of the Song of Deborah; see note in the writer's Commentary on Judges, pp. 169 f. The following examples may be noted in the poem of the Prologue :-

Of the remaining couplets, 1, 2, and 8 may be reckoned as synonymous, while 3, 6, and II are antithetical.

It should be noted that the couplets, besides being parallel, appear also to be rhythmical, each line containing three stresses. In v. ", in place of dià 'Inσoû XpiσToû the translation offers 'through the Messiah' simply, metri gratiâ. 'Inooû may very naturally have come in as a later addition.

13

Additional Note on the interpretation of Jn. 113 as referring to

the Virgin-Birth (cf. p. 34).

There is an essential unity in the teaching of St. Luke, St. Paul, and St. John as to the mode and meaning of the Incarnation which ought not to be overlooked. All go back in thought to the appearance of Jesus Christ on earth as a new Creation, to be compared and contrasted with the first Creation of the world and of mankind; and all therefore draw upon Gen. 1, 2 in working out their theme. Just as God's first creative act was the formation of light, breaking in upon the physical darkness which had previously covered primeval chaos, so was the birth of Christ the dawn. of Light in the midst of the spiritual darkness of the world. That this idea was in St. Paul's mind is definitely stated by him in 2 Cor. 4, οὐ γὰρ ἑαυτοὺς κηρύσσομεν ἀλλὰ Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν

κύριον, . . . ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς ὁ εἰπών Ἐκ σκότους φῶς λάμψει, ὃς ἔλαμψεν ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν πρὸς φωτισμὸν τῆς γνώσεως τῆς δόξης τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν προσώπῳ Xpirov. Cf. also 1 Cor. 45, 2 Cor. 6, Eph. 5, Col. 113. Allusion to Gen. 1, which is clearly seen in the opening words of Jn. 1, 'In the beginning', seems also to be behind vv.45, where it is stated that the Logos, as the Agent in Creation, represented the introduction of Light into the world, and, by an almost imperceptible transition, the writer's thought passes from the introduction of life and light at Creation to its spiritual introduction at the Incarnation. Moreover, just as the introduction of light into the world at Creation did not immediately abolish physical darkness, but led to the setting by God of a division (7), Gen. 1') between light and darkness, so (Jn. 1') in the Incarnation the Light was shining in darkness and the darkness did not obscure it; its introduction into the world producing a κpious whereby Light and darkness were sharply distinguished and men had to range themselves under the one or the other (Jn. 319-21; cf. 99, 12" 36.46). * Turning to the Birth-narrative of St. Luke, it is surely not fanciful to find in the words cf the angel in I, Πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ, καὶ δύναμις 'Yyíotov émiokiáσe σo, an implied reference to Gen. 12, where the Spirit of God is pictured as brooding or hovering () over the face of the waters in the initial process of Creation which issues in the production of light.+ So for St. Luke the Divine Birth means the dawning of ἀνατολὴ ἐξ ὕψους, ἐπιφᾶναι τοῖς ἐν σκότει καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου καθημένοις (178.7), and φῶς εἰς ἀποκάλυψιν ἐθνῶν (2*).

35. 36.

Again, the connexion in thought between the Old Creation and

* A similar mystical interpretation of the Genesis passage is given in Midrash Bereshith Rabba, par. iii. 10; 'Rabbi Yannai said, When He began to create the world, the Holy One blessed be He) observed the works of the righteous and the works of the wicked. "And the earth was a waste", i. e. the works of the wicked. "And God said, Let there be light", i.e. the works of the righteous. "And God divided between the light and between the darkness"— between the works of the righteous and the works of the wicked. And God called the light, day", i. e. the works of the righteous. "And the darkness he called, night", i. e. the works of the wicked. "And there was morning", i. e. the works of the righteous. "And there was evening", i. e. the works of the wicked. "One day", inasmuch as the Holy One blessed be He) gave them one day. And what is this? The Day of Atonement.'

