‘This usage in Nonnus shows just that it is not to be taken as = inspiratus, inspired by God but as = filled with God’s Spirit and therefore radiating it.”’ Then follows immediately the next sentence, precisely as in Herzog, with which the “ Lexicon”’ article then runs parallel to the quotation from Origen, immediately after which it breaks off, hd REVELATION AND INSPIRATION essentially differ from what is said in Herzog, we shall quote here Dr. Cremer’s statement of the case in preference from Herzog. He says: “Tn theological usage, Inspiration denotes especially the influence of the Holy Spirit in the origination of the sacred Scriptures, by means of which they become the expression to us of the will of God, or the Word of God. The term comes from the Vulgate, which renders II Tim. i. 16 raca ypad Oedrvevotos, by omnis Scriptura divinitus inspirata. Whether the meaning of the Greek term is conveyed by this is at least. questionable. It clearly belongs only to Hellenistic and Christian Greek. The notion that it was used also in classical Greek of poets and seers (Huther in his Commentary) and to express what Cicero says in his pro Archia, p. 8, nemo vir magnus sine aliquo afflatu divino unquam fut, is certainly wrong. For dedrvevoros does not occur at all in classical Greek or in profane Greek as a whole. In the unique passage, Plutarch, de placit. phil., 5, 2 (Mor. 904, 2): rovs dvetpous rovs Oeorvevatovs Kat’ avayKny yiveoBar’ Tovs b€ duatko’s dverdwAoToLoumErns Yuxis To cvudepov aitf KTX., it is very probably to be ascribed to the copyist, and stands, as Wyttenbach conjectures, in the place of 6eo- qéumtous. Besides this it occurs in Pseudo-Phocylides, v. 121: rijs 6é Oeorvebatou codins doyos éotly &ptaotos — unless the whole line is, with Bernays, to be deleted as disturbing to the sense — as well as in the fifth book of the ‘‘Sibyllines,”’ v. 308: Kiyun & 4 pwpa obv vapacr Tots Jeorvevaro.s, and v. 406, ’AdAa yEeyar yeveripa Oedv ravTwv OeorvebaTwv "Ev Ouoiais éyéparpoy kal ayias éxatouBas. The Pseudo-Phocylides was, however, a Hellenist, and the author of the fifth book of the ‘‘Sibyl- lines’? was, most probably, an Egyptian Jew living in the time of Hadrian. On Christian ground we find it in II Tim. iti. 16, which is possibly the earliest written employment of it to which we can point. Wetstein, on this passage, adduces the sentence from the Vita Sabae 16 (in Cotelerii Monum.): épOace 7 Tod Xv xapite } TavTwr Ocorvebatuy, TavT@V XpLaTopopwy avTod auvodia wEXpL O dvoMaTwY, as Well as the desig- nation of Marcus Eremita as 6 @edrvevortos avnp. That the term has a passive meaning = ‘gifted with God’s Spirit,’ ‘divinely spirited,’ (not ‘inspired’ as Ewald rightly distinguishes “) may be taken as indubi- table from ‘Sibyll.’, v. 406 and the two passages last adduced. Never- 4 The contrast is between “‘géttlich begeistet’’ and ‘‘géttlich begeistert.”’ The reference to Ewald is given in the “Lexicon”: Jahrb. f. bibl. Wissenschaft, vii. 68. seq.; 1x. 91 seq. “GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 233 theless ypad7 Sedrvevoros does not seem easily capable of meaning ‘inspired by God’s Spirit’ in the sense of the Vulgate; when connected with such conceptions as ypa¢y here, vaua, ‘fountain,’ ‘Sibyll.’ v. 308, it would rather signify ‘breathing a divine spirit,’ in keeping with that ready transition of the passive into the active sense which we see in amvevotos, evrvevaotos, ‘ill- or well-breathed’ = ‘breathing ill or well.’ Compare Nonnus, paraphr. ev Jo., 1, 102: of odds a&xpov dvdpomenv Tadapnv ovx aévos cil redaooas, AVoar podvoy iwavra OeoTvEevaTOLO TedidoU, with v. 129: Bamritew drbporor kal amvebotoict doérpos. In harmony with this, it might be understood also in Phocyl. 121; the explanation, ‘Wisdom gifted with the Divine Spirit,’ at all events has in its favor the fact that @ed7vevoros is given the same sense as when it is connected with davjp, avOpwros. Certainly a transition to the sense, ‘breathed by God’ = ‘inspired by God’ seems difficult to account for, and it would fit, without forcing, only Phocyl. 121, while in II Tim. iii. 16, on the assumption of this sense, there would be required a not altogether easy metonyme. The sense ‘breathing God’s Spirit’ is moreover in keeping with the context, especially with the @pediwos rpds ddacKkadiav «7d. and the ra duvapeva ce codica, v. 15, as well as with the language employed elsewhere, e. g., in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where what the Scripture says is, as is well known, spoken of as the saying, the word of the Holy Ghost. Cf. also Acts xxviii. 25. Origen also, in Hom. 21 in Jerem., seems so to understand it: sacra volumina Spiritus pleni- tudinem spirant. Let it be added that the expression ‘breathed by God, inspired by God,’ though an outgrowth of the Biblical idea, certainly, so far as it is referred to the prophecy which does not arise out of the human will (II Pet. i. 21), yet can scarcely be applied to the whole of the rest of the sacred Scriptures — unless we are to find in II Tim. iil. 16 the expression of a conception of sacred Scripture similar to the Philonian. There is no doubt, however, that the Peshito understood it simply = ‘inspired by God’ — yet not differently than as in Matt. xxii. 43 we find: Aavié &v mvebware Aadet. It translates SM733 12 3N> 23 snansx, ‘for every Scripture which is written év rvedyarc’ — certainly keeping prominently in the foreground the inspiration of the writer. Similarly the Afthiopic renders: ‘And every Scripture is in the (by the) Spirit of the Lord and profits’; while the Arabic (deriving from the original text) reads: ‘And every Scripture which is divinely of spiratio, divinam sapiens auram.’ The rendering of the Peshito and the explanations of the Greek exegetes would certainly lend great weight to the divinitus inspirata, were not they explicable from the 234 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION dominant idea of the time — for which, it was thought, a suitable term was found in II Tim. i. 16, nowhere else used indeed and coined for the purpose — but which was itself more or less taken over from the Alexandrian Judaism, that is to say, from heathenism.”’ Here, we will perceive, is a carefully reasoned attempt to reverse the previous lexical consensus as to the meaning of this important word. We have not observed many traces of the influence of this new determination of its import. The present writer, after going over the ground under Prof. Cremer’s guidance, too hastily adopted his conclusion in a paper on ‘‘Paul’s Doctrine of the Old Testament” published in The Presbyterian Quarterly for July, 1899; and an adverse criti- cism of Dr. Cremer’s reasoning, from the pen of Prof. Dr. L. Schulze, of Rostock, appeared in the Theologisches Literatur- blaté for May 22, 1896 (xvi, 21, pp. 253, 254), in the course of a review of the eighth edition of the “ Lexicon.” But there has not met our eye as yet any really thorough reéxamination of the whole matter, such as a restatement of it lke Dr. Cremer’s might have been expected to provoke. The case surely warrants and indeed demands it. Dr. Cremer’s state- ment is more than a statement — it is an argument; and his conclusion is revolutionary, not indeed as to doctrine — for that rests on a broader basis than a single text or an isolated word — but as to the meaning borne by an outstanding New Testament term. It would seem that there is, then, no apol- ogy needed for undertaking a somewhat minute examination of the facts in the case under the guidance of Dr. Cremer’s very full and well-reasoned statement. It may conduce, in the end, to clearness of presentation if we begin somewhat in medias res by raising the question of the width of the usage of the word. Is it broadly a Greek word, or distinctively a Hellenistic word, or even a purely Christian word? . So far as appears from the usage as ascertained,’ it would > Of which the facts given by Cremer may for the present be taken as a fair conspectus, only adding that the word occurs not only in the editions of Plutarch, “ GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 239 seem to be post-Christian. Whether we should also call it Christian, coined possibly by Paul and used only in Christian circles, depends, in the present state of our knowledge, on the determination of two rather nice questions. One of these con- cerns the genuineness of the reading Oeorvetarous in the tract on “The Opinions of Philosophers” (v, 2, 3), which has come down to us among the works of Plutarch, as well as in its dependent document, the‘ History of Philosophy ”’ (106), trans- mitted among the works of Galen. The other concerns the character, whether Jewish or Jewish-Christian, of certain portions of the fifth book of the “Sibylline Oracles” and of the “Poem of Admonition,” once attributed to Phocylides but now long recognized to be the work of a late Alexandrian Jew,° — in both of which the word occurs. Dr. Cremer considers the reading to be falsein the Plutarchian tract, and thinks the fifth book of the “Sybillines’’ and the Pseudo-Phocylidian poem Jewish in origin. He therefore pronounces the word a Hellen- istic one. These decisions, however, can scarcely be looked upon as certain; and they will bear scrutiny, especially as they are accompanied with some incidental errors of statement. _ It would certainly require considerable boldness to decide with confidence upon the authorship of any given portion of the fifth book of the “ Sibyllines.” Friedlieb (whom Dr. Cremer follows) and Badt ascribe the whole book to a Jewish, but Alexandre, Reuss and Dechent to a Christian author; while others parcel it out variously between the two classes of sources — the most assigning the sections containing the word in question, however, to a Jewish author (Bleck, Liicke, Gfrorrer; Ewald, Hilgenfeld; Schiirer). Schiirer practically gives up in despair the problem of distributing the book to its several authors, and contents himself with saying that Jewish pieces preponderate and run in date from the first Christian century to Hadrian.’ In these circumstances surely “De plac. phil.,” v. 2, 3, but also in the printed text of the dependent document printed among Galen’s works under the title of ‘De hist. phil.,” 106. ® Cf. Mahaffy, “History of Greek Literature” (American ed.), 1. 188, note 1. 7 “The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ,” E. T., I, 1. 286, whence the account given in the text is derived. 236 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION a certain amount of doubt may fairly be thought to rest on the Jewish or Christian origin of our word in the Sibylline text. On the other hand, there seems to be pretty good posi- tive reason for supposing the Pseudo-Phocylidian poem to be in its entirety a Christian production. Its Jewish origin was still strenuously maintained by Bernays,® but its relation to the ‘‘ Teaching of the Apostles” has caused the subject to be reopened, and we think has brought it to at least a probable settlement in favor of Scaliger’s opinion that it is the work ‘‘avwvbpou Christiani.”’? In the face of this probability the brilliant and attractive, but not always entirely convincing conjectures by which Bernays removed some of the Christian traits from the text may now be neglected: and among them that by which he discarded the line containing our word. So far then as its occurrence in the fifth book of the “ Sibyllines”’ and in Pseudo-Phocylides is concerned, no compelling reason appears why the word may not be considered a distinctively Christian one: though it must at the same time be recognized that the sectionsin the fifth “Sibyl” in which it occurs are more probably Jewish than Christian. With reference to the Plutarchian passage something more needs to be said. ‘‘In the unique passage, Plutarch de plac. phil. 5, 2 (904 F.): trav dvetpwv robs wév Oeorvelbatous Kat’ avaykny yweo8ar’ Tovs 6€ duatkots dveldwdAorrovoupevns WuxXs TO ouudepov avTy KTd.”’ says Dr. Cremer, ‘‘it is with the greatest probability to be ascribed to the transcriber, in whose mind Gedrvevaros lay in the sense of the Vulgate rendering, divinitus unspirata, and it stands, as Wyttenbach conjectures, for Geonéurrous.”’ The remark concerning Wyttenbach is errone- ous — only one of a series of odd misstatements which have dogged the textual notes on this passage. Wyttenbach prints deomvevoTous in his text and accompanies it with this textual § See his ““Gesammelte Abhandlungen,” edited by Usener in 1885. Usener’s Preface should be also consulted. * So Harnack, ‘Theologische Literaturzeitung,” 1885, No. 7, p. 160: also, J. R. Harris, “‘ The Teaching of the Apostles and the Sibylline Books” (Cambridge, 1888): both give internal evidences of the Christian origin of the book. Cf. what we have said in The Andover Review for August, 1886, p. 219. “GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE ” 237 note: '° ‘‘deoréumrous reposuit editor Lips. ut ex Gal. et Mosc. At in neutro haec reperio. Sane non est quare compilatori ele- gantias obtrudamus.” Oeoméurrovs is therefore not Wytten- bach’s conjecture: Wyttenbach does not even accept it, and this has of late been made a reproach to him: " he ascribes it to “‘the Leipzig editor,” that is to Christian Daniel Beck, whose edition of this tract was published at Leipzig, in 1787. But Wyttenbach even more gravely misquotes Beck than he has himself been misquoted by Dr. Cremer. For Beck, who prints in his text: trav dvetowy rots ev OeorvevoTrous, annotates as follows: ‘“‘Olim: robs dveipous tots Peomvebatous — Reddidr textis elegantiorem lectionem, quae in M. et G. est. Qeorvebatous sapere Christianum librarvum videtur pro Beoréurrous.”’ * That is to say, Wyttenbach has transferred Beck’s note on Ta@v dvelpwy Tovs pev to OeorwéurTovs. It is this clause and not @eo- meuntous that Beck professes to have got out of the Moscow MS. and Galen: @eoréurrouvs he presents merely as a pure conjecture founded on the one consideration that eorvetc- tous has a flavor of Christian scribe about it; and he does not venture to put Oeoréurrous into the text. The odd thing is that Hutten follows Wyttenbach in his misrepresentation of Beck, writing in his note: ‘‘ Beck. dedit Oeoméumrovus ut elegan- tiorem lectionem e Mosq. et Gal. sumptam. In neutro se hoc reperisse W. notat, addens, non esse quare compilatori ele- gantias obtrudamus. Cors. e Gal. notat 7@v dveipwr rods pev Geomvevarous.’’ * Corsini does indeed so report, his note run- ning: ‘‘Paullo aliter’’ (i. e., from the ordinary text which he reprints from Stephens) ‘‘Galenus, 7@yv dveipwv tovs wey Oeo- mvevoTous, Somniorum ea quidem quae divinitus inspirata sint, etc.” “ But this is exactly what Beck says, and nothing other, 10 Oxford 8vo edition, 1795-1830, Vol. tv, 11. 650. 1 As by Diels in his ‘‘ Doxographi Graci,” p. 15: “‘fuat scilicet Oeoréurrous, quod sero intellectum est a Wyttenbachio in indice Plutarcheo. st Galenum inspexissit, ipsum illud Oeoréurrovs inventurus erat.” But Diels’ presentation of Galen was scarcely open to Wyttenbach’s inspection: and the editions then extant read Georveborouvs as Corsini rightly tells us. 12 “Plutarchi de Physicis Philosophorum Decretis,’”’ ed. Chr. Dan. Beckius, Leipzig, 1787. 13 Tiibingen, 1791-1804, Vol. XII (1800), p. 467. 14 *‘Plutarchi de Placitis Philosophorum Libb. v.”’ (Florentiz, 1750). 238 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION except that he adds that this form is also found in the Moscow MS. We must conclude that Hutten in looking at Beck’s note was preoccupied with Wyttenbach’s misreport of it. The upshot of the whole matter is that the reading deoréumtous was merely a conjecture of Beck’s, founded solely on his notion that deorveborous was a purely Christian term, and possessing no diplomatic basis whatsoever. Accordingly it has not found its way into the printed text of Plutarch: all editions, with one exception, down to and including those of Diibner-Dohner (Didot’s “ Bibliotheca’’) of 1856 and Bernar- dakis (Teubner’s series) of 1893 read Oeorvetvorous. A new face has been put on the matter, however, by the publication in 1879 of Diels’ ““ Doxographi Greci,”’ in which the whole class of ancient literature to which Plutarch’s“ De plac. philos.”’ belongs is subjected to a searching study, with a view to tracing the mutual relations of the several pieces and the sources from which they are constructed.’®? With this excur- sion into “‘higher criticism,’’ into which there enters a highly speculative element, that, despite the scientific thoroughness and admirable acuteness which give the whole an unusually attractive aspect, leaves some doubts in the mind of the sober reader,’ we have now happily little to do. Suffice it to say that Diels looks upon the Plutarchian tract as an epitome of a hypothetical Aétios, made about 150 A.D. and already used by Athenagoras (c. 177 A.D.): and on the Galenic tract as in its later portion an excerpt from the Plutarchian tract, made about A.D. 500.** In the course of his work, he has 145 A very clear account of Diels’ main conclusions is given by Franz Susemihl in his ‘‘Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur in der Alexandrinerzeit”’ (Leipzig, 1891-1892), il. pp. 250, 251, as well as in Bursian’s Jahresbericht for 1881 (VII, i. 289 seg.). A somewhat less flattering notice by Max Heinze appears in Bursian for 1880, p. 3 seg. Cf. Gerke, sub voc. ‘ Aétios,” in the new edition of Pauly’s “‘Real-Encyclopeedie”’ (Wissowa’s ed., 1894), I, i. 705 a. 16 Cf. the remarks of Max Heinze as above. 17 Tt would be possible to hold, of course, that Athenagoras used not the [Pseudo?-] Plutarch, but the hypothetical Aétios, of which Diels considers the former an excerpt: but Diels does not himself so judge: ‘‘anceps est quzestio utrum excerpserit Athenagoras Plutarchi Placita an maius illud opus, cuius illa est epitome. illud mihi probatur, hoc R. Volkmanno ‘Leben Plut.,’ i. 169. . . .”’ (p. 51). 18 The relation of the Pseudo-Galen to the [Pseudo?-] Plutarch Diels ex- “GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE ” 239 framed and printed a careful recension of the text of both tracts,’ and in both of them he reads at the place of interest to us, Georéumrrous.” Here for the first (and as yet only 7) time Georéurrouvs makes its appearance in the text of what we may, in deference to Diels’ findings and after the example of Gerke,” call, at least, the ‘‘[ Pseudo?-] Plutarch.’’? The key to the situation, with Diels, lies in the reading of the Pseudo- Galen: for as an excerpt from the [ Pseudo?-] Plutarch the Pseudo-Galen becomes a valuable witness to its text, and is treated in this case indeed as a determinative witness, inas- much as the whole MS. transmission of [| Pseudo?- | Plutarch, so far as known, reads here @eorvetarous. Editing Qeoréurrous in Pseudo-Galen, Diels edits it also, on that sole documentary ground, in [ Pseudo?-] Plutarch. That we may form some estimate of the likelihood of the new reading, we must, there- fore, form some estimate of its likelihood in the text of the Pseudo-Galen, as well as of the principles on which the text of the [ Pseudo?- | Plutarch is to be framed. Theeditions of Pseudo-Galen — including that of Kihn**— presses thus: ‘‘ Alter liber quo duce ex generali physicorum tanquam promulside ad largiorem dapam Galenus traducit est ‘Plutarchus de Placidis philosophorum physicis.’ Unde cum in prioribus pauca suspensa manu ut condimentum adspersa sint (c. 5, 20, 21), jam ac. 25 ad finem Plutarchus ita regnat, nihil aliud ut preterea adscitum esse appareat ... ergo fcedioribus Byzantiorum soloecismis amputatis hanc partem ad codicum fidem descripsimus, non nullis Plutarcheze emendationis auxilium, pluribus fortasse human perversitatis insigne testimonium”’ (pp. 252, 253). 19 Plutarch’s, pp. 267 seq.; Galen’s, pp. 595 seq. 20 Plutarch’s ‘‘Ep.,” v. 2, 3 (p. 416); Galen’s ‘‘ Hist. Phil.,” 106 (p. 640). 21 For Bernardakis reads @eorvebarous in his text (Teubner series, Plutarch’s ““Moralia,” v. 351), recognizing at the same time in a note that the reading of Galen is Oeoréurrous. 22 In Pauly’s “‘Real-Encyclopedie,”’ new ed., s. v. 23 It is not meant, of course, that Diels was the first to deny the tract to Plutarch. It has always been under suspicion. Wyttenbach, for example, rejects its Plutarchian claim with decision, and speaks of the tract in a tone of studied contempt, which is, indeed, reflected in the note already quoted from him, in the remark that we would not be justified in obtruding elegancies on a mere compiler. Cf. i. p. xli: “Porro, si quid hoc est, spurius liber utriusque nomine perperam fertur idem, Plutarchi qui dicitur De Philosophorum Placitis, Galeni Historia philosophie.”’ 24 Diels does not think highly of this portion of Kiihn’s edition: ‘‘ Kuehnius, qui prioribus sui corporis voluminibus manum subinde admovit quamvis parum 240 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION have hitherto read Oeorvévarous at our place, and from this we may possibly infer, that this is the reading of the common run of the MSS.” Diels constructs his text for this portion of the treatise from two kindred MSS. only, and records the readings of no others: as no variation is given upon our word, we may infer that these two MSS. at least agree in reading deonéurrrous. The former of them (Codex Laurentianus lxxiv, 3), of the twelfth or early thirteenth century, is described as transcribed ‘‘ with incredible corruptness”’; the latter (Codex Laurentianus lvili, 2), of the fifteenth century, as written more carefully: both represent a common very corrupt arche- type.” This archetype is reconstructed from the consent of the two, and where they differ the preference is given to the former. The text thus framed is confessedly corrupt: ”’ but though it must therefore be cautiously used, Diels considers it nevertheless a treasure house of the best readings for the [ Pseudo?-] Plutarch.* Especially in the latter part of the | Pseudo?-] Plutarch, where the help of Eusebius and the other ecloge fails, he thinks the case would often be desperate if we did not have the Pseudo-Galen. Three examples of the preservation of the right reading by it alone he gives us, one of them being our present passage, in which he follows, there- fore, the reading of the Pseudo-Galen against the entire MS. transmission. Diels considers the whole MS. transmission of the [Pseudo?-] Plutarch to take us back to an archetype of felicem, postremo urgenti typothetz ne inspectas quidem Charterianz plagulas typis discribendas tradidisse fertur. neque aliter explicari potest, quod editio ambitiose suscepta tam misere absoluta est”’ (p. 241, 2). 2° Though Diels informs us that the editors have made very little effort to ascertain the readings of the MSS. 6 “Ex archetypo haud vetusto eodemque mendosissimo quattuor exempla transcripta esse, ac fidelius quidem Laur. A, peritius sed interpolate Laur. B.” (p. 241). *7 Diels’ language is: ‘“dolendum sane est libri condicionem tam esse despera- tam ut etiam Plutarcheo archetypo comparato haud semel plane incertus hereas, quid sibi velit compilator” (p. 12). *8 “ Verum quamvis sit summa opus cautione ne ventosi nebulonis commenta pro sincera memoria amplexemur, inest tamen in Galeno optimarum lectionum peene intactus thesaurus” (p. 13). “GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 241 about A.D. 1000, and selects from it three codices as nearest to the archetype,” viz., A = Codex Mosquensis 339 (nunc 352) of saec. xi. or xii. (the same as the Mosq. quoted by Beck), collated by Matthaei and in places reéxamined for Diels by Voelkelius; B = Codex Marcianus 521 [xcii, 7], of saec. xiv, very closely related to A, collated by Diels himself; and C = Codex Parisinus 1672 of saec. xiii. ex. vel. xiv. in which is a copy of a corpus of Plutarch put together by Planudes or a contemporary. Through these three codices he reaches the original apograph which stands at the root of all the extant MSS., and from it, by the aid of the excerpts from the tract — in our passage the Pseudo-Galen’s only — he attains his text. His note on our reading runs thus: ‘‘@eoréumrous G cf. Arist. de divinat. 2 p. 463b 13: @eomvebatous (A) B C, cf. Proll. p. 15.” The parenthesis in which A is enclosed means that A is here cited from the silence of Matthaei’s collation. The reference to the Prolegomena is to the passage already al- luded to, in which the Galenic reading Oeoréurrovs is cited as one of three chosen instances of excellent readings preserved by Galen alone. The note there runs thus: ‘‘alteri loco chris- tiani librarii pius fraus nocuit. V. 2, 3, ‘Hpddidos tay dvetpwr Tous wep ODeomvEvGaTOUS Kat avaykny yiveBar. fuit scilicet deoréurrouvs, quod sero intellectum est a Wyttenbachio in in- dice Plutarcheo. si Galenum inspexisset, ipsum illud Oeoréy- mTous inventurus erat. simili fraude versus 121 Phocylideis a Byzantinis insertus est, ubi vox illa sacra [II Tim. iii. 16 | I. Bernaysio interpolationis originem manifesto aperuit.’’ 29 “Codices manu scripti quotquot noti sunt ex archetypo circa millesimum annum scripto deducti sunt” (p. 33). “duo autem sunt recensendi Plutarchi instrumenta ... unum recentius ex codicis petendum, inter quos A B C arche- typo proximos ex ceterorum turba segregavi...alterum genus est excerpto- Ure Di 42). 30 The readings of A are drawn from a collation of it with the Frankfort edition of 1620 published by C. F. Matthzi in his ‘‘ Lectiones Mosquenses.”’ In a number of important readings, the MS. has been reinspected for Diels by Voelkel with the result of throwing some doubt on the completeness of Matthei’s collation. Accordingly the MS. is cited in parenthesis whenever it is cited e silentio (see Diels, p. 33). 242 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION That is to say, the reading of the Pseudo-Galen is preferred to that of the MSS., because the reading deorvebarous explains itself as a pious fraud of a Christian scribe, giving a place in the text of Plutarch to “‘this sacred word’’ — another ex- ample of which procedure is to be found in Pseudo-Phoe. 121, extruded by Bernays from the text on this very ground. On this remark, as on a hinge, turns, it would seem, the decision of the whole question. The problem of the reading, indeed, may be set forth at this point in the form of this alternative: — Which is most likely, — that deorvebarous in the [ Pseudo?- | Plutarch originated in the pious fraud of a Christian scribe? — or that deoréumrovs in the text of Pseudo-Galen edited by Diels originated in the error of a careless scribe? When we posit the problem in this definite form we can- not feel at all certain that Diels’ solution is the right one. There is an @ priort unlikelihood in its way: deliberate cor- ruption of texts is relatively rare and not to be assumed without good reason. The parallel from the Pseudo-Phocy- lides fails, now that it seems probable that the whole poem is of Christian origin. There seems no motive for such a pious fraud as is charged: what gain could be had from intruding Geomvebatous into the Plutarchian text? and what special sanctity attached to this word? And if a sacrosanct charac- ter be attributed to the word, could it not be equally plausi- bly argued that it was therefore offensive to the Christian consciousness in this heathen connection, and was accord- ingly replaced by the less sacred 6eoréumrous, a word of heathen associations and indeed with a secondary sense not far from “extraordinary.” * Or if it be now said that it is not intended to charge conscious fraud, it is pertinent to ask what special associations Christians had with the word @eémvevaros in con- nection with dreams which would cause it to obtrude itself 1 The general use of @ed7eurros is illustrated in the Lexicons, by the citation of Arist., ‘‘ Ethic. Nic.,” i. 9, 3, where happiness is spoken of as Oe6reua70s in con- trast to the attainment of virtue in effort; Longinus, c. 34, where we read of OedmeuTTa Tia Swpjnuara in contrast with a4vOpHmwa; Themist, oP Or2ts18 in. A 7eiie where 6 9, veavios is found; Dion. Hal., T. 14. Liddell and Scott quote for the secondary sense of ‘‘extraordinary,”’ Longus, 3, 18; Artem., i. 7. “ GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 243 unconsciously in such a connection. One is almost equally at a loss to account for the intrusion of the word in the place of the simpler @cé7eurros, whether the intrusion be looked upon as deliberate or unconscious. On the other hand, the sub- stitution of Oed7eumros for bedrvevoTos in the text of Pseudo- Galen seems quite readily accountable, and that whether it be attributed to the original excerpter or to some later copy- ist of the tract. The term was associated with dreams in the minds of all acquainted with, the literature of the subject. Diels himself refers us to a passage in Aristotle where the collocation occurs,” and familiar passages from Philo * and the “Clementina’’*‘ will suggest themselves to others. ‘‘God- sent dreams’’ must have almost had the rank of a ‘‘ terminus technicus.’’ * Moreover the scribe had just written the word 8 Arist., de dtvinat, 2 p. 463° 13: ddws Sérel kai Trav &drAwY Chwy dverpwrrer TWA, OcdmeuTTTAa péev ovK av ein Ta &irvia, ovbe yeyove TOUTOV Xap, Satwovia WEVTOL: % Yap bots Satuovia, add’ od Gela. 33 Cf. Philo’s tract wepi rod Oeoméurrous eivar rods dvetpovs (Mangey., 1. 620). Its opening words run (Yonge’s translation, 11. 292): ‘‘The treatise before this one has contained our opinions as to those of ré&v déveipwy Oeoméurrwv classed in the first species ... which are defined as dreams in which the Deity sends the appearances beheld in dreams according to his own suggestion (ré Oeiov kara Thy idiay broBoNns Tas é&v Tots Urvos émiTeuTELY haytacias),’ whereas this later treatise is to discuss the second species of dreams, in which, “our mind being moved along with that of the universe, has seemed to be hurried away from itself and to be God-borne (Geodopetabar) so as to be capable of preapprehension and fore- knowledge of the future.”’ Cf. also § 22, ris Oeoméurrov davracias: § 33, Oeoréurrous éveipous: 11. § 1, T&v OcoméuTTwv dveipwv. The superficial parallelism of Philo with what is cited from Herophilus is close enough fully to account for a scribe harking back to Philo’s language — or even for the compiler of the Pseudo-Galen doing so. ‘34 “Clementine Homilies,” xvii. 15: “And Simon said: ‘If you maintain that apparitions do not always reveal the truth, yet for all that visions and dreams, being God-sent (ra dpauara kal Ta &iTMa OedreuTTA SvTa ob Webderar) do not speak falsely in regard to those matters which they wish to tell.’ And Peter said: ‘You were right in saying that, being God-sent, they do not speak falsely (Gedreurra ovra ov Webderac. But it is uncertain if he who sees has seen a God-sent dream (ei 6 ida Oedreurrov éwpaxev Sverpov).’’ What has come to the ‘‘Clementine Homilies” is surely already a Christian commonplace. % The immediately preceding paragraph in the Pseudo-Galen (§ 105), corre- sponding with [Pseudo?-] Plutarch, v. i. 1, 2.3 is edited by Diels thus: MAdarwv Kal of Zrarkol THY mavTiKnY elaayouvot Kai yap OedmEeuTTOV Elval, Step EoTiv évOEacTLKOV Kal Kata TO Decdratoyv THs Wuxs, Step éoTiv &OovaracTiKdv, Kal TO dve_poTUALKOY Kal TO d&aoTpovouKov Kal TO OpveocKoTLKOv. Revoparns Kat ’Emixovpos avaipodor Ti wavriKyy. 244 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION in the immediate context, and that not without close con- tiguity with the word dveipous,*® and may be readily supposed to have had it still lingering in his memory when he came to write the succeeding section. In fine, the intrusion into the text of Qeomvebarous, a rare word and one suggested to a dull or inattentive scribe by nothing, seems far less easy to ac- count for than the intrusion of #eoréumrous, a common word, an ordinary term in this connection, and a term suggested to the scribe by the immediate context. On transcriptional grounds certainly the former appears far more likely to be original — ‘‘proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua.”’ The decisive consideration against QOeorvevorovs in the mind of Diels — as it had been before him in the mind of Beck — seems to have been, indeed, nothing but the assump- tion that @edmvevaoros, as a distinctively Christian word, must argue a Christian hand, wherever it is found. That, however, in our present study is precisely the matter under investi- gation; and we must specially guard against permitting to intrude decisively into our premises what we propose to arrive at only by way of conclusion. Whether the word be genuine in the [| Pseudo?- | Plutarch or not, is just one of the most important factors in deciding whether it be a peculiarly Christian word or not. An instructive parallel may be found in the treatment accorded by some great authorities to the cognate word @edrvoos when it turned up in an inscription which seems obviously heathen.*” This inscription, inscribed (about the third century) on the face of a man-headed sphinx at Memphis, sings the praises of the sphinx’s beauty— IlvOaydpas 6€ udvoy 76 Outikoyv ovk eyxpiver. ’Apiororédns Kat Arxalapxos rods dvelpous elaayovow, abavatov yey THY Yux Hv ov vouifovres, Oeiov 5é Twos merexev. Surely the scribe or compiler who could transmute the section zept ywavrixfs in the [Pseudo?-]} Plutarch into this, with its intruded 6eé7eurrov before him and its allusion to Aristotle on dreams, might be credited without much rashness with the intrusion of Georéurrovs into the next section. 86 Cf. in general E. Thrimer. Hastings ERE, VI, p. 542. 37 It is duly recorded in Boeckh, ‘‘Corpus Inscript. Graec,’”’ 4700 b. (Add. iii). It is also printed by Kaibel, ‘‘Epigrammata Greca” (Berlin, 1878), p. 428, but not as a Christian inscription, but under the head of ‘‘Epigrammata dedicatoria: V. proscynemata.”’ “GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 245 among the items mentioned being that édizep[ 6 le tpdcwmov éxet 70 O € |6[ wv jour, while, below, the body is that of the lion, king of beasts. Boeckh comments on this: ‘‘ Vs. 4, 5, recte legit Letronnius, qui #ed7voov monet Christianum quidam sonare.”’ But why should Letronnius infer Christianity from the word deorrvoov, or Boeckh think it worth while to record the fact? Fortunately the heathen use of @ed7voos is beyond question.” It provides an excellent illustration, therefore, of the rash- ness of pronouncing words of this kind to be of Christian origin; and suggests the hesitancy with which we should ex- trude such a word from the text of [ Pseudo?-] Plutarch on the sole ground that it ‘‘tastes of a Christian scribe.”’ Surely if a heathen could invent and use the one word, he might equally well invent and use the other. And certainly it is a great mistake to look upon compounds with 6éos of this kind as in any sense exclusively Christian. The long list of heathen terms of this character given by Dr. Cremer, indeed, is itself enough to indicate the heathen facility for their coinage. Many such words, we may well believe, were found by Christians ready made to their hand, and had only to be adapted to their richer usage. What is more distinctively Christian is the parallel lst of words compounded with mvevua * or even xpiotds *° which were placed by their side, 38 Porphyry: ‘‘Ant. Nymph.,” 116: jyotvro yap mpooifavew 7@ bate Tas Wuxas Peorrvéw bvTt, as pnow 6 Novynvios: dca TodTO Aé€ywr Kal Tov TpoPHATny eipnkevar, éuheperGar érdvo Tod tdaTos Geod mvefua — a passage remarkable for containing an appeal to Moses (Gen. i. 5) by a heathen sage. ‘‘God-breathed water” is rendered by Hol- stenius: ‘“‘aquse que divino spiritu foveretur”’; by Gesnerus: “‘aque divinitus afflate”’; by Thomas Taylor: ‘‘water which is inspired by divinity.” Pisid. ““Hexeem.,”’ 1489: Oedrvovs axpdrns (quoted unverified from Hase-Dindorf’s Stephens). The Christian usage is illustrated by the following citations, taken from Sophocles: Hermes Tris., ‘‘Poem,” 17. 14: vfs &\ndeias; Anastasius of Sinai, Migne, 89. 1169 A: Those who do not have the love of God, “‘these, having a diabolical will and doing the desires of their flesh, rapacrodvra: &s movnpdv 76 be6- povov, Kal OedxTLoTOV, Kai Feduotov THs voepas Kal DeoxapaKtov nuay YuxX As Opodoyety év Xpist@, kal ri (worordy abris kal cvorarixiy Oedrvouv evépyeray.”’ 39 rpevpwatopopos and mrevyatrodopetcbat are pre-Christian Jewish words, already used in the LX X. (Hos. ix. 7, Zeph. iii. 4, Jer. ii. 24). Compounds of 6eés found in the LXX. are Oeéxriaros, I] Mace. vi. 23; Oecouaxetv, II Mace. vil. 19 [@eouwaxos Sm., Job xxvi. 5, et al.]; QeocéBaca, Gen. xx. 11 et al.; OeooeByjs Ex. xviil. 21 et al. 40 No derivative of xpicrés except xpioriaves is found in the New Testament. 246 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION such as [mvevyarckds |, mvevpwatokiyntos, mvevwatopopos, mvEv- Mareupopos; XplaToypados, xpLaTodldaKkTos, XpiaToKivynTos, XpLo- TOANTTOS, XpLaTopopos. As the reasons which have been determining with Diels in framing his text do not appear to us able to bear the weight laid on them, we naturally cannot adopt his text with any confidence. We doubt whether Oeoréumrous was the original reading in the Pseudo-Galen; we doubt whether, if that were the case, we should on that ground edit it in the [| Pseudo?- |] Plutarch. Our feeling is decided that the intrusion of Oeoréu- mrTous into a text which originally read Oeorvetarouvs would be far more easily accounted for than the reverse. One should be slow, of course, in rejecting a reading commended by such a scholarly tact as Diels’. But we may take courage from the fact that Bernardakis, with Diels’ text before him, continues to read Oeomvetotovs even though recognizing OeoréurTous as the reading of Galen. We think we must be permitted to hold the matter still at least sub judice and to profess our inability in the circumstances to look upon the word as a purely Christian term.*! It would be interesting to know what phraseology was used by Herophilus himself (born ec. B.C. 300) in the passage which the [ Pseudo?- | Plutarch excerpts. But this excerpt seems to be the only source of information we have in the matter,” and it would perhaps be overbold The compounds are purely Patristic. See Lightfoot’s note on Ignatius, Eph. ix; Phil. viii and the note in Migne’s “Pat. Grec.,”’ xi. 1861, at Adamantii ‘‘ Dialogus de recta fide,” § 5. 41 In the Hase-Dindorf Stephens, sub-voc. 6edmvevaros, the passage, from the [Pseudo?-] Plutarch is given within square brackets in this form: [‘‘Plut. Mor. p. 904F: rods dveipous Tovs Peordotrous |.’” What is to be made of this new reading, we do not know. One wonders whether it is a new conjecture or a misprint. No earlier reference is given for #ed7)ouros in the ‘“‘ Thesaurus”’ than Chrysostom: ‘‘Ita Jobum appellat Jo. Chrystom, Vol. iv, p. 297, Suicer.”’ Sophocles cites also Anast. Sinai. for the word: Hexawmeron XII ad fin. (Migne, 1076 D., Vol. 89): dws robro kataBadov & rats Puxals TpaTEeficav chv appwv ce bu’ ab’r&v rHv OedmovtoOv Katam\ov- TNOO. 42 So it may be confidently inferred from the summary of what we know of Herophilus given in Susemihl’s ‘‘ Geschichte der Griechisch. Literatur in d. Alex- andrinerzeit,” Vol. i, p. 792, or from Marx’s “ De Herophili . . . vita scriptis atque in medicina mentis”’ (G6ttingen, 1840), p. 38. In both cases Herophilus’ doctrine “GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 247 to suppose that the compiler had preserved the very words of the great physician. Were such a presumption deemed plausible we should be forced to carry back the first known use of the word 6edrvevoTos to the third century before Christ, but not to a provenance other than that Alexandria where its earliest use is otherwise traceable. Perhaps if we cannot call it a purely Christian term nor yet, with Dr. Cremer, an ex- clusively Hellenistic one, we may venture to think of it, provisionally at least, as belonging to Alexandrian Greek. Whether we should also say to late Alexandrian usage will possibly depend on the degree of likelihood we ascribe to its representing in the text of the [| Pseudo?- | Plutarch an actual usage of Herophilus. Our interest in determining the reading in the[ Pseudo?- | Plutarch culminates, of course, in its bearing on the meaning of #ed7vevotos. Prof. Schulze’s remark “ that no copyist would have substituted @edmvevatos here for Oed7eumros if linguistic usage had attached an active sense to the former, is no doubt quite just. This is admitted, indeed, by Dr. Cremer, who considers that the scribe to whom the substitution is thought to be due ‘‘had @eorvevaoros in his mind in the sense of the Vulgate rendering, divinitus inspirata”’; and only seeks to break the force of this admission by urging that the constant exegetical tradition which assigned this meaning to @eoz- vevoTos, rests on a misunderstanding of the word and reads into it a sense derived from Alexandrian-Jewish conceptions of inspiration. This appeal from a fixed later to an assumed original sense of the word possesses force, no doubt, only in case that traces of such an assumed original sense can be adduced; and meanwhile the presence of Sedmvevoros as a synonym of OedreurTos, even in the vocabulary of somewhat late scribes, must rank as one item in the evidence by which its meaning is to be ascertained. The whole face of the matter is changed, however, if @e6mvevaros be allowed to be probably of dreams is gathered solely from our excerpts — in the case of Susemihl from “‘Aétius”’ and in the case of Marx primarily from Galen with the support of Plutarch. 48° Loc. cit: 248 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION or even possibly genuine in the [ Pseudo?-]| Plutarch. In that case it could scarcely be thought to reflect the later Christian conception of inspiration, imposed on Paul’s term by thinkers affected by Philo’s doctrine of Scripture, but would stand as an independent bit of evidence as to the original meaning of the term. The clerical substitution of 0eé7eumros for it under the influence of literary associations would indeed, in this case too, only witness to a synonymy in the mind of the later scribes, who may well be supposed Christians and sharers in the common conception that Christians read into deorrvevoros. But the implications of the passage itself would be valid testimony to the original import of the term here used. And it would seem quite clear that the implications of the passage itself assign to it a passive sense, and that a sense not very remote from Oedmeumros. ‘‘ Herophilus says,”’ we read, ‘‘that theopneustic dreams” (‘‘dreams divinely in- spired,”’ Holland; ‘‘the dreams that are caused by divine instinct,’’ Goodwin), ‘‘come by necessity; but natural ones” (“natural dreams,’’ Holland; ‘‘dreams which have their origin from a natural cause,’”’ Goodwin), ‘‘from the soul’s imagery of what is fitting to it and its consequences,”’ etc.“ The contrast here between dreams that are Oedmvevoro. and those that are dvokot, the former of which are imposed on the soul while the latter are its own production, would seem certainly to imply that Oedmvevoros here imports something nearly akin to ‘‘God-given,” though naturally with impli- cations of its own as to the mode of the giving. It might be 44 In the common text the passage goes on to tell us of the dreams of mixed nature, i. e., presumably partly divine and partly human in origin. But the idea itself seems incongruous and the description does not very well fit the category. Diels, therefore, conjectures zvevyarcxobs in its place in which case there are three categories in the enumeration: Theopneustic, physical (i. e., the product of the Yuxn or lower nature), and pneumatic, or the product of the higher nature. The whole passage in Diels’ recension runs as follows: Aét. ‘Plac.,’ p. 416 (Pseudo- Plut., v. 2, 3): ‘Hpddidros r&v dvelpwy rods pty Oeowéumrous Kar’? avayKnvy yiveoOat, Tovds d€ drarkods dvedwrororoumerns Wux As TO TUUdepoy abrH Kal ro wavTws égduevor, rods dé ovyKpauarixods [rvevuarixols ? Diels, but this is scarcely the right correction, cf. Susemihl, “ Gesch. d. Gr. Lit.,’’ etc. i. 792] [éx rod abrouarou] kar’ eddAwv TpooTTWwoL, drav & Bovddueha Bréetwper, ds Exl TY Tas Epwuevas Opwvrwv & brvy ylwera.” “GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 249 possible to read it as designating dreams that are breathed into by God, filled with His inspiration and thus made the vehicles of His message, if we otherwise knew that such is the implication of the term. But nothing so subtle as this is suggested by the language as it stands, which appears to convey merely the simple notion that theopneustic dreams differ from all natural ones, whether the latter belong to the higher or lower elements of our nature, in that they come from God and are therefore not necessarily agreeable to the soul’s own image-making faculties or the product of its im- manent desires, but take form and bear a meaning imposed on them from without. There are few other instances of the occurrence of the word which have much chance of lying entirely outside the sphere of influence of its use in II Tim. iii. 16. In the first rank of these will certainly be placed the two instances in the fifth book of the “Sibyllines.”” The former of these occurs in a description of the city of Cyme, which is called the ‘‘foolish one,’ and described as cast down by wicked hands, “along with her theopneustic streams (vauact Jeorvebotors)’’ no longer to shout her boasts into the air but henceforth to remain ‘“‘dead amid the Cymean streams.” * The description skill- fully brings together all that we know of Cyme — adverts to her former greatness (‘‘the largest and noblest of all the AKolian cities,’ Strabo tells us,** and with Lesbos, ‘‘the me- tropolis”’ of all the rest), her reputation for folly (also ad- verted to and quaintly explained by Strabo), her present decadence, and her situation by running waters (a trait in- dicated also by her coins which show that there was a stream | 4 V. 308 seg. The full text, in Rzach’s edition, runs: Kiun 8’ pwp) civ vapyaow ols Beorvebarous "Ev raddpats abewy dvipGv dadixwy kal dbéouwv ’Pidbeto’ obk Ere riccov és aifépa phua mpodwoe: "AAG peved vexpy evi vayact KUpatovou, dam ed., 1707, p. 924). A good summary may be read in Smith’s “‘ Dictionary of - Greek and Roman Geography,” 1. 724, 725. 250 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION near by called Xanthus). It has been customary to under- stand by ‘‘thetheopneustic streams’’ mentioned, somestreams or fountains in the neighborhood known for the presump- tively oracular powers of their waters.*’ But there does not seem to have been preserved any notice of the existence of such oracular waters belonging to Cyme, and it makes against this assumption that the Cymeans, like the rest of the Io- nians and Avolians, were accustomed to resort for their oracles to the somewhat distant Branchide, in the south.*® It ap- pears much more likely, then, that the streams adverted to are natural streams and stand here only as part of the rather full and very exact description of the town — the reference being primarily to the Xanthus and to it as an element merely in the excellence of the situation. In that case ‘‘the- opneustic,”’ here too, would seem to mean something akin to ‘‘God-given,”’ or perhaps more broadly still ‘‘divine,’’ in the sense of specially excellent and desirable. The second Sibylline passage is a portion of a lament over the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem, wherein (we are told) gold, ‘‘deceiver of the world and souls,’’ was not wor- shiped, but men ‘‘adored in sacrifices, with pure and noble hecatombs, the great Father-God of all theopneustic things.” *® Here Alexandre translates, ‘‘Qui czlestis vitam pater om- nibus afflat’’; and Terry, ‘‘The God and mighty maker of all breathing things.’”’ °° And they seem supported in their general conception by the fact that we appear to have before us here only a slightly varied form of a formula met with elsewhere in the Sibyllines. Thus, as Rzach points out, we 47 Alexandre translates ‘‘plenis numine lymphis”; Dr. Terry, ‘‘inspired streams.” 48 So Herodotus observes (i, 157). 49 V. 408 seg. In Rzach’s text the lines run: Ob yap axndéotws aivet Oedv €& Adhavots yijs ovdé TETPHY Tolnoe Gods TEKTWY Tapa ToUTOLS, ov xpuddv Koopuou amatny Yuxady 7’ éseBaabn, a\Aa peyayv yevernpa Oedv TravTwy BeotveboTwv & Ovaias éyépaip’ aylats Kadais OéxarduBass. 50 In this second edition, Dr. Terry has altered this to “‘The Mighty Father, God of all things God-inspired”’: but this scarcely seems an improvement. “GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 251 have at iil, 278 * a condemnation of those who ‘‘neither fear nor desire to honor the deathless Father-God of all men,’’ ” and at iii, 604, essentially the same phrase is repeated. We seem, in a word, to meet here only with the Sibylline equiva- lent of the Homeric ‘‘zarip avipay re Oedv re.’’ Accordingly deomvevoTwv would seem to stand here in the stead of avO@pw7wv in the parallel passages, and merely to designate men, doubt- less with a reminiscence of Gen. ii. 7 — or perhaps, more widely, creatures, with a reminiscence of such a passage as Ps. civ. 30. In either event it is the creative power of God that is prominently in the mind of the writer as he writes down the word @eorvebotwyv, which is to him obviously the proper term for ‘‘creatures”’ in correlation with the yevérys eds. By the side of these Sibylline passages it is perhaps natural to place the line from the Pseudo-Phocylides, which marks the culmination of his praise of ‘‘speech”’ as the greatest gift of God — a weapon, he says, sharper than steel and more to be desired than the swiftness of birds, or the speed of horses, or the strength of lions, or the horns of bulls or the stings of bees — ‘‘for best [of all] is the speech of theopneustic wisdom,”’ so that the wise man is better than the strong one, and it is wisdom that rules alike in the field, the city and the sea. It is certainly simplest to understand “theopneustic wisdom” here shortly as ‘God-given wis- dom.’’ Undoubtedly it is itself the inspirer of the speech that manifests it, and we might manage to interpret the Oeo- mvevaTou as so designating it — ‘‘God-inspiring, God-breath- ing wisdom.’’ But this can scarcely be considered natural; and it equally undoubtedly les more closely at hand to interpret it as designating the source of the wisdom itself as lying in God. Wisdom is conceived as theopneustic, in a word, because wisdom itself is thought of as coming from God, as being the product of the divine activity — here 51 ob5é PoBnOels ABdvarov yeverfpa Oedvy TavTuv avOpwrwyr odk eres Tiuav. Rzach compares also Xenophon. ‘‘Fragm.,” 1. 1, M., e‘is Oeds & re Oeotor kai avOpwroor beéeytoTos* 8 Terry, Ed. 2: ‘‘the immortal Father, God of all mankind.” 252 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION designated, as so frequently in the Old Testament, as operat- ing as a breathing. A passage that has come to light since Dr. Cremer’s in- vestigation for this word-study was made, is of not dissimilar implication. It is found in the recently published “ Testament of Abraham,” a piece which in its original form, its editor, Prof. James, assigns to a second-century Egyptian Jewish- Christian, though it has suffered much medizvalization in the ninth or tenth century. It runs as follows: “‘ And Michael the archangel came immediately with a multitude of angels, and they took his precious soul (rv tiuiay ab’rod Yuxnv) in their hands in a God-woven cloth (ov.vddrm beovdavTd); and they prepared (éxyndevoav) the body of righteous Abraham unto the third day of his death with theopneustic ointments and herbs (uupiouact OeomvevoTows Kat apwuacw), and they buried him in the land of promise.’ Here @edrvevoros can hardly mean ‘‘God-breathing,’’ and ‘‘God-imbued”’ is not much better; and though we might be tempted to make it mean ‘‘divinely sweet’’ (a kind of derivative sense of ‘‘ God- redolent ointment’’; for tvém means also ‘‘to smell,’’ ‘‘to breathe of a thing’’), it is doubtless better to take it simply, as the parallel with deovdarv7G suggests, as importing some- thing not far from ‘‘God-given.”’ The cloth in which the soul was carried up to God and the unguents with which the body was prepared for burial were alike from God — were ‘“God-provided’”’; the words to designate this being chosen in each case with nice reference to their specific application, but covering to their writer little more specific meaning than the simple adjective ‘‘ divine”’ would have done. It is surely in this same category also that we are to place the verse of Nonnus which Dr. Cremer adduces as showing distinctly that the word @Oeérvevatos ‘‘is not to be taken as equivalent to inspiratus, inspired by God, but as rather meaning filled with God’s spirit and therefore radiating it.” Nonnus is paraphrasing John 1. 27 and makes the Baptist say: ““And he that cometh after me stands to-day in your 53 Recension A, chap. xx. p. 103, ed. James. “GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 293 midst, the tip of whose foot I am not worthy to approach with human hand though only to loose the thongs of the theopneustic sandal.’’ * Here surely the meaning is not di- rectly that our Lord’s sandal ‘‘radiated divinity,’ though certainly that may be one of the implications of the epithet, but more simply that it partook of the divinity of the divine Person whose property it was and in contact with whom it had been. All about Christ was divine. We should not go far wrong, therefore, if we interpreted Oedmvevaros here simply as “‘divine.”’ What is ‘‘divine”’ is no doubt ‘‘redolent of Divinity,” but it is so called not because of what it does, but because of what it is, and Nonnus’ mind when he called the sandal theopneustic was occupied rather with the divine influence that made the sandal what it was, viz., something more than a mere sandal, because it had touched those divine feet, than with any influence which the sandal was now cal- culated to exert. The later line which Dr. Cremer asks us to compare is not well calculated to modify this decision. In it John i. 33 is being paraphrased and the Baptist is con- trasting his mission with that of Christ who was to baptize with fire and the Holy Spirit & wupt Barrifwy kai rvevuartt). He, John, was sent, on the contrary, he says, to baptize the body of already regenerate men, and to do it in lavers that are destitute of both fire and the spirit — fireless and spirit- less (dmtpo.ce Kal amvetvotoroe \oeTpots).” It may indeed be possible to interpret, ‘‘unburning and unspiritualizing’’; but this does not seem the exact shade of thought the words are meant to express; though in any case the bearing of the phrase on the meaning of OedzvevoTos in the former line is of the slightest. Of the passages cited by Dr. Cremer there remain only the two he derives from Wetstein, in which 6edmvevaros ap- 54 Nonni Panopolitani ‘‘Paraphrasis in Joannem” (i. 27), in Migne, xliii. 753: Kai démicrepos éotts ixdver ZHmepov bpelwy péoos tararat, ov modds aKkpov, *Avdpouenv tadaunv ov aétds elute medAdooas, Adoat podvov tuavra Oeorvebatoro medidov. 55 Op. cit., p. 756. 254 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION pears as an epithet of certain men. To these should be added an inscription found at Bostra, in which a certain ecclesiastic is designated an apxvepels Bedrvevaros.*© Dr. Cremer himself thinks it clear that in such passages we have a passive sense, but interprets it as divinely spirited, ‘‘endued with the divine spirit,” rather than as ‘‘ divinely wnspired,’’ — in accordance with a distinction drawn by Ewald. Certainly it is difficult to understand the word in this connection as expressing simple origination by God; it was something more than the mere fact that God made them that was intended to be affirmed by calling Marcus and Antipater theopneustic men. Nor does it seem very natural to suppose that the intention was to designate them as precisely what we ordinarily mean by God-inspired men. It lies very near to suppose, therefore, that what it was intended to say about them, is that they were God-pervaded men, men in whom God dwelt in an especial manner; and this supposition may be thought to be supported by the parallel, in the passage from the “ Vita Sabee,’’ with yprorodépos. Of whom this ‘‘caravan of all the- opneustics, of all his christophers,’’ was composed, we have no means of determining, as Cotelerius’ ““ Monumenta,”’ from which Wetstein quoted the passage, is not accessible to us as we write. But the general sense of the word does not seem to be doubtful. Ignatius, (“ad Ephes.” ix.) tells us that all Christians constitute such a caravan, of ‘‘God-bearers and shrine-bearers, Christ-bearers, holy-thing-bearers, completely clothed in the commandments of Christ’’; and Zahn rightly comments that thus the Christians appear as the real ‘‘ év.Beor or évOovo.afovres, since they carry Christ and God in them- 66 It is given in Kaibel’s ‘‘Epigrammata Greca,” p. 477. Waddington sup- poses the person meant to be a certain Archbishop of Bostra, of date 457-474, an opponent of Origenism, who is commemorated in the Greek Church on June 13. The inscription runs as follows: Adéns] dpOordlyjov tapins kal brépyaxos éoOXés, apxvepeds Oedmvevatos édeiuaro Kaddos Guerpov "Avrimarp lols] xAvrounris aeOAopdpous per’ aySvas, KuL6 laivwy peyadws Oeountopa mapbevov ayvhv Mapiav mwodtupvov, aknpatov ay\addwpor: “GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 259 selves.’’ Particularly distinguished Christians might there- fore very properly be conceived in a supereminent sense as filled with God and bearers of Christ; and this might very appropriately be expressed by the double attribution of Oed7- vevoTos and xpiotodopos. Only it would seem to be necessary to understand that thus a secondary and derived sense would be attributed to Oedmvevoros, about which there should still cling a flavor of the idea of origination. The Oeorvevaros avnp is God-filled by the act of God Himself, that is to say, he is a God-endowed man, one made what he is by God’s own efficiency. No doubt in usage the sense might suffer still more attrition and come to suggest little more than ‘‘divine”’ — which is the epithet given to Marcus of Scetis ” by Ni- cephorus Callistus, (“H. E.,’’xi, 35) — 6 6etos Mapxos —that is to say ‘‘Saint Mark,” of which 6 Oedrvevotos Mapxos is doubt- less a very good synonym. The conception conveyed by 6e0- mvevoTos in this usage is thus something very distinct from that expressed by the Vulgate rendering, a Deo inspiratus, when taken strictly; that would seem to require, as Ewald suggests, some such form as @eéumvevotos; the theopneustic man is not the man ‘‘ breathed into by God.”’ But it is equally distinct from that expressed by the phrase, ‘‘pervaded by God,” used as an expression of the character of the man so described, without implication of the origin of this charac- teristic. What it would seem specifically to indicate is that he has been framed by God into something other than what he would have been without the divine action. The Christian as such is as much God-made as the man as such; and the distinguished Christian as such as much as the Christian at large; and the use of 6edmvevaros to describe the one or the other would appear to rest ultimately on this conception. He 57 Wetstein cites the expression as applied (where, he does not say) to “‘Marcus Aigyptus,” by which he means, we suppose, Marcus of Scetis, mentioned by Sozomen, H. E., vi. 29, and Nicephorus Callistus, H. E., xi. 35. Dr. Cremer transmutes the designation into Marcus Eremita, who is mentioned by Nice- phorus Callistus, H. E., xiv. 30, 54, and whose writings are collected in Migne, Ixy. 905 seg. The two are often identified, but are separately entered in Smith and Wace. 256 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION is, in what he has become, the product of the divine energy — of the divine breath. We cannot think it speaking too strongly, therefore, to say that there is discoverable in none of these passages the slightest trace of an active sense of Oedmvevaros, by which it should express the idea, for example, of ‘‘breathing the divine spirit,’? or even such a quasi-active idea as that of ‘redolent of God.’ Everywhere the word appears as purely passive and expresses production by God. And if we proceed from these passages to those much more numerous ones, in which it is, as in II Tim. iii. 16, an epithet or predicate of Seripture, and where therefore its signification may have been affected by the way in which Christian antiquity under- stood that passage, the impression of the passive sense of the word grows, of course, ever stronger. Though these passages may not be placed in the first rank of material for the deter- mination of the meaning of II Tim. ii. 16, by which they may have themselves been affected; it is manifestly improper to exclude them from consideration altogether. Even as part bearers of the exegetical tradition they are worthy of adduc- tion: and it is scarcely conceivable that the term should have been entirely voided of its current sense, had it a different current sense, by the influence of a single employment of it by Paul — especially if we are to believe that its natural meaning as used by him differed from that assigned it by subsequent writers. The patristic use of the term in connec- tion with Scripture has therefore its own weight, as evidence to the natural employment of the term by Greek-speaking Christian writers. This use of it does not seem to occur in the very earliest patristic literature: but from the time of Clement of Alex- andria the term Oedmvevotros appears as one of the most com- mon technical designations of Scripture. The following scat- tered instances, gathered at random, will serve to illustrate this use of it sufficiently for our purpose. Clement of Alex- andria: ‘“‘Strom.,” vii. 16, §101 (Klotz, ili. 286; Potter, 894), ‘‘ Accordingly those fall from their eminence who follow “GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 257 not God whither He leads; and He leads us in the inspired Scriptures (kata Tas OeomvetbaTous ypadas)’’; ‘“Strom.,’’ vii. 16, § 103 (Klotz, ii. 287; Potter, 896), ‘‘But they crave glory, as many as willfully sophisticate the things wedded to in- spired words (rots Oeomvevarots \oyous) handed down by the blessed apostles and teachers, by diverse arguments, oppos- ing human teaching to the divine tradition for the sake of establishing the heresy ’”’; ‘‘ Protrept.” 9, § 87 (Klotz., i. 73, 74; Potter 71), ‘‘ This teaching the apostle knows as truly divine (Oetav): ‘Thou, O Timothy,’ he says, ‘from a child hast known the holy letters which are able to make thee wise unto sal- vation, through faith that is in Jesus Christ’; for truly holy are those letters that sanctify and deify; and the writings or volumes that consist of these holy letters or syllables, the same apostle consequently calls ‘inspired by God, seeing that they are profitable for doctrine,’ etc.’’ Origen: “De Princi- piis,” iv, 8 (ef. also title to Book iv), ‘‘Having thus spoken briefly on the subject of the Divine inspiration of the Holy Seriptures (epi tod Oeorvebaorov THs Oelas ypadys)’’; Migne, (11, 1276), ‘‘The Jews and Christians agree as to the inspi- ration of the Holy Scripture (Oeiw yeypadbat mvevyati), but differ as to its interpretation”’; (12, 1084), ‘‘ Therefore the in- spired books (@eomvevora BiBdia) are twenty-two’’; (14, 1309), ‘“The inspired Scripture”’; (13, 664-5), ‘‘For we must seek the nourishment of the whole inspired Scripture (zaons Tis deomvevatov ypadjs); ‘Hom. xx. in Joshuam,” 2 (Robinson’s “Origen’s Philocalia,’’ p. 63), ‘‘Let us not then be stupefied by listening to Scriptures which we do not understand, but let it be to us according to our faith by which we believe that ‘every Scripture, seeing that it is inspired (@eémvevaros), is profitable ’: for you must needs admit one of two things re- garding these Scriptures, either that they are not inspired (Oeorvevorot) because they are not profitable, as the unbeliever takesit, or, asa believer, youmust admit that since they are in- spired (Oedmvevoror) they are profitable” ; “Selecta in Psalmos,” Ps. i, 3 (Migne XII, 11. 