Robert Alan Kraft, A.B.

Wheaton College, 1955

[[Electronic form created by Ellen Shevitz, 1996]]






Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
at Wheaton College

Wheaton, Illinois
June, 1957









INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


The Problem

The Advance in Biblical Studies
The Influence on Theological Studies
Resultant Need in the Doctrine of Inspiration



Previous Work in the Field
Goals and Limitations
Method of Treatment

JESUS AS A TEACHER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


The Gospel Documents

The Synoptic and Johannine Problem

Stated and Exhibited
Immediate Significance for this Study

Gospel Editing
Fragmentary Nature of the Gospel Documents

The Gospel Culture Background

Greek Language
Aramaic Basis

The Words of Jesus

Jesus' Mother-Tongue
Jesus' Mode of Thought
Interpreting Jesus' Teachings

The Relation of Jesus and the Gospel Records
The Methods of Jesus


Summary and Conclusion

JESUS AND THE OLD TESTAMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Limitations of Such a Study

The Data

Direct Formal Quotations

The Formulas of Quotation
The Hypothetical Gospel Sources Involved
The Canon from which Jesus Formally Quotes
The Text of the Quotations

Informal Quotations

Nature and Problems
Notices of Canon

Other Allusions

Notices of Canon

The Interpretation of the Data


Jesus' Use of the Old Testament


His Use Relative to His Audience


The Multitudes
The Religious Leaders


His Use Relative to Content




The Purpose of Jesus' Use of the Old Testament


Jesus' Doctrine of the Old Testament


Direct Statements
Indirect Evidence


Summary and Conclusion

JESUS AND THE NEW TESTAMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

The Argument
The Evidence


Analysis of Passages


Those concerning Believers in General
Those concerning Preachers
Those concerning Special Situations
Those concerning the Disciples


Significance of the Passages



  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

What Jesus Taught about Inspiration
How His Teaching Relates to Modern Thought


Canon of the Bible
The Biblical History
Inspiration in General
Written Inspiration
The Original Documents
The Necessity of Illumination


How His Teaching Affects Modern Theology

  APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

1. Jesus' Formal Quotations
2. Jesus' Informal Quotations
3. Jesus' References to Old Testament Historical Events
4. Jesus' Legal and Theological Use of the Old Testament
5. Jesus' Formulas of Reference to the Old Testament
6. Jesus' Designations for the Old Testament and its Parts
7. Persons with whom Jesus Used the Old Testament
8. Matthew 5:17-20
9. John 10:34-35
10. Jesus and the New Testament

  BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131















The Problem

Advance in Biblical Studies. -- Biblical studies have been undergoing a major transformation in recent years.\1/ Whereas the New Testament and the Old Testament alike were once lone representatives of their alleged historico-cultural contexts, we now have extra-scriptural evidence from Ugarit and Qumran (to mention only the major sources) which both confirms and stimulates our developing understanding of the Bible. Whereas the New Testament was once considered an essentially Greek document with minor Hebrew elements, the Dead Sea finds have helped to establish modern speculation that Hebrew-Aramaic thought-frames are the early Christian heritage and not Platonic-Aristotelian classical concepts. Jesus, especially, is seen to be a figure who accords with his Aramaic world and Hebrew prophetic precedent.\2/


\1/Current interest and literature are a patent witness to this fact. Within the last century, extreme rationalistic liberalism has all but lost its hearing. Archaeology has reinstated much of the historical data of the Bible. Experience shows that the basic Biblical scheme of salvation from sin cannot be ignored. Semantics, linguistics, and sociology have tended to point up the essential unity between a man, his speech, and his culture. Thus the tendency seems to be toward a more conservative critical scholarship.

\2/Any good treatment of the Qumran material shows the similarity of Qumran and the New Testament. <au>J. M. Allegro</> has gone so far with this relationship that he finds early Christianity to be built upon much of the Dead Sea doctrine. See his <tm>The Dead Sea Scrolls</> (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1956), especially chap. 8 -- "The Qumran Sect and Jesus." <au>T. H. Gaster</>, in his "Introduction" to <tm>The Dead Sea Scriptures</> (Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Co., 1956), gives a much more conservative estimate of the relation of this material to Christianity (see especially pp. 12-17), as do the majority of scholarly works on the subject. Previous work in the field of the Aramaic background of the Gospels (and New Testament) was done as early as the time of Wellhausen, and more recently by C. C. Torrey, M. Black, C. F. Burney, G. Dalman, T. W. Manson, etc. See below: Chapter I, pp. 22-26.



Influence on Theological Studies. -- As the Bible is seen more accurately in its life-setting, its meanings and concepts take on fresh significance. This fact has given great impetus to Biblical theology in recent years, and to a resulting re-evaluation of the judgments of classical systematic theology. Since the latter had failed too often to take into account even the material available to it (relevance of the synoptic problem, advance of textual and historical criticism, new exegetical insights, etc.), it has become even more imperative that scriptural doctrine be re-examined.

Resultant Need in the Doctrine of Inspiration. -- Perhaps one of the most neglected areas of doctrine from the standpoint of exegetical re-evaluation has been that of inspiration. Philosophically, recent years have found much done in this area -- questions of semantics, of fallibility of language, of cultural and social thought forms, of myth and history. But there have been few recent attempts to apply this modern knowledge and approach to the Biblical data bearing on inspiration.\3/


\3/It is true that a great volume of modern literature has been written on this topic, but little of this exhibits an up-to-date exegetical approach. The usual method is to accept a position on inspiration from primarily philosophical-theological considerations, and then to compare this position with the views traditionally ascribed to Jesus and the New Testament authors. If it is found that Jesus seems to disagree, it is relatively simple to find a loophole such as accommodation of "kenosis" of an exegetical ambiguity of some sort which preserves both Jesus' religious authority and the modern philosophical theory. Even when the exegetical approach is attempted, as in <au>J. W. Wenham's</> booklet, <tm>Our Lord's View of the Old Testament</> (London: Tyndale, 1953), too often the exegesis builds on a study of Greek words rather than on an examination of basic intent and meaning (see especially pp. 15-27). In most of what Wenham says, he has not advanced beyond the methods of Warfield (whose methods may have been good in his day, but are certainly not up-to-date today! See <au>T. F. Torrance</>, review of <au>Warfield's</> <tm>Inspiration and Authority of the Bible</>, <tp>Scottish Journal of Theology</>, VII, 104-108, for a similar evaluation). Nor has Wenham given any indication of textual and synoptic problem areas (he acknowledges this on pp. 7-8). In general, either this uncritical approach or a hyper-critical approach which denies to Christ the words which present problems, have tended to be the modern "exegetical" method on the doctrine of inspiration. The latter attitude is exhibited by <au>A. M. Hunter</>, <tm>Design for Life</> (London: SCM, 1953), p. 43.



Since the Christian church claims to be found upon the historical person, work, and teachings of Jesus Christ, Christians should certainly reexamine his message first, and attempt to determine what light he sheds upon the abundance of modern discussion concerning inspiration.\4/ Should his teaching (or, for that matter, the teachings of his apostles) be considered as secondary to philosophical-theological speculation, or should they not rather guide modern speculation? Can the Christian arrive at the view he "must hold" without recognizing the view which Jesus exhibited? Christianity is obligated to ask, "In the light of our new Biblical knowledge, what contributions does Jesus make to a modern discussion of inspiration?"


\4/<au>G. F. Tittmann's</> article, "How Can We Say that Jesus is Perfect?" (<tp>Anglican Theological Review</>, XXXVI, 201-204), does an excellent job of emphasizing the fact that Christians accept Jesus as the standard, and thus have no objective way to judge his perfection. By analogy, and apart from theology, whatever Jesus taught and did should be examined (insofar as is possible) first by Christianity before doctrinal conclusions are formed. If after such an examination it is decided that Jesus' knowledge is not normative for modern views (such as inspiration), at least the approach has been correct -- that he is the basic standard for Christianity.



Historical. -- Major assumptions must be made in such a study, yet it is hoped that they might be kept at a minimum. The inspiration of the Gospel records is not assumed, but their essential historicity -- based on the honesty of their authors -- must be presupposed just as should be done with any serious literary work.\5/


\5/This is the expressed approach of almost every writer in the field. See <au>Wenham</>, <tm>Lord's View</>, p. 7; <au>J. Angus</>, <tm>Bible Hand-book</> (New ed. revised by <ed>S. G. Green</>; London: Religious Tract Society, n.d. [ca. 1905]), p. 85; <au>E. N. Kirk's</> "Introduction" to the first American ed. of <au>S. R. L. Gaussen's</> <tm>Theopneusty</> (4\th/ American ed. from the 2\nd/ French ed.; New York: J. S. Taylor, 1852), p. xvii; <au>R. F. Horton</>, <tm>Revelation and the Bible</> (2\nd/ ed. London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1893), p. 6; <au>W. Lee</>, <tm>The Inspiration of Holy Scripture</> (New York: Carter, 1857), p. 98; <au>P. Schaff</>, <tm>History of the Christian Church</> (New York: Scribner's, 1884), p. 584; <au>W. Sanday</>, <tm>Inspiration</> (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1908), p.298. To deny their historicity <lt>a priori</> would be to form one's conclusions before he starts. On the other hand, to assume theirinfallibility <lt>a priori</> would likewise preclude the possibility of any other conclusion. The will is perhaps the biggest factor in "proofs" of Biblical error -- if one does not wish to see errors, he cannot be made to see them and <lt>vice-versa</>. If the Apostolic Gospel cannot be trusted for its historical picture of Christ, there is no other source toward which to turn; see <au>F. V. Filson</>, "The Unity of the Old and the New Testaments," <tp>Interpretation</>, V, 151.


Theological -- This treatment also assumes the central factor of Christianity -- that Jesus Christ is the apex of Divine revelation and is, in the fullest possible sense, the Son of God. His teachings, insofar as they have been preserved, demand the attention of his followers in a special way.\6/ With such an attitude toward Christ comes the more basic assumption that God exists and is not only able but eager to communicate with humanity.


\6/See above: Introduction, p.4, note 4.


Philosophical. -- The validity of human reasoning powers to discover aspects of relative truth is necessarily presupposed. That interpretation demands reasoning is obvious, yet it is also recognized that true interpretation demands Divine guidance, especially when one deals with the Bible.\7/


\7/See <au>H. L. Ellison</>, "Some Thought on Inspiration," <tp>Evangelical Quarterly</>, XXVI, 212, where II Pet. 1:20-21 is exegeted in this connection. The need for Divine guidance is, however, more clearly seen in Jesus' use of the Old Testament as it will be treated below (chapter 2).



Inspiration. -- It is recognized that "inspiration has both a narrower and broader sense."\8/ As the term is used in this thesis, it will usually [[6]] refer to the broader sense which includes revelation, illumination, Divine providence, and the transmission of God's message. When the narrower sense of inspiration is used, with the emphasis on the act of composition of the scripture, it will usually be indicated by a qualifying adjective such as "written" or "inerrant."\9/


\8/A. B. Mickelsen's address, p. 3, in Kantzer, Mickelsen, and Tenney, "Inspiration" (Unpublished addresses given at Wheaton College Chapel, 1954).



Authority. -- The word "authority" is also used in two distinct ways as it relates to the Old Testament. It is often used to indicate the documentation which Jesus gives for his teachings. Thus he points his listeners to the Old Testament authority to document his message or meaning. In a second sense, the authority of the Old Testament may mean the normative value of God's revelation in the Old Testament -- the "bindingness" of the Old Testament. The context should make clear in which sense "authority" is being used.

God's Message or Purpose. -- Often a phrase similar to "the Divine purpose underlying the Old Testament" will be found in the thesis. The author's intent is to separate the Old Testament as physical (or semantical) symbols -- the Old Testament as a written document -- from the basic intended message of the Old Testament as viewed in its entirety and as viewed according to God's purpose. Each word and sentence of the Old Testament may arise from and contribute to God's purpose, but not every part of the Old Testament reflects equally God's overall intention. God's purpose or message is more than the sum of the parts of scripture.

Modern Scholarship. -- By "modern scholarship" is meant that critical, careful, judicious, up-to-date type of thinking which attempts to be as objective as possible, and attempts to consider all pertinent data in its [[7]] treatment of any area of study -- exegetical, historical, theological, or any other area. Modern scholarship, no matter what its theological camp (orthodox, liberal, Roman Catholic, etc.) is not afraid to re-evaluate the past conclusions in the light of new evidence.

Previous Work in the Field

To attempt even a partial enumeration of published works pertinent to the subject would be of little merit. Almost every writer who speaks of the teachings of Jesus or the life of Jesus or the doctrine of inspiration or the problem of religious authority includes some sort of a treatment of Jesus' attitude to the Jewish Old Testament. In 1953 it could be claimed that approximately 67 books or articles had been written in the last 100 years on the subject of "Christ and the Old Testament" alone!\10/


\10/<au>E. E. Tilden</>, "The Study of Jesus' Interpretive Methods," <tp>Interpretation</>, VII, 45. Tilden has himself contributed two unpublished these to the study of Jesus' use of the Old Testament. In other areas which are also treated by this thesis, countless literature has been produced -- books on inspiration, revelation, interpretation, the teachings of Jesus, the language of Jesus, etc.

In certain aspects of the subject, however, there are pertinent previous studies which will be assumed. For a general survey of the various groups of modern inspiration theories, chapter 1 of R. Gorbold's thesis helps supply the need.\11/ An excellent summary treatment of the principles and problems of quotations from the Old Testament is found in E. Ellis' thesis.\12/ T. W. Manson gives a very fine basic survey of the characteristics [[8]] of Christ's teaching upon which this examination also will build.\13/ The bibliography and footnotes should amply indicate other pertinent data, especially that published in the most recent periodical literature.


\11/R. S. Gorbold, <um>"The Nature of Scripture in the Thinking of Paul"</> (Unpublished Master's thesis, The Graduate School, Wheaton College, 1956).

\12/E. E. Ellis, <um>"The Nature and Significance of Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of Mark</>" (Unpublished Master's thesis, The Graduate School, Wheaton College, 1953), chapter 1.

\13/T. W. Manson, <tm>The Teaching of Jesus</> (Cambridge: University Press, 1951), chap. 3 See also chap. 1, below.


Goals and Limitations

The hermeneutical goal of this study will be to discover the intended meaning of Jesus through discovering the intended meaning of the Evangelists,\14/ and to determine how far Jesus' attitude may be applied to the modern problems of inspiration. In so doing, Jesus' words must be examined for their significance to the listeners of that day. Jesus' teaching is first and foremost a first century question, and must be first seen in that context.\15/ This means that issues which have traditionally been separated by systematic theology, especially the areas if "inspiration" and "interpretation" (illumination being a factor here,\16/ must be seen in their pre-systematic unity in Jesus' teachings. Jesus says little about "inspiration" as such. What he allegedly does say is discovered by inference [[9]] from his interpretation and application of the Jewish scriptures. Thus to do justice to his teaching, it must be left, as far as possible, in its setting.\17/


\14/A. G. Hebert, <tm>The Authority of the Old Testament</> (London: Faber and Faber, 1947), p. 243, correctly emphasizes the fact that the writers are as much a part of the Biblical narratives as the facts which they narrate. See also the Roman Catholic <tm>Preface to the Bible</> by G. Rooney (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1949), p. 73, which emphasizes the meaning of the author. Ellison, p. 216, and H. M'intosh, <tm>Is Christ Infallible and the Bible True</>? (3\rd/ ed. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1902), pp. 252ff., do not expect the Bible to answer questions which it had not intention of treating.

\15/J. W. Bowman, "The Rabbinic Writings," <tp>Interpretation</>, III, 444, forcefully reminds scholarship of the necessity of knowing the Hebrew-Aramaic literature in order to correctly understand the Gospel narratives. See also chap. 1, below.

\16/This same point is well taken with reference to modern attempts at a definition of inspiration. See Ellison, pp. 212-214, for his excellent article cited above in this connection (Introduction, p. 5, note 2).

\17/B. F. Westcott, <tm>Introduction to the Study of the Gospels</> (New York" Macmillan, 1887), pp. 45-46, rightly point out in another connection that ultimately one's idea of inspiration is his own personal possession and cannot be handed down to others. For him, inspiration is the presence of life, and thus dies to some extent when it is "formulated" and systematically communicated. Thus Christ's view, in the way in which Christ possessed it, can never be as fully discovered as theology would like.


The doctrinal goal of this study is to find the minimum attitude of Jesus which does justice to the data, and to evaluate briefly the doctrinal inferences which could possibly be drawn from this data. Many diverse views have claimed Jesus for support, and perhaps justly. But the question is not: "Will Jesus' teachings fit into my doctrine?" It is, rather, "Does my view do justice to the expressed explicit requirements of Jesus' view?" There are many areas where the modern view will go far beyond Jesus' recorded view, since problems have multiplied since his day -- problems such as canon, authorship, literary sources, etc. Indeed, the teaching on the subject which is preserved for us has itself many problems on which judgment must, at least for the present, be suspended. Thus this thesis inquires: "Of what, at least, may we be reasonably sure in Jesus' view of the Bible?" When this minimum is found, the lower limit for "orthodoxy" in inspiration must be nearby.\18/


\18/Sanday's attitude, pp. XVI-XVII, is certainly worthwhile (although all parts of his work are not equally valuable): "In regard to the New Testament he has tried to state the case as objectively as possible. He has thus been led rather to understate than to overstate the results which seem to him to have been attained so far.... He hopes most from the spirit which is not impatient for 'results,' which does not suppress or slur over difficulties in the critical view any more than in the traditional, which lays its plans broadly, and is determined to make good the lesser steps before it attempts the greater."


The philosophical goal of this thesis is not "drawing absolute conclusions at all costs." The author is not ashamed of scepticism as opposed to dogmatism. He recognizes the fact that impartiality is unattainable in such matters as exegesis and doctrine, and would thus attempt to suggest rather than prove where "proof" is not entirely demonstrable.

The study aims at tentativeness -- it hopes to raise sign-posts which point out the direction for further investigation and warn against dead end paths. Its greatest significance should lie in the appendices and other marshalling of New Testament data which approach the area of unprejudiced objectivity.\19/ Many of the conclusions will necessarily by only "probable." They will be most important as working hypotheses of ever changing interpretation rather than as timeless facts. Truth and finality are elusive; yet they are well worth the chase.


\19/The admonition of Tilden, p. 50, is well taken in this study: "Let the interpreter avoid general statements with unremitting concern." The method of approach to Jesus' use of the Old Testament outlined in Tilden's article is very helpful, although it is not used as such in the present discussion. Manson, p. 11, also presents a general method of approach which is valuable: (1) to find the true Gospel text, (2) the sources of the text, (3) the words of Christ from the text, and (4) the meaning of Christ from the words he spoke. See also below: Chapter 1, p. 20, note 35.



The author is conscious of certain philosophical biases which, although they are not unique to himself, undoubtedly influence this study: (1) He is biased against an uncritical defense of tradition (with its time-worn terms, phrases, and arguments) if it be accepted primarily because it is tradition, with little attempt to examine its present validity;\20/ (2) He is biased against making rational coherence the final court of appeal in [[11]] exegetical matters; (3) He is biased against "closed-system" types of theology which imply that whatever answer have been found are the true answers, and should not be questioned or re-evaluated -- the attitude which tends to forget that some truth might possibly lie outside of the "system";\21/ (4) He is biased against the use of ridicule to establish and support conclusions if such a procedure be substituted for the actual examination of the evidence. Wherever his treatment may violate these principles, he stands admittedly self-condemned.


\20/See Wenham, p. 6.

\21/This is, in a sense, the type of "wishful thinking" which Wenham criticizes on p. 7. In his words, "Wishful thinking must submit to the logic of sheer evidence." This author's bias is even more basic -- he feels that wishful thinking, wherever the evidence is not found to be sufficiently "sheer," must submit to a temporary suspension of judgment while awaiting further evidence; it must as least be ruled by sympathy (Christian love). The old rhyme, sadly enough, is too often too true:

<qu>Men ope this book, their favorite creed in mind;
Each seeks his own, and each his own doth find</>.


Method of Treatment

The study will, therefore, be more exegetical than theological, aiming at the presentation of specific data wherever possible.\22/ It will attempt to be up-to-date both in its original contributions (if any) and in its use and evaluation (stated or implies) of other authorities. It will examine first the relationship between Jesus' doctrine of scripture and Jesus' teaching in general, especially emphasizing the problem areas. Then an attempt will be made to discover Jesus' essential attitude toward the Old Testament which he used, and the problems involved in so doing. Lastly, the alleged teachings of Jesus concerning the inspiration of our New Testament will be considered briefly. It is the hope of the author [[12]] that this study might in some way lead others to examine each detail -- each problem area -- so that after patient investigation more satisfying conclusions than are herein proposed may be reached.\23/


\22/Gaussen's type of argument, p. xviii, is a good example of the "theological" approach.

\23/The current need for concentrated, scholarly investigations in so-called "conservative" circles has recently been emphasized by A. W. Tozer, "We Need Sanctified Thinkers," <tp>Alliance Weekly</>, XC (November 2 and 9, 1955), and B. Ramm, "Are we Obscurantists?" <tp>Christianity Today</>, I (February 18, 1957), 14-15.

















Before an examination of Jesus' teachings pertinent to inspiration is possible, the availability and interpretation of his teaching in general must be considered. This is, of course, a thesis topic in itself; however, it a topic which the exegete cannot afford to overlook in such a study as this. Because the discussion in this chapter is somewhat independent, a brief introduction may be helpful.


This chapter seeks to determine by what principles and from what data a Biblical theological should seek to find the intended meanings of Jesus. In what sense can he be sure that he has discovered the mind of Jesus? How literal are Jesus' recorded words to be taken? How complete a picture of the Lord's theology is transmitted to us? Are the words of Jesus always normative for Christianity?


Since modern man knows of nothing which Jesus himself has written, the sources of such an inquiry must be what other have written of him. It would, however, be fruitless to look for an impartial record; those who opposed him did not bother to record his teachings, and those who were impartial (if that were possible) had no reason to record his teachings. On the [[15]] other hand, it would be futile to attempt to examine every alleged exposition of Jesus' ministry which has been preserved from early church history. The ancient church is in accord with modern criticism that the most reliable records of Jesus are the four canonical Gospels.\24/ Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal narratives build, for the most part, on these Gospels, and often appear to be much later compositions of doubtful validity. Thus this study will employ the canonical Gospels almost exclusively.


\24/There is little question about the general reliability of the Synoptics, although Mark is generally given a primary place along with the "Q" sections (common to Matthew and Luke). The remainder of Matthew seems too rabbinical to some commentators. John has often been questioned as a historical source. Recent scholarship tends to uphold its validity; see below: appendix 9.


It may be suggested that other parts of the canonical New Testament also contain some teachings of Jesus. Certainly Acts 1:1-8 and 20:35 fall readily into this category. Some writers would also contend for the Book of Revelation as containing such teachings of Jesus.\25/ It is true that the writer of Revelation records words of his Lord which he received through a vision, but the very nature and purpose of that material exhibits its difference from the Gospel records. The content of Christ's words in Revelation is not intended to be historical in the same sense as that of his words in the Gospels. This is also true of Paul's Damascus Road vision.\26/ The Gospels, then, command primary attention.


\25/M'intosh, pp. 173, 188.

\26/The "quoted" words of Christ in Rev. 1-3, 21-22, and Acts 9, 22, and 26, seem to be in a similar category as many Old Testament prophetic "Words of the Lord" which present a divine message rather than a divine proposition. They are more psychological (or spiritual) than historical.



Although it will be necessary to treat some aspects of Introduction [[16]] in a superficial manner (especially the literary and linguistic origins of the Gospels), areas such as date, authorship, and destination, will necessarily be neglected.

Insofar as it is possible, problems will be pointed out and evaluated; it there appears to be no presently acceptable road to their solution, the chapter will rest in stating the problem. Whenever possible, the appendices will be used as illustrations of the subject; if they provide no obvious example, space limitations may preclude additional illustrative material.


The goal of this treatment is to relate modern critical investigations to modern interpretation of Jesus -- to determine if, in fact, the "doctrine' and the "phenomena" of the narratives of Jesus may be justly divorced by Biblical theology.\27/ The Synoptic Problem must be considered with its related areas. The hermeneutical and semantic problem of Jesus' language and Jesus' meaning is also primary. Once the basis of a knowledge of Jesus' teaching is discovered, his teaching on inspiration may be examined.


\27/The claim of B.B. Warfield, <tm>The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible</>, ed. by S. G. Craig (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1948), pp. 201-208 and 225, that it is incorrect to redefine or modify the Biblical doctrine in the light of the Biblical phenomena has both its merits and its shortcomings. Dr. Warfield feels that he has exegetically established the doctrine of "Christ and his Apostles" apart from any detailed consideration of the phenomena, and therefore, although his evidence is really "probable" rather than "demonstrable" (p. 218) and although its conclusions may be re-evaluated as doctrine (p. 207), it cannot be attacked rightly on the basis of phenomena alone. The present study attempts two things relevant to Dr. Warfield's claims" (1) to show that his exegesis must be brought up to date, and (2) to show that in bringing the exegesis up to date, at least where Christ is concerned, the doctrine cannot possibly be obtained apart from the phenomena of Christ's language and method, and the Synoptic Problem itself. See below: Chapter 1, pp. 34-36.



The Gospel Documents

Synoptic and Johannine Problem

<h3>Stated and Exhibited</>

What exactly did Jesus teach? this question cannot possibly be adequately answered part from the Synoptic and Johannine problems. The Gospel reader, especially if he reads from a "harmony" of the four Gospels, immediately becomes aware of the fact that there are both agreements and disagreements among the Evangelists. This is true not only of their general treatments or of their historical narratives, but also of the recorded teachings of Jesus Christ. From an examination of Jesus' "formal quotations" (appendix 1), this similarity and dissimilarity becomes apparent: in Jesus' second use of the Pentateuch against Satan, Luke records Jesus as saying "It is said" while Matthew reads "It is written"; there are no parallel accounts of the next few contexts in the appendix; context six is exact in Matthew and Luke (except that Luke lacks the emphatic "I" in the quotation); in the second quotation of context nine, Matthew quotes Jesus as saying "God commanded" while Mark has "Moses said"; a similar difference is seen between Matthew and Mark in context seventeen, where Luke adds a third possibility! And so it is throughout the entire study -- there is seldom consistent agreement as to what Jesus literally said.

But the problem is even more significant when the gospel of John also is considered. In the subject matter of appendix 1 there were no sections from John paralleled by any Synoptic, and as a whole, very little of the other Synoptic matter (with the obvious exception of the execution and resurrection of Jesus) is used by John. In many ways, the Jesus of John does not appear to have the same methods and characteristics as the Jesus [[18]] of the Synoptics.\28/ This becomes increasingly apparent in certain aspects of the present study. Whereas the Synoptics are filled with incidental language of Jesus which accords with the Old Testament (see appendix 2), John has comparatively few "informal quotations."\29/


\28/H. C. Thiessen, <tm>Introduction to the New Testament</> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), pp. 175-176, gives a brief partial listing of some of the peculiarities of John and of John's presentation of Jesus. M. C. Tenney, <tm>The Genius of the Gospels</> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), p. 38, implies that John presents Jesus as speaking both in the style of the Synoptics and in a somewhat different style.

\29/A brief examination of the Nestle text of the Greek New Testament will reveal this. The absence of heavy type denoting
Old Testament verbal similarity is conspicuous in John apart from "formal quotations."


<h3>Immediate Significance</>

Without examining further, and without even attempting to survey the proposed solutions to the problem,\30/ it appears that Jesus' exact words are not always (if ever) recorded in the Gospels. Thus to build a doctrine of inspiration attributed to Jesus without even considering this evidence is illegitimate exegesis. Can the formulas which the evangelists attribute to him be taken so literally that they are made to teach doctrinal minutiae? Only if he (1) really said them as recorded and (2) really meant them as interpreted can this be legitimately done. In at least some instances it has been seen that the former may not be true, a fact which <lt>a priori</> casts doubt on the latter.


\30/Thiessen, pp. 103-129, lists the proposed solutions along with his ideas on the subject. See also Tenney, pp. 33-37. T. Zahn, <tm>Introduction to the New Testament</>, trans. from 3rd German ed. by J. M. Trout, <lt>et al</>. (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1909), II, 400-427, has a detailed study. Streeter's "four document hypothesis" is "widely accepted" although sometimes "vigorously challenged" in contemporary literature which deals with such critical problems. See F. V. Filson, "Gospels," <te>Twentieth Century Encyclopedia</>, ed. by L. A. Loetscher (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1955), I, 470.


But there is a more basic significance of the "Gospel Problem" for [[19]] this study. It could be claimed that "where no parallels exist, we undoubtedly have the very words of Christ." This seems to be fallacious reasoning. By analogy, if God through His church had not preserved Mark's and Luke's Gospels, would the words of Jesus found only in Matthew be any more exact than they now appear? Certainly not, although many would claim that they were. How does the modern exegete know that there are not other accurate (but different in the sense that some Synoptic parallels differ) parallel accounts which have been lost by history? Each Gospel, as written by an honest author, gives one facet of the truth, one perspective of the total picture. And even where no existent parallel obviates the problem, there is always the possibility (even probability) that some of truth's facets are hidden, that the Gospel teachings of Jesus are not always in the very words of Jesus.

Gospel Editing

The message of the Gospels is the message which Jesus Christ had written upon the life of his church and his disciples. "If, and so far as, they [the Evangelists] were mistaken or defective in their conceptions or representations, so far necessarily and precisely we are as to His teaching and Himself.... We must accept their representation of Christ's teaching or nothing."\31/


\31/M'intosh, pp. 70-71.


This is, in a sense, true. Just as all historical treatments includes interpretation to some degree, so do the Gospels. The Evangelists admittedly do not attempt an objective, impartial treatment of Christ. They all present him through the eyes of faith.\32/ Just as Jesus' entire personality [[20]] is bound up in his teachings, so the personality of each Evangelist is embedded in and intertwined with his work. Each author betrays his wording and style in his Gospel.\33/ The exegete must take the "leap of faith" that the Gospel authors are at least honest, and therefore trustworthy, voices from the earliest era of the church -- that the Gospels adequately present the Jesus whom this early church believed it was to follow. If the early church, or the Evangelists, were wrong, there is no other gospel to follow.\34/


\32/Filson, "Gospels," pp. 469-470.

\33/<lt>Ibid</>., p. 470. See also Tenney, p. 10 and the entire treatment.

\34/See above: Introduction, p.4, note 5.


But that is not the total story. Somewhere between the Synoptic-Johannine Problem and the fact of Gospel editing lies the relative validity of the sources allegedly used by the editors. It lies between the two areas because of the fact that even in the sources, an author's interpretation is inescapable (unless it be claimed that Christ wrote or dictated a source document). But it may be that some sources involve less interpretation than others, and come closer in time and meaning to the exact words of Christ.\35/ If this be true, these sources (when found) should allow a more confident type of exegesis than is now possible.

