The Lord of Glory; Counterfeit Miracles; Revelation and Inspiration

in quotation leaves the subject of the verb undetermined here and in similar cases (see, e. g., chap. v. 14%). For him the word of the Scripture and the word of its author are convertible terms.’’ Macpherson alone, of those appealed to by Dr. Abbott, supports, in a somewhat carelessly written note, the indefinite interpretation put forward by Dr. Abbott, — being misled apparently by remarks of Lightfoot’s and Westcott’s. His comment runs:

‘““A very simple quotation formula is here employed, the single word \eyer. It is also similarly used (chap. v. 14; II Cor. vi. 2; Gal. iii. 16; Rom. xv. 10).1”7 This word is frequently employed in the fuller formula, The Scripture saith, eye. 7 ypady (Rom. iv. 3, x. 11, xi. 2; Jas. 11. 23, etc.); or the name of the writer of the particular scripture, Ksaias, David, the Holy Spirit, the law (Rom. xv. 12; Acts xii. 35; Heb. il. 7; I Cor. xii. 34, etc.).8 Of Never, doi, elpnxe, and similar words thus used, Winer (“‘Grammar,”’ p. 656, 1882) says that probably in no instance are they impersonal in the minds of the New Testament writers, but that the subject, 6 60s, is somewhere in the context, and is to be supplied. On the contrary, Lightfoot, in his note on Gal. ii. 16, remarks that Neyer, like the Attic dnt, seems to be used impersonally, the nominative being lost sight of. In our passage we have no nominative in the context which we can supply, and it seems better to render the phrase impersonally, [¢ 7s said. The same word is used very frequently in the Epistle to the Hebrews, but always with God or Christ understood from the immediate context. Westcott very correctly remarks (p. 457) that the use of the formula in Eph. iv. 8, v. 14, seems to be of a different kind.” *

18 [This sentence seems formally incomplete; probably ‘‘is frequently employed” is to be supplied from the preceding clause. ]

19 [This scarcely gives a complete view of Winer’s remark: he says that ‘‘the subject 6 6eés) is wswally contained in the context, either directly or indtrectly,”’ and proceeds to adduce cases of ellipsis. ]

20 [What Westcott apparently says is not that “‘the two passages in the Epistle to the Ephesians (iv. 8, v. 14, 6.6 \éye) appear to be different in kind”’ from the usage of Hebrews, but from the cases in the rest of the New Testament, where God is the subject of \éye indeed, but “‘the reference is to words directly spoken by God.” He possibly means, ‘‘ different in kind” from the usage both of Hebrews and of the rest of the New Testament: but he does not seem to say this directly. See post, p. 305. ]

Outside of these commentators quoted by himself, however, Prof. Abbott’s extreme view has (as has, indeed, already incidentally appeared) the powerful support of Lightfoot and Heinrici. The former expresses his opinion not only in his note on Gal. 11. 16, to which Macpherson refers, but more fully and argumentatively in his note on I Cor. vi. 16 printed in his posthumous “ Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul.” In the former of these places he says:

“‘ob Neyer Seems to be used impersonally, like the Attic @yci in quoting legal documents, the nominative being lost sight of. If so, we need not inquire whether 6 6eds or 7 ypadn is to be understood. Comp. Aevyet, Rom. xv. 10, Eph. iv. 8, v. 14; and dnciv, I Cor. vi. 16, II Cor. XO Ol LE) ea

In the latter, speaking more at large ‘‘as to the authority assigned to the passage’’ quoted by St. Paul, he says:

