1'- -

Pill

•■■•■

III .\
iliii

UC-NRLF

$B 2^4 3D5

According to Heb. XI, I

......

;

■1

1 i

•II

AN IIISTORICO-EXEGETICAL
INVESTIGATION

DISSERTATION

TED TO THE FACULTY OF THE SACRED SCIENCES
it THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA IN PAR-
TIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DOCTORATE IN THEOLOGY

iitiiii

BY THE

• ■

':■■■■■■■

B.I

lit

Reverend MICHAEL AMBROSE iMATHIS, S.T.L.

Of the Congregation of Holy Cross

CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

WASHINGTON, D.C.
1920

» > 5 > > '

THE '' ' ' ' '''''" "

PAULINE IIISTIS-TIIOSTASIS

According to Heb. XI, 1

AN HISTORICO-EXEGETICAL
INVESTIGATION

DISSERTATION

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE SACRED SCIENCES
AT THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA IN PAR-
TIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DOCTORATE IN THEOLOGY

BY THE

Reverend MICHAEL AMBROSE MATHIS, S.T.L.

Of the Congregation of Holy Cross

CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

WASHINGTON, D.C.
1920

*5 o<

■

A.' ah i

Jtmpttmt jjermittttttt t

lyrtijtl ofcstat:

A. Morrissey, C.S.C., Sup. Prov.

P. J. Waters, Ph.D., Censor Librorum.

Kmprimatur t

►£ W. Card. O'Connell, Archiepiscopus Bostoniensis.

MY PROFESSOR AND FRIEND

THE REV. HEINRICH SCHUMACHER, S.T.D.

THIS WORK

IS GRATEFULLY AND AFFECTIONATELY

DEDICATED

452471

INTRODUCTION

IIio-Ti? is undoubtedly one of the most important theologi-
cal terms in the New Testament. Lightfoot goes so far as
to say that " it assumes in the teaching of Our Lord, en-
forced and explained by St. Paul, the foremost place in the
phraseology of Christian doctrine." 1 From the dawn of the
Christian era to our own times, many volumes have been
written about ttktti^ from various points of view. Among
recent scientific works, that of Schlatter, Der Grlaube Im
Neuen Testament, might almost be called the classic on Ilto--
Tt? In the New Testament. And in this work the author has,
of course, treated the Pauline ttkttis within the limits of his
more general theme. A monograph, however, dealing spe-
cifically and scientifically with the Pauline ttigtvs, does not
yet exist; hence, it is something to be desired. One needs
but to read a few current definitions of this term, especially
in non-Catholic writers, to agree with Lechler, "Was aber
positiv der paulinische Begriff des Glaubens sei, dariiber ist
immer noch Streit." 2

This misunderstanding and the status of the most recent
opinion about the Pauline irians is frankly set forth by
Johannes Weiss in these words : " Da ist vor allem und ganz
besonders das Wort 'Glaube,' das bis heute zu so entsetz-
lichen Missverstandnissen Anlass gibt, sei es dass man es im
Gegensatz zu einem begrundeten 'Wissen' als halbes, un-
sicheres, gemutmasstes Wissen oder Meinen versteht, oder

1 St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, 157.

2 Das Apostol. und das Nachapostol. Zeitalter (3 Aufl., 1886), s. 363,
quoted from Bartmann's article in BS (1897), II, 41.

INTRODUCTION

als ein trages sich Verlassen oder ein unwiirdiges sich Ge-
fangengeben in eine fremde unverstandene Lehre." 1 The
same author also points out the method by which this con-
fusion can be cleared up, viz., by an historico-literary in-
vestigation of Heb. xi, 1 : u Das Wort, dessen Geschichte
man kennen muss, um es zu verstehen, ist von Paulus nicht
geschaffen, es lag ihm vor als ein fertig abgestempelter Be-
griff "; 2 and Heb. xi, 1 is suggested for this investigation,
because for such a work "die beiden Umschreibungen, die
der Hebraer-Brief in seiner beruhmten Definition des Glau-
bens wahlt, sind hochst bezeichnend." 3 In a word, this
verse is to be selected for the historico-literary investiga-
tion of the Pauline 7rtcn-i?, because it has a literary history,
and because, in the words of St. Augustine, "It is the
standard definition of Faith." 4

What gives an added exegetical interest to the problem, is
the fact that there is as much confusion about the meaning
of Heb. xi, 1 as there is about the Pauline mcrris. And the
source of this confusion is not only the uncertainty about
the meaning of U7ro<7Tao-t?, the pivotal term of the whole
verse, but also the dogmatic tendency always to define
the Pauline ttlo-tl^ as " conviction," or " confidence," or
"foundation," — no matter in what Pauline text or context
the term happens to occur. Thus Delitzsch insists that here
f7TocrTacrt?, and hence ttlg-tl^ means "Zuversicht"; 6 J. Weiss
hails it as a striking example of "unbeugsamer Uberzeu-
gung"; 6 and Westcott is satisfied that " the general scope
of the statement is to show that the future and the unseen
can be made real by Faith." 7 A whole litany of such vari-
ant and yet emphatic views about the meaning of vrroaraais
in Heb. xi, 1 might be noted. But these are sufficient to

1 Das Urchristentum, I, 322.
*Ibid.

3 Ibid.

4 Cf. Enchiridion, c. 8.

6 Commt. on the Epist. to the Hebr.,
H, 210.

« Op. cit.,I, 322.

7 The Epistle to the Hebrews, 351.

INTRODUCTION vii

illustrate the existing confusion and contention regarding
the sense of the Pauline irians of this verse. It is with
the hope of aiding in clarifying this important theological
term that I take up this historico-literary investigation of
Heb. xi, 1: Eo-th> Be ttigtis eXiri^ofievcov vttoo-tcio-is, 7rpay/j>aT(ov

€\€7%0? OV /3\€7TO/Ji€VG)V.

Without anticipating the investigation itself, we may pref-
ace it by saying what at a glance is evident to every one,
viz., that the Pauline ttivtis is here denned in two phrases :
(a) €\.7n%o/jL€vcov VTroo-Tacns, and (5) 7rpay/jLaTcov eXeyxos ov
fiXeTrofievav. The second phrase has been so generally in-
terpreted as the " incontestable proof," or " the test," or
44 the conviction " of " things unseen," that there remains
no longer any serious doubt about its meaning. Accord-
ingly, we shall confine our investigation to the first element
of the verse, or more precisely, to viroaTaais, the term out
of which most of the confusion regarding the passage has
arisen.

After establishing the original text, we shall seek the light
of Greek literary history for the interpretation of its decisive
term, wrrocrTacns. To that end, we shall not only review all
the extant interpretations of the verse, among which those
of the early Greek Fathers (the descendants of those very
Greeks whose ears once rang with the Pauline iriaTis) must
be of great importance, but we shall also study the meaning
of viroo-TaGi*; in the ancient classic and kolvt] literatures,
where the term was prepared by its natural historical de-
velopment for the Pauline author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews. It is only by this method that we can force this
ancient Greek past, the literary milieu of Heb. xi, 1, to
surrender its understanding of irians — vrroa-raai^. And
we have every reason to hope that by this light we shall
dispel the darkness that now envelops this important verse ;
for, we believe with the ever-growing conviction of modern
scholars that there is "contact" between the language of

viii INTRODUCTION

the Greek Bible and the speech of the contemporary Hel-
lenic world.

It is a most agreeable duty to express here sincere grati-
tude to the Rev. Dr. Heinrich Schumacher, my profes-
sor of New Testament Exegesis, under whose helpful and
stimulating direction this monograph has been written. I
am also happy to acknowledge my indebtedness to other
professors at the Catholic University of America, and nota-
bly to Drs. Coin, Butin, and Vaschalde, my masters in Old
Testament Exegesis and Semitic Languages, to Dr. Shana-
han, my preceptor in Dogma, to Dr. Aiken and the profes-
sors of Sacred Theology who have read the first draft of this
work. Expressions of my sincere gratitude are also due
the Very Rev. James Burns, C.S.C., Ph.D., and the Rev.
Maurice Norckauer, C.S.C., for helpful suggestions in the
presentation of the matter.

Michael Mathis, C.S.C.

Holy Cross College,

Brookland, D. C.

January, 1920.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

Introduction v

PART I. HISTORICAL

Chapter I. The Text 3

Chapter II. Interpretation of the Text

1. In the Greek Fathers . . 12

2. In the Latin Fathers 48

3. In the Exegesis of the Middle Ages 60

4. In Modern Exegesis 83

PART II. EXEGETICAL

Chapter I. Historico-Literary Investigation of TVootcwtis

1. In the Hellenic World 97

2. In Biblical Literature 127

Chapter II. Application of the Results to Heb. xi, 1 . 141

Conclusion 151

Abbreviations 152

Bibliography 153

PART I — HISTORICAL

< ) ' >

CHAPTER I
THE TEXT

At the very outset of this exegesis of Heb. xi, 1, it will
be well to establish critically the original text. Because the
original text will be " terra firma " for the whole investiga-
tion, and "lux in tenebris" for the history of the various
interpretations of our verse. The commonly accepted criti-
cal evidence * is threefold : Greek uncial MSS., versions prior
to the eighth century, and Patristic quotations.

I. The critical evidence favoring the Textus Receptus : "Kari
£e ttmtti*; €\7n£ofi€va)v viroaTaais , irpayfiaraiv eXey^o^ ov /3\e-
Trofievcov :

1. Greek MSS.: All Greek MSS. of critical value, except
Codex Alexandrinus (A) and Codex Claromontanus (D Pau1 ). 2
The variance of the latter is so slight (the accusative case,
viroo-Tao-iv, for the nominative), that it may be eliminated.

2. Versions :

A. For the Latin versions we note those given by Tischen-
dorf : 3 (a) Est autem fides sperandarum substantia rerum,
argumentum non apparentium : The Latin translation 4 of
Augiensis Cantabrigiensis (F), Vulgate (vg cle ), Demidovia-
nus (demid).

(5) Sperandorum substantia, rerum argumentum non ap-
parentum 5 : Amiatinus (am) Fuldensis (fu).

1 Hammond, Outlines of Textual Criticism Applied to the N. T., 1, 42.

2 Tischendorf, Novum Test. Graece, etc., II, 820.

4 Hebrews in God. Augiensis is preserved only in Latin.

5 " Apparentum " is obviously a careless spelling for " apparentium."

4 MOB PAULINE PISTIS

B. Bohairie : Faith is a firmness (oyr-xjcpo) 2 of things
hoped for and a proof of things not seen.

C. Arabic : Invenitur autem fides substantia eorum quae
expeetantur, evidentia rerum quae non cernuntur. 2

D. Armenian : Quid est fides nisi certitudo rerum spera-
tarum et argumentum rerum non apparentium. 3

3. Patristic Quotations:

A. Greek Fathers : Clement of Alexandria, 4 Origen (ex-
tant in the Latin translation of Rufinus), 5 Cyril of Jerusalem, 6
Gregory of Nyssa, 7 John Chrysostom, 8 Theodore of Mopsu-
estia, 9 Cyril of Alexandria, 10 Theodoret, 11 and John Damas-
cene. 12

B. Latin Fathers : Ambrose, 13 and Jerome 14 (" Non " of
TR is changed to "necdum ").

4. Papyrus P 13 (saec. IV) in the British Museum with
fragments of the Epistle to the Hebrews reads : eXiri^ofievrnv
7rpay/JLarcov VTroaraai^.

II. Critical evidence for OTHER TEXTS :

A. Ecrn 8e inari^ eXin^o/ieveov vwoaTaaL^, Trpayfiarow eXey-
^o? ov Bov\ofjL€vii)v : only one Greek MS. Codex Alexandri-
nus (A).

B. Est autem fides ispirantium substantia rerum, accusa-
tor non videntium: Latin of the Graeco-Latin codices Claro-
montanus (d) and Sangermanensis (e), the latter not being
of independent value, but a mere copy of Codex Claromon-
tanus. It should be noted that the Epistle to the Hebrews

i The Coptic Version of the N. T. etc., Ed. Horn, III, 528.
8 Brianus Waltonus, S. 8. Biblia Polyglotta, etc., V, 873.
3 Translated by Dr. A. A. Vaschalde from the Armenian text of the Ameri-
can Biblical Society. 4 Berlin Ed. Clemens Alexandrinus, II, 117.
* Migne, P. G., 14, 979 C. ■ Migne, P. G., 74, 989 C.
e Migne, P. G., 33, 506. U Migne, P. G., 82, 767 A.

7 Migne, P. G., 45, 941 C. " Migne, P. 6?., 95, 980 B.

8 Migne, P. (?., 63, 151 B. H Migne, P. £., 16, 521 B.

9 Migne, P. G., 66, 965 B. " Migne, P. i., 26, 448 C.

THE TEXT 5

in Cod. Claromontanus was not originally contained in that
Codex, but was added later.

C. Est autem fides sperantium substantia, convictio rerum
quae non videntur : Augustine a in several passages.

D. Est autem fides certitudo (convictio = cognitio) de iis
rebus quae sunt in spe, ac si iam existerent actu : et revelatio

7 •• Q &. P 7 m

eorum quae non videntur : ^ « ^ ' l ^-^ Ik * ° > jZ n i Vi 101 ^-*> ov-A-i]

44*** i^ ? __ Peshitto.

This rather brief and condensed account of the critical
evidence is certainly of the highest interest. For the variants
show that Heb. xi, 1 was always surrounded by a mysterious
atmosphere, inasmuch as they are not only different read-
ings for the same idea, but also represent an entirely different
exegesis and understanding of the text from that which is
suggested by the original.

Let us now consider the variants in detail.

1. The Peshitto certainly presents a highly surprising
reading. If we leave out the clause, "ac si iam existerent
actu," we have the text : Est autem fides convictio (cognitio)
de iis quae sunt in spe, et revelatio eorum quae non videntur.
This evidently corresponds to the form of the Greek TR.

The translation of eXir^o/ievcov by l i^jjp ^ot^-I? is no serious

deviation from the original. But how was the passage, *-l"

A
PP *. * 7 7 7

"plains ^t*" 1 — ^ t^ 001 ? 001 (" ac si iam existerent actu ") intro-
duced into the text ? It is unnecessary to say that this phrase
never belonged to the original; and yet the idea is well known
to us from the Greek Patristic exegesis, as the explanation
of the mysterious word viroo-Tao-is, as we shall see. The most
natural solution seems to be this : the author of the Peshitto

1 De Peccat.,Meritis, et Remiss., Lib. II, XXXI, 50 ; Corp. Scrip. Eccles.
Latin., Vol. LX, Sancti A. Augustini Opera (Sect. VIII, Part I, p. 121, 8).

6 THE PAULINE PISTIS

knew well the meaning of the Greek word xmocrTaavs in this
context, but apparently was unable to express it adequately
in Syriac. Therefore, he translated with the next best word
— certitudo (cognitio), and supported this weak expres-
sion by a paraphrase which would give the full meaning of
virocTTao-is. Thus the Peshitto becomes not only valuable
evidence for the originality of the TR, but also a precious
and official interpreter in the early Syrian Church of viro-
<TTa<n<; in the sense of a "presentation of future reality."

2. St. Augustine's usual text also varies with the TR : Est
autem fides sperantium substantia, convictio rerum quae non
videntur. At most this variant can only be the text of a
latin version of the time; and, of course, its value is
derived from the Greek text of which it is a translation.
As to this Greek text, there is no doubt that the second part
of the verse — convictio rerum quae non videntur — trans-
lates 7rpajfJLaTQ)v ekeyxos ov ^Xewo/jievcov ; and in the first part
of the verse we find difficulty only with " sperantium." Does
" sperantium " translate eXin^ovTGiv, or eXiri^oiievoyv ? In view
of the fact that almost the whole threefold critical evidence
favors eXin^op.evoDv as original, and since eXiri^ofxevcov^ as the
Middle Voice, could be translated "sperantium," we may
conclude that the Latin translator of Augustine's text ren-
dered €\7n^ofi€vcov by "sperantium." Of course, we agree
with Delitzsch 1 that this was not the best translation of
€\7ri£o/JL€vcov. It probably came into being with Augustine's
interpretation of viroaraai^. It is certainly not testified to
by the MSS., since only one Latin Version d (Claromontanus)
has it.

3. The text of the Cod. Claromontanus runs: Est autem fides
ispirantium 2 substantia rerum, accusator non videntium.
The Cod. Sangermanensis with the same reading is only a
copy of d. Since the Greek parallel is identical with the

i Op. cit., II, 207.

2 "Ispirantium" is, no doubt, a corrupted spelling for "sperantium."

THE TEXT 7

TR, we have here no different reading at all. The Latin
translation, however, causes difficulties. Evidently, the first
part is identical with Augustine's reading. The Greek par-
allel has €\7n£ofi€VG)V. " Ispirantium " may, therefore, be
explained in the same way as Augustine's " sperantium."
But what about the second difference in the text : " Accu-
sator non videntium " for ekeyxos ov pXeiro^evoav ? " Viden-
tium" seems to be a harmonization with " ispirantium." And
" accusator " — a term for juridical procedure — seems to
betray this strange interpretation of the second part of the
verse : tthttis is the accuser of those who do not see. This
reading is, therefore, more interesting for the history of the
interpretation than for the history of the text. Besides, let
us note the words of Tischendorf on the general untrust-
worthiness of Cod. Claromontanus : " Graeca praebent f ormas
1 Alexandrines' quas dicunt, Latina inprimis in Epistola
ad Hebraeos errores multos." l

4. Alexandrinus (A) varies from TR by having the re-
markable form ^ovKofievtov for ^Xeirofievcov. All other Greek
MSS., all critical versions, and all Patristic quotations are
against this reading. Besides, it is a curious reading, giving
this unusual contrast of ino-ru; : irians is an assurance of
things hoped for (e.g., heaven) and a forced conviction of
things not desired (e.</., hell). Is this an intentional altera-
tion of the original text, or only an error of the copyist ?
Indeed, if ^ovKofxevtov could not be explained as a transcrip-
tional error, we should have a much more difficult problem
in textual criticism before us. But we have good grounds
for thinking that /3ov\o/jl€v<ov is a mistake in the transcription
of BXerropevwv, since in the uncial MSS. BAGTTOMeNQN
might very easily be read BOYAOMGNQN. For both words
have the same number of characters, the same termination
-0M6NQN, and the same initial letter B. The transposition
and inversion of AG of BAGTTOMeNQN to OY of BOYAOMG-

i Op. cit., Ill, 419.

8 THE PAULINE PISTIS

NQN would not be extraordinary at all, since it is an ordinary
mistake in the MSS. Hence, it is at least possible that in the
uncial MSS. BAGTTOMeNQN was transcribed BOYAOMGNQN.

The Patristic evidence, however, is decisive in this case.
For, as Codex Alexandrinus was probably written at Alex-
andria, 1 the Alexandrian Patristic writers in their quotations
of Heb. xi, 1 are of supreme interest. Clement and Cyril
of Alexandria, and Origen witness, by their quotations of our
verse, to jSkerrotLevcov. Clement's testimony is weightiest
and clearest, because his text antedates by two centuries the
transcription recorded in Alexandrinus, and also because
Clement has made it unmistakably clear that he read
irpayfiarcov ov /SXeiropevwv by giving for it in the context
of his quotation the synonym acfrvovs 7rpayfjLaTO<;. 2 Accord-
ingly, by the combined evidence of all other Greek MSS.,
all critical versions, and the decisive Patristic quotations,
and in view of the fact that /3ov\o/jLevcov can possibly be
explained as an error in transcription, we must eliminate
the text of A as the original text of Heb. xi, 1.

Summarizing the investigation of the history of the text,
we may say : In spite of some remarkable testimony in a
few witnesses, which more or less betrays the difficulty trans-
lators had with V7roo-Ta<m, we have in fact an overwhelming
unanimity for the TR. In support of the TR we have the
combined witness of practically all the critical evidence —
the Greek MSS., all the critical versions, and strong Patristic
quotations that go back to the first appearance of our verse
in extant literature. Hence, we conclude that the text of
Heb. xi, 1 in TR is the original text. For, in the words of
Hammond, "the combined testimony of the earliest MSS.
with the earliest versions, and quotations in the earliest
writers, mark an undoubted reading." 3

1 F. G. Kenyon, in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, 917. — Art. Text.

2 Stromata, II, 2. — Berlin Ed. Clemens Alexandrinus, II, 117.

3 Op. cit, 106.

THE TEXT 9

There still remains one more textual problem to consider,
viz., the punctuation within the text itself. The history
of the text has developed two problems of punctuation :
(a) Should a comma be placed after ttkjtvs, and (5) should
a comma be placed before or after 7rpa<y/jbaT<av ?

The critical evidence for punctuation is unsatisfactory for
both questions, and in the second it is divided (in the ver-
sions and Patristic quotations). For there is no, or only
irregular, punctuation in the earliest uncial MSS. In such
codices as record our verse, we have the following general
confusion in the matter of punctuation : In Sinaiticus (K)
words are not separated, except where a new idea requires
a new line 1 ; in Alexandrinus (A) " a very simple punctua-
tion is introduced, consisting of a simple point at the end
of a sentence followed by a break in the line " 2 ; in Claro-
montanus (D Paul and d) and Sangermanensis (E Paul and e),
we find the stichometric arrangement 3 ; and Augiensis Can-
tabrigiensis (F Paul and f) places a period after every word of
the text. 4 Hence, we conclude with Tischendorf 5 that no
sound argument can be taken from the punctuation in the
earliest MSS. : " Luce clarius est ne argumentum quidem ad
interpunctionem rectam decernendam hauriri posse ex prio-
rum nuditate (as in K), 6 neque magis ex posteriorum copia
signorum " (as in f). 6

A. The Comma after Ilto-Tt?.

With Erasmus a comma was placed after ttkttl^. This
comma put viroaTaais and eXey^o^ in apposition to Tricm?,
The construction would then yield the sense, " Faith really
exists, etc.," — a remarkable and useless insistence on the ob-
vious. But this comma is disappearing in the light of mod-
ern research. Olshausen undermined the principal ground
upon which the comma" was inserted after ttlo-tl^ : "And

i Tischendorf, Op. cit, III, 111. * Tischendorf, Op. cit., HE, 111.

2 Hammond, Op. cit., 142. * Op. cit., Ill, 112.

3 Tischendorf, Op. cit., Ill, 114 and 423. 6 My additions in parenthesis.

10 THE PAULINE PISTIS

when in support of this construction, it is affirmed that ean
as copula cannot stand at the beginning of the sentence, such
passages are forgotten as Luke viii, 11 : ean Be avTrj rj irapa-
/3oXrj. In the preceding context of that passage it is said
that the understanding of the parables is important, and
then the transition is made to the explanation of the parables
themselves. Just so here. In x, 38, it was said Faith is
necessary ; and in xi, 1, the question is answered, what is
Faith." 1 A. T. Robertson, in the light of the most recent
research, says of this objection : " Ecrriz/ is also the accent
at the beginning of the sentence, Heb. xi, 1." 2 And this
emphasis "on the can denotes certainty of connection be-
tween the subject and the predicate, the assured truth of
the affirmation made." 3 Accordingly, in the absence of all
certain critical evidence, and with the fall of the principal
reason for placing a comma after 7rtcrTt?, we conclude that
no comma should be placed here.

B. The Comma before or after irpayparav.

From a mere glance at the text : Ecru Be ino-ris eXirt^oiie-
voav vrro(TTa<n^ Trpay/jLaTcov eXey^o^ ov (SXeTrofievobV, it will be
observed that this definition or description of 7ricra? is two-
fold : eXTri&fievcov vrroaTacris and eXeyxps ov PXeirofievayv.
The difficulty arises with irpayixaTtov. Does it belong to the
first or to the second part of the verse ? As we stated above,
the punctuation in the earliest uncial MSS. is such as to pre-
clude any sound argument being taken from them. Yet the
inversion of the words eX7n^ofievcov wrrocrTacris irpay^aTtav
into eXTri^o/xevcov Trpay/JLaroov viroa-raa-^ in the Papyrus P 13 in
the British Museum favors the view that irpay^iarayv belongs
to the first part.

We find more critical evidence on the point under discus-
sion in the versions and the Patristic quotations. All the

* Bibl. Comm. on the 1ST. T., VI, 540.

2 A Grammar of the Greek N. T., in the Light of Historical Research, 234.

3 Delitzsch, Op. cit, II, 204.

THE TEXT 11

Latin versions (except Amiatinus and Fuldensis), the Syriac,
the Bohairic, and the Armenian place irpayixarav in the first
part of Heb. xi, 1, whereas the Arabic puts it in the second
part of the verse. The Patristic writers are also divided in
this matter. Those favoring Trpay/xarcov in the first part of
the verse are : Origen, 1 Chrysostom, 2 Augustine, 3 and Jer-
ome 4 ; and those favoring the other view are : Clement of
Alexandria, 5 Ambrose, 6 Theodoret, 7 and others. Thus, the
critical evidence is divided so sharply as to make it almost
impossible to decide the matter.

Since the Patristic period the place of this comma (either
before or after irpayiiarcav) has been discussed in every com-
plete exegesis of Heb. xi, 1 ; and the opinion that irpayp,ara)v
belongs to the second part of the verse has been constantly
gaining ground. So much so that in the best recent texts
Tischendorf does not even mention the variant for the
comma after irpayfiarcov^ and Westcott and Hort call it
a less probable punctuation. We agree with this modern
opinion, because, in the words of Delitzsch, u wpayfia some-
times denotes an historical fact, sometimes a supersensuous
reality : It is in the latter sense that irpay/xaTcov is used
here ; and so evidently belongs more properly to the ov /3\€tt-
ofievcov, in order to distinguish the unseen realities which
are the objects of Faith from the shadowy dreams which are
the creations of human fancy." 8

Having established the original text of Heb. xi, 1 to be

Eo"T£ Se 7T4trTt? €\7rL^0/Ji€VC0V VTTOO-TCMTLS, TTpayfAdTCOV €\€y%0$ ov

fi\€7ro/ji€vcov, we shall take up in the next chapter the his-
tory of the exegesis of our verse, — what men have
thought of Heb. xi, 1 from its first appearance in extant
literature to the interpretations of our own day.

i Migne, P. G., 14, 979 C. » Op. cit., II, 117.

« Migne, P. <?., 63, 151 B. 6 Migne, P. £., 16, 521 B.

3 Op. cit., 121, 8. J Berlin Ed. Theodoret, I, 91.

* Migne, P. £., 26, 448 C. » Op. ett., H, 205.

CHAPTER II

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT
1. In the Greek Fathers

Certainly the most important period in the exegetical
history of Heb. xi, 1 is the Greek Patristic. For the Greek
interpretation is not only the first exegesis of our verse, but
it is also the interpretation of writers whose mother tongue
was the Kotvq StaXe/cTos of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Hence, besides its importance for the history of the interpre-
tation, the Greek Patristic understanding of viroo-Tao-i*;, the
pivotal term of the verse, will be constantly noted because it
has an historico-literary value of the greatest moment.

The first time we meet viroaraais in Patristic literature is
in the Epistle to Diogketus, II, 1, where it is apparently
used synonymously with etSo?. The author invites Diog-
netus to purify his mind from all prejudices and see of what
VTroo-Tacris or €tSo? the Pagan gods have been fashioned: i8e
firj fxovov tow o<f>6a\fjLoi<;, aWa kcli rrj (f>povrj(7€i, tivos viroa-ra-

(T€(d<; 7) TWOS €t&OV9 TV<y%aVOV(TlV OU? €p€LT€ KCLI VO/JLl%€T€ OeOV?. 1

Although viroaTaai? seems to be synonymous with et8o?, it
cannot be determined with certainty what it really means in
this passage. If viroaTacns is used synonymously with etSo?,
then it means either form or an element of a composition,
which were the meanings of etSo? at the time. 2 If it is not
used synonymously with e*So?, then it is difficult to describe
it more accurately than as something connected with essence.

iMigne, P. 6?., 2, 1169 A.

2 Cf. R. Hirzel, Oixria, Philologus, Band 72 (1913), 43, where he says that
etSos is not confined to the limits of Platonic metaphysics, " mag man darun-
ter die das Wesen eines Dinges scharf umschreibende Form oder das zur
Komposition eines Ganzen dienende Element verstehen."

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 13

If we can trust Goodspeed's Index Apologeticus, 1 viroaraais
is not in the vocabulary of Justin, but we are indebted to
his disciple Tatian for an extensive use of the word.
Tiroo-rao-i? occurs seven times in his Tipos E\\?7J>a9. In c. 5,
God is called the Lord of all things, because He is the
original viroa-raai^ of all things : O yap A€<t7tot7}S tcov oXcdv,
auTo? VTrap^cov rov ttclvtos rj VTroGTacrK;, Kara fiev ttjv
fnjSerrco yeyevq fxevr^v ttoitjctiv (xovo^s rjv. 2 Certainly Tatian did
not mean to say here that God is the original essence from
which everything flows (as the pantheists would say), be-
cause he explains the VTroo-rao-ts by: He existed originally
alone, when no creation had yet taken place. Not only
because He existed before (temporally) the creation, but
also in contrast to the creation (tcara), as author of the cre-
ation, He is called virocrraais: The REALLY EXISTING BEING
in contrast to the NON-EXISTING BEING.

One of the most interesting usages of virocrTao-is in the
whole Patristic literature is found in c. 7, 2, of the same
work. The author is here establishing the Christian Belief
in the resurrection of the body at the last day, which doc-
trine the Greeks ridiculed. But it is not so ridiculous,
wrote Tatian. For just as one does not exist before he is
born (and of course u I did not know who I was, though I ex-
isted in the viroa-Tacr^ of fleshly matter "), and when actually
born he is convinced that he really exists ; so in the same
way once having been born and by death existing and seen
no longer he shall again exist. . . . For should his body be
burned, or dispersed into rivers and seas, or even torn into
pieces by wild beasts, yet he is laid up in the storehouse of
a mighty Lord who, when He pleases, will restore to its
pristine condition the VTroaraais which is visible to Him
alone: Clcnrep yap ovk cov irpw rj yevecOat, tis vfinv ovtc
eyivaxTKOV, fiovov 8e ev viroaraa-ei rns aapfcifcw** v Xrjs

i Cf. p. 280. * Migne, P. £., 6, 813 C.

14 THE PAULINE PISTIS

V7r VPX ov > y^yovwi Se o firj iraXai Bia T779 yeve<re(o<i to eivai
TreirMTTev/ca • top avrov rpoirov o yevopevos scat Sia Oavarov
firjKer (ov avdis re firj/ceO* opwfievo? eaopai iraXiv axnrep firj
irakai yeyova*? eira yevvrjdeis. . . . #eo? Be o ftaaiXevcoVy ore
flovXerai, rrjv opcorrjp avroa fiova> vjro<rra<riv airo/cara<rrr)<r€i
777)09 rov apyaiov?-

We have here three parallel expressions: Tatian compares
the birth of man with the resurrection of the body ; also
the manner of existence in the vttoo-tcktis of fleshly
matter before birth with the manner of existence of A
corpse before the resurrection ; the third and apologetic
comparison makes use of the other two, — just as birth can
be predicated as a future reality of the manner of existence

IN THE V7T0(TTacri<; OF FLESHLY MATTER, SO the RESURREC-
TION can be predicated as a future reality of the manner of
existence proper to A corpse (which is also called an
viroGTaai*^). What is the meaning of vrro<rra<ri<i in these
comparisons ?

We must first of all establish the meaning of the various
expressions used :

1. " Before my existence " (yeveaOai) from the context
means "before my visible existence on earth."

2. " I did not know (imperf . eyivayaicov) who I was," —
the imperfect eyivaxrfcov demands the sense, u I was in a con-
dition where I did not know who I was."

3. "But I was already existing (ywtfpxpv) in the vrrocrra-
o*t? of fleshly matter." trr^pxov means real existence; and
the only such existence before birth in fleshly matter is ex-
istence in the maternal womb.

4. u But after having come into existence by birth I
believed in the reality of my existence."

With this fact Tatian compares the resurrection thus :
1. " After coming into existence, and by death existing
and seen no longer,"

1 Migne, P. G., 6, 817 C-820 A.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 15

2. "I shall be again,"

3. " like the former, not existing and afterward receiving
existence."

4. Reason : For God the King, when He wishes, will
restore the VKoaracm of the dead body which is visible to
Him alone unto its former state.

By "t*5 77/ai7i>" ("Who I was") is expressed what Tatian
understood by the term " before my existence," namely, the
time when he was in the womb of his mother. Thus, (1)
the existing being in the womb of the mother is the viroa-Ta-
ais for the existence on earth, (2) as the body existing in
death is the viroaraa^ for the risen body. Hence, the
resurrection is not so ridiculous as the Pagans thought.
For just so surely as he who exists in the womb of his
mother will have real life on earth, so he who exists some-
how in death will rise again. The example of coming into
existence by birth is the easier, and is used for the illustra-
tion of the more difficult idea of resurrection.

For the interpretation of the expression " existing in the
v7rooTa<ri<; of fleshly matter" (existence in the maternal
womb) in these comparisons, it seems quite certain that the
author does not wish to say that such an existence is merely
temporally before birth, or similar to the existence of a
corpse (for surely there is little similarity), but rather that

it is a GUARANTEE OF FUTURE EXISTENCE, A CERTAINTY OF

future reality, or better still, the anticipation of a

FUTURE AND MORE COMPLETE REALITY. For the EXIST-
ENCE in the womb of the mother is REAL though incom-
plete, as is evident from the expression qualifying existence
in the womb, u I did not know who I WAS " (™? viirjv).
In a word, something was lacking to this manner of
existence. All this is expressed in wroGTaaLS : It is a guar-
antee and a certainty of a future reality, a reality

WHICH IS POSSESSED NOW TO A LIMITED EXTENT BUT
WHICH WILL BE POSSESSED MORE COMPLETELY IN THE

16 THE PAULINE PISTIS

FUTURE, — IT IS A REAL ANTICIPATION OF A FUTURE
REALITY.

Athanagoras also speaks of the VTroo-racris as a quality of
possession, saying that the angels to whom was intrusted the
vTroaracTis of power and the government of the world abused
them, 01 Be ewfipicav kcli ttj ttjs ovo-ias vrroarao-ei /cai ttj
apxrj' 1 What is the meaning of woo-rao-is in this citation ?

There is no doubt that ovaia here means possession or
power. 2 Happily Athanagoras then gives an example of
such angels as have abused the viroarao-^ ttj? ovo-ias and the
apxny namely, those angels who in Gen. vi, 1-4 took wives
of the daughters of man and bore giants. These abused the
wiroo~Ta<n<s of their possession or power. The vTrocnacns T779
ovo-ia$ or the viroaraa^ of their power is identified with
apxv (government), except that apxv 1S a specification, i.e.,
to their power belongs the government. Since we have here
a contrast between the authority which gives the power and
the medium which uses, or better, abuses, the power, the
vjroo~Ta<ns must express the connection between the power
of the authority and that of the medium, the conditio sine
qua non under which the medium can use the ovcria, i.e., the
title-deed, the authorization to the power and govern-
ment, which can be abused. Accordingly, viroo-Taa-^ means

TITLE-DEED, Or GUARANTEED RIGHT.

It will be interesting to note even now the various mean-
ings of the term viroo-Tacris thus far met with :

1. In the Letter to Diognetus viroaracn^ probably means

ESSENCE Or SOMETHING CONNECTED WITH ESSENCE.

2. In Tatian viroaraa^ is used as the emphasis of reality
in contrast to non-reality, as a guarantee, certainty,

and ANTICIPATION OF A FUTURE REALITY.

3. In Athanagoras viroaraaL^ signifies guarantee or
TITLE-DEED.

1 Supplicat. pro Christ, XXIV, 4, — Migne, P.G., 6, 948 B.
* Cf. Hirzel, Op. cit., Band 72 (1913), 43 sq.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 17

Is there any connection between the three meanings?
Certainly. For the author of the Letter to Diognetus, wiro-
a-Tacns means simply reality ; for Tatian, it is an anticipated
possession of a future reality ; and for Athanagoras, a guar-
antee of a present reality. The common element is reality.

We now pass on to Irenaeus in a new field of literature,
the Gnostic, that interesting literature, through which, as
Bigg 1 says, "these scientific terms were introduced into
theology. Ovaia, viroaTaaLS, viroiceifievov, ofioovaLos, all occur
in Irenaeus," as in the philosophy of the time, where vtto~
<TTaai<; and ovcria "mean precisely the same thing." 2 Ire-
naeus uses them synonymously in Contr. Haer. I, 15.
In this passage Irenaeus protests against the ravings of the
Gnostic Marcus who, though admitting God to be incorpo-
real, yet conceives the generation of God out of a multi-
tude of letters of the alphabet. Our author thus states the
dilemma : Kat ov aatofiarov tcai avovaLov ovo/jLa&is, ttjv tovtov
ova Lav teat ttjv viroaTaaLV e/c 7roW(ov ypafi/xareov^ erepcov
€% cTepcov yevvco/jLevcoV) KaTaaKeva%eL$. z Here viroaTaaL? and
ova-La are clearly used synonymously. We have seen that
the preceding authors employ viroaraaLs in the sense of

GUARANTEE OF REALITY, as the ANTICIPATED REALITY.

But Irenaeus, in identifying viroaraaL*; with ovaia, the exist-
ing reality, clearly marks a step in the development of
the term, which becomes more evident by a note of the same
author, especially interesting and important for the exegesis
of Heb. xi, 1, Contr. Haer. IV, 21. Irenaeus here gives
a definition of 7r*o-ro, which though not an explicit exegesis
of Heb. xi, 1, yet is strikingly similar to the Syriac text of
our verse, and even foreshadows the common Patristic exege-
sis of Heb. xi, 1. Speaking of Abraham as the prophet and
example of 7rtcrn9, Irenaeus makes the interesting observa-

1 Bigg, The Christian Platonista of Alexandria, 164, f. n. 1.

2 Op. city 164.

s Migne, P. 6?., 7, 625 B.

18 THE PAULINE PISTIS

tion that Abraham believed in things future (which are also
"things hoped for"), as if they were already accomplished:
Illo quidem credente f uturis quasi iam factis propter promis-
sionem Dei. 1 Here we have irians as the representation
of A future reality, as if it were already an accomplished
fact : Futuris quasi iam factis. This bears a striking resem-
blance to the Syriac rendering of eXTri^o/juevayv VTroaraaL^ of
Heb. xi, 1 : Est autem fides persuasio super iis, quae sunt
in spe, ac si essent ipsis (intellige credentibus) in actu sive
effectu. 2 Then our author goes on to give what has a broad
parallelism with the second part of Heb. xi, 1, eXeyx * ov
fiXeTTOfievcov, when he says, " nobis quoque similiter per fidem
speculantibus earn quae est in regno haereditatem." 3 This
is the first, though vague, indication of Heb. xi, 1, and means
plainly per fidem videmus, quae non iam videtur, i.e., "hae-
reditatem in regno," or : j3\€7rofiev 8ia iriareco^ ov fiXeTroficva.
The anticipated possession of a future reality (Tatian) is here
a vivid representation of a future and complete reality (" as
if they were already accomplished ").

Up to this point we have been considering the common
Patristic usage of the term woo-rao-is prior to Clement of
Alexandria, because until his time our text itself is not
found. Yet this earliest Christian usage is important, since
it represents the closest link to the literary milieu of Heb.
xi, 1 in its principal difficulty, namely, the meaning of the
term viroaraaifs. As the result of this investigation we may
note the chief usages of the term found : vrrocrTao~i<; has been
used in the sense of essence, something connected with

ESSENCE, REALITY IN CONTRAST TO NON-REALITY, GUAR-
ANTEE, CERTAINTY, OR ANTICIPATION OF A FUTURE REAL-
ITY, a REALITY NOT YET COMPLETE, and a REPRESENTATION
OF A FUTURE AND COMPLETE REALITY.

i Migne, P. G., 7, 1044 A.

2 Estius, Comm., in Cap. XI, — Epist. ad Hebraeos, vers. 1, 275; ci
also p. 5 of this Dissertation. 3 Migne, P. G., 7, 1044 A.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 19

In Clement of Alexandria we find the first statement
of our text , which he advances as scriptural confirmation,
and, what is more important still, as an equation of his defi-
nition of inarm. In passing, we may note that much of the
Stromata is devoted to maris. In fact, Clement is the first
to give us a well-rounded treatment of the doctrine of Faith.
But what is of the highest interest to the student of the
development of religion (especially from the linguistic point
of view) is the fact that in Clement the Christian mans is
viewed in the light of the classical, which has profoundly
affected the terminology of maris as an intellectual assent
(avy/caraOeais^). 1 In Stromata, II, 2, Clement argues that
through maris alone can we come to the knowledge of God.
Then he defines maris in the following terms: irpoXrjyjns eicov-
aios ecTTi, deoaefteias avyrcaradeais, eXm^ofjievcov viroaraais,
irpayfiarcov e\e7%o? ov fiXeiro/jievcov, Kara rov 6eiov Airoaro-
\ov. 2 Then follows in the next few chapters a further elu-
cidation of avy/caradeais, Oeoaefteia, e/covaios, and irpoXrjyfris
in the light of classical Greek antiquity. That Clement's
definition of maris is equated by Heb. xi, 1 is unmistak-
able. What is the meaning of the individual terms of
this equation ?