\35/Herein lies the allure of the Q hypothesis as that document is re-constructed by modern criticism. It appears to contain the sayings of Christ with a minimum of editing (assumed). It thus appears more probably to approach a first-hand view of Christ. Indeed, evidence for its written Aramaic origin -- in the "mother-tongue" of Jesus -- is advanced by such men as Bussby and Manson. See the article by F. Bussby, "Is Q an Aramaic Document?" <tp>Expository Times</>, LXV, 273. See also the articles by A. W. Argyle and B. M. Metzger in <tp>Expository Times</>, LXIV, 382, and LXV, 125 and 285f., where the same question is indirectly discussed. Manson, p. 11, feels that criticism must find (1) the true Gospel text, (2) its sources, (3) Jesus' words, and (4) Jesus' meaning. See above: Introduction, p. 10, note 19.


At present, the various hypotheses seem too inconclusive for the [[21]] exegete to use with confidence.\36/ The Gospels as we have them must be examined -- always recognizing the elements of selectivity and personal editorship. The picture of Christ which the Gospels present must be assumed to be meaningful and relatively accurate, even though it may not allow the exegete always to separate the reporter from his Lord.

\36/Manson and Tilden attempt to do so, as does modern exegesis in general, but no one hypothesis is universally applied by all critics.


Fragmentary Nature

Lastly, in this discussion of the Gospel documents in general as they relate to Jesus' teaching, the fragmentary nature of the material must be noted. This characteristic both helps to solve problems and presents others. As has been seen,\37/ the incomplete treatment of the Gospels makes one ask whether any single complete picture is given therein. Everything that Jesus said pertinent to inspiration, for example, is not necessarily recorded in the Gospels. Perhaps he said other things which would supplement the Gospel teachings to such an extent as to modify many of the speculative dogmatic conclusions of the past. It is dangerous for a study of Biblical theology to read a more complete story into the fragmentary accounts than is really there and to call this story "truth."\38/

\37/See above: Chapter 1, p. 19.

\38/Manson, p. 5, speaks of people who write lives of Jesus by finding "in the Gospels just what they were looking for."


On the other hand, the critic must also beware of attributing error to the Gospels, since the fragmentary nature of the accounts precludes the accuracy demanded by modern historical investigation. He must certainly give the Bible, as he gives other literature, the "benefit of the doubt" when necessary. The Bible, like the American court defendant, should be [[22]] viewed as "innocent until proven guilty." In this light, M'intosh's attitude is well-founded: "Is it not reasonable to infer that if we only had more, if we only knew the whole, that all would probably be made plain and harmonious, or at least as far as could be reasonably expected in such a record of such a life?"\39/

\39/M'intosh, p. 534; see also pp. 24 and 342.


The Gospel Culture Background

Greek Language

The preceding treatment dealt with our Gospels as written documents in the Greek language. This is the way in which they have been transmitted, and it is from the Greek symbols that they are read. But to call them Greek literature in the sense of arising entirely from the Greek culture and entirely from Greek modes of thought is unjustifiable. Jesus was a Palestinian Jew, as were his earliest followers. The first church was Semitic; the first gospel tradition was Semitic. Thus in some sense it would be wrong to read the Gospels always in the shadow of classical Greek philology and philosophy. The Gospels are in the peculiar position of attempting to convey Semitic concepts and events in a non-Semitic vehicle of communication. They are, therefore, inter-cultural documents of Semitic thought clothed in Greek literary composition.

Aramaic Origins?

In the past half century, many New Testament students have advanced the theory of written Aramaic originals of one or more of the Gospels.\40/ [[23]] Although nothing has been demonstrated to support undeniably the claims of Papias and Jerome that a "Hebrew" Gospel has been written,\41/ the hypothesis presents interesting suggestions for the exegete. He must discover to what degree the meaning of the Aramaic idiom is modified by translation into Greek. He must hesitate, then, to read the Gospels through Greek philosophical eyes -- finding in the "logos" concept a Stoical or Heracleitian meaning, or in the neuter number "<gk>hen</>" (John 10:30) the philosophical meaning of "one in essence." He must be careful to recognize that the Greek tenses do not correspond exactly with the Aramaic -- that the Greek mind often thinks differently from the Semitic. He must use more than mere "historico-grammatical" modes of exegesis -- his exegetical method must be "historico-culturo- grammatical." Where the Greek appears to present an unclear meaning, or a meaning which differs essentially from a parallel account, many scholars reconstruct the probable Aramaic wording -- often this produces a very likely and plausible solution!\42/ Whether or not Aramaic written Gospels are basic [[24]] to our Greek documents, it is more obvious today than it had been for centuries that any scholarly approach to the Gospels must at least take into account these considerations arising from the Aramaic origin of the Gospels' message.\43/ As John Wick Bowman well says, "Only during the past twenty or thirty years has the light gradually been really breaking in New Testament circles that, whereas the writers of the Christian Scriptures wrote, and even to a degree thought, in Hellenistic Greek, yet their 'thought-frames' -- or, perhaps better, their Theological and ethical concepts -- were not Greek but Hebraic (or better still, Hebrew prophetic), and that no amount of effort would serve to force the Greek idioms to yield up anything but Hebraic concept moulds."\44/

\40/Matthew Black, <tm>An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts</> (Oxford" Clarendon Press, 1946), chap. 1, surveys the work done in the field prior to the publication of his book. Major names mentioned are G. Dalman, A. Meyer, Wellhausen, Nestle, Blass, C. F. Burney (<tm>Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel</>), C. C. Torrey (<tm>Our Translated Gospels</>), J. T. Marshall, and A. J. Wensinch. Filson, "Gospels," p. 470, presents a brief section on the problem in which Montgomery and Olmstead are listed as pro-Aramaic, while Colwell, Riddle, and Goodspeed attack the hypothesis of written Aramaic Gospels. Filson concludes the discussion with this thought: "The case for written Aramaic originals of entire Gospels has not been proved. Possibly one or more Aramaic sources lie behind our present Gospels. In any event, their linguistic character shows that they preserve an early, Palestinian, Semitic tradition>" W. F. Albright, <tm>The Archaeology of Palestine</> (Rev. ed.; Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1954), p. 240, sums up his position: he is doubtful as to Aramaic written sources, but feels that the case for "Aramaic oral sources has been greatly strengthened by recent investigation." The same book, pp. 198-203, presents a good discussion of the evidence. See also K. Stendahl, "A Report on New Testament Studies: 1953-1955," <tp>Official Register of Harvard University</>, LIII (November 1956), 71.

\41/Filson, "Gospels," p. 470.

\42/Black points up the shortcomings of past efforts in this methodology in the closing pages of chap. 1, <tm>Aramaic Approach</>. His basic criticisms are; (1) the use of the Aramaic targums as the base for Christ's words (the targums are probably of a much later date as written documents), (2) the use of only the Westcott-Hort or Tischendorf texts of the New Testament (he thinks that Codex Beza, by comparison, has much to offer as a text type), and (3) much purely conjectural reconstruction of the Aramaic has been done -- often by inventing possible words. In an article entitled "The Aramaic Spoken by Christ and Luke 14:5," <tp>Journal of Theological Studies</>, New Series I (1950), 61, Black applies his approach to a Gospel passage in a rather convincing way.

\43/Albright, p. 203, reminds that "the danger of making mistakes in trying to reconstruct the original Aramaic of Jesus is thus greater than ever" (see also p. 240). On the other hand, he also reminds that, in connection with the Dead Sea Scrolls, "the points of contact in phraseology, symbolism, and conceptual imagery between Essene literature and the Gospel of St. John are particularly close, though there are also many resemblances between them and nearly all new Testament writers" (p. 249). See also M. Burrows, "Dead Sea Scrolls," <te>Twentieth Century Encyclopedia</>, I, 323-324. The Qumran materials certainly do not prove Aramaic hypotheses, but they tend to support more strongly the Aramaic basis of New Testament thought patterns. This admission alone is enough of a revolution to affect much of modern Biblical theology.

\44/Bowman, p. 444. Bowman naturally includes by his statement the Hebrew-Aramaic language development which was the instrument of these "though-frames." For practical purposes, the commonly spoken "Hebrew" of Christ's day was Aramaic rather than Biblical (or even Mishnaic) Hebrew. The scholastic Rabbis may have spoken a more classical, "Mishnaic" type of Hebrew; see Manson, pp. 47-48.



Jesus' Words

His Mother-tongue

The overwhelming impact of the Aramaic basis of the Gospels is apparent in contemporary periodical literature. In 1944-1945, <tp>Expository Times</> published an article by R. O. P. Taylor entitled "Did Jesus Speak Aramaic?" which drew quick response from W. G. M. Abbott, F. F. Bruce, and J. G. Griffiths. Why should Taylor's article cause such a commotion? Taylor had concluded that Jesus not only knew Greek (a fact which most scholars concede to some degree), but since God's plan was for all men (and the "universal" first century language was Greek), Jesus must have spoken Greek usually if not always! The objection was vehement.\45/


\45/<tp>Expository Times</>, LVI. Taylor's article is found on pp. 95-97, Abbott's reply on p. 305, Bruce's reply on p. 328, and Griffiths' reply on pp. 327-328. Abbot concludes that the Gospels exhibit Jesus' use of Aramaic and show "underlying Semitic thoughts of people speaking Greek as a second language." Bruce gives excellent bibliographical data to emphasize the weight of evidence against Taylor. Griffiths says little that is direct refutation, but points out that Galilee was no means in the same situation as Egypt when the latter used Greek commonly (as illustrated by the non-literary papyri of Egypt).


{@@RAK note on facing page;
see now B. N. Thompson "To What Extent did Jesus Use Greek?"
<tp>Rel. Life</> 32 (1963), 103-115 [NTA 7 (1963), #769] -
- regularly! }

So much else has been written relevant to the discussion that enumeration is impossible. No eminent contemporary authority known to this author claims that Jesus habitually spoke Greek. There may be no consensus as to the Gospel sources, the Gospel destinations, the extent of the use of Greek in Galilee, or other such problems, but that Jesus did not converse with the Jewish religious authorities (at least), nor with the crowds or hid disciples (probably) in Greek, appears to be strongly supported.\46/ Jesus' [[26]] mother-language was almost certainly Aramaic.


\46/Manson, pp. 45-49, discussed the problem (see also p. 10). He doubts that any part of Christ's teaching was delivered in Greek with the possible exception of the interview with Pilate. See also the articles by Abbott and Bruce cited above. Filson, "Gospels," p. 470, and Albright, p. 199, also speak of Aramaic as the "mother-tongue" of Galilee. Stendahl, p. 65-66 and note 6 on p. 78, also commits himself to this position and gives bibliographical data for recent non-Aramaic hypotheses. For arguments used to support the position that Jesus taught in Greek as well as in Aramaic, see A. T. Robertson's article on "language of New Testament," <tm>International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia</> (henceforth to be designated as ISBE), ed. by J. Orr (5 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), III, 1832. Robertson gives major bibliographical data as of fifty years ago. Sanday, p. 417, does not commit himself to either view, saying that Jesus spoke in human terms in either Greek or Aramaic. Even in the late nineteenth century such writers as P. Schaff, p. 592, claimed that "our Lord spoke usually in Aramaic."


His Mode of Thought

An even more important, and perhaps a more easily answered question is: "In what cultural-linguistic patterns did Jesus think?" It makes a tremendous difference when one interprets Jesus' language whether the Lord were thinking as Americans do today, or as the Greek philosophers did in the fourth century B.C., or as the seventy century B.C. Hebrew prophets thought, or some other way. Did Jesus speak with "scientific precision" -- did every word convey one and only one exact meaning each time it was used? Was Jesus' language free from cultural idioms which had in the process of time lost their originally intended meanings? The answer comes with almost one voice -- "Jesus thought as a Jew, with the merits and shortcomings of the psychology of that people." His idiom was Semitic. His logic was Semitic. Even if he used Greek, he was at heart Semitic.\47/


\47/The above treatment of Jesus' language certainly points to this conclusion which has been summed up well by Bowman's quotation cited on p. 24 above. What applies to the Evangelists in regard to their cultural patterns certainly applies to Jesus. Both the external data of his life (parentage, customs, mission, etc.) and his manner of teaching recorded for us (see below) clearly attest this fact. Another pertinent quotation which applies to the Gospels, and though them to Christ, is found in F. W. Dillistone's article, "Wisdom, Word, and Spirit," <tp>Interpretation</>, II, 277: "There can be little doubt that the place from which most help [for finding the meaning of "<gk>logos</>" in John and "wisdom and power of God" in I Corinthians and Colossians] is likely to be derived is not contemporary Greek philosophy but rather the wisdom literature of Israel.... The immediate background of the witness of the literature of the New Testament is the Old Testament and the writings of later Judaism, and to a small degree [Hellenistic Judaism]." See also J. Macleod, "The Mind of Christ; What He found in Scripture," <tp>Expository Times</>, LXII, 175; W. F. Lofthouse, "The Old Testament and Christianity" in <tm>Record and Revelation</>, ed. by H. W. Robinson (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1938), p. 461: "Jesus ... was as much a Jew as Socrates was a Greek"; Westcott, pp. 60-61. Stendahl, p. 66, correctly points out that "already in the translation of the Aramaic words of Jesus into Greek, certain retranslations in terms of thought pattern must be presupposed."



Interpreting His Teachings

<h3>Jesus and the Gospels</>

Before a general examination of Jesus as teacher may be advanced, a basic question must be asked: "In how far and in what sense do the Gospels present Jesus' actual words?" Some of the more radical scholars question whether any really valid knowledge of him is attainable.\48/ Between extreme scepticism and a naive acceptance of every English word attributed to Jesus lie a multitude of variations. This study has assumed (necessarily) the honesty of the Evangelists,\49/ and thus can claim the right to study their Jesus as the valid object of faith. They were nearest to the sources; if their presentation of Jesus is wrong, it is not likely that any other presentation is correct. Other approaches may attempt to get behind the extant Gospels to their sources, which are in turn evaluated for comparative [[28]] validity.\50/ Although this critical source approach does not seem entirely feasible (or necessary) at present due to the disagreement among scholars as to the sources, it shows signs of promise for future studies if prudently and circumspectly used.

\48/Allegro, p. 155, who is, of course, notorious for his theories against the uniqueness of the crucifiction of Christ and
Christianity in general, feels that the "records of the New Testament ... cannot be claimed to represent with certainty the standpoint of the first Jewish Christians of Jerusalem." This is apparently an unfortunate "hangover" from the years of destructive radical criticism of the @@(umlatt) Tubingen type, plus the added impetus of "myth" exegesis (Dibelius, Bultmann). O. A. Piper, "Jesus Christ," <te>Twentieth Century Encyclopedia</>, I, 599, lists men who have recently attempted to hold to the "non-historicity of Jesus," as does ISBE's article on "Jesus Christ" by J. Orr (3, 1626). The attitude of Albert Schweitzer (<tm>Quest of the Historical Jesus</>, 1910) approaches this type of scepticism which divorces the "Jesus of history" from the "Christ of faith."

\49/See above: Introduction, p. 4.

\50/See above: chapter 1, p. 20. Streeter's hypothesis is assumed in many cases (Mark, Q -- that which is unique to Matthew and Luke together, M -- that which is unique to Matthew alone, and L -- that which is unique to Luke alone). Manson, pp. 28-44, approaches Jesus through these materials, as does Tilden (<um>"Jesus' Methods," "The Old Testament in the Sayings of Jesus with Special Reference to Mark"</> [Unpublished Master's Thesis, Princeton, 1940], <um>"The Function of the Old Testament in the Sayings of Jesus as Recorded in the Synoptic Gospels"</> [Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton, 1945]) in the study of Jesus' relation to the Old Testament. The older treatment of Wendt, <tm>The Teaching of Jesus</>, trans. by J. Wilson (New York: Scribner's, 1899), Vol. I, appeals to Mark, John, and the "<gk>Logia</>" as sources.


At present, however, the "Christ of faith" and the "Jesus of history" must be considered together.\51/ It must be recognized that his teachings are transmitted through the understanding of the Evangelists and the early church. That "the peculiarities of the individual writer become part of the Divine message"\52/ is a factor which must be applied not only to a theological definition of inspiration, but also to any teaching attributed to Christ. But [[29]] to say that nothing is really known of Christ because of this limitation would be to deny the validity of any historical interpretation of any kind. Granted that the Gospels give only a fragmentary account of Jesus Christ, they do give selected glimpses of his life and person through the eyes of his students.\53/ He can be seen in his historical perspective, and examined from the record given of him in the Gospels. But the individual words of Jesus cannot be confidently equated with the words of the Gospels and analyzed accordingly. The Christ of the Gospels is a meaningful presentation of the Jesus of history, but not a verbatim source for the very words of the Jesus of history. From the Gospels the meaning of Jesus' teaching may be seen, and some of his sayings may be reconstructed, but not every word from the Christ of the Gospels is a literal word from the Jesus of history.


\51/C. H. Dodd, <tm>The Authority of the Bible</> (London: Nisbet, 1928), pp. 224-225, calls the Gospels "documents of the religious experience of the early Church" in which the "Jesus of history" and the "Christ of faith" are inseparable. He admits that the historical Jesus cannot be found except through the "Christ of faith." Manson, in his article on the "Life of Jesus" for <tm>The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology</>, ed. by Davies and Daube (Cambridge: University Press, 1956), p. 221, says: "There is no escape from the historical inquiry [as Schweitzer attempted], and there is no need to be despondent about its prospects. We may venture to hope that as it progresses, we shall find that the ministry of Jesus is a piece of real history in the sense that it is fully relevant to the historical situation of its own time,... and just because it was so relevant to their life, we shall find it relevant to our own." W. D. Davies, "The Jewish Background of the Teaching of Jesus: Apocalyptic and Pharisaism," <tp>Expository Times</>, LIX, 233, criticizes Schweitzer for divorcing Jesus too greatly from the Synoptic tradition. Filson, "Unity of the Testaments," p. 135, accuses Schweitzer of really rejecting the New Testament by reverting to the Apocalyptic. Stendahl, p. 67: "The time has come when the 'historical Jesus' seems to be interesting scholars again."

\52/M'intosh, p. 659; compare Westcott, p. 24.

\53/M'intosh, pp. 24 and 343; Westcott, p. 365.


<h3>Jesus' Methods</>

With such qualifications in mind, Jesus' way of teaching may be examined. But in so doing, it must always be remembered that an understanding of a man's language is only as accurate as the understanding of his total personality. Language is a vehicle of communication from personality to personality. Language is not objective in any absolute sense because it is an expression of personality. To understand Jesus' language, one must attempt to understand his person; insofar as his person cannot be understood, to that degree will his language and meanings escape the interpreter.\54/ What he meant is necessarily a personal question which must be answered in the context of a life, a mission, and a culture.


\54/Unfortunately, this caution has at least a double reference. To understand fully the Christ of the Gospels is to understand fully the personality of each Evangelist as well as that of Jesus.


<h4>Prophetic</>. -- Jesus the Palestinian Jew of the first century was of the Hebrew prophetic tradition.\55/ The people looked upon him as a prophet.\56/ His disciples seemed to share this view.\57/ He apparently classed himself as a prophet in some sense, or at least accepted the people's classification.\58/ His actions, teaching, and methods were in accord with Hebrew prophetism.\59/ He used the books of the prophets and the law which they also accepted to illustrate and to add authority to his teachings.\60/ He did extraordinary works like those of some of the prophets. He was even treated like many of the prophets of old who were rejected by the leaders of their day but later became recognized as holy men.\61/ He was a "madman," a "Samaritan" who was also a "man of God" and the "Son of man."\62/


\55/See the quotation from Bowman cited above, p. 24. See also Lofthouse, p. 468ff.

\56/Matt. 14:5 {@@RAK note: Jn Baptist}, 16:4, 21:11, 21:46; Mark 8:28; Luke 7:16, 9:8, 9:19; John 4:19, 6:14, 7:40 (contrast 8:52-53), 9:17. That some people questioned whether he was a prophet is seen from Luke 7:39. John 8:52-53 seems to use the term "prophets" in a technical sense.

\57/See especially Luke 24:19.

\58/See Matt. 13:57, Luke 4:24, John 4:14, and Luke 13:35, which are proverbial in nature. Compare Luke 7:28. It is doubtful that Jesus excludes himself from the prophetic office by this hyperbolic saying.

\59/See below.

\60/See chap. 2 and appendices 1-4.

\61/Amos, Jeremiah, and Elijah are notable examples.

\62/These are idioms from the Old Testament and New Testament which apply to the prophets and Christ. See II Kings 9:11, John 8:48, II Kings 4:25, Ezek. 2:3, Matt. 16:13. These examples could be multiplied.


Jesus gave a "prophetic" message -- not necessarily in the sense of prediction, but in the preaching tradition of the prophets. He was a voice for God, declaring "the word of the Lord" to the needy and corrupt people [[31]] of his day. The ethic of Jesus is prophetic -- it is a reorganization and a reiteration of the messages given throughout Israel's history. Jesus applies Isa. 60:1-2 to himself;\63/ he exhorts the religious leaders to apply the attitude of Hos. 6:6 to themselves;\64/ again and again he quotes or refers to the prophet-preachers of Israel.\65/ The people had grown legalistic, literalistic, and cold, just as had been true in the past. Jesus' message was aimed at the same purpose as that of the prophets -- to bring God's people into a meaningful and vital relationship to their God.\66/ Jesus' death gave a power that the law and prophets lacked, thus in one sense fulfilling them.


\63/Luke 4:17-19. It is assumed that Luke's honest report is based upon correct evidence that Jesus really applied the passage to himself.

\64/Matt. 9:13, 12:7.

\65/See appendices 1, 3, 5, 6.

\66/See Macleod, pp. 176-177.


In giving this prophetic message, Jesus used the prophetic method. He was a preacher, speaking to the first century "people of the land" as well as to the theologically educated religious leaders. Thus his speech was intended to communicate and activate the hearer rather than to give scientific or philosophical treatments of the problems of that day. He spoke with pictures, with emphasis, with hyperbole (exaggeration is quite accurate as a description of his method). His is the poetry of symbolism, the photography of parable, the punctuation of extremes. Did Jerusalem kill every prophet who had come to her?\67/ Is it a live possibility that the disciples could have dumped the mountain into the sea by faith, and could have done anything else they requested?\68/ Should the Christian really decapitate himself if his thoughts are sometimes evil?\69/ This is preaching [[32]] language; this is for motivation and lasting impression. Always to demand literalism of the prophet is to destroy the prophetic message.


\67/Luke 13:33-34.

\68/Matt. 17:20, 21:21-22.

\69/Mark 9:43-47.


<h4>Poetic</>. -- Jesus often used Hebrew poetic device.\70/ In some places it appears that the Evangelists have broken
through the obstacles of tradition and translation to adequately preserve the poetic statements of Jesus with very little change. Parallelism is exhibited in some of his teaching: synonymous in Mark 4:22 and Luke 6:27 (Matt. 5:44); antithetic in Mark 8:35 and Luke 6:43 (Matt. 7:17); synthetic in Luke 12:49 and perhaps, in a sense, in Mark 9:37.\71/ It is possible (even probable) that Jesus' actual words used rhyme, word plays, alliteration, and other devices also. These, of course, are lost in translation from Aramaic to Greek; but a caution is presented to the interpreter thereby -- some "difficult saying" of Jesus may really be a play on words (like the "almond tree" of Jer. 1:11ff.), or some other similar device, in his original speech, and thus is not meaningful in the Greek Gospel form.


\70/Manson, <tm>Teaching</>, pp. 50-56, gives an excellent summary treatment of this fact. Burney wrote an entire book on <tm>The Poetry of our Lord</>. Hunter, pp. 15-17, brings out the same emphases in his exposition of the Sermon on the Mount. Bussby, p. 272, gives a fairly complete list of the poetic devices as illustrated from the Q document.

\71/Manson, <tm>Teaching</>, p. 52, gives these examples. The example of synthetic parallelism seems to be weak, and Burney is said to put Mark 9:37 in a fourth category called "step-parallelism." Notice that the examples come from three of the four Gospel sources accepted by Manson (in accord with Streeter's hypothesis). On pp. 54-56, Manson gives longer examples of the phenomena; see Luke 17:26-30, 11:31-32, 12:24-28 (Matt. 6:26-30).


<h4>Parabolic</>. -- Jesus is both prophetic and rabbinic in his use of proverb and parable.\72/ He puts his message into a form which appeals to the [[33]] actual situation of the people. To the farmers, the Kingdom is like a seed;\73/ to businessmen it is as a pearl or a treasure;\74/ to the theologically trained it is Isaiah's vineyard.\75/ There is meaning behind these parables -- meaning which lies only secondarily in the words used -- meaning which is more existential than propositional. The parable is a stimulus to the hearer which aims at making each listener appropriate the lessons of God for himself -- the message gleaned from the parable depends on the attention given by the hearer, and his consequent action.\76/


\72/Manson, <tm>Teaching</>, pp. 57-81, gives a summary treatment of Jesus' use of parables. Manson defines "parable" as including proverbial wisdom (the Hebrew word is <hb>mashal</>) such as Luke 4:23, which he feels to be in accord with the Old Testament definition of parable. Lofthouse, p. 466, points out the similarity of Jesus' usages along this line with those of the Rabbis, but also carefully emphasizes that Jesus was in many other ways non-rabbinic.

\73/Mark 4:3-9, 4:26-32 and parallels.

\74/Matt. 13:44-45.

\75/Mark 12:1-11 and parallels.

\76/See Mark 4:24-25, 4:11-12, and parallels. The fact that to the modern exegete these are hard sayings rests in the fact that Jesus is even in such explanations speaking as a prophet and in a parabolic method. He must therefore be interpreted in that way.


<h4>Idiomatic</>. -- In closing, it must be noted that Jesus' language is idiomatic. All language contains idiom, and all vernacular uses idiom. As a popular prophet-preacher who spoke to the common people, Jesus must have used much idiom. Unfortunately, the modern scholar does not fully know the extent or significance of idiom in first century Palestine. Such sayings as "an eye for an eye"\77/ were undoubtedly idiomatic for legal principles, both in Jesus' and in Moses' day. The formula "law and prophets"\78/ undoubtedly referred to the Jewish religious authority in totality. How can the modern reader know whether he should interpret a phrase literally or idiomatically? Is "jot and title" intended to mean anything literally?\79/ Does "Moses said" refer to an historical event or to a literary source?\80/ Are "Sodom and Gomorrah" intended to be historical references, or are they bywords like the modern idioms "He met his Waterloo" or "They found his Achilles' heel"?\81/ Probably they are historical, but ignorance of idiom should be a caution to the exegete. Words do not always mean what they seem to say!\82/


\77/Matt. 5:38, see appendix 1. R. L. Harris, "The Sermon on the Mount and Verbal Inspiration," <tp>The Reformation Review</>, I (July 1954), 27, expresses the view that this phrase is an idiom of law.

\78/See appendix 5.

\79/See appendix 8, Matt. 5:17.

\80/See appendix 5. Moderns often say, "webster says that this word mans ..." Is the Biblical phrase parallel to the modern idiom which is not meant to be literal?

\81/See appendix 3.

\82/An excellent illustration may be found in the above mentioned book by Warfield, p. 187: "The portraiture of Jesus which has glorified the world's literature as well as blessed all ages and races with the revelation of a God-man come down from heaven to save the world, is limned by his follower's pencils alone. The record ... is a record by his follower's pens alone." In the Gospels, the critic would call this an error, and the literalist would say that the disciples used both pens and pencils. Warfield, however, probably did not mean to infer that pencils existed in the first century; his point is that Jesus' followers recorded Jesus' message. The writing instrument used, or even the mention of a writing instrument is idiomatic and superfluous to Warfield's meaning.


Summary and Conclusion

The above treatment, as was intended, is but a survey. The materials dealt with contain many potential theses -- studies which must be pursued if true exegesis is to be advanced. From the treatment, however, several problems and considerations relevant to the present study arise. Unfortunately, the conclusion and summary to this chapter must be largely negative, but when the limits have been recognized, positive conclusions will claim a more valid basis.

1. The Gospels do not always quote Jesus with verbal exactness; thus the exact words which Jesus spoke are not known.

2. Jesus' teaching have been modified necessarily to some degree by translation into Greek; thus the exact meaning of his teaching is not [[35]] always known.

3. Jesus' teachings have been selected by the Evangelists and by tradition; thus the complete teachings of Christ are not preserved.

4. Jesus' teachings have been transmitted through, and edited by, the understanding of his hearers.

5. Jesus' language is not always literal -- it is figurative, idiomatic, and parabolic.

6. The life-situation of Jesus' teachings is not fully known.

7. Jesus' personality is not fully known.

8. The Aramaic vocabulary of Jesus is not fully known.

9. First century Semitic thought-patterns are often difficult for the twentieth century exegete to master and probably were similarly difficult for the 1\<mu>st</>/ c. Greek speaker.

10. The pure text (Greek) of the Gospels is not positively known.

To attempt to examine Jesus' doctrine of inspiration, or any other doctrine, apart from these phenomena would be both foolish and inaccurate. In this case at least, the doctrine rests on, and may only be seen through, a consideration of the phenomena. To pick words attributed to Jesus confidently and indiscriminantly from the Gospel records, and to conclude therefrom the truth of a certain doctrine may support traditional theology, but it is not good exegesis.

On the other hand, there is much room for positive reconstruction. By closely defining the limits of approach to Jesus' teaching, the exegete will discover a great area to explore.

1. What is the probable Aramaic form of the words ascribed to Jesus?

2. What is the meaning of the Semitic idiom behind Jesus' Greek words?

3. Can the situations described in the Gospel narratives be enlarged [[36]] through a careful "reading between the lines"?

4. Can a comparison of the Synoptic parallels and a close examination of the peculiarities of each Evangelist point out the path through the minds of these editors to a more clear picture of Jesus than is now known?

Many of these are old questions, but they are seen in a new light as scholarship becomes increasingly sure of what has been speculation in the past. The advance of exegesis seems to be in these directions, once the negative limitations have been recognized. These problems and "pointers" are significant in two directions: (1) as it is true that at present the exegete has no right to claim dogmatically that Jesus literally said certain words, so (2) it is also incorrect to find error or contradiction in the "prophetic" type of teaching used by Jesus. To claim that Jesus could not have said, for example, Matt. 5:17 because it does not appear to fit in with some other teachings\83/ is as uncritical as the opposite view which claims that Jesus said the very Greek words and Greek meanings (or even the English meanings!) of that passage because it is found in the Bible. Somewhere between hasty literalism and hasty criticism lies a vast field of only partially explored study which holds as its reward a more adequate picture of Jesus Christ and his message than has been discovered by these two extremes.


\83/See Hunter, p. 43. Manson, <tm>Teaching</>, pp. 35-38, makes similar claims as do many modern scholars who forget that their principles of interpretation and semantics work both ways. They are overly hasty in finding difficulties which can only be found on a literalistic method of interpretation!

















Limitations of Such a Study

The inquiry concerning the attitude of Jesus Christ to the Jewish religious documents must be circumscribed by the problems presented in the preceding chapter. There is very little direct evidence, but upon it much has been and will be built by various types of inference. An age old inferential argument from silence has become common in such a study -- it is assumed that Jesus held the same views of scripture as his Jewish contemporaries since apparently he never argues "inspiration" with them. Of course, the apologist who so reasons would seldom admit that, on the same basis, Jesus must have shared the views of his times on the enumeration and occupation of the angels (as especially the Pharisees speculated), or on the relationship of sickness and demons, or on the length of time and the date of the world's creation, or on other such theological subjects.\84/ If it is possible to conclude, after a study of Jesus' attitude, that Jesus did share rabbinical views of inspiration in certain aspects, well and good; but to assume this by inference from silence, and to read all that Jesus [[39]] says into such an attitude, is not the most profitable approach. Thus this chapter attempts to discover primarily what Jesus said pertinent to inspiration; this should provide a sound, relatively objective, basis from which to evaluate modern views of the Old Testament.