‘““What are we to understand by ¢yciv? Is 6 beds to be supplied or 7 ypabn? To this question it is safest to reply that we cannot decide. The fact is that, like Neyer, énoitv when introducing a quotation seems to be used impersonally. This usage is common in Biblical Greek (Aevyer, Rom. xv. 10, Gal. ii. 16, Eph. iv. 8, v. 14; énotv, Heb. viii. 5, II Cor. x. 10 (v. l.), more common in classical Greek. Alford, after Meyer, objects to rendering ¢yciv impersonally here, as contrary to St. Paul’s usage. But the only other occurrence of the phrase in St. Paul is II Cor. x. 10, where he is not introducing Scripture, but the objections of human critics and of more than one critic. If then ¢nciv be read there at all, it must be impersonal. The apostle’s analogous use of eye points to the same conclusion. In Eph. v. 14 it introduces a quotation which is certainly not in Scripture, and apparently belonged to an early Christian hymn. We gather therefore that St. Paul’s usage does not suggest any restriction here to 6 eds or 7 ypadn. But we cannot doubt from the context that the quotation is meant to be authoritative.”’

In his own commentary on I Corinthians (1880), Heinrici writes as follows:

“To onot, just as to Neyer (II Cor. vi. 2, Gal. iil. 16) nothing at all is to be supplied, but like inquzt it stands, sometimes as the introduc-

SileOAY oom mORLE LURMESAYS 2 es GODPSAYS — 295

tion to an objection (II Cor. x. 10, where Holsten refers to Bentley on Horat., Serm., 1, 4, 78), sometimes as a general formula of citation. It is especially often used in the latter sense by Philo, in the quotation of Scripture passages, and by Arrian-Epictetus, who supplies many most interesting parallels to the Pauline forms of speech. Schweighauser, in his Index, under ¢yci, remarks of it: nec enim semper in proferenda objectione locum habet illa formula, verum etiam in citando exemplo ad id quod agitur pertinente. J. G. Miiller (Philo the Jew’s Book on the Creation, Berlin, 1841, p. 44) says that ¢yci, after the example of Plato(?), became gradually among the Hellenistic Jews the standing formula of citation.”’

In his edition of Meyer’s ‘“‘ Commentary on I Corinthians ”’ (eighth edition, 1896), this note reappears in this form:

“onov). Who? According to the usual view, God, whose words the sayings of the Scripture are, even when they, like Gen. 11. 24 through Adam, are spoken through another. Winer, 7 § 58, 9, 486: Buttmann, 117. But the impersonal sense ‘es heisst,’ ‘inquit,’ les nearer the Pauline usage; he coincides in this with Arrian-Epictetus and Philo, with whom ¢yci sometimes introduces an objection, sometimes is the customary formula of citation. Cf. II Cor. x. 10, vi. 2, I Cor. xv. 27, Eph. iv. 8; Winer, as above; Miller, in Philo, De op. mund., 44; Heinrici, 1. 181. In accordance with this, are the other supplements of subject — 7 ypady or 76 mvedua (Riickert) — to be estimated.”’

Even in the extremity of his contention, therefore, Dr. Abbott, it seems, is not without support — on the philological side, at least — in previous commentators of the highest rank.

He himself does not seem, however, quite clear in his own mind: and his confusion of both considerations and commentators which make for the fundamentally diverse positions that there is to be supplied with \éyer some such subject as n ypady, and that there is nothing at all to be supplied but the word is to be taken with entire indefiniteness, is indicatory of the main thing that calls for remark in Dr. Abbott’s note. For, why should this confusion take place? It is quite evident that in interpreting the phrase the fundamental distinction lies between the view which supposes that a subject to \éver is so implied as to be suggested either by the context or by the mind of the reader from the nature of the case, and that which takes Aéye as a case of true impersonal usage, of entirely indefinite subject. It is a minor difference among the advocates of the first of these views, which separates them into two parties — those which would supply as subject 6 Oeds, and those which would supply ypad7. That one of these subdivisions of the first class of views should be violently torn from its true comradeship and confused with the second view, betrays a preoccupation on Dr. Abbott’s part, when dealing with this passage, with considerations not of purely exegetical origin. He is for the moment less concerned with ascertaining the meaning of the apostle than with refuting a special interpretation of his words: and therefore everything which stands opposed in any measure to the obnoxious interpretation appears to him to be ‘‘on his side.’? Put somewhat brusquely, this is as much as to say that Dr. Abbott is in this note dominated by dogmatic prejudice.