1. ^vy/caradeais: The sense of avy/caraOeais is clear
from the immediate context. Clement, after quoting the
Apostle, continues : Other philosophers have defined maris
as an assent to an unseen object : AXXot & a<f>vovs irpayfia-
ros evvorjTLKrjv avyicaraOeaiv eirehaicav eivai rrjv mariv. z And
he adds the important words : Clamp a/xeXei rrjv airoSeiljiv
ayvoovfievov irpayfiaros <f>av€pav avy/caradeaiv : * As certainly

lOrigen (Contr. Cel., III, 38, 39), Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat, V, X),
John Damascene (Expos, of the Orthodox Faith, IV, XI), and others have
defined ttkttis as a avyKaTadeais, and Theodoret (Curatio Graec, I) repeats
Clement of Alexandria almost verbatim in his dissertation Hept Iltcrrews.

2 Berl. Ed. Clemens Alexandrinus, II, 117.

a Ibid.

* Migne, P. <?., 8, 940 A.

20 THE PAULINE PISTIS

the proof of an unknown thing is an evident assent. In the
first instance irians was called an assent (avyKaTaOecn^.
Here PROOF (a7roSeift?) is called ASSENT (avyKaradecri^.
Thus we have the identification of ttlotk with airohei^.
AiroheL^t<s (airo-heucvviAi = present) originally means presen-
tation of a reality, and includes the meaning that some-
thing which was not present (materially or mentally) is
MADE present. Thus airoheit~i,$ is a proof in so far as it
presents A REALITY. If we consider in this light the
identification ttiotr = crvy/caraOecris = a7roSetf £?, then maTis
is to be understood as the power which makes a non-
present REALITY TO BE A PRESENT REALITY. This
representation is produced by 7rtcrTfc?, as Clement ex-
pressly states : TrpocnroheiicwvTOS tlvos avrco $ia tt;? inaTea)^
tt)v airohei^Lv. 1

The manner in which maris thus makes things to be
present is plastically set forth in Stromata, II, 4. Clem-
ent here distinguishes between the airiaToi and the wurroi.
The airio-Toi, clinging to visible things, assert that those
things alone exist which can be touched and handled, defin-
ing aco/na and ovaia to be the same thing. Not so with the
wigtoi, those who love tticttis, " Lo, I make new things which
eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor hath the heart of
man conceived" (Is. lxiv, 4; 1 Cor. ii, 9). It is these
things which the Christian sees through irians. Hlcttls
creates in man a real means of perception : 'Kaivco o<f>6a\fjLco,
tcaiVT) afcor), Kaivt] fcapSia, oara opara teat a/covcrTa, KaraXyTrra
hia T77? TTKTTea)^ teal crvveaecos, 7rvev/jLaTifccos Xeyovrcov, a/covov-
tcqv, TTpaTTovToav tcov tov JLvpuov /jLdOrjTcov. 2 Here we have as
an illustration a wonderful contrast between both a mate-
rial reality and a spiritual reality, and the means
of perceiving the two ; what we see with our material eyes,
hear with our material ears, love with our material heart, is
material reality; besides these material senses which
i Migne, P. <?., 8, 940 A. 2 7&id., 945 b.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 21

guarantee a material reality, there are spiritual senses, replac-
ing the material faculty in another realm of thought but
guaranteeing the REALITY of the perceived object — it is ttuttl*;.
By ttiotis we possess a new eye, a new ear, and a new heart
— new things become visible, hearable, perceptible. Hence,
the conclusion must be : liter™? makes its objects as present
to us as the material senses do their objects. litem? pre-
sents realities as truly as our material senses do, or ttio-tis
gives the same guarantee for the REALITY of its objects
as do the material senses.

2. JlpoXTjyjris. Clement not only borrows TrpoXrjyjns from
Epicurus (who also denned ttkttcs as a 77-/00X77-^?) but also
quotes his definition of the term : eTrifioXrjv em tl evayes, Kau
em tt)V evayrj tov 7rpay/JLaT0<i eirivoiav. 1 This is the classical
passage. It means " the throwing oneself toward the very
real and toward the clearer understanding of a thing which
is in reality." This is a kind of anticipation or precon-
ception of reality. Thus nobody can, as Clement then pro-
ceeds to show, " make a judicial inquiry, nobody can raise a
question, nor even argue without this irpoXriyfris" For some-
thing must be taken for granted. It is of secondary importance
for us to know that without being prepared for the accept-
ance of the reality we are unable to do anything. But it is
of primary importance for us to note that Tricm? as a irpoXr}-
yfrt? is the preparedness a priori to accept the reality, and that
this preparedness to accept is already the perception op the
reality. Thus irians becomes the representation of

THE REALITY IN ADVANCE, the ANTICIPATION OF REALITY.

Whence we conclude that for Clement iticftis, as a crvytca-

Ta0e<n$, is the representation of a reality, and, as a

TrpoXrjylriS, it is the REPRESENTATION OF THE REALITY BY

anticipation. We have here a combination of Tatian's
viroo-racrLs = " anticipated possession " and Irenaeus' irians
= " vivid representation of a reality."

1 Migne, P. (?., 8, 948 B.

22 THE PAULINE PISTIS

After having obtained a clear idea of Clement's 77-10-™?, it
is of interest to us to know how he explains viroa-racn,^ which
is identified with iriaris in Heb. xi, 1. I have found two
usages of u7roo-ra<m in the writings of Clement : (a) in the
participial form (yrroa-ravTO^ , as the EMPHASIS OF REALITY
IN CONTRAST TO NON-REALITY ; (b~) VTTOaTacrft, as the TITLE-
DEED TO PROPERTY.

In Stromata V, 4, Clement maintains that the Greeks
plagiarized from the Hebrews in their doctrines. Thus Plato
is accused of having taught that the world was created.
Whereupon Clement remarks that Plato here not only shows
that the earth was created, but also points out that it was
generated as a son by God, — when in a state of non-existence
it derived its being from Him alone,— 12? av etc /jlovov
yevofievov /cat e/c /jltj ovtos viroa-TavTOs} We have VTroaravTOS
clearly as a contrast to non-reality (^77 ovtos). Hence,
VTroo-TavTos must be an emphasis of reality.

The use of vrroo-Tao-is in Stromata II, 18, is most inter-
esting. Some have thought that here we have the first
instance of viroaTacns as a term of distinction in the Trinity.
In the words of Wilson, 2 " here Clement seems to designate
the Human Nature of Christ — as being the quartum quid
in addition to the Three Persons of the Godhead." But
that this interpretation is wholly a priori and a complete
misunderstanding of Clement's terminology will be evident
from the sequel. For in the text there is no indication
whatsoever of either the Human Nature of Christ, or of a
distinction in the Godhead. Such a curious interpretation
of the text very probably is merely the projection of the idea
that viroaraaL^ means person into the passage, and then the
invention of the Human Nature of Christ to answer to the
u fourth t»7rotrTacrt?," which the rrjv rov Kvptov rerapr^v vrro-
o-tcktip of the text calls for. It is true that this passage

iMigne, P. <?., 9, 136 B.

a The Writings of Clement of Alexandria, II, 66.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 23

might have remained shrouded in darkness, had not the
recent papyri studies brought to light an old but forgotten
meaning of vwoaraa^ — title-deeds. 1

In Stromata, II, 18, Clement speaks of Christian ethics,
especially of the Christian virtues. He enumerates ex-
pressly four virtues, — piety, liberality, justice, and human-
ity. Several times in the chapter he speaks of the law that
gave certain prescriptions for the exercise of virtues, e.g.,
from the "first fruits" the priests of the Old Law were to
be maintained. Then passing to the Christian law he em-
phasizes the idea that the Christian law is also humane, —

that HUMANITY IS COMBINED WITH THE CHRISTIAN VIR-
TUES. The famous text where VTrocnacn^ is used occurs in
an illustration of this doctrine. Clement takes his analogy
from horticulture. By the civil law, newly planted trees
were to be nourished three years in succession, and no fruit
was to be plucked till the fourth year ; this fruit was to be
reserved to God as the fourth year's lawful tribute. Clement
then applies these facts to Christian life. In the fourth
year the virtues which are the fruit of ttuttls (piety, liber-
ality, justice, and humanity) are consecrated to God (justice
and humanity are connected), the fourth viroa-Taai^ of the
Lord: H Terpas toov apercov tcaOiepovTai too deeo, ttj<; rpiTTjs tjStj
/jlovtjs a-vvairrovarj^, eiri ttjv tov Kvptou TerapTrjv vrroo-Tao-LV.*
The parallel expresses this idea : since the fruit of the fourth
year is by law dedicated to God as first-fruit, so the four
virtues are dedicated to God as (eirt, with the Ace. can here
only express finality) 3 the fourth TTroaraai*; of the Lord,
or as the fourth year's lawful viroaraat,^. According to the
meaning of viroo-racn*; in earlier documents and in Clement

1 Cf. Moulton, Egyptian Rubbish Heaps, 27 sq., after showing that Gren-
f el and Hunt in their Papyri-studies have given us a new meaning for mro-
<rTa<rts, says : " In other words this word may be translated title-deeds."

2 Migne, P. G., 8, 1037 B.
8 Cf . Pape.

24 THE PAULINE PISTIS

himself, the term could express the real possession, the

REALITY BELONGING TO THE LORD. But the addition of

the idea of the law in this instance suggests the only possible
meaning to be that which we find also in the papyri, namely,
the lawful property, or the title-deed of the Lord.
This title-deed, however, includes absolutely the reality
of the possession ; it emphasizes rather the legality, the law-
fulness of the fact that this reality belongs to God.

Finally, in the light of these two usages of the term vtto-
<TTacrL<; can we reconstruct Clement's interpretation of eXiri-
£ofjL€va>v viroGTaais of Heb. xi, 1 ? As already noted, Clement
equated his definition of wiotk (the representation or

PRESENTATION OF A SPIRITUAL REALITY) with Heb. xi, 1.

Furthermore, the choice of Clement's interpretation of vwo-
(TTacns e\7n£ofJ>€V(0v lies between the two meanings of the term
viroaraa-^ (as used by him), which senses, when taken in
connection with our text, would yield : 1. irtaris is the rep-
resentation of the reality of things hoped for; 2. itlctti^
is the (lawful) title-deed for the reality of things hoped
for.

Whichever of the two meanings we accept, the sense of
the two formulae is essentially the same. For whoever has
•7rtcrTfc5, has the reality of things hoped for, except that the
second formula adds the interesting observation that the
possessor of irians is not only in possession of the REALITY
of things hoped for, but that he is in possession lawfully,
— that he has a right to this possession. We may here
quote the words of Moulton : * " This word (u7ro<7Ta<rt?) may
be translated title-deeds. Can we not see what depth of
meaning that puts into the word ? 4 Faith is the title-deeds
of things hoped for ' — men and women who received a
promise from God counted that promise as being the title-
deed to something they could not see yet, but which they
were going to see some day."

1 Op. cit., 28.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 25

Lastly, Clement's interpretation of eKiri^ofievoyv VTroo-Tao-is
of Heb. xi, 1, either as (a) the representation of the

REALITY OF THINGS HOPED FOR, Or (6) the TITLE-DEEDS TO

the reality of things hoped for, completes and illus-
trates what we found to be the most common meaning of
vTroo-raais in the preceding writers, viz., the emphasis of

REALITY IN CONTRAST TO NON-REALITY.

With Origen we enter the epochal field of Patristic lit-
erature in which wiroaTa<ns became the technical term for
" Person " in the Christological and Trinitarian contro-
versies. It is not less important to the exegete than to the
dogmatist to realize that in the process by which vKOdTaai^
took on this technical meaning, the previous sense of the
term {reality in contrast to non-reality) controlled the devel-
opment. To the dogmatist it is important in so far as it
gives the historical reason for the employment of wirovTaais
as a term of distinction in the Trinity, and to the exegete
it is interesting to see how the basic meaning of virocrTacn<;,
elsewhere maintained, in these controversies controls the
development of the term as * Person." Accordingly, within
the limits of this interest to the exegete the meaning of
viro<TTa<n<; in the Christological and Trinitarian controversies
is pertinent to the exegesis of Heb. xi, 1.

As far as I can ascertain, Origen is the first writer to use
viro<TTacn<; as a term of distinction in the Godhead. In the
words of Bigg, 1 " the word for Person in Origen is com-
monly Hypostasis." The constant use of wToo-rao-i? to ex-
press the Personal distinction of the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost occurs in the first three chapters of Origen's
De Principiis. In Be Princip., I, 2, the Son is called the
Wisdom of God. But lest some think that this Wisdom is
a mere quality of the Father, he remarks, De Princip., I, 2,
2, u Let no one imagine that we mean anything inmbstanti-
vum? when we call Him the Wisdom of God." We could
i Op. cit., 163 sq. 2 Migne, P. G., 11, 130 B.

26 THE PAULINE PISTIS

translate simply : u Let no one imagine that we mean any-
thing unreal.''' But he continues, "If then it is rightly
understood, the Only-Begotten Son of God is the Wisdom
hypostatically existing (substantialiter)." * What we must
conclude from these two instances, although they are pre-
served only in a Latin translation, is that Origen considers
vwocrTacns (= substantia) as the emphasis of the real,
individual, or personal existence. Where he uses it as
an expression for the Personality he indirectly includes the
emphasis of the reality, since the reality is the conditio
sine qua non for the Personality.

Origen also uses virooTaai's in the sense of guarantee,
which shows that although the term was used by him so
largely in the sense of Person, still it retained its previous
meaning. In Contr. Cel., VI, 56, he says that God may send
external evils for pedagogical reasons, as fathers chastise
their children to bring about conversion. Thus, in the evils
sent against Jerusalem the Jews had the vrroaracns in these
sufferings from the enemy for their being brought to repent-
ance : T77V VKQGTaaiv e^ovra ev tols airo tcdv TroXe/Mcov
irovois, irpo<Ta<yoiAevoi<$ avrois et? €7rL<TTpo<j>r]V. 2 Here vrroa-racn^
clearly means the guarantee of a future reality,
which in our case is repentance.

Whence we may conclude that in the general use of
the term trrroa-raac;, Origen understands by it reality or
guarantee of A future reality, and even as the tech-
nical term for person, the old meaning of the word, the

EMPHASIS OF REALITY IN CONTRAST TO NON-REALITY, is

apparent.

Origen also quotes Heb. xi, 1 in his Commentary on the
Epistle to the Romans. Unfortunately, this is preserved to
us only in a Latin translation by Rufinus. It is not a strict
exegesis of our text, and under ordinary circumstances it
should be passed over with the aforesaid observation, were

1 Migne, P. £., 11, 130 C. * Berl. Ed. Origen, H, 127.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 27

it not for the fact that from the context it seems to favor an
interpretation of eXiri^o/JLevcov viroo-Tao-is which is followed by
later writers, namely, the foundation of things hoped
for. In discussing the plight of Abraham, when in his
old age he was promised a son, Origen remarks that from
the natural point of view the patriarch could only despair.
But on considering the promises of God, hope sprang up in
him and he believed. It is in connection with this state-
ment, viz., that as in Abraham's case so in all others hope
is inseparably connected with Faith, Heb. xi, 1 is quoted:
Apostolus coniungit et spem, sciens fidei spem insepara-
biliter cohaerere, sciens et in Epistola ad Hebraeos idem
docet dicens: est autem fides sper and arum rerum sub-
stantia, indicium NON apparentium. 1 Further on our
author shows how faith, hope, and charity are connected :
Et puto quod prima salutis initia, et ipsa fundamenta
fides est ; profectus vero et augmenta aedificii spes est ;
perfectio autem et culmen totius operis charitas. 2 From
this evidence it would not be legitimate to conclude that
Origen understood ekin^ofievoDv viroa-TaaL^ of Heb. xi, 1 to
be the foundation of things hoped for, which is the
interpretation of our text found in later writers and cham-
pioned (as the chief meaning of the term viroaraaL^ by
no less a theologian than Stentrup. 3 I cannot accept this
explanation of Origen's interpretation for the following
reasons :

1. Origen is comparing faith, hope, and charity by
an analogy. The analogy is between the general doctrine
of salvation and an edifice in which FAITH is compared to
the foundation (Et puto quod firma salutis initia, et ipsa

•

i Migne, P. (?., 14, 980 C

2 Migne, P. <?., 14, 981 A.

» F. Stentrup, Zum Begriffder Hypostase (Zk. Th. I (1877)), p. 73, " Wir
diirfen fur ausgemacht annehmen . . . dass sie (uir<xrra<rts = Fundament)
die urspriingliche ist, und die gewohnliche war."

28 THE PAULINE PISTIS

fund amenta fides est) ; hope to the added parts of the
structure (profectus vero et augmenta aedificii spes est) ;
and charity to the finished product (perfectio autem et
culmen totius operis charitas). So in applying this con-
nection between fides and spes to Heb. xi, 1 (for Origen
used our text to show that faith and hope are inseparably
connected) one could say only at most that faith is like a
foundation for things hoped for, because the statement
of the connection between faith and hope is only an
analogy.

2. Foundation is not the ordinary meaning of sub-
stantia (yTToaraa-i^ in the writings of Origen. We have
found that our author employs viroo-Taais to express the

EMPHASIS OF REALITY IN CONTRAST TO NON-REALITY, and

also in the technical sense of person.

3. The notion that v7ro<rracn<; means " foundation " is
based on the false popular philology that derives the term
quite correctly from verb vfacrTavai, but then assigns to it
an incorrect meaning. Hatch * has shown that the term is
derived from vfaaravai and expresses emphatic existence or
reality.

Hence, we conclude that Origen did not give a strict in-
terpretation of Heb. xi, 1 in this passage. He used our
text merely to show from Scripture that faith and hope
are inseparably connected.

As a disciple of Origen, and later as head of the Cate-
chetical School and Bishop of Alexandria, Dionysius is
interesting for the current notion of VTroaracri*;, not because
he has left us an exegesis of our text, but rather in this that
he introduced into the Trinitarian and Christological con-
troversies the preceding meaning of the term (an emphasis
of reality in contrast to non-reality) by verbally

1 Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian
Church, p. 275 : ' ' The term Hypostasis is the conjugate of the verb
V0irr«MU, which had come into use as a more emphatic form than eirot."

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 29

contrasting viroaTaai^ with avvrroo-Tarov. In his Epist. ad
Paul. Samosat,, our author says that the Word, Wisdom,
and Form of God are not the word, wisdom, and form of
man. The former have an individual existence: Dei
autem forma, Verbum ipsius et sapientia Filius Dei et
Deus idem ipse confidendus est. 1 Whereas this is not true
of man — his word, wisdom, power, and form are insubsis-
tentiale8 partes of his make-up: verbum enim hominis et
sapientia et virtus et forma insubsistentiales partes unius
hominis aspiciuntur. 2 Here " insubsistentiales " (avviro-
crTard) 3 means a quality not having individual exist-
ence. Whence we see that for Dionysius VTrocrrao-i^ is
characterized by an emphasis of individual existence
in contrast to non-individual existence, or by a reality
in its completeness.

Although Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria, did not
leave us an exegesis of Heb. xi, 1, still his characterization
of the essence of the term wiroaTaais must be noted. In his
Letter to the Bishops of the Arian Blasphemy (preserved
by Theodore t), Alexander first notes that the Father and
the Son are two inseparably existing realities, a^aptcrTa
irpay^iara Bvo. 4 Then he goes on to say that the Word can-
not be included in the things which were made out of noth-
ing, as John proved when he said, " All things were made
by Him" (John i, 3). For John showed the proper mode
of His vTroa-racns when he said, " In the beginning was the
Word, etc.": Trjv yap iBiorpoirov avrov wrrocrTacnv eBrjXcoaev
eiTrcov • Ep ap%r) r\v o A070?, icai A070? rjv 777309 top @eoz>. 5

What is the meaning of wiroaTaa-is here ? The sense may
be given in three propositions :

1 Migne, P. £., 28, 1562 D.

*Ibid.

8 Petavius has preserved or reconstructed the Greek text : Aoyos yap
avdpuirov, /cai <ro<pia kcu 8vva.fj.is, xai fiopcpTj avvir o a r ar a ftepy tov evos avdpw-
irov dewpeirai. Cf. De Trinit., Lib. IV, C. 8, p. 195.

4 Migne, P. G., 82, 893 B. 6 Ibid.

30 THE PAULINE PISTIS

1. T7roo-Ta<m is something which can be predicated of a
7rpayfia, i.e., of a REALLY EXISTING THING.

2. The viroa-Tacns of the Son demands that He be distin-
guished from all created things. Therefore, the Son's viro-
araais is from one point of view characterized by eternal

PREEXISTENCE.

3. The MANNER OP THIS ETERNAL PREEXISTENCE is

described as the proper manner of the Son's v7roo-Tacn<;,
i.e., ev apxv V v ano ^ V v irpos tov 6eov. These modes of ex-
isting in His preexistence explain how He was, i.e..
His individual and preexisting reality, His divine
personality. Individuality and preexistence con-
cern the t8toT/307ro?, whereas viroo-Taa-^ must mean reality
or personality. Note how individuality, i.e., complete-
ness, is again connected with the notion of reality.

Like Dionysius and Alexander before him, Athanasius
has not left us an interpretation of Heb. xi, 1 ; still, as he
was the center of the Christological and Trinitarian contro-
versies which gave rise to the new meaning of viroaTaa^, his
notion of the term must be noted, especially since he practi-
cally abandoned the technical sense of the term and often
returned to the older sense of irjroo-Tao-ts as the emphasis of
eivai. In his letter Ad Afros. 4, Athanasius decisively
identifies vn-oo-Tao-is with ovaia and explains them both as
the EMPHATIC REALITY : H £e VTroo-Taai? ovaia eari, /cat
6" ovBev aWo o-^fiacvofievov e%€L t) avro to ov. 1 This shows
clearly that vTroo-raai^ means nothing else than the to ov =
the reality. Then, as if this were not clear enough, Atha-
nasius identifies both VTroaTaais and ovaia with wrap^is in a
reference to Jeremias. 2 This makes it unmistakably clear
that viroaTaam is reality, since virap^ 3 is the ORIGINALLY
EXISTING REALITY, an EMPHASIS of the TO OV.

i Migne, P. G., 26, 1036 B. * Ibid.

3 Cf . Schumacher, Christus in Seiner Praexistenz und Kenose, nach
Phil., 2, 5-8.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 31

As Defender of the Faith, Athanasius, in the words of
Gregory Nazianzus, took the practical attitude, " getting at
the meaning behind the terms used." 1 A practical instance
of this attitude, and at the same time a most remarkable
example of the meaning of virocrracn^ in the theological con-
troversies, is the trial of the two parties (one held for rpeis
VTroa-Tacreis in the Trinity and the other for fiia viroa-Taai^)
just before the Council of Alexandria. Those who main-
tained that there were Tpeis VTroa-Tacre^ in the Trinity were
asked whether they understood it like the Arians in the
sense of three diverse substances, as gold, silver, and brass,
or like the older heretics, as three gods. They answered
that they never even imagined such queer things. And when
asked, " In what sense, then, do you use such expressions ? "
they answered, "Because we believe in the Holy Trinity,
not as a Trinity in name only, but in truth and REALITY^ —
the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost truly and really ex-
isting : Ata to et? ayiav TpcaBa Tria-revecv, ov/c ovo/nari, T/ot-
a8a fiovov, a\X' a\r)0co$ ovaav /cat v<f>€o-TCD<rav, Tlarepa
T€ aXrjOcos ovra icai v<\>eo~T(OTa, kcli Tiov aXrjOcos evovaiov ovra
kcli u^>€<TTft)Ta, icai Uvevfia ayiov vfacrTcos kcli virap^ov oiSafiev" 2
Here the old notion of mroaTaat^ as REALITY is put in strik-
ing relief, tirocrraa-^ is used for a TRUE REALITY (T<£e-
o-Ttoo-av), since the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost each have

a TRUE REALITY, which TRUE REALITY in its EXISTENCE

is expressed by forms derived from vfyiaTavai (the stem for
vrroaracrt^ — emphatic existence). 3 Hence, we conclude
that Athanasius is a strong witness for the old meaning of
viroo-Tao-i? as the emphasis of the REAL.

Although Eusebius has not written an interpretation
of Heb. xi, 1, still we cannot leave entirely unnoticed his
remarkable witness to the usage of vttocttcktis in the sense

1 Of. Gregory Nazianzus, In Laudem Ath., 36 ; Migne, P. £., 35, 1126 B.
2 Migne, P. 6?., 26, 801 B.
3 Cf. Hatch, Op. cit, p. 275.

32 THE PAULINE PISTIS

of REALITY in contrast to non-reality (avviroo-raTov) . In
Qonstantine *s Oration to the Saints, 6, Eusebius says that
in the face of the most harmonious order observable in
nature chance has no meaning. For he asks, " Shall we dare
to say that all things happen by chance (avroiiarov), though
we be unable to show by what shape or form this chance is
characterized : as it is a thing which has no viroo-Taaris either
in the intellect or in sense perception — a thing which rings
in the ears as an empty sound : wiroaraaiv ovSe/xiav e^ov ovre
voepcos ovt aia6wT<D<;, /jlovov 8* on ?7%o? ovo/jLaro? avvTroaraTov
irepi ra (ora /So/i/Set." 1 Chance has, therefore, neither a men-
tal nor a visible wrroo~Tao~is, which can here mean only "no
mental nor visible reality," it is only an empty word, a
word which in itself has no reality (avviroaTaTov). We
see here the word vTroo-rao-i? clearly used to emphasize
reality in striking contrast to its negation, non-reality
(avviTQcnaTov) .

Besides giving an exegesis of our text, Cyril of Jerusa-
lem applies the old sense of vTroo-Taais as the emphasis of
reality IN contrast to non-reality to the Trinitarian
problem. In Cat. XI, 10, he says that the Father begot the
Son, not as among men mind begets word. For mind is
substantially existent in us ; the word when spoken is dis-
persed into the air and comes to an end. But we know the
Christ to have been begotten not as a word pronounced, but
as a Word existing (evviroaraTo^ and living ; not spoken by
the lips and dispersed into the air, but ev virocrTacrei begot-
ten of the Father eternally and ineffably : H/i€t? he oihapev
top XpMTTOv yewnOevra Xoyov ov 7rpo(f>opL/cov, aXXa Xoyov
€M7ro(TTaTOV /cat ^eovra 9 ov %eiXeo-i XaXnOevra tcai hia^v-
Oevra, aXX' e/c Uarpo? atStto? tcai av€K(f)pao-Too<;, kcu ev viro-
aTaorei yevvwOevra. 2 Although viroaracri^ is used here in
the sense of person, the original meaning (reality in con-
trast to non-reality) is still clearly evident. For in con-
1 Berl. Ed., Eusebius, I, 161. 2 Migne, P. <?., 33, 701 B.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 33

trast to the avvirocrraTos ^070? pronounced by human lips,
which loses its reality by being dispersed into the air, the
Eternal Word is called the evwiroo-TaTos A070?, the Word
really existing and retaining reality.

As the text for his Lecture on Trio-res, Cyril chooses Heb.
xi, 1. Although this lecture is not a strict exegesis of our
text, yet both ekin^oixevcov vrroaraa^ and eke^xp^ ov /3\€7ro-
fievcov receive a general elucidation. In Cat. V, 3, Cyril
enumerates what, it must be remarked, are the classical
examples of ttigtis throughout the Patristic literature. 1

1. By ttkitv; the laws of marriage yoke those who have
lived as strangers ; and by reason of tticttis in marriage con-
tracts a stranger is made partner of a stranger's person and
possessions.

2. By 7T£0-Tt?, also, husbandry is sustained, incnei kcli yecop-
yia avvLararaL. 2 For he who does not believe that he shall
receive a harvest endures not the toil.

3. By 7T£0-Tfc? seafaring men trusting to the thinnest plank
exchange the most solid element, the land, for the restless
motion of the waves, committing themselves to unevident hopes
(ahijXoLS eavrovs eTrihihovres eXiriai) 3 and carrying with them
a 7rtcrTt9 more sure than any anchor.

In the first instance, Tna-ra seems to have a meaning which
we have already met with in Clement of Alexandria and in
the papyri : title-deeds. For this tthttis is the guaran-
tee for the reality of the person and the possessions. In
the second example, we have clearly the meaning anticipa-
tion of reality. This anticipation gives the farmer the

1 The following authors use the same examples of Trto-ns, which are simi-
lar in cases to an identity of language : Origen, Contra Gel. I, 9 ; Rufinus,
Com. on the Apostles' 1 Creed, 3 ; Augustine, Be UtU. Credendi, chs. 1 and
2 ; Arnobius, Contr. Gentes, 2 ; Eusebius, Praepar. Evangel., I, 5, and XII,
chs. 1, 2, 3; Chrysostom, Horn. I, In Tim.; Theodoret, — transcribes Cyril
of Jer. in Be Curandis Graec. Affectibus, Orat. I, Be Fide; Gregory the
Great, Bialog., IV, 2 ; John Damascene, Orthodox. Fid., IV, 11.

2 Migne, P. G., 33, 508 B. * Ibid.

34 THE PAULINE PISTIS

courage to endure the hardships of his work. Yet in both
of these cases " fiducia " would yield a sufficiently clear
sense. But in the third example, reality is emphasized.
For here we have in aSrjXois = " unevident " an element that
we found before: "what is not seen," "what is not pres-
ent " becomes visible and present. And we have in €7tiBl8op-
tc? a trust which includes certainty of the existence of the
thing " not seen," which is still further explained as " surer
than any anchor."

Hence, we see that in both the Trinitarian problem and in
his lecture on 7tuttk, which has for its text Heb. xi, 1, Cyril
understands by vrroaTCMns an emphasis of reality in con-
trast to non-reality. Accordingly, his exegesis of our text
should very probably be rendered : faith is the reality of
things hoped for (the anticipation of the reality of future
things), or, faith is that which makes real u things hoped
for."

The same emphasis of reality in contrast to non-
reality, as the primary meaning of vttoo-tcktk;, is set
forth by Basil in a special study of the term, (a) in its
general usage, and (6) in its application to the Trinitarian
problem. This is the theme of Epist. XXXVIII to his
brother Gregory, a letter which the Council of Chalcedon
read with reverence and instruction. 1 Herein Basil points
out the fundamental difference between vrroaraais and ovaia
to be this : What is common to numerically different sub-
jects is ovglcl, and what is proper to each subject is viroo-rao-L^.
Thus " man " is common to Paul, Timothy, and Sylvanus.
Whatever indicates the ovaia of Paul may also be applied to
the ovaia of Timothy and Sylvanus. What they have in
common is the ovaia — "man." When one turns to the
differentiating properties whereby Paul, Timothy, and Syl-
vanus are distinguished one from another, we shall find that
the definition by which each is known will no longer tally.

1 Counc. of Chalcedon, Part HI, c. 1.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 35

That which is spoken of in a special or peculiar manner is
indicated by the name Hypostasis : Tovto tolvvv (fxifiev • To
iSloos Xeyofievov too tt;<? viroaTaaeoos hrfXovadai prj/ian. 1 Then
by way of illustration, Basil suggests that if one were to say,
u Man," the indefinite meaning of the word would strike a
certain vague sense upon the ears. The nature is indicated,
but the concrete thing which really exists and which
manifests reality under the name (man) is not pointed
out. But this is the vttoo-tckti*;, viz., to 8e vfyeaToo*; tcai hrfXov-
fxevov iSloo? viro tov ovofAaros 7rpay/JLa 2 ; that which manifests
the Trpayfia is the reality under the mere name. Here the

REALLY EXISTING THING (to V<f>eo~TO0<;~) and the MANIFESTED
REALITY (8r)Xov pevov 18100s vtto tov ovo/jlcltos irpaypia) are the
two principal elements of woo-Tact,?. Then Basil continues,
" Should one say * Paul,' he would point out the really ex-
isting nature that goes by that name : O 8e TiavXov enroov,
ehet^ev ev too 8t)Xovjjl€voo vtto tov ovo/jlcltos TrpayfiaTi vfao-Tcocrav
tt]v <f)vaiv Tovto ovv eaTiv 77 vrroaTaaL^.^^ Here the REALLY
EXISTING nature (y<f)€o-Tooo-av ttjv <f>vcriv) in the CONCRETE RE-
ALITY, as it is manifested by the name Paul (ev too BrjXovfievoo
viro tov ovofiaTO? TrpaypaTi), is clearly pointed out. In both
of these definitions of vrroo-Tao-i? these two elements seem to
be paramount:

1. That which really exists (to 8e v<f>eaToo<s of the
first, and vfaa-Tooaav ttjv fyvaiv of the second definition).

2. THE CONCRETE REALITY (SrjXovfievov 18100s vtto tov ovo-
fiaTO? irpay\ia of the first, and ev too 8tfXovfievoo vtto tov ovofia-
tos irpayfiaTi of the second definition).

The first is clearly the element of reality in viroGTa(n<i,
because both vfyeo-Toos and vfao-Tooaav are forms of the stem
vcfaa-Tavai (emphatic existence = reality), which is also
the stem from which vrroo-Tao-is is derived. 4 The second is
the reality (irpayfjia) manifested directly by the name.

1 Benedictine Ed., Basil, HI, I, 166 B. 3 j&id.

2 Ibid. * Cf. Hatch, Op. eft., 276.

36 THE PAULINE PISTIS

Basil then illustrates his definition of viroaracns by appli-
cation to the Trinitarian problem. He points out what the
Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity have in common and
what peculiar notes distinguish them hypostatically. The
Infinite, the Uncreated, the Uncircumscribed are all qualities
of their common ovaca. These they have in common, but
only the Father has irarpoTT)? ; only the Son has vlottjs, and
only the Holy Ghost has eKTropevcris. The viroaracn^ is seen
in these thiayfjuara of the Persons : H he viroaraat^ ev tco ihioo-
fian T77? 7raT/>OT?7TO?, 77 rrjs ftOT^TO?, 77 T775 ayiacm/cr)? hwafxecos
Oecopeirai. 1 Now we come to the crucial point in the exposi-
tion of the meaning of viroo-rao-^. " Merely to enumerate
the different Persons is not sufficient," says Basil, " we must
also confess each Person to have a natural existence in
TRUE HYPOSTASIS: Ov yap e^apicei hia<f>opa$ irpoacoTrcov cnra-
pi0fjLT)aracr6cu, aWa yjpr) e/cacrTOv irpoacoirov ev viroarraaec
aXrjOivr) virap^ov ofioXoyecv." 2 To deny that the iSico/ua has
real existence was precisely the error of Sabellius, who
admitted and indeed spoke of different Persons. But these
irpoacoira were avviroa-raTa^ — mere names to designate the
various metamorphoses of God Who was indeed one in mat-
ter : E7T€t tov ye avvrroo-TCLTOV rcov nrpoacoircov avairXacr fiov
ovhe o Sa/SeXXto? TraprjrrjaaTO, earcov tov avrov Oeov, eva tco
viroKeifievoo ovra, 7T/oo? tcls eicao~TOTe irapairiirrovcra^ %peia$
fLeTa/jLopcfrovfievov, vvv fiev a>? Uarepa, vvv he a>? Tlov, vvv he &)?
Uvev/jca ayiov hiaXeyeadai. 3 But to say that the Persons of
the Blessed Trinity are avviroo-rara is absurd (ei fiev ovv avv-
iroaraTa Xeyovaiv ra irpoaooira^ avroOev e%ei, Xoyos tttjv clto-
iriav)^ because V7rocrTa<n? demands that the chico/jLara of the
Blessed Trinity really exist. In fact, in De Spiritu
Sancto, XVIII, 4, Basil simply defines the viroo-Tao-is of the
Holy Ghost as a rpoiro^ tti? VTrapgem, a "mode of REAL
existence." This is the conclusion of his argument wherein

1 Benedictine Ed., Basil, IH, II, 467 E. 3 Ibid.

2 Ibid., 458 A. 4 Ibid., 467 E.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 37

he describes the iBmo/jlo, of the Holy Ghost to be the " One
Proceeding" from God as "breath from the mouth." By so
explaining the matter, says Basil, the close relation is made
plain, while the mode of ineffable existence is safe-
guarded (rov Be TpoTrov tt)<; VTrapgecos apprjTOV <j>v\aaaofievov^).
As the sequel will show, T/007J-0? T775 v7rap^eco<; will become one
of the classical equivalents for the term viroo-Tacns in the
Trinitarian controversy.

In conclusion, we may say that in Basil's classic study of
u7rocrTacrt?, both in its general usage and in its application
to the Trinitarian problem, the term primarily means the

REAL EXISTENCE IN CONTRAST TO NON-EXISTENCE.

In the writings of Gregory of Nyssa we meet the most
striking exegesis of eXirt^opLevcov vn-ocrTaaLs, as the GUARAN-
TEE OF THE REALITY OF THINGS HOPED FOR. This note-
worthy interpretation occurs in Contra Eunomium, XII,
where Gregory maintains that Christian ttio-tis is the vrro-
crTaai<; of " things hoped for " and not of things known : H Be
tcov XpMTTiavcav ttlo-tls, ov% of to)?. Ov yap tcov yivcocricofJLevcov,
aWa tcov eXirt^ofievcov ecrTtv virocrTaais * to Be Bia/cpaTOVfievov
ovk ekirc^erai, O yap e%ei *m, <j)rjaij ti /cat eXiri^ei ; 1 For a
thing altogether under one's control (BiaKpaTovpevov) and
which one has as his own (e%et), why hope for it? This
suggests that eXiri^o/jbeva are in the nature of possessions,
though only in a limited sense. This is the function of
7ucra?, — to make these limited possessions real and absolute
by means of viroaTacri*;, which Gregory next explains in the
clearest exposition of the matter we have yet seen in the
exegesis of our text : u But that which escapes our compre-
hension, ttlo-tl^ makes our own QqneTepov)." Then he adds
the reason, — " By its own proper firmness guaranteeing
(eyyvcofxeva) that which is unseen": To Be 8iacf>evyov ttjv
KaravorjcrLV rjfjicov, rj fierepov rj tticttl<; iroiei, Bta tt}<; tSia?
y8e/3cwoT77To? €77 v co fxevrj to fir) (fratvofjuevov. 2 Thus by 7rto-Tt?
1 Migne, P. G., 45, 941 C. 2 Ibid.

38 THE PAULINE PISTIS

" hoped-for things " become our possessions QqixeTepov) by
guarantee. Uio-tis by reason of its fixing things solidly in
our mind (by some kind of presentation, since they are also
called /it} (fxuvopeva) is the guarantee of the unseen
reality. In a word, 7rto-Tt? is the guarantee of the

REALITY OF THINGS HOPED FOR.

This understanding of Gregory's interpretation of viro-
o-Taais as the guarantee OF reality is confirmed by
another instance of his use of the term in connection with
TTLcrTLS and ekins. The passage is found in Contra Eunomium,
I, where he speaks of hopes lacking reality (avviroa-raTaL
ekiriBes), because they depend for their viroo-Tacns on a fool-
ish faith (7rtcrTt? naraia), which in turn is based on the
empty heretical teaching {icevov Krjpvyna) that the Son is
inferior to the Father : Ovtodv yap tcov toiovtcdv, fiaraca /iev w
7rto"Tt?, Kevov Be to /crjpvy/ia, avvTroararai Be at eXinBes, at
Bia T779 7rtc7T€a)? rrjv viroo-rao-Lv exovai. 1 If the Son is inferior
to the Father, our hopes lack their true virocrTaa^, their
true reality, since they are based on a foolish irians ;
whereas a true itio-tl^ furnishes a true v7roo-Taats and conse-
quently the reality of the thing hoped for. Thus the
contrast of a foolish irians, which makes the objects of hope
unreal, with the effect of the true irians, which gives REAL-
ITY to them, is put in emphatic relief.

John Chrysostom improves on the exegesis of Gregory
of Nyssa and all the preceding authors who understand
v7roo-Taai<> to mean primarily reality by pointing out that
irians through VTroaraa^, not only gives reality to u things
hoped for," but is also their ovaia. It is of some inter-
est to remark, in passing, that Chrysostom links the two
parts of Heb. xi, 1, eXirt^ofxevoyv wirocnacris and e\ey%o<; ov
fiXeTrofieveov, making the second explanatory and confirma-
tory of the first. In Homil. XXI, 2, on the Epistle to the
Hebrews, Chrysostom interprets eXirify^ievcov vTroo-rao-is,

1 Migne, P. £., 45, 340 B.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 39

showing that it is the office of ttigtis to see things not seen
visibly by the senses in such a way as to make things " not
seen " as real as those that are seen. For just as it is im-
possible to disbelieve in things seen, so no one can be said to
have 7rto-Tt?, unless he is as fully assured with respect to
things invisible as he is to things visible. And the reason
for this is that irians gives vrroa-Taai^ to objects of hope,
which seem to be unreal (avwirocrTaTa), or rather does
not give them i/7roo-ra<m, but is their very being : FiTreiBrj
yap tcl ev eXiriSi avviroaraTa eivai Bo/cei, rj ttktti^
viro<TTa<TLv avrois ^api^erai' /xaWov Be, ov ^api^eTai,
a\\' avro €(ttlv ovaia avreov. 1 This is a most striking
explanation. Chrysostom even insists that we should give
things of Faith, which are invisible, a greater assurance than
we give to visible things. And this is the reason, — tthttis
gives reality (yiroaraa-is:') to these objects of hope which
seem UNREAL (awiroGTara eivai Bo/cei), or better, 7tio-ti<; is
their very being (ovaia).

