Paul of II Timothy, or as to Philo himself, the Scriptures are the product of the Divine Spirit, and would be most appropriately described by the epithet of ‘‘God-breathed,”’ 1. e., produced by the breath, the inspiration, of God.
The entire distinction which it is sought to erect between the New Testament and the Philonic conceptions of Scripture, as if to the New Testament writers the Scriptures were less the oracles of God than to Philo, and owed their origin less directly to God’s action, and might therefore be treated as less divine in character or operation, hangs in the mere air. There may be fairly recognized certain differences between the New Testament and the Philonic conceptions of Scripture; but they certainly do not move in this fundamental region. The epithet ‘‘God-breathed,” “produced by the creative breath of the Almighty,” commends itself, therefore, as one which would lie near at hand and would readily express the fundamental view as to the origination of Scripture current among the whole body of New Testament writers, as well as among the whole mass of their Jewish contemporaries, amid whom they were bred. The distinction between the inspiration of the writers and that of the record, is a subtlety of later times of which they were guiltless: as is also the distinction between the origination of Scripture by the action of the Holy Ghost and the infusing of the Holy Spirit into Scriptures originating by human activity. To the writers of this age of simpler faith, the Scriptures are penetrated by God because they were given by God: and the question of their effects, or even of their nature, was not consciously separated from the question of their origin. The one sufficient and decisive fact concerning them to these writers, inclusive of all else and determinative of all else that was true of them as the Word of God, was that they were ‘‘God-given,”’ or, more precisely, the product of God’s creative ‘‘breath.”’
In these circumstances it can hardly be needful to pause to point out in detail how completely this conception accords with the whole New Testament doctrine of Scripture, and with the entire body of phraseology currently used in it to express its divine origination. We need only recall the declarations that the Holy Spirit is the author of Scripture (Heb. ili. 7, x. 15), ‘“‘in whom”’ it is, therefore, that its human authors speak (Matt. xxii. 483; Mark xii. 36), because it is He that speaks what they speak ‘‘through them”’ (Acts i. 16, iv. 25), they being but the media of the prophetic word GViattate22 11615) tie sive 14) vill. 17; xis D7 ex Soexxi 4) xxiv. 15, xxvii. 9, Luke xviii. 31, Acts ii. 16, xxvii. 25, Rom. i. 2, Luke i. 76, Acts i. 16, iii. 18, 21). The whole underlying conception of such modes of expression is in principle set forth in the command of Jesus to His disciples that, in their times of need, they should depend wholly on the Divine Spirit speaking in them (Matt. x. 20; Mark xiii. 11; ef. Luke 1.41, 67, xii. 12; Acts iv. 8): and perhaps even more decidedly still in Peter’s description of the prophets of Scripture as “‘borne by the Holy Ghost,’’ as mvevwatddopor, whose words are, therefore, of no ‘‘private interpretation,’ and of the highest surety (II Pet. i. 21). In all such expressions the main affirmation is that Scripture, as the product of the activity of the Spirit, is just the ‘‘breath of God’’; and the highest possible emphasis is laid on their origination by the divine agency of the Spirit. The primary characteristic of Scripture in the minds of the New Testament writers is thus revealed as, In a word, its Divine origin.
That this was the sole dominating conception attached from the beginning to the term @eémvevoros as an epithet of Scripture, is further witnessed by the unbroken exegetical tradition of its meaning in the sole passage of the New Testament in which it occurs. Dr. Cremer admits that such is the exegetical tradition, though he seeks to break the weight of this fact by pleading that the unanimity of the patristic interpretation of the passage is due rather to preconceived opinions on the part of the Fathers as to the nature of Scripture, derived from Alexandrian Judaism, than to the natural effect on their minds of the passage itself. Here we are pointed to the universal consent of Jewish and Christian students of the Word as to the divine origin of the Scriptures they held in common — a fact impressive enough of itself — as a reason for discrediting the testimony of the latter as to the meaning of a fundamental passage bearing on the doctrine of Holy Scripture. One is tempted to ask whether it can be really proved that the theology of Alexandrian Judaism exercised so universal and absolute a dominion over the thinking of the Church, that it is likely to be due to its influence alone that the Christian doctrine of inspiration took shape, in despite (as we are told) of the natural implications of the Christian documents themselves. And one is very likely to insist that, whatever may be its origin, this conception of the divine origination of Scripture was certainly shared by the New Testament writers themselves, and may very well therefore have found expression in II Tim. ii. 16 — which would therefore need no adjustment to current ideas to make it teach it. At all events, it is admitted that this view of the teaching of II Tim. ii. 16 is supported by the unbroken exegetical tradition; and this fact certainly requires to be taken into | consideration in determining the meaning of the word.