There do not lack other indications of this fact. The most obtrusive of them is naturally the language — scarcely to be called perfectly calm — with which the second paragraph of the note opens: ‘‘ We are certainly not justified in forcing upon the apostle here and in chap. v. 14 a form of expression consistent only with the extreme view of verbal inspiration.”’ Certainly not. But because we chance not to like ‘‘the extreme view of verbal inspiration,” are we justified in forbidding the apostle to use a form of expression consistent only with it, and forcing upon him some other form of expression which we may consider consistent with a view of inspiration which we like better? Would it not be better to permit the apostle to choose his own form of expression and confine ourselves, as expositors, to ascertaining from his form of expression what view of inspiration lay in his mind, rather than seek to force his hand into consistency with our preconceived ideas? The whole structure of the note evinces, however, that it was not written in this purely expository spirit. Thus only can be explained a certain exaggerated dogmatism in its language, as if doubt were to be silenced by decision of manner if not by decisiveness of evidence. So also probably is to be explained a certain narrowness in the appeal to usage — that rock on which much factitious exegesis splits. Only, it is intimated, in case ‘‘it were St. Paul’s habit to introduce quotations from the Old Testament, by whomsoever spoken in the original text, with the formula 6 Oeds Aeyer,”’ “could this supplement here be defended.’”’ One asks in astonishment whether St. Paul really could make known his estimate of Scripture as the very voice of God which might naturally be quoted with the formula ‘‘God says,”’ and so render the occurrence of that formula occasionally in his writings no matter of surprise, only by a habitual use of this exact formula in quoting Scripture. And one notes without surprise that the narrowness of Dr. Abbott’s rule for the adduction of usage supplies no bar to his practice when he is arguing ‘‘on the other side.’’ At the opening of the very next paragraph we read, ‘“‘It is objected that although gyai is used impersonally, \éyer is not’’: and to this the answer is returned, ‘“The present passage and chap. v. 14 are sufficient to prove the usage for St. Paul’’; with the supplement, ‘‘ And there are other passages in his epistles where this sense is at least applicable’’; and further, ‘‘ But in fact, the impersonal use of dnct in Greek authors is quite different.’’ One fancies Dr. Abbott must have had a grim controversial smile upon his features when he wrote that last clause, which pleads that the meaning assigned to \eyer here is absolutely unexampled in Greek literature, not only for \éyec but even for dyct, as a reason for accepting it for \éye here! But apart from this remarkable instance of skill in marshaling adverse facts — a skill not unexampled elsewhere in the course of this note, as any one who will take the trouble to examine the prooftexts adduced in it will quickly learn — might not the advocates of the supplement, 6 eds, say equally that ‘‘the present passage and chap. v. 14 are sufficient to prove the usage for St. Paul, and there are other passages in his epistles where this sense is at least applicable.’’ And might they not support this statement with better proof-texts than those adduced by Dr. Abbott, or indeed with the same with better right; as well as with a more applicable supplementary remark than the one with which he really subverts his whole reasoning — such as this, for example, that elsewhere, in the New Testament, as for instance in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the usage contended for undoubtedly occurs, and a satisfactory basis is laid for it in the whole attitude of the entire body of New Testament writers, inclusive of Paul, toward the Old Testament? Certainly, reasoning so one-sided and dominated by preconceived opinions so blinding is thoroughly inconclusive. The note is, indeed, an eminent example of that form of argumentation which, to invert a phrase of Omar Khayyam’s, ‘“‘goes out at the same door at which it came in’: and even though its contention should prove sound, can itself add nothing to the grounds on which we embrace it. At best it may serve as the starting-point of a fresh investigation into the proper interpretation of the phrase with which it deals.

