Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Quotations

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Quotations” utilice nuestra app.

Quotations

A wide variety has been found to exist in the literary allusions of the four Gospels. The same freedom pervades the rest of the NT. Characteristic differences are, no doubt, to be met with in different groups of apostolic writings; but the field of quotation, direct and indirect, extends throughout from exact reproduction of the original texts to the merest suggestion or reminiscence, often hardly to be traced. The present article seeks to cover the more obvious reminiscences, as well as explicit citations, in the NT books under review.

1. Acts of the Apostles.-The direct quotations in Acts are confined to speeches of the apostles and the story of the Ethiopian eunuch (Act 8:26 ff.). They are invariably drawn from the LXX_, even when that Version departs considerably from the Hebrew (as in Act 7:42 f., Act 15:16 f.), and normally introduced by formulae like It is written (in the book of Psalms), This is that which hath been spoken by the prophets, For David saith concerning him, etc. A number of the citations are exact, viz. Act 2:25-28 = Psa 16:8-11, omitting the last clause (identity being secured by reading with AD, etc.); Act 2:34 f. = Psa 110:1; Ps 4:25f. = Psa 2:1 f.; Act 8:32 f. = Isa 53:7 f. (with addition of , as in A, etc.); Act 23:5 = Exo 22:28 (in Lucians recension); Act 28:26 f. = Isa 6:9 f. (apart from a slight difference in the opening formula). Under the same category is virtually to be placed the long citation from Joe 2:28-32 woven into Peters speech at Pentecost (Act 2:17-21), the only changes from the LXX_ (A) being a substitution of the eschatological phrase (from Isa 2:2, Mic 4:1) for the simple of the original, the insertion of the solemn formula of Divine utterance , and the transposition of the clauses relating to the young men and the old. In close dependence on the historical narratives from Genesis to Kings stands Stephens long survey of the Divine leading and mission of Israel (Act 7:1 ff.), many of the verses being abbreviated, but sufficiently exact, citations of biblical texts (cf. esp. vv. Act 7:3; Act 7:6 f., Act 7:26-28; Act 7:30-34; Act 7:40 with Gen 12:1; Gen 15:13 f., Exo 2:13 f., Exo 3:2 ff., Exo 32:1). More deliberate alterations are evident in Exo 1:20, where the general denunciation of wicked men in Psa 69:25 (amplified by a further reference to Psa 109:8) is directly pointed against Judas; Act 2:30, an indirect citation of Ps 132:11; 3:22f. (abbreviated in Act 7:37), a conflate of Deu 18:15-19 and Lev 23:29; Lv 3:25, a free blending of the promises addressed to the fathers in Gen 12:3; Gen 18:18, etc.; Gen 4:11, a loose citation of the verses (Psa 118:22 f.) which are fully reproduced and applied to Christ in Mat 21:42 and parallel texts; Act 7:42 f., where the famous words of Amo 5:25-27 are quoted with considerable changes, the most remarkable being the substitution of Babylon for Damascus (due either to accident, or, more probably, to a desire to bring the prophecy into line with later events); Act 7:49 f., where the prophets great contrast between the heavens of the Most High God and even the noblest temple built by man (Isa 66:1 f.) is reproduced with considerable freedom; Isa 13:22, a noteworthy conflate of Psa 89:20; Psalms 89 :2Sa 23:1 (or Psa 72:20), 1Sa 13:14, and Isa 44:28; other verses from St. Pauls speech at Antioch, esp. Act 13:33-35; Act 13:41; Act 13:47, which are abbreviated citations of Psa 2:7, Isa 55:3, Psa 16:10, Hab 1:5, and Isa 49:6 respectively; Act 15:16 f., a free rendering of Amo 9:11, introduced by a phrase from Jer 12:15; Jer 26:17 f., an application to St. Paul himself of the prophetic passage Isa 42:7-16.

In addition to direct citations, however, there are many reminiscences of Scriptural phraseology scattered through Acts. The following may be presented as most suggestive of the original texts: Act 2:24 (cf. Psa 18:4 f., Psa 116:3, Job 39:2 f.); Act 2:39 (cf. Isa 57:19, Joe 2:32, etc.); Act 2:40 (cf. Deu 32:5); Act 4:24, Act 14:15, Act 17:24 (cf. Gen 1:1, Exo 20:11, etc.); Act 4:34 (cf. Deu 15:4); Act 5:4 (cf. Jos 24:27, etc.); Act 8:2 (cf. Gen 50:10); Act 8:21 (cf. Deu 12:12, Psa 78:37); Act 10:36 (cf. Psa 107:20, Isa 52:7, etc.); Act 17:27 (cf. Isa 55:6, etc.); Act 17:29 (cf. Isa 40:18 f., Isa 46:5); Act 17:31 (cf. Psa 9:8, etc.).

Outside of the OT, no texts are ever cited as Scripture. Other sources are, however, clearly before the mind of the writer. Thus Act 7:21 suggests Wis 11:14; 18:5; 17:29, Wis 13:10; and 17:30, Wis 11:23; Wis 12:2. The phraseology of Act 3:14 (cf. Act 7:52, Act 22:14) Act 4:12, Act 10:4, Act 17:31 recalls Enoch, xxxviii. 2, xlviii. 7, xcix. 3, and xli. 9 respectively. In St. Stephens speech (Act 7:36; Act 7:38 f.) R. H. Charles finds distinct evidence of dependence on the Assumption of Moses (iii. 11-13). There is here also (Act 7:16) betrayed an acquaintance with extra-canonical Jewish tradition regarding the burial of Josephs brethren, as it was afterwards committed to writing in the Book of Jubilees (xlvi. 9 f.). Finally, St. Pauls great speech at Athens brings classical poetry into the service of Christ. The final clause of Act 17:28, (for we are also his offspring) has long been recognized as an exact quotation from Aratus Phaenomena, line 5 (cf. the similar phrase, , from Cleanthes Hymn to Jove, line 4). But Rendel Harris has recently traced the immediately preceding words (for in him we live and move and have our being) to the Minos of the Cretan pcet, Epimenides, from which also Tit 1:12 is drawn, the text being restored as follows:

, , ,

, , .

, ,

(cf. Exp_, 8th ser., iv. [1912] 348 ff.).

2. The Pauline Epistles.-These are peculiarly rich in allusions. Every important doctrinal argument is buttressed by an appeal to Scripture; and even moral counsels are, as a rule, referred to some basal principle of the OT. The Apostles ordinary language is likewise steeped in OT phraseology. Here too the LXX_ is the great storehouse of literary reference. More than half of the direct quotations of the OT in the Epistles of St. Paul are taken from the LXX_ without material change (H. B. Swete, Introduction to the OT in Greek, Cambridge, 1900, p. 400). In the remaining cases he allows himself considerable freedom, sometimes quoting from memory, or otherwise altering the text for the purpose immediately in view, though occasionally there is evidence of direct translation from the Hebrew.

(a) The Epistle to the Romans is a veritable mine of quotations. Exact reproductions of the LXX_ are found as follows: Rom 3:4 b = Psa 51:4 b; Psa 4:3 (cf. Psa 4:5 ff.) = Gen 15:6; Gen 4:7 f. = Psa 32:1 f.; psa 4:17 ( ) is excerpted from Gen 17:5; Gen 4:18 ( ) from Gen 15:5; Gen 7:7 ( ) from the Decalogue (Exo 20:17); Rom 8:36 = Psa 44:22; Psa 9:7 ( ) comes from Gen 21:12; Gen 9:12 ( ) from Gen 25:23; Gen 9:15 = Exo 33:19; Exo 9:29 = Isa 1:9; Isa 10:13 = Jl 2:32; 10:16 = Isa 53:1 a; Isa 10:18 = Ps 19:4; 12:20 = Pro 25:21 f. (omitting the last words); Rom 13:9 ( ) comes from Lev 19:18; Lev 15:3 = Ps 69:9; 15:9 = Ps 18:49; 15:10 (, , ) from Deu 32:43; Deu 15:11 (acc. to certain MSS_) = Psa 117:1. The quotation from Hab 2:4 introduced in Rom 1:17 is identical with the LXX_ save for the omission of (ct._ Heb. , through his faith); Rom 2:6 likewise differs from Pro 24:12 only in the pronouns. The long citation, Rom 3:10-18, opens with a phrase from Ecc 7:20; the rest is almost an exact reproduction of the LXX_ text of Psa 14:1-3, though this is really a conflate of various OT passages (Psa 5:9; Psa 140:3; Psa 10:7, Isa 59:7 f., and Psa 36:1) interwoven with the original. Rom 3:20 is clearly introduced as a quotation (from Psa 143:2), but differs considerably from both the Hebrew and the LXX_; Rom 9:9 is a free, abbreviated reference to Gen 18:10; Gen 18:14; Gen 9:13 a citation from Mal 1:2 f., with a trifling transposition of the opening words. Rom 9:17 (from Exo 9:16) shows a distinct approach to the original Hebrew. On the other hand, Rom 9:25 f., Rom 9:27 f., Rom 9:32 f. are free reproductions of the thought of Hos 1:10; Hos 2:23, Isa 10:22 f., Isa 28:16 (blended with Rom 8:14) respectively, in the last instance so free as to yield a sense quite contrary to the original. The final clause of Rom 9:33 is repeated in Rom 10:11 with the addition of ; while Rom 10:5 is a direct application of Lev 18:5 to the righteousness that is of the law. The long passage on the nearness and saving power of the Word of God (Rom 10:6-9) is another free compound of Deu 9:4; Deu 30:11-14, etc. Rom 10:15 (from Isa 52:7) gives further evidence of direct use of the Hebrew; Rom 10:19 differs from the LXX_ text of Deu 32:21 only in the substitution of the personal pronoun you for them, and Rom 10:20 f. from Isa 65:1 f. in a slight transposition of words. Rom 11:3 f. (from 1Ki 19:10 ff.), has been altered and transposed under Hebrew influence. Rom 11:8 is a free blend of ideas from Isa 29:10, Deu 29:4, etc. (with traces of Hebrew influence); Rom 11:26 f. is also a complex from Isa 59:20 f. (in the main) and Psa 14:7, Isa 27:9, etc. Rom 11:9 f., again, is a close, though abbreviated, citation of Psa 69:22 f., and Rom 11:34 f. is but slightly altered from Isa 40:13 f. (in the fuller reading of A, etc.). Rom 12:19 (from Deu 32:35) shows the same approach to the original Hebrew as the Targum of Onkelos. Rom 14:11 is a somewhat free rendering of Isa 45:23, with introductory phrase from Isa 49:18, or a similar context; Rom 15:12 is an abbreviated reference to Isa 11:10 (cf. Isa 42:4); and Rom 15:21 is the exact equivalent of Isa 52:15, except for the transposition of .