\84/Other pertinent subjects of a less theological nature could be listed also -- geography (flat earth centering in the Mediterranean), cosmology (geocentric), biology, etc. If it is objected that Jesus' purpose was not to deal with these peripheral matters, but to establish the true way to God and the source of true knowledge of God and of true life (John 14:6), the answer must remain that an argument from silence is equally worthless in either instance.


The analysis will be from various aspects (Jesus' listeners, Jesus' application, formulas used, etc.), and will be based upon the material found in the appendices. First the Gospel data will be examined, then Jesus' use of the data. Such a method should help to clarify the problems and conclusions involved in Jesus' overall use of scripture.

The Data

Direct Formal Quotations

<h4>The Formulas</>. -- Jesus is often represented as introducing Old Testament quotations by specific formulas. Probably the simple "it is written" or "it stands written" is the most common. Also common in the Gospel presentation of Jesus' references are introductions such as "it is said" or "you have heard that it was said." The sources of the quotation are sometimes quite specific ("Isaiah," "Daniel," "Moses"), but more often the reference is general ("it," "God," "scriptures," "law").

Despite this mass of formulas, however, little may be dogmatically concluded from them. To the reader of the parallel columns in appendix 1, it is apparent that the Evangelists do not always agree as to the exact formula used by Jesus.\85/ What formulas did the Lord actually use? Probably [[40]] he used those which the Gospels attribute to him, but not positively the particular formula cited in any particular instance. It is quite likely that the tradition and editing which stands behind the Gospel records had a voice in the formulas credited to Jesus. The exegete, therefore, must be careful not to build Jesus' doctrine of inspiration on the exact wording of these formulas.


\85/This fact was mentioned above (p. 17) as an illustration of the Synoptic Problem. The most glaring examples are Matt. 4:7 <lt>vs</>. Luke 4:12; Matt. 15:7 <lt>vs</>. Mark 7:6; Matt. 15:4 <lt>vs</>. Mark 7:10; Matt. 19:4 <lt>vs</>. Mark 10:3-7; Matt. 21:42 and Mark 12:10 <lt>vs</>. Luke 20:17; Matt. 22:31 <lt>vs</>. Mark 12:26 <lt>vs</>. Luke 20:37; Matt. 22:43 <lt>vs</>. Mark 12:36 <lt>vs</>. Luke 20:42; Matt. 24:15 <lt>vs</>. Mark 13:14. It will be noticed that the differences are from every combination of Synoptic parallels, and thus support the attitude of scepticism outlined above (p. 10). There seems to be no consistent way of evaluation one "document" against another concerning these formulas.


Another caution must also be recognized. Even if the Synopticists agree on Jesus' formula for any given passage, or if the exegete uses formulas from passages which are not paralleled in the other Gospels, he must be careful to recognize the probability that these formulas are idiomatic, and should therefore not be taken literally. It is often noted that Jesus' formulas are the same as those in rabbinical literature, early church literature, Qumran literature, and first century Jewish writers. Such universal usage over such a long period of time clearly implies that the original, and literal, meaning may have been lost in the subsequent years of use.\86/ Thus the traditional arguments used by Wenham and Warfield (and many others) from the evidence of formulas are very questionable even if they had taken the Synoptic Problem into account.\87/


\86/The Bible afford many examples of such idiom evolution. Ellis, p. 76, speaks of the cry "Hosanna" and notices that although "originally a prayer meaning 'save we pray,' it has gradually become just an expression of praise." Whereas "Christ" meant the "Messiah" to early Jewish Christians, it became a designation for Jesus of Nazareth in later Christendom @@ (no longer true) (and so it is used in the present study). Theological terms such as "adoption," "salvation," and "justification" have become by metaphorical use idiomatic. Today in Biblical studies one may easily find formulas analogous to those of the Gospels -- "Nestle reads," "this is Gospel Truth," "The RSV says."

\87/Wenham, pp. 22-26. Warfield, pp. 229-241 and 299-348. Some of their conclusions may be valid, but the arguments certainly must be re-evaluated.


What is learned from Jesus' alleged formulas of quotation? This is, as indicated, a difficult question. Certainly they show Jesus' consciousness of the authority which the scriptures had for the people to whom he spoke.\88/ They also show that perhaps the major, if not the only, literature known to Jesus was the Old Testament.\89/ He was certainly well versed in the ancient writings! The formulas clearly reveal an intention by Jesus to quote the Old Testament passages, even mentioning specific books or authors, and show that the disciples understood Jesus to attribute direct Divine authority to many of the message quoted (if not all).\90/ The further question is, "How can we be sure that the disciples correctly understood Jesus?" In part, one must assume that they did understand him; in part, a more complete answer is suggested in the next chapter. Even more basic is the question, "How else could Jesus have introduced Old Testament references and still have maintained a unity with the past revelation while avoiding rabbinical implications?" [[42]] At present there seems to be no answer to this question, a fact which leaves much room for conjecture concerning Jesus' complete and personal attitude to scripture. The formulas are of minor significance in discovering Jesus' exact view of the Old Testament, although they indicate that he must have left the impression (no matter what his exact words) that the law had Divine sanction and authority.\91/


\88/Tilden, "Jesus' Methods," p. 48, says: "In the case of the various formulas of quotation, although it is true that at least some are rabbinic in form, Jesus seems uniformly to use them in practical (<lt>ad hominem</>) ways rather than with subtle technical meanings, so that he rests his argument rather on the force of the Old Testament than on the literary form of the introductory words." This conclusion appears to be consistent with the facts of the case.

\89/Klausner, <tm>From Jesus to Paul</> (cited in Bussby, p. 272), p. 583, feels that Jesus "had no acquaintance beyond the Hebrew and Aramaic literature created in Palestine." Macleod, p. 175, admits that "the religious literature of Israel saturated His thought ... as a pervasive, directing source" even though Jesus undoubtedly did not own his own copy of the Old Testament. He refers the reader to the chapter entitled "Christ as a Student of Scripture" in Stalker's <tmlt>Imago Christ</> (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1895).

\90/At least, the formulas such as "God said" and "inspired by the Holy Spirit" give this impression. It is highly improbable that every formula of this type is intended to be merely an idiomatic use, although many may be merely that. It is significant that the Synoptic Problem mentioned above applied to these specific formula types in almost every instance. Matthew has a tendency to attribute, for example, Pentateuchal words to God while Mark gives credit to Moses or to God through Moses. This is certainly a strong indication that the Evangelists (or tradition), rather than Jesus, chose some of the formulas used in the "Quotations of Jesus."

\91/More explicitly, the problem is that however Jesus might express his attitude to the Old Testament, his listeners would tend to understand him in terms of their accepted theology. Had Jesus really said "God speaks through the legal principles originating in Moses," he would most probably have been cited as saying, "God said" or something similar.


<h4>Hypothetical Sources</> -- These formal quotations are found in each of the Gospel sections assigned to the sources Mark, Q, M, and L.\92/ A fifth source, J (for John), is also included in this study. It is of note that Q has perhaps the least number of formula quotations.\93/ This is somewhat unexpected since Q is supposedly made up almost exclusively of Jesus' words with virtually no intervening narrative.\94/ Mark, however, makes up for this scarcity by an abundance [[43]] of formula references, thus supporting the confidence that Jesus really did use such formulas.\95/ Whatever source or sources the theorists may finally approve as "most reliable," it is obvious that Jesus is depicted as using the Old Testament by direct reference in each presently propounded source (with the possible exception noted above). The next question to be asked it: "What was the nature of the scripture which Jesus quoted?"


\92/This is Streeter's hypothesis which was explained above, p. 28.

\93/L has almost as few such quotations at first glance, with some "questionable" references adding to its total (see appendix 1). Both of the Q contexts of quotation -- the temptation account and the significance of John Baptist (secs. 1 and 6 of appendix 1) -- have been questioned concerning their claim to be true Q material. Argyle and Metzger exchanged thoughts on the subject in <tp>Expository Times</>, LXIV and LXV. Argyle first wrote on "The Accounts of the Temptations of Jesus in Relation to the Q Hypothesis" (LXIV, 382), answered by Metzger's "Scriptural Quotations in Q Material" (LXV, 125), answered by another comment of Argyle under the latter title (LXV, 285). Argyle felt that the temptation account was not Q material. In addition, his listing of quotations (called "indirect quotations" below) from Q does not include the John Baptist passage -- this may be an oversight, or a denial of its Q origin. Nor does F. H. Woods, "Quotations," <tm>A Dictionary of the Bible</>, ed. by J. Hastings (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1902), IV, 186-87, include the Baptist quotation as from Q. On the other hand, the lists of Q given by both Bussby, p. 272, and V. Taylor, "The Order of Q," <tp>Journal of Theological Studies</>, New Series IV (1953), 29-30, include both contexts.

\94/Manson, <tm>Teaching</>, p. 30.

\95/Mark and Q are usually considered the most reliable sources. See Wendt, the "Introduction," and Manson, <tm>Teaching</>, chap. 2.


<h4>Canon</>. -- The exact limits of Jesus' canon are unknown, although it generally coincided with the Old Testament which is presently accepted among protestants.\96/ His "minimum canon," however, may be discovered through his Old Testament references. Since the informal (not introduced by a formula) quotations are somewhat subjectively discovered, the canon of the formal quotations alone will be discussed now, hand the other canon indications (indirect, historical, etc.) will be treated later.


\96/Jesus' exact canon remains a question despite the multitude of commentators who argue from the terms "scripture" and "law, prophets, and psalms" to the exact Hebrew Canon accepted at Jamnia and later. Too often the fact is neglected that even in the middle of the first century, popular discussions arose over such "fringe" books as Ezekiel, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. Nor did the early church appear to be bound to any rigid Old Testament canon. Hasty generalization has tended to obscure the real facts of a study of canon. See Westcott's excellent study, <tm>The Bible in the Church</> (London: Macmillan, 1901); B. J. Roberts, "The DSS and the Old Testament Scriptures," <tp>Bulletin of the John Rylands Library</>, XXXVI, 84-85; Davies, "Jewish Background," p. 236; Sanday, p. 4; Orr, <tm>Revelation and Inspiration</> (New York" Scribner's, 1910), p. 182; J. A. Beet, <tm>The Old Testament</> (London: C. H. Kelly, 1912), p. 8; and Angus, p. 88.


In the formula references, Jesus is recorded as using the names of Moses, Isaiah, and Daniel. He definitely refers to Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Psalms (8, 41, 82, 110, 118), Isaiah, Daniel, Hosea, and Zechariah; he probably refers to Malachi also. He may allude to Jeremiah, Proverbs, Psalm 35 or 69, and I Kings, but the wording is not definite enough to be sure. Some of the formula quotations seem to have no exact Old [[44] Testament source (especially John 6:45, 7:38, 15:25 and Luke 11:49)!\97/ It is significant to note that apparently no purely historical books are definitely cited by formula, nor any "fringe" books of the Jewish writings, either canonical or apocryphal (books about which questions were sometimes raised, for example, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Ezekiel, Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon).


\97/The Luke 11:49 passage is unique. Whether its introduction is intended as a formula or not is a matter of conjecture. Westcott, <tm>Bible in Church</>, pp. 46-48, traces its origin to II Chron. 24:19, which he feels became the basis for a proverbial saying in Jesus' day. This seems possible, but does not sufficiently explain the formula. Westcott also traces John 7:38 back to Isa. 44:3 and Zech. 13:1 in a similar way.

<h4>Text</>. -- What text did Jesus use? This is at present impossible to answer. The quotations are generally close to LXX text type, but they vary enough upon occasion so that the MT text type may sometimes be identified. Other texts, which are neither MT nor LXX, are occasionally used.\98/ As has already been
noted,\99/ there is little consensus of opinion as to the extent of Jesus' use of Greek. He probably knew the trade language, but did he use the LXX? Scholarship of the last century confidently answered "Yes!"\17/ Contrast this [[45]] with the more recent attitudes cited above in connection with Jesus' "mother-tongue."\100/


\97/See the comments in appendix 1 and the note attached to it.

\98/See above: Chapter 1, p. 25.

\99/Gaussen, p. 82" "The universal custom of the hellenistic Jews in all the East, was, to read in the Synagogues, and to quote in their discussions, the Septuagint version." Lee, p. 317: "Our Lord Himself adopted and sanctioned the interpretation which the Seventy Interpreters had given [of Genesis 2:24 in Matt. 19:5].... In all such cases the Greek translation is followed, as exhibiting a true and clear perception of the meaning intended by the language of the Old Testament." H. Osgood, "Jesus the Supreme Witness and Example of Inspiration," in <tm>The Inspired Word</>, ed. by A. Pierson (London" Hodder and Stoughton, 1888), p. 247: "[Jesus] knew it [the Old Testament] in both the original Hebrew, and in its accepted translation, the Greek [which he always used in speaking to the people]." Note also this more popular recent writer; Ericson, <tm>Inspiration: History, Theories and Facts</> (New York: American Tract Society, 1928), p. 123: "Undoubtedly the Lord and His Apostles sometimes quote the Septuagint as the authority to which we must bow without question."

\100/See above: Chapter 1, p. 25. Manson, <tm>Teaching</>, p. 10, faultily assumes that Christ could not have spoken Greek. Both Argyle and Metzger, in the dispute mentioned above (Chapter 2, p. 42, note 10), imply that the questions of Christ were originally Aramaic.


If Jesus did not use the LXX, what text did he refer to? The Aramaic targums were apparently not yet in existence in written form.\101/ Toy thought that the Hebrew text was read in the synagogues and then was rephrased into Aramaic, the latter of which was used by Christ.\102/ Manson feels that Jesus may have been conversant in a "scholastic Hebrew" which he used when speaking with the religious leaders, while using Aramaic with the common people.\103/ It is generally agreed that Biblical Hebrew was even then a "dead language" outside of the technical fields of religious and national endeavor.\104/


\101/See Black, <tm>Aramaic Approach</>, pp. 8-12; Toy, <tm>Quotations in the New Testament</> (New York: Scribner's, 1884), pp. xiv. 79. Metzger, "Bible Versions" Ancient," <te>Twentieth Century Encyclopedia</>, I, 140, hints that the recent Cairo genizah targum find may give evidence that a written targum existed in the early first century (Kahle's theory), but the dating is not yet positive.

\102/Thus an oral rather than a written targum took general shape; Toy, pp. xiv, 79. Toy doubts that Jesus even read the Hebrew text in Luke 4:17f. at all -- probably Jesus simply made some comments. The text itself presents some problems since Jesus is said to have "opened the book and found the place where it was written," and the quotation then cited is from Isa. 61:1- 2a with a phrase from Isa. 58:6b inserted. The entire quotation is in LXX wording, and is given as a unit. Did Jesus intentionally turn back in the scroll to Isaiah 58? Was the scroll reading corrupt? Is the Gospel text corrupt in this quotation? Did Jesus read several chapters and then sum them up in these words? Did Jesus intentionally modify Isa. 61:1-2a for the sake of his message? Certainly there is a large textual question in Luke 4:17-20 which illustrates the complexity of the problem. There are few commentators today who would claim that Jesus read the LXX in the synagogue. Perhaps the editing of this incident into Greek helps in its solution.

\103/Manson, <tm>Teaching</>, pp. 10, 45-49.

\104/<lt>Ibid</>., p. 47. What he calls "scholastic Hebrew" is a language intermediate to the Aramaic and Biblical Hebrew, of the sort used in the Midrashim and Mishnah. D. Diringer, "Hebrew Language and Literature," <te>Twentieth Century Encyclopedia</>, I, 496-497, gives Biblical Hebrew a somewhat wider usage than does Manson.


New evidence has made the complex problem of Jesus' Old Testament text even more complex. The Dead Sea materials point to the existence of a Hebrew text type quite similar to the LXX (where the LXX and MT differ) during the time of Christ.\105/ This tends to confirm previous work and hypotheses by such men as Kahle, Sperber, and H. M. Wiesner.\106/ As already noted, the Cairo genizah materials have also turned up an Aramaic targum which may reflect an early tradition, and which sometimes differs from the MT.\107/ As things now stand, the LXX has gained prestige for the exegete, although it is itself being more closely examined for the possibility of more than one underlying Hebrew text.\108/ No conclusion can yet be made concerning Christ's text of Old Testament quotations, if, indeed, he had any one text or indeed a written text at all!


\105/See P. Benoit, <lt>et. al.</>, "Editing the Manuscript Fragments from Qumran," <tp>Biblical Archaeologist</>, XIX (December 1956), 75-96 (especially the section by F. M. Cross Jr. on pp. 83-86).

\106/See Metzger's article on "Bible Versions" under the sub-heading "The Samaritan Pentateuch" and also A. Sperber, <tm>New Testament and LXX</> (New York: Jewish Publication Society of Philadelphia, 1940).

\107/See above: Chapter 2, p. 45, note 19.

\108/See H. S. Gehman, "Septuagint," <te>Twentieth Century Encyclopedia</>, II, 1015-1017; excellent bibliographical data is given.


Informal Quotations

Jesus' use of the Old Testament is not limited to formal quotations from scripture. His language as it is recorded by the Synopticists is saturated with Old Testament idiom, example, proverb, and meaning. This very fact of intense familiarity makes it difficult for the exegete to judge when Jesus is intentionally referring to the Old Testament or when the words come [[47]] without special intention.\109/ Thus the disparity between Jesus' intended meaning and the well-meaning conclusions of uncritical exegesis might be rather great.


\109/Even today, the English language has assimilated so much "King James" phraseology that it is often difficult to distinguish conscious from unconscious Biblical usages. Thus the baseball pitcher who "pulled that one out of the fire" seldom thinks of Jude 23. Nor does the young man who is admonished to "Count the cost" think of Jesus' parable. "Eat, drink, and be merry" is usually used out of context and with no reference intended to the Biblical story. It is probable that such "automatic" usages of the scripture occurred in the Lord's teaching also.


In examining Jesus' recorded similarities of wording with the Old Testament, one is struck with a perplexing problem; the Jesus of John's Gospel does not echo the scripture in nearly the same degree as the Jesus of the Synoptics.\109/ Why should this be? Is one presentation more accurate than the other?\110/ Why is it that the Gospel which exhibits so much Semitic influence by way of geographical notes, language style, and editorial explanations, should fail to preserve Old Testament coincidences in the language of Jesus?\111/ In Nestle's text (twentieth edition), there are only two instances where Old Testament wording is indicated without a specific formula of designation, and Jesus is speaking in neither instance (12:13 and 19:29). Yet this very Gospel records a much greater quantity of Jesus' words than do the Synoptics (by proportion). Certainly there is editing here or there.\112/


\109/This was suggested above, chapter 2, p. 18, note 29.

\110/Arguments for the historicity of John are noted in appendix 9.

\111/In the same line of thought it might also be asked why the Gospel of John consistently deviates from both the LXX and the MT in almost every formula quotation; see appendix 1.

\112/The bearing which such evidence has on the destination, purpose, and origin of the Gospel should prove to be significant. Unfortunately, it cannot be treated here. Possibly this phenomenon fits into the theory that John was written in a Gentile atmosphere to Gentiles who were unfamiliar with Semitic thought and idiom. But if an earnest Jew wrote John, how could he avoid such language in the mouth of Christ? This is in marked contrast to the Dead Sea Scrolls even though it is claimed that they have imagery very similar to that of John (see above: Chapter 1, p. 24, note 43). P. Parker suggests "Two Editions of John," <tp>Journal of Biblical Literature</>, LXXV, 303-314, as a solution to many Johannine problems.


Bypassing such problems as editing and the subjectivity of determining Jesus' indirect quotations, what supplementations for Jesus' minimum canon is gained through this data? Actually, few positive identifications may be made, since some of the verbal similarities may be traced to several Old Testament references.\113/ Jesus may allude to Job, Psalms (<ts>6</>, 22, 24, <ts>31</>, 37, <ts>42</>, 62), Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, <ts>Joel</>, Amos, <ts>Jonah</>, <ts>Micah</>, and Zephaniah in addition to those books definitely quoted in formula references.\114/ On the other hand, he may no have intended to allude to all of these books, in which case they are not necessarily in his minimum canon. No definite additions may be made,therefore, except possibly those which are underlined above.

\113/The most glaring example is in the eschatological discourse of Matt. 24:29ff. (Mark 13:24, Luke 21:25); the cosmic phenomena therein described find parallels in Ecclesiastes, Ezekiel, Amos, Joel, Isaiah, Daniel, and Zephaniah. Whether Jesus had any one of them or some of them or all of them in mind is impossible to determine. See appendix 2.

\114/See above: Chapter 2, p. 43.

The text of the informal quotations is enwrapped in the same difficulties as that of the formal. This fact itself is a barrier to the identification of allusions, since the Old Testament flavor may have been lost, or gained, in the transmission of Jesus' words from their original language to the final Greek form. Also, Jesus' audience would certainly have failed to recognize unidentified quotations of this sort with which they were not familiar themselves, and thus would be likely to modify Jesus' actual text. Often LXX wording is recorded,\115/ but the words on the cross in [[49]] Matt. 27:46 and Mark 15:34 show even a variation in the Aramaic report of Jesus' informal quotation.\116/


\115/See Matt. 6:6 and Isa. 26:20.

\116/See appendix 2.


Other Allusions

Besides the explicit references and the wording similar to the Old Testament, Jesus speaks of events, institutions, and laws which clearly reflect a knowledge of the Old Testament literature.\117/ He also refers to the Old Testament in general by various names (in addition to the formulas used for specific quotations)\118/ As was true of the informal quotations, this last miscellaneous section of data may include both intentional and unintentional usage of the scripture. Many of the references are obvious, but many others are so general or incidental that little may be concluded therefrom.\119/


\117/See appendix 3.

\118/See appendix 6.

\119/Contrast the references to Elijah and Elisha (Luke 4:25-27), which do not lack explicitness, with the thought, "He also is a son of Abraham" in Luke 19:9. The latter saying may not intend to have any direct reference to the Old Testament at all.


Classification of these references is also somewhat difficult. The historical allusions and events are relatively easy to recognize. Legal and religious allusions may be placed in another category. There are also general references which give little or no content, but simply point toward the Old Testament authority (for example, Matt. 26:54: "How then should the scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?").

The historical allusions may be subdivided with reference to their uses, such as illustrative, polemical, and precedent for God's action. But even in these allusions, skepticism is sometimes necessary in judging whether [[50]] Jesus' use is primarily or only secondarily historical. Consider his much discussed reference in Matt. 23:29-37 to "Zechariah the son of Barachiah whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar."

If the intention is an historical sweep of the murders of righteous men, exegetes must look for a Zechariah who is nearly contemporary with Jesus.\120/ If Jesus means to survey only the Biblical period, he may have reference to the Zechariah of the Minor Prophets (a temporal survey),\121/ or to the Zechariah of II Chron. 24:21 (a literary survey).\122/ If this last suggestion be true, the reference must be considered as historical only in a secondary sense, if the cry of "error" is to
be avoided, for the Zechariah of II Chron. 24:20-21 is called "the son of Jehoiada the priest."\123/ There is, of course, the final possibility of denying the validity of the text (of Matthew) itself, or of at least doubting that Jesus really said "son of Barachiah."\124/ If the solution be accepted which detracts from the historical reliability of the exact words of the passage by placing it into the realm of idiom, there is no logical reason [[51]] for not calling several other apparently historical allusions "idioms" of one sort or another (such as, "Sodom and Gomorrah" as a phrase for "even the most wicked people in the past"). Generally speaking, the following treatment will not attempt such circumloqutions of the apparently obvious historical allusions, although admitting the possibility of such a treatment if it is based on good reasons and sound evidence.


\120/Gaussen, pp. 163-166, presents several possibilities concerning the passage, one of which accords with this suggestion.

\121/Gaussen, p. 165, feels that if Christ had wanted to refer to the last martyr of the Old Testament period, why not Urijah in Jer. 26:23 rather than the Zechariah of II Chronicles? Thus Gaussen favors the Zechariah of the Minor Prophets.

\122/Wenham, p. 11, favors this idea that Jesus referred to the last martyr of the Hebrew canon (which he thinks closed even then with II Chronicles). A. C. Wieand, <tm>Gospel Records of the Message and Mission of Jesus Christ</> (Rev. ed.; Elgin, Illinois: Brethren Publishing House, 1950), p. 193, holds the same view, as does R. V. G. Tasker, <tm>Our Lord's Use of the Old Testament</> (Glasgow: Pickering and Inglis, 1953), p. 9.

\123/Wieand, p. 193, says in his note: "The expression amounts to our saying, 'From Genesis to Revelation.'" The article "Zachariah" in ISBE, V, 3129b, attributes "Barachiah" to a gloss which had crept into the text and also favors this last view.

\124/See the preceding note. Notice also that Luke 11:47-51 omits the "son of" phrase (in an apparently different context, however). The manuscript evidence does not favor deleting that phrase in Matthew (see Nestle's text).


As for the contributions of these allusions to Jesus' canon, certain historical books are definitely recognizable. Numbers is added to complete the Pentateuch, I Samuel and I and II Kings are also cited (thus II Samuel is undoubtedly included), and there are possible allusions to II Chronicles and Ezekiel, although both may be disputed.

The Interpretation

Two related fields of inquiry emerge from the above data: (1) How did Jesus use the Old Testament, and (2) What does the modern exegete learn about Jesus' doctrine of inspiration from his use of the Old Testament in the data examined? This latter question is a natural roadway to the problem to be treated in the thesis conclusion: How does Jesus' discoverable doctrine of inspiration relate to the present day problems concerning inspiration?

Jesus' Use of the Old Testament

There can be no doubt (short of an absolute historical skepticism concerning Jesus' life and teachings)\125/ that Jesus regarded the Old Testament very highly. His constant reference to scripture and its content in all types of situations in each period of his ministry as recorded in every alleged [[52]] source document of the Gospels is witness to this fact.\126/ As has been seen, he quotes, echoes, and alludes to the received Jewish religious authority again and again in the Gospel records. The data through which his use must be seen are convincing evidence that to Jesus, this Old Testament was deeply intertwined with his own mission for God.


\125/See above: Chapter 1, pp. 27ff. Bultmann, of course, would not admit any true historical knowledge of this sort concerning Jesus. His approach is contrary to the presuppositions of this study, and to the New Testament indications themselves.

\126/H. Rimmer, <tm>Internal Evidence of Inspiration</> (2\nd/ Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1938), p. 227, presents a survey of the relative frequency of Old Testament references by Christ. There would be a degree of subjectivity in such a study, of course, but his conclusion is that "ten percent of the daily conversation of Jesus was Old Testament verses literally quoted." Certainly the phrase "literally quoted" cannot be accepted as accurate, but the approximate percentage is probably a reasonably accurate figure. Tasker, pp. 9-14, entitles sec. 2 of his work "Christ had Intimate Knowledge and Confidence in the Old Testament." Tilden, "Jesus' Methods," p. 48, admits that "Jesus' thoroughing [<lt>sic</>] familiarity with the Old Testament is clearly established." See also the appendices at the end of this thesis (especially I-VII).


<h3>Use Relative to Audience</>

It is possible that Jesus was familiar with little or no other literature than the Jewish scriptures.\127/ He probably owned no complete copy of this literature, and thus depended upon home, synagogue, and Temple for his intimate knowledge.\128/ Yet the thoroughness of his training in this area is seen by his skillful application of scripture to all types of listener -- disciple and antagonist alike.


\127/See above: Chapter 2, p. 41.

\128/Macleod, p. 175.


<h4>Satan</>. -- The first prolonged glimpse of Jesus' recorded ministry is found in the fourth chapters of Matthew and Luke -- the temptation scene. This episode is invariably cited as a proof that Jesus did not always use the scriptures with <lt>ad hominem</> reference.\129/ But before jumping to too many hasty conclusions, some basic questions about the passage must be raised. First [[53]] of all, how did the Evangelists learn this bit of information about Jesus? There were apparently no disciples at the time of the incident. Apparently no one else was with Jesus. Thus either Satan or Jesus must have at some time volunteered this information for a specific purpose. That Satan did not do so is obvious from the lesson involved! But why should Jesus tell this story to his disciples? The answer is not difficult -- the story shows that the onslaught of Satan may be met and turned by the God-conscious individual; it shows that the Lord had experienced the same psychological darts which Satan hurls at every God-seeking man and had overcome them. When Jesus gave this lesson, the disciples must have understood him to speak literally and historically of an event which they viewed as previous to their association with him. Is it possible that they misinterpreted their master? They often failed to understand him, and were often perplexed with his words and actions.\130/ Could it have been that this episode was not meant to be a historical narrative, but like Lazarus in Abraham's Bosom, it was a history-like parabolic illustration and summary of spiritual realities? If this were the case, the quotations could be <lt>ad hominum</>. Probably this is not the case -- probably the incident is historical as well as spiritual in its meaning, since that is its most obvious interpretation. But an element of uncertainty remains.


\129/Wenham, p. 20, illustrates such a claim, as does A. Saphir, <tm>Christ and the Scriptures</> (Kilmarnock, Scotland: John Ritchie, n.d. [before 1926]), pp. 21-22.

\130/A multitude of incidents come to the author's mind: the times when Jesus spoke of his death at Jerusalem; the bread of life discourse which turned many away and left the disciples helpless; the willful trip of Jesus to Bethany after the death of Lazarus; the footwashing ceremony of John 13 and the questions of John 14; the pacifism in Gethsemane; the temple of his body to be raise in three days; the new-birth which perplexed Nicodemus; the meaning of various parables; the rigidity of marriage and the difficulty of a rich man entering heaven. Many of these are certainly not at all like the temptation story, but they serve to illustrate the difficulty with which Jesus' words were received by even his friends.


In the temptation narrative, both Satan and Jesus use the Old Testament. Both are recorded as using LXX words, and both have legitimate [[54]] applications of the Old Testament words. Jesus' quotations are from Deuteronomy, and Satan's quotation is from Ps. 91:11-12. Jesus did not object to the fact that Satan used scripture against him, nor did Jesus deny the validity of Satan's use of scripture. In fact, Satan's use was good in itself; but in the overall context of the temptation, Satan's quotation was incidental and hypothetical. If Jesus had jumped from the Temple pinnacle, doubtless the angels would have caught him; but such a spectacular publicity stunt was contrary to Jesus' purpose and unnecessary for his Divine attestation. In such a course of action would be the basic attitude of superfluous and vainglorious exhibitionism which is foreign to God's will. Jesus' replies by means of quotations illustrate spiritual attitudes which, if they are put into practice in life situations, defeat Satan by positive emphases rather than by mere negative argument. Jesus did not say, "I will not make bread from stones, I will not jump down, I will not worship you," but rather, "God is more important than bread, God's purpose stands firm, God alone is to be worshipped." What better way to defeat Evil than to emphasize God? Jesus' use is primarily practical and spiritual rather than polemical or speculative. The authority of the Old Testament is seen in the context of Jesus' attitude towards God, in contrast with the lack of authority of Satan's application because of a wrong attitude-context. Both Satan and Christ use the Old Testament authority in a legitimate way, but only Christ's use is authoritative because only his use reflects the correct attitude toward the Old Testament God.