For such a fresh investigation we should need to give our attention particularly to two questions. The first would inquire into the light thrown by Paul’s method of introducing quotations from the Old Testament, upon his estimate of the text of the Old Testament, — with a view to determining whether it need cause surprise to find him adducing it with such a formula as ‘‘God says.’’ Subsidiary to this it might be inquired whether it is accurate to say that ‘‘there is not a single instance in which o 6s is either expressed or implied as the subject, except where in the original context God is the speaker,’’ and further, if Paul’s usage elsewhere can be accurately so described, whether that fact will warrant us in denying such an instance to exist in Eph. iv. 8. The second question would inquire into the general usage of the subjectless \éyec or dyoi in and out of the New Testament, with a view to discovering what light may be thrown by it upon the interpretation of the passages in question. It might be incidentally asked in this connection whether it is a complete

account to give of g@yct in profane Greek to say that the ‘impersonal use of @noi in Greek authors is quite different from that of the New Testament, inasmuch as with them gonot = gaol, ‘they say.’”’

It is really somewhat discouraging at this late date to find it treated as still an open question, how Paul esteemed the written words of the Old Testament. And it brings us, as the French say, something akin to stupefaction, when Dr. Abbott goes further and uses language concerning Paul’s attitude toward the Old Testament text which implies that Paul habitually distinguished, in point of authority, between those passages ‘‘where in the original context God is the speaker”? and the rest of the volume, so that ‘‘we have reason to believe”’ that the formula 6 eds Neyer ‘‘could not be used by Paul”’ in introducing Scriptural language not recorded as spoken by God in the original context. He even suggests, indeed, that Paul shows an underlying doubt as to the Divine source of even the words attributed to God in the Old Testament text — ‘‘not hesitating to use a different subject’? when quoting them, ‘‘as in Rom. x. 19, 20, ‘Moses saith,’ ‘Isaiah is very bold and saith’; Rom. ix. 17, ‘The Scripture saith to Pharaoh’’”’ — and deals with the text of other portions with a freedom which exhibits his little respect for them — ‘‘not hesitating to make important alterations” in them. It would seem to require a dogmatic prejudice of the very first order to blind one to a fact so obvious as that with Paul ‘‘Scripture,” as such, is conceived everywhere as the authoritative declaration of the truth and will of God — of which fact, indeed, no better evidence can be needed than the very texts quoted by Dr. Abbott in a contrary sense.

For, when Paul, in Rom. ix. 15, supports his abhorrent rejection of the supposition that there may be unrighteousness with God, with the divine declaration taken from Ex. Xxxlli. 19, introduced with the formula, ‘‘ For he”’ — that is, as Dr. Abbott recognizes, God — “‘saith to Moses,’’ and then immediately, in Rom. ix. 17, supports the teaching of this declaration with the further word of God taken from Ex. ix. 16, introduced with the formula, ‘‘ For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh”? — the one thing which is thrown into a relief above all others is that, with Paul, ‘‘God saith” and ‘‘Seripture saith”? are synonymous terms, so synonymous in his habitual thought that he could not only range the two together in consecutive clauses, but use the second in a manner in which, taken literally, it is meaningless and can convey an appropriate sense only when translated back into its equivalent of ‘‘God saith.’’ The present tense in both formulas, moreover, advises us that, despite the fact that in both instances they are words spoken by God which are cited, it is rather as part of that Scripture which to Paul’s thinking is the ever-present and ever-speaking word of God that they are adduced. It is not as words which God once spoke (eizev, LX X.) to Moses that the former passage is here adduced, but as living words still speaking to us — it is not as words Moses was once commanded to speak to Pharaoh that the second is here adduced, but as words recorded in the ever-living Scripture for our admonition upon whom the ends of the world have come. They are thus not assigned to Scripture in order to lower their authority: but rather as a mark of their abiding authority. And similarly when in that catena of quotations in Rom. x. 16-21, we read at ver. 19, ‘‘first Moses saith,’’ and then at ver. 20, ‘‘and Isaiah is very bold and saith,” both adducing words of God — the implication is not that Paul looks upon them as something less than the words of God and so cites them by the names of these human authors; but that it is all one to him to say, ‘‘God says,’ and ‘‘ Moses says,” or ‘‘Isaiah says’’: and therefore in this catena of quotations — in which are included four, not two, quotations — all the citations are treated as alike authoritative, though some are in the original context words of God and others (ver. 16) words of the prophet — and though some are adduced by the name of the prophet and some without assignment to any definitely named human source. The same implication, again, underlies the fact that in the catena of quotations on Rom. xv. 9 seq., the first is introduced by xaOws yéypamrar, the next two by kal wadw Neyer and kal radu, and the last by cal radu ‘Hoatas Neyer — the first being from Ps. Ixxviii. 50, the second from Deut. xxx. 48, the third from Ps. exvii. 1, and only the last from Isaiah — Isa. xi. 10: clearly it is all one to the mind of Paul how Scripture is adduced — it is the fact that it is Scripture that is important. So also it is no more true that in Gall. iii. 16, the Aévye: “‘ corresponds to éppnOnoav”’ of the immediately preceding context, than that it stands in line with the ‘‘and the Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the Gospel beforehand unto Abraham”’ of ii. 8 — a thing which the Scripture as such certainly did not do; and with the ‘‘for it is written” of iii. 10 and iii. 18, and the unheralded quotations of the Scriptures as unquestioned authority of iii. 11 and iii. 12; and with the general appeal in ill. 22 to the teaching of Scripture as a whole as the sole testimony needed: the effect of the whole being to evince in the clearest manner that to Paul the whole text of Scripture, inclusive of Gen. xii. 3, Deut. xxvil. 26, Hab. ll. 4, Lev. xviii. 5, and Gen. xxii. 18, was as such the living word of the living God profitable to all ages alike for divine instruction.