(b) A number of these citations are repeated in other Epistles of St. Paul. Thus the fundamental assertion of justification by faith (Rom 1:17 = Hab 2:4) reappears in Gal 3:11, and the texts Rom 3:20 (from Psa 143:2) in Gal 2:16; Rom 4:3 (=Gen 15:6) in Gal 3:6; Rom 10:5 (from Lev 18:5) in Gal 3:12; Rom 13:9 b (from Lev 19:18) in Gal 5:14; and Rom 11:34 (from Isa 40:13) in 1Co 2:16 (a different close being here adopted).

Fresh quotations from the OT are found as follows: Gal 4:27 = Isa 54:1; 4:30 = Gen 21:10 (with the significant change of instead of ); Gal 3:8, a blend of the promises in Gen 12:3; Gen 18:18, etc.; Gal 3:10, from Deu 27:26, with phrase in woven from Deu 9:11; Deu 3:13, an abbreviated, and slightly altered, citation from Deu 21:23; Deu 3:16, a direct application to Christ of the promise to Abraham and his seed (Gen 12:7; Gen 13:15; Gen 17:8, etc.).

The closing phrase of 1Co 6:16 comes directly from Gen 2:24 (the whole verse being reproduced in Eph 5:31); 1Co 9:9 (in reading of AD, etc.) = Deu 25:4 (repeated in 1Ti 5:18 with transposition of words); 1Co 10:7 = Exo 32:6; Exo 10:26, a phrase from Ps 24:1; 15:32 = Isa 22:13; Isa 1:19 f. comes from Isa 29:14 with alteration of verb; 1Co 1:31 (repeated in 2Co 10:17) is a free reproduction of Jer 9:23; Jer 2:9 a very free rendering, perhaps through independent Jewish channels (cf. below), of the ideas in Isa 64:4, with suggestions from Isa 65:16 or Jer 3:16; Jer 3:19 is from Job 5:13, under direct influence of the Hebrew; 1Co 3:20, from Psa 94:11, with of the wise substituted for of men (to make the application more apt); 1Co 10:20 ( ) from Deu 32:17, with a change in the order of words; 1Co 14:21, a very free citation, supported by , of Isa 28:11 f.; 1Co 14:34, 1Co 15:3-4; 1Co 15:15; 1Co 15:45; 1Co 15:47, free allusions to Gen 3:18, Isa 53:12, Hos 6:2, and Gen 2:7, all adduced as written or Scriptural authorities; 1Co 15:27 (cf. Eph 1:22, Php 3:21), from Psa 8:6 with direct reference to the Hebrew; 1Co 15:54 f., a free conflate of Isa 25:8 and Hos 13:14.

2Co 4:13 ( ) exactly = Psa 116:10; Psa 6:2 = Isa 49:8; Isa 9:9 = Psa 112:9; Psa 13:1 (cf. 1Ti 5:19) = Deu 19:15 (Luc.); 2Co 4:6, a free blend of Gen 1:2 f., Isa 9:1 f., etc.; 2Co 6:18, a loose conflate of Eze 37:27 and Lev 26:11 f.; 2Co 6:17, abbreviated from Isa 52:11 and Eze 20:34; 2Co 6:18, a compound of Jer 31:9, Isa 43:6; Isaiah 43 :2Sa 7:8, etc.; 2Co 8:15, from Exo 16:18, with direct approach to the Hebrew; 2Co 9:7, a free reproduction of Pro 22:9 (cf. Exo 25:2).

Eph 4:8 is from Psa 68:18, with the boldly altered to , to make it more applicable to the Giver of good; Eph 4:25, from Zec 8:16 with the more accurately rendered by ; Eph 4:26, an excerpt from Ps 4:4; 5:14, a very free reproduction of Isa 60:1; Isa 60:19 f. (cf. below); Eph 5:16, from Pro 23:31 (with for ); Eph 6:2 f., from the Decalogue (Exo 20:12), the motive being somewhat altered, and a new clause added to emphasize the element of promise.

Php 1:19 is a literal extract from Job 13:16; and the two seals of 2Ti 2:19 are free citations of Num 16:5 and Isa 26:13 respectively. Direct quotations from the OT are not found in Colossians , 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Titus, or Philemon.

Among the more striking reminiscences may be noted Rom 1:23 (cf. Deu 4:15-18, Psa 106:20); Rom 2:5 (cf. Psa 110:5, Zep 1:18); Rom 3:4 a (cf. Psa 116:11); Rom 3:29 f. (cf. Mal 2:10); Rom 4:11 (cf. Gen 17:11); Rom 4:13; Rom 4:16 (cf. Gen 12:7; Gen 13:15, etc.); Rom 4:19 (cf. Gen 17:17, etc.); Rom 4:25, Rom 5:19; Rom 5:21 (cf. Isa 53:12); Rom 5:5 (cf. Psa 22:4 f., Psa 25:20); Rom 7:8; Rom 7:11 (cf. Gen 2:16 f., Rom 3:1 ff.); Rom 8:27 (cf. Heb. text of Psa 7:9); Rom 8:33 f. (cf. Isa 50:3 f.); Rom 9:20 f. (cf. Isa 29:16; Isa 45:9); Rom 11:1 f. (cf. Psa 94:14); Rom 11:16 ff. (cf. Jer 11:16); Rom 11:25, Rom 12:16 (cf. Isa 5:21, Pro 3:7); Rom 12:14 (cf. Psa 109:28); Rom 12:17 (cf. Pro 3:4).

1Co 1:2 (cf. Joe 2:32); 1Co 1:20 (cf. Isa 19:11 f., Isa 33:18); 1Co 3:11 (cf. Isa 28:16); 1Co 5:7 (cf. Exo 12:15); 1Co 6:2 (cf. Dan 7:18 ff.); 1Co 6:17 (cf. 2Ki 18:6); 1Co 8:6 (cf. Deu 4:35; Deu 4:39, Mal 2:10, etc.); 1Co 9:7 (cf. Deu 20:6, Pro 27:18, etc.); 1Co 9:13 (cf. Deu 18:1 ff., Num 18:8 ff.); 1Co 10:1 ff., from Exo 13:2 ff. (combined with tradition); 1Co 10:22 (cf. Deu 32:21); 1Co 11:7 (cf. Gen 1:26 f.); 1Co 14:25 (cf. Isa 45:14, Zec 8:23; 1Co 15:31 (cf. Psa 44:22).

2Co 3:3; 2Co 3:7 (cf. Exo 31:18, Jer 31:33, Eze 11:19, etc.); 2Co 3:7 ff. (cf. Exo 34:29 ff.); 2Co 4:11 (cf. Psa 44:22); 2Co 5:10 (cf. Ecc 12:14); 2Co 5:17 (cf. Isa 43:18 f.); 2Co 6:9 (cf. Psa 118:17 f.); 2Co 6:11 (cf. Psa 119:32); 2Co 7:6 (cf. Isa 49:13); 2Co 8:21 (cf. Pro 3:4); 2Co 9:10 (cf. Isa 55:10, Hos 10:12); 2Co 11:3 (cf. Gen 3:4).

Gal 1:4 (cf. Isa 53:12); Gal 1:15 f. (cf. Jer 1:5); Gal 3:17 (cf. Exo 12:40 f.); Gal 3:20 (cf. Mal 2:10); Gal 6:16 (cf. Psa 125:5, etc.).

Eph 1:20 (cf. Psa 110:1); Eph 1:22 (cf. Psa 8:6); Eph 2:13 ff. (cf. Isa 57:19); Eph 2:19 (cf. Lev 25:23); Eph 2:20 (cf. Isa 28:16); Eph 4:6 (cf. Deu 6:4); Eph 4:9 f. (cf. Deu 30:12 ff.); Eph 5:2 (cf. Gen 8:21, Exo 29:18, etc.); Eph 5:22 ff. (cf. Gen 3:16); Eph 6:14 (cf. Isa 11:5; Isa 59:17, etc.); Eph 6:15 (cf. Isa 52:7); Eph 6:17 (cf. Isa 49:2; Isa 51:16; Isa 59:17).

Php 2:10 f. (cf. Isa 45:23); Php 2:15 (cf. Deu 32:5); Php 2:16 (cf. Isa 49:4; Isa 65:23); Php 3:3 (cf. Jer 9:23 f.); Php 3:21 (cf. Psa 8:6); Php 4:3 (cf. Psa 69:28, etc.).

Col 2:3 (cf. Isa 45:3); Col 2:22 (cf. Isa 29:13); Col 3:1 (cf. Psa 110:1); Col 3:10 (cf. Gen 1:27); Col 3:18 (cf. Gen 3:16).

1Th 2:4 (cf. Jer 11:20); 1Th 2:16 (cf. Gen 15:18, Deu 8:20); 1Th 4:8 (cf. Eze 11:19; Eze 36:26 f., Psa 51:11); 1Th 5:8 (cf. Isa 59:17); 1Th 5:22 (Job 1:1; Job 1:8).

2Th 1:8 (cf. Exo 3:2, Isa 66:15); 2Th 1:9 f. (cf. Isa 2:10 ff., Psa 89:8); 2Th 1:12 (cf. Isa 24:15; Isa 49:3; Isa 66:5); 2Th 2:4 (cf. Dan 11:36, etc.); 2Th 2:8 (cf. Isa 11:4); 2Th 2:13 (cf. Deu 33:12).

1Ti 1:17 (cf. Deu 4:35, etc.); 1Ti 2:6 (cf. Isa 53:4 ff.); 1Ti 2:11 f. (cf. Gen 3:16); 1Ti 2:14 (cf. Gen 3:6 ff.); 1Ti 6:1 (cf. Isa 52:5); 1Ti 6:15 (cf. Deu 10:17, Psa 136:3, Dan 2:47, etc.).

2Ti 4:14 (cf. Psa 28:4; Psa 62:12); 2Ti 4:17 (cf. Dan 6:20).

Tit 2:5 (cf. Gen 3:16); Tit 2:14 (cf. Exo 19:5, Isa 53:4 ff., Eze 37:23, etc.).