Then Chrysostom illustrates his exegesis by the example
of our resurrection at the last day, which has not yet
come, nor does it EXIST IN REALITY (ev VTrocrraaei), but
hope makes it really exist in our SOULS : Oiov, 77 ava-
o-racris ov irapayeyovev, ovBe ecrnv ev vrroaTacrei, a\V 77 eXiri^
v<f>i(TT7](Tiv avTTjv ev TTj ?//i€T€/oa ^t^??. 2 The resurrection at
the last day, of course, does not yet exist in reality (ovBe
ecrnv ev viroGTao-ei), but eXiris causes the resurrection to be
real (vfaoTTjo-iv) in our souls. This clearly shows that
mans through vrroaTa<Ti<; does not make " things hoped for y
real objectively, but rather real subjectively. Just as our
resurrection at the last day has not yet occurred, nor
exists in reality, so objects of hope are things of the
future, and do not really exist yet, as seen in the ordi-
nary way, but nevertheless they do really exist after the
manner in which 7ricrTt5 causes them to exist in the soul,
1 Chrysostom, Vol. 22, 322. 2 Ibid.

40 THE PAULINE PISTIS

viz., by giving them ovata in the soul. In a word, ttlcttl^ is

the REPRESENTATION of a FUTURE REALITY in the SOUl,

which is as real to us as the visible universe.

Cyril of Alexandria in his interpretation of our text
insists upon one point, viz., whatever is the object of hope
or of Faith must be free from all questioning. In his Com-
mentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. xi, 1), he
says : " Whatever has been received by ttio-tis, ought to be
beyond curious meddlesomeness, and to overbold investiga-
tion it ought not to be even the subject of question. For
whatever is yet questioned (to £wtov/j,€vov) is not tticttls. For
anything which is subject to testing, how can it still be be-
lieved ? To ye /xrjv tticttu irapahe^Oev airoXvirpayiJLOvrjTov
eivai XPVt oX)C ov Opacrvrepais wcnrep €fc/3ao~avi&iv epevvais.
Ilto-Tt? yap ovk en to ^rjTov/jLevov. To yap tol y@a-
aavi^ofMevov 7ro)9 cti ireTna-TevTai ; " 1 In this passage the
object of 7rtcrTt? is described as that which is free from
all QUESTIONING (^Tovfxevov) and TESTING (fiao-avi&tievov). 2
These expressions sound natural, if they are used for visibly
evident realities, which we can perceive through our senses.
It is surprising that they are used for the invisible objects
of tticfti^ and e\7rt? . The force of the expression is strik-
ing : By 7rto-Ti? and eXjris their respective objects become as
evident and real as visibly evident realities in ordinary life-
They do not make and produce these realities, but they
represent them as evident realities to those who have ttlo-tl^
or e\7ri?. Hence, ttigtis and eX7m are the means that pre-
sent to us realities, otherwise unknown to us. Cyril con-
firms this interpretation by further comparing iria-TL^ and eX-
7m, saying that if eXirt^ is " seeing things without question,"
then surely it ought to be true of 7rto-Tt?, "which is alto-
gether free from test": Ovirep yap Tpoirov e\7rt? ^Xeiro^evri
a^wTrjTov, irio-Tis ovk av etrj KaTa top lgov ekirihi \oyov ; to
yap TriGTei T€Tifirj fxevov (Bacravov 7raz>TG>? e\ev9epov?
i Migne, P. (?., 74, 989 C. 2 ibid, 3 ftia., 989 D.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 41

This understanding of Cyril's interpretation is confirmed
by Cyril's notion of viroaraa-Ls as REALITY, expressed in
his Commentary on St. John, Lib. V, c. 5. Here, speak-
ing of the Son of God as the Word and Wisdom of the
Father spoken in Him, Cyril says that the Word is not
avu7Too-TaTo?, as the human word, but living and having
its own existence (wrapgiv) in the Father and with the
Father : Kat eireiirep ecrrcv ov/c avviro err euros (oairep o
avOpairivos, aXX* evovcrios re /cat £cdv gj? iBcav e%cov ev TLarpc
teat fiera Harpos rrjv TIIAPEIN. 1 In this context viroa-Taais
means even more than reality. The human word is cer-
tainly real to some extent. But it has not the iSiav virap^iv.
Thus virocTTacns supposes a complete, individual, and perfect
reality. So we conclude that ekiri^opevcov vrroaTaaLS, for
Cyril, meant the perfect reality of things hoped for, or

THAT WHICH CAUSES THINGS OF HOPE TO BE PERFECTLY
AND COMPLETELY REAL.

As an interpreter of our text, Theodore of Mopsu-
estia is of no value, since he merely gives the author's reason
for discussing itlo-tc; in this Epistle. Yet this reason is of
some interest to us, as it seems to foreshadow at least vaguely
a later exegesis of Heb. xi, 1, viz., confidence in Christ,
which justifies in opposition to justification by works. The
reason assigned for a special treatment of Tn<TTL<s is that the
Hebrews had a false idea of justification. Their doctrine
was that men were justified by works, whereas ttlcttls was
given as the cause of justification by the Christians who were
wont to say: "Even if bound by a thousand evils, one be-
lieving his lot to be alone with Christ (jno-Tevo-as povov
XpLOTTco avvropov) receives delivery from all sins, being made
worthy of justification through Him : Tovto \eyovres, otl kclv
fjLVpiois rt? eve'xrjrai /ea/cot?, 7rtcrT€fcra5 povov Xpiorrco avvropov
airavrwv Several ttjv a7roWayr}V, tv? irap avrov Bifcaicocreats
afyovpevos." 2 It is hard to say just what Theodore meant,
i Migne, P. G., 73, 844 B. 2 Jfrtf,, 66, 965 B.

42 THE PAULINE PISTIS

But the use of the term Trio-revcra? (trusting), for the expla-
nation of 7T£o-Tt? (in the sense that those who have ttmttw shall
find delivery from all sins), seems to point to the meaning
fiducia for viroo-Taai^. We shall find this exceptional and
remarkable notion very late again in the Middle Ages.

In his interpretation of our text Theodoret sums up the
exegesis of Clement of Alexandria and John Chrysostom.
Like Clement, Theodoret wrote a special treatise on faith,
Pro. Cur. G-raec. I, Hepi IluTTecos, and from the same point
of view, viz., that irians is approved by classical Greek antiq-
uity. His dependence on Clement in the general treatment
of the theme, in the quotations cited, and in definitions for-
mulated, amounts, in cases, to an identity of language. And
what is most important is that he accepts just that definition
of 7rto-T4? which Clement gives as an equation of Heb. xi, l. 1

Theodore t's words on Heb. xi, 1, in his Commentary on
the Epistle to the Hebrews are as follows : Those things which
we do not see (by the senses), we see by means of 7tc<tti<;;
and for the viewing of things hoped for, Tucrm becomes for

US an EYE SHOWING AS REALLY EXISTING (ft)? V<f>e<TTG)Ta)

things which have not as yet happened : Ta yap ovx opcofieva
Bta ravTT}? opcofJLev, Kat 7r/?o? ttjv tcov eXirL^o/jievcov Oecopiav 03>-
GAAMOS TjfiLV yuverai, /cat Bei/cvvcnv £22 T*ESTQTA ra firfBerrco
yeyevrjfieva. 2 In " things hoped for," ttkjtv^ becomes for us
an eye seeing as realities (ft>? vfaaTcora) things which
have not yet happened. In other words, viroaraaL^ is the
factor that represents to us realities otherwise unknown.
It is the representation of reality. Our author becomes even
more expressive in Diog. I, where he thus answers the ques-
tion : Is there a difference between wirocrTaais and ovata? :
H re yap ovaia to ov o-rj/iawei, icai to ik^cctto? rj viroa-raai^.^

1 In Pro. Cur. Graec. I, Theodoret thus defines tkttis : Kara 5e tqv rtixe-
repop \oyov ttkttis eariv ckovo-ios ttjs ifsvxv* o'vyKaradea-is. Migne, P. (?., 83,
815 A.

2 Migne, P. £., 82, 757 A. 3 j&^., 83, 33 B.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 43

T(/>e<rro? is emphatic reality. Hence, for Theodoret, viro-
a-rao-is is the EMPHASIS of REALITY. Ukttls is that which
causes "things hoped for" to be perfectly real. But as
" things hoped for " are also invisible, they must be repre-
sented to us by something analogous to the eye, if we are to
see them. Theodoret, like Clement of Alexandria, uses the
picture of the u spiritual eye " which represents " things
hoped for" to the mind as realities. In a word, tticttis
presents a reality in its proper sphere, as our senses present
realities in their sphere.

Then, like Chrysostom, Theodoret illustrates his exegesis
of our text by the example of the resurrection of the body
at the last day. Hlo-tls paints for us beforehand the resur-
rection of all those now lying in their graves, and makes
visible the immortality of bodily dust : Tcov vetcpcov airavrcov
ev tols Ta<j>oi$ en (ceifievcov, rj ttccttls tj/mv 7rpo£coypa<l>eL
tt}V avacrracriv, /cat rr)<; /coveoos tcov (roofxarcov ttjv adavaaiav
7rapa<rK€va%€i (ftavTa&o-Oat. 1 The resurrection is brought
into our mind by the anticipating representation-work
of irians (7r/3of«a)7/)a</)€t), as a future reality already seen
(<\>avTa%ecrdai). Hums causes this object of hope, the resur-
rection, which has not yet occurred, to exist really for

US BY ANTICIPATION.

Thus, for Theodoret, ttio-tls (as e\in^ofiev(ov viroaraaLs)
means that faith is the (spiritually) visible reality of
things which have not yet happened, the anticipation of a

FUTURE REALITY.

The traditional meaning of vwoaraa-a as the EMPHASIS
OF REALITY IN CONTRAST TO NON-REALITY is very pithily

set forth by Leontius of Byzantium in De Sectis, actio VII.
Here the author gives two definitions to both vn-oa-raat^ and
avviroaraTov. Tiroaraa^ means either (a) simple existence
— to a7r\a)? oi>, 2 or (0) existence per se as an individual —
to /cad y eavTo ov. s Here we see that a thing which is evwiro-
i Migne, P. <?., 82, 757 B. * Ibid., 86, 1240 D. ■ Ibid.

44 THE PAULINE PISTIS

araTos (yiroo-Taais^), is fundamentally connected with the
idea of existing reality, either as that which simply
exists or that which exists per se as an individual.

Awiroararov also has a twofold meaning, AXka tcai to avv-
Troo-TdTov Sittov : *■ (a) That which exists in no way, as the
fabulous goat-stag or the centaur, Xeyerai yap avvTroaraTov,
/cat to fiTjBaficos ov, &)? rpayeXacfros /cat iiriroicevTavpos ; 2 (6) That
which has not its own vrroaTao-is, but has viroaracn^ in another
thing, or that which per se does NOT EXIST: Aey erai iraXiv

aVVTTOCTTaTOV, OV TO fjLT] OV /JL6V, TO €%OV Se €V €T€p(D TTJV VirOCTTa-

aiv, Kai fjiTj ica6' eavTO vfaaTafievov. 8 It could hardly be shown
with more clarity that avviroo-TaTov is predicated of some-
thing that lacks real existence, either no existence at

ALL, Or AN IMPERFECT EXISTENCE IN SOMETHING ELSE.

In this citation Leontius unmistakably witnesses to the
interpretation of t>7roo-Tao-t? as real existence in verbal
contrast to awrrocrTaTov, that which lacks PROPER EXISTENCE,
OR IS ALTOGETHER FICTITIOUS.

With even more precision than Leontius of Byzantium,
Maximus Martyr defines viroaTaais in terms of existence,
as to eivai and wirapfys (the emphasis of eivai). In Dialog.
I, 2, Maximus distinguishes between vrroo-Taais and ovaia in
terms of EXISTENCE: H fiev yap viroo~Taai^ to eivai arj-
liaivei ' V Be OeoTrjs to tl eivai. 4 Here are the Trinitarian
terms :

To eivai signifies u quis est."

To ti eivai signifies * quid est."

Tiroo-TaGi? means the reality of perfect individual exist-
ence. We have here viroo-Taais completely in the atmosphere
of the Trinitarian terminology. But the original meaning is
still evident: the deoTrjs signifies the essence, and VTroaTacris
means the individually existing thing.

i Migne, P. <?., 86, 1240 D. 3 ibid.

2 Ibid. 4 Migne, P. G., 28, 1120 A.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 45

As Theodoret summarized in his interpretation of our
text both the exegesis of Clement of Alexandria and John
Chrysostom, so John Damascene has summarized the com-
mon Patristic notion of u7roo-Ta<m, and applied the same briefly
in the explanation of ekiri^ofxevcov vttoo-tcktu;. Chapter 42 of
the Damascene's Dialectica is entitled Tlepi TiroaTaaeaiq.
Here the author distinguishes two senses in which VTroaTacris
has been used: (a) Simple EXISTENCE, rrrore fiev rrjv clttXghs
wirapfyv /cad* o crrj/jLcuvo/jLevov tclvtov ccttlv ovaia icai virocr-
Tao-t?. 1 The fact that viroo-racn^ and ovena have V7rap%i$ in
common, no doubt explains why they have been so often
identified; (6) individual and emphatic existence;

Il0T€ he TTjV KdO' aVTO KCLI lhLOGVGTCLTT)V VTTaptyv. K.aO' O

(rrjfJiaivofjLevov to cito/jlov BtjXol, tod apc0/JLQ) Scafapov, rjyovv tov
YieTpov kcli UavXov. 2 In these two definitions of viroGTacn^
we see the common element reality (yirap%i<$)\ and it is
clearly under the influence of the Trinitarian problem that
John Damascene distinguishes VTrocrTacrcs as simple reality
and the Trinitarian virocrTao-is as the INDEPENDENT REALITY.
But in both cases vrroaTao-is is reality, and a reality
in contrast to non-reality. This is obvious from the
Damascene's notion of avviroaTaTov. Chapter 45 of the
Dialectica is devoted to this term (llepi avviroaTaTov^). It
also has two senses: (a) That which exists in no way,
IIoTe fiev yap to firjSafjir] fnj&afjLcos ov arjfiaiveL, rjyovv to
avvirap/cTov. 3 Just as viroaTaais is fundamentally virap^is so
avviroaTaTov is rightly called avvirap/CTOs; (J) That which
does not exist in itself but in another, as an accident,
LIot€ Be to firj ev eavTco e%ov to eivai, a\V ev eTepco e^ov Trjv
virapgiv, rjyovv to avyL^eQrjKov.^ But possibly the Damascene
explains the second kind of avviroaTaTov with even greater
clarity in Dialectica, c. 29, where he says that it lacks its
proper EXISTENCE, Aey eTat, iraXtv avviroaTaTov Kai to

i Migne, P. O., 94, 612 B. 3 Migne, P. G., 94, 617 A.

*Ibid. * Ibid.

46 THE PAULINE PISTIS

avfjLftefirjtcos, Blotl to o-vfifieftrj/cos ovk €^€i lSlclv vrrapfyv, aW
ev ttj ovaia vcfreo-Trj/cev. 1 Again we find that aw7rocrraTO? is
defined in terms of non-existence, either no existence at
all, or an imperfect existence. We conclude by saying
that u7roo-Tao-i5, for John Damascene and for the Greek
Fathers as a whole (since his theology is a "mosaic of
citations" 2 from the best ecclesiastical literature in Greek),
means an emphasis of existence (reality) in contrast to

NON-EXISTENCE (UNREALITY).

The Damascene's commentary on Heb. xi, 1 is this short
but comprehensive statement which unites the two parts of
our text: II ktti? is impossible to one who is not more fully
convinced about invisible things than he is regarding those
that are visible: Av yap fir) rt? todv opco/j,epa)v o-afyearepov irepi
rcov aopaTGW TreirXv po(j>oprjra^ irians eivai ov 8vvo,tcu. z This
exegesis with its contrast of opcofjuevcov and aopartov seems to
apply not only to ekeyxps ov fiXeTrofievcov, but it applies also
to eXTrL&fjLevcov VTroo-rao-is . In fact, it unites the two parts of
the verse. This we gather from the Damascene's idea of
f7roo-Tacrt?, as derived above, and from the contrast which he
draws between the certainty regarding visible and that
regarding invisible things. The contrast is between the
certainty about visible things and the greater certainty re-
garding invisible things. But we ask, what is the object of
the certainty in both cases ? Obviously, it is the existence
of things visible and invisible. And more strictly the con-
trast is between the certainty about the existence of things
visible and the certainty of the existence of things invisible.
On the one hand, the existence of visible things is made
certain by the organs of visual perception, and on the other
hand, the existence of invisible things is made certain by
7rt<7Tt?, which causes " things hoped for " (included in things

iMigne, P. <?., 94, 589 C.

2 Harnack, Dogmengesch. (English Translation, IV, 265, ft. n. 1).

3Migne, P. <?., 95, 980 C

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 47

unseen) really to exist for the soul. In a word, irians is
an incontestable proof of " unseen things," because through
vTTotTTatTis they are made heal (by spiritual perception) to
the soul.

Summary of the Greek Patristic Literature

The results of our investigation of the Greek Patristic
interpretation of ekin^o^evoav wirocrTacns may now be sum-
marily noted:

1. In the oldest Patristic literature, that preceding the
technical use of wiroaTao-is as person, the term meant either
existence and reality in contrast to non-existence and
unreality, or something connected with possession:
Letter to Diognetus, Tatian, Irenaeus, and Clement of
Alexandria.

2. During the period when viroo-Tao-is became the technical
word for person, and afterwards, (a) the older meaning of
v7ro(TTacn<; is observable in literature not dealing with the
Trinitarian and Christological controversies: Eusebius, Cyril
of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil, and
John Damascene; (6) and even in the process by which
v7ro<rTa<Ti<; was selected to designate " person," the older sense
of the term controls the development to the extent of identify-
ing virocnacn*; with virapfys and with to ov, and of contrasting
viro<TTa(TL<; with avvTroaTarop: Origen, Dionysius of Alex-
andria, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil, Gregory of
Nyssa, Leontius of Byzantium, Maximus Martyr, Cyril of
Alexandria, Theodoret, and John Damascene.

3. In both periods wiroaTaais meant GUARANTEE, title-
deeds, ANTICIPATION and REPRESENTATION OF A FUTURE
reality, when the term was used in connection with things
of the future: Tatian, Athanagoras, Papyri, Clement of
Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Cyril of
Alexandria, Theodoret, and John Damascene.

4. We were able to find only one doubtful exception to

48 THE PAULINE PISTIS

this common Greek Patristic notion of viroaTacns, viz. , that
of Theodore of Mopsuestia who probably used it in the sense

of CONFIDENCE.

5. RXTTi&fjLevow wjrocTTao-is in Heb. xi, 1 expresses that
fundamental characteristic of wio-ris whereby " things hoped
for " are made real by representation, or by anticipa-
tion of A future reality. Hence, Faith is the spirit-
ually VISIBLE REALITY OF THINGS HOPED FOR. This is

substantially the Greek Patristic exegesis of our text:
Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom,
Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, and John Damascene.

With the possibility of one exception (Theodore of Mop-
suestia), the practical unanimity among the Greeks in the
exegesis of our text is striking, especially when we consider
the hopeless confusion of the modern interpretation of Heb.
xi, 1. In every exegesis of this verse the interpretation
hinges on the term VTroo-racris. The Greeks, "who would
have the most lively sense of the requirements of the lan-
guage," 1 employed this pivotal term, as we have abundantly
shown, according to the current meaning, viz., as reality in
contrast TO non-reality, and in things of the future
(which include " things hoped for "), as the guarantee for
the future reality of things in question, or anticipa-
tion of future reality.

2. In the Latin Fathers

The Latin Patristic exegesis of ekin^o^evayv viroa-Tams
while meager is, nevertheless, in agreement with the Greek
Patristic interpretation.

Tertullian in De Cultu Feminarum, II, 2, uses the ex-
pression "tota fidei substantia." We are not sure that the
author had Heb. xi, 1 in mind here. Yet the fact that this
is not only the first instance in the Latin Patristic literature
where fides is qualified by substantia, but also the example

i Lightfoot, Epist to the Phil., 134.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 49

on whose authority a later interpretation of " rerum speran-
darum substantia " (firma expectatio * ) is based, de-
mands that we consider this passage.

In this chapter, Tertullian elucidates the general theme
of book II, viz., that modesty is to be preserved not only in
its essence, but also in its accessories. The reason for such
conduct is then noted, viz., Christian women, though secure
themselves, ought through motives of charity to abstain
from such studied grace as leads others into sin. He says that
they should walk so holily and with the entire substantia
fidei, as to be secure in their conscience, hoping that mod-
esty remain in them, yet not presuming : Debemus quidem
ita sancte et tota fidei substantia incedere, ut confessae et
securae simus de conscientia nostra optantes perseverare id
in nobis, non tamen praesumentes. 2 It is difficult to say
what Tertullian understood by substantia in this passage.
But the following considerations may lead us to an approxi-
mate conclusion :

1. The more general meaning of substantia in the Latin
world is possession. Thus Petavius says of substantia in
Jeremias, IX, 10, " Ita LXX qui virap^ hie habent, eaque vox
substantiam, id est possessionem signiflcat. Hoc enim
sensu saepe in Latinis Biblis substantia ponitur." 3

2. As a jurist and as a theologian, it is probable that Ter-
tullian used substantia in our passage in the sense of posses-
sion. For speaking of the introduction into theology of
the legal terminology — substantia and persona — by Ter-
tullian, Harnack has well said : " Substance ... is in the
language of the jurists not anything personal, but rather
corresponds to * property ' in the sense of possession, or to
essence as distinguished from the manifestation or status." 4

1 Hugo Grotius, Critici Sacri, VII, Part II, p. 1131.

2 Migne, P. £., I, 1432 A.

3 De Trinitate, IV, III, II, 171 (De Theolog. Dogmat.).

4 Op. cit., IV, 144 sq.

50 THE PAULINE PISTIS

3. That POSSESSION is a very common meaning of sub-
stantia in the writings of Tertullian is shown by the usage of
the word in non-Trinitarian contexts. Thus in Apolog.,
XXXIX, Tertullian contrasts the brotherly spirit of the
Christians, who give freely of their wealth for religious pur-
poses, with Pagan rivalry over money matters. He says,
" We are considered to have no claim to the title of Brother-
hood because the family possessions (substantia familiaris), 1
which generally destroy brotherhood among you, create fra-
ternal bonds among us." Here substantia unmistakably means
possessions. Hence, we conclude that Tertullian used
"tota fidei substantia" in the sense of entire possession
of faith. This interpretation harmonizes with the context.
For Tertullian seems to explain the phrase, " tota fidei sub-
stantia " by its effects : (a) " ut conf essae et securae simus
de conscientia nostra " ; (6) " optantes perseverare id in
nobis, non tamen praesumentes." "Tota fidei substantia,"
as the cause that makes Christian women "confident and
secure in their conscience," " desiring without presuming to
persevere in the virtue," may well be explained as a posses-
sion of FAITH.

Ambrose quotes Heb. xi, 1, when speaking of substantia
in the parable of the prodigal son, which he employs to
refute the rigorist teaching of the Novatians. Heretics are
likened to prodigals that have gone far away from their
home to wander in strange lands. Then our author com-
ments thus on " he wasted his substantia " : M Rightly, for
whose faith halts in bringing forth good works does con-
sume it, since faith of things hoped for is a substantia,
substantia can here only mean " fortune," a u possession."
Then he adds a further explanation : faith is the argumen-
tum of things not seen. Ambrose's .text follows : Et
consumpsit, inquit, substantiam suam. Merito consumpsit
earn, cuius fides in operibus claudicabat: fides enim eorum

l Oehler, I, 262.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 51

QUAE SPERANTUR SUBSTANTIA EST, RERUM ARGUMENTUM

non apparentium. 1 This " argumentum " can have the
ordinary meaning "contents, materia," or the secondary
meaning "evidence of a fact." "Contents" seems to be
preferred here, as harmonizing best with " possession." Then
Ambrose goes on to explain our text: Et bona substantia
fides, in qua spei est nostrae patrimonium. 2 Here "sub-
stantia" is evidently again synonymous with "possession,"
it being indifferent whether u patrimonium " has its general
meaning " fortune," or its original meaning " inheritance —
inherited fortune." In "faith" we have the "fortune" the
"possession " of that for which we hope. Hence, " substantia,"
in so far as it is a qualification of Fides in Heb. xi, 1, is that
which makes the contents of our hope a "possession," a
"fortune" to us. This exegesis resembles the Greek, in
which irurm is the presentation or anticipation (here antici-
pated possession) of a future reality.

It is Augustine who says in his Enchiridion, c. 8, that
Heb. xi, 1 is the standard definition of faith in the estimation
of many Fathers : In epistola quippe ad Hebraeos, qua teste
usi sunt illustres Catholicae Regulae defensores, fides esse
dicta est Convictio rerum quae non videntur. 3 The omission
of e\7n£ofjLev(ov viroaTaGis in his citation of the text is striking,
and in this we see an example of Augustine's general tend-
ency to omit the first part of the verse and to emphasize
the second. And even when our author quotes the first part,
he cites a strangely variant text : sperantium substantia.
Thus in De Pecat. Meritis et Remiss. II, c. 31, 50, 4
Augustine quotes sperantium substantia and understands
it in the sense of fortitudo sperantium. What is the
meaning of "fortitudo" here? In this chapter Augustine

i Migne, P. Z., 16, 521 B.
*Ibid.

3 Migne, P. £., 40, 235.

4 TJrba et Zycha, Vienna Ed., Vol. LX, 120, 20.

52 THE PAULINE PISTIS

explains why it is that death itself along with sin is not
abolished in baptism. The reason he gives is that the " for-
titudo" of Faith would be diminished: Sed si hoc fecisset,
carni quaedam felicitas adderetur, minueretur autem fidei
fortitude 1 For men have such a fear of death, that they
would believe in Christ for nothing else than to be immune
from dying. This would make Faith only a source of sen-
sual pleasure (delicatius credere tur in Christum). 2 In the
light of the context it becomes clear how fortitudo, in con-
trast to sensual pleasure, is to be explained : it has its ordinary
meaning — courage, courageous energy, bravery (not simple
firmness). This again elucidates Augustine's idea of sub-
stantia. He evidently takes it as a derivative of substo, " to
stand firm," u to hold out," and substantia is the power to
"hold out." Hence, we see that in this passage Augustine
understands by sperantium substantia the power to stand
firm for those hoping. This new exegesis of our text de-
pends largely on the variant reading.

The Greek Patristic exegesis of Heb. xi, 1 is substantially
found in Jerome's interpretation of our text. Jerome gives
it in his Comment, in Epist. ad G-alatas, Lib. Ill,' c. 5, in
connection with the list of the " fruits of the spirit " (Gal.
v, 22, 23). In this list "spes" is omitted. But this omis-
sion need not be wondered at, says Jerome, since " spes "
is contained in fides : Nee mirum si spes in hoc catalogo
non referatur ; cum in fide sit quod speratur ; et ita earn
Apostolus ad Hebraeos scribens definiat : Est autem fides
sperandarum substantia rerum, argumentum necdum appa-
rentium. 3 Then Jerome explains that Faith by way of pos-
session appropriates these things of the future (" things
hoped for ") : Siquidem id quod speramus esse venturum, et
necdum est in praesenti, fide possidemus, sperantes nos tenere
quod credimus. 4 Obviously, " substantia " is here used to

i Urba et Zycha, Vienna Ed., Vol. LX, 120, 20.
2 Ibid. 3 Migne, P. i., 26, 448 C. 4 Ibid.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 53

signify the manner in which things hoped for, though

OF THE FUTURE, ARE POSSESSED NOW THROUGH FAITH.

This manner of possessing future things in the pres-
ent has been expressed in similar language by the Greeks,
as the anticipation of a future reality. Here we have it
expressed even more plastically, as the " anticipating posses-
session " (fide possidemus) of a future reality.

At first sight, from the Latin Patristic use of substantia, it
might appear that the Latins had lost the clear understand-
ing of the original Greek notion of Hypostasis. But that
later on they understood the Greek notion of the term is
sufficiently clear from Rufinus, H. E., I, 29. Here our
author in narrating the history of the Council of Alex-
andria (362) adds an interesting note about Hypostasis.
He says that the Council insisted on distinguishing between
substantia and subsistentia, as the Greeks distinguished be-
tween the ova ta and virocrTacn*;. Substantia was to be under-
stood synonymously with natura, and subsistentia with per-
sona. Especially on account of the Sabellian heresy, they
confessed " tres subsistentes personas," to forestall any sus-
picion that the Council intended to countenance that heresy
which understood a Trinity only in name (in nominibus tan-
tum), and not in reality (non in rebus) : Ideoque propter
Sabelli haeresim tres esse subsistentias confidendas, quod
quasi tres subsistentes personas significare videretur ne sus-
picionem daremus, tanquam illius fidei sectatores, quae
Trinitatem in nominibus tantum, et non in rebus ac subsisten-
tiis confitetur. 1 Rufinus here witnesses to the Latin under-
standing of vrroo~Ta<n<; as meaning reality (in rebus) in
contrast to the Sabellian notion of the Persons as avwrro-
crTara (in nominibus tantum). That Ambrose and Augus-
tine gave an exegesis of our text, in which Hypostasis was
not understood in the Greek sense, may be accounted for by
the fact that they did not go further than the Latin meaning

i Migne, P. £., 21, 500 A.

54 THE PAULINE PISTIS

of substantia (the Latin transliteration of the Greek viro-
araa-Ls'). Besides, for Augustine a strange Latin variant
reading was misleading. It is remarkable, however, that in
spite of the confusion concerning the literal meaning of
v7rocrTacrt?, they have essentially the same interpretation for
the function of fides (7uo-Tt9), — possession or anticipated
possession of a future reality.

Boetius, as the " founder of medieval scholasticism," *
just in this that he translated the Greek philosophical ter-
minology into Latin, is of interest for his translation of the
term virocrTaa-LS, and for the subsequent Middle Age exegesis
of Heb. xi, 1. In Liber de Persona et Duabus Naturis, c. 3,
Boetius gives the following history of VKoaraai^ and its
translation into Latin :

1. Both the ancient Latin (by the term persona) and the
Greek (by the term irpoaaiird) terminology for person in
the tragedies and comedies signified " mask," 2 by means
of which persons were represented. Boetius thus derives
"persona" from " personando," and irpoo-ayira from 7r/oo? and
G>7ra. In a word, "Personae" and irpoaanra were
u masks " put * over the eyes " to hide the face of the actor
when he proposed to represent some other individual : Sed
quoniam, personis inductis, histriones, individuos homines,
quorum intererat, in tragoedia vel comoedia ut dictum est,
representabant : id est, Hecubam, vel Medeam, vel Simonem,
vel Chrementum, idcirco ceteros quoque homines, quorum

1 Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, 632.

2 Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium Primum, c. 14, protests against
the application of "persona" to Christ in the sense of fictitious existence
common to the ancient tragedy and comedy : Sed cum personam saepius
nominamus, et dicimus quod Deus per personam homo f actus sit, vehementer
verendum est ne hoc dicere videamur quod Deus verbum sola imitatione
actionis, quae sunt nostra, susceperit, et quidquid illud est conversationis
humanae, quasi adumbratus, non quasi verus homo fecerit ; sicut in theatris
fieri solet, ubi unus plures effingit repente personas, quarum ipse nulla est.
(Migne, P. i., 50, 657.)

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 55

certa pro sui forma esset agnitio, et Latini personam, et
Graeci irpoa-anrov nuncupaverunt. 1

2. To express the individual subsistence of a rational
nature, the Greeks used a far more expressive term than
irpoaoairov. They used vrroaraa-L?, whereas the Latins, to
express the same idea, by reason of the poverty of their
tongue, continued to use the term " persona " : Longe vero
illi signatius naturae rationalis individuam subsistentiam viro~
era ere o>? nomine vocaverunt; nos vero, per inopiam signifi-
cantium vocum, translatitiam retinuimus nuncupationem,
eamque quam illi viroa-Tacnv dicunt, personam vocantes. 2
Then Boetius quotes a Greek passage to confirm his view:
At ova-Lai, ev fiev Tot? /cad' o\ov eivai hvvavrai, ev Be rots Kara
fiepo? fAovois v<f>io-ravTaL. z That is, essences can be in uni-
versal, but they can exist in reality only in the particular.
Hence, the Greeks designate by the term viroaTacn? only
those subsistences that existed particularly: Quodcirco
cum ipsae subsistentiae in universalibus quidem sint, in
particularibus vero capiant substantiam, iure subsistentias
particulariter substantes viroaraa^ appelaverunt. 4 Here
we see that the basic idea of viroaraai? is the really
existing thing. For the contrast is precisely between the
particular and the universal, i.e., the really existing thing
and the idea of the thing which is gathered from the par-
ticular, as Boetius says, Intellectus enim universalium rerum
ex particularibus sumptus est. 5

3. Boetius notes further: There is a difference between
" subsistentia " and "substantia." " Subsistentia " (overmen?
or ovatoocrOai) does not need accidents to be capable of existence,
whereas, the u substantia " (u7ro<rracrt? or vcfuaraa-da^ serves
as a subject for accidents, so that it can come into existence :
Subsistit enim, quod ipsum accidentibus, ut possit esse, non

i Migne, P. Z., 64, 1343. 4 Migne, P. Z., 64, 1344 B.

2 Migne, P. £., 64, 1344 A. * ibid.

* Ibid.

56 THE PAULINE PISTIS

indiget; substat autem id quod aliis accidentibus subiectum
quoddam, ut esse valeant, subministrat; sub illis enim stat,
dum subiectum accidentibus. 1 Substantia or vrroaTaat^ is the
reality underlying the accidents. Then follow examples of
both " subsistentia " and "substantia": Itaque genera vel
species subsistunt tantum, neque enim accidentia generibus
speciebusve contingunt. Individua vero, non modo sub-
sistunt, verum etiam substant. 2 In a word, "subsistentia" is
a manner of existence, as the genus or species "man," which
can be predicated of the universality of mankind, whereas
"substantia" or wrroaracns is the REALITY which can be
predicated only of some particular man determined by the
accidents of specific difference. Here again we see that
vjroaTCKns means fundamentally REALITY,

4. Boetius then sums up the terminology in the Greek
and Latin equivalents, in the words of Marcus Tullius:
Essentiam quidem ovaiav; subsistentiam vero ovatcoaiv; sub-
stantiam VTroaraaiv; personam irpoaayirov, appellans. 3 Boetius
then applies these terms to man and to God: (a) To man:
Est ovaia quidem atque essentia, quoniam est-, ovaicoac<; vero
atque subsistentia, quoniam in nullo subiecto est; viroa-Taat^
vero atque substantia, quoniam subest ceteris, quae subsistentiae
non sunt, id est oixrtaxret?. 4 In a word, Hypostasis can be
applied to man only in so far as he exists in fact under
accidents which of themselves do not exist independently, but
in a man as a subject. That is, man is an viroaTaaLs in this
that he is & particular man, as, e.g., St. Paul. (6) To God:
Deus quoque et ovata est et essentia; est enim, et maxime ipse
est, a quo omnium esse proficiscitur. Est ovctlcdo-ls, id est sub-
sistentia; subsistit enim nullo indigens, et vtyurracrOaL, substat
enim. 5 That is, virocrracTi^ may be predicated of God in so far
as He exists independently and supports in real existence all
existing things. He is the reality par excellence.

i Migne, P. £., 64, 1344 B. 3 Ibid.

2 Migne, P. £., 64, 1344 C. « Migne, P. i., 64, 1345 A. 5 ibid.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 57

Hence, we conclude that the meaning of wrroo-Tao-LS for
Boetius was fundamentally existing reality. This is
clear:

(1) From his historical note about the ancient under-
standing of " personae " and " irpoawira^ as " masks " repre-
senting REALITIES;

(2) From the Greek terminology — vizoGTaai^, to express
individual subsistence, which the Latins by poverty of
vocabulary signified by "persona";

(3) From the difference between " subsistentia " and " sub-
stantia " — the former existing in universals without accidents,
as u genus ' or " species," and the latter supporting the
accidents in some particular and really extant being, as St.
Paul.

(4) From the fact that wrroaTaai*; can be predicated : («) of
man, in so far as some particular and really existing man is
extant; and (6) of God, in so far as He exists independently,
and supports in real existence all extant things.

Summary of the Latin Patristic Literature

The Latin Patristic literature dealing with u7rocrTa<m
presents, at first sight, a rather remarkable picture, if com-
pared with the Greek.

1. In Tertullian we have substantia = possession with the
moral assurance or guarantee of something.

2. In Ambrose, substantia = simply possession.

3. Augustine has an entirely different text for Heb. xi, 1,
and his substantia = fortitudo = power to hold out, or to
stand firm.

4. For Jerome, the substantia of fides expresses anticipated
possession.

5. For Rufinus, substantia means the reality in contrast to
non-reality.

6. For Boetius, it is the emphasis of the existing reality.

58 THE PAULINE PISTIS

These various meanings for VTrocrraa-^ seem to be confused;
and yet there is unity. With the exception of the exegesis
of Augustine, the entire exegesis is grouped around the two
terms, possession and reality. But these are essentially
identical, since the possession is only a qualified reality, a
reality of which it is predicated that it is possessed, yet it is
a reality.

On the other hand, viroaTao-Ls as reality is the unanimous
exegesis of the Greek Patristic writers. Hence, as far as
the interpretation of Heb. xi, 1 is concerned, the Greek and
the Latin Patristic literatures are in complete harmony.
However, in early Latin writings there seems to be confusion
regarding the original meaning of vtto<ttcl<ti<;. The " substan-
tia " of the Latins could never fully express what viroaTadi^
signified to the Greeks; and, furthermore, the Latin idea of
" substantia " (possession) is only an amplification of the
original sense of u7rocrTa<u?, but not the original notion itself.

Recapitulation

Having completed and summarized the results of the
Patristic exegesis of Heb. xi, 1, we are now prepared to
estimate their value. The principal difficulties of the verse
have always centered on the meaning of wirocrTa<Ti5. Accord-
ingly, we have studied the Patristic exegesis of Heb. xi, 1 in
the light of the current Greek notion of this pivotal term.
The results obtained justify the minute and painstaking
investigation. For we have found a unanimity and clarity in
the Greek and Latin exegesis of Heb. xi, 1, based on the
current meaning of wrroaTacns, which is in striking contrast
to the variety and vagueness of the modern exegesis, based on
the lexical notion of inroaracns. It is another proof of the
value of historical and literary investigation of Scriptural
texts. With the possible exception of Theodore of Mop-
suestia and Augustine (who used a strangely variant Latin
text), the Greeks and the Latins in the light of the most

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 59

ancient Christian notion of viroaTaat^ (as fundamentally
reality) unanimously interpreted ekiri^ofievaiv viroo-Taais
either as the reality of things hoped for, or (by reason of
the fact that " hoped-for things " refer to the future) as the

GUARANTEE FOR THE REALITY OF THINGS HOPED FOR, the
ANTICIPATION OF A FUTURE REALITY, Or the ANTICIPATED
POSSESSION OF THINGS HOPED FOR.

JL\7ri£ofji€V(ov VTrocrracris, then, is an expression used in
Heb. xi, 1, to describe the manner in which " things hoped
for " become real to the believer through faith. It is best
expressed in these words : faith makes real, by spiritual

REPRESENTATION, THINGS HOPED FOR, Or in view of the fact

that " hoped-for things " are matters of the future, this more
plastic expression has been used : faith is the anticipation

OF THE REALITY OF FUTURE THINGS.

The second part of our text, eXeyxos ov f3\e7rofAevcov, has
never presented much difficulty. It means the proof

WHICH CANNOT BE QUESTIONED OF THINGS UNSEEN. It is

explained by the Patristic interpretation of the first part of
the verse, i.e., the reason why faith is an incontestable
proof OF things unseen is the fact that by €\7ri^ofji€vcov

VTTOO-TCKTU; faith MAKES THINGS HOPED FOR SO REAL TO THE

believer, by spiritual representation, that it consti-
tutes the INCONTESTABLE PROOF FOR THE EXISTENCE OF
THINGS UNSEEN.

The investigation into the Patristic interpretation of
Heb. xi, 1, in the light of the most ancient Christian notion
of viro(TTa<TL$, is valuable not only as the most important
stage in the exegesis of our text, but also as the closest link
to the literary milieu in which Heb. xi, 1 was written ; and,
as such, it establishes a probability that this was also

THE MEANING OF THE AUTHOR.

It will be interesting to see if in the next period, the
Middle Ages, the Patristic exegesis of ekin^oiievaiv vjroo-Taa-is
is maintained, or whether it gives way to new interpretations.

60 THE PAULINE PISTIS

3. In the Exegesis of the Middle Ages

In view of the practically unanimous Patristic under-
standing of viroGTcuiis as reality, it should not surprise us
to find it repeated in the exegesis of our text during the
Middle Ages. At any rate, if new interpretations arise, it
will be interesting to notice how they explain themselves
historically. The Patristic exegesis, with its roots in the
Koivq &a\e/eTo?, is historically in touch with the literary
milieu of Heb. xi, 1. Can new interpretations stand under
this historico-literary test ?