We need not go, indeed, beyond the first sentence of this Epistle to the Romans from which all but one of Dr. Abbott’s citations are drawn, to learn Paul’s conception of Scripture as the crystallized voice of God. There he declares himself to have been ‘‘separated unto the gospel of God which he promised afore by his prophets in the Holy Scriptures” (Rom. 1. 2). Dr. George T. Purves, in a singularly well-considered and impressive paper on ‘‘St. Paul and Inspiration,” printed in The Presbyterian and Reformed Review for January, 1893,” justly draws out the meaning of this compressed statement thus:

“Not only did Moses and the prophets speak from God, but the sacred Scriptures themselves were in some way composed under divine

control. He not only affirms with Peter that ‘moved by the Holy Ghost, men spake from God,’ but that ‘the Scriptures themselves are inspired by God.’ Paul plainly recognizes the human authorship of the books, and quotes Moses and David and Isaiah as speaking therein. But not only through them, but in these books of theirs did God also speak. Many readers notice the first part of Paul’s statement, but not the second. God spake ‘through the prophets in the Holy Scriptures.’”’

This emphasis on the written Scriptures as themselves the product of a divine activity, making them as such the divine voice to us, is characteristic of the whole treatment of Scripture by Paul (I Cor. x. 11, Rom. xv. 4, iv. 23, I Cor. ix. 10, iv. 6): and it is thoroughly accordant with the point of view so exhibited, that he explicitly declares, not of the writers of Seripture, but of the sacred writings themselves, that they are theopneustic — breathed out, or breathed into by God (II Tim. iii. 16). For he applies this epithet not to ‘‘every prophet,” but to “every Scripture’? — that is, says Dr. Purves, to ‘‘the whole collection to which he had just referred as the ‘sacred writings,’ and all their parts’’: these writings are theopneustic. ‘“‘ By their inspiration, he evidently meant,’’ continues Dr. Purves justly, ‘“‘that, as writings, they were so composed under God’s particular direction that both in substance and in form they were the special utterances of His mind and will.’’