The Pauline Epistles also show the influence of apocryphal books. A clear instance is found in Rom 12:15, compared with Sir 7:34 ( , ); cf., further, Rom 2:11 (Sir 32:15 f.) Rom 16:27 (Sir 1:8), 1Co 6:12 (Sir 37:28), 1Co 6:13 (Sir 36:23) 1Co 7:13; 1Co 7:36 (Sir 42:9 f.), Col 2:3 (Sir 1:25), 1Th 4:6 (Sir 5:3). Between Romans and the Wisdom of Solomon there are several close parallels betraying St. Pauls intimate acquaintance with the latter; cf., especially, Rom 1:18 ff. (Wis 13:1 ff; Wis 14:8 f.), Rom 8:18 (Wis 3:4 ff.), Rom 9:19 f. (Wis 12:12), Rom 9:21 (Wis 15:7), Rom 9:31 (Wis 2:11), Rom 11:32 (Wis 11:23), Rom 13:10 (Wis 6:18). Of the other Epistles, cf. 1Co 11:7 (Wis 2:23) 1Co 15:45; 1Co 15:47 (Wis 15:11), 2Co 5:1 ff. (Wis 9:15), Eph 1:16, Col 1:12 (Wis 5:5), Eph 2:12 (Wis 3:18), Eph 6:11 ff. (Wis 5:17 ff.), 1Th 1:10 (Wis 16:8). To a common use of Wisdom are no doubt to be traced the frequent resemblances between the Epistles and Philo. A considerable list of parallels with the Book of Enoch has been drawn up by Charles, the most obvious being Rom 8:38, Eph 1:21, Col 1:16 (En. lxi. 10), Rom 9:5, 2Co 11:31 (En. lxxvii. 1), Php 2:10 (En. xlviii. 5), Col 2:3 (En. xlvi. 3), 2Th 1:7 (En. lxi. 10), 1Ti 1:15 (En. xciv. 1). The very free citation, 1Co 2:9, is referred by Origen and other Church Fathers to the Apocalypse of Elijah, and is actually found in the Latin version (ii. 34); this may well have been the direct source, its ultimate dependence on the OT explaining the formula (cf. 1 Clem. xxxiv. 8, where the text recurs in almost the same form, though in a different context). Eph 5:14 is likewise traced by Epiphanius to the Apocalypse of Elijah, though other Fathers give different sources (Isaiah, or an apocryphal work of Jeremiah); it may, however, be but a loose rendering of Isa 60:1; Isa 60:19 f. (cf. above). Further acquaintance with Jewish tradition-probably derived from the actual Book of Jannes and Jambres mentioned by Origen (on Mat 27:9)-is presupposed in the reference to the withstanding of Moses (2Ti 3:8). Various phrases recall the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: e.g. Rom 1:32 (Asher, vi. 2) 12:21 (Benj. iv. 3), 2Co 7:10 (Gad, v. 7), 1Th 2:16 (Levi, vi. 11). There are also two direct citations of classical texts: 1Co 15:33 (evil communications corrupt good manners) from Menanders Thais-ultimately perhaps from a lost play of Euripides (cf. Socrates, HE_ iii. 16)-and the verse from the prophet of the Cretans (Tit 1:12), an excerpt from the Minos of Epimenides already alluded to (cf. Act 17:28). Both were apparently common tags, being introduced as a familiar quotation in Callimachus, ad Jovem, line 8. The Apostle may thus have received them from floating tradition, instead of direct acquaintance with the texts. The analogies with stoical writings and the mystery-religions, at all events, show the influence of the Zeitgeist rather than first-hand study of the literature (cf. H. A. A. Kennedy, St. Paul and the Mystery-Religions, 1913).

The Apostle reveals in his letters a varied knowledge of Christian tradition and even words and deeds of Jesus, afterwards embodied in the Gospels. Thus in 1Co 7:10 (on divorce) he contrasts his own advice with definite instructions of our Lord, which may be compared with Mat 5:32; Mat 19:9 and parallel passages. His counsel to remain unmarried because of the coming distress (1Co 7:25 ff.) recalls Mat 24:19, etc. The Christian principle of living by the gospel (1Co 9:14) is directly referred to the Masters ordinance (cf. Mat 10:10, Luk 10:7). The words of institution at the Lords Supper (1Co 11:23 ff.) are in close harmony with Mat 26:26 ff. and parallel passages, and belong undoubtedly to common tradition. Other reminiscences of the Gospels (or their sources) are found in 1Co 11:19 (cf. Mat 10:34, etc.); 1Co 13:2 (cf. Mat 17:20, etc.); 2Co 1:17 (cf. Mat 5:37); Gal 5:14 (cf. Mat 22:39 f., etc.); 1Th 2:15 f. (cf. Mat 23:31 f.); 1Th 4:8 (cf. Luk 10:16); 1Th 4:16 f. (cf. Mat 24:30 f.); 1Th 5:1 ff. (cf. Mat 24:36 ff.).

3. The Epistle to the Hebrews.-This Epistle equals Romans in its dependence on the OT. It is, indeed, in great part a catena of quotations (Swete, p. 402). A considerable number are either wholly or virtually exact: Heb 1:5 a (Heb 5:5) = Psa 2:7; Psa 1:5 b = 2Sa 7:14; 2Sa 1:6 b = Deu 32:43 (in Lucians recension); Heb 1:8 b = LXX_ addition to Psa 45:6 f. (with one or two changes, absent from certain MSS_); Heb 1:10-12 = Psa 102:25-27 (with slight textual differences); Heb 1:13 = Psa 110:1; Psa 2:6-8 (with addition in AD, etc.) = Ps 8:4-6; 2:13b = Isa 8:18; Isa 3:7-11 (individual verses repeated in Heb 3:15, Heb 4:3; Heb 4:5; Heb 4:7) = Psa 95:7-11 (with slight textual differences, not found in several MSS_); Heb 4:4 (cf. Heb 4:10) = Gen 2:2 (Luc.); Heb 5:6 (cf. Heb 7:17 and, with variations, Heb 5:10, Heb 6:20, Heb 7:11; Heb 7:21) = Ps 110:4; 10:30b = Deu 32:35; Deu 13:6 = Psa 118:6. Of the remaining citations, Heb 1:7 = Psa 104:4, with for (A: ) = Heb.; Heb 2:12 = Psa 22:22, with for ; Heb 2:13 a = Isa 8:17, with transposition of words; Heb 6:13 f., from Gen 22:16 f., exact, but abbreviated; Heb 7:1-10, a historical survey depending, often literally, on Gen 14:17 ff; Gen 8:5 = Exo 25:40, with for ; Heb 8:8-12 (abbreviated, and somewhat altered, in Heb 10:16 f.), from Jer 31:31-34, with certain alterations pointing the prophecy directly to Christ; Heb 9:20 (cf. Heb 10:29, Heb 13:20), from Exo 24:8, with changes, in part suggested by the words of institution (cf. Mat 26:26 ff., etc.); Heb 10:5-7 (repeated with changes in Heb 10:8 f.), from Psa 40:6-8, with accidental and other alterations; Heb 10:30 a, from Deu 32:35, in the same form as in Rom 12:19; from Hab 2:3 f., the principle of justification repeated as in Rom 1:17 (the two instances thus pointing to some common original, either in tradition, or in a written collection of Messianic prophecies), and a inserted before to give the text a still clearer Messianic reference; Heb 11:4 ff., the roll-call of heroes, drawn from the historical books from Gen. onwards, often with close dependence on the texts (cf. Heb 11:5; Heb 11:18; Heb 11:21 with Gen 5:24; Gen 21:12; Gen 47:31 respectively); Heb 12:5 f. (detailed application in Heb 12:7-11), from Pro 3:11 f., with verbal changes due probably to textual transmission; Heb 12:20, a free reproduction of Exo 19:13, probably from memory; Heb 12:21, from Deu 9:19, with addition of ; Heb 12:26, from Hag 2:6, verbally altered to emphasize the argument; Heb 12:29, from Deu 4:24, with added in harmony with Heb. ; Heb 13:5, from Deu 31:6; Deu 31:8, changed into the form of a direct quotation by the use of the first person; Heb 13:20, a complex of phrases from Isa 63:11 and Jer 32:40, etc.

Among reminiscences of OT texts may be given Heb 1:3 (cf. Psa 110:1); Heb 3:2; Heb 3:5 (cf. Num 12:7); Heb 3:17 (cf. Num 14:29; Num 14:32 f.); Heb 6:8 (cf. Gen 3:17 f.); Heb 6:19, Heb 10:20 (cf. Exo 26:33, Lev 16:2); Heb 8:1, Heb 10:12 f., Heb 12:2 (cf. Psa 110:1); Heb 8:2 (cf. Num 24:6); Heb 9:2 ff. (cf. Exo 26:1 ff.); Heb 9:28 (cf. Isa 53:12); Heb 10:27 (cf. Isa 26:11); Heb 10:28 (cf. Deu 17:6); Heb 12:12 (cf. Isa 35:3, Sir 25:23); Heb 12:13 (cf. Pro 4:26); Heb 12:15 (cf. Deu 29:18); Heb 12:16 (cf. Gen 25:33); Heb 12:17 (cf. Gen 27:38); Heb 12:18 ff. (cf. Exo 19:16 ff.); Heb 13:2 (cf. Gen 18:3; Gen 19:1 ff.); Heb 13:11 (cf. Lev 16:27); Heb 13:15 (cf. Psa 50:14; Psa 50:23, Hos 14:3).

In 1:3 we have another clear mark of the influence of Wis. (7:25f.). The description of the martyrdoms in 11:35f. probably derives certain elements from 1Ma 9:26, 2Ma 6:10 ff; 2Ma 7:1 ff., etc., as well as the tradition of Isaiahs death by sawing (Ascension of Isaiah, v. 11-14). A few passages recall the Book of Enoch, e.g. iv. 13 (En. ix. 5); 11:10 (En. xc. 29). A suggestion of the words of institution has been found in 9:20, while the reference to the Masters strong crying and tears (5:7) recalls the scene in Gethsemane (cf. Mat 26:36 ff.), though known to the writer only from tradition. In Hebrews there is no trace of classical literature.

4. The Catholic Epistles

(a) James.-The practical character of James necessitates less reliance on OT authority. Of direct quotations in his Epistle there are but six, Jam 2:8; Jam 2:23 and Jam 4:6 being virtually exact reproductions of the LXX_ text of Lev 19:18, Gen 15:6, and Pro 3:34 respectively, Jam 2:11 an original version of the Decalogue (Exo 20:13; Exo 20:15), Jam 5:20 a rendering of Pro 10:12 with direct dependence on the Hebrew (though here possibly introduced from an intermediate source), and Jam 4:5 a reference to some unknown passage definitely recognized as Scripture. In addition there are various reminiscences of OT and apocryphal books: e.g. Jam 1:9 f. (cf. Jer 9:23); Jam 1:10 f. (cf. Isa 40:6 f.); Jam 1:19 (cf. Pro 14:29; Pro 17:27, Ecc 7:9); Jam 2:21 (cf. Gen 22:9); Jam 2:25 (cf. Jos 2:1 ff; Jos 6:17); Jam 5:3 (cf. Psa 21:9); Jam 5:4 (cf. Isa 5:9, Psa 18:6, etc.); Jam 5:7 (cf. Deu 11:14); Jam 5:11 (cf. Psa 103:8; Psa 111:4, etc.); Jam 5:17 f. (cf. 1Ki 17:1 ff; 1Ki 18:1 ff.); Jam 1:5 (cf. Sir 20:15); Jam 1:13 (cf. Sir 15:11 f.); Jam 1:19 (cf. Sir 5:11); Jam 5:1-6 (cf. En. xciv. 8-11). The remarkable feature about the Epistle, however, is the number of correspondences with sayings of Jesus, especially those included in the Sermon on the Mount, e.g. Jam 1:2 f. (cf. Mat 5:3-12); Jam 1:5-8 (cf. Mat 6:6-15); Jam 1:10 f. (cf. Mat 6:19-21); Jam 1:22 f. (cf. Mat 7:21 ff.); Jam 1:26 f. (cf. Mat 6:1-7); Jam 3:11 f. (cf. Mat 7:16-20); Jam 4:3 (cf. Mat 7:7); Jam 5:12 (cf. Mat 5:33-37). The mind of the Apostle was evidently saturated with Jesus thoughts and words; and they came to him unbidden in a form resembling their original. The relation of the Epistle to other parts of the NT belongs rather to the region of literary criticism.