Walafried Strabo (849) in his G-lossa Ordinaria on
the Epistle to the Hebrews, considers Heb. xi, 1 to be a
description of Faith : Hie est laus et commendatio fidei, cuius
descriptionem ponit. 1 For Strabo, three things are here
predicated of fides, viz., (a) Quid efficiat in nobis ; (6) Quod
fundamentum est omnium bonorum, and (<?) Et quod et de
non apparentibus est. 2

What is of immediate interest to us is the first and the
second, because they are the exegesis of "substantia spe-
randarum rerum." Strabo makes the interesting remark that
even in the Epistle to the Romans, fides is called " substantia
sperandarum rerum." 3 Then he continues : Id est, causa
quae res sperandas faciei quandoque subsistere in nobis; quod
est dicere : f aciet nos consequi f utura bona. Et proprie dicitur
fides substantia, quia sperandis substat, et faciet ea esse in
credentibus in alia vita. 4 In a word, Fides is "substantia
sperandarum rerum," because it makes " things hoped for ,!
real to the believers ; it gives " things hoped for " reality
of existence. In this exegesis of " substantia sperandarum
rerum" we can recognize the current Greek exegesis of
our text, viz., the anticipated reality of "things hoped for,"
although the derivation of substantia from substare shows a
lack of understanding of the literal meaning of VTroo-rao-is.

I Migne, P. £., 114, 663 B. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 61

Secondly, faith is the foundation of all good things, which
no one can change, and without which there can be no
building ; or, faith makes " things hoped for " to exist in
the heart of the believer : Et est fundamentum omnium
bonorum quod nemo mutare potest, et sine quo non est bona
aedificatio : vel, speranda iam facit esse in corde credentis. 1
That is, Faith as the foundation of all good things is
equated by Faith as the cause which makes " things hoped
for " to exist in the heart of the believer. This is a note-
worthy equation, because it may explain the exegesis of
those who like Origen spoke of " substantia sperandarum " as
the " fundamentum iustitiae." Substantia, as a fundamentum,
must be considered a derived sense of substantia (yiroaracn^i)
which means primarily reality. For it is a very signifi-
cant fact that those who interpret substantia (yiroaraai^ in
our text as fundamentum usually do so in the light of the
doctrine of justification. So Origen 2 probably explained it,
and so Strabo in what follows : Fides est causa sperandarum,
quia causa iustitiae per quam sunt speranda. 3 Hence, " sub-
stantia" means "fundamentum" only by adaptation, in the
light of the doctrine of justification, or, at most, it was in
view of the fact that "substantia" (yTroo-racris') caused
44 things hoped for " to exist in the soul that the derived
sense of Fides as the fundamentum iustitiae arose.

We conclude that Strabo understood Fides to be " sub-
stantia sperandarum rerum " in the sense that Fides causes

" THINGS HOPED FOR " to EXIST IN REALITY in the SOUl of

the believer. In the Greek Patristic literature we find
ttuttl*; as the factor presenting future realities, whereas, we
have here Faith, as the factor directly producing {faciet)
these realities.

Hrabanus (856), in his treatise, In Epist. ad Hebr., inter-
prets our text in the very words of John Chrysostom with

i Migne, P. X., 114, 663 C. 3 Migne, P. Z., 114, 663 C.

a Migne, P. G., 14, 980 B.

62 THE PAULINE PISTIS

the exception that he uses " scientia " where the other has
oucna. The following reason is given for the use of sub-
stantia in Heb. xi, 1 : as "things hoped for" are considered
devoid of substantia (sine substantia), Faith gives them sub-
stantia ; nay more, it does not merely give it to them — it is
the scientia of them : Quoniam ea quae sunt in spe, sine
substantia esse putantur, fides eis tribuit substantiam ;
magis autem non eis tribuit, sed ipsa est scientia eorum. 1
Then, in the words of Chrysostom, follows the example of
the resurrection of the body at the last day, which Faith
makes to subsist in the soul. 2 It is evident from the con-
trast, " sine substantia " and " scientia" that " scientia "
here means the perception of the reality of things
hoped FOR. The old Patristic idea of Faith, as a super-
natural eye by which we see things in their reality, is
easily recognized here. For " sine substantia," as a charac-
teristic of the object of hope, points to a contrast between
the natural eye, that cannot see the reality of things
hoped for, and Faith, that gives the "scientia" of the
object of Faith in the same way as our natural eye gives the
" scientia " (the perception) of the reality of things seen.
Faith represents things as really existing, although
they may seem to be "sine substantia" (without reality).

The Greek Patristic exegesis of our text is strikingly
given by Oecumenius (X century) in Comm. in Epist. ad
Hebr. This author not only insists that wrrocnacrt*; means
REALITY IN CONTRAST TO UNREALITY, but he also points

out how "things hoped for" are made real, viz., by mak-
ing them to be present. First of all, Oecumenius says
that starts is called the ovata and virocrTaats of " things
hoped for " : II terns ecrrtv avrv n viro enacts /cat ovata rcov
€\7rt£ofjL€vcov s 7rpayfJLaTcov.* Then he goes on to explain that

i Migne, P. Z., 112, 788 B. * Ibid. 3 Migne, P. G., 119, 401 D.

4 It is of interest to notice that rrpayfiarwv is here connected with eXwifrfxc-
vup, not (as in the more common text) with pXexonevwv.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 63

" things of hope " are without REALITY (awiroarcna), so long
as they are NOT present (/i77 irapovra); but ttlcttl^ becomes
both the ova-ca and the viroarao-LS of such things BY MAKING
THEM TO EXIST (eivai) AND TO BE PRESENT: ~Ei7reL8rj yap
ra ev ekiriaiv avvirocrraTa ccttlv, g)? t€G>9 fir} irapovra, rj 7rt<7Tt?
ova La Tt5 avTcav tcai rj vnroaraaLS yLveraL, eivai avra /cat
irapeLvaL rpoirov riva irapaa/ceva^ovaa, Sia tov TnareveLV
eivai. 1 Ulo-tl$ is not only the reality of things hoped for,
but by VTToaraaL? it also makes them REAL BY MAKING
them present. In a word, we find here again the remark-
able exegetical formula of the Greek Patristic literature :
HlcttlS = reality, or the ANTICIPATED reality of things
HOPED FOR THROUGH THE PRESENTATION OF THESE THINGS
TO THE SOUL.

In the briefest formula Theophylact (c. 1100) sums up
the Greek Patristic exegesis of our text in Expositio in
Epist. ad Hebr. c. XI : Aolttov xmoypafyerai vjjllv rrjv itlgtlv,
K.ai <f)rjaLV otl ovaLeoaLS earL rcov fJLTjTrco ovtcov icai viroaTaaui
rcov fir} v<f)€CTT(OTcov. 2 Faith is the factor that makes those
things real (ovo-Lcoo-ts 3 ) that do not yet exist (tow /irjira)
ovtwv). But ttlo-tls not only takes "things hoped for" out
of the class of mere imaginary figments of the mind (t<ov
fjLr)7ra> ovrcov) by giving them reality (ovo-taxr*?), but in
what follows Theophylact shows emphatically that the
anticipated reality of things unseen exists (yiroaraa-Lfi
rcov firj v<$>eaT(OTG>v) . For vwoa-raaLS and vfao-rcoTcov are both
derived from vfaaravaL = emphatic FORM OF eLvai, and in
our text ttlcttls gives EMPHATIC EXISTENCE (vTroaraaL^ to
those things of hope which do NOT yet so exist (firj v(f>eo~Ta)-
Toav). With this understanding of Theophylact's interpreta-

i Migne, P. <Z., 119, 401 D.

2 Migne, P. G., 126, 340 D.

3 Coming from ovaiow, "to give reality," the term ovaioxr ts is the power
that gives reality to things of hope which are both future and unseen by
natural eyes. Cf . Pape.

64 THE PAULINE PISTIS

tion of eKTTi^o[jLev(ov virocrTacris in mind, we can see more
clearly the aptness and force of what, since John Chrysostom,
has become the classical example of the Greek exegesis of
our text, viz., the resurrection of the body at the last day :
Olov 7] avaaraai^ ovtco vfaaTytcev, a\X* n ttlo-tls v^iara avrrjv,
/cac 7T/30 ocfrOaXfJLcov 7)/mv TiOrjo-i. 1 The resurrection does not

yet REALLY EXIST CONCRETELY (ovra> V<f>e<TT7]fcev^, but TTL(TTL$
makes it to SUBSIST (yfaarci) and PLACES IT BEFORE OUR
eyes (jrpo o(f)0a\fJLQ)v rj/jLLv tlOvo-l) in such a manner that we
are more fully convinced about its reality than we are
about the things we see with the eyes of the body. For
things placed before our physical eyes and perceived by
them are undisputed realities, yet even more so are things
seen by the eyes of Faith.

This classical example of the Greek exegesis of ekin^ofie-
vcov viroarraaLS proves to what extremes the Greeks went to
show that viroGTaais meant fundamentally reality.

Hugo of St. Victor (1141) is interesting in this, that
he shows how Fides can be "substantia rerum sperandarum"
for future, present, and past objects, respectively :

1. Fides is properly the " substantia " of future things,
because through it we know that they are : Et ideo proprie
Fides substantia futurorum dicitur, quia per earn scimus quod
sunt. 2 It is the same idea that Hrabanus before him ex-
pressed in the words : Fides is the " scientia " of " things
hoped for " — the perception of the reality of things

HOPED FOR.

2. Fides can be called u substantia rerum sperandarum "
for present or past objects, because it makes the " things
hoped for" to subsist in us: Fides etiam de praesentibus, vel
praeteritis potest dici substantia rerum sperandarum . . .
id est causa, quae res sperandas faeit subsistere in nobis. 3 This
is a step further : Fides not only makes things real, but
also present (immediately existing in us). Thus we find

i Migne, P. (?., 125, 340 D. * Migne, P. X., 175, 629 D. 3 75^.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 65

that Hugo of St. Victor emphasizes the traditional Greek
interpretation of eXiri^o^evcov wrroaTacn*;, viz., FAITH IS THAT
WHICH MAKES " THINGS HOPED FOR " REAL AND PRESENT.

As a student 1 of Aristotle, Plato, and Boetius, Gilbert
de LA Porree (f 1154) is interesting in his interpretation
of ekTri&fievav vTrocrTaais. In his commentary on Rom. i, 17,
he quotes Heb. xi, 1, and interprets it in the light of the
traditional Patristic exegesis. He says that it is a causative
usage of Fides, when we say that by it we embrace with such
great certitude things that we do not yet have, that they sub-
sist in us as " had " : Huius vero fidei tam est efficax usus, ut
ea quae nondum habemus, sed a nobis sperantur habenda,
tanta certitudine amplectamur, ut per ipsam tanquam habita
in nobis subsistant 2 Notice here in strong terms the Greek
Patristic explanation of VTroaraais, as THAT WHICH CAUSES
" THINGS HOPED FOR " TO BE REAL BY MEANS OF POSSES-
SION, PRESENTED OR ANTICIPATED. Here the ANTICIPATED

possession, as the means by which these things of hope are
made real to us, is emphasized (tanquam habita in nobis
subsistant).

The interpretation of " substantia rerum sperandarum " in
the Middle Ages is pointedly summarized in the splendid
exegesis of Thomas of Acquin, In Epistolam ad He-
braeos, c. XI, Lectio I. In this commentary, Thomas gives
the " setting " of our text ; he insists that it is a definition
(though obscure) of Faith, and answers the question, why
Faith can be defined in terms of spes which contains Fides.
These points will receive due attention in the interpretation
of our text. But here, where our immediate aim is the
exegesis of "substantia rerum sperandarum,'' it suffices
merely to mention them.

i Schaff, A Religious Encyclopaedia, etc., art. on Gilbert de la Porree, n,
873.

2 Text taken from Denifle's Luther und Luthertum, Die Schriftausleger
bis Luther iiber Iustitia Dei, 42.

66 THE PAULINE PISTIS

By way of introduction, Thomas notes that there are many
explanations of our text, — substantia potest multipliciter
exponi. 1 He summarizes them, however, under two heads :

1. Substantia can be used in a causal sense, by which
" things hoped for" are made present to us through Fides —
either (a) by way of merit, when one comes to see what he
hopes for (since vision is the reward of Fides); or (5) by
way of ownership, when one already has in a sense what is
believed will happen at some future time : Uno modo causa-
liter, et tunc habet duplicem sensum. Unum quod est sub-
stantia, id est faciens in nobis substare res sperandas, quod
f acit duobus modis. Uno modo quasi merendo ; ex hoc enim
quod captivat et submittit intellectum suum his quae sunt
fidei, meretur quod aliquando perveniat ad videndum hoc
quod sperat; visio enim est merces fidei. Alio modo quasi
per suam proprietatem praesentialiter f acit quod id quod cre-
ditur futurum in re, aliquo modo iam habeatur, dummodo
credat in Deum. 2 In a word, Fides as "substantia rerum
sperandarum" makes "things hoped for" actually and
really to exist and be present in the soul by a kind of
" seeing " or by a kind of " having," — the former being the
result of a " kind of merit " and the latter being the result
of a "kind of possession." This explanation of our text is
the current Greek exegesis of the same with the exception
that some of the Greeks specified the manner of seeing the
reality as presentation, 3 and the manner of possessing

the REALITY as ANTICIPATION, TITLE-DEEDS, 4 Or GUARAN-
TEE. It is also to be noted that the transformation of Fides
into vision is strongly emphasized in both the Greek and the
Latin Patristic 5 writings.

i Opera Omnia, XXI, 687.
*Ibid.

3 Cf. Theodoret and John Chrysostom, pp. 42, 38, of this book.

4 Cf . Greek Papyri and Clement of Alexandria, p. 25, of this book.

5 We note only one representative of the Greek and one of the Latin Pa-
tristic literature. In Stromata^ II, 2, Clement of Alexandria describes the

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 67

2. The other sense, in which " substantia rerum speranda-
rum " can be explained in our text is the essence of " things
hoped for " : alio modo exponi potest substantia essentialiter,
quasi Fides est substantia, id est essentia rerum sperandarum.
Unde in Graeco habetur: Hypostasis rerum sperandarum. 1
Then Thomas goes on to explain his use of " essentia." Sub-
stantia is " essentia " just as First Principles are " essentia,"
in the sense that they in a way contain everything in any
thing. Fides is "essentia" in the same sense that First
Principles, which must be accepted by Faith, contain the
whole substantially. This is true in all sciences; and, hence,
if geometry were the " essence " of beatitude, then he who
had the principles of geometry would in a certain sense have
the " essence " of beatitude, — Et in illis principiis quoddam-
modo continetur tota seientia sicut conclusiones in praemissis, et
effeetus in causa. Qui ergo habet principia illius scientiae,
habet substantiam eius, puta geometriae. Et si geometria v

precise way by which iriarn develops into knowledge, avTiica rj fieXerrj rr)s
wiffreus eiruTT'ijfXT} yiyverai 0e/*e\ta> /3ej8aiw eirep^peia/xevrj (Berl. Ed. Clem. Al., II.
117). That is, the exercise of Faith directly becomes Knowledge. Again,
in Stromata, VII, 10, Clement considers the steps to perfection, and says of
-/rums, that starting with it and being developed by it, through the grace of
God, the knowledge respecting Him is to be acquired as far as possible —
11 till it restores the pure in heart to the crowning place of rest, teaching to
gaze upon God face to face, with knowledge and comprehension," — axp« av
ets tov Kopixpaiov airoKaraa"rf<Trf ttjs avairav<reu)S roirov tov nadapov th\ Kadia irpo-
cojitov wpos irpo<ru)irov €irto~TT)p.oviic(i)s accu Ka.Ta\T}irTtK<i)S tov deov eiroirreveiv di8a-
faaa (Berl. Ed. Clem. Al., Ill, 41). This idea that the pure in heart shall
begin to know what they believe is throughout the whole Patristic literature
the common expression for the way Fides passes into knowledge and vision.

Augustine, too, in Enchiridion, c. 5, writes that when the mind has been
imbued with the first elements of that Faith which worketh by love, it en-
deavors by purity of life to attain unto sight, where the pure and perfect of
heart know that unspeakable beauty, the full vision of which is supreme
happiness, — Cum autem initio fidei, quae per dilectionem operatur, imbuta
mens fuerit, tendit bene vivendo etiam ad speciem pervenire, ubi est Sanctis
et perfectis cordibus nota ineffabilis pulchritudo, cuius plena visio felicitas.
(Migne, P. i., 40, 233.)

i Op. cit., XXI, 687.

68 THE PAULINE PISTIS

esset essentia beatitudinis, qui haberent principia geometriae,
haberent quoddammodo substantiam beatitudinis. 1

Yet another example is given by Thomas : just as the tree
is contained in the seed, so " things hoped for " are contained
in Faith as a substantia. Undoubtedly, " substantia " is here
used in the sense of contents, a meaning which is in this
form entirely new in the history of the exegesis of Heb. xi, 1,
although in fact it is nothing else than an amplification of

VTrOGTCHTlS — REALITY.

Bona venture (f 1274), in Sent., Lib. Ill, Art. I, Quaes.
V, somewhat under the influence of Augustine, prepares the
way for a new exegesis of ekin^oixevcov viroaTaais, although
he also repeats substantially the traditional Patristic inter-
pretation of our text. In general he says that Faith is
essentially a matter of the intellect and the will, in that it
makes firm the latter and illumines the former. In so far
as Faith makes the will firm, it is called " substantia," or
" fundamentum," and in so far as it illumines the intel-
lect, it is called " argumentum " : Nam ipsa Fides secundum
essentiam suam aliquid respicit ex parte intellectus, et aliquid
ex parte affectus. Habet enim affectum stabilire, et intellec-
tum illuminare. Et in quantum affectum stability dicitur
" substantia," sive " fundamentum " ; in quantum autem in-
tellectum illuminat, dicitur " argumentum." 2 The original
idea of wrroaTaais has been forgotten here. Only the " sub-
stantia " = fortitudo of Augustine has some similarities to
it. But Bonaventure allows us to infer that some notion of
reality is still in the term, in another reference to Heb. xi,
l, 3 where he says that Fides can be called "substantia," in so
far as it is the foundation of our spiritual edifice : In hac de-
finitione Fides dicitur substantia, id est fundamentum substans
aedificio spirituali, quod est gratia et gloria. 4 But Faith is
a foundation in the sense that it makes things hoped

i Op. cit., XXI, 687. 3 Op. cit., VIII, 179.

« Opera Omnia, IV, 496. 4 Ibid.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 69

for to subsist through grace with as much reality as
they will exist through glory : Ipsa namquam Fides facit
aliqualiter res sperandas in nobis subsistere per gratiam, et f aciet
tandem per gloriam. . . . Rerum sperandarum dicitur, quia
fides per assensum facit in nobis subsistere res sperandas. 1
This shows that Bonaventure understood " substantia " in our
text at least once as reality or presentation of reality.
And his analysis of Fides into intellectual and volitional
elements is rather a rhetorical application than a strict notion
of TTLo-Tis-VTroaracn 1 ;.

In the interpretation of our text by Erasmus (f 1536),
we meet for the first time the new meaning of * substantia,"
fiducia. So he unmistakably interprets " substantia "
in Heb. xi, 1 : Illud adiiciam, hoc loco fidem non usurpari
proprie pro ea qua credimus credenda, sed qua spereamus,
h.e., ipsa fiducia. 2 Understanding u rerum sperandarum "
as things of the future, and at the same time realizing that
Faith embraces also things of the past and of the present,
Erasmus reconciles the difficulty by saying that here Fides
is described synecdochically : Glossema quoddam vetustum
indicat hoc dictum synecdochen, cum fides sit et praeteri-
torum et praesentium et futurorum. 3 It is also to be noted
that Erasmus' interpretation of " substantia " as fiducia is
determined, not by the meaning of viroaTaais or u substan-
tia," but by the grammatical connection of the same with
" rerum sperandarum," of which it is a qualification (hoc
loco fidem non usurpari proprie pro ea qua credimus cre-
denda, sed qua speramus, h.e., IPSA fiducia).

Following Erasmus, Luther (f 1546) gave still further
impetus to the interpretation of " substantia " as fiducia.
Fortunately, we can summarize Luther's exegesis of our
text in a Thesis of Alia Eiusdem Argumenti cum Priore,
Contra Satanam et Synogogam Ipsius: De Fide — Thesis

22: FIDES VERA EST SUBSTANTIA CORDIS, id est, FIRMA
i Ibid. 2 Critici Sacri, VII, Part II, p. 1101. « Ibid.

70 THE PAULINE PISTIS

ET CERTA FIDUCIA IN DEUM PROMISSOREM MISERICORDIAE

et auxilii. 1 Luther tells us in his Comment, in Episto-
lam S. Pauli ad G-alatas, c. 5, how it was that he abandoned
his first interpretation of VTroo-racn*;, as possession or POWER,
for the sense, trust in promises, which is equivalent to
firma et certa fiducia in Deum promissorem misericordiae et
auxilii. Here he states that for a long time he had followed
Jerome's interpretation of viroaTa<n<;, as POSSESSION or
power, especially since this was also the more general
usage of the term in Scripture : In qua sententia et ego diu
fui, quod observassem substantiam in sacris Uteris fere
ubique pro facultatibus et possessione usurpari, maxime,
cum ad hoc Hieronymi huius loci tenerem auctoritatem. 2
This interpretation Luther was led to abandon by Melanch-
thon, who showed him that when M substantia " meant pos-
session or power, VTToo-Taais was not the term used, but
rather ovaia, fiporos, or vrrapl-is : Postquam Melanchthon . . .
ostendit substantiam, quando facultatem significat, non
VTToaracnv (quo verbo Apostolus Heb. xi utitur), sed vel
ovauav vel fiporov vel vrrapfyv graece dici, mutavi senten-
tiam. 3 Our author then confirms his view by the interpre-
tation of Chrysostom, who understood VKoaraaL^ as SUB-
sistentia, from which Luther judged that promissio,
pactum, and especially expect atio could be used with
equal reason : Cedoque sensu meo, viroo-raaiv seu substan-
tiam significare proprie subsistentiam et substantiam, qua
quodlibet in se subsistit, ut Chrysostomus sapit, vel etiam
promissionem, pactum, de quo non est nunc tempus latius
disputandi, expectationem, quae verbi, unde descendit
virocrTacns, vis et proprie tas admittit. 4 It is difficult to see
how Luther can consider promissionem, pactum, and

1 Ed. Jena, Tomus Primus Omnium Operum Lutheri, 528.

2 Ed. Irmischer, Lutheri Opera Omnia, 29-31, III, 437.
8 Ibid.

* Op. cit, 29-31, HI, 438.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 71

especially expectationem, as having about the same mean-
ing as Chrysostom's subsistentiam (the emphasis of
reality), or that the vis et proprietas verbi, unde descendit
v7rocrTa(Ti^ admits the sense of expect atio. But this is an
important matter — how can vTroo-racrts mean expectation
most aptly from its derivation ? And Luther's " de quo
non est nunc tempus latius disputandi" is not sufficient to
satisfy the requirements of scientific exegesis.

In marked contrast to Erasmus and Luther, Vatabltjs
(f 1547) follows the traditional Patristic exegesis : Fides
is essentia in the sense that it makes things to be present :
Rerum sperandarum essentia, demonstratio rerum quae
conspici non possunt : i.e., quae credit res promissas a Deo,
nondum tamen praestitas, tarn veras esse quam si iam prae-
stitae essent, praesentes et demonstratae. 1 In a word,
"substantia" makes present "things hoped for," and
" argumentum " makes demonstrated u things unseen."
We have again for the meaning of virocrTaai^ the anticipa-
tion and the presentation of a future reality.

Clarius (f 1555) understands virocrTao-is to mean foun-
dation or BASIS : Fidem esse rerum quae sperantur VTroa-ra-
<m, et tanquam basim et fundamentum quo subsistant ea
quae nondum adsunt, et tanquam praesentiam esse videan-
tur. 2 foundation is not the primary meaning of VTrocnao-is.
And the further explanation of Clarius' usage (yirocrTao-is
means foundation in this that it gives " things hoped for "
subsistence and presence) resembles the manner in which
v7ro<rTa<Ti$ was employed by the Greeks in the sense of

REALITY, — ANTICIPATION, REPRESENTATION, and GUARAN-
TEE OF A FUTURE REALITY.

Sebastian Castalio (j-1563) enumerates three inter-
pretations of our text :

1. " The substance of things hoped for " = the matter
OF THINGS HOPED FOR (also Thomas of Acquin) : virocrTCMns
i Critici Sacri, VII, Part II, p. 1104. * Op. cit., p. 1116.

72 THE PAULINE PISTIS

est substantia, et ipsa res atque materia, ut in hums epistolae
c. I, 3 1 ;

2. " The substance of things hoped for " m the proof of
things hoped FOR : Transf eratur viroo-raai^ ad alia, ut 2
Cor. xi, 17, ev ravrr) rrj virocrTacrei T77? Kav^rjaeox;, in hac
gloriandi materia, sive Argumentum 2 ;

3. " The substance of things hoped for " = the subjec-
tion OF THINGS HOPED FOR BY WHICH ABSENT THINGS
ARE MADE PRESENT : Ut sit t>7ro<rraer*?, cum res v<f>L<TTaTai,
proponitur, subiicitur, et praesens statuitur. Itaque, hie
dicitur eorum quae sperantur mbiicitio, quod absentia nobis
subiiciat ac proponat, effieiatque ut praesentia esse videantur,
nee secus eis assentimur quam si cerneremus. 3 In this third
interpretation of our text, we notice (a) that Castalio fol-
lows the traditional Greek interpretation (Faith is that
which makes present things which are absent) ; (£>)
that Castalio derives the term wtoo-tclchs from v<f>ia-ravac
(emphasis of etvai) in contradistinction to the combination
of viro and larrjfic in the mistaken sense of a kind of under-
lying.

The manner in which " things hoped for " become real is
repeatedly expressed by Calvin (f 1564) in his interpreta-
tion of our text. In his Commentary on Habacuc, c. II, 5,
he calls Fides a vision of hidden things and the subsistentia
of absent things : Visio rerum abscondarum, ut etiam vocatur
XI ad Hebr. et subsistentia rerum absentium. 4 If, as it
seems, " subsistentia " is the equivalent of woo-rao-ft, then, for
Calvin, the meaning of the term is similar to that of the
Greek Patristic literature, — VTroarao-is is the factor that
makes absent things present. Even more pointedly Calvin
explains what he means by " subsistentia " in his exegesis of
Heb. xi, 1, in Horn. LVII, In Lib. Samuel, c. XVI : At
Fides illud quo extant quae sperantur et quae demonstrat

i Critici Sacri, VII, Part II, p. 1106. 3 Ibid.

2 Ibid. * Calvini Opera, XLIH, 540.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 73

quae non cernuntur. 1 Here VTroaracri^s evidently is the factor
whereby " things hoped for" become real and existing
(extant). Tttoctcktis is the PRESENTATION OP A REALITY.

In equating v<f>io-rarai by e%ei to eivai CASAUBON
(f 1614) shows a remarkably accurate understanding of the
Greek notion of viroaracri^ as true reality. He also identifies
it with the u esse re vera " — the very reality — in contrast
to the figments of the imagination (hiavoias avaTrXaaixara):
TTrocrTao-is dubio procul hie accipitur ut cum apud philosophos
dicuntur ra 777009 ri habere VTroarao-iv, h.e., ESSE REVERA,
non autem T77? rjfi€T€pa$ Biavoia<; avcnrXao-fiaTa. T^iararai
pro €%et to eivai usurpant philosophi. 2 What is valuable
about this interpretation is the fact that the author recognizes
the derivation of viroaraai^ from vcfrio-ravai, and also that he
confirms the Greek Patristic exegesis of the term by the
classical, vfyiaTarai^e'xei to ecvcu (v^io-rarai pro e^ei to eivai
usurpant philosophi), a strong phrase for emphatic exist-
ence or VERY REALITY.

Estius 3 (|1613) notes three interpretations of "sub-
stantia rerum sperandarum," according as " substantia"
means foundation or principle, reality or existence,
and certitude, respectively :

1. Faith can be said to be the foundation of "things
hoped for," in the sense that it is a basis and foundation
upon which hoped-for salvation so rests, that without it
salvation could not exist; no more than a column could
(exist) without its base, or a house without its founda-
tion, — as accidents are upheld by their substance : Quod sit
veluti basis ac fundamentum, cui sperata salus ita innitatur,

1 Op. cit., XXX, 157.

2 Critici Sacri, VII, Part H, p. 1113.

3 Estius also observes that although many, such as Jerome, Theodoret, and
Theophylact, consider Heb. xi, 1, a definition of Faith, yet for him it is rather
a description of the same : Breviter respondeo, non tarn definitionem quam
descriptionem seu notationem quamdam fidei his Apostoli verbis contineri.
(Estius, Comm. in Cap. XL, Epi&t. ad Hebr., 274.)

74 THE PAULINE PISTIS

ut absque ea haberi nequeat ; quomodo columna basi, et
domus innititur fundamento ; vel etiam quomodo accidentia
a substantia sustinentur. 1 We know that vrroaTaais in the
sense of foundation is unusual in the Greek Patristic
exegesis.

2. " Substantia " is reality and existence. Faith in
this sense is said to be the vTroaTao-is of " things hoped for "
by metonymy, because it produces, generates, and ex-
hibits to us u things hoped for," which of themselves do not
yet exist : Ut Fides hoc sensu dicitur eorum, quae sperantur,
hypostasis ac substantia (nimirum per metonymiam ab
effectu), quia, quamvis, spe pendente, nondum ilia existant,
tamen eorum existentiam in nobis quodammodo fides effieit ac
gignit, atque ipsa praesentia nobis exhibit? This is nothing
other than the current Greek exegesis of our text : things

HOPED FOR ARE MADE REAL EITHER BY ANTICIPATION OR
BY REPRESENTATION.

3. Because Faith makes us as certain about " things hoped
for," as if they were already present and grasped with the
hands; nay, because Faith makes us more certain of "things
hoped for " than if they were seen with the eyes, or demon-
strated by reason, it happens that some interpret virocrraa-L^ in
our text as certitude or certification: Dum videlicet
adeo certos de iis nos facit, atque si re ipsa iam praestita
essent, ac manibus tenerentur ; certiores vero, quam si vel
oculis essent conspecta, vel ratione demons trata. Quo fit, ut
wKo<TTa<Tiv nonnulli certitudinem vel certificationem interpre-
tentur. 3 But here the effect of wiroo-Tacris is described, not
virocTTaais itself.

Suarez (|1617), Tract. I, disp. II, sect. V, num. 7,
repeats the secondary interpretation of Thomas of Acquin,
viz., that Faith is called the "substance of things hoped
for," because by Faith we have what is contained in the
Symbolum — the essentials of salvation substantially:

i Op. cit., 274. 2 Ibid. a Ibid.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 75

Fides est substantia rerum sperandarum ; nam in Symbolo
continentur omnia, quae ad hanc substantiam pertinent, nam
ibi docetur Deus, qui est objectum beatitudinis, quam
speramus. 1 This interpretation of our text has nothing
whatever to do with the original Pauline description of
ttkttis in Heb. xi, 1.

Bellarmine (j-1621), Be Christo, Lib. II, c. IV, in
discussing the terms viroaraavi and ov<ria, not only sum-
marizes pointedly the Greek Patristic view of vrroaTaa-is, as a
modus existendi, but also shows that the New Testament
usage of the word (there are only five instances of the use of
v7roaTa(TL<; in the New Testament ; viz. , Heb. i, 3 ; iii, 14 ;
xi, 1 ; and 2 Cor. ix, 4 ; xi, 17) is constant and means
that " foundation " or " basis " which exists per se and supports
other things in their existence : His enim locis explicatur
nomen viroGjaais in genere significare fundamentum seu
basim, quae alia sustentat, et ipsa per se subsistit. 2 This is
the meaning of vTrocrraai^ in Heb. xi, 1, because Faith is the
foundation of justice and not only exists per se, but even
gives existence to " things hoped for " — things which in se are
not yet, but which through Faith seem already in some way to
exist : Hie autem postea hoc nomen traducitur et accom-
modatur ad Fidem, quia Fides est fundamentum justitiae, et
non solum ipsa per se exsistit, et etiam dat subsistentiam
rebus speratis, quae enim speramus in se non sunt, sed per
Fidem quodammodo iam existere videntur. 3 What is of interest
in this citation of Bellarmine is not so much that he repeats
emphatically the current Greek Patristic exegesis of our text,
but that he regards as equivalent the two senses of u sub-
stantia," FUNDAMENTUM and QUAE ALIA SUSTENTAT ET
IPSA per SE subsistit. TirocrTaai*; in the sense of funda-
mentum is, as we have repeatedly noted, a derived usage, or
better, a popular and plastic expression of the primary
meaning of the term.

1 Opera Omnia, XII, 29. » Opera, I, 203. 3 Op. cit, I, 204.

76 THE PAULINE PISTIS

For John Piscator (f 1625), as for Estius, Heb. xi, 1
is not a definition of Fides, but rather a description of the
same in its effects : Id est, Fides ex se parit certam spem
rerum a Deo promissarum adeo ut ilia, quae ex Dei promis-
sione sperantur necdum cernuntur, iam reipsa subsistere sive
extare et coram cerni videantur. 1 Again we notice that our
author follows the Greek Patristic interpretation, emphasiz-
ing the two typical points : (a) anticipated reality (iam
reipsa subsistere) ; and (&) presentation of reality
(extare et coram cerni videantur).

John Capellus (f 1625) thinks that in our text justify-
ing and saving Faith are defined : Definit igitur hie fidem
antonomastice dictam, sive iustificantem et salvificam. 2
Our author also interprets viroo-raa-^ as confidence ; and
most interesting and important is the fact that he lays down
the arguments for this interpretation, which have been so
frequently repeated by other exegetes. Capellus notes that
classical authors use viroaraa-i^ in various senses, and, what
is to our immediate purpose, he says that it is employed in
this Epistle in two meanings : (a) as a subsisting person
(Heb. i, 3) ; (6) as an act or habit of confidence :
Secundo significat habitum vel actum fiducialem. 3 Then
Capellus gives a philological proof for this interpretation of
VTroGTacris. He says that viroaracris is derived from the
preposition u7ro, which has the meaning of submission joined
with expectation, and from the noun crracrt? which means a
firm standing : Quo sensu consideranda I, prepositio, II,
nomen. Prepositio sumitur hie eodem sensu quo sumitur
in vocibus virofjueveiv, etc. Designat enim utrobique submis-
sionem cum expectatione coniunctam. Nomen o-racris con-
siderandum ut habens significationem standi. . . . Ita
v7ro<TTa(ri<s erat fiducia velut in statione manens ac rem

1 Comm. in Omnes Lib. N. T., p. 77.

2 Critici Sacri, VII, Part II, p. 1114.
8 Op. cit, p. 1116.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 77

promissam exspectans cum animi submissione. 1 Then fol-
lows the confirmation of his view from the usage of virocrTa-
o-t? in the LXX as fiducia (Ps. xxxix, 7 ; Ruth i, 12 ; Ezek.
xix, 5 ; and in the N. T. 2 Cor. ix, 4 ; and xi, 17 ; and in
Heb. iii, 14). We have here the results of a philological
playing with the term VTrocrTacris, which are quite foreign to
the sense of the term in the Greek Patristic literature, and
which show a superficial knowledge of Greek.

Cameron (f 1625) interprets eXirc^ofievrnv VTrocrracn*; as
expectation of things hoped for, and like Capellus
confirms the same by the usage of wrroGTaais in the afore-
said passages of the LXX. Speaking of vTroo-Taaris he says :
Sed eo potius sensus accipienda est in N. T. haec vox, quo
in Veteri apud LXX. Atque ITOTlFl h.e. expect ationes,
interpretantur per hanc vocem VTrocrraa-LV. 2 The traditional
Greek exegesis is here, as in Capellus, entirely abandoned.

Tirinus (f 1636) follows the Greek exegesis of viroo-Tacns.
In his further explanation he remarks that, although " things
hoped for " do not yet exist (nondum existunt), yet Faith
makes them to subsist in the intellect (facit subsistere in in-
tellectu), so that the believer is as certain about them as if
they already de facto existed : Res quae sperantur et non-
dum existunt, facit subsistere in intellectu, id est tarn certas
in animo hominis haberi ac iam de facto existerent. 3 Tirinus
here shows with great clarity how the notion of conviction
in irians depends on VTroaracns, by which " things hoped
for" are made to subsist in the intellect of the be-
liever. Tirinus is also the first to reject the interpretation
of v7ro<TTa<TL<; as FIDUCIA.

Cornelius a lapide (|1637) gives two possible inter-
pretations of our text according as wRQcFTaais is understood
either as foundation, or as reality :

i Critici Sacri, VII, Part II, p. 1115.
2 Critici Sacri, VII, Part II, p. 1114.
a Comm. in S. S.,U, 48a

78 THE PAULINE PISTIS

1. T7ro0-Ta<n9 = foundation. Cornelius says that if
viroGTaais means foundation, then our text must be inter-
preted as follows: Faith is the basis or foundation of
" things hoped for " : Fides ergo est substantia, id est basis
et fundamentum, rerum sperandarum. 1 But, as we have
shown so often, virocrraa-i^ means foundation only by rea-
son of a popular philological derivation, or by reason of a
dogmatic analogy ; and, hence, it is no true interpretation of
our text.

2. TirocrTao-is = reality. This preferred interpretation
of our text is the current Greek exegesis of the same.
Cornelius thinks that viroaTaa-^ must be understood in the
same sense as found in c. iii, 14 of the same Epistle, viz.,
a subsisting and existing thing, Idem est quod subsis-
tentia et existentia. 2 Our author then explains how
" things hoped for," which do not yet subsist of them-
selves, yet through certitude have that kind of exist-
ence (to the believer) by which they are regarded as
already existing : Fides f acit ut bona futura quae non-
dum existunt certa habeamus, certoque futura credamus et
speremus, perinde ac si iam subsisterent ; eaque coram nobis
eerneremus : fides enim ilia ipsa quasi praesentia et certissima
oculis mentis subiicit, sicque per suam certitudinem, quamdam
subsistentiam dat rebus speratis et futuris in intellectu et
mente fidelium. 3 Ulo-tls makes u things hoped for" so real
to the believer that, in spite of the fact that they are future,
they are regarded as already existing (ac si iam subsis-
terent) . In a word, itlctt^ through virocrTao-LS is the ANTICI-
PATION OF A FUTURE REALITY. The effect of this MAKING
"THINGS HOPED FOR" REAL TO THE BELIEVER is CERTI-
TUDE, and, hence, we can call 7ncrTL<; here, as does the
Peshitto, — persuasio et certitudo de eis rebus quae
sunt in spe, perinde ac si iam existerent actuA

i Comm. in S. &, XVIII, 518. ■ Ibid.

2 Ibid. * Ibid.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 79

Hugo Grotius (f 1645), following the new exegesis of
Capellus, interprets vTroaracns of our text as firm expecta-
tion, and confirms the same by the usual appeal to the LXX
and, also, to what will become the classical reference to the
Ancient Greeks (i. e. Polybius) : Rerum sperandarum firma
quaedam expectatio. 1 Grotius also instances the usage
of "substantia" in Tertullian (De Cultu Fern., II, 2), which
we have already considered. 2

Thomas Gatakerus (fl654) adopts the exegesis of
Castalio: Tiroo-rao-is = subiectio. The interpretation reads
as follows : subiectio quod absentia nobis subiiciat ac pro-
ponat, efficiatque ut praesentia esse videantur, nee secus iis
assentiamur quam si cerneremus. 3 This exegesis is essen-
tially the Greek Patristic interpretation of our text, in
which the reality of u things hoped for " by presenta-
tion is the keynote.

Like Cornelius a Lapide, Menochius (f 1655) notes two
traditional interpretations of our text ;

1. Faith is the foundation sustaining our hope ;
Fundamentum spem nostram sustentans. 4

2. Fides is the subsistentia and existentia of " things
hoped for " : Fides est subsistentia sive existentia rerum
sperandarum. 5 It is a repetition of an interpretation already
well known to us.

Although Matthew Polus' (|1669) interpretation of
Heb. xi, 1 is but a synopsis of the interpretations in Critici
Sacri, yet, since wttogt cutis began to be interpreted as fidu-
cia at this time, it will be useful to note the argument that
our author contributes for the same: Probatur haec ex-
positio : (1) ex origine vocis, ab vfao-rao-Ocu, quod est firmi-

i Critici Sacri, VII, Part H, p. 1131.