It could be nothing more than an accident if Paul, under the dominance of such a conception of Scripture, has nowhere happened to adduce from it a passage, taken out of a context in which God is not expressly made in the Old Testament narrative itself the speaker, with the formula, 6 6eds Neyer, expressed or implied. If no instance of such an adduction occurs, it is worth while to note that fact, to be sure, as one of the curious accidents of literary usage; but as there is no reason to doubt that such a formula would be entirely natural on the lips of Paul, so there is no propriety in calling it impossible in Paul, or even in erecting a distinction between him and other New Testament writers on the ground that they do and he does not quote Scripture by such a

formula. As a matter of fact, the distinction suggested between passages in Scripture ‘‘ where in the original context God is the speaker”’ and passages where He is not the speaker — as if the one could be cited with a ‘‘God says,” and the other not, — is foreign to Paul’s conception and usage, as has abundantly appeared already: so that whatever passages of the former kind occur — ‘‘as in Rom. ix. 15,” says Dr. Abbott — are really passages in which Scripture is quoted with a “God says.” It cannot be held to be certain, moreover, that passages do not occur in which the ‘‘God says” introduces words not ascribed to God in the original context — so long, at least, as it is not obvious that ‘‘God”’ is not the subauditum in passages like Acts xiii. 35, Rom. xv. 10, Gal. iii. 16. It is no doubt, however, also worth observing that it is equally matter of fact, that it is rather to the Epistle to the Hebrews than to those that bear the name of Paul that we shall need to go to find a body of explicit instances of the usage in question. This is, as we have said, an interesting fact of literary usage, but it is not to be pressed into an indication of a divergent point of view toward ‘‘Scripture”’ between the Epistle to the Hebrews and the epistles that bear Paul’s name.

Even Dr. Westcott seems, to be sure, so to press it. In the interesting dissertation “On the Use of the Old Testament in the Epistle,’ which he has appended to his “ Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews,”’ he sets out in some detail the facts that bear on the mode in which that epistle cites the Old Testament:

“The quotations,” he tells us, ‘are without exception made anonymously. There is no mention anywhere of the name of the writer (iv. 7 is no exception to the rule). God is presented as the speaker through the person of the prophet, except in the one place where He is directly addressed (ii. 6).... In two places the words are attributed to Christ.... In two other places the Holy Spirit specially is named as the speaker.... But it is worthy of notice that in each of these two cases the words are also quoted as the words of God (iv. 7, viii. 8). This assignment of the written word to God, as the

Inspirer of the message, is most remarkable when the words spoken by the prophet in his own person are treated as divine words — as words spoken by Moses: 1. 6 (Deut. xxxi. 43); iv. 4, comp. vv. 5, 7, 8 (Gen. ii. 2); x. 830 (Deut. xxxii. 36); and by Isaiah: 11. 13 (Isa. viii. 17 f), comp. also xiii. 5 (Deut. xxxi. 6). Generally it must be observed that no difference is made between the word spoken and the word written. For us and for all ages the record is the voice of God. The record is the voice of God, and as a necessary consequence the record is itself living.... The constant use of the present tense in quotations emphasizes this truth: ii. 11, 1. 7, xu. 5. Comp. xu. 26.” #

Every careful student will recognize this at once as a very clear and very true statement of the attitude of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews toward the Old Testament. But we cannot help thinking that Dr. Westcott overshoots the mark when he throws it into strong contrast with the attitude of the rest of the New Testament writers to the Old Testament. When he says, for example: ‘‘ There is nothing really parallel to this general mode of quotation in the other books of the New Testament’’ — meaning apparently to suggest, as the subsequent context indicates, that the author of this Epistle exhibits an identification in his mind of the written text of the Scriptures with the voice of God which is foreign to the other writers of the New Testament — he would seem to have attached far too great significance to what is, after all, so far as it is real, nothing more than one of those surface differences of individual usage which are always observable among writers who share the same fundamental view-point, or even in different treatises from the same hand. Entirely at one in looking upon the Scriptures as nothing less than ta Aoyra Tov Oeot (Rom. iii. 2, Heb. v. 12 8) —in all their parts and phrases the utterance of God — the epistles that bear the name of Paul and this epistle yet chance to differ in the prevalent mode in which these ‘‘oracles”’ are adduced: the one in its formulas of citation emphasizing the sole fact that they are “oracles” it is quoting, the others,