1080; De la Rue, 527), ‘‘ Being about to begin the interpretation of the Psalms, we prefix a very 258 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION excellent tradition handed down by the Hebrew * to us gen- erally concerning the whole divine Scripture (kafodtx@s repli mwaons Oetas ypadhs); for he affirmed that the whole inspired Scripture (r7v OAnv OedrvevoTov ypadny).... But if ‘the words of the Lord are pure words, fined silver, tried as the earth, purified seven times’ (Ps. il. 7) and the Holy Spirit has with all care dictated them accurately through the ministers of the word (uera maons axpiBelas EEnTaguEévws TO AYLOV TYEV UA broBEBAnKkev auTa dra T@V brnpeTav Tov dOyov), let the propor- tion never escape us, according to which the wisdom of God is first with respect to the whole theopneustic Scripture unto the last letter (xa@’ jv ért racav épOace ypadny 4 aodia Tov Oeod OedrvevaTov péxpl TOU TUXOVTOS YpadumaTos); and haply it was on this account that the Saviour said, ‘One iota or one letter shall not pass from the law till all be fulfilled’: and it is just so that the divine art in the creation of the world, not only appeared in the heaven and sun and moon and stars, interpenetrating their whole bodies, but also on earth did the same in paltry matter, so that not even the bodies of the least animals are disdained by the artificer. ... So we under- stand concerning all the things written by the inspiration (€& éxurvoias) of the Holy Spirit ... .’’ Athanasius (Migne, 27, 214): raca ypad) hudv T&v xpiotiavev Oedmvevatos éorw; (Migne, 25, 152): @edmvevatos Kadetrar; (Bened. Par., 1777, i. 767): “Saying also myself, ‘Since many have taken in hand to set forth to themselves the so-called apocrypha and to sing them with 774 OeomvetoTw ypadyj... .’”’ Cyrillus Hier., ‘ Catechet.,” iv. 33: ‘‘ This is taught us by ai Gedmvevarot ypadat of both the Old and New Covenant.” Basil, ‘‘On the Spirit,”’ xxi (ad fin.) : ‘‘ How can he who calls Scripture ‘God-inspired’ because it was written through the inspiration of the Spirit (6 BedrvevoToy THY ypadny ovoyatwr, b1a THs ériTvolas TOU aylou TvevuaTos cvyypadetoav), use the language of one who insults and belittles Him?” “Letters,” xvii. 3: ‘‘ All bread is nutri- 88 That is doubtless the Jewish teacher to whom he elsewhere refers, as, e. g., “De Principiis,”’ iv. 20 (Ante-Nicene Library, N. Y. ed., iv. 375), where the same general subject is discussed. “GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 259 tious, but it may be injurious to the sick; just so, all Scripture is God-inspired (7aca ypad? Oedrvevoros) and profitable”; (Migne, xxx. 81): ‘‘The words of God-inspired Scripture (oi THs Oeorvebatov ypadys Oyo) shall stand on the tribune of Christ’’; (Migne, 31, 744): ‘‘For every word or deed must be believed by the witness of the deorvetatouv ypadis, for the assurance of the good and the shame of the wicked’’; (Migne, 31, 1080): ‘‘ Apart from the witness of the Beorvetatwrv ypadav it is not possible, etc.’’; (Migne, 31, 1500): ‘‘ From what sort of Scripture are we to dispute at this time? IIavra 6udreua, Kal TavTa TVEVMATLKA’ TWaVTA DedTVEVOTA, Kal TWaVYTA WHEALLA”’; (Migne, 31, 1536): ‘‘On the interpretation and remarking of the names and terms 77s Oeomvelbotov ypadys’’; (Migne, 32, 228): weytorn 6€ 660s pos THY TOV KaOnKOVTOS EpEeoLY Kal 7 MEAETH Tov Beorvebatwy ypadav. Gregory Naz. (Migne, 35, 504): zepl Tov JeomvevaTou TaV aylwv ypadav ; (Migne, 36, 472, cf. 37, 589), Tept TaV Yynolwy BibNiwy THs Peomvevbatov ypadjs; (Migne, 36, 1589), rots OeorvevoTos ypadats. Gregory Nyssen, “ Against EKunom.,”’ vil. 1: ‘‘What we understand of the matter is as follows: ‘H Oedrvevaros ypadn, as the divine apostle calls it, is the Scripture of the Holy Spirit and its intention is the profit of men’’; (Migne, 44, 68), wovns THs GeorvevaoTou dradykns. Cyrillus Alex. (Migne, 68, 225), roduuepas kai rod\uTpOTWs 7 deomvevoTos ypady TIS Ola XpPLOTOV GWTHPlLas Tpoavamwvet Tous tirous. Neilos Abbas (Migne, 79, 141, cf. 529): ypad7 7) Ac6- mvevoTos ovdey Neyer Akalpws KTA. Theodoret of Cyrrhus (“‘ H. E.’’, 1. 6; Migne, ii. 920). John of Damascus (Migne, 85, 1041), etc. If, then, we are to make an induction from the use of the word, we shall find it bearing a uniformly passive significance, rooted in the idea of the creative breath of God. All that is, is God-breathed (“‘Sibyll.” v. 406) ; and accordingly the rivers that water the Cymean plain are God-breathed (“‘ Sibyll.” v. 308), the spices God provides for the dead body of His friend (“Testament of Abraham,” A. xx), and above all the wisdom He implants in the heart of man (Ps.-Phocyl. 121), the dreams He sends with a message from Him (Ps.-Plut., v. 2, 3) and 260 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION the Scriptures He gives His people (II Tim. i. 16). By an ex- tension of meaning by no means extreme, those whom He has greatly honored as His followers, whom He has created into His saints, are called God-breathed men (“ Vita Sabe” 16. Inscription in Kaibel) ; and even the sandals that have touched the feet of the Son of God are called God-breathed sandals (Nonnus), i. e., sandals that have been made by this divine contact something other than what they were: in both these cases, the word approaching more or less the broader mean- ing of ‘‘divine.’?’ Nowhere is there a trace of such an active significance as ‘‘God-breathing”’; and though in the appli- cation of the word to individual men and to our Lord’s sandals there may be an approach to the sense of ‘‘God- imbued,” this sense is attained by a pathway of development from the simple idea of God-given, God-determined, and the like. It is carefully to be observed, of course, that, although Dr. Cremer wishes to reach an active signification for the word in II Tim. 1. 16, he does not venture to assign an active sense to it immediately and directly, but approaches this goal through the medium of another signification. It is fully recognized by him that the word is originally passive in its meaning; it is merely contended that this original pas- sive sense is not ‘‘God-inspired,”’ but rather ‘‘ God-filled”’ —a sense which, it is pleaded, will readily pass into the active sense of ‘‘God-breathing,”’ after the analogy of such words as a&mrvevoTos, evrvevotos, Which from “‘ill- or well-breathed”’ came to mean ‘‘breathing ill or well.’’? What is filled with God will certainly be redolent of God, and what is redolent of God will certainly breathe out God. His reasons for pre- ferring the sense of ‘‘gifted or filled with God’s Spirit, di- vinely spirited,’’ to ‘‘God-inspired”’ for the original passive connotation of the word are drawn especially from what he thinks the unsuitableness of the latter idea to some of the connections in which the word is found. It is thought that, as an epithet of an individual man, as an epithet of Scripture or a fountain, and (in the later editions of the ‘‘ Lexicon”’ at “GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 261 least) especially, as an epithet of a sandal, ‘‘God-inspired”’ is incongruous, and something like ‘‘filled with God’s Spirit and therefore radiating it’’ is suggested. There is obviously some confusion here arising from the very natural contem- plation of the Vulgate translation ‘‘a Deo inspiratus’’ as the alternative rendering to what is proposed. There is, we may well admit, nothing in the word @edmvevoros to warrant the un- of the Vulgate rendering: this word speaks not of an “aspiration” by God, but of a “spiration’’ by God. The alternatives brought before us by Dr. Cremer’s presentation are not to be confined, therefore, to the two, ‘‘ Divinely spirited’’ and “‘ Divinely znspired,’’ but must be made to in- clude the three, ‘‘ Divinely spirited,” ‘‘ Divinely inspired,”’ and ‘‘ Divinely spired.’”’ The failure of Dr. Cremer to note this introduces, as we say, some confusion into his statement. We need only thus incidentally refer to it at this point, how- ever. It is of more immediate importance to observe that what we are naturally led to by Dr. Cremer’s remarks, is to an investigation of the natural meaning of the word dedmrvevo- tos under the laws of word-formation. In these remarks he is leaning rather heavily on the discussion of Ewald to which he refers us, and it will conduce to a better understanding of the matter if we will follow his directions and turn to our Ewald. Ewald, like Dr. Cremer, is dissatisfied with the current explanation of #eémvevoros and seeks to obtain for it an active sense, but is as little inclined as Dr. Cremer to assign an active sense directly to it. He rather criticises Winer,” for using language when speaking of @edmvevotos which would seem to imply that such compounds could really be active — as if ‘it were to be taken as a passive, although such words as eUmvevoTos, &mvevoTos are used actively.’’ He cannot admit that any compound of a word like -zvevaros can be really active in primary meaning, and explains that evmvevoTos means not so much “breathing good,” i. e., propelling some- thing good by the breath, as ‘‘endowed with good breath,”’ and expresses, therefore, just like amvevoros, ‘“‘breathless,”’ 59 “Jahrb. f. bibl. Wissenschaft,” vu. 114. 262 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION i. e., ‘‘dead,”’ a subjective condition, and is therefore to be compared with a half-passive verb, as indeed the word-form suggests. Just so, Jedmvevoros, he says, is not so much our ‘‘God-breathing”’ as our ‘‘full of God’s Spirit,” “‘permeated and animated by God’s Spirit.’”’ Thus, he supposes deomvevoTos to mean “blown through by God” (Gottdurchwehet, ‘‘ God- pervaded”’), rather than “blown into by God” (Gotteinge- wehet, ‘‘God-inspired’’) as the Vulgate (¢nspiratus) and Luther (eingegeben) render it — an idea which, as he rightly says, would have required something like Oeéumvevaros © (or we may say OeeiomvevoTos) * to express it. At first he seems to have thought that by this explanation he had removed all implication as to the origination of Scrip- 60 In a note on p. 89, Ewald adds as to Oeéurvevoros that it is certainly true that such compounds are not common, and that this particular one does not occur: but that they are possible is shown by the occurrence of such examples as @eo- avvaxtos, JeokatacKkevacros, in which the preposition occurs: and dem Laute nach, the formation is like 6e4\aros. There seems to be no reason, we may add, why, if it were needed, we should not have had a Oeéurvevaros by the side of Gedmvevaros, just as by the side of rvevxaroddpos we have mvevuaréudopos (“‘ Etymologicum Magnum,” 677, 28; John of Damascus, in Migne, 96, 837c.: "Hoe mpodyrav mvevparéupopov ora). 61 For not even Oeeurvéw would properly signify ‘‘breathe into” but rather “breathe in,” “inhale.”’ It is by a somewhat illogical extension of meaning that the verb and its derivatives (€uavevots, éurvora) are used in the theological sense of “inspiration,” in which sense they do not occur, however, either in the LXX. or the New Testament. In the LXX. éumvevoirs means a “blast,” a “blowing” (Ps. XV. (xvill.) 15; cf. the participle éurvéwy, Acts ix. 1); éurvous, “living,” “‘ breathing” (II Mace. vii. 5, xiv. 45); and the participle wav éurvéov, ‘every living, breathing thing” (Deut. xx. 16; Josh. x. 28, 30, 35, 37, 39, 40; xi. 14; Wisd. xv. 11). "Evorvéw is properly used by the classics in the sense of ‘“‘breathing into,” ‘‘inspiring”’: it is not found in itself or derivatives in LX X. or the New Testament — though it occurs in Aq. at Ex. i. 5. How easily and in what a full sense, however, éuzvéw is used by ecclesiastical writers for “‘inspire’’ may be noted from such examples as Ign. “ad Mag.,” 8: “For the divine (edraroc) prophets lived after Christ; for this cause also they were persecuted, being inspired by His grace (éuveduevor bd ris xapiros avrod) for the full persuasion of those that are disobedient.” Theoph. of Antioch, “ad. Autol.,” ii. 9: “Butt he men of God, zvevuaroddpa of the Holy Ghost, and becoming prophets iz’ airod rod eod éurvevobevres Kai codicbevres, be- came Geodidaxro. and holy and righteous.”’ The most natural term for ‘‘inspired”’ in classic Greek one would be apt to think, would be é@eos (& ous), with 76 évOeov for “inspiration”; and after it, participial or other derivatives of &ove.dtw: but both eiorvéw and éumvéw were used for the “inspiration” that consisted of ‘breathing into’’ even in profane Greek. “GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 263 ture from the epithet: it expresses, he said, what Scripture is — viz., pervaded by God, full of His Spirit — without the least hint as to how it got to be so. He afterwards came to see this was going too far, and contented himself with saying that though certainly implicating a doctrine of the origin of the Scriptures, the term throws the emphasis on its quality.® He now, therefore, expressed himself thus: ‘It is certainly undeniable that the new expression Oedrvevo7os, I] Tim. 111. 16, is intended to say very much what Philo meant, but did not yet know how to express sharply by means of such a com- pressed and strong term. For @edmvevoros (like etrvevotos, ac- curately, ‘well-breathed’) must mean ‘God-breathed’ or ‘God-animated’ (Gottbeathmet, or Gottbegeistert), and, in ac- cordance with the genius of the compressed, clear Greek compounds, this includes in itself the implication that the words are spoken by the Spirit of God, or by those who are inspired by God,’ — a thing which, he adds, is repeatedly asserted in Scripture to have been the case, as, for example, in II Pet. i. 21. On another occasion,®™ he substantially repeats this, objecting to the translations inspiratus, eingegeben, as introducing an idea not lying in the word and liable to mis- lead, affirming a general but not perfect accord of the idea involved in it with Philo’s conception of Scripture, and in- sisting on the incomplete parallelism between the term and our dogmatic idea of ‘‘inspiration.” ‘‘This term,” he says, ‘“no doubt expresses only what is everywhere presupposed by Philo as to Scripture and repeatedly said by him in other words; still his usage is not yet so far developed; and it is accordant with this that in the New Testament, also, it is only in one of the latest books that the word is thus used. This author was possibly the first who so applied it.” Again, Geomvevotos ‘‘means, purely passively, God-spirited (Gottbe- getstet), or full of God’s Spirit, not at all, when taken strictly, what we call discriminatingly God-inspired (Gottbegevstert) or filled with God’s inspiration (Begeisterung), but in itself only, pple oo: 63 “Geschichte des Volkes Israel,” vi. 245,'note. 64 “Jahrb. f. bibl. Wissenschaft,” ix. 91. 264 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION in a quite general sense, God-breathed, God-inspired (Gott- beathmet, Gottbegeistert), or filled with the divine spirit. In itself, therefore, it permits the most divers applications and we must appeal purely to the context in each instance in order to obtain its exact meaning.” Here we have in full what Dr. Cremer says so much more briefly in his articles. In order to orient ourselves with refer- ence to it, we shall need to consider in turn the two points that are emphasized. These are, first, the passive form and sense of the word; and, secondly, the particular passive sense attributed to it, to wit: Gottbegeistet rather than Gottbegevstert, ‘‘endowed with God’s Spirit,”’ rather than “‘inspired by God.” On the former point there would seem to be little room for difference of opinion. We still read in Schmiedel’s Winer: ‘‘Verbals in -ros correspond sometimes to Latin participles in -tus, sometimes to adjectives in -bilis”’; and then in a note (despite Ewald’s long-ago protest), after the adduction of authorities, ‘‘@edrvevotos, nspiratus (II Tim. ui. 16; passive like éumvevotos, while evrvevotos, dtvevoTos are active).’’® To these Thayer-Grimm adds also wupimvevotos and évod.arvevo- Tos as used actively and dvoavamvevaoros as used apparently either actively or passively. Ewald, however, has already taught us to look beneath the ‘‘active” usage of elmvevoTos and amvevoros for the “‘half-passive”’ background, and it may equally be found in the other cases; in each instance it is a state or condition at least, that is described by the word, and it is often only a matter of point of view whether we catch the passive conception or not. For example, we shall look upon dvadLamvevoTos as active or passive according as we think of the object it describes as a “slowly evaporating” or a ‘‘slowly evaporated”’ object — that is, as an object that only slowly evaporates, or as an object that can be only with difficulty evaporated. We may prefer the former expression; the Greeks preferred the latter: that is all. We fully accord 6 Sec. 16, 2, p. 1385. Cf. Thayer’s Winer, p. 96; Moulton’s, p. 120. Also Thayer’s Buttmann, p. 190. The best literature of the subject will be found adduced by Winer. “GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE ” 265 with Prof. Schulze, therefore, when he says that all words compounded with -rvevoros have the passive sense as their original implication, and the active sense, when it occurs, is always a derived one. On this showing it cannot be con- tended, of course, that 0eorvevoTos may not have, like some of its relatives, developed an active or quasi-active meaning, but a passive sense is certainly implied as its original one, and a certain presumption is thus raised for the originality of the passive sense which is found to attach to it in its most ordinary usage.® This conclusion finds confirmation in a consideration which has its bearing on the second point also — the con- sideration that compounds of verbals in -ros with Oeds nor- mally express an effect produced by God’s activity. This is briefly adverted to by Prof. Schulze, who urges that ‘‘the ‘closely related Oeodidaxros, and many, or rather most, of the compounds of @eo- in the Fathers, bear the passive sense,”’ adducing in illustration: 6edGXacros, BeoBobAnTos, BeoyévyTos, deoy patos, Jedd unTtos, BeddoTos, Peodwpntos, BedOperTos, OeoxivyTos, OeoK\nTtos, Oeotroinros, BeopopynTtos, BedxpynaTos, PedoxpioTros. The statement may be much broadened and made to cover the whole body of such compounds occurring in Greek literature. Let any one run his eye down the list of compounds of 6eds with verbals in -ros as they occur on the pages of any Greek Lexicon, and he will be quickly convinced that the notion normally expressed is that of a result produced by God. The sixth edition of Liddell and Scott happens to be the one lying at hand as we write; and in it we find entered (if we have 66 Compounds of -rvevoros do not appear to be very common. Liddell and Scott (ed. 6) do not record either évé- or 6:4- or éri- or even ed-; though the cognates are recorded, and further compounds presupposing them. The rare word eirvevaros might equally well express ‘‘breathing-well”’ quasi-actively, or ‘‘well-aired”’ passively; just as &vevoros is actually used in the two senses of “breathless” and ““unventilated’”’: and a similar double sense belongs to évaavamvevoros, "Eumvevotos does not seem to occur in a higher sense; its only recorded usage is illustrated by Athenaeus, iv. 174, where it is connected with dpyava in the sense of wind-instru- ments: its cognates are used of “inspiration.’’ Only wupimvevoros = rupimvoos = “‘fire-breathing”’ is distinctively active in usage: cf. avamvevorus, poetic for dmveve- tos = ‘‘breathless.”’ 266 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION counted aright), some eighty-six compounds of this type, of which, at least, seventy-five bear quite simply the sense of a result produced by God. We adjoin the list: Oenaros, Geo- Baoraxtos, Ge08dvaTOs, BeoBovAnTos, GeoSpaGevtos, Beoyévnros, Oed- yvwotos, Jedypamros, GeodéxTos, PeodtdaxrTos, Ged unros, PeoddunrTos, GeddoTos, Beodwpntos, OedbeTos, PeoxaTapatos, PeokaTacKevaoTos, BeoxéNevoTos, Oeoxivntos, PedknTOS, OeOKUNTOs, OedKpavTos, BedKxpt- Tos, OedxtnTos, OedKTioTos, OedKTLTOS, OeoKvBEpyvynTos, OeoxvpwrTos, Oed\exTos, GedAn7TOos, PeouakapioTtos, Heouiontos, BedpvaTos, Oed- mataTos, Jeomapadoros, Geomapaxtos, GeoreuTTos, Oeomépatos, Ge0- wAnKTos, GedrovTOs, Georoinros, Peorovntos, GeompdadeKTos, Bed7r- TuaTos, Oedpyntos, Oedppyntos, Béopros, OedadoTos, OedaTpEeT Tos, Geootnpiktos, Beoorvynros, BeoovAEKTOS, OeoovuduTos, Peoovvak- Tos, OedavTos, Beoogmpay.atos, GedowaTos, PeoTépatos, GEdTEVKTOS, Georiunros, OedTpertos, GeotiTwtos, GeovrédaTaTos, Beoidavtos, Oc6- davtos, Geopbeyxtos, Geodirntos, Pedpo.tos, BeohopynTos, Peodpovpn- Tos, JeoptaxTos, Peoxo\wrTos, JedxpynoTos, Pedxpioros. The eleven instances that remain, as in some sort exceptions to the gen- eral rule, include cases of different kinds. In some of them the verbal is derived from a deponent verb and is therefore passive only in form, but naturally bears an active sense: such are OeodnAnros (God-injuring), @eouiunros (God-imitat- ing), Oedcerros (feared as God). Others may possibly be really passives, although we prefer an active form in English to express the idea involved: such are, perhaps, #edxduTos (‘‘ God- heard,’’ where we should rather say, ‘‘calling on the gods”’’), Beoxo\AnTos (“‘God-joined,’? where we should rather say, ‘united with God’’), edmpemros (‘‘ God-distinguished,”’ where we should rather say, ‘‘meet for a god’’). There remain only these five: deaitynros (‘‘ obtained from God’’), OedOuTos (‘‘ offered to the gods’’), Geoppaaros and the more usual Oedpporos (‘‘ flow- ing from the gods’’), and deoxwpyros (‘‘containing God’’). In these the relation of #eds to the verbal idea is clearly not that of producing cause to the expressed result, but some other: perhaps what we need to recognize is that the verbal here involves a relation which we ordinarily express by a prepo- sition, and that the sense would be suggested by some such “GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 267 phrases as ‘* God-asked-of,”’ ‘‘ God-offered-to,”’ ‘‘ God-flowed- from,” “‘God-made-room-for.”’ In any event, these few ex- ceptional cases cannot avail to set aside the normal sense of this compound, as exhibited in the immense majority of the cases of its occurrence. If analogy is to count for anything, its whole weight is thrown thus in favor of the interpretation which sees in #edrvevoros, quite simply, the sense of ‘‘God- breathed,’’ i. e., produced by God’s creative breath. If we ask, then, what account is to be given of Ewald’s and, after him, Prof. Cremer’s wish, to take it in the specific . sense of ‘‘God-spirited,”’ that is, ‘‘imbued with the Spirit of God,’’ we may easily feel ourselves somewhat puzzled to return a satisfactory answer. We should doubtless not go far wrong in saying, as already suggested, that their action is proximately due to their not having brought all the alter- natives fairly before them. They seem to have worked, as we have said, on the hypothesis that the only choice lay between the Vulgate rendering, ‘‘ God-inspired,’’ and their own ‘‘ God- imbued.’’ Ewald, as we have seen, argues (and as we think rightly) that ‘‘God-inspired”’ is scarcely consonant with the word-form, but would have required something like Oeéu- mvevoTos. Similarly we may observe Dr. Cremer in the second edition of his ‘‘ Lexicon”’ (when he was arguing for the current conception) saying that ‘‘the formation of the word cannot be traced to the use of rvéw, but only of éumvéw,”’ and sup- porting this by the remark that ‘‘the simple verb is never used of divine action’’; and throughout his later article, operating on the presumption that the rendering ‘‘znspired”’ solely will come into comparison with his own newly pro- posed one. All this seems to be due, not merely to the traditional rendering of the word itself, but also to the con- ception of the nature of the divine action commonly ex- pressed by the term, ‘“‘inspiration,’’ and indeed to the doc- trine of Holy Scripture, dominant in the minds of these scholars.” If we will shake ourselves loose from these obscur- 67 Two fundamental ideas, lying at the root of all their thinking of Scripture, seem to have colored somewhat their dealing with this term: the old Lutheran 268 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION ing prepossessions and consider the term without preoccu- pation of mind, it would seem that the simple rendering ‘‘God-breathed’’ would commend itself powerfully to us: certainly not, withthe Vulgateand Luther, ‘‘ God-znbreathed,”’ since the preposition ‘‘in’”’ is wholly lacking in the term and is not demanded for the sense in any of its applications; but equally certainly not ‘‘God-imbued”’ or ‘‘God-infused”’ in the sense of imbued or infused with (rather than by) God, since, according to all analogy, as well as according to the simplest construction of the compound, the relation of ‘““God”’ to the act expressed is that of ‘‘agent.’’ On any other supposition than that this third and assuredly the most natural alternative, ‘‘God-breathed,’’ was not before their minds, the whole treatment of Ewald and Dr. Cremer will remain somewhat inexplicable. Why otherwise, for example, should the latter have re- marked, that the ‘‘word must be traced to the use of éumvéw and not to the simple verb mvéw?’’ Dr. Cremer, it is true, adds, as we have said, that the simple verb is never used of divine action. In any case, however, this statement is over- drawn. Not only is tvéw applied in a physical sense to God in such passages of the LXX. as Ps. exlvii. 7 (18) (rveboer 76 mvedua avrov) and Isa. xl. 24, and of Symmachus and Theo- dotion as Isa. xl. 7; and not only in the earliest Fathers is it used of the greatest gifts of Christ the Divine Lord, in such passages as Ign., “‘ Eph.” 17: — “For this cause the Lord re- ceived ointment on His head, that He might breathe incor- ruption upon His Church (iva rvén 7H ExkAnoia adbapciar)’’; but in what may be rightly called the normative passage, doctrine of the Word of God, and the modern rationalizing doctrine of the nature of the Divine influence exerted in the production of Scripture. On account of the latter point of view they seem determined not to find in Scripture itself any declaration that will shut them up to ‘‘a Philonian conception of Scripture” as the Oracles of God — the very utterances of the Most High. By the former they seem predisposed to discover in it declarations of the wonder-working power of the Word. The reader cannot avoid becoming aware of the influence of both these dogmatic conceptions in both Ewald’s and Cremer’s dealing with @eérvevaros. But it is not necessary to lay stress on this. “GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE ” 269 Gen. il. 7, it is practically justified, in its application to God, by the LX X. use of avon in the objective clause, and actually employed for the verb itself by both Symmachus and Theo- dotion. And if we will penetrate beneath the mere matter of the usage of a word to the conception itself, nothing could be more misleading than such a remark as Dr. Cremer’s. For surely there was no conception more deeply rooted in the Hebrew mind, at least, than that of the creative “breath of God’’; and this conception was assuredly not wholly un- known even in ethnic circles. To a Hebrew, at all events, the ‘‘breath of God”’ would seem self-evidently creative; and no locution would more readily suggest itself to him as expres- sive of the Divine act of ‘‘making”’ than just that by which it would be affirmed that He breathed things into existence. The “‘breath of the Almighty”? — rvo7 ravroxpatropos — was traditionally in his mouth as the fit designation of the crea- tive act (Job xxxil. 8, xxxili. 4); and not only was he accus- tomed to think of man owing his existence to the breathing of the breath of God into his nostrils (Gen. 1. 7, especially Symm. Theod.) and of his life as therefore the ‘‘breath of God” (rvetua Oetov, LX X., Job xxvii. 8), which God needs but to draw back to Himself that all flesh should perish (Job xxxiv. 14): but he conceived also that it was by the breath of God’s mouth (rvetuare Tod ormparTos, Ps. xxxiil. 6), that all the hosts of the heavens were made, and by the sending forth of His breath, (avetdja, Ps. civ. 30) that the multiplicity of ani- mal life was created. By His breath even (rvon, Job xxxvii. 10), he had been told, the ice is formed; and by His breath (rvevua, Isa. xi. 5, ef. Job iv. 9) all the wicked are consumed. It is indeed the whole conception of the Spirit of God as the executive of the Godhead that is involved here: the concep- tion that it is the Spirit of God that is the active agent in the production of all that is. To the Hebrew consciousness, cre- ation itself would thus naturally appear as, not indeed an ‘‘inspiration,’”’ and much less an ‘‘infusion of the Divine essence,” but certainly a ‘‘spiration’’; and all that exists would appeal to it as, therefore, in the proper sense the- 270 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION opneustic, i. e., simply, ‘‘breathed by God,’’ produced by the creative breath of the Almighty, the avo ravroxparopos. This would not, it needs to be remembered, necessarily imply an ‘‘immediate creation,’’ as we call it. When Elihu declares that it is the breath of the Almighty that has given him life or understanding (Job xxxil. 8, xxxill. 4), he need not be read as excluding the second causes by which he was brought into existence; nor need the Psalmist (civ. 30) be understood to teach an ‘‘immediate creation’”’ of the whole existing animal mass. But each certainly means to say that it is God who has made all these things, and that by His breath: He breathed them into being — they are all @eé7- vevotot. So far from the word presenting a difficulty there- fore from the point of view of its conception, it is just, after the nature of Greek compounds, the appropriate crystalli- zation into one concise term of a conception that was a ruling idea in every Jewish mind. Particularly, then, if we are to suppose (with both Ewald and Cremer) that the word is a coinage of Paul’s, or even of Hellenistic origin, nothing could be more natural than that it should have enshrined in it the Hebraic conviction that God produces all that He would bring into being by a mere breath. From this point of view, therefore, there seems no occasion to seek beyond the bare form of the word itself for a sense to attribute to it. If we cannot naturally give it the meaning of ‘‘God-znspired,”’ we certainly do not need to go so far afield as to attribute to it the sense of ‘‘filled with God’”’: the natural sense which be- longs to it by virtue of its formation, and which is com- mended to us by the analogy of like compounds, is also most consonant with the thought-forms of the circles in which it perhaps arose and certainly was almost exclusively used. What the word naturally means from this point of view also, is ‘‘God-spirated,”’ ‘‘God-breathed,” ‘‘produced by the cre- ative breath of the Almighty.”’ Thus it appears that such a conception as ‘‘ God-breathed ”’ lies well within the general circle of ideas of the Hellenistic writers, who certainly most prevailingly use the word. An “GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 271 application of this conception to Scripture, such as is made in}II Tim. iii. 16, was no less consonant with the ideas con- cerning the origin and nature of Scripture which prevailed in the circles out of which that epistle proceeded. This may in- deed be fairly held to be generally conceded. The main object of Ewald’s earlier treatment of this pas- sage, to be sure, was to void the word @edmvevoros of all impli- cation as to the origination of Scripture. By assigning to it the sense of ‘‘ God-pervaded,”’ ‘‘full of God’s Spirit,’’ he sup- posed he had made it a description of what Scripture is, without the least suggestion of how it came to be such; and he did not hesitate accordingly, to affirm that it had nothing whatever to say as to the origin of Scripture.” But he after- wards, as we have already pointed out, saw the error of this position, and so far corrected it as to explain that, of course, the term @ed7vevoros includes in itself the implication that the words so designated are spoken by the Spirit of God or by men inspired by God — in accordance with what is repeatedly said elsewhere in Scripture, as, for example, in II Pet. i. 21 — yet still to insist that it throws its chief emphasis rather on the nature than the origin of these words.® And he never thought of denying that in the circles in which the word was used in application to Scripture, the idea of the origination of Scripture by the act of God was current and indeed domi- nant. Philo’s complete identification of Scripture with the spoken word of God was indeed the subject under treatment by him, when he penned the note from which we have last quoted; and he did not fail explicitly to allow that the con- ceptions of the writer of the passage in I] Timothy were very closely related to those of Philo. ‘‘It is certainly undeniable,” he writes, ‘‘that the new term edmvevo7os, II Tim. iti. 16, is intended to express very much what Philo meant, and did not yet know how to say sharply by means of so compressed and direct a term’’; and again, in another place, “‘this term, no doubt, embodies only what is everywhere presupposed by 68 ‘ Jahrb. f. bibl. Wissenschaft,” vil. 88, 114. 69 ““Geschichte des Volkes Israel,” i. 245, note. ya bh REVELATION AND INSPIRATION Philo as to the Scriptures, and is repeatedly expressed by him in other words; yet his usage is not yet so far developed; and it is in accordance with this that in the New Testament, too, it is only one of the latest writings which uses the term in this way.” ” It would seem, to be sure, that it is precisely this affinity with Philo’s conception of Scripture which Dr. Cremer wishes to exclude in his treatment of the term. ‘‘ Let it be added,”’ he writes, near the close of the extract from his Herzog article which we have given above, ‘‘that the expression ‘breathed by God, inspired by God,’ though an outgrowth of the Bibli- cal idea, certainly, so far as it is referred to the prophecy which does not arise out of the human will (II Pet. i. 20), yet can scarcely be applied to the whole of the rest of Scripture — unless we are to find in II Tim. ii. 16 the expression of a conception of sacred Scripture similar to the Philonian.’’ And a little later he urges against the testimony of the exegetical tradition to the meaning of the word, that it was affected by the conceptions of Alexandrian Judaism — that is, he sug- gests, practically of heathenism. There obviously lies beneath this mode of representation an attempt to represent the idea of the nature and origin of Scripture exhibited in the New Testament, as standing in some fundamental disaccord with that of the Philonian tracts; and the assimilation of the con- ception expressed in II Tim. ii. 16 to the latter as therefore its separation from the former. Something like this is affirmed also by Holtzmann when he writes: ™ ‘‘It is accordingly clear that the author shares the Jewish conception of the purely supernatural origin of the Scriptures in its straitest accepta- tion, according to which, therefore, the theopneusty is as- cribed immediately to the Scriptures themselves, and not merely, as in II Pet. i. 21, to their writers; and so far as the thing itself is concerned there is nothing incorrect implied in the translation, tota Scriptura.’ The notion that the Bibli- cal and the Philonian ideas of Scripture somewhat markedly 70) Jabrh.,1etc,,01x; 92. 71 “Die Pastoralbriefe ”’ u. s. w., p. 163. “GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 273 differ is apparently common to the two writers: only Holtz- mann identifies the idea expressed in II Tim. iil. 16 with the Philonian, and therefore pronounces it to be a mark of late origin for that epistle; while Cremer wishes to detach it from the Philonian, that he may not be forced to recognize the Philonian conception as possessing New Testament author- ization. No such fundamental difference between the Philonian and New Testament conceptions as is here erected, however, can possibly be made out; though whatever minor differ- ences may be traceable between the general New Testament conception and treatment of Scripture and that of Philo, it remains a plain matter of fact that no other general view of Scripture than the so-called Philonian is discernible in the New Testament, all of whose writers — as is true of Jesus Himself also, according to His reported words, — consist- ently look upon the written words of Scripture as the express utterances of God, owing their origin to His direct spiration and their character to this their divine origin. It is peculiarly absurd to contrast II Pet. 1. 21 with II Tim. iii. 16 (as Holtz- mann does explicitly and the others implicitly), on the ground of a difference of conception as to ‘‘inspiration,’’ shown in the ascription of inspiration in the former passage to the writers, in the latter immediately to the words of Scripture. It is, on the face of it, the ‘‘word of prophecy’’ to which Peter as- cribes divine surety; it is written prophecy which he declares to be of no “‘private interpretation”’; and if he proceeds to exhibit how God produced this sure written word of prophecy —viz., through men of God carried onward, apart from their own will, by the determining power of the Holy Ghost ” — surely this exposition of the mode of the divine action in producing the Scriptures can only by the utmost confusion of ideas be pleaded as a denial of the fact that the Scriptures were produced by the Divine action. To Peter as truly as to Paul, and to the Paul of the earlier epistles as truly as to the 2 For the implications of the term depéduevor here (as distinguished from ay6- pevot) consult the fruitful discussion of the words in Schmidt’s “‘Synonymik.” 274 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION Paul of II Timothy, or as to Philo himself, the Scriptures are the product of the Divine Spirit, and would be most appro- priately described by the epithet of ‘‘God-breathed,”’ 1. e., produced by the breath, the inspiration, of God. The entire distinction which it is sought to erect between the New Testament and the Philonic conceptions of Scrip- ture, as if to the New Testament writers the Scriptures were less the oracles of God than to Philo, and owed their origin less directly to God’s action, and might therefore be treated as less divine in character or operation, hangs in the mere air. There may be fairly recognized certain differences be- tween the New Testament and the Philonic conceptions of Scripture; but they certainly do not move in this fundamental region. The epithet ‘‘God-breathed,” “produced by the cre- ative breath of the Almighty,” commends itself, therefore, as one which would lie near at hand and would readily express the fundamental view as to the origination of Scripture cur- rent among the whole body of New Testament writers, as well as among the whole mass of their Jewish contemporaries, amid whom they were bred. The distinction between the in- spiration of the writers and that of the record, is a subtlety of later times of which they were guiltless: as is also the distinction between the origination of Scripture by the action of the Holy Ghost and the infusing of the Holy Spirit into Scriptures originating by human activity. To the writers of this age of simpler faith, the Scriptures are penetrated by God because they were given by God: and the question of their effects, or even of their nature, was not consciously separated from the question of their origin. The one sufficient and decisive fact concerning them to these writers, inclusive of all else and determinative of all else that was true of them as the Word of God, was that they were ‘‘God-given,”’ or, more precisely, the product of God’s creative ‘‘breath.”’ In these circumstances it can hardly be needful to pause to point out in detail how completely this conception accords with the whole New Testament doctrine of Scripture, and with the entire body of phraseology currently used in it to “GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 2795 express its divine origination. We need only recall the decla- rations that the Holy Spirit is the author of Scripture (Heb. ili. 7, x. 15), ‘“‘in whom”’ it is, therefore, that its human authors speak (Matt. xxii. 483; Mark xii. 36), because it is He that speaks what they speak ‘‘through them”’ (Acts i. 16, iv. 25), they being but the media of the prophetic word GViattate22 11615) tie sive 14) vill. 17; xis D7 ex Soexxi 4) xxiv. 15, xxvii. 9, Luke xviii. 31, Acts ii. 16, xxvii. 25, Rom. i. 2, Luke i. 76, Acts i. 16, iii. 18, 21). The whole underlying conception of such modes of expression is in principle set forth in the command of Jesus to His disciples that, in their times of need, they should depend wholly on the Divine Spirit speaking in them (Matt. x. 20; Mark xiii. 11; ef. Luke 1.41, 67, xii. 12; Acts iv. 8): and perhaps even more decidedly still in Peter’s description of the prophets of Scripture as “‘borne by the Holy Ghost,’’ as mvevwatddopor, whose words are, therefore, of no ‘‘private interpretation,’ and of the highest surety (II Pet. i. 21). In all such expressions the main affirmation is that Scripture, as the product of the activity of the Spirit, is just the ‘‘breath of God’’; and the highest possible emphasis is laid on their origination by the divine agency of the Spirit. The primary characteristic of Scripture in the minds of the New Testament writers is thus revealed as, In a word, its Divine origin. That this was the sole dominating conception attached from the beginning to the term @eémvevoros as an epithet of Scripture, is further witnessed by the unbroken exegetical tradition of its meaning in the sole passage of the New Testa- ment in which it occurs. Dr. Cremer admits that such is the exegetical tradition, though he seeks to break the weight of this fact by pleading that the unanimity of the patristic interpretation of the passage is due rather to preconceived opinions on the part of the Fathers as to the nature of Scrip- ture, derived from Alexandrian Judaism, than to the natural effect on their minds of the passage itself. Here we are pointed to the universal consent of Jewish and Christian students of the Word as to the divine origin of the Scriptures they held 276 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION in common — a fact impressive enough of itself — as a reason for discrediting the testimony of the latter as to the meaning of a fundamental passage bearing on the doctrine of Holy Scripture. One is tempted to ask whether it can be really proved that the theology of Alexandrian Judaism exercised so universal and absolute a dominion over the thinking of the Church, that it is likely to be due to its influence alone that the Christian doctrine of inspiration took shape, in despite (as we are told) of the natural implications of the Christian documents themselves. And one is very likely to insist that, whatever may be its origin, this conception of the divine origination of Scripture was certainly shared by the New Testament writers themselves, and may very well therefore have found expression in II Tim. ii. 16 — which would there- fore need no adjustment to current ideas to make it teach it. At all events, it is admitted that this view of the teaching of II Tim. ii. 16 is supported by the unbroken exegetical tradition; and this fact certainly requires to be taken into | consideration in determining the meaning of the word. It is quite true that Dr. Cremer in one sentence does not seem to keep in mind the unbrokenness of the exegetical tra- dition. We read: ‘‘ Origen also, in ‘ Hom. 21 in Jerem.’, seems so [i. e., as Dr. Cremer does] to understand it [that is, dedrvevaTos |: — sacra volumina spiritus plenitudinem spirant.”’ The unwary reader may infer from this that these words of Origen are explanatory of II Tim. ii. 16, and that they there- fore break the exegetical tradition and show that Origen as- signed to that passage the meaning that ‘‘the Holy Scriptures breathe out the plenitude of the Spirit.’’ Such is, however, not the case. Origen is not here commenting on II Tim. iii. 16, but only freely expressing his own notion as to the nature of Scripture. His words here do not, therefore, break the con- stancy of the exegetical tradition, but at the worst only the universality of that Philonian conception of Scripture, to the universality of which among the Fathers, Dr. Cremer attrib- utes the unbrokenness of the exegetical tradition. What re- sults from their adduction is, then, not a weakening of the “ GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE ” 77 patristic testimony to the meaning of Oedrvevoros in II Tim. i. 16, but (at the worst) a possible hint that Dr. Cremer’s explanation of the unanimity of that testimony may not, after all, be applicable. When commenting on II Tim. iii. 16, Origen uniformly takes the word Oeémvevaros as indicatory of the origin of Scripture; though when himself speaking of what Scripture is, he may sometimes speak as Dr. Cremer would have him speak. It looks as if his interpretation of II Tim. ii. 16 were expository of its meaning to him rather than impository of his views on it. Let us, by way of illus- tration, place a fuller citation of Origen’s words, in the pas- sage adduced by Dr. Cremer, side by side with a passage directly dealing with II Tim. iii. 16, and note the result. Secundum istiusmodi expositiones decet sacras litteras credere nee unum quidem apicem habere vacuum sapientia Dei. Qui enim mihi homini precipit dicens: Non apparebis ante conspectum meum vacuus, multo plus hoc ipse agit, ne aliquid vacuum loquatur. Ex plenitudine ejus accipientes prophets, ea, que erant de plenitudine sumpta, cecinerunt: et idcirco sacra volumina spiritus plenitudinem spirant, nihilque est sive in prophetia, sive in lege, sive in evangelio, sive in apostolo, quod non a plenitudine divine majestatis descendat. Quam- obrem spirant in scripturis sanctis hodieque plenitudinis verba. Spi- rant autem his, qui habent et oculos ad videnda ccelestia et aures ad audienda divina, et nares ad ea, que sunt plenitudinis, sentienda (Origen, ‘‘in Jeremiam Homilia,” xxi, 2. Wirceburg ed., 1785, ix, 733). Here Origen is writing quite freely: and his theme is the divine fullness of Scripture. There is nothing in Scripture which is vain or empty and all its fullness is derived from Him from whom it is dipped by the prophets. Contrast his manner, now, when he is expounding II Tim. i. 16. “Let us not be stupefied by hearing Scriptures which we do not understand; but let it be to us according to our faith, by which also we believe that every Scripture because it is theopneustic (réca ypad} deorvevotos otca) is profitable. For you must needs admit one of two things regarding these Scriptures: either that they are not theopneus- tic since they are not profitable, as the unbeliever takes it; or, as a believer, you must admit that since they are theopneustic, they are 278 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION profitable. It is to be admitted, of course, that the profit is often re- ceived by us unconsciously, just as often we are assigned certain food for the benefit of the eyes, and only after two or three days does the digestion of the food that was to benefit the eyes give us assurance by trial that the eyes are benefited. . . . So, then, believe also concerning the divine Scriptures, that thy soul is profited, even if thy understand- ing does not perceive the fruit of the profit that comes from the letters, from the mere bare reading”’ [Origen, “‘ Hom. XX in Josuam”’ 2, in J. A. Robinson’s Origen’s ‘‘ Philocalia,”’ p. 63). It is obvious that here Origen does not understand II Tim. ii. 16, to teach that Scripture is inspired only because it is profitable, and that we are to determine its profitableness first and its inspiration therefrom; what he draws from the passage is that Scripture is profitable because it is inspired, and that though we may not see in any particular case how, or even that, it is profitable, we must still believe it to be profitable because it is inspired, i. e., obviously because it is given of God for that end. It seemed to be necessary to adduce at some length these passages from Origen, inasmuch as the partial adduction of the unwary reader. But there appears to be no need of multi- plying passages from the other early expositors of II Tim. ill. 16, seeing that it is freely confessed that the exegetical tradition runs all in one groove. We may differ as to the weight we allow to this fact; but surely as a piece of testi- mony corroborative of the meaning of the word derived from other considerations, it is worth noting that it has from the beginning been understood only in one way — even by those, such as Origen and we may add Clement, who may not them- selves be absolutely consistent in preserving the point of view taught them in this passage.” 73 Cf. Prof. Schulze, loc. cit.: “‘Further, it should not be lost sight of (and Dr. Cremer does not do so) how the Church in its defenders has understood this word. There can be no doubt that in the conflict with Montanism, the traditional doctrine of theopneusty was grounded in the conception of Oeérveveros, but never that of the Scriptures breathing out the Spirit of God. The passage which Cremer adduces from Origen gives no interpretation of this word, but only points to a quality of Scripture consequent on their divine origination by the Holy Spirit: “GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE ” 279 The final test of the sense assigned to any word is, of course, derived from its fitness to the context in which it is found. And Dr. Cremer does not fail to urge with reference to Beorvevoros in II Tim. iii. 16, that the meaning he assigns to it corresponds well with the context, especially with the succeeding clauses; as well as, he adds, with the language elsewhere in the New Testament, as, for example, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where what Scripture says is spoken of as the utterance, the saying of the Holy Ghost, with which he would further compare even Acts xxviii. 25. That the words of Scripture are conceived, not only in Hebrews but throughout the New Testament, as the utter- ances of the Holy Ghost is obvious enough and not to be denied. But it is equally obvious that the ground of this con- ception is everywhere the ascription of these words to the Holy Ghost as their responsible author: littera scripta manet and remains what it was when written, viz., the words of the writer. The fact that all Scripture is conceived as a body of Oracles and approached with awe as the utterances of God certainly does not in the least suggest that these utterances may not be described as God-given words or throw a preference for an interpretation of 6eérvevaros which would transmute it into an assertion that they are rather God-giving words. And the same may be said of the contextual argument. Naturally, if Qeé7vevoros means ‘‘ God-giving,’’ it would as an epithet or predicate of Scripture serve very well to lay a foundation for declaring this ‘‘God-giving Scripture” also profitable, etc. But an equal foundation for this declaration is laid by the description of it as ‘‘God-given.’’ The passage just quoted from Origen will alone teach us this. All that can be said on this score for the new interpretation, therefore, and elsewhere when he adduces the rule of faith, the words run, quod per spiritum det sacre scripture conscripte sint, or a verbo det et spirita dei dicte sunt: Just as Clem. Alex. also, when, in Coh. 71, he is commenting on the Pauline passage, takes the word in the usual way, and yet, like Origen, makes an inference from the God-likeness (as @eoroetv) in Plato’s manner, from the whole passage — though not deriving it from the word itself. For the use of the word in Origen, we need to note: Sel. in Ps., ii. 527; Hom. in Joh., vi. 134, Ed. de la R.” 280 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION is that it also could be made accordant with the context; and as much, and much more, can be said for the old. We leave the matter in this form, since obviously a detailed interpreta- tion of the whole passage cannot be entered into here, but must be reserved for a later occasion. It may well suffice to say now that obviously no advantage can be claimed for the new interpretation from this point of view. The question is, after all, not what can the word be made to mean, but what does it mean; and the witness of its usage elsewhere, its form and mode of composition, and the sense given it by its readers from the first, supply here the primary evidence. Only if the sense thus commended to us were unsuitable to the context would we be justified in seeking further for a new interpreta- tion — thus demanded by the context. This can by no means be claimed in the present instance, and nothing can be de- manded of us beyond showing that the more natural current sense of the word is accordant with the context. The result of our investigation would seem thus, certainly, to discredit the new interpretation of Oedmvevaros offered by Ewald and Cremer. From all points of approach alike we appear to be conducted to the conclusion that it is primarily expressive of the origination of Scripture, not of its nature rand much less of its effects. What is @edrvevaros is ‘‘God- breathed,” produced by the creative breath of the Almighty. And Scripture is called 6eé7vevaros in order to designate it as ‘‘God-breathed,”’ the product of Divine spiration, the cre- ation of that Spirit who is in all spheres of the Divine activity | the executive of the Godhead. The traditional translation of the word by the Latin znspiratus a Deo is no doubt also dis- credited, if we are to take it at the foot of the letter. It does not express a breathing into the Scriptures by God. But the ordinary conception attached toit, whether among the Fathers Vor the Dogmaticians, is in general vindicated. What it affirms is that the Scriptures owe their origin to an activity of God the Holy Ghost and are in the highest and truest sense His creation. It is on this foundation of Divine origin that all the phigh attributes of Scripture are built. Vill pilD AYS. SORTPTURE SAYS:” “GOD SAYS? ait ee ce pl DANY Ses SOORTRDURKISAYS: i GODsSAY Si} It would be difficult to invent methods of showing pro- found reverence for the text of Scripture as the very Word of God, which will not be found to be characteristic of the writers of the New Testament in dealing with the Old. Among the rich variety of the indications of their estimate of the written words of the Old Testament as direct utterances of Jehovah, there are in particular two classes of passages, each of which, when taken separately, throws into the clearest light their habitual appeal to the Old Testament text as to God Himself speaking, while, together, they make an irre- sistible impression of the absolute identification by their writers of the Scriptures in their hands with the living voice of God. In one of these classes of passages the Scriptures are spoken of as if they were God; in the other, God is spoken of as if He were the Scriptures: in the two together, God and the Scriptures are brought into such conjunction as to show that in point of directness of authority no distinction was made between them. Examples of the first class of passages are such as these: Gal. iii. 8, ‘‘ The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the nations be blessed’’ (Gen. xii. 1-3); Rom. ix. 17, ‘‘The Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up”’ (Ex. ix. 16). It was not, however, the Scripture (which did not exist at the time) that, foreseeing God’s purposes of grace in the future, spoke these precious words to Abraham, but God Himself in His own person: it was not the not yet existent Scripture that made this announcement to Pharaoh, but God Himself through the mouth of His prophet Moses. These acts could be attributed to ‘‘Scripture”’ only as the 1 From The Presbyterian and Reformed Review, Vol. x, 1899, pp. 472-510. 283 284 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION result of such a habitual identification, in the mind of the writer, of the text of Scripture with God as speaking, that it became natural to use the term “‘Scripture says,’’ when what was really intended was ‘‘ God, as recorded in Scripture, said.”’ Examples of the other class of passages are such as these: Matt. xix. 4, 5, ‘‘And he answered and said, Have ye not read that he which made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the twain shall become one flesh?’ (Gen. i. 24); Heb. ii. 7, ‘“Wherefore, even as the Holy Ghost saith, To-day if ye shall hear his voice,’’ etc. (Ps. xev. 7); Acts iv. 24, 25, “Thou art God, who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why do the heathen rage and the peopleimagine vain things”’ (Ps. i. 1); Acts xiii. 34, 35, ‘‘He that raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, ... hath spoken in this wise, I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David’’ (Isa. lv. 3); ‘‘because he saith also in another [ Psalm |], Thou wilt not give thy holy one to see corruption”’ (Ps. xvi. 10); Heb. i. 6, ‘‘ And when he again bringeth in the first born into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him” (Deut. xxxii. 48); ‘‘and of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels wings, and his ministers a flame of fire’’ (Ps. civ. 4); “‘but of the Son, He saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,” etc., (Ps. xlv. 7) and, ‘‘ Thou, Lord, in the beginning,”’ etc. (Ps. cii. 26). It is not God, however, in whose mouth these sayings are placed in the text of the Old Testament: they are the words of others, recorded in the text of Scripture as spoken to or of God. They could be attributed to God only through such habitual identification, in the minds of the writers, of the text of Scripture with the utter- ances of God that it had become natural to use the term ‘God says”? when what was really intended was ‘‘Scripture, the Word of God, says.”’ The two sets of passages, together, thus show an absolute identification, in the minds of these writers, of ‘‘Scripture”’ with the speaking God. ) PED SAYS? 4 SCRIPTURE SAYS #712 GOD) SAYS ? 285 In the same line with these passages are commonly ranged certain others, in which Scripture seems to be adduced with a subjectless \éyer or hyct, the authoritative subject — whether the divinely given Word or God Himself — being taken for granted. Among these have been counted such passages, for example, as the following: Rom. ix. 15, ‘‘For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion”’ (Ex. xxxiii. 19); Rom. xv. 10, ‘‘ And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people” (Deut. xxxii. 43); and again, ‘‘ Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and let all the people praise him”’ (Ps. evil. 1); Gal. iii. 16, ‘‘He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed (Gen. xiii. 15), which is Christ’; Eph. iv. 8, ‘‘ Wherefore he saith, When he ascended on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men” (Ps. Ixvili. 18); Eph. v. 14, ‘‘ Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest and arise from the dead and Christ shall shine upon thee”’ (Isa. Ix. 1); I Cor. vi. 16, ‘‘ For the twain, saith he, shall become one flesh”’ (Gen. ii. 24); I Cor. xv. 27, ‘‘ But when he saith, All things are put in subjection”’ (Ps. viii. 7); II Cor. vi. 2, ‘‘For he saith, At an acceptable time, I heark- ened unto thee, and in a day of salvation did I succor thee”’ (Isa. xlix. 8); Heb. viii. 5, ‘‘ For see, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern that was showed thee in the mount” (Ex. xxv. 40); James iv. 6, ‘‘ Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud but giveth grace to the humble’”’ (Prov. ili. 34). There is room for difference of opinion, of course, whether all these passages are cases in point. And there has certainly always existed some difference of opinion among commenta- tors as to the proper subauditum in such instances as are allowed. The state of the case would seem to be fairly indi- cated by Alexander Buttmann, when he says: “The predicates Néye: or dyaiv are often found in the New Testa- ment in quotations, 6 6eds or even merely 7 ypadn being always to be supplied as subject; as I Cor. vi. 16, II Cor. vi. 2, Gal. 11. 16, Eph. iv. 8, v. 14, Heb. viii. 5, iv. 3 (etonxev). These subjects are also expressed, 286 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION as in Gal. iv. 30, I Tim. v. 18, or to be supplied from the preceding context, as in Heb. 1. 5 segq.’’ ? Of the alternatives thus offered, Jelf apparently prefers the one: . “Tn the New Testament we must supply zpodnrns, 7 ypadn, mvedua, etc., before dyai, Neyer, wapTupet.”” ® Winer and Blass take the other: “The formulas of citation — deve, II Cor. vi. 2, Gal. 11. 16, Eph. iv. 8 al., @noi, I Cor. vi. 16, Heb. vill. 5; etpnxe, Heb. iv. 4 (cf. the Rabbinical 781); waprupet, Heb. vil. 17 (efze, I Cor. xv. 27) — are probably in no instance impersonal in the minds of the New Testa- ment writers. The subject (6 eds) is usually contained in the context, either directly or indirectly; in I Cor. vi. 16 and Matt. xix. 5, ¢yoi, there is an apostolic ellipsis (of 6 Ads); in Heb. vil. 17, the best au- thorities have paprupetrat.”’ 4 “In the formulas of citation such as Neyer, II Cor. vi. 2, Gal. ii. 16, etc.; dnciv, I Cor. vi. 16, Heb. viii. 5; eipnxe, Heb. iv. 4 — 6 Oeés is to be understood (‘He says’); in II Cor. x. 10, dnciv (8 DE, etc. [7], ‘one says’), appears to be a wrong reading for ¢aciv (B), unless per- haps a 71s has dropped out (but cp. Clem. Hom., x1. 9 ad init.).”’ * The commentators commonly range themselves with Winer and Blass. Thus, on Rom. ix. 15, Sanday and Head- lam comment: “‘Aéyer without a nominative for Oeds N€éyeu is a common idiom in quotations,’ referring to Rom. xv. 10 as a parallel case. On Gal. i. 16, Meyer says: ‘‘sc. Océs, which is derived from the historical reference of the previous éppéOnoav, so well known to the reader’’; and Alford: ‘‘viz., He who gave the promises — God”’; and Sieffert: ‘‘ob Néyer sc. Oeos which flows out of the historical relation (known to the reader) of the preceding é€ppéOnoap (cf. Eph. iv. 8, v. 14).” 2 “A Grammar of the New Testament Greek,” Thayer’s translation p. 134. § Sec. 373, 3. 4 Winer, Sec. 58, 9, y; p. 656 of Moulton’s translation. 5 Blass’ ‘““Grammar of N, T. Greek”’; English translation by H. St. J. Thackeray, M.A., p. 75. PUSS AY Ss eo CRIPDURE SAYore 1GOD SAYS Y 287 On Eph. iv. 8, Meyer’s comment runs: ‘‘Who says it (comp. v. 14) is obvious of itself, namely, God, whose word the Scrip- ture is. See on [ Cor. vi. 16; Gal. iii. 16; the supplying 7 ypadn or To Tvedua must have been suggested by the context (Rom. xv. 10). The manner of citation with the simple éyer, obviously meant of God, has as its necessary presupposition, in the mind of the writer and readers, the Theopneustia of the Old Testament.’ Haupt, similarly: ‘‘The introduction of a citation with the simple Aéyer, with which, of course, ‘God’ is to be supplied as subject, not ‘the Scripture,’ is found in Paul again v. 14, II Cor. vi. 2, Rom. xv. 10; similarly dysct, I Cor. vi. 16 (etzev with the addition 6 6eds, II Cor. vi. 16).”’ A similar comment is given by Ellicott, who adds at Eph. v. 14: “‘scil. 6 Oeds, according to the usual form of St. Paul’s quotations; see notes on chap. iv. 8 and on Gal. i. 16”: though on I Cor. vi. 16 he speaks with less decision: ‘It may be doubted what nominative is to be supplied to this prac- tically impersonal verb, whether 7 yoadn (comp. John vii. 38, Rom. iv. 3, ix. 17, al.) or 6 deds (comp. Matt. xix. 5, IT Cor. vi. 2, where this nominative is distinctly suggested by the context): the latter is perhaps the more natural: comp. Winer, Gr., $58, 9, and notes on Eph. iv. 8.”’ On I Cor. vi. 16, Edwards comments: ‘‘sc. 6 Oe6s, as in Rom. ix. 15. Cf. Matt. xix. 4, 5, where 6 woinoas supplies a nom. to eizev. Simi- larly in Philo and Barnabas ¢yct introduces citations from Scripture.’’? On ITI Cor. vi. 2, Waite says: ‘“‘A statement of God Himself is adduced”; and De Wette: “‘sc. 0e6s, who Him- self speaks.’’ On Heb. viii. 5, Bleek comments: ‘“‘That there is to be understood as the subject of dyai, not, as BOohme thinks, 7 ypad7n, but 6 6eds, can least of all be doubtful here, where actual words of God are adduced’’; and Weiss: ‘* This statement is now established (yap) by appeal to Ex. xxv. 40, which passage is characterized only by the interpolated g¢ycw (cf. Acts xxv. 22) as a divine oracle.... The subject of gyotly is, of course, God, neither 6 xpyuatiopos (Lun.) nor 7 ypaohy (Bhm.).”’ On James iv. 6, Mayor comments: ‘The subject understood is probably God, as above, 1. 12, émnyyet- 288 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION aro, and Eph. iv. 8, v. 14, where the same phrase occurs; others take it as 7 ypady. Cf. above, v. 5.’’ ® Most of these passages have, on the other hand, been ex- plained by some commentators on the supposition that it is » ypaoyn that is to be supplied, as has sufficiently appeared indeed from the controversial remarks in the notes quoted above. This circumstance may be taken as precluding the necessity of adducing examples here.’ Suffice it to say that those so filling in the subauditum are entirely at one with the commentators already quoted in looking upon the citations as treated by the New Testament writers as of divine authority, it being,.in their apprehension, all one in this regard whether the subauditum is conceived as 77 ypadn or as 0 @eds. In the meantime, however, there has occasionally showed itself a tendency to treat these subjectless verbs more or less as true impersonals. Thus we read in Delitzsch’s note on Heb. viii. 5: ‘For ‘see,’ saith He, i. e., 6 Ges, or taking gyno impersonally (that is, without a definite subject), ‘2 as sard’ (i. e., in Scripture), (Bernhardy, ‘Synt.,’ 419).”’ So Kern on James iv. 6 comments: ‘‘Aéyer here impersonaliter, instead of the foregoing Néyer } ypadn’’; and accordingly Beyschlag, in his recent commentary says: ‘‘to \éyet, 7 ypady is to be sup- plied, or it is to be taken with Kern impersonally.”’ Similarly Godet on I Cor. vi. 16 says: ‘‘The subject of the verb ¢ycir, says he, may be either Adam or Moses, or Scripture, or God Himself, or finally, as is shown by Heinrici, the verb may be a simple formula of quotation like our ‘Jé ts said.’ This form is frequently found in Philo.” * Some such usage as is here ® So also Wandel: ‘‘James then cites the passage Prov. iii. 24, in which we must simply supply ‘God’ to deve.” 7 As a single example, take, e. g., Oltramare, on Eph. iv. 8: “Av déye, scil. % yeapy: In accord with the extreme frequency with which the New Testament is cited, Paul often cites by saying simply déye (v. 14, Rom. xv. 10, II Cor. vi. 2, Gal. iu. 16; cf. Rom. iv. 3, x. 17, I Tim. v. 18), or dnot (I Cor. vi. 16; cf. Heb. viii. 15), or eiwe (I Cor. xv. 27). He understands the subject, which is understood of itself, ypady or Geds (see Winer, Gr., p. 486).”’ $ Earlier still De Wette explained the phrase in a somewhat similar way. His note on Eph. v. 8 runs: “Old Testament support. 5:0 Aéyer] therefore (because ULES ANS wy oO La URE SAYS. 9 GOD SAY Sa 289 supposed may seem actually to occur in the common text of Wisdom xv. 12° and II Cor. x. 10. But in both passages the true reading is probably ¢aciv; in neither instance is it clear that, if dnoiv be read, it has no subject implied in the context; if dnoiv be read and taken as equivalent to ¢daciv it still is not purely indefinite; and in any case the instances are not paral- lel, inasmuch as in neither of these passages is it Scripture, or indeed any document, that is adduced. The fact that a few very able commentators have taken this unlikely line of exposition would call for nothing more than this incidental remark, were not our attention attracted somewhat violently to it by the dogmatic tone and extremity of contention of a recent commentator who has adopted this opinion. We refer to Dr. T. K. Abbott’s comment on Eph. iv. 8, in his contribution to “ The International Critical Commen- tary.” It runs to a considerable length, but as on this very account it opens out somewhat more fully than usual this Christ gives the gifts and according to the presupposition that all that concerns Christ is predicted in the Old Testament 7t is said, [heisst es] (cf. Gal. iii. 16, I Cor. vi. 16 — a formula of citation (also v. 14) like Jas. iv. 6, Acts xiii. 35, Heb. x. 5, not elsewhere found in the apostle (cf., however, II Cor. vi. 17)...” And again on Eph. v. 14 we read: ‘‘é.d ever | therefore it is said [heisst es ] (in the Scrip- tures). Cf. iv. 8.”’ He supposes that, in the latter passage, Paul confuses a cus- tomary application of Scripture with the very words of Scripture. 9 Grimm’s note on the passage runs: ‘‘Instead of the rec. reading, ¢yoclv, Alex. Ephr., 157, 248, 296, Compl. have ¢aciv. Nevertheless the author may here return to the singular, referring to the potter before depicted (see the following verses). Or ¢yoit may stand impersonally, in the sense of ‘heisst es,’ ‘sagt man,’ Win., p. 462, 6th ed.; Miiller, ‘Philo’s Buch von d. Weltschépfung,’ p. 44.” Cf. further, below, p. 316. 10 gnatv is placed by Tischendorf, Tregelles and Westcott and Hort in their texts: while ¢aciv is read by Lachmann and placed in their margins by Tregelles and Westcott and Hort. The former is read by SDEFGKLBP, etc., by the cursives, and by the Vulgate and Coptic versions, while the latter is the reading of B, Old Latin and Syriac. Heinrici pertinently remarks (in his own “Commentary,” 1887): “The reading ¢aciv, which Lachmann accepts, is just as strongly witnessed by B, the Itala and Peschitto as dnoitv (SDFG Vulg. Copt.) and it almost looks as if nov were a correction occasioned by the succeeding 6 rovodros (against Meyer).”’ Alford, who continues to read ¢noiv equally pertinently on that hypothesis, re- marks: “‘¢yciv, taken by Winer (Ed. 6, § 58, 96), De Wette and Meyer as im- personal, ‘heisst es,’ ‘men say’; but why should not the vcs of ver, 7, and 6 rowodros of ver. 11, be the subject?” See further below, p. 316. 290 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION rather unwonted view of the construction, we shall venture to quote it 7 extenso. Dr. Abbott says: “Aid Neyer. ‘Wherefore it saith’ = ‘it is said.’ If any substantive is to be supplied, it is 4 ypady; but the verb may well be taken im- personally, just as in colloquial English one may often hear: ‘it says’ or the like. Many expositors supply, however, 6 Oeds. Meyer even says, ‘Who says it is obvious of itself, namely, God, whose word the Scrip- ture is.! Similarly Alford and Ellicott." If it were St. Paul’s habit to introduce quotations from the Old Testament, by whomsoever spoken in the original text, with the formula 6 Oeds Neyer, then this supplement here might be defended. But it is not. In quoting he some- times says ever, frequently 4 ypad7 eye, at other times Aafid dAEyer, ‘Hoatas Neyer. There is not a single instance in which 6 Oéés is either expressed or implied as the subject, except where in the original con- text God is the speaker, as in Rom. ix. 15. Even when that is the case 11 [See above, p. 287. ] 12 [“ He (viz., God, whose word the Scriptures are. See reff. [1. e., Rom. xii. 8, II Cor. x. 18, iv. 18, 16 = Paul only], and: notes: not merely ‘it,’ es heisst, as, De Wette, al.: nor 4 ypad7: had it been the subject it must have been expressed, as in Rom. iv. 3, ix. 17, al.) says (viz., Ps. Ixviii. 18, see below: not in some Chris- tian hymn, as Flatt and Storr — which would not agree with déye, nor with the treatment of the citation, which is plainly regarded as carrying the weight of Scripture.’’) ] 18 [“* He saith,’ sc. 6 beds,, not 4 ypady. This latter nominative is several times inserted by St. Paul (Rom. iv. 3, ix. 17, x. 11, Gal. iv. 30, I Tim. v. 18), but is not therefore to be regularly supplied whenever there is an ellipsis (Bos, Ellips., p. 54) without reference to the nature of the passages. The surest and in fact only guide is the context; when that affords no certain hint, we fall back upon the natural subject, 6 6e6s, whose words the Scriptures are; see notes on Gal. iii. 16.” See further above, p. 287. At Gal. iii. 16, Ellicott had said: ‘‘‘He saith not’; not » yeadn (Bos, Ellips., p. 54), as in Rom. xv. 10 — where the subst. is supplied from yéypamra, ver. 9—or 76 rvedua (Riick., Winer, Gr., §39, 1), which appears arbitrary, but the natural subject 6 6es, as in Eph. iv. 8, v. 14, and (¢not) I Cor. vi. 16, Heb. viii. 5. So apparently Syr., which here inserts ili after \éye.’”’ The passage referred to in Bos (London ed. of 1825, pp. 57, 58) is as follows: ‘‘In the New Testament, where the Scripture of the Old Testament is cited, dnot or eye often occurs with 7 ypady understood — a word which actually stands in other passages: I Cor. vi. 16, Eph. v. 14, Gal. ii. 16. The same thing occurs in the Greek fathers. Marcus Eremita, in his earlier aphorisms, No. 106, ovdels, got, orpa- Tevouevos EuTéxeTat Tals TOD Biov mpayyareiats, ‘No one, says (the Scripture, I Tim. ll. 4) going a-soldiering is entangled in the affairs of this life.’ So, No. 134: ¢not yap, 6 Wav éaurdovy rarewwnoera, ‘For, says (Scripture), he that exalteth himself shall be brought low.’ There may be also understood pro re nata ebayyedorns, mpopnr 7s, adarodos: but the other is more general and suits excellently. Schoettg.’’ J SLISSAYS 7) SpSCRIPT URW SAYS27— GOD) SAYS? 291 he does not hesitate to use a different subject, as in Rom. x. 19, 20: ‘Moses saith,’ ‘Isaiah is very bold, and saith’; Rom. ix. 17, ‘The Scripture saith to Pharaoh.’ “This being the case, we are certainly not justified in forcing upon the apostle here and in chap. v. 14 a form of expression consistent only with the extreme view of verbal inspiration. When Meyer (followed by Alford and Ellicott) says that 4 ypad7 must not be supplied unless it 1s given by the context, the reply is obvious, namely, that, as above stated, 7 ypad7 Neyer does, in fact, often occur, and therefore the apostle might have used it here, whereas 6 Oeds \éyer does not occur (except in cases unlike this), and we have reason to believe could not be used by St. Paul here. It is some additional confirmation of this that both here and in chap. v. 14 (if that is a Biblical quotation) he does not hesitate to make important alterations. This is the view taken by Braune, Macpherson, Moule; the latter, however, adding that for St. Paul ‘the word of the Scripture and the word of its Author are convertible terms.’ “It is objected that although ¢nai is used impersonally, eye is not. The present passage and chap. v. 14 are enough to prove the usage for St. Paul, and there are other passages in his Epistles where this sense is at least applicable; cf. Rom. xv. 10, where Aéeyer is parallel to yeypamra in ver. 9; Gal. ii. 16, where it corresponds to épp7Onoav. But, in fact, the impersonal use of ¢yct in Greek authors is quite dif- ferent, namely = dav, ‘they say’ (so II Cor. x. 10). Classical authors had no opportunity of using déyer as it is used here, as they did not possess any collection of writings which could be referred to as 4 ypabén, or by any like word. They could say: 6 vouos Neyer and 7d Neyouevov.”’ It is not, it will be observed, the fact that Dr. Abbott de- cides against the subauditum, 6 eds, in these passages, which calls for remark. As he himself points out, many others have been before him in this. It is the extremity of his opinion that first of all attracts attention. For it is to be noticed that, though he sometimes speaks as if he understood an implied h ypadn, or some like term, as the subject of Aéye, that is not his real contention. What he proposes is to take the verb wholly indefinitely — as equivalent to ‘‘it is said,” as if the 14 [The text actually has ‘‘ver. 14,’’ but we venture to correct the obvious slip. ] 292 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION source of the quotation were unimportant and its authority insignificant. This interpretation of his proposal is placed be- yond doubt by his remarks on chap. v. 14. There we read: “Aid Neyer. ‘Wherefore it is said.’ It is generally held that this formula introduces a quotation from canonical Scripture. ... The difficulties disappear when we recognize that Aeye: need not be taken to mean 6 Oeds A€yet — an assertion which has been shown in iv. 8 to be untenable. It means, ‘it says,’ or ‘it is said,’ and the quotation may probably be from some liturgical formula or hymn — a supposition with which its rhythmical character agrees very well. . . . Theodoret mentions this opinion. .. . Stier adopts a similar view, but endeavors to save the supposed limitation of the use of \éyer by saying that in the Church the Spirit speaks. As there are in the Church prophets and prophetic speakers and poets, so there are liturgical expressions and hymns which are holy words. Comparing vv. 18, 19, Col. i. 16, it may be said that the apostle is here giving us an example of this self- admonition by new spiritual songs.”’ So extreme an opinion, as we have already hinted, natu- rally finds, however, little support in the commentators, even in those quoted to buttress it, — of course, in its funda- mental point. Braune says: ‘‘We must naturally supply 7 ypaoy, the Scripture, with \éye, ‘saith,’ (James iv. 6, Rom. xv. 10, Gal. 111. 16, I Cor. vi. 16: dyciv), and not 6 Oeds (Meyer, Schenkel *), or 6 \éywv (Bleek: the writer)’: to which Dr. M. T. Riddle, his translator, however, adds: ‘‘ The fact that Paul frequently supplies 7 ypad7 (Rom. iv. 3, ix. 17, x. 11, Gal. iv. 30, I Tim. v. 18) is against Braune’s view; for in some of these passages there is a reason for its insertion (see “Romans,” p. 314), and as the Scriptures are God’s Word (Meyer), the natural aim and obvious subject is 6 Oeds. So Alford, Ellicott and most.’’ Moule’s comment runs: ‘‘ Where- fore he saith] Or it, i. e., the Scripture, saith. St. Paul’s usage 6 [With \eye God is to be supplied as subject. From this way of adducing it, it is already clear that the cited words cannot be taken from a Christian hymn in use in the Church at Ephesus (Storr, Flatt), but must belong to the sacred, God-given Scripture.” Accordingly at v. 14 he says: ‘‘In accordance with the formula (eye, chap. iv. 8) usual in adducing Scripture, it can scarcely be doubtful that the apostle intended to cite an Old Testament passage.’’ ] SLE SAYS ie SCRIPTURE SAYS: 2GOD, SAYS 7 293 in quotation leaves the subject of the verb undetermined here and in similar cases (see, e. g., chap. v. 14%). For him the word of the Scripture and the word of its author are con- vertible terms.’’ Macpherson alone, of those appealed to by Dr. Abbott, supports, in a somewhat carelessly written note, the indefinite interpretation put forward by Dr. Abbott, — being misled apparently by remarks of Lightfoot’s and West- cott’s. His comment runs: ‘““A very simple quotation formula is here employed, the single word \eyer. It is also similarly used (chap. v. 14; II Cor. vi. 2; Gal. iii. 16; Rom. xv. 10).1”7 This word is frequently employed in the fuller formula, The Scripture saith, eye. 7 ypady (Rom. iv. 3, x. 11, xi. 2; Jas. 11. 23, etc.); or the name of the writer of the particular scripture, Ksaias, David, the Holy Spirit, the law (Rom. xv. 12; Acts xii. 35; Heb. il. 7; I Cor. xii. 34, etc.).8 Of Never, doi, elpnxe, and similar words thus used, Winer (“‘Grammar,”’ p. 656, 1882) says that prob- ably in no instance are they impersonal in the minds of the New Testament writers, but that the subject, 6 60s, is somewhere in the context, and is to be supplied. On the contrary, Lightfoot, in his note on Gal. ii. 16, remarks that Neyer, like the Attic dnt, seems to be used impersonally, the nominative being lost sight of. In our passage we have no nominative in the context which we can supply, and it seems better to render the phrase impersonally, [¢ 7s said. The same word is used very frequently in the Epistle to the Hebrews, but always with God or Christ understood from the immediate context. Westcott very correctly remarks (p. 457) that the use of the formula in Eph. iv. 8, v. 14, seems to be of a different kind.” * 146 The comment there is simply: “‘he saith] or possibly zt (the Scripture) saith.” 17 [The parenthetical marks should doubtless be removed. ] 18 [This sentence seems formally incomplete; probably ‘‘is frequently em- ployed” is to be supplied from the preceding clause. ] 19 [This scarcely gives a complete view of Winer’s remark: he says that ‘‘the subject 6 6eés) is wswally contained in the context, either directly or indtrectly,”’ and proceeds to adduce cases of ellipsis. ] 20 [What Westcott apparently says is not that “‘the two passages in the Epistle to the Ephesians (iv. 8, v. 14, 6.6 \éye) appear to be different in kind”’ from the usage of Hebrews, but from the cases in the rest of the New Testament, where God is the subject of \éye indeed, but “‘the reference is to words directly spoken by God.” He possibly means, ‘‘ different in kind” from the usage both of Hebrews and of the rest of the New Testament: but he does not seem to say this directly. See post, p. 305. ] 294 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION Outside of these commentators quoted by himself, how- ever, Prof. Abbott’s extreme view has (as has, indeed, al- ready incidentally appeared) the powerful support of Light- foot and Heinrici. The former expresses his opinion not only in his note on Gal. 11. 16, to which Macpherson refers, but more fully and argumentatively in his note on I Cor. vi. 16 printed in his posthumous “ Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul.” In the former of these places he says: “‘ob Neyer Seems to be used impersonally, like the Attic @yci in quoting legal documents, the nominative being lost sight of. If so, we need not inquire whether 6 6eds or 7 ypadn is to be understood. Comp. Aevyet, Rom. xv. 10, Eph. iv. 8, v. 14; and dnciv, I Cor. vi. 16, II Cor. XO Ol LE) ea In the latter, speaking more at large ‘‘as to the authority assigned to the passage’’ quoted by St. Paul, he says: ‘““What are we to understand by ¢yciv? Is 6 beds to be supplied or 7 ypabn ? To this question it is safest to reply that we cannot decide. The fact is that, like Neyer, énoitv when introducing a quotation seems to be used impersonally. This usage is common in Biblical Greek (Aevyer, Rom. xv. 10, Gal. ii. 16, Eph. iv. 8, v. 14; énotv, Heb. viii. 5, II Cor. x. 10 (v. l.), more common in classical Greek. Alford, after Meyer, objects to rendering ¢yciv impersonally here, as contrary to St. Paul’s usage. But the only other occurrence of the phrase in St. Paul is II Cor. x. 10, where he is not introducing Scripture, but the objections of human critics and of more than one critic. If then ¢nciv be read there at all, it must be impersonal. The apostle’s analogous use of eye points to the same conclusion. In Eph. v. 14 it introduces a quotation which is certainly not in Scripture, and apparently be- longed to an early Christian hymn. We gather therefore that St. Paul’s usage does not suggest any restriction here to 6 eds or 7 ypadn. But we cannot doubt from the context that the quotation is meant to be authoritative.”’ In his own commentary on I Corinthians (1880), Heinrici writes as follows: “To onot, just as to Neyer (II Cor. vi. 2, Gal. iil. 16) nothing at all is to be supplied, but like inquzt it stands, sometimes as the introduc- SileOAY oom mORLE LURMESAYS 2 es GODPSAYS — 295 tion to an objection (II Cor. x. 10, where Holsten refers to Bentley on Horat., Serm., 1, 4, 78), sometimes as a general formula of citation. It is especially often used in the latter sense by Philo, in the quotation of Scripture passages, and by Arrian-Epictetus, who supplies many most interesting parallels to the Pauline forms of speech. Schweig- hauser, in his Index, under ¢yci, remarks of it: nec enim semper in proferenda objectione locum habet illa formula, verum etiam in citando exemplo ad id quod agitur pertinente. J. G. Miiller (Philo the Jew’s Book on the Creation, Berlin, 1841, p. 44) says that ¢yci, after the example of Plato(?), became gradually among the Hellenistic Jews the standing formula of citation.”’ In his edition of Meyer’s ‘“‘ Commentary on I Corinthians ”’ (eighth edition, 1896), this note reappears in this form: “onov). Who? According to the usual view, God, whose words the sayings of the Scripture are, even when they, like Gen. 11. 24 through Adam, are spoken through another. Winer, 7 § 58, 9, 486: Buttmann, 117. But the impersonal sense ‘es heisst,’ ‘inquit,’ les nearer the Pauline usage; he coincides in this with Arrian-Epictetus and Philo, with whom ¢yci sometimes introduces an objection, sometimes is the customary formula of citation. Cf. II Cor. x. 10, vi. 2, I Cor. xv. 27, Eph. iv. 8; Winer, as above; Miller, in Philo, De op. mund., 44; Heinrici, 1. 181. In accordance with this, are the other supplements of subject — 7 ypady or 76 mvedua (Riickert) — to be estimated.”’ Even in the extremity of his contention, therefore, Dr. Ab- bott, it seems, is not without support — on the philological side, at least — in previous commentators of the highest rank. He himself does not seem, however, quite clear in his own mind: and his confusion of both considerations and commen- tators which make for the fundamentally diverse positions that there is to be supplied with \éyer some such subject as n ypady, and that there is nothing at all to be supplied but the word is to be taken with entire indefiniteness, is indica- tory of the main thing that calls for remark in Dr. Abbott’s note. For, why should this confusion take place? It is quite evident that in interpreting the phrase the fundamental dis- tinction lies between the view which supposes that a subject to \éver is so implied as to be suggested either by the con- 296 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION text or by the mind of the reader from the nature of the case, and that which takes Aéye as a case of true impersonal usage, of entirely indefinite subject. It is a minor difference among the advocates of the first of these views, which separates them into two parties — those which would supply as subject 6 Oeds, and those which would supply ypad7. That one of these subdivisions of the first class of views should be violently torn from its true comradeship and con- fused with the second view, betrays a preoccupation on Dr. Abbott’s part, when dealing with this passage, with con- siderations not of purely exegetical origin. He is for the moment less concerned with ascertaining the meaning of the apostle than with refuting a special interpretation of his words: and therefore everything which stands opposed in any measure to the obnoxious interpretation appears to him to be ‘‘on his side.’? Put somewhat brusquely, this is as much as to say that Dr. Abbott is in this note dominated by dog- matic prejudice. There do not lack other indications of this fact. The most obtrusive of them is naturally the language — scarcely to be called perfectly calm — with which the second paragraph of the note opens: ‘‘ We are certainly not justified in forcing upon the apostle here and in chap. v. 14 a form of expression consistent only with the extreme view of verbal inspiration.”’ Certainly not. But because we chance not to like ‘‘the ex- treme view of verbal inspiration,” are we justified in for- bidding the apostle to use a form of expression consistent only with it, and forcing upon him some other form of ex- pression which we may consider consistent with a view of inspiration which we like better? Would it not be better to permit the apostle to choose his own form of expression and confine ourselves, as expositors, to ascertaining from his form of expression what view of inspiration lay in his mind, rather than seek to force his hand into consistency with our preconceived ideas? The whole structure of the note evinces, however, that it was not written in this purely expository spirit. Thus only can be explained a certain exaggerated “IT SAYS:” “SCRIPTURE SAYS: ” “GOD SAYS” 297 dogmatism in its language, as if doubt were to be silenced by decision of manner if not by decisiveness of evidence. So also probably is to be explained a certain narrowness in the appeal to usage — that rock on which much factitious exegesis splits. Only, it is intimated, in case ‘‘it were St. Paul’s habit to introduce quotations from the Old Testament, by whomso- ever spoken in the original text, with the formula 6 Oeds Aeyer,”’ “could this supplement here be defended.’”’ One asks in astonishment whether St. Paul really could make known his estimate of Scripture as the very voice of God which might naturally be quoted with the formula ‘‘God says,”’ and so render the occurrence of that formula occasionally in his writings no matter of surprise, only by a habitual use of this exact formula in quoting Scripture. And one notes with- out surprise that the narrowness of Dr. Abbott’s rule for the adduction of usage supplies no bar to his practice when he is arguing ‘‘on the other side.’’ At the opening of the very next paragraph we read, ‘“‘It is objected that although gyai is used impersonally, \éyer is not’’: and to this the answer is returned, ‘“The present passage and chap. v. 14 are sufficient to prove the usage for St. Paul’’; with the supplement, ‘‘ And there are other passages in his epistles where this sense is at least applicable’’; and further, ‘‘ But in fact, the impersonal use of dnct in Greek authors is quite different.’’ One fancies Dr. Abbott must have had a grim controversial smile upon his features when he wrote that last clause, which pleads that the meaning assigned to \eyer here is absolutely unexampled in Greek literature, not only for \éyec but even for dyct, as a reason for accepting it for \éye here! But apart from this remarkable instance of skill in marshaling adverse facts — a skill not unexampled elsewhere in the course of this note, as any one who will take the trouble to examine the proof- texts adduced in it will quickly learn — might not the advo- cates of the supplement, 6 eds, say equally that ‘‘the present passage and chap. v. 14 are sufficient to prove the usage for St. Paul, and there are other passages in his epistles where this sense is at least applicable.’’ And might they not support 298 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION this statement with better proof-texts than those adduced by Dr. Abbott, or indeed with the same with better right; as well as with a more applicable supplementary remark than the one with which he really subverts his whole reasoning — such as this, for example, that elsewhere, in the New Testa- ment, as for instance in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the usage contended for undoubtedly occurs, and a satisfactory basis is laid for it in the whole attitude of the entire body of New Testament writers, inclusive of Paul, toward the Old Testament? Certainly, reasoning so one-sided and domi- nated by preconceived opinions so blinding is thoroughly inconclusive. The note is, indeed, an eminent example of that form of argumentation which, to invert a phrase of Omar Khayyam’s, ‘“‘goes out at the same door at which it came in’: and even though its contention should prove sound, can itself add nothing to the grounds on which we embrace it. At best it may serve as the starting-point of a fresh in- vestigation into the proper interpretation of the phrase with which it deals. For such a fresh investigation we should need to give our attention particularly to two questions. The first would in- quire into the light thrown by Paul’s method of introducing quotations from the Old Testament, upon his estimate of the text of the Old Testament, — with a view to determining whether it need cause surprise to find him adducing it with such a formula as ‘‘God says.’’ Subsidiary to this it might be inquired whether it is accurate to say that ‘‘there is not a single instance in which o 6s is either expressed or implied as the subject, except where in the original context God is the speaker,’’ and further, if Paul’s usage elsewhere can be accurately so described, whether that fact will warrant us in denying such an instance to exist in Eph. iv. 8. The second question would inquire into the general usage of the subject- less \éyec or dyoi in and out of the New Testament, with a view to discovering what light may be thrown by it upon the interpretation of the passages in question. It might be in- cidentally asked in this connection whether it is a complete Sama ee OLE LURES SAYS we GODISAYS? 299 account to give of g@yct in profane Greek to say that the ‘impersonal use of @noi in Greek authors is quite different from that of the New Testament, inasmuch as with them gonot = gaol, ‘they say.’”’ It is really somewhat discouraging at this late date to find it treated as still an open question, how Paul esteemed the written words of the Old Testament. And it brings us, as the French say, something akin to stupefaction, when Dr. Abbott goes further and uses language concerning Paul’s attitude toward the Old Testament text which implies that Paul habitually distinguished, in point of authority, between those passages ‘‘where in the original context God is the speaker”? and the rest of the volume, so that ‘‘we have reason to believe”’ that the formula 6 eds Neyer ‘‘could not be used by Paul”’ in introducing Scriptural language not re- corded as spoken by God in the original context. He even suggests, indeed, that Paul shows an underlying doubt as to the Divine source of even the words attributed to God in the Old Testament text — ‘‘not hesitating to use a different subject’? when quoting them, ‘‘as in Rom. x. 19, 20, ‘Moses saith,’ ‘Isaiah is very bold and saith’; Rom. ix. 17, ‘The Scripture saith to Pharaoh’’”’ — and deals with the text of other portions with a freedom which exhibits his little respect for them — ‘‘not hesitating to make important alterations” in them. It would seem to require a dogmatic prejudice of the very first order to blind one to a fact so obvious as that with Paul ‘‘Scripture,” as such, is conceived everywhere as the authoritative declaration of the truth and will of God — of which fact, indeed, no better evidence can be needed than the very texts quoted by Dr. Abbott in a contrary sense. For, when Paul, in Rom. ix. 15, supports his abhorrent rejection of the supposition that there may be unrighteous- ness with God, with the divine declaration taken from Ex. Xxxlli. 19, introduced with the formula, ‘‘ For he”’ — that is, as Dr. Abbott recognizes, God — “‘saith to Moses,’’ and then immediately, in Rom. ix. 17, supports the teaching of 300 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION this declaration with the further word of God taken from Ex. ix. 16, introduced with the formula, ‘‘ For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh”? — the one thing which is thrown into a relief above all others is that, with Paul, ‘‘God saith” and ‘‘Seripture saith”? are synonymous terms, so synony- mous in his habitual thought that he could not only range the two together in consecutive clauses, but use the second in a manner in which, taken literally, it is meaningless and can convey an appropriate sense only when translated back into its equivalent of ‘‘God saith.’’ The present tense in both formulas, moreover, advises us that, despite the fact that in both instances they are words spoken by God which are cited, it is rather as part of that Scripture which to Paul’s thinking is the ever-present and ever-speaking word of God that they are adduced. It is not as words which God once spoke (eizev, LX X.) to Moses that the former passage is here adduced, but as living words still speaking to us — it is not as words Moses was once commanded to speak to Pharaoh that the second is here adduced, but as words recorded in the ever-living Scripture for our admonition upon whom the ends of the world have come. They are thus not assigned to Scripture in order to lower their authority: but rather as a mark of their abiding authority. And similarly when in that catena of quotations in Rom. x. 16-21, we read at ver. 19, ‘‘first Moses saith,’’ and then at ver. 20, ‘‘and Isaiah is very bold and saith,” both adducing words of God — the implica- tion is not that Paul looks upon them as something less than the words of God and so cites them by the names of these human authors; but that it is all one to him to say, ‘‘God says,’ and ‘‘ Moses says,” or ‘‘Isaiah says’’: and therefore in this catena of quotations — in which are included four, not two, quotations — all the citations are treated as alike authoritative, though some are in the original context words of God and others (ver. 16) words of the prophet — and though some are adduced by the name of the prophet and some without assignment to any definitely named human source. The same implication, again, underlies the fact that nt i _— = — pil SAYS: 7 SCRIPTURE SAYS: * GOD SAYS” 301 in the catena of quotations on Rom. xv. 9 seq., the first is introduced by xaOws yéypamrar, the next two by kal wadw Neyer and kal radu, and the last by cal radu ‘Hoatas Neyer — the first being from Ps. Ixxviii. 50, the second from Deut. xxx. 48, the third from Ps. exvii. 1, and only the last from Isaiah — Isa. xi. 10: clearly it is all one to the mind of Paul how Scripture is adduced — it is the fact that it is Scripture that is important. So also it is no more true that in Gall. iii. 16, the Aévye: “‘ corresponds to éppnOnoav”’ of the immediately preceding context, than that it stands in line with the ‘‘and the Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the Gospel beforehand unto Abraham”’ of ii. 8 — a thing which the Scripture as such certainly did not do; and with the ‘‘for it is written” of iii. 10 and iii. 18, and the unheralded quotations of the Scriptures as unques- tioned authority of iii. 11 and iii. 12; and with the general appeal in ill. 22 to the teaching of Scripture as a whole as the sole testimony needed: the effect of the whole being to evince in the clearest manner that to Paul the whole text of Scripture, inclusive of Gen. xii. 3, Deut. xxvil. 26, Hab. ll. 4, Lev. xviii. 5, and Gen. xxii. 18, was as such the living word of the living God profitable to all ages alike for divine instruction. We need not go, indeed, beyond the first sentence of this Epistle to the Romans from which all but one of Dr. Abbott’s citations are drawn, to learn Paul’s conception of Scripture as the crystallized voice of God. There he declares himself to have been ‘‘separated unto the gospel of God which he prom- ised afore by his prophets in the Holy Scriptures” (Rom. 1. 2). Dr. George T. Purves, in a singularly well-considered and impressive paper on ‘‘St. Paul and Inspiration,” printed in The Presbyterian and Reformed Review for January, 1893,” justly draws out the meaning of this compressed statement thus: “Not only did Moses and the prophets speak from God, but the sacred Scriptures themselves were in some way composed under divine 21 Vol. iv, p. 13. 302 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION control. He not only affirms with Peter that ‘moved by the Holy Ghost, men spake from God,’ but that ‘the Scriptures themselves are inspired by God.’ Paul plainly recognizes the human authorship of the books, and quotes Moses and David and Isaiah as speaking therein. But not only through them, but in these books of theirs did God also speak. Many readers notice the first part of Paul’s statement, but not the second. God spake ‘through the prophets in the Holy Scriptures.’”’ This emphasis on the written Scriptures as themselves the product of a divine activity, making them as such the divine voice to us, is characteristic of the whole treatment of Scrip- ture by Paul (I Cor. x. 11, Rom. xv. 4, iv. 23, I Cor. ix. 10, iv. 6): and it is thoroughly accordant with the point of view so exhibited, that he explicitly declares, not of the writers of Seripture, but of the sacred writings themselves, that they are theopneustic — breathed out, or breathed into by God (II Tim. iii. 16). For he applies this epithet not to ‘‘every prophet,” but to “every Scripture’? — that is, says Dr. Purves, to ‘‘the whole collection to which he had just re- ferred as the ‘sacred writings,’ and all their parts’’: these writings are theopneustic. ‘“‘ By their inspiration, he evidently meant,’’ continues Dr. Purves justly, ‘“‘that, as writings, they were so composed under God’s particular direction that both in substance and in form they were the special utterances of His mind and will.’’ It could be nothing more than an accident if Paul, under the dominance of such a conception of Scripture, has no- where happened to adduce from it a passage, taken out of a context in which God is not expressly made in the Old Testa- ment narrative itself the speaker, with the formula, 6 6eds Neyer, expressed or implied. If no instance of such an adduc- tion occurs, it is worth while to note that fact, to be sure, as one of the curious accidents of literary usage; but as there is no reason to doubt that such a formula would be entirely natural on the lips of Paul, so there is no propriety in calling it impossible in Paul, or even in erecting a distinction be- tween him and other New Testament writers on the ground that they do and he does not quote Scripture by such a BSA Stee SCRIPTURE SAYS 37. GOD SAYS 303 formula. As a matter of fact, the distinction suggested be- tween passages in Scripture ‘‘ where in the original context God is the speaker”’ and passages where He is not the speaker — as if the one could be cited with a ‘‘God says,” and the other not, — is foreign to Paul’s conception and usage, as has abundantly appeared already: so that whatever passages of the former kind occur — ‘‘as in Rom. ix. 15,” says Dr. Ab- bott — are really passages in which Scripture is quoted with a “God says.” It cannot be held to be certain, moreover, that passages do not occur in which the ‘‘God says” introduces words not ascribed to God in the original context — so long, at least, as it is not obvious that ‘‘God”’ is not the subauditum in passages like Acts xiii. 35, Rom. xv. 10, Gal. iii. 16. It is no doubt, however, also worth observing that it is equally matter of fact, that it is rather to the Epistle to the Hebrews than to those that bear the name of Paul that we shall need to go to find a body of explicit instances of the usage in question. This is, as we have said, an interesting fact of literary usage, but it is not to be pressed into an indication of a divergent point of view toward ‘‘Scripture”’ between the Epistle to the Hebrews and the epistles that bear Paul’s name. Even Dr. Westcott seems, to be sure, so to press it. In the interesting dissertation “On the Use of the Old Testa- ment in the Epistle,’ which he has appended to his “ Com- mentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews,”’ he sets out in some detail the facts that bear on the mode in which that epistle cites the Old Testament: “The quotations,” he tells us, ‘are without exception made anonymously. There is no mention anywhere of the name of the writer (iv. 7 is no exception to the rule). God is presented as the speaker through the person of the prophet, except in the one place where He is directly addressed (ii. 6). . . . In two places the words are attributed to Christ. . . . In two other places the Holy Spirit specially is named as the speaker. .. . But it is worthy of notice that in each of these two cases the words are also quoted as the words of God (iv. 7, viii. 8). This assignment of the written word to God, as the 304 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION Inspirer of the message, is most remarkable when the words spoken by the prophet in his own person are treated as divine words — as words spoken by Moses: 1. 6 (Deut. xxxi. 43); iv. 4, comp. vv. 5, 7, 8 (Gen. ii. 2); x. 830 (Deut. xxxii. 36); and by Isaiah: 11. 13 (Isa. viii. 17 f), comp. also xiii. 5 (Deut. xxxi. 6). Generally it must be observed that no difference is made between the word spoken and the word written. For us and for all ages the record is the voice of God. The record is the voice of God, and as a necessary consequence the record is itself living. . . . The constant use of the present tense in quotations emphasizes this truth: ii. 11, 1. 7, xu. 5. Comp. xu. 26.” # Every careful student will recognize this at once as a very clear and very true statement of the attitude of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews toward the Old Testament. But we cannot help thinking that Dr. Westcott overshoots the mark when he throws it into strong contrast with the attitude of the rest of the New Testament writers to the Old Testament. When he says, for example: ‘‘ There is nothing really parallel to this general mode of quotation in the other books of the New Testament’’ — meaning apparently to suggest, as the subsequent context indicates, that the author of this Epistle exhibits an identification in his mind of the written text of the Scriptures with the voice of God which is foreign to the other writers of the New Testament — he would seem to have attached far too great significance to what is, after all, so far as it is real, nothing more than one of those surface differences of individual usage which are always observable among writers who share the same fundamental view-point, or even in different treatises from the same hand. Entirely at one in looking upon the Scriptures as nothing less than ta Aoyra Tov Oeot (Rom. iii. 2, Heb. v. 12 8) —in all their parts and phrases the utterance of God — the epistles that bear the name of Paul and this epistle yet chance to differ in the prevalent mode in which these ‘‘oracles”’ are adduced: the one in its formulas of citation emphasizing the sole fact that they are “oracles” it is quoting, the others, 22 Op. cit., pp. 285, 286, 287. 3 Westcott, in loc., “‘it seems more natural to refer it to the collected writ- ings of the Old Testament.” “TE SAYS: {SCRIPTURE SAYS: 71" GOD SAYS ” 305 that these ‘‘oracles”’ lie before them in wrttien form. Let the fact of this difference, of course, be noted: but let it not be overstrained and, as if it were the sole relevant fact in the field of view, made to bear the whole weight of a theory of the relations of the two in their attitude toward Scripture. Impossible as such a procedure should be in any ease, it becomes doubly so when we note the extremely narrow and insecure basis for the conclusion drawn, which is offered by the differences in usage adduced between Hebrews and the rest of the New Testament — which means for us primarily the epistles that bear the name of Paul. Says Dr. Westcott in immediate sequence to what we have quoted from him: “There is nothing really parallel to this general mode of quotation in the other books of the New Testament. Where the word \éyer occurs elsewhere, it is for the most part combined either with the name of the prophet or with ‘Scripture’: e.g., Rom. x. 16, ‘Hoatas Neyer; x. 19, Mwvofjs Neyer; Xl. 9, Aaveld Neyer; IV. 3, ) ypady Ever; 1x. 17, Neyer 77 ypapn, etc. Where God is the subject, as is rarely the case, the refer- ence is to words directly spoken by God: II Cor. vi. 2, Neyer yap (6 Geds); Rom. ix. 15, 7G Mwvoe? Neyer; 1X. 25, & 7H *Qone Eyer. Comp. Rom. xv. 9-12 (yéeypamrar... Neyer... . ‘ Hoatas Neyer). The two pass- ages in the Epistle to the Ephesians (iv. 8, v. 14, 6.6 Neyer) appear to be different in kind.”’ The last remark is apparently intended to exclude Eph. iv. 8 and v. 14 from consideration.** The immediately preceding one seems intended to suggest that the subject to be supplied to eye in Rom. xv. 10, which carries with it also Rom. xv. 11, is 7 ypadn; if we rather supply with Sanday-Headlam Ges, this citation would afford an instance to the contrary. Other cases similar to this, e. g., Acts xiil. 35 * and (with the 24 What is meant may possibly be that these two passages in Ephesians are analogous neither to the usage of Hebrews nor to that of the rest of the New Testament, but stand out by themselves. In that case Dr. Westcott probably means to take them as instances of the indefinite use of \eye. Cf. above, p. 293. 2 Cf. Meyer’s note: ‘‘réyer], the subject is necessarily that of eipnxer, ver. 34, and so, neither David (Bengel, Heinrichs and others), nor the Scriptures (Herr- mann), but God, although Ps. xvi. 10 contains David’s words addressed to God. But David is considered as the interpreter of God, who has put the prayer into his mouth. Comp. on Matt. xix. 5.” 306 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION parallel yal) I Cor. vi. 16, are simply passed by in silence. If such cases were considered, perhaps the induction would be different. It is possible, on the other hand, that the usage of the Epistle to the Hebrews also is conceived by Dr. Westcott a shade too narrowly. It scarcely seems sufficient to say of ii. 6, for example, that this passage is not an exception to the more general usage of the Epistle inasmuch as it is ‘“‘the one place where God is directly addressed’? — and is therefore not ascribed to Him, but to ‘‘some one somewhere.”’ Accord- ing to Dr. Westcott’s own exposition,” we have in 1. 10 also words addressed to God and yet cited as spoken by God, and in a number of passages words spoken of God nevertheless cited as spoken by Him; and, in a word, the fundamental principle of the mode of quotation used by this Epistle is that the words of Scripture as such are the living words of God and are cited as such indifferently — whether in the original context spoken by Him or by another of Him, to Him, or apart from Him. In any event, therefore, the cita- tion in the present passage by the formula ‘‘someone hath somewhere borne witness”’ is an exception to the general usage of the Epistle, and evidences that the author of it, though conceiving Scripture as such as a body of divine oracles, did not really lose sight of the fact that these oracles were delivered through men, and might therefore be cited on occasion as the deliverances of these men. In other words, here is a mode of citation of the order affirmed to be charac- 26 Cf. Meyer’s note: “‘¢@nciv], who it is that says it, is self-evident, namely, God, the utterances of Scripture being His words, even when they may be spoken through another, as Gen. ii. 24 was through Adam. Comp. on Matt. xix. 5. Sim- ilarly Gal. ii. 16, Eph. iv. 8, Heb. viii. 5, I Cor. xv. 27. ‘H ypadn, which is usu- ally supplied here, would need to be suggested by the context, as in Rom. xv. 10. Riickert arbitrarily prefers 76 rvedua.” “To take it impersonally, ‘it is said’ as in II Cor. x. 10, according to the well-known usage in the classics, would be without warrant from any other instance of Paul’s quotations from Scripture. Comp. Winer, Gr., p. 486 [English translation, 656]; Buttmann, Neut. Gr., p. 117 [English translation, 134].” 27 For he supposes the words quoted in i. 10 to be addressed not to Christ, but to God: “God through His Spirit so speaks in the Psalmist that words not directly addressed to Christ find their fulfillment in Him.” CO es a4 —_ BLISS 2 NORE TUR ESSAYS meio DroAY Sa 307 teristic of the letters bearing the name of Paul. It is at least not beyond the limits of possibility that another such in- stance occurs in iv. 7: ‘‘saying in David.’”’ No doubt, ‘‘in David,’ may be taken here, as Dr. Westcott takes it, as meaning ‘“‘in the person of David,” i. e., through his pro- phetic utterances; but it seems, on the whole, much more natural to take it as parallel to év 77 BiBAw Mwvaéws (Mark xii. 26), €v TQ ‘Qoné (Rom. ix. 25), and as meaning ‘‘in the book of David ” 8 — exhibiting the consciousness of the author that he is quoting not merely ‘‘God,” but God in the written Scripture — written by the hand of men. This is the more worth insisting on that it is really not absolutely certain that the subject of the \éywy here is immediately ‘‘God”’ at all. There is no subject expressed either for it or the opife on which it depends; and when we go back in the context for an express subject it eludes us, and we shall not find it until we arrive at the ‘‘even as the Holy Ghost saith” of iu. 7. From that point on, we have a series of quotations, intro- duced, quite in the manner of Philo, with formule which puzzle us as to their reference — whether to God, who is the general subject of the whole context, or to Scripture, con- ceived as the voice of God (e. g., ili. 15, & 7T@ NEyeoOar — by whom? God? or ‘‘the Scripture” already quoted? iv. 4, elonkey — who? God? or Scripture? iv. 5, kal & TovTw wadwy). Something of the same kind meets us in the eighth chapter, where quite in the manner of Philo, we begin at ver. 5: ‘‘Hven as Moses was oracularly warned when about to make the tabernacle, for ‘see,’ dyciv, etc.’’ and proceed at ver. 8, with a subjectless \éye, to close with ver. 13 with an equally subjectless év 7@ eye. It certainly is not obvious that the subject to be supplied to these three verbs is ‘‘God”’ rather than ‘‘oracular Scripture.”’ One can but feel that with a due regard to these two classes of neglected facts, a somewhat broader comparison of the usage of the Epistle to the Hebrews and that of those 28 So (according to Liinemann), Dindorf, Schulz, B6hme, Bleek, Ebrard Alford, Woerner: add Lowrie, Riggenbach. 308 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION letters that bear the name of Paul would not leave an im- pression of such sharp and indubitable divergence in point of view as Dr. Westcott’s statement is apt to suggest. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, the verb Aéyw is used to introduce citations, (1) with expressed subject: 1. 6, ‘‘ But someone some- where hath borne witness, saying... .’’; 111. 7, ‘‘ Even as the Holy Ghost saith... .’’; vi. 14, ‘‘God....sware by him- self, saying... .’’: (2) with subject to be supplied from the preceding context: 1. 6, ‘‘And when he (God) again bringeth in the firstborn into the world, he saith... .”5;1. 7, ‘“And of the angels he (God) saith... .’’; 11. 12, ‘‘ He (Christ) is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying... .’’; v. 6, ‘‘As he (God) saith also in another place... .’’: (3) with subject to be supplied from the general knowledge of the reader: x. 5, ‘“Wherefore when he (Christ) cometh into the world, he saith 2.2.27 x: 8) 4) Sayings (Chist).abovers: sass) eee ‘‘But now hath he (God) promised, saying... .’’: (4) without obvious subject: ii. 15, ‘‘ While it is said, To day, ete.” (by whom? God? or the Scripture quoted, iil. 7 seqg.?); iv. 7, “‘He [ or it? ] again defineth a certain time, saying in David....”; vii. 8, ‘For finding fault with them, he [or it?] saith... .” (ef. viii. 13, ‘‘in that he [or it?] saith ....’’). On the other hand, in the epistles that bear the name of Paul we may distinguish some four cases of the adduction of Scripture by the formula déyer. (1) Sometimes, quoting Scripture as a divine whole, the formula runs 7 ypad7 Aeyer or A€yet 7 Ypad7: Rom. iv. 8, 1x. 17 (Aéyer 7 ypadn 7G Papaw®), xi. 2 (7 ypady év ‘Hyeia), Gal. iv. 30, I Tim. v. 18. (2) Sometimes it is adduced by the name of the author: Aaveié Néyet, Rom. iv. 6, xi. 9; “Hoaias \éyer, Rom. x. 16, 20, xv. 12. (8) Sometimes it is quoted by its contents: 6 vowos N€yer, Rom. ili. 19, vii. 7, I Cor. ix. 8, 10, xiv. 34; the righteousness that is of faith \éyet, Rom. x. 6 (ef. ver. 10); 6 xpnuariouds Neyer, Rom. xi. 4. (4) Some- times it is adduced by the verb Aéyer without expressed subject. (A) In some of these cases the subject is plainly indicated in the preceding context: Rom. ix. 25 = ‘‘God,” from ver. 22; x. 10 = ‘‘the righteousness of faith,” (?) from ver. 6; x. 21 = ber set DORR LURE SAYS: i GOD SAYS 309 ‘“‘Tsaiah,’”’ from ver. 20. (B) In others it is less clearly indi- cated and is not altogether obvious: [ Acts xili. 34 = ‘‘God,”’ from eipnxev? |; Rom. ix. 15 = ‘‘God,” from ver. 14?; Rom. xv. 10 = “Scripture,” from yéypamrac?; II Cor. vi. 2 = God; 7mirom | preceding» context; Gal ai. 16 =)" God,7 from the promises?; Ejph. iv. 8 and v. 12. It should be added that parallel to the use of the subjectless @nct in Heb. viii. 5 we have the similar use of it in I Cor. vi. 16. When we glance over these two lists of phenomena we shall certainly recognize a difference between them: but the difference is not suggestive of such an extreme distinction as Dr. Westcott appears to indicate. The fact is that for its proper estimation we must rise to a higher viewpoint and look upon the two lists in the light of a much larger fact. For we cannot safely study this difference of usage as an isolated phenomenon: and we shall get the key to its inter- pretation into our hands only when. we correlate it with a more general view of the estimate of Scripture and mode of adducing Scripture prevalent at the time and in the circles which are represented by these epistles. Dr. Westcott already points the way to this wider outlook, when at the end of his discussion he adds these words: “The method of citation on which we have dwelt is peculiar to the Epistle [to the Hebrews] among the writings of the New Testa- ment; but it is interesting to notice that there is in the Epistle of Clement a partial correspondence with it. Clement generally quotes the LXX. anonymously. He attributes the prophetic words to God (15, 21, 46), to Christ (16, 22), to the Holy Word (13, 56), to the Holy Spirit (13, 16). But he also, though rarely, refers to the writers (26, Job; 52, David), and to Books (57, Proverbs, ‘the all virtuous Wis- dom’), and not unfrequently uses the familiar form yéyparra: (14, 39, etc.). The quotations in the Epistle of Barnabas are also commonly anonymous, but Barnabas mentions several names of the sacred writers, and gives passages from the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms with the formula, ‘the Prophet saith’ (vi. 8; 2; 4, 6).”’ And, he should have added, Barnabas also repeatedly ad- duces what he held to be the Word of God with the formulas 310 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION yéypamrau (iv. 3, 14, v. 2, xi. 1, xiv. 6, xv. 1, xvi. 6) and Aéyer h ypady (iv. 7, 11, v. 4, vi. 12, xiil. 2, xv. 5): and indeed passes from the one mode of citation to the other without the least jar, as, for example, in chap. v.: ‘‘ For zt 1s written concerning him, some things indeed with respect to Israel, and some with respect to us. For 2 saith this (Isa. lil. 5, 7)..... And the Scripture saith (Prov. 1. 17).... And still also this (Jer. 1. 25) Serie For God saith (Zech. xii. 6)... .. For the prophesier SAL Esaki e2ls ebCy) een And again it savth (Isa. |. 6).”’ Though adverting thus to these facts, however, Dr. Westcott quite misses their significance. What they mean is shortly this: that the two modes of citing Scripture thought to dis- tinguish Hebrews and the letters that bear the name of Paul, do not imply well-marked distinctive modes of conceiving Scripture; but coéxist readily within the limits of one brief letter, like the letter of Clement or that of Barnabas. No wonder, when laid side by side, we found the usages of the two to present no sharply marked division line, but to crumble into one another along the edges. And when we look beyond Clement and Barnabas and take a general glance over the literature of the time, it is easily seen that we are looking in the two cases only at two fragments of one fact, and are seeing in each only one of the everywhere current methods of citing Scripture as the very Word of God. It seems inconceivable that one could rise from reading, say, twenty pages of Philo, for example, without being fully con- vinced of this. Philo’s fundamental conception of Scripture is that it is a book of oracles; each passage of it is a xpyouds or \Oyuor, and the whole is therefore ot xpnopoi or Ta \Oyta: he currently quotes it, accordingly, as ‘‘the living voice” of God, and whole treatises of his may be read without meeting with a single citation introduced by yéypamrac or with the Scriptures once called 7 ypadn. Nevertheless, when occasion serves, he adduces Scripture readily enough as % ypadn, and cites it with yéypamrac, and calls it Ta ypauuara. We have no more reason for assuming that such modes of citing Scripture RSA o 7 eC hRiPTURE,SAYS374> GOD SAYS 7 311 would have been foreign to the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (whose mode of citing Scripture is markedly Phi- lonic) than we have for assuming that the author of the tract de Mutatione Nominum, in which they do not occur, but where Scripture is almost exclusively of xpyouot, or the author of the tracts de Somniis, where again they do not occur, but where Scripture is almost exclusively 6 iepdos (or @ Getos) NOyos (i. 14, 22, 33, 35, 37, 39, 42, ii. 4, 9, 37, etc.; 1. 33, 1. 37) — which designations are rare again in de Mutatione Nominum (6 6. X., 20; 6t. X., 838) — held a different conception of Scripture from the author of the tract de Legatione ad Caium (§ 29) or the tract de Abrahamo (§ 1), in which the Scriptures are spoken of as Ta ypadupara or ai ypagdat. There is no reason, in a word, why, if the Epistle to the Hebrews had contained even a single other verse, it might not have presented the ‘‘exotic,’”’ 7 ypag@7 or yéypar- tat. Because Philo or the author of this Epistle was especially accustomed to look on Scripture as a body of oracles and to cite it accordingly, is no reason why he should forget that it is a body of written oracles and be incapable on occasion of citing it from that point of view. Similarly because Paul ordinarily cites Scripture as written is no reason why he should not be firmly convinced that what is written in it is oracles, or should not occasionally cite it from that point of view. In a word, the two modes of citing Scripture brought into contrast by Bishop Westcott are not two mutually ex- clusive ways of citing Scripture, but two mutually comple- mentary methods. The use of the one by any writer does not argue that the other is foreign to him; if we have enough written material from his hand, we are sure rather to find in him traces of the other usage also. This is the meaning of the presence in the Epistle to the Hebrews of suggestive in- stances of an approach to the citation of Scripture as a document: and of the presence in the epistles bearing the name of Paul of instances of modes of citation which hint of his conception of Scripture as an oracular book. Where and when the sense of the oracular character of the source 312 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION of the quotation is predominatingly in mind it tends to be quoted with the simple @yai or Aéyer, with the implication that it is God that says it: this is most richly exhibited in Philo, and, within the limits of the New Testament, most prevailingly in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Where and when, on the other hand, the consciousness that it is from a written source that the authoritative words are drawn is predomi- nant in the mind, it tends to be quoted with the simple yéypamrrat or the more formal 7 ypad7 eye: this is the mode in which it is most commonly cited in the epistles that bear the name of Paul. Both modes of citation rest on the common consciousness of the Divine authority of the matter cited, and have no tendency to exclude one another: they appear side by side in the same writer, and must be held to pre- dominate variously in different writers only according to their prevailing habits of speaking of Scripture, and at differ- ent times in the same writer according as the circumstances under which he was writing threw the emphasis in his mind temporarily upon the Scriptures as written oracles or as written oracles. From this point of view we may estimate Dr. Westcott’s remark: ‘‘Nor can it be maintained that the difference of usage is to be explained by the difference of readers, as being [in Hebrews] Jews, for in the Gospels yéyparrat is the com- mon formula (nine times in St. Matthew).’’ This remark, like his whole treatment of the subject, seems conceived in a spirit which is too hard and narrow, too drily statistical. No one, doubtless, would contend that the difference of readers directly produced the difference of usage, as if the Scriptures must be quoted to Jews as ‘‘oracles of God,” and to Gentiles as ‘‘ written documents.’’ But it is far from obvi- ous that the difference of readers may not, after all, have had very much to do with the prevalence of the one mode of citation in the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the other in the epistles that bear the name of Paul. The Jews were certainly accustomed to the current citation of the Scrip- tures as the living voice of God in oracular deliverances — Se eee eee ee WUDRSooe drool UORT SAYS: GOD SAYow BS as the usage of Philo sufficiently indicates: and it may be that this was subtly felt the most impressive method of adducing the words of the Holy Book when addressing Jews. On the other hand, the heathen were accustomed to au- thoritative documents, cited currently, with an implication of their authority, by the formula yéypamrar: % and it may well be that this subtly suggested itself as the most telling way of adducing Scripture as authoritative law to the Gentiles. We need not ride such a notion too hard: but it at least seems far from inconceivable that the selfsame writer, addressing, on the one hand, a body of devout Jews, and, on the other, a body of law-loving Romans, might find himself using almost unconsciously modes of adducing Scrip- ture suggestive, in the one case, of loving awe in its presence and, in the other, of its binding authority over the conscience. Be this as it may, however, it is quite clear that the fact that Paul ordinarily adduces Scripture with ‘‘the forms (kaéas) yéypamra (sixteen times in the Epistle to the Romans), 7 ypapdy) Neyer, and the like, which never occur in the Epistle to the Hebrews,’’ implies no far-reaching difference of con- ception on his part from that exhibited by that Epistle, as to the fundamental character of the Scriptures as an oracular book — which, on the contrary, is just what he calls them (Rom. i. 2) — and certainly raises no presumption against his occasionally quoting them as an oracular book with the formula so characteristic of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 6 feos N€vyer, or its equivalents. And the fact that ‘‘Paul not unfrequently quotes the words of God as ‘Scripture’ simply (e. g., Rom. ix. 17)” so far from raising a presumption that he would not quote ‘‘Scripture”’ as ‘‘ words of God,” actually demonstrates the contrary, as it only in another way indi- cates the identification on his part of the written word with the voice of the speaking God. If we approach the study of such texts as Eph. iv. 8, v. 29 Cf. Deissmann, “ Bibelstudien,” 109; “‘ Neue Bibelstudien,” 77: and also for the implications, Kuyper, ‘Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology,” pp. 483-435 and 444-445. 