Click here to join the effort!
Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament
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: (α) by Jesus, Matthew 15:4 a (Mark 7:10 a) Matthew 15:4 b (Mark 7:10 b) Matthew 19:5 (Mark 10:7-8) Matthew 19:18-19 a, 19b, Matthew 21:13 a (Mark 11:17 a, Luke 19:46 a) Matthew 22:39 (Mark 12:31), Mark 12:36 (Luke 20:42-43), John 10:34; (β) by others, Matthew 5:21; Matthew 5:27; Matthew 5:38; Matthew 5:43; Matthew 21:9 (Mark 11:9, Luke 19:38, John 12:13), Luke 10:27; (γ) by the Evangelist, John 19:24.
(b) Quotations conforming to the Hebrew alone: by Jesus, Matthew 9:13; Matthew 12:7; Matthew 27:46 (Mark 15:34), Luke 22:37; Luke 23:46.
(c) Quotations conforming to the Greek alone: (α) by Jesus, Matthew 4:7 (Luke 4:12) Matthew 13:14-15, Matthew 19:4 (Mark 10:6) Matthew 21:16; Matthew 21:42 (Mark 12:10-11, Luke 20:17); (β) by the Evangelist, John 12:38.
(d) Free quotations varying from both Hebrew and Greek: (a) by Jesus, Matthew 4:4 (Luke 4:4) Matthew 4:10 (Luke 4:8) Matthew 4:15-16, Matthew 11:10 (Luke 7:27) Matthew 18:16, Matthew 22:32 (Mark 12:26, Luke 20:37) Matthew 22:37 (Mark 12:29-30) Matthew 22:44, Matthew 26:31 (Mark 14:27), Mark 4:12; Mark 10:19 (Luke 18:20), John 6:35; John 13:18; John 15:25; (β) by others, Matthew 2:6; Matthew 4:6 (Luke 4:10-11), Mark 12:32-33, Luke 10:27, John 2:17; (γ) by the Evangelist, Matthew 2:18; Matthew 21:5 (John 12:15) Matthew 27:9-10, Mark 1:2, Luke 2:23-24, John 12:40; John 19:36-37.
(e) Free quotations varying less from the Hebrew than from the Greek: by the Evangelist, Matthew 8:17; Matthew 12:18-21.
(f) Free quotations varying less from the Greek than from the Hebrew: by Jesus, Matthew 15:8-9 (Mark 7:6-7) Matthew 24:15 (Mark 13:14), Luke 4:18-19; Luke 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 John 19:24; John 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. Isaiah 50:6 might well have been referred to in the narratives in Matthew 26:67; Matthew 27:26, Mark 14:65, Luke 22:63-64, John 18:22, and so also might Psalms 22:8; Psalms 22:16, but neither of these notable OT passages was so used. Again, while Matthew 13:14-15 is unquestionably a quotation, the same thought expressed in the parallel passage, Mark 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, Luke 8:10 is parallel with the passages just cited from Mt. and Mk.; it has a sentence from Isaiah 6:9, nothing from Isaiah 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 Isaiah 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 John 9:39 as uttered by Jesus, and those of the Evangelist in John 12:40, lead us to think the passage in Isaiah 6:9-10 pointed many an utterance of Jesus.
How many more passages like this in Luke 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: (α) by Jesus, Matthew 5:12 b (Luke 13:34 a) Matthew 8:4 (Mark 1:44, Luke 5:14) Matthew 11:14, Matthew 17:10-11 (Mark 9:12-13) Matthew 12:3-4 (Mark 2:25-26, Luke 6:3-4) Matthew 12:5; Matthew 12:40-41 (Matthew 16:4 b, Luke 11:29-30; Luke 11:32) Matthew 12:42 (Luke 11:31) Matthew 23:35 (Luke 11:50-51) Matthew 24:37; Matthew 24:39 (Luke 17:26-27), Luke 4:25-27; Luke 17:28-29, John 5:39 c, John 5:46, John 8:17; (ß) by others, Matthew 22:24 (Mark 12:19, Luke 20:28) Matthew 23:30-31 (Luke 11:47-48), Luke 1:72 b, John 5:10; John 6:31; John 6:49; John 6:58; John 8:5; John 19:31; (γ) by the Evangelist, Luke 2:22, John 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: Matthew 26:24 a (Mark 14:21) Matthew 26:34; Matthew 26:56 a (Mark 14:49), Mark 9:12 b, Mark 9:13, Luke 11:49; Luke 18:31; Luke 21:22 b, Matthew 24:44; Matthew 24:46, John 1:45; John 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. (α) By Jesus, Matthew 8:11 (Luke 13:29) Matthew 10:15; Matthew 10:21 (Mark 13:12) Matthew 10:35-36 (Luke 12:52-53) Matthew 11:25 (Luke 10:21) Matthew 21:13 b (Mark 11:17 b, Luke 19:46 b) Matthew 24:30 b (Luke 23:37) Matthew 24:30 a, c (Mark 13:26) Luke 21:27) Matthew 26:64 (Mark 14:62, Matthew 16:27; Matthew 25:31), Luke 17:32, John 1:51; John 3:14 a, John 3:15; Joh_8:7; Joh_8:35; Joh_8:56; Joh_9:39; (ß) by others, Matthew 8:21, Luke 9:54, John 1:21; John 1:25; John 6:14; John 7:40; John 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 Luke 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 Hebrews 12:29 καὶ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν πῦρ καταναλίσκον, and learn that the last two words are found together in the LXX Septuagint only in Deuteronomy 4:24; Deuteronomy 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 οἱ πενθοῦντες of Matthew 5:4 with אבלים or τοὺς πενθοῦντας of Isaiah 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: Matthew 5:5; Matthew 5:8; Matthew 5:34-35; Matthew 7:7-8 (Luke 11:9-10) Matthew 7:23 (Luke 13:27) Matthew 10:28 b, Matthew 11:5 (Luke 7:22) Matthew 11:23 (Luke 10:15) Matthew 12:37, Matthew 13:16, Matthew 15:14, Matthew 16:27 b, Matthew 19:17 (Luke 10:28) Matthew 19:26 (Mark 10:27, Luke 18:27, Mark 14:36) Matthew 20:28 (Mark 10:45) Matthew 21:11-12 (Mark 11:15, Luke 19:45, John 2:16) Matthew 23:12 (Luke 14:11; Luke 18:14) Matthew 23:37 (Luke 13:34) Matthew 23:38 (Luke 13:35 a) Matthew 24:2 (Mark 13:2, Luke 21:6) Matthew 24:21 (Mark 13:19) Matthew 24:29 (Mark 13:24-25, Luke 21:25-26 a) Matthew 24:30 b, Matthew 25:32, Matthew 26:11 (Mark 14:7, John 12:8) Matthew 27:46 (Mark 15:34) Matthew 28:3, Luke 1:32-33; Luke 1:69; Luke 6:21; Luke 14:8; Luke 14:10; Luke 16:15 b, Luke 23:30, John 1:14; John 1:34; John 3:21; John 7:24; John 9:39; John 12:8 a, John 14:15; John 14:21; John 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 (Matthew 13:5 = Mark 10:7-8). In dealing with the Sabbath, He said that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27). This is a universal statement which is suggested in Exodus 23:12 and Deuteronomy 5:14. Again John 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, Micah 6:15. Whatever be true about that passage, there can be little doubt that the words of Jesus given in Matthew 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: Matthew 5:3; Matthew 5:6 (Luke 6:21 a) Matthew 5:7; Matthew 5:9; Matthew 5:11 (Luke 6:22) Matthew 5:14; Matthew 5:18 a (Luke 16:17) Matthew 5:28; Matthew 5:30, Matthew 18:8 (Mark 9:43) Matthew 5:42 a, (Luke 6:30 a) Matthew 5:43-44 a (Luke 6:27) Matthew 5:44 b, Matthew 5:48, Matthew 6:6; Matthew 6:9; Matthew 6:11; Matthew 6:14-15; Matthew 6:19; Matthew 6:24-26 (Luke 12:24) Matthew 7:6; Matthew 7:21 b (John 13:17) Matthew 10:6, Matthew 15:24 (Luke 15:6; Luke 19:10, Matthew 18:12) Matthew 10:10 b, Matthew 10:19; Matthew 10:37; Matthew 10:28 (John 6:27; John 7:37 b) Matthew 19:29 b (Mark 10:30, Luke 18:30) Matthew 10:41, Matthew 12:29 (Mark 3:27, Luke 11:21-22) Matthew 12:32 b, Matthew 13:39-41; Matthew 13:43-46, Matthew 15:13, Matthew 16:26 (Mark 8:37, Luke 9:25) Matthew 18:15 (Luke 17:3) Matthew 21:33 (Mark 12:1, Luke 20:9) Matthew 21:44 (Luke 20:18) Matthew 24:16-18 (Mark 13:14; Mark 13:16, Luke 21:21-22) Matthew 24:35 (Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33; Luke 16:17) Matthew 25:35-36; Matthew 25:40; Matthew 25:45; Matthew 25:42; Matthew 25:46, Matthew 26:28 (Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20) Matthew 26:52 c, Matthew 27:6, Matthew 28:18; Matthew 28:20, Mark 2:2; Mark 2:27; Mark 9:48, Luke 6:28; Luke 6:34-36; Luke 12:47-48; Luke 13:6-7; Luke 14:13; Luke 15:18-19; Luke 15:21; Luke 16:15 c, Luke 19:8; Luke 19:42; Luke 21:24-26; Luke 22:19; Luke 22:31; Luke 23:34 a, John 1:6; John 1:11; John 1:18; John 5:37 b, John 6:46; John 2:16; John 3:5 (Ezekiel 36:25-27; Ezekiel 11:19?) John 4:22 b, John 4:37; John 5:17; John 5:21-22; John 5:27; John 5:29; John 5:39 b, John 4:44; John 7:37 b, John 7:38-39 a, John 7:42; John 8:11; John 9:2; John 9:31; John 9:41; John 10:3; John 10:10; John 10:16; John 13:34; John 15:12; John 15:17; John 14:23; John 15:1; John 15:14-15; John 19:7; John 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 Hühn (Die alttest. Citate und Reminiscenzen im NT) gives a far greater number. It is not always easy to discriminate to one’s 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 Matthew 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’ (Matthew 10:16) is possibly a comparison suggested by Genesis 3:1, or it may have been current rhetoric. Or, again, the image of sifting (Luke 22:31) may have been a current phrase, or it may possibly have had a suggestion from Amos 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 Matthew 27:9, Luke 7:32 b, Luke 11:49, John 4:37; John 7:38.
Matthew 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 Zechariah 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.
Luke 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.
Luke 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 Matthew 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 Proverbs 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 2 Chronicles 24:20-22. This is in reality the same as (7) below. (6) Used of Divine Providence, as manifested in history (cf. Proverbs 8:22-31), sending prophets and apostles, equivalent to saying ‘God in His wisdom said.’ This is supported by the passage Luke 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 Matthew 23:37 in His own Person, that He is elsewhere said to send prophets and apostles (Luke 10:3, Ephesians 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.
John 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 Leviticus 26:16, Deuteronomy 28:38-40; Deuteronomy 6:11, Job 31:8, Micah 6:15, thus having a literary connexion of some sort with the OT.
John 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 γραφή, ‘Scripture.’ It is a tenable and adequate explanation to treat it as ‘a free quotation harmonizing in thought with parts of various passages, especially Isaiah 44:3; Isaiah 55:1; Isaiah 58:11’ (Meyer). See, on an attempt to trace the saying to a Buddhist source, ExpT [Note: xpT Expository Times.] xviii.  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: Matthew 5:34-35 (Sirach 23:9) Matthew 5:42 a (Sirach 4:4-5) Matthew 5:42 b (Sirach 29:2 a) Matthew 5:44 (Wisdom of Solomon 12:19 a) Matthew 6:12; Matthew 6:14 (Sirach 28:2) Matthew 7:12 (To Matthew 4:15) Matthew 11:28 f. (Sirach 51:23 ff.) Matthew 19:21 (Sirach 29:11) Matthew 23:38 (To Matthew 14:4), Luke 6:38 (Sirach 14:16 a) Matthew 10:25, Matthew 18:18 (Enoch 40:9, Sibyl, proœm. 85 = frag. ii. 47) Matthew 16:8 (Enoch 108:11) Matthew 18:7 (Enoch 47:1, 2) Matthew 18:1-8 (Sirach 32:17-18) Matthew 20:10-11 (Enoch 89:51), John 6:27 a (Sirach 15:3; Sirach 24:19) 8:44 (Wisdom of Solomon 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 (John 11:23; John 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 Matthew 25:31-46 can hardly be said to be suggested by the OT writings. Compare it with Enoch 90:18–38, and striking similarities are found. Matthew 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 Matthew 13:42; Matthew 13:50, may be compared with Enoch 103:7, 8 and 108:5, 6. In Luke 16:26 the picture of separation between the righteous and sinners in Sheol may suggest Enoch 22:9–13, 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. 48–53, 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.
See also artt. on Old Testament.
Literature.—Allen, ‘OT Quotations in Matthew and Mark,’ ExpT [Note: xpT Expository Times.] xii. [1900–1901] pp. 187 ff., 281 ff. [a careful examination of the relation of the quotations in these books to the OT passages]; E. Boehl, Die Alttest. Citate im NT [the treatise and discussion superseded by that of Toy]; August Clemen, Der Gebrauch des AT [Note: T Altes Testament.] in den NT Schriften, Gütersloh, 1895 [a discussion of the meaning of the citations in the NT context and in their original context]; Wilhelm Dittmar, Vetus Test. in Novo, Göttingen, 1903 [gives not only the quotations, but about five times as many parallels in thought or words in addition to the quotations. Almost invariably the Hebrew and Greek of the OT are given, and the Greek of the NT and of the Apocryphal books where they are cited. It is a valuable work]: Eugen Hühn, Die AT [Note: T Altes Testament.] Citate und Reminiscenzen im NT, Tübingen, 1900 [a list of passages much more full than that of Dittmar, almost twice as numerous. Few citations are given. The passages are classified as Messianic and non-Messianic. Both classes are divided into citations with formulae of citation, citations without formulae), and reminiscences. The material is valuable, but needs sifting and further classification]; Johnson, Quotation of the NT from the Old, Philadelphia, 1896 [discusses the literary principles exemplified in the NT quotations and defends them]; Tholuck, AT [Note: T Altes Testament.] im NT6 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] , Gotha, 1868 [translation in Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. xi. p. 568 ff.]; Crawford II. Toy, Quotations in the New Testament, New York, 1884 [holds that the quotations were made from the Greek or from an oral Aramaic version, the existence of which is assumed. It contains an admirable bibliography]; D. M. Turpie, The Old Test, in the New, London, 1868 [quotations classified according to their agreement with the Hebrew or Greek of the OT, and discussed accordingly], and The NT View of the OT, London, 1872 [quotations classified and discussed according to their introductory formulae]; Woods, art. ‘Quotations’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible iv. 184 ff.
F. B. Denio.
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Hastings, James. Entry for 'Quotations (2)'. Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/hdn/q/quotations-2.html. 1906-1918.