VI. On a comparison of the quotations from the Old Testament in the New, it is obvious that in the Epistles, which were addressed generally to churches consisting of converted Hellenists (that is Greek Jews), or Gentiles, or of both, the quotations are uniformly. made from the Septuagint version, or with express reference to it, except where some important reason induced the sacred writer to deviate from it for the Septuagint was the only version generally known in those churches, whose members were mostly strangers to the Hebrew. There are however some apparent contradictions in the quotations from the Old Testament in the New, the reconciliation of which has much engaged the attention of learned men, who have assigned various causes to account for, or explain such discrepancies. These it may be useful briefly to consider, before we discuss the mode in which the sacred writers of the New Testament apply their quotations from the Old Testament. The causes of the differences in these quotations may be reduced to three, viz. 1. Sophistications or corruptions of the Hebrew text: -2. Various readings, or differences in copies : - and 3. Our ignorance of the correct meaning of particular texts. 1. The instances of Sophistication, or corruption of the Hebrew text, are comparatively few, and are only nine in number, as we have already seen; the comparison of manuscripts and versions alone can enable the critic to determine the true reading. 2. Various Readings in the manuscript copies of the Greek Bible, used by the sacred writers of the New Testament, are another cause of the apparent contradictions in the quotations made in it from the Old Testament; and these manuscripts might differ from those which we have at present. Professor Michaelis likewise thinks it possible that, in those cases where the quotations are materially dif ferent, another translation might have been added in the Septuagint as a marginal note, in the same manner as we find in the Hexapla of Origen under the name of aλhos. The Proverbs of Solomon, he αλλος. observes, present instances where the same Hebrew words are twice translated; which can be explained on no other supposition, than that one of them was originally a marginal note, which has insensibly crept into the text itself. And he adduces the following instance in which the Septuagint version is false, Prov. x. 12. παντας τους μη φιλονεικούντας xaλ piiα, a passage which is twice quoted in the New Testament, and both times with a more accurate translation: James v. 20. xaλu‡ei πληθος αμαρτιων, and 1 Pet. iv. 8. ὅτι ἡ αγαπη καλυψει πληθος ἁμαρτιών, The question may be asked, whether the Apostles found this reading in their Greek Bibles?-But, before we can speak with decision relative to the quotations from the Old Testament, we must wait for a more perfect edition of the Septuagint, collated from the best manuscripts; for, in the editions which we have at present, too little attention has been paid to the accuracy of the text; and the manuscripts which have been used are not only inconsiderable 1 See Sect. I. § VIII. p. 382. supra. in number, but, though antient, precisely those which are least correct.1 3. Another cause of the apparent discrepancy occurring in the quotations from the Old Testament in the New may arise from our not understanding particular Hebrew texts or words: a few such instances have already been noticed. But this is only a temporary cause the researches of commentators and critics (which the preceding tables have tended to confirm) have shown that the writers of the New Testament express the true sense, though not the sense generally attributed to the Hebrew: and in proportion as such researches are more diligently prosecuted, and our knowledge of the original languages of the Scriptures is increased, these difficulties will gradually and certainly diminish. 4. It is further to be observed that the very same quotations are often contracted by some of the evangelists and as often enlarged by others. This difference in quoting may be accounted for by the different occasions on which they are introduced, and the different ends which they were intended to serve. Thus, Luke, who wrote his Gospel for the instruction of Gentile converts, quotes (iii. 4-6.) not less than three verses from the prophet Isaiah ;3 while Matthew (iii. 3.) and Mark (i. 3.) quote only the first of them. But it was necessary to Luke's purpose that he should proceed so far, in order to assure the Gentiles, that they were destined to be partakers of the privileges of the Gospel, and to see the salvation of God. On the other hand, Matthew (xiii. 14, 15.) and Paul (Acts xxviii. 