Q

QUAIL (sëlāw, Ex 16:13, Nu 11:31f., Ps 105:40).—This bird (Coturnix communis) , the smallest of the partridge family, migrates annually from Africa to Europe, crossing the Sinaitic peninsula and Palestine en route; it reaches the latter about March. It migrates in vast numbers, always flying with the wind, and often settling, after a long flight, especially across the sea, in such an exhausted condition as to be easy of capture. The flesh is fatty, and apt to disagree if taken to excess, especially if inefficiently preserved.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

QUARREL.—The original meaning of this Eng. word (from Lat. quereta) is a ‘complaint.’ This is its meaning in Col 3:13 AV ‘If any man have a quarrel against any.’ Then it came to mean any cause of complaint, or any case that had to be stated or defended, as Mk 6:19 ‘Herodias had a quarrel against him’: so Lv 26:25, 2 K 5:7.

QUARRY.—In the story of the slaughter of Eglon by Ehud (Jg 3) we are told (v. 19) that Ehud turned back from ‘the quarries that were by Gilgal,’ while after the assassination he

‘escaped while they tarried, and passed beyond the quarries’ (v. 26). An alternative translation

‘graven images’ is given in AVm and RVm, while other versions, e.g. LXX and Vulg., read

‘idols.’ The Heb. word pĕsīlīm is applied to images of gods in wood, stone, or metal (Dt 7:5, 25, 12:3 , Is 21:9, 30:22, 2 Ch 34:4). Moore suggests the translation ‘sculptured stones (probably rude images).’ Probably the stones set up by Joshua to commemorate the crossing of the Jordan (Jos 4) are what is referred to.

‘Quarry’ occurs also in RV of 1 K 6:7. The stones used for the Temple building are said to have been prepared ‘at the quarry.’ AV reads ‘before it was brought thither,’ RVm ‘when it was brought away.’ The translation ‘quarry’ is probably correct.

W. F. BOYD.

QUARTUS.—Mentioned as joining in St. Paul’s greeting to the Church of Rome (Ro 16:23).

QUATERNION.—A guard of four soldiers (Ac 12:4).

QUEEN.—The functions of a queen reigning in her own right would be identical with those of a king ( wh. see). The queen as the wife of a monarch in Israel held a position of comparatively little importance, whereas that of a dowager-queen (‘queen-mother’) commanded great influence (cf. the cases of Bathsheba, Jezebel, Athaliah).

QUEEN OF HEAVEN (Heb. m^elekheth hash-shāmayīm).—An object of worship to the people of Jerusalem (Jer 7:16–20) and the Jewish exiles in Egypt (44:15–30) . The Massoretes evidently took the first word as m^ele’kheth (‘work,’ ‘creation’)—supposing that the silent aleph (’) had been omitted—and considered the expression a synonym for ‘Host of Heaven’ (ts^ebhā’ hash-shāmayīm, Jer 8:2, 19:13, Zeph 1:5, Dt 4:19, 17:3 etc.). In apparent confirmation of this view we have the fact that this term seems to be used in a collective sense as equivalent to ‘other gods.’ On the other hand, many modern scholars regard malkath ( ‘queen’) as the correct reading, and suppose the cultus to be a worship of the Semitic Mother-goddess, the Phœnician Ashtart = the Assyr. Ishtar (see ASHTORETH). Indeed, Ishtar is called in Assyr. inscriptions Bēlit Shamē (‘lady of heaven’) and Sharrat Shamē (‘queen of heaven’); but Malkat Shamē ( which is the cognate of the term under discussion, and which in Assyr. means ‘princess of heaven’) is not one of her titles. The fact that cakes were offered in this worship has little evidential value, as we find this rite a frequent feature in Semitic worship. In Arabia, cakes were offered to the goddess of the evening-star and to the sun-god; and the Israelites offered bread and cakes to Jahweh (see ‘Meal-offering’ and ‘Shewbread’ in art. SACRIFICE). Cf. the modern Jewish mazzōth.

W. M. NESBIT.

QUICK, QUICKEN.—In AV ‘quick’ frequently means ‘living,’ and ‘quicken’ means ‘bring to life.’ The phrase ‘the quick and the dead’ occurs in Ac 10:42, 2 Ti 4:1, 1 P 4:5.

QUICKSANDS (Ac 27:17, RV Syrtis).—The Syrtes, Major and Minor, are situated on the N. coast of Africa, in the wide bay between the headlands of Tunis and Barca. They consist of sandbanks occupying the shores of the Gulf of Sidra on the coast of Tripoli, and that of Gabes on the coast of Tunis or Carthage. They have been considered a source of danger to mariners from very early times, not only from the shifting of the sands themselves, but owing to the cross currents of the adjoining waters.

QUIRINIUS (AV Cyrenius).—In Lk 2:1–3 we are first met by a grammatical difficulty. V.

2 may be translated either: ‘this was the first enrolment that took place (and it took place) while Quirinius was governing Syria’: or: ‘this was the first of two (or more) enrolments that took place while Quirinius was governing Syria.’ The first statement is probably true, but it is likely that the second is what the author meant, because it is certain that a census took place during the governorship of Syria by Quirinius (A.D. 6–9) , when Judæa was incorporated in the province Syria. This latter census was a basis of taxation, and was made according to the Roman method: it thus aroused the rebellion of Judas (Ac 5:37). The fact that enrolments took place every fourteen years in Egypt has been absolutely proved by the discovery of numerous papyri there, containing returns made by householders to the government. One of the dates thus recovered is A.D. 20 . There is also evidence in the ancient historians of enrolments held in certain other provinces. The truth of Luke’s statement in 2:2 need not therefore be doubted. The real difficulty lies in the statement that Quirinius was governing Syria at the time the first census of all was made. It is quite certain that he could not be governing Syria, in the strict sense of the term governing, both at the time of the birth of Christ and in A.D. 6–9 . This is contrary to all ancient procedure, and the rules as to such appointments were rigid. Further, we have ancient authority that the governor of Syria from B.C. 9 to 7 was Sentius Saturninus, and from B.C. 6 to 4 was Quinctllius Varus. After B.C. 4 we know nothing till the succession of P. Sulpicius Quirinius in A.D. 6 , but it is possible that an inscribed stone may yet turn up to enable us to fill the gap. Yet an inscription exists, which all authorities agree refers to P. Sulpicius Quirinius, stating that he governed Syria twice. Mommsen considered that the most probable period for his earlier governorship was B.C. 3–1 , but admitted serious doubts. Ramsay has discussed the whole problem afresh, following out the clues offered by the ancient historians, and has adopted as most probable the conclusion that Quirinius was given command of the foreign relations of Syria during the critical period of the war with the Cilician hill tribe the Homonadenses. Roman history provides analogies for such a dual control of a province at a time of crisis. The date at which this position was held by Quirinius was about B.C. 6 . The Greek word used (governing) is a general term applied to the Emperor, a proconsul, a procurator, etc., and is quite consistent with this view. The mention of Quirinius by Luke is merely intended to give a date. The enrolment itself, as it took place in Herod’s kingdom, would be superintended by him, at the orders of Augustus, who had suzerainty over the kingdom of Herod, which constituted part of the

Imperium Romanum in the full sense of the term. The census, however, was not carried out by

the Roman method, but by tribes, a method less alien to Jewish feeling than the Roman method by households. Cf. also p. 559^b.

A. SOUTER.

QUIT.—The adj. ‘quit’ (from Lat. quietus) means ‘free from obligation,’ as Ex 21:19 ‘Then shall he that smote him be quit.’ The vb. ‘to quit’ (from Lat. quietare) is used in AV reflexively—quit oneself, i.e. discharge one’s obligations, as 1 Co 16:13 ‘Quit you like men.’

QUIVER.—See ARMOUR, 1 (d).

QUOTATIONS (IN NT).—The NT writings contain quotations from four sources: (1) the OT; (2) non-canonical Jewish writings; (3) non-Jewish sources; (4) letters to which the author of a letter is replying, or other private sources. It is significant of the relation of the NT writings to the OT Scriptures and of the attitude of the NT writers to these Scriptures, that the quotations of the first class far outnumber all those of the other three classes. Swete counts 160 passages directly quoted from the OT by writers of the NT, including those which are cited with an introductory formula, and those which, by their length or accuracy of quotation, are clearly shown to be intended as quotations. Westcott and Hort reckon the total number of NT quotations from the OT at 1279 , including both passages formerly cited and those in which an influence of the OT upon the NT passage is otherwise shown. Even this list is perhaps not absolutely complete. Thus, while WH enumerate 61 passages from Is 1–39 , H. Osgood, in his essay Quotations from the OT in the NT, finds exactly twice as many—122 . Against this large number of quotations from the OT there can be cited at the utmost only some 24 quotations by NT writers from non-canonical Jewish sources (see Ryle, art. ‘Apocrypha’ in Smith’s DB²; Zahn, Com. on Gal 3:10, 5:3, 6:15; Woods, art. ‘Quotations’ in Hastings’ DB). Of quotations from non-

Jewish sources the following are the only probable instances: Tit 1:12, Ac 17:28, 1 Co 12:12–27 , 15:33. To this short list it should be added that Luke’s preface (1:1–4) is perhaps constructed on classical models (cf. Farrar, Life and Work of Paul, Excursus 3; Zahn, Eīnl.²i. p. 51). Of quotations from private sources there are several unquestionable examples in the Pauline letters; 1 Co 7:1, 8:1, 11:2, 17f., 12:1, Ph 1:3, 2:25f., 4:14–18; cf. also Philem 5–7.

