Skip to main content

Full text of "The Aramaic origin of the Fourth Gospel"

See other formats


Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2007 with funding from 

IVIicrosoft Corporation 








The Rev. C. F. BURNEY, M.A., D.Litt. 

Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford 

Fellow of Oriel and St. John's Colleges, Oxford 

Canon of Rochester 




London Edinburgh Glasgow Copenhagen 

New York Toronto Melbourne Cape Town 

Bombay Calcutta Madras Shanghai 


Publisher to theUijiversity 











Additional Note 43 




V. THE VERB. 87 





FOURTH GOSPEL ...... 114 



INDEX .* 173 



Cur. = The Curetonian Syriac Version of the Gospels (cf. p. 26). 
Pal. Syr. = The Palestinian Syriac Lectionary (cf. p. 25). 
Pesh. = The Peshitta Syriac Version (cf. p. 25). 
Sin. = The Sinaitic Syriac Version of the Gospels (cf. p. 26). 
Targ. Jer. = The Jerusalem Targum on the Pentateuch (cf. p. 24). 
Targ. Jon. = The Targum of Jonathan on the Prophets (cf. p. 24). 
Targ. Onk. = The Targum of Onkelos on the Pentateuch (cf p. 23). 
Targ. Ps.-Jon. = The Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan on the Pentateuch 

(cf p. 23). 
WH. = The Greek text of Westcott and Hort. 

Abbott, JG. = Edwin A. Abbott, Johannine Grammar (1906). 

Dalman, Grainm. = G. Dalman, Grammatik des judisch-paldstinischen 

Aramdisch (1894). 
Dalman, WJ. = G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus considered in the light of 

Post- Biblical Jewish Writings and the Aramaic Language (Eng. Trans., 


Deissmann, LAE. = A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (Eng. 

Trans., 1910). 
HS'. = Sir John C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae (2nd edition, 1909). 
Moulton, NTG^. = J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek 

(vol. i, 3rd edition, reprinted 1919). 
Schlatter, Sprache = A. Schlatter, Die Sprache und Heimat des vierten 

Evangelisten (1902). 
Wellhausen, Einleitung^ = ] . Wellhausen, Einleitung in die dret ersten 

Evangelien (zweite Ausgabe 191 1). 


In a sermon preached in June 1920 before the University of 
Oxford* the present writer made a plea for a closer synthesis of 
Old Testament learning with the study of the New Testament ; 
and reviewing summarily and generally the kind of New Testa- 
ment problems which might receive fuller elucidation through the 
more direct application to them of Semitic learning, he put forward 
the possibility that in the future a Semitic scholar might arise who, 
examining the language of the Fourth Gospel in detail, would 
prove beyond the range of reasonable doubt that it was based upon 
an Aramaic original. 

In venturing upon this somewhat bold prophecy, the writer had 
not at the time any thought of undertaking the task himself. 
Absorbed in Old Testament studies, and realizing with ever- 
growing insistency the task which lies before Semitic scholars 
of widening and deepening the basis of their learning if they would 
make any really first-hand contribution to their subject, he had not 
enjoyed the opportunity of prosecuting his New Testament studies 
beyond the somewhat superficial stage which ordinarily represents 
a theological tutor*s acquaintance with the wide range of learning 
in which, in addition to his own special branch of research, he has 
generally to direct his pupils' reading. The problem of the origin 
and authorship of the Fourth Gospel had, however, always 
attracted him. He had been impressed (as every Hebrew scholar 
must be impressed) with the Semitic character of its diction, and 
recognizing to the full the importance of Dr. Lightfoot's remarks 
on the question, t had realized that this was a subject of research 
fundamental to the problem of authorship which called for closer 
and more expert attention than it had hitherto received ; and he 
had been amazed at the lightness with which it was dismissed or 

* Since published by the Oxford University Press under the title The Old 
Testament Conception of Atonement fulfilled by Christ. 
t Biblical Essays, pp. 126 flf. 
M20 B 


altogether ignored by New Testament scholars who confidently 
asserted the Hellenistic character of the Gospel. An article by 
Dr. C. J. Ball, entitled * Had the Fourth Gospel an Aramaic 
Archetype ? *, which appeared in the Expository Times for Novem- 
ber 1909, explained certain peculiarities in the first chapter of the 
Gospel by the theory of an Aramaic original ; and this, though 
(to the best of the present writer's knowledge) it stands alone in 
advocating this theory, yet appealed to him as evidently upon 
right lines.* The evidence there adduced he had casually supple- 
mented by notice of additional peculiarities pointing in the same 
direction ; notably, the sharing by the Fourth Gospel of many of 
the peculiarities of diction which Canon Allen and Prof. Well- 
hausen cite as exhibiting the influence of Aramaic upon the style 
of St. Mark's Gospel. 

This was about the position at which the writer's acquaintance 
with the subject stood when he wrote the sermon which he has 
mentioned. He had formed an opinion based on general observa- 
tion, but he could not claim to have substantiated it by the kind of 
close study which deserves to be dignified as research. Further 
reflection, however, convinced him that the matter could not be 
allowed to rest here. He had suggested in the sermon that both 

* The view that the Fourth Gospel was originally written in Aramaic was put 
forward^ though not worked out, by C. Salmasius {De Hellenistica Contmentarius, 
1645, pp. 257 f.), I. A. Bolten {Der Bericht des Joannes von Jesu dent Messias, iiber- 
st^tst ; 1797, Vorbericht, pp. xiv flf.), H. F. Pfannkuche {Ueber die paldstinische 
Landessprache in dent Zeitalter Christi, in Eichhorn's Allgem. Bibl d. b. Litt. viii, 1797, 
p. 367). L. Bertholdt {Verosimilia de origine evangelii Joannis, 1805 ; Einleitung 
in . . . Schriften des A. u. N.T.^ iii, 1813, § 342^ supposed that St. John wrote down 
the discourses of our Lord in Aramaic soon after they were spoken, and long sub- 
sequently translated them into Greek and incorporated them into his Greek gospel. 

Many scholars, from Grotius {Annotationes, 1641) onwards, while holding the 
Gospel to have been written in Greek, have emphasized the Semitic character of 
its diction. The opinion of so great a Semitic scholar as H. Ewald {Die johann, 
Schriften, 1861, i, p. 44) is worthy of quotation: 'The Greek language of the author 
bears in itself the plainest and strongest marks of a genuine Hebrew. He is one 
born among Jews in the Holy Land, one who grew up to manhood in this society, 
without speaking Greek. Under the Greek mantle that he at a late date learned to 
tlirow about himself, he still bears in himself the whole mind and spirit of his 
mother tongue, and does not hesitate to let himself be led by it.' The discussion 
by C. E. Luthardt on the language of the Gospel {St. John's Gospel, E. T., 1876, i, 
pp. 15-64) is of considerable value. 

Mention should here be made of the highly important work by Prof. A. 


Old and New Testament scholars were as a rule content to dwell 
too much in water-tight compartments, and that more systematic 
first-hand application of Semitic linguistic knowledge to the New 
Testament might be expected to shed light upon a variety of 
problems. It followed that it was not only desirable that professed 
New Testament scholars should realize the importance to their 
researches of a first-hand equipment in Hebrew and Aramaic, but 
that Old Testament scholars equipped with a knowledge of these 
languages should turn to New Testament research, and endeavour 
by practical demonstration of the value of such knowledge to 
substantiate the truth of this thesis. 

Thus it was that the writer turned seriously to tackle the 
question of the original language of the Fourth Gospel ; and 
quickly convincing himself that the theory of an original Aramaic 
document was no chimera, but a fact which was capable of the 
fullest verification, set himself to collect and classify the evidence in 
a form which he trusts may justify the reasonableness of his opinion 
not merely to other Aramaic scholars, but to all New Testament 
scholars who will take the pains to follow out his arguments. 

Inquiry into the Semitic characteristics of a New Testament 
book has nowadays to take account of the fact that the great 
modern discoveries of papyri and ostraka in Egypt have revolu- 

Schlatter, Die Sprache und Heimat des vierten Evangelisten (1902), with which the 
writer was unacquainted until he had practically completed the present study. 
Schlatter has demonstrated the Palestinian origin of the diction of the Fourth 
Gospel in the fullest possible manner by citing Rabbinic parallels to its phrase- 
ology verse by verse, the majority of verses throughout the whole Gospel being 
thus illustrated (thus e.g. in ch. r parallels are cited for phrases in 34 out of the 
total 51 verses), and his work is a marvel of industry and intimate knowledge 
of the Midrashic sources which he employs. He has drawn, not from Aramaic, 
but from Rabbinic Hebrew — the Mechilta (commentary on Exodus) and Siphre 
(commentary on Numbers and Deuteronomy) which date in substance from the 
2nd century A. D., with supplements from the Midrash Rabba (on the Pentateuch 
and the Five Megilloth). He chooses these Rabbinic Hebrew parallels rather 
than the Aramaic material which we possess e.g. in the Palestinian Talmud, 
because the former are nearer in date to the Fourth Gospel and better illustrate 
the religious thought of Palestinian Judaism in the first century; but, as he remarks 
(p. 12), any phrase employed in Rabbinic Hebrew (the language of the Schools) 
could without difficulty be similarly expressed in Aramaic (the popular medium 
of speech in Palestine). Schlatter's conclusion is that the writer of the Gospel 
was a Palestinian who thought and spoke in Aramaic, and only acquired his Greek 
in the course of his missionary work (p. 9). 

B 2 


tionized our conception of Biblical Greek, proving it to be, not a 
thing apart, but a more or less characteristic representative of the 
widespread Koiv>; dialect. The writer is not unacquainted with 
the researches of Professors Deissmann and Thumb, Milligan and 
Moulton, and recognizes the fact that they have proved that many 
constructions and usages both in the LXX and New Testament 
which were formerly supposed to reflect Semitic influence, are 
really nothing more than ordinary phenomena of the Koivrj lan- 
guage. While readily making this acknowledgement to the excel- 
lent work of these scholars, he does not stand alone in holding 
that their reaction against the theory of Semitic influence upon 
Biblical Greek has been pushed too far. The fact is surely not 
without significance that practically the whole of the new material 
upon which we base our knowledge of the KoLvij comes from 
Egypt, where there existed large colonies of Jews whose know- 
ledge of Greek was undoubtedly influenced by the translation- 
Greek of the LXX, and who may not unreasonably be suspected 
of having influenced in some degree the character of Egyptian 
Koivrj* A good example of such influence has been unwittingly 

* Cf. the judicious remarks of Dr. Swete, Apocalypse^ (1907), p. cxxiv, n, i : 
*The present writer, while welcoming all the light that can be thrown on the 
vocabulary and syntax of the New Testament by a study of the Graeco-Egyptian 
papyri, and in particular the researches of Prof. Deissmann, Prof. Thumb, and 
Dr. J. H. Moulton, deprecates the induction which, as it seems to him, is being 
somewhat hastily based upon them, that the Greek of the New Testament has 
been but slightly influenced by the familiarity of the writers with Hebrew and 

Aramaic It is precarious to compare a literary document with a collection of 

personal and business letters, accounts, and other ephemeral writings ; slips in 
word-formation or in syntax which are to be expected in the latter, are phenomenal 
in the former, and if they find a place there, can only be attributed to lifelong 
habits of thought. Moreover, it remains to be considered how far the quasi- 
Semitic colloquialisms of the papyri are themselves due to the influence of the 
large Greek-speaking Jewish population of the Delta.' Similarly, Mr. G, C. 
Richards, in reviewing the and edition of Dr. Moulton's Grammar 0/ New Testament 
Greek in the Journal of Theological Studies, x (1909), p. 289, remarks : ' The dis- 
covery of the Aramaic papyri from Assuan emphasizes this point [the evidence for 
large Jewish settlements in Egypt from an early date] most strongly, and even 
Deissmann {Licht vom Osten, p. 83, n. 5) is prepared to admit that the adoption 
of (is rb ovofw. as a legal phrase may be due to Semitic influence "in grauer 
Vorzeit". But this ''Vorzeit" can scarcely be earlier than the end of the fourth 
century B.C. No doubt it is possible, as he says, that if originally a Semiticism, it 
may not have been felt to be so any longer. Such influence on the language 
of a population from an influx of settlers is quite common. Dr. Moulton makes 


presented to us by Prof. Deissmann (LAE. pp. 129 ff.) in one of 
two passages which he quotes from the papyri for the express 
purpose of proving that the parataxis so characteristic of the 
Fourth Gospel, with its 'and . . . and\ is not due to Semitic 
influence, but belongs to the popular Koivr} style. This is a letter 
from two pig-merchants (c. a. d. 171) in which they complain to the 
Strategus that they have been attacked by brigands and robbed 
and beaten : avepxpfxivdiv r^fiiav airo Kw/xiys ©caSeX^etas ©cftto-rov /xcpt^os 
VTTO Tov opdpov iinjXOav rjfieLv KaKovpyoi rives . . . kol eSrycrav ■q/xa9 (tvv kol 
t(o jJLaySwXocjivXaKL kol TrXrjyoLS rjfxas TrXiVrais ^Kicav ^[aij rpavfiaTLOLov 
iTTOL-qcrav tov [llao-itojva koI €icrav^pa[v ^^/aJoji/ ;(otpt8t[ov] a koX ljia.<T\Ta^av 

TOV TOV Ilao-iwi/Jos KiTwva . . . The term here used to describe ' the 
guard of the tower*, fiayS(i)Xo(f>v\ai, embodies the ordinary Hebrew 
word for 'tower', migdol (originally magdol), and is thus clear 
evidence for Jewish influence upon Egyptian Koti/ij terminology. 
Yet Prof. Milligan [New Testament Documents, p. 154), referring to 
this section of Deissmann*s work, states that he ' has been able to 
produce examples of similar [to the Fourth Gospel] paratactic 
sentences from sources where no Semitic influence can be predicated^ 
(the italics are the present writer's) ; and similarly Prof Moulton 
{Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 486) remarks, ' Those who still find 
Semitism in these plain co-ordinated sentences [of the Fourth 
Gospel], with their large use of /cai, may be recommended to study 
the most instructive parallels which Deissmann has set out,' &c. 

We cite this passage merely as suggesting that the theory of 
Jewish influence upon the Koivrj of Egypt, so far from being false 
or negligible, may in fact be supported by concrete evidence drawn 
from the papyri themselves. It does not follow, of course, that the 

a point of the case of Wales. South Wales Welsh is regarded by North Wales 
people as an inferior patois because of the Anglicisms, which are to be seen not 
only in borrowed words but also in turns of expression. In fact we may say that, 
if the native language of a whole district may be strongly affected by the entry 
of aliens who learn it and learn it badly, a foriion is a language, which is not the 
native one, but the medium of communication between natives and strangers, likely 
to be modified by all who use it.' So also Dr. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of 
the Greek Testament in the light of historical research^ (1919), p. 91: 'The LXX, 
though "translation Greek", was translated into the vernacular of Alexandria, 
and one can but wonder if the LXX did not have some slight and resultant 
influence upon the Alexandrian Koivh itself. The Jews were very numerous in 


paratactic style of the pig-merchants is due to Semitic influence ; 
for, as Prof. Moulton justly observes (NTG} i, p. 12), in speaking 
of co-ordination of sentences with simple Kai, ' in itself the pheno- 
menon proves nothing more than would a string of *' ands " in an 
English rustic's story— elementary culture/ The vice of arguing 
from the epistolary style of an Egyptian pig-merchant or the 
speech of an English rustic to the style of the Fourth Gospel lies 
in the fact that the former are not in pari materia with the latter. 
The theory of elementary culture w^hich satisfactorily explains the 
style of the former is ill applied to a work which in thought, 
scheme, and execution takes rank as the greatest literary produc- 
tion of the New Testament, and the greatest religious monument 
of all time. 

So with other stylistic peculiarities of the Gospel, such as the 
frequent use o{ Casus pendens. This, Prof. Moulton tells us, 'is 
one of the easiest of anacolutha, as much at home in English 
as in Greek ' (NTG.^ i, p. 69). We recognize the truth of this 
statement as regards colloquial English, especially among the 
semi-educated. We might be talking to a groom, and it would 
be natural for him to say, * The gentleman who used to ride that 
horse — he lost his arm in the war.' Probably at times we use 
the same kind of anacoluthon ourselves in ordinary conversation ; 
but we do not use it in writing a book or article which we hope 
may be worthy to rank as literature. Nor, if we take the whole 
New Testament as a fair specimen of literature written in the KoLvrj, 
do we find as a rule more than very occasional instances of the 
usage. In the Fourth Gospel, however, it is remarkably frequent; 
and it is reasonable to seek some better reason than the sup- 
position that the writer of the finest piece of literature in the New 
Testament was more than ordinarily infected with colloquialism. 
Now there is a literature in which both the usages which we 
have been noticing — parataxis and Casus pendens— not the 
marks of lack of education but common phenomena of the best 
writing style, namely, the literature of Semitic-speaking peoples. 
If, then, these two characteristics of the style of the Fourth Gospel, 
only selected by way of example, fit in with numerous other 
characteristics which point to translation from a Semitic language, 
their evidence as part of our proof that the Gospel is such a 


translation is not in the slightest degree invalidated by the fact 
that parallels can be adduced from the non-literary and ephemeral 
type of document which we find represented in the papyri. 

As a matter of fact, we have little cause to quarrel with Prof. 
Moulton at any rate in the course which is followed in our 
discussion of the language of the Fourth Gospel, for he lays 
down a canon which covers a great part of the characteristics 
which are brought forward. 'If we are seeking*, he says, *for 
evidences of Semitic birth in a writer whose Greek betrays 
deficient knowledge of the resources of the language, we must 
not look only for uses which strain or actually contravene the 
Greek idiom. We shall find a subtler test in the over-use of 
locutions which can be defended as good YLoLvrj Greek, but have 
their motive clearly in their coincidences with locutions of the 
writer's native tongue. This test of course applies only to Greek 
which is virtually or actually translated — to the Hebraism of the 
LXX and the Aramaism of New Testament books which are 
either translated from Aramaic sources or written by men who 
thought in Aramaic and moved with little freedom in Greek.* * 
It is precisely this over-use of locutions coincident with locutions 
of Aramaic which will repeatedly be found to characterize the 
Greek of the Fourth Gospel. 

From the remarks which are occasionally to be encountered 
in books and articles dealing with the Gospels it would appear 
that some amount of vagueness exists in the minds of many non- 
Semitic scholars as to the existence of a clear distinction between 
Aramaisms and Hebraisms. By some scholars, in fact, the 
question of distinction is ignored, and the two terms are used 
indifferently as though they were synonymous.t A glaring in- 
stance of this is to be seen in Prof. Schmiedel's remarks on the 
original language of St. Mark's Gospel in Encyc. Bibl. 1870. 'The 
language of Mk.*, he says, * Hebraizes still more strongly than 
does that of Mt. Nevertheless, the combinations of Allen 
(Expositor, 1900, i, pp. 436-43) do not prove that the evangelist 
wrote Aramaic, but only that he wrote a kind of Jewish Greek 

* Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 474, t Cf. Dalman, IVJ. pp. 18 f. 


that he had derived from a reading of the LXX. Lk. also has 
Hebraisms, not only in chaps, i f. but elsewhere as well, and 
not only where he is dependent on Mk. or Mt. but also where 
he had no exemplar before him (as, for example, often "and it 
came to pass **, koI iyivero ; see HS.^ p. 37), and yet no one holds 
Lk/s writing to be a translation of a Semitic original.* 

It is something of a feat to have crowded so many miscon- 
ceptions into the space of a few lines. Mk. does not Hebraize 
at all in the proper sense of the term ; but the fact that his Greek 
exhibits a strong Aramaic colouring is admitted by all Semitic 
scholars who have studied the subject, though they differ as to 
whether this colouring implies actual translation from an original 
Aramaic document, or is merely due to the fact that the author 
was ill versed in Greek and accustomed to think and speak in 
Aramaic. Mk.'s ^Jewish Greek* cannot have been 'derived from 
a reading of the LXX % for it exhibits peculiarities (those which 
connect it with Aramaic) which are not found there, while at the 
same time the most striking Hebraisms of the LXX are absent 
from it. The fact that Lk. has Hebraisms is the first accurate 
statement which Prof. Schmiedel makes; but he goes on at once 
to confuse the issue again by equating the supposed ' Hebraisms ' 
which are the result of dependence upon Mk. or Mt. with those 
which are found in passages in which the author * had no exemplar 
before him '. The fact as regards the Marcan source in Lk. is 
that the third evangelist has made some attempt to smooth away 
the most palpable solecisms, but has by no means carried this 
out thoroughly or consistently; consequently a number of Marcan 
Aramaisms (not * Hebraisms*) remain in Lk.* The parts of Lk. 

* As regards Mt., which Schmiedel also mentions as a source containing 
♦Hebraisms* employed by Lk., i.e. of lourse the Q document which is used 
in common by Mt. and Lk., the present writer cannot claim to have examined in 
detail into the question of its original language (Greek or Aramaic). No Semitic 
scholar can, however, study such a passage as Mt. lo^^"" = Lk. i2^~^ without 
arriving at the clear conviction that we either have in it the literal translation 
of an Aramaic original, or that the ipsissima verba of our Lord in Aramaic were 
branded on the hearts of His hearers and reproduced with a reverential exactitude 
amounting to virtual translation. Cf. especially the phrases n^i (po^rjOfJTe airo (Semitic 
|D of aversion after a verb of fearing), dfjioXoyfiafi ev lyLoi (cf. on this expression 
even Moulton, NTG.^ i, p. 104), uKoXovOti uniau fxov (Mt. 10^*). Mistranslation of an 


which may be taken to be due to the author himself (such as the 
setting of narratives, to which the phrase cited, koL ijivero, belongs) 
do contain Hebraisms, and these so striking as to make this Gospel 
stand out as stylistically the most Hebraic Gospel of the four. 
Yet, as Schmiedel states, 'no one holds Lk/s writing to be 
a translation of a Semitic original \ for, paradoxical as it may 
seem, the very existence of this Hebraic colouring in his style 

Aramaic original seems clearly to the indicated by comparison of the following 
passages : 

Mt. 2326.2« Lk. ii39-« 

*• Oval iffuy, ypafi/xareis koi ^apiaatoi, ^^ Nvv vfieis ol ^apiaaioi rb e^uOev 

vvoKpiTaiy oTi Ka6api^(T€ to t^ojQiv rov iroTrjpiov Koi tov itlvaKos KaOapi^ere, 
rov iTOTijpiov /cat t^s napoif/iSoSf 

(aoj9(v dk ye/xovaiv e^ apnayfjs to 8e eauOev vfujjv yifxei apnay^s 

Kot ajcpaaias. ^^ ^apiaate Tv<p\€, nal vovTjpias. ^^d((>povcs, ovx <> troirjffas 

TO i^oidiv KoX TO iOuOtv itroiijafv ; 

Kaddpiaov vpwTov to Ivtos tov *^ vX^v to. ev6vTa 5ot6 kKerjfiocvvTjV, 
voTTjpiov Koi Trjs wapoipiSos, 

iva yevTjTai koi to (ktos avrov koi IBov iravTa naOapd, vpTv lariv. 



Here it can hardly be doubted that the remarkable variant between Mt. KaOapiaov 
■npwTov TO IvTos kt\. and Lk. vXr^v to. ivovTa 5ot€ k\ir}p.oavvr}v is to be explained 
by the fact that New Heb. and Aram, ''3t means both ' to purify ' (occurring in 
Aram, as well as normal '•3'n) and also * to give alms ' (cf. Wellhausen, Einleiiung^y 
p. 27). For the latter sense cf. the numerous occurrences in Midrash Rabba on 
Exodus, par. xxxiv; e.g. sect. 5 (New Heb.), 'If misfortune has befallen thy 
companion, consider how to give him alms (13 fllDtP) and provide for him'; 
sect. II (Aram.), 'The Rabbis Yohanan and Resh Lakish were going down to 
bathe in the hot baths of Tiberias. A poor man met them. He said to them, 
''Give me alms" ('»2 p31). They said to him, "When we come out we will 
give thee alms" ("|3 P''3T). When they came out, they found him dead.' The 
inference is that our Lord used some such expression as p3t NJ??"'! *That which 
is within purify ' ; this has been rightly rendered in Mt. and made more explicit 
by the addition of tov iroTTjfuov kt\., while in Lk. it has been wrongly rendered, 
* That which is within give as alms '. 'Hpfxrjvevae 5' avra, us ^v Swutos, iKaaros. 

In the opening of the long indictment of the Scribes and Pharisees contained 
in Mt. 23, presumably from Q, we find a passage {vv. ^-7) which has clearly 
formed a source for Mk. in his short summary of teaching contained in la^s-^o^ 
It seems not unlikely that Mk.'s opening phrase, Kai kv rp StSax^ avTov eKtyev, 
which recurs nearly verbatim in 42 (introducing the parable of the sower), may 
be his manner of referring to this written discourse-source to which he had access. 
Lk. 20*^"*' has followed Mk. and not Mt , though his opening statement that our 
Lord's words were spoken both to the multitude and to the disciples seems to 
indicate that he rightly identified Mk's abbreviated version with the long discourse 
of Mt, (Q), and selected the former. The parallel passages run as follows : 



is a sure indication that he was steeped with LXX influence, and 
very possibly unacquainted with Hebrew.* 

Mt. 231"- 

* ToT€ 6 ^Iijaovs kXaKrjacv 
rots ox^ois KoX ToTs ^xaO-qTais 
avTov \4yojv' 

* irdvTa de to. epya avruv 
voiovaiv irpos to Beadrjvai 
Tois dvBpunois' -nXarvvovaiv 
yap rd <pv\aKTr]pia avruiv 
Kal fi€ya\vvovaiv tcL 
KpdaiTfSa, ^ (piXovaiv h\ 
■j^v irpoJTOKXiaiav iv tois 
Seiirvots xal tcLs npwro- 
Ka0(5pias kv Tais avv- 
ayar/ais ^ koI Tohs danaa^ovs 
iv Tois dyopais, kt\. 

Mk. i238-*o 

'* Kal hv TTJ Sida-)QJ avTov 

iSAcTTfTe dno tuv ypafx/xarictiv 
Tuv 6(\6vtcov Iv GToXais 
irfpinaTfiv koi 

danaafiovs kv Tats dyopais 
'^ KOI npctiTOKaOfSpias (v rais 
cwaycuyais Kal irporroKXiaias 
iv TOIS Seivvois' *^ 01 Kar- 
kaO'iGVTis TCts o'lKias raiv 
XVP^^ '^°-'' "ftpoipnaH fjuiKpd 
vpoaevxofifvot, ovtoi Xrjfi- 
x^ovTai itfpiaaoTtpov Kp'ifxa. 

*'^ ^Akovovtos 


Lk. 20<«^« 

8^ rravTbs tov 
tJinv TOIS naOrjTois' 
irpoaexiTe dno toiv ypafifW.Ti<uv 
Twv OeXovTOJV iTfpivaTfiv 

kv aroXais Kal (piXovvTcvv 
davaapLovs kv toTs d^opals 
Kal irpojTOKaOfSpias kv tois 
awayojyais Kal vpojTOKXioias 
kv tois deinvoiSj *' ot Kar- 
eaOiovaiv rds olKias twv 
XVP^^ '^^^ ifpo<pd<T€i fiaKpd 
■npoaevxovTai' ovtoi X-qpi 

xpovTox nfpiaaoTtpov Kpifta. 

The statements of Mk. in vv. ^^- ^^ can be clearly recognized in Mt., except for 
Tu)v QfihovTtav kv aToXais irfpnraTfTv, which seems to be a paraphrase of Kal fxeya- 
Xvvovaiv Ta KpdoirtSa, Mt. 23^. In v. *^ of Mk., however, we meet with two 
statements which do not seem, as they stand, to connect themselves directly with 
anything in Mt. Noticing, however, that the second of these speaks of prayer, 
we observe that the New Heb. and Aram, term for (pvXaKTfjpia (Mt. 23^) is ppSH 
fphillin, which properly means ' prayers '. Thus there is a suspicious resemblance 
between the two statements, 'make broad tiieir phylacteries' and 'make long 
their prayers'. Now the verb vXaTvvovaiv is rendered in Pesh. by ^^j^Jo , 
and Payne Smith in his Thesaurus quotes instances in which this Aph'el ^}s^( 
'make broad', as well as the Pa'el ^]^, has the sense ^ make verbose' (e.g. 
Severus Alexandrinus, Rhetorica, 'jgv., J]^s.aJj )oJ ./ 'If ^^ wishes to be 

verbose'). It is likely, therefore, that an original pn\?Dri pJjlSlO'n 'who make 
broad their phylacteries', rightly rendered in Mt., appears in Mk. and Lk. in the 
mistranslation 'who make verbose their prayers'. It should be remarked that 
PpDn is not the ordinary Aramaic word for 'prayers' (K*rivif) ; but it might 
be so interpreted by a translator who was aware of this meaning of the term 
in New Heb. 

The writer believes that this suggestion as to a misunderstanding of ppSfl is 
not his own, but has already been made ; though he cannot recall to whom 
acknowledgement is due. He is himself responsible for pointing out the variant 
meanings of the verbal form. 

* That St. Luke was a Hellenistic Jew and not a Gentile would be — apart from 
other evidence to the contrary — the natural deduction from the fact that the LXX 
has coloured his Greek style in so marked a degree ; since this surely implies that 
he was brought up upon the Greek Bible. Had he been a Gentile, and not 
converted to Christianity until he was a grown man, his Greek style would 
presumably have been already formed and would not have taken on a LXX 


The following striking Hebraisms occurring in Lk. may serve to 
illustrate the true meaning of the term ^Hebraism*, viz. a con- 
struction or word -usage found in Biblical Hebrew which has been 
copied in translation by the LXX, and has come through LXX 
influence into N. T. Greek : 

I. lyeviTo introducing a time-determination. The use of ^n?l 
'And it came to pass' is in such a case very idiomatic in Hebrew, 
and the LXX equivalent is koX iyevero or cyeVcro 8e. After ^^^l there 
follows the note of time or occasion, which may take various forms, 
such as — 

An Infinitive with preposition 3; e.g. 0^*33 'when they 
came ' (lit. ' in their coming ') = LXX Iv tw IXO^lv avrovs. 

An Infinitive with preposition 3; e.g. D^?^^ 'at their coming* 
= LXX 0)5 (or rjVLKa) -^Wov. 

nj^K? (or •»?) 'when* with a Perfect; e.g. 1«3 Tf^? 'when 
they came *= LXX ws (or ^vtKa) rik6ov. 

A Participle Absolute with pronominal or nominal subject ; 
e.g. C''N3 riDH 'they (were) coming * = LXX avTcov cpx®/^^'*'^'"* 

A specific note of time; e.g. ^^vf^ D^*? 'on the third day' 
= LXX (cV) Tfi rjfiipa Tji rpLTo) ^'^\ r\fbf yW? 'after three 

days * =^ LXX /xcra -^/xipa^ TpeL<s. 

