kur-har’-seth, -ha-re’-seth> (qir-charesh, Isa 16:7; in 2Ki 3:25 the King James Version reads Kir-haraseth (pausal form)); (qir cheres, Jer 48:31,36; in Isa 16:11 the King James Version reads Kir-haresh (pausal form)): Modern scholars unanimously identify this city with Kir of Moab. In Jehoram’s invasion of Moab it alone withstood his attack; and on the city wall the king of Moab sacrificed his son (2Ki 3:25 ). It was obviously the capital, i.e. Kir Moab. The name is generally taken to mean "city of the sun." Cheyne, however, points out (EB, under the word):

(1) that this explanation was unknown to the ancients;

(2) that"kir" is nowhere suposed to mean "city," except in the compound names Kir-heres, Kir-hareseth, and Kir Moab;

(3) that cheres, "sun," nowhere has a feminine ending, and

(4) that Isa 16:7 Septuagint and Aquila.) indicates "d" and not "r" in the second part of the name (Deseth). He suggests, therefore, that we should possibly read qiryath chadhdshah, "new city."

W. Ewing


kof (qoph): The 19th letter of the Hebrew alphabet; transliterated in this Encyclopedia as q (intense k). It came also to be used for the number 100. For name, etc., see ALPHABET.


kwal (selaw; ortugometra; Latin Coturnix vulgaris): A game bird of the family Coturnix, closely related to "partridges" (which see). Quail and partridges are near relatives, the partridge a little larger and of brighter color. Quail are like the gray, brown and tan of earth. Their plumage is cut and penciled by markings, and their flesh juicy and delicate food. Their habits are very similar. They nest on the ground and brood on from 12 to 20 eggs. The quail are more friendly birds and live in the open, brooding along roads and around fields. They have a longer, fuller wing than the partridge and can make stronger flight. In Palestine they were migratory. They are first mentioned in Ex 16:13: "And it came to pass at even, that the quails came up, and covered the camp: and in the morning the dew lay round about the camp." This describes a large flock in migration, so that they passed as a cloud. Nu 11:31-33: "And there went forth a wind from Yahweh, and brought quail from the sea, and let them fall by the camp, about a day’s journey on this side, and a day’s journey on the other side, round about the camp, and about two cubits above the face of the earth. And the people rose up all that day, and all the night, and all the next day, and gathered the quail: he that gathered least gathered ten homers: and they spread them all abroad for themselves round about the camp"; compare Ps 78:26-30:

"He caused the east wind to blow in the heavens;

And by his power he guided the south wind.

He rained flesh also upon them as the dust,

And winged birds as the sand of the seas:

And he let it fall in the midst of their camp,

Round about their habitations.

So they did eat, and were well filled;

And he gave them their own desire."

Again the birds are mentioned in migration. Those that fell around the camp and the bread that was sent from heaven are described in Ps 105:39-42. Commentators have had trouble with the above references. They cause the natural historian none—they are so in keeping with the location and the laws of Nature. First the Hebrew selaw means "to be fat." That would be precisely the condition of the quail after a winter of feeding in the South. The time was early spring, our April, and the quail were flocking from Africa and spreading in clouds—even to Europe. They were birds of earth, heavy feeders and of plump, full body. Migration was such an effort that when forced to cross a large body of water they always waited until the wind blew in the direction of their course, lest they tire and fall. Their average was about 16 birds to each nest. If half a brood escaped, they yet multiplied in such numbers as easily to form clouds in migration. Pliny writes of their coming into Italy in such numbers, and so exhausted with their long flight, that if they sighted a sailing vessel they settled upon it by hundreds and in such numbers as to sink it. Taking into consideration the diminutive vessels of that age and the myriads of birds, this does not appear incredible. Now compare these facts with the text. Israelites were encamped on the Sinai Peninsula. The birds were in migration. The quail followed the Red Sea until they reached the point of the peninsula where they selected the narrowest place, and when the wind was with them they crossed the water. Not far from the shore arose the smoke from the campfires of the Israelites. This bewildered them, and, weary from their journey, they began to settle in confused thousands over and around the camp. Then the Israelites arose and, with the ever-ready "throw sticks," killed a certain number for every soul of the camp and spread the bodies on the sand to dry, just as Herodotus (ii. 77) records that the Egyptians always had done (see Rawlinson, Herodotus, II, for an illustration of catching and drying quail). Nature and natural history can account for this incident, with no need to call in the miraculous.

Gene Stratton-Porter


kwor’-el: Originally (1) "a complaint" (compare "querulous"), or (2) "a cause of complaint," and so (3) "a contention."

(1) In the King James Version Mr 6:19 (the Revised Version (British and American) "set herself"; the colloquial "had it in for him" is an exact translation) and Col 3:13 (momphe, "complaint"; so the Revised Version (British and American)).

(2) In 2Ki 5:7 (’anah, "be opportune," the Revised Version margin "an occasion").

(3) In the King James Version Le 26:25 (loose translation of naqam, "vengeance"; so the Revised Version (British and American)).

Compare Sirach 31:29 the King James Version (the Revised Version (British and American) "conflict") and Pr 20:3 the Revised Version (British and American) (the King James Version, "meddling").


kwor’-iz (pecilim (Jud 3:19,26, "graven images"), shebharim (Jos 7:5, "Shebarim," the Revised Version margin "the quarries")):

Pesilim is elsewhere translated "graven images" (De 7:5; Ps 78:58; Isa 10:10; Mic 5:13, etc.) and is a plural form of pecel, "graven image" (Ex 20:4, etc.), from pacal, "to carve." It occurs in the story of Ehud and Eglon and refers to images or hewn stones in the vicinity of Gilgal, Shebharim is plural of shebher, "breach," "fracture," more often "destruction" (e.g. Pr 16:18), from shabhar, "to break." The form shebarim is also found in Job 41:25, "consternation," the King James Version "breakings." In Jos 7:5 Shebarim is the point to which the Israelites were chased after their first attack upon Ai.


Quarries in Palestine are not usually very deep because there is plenty of good stone to be found at the surface. The quarryman seeks a thick stratum of firm limestone which has a favorable exposure. The vertical joint-planes divide the stratum into large blocks which the quarryman dislodges with the aid of crowbars. These great blocks he skillfully cleaves by inserting several wedges in a line in holes made by a pick, and driving the wedges in with a heavy hammer. In these days gunpowder is occasionally used, especially when there are not favorable joint-planes producing blocks capable of being moved by the crowbar.

Another method, which is employed where stones of great size are wanted, is to carve the stones out of the rock by cutting channels around them with the pick. In the limestone quarries of Ba‘albek and the granite quarries of Acwan at the first cataract of the Nile, enormous stones may be seen which were abandoned while in process of being removed by this method. The channels are wide enough to admit the body of the workman, and the marks of the picks on the sides of the channels are plainly visible.

Alfred Ely Day


kwor’-ter: Literally, of course, "the fourth part," and so of the four "ends" (qatsah) in Jer 49:36, and the King James Version of the four "corners" (so the Revised Version (British and American), gonia) in Re 20:8. Hence, "any part" and in this sense used freely for various words by the King James Version. the Revised Version (British and American) has usually dropped "quarter," but unfortunately has retained it in Nu 34:3; Jos 15:5; 18:14,15, and introduced it in Jos 18:12,14,20 for pe’ah, usually rendered "side." The result is very obscure. Elsewhere in the Revised Version (British and American) only in the phrase "from every quarter" (Ge 19:4; Isa 56:11; Mr 1:45).



kwor’-tus (Kouartos): A Christian in Corinth who with "Erastus the treasurer of the city" sent greetings to the Christian community in Rome (Ro 16:23). He is known to Paul only as a Christian, "the brother."


kwa-tur’-ni-un (tetradion): The name given to a company of four soldiers of Herod’s army (Ac 12:4). To four such companies Peter had been handed over, who would take their turn of acting as guard over the prisoner, each of the four watches of the night according to Roman reckoning, which Herod Agrippa I would follow. In the castle of Antonia Peter was thus closely secured, in order that Herod, who had already killed James, the brother of John, with the sword (Ac 12:2), might, after the solemnities of the Passover, make sure of his death likewise. On the night before his intended execution he was sleeping in his cell between two soldiers, "bound with two chains," his left hand chained to one and his right to the other. The other two soldiers of the quaternion mounted guard before the door, and are spoken of as "the first and the second guard" (Ac 12:10) whom Peter and his angel guide had to pass on the way to liberty. The Greek word thus rendered is not found in the Septuagint or anywhere else in the New Testament.

T. Nicol.


kwen: The Bible applies this term:

(1) To the wife of a king ("queen consort") (malkah). In the Book of Esther it is the title given to Vashti (1:9) and Esther (2:22); compare So 6:8 f. Another Hebrew word for queen consort is gebhirah, literally "mistress" (compare 1Ki 11:19, the wife of Pharaoh; 2Ki 10:13, "the children of the king and the children of the queen"). In Ne 2:6 and Ps 45:9 we find the expression sheghal, which some trace back to shaghal, "to ravish," a rather doubtful derivation. Still another term is sarah, literally, "princess" (Isa 49:23). The Septuagint sometimes uses the word basilissa; compare Ps 45:9.

(2) To a female ruler or sovereign ("queen regnant"). The only instances are those of the queen (malkah) of Sheba (1Ki 10:1-13; compare 2Ch 9:1-12) and of Candace, the queen (basilissa) of the Ethiopians (Ac 8:27). In Mt 12:42 (compare Lu 11:31) Christ refers to the queen of the south (basilissa notou), meaning, of course, the queen of Sheba.

(3) To a heathen deity, melekheth ha-shamayim, "the queen of heaven" (Jer 7:18; 44:17 ).


(4) Metaphorically, to the city of Babylon (Rome) (Re 18:7): an expression denoting sovereign contempt and imaginary dignity and power.

William Baur


(gebhirah, literally, "mistress," then a female ruler, and sometimes simply the wife of a king ("queen," 1Ki 11:19); in Da 5:10 the term malketha’ "queen," really means the mother of the king): It stands to reason that among a people whose rulers are polygamists the mother of the new king or chief at once becomes a person of great consequence. The records of the Books of Kings prove it. The gebhirah, or queen mother, occupied a position of high social and political importance; she took rank almost with the king. When Bath-sheba, the mother of Solomon, desired "to speak unto him for Adonijah," her son "rose up to meet her, and bowed himself unto her, and sat down on his throne, and caused a throne to be set for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right hand" (1Ki 2:19). And again, in 2Ki 24:15, it is expressly stated that Nebuchadnezzar carried away the king’s mother into captivity; Jeremiah calls her gebhirah (29:2). The king was Jehoiachin (Jeconiah, Jer 29:2), and his mother’s name was Nehushta (2Ki 24:8). This was the royal pair whose impending doom the prophet was told to forecast (Jer 13:18). Here again the queen mother is mentioned with the king, thus emphasizing her exalted position. Now we understand why Asa removed Maacah his (grand?)mother from being queen (queen mother), as we are told in 1Ki 15:13 (compare 2Ch 15:16). She had used her powerful influence to further the cause of idolatry. In this connection Athaliah’s coup d’etat may be briefly mentioned. After the violent death of her son Ahaziah (2Ki 9:27), she usurped the royal power and reigned for some time in her own name (2Ki 11:3; compare 2Ch 22:12). This was, of course, a revolutionary undertaking, being a radical departure from the usual traditions.

And finally, the political importance of the gebhirah is illustrated by the fact that in the Books of Kings, with two exceptions, the names of the Jewish kings are recorded together with those of their respective mothers; they are as follows: Naamah, the Ammonitess, the mother of Rehoboam (1Ki 14:21; compare 14:31, and 2Ch 12:13); Maacah, the daughter of Abishalom (1Ki 15:2) or Absalom (2Ch 11:20) the mother of Abijah; Maacah, the daughter of Abishalom, the mother (grandmother?) of Asa (1Ki 15:10; compare 2Ch 15:16); Azubah, the daughter of Shilhi, the mother of Jehoshaphat (1Ki 22:42; compare 2Ch 20:31); Athaliah, the grand-daughter of Omri, the mother of Ahaziah (2Ki 8:26; compare 2Ch 22:2); Zibiah of Beersheba, the mother of Jehoash (2Ki 12:1; compare 2Ch 24:1); Jehoaddin (Jehoaddan, 2Ch 25:1) of Jerusalem, the mother of Amaziah (2Ki 14:2); Jecoliah (Jechiliah, 2Ch 26:3) of Jerusalem, the mother of Azariah (2Ki 15:2) or Uzziah (2Ki 15:13,30, etc.; compare 2Ch 26:3); Jerusha (Jerushah, 2Ch 27:1), the daughter of Zadok, the mother of Jotham (2Ki 15:33); Abi (Abijah, 2Ch 29:1), the daughter of Zechariah, the mother of Hezekiah (2Ki 18:2); Hephzibah, the mother of Manasseh (2Ki 21:1); Meshullemeth, the daughter of Haruz of Jotbah, the mother of Amon (2Ki 21:19); Jedidah, the daughter of Adaiah of Bozkath, the mother of Josiah (2Ki 22:1); Hamutal, the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah, the mother of Jehoahaz (2Ki 23:31); Zebidah, the daughter of Pedaiah of Rumah, the mother of Jehoiakim (2Ki 23:36); Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem, the mother of Jehoiachin (2Ki 24:8); Hamutal (Hamital), the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah, the mother Of Zedekiah (2Ki 24:18). The exceptions are Jehoram and Ahaz.