<h4>Disciples</>. -- In the twenty or more cases in which Jesus refers to the Old Testament in directly teaching his disciples (excluding passages to a listening crowd or to antagonists while the disciples were within hearing), almost every instance is didactic in nature. On a few occasions, there is [[55]] also somewhat of an evangelistic or hortatory emphasis along with the didactic.\131/ Since most of the direct teaching of the disciples fell into the later part of Jesus' ministry, in order to prepare them for crises and service, it is reasonable that Jesus' use of the Old Testament among them should be didactic. They also received more general teachings during such events as the Sermon on the Mount an other discourses of Jesus with the crowds of people, which events are treated below.


\131/See Matt. 11:21-24 and Luke 10:12-14 on the instructions to the seventy when the wicked towns are upbraided; Matt. 26:31 and Mark 14:27 where the disciples are warned that they will "fall away" from their captured Lord; and Luke 24:25 where the disciples on the Emmaus road are chided for their slowness of belief.


Often, Jesus reminds his students (for that is what disciples are) of the historical precedent of God's past action which points to future action. There are such historical similes as Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot,\132/ Tyre and Sidon,\133/ and Noah's day,\134/ depicting some aspect of God's judgment. The historical foreshadowing of events is also frequently noted -- the reason for parables,\135/ the prophetic desire,\136/ and the eschatological Elijah\137/ -- and lastly, fulfilled prophecy is often noted either explicitly or implicitly.\138/


\132/Matt. 10:15, Luke 17:28-32.

\133/Matt. 11:21-24 (Luke 10:12-14).

\134/Matt. 24:37, Luke 17:26-27.

\135/Matt. 13:14-15 (Mark 4:12).

\136/Matt. 13:17, Luke 10:24.

\137/Matt. 17:11 (Mark 9:12).

\138/Matt. 24:15, 26:24, 26:31 (Mark 14:27), 26:54; Luke 22:37, 24:25, 24:44-49.


Foreshadowing and fulfillment are often difficult to distinguish, and perhaps would not have been differentiated by the Evangelists. What is called "historical foreshadowing" is an application of an Old Testament statement or event to a New Testament situation which is similar. The "fulfilled prophecy" is concerned with predictive scriptural passages. Both [[56]] uses of the Old Testament are often introduced by the formula, "that it might be fulfilled," or a similar statement. To the first century Semitic mind this phrase possibly meant, "that it might be exhibited" or "worked out," rather than the idea of intentional and exclusive fulfillment of predictions.\139/ Thus, for instance, the "Elijah type" was exhibited in John Baptist, yet he was not necessarily the "Elijah" of Mal. 4:5. He himself denied that he was "Elijah,"\140/ yet Jesus saw in him a demonstration of, and thus, in a general sense, a fulfillment of the "eschatological Elijah."\141/ Likewise, the "fulfillment" passages of John 13:18 and 15:25 possibly refer to non-predictive passages which are also true of Christ' experience.\142/ The Old Testament passage is enlightened by, and itself enlightens, the New Testament experience. Thus, through a first century exegetical device, Jesus' emphasis on the unity of God's purpose and message is aided.


\139/Ellis, pp. 39-44, deals somewhat with the problem and claims that "fulfilled" has reference to historical parallels as well as prophetic anticipation. He cites Tenney, p. 95, where this principle is applied to Matt. 13:14-15.

\140/John 1:21.

\141/Matt. 11:14.

\142/It has long been recognized that the New Testament writers in general tend to find "fulfillments" for every noticed Old Testament similarity to Christ or Christianity. If the word really does mean intentional prediction fulfilled in the traditional sense, and if Christ's hermeneutics are binding in such "fulfillments," then much of modern exegesis has radically departed from the "truth in Christ." Fortunately, this does not seem to be the case.


<h4>The Multitudes</>. -- The majority of Jesus' allusions to the Old Testament which the Gospels records were addressed to general groups of people with whom he came into contact. Within these multitudes undoubtedly were representatives from the religious leaders (antagonistic to Jesus) as well as disciples (sympathetic to Jesus), but the major element of such throngs was a relatively neutral group: They were curious about the "Master," or were a captive [[57]] audience, or were following the rest of the crowd.

Among this group there is a marked difference in Jesus' general use of scripture. There are definite didactic elements present, but they are usually linked with an ethical or evangelical thrust of some sort, or even a polemical emphasis where antagonism is present. The scene in Nazareth's synagogue is an early example of this fact.\143/ Jesus' exposition of Isa. 61:1f. and his application of it to himself was much more than teaching. This was plainly prophetic-evangelistic preaching. The subsequent historical examples from the ministry of Elijah and Elisha are similar to the examples of Lot and Noah used with the disciples,\144/ but here Jesus applies the examples so as to condemn the real attitude of his listeners. This is, again, evangelistic and also polemical as well as instructive.


<143>/Luke 4:17-27.

\144/See above: chapter 2, p. 55.


The "Sermon on the Mount" is another vivid illustration.\145/ The opening beatitudes are to comfort and exhort: "They persecuted the prophets and they will persecute you; God's servants are habitually persecuted."\146/ The "jot and title" passage is to dissuade obvious objections to Jesus' teachings -- to put the people in a right frame of mind for receiving what he has to say in the rest of the sermon.\147/ Thus it is in a sense polemic, by anticipating their argument, in a sense didactic, and it continues with an ethical emphasis (vss. 19-20). Jesus points the people to a standard and an authority which will pass away as an independent entity because it will become incorporated into Jesus' more basic interpretation and explication of it and will thus be "fulfilled." The remainder of the sermon deals with this [[58]] "fulfilling" of the law and prophets in an ethical- evangelical way which is necessarily didactic but not primarily so, and which ultimately does "destroy" the law as law. The whole sermon is crystallized in its basic emphases by two Old Testament orientated references: "You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect,"\148/ and, "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets."\149/


\145/Matt. 5-7.

\146/Matt. 5:12 (Luke 6:23) in paraphrase.

\147/See appendix 8 for a more complete treatment of the passage as it relates to inspiration.

\148/See appendix 2, Matt. 5:48.

\149/Matt. 7:12 (compare Tob. 4:16 and Luke 6:31). Matt. 6:33 is also a basic summary of the Sermon on the Mount.


Again, in the discourse resulting from John Baptists' question from prison, Jesus instructs concerning John Baptist's place in God's plan, but also barbs his comments with a pointed evangelical thrust: "If you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come."\150/ This is more than teaching: This is preaching aimed at changing men's attitudes. In a different context with different subject matter, Jesus does the same thing in saying: "It was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven [a shocking denial of a proud fact in Israel's history, they must have thought; note the "prophetic" method]; my father gives you the true bread from heaven!"\151/ This again is much less teaching than it is preaching. It is also using the Old Testament as a means, and not as an end in itself. Jesus continues this method in the remainder of the "bread of life" discourse, and in much of the remainder of John's Gospel.\152/ He uses the Old Testament as a catapult which hurls the [[59]] listener toward a dynamic re-application of the meaning of the Old Testament in the light of his living experience. "A greater than Jonah is here; a greater than Solomon is here";\153/ the crowds may revel in their sacred history all they like, but until they bring that history up-to-date and accept Jesus' superiority, they are worse off in God's sight than Nineveh or Sheba. To stop with only Old Testament reflections is to ask for Old Testament judgment.\154/


\150/Matt. 11:10-14. See also above, p. 56.

\151/John 6:32. This clearly shows that for Jesus the authority of the Old Testament lay in the correct meaning of the words, not in words as words.

\152/See John 6:49, 6:58, 7:19, 7:22-23, 8:17, 8:37-40, 8:56. These arguments are all lethargy-jolting <lt>ad hominem</> bases for further teaching and admonition. Again and again, Jesus points to the fact that the Jews do not act in consistency with their law and their claims. He does not deny their law, but he leads them to re-evaluate their attitudes on a more basic principle of inward godliness rather than outward lip-service to a static legalism.

\153/Luke 11:29-31.

\154/The same principle may be seen in John 10:34 (see appendix 9), Luke 13:28f., and Matt. 21:42 (Mark 12:10, Luke 20:17).


<h4>Antagonistic Religious Leaders</>. -- From primarily didactic to evangelical to technical-polemical is Jesus' tendency with these three groups of people -- disciples, crowd, and leaders. Some argumentation had been noted in Jesus' use of scripture with the multitudes, it is true,\155/ but not to the extent seen against the scholastics of that day! It is also true that, especially in the earlier ministry, Jesus offers some "call for repentance" to the leaders, but this is contingent on the attitudes of the hearers and on their degree of opposition or receptivity.\156/ There is very little of a [[60]] purely didactic element in the many uses of scripture with the scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, and other religious leaders.\157/


\155/See above: Chapter 2, p. 57. No purely polemical passage is found in which the Old Testament is employed unless it be John 10:34, which seems to this author to have an evangelical tinge although directed primarily against Jesus' obvious opponents. Also polemical is Jesus' expose of the religious leaders to the people in Matt. 23:2-39, but this is really only addressed to the crowds in a secondary way -- the argument soon moves away from the crowd and is carried to the hypocritical leaders themselves, whether in actuality or in Jesus' imagination. The bad example of the leaders is intended in a negative way to guide the people.
\156/Nicodemus, of course, is the outstanding example, but he was never really opposed to Jesus in the first place, as far as is known (see John 3). Matt. 12:39-42 (compare Luke 11:29-31); see above, note 155) is perhaps as evangelical toward the leaders as it was to the people, but the spontaneity of Luke's occasion as opposed to the forced atmosphere in Matthew may lead to a difference in tone in the edited passages. Perhaps, in reality, both contexts arose from the same actual situation.
\157/Matt. 9:13 and 12:7 (see appendix 1) are both didactic and evangelical in import as well as polemic in context. Since Jesus seems to adapt his approach to the attitude of his hearers, the sincere questions would be answered in a didactic manner, while test questions would be argued. Thus, such passages as Matt. 19:4-8 (Mark 10:3-8) may be more teaching than argumentation.


Jesus often, if not usually, replied to the religious leaders in such a manner that their motives determined Christ's answer. When they asked for a sign -- not that they needed a special sign, since Jesus had done many "great works" already -- Jesus refused; they had made up their minds already and no amount of evidence could therefore be convincing.\158/ True, the "sign of Jonah" was graciously added to Christ's refusal, but that was undoubtedly for any possible hearers whose attitude might still be reasonably receptive. Notice that the Markan version present not even this exception.


\158/Matt. 12:39-42 (compare Luke 11:29-31), 16:1-4, Mark 8:11-13.


When the Pharisees, on grounds in themselves quite reasonable, criticize the Sabbath snack habits of the disciples, Jesus points to an attitude illustrated from scripture which supports the disciples' action.\159/ To say that Jesus condones David's action in I Sam. 21:1-6, or that he even condones the action of his disciples, would be to go beyond the text. Jesus clearly is reported in all of the Synoptics as saying that it was unlawful for David to eat the showbread! Jesus did not, therefore, defend David or the disciples in the light of legalistic principles, but tried to show that even the law must be seen in the wider context of God's purpose. Even the law is a means. The life of David and the Temple service have more importance than the showbread itself and the Sabbath itself, God has not [[61]] limited himself to legalistic statutes at the expense of true spiritual attitudes which are aligned with God's purpose. Jesus uses scripture -- the spirit as interpreting, and therefore as basic to, the letter.


\159/Matt. 12:3-5 (Mark 2:25-27, Luke 6:3); compare the episode of the withered hand in Matt. 12:12 (Mark 3:4, Luke 6:9), where Jesus' approach is similar.


This is precisely the point of the "tradition" dispute.\160/ The leaders had been given the mountain of the law around which they planted a hedge by their hermeneutical methods with an extra fence around the hedge, a fence called religious tradition. Since it was sinful to break the law, all sorts of particular situations pertaining to law were examined, classified, and petrified through a literal and rational analysis of the verbal meaning of the law. These dead casuistic parasites of the law soon sapped whatever life had originally been in the law, and became laws in themselves. To break these traditions was to break scripture, since literal-verbal exegesis had produced the traditions. Tradition became Torah, and the well guarded mountain was for all practical purposes obscured by the fence and hedge. God desired such a procedure no better in Isaiah's day than in Jesus', and the Lord in no uncertain terms applies the living message of scripture to the leaders who had killed scripture in attempting to preserve it. The trouble was not with scripture but with their doctrine of scripture which led them to miss God's purpose and message in scripture.\161/


\160/Matt. 15:3-7 (Mark 7:6-13).
\161/Such is also the emphasis of the "I say to you" passages in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:21-48). Jesus is correcting scripture in the sense that the traditional interpretations had so affected scripture that its intended purposes -- a right attitude towards God and a right attitude to man -- had been lost and forgotten in the process. This was tradition for the sake of tradition (all but forgetting God) in the worst sense. Jesus could well have said to them, "Your Torah is too small." See Harris, pp. 23-31; M'intosh, p. 182; Hunter, pp. 45-59.


Not all the leaders suffered under the same degree of tradition. Some could apparently see the mountain peak after all. The question of the [[62]] lawyer concerning eternal life illustrates this -- both Jesus and the scribe accept the Old Testament teaching at face value.\162/ Yet the feeling which Luke leaves is that Jesus' answer could well be paraphrased: "Your doctrine is fine; now put it into practice" (Mark has: "You are on the right track for salvation"). The Old Testament plus a new life-attitude equals the rule of God within man. There is a later episode with a lawyer which tends to confirm this equation.\163/ Jesus recognized the right use of some doctrine by the religious leaders -- even the Pharisees were careful to tithe from all they had.\164/ But the scribes also were in the same class as the Pharisees, and Jesus' biting criticism of one was equally true often of the other. One of the scribes was somewhat unhappy with Jesus' tirade: "Had not the Master quite recently agreed with the scribal doctrine of salvation? He is inconsistent to criticise what he has already condoned!" In reply, Jesus forcefully (and "prophetically") destroys any idea the lawyers might have entertained that he agreed with them entirely. Their doctrine may have been right, that Jesus did not deny, but doctrine is only as good as its results, and the mild answer to the first lawyer is expanded through the condemning answer to the second lawyer. The doctrine was right, but worthless as long as it failed to affect the attitude of its adherent. Although the lawyers had in their grasp the "key of Knowledge" -- right doctrine from the right source -- they failed to use that "key" either for themselves or for the people whom they instructed. And what is worse, their treatment of the "key" actually hindered those who were entering. Why? The answer seems to be that [[63]] their doctrine of scripture had come between themselves and God. They put the key in a pretty box, and admired the box, while the door remained locked.


\162/Luke 10:25-37 (compare Matt. 22:37-40, Mark 12:29-34). This appears to be the same event, although edited into different contexts by the Evangelists. Whether one or two episodes, the essential meaning of each is similar. Notice that the lawyer in Mark has even recognized the secondary nature of ceremonial ritual!
\163/Luke 11:47-51.

\164/Luke 11:42 (compare Matt. 23:23).


Where the law and the leaders were negative, Jesus was positive. He is questioned about the circumstances which permit divorce, and he answers that God's purpose is to unite, not to sever.\165/ Where the Sadducees point to what cannot happen on the basis of the law, Jesus shows what does happen -- there is a solution although man may not understand it.\166/ The Sadducees certainly "knew" what was in the scriptures, yet they did not really "know" the scriptures or the power of God. Their God was too small and their scriptures were too limited because they were blind to spiritual reality and to the God of their scriptures.


\165/Matt. 19:4-8 (Mark 10:3-8).

\166/Matt. 22:29-32 (mark 12:24-27, Luke 20:34-38). That this passage is "the despair of most interpreters" (Tilden, "Jesus' Methods," p. 59) is still true, and applies to this interpreter. Why Jesus did not use some other passage like Dan. 12:2 or Isa. 26:19 (as Ellis, p. 101, suggests) is a legitimate question. Some possible answers are: (1) Jesus knew that the Sadducees had prepared answers for such "proof-texts"; (2) Jesus did not remember those texts at the time; (3) The Sadducees would not accept non-Pentateuchal answers; (4) Jesus chose to use a rabbinical <lt>ad hominum</> approach to silence them; or, (5) Jesus' argument was actually much longer and more detailed than the Evangelists record, and the Exodus 3 passage was merely the determining passage in the discussion. Jesus did not argue here from a single word as is often claimed (see F. E. Gaebelein, <tm>Exploring the Bible</> [New York: Harper, 1929], pp. 43-44), unless it is admitted that he argued from the LXX as inspired. The Hebrew has no copulative verb "<lang?>am</>." Jesus argues, rather, from the context of Exodus 3 -- the covenant relationship of God and His people. What the intricacies of the argument may be is difficult to know, but the nature of the covenant probably implied for Christ (and for Israel) a continuous relationship with the Yahweh of Israel, which in turn implied resurrection (see Tilden, "Jesus' Methods," pp. 59-60).


In closing, note that Jesus often presents the scriptural passage and allows the opponent to draw his own conclusions. The question about the "son of David" is of this nature.\167/ From the Gospel accounts, one could [[64]] almost conclude that Jesus was denying that the Messiah was the son of David! Yet in the light of Jesus' method and the gospel message, it is clearly a device to get the Pharisees to re-evaluate their concept of the "son of David." The harmony of scripture is seen by looking through scripture to the underlying Divine plan. The mistake of the religious leaders was that they stopped with the words of scripture and never reached God's purpose behind the words.


\167/Matt. 22:43 (Mark 12:35, Luke 20:41). Another similar instance is found in Matt. 9:13.


<h4>Other</>. -- As has been noted briefly, Jesus used scripture with individuals in a manner similar to his usage with the group whose attitude each individual represented. To the woman at the well he pointed to the hand of God in Old Testament history and said, "Salvation is from the Jews."\168/ To inquiring Nicodemus, Jesus said that as Moses' hand God saved errant Israel in the wilderness, so will Christ be lifted up (as was the serpent) to secure a more enduring salvation for errant humanity through the attitude of committal to God.\169/ To the healed leper, Jesus instructed obedience to the ceremonial law and thus offered a sign to Israel.\170/ To the rich young ruler, Jesus suggested an ethic and an attitude which would secure eternal life.\171/ To Peter, Jesus sent a rebuke for attempting to interfere with the revealed Divine purpose.\172/ To a man working on the Sabbath, in a disputable text from Codex Beza, Jesus sums up his attitude to the law: "O man, if indeed you know what you are doing you are blessed; but if you know not you are cursed and a transgressor of the law."\172/ True understanding of God's purpose is basic and [[65]] desirable, but flagrant contradiction without true understanding is unexcusable. By using scripture superficially, God might be reached; by disregarding it, nothing is accomplished.


\168/John 4:22.

\169/John 3:14.

\170/Matt. 8:4 (Mark 1:44, Luke 5:14).

\171/Matt. 19:17-19 (Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20).

\172/Matt. 26:54.

\173/A. T. Robertson, <tm>A Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ</> (New York: Harper, 1922), p. 302. This passage is inserted after Luke 6:4 in Codex D (Beza).


One further use of scripture is found in the Gospel narratives of Christ -- his personal and devotional use. He thinks back to the sins of Jerusalem, who has killed and stoned God's messengers, as he prepares himself for the Golgotha ordeal.\174/ As has been indicated, the temptation quotations are less an argument than a personal affirmation of the spiritual principles governing Jesus' life and ministry.\175/ Finally, in the last long prayer\176/ and on the cross,\177/ Jesus refers to the Old Testament in direct reference and in anguishing re-echoing of thoughts from the Psalms. The spirit of Jesus if seen in these sayings; not the cry of a murdered prophet -- "May the Lord see and avenge!"\178/ -- but the cry of one who is more than a prophet, greater than Jonah; one who could petition forgiveness for his murderers, but one who nonetheless felt the intensity of his forsaken position. Despised and rejected as the Psalmist of old, yet also, like the Psalmist, committed to God, Jesus ended his life in terminology of the scriptures which he had so often used to point men to God.


\174/Luke 13:34 (compare Matt. 23:37).

\175/See above: Chapter 2, pp. 53-54.

\176/John 17:12

\177/Matt. 27:46 (Mark 15:34), Luke 23:46.

\178/The prophet Zechariah in II Chron. 24:22.


<h3>Use Relative to Content</>

From the lengthy treatment above, several further observations
may be noted when the data is re-shuffled into a different
outline. It is obvious that Jesus used all types of Old
Testament material -- prose and poetry, legal and historical,
predictive and illustrative. The scriptures and life were
[[66]] Jesus' source-books, and he used them well in pointing
men to God. But did he give priority to any one type of
material? Was the history as valuable as the prediction or the
ethics? Did the law stand apart as the apex of revelation? How
did Jesus use each type of material?

<h4>History</>. -- The examples of yesterday were for Jesus the
warnings about tomorrow. The same God who had acted in the life
of the nation Israel, and in the lives of individuals within that
nation, was also acting presently. The same principles by which
God's actions came then are equally applicable as time
progresses. Jesus did not use history in isolation -- history
for the sake of itself. It was not simply an interesting fact to
Jesus that Abel was the first human to be murdered; far more
important was the condemning fact that Abels were still
being murdered!\98/ It was not simply that Sodom and Gomorrah
showed the extreme wickedness of mankind in a time long ago;
Sodom and Gomorrah were significant in that, relative to the
revelation that they had received, they were a "better"society
than that of Jesus' day!\99/ They were a symbol of God's dealing
with corrupt mankind.


\98/Matt. 23:29-37, Luke 11:47-51.

\99/Matt. 10:15 (compare Luke 17:28-32), 11:21-24 (Luke 10:12-
14). Here again, Jesus' preaching exhibits the prophetic
perspective and method. "Sodom and Gomorrah" were favorite
symbols in many of the prophets; see Isa. 1:9, 13:19, Jer. 49:18,
Lam. 4:6, Ezek. 16:46-49, Amos 4:11, Zeph. 2:9. These towns were
the classical idiom for judgment in Israelitish prophetism; see
also above, p. 51.


Nowhere does Jesus argue the validity of the history. There was
no need to, and in most instances his usage did not demand
"scientific history." The Old Testament narratives were a part
of Jesus' culture, known in general outline to everyone and
accepted as true be everyone. When Jesus used these narratives,
he made them live -- gave them significance for the particular
situation in which he found himself. In such a dynamic use, he
necessarily [[67]] took prophetic liberties with the stories,
placing them into a context which could only be gained by reading
between the lines on the basis of historical probability.
Undoubtedly there were "many widows in Israel in the days of
Elijah." Possibly Elijah did not visit any of them during the
famine. But these ideas are not taught by the Old Testament text
(if today's text is the same as Jesus' text in general;\100/ they
are used by Jesus to drive home the lesson. The same is true of
Jesus' use of the stories of Elisha and Naaman,\101/ David and
the showbread,\102/ Noah and the flood,\103/ and Lot and
Sodom.\104/ The narrative is taken from Old Testament history,
but the details are added by Jesus' or his in accord with his purpose in using the stories as
preaching devices.


\100/Luke 4:25-26 from I Kings 17:8-24; see below.

\101/Luke 4:27.

\102/Matt. 12:3 (Mark 2:25, Luke 6:3); see below: Chapter 2, p. 68.

\103/Luke 17:26-27, Matt. 24:37.

\104/Luke 17:28-32.


Some legitimate questions may be asked about the text used by
jesus in his historical references. Why does Jesus say "three
years and six months" in the Luke 4:25-26 episode? The MT of I
Kings 17:1 says "these years" in general terms, as does the LXX.
Had Jesus understood I Kings 18:1 -- "in the third year" --
to mean "after three years" and added another six months? Or has
he reasoned that 18:1 referred to Elijah's stay with the widow,
and arrived at three and one-half years as the probable famine
length? Neither of these solutions is entirely satisfactory and
the same allusion to "three years and six months" in Jas. 5:17
lends strength to the probability of his a different Old Testament text (or tradition) from that
of today.\105/


\105/It is always possible that Jesus did not really say three
years and six months, but that the Evangelist or someone else has
added this detail. Even if this were true, the Jas. 5:17 passage
supports an early tradition in favor of the detail. It is more
likely that there is a textual variant or an intentional
incorporation of the "three years and six months" behind Jesus'
allusion -- perhaps Jewish tradition contributed this item to
Jesus' use of the story. It is interesting that Josephus gives
no length of time for the event (<ts>The Works of Flavius
Josephus</>, trans. by W. Whiston [London: Ward, Lock and Co.,
n.d.], p. 227) in his <tp>Antiquities</>, VIII:xiii. Whiston's
note on the passage states that Jesus' and James' "copies of the
Old Testament then informed them" of this detail. The LXX and MT
read "in the third year" for I Kings 18:1, although there is some
critical doubt on the MT reading.


Again, why did Mark record Jesus to say, "when Abiathar was high
priest," in the episode of the showbread?\106/ Since both
Matthew and Luke omit this phrase, one may question whether Jesus
really said it. Or, as Wenham suggests, the translation might
more accurately read: "in the passage about Abiathar who later
became high priest."\107/ Or perhaps, as is inferred from II
Sam. 8:17 and I Chron. 24:6, Jesus' text may have been more
accurate in regard to the genealogical descent in the priesthood
than present texts appear to be.\108/ A last possibility is that
here is an error due to faulty memory or faulty tradition.
Another less significant detail from this same context is that
the Synopticists seem to say that there were others with David
when he took the bread, while I Samuel 21 and Josephus show that
David was lone and met the others later, by previous arrangement.


\106/Mark 2:25 (compare Matt. 12:3, Luke 6:3).

\107/Wenham, "Mark 2:26," <tp>Journal of Theological Studies</>,
New Series I (1950), 156. Wenham gives the textual evidence for
the reading and then compares Mark 12:26 -- in the "bush"
passage (<lang?>epi tou batou</>) -- with this phrase (<lang?>epi
Abiathar archiereos</>), concluding that the same use is possible
here. The argument is weak since Abiathar is not mentioned until
I Sam. 22:20 (David received the bread from Abiathar's father,
Ahimelech, in I Sam. 21:1-6), and is not called high priest at
all in scriptures; see the following note.

\108/The problem is, were there two Abiathars or two Ahimelechs,
and of whom was Ahitub the father? See I Sam. 22:9-11, 20.
According to Josephus, Ahimelech was the high priest at the time
of the event (<tp>Antiquities</> VI:xii, see especially paragraph
2). It is known that Abiathar and Zadok were priests in the
later part of David's reign (see II Sam. 20:25, I Chron. 16:39, I
Kings 1:7-8), and Josephus calls them both "high priest"
(VII:xiv:4). In any event, II Sam. 8:17 and I Chron. 24:6 still
remain problem passages for the exegete.


The variety allowed by the very use of language is enough to
allow Jesus' reference to [[69]] be accurate on this point.

A last indication along these textual-historical lines of
examination arises from the reference to a righteous "Zechariah
the son of Barachiah" which has already been noted in another
connection.\109/ Again, the possibilities include the theories
that: (1) Jesus did not say the troublesome phrase, (2)
Tradition pointed to this fact, (3) Jesus had a text with such a
notice in it, or (4) This is an historical error or an idiomatic
use in accord with the practice of Jesus day. No entirely
satisfactory solution has yet been suggested.


\109/See above: Chapter 2, p. 50. The reference is Matt. 23:29-37; compare
Luke 11:47ff., where the genealogical data is omitted.


Jesus' use of history, its sources and details, was more than
adequate for his purposes and was apparently well accepted by his
listeners. To expect Jesus' use to show more than this is to ask
for more than the Gospels intend to give. Jesus' purpose for
using Old Testament history would have been defeated if critical
questions had prefaced his applications. This is not to say that
Jesus would have accepted critical conclusions, but that his use
of Old Testament history demanded only a valid historical
outline from which meaningful spiritual lessons may be drawn.
Jesus' object was to communicate, not to correct or to revise
history as an academic pursuit. And to communicate, he expertly
used the material at the common disposal of himself and of his
audience. Old Testament history was only meaningful as a dynamic
vehicle of preaching the Kingdom of God. Not history, but
the relevance of history to the present is Jesus' direct
stress.\110/ Through the scriptures, Jesus [[70]] points men
to themselves and to God. In doing so, it is quite probable that
Jesus viewed the Old Testament as valid history, but this
conclusion is not "proved beyond the shadow of any doubt" by the


\110/Two further illustrations may be found in John's Gospel,
6:32, 49, 58, and 8:37-40. The accepted historical judgment was
that Moses gave the manna from heaven and that Jews were children
of Abraham. Jesus begins with this in mind, but points to the
more basic truths latent in this history. The significant
interpretation is that God gave the manna and is more
important than Moses (this is also the emphasis in Exodus 16);
that true sons of Abraham are by spiritual attitude, not physical
descent. The meaning of this history lies in Jesus' use of it
rather than in the events themselves.


<h4>Law</>. -- Another significant area of Old Testament use by
Jesus is that of law. Jesus' life, as well as his words, effects his use of law. He worshipped in the Temple, no doubt performing the sacrifices and other rituals when occasion
demanded.\111/ He was circumcised as an infant, according to the
law.\112/ He paid the temple tax,\113/ told the healed leper to
uphold the law,\114/ and demanded two witnesses in legal


\111/John 2:14, 5:14, 7:14, 7:28, 8:2, 8:20, 10:23, 18:20; Matt.
21:12-16, 21:23, 24:1, 26:55; Mark 11:11, 11:15-18, 12:35, 14:49;
Luke 2:46, 19:45-48, 20:1, 21:37, 22:53.

\112/Luke 2:21.

\113/Matt. 17:24-27 (see Exod. 30:13).

\114/Matt. 8:4, Mark 1:44, Luke 5:14 (see Lev. 13:49-14:32).

\115/Matt. 18:16, John 8:17.


In certain things, however, he was above the law because he more correctly understood the purpose of the law. The Sabbath was to be a means, not an end in itself. It was to be ruled by love and correct attitudes rather than casuistic legislation.\116/ Jesus could touch a leper or pardon a sinful human because love was more basic than legalism.\117/ He saw in the law [[71]] hope rather than hindrance, a positive emphasis rather than prohibitions. He is not recorded as preaching sacrifice and ritual, and even where he emphasizes the Decalogue, more than external conformity is necessary for full obedience.\118/ He does not hesitate to point out the inconsistencies of law itself,\119/ or to read through the statutes to their positive meanings.\120/


\116/See above: Chapter 2, p. 60; Mark 2:27, Matt. 12:2-7 (Mark 3:4, Luke

\117/Much of this analysis is found in A. H. McNeile, "Our Lord's
Use of the Old Testament," <tm>Essays on Some Biblical Questions
of the Day</>, ed. by H. B. Swete (London: Macmillan, 1909), pp.
224-226. McNeile points to the story of the woman taken in
adultery (John 8:1-11) as an illustration. This leads to a
deeper problem of the authenticity and canonicity of this
episode. F. A. Schilling, "The Story of Jesus and the
Adulteress," <tp>Anglican Theological Review</>, XXXVII, 91-106,
concludes that the story should be included as canonical even
though it is not Johannine. Regardless of this problem, Jesus
does associate with immoral people elsewhere (John 4, for
example) in contrast to the rabbinical interpretation of the law
(see also Matt. 9:13, 12:7).

\118/See above: Chapter 2, p. 64; Matt. 19:17-19 (Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20).

\119/Matt. 12:3-5 (Mark 2:25, Luke 6:3), 19:3-9 (Mark 10:3-8),
John 7:22f.

\120/See above: Chapter 2, p. 58; Matt. 5:21-48 (see also appendix 8),
John 8:6ff.


The true law, for Jesus, was not to be found in the Judaism of his day. Tradition had robbed the Old Testament judgments of their vitality, changing them from working principles of conduct to dead statutes of blind obedience. Tradition had voided God's message.\121/ Judaism's overemphasis on law blinded it to the fact that it did not really do as God desired -- they did not really keep the law.\122/ Jesus, therefore, emphasized the essence of the law in its positive approach which God had intended -- the law of love to God and to man, of sympathetic harmony arising from a right attitude towards God. "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."\123/ "Justice, mercy, and faith -- these you ought to have done."\124/ "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, so do to them; for this is the law and the prophets."\125/ These are the abiding aspects of law, as opposed to the superficialities of a literal reading.\126/


\121/Matt. 15:3-6 (Mark 7:9-13).

\122/John 7:19, Matt. 23:2 and 23 (Luke 11:42).

\123/Matt. 22:37-40 (Mark 12:29-34); compare Luke 10:27.

\124/Matt. 23:23; compare Luke 11:42.

\125/Matt. 7:12.

\126/It is impossible adequately to interpret such passages as
Matt. 5:17-20 apart from this emphasis. See also Mark 13:31 and
Luke 16:17. By "law" in these passages Jesus no more meant the
literal Pentateuch than he meant the rabbinical tradition; see
appendix 8.


<h4>Prophecy</>. -- Especially near the end of his ministry is Jesus represented as being very conscious of the relationship between prediction and himself. Such an awareness both arose from and contributed to Jesus' recognition of himself as Messiah.\127/ He was to bring fulfillment to Israel's expectations in his suffering and eschatological roles as Savior. This was a consciousness ingrained deeply within him, and manifesting itself in some degree throughout his entire life, as an interpretation of his mission and person.


\127/Whether or not Jesus thought himself to be the Messiah
cannot herein be argued. J. Bright, <tm>The Kingdom of God</>
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1953), p. 198, gives an excellent summary
note containing recent bibliographical data pro and con. See
also Stendahl, p. 67, where the current tendency to assume Jesus'
Messianic consciousness is noted.


It has been noted that "prediction" sometimes involves an interpretation by Christ as well as an intention to predict by the Old Testament author.\128/ This is consistent with his use of history and law. In all three of these uses, God's purpose through Christ is primary, with scripture used as a means to that end. Jesus' ministry is the ultimate application of the truth of Isaiah's ministry -- anointed in the Spirit to proclaim God's Kingdom of true liberty.\129/ His mission is the mission of Moses -- to make clear the road to eternal life.\130/ His gospel is the gospel of John Baptist -- the rule of God has come.\131/


\128/See above: Chapter 2, pp. 55-56.

\129/Isa. 61:1-2a in Luke 4:17-21.

\130/John 5:39-47. The link between Moses and Christ, and
scriptures and Christ, is the essential unity of the message of
eternal life which culminates in Christ. In the very fact of its
message, the Old Testament bears witness to Christ. Belief in
Moses begins a process which is fulfilled or culminated in
Christ. To deny the start of the process (Moses) is to deny
Christ. See also Luke 16:29 and 31.

\131/Matt. 11:13-14, Luke 16:16-17.


The last set of references is quite instructive. For Jesus, this message of the "law and prophets" extended to and included John Baptist. In this sense Jesus' "canon" is conceptual rather than written -- it is more a train of prophetic thought than a written source book. John Baptist was, in his own right, an inspired "man of God" who was especially favored with the task of leveling a path for the Lord. The Baptist, more than the "many" other "prophets and righteous men," was allowed a glimpse of the arrival of the Kingdom.\132/


\132/Matt. 13:17, Luke 10:24; compare John 8:56 where Abraham in
some sense also "saw" Jesus' day.


But the Kingdom was not "all roses." This also the prophets had shown to Jesus. Many times Jesus spoke of his violent death as a culmination of the words of the Old Testament predictions.\133/ He saw Judas' deceit illustrated from the Old Testament documents.\134/ The fickle crowds and leaders were of the same sort as Isaiah's listeners.\135/ Those who had murdered prophets in the past were reflected in the contemporaries of Jesus.\136/ Anguish and violence was to be the lot of the Messiah, yet int he end he would conquer. As disobedient Jonah was delivered from the fish, so the obedient Messiah would conquer the grave.\137/ The rejected stone would become the honored stone.\138/


\133/Luke 18:31; Matt. 26:24 (Mark 14:21), 26:31 (Mark 14:27);
Luke 22:37; John 15:25; Matt. 26:54, 26:56 (Mark 14:49); Luke
24:25ff., 24:44-49.

\134/John 13:18, 17:12.

\135/Matt. 13:14-15 (compare Mark 4:12), 15:7 (Mark 7:6).

\136/Luke 11:47-51, 13:34; Matt. 23:39-37 (see above: Chapter 2, pp. 50 and
69, on the problems of this passage).

\137/Matt. 12:39, 16:4; Luke 11:29-32.

\138/Matt. 21:42 (Mark 12:10, Luke 20:17).


The prophets told more. There was to be a time of difficulty in the future like that which the Messiah had experience. A time which would usher in the external Kingdom -- an "Elijah of tribulation."\139/ Jesus' entire eschatological discourse is colored by the prophetic perspective concerning God's plan.\140/ The time of the events was known to no one,\141/ but the correct attitude toward these events was plain. As taught the prophets, so taught Jesus -- be ever expecting the consummation.\142/


\139/Matt. 24:15 (Mark 13:14), Luke 21:22.

\140/See appendix 2.

\141/Matt. 24:36 (Mark 13:32), Acts 1:7.

\142/Matt. 24:42 (Mark 13:33, Luke 21:36).


\143/McNeile, p. 224; Tasker, pp. 15-16; Tilden, "Jesus'
Methods," p. 60; Macleod, p. 175.

\144/McNeile, p. 248.

\145/Tilden, "Jesus' Methods," p. 60.


In all types of reference and to all types of listener, Jesus' use of the Old Testament was the same. He treated scripture as a common ground of communication which could be used as a means of best transmitting God's message and purpose.\143/ The Old Testament dynamic and relevance to his day constituted, in one sense at least, its "inspiration" for him.\144/ He argues from the Old Testament, preaches from it, teaches from it; but he never argues, preaches, or teaches that scripture in an end in itself -- apart from its contemporary application.\145/ Whatever apologetic he presents for the inspiration of the scriptural documents as objective records, and this is the next are to be examined, is secondary to the message of the moment. The message is prime, and the Old Testament is an invaluable authority in preaching it.


\143/McNeile, p. 224; Tasker, pp. 15-16; Tilden, "Jesus'
Methods," p. 60; Macleod, p. 175.

\144/McNeile, p. 248.

\145/Tilden, "Jesus' Methods," p. 60.


Jesus' Doctrine of the Old Testament

Jesus' use of the Old Testament is a fairly obvious area of exegetical study, even though every exegete may not arrive at the same conclusions from such a study. Jesus' view or doctrine of the Old Testament, on the other hand, is in many respects an inferential question -- a problem which transcends the bounds of actual exegesis. This is mainly because the Gospels are not a text-book of the systematic theology of either the Evangelists or of Jesus. They are a preaching of the good news of God's reign in Christ, and as such, they only incidentally present theology. The theology of Jesus is seen only through the comprehensions of his recorders, and through the expressions from Jesus which they recorded. His doctrine of the Old Testament, then, must come mainly from his use of the Old Testament and from whatever else he may have said directly about the Old Testament as he used it.

<h3>Direct Statements</>

In the past, two classic saying of Jesus have borne the brunt of establishing his doctrine of inspiration, Matt. 5:17-19 (with Luke 16:17) and John 10:35.\146/ Both passages are more fully treated in the appendices, but the conclusions may be summarized profitably here.


\146/See M'intosh, pp. 173ff.


<h4>Matt. 5:17-19</>. -- The Matthew passage\147/ stands near the beginning of the "Sermon on the Mount" and is immediately followed by the sixfold examination of Old Testament and traditional commandments whose positive principles are laid bare by Jesus (he uncovers their basic meaning). Matthew's record of the sermon includes Jesus' summary statement of the relevance of the law and prophets in 7:12. Jesus has emphasized attitudes and principles throughout the sermon (in true prophetic style), and has even seen fit to modify the [[76]] letter of the Old Testament tradition by his less mechanical interpretations.


\147/See appendix VIII.

The passage in 5:17-19 seems to fit easily into this scheme. Jesus warns the listeners not to prejudice themselves against him by "jumping to the Conclusion" that what he is about to say violates their law. His purpose is to bring their law to its intended place in life -- to fulfill the law (and prophets). Jot and tittle are, of course, figurative prophetic expressions for the least significant elements. What elements were least significant for, even forgotten by, first century Judaism? Later in his ministry Jesus answers this -- the really weightier matters such as justice, mercy, and faith had been neglected.\148/ These really important aspects had become the least significant parts of scripture to the leaders, who in turn withheld their "key of knowledge" from the people.\149/ Jesus' purpose was precisely to fulfill these jots and titles, which were really the whole law! In the accomplishment of the whole law, through Christ, the law itself passes away as law because it has been "fulfilled." The doing and teaching of the law falls under the new appreciation of the law, in spirit and in truth rather than in legalistic literalism.


\148/Matt. 23:23, Luke 11:42.

\149/Luke 11:52.


In this interpretation, then, Jesus says little about inspiration and much about God's purpose and Kingdom in this passage. In one sense, the law as law does pass away. But Christianity is founded on the same principles as was the law, so the law lives on in its fulfillment through Christ. But by no stretch of the imagination is this only the written Torah in part or in the whole. The jot and tittle has nothing to do directly with writing as such in Jesus' prophetic usage, although indirectly it is true that these principles of God's message had been communicated to man by means of writing. Christ is speaking of meaning, of attitude, of spirit and life -- the dynamic [[77]] message of the Old Testament is enduring just as Jesus' words are enduring, for they both communicate God's message. And that which is God's message is, in the highest sense, inspired by God.

<h4>John 10:35</>. -- Here, for many reasons, is a more difficult passage (if that be possible).\150/ First of all, the Johannine style lends strong support to the idea that the Evangelist, rather than Jesus, inserted the phrase "scripture cannot be broken." But assuming that Jesus really said it, he may have meant simply to say, "This passage cannot be denied." If he really meant "scripture" in the sense of the whole Old Testament, he may have been reminding his opponents of their claims and not necessarily of his own. If this was his own view that the entire scripture could not be set aside, what does it mean with reference to words, meaning, canon, and the associated problems which have been raised in this area? In line with his usage, the scriptural message is God's message, and man must pay attention to it; but unless the idiom "scripture" be forced to become an equivalent term for "exactly written documents," this passage will say little of exactness about Jesus' doctrine of inspiration.


\150/See appendix 9.

<h3>Indirect Evidence</>

Several additional areas are usually examined to "prove" one doctrine of inspiration or another from Jesus' use of the Old Testament. The value of his formulas of quotation as "proof" passages has already been discussed and laid aside.\151/ To argue for inspiration on the basis of "fulfilled" references is again to ignore idiom in favor of literalism. To argue from "God says" or "it is written" is to forget the Synoptic Problem and the fact that God's inspired voice need not require written inspiration even if the formulas [[78]] admit literal meaning.\152/ The same is true of the formula, "David, inspired by the Holy Spirit, says."\153/ Is this a written inspiration, the inspiration of a man, or the inspiration of a message? Unfortunately, Jesus does not say, even if any one Synoptic record of the formula is assumed to be exact.

\151/See above: Chapter 2, pp. 39-42.

\152/The question suggested here is: May not Jesus be speaking
of inspiration in the broader sense of God's message to man in
history and as applied to the present -- a message which must
be viewed through the Old Testament writings, but a message which
is still living through the work of God's Spirit? In other
words, does the inspiration of the Old Testament for Jesus rest
in the fact that it is composed of written documents, or in the
fact that it transmits God's message? Must the inspiration
extend in a special way to the writing, or is the writing
indirectly "inspired" because of the inspiration of the message
which it conveys?

\153/See appendix 1, context 19.


Nor do the titles given to the Old Testament prove anything about its inspiration. The titles, like the formulas, are idiomatic.\154/ John records Jesus as speaking of the "law" with reference to Psalms.\155/ The Rabbis did the same. There is no intention of equating Psalms and the Pentateuch in any direct way. "Scriptures" may mean "writings" but what does this involve? Does this mean that the written documents are more significant than their message? By no means. The message of God comes as Divine authority through the written symbols, but the message is more than the mere writing. Nor does "law, prophets, and psalms" fix Jesus' canon any more than "Gospels, Epistles, and Revelation" could have been a foolproof indication of Luther's or of Augustine's New Testament canon. Areas of material may be seen which indicate the direction in which to look for conclusions, but they remain areas and not "proofs."


\154/See appendix 6.

\155/John 10:34, 15:25.


Jesus teaches an inspiration of the Old Testament, but it is an inspiration of God's voice in and through the Old Testament, not necessarily an inspiration of the documents in themselves. What he thought of the [[79]] documents as documents, apart from their application to present needs, must forever remain a mystery on the basis of the present knowledge of Jesus.


The last avenue of entrance to Jesus' doctrine of inspiration must be, therefore, through his hermeneutics. If he says nothing about the document as such pertinent to their inspiration, what does he say of their applied truth in his ministry? Here lies the clue to Jesus' view of inspiration -- in his interpretation.

The argument is often used that Jesus felt that the knowledge of scripture would keep one from error, especially in religious matters. This is based primarily on Jesus' answer to the Sadducees' question in Matt. 22:29-32 (Mark 12:24-27, Luke 20:37-38). What is generally ignored in such an argument is the fact that, if anyone knew the scriptures (especially the Pentateuch), these men did. There was nothing wrong with their knowledge of Old Testament data, laws, institutions, history, etc. They had studied scripture; it was an essential aspect of their life work. Jesus did not mean to upbraid them for lack of knowledge. The "key of knowledge" was in the control of these leaders (Luke 11:52). Jesus' criticism was that they were blind to the true meaning of the objective record. Jesus' cry to the religious leaders, as the RSV translates it, was, "Go and learn what this means" (Matt. 9:13), for had they known what it meant they would not have acted in opposition to it (Matt. 12:7). They looked but did not see; they heard, but did not understand; they had Moses, but did not believe. Did Jesus tell them that everything was fine -- everything would "work out" because they had a "high view" if inspiration? He did not. He told them, on the contrary, that it was precisely their very view of inspiration -- legalistic literalism -- that [[80]] was keeping them from the possibility of entering the Kingdom. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others" (Matt. 23:23). For Jesus, the objective Old Testament was inspired as it was rightly understood -- as Jesus interpreted it.\156/ This was Jesus "practical doctrine of inspiration." Behind it, to his "theoretical doctrine," there is no unobstructed path.


\156/Another way to say this is, "As the Holy Spirit interprets
it," which is the same thing. H. Martin, <tm>The Meaning of the
Old Testament</> (rev. ed.; London: SCM, 1949), p. 14, has
perhaps gone beyond the bounds of exegesis in making the positive
claim that "Jesus Himself frees us from bondage to any belief in
the literal inspiration and equal worth of all parts of the Old
Testament." Such a judgment falls under Jesus' "theoretical
doctrine," and is to that degree unsupportable. Others, however,
frequently note the role of interpretation in Jesus' doctrine.
For example: Saphir, p. 12, says that Christ taught that "an
outward knowledge of the letter of Scripture without an inward
experience of the power of God, is without avail"; Tasker, p. 15,
says, "Our Lord came into conflict with the Pharisees not because
he was opposed to the written word of the Law, ... but because
... the formalism and the casuistry of the legal system which the
Pharisees had superimposed upon the Law rendered them insensitive
to the living word of God" (see also pp. 15-16); McNeile, p. 224,
paraphrases Matt. 5:17 as "I am come to give the divine
interpretation of" Moses' law; Wenham, <tm>Lord's View</>, pp.
16-17, makes much of the point that "spiritual understanding ...
does not come by a study of Scripture enlightened only by human
reason; it comes through a knowledge of the Scriptures which has
been illuminated by the power of God," and that "study and
thought be applied to the records objectively given, but this
study must be conducted under the subjective influence of him who
gave them."


Summary and Conclusion

The evidence presented in this chapter has been selected from the various pertinent appendices. It consists primarily of Jesus' obvious allusions to the Old Testament literature and history, with some notice of incidental coincidences in wording and thought. The evidence is all gathered from Jesus' teaching and preaching recorded in the Gospels. It is, therefore, of a practical rather than a theological nature in most (if not all) instances. [[81]] Jesus' use of the Old Testament is consistent with his purpose of proclaiming the reign of God (the Kingdom) among men.

Jesus' theoretical doctrine of the inspiration of the Old Testament, although forming the foundation of his use of the Old Testament, is obscured to such an extent that it cannot be confidently ascertained in detail. He consistently uses "scripture" as his historical documentary authority in matters of religion and ethics. He denies that his teaching contradict the Old Testament -- rather, they confirm its intended purpose (fulfill it) and in that sense they supersede it. He never denies the validity of scripture as it is rightly understood, but he never teaches that scripture is, in itself and apart from the true interpretation (God's interpretation), any final authority. Scripture is a means, a vehice, a witness, through which God's will may be determined. The message of God and His purpose are the things, and they are discovered through scripture but they demand more than mere documents. They demand correct understanding of the recorded hand and voice of God in history and in the present.

From this practical use which Jesus made of scripture, certain probabilities concerning his theoretical doctrine are possible. There is no evidence that Jesus questioned the historicity of the Old Testament narratives, nor that he found error in any Old Testament statements. He did not tell his listeners to disregard the Old Testament as a normative authority, altough he did warn them to read scripture in a less superficial way -- to look for spiritual principles as well as legalistic statutes. All the probabilities are in favor of the theory that Jesus viewed the Old Testament as trustworthy and, in its true meaning, authoritative. There are no indications to the contrary. But the exegete must remember that the nature of the Gospel accounts renders such a conclusion as probable, not demonstrable.
















Claims have been made in the past which attempt to support the inspiration of the New Testament from the words of Jesus. If this can be done, of course, it presents additional evidence for the Old Testament's inspiration, since the New Testament witness would in some measure have Jesus' sanction behind it. Such an approach must at least begin exegetically. In so doing it is heir to the problems and principles already outlined, and must also be re-evaluated in their light.

The Argument

In general, the argument for new Testament inspiration from Jesus' teachings runs along these lines: (1) Jesus is an inspired teacher of religious doctrine; (2) Jesus taught the apostles and gave them the same authority he had; (3) What the apostles taught, therefore, is as authoritative as what Jesus taught; (4) What they wrote also has the authority of Jesus; (5) They wrote the New Testament, or the New Testament contains their teachings; (6) The New Testament, therefore, is inspired in its very writing.\1/


\1/Warfield, p. 188: "Christ is committed to the trustworthiness
of the apostles as teachers.... He makes Himself an accomplice
before the fact in all they taught.... By the promise of the
Spirit, He has forever bound His trustworthiness with
indissoluble bands to the trustworthiness of His accredited
agents in founding His Church, and especially by ... John 16:12-
15." M'intosh, pp. 208-216, uses the same type of argument plus
a rational twist -- that no Christian denies to the New
Testament what he believes to be true of the Old Testament --
and a rational-exegetical argument based on the idea that all
"prophecy" is inspired in the same way as are the Old Testament
prophets. Lee, pp. 235-253, uses similar arguments to conclude
that "when the apostles acted in any way as the official teachers
to Christianity, not only was every species of error to be
excluded, but new truths also were to be unfolded, as need
required" (p. 253). Gaussen, pp. 345-373, emphasizes the idea
that the New Testament writers were all prophets and as such were
greater than the greatest Old Testament prophet, John Baptist.
Thus, by Jesus' classification of prophets, the New Testament is
inspired. Even Orr, <tm>Inspiration</>, part 5 of chap. 9, uses
this "prophet" type of argument to a lesser degree. Osgood, p.
249, argues for Jesus' own inspiration on this "prophetic" basis.


Before examining the argument as outlined, there are some other relevant conclusions which also must be noted to obtain a complete picture. Assuming that the argument is true, this means also: (7) Whatever any apostle may have written in addition to what the present New Testament contains also is inspired; (8) Whatever any apostle taught anywhere in the New Testament is inspired (including Peter at Antioch and Stephen, if he is "apostolic" in teaching, in Acts 7); (9) Anyone to whom the apostolic teachers passed their authority is also inspired; (10) Anyone to whom the teachings of Christ concerning this authority apply is likewise inspired. Probably other corollaries also are possible, but these help to show where the rational argument rationally leads.

The Evidence

Appendix 10 lists the passages which are claimed as support for inspired apostolic authority, and includes some of the passages attesting Jesus' authority. For Christians, Jesus' authority is assumed. He is the standard for Christianity; his life and resurrection are evidence enough to justify this position. It is therefore the purpose of this chapter to determine from his recorded words exactly what degree of authority he assigned to his disciples and his church.

Analysis of Passages

<h3>Believers in General</>

Many of the passages refer to not only the first Christians, but to all believers. "The least in the Kingdom" certainly includes everyone in the Kingdom. On the a basis of context two in the appendix, every believer is in some sense "greater" than John Baptist. If syllogistic logic is then applied to the argument, (1) John Baptist is more than a prophet. (2) Every believer is greater than John Baptist. (3) Therefore, every believer is much greater than a prophet. If the commentator want to use this passage to supply "proof" of inspiration, let him apply it to himself as well as to the apostles!

John 6:27\2/ also speaks of believers who receive the true spiritual food from Christ. It says nothing directly about the New Testament writers. The promise in Matt. 18:20\3/ has always been taken to refer to all Christians as the basis of true corporate church fellowship -- on the basis of two or three "witnesses" shall the witness be established. John 13:20, 14:16-17, 15:26, and 17:20-23 seem to speak to every follower of Christ and not simply to the apostles or disciples of that day.\4/ The believer is commissioned with Jesus' authority -- Matt. 28:18-20 implies this when Jesus tells his apostles to teach their converts everything Jesus taught them.\5/ The believer has the dynamic of God's Spirit. The believer is united with Christ according to God's purpose. These passages tell much about the spiritual life and significant of the Christian, but little about the inspiration of the New Testament.


\2/Context 4.

\3/Context 6b.

\4/Contexts 13, 14a, 15a, 17b.

\5/Context 18b.




Another group of passages found in appendix 10 applies to preachers of the Gospel because of the nature of their message. Matt. 10:40,\6/ Luke 10:16,\7/ John 12:48 and 13:20,\8/ and possibly Luke 11:49\9/ speak of gospel representatives -- those who speak in Jesus' name with Jesus' message. The passages from John especially exhibit the fact that Jesus' sayings -- his message -- and his person are the watershed indicating reception or rejection. To "receive" those whom Jesus sends and to "hear" them, is to receive and hear him who they represent and the God who initiated the process. The validity of the preaching lies in its representation of Jesus' person and message. This representation could be by "the twelve," "the seventy," or "anyone" truly sent by Jesus. If these passages deal with inspiration, it is as much an inspiration of Christian preachers today as of the New Testament authors.


\6/Context 3b.

\7/Context 7b.

\8/Contexts 10a and 13.

\9/Context 8; see also appendix 1, context (3) for the exact
text. This entire passage, as has been observed, is a problem
(not so much in the Lukan form as in Matt. 23:34-36 when compared
and contrasted -- see above: Chapter 2, pp. 44, 50, and 69). Whether the
sending of "prophets and apostles" is intended as a past,
present, or future event with reference to Jesus is impossible to
determine (unless Matt. 23:34 be taken as parallel and as the
more accurate description of Jesus' words). The passage is
really irrelevant to the inspiration of the New Testament since
it cannot possibly refer only and always to scriptural authors.


<h3>Special Situations</>

A third group of passages speaks of a situation in which only a
few Christians ever find themselves. Matt. 10:19-20,\10/ Luke
12:11-12,\11/ and Mark 13:11 (Luke 21:14)\12/ refer to the
witness of believers (with special reference to the early
disciples) before judicial authorities. When asked for his
defense, the Christian is to speak according to the impulse of
the [[87]] Spirit, rather than by prepared speech. To use such
passages in support of New Testament inspiration is certainly a
non-contextual, non-meaningful application. Very little of the
New Testament material originated in such trials as far as is now


\10/Context 3c.

\11/Context 9.

\12/Context 11.



A great number of the remaining passages have direct reference to
the apostles or to those disciples with whom Jesus spoke when he
walked on the earth. Peter\13/ and the disciples\14/ in general
are given the power to "bind and loose" -- to "forgive or
retain" sins. Whatever these passages exactly mean, they do
transmit some authority from Jesus to his disciples, and perhaps
to the Church in general. It does not appear, however, that
these passages have anything to do directly with the composition
of the New Testament or with its inspiration.


\13/Context 5 (Matt. 16:19).

\14/Contexts 6 (Matt. 18:18) and 18 (John 20:21-23).


The most significant passages which apply to the apostles and
which to some degree contribute to a doctrine of New Testament
inspiration are found in John's Gospel and deal with the advent
of the Holy Spirit.\15/ The Spirit or "Comforter" will "Guide
them into all truth," recalling to their memories Jesus' sayings
which they have received "From the beginning." He will "Sanctify
them" in the truth of God's message ("Word" In the Hebrew sense)
and of Christ's person. Their witness for Jesus will be made
more effective by the work of the Spirit; a supernatural
influence will aid in the apostolic formulation of the gospel


\15/Contexts 14b (John 14:25-26), 15b (John 15:27), 16 (John 16:7
and 12-15), 17a (John 17:7-8 and 14-19), and 18a (John 20:21-22).



These passages fall far short of "proving" or even implying the
inspiration of any documents, much less of the entire New
Testament. Granting that Jesus really gave the impression which
the fourth Evangelist recorded, the texts speak of a
communication between God and the apostles -- a revelation to,
and an inspiration of men -- and not necessarily of a man
to man written record of any sort. If the message of the
men were inspired, and the men wrote honestly and accurately the
contents of this message, the writings would certainly be, in
this derived sense, inspired; but Jesus' teachings say nothing by
way of guaranteeing any unique inspiration for the written
messages now recorded as such in the New Testament. Certainly
the application of these passages to the apostle Paul is possible
only through the use of analogy and rationalization rather than
by strict exegesis.


These passages do make some positive contribution to the problem
of New Testament inspiration. In the so called "Great
Commission"\16/ Jesus instructs his disciples to make other
disciples and to teach them also the message of God in Christ.
He promises to be with all believers until the "close of the age"
and emphatically assures his followers that his "words will never
fail to come true."\17/ The way in which God has chosen
historically to preserve this message by the hands of the
apostles is through the New Testament. Whereas the earliest
church was orally taught in accordance with Jesus' instructions,
the delay in his return soon led to a collection of the authentic
messages of the earliest church. Thus, today, the message of
Jesus comes through the New Testament record which fulfills the
apostolic commission. In this derived sense, New Testament
inspiration may be read back into Jesus' statements, but
primarily Jesus' concern was with a message, not with a document.


\16/Context 18b (Matt. 28:18-20).

\17/Context 12b (Matt. 24:35 and parallels) paraphrased. The
meaning seems to be not that Jesus' exact words will literally
endure, but that his message is 100% true -- what he has said
will assuredly happen.


In application, the witness of the apostles and the witness of
the Spirit go hand in hand in bringing Christ's authoritative
message to the needy hearts of men.\18/ Even in Jesus' teachings
about the gospel message, inspiration and illumination are
inextricably united.


\18/Context 15 (John 15:26-27) speaks of the double testimony of
the Spirit and of the eyewitnesses in preaching God's message
through Christ.











The Jesus Christ who is seen through the eyes of modern
scholarship is somewhat blurred, but is nonetheless a
recognizable reality. The teachings attributed to him are
meaningful to the early church and to the church of today only as
they are seen in their correct perspective. Since the complete
perspective involves many problems for twentieth century
exegesis, Jesus' teaching is itself somewhat difficult to
ascertain in detail, although the broad patterns are visible.

What Jesus Taught

The Gospels say nothing directly about Jesus' theoretical
doctrine of Old Testament inspiration. In his view of the Old
Testament, however, an extremely practical emphasis may be seen
by the way in which he uses scripture. He never pauses to speak
of the Old Testament in itself, or of history in
, but always as it is related to his message and to
God's purpose. The truth of God continually has personal,
individual reference, whether it is Old Testament truth or other
areas of Christ's preaching. For Jesus, scripture is profitable
for teaching, reproof and correction, and for training in
righteousness (2 Tim 3:16).
This practical emphasis is also true of Jesus' promises to his
disciples and the authority passed on to them. They are to be
witnesses to Jesus' true message as the Spirit of God guides them
in their ministries. What they have learned from Christ is to be
taught to other believers. The commission they received is to be
given to their converts. The Holy Spirit [[92]] who operates
in them also will dwell in every believer. All men who transmit
the message of Christ according to the will of God are
representing the Savior.

How it Relates to Modern Thought

Such are the positive elements in those teachings of Jesus which
have often been cited as relevant to the problems of inspiration.

In order to recognize the contribution of Jesus' teaching to a
modern discussion of inspiration, however, certain pertinent
questions must be asked from this material. In some instances,
no answer to modern questions will be found in Jesus' words; in
other cases, there may be a significant or a partial contribution
to the problem. But, since Jesus did not teach this doctrine as
such in the Gospels, his words cannot be expected to convey all
that he personally believed on the subject. Where he said
nothing, an argument from silence should be noted and, if
possible, avoided; where his speech is general or ambiguous,
dogmatism must be avoided. The following conclusions will
attempt to sum up Jesus' recorded teachings on the different
aspects of a modern discussion of inspiration.

<h4>Canon</>. -- Jesus did not leave a formal list of the books
in his canon. From his quotations and reference to the Old
Testament, however, his basic Bible may be discovered. It
consisted at least of the Pentateuch, I Samuel, I and II Kings,
Psalms (6, 8, 22, 31, 41, 42, 82, 110, 118), Isaiah, Daniel,
Hosea, Joel, Jonah, Micah, Zechariah, and Malachi. He probably
alludes also to II Chronicles, Job, Psalms (24, 35, 37, 62, 69),
Proverbs, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, although not as definitely as to
the previous group of books. Possibly Ecclesiastes, Amos, and
Zephaniah are also used by Jesus.\1/ These [[93]] books fit
into the general content division found in Luke 24:44 -- "law
of Moses and the prophets and the psalms." To attempt to expand
Jesus' express canon by means of such a reference to the so
called "three-fold canon" of the Jews would be to travel beyond
the bounds of the evidence, since it is not sure what the exact
attitude of the early first century Jews was to the Old Testament
"fringe books."\2/


\1/Manson, <tm>Teaching</>, p. 48, note 1, says that Jesus
alludes to all the Pentateuch ("law"); all but Joshua, Judges
[and Ruth?], II Samuel, Amos, Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Haggai in the "prophets"; and
to Psalms, Job, and Daniel in the "<lt>hagiographa</>." In such
a survey from the viewpoint of the traditional Hebrew canon,
Lamentations is probably considered to be one with Jeremiah, and
Ruth with Judges. Westcott, <tm>Bible in Church</>, p. 14, lists
the sources of Jesus' explicit quotations as Genesis, Exodus,
Numbers, Deuteronomy, I Samuel, Psalms, Isaiah, Daniel, Hosea,
Jonah, and Malachi.

