“THE ORACLES OF GOD”:
THE purpose of this paper is to bring together somewhat more fully than can be easily found in one place elsewhere, the material for forming a judgment as to the sense borne by the term [7a] \dyua, as it appears in the pages of the New Testament. This term occurs only four times in the New Testament. The passages, as translated by the English revisers of 1881, are as follows: “‘Moses...who received living oracles to give unto us” (Acts vii. 38); ‘‘They [the Jews | were intrusted with the oracles of God’’ (Rom. iii. 2); ‘“When by reason of the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that some one teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God”’ (Heb. v. 12); ‘‘If any man speaketh let him speak as it were oracles of God”’ (I Peter iv. 11). The general sense of the term is obvious on the face of things: and the commentators certainly do not go wholly wrong in explaining it. But the minor differences that emerge in their explanations are numerous, and seem frequently to evince an insufficient examination of the usage of the word: and the references by which they support their several views are not always accessible to readers who would fain test them, so that the varying explanations stand, in the eyes of many, as only so many obiter dicta between which choice must be made, if choice is made at all, purely arbitrarily. It has seemed, therefore, as if it would not be without its value if the usage of the word were exhibited in sufficient fullness to serve as some sort of a touchstone of the explanations that have been offered of it. We are sure, at any rate, that students of the New Testament remote from libraries will not be sorry to have at hand a tolerably full account of the usage of the word: and we are not without hope that a comprehensive view of it may help to correct some longstanding errors concerning its exact meaning, and may, indeed, point not obscurely to its true connotation — which is not without interesting implications. Upheld by this hope we shall essay to pass in rapid review the usage of the term in Classic, Hellenistic and Patristic Greek, and then to ask what, in the light of this usage, the word is likely to have meant to the writers of the New Testament.
I. It may be just as well at the outset to disabuse our minds of any presumption that a diminutive sense is inherent in the term \dyov, as a result of its very form.? Whether we explain it with Meyer-Weiss *® as the neuter of oytos and point to Aoylétov * as the proper diminutive of this stem; or look upon it with Sanday-Headlam ° as originally the diminutive of Adéyos, whose place as such was subsequently, viz., when it acquired the special sense of ‘‘oracle,”’ taken by the strengthened diminutive Aoyiécvovy — it remains true that no trace of a diminutive sense attaches to it as we meet it on the pages of Greek literature.®
We are pointed, to besure, to a scholium on the “Frogs”’ of Aristophanes (line 942) as indicating the contrary. The passage is the well-known one in which Euripides is made to
5 “Com. on Rom.,” on Rom. ii. 2: ‘‘ The old account of Aéytov as a diminutive of Aéyos is probably correct, though Mey.-W. make it neuter of Aéytos on the ground that Noyidioy is the proper diminutive. The form doyiéiov is rather a strengthened diminutive which, by a process common in language, took the place of Aéyvov when it acquired the sense of ‘oracle.’’? When they add that it was as ‘‘a brief condensed
saying” that the oracle was called Adyov, they have no support in the literature.
6 Jelf, who looks upon it as a diminutive, cites it as an extreme example of the fact that many simple diminutives in -.ov have lost their diminutive force — such as @npiov, BiBXlov: Adytov, he says, “‘has assumed a peculiar meaning.” In any event, thus, no diminutive meaning clings to Aéytov.
respond to Aschylus’ inquiry as to what things he manufactured. ‘‘ Not winged horses,”’ is the reply (as Wheelwright
translates it), ‘‘ By Jupiter, nor goat-stags, such as thou, Like paintings on the Median tapestry, But as from thee I first received the art, Swelling with boastful pomp and heavy words, I paréd it straight and took away its substance, With little words, and walking dialogues,’ And white beet mingled, straining from the books A juice of pleasant sayings, — then I fed him With monodies, mixing Ctesiphon.”’ It is upon the
word here translated ‘‘ with little words,” but really meaning ‘‘verselets’”’ (Blaydes: versiculis) — érvA\tors — that the scholium occurs. It runs: ’Avti Tov Noylous urKpots’ ws b€ Bpédos BpedtrAXov, Kal eidos eidVA\LOY? OUTW Kal Eros éxtAov.2 That is to say, érvAXvov is a diminutive of the same class as BpedtANov and eidvAXov,® and means \dyov pkpov. Since the idea of smallness is explicit in the adjective attached to A\éyov here, surely it is not necessary to discover it also in the noun,” especially when what the scholiast is obviously striving to say is not that émvAXNows means “‘little wordlets,”’ but ‘‘little verses.’’ The presence of uexpots here, rather is conclusive evidence that doyiows by itself did not convey a diminutive meaning to the scholiast. If we are to give Aéyuoy an unexampled sense here, we might be tempted to take it, therefore, as intended to express the idea ‘‘verses’”’ rather than the tautological one of ‘‘little words” or even “‘little maxims”’ or ‘‘little sayings.’ And it might fairly be pleaded in favor of so doing that Aéy.ov in its current sense of ‘‘oracle”’ not only lies close to one of the ordinary meanings of ézos (“‘ Od.,”’ 12, - 266; Herod., 1, 13, and often in the Tragedians), but also, because oracles were commonly couched in verse, might easily come to suggest in popular speech the idea of ‘‘verse,’’
7 érvAXlots Kal wepitarots Kal TevTALotoe AEvKOTS.
10 With this \éy.ov pexpdy compare the Bpaxéa A6yra Of Justin Martyr, “‘Contra Tryph.,”’ c. 18. When the idea of brevity needed to be conveyed, it would seem that an adjective expressive of this idea was required to be added.
so that a \oywov weKpov would easily obtrude itself as the exact synonym of ériAduov, in Euripides’ sense, 1. e., in the sense of short broken verses. There is no reason apparent on the other hand why we should find a diminutive implication in the word as here used, and in any case, if this is intended, it is a sense unillustrated by a single instance of usage.
