According to the Scriptures

SINCE the revival of interest in the Old Testament among New Testament scholars— a most salutary revival— we have had many learned essays upon the old theme, "Novum testamentum in vetere latet, vetus in novo patet"; but some of them, I think have not altogether avoided the dangerous ground of speculation and fancy, where associations of ideas arising in the critic's own mind have been treated as evidence for original connections.
We need a study which shall be based upon verifiable evidence that this New Testament writer did in fact refer his readers to that passage of the Old Testament in connection with this or that particular theme of the Gospel or of Christian theology.
Such evidence is available, if not perhaps on the scale or in the quantity we might have wished.
Upon that basis, and by comparison of one passage with others, and of one writer with another, we may be able to draw inferences regarding the general principles which underlie the use of testimonia by these writers,
and perhaps to advance to further inferences regarding the employment of the Old Testament by Christian thinkers and teachers in the pre-literary period.
What we are trying to do is to get an opening into the intellectual workshop of the early Church, and to watch its mind at work.

Our first task will be to collect passages from the Old Testament which, being cited by two or more writers of the New Testament in prima facie independence of one another, may fairly be presumed to have been current as testimonia before they wrote.

Two points should first be cleared up with regard to method.
The first has to do with the question of the independence of writers over against one another.
In much criticism of an earlier day the general presumption was entertained that the writings of the New Testament formed a series which, when arranged in correct chronological order, would reveal a more or less orderly development, in which each would show dependence on its predecessor, and each would be seen to have exerted influence on its successor.
It was of course recognized that the series could not be reconstructed in a complete form.
Some of the links have not survived.
But sometimes at least the critic found himself able to recover by probable arguments from the data a lost source which provided a missing link.
Critical work carried out upon this hypothesis undoubtedly made important contributions to our understanding of early Christian history.
But much of the new work done in the last half-century has gone to show that the picture was somewhat out of focus.
The early Church was not such a bookish community.
The main current of its life and thought seems to have been carried by oral tradition,
at least to the end of the first century,
and the surviving documents are, in large measure, the deposit of a common tradition in its various stages,
developed in one way or another according to the idiosyncrasy of the several authors.
In certain specific cases indeed there is definite evidence that writings had some kind of literary connection, over and above the common tradition underlying them all, but except where some such evidence can be adduced, the presumption of literary dependence is precarious, since resemblances might be so probably accounted for without it.

I shall therefore proceed upon the hypothesis that where two separate writers cite the same passage from the Old Testament,
unless there are definite reasons to the contrary, they represent to that extent a common tradition.
The hypothesis must be tested in each case on its merits.
For our present purpose I shall treat the Pauline corpus (excluding Hebrews) as representing the work of one author.
Even if certain of the writings contained in it may not be from the hand of the apostle, they all depend largely upon him.
The two Lucan writings, again, the Third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, represent a single author.
In works therefore belonging to either of these two groups,
coincidence in the citation of the Old Testament will carry, prima facie, no weight as evidence for pre-canonical tradition.
In the Synoptic Gospels we have a more complex case.
That there is some degree of literary dependence among them seems certain,
though it may sometimes be by way of a common written source no longer extant.
It would be hazardous to assume that common citations in two or more of these gospels are made in genuine independence even though we may sometimes suspect that this is in fact the case.
The Fourth Gospel on the other hand stands apart.
All recent criticism tends to reduce the area of its dependence on the Synoptics to a small compass, if it does not discount it altogether,
and citations common to the Synoptics on the one hand
and the Fourth Gospel on the other are prima facie independent.
As for the rest,
the Epistle to the Hebrews appears to stand substantially apart from all other writings,
even though its author may have been under the influence of Paul in certain respects,
and the First Epistle of Peter does not at any rate afford such unmistakable evidence of derivation from the Pauline epistles that we must rule out independence from the outset.
I shall treat it as prima facie independent, and investigate its citations to see how far this hypothesis is justified in particular cases.
The Apocalypse stands very much alone, though it has problematic relations of some kind with other Johannine writings.
It is deliberately moulded upon the model of earlier apocalyptic writings and so much of it is almost a cento of passages from parts of the Old Testament that its evidence is not for the most part of immediate relevance for the study of testimonia, though occasionally it may be treated as an independent witness.
The remaining writings are not of great importance for our immediate purpose.

The second point which needs clearing up is the identification of quoted matter.
The solid nucleus of our material consists of places where phrases, sentences or paragraphs from the Old Testament are introduced with a formula of quotation:

or the like.
But there are many other places where the intention to quote is evident,
though no formula of quotation is employed.
Such passages show all degrees of resemblance to the text of the Old Testament—
verbal identity with the manuscript text of the LXX,
alternative translation of the Hebrew original,
paraphrase, or a similarity just sufficient to suggest an allusion.
It is sometimes a delicate matter to be sure that an allusion is intended, but if the allusion is clear, even though there is no explicit indication that the Old Testament is being cited, the passage must be included.
The reasons for doing so will become stronger as the argument proceeds.

1. Ps.ii.7:

This passage is cited, with the rubric, "it is written in the second psalm," in Acts i.33.
In Heb.i.5 and v.5 it is quoted as what God "said," or "spoke" (τίνι εῖπεν, i.5; ὁ λαλήσας, v.5).
Without a formula of quotation the same passage is probably to be recognized in Mk.i.11, where however the second clause is absent, and it perhaps underlies Mk.ix.7, Mt.iii.17.
In Lk.iii.22 the "western text" has the entire passage, exactly as in the LXX.
This is probably secondary, but it is conceivable that Luke gave the full form here as in Acts i.33, and that the prevailing textual tradition assimilated it to Mk.i.11.
It is thus fairly clear that three authors at least employ Ps.ii.7 as a testimonium to the messiahship of Jesus;
that is, as documentation of one of the main themes of the kerygma.
In all probability they do so without literary dependence upon one another, and we may reasonably infer a pre-canonical employment of the passage in that sense.
top