It is quite true that Dr. Cremer in one sentence does not seem to keep in mind the unbrokenness of the exegetical tradition. We read: ‘‘ Origen also, in ‘ Hom. 21 in Jerem.’, seems so [i. e., as Dr. Cremer does] to understand it [that is, dedrvevaTos |: — sacra volumina spiritus plenitudinem spirant.”’ The unwary reader may infer from this that these words of Origen are explanatory of II Tim. ii. 16, and that they therefore break the exegetical tradition and show that Origen assigned to that passage the meaning that ‘‘the Holy Scriptures breathe out the plenitude of the Spirit.’’ Such is, however, not the case. Origen is not here commenting on II Tim. iii. 16, but only freely expressing his own notion as to the nature of Scripture. His words here do not, therefore, break the constancy of the exegetical tradition, but at the worst only the universality of that Philonian conception of Scripture, to the universality of which among the Fathers, Dr. Cremer attributes the unbrokenness of the exegetical tradition. What results from their adduction is, then, not a weakening of the patristic testimony to the meaning of Oedrvevoros in II Tim. i. 16, but (at the worst) a possible hint that Dr. Cremer’s explanation of the unanimity of that testimony may not, after all, be applicable. When commenting on II Tim. iii. 16, Origen uniformly takes the word Oeémvevaros as indicatory of the origin of Scripture; though when himself speaking of what Scripture is, he may sometimes speak as Dr. Cremer would have him speak. It looks as if his interpretation of II Tim. ii. 16 were expository of its meaning to him rather than impository of his views on it. Let us, by way of illustration, place a fuller citation of Origen’s words, in the passage adduced by Dr. Cremer, side by side with a passage directly dealing with II Tim. iii. 16, and note the result.
Secundum istiusmodi expositiones decet sacras litteras credere nee unum quidem apicem habere vacuum sapientia Dei. Qui enim mihi homini precipit dicens: Non apparebis ante conspectum meum vacuus, multo plus hoc ipse agit, ne aliquid vacuum loquatur. Ex plenitudine ejus accipientes prophets, ea, que erant de plenitudine sumpta, cecinerunt: et idcirco sacra volumina spiritus plenitudinem spirant, nihilque est sive in prophetia, sive in lege, sive in evangelio, sive in apostolo, quod non a plenitudine divine majestatis descendat. Quamobrem spirant in scripturis sanctis hodieque plenitudinis verba. Spirant autem his, qui habent et oculos ad videnda ccelestia et aures ad audienda divina, et nares ad ea, que sunt plenitudinis, sentienda
Here Origen is writing quite freely: and his theme is the divine fullness of Scripture. There is nothing in Scripture which is vain or empty and all its fullness is derived from Him from whom it is dipped by the prophets. Contrast his manner, now, when he is expounding II Tim. i. 16.
“Let us not be stupefied by hearing Scriptures which we do not understand; but let it be to us according to our faith, by which also we believe that every Scripture because it is theopneustic (réca ypad} deorvevotos otca) is profitable. For you must needs admit one of two things regarding these Scriptures: either that they are not theopneustic since they are not profitable, as the unbeliever takes it; or, as a believer, you must admit that since they are theopneustic, they are profitable. It is to be admitted, of course, that the profit is often received by us unconsciously, just as often we are assigned certain food for the benefit of the eyes, and only after two or three days does the digestion of the food that was to benefit the eyes give us assurance by trial that the eyes are benefited.... So, then, believe also concerning the divine Scriptures, that thy soul is profited, even if thy understanding does not perceive the fruit of the profit that comes from the letters, from the mere bare reading”’ [Origen, “‘ Hom. XX in Josuam”’ 2, in
It is obvious that here Origen does not understand II Tim. ii. 16, to teach that Scripture is inspired only because it is profitable, and that we are to determine its profitableness first and its inspiration therefrom; what he draws from the passage is that Scripture is profitable because it is inspired, and that though we may not see in any particular case how, or even that, it is profitable, we must still believe it to be profitable because it is inspired, i. e., obviously because it is given of God for that end.