Of the numerous quotations from the OT by far the largest number are derived directly from the LXX, even the freedom of quotation, which the NT writers in common with others of their time permitted themselves, in no way obscuring their direct dependence upon the Greek version. Among the NT books the Epistle to the Hebrews shows the strongest and most constant influence of the LXX. According to Westcott (Com. p. 479), 15 quotations agree with the LXX and Hebrew, 8 with the LXX where it differs from the Hebrew, 3 differ from LXX and Hebrew, 3 are free renderings. Westcott adds that ‘the writer regarded the Greek version as authoritative, and … nowhere shows any immediate knowledge of the Hebrew text.’ The Gospel of Matthew, on the other hand, exhibits the largest influence of the Hebrew. In the quotations from the OT which are common to the Synoptic Gospels (occurring chiefly in the sayings of Jesus) the LXX clearly exerts the dominant influence. But in those passages which are peculiar to this Gospel— being Introduced by the writer by way of comment on events—though the writer is not unacquainted with or uninfluenced by the LXX, the Hebrew is the dominant influence; 1:23, 2:15, 18, 23, 4:15f., 8:17, 12:18 ff., 13:35, 21:5, 27:9f.; cf. also 2:6. This difference in the two groups of quotations tends to show that while the common source of the Synoptic Gospels was, in the form in which it was used by the Evangelists, in Greek, and shaped under Hellenistic influence, the author of the First Gospel was a Christian Jew who still read his Bible in Hebrew, or drew his series of prophetic comment-quotations from a special source compiled by a Jew of this kind. The quotations in the Gospel of John and the Epistles of Paul, while derived mainly from the LXX, show also an acquaintance of their authors with the original Hebrew. (On the singular fact that the NT quotations from the LXX show a special similarity to the type of LXX text found in Cod. A, cf. Staerh, Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. Nos. XXXV, XXXVI, XXXVIII, XL; and

Swete, Introd. to OT in Greek, p. 395.)

As regards the nature and extent of the Influence exerted by the OT in passages which may be called quotations in the broad sense indicated above, there are several distinguishable classes, though it is sometimes difficult to draw the line sharply. We may recognize: (1) Argumentative quotations. The OT passage is quoted, with recognition of its source, and with intention to employ the fact or teaching or prophecy for an argumentative purpose. Passages so quoted may be: (a) historical statements which are supposed to contain in themselves an enunciation of a principle or precept, or to involve a prediction, or to tend to prove a general rule of some kind; cf. Mk 2:25f., Mt 2:18, Jn 19:24, Mt 15:7–9, He 7:1–10; (b) predictions; cf. e.g. Ac 2:17ff.; (c) imperative precepts, quoted to enforce a teaching; Mk 12:29ff., 1 Co 9:9; or (d) affirmations interpreted as involving a general principle of Divine action or a general characteristic of human nature; Mk 12:26, Mt 9:13, Lk 4:11, Ac 7:48f., Ro 3:4, 10–18 , Ja 1:10f., 1 P 1:24f., (2) Quotations made the basis of comment. In this case the language of the OT is not cited as supporting the statement of the speaker or writer, but is itself made the basis of exposition or comment, sometimes with disapproval of its teaching or of the teaching commonly based on It; Mt 5:21, 27, 31, etc., Ro 4:9f., Ac 8:32, (3) Quotations of comparison or of transferred application. The OT language is employed, with recognition of it as coming from the OT and with the intention of connecting the OT event or teaching with the NT matter, but for purposes of comparison rather than argument. The language itself may refer directly and solely to the OT event, being introduced for the sake of comparing with this event some NT fact (simile); or the OT language may be applied directly to a NT fact, yet so as to imply comparison or likeness of the two events (metaphor); Mt 12:40, 41, Lk 11:29f., Ac 28:26f., Mt 21:42 f., 1 Co 10:7f., Closely allied to these, yet perhaps properly belonging to the class of argumentative quotations, are cases of quotation accompanied by allegorical interpretation; cf. e.g. Gal 4:21–31. (4) Literary influence. In the cases which fall under this head the language is employed because of its familiarity, and applicability to the matter in band, but without intention of affirming any other connexion than this between the OT thought and the NT fact or teaching. The writer may be conscious of this influence of the OT language or not, and the interpreter often cannot determine with certainty which is the case; Mt 5:5, 10:35, Gal 6:16, Eph 1:20, Rev 5:1, 7:1, 9:14, 14:8, 21:11.

As concerns the method of interpretation and the attitude towards the OT thus disclosed, there is a wide difference among the speakers and writers of the NT. It is an indirect but valuable testimony to the historical accuracy of the Synoptic Gospels that they almost uniformly ascribe to Jesus a method of interpretation quite different from that which they themselves employ. Jesus quotes the OT almost exclusively for its moral and religious teaching, rather than for any predicative element in it, and interprets alike with insight and with sobriety the passages which He quotes. The author of the First Gospel, on the other hand, quotes the OT mainly for specific predictions which he conceives it to contain, and controls his interpretation of the passages quoted rather by the proposition which he wishes to sustain, than by the actual sense of the original. The one quotation which is common to the first three Gospels, and not included in the teaching of Jesus, has the same general character (Mk 1:3 and parallels). In general it may be said of the other NT writers that they stand in this respect between Jesus and Matthew, less