And the unquestionable learning of Kustathius seems to assure us that to Greek ears \oycov did not suggest a diminutive sense at all. He is commenting on line 339 of the Second Book of the “ Iliad,” which runs,
an 67 cvvOeciar TE Kal OpKia Bnoerar utr,
and he tells us that dpxwov in Homer is not a diminutive, but is a formation similar to \éy.vov, which means ‘‘an oracle’’: Ovx broKxoptotiKoy 6€ wap’ ‘Ounpw ovdé... To txviov. “Qsirep d€ TA OPKLa TAapWVOUMaGTAL EK TOU OpKOV, OUT Kal EK TOU OYOU TA Ayla Hyouv ot xpyopvot.. There is no direct statement here, to be sure, that Adyvov is not a diminutive; that statement is made — with entire accuracy — only of dpxtov and txmov: ¥ nor is the derivation suggested for \déywov, as if it came directly from \éyos, perhaps scientifically accurate. But there is every indication of clearness of perception in the statement: and it could scarcely be given the form it has, had doyvov stood in Eustathius’ mind as the diminutive of \dyos. It obviously represented to him not a diminutive synonym of Aoyos, but an equal synonym of xpnopos. What Aoytov stood for, in his mind, is very clearly exhibited, further, in a comment which he makes on the 416th line of the First Book of the “Odyssey,” where Telemachus declares that he does not ‘care for divinations such as my mother seeks, summoning a diviner to the hall”’:
ouTe Oeorporins EuTafouar, Av TWA UATHP és weyapoyv Kahéoaca Oeorporrov é£epenrar.
12 Liddell and Scott say, s. v.: “‘dpxiov is not with Buttm., “ Lexil.,” s. v., to be regarded as a dim. of épxos, but rather as neuter of Spxcos, with which iepéy or iepd
Kustathius wishes us to note that Oeorpd7os means the partis, Georpomta his art, and Oeorpdmiov the message he delivers, which Eustathius calls the ypyouwdnua, and informs us is denominated by the Attics also \éyov. He says: "Ioréov 6€ dre Geom pomros ev AdXAwS, 6 wavTis. Oeorporia dé, 7 TExYN alTod. OeoTpom.ov O€, TO xpnoumdnua, 6 Kal hOyLoyv d\eyov of ’ArTiKot.8 To Kustathius, thus \oy.ov was simply the exact synonym of the highest words in use to express a divine communication to men — Georpomiorv,'* xpnouwdnua, xpynouos. Similarly Hesychius’ definition runs: Adyra: Séogata, wavrevuara, (po) dnredbara, Pjuat, xpnouot. In a word, Adyuov differs from Adyos not as expressing something smaller than it, but as expressing something more sacred.
The Greek synonymy of the notion ‘‘oracle”’ is at once extraordinarily full and very obscure. It is easy to draw up a long list of terms — ywarteta, wavrevuata, mpddavra, Oeorpomia, érileomicpuol Béodata, beoriguata, \oy.a, and the like; but exceedingly difficult, we do not say to lay down hard and fast lines between them, but even to establish any shades of difference among them which are consistently reflected in usage. M. Bouché-Leclercg, after commenting on the poverty of the Latin nomenclature, continues as to the Greek: ®
“The Greek terminology is richer and allows analysis of the different senses, but it is even more confused than abundant. The Greeks, possessors of a flexible tongue, capable of rendering all the shades of thought, often squandered their treasures, broadening the meaning of
words at pleasure, multiplying synonyms without distinguishing between them, and thus disdaining the precision to which they could attain without effort. We shall seek in vain for terms especially appropriated to divination by oracles. From the verb xpfo@a, which signifies in Homer ‘to reveal’ in a general way, come the derivatives xpnouos and xpnornpiov. The latter, which dates from Hesiod and the Homerides, designates the place where prophecies are dispensed and, later, the responses themselves, or the instrument by which they are obtained. Xpynoyés, which comes into current usage from the time of Solon, is applied without ambiguity to inspired and versified prophecies, but belongs equally to the responses of the oracles and those of free prophets. The word yavreiov in the singular designates ordinarily the place of consultation; but in the plural it is applied to the prophecies themselves of whatever origin. In the last sense it has a crowd of synonyms of indeterminate and changeable shades of meaning. The grammarians themselves have been obliged to renounce imposing rules on the capricious usage and seeking recognition for their artificial distinctions. We learn once more the impossibility of erecting precise definitions for terms which lack precision.”
Among the distinctions which have been proposed but which usage will not sustain is the discrimination erected by the scholiast on Euripides, “‘Phoeniss.,’”’ 907,!° which would reserve Oéogata, Jeoriouatra, xpyouot for oracles directly from the gods, and assign wavrevar and wavtebuara to the responses of the diviners. The grain of truth in this is that in partis, pavTever Oar, pavreia, etymologically, what is most prominent is the idea of a special unwonted capacity, attention being directed by these words to the strong spiritual elevation which begets new powers in us. While, on the other hand, in feorifew the reference is directly to the divine inspiration, which, because it is normally delivered in song, is referred to by such forms as deorimdds, Jeorimderv. Xpynouds, on the other hand, seems an expression which in itself has little direct reference either to the source whence or the form in which the oracle comes, but describes the oracle from the point of view of what it is in itself — viz., a ‘‘communication”’? — pavrevar 6€ kal pavrebuata él uavrewy avOpwrwr.
going back, as it does, to xp7v, the original sense of which seems to be ‘‘to bestow,” ‘‘to communicate.”’ Aéyrov doubtless may be classed with xpnouds in this respect — it is par excellence the ‘‘ utterance,” the ‘‘saying.’’ It would seem to be distinguished from ypyopés by having even less reference than it to the source whence — something as ‘‘a declaration”’ is distinguished from ‘‘a message.” If we suppose a herald coming with the cry, ‘‘A communication from the Lord,” and then, after delivering the message, adding: ‘‘This is His utterance,” it might fairly be contended that in strict precision the former should be xpyopuos and the latter Néycov, in so far as the former term may keep faintly before the mind the source of the message as a thing given, while the latter may direct the attention to its content as the very thing received, doubtless with a further connotation of its fitness to its high origin. Such subtlety of distinction, however, is not sure to stamp itself on current use, so that by such etymological considerations we are not much advanced in determining the ordinary connotation of the words in usage.
