« ÎnapoiContinuați »
doxology, or gave it Dr. Kennedy's construction, for the same purpose as Photius has quoted it in his work against the Manichæans (see Journal, p. 138 f.), namely, as confirming the doctrine insisted on throughout his book, that the God of the Jews, the God of the Old Testament, was not, as all the Gnostics contended, a being inferior to the Supreme God, but the God over all. So understood, it would agree with the language which Irenæus uses so often elsewhere, describing the Father as the God over all, while he nowhere, to my knowledge, speaks of the Son as God over all. I admit that Irenæus may have applied the last clause to Christ, separating the Deós from ó öv émi TÚVTOV as a distinct predicate ; but I perceive nothing which determines with certainty the construction he gave it. The whole question is of the least possible consequence. One who could treat 2 Cor. iv. 4 as he has done (Hær. iii. 7, § 1; iv. 29, $ 2), is certainly no authority in exegesis in a case where doctrinal prejudice could have an influence.
Dr. Gifford thinks that Irenæus “most probably” refers to Rom. ix. 5 when he says (Har. iii. 12, $ 9) that the mystery which was made known to Paul by revelation was that ο παθών επί Ποντίου Πιλάτου ούτος κύριος των πάντων και βασιλεύς και θεός και κριτής έστιν. He omits the words that immediately follow, preserved in the old Latin version : “ab eo qui est omnium Deus accipiens potestatem, quoniam subiectus factus est usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis,” where Christ as 0£ós is distinguished from him who is “omnium Deus," from whom he received his power. This does not go far towards proving that Irenæus would call Christ“ God over all.” I observe incidentally that Irenæus's explanation of “the mystery which was made known to Paul by revelation ” (Eph. iii. 3) differs widely from that which Paul himself gives (Eph. iii. 6 ff.).
Clement of Rome. Passing to p. 41 of Dr. Gifford's Letter, I remark that if Clement of Rome in the passage cited (Cor. c. 32) had Rom. ix. 5 in mind, as he probably did, and regarded the last clause as applicable to Christ, it would have been altogether to his purpose to have added it to the TÒ katà cápka, his purpose being to magnify the distinctions bestowed by God on the patriarch Jacob. Dr. Gifford will not, I think, find many who will regard the simple expression “the Lord Jesus ” as equivalent to “He who is over all, God blessed for ever"; it is rather the equivalent of the Pauline ở xplotós, a title which, when it denotes the Messiah, involves lordship. So far, then, from inferring, as Dr. Gifford does, from this passage of Clement, that he "probably ” (Letter, p. 65) applied the last clause to Christ, I should infer from his omitting it, where, thus understood, it would have been so much to his purpose, that he probably did not. This presumption would be confirmed by the way in which he speaks of Christ, and distinguishes him from God, throughout his Epistle.
The Newly-discovered Quotation of Rom. ix. 5 by Irenæus.
Dr. Gifford (Letter, p. 41) adduces a passage from Irenæus, “which no one,” he observes, so far as I know, has hitherto noticed in this connection. Prof. Abbot indeed says (p. 136) that the only place where Irenæus has quoted Rom. ix. 5 is Hær, iii. 16 (al. 18), $ 3. Alas ! for the man who ventures on that spirited but dangerous hobby, the universal negative. These are the words of Irenæus in Fragm. xvii. (Stieren) : εξ ών ο χριστος προετυπώθη και επεγνώσθη και έγεννήθη. εν μέν γαρ τω Ιωσήφ προετυπώθη: έκ δε του Λευι και του Ιούδα το κατά σάρκα ως βασιλεύς και ιερείς εγεννήθη.”