William Baur


(melekheth ha-shamayim, although there is another reading, mele’kheth, "worship" or "goddess"): Occurs only in two passages: Jer 7:18; 44:17-19,25, where the prophet denounces the wrath of God upon the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem who have given themselves up to the worship of the host of heaven. This is no doubt a part of the astral worship which is found largely developed among the Jews in the later period of their history in Canaan. It is first mentioned in 2Ki 17:16 as practiced by the men of the Northern Kingdom when Samaria had fallen and the ten tribes were being carried away into captivity. Moses is represented as warning the Israelites against the worship of the sun and moon and stars and all the host of heaven, practiced by the people of Canaan (De 4:19; 17:3) and the existence of such worship among the Canaanites and neighboring nations is attested from an early period (compare Job 31:26-28). The worship of the heavenly bodies was widely spread in the East and in Arabia; and the Babylonian pantheon was full of astral deities, where each divinity corresponded either to an astral phenomenon or to some circumstance or occurrence in Nature which is connected with the course of the stars (Jeremias, The Old Testament in the Light of the Ancient East, I, 100). From the prophets we gather that before the exile the worship of the host of heaven had become established among all classes and in all the towns of Israel (Jer ubi supra; Eze 8:16). In that worship the queen of heaven had a conspicuous place; and if, as seems probable from the cakes which were offered, she is to be identified with the Assyrian Ishtar and the Canaanite Astarte, the worship itself was of a grossly immoral and debasing character. That this Ishtar cult was of great antiquity and widely spread in ancient Babylonia may be seen from the symbols of it found in recent excavations (see Nippur, II, 236). How far the astral theorists like Winckler and Jeremias are entitled to link up with this worship the mourning for Josiah, the lamentations over Tammuz, the story of Jephthah’s daughter, and even—the narrative of the misfortunes and the exaltation of Joseph, is questionable. But that the people of Judah in the days before the exile had given themselves over to the worst and vilest forms of heathen worship and incurred the grievous displeasure of Yahweh is made clear by the denunciation of the worship of the queen of heaven by Jeremiah.

T. Nicol.


she’-ba (1Ki 10:1-13; 2Ch 9:1-12, called in Mt 12:42; Lu 11:31, "the queen of the south" (basilissa notou)):

1. Old Testament Accounts:

The two Old Testament accounts of the coming of the queen of Sheba (see SHEBA) to Solomon differ slightly from one another, and, of the two, that in 1 Kings is the older. (1) The words "concerning the name of Yahweh" (1Ki 10:1) are lacking in 2 Chronicles; while the Septuagint in 1 Kings has "and the name of Yahweh," apparently a correction of the Massoretic Text. (2) For 1Ki 10:9, "because Yahweh loved Israel for ever," 2Ch 9:8 has "because thy God loved Israel, to establish them for ever"; the Septuagint in 1 Kings has "because Yahweh loved Israel, to establish it forever." (3) In the last verse of each account we find another difference: 2Ch 9:12 says that Solomon gave to the queen all her desire, "besides that which she had brought unto the king." i.e. according to some, besides the equivalent of what she had brought to him; 1Ki 10:13 margin has" besides that which he gave her according to the hand of king Solomon," i.e. besides gifts commensurate with his own wealth and power (SBOT), or be sides gifts which he gave her qua king.

2. The Narrative:

The narrative tells of the queen of Sheba, on hearing of Solomon’s great wisdom, coming to test him with perplexing questions or riddles (compare Jud 14:12). She brought presents to the king, and interviewed him: "And when the queen of Sheba had seen all the wisdom of Solomon, and the house that he had built" (i.e. the palace, not the temple) as well as its arrangements, "and his burnt-offering which he offered in the house of Yahweh (so read and translate with the Revised Version margin in 1Ki 10:5, and also in 2Ch 9:4); there was no more spirit in her": the half of Solomon’s wisdom had not been told her. "Happy," she said to him, "are thy wives (so read with Septuagint, Syriac and Old Latin versions), happy are these thy servants." She then exchanged gifts with him and returned to her own land.

The narrative is a complement of that in 1Ki 3:16-28, where the king’s justice is exemplified; here his wisdom.

3. Employed by Jesus:

The narrative is referred to by Jesus in Mt 12:42; Lu 11:31, where He refuses to accede to the request of the scribes and Pharisees for a sign from Him. He tells them that no sign will be given them except that of Jonah, whose sign was his preaching, one that proved sufficient to the Ninevites; and ‘behold something greater than Jonah is here.’ The men of Nineveh will be a living condemnation of them "in the judgment" (compare Lu 16:31); and so will the "queen of the south" who came from the ends of the earth after hearing of Solomon’s wisdom, ‘and behold something greater than Solomon is here.’ The only sign to be given is that of the wisdom of Jesus, a wisdom far greater than that of Solomon (see D. Smith, Days of His Flesh, 176 ff).

4. Eastern Literature:

Eastern literature has much to say about the queen of Sheba. The Arabs called her Bilqis. Abyssinian legend declares that she came from Ethiopia, her name being Maqeda, and that she had a son by Solomon. See Delitzsch, Iris, 116-27; ZDMG, X, 19 f; J Pr T, VI, 524 ff (1880). Gressmann (in Schriften des Altes Testament, II, 1,203) has further references to Wilhelm Hertz, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, 1905, 413 ff; Bezold, Kebra Nagast, 1905, and also ZDMG, 60, 666 ff. For the Mohammedan story, see Koran xxvii, with notes in Sale’s translation.