A much more famous discrimination, and one which much more nearly concerns us at present, has been erected on what seems to be a misapprehension of a construction in Thucydides. In a passage which has received the compliment of imitation by a number of his successors,® the historian is describing the agitation caused by the outbreak of the Pe-
17 The above is abstracted from J. H. Heinr. Schmidt in his ‘‘ Handbuch der Lateinischen und Griechischen Synonymik”’ (1889), §21, pp. 77-82. The original meaning assigned to xpqv (darretchen, ertheilen) is supported by a reference to Vanitéek, p. 250. Surely it is a much more reasonable determination than that of Bouché-Leclereq (‘‘ Hist. de ]a Divination,” i. 192), who would derive it from a cleromantic idea, as if xpaw signified first of all ‘‘entailler.”’ So he conceives dvapecv to refer to the lot, as we say to “draw lots,” as if the Pythoness “drew her revelations as we draw lots.” Schmidt refers the use of this word to the early idea that the words came up out of the depths of the earth.
18 FH). g., Polybius, 3, 112, 8: ‘‘ All the oracles preserved in Rome were in everybody’s mouth (rdvra 8’ qv ra wap’ abrots \oyia aor Tore bua oTduaros) and every temple and house was full of prodigies and miracles: in consequence of which the city was one scene of vows, sacrifices, supplicatory processions and prayers”’
loponnesian war, one symptom of which was the passion for oracles which was developed. ‘‘ All Hellas,’ he says,’ ‘‘ was excited by the coming conflict between the two cities. Many were the prophecies circulated, and many the oracles chanted by diviners (kat 7oAXa pev Noyta EAEYorTO, TONG O€ XPNTLOAOYOL yjoov), not only in the cities about to engage in the struggle, but throughout Hellas.’’ And again, as the Lacedemonians approached the city, one of the marks he, at a later point, notes of the increasing excitement is that ‘‘soothsayers (xpnouodoyot) were repeating oracles (jdov xpnopyotls) of the most different kinds, which all found in some one or other enthusiastic listeners.’’ 7? On a casual glance the distinction appears to lie on the surface of the former passage that oyia are oracles in prose and xpyouol oracles in verse: and so the scholiast 7! on the passage, followed by Suidas * defines. But it is immediately obvious on the most cursory glance into Greek literature that the distinction thus suggested will not hold. The xpyopot are, to be sure, commonly spoken of as sung; and the group of words xpynouq@ddos, xpnouwoéw, xpno- Mwola, XpnoUwonua, xpnouwdons, Xpnoumdrkos, witnesses to the intimate connection of the two ideas. But this arises out of the nature of the case, rather than out of any special sense attached to the word xpynopos: and accordingly, by the side of this group of words, we have others which, on the one hand, compound xpyoués with terms not implicative of singing (xenounyopew, xXpnouaryopns — xpnoModoTéw, xXpnopuoddrys, XPNTUOOOTHUA — XpnoLooyEw, XpNnTUoOYos, Xono“odoyla, xpno- MOoNOYLOV, XPNTMOAOYLKN, XPnoWor\EoXNS — XpynopoTrowds), and, on the other hand, compound other words for oracles with words denoting singing (feomimdéw, Oeormiwdnua, Oeamiwdds). The fact is that, as J. H. Heinr. Schmidt ** points out in an interesting discussion, the natural expression of elevated feeling was originally in song: so that the singer comes before the poet and the poet before the speaker. It was thus as natural for the ancients to say vati-cinium as it is for moderns to say Weis-sagung or sooth-saying: but as the custom of written literature gradually transformed the consciousness of men, their thought became more logical and less pictorial until even the Pythia ceased at last to speak in verse. Meanwhile, old custom dominated the oracles. They were chanted: they were couched in verse: and the terms which had been framed to describe them continued to bear this implication. Even when called \éoyra, they prove to be ordinarily ** in verse; and these also are said to be sung, as we read, for example, in Dio Cassius (431, 66 and 2738, 64): \oy.a wavrota Héero. What appears to be a somewhat constant equivalence in usage of the two terms xpynopuds and Ndy.ov, spread broadly over the face of Greek literature, seems in any event to negative the proposed distinction. Nor does the passage in Thucydides when more closely examined afford any real ground for it. After all, \oyva and xpyopot are not contrasted in this passage: the word xpynopot does not even occur in it. The stress of the distinction falls, indeed, not on the nouns, but on the verbs, the point of the remark being that oracles were scattered among the people by every possible method.” If we add that
24 So for example in Aristophanes’ “Knights” passim (see below) and in Porphyry’s collection of Oracles.
25 This is the explanation of Croiset in the very sensible brief note he gives on the passage in his attractive edition of Thucydides (Paris, Hachette & Cie., 1886):
He says: ‘‘Aéya, oracles: according to the scholiast, oracles in prose in contrast with xpnowol or oracles in verse; but it may be seen in Aristophanes (‘‘ Knights,” 999-1002), that the two expressions were synonyms: the distinction bears here only on the manner in which these oracles were spread among the people; é\éyorro signifies: they were hawked about from mouth to mouth, without the intervention of the diviners (é\éyor7o in the plural, despite the neuter subject, because it is the idea of diversity that dominates, rather than an idea of collectivity; cf. Curtius
“Gr. gr.,” § 363, Rem. 1); #é0v is the appropriate word in speaking of xpnopuoddyou or oracle-deliverers whose business was to recite the prophecies in verse.”
the second zoAA4& is probably not to be resolved into zo\Xods xpnopovs,° the xpyopols being derived from the xpnopwdoyot, but is to have \oyca supplied with it from the preceding clause, the assumed distinction between \doy.a and xpyopot goes up at once in smoke. Adéya alone are spoken of: and these Aoyea are said to be both spoken and sung.”