2 Cf . p. 48 ff.

3 Cf . Poli, Matthaei, Synopsis Crit. Et Alior., IV, 1353.
* Comm. Tot. S. S., H, 248.

6 Ibid.

80 THE PAULINE PISTIS

ter stare, non cadere, non fugere, non cedere, ut apud Plut.
et Synes; (2) ex usu vocis, turn Heb. iii, 14, turn apud
LXX qui wirovTaaiv pro spe et expectatione ponunt, Ruth i,
12 ; Ps. xxxix, 8 ; Ezek. xix, 5 ; turn in Polybio. 1

Daniel Brenius (c. 1666) repeats the Greek expression
for the two ways by which " things hoped for " are made
real to the believer, viz., by anticipated possession and
by presentation. Our author says that Fides is called
the "substantia rerum sperandarum," quia facit ut res in
expectatione positae, quae nondum actu possidentur, velut
praesto sint, animo apprehendantur. 2

William Burkitt (|1703) connects the two interpre-
tations of VTTOGTaaiS — FIRM EXPECTATION and SUBSIS-
tentia — in these words : Speaking of Faith, it is a confi-
dent and firm expectation of good things which God
has promised, giving the good things hoped for a real
subsistence in our minds and souls. 3

The secondary interpretation of viroaraa-L^ by Natalis
Alexander (fl724) is foundation, but his primary
interpretation is the traditional one — presentation of
reality : Quia futura bona caelestia et aeterna : quae sunt
obiectum spei nostrae, in nobis quodammodo subsistere facit, de
illis adeo certos nos reddens ac si ipsa iam praestita essent, ac
manibus tenerentur. 4

Georgius Raphelus (f 1750) merely adopts Gerhard's
interpretation of VKooTaam as fiducia, and gives the usual
references to the LXX ; and he is the first to note down the
exact reference to Polybius (De Horatio Coclite, Lib. VI, c.
55, and Lib. V, c. 16). 5

1 Synopsis Grit, et Alior., IV, 1364.

2 Opera Theologica, In Part. N.T., 110.

3 Expository Notes with, etc., Heb. xi, 1.

4 Comm. Literalis et Moralis in Omnes Epist. Sancti Pauli Apost, etc.,
Tom. H, 496.

8 Annotationes Philologicas in N. T., Ill, 687 sq.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 81

Wolfius (f 1738) also accepts the interpretation of
V7roo-Tacri$ of our text as fiducia, although he notes the
Patristic exegesis and also shows the resemblance between
the Pauline ttigtus of Heb. xi, 1 and Philo's ttlgti*; in Be
Abrah. Our author says very plainly: Assentior illis, qui
wirQaTaaiv de cert A fiducia ad res speratas accipiunt. 1

Also for Doddridge (f 1751) Faith is the confident
expectation 2 of " things hoped for."

Bengel (|1751), on the contrary, goes back to the
Patristic literature for his interpretation, and sums up in
most pointed phrases the current Greek exegesis of ekirL^o-
fievcov VTrocrTao-is : Faith is the substance by which the

FUTURE THINGS HOPED FOR ARE PRESENTED OR SET
BEFORE US AS PRESENT. 3

We shall close the Middle Age period of the exegesis of
€\Tn£ofjL€Vcov VTroo-Taais with CALMET (j- 1757). Tiroo-rao-is,
for him, is foundation which (from a further description)
is evidently nothing more than the traditional Greek inter-
pretation of our text : Fides est fundamentum : has (things
hoped for) praesto exhibit fides, ipsamque illarum veritatem
et possessionem quoddammodo praebet : imo ipsa est substantia
earum rerum, quas per spem anticipatisA We have here the
Greek exegesis of our text in which ttkjti^ makes " things
hoped for" real either by presentation or by antici-
pated possession. The curious thing about it, however,
is that this typical Greek exegesis of ekiri^oiievcov VTrocrraa^
is equated by the interpretation foundation of "things

HOPED FOR."

Recapitulation

We are now in a position to note the results of our
investigation into the exegesis of eXin^o/jLevcov viroaraai^ of

1 Curae Philologicae et Criticae in X. post. S. Pauli Epist., 738.

2 The Family Expositor, VI, 102.

3 The Gnomon of the N. T., II, 654 sq.

4 Comm. Liter, in Omnes Lib. Vet. et Nov. Test, X, 635.

82 THE PAULINE PISTIS

Heb. xi, 1 during the Middle Ages, and to estimate their
value. As in the Patristic period, so in the Middle Ages,
the interpretation of the verse has hinged upon the meaning

Of WKOGTaGlS :

I. A. Tiroo-TOLais = BEALITY :

1. ANTICIPATION OF REALITY,

2. EMPHASIS OP REALITY,

3. PRESENTATION OF REALITY.

Walafried Strabo, Hrabanus, Oecumenius, Theophylact,
Hugo of St. Victor, Gilbert, Thomas of Acquin (secondary-
interpretation), Bona venture, Vatablus, Calvin, Clarius,
Castalio, Is. Casaubon, Estius, Tirinus, Bellarmine, John
Piscator, Cornelius a Lapide, Gatakerus, Menochius, Brenius,
Burkitt, Natalis Alexander, Bengel, Calmet.

B. T7rocrTa<Ti<; = certitude OF REALITY : — Estius.

II. T7TO0r T ao-t? = FOUNDATION.

Estius, Bellarmine, Cornelius a Lapide, Natalis Alexander,
Calmet, Clarius, Menochius.

III. T7TO<rTacrt? = CONFIDENCE, EXPECTATION.

Erasmus, Luther, Capellus, Cameron, H. Grotius, Gerhard,
G. Raphelus, Wolfius, Burkitt, Doddridge.

IV. Tiroaratm = CONTENTS, ESSENCE.
Thomas of Acquin, Suarez, Castalio.

V. T7roo-Tacrt? = fortitude. Bonaventure.
Accordingly, the exegesis of Heb. xi, 1 during the Middle

Ages is characterized by several interpretations of ekwi^
£o/j,€V(ov viro<TTa<n<;. The traditional Greek interpretation
which emphasized the reality of " things hoped for " either
by anticipation or by representation was preserved and
copied more generally than any other. Besides the Greek,
five other interpretations came into vogue according as vtto-
oTao-ts was understood to mean (a) certitude, (5) founda-
tion, (<?) CONTENTS, (&) CONFIDENCE, (e) FORTITUDE.

The sense certitude arose by mistaking the effect of
virocTTaa^ ekin^o^evayv (the certitude regarding the

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 83

reality of u things hoped for," produced by a vivid repre-
sentation of the objects of hope to the mind) for viro-
o-rao-is itself, (that which makes "things hoped for" real
to the believer by a vivid representation of them).

The meaning foundation came into use either by reason
of a popular philological derivation of viroaraa^ from viro
and a-rao-is, yielding the naive sense firm standing or
foundation, as is certainly the case with fortitude, or
by reason of an a priori analogy between salvation and an
edifice in which wuttk was compared to the foundation of
salvation. Of course, the latter sense is no interpretation of
Heb. xi, 1 at all.

T7rocrTa(7t? in the sense of contents shows the influence of
the Latin equivalent substantia. But virocratn^ in the sense
of fiducia and firm expectation is the interesting " find "
of our investigation into the exegesis of the Middle Ages.
It is interesting, because it is an entirely new interpreta-
tion that breaks completely from the Greek and Latin
exegesis of Heb. xi, 1. It will be even more interesting to
see what interpretation will prevail in the Modern exegesis
of our text. Will the Greek Patristic exegesis with its roots
in the very literary milieu of Heb. xi, 1 be preserved? Will
the new interpretation of viroaraa^ as fiducia find more
champions, or will a still newer interpretation spring up in
the period which we now proceed to examine ?

4. In Modern Exegesis

For the twofold reason (a) that the number of commenta-
ries on Heb. xi, 1 during the Modern Period is very great,
and (V) that the Moderns merely repeat the interpretations
of our text as developed in the two preceding Periods, we
need not give to it the same detailed examination we have
devoted to that of the Patristic Literature and the Middle
Ages. And for the sake of even greater brevity we shall
group the Modern authors in classes differentiated by the

84 THE PAULINE PISTIS

various interpretations followed. However, we shall en-
deavor to cite as much from these authors as is absolutely
necessary to convey their exact meaning. The interpreta-
tion of Heb. xi, 1, for the Modern, as for the older exegetes,
hinges on the word viroaracris. Hence, their interpretations
vary with their understanding of this pivotal term.

I. A. Tiroo-TacTcs = reality : Faith is the reality
(metonymically) of "things hoped for." So Rosenmuller :
" Illud quod facit, ut iam extent, quae sperantur." * In the
same sense John Owen interprets ekin^ofievcov viroaraai^ :
" It (7rto-Tt?) gives those things hoped for, and as they are
hoped for, a real subsistence, wiroarTaais, in the minds
and souls of them that do believe." 2 Seiss repeats the same
from the true point of view that the object of ttkttl^ is reve-
lation : u Our taking God at His word, enables us to act as
if we saw them (i.e., "things hoped for"). They thus re-
ceive a real subsistence in our minds." 3 F. S. Samp-
son has found the best English equivalent for the Greek
sense of viroa-racn^, viz., REALIZATION: "It (ttktti^ gives
them (i.e., things hoped for) the force of present reali-
ties," and for this reason : " As Faith realizes things
hoped for." 4 H. J. Ripley, conscious of the dynamic force
of 7rtcrTt?, thus exegetes our verse : " It (7rto-Tt?) gives sub-
stance, as it were, to things which as yet are only objects
of hope, so that those things have the force of realities,
actually existing and within our grasp, and conse-
quently they engage our affections and determine our pur-
pose." 5 Like Seiss, Junkin says : " Thus it is a reality —
a present subsistence in the believing mind and heart,
of the things held up before us in the Gospel." 6 MacEvilly

i Scholia in N. T. vol. V, 274.

2 An Exposit. of the Epist. to the Heb., etc., IV, 361.

3 Popular Lectures on the Epist. to the Heb., 318.

4 A Crit. Coram, on the Epist. to the Heb. , 409.

6 The Epist. to the Heb., with Explanat. Notes, 135.
6 A Comm. upon the Epist. to the Heb., 387.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 85

(secondary interpretation) says that Faith through wiroo-Ta-
oy? " gives these things we hope for a new and anticipated
existence in our minds." 1 Henry Cowles, considering
this world of sense, says : " Faith comes to our help to give
substance — A sense of solid reality — to what we hope
for in the realm of spiritual life." 2 Thus also Corluy : " Es-
sentia per se stans — si iam resolvitur synecdoche, fides eo
sensu dicitur substantia rerum sperandarum, quatenus est
firma mentis persuasio, qua in mente credentium futura
bona anticipatam subsistentiam nanciscantur." 3 Van
Steenkiste equates ttlo-tl^ as a "reality' with "quasi fun-
damentum," but obviously only as an analogy : u Fides facit
ut res sperandae in nobis subsistant, quasi sit fundamentum
quo spes nitatur." 4 Westcott, impressed with the correct
understanding of ekirv^ofievojv as " things of the future," 5
interprets the text thus : " Faith is that which causes the
reality of things to come TO exist now." 6 Prat similarly
says : u Enfin elle est la realite des choses que nous espe-
rons, en tant qu'elle est une prise de possession anticipee des
biens a venir et qu'elle empeche nos esperances d'etre vains
ou fantastiques." 7 Dummelow in the light of the context
of the whole Epistle (in which earthly things are contrasted
with heavenly things, as types, copies, or shadows are con-
trasted with realities) solves the mystery of viroarraaK; in
these words : " Faith is that by which the invisible becomes
real and the future becomes present. Faith gives real-

i An Exposit. of the Epistles of St. Paul, etc., 225.

2 Epistle to the Heb., etc., 109.

3 Spicilegium, etc., II, 210.

4 Comm. in Omnes Epist. S. Pauli, II, 602.

5 Aristotle also so defined it : eXirts rov fieWovros eariv. Cf. his book, De
Memoria et Beminiscentia, c. I, 449 b, 27, in BiehPs edition, Parva Natura-
lia; cf. also: aXXa rov fiev irapovros ai<rd7j<ris, rov de /kWovtos eXTrts, rov de
yevofievov fj-vij/xri (i6wf.).

« The Epist. to the Heb., 351.

7 La Theologie de Saint Paul, 543.

86 THE PAULINE PISTIS

ity to things hoped for, and puts to the test things unseen.
They (things hoped for) exist apart from Faith, but it is by
Faith that they are realized." 1

B. Tiroo-rao-i? m ASSURANCE or PLEDGE OF REALITY :

Faith is the assurance or pledge of the reality of
"things hoped for." So Conrad Lomb : " Hinc fides cer-
tissimum pignus est rerum sperandarum." 2 Jos. Long-
king, in a somewhat confused way, writes : " By Faith being
the ' Substance ' — the ■ sure expectation,' or 4 confidence ' —
of those ' hoped for things,' is meant that it enables its pos-
sessor to entertain such a sense of their reality, and
that thev will become his at some future period, as to
furnish an assured trust, a stable foundation, on which
to build his * hope ' of realizing them" 3 Sam. T. Lowrie says
simply : " Now Faith is the assurance of things hoped
for." 4 Bernardine a Piconio interprets virocrTacn^ more
pointedly: "Faith is the assurance of the reality of
that which we expect." 5 C. J. Vaughan gives this exegesis
of vTroo-rao-is : " ASSURANCE of (things hoped for), as in
four out of the five places where the word (v7rocrTacr*?) occurs
in the New Testament." 6 Edgar Goodspeed understands it
in the same sense : " Now Faith is the assurance of things
hoped for." 7 Dummelow, besides his explanation above,
notes that RV. uses assurance for viroaraa^, and then
explains it : " What is meant is that Faith is that which
gives assurance or certainty of things still in the
future. They exist apart from Faith, but it is by Faith
that they are realized." 8 H. R. Boll, much like the Greek

i A Comm. on the Holy Bible, etc., 1026.

2 Comm. in Divi Pauli Apost. Epist. ad Heb., 220.

3 Notes on the Epist. of Paul the Apost. to the Heb. , 334.

4 An Explanation of the Epist. to the Heb., 407.

6 An Exposit., etc. — The Epist. to the Heb., 397.
e The Epist to the Heb. , etc. , 213.

7 The Epist. to the Heb., 96.
» Op. cit., 1026.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 87

Patristic writers, interprets our passage as follows : " It is
Faith that makes the glories we hope for real to us, so that
they are not dreams, air castles, vain imaginations, but a
real inheritance. It is not only the basis of our hopes,
but our assurance of them. All this is involved in the
expression : Faith is the assurance of things hoped for." 1

II. TTTOGTaaiS mm FIRM PERSUASION, or CONVICTION.

Hence, Faith is the firm persuasion, or conviction of
"things hoped for." Thus Bernadine a Piconio : "The
writer apparently uses the word vTroo-TCKm, translated in the
Vulgate " substance," which is its proper meaning here as in
2 Cor. xi, 17, in a subjective sense, meaning certitude,
conviction, or confidence." 2 More clearly Weinel says :
" Glaube ist ein Uberzeugtsein von der unsichtbaren Welt,
auf die man hofft." 3 Johannes Weiss, while slightly exag-
gerating the sense of V7ro<rraoY9, yet interestingly interprets
our verse thus : u Tiroo-rao-is, eigentlich die feste Substanz
oder das Fundament, wird in der hellenischen Prosa von der
unerschutterlichen Festigkeit des Willens oder des
Mutes oder der Uberzeugung gebraucht." 4 Paul Feine,
speaking of the " beriihmte Definition des Glaubens " (given
in Heb. xi, 1), says : " Ein Doppeltes wird damit hervor-
gehoben : (1) dass es sich im Glauben um Heilsrealitaten
handelt, welche in dieser Welt noch nicht in die Erscheinung
treten, daher unsichtbar und Gegenstand der Hoffnung
sind ; (2) dass der Glaube doch aber eine unerschutter-
liche Uberzeugung von der Wirklichkeit dieser Giiter
ist." 5

III. T7ro(7Tao-t9 = foundation, or ROOT, so that Faith is

the foundation or root of "things hoped for." Thus

1 Lessons on Heb., 140.

2 Op. cit., 396.

8 Biblische Theologie des N. T., 699.

* Op. cit., I, 322.

6 Theologie des N. T., 656.

88 THE PAULINE PISTIS

Conrad Lomb, mistaking the etymology of u7roo-rao-t?,
writes : " Sicut enim substantia sustentat accidentia, ita
fides sustentat spem nostram, adeo ut nulla in nobis sit
futura spes, si non sit fides, quae earn fulciat et sustineat." 1
MacEvilly, applying it to justification, calls Faith the " root
and foundation of justification." 2 Stentrup thus desig-
nates 7rto-Tt? : " Das Fundament und die Wurzel all der
Giiter, die durch Christus uns geworden sind." 3 Many
other modern exegetes have interpreted viroo-Tacris in the
sense of foundation, but since they have further explained
their usage in terms of one of the other interpretations of
our text, we shall consider their exegesis in other and more
proper classifications.

IV. TiroaraaLS = confidence : Faith is the confidence
of " things hoped for." Thus Stuart understands ekin^o^e-
vcov viroaTCLcns : " The writer has just been exhorting his
readers not to cast away their confidence or boldness
which would ensure a great reward (Heb. x, 35). This
sense is evidently appropriate here." 4 Kuinoel for confi-
dence puts " expectation " : " firm A expect atio rerum
sperandarum." 5 Max. Roeth identifies VTroarraai^ with viro-
fiovr) : " Et Fides vel maxime consistit in expectatione
(u7ro<7Tacr4? idem sonat quod VTrofiovrj (x, 36 ; iii, 14)) rerum
sperandarum." 6 Olshausen, without assigning any reason
for his interpretation, rather curtly disposes of the difficult
viroo-TacTis : " Here it (substantia) is, of course, to be taken
in the sense of fiducia, firmly grounded confidence." 7
Lunnemann though mentioning the other interpretations pre-
fers "Innere Zuversicht auf das was noch gehofft wird,

» Op. cit., 219.

2 Op. cit., 225.

* ZkTh. (1877), s. 73 sq.

4 Comm. on the Epist. to the Heb., 484.

6 Comm. in Epist. ad Heb., 386.

6 Epist. Vulgo ad Heb. etc., 178.

7 Op. eft., VI, 640.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 89

in die Wirklichkeit noch nicht eingetreten ist." 1 Delitzsch
after once having rejected the interpretation viroaraa-^ =
confidence finally adopted it on the strength of the usage
of the term in the LXX and the koivt) : " A steadfast con-
fidence with regard to the objects of hope, in contrast to
the wavering and despondency which would faithlessly aban-
don them." 2 Milligan explains ttkttis as "A firm and
well-grounded confidence in reference to the objects of
hope." 3 Bill 4 calls it "standhafte zuversicht," 6 and
Philip Schaff "confidence" (as in Heb. iii, 14). 6 Bey-
schlag says : " Faith is a firm confidence, a moral cer-
tainty with regard to objects of hope." 7 F. W. Farrar
notes other interpretations, but equates viroaraai^ with con-
fidence. In this sense he accepts the term in iii, 14
(comp. 2 Cor. ix, 4; xi, 17), and he thinks "this sense to be
the most probable meaning of the word here." 8 Bernhard
Weiss speaks of "ein zuversichtliches Vertrauen auf
gehoffte Dinge," adding, es "ist ja der Grundbegriff von
itiotk tiberall der des Vertrauens." 9 Stevens very summa-
rily explains the difficulty : " Now Faith is the firm con-
fidence with respect to objects of hope." 10 And even more
briefly is it expounded by H. J. Holtzmann : " Eine Zuver-
sicht auf Gehofftes." 11 It is a remarkable fact that, in the
classic work on litem? in the New Testament, Schlatter

1 Kritisch. exeget. Handbuch uber den Hebrderbrief, 348.

2 Op. cit., II, 210.

3 The N. T. Comm. IX, 300.

4 Der Brief an die Heb. etc., 563. Cf. fuller definition: Das vielfach
gedeutete Wort viroa-raa-is hat, wie jetzt fast allgemein anerkannt ist, hier
dieselbe Bedeutung wie iii, 14, namlich " standhafte Zuversicht."

sibid.

6 A Popular Comm. on the N. T. , IV, Hebrews, 75.

» N. T. Theology, etc., H, 335.

8 The Epist. of Paul the Apostle to the Heb., etc., 161.

9 Der Brief an die Heb., etc., 281.

10 The Theology of the New Testament, 515.

11 Lehrbuch der neutest. Theologie, II, 346.

90 THE PAULINE PISTIS

rightly repudiates the contention that viroaTaa^ meant
" Confidence " in the kolvtj SiaXe/cTos in the emphatic words :
" Zuversicht heisst das Wort in keiner derselben " ; * and
although even here he understands the term as fundamentally
" Stehn " (" in viroaraa^ geht der Begriff ' Stehn ' niemals
verloren"), 2 yet the inference by which he arrives at
" Zuversicht " for the interpretation of the term in Heb. xi, 1
is most interesting. It is largely by the force of a supposed
contrast between vttoo-toXtj in the preceding verse with vtto-
aTaai<; of our verse that this interpretation is reached. " Nicht
4 weichen,' sondern festes, freudiges, zuversichtliches Stehn,
das ist Glaube." 3 He then shows that this is none other
than " Zuversicht " : " Das GehofTte ermoglicht das feste
Stehn, es wirkt die Zuversicht und wehrt dem Weichen.
Und da der Grund der Zuversicht ihr auch den Inhalt und
das Ziel bestimmt, so ist der Glaubende, wenn er auf darge-
botenem Yerheissungsgute Stellung nimmt, demselbem blei-
bend zugewandt." 4 Many others also interpret vrroGTaais
in Heb. xi, 1 in the sense of confidence, as Schultz,
Stein, Stengel, Yon Gerlach, 5 Bohme, Tholuck, Bleek, De
Wette, Bloomfield, McLean, Ebard, Alf ord, Moll and " most
modern interpreters." 6

Y. T7TO<rTao-i? = ANTICIPATED POSSESSION or TITLE-
DEEDS : Faith is the anticipated possession or title-
deeds of "things hoped for." Thus Shepardson : "Faith
deals essentially with the future and with invisible things ;
and is that power by which we become assured of our
ultimate possession of these future things." 7 Beyschlag
also writes : " The relation between God and man advances

1 Der Glaube im Neuen Test.., s. 582.

2 Op. cit., 581.

3 Op. cit., 459.
* Ibid.

6 Delitzsch, Op. cit, II, 207.
« Milligan, op. cit, 299.

7 Studies in the Epist to the Heb., 470.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 91

by a progressive revelation on God's side and a growing
possession through Faith on man's side. . . . The Faith
which lays hold of these things with inner sense (cf. the
tov aoparov g><? op<ov, xi, 27) is a thinking, a knowing ; but
it is more than that, it is at the same time a grasping with
the will: A laying hold on in order to possess." 1
Finally, Moulton, on the evidence of the Papyri, has this
ingenuous interpretation : * Faith is the title-deeds of
things hoped for. . . . Men and women who have received
a promise from God counted that promise as being the
title-deeds to something they could not see yet, but which
they were going to see some day." 2

We may now briefly state the results of the Modern
Period of the Exegesis of Heb. xi, 1:

I. Twoo-TacTis = reality or the " assurance of reality,"
— Rosenmiiller, John Owen, Seiss, F. S. Sampson, Lomb,
Longking, H. J. Ripley, Junkin, Lowrie, MacEvilly (sec-
ondary interpretation), Henry Cowles, Corluy, Van Steen-
kiste, Westcott, Bernadine a Piconio (secondary interpre-
tation), C. J. Vaughan, Goodspeed, R. H. Boll, Prat,
Dummelow, etc.

II. T7ro<rra<n? = conviction, — Bernadine a Piconio,
Weinel, Johannes Weiss, Paul Feine, etc.

III. Tiroo-TatTis = foundation, — Lomb, MacEvilly,
Stentrup, etc.

IV. Twoo-tclo-is = confidence, — Stuart, Kuinoel, Max.
Roeth, Olshausen, Lunnemann, Delitzsch, Milligan, Bill,
Schaff, Beyschlag, F. W. Farrar, Bernhard Weiss, Stevens,
H. J. Holtzmann, Schlatter, Schultz, Stein, Stengel, Von
Gerlach, Bohme, Tholuck, Bleek, De Wette, Bloomfield,
McLean, Ebard, Alford, Moll, and u most modern inter-
preters."

V. Tiroa-Taa^ = ANTICIPATED POSSESSION, or TITLE-
DEEDS, — Shepardson, Beyschlag, Moulton.

i Op. cit., II, 335. « Op. cit., 28.

92 THE PAULINE PISTIS

The characteristics of the Modern Exegesis of our verse
are :

(a) No new interpretation was produced ;

(6) The Patristic understanding of VTroarao-i? as "reality"
just barely held its own, and the English vocabulary gave
this rich equivalent for woo-tclo-is, " realization " ;

(e) The most important note is the outstanding fact that
Erasmus' interpretation of viroaraaL^ as " confidence " grad-
ually gained momentum, until it became the popular expla-
nation of the term.

Recapitulation and Conclusion of the Historical Part

After investigating what men have thought of Heb. xi, 1
from the first time that the verse appeared in extant literature
to the modern exegesis of our text, we are now prepared to
state the net results and to estimate their value. Every
exegesis of " die schonsten and die starksten Worte liber den
Glauben, die im Neuen Testament stehen" 1 hinges upon
f7ro(7Tao-t?. Hence, according to the understanding of
v7rocrTacri<; interpretations will be differentiated. From the
summaries of the results of our exegetical investigation,
it is evident that the various interpretations can be reduced
to two, — reality and confidence of "things hoped for."
The remarkable feature of this exegesis of our text is the
striking contrast between : (1) One interpretation (Faith
makes real the objects of hope) that goes back in an
unbroken historical chain to the unanimous understanding of
the Greek Patristic writers, and (2) the other interpretation
(Faith is the confidence of "things hoped for") that
sprang up in the 16th century and to-day has become the
popular exegesis of Heb. xi, 1. The former has its roots in
the living language of our text, and is the closest link to the
literary milieu that gave birth to the Epistle ; whereas the
latter, the creation of dogmatic tendency, is removed by

1 Weinel, Op. cit., 600.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 93

fifteen centuries from the living language of Heb. xi, 1, and
is altogether unmindful of the etymology of wjroa-Tacns.

It is indeed a striking contrast. Now what is the key to
the true interpretation of our text ?

Is it PHILOLOGY? Hardly ; for, as we shall see later, all
interpretations claim the confirmation of philology. Hence,
this science of itself cannot absolutely decide the question.
From the philological point of view, however, we may say
that that interpretation which the Greek Patristic writers
champion has this undoubted advantage — the Greeks them-
selves had the best practical philological sense of their own
tongue.

Is it context? Likewise, all interpretations claim the
support of the context. Hence, this of itself cannot settle
the matter.

Neither can it be the A priori CONCLUSION of Protestant
theologians that Trtcrrt? is essentially FIDUCIA. No scholar
will admit such an a priori conclusion as a basis for a critical
exegesis of Heb. xi, 1. The investigation would lack the
objectivity required for a critical study.

What, then, is the key to the critical exegesis of Heb. xi, 1 ?
Assuming only one incontestable law of language, viz., that
unless the context, or the usage and the spirit of the author
expressly exclude it, tcov ekirL^o^evcov vttoo-tcio-is was used in
the current understanding of the expression. The Greek
literary history of VTroo-racm, reaching its crest of decisive
importance in the literary milieu of Heb. xi, 1, alone can
determine this meaning. The Greek Patristic literature is
an important part of this literary history. Hence, for all
critical students of the Holy Scriptures, the exegetical his-
tory of Heb. xi, 1, from Clement of Alexandria to Johannes
Weiss, has two important values : (1) It not only gives in
detail the exact exegesis and problems of our text ; (2) but
it also advances the probability that that interpretation is
the correct one which was unanimously understood in the

94 THE PAULINE PISTIS

Greek Patristic literature, as faith is that which makes
real the objects of hope, and which later found stout
defenders in an unbroken historical chain down to our own
times. But, of course, the Patristic literature is not ab-
solutely decisive in determining the current meaning of rcov
eXiri^ofievcov V7ro<rTacn$ in the literary milieu of Heb. xi, 1.
It remains to inquire what interpretation the literary history
of tcov e\7n^ofjL€va)v viroaraa^ in the period preceding the
Epistle to the Hebrews, and concurrent with it, favors ; and
to what interpretation the philological investigation of the
terms, the examination of the context, and harmony with
the spirit of the author, lean.

PAET II — EXEGETICAL

CHAPTER I

HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION OF YTIOSTASIS

I. In the Hellenic World

The two outstanding results of the Historical Part of this
investigation are the establishing of the original text of
Heb. xi, 1, and the record of the various interpretations of
the same. Among these interpretations the Greek Patristic
exegesis not only predominates, but also has an admittedly
historico-literary and, hence, the highest critical value for
the explanation of the passage in question on the basis of a
sound historical method. For, historically it forms an inte-
gral part of Greek literary history, viz., the later phase of
the Kouvq 8ia\€/cT0$, the literary milieu of our verse. Ac-
cordingly, the Greek Patristic interpretation of the pivotal
word in Heb. xi, 1 has a probability not enjoyed by later
exegesis.

As we now proceed to investigate the literary value of
u7ro<TTao-t?, from its first usage in extant Greek literature to
that in the kolvtj Bcake/cros, it will be most important to
note any similarities with or differences from the Patris-
tic notion of the term. But, above all, in this investigation,
we must keep an ever-vigilant outlook for the original mean-
ing of VTcovTaavi and its historical development down to the
literary period in which Heb. xi, 1 was penned. For, very
probably the author of our verse used viroaraa-u: in that
sense which was prepared by the historico-literary develop-
ment of the term, and which was current when the Epistle

to the Hebrews was written.

98 THE PAULINE PISTIS

T7roo-Tao-t9 began its literary career apparently as a well-
established term. In the medical vocabulary of Hippoc-
rates (b. 460 B.C.) the word is used again and again to
designate u sediment " in urine. Thus in Prognosticon, c. 12,
the " Father of Medicine " says that urine is best when the
vjroa-racrL^ is white, smooth, and consistent during the whole
course of the disease up to the crisis : Ovpov Be apiarov eo~Tiv,

OTCLV 7} \eVK7) 7) V7T0<TTa<T £9 KCU XciT) KCLl O/JLoXt) TTCLpa TTaVTO,

tov xpovov, ear av KptOw rj vovcros. 1 This condition, says
Hippocrates, indicates freedom from danger and an illness
of short duration. But if the urine is deficient, and if it is
sometimes passed clear and sometimes with a white and
smooth sediment, the disease will be more protracted : Et Be
BiaXenroi icai ttotc fiev icadapov ovpeoi, nrore Be v<f>i<TTai,To to
XevKov re /ecu Xeiov teat ofiaXov, ^povLcoreprj yiverai t) i>oucro?. 2
It is clear that vrroaracn^ in the first, and v<f>io~Tai,TO in
the second passage, point to sediment. This meaning is
further confirmed by Hippocrates' definition of unhealthy
urine : Farinaceous vTroo-Taaets in the urine are bad : icpi-
fivcoBees Be ev toktiv ovpoicriv VTrocTao-eis 7roprjpat,. 3 These
citations make it unmistakable that viroo-Tacris was used by
Hippocrates to signify sediment. Furthermore, the second
citation indicates the verb form (y^io-Taa-Bai) from which
virocTaci^ is derived. For, obviously, the clause of the first,
orav rj XevKT] rj VTTOGTaais /cat Xetr) /cat o/jloXtj^ has the same
sense as this clause of the second citation, iroTe Be v<f>io-TaiTo
to XevKov Te /cat \etov icai ofiaXov. Hence, vzrotrTacrt? in the
sense of sediment is derived from the form vfacrTaarOai, and
it means either (a) " that which remains firm " as opposed
to u that which flows away " (yiroppvavi)* ; or (5) u that

1 Hippocratis Opera Quae Feruntur Omnia, edidit H. Kuehlewein, I, 89,
16 sq.

2 Ibid., I, 89, 19 sq. 3 Ibid., I, 90, 5 sq.

4 Cf . further evidence for viroaravis in Liddell and Scott, A Greek Lexicon,
Hippocrates, 741 H and 822 D (Foesius' edition).

HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 99

which settles at the bottom " as opposed to " that which
drains off." 1 In a word, xmoaTaais is the solid matter in
contrast to the more fleeting and transient stuff.

In Mox\lkov, c. 38, Hippocrates also used wroaTacrvs in
the sense of " base " or " something solid." In this chapter
our author formulates the rules for reduction and adjustment
of broken limbs by forcible extension. Tiroaraai^ occurs
in the rules for applying extension to a broken thigh.
When this is done on a bench, Hippocrates cites the common
method : A bench is used six cubits long, two cubits broad,
and one fathom in thickness, having two axles at each end,
and at its middle two moderate-sized pillars, " upon which
something like the step of a ladder rests for the VTroo-Taais
to the wood " : E^>' <ov a>9 KXifia/crrjp eireaTai e; ttjv viroGracnv
TO) fi/Xft). 2 Here viroaraa^ is used as "something firm or
solid " for support. For it is not the pillars, but rather the
transverse piece (like the step of a ladder) on the pillars
that serves as an viroa-raa-i^ for the wood, or as the base,
upon which the wood rests (eirea-rat) firmly.

This second usage of viroo-Tacns as the base, or " that which
makes firm " in opposition to " that which is movable," shows
the element it has in common with the first usage of the
term (as u that which settles or stands " in contrast to " that
which flows away"). Both are evidently popular meanings

Of V7T0<TTa(Tl<;.

Side by side with this medical and popular meaning,
wrroGTaais has found a place in the vocabulary of philosophers,
if Stobaeus can be trusted for preserving the very words of
Antiphon (b. 480 B.C.). For, in speaking of time (xpoz/o?),
Stobaeus quotes Antiphon as qualifying it by this contrast :
vorjfia 7] fjierpov tov %povov, ov% vtt o cr t aa iv? i.e., time is
either a theoretical concept (vorjfia) or a measure (/a€t/?oi/),

1 Ibid., Hippocrates, 686, 38 (Foesius' edition).

2 Op. cit., II, 269, 17 sq.

8 Diels' Doxog. Graec, 318, 22 sq.

100 THE PAULINE PISTIS

but not an viroaraa-^. The contrast to vorjfia shows that
vTroaracns is here tangible matter as opposed to idea. It is a
striking fact that the same notion of time (expressed in
terms of eirivoia in contrast to vjroaracns} is repeated by
later philosophers. 1 Tiroaraa^ is here used as a tangible
reality in contrast to a mere theoretical concept.

Again, if we can trust Plutarch and Stobaeus for quoting
the terminology used by Democritus (b. 460 B.C.) and
Epicurus (b. 342 B.C.), then the use of woo-rao-is as

u REALITY " in contrast to " MERE APPEARANCE " (e/i(£a<m)
is more ancient than is generally supposed. In De Placitis
Philosoph. IV, 14, (1), Plutarch says : Democritus and
Epicurus were of the opinion that the images in the mirror
(/caTOTTTpi/cas ep^>aaei^) happen according to the VTrocrracnv of
the portrait placed before it by ourselves, though the images
exist perverted in the mirror : Ta? KaToirTpiica<$ €/jL<j>aaeis
ryiveaOat, KaT* eiScoXcov VTroaracreis, ariva fyepeadai fxev a<f>
Vfjicov, avvKTTaadai Be ein rov Karoirrpov Kara avTLirepL-
aTpo<l>7)v. 2 The sense can only be : The mirror-image
happens according to the " reality of the portrait "
(/car eiScoXoov viroaTaaei^ placed before the mirror, with only
this difference, the mirror-images represent things perverted
(Kara avrnrepuTTpcxfrrjv). In other words, we have here an
evident instance where virocnaais means " reality ' in
contrast to en<f>a<ri$ " A mere appearance," since the picture
in the mirror is only the reflection of the reality in front of
the mirror. It is interesting to observe that for the exist-
ence of the image in the mirror, not vcfyio-racrOai is used but
<rvvi<naaQai. This fine distinction is an important confirma-
tion of the correctness of the interpretation of VTroa-Taais as
the reality of the object.

Hence, if we can trust Plutarch and Stobaeus for quoting
the very terminology employed by Antiphon, Democritus,

1 Cf . my discussion on Poseidonius, p. 107 ff.
2 Diels' Doxog. Graec, 405, 10 sq.

I > J >

HIST0RIC0-LITER4RY INVESTIGATION 101

■ . >

and Epicurus, then we must note another meaning for
vTroaTaaris in philosophy that is contemporary with its
meaning in medicine and in the more popular language. Is
there any relation between these two senses of the term ? On
the one hand, we have the meaning — " that which settles or
stands firm " in contrast to " that which is drained off or passes
away"; and on the other hand, — "reality" in contrast to
" mere appearance " (e/ic^acrt?). The former is the naive
sense, an idea proper to a primitive and more realistic way of
thinking, whereas the latter belongs to the popular philo-
sophical world of thought, the term of a later and more abstract
way of thinking. It is indeed a natural mental development
that the naive contrasts, " sediment " — " flowing water,"
" tangible " — " fleeting," " base of support " — " movable
things," should precede the more philosophical contrasts,
" reality " — " image," " reality " — " mere appearance." Yet
both usages of wirocrTao-is have something in common.
Schlatter also frankly admits this : u In VTroaraa-cs geht der
Begriff • Stehn ' niemals verloren. Auch seine abstraktere
Wendung, in der es die Wurzel unseres Substanz geworden
ist, geht vom Stehen aus im Gregensatz zum Schein, der sich
auflost und verschwindet u. s. w." 1 In both usages there is
the common idea — " something standing " in contrast to
"something fleeting." It is obvious that when viroaraa-LS
with its current popular meaning was brought into the field
of a more progressive terminology, the fundamental notion
of the term should take on a new shade of meaning : " That
which settles or stands firm " in contrast to " that which is
drained off or passes away" becomes "that which settles or
stands firm as an objective reality" in contrast to u that which
flits away under the test of experience, as a MERE appear-
ance" It is also important for the exegesis of Heb. xi, 1,
to notice even here that like it (ecm Be maris ekiri^ofievoiv

1 Cf. Der Glaube im Neuen Testament, 581.

102 THE PAULINE PISTIS

i/7roo"Tao-t?, 7rpayfiara)v eXeyxos ov (3\eiro ixevaav) this meaning of
vttogtclo-is as " reality " in contrast to "mere appear-
ance" is also epistemological. For not only is ttuttis
universally denned by the Greeks in epistemological * terms,
but also in the second part of Heb. xi, 1, e\e7%o? ov
/3\€7ro/jLeva)v obviously gives the verse an epistemological
setting. Therefore, when the two meanings of wrroo-Tacns
thus far found are considered, Heb. xi,l, would seem to have
been written in the light of philosophical usage.

Like Hippocrates, Aristotle (b. 384 B.C.) in Meteorol.
II, 3, (14) uses VTroo-rao-is in the popular sense of " sedi-
ment." In this chapter our author discusses salts. He
notices that, on the one hand, the sea receives water from
rivers, which becomes salty only after mixing with the sea
water ; and on the other hand, that the sweetest drinks taken
into the human system become briny urine in the bladder.
In both cases, Aristotle thinks that the saltiness is due to the
mixture of some solid particles with a fluid. Thus he
explains the saltiness of sea water : SrjXov on /cav ttj OaXarrn
to €/c r?;? 777? o-vyKaraficyvv/jLevov tco vypco aiTiov rr}<$ aKfiv-
poTTjTos. 2 It is in a similar explanation of the saltiness of
urine that VTroaraai<; occurs : Ej> p>ev ovv tco crcofiaTL yiverai to
tolovtov 7] T7]$ Tpocprjs virocrTacri^ Bta tj)v aTreyfriav. 3 The solid
residuum of the food (?? T77? Tpo<f>7]S vrroo-Tacri*;} on account of
its indigestibility (_Bia T77? airetyLav) accounts for the saltiness
of the urine in the body, just as earthy particles (to e/c T77?
777?) are the cause of saltiness (cunov t??<? a\p,vpoT7)To<$) in

1 " Religious Faith, even under the Polytheistic form it assumed in Greece,
implies that what exists and happens in the world depends on certain causes
concealed from sensuous perception. " Cf. Zeller, Pre-Socratic Philosophy,
i, 52 j also Clement of Alexandria says that Epicurus defined irums as a
irpo\rj\f/is Stavoias, and then accepts his definition of irpo\7j\f/is : EtiPoXijv eiri n
e^cryes, /ecu ciri ri\v evayi) tov irpayfiaros eirivoiav (Stromata, ii, 4, Migne, P. 6?.,
8, 948 B).

2 Opera Omnia, III, 580, 6 sq.
tlbid.

HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 103

the sea. Tiroa-Taa^ here means solid residuum 1 in contrast
to the transient matter of digestible food.

In the same book, MeteoroL, IV, 5, (7), Aristotle
(a) again designates sediment by the term viroaraa^,
(5) infers that the term is derived from vfao-rao-Oai, and
(e) shows that viroa-Taa^ as sediment really means either
tt that which is solid " in opposition to " that which is in a
liquid state," or "that which settles" in opposition to "that
which is in a gluey state." In this chapter Aristotle discusses
the quality of hardness (Il^eo)? ovv irepi pereov'). 2 One of
the means for making things hard is drying or evaporation,
and it is in the context of this theme that viroa-Taa-^ occurs.
Our author states that water, or things soaked in water, or
placed in water, can be dried. The various kinds of liquids
that can be so dried are wine, urine, whey, and whatever has
no VKQGTaaiv at ally or a moistened vKoo-ra(Tiv\ but not
those that are moistened by gluing, for in such the stickiness
is the cause of tov jxtj v<f>Laracr0aL firjSev, as is the case
with oil and pitch : ToWo? 8 y eiSrj ra roiahe, olvos, ovpov, oppos,
teat o\o)5 oaa /xriBe/JLiav n ftpa^eiav ex ei viroaTacriv, /jltj
Sia y\ia")(pOT7jTa ' eviois fiev yap airiov tov /jltj v$i<jTao~6 at
fivSev r) <y\LO"XpoTr]S, axnrep eXata), rj ttitttj. 3 What is the
meaning of vrroo-Taais in this passage?

(a) Undoubtedly, the fjLrjSeficav VKoaraaiv means no
"solid matter at all " as opposed to " fluidity."

(6) Bpa%eiav vrro(TTa<TLv signifies a " moistened sedi-
ment " or a " moistened solid " as opposed to a " pure solid."

(c) The reason why the VTroo-raais, moistened by gluing, is
excluded from those mixtures that dry and thus become hard,
is that the stickiness (7X^0-^/30x7;?) of such a mixture is the
cause of "no settling whatever" (tov /jltj vfaarrao-Oai finBev).

!The term has the same meaning in Meteorol., II, 3, (22); P. A., II, 2,
(3); III, 9, (6); IV, 2, (7).

2 Opera Omnia, III, 615, 6.

3 Op. cit, III, 615, 27.

104 THE PAULINE PISTIS

The use of v$i<TTaa-Qai is fortunate. For it shows, by
practically identifying viroaravis with to vfyiaraarOat,, that
Aristotle, like Hippocrates, before him, derived wroo-Taais
from v(f)iaTaa-0ai. The fundamental notion of V7roaTaai<i for
Aristotle seems to be "solid matter" as opposed to "that
which evaporates," or u that which is solid " as opposed to
" that which is fluid and transient." We certainly have
here the primitive meaning of vrro<TTa<TL<;.

Aristotle's disciple Theophrastes (b. 371 B.C.) also uses
vrro(TTao~L<; as a kind of " sediment," u that which settles at
the bottom" in contrast to "that which is drained off." In
De Odoribus, 6, (29), he describes the manufacture of the
famous Egyptian perfume : Crushed myrrh liquefied in
balsam oil is placed over a slow fire. Then the myrrh
settles down to the bottom just like mud ; when the water is
drained off, this VKoaraai^ they press hard by working it :
avvi^aveiv h* et9 /3v0ov ttjv afivpvav /cat rovXaiov KaBairep Ckvv •
orav he tovto o~v/jl/3t] to /jl€p vSeop airrideiv rrjv B* vrroaTaa-tv
aTrodXifietv opyavois. 1 Here wiro<nacns is obviously "that
which settles or stands" as solid matter, in contrast to " that
which is drained off" as fluid. Again we have the naive
primitive sense of viroaTaa-^,

T7roo-Tao-t?, as a philosophical term used by Antiphon,
Democritus, and Epicurus, to express " reality " in contrast
to rt mere APPEARANCE " (e^<^>ao-t?), also found its way into
the vocabulary of Stoic epistemologists. Boethus of Sidon
(flourished about 200 B.C.) 2 seems to be one of the first 3
Stoics to use viroo-Taais in this sense. His teaching has been

1 Theophrasti Eresii Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia, ed. F. Wimmer,
369, 14 sq.

2 Cf . Zeller for the dispute about the exact date of Boethus, Die
Philosophie der Griechen, III Teil, I Abt., s. 46, (1).

3 Chrysippus before him, in a discussion Ilepi Toirov, has used viro<rTa<ris
probably also in the sense of " reality ". For speaking of xp° v0 * M something
K€t>ov, he says : Kara yap ttjv clvtov viroaraaiv aweipov eari. (Cf . Diels' Doxog.
Graec., 461, 2.)

HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 105

preserved by Stobaeus (JEcl. I, 26, 5). In discussing the
question as to whether the heavens seem to be broader than
they are high, this observation of Boethus is quoted : The
expansiveness is received "according to the (fyavraa-tav"
not " according to the vrroo-Taaiv " : BorjOos Be 7T/30? ttjp
tyavraaiav Sexual to avaireirTafievoVy ov Kara tvv viroo'Tacnv. 1
The phenomenon, which everybody knows is only apparent,
is explained in terms of a contrast between u 7r/oo? twv
<f>avTaatav y and "«ara ttjv viroaraaiv." On the one
hand, <j>avTa<ria 2 for the Stoics means u representation " as
well as " imagination," and, on the other hand, the context
obviously demands a contrast between "what is only
apparent" and "what is real." It is evident that vrroo-raa^
here means "reality" in contrast to "mere appearance"
(<f>avTao~ia).

1 Diels, Doxog. Graec, 363, 12 sq.

2 Turner summarizes briefly Stoic epistemology thus: "1. The Stoics
start with the Aristotelian principle that all intellectual knowledge arises
from sense-perception. Sense-perception (aiffdrja-ts) becomes representation,
or imagination (<pavTa<ria) , as soon as it rises into consciousness. During the
process of sense-perception the soul remains passive, the object producing its
image on the mind, just as the seal produces its impression on wax. The
process was, therefore, called a rviruxris, although Chrysippus is said to have
substituted the word erepoKoats, alteration of the soul. When the object of
knowledge is removed from the presence of the senses, we retain a memory
of it, and a large number of memories constitutes experience (epwetpta).

2. The next step is the formation of concepts. Concepts are formed either
(a) spontaneously, i.e., when, without our conscious cooperation, several like
representations fuse into universal notions (irpo\7)\f/€is or koivcu ewoiai); or
(6) consciously, i.e., by the reflex activity of the mind, which detects
resemblances and analogies between our representations, and combines these
into reflex concepts, or knowledge (eTcujTwrj). Neither spontaneous nor
reflex concepts are, however, innate ; spontaneity does not imply innateness.

3. As, therefore, all our knowledge arises from sense-perception, the value
to be attached to knowledge depends on the value to be attached to sense-
perception. Consequently, the Stoics decided that apprehension (/caraX^i/'ts)
is the criterion of truth. That is true which is apprehended to be true, and
it is apprehended to be true when it is represented in the mind with such
force, clearness, and energy of conviction, that the truth of the representation
cannot be denied." Cf. History of Philosophy, pp. 165, 166.

106 THE PAULINE PISTIS

For the historical usage of vrroo-Tao-is, Polybius (205-123
B.C.) merits a special consideration, not because he has de-
veloped the meaning of the term in any way, but rather in
this, that one of his usages of the term has been seized upon
and repeated again and again as the standard example of
the meaning "fiducia" by those exegetes who, following
Erasmus and Luther, interpret viroo-Tacns in Heb. xi, 1 as
"confidence." Besides, with Polybius the kolvtj period —
the literary milieu of Heb. xi, 1 — is unmistakably already
begun. 1 Hence, we must examine very critically the various
meanings of viroaTacn^i in the writings of Polybius.

In Histor. Reliquiae, IV, 50, (10), Polybius uses vrroo-Taaris
in the sense of " firmness." In the previous chapter, our
author outlines the causes of the war between the Byzan-
tians and the Rhodians (aided by Prusius), in the prosecu-
tion of which the Byzantians were chiefly encouraged by the
promise of help from the powerful prince Achaeus. In the
chapter in which viroo-Tacris occurs, the enthusiastic and
energetic management of the war by the Byzantians is noted.
To dampen this enthusiasm and to frighten the Byzantians
out of the war, the Rhodians assembled a powerful fleet and
demonstrated their strength in the very sight of Byzantium.
The Byzantians paid no heed whatever to this naval exhibi-
tion. In fact they rather pressed still more Achaeus to
hurry with his forces, and complicated matters for Prusius
in Bithynia. But the Rhodians, seeing the viroaraaiv of the
Byzantians, laid a plan by which they really accomplished
their purpose : Ot Be FoBioc, Oecopovvres ttjv tcov Bv^avncov
vttogtcigiv, TrpayfjLaruccDs Bievorjdrjo-av 77790? to Kaduceadai
T77? TrpoOeaeaxi? The previous meaning of viroaracn^ as
u firmness " or u solidity " would fit into the context of this

1 ' ' That is natural in the professional Atticist, who could not forgive
Polybius for writing the current common Greek of his time." (Cf. Murray,
A History of Ancient Greek Literature, p. 392.)

2 Polybii Historiarum Beliquiae, Graece et Latine, etc., 237.

HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 107

passage. For it is clear that wrrocrTacns here describes the
action of the Byzantians whom the Rhodians tried to
frighten. " Firmness " would very aptly describe the action
of the Byzantians, when the Rhodians vainly tried to intimi-
date them by the naval demonstration. The unmistakable
firmness of the Byzantians is here described by wiroaTaaw.

We note another example of " firmness." This, the most
interesting citation quoted by Polybius, occurs in Histor.
Reliquiae, VI, 55, (2). It is the usage of vrroaraarLs quoted
and repeated again and again by most of the exegetes who
interpret viroaracn^ in Heb. xi, 1 as "fiducia" or "confi-
dence." The term is found in a description of the classic
incident of Horatius at the Bridge. That Roman hero was
engaged with two enemies at the farther end of the bridge,
when he perceived that many more warriors were coming to
the assistance of the enemy. Hence, he was apprehensive
that they would eventually force their way into the city.
To avert this calamity he turned round to his companions,
ordered them to the other end of the bridge with instruc-
tions to destroy the same. While they were employed at
this work, Horatius, though covered with wounds, still main-
tained his post, and held back the enemy ; for the enemy
were dumbfounded, not so much by his power, as by his
VTTocnao-LS and intrepid courage : Ov% ovtco ttjv 8vva/juv, a><?
tt)v viroGTaaiv avrov koli To\/xav /caTaire7r\7)yfjL€Vcav tow vire-
vavncov. 1 What is the meaning of VTroa-raai^ here ?

1. Some have translated VTroo-Tacris by " praesentia animi " 2 ;
others by " firmness " 3 ; and many exegetes look upon this
as the classic example of u fiducia." 4

i Op. tit., 371.
*Ibid.

3 The General History of Polybius, translated from the Greek by Mr.
Hampton.

4 Georgius Raphelus, Annotationes Philologieae in N. T., HI, 687 sq. ;
Hugo Grotius, Critici Sacri, VII, Part II, p. 1131 ; Matt. Polus, Synopsis
Crit. et Alior., IV, 1364, etc.

108 THE PAULINE PISTIS

The interpretation, u presence of mind," is excluded not so
much by the context, which favors a number of interpreta-
tions, but by what we already know about the usage of
viroGTGLcns, It has nothing to do with " presence of mind."

2. If wiroaraai? means "firmness" in the passage under
discussion, then the thing that dumbfounded the enemy was
not Horatius' " presence of mind " to think of destroying
the bridge (though that meant cutting off his chance of
escape), but rather, his " unyielding firmness " and intrepid
courage that inspired a single man to fight so many. Since
Polybius uses this meaning elsewhere for wiroGTaais, it must
be the preferred explanation.

3. Is there any probability for the interpretation of
v7ro<7Tacri? in this passage as " confidence " ? If viroaTacns
here means "confidence," then the thing that amazed the
enemy was the u confidence " of Horatius and his intrepid
courage. But, we ask, what was the u confidence " of Hora-
tius all about ? The most probable object of such a " confi-
dence " that could " dumbfound the enemy " would be the
"confidence' of Horatius in his ability to fight so many
men. But the fact that Horatius, after the bridge was once
broken, plunged into the stream to his death, shows clearly
that he had no " confidence " to conquer ultimately the
enemy. Horatius had no such confidence, nor could the
enemy reasonably give him credit for having it. It is
indeed a remarkable bit of evidence to note what Schlatter
in his classic on " nto-rt? in the New Testament " thinks
about the meaning of vrrocrTaai^ in this passage of Polybius.
Although Schlatter himself interprets viroaTaat^ of Heb. xi, 1
as " Zuversicht " (fiducia) still he is frank enough to observe
that neither this passage in Polybius nor any other Greek
usage of u7ro(7Tao-t? which he had seen means "Zuver-
sicht." His words are: " Uber diesen verbalen Gebrauch
(avvTToaTdTO*; = 'without firmness' 1 ) geht vrroa-Taai^ in Stel-

1 This is the " verbalen Gebrauch " referred to here.

fflSTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 109

len wie Pol. 6, 55, 2 ; 4, 50, 10 ; Jos. Ant. 18, 1, 6, nicht
hinaus; Zuversicht heisst das Wort in keiner derselben, so
traditionell ihre Citation in den Kommentaren als Beleg fur
den Begriff Zuversicht geworden ist." 1 But if we have
" firmness " in Polybius, it is nothing other than a transfer-
ence of the original meaning concerning material things to
spiritual things (condition of mind).

The development of the meaning of viroaracns from " that
which settles or stands " (sediment) in contrast to u that which
is drained off or passes away" to "reality" in contrast to a
" theoretical proposition of the mind ' (eirivoia), was already
indicated in the writings of Antiphon. He used vorjp>a for
the concept of the mind. In Poseidonius (b. 135 B.C.) we
meet with a synonym — einvoia. The citation is preserved
by Diogenes Laertius in his Vitae Philosophorum, 7, (135).
Here tear enrivoiav is directly contrasted with icad* viroarracnv.
Diogenes is discussing the measurement of bodies. One that
has length, breadth, and depth is called a solid body (a-repeov
acofjia). Then he takes up the question of the surface (eiri^a-
veto). The surface is defined in two ways, either in a naive
and realistic way, as the extremity of a body, or in an abstract
way, as something having length, breadth, not depth : eiri-
(fyaveca 8' can o-ayfiaros 7T€/oa? w to /jlvkos icai TrXaros fiovov
e^o^, ftaOo? 8' ov. 2 Then Diogenes adds that Poseidonius
in his third book on Heavenly Bodies equates this defini-
tion of surface in these terms : icai /car eirivoiav tcai tcaO'
vTroo~Taaiv. The text follows : ravTrjv Be Uoo~€l8covio<; ev
Tpn(o irepi fJL€T€G>pc0v K,ai kot €7TLPoiav fcai /cad* viToaTacriv
aTroXenret. 3 In other words, surface in terms of length,
breadth, and depth (lacking here) is for Poseidonius
what we would to-day call a mathematical concept (jcar em-

1 Der Glaube im Neuen Testament, 682.

2 Diogenis Laertii de Clar. Philosoph. Vitis etc., Recensuit Cobet, 188,
15 sq.

3 Ibid.

110 THE PAULINE PISTIS

voiav) 1 in contradistinction to the realistic definition of sur-
face as the real extremity of a body (Vta/taTo? 7repa9), which
the learned Stoic expressed as " that which exists in reality "
(jcaffi viroarounv).

In Strabo (b. 63 B.C.) viroaraa^ means something similar
to " sediment" — it is the "solid residuum" as opposed
to " what can be drained off " by water and a sieve.
In G-eograph., Ill, 2, (10) Strabo says that Polybius men-
tions the silver mines near Alexandria. The process of
manufacture is briefly summarized as follows : The silver
bullion they break, and by means of sieves they suspend the
same in water ; they again break the t>7rocrTa<m, and once
more the mass (strained with running water) is broken:
T77U Be (rvrprjv @(o\ov tt)V apyvpcriv <jyrf<ri KOirreaOai icai koctki-
vols €£? vBcop Siarraa-dai' Koirrea-Oac Be ira\vv ras viro-
<7Tacr€t9, icai ttoXlv BirjOovfievas aTro^eofievoyv tcov vBarcov
KOTrreaOai. 2 The fifth virooTaais they melt, and after the
lead is drained off they extract the pure silver : viroaTaatv
^covev0eL(Tav y airo^vOevTOf; rov fioXiftBov, /caOapov top apyvpov
efjayetv.z Tiroo-rao-is here unmistakably means the "COM-
PACT residuum " as opposed to " that which is strained
off " by the water and the sieve. This usage of the term
confirms the repeated observation that the fundamental
meaning of viroaTacns is not " sediment r as sediment, but
"that which remains firm or is the solid matter" in con-
trast to " that which is drained off." Of course, this heavier
matter will sink to the bottom, if any water is left in the
mixture, and this can be called "sediment." But it need
not be what we call ordinarily "sediment." In this in-

1 Cf. another example of Poseidonius' use of eirivoia in Diels' Doxog.
Graec, 458, 11 : 5ia<pepeiv 8e tijv ovaiav ttjs vKris rt\v ovaiav Kara rrjv viroara-
aiv eirivoia /xovov. For the expression /car' eirivotav, cf. Ibid., Index, eirivoia ;
also cf . Bigg, The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, Index, eirivoia.

2 Strabonis Geographica, Recognovit Augustus Meineke, I, 200, 1 sq.
8 Ibid.

HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 111

stance, e.g., the term "sediment" would not sufficiently
describe vttogtcktis. It is rather a "compact residuum"
in contradistinction to that part of the mixture "which
can be drained off." Here vTTOGTaais seems to be the
emphasis of the " solidity " in contrast to the " fluidity "
of the mixture.

As we advance in the koivw period, we see that the old
contrast between wrroGTaai*; and tf*$am becomes more and
more general, if not also more emphatic. So in Uepi Koa-fiov
(50 B.C.), 1 VI, 21, we meet viroaraa^ again as the "em-
phasis of reality" in contrast to "mere appearance."
Speaking of the phenomena that take place in the sky dur-
ing a storm, the author says that, of those things which ap-
pear in the atmosphere, some are /car efufaacnv, and some are
/cad* vrroGTaaiv : ra p>ev can icar e/JLcfraaiv, ra Be /cad* vtto-
a-racrtv. 2 Examples of those /car e/JL(f>a<Tiv are the rainbow
(tptSe?), the magic wands (/>a/38ot), and the like ; whereas
the examples of the tca6 y viroaTaaiv are the flashes of light-
ning (ere\a), the rumbling thunder (&aTToyre?), and the
comets (rcofjLrjTai), and similar things : YLar e^aaiv /jlcp ipiBes
kcli pafiBoi teat ra roiavra, icaO* vrroaTaaiV Be <re\a re /cac
BcaTTovre: /cat KO^rjTai kcli ra tovtois Trap<nr\r)<Tia. z The con-
trast here between the rainbow, magic wands, and such like,
which are only appearances (rear efjufxuriv), and the flashes of
lightning, thunder, and the comets which are realities (jcad y
viroaraaiv), shows that viroo-Ta<n<; here signifies that which is
real in contrast to that which is only apparent, or reality in
contrast to appearance.

The witness of Diodorus (flourished 25 B.C.) to the his-

1 ' ' Diese Schrif t wird demnach keinenf alls vor der Mitte des ersten vor-
christlichen Jahrhunderts verf asst sein ; wahrscheinlich ist sie aber noch
etwas jiinger ; doch wird man ihre Entstehung nicht tiber das erste Jahrhun-
dert nach dem Anfang unserer Zeitrechnung herabrucken dtirfen." Cf.
Zeller, Op. cit., II Teil, I Abt., s. 644.

2 Cf. Aristotelis, Opera Omnia, III, 633, 18 sq.

112 THE PAULINE PISTIS

tory of vrro<TTa<n<; is most interesting, because as we approach
with him the very milieu of Heb. xi, 1, we notice that the
philosophical sense of the term has become popular without
losing its first naive sense. Tiroaraa^ is one of the common
words in the vocabulary of Diodorus. We shall note only
the most important instances :

1. Tttoo-too-is = The "Settlings" (of a Cloud) or

"Tangible Matter."

Diodorus, like the Greek classical writers, uses woo-rao-i?
in Bibliotheca Historica, I, 18, (7) to signify " that which
settles down in a cloud " in opposition to " that which floats
away." Here, in speaking of the cause for the increase
of the waters of the Nile, Diodorus rejects the opinion that
it is due to snows fallen perhaps in remote parts. For
all rivers increased by snows give forth cool breezes and
heavier atmosphere ; but concerning the Nile, it alone of all
rivers has this distinction : neither the viroaTacreis of cloud
exist, nor do the breezes become cold, nor does the air thicken :
irepi 8e rov ISleiXov /jlovov tg>v irorapLODV ovre vecfrovs vrroara-
<ret9 virap'xpvo-iv ovt avpai ^v^pai ywomai ov0* o arjp Tra^v-
verac. 1 It is the tangible matter of the cloud (rain-drops)
that wiroo-racreis here signify.

2. Tiroaraa^ — " FOUNDATION "

In the same work, I, 66, (6), Diodorus uses viroaTacns
to signify "foundation." This chapter is devoted to the
royal tombs of Egypt. After describing their magnificence
and costliness, he continues: Generally it is said that the
kings made the VTroaraaiv of the tomb such in expense and
so great in size, that, if they had not completed the attempt
to finish it, no superiority whatever in others remained for
the prosecution of such work : KadoXov Be Toiavrrjv ttj 7ro\v-

1 Bibliotheca Histor., ed. Fred. Vogel, I, 66, 9 sq.

fflSTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 113

TeXeia icai TrjXi/caVTTjv tco /xeyeOei ttjv virocrTacriv tov racfrov
Xeyerac TroirjaaaOat, tov? /3ac-t\ei?, coctt ei firj irpo tov avvTeXeaai
ttjv €7ri/3o\7)v /caTekvOrjcav, firjBefiiav av vrrep^oXrjv ere/aot? 7rpo?
KaTao-fcevrjv epycov airoXiirew. 1 T7ro<rrao-j? is here used in the
sense of " foundation," a meaning quite similar to Hippoc-
rates' usage of the term as "base."

3. T7roo-Tao-t? = " Settling Down " (of People)

In Bibliotheca Historical XVII, 69, (7), the story of
Alexander's triumphant return from the East with Persian
kings as his captives is told. These latter were so mutilated
that they excited the pity of the Greeks and the tears of
Alexander. On the request of the captives, it was decided
to allow them to return home ; but on second thought, the
Persians, unable to undergo the humiliation of returning to
their country in such mean condition, determined to remain
in Greece. Accordingly, (they came to Alexander a second
time, laid before him their new resolution and their need of
help for their domestic wiroo-Tao-i*;: Aio /cat iraXiv €vtv%ovt€<;
tco ftacriXei,, icai ttjv ihiav icpicriv BrjXcocravTe;, eSeovTO 7T/30? Tav-
ttjv VTroaTacrLv oaceiav irape^aQai ttjv ftorjOeiav. 2 This
request was granted by Alexander, and each Persian received
a certain sum of money to " settle down " in Greece. Here
v7roo~Tacri<i means " settling down " as opposed to " proceed-
ing." This employment of the term also throws some light
on its usage as "sediment." For it points out the common
element — " that which settles down or remains firm " (either
in the land or in water) as opposed to " that which disap-
pears or is removed " (in one way or another).

4. Tiroo-Tacns = " REALITY "

In Bibliotheca Historica, I, 28, (7), Diodorus describes
the first rulers of Attica. Some of these, it was thought,

1 Bibliotheca Histor., ed. Fred. Vogel, I, 112, 25 sq.

2 Bibliothecae Histor., ed. C. Mullerus, II, 180, 15 sq.

114 THE PAULINE PISTIS

came from Egypt and were popularly represented as half-
serpent and half -man, i.e., half -Egyptian and half -Greek.
Such a one was Peteus, a man of twofold form, concerning
whose nature the Athenians were unable to give (kclto, tvv
ihiav wiroaTCLGiv) the true origin : $t,<f>vov<; 8* avrov yeyovoros,
tovs fjuev Adrjvaiovs /jltj SvvaaOai Kara rrjv ihiav viroaraaLV
airohovvai irepi T77? <f>v<rem ravTT}? ra? aXwOeis airias. 1 What
does Kara ttjv cBtav viroaraaLv mean? The Athenians
were unable to give the origin of the nature of Peteus ac-
cording to the proper t>7ro<rTa<m. It is indirectly admitted
that their imagination had discovered tales of his origin and
nature. But they did not know the real origin. We have
here the old contrast between reality (t/7ro<xTa<m) and the
work of the imagination.

In Bibliotheca ITistorica, XVI, 33, (1), our author says
that the Phocaeans, after being defeated by the Boetians,
were again incited to war by the self-seeking Onomarchus.
A dream, showing this man the appearance (e/jupaaiv) of
great increase and glory, spurred him on to this viroaTaaiv :

E7T77/36 8* aVTOV 7T/30? TWV V7T0(TTa(Tt,V TaVTTJV OVCipOS €/JL(f>a<nV 80VS

fieyaXTjs avgrjarea)? re tcai 8of^?. 2 "Mere plan," as the sense
of WKocnacns, will not suffice. For he carried out an action.
Furthermore, there is an obvious contrast between €fi<f>acriv
(the mere appearance) in Onomarchus' dream and virocnaaiv
(the realization) to which the dream incited. We have
here in VTroarTao-is the reality of action in contrast to the
appearance of glory that caused the action.

We find, then, that Diodorus uses VTroo-Tacris in the sense
of " solid matter" "foundation" "firm settlement" " reality."
The first three meanings evidently are based on the naive
primitive meaning, "sediment," with which they have in
common " solidity " and "firmness" while the last meaning

1 Bibliotheca Histor., ed. Fred. Vogel, I, 46, 12 sq.

2 Bibliothecae Histor., E. C. Mullerus, II, 88, 44 sq.

HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 115

represents the developed sense in the advanced terminology
of the popular philosophy.

The first use of v7roaracrt<; in the clear sense of " reality "
was found in the striking contrast between vn-oaraai^ (" re-
ality ") and efMfracris or fyavTacia (" MERE APPEARANCE "),
or in the practically identical contrast between vn-oo-Taais
(" REALITY ") and vorjfia or eirivoia (" THEORETICAL or
mathematical concept"). We noticed also that this
contrast becomes more and more general, as we approach the
milieu of Heb. xi, 1. This stage in the development of the
term was certainly reached in the writings of Philo (b. 25
B.C.). In Be Mundi Incorruptibilitate, our author discusses
the reasons why the earth cannot be destroyed by fire. In
his argumentation, Philo first of all distinguishes three ele-
ments in fire, viz., "live coal" (avdpag), "flame" (<£\o|),
and "splendor" (avyrf). Then he continues, should the
material particles of the earth be dissolved or disappear in
any way, there could be no "live coal," nor "flame," nor
" splendor." Because the material particles are the food of
the " flame " ; and without the " flame," there could be no
avyr), inasmuch as avyr) lacks proper virocrTao-is : otl viro-
crraa-Lv ihiav ovk e^et. 1 "Splendor" is only a quality of
" flame " ; and so long as the " flame " is real, " splendor "
partakes of that reality ; but just as soon as the " flame "
no longer exists, then " splendor " automatically ceases to be,
i.e., it loses its reality. Thus, Philo can only mean that
avyr) has not "its own reality" (ihiav viroa-Taaiv).

In this same meaning of the term we come now to the most
interesting passage in the whole historico-literary investiga-
tion of viroo-Tacns. The following citation of Philo is re-
markable for these reasons: (a) The passage was written in
the literary milieu of Heb. xi, 1 ; (5) like our verse, it is
concerned with the perception of the invisible world ; and

1 Opera Quae Beperiri Potuerunt Omnia etc., Ed. Thomas Mangey,
H, 505, 35.

116 THE PAULINE PISTIS

((?) it is another example of the Greek epistemological con-
trast between v7roo~Tao-L<; as reality and efjufxiais (here a/cia,
(T^TjfiaTcov otyiSy ai<T07)Tov, opciTov, <f>avTao~ia) as MERE AP-
PEARANCE. This important passage is found in Quod a Deo
Mittantur Somnia, c. XXXII. The dream under discussion
here is the vision of the heavenly ladder vouchsafed to
Jacob. The immediate context in which our citation occurs,
is an exegesis of the words spoken by Jacob, when on awak-
ening he exclaimed in fear and wonder : " Surely the Lord
is in this place, and I knew it not. . . . This is the gate
of heaven." The cause of Jacob's fear and wonder is then
analyzed by Philo to be the fact that God, who is incorporeal
(acra)/xaro?), was manifested here locally, a phenomenon proper
to corporeal things (aw para). But, continues Philo, the
whole world is the abode of God, in that it manifests His
Goodness, and in this sense the visible world can be rightly
called the " Gate of Heaven." The " invisible world," of
which the truth that " God is in this place " is an example,
is then called u the world knowable to the intellect only "
(yor)To<$ #007x09) in contrast to the " visible world " (aio-Orjros
kul opcofjLaros /coo-fto?) which is called the gateway of the
former. For as men who wish to see cities enter in through
the gates, so also they who wish to comprehend the invisible
world {aeiZr] Kocrpbov) are conducted in their search by the
appearance of the visible world (yiro rov oparov ^avraaia^).
Then follows the reason : the intellectual world is guaranteed
as a reality by the reality of the visible world of which it is
the real archetype: O Se votjtt)? vrroo-Tacreax; teoo-fjLo? avev
T)(TTLVocrovv a^rjpLarcov oi/reto?, /jlovtjs Be Bia re ap^ervirov iheas
re ev tg) Bia^apa^devTi irpos to OeaOev avrco etSo? avev artcia*;
fjL€Ta/c\r]6rio~€TaL. 1 What is the meaning of votjtt)^ viroo-raaeto^ ?
As the passage is rather difficult, it will be well to analyze
each clause: (1) O Be votjttjs viroaraaeo)^ /coo-/jlo$ avev
rjarivoaovp ar^p.araiv oi|reo)? = the world of the intellectual

i Op. cit. I, 649, 14 sq.

HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 117

(yor)TT)^ reality (u7roo-Ta(r€G)?), without any visible garment
whatsoever, (2) avev cicias /leTa/eXTjdrjaeTai — will be recalled
(reproduced in the intellect) without a perishable external
appearance, (3) fiovrjs m only (a) Sia re apxervirov t8ea? =
through the ideal form of the archetype (Platonic), (6) re
ev to) Zia'yapayQevTi 77730? to OeaOev avroa etSo? = and in the
being shaped according to the archetype made visible in it
(the visible world).

Tiroo-rao-is is here described as the invisible reality
underlying the visible world, and is a synonym for the
Platonic ihea (also etSo?) which is an existing and invisible
reality ; these (the iSea and the viroaTaais:) become per-
ceptible to the intellect by the archetype made visible
(in the visible world). The intellectual world is guaranteed
as a reality by the visible world of which it is the archetype.
Whence it is clear that two things are here emphasized,
(1) the reality of the intellectual and invisible
world, and (2) the superiority of this world over the
visible world which is produced only by being modeled
according to the archetype.

This citation is of great importance for the language of
Heb. xi, 1, not only because it testifies immediately to the
literary milieu of our verse, but also because we have here
historical evidence that the old Greek epistemological con-
trast between wrroGTacrvi (REALITY) and efujxio-is or <f>amaaia
(mere appearance) was not strictly limited to a verbal
formula. For this passage shows that the contrast was also
used between viroaraa-^ and any synonym of eficfrao-is and
<t>avraata, — such as aicta, a-^rj/jbarcov oi|rt9, aio-dqTov, and opa-
tov. Hence, if the famous contrast is used in Heb. xi, 1,
eXTTt^ofjuevrnp and pXeirofievcov would be only synonyms for
€fK/>ao-£5 or (ftavrao-ia or cr/aa, etc. But more important still
is the fact that both in Philo and in Heb. xi, 1 we have sub-
stantially the same general context, viz., the u perception of
the invisible world." Schlatter thinks that wroo-Taaiv epywv

118 THE PAULINE PISTIS

ayaOav e^etv of Ps. Esd. 8, 36 is a parallel expression for
Heb. xi, 1: Die nachtsverwandte Parallele zu Heb. xi, 1,
die mir bekannt ist, gibt Ps. Esd. 8, 16: " Substantiam
operum bonorum habere." l But as the Greek text is lost,
we cannot come to a final conclusion regarding this passage.
Besides, the general context in these two passages is not
nearly so similar as between the citation in Philo and
Heb. xi, 1.

The use of viroaTao-LS in Josephus' (b. 37 A.D.) Antiq.,
XVIII, 1, 6, has been determined by various meanings
assigned to it by eminent authorities. Johannes Weiss 2
thinks the term means " conviction " ; Schlatter 3 translates
it as " withstanding " ; Dindorf , 4 as " animi praesentia " ; and
Whiston, 6 as " resolution." Josephus is here describing the
tenets of the followers of Judas the Galilean. They accepted
the doctrine of the Pharisees, but were especially celebrated
for their love of Jewish liberty, saying that God alone was
their Ruler and Lord. Rather than recognize any man as
their Lord, they stood unmoved when they themselves were
threatened with death and when their relatives and loved
ones were threatened with vengeance. "But since the
unchangeableness of their VTrocrrao-^ for these things (eiri
ToiovTois)" says Josephus, "is already well known to many,
I shall speak no further about the matter : 'Kopa/coai Be tols

TToWoi? TO afJL€Ta\\a/CTOV CLVTCOV T77? €7TL TOIOVTOLS V7TO-

o-Tacreo)?, irepaiTepto 8ie\0eiv TrapeX.Lirov" 6 Tttogtcktis in this
context refers to a firm " sticking to " something invisible,
which is believed to be a true reality, viz., the exclusive
rulership of the Lord. In the light of the contemporary use
of u7rocrra<7t? in such contexts (of invisible world in Philo),

1 Schlatter, Op. cit., 583.

2 Uhrchristentum, I, 322 (ft. n. (2)).

3 Op. cit., 582.

4 Opera, Graece etLatine, Recognovit Guilelmus Dindorfius, I, 695, 11 sq.
6 The Works of Flavius Josephus, etc., translated by Wm. Whiston, 531.
6 Op. cit, 695, 11 sq.

HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 119

its meaning here can only be : unshakable realization of the
invisible fact.

In Theologiae Q-raecae Compendium, c. 9, Corntjttjs
(flourished 68 A. D.) uses the term in a very illustrative way.
In the previous chapter, Cornutus recounts the old mytho-
logical idea that Oceanus (cf . Homer) by a kind of " mixing "
is the beginning (ap^eyovov) of the existence of all things,
including the gods. In chapter 9, our author says that Zeus
is said to be the father of gods and men in a different sense,
viz., in this that the nature of the world (ttjv rov koo~/jlov
<\>v(tiv) becomes the cause of the vrroo-raa-L^ of these things, as
fathers generate children : Mera Be ravra a\\<w? o Zet>? irari)p
\eyerai Qeo&v icai avOpcoTrmv eivai Bca to ttjv tov koct/jlov <f>vcriv
aiiiav yey ovevcu T77? tovtcdv i/7roo-Ta<rea)?, &>? 01 irarepe^
yevvcocri ra reicva. 1 The aircav tt;<? tovtcov V7roarao"eco<;
clearly means " the cause of the existence of these " (gods
and men). But the addition "<»? ot irarepes: yevvcoo-c ra
reicva " reminds us of the famous use of viroaraa^ in the
Patristic literature (cf. Tatian) where the existence in the
mother's womb is called the viroo-racn^ of the future reality of
life, or the anticipation of a future reality. Here, nature is
the aiTia of a similar vrroo-Taais, the guarantee and the reason
for the existence of gods and men.

As we approached the literary milieu of Heb. xi, 1, we
noticed the ever-increasing clarity and the more and more
general usage of the famous contrast between vrroo-rao-^
(reality) and €/x<^acrt? (mere appearance). In the period
itself, the development reached the crest of precision. We
are fortunate, indeed, that this literary usage found its
way into the writings of Plutarch. For in De Placitis
Philosophy he not only preserved the words of the Greek
Philosophers, but he also summed up in his own more
popular words the famous contrast between wtoo-tclo-is and

1 Cornuti Theologiae Graecae Compendium, Recensavit et emendabat
Carolus Lang, 9, 1 sq.

120 i i THE PAULINE PISTIS

€/JL<j)ao-i<;. In introducing the opinions of philosophers (De
Placitis Philosophy III, 5, (1)) about the rainbow, Plu-
tarch contrasts those aerial phenomena that are kclO*
VTrocrrao-iv, and others that are kclt e/u<f>a<riv. As examples of
the first, a rain-storm and a hail-storm are adduced, and as
examples of the second, the apparent motion of the mainland
to the mariner, and the rainbow are given. Ta 8e kclt
€/JL<t>a(Tiv is then defined as lSlclv ov/c e^ovra wttoo-tclo-lv. The
whole text follows: Tcov fierapa-Lcov ira6a>v tcl p,ev /cad* vtto-
aTaaiv jlvctcll olov ofjifipos, %a\a£a, tcl Se tear' e/icpaacv,
ihiav ovk e^ovra vttocttclo-lv clvtlkcl yovv ifKeovraiv tj/jlcov rj
rjireipos KiveiaQai So/cei' eanv ovv kclt e/JL<f>a<riv rj ipis. 1 Tiro-
araaiv is "reality" in contrast to e^aaiv — the "MERE
appearance." This conclusion cannot be questioned. For
the examples adduced are self-evident : The rain-storm
(o/iyS/ao?) is kclO* vwocTTacriv, and the apparent motion of the
mainland to the mariner (tt\€ovt<ov rjfjLoav rj rjireipos Kivziadai
hoicti) is kclt ep><\>aaiv. One has tangible reality, the other
has not. Besides, Plutarch adds expressly that things of

" MERE APPEARANCE " lack PROPER EXISTENCE Or REALITY
(tcl Be kclt €/mj>clo~lv l8lclv ovk €%ovtcl viroa-TaaLv), In other
words, " mere appearances " have a kind of existence in so
far as they appear. But they lack " proper reality " or
their own reality; they are "mere appearances." Hence,
ra Kad* viroa-raaLV are contrasted with ra kclt efMJxJLCLv, as
"realities" are contrasted with "mere appearances."

The importance of this citation for Heb. xi, 1 is the fact
that in the very milieu of our verse this popular philo-
sophical usage of t>7roo-Tacrt? was summarized in the clearest
possible terms as u reality " in contrast to " mere appear-
ance " by the popular historian. The refined Greek of the
Epistle to the Hebrews makes it very probable that its author

1 Diels' Doxog. Graec, p. 371, 28 sq. Cf . also Diels' Prolegomena, p. 60,
Doxog. Graec, where he says that these passages are undoubtedly genuine :
" Genuina sunt HI, 1-4 et 5, 10-12."

HISTORICOLITERARY INVESTIGATION 121

was familiar with a usage of VTroo-rao-is that had a history
and was so emphatically expressed by a contemporary.

Even after Heb. xi, 1 was written, it is but natural that
the old Greek contrast between VTroa-raai^ (reality) and
(jyavraaia (mere appearance) should still be current. Thus
Diogenes Laertius (flourished 150 a.d.) contrasts u things
AS THEY APPEAR" (fyaiverai rocavra) with "THINGS AS
THEY REALLY ARE " (/cad* viroaracnv ovtco? e^et). Diogenes
is here discussing the need of airohei^is for ttiotis in things
obscure. He asks, how can things not evident (ahrfK.a) be
grasped, if airohei^ be ignored : II g>? av ovv fcaraXafiftavoiTo
tcl aSrjXa, T77? awoSec^ ea>? ayvoovfjievi^; ; 1 Then follows the
reason: fyreiTai & ov/c ec (fxuverai Toiavra, aXk' et, tcad'
viroaTaaiv ovrrn e%e*, 2 i.e., " the thing sought is not if it
appears to be such but if it really (jcaO* VTroa-raaiv) is such."
It is only another example of /cad* viroa-raa-LV in the sense of

"IN REALITY."

On the one hand, this notion of virocnao-is in epistemo-
logical contexts as M reality " in opposition to " mere
appearance," or simply as "reality" is not only the
current meaning of the term in the /coLvrj, but also the fruit
of a development whose traces we have pointed out in the
Greek classical and early icoivrj writers down to Diogenes
Laertius. On the other hand, in the history of the exegesis
of Heb. xi, 1, we have found the same meaning of VKoaracri^.
The importance of Diogenes Laertius, as a representative of
the current koivtj usage of viroaraa^, and at the same time as
a contemporary of the author of the Epistle to Diognetus
(where V7ro<Traat<; = etSo?), of Tatian (for whom viroaTacri^
= the " emphasis of reality " in contrast to non-reality),
and of Athanagoras (for whom VTroaraaLs = the " guarantee
of reality "), is that his usage of the term forms the
historico-literary link between the profane and the Patristic
understanding of woo-rao-is.

