The phrase, "Given by
inspiration of God," or "Inspired of God," occurs, as is well-known,
but once in the New Testament--in the classical passage, to wit, II
Tim. iii. 16, which is rendered in the Authorized Version, "All
Scripture is given by inspiration of God," and by the Revised Version,
"Every Scripture inspired of God is, etc." The Greek word represented
by it, and standing in this passage as an epithet or predicate of
"Scripture" "theopneustos" though occurring here only in the New
Testament and found nowhere earlier in all Greek literature, has
nevertheless not hitherto seemed of doubtful interpretation. Its form,
its subsequent usage, the implications of parallel terms and of the
analogy of faith, have combined with the suggestions of the context to
assign to it a meaning which has been constantly attributed to it from
the first records of Christian interpretation until yesterday. This
unvarying understanding of the word is thus reported by the leading
Schleusner "New Test. Lexicon." Glasgow reprint of
fourth Leipzig edition, 1824:
'Theopneustos', 'ou', 'ho', 'he', afflatu divino actus, divino quodam
spiritu afflatus, et partim de hominibus usurpatur, quorum sensus et
sermones ad vim divinam referendi sunt, v.c. poetis, faticidis,
prophetis, auguribus, qui etiam 'theodidaktoi' vocantur, partim de
ipsis rebus, notionibus, sermonibus, et scriptis, a Deo suggestis, et
divino instructu natis, ex 'theos' et 'pneo' spiro, quod, ut Latinum
afflo, de diis speciatim usurpatur, quorum vi homines interdum ita agi
existimabantur, ut notiones rerum, antea ignotarum, insolito quodam
modo conciperent atque mente vehementius concitata in sermones
sublimiores et elegantiores erumperent. Conf. Cic. pro Archia c. 14;
Virgil. Aen. iii, 358, vi, 50. In N. T. semel legitur II Tim. iii. 16,
'pasa graphe theopneustos' omnis Scriptura divinitus inspirata, seu,
quae est originis divinae. coll. II Pet i. 21. Syrus.... scriptura,
quae per spiritum scripta est. Conjunxit nempe actionem scribendi cum
actione inspirandi. Apud Plutarchum T. ix. p. 583. ed. Reiske.
'Theospeustoi oneiroi' sunt somnia a diis immissa."
Robinson "Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament," new
ed., New York, 1872:
"'Theopneustos', 'ou', 'ho', 'he', adj. ('theos','pneo'), God-
inspired, inbreathed of God, II Tim. iii. 16 'pasa graphe
theopneustos.' --Plut. de Placit. Philosoph. 5. 2, 'tous oneirous tous
theopneustous'. Phocylid. 121 'tes de theopneustou sophies logos estin
aristos'. Comp. Jos. c. Ap. 1. 7 ['hai graphai'] 'ton propheton kata
ten epipnoian ten apo tou theou mathonton'. Cic. pro Arch. 8, 'poetam
... quasi divino quodam spiritu inflari.'"
Thayer-Grimm "Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament," New
"'Theopneustos', --'on', ('theos' and 'pneo'), inspired by God:
'graphe', i.e. the contents of Scripture, II Tim. iii. 16 [see 'pas' I.
1 c.]; 'sophin', [pseudo-] Phocyl. 121; 'oneiroi', Plut. de plac. phil.
5, 2, 3 p. 904f.; [Orac. Sibyll. 5, 406 (cf. 308); Nonn. paraphr. ev.
Ioan. 1, 99]. ('empneustos' also is used passively, but 'apneustos',
'eupneustos', 'puripneustos', ['dusdiapneustos'], actively [and
'dusanapneustos' appar. either act. or pass.; cf. W. 96 (92) note].)"
Cremer "Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek" ed.
2, E.T., Edinburgh, 1878:
"'Theopneustos', prompted by God, divinely inspired. II Tim. iii. 16,
'pasa graphe th'(?). In profane Greek it occurs only in Plut. de
placit. philos. v. 2, 'ovieroi theopneustoi (kat anagken ginontai)',
opposed to 'phusikoi'. The formation of the word cannot be traced to
the use of 'pneo', but only of 'empneo'. Cf. Xen. Hell. vii. 4, 32,
'ten areten theos men empneusas'; Plat. Conv. 179 B, 'menos empneusai
eniois ton heroon ton theon'; Hom. Il. xx. 110; Od. xix. 138. The
simple verb is never used of divine action. How much the word
corresponds with the Scriptural view is evident from II Pet. i. 21."
And the commentators generally will be found to speak no otherwise. The
completeness of this lexical consent has recently, however, been
broken, and that by no less an authority than Prof. Hermann Cremer
himself, the second edition of whose great "Biblico-theological
Lexicon" we have just adduced as in entire agreement with the current
view. The date of issue of this edition, in its original German form,
was 1872. The third edition was delayed until 1883. In the interval Dr.
Cremer was called upon to write the article on "Inspiration " in the
second edition of Herzog's "Realencyklopaedie" (Vol. iv, sub voc., pp.
746 seq.), which saw the light in 1880. In preparing this article he
was led to take an entirely new view of the meaning of
'theopneustos', according to which it defines Scripture, in II Tim.
iii. 16, not according to its origin, but according to its effect--not
as "inspired of God," but as "inspiring its readers." The statement of
his new view was transferred to the third edition of his "Lexicon"
(1883; E.T. as "Supplement," 1886) very much in the form in which it
appears in Herzog; and it has retained its place in the "Lexicon," with
practically no alteration, ever since. As its expression in Herzog
was the earliest, and therefore is historically the most important, and
as the article in the "Lexicon" is easily accessible in both German and
English, and moreover does not essentially differ from what is said in
Herzog, we shall quote here Dr. Cremer's statement of the case in
preference from Herzog. He says:
"In theological usage, Inspiration denotes especially the influence of
the Holy Spirit in the origination of the sacred Scriptures, by means
of which they become the expression to us of the will of God, or the
Word of God. The term comes from the Vulgate, which renders II Tim.