So easy and frequent is the interchange between the two terms that it seems difficult to allow even the more wary attempts of modern commentators to discriminate between them. These ordinarily turn on the idea that ddya is the more general and xpyoyuds the more specific word, and go back to the careful study of the Baron de Locella,”’ in his comment on a passage in(the later) Xenophon’s “ Ephesiaca.”’ Locella’s note does indeed practically cover the ground. He begins by noting the interchange of the two words in the text before him. Then he offers the definition that oraculorum responsa are generically \éy.a, whether in prose or verse, adducing the doyia radara of Eurip., “‘ Heracl.,’’ 406, and the hoy.ov mvbdxpynorov of Plutarch, “ Thes.,’’ i. 55, as instances of \oyra undoubtedly couched in verse; while versified oracles,
26 So still Franz Miller in his handy edition of this second book (Paderborn, 1886).
27 So Steup-Classen in the fourth edition of Classen’s ‘‘Second Book of Thucydides,’ brought out by Steup (Berlin, 1889). They say: ‘‘é\éyovro: the unusual
plural doubtless on account of the variety and diffusion of the Néya: cf. 5, 26, 2; 6, 62, 4. Adyca, according to the usage of the anaphora, is to be understood with moAXa in both instances (B. supposes the anaphora would require the prepositing of the noun, as I. 3; but there vedrns is emphasized by xai, which is not the case here with \éya). ’EX€yovro: circulated by the mouth of the people, without fixed or metrical form, which would be given them or preserved for them by the xpyouoréyo. who were occupied professionally in the collection (hence — Aéyor) and interpretation of transmitted prophecies (cf. Herod. 7, 6, 142; Schémann, Gr. Alt., 23, 304). The distinction is between édéyorro and Féov, not the object of the A\éy.a.”
28 Pp. 152, 153 of his edition of the piece (Vienna, 1796). It is reprinted entire in Peerlkamp’s edition (Haarlem, 1818) with this addition by the later editor:
originally in hexameters and later in iambic trimeters are, specifically, xpyouot — whence xpnouwdéw is vaticinor, xpno- Mqmodia, vatrcinium, and xpnouwdos, vates. As thus the difference between the two words is that of genus and species, they may be used promiscuously for the same oracle. It is worth the trouble, he then remarks, to inspect how often Adytov and xXpnopuos are interchanged in the “Knights” of Aristophanes between verses 109 and 1224, from which the error of the scholiast on Thucydides, ii. 8, is clear and of Suidas following him, in making \oyuor specifically an oracle in prose, and xpyopos One in verse. He then quotes Eustathius on the “ Iliad,” ii. ver. 233, and on the “‘Odyssey,” i. ver. 1426; adduces the gloss, Aoy.ov, 6 xpyouds; and asks his readers to note what Stephens adduces from Camerarius against this distinction.” The continued designation by Greek writers of the prose Pythian oracles as xpnoyot is adverted to, Plutarch’s testimony being dwelt on: and relevant scholia on Aristophanes’ “Av’’., 960, and “ Nub.,” 144, are referred to. It is not strange that Locella’s finding, based on so exhaustive a survey of the relevant facts, should have dominated later commentators, who differ from it ordinarily more by way of slight modification than of any real revision — suggesting that hoya, being the more general word, is somewhat less sacred; or somewhat less precise; *! or somewhat less ancient.®? The common difficulty with all these efforts to distinguish the two words is that there is no usage to sustain them. When the two words occur together it is not in contrast but in
29 Stephens (ed. Dindorf-Hase) merely adduces Camerarius’ testimony: ‘‘So Cam., adding that the discrimination of the grammarians is a false one, although the passage in Thucydides, i (sic.) seems to agree with it.”
30 This seems to be what Haack (on Thucyd., ii. 8) means when he defines Oya as Auguria, presagia vatum, and xpycpoi as oracula deorum.
31 This seems the gist of Bredow’s view (on Thucyd., il. 8): “‘xenoues cum verbis xpav et xpetoOac oraculorum propriis cohaerens definite oraculum divinum vocatur; Adywov autem aperte generalius vocabulorum est, sermo ominosus, verbum faticidium quod non interrogatus vel deus, vel vates elocutus est.”” Poppo and Geeller ad loc. quote these views but add nothing of value to them.
32 Bouché-Leclercq seems almost inclined to revert to Eustathius’ statement and look upon Adyov as “‘an expression peculiar to the Attic dialect, as tpddarra (Herod., v. 63; ix. 93) is an Ionic expression”’ (op. cit., 11. 130, note 4).
apparently complete equivalence, and when \oyov appears apart from xpyopds it is in a sense which seems in no way to be distinguishable from it. The only qualification to which this statement seems liable, arises from a faintly-felt suspicion that, in accordance with their etymological implications already suggested, xpyoyuds has a tendency to appear when the mind of the speaker is more upon the source of the ‘‘oracle’? and \dyiov when his mind is more upon its substance.