It seemed to be necessary to adduce at some length these passages from Origen, inasmuch as the partial adduction of the unwary reader. But there appears to be no need of multiplying passages from the other early expositors of II Tim. ill. 16, seeing that it is freely confessed that the exegetical tradition runs all in one groove. We may differ as to the weight we allow to this fact; but surely as a piece of testimony corroborative of the meaning of the word derived from other considerations, it is worth noting that it has from the beginning been understood only in one way — even by those, such as Origen and we may add Clement, who may not themselves be absolutely consistent in preserving the point of view taught them in this passage.”
73 Cf. Prof. Schulze, loc. cit.: “‘Further, it should not be lost sight of (and Dr. Cremer does not do so) how the Church in its defenders has understood this word. There can be no doubt that in the conflict with Montanism, the traditional doctrine of theopneusty was grounded in the conception of Oeérveveros, but never that of the Scriptures breathing out the Spirit of God. The passage which Cremer adduces from Origen gives no interpretation of this word, but only points to a quality of Scripture consequent on their divine origination by the Holy Spirit:
The final test of the sense assigned to any word is, of course, derived from its fitness to the context in which it is found. And Dr. Cremer does not fail to urge with reference to Beorvevoros in II Tim. iii. 16, that the meaning he assigns to it corresponds well with the context, especially with the succeeding clauses; as well as, he adds, with the language elsewhere in the New Testament, as, for example, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where what Scripture says is spoken of as the utterance, the saying of the Holy Ghost, with which he would further compare even Acts xxviii. 25.
That the words of Scripture are conceived, not only in Hebrews but throughout the New Testament, as the utterances of the Holy Ghost is obvious enough and not to be denied. But it is equally obvious that the ground of this conception is everywhere the ascription of these words to the Holy Ghost as their responsible author: littera scripta manet and remains what it was when written, viz., the words of the writer. The fact that all Scripture is conceived as a body of Oracles and approached with awe as the utterances of God certainly does not in the least suggest that these utterances may not be described as God-given words or throw a preference for an interpretation of 6eérvevaros which would transmute it into an assertion that they are rather God-giving words.
And the same may be said of the contextual argument. Naturally, if Qeé7vevoros means ‘‘ God-giving,’’ it would as an epithet or predicate of Scripture serve very well to lay a foundation for declaring this ‘‘God-giving Scripture” also profitable, etc. But an equal foundation for this declaration is laid by the description of it as ‘‘God-given.’’ The passage just quoted from Origen will alone teach us this. All that can be said on this score for the new interpretation, therefore,
and elsewhere when he adduces the rule of faith, the words run, quod per spiritum det sacre scripture conscripte sint, or a verbo det et spirita dei dicte sunt: Just as Clem. Alex. also, when, in Coh. 71, he is commenting on the Pauline passage, takes the word in the usual way, and yet, like Origen, makes an inference from the God-likeness (as @eoroetv) in Plato’s manner, from the whole passage — though not deriving it from the word itself. For the use of the word in Origen, we need to note: Sel. in Ps., ii. 527; Hom. in Joh., vi. 134, Ed. de la R.”
is that it also could be made accordant with the context; and as much, and much more, can be said for the old. We leave the matter in this form, since obviously a detailed interpretation of the whole passage cannot be entered into here, but must be reserved for a later occasion. It may well suffice to say now that obviously no advantage can be claimed for the new interpretation from this point of view. The question is, after all, not what can the word be made to mean, but what does it mean; and the witness of its usage elsewhere, its form and mode of composition, and the sense given it by its readers from the first, supply here the primary evidence. Only if the sense thus commended to us were unsuitable to the context would we be justified in seeking further for a new interpretation — thus demanded by the context. This can by no means be claimed in the present instance, and nothing can be demanded of us beyond showing that the more natural current sense of the word is accordant with the context.