1 Be Clar. Philosoph. Vitis etc., IX, 11, Ed. Cobet, 249, 18 sq. * Ibid.

122 THE PAULINE PISTIS

Contemporary with the first interpretation of our text by
Clement of Alexandria, we find still another meaning of
v7rocrTatn<i in the Papyri, and with this evidence we shall
close the historico-literary investigation of the word. The
characteristic meaning of the term in the Papyri is "prop-
erty," and the u title-deed " to property. The second sense
is so ingenious that Moulton 1 has accepted it as the meaning
of vwocTTacns in Heb. xi, 1. This famous Papyrus 237
(A.B. 186) is called the " Petition of Dionysia." It is the
report of a noted legal case in Alexandria. TTroaraais
occurs again and again in the document. To avoid unneces-
sary technical questions, we shall merely note one of the
instances of this usage, and then add the pregnant commen-
tary of Grenfel and Hunt: In Petition of Dionysia, Col.
VIII, 26 sq., we read : eirap^ov ra avri<ypa<j>a tow awy pacjxov
reus tcov avSpcov vir oaraa ea iv avrtdeaOat /cat tovto Biara-
yfiaTi irpoaTerayevai ov kcli avTiypa<f>ov virera^a, fyavepov irouav
KaraicoXovOeiv rai<z rov M.€ttlov Povfov. 2 The Commentary
follows : " The vrroaraaei^ were distinct from the airoypa^au,
which were only one class of the documents concerning
ownership. Tiroo-rao-is, of which the central meaning is
"substance," i.e., property (cf., e.g., O.P.I., CXXXVIII,
tcivSvvco €/jl(o icai Try* c/jlt]? viroa-Tacreay;^), is used here for the
whole body of documents bearing on the ownership of a
person's property (whether airoypafyai, sales, mortgages, etc.)
deposited in the archives, and forming the evidence of owner-
ship. By the edict of Mettius Rufus (VIII, 31-43), all
owners of house or land property were commanded to reg-
ister it ((nroypafyeoOai) within six months of the Edict, and
in the viroa-Taae^, wives and children had to insert (avriOevai
26, or irapdTiOevai 34) a statement of their claims, if any." 3

1 Cf . Egyptian Rubbish Heaps, 27.

2 Egyptian Exploration Fund, — Graeco-Roman Branch, The Oxyrhychus
Papyri, Part II, p. 163.

3 Ibid., II, 176.

HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 123

This usage of viroaraai^ in the sense of " title-deed " is
characterized by two elements : (a) " a document deposited
in the archives," and (5) " a document forming the evidence
of possession." "Deposited" and "Evidence of possession"
are readily recognized ideas long current under vTroaTaais ;
and the rest is legal atmosphere accounted for by the fact
that the term found its way into the courts. For we can
still see in " title-deeds," though obscurely, the first two
Greek notions current under VTroaracns : (a) " That which
stands or is stationary" ("a document deposited in archives")
in contrast to " that which is drained off, or is fleeting "
(other unstable expressions of ownership) ; (V) u reality "
(" evidence alone accepted for real possession ") in contrast
to "mere appearance" (other flimsy evidence not ac-
cepted for real possession).

It is also possible that the idea of " guarantee " in viroa-Ta-
<rt? used as "title-deed" may be derived more directly
from a similar idea in the famous contrast between ica6 y
viroaracnv (" IN REALITY ") and tear €fi<f>a<nv (" MERELY IN
appearance"). For the reason why some things (as, e.g.,
hail-storms) were called /cad' vrrocrTaaiv, and other things
(as, e.g., the rainbow) were classed kot €fi<j>ao-ip, was that
the former struck the senses corrected by experience with a
"guarantee" for the "reality" of the things perceived,
whereas the latter did not.

Summary and Valuation

We may now summarize the results of our historico-literary
investigation :

I. T7roaraai<; = " Firm or solid matter " :

a. " Sediment " in contrast to " that which is drawn off or
passes away": Hippocrates, Aristotle, Theophrastes, Strabo,
Diodorus.

b. " Firmness " — " foundation " : Hippocrates, Polybius,
Diodorus.

124 THE PAULINE PISTIS

II. TiroGTaais — "reality."

a, " Tangible matter " in contrast to " idea " or " image ":
Antiphon, Poseidonius.

b. " Reality w in contrast to " mere appearance " : Democ-
ritus, Epicurus, Boethus, Philo, Diodorus, Plutarch, Jose-
phus (" realization "), and Diogenes Laertius.

<?. u Guarantee of reality " : Cornutus, Polybius, and Papy-
rus 237 ("title-deed").

The development of vn-oaraai^ is evident. No. I points to
the naive and realistic world of thought ; No. II to the use
of the term in a higher philosophical language. The funda-
mental idea, however, even in No. I is "reality."

The fact that Hippocrates and Aristotle in their actual
usage of vTrocrTao-is employed it as a conjugate of v<j>taTaa6at
confirms historically the philological assertion that this noun
is derived from this form of the verb. Hence, viroaTaaig was
very probably first of all used to signify " that which stands
or settles " as opposed to " that which passes away or is
drained off." The further signification of the term (" firm-
ness " and " foundation ") represents a natural development
of the original notion of viroaraGi^.

But the sense of wiroaraai*; as u reality " in contrast to
efufracris ("mere appearance") with its derived usages, —
is it a development of the original meaning of the word, or
is it derived from a different stem? Hatch thinks, "the
term viroaraaL^ is the conjugate of the verb vtyiGravai, which
had come into use as a more emphatic form than eivai" 1
Hatch does not go into the question as to whether vrroo-Taai*;
is derived from the active form of the verb (yfaaTavai) or
the middle and passive form (vfacrracrdai). Vaughan 2
derives it from vfao-TaaOai. One thing is certain, viz., that
vttogtclo-is was first used as a conjugate of vfyiaraaOai in the

1 Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages on the Christian
Church, 275.

2 Cf . Chas. Vaughan, Upos Efipatovs, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 6.

HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 125

sense of " that which settles or stands " as opposed to " that
which passes on or can be drained off." And if there is a
probability that viroo-Taai*; in the sense of reality in con-
trast to mere appearance is a development from this usage
of the term, this derivation is to be preferred to one from a
new verb-form. We have already pointed out that such a
development is natural. For just as the original meaning
of VTToaracns was modified to signify "foundation," when
used in a context concerned with " tomb construction," so
also the fundamental sense of the term will take on a new
shade of meaning, when brought into the field of Greek
epistemology (that field in which it was first used to signify
"reality"). The original sense, "that which stands or
settles " as opposed to " that which passes on or can be
drained off," becomes in epistemology "that which stands or
settles " for the perceptive faculties (reality) in contrast to
" that which flits away under the test of experience " (mere
appearance). Therefore, it may be regarded as certain
that the meaning of virocrTaais as REALITY is a development
of the original sense of the term. If we can trust Plutarch
and Stobaeus for preserving the very words of Antiphon,
Democritus, and Epicurus, this development was achieved
at a time almost contemporaneous with the extant instances
of its usage in the original sense by Hippocrates and Aris-
totle. Be this as it may, we are sure that this development
was actually reached in Polybius; after him it is common
in the Stoic and /eoivrj writers, becoming ever clearer and
more general in the literary milieu of Heb. xi, 1.

As we have already indicated, the usage of virocrTaais to
signify " title-deed " — "a document deposited in the
archives, and forming an evidence of possession " — contains
at least vaguely the two preceding senses of the term. "De-
posited ' is an element in vrrocrTaais common to * sediment,"
and " an evidence of possession " is akin to the notion of the
word in epistemology. Although Moulton 1 accepts this
1 Cf. Moulton, From Egyptian Rubbish Heaps, 27.

126 THE PAULINE PISTIS

meaning of wrocrraais as the interpretation of the word in
Heb. xi, 1, yet we do not go so far. For the document con-
taining this meaning of the term is dated only in 186 A.D.,
and, even admitting that it very probably was current long
before that date, still we are not hereby historically certain
that this was a current meaning of the word at the time the
Epistle to the Hebrews was written, especially since the
Patristic literature shows another interpretation.

We come now to the important question : What is the
value of this historico-literary investigation of the pivotal
word in Heb. xi, 1 for the interpretation of that text ? First,
independently of the various extant interpretations of this
verse, we may say that this investigation has established his-
torically that certainly two senses of VTroaTao-is, — " REAL-
ITY " in contrast to " mere appearance " and " that which
stands or settles " as opposed to " that which passes away or
can be drained off," — and probably a third meaning (u7ro-
otoo-is = " title-deed ") were current when Heb. xi, 1 was
written. The nice literary usage in the Epistle to the He-
brews (acknowledged by all 1 ) demands that the author be
acquainted with at least the first two senses of u7rocrTao-t?,
since they were already firmly anchored in the koivt) vocabu-
lary. And the fact that the author has not indicated in the con-
text of the Epistle some peculiar, new, and non-current usage
of the term, makes it imperative that viroo-Tacns in Heb. xi, 1 be
understood in one of the senses current at his time. Further-
more, without going into the details of the context of our verse,
and with only the general context in mind (which undoubt-
edly is "the perception of the invisible world"), we must
say that, of the two meanings of viro<nacri<s certainly current
and known to the author of the Epistle, that one was prob-
ably chosen which respects the history of the term, viz.,

1 Cf. J. R. Willis, Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, 336 : "The evidence
of wide culture shows throughout the Epistle. This characteristic has been,
and is, universally acknowledged."

HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 127

" reality " in contrast to u mere appearance." For in an
epistemological context, viroaracn^ was long used in this sense.
Secondly, of the various interpretations of Heb. xi, 1 now
extant, this investigation strongly approves the Patristic
exegesis which understood vTroaraa-^ in the sense of " real-
ity " ; and it also shows the untenableness of the interpre-
tation originated by Erasmus, popularized by Luther, and
which has become to-day the more common interpretation,
— t.e., vTroa-racns = " confidence." For the Greek Patristic
interpretation, written by men whose mother-tongue was the
KOLvrj Stake/crosy understood vttoo-tcktis in a meaning that was
current during that Greek period — a sense which finds a
place in the history of the term as the most appropriate
meaning for the context. On the other hand, the interpre-
tation of wirocrTacris in our verse as " confidence " not only
appeared in history, when the Kotvrj Siake/cros was dead, thus
finding no place whatever in the history of the word, but
also the much repeated citation of Polybius (JReliq. Histor.,
VI, 55, 2), purporting to be the convincing proof that wiro-
(TTacris commonly meant " confidence " in the kolvtj Siake/cros,
turns out to be any meaning of the term save " confidence."
Schlatter also, we repeat, in spite of the fact that he inter-
prets v7ro<TTa(TL<; in Heb. xi, 1 as " Zuversicht," brands as
erroneous the aforesaid contention which by mere force of
constant repetition has become traditional : " Uber diesen
verbalen Gebrauch (avviroa-raro^ = ' lacking endurance ')
geht viroa-Taa-L^ in Stellen wie Pol. 6, 55, 2; 4, 50, 10; Jos.
Ant. 18, 1, 6, nicht hinaus; Zuversicht heisst das Wort in
heiner derselben, so traditional! ihre Citation in den Kommen-
taren als Beleg fur den BegrifF Zuversicht geworden ist." *

II. In Biblical Literature

After having found the meaning of vrro<na<n<i in profane
Greek literature, it will be of some interest to ascertain its

i Cf. Schlatter, Op. cit, 582.

128 THE PAULINE PISTIS

sense in Biblical Greek writings generally, before applying
the results of our historico-literary investigation to Heb. xi,
1. Of course, the meaning of virocrracns in Biblical literature
cannot have a determining value (independent of Greek lit-
erature) for the interpretation of Heb. xi, 1, simply because
the literary source for the Greek Biblical writers was the
Hellenic world.

1. Tiro Gravis in the LXX

The term occurs twenty times in the LXX, " as the ren-
dering of almost as many Hebrew words." 1 This fact alone
should put us on our guard against too hurriedly concluding
that the real sense of vn-oo-Taais in the LXX can be readily
found by a mere mechanical process of equating the Hebrew
equivalent. Of these twenty usages of the term, one is in
Wisdom (xvi, 21), and the other nineteen have Hebrew
equivalents which are reducible to thirteen roots. In these
usages of the word Schlatter sees a common element : " Im
Gebrauch der Septuaginta ist zunachst diess deutlich, dass
ihr der Begriff Stehen im Wort die Hauptsache ist." 2 Yet
in this we cannot agree with him.

To arrive at a clear understanding regarding the meaning
of virocTTao-is in the LXX, it will be necessary to examine
some examples of its usage. In those cases where virocrTacris
has been used to translate more than one form derived from
the same Hebrew root, it will suffice to note only one instance
of the same.

Following the order in the LXX Concordance of Hatch
and Redpath, we shall first take up the meaning of viro-
arao-is in Ps. lxxxviii, 48 (another form derived from the
same Hebrew root is found in Ps. xxxviii, 5), where the
Hebrew equivalent is ibtl (r. ihtl, to dig, to hide, etc.). In
this Psalm the perpetuity of David's reign is set forth in the

1 C. Vaughan, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 7.
• * Op. cit., 582.

HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 129

first 38 verses. Then with the 39th verse the evils that are
to afflict him are described. The verse in which vTroaracris
occurs (vers. 48) is composed of the words that well up in
David's heart, as he writhes under these afflictions : Mvtjo-Otjti
tis 7) vtto Gravis fiov fjurj yap /JLarai(o<; €KTi<ra$ iravra^ rov$
viov? rcov avdpcoTTtDv : Remember what my virocrraa-t,^ is, for
not without reason hast Thou made all the sons of man. The
Hebrew equivalent T?ft demands the meaning " duration,"
"life," "age." If the LXX translator transformed it into
VTToa-raa-L^ which never in its whole history shows such a
sense, it is evident that he had no discernment of the term.

In Deut. xi, 6, vKoaraai^ equates BpJ (r. Dip or DpJ, to
rise, exist, remain firm). In this passage the author warns
the Jews that they ought to serve God better for having
witnessed the punishments which He inflicted upon the
Egyptians and the wicked Jews. Tiroa-ravis occurs in the
reference to the punishment of Dathan and Abiron : Ot«?
avoi^aaa tj yrj to a-rofia avTTjs Kareinev avrovs icai tov<; oikov?
avrcov kcli Ta? <TKt]va^ avrcov teat iraaav avrcov ttjv V7ro-
crracriv ttjv fier avTcop ev fji€(Tco rravros laparjX: The earth
opening her mouth swallowed Dathan and Abiron and their
houses and tents and all their virocrracriq in Israel. Tiro-
<rracn<; here is correctly rendered in correspondence with its
Hebrew equivalent as that which " remains " or " exists," —
it expresses u possession," in which sense it is familiar to us
from both our Patristic study and the historico-literary
investigation of v7rocrracn<; in the Greek world of thought.

In Jer. x, 17, we read : ^vvrjyayev eljcodev ttjv virocrraaiv
gov KaroiKovaav ev etcXercroi,*;. This is indeed a rather curious
translation of the Hebrew : *VUttK3 TQtfV TJITO? p«D 'BDK
Gather from the earth thy belongings, thou that dwellest in
a siege. TnrocrracTi,*; translates the Hebrew fTO3 which means
"baggage," u belongings," "possessions." Accordingly, it is
used in about the same sense as in the preceding verse.

The Hebrew TOEtt (r. *ft?2, to stand) in Ps. lxviii, 3, is

130 THE PAULINE PISTIS

rendered in the LXX by vTroo-Tacris. In this Psalm the
" just one " declares the greatness of his sufferings : " Save
me, O God, for the waters have come even unto my soul "
(vers. 2). Our verse follows immediately: ^veirayrjv et?
iXvv ftvdov, K.ai ovk €<ttlv virocrTacn*; : I am sunk in the mud
of the deep, and there is no wirocrracTis — *1§J?§. **?/?!? =
" standing place " reminds us of the meaning of vttoo-tclo-is =
" firmness " of our philological examination.

In Deut. i, 12, wrroaTao-is has been used to translate Kt2?D
(r. ftti{ft, to bear, etc.). Here Moses reminds the Jews of the
causes that led to his associating with himself some of their
number in the government of the people. One reason was
the increasing population (vers. 10) and the consequent
multiplication of the duties of administration. Hence, Moses
says : Ho>? hwrjao/xau fiovo? depeiv top kottov v/jlcov kcli ttjv
vwotnacriv v/jlcov kcli tcl<$ avnXoyia? v/jlcov : How can I alone
bear your trouble, your virocrracn^ and your differences ?
T7ro(7Tacrt5, as the translation of KtfJD = "burden," has no
parallel in the Hellenic use of the term.

Forms derived from 2£ (to set, establish) are the most
frequent equivalents for viroo-racr^ in the LXX. It will
suffice to cite but one iostance, I Kings, xiii, 23. "The
verse takes up the account of the Philistine position. In
v. 17 ff., the plunderers are described. Here we are told
that the garrison, or permanent guard left in the camp, pushed
forward to the edge of the pass of Michmash." 1 The LXX
reads: l£ai el-rfkOev e^viro err acre g>? tcov aWo<f>v\cov ttjv ev rco
irepav Ma^/ia?. Instead of ef virocrraaeco^ the Hebrew reads
simply D¥£ = " permanent camp." The well-established
sense of the term in the Hellenic world as " that which set-
tles down " in contrast to "that which is transient," is evident
in the usage of vTroa-racns = 2&fo here. For in the words of
Smith, 2¥£? here, as in xiv, means " the soldiers who were

1 Cf . Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Sam-
uel, 102.

HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 131

in occupation of the camp, in distinction from those who
went out on the various expeditions." 1 It is the familiar
contrast between " that which settles down " in opposition
to " that which is transient." The other instances, where
viro<jTa<TL<$ translates Hebrew forms derived from the root
DSP» are the following: (hi) I Kings, xiii, 21 ; (hoph.) (Na.
ii, 7); n¥£ (I Kings, xiv,4); and TOSto (Ez. xxvi, 11).

In Jer. xxiii, 22, LXX renders "TID (r. HDJ, to set down)
by vkogtcutis, and in verse 18 by viroo-Tr)p,a. The Greek
follows : K<zt €i ecrrrjaav ev rrj virodTaaei fiov ('''IIDS), kcli ei
rjKovaav rcov Xoycov pov, koli tov Xaov /jlov av airecrTpetyov avrov?
airo twv TrovTjpcov ewLTrjBevfiarayv avTcov : If they stood in my
vTToaracn^, and had they heard my voice, they would have
turned my people from their evil ways and wicked deeds.
The Hebrew equivalent for woo-rao-is is 11D = familiar talk,
consideration, consultation. This idea certainly has nothing
to do with the wirocrTaai*; of the Greek world that we inves-
tigated.

T7rocrTao-fc5 fiov has been used by the LXX interpreters in
translating *JJfcpj5^ (Pu. from Dj?l, to build) in Ps. cxxxviii,
15. In this Psalm God's special providence over His ser-
vants is praised. We encounter God's Spirit everywhere
(vers. 6), in heaven and in hell (vers. 7), in the sea (vers. 8),
and even in darkness (vers. 11 and 12). "For Thou hast
protected me from my mother's womb" (vers. 13). Then
occurs our verse : Ov/c eicpvftri to octtovv /jlov airo gov o eiroi-

7]0-(l<Z €V KpV<f>7], K.CLI 7] V7T 0~T CLCT t? flOV €V TOLS /CaTCOTCLTG) Tty? 7?7<?.

The Hebrew of the latter sentence follows : fiVflPirD Tlftp*1
JHjJ. The Greek verse may be translated: Not hidden is
my bone from Thee, which Thou madest in secret, and my
vTroo-Tao-is in the depths of the earth. The Hebrew reads
quite differently. But there is no doubt that ev tois kutco-
TdTco ttjs 7775 translates JHK fl'WHrD, and vrroaraai^ fiov
equates the verb Tlft|2*l ( u I was diligently fashioned in the

1 Op. tit., 103.

132 THE PAULINE PISTIS

womb of my mother"). This shows that the LXX inter-
preters did not translate the Hebrew literally at all. How-
ever, vwocrTaais in reference to V?&§f) P°i n ^s to something
that is made, which the LXX text translates freely " exist-
ence." It reminds one somewhat of the Greek use of the
word vjroo-Taais = existence, as a predicate of reality.

The meaning of viroaTaa^ in Ps. xxxviii, 8 is of special
interest, because it has so often been adduced as an example
of "fiducia" : Kat vvv rt? rj vtto/jlovt) fiov; ov%i o Kvpios; kcli
rj viroaTa<Ti<; fiov irapa <roi €o~tlv. From the Greek point
of view we should translate this verse as follows : And now
who is my endurance ? Is it not the Lord ? And my exist-
ence is with Thee. Also "firmness" would be possible.
But the Hebrew original (of which the LXX gives a free
translation) demands another interpretation. It reads :
.KV1 ^\b ^nbnifl "tflK HJ^rH? nr)91 The verbal expression
OT\Y"fltS is translated by the nominal phrase t*? 77 virofiowq
fiov ; TirocrTacri*; fiov obviously translates TiTTfifi (r. 7lT, to
wait, expect, hope), which is a synonym for Tllp. It is
evident that here viroa-Taa-Ls is used to render a Hebrew verb
of hoping, expecting, confiding, — a fact that reflects again
the lack of familiarity with the use of the term in the Greek
world.

In Ez. xliii, 11 virocrTaai^ is used in the LXX to trans-
late njIDfl (either from pw, to stand, or exist, or from j?H, to
set right, adjust). The " son of man " is here commanded
by the Lord to show the Jews the dimensions of the temple :
Kat Biay payees rov oucov kcli ra<; etjoBovs avrov kcli rrjv vtto-
araviv avrov (VlJ'Drfi). The LXX translates irD'DJI by
vTroaracTLs avrov. The Vulgate has "descriptio." In fact,
rtt'Dn means arrangement, equipment. The context would
suggest " foundation."

Twoo-rao-is has been used to render two forms derived
from the root HJJ (to twist, bind ; and figuratively, to hope).
These instances have also been frequently cited as examples

HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 133

where viroa-racn^ means "fiducia." It will suffice to inves*
tigate only one of the cases (Ez. xix, 5). Here Israel is com-
pared to a lioness, bringing up her young in the company of
elder lions. One such whelp thus trained became a lion,
"and he learned to catch the prey, and to devour men"
(vers. 3). This one the nations caught after a bloody
struggle, and brought him in chains to Egypt. Hereupon
follows the verse in which viroaraa^ occurs : K<u ei&ev on
aTTcoarai air auT?/?, ajrcoXero rj VTrocrTacri,? avTrjs. This may
be translated thus : And when she saw that he was dragged
away from her, her virocrTacns was destroyed. Because " he
was dragged away from her," her viroo-Tacris was destroyed.
The Hebrew term FTfilpri which is rendered in Greek by
VTroaraais atm;?, is derived from PJljJ, which is, as we saw
above in connection with Ps. xxxviii, 8, a synonym for
?JT, and means " to expect, hope. " Hence, we have another
example, where the LXX renders "expectation" by vtto-
crTacrt? — a meaning that contradicts all we know of its use
in the Greek world.

The use of wirocnaavs £a>r)$ in Jud. vi, 4 to equate 1TTO m
" means of subsistence " reminds us somewhat of the Hellenic
use of the term in the sense of "foundation," "support."
The Madians and the Amalecites were sent to punish Israel.
After Israel had sown the fields, these enemies with hordes
of men and herds of cattle pitched their tents on the fields,
and " like locusts " devoured everything : Kat ov KareXenrovro
virocrraaiv £0)77? ev tt\ 777 \crparfk: ;NH\2P3 ITTO ! PPXtt^~&O l ]
They did not leave an viroa-racn^ of life in the land of Israel.

In Job xxii, 20, " loss of VTroo-racns " is equated by HfD?
which expresses "destruction": Et firj rj^avia-drj rj vtto-
o-racris avrcov, /ecu to KaTaXeififia avTcov Kara^ayerai
TTvo. The Hebrew follows : fto* Dim Wp TtDJ ifcrDK
ttfK. The LXX translates again very freely, so much so
that the Hebrew equivalents can hardly be recognized.
It suffices for us to notice that the Hebrew word for " de-

134 THE PAULINE PISTIS

struction " is expressed by the " disappearance of wiroaTams M
in the LXX, which suggests u essence " or " existence " as
the meaning of vrroo-Tao-L?.

The only use of v7roo~Tao~i<; in the LXX, not having a
Hebrew equivalent, is Wis. xvi, 21. Here the author con-
trasts the " strange waters, hail, and rain " (vers. 16), which
God let down upon Israel's enemies, with the "food of
angels prepared without labor " (vers. 20), the manna which
He rained upon the Jews. Speaking of this manna, the
author goes on to say: H fiev yap VTroo~Ta<ri<$ gov ttjv crrjv
yXvKvrrjTa 7r/oo? re/cva evecfraviae. This may be translated
thus : For Thy virocrTaai^ shows Thy sweetness toward Thy
children. T7roo-Ta<7*<? is to be referred to the manna, since
the manna is the viroaraa-L^ that God sent. It is difficult to
decide the meaning of the term here. Perhaps " substance "
expresses best what the author wishes to say.

To put in clear and striking relief the result of our Sep-
tuagintal investigation, we must restate the ideas which
we found connected with VTroo-Taais : life, duration of life,
possession (or one's belongings), firmness, burden, camp,
consultation, existence, confidence, arrangement, subsistence
of life, essence, substance. Although a number of these
renditions show more or less similarity with the use of
v7ro(TTao~i$ in the Greek literature (like possession, firmness,
belongings, existence, essence, substance), yet we can safely
say that the LXX writers are almost completely ignorant of
the principal and primary meaning of the word VTroaracns,
as we found it in the Hellenic writers. Septuagintal usage
of viroo-Taais is very loose, and most frequently it is em-
ployed as a kind of vox media, expressing various meanings.
We may here quote Deissmann, who goes to the very heart
of LXX usage when he says : " The meaning of a Septua-
gint word cannot be deduced from the original which it
translates or replaces, but only from other remains of the
Greek language, especially from those Egyptian sources that

HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 135

have lately flowed so abundantly. Even Professor Blass, I
am glad to say, took up this position at last — a position
which, unfortunately, is not conceded at once, but has to be
slowly won by combat with an unmethodical school. To
give one example : Baljon in his Lexicon gives as meanings
for the Septuagint word apicevOo*; ■ olive tree ' and * cypress
tree.' The Hebrew words for these two trees are certainly
sometimes rendered ap/cevOos by the translators, and so
Baljon concludes that in the language of the Septuagint,
ap/cevOos has these meanings. No, says Blass 1 very truly,
ap/cevOos means 'juniper,' and 'a wrong translation does
not turn the juniper into an olive or a cypress.' There can
be no doubt about that." 2 So also we can say: TiroaTao-Ls
means "reality," and a wrong translation cannot turn
"reality" into "life," "burden," or "fiducia."

It may be more interesting to learn the attitude of the
New Testament writers toward viroGTatjis. Do they share
the confusion of the LXX-writers, or have they a better
knowledge of the Greek terminology ?

2. T7rocrra<n? in the New Testament

TTroaraais occurs only five times in the New Testament :
twice in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, and thrice in
the Epistle to the Hebrews, Hence, in the New Testament
it is a Pauline word.

In the II Epistle to the Corinthians, both usages of the
word are in connection with " boasting " : (a) In ix, 4 with
the idea of "boasting," 3 and (5) in xi, 17 with the term
itself : ev ravrrj ttj xrn-oaracTu tt/? /cav^rjcreay;.

In the first instance, Paul reminds the Corinthians about

1 Grammatik des Neutest., Griechisch, col. 44.

2 The Philology of the Greek Bible, 89, sq.

3 Although even here some MSS. add ttjs /cavx^ews : t^DCEKLP al pier
Sy r utr arm go Chr 6 75 Thdrt Dam. Cf. Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum
Graec, etc., II, 605.

136 THE PAULINE PISTIS

the collection for the Saints at Jerusalem (vers. 1) which
they had apparently promised to have ready for a long time
previously. For (in vers. 2), he tells them plainly that he
had boasted (jcavx&pai) to the Macedonians about the
Corinthians' collection. Even in Achaia their emulation
"hath provoked many" (vers. 2). The author continues:
" Now I have sent the Brethren that the thing we boast of
concerning you, be not made void in this behalf, that you
may be ready" (vers. 3). Then follows a reference to the
shame that would be not only his, but theirs also, if, accom-
panied by the Macedonians, he came to Corinth to find them
unprepared in the matter of the collection: M^ttg)? eav eXdco-
<jiv aw 6/jloi M-dfceSoves kcli evpaxriv v/ias awapaaKevcKTTOVs,
Karat(T'xyv6(o^iev rjfieL? (iva /jltj Xeycopev u/^ei?) ev ttj viro (Tra-
vel ravrrj. What does vn-oaracns here mean? Any one
of such current senses of the term as "reality," "pledge,"
" guarantee," or u anticipation of reality," would satisfy the
context. The natural translation is " in this matter." Tan-
gible material or matter is, as we know, the fundamental
meaning of wrroaTatn*; in the naive language. Since it cor-
responds most accurately with the context, we have no right
nor reason to abandon this explanation demanded by the
history of the term.

Furthermore, since "matter" in this Pauline context is
not used as a materially tangible object, but in the higher
sense of " affairs," we have in the English word " matter "
the best translation. For it illustrates most aptly how the
same word can signify material and intellectual reality. Any
other meaning save reality (matter) for xnroa-Ta<n<; in our
passage may fit the context, but is no strict interpretation.

The second instance (II Cor. xi, 17) is even more interesting,
since so many commentators insist on interpreting viroaraaL^;
in the sense of "confidence." Here Paul is forced to com-
mend himself and " boast " of his Apostolic labors, lest the
Corinthians should be imposed upon by ''''false teachers."

HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 137

Though he repeatedly admits "boasting " to be " foolishness,"
yet he does not hesitate to " boast," when u false teachers "
are winning over the Corinthians by " boasting," for he has
more reason to " boast " than they. Hence, he says : O \a\a>,
ov Kara K.vptov \aXco, aXk' a>9 ev afypoavvr], ev ravrrj ttj
VTrocrraaei t^? Kav^rjaeco<; : What I speak now I speak
not according to the Lord, but as in foolishness, in this
VTroaTaais of boasting. What does viroaTaai^ here mean?

The original meaning of \nro<7Ta<ri<; (matter) again an-
swers the demands of the context. Hence, " in this matter
of boasting" must be regarded as the correct translation.
In the light of the context and the history of vrroaTao-ui,
the interpretation "fiducia," introduced by dogmatic tend-
ency, cannot be sanctioned at all.

The remaining three usages of virocrTaais in the New Tes-
tament occur in the Epistle to the Hebrews (i, 3 ; iii, 14 ;
xi, 1). The meaning of viroaraa^ in the first instance (O?
<ov awavyaa-fia T779 £0^77? tcai %apa/CT7]p T179 vrroa-Taaea)^
ai/Tou), as a synonym of ovaia, is so generally accepted by
commentators that we shall not linger to give a special
exegesis of the same. For, this interpretation agrees with
the context and finds many parallels in contemporary Greek
literature. As regards the latter consideration, we may
note the excellent summary by Bigg, wherein he shows that
v7roara<rc<i and ovaia were practically synonymous terms in
contemporary usage : " The two expressions (yiroaTaaLs and
ovcria) were current in the philosophy of the time, and mean
precisely the same thing." 1 Hatch, also, says that "t/7ro-
crraa-t? is the conjugate of the verb vcfyurravai, which had
come into use as a more emphatic form than eivai." 2
Even after the term was more clearly differentiated from
ova-La, in the Trinitarian and Christological controversies,

1 The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, 164.

2 The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church,
275.

138 THE PAULINE PISTIS

Athanasius still writes: "H Be viroaTacris ovaia eari, tcac
ovBev aWo (rrj/jLaivofievov ej£€* rj avro to ov." 1 But, it must
not be forgotten that St. Paul in his former usage of the
term laid stress on the very reality, so that VTroaraa^ here
means the "real essence"

The sense of viroarao-i^ in Heb. iii, 14 is the bone of much
contention. First, let us give the text: Mero^oc yap rov
Xpio~TOV yeyova/jL€v,€av7T€p rrjv ap^rjv r rj 9 viroaracreax; peyjpi
reXov 9 fiefiaiav Karao-^co/jLep. This text is supported by the
overwhelming weight of critical evidence. The interesting
variant is that of A, f, vg., and Jerome (Ep. Damas., 3,517),
which qualifies viroo-raaea)^ by avrov. That Heb. iii, 14 is a
very important text for the understanding of viroaraaa in
Heb. xi, 1, is evident both from the fact that Heb. iii, 14
deals with tti(tti<; (e.g., Chrysostom says: tl ecrnv apyi) T779
v7roo~Tao-€(o<; ; tt\v ttmjtiv Xeyet 2 ), and from the general
context. Godet has clearly summarized the gist of this
Epistle in three short sentences : " Break loose from Judaism.
Be wholly his who is better to you than the angels (chaps, i-
iii, l), 3 better than Moses (iii, 1 — iii, 19) 3 or Joshua (iv), 3
better than Aaron and his priesthood (v-x). 3 Be all to
Jesus, in whom you possess the eternal reality of all the good
things of which Judaism offers you only the shadow." 4 The
one clear burden of the author's message to the Jewish
converts to Christianity is, u Do not apostatize." The reasons
against this possible apostasy are given in the didactic part
of the Epistle (i-x) so clearly summarized above by Godet.
In concluding each reason, the author of the Epistle exhorts
briefly and incidentally against apostasy, which exhortation
is summarized and developed in the practical part of the
letter (xi-xiii). Heb. iii, 14 occurs in the brief exhortation

1 Migne, P. G., 26, 1036 B.

2 Cf. Teschendorf, Novum Test, Graec, etc., n, 789.

3 The references in parentheses are mine.

4 Studies on the Epistles, 325.

HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 139

" not to apostatize " drawn from the consideration u Jesus is
greater than Moses." Accordingly, the importance of
viro<TTa(TL<; in Heb. iii, 14 for the understanding of the same
term in Heb. xi, 1 is derived from the fact that both verses
have to do with wt&rus by way of exhortation "not to
apostatize."

The " superiority of Jesus over Moses " is the superiority
of the Master-builder over the workman who builds the
house, and of the Son over the servant in the house (vv. 2-6).
The rather long application is then noted : "If the Jews in
the wilderness were punished for their unbelief by not being
allowed to enter Canaan, how much more certainly will those
who let go their faith in Jesus be shut out from the rest of
the Lord." * Heb. iii, 14 lies in the context of this practical
exhortation. It is applied directly to the Jewish Christian
readers (in verse 12) : " Take heed, Brethren, lest perhaps
there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief to depart
from the living God." Then follows the reason in our verse :
MeTo^oi jap rov Xpiarov jejovafiev, eavirep ttjv ap^rjv tt/9
V7ro<TTacr€C0<; fJL€%pi Te\ov<z fteftaiav Karaa-^cofiev. In the
light of the context it means, u For we have become sharers
(partners) of Christ, if indeed we hold fast unto the end the
sure beginning of the reality (in Christianity in contrast to
the shadows of Judaism)." As regards the context, we might
say that the reason given for not apostatizing is that we
have become "sharers of Christ" Q^eTo^pt rov XpicrTov) as
opposed to " sharers of Judaism," or, as it was expressed in
verse 1 : " sharers of the heavenly calling " (fjueroxoi eirov-
paviov fieroxoc) in opposition to the "election of the Jews
for the covenant of types and shadows," or, as in verse 6:
* ; But Christ as the Son in His own house, of which we are "
(ol> oikos €<r/i€v r)fiei<i) in contrast to "Moses and all his
house." In a word, as Jewish Christians they have become
" sharers of Christ " in His possessions (eternal realities) in

i Godet, Op. cit., 319.

140 THE PAULINE PISTIS

contrast to the Jews who by adhering to the Law remain the
" sharers with Moses " in the types and shadows of the old
dispensation. But this sharing or partnership with Christ in
the heavenly realities of the new order in contrast to the
sharing with Moses in the types and shadows of the old
order is dependent on a condition : " if we indeed hold fast
unto the end the sure beginning of the possession of true
reality."

The only other instance in the New Testament, where
viroaraais is used, is our famous passage in Heb. xi, 1. We
shall take up this one in the next chapter. Our investigation
of the other four instances in the New Testament where the
term occurs has yielded the same results as did our study of
wKooTaais in the Greek world, only in a more striking way.
The results show that St. Paul did not confine himself to
the terminology of the LXX, but that he rather controls
and marshals the popular-philosophical terminology of the
Hellenic world to clothe his own ideas in the language of
his day.

CHAPTER II

APPLICATION OF THE RESULTS TO HEB. XI, 1

Before applying the results of this investigation to Heb.
xi, 1, let us restate them in a summary way : The Historical
Part yielded the original text and the various extant inter-
pretations of the same. These latter differ according as
wiroo-Taais was understood to mean either "reality" or
"confidence." The value of these historical interpretations,
studied in such detail, consists not only in showing exactly
what men have thought of this verse in the past and the
problems mooted in the same, but also in furnishing an
historico-literary argument of the highest importance for
the understanding of viroaTaais in Heb. xi, 1. For, as we
have stated before, the language of the Greek Patristic
writers was the kolvt) SiaXe/cTo*; of Heb. xi, 1. Hence, the
Patristic interpretation of our verse has a scientific proba-
bility not enjoyed by the other interpretation that origi-
nated in non-Greek writers many centuries after the kolvtj
8ia\€KTo$ had ceased to be a spoken language.

However, the touchstone that decisively tests the merits
of the two interpretations is the current Greek usage of
viroo-Tacris. This touchstone was found in the Exegetical
Part of the investigation.

The Exegetical Part yielded the history of the pivotal
term VTroarraai*; in the Hellenic world, in both profane and
Biblical literature. From its first appearance in extant lit-
erature to the Greek Patristic exegesis of Heb. xi, 1 viro-
o-racns meant " reality," — first, in the terms of a naive and
primitive language, as the "tangible" in contrast to the
" transient " matter, and later, in the popular philosophical

141

142 THE PAULINE PISTIS

language, as "reality" in contrast to "mere appearance."
This was the current meaning of the term when Heb. xi, 1
was penned. The only exception to this usage is that of
the LXX, where the use of the term is so confused as to
justify the conclusion that they had no knowledge of the
really original sense of the term.

There can be no doubt about the meaning of Heb. xi, 1, if
the sense of VTroaraari,*;, as furnished by the historico-literary
investigation of the word, is applicable to our verse. And
it is applicable, (1) if the general usage of the author
approves it ; (2) if the context confirms it ; and (3) if there
is no other literary source whence the author might have
derived the term. Let us now examine these several
hypotheses.

1. TTToarao-K; in the General Usage of the Author

This usage has already been ascertained in the examina-
tion of vTroo-Tao-is in the New Testament literature. As it
was there stated, viroo-Tacns in the New Testament is a
Pauline term, since it occurs only five times, — twice in the
II Epistle to the Corinthians and three times in the Epistle
to the Hebrews. Without taking up the difficult problem
of the authorship of the Epistle, which would bring us too
far afield, I am assuming only what is generally granted,
viz., that the Epistle to the Hebrews is Pauline. Hence,
besides the evidence for the usage of wrrocnacns in Heb. i, 3
and iii, 14, we may add that of the two passages in II Co-
rinthians (ix, 4 and xi, 17). In all these instances, it has
been found that vTroo-Tacris was employed in the Greek usage
of the term, viz., as "reality" or "something in connection
with reality."

Among these instances of the usage of vrroaTacn*;, that in
Heb. iii, 14 is of special importance for its use in Heb. xi, 1,
because both verses deal with irians in the same way. For
both are embedded in the context of the practical warning,

APPLICATION OF THE RESULTS TO HEB. XI, 1 143

" Do not apostatize " : Heb. iii, 14 in the casual warning,
drawn from the consideration " Jesus is better than Moses,"
and Heb. xi, 1 in the solemn warning of the whole practical
part, drawn from the arguments of the whole didactic part.
And in Heb. iii, 14, viroaTaai^ was certainly used to empha-
size the sense "reality."

From these arguments it may be safely gathered that the
General Usage of VTroaracris by the Pauline author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews favors the current Greek sense of the
term throughout, but more especially in one passage (Heb.
iii, 14) where the term is found in practically the same
context as Heb. xi, 1.

2. The Context of Heb. xi, 1

Stevens has very adequately condensed all the "argu-
ments " and " appeals " of this Epistle into three words :
"Do not apostatize." 1 These " arguments " have been set
forth in what has been called the " didactic part " of the
Epistle (chaps, i-x) ; and the " appeals " are noted, first
incidentally after each argument in the " didactic " portion,
and then more fully in the "practical part" (chaps, xi-

Xlll).

The " arguments " for not apostatizing are three : (a)
" Jesus is better than the angels " (chaps, i-ii) ; (6) " Jesus
is better than Moses or Joshua " (chaps, iii-iv) ; and (e)
" Jesus is better than Aaron and his priesthood " (chaps, v-
x). But the reason underlying these "arguments" is the
" efficaciousness " of Christ's superiority in our behalf (chaps,
viii-x), which, as Godet says, is " the keynote of the
whole didactic portion." 2

On the other hand, the " appeals " grow out of these " ar-
guments" and may be thus summarized with the same
author : " Be all for Jesus, in whom you possess the eternal

1 The Theology of the New Testament, 487.

2 Op. cit., 323.

144 THE PAULINE PISTIS

reality of all the good things of which Judaism offers you
only the shadow." * The appeals are first stated separately
after each argument to which it forms a conclusion in the
Didactic Part, and then summarily in the Practical Part
(chaps, xi-xiii). Heb. xi, 1, dividing, as it does, the
"didactic" from the "practical" part of the Epistle, and
serving as the text for the whole latter part, holds the
position of a fulcrum, upon which the "arguments" and
the "appeals" of the whole Epistle balance. Let us now
consider in more detail these " arguments " and " appeals "
not to apostatize.

(a) "Jesus is better than the angels" (chaps, i-ii).
"Therefore," the author would say, "Do not apostatize."
For the fact that Jesus is superior to the angels is "proof of
the superiority of the Gospel of Christ to the Law of Moses,
in proportion as Christ, Who delivered it, is greater than
the angels, who gave the Law." 2 After having established
this superiority, the author pauses to draw the lesson : M For
if the word spoken by angels became steadfast, and every
transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of
reward : How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salva-
tion, which began to be declared by the Lord? " (Heb. ii, 2,
3). In a word, "God hath not subjected unto angels the
world to come (pucovfAevnv rrjv fieWovcrav) whereof we
speak" (Heb. ii, 5).

(6) " Jesus is better than Moses or Joshua " (chaps, iii-
iv). I have already shown why Jewish Christians should not
apostatize, for the reason that "Jesus is better than Moses," 3
viz., "because we are sharers of Christ, if indeed we hold
fast unto the end the beginning of the possession of true
reality (T77? viroaraaew^ in contrast to shadows" (Heb. iii,
14). Side by side with this reason not to apostatize is a

1 Op. cit., 325.

2 B. k Piconio, An Exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul, 282.

3 Cf . p. 136 sq.

APPLICATION OF THE RESULTS TO HEB. XI, 1 145

warning about the incredulous Jews who did not enter the
"promised land" because of unbelief (iii, 19). But this
" rest of God " into which Joshua led the believers is only a
type of the real "rest of God" into which Jesus leads
believers. In a word, Jesus the founder of the New Economy
is better than Moses and Joshua, the founders of the Old,
precisely in just this that He is the reality which they
typify,

(e) " Jesus is better than Aaron and his priesthood "
(chaps, v-x). For Jesus brought the Aaronic priesthood to
ideal perfection (chap, v, 1-10) ; His characteristics as
absolute High-Priest were foreshadowed by Melchisedek
(chap, vii) ; Christ's priestly sanctuary is heaven itself, not
earth, and His covenant is one of grace, not external works
(chap, viii) ; the old order with its man-made tabernacle and
furnishings, its restricted priestly service, and the repeated
sacrifices of oxen, heifers, and goats, is contrasted with the
new, where the Eternal High-Priest Christ " in a tabernacle
not made with hands," "entered once into the holies,"
" having obtained redemption for all " (chap, ix) ; and,
finally, by one sacrifice Christ took away sin, whereas " the
law (a shadow (a-xia) of the good things to come, not the
very essence (eiicova rayv irpayfiarcov^) of the realities) by the
self -same sacrifices which are offered continually every year,
can never make the comers thereunto perfect" (chap. x). The
priesthood, sanctuary, services, sacrifices of the Old Covenant
with their inability " to perfect " are only the earthly types
and shadows of the heavenly realities and life-giving efficacy of
Christ's eternal Priesthood in the New Covenant.

The " appeals " drawn from this argument are scattered
over the whole section (chaps, v-x). The author complains
of the lack of spiritual insight to see the difference between
the two Covenants, and reminds them of the awful truth
that if any one fall away after receiving the grace of regen-
eration and spiritual enlightenment, by which they " pierce

146 THE PAULINE PISTIS

the veil," no further regeneration is possible (chaps, v, 10-
vi, 20). Then the superiority of the Christian worship (in
which the priesthood of Christ works out its life-giving
effects) over the Temple service, is shown in a final warning
not to apostatize : " Beware of forsaking the assembling of
yourselves together, lest you forsake also your faith itself :
For there would remain no more sacrifice for the expiation of
such a sin " (chap, x, 16-20).

In a word, the author in this Epistle appeals to the Jewish
converts to Christianity, warning them "not to apostatize,"
(a) because Jesus Who preached the Grospel is superior to
the angels who delivered the law ; (5) because Jesus, the
Founder of the New Economy, is better than Moses and
Joshua, the founders of the Old; (<?) and finally, because the
nature and efficacy of Christ's priesthood means more to us
than that of Aaron. But the underlying reason for this
superiority of the Gospel over the Law, of the New Economy
over the Old, of Christ's Priesthood over Aaron's, is that in
each case the latter is only a sensuous and earthly type of the
former — a super sensuous and heavenly reality. We also
observed that the author punctuates these arguments against
apostasy with warnings and appeals for Faith, which grow in
pointedness and boldness, until they reach their full stature
in the " practical part " of the Epistle, of which Heb. xi, 1 is
the keystone.

This brings us to Heb. xi, 1 in its immediate context.
The last solemn warning growing out of the arguments of
the "didactic part" is unmistakable: "But my just man
liveth by Faith ; yet if he withdraw (ywotjTeCkvTaC) himself,
he shall not please my soul" (chap. x,38); also the "appeal"
for Faith is clear and emphatic : " But we are not the
children of withdrawing unto perdition (^/tet? Be ov/c eo-fiev
v it o a r o\tj ? 6t9 aTTGaXeLav), but of Faith to the saving of the
soul (a\k 7rto-T€ft)? et? Trepnroirjcriv tyvxv^" (chap, x, 39).
The author having drawn this final contrast between " apos-

APPLICATION OF THE RESULTS TO HEB. XI, 1 147

tasy" (yiroaToXri) and "faith" (77-^0-™?), and having stated
that, whereas " apostasy " leads to destruction, the soul of
man is saved by "Faith," "proceeds to explain what that
Faith is which saves the soul." 1 The explanation follows in
the celebrated verse, Heb. xi, 1, concerning which Delitzsch
has well said : " A more complete and accurate definition of
Faith, and one more generally applicable, could not be
devised than that one which is here given" 2 : E<7tm> Se
7tl<tti<; ekTri^ofievobv V7TO(TTa(TL<; t irpayfiarwv eXe^o? ov ^Keiro-
fievcov : For Faith is the wirocnaGis of things hoped for, the
incontestable proof of things unseen. The all-important
question now arises : Is the current Hellenic meaning of
viroaraat,^ as "reality" in contrast to "mere appearance"
applicable here ? We answer in an emphatic affirmative.

For this final warning " not to apostatize " and the " ap-
peal " for Faith are culminating exhortations drawn from
the " arguments " of the whole Epistle, and are here solemnly
restated and contrasted 3 on the threshold of the " practical
part" of the Epistle, of which Heb. xi, 1 is the topical
verse. But the preceding "arguments" against apostasy
and the " appeals " for Faith are based, as already noted, on
the notion that Christianity is related to Judaism " as its
complete fulfilment, the substance answering to the shadow." 4
This reason underlying the "arguments" "not to aposta-
tize," and animating the "appeals" for Faith, is now most

1 Piconio, Op. c&, 396.

2 Op. cit. , II, 204. There is a division among the interpreters on the ques-
tion as to whether this is a "definition" or a "description" of xi<rrts.
Some of the most eminent authors, favoring the first, are : Augustine, Van
Steenkiste, Godet, Feine, Beyschlag, Westcott, J. Weiss ; those favoring the
second, are : Olshausen, Milligan, MacEvilly, Cowles, Farrar, and John
Owen.

3 Schlatter thinks that there is here even a verbal contrast : • ' Weichen
und Glauben waren im Anschluss an das Wort Habakuks im vorangehenden
einander entgegengestellt, dem Weichen tritt nun das " Stehen " gegenuber,
der viroffToXr} die uTroo-roo-ts." Cf. Op. cit.^ 458.

4 Westcott, Op. cit. , 317.

148 THE PAULINE PISTIS

strikingly, with complete fitness, and yet naturally, brought
into the very definition of 7rt<m?, by means of the term
viroaraais in its current Hellenic sense of " reality " in con-
trast to " mere appearance " : JLanv he ttio-tls eXiri^ofievayv
v7ro(TTa<Ti<;, Trpayfiarcov e\e7%o? ov fiXeirGfjievcov : For Faith is
the presentation of the reality of things hoped for, the
incontestable proof of things unseen. With this interpreta-
tion in mind, Dummelow has skillfully gathered up the main
thread of the context in these words : " It has been shown
that the earthly and visible things are but types, copies, and
shadows of heavenly realities (Heb. viii, 5; ix, 22; x, 1).
The underlying thought of the preceding chapters is that
contrary to the ordinary way of thinking, it is the heavenly
that is the real. But how are heavenly and invisible things
to be realized with any assurance ? It is by the operation
of Faith. Faith is that by which the invisible becomes real,
and the future becomes present. * Faith gives reality to
things hoped for, and puts to the test things for the present
unseen.' " a

This interpretation of vrrocrTa<n<; in Heb. xi, 1 as " reality "
in contrast to " mere appearance " is confirmed by what fol-
lows in the context. For the " cloud of witnesses," arrayed
by the author to illustrate his definition of Faith (xi,
2-xii, 3), is eminently fitted to do this. Godet says, "all
these, each in his own manner, let go the Seen that they
might grasp the Unseen." 2 Weinel analyzes the ttlo-tis of
the various heroes : " Glauben heisst : wie Abraham Gott
gehorchen, ohne dass man weiss wohin er uns fiihrt, und
warten auf die Stadt, die die Fundamente hat, deren Archi-
tekt Gott ist, auch wenn man darum ' in Zelten ' wohnen
muss, u. s. w." 3 In each case, it is the laying hold of the
unseen and heavenly reality. After an appeal for patient
endurance (c. xiii), the author finally asks for an absolute
" break" from Judaism (c. xiii, 13).

1 Op. cit, 1026. 2 Op. cit. , 324. 3 Biblische Theologie des Neuen Test, 599.

APPLICATION OF THE RESULTS TO HEB. XI, 1 149

This interpretation of Heb. xi, 1 would also be calculated
to stir up anew Faith in the Jewish readers of this Epistle,
who were apparently on the verge of abandoning the heavenly
realities of Christianity for the earthly shadows of Judaism.
For, if we but bear in mind the tenacity with which the
early Jewish converts to Christianity clung to the Law that
had degenerated into mere externalism, to the visible sanc-
tuary at Jerusalem, and to the fleshly bond that bound them
to the chosen people, we can appreciate more fully the scope,
the probable efficacy, and the necessity of such "arguments"
" not to apostatize," and of such " appeals " for Faith. For,
the Law, the Jewish theocracy, and the Aaronic priesthood
and its sacrifices, were earthly things, present among them,
and easy to be grasped by bodily eyes ; whereas the Gospel,
the new economy of salvation, and the supersensuous and
heavenly realities of Christianity were partly present and
partly future, and could be grasped only by Faith and by
Hope. Beyschlag has well expressed this thought in these
words : " Above this sensuous world of growth and decay
God has founded a supersensuous and eternal world, in
which we believe, for which we hope, and after which we
are to seek. The invisible world is characterized in this
world of Faith and Hope in the well-known words of Heb.
xi, 1." *

Accordingly, we see that both the general context of
the whole Epistle and the immediate context of Heb. xi, 1
demand the interpretation of wtoo-tcio-v? of our verse in
the current Greek sense of " reality " in contrast to " mere
appearance."

3. The Only Literary Source for the Usage of

wirocTTaaiS IS THE HELLENIC WORLD

Again it must be pointed out that the real home and birth-
place of viroo-Tacns is the Hellenic world, and that the voice

1 New Testament Theology, II, 296.

150 THE PAULINE PISTIS

of this world of thought is decisive. Those commentators
like Schlatter, Delitzsch, and the Moderns generally, who
have gone to the LXX for the meaning of viroaracn^ forget
not only the basic fact, that the LXX cannot be a source for
the sense of Greek words independent of good Greek usage,
but also that the LXX in its actual usage of this term, as is
the case with many others, 1 is altogether unreliable.

The meaning of the vKoaraai^ in the Hellenistic world, as
"reality" in contrast to "mere appearance," is not only a
well-established sense of the term, but it has also been actu-
ally used for the very contrast employed in the Epistle to
the Hebrews. Stevens has also noted this point: "The
contrast between the lower world of shadows and semblances
and the heavenly world of abiding realities, which is so promi-
nent in this Epistle, reminds one of the distinction be-
tween the sensible and the intellectual world which Philo
had derived from Plato." 2 And, I might add, what is most
remarkable in this common usage of virocrTacris by Philo and
the author of our Epistle, is the fact that both use the term
to express the " perception of the invisible world " which, in
turn, was commonly expressed by the Greeks through the
term ttiotxs. 8

There cannot be the slightest doubt that St. Paul, putting
aside the confused notions of viroaraai^ in the LXX, and
adhering consistently to the definition of the term in the
Hellenic World, under the striking identity of the famous
contrast "reality" — "appearance," received his vttoo-tclo-k;-
formula from no other source than this same Greek world of
thought.

1 Cf . p. 132 sq. ; also cf . Deissmann, The Philology of the Greek Bible, 90.

2 Op. cit., 488 ff.

3 M Religious faith, even under the Polytheistic form it assumed in Greece,
implies that what exists and happens in the world depends on certain causes
concealed from sensuous perception." Cf. Zeller, Pre-Socratic Philosophy,
I, 52.

APPLICATION OF THE RESULTS TO HEB. XI, 1 151

Conclusion

We hope that the Tnarris-wiroa-Tacnf; problem can now be
regarded as solved.

The Pauline i/7ro<rra<m, as a qualification of ttwtw in Heb.
xi, 1, is the presentation of "reality" in contrast to
"mere appearance." Scientifically, no other interpreta-
tion is possible. Such explanations as " fiducia," " expecta-
tion," etc., are perversions of the historical evidence.

In this age of the historico-critical method, these a priori
interpretations ought to give place to an historically justified
exegesis.

ABBREVIATIONS

BSt = Biblische Studien.

BW = The Biblical World.

BZ = Biblische Zeitschrift.
ExpT sa The Expository Times.
HThSt = Harvard Theological Studies.
Philg ss Philologus.

TR = Textus Receptus.
ZkTh = Zeitschrift f iir katholische Theologie.

152

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(The Patristic literature, in so far as it is taken from Migne, P. G., and
P.L., is not included in this Bibliography.)

Alber, Joannes Nep., Interpretatio Sacrae Scripturae per omnes veteris
et novi testamenti Libros, Vol. 16, Pesthini, 1804.

Allioli, Joseph Franz, Die Heilige Schrift des Alten und Neuen Testa-
ments 11 , New York, 1894.

Aristotelis, Opera Omnia, Graece et Latine, Ed. Didot, Parisiis, 1878.

Bach, Ludwig, Der Glaube nach der Anschauung des Alten Testaments,
Giitersloh, 1900.

Bardenhewer, O., Patrology, The Lives and Works of the Fathers of
the Church, translated from the Second Edition by Thomas J.
Shahan, Freiburg im Breisgau and St. Louis, Mo., 1908.

Basilii, Opera Omnia Quae Extant, Opera et Studia Monachorum Or-
dinis Sancti Benedicti e Congregatione Sancti Mauri 2 , Parisiis, 1839.

Bellarmini, Roberti, Disputationum, De Controversiis Fidei Christianae
adversus huius Temporis Haereticos, Neapoli, 1856.

Bengel, John Albert, Gnomon of the New Testament, A New Transla-
tion by Charlton, T. Lewis, and Marion R. Vincent, Vol. 2, Phila-
delphia, 1861.

Bernardine a Piconio, An Exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul, trans-
lated and edited from the Original Latin by A. H. Prichard, London,
1890.

Bernheim, Ernst, Lehrbuch der Historischen Methode und der Geschicht-
philosophie, Leipsig, 1908.

Beyschlag, Willibald, New Testament Theology, translated by Neil
Buchanan, Vol. 2, Edinburgh, 1895.

Bigg, Charles, The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, Oxford, 1886.

Bill, Leonhard, Der Brief an die Hebraer, iibergesetzt und erklart,
Mainz, 1879.

Billot, Ludovico, De Virtutibus Infusis, etc., Romae, 1905.

Bleek, Friedrich, Commentar iiber den Hebraer-Brief, 1828-1840.

Blunt, John Henry, The Annotated Bible, London, 1882.

Boll, R. H., Lessons on Hebrews, Nashville, 1910.

Bonaventurae, Cardinalis, Opera Omnia, Ed. A. C. Peltier, Vols, 4 et
7, Parisiis, 1856.

153

154 THE PAULINE PISTIS

Briggs, Charles Augustus, General Introduction to the Study of the

Scriptures, New York, 1899.
Burbridge, A. T., Faith as an Effort of the Soul (Heb. xi, 1), BW 18,

(1901).
Burkitt, William, Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the

New Testament, London, 1716.
Brenii, Danielis, Harlemo-Batavi, Opera Theologica, Amstelaedami, 1666.
Calmet, Augustino, Commentarius Literalis in Omnes Libros Veteris

et Novi Testamenti, Tom. 8, Lucae, 1738.
Calvini, Joannis, Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia, Ed. Guilielmus Baum,

Eduardus Cunitz, Eduardus Reuss, Brunsvigae, 1890. (Corpus

Reformatorum, Yol. 71.)
Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Northern Dialect, The

Ed. Horn, Oxford, 1905.
Corluy, Josephii, Spicilegium Dogmatico-Biblicum, Tom. 2, Gandavi,

1884.
Cornuti, Theologiae Graecae Compendium, Recensuit Carolus Lang,

Lipsiae, 1881.
Cowles, Henry, Epistle to the Hebrews with Notes, Critical, Explana-
tory and Practical, etc., New York, 1878.
Cremer, Hermann, Biblisch-Theologisches Worterbuch der Neutesta-

mentlichen Gracitat 9 , Gotha, 1902.
Deissmann, Adolf, The Philology of the Greek Bible, translated from

the Author's MS. by Lionel R. M. Strachan, London, 1908.
Delitzsch, Franz, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, translated

from the German by Thomas L. Kingsburg 8 , Edinburgh, 1876.
Denifle, H., Luther und Luthertum, Mainz, 1906.

Dibelius, Martin, Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus, Gottingen, 1909.
Diels, Hermanus, Doxographi Graeci, Berolini, 1879.
Diodori, Siculi, Bibliothecae Historicae Quae Supersunt, Ed. Carolus

Mullerus, Parisiis, 1878.

Bibliotheca Historica, Editionem Primam Curavit Imm. Bekker,

Alteram Ludovicus Dindorf, Recognovit Fredericus Vogel, Lipsiae,

1888.
Diogenis, Laertii, De Clarorum Philosophorum Vitis, etc., C. Gabr. Cobet

Recensuit, Parisiis, 1878.
Doddridge, P., The Family Expositor, or a Paraphrase and Version of

the New Testament with Critical Notes, London, 1756.
Dummelow, J. R., A Commentary on the Holy Bible, by Various

Authors, Edited by, New York, 1909.
Ellicott, Charles John, A New Testament Commentary for English

Readers, London, 1884.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 155

Estii, Guilielmi, In Omnes D. Pauli Epistolas, Item in Catholicas, Com-
mentarii 2 . Ed. Joh. Holzammer, Moguntiae, 1859.

Farrar, F. W., The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews, with
Notes and Introduction, Cambridge, 1896.

Feine, Paul, Theologie des Neuen Testaments 2 , Leipzig, 1912.

Flavii Josephi, Opera, Graece et Latine, Recognovit Guilielmus Dindor-
fius, Parisiis, 1865.

Flavius Josephus, The Works of, translated by Wm. Whiston, Hart-
ford, 1905.

Ginsburg, David, Biblia Hebraica, Massoretico-Critical Text of the
Hebrew Bible carefully revised according to the Massorah and the
early printed editions of the Hebrew Bible 2 , London, 1906.

Godet, F., Studies on the Epistles, translated by Annie Harwood
Holmden, New York, 1889.

Goodspeed, Edgar J., The Epistle to the Hebrews, New York, 1908.

Index Patristicus sive Clavis Patrum Apostolicorum Operum 8 ,
Leipzig, 1907.

Index Apostolicus sive Clavis Justini Martyris Operum Aliorum-
que Apologetarum Pristinorum, Leipzig, 1912.

Hammond, C. E., Outlines of Textual Criticism Applied to the New
Testament 6 , Oxford, 1902.

Harnack, Adolf, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, Erster Band, Frei-
burg, 1886 ; Zweiter Band, Freiburg, 1887 ; Dritter Band 8 , Freiburg
1897.

History of Dogma, translated from the Third German edition by
E. B. Speirs and James Millar, Vol. 4, London, 1898 ; and by Neil
Buchanan, Vol. 7, 1900.

Hastings, James, etc., Dictionary of the Bible, edited by, New York,
1909.

Hatch, Edwin, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the
Christian Church 8 , Hibbert Lectures, 1888, London and Edinburgh,
1891.

Hatsch, W. H. P., The Pauline Idea of Faith in its relation to Jewish
and Hellenistic Religion, HThSt 2 (1917).

Haynes, W. A., The Glories of the Inner Sanctuary as Has Been Re-
vealed in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Cincinnati, 1911.

Heine, Gerhard, Synonymik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch, Berlin,
1898.

Hippocrates, Opera Omnia, Ed. H. Kuehlewein, Lipsiae, 1894.

His genuine Works, translated from the Greek by Francis Adams,
New York, 1886.

Hirzel, R, Article on Ovcria in Philg (1913), 72.

156 THE PAULINE PISTIS

Hodge, Charles, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, New York, 1904.
Holtzmann, Heinrich Julius, Lehrbuch der Neutestamentlichen Theo-

logie, 2 Tiibingen, 1911.
Hcttjywv Ae^tKov, Ed. Cornelius Schrevetius, Ludg. Batav. et Raterod., 1668.
Ihmels, Ludwig, Die Bedeutung des Auctoritatsglaubens, Leipzig, 1902.
luxivvov Tov X.pv<To<TTOfxov Ta EvpicrKo/Aera navra, Nouvelle Traduction

Fran9ais par L'Abbe J. Bareille, 20, Paris, 1865.
Jernegan, Prescot, "The Faith of Jesus Christ," BW 8 (1896).
Junkin, George, A Commentary upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, Phil.,

1873.
Klussmann, Rodolf , Bibliotheca Scriptorum^Classicorum et Graecorum et

Latinorum, Die Literatur von 1878 bis 1896 einschliesslich Um-

fassend, Leipzig, 1909.
Kuinoel, Christiani Theophili, Commentarius in Epistolam ad Hebraeos,

Lipsiae, 1831.
Liddell, Henry George, and Scott, Robert, A Greek-English Lexicon, 8

Oxford, 1901.
Lightf oot, J. B., St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, London, 1902.
Livermore, Abiel Abbot, The Epistle to the Hebrews, etc., Boston, 1881.
Lomb, Conrad, Commentarius in Divi Pauli Apostoli Epistolam ad He-
braeos, Ratisbonae, 1843.
Longking, Joseph, Notes on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the

Hebrews, New York, 1867.
Lowrie, Samuel, An Explanation of the Epistle to the Hebrews 2 , Phil.

1898.
Liinemann, Gottlieb, Kritisch Exeget. Handbuch liber den Hebraer-

brief 3 , Gottingen, 1867.
Lutheri, Tomus Primus Omnium Operum, Jenae, 1564.
Lutheri, Martini, Commentarium In Epistolam S. Pauli ad Galatas,

Curavit Dr. Joan. Conrad. Irmischer, Tom. I, Erlangae, 1843.
MacComb, Samuel, Faith according to Paul, BW 25 (1905).
MacEvilly, John, An Exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul, and of the

Catholic Epistles, II, 3, Dublin, 1875.
MacKenzie, W. Douglas, Faith and Superstition, BW 27 (1906).
Mazochii, Alexii Symmachii, Spicilegii Biblici, Tom. 3, Neapoli, 1778.
Menochii, Joannis Stephani, Commentarii Totius Sacrae Scripturae,

Tom. 2, Venetiis, 1722.
Milligan, R., The New Testament Commentary, Vol. 9, Epistle to the

Hebrews, Cincinnati, 1876.
Moulton, James Hope, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, I, Prole-
gomena 8 , Edinburgh, 1908.

From Egyptian Rubbish Heaps, London, 1916.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 157

Murray, Gilbert, A History of Ancient Greek Literature, New York and

London, 1916.
Natalis, Alexander, Commentarius in Omnes Epistolas, etc., Venetiis,

1768.
Newman, John Henry, Cardinal, An Essay on the Development of

Christian Doctrine 14 , New York, 1909.
Lectures on the Doctrine of Justification 8 , London, 1900.
Olshausen, Hermann, Biblical Commentary on the New Testament, etc.,

translated from the German for Foreign Theological Library, re-
vised after the Latest German Edition by A. C. Kendrick, New

York, 1863.
Owen, John, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, with Pre-
liminary Exercitations, London, 1840.
Oxyrhynchus Papyri, The, edited with Translations and Notes by Ber-
nard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt, London, 1898.
Pape, W., Handworterbuch der Griechischen Sprache 8 , Braunschweig,

1906.
Petavii, Dionysii Aurelianensis, Opus de Theologicis Dogmatibus, Tom.

2, Venetiis, 1757.
Philonis Judaei, Opera Quae Reperiri Potuerunt Omnia, etc., Thomas

Mangey, London, 1742.
Pierce, James, A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul to

the Colossians, Philippians, and Hebrews: after the manner of

Mr. Locke, London, 1727.
Piscatoris, Joan., Commentarii in Omnes Libros Novi Testamenti 8 ,

Herbornae Nassoviorum, 1638.
Plumber, William S., Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to

the Hebrews, New York, 1872.
Plutarchi, Scripta Moralia, Ed. Fredericus Diibner, Graece et Latine,

Parisiis, 1877.
Poli, Mathaei, Synopsis Criticorum Aliorumque S. Scripturae Inter-

pretum, Londini, 1669.
Polybii, Historiarum Reliquiae, Graece et Latine, Ed. Didot, Parisiis

1880.
Polybius, General History in Five Books, The, translated from the

Greek by Mr. Hampton, London, 1811.
Prat, F., La Th6ologie de Saint Paul (Bibliotheque de Th6ologie Histo-

rique) 8 , Paris, 1909.
Ramsay, Sir W. R., The Teaching of Paul in Terms of the Present Day,

London.
Raphelii, Georgii, Annotationes Philologicae in Novum Testamentum ex

Xenophonte, Polybio, Arriano, et Herodoto Collectae, Lugduni, 1750.

158 THE PAULINE PISTIS

Ripley, Henry J., The Epistle to the Hebrews with Explanatory Notes,

Boston, 1868.
Robertson, A. T., A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the

Light of Historical Research, New York, 1914.
Roeth, Eduardus Maximilianus, Epistola Vulgo "Ad Hebraeos" In-

scripta, Frankf urti ad Moenum, 1836.
Rosenmiiller, Jo. Georgii, Scolia in Novum Testamentum, Norimbergae,

1808.
Ross, J., YirocrTaais, ExpT 4, p. 177.
Sampson, Francis S., A Critical Commentary on the Epistle to the

Hebrews, edited from the Manuscript Notes of the Author by

Robert L. Dabney, New York, 1860.
Schaff, Philip, A Popular Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. 4,

The Epistle to the Hebrews, etc., Edinburgh, 1883.
A Religious Encyclopaedia 8 , etc., based on the Real-Encyklopadie

of Herzog etc., New York, 1894.
Schlatter, D. A., Der Glaube im Neuen Testament, Leiden, 1885.

Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Erster Teil: Das Wort

Jesu, Stuttgart, 1909.

Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Zweiter Teil : Die Lehre

der Apostel, Stuttgart, 1910.
Schumacher, Heinrich, Christus in seiner Pr'aexistenz und Kenose, nach

■ Phil. 2, 5-8, Rom, 1914.
Seiss, Joseph Augustus, Popular Lectures on the Epistle to the Hebrews,

Baltimore, 1846.
Seyffert, Oskar, A Dictionary of Classical Antiquities, from the German

of Oskar Seyffert, revised and edited with Additions by Henry

Nettleship, J. E. Sandys, London, 1895.
Shepardson, Daniel, Studies in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Chicago,

1901.
Smith, Henry, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of

Samuel, New York, 1904.
Sophocles, E. A., Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods

(from b.c. 146 to a.d. 1100), New York, 1887.
Steenkiste, J. A., Van, Commentarius in Omnes S. Pauli Epistolas 4 ,

Brugis, 1886.
Stentrup, Zum Begriff der Hypostase, ZkTh (1887).
Stephanus, Henricus, Novum Testamentum, Graece et Latine, Annota-
tions in Quibus Ratio Interpretationis Reddatur, 1550.
Stevens, George Barker, The Theology of the New Testament, New

York, 1900.

The Great Shall Live by Faith, BW 23 (1904).

BIBLIOGRAPHY 159

Strabonis, Geographica, Graece cum Versione Reficta, Ed. C. Muller et

F. Dubner, Parisiis, 1853.

Geographica, Recognovit Augustus Meineke, Lipsiae, 1895.
Stuart, Moses, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews 2 , New York,

1833.
Suarez, Francisci, Opera Omnia, Vol. 12, Ed. Carolus Berton, Parisiis,

1858.
Tertulliani, Quae Supersunt Omnia, Ed. Franciscus Oehler, Lipsiae,

1853.
Theophrasti Eresii, Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia, Ed. Fredericus Wim-

mer, Parisiis, 1864.
St. Thomas, Omnia Opera, Vol. 21, Commentaria in Epist. S. Pauli,

Parisiis, 1876.
Tirini, Jacobi, Commentaria in S. Scripturarum, Antverpiae, 1632.
Tischendorf, Constantinus, Novum Testamentum, etc., Lipsiae 8 , 1894.
Tittmann, John Aug. Henry, Remarks on the Synonyms of the New

Testament, translated by Rev. Edward Craig, Vol. 1, Edinburgh,

1833.
Trollope, William, Analecta Theologica, A Critical Philological and

Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, London, 1842.
Turner, William, A History of Philosophy, Boston, 1903.
Vaughan, C. J., ILpos E/?pazovs, The Epistle to the Hebrews with Notes,

London and New York, 1891.
Vetus Testamentum Graece Iuxta LXX Interpretes, etc., Ed. Constan-
tinus de Tischendorf 6 , Lipsiae, 1880.
Waltonus, Brianus, S. S. Biblia Polyglotta, London, 1657.
Weaver, S. Townsend, The Greatest Book Ever Written, Washington,

1915.
Weigl, Eduard, Die Heilslehre des hi. Cyrill von Alexandrien, Mainz,

1905.
Weinel, H., Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments 2 , Tubingen,

1913.
Weiss, Bernhard, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, translated

from the Third Revised Edition by Rev. Daird Eaton, Edinburgh,

1892.

Der Brief an die Hebraer, ein Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentar

iiber das Neue Testament begrundet von Heinr. August Wilh.

Meyer 6 , Gottingen, 1897.
Weiss, Johannes, Das Urchristentum, I Teil, Gottingen, 1914.
Westcott, Brooke Foss, The Epistle to the Hebrews; the Greek Text

with Notes and Essays 2 , London, 1892.
Whibley, Leonard, A Companion to Greek Studies 8 , Cambridge, 1916.

160 THE PAULINE PISTIS

Wilson, William, The Writings of Clement of Alexandria, translated by,

Edinburgh, 1871.
Zeller, E. A., Die Philosophic der Griechen in Ihrer Geschichtlichen

Entwicklung, Leipzig, 1880.
A History of Greek Philosophy, translated from the German by

S. F. Alleyne, London, 1881.
Zorell, Franciscus, Novi Testamenti Lexicon Graecum (Cursus Scrip-

turae Sacrae), Parisiis, 1911.

APPENDIX

THESES

Heb. xi, 1 is the standard definition of ttktti? in the
Patristic literature.

The Pauline viroo-Taaus, as a qualification of Trto-ro in Heb.
xi, 1, is the " presentation of reality " in contrast to " mere
appearance." From an historico-literary point of view no
other interpretation is possible.

Ill

Such interpretations of viroaraa^ in Heb. xi, 1, as " fidu-
cia," " expectation " etc., are perversions of the historical
evidence.

The literary source for the Pauline usage of vrroaTacris in
Heb. xi, 1 is not the confused sense of the word in the LXX,
but rather the current Greek understanding of the term,
which had been prepared by a natural historical develop-
ment in the Hellenic world.

An historico-literary investigation of the term VTroarraai*;
discloses the fact that it was first employed in the primitive
and naive usage, as the "tangible and stable matter" in
contrast to the " transient," and later in the vocabulary of

161

162 THE PAULINE PISTIS

popular philosophy, as " reality " in contrast to " mere ap-

pearance.

The sense of viroaTaai*;, as " reality " in contrast to " mere
appearance," was current when the famous definition of the
Pauline ttujtis was penned.

VII

The current Greek usage of the Pauline vrroaTacris has not
been sufficiently recognized by modern scholars in their in-
terpretation of the five New Testament passages in which
the term occurs.

VIII

Both the general usage of the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews and the context demand that viroGTaav; in Heb. xi,
1 be understood in the sense of " reality " in contrast to
" mere appearance."

The Greek Patristic exegesis of Heb. xi, 1 is in complete
agreement with the Hellenistic notion of viroaraai^.

It is a noteworthy fact that an historico-literary inves-
tigation of the terms, ovaia (by Hirzel), apTrayfios and
/JLop<f)r} deov (by Schumacher), and viroaraai^ has yielded the
same general results : the terms were each found, first, in
a naive and primitive usage, and were adopted later, in a
developed sense, into the popular philosophical vocabulary.

The Peshitto-rendering of Heb. xi, 1 not only shows a
perfect understanding of vTroarrao-i? in this context, as the

APPENDIX 163

" presentation of reality," but it also constitutes an official
confirmation of this interpretation by the early Syrian
Church.

XII

The variant reading of Codex Alexandrinus (A) in the
text of Heb. xi, 1 very probably is a transcriptional error.

XIII

Tiroo-rao-i? in Polybius, Histor. Reliq. VI, 55, 2, so often
cited as the standard witness to the usage of that term in
Heb. xi, 1 in the sense of " fiducia," positively cannot be so
translated.

XIV

The meaning of wtoo-tcio-is in the papyri, " property " and
the " title-deed to property," confirms the results found in
the Hellenic literature.

An historico-literary investigation of the term pop^r) Oeov
shows that it was a technical term in Greek philosophy, and
the current formula for the metaphysical essence of God in
the time of St. Paul.

XVI

The pre-existence of Christ in the Divine essence is clearly
established in Phil, ii, 6.

XVII

The literary problem in the Synoptic Question cannot be
solved by the so-called theory of Oral Tradition.

XVIII

The oriental conception of the mystery of numbers is the
decisive key for the explanation of the Genealogies.

164 THE PAULINE PISTIS

XIX

There is sufficient evidence to show that the Hebrew
poetry of the Psalms is metrical, the essential element of the
meter being the verse determined by the number of accented
syllables.

The inverted Nun in the Massoretic text is used to mark
critically doubtful passages.

XXI

The Nequdoth or Extraordinary Points of the Penta-
teuch were devised by their author or authors to condemn,
as spurious, the words or letters over which they were placed.

XXII

The similarities in thought and expression between Wis-
dom (c. xiii) and St. Paul's speech at the Areopagus are
such as to show some literary influence.

XXIH

The coincidences in the Magnificat (Luke i, 46-55) and
in the Canticle of Anna (I Sam. ii, 1-10) show a literary
dependence.

XXIV

The differences in the canon of the Old Testament, as
formulated by the Council of Trent and that defended by
Origen and St. Jerome, may be accounted for by the different
tests of canonicity used.

XXV

The Pauline irians, characterized as vrroaracn^ in Heb.
xi, 1, is fundamentally similar in meaning to HilDK, in that
both terms mean " the tangible " in contrast to " the
apparent.'

»>

APPENDIX 165

XXVI

I. Non in unanimitate explicationum, sed potius in con-
tinua attestationum catena, consistit traditio catholica : ac
proinde a veritate aberrant ii qui dogmata catholica ab ex-
plicationibus theologicis eorumdum non sedulo discreverint.

XXVII

II. Reiicienda est sententia iuxta quam "dogmata quae
Ecclesia perhibit tanquam revelata, non sunt veritates a caelo
delapsae, sed sunt interpretatio quaedam factorum religioso-
rum, quam humana mens laborioso conatu sibi comparavit."
Ex decreto Lamentabili, No. 22.

XXVIII

III. Consideratis dogmatum catholicorum origine, natura
atque prof ectu, ab iis omnino recedimus qui haec dogmata
exhibere conantur ac si specimina praeberent quibus applicari
possent leges generales evolutionis biologicae.

XXIX

IV. Doctrina catholica de morte piaculari Christi summe
moralis atque spirituals, simul ac realis et objectiva est
dicenda.

XXX

V. Theologice, historice, et critice inspecta, falsa ostendi-
tur distinctio ilia nuperrime adinventa inter Christum quern
exhibet historia, et Christum qui est obiectum fidei.

XXXI

As a term of distinction in the statement of the Trinita-
rian doctrine, wiroo-Taais very probably came into use as a
protest against Sabellius and other heretics, who, though
admitting rpeis irpoacoira in the Godhead, yet maintained
that the rpeis irpoawira were avviroaTara.

166 THE PAULINE PISTIS

XXXII

Even in the process by which viroo-Tao-L? became the tech-
nical term for person, the previous meaning of the word
(" reality " in contrast to " mere appearance ") controls the
development.

XXXIII

The history of viroo-racri^ not only throws a new light on
the terminological confusion in the Trinitarian and Christo-
logical controversies, but it also dovetails into the results
reached by Harnack, namely, that Tertullian and not the
Greeks invented the technical terminology for the Trinita-
rian doctrine.

XXXIV

Hmttls in terms of e\iri^o^ev(ov VTrocrrams in Heb. xi, 1
shows in a striking manner how creed must influence action.
For Faith gives " things hoped for " the force of " present
realities " which must be reckoned with, just as the realities
presented by the senses demand recognition.

XXXV

The contention of Harnack and Hatch that the eventual
identification of ttiotk with " creed " shows a development
in the meaning of the term from simple trust to intellectual
assent is unfounded. For there was always an intellectual
element in the word.

XXXVI

The credibility of the miracles ascribed to Jesus in the
Gospels, resting on the testimony of the Apostles themselves,
cannot be impugned.

XXXVII

The limitations disclosed by a scientific study of the
remedial power of psychotherapy and hypnotism clearly

APPENDIX 167

show that the miracles of Jesus cannot be explained away,
as instances of natural cures by suggestion.

XXXVIII

The claim of Jesus to be the Son of God is powerfully
favored by the surpassing beauty and excellence of His
moral character.

XXXIX

The transcendental excellence of Christ's moral teaching
creates a strong presumption in favor of His claim to be the
Son of God.

Harnack's contention that Jesus never thought Himself
to be the Son of God in the literal sense of truly Divine
Sonship is shown to be false by a critico-historical analysis
of Christ's consciousness as expressed in Matt, xi, 27 (Luke
x, 22).

XLI

The employer's right to interest on his capital is morally
inferior to the laborer's right to a living wage.

XLII
Under existing conditions, interest-taking does not violate
justice.

XLIII
Natural justice demands that a laborer's remuneration
should be such as to maintain himself and his family in
reasonable and frugal comfort.

XLIV

The inherent right of every human being to subsist from
the earth's bounty implies the right of access thereto on
reasonable grounds.

168 THE PAULINE PISTIS

XLV

In our present industrial civilization private landowner-
ship is indirectly necessary for the welfare of the individual.

XLVI

Etsi certum sit Christum immediate omnia sacramenta
instituisse, probabile nihilominus videtur Ilium quorum dam
sacramentorum materiam et formam in genere tantummodo
determinasse.

XLVn

Sacramenta Novae Legis in non ponentibus obicem
gratiam producunt ex opere operate

XLVni

Validus est Baptismus sive per immersionem, sive per in-
fusionem, sive per aspersionem collatus.

XLIX

Auctoritate Sacrae Scripturae et perenni traditione constat
solum gravi morbo laborantes et in periculo mortis versantes
esse capaces sacramenti Extremae Unctionis.

" Unctiones verbis, ordine et modo in libris ritualibus
praescripto, accurate peragantur ; in casu autem necessitatis
sufficit unica unctio in uno sensu seu rectius in fronte cum
praescripta forma breviori, salva obligatione singulas uncti-
ones supplendi, cessante periculo." — Can. 947, 1.

LI
Can. 1017, 1.

LII
Can. 1070,1.

APPENDIX 169

Lni

Can. 1070, 2.

LIV
Can. 1095.

LV
Can. 1098, 1.

LVI

The Reformation in Germany was as much a political
movement as a religious upheaval, and this fact must be
taken into account in explaining its rapid growth.

LVn

Instead of remedying existing religious evils, the doctrine
and activities of Luther augmented them and made the suc-
cess of the real reform more difficult of achievement.

LVin

The early Eucharistic liturgies were not derived from nor
influenced by the rites of Mithra.

LIX

The Greek Patristic exegesis has an historico-literary and,
hence, a scientific value, not sufficiently recognized by mod-
ern scholarship. %

Origen very probably was the first Greek writer to use
v7roara(TL<; as a term of distinction in the Trinitarian and
Christological controversies.

BIOGRAPHICAL

Michael A. Mathis was born Oct. 6, 1885, in South Bend,
Indiana. He pursued his primary studies at St. Joseph's
Parochial School, South Bend, Indiana, and at St. Joseph's
Orphanage, La Fayette, Indiana. He entered the Prepara-
tory Department of the University of Notre Dame in 1901,
and the Collegiate Department in 1906, receiving the Litt.B.
from that Institution in 1910. During his theological
studies at Holy Cross College (1910-1914) he registered at
the Catholic University of America, where he received the
S.T.B. in 1914 and the S.T.L. in 1917. Since 1915 he has
been pursuing the courses of the Department of Sacred
Scripture and Oriental Languages at the same University.
He is specializing in Biblical Science, with Dogma as a
minor course.

170

YB 28109

£52471

3T77/
A/3

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY