by the two books; but to assert that the one attitude deserves praise and the other blame, is to deny that variety of intellectual gifts which is one great beauty of our divinely-constituted human nature. The special value of Dr. Driver's Introduction consists in its treatment of the linguistic and phraseological arguments. He is, however, so gracious, so generous as to refer expressly to the Bampton Lectures for the treatment of the language of the Psalter, and his own critical position is not by any means so unlike that of the Bampton Lecturer as Professor Davison supposes (see Expositor, April, 1892). I also venture (using the first person, now that personal matters are not in question) to point out a few oversights in Professor Kennedy's review in the same number of THE THINKER. He humbles me by his praise; I could only wish that he recognized what appears to me the peculiar characteristic of the position which I occupy. Holding the religious views which I do, can I possibly be merely a member of any modern critical school? On p. 123 he exaggerates the difference between us; I have never denied the difference of insight between gifted individuals and the mass of the pre-Exilic nation. On p. 124 he exaggerates another point, viz., the amount of the Psalter which I think later than Alexander (only 32 with some certitude, but possibly 42). He also omits to mention how modestly my view of Psalm xlv. is set forth, and how “largely symbolic " a value is attached to it. Nor can I admit that I have said "that this title (Elyōn) in itself is sufficient to establish the post-Exilic date of the nineteen psalms in which it occurs (see p. 464). The words used by me are, "Psalm vii. is one of the Elyōn psalms, and is, therefore, presumably late" (if there be no reason to the contrary), and in my note on Psalm vii. 18 it is expressly said, "The name Elyōn is not to be taken (as by Geiger) as a sure sign wherever it occurs of postExilic date. We cannot, e.g., say that our Psalter must be post-Exile because the name Elyōn occurs in it. And yet a subsidiary argument can be based upon the title, because post-Exile writers were specially fond of using it," &c. (comp. B. L. p. 83). Professor Kennedy remembers, I am sure, that, in my opinion," in the case of the Psalms the linguistic argument cannot often be more than a subsidiary one" (p. 461). I quite admit that if on other grounds Psalm vii. (for example) probably is pre-Exilic, the mere occurrence of Elyōn is no sufficient reason for giving it a different date. We should in that case group it with Num. xxiv. 15-24 (see ver. 16) and Deut. xxxii. (see ver. 8), which are admitted to be pre-Exilic works. I will only add that Appendix I. is only so short because my desire was to be positive rathe than negative. The traditional arguments from external evidence appear to me weak in the extreme; I question whether mucl. real advance on either side can possibly be made. If any new method can be suggested, I shall be among the first to welcome sound results. But let us beware of illusions. I have myself asked for a really critical re-examination of the supposed allusions to the Psalms in Ecclesiasticus and Baruch. I wish that I had time to enter more at length into my learned reviewer's dropía. NO. IV.-VOL. I.-THE THINKER. X One word more to Professor Davison, and I have done. I have never held that "the mention of the godly' in a psalm necessarily points to the time when that sect flourished" (p. 113); but I think that when on other grounds a late Persian or early Greek date is probable, we are justified in seeing in the chasidim the predecessors of the Maccabæan 'Aridato. There is, therefore, no vital difference between Professor Davison and myself. On the names Elyōn and Shaddai I would also urge this friendly critic to be cautious not to misrepresent my views, which are neither arbitrary nor ill-considered. Grateful as I am to him for his kind expressions, I venture to ask for a little less eagerness to expose fancied assumptions. The problem before us is a complicated one, and while very anxious to learn from my fellow-workers, I should like to be assured that they have not given less time and thought to it than I have myself. EXPOSITORY THOUGHT. THE ENGRAFTED WORD. No. I. BY REV. J. WILLCOCK, B.D. δέξασθε τὸν ἔμφυτον λόγον. "Receive the engrafted word.”