Even in such a rare passage as Eurip., “ Heracl.,’”’ 406, where the two words occur in quasi-contrast, we find no further ground for an intelligible distinction between them:
“Yet all my preparations well are laid: Athens is all in arms, the victims ready Stand for the gods for whom they must be slain. By seers the city is filled with sacrifice For the foes’ rout and saving of the state. All prophecy-chanters have I caused to meet, Into old public oracles have searched, And secret, for salvation of this land.® And mid their manifest diversities, In one thing glares the sense of all the same — They bid me to Demeter’s daughter slay, A maiden of a high-born father sprung.”’ *4
And ordinarily they display an interchangeability which seems almost studied, it is so complete and, as it were, iterant. Certainly, at all events, it is good advice to follow, to go to Aristophanes’ “Knights” to learn their usage. In that biting play Demos— the Athenian people —is pictured as ‘“a Sibyllianizing old man”’ with whom Cleon curries favor by plying him with oracles,
8 xpnouay 6’ aodods ravras eis & aXlcas | HrevyEa Kal BEBNra Kal Kexpvupuéeva | Oyta TWarad 7H SE YH owTHpra.
Nicias steals rovs xpyopots from Cleon, and brings ror tepov xpnopov to Demosthenes, who immediately on reading it exclaims, & \oyra! *° “De.: ’Q Adyra. Give me quick the cup! Nic.: Behold, what says the xpyoyués? Dem.: Pour on! Nic.: Is it so stated in the doyios? DemM.: O Bacis!’’ To cap the climax, the scholiast remarks on @ Noyia: ‘‘(uavreduara): he wonders when he reads tov xpyopuov.”’ Only a little later,’ Demosthenes is counseling the Sausage Vender not to “‘slight what the gods by rots \oyiosr have given’’ him and receives the answer: ‘‘ What then says 6 xpyoyés?”’ and after the contents of it are explained the declaration, ‘‘I am flattered by 7a Noyia.’? As the dénouement approaches, Cleon and the Sausage Vender plead that their oracles may at least be heard (lines 960-961: ot xpyopuot). They are brought, and this absurd scene is the result: ‘‘CiEoN: Behold, look here —
and yet I’ve not got all. 8. V.: Ah, me! I burst — ‘and yet I’ve not got all!’ Dmem.: What are these? CiEoN: Oracles (Aoyta). DeM.: All! CLEoN: Do you wonder? By Jupiter, I’ve still a chestful left. S. V.: And I an upper with two dwelling rooms. DEM.: Come, let us see whose oracles (of xpyopot) are these? CxEoN: Mine are of Bacis. Dzmm.: Whose are thine? S. V.: Of Glamis, his elder brother.’’ And when they are read
they are all alike in heroic measure.
It is not in Aristophanes alone, however, that this equivalence meets us: the easy interchange of the two words 1s, we may say, constant throughout Greek literature. Thus, for example, in the “‘ Corinthiaca”’ of Pausanias (ii. 20, 10) an oracle is introduced as 76 Aoyov, and commented on as 6 xpnopos.*® In Diodorus Siculus, ii. 14,39 Semiramis is said to have gone to Ammon xpnoouevn TS O€@ Tepi THs idtas TeXeuTHS, and, the narrative continues, \éyerat ab’TtH yevéobar Aoyrov. Similarly in Plutarch’s “De Defectu Orac.,”’ v.“ we have the three terms TO xpnoTnpiov, TO hoy.ov and Ta mavTeta TadTa equated: in “ De Mul. Virt.,”’ vii.*t the A\oyua are explained by what was éypno- 6y: in ““Questiones Romane,” xxi.” \oyra came by way of a xpnouwoetv. In the “Ephesiaca” of thelater Xenophon metrical pavrebwara are received, the recipients of which are in doubt what 7a Tov Oeot Novia can mean, until, on consideration, they discover a likely interpretation for the xpyouov that seems to meet the wish of the God who éuavretoaro.*
How little anything can be derived from the separate use of A\oytov to throw doubt on its equivalence with xpyopos as thus exhibited, may be observed from the following instances of its usage, gathered together somewhat at random: *
Herodotus, i. 64: ‘‘He purified the island of Delos, according to the injunctions of an oracle (é t&v Noyiwv)’’; 1. 120: “We have found even oracles sometimes fulfilled in unimportant ways (7r&v doyiwr évia)’’; iv. 178: ‘Here in this lake is an island called Phla, which it is said the Lacedzemonians were to have colonized according to an oracle (civ vicov Aaxedatmoviorst dace NOyLov etvat KTiaar)’’; vill. 60: ‘‘ Where an oracle has said that we are to overcome our enemies (kal \oyov Eore Tav éxOpav xarirepbe)’’; vill. 62: “‘which the prophecies declare we are to colonize (ra Noyra Aeyer).”’ Aristophanes,‘ Vesp.,’’ 799: dpa ro xphua, Ta NOY’ ws wepatverat; ‘Knights,’ 1050, ravri redetoPar Ta AOL’ HON wor doxet. Polybius, vii. 30, 6: ‘‘ For the eastern quarter of Tarentum is full of monuments, because those who die there are to this day all buried within the walls, in obedience to an ancient oracle (kara Te Noytov apxatov).’’ Diodorus Siculus ap. Geog. Sync., p. 194 D(‘‘ Corpus Scriptorum Historie Byzantine,” 1. 366), ‘‘ Fabius says an oracle came to Atneas (Alveia yeveoOar Ady.ov), that a quadruped should direct him
44 The word, as will be seen, is as old as Herodotus: on the other hand — if we may trust the indices — it does not seem to occur in Homer (Dunbar’s ‘‘Concordance” [to Odyssey ], Gehring’s ‘‘Index’’), Hesiod (Paulsen’s ‘‘Index’’), Plato