The result of our investigation would seem thus, certainly, to discredit the new interpretation of Oedmvevaros offered by Ewald and Cremer. From all points of approach alike we appear to be conducted to the conclusion that it is primarily expressive of the origination of Scripture, not of its nature rand much less of its effects. What is @edrvevaros is ‘‘Godbreathed,” produced by the creative breath of the Almighty. And Scripture is called 6eé7vevaros in order to designate it as ‘‘God-breathed,”’ the product of Divine spiration, the creation of that Spirit who is in all spheres of the Divine activity | the executive of the Godhead. The traditional translation of the word by the Latin znspiratus a Deo is no doubt also discredited, if we are to take it at the foot of the letter. It does not express a breathing into the Scriptures by God. But the ordinary conception attached toit, whether among the Fathers
Vor the Dogmaticians, is in general vindicated. What it affirms is that the Scriptures owe their origin to an activity of God the Holy Ghost and are in the highest and truest sense His creation. It is on this foundation of Divine origin that all the phigh attributes of Scripture are built.
It would be difficult to invent methods of showing profound reverence for the text of Scripture as the very Word of God, which will not be found to be characteristic of the writers of the New Testament in dealing with the Old. Among the rich variety of the indications of their estimate of the written words of the Old Testament as direct utterances of Jehovah, there are in particular two classes of passages, each of which, when taken separately, throws into the clearest light their habitual appeal to the Old Testament text as to God Himself speaking, while, together, they make an irresistible impression of the absolute identification by their writers of the Scriptures in their hands with the living voice of God. In one of these classes of passages the Scriptures are spoken of as if they were God; in the other, God is spoken of as if He were the Scriptures: in the two together, God and the Scriptures are brought into such conjunction as to show that in point of directness of authority no distinction was made between them.
Examples of the first class of passages are such as these: Gal. iii. 8, ‘‘ The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the nations be blessed’’ (Gen. xii. 1-3); Rom. ix. 17, ‘‘The Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up”’ (Ex. ix. 16). It was not, however, the Scripture (which did not exist at the time) that, foreseeing God’s purposes of grace in the future, spoke these precious words to Abraham, but God Himself in His own person: it was not the not yet existent Scripture that made this announcement to Pharaoh, but God Himself through the mouth of His prophet Moses. These acts could be attributed to ‘‘Scripture”’ only as the result of such a habitual identification, in the mind of the writer, of the text of Scripture with God as speaking, that it became natural to use the term “‘Scripture says,’’ when what was really intended was ‘‘ God, as recorded in Scripture, said.”’
Examples of the other class of passages are such as these: Matt. xix. 4, 5, ‘‘And he answered and said, Have ye not read that he which made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the twain shall become one flesh?’ (Gen. i. 24); Heb. ii. 7, ‘“Wherefore, even as the Holy Ghost saith, To-day if ye shall hear his voice,’’ etc. (Ps. xev. 7); Acts iv. 24, 25, “Thou art God, who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why do the heathen rage and the peopleimagine vain things”’ (Ps. i. 1); Acts xiii. 34, 35, ‘‘He that raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption,... hath spoken in this wise, I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David’’ (Isa. lv. 3); ‘‘because he saith also in another [ Psalm |], Thou wilt not give thy holy one to see corruption”’ (Ps. xvi. 10); Heb. i. 6, ‘‘ And when he again bringeth in the first born into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him” (Deut. xxxii. 48); ‘‘and of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels wings, and his ministers a flame of fire’’ (Ps. civ. 4); “‘but of the Son, He saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,” etc., (Ps. xlv. 7) and, ‘‘ Thou, Lord, in the beginning,”’ etc. (Ps. cii. 26). It is not God, however, in whose mouth these sayings are placed in the text of the Old Testament: they are the words of others, recorded in the text of Scripture as spoken to or of God. They could be attributed to God only through such habitual identification, in the minds of the writers, of the text of Scripture with the utterances of God that it had become natural to use the term ‘God says”? when what was really intended was ‘‘Scripture, the Word of God, says.”’