(b) Of the other Catholic Epistles, 1 Peter offers a number of quotations from the OT, some of them exact equivalents of the LXX_, as 1Pe 1:16 = Lev 11:44 f.; 1Pe 2:7 = Ps 118:22; 3:10-12 = Psa 34:12-16 a (with simple change from imperative to jussive); 1Pe 3:14 f. = Isa 8:12 f. (with instead of ); 1Pe 4:18 = Pro 11:31 (a passage where the LXX_ differs widely from the original); 1Pe 5:5 = Pro 3:34; while others show distinct evidence of the Hebrew, e.g. 1Pe 1:24 f. (from Isa 40:6-8), 1Pe 2:6 (from Isa 28:16), 1Pe 2:6 (from Isa 8:14), 1Pe 4:8 (from Pro 10:12); 1Pe 2:10 is a free reproduction of the thought of Hos 2:23; Hos 2:9 a loose conflate of Exo 19:5 f., Isa 43:20 f.; and 1Pe 2:22 of Isa 53:9, Zep 3:13. Reminiscences of OT texts may be traced in 1Pe 1:18 (cf. Isa 52:3), 1Pe 2:3 (cf. Psa 34:8), 1Pe 2:4 f. (cf. Psa 118:22), 1Pe 2:17 (cf. Pro 24:21), 1Pe 3:6 (cf. Pro 3:25), 1Pe 4:14 b (cf. Isa 11:2), 1Pe 5:7 (cf. Psa 55:22); while a direct allusion to the Book of Enoch (x. 4-6, 12 f.) is found in 1Pe 3:19 f. The author is further acquainted, not merely with Synoptic tradition, and parts at least of Acts, but also with the Epistles to the Romans and Ephesians (on details, and the bearing of the facts, cf. the standard NT Introductions and Commentaries, or the art._ on Peter, First Epistle of in HDB_).

(c) In contrast, 2 Peter and Jude show little trace of the influence either of the OT Scriptures or of Christian tradition and literature. The only explicit citation of the OT is in 2Pe 2:22, where the saying from Pro 26:11 (the dog returning to his own vomit again), directly translated from the Hebrew, is referred to as the true proverb. There are, however, a few suggestions of OT texts, e.g. 2Pe 2:4 ff. (cf. Gen 6:1 ff.); 2Pe 2:15 f. (cf. Num 22:5 ff.); 2Pe 3:6 (cf. Gen 7:21 ff.); 2Pe 3:8 (Psa 90:4); 2Pe 3:9 (Isa 46:13); 2Pe 3:13 (cf. Isa 65:17; Isa 66:22); Jud 1:9 ( ), from Zen 3:2. But the most remarkable fact about these Epistles is their dependence on apocryphal writings. 1 Pet. had already alluded to the legend of the fallen angels as narrated in En. x. 4-6, 12f. The same context is drawn from, in still more detail, by 2Pe 2:4 f. and Jud 1:6. An actual quotation from En. (i. 9) is given in Jud 1:14 f., and introduced as a prophecy of Enoch, the seventh from Adam. According to the united testimony of the Church Fathers, the reference to the contest of Michael for the body of Moses (Jud 1:9) comes from the Assumption of Moses; while Jud 1:16 is composed of fragments from Jud 1:5, vii. 7, 9 (Latin text) of the Testament of Moses. The language of Jud 1:6-7; Jud 1:13 likewise recalls the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Napht. iii. 4, Asher, vii. 1). The parallels in 2 Pet. are doubtless derived from Jude.

(d) The only OT allusion in the Epistles of John is found in 1Jn 3:12 (cf. Gen 4:8). There are naturally, however, many reminiscences of the Fourth Gospel. For these compare Commentaries, etc.

5. Revelation.-In Revelation there are no formal citations, but the whole work is saturated with OT allusions. These are drawn from almost the entire range of the OT Canon, though Psalms, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel contribute by far the largest number. The Book of Enoch, and probably other apocalyptic works, add to the writers treasury of symbols. Here too the LXX_ supplies the basis; but the writer seems occasionally to have used Theodotion or some other Greek version, and often to have gone direct to the Hebrew. In the present article only a few representative allusions can be offered; for the rest such sources as Westcott and Horts Greek text and Swetes Apocalypse2, p. cxxxix ff., must be referred to.

The coming of the Messiah with the clouds (Rev 1:7) is clearly based on Dan 7:13, and the rest of the verse on Zec 12:10-14. The actual description (Rev 1:13 ff.) closely follows Dan 7:9 ff; Dan 10:5 ff. Various expressions in the Letters to the Churches recall OT phraseology, e.g. Rev 2:7 (Gen 2:9) Rev 2:17 (Isa 62:6) Rev 2:26 f. (Psa 2:8 f.) Rev 3:7 (Isa 22:22) Rev 3:14 (Pro 8:22) Rev 3:19 (Pro 3:12) Rev 3:20 (Son 5:2). The vision of the King on the throne (Rev 4:2 ff.) rests on Isa 6:1 ff., Eze 1:26 ff. (cf. En. xiv. 18 ff.); that of the sealed book (Rev 5:1 ff.) on Eze 2:9 f. (cf. En. lxxxix. 70f., xc. 20). The number of the worshipping angels (Rev 5:11) follows Dan 7:10 (cf. En. xiv. 22). The vision of the horses (Rev 6:2 ff.) is based on Zec 1:8 ff., and the earthquake (Rev 6:12) on Joe 2:10; the hiding in the rocks (Rev 6:15 f.) on Isa 2:10 ff., and the day of wrath (Rev 6:17) on Joe 2:11; Joe 3:4, etc. The picture of the final blessedness of the saints (Rev 7:15-17) recalls Isa 49:10, En. xlviii. 1. The fall of the star (Rev 8:10, Rev 9:1) is based on Isa 14:12 (cf. En. lxxxvi. 1), and the plague of locusts (Rev 9:3 ff.) on Joe 1:6 ff. The allusion to the worship of demons and idols (Rev 9:20) recalls Deu 32:17, Dan 5:4; Dan 5:23, the sealing of the vision (Rev 10:4) Dan 12:4; Dan 12:9, and the eating of the book (Rev 10:8 ff.) Eze 2:8 f., Rev 3:1 ff. The measuring of the new temple (Rev 11:1 ff.) is based on Eze 40:3 ff., the olive trees and candlesticks (Rev 11:4) on Zec 4:2 ff., the raising of the dead martyrs (Rev 11:11) on Eze 37:5 ff., and the Messiahs eternal reign (Rev 11:15) on Psa 2:2 f. The description of the dragon (Rev 12:3 f.) is suggested by Dan 7:7 ff., and that of the Beast with the horns (Rev 13:1 ff.) by Dan 7:3-7. The peal for the fall of Babylon (Rev 14:8, Rev 18:2) comes from Isa 21:9 (combined with Dan 4:27). The vision of the sickle (Rev 14:15 ff.) follows Joe 3:13, the Song of Moses recalls Exo 15:1 f. and the description of the fear (Rev 15:4) Jer 10:7. The account of the last plagues (Rev 16:1 ff.) is based on that of the plagues of Egypt (Exo 7:17 ff.), and the language used to describe the terror of the earthquake (Rev 16:18) recalls Dan 12:1. The actual description of Babylon and her downfall (Rev 18:4 ff.) follows various prophetic passages (Isa 47:7-9; Isa 52:11, Jer 50:8 ff., etc.). The treading of the winepress (Rev 19:13 ff.) recalls Isa 63:1-3, and the mention of Gog and Magog (Rev 20:8) Eze 38:1 ff., the judgment scene (Rev 20:11 ff.) Dan 7:9 f., En. xlvii. 3, and the yielding up of the dead (Rev 20:13) En. li. 1. The picture of the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:10 ff.) contains features from Eze 40:1 ff., Isa 52:1 ff., Isa 60:1 ff., Tob 13:16, etc., while the passing of the curse and the dawn of everlasting day for the righteous (Rev 22:3 ff.) is clearly reminiscent of Zec 14:7 ff.

Literature.-D. McC. Turpie, The Old Testament in the New, 1868; C. H. Toy, Quotations in the New Testament, 1884; F. Johnson, The Quotations of the New Testament from the Old, 1897; W. Dittmar, Vet. Test. in Novo, pt. ii., 1903 (a very useful compendium, the texts being quoted in full, both in Gr. and Heb.); E. Hhn, Die alttest. Citate und Reminiscenzen im Neuen Testament, 1900 (very full); F. H. Woods, art._ Quotations in HDB_ iv. 184 ff. Cf. also Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, ii. [1882] Appendix; H. B. Swete, Introd. to NT in Greek, 1900, p. 381 ff., Apocalypse2, 1907, p. cxxxix ff.; Sanday-Headlam, ICC_, Romans5, 1902, p. 51 f.; B. F. Westcott, Hebrews, 1889, p. 67ff.; J. B. Mayor, James3, 1910, p. lxix ff., Jude and 2 Peter, 1907, p. cliii ff.; R. H. Charles, Book of Enoch, 1893 (21912), p. 41 ff., Assumption of Moses, 1897, p. lxii ff., The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 1908, p. lxxviii ff., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 1913, i. 199, 294 f., 525 ff., ii. 180 f., 292, 412 f. A. R. Gordon.] ). Otho marched from Rome to meet him, and was defeated at Betriacum between Mantua and Cremona (near modern Calvatone). He thereupon committed suicide at Brixellum (modern Brescello, on the right bank of the Po) after having ruled three months (17th April, 69).

Literature.-Ancient authorities are Suetonius (Otho), Plutarch (Otho [ed. London, 1890]). Tacitus (Histories, ii.), Dio Cassius (lxiv.), etc. Modern works are Prosopographia Imperii Romani, saec. i., ii., iii., pars iii., ed. P. de Rohden and H. Dessau, Berlin, 1898, no. 109, p. 168 f.; and the Histories of the Roman Empire by Duruy, Bury, Schiller, etc.; A. von Domaszewski, Gesch. der rm. Kaiser, Leipzig, 1909, ii. 86-96; E. G. Hardy, Studies in Roman History, London, 1906, pp. 295-334; there is also a valuable comparison of the leading ancient authorities in the same work, 2nd ser., do., 1909, pp. 158-202.

A. Souter.

Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church

Quotations

from the Old Testament in the New, which are very numerous, are not made according to any uniform method. When the New Testament was written, the Old was not divided, as it now is, into chapters and verses, and hence such peculiarities as these: When Luke (20:37) refers to Ex. 3:6, he quotes from “Moses at the bush”, i.e., the section containing the record of Moses at the bush. So also Mark (2:26) refers to 1 Sam. 21:1-6, in the words, “in the days of Abiathar;” and Paul (Rom. 11:2) refers to 1 Kings ch. 17-19, in the words, “in Elias”, i.e., in the portion of the history regarding Elias.

In general, the New Testament writers quote from the Septuagint (q.v.) version of the Old Testament, as it was then in common use among the Jews. But it is noticeable that these quotations are not made in any uniform manner. Sometimes, e.g., the quotation does not agree literally either with the LXX. or the Hebrew text. This occurs in about one hundred instances. Sometimes the LXX. is literally quoted (in about ninety instances), and sometimes it is corrected or altered in the quotations (in over eighty instances).

Quotations are sometimes made also directly from the Hebrew text (Matt. 4:15, 16; John 19:37; 1 Cor. 15:54). Besides the quotations made directly, there are found numberless allusions, more or less distinct, showing that the minds of the New Testament writers were filled with the expressions and ideas as well as historical facts recorded in the Old.

There are in all two hundred and eighty-three direct quotations from the Old Testament in the New, but not one clear and certain case of quotation from the Apocrypha (q.v.).

Besides quotations in the New from the Old Testament, there are in Paul’s writings three quotations from certain Greek poets, Acts 17:28; 1 Cor. 15:33; Titus 1:12. These quotations are memorials of his early classical education.

Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary

QUOTATIONS

New Testament writers frequently quote the Old Testament, and in doing so show their acceptance of the Old Testament as Gods authoritative Word (see INSPIRATION). But in some cases the New Testament quotations differ from the Old Testament originals. In others the meanings given to the quotations in the New Testament differ from those of the Old Testament originals.

Different wording in Old and New Testaments

Since the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, any quotation of the Old Testament in the New requires translation. This naturally brings a change in wording. Sometimes the New Testament writers made their own translations. Usually, however, they used the existing translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX), which Jewish scholars had made in the third and second centuries of the era before Christ (see SEPTUAGINT).

Just as a preacher today may use an alternative translation to give the desired emphasis, so did the New Testament writers. They used the translation that suited their purposes (cf. Isa 28:16 with Rom 10:11).

In many cases, again like preachers today, the New Testament writers made their quotations from memory. As a result their quotations do not follow the Old Testament originals word for word. They were concerned with the meaning rather than the wording of the passages they quoted (cf. Rom 11:8 with Deu 29:4; Isa 29:10). In other cases, however, they were concerned with the wording rather than the meaning. They may even have based a teaching on the meaning of a particular word (cf. Gal 3:16 with Gen 12:7).

Writers and preachers, ancient and modern, often quote passages from well known writings merely to give liveliness or colour to their writings. The New Testament writers at times did likewise. They were so familiar with the Old Testament that they quoted its words naturally. They may not have intended any connection between the Old and New Testament contexts (cf. 2Co 6:16-17 with Exo 29:45; Isa 52:11; 2Sa 7:14).

The nature of fulfilment

Certain passages of the Old Testament are quoted repeatedly in the New Testament. This suggests that there was in New Testament times a collection, either oral or written, of selected Old Testament passages in common use among the churches. For example, Psa 118:22-23, Isa 8:14 and Isa 28:16 are used in such passages as Mat 21:42, Act 4:10-12, 1Pe 2:1-10, Rom 9:33 and Rom 10:11. Similarly Zec 12:10-14 is found in Mat 24:30, Joh 19:37 and Rev 1:7. Psalms 69 is quoted in Mat 27:34, Joh 2:17, Joh 15:25, Act 1:20, Rom 11:9-10 and Rom 15:3.

These selections of Scripture are all used in relation to Jesus Christ, for the New Testament writers understood them as having their fulfilment in him. The primary meaning of that fulfilment was not just that Old Testament predictions had now come true, but that the Old Testament work had now been completed. The Old Testament was written not merely to predict New Testament events, but to record what God was doing in working out his purposes. The New Testament writers saw that in Christ God had brought that work to completion, to fulfilment, to finality.

God was the controller of history. His repetitive activity in judgment and salvation, bondage and deliverance, reached its climax in one great act of judgment and salvation at Golgotha. There God gave absolute deliverance to those who were in hopeless bondage. He completed the pattern that he had been working out for all people through the history of Israel. In Christ he brought his plans to fulfilment (Exo 6:6-8; Isa 11:15-16; Hos 2:14-15; 1Co 5:7; 1Co 10:1-13; Rev 5:9; Rev 15:3).

Israels Old Testament history was the record of the ongoing revelation of God. It was not just a record of events, but a record of what God was doing. What the Old Testament writers saw, though having meaning in its own day, developed greater significance through the New Testament events. Christians now saw Jesus as the goal towards which all Gods Old Testament activity had been moving. They saw Jesus as the centre of all history. The old era prepared the way for him; the new results from him.

Jesus and the Old Testament

Now that Gods purposes had been fulfilled in Jesus Christ, the New Testament writers discovered in the Old Testament writings greater truths than the original writers were aware of (1Pe 1:10-12). While accepting the original meaning of the writings, the New Testament writers expanded that meaning because of the fuller revelation that had come through Jesus Christ.

Promises may have already been fulfilled in the Old Testament, but now they had a greater fulfilment in the New (Deu 12:9; Deu 25:19; Jos 21:45; Heb 4:1-10). Psalms, prophecies and songs may have been written at first concerning some Old Testament person or event, but now they had new meaning because people saw them as foreshadowings of Christ (cf. quotations from Psalms 2 in Act 4:25-26; Act 13:33; cf. quotations from Psalms 45 in Heb 1:8-9; cf. quotations from Psalms 69 in Joh 2:17; Joh 15:25; Joh 19:28-30; Act 1:20; cf. quotation of Isa 7:14 in Mat 1:23).

The New Testament writers saw Jesus the Messiah as the fulfilment of all Gods purposes for Israel. He was the great descendant of Abraham through whom Israel received its supreme glory and through whom people of all nations are blessed (Gen 12:1-3; Gal 3:16).

Since Jesus was the one to whom the entire Old Testament pointed, he fulfilled the Old Testament (Mat 4:14-16; Mat 8:17; Mat 12:17-21). The New Testament writers were so convinced of this that they spoke of a fulfilment even when they saw only a striking similarity between Old and New Testament events. For example, as Israel came out of Egypt, so did Jesus (Hos 11:1; Mat 2:15). As there was loud weeping when the Babylonians took the Israelites captive, so was there when Herod slaughtered the Jewish babies (Jer 31:15; Mat 2:17-18).

Although Israel repeatedly failed and suffered Gods punishment, the people still hoped for a glorious future. Jesus Christ, the true fulfilment of Israel, not only suffered for his peoples sins, but he completed perfectly what Israel had failed to do (cf. Isa 53:4 with Mat 8:17; cf. Isa 42:1-4 with Mat 12:18-21). The New Testament fulfils the Old in that Jesus Christ became all that Israel should have been but never was (cf. Isa 53:5-6 with 1Pe 2:24-25; cf. Zec 9:9-11 with Mat 21:5; Mat 26:28-29; see SERVANT OF THE LORD).

Like Israel in general, Davids kingdom in particular failed to fulfil Gods purposes. Davids psalms reflect both his sorrow over Israels failures and his expectation of better things to come. He looked for the day when Gods people would enjoy his blessings in a kingdom of righteousness. The ideals that David longed for found their fulfilment in Davids great descendant, Jesus the Messiah (cf. Psa 40:6-8 with Heb 10:5-9; cf. Psa 110:1 with Mat 22:44). (For discussion on the use of Davids psalms in the New Testament see PSALMS, BOOK OF, sub-heading Interpreting the Psalms.)

Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary

Quotations

QUOTATIONS

1. Use of the OT in the Gospels.In general it is agreed that a quotation is the intentional reproduction of some thought or fact already expressed in language by the use of the very words previously employed. This is an exact quotation. A free quotation is one which fails to reproduce the self-same words, because, either through defect of memory or lack of care, the person making it employed language varying more or less widely from that of his source, or he may have intended merely to give the substance of the original. Ordinarily an unintentional use of the same thought or of identical words is not to be regarded as a quotation. The intention is essential, to constitute a quotation either exact or free. The quotations in the Gospels may be classed as follows:

(a) Quotations which conform to both the Hebrew and the Greek of the OT: () by Jesus, Mat 15:4 a (Mar 7:10 a) Mat 15:4 b (Mar 7:10 b) Mat 19:5 (Mar 10:7-8) Mat 19:18-19 a, 19b, Mat 21:13 a (Mar 11:17 a, Luk 19:46 a) Mat 22:39 (Mar 12:31), Mar 12:36 (Luk 20:42-43), Joh 10:34; () by others, Mat 5:21; Mat 5:27; Mat 5:38; Mat 5:43; Mat 21:9 (Mar 11:9, Luk 19:38, Joh 12:13), Luk 10:27; () by the Evangelist, Joh 19:24.

(b) Quotations conforming to the Hebrew alone: by Jesus, Mat 9:13; Mat 12:7; Mat 27:46 (Mar 15:34), Luk 22:37; Luk 23:46.

(c) Quotations conforming to the Greek alone: () by Jesus, Mat 4:7 (Luk 4:12) Mat 13:14-15, Mat 19:4 (Mar 10:6) Mat 21:16; Mat 21:42 (Mar 12:10-11, Luk 20:17); () by the Evangelist, Joh 12:38.

(d) Free quotations varying from both Hebrew and Greek: (a) by Jesus, Mat 4:4 (Luk 4:4) Mat 4:10 (Luk 4:8) Mat 4:15-16, Mat 11:10 (Luk 7:27) Mat 18:16, Mat 22:32 (Mar 12:26, Luk 20:37) Mat 22:37 (Mar 12:29-30) Mat 22:44, Mat 26:31 (Mar 14:27), Mar 4:12; Mar 10:19 (Luk 18:20), Joh 6:35; Joh 13:18; Joh 15:25; () by others, Mat 2:6; Mat 4:6 (Luk 4:10-11), Mar 12:32-33, Luk 10:27, Joh 2:17; () by the Evangelist, Mat 2:18; Mat 21:5 (Joh 12:15) Mat 27:9-10, Mar 1:2, Luk 2:23-24, Joh 12:40; Joh 19:36-37.