David Francis Roberts


kwench, kwensh: Where the word is used of fire or of thirst it has the usual meaning: "to allay," "to extinguish," "to suppress," "to cool." In the Old Testament it is frequently applied to the affections and passions (see 2Ki 22:17; So 8:7; Isa 42:3; Jer 4:4; 21:12). Quenching the coal or the light of Israel may mean slaying a dear one or a brilliant leader. In the New Testament it is also used figuratively, as in Eph 6:16 the shield of faith quenches the fiery darts of the evil one. In Mr 9:48, sbennumi, and its derivative are applied with reference to Gehenna (translated "hell"). The same word is also used of resisting the gifts of the Holy Spirit in 1Th 5:19.

G. H. Gerberding


kwes’-chun: The noun for dabhar, "word," in 1Ki 10:3 parallel 2Ch 9:2, with "hard question" for chidhah, "dark saying," "riddle," in 1Ki 10:1 parallel 2Ch 9:1. In the New Testament for zetema, the synonym zetesis (and 1Ti 1:4, ekzetesis), being rendered "questionings" by the Revised Version (British and American) (the King James Version does not distinguish). In Mr 11:29 for logos, "word" (so the Revised Version margin). The verb in the sense "ask a question" in 2Ch 31:9 for darash, and Lu 2:46; 23:9 for eperotao (compare the American Standard Revised Version, the English Revised Version margin Joh 16:23). Elsewhere the verb is for suzeteo, "dispute" (Mr 1:27, etc.; compare Ac 6:9; 9:29). "Called in question," Ac 19:40 the King James Version, represents egkaleo, "call into court," but in Ac 23:6; 24:21, "I am called in question" is for krinomai, "I am being judged."

Burton Scott Easton


kwik, kwik’-’n: Translates in the King James Version four different words:

(1) chayah,

(2) michyah,

(3) ruach, and

(4) zao.

Of these words (1) and (4) had simply the sense of life, and this idea was in 1611 adequately given, by the word "quick," although this sense of the word has long been somewhat obscured. As the translation of ruach (Isa 11:3) "quick" as found in the King James Version signified "acute." In this passage the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes "delight" for "quick understanding." In Le 13:10,24 the Revised Version (British and American) retains the rendering "quick," although originally the word michyah must in some way have involved the conception of life, which no longer belongs to the English word "quick." It is not clear exactly in what sense the flesh in the sore or scar was thought of as living, especially as it was plainly regarded as in an unhealthy condition. Possibly the condition under consideration resembled what is sometimes idiomatically styled in English "proud flesh," and was thought of as a peculiar manifestation of life.

To quicken also means a reviving, a refreshing, an increasing of life (Ps 71:20; 85:6; 119:37,40,88; Isa 57:10). It often has reference to the resurrection from the dead (1Co 15:36) and is so used in many places in the King James Version. Where it refers to the giving of spiritual life the American Standard Revised Version has changed it in every case (Eph 2:1,5; Col 2:13; compare Joh 5:21).

David Foster Estes





kwi’-et: Verb or adjective only in English Versions of the Bible, "quietness" being used for the noun. No special Hebrew or Greek words are represented, but in the Old Testament usually for some form or derivative of shaqaT, "be undisturbed" (Jud 18:7; compare Pr 1:33, sha’ar, "to loll," "be at ease"; Ec 9:17, nachath, "quiet," "be set on"). For "them that are quiet in the land", in Ps 35:20, see MEEKNESS; POOR. For "quiet prince in Jer 51:59, the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes "chief chamberlain," margin "quartermaster." "Jacob was a quiet (tam, "gentle"] man" (Ge 25:27, the King James Version "plain"). In the New Testament, it is the translation of hesuchazo, "to refrain from gossip or meddlesomehess": "that ye study to be quiet": (1Th 4:11), and of hesuchios, "gentle": "a meek and quiet spirit" (1Pe 3:4; compare 1Ti 2:2).

M. O. Evans


kwin’-tus mem’-us.






kwit: Same derivation as "quiet," so that "to be quit" (Ex 21:19,28; Jos 2:20 the King James Version) is "to be relieved of responsibility," naqah, naqi, "guiltless" (so the Revised Version (British and American) Jos 2:20). Hence, "to quit one’s self" means "to be freed by discharging a duty." The phrase in English Versions of the Bible, however, is a gloss for in 1Sa 4:9 it is used for hayah, "to be," while in 1Co 16:13 andrizomai, means "to behave like a man."


kwiv’-er (ashpah, teli; pharetra (Sirach 26:12)): A case or sheath for carrying arrows, a part of the ordinary equipment of the warrior, both foot-soldier and charioteer (Job 39:23; Isa 22:6), and also of the huntsman (Ge 27:3). Figuratively of a group in passages where children (Ps 127:5) or prophets of Yahweh (Isa 49:2) are spoken of as arrows. Arrows are called bene ‘ashpah, "sons of the quiver" (La 3:13). By identifying the arrows with the death they produce, the quiver is likened to an open grave (Jer 5:16).




Limitation of the Discussion


1. Unity of the Two Dispensations

2. Biblical Movement Planned from the Beginning

3. The Old Testament Accepted as Authoritative

4. Issue Involved in Foregoing Principles of Reference


1. Introductory Formulas

2. Unity of the Two Dispensations

3. Prevision of Christianity in the Old Testament

4. Argumentative Quotations

5. Catena of Passages, Illustrating Principles of Quotation


I. Introductory.

Limitation of the Discussion:

There are, all told, approximately 300 direct quotations from the Old Testament in the New Testament. The presence of so many citations, each of one of which involves an interpretation of the passage given a new context in quotation, opens many avenues of discussion and propounds many difficult and far-reaching problems. In every separate instance, in the long list of New Testament quotations, the principle of accommodation (see ACCOMMODATION) in some form is involved and, consequently, the question of historical and exegetical accuracy is unavoidably raised. In the present article we shall concentrate attention upon that which is of far greater importance than the question whether the writer is incidentally correct, according to modern scientific principles, in any specific citation. This more important and vital issue we take to be the general, guiding principles adopted by the New Testament writers in their use of the book of the older covenant. A review of these principles, together with certain outstanding and typical instances in which these principles are used and applied, will form the substance of the discussion.

