And Morrison:
“In Psalm xix. 15 (14) the term thus occurs: ‘let the words of my mouth (7a Adyla ToD cTOmaTos wou = “B78, from Wk), and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength and my Redeemer.’ But even here the term may be fitly regarded as having its otherwise invariable reference. The Septuagint translator looked upon the sacred writer as giving utterance in his Psalm — the words of his mouth — to diviner thoughts than his own, to the thoughts of God Himself. He regarded him as ‘moved’ in what he said, ‘by the Holy Ghost.’’’ *
In a word, we have here an early instance of what proves to be the standing application of ta \oyra on Hellenistic lips — its application to the Scripture word as such, as the special word of God that had come to them. The only ground of surprise that can emerge with reference to its use here, therefore, is that in this instance it occurs within the limits of the Seriptures themselves: and this is only significant of the customary employment of the term in this application — for, we may well argue, it was only in sequence to such a customary employment of it that this usage could intrude itself thus, unobserved as it were, into the Biblical text itself.
6 Possibly Bleek in loc. Heb. v. 12 means the same thing when he says the word stands here of ‘‘the inspired religious song of the poet.”
It is scarcely necessary to do more than incidentally advert to the occasional occurrence of \oytov = doyetov in the Septuagint narrative, as the rendering of the Hebrew jun, that is, to designate the breastplate of the high priest, which he wore when he consulted Jehovah.® Bleek writes, to be sure, as follows: ©
“How fully the notion of an utterance of God attended the word according to the usage of the Alexandrians too is shown by the circumstance that the LX X. employed it for the oracular breastplate of the High Priest (jn), Ex. xxviii. 15, 22 seg., xxix. 5, xxxix. 8 seq.; Lev. vii. 8; Sir. xlv. 12, for which doyetov, although found in Codd. Vat. and Alex., is apparently a later reading; Néyov, to which the Latin translation rationale goes back, has also Josephus, ‘‘ Ant.,’’ 11. 7, 5, for it: éoonvns (WM) wer Kadetrat, onuaiver 6€ TodTO KaTa THY ‘EAANVOY yA@rrav Noytov; c. 8, 9: Bev “EXAnVEs... TOV EcaoHvynY NOYLoV Kadovau; viii. 3, 8. And similarly apparently Philo, as may be inferred from his expositions, in that he brings it into connection with \dyos, reason, although with him too the reading varies between the two forms: see “Legg. Allegor.,’’ ii. 40, p. 83, A. B.; § 43, p. 84, C. ‘Vit. Mos.,” iow OF 0.4871 2)-p.. 672,517,813). p67) A. » De Monarch:,% ll. 5, p. 824 A.”
It is much more probable, however, that we have here an itacistic confusion by the copyists, than an application by the Septuagint translators of \éy.ov to a new meaning. This confusion may have had its influence on the readers of the LXX., and may have affected in some degree their usage of the word: but it can have no significance for the study of the use of the word by the LXX. itself.
III. Among the readers of the Septuagint it is naturally to Philo that we will turn with the highest expectations of light on the Hellenistic usage of the word: and we have already seen Bleek pointing out the influence upon him of the
LXX. use of \oy.ov = Aoyetov. Whatever minor influence of this kind the usage of the Septuagint may have had on him, however, Philo’s own general employment of the word carries on distinctly that of the profane authors. In him, too, the two words xpnopos and \oywov appear as exact synonyms, interchanging repeatedly with each other, to express what is in the highest sense the word of God, an oracle from heaven. The only real distinction between his usage of these words and that of profane authors arises from the fact that to Philo nothing is an oracle from heaven, a direct word of God, except what he found within the sacred books of Israel.*’ And the only confusing element in his usage springs
67 Tt is not intended to deny that Philo recognized a certain divine influence working beyond the limits of Scripture: but he does this without prejudice to his supreme regard for the Scriptures as the only proper oracles of God. At the opening of the tractate ‘‘Quod Omn. Prob. Lib.” (§ 1, M. 444, 445), he gives expression in the most exalted terms to his appreciation of the value of Greek thought: the Pythagoreans are a most sacred brotherhood (iepwraros diacos) whose teachings are kada, and all men who have genuinely embraced philosophy (¢iAocodiavy yrunciws nomwacavro) have found one of their Aéyou a Oecpuov icobuevov xpnoud. Elsewhere he speaks of Parmenides, Empedocles, Zeno and Cleanthes and their like as “‘divi homines” constituting a “‘sacer coetus” (“‘ De Prov.,’’ §48), who did not cast their teachings in verse only because it was fitting that they should not be quite gods (“De Prov.,”’ § 42). But even here the xpnouds is the standard to which their teaching is only likened: with all their wisdom they fall short of deity; and it is the utterance of deity alone which is ‘‘oracular’”’ — and this utterance is discernible only in the Scriptures of the Jews. We venture to quote here the statements of Prof, James Drummond (“Philo Judzus,”’ i. pp. 13 seq.): The Scriptures “‘ were the
‘oracles,’ the ‘sacred’ or ‘divine word,’ whose inspiration extended to the most minute particulars. Philo distinguishes indeed different kinds of inspiration, but the distinction did not affect its divine authority.... Communion between God and man is among the permanent possibilities of our race; and Philo goes so far as to say that every good and wise man has the gift of prophecy, while it is impossible for the wicked man to become an interpreter of God (‘‘Quis rer. div. heres.” 52 [1. 510]). It is true that he is referring here primarily to the good men in the Scriptures, but he seems to regard them as representatives of a general law. He did not look upon himself as a stranger to this blessed influence, but sometimes ‘a more solemn word’ spoke from his own soul, and he ventured to write down what it said to him (‘‘Cherubim,” 9 [i. 143 ]). In one passage he fully records his experience (“‘Migrat. Abrah.,” 7 [i. 441]).... Elsewhere he refers to the suggestions of the Spirit which was accustomed to commune with him unseen (‘‘ De Somniis,” ii. 38 [i. 692]).... But he ascribed to the Biblical writers a fullness of this divine enthusiasm, and consequent infallibility of utterance, which he claimed for no others.”
from the fact that the whole contents of the Jewish sacred books are to him ‘‘oracles,’”’ the word of God; so that he has no nomenclature by which the oracles recorded in the Scriptures may be distinguished from the oracles which the Scriptures as such are. He has no higher words than Ndoyov and xpyopuos by which to designate the words of God which are recorded in the course of the Biblical narrative: he can use no lower words than these to designate the several passages of Scripture he adduces, each one of which is to him a direct word of God. Both of these uses of the words may be illustrated from his writings almost without limit. A few instances will suffice.
In the following, the ‘‘oracle’’ is a ‘‘word of God”’ recorded in the Scriptures °°:
‘For he inquires whether the man is still coming hither, and the sacred oracle answers (daoxpiverat 76 \oyuov), ‘He is hidden among the stuff’ (I Sam. x. 22)” (“De Migrat. Abrah.,” § 36, pp. 418 E). “‘ For after the wise man heard the oracle which being divinely given said (Oeartabevtos Noyiou TovovTov) ‘Thy reward is exceeding great’ (Gen. xv. 1), he inquired, saying.... And yet who would not have been amazed at the dignity and greatness of him who delivered this oracle (rod xpnou@ dovvros) 2?” (‘Quis rer. div. her.,” §1, pp. 481 D). “And he (God) mentions the ministrations and services by which Abraham displayed his love to his master in the last sentence of the divine oracle given to his son (dxporedebriov Aoyiov Tod xpynaGevros adtod 7 viet) (““ Quis rer. div. her.,”’ § 2, pp. 482 E). “To him (Abraham), then, being conscious of such a disposition, an oracular command suddenly comes (eomiferat Adyov), Which was never expected (Gen. xxi. 1)... and without mentioning the oracular command (76 \oyov) to anyone...” (“De Abrah.,” § 32, P., p. 373 E). “[Moses] had appointed his brother high-priest in accordance with the will of God that had been declared unto him (xara 74 xpnoO@v7a NOyta”’) (“De Vita Moysis,’’ ili.
68 Yonge’s translation (in Bohn’s Ecclesiastical Library) is made use of in these citations. The paging of Mangey is often given and sometimes that of the Paris edition: but the edition of Richter is the one that has been actually used. The shortcomings of Yonge’s translation (cf. Edersheim’s article, “‘ Philo,” in Smith and Wace’s ‘“‘ Dictionary of Christian Biography,” iv. 367 A, note o), will be evident to the reader; but when important for our purpose will be correctable from the Greek clauses inserted.