iii. 16 'pasa graphe theopneustos', by omnis Scriptura divinitus
inspirita. Whether the meaning of the Greek term is conveyed by this is
at least questionable. It clearly belongs only to Hellenistic and
Christian Greek. The notion that it was used also in classical Greek of
poets and seers (Huther in his Commentary) and to express what Cicero
says in his pro Archia, p. 8, nemo vir magnus sine aliquo afflatu
divino unquam fuit, is certainly wrong. For 'theopneustos' does not
occur at all in classical Greek or in profane Greek as a whole. In the
unique passage, Plutarch, de placit. phil., 5, 2 (Mor. 904, 2): 'tous
oneirous tous theopneustous kat anagken ginesthai'. 'Tous de phusikous
aneidolopoioumenes psuches to sumtheron aute ktl'., it is very probably
to be ascribed to the copyist, and stands, as Wyttenbach conjectures,
in the place of 'theopemptous'. Besides this it occurs in Pseudo-
Phocylides, v. 121: 'tes de theopneustou sophies logos estin aristos'--
unless the whole line is, with Bernays, to be deleted as disturbing to
the sense--as well as in the fifth book of the "Sibyllines," v. 308:
'Kume d he mora sun namasi tois theopneustois', and v. 406, 'Alla megan
genetera theon panton theopneuston En thusiais egerairon kai hagias
ekatombas'. The Psuedo-Phocylides was, however, a Hellenist, and the
author of the fifth book of the "Sibyllines" was, most probably, an
Egyptian Jew living in the time of Hadrian. On Christian ground we find
it in II Tim. iii. 16, which is possibly the earliest written
employment of it to which we can point. Wetstein, on this passage,
adduces the sentence from the Vita Sabae 16 ( Cotelerii Monum.):
'ephthase te tou Chu chariti he panton theopneuston, panton
christophoron autou sunodia mechri ho onomaton' as well as the
designation of Marcus Eremita as 'o theopneustos aner' That the term
has a passive meaning = 'gifted with God's Spirit,' 'divinely
spirited,' (not 'inspired' as Ewald rightly distinguishes) may be
taken as indubitable from 'Sibyll.', v. 406 and the two passages last
adduced. Nevertheless 'graphe theopneustos' does not seem easily
capable of meaning 'inspired by God's Spirit' in the sense of the
Vulgate; when connected with such conceptions as 'graphe' here, 'nama',
'fountain,' 'Sibyll.' v. 308, it would rather signify 'breathing a
divine spirit,' in keeping with that ready transition of the passive
into the active sense which we see in 'apneustos', 'eupneustos', 'ill-
or well-breathed; = ' breathing ill or well.' Compare Nonnus, paraphr.
ev Jo., i, 102: 'ou podos akrou andromeen palamen ouk axios eimi
pelassas, lusai mounon himanta theopneustoio pedilou', with v. 129:
'baptizein apuroisi kai apneustoisi loetrois'. In harmony with this, it
might be understood also in Phocyl. 121; the explanation, 'Wisdom
gifted with the Divine Spirit,' at all events has in its favor the fact
that 'theopneustos' is given the same sense as when it it connected
with 'aner', 'anthropos'. Certainly a transition to the sense,
'breathed by God' = inspired by God' seems difficult to account for,
and it would fit, without forcing, only Phocyl. 121, while in II Tim.
iii. 16, on the assumption of this sense, there would be required a not
altogether easy metonyme. The sense 'breathing God's Spirit' is
moreover in keeping with the context, especially with the 'ophelimos
pros didaskaliav ktl.' and the 'ta dunamena se sophisai', v. 15, as
well as with the language employed elsewhere, e. g., in the Epistle to
the Hebrews, where what the Scripture says is, as is well known, spoken
of as saying, the word of the Holy Ghost. Cf. also Acts xxviii. 25.
Origen also, in Hom. 21 in Jerem., seems so to understand it: sacra
volumina Spiritus plenitudinem spirant. Let it be added that the
expression 'breathed by God, inspired by God,' though an outgrowth of
the Biblical idea, certainly, so far as it is referred to the prophecy
which does not arise out of the human will (II Pet. i. 21), yet can
scarcely be applied to the whole of the rest of the sacred Scriptures--
unless we are to find in II Tim. iii. 16 the expression of a conception
of sacred Scripture similar to the Philonian. There is no doubt,
however, that the Peshito understood it simply = 'inspired by God'--yet
not differently than as in Matt. xxii. 43 we find: Dauid en pneumati
lalei. It translates "etcatav cal catav ger cabodotah", 'for every
Scripture which is written 'en pneumati''--certainly keeping
prominently in the foreground the inspiration of the writer. Similarly
the AEthiopic renders: 'And every Scripture is in the (by the) Spirit
of the Lord and profits'; while the Arabic (deriving from the original
text) reads: 'and every Scripture which is divinely of spiratio,
divinam sapiens auram.' The rendering of the Peshito and the
explanations of the Greek exegetes would certainly lend great weight to
the divinitus inpirata, were not they explicable from the dominant idea
of the time--for which, it was thought, a suitable term was found in II
Tim. iii. 16, nowhere else used indeed and coined for the purpose--but
which was itself more or less taken over from the Alexandrian Judaism,
that is to say, from heathenism."
Here, we will perceive, is a carefully reasoned attempt to reverse the
previous lexical consensus as to the meaning of this important word. We
have not observed many traces of the influence of this new
determination of its import. The present writer, after going over the
ground under Prof. Cremer's guidance, too hastily adopted his
conclusion in a paper of "Pauls's Doctrine of the Old Testament"
published in The Presbyterian Quarterly for July, 1899; and an adverse
critcism of Dr. Cremer's reasoning, from the pen of Prof. Dr. L.
Schulze, of Rostock, appeared in the Theologisches Literaturblatt for
May 22, 1896 (xvii. 21, pp. 253, 254), in the course of a review of the
eighth edition of the "lexicon." But there has not met our eye as yet
any really thorough reexamination of the whole matter, such as a
restatement of it like Dr. Cremer's might have been expected to
provoke. The case surely warrants and indeed demands it. Dr. Cremer's
statement is more than a statement-- it is an argument; and his
conclusion is revolutionary, not indeed as to doctrine--for that rests
on a broader basis than a single text or an isolated word--but as to
the meaning borne by an outstanding New Testament term. It would seem
that there is, then, no apology needed for undertaking a somewhat
minute examination of the facts in the case under the guidance of Dr.
Cremer's very full and well-reasoned statement.
It may conduce, in the end, to clearness of presentation if we begin
somewhat in medias res by raising the question of the width of the
usage of the word. Is it broadly a Greek word, or distinctively a
Hellenistic word, or even a purely Christian word? So far as appears
from the usage as ascertained, it would seem to be post-Christian.
Whether we should also call it Christian, coined possibly by Paul and
used only in Christian circles, depends, in the present state of our
knowledge, on the determination of two rather nice questions. One of
these concerns the genuineness of the reading 'theopneustous' in the
tract on "The Opinions of Philosophers" (v, 2, 3), which has come doun
to us among the works of Plutarch, as well as in its dependent
document, the "History of Philosophy" (106), transmitted among the
works of Galen. The other concerns the character, whether Jewish or
Jewish-Christian, of certain portions of the fifth book of the
"Sibylline Oracles" and of the "Poem of Admonition," once attributed to
Phocylides but now long recognized to be the work of a late Alexandrian
Jew,--in both of which the word occurs. Dr. Cremer considers the
reading to be false in the Plutarchian tract, and thinks the fifth book
of the "Sybillines" and the Pseudo-Phocylidian poem Jewish in origin.