314 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 14, therefore, from the point of view of the Pauline concep- tion of Scripture, there is no reason why they should not be understood as adducing Scripture with a high ‘‘God says.” To say that ‘‘ we have reason to believe” that such a formula ‘could not be used by Paul,’’ is as wide of the mark as could well be. To say that it is a formula more in accordance with the point of view of the Epistle to the Hebrews, is to con- found mere occasional differences in usage with fundamental differences in conception. To Paul, too, the Scriptures are a book of oracles, and though he cites them ordinarily as written oracles there is no reason why he should not occa- sionally cite them merely as oracles. And in any case, whether we take the subauditum in such passages as ‘‘God,” or ‘‘Seripture,’’ or prefer to render simply by ‘‘it,’’ from Paul’s point of view the meaning is all one: in any case, Scripture is to him the authoritative dictum of God and what it says is adduced as the authoritative word that ends all strife. In seeking to estimate the likelihoods as to the meaning of such a locution as the 6 \éyer of Eph. iv. 8, v. 14, we should not lose from sight, on the other hand, the fact that the Greek language was not partial to true ‘‘impersonals,”’ that is, absolutely indefinite uses of its verbs. Says Jelf: ‘“‘Of impersonal verbs (in English, verbs with the indefinite zt) the Greek language has but few.”’ *° Says Kihner: “Impersonal verbs, by which we understand a verb agreeing with the indefinite pronoun zt, are not known to the Greek language: for expressions like det, xp7 .. . A€yerar, etc... . the Greek always con- ceived as personal, in that the infinitive or subjoined sentence was considered the subject of these verbs.”’ *! No doubt, the subject often suffers ellipsis — especially when it may be counted upon readily to suggest itself, either out 80 § 373, 1. obs., 1. 31 “ Ausfiihr. Gram.,”’ ii. 30 (§ 352). PLUG SAYS eo ORTPTURE SAYS 77h GODsSAYS 7 315 of the predicate itself, or out of the context, or out of the knowledge of the reader: and no doubt this implied subject is sometimes the indefinite 71s. But it remains true that as yet there has turned up no single instance in all Greek liter- ature of \éyer in the purely indefinite sense of ‘‘someone says,’’ equivalent to ‘‘it is said”’ in the meaning of general rumor, or of a common proverb, or a current saying; and though there have been pointed out instances of something like this in the case of the kindred word ¢yot, it still remains somewhat doubtful precisely how they are to be interpreted. The forms commonly used to express this idea are either the expressed tis, or the third person plural, as déyouvct, dact, ovowafovow, or the third person singular passive, as Aéyerat, or the second person singular optative or indicative of the historical tenses, as dains av, = dicas, or the like.” We find it, indeed, occasionally asserted that onct is used sometimes or frequently as a pure impersonal, in the sense of ‘it is said.”’ The passage from Bernhardy, to be sure, to which reference has been made in support of this assertion, by more than one of the commentators adduced above, has its primary interest not in this point, but in the different one of the use of the singular ¢@nai for the plural — like the Latin nquit, and the English ‘‘says”’ in that vulgar colloquial lo- cution in which it is made to do duty not only in the form ‘‘he says,” but also in such forms as ‘‘I says” and ‘‘you says,’ and even ‘‘they says” and ‘‘we says.’’ What Bern- hardy remarks is: * “The rhetorical employment of the singular for the plural rests on the Greek peculiarity (K. 3, 5; 6, 13c.) of clearly conceiving and repre- senting the multitude by means of the individual. A ready instance of this is supplied by the formula ¢nzi, like the Latin znquzt an expression for all persons and numbers for designating an indefinite speaker (den beliebigen Redner) — ‘heisst es’; and by the more classic eiwé wou in appeal to the multitude in Attic life, Arist. (as Pac., 385, eimé you ri 3 Jelf, § 373, 7: Kihner, l.c.: Jannaris (‘A Historical Greek Grammar,’ 1161 seq.), treats the omitted subject no otherwise than Kihner. 33 “Syntax.,” 419. 316 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION maoxer’ Gvdpes; coll. Hccl., 741), Plat. (clearly in a turn like eiré yor, & De&kparés re Kai duets of AAAor), Demosth., Phil. 1, p. 45; Chers., p. 108; LaMOCr ADial Lowes The usage of noi here more particularly adverted to — for all numbers and persons — seems a not uncommon one. In- stances may possibly be found in the “‘ Discourses”’ of Epic- tetus i. 29, 34 (Schenkl, p.95). ‘‘ Even athletes are dissatisfied with slight young men: ‘ He cannot lift me,’ dyat,’’ where onat might perhaps be rendered by our vernacular, ‘‘says they,”’ referring to ‘‘the athletes.’’ Again, iv. 9, 15 (Schenkl, p. 383): “But learn from what the trainers of boys do. The boy has fallen: ‘Rise,’ dai, ‘wrestle again, till you become strong!’”’ where we may possibly have another ‘says they,’ viz., the trainers. Possibly again i. 10, 20 (Schenkl, p. 133), ‘‘But consider, if you refer everything to a small coin, not even he who loses his nose is in your opinion damaged. ‘ Yes,’ oynot, ‘for he is mutilated in his body,’’’ where possibly gyi is ‘‘says you,” referring to the collocutor, addressed in the preceding context in the second person — though, no doubt, another explanation is here possible. Indeed, in no one of the instances cited is it impossible to conceive a singular sub- ject derived from the contextual plural as specially in mind. If dyot were genuine in Wisdom xv. 12,*° II Cor. x. 10,** these might well supply other instances — the ‘‘says they ”’ in each case continuing the contextual or implicated plural. But in none of these instances, it is to be observed, would the sub- ject be conceived as in the strict sense ‘‘indefinite.’”’ It is a 34 These references are added in a note: ‘Von ¢yci in spiten manche nach Bentley, wie Dav. ad Cic. Tus. i. 39; Wytt. ad Plut., T. vi, p. 791. Von eizé pou, Heind. ad Euthyd., 29.” % Cf. Grimm’s note, given above, p. 289. 86 Meyer, zn loc., continues to read ¢yai. He says, ‘‘It is said, impersonal, as often with the Greeks. See Bernhardy, p. 419. The reading ¢aciv (Lachmann, following B. Vulg.), is a rash correction. Comp. Fritzsche, ad Thesmoph., p. 189; Buttmann, Newt. Gram., p. 119 [English translation, 136]. So in essence most commentators, including Flatt, Storr, Krause, De Wette, Kling, Waite. Riickert more warily comments: “‘¢yciv is here properly recognized as a formula of adduction, without reference to the number of those speaking. See Winer (804).”’ Cf. above, p. 289. ULSAN ar DOR LPT URE SAY Ss aaa COD ISAS 2 317 perfectly definite subject that is present to the mind of the writer, given either in the immediate context or in the thorough understanding that exists between the writer and reader. There is in them nothing whatever of the vagueness that attaches to the French ‘‘on dit,’’ or the German ‘‘man sagt,” or the English ‘‘it is said.’’? The Greeks had other lo- cutions for expressing this idea, and if it was ever expressed by the simple ¢yat, only the slightest traces of it remain in their extant literature. In the seventh edition of the Greek Lexicon of Liddell & Scott,>” nevertheless, this usage is expressly assigned to @yat. We read: “act parenthetically, they say, zt is said, Il. 5, 638, Od. 6, 42 and Att.; but in prose also ¢yzi, like French on dit, Dem. 650, 18, Plut. 2, 112 C., etc. (so Lat. inquit, act; Gronov, Liv. 34, 3, Bent. Hor. 1 Sat. 4, 79; — especially in urging an objection or counter- argument, v. Interpp. Pers. Sat. 1, 40);—so also é¢n, c. ace. et inf., Xen. An. i, 6, 6.” It is far from obvious, however, that the passages here ad- duced will justify precisely the usage which they are cited to illustrate. In the passage from Demosthenes — éoTw, dnoiv, vrep a’tod 7 a’T? TLiuwpia, etc. — it seems to be quite clear, as the previous sentence suggests and the editors recognize,® that the subject of the dyct is éxaoros Tay yeypadorwr, and is far from a purely indefinite 7us. The passage from Plutarch (‘“Consolatio ad Apollonium,” xxi) is more specious. It runs: GN’ ob yap HATiCov, nol, TavTa TelcecBaL, ovdE TpoTEdOKWN; and is translated in the Latin version, ‘‘ At, inquiunt, preeter spem mihi hic casus et expectationem evenit’’; and in Hol- land’s old English version, ‘‘ But haply you will say, I never thought that this would have befallen unto me, neither did I so much as doubt any such thing.’’ A glance at the context, however, is enough to show that there is no purely indefinite gyoi here, though it may be that we have here another in- stance of its usage without regard to number and person. In 37 P, 1665a (Oxford, 1883). 38 Whiston, Reiske, Weber. 318 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION any case, the subject is the quite definitely conceived inter- locutor of the passage. That the éfn adduced at the end of the note as in some degree of the same sort is not an indefinite épn, but has the Clearchus of the immediately preceding con- text as its subject, is too obvious for remark. Clearchus was present by the request of Cyrus at the trial of Orontes, and when he came out he reported to his friends the manner in which the trial was conducted: ‘‘He said (é6n) that Cyrus began to speak as follows.” It is not by such instances as these that the occurrence of a purely indefinite @yoi can be established.*? The subjectless ¢nai, to be sure, does occur very thickly scattered over the face of Greek literature, introducing or emphasizing quotations, or adducing objections, or the like: but the ‘‘it’”’ that is to be supplied to it is, ordinarily at least, a quite definite one with its own definite reference perfectly clear. A characteristic instance, often referred to, is that in Demosth., ‘“ Leptin,” § 56: xal yap To. uovy T&v TavTwY adbTa Tour’ &y TH oTHAN YeypamTat, éredn Kovwv, dynoiv, nrevOépwae tovs ’“A@nvaiwy cuupaxovs. — "Eat 6€ tovTo TO ypauma..... ‘ Here F. A. Wolf comments: ‘‘ Absolute ibi interjectum est gonolv, aut, si Mavis, subaudi 6 ypaWas’’; and Schaefer adds: ‘““Subaudi 7 orn.” * It does not appear why we should not render simply “it says’’: but this ‘‘it’’ is so far from an ‘‘‘indefinite’ it” that it has its clear reference to the inscrip- tion just mentioned. Perhaps even more instructive is a pas- sage in the third Philippic * of Demosthenes, which runs as follows: “That such is our present state, you yourselves are witnesses, and need not any testimony from me. That our state in former times was quite opposite to this, I shall now convince you, not by any argu- ments of mine, but by a decree of your ancestors (ypaupara rdv 89 We are indebted to Prof. S. S. Orris, of Princeton University, for sugges- tions in preparing this paragraph. He permits us to add that, in his opinion, “onoi is never equivalent to the general, indefinite they say or it is said.” 40 Reiske, p. 477; Dindorf, ii. 23. 41 Reiske and Schaefer, vi. 162. 42 iii. §§ 41, 42 (p. 122); ““Oratores Attici,” v. 214. ML ITESAYS eae SORIPTURE SAYS: 740 GOD SAYS)” 319 mpoyovwv), Which they inscribed upon a brazen column (or#Anv) erected in the citadel. ... What, then, says the decree (ri obv Neyer TA Yodu- para)? ‘Let Arithmius,’ it says (¢nciv), ‘of Zelia, the son of Pythonax, be accounted infamous and an enemy to the Athenians and their allies, both he and all his race.’ . . . The sentence imported somewhat more, for, in the laws importing capital cases, it is enacted (yéypamraz) that ‘when the legal punishment of a man’s crime cannot be inflicted he may be put to death,’ and it was accounted meritorious to kill him. ‘Let not the infamous man,’ saith the law, ‘be permitted to live’ (kat &ruos, pyol, TeOvaTw), intimating that he is free from guilt who exe- cutes this sentence (rotro 617) Neyer, Kafapov Tov ToOUTwWY Ta aToKTELVAaVTA eivat).”’ In both eases it is doubtless enough to render ¢yot, ‘‘it says,”’ its function being in each case to call pointed attention to the words quoted: but the ‘‘it”’ is by no means ‘‘indefinite”’ in the sense that its reference was not very definitely con- ceived. On the second instance of its occurrence Wolf com- ments: ‘‘s. 6 movikds vouos,”’ * while Schaefer says: * 66 : : ; : Pleonastice positum cum yéyparrae praecesserit. Verumtamen h. |. sensum paulo magis juvat quam ubi post ¢fzov, ef7e, continuo sequitur édnv, eon. Ad dnoi subaudi 6 voyobérns.”’ These instances will supply us with typical examples of the ‘‘absolute”’ @yat; and, in this sense, ‘‘subjectless gnci”’ is of very common occurrence indeed in Greek literature. But really ‘‘subjectless dyct,’’ i. e., dyot without any im- plied subject in context or common knowledge, which there- fore we must take quite indefinitely, is very rare indeed, if not non-existent. Perhaps one of the most likely instances of such a usage is offered us by a passage in Plutarch’s “ Con- solatio ad Apollonium,”’ 34. Holland’s old version of it runs thus: * “ And verily in regard of him who is now in a blessed estate, it has not been naturall for him to remaine in this life longer than the terme prefixed and limited unto him; but after he had honestly performed 48 Reiske-Schaefer, v. 579. 44 Op. cit., p. 581. 4 P, 119 F (Wyttenbach, I. 11. 470). 46 P, 530 (20-30). 320 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION the course of his time, it was needfull and requisit for him to take the way for to returne unto his destinie that called for him to come unto her.” From this we may at least learn that dyoiv here presented some difficulty, as Holland passes it by unrendered. The com- mon Latin version restores it, reading the last clause thus: ‘‘Sed ita postulabit natura ut hoc expleto fatale quod aiunt iter conficeret, revocante eum jam ad se natura’’; the Greek running thus: ‘‘a\X’ eiraKxTws TovTov éxmA\NoavTe pos THV eluapuerny érravaryew Topelay, Kadovons avThs, dynoliv, On pos éauTnv.”’ The theory of the Latin version obviously is that onotv here is to be taken indefinitely, that is as an index hand pointing to a current designation of death as an entering upon the ‘‘fated journey’’ — 7 eiwapyévn wopeia. This is ex- plained to us by Wyttenbach’s note: ” ““dnotv] non debebat offendere viros doctos. Est ut azt poeta ille unde hoc sumptum est. Videt hoc et Reiskius. Correxi versionem. De Tragici dicto in Animadversibus dicetur.”’ Accordingly, in the Animadversions,* he addresses himself first to showing that the expression here signalized was a current poetical saying — appealing to Plato,® Julian, Philo; and then adds: “Ceterum ¢yoty ita elliptice usitatum est: v. c. Plutarcho, p. 135 B., 817 D., Dion. Chrys.j p. 493 D., 5382 A., 562 B. Notavit et Uptonus ad Epict. in Indice. In annotatoribus ad Lambertum Bosium de Ellipsibus unus Schoettgenius, idque ex uno Paulo Apostolo hune usum annotavit, p. 74. Et. Latine ita dicitur znqwit, 47 T, ii. 470. 48 VI, u. 791. 49 Phaedo, 401 B. (115): ‘‘in these arrayed, [the soul] is ready to go on her journey to the world below, when her time comes. You, Simmias and Cebes, and all other men, will depart at some time or other. Me already, as the tragic poet would say, the voice of fate calls (€ué 5 viv Hin Karel, hain av avip tpay.xds, F eiuapuevn).”’ The other passages adduced witness only to the currency of the phrase % eluappern topeia. But the language of both Plutarch and Plato would seem to im- ply that the “calling” is certainly a part of the quotation. 5° Precepta Sanit. Tuend., 135 B., ob xara ye riv Euhv, bn, yrounv. Wytt.: ¢n notat alterius dictum ut alibi ¢nai, de quo diximus, p. 119 F.” Cin € ble S winery Oeil URES AY Oo mia OLEOAY Sr ByA| quod monuerunt J. F. Gronovius et A. Drakenborch. ad Livium xxxlv. 3, J. A. Ernestus in Clav. Cic. voce Inquit.” It does not seem, however, that Wyttenbach would have us read the not here quite indefinitely, as adducing for ex- ample a current saying: judging from his own paraphrase this might appear to him as a certain exaggeration of its implication. Its office would seem rather to be to call atten- tion to the words, to which it is adjoined, as quoted, and thus, in the good understanding implied to exist between the writer and his readers, to point definitely to its source: so that it might be a proper note to it to say, ‘‘subaudi 6 TpaylKos, vel 6 months’? — and this might be done with a considerable emphasis on the 6; nay, the actual name of the poet, well known to both writer and reader, though now lost to.us, might equally well be the subauditum, and such, in- deed, may be the implication of the subauditum suggested by Wyttenbach: wt art poeta rlle unde hoc scriptum est. Surely, an instance like this is far from a clear case of the absolutely indefinite or even generally undefining use of dyct. Among the references with which Wyttenbach supports his note, the most promising sends us to Epictetus, whose “Discourses”? abound in the most varied use of @yci, and offer us at the same time one of our most valuable sources of knowledge of the Greek in common use near the times of the apostles.*1 We meet with many instances here which it has been customary to explain as cases of g@yci in a wholly in- definite reference. But the matter is somewhat complicated by the facts that we are not reading here Epictetus’ “ Dis- courses’”’ pure and simple, but Arrian’s report of them; and that Arrian may exercise his undoubted right to slip in a gynot of his own whenever he specially wishes to keep his readers’ attention fixed upon the fact that they are his master’s words he is setting down, or perhaps even merely out of the abiding sense, on his own part, that he is report- ing Epictetus and not writing out of his own mind. When 51 Cf. Heinrici as above, p. 481; and Blass, ‘‘Gram. of New Testament Greek,” English translation, p. 2. 322 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION such a ¢not occurs at the beginning of a section it gives no trouble: every reader recognizes it at once as Arrian’s. But when it occurs unexpectedly in the midst of a vivacious dis- cussion, the reader who is not carrying with him the sense of Arrian’s personality, standing behind the Epictetus he is attending to, is very apt to be stumbled by it, and to resort to some explanation of it on the theory that it is Epictetus’ own and is to find its interpretation in the context. An at- tempt has been made by Schenkl in the index to his edition of Epictetus * to distinguish between the instances in which gynot occurs “‘inter Epicteti verba ab Arriano servata,’’ and those in which it occurs “‘inter Arriani verba.”’ It will be found that most of the instances where it has been thought markedly indefinite in its reference are classed by him in the second group and are thus made very definite indeed — the standing subauditum being ‘‘Epictetus.’’ Opinions will, no doubt, differ as to the proper classification of a number of these: and in any case many instances remain which cannot naturally be so explained — occurring as they do in the midst of vividly conceived dramatic passages. In this very vividness of dramatic action, however, is doubtless to be found the explanation of these instances. So far are the verbs here from being impersonal, that the speakers in these little dialogues stood out before Epictetus’ mind’s eye as actual persons; and it is therefore that he so freely refers to them with his vivid ¢yot. The following are some of the most striking examples of his usage of the word. ‘‘ But now we admit that virtue pro- duces one thing, and we declare that approaching near to it is another thing, namely progress or improvement. Such a person, @yoty, is already able to read Chrysippus by himself. Indeed, sir, you are making great progress’’ (i, 4, 9).°’ Here Schenkl suggests that the dyotv is Arrian’s, and this would seem to be a good suggestion, as it illuminates the passage 2 “Hpicteti Dissertationes,” etc. (Lipsia, 1894), Index, pp. 701, 702. 8 We purposely use Long’s translation, which, in all these instances, proceeds on the theory that the ¢yci is Epictetus’ own. WD ANS. a SCRIP LURE SAYS 2’) “GOD SAYS” 323 in more ways than one. If not, the subauditum would seem to be the collocutor of the paragraph: a ‘‘some one,” no doubt, but rather the ‘‘some one”’ most prominent in the mind of writer and reader in this discussion. ‘‘But a man may say, Whence shall I get bread to eat, when I have nothing (kal 700ev dayw, doi, undev Exwv;) ?” (i. 9, 8). Here again the @yat seems best explained as Arrian’s (Schenkl): if not, the subauditum is again the collocutor prominent through the context, and only, in that sense, indefinite. ‘“Who made these things and devised them? ‘No one,’ you say (dnoiv). O amazing shamelessness and stupidity”’ (i. 16, 8). The reference is to the collocutor. ‘‘ They are thieves and robbers you may say (kAémra, dnotv, eiot....)’’ (1. 18, 3). Either Arrian’s (Schenkl), or with the collocutor as the sub- auditum. ‘‘How can you conquer the opinion of another man? By applying terror to it, he replies (¢yciv), I will conquer it” (i, 29, 12). Subaud? the collocutor. ‘‘ For why, a man says (gyat), do I not know the beautiful and the ugly?”’ Gi, 11, ?). Either Arrian’s (Schenkl), or subaudi the col- locutor. ‘‘ How, he replies (¢yciv), am I not good ?”’ (ii, 13, 17). Either Arrian’s (Schenkl), or subaudi the collocutor. So also similarly in 11, 22, 4; ili, 2, 5; i1, 5, 1, ete. Cf. also i, 23, 16; ili, 3, 12; 9, 15; 20, 12; 26, 19. Similarly, in the “ Fragments ”’ we have this: ‘‘ They are amusing fellows, said he (gy = Epictetus), who are proud of the things which are not in our power. A man says, I (é€yw, @ynot) am better than you, for I possess much land and you are wasting with hunger. Another says (GAdos Aeyel)..... ”(“Frag.,” xvili. [Schw., 16 ]). Here the gnot is brought in as the initial member of a series and in contrast with dos Neyer: it would seem to be Epictetus’ own, therefore, and to mean ‘‘says one,” as distinguished from another; and thus it appears to be the most likely instance of the ‘‘indefinite @yct’”’ in the whole mass. But even it seems an essentially different locution from the really indefinite Pitismsaid, 9 on dit... manisact.’ A glance over the whole usage of gyai in Arrian-Epictetus leaves on the mind a keen sense of the lively way in which the 324 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION word must have been interjected into Greek conversation, but does not greatly alter the impression of its essential implication which we derive from the general use of the word. Take a single instance of its current use in the “ Discourses”’ in its relation to kindred words: “So also Diogenes somewhere says (zou Aéyer) that there exists but one means of obtaining freedom — to die contentedly, and he writes (ypader) to the king of the Persians, ‘You cannot enslave the city of the Athenians, any more,’ says he (¢yaiv), ‘than fishes.’ ‘How ? Can I not catch them ?’ ‘If you catch them,’ says he (¢yciv), ‘they will immediately leave you and be gone, just like fishes: for whatever one of them you catch dies, and if these men die when they are caught, what good will your preparations do you?’”’ (iv, 1, 30). The lively effect given by such unexpected interpositions of oynoly is lost in our decorous translation of the New Testa- ment examples: but it exists in them too. Thus: ‘‘ But she, being urged on by her mother, ‘Give me,’ says she, ‘here upon a charger, the head of John the Baptist’’’ (Matt. xiv. 8); ‘‘But he, ‘Master, speak,’ says he”’ (Luke vii. 40); ‘‘ But Peter to them, ‘Repent,’ says he, ‘and be baptized each one of you’” (Acts ii. 38); ‘‘‘ Let those among you,’ says he, ‘that are able, go down with me’” (Acts xxv. 5); ‘‘‘ To-morrow,’ says he, ‘thou shalt hear him’’’ (Acts xxv. 22); ‘‘But Paul, ‘I am not mad,’ says he, ‘most noble Festus’’’ (Acts xxvi. 25).°* The main function of not then would appear to be to keep the consciousness of the speaker reported clearly be- fore the mind of the reader. It is therefore often used to mark the transition from indirect to direct quotation *: and it lent itself readily, therefore, to mark the adduction both 54 The matter of this interposition is investigated for Plato by Stallbaum, p. 472 D., 580 D.—where he seems to have collected all the instances of interposed gaue in Plato. Cf. also Bornemann and Sauppe on Xenophon’s Memorab., iil. 5, 13, and the indices of Schenkl on Arrian-Epictetus and Thieme-Sturz on Xenophon (sub. voc. dévat). 5 On Acts xxv. 5, Blass has this note: “5 fit transitus ex or. obliqua in rectam, ut I. 4 al; hinc ¢noiv interpositum ut I. 4 B.,” i. e., in the Western text of I, 4, which reads: “‘‘Which ye heard,’ says he, ‘from my mouth.’” The inter- position of a “‘he says,’’ or some similar phrase, to keep the consciousness of the EE SAYS: 7) SSCRIPTURE SAYS:'7)" GOD SAYS’” S20 of objections and of literary citations. But, one would imagine, it did not very readily lend itself to vague and indefinite references. If we desire to find cases of ‘‘subjectless \éyer’”’? in any way similar to those of ¢@yci, we must apparently turn our back on profane Greek altogether.*® We have fortunately in Philo, however, an author, the circumstances of whose writ- ing made literary quotation as frequent with him as oral is in the lively pages of Epictetus’ “ Discourses.’’ And in Philo’s treatises \éyer takes its place by the side of its more common kinsman @gyot, and is used in much the same way, though naturally somewhat less frequently. In harmony with his fundamental viewpoint — which looked on the Scriptures as a body of oracular sayings — Philo adduces Scripture commonly with verbs of ‘‘saying’’ — dyai, Néyerar, Eyer, eimey (yéyparra: falling into the background). Passages so adduced are often woven into the fabric of his discussion of the contents of Scripture; and where the words adduced are words of a speaker in the Biblical narrative, the subject of the g@not or Aé€yee Which introduces them naturally is often this speaker — whether God or some other person. Equally often, however, the subject given immediately or indirectly in the context is something outside of the narrative that is dealt with: in this case it is sometimes Moses, or ‘‘the prophet,” or ‘‘the lawgiver’’ — at other times, ‘‘the Holy Word,” or ‘‘the sacred Word,” or ‘‘the Oracle,” or ‘‘the Oracles”’ (6 Oetos Adyos, 6 iepos NOYos, 6 XPNoLUOs, TO NOYLOV, OF xXpnopol, Ta Oya) — at other times still it is ‘‘God,” under various designations. Often, however, the verb — ¢dyot or Neyer — stands not only without expressed subject, but equally without indicated subject. The rendering of these cases has given students of Philo some trouble, arising out ) hearer or reader bright on the fact that the words before him are quoted words is, of course, a general linguistic and not a specifically Greek usage. It is found in all languages. A Hebrew instance, for example, may be found in I Kgs. ii. 4. 56 Schenk! catalogues in the “‘ Discourses” of Epictetus two cases of inter- posited Aéyer, quite in the style of ¢nci—iii. 19, 1 and “ Fragment,” xxi. 10 — but in both cases the subject is expressed. 326 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION of the apparent confusion, when the subject is expressed, of the reference of the verb, — now to a speaker in the text of Scripture and now to the author of the particular Scrip- ture, to God as the author of all Scripture, or to Scripture itself conceived as a living Word. This apparent confusion is due solely to Philo’s fundamental conception of Scripture as an oracular book, which leads him to deal with its text as itself the Word of God: he has himself fully explained the matter,” and we should be able to steer clear of serious difficulties with his explanation in our hands. Nevertheless, a somewhat mechanical mode of dealing with his citations has produced, on more than one occasion, certain odd results. Prof. Ryle says: * “The commonest forms of quotation employed by Philo are ¢ya%, elrev, Neyer, NeyeTar, yeypatrar yap. Whether the subject of dnai be Moses or Scripture personified cannot in many cases be determined.” In no case is the subject strictly indeterminate, however, and the failure to determine it aright may introduce confusion. Thus, for example, in “‘De Confus. Ling.,” § 26 (Mangey, i. 424), Philo mentions the Book of Judges, and cites it with the subjectless @yot. Prof. Ryle comments thus: ® ‘He does not mention any opinion as to authorship, and intro- duces his quotation with his usual formula gyciv. We are hardly justified in assuming that Philo intended Moses as the subject of gnolv, and regarded him as the author of Judges (so Dr. Pick, Journal of Biblical Literature, 1884). Moses is doubtless often spoken of by Philo as if he were the personification of the Inspired Word; but we cannot safely extend this idea beyond the range of the Pentateuch. All that we can say is that ¢noiv, used in this quotation from Judges, refers either to the unknown writer of this book or to the personifi- cation of Holy Scripture.” Or else, we may add, to God, the real author, in Philo’s con- ception, of every word of Scripture. Prof. Ryle, however, has 87 In “De Vita Mosis,” iii. 23. 68 “ Philo and Holy Scripture,” p. xlv. BLO). Clis, (Pp. EXV, esa > oO R LE TURE SAYS Wai GOD ISAYS? 327 not caught precisely Dr. Pick’s meaning: Dr. Pick does not commit himself to the extravagant view that wherever sub- jectless @not occurs in Philo the subaudttum ‘‘ Moses’’ is im- plied: he only says, in direct words, that here — in this special passage — ‘‘ Moses is introduced as speaking.” It would seem obvious that he had a text before him which read ‘‘ Moses says,’’ and not simply ‘‘says,’’ at this place. This text was doubtless nothing other than Yonge’s English translation, which reads Moses here, as often elsewhere with as little warrant: ‘‘‘ For,’ says Moses, ‘Gideon swore, etc.’’’ The incident illustrates the evil of mechanically supplying a supplement to these subjectless verbs — which cannot in- deed be understood except on the basis of Philo’s primary principle, that it is all one to say ‘‘ Moses says,”’ “‘the Scrip- ture says,” or ‘‘ God says.’’ The simple fact here is that Philo quotes Judges, as he does the rest of Scripture, with the sub- jectless ‘‘says,’’ and with the same implication, viz., that Judges is to him a part of the Word of God. As has been already hinted, by all means the commonest verb used by Philo thus, — without expressed or obviously indicated subject, — to introduce a Scripture passage, is gonot. Perhaps, however, the one instance to which we have incidentally adverted will suffice to illustrate the usage — other instances of which may be seen on nearly every page of Philo’s treatises. It is of more interest for us to note that Neyer seems also to be used in the same subjectless way — examples of which may be seen, for instance, in the follow- ing places, “Legg. Allegor.,’” i, 15; ii, 4; ili, 8; “Quod Det. Bote inside. a4 os mlWes Posterit..@aini,” 9.) 22-152") De Gi- gant.,”’ 11; 12; ‘“ De Confus. Ling.,”’ 32; “‘ De Migrat. Abrah.,” 11; ‘“‘Fragment. ex Joh. Monast.” (ii, 668). In “Legg. Al- legor.,”’ i, 15, for instance, we have a string of quotations without obvious subject, introduced, the first by the sub- jectless dnotvy, the next by the equally subjectless émuéper madw, and the third (from Exod. xx. 23) by éyer 6€ xai év érépois. In “‘ Legg. Allegor.,”’ ii, 4, we have Gen. ii. 19 intro- 60 Vol. 11. p. 27. 328 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION duced by \éeyet yap without any obvious subject. Yonge trans- lates this too by ‘‘For Moses says’”’: but to obtain warrant for this we should have to go back two pages and a half (of Richter’s text), quite to the beginning of the treatise, where we find an apostrophe to the ‘‘prophet.”’ In “De Posterit. Caini,’’ 22, Néyer Ext wev "ABpady ovtws (Gen. xi. 29), though Yonge supplies ‘‘ Moses” again, that would seem to be de- monstrably absurd, as the passage proceeds to place ‘‘ Moses,”’ in parallelism with Abraham, in the object. Similarly the pas- sages adduced from “De Gigant.,’’ 11 and 12 (Num. xiv. 44 and Deut. xxxiv. 6) are about Moses, and it would scarcely do to fill out the ellipsis of subject with his name. Examples need not, however, be multiplied. It would seem quite clear that both the subjectless dnat frequently, and the subjectless Aéyer less often, occur in Philo after a fashion quite similar to the instances adduced from the New Testament. And it would seem to be equally clear that the lack of a subject in their case is not indicative of indefiniteness, but rather of definiteness in their reference. Philo does not adduce passages of Scripture with the bare gynot or Neyer because he knows or cares very little whence they come or with what authority; but because he and his readers alike both know so well the source whence they are derived, and yield so unquestionably to its authority, that it is unnecessary to pause to indicate either. The use of the bare gonot or Neyer in citations from Scripture is in his case, ob- viously, the outgrowth and the culminating sign of his ab- solute confidence in Scripture as the living voice of God, fully recognized as such both by himself and his readers. In the same sense in which to the dying Sir Walter Scott there was but one ‘‘ Book,” to him and his readers there was but one authoritative divine Word, and all that was necessary in adducing it was to indicate the fact of adduction. The ¢yat or Aeyee serves thus primarily the function of ‘quotation marks’’ in modern usage: but under such circumstances and with such implications that bare quotation marks carry with them the assurance that the words adduced are divine words. LL SAYS) SGRIPTURE SAYS:7'GODISAYSY 329 It would seem to be very easy, in these circumstances, to give ourselves more uneasiness than is at all necessary as to the precise subauditum which we are to assume with these verbs. It may serve very well to render them simply, ‘‘It says,’ with the implication that Philo is using the codex of Scripture as the living voice of God speaking to him and his readers. The case, in a word, would seem to be very similar to that of the common New Testament formula of quotation vyéyparTrac — meaning not that what is adduced is somewhere written, but that it is the authoritative law that is being ad- duced. Just so, ‘‘It says,’’ in such a case would mean not that somebody or something says what is adduced, but that the Word of God says it. As the one usage is the natural out- crowth of the conception of the Scriptures as a written au- thoritative law, the other is the equally natural outgrowth of the conception of Scripture as the living voice of God. How very natural a development this usage is, may be illustrated by the fact that something very similar to it may be met with in colloquial English. In the same circles where we may hear God spoken of as simply ‘‘ He,”’ as if it were dangerous to name His name too freely, we may also occasionally hear the Bible quoted with a simple ‘“‘It says,” or even with an elision of the ‘‘it,’” as ‘‘’Tsays’’: and yet the ‘‘it,” though treated thus cavalierly, is in reality a very emphatic “‘It”’ indeed — the phrase being the product of awe in the presence of ‘‘the Book,” and importing that there is but one “‘It”’ that could be thought of in the case. Somewhat similarly, in the case of Philo, the Scriptures are cited with the bare ¢yat, deyet, because, in his mind and in the circles which he ad- dressed, there stood out so far above all other voices this one Voice of God embodied in His Scriptures, that none other would be thought of in the case. The phrase is the outgrowth of reverence for the Word and of unquestioning submission to it: and the fundamental fact is that no special subject is expressed simply because none was needed and it would be all one whether we understood as subject, Moses, the prophet and lawgiver — the holy or sacred Word or the oracle — or 330 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION finally, God Himself. In any case, and with any subauditum, the real subject conceived as speaking is Gop. If now, in the light of the facts we have thus brought to our recollection, we turn back to the New Testament pas- sages in which the Old Testament is cited with a simple ¢yat or \éyet, it may not be impossible for us to perceive their real character and meaning. There would seem to be absolutely no warrant in Greek usage for taking \éye, and but very little, if any, for taking gnoi really indefinitely: and even if there were, it would be inconceivable that the New Testa- ment writers, from their high conception of ‘‘Scripture,”’ should have adduced Scripture with a simple ‘‘it is said’? — somewhere, by some one — without implication of reverence toward the quoted words or recognition of the authority in- herent in them. It is rather in the usage of Philo that we find the true analogue of these examples. Like Philo, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews looks upon Scripture as an oracular book, and all that it says, God says to him: and accordingly, like Philo, he adduces its words with a simple ‘at says,’ with the full implication that this “‘it says”’ is a “God says’”’ also. Whenever the same locution occurs else- “where in the New Testament, it bears naturally the same implication. There is no reason why we should recognize the Philonic ¢@yci in Heb. vill. 5, and deny it in I Cor. vi. 16: or why we should recognize the Philonic Neyer in Heb. vui. 8 and deny it in Acts xill. 35, Rom. ix. 15, xv. 10, IT Cor. vi. 2, Gal. ii. 16, or in Eph. iv. 8, v. 14. Only in case it were very clear that Paul did not share the high conception of Scrip- ture as the living voice of God which underlies this usage in 6. The reverent use of an indefinite may be illustrated from the mode of citation adopted in Heb. ii. 6 — ‘‘one hath somewhere testified’’ —a mode of cita- tion not uncommon in Philo [as, for example, de Temul. (ed. Mang., i. 365), ete yap rob rs (i. e., Abraham, Gen. xx. 12), and other examples in Bleek, II, i. 239]. Delitzsch correctly explains: “The citation is thus introduced with a special solemnity, the author naming neither the place whence he takes it nor the original speaker, but making use (as Philo frequently) of the vague term zov ris, so that the important testimony itself becomes only the more conspicuous, like a grand pictured figure in the plainest, narrowest frame.” ES OEE SULA So agow hte PURE SAY out, GOD. SANS 331 Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews, could we hesitate to understand this phrase in him as we understand it in them. But we have seen that such is not the case: and his use in adducing Scripture of the subjectless @yct and Aéyer quite in their manner is, rightly viewed, only another indication, among many, that his conception of Scripture was funda- mentally the same with theirs, and it cannot be explained away on the assumption that it was fundamentally different. It does not indeed follow that on every occasion when a Scripture passage is introduced by a @yai or a Aéyer it is to be explained as an instance of this subjectless usage — even though a subject for it is given or plainly implied in the im- mediate context. That is not possible even in Philo, where the introductory formula often finds its appropriate subject expressed in the preceding context. But it does follow that we need not and ought not resort to unnatural expedients to find a subject for such a @yot or Aéyer in the context, or that acquiescing, whenever that seems more natural, in its subjectlessness, we should seek to explain away its high implications. Men may differ as to the number of clear 62 The matter is approached in a sensible and helpful way by Viteau, in his “Etude sur le Grec du N. T.: sujet, complement et attribute” (1896), p. 61. He is treating of the subject to be mentally supplied, i. e., of the case where the reader may be fairly counted upon to supply the subject, and he remarks (¢nter alia): ‘‘76 (9). There is a kind of mental subject peculiar to the New Testament. When events of the Old Testament are spoken of, these events are supposed to be known to the reader or the hearer, who is invited to supply the subject of the verb mentally. ... 77 (10). There is still another kind of mental subject peculiar to the New Testament and kindred to the preceding. In the citations made by the New Testament the subject is often lacking, as well for the verb which an- nounces the citation as for the verb in the citation itself. The reader is supposed to recognize the passage and is invited to supply the subject. (a) For the verbs which announce the citation there occur as subjects: 6 6eds, Acts 11. 17; 6 rpopjrns, Acts vil. 48; Aaveid, Rom. iv. 6; Mwiofs, Rom. x. 19; ‘Hoaias, Rom. xv. 12; } yeaa, Gal. iv. 30. When the verb has no subject, the reader is to supply it mentally: Acts xiii. 34, 35, elonxev and deve, the subject is 6 6eds, according to the LXX., Es. lv. 3, and Ps. xv. 10; Rom. xv. 10, raw dA€ver (6 Mwio fs), according to Deut. xxxil. 43; Eph. iv. 8, Aéyee (6 Geds or Aaveid), according to Ps. lxvii. 19; Eph. v. 14, ud A€yer, those who regard the passage as imitated or partially cited from the Old Testament give ‘Hoaias as the subject of \éye, according to Isa. lx. 1, 2, but if we regard this passage as containing some «da of an early hymn (in imitation of do2 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION instances of such a usage, that may be counted in the New Testament. But most will doubtless agree that some may be counted: and will doubtless place among them Eph. iv. 8 and v. 14. Some will contend, no doubt, that in the latter of these texts, the passage adduced is not derived from the Old Testament at all. That, however, is ‘‘another story,’’ on which we cannot enter now, but on which we must be content to differ. We pause only to say that we reckon among the reasons why we should think the citation here is derived from the Old Testament, just its adduction by 616 Aéye. — which would seem to advise us that Paul intended to quote the oracular Word. There may be room for difference of opinion again as to the precise subauditum which it will be most natural to as- sume with these subjectless verbs: whether 6 @eds or ) ypad7. In our view it makes no real difference in their implication: for, in our view, the very essence of the case is, that, under the force of their conception of the Scriptures as an oracular book, it was all one to the New Testament writers whether they said ‘‘God says” or ‘‘Scripture says.’’ This is made very clear, as their real standpoint, by their double identification of Scripture with God and God with Scripture, to which we adverted at the beginning of this paper, and by which Paul, for example, could say alike ‘‘the Scripture saith to Pharaoh”’ (Rom. ix. 17) and ‘‘God.... saith, Thou wilt not give thy . Holy One to see corruption”’ (Acts xiii. 34). We may well be content in the New Testament as in Philo to translate the phrase wherever it occurs, “It says’’ — with the implication that this ‘‘It says” is the same as ‘“‘Scripture says,’’ and that this ‘‘Seripture says’’ is the same as ‘‘God says.”’ It is this implication that is really the fundamental fact in the case. Isaiah) we must supply as the subject ris, ‘it is said,’ ‘it is sung’ (96a); Heb. viii. 5, dnoiv (6 beds), according to Ex. xxv. 40.”’ We do not accord, of course, with the remark on Eph. v. 14; and we miss in Viteau’s remarks the expected reference to the deeper fact in the case. IX “THE ORACLES OF GOD” ~ ~~ ow “THE ORACLES OF GOD”: THE purpose of this paper is to bring together somewhat more fully than can be easily found in one place elsewhere, the material for forming a judgment as to the sense borne by the term [7a] \dyua, as it appears in the pages of the New Testament. This term occurs only four times in the New Testament. The passages, as translated by the English revisers of 1881, are as follows: “‘Moses ...who received living oracles to give unto us” (Acts vii. 38); ‘‘They [the Jews | were intrusted with the oracles of God’’ (Rom. iii. 2); ‘“When by reason of the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that some one teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God”’ (Heb. v. 12); ‘‘If any man speaketh let him speak as it were oracles of God”’ (I Peter iv. 11). The general sense of the term is obvious on the face of things: and the commentators certainly do not go wholly wrong in explaining it. But the minor differences that emerge in their explanations are numerous, and seem frequently to evince an insufficient examination of the usage of the word: and the references by which they support their several views are not always accessible to readers who would fain test them, so that the varying explanations stand, in the eyes of many, as only so many obiter dicta between which choice must be made, if choice is made at all, purely arbi- trarily. It has seemed, therefore, as if it would not be with- out its value if the usage of the word were exhibited in sufficient fullness to serve as some sort of a touchstone of the explanations that have been offered of it. We are sure, at any rate, that students of the New Testament remote from libra- ries will not be sorry to have at hand a tolerably full account of the usage of the word: and we are not without hope that 1 From The Presbyterian and Reformed Review, Vol. XI. 1900, pp. 217-260. 335 336 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION a comprehensive view of it may help to correct some long- standing errors concerning its exact meaning, and may, in- deed, point not obscurely to its true connotation — which is not without interesting implications. Upheld by this hope we shall essay to pass in rapid review the usage of the term in Classic, Hellenistic and Patristic Greek, and then to ask what, in the light of this usage, the word is likely to have meant to the writers of the New Testament. I. It may be just as well at the outset to disabuse our minds of any presumption that a diminutive sense is in- herent in the term \dyov, as a result of its very form.? Whether we explain it with Meyer-Weiss *® as the neuter of oytos and point to Aoylétov * as the proper diminutive of this stem; or look upon it with Sanday-Headlam ° as originally the diminutive of Adéyos, whose place as such was subse- quently, viz., when it acquired the special sense of ‘‘oracle,”’ taken by the strengthened diminutive Aoyiécvovy — it remains true that no trace of a diminutive sense attaches to it as we meet it on the pages of Greek literature.® We are pointed, to besure, to a scholium on the “Frogs”’ of Aristophanes (line 942) as indicating the contrary. The pas- sage is the well-known one in which Euripides is made to 2 So very commonly: as, e. g., by Grimm (“Lexicon in N. T.,’’ s. v.), Bleek (‘Der Brief an die Hebrder,” ii. 2, 114, on Heb. v. 12), Philippi (‘‘Com. on Romans,” E. T., i. 105, on Rom. iii. 2), Morrison (“‘ Expos. of 3d Chap. of Rom.,” p. 14). 3 “Com. on Romans,” on Rom. iii. 2 (E. T., 1. 140, note 1). 4 Plato, “ Eryx.,” 401, E.: éraparré ye abrov . . . 7d Novyidtov; Isocrates, ‘‘Contra Sophistas,” 295 B. (Didot, 191): rocotrw 5& xelpouvs éyévovto T&v wepi ras Epidas kaduvdovperwy, Scov odTo wey ToLradra Aovidta duekvovres . . .; Aristophanes, ‘‘ Vesp.,” 64: add’ Eorw Huiv Aovyidiov yrapunv exov | budv pev abr&v odxi deEwrepov. Cf. Blaydes on the passage in Aristophanes. 5 “Com. on Rom.,” on Rom. ii. 2: ‘‘ The old account of Aéytov as a diminutive of Aéyos is probably correct, though Mey.-W. make it neuter of Aéytos on the ground that Noyidioy is the proper diminutive. The form doyiéiov is rather a strengthened diminutive which, by a process common in language, took the place of Aéyvov when it acquired the sense of ‘oracle.’’? When they add that it was as ‘‘a brief condensed saying” that the oracle was called Adyov, they have no support in the literature. 6 Jelf, who looks upon it as a diminutive, cites it as an extreme example of the fact that many simple diminutives in -.ov have lost their diminutive force — such as @npiov, BiBXlov: Adytov, he says, “‘has assumed a peculiar meaning.” In any event, thus, no diminutive meaning clings to Aéytov. “THE ORACLES OF GOD” BY A respond to Aschylus’ inquiry as to what things he manu- factured. ‘‘ Not winged horses,”’ is the reply (as Wheelwright translates it), ‘‘ By Jupiter, nor goat-stags, such as thou, Like paintings on the Median tapestry, But as from thee I first received the art, Swelling with boastful pomp and heavy words, I paréd it straight and took away its substance, With little words, and walking dialogues,’ And white beet mingled, straining from the books A juice of pleasant sayings, — then I fed him With monodies, mixing Ctesiphon.”’ It is upon the word here translated ‘‘ with little words,” but really mean- ing ‘‘verselets’”’ (Blaydes: versiculis) — érvA\tors — that the scholium occurs. It runs: ’Avti Tov Noylous urKpots’ ws b€ Bpédos BpedtrAXov, Kal eidos eidVA\LOY? OUTW Kal Eros éxtAov.2 That is to say, érvAXvov is a diminutive of the same class as BpedtANov and eidvAXov,® and means \dyov pkpov. Since the idea of smallness is explicit in the adjective attached to A\éyov here, surely it is not necessary to discover it also in the noun,” especially when what the scholiast is obviously striving to say is not that émvAXNows means “‘little wordlets,”’ but ‘‘little verses.’’ The presence of uexpots here, rather is conclusive evi- dence that doyiows by itself did not convey a diminutive meaning to the scholiast. If we are to give Aéyuoy an unex- ampled sense here, we might be tempted to take it, there- fore, as intended to express the idea ‘‘verses’”’ rather than the tautological one of ‘‘little words” or even “‘little maxims”’ or ‘‘little sayings.’ And it might fairly be pleaded in favor of so doing that Aéy.ov in its current sense of ‘‘oracle”’ not only lies close to one of the ordinary meanings of ézos (“‘ Od.,”’ 12, - 266; Herod., 1, 13, and often in the Tragedians), but also, because oracles were commonly couched in verse, might easily come to suggest in popular speech the idea of ‘‘verse,’’ 7 érvAXlots Kal wepitarots Kal TevTALotoe AEvKOTS. 8 Dindorf, iv. ii. p. 113, on line 973. ® Blaydes adds some other instances: ‘‘Ejusdem forme diminutiva sunt eldvANov, BpepvAXLov, werpaxvANov, SwiAdALov, KpedAALOY, Eevbdduov.” 10 With this \éy.ov pexpdy compare the Bpaxéa A6yra Of Justin Martyr, “‘Contra Tryph.,”’ c. 18. When the idea of brevity needed to be conveyed, it would seem that an adjective expressive of this idea was required to be added. 338 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION so that a \oywov weKpov would easily obtrude itself as the exact synonym of ériAduov, in Euripides’ sense, 1. e., in the sense of short broken verses. There is no reason apparent on the other hand why we should find a diminutive implication in the word as here used, and in any case, if this is intended, it is a sense unillustrated by a single instance of usage. And the unquestionable learning of Kustathius seems to assure us that to Greek ears \oycov did not suggest a diminu- tive sense at all. He is commenting on line 339 of the Second Book of the “ Iliad,” which runs, ~ \ , Ve. , e a an 67 cvvOeciar TE Kal OpKia Bnoerar utr, and he tells us that dpxwov in Homer is not a diminutive, but is a formation similar to \éy.vov, which means ‘‘an oracle’’: Ovx broKxoptotiKoy 6€ wap’ ‘Ounpw ovdé ... To txviov. “Qsirep d€ TA OPKLa TAapWVOUMaGTAL EK TOU OpKOV, OUT Kal EK TOU OYOU TA Ayla Hyouv ot xpyopvot.. There is no direct statement here, to be sure, that Adyvov is not a diminutive; that statement is made — with entire accuracy — only of dpxtov and txmov: ¥ nor is the derivation suggested for \déywov, as if it came directly from \éyos, perhaps scientifically accurate. But there is every indication of clearness of perception in the state- ment: and it could scarcely be given the form it has, had doyvov stood in Eustathius’ mind as the diminutive of \dyos. It obviously represented to him not a diminutive synonym of Aoyos, but an equal synonym of xpnopos. What Aoytov stood for, in his mind, is very clearly exhibited, further, in a com- ment which he makes on the 416th line of the First Book of the “Odyssey,” where Telemachus declares that he does not ‘care for divinations such as my mother seeks, summoning a diviner to the hall”’: ouTe Oeorporins EuTafouar, Av TWA UATHP és weyapoyv Kahéoaca Oeorporrov é£epenrar. 1. Ed. Bas., i. 177; Rom. i. 233: Weigel’s Leipzig ed. (here used), i. 189. 12 Liddell and Scott say, s. v.: “‘dpxiov is not with Buttm., “ Lexil.,” s. v., to be regarded as a dim. of épxos, but rather as neuter of Spxcos, with which iepéy or iepd may be supplied”’; ‘‘ Dim. of ixvos only in form (v. Chandler, “‘Accent.,’”’ § 340).” Cf. in general Jelf, “Grammar,” §§ 56, 2, and 335, c (Vol. i. pp. 53, 337). a a “THE ORACLES OF GOD” O09 Kustathius wishes us to note that Oeorpd7os means the partis, Georpomta his art, and Oeorpdmiov the message he delivers, which Eustathius calls the ypyouwdnua, and informs us is de- nominated by the Attics also \éyov. He says: "Ioréov 6€ dre Geom pomros ev AdXAwS, 6 wavTis. Oeorporia dé, 7 TExYN alTod. OeoT- pom.ov O€, TO xpnoumdnua, 6 Kal hOyLoyv d\eyov of ’ArTiKot.8 To Kustathius, thus \oy.ov was simply the exact synonym of the highest words in use to express a divine communication to men — Georpomiorv,'* xpnouwdnua, xpynouos. Similarly Hesy- chius’ definition runs: Adyra: Séogata, wavrevuara, (po) dnred- bara, Pjuat, xpnouot. In a word, Adyuov differs from Adyos not as expressing something smaller than it, but as expressing something more sacred. The Greek synonymy of the notion ‘‘oracle”’ is at once extraordinarily full and very obscure. It is easy to draw up a long list of terms — ywarteta, wavrevuata, mpddavra, Oeor- pomia, érileomicpuol Béodata, beoriguata, \oy.a, and the like; but exceedingly difficult, we do not say to lay down hard and fast lines between them, but even to establish any shades of difference among them which are consistently reflected in usage. M. Bouché-Leclercg, after commenting on the pov- erty of the Latin nomenclature, continues as to the Greek: ® “The Greek terminology is richer and allows analysis of the differ- ent senses, but it is even more confused than abundant. The Greeks, possessors of a flexible tongue, capable of rendering all the shades of thought, often squandered their treasures, broadening the meaning of 13 Hd. Bas., pp. 1426, 1427; ed. Rom., p. 69; ed. Leipzig, 1. p. 72. 14 A scholium on the passage in the “Odyssey”’ brings out the meaning of Oeorpériov, to Wit: 76 é& Oe0d Aeyouevor, é 0b Kal Oeompdmos 6 TA TOD Heod Néeywv. Cf. also the Homeric Lexicons on the word: e. g., Ebeling, s. v. Seorporin et Ocompdmor: “‘Sententia deorum, judicium quod dii (Juppiter potissimum et Appollo) cum vate (vel cum deo) communicant, vates cum aliis hominibus, oraculum. Cf. Negelsb., H[omerische] Th{eologie], 187. Ap. 87, 4 wavrevpa 76 éx Geo mpodeyouevov. Cf. Suid, i. 2, 1144 Hes.”; and Capelle under same heading: ‘‘Alles was von den Géttern (besLonders] Apollon und Zeus) angezeigt und durch den eorpéros gedeutet wird, ‘die von den Géttern eingegebenen Offenbarungen’ (Negelsb. zu A. 385. Cf. ‘Hom. Th.,’ S. 187), also Weissagung, Géttergebot, Gétterbescheid, Orakel.” 16 “Histoire de la Divination dans |’Antiquité” (Paris, Leroux, 1879), Vol. ii. pp. 229, 230. 340 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION words at pleasure, multiplying synonyms without distinguishing be- tween them, and thus disdaining the precision to which they could attain without effort. We shall seek in vain for terms especially appropriated to divination by oracles. From the verb xpfo@a, which signifies in Homer ‘to reveal’ in a general way, come the derivatives xpnouos and xpnornpiov. The latter, which dates from Hesiod and the Homerides, designates the place where prophecies are dispensed and, later, the responses themselves, or the instrument by which they are obtained. Xpynoyés, which comes into current usage from the time of Solon, is applied without ambiguity to inspired and versified proph- ecies, but belongs equally to the responses of the oracles and those of free prophets. The word yavreiov in the singular designates ordinarily the place of consultation; but in the plural it is applied to the proph- ecies themselves of whatever origin. In the last sense it has a crowd of synonyms of indeterminate and changeable shades of meaning. The grammarians themselves have been obliged to renounce imposing rules on the capricious usage and seeking recognition for their artificial distinctions. We learn once more the impossibility of erecting precise definitions for terms which lack precision.” Among the distinctions which have been proposed but which usage will not sustain is the discrimination erected by the scholiast on Euripides, “‘Phoeniss.,’”’ 907,!° which would reserve Oéogata, Jeoriouatra, xpyouot for oracles directly from the gods, and assign wavrevar and wavtebuara to the responses of the diviners. The grain of truth in this is that in partis, pavTever Oar, pavreia, etymologically, what is most prominent is the idea of a special unwonted capacity, attention being directed by these words to the strong spiritual elevation which begets new powers in us. While, on the other hand, in feorifew the reference is directly to the divine inspiration, which, because it is normally delivered in song, is referred to by such forms as deorimdds, Jeorimderv. Xpynouds, on the other hand, seems an expression which in itself has little direct reference either to the source whence or the form in which the oracle comes, but describes the oracle from the point of view of what it is in itself — viz., a ‘‘communication”’? — 16 The scholium runs: Oéogara, Oeoricuata, xpnopol 76 abrd, édéyovrro bé él Oedvs pavrevar 6€ kal pavrebuata él uavrewy avOpwrwr. “THE ORACLES OF GOD ” 341 going back, as it does, to xp7v, the original sense of which seems to be ‘‘to bestow,” ‘‘to communicate.”’ Aéyrov doubt- less may be classed with xpnouds in this respect — it is par excellence the ‘‘ utterance,” the ‘‘saying.’’ It would seem to be distinguished from ypyopés by having even less reference than it to the source whence — something as ‘‘a declaration”’ is distinguished from ‘‘a message.” If we suppose a herald com- ing with the cry, ‘‘A communication from the Lord,” and then, after delivering the message, adding: ‘‘This is His utterance,” it might fairly be contended that in strict pre- cision the former should be xpyopuos and the latter Néycov, in so far as the former term may keep faintly before the mind the source of the message as a thing given, while the latter may direct the attention to its content as the very thing re- ceived, doubtless with a further connotation of its fitness to its high origin. Such subtlety of distinction, however, is not sure to stamp itself on current use, so that by such ety- mological considerations we are not much advanced in deter- mining the ordinary connotation of the words in usage. A much more famous discrimination, and one which much more nearly concerns us at present, has been erected on what seems to be a misapprehension of a construction in Thucyd- ides. In a passage which has received the compliment of imitation by a number of his successors,® the historian is describing the agitation caused by the outbreak of the Pe- 17 The above is abstracted from J. H. Heinr. Schmidt in his ‘‘ Handbuch der Lateinischen und Griechischen Synonymik”’ (1889), §21, pp. 77-82. The original meaning assigned to xpqv (darretchen, ertheilen) is supported by a reference to Vanitéek, p. 250. Surely it is a much more reasonable determination than that of Bouché-Leclereq (‘‘ Hist. de ]a Divination,” i. 192), who would derive it from a cleromantic idea, as if xpaw signified first of all ‘‘entailler.”’ So he conceives dvapecv to refer to the lot, as we say to “draw lots,” as if the Pythoness “drew her revelations as we draw lots.” Schmidt refers the use of this word to the early idea that the words came up out of the depths of the earth. 18 FH). g., Polybius, 3, 112, 8: ‘‘ All the oracles preserved in Rome were in every- body’s mouth (rdvra 8’ qv ra wap’ abrots \oyia aor Tore bua oTduaros) and every temple and house was full of prodigies and miracles: in consequence of which the city was one scene of vows, sacrifices, supplicatory processions and prayers”’ (Schuchburgh’s translation). Appian, 2, 115, deiwara ra yap &Aoya woAXols verre epi ddnv ’Iradlav. Kal pavrevpdrov madaray émipoBwrépwr éurnudvevov. Dionys. Hal., 342 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION loponnesian war, one symptom of which was the passion for oracles which was developed. ‘‘ All Hellas,’ he says,’ ‘‘ was excited by the coming conflict between the two cities. Many were the prophecies circulated, and many the oracles chanted by diviners (kat 7oAXa pev Noyta EAEYorTO, TONG O€ XPNTLOAOYOL yjoov), not only in the cities about to engage in the struggle, but throughout Hellas.’’ And again, as the Lacedemonians approached the city, one of the marks he, at a later point, notes of the increasing excitement is that ‘‘soothsayers (xpno- uodoyot) were repeating oracles (jdov xpnopyotls) of the most different kinds, which all found in some one or other en- thusiastic listeners.’’ 7? On a casual glance the distinction ap- pears to lie on the surface of the former passage that oyia are oracles in prose and xpyouol oracles in verse: and so the scholiast 7! on the passage, followed by Suidas * defines. But it is immediately obvious on the most cursory glance into Greek literature that the distinction thus suggested will not hold. The xpyopot are, to be sure, commonly spoken of as sung; and the group of words xpynouq@ddos, xpnouwoéw, xpno- Mwola, XpnoUwonua, xpnouwdons, Xpnoumdrkos, witnesses to the intimate connection of the two ideas. But this arises out of the nature of the case, rather than out of any special sense attached to the word xpynopos: and accordingly, by the side of this group of words, we have others which, on the one hand, compound xpyoués with terms not implicative of sing- ing (xenounyopew, xXpnouaryopns — xpnoModoTéw, xXpnopuoddrys, XPNTUOOOTHUA — XpnoLooyEw, XpNnTUoOYos, Xono“odoyla, xpno- MOoNOYLOV, XPNTMOAOYLKN, XPnoWor\EoXNS — XpynopoTrowds), and, on the other hand, compound other words for oracles with words denoting singing (feomimdéw, Oeormiwdnua, Oeamiwdds). The fact ““Ant.,” vil. 68: xpnopol 7’ jdovro & moddots xwpios krA. Dio Cassius, 431, 66 and 273, 64, where we read of Aéya ravtota jderOo. 19 1. 8, Jowett’s translation (i. p. 99). 20 11. 21, Jowett’s translation (i. 109). 21 In Didot’s appendix, p. 416: Ady.a éore Ta Tapa Tod Oeod Neyoueva KaTadoyadnv: Xpnopol 6é oirives Euperpws A€yorTal, Deohopovpéevwy TaV NEYOrTWY. 22 Hd. Bekker, p. 666: Ady.a Ta apa Oeod eyoueva KaTadoyadnv, xpynopuol 5é oirives EupéeTpws EyovTa’ Oeohopovpevwy Tar eyovTwr. “THE ORACLES OF GOD ” 343 is that, as J. H. Heinr. Schmidt ** points out in an interesting discussion, the natural expression of elevated feeling was originally in song: so that the singer comes before the poet and the poet before the speaker. It was thus as natural for the ancients to say vati-cinium as it is for moderns to say Weis-sagung or sooth-saying: but as the custom of written literature gradually transformed the consciousness of men, their thought became more logical and less pictorial until even the Pythia ceased at last to speak in verse. Meanwhile, old custom dominated the oracles. They were chanted: they were couched in verse: and the terms which had been framed to describe them continued to bear this implication. Even when called \éoyra, they prove to be ordinarily ** in verse; and these also are said to be sung, as we read, for example, in Dio Cassius (431, 66 and 2738, 64): \oy.a wavrota Héero. What appears to be a somewhat constant equivalence in usage of the two terms xpynopuds and Ndy.ov, spread broadly over the face of Greek literature, seems in any event to negative the proposed distinction. Nor does the passage in Thucydides when more closely examined afford any real ground for it. After all, \oyva and xpyopot are not contrasted in this passage: the word xpynopot does not even occur in it. The stress of the distinction falls, indeed, not on the nouns, but on the verbs, the point of the remark being that oracles were scattered among the people by every possible method.” If we add that 23 In his ‘Handbuch der Lateinischen und Griechischen Synonymik”’ (Leip- zig, 1889), § 21 (pp. 77-82). 