2. Ps.viii.4-6:

The whole passage is quoted in Heb.ii. 6-8, in a form identical with the MS. text of the LXX,
except that the clause "thou didst set him over the works of thy hands" is omitted.
The rubric is διεμαρτύρατό τού τις λέγων, a type of quotation-formula characteristic of this author, with his addiction to rhetorical elegance.
In I Cor.xv.27 the words "he put all things under his feet" are clearly intended as a citation of our passage,
since Paul continues, ὃταν εἲπη ὃτι πάντα ὑποτέτακται... .
He is here arguing that even death will be subdued to Christ.
His authority for this is the statement in Ps.viii.6 that all things are by divine decree subordinated to the "Son of Man."
The implication is that this scripture will be recognized as referring to Christ.
The same passage is again alluded to, without formula of quotation, in Eph.i.22, again in the form "He put all things under his feet".
Phil.iii.21, τοῦ δύνασθαι αὐτὸν καὶ ὑποτάξαι αὐτῶ τὰ τάντα is also probably to be regarded as another allusion.
The argument here is as follows:
it is perfectly possible for God to accomplish the miracle of transforming our bodies into the likeness of his glory, since (as we know from scripture) He is able to subject all things to Christ.
This argument becomes perspicuous if we assume that Paul saw in the triumph of Christ over death the pledge of glory for mankind as such, to which the psalm refers.
The promise of Ps.viii that man, in the person of Him who is "Son of man" (or in Pauline terms, the Man from heaven) shall be crowned with glory and honour, has been fulfilled in Christ, and will be fulfilled for those who are "in Him."
But all this is so implicit that we should naturally conclude that Paul was basing himself on an accepted interpretation of scripture.
That he owed this interpretation to the Epistle to the Hebrews is most improbable.
The probability is that he and the author to the Hebrews follow a common tradition.

Again, we probably have an allusion to the same verse in I Pet.iii.22, ὑποταγέντων αὐτῶ ἀγγέλων.
The theme of Ps.viii.4-6, as understood by Christians, is that Christ (as "Son of Man") was temporarily reduced to a status inferior to that of the angels, only to be raised to sovereignty over all beings, including, of course, the angels to whom he was formerly inferior.
This understanding of the psalm would supply scriptural authority for the statement made in I Pet.iii.22.
It seems probable, therefore, that the author of this work is following, once again, an accepted interpretation of the psalm.
There is nothing to suggest that he took it from Paul, or from Hebrews.
There is at any rate a high degree of probability that three authors have gone back to this particular scripture, in different contexts, because it was already accepted as a testimonium to Christ before any of them wrote.
It supplies scriptural documentation for the Christian affirmation that "the Messiah must suffer and enter into his glory" (Lk.xxiv.26).

It seems just possible that we may trace the remoter influence of this testimonium in the hymn to Christ which appears in Rev.v.12:
"Worthy is the slain Lamb to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honour and glory and blessing."
If we reflect that the psalm (in its Christian reference) speaks of the glory and honour which accrue to Christ after His humiliation, and that the author to the Hebrews expressly asserts that it came to him διὰ τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου, it will appear not impossible that the conception of δόξα καὶ τιμή as the conspicuous prerogatives of the Crucified should have sunk so deeply into the imagination of the Church that it came to expression alike in theological argument and in hymns of worship—
in the latter, expanded with a series of other attributes in the manner of the "plerophory" characteristic of liturgical language.
But upon this I lay no stress.
It serves only to keep in view the extensive area over which we must be prepared to find the spreading effects of the Church's early preoccupation with the language of the Old Testament.
top

3. Ps.cx.1 (LXX, cix.1):

This is expressly cited in Acts ii.34-35, after the MS. text of the LXX, under the rubric, "David himself says."
In Mk..36 it is cited, with one unimportant variation from the LXX text, under the rubric, "David himself said in the holy Spirit."
In Heb.i.13 the words κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου ἓως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου are cited without express formula of citation, but with the introduction, πρὸς τίνα τῶν ἀγγέλων εἲρηκέν ποτε; which comes as near to such a formula as need be.
Thus we may claim three direct witnesses to the primitive use of this passage as a testimonium.

But allusions to this verse are numerous throughout the New Testament.
Thus Mk.xiv.62 speaks of the Son of Man ἐκ δεξιῶν καθήμενον τῦς δυνάμεως.
In Acts vii.55 the dying Stephen sees the Son of Man ἐκ δεξιῶν ἑστῶτα.
[It is hardly likely that the substitution of the verb ἑστάναι for the καθῦσθαι of the LXX is significant, for ἑστάναι, like "stand" in English and עמדin Hebrew, has commonly the sense "to be situated," without any necessary implication of an upright attitude {"se tenir débout").]
In Rom.viii.34, where Paul is briefly enumerating the central facts of the kerygma,
we have "Christ Jesus, who died, or rather who rose again, and who is at the right hand of God."
Similar echoes of the psalm are found in Eph.i.20 and Col.iii.1;
and in Hebrews, apart from the express citation in i.13, the expression, "seated at the right hand of God," or the like, is found in i.3, viii.i, x.12, .2.
In I Pet.iii.22 once again we have a reference to the resurrection of Christ, followed immediately by the words, "who is at the right hand of God."
It seems clear, therefore, that this particular verse was one of the fundamental texts of the kerygma, underlying almost all the various developments of it, and cited independently in Mark, Acts, Paul, Hebrews and I Peter.

4. Ps.cxviii (LXX, cxvii).22-23:

This passage is cited in Mk. . 10-11, in a form verbally identical with the MS. text of the LXX, with the introduction, "Did you never read this scripture?"
In I Pet. ii. 7 verse 22 alone is cited, as part of a catena of passages introduced by the formula, περιέχει ἐν γραφῆ.
There is a clear allusion to it, though without express marks of citation, in the kerygmatic passage Acts. iv.11:
"This is the stone which was rejected by you builders and has become the top of the pediment."
We have therefore threefold witness to the use of this passage as a testimonium.
The evidence will appear even stronger when we come to consider how it is combined with other passages in various writers.

5. Is.vi.9-10:

This passage is quoted at length, in a form verbally identical with the א text of the LXX, in Matthew i.14-15, under the rubric, ἀναπληροῦται ἡ προφητεία Ἡσαῖου ἡ λέγουσα.
It is again cited in Acts xxviii. 25-27, in identical form, but with the addition of the words of introduction, in a form differing unimportantly from the LXX, πορεύθητι πρὸς τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον καὶ εἰπόν.

