Different Modes of Citation.

379

78. 24-John 6. 31: Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

82. 6-John 10. 34: Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

משכיל לאיתן האזרחי : Ethan the Ezrahite .3

Psalm 89. 21 (20), and 1 Samuel 13. 14-Acts 13. 22: He raised up to them David as king, to whom also he gave testimony and said, I have found David the [son] of Jesse, a man after my heart, who shall do all my will..

III.-Untitled Psalms, with which may be mentioned Psalm 102, as having the anonymous title

In the following additional instances, citations from the Old Testament are introduced in various ways, without any human author being actually named :

1. The simple well-known formula yéypaπraı, it is written. Matthew 4. 4-10; Luke 4. 4, 8; John 12. 14; Romans 1. 17; 3. 4, 10; 10. 15; 1 Cor. 1. 19, 31; 1 Peter 1. 16, and elsewhere. 2. λéyeɩ yàp ʼn ypapǹ, for the scripture saith.

Psalms 35. 19; 69. 5 (4)—John 15. 25: That the word might be fulfilled which is written in their law (ev тŷ vóμw avтŵv), They hated me without a cause.

380

Precision in Quoting.

Isaiah 28. 11-12-1 Corinthians 14. 21: In the Law it is written, With other tongues and with other lips I will speak to this people; and yet they will not hear me, saith the Lord.

Note. The manner in which quotations from the Psalter and the Book of Isaiah are introduced as being written in the Law, shows the accuracy of the sacred writers in points of authorship. The saying quoted in John 10. 34, from Psalm 82. 6, is taken from the Law of Moses (Exodus 21. 6; 22. 7-8 (8-9)); and the words quoted in 1 Corinthians 14. 21 from Isaiah 28. 11-12 contain a distinct reference to Deuteronony 28. 49. It thus appears then that both in John 10. 34, and also in 1 Corinthians 14. 21, the comprehensive term vóuos is peculiarly appropriate for carrying back the reference, not only to the passage directly quoted, but also to one still earlier, in which it had its origin.

In John 15. 25 also, the phrase év т vóμų autŵ contains a pointed reference to the fact that the sacred writings of the Old Covenant, viewed as one whole, constituted the Law of the Jews. Accordingly the aurŵv here (like the uv of 10. 34, quoted in page 379), is emphatic in a way which necessitated the employment of some such word as voμos rather than the name of the human author of the Psalm from which the quotation is given.

משכיל לאסף

With similar precision the designation ó πpopýTMŋs is applied in Matthew 13. 35 to the author of Psalm 78, which is intituled Now, in connection with this point, it is a noteworthy circumstance that in 2 Chronicles 29. 30 Asaph is designated in DN, represented by 'Arào ỏ πpopýτŋs in the Septuagint version of the passage: ὑμνεῖν τὸν Κύριον ἐν λόγοις Δαυὶδ καὶ ̓Ασὰφ τοῦ προφήτου. It may be further observed that, besides the prophetic style of the opening verses (1-8), the historical character of the seventy-eighth Psalm connects it very closely with those historic books (Joshua to Kings) which are called

similarly as, even independently of the Messianic ; נביאים ראשונים

application of Psalm 22, the character of that Psalm, especially in its concluding verses (22 to 31), connects it with the other

נביאים אחרונים,division of the prophetic Scriptures

It may be incidentally noticed that Old Testament writers, quoting from earlier Scriptures, are similarly accurate in their notes of authorship,

Jeremiah and Zechariah.

381

there being no instance of one author having been named by mistake for another.

That which was spoken through Feremiah the prophet, as quoted in Matthew 27. 9-10, occupies, among the discussions of Biblical Criticism, a position altogether sui generis. By commentators and critics of widely divergent views and sentiments, speaking different languages, and separated from one another by many centuries, the quotation in question has been assigned, with remarkable unanimity, not to Feremiah, as is expressly declared in the sacred narrative, but to Zechariah. And thus such critics as deny the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes are in the habit of appealing to Matthew 27. 9-10 as containing an indubitable proof of their theory, that in matters of authorship the testimony of the Scriptures is not entitled to implicit belief.

Hence an important link would be wanting to

382

Retrospective Remarks.

that chain of argument which it is the design of this treatise to present, if Matthew 27. 9-10 were passed over unnoticed. In the course of centuries, however, the subject has assumed such dimensions, and so multifarious and external to the main scope of this treatise are the points to be looked at in vindication of the accuracy of the sacred narrative, that a separate inquiry into this interesting and instructive topic seems unavoidable, if justice is to be done to it. Accordingly that which was spoken through Feremiah the prophet, as quoted in Matthew 27. 9-10, must be reserved for subsequent investigation.

Retrospective Remarks.

Even apart from the question of divine inspiration, is not the fact a peculiarly significant one, that, in so far as the point of authorship is concerned (Matthew 27. 9-10 being reserved for special discussion), there is unbroken accuracy in the manner in which quotations from the Scriptures of the Old Covenant are introduced into the books of the New? Yet if the theory were well founded that accuracy in matters of authorship need not be looked for in the Scriptures, how comes it to pass that out of the seven Psalms ascribed in the New Testament to David, five are intituled, while the two others bear indubitable traces of having proceeded from David's pen? How comes it to pass that not even one of those Psalms quoted in the New

Speculative Criticism.

383

Testament, which are either probably later than the days of David, as Psalm 102, or are ascribed in their titles to other authors (44, 45, 78, 82, 89), is attributed to David, whose familiar name occurs above fifty times in the New Testament? How is it that every one of the passages ascribed in the New Testament to Moses, or David, or Isaiah, or Elijah, or Hosea, or Joel, is found among the words ascribed in the Old Testament to the same author? Surely if the alleged want of precision in matters of authorship were actually existent, it would appear in at least a few of the fifty-one New Testament passages in which these Old Testament passages are thus quoted or referred to, or in some of the many other passages which contain quotations from the Old Testament.

Surely the proof (if proof it can be called) or such want of precision would not be entirely problematical. Surely it would not be (as it is) dependent exclusively on the arguments of those modern critics who deny the genuineness of much which the Scriptures ascribe to Moses, and David, and Solomon, and Isaiah. Surely, in addition to the multitude of abstract arguments which have been constructed and pressed into the service of this criticism, there would be some groundwork of undeniable concrete facts, on which the results of the criticism could be based.

To plead, in these pages, for the genuineness of Deuteronomy, or Ecclesiastes, or any other impugned portion of the Bible, on the ground of the