THE JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
sexual intercourse with (a woman)'.1 Thus the renderings of the Versions (Syr. i^el; LXX jr<oAre and Vulg. interfecif) do not necessarily imply a different reading from that of the Massoretic text

G. R. DRIVER.

CHRIST AS THE APXH OF CREATION.
(Prov. viii 22, Col. i 15-18, Rev. iii 14.) THE main object of this paper is to point out the facthitherto, I believe, unnoticedthat in Col. i 16-18 St Paul is giving an elaborate exposition of the first word in Genesis, JVC'tOB Ber&shith, and interpreting rishith as referring to Christ. This interpretation depends, as we shall see, upon an inferred connexion between risteth of Gen. i 1 and the same term applied to Wisdom personified in Prov. viii 22, ^JjJ flirt* 13"H fTp'tO AdSndi kdnarii rtsltith dark6a passage to which there is obvious reference in irpwroroicos 7700-79 KTUTVUH in Col. i 15. Since the interpretation of Prov. viii 22 has raised greater controversy than that of almost any other passage in the O. T., and is still in some degree un-' settled, we shall do well to begin with a discussion of it. Interpretation of Prov. viii 22.
Downloaded from jts.oxfordjournals.org by guest on February 12, 2011
The renderings of A.V. and R.V. are identical: The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, Before his works of old. R.V., however, adds the marginal alternatives ' formed ' for 'possessed', ' as' (the beginning) for ' in' (the beginning),' The first of for ' Before'. Meaning of '}Ji?. In the first place, the fact needs emphasis that the verb ""ijg kdnd always seems to possess the sense 'get, acquire', never the sense 'possess, own' simply, apart from the idea of possessing something which has been acquired in one way or another. This clearly appears from examination of the usages of the verb in Hebrew, and through comparison of the cognate languages. There are (if my compuUtion is correct) 88 occurrences of the verb in the Hebrew Bible and the Hebrew text of Ecclesiasticus. The various shades of meaning which it has may be classified as follows : 1. 'Buy', Gen. xxv 10, xxxiii 19, xxxix 1, xlvii 19, 20, 22, 23, xlix 30,
Dalman Aratndisch-Ntuhtbr&isclits Handwdrierbudi 90 b.

NOTES AND STUDIES

1 13; Ex. xxi 2 ; Lev. xxii n , xxv 14, 15, 28, 30, 44, 45, 50, xxvii 24; Deut. xxviii 68; Josh, xxiv 32; 2 Sam. xii 3, xxiv 21, 24 ter; r Kings xvi 24; 2 Kings xii 13, xxii 6 ; Isa. xxiv 2, xliii 24; Jer. xiii I, 2, 4, xix 1, xxxii 7 bis, 9, 15, 25, 43, 44; Ezek. vii 12 ; Am. viii 6 ; Zech. xi 5, xiii 5 (s.v.L); Prov. xx 14; Ru. iv 4, 5 bis, 8, 9, 10; Eccles. ii 7 ; Neh. v 8, 16; 1 Chron. xxi 24bis; 2 Chron. xxxiv 11; Ecclus. xxxvii 11. Total 60. 2. ' Own' (by right of purchase), Isa. i 3 (' The ox knoweth its owner'). Gesenius (Thesaurus, s.v.) also includes under this head Lev. xxv 30 ; Zech. xi 5 ; but seeing that in both these passages there is an antithesis between nip and 13D ' sell', it is clear that the sense ' buy ' is intended, and that they belong to the first category, where we have included them. Total 1. 3. ' Acquire' (otherwise than by purchase). ' Get' wisdom, &c, by application of the mind and will, Prov. i 5, iv 5 bis, 7 bis, xv 32, xvi 16 bis, xvii 16, xviii 15, xix 8, xxiii 23; Ecclus. li. 20, 2r, 25, 28. Of these passages Prov. xxiii 23 ('Get truth, and sell it not') shews that the metaphor of buying is in the writer's mind. ' Get' a wife, Ecclus. xxxvi 29. Of Yahweh's acquiringIsrael, Ex. xv 16 ; Isa. xi 11, Ps. lxxiv 2 ; obj. ' the hill' of Zion, Ps. lxxviii 54. Total 21. 4. (a) 'Beget', Deut. xxxii 6 ('Is He not thy Father that begat thee? He made thee and established thee'). {b)' Get' (by bearing), Gen. iv 1 (' I have gotten a man with [the help of] Yahweh '. The verb is here chosen to explain the name H2 Kdyin). Total 2. 5. 'Create', Gen. xiv 19, 22 ('Creator of heayen and earth'), Ps. cxxxix 13 (' For thou hast formed my reins '). Total 3. These, with Prov. viii 22 (where the meaning of the verb must for the present be considered ambiguous), make up the sum total of 88. To make this evidence complete we must briefly notice the usages of substantives derived from the root. These are C?i? kinydn. 1. 'Acquisition' (by purchase), Lev. xxii n. a. 'Property' (as acquired}, Gen. xxxiv 23, xxxvi 6; Josh, xiv 4 ; Ezek. xxxviii 12, 13; Ps. cv 21. 3. ' Act of acquiring', Gen. xxxi 18; Prov. iv 7. 4. 'Creation', i.e. collectively 'creatures' (parallel to T^!? 'Thy works'), Ps. civ 24. n Ji?!? mikna. L ' Object purchased', Gen. xvii 12, 13, 23, 27, xxiii 18. a. ' Act of purchase', Lev. xxvii 22; Jer. xxxii 11, 12 bis, 14, 16. 3. 'Purclmse-price', Lev. xxv 16bis, 51. 7\1gO mikn/. 'Property', more especially such as consists in cattle. This is very frequent. That the underlying conception is that of something acquired(cf. <rn/eos from KTOO/WU) is clear from Gen. xlix 32, 'The purchase of the field (i. e. the purchased field) and the cave that is in it from the sons of Heth' (to secure a good sequence in English R.V. VOL. XXVII. M