Dr. Gifford has fortunately given the Greek of the passage, that is to put me to shame, and I have not the slightest apprehension that any reader of his Letter will call the fragment of Irenæus which he cites a quotation of Rom. ix. 5; at the very utmost it could only be termed an allusion to that passage. The editor of the Σειρά or Catena from which this fragment is taken (Nicephorus Theotoki), and the editors and translators of Irenæus, as Grabe, Massuet, Stieren, Migne, Harvey, Roberts and Rambaut, and Keble, though they all refer in the margin to supposed quotations, have failed to make any reference here to Rom. ix. 5. If it be a quotation, the discovery of the fact belongs probably to Dr. Gifford alone. It will be observed that Dr. Gifford spaces the letters in i øv ó Xpuotós as if they must be regarded as quoted from Rom. ix. 5. He does not note the fact that this fragment of Irenæus is part of a comment on Deut. xxvii. 12, and is given in a fuller form in a Latin translation by Franciscus Zephyrus or Zephyrius (= Zafiri) in his edition of a Catena on Deuteronomy, as cited by Grabe in his edition of Irenæus (p. 469). This reads : “Notandum, benedicendi munus in tribubus demandatum, ex quibus Christus designatus cognoscitur et generatur," etc., and shows how little the è û K.T.A. has to do with Rom. ix. 5, and how groundless is the inference which Dr. Gifford draws from this accidental coincidence of expression.
Long before Dr. Gifford's Letter was published I had noted this fragment, together with a similar passage in Irenæus (Har. iv. 4, § 1) as examples of tò katà cápka without an antithesis expressed, and had
caused them to be printed among the Additions and Corrections in the number of the Journal for 1882, p. 160, referring to the Journal for 1881, p. 101. So far as they go, they both, I think, favor my view of the controverted passage rather than Dr. Gifford's. If they are to be regarded as quotations of Rom. ix. 5, they favor it more than I had supposed.
Position of ευλογητός. . In Dr. Gifford's remarks on the position of eủloyntós (Letter, p. 54 f.), he maintains that in the text of the Septuagint, in Ps. Ixviii. 20 (Sept. lxvii. 19), củloyntós should be read but once, and connected with what follows. For this, so far as I can ascertain, he has the authority of only two unimportant cursive MSS. (Nos. 183, 202),– in which the
omission of one củloymtós is readily explained as accidental, on ac· count of the homæoteleuton or dittography, in opposition to all the
other known MSS. of the Psalms, more than a hundred in number, including the uncials, among them X and B of the fourth century, and the Verona MS. of the fifth or sixth. (The Alexandrian MS. and the Zürich Psalter are mutilated here.) The omission of the first ευλογητός, moreover, leaves the κύριος ο Θεός simply hanging in the air, without any construction. To adopt such a reading in the face of such evidence is to do violence to all rational principles of textual criticism. The difference between the Lxx and the Hebrew is easily explained by the supposition that in the Hebrew copy used by the translators, the 717) was repeated (which might easily have happened), or at least that they thought it ought to be.
Dr. Gifford takes no notice of my explanation of the reason for the ordinary position of such words as ευλογητός, ευλογημένος, επικατάρατος, etc., in doxologies, benedictions, and maledictions, or of the exceptions which I adduce (save Ps. Ixviii. 20, which I waive), or of my argument that if we take the last clause as a doxology, the position of eúdoyntós after the subject is not only fully accounted for, but is rather required by the very same law of the Greek language, which governs all the examples that have been alleged against the doxological construction. (Journal, pp. 103-111.) As this view is supported by so eminent a grammarian as Winer, to say nothing of Meyer, Fritzsche, and other scholars, it seems to me that it deserved consideration.