The two sets of passages, together, thus show an absolute identification, in the minds of these writers, of ‘‘Scripture”’ with the speaking God.)
In the same line with these passages are commonly ranged certain others, in which Scripture seems to be adduced with a subjectless \éyer or hyct, the authoritative subject — whether the divinely given Word or God Himself — being taken for granted. Among these have been counted such passages, for example, as the following: Rom. ix. 15, ‘‘For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion”’ (Ex. xxxiii. 19); Rom. xv. 10, ‘‘ And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people” (Deut. xxxii. 43); and again, ‘‘ Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and let all the people praise him”’ (Ps. evil. 1); Gal. iii. 16, ‘‘He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed (Gen. xiii. 15), which is Christ’; Eph. iv. 8, ‘‘ Wherefore he saith, When he ascended on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men” (Ps. Ixvili. 18); Eph. v. 14, ‘‘ Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest and arise from the dead and Christ shall shine upon thee”’ (Isa. Ix. 1); I Cor. vi. 16, ‘‘ For the twain, saith he, shall become one flesh”’ (Gen. ii. 24); I Cor. xv. 27, ‘‘ But when he saith, All things are put in subjection”’ (Ps. viii. 7); II Cor. vi. 2, ‘‘For he saith, At an acceptable time, I hearkened unto thee, and in a day of salvation did I succor thee”’ (Isa. xlix. 8); Heb. viii. 5, ‘‘ For see, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern that was showed thee in the mount” (Ex. xxv. 40); James iv. 6, ‘‘ Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud but giveth grace to the humble’”’ (Prov. ili. 34).
There is room for difference of opinion, of course, whether all these passages are cases in point. And there has certainly always existed some difference of opinion among commentators as to the proper subauditum in such instances as are allowed. The state of the case would seem to be fairly indicated by Alexander Buttmann, when he says:
Of the alternatives thus offered, Jelf apparently prefers the one:.
“Tn the New Testament we must supply zpodnrns, 7 ypadn,
Winer and Blass take the other:
The commentators commonly range themselves with Winer and Blass. Thus, on Rom. ix. 15, Sanday and Headlam comment: “‘Aéyer without a nominative for Oeds N€éyeu is a common idiom in quotations,’ referring to Rom. xv. 10 as a parallel case. On Gal. i. 16, Meyer says: ‘‘sc. Océs, which is derived from the historical reference of the previous éppéOnoav, so well known to the reader’’; and Alford: ‘‘viz., He who gave the promises — God”’; and Sieffert: ‘‘ob Néyer sc. Oeos which flows out of the historical relation (known to the reader) of the preceding é€ppéOnoap (cf. Eph. iv. 8, v. 14).”
2 “A Grammar of the New Testament Greek,” Thayer’s translation p. 134.
PUSS AY Ss eo CRIPDURE SAYore 1GOD SAYS Y
On Eph. iv. 8, Meyer’s comment runs: ‘‘Who says it (comp. v. 14) is obvious of itself, namely, God, whose word the Scripture is. See on [ Cor. vi. 16; Gal. iii. 16; the supplying 7 ypadn or To Tvedua must have been suggested by the context (Rom. xv. 10). The manner of citation with the simple éyer, obviously meant of God, has as its necessary presupposition, in the mind of the writer and readers, the Theopneustia of the Old Testament.’ Haupt, similarly: ‘‘The introduction of a citation with the simple Aéyer, with which, of course, ‘God’ is to be supplied as subject, not ‘the Scripture,’ is found in Paul again v. 14, II Cor. vi. 2, Rom. xv. 10; similarly dysct, I Cor. vi. 16 (etzev with the addition 6 6eds, II Cor. vi. 16).”’ A similar comment is given by Ellicott, who adds at Eph. v. 14: “‘scil. 6 Oeds, according to the usual form of St. Paul’s quotations; see notes on chap. iv. 8 and on Gal. i. 16”: though on I Cor. vi. 16 he speaks with less decision: ‘It may be doubted what nominative is to be supplied to this practically impersonal verb, whether 7 yoadn (comp. John vii. 38, Rom. iv. 3, ix. 17, al.) or 6 deds (comp. Matt. xix. 5, IT Cor. vi. 2, where this nominative is distinctly suggested by the context): the latter is perhaps the more natural: comp. Winer, Gr., $58, 9, and notes on Eph. iv. 8.”’ On I Cor. vi. 16, Edwards comments: ‘‘sc. 6 Oe6s, as in Rom. ix. 15. Cf. Matt. xix. 4, 5, where 6 woinoas supplies a nom. to eizev. Similarly in Philo and Barnabas ¢yct introduces citations from Scripture.’’? On ITI Cor. vi. 2, Waite says: ‘“‘A statement of God Himself is adduced”; and De Wette: “‘sc. 0e6s, who Himself speaks.’’ On Heb. viii. 5, Bleek comments: ‘“‘That there is to be understood as the subject of dyai, not, as BOohme thinks, 7 ypad7n, but 6 6eds, can least of all be doubtful here, where actual words of God are adduced’’; and Weiss: ‘* This statement is now established (yap) by appeal to Ex. xxv. 40, which passage is characterized only by the interpolated g¢ycw (cf. Acts xxv. 22) as a divine oracle.... The subject of gyotly is, of course, God, neither 6 xpyuatiopos (Lun.) nor 7 ypaohy (Bhm.).”’ On James iv. 6, Mayor comments: ‘The subject understood is probably God, as above, 1. 12, émnyyet-
Most of these passages have, on the other hand, been explained by some commentators on the supposition that it is » ypaoyn that is to be supplied, as has sufficiently appeared indeed from the controversial remarks in the notes quoted above. This circumstance may be taken as precluding the necessity of adducing examples here.’ Suffice it to say that those so filling in the subauditum are entirely at one with the commentators already quoted in looking upon the citations as treated by the New Testament writers as of divine authority, it being,.in their apprehension, all one in this regard whether the subauditum is conceived as 77 ypadn or as 0 @eds.
In the meantime, however, there has occasionally showed itself a tendency to treat these subjectless verbs more or less as true impersonals. Thus we read in Delitzsch’s note on Heb. viii. 5: ‘For ‘see,’ saith He, i. e., 6 Ges, or taking gyno impersonally (that is, without a definite subject), ‘2 as sard’ (i. e., in Scripture), (Bernhardy, ‘Synt.,’ 419).”’ So Kern on James iv. 6 comments: ‘‘Aéyer here impersonaliter, instead of the foregoing Néyer } ypadn’’; and accordingly Beyschlag, in his recent commentary says: ‘‘to \éyet, 7 ypady is to be supplied, or it is to be taken with Kern impersonally.”’ Similarly Godet on I Cor. vi. 16 says: ‘‘The subject of the verb ¢ycir, says he, may be either Adam or Moses, or Scripture, or God Himself, or finally, as is shown by Heinrici, the verb may be a simple formula of quotation like our ‘Jé ts said.’ This form is frequently found in Philo.” * Some such usage as is here
® So also Wandel: ‘‘James then cites the passage Prov. iii. 24, in which we must simply supply ‘God’ to deve.”
$ Earlier still De Wette explained the phrase in a somewhat similar way. His
ULES ANS wy oO La URE SAYS. 9 GOD SAY Sa
supposed may seem actually to occur in the common text of Wisdom xv. 12° and II Cor. x. 10. But in both passages the true reading is probably ¢aciv; in neither instance is it clear that, if dnoiv be read, it has no subject implied in the context; if dnoiv be read and taken as equivalent to ¢daciv it still is not purely indefinite; and in any case the instances are not parallel, inasmuch as in neither of these passages is it Scripture, or indeed any document, that is adduced.