After this comes Ihe apodosis, which is most frequently (though 
by no means invariably) introduced by 'and' (='then'); e.g. 
'JN'in 'and they saw '= LXX (/cat) cTSov (LXX often omits KaC), 
^^^ nam 'and, behold, they saw* = LXX koX tSov cISoi/, or simply 
^^1 ' they saw ' = LXX cTSov. The subject of the apodosis may 
of course vary from that of the time-determination (when this 
latter embodies a subject); e.g. criNnpb ^^ «2f*.l Dn'33 \ti 'And 
it came to pass, as they came, that (lit. ' and ') a man went out 

colouring, at any rate to the extent that it has. We do, however, possess other 
and apparently contrary evidence in the fact that St. Paul in Col. 4^* appears 
expressly to distinguish him from * those of the circumcision ' previously mentioned 
{v. ^*) ; and this is taken by most scholars, such as Dr. Lightfoot {Colossians, 
p. 239) and Dr. Plummer {St. Luke, p. xix), as conclusive evidence that he was 
of Gentile origin, the latter scholar going so far as to maintain, 'That he was 
originally a heathen may be taken as certain '. Such a verdict, however, surely 
ignores the important criterion of style ; and perhaps the conclusion which best 
satisfies the conflicting evidence is that he may have been a proselyte from his 
youth and have come over to Christianity from Judaism. 


to meet them', or nmi\>b sr tJ^^x nam D'-sn n^n \i^i 'And it came to 
pasSjthey (were) coming, and, behold, a man going out to meet them*. 
Instances of this Hebrew construction, with time-determination 
iv Tw (Infinitive) and apodosis introduced by Kat, may be seen in 
Lk/s^-^^ 9% i4\ 17^', 19^^ 24M>^); without kul, Lk. i^ 2\ g''-^', ii^"^', 
17^^ 18^, 24^". With time-determination ws (Aorist), and without 
KOI in apodosis, Lk. i^^-^\ 2'^, 19^. With specific note of time, and 
Kai in apodosis, Lk. 5^% 8* '^, Acts 5" ; without Kat, Lk. i"^, 2^'^, f\ 

9^3', 20^ 

There are besides some cases in Lk., and many more in Acts, 
in which the verb of the apodosis is not an Aorist but an Infinitive. 
This modification of the construction, which is not found in 
Hebrew, and only occurs once in LXX (3 Kgs. ii"*^ B), can be 
paralleled from the papyri. It seems therefore in Lk. and Acts 
to be a modification of the Hebraic construction under the in- 
fluence of a known Kotn} construction (cf. Thackeray, Grammar 
of the O. T: in Greek, p. 50). So Lk. 3^^ 6'-'-'\ Acts 4', g^*-^^-^' ^ i^\ 
16**, 19^ 22*^''^, 28^'. It may be noted that in some of these 
examples, viz. Acts 9^^, 14^ 22®^^, the note of time or occasion 
has been variously modified so as to lose its clear-cut Hebraic 
form. In other cases, viz. Lk. 16^, Acts 9^^, ii^^ 28^, it is 
altogether absent. This is quite un-Hebraic. Hebrew might say 
p^nxn DDJI ' And the poor man died ', without note of time except 
as inferred from the context ('and* = 'and then*), or, inserting 
note of time, f^^'^i^^ riDjl D^n; y^ '•nji ' And it came to pass, after 
some time (lit. "from the end of days"), that (lit. "and") the poor 
man died'; it would not say l^'??^' ^9^- ^'?)1=c7cV€to 8e a-rroOavdv 
rov TTThixov (Lk. 16^^). The reason why St. Luke modified his 
Gospel-style in this respect in Acts demands investigation. It 
would seem to imply a not inconsiderable interval between the 
two works, during which his wider intercourse with Gentile 
heathen in the course of his missionary labours exercised an 
influence on his style. 

Outside Lk. and Acts cyeVcro introducing a time-determination is 
only found in the five-times repeated phrase Kat iyivero ore irekca-ev 
'lr](rov<i in Mt. 7^, iiS 13'^ 19', 26\ and also in Mt. 9'^ Mk. i^ z^, 
4'* (cf. 2'^). In Semitic it is specifically a construction belonging to 

* With time- determination be/ore (yfvtro. 


Hiblical Hebrew, and not found in Aramaic except where this 
language copies the Hebrew construction in translation, as in the 

These facts prove that in the construction under discussion we 
have a true Hebraism, which can only have entered into N. T. 
Greek through the influence of the LXX. Incidentally, its absence 
from Jn. tells against the use of the LXX by the writer of this 

2. Enforcement of verb by cognate substantive in Dative. When 
Hebrew desires to emphasize a verbal idea, it prefixes the Infinitive 
Absolute to the Finite verb. In LXX the place of the Infinitive 
is commonly taken by the cognate substantive in the Dative; e.g. 
Gen. 2}'' Tivon T\\o * Thou shalt surely die ' (lit. ' dying thou shalt die ') 

= LXX OavaTio a7roeav€2(r0€, Judg. 15^^ DT^ ^13ri:i '?I")pK: ^DH'^'D vh 

^ri;?p3 N7 npm ' Nay, but we will bind thee (lit. ' binding we will bind 
thee ') and deliver thee into their hand ; but we will not slay thee ' 
(lit. * slaying we will not slay thee ') = LXX Ovxh on dXA' 17 W/xw 
hrjCTOfiiv (re kol TrapaSwao/jiiv ere ev X^'-P'- ttvTwv, kol Oavdrto ov OavaTuxrofxev 
o-€. An alternative method employed by LXX is the rendering of 
the Infinitive by a Participle; e.g. Judg. i^ iK'nin i6 trnini 'and 
did not expel them at all ' (lit. * and expelling did not expel them *) 

=^ LXX KOL k^aipiiiv ovK i^pev avrov. 

No examples of the second form of the idiom are found in N. T. 
except in the LXX quotations Mt. 13^^ Mk. 4^^^ Acts 7^, but the 
first occurs three times in the Lucan literature ; viz. Lk. 22^^ cVt- 

OvfJiia iTriOv/Jirja-a, ActS 5^ TrapayyeXm 7rap7;yyeA.a/x,cv, ActS 23^"* dvaOefxaTi 

avidcfiaTLo-a/xev (cf also Acts 2^ opKio wyu-oo'cj'). t Elsewhere in N. T. 
we find it only in Mt. 13^^ 15* = Mk. f^ (both O. T. quotations), 
Jn- 3^ XW X«''P«'» J^S. 5^' TTpoa-evxo irpocrqviaTO. 

This enforcement of the verbal idea by the Infinitive, while found 
occasionally in other Semitic languages (cf. Babylonian edisu lidis 
Met it be ever new'; Syriac y^ij lijjo ♦o 'when they are com- 
pletely victorious '), is peculiarly characteristic of Biblical Hebrew.} 

* Cf. Dalman, WJ. p. 32. 

+ Acts 2^"^ lii/TTn'otj ivvnviaaO-qaovTai^ which occurs in an O.T. quotation from 
Joel 2" (3^ in Heb.) is different, the substantive representing the cognate Accusative 
in Heb. i^DT'n^ niu^H, LXX Ivvnvia hw-nviaadiiaovTai. 

X According to Dalman {WJ. p. 34) it is quite unknown in the Palestinian 
Aramaic of the Jews, apart from the Hebraizing rendering of the Targums. 


3. Use of irpoa-TLOrjfiL in place of ttolXlv or a similar adverb in 
imitation of Hebrew ^''pin 'he added* to do something, i.e. he did 
it again. There are two constructions in Hebrew : (i) the auxiliary 
verb ^''pin may be followed by an Infinitive with preposition ^, 
e. g. Vl.\} J^'i^y^ • ♦ ♦ ^Sp^l ' and they added to do that which was 
evil ' (i. e. * they again did it *) = LXX koI irpoa-iOivro . . . Trotrjo-at to 
TTovrjpov, Judg. 3'^ 4}, 10^; or (2) it may be followed by 'and* with 
a Finite verb, e. g. HK^K n^)\ Dn")n« 5]D*1 ' And Abraham added and 
took a wife* ('again took *, or 'took a second*) = LXX vpoa-Oefievos 
Sk^A/Spabifi ^\a^€v yvvalKa, Gen. 25^; ^PN*1 Xin-Sx ^IDh 'And Elihu 
added and said * = LXX UpoaOeU Se 'EXioC? en Xcyci, Job 36^ Both 
of these constructions occur in the Lucan literature: (i) ^at irpoa-i- 

Oero (ETcpov Trifi^ai SovXov . . . kol TrpocreOiTo rpirov Tre/xif/ai, Lk. 20^^"^"^ ; 
irpoa-iBiTO crvWa^uv koX Wirpov, ActS 12^ ; (2) irpocrOfx^ cTttcv TrapafioXn^v, 
Lk. 19'^ The usage is not found elsewhere in N. T.* 

4. The phrase iropevov eU dpi^vrjv, Lk. 7^", 8^^ vTrayc cts ilp-qvr}v, 

Mk. 5^^ (nowhere else in N. T.) is derived from the LXX rendering 
of the Hebrew nSbfb T].^; cf. i Sam. i^', 20^^"^ i Kgs. 20 (LXX 21)^ 
2 Kgs. 5*^ I Chr. 12", Tob. 10^^, Judith 8^. The Hebrew preposi- 
tion ? is here incorrectly given the sense cis which it commonly 
possesses. It is really an idiomatic usage known 2iS b 0/ norm, 
Di?C^p thus meaning lit. ' peace-wise * or ' health-wise *, i.e. 'in peace 
or health *. The phrase belongs distinctively to Biblical Hebrew. 
The Targum Hebraizes in copying it in translation, but in the 
Peshitta the regular rendering is )v^^k^•^ "^I, i. e. iropevov ev elprjvr]. 

5. The expression ivwTnov is peculiarly characteristic of Lk. 
(23 times). Acts (13 times), and Apoc. which is marked by an 
Hebraic style (34 times). It is derived from LXX where it is 
extremely common (some hundreds of occurrences), and ordinarily 
represents Hebrew V.?? 'before* (lit. 'to the face of*), or TP 
'in the sight of* (lit. 'to the eyes of*). ivtavLov is only found once 
in Jn. (20^), and is unused in Mt. and Mk. In these Gospels we 
find tp.-jrpocr6iv, which also occurs in Lk. 

havri (Lk. I«, Acts 7^", 8^1), havriov (Lk. i\ 2o% 24^^, Acts 7^^ 8^), 
exclusively Lucan in N. T., are both very common in LXX, where 
they ordinarily render ^?.''}^3 'in the sight of* (lit. 'in the eyes of*), 

* Cf. however the text of D in Mk. 14'^, ov fi^ vpoaOof vkiv. 


i.e. 'in the opinion of. Hebrew always observes a distinction 
between "TV!? ^in the (physical) sight of, and ^jJ^V3 'in the (mental) 
sight of. The same distinction may be notiged for the most part 

in the N. T. use of ivoyinov and ivavriov. 

In place of the distinctively Hebraic expressions '*?.^?, ^5''Vp, ^.^VS, 
Aramaic uses D'li'. ' before *, ' in front of. 

6. The phrase -n-po Trpoo-wzrov, which is a common LXX rendering 
of '3sb, occurs in the O. T. quotation Mk. i" = Mt. 11'^ = Lk. 7^, 
and only besides in Lk. i'", 9°^, io\ Acts 13^*. aTro Trpoa-unrov = ^3Sp 
in LXX is found in Acts 3*^ 5^^ f', 2 Thess. i", Apoc. 6'\ 20" 

(ttTTo Tov TT.). €7rt TTpoaoiTTOV Lk. 21 '", CTTt Trpo(r(i)7rov Acts 17^^, are LXX 

renderings of *?.S"by. 

7. The phrase to Trpoo-wTrov ia-TrjpLo-ev, Lk. 9'^ (nowhere else in 
N. T.) is derived from LXX, where it renders Hebrew 0^33 D^b^ 
'set the face* (Jer. 21^", Ezek. 6\ 13^ I4^ 15', &c.). 

8. XafipaviLv 7rp6a-o)7rov, Lk. 2o"^\ Gal. 2*' occurs 9 times in LXX 
as the rendering of Hebrew D'':3 xb^3 'take or lift up the face' of 
any one, i.e. show him partiality in judgement. More commonly 
this phrase is rendered in LXX by Oav/xd^nv irpoa-oyTrov. The 
Semitic phrase occurs in Aramaic as well as in Hebrew. The 
N.T. substantives Trpoa-wTrok^fnTTr]^ ' a. respecter of persons '(Acts 10^), 
irpoa-uiiroXrjfixf/La (Rom. 2", Eph. 6^, Col. 3^', Jas. 2') 'partiality', are 
derived from the LXX Hebraism. 

9. The use of the verb 8t8o>/Lit in a wider range of senses, which 
may be rendered 'put*, 'set', 'appoint', 'allow', &c., appears in 
N. T. to be exclusively Lucan ; cf. Lk. 'j*\ 12'^ ''*^, 15^, 19^, Acts 2'' 
(quotation from Joel 3^), 2^, 13^ (both quotations from Ps 16'"), 10^", 
i9^\ This usage comes from LXX where 8i8o>/i.t is the regular 
rendering of Hebrew fnj which, meaning primarily 'give', is regu- 
larly used also in such wider senses. Cf. the LXX rendering in 
Gen. 17^ 8(o(ro) avrov ct? ^Ovos p-^ya, Gen. 31' ovK eSiOKev avrto 6 Oeo^ 
KaKoiroirja-aL p.€, Deut.l'^ B6t€ cavroTs avSpas (ro(f>ov<;, Deut. 2^ ivdpxpv Sovvai 
TOV rpop-ov (TOV. Such instances might be indefinitely multiplied. 

These examples should serve clearly to illustrate the character 
of N.T. Hebraisms derived from the Greek of the LXX. We 
observe that they are characteristically Lucan, and in some cases 
exclusively so. Other N. T. Hebraisms may be found in the 
Greek of the Apocalypse (cf. Dr. Charles's Commentary, Index II), 


and these owe their origin to a different cause, viz. first-hand 
imitation of Biblical Hebrew style — a cause which was perhaps 
also operative in the Birth-narrative of Lk. The Marcan 
Aramaisms collected by Canon Allen in the article mentioned by 
Prof. Schmiedel are wholly different in character ; and the state- 
ment that they only prove that this evangelist 'wrote a kind of 
Jewish Greek that he had derived from a reading of the LXX ' is 
most misleading. For example, one of Canon Allen's most 
striking Aramaisms is the very frequent use of the Historic 
Present in Mk., which he rightly ascribes to the influence of the 
Aramaic usage of the Participle in narrative (cf, pp. 87 ff. of the 
present volume). How could this usage have been derived from 
reading the LXX, when, as Sir John Hawkins has shown {HS.^, 
p. 213), it is there comparatively rare ? The total occurrences in 
the whole LXX are 337, and of these 232 occur in the four Books 
of Kingdoms, leaving only 105 for the whole of the rest of the 
LXX. ' Out of the 232 instances in the four books of Kingdoms, 
the First Book (= i Samuel) contains very nearly two-thirds, 
viz. 151, which happens to be exactly the same number as Mark 
contains. But then i Kingdoms exceeds Mark in length by 
about one-third, as may be seen by comparing the two books in 
the pages of any English Bible — e.g. in the R.V. minion 8vo 
1885, in which i Sam. occupies 26 pages, and Mark (without the 
Appendix) about 15 pages and a half. Consequently it appears 
that the historic presents are scattered considerably more thickly 
over the pages of the latter than of the former, the average to 
a page being in i Sam. about 6 and in Mark between 9 and 10* 
{HS.^ he. at.) Moreover, the same scholar has proved, in the most 
conclusive manner, in dealing with the Synoptists and the LXX, 
that Mark is considerably the least familiar with this version, 
Matthew occupies an intermediate place, while Luke shows most 
familiarity with it [HS.^ pp 198 ff.). 

The marking of the distinction between Aramaisms and 
Hebraisms may thus be seen to be a matter of fundamental 
importance to our inquiry. If Aramaic and Hebrew were so 
similar in structure and phraseology that close translations made 
from the two languages, or original Greek compositions influenced 
by their style, were practically indistinguishable, then it might not 


matter whether the stylistic peculiarities of such documents were 
classed as Aramaisms or Hebraisms ; though even so — since such 
phenomena would properly rank as the common property of two 
(if not more) languages of the Semitic group — it would scientifically 
be more correct to describe them as Semitisms, It is true that 
Aramaic and Hebrew, having sprung from a common ancestor, do 
in fact exhibit a considerable number of such common character- 
istics, the occurrence of which in isolated Greek passages of brief 
length might leave us in doubt whether the influencing factor was 
the one language or the other. In dealing, however, with Greek 
works such as the Gospels, we are concerned not with brief 
sentences but with lengthy documents ; and if so be that in any of 
these we have actual or virtual translation from a Semitic original, 
the distinction between Aramaic style and Hebrew style is bound 
to assert itself.* 

If, then, we find a New Testament document such as St. Mark's 
Gospel, which lacks the clearly-marked Hebraisms of the Lucan 
literature — unmistakably derived from the LXX, and at the same 
time contains different marks of Semitic style which can only be 
referred to Aramaic, the conclusion should surely be obvious. 
Here we have the work, not of a Hellenist who studied the LXX, 
but of a Palestinian Jew who either actually wrote in Aramaic, or 
whose mind was so moulded by Aramaic idiom that his Greek 
perforce reflected it. Such a work is naturally found to contain, 
together with the specific Aramaisms, a number of Semitisms 
which may be paralleled both from Aramaic and Hebrew, and which 
may or may not be reflected in the Greek of the LXX. But it is 
the specific Aramaisms which must determine the character of the 
work (Palestinian and not Hellenistic). The other Semitisms serve 
but to add weight after the conclusion has been drawn.t 

* In speaking of * Hebrew style ' it may be well to reiterate the fact that we are 
referring to Biblical or Classical Hebrew. The 'New' Hebrew employed in the 
Mishna and Midrashim, which was the language of the Rabbinic Schools at or 
about the Christian era and subsequently, is structurally nearer akin to Aramaic 
than to Hebrew. This artificial product, however, fulfilled much the same function 
as did the dog- Latin employed by scholars in the Middle Ages, and there is no 
reason for supposing that it ever came into popular use. 

t Cf. Allen, 'The Aramaic Element in St. Mark', Expository Times, xiii (1902), 
pp. 328 fF., an article which effectively disposes of the criticisms of Schmiedel. 

2620 C 


Whether the Marcan Aramaisms prove actual translation from 
an original Aramaic document, as distinct from the virtual transla- 
tion of a writer who, though using Greek as his medium of expres- 
sion, is casting his words in the Aramaic mould which is more 
familiar to him, is a question which still remains open. The 
present writer, comparing the evidence for an Aramaic Marcan 
document with that which he himself adduces in this volume for 
an Aramaic Fourth Gospel, feels that the case for the former is not 
of equal cogency with that for the latter. To a large extent, as is 
natural, the evidence for the two works runs upon identical lines ; 
and here the argument for Jn. is materially strengthened by the 
parallel usages of Mk. There is, however, a still larger mass of 
evidence which can be cited for Jn. to which no adequate analogue 
exists in Mk. Examination of the usages discussed in the present 
volume will be found to yield the following results : 

Usages common to Jn. and Mk. 

Parataxis (p. 56). 

Frequency of Historic Present (p. 87). 

Frequency of Imperfect lAeycv, cAeyov (p. 92). 

Sparse use of 8c, and preference for /cat (p. 69). 

Xva = conjunctive ' that ' (p. 70). 

TTpos = * with ' (p. 28). 

Usages 0/ Jn. found more rarely in Mk. 

Asyndeton * (p. 49). 
Casus pendens t (p. 63). 

Koi linking contrasted statements = * and yet * % (p. 66). 
ha. mistranslation of "n relative. One case in Mk. (p. 76). 
on mistranslation of "^ relative. Two cases in Mk. (p. 77). 
Relative completed by a Pronoun. Two cases in Mk. (p. 84). 
ov firj . , . CIS Tov alu>va = * never *. Two parallels in Mk. (p. 99). 
TTMrrcrctv cts. One case in Mk. (p. 34). 

♦ Allen quotes Asyndeton as characteristic of Mk. (5/. Mark, pp. 18 f.), but his 
instances bear no comparison with the frequency of the usage in Jn. 
+ The present writer has noted only Mk. 6'^, 7'°, 12^°, 13^*. 
X The only cases collected from Mk. are 4'^, s'^^*'', 14^^ 


To these may be added an Aramaism of which one case occurs 
in each, viz. : 

Anticipation of Genitive by Possessive Pronoun (p. 85). 

Usages characteristic of Jn. not found in Mk. 

Frequency of Personal Pronouns (p. 79). 

Frequency of Emphatic Demonstratives ovto?, IkCivo^ (p. 82). 

Iva mistranslation of "^ = 'when ' (p. 77). 

oTt mistranslation of "^ = 'when * (p. 78). 

ipxofiac Present as Futurum instans (p. 94). 

ov . . . dvOpioTTo^ = ' no one ' (p. 99). 

Lva prj employed to the exclusion of /x-^ttotc (pp. 69, 100). 
To these may be added an Aramaism of which one case only 
occurs in Jn., viz. : 

Anticipation of direct Object of verb by Pronoun (p. 86). 
Two cases of a construction which is Hebraic rather than 
Aramaic, viz. : 

Change of construction after Participle (p. 96). 

The Marcan usages noted above which find parallels in Jn. 
do not exhaust the Aramaisms of Mk. Others are cited by Allen 
(cf. St. Mark, pp. 48 ff.) and by Wellhausen {Einleitung^, pp. 7 ff.), 
of which the most noteworthy are the frequent use of the adverbial 
TToAAa = t^''??', and of the auxiliary rfp^aTo, -avro = ''l.f ; but they are 
not equally impressive because — though they fit in with the theory 
of translation from an Aramaic original — they are the kind ol 
Aramaisms which might naturally be introduced by a writer 
of Greek whose native tongue was Aramaic. We may also note 
the fact that the Koivy construction iva = conjunctive 'that' which 
characterizes Mk. (though to a less extent than Jn.) is a usage 
which an Aramaic-speaking writer of Greek would naturally tend 
to exaggerate. On the other hand, the use of tva in place of a 
relative, which can scarcely be understood except on the theory 
of mistranslation, while frequent in Jn. (cf pp. 75 f.), occurs but 
once in Mk. What is needed to substantiate the theory of an 
Aramaic original for Mk. is some cogent evidence of mistransla- 
tion ; and this has not as yet been advanced. In contrast, the 
writer believes that the evidence which he has collected in 

c 2 


Chap. VII in proof of mistranslation in Jn. must be recognized, 
on the whole, as exceedingly weighty. 

Granted, however, the possibility of an Aramaic original for the 
Fourth Gospel, the question naturally arises — What evidence do 
we possess sufficient to enable us to prove this theory, and in 
a measure to reconstruct the original text ? 

The evidence is naturally drawn from our knowledge of 
Palestinian Aramaic at or about the period at which the Gospel 
is presumably to be dated.* The following are the main sources 
of our knowledge : 

1. The Aramaic sections of the O.T., viz. Jer. lo", Ezr. 4^ — 6^*, 
^12-26^ Dan. 2*^ — 7^^ The Ezra-sections, if they are what they 
profess to be, date from the middle of the fifth century B.c.t 
The Book of Daniel is dated with approximate certainty under 
the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, 168-167 b.c. The dialect 
of 2*^ — 7^^ is W. Aramaic, and is practically identical with that 
of the Ezra-sections, exhibiting affinities to the dialects of the 
Palmyrene and Nabataean inscriptions which date from the third 
century B.C. to the second century a.d.J This source is therefore 
of great value as closely approximating to what must have been 
the type of Aramaic spoken in Palestine in the first century of the 
Christian era. 

2. The Targums or Aramaic paraphrases of the O.T. The 
synagogue-practice of expounding the Hebrew text of the O.T. by 
an Aramaic paraphrase is undoubtedly very ancient. Both the 
Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds understand the term tsn^D 
in Neh. 8^ — R.V. 'And they read in the book, in the law of God 
distinctly (marg. with an interpretation) ; and they gave the sense, 
so that they understood the reading' — as referring to the use of 

* On this subject the standard work is Dr. G. Dalman's Grammatik des jiidisch- 
paldstinischen Aramdisch, Cf. especially pp. 5-40. This may usefully be sup- 
plemented by the discussion in the same writer's The Words of Jesus, pp. 79-88. 

t Ezr. 4*"^^, though inserted into a section which relates the efforts of the 
Samaritans to thwart Zerubbabel's rebuilding of the Temple in the latter part 
of the sixth century B.C., really relates to the interruptions caused by the 
Samaritans and other enemies of the Jews to the project of the rebuilding of the 
city-walls, probably shortly before the twentieth year of Artaxerxes (444 b.c.) when 
Nehemiah intervened and secured the support of the Persian king. Cf. Driver, 
Introd. to Lit. of O.T? p. 547. 

X Cf. Driver, Introd. to Lit. of O.T. ^ pp. 503 ff. 


an Aramaic paraphrase ; * and this view, though disputed, has 
something to be said in its favour.t If, however, the practice of 

* Cf. Bab. Megilla 3 a ; Nedarim 37 b ; Jerus. Megilla 74 d. The same explana- 
tion is given in Midrash Bereshith Rabba, par. xxxvi. 12. 

t Cf. Berliner, Targum Onkelos, ii, p 74, who compares the use of K'^SD in the 

words of the Persian king's rescript in Ezr. 4'^ ^Jipp SJ"'by P^in^K'""'''! NijriB^J 
■•CIP "'Ip, i.e. most naturally, 'The letter which ye sent unto us hath been read 

IT Tt: *... 

before me in translafion ', i. e. translated from Aramaic into Persian. The principal 
rival explanation (offered by Dr. Bertholet) is * divided ' (sc. into sections) , 
i. e. ' section by section ' ; and on this explanation the following words py^ DVSJ^ 
' and giving the sense ' may refer to an Aramaic paraphrase. The synagogue- 
custom as known to us was to read a verse of the Law in the Hebrew and follow 
it by the Aramaic paraphrase. In the Prophets three verses might be read 
together and followed by the Aramaic rendering. 

Even in pre-exilic times (cf. 2 Kgs. 18'*) Aramaic was the lingua franca of 
international communication. It must have been widely used, along with 
Babylonian, in the Neo-Babylonian kingdom. Cuneiform tablets of the late 
Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Achaemenian periods bear Aramaic dockets ; and 
scribes or secretaries were emploj'ed for the purpose of writing Aramaic upon 
parchment along with those whose business it was to write Babylonian in 
cuneiform upon clay tablets (cf. the writer's Judges, pp. 255, 495^ Probably 
Aramaic was the exclusive medium of intercom se between the exiled Jews and 
their captors, and was used by them in commercial dealings with foreigners. 
Thus the Jews who returned from exile must have come back with a knowledge 
of Aramaic at least as thorough as was their knowledge of Hebrew, and must 
have found that in Palestine Aramaic had established itself and gained ground 
owing to the mixture of races and the decay of national feeling among the Jews 
who had remained in Palestine, 

The fact that Hebrew of a more or less classical character remained the literary 
language of the Jews to within at least a century before the Christian era does 
not of course imply that it was widely and generally spoken by the Jews up to 
that period. That it was understood and spoken in the earlier post-exilic period 
is implied by the fact that e. g. the prophecies of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, 
which were intended for a popular audience, are written in Hebrew ; and by the 
allusion in Neh. 13'*, which shows, however, at the same time, how easy the 
condition of affairs made it for the less precise Jews to drop Hebrew and adopt 
another language. 

All that we can say, then, with any certainty, is that after the return from exile 
Hebrew and Aramaic must for a time have been used concurrently by the Jews. 
Religious, national, and literary feeling strove for the retention of Hebrew; but 
external influence making itself felt in the exigences of daily life favoured the 
advance of Aramaic, and gradually led to its general adoption. Literary and 
cultivated Jews read Hebrew, and no doubt spoke it to some extent among 
themselves at least for some time after the return. The mass of the people who 
did not read books came more and more to speak Aramaic exclusively and to lose 
the knowledge of Hebrew. 



using a Targum is not to be carried so far back as the days of 
Ezra, the fact that it became customary long before the Christian 
era is at any rate not in dispute. 

The date at which written Targums first came into existence 
cannot certainly be determined.* It is related that in the fourth 
century a.d. Samuel ben Isaac once entered a synagogue, and 
seeing a scribe reading the Targum from a book, admonished him 
thus: 'This is forbidden thee; for that which is received orally 
must only be delivered orally, and only that which is received in 
writing may be read from the book* (Jerus. Megilla iv. i). There 
is, however, considerably older evidence for the existence of 
written Targums — for private reading and not for public worship. 
The Mishna t states that portions of the text of the Bible were 
' written as a Targum * (Yadaim iv. 5) ; and there exists a 
Tannaitic J tradition that a Targum of the Book of Job existed 
in the days of GamaHel the Elder (the grandson of Hillel and 
instructor of St. Paul ; cf. Acts 5^*^^-, 22^), and after being with- 
drawn from use by his orders, reappeared in the days of his grand- 
son Gamaliel II.§ The Targum of Onkelos on the Pentateuch, 
which became the official Targum of the Babylonian schools, must 
have been committed to writing and finally redacted at least as 
early as the third century a.d., since its Masora dates from the 
first half of that century. Two Palestinian Amoraim of the third 
century advised their congregation to read the Hebrew text of 
the Parasha (section of the Pentateuch read as lesson) twice in 
private and the Targum once, according to the practice of public 
worship. Joshua ben Levi commended this practice to his sons 
(Berakhoth 8^), while Ammi, a pupil of Johanan, made it a rule 

* See on this subject Berliner, Targum Onkelos, ii, pp. 88 ff., and the admirable 
article ' Targum' by Dr. W. Bacher in the Jevuish Encyclopaedia. 

f The Mishna (i. e. * Repetition ' of the Law, or in a wider sense its Exposition) 
was compiled towards the end of the second century a. d. 

X The Tannaim ('Teachers') were the Rabbinic authorities of the first two 
centuries of the Christian era whose work is embodied in the Mishna. They were 
succeeded by the Amoraim (* Speakers ' or ' Interpreters '), third to fifth centuries 
A. D., who chiefly concerned themselves with the exposition of the Mishna. The 
outcome of this work was the Gemara, * Supplement ' or * Complement ' of the 
Mishna, which, together with the latter, forms the Talmud. 

§ Cf. the passage from Tosefta Shabbath , ch. xiv, quoted by Berliner, op. cit. 
p. 89. 


generally binding {ib. 8 a), ^ These two dicta were especially 
instrumental in authorizing the custom of reciting the Targum.' * 
Thus we may gather how the practice of interpreting the Hebrew 
Scriptures in Aramaic, at one time presumably dependent upon 
the extempore skill of the individual M^thurg^man, gradually 
assumed a fixed form ; first, no doubt, orally, then in written 

The principal Targums which concern us are as follows : 
The so-called Targum of Onkelos t on the Pentateuch. This is 
sometimes called the Babylonian Targum, as adopted and stan- 
dardized in Babylonia not later, as we have seen, than the third 
century a.d. While exhibiting certain Babylonian peculiarities 
in diction, it *is composed in a dialect fundamentally Palestinian '.| 
Its contents prove that it must have been drawn up in Palestine 
in the second century, since both its Halakhic and Haggadic 
elements § exhibit the influence of the school of Akiba (who 
perished in the rebellion of Bar Cokhba, a. d. 135) and other 
prominent Tannaim.|| 

The Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch is, as it has come 
down to us, much later in date. The Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan 
is wrongly assigned to Jonathan (the reputed author of the Targum 
of the Prophets), possibly through mistaken interpretation of the 
abbreviation '•"n = Targum Yerushalmi, Jerusalem Targum, as 
Targum Yehonathan. As finally redacted it is not earlier than the 
seventh century a.d., but it is thought to contain many elements 
which are older than the Targum of Onkelos.lf Comparison 
of these two Targums yields evidence that they were originally 
identical, their agreement being often verbatim. 

* Cf. Bacher, op. cit. p. 58. 

t The name D?p3"lK Onkelos appears to have arisen through confusion made in 
Bab. Megilla iii. i of a reference in Jerus. Megilla i. 11 to the Greek translation 
of Aquila oP'^'p'V Akylas. Cf. Berliner, op. cit. pp. 92 flf, 

X Noldeke, Manddische Gratntnaiikj p. xxvii, quoted by Bacher, op. cit. p. 59 a. 