Different Senses of ευλογητός. . On p. 56 of Dr. Gifford's Letter, he gives as examples of the use and meaning of the word evloyntós the expressions “Blessed be God” and “Blessed be thou of the Lord," and remarks that “ Dr. Abbot overlooks the fact' that, whatever difference there may be, it lies not in the sense of the word eúdoyntós, but in the different relations of the persons blessing and blessed.” I must confess that I have overlooked the fact, if it be a fact; and must also confess my belief that not a few of Dr. Gifford's readers will be surprised at the proposition that there is no difference in the sense of the word eúdoyntós when, applied to God, it means “praised ” or “worthy to be praised," and when, applied to men, it means “prospered" or "blessed" by God. The fact on which Dr. Gifford seems to lay great stress, that eúdoyntós in these different senses represents the same Hebrew word, will not weigh much with those who consider that many words in common use have several very different meanings in Hebrew as well as in other languages. The two meanings are as distinct as those of eúdoyia in the sense of laus, laulatio, celebratio (Grimm, Lex. s.V. eúdoyía No. 1), and of bonum, beneficium (Grimm, ibid., No. 5).
The very common use of cúloytós in doxologies to God seems to have led the Septuagint translators to restrict its application in the sense of “praised," or rather “worthy to be praised,” to the Supreme Being. To this perhaps the only exception is in the expression ευλογητός ο τρόπος σου in 1 Sain. ΧΧV. 33. In the New Testament, apart from the passage in debate, its application is restricted to God, “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” My point is that whatever force there may be in the argument from this extensive usage in favor of its application to God rather than to Christ in Rom. ix. 5, it is not diminished in the slightest degree by the fact that, in a few passages of the Lxx the word is applied to men in the very different sense of “prospered” or “recipients of blessings,” i.e. benefits, from God.
I have now, I believe, taken notice of all the points of importance in which Dr. Gifford has criticised my statements, or statements which he has ascribed to me. I am not without hope that in a future edition of his pamphlet he may see reason for modifying some of his remarks, and for giving more fully the context of some of his quotations,
The Readings “Έλληνας and “Ελληνιστάς,
Acts xi. 20.
PROF. B. B. WARFIELD, D.D.
"HIS is one of the very few passages of importance in the New
justice as yet unsettled. The great modern editions from Griesbach to Tregelles - Matthaei alone excepted — are, indeed, unanimous in reading exiyvas. With them most commentators and historical students agree. There never was a time, however, when elinvuotás did not have a respectable following among exegetes.3 And Westcott and Hort have put an end to the unanimity of even the editions. The Revised English New Testament so far follows as to put “Many ancient authorities read Grecian Jews" in their margin ; although exactly what is meant by this, it is impossible for an outsider to divine, amid the contradictory reports of what the margin was intended for, and the curious distribution of the terms “many," "some,” “ most," "ancient authorities."
At all events, it is clear that a new discussion of the reading, on its merits, cannot be thought a re-opening of a dispute already practically closed. What is proposed, is to briefly consider the evidence, and attempt to reach at least a provisional conclusion.
1 Usher, Grotius, Witsius, and especially Bengel (not in ed. maj., but "Gnomoni et margo, ed. 2 ... et vers. Germ.,” says his son) were their forerunners. Cf. Erasmus and Drusius.
2 The following rather miscellaneous list of recent names will show how widely spread the opinion is among English writers: Alford, Farrar, Ilackett, Hinds, Howson (in Life of Paul), Jacobus, J. B. Lightfoot (in “Galatians "), Norris, Plumptre, Purves, Scrivener, Schaeffer (in Lange), Tate, Webster, and Wilkinson (in notes).
8 Among recent English writers there are for this view such as: J. A. Alexander, W. Kay, P. Schaff (Companion to New Testament, p. 8, note 2), Shirley, Canon Spence (apparently: in Schaff's Popular Commentary, in loc., “On the whole, the evidence is in favor of 1727"otás," yet very doubtfully), Bishop Wordsworth, etc.
4 The most elaborate recent discussions of this reading in English are probably the following: Kay, W., " On the Word Hellenist, with Especial Reference to Acts xi. 19 (20)," Calcutta, 1856 [defends ‘Enamotás]; ALFORD, H., Excursus II. to Prolegomena to Acts in his Greek Testament (against Kay, defends "Einvac]; SCRIVENER, F. H., in his Plain Introduct., etc., p. 536 of ed. 2, 1874, of.