21, P., p. 569 D). “Moses... being perplexed... besought God to decide the question and to announce his decision to him by an oracular command (xpyoue). And God listened to his entreaty and gave him an oracle (Adytov beorife).... We must proceed to relate the oracular commands (Aéy.a xpnobévra). He says... (Num. ix. 10)” (“De Vita Moysis,” iii. 30, P., p. 687 D). “And Balaam replied, All that I have hitherto uttered have been oracles and words of God (Adya xal xpnopyot), but what I am going to say are merely the suggestions of my own mind.... Why do you give counsel suggesting things contrary to the oracles of God (rots xpyouots) unless indeed that your counsels are more powerful than his decrees (Aoyiwv)?”’ (“De Vita Moysis,”’ i. 53, P., p. 647 D). “ Was it not on this account that when Cain fancied he had offered up a blameless sacrifice an oracle (Adyrov) came to him?... And the oracle is as follows (76 6€ Adyov Eore ToLdvde) (Gen. iv. 7)” (“De Agricult.,”’ § 29, M. i. 319). “And a proof of this may be found in the oracular answer given by God (76 fecmicbev \oytov) to the person who asked what name he had: ‘I am that I am’” (“De Somniis,” i. § 40, M. 1, 655). ‘““But when he became improved and was about to have his name changed, he then became a man born of God (4pwros Geod) according to the oracle that was delivered to him (kara ro xpnobev ait@ Aoy.ov), ‘I am thy God’” (‘‘ De Gigant.,”’ § 14, M. 1, 271). “ For which reason, a sacred injunction to the following purport (6.6 kai hoyov Expnoby 7B cod to.ovde) ‘Go thou up to the Lord, thou and Aaron,’ etc. (Gen. xxiv. 1.). And the meaning of this injunction is as follows: ‘Go thou up, O soul’” (“De Migrat. Abrah.,” § 31, M. 1, 462). ‘For which account an oracle of the all-merciful God has been given (Ady.ov Tod thew Oeod weordov Hueporyros) full of gentleness, which shadows forth good hopes to those who love instruction in these times, ‘I will never leave thee nor forsake thee’ (Jos. i. 5)” (“De Confus. Ling.,” § 32, M. i. 430). “Do you not recollect the case of the soothsayer Balaam? He is represented as hearing the oracles of God (Ady Jeov) and as having received knowledge from the Most High, but what advantage did he reap from such hearing, and what good accrued to him from such knowledge?” (““De Mutat. Nominum,” §37). “There are then a countless number of things well worthy of being displayed and demonstrated; and among them one which was mentioned a little while ago; for the oracle (76 Ady.ov) calls the person who was really his grandfather, the father of the practiser of virtue, and to him who was really his father it has not given any such title; for it says, ‘I am the Lord God of Abraham, thy Father’ (Gen. xxviii. 13), and in reality
he was his grandfather, and, again, ‘the God of Isaac,’ not adding this time, ‘thy Father’ (“De Somniis,’ i. § 27).” “And there is something closely resembling this in the passage of Scripture (lt. the oracle: Td xpnobév Aoyrov) concerning the High Priest (Lev. xvi. 17)” (“De
On the other hand, in the following instances, the reference is distinctly to Scripture as such:
“ And the following oracle given with respect to Enoch (76 xpnadev él "Evwx dOytov) proves this: ‘Enoch pleased God and he was not found’ (Gen. v. 24)” (“De Mutat. Nom.,”’ § 4).
It is a portion of the narrative Scriptures which is thus adduced.
“But let us stick to the subject before us and follow the Scripture (axodov0joavres TS Noyiw) and say that there is such a thing as wisdom existing, and that he who loves wisdom is wise’’ (do).
Here 70 \oyuov is either Scripture in general, or, perhaps more probably, the passage previously under discussion and still in mind (Gen. v. 24).
““Maprupet 5€ wor Noytov 76 xpnobev eri Tod ’ABpadu 7o6e, ‘He came into the place of which the Lord God had told him; and having looked up with his eyes, he saw the place afar off (Gen. xxii. 9)’” (“De
This narrative passage of Scripture is here cited as \oy.ov 76 xpno lev.
‘This is a boast of a great and magnanimous soul, to rise above all creation, and to overleap its boundaries and to cling to the great uncreated God above, according to his sacred commands (xara ras lepas bWnyjoes) In which we are expressly enjoined ‘to cleave unto him’ (Deut. xxx. 20). Therefore he in requital bestows himself as their inheritance upon those who do cleave unto him and who serve him without intermission; and the sacred Scripture (Ady.ov) bears its testimony in behalf of these, when it says, ‘The Lord himself is his inheritance’ (Deut. x. 9)”’ (“De Congressu erud. grat.,’”’ § 24, p. 448).
Here the anarthrous \oy.ov is probably to be understood of ‘a passage of Scripture’’ — viz., that about to be cited.
“Moreover she (Consideration) confirmed this opinion of hers by the sacred scriptures (xpnopyots), one of which ran in this form (évl pep rouse — without verb) (Deut. iv. 4).... She also confirmed her statement by another passage in Scripture of the following purport (érépw roude Xpnous) (Deut. xxx. 15)... and in another passage we read (kal éy érépois) (Deut. xxx. 20). And again this is what the Lord himself hath said... (Lev. x. 3)... as it is also said in the Psalms (Ps. exiil. 25)... but Cain, that shameless man, that parricide, is nowhere spoken of in the Law (otéauod 7Hs vouobecias) as dying: but there is an oracle delivered respecting him in such words as these (4AAd kal oyov Eat Ex’ alt xpnobev roodrov): ‘The Lord God put a mark upon Cain’ (Gen. iv. 15)” (“De Profug.,”’ § 11, M. i. 555).
Here it is questionable whether ‘‘the Law” (7 vouoecia) is not broad enough to include all the passages mentioned — from Genesis, Leviticus and the Psalms — as it is elsewhere made to include Joshua (‘‘ De Migrat. Abrah.,”’ § 32, M. i, 464. See Ryle: p. xix). At all events, whatever is in this voyobecia is a xpynobev NOyrov: the passage more particularly adduced being a narrative one.
“After the person who loves virtue seeks a goat by reason of his sins, but does not find one; for already as the sacred Scripture tells us (ws dndot 7d Aoyuov), ‘It hath been burnt’ (Lev. x. 16)... Accordingly the Scripture says (¢noatv oty 6 xpnouos) that Moses ‘sought and sought again,’ a reason for repentance for his sins in mortal life... on which account it is said in the Scripture (6.6 \éyerar) (Lev. xvi. 20)”’ (“De
Here 70 \oytov seems to mean not so much a passage in Scripture as ‘‘Scripture”’ in the abstract: Lev. x. 16 not being previously quoted in this context. The same may be said of the reference of 6 xpyopds in the next clause and of the simple Aeyerar lower down — the interest of the passage turning on the entire equivalence of the three modes of adducing Scripture.
“ This then is the beginning and preface of the prophecies of Moses under the influence of inspiration (rjjs kat’ évOovetacuov rpopyrelas Mwicéws). After this he prophesied (Gec7ifer)... about food... being full of inspiration (éredcas).... Some thinking, perhaps, that what was said to them was not an oracle (ov xpyopots).... But the father established the oracle by his prophet (76 \éyov rod rpodjrov).... He gave a second instance of his prophetical inspiration in the oracle (Adyrov, anarthrous) which he delivered about the seventh day” (“De
“And the holy oracle that has been given (76 xpnobév oyiov = ‘the delivered oracle’; Ryle, ‘the utterance of the oracle’) will bear witness, which expressly says that he cried out loudly and betrayed clearly by his cries what he had suffered from the concrete evil, that is from the body” (‘‘ Quod det. pot. insid.,’”’ § 14, M. I., 200).
Here the narrative in Gen. iv, somewhat broadly taken, including vers. 8 and 10, is called ro xpyabev Noyrov.
“There is also something like this in the sacred scriptures where the account of the creation of the universe is given and it is expressed more distinctly (76 raparAnovov Kai év Tots epi THs TOD TavTos yevécEews xpnabetor Novyiows TEpLexEeTaL OnwEerwoeoTepov). For it is said to the wicked man, ‘O thou man, that hast sinned; cease to sin’ (Gen. iv. 7)”
Here there is a formal citation of a portion of Scripture, viz., the portion “ concerning the creation of the universe,’ which means, probably, the Book of Genesis (see Ryle’s “ Philo and Holy Scripture,” p. xx); and this is cited as made up of ‘declared oracles,’’ év tots xpyoGetot Noylows. The Book of Genesis is thus to Philo a body of xpyaevra oyna.
‘And this is the meaning of the oracle recorded in Deuteronomy (rap’ 6 Kal NoyLov Ere ToOLoOvTOY avayeypaupevoy év Aevtepovopiw), ‘Behold
I have put before thy face life and death, good and evil’” (“Quod
Here the ‘‘oracle”’ is a ‘‘written”’ thing; and it is written in a well-known book of oracles, viz., in ‘‘ Deuteronomy,” the second book of the Law. This book, and of course the others like it, consists of written oracles.
“And the words of scripture show this, in which (é6y\o? 6€ 76 Adyov & @) it is distinctly stated that ‘they both of them went together, and came to the plain which God had mentioned to them (Gen. xxii. 3)’’ (‘De Migrat. Abrah.” § 30, M. 1. 462).
“And for this reason the following scripture has been given to men (616 AdyLov ExpHaby Tordvde), ‘Return to the land of thy father and to thy family, and I will be with thee’ (Gen. xxxi. 3)” (‘De Migrat.
Here, though the words are spoken in the person of God, the generalized use of them seems to point to their Scriptural expression as the main point.