\2/The council at Jamnia in the last part of that century was in
part a reaction to Christianity, and, as both Jewish and
Christian literature from the second century B.C. to the fifth
century A.D. attests, was by no means representative of all the
branches of ancient Old Testament discussions. The very fact
that Jesus taught over one-half century before Jamnia is enough
evidence to question whether his canon was exactly equivalent to
that of Jamnia either in its inclusions or its exclusions. See
above, p. 43.


<h4>History</>. -- Jesus is never recorded as doubting the
historicity of the events to which he refers or of the
individuals whom he mentions from the Old Testament. On the
other hand, he never argues for historicity as such. His usage
always brings history into relevance for the living man, and thus
leaves historicity as such to be a secondary matter. His use of
Old Testament history would be as valid if the events never did
take place in any time-space setting as long as his listeners
would listen seriously.\3/ It is highly probable, however, that
Jesus really did believe in the historicity of his [[94]]
allusions, just as his hearers believed in it. But the problem
still remains -- if Jesus really did not believe the
illustrations he used to be literally factual, how else could he
have expressed himself without defeating his own purpose? And
how would the Evangelists have recorded his words? If Jesus
really were a "destructive higher critic" it is doubtful that
anyone would have known it from the way in which he used the Old
Testament in the Gospel narratives. He would have been bypassing
his message to argue the historicity of his illustrations.


\3/The same thing is often true today. "George Washington and
the cherry tree" is a valuable moral illustration even though its
historicity is in question, as are many similar traditional
stories (Davy Crockett, Abe Lincoln, etc.). Sanday, pp. 418-419,
speaks of a "neutral" use of thought patterns and vocabulary
which he feels may be true of Jesus. This possibility should by
all means be examined. See also A. B. Rhodes, "The Book of
Daniel," <tp>Interpretation</>, New Series VI (1952), p. 440.
Opposed to such an idea is L. E. Roberts, "Jesus' Use of the Old
Testament," <tp>Asbury Seminarian</>, V (1950), p. 20, and
Tasker, pp. 17-19.


Thus it seems to this author me that Jesus' words
do not eternally decide such problems as are raised by higher
criticism -- either general problems of historicity or the
specific problems of Pentateuchal historicity and authorship, of
the Davidic authorship of certain Psalms, of the factualness of
the Jonah story, or of the origin of the book of Daniel. It does
not seem (to me) that Jesus' use of scripture demands 100% historical accuracy of the entire Old
Testament. On the other hand, I can
find no shred of evidence in the recorded use of the Old
Testament by Jesus that it is not historically true and accurate.

If Jesus' use does not decide these issues, it certainly
predisposes the Christian to carefully weigh the evidence before
doubting the factual truth of the Old Testament. The probability
is all in favor of the inference that Jesus accepted the
Old Testament record as entirely trustworthy history. As for the
lesser critical problems concerning traditional views of date,
authorship, etc., it seems to me that
Jesus' use of idiomatic communicable language makes it improbable
that he necessarily left any significant final judgment on such

<h4>Inspiration in General</>. -- The fact of inspiration is
seen from Jesus' words -- the fact that God empowers man in an
extraordinary way in order to [[95]] communicate the Divine
message. He speaks of his own message in this sense, and also of
the apostolic transmission of the gospel message.\4/ The
reference to David as "in the Spirit" appears to be a legitimate
reflection of Jesus' meaning, and points to general inspiration
in the Old Testament.\5/ So also, Jesus' references to
Moses' reception of God's message point in the same direction.\6/


\4/See appendix 10 and chap. 3.

\5/See above: Chapter 2, p. 78; appendix 1, context 19.

\6/appendix 1, contexts 9b and 17.


By some theologians, this may be called "revelation," but it is
more than that. It is not only the uncovering of God's truths to
man, but the communication of those truths to other men. In this
sense, the communication is inspired.\7/


\7/The real problem in modern discussion concerning this subject
is whether "inspiration" has a special and direct reference to
the very words and documents, or whether "inspiration" rests in
certain aspects of the content of the documents. To put it
another way, does the work of God called "inspiration" extend
directly and supernaturally to every word of canonical scripture,
or does it stop somewhere short of the words themselves (in the
concepts, or the religious teachings, or in mystical experiences,
etc.). It is doubtful that anyone calling himself Christian
would deny that the Bible is in some sense inspired and
authoritative. The problem is, "in what sense?" Did God inspire
the historical statements of scripture and the genealogical data
in the same way as the prophetic predictions? Was any special
aid needed for the wise men of old to compile the proverbs of
their day? Jesus seems to indicate that there are specific
points of inspiration transmitted through, even recorded
in, the Old Testament (and he does not deny the inspiration of
the entire scripture). But is it exegetically or even
theologically legitimate to argue from such general indications
to the entire written inspiration of the whole Old Testament?
The communication of God's purpose and message certainly involves
many things which are not necessarily a part of the message in
any direct sense -- things such as historical background,
idiomatic phraseology, personal notices, grammatical and
lexicographical peculiarities, providential preservation, etc.
These things all contribute to an understanding of the message,
however, and many of these things are intertwined with the
message. If one admits the inspiration of the message, then,
must he also call these other things inspired which are not
directly a part of the message, yet which make it more clear and
more significant? It has been the conclusion of this thesis that
Jesus does not decide the problem, since his emphasis is
practical and not theological. But at least in the very
indirect sense of association, these peripheral matters lay claim
to the adjective "inspired" as a corollary of Jesus' emphases.
Since God's message is inspired, the Old Testament as an adequate
vehicle of communication of the message may be called "inspired."


<h4>Written Inspiration</>. -- The fact that communication is
by means of symbols means that any inspired transmitted message
must be phrased in meaningful (adequate) language to be a
communication of truth. Whatever inspiration Jesus recognized
must in this sense be "verbal."\8/ But Jesus does not
really speak of the problem of written inspired documents. The
formula "it is written" means exactly the same as "it is said."
"Have you not read" is the same as "have you never heard." They are
idiomatic ways of referring to the Old Testament, and have no
conscious meaning to the effect that written words as such are
inspired. It would be just as illegitimate to claim from these
formulas that Jesus taught only the inspiration of what was
spoken as to claim he meant only what was written. The problem
did not exist. Everyone did not own a written copy of the Old
Testament. What was heard from the synagogue reader was as
inspired as what an individual might read for himself --
inspired because of the content of the transmitted message, not
because of the exact words used. How God's message is
phrase was not the most important thing to Jesus; rather,
what does the message mean -- how should it be
interpreted and applied? The phrasing must be adequate to
communicate, but the communication is the most important thing.
This is at least the impression the Gospels leave concerning
Jesus' use of scripture.


\8/This is one of the problem areas mentioned in the preceding
note. Is inspiration "verbal" in the sense that God directly
chose the very symbols of communication, or is the "verbal"
aspect but one of the many areas which participate in the
inspired message by their indirect connections? Do the authors
of scripture need to be anything more than honest and
informed recorders of the message which God gave them in order
for the term "verbal inspiration" to be applied? Can the words
of scripture be legitimately divorced from the total
personalities of the authors so that the objective documents may
be called "inspired"? Does the mere fact that the Old Testament
is communicated by means of writing mean that the writing as well
as the rightly interpreted message is directly inspired? It is
the conclusion of this thesis that Jesus does not finally settle
these matters.


<h4>Original Documents</>. -- The same attitude applies to the
much discussed inspiration claim that only the "originals" are
inspired. This did not at all concern Jesus as far as he is
represented. Jesus dealt with principles -- with meanings and
concepts. He did not argue from single words,\9/ from "jots and
tittles" which had special significance only as originally
transcribed. He did not hesitate to change words or to
paraphrase thoughts in applying the Old Testament to his
situation (if the Gospel representations of his quotations are
relatively accurate). As today, so also in Jesus' day the
existing and familiar Bible text was sufficiently clear for the
practical needs of the people. Whether Jesus
theoretically acknowledge the "originals" cannot be known
from the present Gospels.


\9/Despite many claims to the contrary, the Matt. 22:29-33 (and
passage cannot argue from the tense of the verb "to be" since
that verb is not actually present in the Hebrew. The "you are
gods" passage is only significant in its wider Old Testament
context. Christ was not arguing that the judges were Divine;
that would be his argument on the basis of "gods" alone. His
full thought is that is those whom God had given such a high
authority were metaphorically referred to by the Divine name,
what is the crime for a self-attested teacher being called "Son
of God"? See appendix 9.


<h4>Illumination</> -- In a way, the brunt of Jesus' doctrine
is the correct interpretation of the communicated message. He
does not tell the leaders of Judaism that they have looked for
Divine help in the wrong sources, but he does emphasize that
their hyper-verbal approach to scriptures is in error because it
misses the really significant meaning contained in the scripture.

The Old Testament message as Jesus interpreted it was certainly
inspired in the most accurate sense of that word; as the
religious leaders interpreted it, scripture was often derogatory
to God's true purpose. Wrongly interpreted scripture was not
authoritative for Jesus. It was only as what God intended was
discovered in scripture that the highest and most complete Old
Testament authority was recognized. Simply because Satan quoted
a verse, or Moses [[98]] allowed divorce, or the law forbade
touching lepers did not mean that these passages were universally
applicable in every case with the same authority. They must be
seen in the context of God/s overall purpose in history and
scripture -- a purpose which can only be discovered with Divine
aid. When God's purpose is recognized, all scripture is seen to
be authoritative in that light -- as God intended scripture.

How it Affects Modern Theology

Because of the fragmentary nature of the Gospels, and the
practical emphasis exhibited by Jesus, it would be foolish to
claim that the above outlined doctrine of inspiration is
exactly what Christendom today should hold. This
could only be true if Jesus had himself taught clearly and
directly what to believe on this subject. What he does seem to
hold, however, should be a valid minimum for modern Christian
theology and preaching. There is no need to posit
"accommodation" of "kenosis" to further divorce Jesus from
modern thought, since Jesus' known teachings are necessarily
already modified through the minds of his hearers and recorders.
The only way that an unaccommodated, unlimited Jesus could be
seen in the Gospels would be by some direct writing in non-
fallible symbols which could communicate non-fallible truths to
man's fallible mind (if this were possible). But the instant a
finite mind posessed this truth, the truth would be
"accommodated" -- not that the truth would be lost, but it would
be in some way modified. Both the phenomena and the doctrine of
the Gospels show that Jesus' teaching is meant for man to use --
it is meant to lead man to God. If the present-day theologian
omits this emphasis in his doctrine of inspiration, he is
contrary to Jesus' teachings. When the modern theologian goes
beyond Jesus' emphases, well and good; but let him not claim to
support his detailed doctrine from the very words of Christ.
This, a legitimate up-to-date exegesis will not and cannot allow.













This appendix deals with Jesus' apparent "formal" or explicitly indicated Old Testament quotations. Thus
there is a degree of objectivity here which will be absent in
appendix 2 (Jesus' "informal" quotations). The introductory
formulas are the clue to the "formal" quotations; "informal"
allusions must be discovered through wording or thought similar
to the Old Testament.

The following quotations have been arranged chronologically
according to the Gospel Harmonies of A. C. Wieand (<tm>Gospel
Records</>). Some doubtful references which could possibly be
construed as formal quotations have been appended at the end with
their numbers enclosed in parentheses. The Revised Standard
Version (RSV) English text is used with minor changes in wording
and punctuation when this author felt it to be desirable. The
Septuagint (LXX) Texts to which reference is made are those found
in Rahlfs' edition\1/ and those used by Toy in his classical book
on quotations. The judgments concerning the relation of the LXX
and the Hebrew Masoretic text (MT) in each quotation are also
usually inferred from Toy or from original investigation.\2/


\1/<tmlt>Septuaginta</> (2 vols. 4\th/ ed.; <gm>Stuttgart: Privileg. Wurtt.
Bibelanstalt</>, 1952).

\2/Other works on quotations which are helpful in such a study
are: D. M. Turpie's two books, <tm>The New Testament View of the
Old</> (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1872), and <tm>The Old
Testament in the New</> (London: Williams and Norgate, 1868);
and F. Johnson, <tm>The Quotations of the New Testament from the
Old Testament Considered in the Light of General Literature</>
(London: Baptist Tract and Book Society, 1896). None of the
books mentioned are entirely satisfactory on this subject.


Other abbreviations and symbols are used in the appendix: Solid
underlining indicates deviation from a major LXX textual type,
and broken underlining denotes minor variation from the LXX
wording (usually when the LXX word is used with a different case
or tense ending). The three major LXX text types are abbreviated
as -A (Alexandrinus), -B (Vaticanus), and -S (Sinaiticus). It
did not seem practical to note differences from the MT in the
same manner as is done with the LXX, although it would have been
very interesting and useful. References made to the Psalms may
vary by a verse (or chapter) from that in the English Bible,
because of the different systems used. This, and other
variations of that nature, will be noted.


1. Jesus' Temptation by Satan

Matt. 4:4
It is written, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every
word that proceeds from the mouth of God."

Matt. 4:7
Again it is written, "You shall not tempt the Lord your God."

Matt. 4:10
Begone Satan! for it is written, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve."

Luke 4:4
It is written, "Man shall not live by bread alone." [some MSS continue, "but by every saying of God."]

Luke 4:12
It is said, "You shall not tempt the Lord your God."

Luke 4:8
             [some MSS: "Begone Satan!"] It is written, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve."

These quotations are respectively taken from Deut. 8:3, 6:16, and 6:13. They all accord exactly with LXX-A, and the MT is essentially similar to the LXX translation in each reference.

<h1>2. Jesus' Rejection at Nazareth</>

<ts>Luke 4:17-19</>
(And there was given to him the 'book' of the prophet Isaiah. He
opened the 'book' and found the place where it was written,) "The
Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to
preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release
to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, <vi>to set
at liberty</> those who are oppressed, <v+>to proclaim</> the
acceptable year of the Lord."

The reading is mainly from Isa. 61:1-2a, with a clause ("to set
at liberty those who are oppressed") inserted from Isa. 58:6b.
The wording is almost entirely LXX, which is a fairly accurate
rendering of the MT. No satisfactory explanation of the inserted
clause has yet been offered.

<h1>3. Jesus Defends Eating with Sinners</>

<ts>Matt. 9:13</>
Go and learn what this means [or, "what this is"], "I desire
mercy, and not sacrifice."

The quotation, which is lacking in the
parallels (Mark 2:17 and Luke 5:31), is from Hos. 6:6. It is
LXX-A or -S wording which agrees with the MT also. The following
quotation is exactly the same.

<h1>4. Jesus and the Sabbath</>

<ts>Matt. 12:7</>
But if you had known what this means [or, "is"], "I desire mercy,
and not sacrifice," you would not have condemned the guiltless.

<h1>5. The Great Sermon on the Mount</>

<ts>Matt. 5:21</>
You have heard that it was said to [or, "by"] the men of old,
"You shall not kill" and "<v+>Whoever kills shall be liable to
<ts>Matt. 5:27</>
You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery."
<ts>Matt. 5:31</>
It was also said, "<v+>Whoever divorces his wife, let him give
her a certificate of divorce</>."
<ts>Matt. 5:33</>
Again you have heard that it was said to [by] the men of old,
"<v+>You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord
what you have sworn</>."
<ts>Matt. 5:38</>
You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye, <v+>and</> a
tooth for a tooth."
<ts>Matt. 5:43</>
You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor
and hate your enemy."

Vss. 21 and 27 have their source in the Decalogue, although the
last clause of vs. 21 does not seem to be a quotation. What is
quoted accords with both LXX and MT. Vss. 31 and 33 are based on
Old Testament teaching, but do not appear to be direct
quotations. Vs. 38 agrees with the LXX and MT of several
passages (Exod. 21:24, Lev. 24:20, Deut. 19:21). The first part
of the reference in vs. 43 is from Lev. 19:18, but the last part
is not found in our present Old Testament. Vs. 43 agrees with
the LXX and MT.

6. The Significance of John Baptist

Matt. 11:10
This is he, of whom it is written, "Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who shall prepare your way before you."
Luke 7:27
This is he, of whom it is written, "Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who shall prepare your way before you."

The thought reference seems to be to Mal. 3:1, but the wording of
the first half of the verse is in closer accord with Exod. 23:20
in the LXX. The LXX and MT are the same for Mal. 3:1, and are
essentially the same for Exod. 23:20. The last half of the verse
is apparently not an actual quotation, although it reflects the
Malachi passage.

<h1>7. The Use of Parables</>

<ts>Matt. 13:14-15</>
With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says,
"You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed
see but never perceive. For this people's heart has grown dull,
and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have
closed, lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with
their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for me to
heal them."

The quotation is in the exact LXX words of Isa. 6:9-10, even
though the LXX differs from the MT -- the thought of both the
LXX and MT is nearly the same, but different words are used.
Since Mark 4:12 and Luke 8:10 paraphrase this passage into Jesus'
words (see also Matt. 13:13 and John 12:40), it may legitimately
be doubted that Jesus made an actual quotation like that recorded
in Matt. 13:14-15. Perhaps this is another of the many
"fulfillment" passages in matthew which are occasioned by Jesus'
words and actions (but note that "fulfill" is not the usual Greek
word here).

<h1>8. Jesus' Relationship to God</>

<ts>John 6:45</>

It is written in the prophets, "And <v+>they shall</> all <v->be
taught</> by God."

The thought is similar to Isa. 54:13 and Jer. 31:34, where the
LXX and MT differ. John reflects neither LXX nor MT exactly. It
is doubtful that this is really intended to be an exact
<h1>9. The Heresy of Blind Tradition</>


Matt. 15:7-9
You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said, "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching <v->as doctrines</> the precepts of men."

Mark 7:6-7
Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching <v->as doctrines</> the precepts of men."

The quotation agrees in general
with the LXX-A and -S of Isa. 29:13, where the LXX differs
slightly from the MT. The word order and thought in the last
clause differs from both LXX and MT>

Matt. 15:3-4
And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, "Honor your father and your mother," and, "he who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die."
Mark 7:9-10
You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition! For Moses said, "Honor, your father and your mother," and, "He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die."

Both of these references are in the words of the LXX, which
agrees with the MT in the first instance, from Exod. 20:12 (Deut.
5:16), but differs slightly in the second, from Exod. 21:16 (vs.
17 in MT; compare Lev. 20:9). The last reference uses LXX-A

<h1>10. The Water of the Spirit</>

<ts>John 7:38</>
He who believes in me, as the scripture has said, "<v+>Out of his
heart shall flow rivers of living water</>."
The reference is doubtful -- perhaps Isa. 58:11 or Prov. 18:4?

<h1>11. God's Sons on Earth</>

<ts>John 10:34-35</>
Is it not written in your law, "I said, 'You are gods'"? ...
(and scripture cannot be broken).

Ps. 81:6 (82:6 in MT) is quoted in LXX words which agree with the
MT. For further discussion of the passage, see appendix 9.

<h1>12. The Significance of Marriage</>

[[column 1]]
<ts>Matt. 19:8, 4-5</>
For your hardness of heart Moses
allowed you to divorce your wives,
but from the beginning it was not
so. Have you not read that he who
made them from the beginning "made
them male and female," and said,
"For this reason a man shall leave
his father and mother and be joined
to his wife,
and the two shall become one."
[[column 2]]
<ts>Mark 10:3-7</>
What did Moses command you? For
your hardness of heart he wrote you
this commandment. But from the
beginning of creation "he [some MSS
read "God"] made
them male and female."
"For this reason a man shall leave
his father and mother (and be joined
to his wife [omitted by some MSS])
and the two shall become one."

The references are to Gen. 1:27 (see 5:2) and 2:24. The wording
is essentially LXX (minor variation), which is similar (not
exact) to the MT.

<h1>13. They Way to Eternal Life</>

[[column 1]]
<ts>Matt. 19:17-19</>
If you would enter into life, keep the commandments. "You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and your mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
[[column 2]]
<ts>Mark 10:19</>
You know the commandments: "<v+>Do not</> kill, <v+>Do not</> commit adultery, <v+>Do not</> steal, <v+>Do not</> bear false witness, <v+>Do not defraud</>, Honor your father and mother."
[[column 3]]
<ts>Luke 18:20</>
You know the commandments: "<v+>Do not</> commit adultery, <v+>Do not</> kill, <v+>Do not</> steal, <v+>Do not</> bear false witness, Honor your father and mother."

The last reference in Matthew is from Lev. 19:18; the other
quotations are from the Decalogue (Exod. 20:15, 13, 14, 16, 12;
or Deut. 5:18, 17, 19, 20, 16 in the LXX with the exception of -A
which transposes Deut. 5:18 and 17 in accord with the MT). Mark
and Luke differ from the LXX in using the mild prohibition and in
some case endings. The source of Mark's "defraud" clause is
unknown. Since the references are so short, they also agree with
the MT in content, and the usual order of the commandments is
close to the MT (except for the last).

<h1>14. Misuse of the Temple</>

[[column 1]]
<ts>Matt. 21:13</>
It is written, "My
house shall be called
a house of prayer,"
But you
make it "a den of
[[column 2]]
<ts>Mark 11:17</>
It is not written, "My
house shall be called a
house of prayer for all
the nations"? But you
have made it "a den of
[[column 3]]
<ts>Luke 19:46</>
It is written, "My
house <v+>shall be</> a house
of prayer,"
But you
made it "a den of

The first quotation is from Isa. 56:7b in LXX words (except for
Luke's verb) which agree with the MT. "Den of robbers" is found
in Jer. 7:11, LXX and MT, in a context which resembles Jesus'

<h1>15. Children's Praise</>

<ts>Matt. 21:16</>
Yes; have you never read that "Out of the mouth of babes and
sucklings you have brought perfect praise"?

This is LXX wording of Ps. 8:3, and disagrees slightly with the
"best" Hebrew rendering.

<h1>16. Israel's Rejection</>

[[column 1]]
<ts>Matt. 21:42</>
Have you never read
in the scriptures: "The
very stone which the
builders rejected has become the head of the
corner; this was the
Lord's doing, and it is
marvelous in our eyes"?

[[column 2]]
<ts>Mark 12:10-122</>
Have you not read
this scripture: "The
very stone which the
builders rejected has
become the head of the
corner; this was the
Lord's doing, and it is
marvelous in our eyes"?
[[column 3]]
<ts>Luke 20:17</>
What then is this
that is written: "The
very stone which the
builders rejected has
become the head of the

The passage is taken from the LXX wording of Ps. 117:22-23 (118
in MT) which agrees in general with the MT.

<h1>17. Silencing the Sadducees</>

[[column 1]]
<ts>Matt. 22:29-32</>
You are
wrong, because you know
neither the scriptures
nor the power of God.
Have you not read

what was said to you by
God, "I am the God of
Abraham, and <v+>the</> God of
Isaac, and <v+>the</> God of

[[column 2]]
<ts>Mark 12:24-26</>
Is not this why you
are wrong, that you know
neither the scriptures
nor the power of God?
Have you not read in the
book of Moses, in the
passage about the bush,
how God said to him,
"I am the God of
Abraham, and the God of
Isaac, and the God of

[[column 3]]
<ts>Luke 20:37</>

Even Moses showed,
in the passage about
the bush, where he
calls the Lord
<v->the God</> of
Abraham, and <v->the God</> of
Isaac, and <v->the God</> of

Matthew and Mark are essentially LXX words (the former if -A, the
latter, -B) which agree with the MT of Exod. 3:6 or 15. Luke
varies the case endings, and is probably not a direct quotation.

<h1>18. Answering the Lawyer</>

[[column 1]]
<ts>Matt. 22:36-40</>
(which is the great commandment in
the law?)

"You shall love the Lord your God
<v+>with</><v-> all</> your <v->heart</>, and <v+>with</><v-> all</>
your <v->soul</>, and <v+>with </><v->all</> your <v+>mind</>."
This is the great and first
commandment. And a second is like it,
"You shall love your neighbor as
yourself." On these two
commandments depend all the law and the

[[column 2]]
<ts>Mark 12:28-31</>
(Which commandment is the first of
all?) The first is, "Hear, O Israel:
The Lord our God, the Lord is one;
and you shall love the Lord your God
with all your heart, and with all
your soul, and with all your <v+>mind
and with all your strength</>."
The second is this,
"You shall love your neighbor as
yourself." There is no other
commandment greater than these.

The sources are Deut. 6:4-5 and Lev. 19:18. The textual basis of
the former has caused much discussion; it is mainly LXX which is
in general agreement with the MT, but the variations are a
problem (compare the same Deuteronomy quotation found in Luke
10:27 and Mark 12:32-33). The New Testament quotations have
significant variation between themselves, and the Old Testament
text is subject to many shades of translation.

<h1>19. Silencing the Pharisees</>

[[column 1]]
<ts>Matt. 22:43-44</>
How is it then that
David, inspired by the
Spirit, calls him Lord,
saying, "The Lord said
to my Lord,
'Sit at my right hand
till I <v+>put</> your enemies
<v+>under</> your

[[column 2]]
<ts>Mark 12:36</>

David himself, in-
spired by the Holy
Spirit declared, "The
Lord said to my Lord,
'Sit at my right hand
till I <v+>put</> your enemies
<v+>under</> your

[[column 3]]
<ts>Luke 20:42-43</>
For David himself
says, in the book of
Psalms, "The Lord said
to my Lord,
'Sit at my right hand
till I make your
enemies a stool for
your feet.'"

The Old Testament source is Ps. 109:1 (110:1 in MT), and the LXX
wording is followed with one exception in some texts of Matthew
and Mark where "put under" is read instead of "footstool." The
LXX agrees in general with the MT. See also II Sam. 23:2f.

<h1>20. Signs of the End</>

[[column 1]]
<ts>Matt. 24:15</>
So when you see "the desolating
sacrilege" spoken of by the prophet
Daniel, standing in the ...

[[column 2]]
<ts>Mark 13:14</>
But when you see "the desolating
set up where it ...

The phrase is LXX wording from Dan. 12:11 (see also 9:17, 27),
and differs significantly from the MT. Luke 21:20 presents a
different thought in apparently the same context.

<h1>21. The Betrayer</>

<ts>John 13:18</>
It is that the scripture may be fulfilled, "<v+>He who ate my
bread has lifted his heel</> against me."

Ps. 41:10 (40:10 in LXX) is the apparent source. It is neither
LXX nor MT (which differs from the LXX) wording. The Psalm is
not clearly predictive.

<h1>22. The Failure of the Disciples</>

[[column 1]]
<ts>Matt. 26:31</>
For it is written, "<v+>I will</> <v->strike</>
the shepherd and the sheep <v+>of the
flock will be scattered</>.

[[column 2]]
<ts>Mark 14:27</>

For it is written, "<v+>I will</> <v->strike</>
the shepherd and the sheep
<v+>will be scattered</>."

There is considerable variation in the LXX texts of Zech. 13:7,
and the LXX differs significantly from the MT. Jesus is recorded
as having changed the subject of the verse in using it. The New
Testament quotation seems closest to the -A type of LXX text; see
Sperber, p. 281.

<h1>23. Impending Doom</>

<ts>Luke 22:37</>
This scripture must be fulfilled in me, "And he was reckoned
<v+>with</> <v->transgressors</>," for what is written about me has its

Luke is close in thought to the MT of Isa. 53:12 which differs
somewhat from the LXX. Some of Luke's wording is like the LXX.

<h1>24. The Attitude of the World</>

<ts>John 15:25</>
It is to fulfill the word that is written in their law, "<v+>They</>
<v->hated</> <v+>me</> without a cause."

Pss. 35:19 and 69:5 contain similar thought, but John's words are
only slight reflections of the LXX which agrees with the MT, and
are probably not from that source.

Six additional sayings attributed to Jesus could possibly be
construed as formal quotations since they are introduced in a
similar manner to the above contexts. They are, however, very
doubtful and general. Only four of these sayings will be
reproduced here, since two of them -- Luke 18:31-33 and Luke
24:46-47 -- are obviously too general to be traced either
concerning their sources of their texts.


<h1>(1) Elijah</>

[[column 1]]
<ts>Matt. 17:11-12</>
Elijah does come, and he is to
restore all things.

But I tell you that Elijah has
already come, and they did not
know him, but did to him whatever
they pleased. So also the Son of
man will suffer at their hands.

[[column 2]]
<ts>Mark 9:12-13</>
Elijah does come first to restore
all things; and how is it written
of the Son of man, that he should
suffer many things and be treated
with contempt? But I tell you that
Elijah has come, and they did to
him whatever they pleased, as it is
written of him.

Compare Isa. 53, I Kings 19:2 and 10, and Mal. 4:4.

<h1>(2) The Legal Witness</>

<ts>John 8:17</>
In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true.

See Deut. 17:6 and 19:15; compare Matt. 18:16.

<h1>(3) Rejection of God's Message</>

[[column 1]]
<ts>Matt. 23:34</>
I sent you prophets and wise men
and scribes, some of whom you will
kill and crucify ...

[[column 2]]
<ts>Luke 11:49</>
Therefore also the Wisdom of God
said, "I will sent them prophets
and apostles, some of whom they will
kill and persecute."

If the Luke passage gives a quotation, its source is unknown.
The Matthew passage is not necessarily a parallel context to

<h1>(4) Tribulation</>

<ts>Luke 21:22</>
For these are "days of vengeance," to fulfill all that is
Hos. 9:7 contains this phrase in the LXX wording.

NOTE. -- The significance of quotations for this study rests in
the problems which are raised. Many of these problems concern
technical and critical questions which cannot be treated in this
short study. Toy has an excellent basic treatment of much of
this data, although he is out of date in some regards. In the
first chapter of his thesis, Ellis briefly outlines the general
area of quotations from the Old Testament in the New, and Johnson
approaches the study from a slightly different perspective.
Sperber gives a much more technical, yet pertinent, treatment of
some of the problems.

A few of the questions which must be asked about each quotation
1. What is the actual New Testament text of the quotation?
2. Who has chosen the New Testament text wording

(1) The person quotation
(2) The editor or compiler is there is one
(3) Intermediate tradition between speaker and editor
(4) A later copyist

3. What basic Old Testament text is quoted, if any?
(1) The Septuagint
i. In agreement with the Masoretic
ii. In disagreement with the Masoretic
(2) Some other Greek version
(3) Aramaic written or oral targums
(4) Hebrew texts directly translated
(5) From memory, excerpts, <lt>etc.</>

These questions are by no means exhaustive of the problems
involved. In the above appendix an attempt has been made to
indicate some of the answers given by modern scholarship, but the
main concern of this thesis is with above question number two --

in what sense are the quotations attributed to Jesus actually his
words; has he chosen the wording recorded? The answer is fairly
obvious: They are not always, if ever, Jesus' exact words and
references, nor are the formulas of introduction assuredly the
exact judgments of the Lord in every instance.