§ Hdldkha (' walking ' or ' way ' ; so ' custom ') is the exposition and application 
of the legal elements of Scripture ; Haggddd (* narration ') the elaboration of its 
historical and didactic portions. 

II Cf. Berliner, op. cit. p. 107. 

^ Dalman, Gramm, pp. 21 flf., and WJ. pp. 84 f., disputes this inference, holding 
the most primitive elements to be 'exactly the parts taken from the Onkelos 
Targum ' . 


In addition to the complete Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan there 
survive fragments of a Jerusalem Targum, apparently not all 
contemporaneous. In the view of Dr. Bacher, ' Both the Pseudo- 
Jonathan and the fragments contain much that has survived from 
a very early period ; indeed the nucleus of the Palestinian Targum 
is older than the Babylonian which was redacted from it ' (op. ciL 
p. 6i a). 

The Targum of Jonathan on the Prophets* is assigned by 
tradition to Jonathan ben Uzziel, who was Hillers most famous 
pupil. The history of its transmission appears to follow the same 
lines as that of the Targum of Onkelos. Palestinian in origin 
(as is expressly stated in the Bab. Talmud), it gained official 
recognition in Babylonia in the third century a. d. It is frequently 
quoted by Joseph, the head of the Academy of Pumbeditha in 
Babylonia in the early part of the fourth century a. d., who, in 
referring to Isa. 8^ and Zech. 12", remarks that * if there were 
no Targum to it, we should not know the meaning of these verses ' 
(Sanhedrin 94 ^ ; Moed Katon 28 6 ; Mcgillasa). Such reference 
implies the recognition of the Prophetic Targum as an ancient 

These Targums — and especially the Targums of Onkelos and 
of Jonathan on the Prophets — are of great value to us as illus- 
trating the Palestinian Aramaic of the early centuries of the 
Christian era. Though, in the form in which we know them, they 
are later than the first century, they embody material which — 
whether in written or oral form— must have come down from that 
period ; and from the linguistic point of view it is clear that they 
are faithful witnesses. Their dialect is closely allied to the dialect 
of the Book of Daniel, such slight differences as exist being mainly 
orthographical. t The only drawback to their use is that, being 
translations of Hebrew, they tend at times to Hebraize their 
Aramaic ; but instances of this tendency are not difficult to detect, 
and are unlikely, therefore, to lead us astray. | 

* The term 'Prophets' is of course used in the Jewish sense, including the 
four historical books known as 'the Former Prophets', viz. Josh., Judg., Sam., 
and Kgs. 

t Cf. Driver, Introd, to Lit. of O.T.^ p. 503 ; Noldeke in Ettcycl. Bibl, 283. 

X Cf. e. g. the passages cited on pp. 61 ff. On Hebraisms in the Targums cf. 
Dalman, IV J. p. 83. 


3. The Palestinian (so-called Jerusalem) Talmud and the 
Midrashim contain short sections — stories and the like — in Aramaic 
interspersed amid the New Hebrew in which they are for the 
most part written. These Aramaic sections are the latest portions 
of these works, dating from the fourth to the sixth centuries a. d. 
They are clearly in the dialect of the people, and such linguistic 
peculiarities as this dialect exhibits connects it with Galilee rather 
than with Judaea.* 

4. The Palestinian Syriac Lectionary, of unknown date, exhibits 
an Aramaic dialect akin to that of the Palestinian Talmud and 
Midrashim. As offering us the text of a great part of the Gospels 
translated into Palestinian Aramaic this Lectionary is of con- 
siderable interest. Like the Targums, however, in relation to the 
Hebrew text, it shows a certain tendency to adapt its language 
to its Greek original. 

In addition to these Palestinian Aramaic soflrces, we may gain 
not inconsiderable aid through comparison of the ancient Syriac 
versions of the O. and N.T., making, of course, such allowances 
as are necessary for the dialectical differences between Eastern 
and Western Aramaic. The Peshitta translation of the O.T. is 
undoubtedly very ancient. Made directly from the Hebrew, it 
exhibits the traditions of Jewish exegesis, as appears from the 
points of connexion which it offers with Targumic renderings.t 
It may well have been the work of Jewish scholars, and can hardly 
be later than the early second century a.d., if so late. As 
compared with the Targums, it exhibits less of a tendency to 
accommodate its language to the Hebrew constructions of the 

No Syriac version of the N.T. is as old as that of the O.T. 
We know that Tatian made his Diatessaron, or Harmony of the 
Four Gospels (to 8ta Tco-o-apwi/ cvayyeAtov), in Greek, and that this 
was translated into Syriac during his lifetime, c. a.d. 170.]: It 

* Cf. Dalman, Gramm. pp. 12 ff., 31 ff. 

t Cf. the illustrations of this tendency collected by Dr. Driver in his Notes on the 
Heb. Text of the Books of Samuel^, pp. Ixxi f., and by the present writer in his 
Notes on the Heb, Text of the Books of Kings, pp. xxxiv f., and Book of Judges, 
p. cxxviii. 

X For authorities cf. Dr. Nestle's article * Syriac Versions ' in Hastings's Z^/V/WMary 
of the Bible, iv, p. 646 a. The view that the Diatessaron was first composed in 


continued in use at Edessa till the fifth century, when Rabbula, 
bishop of Edessa (a.d. 411-35), prepared a revision of the text of 
the separate Gospels (called Evangelion da-M^pharr^she, ' Gospel 
of the Separate *), and ordered its substitution for the Diatessaron 
(Evangelion da-M^halhe, 'Gospel of the Mixed'), and the collection 
and confiscation of the copies of the latter. This was carried out 
with such thoroughness that no copy of the Syriac Diatessaron 
has survived, and we only know the work through an Armenian 
translation of St. Ephrem's Commentary upon it, and a late Arabic 
translation in which the text has been accommodated to that of the 

Dr. Burkitt has shown that Syrian writers prior to Rabbula 
used the Evangelion da-M^pharrshe* which has survived to us in 
the fragmentary remains of a recension of the Four Gospels 
discovered and edited by Dr. Cureton in 1858, and in the (nearly 
complete) palimpsest of the Gospels discovered by Mrs. Lewis 
at the convent on Mount Sinai in 1892 ; and further, that Rabbula, 
when he forbad the use of the Diatessaron, made a revision of 
this separate version of the Gospels in conformity with the Greek 
text current at Antioch at the beginning of the fifth century. This 
appears to have been the origin of the N.T. Peshitta. He has 
also shown that the Evangelion da-M^pharr*she used the O.T. 
Peshitta, and must therefore be later than it.t His conclusion is 
that the Diatessaron was the earliest form of the N.T. possessed 
by the Syrian Church, the Evangelion da-M^pharrshe being dated 
by him c. a.d. 200. According to this view the early Christian 
Church at Edessa had no N.T. prior to the Diatessaron in 
A.D. 170. * For the first generation of Syriac-speaking Christians 
the Law and the Prophets sufficed.* % This is a conclusion which 
is open to question, and it may be that the old version represented 
by the Sinaitic and Curetonian should be placed at an earlier date. 

The Old Syriac and Peshitta versions of the N.T., as well as 

Greek and then translated into Syriac appears to be more probable than that 
it was originally composed in Syriac. Cf. Burkitt, Evangelion dn-Mepharreshe^ 
ii, p. 206. For the latter view cf. J. F. Stenning in Hastings's DB.^ v, p. 452. 

* Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mepharreshe^ ii, pp. loi ff. 

+ op. cit. pp. 201 ff. 

X op. cit. p. 212. 

I N T R O D U C T l\q'N \ \ - \^: y:, \\\ • />'■ 27 

the Palestinian Syriac Lectionary, are of great value to our 
inquiry as illustrating Aramaic constructions in relation to the 
Greek of the Gospels. When, for example, we get a varying 
Greek construction, one form of which we suspect of being an 
Aramaism, and the Syriac versions render both alike in accordance 
with our suspected Aramaism, our primary inference receives 
strong confirmation. There are many instances of this in the 
Fourth Gospel (cf. e. g. pp. 72 ff.). 

The Acta Thomae, an original Syriac work * of fairly early date 
(early third century a. D.t) is sometimes used in the following pages 
for purposes of illustration. 

The evidence which is brought forward in this volume in proof 
that the Greek text of the Fourth Gospel is a translation from 
Aramaic is concerned with the broad general characteristics of the 
Aramaic language, and does not depend upon dialectal details. 
Though dialects of the language may be distinguished, belonging 
to different places and different periods, their distinctive character- 
istics (if we except the earliest monuments of the language, of the 
9th-8th centuries b.c.) are but slight in comparison with the com- 
mon features which unite all branches of the language. Thus the 
exact dialectal form of the original which we presuppose is a 
matter of minor importance. We may have doubts as to the 
precise word or verbal termination or suffix which we should 
select ; we can have no reasonable doubt as to constructions which 
properly characterize the language as a whole. 

* The fact that this work was originally written in Syriac has been conclusively 
pruved by Dr. Burkitt \n Journal ofTheol. Studies,!, pp. 280 ff. ; ii, p. 429 ; iii, p. 94. 
+ Cf. R. Duval, La Litterature syriaque, pp. 98 ff. 



As a preliminary to the classified discussion of particular usages, 
it is instructive to take the Prologue of the Gospel and examine 
it verse by verse. Thus we may gain at the outset a clearer 
conception of the texture of the writer's language as a whole; 
and, when we come to classify, may realize that we are not dealing 
merely with isolated phenomena, but with illustrations of a con- 
tinuous characteristic which admits of but one explanation — the 
theory of an Aramaic original. 

vv.^\ The phrase irpos rov Oeov in the sense 'wt'lh God* is 
remarkable, as Westcott observes. He cites the parallel usage 
in Mt. i3^«, Mk. 6^ 9'^ 14^^ Lk. 9^ i Jn. il The last of these 
passages is an echo of the Gospel-prologue, presumably by the 
same author — ^ts rjv Trpo? t6v Trarepa. With regard to the Synoptic 
instances we notice (i) that they are all from the Marcan source, 
and (2) that Mt. 17^', Lk. 22^^ alter Mark's -rrpos vfjias to the more 
natural /xed" vfxwv, while Mt. 26°* omits the phrase altogether. The 
parallel passages are as follows : 

(Mk, 6^ Kttt ovK elcrlv at d8eX<^ai avTov wSe rrpos ^Jp-o.'S] 
Mt. 13°* Kttt at dScX^at avTOv ovxl Tratrat irpos rj/xas ila-iv J 

M k. 9^^ €0)5 TTore TT/oos v/AttS €{ro/xat ; 
Mt. I'f' cws TTOTc /Ac^' vfitov IcTo/xat ; 
Lk. 9^^ IcDS iroTC eaofiai tt/oos vfxas ; 

Mk. 14'*' KaO* rjfJLepav rjiL-qv Trpos v/xas Iv tw lepw hihadKinv. 
Mt. 26'" Kad^ yfjiipav iv tw Upto iKaOe^ofxrjv 8t8do-K(i>v. 
Lk. 22^' Ktt^' rjfjiepav orro? /xov fi^O' vfxwv iv Toi tcpuJ. 

Clearly, then, we are dealing with a phrase confined in the 
Gospels to the Marcan source and to Jn. which was so far strange 


to the other Synoptists that they were moved on occasions to alter 
or expunge it. The view that it may represent an Aramaic phrase 
is at once suggested by the fact that it occurs three times in Mk., 
for which on other grounds an Aramaic original, or at any rate 
Aramaic influence, has been postulated. In Aramaic the common 
preposition T\o (possibly akin to the verb ^]? 'join') denotes 
(i) connexion with, apud, Trapd, (2) motion towards, ad, -n-pos. It 
may be suggested that feeling for the second meaning so commonly 
borne by riip has moved the translator of an Aramaic original 
to represent the preposition by tt/sos even when used in the former 

The usage of -n-po^ = ' with ' is frequent in St. Paul ; cf i Thess. 
3^ 2 Thess. 2% 3^», i Cor. i6«', 2 Cor. 5^ ii^ Gal. i'^ 2% 4.''-'', 
Phil, i^^ Philem. ^^ There are, however, many other indications 
that this Apostle's language is tinged with Aramaic influence. 

V. ^. o y€yov€v iv avroi ^o)r] rjv. This reading has the consensus 
of early attestation, the punctuation which connects o yiyovcv with 
the preceding sentence seeming *to be little if at all earlier than 
Cent. IV' (WH.). Yet, as is well known, considerable difficulty 
has arisen in connexion with the interpretation, ' That which hath 
been made in Him was life '. The Aramaic equivalent would be 
(^jn) r?D i^^? ^p.*^. Here the opening ^., answering to 'that 
which *, might equally well bear the meaning ^inasmuch as, since, 
because ' ; cf. the use of ^"^ in Dan. 2^* "iC^Jin'^l 'And inasmuch as 
thou sawest' ; 2"^ ^5^■^ nb-^-n t^nip^^ xriDDn >-! 'because wisdom and 
might belongeth unto Him'. The Heb. relative "IK^N often bears 
the same sense. Adopting this interpretation, we obtain the 
meaning, ' Because in Him was life * ; and this admirably suits 
the connexion — He was the source of all creation because He 
Himself was Life. 

V. ^. Koi TO <^(os iv ry (tkotlo. ^atvct, kol rj a-Koria avro ov KariXa^ev. 
The difficulty of KariXap^v is familiar. Dr. Ball, in his article 

* It was only after finishing this chapter that the writer noticed that the facts 
that vpos here = Aram, nip, and that the other Gospel-occurrences emanate from 
the Marcan source with its Aram, background, had been anticipated by Dr. Rendel 
Harris in the first of a series of articles on ' The origin of the Prologue to St. John's 
Gospel' in the Expositor, xii (1916), pp. 156 f. The coincidence in conclusion 
serves to prove that it is unmistakable for an Aramaic scholar. 


mentioned in the Introduction, has made the brilhant suggestion 
that confusion may have arisen in Aramaic between the Aph'el 
form /""SpX 'akbel ' darken ' and the Pa'el form 7^3i^ kabbel from an 
outwardly identical root, meaning 'receive, take*. It may be 
further noted that in Syriac the latter root actually occurs in the 
Aph'el in the sense 'receive* — cf. Lk. 15" in Sin. and Pesh. 
o^\T!ioi jp<>\.> ♦Of 'because he hath received him whole' (cf. other 
instances cited by Payne Smith, 3470]. The difference between 
n^i>3pX i^b ' obscured it not ' and rxh2\> xi? avro ov KariXa/Sey is slight ; 
and if the construction was the common one of the participle with 
the substantive verb, i^^Jn^ ^<}n ^'^spp iO ^ was not obscuring it ', 
there would, in an unvocalized text, be no distinction between 
^^?i?P ' obscuring * and ^'•?i^9 ' receiving *. The sense ' darken * 

is equally suitable to Jn. 12''' tva fxrj a-KOTia v/xS? KaTaXd^rj, ^b'^. 

NJnp |bD^^'?p: 'that darkness shroud you not*. 

V, ^ iyiv€TO avOpoiTTOS . . . ovofxa avrw 'Icuavi^iys, i. e. ♦ ♦ ♦ ^Ir'^ ^Jl] 

Ijni^ n^DK'. * Whose name was ' is only elsewhere so expressed in 

N.T, in ch. 3^ avOpfjuiro^ Ik t(ov ^apttratW NikoSt^/xos 6vo/xa avrw, 
Apoc. 6^ iTTTros ;(A.cDpos* kol 6 KaOrjfiivos iTrdvo) avTOv, ovofxa avrw 6 
Odvaros, ApoC. 9" rov dyyiXov r^s d^va-aov' ovo/xa avrw 'EySpatCTTi 

Elsewhere in N.T. the ordinary expression is ovofian (classical) ; 

cf. Matt. 2f', Mk. 5^'^, Lk. 1% 5% io^«, i6^«, 23^", 24^ Acts 5^^ 8^ 

^10.11.12^.36^ 10^, 1 1^8, 12^3, i&'\ 17^, i8^-7-2*, 19^ 2o^ 21^°, 27^ 28' (30 

occurrences). Other expressions are : oi/d/xart KaXovfievos, Lk. 19^ ; 

Kttt TO BvofJia aiyrqs, Lk. I» ; <J (J) 6voy,a, Lk. I^^ % 2^^ 8^', 24'=^, ActS 13"^ ; 

ov TO OVO/Att, Mk. 14'^. 

Pal. Syr. renders the Gospel-occurrences of 6vo/xaTt by 0*^0^*, 
'his name*, o»ja4**.? 'who his name' (i.e. 'whose name*), o>:sa*A,o 
'and his name*. Pesh. renders wofiaTi by o^^oa.; (©♦■»^?) 'who 
his (her) name*, )oo» o^shm,^ 'who his name was*, and once (Acts 
16^'') )oo» op&A. ' her name was '. 6v6fx.aTL KaXovfievo^, Lk. 19^ = 
Pal. Syr. i-»l^oD oijaajw? 'who his name was called*, Pesh. 
]oo» of^OkA.9 'who his name was*. koI to ovofw. axrnjs, Lk. i^ = 
Pal. Syr. o».a4*j»,o 'and her name*, Pesh. Joo» opa*, 'her name 
was *. <S ovo/xa, Lk. i^' = Pal. Syr. caret, Pesh. cxjoji,? ' who his 
name*; Lk. 2^^ = Pal. Syr. <>►»**, )oo»? 'who was his name* (i.e. 
'whose name was*), Pesh. )oo» opcui, 'his name was*; Lk. 8'' = 


Pal. Syr. o^-'a^^f, Pesh. <H:aajw? 'who his name' ; Acts 13*^ = Pesh. 
)oo» (Hioji,? *who his name was*, y ovofia, Lk. i^^, 24}^ = Pal. Syr. 
(i^^ caret) o^:^**,?, Pesh. o^m^^f 'which its name', ov to ovo/^ia, 
Mk. 14^^= Pal. Syr. caret, Pesh. U^-ol^oof )♦.*/ 'that which was 
called*, ovofia avTW; Jn. i*^ = Pal. Syr. o^^^^w^? 'who his name*, 
Pesh. o^^ojw 'his name*; Jn. 3^= Pal. Syr. o^j^x.^ 'his name*, 
Pesh. )oo» oyiajk, 'his name was * ; Rev. 6^ = Pesh. <h^ )> v^n, 'name 
to it * ; Rev. 9" = <hX l^^a^^,? ' which, name to it '. 

In the Aramaic parts of the O.T. we find, Ezr. ^^* '\'^2^^b U^'^M 
n»cr 'and they were given to Sheshbazzar his name * (i.e. 'to one 
whose name was S.*) ; Dan. 2^% 4''^ nVN{^lDi?a n»K^ n ' who his 
name Belteshazzar *. 

The Hebrew modes of expressing 'whose name was N.* are 
two, viz. (i) 'and his name N.*, Gen. 24^^, 38' ^, Judg. 13^ 17^, 
Ru. 2\ I Sam. i^ g'% if\ 2i«, 22^, 2 Sam. 4^ g^'^ 13^ i6^ if\ 
20^, I Chr. 2^\ Est. 2^, Jer. 37" (22 occurrences), or (2) ' N. his 
name*, i Sam. 17^-2^ 2 Sam. 20^^, i Kgs. 13^ 2 Chr. 28^, Job i\ 
Zech. 6'^ (7 occurrences). Besides these two phrases, we once find 
(Dan. 10^) "iVC^NdI?! yo^ «ipj "IK^K ^N**:"! 'Daniel, who his name 
was called Belteshazzar*. In all these cases the rendering of 
Targg. exactly corresponds with the Hebrew, except that in Targ. 
of Est. 2^ we find npDX '•^nno n^rDC'i 'and his name was called 
Mordecai* for 'and his name Mordecai* of Heb. The rendering 
of Pesh. exactly corresponds with Heb. except in Ru. 2^, i Sam. 9^, 
2 Sam. 9^, where we find ' who his name * for ' and his name * ; 
in I Sam. 13^, where the phrase is omitted; and in Zech. 6*^, 
where, in place of ' Branch his name *, we have ' and his name 
Sunrise*. In LXX Heb. \om 'and his name* is rendered koX 
ovofia avTw, except in Gen. 24^, 38^^, where we have <S (y) ovofxa. 
Heb. )D^ 'his name* is represented by ovofia avrw except in Job i^, 
where we have w ovofia. 

Outside O.T. we find that ' whose name was * is rendered in 
Syriac, 'his name*, 'his name was*, 'who his name*, 'who his 
name was*. Cf. in Wright*s Apocryphal Acts, U^9 ^ »^ 
uaDo»,i mnN7 cxvi*. .w^cu^!? 'one of the chief men of Antioch, 
his name Alexander* (p. .^.j^xo); |oo» otJ^m, ,oooi^An\i! 1;^^ ^? t^ 
' Now a certain man, Onesiphorus his name was * (p. .^.aja) ; 
*floo,joAflo of^ajk.9 |>»i\t> li^^ 'a bath-keeper, who his name 


Secundus * (p. «^); ^aolLi-aD )oo) opo.*«? »*• lo^oo* ;^ *a procurator's 
son, who his name was Menelaus ' (p. U). 

Thus it appears that ovo/xa avrw 'Iwavvrys, NtKo8>;/Aos ovo/xa avTw 
exactly represent a Semitic construction common to Aramaic and 
Hebrew, and that the Greek represents the regular rendering of 
the Hebrew phrase. It is also noteworthy- that the only other 
occurrences of ovofia avTto are found in Apoc, which is strongly 
Semitic in colouring. 

V, ', Lva TravTcs Trurreva-axTLV St avrov probably := \?2l H""! p3D"'n"'''T^ 
which is most naturally taken to mean, ^that all might believe 
in ti' (the light) rather than 'through him* (John). Cf., for the 

sense postulated, 12^" ws to ^ws ^X^tc, Trto-revcTe CIS TO ^ws, iva viol 
<f>oiT6<s yivrjarOif and 12**^ cyo) 0a>s ei? tov koct/jlov iki^XvOa, ti/a Tras 6 
TrtoTeuwv cts c/ic ev ttJ (tkotlo. /jlt) fxcLvrj. 

V. ^ ovK ^1/ cKctvo? TO ^ais. The emphatic pronoun c/cctvos — so 
characteristic of the Fourth Gospel — has its counterpart in the 
Aram. ^^T\r\^ Syriac oo» 'that one*, or in the Personal Pronoun 
«in. See below (p. 82). 

dAA' lva fxapTvp-qar) Trcpl rov (fxoro^. The difficulty of the Supposed 
ellipse (usually supplied by the words, 'he came*) is familiar. 
The whole verse would run in Aramaic, iDr^ ^1^^^ ^^'^ ^JH ^r 
Nninj bv TnD:"=T (cf. Pal. Syr. o^ %:^ ^.0^9 «/ Jjoo^ o« )6o. D 
)»oo»jf). It is probable that 1 is here wrongly rendered ti/a, and 
should have its relative force — * (one) who \ The sense then is, 
' That one was not the light, but one who was to bear witness of 
the light'. Cf, for such a use of 1 or n without expressed 
antecedent ('one who', ' he who'), Ezr. f\ py"j*inri Vi; ^) ^ 'and 
him who knoweth not ye shall teach'; Dan. 2^ W''J?t"''^ '^^V'^-'''"^ ^^?^ 
^3D * and now Thou hast made known to me that which we asked 
of Thee '. Cf. the similar use of "it^'N* in Hebrew in Gen. 44'*" 
nny '•hn-'n" inx nxts'' is^k ♦ . . nci ^nnyo inx nvts'* -ik^k '//^ with 

V T • v: • • •• T • V -; "T ' VT-:" • •• T • V -: 

whom it is found of thy servants shall die . . . He with whom it is 
found shall be my slave ', where the rendering of Targ. Onk. 
is n^Q"*)!; nanc^^'n. Other instances of l relative mistranslated by 
lva are given below (pp. 75 f ).* 

* In favour of the ordinary view that the construction implies an ellipse stand 
two other passages cited by Westcott— 9' Oure cmros ^fiaprev ovre oi yovds avroVf 
d\\' iva <pavfpoj9r} to €^70 rov Qeov (v avrw, where before i'va we have to supply 



V. ^. rravra avOpoiTTov ipxofJievov eis tov Koo-fxov is rightly recognized 

by J. Lightfoot [Horae Hebraicae, adloc.) and by Schlatter (SprachCf 
pp. i8 f.) as the common Rabbinic phrase D?iV *t?? ^'3 * all comers 
into the world ', i.e. all thaf are in it.* The Aram, equivalent 
would be ^9PV? ""^^ ^'^^ -'?• Thus Westcott's proposal to regard 
TO <^a>s as the subject of r^v Ipxo^^vov ('The true light . . . was 
coming, &c.' : so R.V. margin) is excluded, and rjv to <I)ws t6 
aXrjOivov can only mean, ' It was the true light \ referring to the 
preceding verse. For this sense we seem to need a demonstrative 
pronoun; and this probably stood in Aramaic as ^'Jn^ which was 
misread ^m and rendered rjv. 

V. ^°. Acat 6 Kocr/xos avrov ovk eyvcu. Notice the adversative force 
of Kttt = 'and jy/^/*, here and in v.'^^ /cat ollhioi ktX. This is very 
frequent in Semitic (cf. p. 66). 

V. ". €ts Ta tSia rjXOe, kol ol lSiol avrov ov 7rapiXa/3ov, i. e. ^1)^ 

nv^bni? vh n\^n^ xnx n\^^^ (cf. Pal. Syr. and Pesh.). The use of 
Ta tSta, ol lSlol cannot, of course, be claimed as unusual ; but the 
expressions are striking, and at once suggest to an Aramaic 
scholar the phrase ^"T^. 'which to him*, i.e. 'that which pertains 
{or those who pertain) to him * — ' his belongings *. tSto? is a 
favourite term in Jn. ; occurring 15 times (i"b«-»2^ 4^4^ 5i«"^ f^^ 8" 
jo3.4.i2^ i3\ i5'Vi6'^ 19-'), as against 5 in Mt., 1 in Mk., 4 in Lk. 

V. ^^, ocroL 8e tXa^ov avrov, eSoiKcv avTo2<; ktX. 1 he construction 

in thought some such words as ' he was born blind ' ; and i^"^^ where before d\K' 
iva rrKTjpajOfi 6 \6yos kt\. there is an implied ellipse of 'This cometh to pass'. 
Cf. also Mk. 14^'. Similarly, Schlatter {Sprache, p. 18) cites parallels from 

Mechilta on Ex. 20" -133:' X^K n^nVtt "H^'-n HlCn ^Ni'0 l"'3ynij "IK^B« 1!3^« 
rrriJ nitW ' if it were possible to remove the angel of death I should have 
removed him, but because the decree has already been decreed' (sc. *I cannot 
do so'), and from Siphre on Num. 25I 'h I^D^y rh^^T^ X^S "jDn 1^ D''ppn liN pt< 
' We are not under such obligation to him, but (sc. it is necessary) that thou, &c.' 
In spite of these parallels for an ellipse, it is clear that T = Iva in the Aramaic 
rendering of our passage most naturally stands for the relative 'one who'; and 
this conclusion is supported by the other instances collected on pp. 75 f., where Xva 
is a mistranslation of a relative. 

* Schlatter quotes a remarkable para'lel to our passage from the Midrash Rabba 

on Leviticus, par. xxxi. 6-D^iy ^Kl b^h^ L'-JTinnbl D^ivi^vb TND nflN 
'Thou (God) givest light to those tiiat are above and to those that are below, and 
to all comers into the world '. 

2520 D 


with Casus pendens is very frequent in Semitic — Pal. Syr. ^ao 

.o<H^. For the occurrences of the construction in Jn. see p. 64. 
Toi^ TTLo-TevovaLv €1? TO wo/xtt avTov, i.e. i^V^^ i^^P^n^r. The striking 
phrase Trto-reuetv cts is strongly reminiscent of the Hebrew and 
Aramaic construction (Heb. 3 '\*'^W1, Aram. 3 pONi). This is 
admitted by Moulton (NTG? p. 68), whose words are — ' It would 
seem therefore that the substitution of et? or Ittl for the simple 
dative may have obtained currency mainly in Christian circles, 
where the importance of the difference between simple belief 
(? PPSD) and personal trust (3 'n) was keenly realized. The 
prepositional construction was suggested no doubt by its being 
a more literal translation of the Hebrew phrase with 2.' The 
occurrences of TrumviLv eh are as follows : (cis tov 'Irjo-ovv, eU rbv 
vlbv Tov 0eoG, eh airSv, &C.) Jn. 2'\ ^''■''•'', 4'', 6'''''\ 7-3i.38.39.4s^ 3:^0^ 

^35.36^ IO«, 1125.26.45.48^ ^^n.Z7A-2.UAr.^ ^^^.U^ j^O^ j ^20^ j Jj^^ ^10. elsCWherC, 

Matt. i8« = Mk. g'% Acts 10^=*, 14^ 19^ Rom. lo^ Gal. 2'% Phil, i^ 

I Pet. I^; (ets TO (f>m) Jn. 12^*^; (ci? t6 ovofia avTov) Jn. l'^, 2'^, 3'^, 
I J"- 5''^ (f^'5 TTjv ixapTvpiav) I Jn. 5'" (37 Johannine cases in all ; 9 other 

V.^^, ol ovK i^ alfxaToyv . . . iyewrjOrja-av, i.e. |P ^^] ^^'^ I» ^^"^ 

iTi5;n^i< Nn^« IP fn^^N snna n^ni? |p n^i n-)D3 ira^. A point of 
great interest is the fact that the Latin variant os . . . lyevvrjO-r] 
becomes considerably more plausible upon the assumption of an 
Aramaic original. Since the particle ^. is invariable, it might 
form the relative either to 'as many as received Him', or ♦^ 
' He gave *. The question of reading in Aramaic depends, then, 
upon the difference between the plural ^iv^^T'^^ 'they were born*, 
and the singular "^V- ,^7^^ ' ^^^ ^vas born * — a difference which 
involves solely the insertion or omission of the letter 1. More- 
over, since the following v.'^^ begins with Kai—'), it is quite 
possible that the plural form n^i^^D^X may have arisen through* 
dittography of this 1. Very probably "^ may not have had the 
relative sense at all, but (as in v."^) may have been intended to 
express the sense * inasmuch as ', thus giving the reason why the 
fact previously mentioned became possible — 'inasmuch as He 
was born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the 


will of man, but of God ' ; i.e. He, being born not after the manner 
of flesh, but of God, was thus able to give to those who received 
Him power to become sons of God. 

This interpretation is of a piece with which is given above 
for w.^-^ — just as the Logos was the Source of all physical life 
'because in Him was life', so{vv.^^-^'^) He is the Source of spiritual 
life (the new birth) because He was born into the world, not by the 
ordinary process of human generation, but 'of God'. Cf. Lk. i^ 

YivevjJia ayiov cTreAc^VeT-at fTrt ae, 
KOL 8vvafjiL<s 'Yij/LCTTOv fTTtcr/fiacrct crot' 
8lo Koi TO ytwuijxevov aytov 
KXrjOT](r€TaL vio? ©€0V. 

We note a connexion between vlb<s ®eov and rcKva 0eov of Jn. i'^ 
which may not be accidental (cf. also cttcI avSpa ov ytvcio-Kw, Lk. i^, 
with ovSe CK ^eAiJ/xaro? avSpos, Jn. i'^). If this explanation of Jn. i'-" 
be correct, the writer is drawing out the mystical import of the 
Virgin-Birth for believers on precisely the lines on which he 
elsewhere (5"^~-^ ii^^"''', 14'^) draws out the mystical import for 
them of the Resurrection. 

On the other hand, the generally accepted reading ot . . . 
iy^vvrjOrjaav surely involves a very strange sequence. The spiritual 
birth of believers is clearly the result of the grace described by 
eStoKcv avTot? i$ov(TLav T€Kva @eov yeviaOaL, but V. '"' aS phrased seems 

to imply that it was an antecedent condition. The author would 
•surely have written ' and so they were born ', or ' so that they 
should be born ', had this result been the fact which he was 
intending to convey. 

V. ^\ Koi ia-Kr/voiorev iv tj/jliv. The Verb ia-KT/jvcoaev very clearly 
suggests the Jewish doctrine of the f^5^?f Sh^kmd (Heb.), ^^^^rK* 
Sh^kinta (Aram.), or visible dwelling of Yahweh among His people, 
typified by the pillar of cloud standing above the Tent of Meeting, 
as subsequently in Solomon's Temple (Ex. 33^"" from the old 
document E ; i Kgs. 8'" '\ Cf. also, for the use of the verb 1?^ 
lakan of Yahweh's dwelling in the midst of Israel, Lev. 26^'-^^ (H), 
Ex. 25«, 29^^ Num. 5*, 35'' (P), i Kgs. 6'^ Ezek. 43^ of His 
causing His Name to dwell there, Deut. 12", 14^', i6--^'\ 26% & .). 
In Hebrew passages in which Yahweh is said to dwell, or to cause 

D 2 


His Name to dwell, in the midst of Israel, the Targumic phrase is, 
He caused His Sh^ktntd to dwell there. Examples are — 

Heb. Targ. 

Lev. 26'^ *And I will walk ^And I will cause My Slikintd 

among you *. to dwell among you '. 

Ex. 25"^ 'That I may dwell in 'That I may cause My Sh^kintd 

your midst '. to dwell among you '. 

Ex. 29^^ 'And I will dwell in 'And I will cause My Sh''kintd 

the midst of the children of to dwell in the midst of the 

Israel '. children of Israel *. 

So, of the withdrawal of Yahweh's Presence, 

Isa. 57'' 'I hid Myself. ' I caused My Sh^kJntd to depart 

(ascend) from them '. 
Ps. 44^ 'And Thou goest not 'And Thou dost not cause Thy 
forth with our hosts*. Sh''kintd to dwell with our 

Ps. 88' 'And they are cut off 'And they are separated from 
from Thy hand '. the face of Thy Sh^kintd, 

Thus we may assume with some confidence that /cat eo-ACTJi/wo-cv 
Iv rjfuv represents the Aramaic t533''3 n^riJipK^ ''1^^] 'and caused 
His Sh''ktntd to dwell among us*. The choice of the verb arK-qvovv 
was doubtless largely dictated by its close resemblance to the 
Semitic root s-k-n. The same usage is to be seen in Apoc. f" 

Kttl 6 KaOr'ifjLevo^ tVt rov Opovov (TKrjvwaiL lir avrovs, 21"^ 'l8ou, 17 crKrjvrj rov 
®€Ov jjLCTa TO)!/ oivOptoTrwv, KOL (TKr}V(i)(TeL /X€T avTioy. 

KoX iOeaa-dfjieOa rrjv So^av avrov. Here we have a clear reference 
to a second term used in the Targums to describe God's Self- 
manifestation to mankind, ^p ^IZ 'the G/ory of the Lord*. The 
conception of the ^']\>] Y'kdrd goes back, like that of the Sh^kintd, 
to O. T. passages. In these the Heb. term is 1^23 Kdbhodh. 
Thus, Ex. 16^", ' Behold, the Glory of the Lord appeared in the 
cloud*; 24^'', 'And the Glory of the Lord abode upon mount Sinai, 
and the cloud covered it six days * ; &c. The Targums employ 
Y^kdrd, like Slikintd, in paraphrasing passages which might, as 
they stand in the Heb., be taken to describe the actual appearance 
of God in bodily form. Thus — 



Ex. 3' 'And he came to the 
mountain of God, unto 

Ex. 3'' 'For he was afraid to 
look upon God *. 

Ex. 24'" 'And they saw the God 
of Israel '. 

And he came to the mountain 
on which the Y^kdrd of the 
Lord was revealed, even to 
For he was afraid to look 
upon the manifestation of the 
Y'Mra oUhe Lord'. 
'And they saw the Y'^kdrd of 
the God of Israel'. 

We sometimes find Sh'kmta and ^^kdra coupled; 6^"}^: n:^3f 
'the Dwelling of the Glory' — 

Isa. 40^' 'He that sitteth upon 
the circle of the earth '. 

Ps. 44^^ 'Wherefore hidest Thou 
Thy face ? * 

That causeth the Sh''ktntd of 

His Vkdrd to dwell in lofty 

strength '. 
Wherefore causest Thou the 

Sh ktntd of Thy Y^kdrd to 

depart ? ' 

Or, with inversion of order — 

Isa. & 'For mine eyes have 
seen the King, the Lord of 

' For mine eye hath seen the 
Y''Kdrd of the SKkintd of 
the King of the ages '. 

This last passage, from Isaiah's vision, leads us to a point 
which proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that when Jn. 
describes our Lord's Self-manifestation as 8d^a he has in mind 
the Y^kdrd of the Targums.* In Jn. 12^""*' the writer, after quoting 

Isa. 6'", adds the statement, raxra elirev 'Ho-ata? OTL €l8€V t7,v Soicv 

avTov. The opening of the vision (Isa. 6') runs in Heb., 'I saw 
the Lord sitting upon a throne', and this is rendered in Targ., 
'I saw the Y^Mrd of the Lord resting on His throne'. Other 
instances in Jn. of 8o^a in this sense are, 2}^ i(f>av€p(jD(Tev t7,v Soiav 

avTOVj II''" iav 7n(rT€V(rrjs oif/y rrjv 86$av rov @€Ov, 17'^ ira ^cwpaJcrtv r^v 
8d^av r^v i/xi^v. 

We are now in a position to maintain that the Adyos-conception 

* Not of course necessarily the written Targums. but at any rate the conceptions 
which entered into the oral exposition of Scripture called Targum. 



of the Prologue must undoubtedly be derived from the third and 
most frequent Targumic conception representing God in mani- 
festation; that of the Tp. ^^^'^ ^the IVord of the Lord'. We 
should no doubt trace the origin of the conception of the 5<19*^ 
Memrd to O. T. passages in which Heb. '^^'^ dabhdr 'Word' is 
employed in a connexion which almost suggests hypostatization, 
e.g. Ps. 107^", 'He sent forth His Word and healed them'; 
' s. 33^ 'By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made'. 
This latter passage, with its reference to the Word's action in 
Creation, recalls the repeated D^npN "JCN^i ^ And God said' in Gen. i, 
where the Heb. verb "lp^? 'dmar is identical with the Aram, root 
from which Memrd is derived. Memrd occurs repeatedly in the 
Targg. in passages where the Heb. represents God as speaking, 
acting, or manifesting Himself in a manner which seemed too 
anthropomorphic to Jewish thought of later times. This may be 
illustrated from the occurrences of the term in the first few 
chapters of Genesis. 


Gen. 3^ 'And they heard the 
voice of the Lord God walk- 
ing, &c.* 

3'" ' I heard Thy voice '. 

6" 'And it repented the Lord 
that He had made man '. 

6' ' For it repenteth Me \ 

8^ 'And the Lord said in His 
heart, I will not again curse, 

9'^ ' This is the token of the 
covenant which I make be- 
tween Me and you *. 

So in t;t;. "•''•>'•''. 

We cannot fail to notice that in Jn. i'^ the writer— no doubt 
with intention — brings together all three of these Targumic con- 


'And they heard the voice of 
the Memrd of the Lord God 
walking, &c.' 

' I heard the voice of Thy 
Memrd '. 

' And the Lord repented in His 
Memrd because He had made 

' Because I have repented in My 
Memrd '. 

'And the Lord said in [or by) 
His Memrd, I will no more 
curse, &c.' 

' This is the token of the cove- 
nant which I am making be- 
tween My Memrd and you '. 



ceptions.* In koI 6 Xoyo? a-api cycVcro we have the Mhnrd ; in 

/cat i(TKi^v(o(T€V iv rjfxly the Sll'kinta ] in Kol iOeaad/JieOa ti]v So^av avrov 

the Y^/:ara. This is evidence that, so far from his owing his 
Aoyo9-doctrine to an Alexandrine source, he is soaked through 
and through with the Palestinian Jewish thought which is repre- 
sented by the Targums. Nor would the teaching of the Prologue 
need time for its development. Any disciple of our Lord who 
had heard the Targumic rendering of the O.T. in the synagogue, 
and who was capable of recognizing a superhuman power shining 
through the Master's Personality in His mighty acts, of detecting 
the Divine voice in His teaching, and at length of apprehending 
that in His Presence on earth God had come to dwell among 
men, could hardly fail to draw the inference that here was the 
grand fulfilment of O. T. conceptions so familiar to him through 
the Aramaic paraphrase. 

irXrjpy]^ Xaptro^ kol a\r}6€La<s. The reference of this statement 
back to the main subject of the sentence, 6 Aoyos — which makes koI 
iOeaardfieOa ktX. a parenthesis — is certainly awkward. It would be 
possible to assume that -rrXripr}^ is a misreading for TtXrip-qji referring 
to Tr]v So^av avrov. If, however, V. ^'% which speaks of the witness 
of John, and somewhat harshly breaks the connexion of thought, 
may be supposed to be misplaced, and properly to follow after 
the Prologue before v.'^^ (^John bear witness . . . And this is the 
witness of John, &c.'), then another theory lies open. In v. "^ on cV 

Tov 7rXr]p(i)fJLaT0<s avrov tj/jlcls Travrcs iXd^ofiev, i.e. ^J^^i" ^tt ^ "^V.?^ IP"^/ 

■^ may mean, not ' because ', but * He who ' (the assumed mistrans- 
lation is a converse one to that noted in vv. ^•^^). Thus we get 
the statement, 'Full of grace and truth was He of whose fullness 
we have all received '. Aramaic, literally rendered, would express 
this by, ' Full of grace and truth (was) He who of His fullness we 
have all received '. 

V. ^^ /Aovoyev-^? 0£o's. This reading has stronger attestation than 
the variant ftovoyev^s vto?, which looks like a correction. It must 

* This has been noted by Dahnan, WJ. p. 231. 

t This is the reading of Cod. D. Deissmann {LAE. pp. 125 ff.) defends irXrjprjs 
as an indeclinable adjective, on the score of popular usage; and is followed by 
Moulton {NTG.^ p. 50). The same view was earlier put forward by Blass, 
Gramwar (,Eng. tr. 1898), § 31, 6, and by C. H. Turner in Journal of Theol. Studies 
i (1900), pp. 120 ff. 


be admitted, however, that the expression (though fully in accord 
with the teaching of the Prologue) is hardly to be expected after 
the preceding, ' No man hath seen God at any time '. It may 
be suggested that the Aramaic ^^^fS '^''O:, 'the only- begotten of 
God *, has been misunderstood as ^'^^^^ "i^OJ (Absolute for Construct 
State), and so rendered, ' the only-begotten God '. 

It thus appears that nearly every verse of the Prologue yields 
evidence pointing to an Aramaic original. Besides, however, the 
special points which have been discussed, we notice generally 
(i) the simplicity of construction, with its fondness for co-ordination 
of sentences linked by Kat (cf. especially vv. i-3»io"i4j^ and (2) the 
many cases of parallelism in thought and expression — a marked 
trait of Hebrew poetic composition. Close study of this latter 
characteristic brings to light a most interesting fact. The Prologue 
seems to take the form of a hymn, written in eleven parallel 
couplets, with comments introduced here and there by the writer. 
This may be clearly seen in the Aramaic translation which follows, 
together with an English rendering of it. In making the translation 
the Judaean dialect has been used as far as possible. On the 
distinction between the Judaean and Galilaean dialects of Aramaic, 
see Dalman, Gramm. pp. 33 ff.* 

T : " T-; T :'- : 

.Nnbx mi) Nin N-iD''Di 

T T v: t: T-; t : •• 

T : " T-: TT •• 

♦«ni)K nib ND^pn Nin «in 

TTv: t: t :'-: t-: 

i^DyrT'N n*n xb 

' •- •• T-: - 

* The differences are slight. We have chosen ^<|^ see' rather than NDPI, yi^ 
'know' rather than DDR, |n^'''K 'but' in preference to N?N ; and the nominal 

ist plural suffix 6^3 rather than \ , verbal ist plural suffix ^{3 rather than 

p , Possibly the Relative should be '•'=1 as in Biblical Aramaic ; but "H is the 

Targumic form. Choice of the Judaean dialect is bound up with the view of 
authorship put forward on pp. 133 ff. 


Klin: bv i^no^i ^inob nhn* ]^in .pnv ,tck^ kh^jn p n'nK'D 5<"in2 xin 

T : - •• : - : -;-: t -; I •• t 'tt •• ; t t v: • • -- ; -r : - t-: 

T; T; « "t-t'-T* t; T-: T •• ••. •• I .... 

Nin Nobys .NoSjyn tik k^jk i^D^j nnjD-n Nis^j'^pn 

T-: T : T : t : t : ■• t tv: t : - : - : t : ' ; 

^ :- T T : T : 

am n\b''"n nib 

t^v"^^ 1^ i'!}b''N N133 nuv iP i6) N^jpa nuv |rp n^i (? pp'n or) ^<91 iD «b'=i 

♦«3:^5 H-ri^sB^ n^'Ki 
nnp'' n'' NJ^im 

••'t : - T — : - 

T - ' • T • • T t: 

.wnD3 Nib^s n^^b.^ IDT 

T : - : TT ••:-'•: 

•^^3n P|bn N|n 
/Wd N^n NiNT NniV2 n^N":! xnbt^ n^n^ .>.-iDi^ ?o c^jn svtn ^b nh^n 

•• - : T - : T : • : tt v: • : • ' • tv: t-; t ttv: 

1. ' In the beginning was the Word, 

And the Word was with God. 

2. And God was the Word ; 

He was in the beginning with God. 

3. All things by Him were made; 

And without Him there was made naught ; 

4. Because in Him was life, 

And the life was the light of mankind. 

5. And the light in darkness was shining, 
And the darkness obscured it not. 

There was a man sent from God, his name, John. That one 
came for a witness, that he might bear witness of the light, that 


all might believe in it. That one was not the light, but one who 
should bear witness of the light. It was the true light that lighteth 
every man coming into the world. He was in the world, 

6. And the world by Him was made, 
And the world knew Him not. 

7. Unto His own He came, 

And His own received Him not. 

As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become 
the sons of God -to those that believe in His name; because He 
was born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the 
will of a man, but of God. 

8. And the Word was made flesh. 
And set His Sh^kintd among us. 

9. And we beheld His Glory, 

Glory as of the only-begotten of the Father. 

10. He was full of grace and truth. 

Of Whose fullness we all have received, 

And grace for grace. 

11. For the law was given through Moses, 
Grace and truth through the Messiah. 

No man hath ever seen God ; the only-begotten of God, Who is in 
the bosom of the Father — He hath revealed.' 

A striking feature of the hymn is that it contains several 
examples of the somewhat rare but well-marked form of parallelism 
which is known as Climactic. In this form stichos 6 of a couplet 
does not offer a more or less complete echo of stichos a, but adds 
something more which completes the sense of the distich, thus 
forming, as it were, its climax. Dr. Driver [Literature of the O. T.^ 
p. 363) remarks that 'this kind of rhythm is all but peculiar to the 
most elevated poetry'; and quotes as instances Ps. 29^, 92^, 93^, 
94^, 96^^, ii3\ 'There is something analogous to it, though much 
less forcible and distinct, in some of the '' Songs of Ascents " 
(Pss. 121-34), where a somewhat emphatic word is repeated from 
one verse (or line) in the next, as Ps. i2i'''-2 (help); v. ^^•^; v. '''•'*; 
z;. 7 8a. J222*':*a^ &c.* Climactic parallelism is very characteristic 


of the Song of Deborah ; see note in the writer's Commentary on 
Judges, pp. 169 f. The following examples may be noted in the 
poem of the Prologue : — 

4. Because in Him was life 

And the life | was the light of mankind. 

5. And the light in darkness was shining, 

And the darkness | obscured it not. 

7. Unto His own He came, 

And His own | received Him not. 

9. And we beheld His glory, 

Glory I as of the only-begotten of the 

10. He was full of grace and truth, 

Of Whose fullness | we all have received. 

Of the remaining couplets, i, 2, and 8 may be reckoned as 
synonymous, while 3, 6, and 11 are antithetical. 

It should be noted that the couplets, besides being parallel, 
appear also to be rhythmical, each line containing three stresses. 
In V. ^', in place of Sia 'Irjaov Xpiarov the translation offers ' through 
the Messiah' simply, metri gratia. 'Irjo-ov may very naturally have 
come in as a later addition. 

Additional Note on the interpretation of Jn. i'-^ as referring to 
the Virgin-Birth {cf p. 34). 

There is an essential unity in the teaching of St. Luke, St. Paul, 
and St. John as to the mode and meaning of the Incarnation 
which ought not to be overlooked. All go back in thought to the 
appearance of Jesus Christ on earth as a new Creation, to be 
compared and contrasted with the first Creation of the world and 
of mankind ; and all therefore draw upon Gen. i, 2 in working out 
their theme. Just as God's first creative act was the formation of 
lights breaking in upon the physical darkness which had previously 
covered primeval chaos, so was the birth of Christ the dawn 
of Light in the midst of the spiritual darkness of the world. 
That this idea was in St. Paul's mind is definitely stated 

by him in 2 Cor. 4^", ov yap iavTOv<s K-rjpvora-oixev aXAa Xpto-rov ^Irjaovv 


Kvpiov, . . . oTt 6 0€O9 6 eLTTwv 'Ek (tkotovs ^tos Xdfxij/eL, OS eXafJiif/eif iv rais 
Kap8iats rjfxoiv Trpos (juaTLO-^ov t^s yv(0(reo>s r^S So^?/s to{) ©eot) ci/ TrpoaoiTrco 

XpLo-Tov. Cf. also I Cor. 4"^, 2 Cor. 6^^ Eph. 5^; Col. !'•'. Allusion 
to Gen. I, which is clearly seen in the opening words of Jn. i, 
* In the beginning', seems also to be behind vv/'^, where it is 
stated that the Logos, as the Agent in Creation, represented the 
introduction of Light into the world, and, by an almost imperceptible 
transition, the writer's thought passes from the introduction of life 
and light at Creation to its spiritual introduction at the Incarna- 
tion. Moreover, just as the introduction of light into the world at 
Creation did not immediately abolish physical darkness, but led to 
the setting by God of a division (^"j!^*!. Gen. 1'') between light and 
darkness, so (Jn. i^) in the Incarnation the Light was shining in 
darkness and the darkness did not obscure it ; its introduction into 
the world producing a KptW whereby Light and darkness were 
sharply distinguished and men had to range themselves under the 
one or the other (Jn. 3^^^^; cf. 9"^^, i2''=='^-'<^).* Turning to the 
Birth-narrative of St. Luke, it is surely not fanciful to find in the 

words cf the angel in I^% IlvcCiyua aytov eVeAci^o-erat hn ere, Kat 8vVa/xis 

'Yif/Lo-Tov iTnorKtaa-Ei troi, an implied reference to Gen. i^, where the 
Spirit of God is pictured as brooding or hovering (risniD) over the 
face of the waters in the initial process of Creation which issues in 
the production of light.t So for St. Luke the Divine Birth 

means the dawning of avaroXr} 1$ vij/ovs, iTTK^avai rots €1/ CKorct Kttt 
(TKLo. Oavdrov KaOrj/jiivois (l'^'^^), and ^ws cts OLTroKaXvij/LV iOvutv (2^"). 

Again, the connexion in thought between the Old Creation and 

* A similar mystical interpretation of the Genesis passage is given in Midrash 
Bereshith Rabba, par. iii. 10; ' Rabbi Yannai said, When He began to create the 
world, the Holy One ^blessed be He) observed the works of the righteous and 
the works of the wicked. "And the earth was a waste", i.e. the works of the 
wicked. "And God said, Let there be light", i.e. the works of the righteous. 
"And God divided between the light and between the darkness "— between the 
works of the righteous and the works of the wicked. " And God called the light, 
day", i.e. the works of the righteous. "And the daikness he called, night", 
i.e. the works of the wicked. "And there was morning", i.e. the works of the 
righteous. ''And there was evening", i.e. the wtjrks of the wicked. "One 
day", inasmuch as the Holy One blessed be He) gave them one da}'. And what 
is this? The Day of Atonement.' 

f This Genesis passage is applied in Midrash Bereshith Rabba to the endowment 
of the Messiah with the Divijie Spirit ; ' This is the Spirit of the King-Messiah, as 
it is said, "And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him ".' 


the New is explicit in St. PauKs teaching as to the first Adam and 

the second Adam in I Cor. 15^' ; ovrcos koI yiypa-n-Tai 'EyeVcro 6 TrpaJros 
avOpoiTTo^ 'A8a/x et? ^v\y]v ^uxrav 6 lcr;^aro? 'A8a/A ct? irvev/Jia ^(dottolovv. 
This is worked out in the frequent antithesis between o-ap^ and 
TTvevfia, ^nd in the representation of baptism as a burial with Christ 
in which 6 TraXaio? rjfxthv avOpoiwo^ is put off, and the baptized rises 
with Christ to newness of life (Rom. 6^^). We find the same 
antithesis between a-dp^ and Trrei'/xa in Jn. 3''', 6'''', the whole of the 
discussion with Nicodemus in ch. 3 turning on the new birth which 
is cV Tov TTvevfiaTos. In 6"^ it is stated, in contrast to crdpi, that 
TO TTvev/xd icTTLv TO ^woTTOLovv, SL thought of whicli the couuexiou with 
St. Paul's eyeVcro ... 6 €0-;(aT09 'ASol/x ets Tryevfxa ^wottolovv can hardly 

be accidental. This connexion would, it may be presumed, be 
generally explained by the theory of the influence of Pauline 
Theology upon the writer of the Fourth Gospel ; and this may 
be so. A fact, however, which is surely beyond question is that 
St. Paul's ouTtos KOL yiypaTTTat refers not simply to the quotation from 
Gen. 2', * He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and 
man became a living soul ', but to the whole passage relating to the 
first Adam and the second Adam, from iyevero down to ^oiOTroiovv. 
6 earxuTo^ 'ASa/x ets 7rv€i}/xa ^wottoiow depends upon iyevero introducing 
the quotation equally with what go^s before, from which it should 
be divided by a comma merely, and not by a colon (WH.) or full 
stop (R.V.). Had it been St. Paul's own addition, could he 
possibly have phrased the sentence thus, and not have written at 

least o 8e €(TXfJ-To<s 'A8a/x eyevcro eU Trvevfxa ^(dottolovv ? 

If, however, the whole passage is a quotation, whence was it 
derived ? There can be no doubt that the form in which St. Paul's 
argument is cast is influenced by Rabbinic speculation, and that 
the Rabbinism of Palestine.* Though born at Tarsus, he claims 

* The expression p'J N")n D^^? ' the first Adam ' is well known in early 
Midrashic literature. fi"inXn Dli< 'the second Adam', i.e. the Messiah, is not 

' -: - T T T 

known to us in Midrash before the N^we shdlont, the work of a Spanish Jew in the 
15th century a. d (cf. Thackeray, 7'he Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish 
Thought^ pp. 40 ff.); but the Midrash Beresliilh Rabba (ascribed by tradition to 
R. Hoshaiah, 3rd century a.d.) brings the Messiah into contrast with 'the first 
Adam ' when, in commenting on Gen. 2*, ' These are the generations of the heaven 
and the earth ', it quotes earlier Rabbinical speculation as to the reason why the 
word for ' generations ' is written plene with 1 only in this passage and in Ruth 4^^, 


to be 'EjSpaios i^ 'E/3pata)i/(Phil. 3^), i. e. not a 'EWrjVLa-Tr]^ (cf. Acts 6'), 
and he obtained his education at Jerusalem under GamaHel, who 
was one of the most prominent Rabbinic teachers of the time 
(Acts 22^). But prior to St. Paul's conversion the earliest circle of 
Christian believers at Jerusalem was drawn not merely from the 
peasant-class, but embraced (according to Acts 6') 'a great company 
of the priests *, who would scarcely have been unversed in Rabbinic 
teaching, but may be supposed to have applied such learning as 
they had acquired to the service of the new Faith. 

It is by no means improbable, therefore, that the passage as 
a whole may have been drawn from a collection of O. T. Tes/i'mom'a, 
composed with the object of meeting Rabbinic Judaism upon its 
own ground.* If it be objected to this suggestion that elsewhere 
throughout the N. T, yeypaTrrat introduces a definite citation from 
the O. T., and that this is also the case with allusions to tj ypa<f>r] 

* These are the generations of Perez ' (DIT^in , but elsewhere always mblH), and 
cites the inference that 1, which numerically = 6, implies that the six things which 
Adam lost through the Fall shall be restored at the coming of 'the son of Perez '^ 
i.e. the Davidic Messiah. The Messiah appears as a life-giver (cf. -nvivm ^wo-noiovv) 
in the Midrash hag-gadol to Genesis (compiled by a Yemenite Jew of the 14th 
century) which, commenting on Gen. 16^', states that there are six persons whose 
names werfe given to them before their birth, viz. Ishmael, Isaac, Moses, Solomon, 
Josiah, and the King-Messiah. On the last it sa3'S, 'The King-Messiah, because 
it is written, " Before the sun his name shall be Yinnon ". And wliy is his name 
called Yinnon'i because he is destined to quicken those who sleep in the dust.' 
Here (he Scriptural passage quoted is Ps. 72^^ \q>^ p^^ ^^ry ip^J, < Before the 
sun shall his name propagate^ (or ^produce life''), and the verbal form, only here in 
O.T., is treated as a Messianic title — ' He who quickens '. This Midrash is quoted by 
Raymund Martin in his Pugio Fidei, chap, ii, 11, who refers it to Moses had-Darshan, 
born at Narbonne about the middle of the iilh century a. d. Late as this is, we 
have the evidence of the Talmud {Sanhedrin, 98 b) that Yinnon was early regarded 
as a Messianic title, for in the passage in question the pupils of R. Yannai (an 
Amora of the first generation — 2nd to 3rd century a. d.) maintain, as a compliment 
to their teacher, that the Messiah's name is to be Yinnon. The Psalm-passage is 
quoted in Midrash Bereshith Rabba, par. i. 5, as evidence that the name of the 
Messiah existed prior to the creation of the world, though it is not there stated 
that Yinnon is to be taken as his name. 

Though no part of this Midrashic speculation can be traced back to the 
1st century a. d., it serves to illustrate the kind of Rabbinic teaching which may 
well have formed part of St. Paul's early training. 

* Cf. Sanday, The Gospels in the Second Century, p. 272; 'We know that types 
and prophecies were eagerly sought out by the early Christians, and were soon 
collected in a kind of common stock from which every one drew at his pleasure.' 


(with the possible exception of i Tim. 5'^, where our Lord's words 
"A^io? 6 ipydrrjs tov fxia-Oov avrov seem to be included under the term), 
it may be replied that St. Paul's quotation does consist of such 
a citation from the O. T. plus a deduction therefrom, and would 
ex hypothesi be derived from a collection of proofs based on the 
O. T. and therefore drawn Ik tu>v ypa<^w. We may further draw 
attention to the use of this formula of 'citation in the Epistle of 
Barnabas 4'^ where our Lord's words in Mt. 22'"* are quoted: 

7rpo(Te)(0ifi€V /ti^TTOTe, a)s yiypaiTTaL, TroAAot KkriToi, oXtyoi h\ c/cA.€KTOt €vpi- 

Oo)fjL€v. Similarly, the formula Xeyct yap rj ypa<f>rj is used in Barnabas 
16' to introduce a quotation from Enoch Sq''"'"'"'. 

If, then, this interpretation of i Cor. 15^' as wholly a quotation 
be correct, the implication is that some time before St. Paul wrote 
his Epistle in a.d. 55-6, the antithesis between the first Adam 
and Christ as the second Adam had been worked out in Christian 
Rabbinic circles and was used in argument. This conclusion 
surely modifies the question of the dependence of the Fourth 
Gospel upon St. Paul in regard to the teaching here involved, 
suggesting as it does the alternative theory that both may have 
been dependent upon a common earlier method of theolQgical 
expression of the truths of the Incarnation. 

St. Luke supplies us with further food for thought in this con- 
nexion. His Birth-narrative is certainly from a Jewish-Christian 
source, and is generally acknowledged to be early. If any portions 
of it are earlier than the rest, these are the poems which it contains ; 
and the angel's words at the Annunciation are no less a poem 
cast in rhythmical parallelism than are the Magnificat, Benedtcius, 
and Nunc dimtttts. We have had occasion to cite passages from 
all these, except the Magnificat, in arguing the unity of their 
thought with that of St. Paul and St. John. We may now note 
the fact that St. Luke carries back our Lord's genealogy to Adam, 
' who was the son of God ' (3^^^). What is the reason for this ? 
Doubtless one reason is to be found in the fact that his Gospel 
is pre-eminently a universal Gospel — not for the Jews only but 
for the whole Gentile world also. May not, however, another 
(and perhaps the prime) reason be that the fact that the first Adam 
was born not by natural generation but by an act of God, in itself 
suggests the reasonableness that the second Adam should likewise 


so be born ? If this is so, it is of course likely that St. Luke may 
have owed his conception to St. Paul's doctrine of Christ as the 
second Adam ; but, if our argument has been sound, St. Paul 
himself owed it to an earlier source, embodied in a collection of 
Tesiimonia for general use. If, then, St. Luke's rov 'ASa/A, rov ©eov 
links itself on to vtos ©eov in the words of the Annunciation, and if 
his thought shows connexion with St. Paul's doctrine of the two 
Adams, is it likely that St. Paul, in enunciating this doctrine, was 
ignorant of the tradition of the Virgin-Birth?* 

* This point has already been brought out by Dr. Box, The Virgin Birth of 
Jesus, pp. 38 f., 150. 



It is highly characteristic of Aramaic to open its sentences 
abruptly without the use of a connective particle. In this respect 
its contrast with Hebrew is very marked, the latter language 
regularly employing 'And' in prose to connect a sentence with 
what goes before, the force of this 'And' varying as determined 
by the context (And, So, Then, But, Yet, &c.). This difference 
in usage may well be illustrated from the Book of Daniel, in which 
chs. I* — 2"", 8—12 are written in Hebrew, while chs. 2^^ — 7 are in 

Dan. i'— 2^" (Hebrew) consists of 23 sentences. Of these, 22 
(i.e. all but the opening verse of ch. i) begin with 'And' (some- 
times variously rendered in R.V. ' Then ', ' But ', ' So '). 

Dan. 2^^^ (Aramaic) contains 44 sentences. Of these, 22 begin 
with a connective particle, and 22 without such particle. The 
openings are as follows : 

With connective particle. Without connective particle. 

7;." im 'And if. z;.^ N3^D my 'Answered the 
v.^ \r\ n 'For if. king'. 

V." Kni>D1 'And the word'. vJ Ijy ' They answered ', 

z;.^" xmi 'And the decree'. v.^ v^2h^ n^y 'Answered the 
v,^"^ ijN^:! |nN3 'Then Daniel'. king'. 

i;.^"^ Nni^D pnx 'Then the ^.lo ^^^^-^^ ^jy 'Answered the 

word '. Chaldaeans '. 

V?' i>y i5X^:m 'And Daniel went ^n ^y^ t,^^ L,^ 'Because of this'. 

in'. ^.^5« -icit<l njy 'He answered 
v.^' Wn in« 'Then Daniel'. and said'. 

b^'^rh pN 'Then to ^.20 i,^,^^ n^y 'Answered 

Daniel '. Daniel '. 

19 a 


v.'^^ bi^'^l p^^^ ' Then Daniel '. 
v/" nvns pIN ' Then Arioch '. 

2;.^ nJNi ' And I \ 

v.^ 1p1 p^xn 'Then were 

broken '. 
i;.'^ innni 'And after thee', 
t;.""* N^v>3i iD^JDl 'And the fourth 

kingdom *. 
z//^ nnnn ni 'And whereas 

thou sawest '. 
v.^^ t<"»i'n nynvsi 'And the toes', 
z^.'^ nnnn m 'And whereas thou 

sawest \ 
V,** |iTDV31 ' And in their days '. 
v.'^ K^i^D pixn 'Then the king'. 
v."^ toi)» pis ' Then the king '. 
V.'' i^N-ili ' And Daniel '. 

v.^'' ^b: N^n ' He revealeth '. 
vr' Tinnj^ rhi< i? ' To thee the 

God of my fathers '. 
v.^' nJT b^p b 'Because of 

v.-^ ND^JD n:v 'Answered the 

king '. 
v.^' bi<':i njy 'Answered 

Daniel '. 
z;.^'' ID^n 'Thy dream'. 
v,^^ NdI'D nnD« 'Thou, O king'. 
v.^''' id. 

v.^^b pn tiO^V 'This image '. 
v."^^ SD^JV Xin ' That image '. 
v."^* n^in nm ' Thou sawest '. 
v.^^ ND^'n n:n ' This is the 

dream '. 
v.^^ {<D^D nn^s ' Thou, O king *. 
v.^'" nmn n i^ap b^ 'Whereas 

thou sawest'. 
v.^' i^J?D njv 'Answered the 


This great frequency of unconnected sentences is equally 
characteristic of the rest of the Aramaic portion of the Book 
of Daniel. In ch. 8 the Hebrew begins again, and here we have 
27 sentences (corresponding with the verse-division). Of these, 
24 begin with 'And' (sometimes rendered, 'Then', 'Now', 'So', 
'Yea'), and 3 only {vv.'^'^-'^) without any connective particle. It 
will thus be seen how clear is the distinction in style between 
Aramaic and Hebrew even of so late a date (c. 167 b. c). When 
we come down to the Hebrew of the Mishna, we do find a paucity 
of connective particles, entirely owing to the influence of Aramaic. 

Now great frequency of sentences opening without a connective 
particle is a marked characteristic of the Fourth Gospel. If we 
take ch. i — neglecting openings in speeches [vv.'^^^'-^, &c.), where 
asyndeton is natural in Greek as in English — we find 34 asyndeton 


openings, as against 28 with connective particle. In the 28 sen- 
tences which have connective particles, these are Kat 19 times, 
he 4 times, on twice, ovv 3 times. ' And *, which is thus more than 
doubly as frequent as all the others taken together, is the ordinary 
Semitic connective particle, which bears various forces according 
to the context (cf. p. 49). The openings are as follows : 

With connective particle. 

v." Kol TO ^0)9. 

V?^ ocroL Se. 
1'.^'*" /cat 6 Xoyo9. 


14 6 

Kol iOeacrdjJLeOa, 

V.'^ art 6K Tov TrXrjpiofiaTO'S. 

OTL O I/0/X09. 

V. Kat avTT] coTir. 
Z/.^" KOL oi/xoXoy-qa-ev. 
v}'^ Kcu 7]p(x)Tr)(rav. 


Kat Aeyct. 
Kat aTreKpLOr]. 

iLirav ovv. 

1)?^ Kat d7r€OTaA./x,€vot. 
V.'"^^ Kat rjpwTTjo'av, 
V^"^' Ti owySaTTTt^et?; 

V.^^ Kayo} ovK ySeiv avTov. 
V.'^'^ Kat i/xaprvprjcrev. 

Without connective particle. 

V.^ iv oLp)(rj ■^v. 

V. ovTos y]v. 

V.^ TrdvTa Sl avTov tycvcro. 

V.'^ iv aiTW ^(orj rjv. 

V.^ iyiv€TO dvOpwTTO^. 

V.' ouTOS rjXBcv. 

V.^ OVK rjv CKCtVOS TO <f>U)^. 

V.^ rjv TO <f)(i)S TO aX.rjOLv6v. 

V.^^ iv Tw Kocrpno rjv. 

V.'' €ts ra t8ta ^XBe. 

Z//" ^liadwq^ fiapTvpii. 

J,, 176 « / ^ < > \ 'Zl 

V. Yf X^P'-^ '^^^ V o.A.iqu€La» 

^ 18 a 0g^j, ovSets i(i)paK€, 

V.^^ lxovoyev7j<s ©cos. 



V.^"'* OLTreKpLOrj avTo2<s. 

«. 266 / « « / 

V. fiioros vfKDV (rrrfKei, 

1)?^ TavTa kv ^TjOavLa iyeveTO. 

V.''^ Trj iiravpLov ySAeVct. 

E 2 





Kayu) ovK yjScLV avTov. 
Kayo) iiopuKa, 
Kttfc ifx^Xeif/as. 
Koi ^Kovcrav. 
(rTpa(fi€L<i 84. 

Ol 06 ClTTttV. 

rjXOav ovv. 

43 b 


Koi €VpL(TKeL ^lXlTTTTOV. 

rjv SI 6 $t'A.t7r7ro9. 

V.^'' Ty ivravpLov ttoXlv IcrTT^Ket. 

t/.^^" Aeyct avTOLS, 
V.^^'^ (Spa rjv ws hi-Karrj. 
t;/" Tjv 'Av8p€a5. 

Z*/^ €VpL<rK€L OVTOS. 

^•^^" "^yaycv arrov. 

i;/^^ ip.pXiij/a'i avTW. 

^•^* * T^ iTravpLOV yOiXrjo-ev. 


45 /> 

Z/.'*' €t8ci/ 'Iiycrovs. 

?;/**** Xeyct avToi Na^avaiyX. 

aiTiKpiOy] avTw Na^avai/A.. 

f.''' Kat Acyci avTO). 

In order to prove that this characteristic is found throughout 
the Fourth Gospel, we may take two other chapters —from the 
middle and end — consisting mainl}' of narrative. Ch. ii contains 
59 sentences, of which 17 have no connective particle [vv, s9W«i'-23 2<-,.48j. ^^^ jg coutaius 52 sentcuccs, and 20 of these 
are without connective particle {yv.'-'^'^-'-^^'^^^^^^^'^^^-^'^^'^ 
This is a smaller proportion than in ch. i ; yet, as compared with 
the Synoptists, it is a very high one. To take three chapters at 
random from the Jatter — Mt. 3 contains 13 sentences, none without 
connective particle; Mk. 1 contains 38 sentences, 2 only without 
connective particle {w.^-^) ; Lk. 8 contains 60 sentences, 2 only 
without connective particle (vv.^^-^^). 

Asyndeton aTreKpLOrj, aTriKpiOiqaav = asyndeton np.y, iiJJ. 

In the openings of unconnected sentences given above from the 
Aramaic of Dan. 2, it will be noticed that 9 out of the 22 take 
the form, * Answered (so and-so) *. This is very characteristic, 



28 examples occurring in the six Aramaic chapters, while there 
are only 2 cases of ' Then answered ' (5'^ 6'^), and none at all of 
'And answered'. In contrast, the whole Hebrew O.T. offers 
only 2 such unconnected openings, 'Answered ' (Song 2°, rendered 
'spake' in R.V. ; Ps. 118'^), while there are 145 cases of 'And 
answered (so-and-so) ', jyi, l^yi, &c. 

Thfodotion's version of Dan. does not always represent this 
Aramaic 'Answered'; but where it does, it regularly renders 
oiTreKpiOr], aireKpLOrjcrav (11 times ; once aTroKpiOeU), preserving the 
asyndeton in 4 cases (2'^^-*", 4-^), but elsewhere prefixing Kai These 
12 passages, in all of which the Aramaic phrase is regularly 
followed by 'and said', before statement of the words spoken, 
are as follows : 


"ICN^ . . 

. T^^V 



incNi . 

. . i:y 

aireKpiO'qcrav . . . 

Kal eiTrav. 


-ir:Ni . . 

. r\^v 

KOI aTreKpiOr] . . . 

. KUL ClTTeV. 


inc«i . 

. . iDy 

aTreKptOrja-av . . . 

Kttt XeyovcTLv. 


i?:ni . . 

. njy 

Kttt aTreKpiOrj . . . 

, /cat ciTrev. 


n^Ni . . 

. n:v 

KOL airf.KpiOr] . . . 

Kttt XiytL. 


nct^i ♦ . 

. n:y 

Kttt aTTOKpLOiis . . 

. ecTrev. 


nDNi . . 

. njy 

Acat aTTtKpiOr) . . . 



pHDNI . , 

. . ijy 

Kttt a7r€KpL$7](rav . 

. . . Xiyovres. 


nCNI . . 

, njy 

Kttt aTTiKpcOrj . . . 

KOL €L7r€V. 


ncNi . . 

, njy 

Kttt aTTCKpiOr] . . . 



ncNi . . 

. n:y 

aTreKpiOr] . . . koi 


In the Fourth Gospel aTrcKpiOr) or dTreKpiOrja-av occurs as asyndeton 
openings 65 times (see below), dTroK/jtWrat once, 13^^ On the other 
hand, we have dTrcKpiOrj ovv, f\ g~'% 12-^* ; aircKpiOria-av ovv, 2'^, 7^', 9^ ; 
OS Se aTTCKpcOrj, 5^^ ; direKpivaTO ovv, 5'"* } o Sk (XTrcKpiVaTO, 5'' ; diroKpLV^Tai 

ovv, 13-'''; 6 3e 'Iryo-ovs diroKpLveTai, 12^; i.e. 11 cases of this verb 
as an opening with connective particle, as against 66 cases without. 
Elsewhere in the whole N.T. aTreKpcOrj as an asyndeton opening 
occurs only in Mk. 12-^ In the Synoptists the common phrase 
is 6 Se dTTOKpiOds {a-TTOKpiOd^ 8c) ctTrev, which rather resembles the 
common Hebrew phrase n^N*'! jyi 'And he answered and said*, 
of which it is frequently the rendering in LXX. 

Of the 65 cases of asyndeton opening dTreKpiOrjf dTrcKptOrja-av in 


Jn., 38 introduce the words spoken without further verb, viz. 

_49 ^5 -7.11 /C7.68.70 -20.46 -..3.11.27 t./-» -,9 To8-i6 tA^I 
j35.;^ j^^ 2j5 . ^g ^^^^ J^^^^ ^TTeKpt^r/. . . AcyWV, I^'' ; 

while in the 26 other cases the opening is air^KpiOy] [aTre KpiOrjaav) . . . 

Kol el-rrev (erTrav), viz. I^«-^«, 2^^ 3=^-«'^-% 4^«-"-^", 6-«-2"-^^ V^'-^^^ S'''-'-^^ 

^30.34.36^ 12'^", 13^, 14^^ 18^", 2o-^ It is difficult to resist the conclusion 
that aireKpiOrj koI etirev is a literal rendering of the Aram. *1PN1 npy^ 
and aTreKpidyjcrav kol ctTrav of P~^^^^ '^^V., fov which, as we have seen, 
they stand in Theodotion's Daniel. 

Asyndeton Xeyet, Xeyovaiv = asyndeton ^P^ (parttciple), P^?. 

Similarly, we constantly find that Jn. uses Xeyct as an opening 
without connective particle. The cases are i^^-^f'^s^ 2^', 3'', ^8 £.» -.SO 0?,9 ^12 y , 6(«.40.44 t.o''- ^ ^b.6.8.9.^ 
j3.V17.26.38^ j^6.15^ 2q13.^ 2j3.I0.12.15 M,.I6/.r.l7 6fe.-:2 . ^ ^Qf^] ^f ^3^ 

Xcyovo-ti/ without connective particle occurs in ii**^\ i6^", 21^; 
e/fctVry . . . Xeyet, 2o'^ ; aWoi cXcyov in io^\ 12^^ On the Other hand, 
we have the opening kol Xeyci in 2"*^, 19" ; koI Xeyova-iv in 20^^ ; 
KoX eXiyev in 6^^ S^^ ; Ktti cAcyov in 6'2; Acyet ow in 4^, 7", 13% 18'', 
19'", 21^-^; Xiyova-iv ovv in 9^^; lAcyci/ ow in 8^' ; lAcyov ow in 4^, 5'", 
319.25^ ^10.16^ jj36^ j518^ j^-^1^ 2o"»; AeVt Se' in 12^; lAcycv 8c' in 6''; lAcyoi/ 
Sc in 10^; eiTtt Acyct in 19% 20^^; i.e. a total of 31 openings with 
connective particle, as against 70 without such particle. 

In Mt. Aeyct as an asyndeton opening occurs 16 times, viz. 
i&'% if% 18^-, i9«-i«-2«, 20'-2>-2=', 2i=»-^^ 22« 26 =-^^^ 27^; A€>vo-tV 
10 times, viz. 9^, 19^-^'', 2o'-^-^^, 21^ '*', 22''^, 27"-. In Mk. Acyct thus 
never) Xiyovcriv in 8^^* In Lk. Acyct in 16', 19^^; Xiyovaiv never. 
In Acts there are no occurrences of Atyct, Xiyova-iv as asyndeton 

That the historical present in Jn., of which Acyct is the most 
frequent example, represents the similar usage of the participle 
in Aramaic, is argued later on (p. 88). There are no instances 
of the asyndeton opening "^P^ (participle) in Dan., because the 

* The absence of this asyndeton usage in Mk. is a point against the view that 
this Gospel is a literal translation of an Aramaic document. There are very many 
cases where Mk. uses Km ><(y(i, o S« \(f€i as openings, where Jn. would certainly 
have used asyndeton Xiyn. Cf. e.g., for the difference in style, the dialogue of 
Mk. ia"-»^ 

• 1 


writer of this book prefers the formula 'Answered and said* 
which we have already noticed. This latter phrase, however, 
so much favoured in Dan., seems to have been practically confined 
to Western Aramaic, being unused in Syriac, except in translation^ 
as in the Peshitta of the O.T.* Ordinarily in Aramaic, especially 
in its Eastern branch, the asyndeton opening ^P^?, ;:jo/' (participle) 
is one of the most characteristic features of the language in 
description of a dialogue ; and this naturally lends itself in Greek 
to a rendering by the asyndeton historical present Aeyei. For 
example, the Syriac Acta Thomae in the first four pages (ed. Wright) 
offers twelve examples of the usage. The following is a literal 
rendering of a dialogue-passage from this work (p. ♦.ix): 

'And when they had embarked and sat down, Habban the 
merchant says to Judas, "What is the craft that thou art able 
to practise?" Judas says to him, ' Carpentry and architecture — 
the work of a carpenter". Habban the merchant says to him, 
"What art thou skilled to make in wood, and what in hewn 
stone?" Judas says to him, "In wood I have learned to make 
ploughs and yokes and ox-goads, and oars for ferry-boats and 
masts for ships ; and in stone, tombstones and shrines and temples 
and palaces for kings". Habban the merchant says to him, 
"I was seeking just such a workman".* 

With this we may compare the structure of the dialogue in 
Jn. 21^^^': 

* So when they had broken their fast, Jesus says to Simon Peter, 
"Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me more than these?" He 
says to Him, "Yea, Lord; Thou knowest that I love Thee". 
He says to him, "Feed My lambs". He says to him again 
a second time, "Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me?" He says 
to Him, "Yea, Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee". He 
says to him, "Tend My sheep". He says to him the third time, 
** Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me?" Peter was grieved 
because He said to him the third time, "Lovest thou Me?" 
And he said to Him, "Lord, Thou knowest all things; Thou 
knowest that I love Thee ". Jesus says to him, " Feed My 

* According to Dalman {WJ. p. 25) the formula is unknown in later Jewish 


This very striking resemblance in structure between the two 
passages — both as regards pictorial ;^t = A-eyci and asyndeton 
usage — is no mere chance and isolated phenomenon. Dialogues 
so framed are frequent in the Fourth Gospel (cf. especially the 
references to Xeyct in chs. 4, 11, 13, 14, 18, 20), and innumerable 
parallels from Aramaic might be collected.* 


Peculiarly Semitic is the simplicity of construction employed 
throughout the Fourth Gospel. Sentences are regularly co-ordi- 
nated, and linked by koL Subordinate sentences are few and 
far between. In 6'^~-\ where the writer embarks exceptionally 
upon a somewhat complex sentence, he speedily becomes involved 
in difficulty. 13^"^ is more successful as Greek ; but this passage, 
in point of style, practically stands alone. t Such simplicity of 
construction can of course to some extent be paralleled from the 
Synoptic sources, particularly from Mk. But not even in Mk. 
does it attain anything like the vogue which it has in Jn. 

Comparative rarity of Aorist Participle describing action 
anterior to finite verb. 

In speaking above of Jn.*s phrase aTreKpiOr] kol cittcv, we noticed 
that the Synoptic equivalent subordinates the prior action by use 
of the Aorist Participle, e.g. 6 Be airoKpiOcU cTttcv, i.e. the natural 
Greek construction. Though we occasionally find this latter con- 
struction in Jn. — e.g. i^'' koX e/x^XeVa? . . . Xcyet — it is far less common 
than in the Synoptists. An approximate count yields the following 
figures, the proportions of which are worked out according to the 
pages of WH. 

* The asyndeton construction is also frequent in Rabbinic Hebrew (under the 
influence of Aramaic), though here in description of past events the Perfect is 
normally used. Several examples are cited by Schlatter {Sprache, pp. 25 f.). 
Cf. e. g. Midrash Rabba on Exodus, par. v. 18 (Moses and Aaron before Pharaoh), 
* He said to them, Who are 3'e ? They said to him. We are the messengers of the 
Holy One, blessed be He. What are ye seeking ? They said to him. Thus saith 
the Lord, &c.' 

t We may note that v.^ contains two out of the only seventeen occurrences 
of the Genitive absolute which are found in Jn. 



pp. in WH. 















per page. 



Prof. Moulton (NTG.^ i, p. 12), in speaking of 'co-ordination 
of clauses with the simple /cat', in place of the use of participles 
or subordinate clauses *, remarks that ' in itself the phenomenon 
proves nothing more than would a string of "ands" in an 
English rustic's story — elementary culture, and not the hampering 
presence of a foreign idiom that is being perpetually translated 
into its most literal equivalent'. This may be so 'in itself ; here, 
however, we have to ask why, if avoidance of the participial 
construction in favour of co-ordination is natural to Kotr>J Greek, 
we find this striking disproportion between Jn. and the Synoptists 
which the figures reveal. The answer has been supplied else- 
where by Dr. Moulton himself. 'The over-use of locutions which 
can be defended as good Koti/rj Greek ' is a test of ' Greek which is 
virtually or actually translated '.* 

Comparative rarity of Genitive absolute. 

As compared with the Synoptists, the use of the Genitive 
absolute in Jn. is infrequent. The approximate figures are, Mt. 
48, Mk. 36, Lk. 59, Jn. 17; i.e. the Synoptists exhibit but slight 
variation in their use of the construction, and use it about 2^ 
times as often as Jn. While the Synoptists use the construction, 
almost without exception, in temporal clauses, Jn. 'employs it 
with more elasticity of meaning than is found in the Triple 
Tradition. A causal meaning ("rts" or ''because'') is implied, 
probably or certainly, in 2^, s'"^, 6'^ " Though " is certainly implied 
in 12'^, 21", and perhaps in 20''^' (Abbott, JG. 2028-31). 

The rarity of the Genitive absolute in Jn. is due partly to the 

use of parataxis: e.g. I*^ koX r^puiT-qa-av avrov Tt ovv ; (TV 'HXcta? ct; 
Kol Xeyct OvK ci/u. I^^ kcCl cittcv at'TOJ Na^avaiyX, . . Xeyct avrw 6 ^iknnro^. 

* Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 474. The quotation has already been given in 
full on p. 7. 


I^^ Aeyei avTw IStaOavarjX . . . aTreKpiOr] 'Irjcrov^ koi eTirev aurw (contrast 
Mt. 17^^ ctTTOVTOS 84 'Atto Ta)v aWoTptwVy €(f>r] avTw 6 'Iryaoi;?. Lk. 21" 
Kac TLV(i)V XeyovTOiv . . . ctTrev). 4^^ -^XOev ovv . . . kol rjv rts ySacnXiKos. 
7^' *HA^ov ovi/ ot vTrrjpeTaL tt/sos tov? ap)(i€peL<s kol ^apia-auovs, /cat cittov 
avTOLs iK€ivoL (contrast Mt. 8^ /cat cX^wtos avroi) . . . v7r^vT7](Tai/ avTw. 
Mt. 17^'*'^'*, 21^'). 6^' Kai aKOTia tjBt} cycyoi/ct, Kat outtw iX-qXvOei Trpos 
avTovs o 'I>;croi5s (contrast Mt. 8^^ oiJ/Las Se y€vo/JL€vr)<; TrpoarjveyKav aurw). 
lO^''^^ /cat TreptCTrarct 6 'It/o-oi;? ev T(3 lepw . , . eKVKA(o(rai/ ovv avTov ol 
'lovSatot (contrast Lk. II"'^ Twv 8€ o;(X(dj/ iTraOpoL^Ojxivoiv r}p^aro Xcyctv). 

The place of the Genitive absolute is also taken in Jn. by 
a temporal clause introduced by ore; a construction for which, as 
compared with the Synoptists, this writer shows a relative fond- 
ness. Neglecting cases in which orf. has an antecedent (e.g. Jn. 4^' 
epx^raL wpa ore. So 4^^, 5^', g*, 1 6^^), there are 16 cases of ore intro- 
ducing a temporal clause injn., as against 13 in Mt., 10 in Mk., 
10 in Lk. If Jn. were as long as Mt., there would be propor- 
tionately 21 cases; if as long as Lk., 22 cases; if as short as Mk. 
13 cases. The occurrences of ws = ' when ' introducing a temporal 
clause in Jn. are 16; Lk. 16; Mt. and Mk. none. 

In cases where the subject of the ore or ws clause is the same 
as that of the principal clause, the temporal clause so introduced 
of course takes the place of an Aorist Participle in the nominative. 
These in Jn. are— 2re, 6'\ 13'^ if', ig<-^s.22.2o^ ^^.s . ^^^ ^^^ ^-.^o^ 
J J 6.20.29.: 2.3 Y J ^33^ 21^ There remain 8 cases in which, the subject 
of the ore clause being different from that of the principal clause, 
the Genitive absolute might have been used ; and 5 similar cases 
of the (1)9 clause. These are— ore, i'^, 2'^ 4'", 12''^', 13^', 20'', 
21^^; J)?, 2'\ 6^2.16^ ^10^ j36^ Similar cases in Lk. are— ore 6, wsS; 
Mt. ore 7 ; Mk. oT€ 9c Thus cases in which a ore or ws clause takes 
the place of a Genitive absolute are in Jn. 13, as against Lk. 14, 
Mt. 7, Mk. 9. Though the figures in Jn. and Lk. are thus similar, 
it should be borne in mind that Lk. is considerably longer (72 pp. 
WH. as against 53 pp.), and also contains much more narrative, 
to which, in distinction from speeches, by far the greater number 
of such temporal clauses belong. Thus we are justified in finding 
in Jn., as compared with the Synoptists, a preponderance of 
temporal clauses introduced by ot^. or <I)s, which serve to explain 


(along with parataxis) the comparative rarity of the Genitive 
absolute in this Gospel. 

Now the use of H?; ^^, Syr. •o^'when' to introduce a tem- 
poral clause is very common in Aramaic. This is the ordinary 
construction employed in the Syriac versions to render a temporal 
clause which Greek expresses by the Genitive absolute. The first 
few cases of the Genitive absolute in Lk. will serve to illustrate 
this (the rendering 'when' followed by the finite verb gives the 
literal representation of the Syriac construction). 

Lk. 2^ r}y€fJiov€vovTO<s r^? ^vpCa'i K.vpr}viov. 

Pal. Syr. luioms ^oj-,;.^ )6o» »o 'when Quirinius was in 
Syria '. 

Pesh. |u9cu3a2> *£Dau9ai99 )Iqj-5q.^^:s 'in the hegemony of Q. 
in S/ 

Sin. iLjoao? Juajso^cH uooi^;-^ ^^z> 'in the years of Q., 
governor of S.' 

Lk. 2*'^-^^ KOI ore lyivero Iruiv SwScKa, dvajSaivovTiov avT(i)v Kara to eOos 
TTjs kopTTj'i, KoX T^XuiiicravTUiV To.^ rjij.€pas, ktX. 

Pal. Syr. ^o» o\ji>o«.a^ onNtn ^jJ^ ^^m v>l»l «^ |6o« *oo 
)fcooc.» ciNr>\ii, ^^o •. |,ji.QLj«? otlajLol/ 'And when He was twelve 
years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom 
of the feast; and when they had fulfilled the days, &c.' Con- 
struction of Sin. and Pesh. identical. 

Lk, 3* yycfjuovevovTo^ Hovtlov HlXoltov ttjs 'lovScuas, ktX. 

Pal. Syr. |l»9ca3 ^cuaa^^ a»a^.X^ >flooA^i9> )6o» ♦o 'when 
Pontius Pilate was governor in Judaea '. 

Sin. Jfoo^.^ ^cl^.^^.a9 urojj^? )lcuL:a:i^<Hi> 'in the hegemony of 
Pontius Pilate in Judah'. So Pesh. 

Lk. 3^° irpocrSoKwvTo^ 8c tov Xaov, kol SioAoyt^o/Ltci/wv iravroiv iv rats 
KapSiacs avTiov. 

Pal. Syr. y^o<H*ii^:i yOo>^«xo ^.Sa.»hooo JJ<Hi> >Amj!0 |6o» **? ♦o 
' Now when the multitude was expectant, and all of them were 
debating in their hearts '. 

Sin., Cur. yOcHA^j^ ooo» ^^^9]^^ ch^ ooo» ^^,vv\i>? UjJo 'And 
the men that were hearing him were reflecting in their minds*. 


.oo»*^\"> ooo» * Now when the people were speculating concerning 
John, and all of them were debating in their heart'. 

Lk. 3^^ 'Eyev€TO 8e iv tw ^aTTTLaOrjvaL airavra tov Xaov koX 'Iiyo"oi) 
l3a7rTL(T6ivTO<s kol 7rpo(Tev)(Oixivov dv€io)(6rjvaL tov ovpavov. 

Pal. Syr. ^o uaaao.. );-v3 »3oio Doga c»^ao ^*«^>/ r^ ^? *^^^U 
U^Qji, cu.fcv3l/ •. k*^»o "^^J ' Now it came to pass, when all the 
multitude had been baptized, and also the Lord Jesus had been 
baptized and had prayed, that the heavens were opened '. 

Sin. Joot JJ,.» ^O •..'iO.^ -^Qjl^ »©/ l^.^.^ Oj^lii^ )co» ♦..'SQ.^ ,^0 

luoajk, cu*]^l/ ^And when all the people had been baptized, Jesus 
also was baptized. And when He was praying, the heavens were 
opened '. 

Pesh. JJ-jao ^oo *. «,\a-X ^^oa^ ^sjo *. |l.v>.:^ ch^:^ ♦jaxx j^^^? )oo» 
U-iojL, cu*^lsl/ 'Now it came to pass, when all the people were 
baptized, Jesus also was baptized. And when He was praying, 
the heavens were opened '. 

Lk. 4^ Kttt (rvvTeXe(rO€i(r(x)v avTwv eTretVaacv. 

Pal. Syr. caret. 

Sin. ^ )oo» fLf ll^sjsoo.. ^'>'^=>'9l 9h^ ^o ' and after forty days 
on which He fasted. He was hungry '. 

Pesh. ^o )l;^S> yCij! j\\m. fDo 'and when He had completed 
them, afterwards He was hungry \ 

Two cases occur in which Mk.'s ore with finite verb (suiting the 
theory of an Aramaic background) is altered into the Genitive 
absolute in the other Synoptists. 
rMk. l^'Sre l8v6^Xto9. 

i Lk. 4'*'' SvVOVTOS Sk TOV rjXiOV. 

\,Mt. 8'^ oif/ias Se yevofxev-qs* 

Mk. 4" KoX ore ai/cTctXcv 6 tJXlos. 
Mt. 13'' rjXiov 8k avaT€iXavTo<s. 

.Lk. 8" omits. 

* Mk. also has oipias 8e ffvofievrjs before ore f^u o ^Kios. If this is part of the 
original Mk. and not a conflation, and if Mk. wrote in Aramaic, the text must have 
run N^rp^ niy ^2 NB^pin^J 'And in the evening, when the sun was set'. It 
would be more natural to write NC'D^ SlVl SK'Dl Kjn 1^) 'And when it was 
evening, and the sun was set' ; but would this have been translated as we have it? 


It is interesting to note that this construction of 'when 'with 
a finite verb and the absence of an alternative construction resem- 
bhng the Genitive absolute in Greek, is not common to Semitic, 
but is specifically Aramaic. Hebrew uses "IK'K? ' when ' with a finite 
verb somewhat rarely, but far more frequently employs the Infini- 
tive construct with pronominal suffix, and prefixed 3 * in ' or D ' as *; 
e.g. iriiN")3 'when he saw*, lit. 'in his seeing'. Further, it has 
a usage of the Participle absolute (cf. Driver, Tenses, § 165) closely 
resembling the Greek Genitive absolute, and regularly rendered 
by it in LXX. In the passages where this construction occurs in 
O.T. it will be found that Targ. Hebraizes its Aramaic to a large 
extent, while exhibiting a tendency to use the true Aramaic con- 
struction. Pesh., on the other hand, regularly breaks away from 
the Hebrew construction, and renders by ^ 'when* with a finite 
verb. The English renderings aim at exactly reproducing the 
Semitic constructions. 

Gen. 42='^ ipc^n 1DDD nnv ej'^n mm on^p-^ dv'"!^ c^n \ti 'And it 
came to pass, they emptying their sacks, and behold, each man's 
bundle of money in his sack '. 

LXX iy€V€TO Se iv rw KaraKcvovv avrov<; tovs aaKKOvi avrwy, koi -qv 

kKOLCTTOV 6 SiO-fxbs TOV apyvpiOV €V TO) (rOiKKlO avT^v. 

Targ. iTpK^n naD3 ni^f nnj Nm \'\r\'\>^ ppno pj-x iTm, exactly 
follows Hebrew. 

Pesh. );^^? o» 9> nftr>> )»>« ]©♦ •. .oo»*f>tr> ^;(y>v> yCiJo* tO? ]oc»o 
oo^ ^Qi^si * And it came to pass that when they were emptying 
their sacks, behold, each man's bundle of money in the mouth of 
his bale '. 

I Kgs. ly^ miT nm \n"'i \rh^r\ bv nuc^"' nn \-i^i *And it came to 
pass, they sitting at the table, and there came the word of Yahweh '. 

LXX Kttt tycvcTo avTwv KaOrjfxivdiv [ctti t^s T/iaTrc^iysJ, kol iyevero \6yo<s 

Targ. n)r\'^ Dip p hnuj Dana mni ^nina bv innnoo prNT iv mm 
* And it came to pass, whilst they were sitting round the table, and 
(= then) there came a word of prophecy from before Y.' 

Pesh. Ui-^1 of^^l^ ]oo» )jol^ "^JSw ^]^ ycuoj .^o *And 
when they were sitting at the table, there came the word of the 


2 Kgs. 2^^ ':) t^•N 331 n^ni nmi iii'n D^a^n ncn \"T"1 'And it came 
to pass, they going on — going and talking {= and talking as they 
went), and, behold, a chariot of fire, &c/ 

LXX Kttt iyev€TO avTu>v 7ropevojxev(DV, iiropevovTO /cat iXdXoW /cat iSov 
ap/xa TTvpbs kt\. 

Targ. KncNi pD^m Km piji^DDi i^ro pi^rx pj^sn ^y mm 'And it 
came to pass, whilst they were going on— going and talking, and 
(= then) behold, chariots of fire*. 

Pesh. ]9cu9 ll^s^o;.^ joto ^Aa^o»^o ^^ Wx^ n:> V^^ t^? |ooto 
'And it came to pass that when they were talking and going on, 
and (= then) behold, a chariot of fire". 

2 Kgs. 8' ncTNn r\:r]) nron dn htu"! ntj^x ns "ii?D^ isdd Kin \ti 
li^cn i>K npW nin nx mnn "ik^n 'And it came to pass, he telling 
the king how he (Elisha) had raised the dead, and, behold, the 
woman whose son he had raised crying unto the king *. 

LXX Kttt iy€V€TO avTov i^yov/Jiivov roi /JacrtAet ws i^oyTrvprjaev vlov 
TeOvrjKora, kol iSov rj yvvr) r}<i it,o}7rvpr)cr€V rbv vlov ayrrj'S jSowaa Trpos tov 

Targ. mn n> 'mi Nnrr'K Km kd^d rr* ••nKT i<J?i2b ••yntj^ Kin mm 
N^i^D Dip Ki^zip, as in Hebrew. 

Pesh. U,^j^:» 6tis> s^Ij ]lh^l )ju»* )^*-^ *^U )a\,^^ )l>L1^>joo ^oo 
U^ioo y5«ja 'And when he was relating to the king that he had 
raised the dead, he saw the woman whose son he had raised making 
supplication before the king'. 

2 Kgs. 8-'' Dyn DJ^i . , . v^y n^aon dhk riK r^y) rh'b Dp Kin \ti 
IPnKP 'And it came to pass, he arising (or arose) by night and 
smote Edom who surrounded him . . . and the people fled to their 
home *. 

LXX Kttt iyivcTO avTOV avacrTavro^y /cat lirdra^tv rov 'E8oj/x tov kvkAw- 
aavTa ctt' avrov . . . Kat e<f>vy€v 6 Aaos ktX. 

Targ. K»y ^aK1 ♦ . . n'b ]'Sipi:ii dhk c'J"'K n*" Knci Ki^-'i'n Dp Kin mm 
NmiTpi), construction as in Hebrew. 

Pesh. aoi2».o . . . o>X ^^;Ji^ U'soo?)) oo;-mo? t^^N^^^ \yo ^o 
yO o »> M) i V>N liCLX 'And when he arose by night that he might 
destroy the Edomites who were surrounding him . . . and (= then) 
the people fled to their homes '. 


2 Kgs. 13^^ nnan ns* 1^^n hmi k^-n onap on \T'1 'And it came to 

pass, they burying a man, and, behold, they saw the robber-hand '. 

LrXX Kol eyevcTO avT<siv dairrovTOiv tov avSpa, kol lSov lSov tov 

fXOv6t,(JiiVOV . 

Targ. nniJ'D n^ "irn xm xnaj pap prsn "ly n^ni ' And it came to 
pass, whilst they were burying a man, and (= then) they saw, &c/ 

Pesh. iLaa^ ojL. •• li^^ ^;-^J3 V^<? !^° 'And when they were 
burying a man, they saw, &c/ 

2 Kgs. 19^' vjn nv^:T^1 ni^Dmsi vni's "inoj n^n ninnc^o nvi \ti 
man 'And it came to pass, he worshipping in the house of Nisroch 
his god, and Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote him *. 

LXX KOL iyevero avrov 7rpoa-KVVovvTO<; iv olkio 'Eo'Spa;^ Oeov avTOv, Kal 
A. KOL ^. ol viol avrov lirara^av avrov. 

Targ. \iii?Dp '•nm nvN-iK^i i^ronNi .Tn^VD TiDi no i^ao 5<in nini, 
as in Hebrew. 

Pesh. «^otcuL2 'a;^o ^^;^99( *. cho»^/ ^;^aj IS-a^ ]oo» t^^is *do 
MotcL^ii^ 'And when he was worshipping in the house of N. his 
god, A. and S. his sons killed him '. 

Casus pendens. 

It is characteristic of Hebrew and Aramaic to simplify the 
construction of a sentence, and at the same time to gain emphasis, 
by reinforcing the subject by a Personal Pronoun. Such rein- 
forcement is specially favoured if the subject happens to be further 
defined by a relative clause, since otherwise the sentence would — 
to the Semitic ear — appear involved and overweighted. The same 
principle is also adopted with the object, when this, for the sake of 
emphasis, is brought to the beginning of the sentence ; and other 
oblique cases may be similarly treated. Examples in Hebrew are — 
Gen. 3^"^, ' The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave 
me ('['"H^nJ Nin) of the tree and I did eat*; Gen. 15', 'But one 
that shall come out of thine own bowels, he shall be thine heir' 
OS^T^ ^'1'"') ; Gen. 24', ' Yahweh, the God of heaven, who took me 
from my father's house, &c.. He shall send (Hp^^ i<^n) His angel 
before thee ' ; Deut. 13^ 'All the word that I command you, it shall 
ye observe to do' (nV^X^b l-^Dfn iriN); Ezek. 18^^, ' In his trespass that 
he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them 
shall he die ' (DIOJ D3). See further, Driver, Tenses, § 123 y Obs. 


Similarly in Aramaic — Dan. 2^' *^, * Thou, O king, the king of kings, 
to whom the God of heaven gave, &c., thou art that head of gold ' 
(Nnqi "-^ n^Nn sin nnj«); Dan. 3% 'Those men that took up 
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, the flame of the fire slew 
them' (^<")1J ^1 Kn*?f itsn >r3|^); Dan. 4^''-'% 'The tree that thou 
sawest, &c., it is thou, O king' («3i?P N^n nriJK); Ezr. 5^^ 'And 
moreover, the vessels of the house of God, &c., them did Cyrus 
the king take out (^^i3 itsn ps^ri) of the temple of Babylon'; 
Ezr. f'^f * All priests and Levites, &c., it shall not be lawful to 
impose tribute, &c., upon them' (CJ'T'pj; ^«D']rpp)• £21-. /yse^ 'Every one 
that will not perform the law of thy God and the law of the king, 
let judgement diligently be executed upon him ' ("^SD ^'^VJ}^ ^."in?)- 

This reinforcement of a Casus pendens by the Pronoun is a 
marked characteristic of the Fourth Gospel. We may note the 
following illustrations : 

T*^ ocrot Se tXa^ov avrov, eSioKev avroi's iiovcrMV rinva ®eov yeviadai. 

I^^ fiovoyevTjs 0co5 6 o)V eh tov koXttov tov Trarpos cKeiros l^yqcraTO. 

1^^ b 7r€fJi\f/a<; /xe jBairr it,iiv iv vBan cKctvos /xoi cTttcv. 

3 OS •i]v /xeTOi (TOV ... toe outos paTrTL^ei. 

3"*^ o €(jt)paK€v Kol ^Kovcrev rovro /xaprvpct. 

5" 'O 7roLi^aa<s fte vyi^ e/cctvos fioi cTttci/. 

5'^ a yap av cKCtvo? TTOtrj, ravra kol 6 vtos o/xotws Troiet. 

5 ra yap cpya a ocdcoKei/ p,ot o irarr]p iva rcAetwo-w avra, avra ra cpya a 
TTOiw, {xapTvpei irepl i/xov otl o- iraTrjp p,e aTreWaXKCv (we should SUrely 

omit the comma after ttoiw, and make avra ra epya the subject of 

/xaprupeL, reinforcing to. yap cpya after a Sc^wkcV fxoL ktX.) 
5"^ KOL 6 7r€fjnf/as fJie Trarqp e/cctv-o? fJLC/xapTvprjKcv Trepi ifxov. 

5^^ OV d7r€0rT€tA.€V €K€tVOS TOVTIO VjJiilS OV 7n(rT€V€Te, 

6^^ tva Trav o ScSwKei/ p,oi jxr] a-rroXicroi e^ avrov. 

6^^ 6 a)V Trapa toC ©eoi), ovtos iwpaKev tov Traripa. 

7^^ 6 8c t,r)Tixiv TTjv So^av tov 7r€/>ti//aj/Tos avrov ovros dAiy^?;? iaTLv. 

8^^ Kayo) a ■^/covora Trap' avTOv ravra XaXw cis roi' k6<t/xov. 

10^ 6 /x^ ct(r€p;>^op,evos 3ta, tt}s 6vpas . . . cKctvos KXcTn-rys ccrrtv Kat Ayytrrj/s. 

* Schlatter {Sprache, pp. 49 f.) quotes a number of instances from Rabbinic 
Hebrew in which Ht nn ' behold, this one, &c.' reinforces a Nominativus pendens. 
Thus e.g. Mechilta on Ex. 16*, q IO.XI DIM ^3K "• HD li? ^^V^ ''D i>3 
nJDN "iDiriD nt nn nnO? ' whosoever hath what he may eat to-day, and saith, 
What shall I eat to-morrow ? behold, this one lacketh faith.' 


10^^ TO, €pya a eyo> Trotw iv tw ovofiaTL rov Trarpos /xov ravra jxapTvpet 
irepl ifJLOv. 

12^^ 6 Aoyos ov ikdXrjcra c/cetvos KpiveX avrbv iv ry €(T)(aTr) ^fjiipa. 

12*^ 6 Trefxif/as fte Trarrjp avro? fioL ivroXrjv SeSw/cci/. 

14^^ 6 TTUTTevuiv €t9 ifJi€ TO, cpyoi o, cyo) TTOio) KaKctvos TTOLrjcrei. 

14^^ fai OTt av aln^arjTe iv t(o ovofiari fLOv tovto iroirja-di. 

l^^ 6 e)(u)v TttS cvToAxts fiov Kol Trjpiov avras iK€Lv6s icrriv 6 ayairuiv ftc. 

14^^ 6 Se 7rapdK\r]T0<s, to Trvcvfia to dyiov o ttc/ai/aci 6 Trarrjp iv tw ovo/xarL 
fiovj iK€Lvo<s vfias SiSdiei Trdvra. 

15^ ^a»' KXrjfia iv i/xol fjLrj <j>ipov Kapiroy atpcL avro, Kal irav to Kapirov 
(f>epov KaOaipei avro. 

15' o ix€V(i)V iv ifiol Kayoi iv avrio ovto^ cf>ipeL Kapirov ttoXvv. 

17^ tva Trav o ScSwKag avrai Scoo"€t avrots ^w^v' atwi'tov. 

ly'"* o 8c8o)Kas /Aot, ^cXw o'a ottou et/At eyw KaKetvot wo-tv /act' e/Aov. 

18^* TO TTOTXIpiOV O hihuiK^V flOL 6 TTaTTJp OV fXr) TTtO) ttVTO ; 

Against these 27'" instances in Jn. we can only set 11 in Mt. 
(4'«, 1320.22.23.88^ j^u^ j^2«^ 2j42^ 2^13^ 2^29^ 26^'), 4 in Mk. (6'«, 72^, 12'^ 

13"), and 6 in Lk. (8'^'^ 12^^ 20'^ 2i«, 23''-"'); and of these Mt. 4^" 
and Mt. 2i*2=Mk. 12'"= Lk. 20'' are O.T. quotations. 

Of course it cannot be claimed that the use of Casus pendens 
is specifically a Semitism, since — to go no farther — it is a familiar 
colloquialism in English. Prof Moulton remarks that *it is one 
of the easiest of anacolutha, as much at home in English as in 
Greek' (NTG.^ i, p. 69). The fact which concerns us is the 
remarkable frequency of its occurrence in Jn. as compared with 
the Synoptists. U Lk., for example, is a fair specimen of KotvrJ 
Greek, why should we find that a construction which occurs there 
but 6 times is employed in Jn. with six times the frequency ? An 
adequate answer is forthcoming in the assumption that a common 
Aramaic construction has been exactly reproduced in translation. 

* Abbott {JG. 1921) adds lo^^.se^ g^ ^ irar^p ^yiaaev Kal direcTTeiKev ds rbv KoffjJLov 
vfifTs KiyfTC oTi B\aa<l>r}fji€Ts ; * " Whom the Father sanctified ... do ye say [to him] 
Thou blasphemest ? ", best explained as IkKfTvos] ov.^ 7^^, o marfvcuv eh (fxi . . . 
noTafxol (K T^s KoiKias airov (also cited by Abbott) is not included as involving— on 
our theory — a mistranslation. Cf. p. 109. 


Kai, ouv. 

As compared with the Synoptists, xat in Jn. is infrequent in 
narrative. The occurrences, as given by Abbott {JG. 2133; cf. 
Bruder*s Concordance^, pp. 456 ff.) are, Mt. about 250 times, Mk. 
more than 400 times, Lk. about 380 times, Jn. less than 100 times. 
This comparative infrequency seems to be due partly to the 
writer's use of asyndeton (cf. p. 50), partly to his fondness for 
ovv, which he uses some 200 times, as against Mt. 57 times, 
Mk. 6 times, Lk. 31 times. Kac is frequent in Jn. in speeches, 
linking co-ordinate clauses, as in a Semitic language. A striking 
Semitic usage may be seen in its employment to link contrasted 
statements, where in English we should naturally employ ' and yet' 
or ' but\ This is most frequent in speeches, though occasionally 
we find it also in the reflections of the author upon his narrative. 

C^ T 10.11 o20 ol0.ll.19.32 .20 - ^70 „4.19.30 O:0.52.57 ^:«).34 .,^8 y^S* 

•^^ ^ ) '^ t 3 ^4;5 >"»7 > ^ t y > ^^ t ^'^ t 

i6', 2o^, 2i". Cf., in Hebrew, Gen. 2''-'\ 'Of every tree of the 
garden thou mayest eat; and (=but) of the tree of knowledge of 
good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it * ; 3^ •', ' Of the fruit of the 
trees of the garden we may eat ; and (=but) of the fruit of the tree 
which is in the midst of the garden God hath said. Ye shall 
not eat, &c.*; 17^-^^ 'And as regards Ishmael I have heard thee; 
behold I have blessed him, &c. And ( = But) my covenant will 
I establish with Isaac * ; 32-^° (Heb. 32^'), * I have seen God face 
to face, and ( = and yet) my life is preserved' (other instances of 
this common usage in Oxford Heb. Lex. p. 252 b). The same 
usage in Aramaic — where it is equally common — may be illustrated 
from Dan. 2^**, 'If ye make not known to me the dream and its 
interpretation, ye shall be cut in pieces, &c. ; and (=but) if ye 
shew the dream and the interpretation thereof, ye shall receive 
of me gifts, &c.* ; 3^^ 'At what time ye hear ... ye shall fall down 


and worship the golden image, &c. ; and [ = but) whoso falleth not 
down, &c.' ; 3^^^*, ' If our God, whom we serve, be able to deliver 
us, He will deliver, &c. ; and {—but) if not, be it known, &c/ ; 
4' (Aram. 4^), ^And I told the dream before them, and (=yet) its 
interpretation they did not make known to me *. 

In Hebrew and Aramaic 'and ' may very idiomatically introduce 
a contrasted idea in such a way as to suggest a question, this 
being implied by the contrast without the use of an interrogative 
particle. So in Hebrew, Judg. 14'''', 'Behold, to my father and 
my mother I have not told it, and shall I tell it unto thee ? ' (lit. 
'and to thee I shall tell it!*); 2 Sam. ii'\ 'The ark, and Israel, 
and Judah are abiding in tents; and my lord Joab, and the 
servants of my lord, are encamped in the open field ; and shall 
/go into my house, to eat and to drink, &c. ?' (lit. 'and /shall 
go, &c. ! ' see further instances in Oxf. Heb. Lex. p. 252). The 
same usage may be illustrated in Aramaic from passages in Acta 
Thomae (ed. Wright). 

(p. d^id). ]^/ |lii> |oV-md l^to .^xid]^:)0 oo» ^^•'^^ jliZi^ yOo»^. 
'All buildings are built in summer; and thou buildest in winter!' 

(p. w*J9) J]^o.Nr>a«» ^o t'-tN.vt ^fjL:^ ^-^^c ^ ^«^!]^/ w>a]^N^.ap 
w> xk . s ^ civ>«.»v>^ «i»]^w.r>. Jl fc*]^!o. 'On thy account I excused 
myself from my lord, king Mazdai, and from the supper; and 
thou dost not choose to sup with me ! ' 

(p. ^^ -^^ Do .U.*. ]^ yl JJ/ .l^^wo*^ )) ylcu^ ^ ^Qjs> IsjI 
^oot ^•.^.* Ua*( fco/. 'Thou thyself hast not departed from 
us, except for a moment; and thou knowest not how we were 
shut up ! ' 

With inverted order, (p. .^«>>) Ifcx-^^^^ )L» >«jicuk.o 1^/ o)^ h>jl 
^•^cuf Ik^S «ji^o;-» )>''>\v> ^?Jc»o. ' Thou sittest and hearkenest 
to vain words; and king Mazdai in his wrath is seeking to 
destroy thee ! ' 

In a precisely similar way kul introduces a paradox in several 
passages in Jn., and the paradox, being hypothetical, is treated 
as a question. 

2^" Tecra-epaKovTa kol €$ tmriv olKoSofJLiljOr] 6 va6<s ovto^, kol av Iv rpKriv 
^/xepaLS iycpels avTOV ; 

3^" 5v €t 6 SiSao-KaXos Tov 'l(rparj\ kol ravra ov yivuxTKeis ; 

8" UevTrJKOvra try) ovtto) e^€L^ kol ^AjSpaafX koipaKa<; ; 

F 2 


9** 'Ei/ d/xaprcats ctv iycwi^Orjs oXos, koX tru SiSacTKcts 17/xas ; 

11^ 'Pa^^ct, vw i^T^ovv ere XL6a<Tai ol 'lovSatoi, /cat TraXii/ VTrayets e/cet; 

The use of 'and' with the sense 'and so' is very frequent in 
Semitic. Some few cases of KaC so used are to be found in Jn., 

e.g. 5^° ^d/SfiaTOV €(TTLVi KOL OVK (.^€(rTLV (TOL OLpaL TOl/ Kpd/S/SaTOVy 6^^ KaOo)^ 

ttTTCo-TciAeV /AC 6 ^S>v Trarrjp Kayo) ^w 8ia tov Trarepa, /cat 6 rpwyuiv fX€ 
KaK€LVo<s irj(r€i ot c/>t€, II cai/ acfxa/xev avrov ovt(i)<s, Travrcs 7rtoT€Vo-ovo-tv 
CIS avToi^, /cat cXcvtrovTat ot 'P<o/xatot Kat dpov(riv rjpLOiv /cat ror tottoi/ Kat to 

Wvo^, Usually, however, this consecutive connexion is expressed 
in Jn. by ovv, which, as we have seen, is extraordinarily frequent 
(200 occurrences). It is highly probable that ovv represents an 
original ' and ' (' and so *) in Aramaic in many cases * ; in others 
it may have been inserted by the translator to introduce a sentence 
which stood asyndeton in the original. The cases cited by Abbott 
(JG. 2191 a), in which Mk. omits ovv while Mt. or Lk. has it 
in parallel passages, suggests that the particle in Jn. is due to the 
translator. Ovv is usually rendered in Pal. Syr. by o 'and ' simply; 
but sometimes by «? = hL 

liiy, hi, yap. 

fiiv, which is very rare in Jn., is infrequent also in the Synoptists. 
The occurrences are, Mt. 20, Mk. 6, Lk. 10, Jn. 8. 

* The writer's conclusion as to ovu given above stands as he had worked it out 
before reading the words of Prof. Burkitt in Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, ii, p. 89 : 
* In the course of working at the Syriac equivalents for S. Mark's ivOvs and S. John's 
ovv it has occurred to me that fundamentally they mean the same thing, and that 
they really correspond to the Hebrew ^'' wdw consecutive". Not, of course, 
that either of these Gospels is a translation from the Hebrew ; but if the authors 
of these Gospels were familiar with the Old Testament otherwise than through the 
awkward medium of the LXX, they might well have felt themselves in need of 
something to correspond to the Hebrew idiom. The essence of the meaning of 
" a'aw consecutive" is that the event related is regarded as happening in due 
sequence to what has gone before. To express this kol is too inadequate a link, 
while Se implies a contrast which is wholly wanting in the Hebrew: the turn 
of thought is more or less our English '"and so ". But this is exactly what S. Mark 
means by his kox €v6vs, and it is what is generally meant in the Fourth Gospel 
by ovv. Simon's wife's mother was sick of a fever and so they tell Jesus of her 
(/cat fv6vs Mk. i'°) : S. Mark does not mean to emphasize the haste they were in to 
tell the news. Similarly in S. John there are literally scores of verses beginning 
with (ln€v ovv or elirov ovv where "he said therefore" brings out too prominently 
the idea of causation. All that is meant is IDX*! '^^ and so he said'', or ^^ and so 
they said", as the case may be.' That ovv corresponds to the Hebrew wdw con- 
secutive was noticed by Ewald, Die johann. Schriften (1861), p. 45, n. 2. 


84 is uncommon in Jn. and Mk. as compared with Mt. and Lk.* 
The numbers are, Mt. 496, Mk. 156, Lk. 508, Jn. 176. t 
Thus, while the average number of occurrences per page (WH.) 
are 7^ in Mt and 7 in Lk., in Mk. they are only 3| and in Jn. SJ. 
Now W. AramaiC; like Hebrew, has no equivalent of Sc, both 
languages employing ' and * in its place, or (Aramaic) an asyndeton 
opening. The comparative avoidance of Se in Mk. and Jn. is there- 
fore strongly suggestive of translation from Aramaic in which the 
Semitic use of * and *, or of no connective particle at all, was 
usually copied. In Syriac the need for such a particle as Si was, 
under Greek influence, so much felt that the Greek particle was 
introduced in the form ^? den, in Pal. Syr. ^9 dt. 

yap is less frequent in Jn. than in the Synoptists. The occur- 
rences are Mt. 125, Mk. 67, Lk. 101, Jn. 66. If Jn. were as long 
as Mt., there would be proportionately 86 occurrences; if as long 
as Lk., 92 occurrences ; if as short as Mk., 53 occurrences. If Mk. 
were as long as Mt., there would be 96 occurrences ; if as long 
as Lk., 109 occurrences; if as long as Jn., 82 occurrences. 

In W. Aramaic such particles and phrases as correspond more 
or less to yap, ''l^., ^ ^^2^ Biblical Aram. ''1 ^^?P^, &c., are really 
much more weighty, bearing rather the sense because, since. In 
many cases in which Greek would use yap, Aramaic would be 
content with 'and* simply; and this may account for the com- 
parative infrequency of yap in Jn. Syriac, feeling the need for 
a light particle like yap, introduced it in the form i-*.^ ger. 

The frequency of Tm in Jn. is one of the most remarkable pheno- 
mena in this Gospel. The approximate number of occurrences is 
127 ; whereas in Mt. we find 33, in Mk. 60, in Lk. 40. If Jn. were 
as long as Mt., there would be proportionately 163 occurrences; 
if as long as Lk., 178 occurrences; if as short as Mk., 101 occur- 
rences. Iva fxy occurs in Jn. 18 times, in Mt. 8 times, in Mk. 
5 times, in Lk. 8 times. On the other hand, /xt/ttotc in the sense 
'that . . . not*, 'lest*, never occurs in Jn.,| whereas it is found in 
Mt. 8 times, in Mk. iwt'ce, in Lk. 6 times. 

* In Apoc. 56 is excessively rare, occurring some 5 times only. 
+ The numbers for the Synoptists are those given by .Sir John Hawkins, HS ^ 
p. 151. 

X Similarly in Apoc. we find tva ftri 11 times, firjiroTe never. 


Now there exists in Aramaic a particle — in origin a demon- 
strative — which is used with pecuHar frequency to denote various 
shades of connexion. This particle appears in W. Aramaic as ''1 di 
or "^ de, in Syriac as ? de. As a particle of relation it denotes 
who, which, that (properly a connecting link between the relative 
sentence and its antecedent — that one, usually completed by a pro- 
noun or pronominal suffix in the relative clause; e.g. i^v ">Pi^ ^"^ 
'who he said to him ', i.e. 'to whom he said '), and also the relative 
when. It may be used as a mark of the genitive, e.g. N^''?C' 
N3|5p-n *the king's captain* (lit. 'the captain, that o/" the king*). 
Further, it is especially frequent as a conjunction, that, in the 
sense in that, inasmuch as, because, and in a final sense, in order 
that. Our purpose is to show that Xva occurs in Jn. in all the 
senses of ''"1 or "^ except that which marks the genitive 

The frequent occurrence of Iva. in a telic sense calls for no 
comment, beyond note of the fact that the use of Iva y.-q to the 
exclusion of ixrpron favours the theory of literal translation of the 
Aramaic phrase ^'] ' that . . . not*.* Further, the use of r»/a = con- 
junctive that, followed by a finite verb, where in classical Greek we 
should expect an Infinitive, is a well-ascertained characteristic of 
Kotvrj Greek, and has come through the KoLvrf into modern Greek 
in the form va. What is remarkable, however, in Jn.'s usage of 
this idiom, as compared with Mt. and Lk., is its extreme frequency. 
This is also — though to a less extent — true of Mk. ; and it is 
instructive to notice how many different expedients Mt. or Lk., or 
both of them, frequently employ in order to get rid of Mk.*s ha, 
whether used in a final sense or otherwise.t 

Mk. 4^' Kat (Xiyev avrots on M^yri €p\(£.rai 6 \v)(yo^ Iva vtto tov fJLoSiov 

reO'^ ^ VTTO TTjv kXlvtjv ; 
Mt. 5*^ ov8e Kaiova-LV \v)(yov Kal TiOiacnv avTov vtto tov fioStov. 
Lk. 8'" OvScis 8e Xv)(yov aij/a^ KaXvTrT€L avrov (TKcrct -^ VTro/cara) kXlvtj^ 


* Contrast the translation of Hebrew |B 'lest', Isa. 6*", by /jn^irore (as in LXX) 
in Mt. 13^0^ jvik^ ^12^ ^yijlj Jn, i2-»o "iva fif) ihwatv roh d<pdaXnois kt\. (cf. p. lOo). 

t The following Synoptic comparisons were kindly supplied to the writer by 
Sir John Hawkins. 


Mk. 4^ ov yap e(TTiv KpvirTov eav fx-rj Lva (fiavcpwOrj, 

Mt. lO"** ovSev yap kaTiv K€Ka\vfxp,€vov o ovk airoKa\v<j>6ri(Ti.TaL. 

Us.. 8 ' ov yap ia-TLV KpvTvrov o ov (fyavcpov ycvTyo-crat. 

Mk. 5^^ 'fctt i/xl3aLV0VT0<s avTOv els to ttXoIov TrapeKaXei avrov 6 Saifiovi- 

<TOel<s u^a fier avrov fj. 
Mt. 8^ om. 

Lk. 8^''^ avTos Bk e/M^as cts ttXoIov {nreoTpuJ/ev. cSctro 8k avrov 6 avTjp 
a<f>* ov iieXrjXvdei tcl SaLfiovia elvai avv avrw. 

'^Mk. 5^' Acai irapaKaXei avrov TroXAa Xiyiov on To Ovyarpiov fiov €(rj(aT0)9 

€X^L, Lva iXOojv cTTt^iys TttS X'^^P^'^ avrfj lva auiOy /cat ^yaifj. 
Mt. 9^^ iSov apxdiv its TrpoaeXOwv irpoa-iKvvei avTw, Acytuv on H Bvydrrjp 
fiov apri ireXevrrjo'eu, dXXa ekOuiv iTTLOes rrjv X^ipa <tov Itt 
avT-^v, Kttt ^rjorerai. 
Lk. 8^^^^ Kttt Trea-wv irapa tovs ttoSus 'Ii^o-ov TtapeKaXii avrov ela-ekOeiv cts 
Toi/ oTko»/ avrov, on Ovydrrjp fiovoyevrjs rjv avr(a . . . Kat avr^ 


Mk.5''"'* Kat 8i€o-r€iXaTO avrots TroAAa lva fxrjhcU yvot tovto. 

Mt. 9=^ om. 

Lk. 8^** 6 Be TraprjyycLXev avro2<i firjBcvl cittciv ro ycyovos. 

Mk. 6^° 0eAo) tva e^airr'^9 Sws fioL iiri irivaKi rrjv K€<f>aX.7]v *I(i)dvvov rov 

Mt. 14*^ Aos fJiOL, ^-qariv, wSe ctti irCvaKL rrjv KecfiaXrjv ^laydwov rov 

Lk. om. 

Mk. 6^^ Kttt iSiBov TOts iJLa6r)rai<; lva irapanOoiO-LV avrot?. 

Mt. 14^^ thiUKcv TOts /xa^ryrats tov9 dprovs, ot 8c fxaOr)ral rots op(A.ots. 

Lk. 9' Kat e8t8oi; rots /xaOrjrals TrapaOeZvai tw o;(A.a). 

Mk. 9^ Kat KarajSaivovrwv avrwv ck tov opovs, StccTctAaro avTots Tva 

fxrjSevl a clBov hirjyrjcroivrai. 
Mt. 17^ Kai Kara^awovraiv avrtov ck tot) opovs ivereiXaro avroLS o 'Iiyo-ovs 

Xeyiov M-rjSevL itTrrjrc ktX. 

Lk. om. 

Cases in which Mk.'s lva is retained by one or both of the other 
Synoptists are Mk. 6^= Mt. 14^^; Mk. 8''= Mt. i6'» (contrast 


Lk. 9^^); Mk. 9^^ = Lk. 9^° (contrast Mt. 17'"); Mk. 10=^' = Mt. 20^' ; 
Mk. io^« = Mt. 2cy'' = Lk. iS'' ; Mk. i2^« = Lk. 20^*^ (contrast 
Mt. 22"'). 

In face of this evidence it can hardly be maintained that the 
deviations of Mt. and Lk. from Mk. resulting in elimination of 
the construction with ?m are merely accidental. Mk.'s use of tva, 
which in proportion to the length of his Gospel is 3 times as 
frequent as that of Mt., and 2J times as frequent as that of Lk., 
must have appeared to these latter Evangelists to some extent 
offensive to normal style. Since it is generally acknowledged that 
in other respects Mk. exhibits Aramaic influence, it is reasonable 
to suspect that this influence may account for the characteristic 
tinder discussion ; and such an inference is supported by the fact, 
already noted, that the Aramaic """^ or '^, which is the natural repre- 
sentative of Lva with a telic force, has a much wider range of usage, 
standing, for example, for the conjunctive that which tva in Mk. so 
frequently represents. 

If, however, the theory of Aramaic influence may be taken as 
accounting for the excessive use of tva in Mk., the case for such 
influence in Jn. must be regarded as much stronger still, for tva is 
there proportionately nearly twice as frequent, while it is some 
5 times as frequent as in Mt., and some 4^ times as frequent as 
in Lk. 

It is instructive to notice that there are certain phrases in which 
the Greek of the Gospels varies between the construction of tva 
with finite verb and the Infinitive construction, and that in these 
the Syriac versions normally represent both constructions by ? de 
followed by the finite verb, i.e. the construction which, on our 
theory, is literally rendered by the tva construction. 

One such is introduced by ovk elfu a^ios (or Uavos:) 

Jn. I^' ov OVK iifxl [cyw] a^ios tva \v(r<i> avTov tov l/xavra rov 

Pal. Syr. ©mocla,? ll^^J^ J^-? ja», Ul 1^**^? y? 

Sin. MotaLm:^? 1^;.:^ j«^I? Uolm, JJ^ oo» 

Pesh. ««oiaixiix:^t ILo*.:^ 1;^!? IgliL D Uh o6t 

* That one who I am not worthy that I should loose the latchet of 
His sandal * (Pesh. 'the latchets of His sandals *). 


Mk. I^ ov ovK €lfxl t/cavos Kvil/a<s Xufrat tov IfxdvTa twv vTroSrjfxaTiov avrov. 

Pal. Syr. ^©♦culooo? )l^i-x )♦*-» ^clso-? ^ILsoo? \j! k^*^? y? 

Sin. deest. 

Pesh. **cMCLim^? Ui^ ]*•-! K"^^^ |j/ )d^ )1? ocH 

' That one who I am not worthy that I should stoop should loose 
the latchet (Pesh. latchets) of His sandals'. 

Lk. 3^® ov OVK €Lfu t/cavos XvaaL tov t/xavra tcov virohrjfxaToyv avrov. 

Pal. Syr. ^^qlm,9 ]}^^;J^ J^a-? «)L»o? ]j! fc^*^? y? 

Sin. MOtcuLAoJbof \j>'i^^ )«^!? l^ckA, jJy oo» 

Pesh. **o»atm:»? U^iJ^ ];j^U U! JqjL )I? ooi 

*That one who I am not worthy that I should loose the latchet 
(Sin., Pesh. latchets) of His sandals '. 

Acts 13^'' ov OVK dfXL a^tos to V7rd8ry/>ta twv ttoSwv XvaaL. 

Pesh. wotQim^9 W*-^ ]i^l9 Ul |cLiL Df oo» 

' That one who I am not worthy that I should loose the latchets of 
His sandals '. The rendering of Pesh. is here verbally identical 
with its rendering in Jn. i^'. 

Lk. 15^^'^' ovK€TL €lfu d^LO<s KXrjOrjvai vios crov. 

Pal. Syr. >^;s> liial^? JoiL \jI fc^-^ fo^^^ 
Sin., Cur. )i-ol? ^;.=>? ^o*^.^ \jo^ llo 

Pesh. ]is>i! ^;^9 Ul ]^ ^^ns? Do 

I am no longer worthy that I should be called thy son *. 

In the Q passage Mt 8** = Lk. 7^ where we have the Tva construc- 
tion after ovk elfxl i^ai/o?, the Syriac versions naturally represent this 
by ? with the finite verb. 

Lk. 7' Slo ovSe ifxavTOV rjiLwcra Trpbs ae ikOeiv. 

Pal. Syr. ^Icu^ Jl^f )cuL fc^u? D wj»i^ D <Qol y^ 

Sin. om. 

Pesh. )l/ ^loi^? fc^a*, Jl Ul ca ^^-^ 

* Therefore I did not count myself worthy that I should come to 

Thus out of all these passages only Jn. i^ and Mt. 8*^ = Lk. 7 
have the Tm construction, and this agrees with the construction 
with ? which is used in all passages by the Syriac versions. 


Again, crv/>t<^€pct is followed both by the tva construction and by 
the Infinitive, and both constructions are represented in the Syriac 
versions by ? followed by the finite verb. 

Jn. 11^ cru/i^cpct v/xtv Lva cts avOpaiiro'S aTroOdtrrf. 

Pal. Syr. Iql»-. ju^j^ •.-? ^ o^ 

Sin. and Pesh. loaoj 1*^^ ♦**? ^ '^'-^^ 

* It is good (Sin., Pesh. profitable) to us that one man should die *. 

Jn. 1 8^^ (ru/i,<^€p€i €va avOpiOTTOV a7ro6av€tv. 

Pal. Syr. lcoa« ju;.:> ^^^ oot c^ 

Sin. and Pesh. Icl»j I;.:^^ ♦*.? (v*iA9 Pesh.) Do 

* It is good (Sin. fitting, Pesh. profitable) that one man should die *, 

Mt. 19'^ ov (rvix<f>€p€L yafXTJcrai. 

Pal. Syr. ju! ^slfc^j*-*? »^ JJ 
' It is not good that a man should marry \ 

But Sin., Cur., Pesh. Jlfco/ >i-^fft-Ha.N w-ji3 D 
' It is not profitable to take a wife '. 

(rviJL<f>€p€L Lva is also found in Jn. 16', Mt. 5^"^°, iS''. 

The construction a-WTcOefiaL tva in Jn. 9^, njSrj yap (TwereOeLVTO 01 
lovSoLOL Lva idv T19 avrov o/JLoXoyT^arj Xpto-rov, aTrocrwaywyo? ycKJ/rat, is 

reproduced in the Syriac versions by ? with the finite verb ; so 
Pal. Syr. oo»? jljI ©>:> )fcu yj? .oo»1^2> J^joom culoU? )6o» ;.^ ;j^o 
)fcofc*io ^ ;-:iX .a*aj )om l**-wfc:jo. In the other two occurrences 
of a-vvTLOcfjLai, it is followed by the normal construction of the Infini- 
tive, and this again is represented in Syriac by ? with the finite 
verb : Lk. 22" a-wiOevro avTw dpryvpLov Sovvai, Pal. Syr. t CL^]^? O-D 
AAfifto <H^ 'they agreed that they should give him money*; Acts 23^ 
oVlovSaxoL (TvviOevTO Tov ipiDTTjorat (re, Pesh. <yiv» yCi.^j^j> q:xaa*jL( I^^^Oom 
nhe Jews have planned together that they should ask of thee '. 

Similarly, in the variants iSiSov . . .lva TrapaTLOwa-tv Mk. 6^', iSiSov 
TrapaOeLvat Lk. 9^^, Pesh. reads y^c\-v>>tY>.>? . . . oom 'gave . . . that 
they might set' in both places (Pal. Syr. and Sin. desunt in Lk.); 
in Lk. 8^ iSeiTo . . . cTvat avv avrw is rendered by Pal. Syr. . . . l^^ 
o> v^ . v . )oM?, by Sin. and Pesh. )oom «la^? . . . )oo» l^o 'was 
begging ... that he might be with Him *, as in irapeKaXei ... a/a 
/xcT* avTOv ^ of Mk. 5^^ ; in Lk. 8^^ 6 Se Trapi^yyetXev avrois /xrjSevl ehreiv 
is rendered by Pal. Syr. . o>qu»U H ajU? yool^ •-ft9 oo»o, by Sin., 


Cur. yotao^j U AjJJ? yoj/ ♦.iiS ocxo, by Pesh. ajD? ya^/ Jo»i ^f oo» 
yo;„a9lj JJ ^He commanded (Pesh. warned) them that they should 
tell no man ', as in Kat Steo-rctAaro avrols TToWa ij/a kt\. of Mk. 5^^ 
Such illustrations could be almost indefinitely multiplied. 

ii/a as a mistranslation of "^ relative, ' who \ ' which ^ 

So far, the most that we have accomplished is to establish 
a good case for the hypothesis that the excessive use of Tva in 
Mk., and still more in Jn., may be due to the fact that the 
writers of these Gospels were accustomed to think in Aramaic. 
The frequent use of the Iva construction in place of an Infinitive 
is not in itself sufficient to prove translation from Aramaic, for 
an Aramaic-speaking Jew, in writing Greek, would naturally tend 
to exaggerate the use of a Kotv^ construction which resembled his 
own native idiom. Now, however, we have to notice a usage of 
Iva in Jn. which can hardly be explained except by the hypothesis 
of actual mistranslation of an original Aramaic document. There 
are several passages in which Iva seems clearly to represent 
a mistranslation of "^ employed in a relative sense. Translate 
them into Aramaic in the only possible way, representing Iva 
by '^, and an Aramaic scholar would, without question, give to 
that *^ the sense 'who* or 'which*. 

I^ OVK TjV €K€LVO<S TO ^0J9, dAX' LVa fLapTVprjcTTJ TTCpl TOV (fiOiT6<S. Thls 

passage has already been discussed in our notes on the Prologue 
(p. 32). The accepted interpretation of tva with a telic force 
involves the assumption of an ellipse — 'but (he came) that he 
might bear witness, &c.* If tva is a mistranslation of "^ relative 
no such ellipse is required, the passage meaning, ' He was not 
the light, but one who was to bear witness of the light', 

5' avOpoiTTOv OVK €X0) Lva . . . /3d\y /x€ eh tyjv KoXvp^^rjOpav, Pal. Syr., 
quite literally, I^A^aaia^ «li^ ^soi* . . . ? w^ ]^^ ju-^. The 
obvious meaning of this in Aramaic is, ' I have not a man who . . . 
^all put me into the pool \ 

6** Ti ovv TToicis (TV (Tr)fX€7ov, tva i8(Dp.€v ; Pal. Syr., quite literally, 
JL^o^yj? .^^ U kx./ Uo. The sense intended may well be, 'What 
sign then doest thou which we may see?' though, since the final 
sense of "^ would here be appropriate in Aramaic as in the Greek 
im, the evidence of this passage is not pressed. 


oirros eo-Tii/ o apro? o €K tov ovpavov Karapatviiiv tva ti9 e^ avrov 

<^ay>7 Kttt /x^ aTroOdvy. Pal. Syr., quite literally, ^? |., vl m. \ > oo> y?o» 
lov^.t Ho o»jj» uu/ ^a:>)u? 1^^ U.^oa. This is naturally to be 
rendered, 'This is the bread which came down from heaven, 
which, if a man eat thereof, he shall not die' (expressed in 
Aramaic, 'which a man shall eat thereof and shall not die*). 

9^^ Kai Tis icTTLVi KvpLCy Lva TTUTTevcro} €is avTov ; Pal. Syr., quite 
literally, o>» ^a^a^om? : ^;-» oo» ^o. This means, without a 
doubt, 'And who is he. Lord, on whom I should believe?' (the 
Aramaic construction is, 'who I should believe on him'). This 
meaning is surely much more natural and appropriate than is 
the final sense given to iva by A.V., R.V., 'that I may believe 
on him', which can hardly fail to make us discount the quality 
of the man's faith, suggesting, as it does, that his gratitude to 
our Lord made him willing to believe on any one whom He 

14^* aXXov irapaKXrjTov B<i1(T€L v/xlv Tva y fxed^ vfiCiv cis tov attoi/a. Pal. 
Syr., quite literally, iNr> S> |o»«f ^^ft^i^c ^fcu* ycio^ oom oo» 
jf ^\v\ ^o'l v>.!>w. The natural meaning is, 'He shall give you 
another Comforter, who shall abide with you for ever '. So ^ (vt. "**) 

If the fact that n/a in these passages is a mistranslation ot 
"] relative be thought to need further evidence to clinch it, this 
may be found in the variation between Mk. 4^^ and the parallel 
passages Mt. lo^**, Lk. 8^^ already noted. Here Mk.'s iav firj tva 
<f>avep(iiOr} is reproduced in Mt. by o ovk d7roKa\v<f>6T^(T€Tai, and in 

Lk. by o ov cfiavepov yevrjcr^raL. Thus lav firj Lva KJiavepoiOy seems 
clearly to represent an original V^r'^^l lOr^ 'except that which 
shall be revealed', i.e. 'which shall not be revealed', and this 
is the rendering of Pesh. JJ^l^ h (Pal. Syr., Sin. vacant).* 

oTi similarly a mistranslation of "^ relative. 

In Jn. 9'' Tt (TV Aeycis ir^pi avrov, otl rjveio^cv (tov tov^ 6<f>0a\/xov£ ; 
the use of on is very awkward, and the 'in that' of R.V. un- 
convincing. The passage, however, at once becomes clear when 
we recognize that on is simply a mistranslation of "^ relative — 
' What sayest thou of him who hath opened thine eyes ? ' This 

* That tva is here a mistranslation of "H relative has been noted by Wellhausen, 
Einleitung^j p. rS- 


sense, which is naturally to be deduced from the Aramaic, is given 
by the Arabic Diatessaron ^ (^JJl ; and the best-attested reading 
of S (vt. vg.) is ' qui aperuit \ Similarly, in 8^^ cyw 8e 6tl ttjv aX-qOaav 
Xcyo) is rendered by Pal. Syr. I^cua ;^! H? **» ]j!, which would 
naturally bear the sense, ' I who speak the truth '. This meaning, 
which offers a superior antithesis to ' he is a liar ' of the preceding 
verse, is offered by the Diatessaron (jjji 'who', and by two MSS. 
of !^ (vg.) 'qui'. In our notes on the Prologue a similar case 
of mistranslation is suggested in i'^ on c/c tov irXrjptiifjiaTos avrov 
ktX. (cf. p. 39), and, conversely, ^ = ' because, inasmuch as ' seems 
to have been wrongly treated as the relative in i''-^^ (cf. pp. 29, 34). 
A case in Mk. where on seems to be a mistranslation of "^ relative 
((S) is 4^\ Tt's apa ovt6<; Icttw otl koX 6 avc/xos koX rj 6aXa(Taa v7raKov€L 
avT(o; 'Who then is this whom (w . . . avrw) even the wind and 
the sea obey ? ' * Another may very possibly be seen in S^^, 
BAeTTO) Tovs avOpii)7rov<s on ws SevSpa opoi TrepLTrarovvraSi where the 

difficult OTL may represent a wrong rendering of "=1 (ov9).t In 

Mt. 13^^ vfjiiov Se /xaKapLOL ot ocfiOaXfjLol otl ftX.€7rovarLv, /cat to, wra [v//.cui/J 

OTL oLKovova-Lv, the words OTL /SXeTTovcTLv . . . OTL oLKovovo-Lv SLTQ Tendered 
by Sin., Cur., Pesh. ^%.vii»f . . . ^ju*9, which may mean ' because 
they see, &c ', or ' which see, &c.' The latter sense is given by the 
Diatessaron Ju-~J jJl . . • j^ ^JJ1, and by several MSS. of ^ 
(vt. vg.)'qui vident . . .quae audiunt '. Plegesippus quotes the 
passage in the form /xaKaptot ot 6<f>0cL\ixol vfifov ol ySAeTrovres, Kol TO. wra 
vfjiSiv TO. aKovovTaX Since Hegesippus (according to Eusebius, 
HE. iv. 22) was a Hebrew by birth and made quotations from 
Syriac and Hebrew, we may infer that in this case his quotation is 
based upon a Syriac translation of Mt. The rendering of !^ vt. 
here and in the passages previously noticed shows the influence of 
a Syriac version upon this translation, and illustrates the natural 
sense which a reader of Aramaic would attach to the particle ? in 
the contexts in question. Conversely, the same influence upon the 
so-called Western text is seen in Jn. 8'^D, /x^ (tv fx€L^u>v it tov 

*Ay8paa/A- ort airiOavev, where WH. rightly has ooTis d-n-eOavev. 

* Noted by Wellhausen, Einleitung^ , p. 15. t Cf, Allen, St. Mark, ad loc. 

X Cf. Grabe, Spicilegium SS. Patrum ; edit. alt. ii, p. 213 — a reference which the 
present writer owes to Dr. Cureton's discussion of the passage in Remains of a very 
aniieni recension of the Four Gospels in Syriac, p. xxv. 


ifa as a mistranslation of '^. — ^ when \ 

We have noticed, when speaking of the usage of "^ , that it can 
bear the meaning ' when % ore. Strictly speaking in such a usage 
it is relatival ' which ', with ellipse of ' in it * — J^''?^ ' which in it * 
= 'in which*; cf. Jn. 5^, where epx^rai wpa iv y appears in Pal. 
Syr. as o>s? )?o» Ic^ijk, H/. The following" cases occur in Jn. of 
Iva standing for ore : 

12^ iXrjXvOev rj wpa tva So^acrOy 6 vlbs tov avOpwrrov. 

Pal. Syr. U->«>=>? o»^ u*2>]^*-.? IfcOiJi. U/. 

13^ yXOev avTov rj wpa Iva fiera^fj c/c tov koct/jlov tovtov. 

Pal. Syr. ix^^v ^^6t ^:» Ua-»? oiV-J^ak U/. 

16" €p)(€TaL Sipa Iva 7ras 6 airoKT€iva<s v/x-as 80^ Xarpciai/ 7rpo(r(fi€p€iv 
TO) ©cw.* 

Pal. Syr. ^9clo9 i^-\cr> Joo» ^aol^.. "^^^T ^^ ^co? Jl^sJ^jk. )ul/ 

16^^ ep)(€Tai wpa . . . tva crKopTna-O^Te. 
Pal. Syr. yoJf^i^? . . . U*. H/. 

That in all these cases tva simply stands by mistranslation for otc, 
and that no mystic final sense is to be traced in the usage such as is 
postulated by Westcott, is proved by the use of the normal phrase 
IpXirai wpa ore in 4^''^^, 5^', l6"^^, and tpx^rai Sipa iv 17 in 5"^^ 

oTt similarly a mistranslation of ^. — * when \ 

In 9^ ol 0€(i)povvT€<s avTov TO TTpoTipov OTt TTpocTaLTrjs rjv we have 3. very 
awkward otl, and R.V.'s halting rendering, 'they that saw him 
aforetime, that he was a beggar*, is the best that can be made 
of the sentence. Clearly the sense demanded is ' when (ore) he 
was a beggar', and the natural inference is that '^ = 'when' has 
been wrongly interpreted as conjunctive 'that*. Another clear 
instance of the same mistranslation is seen in 12''', ravra c'ttcv 
'Ho-atas OTt €t8ev Tqv So^av avTov (R.V. 'because he saw his glory'), 
where the sense demanded is 'when (oTe) he saw His glory \t 

* Freely quoted in the letter from the church at Lyons (Eusebius, HE. v. l) with 
the correction kv S . . . 8o£6i for 'iva . . . 80^77 — lAeuaerat Kaipbs kv ^ irds o dnoKXtivas 
v/Jids 56^(1 Xarpeiav iTpoa<p(piiv tw 06y. 

t It is just possible that on may here be a mistranslation of "1 relative— 'These 
things said Isaiah who saw His glory and spake concerning Him ', but the sense 
' when ' seems to be preferable. 



The great frequency of the Pronouns of the first and second 
persons is a marked feature in Jn. The occurrences in this 
Gospel and the Synoptists are as follows : 






















II • 




To a large extent this phenomenon finds its explanation in the 
fact that the Fourth Gospel is designed to prove our Lord's 
Messiahship and His Divinity (20^'). Thus at the opening St. John 
the Baptist emphasizes the character of his mission — eyoi — in 
contrast to that of Christ (i2o-23.26.27..i„ 33.34^ ^286^ Qur Lord lays stress 

upon His claims -€V (4^^-^^ 5=«'=«^, 635..«.4K4..48.51.54^ 3,2.42^ j07^ 

11^, 12^^ i4«, 15^ i6=«, 18=''), or His acts (15 ^-^^^ ^q^m,^^ 
bringing Himself into antithesis with others — the disciples, the 

Jews, the world, &C. (4=*^ 5^'% f-^-^-^, 315.216.2-2.236m.38.45.5o^ jO.0.18^ j226.47^ 

^^.4.15.33^ J43..2a.i9.20.27^ j^5«..o.i6^ i7>^^-25); QT Hc dcfines Hisrclatiou to 
God the Father (5'', 6'', 8''^-^^'', i6''\ 16^", 17^^). Emphatic V"? 
is frequently antithetical to cyw, and implied or expressed antithesis 
often accounts for the use of rjfiels and av. 

When all such cases have been taken into consideration, there 
remain, however, a large number in which the Pronoun appears 
to be used with no special emphasis. Thus cyw in i'^=*i^, 3*-«^ 43^^ 


/C63.70 -17 Q14.16o.21a. t^ t T 27-42 yo'^" to7-18-26 ^ .4.WbA2b.W.i8 
0,7,0 ,10 , II , 12 , 13 , 14 , 

1^14.20.26^ l54.76;.^ j^9.14a.22^ ^Q20bis.2l.Z7 . ^^^-^ jn l'\ 6'^-'\ f% 8^^ g''''', 
19'; O-V' in 3^^ 4^", lO"-', 14^ 18^='^^; Vrg in I^^ ^35^ 520.:a34.3o.39.44.45 . 

831.46 -.19.30 TT-19 Tol3 t^20« -. f-S.Wb 

Now while in Semitic the use of the Personal Pronouns with 
greater or less emphasis is extremely common, we also find them 
employed without special emphasis in order to mark the subject 
of the Participle. In Hebrew, and still more in Aramaic, the 
Participle is used with great freedom to describe an event as 
in process of continuance, whether in the past or present, or as 
in process of coming into being (Futurum instans). In such cases, 
the subject being unexpressed in the verbal form, it is of course 
necessary to mark it, when it is pronominal, by the Pronoun. 
This Semitic usage of the Participle being foreign to Greek, the 
LXX in translating the Hebrew of the O.T. naturally represents 
it by a Present, a Perfect, a Future, &c., and, so doing, might 
well have dispensed with the Personal Pronoun. As a matter 
of fact, however, the translation nearly always retains the Pronoun, 
and that, almost invariably, in the position which it occupies in the 
original, before or after the verbal form. 

Cases of ""DiN, ^Jtc, * I *, with the Participle expressed by eyw 
in Genesis are as follows. 7^ '^''^^^ ""^^^ h^ iirdyu) v€t6v, 9^^ 

inb ^J« iy^ hiBwfJLL, 15'' ^?3N f-n kplvQ> cyw, 30^ ^3bK nriD rcXeimJo-a) 
fyoi, 24}''' 3^3 -DbN r\pri lSo{, iyio t(rrr}Ka. So also l6^ l8^^ 24'-'^''^ 
25^^, 2f, 28-", 31^ 32^^, 42^^, 48^^, 49^. The only cases without cyw 
are 37 "'■^o. 

Cases of ijms, 'we', with the Participle expressed by rffiiis in 
Genesis— Kings are : Gen. 19'^ r]^;r\ Dip^n-DSJ i^mx D^n^n^p '•3 6tl 

dTToAAv/ACV rjflils TOV TOTTOV TOVTOV, 43^^ U'i^M lijnDX . . . flDSH inV^y 

Ata TO' apyvpLov . . . -^/xct? €to-ayo/xc^a, Num. lO^ Dip^n-pK ^3n3K Cytpb 
"Eiaupofjiev rjfJLils cts tov tottov. So Deut. l'^, 5^, 12*, Judg. l8^ 19'*, 

I Sam. 14^, I Kgs. 22^ 2 Kgs. 6\ 7^5^»», I8^^ No cases with omission 

of i7/x,ct9. 

Similarly, in Genesis — Kings there are 40 cases of nriK * thou * 
with the Participle expressed by trv (e.g. Gen. 13^' nnsne^^ H?'?'^? 
nt<l irao-av ttjv yrjv rjv cru opas), as against 14 without crv : and 35 
cases of ^J!}^ 'ye' with the Participle expressed by vficts (e.g. 
Ex, 16* D?YP ^'3^ "^^^ D?'^'^??"^^ TOV yoyyva-fwv v/awv ov v/xei^ 


Stayoyyv^cTc) and one case with avroi (Ex. lo"), as against 6 cases 

without vfieLS. 

In Theodotion's version of the Aramaic portion of Daniel and 
the LXX of the Aramaic sections of Ezra we find the following 
cases of the Personal Pronoun with the Participle expressed in 

Dan. 2« njX yT 3>r IP 'eV SiXrjeeta^ otSa lyi^. 

4^ pjT'D'li^ n3X IDN ^OpU TO ivvTTVLOv ciTra eytu €V(i>7nov avrdv. 

wmN 'we' : 
Dan.3^« KJn^^ pnfn-Nb Oi xp^^v e>/>i€v ^/^cls. 

Ezr. 4^« Kabplj n^m^ pynino yvoyp^Cofieu ijiiCi^ t<? ySao-iXet. 
nn:« 'thou': 

Dan. 4^" i'n3 nn3«1 a-v 8e, AanijA., 8wao-at. 

617.21(16.20) {<-,nn3 nS-n^s nn3« n ^jh^k 'o 6^6% o-ov, <? o-i. Xar/jcv'cis 
pmN* 'ye': 

Dan. 2« r?3T |V13« W"nV Katp^i/ ^cl? i^ayopd^ere. 

The only exception to the expression of the Pronoun is found in 
Dan. 2'^ n^K n^E^D^ NlinO '•nnnx n^K -j^ o-o^ 6 ^e^s rQ>v Traripiov fiov, 
i^ofioXoyovfiai koL aivw. 

As compared with Hebrew, the Personal Pronoun is used more 
freely in Aramaic with (e.g.) a Perfect where no special stress 
is apparent ; cf. Dan. 4^ nVT n:K ^"i %y kf^ |y„coi/, 5'^ ^^^x; nj/tpK^ njNi 

Kttt cyo) y]KOv<ya. Trepl aov. 

Now it is at any rate a plausible hypothesis that the unemphatic 
usage of the Personal Pronoun in Jn. may often represent close 
translation of an Aramaic original in which the Pronoun was 
expressed with the Participle. Thus e.g., i^^ fiicros vfjiS)v ar-^KeL ov 
V"s ovK olBaT€ exactly represents PVi; «^ H^^^l IP D«S l*»3-?.'3; 
i^ oStos co-Ttv vTrkp ot ^yo) cIttoi/, N^i^j; n:N ipNT N^n fnn. In other 
cases we may find the Aramaic Pronoun coupled without special 
emphasis with a Perfect or Imperfect; e.g. i^^** aX)C Iva <f>av€poiOy tw 
'laparjk Sta tovto ^XOov cyw iv vSan ^aTrrt^wv, '^3 ij^-Jf !> \^rin |n^''« 

2B20 G 


r?p2 j;3ifD nj« n^m m bp^. Again, in i'' ^/xcr? 7rc{i/T€9 iXd/3ofxev, the 
lyyLtctg naturally reproduces the suffix of f^l3 'all of us'. 

Particularly noteworthy is the throwing of a-v to the end of the 
sentence, whether in a question, as in i^''' 'O rrpocfi-qTrjs et av ; i8^' 
OvKovv jSao-iXivs ct o-v; 19*^ IIo^cv €t av ; ov in a Statement, as in 4^^ 
^cwpw oTt TTpo^rjrr}^ et (tv, 8^^ ^ajjiapeLTrjs ct (tu. This is never found 
elsewhere throughout the N. T. except in Acts 13^^, Heb. i^ Yio? 
fjLov el (TV, a quotation of Ps. 2/ with accurate reproduction of the 
Hebrew order nrii? ^J3. Hebrew and Aramaic can, in such a 
statement or query, place the Pronoun after the predicate or 
before it (as e.g. in Gen. 27^'' ^33 nt nriN)^ and Jn.*s use of both 
orders (cf. (rv el in i*^-^^, 3'", 7% &c.) looks much like a close repro- 
duction of an Aramaic original. 

aUT<5s, OUTOS, Ikcii'os. 

To express the 3rd person avros is fairly frequent in Jn. The 
figures for avros (->}) as subject in the four Gospels are as follows : 

Mt. 12, Mk. 17, Lk. 51, Jn. 18. 

Much more often, however, Jn. prefers to use an emphatic 
demonstrative ovtos 'this one', €K€lvos 'that one*, and he employs 
these Pronouns substantival ly with far greater freedom than do the 
Synoptists. The figures for ovto<s {avTrf} as subject are 

Mt. 35, Mk. 14, Lk. 36, Jn. 44. 

For cKctvos (-rj, -o) used substantivally, whether as subject or 
obliquely, the figures are 

Mt. 4, Mk. 3, Lk. 4, Jn. 51. 

cKeivos is used adjectivally 

Mt. 51, Mk. 16, Lk. 29, Jn. 18. 

Jn.'s extraordinary fondness for demonstratives in preference to 
the Personal Pronoun finds adequate explanation in the heory 
that his Gospel is a close reproduction of an Aramaic original. 

In the Aramaic of Dan. the 3rd Personal Pronoun t^'"^ hit as 
subject is rendered avros by Theodotion, except where it forms the 
subject of a predicative statement in which the copula is under- 
stood, in which case the Greek represents it by the substantive 


verb : e. g. e ^'^r\ pp-nD ' faithful (was) he * = ttio-t^s ^v, 6" Tii3 Nin 
' he (was) kneeling * = rjv KafjcTrriov. 

Aramaic is richly supplied with demonstrative Pronouns. The 
following, with their Greek renderings, may be noticed. 

^p. d^na ^this*, fem. ^<'^ da, plur. c. r.?i< 'illeny Dan. and Ezr. 
passim. Targums P"!! den, fem. N"^ da ; strengthened by demon- 
strative prefix n ha-, X^^} hdden, fem. ^y^ hddd = Syriac Jjo» hana 
(contracted from hnifnS), fem. )?©♦ hade ; plur. c. p.?i<n hd'illen = 
Syriac ^*^o» hallen. •"iJ'n both as pronominal subs, and adj. is 
regularly rendered outos in Dan. and Ezr. (in a few cases of adj. use 
it is represented by the definite article only). 

1?'^ dikken ' this, that ', c, Dan. 2=^^ I?^ NDjjJf ^ cZkwv cKctVr? (LXX 
and 0.), Dan. v^^-^^ |31 ^T\p_ rh Kipas IkClvo (LXX, 0.). Plur. c. ^.e'N 
'///^>^^, Dan 3^2-2^-2=^, 6'2-i« (also found in Ezr.). 
To this corresponds in Ezr. : 

V}. dekh, fem. V\ ddkh ^his \ V, ^K^?p. v -^^Xls Ik^'lvt}, Ezr. 41315.10.19.21. 

^ TTciAts a^rr;, 4^^^; ^^ 12?3K^B^, ^ap^ayhp Ik€IV0's, 5^« ; ^T NriTnjJ r^ tpyov 
iKcivo, 5^; "H!! ^^IPS ^''?; (toi/) oT/cov tov ^€o9 eKelvov, 5^', 6'-^, otKov ^cov, 6^*. 

In addition, we find in Talmudic Aramaic i^'^>^\} hdhu = ' that * or 
'that one' (i.e. 3rd personal pronoun /fw + demonstrative particle 
/j^), contracted in Syriac into oa hau (Pal. Syr. also o!a), fem. ^<^"^^ 
hdht (also ^xn), contracted^ in Syriac into **©» to' (Pal. Syr. also **U), 
plur. '^^^y} hdnho, Syriac m. yajo* h&nnun, fem. hannen. This usage 
is not found in the Aramaic of Dan. and Ezr., though we may 
notice the use of the Personal Pronoun in Dan. 2^^ ^^o!'?? i^'in ^ that 
image' (explained as Nom. pendens — Mt — the image'). This is 
remarkably like €K€tvos ro IIi/cv/Aa t^s aktfiuo.^ in Jn. 16^^, an expres- 
sion which amounts to ' that Spirit of truth ' or ' the Spirit, &c.' 
(Pal. Syr. |l^clo^ |u.o> o|o». This version at times uses o!oj to 
express the definite article, e. g. Iaj;j» o!o» = 6 av6p(D7ro<s,) 

There can be no question that where ckcivos is used adjectivally 
it would naturally be represented by Kinn. Thus 4^^ iKiivrj rrj wpa 
would appear in the Jerus. Talmud as xnyc^ ^i<n3 (Cur., Pesh. «cH:a 
]kN-:^>A', but Pal. Syr. )fc>..i^ ojl^). When used substantivally as 
subject — especially when reinforcing a Nom. pendens (cf. p. 64) — 
it is probable that Uavo^ represents the Personal Pronoun Kin ; 
but there are other cases in which it looks much like a reproduc- 
tion of ^'\r\r]. Pal. Syr. represents it by o« (oU) in 3'", ^^, 7", 9"-''; 

G 2 


Pesh. by o« in 3="', 5^'^^=*-^', 7^^ 8^^ g''-^% lo^-'^ is^^-^^, 14^^ We may 
note especially the rendering of oblique cases by Pesh. in the 
following passages : 

3^ iK€LVOv Set av^dv€Lv = )ia ; v\\ JJo OO) oo>^ (Cur. oo» o^) 

5*^ iKclvov X.rjfii}/€(r6e = y^nN-^ol oc)>^ (so Cur.) 

5*' Tols iK€ivov ypd/x/xaa-LV = Oo»? >^o><xal^a\> (Cur. ooi?). 