‘““Moses chose to deliver each of the ten commandments (éxacrov Jeorrifew t&v deka Noyiwv) in such a form as if they were addressed not to many persons but to one” (“De Decem Oracul.,” zepi rav Aéxa
Both classes of passages thus exist in Philo’s text in the greatest abundance — no more those which speak of words of God recorded in Scripture as \oyra than those which speak of the words of Scripture as such as equally Aoy.a. Nor are we left to accord the two classes of passages for ourselves. Philo himself, in what we may call an even overstrained attempt at systematization, elaborately explains how he distinguishes the several kinds of matter which confront him in Scripture. The fullest statement is probably that in the “De Vita Moysis,”’ iii, 23 (Mangey, ii, 163). Here he somewhat artificially separates three classes of ‘‘ oracles,” all haying equal right to the name. It is worth while to transcribe enough of the passage to set its essential contents clearly before us. He is naturally in this place speaking directly of Moses — as indeed commonly in his tracts, which are confined, generally speaking, to an exposition of the Pentateuch: but his words will apply also to the rest of the ‘‘ sacred books,”’ which he uniformly treats as the oracles of God alike with the Pentateuch.® He writes:
69 Cf. on this matter Edersheim in Smith and Wace’s ‘‘ Dictionary of Christian Biography,” art. “Philo” (Vol. iv. pp. 386, 387): The only books ‘‘of which
“Having shown that Moses was a most excellent king and lawgiver and high priest, I come in the last place to show that he was also the most illustrious of the prophets (xpody7&v). Iam not unaware, then, that all the things that are written in the sacred books are oracles delivered by him (as rdvra eiol xpnopuol boa & rats iepats BiBdous avayeypamta: xpnobevres dv abrov): and I will set forth what more particularly concerns him, when I have first mentioned this one point, namely, that of the sacred oracles (r&v Aoyiwv) some are represented as delivered in the person of God by His interpreter, the divine prophet (éx mpoowmou Tod Beod du’ épunvéws tod Oeiov rpophjrov), while others are put in the form of question and answer (é« zebcews kal dmoxpioews éGecriaOy), and others are delivered by Moses in his own character, as a divinely prompted lawgiver possessed by divine inspiration (éx mpocwrov Mwicéws éerberdoavtos kal €€ alto KatacxeEvTos).
“Therefore all the earliest [Gr. rpra = the first of the three classes enumerated] oracles are manifestations of the whole of the divine virtues and especially of that merciful and boundless character by means of which He trains all men to virtue, and especially the race which is devoted to His service, to which He lays open the road leading to happiness. The second class have a sort of mixture and communication (uiéy Kal kowwviav) in them, the prophet asking information on the subjects as to which he is in difficulty and God answering him and instructing him. The third sort are attributed to the lawgiver, God having given him a share in His prescient power by means of which he is enabled to foretell the future.
‘Therefore we must for the present pass by the first; for they are too great to be adequately praised by any man, as indeed they could
it may with certainty be said that they are not referred to by Philo, are Esther and the Song of Solomon. The reference to Ecclesiastes is very doubtful, much more so than that to Daniel (p. 387 a).” Cf. also Ryle, ‘‘Philo and Holy Scripture,” pp.
16-35: “It is abundantly clear that to Philo the Pentateuch was a Bible within a Bible, and that he only occasionally referred to other books, whose sanctity he acknowledged, as opportunity chanced to present itself” (p. 27). Cf. also Ewald, “‘ History of Israel,” E. T., vii. 204, 205: ‘‘ Although he uses, and generally
in the order in which they are now found in the Hebrew Canon, the other books much less gradatim than the Pentateuch, their authors are, nevertheless, considered by him as of equal holiness and divinity with Moses, and inasmuch as from his whole view and treatment of the Scriptures, he can attribute but little importance to their authors as authors, or to their names and temporal circumstances, he likes to call them all simply friends, or associates, or disciples of Moses, or prefers still more to quote the passage to which he refers simply as a sacred song, sacred word, etc.” “It is only the books which we now find collected in the
scarcely be panegyrized worthily by the heaven itself and the nature of the universe; and they are also uttered by the mouth, as it were, of an interpreter (kal dws Aeyerar woavel dv’ Epunvews). But (6é) interpretation and prophecy differ from one another. And concerning the second kind I will at once endeavor to explain the truth, connecting with them the third species also, in which the inspired character (tOoverbes) of the speaker is shown, according to which he is most especially and appropriately looked upon as a prophet.” ”
A somewhat different distribution of material — now from the point of view, not of mode of oracular delivery, but of nature of contents —is given at the opening of the tract “De prem. et poen.”’ (§ 1, init.):
“We find then that in the sacred oracles delivered by the prophet Moses (7p 61a 700 tpodjtrov Mwicéws Aoviwv) there are three separate characters: for a portion of them relates to the creation of the world, a portion is historical, and the third portion is legislative.”
Hebrew Canon which he regarded as holy, and he was both sufficiently learned and careful not to rank all the others which were at that time gradually appended to the Greek Bible upon an equality with them.” Cf. also Lee, “‘The Inspiration
Scriptures are to Philo so immediately divine and holy, that he consistently finds in them simply the divine word rather than Scripture, and therefore really everywhere speaks less of the Sacred Scriptures than of divine oracles [xpyopol, Adyea | of which they were wholly composed, or, when he desires to designate them briefly as a whole, of the sacred and divine Word, as if the same Logos, of whom he speaks so much elsewhere, were symbolized and incorporated in them for all time, as far as that is possible in a book [6 éepos, more rarely 6 Oetos Adyos, likewise 6 d6p0ds Néyos (e. g., 1. 8308, 27; 681, 17; cf. esp., ii. 163, 44) is the expression which he constantly uses in this case; cf. esp. i. 676, 37 seq.; 677, 12]. It is true that in the case of the general subject matter, of the Pentateuch for instance, he makes a certain distinction, inasmuch as some of the oracles come to the prophet, as a mere interpreter directly as from the presence and voice of God alone, while others are revealed to him by God in answer to his interrogations, and again others have their origin in himself when in an inspired state of mind. But he makes this threefold distinction simply because he found it in reading particular passages of the Bible, and not with a view of further reflecting upon it and drawing references from it. On the contrary, he regards and treats all the sentences and words of the Scripture as on a perfect equality and teaches expressly that sacred Scripture must be interpreted and applied, as forming even to its smallest particles, one inseparable whole (cf. esp. ‘‘ Auch.,’’ 11. 170, 212 seq.; in other respects, cf. i. 554, 14, and many other passages of a similar character ].”
Accordingly in the tract ‘‘ De Legat. ad Caium,”’ § 31 (Mangey, il. 577), we are told of the high esteem the Jews put on their laws:
“For looking upon their laws as oracles directly given to them by God Himself (Gedxpnora yap NOyra Tods vduous evar bToAauBavovres) and having been instructed in this doctrine from their earliest infancy, they bear in their souls the images of the commandments contained in these laws as sacred.”
By the side of this passage should be placed doubtless another from the “ De Vita Contemplativa,”’ §3, since it appears that we may still look on this tract as Philo’s:
‘And in every house there is a sacred shrine... Studying in that place the laws and sacred oracles of God enunciated by the holy prophets (voyueus kal Aoyra SeomicbéevTa 61a tpodynTGv) and hymns and psalms and all kinds of other things by reason of which knowledge and piety are increased and brought to perfection.”’
It is not strange that out of such a view of Scripture Philo should adduce every part of it alike as a \oyov. Sometimes, to be sure, his discrimination of its contents into classes shows itself in the formule of citation; and we should guard ourselves from being misled by this. Thus, for example, he occasionally quotes a \oy.ov ‘‘from the mouth (or ‘ person’) of God’’ — which does not mean that Scriptures other than these portions thus directly ascribed to God as speaking, are less oracular than these, but only that these are oracles of his first class — those that ‘‘are represented as delivered from the person of God (€k zpoowzov tod Geov) by his interpreter, the divine prophet.”’ A single instance or two will suffice for examples:
‘And the sacred oracle which is delivered as”’ [dele “as”’] “from the mouth” [or “person’’] ‘“‘of the ruler of the universe (Noyov ék mTpocwrou beaTriabev TOU TaV dAwV Wyeudvos) Speaks of the proper name of God as never having been revealed to anyone “ when God is repre-
71 The translation here is unusually expanded: the Greek runs Anno? dé kai X. e. 7.0.7. 7. &. 9. Tept TOD wedevt SednNABGBat Svoud Te abTov KUptov, KTV.
sented as saying, ‘For I have not shown them my name’ (Gen. Vi. 3)” (‘De Mutat. Nom.,” § 2). “And the oracles” (of xpyopoi which is a standing term for ‘the Scriptures’ in Philo) “bear testimony, in which it is said to Abraham ék rpocwzov 70d Geod (Gen. xvii. 1)” (ditto, § 5). “And he (Jeremiah the prophet) like a man very much under the influence of inspiration (are 7a woAda évOovo.dv) uttered an oracle in the character of God (xpnopdv riva ééel rev éx Tpoowrov Tod Geod) speaking in this manner to most peaceful virtue: ‘Hast thou not called me as thy house’ ete. (Jer. iii. 4)”’ (“De Cherub.,” § 14, M. i. 148).
The other oracles, delivered not €k mpoowzov Tov Geov but in dialogue or in the person of the prophet, are, however, no less oracular or authoritative. To Philo all that is in Seripture is oracular, every passage is a A\oy.ov, of whatever character or length; and the whole, as constituted of these oracles, is Ta NOyta, Or perhaps even 70 \dyrovy — the mass of logia or one continuous logion.
It is not said, be it observed, that Philo’s sole mode of designating Scripture, or even his most customary mode, is as Ta hoya. As has already been stated, he used ypynouds equally freely with \oy.ov for passages of Scripture, and oi xXpyouwot apparently even more frequently than 7a \éya for the body of Scripture. Instances of the use of the two terms interchangeably in the same passage have already been incidentally given.” A very few passages will suffice to illustrate his constant use of xpnoués and ot xpnopoi separately.
