Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadMcClintock Biblical Encyclopedia: Quotations, Biblical
Subjects in this Topic:
The verbal citations contained in Scripture are of three classes:
(a) Those which the later writers of the Old Test. make from the earlier.
(b) The quotations made by Paul from heathen authors — viz. Act_17:28 from Aratus, Phoenom, 5, or Cleanthes, Hymn. ad Jov. 5; 1Co_15:33 from Menander's ‘Thais; and Tit_1:12 from Callimachus, Hymn. ad lov. 8, according to Theodoret, or Epimenides according to Jerome, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, and others. To these may be added Gal_5:23, where the words êáôὰ ôῶí ôïéïῦôùí ïὐê ἔóôé íüìïò are identical with the words of Aristotle, Pol. iii, 8 (Gill, Notes and Queries, v, 175). Perhaps also Act_14:17 and Jam_1:17, from their rhythmical form, may be quotations.
(c) Those which the New Test. contains from the Old Test. The first and third of these classes are the most important, and the only ones demanding special notice here. The following treatment as to both is compiled from the various aulthorities on Biblical introduction and interpretation, with additions from other sources.
I. Parallel passages of the Old-Testament Scriptures. — The principal of these are the following: Many sections of the books of Chronicles seem to be quoted fiomn the earlier Scriptures. The historical chapters of the book of Isaiah (36-39) are repeated in 2 Kings 18-20. The last chapter of Jeremiah reappears in 2 Kings 24:25. Of Psalms 18 we have two copies, one in 2 Samuel 22. Compare also Genesis 46 with Numbers 26 and Ezra 2 with Nehemiah 7. Other instances are cited: Hab_2:14 from Isa_11:9; Jon_2:3 from Psa_42:8; Psa_2:5 from Isa_49:2; Oba_1:8 from Jeremiah 49; and several passages in the later Psalms, which are found also in the earlier. The reader will find a list of the variations discovered by a comparison of most of the foregoing passages in the notes to Cappelli, Cuit. Sac. (i, 30-44 [ed. 1775]). See also Kennicott, Biblia Hebraica (ii, 727, etc.), and State of Printed Hebrew Text (pt. i).
The question to be determined is, Are we to regard each of the textual variations thus brought to light as a blunder to be corrected in one or other of the parallel Scriptures, or as a deviation (intentional or otherwise) on the part of the later writer from the language of the earlier? In considering this question a distinction must be made between two classes of parallel passages-the one class consisting of those in which the same story is told, or the same sentiments expressed, by two different writers, and the later writer avails himself of the language of the earlier, though it may be without any very exact or servile adherence in every word and clause; the other consisting of those in which a public or other document is inserted in two separate records. It would seem that such variations as are met with in passages of the former description are more likely to be designed and original, being probably traceable to the free use which the later writer made of the materials furnished by the earlier; and that variations met with in passages of the latter description are more likely to be blunders arising from the negligence of transcribers and similar causes. But this anticipation is only partially realized, inasmuch as errors of transcription are found in the former class of passages, and alterations obviously designed are found in the latter. Let us illustrate this by four examples, two of each class.
1. The very remarkable prophecy contained in Isa_2:1-4 is found also in Mic_4:1-3. The variations are few and of no great importance. But, such as they are, there is no reason to suppose that the text of either of these passages ever differed from what it is now. It is of no consequence in the present inquiry whether Micah borrowed from Isaiah or Isaiah from Micah, or both from an older prophet. There is no evidence whatever that the later writer made it a matter of conscience to reproduce in every minute particular the language of his predecessor. His heart was too full of the great thought embodied in the language to permit him to be minutely attentive to every fold of the dress in which it had been presented. Possibly, also, the quotation was made from memory; and, if so, the wonder is not that any varieties of expression are found in it, but that they are so few and so trivial. In such a case as this, therefore, it would be quite unwarrantable to correct the one passage from the other. The text in both passages is accurate and genuine, and any attempted emendations with the view of bringing the two passages into rigid harmony would certainly be alterations for the worse, not for the better.
2. The prophecy of Nathan in 2 Samuel 7 occupies a very conspicuous position in the Old Test., and, as we might expect, the whole narrative is repeated in 1 Chronicles (17), not, however, without a very considerable number of alterations. In this case, also, it is quite evident that most of the alterations are to be traced to the author of Chronicles, and cannot be regarded as various readings. As is usual, the later writer makes a free use of the earlier narrative, adapting it and the language in which it is conveyed to the circumstances of his own time. Thus he writes ãåéã for ãåø , prefers, àֵֹìäéí to éְäֹåָä or àֲãðéֹ , sometimes substitutes îִìְëåּú for îִîְìָëָä , kingdom, and alters or omits words or clauses which appear to him obscure or unessential. The most remarkable omission is in 2Sa_7:13 as compared with 2Sa_7:14 of the narrative in Samuel. Compare also 2Sa_7:17 with 2Sa_7:19 of Samuel. Still, though it is evident that most of the variations between the two narratives are to be traced to the design of the later author, and cannot be regarded as errors of transcription, we do not think that all of them can be accounted for in this way. Two instances may be given, in the one of which the text in Chronicles may fittingly be corrected by that in Samuel; in the other the text in Samuel may be corrected by that in Chronicles.