The subjectivity involved in choosing a list of quotations on the
basis of similarity to the Old Testament in word or thought
should be obvious. One may repeat an idiomatic proverb which has
a literary origin, and yet not realize that he is, in an informal
sense, "quoting" that source. Thus, Jesus may not have intended
to make reference to the scriptures in all of the following
instances. Since the exegete is not told exactly which sayings
are intended as quotations, and which are similar because of
idiom or coincidence or editing or tradition, the following
references are necessarily this author's selection of some of the
most obvious (to him) coincidences of wording.\1/ Thus the
listing in this appendix is admittedly incomplete and selective
due to the nature of the materials.


\1/To convince anyone who doubts this subjectivity, let him read
the statement in Nestle's <tmlt>Novum Testamentum Graece</> (20\th/
<lang?>auflage; Stuttgart: Privileg. Wurtt. Bibelanstalt</>, 1950), p.
63*, where the reader is told that the indications of such
"quotations" have been "revised and cancelled in about 60 cases,
where is concerned only questionable allusions, but newly
introduced in 35 cases." Let him also compare the "quotations"
listed by Toy with those of Robertson, <tm>Harmony</>, pp. 295-
301, or the cross-references in the Schofield and Thompson Bible
editions. The subjectivity involved will be apparent.


As in the preceding appendix, a chronological arrangement of the
contexts is attempted. With this subject matter, however, it
does not seem to be particularly profitable to discuss the
textual backgrounds of each passage as was done in appendix 1.
The RSV is again the English text which is reproduced, with minor
changes. Some general passages are not reproduced.

The primary purpose of this listing of Jesus' informal quotations
is to demonstrate the high degree of knowledge he had concerning
the Old Testament -- how it permeated his thought and language
in his ministry. It is perhaps significant that although John
records much of Jesus' speech, that Gospel does not present a
Christ who is saturated with Old Testament language as do the
Synoptics. Few if any informal quotations are found in John!\2/


\2/See above: Chapter 2, p. 47.



<h1>1. The Great Sermon on the Mount</>

The beatitudes in general present an Old Testament flavor. For
[[column 1]]
<ts>Matt. 5:4</>

Blessed are those who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.

[[column 2]]
<ts>Isa. 61:2b</>
. . . to comfort all who mourn;

[[column 1]]
<ts>Matt. 5:5</>
Blessed are the meek,
for they shall inherit the earth.

[[column 2]]
<ts>Ps. 37:11</> (36:11 in LXX)
. . . the meek shall possess
the land.

[[column 1]]
<ts>Matt. 5:8</>
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they shall see God.

[[column 2]]
<ts>Ps. 24:3-4</> (23:3-4 in LXX)
Who shall stand in his holy place?
He who has ... a pure heart.

[[column 1]]
<ts>Matt. 5:48</> (see Luke 6:36)
You . . . must be
perfect, as your heavenly
Rather is perfect.

[[column 2]]
<ts>Lev. 19:2</> (see 20:7)
You shall be holy;
for I the Lord your
God am holy.

[[column 3]]
<ts>Deut. 18:13</>
You shall be
blameless before the
Lord your God.

[[column 1]]
<ts>Matt. 6:6</> (almost exact LXX words)
But when you pray go into your
room and shut the door.

[[column 2]]
<ts>Isa. 26:20</>
Come, my people, enter your
chambers and shut your doors ...

[[column 1]]
<ts>Matt. 7:23</> (almost exact LXX words)
I never knew you; depart from me,
you evil doers.

[[column 2]]
<ts>Ps. 6:8</> (verse 9 in LXX)
Depart from me,
all you workers of evil.

<h1>2. The Reply to John Baptist</>

Matt. 11:5 and Luke 7:22 speak of events of healing such as those
recorded in the prophecies of Isa. 29:18-19, 35:5-6, and 61:1.
The wording, however, is not really close.

<h1>3. The Sign of Jonah</>

Matt. 12:40 and Jonah 1:17 (2:1 in MT and LXX) are exact LXX

<h1>4. Parable of Harvesting the Grown Seed</>

[[column 1]]
<ts>Mark 4:29</>
At once he puts in the sickle,
because the harvest has come.

[[column 2]]
<ts>Joel 3:13</> (4:13 in MT and LXX)
Put in the sickle,
for the harvest is ripe.

<h1>5. Parable of the Mustard Tree (compare also Luke 13:19)</>

[[column 1]]
<ts>Matt. 13:32b</>
... the
birds of the air
come and make
nests in its

[[column 22]]
<ts>Mark 4:32b</>
. . . the
birds of the air
can make
nests in its

[[column 3]]
<ts>Dan. 4:12</>
... the birds of the air
dwelt in
its branches.
[4:9 in MT, LXX]

[[column 4]]
<ts>Dan 4:21</>
. . . in
whose branches the
birds of the air
[4:18 in MT, LXX]


<h1>6. Jesus' Effect on Society</>

[[column 1]]
<ts>Matt. 10:35-36</> (see 10:21)
I have come to set a man against
his father, and a daughter against
her mother, and a daughter-in-law
against her mother-in-law; and a
man's foes will be those of his
own household.

[[column 2]]
<ts>Mic 7:6</>
For the son treats the father with
contempt, the daughter rises up
against her mother, the daughter-
in-law against her mother-in-law; a
man's enemies are the men of his own house.

<h1>7. Woe to Capernaum</>
[[column 1]]
<ts>Matt. 11:23 and Luke 10:25</>
Will you be exalted to heaven?
You shall be brought down to Hades.

[[column 2]]
<ts>Isa. 14:15</> (see also vss. 12-14)
But you are brought down to Sheol,
to the depths of the Pit.

<h1>8. Jesus' Yoke</>

[[column 1]]
<ts>Matt. 11:29</>
. . . find rest for you souls.

[[column 2]]
<ts>Jer. 6:16b</>
. . . find rest for your souls.

<h1>9. Jesus' Return</>

[[column 1]]
<ts>Matt. 16:27</>
He will repay every
man for what he has

[[column 2]]
<ts>Ps. 62:12</>
For you requite a man
according to his work.
[62:13 in MT; 61:13 LXX]

[[column 3]]
<ts>Prov. 24:12</>
Will he not requite
man according to his

<h1>10. Hades</>

[[column 1]]
<ts>Mark 9:48</> (almost exact LXX words)
... their worm does not die,
and the fire is not quenched.
[[column 2]]

<ts>Isa. 66:24b</>
... their work shall not die,
their fire shall not be quenched.

<h1>11. Justice</>

[[column 1]]
<ts>Matt. 18:16</> (see John 8:17)
That every word may be confirmed
by the evidence of two or three

[[column 2]]
<ts>Deut. 19:15</> (see 17:6)
Only on the evidence of two
witnesses, or of three witnesses,
shall a charge be sustained.

<h1>12. God's Power</>

[[column 1]]
<ts>Matt 19:26</>
With God
all things
are possible.

[[column 2]]
<ts>Mark 10:27</>
All things are possible
with God.

[[column 3]]
<ts>Luke 18:27</>
What is
with men is
possible with

[[column 4]]
<ts>Gen. 18:14</>
Is anything
too hard for
the Lord?
[[column 4]]
<ts>Job 42:2</>
You can do
all things,
and no purpose
of yours can
be thwarted.

<h1>13. Parable of the Vineyard</>

Compare general outlines of Matt. 21:33, Mark 12:1, Luke 20:9,
and Isa. 5:1f.

<h1>14. Lament over Jerusalem (see also Matt. 21:9, Mark 11:9,
Luke 19:38,
John 12:13)</>

[[column 1]]
<ts>Matt. 23:39</> (LXX words)
Blessed be he who comes in the
name of the Lord.

[[column 2]]
<ts>Ps. 118:26</> (117:26 in LXX)
Blessed be he who enters in the
name of the Lord!

<h1>15. The Great Eschatological Discourse (Olivet Discourse)

[[column 1]]
<ts>Matt. 24:21</>

For then there will
be great tribulation,
such as has not been
from the beginning of
the world until now.

[[column 2]]
<ts>Mark 13:19</> (see Luke 21:23)
For in those days there
will be such tribulation
as has not been from the
beginning of the creation
... until now.

[[column 3]]
<ts>Dan. 12:1</>
And there shall be
a time of trouble,
such as never has
been since there was
a nation till that

The general eschatological perspective of cosmic upheaval found
in Matt. 24:29, Mark 13:24-25, and Luke 21:25-26 is seen also in
Eccles. 12:2, Isa. 13:10, Ezek. 32:7f., Dan. 8:10, Joel 2:2,
2:10, 2:30-31, Amos 8:9, and Zeph. 1:14-16.

Matt. 24:30, Mark 13:26, and Luke 21:27 reflect the picture in
Dan. 7:13 where "one like a son of man" comes "with the clouds of

[[column 1]]
<ts>Matt. 25:31</>
When the Son of man comes in his
glory, and all the angels with him.

[[column 2]]
<ts>Zech. 14:5</>
Then the Lord your God will come,
and all the holy ones with him.

<h1>16. Gethsemane</>

[[column 1]]
<ts>Matt. 26:38 and Mark 14:34</>
My soul is very sorrowful, even
to death.

[[column 2]]
<ts>Ps. 42:6</> (42:7 in MT, 41:7 in LXX)
My soul is cast down within me.

<h1>17. On Trial</>

Matt. 26:64 and Mark 14:62 contain thought which may reflect Ps.
110:1 (109:1 in LXX) and Dan. 7:13: "on the right hand of
Power," and, "coming on the clouds of heaven."

<h1>18. On the Cross</>

[[column 1]]
<ts>Matt. 27:46</> (like MT)
Eli, Eli, lama
sabachthani? (that is, My God,
My God, why have you
forsaken me?)

[[column 2]]
<ts>Mark 15:34</> (like Aramaic)
Eloi, Eloi, lama
sabachtani? (that is, My
God, My God, why have
you forsaken me?)

[[column 3]]
<ts>Ps. 22:1</> (22:2 in Mt,
21:2 in LXX)
My God,
My God, why have you
forsaken me?
[[column 1]]
<ts>Luke 23:46</>
Father, into your hands I commit
my spirit!

[[column 2]]
<ts>Ps. 31:5</> (30:6 in LXX, 31:6 in MT)
Into your hands I commit
my spirit.




1. Moses and the serpent in the wilderness John 3:14
2. Elijah and the widow of Zarephath Luke 4:25-26
3. Elisha and Naaman the leper Luke 4:27
4. David and the showbread Matt. 12:3 (Mark 2:25,
Luke 6:3)
5. Persecution of the prophets Matt. 5:12 (Luke 6:23)
6. The troubles of Jonah Matt. 12:39-41
7. Solomon and the Queen of the south Matt. 12:42
8. Sodom and Gomorrah as examples Matt. 10:15
9. Moses and the manna John 6:32, 49, 58
10. The sign of Jonah Matt. 16:4
11. Moses and the law John 7:19
12. Moses (the fathers) and circumcision John 22-23
13. Abraham, the physical father of the Jews John 8:37-40
14. Wicked Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom Matt. 11:21-24 (Luke 10:12-14)
15. Jonah and Nineveh Luke 11:29-32
16. Solomon and the Queen of the south Luke 11:31
17. Righteous men killed (Abel to Zechariah) Luke 11:47-51
18. The treachery of Jerusalem Luke 13:34
19. Noah and the flood Luke 17:26-27
20. Lot, Sodom, and Lot's wife Luke 17:28-32
21. Moses and divorce Matt. 19:8 (Mark 10:3, 5)
22. Moses and the burning bush Matt. 22:29 (Mark 12:24,
Luke 20:37)
23. David the psalmist Matt. 22:43 (Mark 12:35,
Luke 20:41)
24. Murderous Jerusalem (Abel to Zechariah) Matt. 23:29-37
25. Noah and the flood Matt. 24:37

Other references which might possibly be considered historical
(1) Moses and leprosy purification Matt. 8:4 (Mark 1:44,
Luke 5:14)
(2) Priests and the Sabbath Matt. 12:5
(3) Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob Matt. 8:11
(4) Prophets and law until John Baptist Matt. 11:13-14
(5) Prophecy of Isaiah Matt. 13:14-15
(6) Longings of prophets and righteous men Matt. 13:17
(7) Isaiah prophesied Matt. 15:7 (Mark 7:6)
(8) Moses said (the Decalogue) Mark 7:10
(9) Abraham and the Messiah John 8:56

(10) Longings of prophets and kings Luke 10:24
(11) Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob Luke 13:28
(12) Law and prophets until John Baptist Luke 16:16
(13) Creation Matt. 19:4-6 (Mark 10:6-8)
(14) Son of Abraham Luke 19:9
(15) The prophet Daniel Matt. 24:15
(16) Creation Matt. 24:21 (Mark 13:19)

A historical chronology of these references would be:
Noah and the flood
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
Lot and his wife
Sodom and Gomorrah
and the bush
in the wilderness (manna and the serpent)
and the law (circumcision, divorce, and leprosy)
and the showbread
the inspired psalmist (Psalm 110)
Solomon and the Queen of the south
The prophets (persecuted relentlessly)
Elijah and the widow of Zarephath
Elisha and Naaman
Jonah, the fish, and Nineveh




The following passages reflect Jesus' use of the Old Testament in
legal and theological applications. It is difficult to call
certain uses theological and others non-theological, so there is
a certain amount of subjectivity involved in the choices below.
On the whole, however, the following passages are representative
of Jesus' use of the Old Testament in these ways.

John 4:22
Matt. 8:4 (Mark 1:44, Luke 5:14)
Matt. 9:13
Matt. 12:3 (Mark 2:25, Luke 6:3)
Matt. 12:5
Matt. 12:7
Mark 2:27
Matt. 12:12 (Mark 3:4, Luke 6:9)
Matt. 15:3-7 (Mark 7:6-13)
John 7:19-23
[John 8:6-11]
John 8:17
Luke 10:25-28
John 10:34
Matt. 19:4-8 (Mark 10:3-8)
Matt. 19:17-19 (Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20)
Matt. 22:37-40 (Mark 12:29-34)
Matt. 22:43 (Mark 12:35, Luke 20:41)
Matt. 23:2 and 23
Other passages such as those in the temptation narrative (Matthew
4 and Luke 4), those in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:17-48),
Matt. 7:12, and Matt. 22:29-32 (Mark 12:24-27, Luke 20:37-38)
could also possible be considered in this category. Most of the
above passages have overlapping functions such as polemical or
evangelical as well as legal and theological.




<h1>1. The Old Testament as something written</>

"it is written" or a similar formula
Matt. 4:4 (Luke 4:4)
Matt. 4:7 (Luke 4:12 -- it is said")
Matt. 4:10 (Luke 4:8)
Matt. 10:11 (Luke 7:27)
John 6:45
Mark 7:6 (Matt. 15:7 -- "Isaiah said")
Mark 9:12 (twice: not in Matt. 17:11)
John 8:17
Luke 10:25
John 10:34
Mark 10:5 (not in Matt. 19:8)
Luke 18:31
Matt. 21:13 (Mark 11:17, Luke 19:46)
Luke 20:17 (Matt. 21:42 and Mark 12:10 -- "read")
Luke 21:22
Matt. 26:24 (Mark 14:21)
Matt. 26:31 (Mark 14:27)
Luke 22:37
John 15:25
Luke 24:44 and 46

"have you not read"

Matt. 12:3 (Mark 2:25, Luke 6:3)
Matt. 12:5
Matt. 19:4 (not in Mark 10:6)
Matt. 21:16
Matt. 21:42 (Mark 12:10; but Luke 20:17 -- "what is
Matt. 22-31 ("What God said"; Mark 12:26 -- "in
Moses' book"; not in Luke 20:37)

<h1>2. The Old Testament as something spoken</>

"it is (was) said" or a similar formula
Luke 4:12 (Matt. 4:7 -- "it is written")
{@@RAK note: <gk>EIRHTAI</>}
Matt. 5:21 9"to [by] men of old")
{@@RAK note: <gk>E)RRE/QH</>}
Matt. 5:27
{@@RAK note: <gk>ERREQH</>}
Matt. 5:31
{@@RAK note: <gk>ERREQH</>}
Matt. 5:33 ("to [by] men of old")
{@@RAK note: <gk>ERREQH</>}


Matt. 5:38
{@@RAK note: <gk>ERREQH</>}
Matt. 5:43
{@@RAK note: <gk>ERREQH</>}
Matt. 15:7 ("Isaiah said"; Mark 7:6 -- "it is
{@@RAK note: <gk>LEGWN</>}
Mark 7:10 ("Moses said")
John 7:38 ("scripture said")
Luke 11:49 ("Wisdom of God said")
{@@RAK note: <gk>EIPEN</>
Matt. 19:5 ("He [God] said"; not in Mark 10:7)
{@@RAK note: <gk>EIPEN</>
Matt. 22:31 ("By God"; not in Mark 12:26 or Luke
{@@RAK note: <gk>LEGONTOS</>
Matt. 24:15 ("by Daniel"; not in Mark 13:14)
{@@RAK note: <gk>TO R(HQEN</>

"which says" or a similar formula
Matt. 13:14
{@@RAK note: <gk>? LEGOUSA</>
Matt. 22:43 (Mark 12:35, Luke 20:41, "David")
{@@RAK note: <gk>LEGWN</>

Matt. 8:4 (Mark 1:44, Luke 5:14, "Moses")
Matt. 15:4 ("God"; Mark 7:10 -- "Moses said")
Mark 10:3 ("Moses"; Matt. 19:8 -- "Moses allowed")

"well did Isaiah prophesy"
Matt. 5:7 (Mark 7:6)
(compare Matt. 13:14)

<h1>3. The Old Testament as something to be fulfilled</>
[[column 1]]
Luke 4:21
Matt. 13:14
Luke 21:22
John 13:18
Luke 22:37 (twice)

[[column 2]]
John 15:25
John 17:12
Matt. 26:54
Matt. 26:56 (Mark 14:49)
Luke 24:44

<h1>4. Other means of reference</>

"learn (know) what this means (is)"
Matt. 9:13
Matt. 12:7

"you know not"
Matt. 22:29 (Mark 12:24; not in Luke 20:38)

[[ 119]]





<h1>1. "Scripture" or "scriptures" (s--singular; p--plural)</>
Luke 4:21 (s)
John 5:39 (p)
John 7:38 (s; "has said")
John 10:35 (s)
Matt. 21:42 (p; Mark 12:10--s; not in Luke 20:17)
Matt. 22:29 (p; Mark 12:24; not in Luke 20:37)
John 13:18 (s)
Luke 22:37 (s)
John 17:12 (p)
Matt. 26:54 (p)
Matt. 26:56 (p, "of the prophets"; Mark 14:49)

<h1>2. "Law of Moses, prophets, and psalms"</>
Luke 24:44

<h1>3. "Moses and the prophets"</>
Luke 16:29 and 31

<h1>4. "Law and (or) prophets"</>

[[column 1]]
Matt. 5:17
Matt. 7:12
Matt. 11:13 (vice versa; perhaps not a reference to the Old

[[column 2]]
Luke 16:16
Matt. 22:40 (not in Mark 12:31)

<h1>5. "Prophets"</>

[[column 1]]
John 6:45
Luke 18:31

[[column 2]]
Matt. 26:56 (not in Mark 14:49)
Luke 24:25

<h1>6. "Book of Psalms"</>
Luke 20:41 (not in Matt. 22:43 or Mark 12:35)

<h1>7. "Law"</>
[[column 1]]
Matt. 12:5
Matt. 5:18
John 7:19
John 7:23
John 8:17

[[column 2]]
Luke 10:25
John 10:34
Luke 16:17
Matt. 23:23
John 15:25

<h1>8. "Word of God"</>
Matt. 15:6 (in the sense of Mosaic law; Mark 7:13)
John 10:35 (in the sense of God's message or perhaps the

<h1>9. "Commandment" of "commandments"</>
Matt. 5:19 (possibly has only a secondary reference to
Matt. 15:3 ("of God"; Mark 7:9)
Matt. 19:17 (Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20)

<h1>10. "Moses"</>
John 5:45-47 ("writings")
Mark 7:10 ("said"; Matt. 15:4 -- "God commanded"
John 7:19 and 22 (gave law and circumcision)
Mark 12:26 ("book of"; Luke 20:37; not in Matt. 22:31)

<h1>11. "Prophecy of Isaiah"</>
Matt. 13:14 (compare Matt. 5:7 and Mark 7:6)

<h1>12. "David"</>
Matt. 22:43 (Mark 12:35, Luke 20:41)

<h1>13. "Jonah"</>
Matt. 12:39-41
Matt. 16:4
Luke 11:29 and 32

<h1>14. "Daniel"</>
Matt. 24:15 (not in Mark 13:14)

<h1>15. "Wisdom of God" (?)</>
Luke 11:49

<h1>16. "Key of Knowledge" (?)</>
Luke 11:52





<h1>1. The Disciples</>
[[column 1]]
Matt. 13:14-15, 17; 10:15
Matt. 17:11 (Mark 9:12)
Matt. 11:21-24 (Luke 10:12-14)
Luke 10:24; 17:26-32; 18:31
Matt. 24:15 (Mark 13:14)
Luke 21:22
Matt. 24:21 (Mark 13:19)

[[column 2]]
Matt. 24:37
John 13:18
Matt. 26:24, 31 (Mark 14:21, 27)
Luke 22:37
John 15:25; (17:12 -- personal use?)
Matt. 26:54
Luke 24:25, 44-49

<h1>2. The Religious Leaders (Lawyers, Pharisees, Sadducees)</>
[[column 1]]
(John 3:14 -- Nicodemus)
Matt. 9:13
Matt. 12:3 (Mark 2:25, Luke 6:3)
Matt. 12:5, 7
Mark 2:27
Matt. 12:12 (Mark 3:4, Luke 6:9)
Matt. 12:39-42
Matt. 15:3-7 (Mark 7:6-13)
Matt. 16:4
[John 8:6 -- the adulteress]

[[column 2]]
Luke 10:25-28; 11:47-52
Luke 16:16-17, (22), 29-31
Matt. 19:4-8 (Mark 10:3-8)
Matt. 21:13 (Mark 11:17, Luke 19:46)
Matt. 21:16
Matt. 21:42 (Mark 12:10, Luke 20:17)
Matt. 22:37-40 (Mark 12:29-34)
Matt. 22:43 (Mark 12:35, Luke 20:41)
(Matt. 23:2, 23, 29-37)

<h1>3. The Crowds</>

[[column 1]]
Luke 4:17-21, 25-26, 27
John 5:39-47
Matt. 5:12 (Luke 6:23)
Matt. 5:17-19, 21-48
Matt. 7:12; 8:11
Matt. 11:10 (Luke 7:27)
Matt. 11:13-14
John 6:32, 45, 49, 58; 7:19

[[column 2]]

John 7:22-23, 38; 8-17, 37-40, 56
Luke 11:29-32
John 10:34-35
Luke 13:28
Matt. 21:42 (Mark 12:10, Luke 20:17)
Matt. 23:2, 23, 29-37
Matt. 26:56 (Mark 14:49)
<h1>4. Others</>
Satan -- Matt. 4:4, 7, 10 (Luke 4:4, 12, 8)
Samaritan Woman -- John 4:22
Leper -- Matt. 8:4 (Mark 1:44, Luke 5:14)
Rich Young Ruler -- Matt. 19:17-19 (Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20)
Himself (personal use) -- Luke 13:34; John 17:12; Matt. 27:46 (Mark
15:34); Luke 23:46



MATTHEW 5:17-20

This is one of the few scriptural passages which may be claimed
as direct support for any "scriptural doctrine of inspiration."
It occurs in Matthew's record of the "Sermon on the Mount," and
thus relates primarily to Jesus' ethics and teaching about the
Kingdom. When, in Jesus' short ministry, this sermon took place
is almost impossible to answer.\1/ The Lukan parallels to
teachings of Matthew 5-7 are not given as a unity, and have led
many commentators to believe that Matthew's account is an
editorial (rather than actual) arrangement of material for a
specific purpose.\2/ Some have gone to far as to deny that some
portions of the sermon, especially 5:18-19, are actual teachings
of Jesus.\3/ Even the ancient manuscript evidence is ambiguous
on the entire passage since Codex Beza (D) omits 19b-20, and the
original copyist of the Sinaiticus Codex (S or
Aleph) omits 19b.


\1/Most chronologies of Jesus' life place the sermon later
than much of the material which directly follows it in Matthew.
See A. Edersheim, <tm>The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah</>
(New American ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), I, xxxiii-
xxxiv; Burton and Goodspeed, <tm>A Harmony of the Synoptic Gospels
in Green</> (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1920), pp. x-xi;
and Robertson, <tm>Harmony</>, pp. xv-xvii.

\2/Edersheim, I, 526; Filson, "Broken Patterns in the Gospel
of Matthew," <tp>Journal of Biblical Literature</>, LXXV
(September, 1956), 229-231; Hunter, pp. 13-14.

\3/W. C. Allen, <tp>A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
the Gospel according to St. Matthew</>, Vol. I of
<tp>International Critical Commentary</>, ed. by Plummer, Driver,
and Briggs (New York: Scribner's, 1913), p. 45; Hunter, p. 43;
Manson, <tm>Teaching</>, p. 38.


These particular considerations, plus the problems outlined in
the body of this thesis (see especially chap. 1) -- such as; (1)
Jesus' hyperbole, (2) Jesus' real intent, (3) fragmentary
nature of the accounts, (4) idiom, and (5) editing -- must be
seen to recognize the complexity of finding Jesus' actual
teaching which is basic to Matt. 5:17-20. To deny authenticity
to the difficult phrases is not desirable if it can possibly be
avoided. The context and purpose of the sermon and the overall
use which Jesus makes of the Old Testament are definite clues to
the interpretation of the "jot and tittle" passage. In his
entire ministry, Jesus emphasizes attitudes as basic to action.
The sermon is especially filled with this emphasis -- the
beatitudes deal with a frame of mind as do the "I say to you"
passages of 5:21-48 (see [[123]] appendix 1). Conduct is
interpreted in the light of purpose -- of true understanding of
the spirit of God's inward Kingdom (6:33). Jesus' standard of
action is really more difficult that the literally interpreted
law, since action and attitude are important.

The "law or prophets" of 5:17 cannot be understood apart from
7:12 -- the "golden rule" as an ethical summary of the Old
Testament. Jesus' purpose in coming was not intentionally to
destroy the Old Testament law, but to bring it to its basic
intended application -- to make it live in the hearts of
God's people. But in so fulfilling the law, it would necessarily
pass away as a literal, legal statute book. A parallel idiom is
found in 10:34: "Do not suppose that I came to deposit peace; I
have not come to bring peace, but a sword." But Jesus' coming
does bring peace in a sense; through the external violence, the
"sword," an internal provision of peace is secured. He came to
spiritually fulfill, and in doing so, he destroys the literalism
of the law. He neither opposed nor ignored the Old standard, but
worked through it to the intended, and, in a sense, New

Verse 18 presents a variety of possible interpretations. "Until
heaven and earth pass away" could mean: (1) The law will last
until the end of the age,\4/ (2) The law will never pass
away,\5/ (3) The law will remain either until this happens or
until it is "all fulfilled."\6/ In the light of Luke 16:17, it
probably refers to the durability of the "law" in some sense. In
the light of Jesus' overall teachings and 24:35, "law" probably
means essentially the same as "my words" -- not law as a
system, but as written on the hearts of God's people (law as in
the "new covenant" of Jer. 31:33 which Jesus seems to reflect in
John 4:24-25). "Jot and tittle" certainly do not refer to the
literal parts of letters, but stress the whole law in even its
least stressed intentions -- not literal partition, but
spiritual wholeness according to God's purpose in giving law.
Jesus' recorded language reflects rabbinic teachings, but his
contextual meaning is contrary to the Rabbis.\7/ The law in its
correctly interpreted totality endures -- it endures because it
rests fulfilled in Jesus Christ.


\4/G. C. Morgan, <tm>The Gospel according to Matthew</> (New
York: Revell, 1929), p. 50; J. P. Lange, <tm>The Gospel according
to St. Matthew</>, Vol. I of the New Testament part of A
Commentary on the Holy Scriptures
, trans. by P. Schaff (10\th/
ed. rev.; Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1870), p. 109.

\5/Allen, p. 45; J. A. Broadus, <tm>A Commentary on the
Gospel of Matthew</>, Vol. I of <te>An American Commentary on the
New Testament</>, ed. by A. Hovey (Philadelphia: American
Baptist Society, 1886), p. 100.

\6/A. B. Bruce, <tm>The Synoptic Gospels</>, Vol. I of
<te>Expositor's Greek Testament</>, ed. by W. Nicoll (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.), p. 104.

\7/Rabbinic examples are given in Allen, p. 45, and Broadus,
p. 100.


Verse 19 applies Jesus' concept to members of the Kingdom. Those
who are the "best" members will follow the correctly interpreted
law. "These commandments" may well refer to the interpretations
which Jesus is about to give (in 5:21-48), which are basically
the "jots and tittles" of the law in that they are the little
realized motives behind law (at least in the [[124]]
understanding of Jesus' hearers).

This is confirmed by verse 20. The "Scribes and Pharisees" kept
the literal "commandments" -- the literal (as far as possible,
the physical) "jots and tittles." Yet Jesus teaches that mere
entrance into the Kingdom must be more basic than this --
righteousness must be more than literal adherence to law. The least people of verse 19 were already in the Kingdom, even though not all of them complied with the highest ideal; but in verse 20, entrance to the Kindgdom depends on more than literal adherence to law.

Jesus was not teaching the durability of literal law, but of law
as God meant it -- law as Jesus understood it. He is dealing
with concepts and meanings -- with ethics and values -- not
with theology (or inspiration) as such. If the above exegesis is
adequate, this passage contributes little or nothing additional
to Jesus' use or doctrine of inspiration as seen in many other
passages. If this exegesis is not adequate, and if Jesus'
teachings are expected to be consistent and harmonious, some
other interpretation must be found which does not implicate Jesus
in a rabbinic literalism.




JOHN 10:34-35

The Gospel of John is admittedly apologetic (20:30-31). It seems
to present Jesus Christ to a non-Jewish church, although the
Gospel itself exhibits a marked Semitic flavor and background.\1/
Its structure and content is definitely different from the
Synoptics, and it presents Jesus' teachings in a somewhat
different style and idiom.\2/


\1/Note Westcott's argument for the apostolic authorship of
the Gospel in <tm>The Gospel According to St. John</> (London:
John Murray, 1900), "Introduction." Albright, "Gospel of John"
(pp. 153-171 of the essays edited by Davies and Daube), presents
up-to-date material to support the authentic Semitic origin of
John and its essential historicity; see also Albright's
<tm>Archaeology</>, pp. 240-249.

\2/See above: Chapter 2, p. 47 and appendix 2, p. 110.