In the following instances he adduces passages of Scripture, each as a xpnopos:
“On this account also the oracle (6 xpnouds) which bears testimony against the pretended simplicity of Cain says, ‘You do not think as you say’ (Gen. iv. 15)” (“Quod det. potiori insid.,”’ § 45, M. i. 223). ‘And of the supreme authority of the living God, the sacred scripture is a true witness (6 xpnopuds adAnO7}s waptus) which speaks thus (Lev. xxv. 23)” (“De Cherub.,” § 31, M. i. 158). “For a man will come forth, says the word of God (¢nciv 6 xpynouos) leading a host and warring furiously, etc. (Num. xxiv. 7)” (“De Praem. et Poen.,” § 16, M. ii. 423). ““And the sacred scripture bears witness to this fact
Nom.,”’ § 24, M. 11. 599). In this last case it is to be noticed that the “oracle” is taken from Hosea: the corresponding passage in ‘‘De Plant. Noe.,’’ § 33, M. 1, 350, should be compared: ‘“‘ And with this
assertion, this oracle delivered by one of the prophets is consistent, etc. (Hos. xiv. 9) (rottTw kai rapa rie tv rpodyntdv xpynabev avvader T006€).””
Two other passages may be adduced for their inherent interest. The first from “ De Profug.,”’ §32 (M. i. 573), where we read:
“There are passages written in the sacred scriptures (of avaypagevtes xXpnopot) which give proof of these things. What they are we must now consider. Now in the very beginning of the history of the law there is a passage to the following effect (Gen. i. 6) (aiderai rus év apxh Ths vouobecias weTa THY KoopoTottay ebObs ToLdcde).”’
Here there is a precise designation where, among “‘ the written xXpnopol,’’ a certain one (tts) of them may be found, viz., in the beginning of ‘‘The Legislation’? immediately after ‘‘ The Creation” (cf. Ryle, p. xxi, note 1). The other is from the first book of the “ De Somniis,”’ § 27 (M. i. 646):
“These things are not my myth, but an oracle (xpyoyds) written on the sacred tables (é vats iepats avayeypaymevos orndats), For it says (Gen. xlvi. 1).”
This passage in Genesis is thus an oracle ‘‘written in the sacred tablets’? — and thus this phrase emerges as one of
Philo’s names for the Scriptures. Elsewhere we read somewhat more precisely:
‘““ Now these are those men who have lived irreproachably and admirably, whose virtues are durably and permanently recorded as on pillars in the sacred scriptures (@v rds aperds év Tats lepwraras éornXLrevabar ypadats oupBeBnxev)’’ (“De Abrah.,” $1, M. 1. 2). ‘There is also in another place the following sentence (ypauua) deeply engraven (éorn\crevuévov), (Deut. xxxii. 8)’’ (“De Congr. Erud. Grat.,”’ § 12, Meebo):
The ‘‘Seriptures”’ thus bear to Philo a monumental character: they are a body of oracles written, and more — a body of oracles permanently engraved to be a lasting testimony forever.
‘For the sacred Scriptures (of xpnoyot) say that he entered into the darkness”’ (“De Mutat. Nom.,” § 2). ‘But the sacred oracles (oi xXenopot) are witnesses of that in which Abraham is addressed (the words being put in the mouth of God), (& ots Neyerar 73 ’ABpadp éx Tpoowmov Tov Geov) (Gen. xvii. 1)”’ (do. § 5). “And these are not my
73 Philo’s designations of Scripture have been collected by Cl. Frees Hornemann, in his ‘‘Observationes ad illustr. doctr. de Can. V. T. ex. Philone”’ (1775); more briefly by Eichhorn in his ‘‘ Hinl. in d. A. Test.’’; and in a not altogether complete or exact list by Ryle, ‘Philo and Holy Scripture.”
When we combine these passages with those in which Aoytov occurs it will probably not seem too much to say that the dominant method of conceiving the Bible in Philo’s mind was as a book of oracles. Whether he uses the word \éyuov or Xpnopos, it is, of course, all one to him. Indeed, that nothing should be lacking he occasionally uses also other synonyms. For example, here is an instance of the Homeric word Oeompomov cropping out: “‘ For there is extant an oracle delivered to the wise man in which it is said (Lev. xxvi. 12), (kal yap éore xpynobev TS cohG Oeomporiov &v @ eyerar)”’ (“De Somniis,”’ i, §23). And this oracular conception of Scripture is doubtless the reason why it isso frequently quoted in Philo by the subjectless @yat, A€éyer, N€yerar (instead of, say, yéypamrar). There are in general, speaking broadly, three ways in which one fully accepting the divine origin and direct divine authority of Scripture may habitually look upon it. He may think of it as a library of volumes and then each volume is likely to be spoken of by him as a ypad7 and the whole, because the collection of volumes, as ai ypadai, or, when the idea of its unity is prominently in mind, as itself 7 ypady. On the other hand, the sense of its composite character may be somewhat lost out of habitual thought, swallowed up in the idea of its divine unity, and then its several sentences or passages are apt to be thought and spoken of as each a ypauua, and the whole, because made up of these sentences or passages, as Ta yoaupara. Or, finally, the sense of the direct divine utterance of the whole to the soul, and of its immediate divine authority, may overshadow all else and the several sentences or passages of the book be each conceived as an unmediated divine word coming directly to the soul — and then each passage is likely to be called a Aéyov or xpyopes, and the whole volume, because the sum of these passages, Ta Oya oF ot xXpnovot — or oécasionally, when its unity is prominently in mind, one great To \éy.ov or 6 xpyouos. Each of these three ways of looking at the Scriptures of the Old Testament finds expression in Philo,“ in Josephus and in the New Testament. But it is the last that is most characteristic of the thought of Philo, and the first possibly of the writers of the New Testament: ” while perhaps we may suspect that the intermediate
74 As to ypadai, see ‘Quis rerum div. heres,” § 32 (Mangey, i. 495), rap’ 6 kal é& iepats ypadats deyerat; “De Abrah.,” §1 (M.ii. 2), ‘‘ Now these are those men who have lived irreproachably... whose virtues are durably and permanently recorded as on pillars, & rats ieowraras ypadats.”’ As to ypdupya, ypaupara, see ‘De Congr. Erud. Grat.,” §12 (M.1. 527), "Eore 6é kal érépwht 76 ypdupa TodTO éorn\LTEVLEvov (Deut. xxxil. 8)”; “‘Quod Deus Immut.,” § 2 (M.i. 273), “‘ For in the first book of Kings (= I Sam. i. 20), she (Hannah) speaks in this manner: ‘I give him (Samuel) unto thee freely,’ the expression here used beirg equivalent to ‘I give him unto thee whom thou hast given unto me,’ kara 76 iepwtatrov Mwicéws ypauma rovto, ‘My gifts and my offerings, and my firstfruits, ye shall observe to offer unto me’”’; ‘“‘Legat. ad Caium,”’ § 29 (M. ii. 574), ‘‘ You have never been trained in the knowledge of the sacred Scriptures (ro?s iepots ypdupaow’’; ‘De Vita M.,” ili. 39; etc.
7% In the New Testament ypduya does not occur in the sense of a passage of Scripture — as indeed ra ypaupara occurs of Scripture only in II Tim. ui. 15, cf. John v. 47. The place of ypduua in this sense is taken in the New Testament by yeaon, though it is extreme to say with Lightfoot on Gal. iii. 22 (cf. Westcott on John ii. 22) that ypa¢y, alwaysin the New Testament refers to a particular passage. On the other hand this use of ypa@q is far from peculiar to the New Testament as seems to be implied by Stephens (‘‘Thes.” sub. voc.). Not only does it occur familiarly in the Fathers, as e. g. (from Sophocles): Clems. Rom., ii. 2; Justin one was most congenial to the thought of Josephus, who, as a man of affairs and letters rather than of religion, would naturally envisage the writings of the Old Testament rather as documents than as oracles.
From this survey we may be able to apprehend with some accuracy Philo’s place in the development of the usage of the word doyov. He has received it directly from profane Greek as one of a series of synonyms — oy.ov, xpynouds, Peorpdmuor, etc. — denoting a direct word from God, an “‘oracle.”’ He has in no way modified its meaning except in so far as a heightening of its connotation was inseparable from the transference of it from the frivolous and ambiguous oracles of heathendom to the revelations of the God of Israel, a heightening which was, no doubt, aided by the constant use of’the word in the Septuagint — Philos Bible — to translate the Hebrew 77x with all its high suggestions. But in this transference he has nevertheless given it a wholly new significance, in so far as he has applied it to a fixed written revelation and thus impressed on it entirely new implications. In his hands, \éycov becomes, by this means, a synonym of ypaupa, and imports ‘“a passage of Scripture’’ — conceived, of course, as a direct oracle from God. And the plural becomes a synonym of ra ypaumara, at ypadal, oi GiBdo., 6 Novos — or whatever other terms are used to express the idea of “the Holy Scriptures”’ — and imports what we call “the Bible,” of course with the implication that this Bible is but a congeries of ‘“‘oracles,’’ or
Mart., ‘‘Advs. Tryph.,” cc. 56, 65 (a very instructive case), 69, 71 (cf. Otto’s note here) and elsewhere; Clems. Alex., ‘‘Cohort ad Gentes.,” ix. ad init.: but also in Philo, as e. g., ‘‘De Praem. et Poen.,” § 11 near the end (M. ii. 418): ‘‘ Being continually devoted to the study of the Holy Scriptures both in their literal sense and also in the allegories figuratively contained in them (é rats pyrats ypadats cai & Tats brovoray addAnyopiats),”’ and ‘“‘Quis rerum div. her.,” §53 (M. 1. 511): “And the historian connects with his preceding account what follows in consistency with it, saying... (76 dé a&kddovdov rpocvpaiver TH ypadh packwy).” Of course Philo sometimes uses % ypad7 in the non-technical sense also, of a human treatise: thus at the opening of ‘‘De Somniis”’ he refers to what was contained in the preceding treatise h pev obv mpd Tabrys ypady weptetxe). What is said in the text is not intended to traverse such facts as these, indicating other usages; but is meant only to suggest in a broad way what seems to be the primary distinction between the three usages; the subsequent development undergone by them is another story.
