CHAPTER XI. QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. In the examination of this subject three things naturally present themselves to notice. I. The source or sources whence quotations in the New Testament were taken. II. The various modes in which they are made, comprehending, (a) Their introductory formulas; (b) The degree of accuracy with which they adhere to the originals. III. The purposes for which passages in the Old Testament were cited by the New Testament writers. I. There are two principal sources from which the quotations. in the New Testament were derived, viz. the Hebrew text and the Septuagint version. Many, indeed, have strenuously advocated the claims of one or other of these, as exclusively furnishing such citations. Accordingly, some have maintained that the apostles never quoted from the Seventy; affirming that where their words agree with this version, there has been an alteration either in one text or the other to produce mutual conformity. This opinion is too improbable and gratuitous to be entertained for a moment, though Jerome, in different parts of his writings, Surenhusius, and others, have contended for it. On the contrary, Irenæus, Olympiodorus, Vossius, &c. affirm that the evangelists quoted solely from the Greek version. In opposition to both extremes, it has been ascertained that the New Testament writers uniformly adhere to neither. Sometimes they coincide with the one, and again with the other, as St. Augustine long since clearly saw.† Perhaps the changes which the texts of the Hebrew and Septuagint have undergone may not allow us to * Compare Walchii Bibliotheca, tom. iv.; and Eichhorn's Allgemeine Bibliothek, vol. ii. + Quia et ipsi (Apostoli) ex utrisque, i. e. ex Hebræis, et ex Septuaginta testimonia prophetica posuerunt. De Civ. Dei, lib. xviii. cap. 44, vol. 5, p. 220. (ed. Colon. 1616.) determine this matter as decisively as is desirable; but the most careful examination of both, as edited from the best authorities, leads to the result, that the quotations of the New Testament coincide throughout with neither. The evangelists, and other inspired writers, followed the one or the other, as they were directed by the Holy Spirit. In the majority of instances the Septuagint was the source of the passages quoted; because those to whom the Christian Scriptures were first addressed were acquainted with the Greek but not with the Hebrew language. The primitive churches had in their hands the Greek version of the Old Testament. It was universally received and read both by Jews and Christians. To have departed from it, therefore, without a valid reason, would have failed to promote the purposes of a divine revelation. We may safely affirm that the evangelists and apostles quoted from it in every case, as often as they believed it to be conformable to the Hebrew original. Wherever it was a true and faithful representative of the Hebrew, there was a decided advantage in following it. It was widely circulated and best known; and there was no necessity, so far as we can perceive, for departing from it, except where it was liable to the charge of incorrectness, or of defectiveness, in expressing the genuine meaning of the Spirit. We admit that this reasoning is no more than probable: but the circumstances forbid demonstration, and we must be content with such presumptive evidence as the case furnishes. In addition to the Hebrew Septuagint, it is not unusual to affirm, that some quotations were taken from a translation or paraphrase now lost. Thus the words of John xii. 15; Acts xiii. 41, were borrowed, according to some, from ancient versions, rather than the Septuagint or Hebrew. For this opinion there is no proper foundation. Besides, it is quite superfluous. Where the New Testament writers disagree in words with the Hebrew or Septuagint, they were led to quote merely ad sensum. It was sometimes sufficient for their purpose to give the substance of the meaning in different terms. In regard to apocryphal quotations, as they have been denominated, i. e. such as are taken from uninspired writings, the question whether they are to be found in the New Testament, was raised so early as the time of Jerome, who opposed the idea with great vehemence.* * Jerome on Isaiah lxiv. 4. Several examples have been adduced, in which passages from apocryphal and spurious books are said to be found. The first is 2 Tim. iii. 8, where the names of the two magicians that withstood Moses are recorded. Some have supposed that Paul derived this knowledge from an apocryphal book concerning these magicians, which Origen says was extant in his time, entitled "Jannes et Jambres." But it is much more probable that such a work appeared subsequently to the time of the New Testament writers. Others conjecture, that the apostle took the names from the Targum of Jonathan on Exodus vii. 11. On the contrary, it is certain that this paraphrase did not exist till several centuries after the apostle.* The names in question were probably taken from the historical accounts of the Jews, who had many traditions respecting their sacred literature. Jannes and Jambres are said to have been the two leaders or princes of the magicians who opposed Moses. Their names are found in the Gemara, and are mentioned by Numenius a Pythagorean philosopher, and by the historian Artabanus. Again, in the epistle of Jude two instances are said to be found of quotations from apocryphal books. The first is in the 9th verse, where Michael the archangel is represented as having disputed with Satan about the body of Moses. According to some, this was derived from an apocryphal book called the "Ascension of Moses” (ἀνάβασις τοῦ Μωυσέως), mentioned by Origen in his treatise regi agxv.t Perhaps, however, the apostle rather refers to traditional accounts of the Jews concerning the dispute. The 14th verse of Jude relates to a prophecy of Enoch contained in the "Book of Enoch," which has been translated from the Ethiopic into English by the late Dr. Laurence. According to this learned prelate, the book of Enoch was composed by a Jew living in the time of Herod, and afterwards translated from Hebrew, first into Greek, and next into Ethiopic. Much more probable is the opinion of Lücke,‡ and Nitzsch, || that it belongs to the latter part of the first century, or the beginning of the second. Origen cites it several times. It is also mentioned by Tertullian, Jerome, Augustine, and others of the fathers. We see no good reason for refusing to admit, that the apostle probably + Lib. iii. cap. 2. * See my Lectures on Biblical Criticism, p. 93. quoted from this very document.* He may indeed have derived his knowledge from a tradition current among the Jews; but this tradition was embodied in the book of Enoch. Some are inclined to believe, that the book of Enoch was fabricated, partly with the design of exhibiting the passage in Jude; but this is improbable. The authority of the epistle is not lessened, although an apocryphal writing be really cited. Why should its inspiration and authenticity be rejected on such a ground?† In a few instances, quotations from profane authors are found in the New Testament. Thus St. Paul quotes from the heathen poets Aratus, Menander, and Epimenides. In Acts xvii. 28 are words borrowed from the parvóueva of Aratus, which were originally spoken of Jupiter the supreme god of the heathen. In 1st Cor. xv. 33, the words "evil communications corrupt good manners," are taken from Menander's Thais; and in Titus i. 12 Paul alludes either to Callimachus or Epimenides, perhaps the latter. This circumstance, however, does not lessen the authority of the writings in which these citations occur, as they are adduced from acknowledged and known works, to which the persons addressed were wont to appeal. The apostle, in the application of his acquired learning, argues with men upon their own principles. II. Before directly proceeding to consider the various modes in which quotations are made, we shall give a full table of all the citations from the Old Testament in the New, accompanied by the original Hebrew, and the Septuagint version. The text from which the selections are made is that of Van der Hooght, as edited by Dr. Hahn (editio stereotypa denuo recognita et emendata, Lipsiæ et Londini, 1832); that of the Vatican exemplar, as edited by Leander Van Ess (Lipsiæ, 1835), for the Septuagint; and in the New Testament is exhibited the Greek text of Lachmann (Londini, 1831.) *The passage in the book of Enoch as translated by Laurence is this: "Behold he comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them, and destroy the wicked, and reprove all the carnal, for every thing which the sinful and ungodly have done and committed against him." 3d Edition, Oxford, 1838, chap. ii. p. 2. + See a very able article by Professor Stuart on the Book of Enoch, in the American Biblical Repository for January 1840, pp. 86-137. Uu EXPLANATORY REMARKS. Matt. i. 23.—This is taken from the Seventy, with two slight alterations. Matt. ii. 6.- This citation does not exactly agree either with the Seventy or the Hebrew. The apostle has given the sense of the original in a free paraphrase. The Septuagint version coincides more nearly with the Hebrew, than with the words of Matthew. The negative is wanting in the Old Testament and in the Seventy. Some think that the negative particle ǹ originally belonged to the Greek version, and they adduce in favour of this position, the Arabic version, the authority of Jerome, and the Barberinian MS., with a few others. This assumption prepares the way for another, viz. that the particle & originally belonged to the Hebrew, and when it was dropped the Greek was altered accordingly. It is quite arbitrary to assume that the negative originally belonged either to the Hebrew or the Greek. Others think, that the adjective y means great as well as little. So Pococke. This is quite improbable. We read the passage interrogatively after the Syriac version. The Hebrew will then be |