24 So for example in Aristophanes’ “Knights” passim (see below) and in Porphyry’s collection of Oracles. 25 This is the explanation of Croiset in the very sensible brief note he gives on the passage in his attractive edition of Thucydides (Paris, Hachette & Cie., 1886): He says: ‘‘Aéya, oracles: according to the scholiast, oracles in prose in contrast with xpnowol or oracles in verse; but it may be seen in Aristophanes (‘‘ Knights,” 999-1002), that the two expressions were synonyms: the distinction bears here only on the manner in which these oracles were spread among the people; é\éyorro signifies: they were hawked about from mouth to mouth, without the intervention of the diviners (é\éyor7o in the plural, despite the neuter subject, because it is the idea of diversity that dominates, rather than an idea of collectivity; cf. Curtius “Gr. gr.,” § 363, Rem. 1); #é0v is the appropriate word in speaking of xpnopuoddyou or oracle-deliverers whose business was to recite the prophecies in verse.” 344 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION the second zoAA4& is probably not to be resolved into zo\Xods xpnopovs,° the xpyopols being derived from the xpnopwdoyot, but is to have \oyca supplied with it from the preceding clause, the assumed distinction between \doy.a and xpyopot goes up at once in smoke. Adéya alone are spoken of: and these Aoyea are said to be both spoken and sung.” So easy and frequent is the interchange between the two terms that it seems difficult to allow even the more wary attempts of modern commentators to discriminate between them. These ordinarily turn on the idea that ddya is the more general and xpyoyuds the more specific word, and go back to the careful study of the Baron de Locella,”’ in his comment on a passage in(the later) Xenophon’s “ Ephesiaca.”’ Locella’s note does indeed practically cover the ground. He begins by noting the interchange of the two words in the text before him. Then he offers the definition that oraculorum responsa are generically \éy.a, whether in prose or verse, ad- ducing the doyia radara of Eurip., “‘ Heracl.,’’ 406, and the hoy.ov mvbdxpynorov of Plutarch, “ Thes.,’’ i. 55, as instances of \oyra undoubtedly couched in verse; while versified oracles, 26 So still Franz Miller in his handy edition of this second book (Paderborn, 1886). 27 So Steup-Classen in the fourth edition of Classen’s ‘‘Second Book of Thucyd- ides,’ brought out by Steup (Berlin, 1889). They say: ‘‘é\éyovro : the unusual plural doubtless on account of the variety and diffusion of the Néya : cf. 5, 26, 2; 6, 62, 4. Adyca, according to the usage of the anaphora, is to be understood with moAXa in both instances (B. supposes the anaphora would require the prepositing of the noun, as I. 3; but there vedrns is emphasized by xai, which is not the case here with \éya). ’EX€yovro : circulated by the mouth of the people, without fixed or metrical form, which would be given them or preserved for them by the xpyouoréyo. who were occupied professionally in the collection (hence — Aéyor) and interpretation of transmitted prophecies (cf. Herod. 7, 6, 142; Schémann, Gr. Alt., 23, 304). The distinction is between édéyorro and Féov, not the object of the A\éy.a.” 28 Pp. 152, 153 of his edition of the piece (Vienna, 1796). It is reprinted entire in Peerlkamp’s edition (Haarlem, 1818) with this addition by the later editor: “oyia Latinis interdum dictiones, dicta, sermones, et logia; cf. Heins. ad Ovid., Her. v. 33 et Observ. Misc. V. I. T. IL. p. 276. Apollodorus in Biblioth. saepe permutat Asya et xpnouots, qui quum scribit I, vi. §1, rots dé cots AdyLov Hv mireris interpretem reddentem rumor erat inter deos. De discrimine \éy:a inter et xpenouols eadem jam ex Aristophane ejusque Schol. notarat Tresling. Adv. pag. 46, 47, addens L. Bos ad Rom. ii. 2 et Alberti Obs. Phil. pag. 298 seq.” Cn ee ee a | ‘ | : “THE ORACLES OF GOD ” 345 originally in hexameters and later in iambic trimeters are, specifically, xpyouot — whence xpnouwdéw is vaticinor, xpno- Mqmodia, vatrcinium, and xpnouwdos, vates. As thus the difference between the two words is that of genus and species, they may be used promiscuously for the same oracle. It is worth the trouble, he then remarks, to inspect how often Adytov and xXpnopuos are interchanged in the “Knights” of Aristophanes between verses 109 and 1224, from which the error of the scholiast on Thucydides, ii. 8, is clear and of Suidas following him, in making \oyuor specifically an oracle in prose, and xpyo- pos One in verse. He then quotes Eustathius on the “ Iliad,” ii. ver. 233, and on the “‘Odyssey,” i. ver. 1426; adduces the gloss, Aoy.ov, 6 xpyouds; and asks his readers to note what Stephens adduces from Camerarius against this distinction.” The continued designation by Greek writers of the prose Pythian oracles as xpnoyot is adverted to, Plutarch’s testi- mony being dwelt on: and relevant scholia on Aristophanes’ “Av’’., 960, and “ Nub.,” 144, are referred to. It is not strange that Locella’s finding, based on so exhaustive a survey of the relevant facts, should have dominated later commentators, who differ from it ordinarily more by way of slight modifi- cation than of any real revision — suggesting that hoya, being the more general word, is somewhat less sacred; or somewhat less precise; *! or somewhat less ancient.®? The common difficulty with all these efforts to distinguish the two words is that there is no usage to sustain them. When the two words occur together it is not in contrast but in 29 Stephens (ed. Dindorf-Hase) merely adduces Camerarius’ testimony: ‘‘So Cam., adding that the discrimination of the grammarians is a false one, although the passage in Thucydides, i (sic.) [8] seems to agree with it.” 30 This seems to be what Haack (on Thucyd., ii. 8) means when he defines Oya as Auguria, presagia vatum, and xpycpoi as oracula deorum. 31 This seems the gist of Bredow’s view (on Thucyd., il. 8): “‘xenoues cum verbis xpav et xpetoOac oraculorum propriis cohaerens definite oraculum divinum vocatur; Adywov autem aperte generalius vocabulorum est, sermo ominosus, verbum faticidium quod non interrogatus vel deus, vel vates elocutus est.”” Poppo and Geeller ad loc. quote these views but add nothing of value to them. 32 Bouché-Leclercq seems almost inclined to revert to Eustathius’ statement and look upon Adyov as “‘an expression peculiar to the Attic dialect, as tpddarra (Herod., v. 63; ix. 93) is an Ionic expression”’ (op. cit., 11. 130, note 4). 346 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION apparently complete equivalence, and when \oyov appears apart from xpyopds it is in a sense which seems in no way to be distinguishable from it. The only qualification to which this statement seems liable, arises from a faintly-felt sus- picion that, in accordance with their etymological implica- tions already suggested, xpyoyuds has a tendency to appear when the mind of the speaker is more upon the source of the ‘‘oracle’? and \dyiov when his mind is more upon its substance. Even in such a rare passage as Eurip., “ Heracl.,’”’ 406, where the two words occur in quasi-contrast, we find no further ground for an intelligible distinction between them: “Yet all my preparations well are laid: Athens is all in arms, the victims ready Stand for the gods for whom they must be slain. By seers the city is filled with sacrifice For the foes’ rout and saving of the state. All prophecy-chanters have I caused to meet, Into old public oracles have searched, And secret, for salvation of this land.® And mid their manifest diversities, In one thing glares the sense of all the same — They bid me to Demeter’s daughter slay, A maiden of a high-born father sprung.”’ *4 And ordinarily they display an interchangeability which seems almost studied, it is so complete and, as it were, iterant. Certainly, at all events, it is good advice to follow, to go to Aristophanes’ “Knights” to learn their usage. In that biting play Demos— the Athenian people —is pictured as ‘“a Sibyllianizing old man”’ with whom Cleon curries favor by plying him with oracles, doer 0€ xpnopuols’ O dé yépwy oiBvdAdG.*® 8 xpnouay 6’ aodods ravras eis & aXlcas | HrevyEa Kal BEBNra Kal Kexpvupuéeva | Oyta TWarad 7H SE YH owTHpra. 34 Way’s translation, 398 seq. % Line 61. Blaydes says: “‘sensus est, senes enim oracula amat.” “THE ORACLES OF GOD ” 347 Nicias steals rovs xpyopots from Cleon, and brings ror tepov xpnopov to Demosthenes, who immediately on reading it ex- claims, & \oyra ! *° “De.: ’Q Adyra. Give me quick the cup! Nic.: Behold, what says the xpyoyués ? Dem.: Pour on! Nic.: Is it so stated in the doyios ? DemM.: O Bacis!’’ To cap the climax, the scholiast remarks on @ Noyia: ‘‘(uavreduara): he wonders when he reads tov xpyopuov.”’ Only a little later,’ Demosthenes is counseling the Sausage Vender not to “‘slight what the gods by rots \oyiosr have given’’ him and receives the answer: ‘‘ What then says 6 xpyoyés ?”’ and after the con- tents of it are explained the declaration, ‘‘I am flattered by 7a Noyia.’? As the dénouement approaches, Cleon and the Sausage Vender plead that their oracles may at least be heard (lines 960-961: ot xpyopuot). They are brought, and this absurd scene is the result: ‘‘CiEoN: Behold, look here — and yet I’ve not got all. 8. V.: Ah, me! I burst — ‘and yet I’ve not got all!’ Dmem.: What are these ? CiEoN: Oracles (Aoyta). DeM.: All! CLEoN: Do you wonder ? By Jupiter, I’ve still a chestful left. S. V.: And I an upper with two dwelling rooms. DEM.: Come, let us see whose oracles (of xpyopot) are these? CxEoN: Mine are of Bacis. Dzmm.: Whose are thine? S. V.: Of Glamis, his elder brother.’’ And when they are read they are all alike in heroic measure. It is not in Aristophanes alone, however, that this equiva- lence meets us: the easy interchange of the two words 1s, we may say, constant throughout Greek literature. Thus, for ex- ample, in the “‘ Corinthiaca”’ of Pausanias (ii. 20, 10) an oracle is introduced as 76 Aoyov, and commented on as 6 xpnopos.*® In Diodorus Siculus, ii. 14,39 Semiramis is said to have gone 36 Line 120. Wheelwright’s translation is used throughout. 37 Line 194. 38 spdrepov dé Ere TOV AYaVA TOUTOY mpoecHnunver 7 IvOia, Kai 7d AdyLov Eire GAWS elre kal @s auveis €6NAwWGEY ‘ Hpddozos: "AXN Srav 7 Onr\eLa Tov appevra VikKHoACa éEeXaon Kal K0dos & *Apyeiorow a&pnrat mo\Aas ’Apyelwv audidpudeas Tore OnoeL. Ta pev és 7d Epyov Tay yuvakv éxovra Tod xpnouod radra Fv. In. v. 3, 1; Iv. 9, 4; ix. 37, 4 in like manner xpyopos is identified with wavrevya. 39 Bekker, i. 150. 348 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION to Ammon xpnoouevn TS O€@ Tepi THs idtas TeXeuTHS, and, the narrative continues, \éyerat ab’TtH yevéobar Aoyrov. Similarly in Plutarch’s “De Defectu Orac.,”’ v.“ we have the three terms TO xpnoTnpiov, TO hoy.ov and Ta mavTeta TadTa equated: in “ De Mul. Virt.,”’ vii.*t the A\oyua are explained by what was éypno- 6y: in ““Questiones Romane,” xxi.” \oyra came by way of a xpnouwoetv. In the “Ephesiaca” of thelater Xenophon metrical pavrebwara are received, the recipients of which are in doubt what 7a Tov Oeot Novia can mean, until, on consideration, they discover a likely interpretation for the xpyouov that seems to meet the wish of the God who éuavretoaro.* How little anything can be derived from the separate use of A\oytov to throw doubt on its equivalence with xpyopos as thus exhibited, may be observed from the following instances of its usage, gathered together somewhat at random: * Herodotus, i. 64: ‘‘He purified the island of Delos, according to the injunctions of an oracle (é t&v Noyiwv)’’; 1. 120: “We have found even oracles sometimes fulfilled in unimportant ways (7r&v doyiwr évia)’’; iv. 178: ‘Here in this lake is an island called Phla, which it is said the Lacedzemonians were to have colonized according to an oracle (civ vicov Aaxedatmoviorst dace NOyLov etvat KTiaar)’’; vill. 60: ‘‘ Where an oracle has said that we are to overcome our enemies (kal \oyov Eore Tav éxOpav xarirepbe)’’; vill. 62: “‘which the prophecies declare we are to colonize (ra Noyra Aeyer).”’ Aristophanes,‘ Vesp.,’’ 799: dpa ro xphua, Ta NOY’ ws wepatverat; ‘Knights,’ 1050, ravri redetoPar Ta AOL’ HON wor doxet. Polybius, vii. 30, 6: ‘‘ For the eastern quarter of Tarentum is full of monuments, because those who die there are to this day all buried within the walls, in obedience to an ancient oracle (kara Te Noytov apxatov).’’ Diodorus Siculus ap. Geog. Sync., p. 194 D(‘‘ Corpus Scriptorum Historie Byzantine,” 1. 366), ‘‘ Fabius says an oracle came to Atneas (Alveia yeveoOar Ady.ov), that a quadruped should direct him 4091, 412 D: 41 11. 247 D. droretpmpevor TOV Noyiwv. ’Expnabn yap abtrots:... #2 11. 268 E. amopbeyyeobat Noyra, Kai xpnoumdety rots EpowrGow:... 431. 6. 44 The word, as will be seen, is as old as Herodotus: on the other hand — if we may trust the indices — it does not seem to occur in Homer (Dunbar’s ‘‘Con- cordance” [to Odyssey ], Gehring’s ‘‘Index’’), Hesiod (Paulsen’s ‘‘Index’’), Plato (Ast’s ‘‘Lexicon”’) or Aristotle, Xenophon or Sophocles. “THE ORACLES OF GOD” 349 to the founding of a city.” Alian, “Var. Hist.,” ii.41: “Moreover My- cerinus the Egyptian, when there was brought to him the prophecy from Budo (76 é Botrns wavretov), predicting ashort life, and he wished to escape the oracle (76 \dyiov) .. .”? Arrian, “ Expedit. Alex.,” ii. 3, 14 (Ellendt., 1. 151): &s 70d Noyiouv rod émi rH Abce TOD Secuod EvuBEBnKdTOs; vii. 16, 7 (Ellendt., ii. 419), ““But when Alexander had crossed the river Tigris with his army, pushing on to Babylon, the wise men of the Chaldeans (Xaddaiwy of Adyor) met him and separating him from his companions asked him to check the march to Babylon. For they had an oracle from their God Belus (Aéy.ov éx Tod Geod Tod Bydov) that entrance into Babylon at that time would not be for his good. But he answered them with a verse (éros) of the poet Euripides, which runs thus: ‘The best uavris is he whose conclusion is good.’”’ Plutarch, “Non posse suaviter vivi,” etc., 24 (1103 F.): “ What of that ? (quoth Zeuxippus). Shall the present discourse be left imperfect and unfin- ished because of it ? and feare we to alledge the oracle of the gods (76 hoyov mpdos ’Eixovpov deyovres) when we dispute against the Epicu- reans ? No (quoth I againe) in any wise, for according to the sentence of Empedocles, ‘A good tale twice a man may tell, and heare it told as oft full well’;” “Life of Theseus,” § 26 (p. 12 C, Didot, p. 14), “He applied to himself a certain oracle of Apollo’s (Ady.6v re rvddxpnorov)”’ § 27 (p. 12 E, Didot, p. 14): “ At length Theseus, having sacrificed to Fear, according to the oracle (card rv Ady.ov)’’; ““ Life of Fabius,”’ § 4 (Didot, p. 210), ’Exuw7Onoav 6€ tore rodXal Kal TSv aroppyATwy Kal xpnol- wv avtots BiBAwy, ds DuBvddelous Kadodaou’ Kal NEyeTat gvVdpapeEty Evia TOV aTOKELMevWY ev alTats Noyiwy mpos Tas TUXAS Kal Tas Tpdtes Exeivas. Pau- sanias, “ Attica’’ [I. 44, 9] (taken unverified from Wetstein): 6icavtos Aiaxod Kata 64 Te NOyov 7H TlavedAnviw Act. Polyzenus, p. 37 (Wetstein) [I, 18]: 6 beds éxpnoe — of rodeuor TO NOYLOV €iddTES — TOU Aoyiov TeE- mAnpwuevov; p. 347 (IV, 3, 27], jv dé Adycov ’AdANwvos. Aristeas, p. 119 (Wetstein): ebxapioT& per, avipes, butv, TH 6€ drooTElAavTe MaNAOV" eEYLO-~ Tov O€ TH Dew, ovTLVOS EgTL TA NOYLA TAUTA. A survey of this somewhat miscellaneous collection of passages will certainly only strengthen the impression we de- rived from those in which \édy.ov and xpnopyos occur together — that in \oy.ov we have a term expressive, in common usage at least, of the simple notion of a divine revelation, an oracle, and that independently of any accompanying implication of length or brevity, poetical or prose form, directness or in- 350 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION directness of delivery. This is the meaning of \dyrov in the mass of profane Greek literature. As we have already sug- gested, the matter of the derivation of the word is of no great importance to our inquiry: “ but we may be permitted to add that the usage seems distinctly favorable to the view that it is to be regarded rather as, in origin, the neuter of Aoytos used substantively, than the diminutive of Aoyos. No implication of brevity seems to attach to the word in usage; and its exclusive application to ‘‘oracles’’ may perhaps be most easily explained on the supposition that it connotes fundamentally ‘‘a wise saying,’ and implies at all times something above the ordinary run of ‘‘ words.’’ * II. It was with this fixed significance, therefore, that the word presented itself to the Jews of the later centuries be- fore Christ, when the changed conditions were forcing them to give a clothing in Greek speech to their conceptions, de- rived from the revelation of the old covenant; and thus to prepare the way for the language of the new covenant. The oldest monument of Hellenistic Greek — the Septuagint Ver- sion of the Sacred Books, made probably in the century that stretched between 250 and 150 B.C. — is, however, pecul- larly ill-adapted to witness to the Hellenistic usage of this word. As lay in the nature of the case, and, as we shall see later, was the actual fact, to these Jewish writers there were no ‘‘oracles”’ except what stood written in these sacred books themselves, and all that stood written in them were “‘ oracles of God.” In a translation of the books themselves, naturally this, the most significant Hellenistic application of the word 45 See above, p. 336. 46 Dr. Addison Alexander, with his usual clearness, posits the alternative admirably (on Acts vii. 38): ‘‘The Greek word (Aéya) has been variously ex- plained as a diminutive of (Adyos) word, meaning a brief, condensed and frequent utterance; or as the neuter of an adjective (Ady.os) meaning rational, profound, wise, and as a substantive, a wise saying.” It would seem difficult to rise from a survey of the classical usage without an impression that it justifies the latter derivation. This usage is stated with perfect accuracy by DeMoor (‘‘Com. in Marckii Com- pend.,” i. 13): 76 Adyeov ‘when used substantively may be considered as more emphatic than 76 pjua or even 6 ddyos: for this term means with the Greeks not any kind of word, but specifically an oracle, a divine response.” “THE ORACLES OF GOD ” ool ‘“‘oracles,’”’ could find little place. And though the term might be employed within the sacred books to translate such a phrase as, say, ‘‘the word of God,” in one form or another not infrequently met with in their pages, the way even here was clogged by the fact that the Hebrew words used in these phrases only imperfectly corresponded to the Greek word doyvov, and were not very naturally represented by it. Though the ordinary Hebrew verb for ‘‘saying’’? — -»x “7 — to which etymologically certain high implications might be thought to be natural, had substantival derivatives, yet these were fairly effectually set aside by a term of lower origin — “354 — which absorbed very much the whole field of the conception “word.” The derivatives of ~2x—"Rk, Ts, TTX, TEX! — in ac- cordance with their etymological impress of loftiness or authority, are relegated to poetic speech (except “»x2, which Ts occurs only in Esther i. 15, ii. 20, ix. 32, and has the sense of commandment) and are used comparatively seldom. Nevertheless, it was to one of these that the Septuagint translators fitted the word déy.ov. To 753 they naturally consecrated the general terms )dyos, pnua, tpayua: while 47 It occurs, according to the Brown-Gesenius ‘‘Lexicon,”’ no less than 5287 times; according to Girdlestone (“Synonyms of the O. T.,” ed. 2, p. 205), it ‘“‘is generally rendered in the LXX. érw and Neyw.”’ There seems to be inherent in the word an undertone of loftiness or authoritativeness due possibly to its etymo- logical implication of “prominence.” Its derivations are accordingly mostly poetical words designating a lofty speech or authoritative speech. 48 The verb, of doubtful origin, occurs according to Brown-Gesenius, 1142 times, and is generally rendered in the LXX. (Girdlestone, loc. cit.) X\adéw. The noun occurs 1439 times and is rendered “‘generally \dyos, sometimes pfua, and in 35 passages, mpadyua.” 49 There is also the poetic word bon and its derivative noun mr —a word ‘used in 30 passages, 19 of which are in Job and 7 in Daniel,” and rendered in the LXX. ddoyos and pjua (Girdlestone). 50 “Wak, “except in Josh. xxiv. 27 (E) used exclusively in poetry, 48 times, of which 22 are in Proverbs and 11 in Job” (Driver on Deut. xxxii. 1). T728 “only found in poetry (86 times, of which 19 are in Ps. exix.)”’ (Driver on Deut. xxxii. 2). M28, Lam. ii. 17 only. Y28/3, Esth. i. 15, ii. 20, ix. 32 only. On the general subject of their poetic usage see Green, ‘“‘General Introduction to the O. T.: The Text,” p. 19; Bleek, ‘‘Introduction to the O. T.,”’ E. T., i. 98; Havernick, ‘‘ Einleitung,” i. 172; Gesenius, ‘‘Geschichte der hebraischen Sprache,” p. 22, and “‘Lehrge- biude,” Register, p. 892; Vogel, ‘‘De Dialecto Poetica.”’ 302 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION they adjusted \dy.ov as well as might be to 7x, and left to one side meanwhile its classical synonyms *! — except ywavreta and its cognates, which they assigned, chiefly, of course, in a bad sense, to the Hebrew cop in the sense of ‘“‘divination.”’ mmx is, to be sure, in no sense an exact synonym of hoy.ov. It is simply a poetical word of high implications, pre- vailingly, though not exclusively, used of the ‘‘utterances”’ of God, and apparently felt by the Septuagint translators to bear in its bosom a special hint of the authoritativeness or awesomeness of the ‘‘word”’ it designates. It is used only some thirty-six times in the entire Old Testament (of which no less than nineteen are in Ps. exix.), and designates the solemn words of men (Gen. iv. 23, ef. Isa. xxix. 4 bis., xxvill. 23, xxxll. 9; Ps. xvil. 6; Deut. xxxil. 2) as well as, more pre- vailingly, those of God. In adjusting \éyor to it the instances of its application to human words are, of course, passed by and translated either by Noyos (Gen. iv. 23; Isa. xxix. 4 bis.; Isa. xxvill. 23, xxxii. 9), or pjua (Deut. xxxil. 2; Ps. xvii. 6). In a few other instances, although the term is applied to ‘‘words of God,” it is translated by Greek words other than hoyov (II Sam. xxii. 31, LX X. pjua, and its close parallel, Prov. xxx. 5, LXX. doyo., though in the other parallels, Ps. xii. 7, xviii. 31, the LX X. has Aédya; Ps. exix. [41 2, 154, where the LX_X. has Noyos; in Ps. exxxvill. 2, the LX X. reads TO ay.ov cov, on which Bethgen remarks, 2m loc., that ‘‘ ayvov seems to be a corruption for \éyov,”’ which is read here by Aquila and the Quinta). In the remaining instances of its occurrences, however — and that is in the large majority of its occurrences — the word is uniformly rendered by \oyov 51 ypnouds, for example, which we have found the constant accompaniment of Aéyov in the classics and shall find always by its side in Philo, does not occur in the LXX. at all. The cognates xpnuarifw (Jer. xxxil. (25) 30, xxxill. (26) 2, xxxvi. (29) 28, xxxvil. (30) 2, xonuwariopés (Prov. xxiv. 69 (xxxi. 1), II Mace. il. 4), xonua- tiornpt (I Kegs. viii. 6), are, however, found, and in their high sense. It is somewhat. overstrained for Delitzsch (on Heb. viii. 5, E. T., Vol. ii. 82) to say: ‘‘ The Septu- agint word for the deliverance of a divine oracle or injunction is xpynuarifer (rovs Néyous) ruvl or rpds Twa: xpnuarifew is found in this sense only in the LXX. “THE ORACLES OF GOD” 303 (Deut. xxxili. 9; Ps. xii. 7 bis., xviii. 31, ev. 19, exix. 11, 38 41h), °7750,/58; 67, 76, 82) 103) 116, 128; 133) 140,7148..158, 162, 170, 172, exlvii. 15; Isa. v. 24). If there is a fringe of usage of sms thus standing outside of the use made of Aoy.ov, there is, on the other side, a corresponding stretch- ing of the use made of \éyov beyond the range of a7» — to cover a few passages judged by the translators of similar im- port. Thus it translates -4k in Num. xxiv. 4, 16; Ps. xviii. 15 [xix. 15], evi. [evii.] 11, and ss in Ps. exviii. [exix.] 25, 65, 107, 169, [exlvii. 8]; Isa. xxviii. 13; and it represents in a few passages \dyorv, a variation from the Hebrew, viz., Ps. exviii. [ cxix.]; Isa. xxx. 11, 27 bis. In twenty-five instances of its thirty-nine occurrences, however, it is the rendering of m7x.°? It is also used twice in the Greek apoc- rypha (Wis. xvi. 11; Sir. xxxvi. 19 [16]), in quite the same sense. In all the forty-one instances of its usage, it is needless to say, it is employed in its native and only current sense, of ‘oracle,’ a sacred utterance of the Divine Being, the only apparent exception to this uniformity of usage (Ps. xvii. 15 [ xix. 15 ]) being really no exception, but, in truth, significant of the attitude of the translators to the text they were trans- lating — as we shall see presently. What led the LXX. translators to fix upon mx as the nearest Hebrew equivalent to \oyov,* we have scanty ma- terial for judging. Certainly, in Psalm cxix, where the word most frequently occurs, it is difficult to erect a distinction between its implications and those of 735 with which it seems to be freely interchanged, but which the LXX. trans- Jeremiah, A very rich body of illustrations for the New Testament usages (Luke ii. 26, Acts x. 22, Heb. viii. 5) might, however, be culled from Philo. 52 Tn some codd. but in the edd. we read, xara 76 €\eds gov. 53 The passages are already enumerated just above. 54 The other versions add nothing of importance. At Ps. exix. 41 the ‘TVs rendered édeos by LX X.is rendered \éyrov by Aq. and Th. In Ps. exxxvil. (¢xxxviii). 2 the 778 rendered by LXX. a&yov (though Bethgen remarks that this seems merely a corruption of Aéy.ov) is rendered Adyov by Aq. and Quinta. In Isa. xxxil. 9, the ‘T728 rendered in LXX. by dAéyou is given as Adyiov by Aq., a case quite parallel with Ps. xviii. 15 (xix. 15) in LXX. In Jer. viii. 9 the phrase 717""7572 is ren- dered in Aq. by Adyrov. 304 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION lators keep reasonably distinct from it by rendering it pre- vailingly by ddoyos,* while equally prevailingly reserving Noytov for w7ex.°® Perhaps the reader may faintly feel even in this Psalm, that =» was to the writer the more sacred and solemn word, and was used, in his rhetorical variation of his terms, especially whenever the sense of the awesomeness of God’s words or the unity of the whole revelation of God ” more prominently occupied his mind; and this impression is slightly increased, perhaps, in the case of the interchange of Noytov and dyos in the Greek translation. When we look be- yond this Psalm we certainly feel that something more re- quires to be said of ss than merely that it is poetic.® It is | T very seldom applied to human words and then only to the most solemn forms of human speech — Gen. xxiv. 23 (LXX., Noyor); Deut. xxxii. 2 (LXX., pnua); Ps. xxvii. (LXX., pjua); ef. Isa. xxix. 4 bis (LXX., Novyor) where the speaker is Jeru- salem whose speech is compared to the murmuring of familiar spirits or of the dead, and Isa. xxviil. 23, xxxil. 9, where the prophet’s word is in question. It appears to suggest itself naturally when God’s word is to receive its highest praises 5 The statistics of this Psalm are: ‘TY28 is used 19 times: being translated by oyov 17 times, viz., at verses 11, 38, 50, 58, 67, 76, 82, 103, 115, 123, 133, 140, 148, 158, 162, 170, 172; at v. 41 it is translated 76 €\eos, though some codices read Tov Aoyov and some 76 Adytov; at v. 154 it is translated by Adyov. 137 is used 23 times: being translated by Adyos 15 times, viz., at verses 9, 16, 17, 28, 42, 48, 49, 74, 81, 89, 101, 130, 147, 160, 161; by Aéyiov 4 times, viz., at verses 25, 65, 107, 109; by. évro\n twice, viz., at verses 57, 1389; by véuos at v.105, and by dads at v. 114 (though some cod. read Adyor or Adyos). Adyeov is used 23 times: being the translation of ‘TVa8 17 times, viz., at. verses 11, 38, 50, 58, 67, 76, 82, 103, 115, 123, 133, 140, 148, 158, 162, 170, 172; of "27 4 times (25, 65, 107, 169); of 77 once (124) and of DAWN once (149). Adyos is used 17 times: being the translation of "37 15 times, viz., at verses 9, 16, 17, 28, 42, 43, 49, 74, 81, 89, 101, 180, 147, 160, 161 and of ‘a8 once (154, cf. 41), while once (42a) it is inserted without warrant from the Hebrew. 56 Delitzsch on v. 9 seg.: ‘The old classic (e. g., xvili. 31), JTS alternates throughout with 7727; both are intended collectively.’’ Perowne on v. 11: ‘‘Worp, or rather ‘saying,’ ‘speech,’ distinct from the word employed, for instance, in v. 9. Both words are constantly interchanged throughout the Psalm.” 57 Delitzsch on v. 145-152: “i188 is here as in verses 140, 158, the whole Word of God, whether in its requirements or its promises.” °8 Driver on Deut. xxxii. 2: “Only found in poetry (36 times, of which 19 are in Ps. 119); cf. Isa. xxviii. 23, xxxii. 9.” *? On this passage cf. Konig, ‘‘ Offenbarungsbegriff,’’ ii. 149, 150. ee eee ”/ “THE ORACLES OF GOD” O00 fates LPS xin gexvills 3 lst Provex sxe we seCKe x Vill: 2), or when the word of Jehovah is conceived as power or adduced in a peculiarly solemn way (Ps. exlvii. 18 ®; Isa. v. 24). Perhaps the most significant passage is that in Psalm ev. 19, where the writer would appear to contrast man’s word with God’s word, using for the former 133 (LX X., \ovyos) and for the latter ~7»x (LXX., \oyov): Joseph was tried by the word of the Lord until his own words came to pass.* What- ever implications of superior solemnity attached to the Hebrew word 77x, however, were not only preserved, but emphasized by the employment of the Greek term dy.ov to translate it — a term which was inapplicable, in the nature of the case, to human words, and designated whatever it was applied to as the utterance of God. We may see its lofty implications in the application given to it outside the usage of =t»xs —in Num. xxiv. 4, for example, where the very solemn description of Balaam’s deliverances — ‘‘oracle of the hearer of the words of God” (5x~>x) — is rendered most naturally dyoiv dxobwv Noyra iaxupov. Here, one would say, we have the very essence of the word, as developed in its classi- cal usage, applied to Biblical conceptions: and it is essen- tially this conception of the ‘‘unspeakable oracles of God”’ (Sir., xxxvi. 19, [16 ]) that is conveyed by the word in every instance of its occurrence. An exception has been sometimes found, to be sure, in Ps. xviii. 15 (xix. 14), inasmuch as in this passage we have the words of the Psalmist designated as 7a Noyia: “‘ And the words (7a Noya) of my mouth and the meditation of my heart shall be continually before thee for approval, O Lord, my help and my redeemer.” In this passage, however — and 60 ‘The God of Israel is the Almighty Governor of nature. It is He who sends His fiat (178 after the manner of the V8"! of the history of creation, cf. xxxiii. 9), earthward. ... The word is His messenger (cf. in cvii. 20), etc.’ Delitzsch, in loc. 6t It seems certainly inadequate to render ‘Ta8 by ‘‘saying,” as is very fre- quently done, e. g., by Dr. John DeWitt in his “‘ Praise Songs of Israel” (we have only the first edition at hand), by Dr. Maclaren in the cxix. Psalm (“Expositor’s Bible’’) and by Dr. Driver at Ps. cv. 19; cf. exlvii. 15 seg. This English word sug- gests nothing of the lofty implications which seem to have attached to the Hebrew term. 356 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION in Isa. xxxil. 9 as rendered by Aquila, which is similar — we would seem to have not so much an exception to the usage of 7a Adyta as otherwise known, as an extension of it. The translators have by no means used it here of the words of a human speaker, but of words deemed by them to be the words of God, and called 7a \éyta just because considered the ‘‘tried words of God.’ This has always been perceived by the more careful expositors. Thus Philippi © writes: “Psalm xix. 14 supplies only an apparent exception, since ra oyta TOD crduaros wou there, as spoken through the Holy Spirit, may be regarded as at the same time, Adyra Beod.” And Morrison: ® “In Psalm xix. 15 (14) the term thus occurs: ‘let the words of my mouth (7a Adyla ToD cTOmaTos wou = “B78, from Wk), and the medi- tation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength and my Redeemer.’ But even here the term may be fitly regarded as having its otherwise invariable reference. The Septuagint translator looked upon the sacred writer as giving utterance in his Psalm — the words of his mouth — to diviner thoughts than his own, to the thoughts of God Himself. He regarded him as ‘moved’ in what he said, ‘by the Holy Ghost.’’’ * In a word, we have here an early instance of what proves to be the standing application of ta \oyra on Hellenistic lips — its application to the Scripture word as such, as the special word of God that had come to them. The only ground of surprise that can emerge with reference to its use here, there- fore, is that in this instance it occurs within the limits of the Seriptures themselves: and this is only significant of the customary employment of the term in this application — for, we may well argue, it was only in sequence to such a customary employment of it that this usage could intrude itself thus, unobserved as it were, into the Biblical text itself. 62 On Rom. iii. 2. 6& On Rom. iii. 2 (pp. 14, 15). 6 Possibly Bleek in loc. Heb. v. 12 means the same thing when he says the word stands here of ‘‘the inspired religious song of the poet.” “THE ORACLES OF GOD ” 357 It is scarcely necessary to do more than incidentally ad- vert to the occasional occurrence of \oytov = doyetov in the Septuagint narrative, as the rendering of the Hebrew jun, that is, to designate the breastplate of the high priest, which he wore when he consulted Jehovah.® Bleek writes, to be sure, as follows: © “How fully the notion of an utterance of God attended the word according to the usage of the Alexandrians too is shown by the cir- cumstance that the LX X. employed it for the oracular breastplate of the High Priest (jn), Ex. xxviii. 15, 22 seg., xxix. 5, xxxix. 8 seq.; Lev. vii. 8; Sir. xlv. 12, for which doyetov, although found in Codd. Vat. and Alex., is apparently a later reading; Néyov, to which the Latin translation rationale goes back, has also Josephus, ‘‘ Ant.,’’ 11. 7, 5, for it: éoonvns (WM) wer Kadetrat, onuaiver 6€ TodTO KaTa THY ‘EAANVOY yA@rrav Noytov; c. 8, 9: Bev “EXAnVEs .. . TOV EcaoHvynY NOYLoV Kadovau; viii. 3, 8. And similarly apparently Philo, as may be inferred from his expositions, in that he brings it into connection with \dyos, reason, although with him too the reading varies between the two forms: see “Legg. Allegor.,’’ ii. 40, p. 83, A. B.; § 43, p. 84, C. ‘Vit. Mos.,” iow OF 0.4871 2)-p.. 672,517,813). p67) A. » De Monarch: ,% ll. 5, p. 824 A.” It is much more probable, however, that we have here an itacistic confusion by the copyists, than an application by the Septuagint translators of \éy.ov to a new meaning. This confusion may have had its influence on the readers of the LXX., and may have affected in some degree their usage of the word: but it can have no significance for the study of the use of the word by the LXX. itself. III. Among the readers of the Septuagint it is naturally to Philo that we will turn with the highest expectations of light on the Hellenistic usage of the word: and we have al- ready seen Bleek pointing out the influence upon him of the 6 Hx. xxviii. 15, 22, 23, 24, 24, 26, xxix. 5, 5 A. R., xxxv. 27, xxxvi. 15, 16, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29, 29; Lev. viii. 8, 8; Sir. xlv. 10. Also in Aq.: Ex. xxv. 6 (7), xxvill. 4, xxxv. 9. In Sm.: Ex. xxviii. 4, 28. In Th.: Ex. xxv. 6 (7), xxviii. 4, 23, 23, xxvii. 24, 26, 28, xxxv. 9. 66 Hebrews, pp. 115, 116, note. 358 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION LXX. use of \oy.ov = Aoyetov. Whatever minor influence of this kind the usage of the Septuagint may have had on him, however, Philo’s own general employment of the word carries on distinctly that of the profane authors. In him, too, the two words xpnopos and \oywov appear as exact synonyms, interchanging repeatedly with each other, to express what is in the highest sense the word of God, an oracle from heaven. The only real distinction between his usage of these words and that of profane authors arises from the fact that to Philo nothing is an oracle from heaven, a direct word of God, except what he found within the sacred books of Israel.*’ And the only confusing element in his usage springs 67 Tt is not intended to deny that Philo recognized a certain divine influence working beyond the limits of Scripture: but he does this without prejudice to his supreme regard for the Scriptures as the only proper oracles of God. At the open- ing of the tractate ‘‘Quod Omn. Prob. Lib.” (§ 1, M. 444, 445), he gives expression in the most exalted terms to his appreciation of the value of Greek thought: the Pythagoreans are a most sacred brotherhood (iepwraros diacos) whose teachings are kada, and all men who have genuinely embraced philosophy (¢iAocodiavy yrunciws nomwacavro) have found one of their Aéyou a Oecpuov icobuevov xpnoud. Elsewhere he speaks of Parmenides, Empedocles, Zeno and Cleanthes and their like as “‘divi homines” constituting a “‘sacer coetus” (“‘ De Prov.,’’ §48), who did not cast their teachings in verse only because it was fitting that they should not be quite gods (“De Prov.,”’ § 42). But even here the xpnouds is the standard to which their teach- ing is only likened: with all their wisdom they fall short of deity; and it is the utterance of deity alone which is ‘‘oracular’”’ — and this utterance is discernible only in the Scriptures of the Jews. We venture to quote here the statements of Prof, James Drummond (“Philo Judzus,”’ i. pp. 13 seq.): The Scriptures “‘ were the ‘oracles,’ the ‘sacred’ or ‘divine word,’ whose inspiration extended to the most minute particulars. Philo distinguishes indeed different kinds of inspiration, but the distinction did not affect its divine authority. . .. Communion between God and man is among the permanent possibilities of our race; and Philo goes so far as to say that every good and wise man has the gift of prophecy, while it is impos- sible for the wicked man to become an interpreter of God (‘‘Quis rer. div. heres.” 52 [1. 510]). It is true that he is referring here primarily to the good men in the Scriptures, but he seems to regard them as representatives of a general law. He did not look upon himself as a stranger to this blessed influence, but sometimes ‘a more solemn word’ spoke from his own soul, and he ventured to write down what it said to him (‘‘Cherubim,” 9 [i. 143 ]). In one passage he fully records his experience (“‘Migrat. Abrah.,” 7 [i. 441]).... Elsewhere he refers to the sug- gestions of the Spirit which was accustomed to commune with him unseen (‘‘ De Somniis,” ii. 38 [i. 692]). . .. But he ascribed to the Biblical writers a fullness of this divine enthusiasm, and consequent infallibility of utterance, which he claimed for no others.” “THE ORACLES OF GOD ” O09 from the fact that the whole contents of the Jewish sacred books are to him ‘‘oracles,’”’ the word of God; so that he has no nomenclature by which the oracles recorded in the Scrip- tures may be distinguished from the oracles which the Scriptures as such are. He has no higher words than Ndoyov and xpyopuos by which to designate the words of God which are recorded in the course of the Biblical narrative: he can use no lower words than these to designate the several pas- sages of Scripture he adduces, each one of which is to him a direct word of God. Both of these uses of the words may be illustrated from his writings almost without limit. A few in- stances will suffice. In the following, the ‘‘oracle’’ is a ‘‘word of God”’ re- corded in the Scriptures °°: ‘ ‘For he inquires whether the man is still coming hither, and the sacred oracle answers (daoxpiverat 76 \oyuov), ‘He is hidden among the stuff’ (I Sam. x. 22)” (“De Migrat. Abrah.,” § 36, pp. 418 E). “‘ For after the wise man heard the oracle which being divinely given said (Oeartabevtos Noyiou TovovTov) ‘Thy reward is exceeding great’ (Gen. xv. 1), he inquired, saying. . . . And yet who would not have been amazed at the dignity and greatness of him who delivered this oracle (rod xpnou@ dovvros) 2?” (‘Quis rer. div. her.,” §1, pp. 481 D). “And he (God) mentions the ministrations and services by which Abraham dis- played his love to his master in the last sentence of the divine oracle given to his son (dxporedebriov Aoyiov Tod xpynaGevros adtod 7 viet) (““ Quis rer. div. her.,”’ § 2, pp. 482 E). “To him (Abraham), then, being con- scious of such a disposition, an oracular command suddenly comes (eomiferat Adyov), Which was never expected (Gen. xxi. 1)... and without mentioning the oracular command (76 \oyov) to anyone .. .” (“De Abrah.,” § 32, P., p. 373 E). “[Moses] had appointed his brother high-priest in accordance with the will of God that had been declared unto him (xara 74 xpnoO@v7a NOyta”’) (“De Vita Moysis,’’ ili. 68 Yonge’s translation (in Bohn’s Ecclesiastical Library) is made use of in these citations. The paging of Mangey is often given and sometimes that of the Paris edition: but the edition of Richter is the one that has been actually used. The shortcomings of Yonge’s translation (cf. Edersheim’s article, “‘ Philo,” in Smith and Wace’s ‘“‘ Dictionary of Christian Biography,” iv. 367 A, note o), will be evident to the reader; but when important for our purpose will be correctable from the Greek clauses inserted. 360 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 21, P., p. 569 D). “Moses... being perplexed . . . besought God to decide the question and to announce his decision to him by an oracular command (xpyoue). And God listened to his entreaty and gave him an oracle (Adytov beorife). .. . We must proceed to relate the oracular commands (Aéy.a xpnobévra). He says... (Num. ix. 10)” (“De Vita Moysis,” iii. 30, P., p. 687 D). “And Balaam replied, All that I have hitherto uttered have been oracles and words of God (Adya xal xpnopyot), but what I am going to say are merely the suggestions of my own mind. ... Why do you give counsel suggesting things contrary to the oracles of God (rots xpyouots) unless indeed that your counsels are more powerful than his decrees (Aoyiwv) ?”’ (“De Vita Moysis,”’ i. 53, P., p. 647 D). “ Was it not on this account that when Cain fancied he had offered up a blameless sacrifice an oracle (Adyrov) came to him ? ... And the oracle is as follows (76 6€ Adyov Eore ToLdvde) (Gen. iv. 7)” (“De Agricult.,”’ § 29, M. i. 319). “And a proof of this may be found in the oracular answer given by God (76 fecmicbev \oytov) to the person who asked what name he had: ‘I am that I am’” (“De Somniis,” i. § 40, M. 1, 655). ‘““But when he became improved and was about to have his name changed, he then became a man born of God (4pwros Geod) according to the oracle that was delivered to him (kara ro xpnobev ait@ Aoy.ov), ‘I am thy God’” (‘‘ De Gigant.,”’ § 14, M. 1, 271). “ For which reason, a sacred injunction to the following purport (6.6 kai hoyov Expnoby 7B cod to.ovde) ‘Go thou up to the Lord, thou and Aaron,’ etc. (Gen. xxiv. 1.). And the meaning of this injunction is as follows: ‘Go thou up, O soul’” (“De Migrat. Abrah.,” § 31, M. 1, 462). ‘For which account an oracle of the all-merciful God has been given (Ady.ov Tod thew Oeod weordov Hueporyros) full of gentleness, which shadows forth good hopes to those who love instruction in these times, ‘I will never leave thee nor forsake thee’ (Jos. i. 5)” (“De Confus. Ling.,” § 32, M. i. 430). “Do you not recollect the case of the sooth- sayer Balaam ? He is represented as hearing the oracles of God (Ady Jeov) and as having received knowledge from the Most High, but what advantage did he reap from such hearing, and what good accrued to him from such knowledge?” (““De Mutat. Nominum,” §37). “There are then a countless number of things well worthy of being displayed and demonstrated; and among them one which was mentioned a little while ago; for the oracle (76 Ady.ov) calls the person who was really his grandfather, the father of the practiser of virtue, and to him who was really his father it has not given any such title; for it says, ‘I am the Lord God of Abraham, thy Father’ (Gen. xxviii. 13), and in reality “THE ORACLES OF GOD” O61 he was his grandfather, and, again, ‘the God of Isaac,’ not adding this time, ‘thy Father’ (“De Somniis,’ i. § 27).” “And there is something closely resembling this in the passage of Scripture (lt. the oracle: Td xpnobév Aoyrov) concerning the High Priest (Lev. xvi. 17)” (“De Somniis,”’ il. § 34). On the other hand, in the following instances, the refer- ence is distinctly to Scripture as such: “ And the following oracle given with respect to Enoch (76 xpnadev él "Evwx dOytov) proves this: ‘Enoch pleased God and he was not found’ (Gen. v. 24)” (“De Mutat. Nom.,”’ § 4). It is a portion of the narrative Scriptures which is thus ad- duced. “But let us stick to the subject before us and follow the Scripture (axodov0joavres TS Noyiw) and say that there is such a thing as wisdom existing, and that he who loves wisdom is wise’’ (do). Here 70 \oyuov is either Scripture in general, or, perhaps more probably, the passage previously under discussion and still in mind (Gen. v. 24). ““Maprupet 5€ wor Noytov 76 xpnobev eri Tod ’ABpadu 7o6e, ‘He came into the place of which the Lord God had told him; and having looked up with his eyes, he saw the place afar off (Gen. xxii. 9)’” (“De Somniis,’’ i. 11). This narrative passage of Scripture is here cited as \oy.ov 76 xpno lev. ‘This is a boast of a great and magnanimous soul, to rise above all creation, and to overleap its boundaries and to cling to the great uncreated God above, according to his sacred commands (xara ras lepas bWnyjoes) In which we are expressly enjoined ‘to cleave unto him’ (Deut. xxx. 20). Therefore he in requital bestows himself as their inheritance upon those who do cleave unto him and who serve him without intermission; and the sacred Scripture (Ady.ov) bears its testi- mony in behalf of these, when it says, ‘The Lord himself is his in- heritance’ (Deut. x. 9)”’ (“De Congressu erud. grat.,’”’ § 24, p. 448). Here the anarthrous \oy.ov is probably to be understood of ‘a passage of Scripture’’ — viz., that about to be cited. 362 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION tod “Moreover she (Consideration) confirmed this opinion of hers by the sacred scriptures (xpnopyots), one of which ran in this form (évl pep rouse — without verb) (Deut. iv. 4)... . She also confirmed her state- ment by another passage in Scripture of the following purport (érépw roude Xpnous) (Deut. xxx. 15) . . . and in another passage we read (kal éy érépois) (Deut. xxx. 20). And again this is what the Lord himself hath said... (Lev. x. 3)... as it is also said in the Psalms (Ps. exiil. 25)... but Cain, that shameless man, that parricide, is nowhere spoken of in the Law (otéauod 7Hs vouobecias) as dying: but there is an oracle delivered respecting him in such words as these (4AAd kal oyov Eat Ex’ alt xpnobev roodrov): ‘The Lord God put a mark upon Cain’ (Gen. iv. 15)” (“De Profug.,”’ § 11, M. i. 555). Here it is questionable whether ‘‘the Law” (7 vouoecia) is not broad enough to include all the passages mentioned — from Genesis, Leviticus and the Psalms — as it is elsewhere made to include Joshua (‘‘ De Migrat. Abrah.,”’ § 32, M. i, 464. See Ryle: p. xix). At all events, whatever is in this voyobecia is a xpynobev NOyrov: the passage more particularly adduced being a narrative one. “After the person who loves virtue seeks a goat by reason of his sins, but does not find one; for already as the sacred Scripture tells us (ws dndot 7d Aoyuov), ‘It hath been burnt’ (Lev. x. 16) .. . Accordingly the Scripture says (¢noatv oty 6 xpnouos) that Moses ‘sought and sought again,’ a reason for repentance for his sins in mortal life . . . on which account it is said in the Scripture (6.6 \éyerar) (Lev. xvi. 20)”’ (“De Profug.,”’ § 28, M. i. 569). Here 70 \oytov seems to mean not so much a passage in Scrip- ture as ‘‘Scripture”’ in the abstract: Lev. x. 16 not being previously quoted in this context. The same may be said of the reference of 6 xpyopds in the next clause and of the simple Aeyerar lower down — the interest of the passage turning on the entire equivalence of the three modes of adducing Scripture. “ This then is the beginning and preface of the prophecies of Moses under the influence of inspiration (rjjs kat’ évOovetacuov rpopyrelas Mwicéws). After this he prophesied (Gec7ifer) ... about food... being full of inspiration (éredcas). . . . Some thinking, perhaps, that what “THE ORACLES OF GOD ” 063 was said to them was not an oracle (ov xpyopots). . . . But the father established the oracle by his prophet (76 \éyov rod rpodjrov). ... He gave a second instance of his prophetical inspiration in the oracle (Adyrov, anarthrous) which he delivered about the seventh day” (“De Vit. Moysis,”’ ui. 35 and 36). “And the holy oracle that has been given (76 xpnobév oyiov = ‘the delivered oracle’; Ryle, ‘the utterance of the oracle’) will bear witness, which expressly says that he cried out loudly and betrayed clearly by his cries what he had suffered from the concrete evil, that is from the body” (‘‘ Quod det. pot. insid.,’”’ § 14, M. I., 200). Here the narrative in Gen. iv, somewhat broadly taken, in- cluding vers. 8 and 10, is called ro xpyabev Noyrov. “There is also something like this in the sacred scriptures where the account of the creation of the universe is given and it is expressed more distinctly (76 raparAnovov Kai év Tots epi THs TOD TavTos yevécEews xpnabetor Novyiows TEpLexEeTaL OnwEerwoeoTepov). For it is said to the wicked man, ‘O thou man, that hast sinned; cease to sin’ (Gen. iv. 7)” (‘De Sobriet.,” § 10, M. 1, 400). Here there is a formal citation of a portion of Scripture, viz., the portion “ concerning the creation of the universe,’ which means, probably, the Book of Genesis (see Ryle’s “ Philo and Holy Scripture,” p. xx); and this is cited as made up of ‘declared oracles,’’ év tots xpyoGetot Noylows. The Book of Genesis is thus to Philo a body of xpyaevra oyna. ‘And this is the meaning of the oracle recorded in Deuteronomy (rap’ 6 Kal NoyLov Ere ToOLoOvTOY avayeypaupevoy év Aevtepovopiw), ‘Behold I have put before thy face life and death, good and evil’” (“Quod Deus Immut.,”’ § 10, M. i. 280). Here the ‘‘oracle”’ is a ‘‘written”’ thing; and it is written in a well-known book of oracles, viz., in ‘‘ Deuteronomy,” the second book of the Law. This book, and of course the others like it, consists of written oracles. “And the words of scripture show this, in which (é6y\o? 6€ 76 Adyov & @) it is distinctly stated that ‘they both of them went to- gether, and came to the plain which God had mentioned to them (Gen. xxii. 3)’’ (‘De Migrat. Abrah.” § 30, M. 1. 462). 364 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION “And for this reason the following scripture has been given to men (616 AdyLov ExpHaby Tordvde), ‘Return to the land of thy father and to thy family, and I will be with thee’ (Gen. xxxi. 3)” (‘De Migrat. Abrah.,”’ § 6, M. i. 440). Here, though the words are spoken in the person of God, the generalized use of them seems to point to their Scriptural expression as the main point. ‘““Moses chose to deliver each of the ten commandments (éxacrov Jeorrifew t&v deka Noyiwv) in such a form as if they were addressed not to many persons but to one” (“De Decem Oracul.,” zepi rav Aéxa Aoyiwv, § 10). ‘“ And the sacred scripture (\éyrov, anarthrous) bears its testimony in behalf of this assertion, when it says: ‘The Lord himself is his in- heritance’ (Deut. x. 9)” (“De Congr. Erud. Grat.,” § 24, M. i. 538). “For there is a passage in the word of God (Ady.ov yap éorw) that... (Lev. xxvi. 3)” (“De praem. et poen.,” § 17, M. ii. 424). Both classes of passages thus exist in Philo’s text in the greatest abundance — no more those which speak of words of God recorded in Scripture as \oyra than those which speak of the words of Scripture as such as equally Aoy.a. Nor are we left to accord the two classes of passages for ourselves. Philo himself, in what we may call an even overstrained at- tempt at systematization, elaborately explains how he dis- tinguishes the several kinds of matter which confront him in Scripture. The fullest statement is probably that in the “De Vita Moysis,”’ iii, 23 (Mangey, ii, 163). Here he some- what artificially separates three classes of ‘‘ oracles,” all hay- ing equal right to the name. It is worth while to transcribe enough of the passage to set its essential contents clearly before us. He is naturally in this place speaking directly of Moses — as indeed commonly in his tracts, which are con- fined, generally speaking, to an exposition of the Pentateuch: but his words will apply also to the rest of the ‘‘ sacred books,”’ which he uniformly treats as the oracles of God alike with the Pentateuch.® He writes: 69 Cf. on this matter Edersheim in Smith and Wace’s ‘‘ Dictionary of Chris- tian Biography,” art. “Philo” (Vol. iv. pp. 386, 387): The only books ‘‘of which “THE ORACLES OF GOD ” 365 “Having shown that Moses was a most excellent king and law- giver and high priest, I come in the last place to show that he was also the most illustrious of the prophets (xpody7&v). Iam not unaware, then, that all the things that are written in the sacred books are oracles delivered by him (as rdvra eiol xpnopuol boa & rats iepats BiBdous avayeypamta: xpnobevres dv abrov): and I will set forth what more par- ticularly concerns him, when I have first mentioned this one point, namely, that of the sacred oracles (r&v Aoyiwv) some are represented as delivered in the person of God by His interpreter, the divine prophet (éx mpoowmou Tod Beod du’ épunvéws tod Oeiov rpophjrov), while others are put in the form of question and answer (é« zebcews kal dmoxpioews éGecriaOy), and others are delivered by Moses in his own character, as a divinely prompted lawgiver possessed by divine inspiration (éx mpocwrov Mwicéws éerberdoavtos kal €€ alto KatacxeEvTos). “Therefore all the earliest [Gr. rpra = the first of the three classes enumerated] oracles are manifestations of the whole of the divine virtues and especially of that merciful and boundless character by means of which He trains all men to virtue, and especially the race which is devoted to His service, to which He lays open the road leading to happiness. The second class have a sort of mixture and communication (uiéy Kal kowwviav) in them, the prophet asking in- formation on the subjects as to which he is in difficulty and God answering him and instructing him. The third sort are attributed to the lawgiver, God having given him a share in His prescient power by means of which he is enabled to foretell the future. ‘Therefore we must for the present pass by the first; for they are too great to be adequately praised by any man, as indeed they could it may with certainty be said that they are not referred to by Philo, are Esther and the Song of Solomon. The reference to Ecclesiastes is very doubtful, much more so than that to Daniel (p. 387 a).” Cf. also Ryle, ‘‘Philo and Holy Scripture,” pp. 16-35: “It is abundantly clear that to Philo the Pentateuch was a Bible within a Bible, and that he only occasionally referred to other books, whose sanctity he acknowledged, as opportunity chanced to present itself” (p. 27). Cf. also Ewald, “‘ History of Israel,” E. T., vii. 204, 205: ‘‘ Although he uses, and generally in the order in which they are now found in the Hebrew Canon, the other books much less gradatim than the Pentateuch, their authors are, nevertheless, con- sidered by him as of equal holiness and divinity with Moses, and inasmuch as from his whole view and treatment of the Scriptures, he can attribute but little importance to their authors as authors, or to their names and temporal circum- stances, he likes to call them all simply friends, or associates, or disciples of Moses, or prefers still more to quote the passage to which he refers simply as a sacred song, sacred word, etc.” “It is only the books which we now find collected in the 366 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION scarcely be panegyrized worthily by the heaven itself and the nature of the universe; and they are also uttered by the mouth, as it were, of an interpreter (kal dws Aeyerar woavel dv’ Epunvews). But (6é) inter- pretation and prophecy differ from one another. And concerning the second kind I will at once endeavor to explain the truth, connecting with them the third species also, in which the inspired character (tOoverbes) of the speaker is shown, according to which he is most especially and appropriately looked upon as a prophet.” ” A somewhat different distribution of material — now from the point of view, not of mode of oracular delivery, but of nature of contents —is given at the opening of the tract “De prem. et poen.”’ (§ 1, init.): “We find then that in the sacred oracles delivered by the prophet Moses (7p 61a 700 tpodjtrov Mwicéws Aoviwv) there are three separate characters: for a portion of them relates to the creation of the world, a portion is historical, and the third portion is legislative.” Hebrew Canon which he regarded as holy, and he was both sufficiently learned and careful not to rank all the others which were at that time gradually appended to the Greek Bible upon an equality with them.” Cf. also Lee, “‘The Inspiration of Holy Scripture,” pp. 69, 70. 70 Compare Ewald, ‘‘ The History of Israel,” E. T., vii. 203, 204: ‘The sacred Scriptures are to Philo so immediately divine and holy, that he consistently finds in them simply the divine word rather than Scripture, and therefore really every- where speaks less of the Sacred Scriptures than of divine oracles [xpyopol, Adyea | of which they were wholly composed, or, when he desires to designate them briefly as a whole, of the sacred and divine Word, as if the same Logos, of whom he speaks so much elsewhere, were symbolized and incorporated in them for all time, as far as that is possible in a book [6 éepos, more rarely 6 Oetos Adyos, likewise 6 d6p0ds Néyos (e. g., 1. 8308, 27; 681, 17; cf. esp., ii. 163, 44) is the expression which he con- stantly uses in this case; cf. esp. i. 676, 37 seq.; 677, 12]. It is true that in the case of the general subject matter, of the Pentateuch for instance, he makes a certain distinction, inasmuch as some of the oracles come to the prophet, as a mere interpreter directly as from the presence and voice of God alone, while others are revealed to him by God in answer to his interrogations, and again others have their origin in himself when in an inspired state of mind. But he makes this three- fold distinction simply because he found it in reading particular passages of the Bible, and not with a view of further reflecting upon it and drawing references from it. On the contrary, he regards and treats all the sentences and words of the Scripture as on a perfect equality and teaches expressly that sacred Scripture must be interpreted and applied, as forming even to its smallest particles, one in- separable whole (cf. esp. ‘‘ Auch.,’’ 11. 170, 212 seq.; in other respects, cf. i. 554, 14, and many other passages of a similar character ].” “THE ORACLES OF GOD” 367 Accordingly in the tract ‘‘ De Legat. ad Caium,”’ § 31 (Mangey, il. 577), we are told of the high esteem the Jews put on their laws: “For looking upon their laws as oracles directly given to them by God Himself (Gedxpnora yap NOyra Tods vduous evar bToAauBavovres) and having been instructed in this doctrine from their earliest infancy, they bear in their souls the images of the commandments contained in these laws as sacred.” By the side of this passage should be placed doubtless an- other from the “ De Vita Contemplativa,”’ §3, since it appears that we may still look on this tract as Philo’s: ‘And in every house there is a sacred shrine . . . Studying in that place the laws and sacred oracles of God enunciated by the holy prophets (voyueus kal Aoyra SeomicbéevTa 61a tpodynTGv) and hymns and psalms and all kinds of other things by reason of which knowledge and piety are increased and brought to perfection.”’ It is not strange that out of such a view of Scripture Philo should adduce every part of it alike as a \oyov. Sometimes, to be sure, his discrimination of its contents into classes shows itself in the formule of citation; and we should guard ourselves from being misled by this. Thus, for example, he occasionally quotes a \oy.ov ‘‘from the mouth (or ‘ person’) of God’’ — which does not mean that Scriptures other than these portions thus directly ascribed to God as speaking, are less oracular than these, but only that these are oracles of his first class — those that ‘‘are represented as delivered from the person of God (€k zpoowzov tod Geov) by his inter- preter, the divine prophet.”’ A single instance or two will suffice for examples: ‘And the sacred oracle which is delivered as”’ [dele “as”’] “from the mouth” [or “person’’] ‘“‘of the ruler of the universe (Noyov ék mTpocwrou beaTriabev TOU TaV dAwV Wyeudvos) Speaks of the proper name of God as never having been revealed to anyone “ when God is repre- 71 The translation here is unusually expanded: the Greek runs Anno? dé kai X. e. 7.0.7. 7. &. 9. Tept TOD wedevt SednNABGBat Svoud Te abTov KUptov, KTV. 368 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION sented as saying, ‘For I have not shown them my name’ (Gen. Vi. 3)” (‘De Mutat. Nom.,” § 2). “And the oracles” (of xpyopoi which is a standing term for ‘the Scriptures’ in Philo) “bear testimony, in which it is said to Abraham ék rpocwzov 70d Geod (Gen. xvii. 1)” (ditto, § 5). “And he (Jeremiah the prophet) like a man very much under the influence of inspiration (are 7a woAda évOovo.dv) uttered an oracle in the character of God (xpnopdv riva ééel rev éx Tpoowrov Tod Geod) speaking in this manner to most peaceful virtue: ‘Hast thou not called me as thy house’ ete. (Jer. iii. 4)”’ (“De Cherub.,” § 14, M. i. 148). The other oracles, delivered not €k mpoowzov Tov Geov but in dialogue or in the person of the prophet, are, however, no less oracular or authoritative. To Philo all that is in Serip- ture is oracular, every passage is a A\oy.ov, of whatever charac- ter or length; and the whole, as constituted of these oracles, is Ta NOyta, Or perhaps even 70 \dyrovy — the mass of logia or one continuous logion. It is not said, be it observed, that Philo’s sole mode of designating Scripture, or even his most customary mode, is as Ta hoya. As has already been stated, he used ypynouds equally freely with \oy.ov for passages of Scripture, and oi xXpyouwot apparently even more frequently than 7a \éya for the body of Scripture. Instances of the use of the two terms interchangeably in the same passage have already been in- cidentally given.” A very few passages will suffice to illus- trate his constant use of xpnoués and ot xpnopoi separately. In the following instances he adduces passages of Scrip- ture, each as a xpnopos: “On this account also the oracle (6 xpnouds) which bears testimony against the pretended simplicity of Cain says, ‘You do not think as you say’ (Gen. iv. 15)” (“Quod det. potiori insid.,”’ § 45, M. i. 223). ‘And of the supreme authority of the living God, the sacred scrip- ture is a true witness (6 xpnopuds adAnO7}s waptus) which speaks thus (Lev. xxv. 23)” (“De Cherub.,” § 31, M. i. 158). “For a man will come forth, says the word of God (¢nciv 6 xpynouos) leading a host and warring furiously, etc. (Num. xxiv. 7)” (“De Praem. et Poen.,” § 16, M. ii. 423). ““And the sacred scripture bears witness to this fact 72 “De Profug.,” §§ 11 and 28; ‘De Vita Moysis,”’ i. 53; iii. 23, 30, 35, 36. “THE ORACLES OF GOD” 369 (uaprupel 5€ 6 mepi ToOUTwWY xpnopds): for it says (Num. xxiii. 