Cf. instances of these names cited in Thureau-Dangin Ltitres it Controls dt
J* la Premiere Dynastie babylonienne.
kinyanim or Kn/j/juvra because he has conie to possess them; his legs and
arms, for example, are not kinyanim or imf/ia-m because they are' inseparable from our idea of him as a complete manthere never- was a time when he did not possess them. Of course if we shifted our point of view, and regarded the man as a pre-existing spiritual entity subsequently endowed with a body, we might think of his body as a kt'nyan or KriJ/ia, since thus the body and its members would be pictured as acquired property. Evidence from the cognate languages as to the meaning of ~iag. This conclusion as to the ground-conception of the verb rup in Biblical Hebrew is borne out by the usage of the same root in the cognate languages. In New Hebrew the meaning of *3p, n:p is 'acquire, buy', and also 'create'. Cf. Rosh ha-shana 31 a, bv Y~H*n ''"6 |HD!N Vfi no JiKWa loinjn Q"bv) rupm rupe> DB>, ' On the first day what (Psalm) do they recite ? " The earth is the Lord's " (Ps. xxiv); because He created His world and gave it in possession, and is ruler over it' Here njpm DJp means literally ' acquired (by creation) and caused (men) to acquire (it)'. Cf. other instances of the use of the verb in Levy Neuheb. u. chald, Worterbuch, s.v. Aramaic Hip, Syriac \o k*na corresponds in usage precisely with Hebrew. The O.T. occurrences of Hebrew kana are regularly reproduced by k*na in the Targums and the Peshttta,1 and in addition Heb. V?\ rdkash 'gather property' is rendered by k'nd in the Aramaic versions (Gen. xii 5, xxxi 18, xxxvi 6, xlvi 6), and &&\ '(gathered) property' normally by kinyana (niksin ' riches', s'gulld ' treasure' also occur as renderings). The N.T. and patristic occurrences of JJ-D exhibit the same usage (cf. Payne Smith Thesaurus, s.v.). Arabic Li kana means ' to acquire' (e. g. sheep or goats) for a permanent possession, not for sale (Lane, Supplement to -Diet.), and in conjugation VIII ' to possess' property so acquired. The verb may also have the sense 'create' (Kamus, p. 1937, lili. < ) iL). ul In Sabaean votive inscriptions the causative ">ipr\ haknl is the regular term for 'dedicate', i.e. 'cause to acquire'; cf. CIS. iv nos. 2*, 3', 301, 371) 75*i 77-91, &c. In ib. no. 37" we find the simple stem,. 'Dyi 'jpn. in~Djn, 'and his riparian property. which he acquired and made'. The subst. 'jp means 'property ' ; ib. nos. 31, 29', 371.