(e) Free quotations varying less from the Hebrew than from the Greek: by the Evangelist, Mat 8:17; Mat 12:18-21.

(f) Free quotations varying less from the Greek than from the Hebrew: by Jesus, Mat 15:8-9 (Mar 7:6-7) Mat 24:15 (Mar 13:14), Luk 4:18-19; Luk 8:10.

The variations in exactness of quotation and in the standard to which they conform are interesting. The importance of the variations is open to question. Few of them are noticeable. Yet more, if the teaching of Jesus had been confined to a few days or weeks, if He had spoken about the topics recorded in the Gospels but once or twice, and if there were evidence that He was particular about the exact phrasing of His teachings, the question might be of more importance. We remember, however, that Jesus lived three years with disciples, teaching them and speaking on a great variety of occasions; and these facts were inconsistent with a stereotyped mode of utterance. Moreover, the record of His deeds and teachings is brief at best. The Gospels give from one-fifth to one-third of their scanty space to a period of one week, and but slight, though vivid, glimpses of occasional scenes during the remaining three years. He must have spoken many times on the same subjects, and have uttered the same thoughts in many modes of expression. One who insisted, as He did, upon the supremacy of the spirit over the form would scarcely have permitted Himself to be bound by a strict conformity to the letter, while appealing to the OT for the authority of the truths which He taught. This fact makes it seem strange that the collection of His teachings is not much larger and the variety of His expressions much greater. Under the influence of such a Teacher it is not likely that the disciples were over anxious to conform with exactness to the text of the OT.

The passages cited give evidence of intentional use of the OT. Usually they are introduced by some formula of citation such as it is written, the Scripture saith, and the like. There are about fifty different variants in the mode of introducing explicit quotations found in the Gospels.

Some of the passages given above have no formula of introduction, but the context of the passage shows conscious and intentional use of OT material. It is also to be noticed that the Gospels vary in their representation of the same passage or fact. e.g. the Evangelist in Joh 19:24; Joh 19:28 connects the events with a passage in the OT; the parallel narratives in the Synoptics mention these facts without connecting them in any way with the OT, so that at the utmost, so far as these Gospels are concerned, the passage is, so to say, an accidental parallel having no proper classification with quotations. It cannot be regarded as in the slightest degree an instance of use of the OT by these Evangelists. This is equally true of all events narrated in the Gospels which are not explicitly connected with OT passages, no matter how striking the coincidence; e.g. Isa 50:6 might well have been referred to in the narratives in Mat 26:67; Mat 27:26, Mar 14:65, Luk 22:63-64, Joh 18:22, and so also might Psa 22:8; Psa 22:16, but neither of these notable OT passages was so used. Again, while Mat 13:14-15 is unquestionably a quotation, the same thought expressed in the parallel passage, Mar 4:12, has no formula of quotation, and has such transpositions and omissions that if we did not know of the passages in Isaiah and Mt., we might well doubt if it were a real quotation. As it is, we think it was intentionally derived from Isaiah. Further, Luk 8:10 is parallel with the passages just cited from Mt. and Mk.; it has a sentence from Isa 6:9, nothing from Isa 6:10, and is much more brief than Mark. If the parallel passages in Mt. and Mk. were unknown, even though we were fully acquainted with Isa 6:9-10 we should think that the use of the OT thought and phraseology was due to familiarity with the language rather than to an intention to quote from it. As it is, we have little doubt that the writers had in mind to report the same utterances of Jesus, and that the report is more incomplete in one case than in the other. Yet it is quite possible that different discourses of Jesus are reported. These instances, the words recorded in Joh 9:39 as uttered by Jesus, and those of the Evangelist in Joh 12:40, lead us to think the passage in Isa 6:9-10 pointed many an utterance of Jesus.

How many more passages like this in Luk 8:10 do the Gospels contain? That is a matter of conjecture. It is desirable to add to the lists already given several other lists of passages which go to show the nature of the connexion between the OT and the NT.

(g) Intentional and free use of OT laws, facts, or statements independently of the original form of expression: () by Jesus, Mat 5:12 b (Luk 13:34 a) Mat 8:4 (Mar 1:44, Luk 5:14) Mat 11:14, Mat 17:10-11 (Mar 9:12-13) Mat 12:3-4 (Mar 2:25-26, Luk 6:3-4) Mat 12:5; Mat 12:40-41 (Mat 16:4 b, Luk 11:29-30; Luk 11:32) Mat 12:42 (Luk 11:31) Mat 23:35 (Luk 11:50-51) Mat 24:37; Mat 24:39 (Luk 17:26-27), Luk 4:25-27; Luk 17:28-29, Joh 5:39 c, Joh 5:46, Joh 8:17; () by others, Mat 22:24 (Mar 12:19, Luk 20:28) Mat 23:30-31 (Luk 11:47-48), Luk 1:72 b, Joh 5:10; Joh 6:31; Joh 6:49; Joh 6:58; Joh 8:5; Joh 19:31; () by the Evangelist, Luk 2:22, Joh 4:5 (?).

(h) Another interesting group of passages consists of those which have a formula of reference to the OT as their source or authority, but whose content cannot be referred to any specific OT passage. These are all from the words of Jesus: Mat 26:24 a (Mar 14:21) Mat 26:34; Mat 26:56 a (Mar 14:49), Mar 9:12 b, Mar 9:13, Luk 11:49; Luk 18:31; Luk 21:22 b, Mat 24:44; Mat 24:46, Joh 1:45; Joh 17:12.

(i) Still another class of passages consists of intentional allusions to something in the OT, but they make no formal use of OT material, and are not quotations in any strict sense of the term. The allusion to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is an illustration. () By Jesus, Mat 8:11 (Luk 13:29) Mat 10:15; Mat 10:21 (Mar 13:12) Mat 10:35-36 (Luk 12:52-53) Mat 11:25 (Luk 10:21) Mat 21:13 b (Mar 11:17 b, Luk 19:46 b) Mat 24:30 b (Luk 23:37) Mat 24:30 a, c (Mar 13:26) Luk 21:27) Mat 26:64 (Mar 14:62, Mat 16:27; Mat 25:31), Luk 17:32, Joh 1:51; Joh 3:14 a, Joh 3:15; Joh 8:7; Joh 8:35; Joh 8:56; Joh 9:39; () by others, Mat 8:21, Luk 9:54, Joh 1:21; Joh 1:25; Joh 6:14; Joh 7:40; Joh 16:32.

The instances thus far classified come almost entirely under the head of the use of the OT as an authoritative Scripture. Another influence is quite as evident. It is the literary influence. This is the influence of any work of literature over the modes of thought and habits of expression of those who make much use of that work of literature. Men may be unconscious of this influence, or they may consciously use the forms of utterance which they have learned to love. It is doubtless more a matter of habit working within the region of the unconscious, while it is the appeal to authority which is operative within the region of the conscious use of the OT. These two causes produce phenomena which are not altogether easy to classify together.

(j) Such a passage as Luk 8:10 cited above compels the recognition of passages which may have intentionally used, the OT thought or language, yet do not give conclusive evidence that they were so used. Its use may have been due to literary and unconscious influence. In any case there is such coincidence in thought and phraseology that an intimate connexion is shown between the thought of the Gospels and that of the OT. For example, when we read in Heb 12:29 , and learn that the last two words are found together in the LXX Septuagint only in Deu 4:24; Deu 9:3, we think it likely that the writer either intentionally used the phrase, with a thought of the passages in Dt., or that he was so familiar with Dt. that unintentionally and unconsciously he used its words and phrases. Thus also may we connect of Mat 5:4 with or of Isa 61:2. When we remember the fact that the mind of Jesus was saturated with the Book of Isaiah, we can easily be convinced that there is a literary connexion between the utterance of Jesus and the OT passage.

The following passages show a similar connexion: Mat 5:5; Mat 5:8; Mat 5:34-35; Mat 7:7-8 (Luk 11:9-10) Mat 7:23 (Luk 13:27) Mat 10:28 b, Mat 11:5 (Luk 7:22) Mat 11:23 (Luk 10:15) Mat 12:37, Mat 13:16, Mat 15:14, Mat 16:27 b, Mat 19:17 (Luk 10:28) Mat 19:26 (Mar 10:27, Luk 18:27, Mar 14:36) Mat 20:28 (Mar 10:45) Mat 21:11-12 (Mar 11:15, Luk 19:45, Joh 2:16) Mat 23:12 (Luk 14:11; Luk 18:14) Mat 23:37 (Luk 13:34) Mat 23:38 (Luk 13:35 a) Mat 24:2 (Mar 13:2, Luk 21:6) Mat 24:21 (Mar 13:19) Mat 24:29 (Mar 13:24-25, Luk 21:25-26 a) Mat 24:30 b, Mat 25:32, Mat 26:11 (Mar 14:7, Joh 12:8) Mat 27:46 (Mar 15:34) Mat 28:3, Luk 1:32-33; Luk 1:69; Luk 6:21; Luk 14:8; Luk 14:10; Luk 16:15 b, Luk 23:30, Joh 1:14; Joh 1:34; Joh 3:21; Joh 7:24; Joh 9:39; Joh 12:8 a, Joh 14:15; Joh 14:21; Joh 14:24.

(k) Prolonged examination brings to recognition a class of passages in which, without marked literary relation, or intentional use of the OT, there is yet a genetic relation between the OT and the NT. Jesus had the Spirit without measure, and was an authoritative interpreter of the OT. He had so absorbed the OT that its ideals were His commonplaces of thought, and the scattered suggestions of truth in the OT were apprehended by Him in their full or explicit meaning. Imperfect or fragmentary suggestions became positive principles. In dealing with divorce He went to the fundamental conception of marriage (Mat 13:5 = Mar 10:7-8). In dealing with the Sabbath, He said that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath (Mar 2:27). This is a universal statement which is suggested in Exo 23:12 and Deu 5:14. Again Joh 4:37 For herein is the saying true, One soweth and another reapeth may be a current proverb, or it may be derived in thought from Job 31:8, Mic 6:15. Whatever be true about that passage, there can be little doubt that the words of Jesus given in Mat 5:44 Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you, is the explicit statement of an ideal of conduct that finds suggestion in Job 31:19 and several other OT passages.