This Genesis passage is applied in Midrash Bereshith Rabba to the endowment of the Messiah with the Divine Spirit; 'This is the Spirit of the King-Messiah, as it is said, "And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him".'

I

the New is explicit in St. Paul's teaching as to the first Adam and the second Adam in 1 Cor. 155; οὕτως καὶ γέγραπται Εγένετο ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος Ἀδὰμ εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν· ὁ ἔσχατος ̓Αδὰμ εἰς πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν. This is worked out in the frequent antithesis between σápέ and Veμa, and in the representation of baptism as a burial with Christ in which maλaiòs μôv äν0ρwños is put off, and the baptized rises with Christ to newness of life (Rom. 63 ff.). We find the same antithesis between σápέ and Tνevμa in Jn. 3, 63, the whole of the discussion with Nicodemus in ch. 3 turning on the new birth which is ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος. In 6* it is stated, in contrast to σάρξ, that τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν τὸ ζωοποιοῦν, a thought of which the connexion with St. Paul's ἐγένετο . . . ὁ ἔσχατος Αδὰμ εἰς πνεῦμα ζωοποιούν can hardly eis be accidental. This connexion would, it may be presumed, be generally explained by the theory of the influence of Pauline Theology upon the writer of the Fourth Gospel; and this may A fact, however, which is surely beyond question is that St. Paul's ouтws Kai уéурaπтαι refers not simply to the quotation from Gen. 2, 'He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul', but to the whole passage relating to the first Adam and the second Adam, from ἐγένετο down to ζωοποιοῦν. ὁ ἔσχατος ̓Αδὰμ εἰς πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν depends upon ἐγένετο introducing the quotation equally with what goes before, from which it should be divided by a comma merely, and not by a colon (WH.) or full stop (R.V.). Had it been St. Paul's own addition, could he possibly have phrased the sentence thus, and not have written at least ὁ δὲ ἔσχατος Ἀδὰμ ἐγένετο εἰς πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν ?

be so.

If, however, the whole passage is a quotation, whence was it derived? There can be no doubt that the form in which St. Paul's argument is cast is influenced by Rabbinic speculation, and that the Rabbinism of Palestine.* Though born at Tarsus, he claims

* The expression ¡the first Adam' is well known in early Midrashic literature. the second Adam', i. c. the Messiah, is not known to us in Midrash before the Newê shālôm, the work of a Spanish Jew in the 15th century A.D (cf. Thackeray, The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, pp. 40 ff.); but the Midrash Bereshith Rabba (ascribed by tradition to R. Hoshaiah, 3rd century A.D.) brings the Messiah into contrast with 'the first Adam' when, in commenting on Gen. 24, 'These are the generations of the heaven and the earth', it quotes earlier Rabbinical speculation as to the reason why the word for 'generations' is written plene with only in this passage and in Ruth 418,

to be 'Eẞpaîos & Eẞpaíwv (Phil. 35), i. e. not a 'EXλnviors (cf. Acts 61), and he obtained his education at Jerusalem under Gamaliel, who was one of the most prominent Rabbinic teachers of the time. (Acts 223). But prior to St. Paul's conversion the earliest circle of Christian believers at Jerusalem was drawn not merely from the peasant-class, but embraced (according to Acts 6') 'a great company of the priests', who would scarcely have been unversed in Rabbinic teaching, but may be supposed to have applied such learning as they had acquired to the service of the new Faith.

It is by no means improbable, therefore, that the passage as a whole may have been drawn from a collection of O. T. Testimonia, composed with the object of meeting Rabbinic Judaism upon its own ground.* If it be objected to this suggestion that elsewhere throughout the N. T. yéурanтaι introduces a definite citation from the O. T., and that this is also the case with allusions to yрapń

==

'These are the generations of Perez' (in, but elsewhere always in), and cites the inference that 1, which numerically = 6, implies that the six things which Adam lost through the Fall shall be restored at the coming of 'the son of Perez', i.e. the Davidic Messiah. The Messiah appears as a life-giver (cf. пνeûμа wоτOLOÛV) in the Midrash hag-gadol to Genesis (compiled by a Yemenite Jew of the 14th century) which, commenting on Gen. 1611, states that there are six persons whose names were given to them before their birth, viz. Ishmael, Isaac, Moses, Solomon, Josiah, and the King-Messiah. On the last it says, 'The King-Messiah, because it is written, "Before the sun his name shall be Yinnôn". And why is his name called Yinnôn? because he is destined to quicken those who sleep in the dust.'

Before the לִפְנֵי שֶׁמֶשׁ יִנּוֹן שְׁמוֹ 217 .Here the Scriptural passage quoted is Is

sun shall his name propagate' (or 'produce life'), and the verbal form, only here in O.T., is treated as a Messianic title-' He who quickens'. This Midrash is quoted by Raymund Martin in his Pugio Fidei, chap. ii, 11, who refers it to Moses had-Darshan, born at Narbonne about the middle of the 11th century A. D. Late as this is, we have the evidence of the Talmud (Sanhedrin, 98 b) that Yinnôn was early regarded as a Messianic title, for in the passage in question the pupils of R. Yannai (an Amora of the first generation-2nd to 3rd century A. D.) maintain, as a compliment to their teacher, that the Messiah's name is to be Yinnon. The Psalm-passage is quoted in Midrash Bereshith Rabba, par. i. 5, as evidence that the name of the Messiah existed prior to the creation of the world, though it is not there stated that Yinnon is to be taken as his name.

Though no part of this Midrashic speculation can be traced back to the 1st century A. D., it serves to illustrate the kind of Rabbinic teaching which may well have formed part of St. Paul's early training.

* Cf. Sanday, The Gospels in the Second Century, p. 272; 'We know that types and prophecies were eagerly sought out by the early Christians, and were soon collected in a kind of common stock from which every one drew at his pleasure.'

(with the possible exception of 1 Tim. 518, where our Lord's words *Αξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ seem to be included under the term), it may be replied that St. Paul's quotation does consist of such a citation from the O. T. plus a deduction therefrom, and would ex hypothesi be derived from a collection of proofs based on the O. T. and therefore drawn èk Tov ypapôv. We may further draw attention to the use of this formula of citation in the Epistle of Barnabas 4, where our Lord's words in Mt. 224 are quoted: προσέχωμεν μήποτε, ὡς γέγραπται, πολλοὶ κλητοί, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοὶ εὑρέθωμεν. Similarly, the formula λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή is used in Barnabas 165 to introduce a quotation from Enoch 8956.66

If, then, this interpretation of 1 Cor. 155 as wholly a quotation be correct, the implication is that some time before St. Paul wrote his Epistle in A.D. 55-6, the antithesis between the first Adam and Christ as the second Adam had been worked out in Christian Rabbinic circles and was used in argument. This conclusion surely modifies the question of the dependence of the Fourth Gospel upon St. Paul in regard to the teaching here involved, suggesting as it does the alternative theory that both may have been dependent upon a common earlier method of theological expression of the truths of the Incarnation.

St. Luke supplies us with further food for thought in this connexion. His Birth-narrative is certainly from a Jewish-Christian source, and is generally acknowledged to be early. If any portions of it are earlier than the rest, these are the poems which it contains; and the angel's words at the Annunciation are no less a poem cast in rhythmical parallelism than are the Magnificat, Benedictus, and Nunc dimittis. We have had occasion to cite passages from all these, except the Magnificat, in arguing the unity of their thought with that of St. Paul and St. John. We may now note the fact that St. Luke carries back our Lord's genealogy to Adam, 'who was the son of God' (33). What is the reason for this? Doubtless one reason is to be found in the fact that his Gospel is pre-eminently a universal Gospel-not for the Jews only but for the whole Gentile world also. May not, however, another (and perhaps the prime) reason be that the fact that the first Adam was born not by natural generation but by an act of God, in itself suggests the reasonableness that the second Adam should likewise