II. Constructive Principles of New Testament Quotation.

1. Unity of the Two Dispensations:

In the first place, the New Testament writers regard the Christian religion as having its roots in the Old Testament. From the call of Abraham to the founding and expansion of the Christian church the men of the New Testament recognize a single organic movement. In their use of the ancient oracles in new setting they constantly and confidently rely upon the unity of the two dispensations, that recorded in the Old Testament and that in which they themselves were participants. Such a unity, taking for granted its existence, would remove to a degree the very distinction implied in the terms Old and New Testaments, and would involve a definite and organic relationship of all the books to each other. There are no longer two separate groups of books standing apart from each other and having bonds of union only within the group, but, on the contrary, two related sub-groups outwardly corresponding to contrasted phases of the historical movement, but inwardly conformed to the deep-lying principles which make the entire movement one. According to this idea the Book of Genesis is as really related to the Gospel of Matthew as it is to the Book of Exodus. On the surface, and historically speaking, the Book of Genesis leads immediately to the Book of Exodus, which is its companion volume and complement, but go more deeply into Genesis and just as really and just as directly it leads to Matthew, which is also its fellow and complement. And so throughout. The unifying medium is, of course, the history which is one in that it involves the same organic principles applied to successive areas of human experience. The books of the Bible are, therefore, like any group of books on a common subject, phases of each other, contrasted and yet intimately cognate. In quoting from the Old Testament the New Testament writers were simply obeying an impulse common to all thoughtful writers and accounting for all quotations, seeking for diversified expression of the same truths.

2. Biblical Movement Planned from the Beginning:

The second great constructive principle of New Testament quotation, and manifestly in close harmony with the first one, is that the movement from Abraham to Christ was not only organically one, but that it was from the beginning planned and prepared for. The Bible is one because the history out of which it grew is one. The history is one because God is in the history and God is one. According to the writers of the New Testament in this history as a whole we have the unfolding of an all-embracing plan of God, stretching out into the remotest future and coming to its culmination in the person and the kingdom of the Messiah. They maintain also that this plan was disclosed in part beforehand, by way of anticipation and preparation, in order that men might intelligently cooperate with God in the fulfillment of His purpose. This is the idea involved in prophecy and its fulfillment, and in the closely related idea of promise and its realization. One mind, one will, and one central purpose are operating throughout the entire history which is, on the divine side, the fulfillment of a plan complete in thought before it takes shape in events. On the basis of this conception, of the foreseen plan of God and its gradual revelation to men through messages of hope and warning set in the key of the great future and pointing the way thither, the greater part of the structure of New Testament quotation is reared.

3. The Old Testament Accepted as Authoritative:

A third principle which really involves a combination of the other two and is prominently brought forward in the use of quotation for purposes of argument is the recognition and acceptance of the Old Testament as authoritative, a real Word of God, in form occasional, but essentially applicable to all experiences, and hence, good for all time. It is evident that the belief in the continued authority of the Scripture of the old covenant over the men of the new, rests upon the unity of the two dispensations and the acceptance of the same divine mind and will as operating throughout all outward and historical changes. This is admirably expressed by Paul when he speaks of ‘the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he purposed in him unto an economy of the fullness of the periods, to sum up all things in Christ’ (Eph 1:9,10), and by the author of He when he says: ‘God, having of old spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by various portions and in various ways, hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son’ (Eph 1:1,2).

4. Issue Involved in Foregoing Principles of Reference:

The justification of these accepted principles of reference on the part of the New Testament writers lies beyond the scope of the present discussion. It is sufficient to emphasize the fact that any detailed discussion of New Testament quotations seriatim is meaningless and futile except upon the basis of an explicit and consistent determination of these antecedent questions. To the present writer the validity of these principles is beyond question. The denial of any one of the three involves one in difficulties of interpretation, both critical and historical, from which there is no escape. It is to be noted, therefore, that the establishment of the principles, in accordance with which the New Testament writers quote, carries with it in a general way the justification of their usage.

III. Typical Instances of New Testament Quotation.

1. Introductory Formulas:

With these constructive principles in mind we are prepared to pass in review typical instances in which general principles are embodied. At this point we shall be greatly assisted in the analysis and distribution of the complex material before us by giving careful heed to the formulas, more or less fixed and uniform, by which the writers introduce quotations and indicate their sense of the value and significance of that which is quoted. While these formulas exhibit certain verbal variations, they are practically reducible to three, which correspond with substantial accuracy to the three constructive principles already noted: the unity of the Old Testament and New Testament; the prevision of the New Testament in the Old Testament; the authority of the Old Testament as the Word of God intended for all time.

2. Unity of the Two Dispensations:

The unity of the two dispensations is asserted in all those passages introduced by a formula, in which fulfillment is asserted as a fact, and in which the operation of identical principles in two or more separate events in the field of history is implied. A suggestive example is in Mt 13:14, where our Lord asserts, in connection with the parable of the Sower, that in the unbelief of the people of His day "the prophecy of Isaiah" is fulfilled. The prophetic words here quoted (Isa 6:9,10) are not predictive in any immediate sense, but are susceptible of repeated application and realization because of the general principle which they contain. They apply to the prophet’s own day; they also apply—and in that sense are fulfilled—to the time of Jesus, and by a legitimate extension of meaning, to stubborn unbelief in any age (compare Joh 6:45).

Another passage in which the same formula is used in a very exceptional way clearly sets forth the fundamental principle upon which this usage rests. Jas 2:23 asserts that the justification of Abraham in the offering of Isaac "fulfilled" the passage which affirms that his belief was counted to him for righteousness (Ge 15:6). This passage is not predictive in any sense, nor is there in the narrative any hint of a connection between the passage and the episode on Mt. Moriah. This use of the formula of fulfillment by James involves the principle that any event which realizes the meaning and truth of a Scriptural statement fulfils it. A vast number of quotations in the New Testament come under this head. Persons, events, doctrines, illustrate and confirm, or embody and concretely realize, principles which are taught in the Old Testament or implied in its history. We are warned by this passage and many others like it against a too rigid and literal interpretation of any formula implying fulfillment. While it may certainly be intended to imply literal prediction and an equally literal fulfillment, it may, on the contrary, be intended to intimate nothing more than a harmony of principle, fitting the passage to the person or event with which it is connected. In this connection it is to be remembered that a harmony of principle may extend all the way from a comparatively superficial illustrative resemblance to a profound assonance of thought. Not a few Old Testament quotations were made for purposes of illustration and literary embellishment. Herein lies the significance of Matthew’s use (Mt 2:17 f) of Jer 31:15. A glance at this quoted passage indicates that it is a figurative and poetic expression in which Rachel (already for many years in her tomb) is represented as weeping for her exiled children and refusing to be comforted except by their return. There is no strictly predictive element in the passage, save only the promise of return, which is not used by Matthew. Its applicability to the massacre of the children of Bethlehem lies in its poetical appositeness, and there alone. Once again the voice of wailing motherhood is heard in Israel. The tender and beautiful imagery is applicable in this sense and is used with true insight, but with no intention of justifying a claim of prediction and fulfillment in the literal sense.

3. Prevision of Christianity in the Old Testament:

The prevision of events in the life of Jesus and in the history of Christianity is involved in all the quotations in which a necessary connection between the passage as predictive and the event is asserted, or in which a prophet is said to have been speaking or writing concerning the event or person in question. An examination of the Old Testament without reference to its use in the New Testament seems to justify the conclusion that its bearing upon the future may be particularized under four heads, which in turn, with sufficient accuracy and exhaustiveness will classify the pertinent New Testament quotations.

(1) The prophetic teaching of Israel embodied not only in the messages of the prophets, but also in laws, institutions, and rites, has a twofold dispensational application. Reference is made here only to those explicit references to a future era of especial blessing. For example, in Ac 2:17 ff Peter interprets the Pentecostal experience in the terms of prophecy, referring to Joe (2:28 ff), who promises an outpouring of God’s Spirit in a "great and notable day" of the Lord. The promise through Joe is an undeniable prediction (every promise is such), which in a measure would be fulfilled in any exceptional manifestation of God’s Spirit among men. The only question which can possibly be raised in connection with Peter’s use of this passage is whether the Pentecostal outpouring was the climactic realization of the promise: that is, the establishment of the era of blessing foretold by the prophet. Later in the same book (3:20-26) the same apostle sweeps the whole field of prophecy as centering in certain promises fulfilled in Christ and the Christian community.

He gives two instances: the prophet like Moses (De 18:15) and the promised inclusive blessing through Abraham (Ge 12:3). He also includes (Ac 3:26) a hint of the Servant passages of Isa. This identification of the New Testament movement through two specific predictive promises is wholly justified by the prophetic character of Jesus, the range and richness of the blessings brought from Abraham through Him, and by the fact elsewhere emphasized that no other has measured up to the standard of the ideal servant. Negatively, it may be urged that if these promises were not fulfilled in Christ, history affords no possibility of discovering any fulfillment measurably adequate, either in the past or future. In Hebrews 8:8-12 reference is made to the promise of a new covenant in Jeremiah (31:31 ff) as a justification for believing that the Old Testament dispensation was not complete in itself and that in its very constitution it pointed forward to Christianity as its fulfillment. Combining this passage with that quoted above (Ac 2:17 ) taken from Joel, the strength of the case for this use of the Old Testament is at once seen. Distinctively Jeremiah’s "new covenant" was to be inward and gracious rather than outward and legal. The promise through Joe is an awakening of prophecy through the free outpouring of God’s Spirit. The distinctive feature of the gospel is its idea of justification by faith, through grace revealed in Christ and imparted by the Holy Spirit given according to promise at Pentecost. The "new covenant" foretold by Jeremiah was established at Pentecost through the outpouring of the Spirit promised through Joel. To deny this as fulfillment is to nullify the meaning of Christian history and to erase both promises from the page of credible prophecy.

(2) Contemporary persons or institutions are sometimes interpreted, not in the terms of present actuality, but on the basis of the ideal not revealed or realized until the coming of Christ. One striking example of this method is to be found in the so-called "Immanuel passage" (Mt 1:23, quoting Isa 7:14). Undoubtedly the message of the prophet to Ahaz had an immediate and contemporary significance. But, like many another notable prophetic message it is set in the key of the Messianic King whose unworthy predecessor Ahaz was. "The Messiah comes, but the willfulness of Ahaz has rendered His reign impossible" (G. A. Smith, "Isa," Expositor’s Bible, I, 134).

In Ac 2:24-36, passages representative of many others quoted, both the resurrection and ascension of Jesus are interpreted in the light of two quotations from the Psalms (16:8 ff; 110:1) as predetermined and therefore certain events in the plan and purpose of God. In both instances the argument is that the promises nominally made to David, or claimed by him, were couched in terms too vast to find fulfillment in his own experience, but were spoken of the greater King who was to come and in whose experience alone they were realized. In the former instance, a triumph over death was anticipated with assurance which not the Psalmist but only Christ attained; in the latter a royal ascendancy was promised that only Christ’s ascension to the place of power could satisfy. An examination of the passages shows that Peter’s interpretation is justified not merely by the wording of the promises, which point to a fullness of experience not realized by any Old Testament man, but still more clearly by the descriptive titles which identify the person who is the subject of the experience. In the first instance he is spoken of as Yahweh’s "Holy One," in the second as "My Lord." The triumph over death which the speaker anticipates is grounded in a unity of purpose and will with God—a holiness which was ideal and still unrealized until Christ came. The logic of the psalm is: God’s "Holy One" must not see corruption. The logic of history is: Christ is God’s Holy One and He did not see corruption. The principle that triumph over death is the logical issue of holiness found its justification and proof not directly in the experience of the singer who first glimpsed it as a truth, but in the career of Christ who first realized it as a fact.

NOTE—The argument here is not affected if one accepts the variant reading "Holy Ones" for the preceding passage.

The second passage is particularly interesting because our Lord Himself first pointed out its implications as to the place and work of the Messiah. Such a passage as this entire psalm (Ps 110) would have been impossible had not the powers and responsibilities of the Davidic King been keyed from the beginning at the Messianic level. The logic here is the same as in Ps 16. The Messianic kingdom over all nations awaited the coming of the true Messianic King. The long-delayed triumph followed hard upon the coming of the long-expected King (compare Ps 2:1,2; Ac 13:32-34).

The same principle is involved in our Lord’s use of the Servant passage (Isa 61:1 ) in His sermon at Nazareth. Here the issue as to Messianic prophecy is fairly joined at the center. It is central because it occurs in the Lord’s own teaching and also because it concerns, not any external or incidental happenings in the life of Jesus, but the whole trend and movement of prophetic thought, together with the entire meaning and interpretation of His career.

Interpreted altogether apart from the New Testament, the passage has an unmistakable bearing upon the future. As one of the series concerned with the Servant (Isa 42:1 ), the quoted passage focuses attention upon the mission of Israel to the world, still to be carried out. "Ye are my witnesses, saith Yahweh, and my servant whom I have chosen" (Isa 43:10), "Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant, and Israel, whom I have chosen" (Isa 44:1). It also involves the entire scope and meaning of the prophetic office through which Yahweh’s will was made known to Israel and through Israel to the world. Both these considerations sweep out into the prophet’s future and both point unerringly to Christ as the historical fulfillment of Israel’s mission and as the actual realization of the ideal and ministry of prophethood. The very ambiguity of the reference in this chapter (Isaiah 61), whether to the Servant or to the prophet, and the questions raised as to whether Israel idealized is referred to or some person or personification, serve to make more clear and unmistakable the central fact that only in Christ is the conception embodied in the entire series of passages altogether realized. It thus becomes for sober thought a distinct revelation and portraiture in advance of what Jesus was in His person and work.

(3) In the course of Israel’s training to receive the Messiah, certain external items were given as bearing upon the identification of Him when He should come. We shall instance three items, closely related to each other, and each intensely interesting in itself. These three items are

(a) His sonship to David (Ac 2:30,31),

(b) His birth from a Virgin (Mt 1:22 f),

(c) His birth at Bethlehem (Mt 2:5).

Objection is offered at once to the interpretation of these Old Testament passages as predictive, and to the alleged fulfillments in the life of Jesus, on the ground mainly that being definite events (compare Mt 2:15) they are not included within the legitimate scope of prediction; and, secondarily, that being items of this external kind it would be an easy matter to invent fulfillments. It may be granted at once that incidents of this kind could be indefinitely multiplied by fabricating coincidences, but the fact remains that, in the absence of any visible check upon invention, very few such instances are alleged by New Testament writers. Furthermore, there are suggestive variations between the events recorded and the natural interpretations of the Old Testament passages connected with them; that is, the fuifilments arrive by such devious routes as to make it difficult to suppose them to be due to the imaginative stimulation of the passages. For example, the birth at Bethlehem was brought about by circumstances not at all to the liking of Jewish patriots; and was obscured to contemporaries by the previous and subsequent residence at Nazareth. The kinship of Jesus to the house of David was made adoptive (unless Mary was of that house) by the virgin birth. The interpretation of Isa 7:14 as intimating a virgin birth was not compulsory to one familiar with the Hebrew text of the passage and would have been thought of in that connection only by one assured of the fact. The virgin birth (see IMMANUEL; VIRGIN BIRTH) is not an etymological but a providential commentary on Isa 7:14. One other consideration of primary importance remains. In the one point where the identification of Jesus with the Messiah by His followers can be tested most severely, they are most completely triumphant. It would be comparatively easy to invent incidents suggested by Old Testament prophecies, and to take dignities and titles wholesale from the same source—but given all these, to find one capable of realizing and fulfilling the expectations so aroused is the chief problem. Here fabrication is impossible. And here too the New Testament meets and answers the challenge of truth. In view of these considerations it is safe to assert that even in matters of historical detail the career of Jesus was foreseen and predicted. Such passages belong to the philosophy of preparation as a whole and should be studied in that connection.

(4) In certain instances the original passage and its reappearance in quotation indicate a process New Testament which is continuous throughout all history. For example, the use of Zec 13:7 (Mr 14:27) suggests a deeper view of the connection between prophecy and history, immediate and more remote, than we are often aware of. On the face of them such passages as those concerning the Smitten Shepherd and the scattered sheep are predictions, and the life of Christ stands as fulfillment. It simply cannot be contended that such passages as these do not find fulfillment and explanation in the career of Jesus as nowhere else in the history. Nevertheless, the connection is far deeper than mere foresight of an isolated event and its occurrence. We may well say that, in a sense, the event is foreseen because it is already a fact. The allegory of the Smitten Shepherd is, as has well been said, "a summary of the history of Israel." But it is more than that. The relationship of God with Israel, which involved a dealing of divine grace with men, their rejection of it and the consequent vicarious immolation of the Divine Friend and Shepherd, which came to its climax in the tragedy of the cross, was established in all essential factors in the early days. Therefore, Christ can say, as the outcome of the profoundest insight into the meaning of history, ‘That which concerneth me hath fulfillment’ (compare Lu 24:44). He was more deeply concerned in the doings of an earlier time than being there foreseen. In a real sense, "the Lamb" was "slain from the foundation of the world," (Re 13:8). In this allegory of the rejected Shepherd and in the successive delineations of the Servant passages, we have the portrait of the Christ as He was—not merely as He was to be. In these quotations deep answers to deep. The only satisfactory interpretation of the tragedy of the cross is that in accordance with principles long operative in human history, "it must needs be." The only satisfactory interpretation of the passages cited is that they disclose the actual operation of the forces which in their culmination issued in the tragedy of the cross. This brings the passages in the original and in quotation into the framework of the same course of events. Peter in his sermon in Solomon’s porch thus sums up the whole process: "But the things which God foreshowed by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ should suffer, he thus fulfilled" (Ac 3:18).

4. Argumentative Quotations:

The argumentative use of the Old Testament involves exactly the same principles which have been dealt with in the foregoing discussion. These principles coalesce in the conception of the Old Testament as authoritative.

(1) Throughout the New Testament, in the teaching of our Lord Himself and in the apostolic writings, a clear-cut distinction is drawn between the temporary and permanent offices of the Old Testament. It is recognized that in essential principles the Old Testament is for all time, while in its outward form and in its actualization of underlying and essential truths it is preliminary and preparatory. There are different dispensations, but one economy. Whenever our Lord uses the Old Testament for purposes of argument (see Mt 4:4,7; 12:17 ff; 19:18 f; Mr 10:19; Lu 19:46) it is on the basis of essential truth which is permanent and unchanging (Mt 5:17-19). On the other hand, He never hesitates to annul that which had a merely temporary or preliminary value (Mt 5:21,33,38; compare by way of contrast Mt 5:27). He came not to destroy, but to fulfil, but fulfillment implies a new era—a new and higher stage in the delivery of truth.

(2) In like manner Paul and the other New Testament writers argue on the basis of an identity of principle which binds the two eras together. Paul contends for three great principles, the Messiahship of Jesus, justification by faith, the inclusion of the Gentiles in the plan of salvation (the doctrine of election is a detail of this last argument; see Ro 9:7,9,12,13,15,17). We shall consider typical examples of Paul’s use of the Old Testament in argumentation. Choice has been made of those which have provoked adverse criticism. Among these is the use of Ge 13:15; 17:8 in Ga 3:16. This is a leading example of Paul’s alleged "rabbinical" method: "He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." The Hebrew word "seed" as applied to offspring (zera‘) is singular. This, of course, means that a man’s descendants are looked upon as organically one, inasmuch as they continue his life. The word would apply to any one of the family, but only by virtue of his belonging to the family. Etymologically Paul’s argument would apply to Isaac as well as to Jesus—provided only the promise is looked upon as being fulfilled in him. But the promise which was fulfilled in Isaac, was fulfilled in a larger way in Israel as a whole, and was fulfilled in the largest way of all in Christ. The use of the singular word indicates that Abraham’s children were looked upon as one in him—they are also one in Christ. The true children of Abraham are such in Christ. Historically the argument is fully justified. "The personality of Christ is in some sense coextensive with the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham" (Beet). "Christ is the organ of fulfillment" (Meyer).

The classical passage in the discussion of justification based upon an Old Testament quotation is Ro 1:17, quoting Hab 2:4. The quoted passage seems to fail the argument because the literal translation would appear to be that "the righteous shall live by their faithfulness." A deeper view, however, amply justifies the quotation; first, because the stedfasthess demanded by the prophet is a persistent trust in God in view of the delay of the promised vision; second, the deepest principle common to the Old Testament and New Testament is that stability of character has its root in trust in Yahweh (Isa 28:16; compare Isa 26:1-3). Nothing could be more foreign to the thought of the Old Testament than that a man could be righteous without trust in God.

One further quotation argumentatively used by Paul may fitly close this section of our discussion. In Ro 11:26,27 he quotes Isa 59:20,21 as indicating the divine purpose to include the Gentiles within the scope of salvation. This passage is doubly significant because it is attacked by Kuenen (Prophets and Prophecy in Israel) on the ground that it is uncritically taken from the Septuagint version which in this instance does not correctly represent the Hebrew text. It may be remarked that a large percentage of the New Testament quotations are taken from the Septuagint. (For estimates of the number see Johnson, Quotations of the New Testament, chapter i.) This prevalent habit is amply justifiable by, and in large consideration of, the fact that the New Testament was written for the purpose of being read and understood by those to whom the Septuagint was often the only version available, and the familiarity of that version was ample compensation for any slight loss in verbal accuracy. The only reasonable qualification of this general statement is that we should call in question any deviation which is depended upon for a point in argument. Kuenen, the severest critic of the New Testament writers in this particular, alleges very few instances, and Professor Johnson has satisfactorily dealt with these in detail (as above). In the case immediately before us the deviations in the version used by Paul do not in the least modify, in the way of strengthening, the reference to the Gentiles (beginning in Ro 11:19 and continuing throughout) which is the point upon which Paul is laying stress. It is not too much to say that Paul’s argument would be unimpaired had he used the Hebrew text, upon which our the Revised Version (British and American) rests (compare Heb 2:6-8). In general, it may be premised that no stringent rule of verbal accuracy should be considered binding upon writers who address a popular audience beyond that which guards the substantial cogency of their argument. From the fair application of this reasonable rule the New Testament writers have nothing to fear.

For the most part the New Testament writers confine their quotations to the Old Testament. In a single instance an extracanonical saying of Jesus (Ac 20:35), and, in at least two instances (Jude 1:9,14), non-canonical books are referred to. In addition to this Paul uses in the letter to Titus (1:12) and in his sermon at Athens (Ac 17:28) lines from native poets to illustrate and enforce his discussion (see POETRY, NEW TESTAMENT). In these latter instances the difference in usage from his ordinary habit of quoting authoritative Scripture is sufficiently obvious. In the case of the saying attributed to Christ, it is enough to say that it is so obviously Christlike that we need not hesitate to accept it as genuine, while in the case of Jude nothing is made to depend upon the quotations except certain accepted Christian truths (see Plummer, Expositor’s Bible. "James and Jude," 434 f).

5. Catena of Passages Illustrating Principles of Quotation:

(1) Based on Unity of Dispensations.

Mt 2:18; 13:14; 27:9; Mr 7:6; Lu 4:21; 20:17; Joh 4:37; 6:45; 7:38; 12:14 f; Ac 2:31,39; 3:25; 4:25; 8:23,12 f; 13:22,32,33,34; 28:26,27; 1Co 15:54,55; Heb 8:8-12; Jas 2:23.

(2) Based on Prevision.

Mt 1:22; 2:5,15; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35; 26:31; Mr 14:27; Lu 22:37; Joh 7:38,42; 12:38,40,49; 13:18; 15:25; 19:24,28,36; 20:9; Ac 1:20; 2:25-28; 3:25; 4:11,25,26; 13:32-34.

(3) Based on Authority of the Old Testament.

Mt 4:4; 5:38,43; 9:13; 19:4,18; 21:1,3,16,42; 22:24,31,32,43; Mr 4:12; 7:10; 10:19; 11:17; 12:19; Lu 2:22,23; 4:10; 19:46; Ac 15:16,17; Ro 1:17; 4:3,7,8; 9:25,26; 10:5,6,8,11,13,16; 12:19; 15:21; 1Co 1:19 (identity of principle); 1:31; 15:45; 2Co 4:13; 6:2,16; 8:15; Ga 3:6,8,10,11,12,13,16; 4:27; Eph 4:8; 6:2; 1Ti 5:18.

See also CHRONICLES, BOOKS OF, 5, 7, 10.


The literature is voluminous. Beside the standard commentaries and dictionaries, the reader will do well to consult C. H. Toy, Quotations in the New Testament; Franklin Johnson, Quotations of the New Testament; Cambridge Biblical Essays ("Our Lord’s Use of the Old Testament" by McNeile); Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, Appendix A.

Louis Matthews Sweet