He therefore pronounces the word a Hellenistic one. These decisions,
however, can scarcely be looked upon as certain; and they will bear
scrutiny, especially as they are accompanied with some incidental
errors of statement. It would certainly require considerable boldness
to decide with confidence upon the authorship of any given portion of
the fifth book of the "Sibyllines." Friedlieb (who Dr. Cremer follows)
and Badt ascribe the whole book to a Jewish, but Alexandre, Reuss and
Dechent to a Christian author; while others parcel it out variously
between the two classes of sources--the most assigning the sections
containing the word in question, however, to a Jewish author (Bleck,
Lucke, Gfrorrer; Ewald, Hilgenfeld; Schurer). Schurer pratically gives
up in despair the problem of distributing the book to its several
authors, and contents himself with saying that Jewish pieces
preponderate and run in date from the first Christian century to
Hadrian. In these circumstances surely a certain amount of doubt may
fairly be thought to rest on the Jewish or Christian origin of our word
in the Sibylline text. On the other hand, there seems to be pretty good
positive reason for supposing the Pseudo- Phocylidian poem to be in its
entirety a Christian production. Its Jewish origin was still
strenuously maintained by Bernays, but its relation to the "Teaching
of the Apostles" has caused the subject to be reopened, and we think
has brought it to at least a probable settlement in favor of Scaliger's
opinion that it is the work 'anonumon' Christiani." In the face of
this probability the brilliant and attractive, but not always entirely
convincing conjectures by which Bernays removed some of the Christian
traits from the text may now be neglected: and among them that by which
he discarded the line containing our word. So far then as its
occurrence in the fifth book of the "Sibyllines" and in
Pseudo-Phocylides is concerned, no compelling reason appears why the
word may not be considered a distinctiveley Christian one: though it
must at the same time be recognized that the sections in the fifth
"Sibyl" in which it occurs are more probably Jewish than Christian.
With reference to the Plutarchian passage something more needs to be
said. "In the unique passage, Plutarch de plac. phil. 5, 2 (904 F.):"
'Ton oneiron tous men theopneustous kat anagken ginesthai. Tous de
phusikous aneidolopoiou menes psuches to sumpheron aute ktl.'" says Dr.
Cremer, "it is with the greatest probability to be ascrived to the
transcriber, in whose mind 'theopneustos' lay in the sense of the
Vulgate rendering, divinitus inspirata, and it stands, as Wyttenbach
conjectures, for 'theopemptous'." The remark concerning Wyttenbach is
erroneous -- only one of a series of odd misstatements with have dogged
the textual notes on this passage. Wyttenbach prints 'theoneustous' in
his text and accompanies it with this textual note: "'Theopemptous
reposuit editor Lips. ut ex Gal. et Mosc. At in neutro haic reperio.
Sane non est quare compilatori elegantias obtrudamus."'Theopemptous' is
therefore not Wyttenbach's conjecture: Wyttenbach does not even accept
it, and this has of late been made a reproach to him: he ascribes
it to "the Leipzig editor," that is to Christian Daniel Beck, whose
edition of this tract was published at Leipzig, in 1787. But Wyttenbach
even more gravely misquotes Beck than he has himself been misquoted by
Dr. Cremer. For Beck, who prints in his text: 'ton oneiron tous men
theopneustous', annotates as follows: "Olim: 'tous oneirous tous
theopneustous --Reddidi textis elegantiorem lectionem, quae in M. et G.
est. 'theopneustous' sapere Christianum librarium videtur pro
'theopemptous'." That is to say, Wyttenbach has transferred Beck's
note on 'ton oneirov tous men' to 'theopemptous'. It is this clause and
not 'theopemptous' that Beck professes to have got out of the Moscow
MS. and Galen: 'theopemptous' he presents merely as a pure conjecture
founded on the one consideration that 'theopneustos' has a flavor of
Christian scribe about it; and he does not venture to put
'theopemptous' into the text. The odd thing is that Hutten follows
Wyttenbach in his misrepresentation of Beck, writing in his note:
"Beck. dedit 'thopemptous' ut elegantiorem lectionem e Mosq. et Gal.
sumptam. In neutro se hoc reperisse W. notat, addens, non esse quare
compilatori elegantias obtrudamus. Cors. e Gas. notat 'ton oneiron tous
men theopneustous'." Corsini does indeed so report, his note
running: "Paullo aliter" (i.e., from the ordinary text which he
reprints from Stephens) "Galenus, 'ton oneiron tous men theopneustous',
somniorum ea quidem quae divinitus inspirata sint, etc." But this
is exactly what Beck says, and nothing other, except that he adds that
this form is also found in the Moscow MS. We must conclude that Hutten
in looking at Beck's note was preoccupied with Wyttenbach's misreport
of it. The upshot of the whole matter is that the reading
'theopemptous' was merely a conjecture of Beck's, founded solely on his
notion that 'theopneustous' was a purely Christian term, and possessing
no diplomatic basis whatsoever. Accordingly it has not found its way
into the printed text of Plutarch: all editions, with one exception,
down to and including those of Dubner-Dohner (Didot's "Bibliotheca") of
1856 and Bernardakis (Teubner's series) of 1893 read 'theopneustous'. A
new face has been put on the matter, however, by the publication of
1879 of Diels' "Doxographi Graeci," in which the whole class of ancient
literature to which Plutarch's "De plac. philos." belongs is subjected
to a searching study, with a view to tracing the mutual relations of
the several pieces and the sources from which they are constructed.
With this excursion into "higher criticism," into which there enters a
highly speculative element, that, despite the scientific thoroughness
and admirable acuteness which give the whole an unusually attractive
aspect, leaves some doubts in the mind of the sober reader, we have
now happily little to do. Suffice it to say that Diels looks upon the
Plutarchian tract as an epitome of a hypothetical Aetios, made about
150 A.D. and already used by Athenagoras (c. 177 A.D.): and on the
Galenic tract as in its later portion an excerpt from the Plutarchian
tract, made about A.D. 500. In the course of his work, he has
framed a printed a careful recension of the text of both tracts,
and in both of them he reads at the place of interest to us,
'theopemptous'. Here for the first (and as yet only) time
'theopemptous' makes its appearance in the text of what we may, in
deference to Diels' findings and after the example of Gerke, call,
at least, the "[Pseudo?-] Plutarch." The key to the situation, with
Diels, lies in the reading of the Pseudo-Galen: for as an excerpt from
the [Pseudo?-] Plutarch the Pseudo-Galen becomes a valuable witness to
its text, and is treated in this case indeed as a determinative
witness, inasmuch as the whole MS. transmission of [Psuedo?-] Plutarch,
so far as known, reads here 'theopneustous'. Editing 'theopemptous' in
Pseudo- Galen, Diels edits it also, on that sole documentary ground, in
[Pseudo?- ] Plutarch. That we may form some estimate of the likelihood
of the new reading, we must, therefore, form some estimate of its
likelihood in the text of the Pseudo-Galen, as well as of the
principles on which the text of the [Pseudo?-] Plutarch is to be
framed. The editions of Pseudo-Galen -- including that of Kuhn --
have hitherto read 'theopneustous' at our place, and from this we may
possibly infer, that this is the reading of the common run of the
MSS. Diels constructs his text for this portion of the treatise
from two kindred MSS. only, and records the readings of no others: as
no variation is given upon our word, we may infer that thses two MSS.
at least agree in reading 'theopemptous'. The former of them (Codex
Laurentianus lxxiv, 3), of the twelfth of early thirteenth century, is
described as transcribed "with incredible corruptness"; the latter
(Codex Laurentianus lviii, 2), of the fifteenth century, as written
more carefully; both represent a common very corrupt archetype.
