The Lord of Glory; Counterfeit Miracles; Revelation and Inspiration

““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, however, been broken, and that by no less an authority than Prof.

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 Scripture, in II Tim. ii. 16, not according to its origin, but according 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 “‘Supplement,’’ 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 accessible 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, Heodéyuwv, OeodexTwp, Oeompdb7ros, Deduavris, Oeddpwv, Oeoppabuwv, Oeoppadrys, EvOeos, EvOovotaorns, 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, 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 6eoqéumtous. 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 ‘‘Sibyllines’? 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 designation 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 indubitable from ‘Sibyll.’, v. 406 and the two passages last adduced. Never-

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 plenitudinem 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 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 criticism of Dr. Cremer’s reasoning, from the pen of Prof. Dr. L. Schulze, of Rostock, appeared in the Theologisches Literaturblaté 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 statement 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 apology 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, 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 concerns 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), transmitted 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 Hellenistic 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.

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 positive 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.

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.

note: '° ‘‘deoréumrous reposuit editor Lips. ut ex Gal. et Mosc. At in neutro haec reperio. Sane non est quare compilatori elegantias obtrudamus.” Oeoméurrovs is therefore not Wyttenbach’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 @eomeuntous 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 eorvetctous 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 elegantiorem lectionem e Mosq. et Gal. sumptam. In neutro se hoc reperisse W. notat, addens, non esse quare compilatori elegantias obtrudamus. Cors. e Gal. notat 7@v dveipwr rods pev Geomvevarous.’’ * Corsini does indeed so report, his note running: ‘‘Paullo aliter’’ (i. e., from the ordinary text which he reprints from Stephens) ‘‘Galenus, 7@yv dveipwv tovs wey OeomvevoTous, Somniorum ea quidem quae divinitus inspirata sint, etc.” “ But this is exactly what Beck says, and nothing other,

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.

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 Bernardakis (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 excursion 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- 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, inasmuch 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, therefore, 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,

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.

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

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 archetype.” 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, therefore, 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 desperatam 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).

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 alluded 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 indice Plutarcheo. si Galenum inspexisset, ipsum illud OeoréymTous 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 archetypo 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).

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 example 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 cannot feel at all certain that Diels’ solution is the right one. There is an @ priort unlikelihood in its way: deliberate corruption of texts is relatively rare and not to be assumed without good reason. The parallel from the Pseudo-Phocylides 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 character be attributed to the word, could it not be equally plausibly argued that it was therefore offensive to the Christian consciousness in this heathen connection, and was accordingly 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 connection 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 contrast 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 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 substitution 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 copyist 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. ‘‘Godsent dreams’’ must have almost had the rank of a ‘‘ terminus technicus.’’ * Moreover the scribe had just written the word

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 foreknowledge 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), corresponding 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.

in the immediate context, and that not without close contiguity 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 account 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 assumption 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 investigation; 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.

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 rashness of pronouncing words of this kind to be of Christian origin; and suggests the hesitancy with which we should extrude 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 Holstenius: ‘“‘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.”’

40 No derivative of xpicrés except xpioriaves is found in the New Testament.

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 OeoréumrTous 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. Alexandrinerzeit,” 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 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 exclusively 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 @eozvevoTos, 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:

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 inspired,”’ 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 implications 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.”

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 immanent 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 skillfully 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 metropolis”’ of all the rest), her reputation for folly (also adverted to and quaintly explained by Strabo), her present decadence, and her situation by running waters (a trait indicated also by her coins which show that there was a stream |

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.

near by called Xanthus). It has been customary to understand by ‘‘thetheopneustic streams’’ mentioned, somestreams or fountains in the neighborhood known for the presumptively 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 Ionians and Avolians, were accustomed to resort for their oracles to the somewhat distant Branchide, in the south.*® It appears 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 ‘‘theopneustic,”’ 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 worshiped, 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 omnibus 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

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.

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 equivalent 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, doubtless 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 wisdom.’’ Undoubtedly it is itself the inspirer of the speech that manifests it, and we might manage to interpret the OeomvevaTou as so designating it — ‘‘God-inspiring, God-breathing 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* designated, as so frequently in the Old Testament, as operating as a breathing.

A passage that has come to light since Dr. Cremer’s investigation 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 ‘‘ Godredolent 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 something 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 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 directly 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 calculated 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 contrasting 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 spiritless (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-

Kai démicrepos éotts ixdver ZHmepov bpelwy péoos tararat, ov modds aKkpov,

*Avdpouenv tadaunv ov aétds elute medAdooas, Adoat podvov tuavra Oeorvebatoro medidov.

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 theopneustics, 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 supposes 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:

selves.’’ Particularly distinguished Christians might therefore 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 Nicephorus Callistus, (“H. E.,’’xi, 35) — 6 6etos Mapxos —that is to say ‘‘Saint Mark,” of which 6 Oedrvevotos Mapxos is doubtless 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 characteristic. 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 Nicephorus 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.

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 understood 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 determination 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 adduction: 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 connection 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 Alexandria the term Oedmvevotros appears as one of the most common technical designations of Scripture. The following scattered instances, gathered at random, will serve to illustrate this use of it sufficiently for our purpose. Clement of Alexandria: ‘“‘Strom.,” vii. 16, §101 (Klotz, ili. 286; Potter, 894), ‘‘ Accordingly those fall from their eminence who follow 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 inspired words (rots Oeomvevarots \oyous) handed down by the blessed apostles and teachers, by diverse arguments, opposing 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 salvation, 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 inspiration of the Holy Scripture (Oeiw yeypadbat mvevyati), but differ as to its interpretation”’; (12, 1084), ‘‘ Therefore the inspired 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 regarding 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 inspired (Oedmvevoror) they are profitable”; “Selecta in Psalmos,”

to begin the interpretation of the Psalms, we prefix a very

excellent tradition handed down by the Hebrew * to us generally 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 proportion 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 understand 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- 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 the Scriptures He gives His people (II Tim. i. 16). By an extension 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 meaning of ‘‘divine.’?’ Nowhere is there a trace of such an active significance as ‘‘God-breathing”’; and though in the application of the word to individual men and to our Lord’s sandals there may be an approach to the sense of ‘‘Godimbued,” 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 passive 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 preferring the sense of ‘‘gifted or filled with God’s Spirit, divinely 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 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 contemplation 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 include 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, however. 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 dedmrvevotos 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 something good by the breath, as ‘‘endowed with good breath,”’ and expresses, therefore, just like amvevoros, ‘“‘breathless,”’

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, ‘‘ Godpervaded”’), rather than “blown into by God” (Gotteingewehet, ‘‘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 @eoavvaxtos, 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, became 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.

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 compressed and strong term. For @edmvevoros (like etrvevotos, accurately, ‘well-breathed’) must mean ‘God-breathed’ or ‘God-animated’ (Gottbeathmet, or Gottbegeistert), and, in accordance 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 mislead, affirming a general but not perfect accord of the idea involved in it with Philo’s conception of Scripture, and insisting 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 (Gottbegetstet), 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,

in a quite general sense, God-breathed, God-inspired (Gottbeathmet, 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 reference 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 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 contended, 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 consideration that compounds of verbals in -ros with Oeds normally 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-instruments: its cognates are used of “inspiration.’’ Only wupimvevoros = rupimvoos = “‘fire-breathing”’ is distinctively active in usage: cf. avamvevorus, poetic for dmvevetos = ‘‘breathless.”’

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, Oedyvwotos, 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, OedmataTos, 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 general 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-imitating), 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 (‘‘ Godheard,’’ 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 (‘‘ flowing 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 preposition, and that the sense would be suggested by some such phrases as ‘* God-asked-of,”’ ‘‘ God-offered-to,”’ ‘‘ God-flowedfrom,” “‘God-made-room-for.”’ In any event, these few exceptional 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 ‘‘Godbreathed,’’ 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 alternatives 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 ‘‘ Godimbued.’’ 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 OeéumvevoTos. 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 supporting 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 proposed one. All this seems to be due, not merely to the traditional rendering of the word itself, but also to the conception of the nature of the divine action commonly expressed by the term, ‘“‘inspiration,’’ and indeed to the doctrine 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 ing prepossessions and consider the term without preoccupation 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 remarked, 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 overdrawn. 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 Theodotion 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 received ointment on His head, that He might breathe incorruption 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.

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 Theodotion. 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 unknown 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 expressive 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 creative act (Job xxxil. 8, xxxili. 4); and not only was he accustomed 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 animal 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 conception that it is the Spirit of God that is the active agent in the production of all that is. To the Hebrew consciousness, creation 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 theopneustic, 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 therefore from the point of view of its conception, it is just, after the nature of Greek compounds, the appropriate crystallization 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 belongs to it by virtue of its formation, and which is commended 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 creative 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 application of this conception to Scripture, such as is made in}II Tim. iii. 16, was no less consonant with the ideas concerning the origin and nature of Scripture which prevailed in the circles out of which that epistle proceeded. This may indeed be fairly held to be generally conceded.

The main object of Ewald’s earlier treatment of this passage, to be sure, was to void the word @edmvevoros of all implication as to the origination of Scripture. By assigning to it the sense of ‘‘ God-pervaded,”’ ‘‘full of God’s Spirit,’’ he supposed 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 afterwards, 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 dominant. 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 conceptions 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

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 Biblical 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 suggests, 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 conception 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 acceptation, according to which, therefore, the theopneusty is ascribed 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 differ is apparently common to the two writers: only Holtzmann 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 authorization.

No such fundamental difference between the Philonian and New Testament conceptions as is here erected, however, can possibly be made out; though whatever minor differences 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, — consistently 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 Holtzmann 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 ascribes 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.”