19)” (“De Migrat. Abrah.,” § 20, M. i. 454). “For though there was a sacred scripture (xpnopod yap dvros) that ‘There should be no harlot among the daughters of the seer, Israel’ (Deut. xxiii. 17)” (“De Migrat. Abrah.,”’ § 39, M. i. 472). “And witness is borne to this assertion by the scripture (uaprus 6€ kal xpyopuds) in which it is said: ‘I will cause to live,’ etc. (Deut. xxxii. 39)” (“De Somniis,” ii. 44, M. i. 698). “The oracle (6 xpnouds) given to the all-wise Moses, in which these words are contained” (“Quod det. pot. insid.,” §34, M. i. 215). “Which also the oracle (6 xpnouds) said to Cain” (do., § 21). “And I know that this illustrious oracle was formerly delivered from the mouth of the prophet (crduare 8 of6a wore rpodnrik® Oeomicbevra duamupov ro.dvie xpnopov), ‘Thy fruit,’ etc., (Hos. xiv. 9)” (“De Mutat. Nom.,”’ § 24, M. 11. 599). In this last case it is to be noticed that the “oracle” is taken from Hosea: the corresponding passage in ‘‘De Plant. Noe.,’’ § 33, M. 1, 350, should be compared: ‘“‘ And with this assertion, this oracle delivered by one of the prophets is consistent, etc. (Hos. xiv. 9) (rottTw kai rapa rie tv rpodyntdv xpynabev avvader T006€).”” Two other passages may be adduced for their inherent inter- est. The first from “ De Profug.,”’ §32 (M. i. 573), where we read: “There are passages written in the sacred scriptures (of avaypa- gevtes xXpnopot) which give proof of these things. What they are we must now consider. Now in the very beginning of the history of the law there is a passage to the following effect (Gen. i. 6) (aiderai rus év apxh Ths vouobecias weTa THY KoopoTottay ebObs ToLdcde).”’ Here there is a precise designation where, among “‘ the written xXpnopol,’’ a certain one (tts) of them may be found, viz., in the beginning of ‘‘The Legislation’? immediately after ‘‘ The Creation” (cf. Ryle, p. xxi, note 1). The other is from the first book of the “ De Somniis,”’ § 27 (M. i. 646): “These things are not my myth, but an oracle (xpyoyds) written on the sacred tables (é vats iepats avayeypaymevos orndats), For it says (Gen. xlvi. 1).” This passage in Genesis is thus an oracle ‘‘written in the sacred tablets’? — and thus this phrase emerges as one of 370 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION Philo’s names for the Scriptures. Elsewhere we read some- what more precisely: ‘““ Now these are those men who have lived irreproachably and ad- mirably, whose virtues are durably and permanently recorded as on pillars in the sacred scriptures (@v rds aperds év Tats lepwraras éornXL- revabar ypadats oupBeBnxev)’’ (“De Abrah.,” $1, M. 1. 2). ‘There is also in another place the following sentence (ypauua) deeply engraven (éorn\crevuévov), (Deut. xxxii. 8)’’ (“De Congr. Erud. Grat.,”’ § 12, Meebo): The ‘‘Seriptures”’ thus bear to Philo a monumental charac- ter: they are a body of oracles written, and more — a body of oracles permanently engraved to be a lasting testimony forever. The designations for Scripture in Philo are, indeed, some- what various — such as lepal ypadat (“‘ Quis rerum div. heres,”’ § 32 M. i. 495); tepat Biro. (“ Quod det. pot. insid.,’”’ § 44, M. i. 222); rots tepots ypaupacw (“ Legat. ad Caium.,’” §29, M. ii. 574). But probably none are used so frequently as, on the one hand, \dyos, with various adjectival enhancements. —such as 6 mpodyrixds Novos (“‘ De Plantat. Noe,” § 28, M. i. 487), 6 Getos Ndyos (‘‘ Legg. Alleg.,” ili, §3, M. i. 89; “De Mutat. Nom.,”2 § 20:)°, DéySomniis, 1. 3350183 7) eee tepos Novos (“ De Ebriet.,” § 36, M. i. 379; ‘“De Mut. Nom- inum,” -§ 38; “Dé Somniis,’” 4. 14, 22) 3335037, 50 ee ae 4,9, 37, etc.); and especially, on the other hand, ot xpnawpot, occurring at times with extraordinary frequency.” Some passages illustrative of this last usage are the following: ‘For the sacred Scriptures (of xpnoyot) say that he entered into the darkness”’ (“De Mutat. Nom.,” § 2). ‘But the sacred oracles (oi xXenopot) are witnesses of that in which Abraham is addressed (the words being put in the mouth of God), (& ots Neyerar 73 ’ABpadp éx Tpoowmov Tov Geov) (Gen. xvii. 1)”’ (do. § 5). “And these are not my 73 Philo’s designations of Scripture have been collected by Cl. Frees Horne- mann, in his ‘‘Observationes ad illustr. doctr. de Can. V. T. ex. Philone”’ (1775); more briefly by Eichhorn in his ‘‘ Hinl. in d. A. Test.’’; and in a not alto- gether complete or exact list by Ryle, ‘Philo and Holy Scripture.” “THE ORACLES OF GOD ” ovl words only but those of the most holy scriptures (xpnouev rv tepw- TaTwy, —anarthrous to bring out the quality in contrast to éuds dos), in which certain persons are introduced as saying . . .”’ (do. § 28). Of Isaiah xlviil. 22 it is said in do. § 31: Néyos yap dvrws Kal xpnopds éort Getos. “ Accordingly the holy scriptures (of ypyoyot) tell us that...” (do. $36). ‘Therefore the sacred scriptures (of xpnopoi) represent Leah as hated”’ (do. § 44) ‘‘ For she is represented by the sacred oracles (Sua T&v xpnouav) as having left off all womanly ways (Gen. xviii. 12)” (“De Ebrietat.,”’ § 14, M. i. 365). ““On which account the holy scrip- ture (of xpnouoi) very beautifully represent it as ‘a little city and yet not a little one’” (‘De Abrah.,” § 31, M. ii. 25). ‘Therefore the sacred scriptures (of xpnopot) say (Gen. xxiv. 1)” (“De Sobriet.,” § 4, M. 1. 395). “‘ According as the sacred scriptures (of xpynopot) testify, in which it is said (Ex. viii. 1)”’ (“De Confus. Ling.,”’ § 20, M. i. 419). “On which account it is said in the sacred scriptures (& xpyopots) (Deut. vii. 7)” (“De Migrat. Abrah.,’”’ § 11, M. i. 445). ‘“‘God having drawn up and confirmed the proposition, as the Scriptures (ot xpyopol) show, in which it is expressly stated that (Deut. xxx. 4)”’ (‘De Confus. Ling.,’”’ § 38, M. i. 435). When we combine these passages with those in which Aoytov occurs it will probably not seem too much to say that the dominant method of conceiving the Bible in Philo’s mind was as a book of oracles. Whether he uses the word \éyuov or Xpnopos, it is, of course, all one to him. Indeed, that nothing should be lacking he occasionally uses also other synonyms. For example, here is an instance of the Homeric word Oeompo- mov cropping out: “‘ For there is extant an oracle delivered to the wise man in which it is said (Lev. xxvi. 12), (kal yap éore xpynobev TS cohG Oeomporiov &v @ eyerar)”’ (“De Somniis,”’ i, §23). And this oracular conception of Scripture is doubtless the reason why it isso frequently quoted in Philo by the sub- jectless @yat, A€éyer, N€yerar (instead of, say, yéypamrar). There are in general, speaking broadly, three ways in which one fully accepting the divine origin and direct divine authority of Scripture may habitually look upon it. He may think of it as a library of volumes and then each volume is likely to be spoken of by him as a ypad7 and the whole, because the collection of volumes, as ai ypadai, or, when the idea of its 3/2 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION unity is prominently in mind, as itself 7 ypady. On the other hand, the sense of its composite character may be somewhat lost out of habitual thought, swallowed up in the idea of its divine unity, and then its several sentences or passages are apt to be thought and spoken of as each a ypauua, and the whole, because made up of these sentences or passages, as Ta yoaupara. Or, finally, the sense of the direct divine utterance of the whole to the soul, and of its immediate divine au- thority, may overshadow all else and the several sentences or passages of the book be each conceived as an unmediated divine word coming directly to the soul — and then each pas- sage is likely to be called a Aéyov or xpyopes, and the whole volume, because the sum of these passages, Ta Oya oF ot xXpnovot — or oécasionally, when its unity is prominently in mind, one great To \éy.ov or 6 xpyouos. Each of these three ways of looking at the Scriptures of the Old Testament finds expression in Philo,“ in Josephus and in the New Testament. But it is the last that is most characteristic of the thought of Philo, and the first possibly of the writers of the New Testa- ment: ” while perhaps we may suspect that the intermediate 74 As to ypadai, see ‘Quis rerum div. heres,” § 32 (Mangey, i. 495), rap’ 6 kal é& iepats ypadats deyerat; “De Abrah.,” §1 (M.ii. 2), ‘‘ Now these are those men who have lived irreproachably ... whose virtues are durably and permanently re- corded as on pillars, & rats ieowraras ypadats.”’ As to ypdupya, ypaupara, see ‘De Congr. Erud. Grat.,” §12 (M.1. 527), "Eore 6é kal érépwht 76 ypdupa TodTO éorn\LTEVLE- vov (Deut. xxxil. 8)”; “‘Quod Deus Immut.,” § 2 (M.i. 273), “‘ For in the first book of Kings (= I Sam. i. 20), she (Hannah) speaks in this manner: ‘I give him (Samuel) unto thee freely,’ the expression here used beirg equivalent to ‘I give him unto thee whom thou hast given unto me,’ kara 76 iepwtatrov Mwicéws ypauma rovto, ‘My gifts and my offerings, and my firstfruits, ye shall observe to offer unto me’”’; ‘“‘Legat. ad Caium,”’ § 29 (M. ii. 574), ‘‘ You have never been trained in the knowledge of the sacred Scriptures (ro?s iepots ypdupaow’’; ‘De Vita M.,” ili. 39; etc. 7% In the New Testament ypduya does not occur in the sense of a passage of Scripture — as indeed ra ypaupara occurs of Scripture only in II Tim. ui. 15, cf. John v. 47. The place of ypduua in this sense is taken in the New Testament by yeaon, though it is extreme to say with Lightfoot on Gal. iii. 22 (cf. Westcott on John ii. 22) that ypa¢y, alwaysin the New Testament refers to a particular passage. On the other hand this use of ypa@q is far from peculiar to the New Testament as seems to be implied by Stephens (‘‘Thes.” sub. voc.). Not only does it occur familiarly in the Fathers, as e. g. (from Sophocles): Clems. Rom., ii. 2; Justin “THE ORACLES OF GOD” 373 one was most congenial to the thought of Josephus, who, as a man of affairs and letters rather than of religion, would naturally envisage the writings of the Old Testament rather as documents than as oracles. From this survey we may be able to apprehend with some accuracy Philo’s place in the development of the usage of the word doyov. He has received it directly from profane Greek as one of a series of synonyms — oy.ov, xpynouds, Peorpdmuor, etc. — denoting a direct word from God, an “‘oracle.”’ He has in no way modified its meaning except in so far as a heighten- ing of its connotation was inseparable from the transference of it from the frivolous and ambiguous oracles of heathendom to the revelations of the God of Israel, a heightening which was, no doubt, aided by the constant use of’the word in the Septuagint — Philos Bible — to translate the Hebrew 77x with all its high suggestions. But in this transference he has nevertheless given it a wholly new significance, in so far as he has applied it to a fixed written revelation and thus im- pressed on it entirely new implications. In his hands, \éycov becomes, by this means, a synonym of ypaupa, and imports ‘“a passage of Scripture’’ — conceived, of course, as a direct oracle from God. And the plural becomes a synonym of ra ypaumara, at ypadal, oi GiBdo., 6 Novos — or whatever other terms are used to express the idea of “the Holy Scriptures”’ — and imports what we call “the Bible,” of course with the implication that this Bible is but a congeries of ‘“‘oracles,’’ or Mart., ‘‘Advs. Tryph.,” cc. 56, 65 (a very instructive case), 69, 71 (cf. Otto’s note here) and elsewhere; Clems. Alex., ‘‘Cohort ad Gentes.,” ix. ad init.: but also in Philo, as e. g., ‘‘De Praem. et Poen.,” § 11 near the end (M. ii. 418): ‘‘ Being con- tinually devoted to the study of the Holy Scriptures both in their literal sense and also in the allegories figuratively contained in them (é rats pyrats ypadats cai & Tats brovoray addAnyopiats),”’ and ‘“‘Quis rerum div. her.,” §53 (M. 1. 511): “And the historian connects with his preceding account what follows in consistency with it, saying ... (76 dé a&kddovdov rpocvpaiver TH ypadh packwy).” Of course Philo some- times uses % ypad7 in the non-technical sense also, of a human treatise: thus at the opening of ‘‘De Somniis”’ he refers to what was contained in the preceding treatise h pev obv mpd Tabrys ypady weptetxe). What is said in the text is not intended to traverse such facts as these, indicating other usages; but is meant only to suggest in a broad way what seems to be the primary distinction between the three usages; the subsequent development undergone by them is another story. 374 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION direct utterances of God, or even in its whole extent one great ‘‘oracle”’ or utterance of God — that it is, in a word, the pure and absolute “Word of God.’”’ But when we say that \éy.ov is in Philo’s hands the equivalent of “‘a passage of Scripture,’’ we must guard against supposing that there is any implication of brevity attaching to it: its implication is that of direct divine utterance, not of brevity; and “the pas- sage’’ in mind and designated by \oywov may be of any length, conceived for the time and the purpose in hand as a unitary deliverance from God, up to the whole body of Scripture itself.”© Similarly ta \oyra in Philo has not yet hardened into a simple synonym of “‘Scripture,’”’ but desig- nates any body of the “oracles”? of which the whole Scrip- ture is composed — now the “ten commandments,” now the Book of Genesis, now the Pentateuch, now the Jewish Law in general.” There is little trace in Philo of the application made in the LX X. of Aéytov to the high priestly breastplate, by which it came to mean, not only the oracular deliverance, but the place or instrument of divination — though, quoting the LX X. as freely as he does, Philo could not help occasionally incorporating such a passage in his writings. We read, for example, in the ‘“‘ Legg. Allegor.,” iii, § 40 (M. i. 111): “ At all events the Holy Scripture (6 tepds Aoyos), being well aware how great is the power of the impetuosity of each passion, anger and appetite, puts a bridle in the mouth of each, having appointed reason (rov Noyov) as their charioteer and pilot. And first of all it speaks thus of anger, in the hope of pacifying and curing it, ‘And you shall put manifestation and truth’ [the Urim and Thummim ] ‘in the oracle of judgment (éri 76 Aoyrov TH Kpicewv) and it shall be on the breast of Aaron, when he comes into the Holy Place before the Lord’ (Ex. 76 Thus of the passage cited above: in “‘Quod det pot. insid.,” § 14, the refer- ence is to the narrative of Gen. iv; in ‘‘De Vita Moysis,” iil. 35, to the whole legislation concerning food; in ‘‘ De Profug.,” § 28, and ‘“‘De Mutat. Nom.,” § 4, apparently to the whole Bible. 7 “Tye Decem Oraculis,” title and § 10; ‘‘De Sobrietate,” § 10; ‘‘De Praem. et Poen.,” § 1; ‘‘De Vita Moysis,” iii. § 23; ‘‘De Legat. ad Caium,” § 31; “De Vita Contemplativa,” § 3. “THE ORACLES OF GOD ” 379 xxviil. 30). Nor by the oracle (Aéy.ov) is here meant the organs of speech which exist in us. . . . For Moses here speaks not of a random, spurious oracle (dyov) but of the oracle of judgment, which is equivalent to saying a well-judged and carefully examined oracle.”’ Thus Philo gradually transmutes the \éy.iov = doyeltov of his text into the Ady.ov = xpynopeds of his exposition: and it is a little remarkable how little influence this LX X. usage has on his own use of the word. With him \dyror is distinctively a passage of Scripture, and the congeries of these passages make 7a oyna. That this usage is not, however, a pecultwm of Philo’s merely, is evidenced by a striking passage from Josephus, in which it appears in full development. For example, we read: “The Jews, by demolishing the tower of Antonia, had made their temple square, though they had it written in their sacred oracles (avayeypappevor ev Tots Noyiows) that their city and sanctuary should be taken when their temple should become square. But what most stirred them up was an ambiguous oracle (ypyoyos) that was found also in their sacred writings (év rots iepots ebvpnuévos ypdupacy) that about that time one from their country should become ruler of the world. The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves, and many wise men were thereby deceived in their judgment. Now this oracle (76 \dyrov) certainly denoted the rule of Vespasian”’ (“De Bello Jud.,” vi. 5, 4). In this short passage we have most of the characteristics of the Philonean usage repeated: here is the interchangeable usage of \oyrov and xpyopods, on the one hand, and of 7a \oyra and Ta ypamuata, on the other: the sacred writings of the Jews are made up of “‘oracles,’”’ so that each portion of them is a Aoytov and the whole 7a Adyra. IV. That this employment of ra \éyra as a Synonym of ait ypadat was carried over from the Jewish writers to the early Fathers, Dr. Lightfoot has sufficiently shown in a brief but effective passage in his brilliant papers in reply to the 78 Cf. the echo of Josephus’ language in Tacitus, “‘ Hist.,”’ v. 13: ‘‘ Pluribus persuasio inerat, antiquis sacerdotum litteris (= é rots tepots ypaupact) contineri, eo ipso tempore fore ut valesceret Oriens profectique Judea rerum potirentur. Quae ambages (= xpnouds dupiBoros = 7d A6yov) Vespasianum et Titum praedixerant.” 376 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION author of ‘Supernatural Religion.’’” It is not necessary to go over the ground afresh which Dr. Lightfoot has covered. But, for the sake of a general completeness in the presentation of the history of the word, it may be proper to set down here some of the instances of its usage in this sense among the earlier Fathers. Clement of Rome, after having quoted ex- amples from the Scriptures at length, sums up the lesson thus: “The humility, therefore, and the submissiveness of so many great men, who have thus obtained a good report, hath through obedience made better not only us, but also the generations which were before us, even them that received his oracles in fear and truth” (c. 19); again (c. 53), “For ye know, and know well the sacred Scriptures (ras iepas ypadas), dearly beloved, and ye have searched into the oracles of God (Ta Nova TOD Beod)’’; and still again (c. 62), “And we have put you in mind of these things the more gladly, since we knew well that we were writing to men who are faithful and highly accounted and have diligently searched into the oracles of the teaching of God (ra \oyta THs Tadeias Tod Geov).’’ The same phenomenon obviously meets us here as in Philo: and Har- nack ® and Lightfoot * both naturally comment to this effect on the middle instance — the former calling especially at- tention to the equation drawn between the two phrases for Scripture, and the latter to the fact, as shown by the Scrip- tures immediately adduced, that the mind of the writer in so designating Scripture was not on ‘“‘any divine precept or prediction, but the example of Moses.’ Equally strikingly, we read in II Clem., xiii, “For the Gentiles when they hear from our mouth the oracles of God, marvel at them for their beauty and greatness..... For when they hear from us that God saith, ‘It is no thank unto you, if ye love them that love you, but this is thank unto you, if you love your enemies and them that hate you [ Luke vi. 32]’ — when they hear these things, I say, they marvel at their exceeding goodness.” 9 The Contemporary Review, August, 1875, p. 400; ‘“‘Essays on the Work entitled Supernatural Religion” (1889), p. 173. 80 In loc. 81 Loc. cit. “THE ORACLES OF GOD ” od “The point to be observed,” says Lightfoot,® “is that the expression here refers to an evangelical record.”’ Similarly Polycarp, c. vii, writes: “‘ For every one ‘who will not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is antichrist’ (I John iv. 2, 3); and whosoever shall not confess the testimony of the cross is of the devil; and whosoever shall pervert the oracles of the Lord (7a éyra Tod Kvpiov) to his own lusts and say there is neither resurrection nor judgment, that man is the firstborn of Satan.” On this passage Zahn, followed by Lightfoot, very appropriately adduces the parallel in the Preface to Irenzeus’ great work, “‘ Against Heresies,’’ where he complains of the Gnostics “falsifying the oracles of the Lord (ra Noyta Kupiov), becoming bad exegetes of what is well said’’: while later (“Her.,’’ i. 8, 1) the same writer speaks of the Gnostics’ art in adapting the dominical oracles (ra xuptaxa oyea) to their opinions, a phrase he equates with “the oracles of God,” and uses in a context which shows that he has the whole complex of Scripture in mind. In precisely similar wise, Clement of Alexandria is found calling the Scriptures the “oracles of truth” (‘‘ Coh. ad Gent.,”’ p. 84 ed. Potter), the “oracles of God” (“‘ Quis Div. Sal.,’’ 3) and the “inspired oracles” (‘‘Strom.,”’ i. 392); and Origen, ‘“‘the oracles,” “the oracles of God” “De Prin.,” iv. 11; in Matt., x. § 6): and Basil, the “sacred oracles,” “the oracles of the Spirit”’ (“‘Hom.,”’ xi. 5; xii. 1). The Pseudo-Ignatius (“ad Smyr.,”’ iii) writes: “ For the oracles (ra \oyua) say: ‘This Jesus who was taken up from you into heaven,’ etc. [ Acts i. 11 |’? — where the term cer- tainly is just the equivalent of 7 ypad7.** And Photius tells us (“‘ Bibl.,’’ 228) that the Scriptures recognized by Ephraem, Patriarch of Antioch (circa 525-545 A.D.), consisted of the Old Testament, the Dominical Oracles (ra xupraxa NOyia) and the Preaching of the Apostles’? — where the adjective xupiaxa is obviously intended to limit the broad 7a Adyua, so that the phrase means just ‘“‘the Gospels.”’ 82 In loc. 83 Cf. what Prof. Ropes says of this passage in The American Journal of Theology, October, 1899 (iii. 698) and his strictures on Resch’s use of it. 378 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION Dr. Lightfoot’s object in bringing together such passages, it will be remembered, was to fix the sense of \éyra in the description which Eusebius gives of the work of Papias and in his quotations from Papias’ remarks about the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. Papias’ book, we are told by Eusebius (“H. E.,” iii, 39), was entitled Aoyiwy xupraxav éEnyjnoers — that is, obviously, from the usage of the words, it was a com- mentary on the Gospels, or less likely, on the New Testa- ment: and he is quoted as explaining that Matthew wrote 7a \oyea in the Hebrew language and that Mark made no at- tempt to frame a otvtaéw Tv Kuptax@v doyiwv,** or, as 1S ex- plained in the previous clause, of ra bio Tov XpioTov 7 AexXOevTa ) wpaxdévra — that is, as would seem again to be obvious, each wrote his section of the “Scriptures” in the manner de- scribed. The temptation to adjust these Papian phrases to current theories of the origin of the Gospels has proved too strong, however, to be withstood even by the demonstration of the more natural meaning of the words provided by Dr. Lightfoot’s trenchant treatment: and we still hear of Papias’ treatise on the ‘‘ Discourses of the Lord,”’ and of the “ Book of Discourses”? which Papias ascribes to Matthew and which may well be identified (we are told) with the “‘ Collection of Sayings of Jesus,’’ which criticism has unearthed as lying behind our present Gospels.* Indeed, as time has run on, 84 Or dywr, as is read by both Schwegler and Heinichen: contra Routh, Lightfoot and Gebhardt-Harnack. 85 If there ever was such a “Collection of Sayings of Jesus,” the natural title of it would certainly not be 7a xvpraxa Adyra, but something like the 4 cbvratts r&v Kuptax@yv Noywv Which Papias says (if we adopt the reading \éywv) Mark did not write. We observe with astonishment, the venerable Prof. Godet saying, in his recent volume on the Gospels, that the existence of such collections of \éyra is now put beyond doubt by the discovery of the Oxyrhynchus fragment. The last word has doubtless not been said as to the nature and origin of this fragment: but that it was a collection of AOTIA rests solely on the ascription of that title to it by its editors — a proceeding which in turn rests solely on their traditional misunder- standing of the Papian phrase. And that Matthew’s “‘Logia”’ were “‘Logia”’ like these is scarcely a supposable case to a critic of Prof. Godet’s views. Meanwhile we cannot but account it unfortunate that Messrs. Grenfell and Hunt should have attached so misleading a title to their valuable discovery: to which it is suitable only in one aspect, viz., as describing these ‘‘sayings” of Jesus as (in “THE ORACLES OF GOD ” 379 there seems in some quarters even a growing disposition to neglect altogether the hard facts of usage marshaled by Dr. Lightfoot, and to give such rein to speculation as to the meaning of the term \oya as employed by Papias, that the last end of the matter would appear to threaten to be worse than the first. We are led to use this language by a recent con- struction of Alfred Resch’s, published in the “‘ Theologische Studien” dedicated to Bernhard Weiss on his seventieth birth- day. Let us, however, permit Resch to speak for himself. He is remarking on the identification of the assumed funda- mental gospel (Urevangeltum) with the work of Matthew mentioned by Papias. He says: “Thus the name —)ddya—and the author — Matthew — seemed to be found for this Quellenschrift. In the way of this assumption there stood only the circumstance that the name ‘dédyra’ did not seem to fit the Quellenschrift as it had been drawn out by study of the Gospels, made wholly independently of the notice of Papias — since it yielded a treatise of mixed narrative and discourses. This circumstance led some to characterize the Quellenschrift, in correspondence with the name doya, as a mere collection of dis- courses; while others found in it a reason for sharply opposing the identification of the Logia of Matthew and the fundamental gospel (Urevangelium), or even for discrediting the whole notice of Papias as worthless and of no use to scholars. No one, however, thought of looking behind the \dyca for the hidden Hebrew name, although it was certainly obvious that a treatise written in Hebrew could not fail to have a Hebrew title. And I must myself confess that only in 1895, while the third volume of my ‘ Aussercanonischen Paralleltexte’ was passing through the press, did it occur to me to ask after the Hebrew name of the Néya. But with the question the answer was self-evi- dently at once given: 857,°° therefore pv" 737. To this answer at- tached itself at once, however, the reminiscence of titles ascribed in the Old Testament to a whole series of Quellenschriften: Sxvaw “35, Jat WT IST, 8327 ym) “IS9, (AXA) Ina ta “at (cf. I Chron. xxix. 29); rinsw at mae (I Kings xi. 41); 782 159, Oxter ‘25n “Sn (II the conception of the compiler, as the constant Aéye shows) ‘‘oracular utterances” of present and continuous authority. 86 Why should Resch, we may ask, think of 1=7 instead of ‘TV98 as the Hebrew original of \édyiov ? Cf. above p. 353. 380 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION Chron. xxxiii. 18). As, then, there in the Old Testament, it is Just historical Quellenschriften of biographical contents that bear the name of 0735, so this New Testament Quellenschrift, the title my 127. It contained therefore the history of Him of whom the prophets had prophesied, Who was greater than Solomon, David’s Son and David’s Lord and the King of Israel. And as the LXX. had translated the title 125, certainly unskillfully enough by Adya, so Papias or his sponsor (Gewdhrsmann) by d\oyra. The sense, however, of the Hebrew 2°73" is, as Luther very correctly renders it — ‘His- tories.’ Cf. Heft ii. 812. By this discovery of the original title, the New Testament Quellenschrift which from an unknown had al- ready become a known thing, has now become from an unnamed a named thing. The desiderated x has been completely found.” *” Criticism like this certainly scorns all facts. The Hebrew word "35, meaning a “ word,”’ passed by a very readily under- stood process into the sense of “‘thing.’’ In defining the term as used in the titles which Resch adduces, Dr. Driver says: *® ‘words: hence affairs, things —in so far as they are done, ‘acts’; in so far as they are narrated, ‘history.’’’ The word sa thus readily lent itself, in combinations like those ad- duced by Resch, to a double meaning: and it is apparently found in both these senses. In instances like n>xip "25 (Eccl. 1. Leet: Prov.) xxx.) Lfixxxi Seer lev A mt lee No nae it doubtless means “ words of Koheleth,” and the like. In the instances adduced by Resch, it is doubtless used in the secondary sense of “history.’? The Greek word )dyos, by which 735 was ordinarily translated in the LX X., while natu- rally not running through a development of meaning exactly parallel to that of 755, yet oddly enough presented a fair Greek equivalent for both of these senses of “725, used in titles: and why Resch should speak of \oyou as unskillfully used in the titles he adduces, does not appear on the surface of things. Certainly, from Herodotus down, oi \dyou bore the specific meaning of just “‘ Histories,’ as afterwards it bore the sense of “ prose writings’’: and the early Greek historians 87 Op. cit., p. 121 seq. 88 “Introduction,” last ed., 527, note 1. “THE ORACLES OF GOD” 381 were called accordingly of \oyoypador.8? The LX X. translators, in a word, could scarcely have found a happier Greek render- ing for the titles of the Quellenschriften enumerated in I Chron. xxix. 29, 30, etc. Who, however, could estimate the unskill- fulness of translating "25 in such titles by \éyua — a word which had no such usage and indeed did not readily lend itself to an application to human “words?” Papias (or his sponsor) must have been (as Eusebius calls him) a man of mean capacity indeed, so to have garbled Matthew’s He- brew. It should be noted, further, that Papias does not de- clare, as Resch seems to think, that Matthew wrote 7a Noyra Tov “Inoov, or even 7a Kupiaka Oya — it is Papias’ own book whose title contains this phrase; and it will be hard to sup- pose that Papias (or his sponsor) was a man of such mean capacity as to fancy the simple 7a \éya a fair equivalent for the Hebrew mv" 55 in the sense of “ The History of Jesus.” If he did so, one does not wonder that he has had to wait two thousand years for a reader to catch his meaning. Such specu- lations, in truth, serve no other good purpose than to exhibit how far a-sea one must drift who, leaving the moorings of actual usage, seeks an unnatural meaning for these phrases. Their obvious meaning is that Papias wrote an “ Exposition of the Gospels,”’ and that he speaks of Matthew’s and Mark’s books as themselves sections of those “‘Seriptures”’ which he was expounding. Under the guidance of the usage of the word, this would seem the only tenable opinion.” It is not intended, of course, to imply that there is no trace among the Fathers of any other sense attaching to the 89 See Liddell and Scott, swb. voc., iv. and v. 9° We must account it, then, as only another instance of that excess of caution which characterizes his application of the ‘‘apologetical” results of investigation, when Dr. Sanday still holds back from this conclusion and writes thus: ‘‘The word \éya, indeed, means ‘oracles’ and not ‘discourses.’ But while the term ‘the oracles’ might well from the first have been applied to our Lord’s words it is hardly likely that it should so early have been applied to a writing of the New Testament as such. Moreover, even when the inspiration of the New Testament had come to be as clearly recognized as that of the Old Testament, the term ‘the oracles’ would not have been a fitting one for a single work, simply on the ground that it formed part of the collection” (Hastings’ “Bible Dictionary,” i. p. 235 a). 382 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION words 76 Adyuov, Ta AOYta, than “the Seriptures”’ as a whole. Other applications of the words were found standing side by side with this in Philo, and they are found also among the Fathers. To Adyuov, used of a specific text of Scripture, for example, is not uncommon in the Fathers. It is found, for in- stance, in Justin Martyr, “‘Apol.,”’ i. 32: ““And Jesse was his forefather xara 76 \oytov’’ — to wit, Isa. xi. 1, Just quoted. It is found in Clement of Alexandria (‘‘ Strom.,’’ ii. Migne, i. 949a), where Isa. vii. 9 is quoted and it is added: “It was this \oyov that Heraclitus of Ephesus paraphrased when he said....” It is found repeatedly in Eusebius’ “ Ecclesias- tical History,” in which the Papian passages are preserved, as, e. g., ix. 7, ad fin., “So that, according to that divine (Getov) Noy.ov,”’ viz., Matt. xxiv. 24; x. 1, 4, “ the Aoyov thus enjoin- ing us,”’ viz., Ps. xevii. (xeviii.) 1; x. 4, 7, “ concerning which a certain other divine \éy.ov thus proclaims,” viz., Ps. lxxxvi. (Ixxxvii.) 3. Ta Néya is also used in the Fathers, as in Philo, for any body of these Scriptural \oy.a, however small or large (i. e., for any given section of Scripture) —as, e. g., for the Ten Commandments. It is so used, forinstance, in the ““Apostolical Constitutions,’ ii. 26: ““ Keep the fear of God before your eyes, always remembering tay déxa Tod Beot Noyiwy’’; and also in Eusebius (H. E., ii. 18, 5). So, again, we have seen it, modified by qualifying adjectives, used for the Gospels — and indeed it seems to be employed without qualifications in this sense in Pseudo-Justin’s “Epistola ad Zeram et Serenum’”’ (Otto, i. Apart altogether from the fact that these caveats are founded on a demonstrably mistaken conception of the origin of the New Testament Canon, they are in them- selves invalid. The term \oyra was contemporaneously applied to writings of the New Testament as such —as a glance at II Clem. xii. and Polycarp vil. will show — and as Lightfoot’s note on the former passage, correcting his less careful earlier note on the latter passage, points out. And that ra Aéyca could easily refer to any definite portion of the congeries of ‘‘oracles’”? known also as ‘‘Scripture,” Philo’s usage as indicated above (p. 374) sufficiently exhibits. For the rest, it can- not be doubted that Papias was understood by all his early readers to mean by his ra Aéyra Of Matthew, just Matthew’s Gospel. This has been sufficiently shown (“Einleitung,”’ ii. 265) by Zahn, who in his rich and fundamentally right remarks on the subject both here and elsewhere (e. g., pp. 254 seg. and ‘‘Geschichte d. Kanons,”’ i. 857 seq., ii. 790 seq.) supplies another instance of how near a great scholar can come to the truth of a matter without precisely adopting it. “THE ORACLES OF GOD” 383 706). It is further sometimes used apparently not of the Scrip- ture text as such, but of certain oracular utterances recorded in it— as, for example, when Justin says to Trypho (ce. 18): ‘For since you have read, O Trypho, as you yourself admitted, the doctrines taught by our Saviour, I do not think that I have done foolishly in adding some short utterances of his (Bpaxéa Tov éxeivov hoya) to the prophetic statements”? — to wit, words of Jesus recorded in Matt. xxi, xxiii and Luke xi, here put on a level with the oracles of the prophets, but ap- parently envisaged as spoken. All these are usages that have met us before. But there are lower usages also discoverable in the later Patristic writers at least. There is an appearance now and then indeed as if the word was, in popular speech, losing something of its high implication of “solemn oracular utter- ances of God,’’ and coming to be applied as well to the words of mere men *! — possibly in sequence to its application to the words of prophets and apostles as such and the gradual wearing down, in the careless popular consciousness, of the distinction between their words as prophets and apostles and their words as men; possibly, on the other hand, in sequence to the freer use of the word in profane speech and the wearing away of its high import with the loss of reverence for the 9 Tn the thirty-fifth chapter of the fourth book of Origen’s ‘‘ Against Celsus,”’ there is a passage which is given this appearance in Dr. Crombie’s excellent English translation, printed in the ‘‘Ante-Nicene Library” (Am. Ed., iv. 512): ““And yet if Celsus had wished honestly to overturn the genealogy which he deemed the Jews to have so shamelessly arrogated, in boasting of Abraham and his descendants (as their progenitors), he ought to have quoted all the passages bearing on the subject; and, in the first place, to have advocated his cause with such arguments as he thought likely to be convincing, and in the next to have bravely refuted, by means of what appeared to him to be the true meaning, and by arguments in its favor, the errors existing on the subject (xal rots trép abrijs Noylous ra Kara Tov Térov).”’ The renderirg of doyious here by “arguments,” however, is certainly wrong. The whole context is speaking of Celsus’ misrepresentation of the teaching of the Hebrew Scriptures; and what Origen would have him do is to point out the passages in them which will bear out his allegations. According to Koetschau’s index the word occurs but twice elsewhere in the treatise ‘‘ Against Celsus,” viz., V. xxix. ad fin., and VI. lxxvii. near the end (inserted by Koetschau from Philoc. 85, 16): and in both of these cases the high meaning of the word is unmistakable. O84 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION thing designated. Thus we read as early as in the “ Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena,’”’ edited by Prof. James for the ‘Cambridge Texts and Studies,’ and assigned by him to the middle of the third century (c. 28, p. 78), the following dia- logue, in the course of a conversation between Polyxena and Andrew, ‘‘the apostle of the Lord’’: “ Andrew saith: ‘Draw not near me, child, but tell me who thou art and whence.’ Then saith Polyxena: ‘I am a great friend of these here (€v7 Tav évtav0a), but I see thy gracious countenance and thy logia are as the logia of Paul and I presume thee, too, to belong to his God.’”’ If we may assume this to mark a transition stage in the usage, we may look upon a curious passage in John of Damascus as marking almost the completion of the sinking of the word to an equivalence to pnuara. It occurs in his ‘“Disput. Christiani et Saraceni’”’ (Migne, i. 1588, iii. 1344). The Saracenic disputant is represented as eager to obtain an acknowledgment that the Word of God, that is Christ, is a mere creature, and as plying the Christian with a juggle on the word \oyta. He asks whether the \oyra of God are create or increate. If the reply is “create,” the rejoinder is to be: “Then they are not gods, and you have confessed that Christ, who is the Word (Adyos) of God is not God.” If, on the other hand, the reply is “increate,’’ the rejoinder ap- parently is to be that the \éyra of God nevertheless are not properly gods, and so again Christ the \déyos is not God. Ac- cordingly John instructs the Christian disputant to refuse to say either that they are create or that they are increate, but declining the dilemma, to reply merely: “‘I confess one only Aéyos of God that is increate, but my whole Scripture (ypapy) I do not call Aoyra, but pnuata Oeov.”’ On the Saracen retorting that David certainly says Ta Noyra (not pyuata) of the Lord are pure \oy.a, the Christian is to reply that the prophet speaks here rporodoyixs, and not KuprodoyKds, that is to say, not by way of a direct declaration, but by way of an indirect characterization. It is a remarkable logomachy that we are thus treated to: and it seems to imply that in John’s day Noyra had sunk to a mere synonym of pnuara. “THE ORACLES OF GOD ” 385 That men had then ceased to speak of the whole ypad# as Té Geta A\oyia we know not to have been the case: but apparently this language was now made use of with no more pregnancy of meaning than if they had said 7a Oe?a pnuara. This process seems to have continued, and in the following passage from a work of the opening of the eleventh century — the “Life of Nilus the Younger,” published in the 120th volume of Migne’s “Pat. Gree.” (p. 97 D), — we have an instance of the extreme extension of the application of the word: ‘“‘Then saith the _ Father to him: ‘It is not fitting that thou, a man of wisdom and high-learning, should think or speak 74 rv xowdv dvOpu- Tov hoyra.’’’ ** And accordingly we cannot be surprised to find that in modern Greek the word is employed quite freely of human speech. Jannaris tells us that it is used in the sense of “maxim,” and that in colloquial usage ra Méyra May mean “promise”? — in both of which employments there may re- main a trace of its original higher import.%* While Konto- poulos gives as the English equivalents of \éyrov, the follow- 2 Dr. F. W. Farrar, with his fatal facility for quoting phrases in senses far other than those attached to them by their authors (other instances meet us in his dealing with the formula ‘‘ Scriptura complectitur Verbum Det” and with the word ‘“‘TInspiration”’ in the same context, — see pp. 369, 370 of work cited) makes a thoroughly wrong use of this passage (‘‘ Hist. of Interpretation,” p. 374, note 2). He says: “But as far back as the eighth century the eminently orthodox Father, St. John of Damascus, had said, ‘We apply not to the written word of Scripture the title due to the Incarnate Word of God.’ He says that when the Scriptures are called Aéyra Geo§ the phrase is only figurative, ‘Disput. Christiani et Saraceni’ (see Lupton, St. John of Damascus, p. 95).’’ But John says the Scriptures are called without figure pnuara rod Oecd: he only means to say they are not God’s Word in the same sense that the Logos is: in comparison with Him who is the only incarnate Word of God, they are only figuratively words of God, but they are real words of God, nevertheless, His sj7uara, by which designation, rather than Noyta, John would have them called, not to avoid confessing them to be God’s utterances, but to escape a Moslem jibe. 93 An instance of the secular use of the word in this lowered meaning, is found doubtless in the Scholium on the ‘‘ Frogs” of Aristophanes adduced above, p. 336. The date of this Scholium is uncertain, but it seems to belong to the later strata of the Scholia. It is not found in the ‘Ravenna MS.,” which Rutherford is publish- ing; nor in the ‘‘ Venetus” (Marc. 474), cf. Blaydes, ‘‘Ranae,” p. 391; nor indeed in four out of the six MSS. used by Dindorf (iv. 2, p. 113). % In his ‘Concise Dictionary of English and Modern Greek,’ sub. vocc. “word” and “saying.” 386 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION ing list: “A saying, a word; a maxim; a motto, an oracle; 7a beta Noyta, the divine oracles, the sacred Scriptures.’’ * Thus not only all the usages of the word found, say, in Philo, are continued in the Fathers, but there is an obvious development to be traced. But this development itself is founded on and is a witness to the characteristic usage of the word among the Fathers — that, to wit, in which it is applied to the inspired words of prophets and apostles. And by far the most frequent use of the word in the Patristic writings seems to be that in which it designates just the Holy Scrip- tures. Their prevailing usage is very well illustrated by that of Eusebius. We have already quoted a number of passages from his “ Ecclesiastical History ’’ in which he seems to adduce special passages of Scripture, each as a \oywov. More common is it for him to refer to the whole Scriptures as 7a Aoya, or rather (for this is his favorite formula) ta @eta A\déyra — and that whether he means the Old Testament (which in the ‘Prep. Evang.,” ii. 6 [Migne, iii. 140 A], he calls 7a ’"EGpaiwy Noyta), or the New Testament, or refers to the prophetic or the narrative portions. Instances may be found in “H. E.,”’ v., 17, 5, where we are told that Miltiades left monuments of his study of the @eta Adyia; vi. 23, 2, where the zeal of Origen’s - friend Ambrose for the study of the #eta \oyra is mentioned as enabling Origen to write his commentaries on the Oetar ypadat; ix. 9, 8, where a sentence from Ex. xv. 1 is quoted as from the deta NOyta; x. 4, 28, where Ps. lvii. (Iviii.), 7 is quoted from the Oeta Adyia; ‘‘ Palestinian Martyrs,” xi. 2, where the de- votion of the Palestinian martyrs to the 6eva \éyra is adverted to. Even the singular — 70 \oyrov — seems occasionally used by Eusebius (as by Philo) as a designation of the whole Scrip- ture fabric. We may suspect this to be the case in “ H. E.,”’ x. 4, 43, when we read of “the costly cedar of Lebanon of which TO Oetoyv \oyvov has not been unmindful, saying, ‘The forests of the Lord shall rejoice and the cedars of Lebanon which he planted’ (Ps. ev. [civ.] 16).’”’ And we cannot doubt it at “H. E.,” ii. 10, 1, where we read concerning Herod Agrippa, % Tn his ‘‘New Lexicon of Modern Greek and English,” sub voc. “THE ORACLES OF GOD ” OO/ that ‘as 7 rv tpatewv ypady relates, he proceeded to Cesarea and....70 \dy.ov relates ‘that the angel of the Lord smote him’’’? — in which account it is worth while to observe the coincidence of Josephus’ narrative with r7v belay ypadnv. Here, of course, 76 \dyov is primarily the Book of Acts — but as the subsequent context shows, it represents that book only as part of the sacred Scriptures, so that 7d \oytov emerges as a complete synonym of 7 Oeta ypadn. Whatever other usage may from time to time emerge in the pages of the Fathers, the Patristic usage of the term, xar’ é£ox7v, is as a designation of the “Scriptures”? conceived as the Word of Godt In the light of these broad facts of usage, certain lines may very reasonably be laid down within which our inter- pretation of [7a] Aoyca in the New Testament instances of its occurrence should move. It would seem quite certain, for example, that no lower sense can be attached to it in these instances, than that which it bears uniformly in its classical and Hellenistic usage: it means, not “ words” barely, simple “utterances,”’ but distinctively “oracular utterances,” di- vinely authoritative communications, before which men stand in awe and to which they bow in humility: and this high meaning is not merely implicit, but is explicit in the term. It would seem clear again that there are no implications of brevity in the term: it means not short, pithy, pregnant say- ings, but high, authoritative, sacred utterances; and it may be applied equally well to long as to short utterances — even though they extend to pages and books and treatises. It would seem to be clear once more that there are no impli- cations in the term of what may be called the literary nature of the utterances to which it is applied: it characterizes the utterances to which it is applied as emanations from God, but whether they be prophetic or narrative or legal, parenetic or promissory in character, is entirely indifferent: its whole 96 Sophocles, in his ‘‘ Lexicon,” gives also the following references for this sense: Titus of Bostra (Migne, xviii. 1253 B); Serapion of Egypt (Migne, xl. 908 C, 909 B). References might be added, apparently, indefinitely. 388 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION function is exhausted in declaring them to be God’s own utterances.” And still further, it would seem to be clear that it is equally indifferent to the term whether the utterances so designated be oral or written communications: whether oral or written it declares them to be God’s own Word, and it had become customary to designate the written Word of God by this term as one that was felt fitly to describe the Scriptures as an oracular book — either a body of oracles, or one continuous oracular deliverance from God’s own lips. This last usage is so strikingly characteristic of the Hel- lenistic adaptation of the term that a certain presumption les in favor of so understanding it in Hellenistic writings, when the Scriptural revelation is in question: though this presumption is, of course, liable to correction by the obvious implications of the passages as wholes. In such a passage as Rom. il. 2 this presumption rises very high indeed, and it would seem as if the word here must be read as a designation of the “Scriptures”’ as such, unless very compelling reasons to the contrary may be adduced from the context. That the mind of the writer may seem to some to be particularly dwelling upon this or that element in the contents of the Seriptures cannot be taken as such a compelling reason to the contrary: for nothing is more common than for a writer to be thinking more particularly of one portion of what he is formally adducing as a whole. The paraphrase of Wetstein appears in this aspect, therefore, very judicious: ‘‘ They have the Sacred Books, in which are contained the oracles and especially the prophecies of the advent of the Messiah and the calling of the Gentiles; and by these their minds should be prepared”’: though, so far as this paraphrase may seem to separate between the Sacred Books and the Oracles they contain, it is unfortunate. The very point of this use of the word is that it zdentzfies the Sacred Books with the Oracles; 7 It is therefore a perfectly blind comment that we meet with in Gerhard Heine’s recent ‘‘Synonymik des N. T. Griechisch”’ (1898), p. 157 — when in con- trast to dAdyos as the ‘‘reasonable expression” of the vots, 76 Aéytov is said to be “more the separate utterance, with the (occasional?) accessory notion of promise ( Rom. iii. 2).” “THE ORACLES OF GOD ” 389 and in this aspect of it Dr. David Brown’s comment is more satisfactory: “That remarkable expression, denoting ‘ Divine Communications’ in general, is transferred to the sacred Scriptures to express their oracular, divinely authoritative character.’’ The case is not quite so simple in Heb. v. 12: but here, too, the well-balanced comment of Dr. Westcott ap- pears to us to carry conviction with it: “The phrase might refer to the new revelation given by Christ to His apostles (comp. ¢c. 1. 2); but it seems more natural to refer it to the collective writings of the Old Testament which the Hebrew Christians failed to understand.” In Acts vii. 88 the absence of the article introduces no real complication: it merely em- phasizes the qualitative aspect of the matter; what Moses received was emphatically oracles — which is further en- hanced by calling them “lively,” i. e., they were not merely dead, but living, effective, operative oracles. The speaker’s eye is obviously on Moses as the recipient of these oracles, and on the oracles as given by God to Moses, as is recorded in the Pentateuch: but the oracles his eye is on are those recorded in the Pentateuch, and that came to Moses, not for himself, but for the Church of all ages — “to give to us.” Here we may hesitate to say, indeed, that Aoy.a means just the “Scriptures’’; but what it means stands in a very express relation to the Scriptures, and possibly was not very sharply distinguished from the Scriptures by the speaker. With the analogies in Philo clearly in our mind, we should scarcely go far wrong if we conceived of \éy.a here as meaning to the speaker those portions of Scripture in which Moses recorded the revelations vouchsafed to him by God — conceived as themselves these revelations recorded. In I Peter iv. 11 the interpretation is complicated by the question that arises con- cerning the charisma that is intended, as well as by the cast- ing of the phrase into the form of a comparison: “let him speak as it were oracles of God.” It is not clear that the Divine Scriptures as such are meant here; but the term, in any case, retains all its force as a designation of sacred, solemn divine utterances: the speaker is to speak as becomes 390 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION one whose words are not his own, but the very words of God — oracles proclaimed through his mouth. Whether it is the exercise of the prophetic gift in the strict sense that is adverted to, so that Peter’s exhortation is that the prophet should comport himself in his prophesying as becomes one made the vehicle of the awful words of revelation; or only the gift of teaching that is in question, so that Peter’s ex- hortation is that he who proclaims the word of God, even in this lower sense, shall bear himself as befits one to whom are committed the Divine oracles for explanation and en- forcement — must be left here without investigation. In either case the term is obviously used in its highest sense and implies that the A\oyra of God are His own words, His awe- some utterances. What has thus been said in reference to these New Testa- ment passages is intended to go no further in their explana- tion than to throw the light of the usage of the word upon their interpretation. Into their detailed exegesis we cannot now enter. We cannot pass by the general subject, however, without emphasizing the bearing these passages have on the New Testament doctrine of Holy Scripture. It will probably seem reasonable to most to interpret Rom. iil. 2 as certainly, Heb. v. 12 as probably, and Acts vii. 38 as very likely mak- ing reference to the written Scriptures; and as bearing wit- ness to the conception of them on the part of the New Testament writers as “‘the oracles of God.’’ That is to say, we have unobtrusive and convincing evidence here that the Old Testament Scriptures, as such, were esteemed by the writers of the New Testament as an oracular book, which in itself not merely contains, but is the “utterance,” the very Word of God; and is to be appealed to as such and as such deferred to, because nothing other than the crystallized speech of God. We merely advert to this fact here without stopping to develop its implications or to show how conso- nant this designation of the Scriptures as the “Oracles of God” is with the conception of the Holy Scriptures enter- tained by the New Testament writers as otherwise made “THE ORACLES OF GOD ” o9l known to us. We have lately had occasion to point out in this Review some of the other ways in which this conception expresses itself in the New Testament writings.*? He who cares to look for it will find it in many ways written largely and clearly and indelibly on the pages of the New Testament. We content ourselves at this time, however, with merely pointing out that the designation of the Scriptures as Ta \oyra tov Oeou fairly shouts to us out of the pages of the New Testa- ment, that to its writers the Scriptures of the Old Testament were the very Word of God in the highest and strictest sense that term can bear — the express utterance, in all their parts and each and every of their words, of the Most High — the ‘oracles of God.”’ Let him that thinks them something other and less than this, reckon, then, with the apostles and proph- ets of the New Covenant — to whose trustworthiness as wit- nesses to doctrinal truth he owes all he knows about the New Covenant itself, and therefore all he hopes for through this New Covenant. % See article entitled, “It Says; Scripture Says; God Says,” in the number of this Review for July, 1899, and also article entitled, ‘‘God-Inspired Scripture,”’ in the number for January, 1900. xX INSPIRATION AND CRITICISM ee INSPIRATION AND CRITICISM! Fathers and Brothers: It is without doubt a very wise provision by which, in institutions such as this, an inaugural address is made a part of the ceremony of induction into the professorship. Only by the adoption of some such method could it be possible for you, as the guardians of this institution, re- sponsible for the principles here inculcated, to give to each newly-called teacher an opportunity to publicly declare the sense in which he accepts your faith and signs your stand- ards. Eminently desirable at all times, this seems particu- larly so now, when a certain looseness of belief (inevitable parent of looseness of practice) seems to have invaded por- tions of the Church of Christ, — not leaving even its ministry unaffected; — when there may be some reason to fear that “enlightened clerical gentlemen may sometimes fail to look upon subscription to creeds as our covenanting forefathers looked upon the act of putting their names to theological documents, and as mercantile gentlemen still look upon en- dorsement of bills.”’ ? And how much more forcibly can all this be pled when he who appears before you at your call, is young, untried and unknown. I wish, therefore, to declare that I sign these standards not as a necessary form which must be submitted to, but gladly and willingly as the ex- pression of a personal and cherished conviction; and, further, that the system taught in these symbols is the system which will be drawn out of the Scriptures in the prosecution‘of the 1 The same points may be found discussed in “The Bible Doctrine of Inspiration,” read at the Summer School of the Amer. Inst. of Christian Philos- ophy, July 7, 1893. Inaugural Address delivered upon the occasion of Dr. War- field’s induction into the Chair of New Testament Literature and Exegesis in the Western Theological Seminary. 2 Peter Bayne in ‘‘The Puritan Revolution.” 395 396 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION teaching to which you have called me, — not, indeed, be- cause commencing with that system the Scriptures can be made to teach it, but because commencing with the Scrip- tures I cannot make them teach anything else. This much of personal statement I have felt it due both to you and myself to make at the outset; but having done with it, 1 feel free to turn from all personal concerns. In casting about for a subject on which I might address you, I have thought I could not do better than to take up one of our precious old doctrines, much attacked of late, and ask the simple question: What seems the result of the attack? The doctrine I have chosen, is that of ‘‘ Verbal Inspiration.’”’ But for obvious reasons I have been forced to narrow the discussion to a consideration of the inspiration of the New Testament only; and that solely as assaulted in the name of criticism. I wish to ask your attention, then, to a brief attempt to supply an answer to the question: Is tHE CuHuRCH DOCTRINE OF THE PLENARY INSPIRATION oF THE NEw TESTAMENT ENDANGERED BY THE AS- SURED RESULTS OF MODERN BIBLICAL CRITICISM? At the very outset, that our inquiry may not be a mere beating of the air, we must briefly, indeed, but clearly, state what we mean by the Church Doctrine. For, unhappily, there are almost as many theories of inspiration held by individuals as there are possible stages imaginable between the slightest and the greatest influence God could exercise on man. It is with the traditional doctrine of the Reformed Churches, however, that we are concerned; and that we understand to be simply this: — Inspiration is that extraor- dinary, supernatural influence (or, passively, the result of it,) exerted by the Holy Ghost on the writers of our Sacred Books, by which their words were rendered also the words of God, and, therefore, perfectly infallible. In this definition, it is to be noted: Ist. That this influence is a supernatural one — something different from the inspiration of the poet or man INSPIRATION AND CRITICISM 397 of genius. Luke’s accuracy is not left by it with only the safeguards which ‘‘the diligent and accurate Suetonius” had. 2d. That it is an extraordinary influence — something different from the ordinary action of the Spirit in the con- version and sanctifying guidance of believers. Paul had some more prevalent safeguard against false-teaching than Luther or even the saintly Rutherford. 3d. That it is such an in- fluence as makes the words written under its guidance, the words of God; by which is meant to be affirmed an absolute infallibility (as alone fitted to divine words), admitting no degrees whatever — extending to the very word, and to all the words. So that every part of Holy Writ is thus held alike infallibly true in all its statements, of whatever kind. Fencing around and explaining this definition, it is to be remarked further: Ist. That it purposely declares nothing as to the mode of inspiration. The Reformed Churches admit that this is in- ~« scrutable. They content themselves with defining carefully and holding fast the effects of the divine influence, leaving the mode of divine action by which it is brought about draped in mystery. 2d. It is purposely so framed as to distinguish it from revelation; — seeing that it has to do with the communica- tion of truth not its acquirement. 3d. It is by no means to be imagined that it is meant to proclaim a mechanical theory of inspiration. The Reformed Churches have never held such a theory: * though dishonest, careless, ignorant or over-eager controverters of its doctrine have often brought the charge. Even those special theolo- gians in whose teeth such an accusation has been oftenest thrown (e. g., Gaussen) are explicit in teaching that the human element is never absent.