In Jn..40 part of the passage is cited, under the rubric, "Again Isaiah said," and with the additional note, ταῦτα εῖπεν Ἡσαῖας ὃτι ε{ιδεν τὸν δ΄πξαν αὐτοῦ. (So א, B, Θ, etc.), which is an implicit reference to vi. I.
[The substitution of εἰδεν τὴν δόξαν for Isaiah's blunt εἰδεν τὸν κύριον is in line with the general practice of "reverential periphrasis," though in this case it is directly justified by the reference to δόξα which immediately follows in the latter part of the same verse.]
The reading of T.R., ὃτι εῖδεν, would amount to an explicit indication of the context, as much as to say "in chapter vi," where Isaiah's vision is described.
The form, however, in which the quotation is given differs widely from the LXX text.
The two forms are as follows:

LXX	Jn.
ἐπαχύνθηγὰρἡκαρδία τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου	τετύφλωκεν¹ αὐτῶν τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς
... καὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτῶν ἐκάμμυσαν	καὶ ἐπώρωσεν² αὐτῶν τὴν καρδὶαν
μή ποτε ἴδωσιν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς καὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ συνῶσιν καὶ ἐπιστρέψωσιν καὶ ἰάσομαι αὐτούς	ἲνα μὴ ἲδωσιν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς καὶ νοήσωσιν τῆ καρδία καὶ στραφῶσιν καὶ ἰάσοναι αὐτούς

1. [Τυφλοῦν is found in LXX only in Tob.vii.7 and Wisd.ii.21, in both of which places there are variants,
and in Is.xlii.19, ἐτύφλωσαν οἱ δοῦλοι τοῦ θεοῦ.]

2. [Πωροῦν is found in two passages only of the LXX, in both of which there are variants,
Job.xvii.7 (v.1, πεπήρωνται), and Prov.x.20 (v.1, πεπυρωμένος).
It is not to be thought that either of these passages can have influenced New Testament writers in their citation of Isaiah vi.]

In Mk.iv.12 (followed by Lk.viii.10) we have a clear citation of the same passage, though without any express formula of quotation, in a form which differs both from the LXX (Matthew and Acts) and from John:

LXX	Mk.iv
Ἀκοῇ ἀκούσετε καὶ οὐ μὴ συνῆτε	ἵνα βλέποντες βλέπωσιν καὶ μὴ ἴδωσιν
καὶ βλέποντες βλέψετε καὶ οὐ μὴ ἴδητε·	καὶ ἀκούοντες ἀκούωσιν καὶ μὺ συνιῶσιν
... μή ποτε ... ἐπιστρέψωσιν καὶ ἰάσομαι αὐτούς	μύ ποτε ἐπιστρέψωσιν καὶ ἀφεθῆ αὐτοῖς

In view of these striking differences of translation, it is not plausible to suppose that these authors were borrowing from one another.
We are clearly dealing with independent citations of the same passage.

The version which underlies the Johannine form of citation, implying a "judicial blinding" of rebellious Israel, seems to find a clear echo in another passage of the same gospel, ix.39, where Jesus declares, "for judgment I have come into the world, ἵνα οἱ μὴ βλέποντες βλέπωσιν καὶ οἱ βλέποντες τυφλοὶ γένωται.
"The companion expression, ἐπώρωσεν αὐτῶν τὴν καρδίαν, finds no echo elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel, but it seems to be implied in several passages of Mark,
viz. iii.5, ἡ πώρωσις τῦς καρδίας αὐτῶν,
vi.52, ῆν αὐτῶν ἡ καρδία πεπωρωμένη,
viii.17, πεπωρωμένην ἔχετε τὴν καρδίαν ὑμῶν;
In the last of these places it is associated with a reminiscence of Jer.v.21,
or the closely similar Ezek..2: ὀφθαλμοὺς ἔχοντες οὐ βλέπετε καὶ ῶτα ἔχοντες οὐκ ἀκούετε;
Both of these prophecies have some resemblance to Is.vi.10.
Further, in Rom.xi.7-8 the verb πωροῦν is again associated with the idea of eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear, and this is, once again, probably a reminiscence either of Is.vi.10 or of the similar passages of Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
This certainly suggests that some version of Isaiah vi similar to that used by the Fourth Evangelist may have been known to Paul.
Consider again II Cor.iii.14, ἐπωρώθη τὰ νοήματα,
with II Cor.iv.4, ἐτύφλωσεν τὰ νοήματα τῶν ἀπίστων.
Though here the blinding is attributed to "the god of this aeon,"
yet the association of πωροῦν with τυφλοῦν is suggestive.
The πώρωσις καρδίας appears yet again in Eph.iv.18.

In view of all this it seems highly probable that Is.vi.10 was widely accepted at an early period as a testimonium to the situation which arose when the Jews rejected the Gospel and were found to be excluded from the new people of God, and that it was employed as such in more versions than one, the most influential being a non-Septuagintal version known to Paul and John and possibly to Mark.
It was clearly regarded as, constructively, providing documentation for the thesis that the Gospel is to be preached to the Gentiles, and in that sense obviously had great importance for primitive Christian apologetic.

6. Is.liii.1:

This passage is quoted, exactly as it stands in the MS. text of the LXX, in Jn..38, under the rubric, "The word of Isaiah the prophet, which he spoke."
The first clause alone, in the same form, is quoted by Paul in Rom.x.16, introduced by the formula "Isaiah says."
That Paul had read the Fourth Gospel is impossible, and that the Fourth Evangelist had read the Epistle to the Romans would be a conjecture for which no evidence can be adduced.
It is a reasonable inference that both writers employed a testimonium already recognized.

7. Is.xl.3-5:

This passage is quoted in extenso in Lk.iii.4-6, under the rubric, "It is written in the Book of Isaiah the prophet."
Luke follows the A text of the LXX fairly closely, reading however αὐτοῦ for τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν, and αἱ τραχεῖαι for ἡ τραχεία, and omitting the clause καί ὀφθήσεται ἡ δόξα κυρίου.

The opening clauses,φωνή βοῶντος ἐν τῆ ἐρήμω, Ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου, εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τριβοὺς αὐτοῦ, exactly as in Luke, are quoted in Mt.iii.3, introduced by the formula, Οῦτός ἐστιν ὁ ῥηθεὶς διὰ Ἡσαῖου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντες, and again in Mk.i.3, conflated with Mal.iii.1, the whole conflate quotation being introduced by the words, "as it is written in Isaiah the prophet."

In Jn.i.23 the opening words are given in a slightly different form, φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῆ ἐρήμω, Εὐθύνατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου, with the note, "as Isaiah the prophet said."
Those who assume the older view that the Fourth Gospel is fundamentally dependent on the Synoptics will no doubt regard the quotation as having been borrowed from Mark or one of the others;
but they will have to explain how it is that John gives a different translation, for he has not drawn it from the LXX.
This is in favour of John's independence at this point.
If it be granted that John accepted this passage as a testimonium, independently of any borrowing from the Synoptics, it will perhaps appear not entirely improbable that the same passage is echoed in two other places of the Fourth Gospel.
The LXX of Is.xl.5 gives ὀφθήσεται ἡ δόξα κυρίου, καὶ ὄψεται πᾶσα σὰρξ τὸ σωτήριον τοῦ θεοῦ.
There may be possible reminiscences of these clauses in Jn.xi.40, ὄψη τὴν δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ, and perhaps i.14, ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ.
If so, then the evangelist was not following the Synoptics here, since the clause ὀφθήσαται ἡ δόξα κυρίου is the one omitted in Luke, and neither of the others has this part of the quotation.
I lay no stress on this suggestion, though as the argument advances it will perhaps be thought less improbable than it seems at this point.
But I should submit that the agreement of John and the Synoptics in treating this passage as a testimonium is probable evidence of its employment as such in the pre-canonical tradition.

Whether the agreement of the Synoptic Gospels in citing this passage has any particular significance is not clear.
Where the three agree, we usually assume that Matthew and Luke are following Mark.
If this is so in the present case, we must assume that both of them independently disentangled the two quotations which Mark has conflated, and that Luke in addition turned to his LXX to complete a quotation of which Mark had given only part.
This is not unlikely in itself, yet many critics have suspected that Matthew and Luke here had a second source in which Isaiah xl.3-5 and Mal.iii.1 appeared separately (cf. Matthew xi.10).
Some slight support for the view that Luke followed some tradition (written or oral) besides Mark in referring to this passage of Isaiah may be found in the clear echo of the same passage in the Nunc Dimittis, εἶδον οἱ ὀφθαλμοί μου τὸ σωτήριόν σου.
In any case we may accept Lk.ii.30 as a third independent appearance of this testimonium.

Thus, while the argument for this passage is perhaps not quite so strong as for the passages we have previously considered, there appears to be a reasonably high degree of probability that it is to be added to the list of passages recognized as testimonial in the pre-canonical tradition.

8. Is.xxviii.16:

(I give here the RV rendering, which is not a perfect translation of the Hebrew text, but will serve for reference; the LXX differs);

and Is.viii.14:

These two passages are quoted in I Pet.ii.6, 8, as part of a catena of citations introduced by the formula, περιέχει ἐν γραφῦ.
They are not in immediate contiguity, being separated by the quotation of Ps.cxviii.22-23 (No. 4 above).
Neither is quoted exactly after the LXX.

LXX. אA	1 Pet.
Ἰδοὺ ἐμβαλῶ εἰς τὰ θεμέλια Σιων	ἰδοὺ τίθημι ἐν Ζιὼν
λίθον πολυτελῆ ἐκλεκτὸν	λίθον ἐκλεκτὸν
ἀκρογωνιαῖον ἔντιμον εἰς τὰ θεμέλια αὐτῆς	ἀκρογωνιαῖον ἒντιμον
καὶ ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ' αὐτῷ οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῇ	καὶ ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ' αὐτῶ οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῆ

LXX.	1 Pet.
οὐχ ὡς λίθου προσκόμματι συναντήσεσθε	λίθος προσκόμματος
αὐτῷ οὐδὲ ὡς πέτρας πτώματι	καὶ πέτρα σκανδάλου

In Rom.ix.33 the same two passages are conflated:
ἰδοὺ τίθημι ἐν Ζιὼν λίθον προσκόμματος καὶ πέτραν σκανδάλου, καὶ ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ' αὐτῶ οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται.
So far as this abbreviated form of quotation can be compared, it agrees with the LXX and differs from it precisely as does I Peter, except that οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται takes the place of οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῆ.
In particular, both agree in giving the correct rendering of the Hebrew, λίθος προσκόμματος and πέτρα σκανδάλου, for the incorrect LXX rendering.
[Moreover, while 'the LXX denies the πρόσκομμα and the πτῶμα, Peter and Paul seem to presuppose a text which affirmed the actuality of both.]
This agreement can hardly be fortuitous.
Yet the hypothesis of literary interdependence is attended with difficulty.
That Paul borrowed from I Peter few would be found to maintain, even among those who assign I Peter to the earliest date possible.
That the author of I Peter borrowed from Romans could be maintained only on the rather unlikely assumption that he first disentangled the conflated passages, and then supplemented them with parts of Is.xxviii.16 which Paul had omitted, and yet that he did not supplement them out of the LXX, since his version does not entirely agree with the LXX even where there is no Pauline parallel.
The simpler, and surely the more probable, hypothesis is that both Paul and the author of I Peter made use of a twofold testimonium already current in the pre-canonical tradition in a version differing somewhat from the LXX.
top

9. Gen..3:

and Gen.x.18:

(I translate both these passages after the LXX.
It does not accurately represent the meaning of the Hebrew, since נברכנ is properly reflexive, and the meaning should apparently be, "shall bless themselves"; i.e. shall pray to be blessed as Abraham was blessed.
But there is no trace of any apprehension of this meaning either in the LXX or in the New Testament).

These two passages are conflated in two places.
In Acts iii.25, following closely upon the statement that "these days" had been foretold by all the prophets, we have a reference to the covenant which God made with the patriarchs, "saying to Abraham, ἐν τῶ σπέρματί σου ἐνευλογηθήσονται πᾶσαι αἱ πατριαὶ τῆς γῆς."
The words underlined come from Gen.x.18 (with a change of order);
the remainder clearly represent πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς in Gen..3.
In Gal.iii.8 Paul cites from "scripture" (ἡ γραφή) the promise of God to Abraham, ἐνευλογηθήσονται ἐν σοὶ πάντα τα ἔθνη.
Here the words underlined come from Gen..3, and the rest from Gen.x.18.
Since Paul and the author of Acts have conflated the passages differently, we cannot suppose that the one borrowed from the other;
but all would be intelligible if we assumed that the two passages were already accepted as testimonia in the pre-canonical tradition, and that our authors quoted somewhat carelessly what was extremely familiar.
The importance of the prophecy is obvious, as documentation of the theme that the Gospel is to be preached to the Gentiles, and we can well believe that it was seized upon from the first by apologists for the Gentile mission.
top

10. Jer.xxxi (LXX, xxxviii).31-34:

This passage is quoted in extenso in Heb.viii.8-12, with the introduction, μεμφόμενος αὐτοὺς λέγει, which amounts to a formula of quotation.
Hebrews follows the A text of the LXX with very little variation.
This is the only place where the prophecy of the New Covenant is thus expressly quoted, but there are numerous places where there are more or less clear allusions to it.
The prophecy sets forth the main features of the promised covenant as follows:

In II Cor.iii it is clear that Paul, although he does not expressly cite Jeremiah, has the prophecy in mind.
It is echoed, not only in the διακόνους καινῆς διαθήκης of verse 6, and by implication in τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης of verse 14, but also in the ἐγγεγραμμένη ἐν ταῖς καρδίας of verse 2, which refers to clause (a) of the covenant, though the expansion of this in verse 3 owes something to Ezek.xi.19; which contrasts καρδία λιθίνη with καρδία σαρκίνη.

Again, I Cor.xi.25 clearly alludes to the same prophecy in describing the Cup of the Eucharist as διαθήκη καινὴ ἐν τῶ αἵματι μου.
The epithet καινή does not occur in other accounts of the Words of Institution, apart from the longer text of Luke x.20, which may be dependent on Paul.
But in the Matthaean account, although the adjective καινή is not present, the clause εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῳν (Mt.xxvi.28) recalls one of the main features of the New Covenant in Jeremiah (d), and corresponds closely enough with the meaning of the Hebrew אםלח לעונם, although the LXX translates ἵλεως ἕσομαι.
It seems, therefore, that the association of the Jeremianic New Covenant with the Eucharist is not peculiar to Paul, and since he himself professes to be repeating a tradition which he had received, we may with much probability conclude that Jer.xxxi.31 sqq. had affected the liturgical tradition at a date earlier than the writing of I Corinthians.
The clause of the New Covenant, ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς εἰς θεὸν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονται μοι εἰς λαόν (b) is included in a catena of Old Testament passages in II Cor.vi.17-18, which also echoes Jer.xxxi.9 (LXX, xxxviii.9), ἐγενόμην τῶ Ἰσραὺλ εἰς πατέρα.

The clause of the covenant (c) which promises knowledge of God does not seem to be directly referred to in the New Testament, but it is perhaps hardly accidental that in I Jn.ii.12-14, which sets forth the features of a state of existence when "the darkness is passing away and the light of reality is shining," couples closely the knowledge of God (c) and the forgiveness of sins (d);
while we might find a remote echo of Jer.xxxi.34 in the words of Jn.iv.42:

Although, therefore, there is only one place where the prophecy of the New Covenant is expressly cited as from scripture, it seems clear that it was widely influential in the Church from an early date, since it has not only influenced Paul, Hebrews and the Synoptic tradition, and possibly the Johannine tradition too, but probably had a place in primitive liturgical forms.

11. Joel ii.28-32:

The first four-and-a-half verses of this passage (down to "shall be saved,"32a) are quoted in extenso in Acts ii.17-21, under the rubric, "This is that which was spoken through the prophet Joel."
The citation is completed by the clear allusion to verse 320 in Acts ii. 39.
[This should be noted as a clear indication that the scripture which a writer has in mind is not necessarily limited to the amount which he quotes.
The quotation of Joel ends at Acts ii. 21 in the middle of verse 32, but the latter part of verse 32, "those whom the Lord has called" crops up at Acts ii. 39 in a way which shows that the whole passage was in mind.
It is perhaps the clearest of many examples of the kind.]
The author of Acts has followed the text of the LXX as we have it in the MSS., with a few not very important variations.
The citation forms the opening of the speech attributed to Peter on the Day of Pentecost—
the first rendering of the apostolic kerygma in the Acts, presented as a kind of programme of the Christian mission.
It seems clear, therefore, that this prophecy of Joel was an important testimonium; yet there is not very much direct evidence of its use outside Acts.

In Rom.x.13 Paul cites the words,
"Everyone who invokes the name of the Lord shall be saved,"
exactly as they stand in the LXX of Joel ii.32a.
[The expression οἱ ἐπικαλούμενοι τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου has become for Paul a synonym for "Christians", the κυρίος being, of course, "our Lord Jesus Christ," I Cor.i.2.]
The citation occurs in a passage which is essentially a commentary (a kind of "Midrash") on certain passages of the Old Testament, most of which are introduced by such formulae as Μωυσῦς γράφει (5), λέγει ἡ γραφή (11), γέγραπται (15), Ἡσαῖας λέγει (16).
It is thus a mere accident that no such formula happens to be used in verse 13; the intention to quote is clear.
It is further to be observed that among the passages here cited occur two which we have already noted as primitive testimonia.
Is.xxviii.16 (verse 11) and Is.liii.1 (verse 16);
and if we go a little further, to xi.8, which still belongs to the same argument, we shall find one of the passages about eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear, which we have noted as being associated with Is.vi.10 as testimonies to the transference of the privileges of the Gospel from the Jews to the Gentiles.
It seems clear that Paul is working largely with passages from the Old Testament already current as testimonia, and we need not hesitate to put down Joel ii.32 among them.

For the rest, the language of Joel ii.31 seems to have had influence upon the apocalyptic conceptions of early Christianity.
It is echoed in Lk.xxi.25, ἔσονται σημεῖα ἐν ἡλιῳ καὶ σελήνῃ,
Mk.i.24, ὁ ἥλιος σκοτισθήσεται καὶ ἡ σελήνη οὐ δώσει το φέγγος αὐτῆς,
Rev.ix.2, ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος
(cf. reference to καπνός, though this looks back also to Exod.xix.18, and perhaps Gen.xix.28).
But all this is little to our present purpose.

The use of this prophecy of Joel in Rom.x seems just sufficient to justify the conclusion that its introduction as a main testimonium to the kerygma in Acts ii is not due to the author, but rests upon primitive (pre-Pauline) usage.

12. Zech.ix.9:

This is cited in Mt.xxi.5, in a version approximating to the LXX, under the rubric, "That which was spoken through the prophet" and in Jn..15, in a different and much abbreviated version, under the rubric, "As it is written."
The differences may be exhibited as follows:

LXX.	Mt.	Jn.
Χαῖρε σφόδρα θύγατερ Σιων·	εἴπατε τῆ θυγατρὶ Ζιών	μὴ φοβοῦ θυγάτηρ Ζιών
κήρυσσε, θύγατερ Ιερουσαλημ
ἰδοὺ ὁ βασιλεύς σου ἔρχεταί σοι	ἰδοὺ ὁ βασιλεύς σου ἔρχεταί σοι	ἰδοὺ ὁ βασιλεύς σου ἔρχεταί
δίκαιος καὶ σῴζων αὐτός
πραὺς καὶ ἐπιβεβηκὼς ἐπὶ ὑποζύγιον	πραὺς καὶ ἐπιβεβηκὼς ἐπὶ ὄνον	καθήμενος ἐπὶ
καὶ πῶλον νέον	καὶ ἐπὶ πῶλον υἱὸν ὑποζυγίου	πῶλον ὄνου

The wide differences between the two forms of quotation, neither of which could be accounted for by the hypothesis of a revision on the basis of the LXX, make it entirely improbable that either evangelist was indebted to the other.
In Mark there is no trace of the wording of the prophecy, unless it be in the mere use of the terms πιωλος and βασιλεία, so that the common element could not be accounted for by the hypothesis that each was altering a Marcan prototype in a different way.
We seem to have a true case of independent citation, surely on the basis of a common tradition of testimonia rather than of any written source.
top

13. Hab.ii.3-4:

Coming he will come and will not delay.
If anyone draws back my soul does not approve of him,
but the righteous will live by my faith.
(so LXX, not altogether acceptable as a rendering of the Hebrew of the Massoretic text).

This passage is quoted in Heb. x. 37-38.
There is no formula of quotation, but the intention to quote seems plain.
It clearly has the LXX, and not the Hebrew, behind it,
but the author quotes somewhat freely:

LXX.	Heb.
ἐρχόμενος ἥξει καὶ οὐ μὴ χρονίσῃ	ὁ ἐρχόμενος¹ ἥξει καὶ οὐ χρονίσει [v.l. - ιεῖ]
ἐὰν ὑποστείληται οὐκ εὐδοκεῖ ἡ ψυχή μου ἐν αὐτῷ	ὁ δὲ δίκαιός μου ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται
ὁ δὲ δίκαιος [+ μου A] ἐκ πίστεώς μου ζήσεται	καὶ ἐὰν ὑποστείληται οὐκ εὐδοκεῖ ἡ ψυχή μου ἐν αὐτῶ

1 [The expression, ὁ ἐρχόμενος, where LXX has ἐρχόμενος ἥξει ( = יבא בא), links itself with the use of the same phrase in Mt.xi.3 = Lk.vii.19, but whether the testimonium or the dialogue is prior we have no means of saying.]

In addition, he has prefixed to the passage from Habakkuk the words ἔτι γὰρ μικρὸν ὅσον ὅσον, which seem to be a reminiscence of Is.xxvi.20, εἴσελθε εἰς τὰ ταμεῖά σου, ἀπόκλεισον τὺν θύραν σου, καὶ ἀποκρύβηθι νικρὸν ὅσον ὅσον, ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ ἡ ὀργὴ κυρίου, a passage which, curiously enough, seems to be echoed also in Mt.vi.6, but in a context which gives it no significance for our present purpose.
This is no genuine case of conflation (like Nos. 8 and 9 above), where both passages have relevance to the matter in hand.
It appears that the author is here quoting from memory.

One clause of the passage from Habakkuk is quoted by Paul in Rom.i.17 and Gal.iii.11.
In the former place it is introduced by the formula, ὡς γέγραπται, and in the latter place it forms part of a series of quotations covered by similar formulae inserted at intervals.
Paul's version of the clause diners both from the LXX and from Hebrews:
ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται, which he may have understood to mean "he who is righteous (i.e. "justified") by faith will come to life" (in the sense of Rom. viii. 2).
[If he had been writing freely, he might have given the form ὁ ἐκ πίστεως δίκαιος, as in Rom.x.6 he writes ἡ πίστεως δικαιοσούνη.]
That Paul borrowed from Hebrews is out of the question.
That the author of Hebrews borrowed from Paul is entirely unlikely, because

he gives the words differently;
he cites much more of the passage, and
he evidently understands the words differently;

he quotes the whole passage for the sake of its warning against ὑποστολή, and treats πίστις as the opposite of the weakness of character which leads to ὑποστολή (much more nearly in agreement with the meaning intended by the prophet for the word אמונה).
It is much more likely that he drew upon a tradition which already recognized the passage from Habakkuk as a testimonium to the coming of Christ, and this tradition may well have been formed even before Paul wrote to the Galatians;
for his argument (which is very much an argumentum ad hominem) would be far more effective with his Jewish-Christian antagonists if it was already common ground between them that when the Coming One should come, ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται.
The exact exegesis of those words would be legitimate matter for discussion.
The variation between the Hebrew (צדיק באמונחו יחיח = "the righteous will live by his steadfastness"), the LXX (= "the just will live by my faithfulness"), and the form known to the author to the Hebrews ("my righteous one will live by faith"), as well as Paul's own version without the possessive pronoun, is sufficient to show that there were differences of view.
[Not to mention the reading of Codex Alexandrinus of Habakkuk, which gives the sense "my righteous one will live by my faithfulness."
This is a mixed reading, almost certainly secondary.]
Hence there is reasonable probability that Hab.ii.3-4 should be added to our list of traditional testimonial from the earliest period.
top

14. Is.Ixi.1-2:

The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me.
He has sent me to preach the gospel to the poor,
to heal the broken-hearted,
to proclaim release to captives
and recovery of sight to the blind;
to cry the acceptable year of the Lord.
(so LXX).

This passage is quoted in extenso in Lk.iv.18-19, with an introductory formula which explicitly refers to the prophet Isaiah.
The quotation follows the MS. text of the LXX in essentials, except that it introduces a clause which is not present in Is.Ixi:
ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει, which clearly echoes Is.Iviii.6.
[This curious interpolation may be due to fortuitous association;
yet it is hardly accidental that the intrusive clause is drawn from a chapter which is echoed elsewhere in the New Testament, Is.Iviii.6, σύνδεσμον ἀδικίας, is echoed in Acts viii.23, in combination with χολὴ πιλρίας from Deut.xxix.18 (a passage echoed also in Heb..15). In the same chapter. Is.Iviii, the description of the "fast" which God requires (verse 7), following immediately upon the "bond of iniquity" and the release of the "bruised," with its insistence on feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and receiving the homeless, is similar in purport, though not in language, to Mt.xxv.35-36;
and the interweaving of the ideas of φῶς δόξα θεοῦ, δικαιοσύνη, in 8-10, leading to the promise ὁ θεός σου μετά σου (cf "Immanuel") is a part of the background of much that meets us in the New Testament.]

There is no other explicit citation of this passage, but there are unmistakable allusions to it.
In Acts x.38 the address of Peter to Cornelius, which is recognized as an early formulation of the kerygma, includes the phrase, ἔχρισεν αὐτὸν ὁ θεὸς πνεύματι ἁγίῳ.
[See my book, The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments (second edition) pp. 27-28.]
Like other kerygmatic passages, this address is dominated by the idea of prophecy fulfilled, and indeed the expression, "To him all the prophets testify," (x. 43) may, in view of the general character of the kerygma, be extended by implication beyond its immediate application, to cover all allusions to the Old Testament in the context.

Again, in Mt.xi.5 = Lk.vii.22, the statement τυφλοὶ ἀναβλέπουσιν ... καὶ πτωχοὶ εὐαγγελίζονται is intended to prove, by appeal to manifest facts, that Jesus is ὁ ἐρχόμενος, which means that his activity corresponds to the affirmations of the prophets concerning the good time coming.
Implicitly, therefore, the clause in question is an allusion to Is.Ixi.1.
In a similar spirit the concluding clause of Is.Ixi.2, which Luke has not included, παρακαλέσαι πάντας τοὺς πενθοῦντας, is echoed in the beatitude upon the mourners in Mt.v.4.

Although, therefore, it is only in Lk.iv.18-19 that Is.Ixi.1-2 is expressly quoted, it seems to be treated as a source of testimonies, in the kerygmatic passage of Acts x, which almost certainly rests upon earlier tradition, and in the "Q" stratum of Matthew and Luke, which, whether or not it had the character of a documentary source, also represents an early independent tradition.
Lk.iv.18-19 may represent another independent tradition (Luke's "special source"), or it may be that the author has intentionally cited at length a passage which he found to be alluded to in various parts of the tradition known to him.
In any case, although the attestation of this citation is rather more slender than it was for some of the other passages we have investigated, there is a reasonable probability that it should be added to our list of primitive testimonial.

15. Deut.xviii.15, 19:

A prophet from among your brethren, like me, will the Lord your God raise up for you;
him you shall hear ...
and the man who does not hear whatever that prophet says in my name,
I will exact the penalty from him.

This passage is cited in Acts iii.22-23, under the rubric "Moses said."
The citation, however, does not exactly follow the text of the LXX (which I have translated) but "telescopes" it, and remoulds the conclusion in a way which recalls Lev.xi.29.

LXX.	Acts.
(Dt.xviii.15.) προφήτην	προφήτην
ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν σου ὡς ἐμὲ	ὑμῖν ἀναστήσει κύριος ὁ θεὸς
ἀναστήσει σοι κύριος ὁ θεός σου	ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ὑμῶν ὡς ἐμέ
αὐτοῦ ἀκούσεσθε	αὐτοῦ ἀκούσεσθε κατὰ πάντα
(19.) καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὃς ἐὰν μὴ ἀκούσῃ ὅσα ἐὰν λαλήσῃ ... ἐγὼ ἐκδικήσω ἐξ αὐτοῦ	ὃσἃ ἂν λαλἠση πρὸς ὑμᾶς
(Lv.xi.29.) πᾶσα ψυχή ἥτις μὴ ταπεινωθήσεται ἐξολεθρευθήσεται ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτῆς	ἕσται δὲ πᾶσα ψυχὴ ἥτις ἐὰν μὴ ἀκούσῃ τοῦ προφήτου ἐκείνου ἐξολεθρευθήσεται ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ

The combination of Deuteronomy and Leviticus must be regarded as due to fortuitous association.
It is no genuine conflation, since the passage in Leviticus has no bearing on the matter in hand.
The author's intention is clearly to quote the prophecy from Deuteronomy about the prophet like Moses whom God is to raise up.
The essential clause is quoted again in Acts vii.37, προφήτην ὑμῖν ἀναστήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ὑμῶν ὡς ἐμέ, with the introductory words, "This is the Moses who said to the sons of Israel ..."
The whole of Stephen's address in which the quotation occurs is something like a cento of passages from the Old Testament with comments upon them.
The repeated occurrence of the same quotation within the same work has no necessary significance for our present purpose;
but there is much to be said for the view that in the kerygmatic passages (to which Acts iii.12-26 belongs) traditional material is being introduced,
[See The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments (second edition), pp. 17-20]
and that Stephen's speech in Acts vii, which has a style and manner of its own, unlike anything else in Acts, may also go back to a pre-canonical source the nucleus of which may well have been the catena from the Old Testament.
This is however rather more speculative than befits the present stage of the investigation.

Outside Acts there is no explicit quotation of the prophecy of the prophet like Moses;
but there appear to be several allusions to it.
In Lk.ix.35 the bath-qol at the Transfiguration runs, οὖτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱος μου ὁ ἐκελελεγμένος‧ αὐτοῦ ἀκούετε.
Having in mind the importance of the prophecy from Deuteronomy for the author of Luke-Acts, we are led to suppose that he intended his readers to see here a reference to it, and to infer that Jesus is to be identified with the prophet like Moses.
So far, the repeated reference, in the same author, need not have any particular significance;
but in fact the crucial phrase occurs also in Mark's story of the Transfiguration (ix.7), whether or not this has been Luke's model—
and there are certain divergences, especially the substitution of ὁ ἐκλελεγμένος for ὁ ἀγαπητός, which suggest that he may not have been entirely dependent on Mark.
If then the words ἀκούετε αὐτοῦ be thought to indicate a reference to the prophecy, we have a genuine second attestation of its use as a testimonium.
That the prophet like Moses is in mind becomes slightly more likely when we recall that Moses has figured in the scene of the Transfiguration, and that as the voice is heard he disappears, and Jesus alone is visible:
Moses has gone:
the prophet like Moses remains, and it is he whom men are to hear, as the prophecy declared.

It seems probable that we are to find here the basis of the reference to ὁωπροφήτης ὁ ἐρχόμενος υἰς τὸν κόσμον in Jn.vi.14.
Jesus has just given bread to the people, as Moses had given manna in the wilderness (vi.31).
He is therefore hailed as the coming prophet like Moses.
Since we have evidence that the passage from Deuteronomy belonged to the corpus of prophecies attached to the kerygma (even though proof that it belonged to the primitive corpus of such prophecies may fall short of being conclusive), it appears gratuitous to seek an explanation for the Johannine idea of the "coming prophet" in the doctrine of the one prophet who comes in age after age—
a doctrine found in Manichaean and other sources, but in no Christian source earlier than the spurious Clementines (which are not earlier, it appears, than the third century).
While, however, in Mark and Luke the coming prophet is clearly identified with the Son (the Messiah), John seems to treat him as only a quasi-messianic figure; for John the Baptist is offered his choice of the roles of Messiah, Elijah, or "the prophet" and rejects them all in favour of the designation φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῆ ἐρήμῳ (i.23-25).
It appears therefore as if the Fourth Evangelist were acquainted with the employment of Deut.xviii.15 as a testimonium to the messianic dignity of Jesus, but did not accept it as such.

It is clear that the evidence here is weaker than in the previous cases, but I think it is enough to establish some measure of probability that the scripture about the prophet like Moses is to be added to our list of primitive testimonia.

Here then are fifteen instances where there are grounds, and in most of them strong grounds, for believing that New Testament writers were working upon a tradition in which certain passages of the Old Testament were treated as "testimonies" to the Gospel facts, or in other words as disclosing that "determinate counsel of God" which was fulfilled in those facts.
There is one feature of these citations which must now be brought out.
Where two or more New Testament writers agree in citing some particular text from the Old Testament, as they agree in the fifteen instances given in the above list, they do not necessarily agree in the precise extent of the matter quoted.
One writer may quote a somewhat lengthy passage in extenso,
while another may quote only a single clause, another perhaps a different clause;
and sometimes the matter quoted by different writers may overlap without being coextensive.
We have now to observe that there are other cases, not in the list, where adjacent or contiguous clauses are cited by different writers
but, as it happens, no one quotes the complete passage.

The first member of this distich, ὁ ζῆλος τοῦ οἴκου σου καταφαγεταί με, is quoted, exactly as it stands in the LXX, in Jn.ii.17, under the rubric "It is written."
The second member, οἰ ὀνειδισμοὶ τὼν ὀνειδιζόντων σε ἐπεπεσαν ἐπ' ἐμέ, again in the septuagintal text, is quoted in Rom.xv.3, under the rubric, "As it is written."
In both cases it is assumed without argument that the passage refers to Christ.
Are we to believe that each of these writers, neither acquainted with the other's work, selected by accident the two halves of a single verse for use as a "testimony"—
and that from a psalm which is not, in any obvious sense, "messianic"?
Surely it is more probable that both writers were guided by a tradition in which this psalm was already referred to Christ.

This probability is strengthened when we observe that other verses of Ps.Ixix are cited as testimonial elsewhere in the New Testament, as follows:

It can scarcely be accidental that five separate authors have turned to this particular psalm for testimonia, although they have selected different sentences for quotation.¹ [The significance of these citations of scripture in the speech of Peter upon the election to a vacancy in the apostolate is, I think, not always appreciated.
The situation brought about by Judas's defection is represented as unexpected and unprovided for.
Upon the basis of the saying about the "twelve thrones" (Mt.xix.28 = Lk.x.30), the disciples had no doubt assumed that the chosen twelve constituted a permanent government in the "Israel of God."
If one of the chosen twelve disappears, what is to be done?
Peter first shows that there is a real vacancy in the government.
The mere death of an apostle need not have created a vacancy: ἐν τῆ παλιγγενεσίᾳ he would be there to take his throne;
but apostasy is a different matter.
He then shows that scripture has provided for the occurrence of a vacancy, in Ps.Ixix.
For its relevance and cogency the citation requires that it shall be agreed that the Psalm refers to the rejection and sufferings of Christ, in which Judas had played his part among the enemies of God.
He then shows that scripture has also provided for the filling of the vacancy, in Ps.cix. (LXX, cviii), 8;
τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν αὐτοῦ λάβοι ἕτερος.
This being granted, the meeting can proceed to an election, assured that it is not acting ultra vires.
There is of course no means of proving that all this is not the work of the author of Acts, but it appears to me that no Sitz in Leben for such a piece of tradition is so natural or likely as the early days of perplexity.
That a recollection of the essential element of procedure on so momentous an occasion should have been preserved in tradition is in no way improbable, however much the author of Acts may have written it up.]

It seems then that we drew the line unnecessarily narrowly in limiting our evidence to cases where a New Testament writer has quoted at least some of the same words from a passage of scripture as others have quoted.
We must also admit as evidence for a pre-canonical use of such passages of scripture cases where two or more writers have quoted, or recalled, contiguous or adjacent sentences within a wider context.
The investigation of such cases will be our next task.
But meanwhile our study has surely created a certain presumption that New Testament writers were guided in their use of the Old Testament by certain agreed principles or conventions.
It has also suggested that such guidance may not have taken the form of an anthology of single, isolated proof-texts, as has often been supposed.
It points rather to the hypothesis that there were some parts of scripture which were early recognized as appropriate sources from which testimonia might be drawn.
This hypothesis has now to be tested.

4. οἱ μισοῦντές με δωρεάν	cited (with slight verbal change) in Jn.xv.25, under the rubric, ὁ λόγος ὁ ἐν τῶ νόμῳ αὐτῶν γεγραμμένος
21a. ἔδωκαν εἰς τὸ βρῶμά μου χολὴν	recalled in Mt.xxvii.34 (without explicit quotation).
21b. εἰς τὴν δίψαν μου ἐπότισάν με ὄξος	recalled in Mk.xv.36, Jn.xix.28 (with the note, ἵνα τελειωθῆ ἡ γραφή)
25. γενηθήτω ἡ ἔπαυλις αὐτῶν ἠρημωμένη, καὶ ἐν τοῖς σκηνώμασιν αὐτῶν μὴ ἔστω ὁ κατοικῶν	quoted, with the omission of 3 words and with a change from plural to singular, in Acts i.20, under the rubric, γέγραπται ἐν βίβλῳ ψαλμῶν¹.

THE SUB-STRUCTURE OF NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

By C. H. DODD PROFESSOR EMERITUS IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
LONDON: NISBET & CO., LTD. 22 BERNERS STREET, W.I
First published in November 1953
Prepared for katapi by Paul Ingram 2006.

II - TESTIMONIES