Quoin, the outer angle of a wall.
Quotations, Biblical. The verbal citations con- tained in Scripture are of three classes : (a) Those which the later writers of the Old Test, make from the earlier. (b) The quotations made by Paul from heathen authors — viz. Acts xvii, 28 from Aratus, Phcenom. 5, or Cle- anthes, Hymn, ad .Tor. 5 ; 1 Cor. xv, 33 from Menan- der's Thais; and Tit. i, 12 from Callimachus, Hymn, ad Jov. 8, according to Theodoret, or Epimenides accord- ing to Jerome, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, and others. To these may be added Gal. v, 23, where the words Kara tujv toiovtojv ouic tart vofiog are identical with the words of Aristotle, Pol. iii, 8 ((Jill, Notes and Queries, v, 175). Perhaps also Acts xiv, 17 and James i, 17, from their rhythmical form, may be quotations, (c) Those which the New Test, contains from the Old Test. The first and third of these classes are the most impor- tant, and the onh/ ones demanding special notice here. The following treatment as to the former is based upon that in Eairbairn's Did 'ionary, and as to the latter upon the article in Kitto's Cyclopcedia, with additions from other sources.
I. Parallel Passages of the Old -Testa merit Script- vres. — The principal of these are the following : Many sections of the books of Chronicles seem to be quoted from the earlier Scriptures. The historical chapters of the book of Isaiah (xxxvi-xxxix) are repeated in 2 Kings xviii-xx. The last chapter of Jeremiah reap- pears ia 2 Kings xxiv, xxv. Of Psa. xviii we have two copies, one in 2 Sam. xxii. Compare also Gen. xlvi with Numb, xxvi, and Ezra ii with Neh. vii. Other instances are cited : Hab. ii, 14 from Isa. xi, 9 ; Jon. ii, 3 from Psa. xlii, 8 ; ii, 5 from Psa. lxix, 2 ; Obad. i, 8 from Jer. xlix; and several passages in the later Psalms, which are found also in the earlier. The reader will find a list of the variations discovered by a comparison of most of the foregoing passages in the notes to Cappelli, Crit. Sac. (i, 30-44^ [ed. 1775]). See also Kennicott. Biblia Ilebraica (ii, 727, etc.), and State of Printed He- brew Text (pt. i).
The question to be determined is, Are we to regard each of the textual variations thus brought to light as a blunder to be corrected in one or other of the parallel Scriptures, or as a deviation (intentional or otherwise) on the part of the later writer from the language of the earlier? In considering this question a distinction must be made between two classes of parallel passages — the one class consisting of those in which the same story is told, or the same sentiments expressed, by two different
writers, and the later writer avails himself of the lan- guage of the earlier, though it maybe without any very exact or servile adherence in every word and clause ; the other consisting of those in which a public or other document is inserted in two separate records. It would seem that such variations as are met with in passages of the former description are more likely to be designed and original, being probably traceable to the free use which the later writer made of the materials furnished by the earlier; and that variations met with in passages of the latter description are more likely to be blunders arising from the negligence of transcribers and similar causes. But this anticipation is only partially realized, inasmuch as errors of transcription are found in the for- mer class of passages, and alterations obviously designed are found in the latter. Let us illustrate this by four examples, two of each class.
1. The very remarkable prophecy contained in Isa. ii, 1-4 is found also in Mic. iv, 1-3. The variations are few and of no great importance. But, such as they are, there is no reason to suppose that the text of either of these passages ever differed from what it is now. It is of no consequence in the present inquiry whether Micah borrowed from Isaiah or Isaiah from Micah, or both from an older prophet. There is no evidence whatever that the later writer made it a matter of conscience to reproduce in every minute particular the language of his predecessor. His heart was too full of the great thought embodied in the language to permit him to be minutely attentive to every fold of the dress in which it had been presented. Possibhy, also, the quotation was made from memory ; and, if so, the wonder is not that any varieties of expression are found in it, but that they are so few and so trivial. In such a case as this, there- fore, it would be quite unwarrantable to correct the one passage from the other. The text in both passages is accurate and genuine, and any attempted emendation;! with the view of bringing the two passages into rigid harmony would certainly be alterations for the worse, not for the better.
2. The prophecy of Nathan in 2 Sam. vii occupies a very conspicuous position in the Old Test., and, as we might expect, the whole narrative is repeated in 1 Chron. (xvii), not, however, without a very considerable num- ber of alterations. In this case, also, it is quite evident that most of the alterations are to be traced to the au- thor of Chronicles, and cannot be regarded as various readings. As is usual, the later writer makes a free use of the earlier narrative, adapting it and the language in which it is conveyed to the circumstances of his own time. Thus he writes "P"H for in, prefers C^X to i-fi'rn or ^SIX, sometimes substitutes Msba for ilD^aa, kingdom, and alters or omits words or clauses which ap- pear to him obscure or unessential. The most remark- able omission is in ver. 13 as compared with ver. 14 of the narrative in Samuel. Compare also ver. 17 with ver. 19 of Samuel. Still, though it is evident that most of the variations between the two narratives are to be traced to the design of the later author, and cannot be regarded as errors of transcription, we do not think that all of them can be accounted for in this way. Two instances may be given, in the one of which the text in Chronicles may fittingly be corrected by that in Samuel ; in the other the text in Samuel may be cor- rected by that in Chronicles. (1.) In 1 Chron. xvii, 18, 19 we read, "What can David speak more to thee for the honor of thy servant, Tp!2>'~rx Tj23. . . . For thy servant's sake, and according to thine own heart hast thou done all this greatness." Not to mention the difficulty in the construction of the Hebrew in ver. 18, it is evident that the spirit of the whole passage is quite out of harmony with the context. Accordingly, on turn- ing to the corresponding verses in Samuel, we are not surprised to find the sentiment expressed very different indeed, the words being " And what can David say more unto thee ... for thy word's sake, and according to