The fact that a few very able commentators have taken this unlikely line of exposition would call for nothing more than this incidental remark, were not our attention attracted somewhat violently to it by the dogmatic tone and extremity of contention of a recent commentator who has adopted this opinion. We refer to Dr. T. K. Abbott’s comment on Eph. iv. 8, in his contribution to “ The International Critical Commentary.” It runs to a considerable length, but as on this very account it opens out somewhat more fully than usual this
Christ gives the gifts and according to the presupposition that all that concerns Christ is predicted in the Old Testament 7t is said, [heisst es] (cf. Gal. iii. 16, I Cor. vi. 16 — a formula of citation (also v. 14) like Jas. iv. 6, Acts xiii. 35, Heb. x. 5, not elsewhere found in the apostle (cf., however, II Cor. vi. 17)...” And again on Eph. v. 14 we read: ‘‘é.d ever | therefore it is said [heisst es ] (in the Scriptures). Cf. iv. 8.”’ He supposes that, in the latter passage, Paul confuses a cus-
tomary application of Scripture with the very words of Scripture.
10 gnatv is placed by Tischendorf, Tregelles and Westcott and Hort in their texts: while ¢aciv is read by Lachmann and placed in their margins by Tregelles and Westcott and Hort. The former is read by SDEFGKLBP, etc., by the cursives, and by the Vulgate and Coptic versions, while the latter is the reading of B, Old Latin and Syriac. Heinrici pertinently remarks (in his own “Commentary,” 1887): “The reading ¢aciv, which Lachmann accepts, is just as strongly witnessed by B, the Itala and Peschitto as dnoitv (SDFG Vulg. Copt.) and it almost looks as if nov were a correction occasioned by the succeeding 6 rovodros (against Meyer).”’ Alford, who continues to read ¢noiv equally pertinently on that hypothesis, remarks: “‘¢yciv, taken by Winer (Ed. 6, § 58, 96), De Wette and Meyer as impersonal, ‘heisst es,’ ‘men say’; but why should not the vcs of ver, 7, and 6 rowodros of ver. 11, be the subject?” See further below, p. 316.
rather unwonted view of the construction, we shall venture to quote it 7 extenso. Dr. Abbott says:
“Aid Neyer. ‘Wherefore it saith’ = ‘it is said.’ If any substantive is to be supplied, it is 4 ypady; but the verb may well be taken impersonally, just as in colloquial English one may often hear: ‘it says’ or the like. Many expositors supply, however, 6 Oeds. Meyer even says, ‘Who says it is obvious of itself, namely, God, whose word the Scripture is.! Similarly Alford and Ellicott." If it were St. Paul’s habit to introduce quotations from the Old Testament, by whomsoever spoken in the original text, with the formula 6 Oeds Neyer, then this supplement here might be defended. But it is not. In quoting he sometimes says ever, frequently 4 ypad7 eye, at other times Aafid dAEyer, ‘Hoatas Neyer. There is not a single instance in which 6 Oéés is either expressed or implied as the subject, except where in the original context God is the speaker, as in Rom. ix. 15. Even when that is the case
12 [“ He (viz., God, whose word the Scriptures are. See reff. [1. e., Rom. xii. 8, II Cor. x. 18, iv. 18, 16 = Paul only], and: notes: not merely ‘it,’ es heisst, as, De Wette, al.: nor 4 ypad7: had it been the subject it must have been expressed, as in Rom. iv. 3, ix. 17, al.) says (viz., Ps. Ixviii. 18, see below: not in some Christian hymn, as Flatt and Storr — which would not agree with déye, nor with the treatment of the citation, which is plainly regarded as carrying the weight of Scripture.’’) ]
18 [“* He saith,’ sc. 6 beds,, not 4 ypady. This latter nominative is several times inserted by St. Paul (Rom. iv. 3, ix. 17, x. 11, Gal. iv. 30, I Tim. v. 18), but is not therefore to be regularly supplied whenever there is an ellipsis (Bos, Ellips., p. 54) without reference to the nature of the passages. The surest and in fact only guide is the context; when that affords no certain hint, we fall back upon the natural subject, 6 6e6s, whose words the Scriptures are; see notes on Gal. iii. 16.”
passage referred to in Bos (London ed. of 1825, pp. 57, 58) is as follows: ‘‘In the
New Testament, where the Scripture of the Old Testament is cited, dnot or eye often occurs with 7 ypady understood — a word which actually stands in other passages: I Cor. vi. 16, Eph. v. 14, Gal. ii. 16. The same thing occurs in the Greek fathers. Marcus Eremita, in his earlier aphorisms, No. 106, ovdels, got, orpa- Tevouevos EuTéxeTat Tals TOD Biov mpayyareiats, ‘No one, says (the Scripture, I Tim. ll. 4) going a-soldiering is entangled in the affairs of this life.’ So, No. 134: ¢not yap, 6 Wav éaurdovy rarewwnoera, ‘For, says (Scripture), he that exalteth himself shall be brought low.’ There may be also understood pro re nata ebayyedorns, mpopnr 7s, adarodos: but the other is more general and suits excellently. Schoettg.’’ J
“This being the case, we are certainly not justified in forcing upon the apostle here and in chap. v. 14 a form of expression consistent only with the extreme view of verbal inspiration. When Meyer (followed by Alford and Ellicott) says that 4 ypad7 must not be supplied unless it 1s given by the context, the reply is obvious, namely, that, as above stated, 7 ypad7 Neyer does, in fact, often occur, and therefore the apostle might have used it here, whereas 6 Oeds \éyer does not occur (except in cases unlike this), and we have reason to believe could not be used by St. Paul here. It is some additional confirmation of this that both here and in chap. v. 14 (if that is a Biblical quotation) he does not hesitate to make important alterations. This is the view taken by Braune, Macpherson, Moule; the latter, however, adding that for St. Paul ‘the word of the Scripture and the word of its Author are convertible terms.’
“It is objected that although ¢nai is used impersonally, eye is not. The present passage and chap. v. 14 are enough to prove the usage for St. Paul, and there are other passages in his Epistles where this sense is at least applicable; cf. Rom. xv. 10, where Aéeyer is parallel to yeypamra in ver. 9; Gal. ii. 16, where it corresponds to épp7Onoav. But, in fact, the impersonal use of ¢yct in Greek authors is quite different, namely = dav, ‘they say’ (so II Cor. x. 10). Classical authors had no opportunity of using déyer as it is used here, as they did not possess any collection of writings which could be referred to as 4 ypabén, or by any like word. They could say: 6 vouos Neyer and 7d Neyouevov.”’
It is not, it will be observed, the fact that Dr. Abbott decides against the subauditum, 6 eds, in these passages, which calls for remark. As he himself points out, many others have been before him in this. It is the extremity of his opinion that first of all attracts attention. For it is to be noticed that, though he sometimes speaks as if he understood an implied h ypadn, or some like term, as the subject of Aéye, that is not his real contention. What he proposes is to take the verb wholly indefinitely — as equivalent to ‘‘it is said,” as if the
14 [The text actually has ‘‘ver. 14,’’ but we venture to correct the obvious slip. ]
source of the quotation were unimportant and its authority insignificant. This interpretation of his proposal is placed beyond doubt by his remarks on chap. v. 14. There we read:
“Aid Neyer. ‘Wherefore it is said.’ It is generally held that this formula introduces a quotation from canonical Scripture.... The difficulties disappear when we recognize that Aeye: need not be taken to mean 6 Oeds A€yet — an assertion which has been shown in iv. 8 to be untenable. It means, ‘it says,’ or ‘it is said,’ and the quotation may probably be from some liturgical formula or hymn — a supposition with which its rhythmical character agrees very well.... Theodoret mentions this opinion.... Stier adopts a similar view, but endeavors to save the supposed limitation of the use of \éyer by saying that in the Church the Spirit speaks. As there are in the Church prophets and prophetic speakers and poets, so there are liturgical expressions and hymns which are holy words. Comparing vv. 18, 19, Col. i. 16, it may be said that the apostle is here giving us an example of this selfadmonition by new spiritual songs.”’
6 [With \eye God is to be supplied as subject. From this way of adducing it, it is already clear that the cited words cannot be taken from a Christian hymn in use in the Church at Ephesus (Storr, Flatt), but must belong to the sacred,
God-given Scripture.” Accordingly at v. 14 he says: ‘‘In accordance with the
formula (eye, chap. iv. 8) usual in adducing Scripture, it can scarcely be doubtful that the apostle intended to cite an Old Testament passage.’’ ]