* The Reformed Churches 3 See Dr. C. Hodge’s ‘‘Systematic Theology,” page 157, Vol. I. 4 Cf. Gaussen’s ‘“‘Theopneusty,”’ New York, 1842; pp. 34, 36, 44 seq. et passim. In these passages he explicitly declares that the human element is never absent. Yet he has been constantly misunderstood: thus, Van Oosterzee (‘‘Dog.,”’ i. p. 202), Dorner (‘Protestant Theo.,” ii. 477) and even late English and Ameri- can writers who, if no others, should have found it impossible to ascribe a me- 398 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION hold, indeed, that every word of the Scriptures, without exception, is the word of God; but, alongside of that, they hold equally explicitly that every word is the word of man. And, therefore, though strong and uncompromising in re- sisting the attribution to the Scriptures of any failure in absolute truth and infallibility, they are before all others in seeking, and finding, and gazing on in loving rapture, the marks of the fervid impetuosity of a Paul — the tender saintliness of a John — the practical genius of a James, in the writings which through them the Holy Ghost has given for our guidance. Though strong and uncompromising in resisting all effort to separate the human and divine, they distance all competitors in giving honor alike to both by proclaiming in one breath that all is divine and all is human. As Gaussen so well expresses it, ‘‘We all hold that every verse, without exception, is from men, and every verse, without exception, is from God’’; ‘‘every word of the Bible is as really from man as it is from God.” 4th. Nor is this a mysterious doctrine — except, indeed, in the sense in which everything supernatural is mysterious. We are not dealing in puzzles, but in the plainest facts of spiritual experience. How close, indeed, is the analogy here with all that we know of the Spirit’s action in other spheres! Just as the first act of loving faith by which the regenerated chanical theory to a man who had abhorrently repudiated it in an English journal and in a note prefixed to the subsequent English editions of his work. (See: “It is Written,’ London: Bagster & Sons, 3d edition, pp. i-iv.) In that notice he declares that he wishes “‘loudly to disavow” this theory, “‘that he feels the great- est repugnance to it,” ‘‘that it is gratuitously attributed to him,” ‘‘that he has never, for a single moment, entertained the idea of keeping it,” etc. Yet so late a writer as President Bartlett, of Dartmouth (Princeton Review, January, 1880, p. 34), can still use Gaussen as an example of the mechanical theory. Gaussen’s book ought never to have been misunderstood; it is plain and simple. The cause of the constant misunderstanding, however, is doubtless to be found in the fact that his one object is to give a proof of the existence of an everywhere present divine element in the Scriptures, — not to give a rounded statement of the doctrine of inspiration. He has, therefore, dwelt on the divinity, and only in- cidentally adverted to the humanity exhibited in its pages. Gaussen may serve us here as sufficient example of the statement in the text. The doctrine stated in the text is the doctrine taught by all the representative theologians in our own church. INSPIRATION AND CRITICISM 399 soul flows out of itself to its Saviour, is at once the consciously- chosen act of that soul and the direct work of the Holy Ghost; so, every word indited under the analogous influence of inspiration was at one and the same time the consciously self-chosen word of the writer and the divinely-inspired word of the Spirit. I cannot help thinking that it is through failure to note and assimilate this fact, that the doctrine of verbal inspiration is so summarily set aside and so unthinkingly inveighed against by divines otherwise cautious and rever- ent. Once grasp this idea, and how impossible is it to sepa- rate in any measure the human and divine. It is all human — every word, and all divine. The human characteristics are to be noted and exhibited; the divine perfection and infalli- bility, no less. This, then, is what we understand by the church doc- trine: — a doctrine which claims that by a special, super- natural, extraordinary influence of the Holy Ghost, the sacred writers have been guided in their writing in such a way, as while their humanity was not superseded, it was yet so dominated that their words became at the same time the words of God, and thus, in every case and all alike, ab- solutely infallible. I do not purpose now to undertake the proof of this doc- trine. I purpose rather to ask whether, assuming it to have been accepted by the Church as apparently the true one, modern biblical criticism has in any of its results reached conclusions which should shake our previously won confi- dence in it. It is plain, however, that biblical criticism could endanger such a doctrine only by undermining it — by shaking the foundation on which it rests — in other words by attacking the proof which is relied on to establish it. We have, then, so far to deal with the proofs of the doctrine. It is evident, now, that such a doctrine must rest primarily on the claims of the sacred writers. In the very nature of the case, the writers themselves are the prime witnesses of the fact and nature of their inspiration. Nor does this argu- ment run in a vicious circle. We do not assume inspiration 400 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION in order to prove inspiration. We assume only honesty and sobriety. If a sober and honest writer claims to be inspired by God, then here, at least, is a phenomenon to be ac- counted for. It follows, however, that besides their claims, there are also secondary bases on which the doctrine of the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures rests, and by the shak- ing of which it can be shaken. These are: — first, the allow- ance of their claims by the contemporaries of the writers, — by those of their contemporaries, that is, who were in a position to judge of the truth of such claims. In the case of the New Testament writers this means the contemporary church, who had the test of truth in its hands: ‘“Was God visibly with the Apostles, and did He seal their claims with His blessing on their work?” And, secondly, the absence of all contradictory phenomena in or about the writings them- selves. If the New Testament writers, being sober and honest men, claim verbal inspiration, and this claim was allowed by the contemporary church, and their writings in no respect in their character or details negative it, then it seems idle to object to the doctrine of verbal inspiration on any critical grounds. In order, therefore, to shake this doctrine, biblical criti- cism must show: either, that the New Testament writers do not claim inspiration; or, that this claim was rejected by the contemporary church; or, that it is palpably negatived by the fact that the books containing it are forgeries; or, equally clearly negatived by the fact that they contain along with the claim errors of fact or contradictions of statement. The important question before us to-day, then, is: Has biblical criticism proved any one of these positions? I. Note, then, in the first place, that modern biblical criticism does not in any way weaken the evidence that the New Testament writers claim full, even verbal, inspiration. Quite the contrary. The careful revision of the text of the New Testament and the application to it of scientific prin- ciples of historico-grammatical exegesis, place this claim beyond the possibility of a doubt. This is so clearly the case, — ee ee le oe ae TS oes ee ee a SS ee a od INSPIRATION AND CRITICISM 401 that even those writers who cannot bring themselves to admit the truth of the doctrines, yet not infrequently begin by admitting that the New Testament writers claim such an inspiration as is in it presupposed. Take, for instance, the twin statements of Richard Rothe: ‘‘To wish to main- tain the inspiration of the subject-matter, without that of the words, is a folly; for everywhere are thoughts and words inseparable,” and ‘‘It is clear that the orthodox theory of inspiration [by which he means the very strictest ] is coun- tenanced by the authors of the New Testament.” If we ap- proach the study of the New Testament under the guidance of and in the use of the methods of modern biblical science, more clearly than ever before is it seen that its authors make such a claim. Not only does our Lord promise a supernatural guidance to his Apostles, both at the beginning of their ministry (Matthew x. 19, 20) and at the close of his life (Mark xii. 11; Luke xxi. 12, cf. John xiv and xvi) but the New Testament writers distinctly claim divine authority. With what assurance do they speak — exhibiting the height of delirium, if not the height of authority. The historians betray no shadow of a doubt as to the exact truth of their every word,—a phenomenon hard to parallel elsewhere among accurate and truth-loving historians who commonly betray less and less assurance in proportion as they exhibit more and more painstaking care. The didactic writers claim an absolute authority in their teaching, and betray as little shadow of doubt as to the perfectly binding character of their words (II Cor. x. 7, 8). If opposed by an angel from heaven, the angel is indubitably wrong and accursed (Gal. 1. 7, 8). Therefore, how freely they deal in commands (I Thes. iv. 2, 11; II Thes. iii. 6-14); commands, too, which they hold to be absolutely binding on all; so binding that it is the test of a Spirit-led man to recognize them as the com- mandments of God (I Cor. xiv. 37), and no Christian ought to company with those who reject them (II Thes. 11. 6-14). Nor is it doubtful that this authority is claimed specifically for the written word. In I Cor. xiv. 37, it is specifically “‘the 402 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION things which I am writing” that must be recognized as the commands of the Lord; and so in II Thes. 11. 15; 11. 6-14, it is the teaching transmitted by letter as well as by word of mouth that is to be immediately and unquestionably re- ceived. Now, on what is this immense claim of authority grounded? If a mere human claim, it is most astounding im- pudence. But that it is not a mere human claim, is specifically witnessed to. Paul claims to be but the transmitter of this teaching (II Thes. ili. 6; tapd); it is, indeed, his own (II Thes. il. 14, 7ua@v), but still, the transmitted word is God’s word (I Thes. iu. 18). He speaks, indeed, and issues com- mands, but they are not his commands, but Christ’s, in virtue of the fact that they are given through him by Christ (I Thes. iv. 2). The other writers exhibit the same phe- nomena. Peter distinctly claims that the Gospel was preached in (év) the Holy Spirit (I Peter, i. 12); and John calls down a curse on those who would in any way alter his writing (Rev. xxii. 18, 19; cf. I John, v. 10). These, we sub- mit, are strange phenomena if we are to judge that these writers professed no inspiration. ‘But,’ we are asked, ‘‘is this all?’’ We answer, that we have but just begun. All that we have said is but a cushion for the specific proof to rest easily on. For here we wish to make two remarks: 1. The inspiration which is implied in these passages, is directly claimed elsewhere. We will now appeal, however, to but two passages. Look at I Cor. vii. 40, where the best and most scientific modern exegesis proves that Paul claimed for his ‘“‘opinion”’ expressed in this letter direct divine inspira- tion, saying, “‘this is my opinion,” and adding, not in modesty, or doubt, but in meiotic irony, ‘‘and it seems to me that I have the Spirit of God.’ If this interpretation be correct, and with the “it seems to me”’ and the very em- phatic “‘I”’ staring us in the face, drawing the contrast so sharply between Paul and the impugners of his authority, it seems indubitably so; then it is clear that Paul claims here INSPIRATION AND CRITICISM 403 a direct divine inspiration in the expression of even his ‘“opinion”’ in his letters. Again look for an instant at I Cor. ii. 13. ‘‘ Which things, also we utter not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit; joining spiritual things with spiritual things;’’ where modern science, more clearly even than ancient faith, sees it stated that both the matter and the manner of this teaching are from the Holy Ghost — both the thoughts and the words — yes, the words themselves. “It is not meet,” says the Apostle, ‘“‘that the things taught by the Holy Ghost should be expressed in merely human words; there must be Spirit-given words to clothe the Spirit-given doctrines. Therefore, I utter these things not in the words taught by human wisdom — not even in the most wisely-chosen human words — but in those taught by the Spirit, joining thus with Spirit-given things (as was fit) only Spirit-given words.” It is impossible to deny that here there is clearly taught a suggestio verborum. Nor will it do to say that this does not bear on the point at issue, seeing that \éyos and not pjua is the term used. Not only is even this subterfuge useless in the face of what we will have still to urge, but it is even meaningless here. No one supposes that the mere grammatical forms separately con- sidered are inspired: the claim concerns words in their ordered sequence — in their living flow in the sentences — and this is just what is expressed by A\dyou. This passage thus stands be- fore us distinctly claiming verbal inspiration. The two to- gether seem reconcilable with nothing less far reaching than the church doctrine. 2. But we must turn to our second remark. It is this: The New Testament writers distinctly place each other’s writings un the same lofty category in which they place the writings of the Old Testament; and as they indubitably hold to the full — even verbal — inspiration of the Old Testament, wt follows that they claim the same verbal inspiration for the New. Is it doubted that the New Testament writers ascribe full inspiration to the Old Testament? Modern science does not doubt it; nor can anyone doubt it who will but listen to the words of 404 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION the New Testament writers in the matter. The whole New Testament is based on the divinity of the Old, and its in- spiration is assumed on every page. The full strength of the case, then, cannot be exhibited. It may be called to our remembrance, however, that not only do the New Testa- ment writers deal with the Old as divine, but that they directly quote it as divine. Those very lofty titles, “‘Scrip- ture,”’ ‘‘The Scriptures,” ‘‘ The Oracles of God,” which they give it, and the common formula of quotation, “It is writ- ten,’ by which they cite its words, alone imply their full belief in its inspiration. And this is the more apparent that it is evident that for them to say, “‘Scripture says,” is equivalent to their saying, ‘‘God says,’ (Romans ix. 17; x. 19; Galatians iii. 8.) Consequently, they distinctly declare that its writers wrote in the Spirit (Matthew xxu. 43; cf. Luke xx. 42; and Acts il. 24); the meaning of which is made clear by their further statement that God speaks their words (Matthew i. 22; 11. 15, etc.), even those not ascribed to God in the Old Testament itself (Acts xii. 35; Hebrews vill. 8; 1. 6, 7, 8; v. 5; Eph. iv. 8), thereby evincing the fact that what the human authors speak God speaks through their mouths (Acts iv. 25). Still more narrowly defining the doctrine, it is specifically stated that it is the Holy Ghost who speaks the written words of Scripture (Hebrews ili. 7) — yea, even in the narrative parts (Hebrews iv. 4). In direct accordance with these statements, the New Testament writers use the very words of the Old Testament as authori- tative and ‘‘not to be broken.’’ Christ, himself, so deals with a tense in Matthew xxii. 32, and twice elsewhere founds an argument on the words (John x. 34; Matthew xxii. 43); and it is in connection with one of these word arguments that his divine lips declare ‘‘the Scriptures cannot be broken.”’ His Apostles follow his example (Galatians iii: 16). Still, further, we have, at least, two didactic statements in the New Testament, directly affirming the inspiration of the Old (II Timothy iii. 16, and II Peter i. 21). In one of these it is declared that every Scripture is God-inspired; in the other, a ok ie 5 a ee a a ge ee INSPIRATION AND CRITICISM 405 that no prophecy ever came by the will of man, but borne along by the Holy Ghost it was that holy men of God spoke. It is, following the best results of modern critical exegesis, therefore, quite certain that the New Testament writers held the full verbal inspiration of the Old Testament. Now, they plainly place the New Testament books in the same category. The same Paul, who wrote in II Timothy, ‘“‘ Every Scripture is God-inspired,’’ quotes in its twin letter, l Timothy, a passage from Luke’s Gospel calling it ‘‘Scrip- ture’? (I Timothy, v. 18), — nay, more, — parallelizing it as equally Scripture with a passage from the Old Testament. And the same Peter, who gave us our other didactic state- ments, and in the same letter, does the same for Paul that Paul did for Luke, and that even more broadly, de- -claring (II Peter iii. 16) that all Paul’s Epistles are to be considered as occupying the same level as the rest of the Scriptures. It is quite indisputable, then, that the New Testament writers claim full inspiration for the New Testa- ment books. Now none of these points are weakened in either mean- ing or reference by the application of the principles of critical exegesis. In every regard they are strengthened. We can be quite bold, therefore, in declaring that modern criticism does not set aside the fact that the New Testament writers claim the very fullest inspiration. II. We must ask, then, secondly, if modern critical in- vestigation has shown that this claim of inspiration was disallowed by the contemporaries of the New Testament writers. Here again our answer must be in the negative. The New Testament writings themselves bristle with the evidences that they expected and received a docile hearing; parties may have opposed them, but only parties. And again, all the evidence that exists coming down to us from the sub-apostolic church — be it more or less voluminous, yet such as it is admitted to be by the various schools of criticism — points to a very complete reception of the New Testament claims. No church writer of the time can be 406 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION pointed out who made a distinction derogatory to the New Testament, between it and the Old Testament, the Divine authority of which latter, it is admitted, was fully recognized in the church. On the contrary, all of them treat the New Testament with the greatest respect, hold its teachings in the highest honor, and run the statement of their theology into its forms of words as if they held even the forms of its statements authoritative. They all know the difference be- tween the authority exercised by the New Testament writers and that which they can lawfully claim. They even call the New Testament books, and that, as is now pretty well admitted, with the fullest meaning, ‘“‘Scripture.’’ Take a few examples: No result of modern criticism is more sure than that Clement of Rome, himself a pupil of Apostles, wrote a letter to the Corinthians in the latter years of the first century; and that we now possess that letter, its text witnessed to by three independent authorities and therefore to be depended on. That epistle exhibits all the above- mentioned characteristics, except that it does not happen to quote any New Testament text specifically as Scripture. It treats the New Testament with the greatest respect, it teaches for doctrines only what it teaches, it runs its state- ments into New Testament forms, it imitates the New Testament style, it draws a broad distinction between the authority with which Paul wrote and that which it can claim, it declares distinctly that Paul wrote ‘‘most certainly in a spirit-led way’ (ém’ ddnetas mvevuatikds. c. 47.) Again, even the most sceptical of schools place the Epistle of Barna- bas in the first or at the very beginning of the second cen- tury, and it again exhibits these same phenomena, — more- over quoting Matthew definitely as Scripture. One of the latest triumphs of a most acute criticism has been the vindication of the genuineness of the seven short Greek letters of Ignatius, which are thus proved to belong to the very first years of the second century and to be the produc- tion again of one who knew Apostles. In them again we meet with the same phenomena. Ignatius even knows of a INSPIRATION AND CRITICISM 407 collected New Testament equal in authority to the Divinely inspired Old Testament. But we need not multiply detailed evidence; every piece of Christian writing which is even probably to be assigned to one who knew or might have known the Apostles, bears like testimony. This is absolutely without exception. They all treat the New Testament books as differentiated from all other writings, and no single voice can be adduced as raised against them. The very heretics bear witness to the same effect; anxious as they are to be rid of the teaching of these writings they yet hold them authori- tative and so endeavor to twist their words into conformity with their errors. And if we follow the stream further down its course, the evidence becomes more and more abundant in direct proportion to the increasing abundance of the literary remains and their change from purely practical epistles or addresses to Jews and heathen to controversial treatises between Christian parties. It is exceedingly clear, then, that modern criticism has not proved that the con- temporary church resisted the assumption of the New Testament writers or withstood their claim to inspiration: directly the contrary. Every particle of evidence in the case exhibits the apostolic church, not as disallowing, but as distinctly recognizing the absolute authority of the New Testament writings. In the brief compass of the extant fragments of the Christian literature of the first two decades of the second century we have Matthew and Ephesians distinctly quoted as Scripture, the Acts and Pauline Epistles specifically named as part of the Holy Bible, and the New Testament consisting of evangelic records and apostolic writings clearly made part of one sacred collection of books with the Old Testament.® Let us bear in mind that the belief of the early church in the inspiration of the Old Testa- ment is beyond dispute, and we will see that the meaning of all this is simply this: The apostolic church certainly accepted the New Testament books as inspired by God. Such are the results of critical enquiry into the opinions 5 See Barn, 4, Poly. 12. Test. xii., Patt. Benj. 10. Ign. Phil. 5, 8, ete. 408 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION on this subject of the church writers standing next to the Apostles. III. If then, the New Testament writers clearly claim verbal inspiration and the apostolic church plainly allowed that claim, any objection to this doctrine must proceed by attempting to undermine the claim itself. From a critical standpoint this can be done only in two ways: It may be shown that the books making it are not genuine and there- fore not authentic, in which case they are certainly not trustworthy and their lofty claims must be set aside as part of the impudence of forgery. Or it may be shown that the books, as a matter of fact, fall into the same errors and contain examples of the same mistakes which uninspired writings are guilty of, — exhibit the same phenomena of inaccuracy and contradiction as they, — and therefore, of course, as being palpably fallible by their very character disprove their claims to infallibility. It is in these two points that the main strength of the opposition to the doctrine of verbal inspiration lies, — the first being urged by unbe- lievers, who object to any doctrine of inspiration, the second by believers, who object to the doctrine of plenary and universal inspiration. The question is: Has either point been made good? 1. In opposition to the first, then, we risk nothing in declaring that modern biblical criticism has not disproved the authenticity of a single book of our New Testament. It is a most assured result of biblical criticism that every one of the twenty-seven books which now constitute our New Testament is assuredly genuine and authentic. There is, indeed, much that arrogates to itself the name of criticism and has that honorable title carelessly accorded to it, which does claim to arrive at such results as set aside the authentic- ity of even the major part of the New Testament. One school would save five books only from the universal ruin. To this, however, true criticism opposes itself directly, and boldly proclaims every New Testament book authentic. But thus two claimants to the name of criticism appear, and the - a INSPIRATION AND CRITICISM 409 question arises, before what court can the rival claims be adjudicated? Before the court of simple common sense, it may be quickly answered. Nor is it impossible to settle once for all the whole dispute. By criticism is meant an investiga- tion with three essential characteristics: (1) a fearless, honest mental abandonment, apart from presuppositions, to the facts of the case, (2) a most careful, complete and unpreju- diced collection and examination of the facts, and (3) the most cautious care in founding inferences upon them. The absence of any one of these characteristics throws grave doubts on the results; while the acme of the uncritical is reached when in the place of these critical graces we find guiding the investigation that other trio, — bondage to pre- conceived opinion, — careless, incomplete or prejudiced col- lection and examination of the facts, — and rashness of inference. Now, it may well be asked, is that true criticism which starts with the presupposition that the supernatural is Impossible, proceeds by a sustained effort to do violence to the facts, and ends by erecting a gigantic historical chimera — overturning all established history —on the appropriate basis of airy nothing? And, is not this a fair picture of the negative criticism of the day? Look at its history, — see its series of wild dreams, — note how each new school has to begin by executing justice on its prede- cessor. So Patlus goes down before Strauss, Strauss falls before Baur, and Baur before the resistless logic of his own negative successors. Take the grandest of them all, — the acutest critic that ever turned his learning against the Chris- tian Scriptures, and it will require but little searching to dis- cover that Baur hasruthlessly violated every canon of genuine criticism. And if this is true of him, what is to be said of the school of Kuenen which now seems to be in the ascendant? We cannot now follow theories like this into details. But on a basis of a study of those details we can remark without fear of successful contradiction that the history of modern nega- tive criticism is blotted all over and every page stained black with the proofs of work undertaken with its conclusion al- 410 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION ready foregone and prosecuted in a spirit that was blind to all adverse evidence.*® Who does not know, for example, of the sustained attempts made to pack the witness box against the Christian Scriptures? — the wild denials of evidence the most undeniable, — the wilder dragging into court of evidence the most palpably manufactured? Who does not remember the remarkable attempt to set aside the evidence arising from Barnabas’ quotation of Matthew as Scripture, on the ground that the part of the epistle which contained it was extant only in an otherwise confessedly accurate Latin version; and when Tischendorf dragged an ancient Greek copy out of an Eastern monastery and vindicated the reading, who does not remem- ber the astounding efforts then made to deny that the quota- tion was from Matthew, or to throw doubt on the early date of the epistle itself? Who does not know the disgraceful at- tempt made to manufacture, — yes simply to manufacture, — evidence against John’s gospel, persevered in in the face of all manner of refutation until it seems at last to have re- ceived its death blow through one stroke of Dr. Lightfoot’s trenchant pen on ‘‘the silence of Eusebius?” 7In every way, then, this criticism evinces itself as false. But false as it is, its attacks must be tested and the op- position of true criticism to its results exhibited. The attack, then, proceeds on the double ground of internal and external evidence. It is claimed that the books exhibit such contradictions among themselves and errors in historical fact, as evince that they cannot be authentic. It is claimed, 6 We hear much of ‘‘apologists” undertaking critical study with such pre- conceived theories as render the conclusion foregone. Perhaps this is sometimes true, but it is not so necessarily. A Theist, believing that there is a personal God, is open to the proof as to whether any particular message claiming to be a reve- lation is really from him or not, and according to the proof, he decides. A Pantheist or Materialist begins by denying the existente of a personal God, and hence the possibility of the supernatural. If he begins the study of an asserted revelation, his conclusion is necessarily foregone. An honest Theist, thus, is open to evidence either way; an honest Pantheist or Materialist is not open to any evidence for the supernatural. See some fine remarks on this subject by Dr. Westcott, Contemporary Review, xxx. p. 1070. 7 Contemporary Review, xxv. p. 169. INSPIRATION AND CRITICISM 411 moreover, that external evidence such as would prove them to have existed in the Apostolic times is lacking. How does true criticism meet these attacks? Joining issue first with the latter statement, sober criti- cism meets it with a categorical denial. It exhibits the fact that every New Testament book, except only the mites Jude, II and III John, Philemon and possibly II Peter, are quoted by the generation of writers immediately succeeding the Apostles, and are thereby proved to have existed in the apostolic times; and that even these four brief books which are not quoted by those earliest authors in the few and brief writings which have come down from them to us, are so authenticated afterwards as to leave no rational ground of doubt as to their authenticity. It is admitted on all hands that there is less evidence for II Peter than for any other of our books. If the early date of II Peter then can be made good, the early date of all the rest follows a fortiorz; and there can be no doubt but that sober criticism fails to find adequate grounds for rejecting II Peter from the circle of apostolic writings. It is an outstanding fact that at the beginning of the third century this epistle was well known; it is during the early years of that century that we meet with the first explicit mention of it, and then it is quoted in such a way as to exhibit the facts that it was believed to be Peter’s and was at that time most certainly in the canon. What has to be accounted for, then, is how came it in the canon of the early third century? It was cer- tainly not put there by those third century writers; their notices utterly forbid this. Then, it must have been already in it in the second century. But when in that century did it acquire this position? Can we believe that critics like Irenaeus, or Melito, or Dionysius would have allowed it to be foisted before their eyes into a collection they held all- holy? It could not, then, have first attained that entrance during the latter years of the second century; and that it must have been already in the New Testament, received and used by the great writers of the fourth quarter of the 412 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION second century, seems scarcely open to doubt. Apart from this reasoning, indeed, this seems established; Clement of Alexandria certainly had the book, Irenaeus also in all probability possessed it. If, now, the book formed a part of the canon current in the fourth quarter of the second cen- tury, there can be little doubt but that it came from the bosom of the Apostolic circle. One has but to catch from Irenaeus, for instance, the grounds on which he received any book as scripture, to be convinced of this. The one and all-important sine-qua-non was that it should have been handed down from the fathers, the pupils of the Apostles, as the work of the Apostolic circle. And Irenaeus was an adequate judge as to whether this was the case; his imme- diate predecessor in the Episcopal office at Lyons was Pothinus, whose long life spanned the whole intervening time from the Apostles, and his teacher was Polycarp, who was the pupil of John. That a book formed a part of the New Testament of this period, therefore authenticates it as coming down from those elders who could bear personal witness to its authorship. This is one of the facts of criticism apart from noting which it cannot proceed. The question, then, is not: do we possess independently of this, sufficient evidence of the Petrine authorship of the book to place it in the canon? but: do we possess sufficient evidence against its Petrine authorship, to reject it from the canon of the fourth quarter of the second century authenticated as that canon as a Whole is? The answer to the question cannot be doubtful when we remember that we have absolutely no evidence against the book; but, on the contrary, that all the evidence of whatever kind which is in existence goes to establish it. There is some slight reason to believe, for instance, that Clement of Rome had the letter, more that Hermas had it and much that Justin had it. There is also a good probability that the early author of the Testaments of the XII. Patri- archs had and used it. Any one of these references, independ- ently of all the rest, would, if made good, throw the writing of the book back into the first century. Each supports the me ty INSPIRATION AND CRITICISM 413 others, and the sum of the probabilities raised by all, is all in direct support of the inference drawn from the reception of the book by later generations, so that there seems to be really no room for reasonable doubt but that the book rightly retains its position in our New Testament. This conclusion gains greatly in strength when we compare the data on which it rests, with what is deemed sufficient to authenticate any other ancient writing. We find at least two most probable allusions to II Peter within a hundred years after its composition, and before the next century passes away we find it possessed by the whole church and that as a book with a secured position in a collection super- authenticated as a whole. Now, Herodotus, for instance, is but once quoted in the century which followed its composi- tion, but once in the next, not at all in the next, only twice in the next, and not until the fifth century after its com- position is it as fully quoted as II Peter during its second century. Yet who doubts the genuineness of the histories of Herodotus? Again the first distinct quotation from Thucyd- ides does not occur until quite two centuries after its com- position; while Tacitus is first cited nearly a century after his death, by Tertullian. Yet no one can reasonably doubt the genuineness of the histories of either Thucydides or Taci- tus.2 We hazard nothing then, in declaring that no one can reasonably doubt the authenticity of the better authen- ticated II Peter. If now such a conclusion is critically tenable in the case of II Peter, what is to be said of the rest of the canon? There are some six writings which have come down to us, which were written within twenty years after the death of John; these six brief pieces alone, as we have said, prove the prior existence of the whole New Testament, with the exception of Jude, II and III John, Philemon and (possibly) II Peter, and the writers of the succeeding years vouch for and multiply their evidence. In the face of such contemporary testimony as this, negative criticism cannot possibly deny the authen- 8 See Rawlinson’s ‘Hist. Evid.,” p. 370 f. 414 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION ticity of our books. A strenuous effort has consequently been made to break the force of this testimony. The genuineness of these witnessing documents themselves has been attacked or else an attempt has been made to deny that their quota- tions are from the New Testament books. Neither the one effort nor the other, however, has been or can be successful. And yet with what energy have they been prosecuted! We have already seen what wild strivings were wasted in an attempt to get rid of Barnabas’ quotation of Matthew. That whole question is now given up; it is admitted that the quotation is from Matthew; and it is admitted that Barna- bas was written in the immediately sub-apostolic times. But Barnabas quotes not only Matthew, but I Corinthians and Ephesians, and in Keim’s opinion witnesses also to the prior existence of John. This may be taken as a type of the whole controversy. The references to the New Testament books in the Apostolic fathers are too plain to be disputed and it is simply the despair of criticism that is exhibited by the invention of elaborate theories of accidental coincidences or of endless series of hypothetical books to which to assign them. The quotations are too numerous, too close, and glide too imperceptibly and regularly from mere adoption of phrases into accurate citations of authorities, to be ex- plained away. They therefore stand, and prove that the authors of these writings already knew the New Testament books and esteemed them authoritative. Nor has the attempt to deny the early date of these witnessing writers fared any better. The mere necessity of the attempt is indeed fatal to the theory it is meant to support; if to exhibit the unauthenticity of the New Testament books, we must hold all subsequent writings unauthentic too, it seems plain that we are on a false path. And what violence is done in the attempt! For instance, the Epistle of Polycarp witnesses to the prior existence of Matthew, Luke, Acts, eleven Epistles of Paul, I Peter and I John; and as Polycarp was a pupil of John, his testimony is very strong. It must then be got rid of at all hazards. But Irenaeus was Poly- INSPIRATION AND CRITICISM 415 carp’s pupil, and Irenaeus explicitly cites this letter and declares it to be Polycarp’s genuine production; and no one from his time to ours has found cause to dispute his statement until it has become necessary to be rid of the testimony of the letter to our canon. But if Polycarp’s letter be genuine, it sets its own date and witnesses in turn to the letters of Ignatius, which themselves bear internal testimony to their own early date; and these letters of Ignatius testify not only to the prior individual existence of Matthew, John, Romans, I Corinthi- ans, Ephesians, Philippians, I Thessalonians and I John; but also to the prior existence of an authoritative Divinely- inspired New Testament. This is but a specimen of the linked character of our testimony. Not only is it fairly abundant, but it is so connected by evidently undesigned, indeed, but yet indetachable articulations, that to set aside any one im- portant piece of it usually necessitates such a wholesale at- tack on the literature of the second century as to amount to a reductio ad absurdum. We may, then, boldly formulate as our conclusion that external evidence imperiously forbids the dethronement of any New Testament book from its place in our canon. What, then, are we to do with the internal evidence that is relied upon by the negative school? What, but set it summarily aside also? It amounts to a twofold claim: (1.) The sacred writers are hopelessly inconsistent with one another, and (2.) they are at variance with contemporary history. Of course, disharmony between the four gospels, and between Acts and the Epistles is what is mainly relied on under the first point, and it must be admitted that much learning and acuteness has been expended on the effort to make out this disharmony. But it is to be noted: (1.) That even were it admitted up to the full extent claimed, it would be no proof of unauthenticity; it would be no more than that found between secular historians admitted to be authentic, when narrating the same actions from different points of view. And (2.) in no case has it been shown that disharmony must be admitted. No case can be adduced 416 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION where a natural mode of harmonizing cannot be supplied, and it is a reasonable principle, recognized among critics of secular historians, that two writers must not be held to be contradictory where any natural mode of harmonizing can be imagined. Otherwise it amounts to holding that we know fully and thoroughly all the facts of the case, — better even than eye-witnesses seem ever to know them. In order to gain any force at all, therefore, for this objection, both the extent and degree of the disharmony has been grossly exaggerated. Take an example: It is asserted that the two accounts (in Matthew and Luke) of the events accompanying our Lord’s birth are mutually exclusive. But even a cursory examina- tion will show that there is not a single contradiction be- tween them. How then is the charge of disharmony sup- ported? In two ways: First, by erecting silence into contra- diction. Since Matthew does not mention the visit of the shepherds, he is said to contradict Luke who does. Since Luke does not mention the flight into Egypt he is said to contradict Matthew who does. And secondly, by a still more astounding method which proceeds by first confounding two distinct transactions and then finding irreconcilable con- tradictions between them. Thus Strauss calmly enumerates no less than five discrepancies between Matthew’s account of the visit of the angel to Joseph and Luke’s account of the visit of the angel to Mary. On the same principle we might prove both Motley’s ‘‘Dutch Republic” and Kingslake’s ‘Crimean War’ to be unbelievable histories by gravely setting ourselves to find ‘discrepancies’? between the ac- count in the one of the brilliant charges of Egmont at St. Quentin and the account in the other of the great charge of the six hundred at Balaclava. This is not an unfair ex- ample of the way in which the New Testament is dealt with in order to exhibit its internal disharmony. We are content, however, that it should pass for an extreme case. For it will suffice for our present purpose to be able to say that if the New Testament books are to be proved unauthentic by their internal contradictions, by parity of reasoning the a Se INSPIRATION AND CRITICISM 417 world has never yet seen an authentic writing. In fact so marvelously are our books at one that, leaving the defen- sive, the harmonist may take the offensive and claim this unwonted harmony as one of the chief evidences of Chris- tianity. Paley has done this for the Acts and Epistles; and it can be done also for the Gospels. Perhaps we ought to content ourselves with merely re- peating this same remark in reference to the charge that the New Testament writers are at variance with contemporary history. So far is this from being true that one of the strong- est evidences for Christianity is the utter accord with the minute details of contemporary history which is exhibited in its records. There has been no lack indeed of ‘‘instances’’ of disaccord confidently put forth; but in every case the charge has recoiled on the head of its maker. Thus, the mention of Lysanias in Luke ii. 1 was long held the test case of such inaccuracy and sceptics were never weary of dwelling upon it; until it was pointed out that the whole ‘error’? was not Luke’s but — the sceptic’s. Josephus men- tions this Lysanias and in such a way that he should not have been confounded with his older namesake; and in- scriptions have been brought to light which explicitly assign him to just Luke’s date. And so this stock example vanishes into the air from which it was made. The others have met a like fate. The detailed accuracy of the New Testament writers in historical matters is indeed wonderful, and is more and more evinced by every fresh investigation. Every now and then a monument is dug up, touching on some point adverted to in the New Testament; and in every case only to corroborate the New Testament. Thus not only has Luke long ago been proved accurate in calling the ruler of Cyprus a ‘‘proconsul,’”’ but Mr. Cesnola has lately brought to light a Cyprian inscription which mentions that same Proconsul Paulus whom Luke represents Paul as finding on the island. — (“‘Cyprus,” p. 425.) Let us but consider the unspeakable complication of the political history of those times; — the frequent changes of provinces from senatorial to imperial 418 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION and vice versa, — the many alterations of boundaries and vacillations of relation to the central power at Rome, — which made it the most complicated period the world has ever seen, and renders it the most dangerous ground possible for a forger to enter upon; — and how impossible is it to suppose that a book whose every most incidental notice of historical circumstances is found after most searching criticism to be minutely correct, — which has threaded all this labyrinth with firm and unfaltering step, — was the work of unlearned forgers, writing some hundred years after the facts they record. Confessedly accurate Roman his- torians have not escaped error here; even Tacitus himself has slipped.® To think that a second century forger could have walked scathless among all the pitfalls that gaped around him, is like believing a blind man could thread a row of a hundred cambric needles at a thrust. If we merely apply the doctrine of probabilities to the accuracy of these New Testament writers they are proved to be the work of eye- witnesses and wholly authentic.” We can, then, at the end, but repeat the statement with which we began: Modern negative criticism neither on in- ternal nor on external grounds has been able to throw any doubt on the authenticity of a single book of our New Testament. Their authenticity, accuracy and honesty are super-vindicated by every new investigation. They are thus proved to be the productions of sober, honest, accurate men; they claim verbal inspiration; their claim was allowed by the contemporary church. So far modern criticism has gone step by step with traditional faith. There remains but one critical ground on which the doctrine we are considering can be disputed. Do these books in their internal character nega- tive their claim? Are the phenomena of the writings in con- flict with the claim they put forth? We must, then, in conclusion consider this last refuge of objection. 2. Much has been already said incidentally which bears ® Cf. “ Annal,’’)xi. p. 23. 10 See this slightly touched on by Dr. Peabody, Princeton Rev., March, 1880. ee. a ee INSPIRATION AND CRITICISM 419 on this point; but something more is needed. An amount of accuracy which will triumphantly prove a book to be genu- ine and surely authentic, careful and honest, may fall short of proving it to be the very word of God. The question now before us is: Granting the books to be in the main accurate, are they found on the application of a searching criticism to bear such a character as will throw destructive objection in the way of the dogma that they are verbally from God? This inquiry opens a broad — almost illimitable — field, utterly impossible to treat fully here. It may be narrowed somewhat, however, by a few natural observations. (1). It is to be remembered that we are not defending a mechanical theory of inspiration. Every word of the Bible is the word of God according to the doctrine we are discussing; but also and just as truly, every word is the word of a man. This at once sets aside as irrelevant a large number of the objections usually brought from the phenomena of the New Testament against its verbal inspiration. No finding of traces of human influence in the style, wording or forms of statement or argumentation touches the question. The book is through- out the work of human writers and is filled with the signs of their handiwork. This we admit on the threshold; we ask what is found inconsistent with its absolute accuracy and truth. (2). It is to be remembered, again, that no objection touches the question, that is obtained by pressing the primary sense of phrases or idioms. These are often false; but they are a necessary part of human speech. And the Holy Ghost in using human speech, used it as He found it. It cannot be argued then that the Holy Spirit could not speak of the sun setting, or call the Roman world ‘‘the whole world.” The current sense of a phrase is alone to be con- sidered; and if men so spoke and were understood correctly in so speaking, the Holy Ghost, speaking their speech would also so speak. No objection then is in point which turns on a pressure of language. Inspiration is a means to an end and not an end in itself; if the truth is conveyed accurately to the ear that listens to it, its full end is obtained. (3). And 420 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION we must remember again that no objection is valid which is gained by overlooking the prime question of the intentions and professions of the writer. Inspiration, securing absolute truth, secures that the writer shall do what he professes to do; not what he does not profess. If the author does not profess to be quoting the Old Testament verbatzm, — unless it can be proved that he professes to give the 7psissima verba, —then no objection arises against his verbal inspiration from the fact that he does not give the exact words. If an author does not profess to report the exact words of a dis- course or a document —if he professes to give, or it is enough for his purposes to give, an abstract or general account of the sense or the wording, as the case may be, — then it is not opposed to his claim to inspiration that he does not give the exact words. This remark sets aside a vast number of objections brought against verbal inspiration by men who seem to fancy that the doctrine supposes men to be false instead of true to their professed or implied inten- tion. It sets aside, for instance, all objection against the verbal inspiration of the Gospels, drawn from the diversity of their accounts of words spoken by Christ or others, written over the cross, etc. It sets aside also all objection raised from the freedom with which the Old Testament is quoted, so long as it cannot be proved that the New Testa- ment writers quote the Old Testament in a different sense from that in which it was written, in cases where the use of the quotation turns on this change of sense. This cannot be proved in a single case. The great majority of the usual objections brought against the verbal inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures from their phenomena, being thus set aside, the way is open to remarking further, that no single argument can be brought from this source against the church doctrine which does not begin by proving an error in statement or contradiction in doctrine or fact to exist in these sacred pages. I say, that does not begin by proving this. For if the inaccuracies are apparent only, —if they are not indubitably inaccuracies, INSPIRATION AND CRITICISM 421 — they do not raise the slightest presumption against the full, verbal inspiration of the book. Have such errors been: pointed out? That seems the sole question before us now. And any sober criticism must answer categorically to it, No! It is not enough to point to passages difficult to harmon- ize; they cannot militate against verbal inspiration unless it is not only impossible for us to harmonize them, but also unless they are of such a character that they are clearly con- tradictory, so that if one be true the other cannot by any possibility be true. No such case has as yet been pointed out. Why should the New Testament harmonics be dealt with on other principles than those which govern men in dealing with like cases among profane writers? There, it is a first principle of historical science that any solution which affords a possible method of harmonizing any two statements is preferable to the assumption of inaccuracy or error — whether those statements are found in the same or different writers. To act on any other basis, it is clearly acknowledged, is to assume, not prove, error. We ask only that this recog- nized principle be applied to the New Testament. Who believes that the historians who record the date of Alexan- der’s death — some giving the 28th, some the 30th of the month — are in contradiction? ' And if means can be found to harmonize them, why should not like cases in the New Testament be dealt with on like principles? If the New Testament writers are held to be independent and accurate writers, — as they are by both parties in this part of our argument, — this is the only rational rule to apply to their writings; and the application of it removes every argument against verbal inspiration drawn from assumed disharmony. Not a single case of disharmony can be proved. The same principle, and with the same results, may be applied to the cases wherein it is claimed that the New Testament is in disharmony with the profane writers of the times, or other contemporary historical sources. But it is hardly necessary to do so. At the most, only three cases of 11 For methods by which these are harmonized, see Lee ‘‘Inspiration,”’ p. 350. 422 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION even possible errors in this sphere can be now even plausibly claimed: the statements regarding the taxing under Quirin- ius, the revolt under Theudas, and the lordship of Aretas over Damascus. But Zumpt’s proof that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria, the first time just after our Lord’s birth, sets the first of these aside; whereas the other two, while not corroborated by distinct statements from other sources, yet are not excluded either. Room is found for the insignificant revolt of this Theudas — who is not to be confounded with his later and more important namesake — in Josephus’ statement that at this time there were ‘‘ten thousand” revolts not mentioned by him. And the lordship of Aretas over Damascus is rendered very probable by what we know from other sources of the posture of affairs in that region, as well as by the significant absence of Roman- Damascene coinage for just this period. Even were the New Testament writers in direct conflict in these or in other statements, with profane sources, it. would still not be proven that the New Testament was in error. There would still be an equal chance, to say the least (much too little as it is), that the other sources were in error. But it is never in such con- flict; and, therefore, cannot be charged with having fallen into historical error, unless we are prepared to hold that the New Testament writers are not to be believed in any state- ment which cannot be independently of it proved true; in other words, unless it be assumed beforehand to be un- trustworthy. This, again, is to assume, not prove error. Not a single case of error can be proved. We cannot stop to mention even the fact that no doc- trinal contradictions, or scientific errors can be proved. The case stands or falls confessedly on the one question: Are the New Testament writers contradictory to each other or to other sources of information in their record of historical or geographical facts? This settled, indubitably all is settled. We repeat, then, that all the fierce light of criticism which has so long been beating upon their open pages has not yet been able to settle one indubitable error on the New “2 ey i ee ee Oe SS S- | INSPIRATION AND CRITICISM 423 Testament writers. This being so, no argument against their claim to write under a verbal inspiration from God can be drawn from the phenomena of their writings. No phenomena can be pled against verbal inspiration except errors, — no error can be proved to exist within the sacred pages; that is the argument in a nut-shell. Such being the result of the strife which has raged all along the line for decades of years, it cannot be presumptuous to formulate our conclusion here as boldly as after the former heads of discourse: — Modern criticism has absolutely no valid argument to bring against the church doctrine of verbal inspiration, drawn from the phenomena of Scripture. This seems indubitably true. It is, indeed, well for Christianity that it is. For, if the phenomena of the writings were such as to negative their distinct claim to full inspiration, we cannot conceal from ourselves that much more than their verbal inspiration would have to be given up. If the sacred writers were not trustworthy in such a witness-bearing, where would they be trustworthy? If they, by their performance, disproved their own assertions, it is plain that not only would these asser- tions be thus proven false, but, also, by the same stroke the makers of the assertions convicted of either fanaticism or dishonesty. It seems very evident, then, that there is no standing ground between the two theories of full verbal in- spiration and no inspiration at all. Gaussen is consistent; Strauss is consistent: but those who try to stand between! It is by a divinely permitted inconsistency that they can stand at all. Let us know our position. If the New Testament, claim- ing full inspiration, did exhibit such internal characteristics as should set aside this claim, it would not be a trustworthy guide to salvation. But on the contrary, since all the efforts of the enemies of Christianity — eager to discover error by which they might convict the precious word of life of false- hood — have proved utterly vain, the Scriptures stand be- fore us authenticated as from God. They are, then, just what they profess to be; and criticism only secures to them the more firmly the position they claim. Claiming to be verbally 424 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION inspired, that claim was allowed by the church which re- ceived them, — their writers approve themselves sober and honest men, and evince the truth of their claim, by the wonder of their performance. So, then, gathering all that we have attempted to say into one point, we may say that modern biblical criticism has nothing valid to urge against the church doctrine of verbal inspiration, but that on the contrary it puts that doctrine on a new and firmer basis and secures to the church Scriptures which are truly divine. Thus, although nothing has been urged formally as a proof of the doctrine, we have arrived at such results as amount to a proof of it. If the sacred writers clearly claim verbal inspiration and every phenomenon supports that claim, and all critical objections break down by their own weight, how can we escape admitting its truth? What further proof do we need? With this conclusion I may fitly close. But how can I close without expression of thanks to Him who has so loved us as to give us so pure a record of His will, — God-given in all its parts, even though cast in the forms of human speech, — infallible in all its statements, — divine even to its small- est particle! I am far from contending that without such an inspiration there could be no Christianity. Without any inspiration we could have had Christianity; yea, and men could still have heard the truth, and through it been awak- ened, and justified, and sanctified and glorified. The verities of our faith would remain historically proven true to us — so bountiful has God been in his fostering care — even had we no Bible; and through those verities, salvation. But to what uncertainties and doubts would we be the prey! — to what errors, constantly begetting worse errors, exposed! — to what refuges, all of them refuges of lies, driven! Look but at those who have lost the knowledge of this infallible guide: see them evincing man’s most pressing need by in- venting for themselves an infallible church, or even an ‘infallible Pope. Revelation is but half revelation unless it be infallibly communicated; it is but half communicated unless a ” Oc eas, “Se, 4 ee ee pe INSPIRATION AND CRITICISM 425 it be infallibly recorded. The heathen in their blindness are our witnesses of what becomes of an unrecorded revelation. Let us bless God, then, for His inspired word! And may He grant that we may always cherish, love and venerate it, and conform all our life and thinking to it! So may we find safety for our feet, and peaceful security for our souls. APPENDIX I THE DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE THE GENERAL ARGUMENT THE DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE! WueEN the Christian asserts his faith in the divine origin of his Bible, he does not mean to deny that it was composed and written by men or that it was given by men to the world. He believes that the marks of its human origin are ineradicably stamped on every page of the whole volume. He means to state only that it is not merely human in its origin. If asked where and how the divine has entered this divine- human book, he must reply: ‘‘ Everywhere, and in almost every way conceivable.’’ Throughout the whole preparation of the material to be written and of the men to write it; throughout the whole process of the gathering and classification and use of the material by the writers; throughout the whole process of the actual writing, — he sees at work divine influences of the most varied kinds, extending all the way from simply providential superintendence and spiritual illumination to direct revelation and inspiration. It is of great importance to distinguish between these various ways in which the divine has been active in originating the Scriptures, but it is of vastly greater importance to fix the previous fact that it is in the Scriptures at all and has entered them in any way. The present essay aims, therefore, without raising any of the many questions which concern the distinguishing of the various activities of God in originating his Scriptures, to busy itself with the one previous ques- tion: Is there reason to believe that God has been concerned at all in the origin of the Bible? The question thus proposed is a very general one. And it is a very immense one — almost limitless. It is, of course, utterly impossible to do more than touch upon it in any reasonable space, and all that could be urged in a single paper or in any reasonably circumscribed series of papers would bear a very small proportion to all that might be urged — to the mighty case that could be made out. No attempt can be made, therefore, toward fullness of treatment. A series of prop- ositions most baldly stated will only be laid down one after the other, and it will be left to the reader to develop and illustrate them and bring out their combined force, which will, however, it is hoped, be immediately partly evident from their simple statement. An effort will also be made, in the choice of the propositions and their ordering, 1 Pub. 1882, by the Presbyterian Board of Publication, Philadelphia, Pa. 429 430 APPENDIX to frame an argument of a kind which will demand, as of right, en- trance into every mind; one, therefore, which will depend for its force on no original assumptions, but will begin rather with simple and patent facts — will simply put these facts together and then inquire what kind of facts they are and what they imply. Thus the reasoning will take the form of an inquiry rather than an argument — of an in- duction rather than a demonstration. The conclusions reached may not be so sharply and accurately defined as if reached by other meth- ods, but they have the advantage of being obtained by a process to every step of which every man’s mind ought to be open. Our purpose is to look upon the Bible simply as one of the facts of the universe, of which every theory of the universe must take account, and for which, just as surely as for gravitation, it must make account or itself die, and then ask (and press the question): What kind of a cause must be assumed to account for it just as it is and just as it arose in the world? Thus we may inductively come to an answer to the query: ‘‘Must we assume superhuman activities at work in the genesis of this book?”’ Without further introduction, we begin the inquiry at once. I. Tue History oF THE BIBLE 1. The basal fact from which our inquiry takes its start is the very indisputable and patent one that in the world there is such a book as Tue Brisue. There is a definite volume, well known and always the same in contents, about which there need be no mistake, which goes under this name, and under this name is accessible to all. This very patent fact is the first that we need to notice. 2. It is another fact, hardly less patent than the last, that this book occupies a unique position in the world of civilized man. No other book stands to-day among men for what the Bible stands for. We are not asserting here that it has a right to the position it occupies or the power it exerts: we simply assert that it is undeniable that it holds that position and exercises that power. The legislation of civilized nations is profoundly affected by its teaching; the social habits of cultured people are largely determined by its scheme of life; the governmental forms of powerful countries are built on its principles, and their functions are carried on under its sanctions. Rulers are entrusted with the exercise of their powers, wit- nesses are credited in the deposition of their testimony, only after oaths sworn upon or according to it. Everywhere it has percolated through the fabric of civilization, and modern society is built up upon the lines drawn by it. Still further, where it most dominates, there is most life. It is the APPENDIX 431 great Protestant nations — those who most rest upon this book — which are the most prominent nations, the most full of abounding life and enterprising energy, the most impressive on the destinies of man. It is even the pioneer of civilization; instead of following, it breaks the way for material advancement. Go where you will, if you find life, you will find also the Bible; and you will find it in the very midst of the organism. You will find it in the hall of legislation, and in the laws that are there framed; in the courts of justice, and in the justice that is there administered; in the colleges of learning, and in the learning that is there imparted; at the home-firesides, and in the moral train- ing and homely virtues which are there inculcated. In a word, it is, as no other book has ever been to a single nation, bound up with all civilization and progress and culture. 