26, 27.) when reproving the Jews for their incredulity, which Isaiah had long before predicted, introduce the prophecy at full length, whereas Mark (iv. 11, 12.) and Luke (viii. 10.) only refer to it briefly. Mark, whose Gospel was written for a mixed society of Jewish and Gentile converts, has many peculiarities belonging to him, which are not specified by the other evangelists. Of these peculiarities, we have an instance in his manner of citing the passage of Isaiah just noticed. The verse in his Gospel runs thus: Τοις εξω εν παραβολαις τα παντα γίνεται· ἵνα βλέποντες βλέπωσι, και μη ίδωσι, και ακούοντες ακουωσι, και μη συνιωσι, μήποτε επισρέψωσι, και αφέθη αυτοις τα ἁμαρτήματα. Unto them that are without all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see and not perceive; and hearing, they may hear and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted and their sins should be forgiven them. In order to engage the Jews the more effectually to adopt and obey his Gospel, Mark has not only inserted in it more Hebrew or rather Syro-Chaldaic phrases than all the other evangelists together; but in the verse here given, he has forsaken both the Hebrew and Greek of Isa. vi. 11. (in our translation truly rendered and I will heal them), and has quoted the Chaldee Paraphrase, which he trans 1 Marsh's Michaelis, vol. i. p. 235. The question above noticed will, most probably, be fully solved when the elaborate edition of the Septuagint, now printing at Oxford shall be completed. 2 See § VII. pp. 378-381. supra. 3 See the passages of Isaiah and Luke at length, in p. 366. No. 1. 1 lated for himself, και αφέθη αυτοίς τα ἁμαρτήματα, and their sins should be forgiven them; and which thus probably became more intelligible to the Gentiles also. Now these particular variations are so far from being disparagements to the Gospels, that they are in reality the excellencies and ornaments of them. They are such variations only, as these different converts, of different conceptions, required to have made, for their obtaining a true and right knowledge of the Old Tes tament prophecies. A similar mode of citation is pursued by the illustrious apostle, Paul, who does not mention or allege the law and the prophets in one and the same manner to Jews and Gentiles. Thus, to Felix the Roman governor, he says of himself (Acts xxiv. 14.) Believing all things which are written in the law and the prophets. But to king Agrippa (xxvi. 22.) Saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come. And thus he distinguishes in his Epistles. In that to the Hebrews are many passages from the Old Testament, but not a single instance in which it is quoted as written. But in his other Epistles he rarely uses any other form than, It is written, or The Scripture saith. Thus he cites it to the Romans; the chief variations from which mode to that of He saith, are in the three chapters, ix. x. xi. which principally relate to the Jews; and even there he seldom fails to name the prophet whose words are adduced. To the Galatians, and in both Epistles to the Corinthians, with one or two exceptions, he urges the words of the Old Testament as written. To the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, if we mistake not, he makes no direct quotation from it. In the Epistle to the Ephesians he refers to it twice, and there indeed in both places under the form of He saith. But he himself had spent above two years in teaching them with the utmost diligence and attention (Acts xix. S. 10.) and wrote his Epistle to them some years after; when he might have full assurance that he spoke to those who knew the law. A passage in this Epistle, compared with a similar one in that to the Colossians, seems to prove that he made a difference between them, and judged the Ephesians to be better versed in the sacred books. To these he proposes the precept of obedience to parents with a view to the Mosaic promise: (Eph. vi. 1-3.) Children, obey your parents in the Lord; for this is right. HONOUR THY FATHER AND MOTHER; WHICH IS THE FIRST COMMANDMENT WITH PROMISE. But he omits this reference to the words of the Decalogue, in giving the same precept to the Colossians; with whose proficiency in the Scriptures he was less acquainted, as having never been among them. He says only (Col. iii. 20.) dren, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord. Chil Thus we see that St. Paul has one mode of citing the Old Testament to the Hebrews, and another to the churches of which the Gentiles were members; that in the former case he agrees with Matthew, in the latter with Mark and Luke. And in this respect there is so 1 Dr. Owen, on the Modes of Quotation used by the Evangelical Writers, pp 85-87. much uniformity in the Apostle and two Evangelists, that we may justly conclude, it was not accidental, but designed by him and them, for the same purpose of suiting their style to the small measure of scriptural knowledge which they might well suppose many of their readers to possess. By which means the unlearned or newly converted Gentiles were instructed, that what was offered to them as the word of God which came in old time, was to be found in the books of Scripture; and, if Judaisers crept in and perplexed them with doctrines of an oral or traditionary law, they were furnished with this reply to such teachers: "When the Apostles and Evangelists, who have been our more immediate guides, propose to us any part of the Mosaic economy, they allege only what is written, and what they carefully inform us to be so." We have dwelt the longer on this subject, not only on account of its importance in illustrating the external form of the quotations of the Old Testament by the Evangelists and Apostles, but also because it furnishes us with an additional instance of those simple notes of authenticity, with which the New Testament abounds, and which the genius of forgery could never have devised. Upon the whole, then, as it respects the external form of quotations from the Old Testament, it may be observed that the writers of the New Testament did not make it a constant rule to cite from the Greek version, because there are many places in which their quotations differ from that version, and agree with the Hebrew. And as their quotations now correspond with the Hebrew, very frequently in express words, and generally in the sense; so it is highly probable that they uniformly agreed at first, and that, where the Hebrew was properly expressed in the Greek version, they used the words of that version. But were it materially varied from the meaning of the Hebrew Scriptures, they either gave the sense of the passage cited in their own words; or took as much of the Septuagint as suited their purpose, introducing the requisite alterations. Hence several passages are neither direct quotations from the Hebrew text, nor quotations from the Septuagint; and some, as we have already seen, agree with the latter even where it varies from the former, but only where the deviation does not so affect the meaning of the passage as to interfere with the pertinency of the quotation for the purpose intended. "All this accords to what ordinary writers, in similar circumstances, would have done, and in fact have been authorised to do: but the sacred penmen, being themselves divinely inspired, might take liberties which we must not; because their comments were equally the Word of God with the texts commented on."6 1 Dr. Townson's Discourses on the Four Gospels, disc. 4. sect. ii. (Works, vol. i. pp. 101, 102.) See IV. pp. 423, 424. supra. 4 See § III-V. pp. 366-377. supra. 3 See §§ I. and II. PP: 343-366. supra. 5 See V. p. 376. supra. 6 The Rev. T. Scott, on the Authority of the Septuagint, in the Christian Observer for 1810, vol. ix. p. 102. SECTION III. ON THE INTERNAL FORM OF QUOTATIONS, OR THE MODE IN WHICH CITATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT ARE APPLIED IN THE NEW. General observations on the Rabbinical and other modes of quoting the Old Testament - classification of the quotations in the New Testament; I. Quotations from the Old Testament in the New, in which the predictions are literally accomplished; -II. Quotations, in which that is said to have been done, of which the Scriptures have not spoken in a literal, but in a spiritual sense; — III. Quotations that are accommodated by the sacred writers to particular events or facts. IV. Quotations and other passages from the Old Testament which are alluded to in the New. IN considering the passages of the Old Testament, which have been introduced by the apostles and evangelists into the writings of the New, "there is often a difficulty with respect to the application of such quotations; when they are applied to a purpose to which they seem to have no relation, according to their original design. This difficulty arises from the writers of the New Testament making quotations from the Old with very different views and it can be removed only by attending to their real view in a particular quotation." An accurate distinction therefore must be made between such quotations as, being merely borrowed, are used as the words of the writer himself, and such as are quoted in proof of a doctrine, or the completion of a prophecy. Michaelis has remarked, that whenever a book is the subject of our daily reading, it is natural that its phrases should occur to us in writing sometimes with a perfect recollection of the places whence they are taken, and at other times when the places themselves have totally escaped our memory. Thus, the lawyer quotes the maxims of the law the scholar, his favourite classics; and the divine, the precepts of the Gospel. It is no wonder, therefore, if the same has happened to the writers of the New Testament; who being daily occupied in the study of the Old Testament, unavoidably adopted its modes of expression, and especially of the Greek Septuagint, which they have borrowed, and applied to their own use in various ways and for various purposes. The quotations from the Old Testament in the New are generally introduced by certain formulæ, such as, That it might be fulfilledAs it is written-Isaiah prophesied, &c.; and various rules have been framed, in order to account for their application. It has been observed by the same great philologist, that the writers of the New Testament quote in general like the Rabbins, without mentioning the place whence the quotation is taken; as they pre-suppose the reader to be so well acquainted with the Old Testament, as to be able to find it without particular direction. The Rabbins select some princi1 Introduction to the New Testament, vol. i. pp. 200—203. VOL. II. 55 |