- ] Exceptions are Prov. viii 11, where both Targ. and Pesh. use the verb N13 ' created' (see below on the Versions), and Deut. xxxii 6 where Targ. Onkelos paraphrases ?JJi5 ' who begat thee' by FP?1^ R{<1 ' and thou art His', doubtless in order to obviate the anthropomorphism of the original. M 2 Downloaded from jts.oxfordjournals.org by guest on February 12, 2011
Ethiopic +K: kanaya. Dillmann {Lex., cols. 44-78) gives as meanings (1) 'Acquire, purchase', citing Am. viii 6, 'To buy the poor for silver'; (2) ' Subject to one's power, reduce to servitude'; (3) ' Impose labour, drive to work'. H e makes no mention of a sense ' possess ' in Ethiopic. In Babylonian the verb hand seems to be infrequent. Meissner, however, quotes two instances of it {Supplement, p. 85); amar fa aMa \ina\ silli iarri ik-nu-u-ni intai, ' All that my father acquired under the protection of the king he has taken away' (K. 1101, 16; Harper Letters no. 152); ekli'kirt' n&i'la ina silWa ii-nu-u, ' The fields, gardens, (and) slaves which under my protection they acquired' (BA. 2, 566, 24). Here we might perhaps render ' owned' in place of' acquired'; yet still the reference would be to the owning of wealth acquired during a period of prosperity.
Importance of recognizing that the sense ' acquire' is inseparable
from Q. The evidence adduced above as to the meaning of band is familiar to competent Hebrew scholars, and the conclusion which we have drawn as to its invariable ground-conception would hardly be called in question by them. The reason why it has seemed desirable to marshal the facts in such fullness is that, in the controversy which has raged round '?JfJ in Prov. viii 22, they have not been rightly apprehended by theologians, either in the past or in modern times. Thus, for example, Dr Liddon in his Bampton Lectures (Lect. ii, 13 th ed. pp. 61 f.) states that' modern critics know that if we are to be guided by the clear certain sense of the Hebrew Toot, we shall read " possessed ", and not " created ", and they admit without difficulty that the Wisdom is uncreated by and co-eternal with the Lord Jehovah V He adds in a foot-note that ' the current meaning of the word is " to acquire " or " possess ", as is proved by its certain sense in the great majority of cases where it is used'. Here it is clear that he fails to recognize the sharp distinction which exists between the meaning ' acquire' and the meaning ' possess' with the force in which he postulates it, viz. ' possess' in a sense which not only ignores the idea of preliminary acquisition, but is actually to be understood as excluding such an idea. But, if our argument has been sound, this distinction forms the crux of the question. The idea of creation is closely connected with the idea of acquisition as being one form of it; whereas the idea of possession without acquisition stands sharply apart,

Now there are two O.T. passages in which this verb p D (l3fe>) is applied to the weaving of the embryonic body in the womb, the thought being of the mysterious interlacing (as it were) of bones, sinews, and veins, as appears from the passage Job x n.
With skin and flesh didst Thou clothe me; With bones and sinews didst Thou weave me. (So R.V. rightly, ' knit me together '. A.V. wrongly, ' fenced me', marg. ' hedged"). The other passage is Ps. cxxxix 13.
For Thou didst form my reins ; Thou didst weave me in my mother's womb. ' (A.V., R.V. text wrongly ' didst cover m e ' ; R.V. marg. rightly, ' didst knit me together'). The meaning of '}2Dn 'didst weave me' is further illustrated by v. 15 ''riDgn rukkamti, ' I was skilfully wrought' or 'embroidered', the figure being that of the working of a piece of tapestry (if?!?! rikma, Judg. v 30, &c). Conclusion that '?Ji> means 'begat me'.
If, then, in Prov. viii 23 (stage 2) WB? means ' I was woven' (prenatal growth of the embryo),1 and in w- 24, 35 (stage 3) 'PiW^ri means ' I was brought forth with travail' (birth), the inference is obvious that the figure described in v. 22 by (stage 1) 'JJiJ is 'beget me' (act of procreation). We notice that Job x 10the verse which immediately precedes the passage which we have discussed as referring to embryonic growthruns, Hast Thou not poured me out like milk, And curdled me like cheese ? Here, without a doubt, the figure is that of (a) procreation, and (6) conception (cf. Gray and Ball ad loc., and for the idea underlying (b) Wisd. vii 2 irayis iv alfiaTL with Goodrick's note). Thus this long discussion brings us, with close approximation to certainty, to the conclusion that 'JJp mrv means ' The Lord begat me'.
This is the view of Hitzig, Ewald, Zockler, Frankenberg, Toy.
NOTES AND STUDIES. Interpretation of ^?SD DT fern rv?W.

' ' " '

Passing on to consider the rival interpretations of tervi JV?rtCi 'the beginning of His way' as (1) an adverbial accusative ' in the beginning of His way' (A.V., R.V. text), or (2) a direct accusative in apposition to the object of ^Jt>, 'as the beginning of His way' (R.V. margin), we note that an adverbial usage of JVtftO is never elsewhere found in O.T.,1 ' in the beginning' being regularly expressed by prefix of the preposition 3 (Gen. i 1; Jer. xxvi 1, xxvii 1, xxviii r, xlix 34). The absence of a parallel for such a usage cannot, however, be greatly pressed ; since the adverbial usage is well illustrated with other substantives,' and is thus theoretically possible. In particular, we may notice two passages in which the synonymous substantive n?nn ' beginning' seems to be used as an accusative of time : Hos. i 2 njrp "iDtta yenns niiT tin rfrm, lit. ' Beginning of Yahweh spake by Hosea, and ( = then) Yahweh said', i. e. ' In the beginning of Yahweh's speaking by Hosea, Yahweh said' (the construction is, however, undoubtedly harsh, and some uncertainty attaches to text and interpretation); 2 Sam. xxi 9 JPtMbh t^iVfe> "V^ n^rifl ' in the beginning of barley-harvest' (here, however, there exists a Massoretic correction embodied in the Jfrl which inserts the preposition 3 ' in' before r6nn). Jerome (J?p. cxl ad Cyprianuni) cites the Hebrew of our passage in transliteration with the preposition 3 before rVWl, Adonai canani brtsith dercho. Since, however, we have no trace of this reading elsewhere, it seems likely that, having decided that the use of JVB'IO was adverbial, he instinctively substituted JVSWO3 with preposition in citing the passage from memory, because the prepositional usage was natural in this sense to a scholar with a feeling for the language. Such inadvertency would of course have been impossible had it appeared to him that a question of importance turned upon the interpretation of the phrase. This, however, does not seem to have been the case, since his whole interest in the exegesis of the passage centres in postulating for ^32 the meaning ' possedit' rather than ' creavit'. In favour _of the interpretation of te")l rPE'Ki as a direct accusative in apposition to the object of '?JE>, we may cite the parallel of Job xl 19, where it is said of Behemoth, bx-o-p. IV#tn Nin ' He is the first of God's ways', i. e. the prime fruit of His creative activity. Interpretation of the corresponding phrase in the parallel line, D"JiJ l^VDD, to some extent hangs together with that of i3"|l r w t n and thus

