It is in any case certain that the Apostle always makes use of Greek translations; and it is further certain that he argues from peculiarities in their wording which for one who knew Hebrew, as he also certainly did, must have been recognisable as mistranslations. He therefore goes so far as to ignore the original. Nevertheless these facts do not warrant us in drawing conclusions of a too far-reaching character. If he wrote in Greek at all he could not do otherwise than use the Greek translations which were familiar to him, and in the synagogues of the Diaspora were regarded as “authentic,” as the Vulgate is for the Latin Church according to the decrees of the Council of Trent. That being so, it was out of the question for him, in making quotations, to introduce renderings of his own from the original. In all historical cases of theological bilingualism the same fact is to be observed. Scripture is never “personally” translated, but always cited in accordance with a recognised version._(_75_)_ That Paul should turn to account the mistakes of the version need not, in view of his exegetical principles, cause us any surprise. Whether he forces his thought [pg 090] directly upon the original, or gets it expressed by the Greek version, comes to much the same thing. The fact that he adopts the errors of the LXX and finds his account in them does not make him a Greek. It only shows that he belongs to the Jewish Diaspora. But does this imply that he has his place in the Jewish-Hellenistic movement? This assumption is often taken as so self-evident that any examination of it appears superfluous. The defenders of the theory of Greek influence in Paul, therefore, feel themselves dispensed from this duty and act accordingly. Even those who, like Harnack, do not admit a more far-reaching direct influence of Greek ideas upon the Apostle, do not feel any doubt about his relations with Jewish Hellenism. But the sceptics of the self-evident, with whom science can never dispense, must dare to be tactless enough to put the question here also, “What is really proved?” As we have to do with a characteristic literature which lies before us with some measure of completeness, the verdict cannot be difficult to arrive at. Pfleiderer and his followers had all along asserted that Paul in his eschatology and anthropology showed dependence on the Wisdom of Solomon, which doubtless dates from the first century before Christ. Others denied this. In an essay which appeared in 1892, Grafe sought to sift the material and decide the question._(_76_)_