This archetype is reconstructed from the consent of the two, and where
they differ the preference is given to the former. The text thus framed
is confessedly corrupt: but though it must therefore be cautiously
used, Diels considers it nevertheless a treasure house of the best
readings for the [Pseudo?-] Plutarch. Especially in the latter part
of the [Pseudo?-] Plutarch, where the help of Eusebius and the other
eclogoe fails, he thinks the case would often be desperate if we did
not have the Pseudo- Galen. Three examples of the preservation of the
right reading by it alone he hives us, one of them being our present
passage, in which he follows, therefore, the reading of the
Pseudo-Galen against the entire MS. transmission. Diels considers the
whole MS. transmission of the [Pseudo?-] Plutarch to take us back to an
archetype of about A.D. 1000, and selects from it three codices as
nearest to the archetype, viz., A = Codex Mosquensis 339 (nune 352)
of saec. xi. or xii. (the same as the Mosq. quoted by Beck), collated
by Matthaei and in places reexamined for Diels by Voelkelius;B = Codex
Marcianus 521 [xcii, 7], of saec. xiv, very closely related to A,
collated by Diels himself; and C = Codex Parisinus 1672 of saec. xiii.
ex. vel. xin. in which is a copy of a corpus of Plutarch put together
by Planudes or a contemporary. Through these three codices he reaches
the original apograph which stands at the root of all the extant MSS.,
and from it, by the aid of the excerpts from the tract - - in our
passage the Psuedo-Galen's only -- he attains his text. His note on our
reading runs thus: "'Theopemptous' G cf. Arist. de divinat. 2p. 463b
13: 'theopneustous' (A) B C, cf. Prol. p. 15." The parenthesis in which
A is enclosed means that A is here cited from the silence of Matthaei's
collation. The reference to the Prolegomena is to the passage
already alluded to, in which the Galenic reading 'thepemptous' is cited
as one of three chosen instances of excellent readings preserved by
Galen alone. The note there runs thus: "alteri loco christiani librarii
pius fraus nocuit. V. 2, 3, 'Hrophilos ton oneiron tous men
thepneustous kat' anagken ginethai'. fuit scilicet 'theopemptous', quod
sero intellectum est a Wyttenbachio in indice Plutarcheo. si Galenum
inspexisset, ipsum illud 'theopemptous' inventurus erat. simili fraude
versus 121 Phocylideis a Byzantinis insertus est, ubi vox illa sacra
[II Tim. iii. 16] I. Bernaysio interpolationis originem manifesto
aperuit." That is to say, the reading of the Pseudo-Galen is preferred
to that of the MSS., because the reading 'theopneustous' explains
itself as a pious fraud of a Christian scribe, giving a place in the
text of Plutarch to "this sacred word"--another example of which
procedure is to be found in Pseudo-Phoc. 121, extruded by Bernays from
the text on this very ground. On this remark, as on a hinge, turns, it
would seem, the decision of the whole question. The problem of the
reading, indeed, may be set forth at this point in the from of this
alternative: --Which is most likely,--that 'theopneustous' in the
[Pseudo?-] Plutarch originated in the pious fraud of a Christian
scribe? --or that 'theopemptous' in the text of Pseudo-Galen edited by
Diels originated in the error of a careless scribe? When we posit the
problem in this definite form we cannot feel at all certain that Diels'
solution is the right one. There is an a priori unlikelihood in its
way: deliberate corruption of texts is relatively rare and not to be
assumed without good reason. The parallel from the Pseudo-Phocylikes
fails, now that it seems probable that the whole poem is of Christian
origin. There seems no motive for such a pious fraud as is charged:
what gain could be had from intruding 'theopneustous' into the
Plutarchian text? and what special sanctity attached to this word? And
if a sacrosanct character be attributed to the word, could it not be
equally plausibly argued that it was therefore offensive to the
Christian consciousness in this heathen connection, and was accordingly
replaced by the less sacred 'theopemptous', a word of heathen
associations and indeed with a secondary sense not far from
"extraordinary." Or if it be now said that it is not intended to
charge conscious fraud, it is pertinent to ask what special
associations Christians had with the word 'theopneustous' in connection
with dreams which would cause it to abtrude itself unconsciously in
such a connection. One is almost equally at a loss to account for the
intrusion of the word in the place of the simpler 'theopemptos',
whether the intrusion be looked upon as deliberate or unconscious. On
the other hand, the substitution of 'theopemptos' for 'theopneustos' in
the text of Pseudo-Galen seems quite re
"Secundum istiusmodi expositiones decet sacras litteras
credere nec unum quidem apicem habere vacuum sapientia Dei. Qui enim
mihi homini praecipit dicens: Non apparebis ante conspectum meum
vacuus, multo plus hoc ipse agit, ne aliquid vacuum loquatur. Ex
plenitudine ejus accipientes prophetae, ea, quae erant de plenitudine
sumpta, cecinerunt: et idcirco sacra volumina spiritus plenitudinem
spirant, nihilque est sive in prophetia, sive in lege, sive in
evangelio, sive in apostolo, quod non a plenitudine divinae majestatis
descendat. Quamobrem spirant in scripturis sanctis hodieque
plenitudinis verba. Spirant autem his, que habent et oculos ad videnda
coelestia et aures ad audienda divina, et nares ad ea, quae sunt
plenitudinis, sentienda (Origen, "in Jeremiam Homilia," xxi, 2.
Wirceburg ed., 1785, ix, 733)."
Here Origen is writing quite freely: and his theme is the divine
fullness of Scripture. There is nothing in Scripture which is vain or
empty and all its fullness is derived from Him from whom it is dipped
by the prophets. Contrast his manner, now, when he is expounding II
Tim. iii. 16.
"Let us not be stupefied by hearing Scriptures which we do
not understand; but let it be to us according to our faith, by which
also we believe that every Scripture because it is theopneustic ('pasa
graphe theopneustos ousa') is profitable. For you must needs admit one
of two things regarding these Scriptures: either that they are not
theopneustic since they are not profitable, as the unbeliever takes it;
or, as a believer, you must admit that since they are theopneustic,
they are profitable. It is to be admitted, of course, that the profit
is often received by us unconsciously, just as often we are assigned
certain food for the benefit of the eyes, and only after two or three
days does the digestion of the food that was to benefit the eyes give
us assurance by trial that the eyes are benefited.... So, then, believe
also concerning the divine Scriptures, that thy sous is profited, even
it thy understanding does not perceive the fruit of the profit that
comes from the letters, from the mere bare reading" [Origen, "Hom. XX
in Josuam" 2, in J.A. Robinson's Origen's "Philocalia," p. 63).
It is obvious that here Origen does not understand II Tim. iii. 16, to
teach that Scripture is inspired only because it is profitable, and
that we are to determine its profitableness first and its inspiration
therefrom; what he draws from the passage is that Scripture is
profitable because it is inspired, and that though we may not see in
any particular case how, or even that, it is profitable, we must still
believe it to be profitable because it is inspired, i. e., obniously
because it is given of God for that end. It seemed to be necesary to
adduce at some length these passages from Origen, inasmuch as the
partial adduction of one of them, alsone, by Dr. Cremer might prove
misleading to the unwary reader. But there appears to be no need of
multiplying passages from the other early expositors of II Tim. iii.
16, seeing that it is freely confessed that the exegetical tradition
runs all in one groove. We may differ as to the wieght we allow to this
fact; but surely as a piece of testimony corroborative of the meaning
of the word derived from other considerations, it is worth noting that
it has from the beginning been understood only in one was -- even by
those, such as Origen and we may add Clement, who may not themselves be
absolutely consistent in Preserving the point of view taught them in
this passage. The final test of the sense assigned to any word is,
of course, derived from its fitness to the context in which it is
found. And Dr. Cremer does not fail to urge with reference to
'theopneustos' in II Tim. iii. 16, that the meaning he assigns to it
corresponds well with the context, expecially with the succeeding
clauses; as well as, he adds, with the language elsewhere in the New
Testament, as, for example, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where what
Scripture says is spoken of as the utterance, the saying of the Holy
Ghost, with which he would further compare even Acts xxviii. 25. That
the words of Scripture are conceived, not only in Hebrews but
throughout the New Testament, as the utterances of the Holy Ghost is
obvious enough and not to be denied. But it is equally obvious that the
ground of this conception is everywhere the ascription of these words
to the Holy Ghost as their reponsible author: littera scripta manet and
remains what it was when written, viz., the words of the writer. The
fact that all Scripture is conceived as a body of Oracles and
approached with awe as the utterances of God certainly does not in the
east suggest that these utterances may not be described as God-given
words or throw a preference for a interpretation of 'theopneustos'
which would transmute it into an assertion that they are rather
God-giving words. And the same may be said of the contextual argument.
Naturally, if 'theopneustos' means "God-giving," it would as an epithet
or predicate of Scripture serve very well to lay a foundation for
declaring this "God- giving Scripture" also profitable, etc. But an
equal foundation for this declaration is laid by the description ot it
as "God-given." The passage just quoted from Origen will alone teach us
this. All that can be said on this score for the new interpretation,
therefore, is that it also could be made accordant with the context;
and as much, and much more, can be said for the old. We leave the
matter in this form, since obviously a detailed interpretation of the
whole passage cannot be entered into here, but must be reserved for a
later occasion. It may well suffice to say not that obviously no
advantage can be claimed for the new interpretation from this point of
view. The question is, after all, not what can the word be made to
mean, but what does it mean; and the witness of its usage elsewhere,
its form and mode of composition, and the sense given it by its readers
from the first, supply here the primary evidence. Only if the sense
thus commended to us were unsuitable to the context would we be
justified in seeking further for a new interpretation -- thus demanded
by the context. This can by no means be claimed in the present
instance, and nothing can be demanded of us beyond showing that the
more natural current sense of the word is accordant with the context.
The result of our investigation would seem thus, certainly, to
discredit the new interpretation of 'theopneustos' offered by Ewald and
Cremer. From all points of approach alike we appear to be conducted to
the conclusion that it is primarily expressive of the origination of
Scripture, not of its nature and much less of its effects. What is
'theopneustos' is "God-breathed," produced by the creative breath of
the Almighty. And Scripture is called 'theopneustos' in order to
designate it as "God-breathed," the product of Divine spiration, the
creation of that Spirit who is in all spheres of the Divine activity
the executive of the Godhead. The traditional translation of the word
by the Latin inspiratus a Deo is no doubt also discredited, it we are
to take it at the foot of the letter. It does not express a breathing
into the Scriptures by God. But the ordinary conception attached to it,
whether among the Fathers or the Dognaticians, is in general
vindicated. What it affirms is that the Scriptures owe their origin to
an activity of God the Holy Ghost and are in the highest and truest
sense His creation. It is on this foundation of Divine origin that all
the high attributes of Scripture are built.
1. From "The Presbyterian and Reformed Review," v.XI, pp. 89-130.
2. The novelty of the view in question must not be pressed beyond
measure. It was new view in the sense of the text, but, as we shall
subsequently see, it was no invention of Prof. Cremer's, but was
derived by him from Ewald.
3. That is at least to the eighth edition (1895), which is the last we
have seen. The chief differences between the Herzog and "Lexicon"
Articles are found at the beginning and end -- the latter being fuller
at the beginning and the former at the end. The "Lexicon" article opens
thus: "Theopneustos, -on, gifted with God's Spirit, breathing the
Divine Spirit (but not, as Weiss still maintains = inspired by God).
The term belongs only to Hellenistic and Ecclesiastical Greek, and as
peculiar thereto is connected with expressions belonging to the sphere
of heathen prophecy and mysteries, 'theophoros', 'theophoretos',
'theophoroumenos', 'theelatos', 'theokinetos', 'theodegmon',
'theodektor', 'theopropos', 'theomantis', 'theophron', 'theophradmon',
'theophrades', 'hentheos', 'enthousiastes', et al., to which
Hellenistic Greek adds two new words, 'theopneustos' and
'theodidaktos', without, however, denoting what the others do -- an
ecstatic state." The central core of the article then runs parallel in
both forms. Nothing is added in the "Lexicon," except (in the later
editions) immediately after the quotations from Nonnus this single
sentence: "This usage in Nonnus shows just that it is not to be taken
as = inspiratus, inspired by God but as = filled with God's Spirit and
therefore radiating it." Then follows immediately the next sentence,
precisely as in Herzog, with which the "Lexicon" article then runs
parallel to the quotation from Origen, immediately after which it
4. The contrast is between "gottlich begeistet" and "gottlich
begeistert." The reference to Ewald is given in the "Lexicon": Jahrb.f.
bibl. Wissenschaft, vii. 68. seq.; ix. 91 seq.
5. Of which the facts given by Cremer may for the present be taken as a
fair conspectus, only adding that the word occurs not only in the
editions of Plutarch, "De plac. phil.," v. 2, 3, but also in the
printed text of the dependent document printed among Galen's works
under the title of "Dehist. phil.," 106.
6. Cf. Mahaffy, "History of Greek Literature" (American ed.), i 188,
7. "The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ," E. T., II, iii.
286, whence the account given in the text is derived.
8. See his "Gesammelte Abhandlungen, " edited by Usener in 1885.
Usener's Preface should be also consulted.
9. So Harnack, "Theologische Literaturzeitung," 1885, No. 7, p. 160:
also, J. R. Harris, "The Teaching of the Apostles and the Sibylline
Books" (Cambridge, 1888): both give internal evidences of the Christian
origin of the book. Cf. what we have said in "The Andover Review" for
August, 1886, p. 219.
10. Oxford 8vo edition, 1795-1830, Vol. iv, ii. 650.
11. As by Diels in his "Doxographi Graci," p. 15: fuit scilicet
'theopemptous', quod sero intellectum est a Wyttenbachio in indice
Plutarcheo. si Galenum inspexissit, ipsum illud 'theopemptous'
enventurus erat." But Diels' presentation of Galen was scarcely open to
Wyttenbach's inspection: and the editions then extant read
'theopneustous' as Corsini rightly tells us.
12. "Plutarchi de Physicis Philosophorum Decretis," ed. Chr. Dan.
Beckius, Leipzig, 1787.
13. Tubingen, 1791-1804, Vol. XII (1800), p. 467.
14. "Plutarchi de Placitis Philosophorum Libb. v." (Florentiae, 1750).
15. A very clear account of Diels' main conclusions is given by Franz
Susemigl in his "Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur in der
Alexandrinerzeit" (Leipzig, 1891-1892), ii. pp. 250, 251, as well as in
Bursian's "Jahresbericht" for 1881 (VII, i. 289 seq.). A somewhat less
flattering notice by Max Heinze appears in Bursian for 1880, p. 3 seq.
16. Cf. the remarks of Max Heinze as above.
17. It would be possible to hold, of course, that Athenagoras used not
the [Pseudo?-] Plutarch, but the hypothetical Aetios, of which Diels
considers the former an excerpt: but Diels does not himself so judge:
"anceps est quaestio utrum excerpserit Athenagoras Plutarchi Placita an
maius illud opus, cuius illa est epitome. illus mihi probatur, hoc R.
Volkmanno "Leben Plut.,' i .169...." (p. 51).
18. The relation of the Psuedo-Galen to the [Pseudo?-] Plutarch Diels
expresses thus: "Alter liber quo duce ex generali physicorum tanquam
promulside ad largiorem dapam Galenus traducit est 'Plutarchus de
Placidis philosophorum physicis.' Unde cum in prioribus pauca suspensa
manu ut condimentum adspersa sint (c. 5, 20, 21), jam a c. 25 ad finem
Plutarchus ita regnat, nihil aliud ut praeterea adscitum esse appareat
... ergo foedioribus Byzantiorum soloecismis amputatis hanc partem ad
codicum fidem descripsimus, non nullis Plutarcheae emendationis
auxilium, pluribus fortasse humanae perversitatis insigne testimonium"
(pp. 252, 253).
19. Plutarch's, pp. 267 seq.; Galen's, pp. 595 seq.
20. Plutarch's "Ep.," v. 2, 3 (p. 416); Galen's "Hist. Phil.," 106 (p.
21. For Bernardakis reads 'theopneustous' in his text (Teubner series,
Plutarch's "Moralia," v. 351), recognizing at the same time in a note
that the reading of Galen is 'theopemptous'.
22. In Pauly's "Real-Encyclopaedie," new ed., s. v.
23. It is not meant, of course, that Diels was the first to deny the
tract to Plutarch. It has always been under suspicion. Wyttenbach, for
example, rejects its Plutarchian claim with decision, and speaks of the
tract in a tone of studied contempt, which is, indeed, reflected in the
note already quoted from him, in the remark that we would not be
justified in obtruding elegancies on a mere compiler. Cf. i. p. xli:
"Porro, si quid hoc est, spurius liber utriusque nomine perperam fertur
idem, Plutarchi qui dicitur De Philosophorum Placitis, Galeni Historia
24. Diels does not think highly of this portion of Kuhn's edition:
"Kuehnius, que prioribus sui corporis voluminibus manum subinde admovit
quamvis parum felicem, postremo urgenti typothetae ne inspectas quidem
Charterianae plagulas typis discribendas tradidisse fertur. neque
aliter explicari potest, quod editio ambitiose suscepta tam misere
absoluta est" (p. 241, 2).
25. Though Diels informs us that the editors have made very little
effort to ascertain the readings of the MSS.
26. "Ex archetypo haud vetusto eodemque mendosissimo quattuor exempla
transcripta esse, ac fidelius quidem Laur. A, peritius sed interpolate
Laur. B." (p. 241).
27. Diels' language is: "dolendum sane est libri condicionem tam esse
desperatam ut etiam Plutarcheo archetypo comparato haud semel plane
incertus haereas, quid sibi velit compilator" (p. 12).
28. "Verum quamvis sit summa opus cautione ne ventosi nebulonis
commenta pro sincera memoria amplexemur, inest tamen in Galeno
optimarum lectionum paene intactus thesaurus" (p. 13).
29. "Codices manu scripti quotquot noti sunt ex archetypo circa
millesimum annum scripto deducti sunt" (p. 33). "duo autem sunt
recensendi Plutarchi instrumenta ... unum recentius ex codicis
petendum, inter quos A B C archetypo proximos ex ceterorum turba
segregavi ... alterum genus est excerptorum ..." (p. 42).
30. The readings of A are drawn from a collation of it with the
Frankfort edition of 1620 published by C. F. Matthaei in his "Lectiones
Mosquenses." In a number of important readings, the MS. has been
reinspected for Diels by Voelkel with the result of throwing some doubt
on the completeness of Matthaei's collation. Accordingly the MS. is
cited in parenthesis whenever it is cited e silentio (see Diels, p. 33).
31. The general use of 'theopemptos' is illustrated in the Lexicons, by
the citation of Arist., "Ethic. Nic.," i. 9, 3, where happiness is
spoken of as 'theopemptos' in contrast to the attainment of virtue in
effort; Longinus, c. 34, where we read of 'theopempta tina doremata' in
contrast with 'anthropina'; Themist, "Or." 13, p. 178 D, where 'ho Th.
neanios' is found; Dion. Hal., T. 14. Liddell and Scott quote for the
secondary sense of "Extraordinary," Longus, 3, 18; Artem., i. 7.
32. Arist., de divinat, 2 p. 463b 13: 'holos d'epei kai ton allon zoon
oneirottei tina, theopempta men ouk an eie ta enupnia, oude gegone
toutou charin, daimonia mentoi. He gar phusis daimonia, all' ou theia'.
33. Cf. Philo's tract 'peri tou theopemptous einai tous oneirous'
(Mangey., i. 620). Its opening words run (Yonge's translation, ii.
292): "The treatise before this one has contained our opinions as to
those of 'ton oneiron theopempton' classed in the first species ...
which are defined as dreams in which the Deity sends the appearances
beheld in dreams according to his own suggestion ('to theion kata ten
idian upoboles tas en tois hupnois epipempein phantasias'), "whereas
this later treatise is to discuss the second species of dreams, in
which, "our mind being moved along with that of the universe, has
seemed to be hurried away from itself and to be God-borne
('theophoreisthai') so as to be capable of preapprehension and
foreknowledge of the future." Cf. also section 22, 'tes thepemptou
phantasias': section 33, 'theopemptous oneirous': ii. section 1, 'ton
theopempton oneiron'. The superficial parallelism of Philo with what is
cited from Herophilus is close enough fully to account for a scribe
harking back to Philo's language -- or even for the compiler of the
Pseudo-Galen doing so.
34. "Clementine Homilies," xvii. 15: "And Simon said: 'If you maintain
that apparitions do not always reveal the truth, yet for all that
visions and dreams, being God-sent ('ta horamata kai ta enupnia
theopempta onta ou pseudetai') do not speak falsely in regard to those
matters which they wish to tell." And Peter said: 'You were right in
saying that, being God-sent, they do not speak falsely ('theopempta
onta ou pseudetai). But it is uncertain if he who sees has seen a
God-sent dream ('ei ho idon theopempton eoraken oneiron')." What has
come to the "Clementine Homilies" is surely already a Christian
35. The immediately preceding paragraph in the Pseudo-Galen (Section
105), corresponding with [Pseudo?-]Plutarch, v. i. 1, 2.3 is edited by
Diels thus: 'Platon kai oi Stoikoi ten mantiken eisagousi. kai gar
theopempton einai, hoper estin entheastikon kai kata to theiotaton tes
psuces, hoper estin enthousiastikon, kai to oneiropulikon kai to
astronomikon kai to orneoskopikon. *enophanes kai epikouros anairousi
ten mantiken. Puthagoras de monon to thutikon ouk egkrinei. Aristoteles
kai dikaiarchos tous tous oneirous eisagousin, athanaton men ten
psuchen ou nomizontes, theiou de tinos metechein.' Surely the scribe or
compiler who could transmute the section 'peri mantikes' in the
[Pseudo?-] Plutarch into this, with its intruded 'theopempton' before
him and its allusion to Aristotle on dreams, might be credited without
much rashness with the intrusion of 'theopemptous' into the next
36. Cf. in general E. Thramer. Hastings ERE, VI, p. 542.
37. It is duly recorded in Boeckh, "Corpus Inscript. Graec," 4700 b.
(Add. iii). It is also printed by Kaibel, "Epigrammata Graeca" (Berlin,
1878), p. 428, but not as a Christian inscription, but under the head
of "Epigrammata dedicatoria: V. proscynemata."
38. Porphyry: "Ant. Nymph.," 116: 'hegounto gar prosizanein to hudati
tas phuchas theopnoo onti, hos phesin ho Noumenios. dia touto legon kai
ton propheten eirekenai, empheresthai epano tou hudatos theou
pneuma'--a passage remarkable for containing and appeal to Moses (Gen.
i. 5) by a heathen sage. "God-breathed water" is rendered by
Holstenius: "aquae quae divino spiritu foveretur"; by Gesnerus: "aquae
divinitus afflatae"; by Thomas Taylor: "water which is inspired by
divinity." Pisid. "Hexaem.," 1489: 'e theopnous akrotes' (quoted
unverifed from Hase- Dindorf's Stephens). The Christian usage is
illustrated by the following citations, taken from Sophocles: Hermes
Tris., "Poem," 17.14: 'tes aletheias'; Anastasius of Sinai, Migne, 89.
1169 A: Those who do not have the love of God, "these, having a
diabolical will and doing the desires of their flesh, 'paraitountai hos
poneron to theomoion, dai theoktiston, kai theomoion tes noeras kai
theocharaktou hemon phuches homologein en Christo, kai ten zoopoion
autes kai sustatiken theopnoun energeian."
39. 'pneumatophoros' and 'pneumatophoreisthai' are pre-Christian Jewish
words, already used in the LXX. (Hos. ix. 7, Zeph. iii. 4, Jer. ii.
24). Compounds of 'theos' found in the LXX. are 'theoktistos', II Macc.
vi. 23; 'theopmachein', II Macc. vii. 19 ['theomachos Sm., Job xxvi. 5,
et al.]; 'theosebeia', Gen. xx. 11 et al.; 'theosebes Ex. xviii. 21 et
40. No derivative of 'christos' except 'christianos' is found in the
New Testament. The compounds are purely Patristic. See Lighfoot's note
on Ignatious, Eph. ix; Phil. viii and the note in Migne's "Pat.
Graec.," xi. 1861, at Adamantii "Dialogus de recta fide," Section 5.
41. In the Hase-Dindorf Stephens, sub-voc. 'Theopneustos', the passage,
from the [Psuedo?-] Plutarch is given within square brackets in this
form: ["Plut. Mor. p. 904F: 'tous oneirous thous theoploutous']." What
is to be made of this new reading, we do not know. One wonders whether
it is a new conjecture or a misprint. No earlier reference is given for
'theoploutos' in the "Thesaurus" than chrysostom: "Ita Jobum appellat
Jo. Chrystom, Vol. iv, p. 297, Suicer." Sophocles cites also Anast.
Sinai. for the word: Hexaemeron XII ad fin. (Migne, 1076 D., Vol. 89):
'hopos touto katabalon en tais psuchais trapezison son arron se di'
auton ten theoplouton kataplouteso'.
42. So it may be confidently infered from the summary of what we know
of Herophilus given in Susemigl's "Geschichte der Greichisch. Literatur
in d. Alexandrinerzeit," Vol. i, p. 792, or from Marx's "De Herophili
... vita scriptis atque in medicina mentis" (Gottingen, 1840), p. 38.
In both cases Herophilus' doctrine of dreams is gathered solely from
our excerpts -- in the case of Susemihl from "Aetius" and in the case
of Marx primarily from Galen with the support of Plutarch.
43. Loc. cit.
44. In the common text the passage goes on to tell us of the dreams of
mixed nature, i. e., presumable partly divine and partly human in
origin. But the idea itself seems incongruous and the description does
not very well fit the category. Diels, therefore, conjectures
'pneumatikous' in its place in which case there are three categories in
the enumeration: Theopneustic, physical (i. e., the product of the
'psuche' or lower nature), and pheumatic, or the product of the higher
nature. The whole passage in Diels' recension runs as follows: Aet.
'Plac.,' p. 416 (Pseudo-Plut., v. 2, 3): 'Hrophilos ton oneiron tous
men theopemptous kat' anagken ginesthai, tous de phusikous
aneidolopoioumenes psuches to sumpheron aute kai to pantos esomenon,
tous de sugkramatikous [pneumatikous ? Diels, but this is scarcely the
right correction, cf. Susemigl, "Gesch. d. Gr. Lit.," etc. i. 792] ['ek
tou automatou'] kat' eidolon prosptosin, hotan a boulometha blepomen,
hos epi ton tas eromenas horonton en hupno genetai'."
45. V. 308 seq. The full text, in Rzach's edition, runs:
'Kume d' he mope sun namasin ois theopneustois En palamais atheon
andron adikon kai athesmon Piphtheis ouk eti tisson es aithera rema
prodosei. Alla menei nekre eni namasi kumaioisin.'
46. Strabo, "Rerum Geographicarum," liber XIII, III. 6, pp. 622, 623
(Amsterdam ed., 1707, p. 924). A good summary may be read in Smith's
"Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography," i. 724, 725.
47. Alexandre translates "plenis numine lymphis"; Dr. Terry, "inspired
48. So Herodotus observes (i, 157).
49. V. 408 seq. In Rzach's text the lines run:
'Ou gar akedestos ainei theon aphanous ges oude petren poiese sophos
tekton para toutois, ou chrison kosmou apaten psuchon t' esebasthe en
thusiais egerair' hagiais kalais th' hekatoubais.'
50. In this second edition, Dr. Terry has altered this to "The Mighty
Father, God of all things God-inspired": but this scarcely seems an
51. 'oude phobetheis athanaton genetera theon panton anthropon ouk
etheles timan'. Rzach compares also Xenophon. "Fragn.," i. 1, M., 'e
'is theos en te theoisi kai anthropoisi megistos'.
52. Terry, Ed. 2: "the immortal Father, God of all mankind."
53. Recension A, Chap. xx. p. 103, ed. James.
54. Nonni Panopolitani "Paraphrasis in Joannem" (i. 27), in Migne,
'Kai opisteros hostis hikanei Semeron humeion mesos histatai, ou podos
akrou, Andromeen palamen ouk axios eimi pelassas, Dus*i mounon himanta
55. Op. cit., p. 756.
56. It is given in Kaibel's "Epigrammata Graeca," p. 477. Waddington
supposes the person meant to be a certain Archbishop of Bostra, of date
457-474, an opponent of Origenism, who is commemorated in the Greek
Church on June 13. The inscription runs as follows:
'Doxes] orthoto[n]ou tamies kai hupermachos esthlos, archierius
theopneustos edeimato kallos ametron Antipatr]o[s] klutometis
aethlophorous met' agonas, ku[d]ainon megalos theometora parthenon
hagnen Marian poluumnon, akeraton aglaodoron'.