to the founding of a city.” Alian, “Var. Hist.,” ii.41: “Moreover Mycerinus the Egyptian, when there was brought to him the prophecy from Budo (76 é Botrns wavretov), predicting ashort life, and he wished to escape the oracle (76 \dyiov)...”? Arrian, “ Expedit. Alex.,” ii. 3, 14 (Ellendt., 1. 151): &s 70d Noyiouv rod émi rH Abce TOD Secuod EvuBEBnKdTOs; vii. 16, 7 (Ellendt., ii. 419), ““But when Alexander had crossed the river Tigris with his army, pushing on to Babylon, the wise men of the Chaldeans (Xaddaiwy of Adyor) met him and separating him from his companions asked him to check the march to Babylon. For they had an oracle from their God Belus (Aéy.ov éx Tod Geod Tod Bydov) that entrance into Babylon at that time would not be for his good. But he answered them with a verse (éros) of the poet Euripides, which runs thus: ‘The best uavris is he whose conclusion is good.’”’ Plutarch, “Non posse suaviter vivi,” etc., 24 (1103 F.): “ What of that? (quoth Zeuxippus). Shall the present discourse be left imperfect and unfinished because of it? and feare we to alledge the oracle of the gods (76 hoyov mpdos ’Eixovpov deyovres) when we dispute against the Epicureans? No (quoth I againe) in any wise, for according to the sentence of Empedocles, ‘A good tale twice a man may tell, and heare it told as oft full well’;” “Life of Theseus,” § 26 (p. 12 C, Didot, p. 14), “He applied to himself a certain oracle of Apollo’s (Ady.6v re rvddxpnorov)”’ § 27 (p. 12 E, Didot, p. 14): “ At length Theseus, having sacrificed to Fear, according to the oracle (card rv Ady.ov)’’; ““ Life of Fabius,”’ § 4 (Didot, p. 210), ’Exuw7Onoav 6€ tore rodXal Kal TSv aroppyATwy Kal xpnolwv avtots BiBAwy, ds DuBvddelous Kadodaou’ Kal NEyeTat gvVdpapeEty Evia TOV aTOKELMevWY ev alTats Noyiwy mpos Tas TUXAS Kal Tas Tpdtes Exeivas. Pausanias, “ Attica’’ [I. 44, 9] (taken unverified from Wetstein): 6icavtos Aiaxod Kata 64 Te NOyov 7H TlavedAnviw Act. Polyzenus, p. 37 (Wetstein) [I, 18]: 6 beds éxpnoe — of rodeuor TO NOYLOV €iddTES — TOU Aoyiov TeEmAnpwuevov; p. 347 (IV, 3, 27], jv dé Adycov ’AdANwvos. Aristeas, p. 119 (Wetstein): ebxapioT& per, avipes, butv, TH 6€ drooTElAavTe MaNAOV" eEYLO-~ Tov O€ TH Dew, ovTLVOS EgTL TA NOYLA TAUTA.
A survey of this somewhat miscellaneous collection of passages will certainly only strengthen the impression we derived from those in which \édy.ov and xpnopyos occur together — that in \oy.ov we have a term expressive, in common usage at least, of the simple notion of a divine revelation, an oracle, and that independently of any accompanying implication of length or brevity, poetical or prose form, directness or in- directness of delivery. This is the meaning of \dyrov in the mass of profane Greek literature. As we have already suggested, the matter of the derivation of the word is of no great importance to our inquiry: “ but we may be permitted to add that the usage seems distinctly favorable to the view that it is to be regarded rather as, in origin, the neuter of Aoytos used substantively, than the diminutive of Aoyos. No implication of brevity seems to attach to the word in usage; and its exclusive application to ‘‘oracles’’ may perhaps be most easily explained on the supposition that it connotes fundamentally ‘‘a wise saying,’ and implies at all times something above the ordinary run of ‘‘ words.’’ *
II. It was with this fixed significance, therefore, that the word presented itself to the Jews of the later centuries before Christ, when the changed conditions were forcing them to give a clothing in Greek speech to their conceptions, derived from the revelation of the old covenant; and thus to prepare the way for the language of the new covenant. The oldest monument of Hellenistic Greek — the Septuagint Version of the Sacred Books, made probably in the century that stretched between 250 and 150 B.C. — is, however, pecullarly ill-adapted to witness to the Hellenistic usage of this word. As lay in the nature of the case, and, as we shall see later, was the actual fact, to these Jewish writers there were no ‘‘oracles”’ except what stood written in these sacred books themselves, and all that stood written in them were “‘ oracles of God.” In a translation of the books themselves, naturally this, the most significant Hellenistic application of the word
46 Dr. Addison Alexander, with his usual clearness, posits the alternative admirably (on Acts vii. 38): ‘‘The Greek word (Aéya) has been variously explained as a diminutive of (Adyos) word, meaning a brief, condensed and frequent utterance; or as the neuter of an adjective (Ady.os) meaning rational, profound, wise, and as a substantive, a wise saying.” It would seem difficult to rise from a survey of the classical usage without an impression that it justifies the latter derivation. This usage is stated with perfect accuracy by DeMoor (‘‘Com. in Marckii Compend.,” i. 13): 76 Adyeov ‘when used substantively may be considered as more emphatic than 76 pjua or even 6 ddyos: for this term means with the Greeks not any kind of word, but specifically an oracle, a divine response.”