direct utterances of God, or even in its whole extent one great ‘‘oracle”’ or utterance of God — that it is, in a word, the pure and absolute “Word of God.’”’ But when we say that \éy.ov is in Philo’s hands the equivalent of “‘a passage of Scripture,’’ we must guard against supposing that there is any implication of brevity attaching to it: its implication is that of direct divine utterance, not of brevity; and “the passage’’ in mind and designated by \oywov may be of any length, conceived for the time and the purpose in hand as a unitary deliverance from God, up to the whole body of Scripture itself.”© Similarly ta \oyra in Philo has not yet hardened into a simple synonym of “‘Scripture,’”’ but designates any body of the “oracles”? of which the whole Scripture is composed — now the “ten commandments,” now the Book of Genesis, now the Pentateuch, now the Jewish Law in general.”
There is little trace in Philo of the application made in the LX X. of Aéytov to the high priestly breastplate, by which it came to mean, not only the oracular deliverance, but the place or instrument of divination — though, quoting the LX X. as freely as he does, Philo could not help occasionally incorporating such a passage in his writings. We read, for example, in the ‘“‘ Legg. Allegor.,” iii, § 40 (M. i. 111):
“ At all events the Holy Scripture (6 tepds Aoyos), being well aware how great is the power of the impetuosity of each passion, anger and appetite, puts a bridle in the mouth of each, having appointed reason (rov Noyov) as their charioteer and pilot. And first of all it speaks thus of anger, in the hope of pacifying and curing it, ‘And you shall put manifestation and truth’ [the Urim and Thummim ] ‘in the oracle of judgment (éri 76 Aoyrov TH Kpicewv) and it shall be on the breast of Aaron, when he comes into the Holy Place before the Lord’ (Ex.
76 Thus of the passage cited above: in “‘Quod det pot. insid.,” § 14, the reference is to the narrative of Gen. iv; in ‘‘De Vita Moysis,” iil. 35, to the whole legislation concerning food; in ‘‘ De Profug.,” § 28, and ‘“‘De Mutat. Nom.,” § 4, apparently to the whole Bible.
xxviil. 30). Nor by the oracle (Aéy.ov) is here meant the organs of speech which exist in us.... For Moses here speaks not of a random, spurious oracle (dyov) but of the oracle of judgment, which is equivalent to saying a well-judged and carefully examined oracle.”’
Thus Philo gradually transmutes the \éy.iov = doyeltov of his text into the Ady.ov = xpynopeds of his exposition: and it is a little remarkable how little influence this LX X. usage has on his own use of the word. With him \dyror is distinctively a passage of Scripture, and the congeries of these passages make 7a oyna.
That this usage is not, however, a pecultwm of Philo’s merely, is evidenced by a striking passage from Josephus, in which it appears in full development. For example, we read:
“The Jews, by demolishing the tower of Antonia, had made their temple square, though they had it written in their sacred oracles (avayeypappevor ev Tots Noyiows) that their city and sanctuary should be taken when their temple should become square. But what most stirred them up was an ambiguous oracle (ypyoyos) that was found also in their sacred writings (év rots iepots ebvpnuévos ypdupacy) that about that time one from their country should become ruler of the world. The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves, and many wise men were thereby deceived in their judgment. Now this oracle (76 \dyrov) certainly denoted the rule of Vespasian”’ (“De Bello Jud.,” vi. 5, 4).
In this short passage we have most of the characteristics of the Philonean usage repeated: here is the interchangeable usage of \oyrov and xpyopods, on the one hand, and of 7a \oyra and Ta ypamuata, on the other: the sacred writings of the Jews are made up of “‘oracles,’”’ so that each portion of them is a Aoytov and the whole 7a Adyra.
IV. That this employment of ra \éyra as a Synonym of ait ypadat was carried over from the Jewish writers to the early Fathers, Dr. Lightfoot has sufficiently shown in a brief but effective passage in his brilliant papers in reply to the
persuasio inerat, antiquis sacerdotum litteris (= é rots tepots ypaupact) contineri, eo ipso tempore fore ut valesceret Oriens profectique Judea rerum potirentur. Quae ambages (= xpnouds dupiBoros = 7d A6yov) Vespasianum et Titum praedixerant.”
author of ‘Supernatural Religion.’’” It is not necessary to go over the ground afresh which Dr. Lightfoot has covered. But, for the sake of a general completeness in the presentation of the history of the word, it may be proper to set down here some of the instances of its usage in this sense among the earlier Fathers. Clement of Rome, after having quoted examples from the Scriptures at length, sums up the lesson thus: “The humility, therefore, and the submissiveness of so many great men, who have thus obtained a good report, hath through obedience made better not only us, but also the generations which were before us, even them that received his oracles in fear and truth” (c. 19); again (c. 53), “For ye know, and know well the sacred Scriptures (ras iepas ypadas), dearly beloved, and ye have searched into the oracles of God (Ta Nova TOD Beod)’’; and still again (c. 62), “And we have put you in mind of these things the more gladly, since we knew well that we were writing to men who are faithful and highly accounted and have diligently searched into the oracles of the teaching of God (ra \oyta THs Tadeias Tod Geov).’’ The same phenomenon obviously meets us here as in Philo: and Harnack ® and Lightfoot * both naturally comment to this effect on the middle instance — the former calling especially attention to the equation drawn between the two phrases for Scripture, and the latter to the fact, as shown by the Scriptures immediately adduced, that the mind of the writer in so designating Scripture was not on ‘“‘any divine precept or prediction, but the example of Moses.’ Equally strikingly, we read in II Clem., xiii, “For the Gentiles when they hear from our mouth the oracles of God, marvel at them for their beauty and greatness..... For when they hear from us that God saith, ‘It is no thank unto you, if ye love them that love you, but this is thank unto you, if you love your enemies and them that hate you [ Luke vi. 32]’ — when they hear these things, I say, they marvel at their exceeding goodness.”
“The point to be observed,” says Lightfoot,® “is that the expression here refers to an evangelical record.”’ Similarly Polycarp, c. vii, writes: “‘ For every one ‘who will not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is antichrist’ (I John iv. 2, 3); and whosoever shall not confess the testimony of the cross is of the devil; and whosoever shall pervert the oracles of the Lord (7a éyra Tod Kvpiov) to his own lusts and say there is neither resurrection nor judgment, that man is the firstborn of Satan.” On this passage Zahn, followed by Lightfoot, very appropriately adduces the parallel in the Preface to Irenzeus’ great work, “‘ Against Heresies,’’ where he complains of the Gnostics “falsifying the oracles of the Lord (ra Noyta Kupiov), becoming bad exegetes of what is well said’’: while later (“Her.,’’ i. 8, 1) the same writer speaks of the Gnostics’ art in adapting the dominical oracles (ra xuptaxa oyea) to their opinions, a phrase he equates with “the oracles of God,” and uses in a context which shows that he has the whole complex of Scripture in mind. In precisely similar wise, Clement of Alexandria is found calling the Scriptures the “oracles of truth” (‘‘ Coh. ad Gent.,”’ p. 84 ed. Potter), the “oracles of God” (“‘ Quis Div. Sal.,’’ 3) and the “inspired oracles” (‘‘Strom.,”’ i. 392); and Origen, ‘“‘the oracles,” “the oracles of God” “De Prin.,” iv. 11; in Matt., x. § 6): and Basil, the “sacred oracles,” “the oracles of the Spirit”’ (“‘Hom.,”’ xi. 5; xii. 1). The Pseudo-Ignatius (“ad Smyr.,”’ iii) writes: “ For the oracles (ra \oyua) say: ‘This Jesus who was taken up from you into heaven,’ etc. [ Acts i. 11 |’? — where the term certainly is just the equivalent of 7 ypad7.** And Photius tells us (“‘ Bibl.,’’ 228) that the Scriptures recognized by Ephraem, Patriarch of Antioch (circa 525-545 A.D.), consisted of the Old Testament, the Dominical Oracles (ra xupraxa NOyia) and the Preaching of the Apostles’? — where the adjective xupiaxa is obviously intended to limit the broad 7a Adyua, so that the phrase means just ‘“‘the Gospels.”’ 82 In loc.
83 Cf. what Prof. Ropes says of this passage in The American Journal of Theology, October, 1899 (iii. 698) and his strictures on Resch’s use of it.
Dr. Lightfoot’s object in bringing together such passages, it will be remembered, was to fix the sense of \éyra in the description which Eusebius gives of the work of Papias and in his quotations from Papias’ remarks about the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. Papias’ book, we are told by Eusebius (“H. E.,” iii, 39), was entitled Aoyiwy xupraxav éEnyjnoers — that is, obviously, from the usage of the words, it was a commentary on the Gospels, or less likely, on the New Testament: and he is quoted as explaining that Matthew wrote 7a \oyea in the Hebrew language and that Mark made no attempt to frame a otvtaéw Tv Kuptax@v doyiwv,** or, as 1S explained in the previous clause, of ra bio Tov XpioTov 7 AexXOevTa) wpaxdévra — that is, as would seem again to be obvious, each wrote his section of the “Scriptures” in the manner described. The temptation to adjust these Papian phrases to current theories of the origin of the Gospels has proved too strong, however, to be withstood even by the demonstration of the more natural meaning of the words provided by Dr. Lightfoot’s trenchant treatment: and we still hear of Papias’ treatise on the ‘‘ Discourses of the Lord,”’ and of the “ Book of Discourses”? which Papias ascribes to Matthew and which may well be identified (we are told) with the “‘ Collection of Sayings of Jesus,’’ which criticism has unearthed as lying behind our present Gospels.* Indeed, as time has run on,
84 Or dywr, as is read by both Schwegler and Heinichen: contra Routh, Lightfoot and Gebhardt-Harnack.
85 If there ever was such a “Collection of Sayings of Jesus,” the natural title of it would certainly not be 7a xvpraxa Adyra, but something like the 4 cbvratts r&v Kuptax@yv Noywv Which Papias says (if we adopt the reading \éywv) Mark did not write. We observe with astonishment, the venerable Prof. Godet saying, in his recent volume on the Gospels, that the existence of such collections of \éyra is now put beyond doubt by the discovery of the Oxyrhynchus fragment. The last word has doubtless not been said as to the nature and origin of this fragment: but that it was a collection of AOTIA rests solely on the ascription of that title to it by its editors — a proceeding which in turn rests solely on their traditional misunderstanding of the Papian phrase. And that Matthew’s “‘Logia”’ were “‘Logia”’ like these is scarcely a supposable case to a critic of Prof. Godet’s views. Meanwhile we cannot but account it unfortunate that Messrs. Grenfell and Hunt should have attached so misleading a title to their valuable discovery: to which it is suitable only in one aspect, viz., as describing these ‘‘sayings” of Jesus as (in there seems in some quarters even a growing disposition to neglect altogether the hard facts of usage marshaled by Dr. Lightfoot, and to give such rein to speculation as to the meaning of the term \oya as employed by Papias, that the last end of the matter would appear to threaten to be worse than the first. We are led to use this language by a recent construction of Alfred Resch’s, published in the “‘ Theologische Studien” dedicated to Bernhard Weiss on his seventieth birthday. Let us, however, permit Resch to speak for himself. He is remarking on the identification of the assumed fundamental gospel (Urevangeltum) with the work of Matthew mentioned by Papias. He says:
“Thus the name —)ddya—and the author — Matthew — seemed to be found for this Quellenschrift. In the way of this assumption there stood only the circumstance that the name ‘dédyra’ did not seem to fit the Quellenschrift as it had been drawn out by study of the Gospels, made wholly independently of the notice of Papias — since it yielded a treatise of mixed narrative and discourses. This circumstance led some to characterize the Quellenschrift, in correspondence with the name doya, as a mere collection of discourses; while others found in it a reason for sharply opposing the identification of the Logia of Matthew and the fundamental gospel (Urevangelium), or even for discrediting the whole notice of Papias as worthless and of no use to scholars. No one, however, thought of looking behind the \dyca for the hidden Hebrew name, although it was certainly obvious that a treatise written in Hebrew could not fail to have a Hebrew title. And I must myself confess that only in 1895, while the third volume of my ‘ Aussercanonischen Paralleltexte’ was passing through the press, did it occur to me to ask after the Hebrew name of the Néya. But with the question the answer was self-evidently at once given: 857,°° therefore pv" 737. To this answer attached itself at once, however, the reminiscence of titles ascribed in the Old Testament to a whole series of Quellenschriften: Sxvaw “35, Jat WT IST, 8327 ym) “IS9, (AXA) Ina ta “at (cf. I Chron. xxix. 29); rinsw at mae (I Kings xi. 41); 782 159, Oxter ‘25n “Sn (II the conception of the compiler, as the constant Aéye shows) ‘‘oracular utterances”
of present and continuous authority. 86 Why should Resch, we may ask, think of 1=7 instead of ‘TV98 as the Hebrew original of \édyiov? Cf. above p. 353.
Chron. xxxiii. 18). As, then, there in the Old Testament, it is Just historical Quellenschriften of biographical contents that bear the name of 0735, so this New Testament Quellenschrift, the title my 127. It contained therefore the history of Him of whom the prophets had prophesied, Who was greater than Solomon, David’s Son and David’s Lord and the King of Israel. And as the LXX. had translated the title 125, certainly unskillfully enough by Adya, so Papias or his sponsor (Gewdhrsmann) by d\oyra. The sense, however, of the Hebrew 2°73" is, as Luther very correctly renders it — ‘Histories.’ Cf. Heft ii. 812. By this discovery of the original title, the New Testament Quellenschrift which from an unknown had already become a known thing, has now become from an unnamed a named thing. The desiderated x has been completely found.” *”
Criticism like this certainly scorns all facts. The Hebrew word "35, meaning a “ word,”’ passed by a very readily understood process into the sense of “‘thing.’’ In defining the term as used in the titles which Resch adduces, Dr. Driver says: *® ‘words: hence affairs, things —in so far as they are done, ‘acts’; in so far as they are narrated, ‘history.’’’ The word sa thus readily lent itself, in combinations like those adduced by Resch, to a double meaning: and it is apparently found in both these senses. In instances like n>xip "25 (Eccl. 1. Leet: Prov.) xxx.) Lfixxxi Seer lev A mt lee No nae it doubtless means “ words of Koheleth,” and the like. In the instances adduced by Resch, it is doubtless used in the secondary sense of “history.’? The Greek word)dyos, by which 735 was ordinarily translated in the LX X., while naturally not running through a development of meaning exactly parallel to that of 755, yet oddly enough presented a fair Greek equivalent for both of these senses of “725, used in titles: and why Resch should speak of \oyou as unskillfully used in the titles he adduces, does not appear on the surface of things. Certainly, from Herodotus down, oi \dyou bore the specific meaning of just “‘ Histories,’ as afterwards it bore the sense of “ prose writings’’: and the early Greek historians were called accordingly of \oyoypador.8? The LX X. translators, in a word, could scarcely have found a happier Greek rendering for the titles of the Quellenschriften enumerated in I Chron. xxix. 29, 30, etc. Who, however, could estimate the unskillfulness of translating "25 in such titles by \éyua — a word which had no such usage and indeed did not readily lend itself to an application to human “words?” Papias (or his sponsor) must have been (as Eusebius calls him) a man of mean capacity indeed, so to have garbled Matthew’s Hebrew. It should be noted, further, that Papias does not declare, as Resch seems to think, that Matthew wrote 7a Noyra Tov “Inoov, or even 7a Kupiaka Oya — it is Papias’ own book whose title contains this phrase; and it will be hard to suppose that Papias (or his sponsor) was a man of such mean capacity as to fancy the simple 7a \éya a fair equivalent for the Hebrew mv" 55 in the sense of “ The History of Jesus.” If he did so, one does not wonder that he has had to wait two thousand years for a reader to catch his meaning. Such speculations, in truth, serve no other good purpose than to exhibit how far a-sea one must drift who, leaving the moorings of actual usage, seeks an unnatural meaning for these phrases. Their obvious meaning is that Papias wrote an “ Exposition of the Gospels,”’ and that he speaks of Matthew’s and Mark’s books as themselves sections of those “‘Seriptures”’ which he was expounding. Under the guidance of the usage of the word, this would seem the only tenable opinion.”
It is not intended, of course, to imply that there is no trace among the Fathers of any other sense attaching to the
9° We must account it, then, as only another instance of that excess of caution which characterizes his application of the ‘‘apologetical” results of investigation, when Dr. Sanday still holds back from this conclusion and writes thus: ‘‘The
word \éya, indeed, means ‘oracles’ and not ‘discourses.’ But while the term ‘the oracles’ might well from the first have been applied to our Lord’s words it is hardly likely that it should so early have been applied to a writing of the New Testament as such. Moreover, even when the inspiration of the New Testament had come to be as clearly recognized as that of the Old Testament, the term ‘the oracles’ would not have been a fitting one for a single work, simply on the ground that it formed part of the collection” (Hastings’ “Bible Dictionary,” i. p. 235 a).
words 76 Adyuov, Ta AOYta, than “the Seriptures”’ as a whole. Other applications of the words were found standing side by side with this in Philo, and they are found also among the Fathers. To Adyuov, used of a specific text of Scripture, for example, is not uncommon in the Fathers. It is found, for instance, in Justin Martyr, “‘Apol.,”’ i. 32: ““And Jesse was his forefather xara 76 \oytov’’ — to wit, Isa. xi. 1, Just quoted. It is found in Clement of Alexandria (‘‘ Strom.,’’ ii. Migne, i. 949a), where Isa. vii. 9 is quoted and it is added: “It was this \oyov that Heraclitus of Ephesus paraphrased when he said....” It is found repeatedly in Eusebius’ “ Ecclesiastical History,” in which the Papian passages are preserved, as, e. g., ix. 7, ad fin., “So that, according to that divine (Getov) Noy.ov,”’ viz., Matt. xxiv. 24; x. 1, 4, “ the Aoyov thus enjoining us,”’ viz., Ps. xevii. (xeviii.) 1; x. 4, 7, “ concerning which a certain other divine \éy.ov thus proclaims,” viz., Ps. lxxxvi. (Ixxxvii.) 3. Ta Néya is also used in the Fathers, as in Philo, for any body of these Scriptural \oy.a, however small or large (i. e., for any given section of Scripture) —as, e. g., for the Ten Commandments. It is so used, forinstance, in the ““Apostolical Constitutions,’ ii. 26: ““ Keep the fear of God before your eyes, always remembering tay déxa Tod Beot Noyiwy’’; and also in Eusebius (H. E., ii. 18, 5). So, again, we have seen it, modified by qualifying adjectives, used for the Gospels — and indeed it seems to be employed without qualifications in this sense in Pseudo-Justin’s “Epistola ad Zeram et Serenum’”’ (Otto, i.
Apart altogether from the fact that these caveats are founded on a demonstrably mistaken conception of the origin of the New Testament Canon, they are in themselves invalid. The term \oyra was contemporaneously applied to writings of the New Testament as such —as a glance at II Clem. xii. and Polycarp vil. will show — and as Lightfoot’s note on the former passage, correcting his less careful earlier note on the latter passage, points out. And that ra Aéyca could easily refer to any definite portion of the congeries of ‘‘oracles’”? known also as ‘‘Scripture,” Philo’s usage as indicated above (p. 374) sufficiently exhibits. For the rest, it cannot be doubted that Papias was understood by all his early readers to mean by his ra Aéyra Of Matthew, just Matthew’s Gospel. This has been sufficiently shown (“Einleitung,”’ ii. 265) by Zahn, who in his rich and fundamentally right remarks on the subject both here and elsewhere (e. g., pp. 254 seg. and ‘‘Geschichte d. Kanons,”’ i. 857 seq., ii. 790 seq.) supplies another instance of how near a great scholar can come to the truth of a matter without precisely adopting it.
706). It is further sometimes used apparently not of the Scripture text as such, but of certain oracular utterances recorded in it— as, for example, when Justin says to Trypho (ce. 18): ‘For since you have read, O Trypho, as you yourself admitted, the doctrines taught by our Saviour, I do not think that I have done foolishly in adding some short utterances of his (Bpaxéa Tov éxeivov hoya) to the prophetic statements”? — to wit, words of Jesus recorded in Matt. xxi, xxiii and Luke xi, here put on a level with the oracles of the prophets, but apparently envisaged as spoken. All these are usages that have met us before.
But there are lower usages also discoverable in the later Patristic writers at least. There is an appearance now and then indeed as if the word was, in popular speech, losing something of its high implication of “solemn oracular utterances of God,’’ and coming to be applied as well to the words of mere men *! — possibly in sequence to its application to the words of prophets and apostles as such and the gradual wearing down, in the careless popular consciousness, of the distinction between their words as prophets and apostles and their words as men; possibly, on the other hand, in sequence to the freer use of the word in profane speech and the wearing away of its high import with the loss of reverence for the
9 Tn the thirty-fifth chapter of the fourth book of Origen’s ‘‘ Against Celsus,”’ there is a passage which is given this appearance in Dr. Crombie’s excellent English translation, printed in the ‘‘Ante-Nicene Library” (Am. Ed., iv. 512):
““And yet if Celsus had wished honestly to overturn the genealogy which he deemed the Jews to have so shamelessly arrogated, in boasting of Abraham and his descendants (as their progenitors), he ought to have quoted all the passages bearing on the subject; and, in the first place, to have advocated his cause with such arguments as he thought likely to be convincing, and in the next to have bravely refuted, by means of what appeared to him to be the true meaning, and by arguments in its favor, the errors existing on the subject (xal rots trép abrijs
Noylous ra Kara Tov Térov).”’ The renderirg of doyious here by “arguments,” however, is certainly wrong. The whole context is speaking of Celsus’ misrepresentation of the teaching of the Hebrew Scriptures; and what Origen would have him do is to point out the passages in them which will bear out his allegations. According to Koetschau’s index the word occurs but twice elsewhere in the treatise ‘‘ Against Celsus,” viz., V. xxix. ad fin., and VI. lxxvii. near the end (inserted by Koetschau from Philoc. 85, 16): and in both of these cases the high meaning of the word is thing designated. Thus we read as early as in the “ Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena,’”’ edited by Prof. James for the ‘Cambridge Texts and Studies,’ and assigned by him to the middle of the third century (c. 28, p. 78), the following dialogue, in the course of a conversation between Polyxena and Andrew, ‘‘the apostle of the Lord’’: “ Andrew saith: ‘Draw not near me, child, but tell me who thou art and whence.’ Then saith Polyxena: ‘I am a great friend of these here (€v7 Tav évtav0a), but I see thy gracious countenance and thy logia are as the logia of Paul and I presume thee, too, to belong to his God.’”’ If we may assume this to mark a transition stage in the usage, we may look upon a curious passage in John of Damascus as marking almost the completion of the sinking of the word to an equivalence to pnuara. It occurs in his ‘“Disput. Christiani et Saraceni’”’ (Migne, i. 1588, iii. 1344). The Saracenic disputant is represented as eager to obtain an acknowledgment that the Word of God, that is Christ, is a mere creature, and as plying the Christian with a juggle on the word \oyta. He asks whether the \oyra of God are create or increate. If the reply is “create,” the rejoinder is to be: “Then they are not gods, and you have confessed that Christ, who is the Word (Adyos) of God is not God.” If, on the other hand, the reply is “increate,’’ the rejoinder apparently is to be that the \éyra of God nevertheless are not properly gods, and so again Christ the \déyos is not God. Accordingly John instructs the Christian disputant to refuse to say either that they are create or that they are increate, but declining the dilemma, to reply merely: “‘I confess one only Aéyos of God that is increate, but my whole Scripture (ypapy) I do not call Aoyra, but pnuata Oeov.”’ On the Saracen retorting that David certainly says Ta Noyra (not pyuata) of the Lord are pure \oy.a, the Christian is to reply that the prophet speaks here rporodoyixs, and not KuprodoyKds, that is to say, not by way of a direct declaration, but by way of an indirect characterization. It is a remarkable logomachy that we are thus treated to: and it seems to imply that in John’s day Noyra had sunk to a mere synonym of pnuara.
That men had then ceased to speak of the whole ypad# as Té Geta A\oyia we know not to have been the case: but apparently this language was now made use of with no more pregnancy of meaning than if they had said 7a Oe?a pnuara. This process seems to have continued, and in the following passage from a work of the opening of the eleventh century — the “Life of Nilus the Younger,” published in the 120th volume of Migne’s “Pat. Gree.” (p. 97 D), — we have an instance of the extreme extension of the application of the word: ‘“‘Then saith the _ Father to him: ‘It is not fitting that thou, a man of wisdom and high-learning, should think or speak 74 rv xowdv dvOpu- Tov hoyra.’’’ ** And accordingly we cannot be surprised to find that in modern Greek the word is employed quite freely of human speech. Jannaris tells us that it is used in the sense of “maxim,” and that in colloquial usage ra Méyra May mean “promise”? — in both of which employments there may remain a trace of its original higher import.%* While Kontopoulos gives as the English equivalents of \éyrov, the follow-
2 Dr. F. W. Farrar, with his fatal facility for quoting phrases in senses far other than those attached to them by their authors (other instances meet us in his dealing with the formula ‘‘ Scriptura complectitur Verbum Det” and with the word ‘“‘TInspiration”’ in the same context, — see pp. 369, 370 of work cited) makes a thoroughly wrong use of this passage (‘‘ Hist. of Interpretation,” p. 374, note 2). He says: “But as far back as the eighth century the eminently orthodox Father, St. John of Damascus, had said, ‘We apply not to the written word of Scripture the title due to the Incarnate Word of God.’ He says that when the Scriptures are called Aéyra Geo§ the phrase is only figurative, ‘Disput. Christiani et Saraceni’ (see Lupton, St. John of Damascus, p. 95).’’ But John says the Scriptures are called without figure pnuara rod Oecd: he only means to say they are not God’s Word in the same sense that the Logos is: in comparison with Him who is the only incarnate Word of God, they are only figuratively words of God, but they are real words of God, nevertheless, His sj7uara, by which designation, rather than Noyta, John would have them called, not to avoid confessing them to be God’s utterances, but to escape a Moslem jibe.
93 An instance of the secular use of the word in this lowered meaning, is found doubtless in the Scholium on the ‘‘ Frogs” of Aristophanes adduced above, p. 336. The date of this Scholium is uncertain, but it seems to belong to the later strata of the Scholia. It is not found in the ‘Ravenna MS.,” which Rutherford is publishing; nor in the ‘‘ Venetus” (Marc. 474), cf. Blaydes, ‘‘Ranae,” p. 391; nor indeed in four out of the six MSS. used by Dindorf (iv. 2, p. 113).
% In his ‘Concise Dictionary of English and Modern Greek,’ sub. vocc. “word” and “saying.”
ing list: “A saying, a word; a maxim; a motto, an oracle; 7a beta Noyta, the divine oracles, the sacred Scriptures.’’ * Thus not only all the usages of the word found, say, in Philo, are continued in the Fathers, but there is an obvious development to be traced. But this development itself is founded on and is a witness to the characteristic usage of the word among the Fathers — that, to wit, in which it is applied to the inspired words of prophets and apostles. And by far the most frequent use of the word in the Patristic writings seems to be that in which it designates just the Holy Scriptures. Their prevailing usage is very well illustrated by that of Eusebius. We have already quoted a number of passages from his “ Ecclesiastical History ’’ in which he seems to adduce special passages of Scripture, each as a \oywov. More common is it for him to refer to the whole Scriptures as 7a Aoya, or rather (for this is his favorite formula) ta @eta A\déyra — and that whether he means the Old Testament (which in the ‘Prep. Evang.,” ii. 6 [Migne, iii. 140 A], he calls 7a ’"EGpaiwy Noyta), or the New Testament, or refers to the prophetic or the narrative portions. Instances may be found in “H. E.,”’ v., 17, 5, where we are told that Miltiades left monuments of his study of the @eta Adyia; vi. 23, 2, where the zeal of Origen’s - friend Ambrose for the study of the #eta \oyra is mentioned as enabling Origen to write his commentaries on the Oetar ypadat; ix. 9, 8, where a sentence from Ex. xv. 1 is quoted as from the deta NOyta; x. 4, 28, where Ps. lvii. (Iviii.), 7 is quoted from the Oeta Adyia; ‘‘ Palestinian Martyrs,” xi. 2, where the devotion of the Palestinian martyrs to the 6eva \éyra is adverted to. Even the singular — 70 \oyrov — seems occasionally used by Eusebius (as by Philo) as a designation of the whole Scripture fabric. We may suspect this to be the case in “ H. E.,”’ x. 4, 43, when we read of “the costly cedar of Lebanon of which TO Oetoyv \oyvov has not been unmindful, saying, ‘The forests of the Lord shall rejoice and the cedars of Lebanon which he planted’ (Ps. ev. [civ.] 16).’”’ And we cannot doubt it at “H. E.,” ii. 10, 1, where we read concerning Herod Agrippa,
% Tn his ‘‘New Lexicon of Modern Greek and English,” sub voc.
that ‘as 7 rv tpatewv ypady relates, he proceeded to Cesarea and....70 \dy.ov relates ‘that the angel of the Lord smote him’’’? — in which account it is worth while to observe the coincidence of Josephus’ narrative with r7v belay ypadnv. Here, of course, 76 \dyov is primarily the Book of Acts — but as the subsequent context shows, it represents that book only as part of the sacred Scriptures, so that 7d \oytov emerges as a complete synonym of 7 Oeta ypadn. Whatever other usage may from time to time emerge in the pages of the Fathers, the Patristic usage of the term, xar’ é£ox7v, is as a designation of the “Scriptures”? conceived as the Word of Godt
In the light of these broad facts of usage, certain lines may very reasonably be laid down within which our interpretation of [7a] Aoyca in the New Testament instances of its occurrence should move. It would seem quite certain, for example, that no lower sense can be attached to it in these instances, than that which it bears uniformly in its classical and Hellenistic usage: it means, not “ words” barely, simple “utterances,”’ but distinctively “oracular utterances,” divinely authoritative communications, before which men stand in awe and to which they bow in humility: and this high meaning is not merely implicit, but is explicit in the term. It would seem clear again that there are no implications of brevity in the term: it means not short, pithy, pregnant sayings, but high, authoritative, sacred utterances; and it may be applied equally well to long as to short utterances — even though they extend to pages and books and treatises. It would seem to be clear once more that there are no implications in the term of what may be called the literary nature of the utterances to which it is applied: it characterizes the utterances to which it is applied as emanations from God, but whether they be prophetic or narrative or legal, parenetic or promissory in character, is entirely indifferent: its whole
96 Sophocles, in his ‘‘ Lexicon,” gives also the following references for this sense: Titus of Bostra (Migne, xviii. 1253 B); Serapion of Egypt (Migne, xl. 908 C, 909 B). References might be added, apparently, indefinitely.
function is exhausted in declaring them to be God’s own utterances.” And still further, it would seem to be clear that it is equally indifferent to the term whether the utterances so designated be oral or written communications: whether oral or written it declares them to be God’s own Word, and it had become customary to designate the written Word of God by this term as one that was felt fitly to describe the Scriptures as an oracular book — either a body of oracles, or one continuous oracular deliverance from God’s own lips. This last usage is so strikingly characteristic of the Hellenistic adaptation of the term that a certain presumption les in favor of so understanding it in Hellenistic writings, when the Scriptural revelation is in question: though this presumption is, of course, liable to correction by the obvious implications of the passages as wholes. In such a passage as Rom. il. 2 this presumption rises very high indeed, and it would seem as if the word here must be read as a designation of the “Scriptures”’ as such, unless very compelling reasons to the contrary may be adduced from the context. That the mind of the writer may seem to some to be particularly dwelling upon this or that element in the contents of the Seriptures cannot be taken as such a compelling reason to the contrary: for nothing is more common than for a writer to be thinking more particularly of one portion of what he is formally adducing as a whole. The paraphrase of Wetstein appears in this aspect, therefore, very judicious: ‘‘ They have the Sacred Books, in which are contained the oracles and especially the prophecies of the advent of the Messiah and the calling of the Gentiles; and by these their minds should be prepared”’: though, so far as this paraphrase may seem to separate between the Sacred Books and the Oracles they contain, it is unfortunate. The very point of this use of the word is that it zdentzfies the Sacred Books with the Oracles;
7 It is therefore a perfectly blind comment that we meet with in Gerhard Heine’s recent ‘‘Synonymik des N. T. Griechisch”’ (1898), p. 157 — when in contrast to dAdyos as the ‘‘reasonable expression” of the vots, 76 Aéytov is said to be “more the separate utterance, with the (occasional?) accessory notion of promise ( Rom. iii. 2).”
and in this aspect of it Dr. David Brown’s comment is more satisfactory: “That remarkable expression, denoting ‘ Divine Communications’ in general, is transferred to the sacred Scriptures to express their oracular, divinely authoritative character.’’ The case is not quite so simple in Heb. v. 12: but here, too, the well-balanced comment of Dr. Westcott appears to us to carry conviction with it: “The phrase might refer to the new revelation given by Christ to His apostles (comp. ¢c. 1. 2); but it seems more natural to refer it to the collective writings of the Old Testament which the Hebrew Christians failed to understand.” In Acts vii. 88 the absence of the article introduces no real complication: it merely emphasizes the qualitative aspect of the matter; what Moses received was emphatically oracles — which is further enhanced by calling them “lively,” i. e., they were not merely dead, but living, effective, operative oracles. The speaker’s eye is obviously on Moses as the recipient of these oracles, and on the oracles as given by God to Moses, as is recorded in the Pentateuch: but the oracles his eye is on are those recorded in the Pentateuch, and that came to Moses, not for himself, but for the Church of all ages — “to give to us.” Here we may hesitate to say, indeed, that Aoy.a means just the “Scriptures’’; but what it means stands in a very express relation to the Scriptures, and possibly was not very sharply distinguished from the Scriptures by the speaker. With the analogies in Philo clearly in our mind, we should scarcely go far wrong if we conceived of \éy.a here as meaning to the speaker those portions of Scripture in which Moses recorded the revelations vouchsafed to him by God — conceived as themselves these revelations recorded. In I Peter iv. 11 the interpretation is complicated by the question that arises concerning the charisma that is intended, as well as by the casting of the phrase into the form of a comparison: “let him speak as it were oracles of God.” It is not clear that the Divine Scriptures as such are meant here; but the term, in any case, retains all its force as a designation of sacred, solemn divine utterances: the speaker is to speak as becomes one whose words are not his own, but the very words of God — oracles proclaimed through his mouth. Whether it is the exercise of the prophetic gift in the strict sense that is adverted to, so that Peter’s exhortation is that the prophet should comport himself in his prophesying as becomes one made the vehicle of the awful words of revelation; or only the gift of teaching that is in question, so that Peter’s exhortation is that he who proclaims the word of God, even in this lower sense, shall bear himself as befits one to whom are committed the Divine oracles for explanation and enforcement — must be left here without investigation. In either case the term is obviously used in its highest sense and implies that the A\oyra of God are His own words, His awesome utterances.
What has thus been said in reference to these New Testament passages is intended to go no further in their explanation than to throw the light of the usage of the word upon their interpretation. Into their detailed exegesis we cannot now enter. We cannot pass by the general subject, however, without emphasizing the bearing these passages have on the New Testament doctrine of Holy Scripture. It will probably seem reasonable to most to interpret Rom. iil. 2 as certainly, Heb. v. 12 as probably, and Acts vii. 38 as very likely making reference to the written Scriptures; and as bearing witness to the conception of them on the part of the New Testament writers as “‘the oracles of God.’’ That is to say, we have unobtrusive and convincing evidence here that the Old Testament Scriptures, as such, were esteemed by the writers of the New Testament as an oracular book, which in itself not merely contains, but is the “utterance,” the very Word of God; and is to be appealed to as such and as such deferred to, because nothing other than the crystallized speech of God. We merely advert to this fact here without stopping to develop its implications or to show how consonant this designation of the Scriptures as the “Oracles of God” is with the conception of the Holy Scriptures entertained by the New Testament writers as otherwise made