57. Wetstein cites the expression as applied (where, he does not say)
to "Marcus AEgyptus," by which he means, we suppose, Marcus of Scetis,
mentioned by Sozomen, H. E., vi. 29, and Nicephoeus Callistus, H. E.,
xi. 35. Dr. Cremer transmutes the designation into Marcus Eremita, who
is mentioned by Nicephorus Callistus, H. E., xiv. 30, 54, and whose
writings are collected in Migne, lxv. 905 seq. The two are often
identified, but are separately entered in Smith and Wace.
58. That is doubtless the Jewish teacher to whom he elsewhere refers,
as, e. g., "De Principiis," iv. 20 (Ante-Nicene Library. N.Y. ed., iv.
375), where the same general subject is discussed.
59. "Jahrb. f. bibl. Wissenschaft," vii. 114.
60. In a note on p. 89, Ewald adds as to 'theempneustos' that it is
certainly true that such compounds are not common, and that this
particular one does not occur: but that they are possible is shown by
the occurrence of such examples as 'theosunaktos, theokataskeuastos',
in which the preposition occurs: and dem Laute nach, the formation is
like 'theelatos'. There seems to be no reason, we may add, why, if it
were needed, we should not have had a 'theempneustos' by the side of
'theopneustos', just as by the side of 'pneumatophoros' we have
'pneumatemphoros' ("Etymologicum Magnum," 677, 28; John of Damascus, in
Migne, 96, 837c. 'Ese propheton pneumatemphoron stoma').
61. For not even 'theempneo' would properly signify "breathe into" but
rather "breathe in," "inhale." It is by a somewhat illogical extension
of meaning that the verb and its derivatives ('empneusis', 'empnoia')
are used in the theological sense of "inspiration," in which sense they
do not occur, however, either in the LXX. or the New Testament. In the
LXX. 'empneusis' means a "blast," a "blowing" (Ps. xvii. (xviii.) 15;
cf. the participle 'empneon', Acts ix. 1); 'empneous', "living,"
"breathing" (II Macc. vii. 5, xiv. 45); and the participle 'pan
empneon', "every living, breathing thing" (Deut. xx. 16; Josh. x. 28,
30, 35, 37, 39, 40; xi. 14; Wisd. xv. 11). 'Eispneo' is properly used
by the classics in the sense of "breathing into," "inspiring": it is
not found in itself or derivatives in LXX. or the New Testament --
though it occurs in Aq. at Ex. i. 5. How easily and in what a full
sense, however, 'empneo' is used by ecclesiastical writers for
"inspire" may be notted from such examples as ign. "ad Mag.," 8: "For
the divine ('theiotatoi') prophets lived after Christ; for this cause
also they were persecuted, being inspired by His grace ('emneomenoi
hupo tes charitos autou') for the full persuasion of those that are
disobedient." Theoph. of Antioch, "ad. Autol.," ii. 9: "Butt he men of
God, 'pneumatophoroi' of the Holy Ghost, and becoming prophets 'hup'
autou tou theou empneusthentes kai sophisthentes', became
'theodidaktoi' and holy and righteous." The most natural term for
"inspired" in classic Greek one would be apt to think, would be
'entheos' ('enthous'), with 'to entheon' for "inspiration"; and after
it, participial or other derivatives of 'enthousiazo': but both
'eispneo' and 'empneo' were used for the "inspiration" that consisted
of "breathing into" even in profane Greek.
62. P. 88.
63. "Geschichte des Volkes Israel," vi. 245, note.
64. "Jahrb. f. bibl. Wissenschaft," ix. 91.
65. Sec. 16, 2, p. 135. Cf. Thayer's Viner, p. 96; Moulton's, p. 120.
Also Thayer's Buttmann, p. 190. The best literature of the subject will
be found adduced by Winer.
66. Compounds of '-pneustos' do not appear to be very common. Liddell
and Scott (ed. 6) do not record either 'ana-' or 'dia-' or 'epi-' or
even 'eu-'; though the cognates are recorded, and further compounds
presupposing them. The rare word 'eupneustos' might equally well
express "breathing-well" quasi-actively, or "well-aired" passively;
just as 'apneustos' is actually used in the two senses of "breathless'
and "unventilated": and a similar double sense belongs to
'dusanapneustos'. 'Empneustos' does not seem to occur in a higher
sense; its only recorded usage is illustrated by Athenaeus, iv. 174,
where it is connected with 'organa' in the sense of wind-instruments:
its cognates are used of "inspiration." Only 'puripneustos' =
'puripnoos' = "fire-breathing" is distinctively active in usage: cf.
'anapneustos', poetic for 'apneustos' = "breathless."
67. Two fundamental ideas, lying at the root of all their thinking of
Scripture, seem to have colored somewhat their dealing with this term:
the old Lutheran doctrine of the Word of God, and the modern
rationalizing doctrine of the nature of the Divine influence exerted in
the procuction of Scripture. On account of the latter point of view
they seem setermined not to find in Scripture itself any declaration
that will shut them up to "a Philonian conseption of Scripture" as the
Oracles of God -- the very utterances of the Most High. By the former
they seem predisposed to discover in it declaraions of the
wonder-working power of the Word. The reader cannot avoid becoming
aware of the influence of both these dogmatic conceptions in both
Ewald's and Cremer's dealing with 'theopneustos'. But it is not
necessary to lay stress on this.
68. "Jahrb. f. bibl. Wissenschaft," vii. 88, 114.
69. "Geschichte des Volkes Israel," i. 245, note.
70. "Jahrb.," etc., ix. 92.
71. "Die Pastoralbriefe" u. s. w., p. 163.
72. For the implications of the term 'pheromenoi' here (as
distinguished from 'agomenoi') consult the fruitful discussion of the
words in Schmidt's "Synonymik."
73. Cf. Prof. Schulze, loc. cit.: "Further, it should not be lost sight
of (and Dr. Cremer does not do so) how the Church in its defenders has
understood this word. There can be no doubt that in the conflict with
Montanism, the traditional doctrine of theopneusty was grounded in the
conception of 'thepneustos', but never that of the Scriptures breathing
out the Spirit of God. The passage with Cremer adduces from Origen
gives no interpretation of this word, but only points to a quality of
Scripture consequent on their divine origination by the Holy Spirit:
and elsewhere when he adduces the rule of faith, the words run, quod
per spiritum dei sacrae scripturae conscriptae sunt, or a verbo dei et
spirita dei dictae sunt: just as Clem. Alex. also, when, in Coh. 71, he
is commenting on the Pauline passage, takes the word in the usual way,
and yet, like Origen, makes an inference from the God-likeness (as
'theopoiein') in Plato's manner, from the whole passage--though not
deriving it from the word itself. For the use of the word in Origen, we
need to note: Sel. in Ps., ii. 527; Hom. in Joh., vi. 134, Ed. de la R."