—James i. 21. THE point to be settled is the precise meaning of μpvrov, for which the somewhat kindred terms "engrafted" and "implanted" have been suggested, and the more remote "inborn." The last may be quickly disposed of. If the "word" is "inborn," we can scarcely be asked to "receive" it upvros is a verbal adjective connected with upów, to implant; so that the passage might be understood to refer to the growth of, say, corn or seedlings planted in the earth, if, indeed, there be not a special reference to the parable of the Sower. The technical words for grafting (povreía, éμpvτevw) are, however, so closely akin to it that it is quite allowable to understand it to refer to that process. The rendering of the Vulgate "insitum verbum" is still more ambiguous, "insero meaning either to sow or plant in (as corn) or to graft. In Rom. xi. 17 the figure of grafting is employed to illustrate the introduction of Gentiles into the Jewish Church- the branches of wild olive inserted into the stock of the garden olive. St. Paul, however, does not use eμøvreów, but ¿ykevτpićw—to prick in, to make a notch in the stock for the insertion of the slip. Still, there is a kinship of purpose in both writers: the one describes the outward change on the part of the Gentile believer in his relations to the Church of which he becomes a living member; the other, the inward spiritual change wrought in the individual by his reception of the "word"; and it is not wonderful that similar metaphors should be used. Whether the principal reference in the phrase, Tòv čμputov Aóyov, be to implanting or grafting will be a matter decided differently by different minds; but the one figure is so closely allied to the other that virtually the same truth will be taught whichever is adopted. The main idea of the passage is that holiness is not natural to the human heart, but requires first to be implanted there by a Divine hand; and whether the metaphor be that of seed sown in good soil or that of a cutting successfully grafted on a tree is not a matter of much consequence. No. II. BY REV. B. C. CAFFIN, M.A. δέξασθε τὸν ἔμφυτον λόγον.—JAMES i. 21. THE word upνros occurs nowhere else in Holy Scripture (but see Wisdom xii. 10). In classical Greek it means sometimes "innate"; sometimes implanted," as in Herodotus ix. 94 (cf. the similar use of the verb évéþvσe, Odyssey xxii. 348). Here the sense innate" is excluded by the context. There is no authority for the rendering of the A.V., "engrafted," which belongs to the cognate verb, éμovτew. The rendering of the R.V., "implanted," is borne out by the etymology and usage of the word, and is in all respects suitable. The injunction of St. James may be compared with that of St. Paul in 2 Cor. vi. 1, “We intreat also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain." God gives the grace; God implants the seed which "is the word of God." We have to receive it, to hear and accept it, that we may bring forth fruit. The word of God is "living and active" (Heb. iv. 12); it can pervade and renew the whole character; it can save the soul. God implants it; it is His gift, His grace; He sent forth the Sower of His own free sovereign bounty. But the seed needs a suitable soil: in some cases it is lost and dies; it is checked in its growth, and brings forth no fruit to perfection. Therefore we are bidden not to receive it in vain, but to " grow in grace." The seed has within it the energy of life; it will spring up, it will work its way upward—unless it falls upon the hard trodden path, or the rock which has no depth of earth above it, or is gradually deprived of its nutriment by the thorns which spring up with it. God gives it; through His grace it is upuros, implanted. We must pray that that preventing grace may continually follow us, helping us to receive the implanted word in an honest and good heart, that so the word of His grace which at first was upuros, may become ouμpuros, grown together, intimately united with our inmost nature, that we, having become united with Christ by the likeness of His death, may be also by the likeness of His resurrection (Rom. vi. 5, R.V.). THE ANCIENT NAME OF GOD. BY REV. W. H. Lowe, M.A. JOHN viii. 58; ExOD. iii. 14; HOSEA i. 9. THE difficulty which one naturally feels with regard to the use of "I am (John viii. 58) instead of "I was" seems to arise from our Lord's words being handed down to us in Greek. If we assume, as is probable, that He used some Hebraic dialect, this difficulty appears to be solved, and the true reason why the Jews took up stones to cast at Him to be revealed, on referring to Exod. iii. 14. In that passage, when Moses asked for the name of Him from whom he received his commission, the reply was, "I AM, for (asher) I AM," i.e., My name is Ehyeh, because I am self-existent. Observe, moreover, that God does not command Moses: "Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM THAT I AM hath sent me unto you," but "I-AM hath sent me unto you." Thus Ehyeh, I-AM, is clearly given as one of the names of God. When, then, Jesus said to the Jews, "Before Abraham was I am," besides asserting His personal pre-existence before the historical existence of Abraham, He appeared (to the Jews indeed blasphemously) to be applying to Himself one of the names of God, and so plainly asserting His own Godhead. For His words would bear not only the interpretation, "Before Abraham was, I was," an assertion of pre-existence, but also the interpretation, "Before Abraham was, I (was) Ehyeh," a clear assumption of true divinity. The compilers of the Anglican Prayer Book seem almost to have implied this interpretation when they appointed for the same Sunday (viz., the fifth in Lent) Exod. iii. as the first Lesson, and John viii. 46-end as the Gospel. At all events, the collocation is suggestive. In illustration of the above interpretation of our Lord's words, I will adduce a possible explanation of Hosea i. 9. In the last clause of that verse, as the italics inform every one, the word God is not expressed in the original. But is it understood? Not necessarily. In Hebrew, where the person is clearly indicated, the copula is not much used. Thus in the sentence, "Ye are not my people," the copula is not expressed. Nor is it necessary to take the original ehyeh, represented in the A.V. by "will be," as the copula. Take it as I-AM, one of the names of God, and the clauses will run: "Ye (are) not my people, nor (am) I I-AM (i.e., the God),to you"; or in other words, "You are lo-ammi (as far as I am concerned, for I reject you as the people), and I am lo-ehyeh (as far as you are concerned, for you reject me as the God)." The Hebrew ehych may be represented in Greek by various tenses, according to circumstances. The present was adopted in John viii. 58 (as it would seem if the above interpretation be correct), because the writer understood our Lord to have consciously referred to Exod. iii. 14, where the Septuagint has Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν. THE SIGN PROMISED TO AHAZ. BY REV. F. H. WOODS, B.D. ISAIAH Vii. 14-16. WHEN Justin Martyr was arguing in defence of Christianity in his real or imaginary dialogue with Trypho the Jew, he quoted this passage more than once as an obvious proof that the birth of Christ from a Virgin was predicted by the Prophet 43, 66, 71, 84. Justin, of course, based his argument on the translation of the LXX., in which the significant words are ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ λήψεται καὶ τέξεται υἱὸν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ 'Eμμavový. (kaλéσerai. Just. 43. kaλéσovoi. Just. 66). His argument turns Εμμανουήλ. mainly upon the word raplévos, and he makes some very stringent remarks about those who ventured to set aside the revered translation of the elders, and explained the Hebrew by veâvis-a young woman, who might or might not be married. It is unnecessary to add that the same interpretation is given by St. Matthew (i. 23); though his actual quotation of the passage differs somewhat from the LXX., but not in the direction of the Hebrew. Ιδού, ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱὸν, καὶ καλέσουσι τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ 'Eppavovýλ. (Heb. лN). Εμμανουήλ. עלמה Now in these days of critical inquiry we can hardly help asking ourselves the question, "Was this a sound argument?" It is often urged, and that quite fairly, that those Jews who insisted on the translation of by veâvis, as was actually the case in the translations of Aquila and Theodotion, were in all probability actuated by a controversial motive (see Irenæus quoted in Euseb. v. 8). That they wished to get rid of a translation which furnished such a strong weapon in the hands of their Christian opponents is natural enough. It is also quite fair to say that the Jews do not seem at this time to have accused the Christians of tampering with the facts of Gospel history to make them agree with the prophecy. What they do accuse them of is a misconception of the meaning of the word л. But while giving full weight to these arguments it is only fair on the other side to ask whether the Jews, whatever their motives may have been, were not after all justified in their interpretation of the word on philological and exegetical grounds. For, 1. while is most commonly used, no doubt, of a virgin, it is certainly sometimes used of a young married woman. This, for example, is the most natural meaning in Prov. xxx. 19; Cant. vi. 8. (where LXX. translate by veaves). And is it conceivable that, had Isaiah intended such a stupendous event as the birth from a virgin to be the sign given, he would have used an ambiguous word instead of in the ordinary word for virgin? The context favours the Jewish interpretation. When Justin, indeed, 1 On the extra-Biblical use of the word and its cognates, see critical note on the passage in Cheyne's Isaiah. |