3. It is worth our notice, still further, that this position of power and influence has been attained and held by the Bible through a most remarkable history. Confined for ages to a rough, isolated corner of the globe, in the keeping of a small and peculiar tribe of men, it almost without a moment’s warning, like a great lake receiving a new acces- sion of waters, immediately on completion, burst all boundaries and deluged the world. It came commended by no external pomp of ap- pearance, attended with no force of arms. Alone and single-handed, in the face of stinging contempt and bloodthirsty cruelty, it opposed ancient prejudices, long-settled habits, customs and religions, every consideration of self-interest or indulgence or safety, and swept them away like so many straws. By its simple, despised presence among men it conquered. It mattered not where it went; human society in every stage of development, under every form of administration, and composed of every race of men, everywhere alike yielded itself to it. We cannot overstate the case; it is even impossible for us to men- tally realize the profundity of the change induced. Look only at the straws of external action which, veering suddenly around, advertise to us the change of wind beneath and behind. See the revolution in the sentiment which the sight of a cross kindled. Who can estimate, again, the profound revolution which was nec- essary in men’s very habits of thought, in their inmost consciousness, before sacrificial ordinances could fall into neglect. Just think of it. From the beginning of the world sacrifices had been universal. Men knew, and had from the beginning known, no other way to express the deepest facts of their consciences. The habit had been ground in upon the race not only for a lifetime, but for a worldtime. Everybody everywhere spontaneously fled to this rite as the fit expression of the sense of sin and the hope of deliverance. And yet, in little more than fifty years after the introduction of Christianity into his province, Pliny complains that it had almost put a stop to sacrifices there. A 432 APPENDIX world-habit, dominant from the beginning, thus rolled back upon it- self in a single generation! We cannot possibly appreciate the great- ness of this conquest. Sacrifices had been almost the whole life of the people: from childhood sacrifices had met each man in every form, in every quarter, in every act, in every duty of every day’s business. Not only could he not engage in any of the graver duties of the citizen without being confronted with them everywhere; he could not rise from his bed in the morning, retire to it at night, partake of his nec- essary sustenance, without a recognition of a god or the performance of a rite at every step. And yet Christianity came, not undermining the principle which underlay sacrifices, but emphasizing it, and still they fled away from its presence. Beneath such external changes, conceive, if you can, the immense revolution that was wrought. Not only was the whole practice of religion altered, but also the whole theory of religion; not only the whole practice of morals, but the whole theory of morals. Vices in former repute were suddenly raised to the highest pinnacle of virtues; virtues in former repute were thrust down to the lowest hell of vices. Everything was overturned. Is it asked whether the human means employed in gaining this grand victory were not sufficient to account for it? Look at them. A dozen ignorant peasants proclaiming a crucified Jew as the founder of a new faith; bearing as the symbol of their worship an instrument which was the sign of ignominy, slavery and crime; preaching what must have seemed an absurd doctrine of humility, patient suffering and love to enemies — graces undreamed of before; demanding what must have seemed an absurd worship for one who had died like a malefactor and a slave, and making what must have seemed an ab- surd promise of everlasting life through one who had himself died, and that between two thieves. Did their voices fall on willing or docile ears? This was the age of those princes of scoffers, Celsus and Lucian. Did they prosecute their work in peace and quietude? They were thrown to the lions until the very beasts were satiated with their prey. Their blood seemed only to water the field of the Lord. Thus, in the face of all discouragement and cruel persecution, the Bible found itself established with incredible rapidity in the hearts of an immense Christendom. In less than seventy years it was known over all the then known world; within little more than a single cen- tury it had won to itself ‘‘almost the greater part of the whole state.” Do you say that this, despite all appearances, must have been an exceptional age and an exceptional experience? We reply that it is the experience of the ages. When corruption had brought back an age of darkness and the Bible was once more lost from real life, it required - a a i Saat APPENDIX 433 but a Luther to tear off the veil for it to re-enact the same history and sow Europe with the blood of its votaries till a harvest could be reaped of equal victory. It cannot be necessary to repeat the story of the noble conflict. You know it well, and know that it was a Bible war and a Bible victory. The same history is even now working itself out about us. Madagascar, under our eyes, has repeated it. Every corner of the globe has felt the tingling of the mighty impulse. Even here, in America, we are living amid historical wonders, our eyes unopened to the sight. Rapidly as the population of the United States has grown since 1800, the proportionate increase of the votaries of the Bible has outstripped it. Yet so quietly has it all been done that we live utterly oblivious of it until, through painfully gathered statistics, the fact is made to look us squarely in the face. How certain a fact, then, it is that the Bible has reached its present wonderful position and influence through a most remarkable history, and a history which it is still continuing on exactly the same lines! 4. It is important to note, next, that throughout all this history, and still to-day, this great influence which the Bible has exerted has been, and is still, purely and only beneficent. All its power has been exerted in the direction of the elevation of man and loving ministry to his needs. Of course we are in no danger of forgetting that the truth of this statement has been of late challenged in some quarters. But neither can we forget three other facts: 1. That it is not challenged by the well-informed and unprejudiced even among those who deny the divine origin of the Bible. 2. That the methods by which it is attempted to make the Bible appear in any other réle than that of a cornucopia of good for man will (as Dr. Fisher has lately very clearly shown) avail equally to prove that love is a curse and the household fireside, with all its blessings, a very nest of corruption. Of course, it is not denied, either of love or of the Bible, that it sometimes has been the cause of pain; each has often ennobled man through the pain and self-sacrifice called out by it. Nor is it denied of either that it has been made at times the excuse of crime, but both have cried out upon the wickedness which would hide behind their sacred skirts. 3. That those who put forth the challenge have been led to do it only because the teaching of the Bible has so leavened society and the usages of modern life that it is almost impossible for men to believe that the world could ever have existed without the restraining and ennobling influences which now seem naturally to dominate us, and yet which really have their root in the Bible. A true picture of the boon which this book has really been to the world can be obtained only by an examination of two classes of facts — those belonging to the condition of society be- fore it entered into its beneficent reign on the one hand, and on the other those belonging to the condition into which society lapses when- 434 APPENDIX ever the Bible in any degree loses its hold upon men. The shameless- ness of Roman society under the early emperors will give us the norm of the one; the horrors of the Italian renascence and of the French Revolution will give us the norm of the other. It is not necessary to stop now to pollute these pages with the recital of the depths of deg- radation from which the Bible rescued man, and from which its potent influence (witness the Italian renascence and the Reign of Terror) alone keeps him rescued: they may be read in any accredited history of the times, and it is certainly justifiable to assume as fact what is recognized as fact by all competent historians. Thus, then, the Bible is seen to tread the ages like the fabled goddess under whose beneficent footfall sprang beautiful flowers wher- ever she went. Hospitals and asylums and refuges for the sick, the miserable and the afflicted grow like heaven-bedewed blossoms in its path. Woman, whose equality with man Plato considered a sure mark of social disorganization, has been elevated; slavery has been driven from civilized ground; letters have been given by Christian missiona- ries, under the influence of the Bible and in order to its publication, to whole peoples and races. Who can estimate that boon? Thus Cyril and Methodius gave alphabet and written language to the vast hordes of the Sclaves; thus Ulphilas, to the whole race of Teutons; thus even Egypt, mother of letters, first received a manageable alphabet. Thus still to-day tribes and peoples sunk in barbarism are being lifted by the Bible to the ranks of literary nations. So the work goes on, and still to-day, as ever before, the Bible stands in all the world exercising everywhere its immense power in the restraining of all evil passions, in the advancement of all that is good and tender and elevating, in pouring out benefits unspeakable to the individual and the state. 5. All this immense influence for good which the Bible is exercis- ing over the minds and hearts of men is due to a most deep-seated and steadfast conviction in their minds that it is from God and con- stitutes a law given from heaven for amending the lives and amelio- rating the condition of men. If this be a fanaticism, it is a most beneficent and a most remark- able fanaticism, far from easy to account for on the hypothesis that it is a fanaticism. Did men rush to embrace a delusion which had nothing to commend it to them amid the scoffs of Celsus and the ridicule of Lucian, against their every interest and against their every inclination, and that when the majesty of Rome was unsheathed to ffight them back and the jaws of the lions yawned to engulf them? Men do not usually spring so to die for a delusion which offers so little and threatens so much. Then, too, how has the fanaticism so grown? How is it that it still holds captive so many millions of those whose intellect is of the clearest and whose culture is of the highest? How is Ce ee APPENDIX 435 it that it still embraces the civilized world? But, however it be at- tempted to account for it, here is the fact. The great influence which the Bible has ever exercised has been always, and still is accounted for by those who yield to it on their sincere conviction that this book, which differs so in power from all other volumes, differs from them equally in origin, being alone of books God’s book, while all others are men’s. 6. This conviction is traced by them not solely to the visible power and influence of the book, nor solely, conjoined with that, to the manifest grandeur and divinity of its contents and character, but also (continuing to dwell now on external particulars) to marvelous circumstances which attended the giving of this marvelous book to the world. Those who wrote its latter portion and sent the whole abroad asserted that they acted under commission from God and authenticated their mission by a series of astounding miracles. Thus the miracle of the book is appropriately believed to have sprung from the center of a God-endowed company. We cannot pause now to prove that these miracles really occurred. All that can be said is that the testimony they rest on is irrefragable, and that they must be admitted to have occurred or the foundations of all history are swept away at a stroke. It is enough here to note how appropriately the wonderful history which has been wrought out by the Bible is made to spring from open miracles. All is here con- sistent and appropriate; and if those miracles which are asserted to have happened really happened, all is explained and constitutes a harmonious whole. Otherwise, we are landed in great difficulties and inconsistencies. If we will ponder the facts which we have so baldly stated, it seems that we must conclude that the external history of this book is such as will so harmonize with a supernatural origin for it as to take away all strangeness from the assertion of such an origin. And what is that but saying that the history of the book suggests a supernatural origin for it — even raises a presumption in favor of such an origin for it? This book is certainly unique in the power it possesses: is 1t not unique in its source of power? It is certainly furnished with an influence possessed by no other book. Whence came it? Il. Tuer STRUCTURE OF THE BIBLE And now let us open the volume and see what kind of a book this is which has exerted such remarkable power through so long and so wonderful a history. We have all, doubtless, a notion of the kind of book a volume is likely to be which will exercise vast influence over men — a masterly argument, say, well ordered and set foursquare 436 APPENDIX against all possible opposition, each part fitted with consummate skill to each other part, and the whole driven with relentless force and un- swerving purpose straight to the intended goal; or a fervid appeal, say, based on the primal emotions of the heart, with burning and well- chosen words touching each string of that mystic harp, beating out from them all one burst of answering music. A consummate master of thought and speech may be thus conceived of as so catching the human heart as to hold it almost permanently. Yet his influence would be limited — notably, by this: the radius of the circle of his sym- pathies. Certainly no man has yet arisen able to frame a writing of universal and age-long influence, simply because no one has arisen yet wholly above the environment of the social customs and age- influence in which he was bred. And certainly it is inconceivable that a book should exert great influence over a wide expanse of territory and through long stretches of time which was not consciously framed for influence by an intelligent and competent mind. All this being true, it is assuredly worth our most serious attention that the Bible is the only book in existence which has any pretensions to being uni- versal and lasting in its influence; and yet, if it be not of superhuman origin, it could not have been framed consciously for influence. Let us look into this fact somewhat more closely. 7. On first throwing open this wonderful volume we are struck immediately with the fact that it is not a book, but rather a congeries of books. No less than sixty-six separate books, one of which consists itself of one hundred and fifty separate compositions, immediately stare us in the face. These treatises come from the hands of at least thirty distinct writers, scattered over a period of some fifteen hundred years, and embrace specimens of nearly every kind of writing known among men. Histories, codes of law, ethical maxims, philosophical treatises, discourses, dramas, songs, hymns, epics, biographies, letters both official and personal, vaticinations, — every kind of composition known beneath heaven seems gathered here in one volume. Their writers, too, were of like diverse kinds. The time of their labors stretches from the hoary past of Egypt to and beyond the bright splendor of Rome under Augustus. They appear to have been of every sort of temperament, of every degree of endowment, of every time of life, of every grade of attainment, of every condition in the social scale. Looked at from a purely external point of view, the volume is a rough bale of drift from the sea of Time, a conglomerate of débris brought down by the waters and cast in a heap together. Nay, not only are there heterogeneous, but seemingly positively con- flicting, elements in it. One half is a mass of Hebrew writings held sacred by a race which cannot look with patience on the other half, which is a mass of Greek writings claiming to set aside the legislation } } ; APPENDIX 437 of a large part of its fellow. Yet it is this congeries of volumes which has had, and still has, this immense influence. The Hebrew half never conquered the world until the Greek half was added to it; the Greek half did not conquer save by the aid of the Hebrew half. The whole mass, 1n all its divinity, has attained the kingship. The question which will not down is, Can the miraculous power of this book be explained by the measure of power to which other books are able to attain? Where does this book, seemingly thus cast together by some whirlpool of time, get its influence? If influence is not natural to such a volume, must it not point to something supernatural in it? Whence came it? 8. We may look, however, on a still greater wonder. Let us once penetrate beneath all this primal diversity and observe the internal — character of the volume, and a most striking unity is found to pef- vade the whole; so that, in spite of having been thus made up of such diverse parts, it forms but one organic whole. The parts are so linked together that the absence of any one book would introduce confusion and disorder. The same doctrine is taught from beginning to end, running like a golden thread through the whole and stringing book after book upon itself like so many pearls. Each book, indeed, adds something in clearness, definition, or even increment, to what the others proclaim; but the development is orderly and constantly pro- gressive. One step leads naturally to the next; the pearls are certainly chosen in the order of stringing. An unbroken historical continuity pervades the whole book. It is even astonishing how accurately the parts historically dovetail to- gether, jag to jag, into one connected and consistent whole. Malachi ends with a finger-post pointing through the silent ages to a path clearly seen in the Gospels. The New Testament fits on to the Old silently and noiselessly, but exactly, just as one stone of the Jewish temple fitted its fellow prepared for it by exact measurement in the quarries; so that, on any careful consideration of the two coexisting phenomena — utter diversity in origin of these books, and yet utter nicety of combination of one with all — it is as impossible to doubt that they were meant each for the other, were consciously framed each for its place, as it is to doubt that the various parts of a compli- cated machine, when brought from the factory and set up in its place of future usefulness, were all carefully framed for one another. But just see where this lands us. Unless we are prepared to allow to a man some fifteen hundred years of conscious existence and in- tellectual supervision of the work, we are shut up here to the ad- mission of a superhuman origin for this book. It is difficult to see how this argument can be really escaped. It will be perceived that it is analogous to what is often urged from the phenomena of the natural 438 APPENDIX universe to prove for it a divine origin. Indeed, all the arguments urged in the one sphere are also capable of being urged in the other. The gradual framing of the Bible through a period of fifteen hundred years excludes human supervision. Now, the Bible, as a whole, is a result or an effect in the universe, and it must have had, as such, an adequate cause, which, since the result is an intelligent one, must have been an intelligent cause: there is the ontological argument, and it proves a superhuman intelligent cause for the Bible. It consists of orderly arranged parts, of an orderly developed scheme: there is the cosmological argument, and again it proves the activity of an intelli- gent cause (and much else not now to be brought out) of at least fifteen hundred years’ duration. It is itself a cause of marvelous effects in the world for the production of which it is most admirably designed, and its whole inner harmony and all its inner relations are most deeply graven with the marks of a design kept constantly before some intelligent mind for at least fifteen hundred years: there is the argument from design, attaining equally far-reaching and cogent con- clusions as in the realm of nature. The analogy need not, however, be drawn out further. An atheist of the present day spoke only sober truth when he declared that the divine origin of the Bible and the divine origin of the world must stand or fall together. The arguments which will prove the one prove also the other. Butler proved .this proposition long ago. It stands indubitable; so that absolute atheism or Christianity must be our only choice. 9. Another point in which the unity of the Bible is strikingly apparent needs our attention next: amid all the diversity of its sub- ject-matter, it may yet be said that almost the whole book is taken up with the portrazture of one person. On its first page he comes for a moment before our astonished eyes; on the last he lingers still before their adoring gaze. And from that first word in Genesis which de- scribes him as the “‘seed of the woman” and at the same time her deliverer — with occasional moments of absence, just as the principal character of a play is not always on the stage, and yet with constant development of character — to the end, where he 1s discovered sitting on the great white throne and judging the nations, the one consistent but gradually developed portraiture grows before our eyes. Not a false stroke is made. Every touch of the pencil is placed just where it ought to stand as part of the whole. There is nowhere the slightest trace of wavering or hesitancy of hand. The draughtsman is certainly a consummate artist. And, as the result of it all, the world is possessed of the strongest, most consistent, most noble literary portraiture to be found in all her literature. Yet we are asked to believe that this grand result has been at- tained, not by the skilled imning of a Michelangelo, but by the dis- APPENDIX 439 connected dabblings of a score and a half of untrained forgers, who, moreover, were ever at cross-purposes with each other. Why, if the creation and successful dramatization, through a few short years, of such a character as Hamlet required the genius of a Shakespeare, what genius was required for this astoundingly successful creation and dramatization of such a character as that of the Gop-MAN through the ages of ages and exons of xons — from the time when at his Father’s side he sat, coequal with him, before all worlds, to the time when these same worlds shall be swallowed up in the final fire! One should certainly rather risk his sanity in the assertion that the play of “‘Hamlet” had formed itself by the fortuitous concourse of the alphabetical signs and made its own portraiture of the subtle Dane, than on the assertion that this portraiture of the Gop-MAN had been attained apart from the constant supervision and active labor of a consummate mind. If we should thus consider this portraiture only as a fiction, it would demand for its author something more than has yet been seen in man. As it is undeniable now that it occupies the chiefest portion of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and binds the portions it occupies together as a consistent dramatization of it- self, it is equally undeniable that these portions of the Bible, at any rate, owe their origin to a mind able to superintend their composition for at least fifteen hundred years with a genius hitherto unexampled among men. 10. One other bond of connection between the parts of the volume must needs be adverted to briefly — that formed by numer- ous predictions of coming events given in the earlier portions and accounts of the fulfillment of them in later portions, by which these later portions are proved to be but the intended outgrowth and con- clusion of the former. These predictions run through an immense range both of time and of circumstance, and are made too precise and detailed in form, and too precise and detailed in the account of their fulfillment, for it to be possible to doubt, on the one hand, that they were real predictions, or, on the other, that they were really fulfilled. Thus the various books are drawn close together; and if the Bible, externally considered, may be likened to a bale of drift, these proph- ecies, given in one part and reaching their fulfillment in another, are the strong cords which bind the bale securely together and make it one whole. The unity induced by this means is, indeed, complete and most conclusive to its own divine origin. 11. Thus we are led to appeal to prophecy, and that not only to prove the unity of the plan of Scripture, but, independent of and far above that — by its very nature as prediction of things yet hidden in the future — as an irrefragable proof of the divine origin of the whole of the closely-knit volume in which it finds place. It is not a 440) APPENDIX function of human intellect to read the secrets of unborn ages; and the existence in this book of accurate, detailed predictions of even unimportant and certainly incalculable events of the far future demon- strates its divine origin. It is, of course, impossible in this brief essay to illustrate the char- acter and convincingness of Scripture prophecy, or even to indicate instances of its unquestionable fulfillment in detail. Were there space, we might point to the immense number of independent predictions, seemingly opposite, or even contradictory, to one another, before their fulfillment, found on the coming of Christ to be harmoniously gath- ered up and fulfilled in his unique personality and work — predictions covering not only the great outlines of his work and the marked traits of his person, but publishing ages beforehand the very village in which he should first see the light, the homage on the one hand, and the abuse on the other, which he should receive, the life he should live and the death he should die, even to the most minute description of the pains he should suffer and the scoffs he should endure as he hung upon the tree — yea, even the exact price of his blood and fate of his betrayer. Or, again, we might point to that ever-living witness to the truth of prophecy in the Jewish race upon whom everything that has been prophesied has been and is being duly fulfilled; or, again, to an infinite multitude of minute details of predictions touching many races and nations which have with infinite might fulfilled themselves everywhere. Space would fail, however, for such an enumeration. And it is the less necessary, now that the feverish efforts, on the part of those who wish to escape from the power of the Bible, to assign later dates to the prophetical books than most cogent proof from many quarters will allow, amount to an admission that the prophetical ele- ment in them cannot be denied. In prophecy, therefore, we have a continual miracle set in the midst of the Bible, to stand in all ages as a sure proof that it comes from God. As each prediction is in turn ful- filled before the eyes of each age which witnesses it, a miracle performs itself (and attests itself in the act) which is as cogent and sufficient evidence of the divine origin of the Bible as if all the miracles of the apostolical age were rewrought in our presence to reaffirm its teaching. Thus we see, in perhaps a new light, the meaning of our Lord’s preg- nant saying: “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rise from the dead.” As, then, when we considered the external history of the Bible, we were driven back, step by step, through marvelous circumstances to open miracles of power proclaiming and demonstrating the divine origin of the book, so here, as soon as we look within it in even the most cursory way, we repeat the same process and move back from marvel to marvel, until we reach the open miracle of prophecy, again APPENDIX 44] independently proving the divine origin of the book after a fashion which cannot be escaped or legitimately questioned. Ill. Tur Tracuine or THe BIBLE The same process is only again repeated, and cumulative evidence for the divine origin of the Bible obtained, when we look somewhat deeper into its contents and ask after the character and witness of its teaching — a subject broad as the earth itself and full of self-evidence, but upon which we have as yet not even cast a glance. The character and the nature of the contents of the Bible alone are enough to prove its divine origin. If men cannot have made the miracles of power by which its publication to the world was accompanied, nor the miracles of prophecy by which its progress through the world has been accom- panied, no more can they have manufactured the miracles of teaching of which its contents consist. Independently of all other evidence, the maracle of the contents demands a divine origin. This, again, may be made plainer by some specifications, which again, however, must be presented in a very naked and fragmentary way. 12. Let us note, then, first of all, the unspeakable elevation and grandeur both of the teaching itself which this book presents and of the assumptions on which it bases that teaching. The conception of God which is here presented — how unutter- ably divine is it! Apart from the Bible, man has never reached to such a conception. This element of it, and that element of it, has, indeed, through the voice of nature, separately dawned upon his soul; but the complete ideal is conveyed to him only by this book. Infinite and eternal spirit — pure and ineffable — unlimited by matter, or space or time, infinite, eternal and unchangeable in essence and attributes! And what a circle of attributes! Infinite power, infinite wisdom, infin- ite justice, infinite holiness, infinite goodness, infinite mercy, infinite pity, infinite love! Verily, if this conception be not a true image of a really existent God, the human heart must say it ought to be. And this is the conception of God which the Bible holds up before us — more than that, which it dramatizes through an infinite series of infinitely varied actions through a period of millenniums of years in perfect consistency of character. Everywhere in its pages God appears as the all-powerful, all-wise, necessarily just and holy One; everywhere as the all-good, all-merciful, necessarily pitiful and loving One. Never is a single one of these ineffable perfections lost or hidden or veiled. The Bible’s conception of the nature of man is of like nobility. Framed in the image of God, he was made like him not only in the passive qualities, but also in his endowment of active capacities. Even freedom of action — unbound ability to choose his own future — were 442 APPENDIX placed in his grasp. So, also, the Bible’s teaching as to the duties that man, even after he has made his fatal choice, owes to God and his neighbor, all founded on the principle of love; its teaching as to the possibilities before man and the destiny in store for him, culminating in the possibility of his enthronement as co-ruler of the universe with his divine Redeemer; its teaching as to the relation of man to the physical and irrational universe as responsible head over it; its teach- ing as to the origin of this universe itself and its purpose and destiny, — all reach the acme of grandeur. These instances must serve us as specimens of the grandeur of its teaching. 13. We must note, still further, that both the general tenor of the Bible and its special assertions are all in precise accord ‘‘ with what the profoundest learning shows to be the actual state of the universe, as well as what the deepest and largest experience establishes as the actual course of nature.”’ And it is a very pertinent question how it happens that the Bible was able, alone of ancient books, to forestall the conclusions of the latest science of the nineteenth century. It has taken scientific thought up to to-day to bring its conceptions of the origin of the world to the point at which Moses stood some three millenniums ago. This, again, must serve us now as a specimen fact (among a multitude) proving that ‘‘whoever wrote this book knew more than we know, and knew it distinctly when we knew nothing.”’ Yet, although possessed of a knowledge thus unspeakably ad- vanced beyond all of their time, the writers of this book do not seem to have been proud of their possession or anxious to display it; they do not even formally transmit their knowledge, but simply act and speak on its presupposition; so that when we reach an equal stage of advancement to theirs, without having been hitherto conscious of its presence, we suddenly find it there continually implied and constantly underlying every part. It is thus always most deeply felt by those most conversant with the progress of knowledge, and yet does not in any degree clog the understanding of the book for the purpose for which it was given by those who are as yet ignorant of the basis of physical or philosophical fact assumed. 14. Thus we are led to take note of another general characteristic of biblical teaching — the fact that all its great truths are universal truths; i.e., truths capable of reaching and making entrance into and taking a strong hold upon the heart of man as man, and of all men equally, independently of their race-affinities, intellectual advance- ment or social standing. That this should be so is undoubtedly a great wonder, and it is redoubled when we remember that it is correlated with great and remarkable knowledge. Usually, when the profound philosopher speaks, he needs philosophers for his audience; and yet here is a book which naturally and without effort betrays acquaint- — se iniaatiieadl ‘< APPENDIX 443 ance with the deepest reaches of modern discovery, and yet in its every accent speaks home to the child as readily as to the sage. In still another respect this same fact — namely, that the truths of the Bible “find us” — has probative force, since, herefrom, it is equally evident that the Bible is suited to man and that its asserted truths are instinctively recognized by man as actual truths. The Bible’ thus certainly comes with a message to man — one that is recognized by each man who needs its words as specially for him, and that is witnessed to instinctively by each as true. How does it happen that this book, alone among books, reaches the heart alike of the Bushman and of a Newton? of a savage lost in the horrors of savagery and of a Faraday sitting aloft on the calm and clear if somewhat chill heights of science? This universality of effect seems to prove a corresponding universality of intention. But who of men has ever been able to hold before him as recipients of his book all men of all ages? Who has been able to calculate upon the hearts and characters of men removed from him by such stretches of both time and circumstance? Who could have been able to adapt a message penned in a corner, ages agone, to the mental position of the nineteenth century and the hearts of a Newton and a Faraday’? Yet we must assume for the Bible an author who was capable of this. Was Moses capable of it? Was an anonymous forger of his name? 15. We must, however, turn to note another general characteristic of Scripture — the remarkable simplicity of its manner and the trans- parent honesty of its tone; so that its words, even when describing the most utter marvels, possess that calm, quiet ring which stamps them with indubitable truthfulness. If we are asked why we trust a friend in whom we have every confidence, and credit his every state- ment, we may be somewhat at a loss for a definite answer. “‘We know him,’’ we say. This same evidence is good also for a book. We may judge of the truthfulness of men’s writings by all those little intangible characteristics which when united go toward making a very strong impression of actual proof, but which one by one are almost too small to adduce or even notice, just as we may judge of the trustiness of men’s characters by all the innumerable looks, gestures, chance ex- pressions, little circumstances which make their due impression on us. Combined, they are convincing, though each by itself might seem ambiguous or valueless. The conclusion in each case 1s, however, valid and rational, and the evidence is unmistakably good evidence. Now, for the Bible, this evidence is unusually strong; and thus it happens that men who do not know how to reason, and who are incapable of following a closely-reasoned argument, are accepting the Bible on all sides of us on truly rational and valid evidence, and accepting it on like evidence as divine. They are continually reading accounts of 444 APPENDIX miracles so numerous and so striking that the witnesses of them could not be mistaken; so embedded in a narrative of such artlessness, gravity, honesty, intelligence, straightforwardness as palpably to be neither fraud nor fancy that they form part and parcel of it and are absolutely inseparable from it; so embedded in a narrative which ap- proves itself by a thousand simple and inimitable hints and traits to be transparently truthful and trustworthy that they must stand or fall with it. Now, this is most rational evidence, and evidence sostrong that it is as difficult for the honest mind to resist it as it is for us to express it. 16. It becomes surely, then, of sufficient importance to justify special notice that in the midst of this narrative, and scattered all through it, we find calm and simple, but frequent, constant, and steadfast, assertions of a divine origin for itself. So honest and trans- parently truthful a narrative, filled with marks everywhere of super- human knowledge, naturally enough does not, in the pride of human nature, claim all this superhuman knowledge for its human authors, but ascribes it all to God; naturally enough empties its human authors of any credit for knowledge before the time of knowledge and plans beyond the reach of man and ascribes it all to God. And its very honesty and simplicity of statement, the transparent honesty of this statement, proves the assertion truthful and trustworthy. Here, then, once more, we reach through orderly steps, exhibiting at each stage marks of God’s hand, the assertion of a divine origin; here, once more, after walking through the aisles and nave and choir of a grand cathe- dral filled all along with the marks of genius in its planning and exe- cution, we reach again the wall, and, lo! on it the marks of the chisel and the superscription of the Architect that prove it was made by a competent mind and did not grow. It is very difficult to see but that the argument, if fully drawn out and illustrated, is conclusive. IV. SPpEcIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BIBLE Another, and an even more cogent, argument might be presented from a consideration of some special characteristics either of the whole Bible or of some of its parts — an argument hitherto untouched. This argument would soon, however, grow much too vast to be included in this essay. We must content ourselves with only pointing at a distance to only one particular which might, were there space, be urged most convincingly. 17. We refer to the progressive character of the teaching included in this book, with the special cases which might be adduced under that head. It begins with first principles expressed in outward symbol, and advances gradually to the full system, working out its approaches SS RSNA Re i APPENDIX 445 in history before delivering it in dogma. We do not urge simply that this progressive scheme is consistent with a divine origin for it; we urge that this supremely wise method of delivering truth and training a people, taken in connection with the unity of the system throughout the whole, is consistent with nothing else. No doctrinaire made this Bible — see what kind of work they do in the history of Middle-Age Florence and Revolutionary France — but a most consummate states- man who knew what was in man and how to mould him to his purposes. We would appeal, in this connection — progressiveness — spe- cially to the practical and practicable character of Old-Testament legislation. And thus we are led to assert that those very passages concerning polygamy and kindred themes (which have been made an occasion of gibe against the Scriptures) are themselves a most cogent argument for their divine origin. We Americans ought to know by this time that the best way to secure polygamy unharmed and en- shrine it unconquerably under the protection of a nation is to write on the statute-books inoperative laws against it. The Bible was framed by too wise a statesman to fall into that error, and we who enjoy Christian homes to-day have to thank God for it. The unspeakable wisdom of dealing at that age, and under those circumstances, with polygamy, divorce, slavery by regulative laws, which in regulating discouraged, and in discouraging destroyed them, makes strongly for a superhuman origin of the legislation. So, again, growing out of this same progressive system, we could appeal most strongly to the ritualistic system of symbolical worship given to the Jews and by law secured from failure, by which object lessons — all schoolmasters to lead to something better and higher — were ineffaceably taught to a whole nation, which was thus prepared to receive the spiritual lesson meant for it. Still again we should appeal to the wise method of New-Testament legislation through great principles rather than specific ordinances, thus securing absolute universality in connection with perfect definite- ness; or again to the remarkable tenderness and beauty of this legisla- tion, especially apparent in the cases of slaves, wives and children and temporal rulers — a phenomenon in the age when it was given enough of itself to suggest a divine origin for the one book which contains it; or still again to the wise silence of the same legislation on many sub- jects on which it must have been very tempting then to legislate, but legislation on which we can see now would have imperiled the success of the main purpose for which the book was given and obtained no corresponding gain. On all these and like points, however, it is not now possible to touch. We pass on, therefore, to our last remark. 446 APPENDIX V. IMPOSSIBILITY OF ACCOUNTING FOR THE BIBLE 18. That the Bible, thus standing in the world, being of such sort, and having had such a history, has yet to be accounted for on the hypothesis that it had only a human origin. Here it stands, just such a fact in the universe, a substantive thing, tangible and that can be examined. The ingenuity of men has been feverishly busy with it these hundreds of years. Yet the world still awaits a theory which will render an adequate account of it on any other hypothesis than that it came from God. Theories have been attempted, but one after another they have broken down of their own weight or have had justice executed upon them by fellow-unbelieving hands amid the plaudits of all men of all parties. Thus it happens that up to to-day no hypothesis except that of superhuman interference has been able to stand a half cen- tury as an account of the origin of this book. What is this but the confession that without the assumption of superhuman interference this book cannot be accounted for? that these miraculous claims and these miraculous assertions cannot be rationally or satisfactorily ex- plained away? Look for one moment at the efforts made to account on natural grounds for the miraculous element in the New Testament. First, a school arose which tried to work on the assumption that when- ever a miracle is recorded the event described did really happen, in- deed, but that it has been exaggeratedly and mistakenly described as miraculous, and not merely natural, by the New-Testament writers. The sick were healed, but by medicinal means; the dead were raised, but only from seeming, not real, death. That attempt to explain away the miraculous failed, as requiring as great a series of miracles of wonderful coincidences as it explained away. Another then arose which wished to account for it all as a series of myths, holding that there was a kernel of truth in each event described, but that this kernel had gathered much falsehood around it as it rolled through time, from mouth to mouth, before it got recorded in our Bible, just as a snowball grows almost unrecognizably greater as it rolls down a long slope. But this attempt was wrecked hopelessly on the lack of a soil for the myths to grow in (that is, of snow to frame the balls of) and of time for them to increase in (that is, of any hill for them to roll down). Then another rose on its ruins — an elaborate theory of party strifes and forgeries and reforgeries of books in every conceiv- able interest; so that the same material was worked over and over again by false and designing men, to serve each new notion, until the final outcome was our New Testament. Again this theory was wrecked on the lack of time for all this elaborate process before the date at which adequate proof is in hand for the existence of the books. The whole elaborate scheme falls with the failure of the APPENDIX __ 447 attempted rape of the second century. It cannot be true unless all history is false. Time is lacking for the New Testament to have grown in, if con- sidered a product of time; whence, then, came it? Soil is lacking for it to have developed in, if considered a human development; then, whence came it? All schemes which have hitherto been invented to account for its origin without God have pitiably failed, and there is no particular reason to look for anything more cogent to be advanced in the future. If, however, this book cannot be accounted for apart from God, we seem shut up to account for it as from him. Certainly, the only rational course is to accept it as from him until it is able to be rationally accounted for without his interference. With this we may fitly close our inquiry. The query with which we started seems abundantly answered. A supernatural origin for the Bible appears cumulatively proven. In closing, it would be well for us to take note of one or two facts in regard to the argument which has been offered. Let it be observed, then: 1. That no attempt has been made to distinguish between a super- human and a divine origin for the Bible. This is not because the two are not separable, but only because they are, in our present argument, practically the same. 2. That no attempt has been made to distinguish between the divine origin of the system and that of the books recording that system. This, again, is not because the two are not separable, but only because, so. far as the argument has been pressed — though not much farther — the two need not be practically separated. 3. That no question has been raised as to the extent of the divine in the Bible. This is due to three facts: Because this question need not be raised primarily for the establishment of the faith, but is neces- sarily a consequent one to be raised after the general divine origin of the book is admitted; because, again, the humble Christian often looks upon and draws life from the Bible without raising this question, simply accepting what he reads as divinely given to strengthen his faith; and because, again, it was impossible in one essay to treat both questions. 4. That, nevertheless, the facts and arguments which have been adduced in a general way to prove the general divine origin of the Bible not only prepare the way, but even, narrowly questioned, will raise a strong presumption, for the further conclusions that this book has been not only in a general way given by God, but also specifically inspired in the giving, that thus its every word is from him, and that it is worthy of our reverent and loving credence in its every particular. APPENDIX Il THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT: HOW AND WHEN FORMED hase >, pd ny tf 4 (ve aan THE FORMATION OF THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT! In order to obtain a correct understanding of what is called the formation of the Canon of the New Testament, it is necessary to begin by fixing very firmly in our minds one fact which is obvious enough when attention is once called to it. That is, that the Christian church did not require to form for itself the idea of a “‘canon,’’ — or, as we should more commonly call it, of a ‘‘Bible,’’ — that is, of a collection of books given of God to be the authoritative rule of faith and prac- tice. It inherited this idea from the Jewish church, along with the thing itself, the Jewish Scriptures, or the ‘“‘Canon of the Old Testa- ment.’’ The church did not grow up by natural law: it was founded. And the authoritative teachers sent forth by Christ to found His church, carried with them, as their most precious possession, a body of divine Scriptures, which they imposed on the church that they founded as its code of law. No reader of the New Testament can need proof of this; on every page of that book is spread the evidence that from the very beginning the Old Testament was as cordially recog- nized as law by the Christian as by the Jew. The Christian church thus was never without a ‘“‘Bible”’ or a ‘“‘canon.”’ But the Old Testament books were not the only ones which the | apostles (by Christ’s own appointment the authoritative founders of the church) imposed upon the infant churches, as their authoritative rule of faith and practice. No more authority dwelt in the prophets of the old covenant than in themselves, the apostles, who had been ‘‘made sufficient as ministers of a new covenant’’; for (as one of them- selves argued) “if that which passeth away was with glory, much more that which remaineth is in glory.’’ Accordingly not only was the gospel they delivered, in their own estimation, itself a divine reve- lation, but it was also preached “‘in the Holy Ghost” (I Pet. 1. 12); not merely the matter of it, but the very words in which it was clothed were ‘‘of the Holy Spirit’’ (I Cor. ii. 13). Their own commands were, therefore, of divine authority (I Thess. iv. 2), and their writings were the depository of these commands (II Thess. i. 15). “Tf any man obeyeth not our word by this epistle,’’ says Paul to one church (II Thess. iii. 14), ‘note that man, that ye have no company with 1 Pub. 1892, by the American Sunday School Union, Philadelphia, Pa. 451 A52 APPENDIX him.’’ To another he makes it the test of a Spirit-led man to recog- nize that what he was writing to them was “the commandments of the Lord” (I Cor. xiv. 37). Inevitably, such writings, making so awful a claim on their acceptance, were received by the infant churches as of a quality equal to that of the old ‘‘ Bible’’; placed alongside of its older books as an additional part of the one law of God; and read as such in their meetings for worship — a practice which moreover was required by the apostles (I Thess. v. 27; Col. iv. 16; Rev. 1. 3). In the apprehension, therefore, of the earliest churches, the ‘“‘Scriptures”’ were not a closed but an increasing ‘‘canon.’’ Such they had been from the beginning, as they gradually grew in number from Moses to Malachi; and such they were to continue as long as there should re- main among the churches ‘‘men of God who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” We say that this immediate placing of the new books — given the church under the seal of apostolic authority — among the Scriptures already established as such, was inevitable. It is also historically evinced from the very beginning. Thus the apostle Peter, writing in A.D. 68, speaks of Paul’s numerous letters not in contrast with the Scriptures, but as among the Scriptures and in contrast with ‘‘the other Scriptures”’ (II Pet. 11. 16) — that is, of course, those of the Old Testament. In like manner the apostle Paul combines, as if it were the most natural thing in the world, the book of Deuteronomy and the Gospel of Luke under the common head of “Scripture” (I Tim. v. 18): ‘For the Scripture saith, ‘Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn’ [| Deut. xxv. 4]; and, ‘The laborer is worthy of his hire’”’ (Luke x. 7). The line of such quotations is never broken in Christian literature. Polycarp (c. 12) in A.D. 115 unites the Psalms and Ephesians in exactly similar manner: ‘‘In the sacred books, ... as it is said in these Scriptures, ‘Be ye angry and sin not,’ and ‘ Let not the sun go down upon your wrath.’”’ So, a few years later, the so-called second letter of Clement, after quoting Isaiah, adds (11. 4): ‘‘ And another Scripture, however, says, ‘I came not to call the right- eous, but sinners’’’ — quoting from Matthew, a book which Barnabas (cerca 97-106 A.D.) had already adduced as Scripture. After this such quotations are common. What needs emphasis at present about these facts is that they obviously are not evidences of a gradually-heightening estimate of the New Testament books, originally received on a lower level and just beginning to be tentatively accounted Scripture; they are conclusive evidences rather of the estimation of the New Testament books from the very beginning as Scripture, and of their attachment as Scripture to the other Scriptures already in hand. The early Christians did not, then, first form a rival ‘“‘canon”’ of ‘‘new books” which came only o~ AE pare ber Cn oe eee” bcs APPENDIX 453 gradually to be accounted as of equal divinity and authority with the “old books”’; they received new book after new book from the apos- tolical circle, as equally “‘Scripture” with the old books, and added them one by one to the collection of old books as additional Scrip- tures, until at length the new books thus added were numerous enough to be looked upon as another section of the Scriptures. The earliest name given to this new section of Scripture was framed on the model of the name by which what we know as the Old Testament was then known. Just as it was called ‘‘The Law and the Prophets and the Psalms” (or ‘‘the Hagiographa’’), or more briefly ‘‘The Law and the Prophets,” or even more briefly still ‘‘The Law’’; so the enlarged Bible was called ‘‘The Law and the Prophets, with the Gospels and the Apostles’? (so Clement of Alexandria, ‘““Strom.”’ vi. 11, 88; Tertullian, ‘‘De Pres. Her.’’ 36), or most briefly “The Law and the Gospel”’ (so Claudius Apolinaris, Irenzeus) ; while the new books apart were called ‘‘The Gospel and the Apostles,” or most briefly of all ‘‘The Gospel.’’ This earliest name for the new Bible, with all that it involves as to its relation to the old and briefer Bible, is traceable as far back as Ignatius (A.D. 115), who makes use of it repeatedly (e. g., ‘“‘ad Philad.’’5; “‘ad Smyrn.” 7). In one passage he gives us a hint of the controversies which the enlarged Bible of the Christians aroused among the Judaizers (‘‘ad Philad.”’ 6). ‘‘When I heard some saying,”’ he writes, ‘‘‘ Unless I find it in the Old [Books | I will not believe the Gospel,’ on my saying, ‘It is written,’ they answered, ‘That is the question.’ To me, however, Jesus Christ 7s the Old [Books]; his cross and death and resurrection, and the faith which is by him, the undefiled Old [Books ]— by which I wish, by your prayers, to be justified. The priests indeed are good, but the High Priest better,” etc. Here Ignatius appeals to the “Gospel” as Scripture, and the Judaizers object, receiving from him the answer in effect which Augustine afterward formulated in the well-known saying that the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is first made clear in the New. What we need now to ob- serve, however, is that to Ignatius the New Testament was not a different book from the Old Testament, but part of the one body of Scripture with it; an accretion, so to speak, which had grown upon it. This is the testimony of all the early witnesses — even those which speak for the distinctively Jewish-Christian church. For ex- ample, that curious Jewish-Christian writing, ‘‘The Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs” (Benj. 11), tells us, under the cover of an ex post facto prophecy, that the “work and word”’ of Paul, 1.e., confessedly the book of Acts and Paul’s Epistles, ‘shall be written in the Holy Books,” i.e., as is understood by all, made a part of the existent Bible. So even in the Talmud, in a scene intended to ridicule a ‘“‘bishop”’ of 454 APPENDIX the first century, he is represented as finding Galatians by ‘‘sinking himself deeper” into the same “‘ Book” which contained the Law of Moses (‘“‘Babl. Shabbath,’’ 116 a and b). The details cannot be entered into here. Let it suffice to say that, from the evidence of the fragments which alone have been preserved to us of the Christian writings of that very early time, it appears that from the beginning of the second century (and that is from the end of the apostolic age) a collection (Ignatius, II Clement) of ‘‘ New Books”’ (Ignatius), called the ‘‘Gospel and Apostles’? (Ignatius, Marcion), was already a part of the ‘‘Oracles”’ of God (Polycarp, Papias, II Clement), or ‘‘Scrip- tures’ (I Tim., II Pet., Barn., Polycarp, II Clement), or the ‘‘ Holy Books” or ‘‘Bible”’ (Testt. XII. Patt.). The number of books included in this added body of New Books, at the opening of the second century, cannot be satisfactorily deter- mined by the evidence of these fragments alone. The section of it called the ‘“‘Gospel”’ included Gospels written by ‘‘the apostles and their companions”’ (Justin), which beyond legitimate question were our four Gospels now received. The section called “the Apostles” contained the book of Acts (The Testt. XII. Patt.) and epistles of Paul, John, Peter and James. The evidence from various quarters is indeed enough to show that the collection in general use con- tained all the books which we at present receive, with the possible exceptions of Jude, II and III John and Philemon. And it is more natural to suppose that failure of very early evidence for these brief booklets is due to their insignificant size rather than to their non- acceptance. It is to be borne in mind, however, that the extent of the collec- tion may have — and indeed is historically shown actually to have — varied in different localities. The Bible was circulated only in hand- copies, slowly and painfully made; and an incomplete copy, obtained say at Ephesus in A.D. 68, would be likely to remain for many years the Bible of the church to which it was conveyed; and might indeed become the parent of other copies, incomplete like itself, and thus the means of providing a whole district with incomplete Bibles. Thus, when we inquire after the history of the New Testament Canon we need to distinguish such questions as these: (1) When was the New Testament Canon completed? (2) When did any one church acquire a completed canon? (3) When did the completed canon — the com- plete Bible — obtain universal circulation and acceptance? (4) On what ground and evidence did the churches with incomplete Bibles accept the remaining books when they were made known to them? The Canon of the New Testament was completed when the last authoritative book was given to any church by the apostles, and that was when John wrote the Apocalypse, about A.D. 98. Whether the APPENDIX 455 church of Ephesus, however, had a completed Canon when it received the Apocalypse, or not, would depend on whether there was any epistle, say that of Jude, which had not yet reached it with authenti- cating proof of its apostolicity. There is room for historical investi- gation here. Certainly the whole Canon was not universally received by the churches till somewhat later. The Latin church of the second and third centuries did not quite know what to do with the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Syrian churches for some centuries may have lacked the lesser of the Catholic Epistles and Revelation. But from the time of Irenzeus down, the church at large had the whole Canon as we now possess it. And though a section of the church may not yet have been satisfied of the apostolicity of a certain book or of certain books; and though afterwards doubts may have arisen in sections of the church as to the apostolicity of certain books (ase. g. of Revelation) : yet in no case was it more than a respectable minority of the church which was slow in receiving, or which came afterward to doubt, the credentials of any of the books that then as now con- stituted the Canon of the New Testament accepted by the church at large. And in every case the principle on which a book was accepted, or doubts against it laid aside, was the historical tradition of apos- tolicity. Let it, however, be clearly understood that it was not exactly apostolic authorship which in the estimation of the earliest churches, constituted a book a portion of the ‘‘canon.’’ Apostolic authorship was, indeed, early confounded with canonicity. It was doubt as to the apostolic authorship of Hebrews, in the West, and of James and Jude, apparently, which underlay the slowness of the inclusion of these books in the ‘“‘canon”’ of certain churches. But from the beginning it was not so. The principle of canonicity was not apostolic authorship, but zmposition by the apostles as “law.’’ Hence Tertullian’s name for the “canon”? is ‘‘instrumentum”’; and he speaks of the Old and New Instrument as we would of the Old and New Testament. That the apostles so imposed the Old Testament on the churches which they founded — as their “Instrument,” or “‘ Law,” or ‘‘Canon”’ — can be denied by none. And in imposing new books on the same churches, by the same apostolical authority, they did not confine themselves to books of their own composition. It is the Gospel according to Luke, a man who was not an apostle, which Paul parallels in I Tim. v. 18 with Deuteronomy as equally ‘‘Scripture”’ with it, in the first extant quotation of a New Testament book as Scripture. The Gospels which constituted the first division of the New Books, — of ‘‘The Gospel and the Apostles,’’ — Justin tells us, were “written by the apostles and their companions.”’ The authority of the apostles, as by divine appointment founders of the church, was embodied in whatever books 456 APPENDIX they imposed on the church as law, not merely in those they them- selves had written. The early churches, in short, received, as we receive, into their New Testament all the books historically evinced to them as given by the apostles to the churches as their code of law; and we must not mistake the historical evidences of the slow circulation and au- thentication of these books over the widely-extended church, for evi- dence of slowness of “‘canonization”’ of books by the authority or the taste of the church itself. 7 : pe Wee Aree | Wl ide wile PER cy : rite a, ue iy) | ov af Al Mids Hier i a) hy, AAP Wed 1) 74 ar Pep / ae POLY pas Pay Ai ' a) Ay i PRN AL Paehin aa, 4 f My ie on ane ay Lh 7 h y le Cae ‘9 ‘ ; REN) LUE Be) a FT eA, tea bid Del rs ie Fa ‘ | ‘ Md’ Wa Te ate LM + ‘i Ae vil MA) , § has had BS480 .W277 c.5 he and inspiration, n Theological Seminar 1 1012 Q0006 4008 DATE DUE DEMCO 38-297 weer EAN Paz Diy, Pn Evy, Pe kiwy 3 Nt by a ora oy Pepe eh afi * eheoey abt ae es wt: . Pa MH ys tere yy , ea > . yu i vies 4A Oey, thst tae “ ite i ’ pia) tae 4; yah,