(1.) In 1Ch_17:18-19 we read, “What can David speak more to thee for the honor of thy servant, ìְëָáåֹã àֶúàּòִáְãּêָ …For thy servant's sake, and according to thine own heart hast thou done all this greatness.” Not to mention the difficulty in the construction of the Hebrew in 1Ch_17:18, it is evident that the spirit of the whole passage is quite out of harmony with the context. Accorlingly, on turning to the corresponding verses in Samuel, we are not surprised to find the sentiment expressed very different indleed, the words being “And what can David say more unto thee... for thy word's sake, and according to thine own heart,” etc. (1Ch_17:20-21). It is not improbable that what we cannot but regard as the erroneous readings in Chronicles are to be traced to the similarity between ìãáø and ìëáã in the former of the two verses, and ãáø and òáã in the latter. It may be added that in the Septuagint translation of Chronicles the objectionable words are omitted.
(2.) The other instance is in 2Sa_7:23, compared with 1Ch_17:21. In the former we read, according to the authorized translation, “What one nation in the earth is like thy people, even like Israel, whom God went to redeem for a people to himself, and to make him a name, and to do for you great things and terrible. For thy land, before thy people ( îַôְּðֵé from before), which thou redeemedst to thee from Egypt, [from] the nations and their gods?” The text of this verse is obviously very confused; and in order to extract from it some tolerable sense, our translators have rendered îַôְּðֵé as if it were ìַôְðֵé and have inserted from, without any authority, towards the close. Now, without venturing to affirm that the text in Chronicles is to be received as in every particular the true and genuine one, we have no hesitation in borrowing from it what we believe to be an important emendation of the text in Samuel — viz. the substitution of ìâøù , to drive out, for! ìàøö (the words are very similar),for thy land. This will allow us to give îַôְּðֵé . its proper force, and render unnecessary the insertion of the unauthorized/ionm; the meaning of the latter half of the verse when thus corrected being as follows: “To drive out from before thy people, whom thou redeemedst to thee from Egypt, nations and their gods.”
3. The two remaining examples are of a different description, consisting not of historical or prophetical passages freely made use of by a later writer, but of documents of which we have, so to speak, two editions. The first is David's noble song of thanksgiving, of which two copies have come down to us — the one incorporated with the history in 2 Samuel 22; the other with the psalm-book as Psalms 18. Now, on comparing these two copies of the same song, we find scarcely a single line of the one exactly identical with the corresponding line of the other; some of the variations being of extremely little importance, others of greater moment. The question here again arises: How are these variations to be accounted for? How comes it that two copies of the same song, handed down to us in the same volume, should, though identical in the general sentiments expressed, in the train of thought, and in the order of the verses, present so many minute differences in the details of the composition? On first thought, we are disposed to conclude, somewhat rashly, that all the variations must be regarded as errors of transcription, and that in this case there is no room for the hypothesis of design on the part of the author or editor, inasmuch as we have here the case not of an independent author adapting to his own purpose the materials furnished by previous writers, but of a collector giving insertion to a document which, one would suppose, it is his duty to present as nearly as possible in the words of the original author. On comparing, however, the psalm with the history, it is evident that all the variations cannot be accounted for in this way. For example, the very first words of the psalm, “I will love thee, O Lord, my strength,” do not appear in the other copy; and of this the only admissible explanation plainly is that- the words in question constitute an authorized addition to the song in its original form, the addition being made probably for the purpose of adapting it more perfectly to liturgical use. If this explanation be admitted, it follows that of this song there have been transmitted to us two authorized editions — the one, which is inserted in the history, presenting the song in its original form; the other presenting it in the slightly altered form which was given to it when incorporated with the authorized hymn- book of the Hebrew nation. In this way a considerable number of the variations may be accounted for, but not, by anl means, all of them; for, with regard to many of them, it is impossible to discover any useful purpose which could be served by their introduction; and several of them are just the sort of alterations which most usually arise from the mistake of transcribers-as, for example, the interchange of letters of similar form, the transposition of letters, etc. (thus for åéøà , and he was seen, in 2Sa_22:11, we find in Psa_18:11 [10] åéãà , and he did fly; and for åéçâøå in 2Sa_22:46 we find åéçøâå in Psa_18:46 [45]). The text in Samuel is the more antique in form-as, for example, in the more sparing insertion of vowel letters; but that of the Psalm appears to have been more carefilly preserved. Thus, there is little doubt that for âַּáּåֹø , in 2Sa_22:26, we ought to read âְּáִø , as in the Psalm; and in 2Sa_22:28, åַàֶú of Samuel ought to be read åְàִúָּä or ëּé àúָּä , as in the Psalm; and in the second clause also the reading in the Psalm is much to be preferred. So in 2Sa_22:33; 2Sa_22:44; 2Sa_22:47; 2Sa_22:49. On the other hand, in 2Sa_22:5; 2Sa_22:43, the reading in Samuel may be preferred to that of the Psalm.
4. Our last example is the Decalogue, of which we have two editions, in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, between which there are not a few differences, some of considerable importance. But it is very doubtful whether any of these differences can be laid to the charge of the copyist; certainly the more important of them must be traced to the author. They are principally to be found in the fourth and tenth commandments: in the latter, the two first clauses are transposed in Deuteronomy, and a slight addition and alteration made; and in the former, the remember of Exodus is exchanged for observe in Deuteronomy; thy cattle is expanded into thine ox and thine ass and all thy cattle; and the “reason annexed” in Exodus — “For in six days,” etc. — is entirely omitted in Deuteronomy, and another statement substituted for it — “That thy man-servant and maid-servant may rest as well as thou; and remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt,” etc. The other alterations are of less importance. In each of the fourth and fifth commandments. the clause “As the Lord thy God hath commanded thee” is inserted in Deuteronomy, the promise in the latter being also expanded by the addition of the clause “that it may be well with thee;” and in the ninth, òֵã ùָׁåְà (false witness) is substituted for òֵã ùֶׁ÷ֶø . Now, there is not one of these variations which can be certainly traced to the oversight of a transcriber. It is, indeed, on first thought, surprising that any writer, however conscious of the guidance of the Divine Spirit, should have ventured to depart, even in the minutest particular, from the ipsissima verba of a document which had been stamped in so special a manner with the impress of Heaven. It is, perhaps, the most remarkable example of that complete mastery of the essential over the accidental, of the spirit over the letter, which distinguishes the entire revelation at once of the Old Testament and of the New. But to explain this phenomenon does not fall within our present purpose. It is sufficient to remark that most of the variations are evidently to be traced to the first composition of the book of Deuteronomy, and that none of them can with any degree of certainty be place in the category of various readings. SEE DECALOGUE.
From the four examples of parallel passages which have been under review, the following conclusions have been elicited: (a.) That most of the variations are to be traced to the author or editor, and not to the copyist; and. in all such cases, both forms of the passage must be preserved as belonging equally to the sacred text. (b.) That, notwithstanding, a considerable number of variations still remain which cannot be accounted for in this way, but probably arose through oversight in transcription. In such cases it is allowable to correct the more faulty text by the more accurate; but, in the absence of ally external testimony to the accuracy of the reading which we prefer, such corrections must be introduced with caution, and might, perhaps, with greater propriety be placed in the margin (as was the practice with the ancient Jewish critics) than incorporated with the text. The variations of this class would have appeared still more numerous had we selected our examples of parallel passages from those which are occupied with lists of names or numbers. See Kennicott, Dissertation on the State of the Printed Hebrew Text, pt. i.
II. Quotations from the Old Testament in the New. These form one of the outward bonds of connection between the two parts of the Bible. They are manifold in kind; but all that we need here to say respecting them may be summed tup under the following heads:
1. Sources whence the Quotations are made. — These are two-the Iebrew original and the Septuagint translation. On comparing the passages, in order to apportion the quotations between these two sources, we find that by far the larger number are taken, either wholly or chiefly, from the Sept., while a very few materially differ from both the Sept. and the Hebrew. The latter were probably quoted from memory, the occasion not requiring punctilious accuracy in the citation. For the most part, the deviations from the text of the Hebrew or the Sept. are not material. They may be classed as follows:
(1.) Changes of person, number, or tense in particular words. Thus, in Mat_26:31, we read, ðáôÜîù ôὸíðïéìÝíá , êáὶ äéáóêïñðéóèήóåôáé ôὰ ðñüâáôá ôῆò ðïßìíçò ; while the Sept. gives it, ðÜôáîïí ôὸí ðïéìÝíá , êáὶ äéáóêïñðéóèήóïíôáé , ê . ô . ë . (Zec_13:7) (this is the reading of the Alexandrine Codex; that of the Vatican differs considerably: ðáôÜîáôå ôïὺò ðïéìÝíáò êáὶ ἐêóðÜóáôå ôἁ ðñüâáôá ); Joh_19:36, Ï᾿óôïῦí ïὐ óõíôñéâήóåôáé áὐôïῦ , for Ï᾿óôïῦí ïὐ óõíôñßøåôå ἀð᾿ áὐôïῦ , Exo_12:46; 1Pe_2:24, Ïῦ ôῷ ìώëùðé áὐôïῦ ἰÜèçôå , for ìώëùðé áὐôïῦ ἰÜèçìåí , Isa_53:5, etc. Comp. also Mat_11:10 with Mal_3:1; and Joh_19:37 with Zec_12:4.
(2.) Substitution of synonymous words or phrases for those used in the Sept. or Hebrew: e.g. Joh_13:18, ῾Ï ôñώãùí ìåô᾿ ἐìïῦ ôὸí ἄñôïí , ἐðῇñåí ἐð᾿ ἐìὲ ôὴí ðôÝñíáí áὐôïῦ , for ῾Ï ἐóèßùí ἄñôïõò ìïõ ἐìåãÜëìíåí ἐð᾿ ἐìὲ ðôåñíéóìüí , Psalms 40 (41), 9. Comp. Heb_8:8 sq. Mat_12:20, where ìàֶîֶú éåֹöַéà îַùְׁôָּè (Isa_42:3) is rendered by ἕùò ¨ í ἐêâÜëç åἰò íῖêïò ôὴí êñßóéí . Sometimes the words thus substituted are synonymous with those for which they are used only historically; as when Paul (Gal_4:30) calls Isaac ὁ õἱὸò ôῆò ἐëåõèÝñáò , in a passage quoted from Gen_21:10, where, in the words of Abraham, he is mentioned by name as ὁ õἱüò ìïõ É᾿óáÜê . Occasionally, also, this kind of substitution is effected by the use of a word describing a species for one designating the genus to which it belongs; as when Paul, in 1Co_3:20, substitutes the words ôῶí óïöῶí for the more general expression, ôῶí ἀíèñώðùí , used in the passage (Psa_19:11) which he quotes; or as in Mat_22:37. where äéáíïßá is put for îְàֹã , the special kind of strength intended being that of the mind.
(3.) Words and phrases transposed: e.g. Rom_10:20, ÅὑñÝèçí ôïῖò ἐìὲ ìὴ æçôïῦóéí , ἐìöáíὴò ἐãåíüìçí ôïῖò Ýìὲ ìὴ ἐðåñùôῶóéí , for Å᾿ìöáíὴò ἐãåíήèçí ôïῖò ἐìὲìὴ ἐðåñùôῶóéí , åὑñÝèçí ôïῖò ἐìὲ ìὴ æçôïῦóéí , Isa_65:1, etc. The Codex Alex. gives this passage exactly as cited by Paul.
(4.) Words and clauses interpolated or added: e.g. Joh_6:31, ἄñôïí ἐê ôïῦ ïὐñáíïῦ ἔäùêåí áὐôïῖò öáãåῖí , where the words ἐê ôïῦ and öáãåῖí are an ad(lition (comp. Psa_78:24); 1Co_15:45, Å᾿ãÝíåôï ὁ ðñῶôïò ἄíèñùðïò Á᾿äὰì åἰò øõ÷ὴí æῶóáí , where the words ðñῶôïò and Á᾿äÜì are added by the apostle (comp. Gen_2:7). These additions are made sometimes from parallel passages, and sometimes of the writer's own device, for the purpose of rendering the mean ing of the passage clearer, or connecting it more readily with the preceding or subsequent context.
(5.) Words omitted and passages abridged: e.g. Mat_4:6, ôïῖò ἀããÝëïéò áýôïῦ ἐíôåëåῖôáé ðåñὶ óïõ , êáὶ ἐðὶ ÷åéñῶí ἀñïῦóß óå , ìήðïôå ðñïóêüøῃò ðñὸò ëßèïí ôὸí ðüäá óïῦ for ôïῖò ἀããÝëïéò áὐôïῦ ἐíôåëåῖôáé ðåñὶ óïῦ , ôïῦ äéáöõëÜîáé óå ἐí ðÜóáéò ôáῖò ὁäïῖò óïῦ· ἐðὶ ÷åéñῶí ἀñïῦóß óå , ìήðïôå ðñïóêüøῃò ðñὸò ëßèïí ô . ð . ó ., Psa_90:11-12. Comp. also Mat_22:24 with Deu_25:5; Rom_9:27-28 with Isa_10:22-23; Heb_4:4 with Gen_2:3, etc.
(6.) Passages paraphrastically rendered, or the general sense only given: e.g. Rom_9:25, where we leave a paraphrastic rendering of Hos_2:23; Rom_10:6 sq., a free rendering of Deu_30:12 sq.; 1Co_1:31, where the general sense of Jer_9:24 is given; comp. also 1Pe_2:22 with Isa_59:9.
(7.) Several passages quoted together, so as to form one connected sense: e.g. in 2Co_6:16-18 we have a passage made up of no less than three different passages — Lev_26:11; Isa_3:11; Jer_31:1. Comp. also Mar_1:2-3, where Mal_3:1 and Isa_40:3 are combined; also Rom_11:8, where Isa_29:10 and Deu_29:4 are strangely mixed together.
(8.) Several of these species of deviations combined together: e.g. Rom_2:24, ôὸ ãὰñ ὄíïìá ôïῦ Èåïῦ äἰ ὑìᾶò âëáóöçìåῖôáé ἐí ôïῖò ἔèíåóé , for äἰ ὑìᾶò äéὰ ðáíôὸò ôὸ ὄíïìÜ ῾ìïõ âëáóöçìåῖôáé ἐí ôïῖò ἔèíåóé . Here we have the substitution of ôïῦ Èåïῦ for ìïῦ , and the omission of äéὰ ðáíôüò Comp. also Rom_11:3 with 1Ki_19:14, for an instance of the combination of omission, substitution, and transposition.
(9.) Passages rather indicated, or hinted at, than formally quoted: e.g. Eph_5:14, ῎Åãåéñáé ὁ êáèåýäùí , êáὶ ἀíÜóôá ἐê ôῶí íåêñῶí , êáὶ ἐðéöáýóåé óïé ὁ ×ñéóôüò . The difficulty of assigning this quotation to any passage in the Old Test. has been felt by all interpreters, and various theories have been proposed for the sake of removing it. The most probable, however, seems that which regards these words as formed upon Isa_60:1-3, and the passage as rather hinted at than quoted. Comp. also Heb_13:15 with Hos_14:2. To this head may be also referred Joh_7:38, where no particular passage is quoted, but such passages as Isa_44:3; Isa_4:1; Isa_8:11; Zec_14:8; Zec_13:1, are alluded to.
In the quotations of all kinds from the Old Test. in the New we find a continual variation from the letter of the older Scriptures. To this variation four causes may be specified as having contributed:
First. All the New-Test. writers quoted from the Sept. — correcting it, indeed, more or less, by the Hebrew, especially when it was needful for their purpose; occasionally deserting it altogether; still abiding by it to so large an extent as to show that it was the primary source whence their quotations were drawn. Their use of it may be best illustrated by the corresponding use of our liturgical version of the Psalms-a use founded on love as well as on habit, but which, nevertheless, we forego when it becomes important that we should follow the more accurate rendering. Consequently, when the errors involved in the Sept. version do not interfere with the purpose which the New-Test. writer had in view, they are frequently allowed to remain in his quotation (see Mat_15:9 [a record of our Lord's words]; Luk_4:18; Act_13:41; Act_15:17; Rom_15:10; 2Co_4:13; Heb_8:9; Heb_10:5; Heb_11:21). The current of apostolic thought, too, is frequently dictated by words of the Sept., which differ much from the Hebrew (see Rom_2:24; 1Co_15:55; 2Co_9:7; Heb_13:15). Or even an absolute interpolation of the Sept. is quoted (Heb_1:6 [Deu_32:43]). On the other hand, in Mat_21:5; 1Co_3:19, the Sept. is corrected by the Hebrew; so, too, in Mat_9:13; Luk_22:37, there is an effort to preserve an expressiveness of the Hebrew which the Sept. had lost: and in Mat_4:15-16; Joh_19:37; 1Co_15:54, the Sept. disappears altogether. In Rom_9:33 we have a quotation from the Sept. combined with another from the Hebrew. In Mar_12:30; Luk_10:27; Rom_12:19, the Sept. and Hebrew are superadded the one upon the other. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, which in this respect stands alone, the Sept. is uniformly followed; except in the one remarkable quotation (Heb_10:30), which, according neither with the Hebrew nor the Sept., was probably derived from the last-named passage (Rom_12:19), wherewith it exactly coincides. The quotation in 1Co_2:9 seems to have been derived, not directly from the Old Test., but rather from a Christian liturgy or other document into which the language of Isa_64:4 had been transferred.
Secondly. The New-Test. writers must have frequently quoted from memory. The Old Test. had been deeply instilled into their minds, ready for service whenever needed; and the fulfilment of its predictions, which they witnessed, made its utterances rise up in life before them (comp. Joh_2:17; Joh_2:22). It was of the very essence of such a living use of Old-Test. Scripture that their quotations of it should not of necessity be verbally exact.
Thirdly. Combined with this there was an alteration of conscious or unconscious design. Sometimes the object of this was to obtain increased force; hence the variation from the original in the form of the divine oath (Rom_14:11); or the result “I quake” substituted for the cause (Heb_12:21); or the insertion of rhetorical words to bring out the emphasis (Heb_12:26); or the change of person to show that what men perpetrated had its root in God's determinate counsel (Mat_26:31). Sometimes an Old-Test. passage is abridged, and in the abridgment so adjusted, by a little alteration, as to present an aspect of completeness and yet omit what is foreign to the immediate purpose (Act_1:20; 1Co_1:31). At other times a passage is enlarged by the incorporation of a passage from another source. Thus in Luk_4:18-19, although the contents are professedly those read by our Lord from Isaiah 61, we have the words “to set at liberty them that are bruised,” introduced from Isa_58:6 (Sept.); similarly in Rom_11:8, Deu_29:4 is combined with Isa_29:10. In some cases still greater liberty of alteration is assumed. In Rom_10:11 the word ðᾶò is introduced into Isa_28:16, to show that that is uttered of Jew and Gentile alike. In Rom_11:26-27, the “to Zion” of Isa_59:20 (Sept. ἕíåêåí Óéώí ) is replaced by “out of Sion” (suggested by Isa_2:3); to Zion the Redeemer had already come; from Zion, the Christian Church, his law was to go forth; or even from the literal Jerusalem (comp. Luk_24:47; Rom_15:19), for till she was destroyed the type was still in a measure kept up. In Mat_8:17 the words of Isa_53:4 are adapted to the divine removal of disease, the outward token and witness of that sin which Christ was eventually to remove by his death, thereby fulfilling the prophecy more completely. For other, though less striking, instances of variation see 1Co_14:21; 1Pe_3:15. In some places, again, the actual words of the original are taken up, but employed with a new meaning; thus the ἐñ÷üìåíïò , which in Hab_2:3 merely qualified the verb, is in Heb_10:37 made the subject to it.
Fourthly. Still more remarkable than any alteration in the quotation itself is the circumstance that in Mat_27:9 Jeremiah should be named as the author of a prophecy really delivered by Zechariah; the reason being, as has been well shown by Hengstenberg in his Christology, that the prophecy is based upon that in Jer_18:19 :and that without a reference to this original source the most essential features of the fulfilment of Zechariah's prophecy would be misunderstood. The case is, indeed, not entirely unique; for in the Greek of Mar_1:2-3, where Malachi 3, 1 is combined with Isa_40:3, the name of Isaiah alone is mentioned; it was on his prophecy that that of Malachi partly depended. On the other hand, in Mat_2:23; Joh_6:45, the comprehensive mention of the prophets indicates a reference not only to the passages more particularly contemplated, Isa_11:1; liv, 13, but also to the general tenor of what had been elsewhere prophetically uttered. SEE NAZARENE.
On Joh_7:38 it may suffice here to remark that perhaps the best solution of the difficulty is to regard our Lord as not making any direct quotation from any part of the Old Test., but as only referring in metaphorical language, suited to the strain of his previous address (comp. Joh_7:37), to a fact which in plainer style is unquestionably announced in the ancient prophecies, viz. the abundant possession of divine knowledge by those who should live under the Messiah's reign. The passage Jam_4:5 is beset with difficulty. Not only is there doubt as to what” Scripture” is cited, but much obscurity hangs over the meaning of the words themselves so adduced. We cannot enter into the details of the investigation. Referring for these to Huther's note on the passage in Meyer's Commentar, pt. 15, the substance of which is given by dean Alford in his notes, we content ourselves here with saving that some interpreters understand ðíåõìá of the human spirit, and translate, “the spirit [temper, feeling of mind] which dwells in us lusts to envy [covetousness];” while others understand it of the Holy Spirit, or the Spirit implanted in the soul by God, and translate, either, “The Spirit which dwelleth in us lusts [desires, inclines] against envy;” or, “The Spirit which he [God] hath placed in us jealously desireth [us for himself].” In neither case can the statement be referred to any single passage in the Old Test.; but if the last rendering be adopted, the writer may be supposed to refer generally to those parts of the Old Test. in which God is represented as dwelling in his people (Num_35:34; Eze_36:27), and as desiring them with a jealous affection (Deu_32:10 sq.). This is far from satisfactory, but it seems the best solution that has been offered.
2. Mode in which Quotations from the Old Test. in the New Test. are introduced. — For this purpose certain formulhe are employed, of which the following is a list: Êáèώò or Ïὑôù ãÝãñáðôáé , Ðῶò ãÝãñáðôáé , ῎Åóôé ãåãñáììÝíïí , ῾Ï ëüãïò ὁ ãÝãñáììÝíïò , Êáôὰ ôὸ ãåãñáììÝíïí , Å᾿ῤῥÝèç , Êáèώò åἴñçôáé , Êáôὰ ôὸ åßñήìåíïí , ᾿Çãñáöὴ åῖðå or ëÝãåé , or simply ËÝãåé (sup. Èåüò vel. ðñïöήôçò ), ÐåñéÝ÷åé ἐí ôῇ ãñáöῇ , ῾Ï íüìïò ἔëåãåí , Åἴñçêå äÝ ôéò , ÂëÝðåôå ôὸ åßåçìÝíïí , ÏὐäÝðïôå ἀíÝãíùôå , Êáèὼò ἐëÜëçóå , Ôüôå ἐðëçñώèç ἡ ãñáöή , ῞Éíá ( ὅðùò ) ðëçñùèῇ ( ôåëåéùèῇ ) ôὸ ῥçèÝí ( ἡ ãñáöή ). Surenhusius is of opinion, and labors to prove, that by attending to the force of these different formulee we may ascertain with what intent the waords they respectively introduce are quoted, as each formula, he asserts, involves a different meaning (Proef: in Bib. Catall.). A fatal objection, however, to this opinion is that we find the very same quotations, expressed in the same words and brought to prove the very same points, introduced by different formulae in different Gospels (Horne, Intr od. ii, 339). At the same time, there are obviously two classes of these formulae, the difference between which is distinctly marked by the circumstance that, while some of them merely express the fact that what follows is a quotation, others of them intimate the existence of a material relation between the passage quoted and the subject of which the writer quoting it is treating. Thus, when it is simply said, “The Scripture saith,” nothing more is necessarily implied than that what follows is taken from the Old Test.; but when it is said, “Then was the Scripture fulfilled which saith,” or “This was done that the Scriptures might be fulfilled,” we immediately perceive that the writer would intimate a real connection of some sort between the event he is recording and the statement with which he compares it in the passage quoted. We may therefore so far adopt the hypothesis of Surenhusius as to admit a distinction between these two classes, and expect to find in the passages introduced by the latter of them something more than a mere verbal quotation. SEE FULFIL.
Besides the quotations introduced by these formulae there are a considerable number scattered through the writings of the apostles which are inserted in the trair of their own remarks without any announcement whatever of their being cited from others. To the cursory reader the passages thus quoted appear to form a part of the apostle's own words. and it is only by intimate acquaintance with the Old-Test. Scriptures, and a careful comparison of these with those of the New Test.. that the fact of their being quotations can be detected. In the common version every trace of quotation is in many of these passages lost, from the circumstance that the writer has closely followed the Sept., while our version of the Old Test. is made from the Hebrew. Thus for instance, in 2Co_8:21, Paul says, ðñïíïïýìåíïé êáëὰ ïὐ ìüíïí ἐíώðéïí Êõñßïõ , ἀëëὰ êáὶ ἐíùðéïí ἀíèñώðùí , which, with a change in the mood of the verb, is a verbatim citation of the Sept. version of Pro_3:4. Hardly any trace of this, however, appears in the common version, where the one passage reads, Providing for honest things not only in the sight of the Lord. but also in the sight of men;” and the other, “So shalt thou find favor and good understanding in the sight of God and man.” So, also, in 1Pe_4:18, the apostle quotes word for word from the Sept. version of Pro_11:31 the clause åἰ ὁ äßêáéïò ìüëéò óώæåôáé , ὁ ἀóåíὴò êáὶ ἁìáñôùëὸò ðïῦ öáíåῖáé a quotation which we should in vain endeavor to trace in the common version of the Proverbs, where the passage in question is rendered, “Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth; much more the wicked and the sinner.” Such quotations evidently show how much the minds of the New-Test. writers were imbued with the sentiments and expressions of the Old Test. as exhibited in the Alexandrine version.
3. Purposes for which these Quotations are introduced. — These, as appears from an examination of the passages, are as follows:
(1.) For the explanation or proof of some doctrinal position. Thus Paul, for the sake of explaining and confirming his doctrine of the efficacy of faith, quotes repeatedly from Hab_2:4 the sentence “The just shall live by faith.” So, also, in order to prove that mere natural descent from Abraham did not of itself entitle any one to the divine favor, the same apostle quotes the terms of God's promise to Abraham, in which he expressly declares that in Isaac alone, of all Abraham's family, was the seed of Abraham — i.e. the spiritual Israel — to be called or chosen. Comp. also Rom_4:7-8; Rom_9:12-13; Rom_9:15; Rom_9:17; Rom_9:20-21; Rom_12:19-20; Rom_14:10-11, etc. It is to be observed that the passages thus adduced are almost always found in writings addressed to Jews, and are therefore to be regarded as containing argumenta e concessis. They are always applied, if not in the words, at least in the sense, of the original from which they are taken.
(2.) For the purpose of pointing out the application of the passage quoted to some statement or description in the context into which it is introduced. From the circumstance that several of the passages thus adduced are, in the phraseology of the New Test., as well as in that of the Rabbinical writings, said to be “fulfilled,” it has been hastily inferred by some that they are all to be regarded as designed prophecies of the events to which they are applied. For this opinion, however, no adequate support seems to be afforded by the phrase in question. The general idea attached to the verb ðëçñüù is that of filling up to its full capacity anything of which it is predicated. Thus the Jews are said by Christ to have filled up the measure ( ðëçñώóáôå ôὸ ìÝôñïí ) of their fathers (Mat_23:32). The phrase in question consequently is susceptible of application to whatever is thought of as supplying the complement of any given capacity, and that whether it is used in a literal or tropical sense. Hence it is appropriately used in the New Test. with respect to passages quoted from the Old Test. in the following cases:
First. When it announces the accomplishment of a a prophecy contained in the words quoted. As the prediction is a mere empty declaration, as it were, until the fact predicted has occurred; so that fact, by giving meanting and force to the prediction, is viewed as its complement or filling up. Thus, the New-Test. writers, in recording the facts of our Lord's history, when they come to any which formed the subject of ancient prophecy, whether explicit or typical, direct the attention of their readers to the circumstance by adducing the prediction and intimating its fulfilment in the fact they have recorded.
Secondly. When it introduces some description or statement which affords a parallel to what the writer has been saying. Such a description being regarded as involving a fact of general applicability to the human race, or to certain portions of it, is thought of as being, so to speak. in a state of deficiency until the measure of its applicability has been filled up. Each new case, therefore, which affords a parallel to that to which the description was originally applied goes so far to supply this deficiency by affording another instance in which the description holds; and hence the New-Test. writers are in the habit of quoting such descriptions as having been fulfilled in the cases to which they are applied by them. Thus a passage from the prophecies of Jeremiah, in which a description is given of the desolation caused by the divine judgments upon the Jews, under the beautiful personification of Rachel rising from the dead looking in vain for her children, and refusing to be comforted because they are not, is adduced by Mat_2:17-18 as fulfilled in the sorrow which was produced by the massacre of the babes in Bethlehem by order of Herod. No person who studies the context of the passage as it occurs in the Old Test. can suppose for a moment that it contains a prediction of the cruelties which were perpetrated on the occasion related by the evangelist. The sole purport of the quotation seems to be to intimate, as bishop Kidder remarks, that “such another scene of sorrow appeared then (upon the murder of the innocents) as was that which Jeremy mentions upon another sad occasion” (Demonstration of the Messias, pt. ii, p. 215). See, also, Sykes, Essay on the Truth of the Christian Religion, etc., p. 217, 218; Blaney, ad loc.; Henderson, ad loc., and On Hos. ii, 1; De Wette, On Mat_2:17-18; and Marsh's Notes to Michcelis, i, 473. Comp. Mat_15:7-8, with Isa_29:13; Mat_13:14 with Act_28:25 and Isa_6:9, etc.
It appears, then, that even when a quotation is introduced by a part of the verb ðëçñüù , it does not necessarily follow that it is to be regarded as containing a prophecy. This is true as well of the conditional formula ἵíá ( ὅðùò ) ðëçñùèῆ , as of the more direct ôüôå ἐðëçñώèç , for these particles, as used in the New Test., frequently express nothing more than that occasion is given for a particular action or remark.
Besides the passages introduced as fulfilled, there are others referable to the same general head, which are introduced by others of the formulae above mentioned. Of these, some belong to both the classes just described — prophecies of which the New Test. announces the fulfilment, and general descriptions to which something parallel is brought forward. Another class consists of moral and religious maxims, which are adduced as applicable to the state of things of which the writer or speaker is discoursing, and which. though not said to be fulfilled thereby, are quoted under essentially the sanme idea. Such sentences embody, as it were, certain laws of human nature and conduct, certain general facts in the human economy, of which we are to expect the verification wherever the necessary conditions are exemplified. Like the laws of physical science, therefore, they are dependent for their verification upon the examination of the phenomena appropriate to that region to which they belong; and as no law of science can be said to lie absolutely beyond the possibility of refutation until every one of the phenomena which it embraces has been examined and been found to support it, every experiment or occurrence that favors it mav be said to fill up what is wanting to its perfect and undeniable certainty. Hence the New-Test. writers, in recording events or describing characters which accord with and so exemplify the truth of the moral maxims of the Old Test., speak of these as if they had contained actual pre-intimations of the occurrence to which thev are applied. They contain, in fact, the norm, or rule, according to which the matter in question has occurred.
The usage of the New-Test. writers in the cases we have been considering is illustrated by that of the Rabbinical writers in their quotations from the Old Test., as Surenhusius has largely shown in his work upon this subject ( Âßâëïò Êáôáëëáῆò , etc., lib. i; see, also, Wihiner, Antiquitates Hebroeorum, i, 527 sq.). Instances have also been adduced of a similar usage by the classical and ecclesiastical writers. Tlhus, iElian introduces Diogenes Sinopensis as saying that “he fulfilled and endured the curses out of the tragedy” ( ὅôé áὐôὸò ἐêðëήñïé êáὶ ὑðïìÝõåé ôὰò ἐê ôῆò ôñáãùäßáò ἀñÜò ). Olympiodorus says of Plato that “a swarm of bees made honey on his lips, that it might become true concerning him, ‘And from his tonlgue flowed a strain sweeter than honey,”' which is what Homer says of Nestor. Epiphanius says of Ebion, “But in him is fulfilled that which is written; I had nearly been in all mischief, between the Church and the Synagogue” ( ἀëë᾿ ἐí áὐôῷ ðëçñïῦôáé ôὸ ãåãñáììÝíïí , ê . ô . ë . Hoeresis Ebion. c. i]). So, also, the Latin implere is used by Jerome: “Coeterum Socraticum illud i nmpletur in nobis, Hoc tantullumm scio, quod nescio” (Ep. 103 ad Paulin.). Comp. Clem. Rom. Ephesians 1 ad Cor. sec. 3.
Thirdly. The New-Test. writers make quotations from the Old, for the purpose of clothing their own ideas in language already familiar to their readers, or attractive from its beauty, force, or dignity. The writings of the Old Test. were the great classics of the Jewish nation, venerable at once for their literary value and their divine authority. In these the youth of Judaea were carefully instructed from their earliest years, and with their words all their religious thoughlts and feelings were identified. Hence it was natural, and nearly unavoidable, that in discoursing of religious subjects they should express their thoughts in language borrowed from the books which had formed the almost exclusive objects of their study. Such quotations are made for merely literary purposes — for ornament of style, for vigor of expression, for felicity of allusion, or for impressiveness of statement. The passages thus incorporated with the writer's own thoughts and words are not appealed to as proving what he says or as applying to any circumstance to which he refers; their sole use appears to be to express in appropriate language his own thoughts. Thus when Paul, after dissuading the Roman Christians from the indulgence of vindictiveness, adds, in the words of Solomon (Pro_25:21-22), “Therefore, if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink, for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head,” the quotation evidently serves no other purpose than to express, in language of an appropriate and impressive kind, the duty which the apostle would enjoin, and which would have been equally intelligible and equally binding if expressed in his own words as when uttered in those of the inspired author of the Proverbs. On what other principle, moreover, are we to account for the quotation made by Paul, in Rom_10:18, from the 19th Psalm, where, in speaking of the diffusion of the Gospel among the Jews, he says, “But I say, have they not heard? Yes. verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words into the end of the world” — a passage originally applied by the Psalmist to the heavenly bodies? To insist upon regarding this as a prediction of the diffusion of the Gospel, or as furnishing even a parallel to it, is surely to sacrifice reason and common- sense to prejudice or some favorite theory.
It has appeared to some that the hypothesis of an accomodation of words originally used of one thing to designate another is inconsistent with due reverence to the divine Word. But wherein does the alleged irreverence of such a practice lie? To employ the words of Scripture to express low and unworthy ideas, or for the sake of giving point to mere worldly reasonings, is to use them irreverently; but to use them to convey ideas as elevated as those originally attached to them, if not more so (which is the case, e.g., in Rom_10:18), has but little appearance of treating them with irreverence. The only ground on which such a charge could be maintained is, that words once employed by an inspired writer in a peculiar combination become thenceforward sacred to the expression in that combination of the one idea they were first used to designate, whatever others they may be susceptible of expressing. But who is the