the Week of Proper 28 / Ordinary 33
Click here to join the effort!
Bible Encyclopedias
Quotations, Biblical.
Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
or 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. Acts 17:28 from Aratus, Phoenom, 5, or Cleanthes, Hymn. ad Jov. 5; 1 Corinthians 15:33 from Menander's ‘ Thais; and Titus 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 Galatians 5:23, where the words κατὰ τῶν τοιοῦτων οὐκ ἔστι νόμος are identical with the words of Aristotle, Pol. iii, 8 (Gill, Notes and Queries, v, 175). Perhaps also Acts 14:17 and James 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: Habakkuk 2:14 from Isaiah 11:9; Jonah 2:3 from Psalms 42:8; Psalms 2:5 from Isaiah 49:2; Obadiah 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 Isaiah 2:1-4 is found also in Micah 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 דויד for דור, prefers, אֵֹלהים to יְהֹוָה or אֲדניֹ, sometimes substitutes מִלְכוּת for מִמְלָכָה, kingdom, and alters or omits words or clauses which appear to him obscure or unessential. The most remarkable omission is in 2 Samuel 7:13 as compared with 2 Samuel 7:14 of the narrative in Samuel. Compare also 2 Samuel 7:17 with 2 Samuel 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 1 Chronicles 17:18-19 we read, "What can David speak more to thee for the honor of thy servant, לְכָבוֹד אֶתאּעִבְדּךָ… 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 1 Chronicles 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. (1 Chronicles 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 לדבר and לכבד in the former of the two verses, and דבר and עבד 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 2 Samuel 7:23, compared with 1 Chronicles 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 (מַפְּנֵי 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 מַפְּנֵי as if it were לַפְנֵי 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 לגרש, to drive out, for! לארצ (the words are very similar),for thy land. This will allow us to give מַפְּנֵי . 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 וירא, and he was seen, in 2 Samuel 22:11, we find in Psalms 18:11 [10] וידא , and he did fly; and for ויחגרו in 2 Samuel 22:46 we find ויחרגו in Psalms 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 גַּבּוֹר, in 2 Samuel 22:26, we ought to read גְּבִר, as in the Psalm; and in 2 Samuel 22:28, וַאֶת of Samuel ought to be read וְאִתָּה or כּי אתָּה, as in the Psalm; and in the second clause also the reading in the Psalm is much to be preferred. So in 2 Samuel 22:33; 2 Samuel 22:44; 2 Samuel 22:47; 2 Samuel 22:49. On the other hand, in 2 Samuel 22:5; 2 Samuel 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, עֵד שָׁוְא (false witness) is substituted for עֵד שֶׁקֶר. 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 Matthew 26:31, we read, πατάξω τὸνποιμένα, καὶ διασκορπισθήσεται τὰ πρόβατα τῆς ποίμνης ; while the Sept. gives it, πάταξον τὸν ποιμένα, καὶ διασκορπισθήσονται, κ . τ . λ . (Zechariah 13:7) (this is the reading of the Alexandrine Codex; that of the Vatican differs considerably: πατάξατε τοὺς ποιμένας καὶ ἐκσπάσατε τἁ πρόβατα ); John 19:36, Ο᾿στοῦν οὐ συντριβήσεται αὐτοῦ, for Ο᾿στοῦν οὐ συντρίψετε ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ, Exodus 12:46; 1 Peter 2:24, Οῦ τῷ μώλωπι αὐτοῦ ἰάθητε, for μώλωπι αὐτοῦ ἰάθημεν, Isaiah 53:5, etc. Comp. also Matthew 11:10 with Malachi 3:1; and John 19:37 with Zechariah 12:4.
(2.) Substitution of synonymous words or phrases for those used in the Sept. or Hebrew: e.g. John 13:18, ῾Ο τρώγων μετ᾿ ἐμοῦ τὸν ἄρτον, ἐπῇρεν ἐπ᾿ ἐμὲ τὴν πτέρναν αὐτοῦ, for ῾Ο ἐσθίων ἄρτους μου ἐμεγάλμνεν ἐπ᾿ ἐμὲ πτερνισμόν, Psalms 40 (41), 9. Comp. Hebrews 8:8 sq. Matthew 12:20, where לאֶמֶת יוֹצַיא מַשְׁפָּט (Isaiah 42:3) is rendered by ἕως ¨ ν ἐκβάλη εἰς νῖκος τὴν κρίσιν . Sometimes the words thus substituted are synonymous with those for which they are used only historically; as when Paul (Galatians 4:30) calls Isaac ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἐλευθέρας, in a passage quoted from Genesis 21:10, where, in the words of Abraham, he is mentioned by name as ὁ υἱός μου Ι᾿σαάκ. 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 1 Corinthians 3:20, substitutes the words τῶν σοφῶν for the more general expression, τῶν ἀνθρώπων, used in the passage (Psalms 19:11) which he quotes; or as in Matthew 22:37. where διανοία is put for מְאֹד, the special kind of strength intended being that of the mind.
(3.) Words and phrases transposed: e.g. Romans 10:20, Εὑρέθην τοῖς ἐμὲ μὴ ζητοῦσιν, ἐμφανὴς ἐγενόμην τοῖς έμὲ μὴ ἐπερωτῶσιν, for Ε᾿μφανὴς ἐγενήθην τοῖς ἐμὲμὴ ἐπερωτῶσιν, εὑρέθην τοῖς ἐμὲ μὴ ζητοῦσιν, Isaiah 65:1, etc. The Codex Alex. gives this passage exactly as cited by Paul.
(4.) Words and clauses interpolated or added: e.g. John 6:31, ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς φαγεῖν, where the words ἐκ τοῦ and φαγεῖν are an ad(lition (comp. Psalms 78:24); 1 Corinthians 15:45, Ε᾿γένετο ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος Ἀδὰμ εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν, where the words πρῶτος and Ἀδάμ are added by the apostle (comp. Genesis 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. Matthew 4:6, τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αύτοῦ ἐντελεῖται περὶ σου, καὶ ἐπὶ χειρῶν ἀροῦσί σε, μήποτε προσκόψῃς πρὸς λίθον τὸν πόδα σοῦ for τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ ἐντελεῖται περὶ σοῦ, τοῦ διαφυλάξαι σε ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ὁδοῖς σοῦ· ἐπὶ χειρῶν ἀροῦσί σε, μήποτε προσκόψῃς πρὸς λίθον τ .π .σ ., Psalms 90:11-12. Comp. also Matthew 22:24 with Deuteronomy 25:5; Romans 9:27-28 with Isaiah 10:22-23; Hebrews 4:4 with Genesis 2:3, etc.
(6.) Passages paraphrastically rendered, or the general sense only given: e.g. Romans 9:25, where we leave a paraphrastic rendering of Hosea 2:23; Romans 10:6 sq., a free rendering of Deuteronomy 30:12 sq.; 1 Corinthians 1:31, where the general sense of Jeremiah 9:24 is given; comp. also 1 Peter 2:22 with Isaiah 59:9.
(7.) Several passages quoted together, so as to form one connected sense: e.g. in 2 Corinthians 6:16-18 we have a passage made up of no less than three different passages — Leviticus 26:11; Isaiah 3:11; Jeremiah 31:1. Comp. also Mark 1:2-3, where Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 are combined; also Romans 11:8, where Isaiah 29:10 and Deuteronomy 29:4 are strangely mixed together.
(8.) Several of these species of deviations combined together: e.g. Romans 2:24, τὸ γὰρ ὄνομα τοῦ Θεοῦ δἰ ὑμᾶς βλασφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι, for δἰ ὑμᾶς διὰ παντὸς τὸ ὄνομά ῾μου βλασφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι . Here we have the substitution of τοῦ Θεοῦ for μοῦ, and the omission of διὰ παντός Comp. also Romans 11:3 with 1 Kings 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. Ephesians 5:14, ῎Εγειραι ὁ καθεύδων, καὶ ἀνάστα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, καὶ ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ Χριστός . 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 Isaiah 60:1-3, and the passage as rather hinted at than quoted. Comp. also Hebrews 13:15 with Hosea 14:2. To this head may be also referred John 7:38, where no particular passage is quoted, but such passages as Isaiah 44:3; Isaiah 4:1; Isaiah 8:11; Zechariah 14:8; Zechariah 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 Matthew 15:9 [a record of our Lord's words]; Luke 4:18; Acts 13:41; Acts 15:17; Romans 15:10; 2 Corinthians 4:13; Hebrews 8:9; Hebrews 10:5; Hebrews 11:21). The current of apostolic thought, too, is frequently dictated by words of the Sept., which differ much from the Hebrew (see Romans 2:24; 1 Corinthians 15:55; 2 Corinthians 9:7; Hebrews 13:15). Or even an absolute interpolation of the Sept. is quoted (Hebrews 1:6 [Deuteronomy 32:43]). On the other hand, in Matthew 21:5; 1 Corinthians 3:19, the Sept. is corrected by the Hebrew; so, too, in Matthew 9:13; Luke 22:37, there is an effort to preserve an expressiveness of the Hebrew which the Sept. had lost: and in Matthew 4:15-16; John 19:37; 1 Corinthians 15:54, the Sept. disappears altogether. In Romans 9:33 we have a quotation from the Sept. combined with another from the Hebrew. In Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27; Romans 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 (Hebrews 10:30), which, according neither with the Hebrew nor the Sept., was probably derived from the last-named passage (Romans 12:19), wherewith it exactly coincides. The quotation in 1 Corinthians 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 Isaiah 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. John 2:17; John 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 (Romans 14:11); or the result "I quake" substituted for the cause (Hebrews 12:21); or the insertion of rhetorical words to bring out the emphasis (Hebrews 12:26); or the change of person to show that what men perpetrated had its root in God's determinate counsel (Matthew 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 (Acts 1:20; 1 Corinthians 1:31). At other times a passage is enlarged by the incorporation of a passage from another source. Thus in Luke 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 Isaiah 58:6 (Sept.); similarly in Romans 11:8, Deuteronomy 29:4 is combined with Isaiah 29:10. In some cases still greater liberty of alteration is assumed. In Romans 10:11 the word πᾶς is introduced into Isaiah 28:16, to show that that is uttered of Jew and Gentile alike. In Romans 11:26-27, the "to Zion" of Isaiah 59:20 (Sept. ἕνεκεν Σιών ) is replaced by "out of Sion" (suggested by Isaiah 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. Luke 24:47; Romans 15:19), for till she was destroyed the type was still in a measure kept up. In Matthew 8:17 the words of Isaiah 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 1 Corinthians 14:21; 1 Peter 3:15. In some places, again, the actual words of the original are taken up, but employed with a new meaning; thus the ἐρχόμενος, which in Habakkuk 2:3 merely qualified the verb, is in Hebrews 10:37 made the subject to it.
Fourthly. Still more remarkable than any alteration in the quotation itself is the circumstance that in Matthew 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 Jeremiah 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 Mark 1:2-3, where Malachi 3, 1 is combined with Isaiah 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 Matthew 2:23; John 6:45, the comprehensive mention of the prophets indicates a reference not only to the passages more particularly contemplated, Isaiah 11:1; liv, 13, but also to the general tenor of what had been elsewhere prophetically uttered. (See NAZARENE).
On John 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. John 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 James 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 πνευμα 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 (Numbers 35:34; Ezekiel 36:27), and as desiring them with a jealous affection (Deuteronomy 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: Καθώς or Οὑτω γέγραπται, Πῶς γέγραπται, ῎Εστι γεγραμμένον, ῾Ο λόγος ὁ γέγραμμένος, Κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον, Ε᾿ῤῥέθη, Καθώς εἴρηται, Κατὰ τὸ είρήμενον, ᾿Ηγραφὴ εῖπε or λέγει, or simply Λέγει (sup. Θεός vel. προφήτης ), Περιέχει ἐν τῇ γραφῇ, ῾Ο νόμος ἔλεγεν, Εἴρηκε δέ τις, Βλέπετε τὸ είεημένον, Οὐδέποτε ἀνέγνωτε, Καθὼς ἐλάλησε, Τότε ἐπληρώθη ἡ γραφή, ῞Ινα (ὅπως ) πληρωθῇ (τελειωθῇ ) τὸ ῥηθέν (ἡ γραφή ). 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 2 Corinthians 8:21, Paul says, προνοούμενοι καλὰ οὐ μόνον ἐνώπιον Κυρίου, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐνωπιον ἀνθρώπων, which, with a change in the mood of the verb, is a verbatim citation of the Sept. version of Proverbs 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 1 Peter 4:18, the apostle quotes word for word from the Sept. version of Proverbs 11:31 the clause εἰ ὁ δίκαιος μόλις σώζεται, ὁ ἀσενὴς καὶ ἁ
These files are public domain.
McClintock, John. Strong, James. Entry for 'Quotations, Biblical.'. Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature. https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/eng/tce/q/quotations-biblical.html. Harper & Brothers. New York. 1870.
