{d) Is the relation between these writings more important than a merely literary relation ? If it is, how important is it ? What does it signify ? In the references above, the extra-OT books are all prior to the birth of Jesus. They reveal something of the thought of the Jews before His time, and doubtless of His own generation. The very tone of the words of Jesus to Martha (Jn 1123.25.26) shows that He assumed the truth of beliefs which had no prominence in the thought and life revealed in the OT. The non-canonical literature gives abundant evidence that the belief in the resurrec- tion had become an important factor in the beliefs of the Jews. Such a passage as Mt 25^''^'' can hardly be said to be suggested by the OT writings. Compare it with Enoch 90^8-38^ ^nd striking simi- larities are found. Mt 25^^'' ' Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels,' and similar passages, as also 13'*2- 50, may be compared with Enoch lOS'- 8 and 108^- ". In Lk 1628 the pictiire of separation be- tween the righteous and sinners in Sheol may suggest Enoch 229-i3, Avhere the righteous and sinners, in separate divisions, await the Great Judgment.
Although there is often a striking likeness in outstanding features, there is also a lack of har- mony in details with the spirit of Jesus, which shows why He could not use these writings as an authority. For the possible connexion between the Book of Enoch and Christian tiiought, see The Book of Enoch, tr. and ed. by R. H. Charles, pp. 48-53, where he enumerates ' doctrines in Enoch which had an undoubted share in moulding the corresponding NT doctrines, or at all events are necessary to the comprehension of the latter.' Without doubt the points of contact between the
L
KABDI
KACA
467
Book of Enoch and Christian beliefs of the earlier Christian generations were more numerous and in- timate than between the Book of Enoch and the Gospels. Also such literature as the extra-canonical Jewish writings had gi'eat influence in the early development of Christian doctrine. Their im- portance, so far as the Gospels are concerned, is chiefly that of explaining the surroundings of Jesus and the spiritual and mental conditions amidst which He worked. Instances such as have been given could be multiplied, but it is doubtful if they could change the conclusions already given. The centuries between the prophets of ancient Israel and Jesus had witnessed a development of thought, especially on eschatological subjects. ' Jesus was a true OT saint ' (Davidson, Theology of the OT, p. 520), and joined the work which He did as closely as possible to that of the OT
Srophets, using their authority for His teachings, esus was also a Prophet greater than any that had gone before Him, and He appropriated such cur- rent beliefs as were in harmony with His mission, without thereby authenticating other associated beliefs, but rather discrediting them by the general spirit of His teachings. See also artt. on Old Testament.
LiTKRATLiRE.— Allen, ' OT Quotations in Matthew and Mark,' ExpT xii. [19U0-19U1] pp. 1«7 if., 281 ff. [a careful examination of the relation of the quotations in these books to the OT passages] ; E. Boehl, Die Alttest. Vitate im NT [the treatise and discussion superseded bj- that of Toy] ; August Clemen, Der (jchrauch des AT in den NT iichriften, Giitersloh, 1895 [a discussion of the meaning of the citations in the NT context and in their original context] ; Wilhelm Dittniar, Vetua Tent, in Novo, Gottingen, 1903 [gi\ es not only the ((uotations, but about five times as many parallels in thought or words in addition to the quotations. Almost invariably the Hebrew and Greek of the OT are given, and the Greek of the NT and of the Apocryphal books where they are cited. It is a valuable work] ; Eugen Huhn, Die AT Citate und Reminiscenzen im NT, Tubingen, 1900 [a list of passages much more full than that of Dittmar, almost twice as numerous. Few citations are given. The passages are classified as Messi- anic and non-Messianic. Both classes are divided into citations with formulae of citation, citations without fornuiUe, and reminis- cences. The material is valuable, but needs sifting and further cliissification] ; Johnson, Quotations of the NT from, the Old, Philadelphia, 1896 [discusses the literary principles exemplified in the NT quotations and defends them] ; Tholuck, A T im NT*', Gotha, 1868 [tr. \n Bihliotheca Sacra, vol. xi. p. 568 ff.] ; Crawford H. Toy, Quotations in the New Testament, New York, 1884 [holds that the quotations were made from the Greek or from an oral Aramaic version, the existence of which is assumed. It contains an admirable b'bliography] ; D. M. Turpie, The Old Test, in the Neu\ London, 1868 [quotations classified according to their agreement with the Hebrew or Greek of the OT, and discussed accordingly], and The NT View of the OT, London, 1872 [quotations classified and discussed according to their introduc- tory formulae]; Woods, art. 'Quotations' in Hastings' DB iv.
18* « F. B. Denio.
R
RABBI (from Heb. 3i, which means as adj. 'great' or 'much,' as subst. 'chief or 'master.' The final syllable is the pronominal suffix, signify- ing ' my,' the force of which, however, is not ex- pressed in the use of the word). — A title of honour and respect addressed to religious teachers ; and in this .sense frequently applied in the Gospels to Jesus, and also once (Jn S'-**) to John the Baptist. It appears to have come into use in the time of Hillel, who was born c. B.C. 112. That St. John regarded it as a comparatively modern word, and not universally known in his time, seems evident from the fact that he deemed it necessary to ex- plain its meaning (see Jn P*, where it is exjiressly stated to be equivalent to 5t5do-/caXos, rendered 'master' in AV, and 'teacher' in RVm). po/3/3i (pa/3/3ei, WH) is frequently tr. 'master' in AV, but RV transliterates ' rabbi ' throughout. See Master. Dugald Clark.