1 The statement of Cornelius a Lapidc that n ^ X l is often used for has no foundation. Cf. Gesenius-Kautzsch Grammar } 118 i.
A.V., R.V. text, having rendered fep^ HT^lO ' in the beginning of His way', gives to the corresponding expression the meaning ' before His works', intending doubtless to obviate the inference that Wisdom is described as one of the created works of God. R.V. margin, on the other hand, parallels the direct accusative 'as the beginning of His way' in stichos i by a second direct accusative in stichos 2, likewise governed by ^3jJ the first of His works '. D"lp is regularly a substantive denoting that which is in front or foremost, whether in place or time. Its interpretation in a prepositional sense, ' before', is'unparalleled in Hebrew, and this rendering may be definitely excluded, unless we are prepared to revocalize the word as the Aramaic DIP, an expedient whic.h can hardly be contemplated seriously. The natural interpretation of V^BD D"1|3 is ' the foremost (in time) of His works', Wisdom being regarded as one of the works of God, though indefinitely anterior to all other works which she was instrumental in calling into being. It would, however, be legitimate to render, ' the antecedent of His'works 'a rendering which serves merely to state the priority of Wisdom to the works of God, without necessarily placing her in the same category with them. This rendering appears to be preferable, as preserving a measure of ambiguity which is inherent in the original. Lastly, tKC, rendered by A.V., R.V. ' of old', and referring, like the expressions which follow in w. 23-25, to remotest antiquity, is intended to qualify ^ (' begat me of old'), and should therefore be preceded by a comma in the English renderings in order to obviate connexion with ' His works' (as though, ' His works which were of old'). We arrive, then, at the following rendering for the verse as a whole: The Lord begat me as the beginning of His way, The antecedent of His works, of old.

The Versicns.

The renderings of Prov. viii 22 in the principal ancient Versions are as follows:
L X X. KV^HOS iKTurtv fit ip^jv oSS>v avrov ets *pyi avrov. KTtfcttv is
also found as the rendering of n:p in Gen. xiv 19, 22, and Jer. xxxix (xxxii) 15 (where, however, KTUTQTFTOVTOX is probably an error for icrqOijvovTaj.). We find dyopaeiv in Ecclus. xxxvii n and ycw$v in Zech. xiii 5 (Hiph'il). Elsewhere, Kra<x6<u is the regular equivalent, and this verb is employed in our passage by the later Greek translators Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion.
*A. Kupiot iicnjaaTo fix Ke<f>dkawv [bSov] airrov, ipffldtv Ka.Ttpyaxrfxa.TUiv avrov [diro TOTt]. 2. Kvpios iieTrj<Tar6 fit &p)^y 6u>v avrov, npo TTfi ipyaxTtas avrov avb

. Kvpios KT>y<raTo fit apxfp> 6&ov avrov,
npio rrp Iprycurias avrov airo

t if t

FeshittS.
. v oo^o xoCySv. o^o ^300 :
'The Lord created me in the beginning of His creation, and before all His works'. Targum. ts*i jo 'Virity D"jf) ftH nnn? e^n? ^yria KnJ> ' God created me in the beginning of His creation, and before His works from the beginning.' Vulgate. Dominus possedit me in initio viarum suarum, antequam quidquam faceret a principio. Here we observe that, with the exception of the Vulgate, all Versions give a legitimate sense to ^LXX, Pesh., Targ. ' created m e ' ; A'., 2.,., ' gat possession of me'. Vulg. ' possedit' stands alone, and it is a mistake to group it, as has sometimes been done, with ixrya-aro of the later Greek Versions, because the idea of acquiring, which is inherent in iKr-fa-aTo as in ^JEJi is absent in ' possedit'; and, as we shall notice presently when speaking of the explanations of the Fathers, this rendering was chosen by Jerome expressly to exclude the conception of acquiring. The explanation of tani JVBici as a direct accusative is adopted by all the Greek Versions; while Pesh., Targ., Vulg., interpret the phrase adverbially. On the other hand, all the Versions give to 01(3 a prepositional sense ' before'.

Jewish authorities.

In the Wisdom ol Ben-Sira the following passages are clearly based on Prov. viii 22. Ecclus. i. 4
Trporcpa ITCUTCDV ZKTUTTCU otx^ta,
(tat (rvvtcris <f)poyrjafaK i ativos.
Here we have the interpretation 'created me as the beginning of His way'. Ecclus. i 9
JLvpioi avTos CKTUTCV avn/jv, Kai iixtV avrijv iJri vdvra TO. cpya aurov.
lt\t(v seems to take 'FOB? of Prov. viii 23 in the sense ' I was poured out'.
Ecclus. xxiv 8, 9 (Wisdom speaks)
8 TOT< ivertiXaro fit 6 s r u m p airavroiv, KaX 6 KTuras fit KaTcrrava-fv TTJV <rKTjvrjv fiov. 9 wpo TOV alu>vo<; aw apxfe CKTMTCV fit, Kal i<os aiiovos ov fu] iKkiwu).
None of' these passages is included among the extant fragments of the Hebrew text. Philo De Ebrietatt 8
ipyuiv, Downloaded from jts.oxfordjournals.org by guest on February 12, 2011 o Otos iicnfrraTO fit irpwrUrrqv TQ>V lavrov KCU. vpb TOV aluivos lOtfitkioxrt fit.
Here we notice that, while the first line varies from LXX and is obviously based on an independent knowledge of the Hebrew, whether direct or indirect, the second line is drawn directly from the LXX rendering of v. 23a. The rendering 'the very first of His works' seems to combine the parallel phrases 1311 n<?rtri and 1V??'? D1PtOtfLcXuixre /, the LXX rendering of "'FOQ? in v. 23, which A.V., R.V. render ' I was set up', but for which we have postulated the meaning ' I was woven ', may imply connexion with a verb ^IPJ which is.used of casting- or founding an article of metal, such as a molten image ; unless, as is possible, LXX read 'J!1']?i3 ' my foundations were laid' in place of Ibn Ezra interprets ^Ji? in accordance with the use of the verb in Gen. iv 19, 22 ('create', which is the explanation given by Rashi in Gen.). He explains i3")l ne*t?i as meaning first in order among created things, as in the passage in Job xl 19, ' He is the first of God's ways'; and states that V^JJB? Dip is the equivalent of i3"H rvtMTi, Dig being synonymous with rWNn. R Levi. ben-Gershom interprets OE ' created me ', and explains the ' JJ passage as meaning that Wisdom was created prior to the other works of God. Tlie Fat/ters. The interpretations of Prov. viii 22 offered by the Fathers depend, with but few exceptions, on the LXX rendering Kuptos IKTUTIV /it ipxTv oSuiv abrov, not attempting to go behind and challenge it. The Arians used the passage as one of their principal proofs that the Second Person of the holy Trinity is a created Being. The orthodox replied that His Divine Sonship is fully proved by the whole tenor of Scripture; therefore the Arian interpretation of this obscure passage

is certainly wrong. For things created and made are external to the maker ; whereas the Son exists not external to, but of, the Father who begat Him.1 In regard to the meaning of IKTKTCV different views are found. It is argued that the verb does not necessarily mean ' created out of nothing', and therefore affords no argument against the eternal generation of the Son of the substance of the' Father.1 Taken absolutely, it may be referred to the mode of generation without change or passion in the Divine Generator'; or, regarded as limited by its close connexion with &px*ly ^M>y a^rrov, it refers, not to the eternal generation of the Son, but to His position in regard to creation, in a sense which practically amounts to 'constituted Me head of crea-tion V A very general tendency, however, is to accept the rendering ' created' in its ordinary sense, and interpret the passage as prophetic of the Incarnation.8 We find that some few of the Fathers go behind and challenge the LXX rendering of '3JEJ- First we may notice a group who, though not themselves authorities as to the meaning of the Hebrew, are yet aware of other Greek translations offering a different rendering, viz. ixr^a-aro. Such are Eusebius,' who refers to Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion; St Epiphanius,7 who mentions the rendering of Aquila ; and St Basil' and St Gregory of Nyssa,' who speak without specification of 'other
Cf. St Athanasius dt Dtcrttis Nicatnat Synodi 13. Cf. St Athanasius Oral. c. Arianos ii 44 tl fit* ovv ncpi iyytkov t/ iripov rin&t rair yfvrjTwr tart rd ytypafifiivov, on vtpi tyds i^miv TWV votrjfi6.Tajv itnat \tyofi(voy rd' " I/mat /it"- i ti ^ Xixpia rov Qtov IOTIV, iv jj irtijTa T& "ftvrjTtL SfSijfuovpyT]Tcu, 1) tpi iavTTJt Xiyovaa, ri btt roftv ^ OTI ti " iicriat" ip&OKovca, oi* tvavrior r!j> "tylvvrpi" Xiyfi; * So St Hilary dt Synodis 16, 17. The same idea, though less clearly expressed, seems to underlie his dt Trin. i 35, xii 1, 35. It is also found in the statement of the semi-Arian party drawn up under the leadership of Basil of Ancyra : cf. St Epiphanius Hatr. lxxiii 30. * Athenagoras Supplic. x 3, 3 argues that the Son was yim)pa to the Father for the work of creation, and then supports his position by quotation ol Prov. viii 21. Tertullian c. Hermog. 18 explains, ' Sophia scilicet ipsius exinde nata et condita, ex quo in sensu Dei ad opera mundi disponenda coepit agitari'; Didymusfragm. in Prov. {P. G. xxxix 1629 0-1633 D) distinguishes the reference of iicnoty in Prov. viii 32~Trom the eternal being of ij TOU 6OV Scxpia and associates it not with ovoiawit but with a\iait npdi TCL urio/iara, and then goes on to interpret of the Incarnation; cf. his/ro/r- in 1 Cor. v 17 {P. G. xxxix 170.5 D-1708 A). Dionysius of Rome (afmd Athan. dt Dtcrttis 36) explains i/matr as ' He set over the works made by Him through the Son Himself. 8 So St Athanasius dt Dtcrttis 14 ; Oral. c. Arianos ii 1 ; St Gregory of Nazianzus Oral, xxx 3 ; St Augustine dt Trin. i 13 (34). A long list (yet not professing completeness) of writers taking this view is given by Petavius Thtol. dogm. ii 1 3. De Ecdtsiastica Thtologia iii 2, 3. * Contra Hatrtsts II lxix 35. Adv. EuHOtnium ii 30. ' Contra Eunomiunt i.

may legitimately be called a creature. ' Since Wisdom in the Proverbs of Solomon speaks of herself as created a beginning of the ways of God, and many, through fear lest they should be obliged to call Christ a creature, deny the whole mystery of Christ, and say that not Christ, but the world's wisdom, is meant by this wisdom, we freely declare that there is no hazard in calling Him creature Whom we confess with all confidence of our hope to be " worm ", and " man ", and " crucified ", and "curse".' In his commentary on Micah iv 8, 9, however (assigned to A. D. 392), he has reached another, view through study of the Hebrew text: ' et qui ex persona assumpti hominis ait in Proverbiis : Dominus creavit me in principio viarum suarum in opera sua, sive ut in Hebraeo scribitur : Dominus possedit me: can ant enim non creavit me sed possedit me habuitque significat'. Similarly in his commentary on Isaiah xxvi 13 (assigned to c. A.D. 410) he says, 'Quod quidem et de Sapientia legimus, quae iuxta Hebraicum loquitur in Proverbiis: Deus possedit me initium viarum suarum, licet quaedam exemplaria male pro possessione. habeant creaturam'. His strongest expression of opinion as to the interpretation of the verb is found in Ep. cxl ad Cyprianum, where he argues against the meaning ' create' for '"0J3 on the ground that this meaning is expressed by the verb N"53, while njij properly means 'possess'. ' Inter possessionemautem et creationem multa diversitas est. Possessio significat, quod semper Filius in Patre et Pater in Filio fuerit. Creatio autem eius, qui prius non erat, conditionis exordium '. This is a meaning for the verb njf)possession, not merely ignoring the conception of preliminary acquisition inherent in the verb, but 'actually to be understood as excluding itwhich, if our argument as to the usage of the verb has been sound, can by no means be substantiated ; yet St Jerome's verdict has satisfied subsequent theological thought, and is generally accepted by theologians at the present day.
C o l. i TTpcoTOTonos TT(l(T7)y KTiaems, et direct allusion to

i5 rtiiv.

I turn, now, back to St Paul, whose authority I claim in support of my interpretation of Prov. viii 22. No one can contemplate the rendering which I have, as I hope, substantiated for ia"H n'B'tn ' rrjrn 1 The Lord begat me as the beginning of His way' (i. e. His creative activity) without perceiving that TrpanaTOKos 71-00-75 tcriacuy; ' the firstbegotten of all creation ' can hardly be other than a direct reference to the O. T. passage. This conclusion, which at first I supposed to have been unnoticed (it is not found, for example, in Lightfoot's commentary), I have since discovered to have been anticipated by St
Epiphanius (c. Haer. II lxxiii 7). His words are, ' In place of the Apostle used IT/HOTO?, in place of yew /xc (i. e. the LXX rendering of wMn ' I was brought forth' in v. 25) the term TOKOS, for the whole statement "EKTUTCV fit ipxy* o&w OUTOS and rw / the expression
UpoxroTOKos 7nioT^ KTurfuK, instead of i6(fitXltixTv /xt {v. 23) the statement 'Ev avrui iKTicrfh) ra TTOLVTCL, instead of Ai* ifuov x the statement 'An-*
alwvos, tiT OpovOL, e*T Kvpiorr^K, avrov Kal tit avrov (.KTKTTOJJ tirt ap\ai, tin Ifrnxriax, TO. Trdyra St'
Here Epiphanius, having elsewhere, as we have noticed, rejected the meaning ' begat me' for ^JkJ, does not recognize that this verb corresponds to the second portion of the term nyxoi-oTOKos, but finds a correspondence less naturally in yewq fu three verses later. The verses which follow in Col. i 16-18 as a development of wpwroToxo* Trda-rjs KTia-iuK are not simply, as St Epiphanius supposes, reminiscent of Prov. viii 22 and its context, but are based upon another O.T. passage, immediately suggested to the Apostle by the allusion in Proverbs. Without a doubt he is passing from the use of ri'B'T! ' beginning' in Prov. viii 22 as applicable to Christ, to the use of the same term in the creation-narrative of Genesis, where it occurs as the first word of the Hebrew Bible, n'B^.3 BtrtsMth ' In the beginning'. That this is so I hope to prove presently through examination of St Paul's words. As a preliminary, however, we may notice that the tracing of a connexion between the Proverbs-passage and the Genesis-passage would be obvious to a Rabbinic scholar, and has in fact been made elsewhere in Rabbinic literature. In Bertshith Rabba, the great Midrashic commentary on Genesis, Rabbi Hoshaiah (c. third century A.D.) opens with a discussion of Prov. viii 30, where Wisdom states, ' Then I was with Him as 'amSn' (' master-workman'). After mentioning various proposed explanations of 'dmrfn, he continues as follows. ' Another explanation of 'dm/in is 'omen " workman ". The Law says, " I was the working instrument of the Holy One, blessed be He ". In worldly affairs a human king who is building a palace does not build it by his own skill, but he has parchment plans (8f>0ipa.i) and drawing tablets (U-IVOKCS), that he may know how to make the rooms and doors. In the same way the Holy One, blessed be He, was looking at the Law when He created the world. Now the Law says, ' By rfshlth God created ' ; and there is no rfshith except the Law; compare the passage, ' The Lord gat me as rishith of His way '. This connexion between the two 0. T. passages, which R. Hoshaiah

The reference is to v. 16:
81' Ipav iityiOTayti pffakiyovTai, ltdt Tvparvot 3/ {/u>v Mparovat frp.
makes and interprets with reference to the function ot the Law as risMth in Creation, is made by St Paul in Col. i 15-18, and interpreted
as referring to Christ: os tVnv. irpajroroKos Trdxrrp: KTi&fw? OTL iv
avT<5 tKTur&r] TO. iravra, iv TOIS ovpavols KCU ini rrp yrjs, TO bpara Kal TO. iopaTa, (ITC Opovoi fiTt Kvpwrrp-c; tLTt apxal f^Tf ^iovaiai' ra iravTti Si* avrov (cat cts axrrov eicrurrai' Kal auros itm. vpo 7ravT<DV, (cat Ta traira cv avr <rwt<rrr]Kf. Kai auros icrri f/ Kf<f>aXrj rcrv (jw/iaTos, T^S iKK\i)<Tia<;' os l<rriv apx'h ir/Mirroroiccw IK TGJV vixpwv, iva yiyrjrax iv TTOXTIV avros

TTpKOTtVWV.

Here we have an elaborate exposition of BirfsMth in Gen. i r in the Rabbinic manner. Three explanations are given of the preposition be; then four explanations of the substantive rtsMth: and the conclusion is that, in every possible sense of the expression, Christ is its Fulfiller. Let me give a running paraphrase of St Paul's words, in order to illustrate how, as I conceive, the argument developed itself in his mind. ' Christ is the First-begotten of all creation, for it is written (Prov. viii 22 IT), "The Lord begat me as reshfth of His way, the antecedent of His works, from of old. From eternity was I wrought. when there were no deeps was I brought forth ". This passage has obvious connexion with Gen. i 1, where it is written " BirlsMth God created the heavens and the earth". Now the force of the preposition bl attached to rfsMth may be interpreted as " IN " (" IN rfshith God created"); hence IN HIM were created all things in the heavens and upon the earth, seen and unseen, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers. But again, the preposition may bear the sense " B Y " ( " B Y the agency of rfshfth"); hence all things were created THROUGH HIM. Yet again it may be interpreted " INTO " (" INTO rtshfth "); from which it follows that creation tends INTO H I M as its goal. Passing on to the substantive rfshfth, we note that it ordinarily bears the sense " BEGINNING "; hence Christ is BEFORE ah things. It may also have the meaning " SUH-TOTAL "; so that all things ARE SUMMED up IN HIM. Yet another meaning is " HEAD ", i. e. He is the HEAD of the body, namely, the Church. Lastly, it means " FIRST-FRUITS " ; He is FIRST-FRUITS, first-begotten of the dead. Hence it follows that in all senses He is the Fulfiller of the meaning of rfshith Putting the argument in tabular form for the sake of lucidity, it appears as follows. Prov. viii 226", where Wisdom (i.e. Christ) is called rtshfth, gives the key to Gen. i 1, ' Bcrtshfth God created the heavens and the earth'.

Berishith ' in rishith 'cv avi-cp IKTUTOTI TO. iratra, KT\. Berishith = ' by rishithiravra. 8t' avroO JKTUTTCU. Berishith = ' into rishith'n-an-a tis avrov {KTUTTCU.
Rishith = ' Beginning 'avros Am TT/JO Rishith = ' Sum-total'TO. irdvra. iv avrtji
Rishith 3= ' H e a d ' a v r o ' s i<mv r/ Kf>a\i) TOV erto/iaTos, KTA, Rishith = ' FirSt-fruitS 'os iariv apxV> ">XTOTOKOS IK TOIV vtKpuiv. CONCLUSION. Christ fulfils every meaning which may be extracted from RfshtthIva yanjrai iv Tra&iv avrxK Trporrtvtov
If this interpretation is correct, we can trace phrase by phrase the lines along which St Paul's thoughts were running. It is true that, if we look up rishith in a Hebrew Lexicon, while we shall find the meanings Beginning and First-fruits, we shall not find the meanings Head and Sum-total; but since the substantive rishith is derived from rSsh, which means Head, and which is also used with considerable frequency in the sense Sum-total,1 these two additional meanings would easily be referable to it. The Aramaic rish stands for both Hebrew rSsh and rishith, and is susceptible of all the meanings postulated. We have reference to the line of thought here based on the two Old Testament passages elsewhere in St Paul's Epistles. Christ as the goal of creation is referred to in Ephes. i 10 ayaKttfyaXauiKraurOau TO. irdvra iv T<J Xptoru),' to bring all things under rishith in Christ', who is the Head and Sum-total of creation. The reversion of humanity to its Source, which is the aim of Christianity, is the KO.WT\ KTUTIS to which the Apostle refers in 2 Cor. v 17, Gal. vi 15 ; cf. also Ephes. ii 10, afirou yap k<T\uv iroirjiuL, KTurOevTK iv Xpurri? 'Irjcrov. When this has been accomplished in the world, creation will have reached its goal.2 We may notice that several of the Fathers adopt the interpretation of birishfth in Gen. i 1 as referring to Christ. We find it in Origen, Homily I on the Pentateuch, the opening of which runs thus in the translation of Kufinus: ' " In principio creavit Deus coelum et terrain." Quod est omnium principium nisi Dominus noster et Saluator omnium Christus Jesus, " primogenitus omnis creaturae"? In hoc ergo principio, hoc est in Verbo suo, " Deus coelum et terrain fecit", sicut et Evangelista Ioannes in initio Euangelii sui ait, dicens r " In principio erat verbum " &c. Non ergo hie temporale aliquod principium dicit, sed "in principio", id est in Salvatore, factum esse dicit coelum et terram et omnia quae facta sunt'. St Ambrose (HexaeDownloaded from jts.oxfordjournals.org by guest on February 12, 2011

Cf. Exod. XM 12 bynf] 'J3 tPtfVnS N^n 3 ' When tbou takest the sum
of the children of Israel' (i. e. their census) ; Lev. v 34 ; Num. i 1, 49, iv a, 11, v 7, ixvi 3, xxxi 26, 49; Ps. cxix 160, exxxix 17. 9 The thought underlying St itmr ipxht vporr6Tomot IK TUT rwpuir is brought out again in 1 Cor. xv 20 dwapxf) TUT KftMfirjfiiyay (cf. also v. 23).
meron I iv 15) and St Augustine (De Genesi ad litteram I 2) also give the same interpretation. Another New Testament allusion to Prov. viii 22 in reference to Christ is found in Rev. iii 14 r; aptf] rrp <m<rec>s TOS tov, a title of the risen Christ which Dr Swete and Dr Charles have not a shadow of anthority for limiting in meaning to ' the Source of God's creation'. There is every reason to suppose that apxn ' s here used with all the fullness of meaning which St Paul extracts from rfsMthBeginning, Sum-total, Head, First-fruits. This at any rate fits in with the statement of xxi 6, iyi) TO A KQ.1 TO Q, fj ipxy] KOI TO T(\OS, where TO riXoi
embodies the interpretation of birishith ' into Him' as the goal.

C: F. BURNEY.

TWO NOTES ON THE BAZAAR OF HERACLIDES.
I. IN 72 of the first part of Nestorius's Apology, known'as 'the Bazaar of Heraclides', there is a passage represented by dots only in Dr Bethune-Baker's Nestorius and his teaching p. 12 7, and very obscurely rendered in the Oxford translation, p. 65. It will be convenient to give the Syriac and a suggested translation at once.enoAurC A* ^_sa v&u.i rfoao

re'ooo

icuAs rCiaTsA crA
' And because He was accounted to be a more eminent observer of the Law than any on account of His behaviour towards all men,but while He was spending time among many things it was easy,contrariwise where there was nothing from which He might be helped He went forth into the wilderness by Himself, to be tempted by the Devil when He was more in need than anything in the world; and out of what is VOL. XXYII. N