3 Westcott, in loc., “‘it seems more natural to refer it to the collected writings of the Old Testament.”

that these ‘‘oracles”’ lie before them in wrttien form. Let the fact of this difference, of course, be noted: but let it not be overstrained and, as if it were the sole relevant fact in the field of view, made to bear the whole weight of a theory of the relations of the two in their attitude toward Scripture. Impossible as such a procedure should be in any ease, it becomes doubly so when we note the extremely narrow and insecure basis for the conclusion drawn, which is offered by the differences in usage adduced between Hebrews and the rest of the New Testament — which means for us primarily the epistles that bear the name of Paul. Says Dr. Westcott in immediate sequence to what we have quoted from him:

“There is nothing really parallel to this general mode of quotation in the other books of the New Testament. Where the word \éyer occurs elsewhere, it is for the most part combined either with the name of the prophet or with ‘Scripture’: e.g., Rom. x. 16, ‘Hoatas Neyer; x. 19, Mwvofjs Neyer; Xl. 9, Aaveld Neyer; IV. 3,) ypady Ever; 1x. 17, Neyer 77 ypapn, etc. Where God is the subject, as is rarely the case, the reference is to words directly spoken by God: II Cor. vi. 2, Neyer yap (6 Geds); Rom. ix. 15, 7G Mwvoe? Neyer; 1X. 25, & 7H *Qone Eyer. Comp. Rom. xv. 9-12 (yéeypamrar... Neyer.... ‘ Hoatas Neyer). The two passages in the Epistle to the Ephesians (iv. 8, v. 14, 6.6 Neyer) appear to be different in kind.”’

The last remark is apparently intended to exclude Eph. iv. 8 and v. 14 from consideration.** The immediately preceding one seems intended to suggest that the subject to be supplied to eye in Rom. xv. 10, which carries with it also Rom. xv. 11, is 7 ypadn; if we rather supply with Sanday-Headlam Ges, this citation would afford an instance to the contrary. Other cases similar to this, e. g., Acts xiil. 35 * and (with the

24 What is meant may possibly be that these two passages in Ephesians are analogous neither to the usage of Hebrews nor to that of the rest of the New Testament, but stand out by themselves. In that case Dr. Westcott probably means to take them as instances of the indefinite use of \eye. Cf. above, p. 293.

2 Cf. Meyer’s note: ‘‘réyer], the subject is necessarily that of eipnxer, ver. 34, and so, neither David (Bengel, Heinrichs and others), nor the Scriptures (Herrmann), but God, although Ps. xvi. 10 contains David’s words addressed to God. But David is considered as the interpreter of God, who has put the prayer into his mouth. Comp. on Matt. xix. 5.”

parallel yal) I Cor. vi. 16, are simply passed by in silence. If such cases were considered, perhaps the induction would be different.

It is possible, on the other hand, that the usage of the Epistle to the Hebrews also is conceived by Dr. Westcott a shade too narrowly. It scarcely seems sufficient to say of ii. 6, for example, that this passage is not an exception to the more general usage of the Epistle inasmuch as it is ‘“‘the one place where God is directly addressed’? — and is therefore not ascribed to Him, but to ‘‘some one somewhere.”’ According to Dr. Westcott’s own exposition,” we have in 1. 10 also words addressed to God and yet cited as spoken by God, and in a number of passages words spoken of God nevertheless cited as spoken by Him; and, in a word, the fundamental principle of the mode of quotation used by this Epistle is that the words of Scripture as such are the living words of God and are cited as such indifferently — whether in the original context spoken by Him or by another of Him, to Him, or apart from Him. In any event, therefore, the citation in the present passage by the formula ‘‘someone hath somewhere borne witness”’ is an exception to the general usage of the Epistle, and evidences that the author of it, though conceiving Scripture as such as a body of divine oracles, did not really lose sight of the fact that these oracles were delivered through men, and might therefore be cited on occasion as the deliverances of these men. In other words, here is a mode of citation of the order affirmed to be charac-

27 For he supposes the words quoted in i. 10 to be addressed not to Christ, but to God: “God through His Spirit so speaks in the Psalmist that words not directly addressed to Christ find their fulfillment in Him.”