[BBC List] worth the read

[Mike Abendroth]

"It Says:" "Scripture Says:" "God Says"
<http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn01> 1


by Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield

  _____  


scanned, proof-read, and marked-up by Lance George Marshall

  _____  

IT would be difficult to invent methods of showing profound reverence for
the text of Scripture as the very Word of God, which will not be found to be
characteristic of the writers of the New Testament in dealing with the Old.
Among the rich variety of the indications of their estimate of the written
words of the Old Testament as direct utterances of Jehovah, there are in
particular two classes of passages, each of which, when taken separately,
throws into the clearest light their habitual appeal to the Old Testament
text as to God Himself speaking, while, together, they make an irresistible
impression of the absolute identification by their writers of the Scriptures
in their hands with the living voice of God. In one of these classes of
passages the Scriptures are spoken of as if they were God; in the other, God
is spoken of as if He were the Scriptures: in the two together, God and the
Scriptures are brought into such conjunction as to show that in point of
directness of authority no distinction was made between them.

Examples of the first class of passages are such as these: Gal. iii. 8, "The
Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith,
preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the
nations be blessed" (Gen. xii. 1-3); Rom. ix. 17, "The Scripture saith unto
Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up" (Ex. ix. 16). It
was not, however, the Scripture (which did not exist at the time) that,
foreseeing God's purposes of grace in the future, spoke these precious words
to Abraham, but God Himself in His own person: it was not the not yet
existent Scripture that made this announcement to Pharaoh, but God Himself
through the mouth of His prophet Moses. These acts could be attributed to
"Scripture" only as the result of such a habitual identification, in the
mind of the writer, of the text of Scripture with God as speaking, that it
became natural to use the term "Scripture says," when what was really
intended was "God, as recorded in Scripture, said."

Examples of the other class of passages are such as these: Matt. xix. 4, 5,
"And he answered and said, Have ye not read that he which made them from the
beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man
leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the twain
shall become one flesh?" (Gen. ii. 24); Heb. iii. 7, "Wherefore, even as the
Holy Ghost saith, To-day if ye shall hear his voice," etc. (Ps. xcv. 7);
Acts iv. 24, 25, "Thou art God, who by the mouth of thy servant David hast
said, Why do the heathen rage and the people imagine vain things" (Ps. ii.
1); Acts xiii. 34, 35, "He that raised him up from the dead, now no more to
return to corruption, . . . hath spoken in this wise, I will give you the
holy and sure blessings of David" (Isa. lv. 3); "because he saith also in
another [Psalm], Thou wilt not give thy holy one to see corruption" (Ps.
xvi. 10); Heb. i. 6, "And when he again bringeth in the first born into the
world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him" (Deut. xxxii.
43); "and of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels wings, and his
ministers a flame of fire" (Ps. civ. 4); "but of the Son, He saith, Thy
throne, O God, is for ever and ever," etc., (Ps. xlv. 7) and, "Thou, Lord,
in the beginning," etc. (Ps. cii. 26). It is not God, however, in whose
mouth these sayings are placed in the text of the Old Testament: they are
the words of others, recorded in the text of Scripture as spoken to or of
God. They could be attributed to God only through such habitual
identification, in the minds of the writers, of the text of Scripture with
the utterances of God that it had become natural to use the term "God says"
when what was really intended was "Scripture, the Word of God, says."

The two sets of passages, together, thus show an absolute identification, in
the minds of these writers, of "Scripture" with the speaking God.

In the same line with these passages are commonly ranged certain others, in
which Scripture seems to be adduced with a subjectless le>gei or fhsi>, the
authoritative subject - whether the divinely given Word or God Himself -
being taken for granted. Among these have been counted such passages, for
example, as the following: Rom. ix. 15, "For he saith to Moses, I will have
mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have
compassion" (Ex. xxxiii. 19); Rom. xv. 10, "And again he saith, Rejoice, ye
Gentiles, with his people" (Deut. xxxii. 43); and again, "Praise the Lord,
all ye Gentiles; and let all the people praise him" (Ps. cvii. 1); Gal. iii.
16, "He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed
(Gen. xiii. 15), which is Christ"; Eph. iv. 8, "Wherefore he saith, When he
ascended on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men" (Ps.
lxviii. 18); Eph. v. 14, "Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest and
arise from the dead and Christ shall shine upon thee" (Isa. Ix. 1); I Cor.
vi. 16, "For the twain, saith he, shall become one flesh" (Gen. ii. 24); I
Cor. xv. 27, "But when he saith, All things are put in subjection" (Ps.
viii. 7); II Cor. vi. 2, "For he saith, At an acceptable time, I hearkened
unto thee, and in a day of salvation did I succor thee" (Isa. xlix. 8); Heb.
viii. 5, "For see, saith he, that thou make all things according to the
pattern that was showed thee in the mount" (Ex. xxv. 40); James iv. 6,
"Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud but giveth grace to the humble"
(Prov. iii. 34).

There is room for difference of opinion, of course, whether all these
passages are cases in point. And there has certainly always existed some
difference of opinion among commentators as to the proper subauditum in such
instances as are allowed. The state of the case would seem to be fairly
indicated by Alexander Buttmann, when he says:

"The predicates le>gei or fhsi>n are often found in the New Testament in
quotations, oJ qeo>v or even merely hJ grafh> being always to be supplied as
subject; as I Cor. vi. 16, II Cor. vi. 2, Gal. iii. 16, Eph. iv. 8, v. 14,
Heb. viii. 5, iv. 3 (ei]rhken). These subjects are also expressed, as in
Gal. iv. 30, I Tim. v. 18, or to be supplied from the preceding context, as
in Heb. i. 5 seq." <http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn02> 2

Of the alternatives thus offered, Jelf apparently prefers the one:

"In the New Testament we must supply profhth>v, hJ grafh>, pneu~ma, etc.,
before fhsi>, le>gei, marturei~."
<http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn03> 3

Winer and Blass take the other:

"The formulas of citation - le>gei, II Cor. vi. 2, Gal. iii. 16, Eph. iv. 8
al., fhsi>, I Cor. vi. 16, Heb. viii. 5; ei]rhke, Heb. iv. 4 (cf. the
Rabbinical rmwaw); marturei~, Heb. vii. 17 (ei+pe, I Cor. xv. 27) - are
probably in no instance impersonal in the minds of the New Testament
writers. The subject (oJ qeo>v) is usually contained in the context, either
directly or indirectly; in I Cor. vi. 16 and Matt. xix. 5, fhsi>, there is
an apostolic ellipsis (of oJ qeo>v); in Heb. vii. 17, the best authorities
have marturei~tai." <http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn04> 4

"In the formulas of citation such as le>gei, II Cor. vi. 2, Gal. iii. 16,
etc.; fhsi>n, I Cor. vi. 16, Heb. viii. 5; ei]rhke, Heb. iv. 4 - oJ qeo>v is
to be understood ('He says'); in II Cor. x. 10, fhsi>n (a DE, etc. [?], 'one
says'), appears to be a wrong reading for fasi>n (B), unless perhaps a tiv
has dropped out (but cp. Clem. Hom., xi. 9 ad init.)."
<http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn05> 5 

The commentators commonly range themselves with Winer and Blass. Thus, on
Rom. ix. 15, Sanday and Headlam comment: "le>gei without a nominative for
qeo<v le>gei is a common idiom in quotations," referring to Rom. xv. 10 as a
parallel case. On Gal. iii. 16, Meyer says: "sc. qeo>v, which is derived
from the historical reference of the previous ejrjrJe>qhsan, so well known
to the reader"; and Alford: "viz., He who gave the promises - God"; and
Sieffert: "ouj le>gei sc. qeo>v which flows out of the historical relation
(known to the reader) of the preceding ejrjrJe>qhsan (cf. Eph. iv. 8, v.
14)." On Eph. iv. 8, Meyer's comment runs: "Who says it (comp. v. 14) is
obvious of itself, namely, God, whose word the Scripture is. See on I Cor.
vi. 16; Gal. iii. 16; the supplying hJ grafh> or to< pneu~ma must have been
suggested by the context (Rom. xv. 10). The manner of citation with the
simple le>gei, obviously meant of God, has as its necessary presupposition,
in the mind of the writer and readers, the Theopneustia of the Old
Testament." Haupt, similarly: "The introduction of a citation with the
simple le>gei, with which, of course, 'God' is to be supplied as subject,
not 'the Scripture,' is found in Paul again v. 14, II Cor. vi. 2, Rom. xv.
10; similarly fhsi>, I Cor. vi. 16 (ei+pen with the addition oJ qeo>v, II
Cor. vi. 16)." A similar comment is given by Ellicott, who adds at Eph. v.
14: "scil. oJ qeo>v, according to the usual form of St. Paul's quotations;
see notes on chap. iv. 8 and on Gal. iii. 16": though on I Cor. vi. 16 he
speaks with less decision: "It may be doubted what nominative is to be
supplied to this practically impersonal verb, whether hJ grafh> (comp. John
vii. 38, Rom. iv. 3, ix. 17, al.) or oJ qeo>v (comp. Matt. xix. 5, II Cor.
vi. 2, where this nominative is distinctly suggested by the context): the
latter is perhaps the more natural: comp. Winer, Gr., § 58, 9, and notes on
Eph. iv. 8." On I Cor. vi. 16, Edwards comments: "sc. oJ qeo>v, as in Rom.
ix. 15. Cf. Matt. xix. 4, 5, where oJ poi>hsav supplies a nom. to ei+pen.
Similarly in Philo and Barnabas fhsi> introduces citations from Scripture."
On II Cor. vi. 2, Waite says: "A statement of God Himself is adduced"; and
De Wette: "sc. qeo>v, who Himself speaks." On Heb. viii. 5, Bleek comments:
"That there is to be understood as the subject of fhsi>, not, as Bohme
thinks, hJ grafh>, but oJ qeo>v, can least of all be doubtful here, where
actual words of God are adduced"; and Weiss: "This statement is now
established (ga>r) by appeal to Ex. xxv. 40, which passage is characterized
only by the interpolated fhsi>n (cf. Acts xxv. 22) as a divine oracle....
The subject of (fhsi>n is, of course, God, neither oJ crhmatismo>v (Lün.)
nor hJ grafh> (Bhm.)." On James iv. 6, Mayor comments: "The subject
understood is probably God, as above, i. 12, ejphggei>lato, and Eph. iv. 8,
v. 14, where the same phrase occurs; others take it as hJ grafh>. Cf. above,
v. 5." <http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn06> 6

Most of these passages have, on the other hand, been explained by some
commentators on the supposition that it is hJ grafh> that is to be supplied,
as has sufficiently appeared indeed from the controversial remarks in the
notes quoted above. This circumstance may be taken as precluding the
necessity of adducing examples here.
<http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn07> 7 Suffice it to say that
those so filling in the subauditum are entirely at one with the commentators
already quoted in looking upon the citations as treated by the New Testament
writers as of divine authority, it being, in their apprehension, all one in
this regard whether the subauditum is conceived as hJ grafh> or as oJ qeo>v.

In the meantime, however, there has occasionally showed itself a tendency to
treat these subjectless verbs more or less as true impersonals. Thus we read
in Delitzsch's note on Heb. viii. 5: "For 'see,' saith He, i. e., oJ qeo>v,
or taking fhsi> impersonally (that is, without a definite subject), 'it is
said' (i. e., in Scripture), (Bernhardy, 'Synt.,' 419)." So Kern on James
iv. 6 comments: "le>gei here impersonaliter, instead of the foregoing le>gei
hJ grafh>"; and accordingly Beyschlag, in his recent commentary says: "to
le>gei, hJ grafh> is to be supplied, or it is to be taken with Kern
impersonally." Similarly Godet on I Cor. vi. 16 says: "The subject of the
verb fhsi>n, says he, may be either Adam or Moses, or Scripture, or God
Himself, or finally, as is shown by Heinrici, the verb may be a simple
formula of quotation like our 'It is said.' This form is frequently found in
Philo." <http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn08> 8 Some such
usage as is here supposed may seem actually to occur in the common text of
Wisdom xv. 12 <http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn09> 9 and II
Cor. x. 10. <http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn10> 10 But in
both passages the true reading is probably fasi>n; in neither instance is it
clear that, if fhsi>n be read, it has no subject implied in the context; if
fhsi>n be read and taken as equivalent to fasi>n it still is not purely
indefinite; and in any case the instances are not parallel, inasmuch as in
neither of these passages is it Scripture, or indeed any document, that is
adduced.

The fact that a few very able commentators have taken this unlikely line of
exposition would call for nothing more than this incidental remark, were not
our attention attracted somewhat violently to it by the dogmatic tone and
extremity of contention of a recent commentator who has adopted this
opinion. We refer to Dr. T. K. Abbott's comment on Eph. iv. 8, in his
contribution to "The International Critical Commentary." It runs to a
considerable length, but as on this very account it opens out somewhat more
fully than usual this rather unwonted view of the construction, we shall
venture to quote it in extenso. Dr. Abbott says:

"Dio< le>gei. 'Wherefore it saith' = 'it is said.' If any substantive is to
be supplied, it is hJ grafh>; but the verb may well be taken impersonally,
just as in colloquial English one may often hear: 'it says' or the like.
Many expositors supply, however, oJ qeo>v. Meyer even says, 'Who says it is
obvious of itself, namely, God, whose word the Scripture is.
<http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn11> 11 Similarly Alford
<http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn12> 12 and Ellicott.
<http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn13> 13 If it were St. Paul's
habit to introduce quotations from the Old Testament, by whomsoever spoken
in the original text, with the formula oJ Qeo<v le>gei, then this supplement
here might be defended. But it is not. In quoting he sometimes says le>gei,
frequently hJ grafh< le>gei, at other times Dabi<d le>gei,  JHsai`>av
le>gei. There is not a single instance in which oJ Qeo>v is either expressed
or implied as the subject, except where in the original context God is the
speaker, as in Rom. ix. 15. Even when that is the case he does not hesitate
to use a different subject, as in Rom. x. 19, 20: 'Moses saith,' 'Isaiah is
very bold, and saith'; Rom. ix. 17, 'The Scripture saith to Pharaoh.'

"This being the case, we are certainly not justified in forcing upon the
apostle here and in chap. v. 14 a form of expression consistent only with
the extreme view of verbal inspiration. When Meyer (followed by Alford and
Ellicott) says that hJ grafh> must not be supplied unless it is given by the
context, the reply is obvious, namely, that, as above stated, hJ grafh<
le>gei does, in fact, often occur, and therefore the apostle might have used
it here, whereas oJ Qeo<v le>gei does not occur (except in cases unlike
this), and we have reason to believe could not be used by St. Paul here. It
is some additional confirmation of this that both here and in chap. v. 14
(if that is a Biblical quotation) he does not hesitate to make important
alterations. This is the view taken by Braune, Macpherson, Moule; the
latter, however, adding that for St. Paul 'the word of the Scripture and the
word of its Author are convertible terms.'

"It is objected that although fhsi> is used impersonally, le>gei is not. The
present passage and chap. v. 14
<http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn14> 14 are enough to prove
the usage for St. Paul, and there are other passages in his Epistles where
this sense is at least applicable; cf. Rom. xv. 10, where le>gei is parallel
to ge>graptai in ver. 9; Gal. iii. 16, where it corresponds to
ejrjrJh>qhsan. But, in fact, the impersonal use of fhsi> in Greek authors is
quite different, namely = fasi>, 'they say' (so II Cor. x. 10). Classical
authors had no opportunity of using le>gei as it is used here, as they did
not possess any collection of writings which could be referred to as hJ
grafh>, or by any like word. They could say: oJ no>mov le>gei and to<
lego>menon."

It is not, it will be observed, the fact that Dr. Abbott decides against the
subauditum, oJ qeo>v, in these passages, which calls for remark. As he
himself points out, many others have been before him in this. It is the
extremity of his opinion that first of all attracts attention. For it is to
be noticed that, though he sometimes speaks as if he understood an implied
hJ grafh>, or some like term, as the subject of le>gei, that is not his real
contention. What he proposes is to take the verb wholly indefinitely - as
equivalent to "it is said," as if the source of the quotation were
unimportant and its authority insignificant. This interpretation of his
proposal is placed beyond doubt by his remarks on chap. v. 14. There we
read:

"Dio< le>gei. 'Wherefore it is said.' It is generally held that this formula
introduces a quotation from canonical Scripture. . . . The difficulties
disappear when we recognize that le>gei need not be taken to mean oJ Qeo<v
le>gei - an assertion which has been shown in iv. 8 to be untenable. It
means, 'it says,' or 'it is said,' and the quotation may probably be from
some liturgical formula or hymn - a supposition with which its rhythmical
character agrees very well. . . . Theodoret mentions this opinion. . . .
Stier adopts a similar view, but endeavors to save the supposed limitation
of the use of le>gei by saying that in the Church the Spirit speaks. As
there are in the Church prophets and prophetic speakers and poets, so there
are liturgical expressions and hymns which are holy words. Comparing vv. 18,
19, Col. iii. 16, it may be said that the apostle is here giving us an
example of this self-admonition by new spiritual songs."

So extreme an opinion, as we have already hinted, naturally finds, however,
little support in the commentators, even in those quoted to buttress it, -
of course, in its fundamental point. Braune says: "We must naturally supply
hJ grafh>, the Scripture, with le>gei, 'saith,' (James iv. 6, Rom. xv. 10,
Gal. iii. 16, I Cor. vi. 16: fhsi>n), and not oJ qeo>v (Meyer, Schenkel
<http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn15> 15), or oJ le>gwn
(Bleek: the writer)": to which Dr. M. T. Riddle, his translator, however,
adds: "The fact that Paul frequently supplies hJ grafh> (Rom. iv. 3, ix. 17,
x. 11, Gal. iv. 30, I Tim. v. 18) is against Braune's view; for in some of
these passages there is a reason for its insertion (see "Romans," p. 314),
and as the Scriptures are God's Word (Meyer), the natural aim and obvious
subject is oJ qeo>v. So Alford, Ellicott and most." Moule's comment runs:
"Wherefore he saith] Or it, i. e., the Scripture, saith. St. Paul's usage in
quotation leaves the subject of the verb undetermined here and in similar
cases (see, e. g., chap. v. 14
<http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn16> 16). For him the word of
the Scripture and the word of its author are convertible terms." Macpherson
alone, of those appealed to by Dr. Abbott, supports, in a somewhat
carelessly written note, the indefinite interpretation put forward by Dr.
Abbott, - being misled apparently by remarks of Lightfoot's and Westcott's.
His comment runs:

"A very simple quotation formula is here employed, the single word le>gei.
It is also similarly used (chap. v. 14; II Cor. vi. 2; Gal. iii. 16; Rom.
xv. 10). <http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn17> 17 This word is
frequently employed in the fuller formula, The Scripture saith, le>gei hJ
grafh> (Rom. iv. 3, x. 11, xi. 2; Jas. ii. 23, etc.); or the name of the
writer of the particular scripture, Esaias, David, the Holy Spirit, the law
(Rom. xv. 12; Acts xiii. 35; Heb. iii. 7; I Cor. xiii. 34, etc.).
<http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn18> 18 Of le>gei, fhsi>,
ei]rhke, and similar words thus used, Winer ("Grammar," p. 656, 1882) says
that probably in no instance are they impersonal in the minds of the New
Testament writers, but that the subject, oJ qeo>v, is somewhere in the
context, and is to be supplied.
<http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn19> 19 On the contrary,
Lightfoot, in his note on Gal. iii. 16, remarks that le>gei, like the Attic
fhsi>, seems to be used impersonally, the nominative being lost sight of. In
our passage we have no nominative in the context which we can supply, and it
seems better to render the phrase impersonally, It is said. The same word is
used very frequently in the Epistle to the Hebrews, but always with God or
Christ understood from the immediate context. Westcott very correctly
remarks (p. 457) that the use of the formula in Eph. iv. 8, v. 14, seems to
be of a different kind." <http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn20>
20

Outside of these commentators quoted by himself, however, Prof. Abbott's
extreme view has (as has, indeed, already incidentally appeared) the
powerful support of Lightfoot and Heinrici. The former expresses his opinion
not only in his note on Gal. iii. 16, to which Macpherson refers, but more
fully and argumentatively in his note on I Cor. vi. 16 printed in his
posthumous "Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul." In the former of these
places he says:

"ouj le>gei seems to be used impersonally, like the Attic fhsi> in quoting
legal documents, the nominative being lost sight of. If so, we need not
inquire whether oJ qeo>v or hJ grafh> is to be understood. Comp. le>gei,
Rom. xv. 10, Eph. iv. 8, v. 14; and fhsi>n, I Cor. vi. 16, II Cor. x. 10 (v.
l)."

In the latter, speaking more at large "as to the authority assigned to the
passage" quoted by St. Paul, he says:

"What are we to understand by fhsi>n? Is oJ qeo>v to be supplied or hJ
grafh>? To this question it is safest to reply that we cannot decide. The
fact is that, like le>gei, fhsi>n when introducing a quotation seems to be
used impersonally. This usage is common in Biblical Greek (le>gei, Rom. xv.
10, Gal. iii. 16, Eph. iv. 8, v. 14; fhsi>n, Heb. viii. 5, II Cor. x. 10 (v.
l.), more common in classical Greek. Alford, after Meyer, objects to
rendering fhsi>n impersonally here, as contrary to St. Paul's usage. But the
only other occurrence of the phrase in St. Paul is II Cor. x. 10, where he
is not introducing Scripture, but the objections of human critics and of
more than one critic. If then fhsi>n be read there at all, it must be
impersonal. The apostle's analogous use of le>gei points to the same
conclusion. In Eph. v. 14 it introduces a quotation which is certainly not
in Scripture, and apparently belonged to an early Christian hymn. We gather
therefore that St. Paul's usage does not suggest any restriction here to oJ
qeo>v or hJ grafh>. But we cannot doubt from the context that the quotation
is meant to be authoritative."

In his own commentary on I Corinthians (1880), Heinrici writes as follows:

"To fhsi>, just as to le>gei (II Cor. vi. 2, Gal. iii. 16) nothing at all is
to be supplied, but like inquit it stands, sometimes as the introduction to
an objection (II Cor. x. 10, where Holsten refers to Bentley on Horat.,
Serm., i, 4, 78), sometimes as a general formula of citation. It is
especially often used in the latter sense by Philo, in the quotation of
Scripture passages, and by Arrian-Epictetus, who supplies many most
interesting parallels to the Pauline forms of speech. Schweighauser, in his
Index, under fhsi>, remarks of it: nec enim semper in proferenda objectione
locum habet illa formula, verum etiam in citando exemplo ad id quod agitur
pertinente. J. G. Muffler (Philo the Jew's Book on the Creation, Berlin,
1841, p. 44) says that fhsi>, after the example of Plato (?), became
gradually among the Hellenistic Jews the standing formula of citation."

In his edition of Meyer's " Commentary on I Corinthians " (eighth edition,
1896), this note reappears in this form:

"fhsi>n). Who? According to the usual view, God, whose words the sayings of
the Scripture are, even when they, like Gen. ii. 24 through Adam, are spoken
through another. Winer, 7 § 58, 9, 486: Buttmann, 117. But the impersonal
sense 'es heisst,' 'inquit,' lies nearer the Pauline usage; he coincides in
this with Arrian-Epictetus and Philo, with whom fhsi> sometimes introduces
an objection, sometimes is the customary formula of citation. Cf. II Cor. x.
10, vi. 2, I Cor. xv. 27, Eph. iv. 8; Winer, as above; Muller, in Philo, De
op. mund., 44; Heinrici, i. 181. In accordance with this, are the other
supplements of subject - hJ grafh> or to< pneu~ma (Ruckert) - to be
estimated." 

Even in the extremity of his contention, therefore, Dr. Abbott, it seems, is
not without support - on the philological side, at least - in previous
commentators of the highest rank. 

He himself does not seem, however, quite clear in his own mind: and his
confusion of both considerations and commentators which make for the
fundamentally diverse positions that there is to be supplied with le>gei
some such subject as hJ grafh>, and that there is nothing at all to be
supplied but the word is to be taken with entire indefiniteness, is
indicatory of the main thing that calls for remark in Dr. Abbott's note.
For, why should this confusion take place? It is quite evident that in
interpreting the phrase the fundamental distinction lies between the view
which supposes that a subject to le>gei is so implied as to be suggested
either by the context or by the mind of the reader from the nature of the
case, and that which takes le>gei as a case of true impersonal usage, of
entirely indefinite subject. It is a minor difference among the advocates of
the first of these views, which separates them into two parties - those
which would supply as subject oJ qeo>v, and those which would supply hJ
grafh>. That one of these subdivisions of the first class of views should be
violently torn from its true comradeship and confused with the second view,
betrays a preoccupation on Dr. Abbott's part, when dealing with this
passage, with considerations not of purely exegetical origin. He is for the
moment less concerned with ascertaining the meaning of the apostle than with
refuting a special interpretation of his words: and therefore everything
which stands opposed in any measure to the obnoxious interpretation appears
to him to be "on his side." Put somewhat brusquely, this is as much as to
say that Dr. Abbott is in this note dominated by dogmatic prejudice.

There do not lack other indications of this fact. The most obtrusive of them
is naturally the language - scarcely to be called perfectly calm - with
which the second paragraph of the note opens: "We are certainly not
justified in forcing upon the apostle here and in chap. v. 14 a form of
expression consistent only with the extreme view of verbal inspiration."
Certainly not. But because we chance not to like "the extreme view of verbal
inspiration," are we justified in forbidding the apostle to use a form of
expression consistent only with it, and forcing upon him some other form of
expression which we may consider consistent with a view of inspiration which
we like better? Would it not be better to permit the apostle to choose his
own form of expression and confine ourselves, as expositors, to ascertaining
from his form of expression what view of inspiration lay in his mind, rather
than seek to force his hand into consistency with our preconceived ideas?
The whole structure of the note evinces, however, that it was not written in
this purely expository spirit. Thus only can be explained a certain
exaggerated dogmatism in its language, as if doubt were to be silenced by
decision of manner if not by decisiveness of evidence. So also probably is
to be explained a certain narrowness in the appeal to usage - that rock on
which much factitious exegesis splits. Only, it is intimated, in case "it
were St. Paul's habit to introduce quotations from the Old Testament, by
whomsoever spoken in the original text, with the formula oJ qeo<v le>gei,"
"could this supplement here be defended." One asks in astonishment whether
St. Paul really could make known his estimate of Scripture as the very voice
of God which might naturally be quoted with the formula "God says," and so
render the occurrence of that formula occasionally in his writings no matter
of surprise, only by a habitual use of this exact formula in quoting
Scripture. And one notes without surprise that the narrowness of Dr.
Abbott's rule for the adduction of usage supplies no bar to his practice
when he is arguing "on the other side." At the opening of the very next
paragraph we read, "It is objected that although fhsi> is used impersonally,
le>gei is not": and to this the answer is returned, "The present passage and
chap. v. 14 are sufficient to prove the usage for St. Paul"; with the
supplement, "And there are other passages in his epistles where this sense
is at least applicable"; and further, "But in fact, the impersonal use of
fhsi> in Greek authors is quite different." One fancies Dr. Abbott must have
had a grim controversial smile upon his features when he wrote that last
clause, which pleads that the meaning assigned to le>gei here is absolutely
unexampled in Greek literature, not only for le>gei but even for fhsi>, as a
reason for accepting it for le>gei here! But apart from this remarkable
instance of skill in marshaling adverse facts - a skill not unexampled
elsewhere in the course of this note, as any one who will take the trouble
to examine the proof-texts adduced in it will quickly learn - might not the
advocates of the supplement, oJ qeo>v, say equally that "the present passage
and chap. v. 14 are sufficient to prove the usage for St. Paul, and there
are other passages in his epistles where this sense is at least applicable."
And might they not support this statement with better proof-texts than those
adduced by Dr. Abbott, or indeed with the same with better right; as well as
with a more applicable supplementary remark than the one with which he
really subverts his whole reasoning - such as this, for example, that
elsewhere, in the New Testament, as for instance in the Epistle to the
Hebrews, the usage contended for undoubtedly occurs, and a satisfactory
basis is laid for it in the whole attitude of the entire body of New
Testament writers, inclusive of Paul, toward the Old Testament? Certainly,
reasoning so one-sided and dominated by preconceived opinions so blinding is
thoroughly inconclusive. The note is, indeed, an eminent example of that
form of argumentation which, to invert a phrase of Omar Khayyam's, "goes out
at the same door at which it came in": and even though its contention should
prove sound, can itself add nothing to the grounds on which we embrace it.
At best it may serve as the starting-point of a fresh investigation into the
proper interpretation of the phrase with which it deals.

For such a fresh investigation we should need to give our attention
particularly to two questions. The first would inquire into the light thrown
by Paul's method of introducing quotations from the Old Testament, upon his
estimate of the text of the Old Testament, - with a view to determining
whether it need cause surprise to find him adducing it with such a formula
as "God says." Subsidiary to this it might be inquired whether it is
accurate to say that "there is not a single instance in which oJ qeo>v is
either expressed or implied as the subject, except where in the original
context God is the speaker," and further, if Paul's usage elsewhere can be
accurately so described, whether that fact will warrant us in denying such
an instance to exist in Eph. iv. 8. The second question would inquire into
the general usage of the subjectless le>gei or fhsi> in and out of the New
Testament, with a view to discovering what light may be thrown by it upon
the interpretation of the passages in question. It might be incidentally
asked in this connection whether it is a complete account to give of fhsi in
profane Greek to say that the "impersonal use of fhsi> in Greek authors is
quite different from that of the New Testament, inasmuch as with them fhsi>
= fasi>, 'they say."'

It is really somewhat discouraging at this late date to find it treated as
still an open question, how Paul esteemed the written words of the Old
Testament. And it brings us, as the French say, something akin to
stupefaction, when Dr. Abbott goes further and uses language concerning
Paul's attitude toward the Old Testament text which implies that Paul
habitually distinguished, in point of authority, between those passages
"where in the original context God is the speaker" and the rest of the
volume, so that "we have reason to believe" that the formula oJ qeo<v le>gei
"could not be used by Paul" in introducing Scriptural language not recorded
as spoken by God in the original context. He even suggests, indeed, that
Paul shows an underlying doubt as to the Divine source of even the words
attributed to God in the Old Testament text - "not hesitating to use a
different subject" when quoting them, "as in Rom. x. 19, 20, 'Moses saith,'
'Isaiah is very bold and saith' ; Rom. ix. 17, 'The Scripture saith to
Pharaoh"' - and deals with the text of other portions with a freedom which
exhibits his little respect for them - "not hesitating to make important
alterations" in them. It would seem to require a dogmatic prejudice of the
very first order to blind one to a fact so obvious as that with Paul
"Scripture," as such, is conceived everywhere as the authoritative
declaration of the truth and will of God - of which fact, indeed, no better
evidence can be needed than the very texts quoted by Dr. Abbott in a
contrary sense.

For, when Paul, in Rom. ix. 15, supports his abhorrent rejection of the
supposition that there may be unrighteousness with God, with the divine
declaration taken from Ex. xxxiii. 19, introduced with the formula, "For he"
- that is, as Dr. Abbott recognizes, God - "saith to Moses," and then
immediately, in Rom. ix. 17, supports the teaching of this declaration with
the further word of God taken from Ex. ix. 16, introduced with the formula,
"For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh" - the one thing which is thrown into
a relief above all others is that, with Paul, "God saith" and "Scripture
saith" are synonymous terms, so synonymous in his habitual thought that he
could not only range the two together in consecutive clauses, but use the
second in a manner in which, taken literally, it is meaningless and can
convey an appropriate sense only when translated back into its equivalent of
"God saith." The present tense in both formulas, moreover, advises us that,
despite the fact that in both instances they are words spoken by God which
are cited, it is rather as part of that Scripture which to Paul's thinking
is the ever-present and ever-speaking word of God that they are adduced. It
is not as words which God once spoke (ei+pen, LXX.) to Moses that the former
passage is here adduced, but as living words still speaking to us - it is
not as words Moses was once commanded to speak to Pharaoh that the second is
here adduced, but as words recorded in the ever-living Scripture for our
admonition upon whom the ends of the world have come. They are thus not
assigned to Scripture in order to lower their authority: but rather as a
mark of their abiding authority. And similarly when in that catena of
quotations in Rom. x. 16-21, we read at ver. 19, "first Moses saith," and
then at ver. 20, "and Isaiah is very bold and saith," both adducing words of
God - the implication is not that Paul looks upon them as something less
than the words of God and so cites them by the names of these human authors;
but that it is all one to him to say, "God says," and "Moses says," or
"Isaiah says": and therefore in this catena of quotations - in which are
included four, not two, quotations - all the citations are treated as alike
authoritative, though some are in the original context words of God and
others (ver. 16) words of the prophet - and though some are adduced by the
name of the prophet and some without assignment to any definitely named
human source. The same implication, again, underlies the fact that in the
catena of quotations on Rom. xv. 9 seq., the first is introduced by kaqw<v
ge>graptai, the next two by kai< pa>lin le>gei and kai< pa>lin, and the last
by kai< pa>lin  JHsai`>av le>gei - the first being from Ps. lxxviii. 50, the
second from Deut. xxxii. 43, the third from Ps. cxvii. 1, and only the last
from Isaiah - Isa. xi. 10: clearly it is all one to the mind of Paul how
Scripture is adduced - it is the fact that it is Scripture that is
important. So also it is no more true that in Gal. iii. 16, the le>gei
"corresponds to ejrjrJh>qhsan" of the immediately preceding context, than
that it stands in line with the "and the Scripture foreseeing that God would
justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the Gospel beforehand unto Abraham"
of iii. 8 - a thing which the Scripture as such certainly did not do; and
with the "for it is written" of iii. 10 and iii. 13, and the unheralded
quotations of the Scriptures as unquestioned authority of iii. 11 and iii.
12; and with the general appeal in iii. 22 to the teaching of Scripture as a
whole as the sole testimony needed: the effect of the whole being to evince
in the clearest manner that to Paul the whole text of Scripture, inclusive
of Gen. xii. 3, Deut. xxvii. 26, Hab. ii. 4, Lev. xviii. 5, and Gen. xxii.
18, was as such the living word of the living God profitable to all ages
alike for divine instruction.

We need not go, indeed, beyond the first sentence of this Epistle to the
Romans from which all but one of Dr. Abbott's citations are drawn, to learn
Paul's conception of Scripture as the crystallized voice of God. There he
declares himself to have been "separated unto the gospel of God which he
promised afore by his prophets in the Holy Scriptures" (Rom. i. 2). Dr.
George T. Purves, in a singularly well-considered and impressive paper on
"St. Paul and Inspiration," printed in The Presbyterian and Reformed Review
for January, 1893, <http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn21> 21
justly draws out the meaning of this compressed statement thus:

"Not only did Moses and the prophets speak from God, but the sacred
Scriptures themselves were in some way composed under divine control. He not
only affirms with Peter that 'moved by the Holy Ghost, men spake from God,'
but that 'the Scriptures themselves are inspired by God.' Paul plainly
recognizes the human authorship of the books, and quotes Moses and David and
Isaiah as speaking therein. But not only through them, but in these books of
theirs did God also speak. Many readers notice the first part of Paul's
statement, but not the second. God spake 'through the prophets in the Holy
Scriptures."' 

This emphasis on the written Scriptures as themselves the product of a
divine activity, making them as such the divine voice to us, is
characteristic of the whole treatment of Scripture by Paul (I Cor. x. 11,
Rom. xv. 4, iv. 23, I Cor. ix. 10, iv. 6): and it is thoroughly accordant
with the point of view so exhibited, that he explicitly declares, not of the
writers of Scripture, but of the sacred writings themselves, that they are
theopneustic - breathed out, or breathed into by God (II Tim. iii. 16). For
he applies this epithet not to "every prophet," but to "every Scripture" -
that is, says Dr. Purves, to "the whole collection to which he had just
referred as the 'sacred writings,' and all their parts": these writings are
theopneustic. "By their inspiration, he evidently meant," continues Dr.
Purves justly, "that, as writings, they were so composed under God's
particular direction that both in substance and in form they were the
special utterances of His mind and will."

It could be nothing more than an accident if Paul, under the dominance of
such a conception of Scripture, has nowhere happened to adduce from it a
passage, taken out of a context in which God is not expressly made in the
Old Testament narrative itself the speaker, with the formula, oJ qeo<v
le>gei, expressed or implied. If no instance of such an adduction occurs, it
is worth while to note that fact, to be sure, as one of the curious
accidents of literary usage; but as there is no reason to doubt that such a
formula would be entirely natural on the lips of Paul, so there is no
propriety in calling it impossible in Paul, or even in erecting a
distinction between him and other New Testament writers on the ground that
they do and he does not quote Scripture by such a formula. As a matter of
fact, the distinction suggested between passages in Scripture "where in the
original context God is the speaker" and passages where He is not the
speaker -a s if the one could be cited with a "God says," and the other not,
- is foreign to Paul's conception and usage, as has abundantly appeared
already: so that whatever passages of the former kind occur - "as in Rom.
ix. 15," says Dr. Abbott - are really passages in which Scripture is quoted
with a "God says." It cannot be held to be certain, moreover, that passages
do not occur in which the "God says" introduces words not ascribed to God in
the original context - so long, at least, as it is not obvious that "God" is
not the subauditum in passages like Acts xiii. 35, Rom. xv. 10, Gal. iii.
16. It is no doubt, however, also worth observing that it is equally matter
of fact, that it is rather to the Epistle to the Hebrews than to those that
bear the name of Paul that we shall need to go to find a body of explicit
instances of the usage in question. This is, as we have said, an interesting
fact of literary usage, but it is not to be pressed into an indication of a
divergent point of view toward "Scripture" between the Epistle to the
Hebrews and the epistles that bear Paul's name.

Even Dr. Westcott seems, to be sure, so to press it. In the interesting
dissertation "On the Use of the Old Testament in the Epistle," which he has
appended to his "Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews," he sets out in
some detail the facts that bear on the mode in which that epistle cites the
Old Testament:

"The quotations," he tells us, "are without exception made anonymously.
There is no mention anywhere of the name of the writer (iv. 7 is no
exception to the rule). God is presented as the speaker through the person
of the prophet, except in the one place where He is directly addressed (ii.
6). . . . In two places the words are attributed to Christ. . . . In two
other places the Holy Spirit specially is named as the speaker. . . . But it
is worthy of notice that in each of these two cases the words are also
quoted as the words of God (iv. 7, viii. 8). This assignment of the written
word to God, as the Inspirer of the message, is most remarkable when the
words spoken by the prophet in his own person are treated as divine words -
as words spoken by Moses: i. 6 (Deut. xxxii. 43); iv. 4, comp. vv. 5, 7, 8
(Gen. ii. 2); x. 30 (Deut. xxxii. 36); and by Isaiah: ii. 13 (Isa. viii. 17
f), comp. also xiii. 5 (Deut. xxxi. 6). Generally it must be observed that
no difference is made between the word spoken and the word written. For us
and for all ages the record is the voice of God. The record is the voice of
God, and as a necessary consequence the record is itself living. . . . The
constant use of the present tense in quotations emphasizes this truth: ii.
11, iii. 7, xii. 5. Comp. xii. 26."
<http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn22> 22

Every careful student will recognize this at once as a very clear and very
true statement of the attitude of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
toward the Old Testament. But we cannot help thinking that Dr. Westcott
overshoots the mark when he throws it into strong contrast with the attitude
of the rest of the New Testament writers to the Old Testament. When he says,
for example: "There is nothing really parallel to this general mode of
quotation in the other books of the New Testament" - meaning apparently to
suggest, as the subsequent context indicates, that the author of this
Epistle exhibits an identification in his mind of the written text of the
Scriptures with the voice of God which is foreign to the other writers of
the New Testament - he would seem to have attached far too great
significance to what is, after all, so far as it is real, nothing more than
one of those surface differences of individual usage which are always
observable among writers who share the same fundamental view-point, or even
in different treatises from the same hand. Entirely at one in looking upon
the Scriptures as nothing less than ta< lo>gia tou~ qeou~ (Rom. iii. 2, Heb.
v. 12 23) - in all their parts and phrases the utterance of God - the
epistles that bear the name of Paul and this epistle yet chance to differ in
the prevalent mode in which these "oracles" are adduced: the one in its
formulas of citation emphasizing the sole fact that they are "oracles" it is
quoting, the others, that these "oracles" lie before them in written form.
Let the fact of this difference, of course, be noted: but let it not be
overstrained and, as if it were the sole relevant fact in the field of view,
made to bear the whole weight of a theory of the relations of the two in
their attitude toward Scripture.

Impossible as such a procedure should be in any case, it becomes doubly so
when we note the extremely narrow and insecure basis for the conclusion
drawn, which is offered by the differences in usage adduced between Hebrews
and the rest of the New Testament - which means for us primarily the
epistles that bear the name of Paul. Says Dr. Westcott in immediate sequence
to what we have quoted from him:

"There is nothing really parallel to this general mode of quotation in the
other books of the New Testament. Where the word le>gei occurs elsewhere, it
is for the most part combined either with the name of the prophet or with
'Scripture': e.g., Rom. x. 16,  JHsai`>av le>gei; x. 19, Mwush~v le>gei; xi.
9, Dauei<d le>gei; iv. 3, hJ grafh< le>gei; ix. 17, le>gei hJ grafh>, etc.
Where God is the subject, as is rarely the case, the reference is to words
directly spoken by God: II Cor. vi. 2, le>gei ga<r (oJ qeo>v); Rom. ix. 15,
tw|~ Mwusei~; ix. 25, ejn tw|~   JWshe< le>gei . Comp. Rom. xv. 9-12
(lge>graptai . . . le>gei . . .  JHsai`>av le>gei). The two passages in the
Epistle to the Ephesians (iv. 8, v. 14, dio< le>gei) appear to be different
in kind."

The last remark is apparently intended to exclude Eph. iv. 8 and v. 14 from
consideration. <http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn24> 24 The
immediately preceding one seems intended to suggest that the subject to be
supplied to le>gei in Rom. xv. 10, which carries with it also Rom. xv. 11,
is hJ grafh>; if we rather supply with Sanday-Headlam qeo>v, this citation
would afford an instance to the contrary. Other cases similar to this, e.
g., Acts xiii. 35 <http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn25> 25 and
(with the parallel fhsi>) I Cor. vi. 16,
<http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn26> 26 are simply passed by
in silence. If such cases were considered, perhaps the induction would be
different.

It is possible, on the other hand, that the usage of the Epistle to the
Hebrews also is conceived by Dr. Westcott a shade too narrowly. It scarcely
seems sufficient to say of ii. 6, for example, that this passage is not an
exception to the more general usage of the Epistle inasmuch as it is "the
one place where God is directly addressed" - and is therefore not ascribed
to Him, but to "some one somewhere." According to Dr. Westcott's own
exposition, <http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn27> 27 we have
in i. 10 also words addressed to God and yet cited as spoken by God, and in
a number of passages words spoken of God nevertheless cited as spoken by
Him; and, in a word, the fundamental principle of the mode of quotation used
by this Epistle is that the words of Scripture as such are the living words
of God and are cited as such indifferently - whether in the original context
spoken by Him or by another of Him, to Him, or apart from Him. In any event,
therefore, the citation in the present passage by the formula "someone hath
somewhere borne witness" is an exception to the general usage of the
Epistle, and evidences that the author of it, though conceiving Scripture as
such as a body of divine oracles, did not really lose sight of the fact that
these oracles were delivered through men, and might therefore be cited on
occasion as the deliverances of these men. In other words, here is a mode of
citation of the order affirmed to be characteristic of the letters bearing
the name of Paul. It is at least not beyond the limits of possibility that
another such instance occurs in iv. 7: "saying in David." No doubt, "in
David," may be taken here, as Dr. Westcott takes it, as meaning "in the
person of David," i. e., through his prophetic utterances; but it seems, on
the whole, much more natural to take it as parallel to ejn th|~ bi>blw|
Mwuse>wv (Mark xii. 26), ejn tw~|  JWshe> (Rom. ix. 25), and as meaning "in
the book of David" <http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn28> 28 -
exhibiting the consciousness of the author that he is quoting not merely
"God," but God in the written Scripture - written by the hand of men. This
is the more worth insisting on that it is really not absolutely certain that
the subject of the le>gwn here is immediately "God" at all. There is no
subject expressed either for it or the oJri>zei on which it depends; and
when we go back in the context for an express subject it eludes us, and we
shall not find it until we arrive at the "even as the Holy Ghost saith" of
iii. 7. From that point on, we have a series of quotations, introduced,
quite in the manner of Philo, with formulæ which puzzle us as to their
reference - whether to God, who is the general subject of the whole context,
or to Scripture, conceived as the voice of God (e. g., iii. 15, ejn tw|~
le>gesqai - by whom? God? or "the Scripture" already quoted? iv. 4, ei]rhken
- who? God? or Scripture? iv. 5, kai< ejn tou>tw| pa>lin). Something of the
same kind meets us in the eighth chapter, where quite in the manner of
Philo, we begin at ver. 5: "Even as Moses was oracularly warned when about
to make the tabernacle, for 'see,' fhsi>n, etc." and proceed at ver. 8, with
a subjectless le>gei, to close with ver. 13 with an equally subjectless ejn
tw|~ le>gein. It certainly is not obvious that the subject to be supplied to
these three verbs is "God" rather than "oracular Scripture."

One can but feel that with a due regard to these two classes of neglected
facts, a somewhat broader comparison of the usage of the Epistle to the
Hebrews and that of those letters that bear the name of Paul would not leave
an impression of such sharp and indubitable divergence in point of view as
Dr. Westcott's statement is apt to suggest. In the Epistle to the Hebrews,
the verb le>gw is used to introduce citations, (1) with expressed subject:
ii. 6, "But someone somewhere hath borne witness, saying . . . ." ; iii. 7,
"Even as the Holy Ghost saith . . . ." ; vi. 14, "God .... sware by himself,
saying . . . .": (2) with subject to be supplied from the preceding context:
i. 6, "And when he (God) again bringeth in the firstborn into the world, he
saith . . .; i. 7, "And of the angels he (God) saith . . . ."; ii. 12, "He
(Christ) is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying . . . ."; v. 6, "As he
(God) saith also in another place . . . .": (3) with subject to be supplied
from the general knowledge of the reader: x. 5, "Wherefore when he (Christ)
cometh into the world, he saith . . . ." ; x. 8, "Saying (Christ) above . .
. ."; xii. 26, "But now hath he (God) promised, saying . . . .": (4) without
obvious subject: iii. 15, "While it is said, To day, etc." (by whom? God? or
the Scripture quoted, iii. 7 seq.?); iv. 7, "He [or it?] again defineth a
certain time, saying in David . . . ."; viii. 8, "For finding fault with
them, he [or it?] saith . . . ." (cf. viii. 13, "in that he [or it?] saith .
. .). On the other hand, in the epistles that bear the name of Paul we may
distinguish some four cases of the adduction of Scripture by the formula
le>gei. (1) Sometimes, quoting Scripture as a divine whole, the formula runs
hJ grafh< le>gei or le>gei hJ grafh>: Rom. iv. 3, ix. 17 (le>gei hJ grafh>
tw|~ Faraw|`>), xi. 2 (hJ grafh< ejn  JHlei>a), Gal. iv. 30, I Tim. v. 18.
(2) Sometimes it is adduced by the name of the author: Dauei<d le>gei, Rom.
iv. 6, xi. 9;  JHsai>av le.gei, Rom. x. 16, 20, xv. 12. (3) Sometimes it is
quoted by its contents: oJ no>mov le>gei, Rom. iii. 19, vii. 7, I Cor. ix.
8, 10, xiv. 34; the righteousness that is of faith le>gei, Rom. x. 6 (cf.
ver. 10); oJ crhmatismo>v le>gei, Rom. xi. 4. (4) Sometimes it is adduced by
the verb le>gei without expressed subject. (A) In some of these cases the
subject is plainly indicated in the preceding context: Rom. ix. 25 = "God,"
from ver. 22; x. 10 = "the righteousness of faith," (?) from ver. 6; x. 21 =
"Isaiah," from ver. 20. (B) In others it is less clearly indicated and is
not altogether obvious: [Acts xiii. 34 = "God," from ei]rhken?]; Rom. ix. 15
= "God," from ver. 14?; Rom. xv. 10 = "Scripture," from ge>graptai?; II Cor.
vi. 2 = "God," from preceding context; Gal. iii. 16 = "God," from the
promises?; Eph. iv. 8 and v. 12. It should be added that parallel to the use
of the subjectless fhsi> in Heb. viii. 5 we have the similar use of it in I
Cor. vi. 16.

When we glance over these two lists of phenomena we shall certainly
recognize a difference between them: but the difference is not suggestive of
such an extreme distinction as Dr. Westcott appears to indicate. The fact is
that for its proper estimation we must rise to a higher viewpoint and look
upon the two lists in the light of a much larger fact. For we cannot safely
study this difference of usage as an isolated phenomenon: and we shall get
the key to its interpretation into our hands only when we correlate it with
a more general view of the estimate of Scripture and mode of adducing
Scripture prevalent at the time and in the circles which are represented by
these epistles. Dr. Westcott already points the way to this wider outlook,
when at the end of his discussion he adds these words:

"The method of citation on which we have dwelt is peculiar to the Epistle
[to the Hebrews] among the writings of the New Testament; but it is
interesting to notice that there is in the Epistle of Clement a partial
correspondence with it. Clement generally quotes the LXX. anonymously. He
attributes the prophetic words to God (15, 21, 46), to Christ (16, 22), to
the Holy Word (13, 56), to the Holy Spirit (13, 16). But he also, though
rarely, refers to the writers (26, Job; 52, David), and to Books (57,
Proverbs, 'the all virtuous Wisdom'), and not unfrequently uses the familiar
form ge>graptai (14, 39, etc.). The quotations in the Epistle of Barnabas
are also commonly anonymous, but Barnabas mentions several names of the
sacred writers, and gives passages from the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms
with the formula, 'the Prophet saith' (vi. 8; 2; 4, 6)."

And, he should have added, Barnabas also repeatedly adduces what he held to
be the Word of God with the formulas ge>graptai (iv. 3, 14, v. 2, xi. 1,
xiv. 6, xv. 1, xvi. 6) and le>gei hJ grafh> (iv. 7, 11, v. 4, vi. 12, xiii.
2, xv. 5) : and indeed passes from the one mode of citation to the other
without the least jar, as. for example, in chap. v.: "For it is written
concerning him, some things indeed with respect to Israel, and some with
respect to us. For it saith this (Isa. liii. 5, 7). . . . . And the
Scripture saith (Prov. i. 17). . . . And still also this (Jer. i. 25). . . .
. For God saith (Zech. xiii. 6). . . . . For the prophesier saith (Ps. xxii.
21, etc.). . . . . And again it saith (Isa. 1. 6)." Though adverting thus to
these facts, however, Dr. Westcott quite misses their significance. What
they mean is shortly this: that the two modes of citing Scripture thought to
distinguish Hebrews and the letters that bear the name of Paul, do not imply
well-marked distinctive modes of conceiving Scripture; but coexist readily
within the limits of one brief letter, like the letter of Clement or that of
Barnabas. No wonder, when laid side by side, we found the usages of the two
to present no sharply marked division line, but to crumble into one another
along the edges. And when we look beyond Clement and Barnabas and take a
general glance over the literature of the time, it is easily seen that we
are looking in the two cases only at two fragments of one fact, and are
seeing in each only one of the everywhere current methods of citing
Scripture as the very Word of God. It seems inconceivable that one could
rise from reading, say, twenty pages of Philo, for example, without being
fully convinced of this.

Philo's fundamental conception of Scripture is that it is a book of oracles;
each passage of it is a crhsmo>v or lo>gion, and the whole is therefore oiJ
crhsmoi> or ta< lo>gia: he currently quotes it, accordingly, as "the living
voice" of God, and whole treatises of his may be read without meeting with a
single citation introduced by ge>graptai or with the Scriptures once called
hJ grafh>. Nevertheless, when occasion serves, he adduces Scripture readily
enough as hJ grafh>, and cites it with ge>graptai, and calls it ta<
gra>mmata. We have no more reason for assuming that such modes of citing
Scripture would have been foreign to the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews (whose mode of citing Scripture is markedly Philonic) than we have
for assuming that the author of the tract de Mutatione Nominum, in which
they do not occur, but where Scripture is almost exclusively oiJ chsmoi>, or
the author of the tracts de Somniis, where again they do not occur, but
where Scripture is almost exclusively oJ iJero<v (or oJ qei~ov) lo>gov (i.
14, 22, 33, 35, 37, 39, 42, ii. 4, 9, 37, etc. ; i. 33, ii. 37) - which
designations are rare again in de Mutatione Nominum (oJ q. l., 20; oJ iJ.
l., 38) - held a different conception of Scripture from the author of the
tract de Legatione ad Caium (§ 29) or the tract de Abrahamo (§ 1), in which
the Scriptures are spoken of as ta< gra>mmata or aiJ grafai>. There is no
reason, in a word, why, if the Epistle to the Hebrews had contained even a
single other verse, it might not have presented the "exotic," hJ grafh> or
ge>graptai. Because Philo or the author of this Epistle was especially
accustomed to look on Scripture as a body of oracles and to cite it
accordingly, is no reason why he should forget that it is a body of written
oracles and be incapable on occasion of citing it from that point of view.
Similarly because Paul ordinarily cites Scripture as written is no reason
why he should not be firmly convinced that what is written in it is oracles,
or should not occasionally cite it from that point of view. In a word, the
two modes of citing Scripture brought into contrast by Bishop Westcott are
not two mutually exclusive ways of citing Scripture, but two mutually
complementary methods. The use of the one by any writer does not argue that
the other is foreign to him; if we have enough written material from his
hand, we are sure rather to find in him traces of the other usage also. This
is the meaning of the presence in the Epistle to the Hebrews of suggestive
instances of an approach to the citation of Scripture as a document: and of
the presence in the epistles bearing the name of Paul of instances of modes
of citation which hint of his conception of Scripture as an oracular book.
Where and when the sense of the oracular character of the source of the
quotation is predominatingly in mind it tends to be quoted with the simple
fhsi> or le>gei, with the implication that it is God that says it: this is
most richly exhibited in Philo, and, within the limits of the New Testament,
most prevailingly in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Where and when, on the
other hand, the consciousness that it is from a written source that the
authoritative words are drawn is predominant in the mind, it tends to be
quoted with the simple ge>graptai or the more formal hJ grafh< le>gei: this
is the mode in which it is most commonly cited in the epistles that bear the
name of Paul. Both modes of citation rest on the common consciousness of the
Divine authority of the matter cited, and have no tendency to exclude one
another: they appear side by side in the same writer, and must be held to
predominate variously in different writers only according to their
prevailing habits of speaking of Scripture, and at different times in the
same writer according as the circumstances under which he was writing threw
the emphasis in his mind temporarily upon the Scriptures as written oracles
or as written oracles.

>From this point of view we may estimate Dr. Westcott's remark: "Nor can it
be maintained that the difference of usage is to be explained by the
difference of readers, as being [in Hebrews] Jews, for in the Gospels
ge>graptai is the common formula (nine times in St. Matthew)." This remark,
like his whole treatment of the subject, seems conceived in a spirit which
is too hard and narrow, too drily statistical. No one, doubtless, would
contend that the difference of readers directly produced the difference of
usage, as if the Scriptures must be quoted to Jews as "oracles of God," and
to Gentiles as "written documents." But it is far from obvious that the
difference of readers may not, after all, have had very much to do with the
prevalence of the one mode of citation in the Epistle to the Hebrews and of
the other in the epistles that bear the name of Paul. The Jews were
certainly accustomed to the current citation of the Scriptures as the living
voice of God in oracular deliverances - as the usage of Philo sufficiently
indicates: and it may be that this was subtly felt the most impressive
method of adducing the words of the Holy Book when addressing Jews. On the
other hand, the heathen were accustomed to authoritative documents, cited
currently, with an implication of their authority, by the formula
ge>graptai: <http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn29> 29 and it
may well be that this subtly suggested itself as the most telling way of
adducing Scripture as authoritative law to the Gentiles. We need not ride
such a notion too hard: but it at least seems far from inconceivable that
the selfsame writer, addressing, on the one hand, a body of devout Jews,
and, on the other, a body of law-loving Romans, might find himself using
almost unconsciously modes of adducing Scripture suggestive, in the one
case, of loving awe in its presence and, in the other, of its binding
authority over the conscience. Be this as it may, however, it is quite clear
that the fact that Paul ordinarily adduces Scripture with "the forms
(kaqw<v) ge>graptai (sixteen times in the Epistle to the Romans), hJ grafh<
le>gei, and the like, which never occur in the Epistle to the Hebrews,"
implies no far-reaching difference of conception on his part from that
exhibited by that Epistle, as to the fundamental character of the Scriptures
as an oracular book - which, on the contrary, is just what he calls them
(Rom. iii. 2) - and certainly raises no presumption against his occasionally
quoting them as an oracular book with the formula so characteristic of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, oJ qeo<v le>gei, or its equivalents. And the fact
that "Paul not unfrequently quotes the words of God as 'Scripture' simply
(e. g., Rom, ix. 17)" so far from raising a presumption that he would not
quote "Scripture" as "words of God," actually demonstrates the contrary, as
it only in another way indicates the identification on his part of the
written word with the voice of the speaking God.

If we approach the study of such texts as Eph. iv. 8, v. 14, therefore, from
the point of view of the Pauline conception of Scripture, there is no reason
why they should not be understood as adducing Scripture with a high "God
says." To say that "we have reason to believe" that such a formula "could
not be used by Paul," is as wide of the mark as could well be. To say that
it is a formula more in accordance with the point of view of the Epistle to
the Hebrews, is to confound mere occasional differences in usage with
fundamental differences in conception. To Paul, too, the Scriptures are a
book of oracles, and though he cites them ordinarily as written oracles
there is no reason why he should not occasionally cite them merely as
oracles. And in any case, whether we take the subauditum in such passages as
"God," or "Scripture," or prefer to render simply by "it," from Paul's point
of view the meaning is all one: in any case, Scripture is to him the
authoritative dictum of God and what it says is adduced as the authoritative
word that ends all strife.

In seeking to estimate the likelihoods as to the meaning of such a locution
as the dio< le>gei of Eph. iv. 8, v. 14, we should not lose from sight, on
the other hand, the fact that the Greek language was not partial to true
"impersonals," that is, absolutely indefinite uses of its verbs. Says Jelf :


"Of impersonal verbs (in English, verbs with the indefinite it) the Greek
language has but few." <http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn30>
30

Says Kühner:

"Impersonal verbs, by which we understand a verb agreeing with the
indefinite pronoun it, are not known to the Greek language: for expressions
like dei~, crh> . . . le>getai, etc. . . . the Greek always conceived as
personal, in that the infinitive or subjoined sentence was considered the
subject of these verbs." <http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn31>
31

No doubt, the subject often suffers ellipsis - especially when it may be
counted upon readily to suggest itself, either out of the predicate itself,
or out of the context, or out of the knowledge of the reader: and no doubt
this implied subject is sometimes the indefinite tiv. But it remains true
that as yet there has turned up no single instance in all Greek literature
of le>gei in the purely indefinite sense of "someone says," equivalent to
"it is said" in the meaning of general rumor, or of a common proverb, or a
current saying; and though there have been pointed out instances of
something like this in the case of the kindred word fhsi>, it still remains
somewhat doubtful precisely how they are to be interpreted. The forms
commonly used to express this idea are either the expressed tiv, or the
third person plural, as le>gousi, fasi>, ojnoma>zousin, or the third person
singular passive, as le>getai, or the second person singular optative or
indicative of the historical tenses, as fai>hv a]n, = dicas, or the like.
<http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn32> 32

We find it, indeed, occasionally asserted that (fhsi> is used sometimes or
frequently as a pure impersonal, in the sense of "it is said." The passage
from Bernhardy, to be sure, to which reference has been made in support of
this assertion, by more than one of the commentators adduced above, has its
primary interest not in this point, but in the different one of the use of
the singular fhsi> for the plural - like the Latin inquit, and the English
"says" in that vulgar colloquial locution in which it is made to do duty not
only in the form "he says," but also in such forms as "I says" and "you
says," and even "they says" and "we says." What Bernhardy remarks is:
<http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn33> 33

"The rhetorical employment of the singular for the plural rests on the Greek
peculiarity (K. 3, 5; 6, 13c.) of clearly conceiving and representing the
multitude by means of the individual. A ready instance of this is supplied
by the formula fhsi>, like the Latin inquit an expression for all persons
and numbers for designating an indefinite speaker (den beliebigen Redner) -
'heisst es'; and by the more classic eijpe> moi in appeal to the multitude
in Attic life, Arist. (as Pac., 385, eijpe> moi ti> pa>scet j w+ndrev; coll.
Eccl., 741), Plat. (clearly in a turn like eijpe> moi, w+ Sw>krate>v te kai<
uJmei~v oiJ a]lloi), Demosth., Phil. i, p. 45; Chers., p. 108; Timocr., p.
718." <http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn34> 34

The usage of fhsi> here more particularly adverted to - for all numbers and
persons - seems a not uncommon one. Instances may possibly be found in the
"Discourses" of Epictetus i. 29, 34 (Schenkl, p. 95). "Even athletes are
dissatisfied with slight young men: 'He cannot lift me,' fhsi>," where fhsi>
might perhaps be rendered by our vernacular, "says they," referring to "the
athletes." Again, iv. 9, 15 (Schenkl, p. 383): "But learn from what the
trainers of boys do. The boy has fallen: 'Rise,' fhsi>, 'wrestle again, till
you become strong!"' where we may possibly have another 'says they,' viz.,
the trainers. Possibly again ii. 10, 20 (Schenkl, p. 133), "But consider, if
you refer everything to a small coin, not even he who loses his nose is in
your opinion damaged. 'Yes,' fhsi>, 'for he is mutilated in his body,"'
where possibly fhsi> is "says you," referring to the collocutor, addressed
in the preceding context in the second person - though, no doubt, another
explanation is here possible. Indeed, in no one of the instances cited is it
impossible to conceive a singular subject derived from the contextual plural
as specially in mind. If fhsi> were genuine in Wisdom xv. 12,
<http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn35> 35 II Cor. x. 10,
<http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn36> 36 these might well
supply other instances - the "says they" in each case continuing the
contextual or implicated plural. But in none of these instances, it is to be
observed, would the subject be conceived as in the strict sense
"indefinite." It is a perfectly definite subject that is present to the mind
of the writer, given either in the immediate context or in the thorough
understanding that exists between the writer and reader. There is in them
nothing whatever of the vagueness that attaches to the French "on dit," or
the German "man sagt," or the English "it is said." The Greeks had other
locutions for expressing this idea, and if it was ever expressed by the
simple fhsi>, only the slightest traces of it remain in their extant
literature.

In the seventh edition of the Greek Lexicon of Liddell & Scott,
<http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn37> 37 nevertheless, this
usage is expressly assigned to fhsi>. We read:

"fhsi> parenthetically, they say, it is said, Il. 5, 638, Od. 6, 42 and
Att.; but in prose also fhsi>, like French on dit, Dem. 650, 13, Plut. 2,
112 C., etc. (so Lat. inquit, ait, Gronov, Liv. 34, 3, Bent. Hor. 1 Sat. 4,
79; - especially in urging an objection or counterargument, v. Interpp.
Pers. Sat. 1, 40); - so also e]fh, c. acc. et inf., Xen. An. i, 6, 6."

It is far from obvious, however, that the passages here adduced will justify
precisely the usage which they are cited to illustrate. In the passage from
Demosthenes - e]stw, fhsi<n, uJpe<r aujtou~ hJ aujth< timwri>a , etc. - it
seems to be quite clear, as the previous sentence suggests and the editors
recognize, <http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn38> 38 that the
subject of the (fhsi> is e]kastov tw~n gegrafo>twn, and is far from a purely
indefinite tiv. The passage from Plutarch ("Consolatio ad Apollonium," xxi)
is more specious. It runs: ajll j ouj ga<r h]lpizon, fhsi>, tau~ta
pei>sesqai, oujde< prosedo>kwn; and is translated in the Latin version, "At,
inquiunt, præter spem mihi hic casus et expectationem evenit"; and in
Holland's old English version, "But haply you will say, I never thought that
this would have befallen unto me, neither did I so much as doubt any such
thing." A glance at the context, however, is enough to show that there is no
purely indefinite fhsi> here, though it may be that we have here another
instance of its usage without regard to number and person. In any case, the
subject is the quite definitely conceived interlocutor of the passage. That
the e]fh adduced at the end of the note as in some degree of the same sort
is not an indefinite e]fh, but has the Clearchus of the immediately
preceding context as its subject, is too obvious for remark. Clearchus was
present by the request of Cyrus at the trial of Orontes, and when he came
out he reported to his friends the manner in which the trial was conducted:
"He said (e]fh) that Cyrus began to speak as follows." It is not by such
instances as these that the occurrence of a purely indefinite fhsi> can be
established. <http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn39> 39

The subjectless fhsi>, to be sure, does occur very thickly scattered over
the face of Greek literature, introducing or emphasizing quotations, or
adducing objections, or the like: but the "it" that is to be supplied to it
is, ordinarily at least, a quite definite one with its own definite
reference perfectly clear. A characteristic instance, often referred to, is
that in Demosth., "Leptin," § 56:
<http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn40> 40 kai< ga>r toi mo>nw|
tw~n pa>ntwn aujtw|~ tou~t j ejn th~| sth>lh| ge>graptai, ejpeidh< Ko>nwn,
fhsi>n, hjleuqe>rwse tou<v  jAqhnai>wn summa>couv. -  ]Esti de< tou~to to<
gra>mma. . . ." Here F. A. Wolf comments: "Absolute ibi interjectum est
fhsi>n, aut, si mavis, subaudi oJ gra>yav"; and Schaefer adds: "Subaudi hJ
sth>lh." <http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn41> 41 It does not
appear why we should not render simply "it says": but this "it" is so far
from an "'indefinite' it" that it has its clear reference to the inscription
just mentioned. Perhaps even more instructive is a passage in the third
Philippic <http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn42> 42 of
Demosthenes, which runs as follows:

"That such is our present state, you yourselves are witnesses, and need not
any testimony from me. That our state in former times was quite opposite to
this, I shall now convince you, not by any arguments of mine, but by a
decree of your ancestors (gra>mmata tw~n progo>nwn), which they inscribed
upon a brazen column (sth>lhn) erected in the citadel. . . . What, then,
says the decree (ti> ou+n le>gei ta< gra>mmata)? 'Let Arithmius,' it says
(fhsi>n), 'of Zelia, the son of Pythonax, be accounted infamous and an enemy
to the Athenians and their allies, both he and all his race.' . . . The
sentence imported somewhat more, for, in the laws importing capital cases,
it is enacted (ge>graptai) that 'when the legal punishment of a man's crime
cannot be inflicted he may be put to death,' and it was accounted
meritorious to kill him. 'Let not the infamous man,' saith the law, 'be
permitted to live' (kai< a]timov, fhsi>, teqna>tw), intimating that he is
free from guilt who executes this sentence (tou~to dh< le>gei, kaqaro<n to<n
tou>twn tina< ajpoktei>nanta ei]nai)."

In both cases it is doubtless enough to render fhsi>, "it says," its
function being in each case to call pointed attention to the words quoted:
but the "it" is by no means "indefinite" in the sense that its reference was
not very definitely conceived. On the second instance of its occurrence Wolf
comments: "s. oJ foniko<v no>mov,"
<http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn43> 43 while Schaefer says:
"

"Pleonastice positum cum ge>graptai praecesserit. Verumtamen h. l. sensum
paulo magis juvat quam ubi post ei+pon, ei+te, continuo sequitur e]fhn,
e]fh. Ad fhsi> subaudi oJ nomoqe>thv."

These instances will supply us with typical examples of the "absolute"
fhsi>; and, in this sense, "subjectless fhsi>" is of very common occurrence
indeed in Greek literature.

But really "subjectless fhsi>," i. e., fhsi> without any implied subject in
context or common knowledge, which therefore we must take quite
indefinitely, is very rare indeed, if not non-existent. Perhaps one of the
most likely instances of such a usage is offered us by a passage in
Plutarch's "Consolatio ad Apollonium," 34.
<http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn45> 45 Holland's old version
of it runs thus: <http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn46> 46

"And verily in regard of him who is now in a blessed estate, it has not been
naturall for him to remaine in this life longer than the terme prefixed and
limited unto him; but after he had honestly performed the course of his
time, it was needfull and requisit for him to take the way for to returne
unto his destinie that called for him to come unto her."

>From this we may at least learn that fhsi>n here presented some difficulty,
as Holland passes it by unrendered. The common Latin version restores it,
reading the last clause thus: "Sed ita postulabit natura ut hoc expleto
fatale quod aiunt iter conficeret, revocante eum jam ad se natura"; the
Greek running thus: "all j eujta>ktwv tou~ton ejkplh>santi pro<v th<n
eiJmarme>nhn ejpana>gein porei>an, kalou>shv aujth~v, fhsi>n, h]dh pro<v
eJauth>n." The theory of the Latin version obviously is that fhsi>n here is
to be taken indefinitely, that is as an index hand pointing to a current
designation of death as an entering upon the "fated journey" - hJ
eiJmarme>nh porei>a. This is explained to us by Wyttenbach's note:
<http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn47> 47

"fhsi>n] non debebat offendere viros doctos. Est ut ait poeta ille unde hoc
sumptum est. Videt hoc et Reiskius. Correxi versionem. De Tragici dicto in
Animadversibus dicetur."

Accordingly, in the Animadversions,
<http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn48> 48 he addresses himself
first to showing that the expression here signalized was a current poetical
saying - appealing to Plato,
<http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn49> 49 Julian, Philo; and
then adds:

"Cæterum fhsi>n ita elliptice usitatum est: v. c. Plutarcho, p. 135 B.,
<http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn50> 50 817 D., Dion. Chrys.,
p. 493 D., 532 A., 562 B. Notavit et Uptonus ad Epict. in Indice. In
annotatoribus ad Lambertum Bosium de Ellipsibus unus Schoettgenius, idque ex
uno Paulo Apostolo hunc usum annotavit, p. 74. Et. Latine ita dicitur
inquit, quod monuerunt J. F. Gronovius et A. Drakenborch. ad Livium xxxiv.
3, J. A. Ernestus in Clav. Cic. voce Inquit."

It does not seem, however, that Wyttenbach would have us read the fhsi> here
quite indefinitely, as adducing for example a current saying: judging from
his own paraphrase this might appear to him as a certain exaggeration of its
implication. Its office would seem rather to be to call attention to the
words, to which it is adjoined, as quoted, and thus, in the good
understanding implied to exist between the writer and his readers, to point
definitely to its source: so that it might be a proper note to it to say,
"subaudi oJ tragiko>v, vel oJ poihth>v" - and this might be done with a
considerable emphasis on the oJ; nay, the actual name of the poet, well
known to both writer and reader, though now lost to us, might equally well
be the subauditum, and such, indeed, may be the implication of the
subauditum suggested by Wyttenbaeh: ut ait poeta ille unde hoe scriptum est.
Surely, an instance like this is far from a clear case of the absolutely
indefinite or even generally undefining use of fhsi>.

Among the references with which Wyttenbach supports his note, the most
promising sends us to Epictetus, whose "Discourses" abound in the most
varied use of 0rlvi, and offer us at the same time one of our most valuable
sources of knowledge of the Greek in common use near the times of the
apostles. <http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn51> 51 We meet
with many instances here which it has been customary to explain as cases of
fhsi> in a wholly indefinite reference. But the matter is somewhat
complicated by the facts that we are not reading here Epictetus'
"Discourses" pure and simple, but Arrian's report of them; and that Arrian
may exercise his undoubted right to slip in a fhsi> of his own whenever he
specially wishes to keep his readers' attention fixed upon the fact that
they are his master's words he is setting down, or perhaps even merely out
of the abiding sense, on his own part, that he is reporting Epictetus and
not writing out of his own mind. When such a fhsi> occurs at the beginning
of a section it gives no trouble: every reader recognizes it at once as
Arrian's. But when it occurs unexpectedly in the midst of a vivacious
discussion, the reader who is not carrying with him the sense of Arrian's
personality, standing behind the Epictetus he is attending to, is very apt
to be stumbled by it, and to resort to some explanation of it on the theory
that it is Epictetus' own and is to find its interpretation in the context.
An attempt has been made by Schenkl in the index to his edition of Epictetus
<http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn52> 52 to distinguish
between the instances in which fhsi> occurs "inter Epicteti verba ab Arriano
servata," and those in which it occurs "inter Arriani verba." It will be
found that most of the instances where it has been thought markedly
indefinite in its reference are classed by him in the second group and are
thus made very definite indeed - the standing subauditum being "Epictetus."
Opinions will, no doubt, differ as to the proper classification of a number
of these: and in any case many instances remain which cannot naturally be so
explained - occurring as they do in the midst of vividly conceived dramatic
passages. In this very vividness of dramatic action, however, is doubtless
to be found the explanation of these instances. So far are the verbs here
from being impersonal, that the speakers in these little dialogues stood out
before Epictetus' mind's eye as actual persons; and it is therefore that he
so freely refers to them with his vivid fhsi>.

The following are some of the most striking examples of his usage of the
word. "But now we admit that virtue produces one thing, and we declare that
approaching near to it is another thing, namely progress or improvement.
Such a person, fhsi>n, is already able to read Chrysippus by himself.
Indeed, sir, you are making great progress" (i, 4, 9).
<http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn53> 53 Here Schenkl suggests
that the fhsi>n is Arrian's, and this would seem to be a good suggestion, as
it illuminates the passage in more ways than one. If not, the subauditum
would seem to be the collocutor of the paragraph: a "some one," no doubt,
but rather the "some one" most prominent in the mind of writer and reader in
this discussion. "But a man may say, Whence shall I get bread to eat, when I
have nothing (kai< po>qen fa>gw, fhsi>, mhde<n e]xwn;)?" (i. 9, 8). Here
again the fhsi> seems best explained as Arrian's (Schenkl): if not, the
subauditum is again the collocutor prominent through the context, and only,
in that sense, indefinite. "Who made these things and devised them? 'No
one,' you say (fhsi>n). O amazing shamelessness and stupidity" (i. 16, 8).
The reference is to the collocutor. "They are thieves and robbers you may
say (kle>ptai, fhsi>n, eijsi . . . .)" (i. 18, 3). Either Arrian's
(Schenkl), or with the collocutor as the subauditum. " How can you conquer
the opinion of another man? By applying terror to it, he replies (fhsi>n), I
will conquer it" (i, 29, 12). Subaudi the collocutor. "For why, a man says
(fhsi>), do I not know the beautiful and the ugly?" (ii, 11, ?). Either
Arrian's (Schenkl), or subaudi the collocutor. "How, he replies (fhsi>n), am
I not good?" (ii, 13, 17). Either Arrian's (Schenkl), or subaudi the
collocutor. So also similarly in ii, 22, 4; iii, 2, 5; iii, 5, 1, etc. Cf.
also ii, 23, 16; iii, 3, 12; 9, 15; 20, 12; 26, 19. Similarly, in the
"Fragments" we have this: "They are amusing fellows, said he (e]fh =
Epictetus), who are proud of the things which are not in our power. A man
says, I (ejgw>, fhsi>) am better than you, for I possess much land and you
are wasting with hunger. Another says (a]llov le>gei). . . . .") "Frag.,"
xviii. [Schw.,16]). Here the fhsi> is brought in as the initial member of a
series and in contrast with a]llov le>gei: it would seem to be Epictetus'
own, therefore, and to mean "says one," as distinguished from another; and
thus it appears to be the most likely instance of the "indefinite fhsi>" in
the whole mass. But even it seems an essentially different locution from the
really indefinite "it is said," "on dit," " man sagt."

A glance over the whole usage of fhsi> in Arrian-Epictetus leaves on the
mind a keen sense of the lively way in which the word must have been
interjected into Greek conversation, but does not greatly alter the
impression of its essential implication which we derive from the general use
of the word. Take a single instance of its current use in the "Discourses"
in its relation to kindred words:

"So also Diogenes somewhere says (pou le>gei) that there exists but one
means of obtaining freedom - to die contentedly, and he writes (gra>fei) to
the king of the Persians, 'You cannot enslave the city of the Athenians, any
more,' says he (fhsi>n), 'than fishes.' 'How? Can I not catch them ?' 'If
you catch them,' says he (fhsi>n), 'they will immediately leave you and be
gone, just like fishes: for whatever one of them you catch dies, and if
these men die when they are caught, what good will your preparations do
you?"' (iv, 1, 30).

The lively effect given by such unexpected interpositions of fhsi>n is lost
in our decorous translation of the New Testament examples: but it exists in
them too. Thus: "But she, being urged on by her mother, 'Give me,' says she,
'here upon a charger, the head of John the Baptist"' (Matt. xiv. 8); "But
he, 'Master, speak,' says he" (Luke vii. 40); "But Peter to them, 'Repent,'
says he, 'and be baptized each one of you"' (Acts ii. 38) ; "'Let those
among you,' says he, 'that are able, go down with me"' (Acts xxv. 5);
"'To-morrow,' says he, ' thou shalt hear him"' (Acts xxv. 22); "But Paul, 'I
am not mad,' says he, 'most noble Festus"' (Acts xxvi. 25).
<http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn54> 54 The main function of
fhsi> then would appear to be to keep the consciousness of the speaker
reported clearly before the mind of the reader. It is therefore often used
to mark the transition from indirect to direct quotation:
<http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn55> 55 and it lent itself
readily, therefore, to mark the adduction both of objections and of literary
citations. But, one would imagine, it did not very readily lend itself to
vague and indefinite references.

If we desire to find cases of "subjectless le>gei" in any way similar to
those of fhsi>, we must apparently turn our back on profane Greek
altogether. <http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn56> 56 We have
fortunately in Philo, however, an author, the circumstances of whose writing
made literary quotation as frequent with him as oral is in the lively pages
of Epictetus' "Discourses." And in Philo's treatises le>gei takes its place
by the side of its more common kinsman fhsi>, and is used in much the same
way, though naturally somewhat less frequently. In harmony with his
fundamental viewpoint - which looked on the Scriptures as a body of oracular
sayings - Philo adduces Scripture commonly with verbs of "saying" - fhsi>,
le>getai, le>gei, ei+pen (ge>graptai falling into the background). Passages
so adduced are often woven into the fabric of his discussion of the contents
of Scripture; and where the words adduced are words of a speaker in the
Biblical narrative, the subject of the fhsi> or le>gei which introduces them
naturally is often this speaker - whether God or some other person. Equally
often, however, the subject given immediately or indirectly in the context
is something outside of the narrative that is dealt with: in this case it is
sometimes Moses, or "the prophet," or "the lawgiver" - at other times, "the
Holy Word," or "the sacred Word," or "the Oracle," or "the Oracles" (oJ
qei~ov lo>gov, oJ iJero<v lo>gov, oJ crhsmo>v, to< lo>gion, oiJ crhsmoi>,
ta< lo>gia) - at other times still it is "God," under various designations.
Often, however, the verb - fhsi> or le>gei - stands not only without
expressed subject, but equally without indicated subject. The rendering of
these cases has given students of Philo some trouble, arising out of the
apparent confusion, when the subject is expressed, of the reference of the
verb, - now to a speaker in the text of Scripture and now to the author of
the particular Scripture, to God as the author of all Scripture, or to
Scripture itself conceived as a living Word. This apparent confusion is due
solely to Philo's fundamental conception of Scripture as an oracular book,
which leads him to deal with its text as itself the Word of God: he has
himself fully explained the matter,
<http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn57> 57 and we should be able
to steer clear of serious difficulties with his explanation in our hands.

Nevertheless, a somewhat mechanical mode of dealing with his citations has
produced, on more than one occasion, certain odd results. Prof. Ryle says:
<http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn58> 58

"The commonest forms of quotation employed by Philo are fhsi>, ei+pen,
le>gei, le>getai, ge>graptai ga<r. Whether the subject of fhsi> be Moses or
Scripture personified cannot in many cases be determined."

In no case is the subject strictly indeterminate, however, and the failure
to determine it aright may introduce confusion. Thus, for example, in "De
Confus. Ling.," § 26 (Mangey, i. 424), Philo mentions the Book of Judges,
and cites it with the subjectless fhsi>. Prof. Ryle comments thus:
<http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn59> 59

"He does not mention any opinion as to authorship, and introduces his
quotation with his usual formula fhsi>n. We are hardly justified in assuming
that Philo intended Moses as the subject of fhsi>n, and regarded him as the
author of Judges (so Dr. Pick, Journal of Biblical Literature, 1884). Moses
is doubtless often spoken of by Philo as if he were the personification of
the Inspired Word; but we cannot safely extend this idea beyond the range of
the Pentateuch. All that we can say is that fhsi>n, used in this quotation
from Judges, refers either to the unknown writer of this book or to the
personification of Holy Scripture."

Or else, we may add, to God, the real author, in Philo's conception, of
every word of Scripture. Prof. Ryle, however, has not caught precisely Dr.
Pick's meaning: Dr. Pick does not commit himself to the extravagant view
that wherever subjectless fhsi> occurs in Philo the subauditum "Moses" is
implied: he only says, in direct words, that here - in this special passage
-"Moses is introduced as speaking." It would seem obvious that he had a text
before him which read "Moses says," and not simply "says," at this place.
This text was doubtless nothing other than Yonge's English translation,
which reads Moses here, as often elsewhere with as little warrant: "'For,'
says Moses, ' Gideon swore, etc."'
<http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn60> 60 The incident
illustrates the evil of mechanically supplying a supplement to these
subjectless verbs - which cannot indeed be understood except on the basis of
Philo's primary principle, that it is all one to say "Moses says," "the
Scripture says," or "God says." The simple fact here is that Philo quotes
Judges, as he does the rest of Scripture, with the subjectless "says," and
with the same implication, viz., that Judges is to him a part of the Word of
God.

As has been already hinted, by all means the commonest verb used by Philo
thus, - without expressed or obviously indicated subject, - to introduce a
Scripture passage, is fhsi>. Perhaps, however, the one instance to which we
have incidentally adverted will suffice to illustrate the usage - other
instances of which may be seen on nearly every page of Philo's treatises. It
is of more interest for us to note that le>gei seems also to be used in the
same subjectless way - examples of which may be seen, for instance, in the
following places, "Legg. Allegor.," i, 15; ii, 4; iii, 8; "Quod Det. Pot.
Insid.," 48; "De Posterit. Caini," 9; 22; 52; "De Gigant.," 11; 12; "De
Confus. Ling.," 32; "De Migrat. Abrah.," 11; "Fragment. ex Joh. Monast."
(ii, 668). In " Legg. Allegor.," i, 15, for instance, we have a string of
quotations without obvious subject, introduced, the first by the subjectless
fhsi>, the next by the equally subjectless ejpife>rei pa>lin, and the third
(from Exod. xx. 23) by le>gei de< kai< ejn eJte>roiv. In "Legg. Allegor.,"
ii, 4, we have Gen. ii. 19 introduced by le>gei ga<r without any obvious
subject. Yonge translates this too by "For Moses says": but to obtain
warrant for this we should have to go back two pages and a half (of
Richter's text), quite to the beginning of the treatise, where we find an
apostrophe to the "prophet." In "De Posterit. Caini," 22, le>gei ejpi< me<n
jAbraa<m ou[twv (Gen. xi. 29), though Yonge supplies "Moses" again, that
would seem to be demonstrably absurd, as the passage proceeds to place
"Moses," in parallelism with Abraham, in the object. Similarly the passages
adduced from "De Gigant.," 11 and 12 (Num. xiv. 44 and Deut. xxxiv. 6) are
about Moses, and it would scarcely do to fill out the ellipsis of subject
with his name. Examples need not, however, be multiplied.

It would seem quite clear that both the subjectless fhsi> frequently, and
the subjectless le>gei less often, occur in Philo after a fashion quite
similar to the instances adduced from the New Testament. And it would seem
to be equally clear that the lack of a subject in their case is not
indicative of indefiniteness, but rather of definiteness in their reference.
Philo does not adduce passages of Scripture with the bare fhsi> or le>gei
because he knows or cares very little whence they come or with what
authority; but because he and his readers alike both know so well the source
whence they are derived, and yield so unquestionably to its authority, that
it is unnecessary to pause to indicate either. The use of the bare fhsi> or
le>gei in citations from Scripture is in his case, obviously, the outgrowth
and the culminating sign of his absolute confidence in Scripture as the
living voice of God, fully recognized as such both by himself and his
readers. In the same sense in which to the dying Sir Walter Scott there was
but one "Book," to him and his readers there was but one authoritative
divine Word, and all that was necessary in adducing it was to indicate the
fact of adduction. The fhsi> or le>gei serves thus primarily the function of
"quotation marks" in modern usage: but under such circumstances and with
such implications that bare quotation marks carry with them the assurance
that the words adduced are divine words.

It would seem to be very easy, in these circumstances, to give ourselves
more uneasiness than is at all necessary as to the precise subauditum which
we are to assume with these verbs. It may serve very well to render them
simply, "It says," with the implication that Philo is using the codex of
Scripture as the living voice of God speaking to him and his readers. The
case, in a word, would seem to be very similar to that of the common New
Testament formula of quotation ge>graptai - meaning not that what is adduced
is somewhere written, but that it is the authoritative law that is being
adduced. Just so, "It says," in such a case would mean not that somebody or
something says what is adduced, but that the Word of God says it. As the one
usage is the natural outgrowth of the conception of the Scriptures as a
written authoritative law, the other is the equally natural outgrowth of the
conception of Scripture as the living voice of God. How very natural a
development this usage is, may be illustrated by the fact that something
very similar to it may be met with in colloquial English. In the same
circles where we may hear God spoken of as simply "He," as if it were
dangerous to name His name too freely, we may also occasionally hear the
Bible quoted with a simple "It says," or even with an elision of the "it,"
as "'Tsays": and yet the "it," though treated thus cavalierly, is in reality
a very emphatic "It" indeed - the phrase being the product of awe in the
presence of "the Book," and importing that there is but one "It" that could
be thought of in the case. Somewhat similarly, in the case of Philo, the
Scriptures are cited with the bare fhsi>, le>gei, because, in his mind and
in the circles which he addressed, there stood out so far above all other
voices this one Voice of God embodied in His Scriptures, that none other
would be thought of in the case. The phrase is the outgrowth of reverence
for the Word and of unquestioning submission to it: and the fundamental fact
is that no special subject is expressed simply because none was needed and
it would be all one whether we understood as subject, Moses, the prophet and
lawgiver - the holy or sacred Word or the oracle – or finally, God Himself.
In any case, and with any subauditum, the real subject conceived as speaking
is GOD.  <http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn61> 61

If now, in the light of the facts we have thus brought to our recollection,
we turn back to the New Testament passages in which the Old Testament is
cited with a simple fhsi> or le>gei, it may not be impossible for us to
perceive their real character and meaning. There would seem to be absolutely
no warrant in Greek usage for taking le>gei, and but very little, if any,
for taking fhsi> really indefinitely: and even if there were, it would be
inconceivable that the New Testament writers, from their high conception of
"Scripture," should have adduced Scripture with a simple "it is said" -
somewhere, by some one - without implication of reverence toward the quoted
words or recognition of the authority inherent in them. It is rather in the
usage of Philo that we find the true analogue of these examples. Like Philo,
the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews looks upon Scripture as an oracular
book, and all that it says, God says to him: and accordingly, like Philo, he
adduces its words with a simple "it says," with the full implication that
this "it says" is a "God says" also. Whenever the same locution occurs
elsewhere in the New Testament, it bears naturally the same implication.
There is no reason why we should recognize the Philonic fhsi> in Heb. viii.
5, and deny it in I Cor. vi. 16: or why we should recognize the Philonic
le>gei in Heb. viii. 8 and deny it in Acts xiii. 35, Rom. ix. 15, xv. 10, II
Cor. vi. 2, Gal. iii. 16, or in Eph. iv. 8, v. 14. Only in case it were very
clear that Paul did not share the high conception of Scripture as the living
voice of God which underlies this usage in Philo and the Epistle to the
Hebrews, could we hesitate to understand this phrase in him as we understand
it in them. But we have seen that such is not the case: and his use in
adducing Scripture of the subjectless fhsi> and le>gei quite in their manner
is, rightly viewed, only another indication, among many, that his conception
of Scripture was fundamentally the same with theirs, and it cannot be
explained away on the assumption that it was fundamentally different.

It does not indeed follow that on every occasion when a Scripture passage is
introduced by a fhsi> or le>gei it is to be explained as an instance of this
subjectless usage - even though a subject for it is given or plainly implied
in the immediate context. That is not possible even in Philo, where the
introductory formula often finds its appropriate subject expressed in the
preceding context. But it does follow that we need not and ought not resort
to unnatural expedients to find a subject for such a fhsi> or le>gei in the
context, or that acquiescing, whenever that seems more natural, in its
subjectlessness, we should seek to explain away its high implications.
<http://lgm.bluedisk.org/warfield_itsays.html#fn62> 62 Men may differ as to
the number of clear instances of such a usage, that may be counted in the
New Testament. But most will doubtless agree that some may be counted: and
will doubtless place among them Eph. iv. 8 and v. 14. Some will contend, no
doubt, that in the latter of these texts, the passage adduced is not derived
from the Old Testament at all. That, however, is "another story," on which
we cannot enter now, but on which we must be content to differ. We pause
only to say that we reckon among the reasons why we should think the
citation here is derived from the Old Testament, just its adduction by dio<
le>gei - which would seem to advise us that Paul intended to quote the
oracular Word.

There may be room for difference of opinion again as to the precise
subauditum which it will be most natural to assume with these subjectless
verbs: whether oJ qeo>v or hJ grafh>. In our view it makes no real
difference in their implication: for, in our view, the very essence of the
case is, that, under the force of their conception of the Scriptures as an
oracular book, it was all one to the New Testament writers whether they said
"God says" or "Scripture says." This is made very clear, as their real
standpoint, by their double identification of Scripture with God and God
with Scripture, to which we adverted at the beginning of this paper, and by
which Paul, for example, could say alike "the Scripture saith to Pharaoh"
(Rom. ix. 17) and "God . . . . saith, Thou wilt not give thy Holy One to see
corruption" (Acts xiii. 34). We may well be content in the New Testament as
in Philo to translate the phrase wherever it occurs, "It says" - with the
implication that this "It says" is the same as "Scripture says," and that
this "Scripture says" is the same as "God says." It is this implication that
is really the fundamental fact in the case. 

<hr size=3 width="25%" align=left> 

Endnotes:

1.	From The Presbyterian and Reformed Review, Vol. x, 1899, pp.
472-510.
2.	"A Grammar of the New Testament Greek," Thayer's translation p. 134.
3.	Sec. 373, 3.
4.	Winer, Sec. 58, 9, g; p. 656 of Moulton's translation.
5.	Blass' "Grammar of N. T. Greek"; English translation by H. St. J.
Thackeray, M.A., p. 75.
6.	So also Wandel: "James then cites the passage Prov. iii. 24, in
which we must simply supply 'God' to le>gei."
7.	As a single example, take, e. g., Oltramare, on Eph. iv. 8: "Dio<
le>gei, scil. hJ grafh>: In accord with the extreme frequency with which the
New Testament is cited, Paul often cites by saying simply le>gei (v. 14,
Rom. xv. 10, II Cor. vi. 2, Gal. iii. 16; cf. Rom. iv. 3, x. 17, I Tim. v.
18), or fhsi> (I Cor. vi. 16; cf. Heb. viii. 15), or ei+pe (I Cor. xv. 27).
He understands the subject, which is understood of itself, grafh> or qeo>v
(see Winer, Gr., p. 486)."
8.	Earlier still De Wette explained the phrase in a somewhat similar
way. His note on Eph. v. 8 runs: "Old Testament support. dio< le>gei]
therefore (because Christ gives the gifts and according to the
presupposition that all that concerns Christ is predicted in the Old
Testament it is said, [heisst es] (cf. Gal. iii. 16, I Cor. vi. 16 - a
formula of citation (also v. 14) like Jas. iv. 6, Acts xiii. 35, Heb. x. 5,
not elsewhere found in the apostle (cf., however, II Cor. vi. 17) . . . "And
again on Eph. v. 14 we read: "dio< le>gei] therefore it is said [heisst es]
(in the Scriptures). Cf. iv. 8." He supposes that, in the latter passage,
Paul confuses a customary application of Scripture with the very words of
Scripture.
9.	Grimm's note on the passage runs: "Instead of the rec. reading,
fhsi>n, Alex. Ephr., 157, 248, 296, Compl. have fasi>n. Nevertheless the
author may here return to the singular, referring to the potter before
depicted (see the following verses). Or fhsi> may stand impersonally, in the
sense of 'heisst es,' 'sagt man,' Win., p. 462, 6th ed.; Müller, 'Philo's
Buch von d. Weltschopfung,' p. 44." Cf. further, below, p. 316.
10.	fhsi>n is placed by Tischendorf, Tregelles and Westcott and Hort in
their texts: while fasi>n is read by Lachmann and placed in their margins by
Tregelles and Westcott and Hort. The former is read by aDEFGKLP, etc., by
the cursives, and by the Vulgate and Coptic versions, while the latter is
the reading of B, Old Latin and Syriac. Heinrici pertinently remarks (in his
own "Commentary," 1887): "The reading fasi>n, which Lachmann accepts, is
just as strongly witnessed by B, the Itala and Peschitto as fhsi>n (aDFG
Vulg. Copt.) and it almost looks as if fhsi>n were a correction occasioned
by the succeeding oJ toiou~tov (against Meyer)." Alford, who continues to
read fhsi>n equally pertinently on that hypothesis, remarks: "fhsi>n, taken
by Winer (Ed. 6, § 58, 96), De Wette and Meyer as impersonal, ' heisst es,'
'men say'; but why should not the tiv of ver. 7, and oJ toiou~tov of ver.
11, be the subject?" See further below, p. 316.
11.	[See above, p. 287.]
12.	["He (viz., God, whose word the Scriptures are. See reff. [i. e.,
Rom. xii. 3, II Cor. x. 13, iv. 13, 16 = Paul only], and notes: not merely
'it,' es heisst, as, De Wette, al.: nor hJ grafh>: had it been the subject
it must have been expressed, as in Rom. iv. 3, ix. 17, al.) says (viz., Ps.
lxviii. 18, see below: not in some Christian hymn, as Flatt and Storr -
which would not agree with le>gei, nor with the treatment of the citation,
which is plainly regarded as carrying the weight of Scripture.") ]
13.	["'He saith,' sc. oJ qeo>v, not hJ grafh>. This latter nominative is
several times inserted by St. Paul (Rom. iv. 3, ix. 17, x. 11, Gal. iv. 30,
I Tim. v. 18), but is not therefore to be regularly supplied whenever there
is an ellipsis (Bos, Ellips., p. 54) without reference to the nature of the
passages. The surest and in fact only guide is the context; when that
affords no certain hint, we fall back upon the natural subject, oJ qeo>v,
whose words the Scriptures are; see notes on Gal. iii. 16." See further
above, p. 287. At Gal. iii. 16, Ellicott had said: "'He saith not'; not hJ
grafh> (Bos, Ellips., p. 54), as in Rom. xv. 10 - where the subst. is
supplied from ge>graptai, ver. 9 - or to< pneu~ma (Ruck., Winer, Gr., §39,
1), which appears arbitrary, but the natural subject oJ qeo>v, as in Eph.
iv. 8, v. 14, and (fhsi>) I Cor. vi. 16, Heb. viii. 5. So apparently Syr.,
which here inserts illi after le>gei." The passage referred to in Bos
(London ed. of 1825, pp. 57, 58) is as follows: "In the New Testament, where
the Scripture of the Old Testament is cited, fhsi> or le>gei often occurs
with hJ grafh> understood - a word which actually stands in other passages:
I Cor. vi. 16, Eph. v. 14, Gal. iii. 16. The same thing occurs in the Greek
fathers. Marcus Eremita, in his earlier aphorisms, No. 106, oujdei<v, fhsi>,
strateuo>menov ejmple>ketai tai~v tou~ bi>ou pragmatei>aiv, 'No one, says
(the Scripture, II Tim. ii. 4) going a-soldiering is entangled in the
affairs of this life.' So, No. 134: fhsi> ga<r, oJ uJyw~n ejauto<n
tapeinwqh>setai, 'For, says (Scripture), he that exalteth himself shall be
brought low.' There may be also understood pro re nata eujaggelisth>v,
profhth>v, ajpo>stolov: but the other is more general and suits excellently.
Schoettg."]
14.	[The text actually has "ver. 14," but we venture to correct the
obvious slip.]
15.	["With le>gei God is to be supplied as subject. From this way of
adducing it, it is already clear that the cited words cannot be taken from a
Christian hymn in use in the Church at Ephesus (Storr, Flatt), but must
belong to the sacred, God-given Scripture." Accordingly at v. 14 he says:
"In accordance with the formula (le>gei, chap. iv. 8) usual in adducing
Scripture, it can scarcely be doubtful that the apostle intended to cite an
Old Testament passage."]
16.	The comment there is simply: "he saith] or possibly it (the
Scripture) saith." 
17.	[The parenthetical marks should doubtless be removed.]
18.	[This sentence seems formally incomplete; probably "is frequently
employed" is to be supplied from the preceding clause.]
19.	[This scarcely gives a complete view of Winer's remark: he says that
"the subject oJ qe>ov) is usually contained in the context, either directly
or indirectly," and proceeds to adduce cases of ellipsis.]
20.	[What Westcott apparently says is not that "the two passages in the
Epistle to the Ephesians (iv. 8, v. 14, dio< le>gei) appear to be different
in kind" from the usage of Hebrews, but from the cases in the rest of the
New Testament, where God is the subject of le>gei indeed, but "the reference
is to words directly spoken by God." He possibly means, "different in kind"
from the usage both of Hebrews and of the rest of the New Testament: but he
does not seem to say this directly. See post, p. 305.]
21.	Vol. iv, p. 13.
22.	Op. cit., pp. 285, 286, 287.
23.	Westcott, in loc., "it seems more natural to refer it to the
collected writings of the Old Testament."
24.	What is meant may possibly be that these two passages in Ephesians
are analogous neither to the usage of Hebrews nor to that of the rest of the
New Testament, but stand out by themselves. In that case Dr. Westcott
probably means to take them as instances of the indefinite use of le>gei.
Cf. above, p. 293. 
25.	Cf. Meyer's note: "le>gei], the subject is necessarily that of
ei]rhken, ver. 34, and so, neither David (Bengel, Heinrichs and others), nor
the Scriptures (Herrmann), but God, although Ps. xvi. 10 contains David's
words addressed to God. But David is considered as the interpreter of God,
who has put the prayer into his mouth. Comp. on Matt. xix. 5."
26.	Cf. Meyer's note: "fhsi>n], who it is that says it, is self-evident,
namely, God, the utterances of Scripture being His words, even when they may
be spoken through another, as Gen. ii. 24 was through Adam. Comp. on Matt.
xix. 5. Similarly Gal. iii. 16, Eph. iv. 8, Heb. viii. 5, I Cor. xv. 27.  JH
grafh>, which is usually supplied here, would need to be suggested by the
context, as in Rom. xv. 10. Ruckert arbitrarily prefers to< pneu~ma." "To
take it impersonally, 'it is said' as in II Cor. x. 10, according to the
well-known usage in the classics, would be without warrant from any other
instance of Paul's quotations from Scripture. Comp. Winer, Gr., p. 486
[English translation, 656]; Buttmann, Neut. Gr., p. 117 [English
translation, 134]."
27.	For he supposes the words quoted in i. 10 to be addressed not to
Christ, but to God: "God through His Spirit so speaks in the Psalmist that
words not directly addressed to Christ find their fulfillment in Him."
28.	So (according to Lünemann), Dindorf, Schulz, Böhme, Bleek, Ebrard
Alford, Woerner: add Lowrie, Riggenbach.
29.	Cf. Deissmann, "Bibelstudien," 109; "Neue Bibelstudien," 77: and
also for the implications, Kuyper, "Encyclopædia of Sacred Theology," pp.
433-435 and 444-445.
30.	§ 373, 1. obs., 1.
31.	"Ausfuhr. Gram.," ii. 30 (§ 352).
32.	Jelf, § 373, 7: Kuhner, l. c.: Jannaris ("A Historical Greek
Grammar," 1161 seq.), treats the omitted subject no otherwise than Kuhner.
33.	"Syntax.," 419.
34.	These references are added in a note: "Von fhsi> in späten manche
nach Bentley, wie Dav. ad Cic. Tus. i. 39; Wytt. ad Plut., T. vi, p. 791.
Von eijpe> moi, Heind. ad Euthyd., 29."
35.	Cf. Grimm's note, given above, p. 289.
36.	Meyer, in loc., continues to read fhsi>. He says, "It is said,
impersonal, as often with the Greeks. See Bernhardy, p. 419. The reading
fasi>n (Lachmann, following B. Vulg.), is a rash correction. Comp.
Fritzsche, ad Thesmoph., p. 189; Buttmann, Neut. Gram., p. 119 [English
translation, 136]." So in essence most commentators, including Flatt, Storr,
Krause, De Wette, Kling, Waite. Rückert more warily comments: "fhsi>n is
here properly recognized as a formula of adduction, without reference to the
number of those speaking. See Winer (304)." Cf. above, p. 289.
37.	P. 1665a (Oxford, 1883). 
38.	Whiston, Reiske, Weber.
39.	We are indebted to Prof. S. S. Orris, of Princeton University, for
suggestions in preparing this paragraph. He permits us to add that, in his
opinion, "fhsi> is never equivalent to the general, indefinite they say or
it is said."
40.	Reiske, p. 477; Dindorf, ii. 23.
41.	Reiske and Schaefer, vi. 162.
42.	iii. §§ 41, 42 (p. 122); "Oratores Attici," v. 214.
43.	Reiske-Schaefer, v. 579.
44.	Op. cit., p. 581.
45.	P. 119 F (Wyttenbach, I. ii. 470).
46.	P. 530 (20-30).
47.	I, ii. 470. 
48.	VI, ii. 791.
49.	Phaedo, 401 B. (115): "in these arrayed, [the soul] is ready to go
on her journey to the world below, when her time comes. You, Simmias and
Cebes, and all other men, will depart at some time or other. Me already, as
the tragic poet would say, the voice of fate calls (ejme< de< nu~n h]dh
kalei~, fai>h a]n ajnh<r tragiko<v, hJ eijmarme>nh)." The other passages
adduced witness only to the currency of the phrase hJ ejmarme>nh porei>a.
But the language of both Plutarch and Plato would seem to imply that the
"calling" is certainly a part of the quotation.
50.	Præcepta Sanit. Tuend., 135 B., ouj kata> ge th<n ejmh<n, e]fh,
gnw>mhn. Wytt.: "e]fh notat alterius dictum ut alibi fhsi>, de quo diximus,
p. 119 F."
51.	Cf. Heinrici as above, p. 481; and Blass, "Gram. of New Testament
Greek," English translation, p. 2.
52.	“Epicteti Dissertationes," etc. (Lipsiæ, 1894), Index, pp. 701, 702.
53.	We purposely use Long's translation, which, in all these instances,
proceeds on the theory that the fhsi> is Epictetus' own.
54.	The matter of this interposition is investigated for Plato by
Stallbaum, p. 472 D., 580 D. - where he seems to have collected all the
instances of interposed fame>n in Plato. Cf. also Bornemann and Sauppe on
Xenophon's Memorab., iii. 5, 13, and the indices of Schenkl on
Arrian-Epictetus and Thieme-Sturz on Xenophon (sub. voc. fa>nai).
55.	On Acts xxv. 5, Blass has this note: "5 fit transitus ex or. obliqua
in rectam, ut I. 4 al; hinc fhsi>n interpositum ut I. 4 ß.," i. e., in the
Western text of I, 4, which reads: "'Which ye heard,' says he, 'from my
mouth."' The interposition of a "he says," or some similar phrase, to keep
the consciousness of the hearer or reader bright on the fact that the words
before him are quoted words is, of course, a general linguistic and not a
specifically Greek usage. It is found in all languages. A Hebrew instance,
for example, may be found in I Kgs. ii. 4.
56.	Schenkl catalogues in the "Discourses" of Epictetus two cases of
interposited le>gei, quite in the style of fhsi> - iii. 19, 1 and
"Fragment," xxi. 10 - but in both cases the subject is expressed.
57.	In "De Vita Mosis," iii. 23.
58.	"Philo and Holy Scripture," p. xlv.
59.	Op. cit., p. xxv.
60.	Vol. ii. p. 27.
61.	The reverent use of an indefinite may be illustrated from the mode
of citation adopted in Heb. ii. 6 - "one hath somewhere testified " - a mode
of citation not uncommon in Philo [as, for example, de Temul. (ed. Mang., i.
365), ei+pe ga>r pou> tiv (i. e., Abraham, Gen. xx. 12), and other examples
in Bleek, II, i. 239]. Delitzsch correctly explains: "The citation is thus
introduced with a special solemnity, the author naming neither the place
whence he takes it nor the original speaker, but making use (as Philo
frequently) of the vague term pou> tiv, so that the important testimony
itself becomes only the more conspicuous, like a grand pictured figure in
the plainest, narrowest frame."
62.	The matter is approached in a sensible and helpful way by Viteau, in
his "Étude sur le Grec du N. T.: sujet, complement et attribute" (1896), p.
61. He is treating of the subject to be mentally supplied, i. e., of the
case where the reader may be fairly counted upon to supply the subject, and
he remarks (inter alia): "76 (9). There is a kind of mental subject peculiar
to the New Testament. When events of the Old Testament are spoken of, these
events are supposed to be known to the reader or the hearer, who is invited
to supply the subject of the verb mentally. . . . 77 (10). There is still
another kind of mental subject peculiar to the New Testament and kindred to
the preceding. In the citations made by the New Testament the subject is
often lacking, as well for the verb which announces the citation as for the
verb in the citation itself. The reader is supposed to recognize the passage
and is invited to supply the subject. (a) For the verbs which announce the
citation there occur as subjects: oJ qe>ov, Acts ii. 17; oJ profh>thv, Acts
vii. 48; Dauei<d, Rom. iv. 6; Mwu`sh~v, Rom. x. 19;  JHsai>av, Rom. xv. 12;
hJ grafh>, Gal. iv. 30. When the verb has no subject, the reader is to
supply it mentally: Acts xiii. 34, 35, ei+rhken and le>gei, the subject is
oJ qe>ov, according to the LXX., Es. lv. 3, and Ps. xv. 10; Rom. xv. 10,
pa>lin le>gei (oJ Mwu`sh~v), according to Deut. xxxii. 43; Eph. iv. 8,
le>gei (oJ qeo>v or Dauei<d), according to Ps. lxvii. 19; Eph. v. 14, dio<
le>gei, those who regard the passage as imitated or partially cited from the
Old Testament give  JHsai>av as the subject of le>gei, according to Isa. lx.
1, 2, but if we regard this passage as containing some kw~la of an early
hymn (in imitation of Isaiah) we must supply as the subject tiv, 'it is
said,' 'it is sung' (96a); Heb. viii. 5, fhsi>n (oJ qe>ov), according to Ex.
xxv. 40." We do not accord, of course, with the remark on Eph. v. 14; and we
miss in Viteau's remarks the expected reference to the deeper fact in the
case.

 

 

Charis, 
  
Mike Abendroth 
  
"Make us choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong, and never to
be contented with half truth when whole truth can be won.  Endow us with
courage that is born of loyalty to all that is noble and worthy, that scorns
to compromise with vice and injustice and knows no fear when right and truth
are in jeopardy."

 - West Point Military Academy Cadet Prayer 

 

 <http://www.bbcchurch.org> www.bbcchurch.org 
  

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.bbcchurch.org/pipermail/bbc_list/attachments/20070105/54ac33ac/attachment.htm