The following is a list of similar passages: Mat 5:3; Mat 5:6 (Luk 6:21 a) Mat 5:7; Mat 5:9; Mat 5:11 (Luk 6:22) Mat 5:14; Mat 5:18 a (Luk 16:17) Mat 5:28; Mat 5:30, Mat 18:8 (Mar 9:43) Mat 5:42 a, (Luk 6:30 a) Mat 5:43-44 a (Luk 6:27) Mat 5:44 b, Mat 5:48, Mat 6:6; Mat 6:9; Mat 6:11; Mat 6:14-15; Mat 6:19; Mat 6:24-26 (Luk 12:24) Mat 7:6; Mat 7:21 b (Joh 13:17) Mat 10:6, Mat 15:24 (Luk 15:6; Luk 19:10, Mat 18:12) Mat 10:10 b, Mat 10:19; Mat 10:37; Mat 10:28 (Joh 6:27; Joh 7:37 b) Mat 19:29 b (Mar 10:30, Luk 18:30) Mat 10:41, Mat 12:29 (Mar 3:27, Luk 11:21-22) Mat 12:32 b, Mat 13:39-41; Mat 13:43-46, Mat 15:13, Mat 16:26 (Mar 8:37, Luk 9:25) Mat 18:15 (Luk 17:3) Mat 21:33 (Mar 12:1, Luk 20:9) Mat 21:44 (Luk 20:18) Mat 24:16-18 (Mar 13:14; Mar 13:16, Luk 21:21-22) Mat 24:35 (Mar 13:31, Luk 21:33; Luk 16:17) Mat 25:35-36; Mat 25:40; Mat 25:45; Mat 25:42; Mat 25:46, Mat 26:28 (Mar 14:24, Luk 22:20) Mat 26:52 c, Mat 27:6, Mat 28:18; Mat 28:20, Mar 2:2; Mar 2:27; Mar 9:48, Luk 6:28; Luk 6:34-36; Luk 12:47-48; Luk 13:6-7; Luk 14:13; Luk 15:18-19; Luk 15:21; Luk 16:15 c, Luk 19:8; Luk 19:42; Luk 21:24-26; Luk 22:19; Luk 22:31; Luk 23:34 a, Joh 1:6; Joh 1:11; Joh 1:18; Joh 5:37 b, Joh 6:46; Joh 2:16; Joh 3:5 (Eze 36:25-27; Eze 11:19?) Joh 4:22 b, Joh 4:37; Joh 5:17; Joh 5:21-22; Joh 5:27; Joh 5:29; Joh 5:39 b, Joh 4:44; Joh 7:37 b, Joh 7:38-39 a, Joh 7:42; Joh 8:11; Joh 9:2; Joh 9:31; Joh 9:41; Joh 10:3; Joh 10:10; Joh 10:16; Joh 13:34; Joh 15:12; Joh 15:17; Joh 14:23; Joh 15:1; Joh 15:14-15; Joh 19:7; Joh 20:31.

These lists of passages under (j) and (k) are by no means exhaustive. Dittmar (Vetus Test. in Novo) gives many more passages than have been enumerated, and Hhn (Die alttest. Citate und Reminiscenzen im NT) gives a far greater number. It is not always easy to discriminate to ones own satisfaction between classes (j) and (k). We must follow the more pronounced character of the passage as it appears to us at the moment of investigation. The border-line between a real literary reminiscence and an accidental coincidence is also difficult to determine. Not only would it be possible to increase the lists (j) and (k), but at least two other classes could be made out. One such class (l) would consist of expressions which belong to the life of the land, or the common utterances of the people of the land, such as Mat 9:36 as sheep not having a shepherd. These have no real significance, literary or otherwise. Again, there is another class of expressions (m) in which imagery similar to that of the OT is found. Wise as serpents (Mat 10:16) is possibly a comparison suggested by Gen 3:1, or it may have been current rhetoric. Or, again, the image of sifting (Luk 22:31) may have been a current phrase, or it may possibly have had a suggestion from Amo 9:9.

2. Use of other writings in the Gospels.Are other writings than the OT used in the Gospels? This question recognizes the possibility (a) of explicit citations from writings outside of the OT as authoritative documents, or (b) of a general use of material as a source of historical example or explicit allusion, or (c) of literary relationship, or (d) of other writings with a genetic relation to the teachings of the Gospels.

(a) The passages which have been brought into debate are Mat 27:9, Luk 7:32 b, Luk 11:49, Joh 4:37; Joh 7:38.

Mat 27:9. Is this a citation from some lost writing outside the OT and attributed to Jeremiah? Apparently the dictate of common sense is that the passage is really from Zec 11:12-13, and that there was some slip in the memory of the writer of the Gospel, or that there was an error on the part of the earliest transcribers.

Luk 7:32 b. Doubtless here Jesus was using as an illustration facts with which all persons who observed children at play were familiar. It seems an attempt to manufacture a difficulty. This passage should be dismissed from consideration.

Luk 11:49. This is a passage which is not so easily explained. (1) Is The Wisdom of God, the name of a book? No such book is known. (2) Is The Wisdom of God a speaker in a book, after the manner of Wisdom in Proverbs 8? Every trace of such a book now seems lost. (3) Is Jesus quoting Himself? See Mat 23:34, where Jesus says, Behold I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes, just as in this passage Wisdom says, I will send unto them prophets and apostles. The words in Mt. are dated in the second day of Passion Week, while the passage in Lk. belongs to a time several weeks or months earlier. If Jesus in Lk. is quoting Himself, it is from an utterance of an earlier date, not elsewhere transmitted to us. Resch (Agrapha2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] , p. 184) would show that The Wisdom of God was one of the self-designations of Jesus like The Son of Man. To these statements it must be said that while they are possible, Jesus is nowhere else designated in this manner, nor is He elsewhere represented as quoting Himself in this manner. (4) It is claimed that the passage is founded upon Pro 1:20-31, and this is supported by the fact that in the early Christian Church the Book of Proverbs was called a Sophia. The passage hardly seems adequate for the words of Jesus. (5) This passage is claimed as an amplification of 2Ch 24:20-22. This is in reality the same as (7) below. (6) Used of Divine Providence, as manifested in history (cf. Pro 8:22-31), sending prophets and apostles, equivalent to saying God in His wisdom said. This is supported by the passage Luk 7:35 and wisdom is justified of all her children. This is quite tenable. (7) The personal wisdom of God in Christ. In support of this are the facts that Jesus says the same thing in Mat 23:37 in His own Person, that He is elsewhere said to send prophets and apostles (Luk 10:3, Eph 4:11), and that this is a Logos conception of Jesus. Even so, a reason for the expression is not obvious, nor is it at all evident why Jesus should have used this unusual phrase. There are difficulties in regard to any explanation of this passage. The greatest of all is in the theory of an extra-OT source. The passage is perfectly intelligible without such a theory, whatever be said as to the reason of the expression.

Joh 4:37. For herein is the saying true, One soweth, and another reapeth. Is this an explicit quotation from some writing? The word saying does not point back to a writing. It might readily be something of a proverbial character, which had its origin in the mode of thought and utterance which is found in Lev 26:16, Deu 28:38-40; Deu 6:11, Job 31:8, Mic 6:15, thus having a literary connexion of some sort with the OT.

Joh 7:38. If this is a quotation from a writing outside the OT, a wholly unknown writing has to be assumed. Nowhere else in the NT is a writing outside the OT called , Scripture. It is a tenable and adequate explanation to treat it as a free quotation harmonizing in thought with parts of various passages, especially Isa 44:3; Isa 55:1; Isa 58:11 (Meyer). See, on an attempt to trace the saying to a Buddhist source, ExpT [Note: xpT Expository Times.] xviii. [1906] p. 100.

The examination of these passages fails to show the slightest probability that Jesus, a speaker in the Gospels, or any writer of the Gospels, explicitly cited any writing outside the OT as authoritative Scripture.

(b) Examination of the facts gives no greater probability that historical illustrations from writings other than the OT occur in the Gospels, or intentional allusions to such writings, in any such manner as the illustrations taken from the OT, or as the allusions to the OT found in the Gospels.

(c) It is difficult not to believe that literary connexion is quite marked. Note, especially, the following passages: Mat 5:34-35 (Sir 23:9) Mat 5:42 a (Sir 4:4-5) Mat 5:42 b (Sir 29:2 a) Mat 5:44 (Wis 12:19 a) Mat 6:12; Mat 6:14 (Sir 28:2) Mat 7:12 (To Mat 4:15) Mat 11:28 f. (Sir 51:23 ff.) Mat 19:21 (Sir 29:11) Mat 23:38 (To Mat 14:4), Luk 6:38 (Sir 14:16 a) Mat 10:25, Mat 18:18 (Enoch 40:9, Sibyl, prom. 85 = frag. ii. 47) Mat 16:8 (Enoch 108:11) Mat 18:7 (Enoch 47:1, 2) Mat 18:1-8 (Sir 32:17-18) Mat 20:10-11 (Enoch 89:51), Joh 6:27 a (Sir 15:3; Sir 24:19) 8:44 (Wis 2:24, Enoch 69:6).

(d) Is the relation between these writings more important than a merely literary relation? If it is, how important is it? What does it signify? In the references above, the extra-OT books are all prior to the birth of Jesus. They reveal something of the thought of the Jews before His time, and doubtless of His own generation. The very tone of the words of Jesus to Martha (Joh 11:23; Joh 11:25-26) shows that He assumed the truth of beliefs which had no prominence in the thought and life revealed in the OT. The non-canonical literature gives abundant evidence that the belief in the resurrection had become an important factor in the beliefs of the Jews. Such a passage as Mat 25:31-46 can hardly be said to be suggested by the OT writings. Compare it with Enoch 90:1838, and striking similarities are found. Mat 25:41 b Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels, and similar passages, as also Mat 13:42; Mat 13:50, may be compared with Enoch 103:7, 8 and 108:5, 6. In Luk 16:26 the picture of separation between the righteous and sinners in Sheol may suggest Enoch 22:913, where the righteous and sinners, in separate divisions, await the Great Judgment.

Although there is often a striking likeness in outstanding features, there is also a lack of harmony in details with the spirit of Jesus, which shows why He could not use these writings as an authority. For the possible connexion between the Book of Enoch and Christian thought, see The Book of Enoch, translation and ed. by R. H. Charles, pp. 4853, where he enumerates doctrines in Enoch which had an undoubted share in moulding the corresponding NT doctrines, or at all events are necessary to the comprehension of the latter. Without doubt the points of contact between the Book of Enoch and Christian beliefs of the earlier Christian generations were more numerous and intimate than between the Book of Enoch and the Gospels. Also such literature as the extra-canonical Jewish writings had great influence in the early development of Christian doctrine. Their importance, so far as the Gospels are concerned, is chiefly that of explaining the surroundings of Jesus and the spiritual and mental conditions amidst which He worked. Instances such as have been given could be multiplied, but it is doubtful if they could change the conclusions already given. The centuries between the prophets of ancient Israel and Jesus had witnessed a development of thought, especially on eschatological subjects. Jesus was a true OT saint (Davidson, Theology of the OT, p. 520), and joined the work which He did as closely as possible to that of the OT prophets, using their authority for His teachings. Jesus was also a Prophet greater than any that had gone before Him, and He appropriated such current beliefs as were in harmony with His mission, without thereby authenticating other associated beliefs, but rather discrediting them by the general spirit of His teachings.

Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels

Quotations

QUOTATIONS (IN NT).The NT writings contain quotations from four sources: (1) the OT; (2) non-canonical Jewish writings; (3) non-Jewish sources; (4) letters to which the author of a letter is replying, or other private sources. It is significant of the relation of the NT writings to the OT Scriptures and of the attitude of the NT writers to these Scriptures, that the quotations of the first class far outnumber all those of the other three classes. Swete counts 160 passages directly quoted from the OT by writers of the NT, including those which are cited with an introductory formula, and those which, by their length or accuracy of quotation, are clearly shown to be intended as quotations. Westcott and Hort reckon the total number of NT quotations from the OT at 1279, including both passages formerly cited and those in which an influence of the OT upon the NT passage is otherwise shown. Even this list is perhaps not absolutely complete. Thus, while WH [Note: H Westcott and Horts text.] enumerate 61 passages from Is 139, H. Osgood, in his essay Quotations from the OT in the NT, finds exactly twice as many122. Against this large number of quotations from the OT there can be cited at the utmost only some 24 quotations by NT writers from non-canonical Jewish sources (see Ryle, art. Apocrypha in Smiths DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] 2; Zahn, Com. on Gal 3:10; Gal 5:3; Gal 6:15; Woods, art. Quotations in Hastings DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] ). Of quotations from non-Jewish sources the following are the only probable instances: Tit 1:12, Act 17:28, 1Co 12:12-27; 1Co 15:33. To this short list it should be added that Lukes preface (Luk 1:1-4) is perhaps constructed on classical models (cf. Farrar, Life and Work of Paul, Excursus 3; Zahn, Enl.2 i. p. 51). Of quotations from private sources there are several unquestionable examples in the Pauline letters; 1Co 7:1; 1Co 8:1; 1Co 11:2; 1Co 11:17 f., 1Co 12:1, Php 1:3; Php 2:25 f., Php 4:14-18; cf. also Phm 1:5-7.

Of the numerous quotations from the OT by far the largest number are derived directly from the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] , even the freedom of quotation, which the NT writers in common with others of their time permitted themselves, in no way obscuring their direct dependence upon the Greek version. Among the NT books the Epistle to the Hebrews shows the strongest and most constant influence of the LXX. [Note: Septuagint.] According to Westcott (Com. p. 479), 15 quotations agree with the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] and Hebrew, 8 with the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] where it differs from the Hebrew, 3 differ from LXX [Note: Septuagint.] and Hebrew, 3 are free renderings. Westcott adds that the writer regarded the Greek version as authoritative, and nowhere shows any immediate knowledge of the Hebrew text.

The Gospel of Matthew, on the other hand, exhibits the largest influence of the Hebrew. In the quotations from the OT which are common to the Synoptic Gospels (occurring chiefly in the sayings of Jesus) the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] clearly exerts the dominant influence. But in those passages which are peculiar to this Gospelbeing Introduced by the writer by way of comment on eventsthough the writer is not unacquainted with or uninfluenced by the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] , the Hebrew is the dominant influence; Mat 1:23; Mat 2:15; Mat 2:18; Mat 2:23; Mat 4:15 f., Mat 8:17; Mat 12:18 ff., Mat 13:35; Mat 21:5; Mat 27:9 f.; cf. also Mat 2:6. This difference in the two groups of quotations tends to show that while the common source of the Synoptic Gospels was, in the form in which it was used by the Evangelists, in Greek, and shaped under Hellenistic influence, the author of the First Gospel was a Christian Jew who still read his Bible in Hebrew, or drew his series of prophetic comment-quotations from a special source compiled by a Jew of this kind. The quotations in the Gospel of John and the Epistles of Paul, while derived mainly from the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] , show also an acquaintance of their authors with the original Hebrew. (On the singular fact that the NT quotations from the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] show a special similarity to the type of LXX [Note: Septuagint.] text found in Cod. A, cf. Staerh, Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. Nos. XXXV, XXXVI, XXXVIII, XL; and Swete, Introd. to OT in Greek, p. 395.)

As regards the nature and extent of the Influence exerted by the OT in passages which may be called quotations in the broad sense indicated above, there are several distinguishable classes, though it is sometimes difficult to draw the line sharply. We may recognize: (1) Argumentative quotations. The OT passage is quoted, with recognition of its source, and with intention to employ the fact or teaching or prophecy for an argumentative purpose. Passages so quoted may be: (a) historical statements which are supposed to contain in themselves an enunciation of a principle or precept, or to involve a prediction, or to tend to prove a general rule of some kind; cf. Mar 2:25 f., Mat 2:18, Joh 19:24, Mat 15:7-9, Heb 7:1-10; (b) predictions; cf. e.g. Act 2:17 ff.; (c) imperative precepts, quoted to enforce a teaching; Mar 12:29 ff., 1Co 9:9; or (d) affirmations interpreted as involving a general principle of Divine action or a general characteristic of human nature; Mar 12:26, Mat 9:13, Luk 4:11, Act 7:48 f., Rom 3:4; Rom 3:10-18, Jam 1:10 f., 1Pe 1:24 f., (2) Quotations made the basis of comment. In this case the language of the OT is not cited as supporting the statement of the speaker or writer, but is itself made the basis of exposition or comment, sometimes with disapproval of its teaching or of the teaching commonly based on It; Mat 5:21; Mat 5:27; Mat 5:31, etc., Rom 4:9 f., Act 8:32, (3) Quotations of comparison or of transferred application. The OT language is employed, with recognition of it as coming from the OT and with the intention of connecting the OT event or teaching with the NT matter, but for purposes of comparison rather than argument. The language itself may refer directly and solely to the OT event, being introduced for the sake of comparing with this event some NT fact (simile); or the OT language may be applied directly to a NT fact, yet so as to imply comparison or likeness of the two events (metaphor); Mat 12:40-41, Luk 11:29 f., Act 28:26 f., Mat 21:42 f., 1Co 10:7 f., Closely allied to these, yet perhaps properly belonging to the class of argumentative quotations, are cases of quotation accompanied by allegorical interpretation; cf. e.g. Gal 4:21-31. (4) Literary influence. In the cases which fall under this head the language is employed because of its familiarity, and applicability to the matter in band, but without intention of affirming any other connexion than this between the OT thought and the NT fact or teaching. The writer may be conscious of this influence of the OT language or not, and the interpreter often cannot determine with certainty which is the case; Mat 5:5; Mat 10:35, Gal 6:16, Eph 1:20, Rev 5:1; Rev 7:1; Rev 9:14; Rev 14:8; Rev 21:11.

As concerns the method of interpretation and the attitude towards the OT thus disclosed, there is a wide difference among the speakers and writers of the NT. It is an indirect but valuable testimony to the historical accuracy of the Synoptic Gospels that they almost uniformly ascribe to Jesus a method of interpretation quite different from that which they themselves employ. Jesus quotes the OT almost exclusively for its moral and religious teaching, rather than for any predicative element in it, and interprets alike with insight and with sobriety the passages which He quotes. The author of the First Gospel, on the other hand, quotes the OT mainly for specific predictions which he conceives it to contain, and controls his interpretation of the passages quoted rather by the proposition which he wishes to sustain, than by the actual sense of the original. The one quotation which is common to the first three Gospels, and not included in the teaching of Jesus, has the same general character (Mar 1:3 and parallels). In general it may be said of the other NT writers that they stand in this respect between Jesus and Matthew, less uniformly sober and discerning in their interpretation of the OT than Jesus, yet in many instances approaching much nearer to His method than Matthew commonly does. The Apocalypse, while constantly showing the literary influence of the OT, contains no explicit or argumentative quotation from it.

Ernest D. Burton.

Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible

Quotations

The quotations from the Old Testament in the New are important as proving incontestably that God is the author of the whole. It is not simply that Moses or David said this or that – though the quotations prove that Moses was the writer of the Pentateuch – but they are introduced by such words as “God commanded,” Mat 15:4; “The Holy Ghost saith,” Heb 3:7; “David himself said by the Holy Ghost,” Mar 12:36; “Spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet,” Act 28:25. Then the whole is spoken of as ‘the scriptures,’ which are all inspired by God. Whatever therefore is inscribed with ‘It is written’ has the authority of God Himself.

The quotations from the prophets are introduced in various ways.

1. “In order () that it might be fulfilled.” Mat 1:22, etc. The event happens that that prophecy should be fulfilled.

2. “So that () it might be fulfilled.” Mat 2:23, etc. Such events fall within the scope of the prophecy, and may also apply at other times.

3. “Then () was fulfilled.” Mat 2:17, etc. The prophecy applied to that event, without its being the purpose of the prophecy.

4. “Was fulfilled.” Mar 15:28. “This day is fulfilled.” Luk 4:21. The prophecy was then and there fulfilled.

The citations also illustrate how the scriptures, both the Old and the New Testaments, may be applied, as when the Lord quoted from Deuteronomy in repelling the temptations of Satan. See also the different applications of Hab 2:4. – In Rom 1:17, it is a question of righteousness: “the just shall live by faith.” In Gal 3:11, it is in contrast to the law: “the just shall live by faith. ” And in Heb 10:38, it is in contrast to drawing back: “the just shall live by faith.”

The quotations are from Moses, the Psalms, and the Prophets. In those days the books were not divided into chapters and verses as now, which accounts for various expressions. As in Mar 2:26, a quotation is from ‘[the section] of Abiathar the high priest.’ 1Sa 21:1-6. In Luk 20:37, ‘Moses showed in [the section on] the bush.’ Exo 3. In Rom 11:2, ‘the scripture says in [the history of] Elias.’ 1Ki 17 – 1Ki 19. This may also account for Mat 27:9-10, where the quotation is said to be from Jeremiah – that prophet being anciently the first in the Book of the Prophets, his name may have been used as a sort of heading.

Most of the quotations are from the Septuagint (LXX), doubtless because it was then better known than the Hebrew, in the same way that the A.V. is now constantly quoted, even where it is not an exact translation. Some quotations are not literally from the Hebrew or the LXX, the Holy Spirit in alluding to them gives them a fulness and power beyond the revelation of the Old Testament.*

* In “The New Testament Handbook” the quotations as they stand in the Hebrew (shown by the A.V.) and in the LXX (by an English translation) are given in full. (G. Morrish, Paternoster Square.) In Horne’s “Introduction” the Hebrew and Greek text are also given.

Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles