QUIT

Sulpicius Quirinius in a.d. 6, but it is possible tliat an inscribed stone may yet turn up to enable us to fill the gap. Yet an inscription exists, wliich all authorities agree refers to P. Sulpicius Quirinius, stating that he governed Syria twice. Mommsen considered that the most probable period tor his earlier governorship was B.C. 3-1, but admitted serious doubts. Ramsay has dis-cussed the whole problem afresh, following out the clues offered by the ancient historians, and has adopted as most probable the conclusion that Quirinius was given command of the foreign relations of Syria during the critical period of the war with the Ciiician hill tribe the Homonadenses. Roman history provides analogies for such a dual control of a province at a time of crisis. The date at which this position was held by Quirinius was about b.c. 6. The Greek word used (governing) is a general term applied to the Emperor, a proconsul, a procurator, etc., and is quite consistent with this view. The mention of Quirinius by Luke is merely intended to give a date. The enrolment itself, as it took place in Herod's kingdom, would be superintended by him, at the orders of Augustus, who had suzerainty over the kingdom of Herod, which constituted part of the Imperium Romanum in the full sense of the term. The census, however, was not carried out by the Roman method, but by tribes, a method less alien to Jewish feeling than the Roman method by households. Cf. also p. 5S9'>.

A. SonTER. QTJIT. — The adj. 'quit' (from Lat. quietus) means 'free from obligation,' as Ex 21" 'Then shall he that smote him be quit.' The vb. 'to quit' (from Lat. guielare) is used in AV reflexively — quit oneself, i.e. dis-charge one's obligations, as 1 Co 16" 'Quit you like men.'

QUIVER. — See Aemoxjh, 1 (d).

QUOTATIONS (Df NT).— The NT writings contain quotations from four sources: (1) the OT; (2) non-canonical Jewish writings; (3) non-Jewish sources; (4) letters to which the author of a letter is replying, or other private sources. It is significant of the relation of the NT writings to the OT Scriptures and of the attitude of the NT writers to these Scriptures, that the quotations of the first class far outnumber all those of the other three classes. Swete counts 160 passages directly quoted from the OT by writers of the NT, including those which are cited with an introductory formula, and those which, by their length or accuracy of quotation, are clearly shown to be intended as quota-tions. Westcott and Hort reckon the total number of NT quotations from the OT at 1279, including both passages formerly cited and those in which an influence of the OT upon the NT passage is otherwise shown. Even this list is perhaps not absolutely complete. Thus, while WH enumerate 61 passages from Is 1-39, H. Osgood, in his essay Quotations from the OT in the NT, finds exactly twice as many — 122. Against this large number of quotations from the OT there can be cited at the utmost only some 24 quotations by NT writers from non-canonical Jewish sources (see Ryle, art. 'Apocrypha' in Smith's DB^; Zahn, Com. on Gal 3" 5' 6'5; Woods, art. 'Quotations' in Hastings' DB). Of quotations from non-Jewish sources the following are the only probable instances: Tit l'^, Ac 172», 1 Co 12i2-2' 15". To this short list it should be added that Luke's preface (l'-") is perhaps constructed on classical models (cf. Farrar, Life and Work of Paul, Excursus 3; Zahn, Elnl.' i. p. 51). Of quotations from private sources there are several unquestionable examples in the Pauline letters; 1 Co 7« 8' ll^- "'• 12i, Ph 1= 2^'- 4«-i8; cf. also Philem'-'.

Of the numerous quotations from the OT by far the largest number are derived directly from the LXX, even the freedom of quotation, which the NT writers in common with others of their time permitted themselves, in no way obscuring their direct dependence upon the Greek version. Among the NT books the Epistle to

QUOTATIONS (IN NT)

the Hebrews shows the strongest and most constant influence of the LXX. According to Westcott (Com. p. 479), IS quotations agree with the LXX and Hebrew, 8 with tile LXX where it differs from the Hebrew, 3 differ from LXX and Hebrew, 3 are free renderings. Westcott adds that 'the writer regarded the Greek version as authoritative, and . . . nowhere shows any immediate knowledge of the Hebrew text.' The Gospel of Matthew, on the other hand, exhibits the largest influence of the Hebrew. In the quotations from the OT which are common to the Synoptic Gospels (occurring chiefly in the sayings of Jesus) the LXX clearly exerts the dominant influence. But in those passages which are peculiar to this Gospel— being introduced by the writer by way of comment on events — though the writer is not unacquainted with or uninfluenced by the LXX, the Hebrew is the dominant influence; l'^' 216. 18. 23 4i6f. 8" 12>»«'- 1355 21' 27"-; cf. also 2«. This difference in the two groups of quotations tends to show that while the common source of the Synoptic Gospels was, in the form in which it was used by the Evangelists, in Greek, and shaped under Hellenistic influence, the author of the First Gospel was a Christian Jew who still read his Bible in Hebrew, or drew his series of prophetic comment-quotations from a special source compiled by a Jew of this kind. The quotations in the Gospel of John and the Epistles of Paul, while derived mainly from the LXX, show also an acquaintance of their authors with the original Hebrew. (On the singular fact that the NT quotations from the LXX show a special similarity to the type of LXX text found in Cod. A, cf. Staerk, Ztschr. f. uriss. Theol. Nos. XXXV, XXXVI, XXXVIII, XL; and Swete, Introd. to OT in Greek, p. 395.)

As regards the nature and extent of the influence exerted by the OT in passages which may be called quotations in the broad sense indicated above, there are several distinguishable classes, though it is sometimes difficult to draw the line sharply. We may recognize: (1) Argumentative quotations. The OT passage is quoted, with recognition of its source, and with intention to employ the fact or teaching or prophecy for an argumentative purpose. Passages so quoted may be: (a) historical statements which are supposed to contain in themselves an enunciation of a principle or precept, or to involve a prediction, or to tend to prove a general rule of some kind; cf. Mk Z^i-, Mt 2is, Jn W^, Mt 15'-', He 7'-'i'; (6) predictions; cf. e.g. Ac 2i™-; (c) im-perative precepts, quoted to enforce a teaching; Mk 122»e., 1 Co 9'; or (,d) affirmations interpreted as in-volving a general principle of Divine action or a general characteristic of human nature; Mk 1228, Mt 9", Lk 4", Ac T''-, Ro 3»- !»-", Ja l'"-, 1 P l^*'-. (2) Quotations made the basis of comment. In this case the language of the OT is not cited as supporting the statement of the speaker or writer, but is itself made the basis of ex-position or comment, sometimes with disapproval of its teaching or of the teaching commonly based on it; Mt S"- "■ s> etc., Ro 4«-, Ac &'■'.] (3) Quotations of comparison or of transferred application. The Or language is employed, with recognition of it as coming from the OT and with the intention of connecting the OT event or teaching with the NT matter, but for purposes of comparison rather than argument. The language itself may refer directly and solely to the OT event, being introduced for the sake of comparing with this event some NT fact (simile); or the OT language may be applied directly to a N'T fact, yet so as to imply comparison or likeness of the two events (metaphor); Mt 12"- «, Lk ll'"-, Ac 28»'-, Mt 21«'-, 1 Co 10"-. Closely allied to these, yet perhaps properly belonging to the class of argumentative quotations, are cases of quotation accompanied by allegorical interpretation; cf. e.g. Gal 4m-". (4) Literary influence. In the cases which fall under this head the language is employed because of its familiarity, and applicability to

779