John 10:30-39 presents an episode from the later ministry of
Christ in which he is accused of blasphemy. Jesus defends
himself by showing himself to be superior to the Old Testament
judges who, as agents of God's justice, were called "gods." He
is superior because of his mission (verse 36) and because of his
action (verse 37). He brings God's message; it only
came to the judges. His argument is not from one word, or
even from the four Greek words quoted in verse 34, but from the
contextual setting of the thought of Ps. 82:6 in the life of
Israel. The judges are "gods" and "sons of the Most High" in a
very restricted sense. Jesus is more truly the "Son of God"; his
claim is not blasphemy, but rather, his claim demands their

In verse 34, Jesus points the Jews to this passage from the
Psalms with the words, "It is written in your law, isn't it?"
Although there is some textual discussion, the word "your" seems
authentic to the Johannine argument -- textual question --
and emphasizes the fact that the Jews were in a predicament
because of their own accepted religious literature (an <lt>ad
hominum</> application by Jesus or by the Evangelist). The
"your" seems more essential to the purpose of the Johannine
editor than as a verbatim quotation of the words of Jesus.\3/ It
may be that the Evangelist was in this way reminding his Gentile
readers of the dilemma into which Christ had placed the Jews.
Since Jesus was himself a Jew and was in sympathy with the Jewish
scriptures, he probably would not use the word "your" with
reference to the Psalms (called "law" in [[126]] this passage,
probably as an idiom equivalent to "scripture") unless it were
definitely in an <lt>ad hominum</> argument.


\3/McNeile, p. 233.


Then comes the "scripture cannot be broken" phrase (verse 35).
It is, in the first place, in an awkward position -- a
parenthesis, an afterthought to the scriptural quotation. This
alone is sufficient evidence to question whether Jesus said it or
whether the Johannine editor inserted it for the enlightenment of
his readers.\4/ Often in this Gospel one finds parentheses aimed
at the Gentile reader; it is a characteristic of John.\5/ And
even if the phrase is really Jesus' thought, does it refer to
literally interpreted scripture -- placing his seal on his
opponents' exegesis -- of does it refer to Jesus' consistent
attitude toward the true meaning of scripture, or does it perhaps
have a double reference to both of these? Does it speak of
"scripture" (singular) in the sense of "this passage" or as an
idiom for the entire Old Testament which the Jews and Jesus
accepted? Is it an <lt>ad hominum</> barb inserted into an
already <lt>ad hominum</> type of argument, or does it express
Jesus' personal judgment also?


\4/Sanday, p. 409. M'intosh, p. 185, is overconfident
concerning the phase, saying: "It is free from all uncertainty
and ambiguity. There is no question about the genuineness of the
text, or dubiety as to its meaning or application.

\5/Notice especially 1:38, 41, 42; 2:21; 4:2, 9, 25; 7:22,
39; 8:27; 9:7, 22; 10:6; 11:13, 51; 12:6; 13:11; 14:22; 18:9, 32,
40; 19:24, 35-37; 20:9; 21:19. These are but a selected few of
the many editorial comments in the Gospel. It is significant
that many of these parentheses have reference to the
"fulfillment" of scripture in Christ. It seems that John
attempts to convey an attitude of confidence in the Jewish
scriptures, a fact that strengthens the possibility that John
10:35 and even 17:12 may be parenthetical and not simple records
of Jesus' words. The same type of problem is seen in a larger
light when one attempts to determine whether or not 3:16ff. are
Jesus' words and whether or not 3:31ff. are John Baptist's words.
There is not any real reason why these passages might not also be
editorial expansion for the benefit of the readers.


What John 10:35 says is fairly obvious; what it means
is by no means clear. How it can legitimately be interpreted to
mean that the Old Testament as written literature in its
grammatical form is Divinely inspired (as such, apart from any
interpretation) is beyond the thoughts of this author. If it be
admitted that "the Old Testament, apart from any interpretation"
is a meaningless phrase, then it must also be admitted that Jesus
is speaking of his (or God's, which is the same thing)
interpretation of the Old Testament if he is expressing his
personal judgment in John 10:35 -- "scripture cannot be
broken." Even in its most favorable interpretation for the
doctrine of inspiration, it says nothing more than what Jesus
claims all along, that God's message and purpose in the Old
Testament is true and authoritative when it is rightly
appreciated and applied. God's message cannot be denied, for it
is the message of truth.





<h1>1. The Nazareth Synagogue -- Jesus' Authority (Luke 4:18; see appendix 1)</>

<h1>2. The Place of John Baptist in Relation to the Kingdom</>

[[column 1]]
<ts>Matt. 11:9, 11, 14</>
Why then did you go out? To see a
prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more
than a prophet. Truly, I say to
you, among those born of women there
has risen no one greater than John
the Baptist; yet he who is least in
the kingdom of heaven is greater
than he. For all the prophets and
the law prophesied until John ...

[[column 2]]
<ts>Luke 7:26, 28</>
What then did you go out to see?
A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and
more then a prophet. I tell you,
among those born of women none is
greater than John;
yet he who is least in
the kingdom of God is greater than he.

<h1>3. Sending out the Twelve to Minister to Israel</>

[[column 1]]
<ts>Matt. 10:14-15, 19-20</>

And if any one will
not receive you or
listen to your words,
shake off the dust from
your feet as you leave
that house or town.
Truly, I say to you, it
shall be more tolerable
on the day of judgment
for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town. When
they deliver you up, do not be anxious how you are to speak
or what you are to say; for what you are to say will be
given to you in that hour. For it is not you who speak, but
the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. (Vs. 40)
He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me
receives him who sent me.

[[column 2]]
<ts>Mark 6:11</>

And if any place will
not receive you and they
refuse to hear you, when
you leave, shake off the
dust that is on your
feet for a testimony
against them.

[[column 33]]
<ts>Luke 9:5</>
And wherever they do
not receive you,
you leave that town
shake off the dust from
your feet as a
testimony against them.

<h1>4. Bread of Life Discourse -- Jesus' Authority</>

<ts>John 6:27</>

Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the
food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man
will give you; for on him has God the Father set his seal.

<h1>5. Peter's Confession</>

<ts>Matt. 16:18-19</>

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will
build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail
against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of
heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in

<h1>6. Kingdom Principles of Action (to the Disciples)</>

<ts>Matt. 18:18-20</>

Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be
bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be
loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree
on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them
by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered
in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

<h1>7. Sending out the Seventy</>

<ts>Luke 10:10-12, 16</>

But whenever you enter a town and they do not receive
you, go into the streets and say, "Even the dust of your
town that clings to our feet, we wipe off against you;
nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come
near." I tell you, it shall be more tolerable on that day
for Sodom than for that town. He who hears you hears me, and
he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects
him who sent me.

<h1>8. Woe to the Lawyers (Matt. 23:34, Luke 11:49; appendix 1)</>

<h1>9. Disciples warned about the Pharisees</>

<ts>Luke 12:11-12</>

And when they bring you before the synagogues and the
rulers and the authorities, do not be anxious how or what
you are to answer or what you are to say; for the Holy
Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to

<h1>10. The Truth of Jesus' Message</>

He who rejects me and does not receive my sayings has a
judge; the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the
last day.

<h1>11. Persecution in the Latter Days</>

[[column 1]]
<ts>Mark 13:11</>

And when they bring you to trial
and deliver you up, do not be anxious
beforehand what you are to say; but
say whatever is given you in that
hour, for it is not you who speak,
but the Holy Spirit.

[[column 2]]
<ts>Luke 21:14</>

Settle it therefore in your minds,
not to mediate beforehand how to
answer; for I will give a mouth
and wisdom which none of your
adversaries will be able to
withstand or contradict.


<h1>12. The Truth of Jesus' Statements</>

<ts>Matt. 24:34-35; Mark 13:30-31; Luke 21:32-33</>
Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away
till (Mark reads "before") all these things take place (Luke
reads "all has taken place"). Heaven and earth will pass
away, but my words will not pass away.

<h1>13. Jesus' Messengers</>

<ts>John 13:20</>

Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives any one
whom I send receives me; and he who receives me receives him
who sent me.

<h1>14. The Counselor</>

<ts>John 14:16-17, 20, 25-26</>

And I will pray the Father, and he will give you
another Counselor, to be with you forever, even the Spirit
of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither
sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with
you, and will be in you. In that day you will know that I
am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. These things
I have spoken to you, while I am still with you. But the
Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my
name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your
remembrance all that I have said to you.

<h1>15. Witness of the Counselor</>

<ts>John 15:26-27</>

But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you
from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from
the Father, he will bear witness to me; and you also are
witnesses, because you have been with me from the beginning.

<h1>16. Ministry of the Counselor</>

<ts>John 16:7, 12-15</>

It is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not
go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I
will send him to you. I have yet many things to say to you,
but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth
comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not
speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will
speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to
come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and
declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine;
therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare
it to you.

<h1>17. The Great Prayer</>

<ts>John 17:7-8, 14-23</>

Now they know that everything that thou hast given me
is from thee; for I have given them the words which though
gavest me, and they have received them and know in truth
that I came from thee. I have given them thy word; and the
world has hated them because they are not of the world, even
as I [[130]] am not of the world. I do not pray that
though shouldst take them out of the world, but ... keep
them from the evil one. They are not of this world, even as
I am not of the world. Consecrate them in the truth; thy
word is truth. As thou didst send me into the world, so I
have sent them into the world. And for their sakes I
consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in
truth. I do not pray for these only, but also for those who
are to believe in me through their word, that they also may
all be one; even as thou, Father, are in me, and I in thee,
that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe;
... that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and
thou in me.

<h1>18. Jesus Commissions the Disciples</>

<ts>John 20:21-22</>

Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so
I send you. Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the
sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of
any, they are retained.

<ts>Matt. 28:18-20</>

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to
me. Go therefore, and make disciples ... teaching them to
observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you
always, to the close of the age.







For the sake of convenience, where two or more works by the same
author have been used in the thesis, and at least one of these
works has been cited in the footnotes, an asterisk (*) will be
used to denote which of the author's works may have been
identified in a note simply by the name of the author without the
full or shortened title of the work. For example, "Manson, p.
50" in a footnote refers to Manson's book on <tm>The Teaching of

<h1>Texts, Lexicons, Concordances, and Grammars</>

Arndt, William F., and Gingrich, F. Wilbur. <tm>A Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature</>. A translation and adaption of Walter Bauer's
<tmgm>Griechish-Deutsches Worterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen
Testaments und der ubrigen urchristlichen Literatur</>. From the
4\th/ German ed., revised and augmented in 1952. Chicago:
University of Chicago, 1957.

Burton, Ernest DeWitt, and Goodspeed, Edgar Johnson. <tm>A
Harmony of the Synoptic Gospels in Greek</>. Chicago:
University of Chicago, 1920.

Cremer, Hermann. <tm>Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New
Testament Greek</>. Translated by W. Urwick. \4/th English ed.
with supplement. New York: Scribner, 1895.

Dana, H.E., and Mantey, J. R. <tm>A Manual Grammar of the Greek
New Testament</>. New York: Macmillan, 1927.

<tm>The Englishman's Greek Concordance of the New Testament</>.
9\th/ed. London: Bagster, 1903.

Green, T. S. <tm>A Greek-English Lexicon to the New
Testament</>. 24\th/ed. London: Bagster, n.d.

Hatch, Edwin, and Redpath, H. A. <tm>A Concordance to the
Septuagint</>. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1897.

<tm>The Holy Bible</>. Ed. by the American Revision Committee.
Standard ed. New York: Nelson and Sons, 1901.

<tm>The Holy Bible</>. Revised Standard Version. New York:
Nelson and Sons, 1952.

Kittel, Rudolf, and Kahle, Paul (eds.). <tmlt>Biblia Hebraica</>.
<lt>Editionem septimam auxerunt et emendaverunt</>. Stuttgart:
Privileg. Wurtt. Bibelanstalt, 1954.

Liddell and Scott. <tm>Greek-English Lexicon: Abridged</>.
26\th/ ed. revised. Chicago: Follett, 1949.

________. <tm>A Greek-English Lexicon</>. New ed. revised by H.
S. Jones, <lt>et al</>. Oxford: Clarendon, 1925.

Moulton, J. H., and Milligan, G. <tm>The Vocabulary of the Greek
New Testament</>. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1930.

Nestle, D. Eberhard, and Nestle, D. Erwin (eds.). <tmlt>Novum
Testamentum Graece</>. <lang?>20 auflage. Stuttgart: Privileg. Wurt.
Bibelanstalt</>, 1950.

Rahlfs, Alfred (ed.). <tmlt>Septuaginta</>. 2 vols. <lt> Editio
quinta</>. <lang?>Stuttgart: Privileg. Wurt. Bibelanstalt,</> 1952.

Robertson, A. T. <tm>A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the
Light of Historical Research</>. Nashville: Broadman, 1934.

________. <tm>A Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life
of Christ</>. New York: Harper, 1922.

Schmoller, Alfred. <tmgm>Handkonkordanz zum Griechischen Neuen
Testament</>. <gm>Zehnte auflage. Stuttgart: Privileg. Wurtt.
Bibelanstalt,</> n.d.

Schulze, M. H. <tmgm>Evangelientafel</>. <gm>Dresden: A. Dieckmann</>,

Smith, J. M. P., <lt>et al</>., and Goodspeed, E. J. <tm>The
Complete Bible: An American Translation</>. Chicago:
University of Chicago, 1939.

Thayer, J. H. <tm>A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament</>. Corrected ed. New York: American Book Co., 1889.

Wieand, Albert Cassel. <tm>Gospel Records of the Message and
Mission of Jesus Christ</>. Revised ed. Elgin, Illinois:
Brethren Publishing House, 1950.

<h1>Commentaries and General Works</>

Alford, H. <tm>The Greek Testament</>. 4 vols.
6\th/ ed. London: Rivingtons, 1868.

Allen, W. C. <tm>A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Gospel according to St. Matthew</>. Vol. I of <tp>International
Critical Commentary</>. Edited by Driver, Plummer, and Briggs.
New York: Scribners, 1913.

Angus, Joseph. <tm>The Bible Hand-book</>. New ed. revised by
S. G. Green. London: Religious Tract Society, n.d.

Broadus, J. A. <tm>Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew</>. Vol.
I of <tp>An American Commentary on the New Testament</>. Edited
by A. Hovey. Philadelphia: American Baptist Society, 1886.

Bruce, A. B. <tm>The Synoptic Gospels</>. Vol. I of
<tp>Expositor's Greek Testament</>. Edited by W. Nicoll.
London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1912, pp. 1-651.


Dodds, Marcus. <tm>The Gospel of St. John</>. Vol. I of
<tp>Expositor's Greek Testament</>. Edited by W. Nicoll.
London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1912, pp. 653-872.

Edersheim, Alfred. <tm>The Life and Times of Jesus the
Messiah</>. 2 vols. New American ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1953 [first published ca. 1883].

Harmon, N. B. (ed.). <tm>Interpreter's Bible</>. 12 vols. New
York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1951.

Josephus, Flavius. <ts>The Works of Flavius Josephus</>.
Translated by W. Whiston. London: Ward Lock and Co., n.d.

Lange, J. P. <tm>The Gospel according to St. Matthew</>. Vol. I
of the New Testament part of <tp>A Commentary on the Holy
Scriptures</>. Translated by P. Schaff. 10\th/ ed. revised.
Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1870.

Loetscher, Lefferts A. <te>Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of
Religious Knowledge: An Extension of the New Schaff-Herzog
Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge</>. 2 vols. Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1955.

Manley, G. T. (ed.). <tm>The New Bible Handbook</>. London:
Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1947.

Morgan, G. C. <tm>The Gospel according to Matthew</>. New York:
Revell, 1929.

Orr, James (ed.). <tm>The International Standard Bible
Encyclopaedia</>. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955.

Plummer, A. <tm>Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to
St. Matthew</>. London: Elliot Stock, 1909.

Rooney, Gerard. <tm>Preface to the Bible</>. Milwaukee: Bruce,

Schaff, Philip. <tm>History of the Christian Church</>. Vol. I.
Revised ed. New York: Scribner's, 1884.

Strack, Hermann L., and Billerbeck, Paul. <tmgm>Kommentar zum
Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch</>. <gm>Munchen: Beck</>,

*Tenney, Merrill C. <tm>The Genius of the Gospels</>. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951.

________. <tm>The New Testament: an Historical and Analytic
Survey</>. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955.

Thiessen, Henry C. <tm>Introduction to the New Testament</>.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952.

Tholuck, A. <tmgm>Commentar zum Evangelium Johannis</>. <gm>Gotha:
Perthes</>, 1857.

Westcott, B. F. <tm>The Gospel according to St. John</>.
London: Murray, 1900.

*________. <tm>Introduction to the Study of the Gospels</>. New
York: Macmillan, 1887.

Zahn, Theodor. <tm>Introduction to the New Testament</>.
Translated from the 3rd German ed. by J. M. Trout, <lt>et al</>.
3 vols. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1909.

{@@RAK note on facing page:

<h1?>Additional Bibliog.</>
<h2?>Aramaic Hypoth.</>

C. C. Torrey <tm>The Four Gospels, a new Translation</>.
London: 1933.

________. "The Aramaic of the Gospels" <tp>JBL</> (1942):71-85.

Bonsirven, Joseph. "<ft>Les aramai%mes de saint Jean</>"
<tm>Biblica</> (1949): 405-432. }

<h1>Specific Books, Articles, and Theses</>

Abbott, W. B. M. "Did Jesus Speak Aramaic?" <tp>Expository
Times</>, LVI (1944-45), 305.

*Albright, William F. <tm>The Archaeology of Palestine</>.
Revised ed. Baltimore: Penguin, 1954.

________. "Recent Discoveries in Palestine and the Gospel of St.
John," in <tm>The Background of the New Testament and its
Eschatology</>. Edited by Davies and Daube. Cambridge:
University Press, 1956, pp. 153-171.

Allegro, John M. <tm>The Dead Sea Scrolls</>. Baltimore:
Penguin, 1956.

Argyle, A. W. "The Accounts of the Temptations of Jesus in
Relation to the Q Hypothesis," <tp>Expository Times</>, LXIV
(1952-53), 382.

________. "Scriptural Quotations in Q Material," <tp>Expository
Times</>, LXV (1953-54), 285-86.

Baillie, John. <tm>The Idea of Revelation in Recent Thought</>.
New York: Columbia University Press, 1956.

Barrows, E. P. "The Quotations of the New Testament in their
Relation to the Question of Inspiration," <tp><lt>Bibliotheca Sacra</>
and Theological Eclectic</>, XXX (1873), 305-22.

Beet, Joseph A. <tm>The Old Testament</>. London: Charles H.
Kelly, 1912.

Benoit, P., <lt>et al</>. "Editing the Manuscript Fragments from
Qumran," <tp>The Biblical Archaeologist</>, XIX (December, 1956),

*Black, Matthew. <tm>An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and
Acts</>. Oxford: Clarendon, 1946.

________. "The Aramaic Spoken by Christ and Luke 14:5,"
<tp>Journal of Theological Studies</>, New Series I (1950), 60-

Blackwood, A. W. "Jesus as a Preacher," in the <te>Twentieth
Century Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge</>, I, 597-98.

Bowman, John W. "The Rabbinic Writings," <tp>Interpretation</>,
III (1949), 435-49.

Bright, John. <tm>The Kingdom of God</>. Nashville: Abingdon,

Bruce, F. F. "Did Jesus Speak Aramaic?" <tp>Expository
Times</>, LVI (1944-45), 328.

Burrows, Millar. "Dead Sea Scrolls," in the <te>Twentieth
Century Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge</>, I, 322-24.

Bussby, Frederick. "Is Q an Aramaic Document?" <tp>Expository
Times</>, LXV (1953-54), 272-75.

Davies, W. D., and Daube, D. (Eds.). <tm>The Background of the
New Testament and its Eschatology</>. Cambridge: University
Press, 1956.

Davies, W. D. "The Jewish Background of the Teaching of Jesus:
Apocalyptic and Pharisaism," <tp>Expository Times</>, LIX (1947-
48), 233-37.

Dillistone, F. W. "Wisdom, Word, and Spirit,"
<tp>Interpretation</>, II (1948), 271-87.

Diringer, David. "Hebrew Language and Literature," in the
<te>Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge</>, I,

Dodd, C. H. <tm>The Authority of the Bible</>. Revised ed.
London: Nisbet, 1938.

Ericson, William A. <tm>Inspiration: History, Theories, and
Facts</>. New York: American Tract Society, 1928.

Ellis, Edward E. <um>"The Nature and Significance of Old Testament
Quotations in the Gospel of Mark."</> Unpublished Master's Thesis,
The Graduate School, Wheaton College, 1953.

Ellison, H. L. "Some Thoughts on Inspiration," <tp>Evangelical
Quarterly</>, XXVI (1954), 210-17.

Filson, Floyd V. "Broken Patterns in the Gospel of Matthew,"
<tp>Journal of Biblical Literature</>, LXXV (September, 1956),

________. "Gospel and Gospels," in the <te>Twentieth Century
Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge</>, I, 469-72.

*________. "The Unity of the Old and the New Testaments: A
Bibliographical Survey," <tp>Interpretation</>, V (1951), 134-

Flack, Elmer E. "Canon of Scripture: Old Testament," in the
<te>Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge</>, I,

Gaster, Theodor H. <tm>The Dead Sea Scriptures</>. Garden City,
New York: Doubleday, 1956.

Gaussen, S. R. L. <tm>Theopneusty: or, the Plenary Inspiration
of the Holy Scriptures</>. Translated by E. N. Kirk. 4\th/
American ed. from the 2nd French ed. New York: J. S. Taylor,

Gehman, Henry S. "Septuagint," in the <te>Twentieth Century
Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge</>, II, 1015-17.

Gorbold, Robert S. <um>"The Nature of Scripture in the Thinking of
Paul."</> Unpublished Master's Thesis, The Graduate School, Wheaton
College, 1956.

Gore, Charles. <tm>The Doctrine of the Infallible Book</>. New
York: Doran, n.d.

_________. <tm>The Incarnation of the Son of God</>. New York"
Scribner's, 1891.

Gaebelein, Frank E. <tm>Exploring the Bible</>. New York:
Harper, 1929.

Grant, Robert M. "The Place of the Old Testament in Early
Christianity," <tp>Interpretation</>, V (19510, 186-202.

Griffiths, J. G. "Did Jesus Speak Aramaic?" <tp>Expository
Times</>, LVI (1944-45), 327-28.

Harris, R. Laird. "The Sermon on the Mount and Verbal
Inspiration," <tp>Reformation Review</>, I (July, 1954), 21-32.

*Hebert, Arthur G. <tm>The Authority of the Old Testament</>.
London: Faber and Faber, 1947.

________. <tm>The Bible from Within</>. London: Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1950.

Homrighausen, E. G. "Jesus as a Teacher," in the <te>Twentieth
Century Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge</>, I, 598.

Horton, Robert F. <tm>Inspiration and the Bible: An Inquiry</>.
New York: E. P. Dutton, 1888.

*________. <tm>Revelation and the Bible: An attempt at
Reconstruction</>. 2\nd/ ed. London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1893.

Hunter, A. M. <tm>Design for Life: an Exposition of the Sermon
on the Mount, its Making, its Exegesis, and its Meaning</>.
London: SCM Press, 1953.

Johnson, Franklin. <tm>The Quotations of the New Testament from
the Old Testament Considered in the Light of General
Literature</>. London: Baptist Tract and Book Society, 1896.

Kantzer, K. S., Mickelsen, A. B., and Tenney, M. C.
"<ua>Inspiration."</> Unpublished addresses given at Wheaton College
Chapel, May 31-June 2, 1954.

Kantzer, K. S., <lt>et al</>. "The Wheaton Position on
Inspiration," <tp>Eternity Magazine</>, VII (December, 1956),

Kevan, E. F. "The Covenants and the Interpretation of the Old
Testament," <tp>Evangelical Quarterly</>, XXVI (1954), 19-28.

Klem, Arthur W. <um>"The Biblical Doctrine of the Illumination of
Scripture by the Holy Spirit."</> Unpublished Master's Thesis, The
Graduate School, Wheaton College, 1956.

Lee, William. <tm>The Inspiration of Holy Scripture</>. New
York: R. Carter, 1857.

Lofthouse, W. F. "The Old Testament and Christianity," in
<tm>Record and Revelation</>. Edited by H. W. Robinson. Oxford: Clarendon, 1938, pp. 458-480.

M'intosh, Hugh. <tm>Is Christ Infallible and the Bible True</>?
3\rd/ ed. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1902.

Macleod, John. "The Mind of Christ; What He Found in Scripture,"
<tp>Expository Times</>, LXII (1950-51), 175-77.

McNeile, Alan H. "Our Lord's Use of the Old Testament," In
<tm>Essays on Some Biblical Questions of the Day</>. Edited by
H. B. Swete. London" Macmillan, 1909, pp. 215-50.

Manson, T. W. "Life of Jesus: Trends," in <tm>The Background of
the New Testament and its Eschatology</>. Edited by Davies and
Daube. Cambridge: University Press, 1956, pp. 211-21.

*________. <tm>The Teaching of Jesus</>. Cambridge: University
Press, 1951.

Martin, Hugh. <tm>The Meaning of the Old Testament</>. London:
SCM Press, 1949.

Metzger, Bruce M. "Bible Versions," in the <te>Twentieth Century
Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge</>, I, 137-53.

*________. "Scripture Quotations in Q Material," <tp>Expository
Times</>, LXV (1953-54), 125.

Montefiore, C. G. "The Old Testament and Judaism," in <tm>Record
and Revelation</>. Edited by H. W. Robinson. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1938, pp. 427-457.

*Orr, James. "Jesus Christ," in the <te>International Standard
Bible Encyclopaedia</>, III, 1624-68.

________. <tm>Revelation and Inspiration</>. New York:
Scribner's, 1910.

Osgood, Howard. "Jesus the Supreme Witness and Example of
Inspiration," in <tm>The Inspired Word</>. Edited by A. T.
Pierson. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1888, pp. 240-55.

Parker, Pierson. "Two Editions of John," <tp>Journal of Biblical
Literature</>, LXXV (December, 1956), 303-14.

Pink, Arthur W. <tm>The Inspiration of the Bible</>. Swengel,
Pennsylvania: Bible Truth Depot, 1917.

Piper, Otto A. "Jesus Christ," in the <te>Twentieth Century
Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge</>, I, 598-601.

Ramm, Bernard. "Are We Obscurantist?" <tp>Christianity
Today</>, I (February 18, 1957), 14-15.

Rhodes, Arnold B. "The Book of Daniel," <tp>Interpretation</>,
VI (1952), 436-50.

Rimmer, Harry. <tm>Internal Evidence of Inspiration</>.
2\nd/ ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1938.

Roberts, Bleddyn J. "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Old Testament
Scriptures," <tp>Bulletin of the John Rylands Library</>, XXXVI
(1953-54), 75-96.

Roberts, Lowell E. "Jesus' Use of the Old Testament," <tp>Asbury
Seminarian</>, V (1950), 15-21.

Robertson, A. T. "Language of the New Testament," in the
<te>International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia</>, III, 1826-32.

Robinson, Henry W. (ed.). <tm>Record and Revelation</>. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1938.

Rowley, H. H. <tm>The Relevance of the Bible</>. Bath: Pitman,

Sanday, William. <tm>Inspiration</>. London: Longmans, Green,
and Co., 1908.

Saphir, Adolph. <tm>Christ and the Scriptures</>. Kilmarnock,
Scotland: John Ritchie, n.d. [before 1926].

Schilling, Frederick A. "The Story of Jesus and the Adulteress,"
<tm>Anglican Theological Review</>, XXVII (1955), 91-106.

Smith, Morton. "Matthew 5:43: 'Hate Thine Enemy,'" <tp>Harvard
Theological Review</>, XLV (1952), 71-73.

Sperber, Alexander. <tm>New Testament and LXX</>. New York:
Jewish Publication Society of Philadelphia, 1940.

Stalker, James. <tmlt>Imago Christi</>. London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1895.

Stendahl, Krister. "A Report on New Testament Studies: 1953-
1955," <tm>Official Register of Harvard University</>, LIII
(November, 1956 [Vol. 21 of the <tp>Annual Lectures and Book
Reviews</>]), 61-80.

{@@RAK addition: @@________. <tm>The School of St. Matthew</>.
@@Upsada, 1954. }

Stonehouse, Ned B. "The Authority of the New Testament," in
<tm>The Infallible Word</>. Philadelphia: Presbyterian
Guardian, 1946, pp. 88-136.

Sweet, Louis M. "Quotations: New Testament," in the
<te>International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia</>, IV, 2515-20.

Taylor, R. O. P. "Did Jesus Speak Aramaic?" <tp>Expository
Times</>, LVI (1944-45), 95-97.

Taylor, Vincent. "The Order of Q," <tp>Journal of Theological
Studies</>, New Series IV (1953), 27-31.

Tasker, R. V. G. <tm>Our Lord's Use of the Old Testament</>.
Glasgow: Pickering and Inglis, 1953.

Tilden, Elwyn E. <ud>"The Function of the Old Testament in the
Sayings of Jesus as Recorded in the Synoptic Gospels: a
Contribution to the Study of Jesus' Hermeneutics."</> Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1945.

________. <um>"The Old Testament in the Sayings of Jesus with
Special Reference to Mark."</> Unpublished Master's Thesis,
Princeton, 1940.

*________. "The Study of Jesus' Interpretive Methods,"
<tp>Interpretation</>, VII (1953), 45-61.

Tittman, George F. "How Can We Say that Jesus is Perfect?"
<tp>Anglican Theological Review</>, XXXVI (1954), 201-204.

Torrance, T. F. Review of <tm>The Inspiration and Authority of
the Bible</>, by B. B. Warfield, <tp>Scottish Journal of
Theology</>, VII (1954), 104-108.

Toy, Crawford H. <tm>Quotations in the New Testament</>. New
York: Scribner's, 1884.

Tozer, A. W. "We Need Sanctified Thinkers," <tp>Alliance
Weekly</>, XC (November 2 and 9, 1955).

Turpie, David M. <tm>The New Testament View of the Old: a
Contribution to Biblical Introduction and Exegesis</>. London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1872.

________. <tm>The Old Testament in the New: a Contribution to
Biblical Criticism and Interpretation</>. London: Williams and
Norgate, 1868.

Unger, Merrill F. "The Inspiration of the Old Testament,"
<tplt>Bibliotheca Sacra</>, CVII (1950), 430-49.

Warfield, Benjamin B. <tm>The Inspiration and Authority of the
Bible</>. Edited by S. G. Craig. Philadelphia: Presbyterian
Reformed Publishing Co., 1948.

Watson, John H. "The Holy Spirit and the Bible," <tp>Evangelical
Quarterly</>, XXIII (1951), 275-83.

Wendt, Hans H. <tm>The Teaching of Jesus</>. Translated by J.
Wilson. 2 vols. New York: Scribner's, 1899.

*Wenham, J. W. <tm>Our Lord's View of the Old Testament</>.
London: Tyndale, 1953.

________. "Mark 2:26," <tp>Journal of Theological Studies</>,
New Series I (1950), 156.

Westcott, Brooke Foss. <tm>The Bible in the Church</>. London:
Macmillan, 1901.

Woods, F. H. "Quotations," in <tm>A Dictionary of the Bible</>.
Edited by J. Hastings. 5 vols. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark,
1902, IV, 184-188.