‘“‘oracles,’”’ could find little place. And though the term might be employed within the sacred books to translate such a phrase as, say, ‘‘the word of God,” in one form or another not infrequently met with in their pages, the way even here was clogged by the fact that the Hebrew words used in these phrases only imperfectly corresponded to the Greek word doyvov, and were not very naturally represented by it. Though the ordinary Hebrew verb for ‘‘saying’’? — -»x “7 — to which etymologically certain high implications might be thought to be natural, had substantival derivatives, yet these were fairly effectually set aside by a term of lower origin — “354 — which absorbed very much the whole field of the conception “word.” The derivatives of ~2x—"Rk, Ts, TTX, TEX! — in accordance with their etymological impress of loftiness or authority, are relegated to poetic speech (except “»x2, which occurs only in Esther i. 15, ii. 20, ix. 32, and has the sense of commandment) and are used comparatively seldom. Nevertheless, it was to one of these that the Septuagint translators fitted the word déy.ov. To 753 they naturally consecrated the general terms)dyos, pnua, tpayua: while
47 It occurs, according to the Brown-Gesenius ‘‘Lexicon,”’ no less than 5287 times; according to Girdlestone (“Synonyms of the O. T.,” ed. 2, p. 205), it ‘“‘is generally rendered in the LXX. érw and Neyw.”’ There seems to be inherent in the word an undertone of loftiness or authoritativeness due possibly to its etymological implication of “prominence.” Its derivations are accordingly mostly poetical words designating a lofty speech or authoritative speech.
48 The verb, of doubtful origin, occurs according to Brown-Gesenius, 1142 times, and is generally rendered in the LXX. (Girdlestone, loc. cit.) X\adéw. The noun occurs 1439 times and is rendered “‘generally \dyos, sometimes pfua, and in 35 passages, mpadyua.”
49 There is also the poetic word bon and its derivative noun mr —a word ‘used in 30 passages, 19 of which are in Job and 7 in Daniel,” and rendered in the LXX. ddoyos and pjua (Girdlestone).
they adjusted \dy.ov as well as might be to 7x, and left to one side meanwhile its classical synonyms *! — except ywavreta and its cognates, which they assigned, chiefly, of course, in a bad sense, to the Hebrew cop in the sense of ‘“‘divination.”’
mmx is, to be sure, in no sense an exact synonym of hoy.ov. It is simply a poetical word of high implications, prevailingly, though not exclusively, used of the ‘‘utterances”’ of God, and apparently felt by the Septuagint translators to bear in its bosom a special hint of the authoritativeness or awesomeness of the ‘‘word”’ it designates. It is used only some thirty-six times in the entire Old Testament (of which no less than nineteen are in Ps. exix.), and designates the solemn words of men (Gen. iv. 23, ef. Isa. xxix. 4 bis., xxvill. 23, xxxll. 9; Ps. xvil. 6; Deut. xxxil. 2) as well as, more prevailingly, those of God. In adjusting \éyor to it the instances of its application to human words are, of course, passed by and translated either by Noyos (Gen. iv. 23; Isa. xxix. 4 bis.; Isa. xxvill. 23, xxxii. 9), or pjua (Deut. xxxil. 2; Ps. xvii. 6). In a few other instances, although the term is applied to ‘‘words of God,” it is translated by Greek words other than hoyov (II Sam. xxii. 31, LX X. pjua, and its close parallel, Prov. xxx. 5, LXX. doyo., though in the other parallels, Ps. xii. 7, xviii. 31, the LX X. has Aédya; Ps. exix. [41 2, 154, where the LX_X. has Noyos; in Ps. exxxvill. 2, the LX X. reads TO ay.ov cov, on which Bethgen remarks, 2m loc., that ‘‘ ayvov seems to be a corruption for \éyov,”’ which is read here by Aquila and the Quinta). In the remaining instances of its occurrences, however — and that is in the large majority of its occurrences — the word is uniformly rendered by \oyov
51 ypnouds, for example, which we have found the constant accompaniment of Aéyov in the classics and shall find always by its side in Philo, does not occur in the LXX. at all. The cognates xpnuarifw (Jer. xxxil. (25) 30, xxxill. (26) 2, xxxvi. (29) 28, xxxvil. (30) 2, xonuwariopés (Prov. xxiv. 69 (xxxi. 1), II Mace. il. 4), xonuatiornpt (I Kegs. viii. 6), are, however, found, and in their high sense. It is somewhat. overstrained for Delitzsch (on Heb. viii. 5, E. T., Vol. ii. 82) to say: ‘‘ The Septuagint word for the deliverance of a divine oracle or injunction is xpynuarifer (rovs Néyous) ruvl or rpds Twa: xpnuarifew is found in this sense only in the LXX.
(Deut. xxxili. 9; Ps. xii. 7 bis., xviii. 31, ev. 19, exix. 11, 38 41h), °7750,/58; 67, 76, 82) 103) 116, 128; 133) 140,7148..158, 162, 170, 172, exlvii. 15; Isa. v. 24). If there is a fringe of usage of sms thus standing outside of the use made of Aoy.ov, there is, on the other side, a corresponding stretching of the use made of \éyov beyond the range of a7» — to cover a few passages judged by the translators of similar import. Thus it translates -4k in Num. xxiv. 4, 16; Ps. xviii. 15 [xix. 15], evi. [evii.] 11, and ss in Ps. exviii. [exix.] 25, 65, 107, 169, [exlvii. 8]; Isa. xxviii. 13; and it represents in a few passages \dyorv, a variation from the Hebrew, viz., Ps. exviii. [ cxix.]; Isa. xxx. 11, 27 bis. In twenty-five instances of its thirty-nine occurrences, however, it is the rendering of m7x.°? It is also used twice in the Greek apocrypha (Wis. xvi. 11; Sir. xxxvi. 19), in quite the same sense. In all the forty-one instances of its usage, it is needless to say, it is employed in its native and only current sense, of ‘oracle,’ a sacred utterance of the Divine Being, the only apparent exception to this uniformity of usage (Ps. xvii. 15 [ xix. 15 ]) being really no exception, but, in truth, significant of the attitude of the translators to the text they were translating — as we shall see presently.
What led the LXX. translators to fix upon mx as the nearest Hebrew equivalent to \oyov,* we have scanty material for judging. Certainly, in Psalm cxix, where the word most frequently occurs, it is difficult to erect a distinction between its implications and those of 735 with which it seems to be freely interchanged, but which the LXX. trans-
Jeremiah, A very rich body of illustrations for the New Testament usages (Luke ii. 26, Acts x. 22, Heb. viii. 5) might, however, be culled from Philo.
53 The passages are already enumerated just above.
54 The other versions add nothing of importance. At Ps. exix. 41 the ‘TVs rendered édeos by LX X.is rendered \éyrov by Aq. and Th. In Ps. exxxvil. (¢xxxviii). 2 the 778 rendered by LXX. a&yov (though Bethgen remarks that this seems merely a corruption of Aéy.ov) is rendered Adyov by Aq. and Quinta. In Isa. xxxil. 9, the ‘T728 rendered in LXX. by dAéyou is given as Adyiov by Aq., a case quite parallel with Ps. xviii. 15 (xix. 15) in LXX. In Jer. viii. 9 the phrase 717""7572 is rendered in Aq. by Adyrov.
lators keep reasonably distinct from it by rendering it prevailingly by ddoyos,* while equally prevailingly reserving Noytov for w7ex.°® Perhaps the reader may faintly feel even in this Psalm, that =» was to the writer the more sacred and solemn word, and was used, in his rhetorical variation of his terms, especially whenever the sense of the awesomeness of God’s words or the unity of the whole revelation of God ” more prominently occupied his mind; and this impression is slightly increased, perhaps, in the case of the interchange of Noytov and dyos in the Greek translation. When we look beyond this Psalm we certainly feel that something more requires to be said of ss than merely that it is poetic.® It is very seldom applied to human words and then only to the most solemn forms of human speech — Gen. xxiv. 23 (LXX., Noyor); Deut. xxxii. 2 (LXX., pnua); Ps. xxvii. (LXX., pjua); ef. Isa. xxix. 4 bis (LXX., Novyor) where the speaker is Jerusalem whose speech is compared to the murmuring of familiar spirits or of the dead, and Isa. xxviil. 23, xxxil. 9, where the prophet’s word is in question. It appears to suggest itself naturally when God’s word is to receive its highest praises
56 Delitzsch on v. 9 seg.: ‘The old classic (e. g., xvili. 31), JTS alternates throughout with 7727; both are intended collectively.’’ Perowne on v. 11: ‘‘Worp, or rather ‘saying,’ ‘speech,’ distinct from the word employed, for instance, in v. 9. Both words are constantly interchanged throughout the Psalm.”
57 Delitzsch on v. 145-152: “i188 is here as in verses 140, 158, the whole Word of God, whether in its requirements or its promises.”
fates LPS xin gexvills 3 lst Provex sxe we seCKe x Vill: 2), or when the word of Jehovah is conceived as power or adduced in a peculiarly solemn way (Ps. exlvii. 18 ®; Isa. v. 24). Perhaps the most significant passage is that in Psalm ev. 19, where the writer would appear to contrast man’s word with God’s word, using for the former 133 (LX X., \ovyos) and for the latter ~7»x (LXX., \oyov): Joseph was tried by the word of the Lord until his own words came to pass.* Whatever implications of superior solemnity attached to the Hebrew word 77x, however, were not only preserved, but emphasized by the employment of the Greek term dy.ov to translate it — a term which was inapplicable, in the nature of the case, to human words, and designated whatever it was applied to as the utterance of God. We may see its lofty implications in the application given to it outside the usage of =t»xs —in Num. xxiv. 4, for example, where the very solemn description of Balaam’s deliverances — ‘‘oracle of the hearer of the words of God” (5x~>x) — is rendered most naturally dyoiv dxobwv Noyra iaxupov. Here, one would say, we have the very essence of the word, as developed in its classical usage, applied to Biblical conceptions: and it is essentially this conception of the ‘‘unspeakable oracles of God”’ (Sir., xxxvi. 19, [16 ]) that is conveyed by the word in every instance of its occurrence.
An exception has been sometimes found, to be sure, in Ps. xviii. 15 (xix. 14), inasmuch as in this passage we have the words of the Psalmist designated as 7a Noyia: “‘ And the words (7a Noya) of my mouth and the meditation of my heart shall be continually before thee for approval, O Lord, my help and my redeemer.” In this passage, however — and
60 ‘The God of Israel is the Almighty Governor of nature. It is He who sends His fiat (178 after the manner of the V8"! of the history of creation, cf. xxxiii. 9), earthward.... The word is His messenger (cf. in cvii. 20), etc.’ Delitzsch, in loc.
6t It seems certainly inadequate to render ‘Ta8 by ‘‘saying,” as is very frequently done, e. g., by Dr. John DeWitt in his “‘ Praise Songs of Israel” (we have only the first edition at hand), by Dr. Maclaren in the cxix. Psalm (“Expositor’s Bible’’) and by Dr. Driver at Ps. cv. 19; cf. exlvii. 15 seg. This English word suggests nothing of the lofty implications which seem to have attached to the Hebrew term.
in Isa. xxxil. 9 as rendered by Aquila, which is similar — we would seem to have not so much an exception to the usage of 7a Adyta as otherwise known, as an extension of it. The translators have by no means used it here of the words of a human speaker, but of words deemed by them to be the words of God, and called 7a \éyta just because considered the ‘‘tried words of God.’ This has always been perceived by the more careful expositors. Thus Philippi © writes:
“Psalm xix. 14 supplies only an apparent exception, since ra oyta TOD crduaros wou there, as spoken through the Holy Spirit, may be regarded as at the same time, Adyra Beod.”