9^ (TV fxaOrjTrjs ct iKeivov = cd»? o»»*.v>\l Oo» lio/ (Sin. om. Oo»>). 

10^ €t iK€LV0V<5 cTtTCV dcOVS = ]6^^l iJa?/ XQL>0»^ y/ (Sitt. Om.). 

In cases such as these the idiomatic force of the Aramaic demon- 
strative satisfactorily accounts for the Greek usage. Again, the 
phrase cKetvo? icmv, rendered oo» oo» — lit. ^that one (is) he* — in 13-*^; 
14-', is one in which Ninn would naturally be employed. 

We thus reach the following conclusions as to the pronouns 
which we have been considering : 

Substantival use — 
avTos =^ hu. 

cKetvos = hu and hdhti. 
ovTo<i = hdden. 

Adjectival use — 

0VT09 = den, d^nd, or hdden. 
iK€Lvo^ = dt'kken, dekh, or hdhu. 

The Relative completed by a Pronoun. 

The Aramaic relative particle ^'^; "^ — originally^ as we have 
already remarked (p. 70), a demonstrative * that one ' — is in- 
variable, and, like the Hebrew relative Tf^, properly forms a link 
connecting two co-ordinate sentences. For expression of the 
implied relation it is therefore necessary to complete the sense of 
the Relative particle by a Pronoun or Pronominal suffix in the 
clause which it introduces. Thus e.g. such a statement as, ' I saw 
the man to whom I gave the book ' has to be expressed in Semitic 
in the form, ' I saw the man who I gave the book to htm \ There 
are several instances in Jn. in which the Greek copies this Semitic 

I® *Ey€V€To dvOp<ji7ro<s . . . ovofxa avT(o ^latdvvrjs. Here the relative 


connexion is implied and not directly expressed. So 3^ On the 
thoroughly Semitic character of this particular idiom cf. p. 30. 

1^ ov iyo) ovK elfu a$ios tva Xvcro) avrov tov IfidvTa tov vTroSy/xaro^. 

I"^ 'E^' ov av LSy<; to Uvevfia Kara^aivov /cat fX€vov lir avrov ^ 
Pal. Syr. wc^N*^ )»fcs^:soo )fcs^ )u*oi k^^ l!? y?o» lit. 'He who 
thou seest the Spirit descending and abiding upon him '. 

g^ Kat Tt9 i(TTLv, Kvpie, tva 7rtcrTcv(ra) cts avrov; Here tva is a mis- 
translation of the relative "^ ; cf. p. 76. 

13^® 'Ekcivos icTTLV (5 cyo) ^dif/oi rb {f/oyfXLOV Kal Swcrw avT<o. Peculiarly 

Aramaic— n\b nn^i scn^ njx ynvn xin i^^nn 'That is he af(? I shall 
dip the sop and give it to him', i.e. 'to whom I shall give the sop 
when I have dipped it *. 

18^ Ovs 8c8a)Kas fxoL ovk aTrcoXccra ii avriov ovSeva. 

Wellhausen (Etnleitung'^f p. 15) cites two instances of this con- 
struction from Mk., viz. V ov ovk clfu LKavb<s Kvif/a'S XvaraL tov IfjLavTa 
Tiov vn-oSrjfxdrwv avTov, and 7'' rj<s eT^cv to OvyaTpiov avrq's Trvevfxa aKoiOapTOV, 

besides three cases from the text of D in Mt. lo'S 18^, Lk. S'\* 

Pronominal constructions peculiar to Aramaic. 

It is peculiarly idiomatic in Aramaic to anticipate a genitive by 
use of a possessive pronominal suffix attached to the antecedent. 
Thus the Aramaic of Dan. writes ' Hts name of God * (2^), 'in ihetr 
days of those kings '(2^^), 'ate thet'r pieces of the Jews* (i.e. slan- 
dered them, 3^); 'hts appearance of the fourth (3"), &c. ; Pal. Syr. 
in Jn. I writes ' iheir light of mankind' {v. ''), 'tis news of the light' 
{w, '•^), ' in His bosom of the Father ' {v. ^% ' his witness of John ' 
{v. '% &c. 

There appears to be but one instance of this in the Greek of Jn., 
but this is so striking that it should surely count for much in 
estimating the theory of translation from Aramaic. In 9'^ we read 
Tovs yoviLs avrov tov dva/SXeif/avTos, 'his parents of him that had 
received sight'. This appears naturally in Pal. Syr. as ©♦Icu^j/ 
M^^! \?o»?« Cf. Mk. 6^^ eiaeXOova-rjs ttjs OvyaTpos avTOv {v. L avr^s) 
T^s 'Hpa>8ta3o9, which is clearly an attempt to reproduce the Aramaic 

* He also cites Mt. 3^2 = l^ ^e^ ^j ^^ tnvov kv tjJ x*'P* avrov, upon the assump- 
tion that ov is reinforced by iv ttj x"/** avrov, * In whose hand is the fan ' (not 
* Whose fan, &c.') ; but this is very doubtful. 


construction Djliin*! nril3 'her daughter of Herodias', i.e. Uhe 
daughter of H.' (noted by Allen, St. Mark, ad loc). 

Another peculiarly Aramaic idiom is the anticipation of the 
direct object of a verb by a pronominal suffix. Thus in Jn. 19^^ 
Pal. Syr. renders ^om^ );-2o^ o»l^ «fc«-*/ ' he brought Him (viz.) 
the Lord Jesus', 19"' a»cim- );.n;^\ o»1^ ois? 'they led Him the 
Lord Jesus', 19'^^ <h.^^:s!^ o*!^ ji^op ^ he pierced it His side'.* 
An example of this idiom is seen in the Greek of Jn. <^^^ " kyovaiv 

avTov TT/oos T0V9 ^apicTaLOvq Tov TTore Tv<f>\6v =: Pal. Syr. 0)1^ o)^( 

* No cases of the direct object of a verb so anticipated are found in Biblical 
Aramaic. We find the anticipatory pronoun, however, in such phrases as 
i'N''3in nn nninSJ'n 'was found in him in Daniel' (Dan. 5"), N^S^b^ Hi 'in 
it in the night', i.e. Mn the same night' (Dan. 5^% KDK'C^nm^ bv ''n\bv ini't}^ 
' they sent to him to Artaxerxes ' (Ezr. 4^^). A few cases of the construction are 
found in Hebrew : cf. Brockelmann, Vergleich. Gramm. der semit. Sprachen, ii. 227. 


The Historic Present = Aramaic use of the Participle. 

The Historic Present is extremely frequent in Jn. The occur- 
rences are as follows ; 

ayova-tv, 9", 1 8®. 

dTTOKptVcTttt, 12^, 1^26.38^ 

PdXXei, I3^ 

^XcVci, i^, 20^ ', 21^" ; fiXiTTova-Lv, 21^ 

BtSdiO-LV, is'', 21 'I 

iyeiperai, 13^. 

epx^rat, 4", ir«, iz""'^", 13^ I8^ 20^-2-«-^«-2«, 2l'^ 

^€C0/3€t, 20«-^2.14. ^^^^^^^^^^ 519^ 

\afx,pdv€Ly 13^^, 21". 

Xi^/zri t21-29.36.3S. o3. ^4 . -6.8 
^ -6.50 039 ^12 , t 7- 11- 6i».40.44 to4.22 xo'5- 

" f I ) ^ f ^ ) ^^ ) ^'^ ) ^6 i 

X^ ,Q4.5.17W«.26.38W« t/-w4. o<-k213.15 W».166t«.l7. 

j.^ , lo • > J^9 , -«so , 

2i3.5.7.10.l2.15«er.l6^er.l76«..i9.21.22. X^ovtnv, <f', II«^ \'2''\ \(P, 20^^ 21^ 
fxafyrvpet, I^^. 
V€i;€t, 13^''. 
riOrja-iv, 13^. 
rpexct, 20^ 

<f>aLV€L, I^. 

<;^>/(ni/, 18^. 

<f><l)V€L, 2'. 

This list gives a total of 164 occurrences.* The figures for the 
Synoptists, as given by Sir John Hawkins (HS.^ pp. 143 ff.), are, 

* Sir John Hawkins gives the figure as 162 (besides two cases preserved in 
Tischendorf in ii^^). He has, however, kindly lent his MS. list to the present 
writer, who has added <f>aivfi i* (which may be open to dispute) and SiScoaiv ai". 


Mt. 78 (21 of which are derived from Mk. : in addition there are 
15 Presents in Parables); Mk. 151 ; Lk. only 4 [or 6J ; Acts 13. 
It thus appears that Jn. closely resembles Mk. in fondness for 
this usage. If Mk. were as long as Jn., the former would show 
proportionately 195 occurrences. The higher proportionate figure 
in Mk. is explained by the higher proportion of narrative to dis- 
course in this Gospel. There are comparatively few cases of the 
Historic Present in Jn. 5 — 10 and 14 — 17.* 

The use of the Historic Present in Mk. and Jn. strongly 
resembles a common Aramaic idiom in which in a description of 
past events the Participle is employed to represent the action 
described as in process of taking place. The following instances 
of this participial usage are found in the Aramaic chapters of the 
Book of Daniel. Theodotion sometimes renders it by an Historic 
Present or (more frequently) by an Imperfect ; and when this is 
the case his rendering is added. In other cases he employs an 

•^P.V '(was) answering* (always followed by ^P^l) 'and (was) 
saying'), 2''-'''''-''-''-'', ^^'■^^■^-^■^'■^, ^'^^'■'^^, 571=^'', e^'-^^'^S 72*(this verb is 
frequently omitted in Theodotion's rendering).t f^3y '(were) 
answering*, 3^^ 

"^P« '(was) saying*, 2-'-'''-2"-26-27-47^ ^H.i9.-24.i6.iis^ ^^^ ^7.i3.u 613.17.21^ 

f, inDN '(were) saying*, 2'>», s'-*^-^^ ^^ Theodotion, X4y€L 
in 2% keyova-Lv in 2^°, 6'^-^^-^^ lAeyoi/ in f. 

p^33nrp '(were) gathering together ', 3^ ; TP^i? '(were) standing *, 3' ; 
^IJ^ ' (was) crying * (eySda), 3^ ; VV^^ ' (were) hearing * (^kovov), 3' ; 
pn^p] . . . ppQ J ' (were) falling down . . . and (were) worshipping * 
(TTMrroKTc? . . . TTpoa-eKvvovv), 3' ; Pi?S ^ ' (were) coming forth *, 3-^ ; 
pK^l^nrp ' (were) gathering together * (a-wdyovraL) 3'^^ ; |?in ' (were) 

* Cf.//S.2pp. 143 f. 

t It is remarkable that, though we constantly find Hpy (participle) coupled with 
IDNI (participle) in the singular— ^ he (was) answering and (was) saying', we do 
not (with the single exception 3^*) find the participle plural pjy coupled with the 
participle plural JHIOSI. In the plural the regular usage is the coupling of the 
perfect \y^ with the participle plONI — ' they answered and (were) saying '. This 
fact suggests the possibility that the singular form should be vocalized, not T\')'^ 
•a«^ (Participle), but HJJ? 'ana (Perfect). 


seeing* {iOnopow), 3^'; nm '(was) descending*, 4^"; ^51i5 *(was 
crying*, 4"; nnc^ '(was) drinking*, 5'; i^O.^I 'and (were) writing* 
(koX €ypa<f>ov)f ^^ ; n'ln '(was) seeing* (lOioypet), 5"; Tl^fo '(were) being 
loosed* (^LiXvovTo), 5®; ]^\>}^ '(were) knocking* (a-uv^KpoTovvro), ^^ ) 
^'}.2 '(was) crying*, 5^; ^hbv, K^re\''pV '(were) entering * (e/VeTro/aewTo), 
5^; pS'n;^'^^ '(were) not being able* {ovk rjSvvavTo), 5'; i'niirip '(was) 
being terrified *, 5^; V.^^ '(were) being changed *, 5^; Vp^fl? '(were) 
being perplexed * {(rvverapda-a-ovTo), 5" ; I VLJi^"^? ' (were) not being 
able*, s''; ^n^ '(were) drinking* (cTrtVerc), s"^ ; ^'^^3■)3-by •■\'\2 N^in 
N"iiD^ NpJfO^ 'he (was) kneeling on his knees and (was) praying and 

(was) giving thanks* {yv Kd/xTrTwv iTvl ra yovara avrov, koI 7rpo(r€V)(6fX€vos 

Koi i$oiJLoXoyovfji€vos:),&^; iC''^'? '(were) bursting forth * (Trpoo-c^aAAov), 7^; 
I^S'i? ' (were) coming up * (dve^ati/cv), f ; npan , ♦ . n^TOi nbx ' (was) 
eating and (was) breaking in pieces . . . (was) trampling* (ia-Otov 
KOL XeTTTvvov . . . (TTvcTraTct), 7'-'^ ; psj^ 133 ' (was) issuing and (was) 
coming forth * (cTAkcv), 7^°; N^f'Pl? '(was) speaking* {iXdXei), 7"; xn^y 
' (was) making * (eVotci), 7^' ; n^3 '^ ' (was) prevailing ', f\ 

The fact that in the 199^ Aramaic w. of Dan. we thus find no 
less than 99 instances of this participial usage describing a past 
action shows how highly characteristic of the language the idiom is. 
That the usage naturally lends itself to representation in Greek by 
the Historic Present or Imperfect is obvious to an Aramaic scholar. 
If those who are unacquainted with Aramaic will read a passage 
of the book in English, substituting the literal renderings given 
above for those of R.V., and remembering that the time-deter- 
mination {was or is) is absent from the original and can only be 
inferred from the context, they can hardly fail to come to the same 

It will be noticed that, out of the 99 examples, 23 are found with 
the verb 'answer*, and no less than 36 with the verb 'say*, leaving 
40 (or considerably less than half the total) to verbs bearing other 
meanings. In Syriac the use of the Participle under discussion is 
practically confined to the verb i:so/ 'say*.* In the 151 instances 
of the Historic Present in Mk., 72 are cases of Xcyct, Xiyova-iv. In 
the 164 instances in Jn. the proportion borne by Xeyct, Xiyovcnv to 

* See, however, Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, ii, pp. 63 ff., for instances 
of its use with other verbs in Sin. 


the whole number is considerably higher, viz. 120, or nearly three- 

That the frequent use of the Historic Present in Mk. is due 
to Aramaic influence is maintained by Allen {Expositor^ 1900, 
pp. 436 ff. ; Expository Times, xiii, p. 329 ; Oxford Studies in the 
Synoptic Problem, p. 295) and by Wellhausen (Einleitung in die drei 
ersten Evangelien^, p. 17). It can hardly be doubted that in Jn. 
also the same theory offers an adequate explanation of the same 

The Imperfect = Aramaic use of the Participle coupled with 
the Substantive verb. 

Instances of the Imperfect in Jn. (excluding the Substantive 
verb) are as follows : 

SicyeijpcTO, 6^. 
hUrpipev, 3^1 

ijSdim^iv, 3^, 4^ ; eySaxTt^oi/TO, 3"^^ 
i^dara^ev, 12^ 
tpXiTTov, 13^. 

iyLV(i}(TK€V, 2^". 

iyoyyv^ov, 6^^ 

i8i8a(TK€v, 7^*. 
iSiSoarav, 19^ 

iSL(DKOVf 5^^« 

iSoKovv, 13^. 

i^^ei, 19^2; K^ovy, 5^«, 7'^^-^", IO=^^ ii«-^^ 

€^<6yW€S, 21 ^^ 

iOavfJia^ov, 4^, 7^'. 

iOepfiaivovTO, 1 8'^. 

iOewpovv, 6^. 

cTxov, 17*; cTxes, 19"; "X^*'* 2^ 13^; €?X€T€, 9''; €?xo(rav, 15=^ ^ 

UaOi^^ro, 4^ 11^. 

€Kd6rjT0, 6^. 

€K€tTO, 19% 20^^. 



CKpavya^ov, 12'^. 

cXoXei, 4% 7^^ 10". 

lAeyev, 221-2^ 5'^'«, 6«-«''^ S""''-'', g\ I2^«-^; iXeyov, 4^^-^^ 5'^ 6'''\ 

„U .\2bi8.lh. 31. iO 4] bit 019.22.25 ^8.9.10.W«16 62« T/-» , t 36.47-56 to29 t<^18 

j^3.2i^ 2o2^ 

ifiaxovTO, 6""^. 
ifjLoipTvpei, 12*'. 
c/xcXcv, 12^ 

€>€XX€i/ (^/x.), 4'^ 6«'S ii'\ 12^', i8''; €>€XAov, 7'«. 

C/A6VC1/ (z;. /. €/xetvev); lO^". 

eTTLo-Tevev, 2^'*; cTrio-Tevere, 5^"^*"; iTTLO-revov , 7', 12^^-''. 


€7roi€(, 2^^, 5'^, 61 

iTTOpiVCTO, 4^°. 

iTrjpovv, 1"]^^. 
irok/jia, 21^^ 

€Tp€XOV, 20*. 

€<^r;, 1,9. 

i<f>ol3ovvTo, 9^^. 

e</.a€t, 11^^, 15*^ 20'1 

^oiTra, 11^ 13^, 19"^ 21'-°; ^yaTrSrc, 8^-, 14^^ 

rjyoivi^ovTO, 1 8^®. 

^Swaro (cS.), 9^*, 11^' ; ^Swavro, 12^^ 

^^€Ae9, 2I^«; ^^eXcv, 7^; ^0€\ov, 6"-\ 7^^, l6*^ 

rjKoXoveeL, e, I8^^ 

^PXCTo, 11^; ^pxo»'^o> 4""; 6'', 19', 20=*. 

^poira, 4"*"; ripu)TO)v, 4^^"", 9'% I2^\ 

^o-^eVci, 4^^ III 

i(rxvov, 21^. 

KareKUTO, 5^. 

Trapeyivoi/TO, 3^^. 

TTcptcTraTcts, 21*^; TTcpteTraTci, 5^, 7^, lO"^, 11^^; TrepieTraTOW, 6^^ 

VTrrjyov, 6^\ 12". 

w/xoXoyovv, 12'*^ 



The total is 167. In Mt. the Imperfect occurs 94 times ; in Mk. 
228 times; in Lk. 259 times; in Acts 329 times.* If Jn. were as 
long as Mt.; there would be proportionately 212 occurrences ; if 
as long as Lk., 225 ; if as short as Mk., 133. Thus Jn/s use of 
the tense, though more than twice as frequent as that of Mt., is 
considerably less than Lk.'s, and very much less than Mk.'s. The 
large amount of discourse in Jn. affords little opportunity for the 
use of the Imperfect. The last discourses, chs. 14-17, offer only 
8 cases ; while the bulk of the examples occur in chs. 4-12, where 
there are 118 cases. 

Among Jn/s Imperfects, the great frequency of cAcyev, cXcyoi/ 
attracts notice, and forms a bond of connexion with Mk.'s usage. 
Jn. has 46 occurrences, and Mk. 50; while in Mt. there are 
only 10, in Lk. 23, and in Acts ll.t It may be remarked that 
cXcyci/, eXcyov are very rare in LXX, Sir John Hawkins enumerating 
but 40 cases. 

A frequent Aramaic usage, closely akin to the single use of the 
Participle above noticed, is the coupling of a Participle with 
the Substantive verb in description of past events. Thus, in place 
of saying ' he did ' some action, Aramaic frequently says ' he 
was doing ' it, thus pictorially representing the action as in process. 
The instances of this usage in the Aramaic of Dan. are commonly 
rendered both by LXX and Theodotion by a Greek Imperfect; 
though occasionally the rendering exactly copies the Aramaic by 
employing the Participle and Substantive verb. The following 
are the instances of the usage in description of past events : 


Literal rendering. 




n^in mn 

'Thou wast seeing'. 









mr\^ mn 

' I was seeing '. 









pyxT iin 

' They were trembling 


rja-av rpe/AOvrcs 


and fearing '. 

KOL cfiojSovfxevoi. 

* Cf. HS.^p. 51, where the figure 163 for Jn. requires correction, as also the 
printer's error 12 for the occurrences of ((pt], which should be 2. 
t Cf. JIS.^ p. 12. 


«J •• T T-: 

■'11 ^??5 n;n 

mn xnx mn 

T-* •• T T~: 

mn-ni nhd 

T-: •: •• T 

• T T~: •• T 

N3^ nin-ni 




Literal rendering. LXX. 

'Whom he was willing om. 

he was killing, and 
whom he was wilhng 
he was smiting, and 
whom he was willing 
he was raising up, 
and whom he was wil- 
ling he was abasing'. 


oSs r)ftov\€To 
avTos dvypet, 
Koi ovs rjjSov- 
XiTO avToq 

ov<s rj^Ovk€TO 
aVTOS Vlj/OLf 

KOI ovs rj^ov- 



6^ n^^nt? 



' he was presiding 
over \ 


yjv . . . VTTC 

& pyn iin 

'they were seeking'. 



6" nny «jn 

' he was doing '. 



6^5 T^nc'r? njn 

' he was striving '. 



72 n\in mn 

' I was seeing'. 



7' /V/. 




7' id. 




f id 




f n>)n ^JsriK^p 

'I was considering '. 



79 n\in ntn 

' I was seeing '. 



7^'« id 




f'^ id 


OeiapCiV ^/JLTJV 


f id. 




/ t:|t T-: 

'it was differing'. 



rjv Siafjiepov 

721 n"»?n n)n 

'I was seeing'. 



The use of the Substantive verb with the Participle of nCN ' he 
was saying' is frequent in Aramaic, and especially in Syriac, just 
as eAeycv, eXeyov are particularly frequent in Mk. and Jn. J^jn npK 
does not occur in Dan., the writer preferring the simple Participle 
"»P« (cf. p. 88). 


The Present sometimes = the Aramaic Participle as 
'Futurum instans*. 

The use of a Present to denote the Futuruni instans is parti- 
cularly frequent in Jn. with the verb tpxojxaL. We may note the 
following instances : 

I^'"' 6 OTTIO-O) jXOV ip)(6lX€V0^. 

I^^ OTTtVo) jJLOV ep^craL dvrjp. 

4-^, 5^ «, i6>'"^ fpx'Tat <5pa. 

4^* oT8a oTt Mecro-tas tp^rai. 

4^ Tcrpa/xT^vos eo-rt /cat 6 OepLo-jxbs ipx^rai. 

5^* CIS Kpt(TLv ovK epx^rai. 

6^* 6 Trpo<^rp"iq<i 6 ipxoiJi€VO<s els tov Koa-fjiov, 

7^ 6 8e XpwTTos oTttv epxrjraL. 

7"*^ M^ yap CK T-^s TaXiAatas 6 Xpto-ros tpxerai ; 

J*^ airo BriOXekfJi . . . epx^rat 6 Xptorrds. 

9^ epxerai vvi, ore ovScls Swarat epyd^€(rOaL. 

11^' 6 XptCTTOS, . . . 6 ets Toi/ Koap-ov ipxop^€voS' 

14^ TraAtv Ip^oftat. 

j^^i8.28 Ip-^Q^fj^^ Trpos v/aSs. 

14^ epX^TaL yap 6 tov Koap^ov apx^iv. 

21^ 'Ep;(o/x€^a /cat T7/Acts o-vv (rot. 

21 Jliav avToi/ acAto /xcveiv ctus € 

This use of tpxopjxL is found also in the Synoptists, though with 
not nearly such frequency: — Mt. 3'^ (Mk. i', Lk. 3"), Mt. 11^ 
(Lk. ^'^), Mt. 17^^ (IXOiiiv Mk. g'% Mt. 21^ (quotation), Mt. 24^^ 
(Mk. 12^% Mt. 24^='''-' (Lk. i2='«''"), Mt. 27^^ Lk. 17-°"*, 23^. As 
might be expected, it is particularly frequent in the Apocalypse — 

Instances of other Presents so used in Jn. are: 

l"^^ "iSc 6 dpjvos TOV Ocov 6 atpwv ttjv d/AaprtW tot; Kocrpiov. 
I2^° 6 <f>i\S)V Tr}v if/vxr]V avTOv dTroWvei avTr}V (contrast Mt. l6"*^, 
Mk. 8^^ Lk. 9"^', 17^, dTTokea-eL avT^v). 

17^ TTCpt TlOV TTlOrrCVOVTCDV StO, ToC koyOV aVTU>V CIS ip-€. 

In Aramaic (as also in Hebrew) the Participle is used as a 
Futurum instans with great frequency. In all cases cited above 



in which tpxofiai has the sense of a Futurum instans, Pesh. repre- 
sents it by the Participle, except in 14^, i6"^, where the future 
sense is expressed by the Imperfect. Moreover, in the only cases 
in Jn. where the Greek uses the Future iXcvaofiaL, we find that 
Pesh. represents this by the Participle; 11^^ iXeva-ovTai ol 'Pw/taiot 
Koi dpovo-iv = ^-N^A*, )u:sooo»> ^Uo, lit. 'and the Romans coming, 
taking away*; 14^^ tt/oos avrov cXevo-o/xe^a = ^t/ o»la^o, lit. 'and 

to him we coming*; 16' 6 TrapdK\r)TO<; ov firj tXOri (TR. ovK eXcvo-CTttt) 

= ]l/ H |^>So»a, Ht. 'the Paraclete not coming*. Cf. elsewhere, 
Mt. 9^^ eXcvo-ovTat hi rjfiepai = )fcs-5ocu ^9 ^i! , lit. ' but days coming * ; 

25^^ "Orav 8c eXOy 6 vlbs tov av^/awTrov = M-»i> oj^s ^f JliJ juSD, lit. 

'When the Son of man coming*; Mk. 8-*^ orav eXOy h rrj Soirj tov 
Trarpos aurov = ^-oicotf |uAdciA:» )lj? )oo, lit. 'when He coming in 
the glory of His Father* (so Lk. 9^^). Instances of the usage 
in the Aramaic of Dan. are, 2'^ pl'^i^no NJP^am ni^DJ ^«n'^1 ' So the 
decree went forth and the wise men being killed * (i. e. ' were about 
to be killed*); 4^^ «^J^"|» PITr? ^^1 'And they driving thee from 
men* (i.e. 'they shall drive thee*); so v.''; 4^ VV^^^ ^^ 'they 
wetting thee * (i. e. ' they shall wet thee *). 

Verbal sequences. 

i^^ "Epx^a-Oc Koi oxJ/eaOe 'Come, and ye shall see*. A similar 
sequence is idiomatic in Hebrew. Cf. Gen. 6", 'Make (nbj/) thee 
an ark . . . and thou shalt pitch (^"1^21) it within and without with 
pitch*; so Targ. Onk., nn; >Bn^n] • ♦ ♦ "H^ T'?'V. i Sam. 15' 
P.??iJ"^? '"^O^^OI ^? * Go, and thou shalt smite Amalek*; so Targ. 
Jon. P.^5; n^n-i n: ^ntp^ni bn;N. See for further instances in 
Hebrew, Driver, Tenses, § 112. Cf. further in Aramaic, Ezr. 7^^-^, 
'And the vessels that are given thee for the service of the house 
of thy God, deliver thou iP^'PT!) before the God of Jerusalem ; and 
whatsoever more is needful . . . thou shalt bestow (1^?^) out of the 
king's treasure house *. Acta Thomae (p. u-o>), ' But conduct 
yourselves (yofco/ oiS?l/) in all humility and temperance and 
purity, and in hope in God, and ye shall become (lOfcsj/ ^oojo) 
His household-servants*. This form of sequence is not (apart 
from translations from the Hebrew) so characteristic of Aramaic 
as it is of Hebrew, except where the sequence is clearly to be 


regarded (as in the last instance) as the result of the preceding 
Imperative. This, however, is clearly implied in the expression 
"Etp-^iia-Oe KOL oi^ecrOe. So 1 6'^, atretTC kol Xn^fuf/ea-Oi. 

Change of construction after a Participle is seen in tv^ro passages 

in Jn. — I"^^ TeOeajxai to Trvevfia Kara/SoLVOv . . . kol efxcLvev Itr avroVy 
and 5^^ Aa/xySavorrcs, kol . . . ov t,r]T€LT€. These are exactly analogous 
to a frequently-used Hebrew idiom; e.g. Ezek. 22^ ^5§^ "^^V 
D^h^a '"'^fHl * * * ^T, lit. 'a. city shedding blood . . . and makes 
idols' (i.e. ^that sheds . . . and makes', or 'shedding . . . and 
making'); Ps. 18=** ^JT^E '^'^^ ^V] nii':«| 'bp. "J^'?, lit. 'Making 
my feet like the harts', and on my heights He sets me' (i.e. 
'Who makes ... and sets'); Gen. 2f' X?;] T'^ n^n^ lit. 'the 
one hunting venison and brought it' (i.e. 'who hunted . . . and 
brought'). See other cases in Driver, Tenses, § 117. In accord- 
ance with this usage, we should render Kara/Saivov . . . kol c/acii/ci/ 
in Jn. i^-, not as R.V. 'descending . . .; and it abode', but 
' descending . . ., and abiding ' ; and Xafx/SdvovreSf kol . . . ov ^TyrctTc in 
5''^, ' receiving . . . and seeking not', or ' who receive . . . and seek not '. 
This usage is remarkably frequent in the Apocalypse, and the 
cases have been collected and discussed by Dr. Charles in his 

Commentary i, p. cxlv ; cf. l" tw dyaTrwvTi rjfxds . . . /cat iTrotrjo-ev -q/xds 

' Unto Him that loved us . . . and hath made us, &c.' (not as R.V. 
'and He made us', after semi-colon); 15-^ eo-rwras . . . exovra^ 
Kiddpas . . . Kttt aBova-Lv ' Standing . . . having harps . . . and singing ' 
(A. v., R.V. 'And they sing', after full stop, are incorrect). Other 
cases may be seen in 2^-^''''^*, 3^, f\ 13^^, 14^ ^* 

The construction is rather Hebrew than Aramaic, though we 
may note Dan. 4'^ TOP] ^^ Vl^fiD ^<|lb'V) . . . «?^^^<"ft? PTJp i^] 

* Not, however, (with Dr. Charles) i'* kou 6 (uv nal k'^ivofirjv vfKpos, or ao* 
(with rejection of oirivis as an editorial gloss) ras rpvxas rSiv irfveXeKia/xevuv . . . Kai 
ov vpoofKvvTjaav rd Orjpiov. An essential element in the Hebrew construction is 
that the finite verb expresses the proper sequence of the Participle^ which may be 
actually a sequence in time, so that the 1 connecting the finite verb with its 
antecedent expresses the sense '■and then\ or as introducing the direct result, 
^and so'; or a sequence in description in which, though the fact described may 
properly speaking be coeval with its antecedent, it follows naturally in the gradual 
unfolding of the picture (especially frequent in description of types of character). 
We do not find cases in which the sequence describes an event actually prior 
in time to its antecedent, as would be the case in the two passages in question. For 
these quite a different construction would be employed in Hebrew. 


'And they shall drive thee (lit. driving thee) from men . . . and 
with grass like oxen they shall feed thee '. We have it in Jn. i^^ 
Pal. Syr. . . . *..ciX^ Uj^oo . . . )1^>**j, Pesh. liv-»aiao . . . ))^s-mj» 
4«o(ciNk^. In 5^^ IrjTcTTc is represented by the Participle; Pal. Syr. 
^■Vr> y^ol/ fcs^J:^ . . . ^i^:a.flaj yolr, Pesh. ^aJ^^ D . . . yo)^/ ^»\r>ftv> 
•y^olbo/. In the O.T. passages it is usual, both in Targ. and 
Pesh., to resolve the opening Hebrew Participle into a Perfect 
or Imperfect preceded by the relative "], and then to follow it 
by another Perfect or Imperfect. 



The Semitic languages do not for the most part possess negative 
expressions such as none, never, but express them by using the 
corresponding positives coupled with the simple negative not 
Thus e.g. Hebrew N7 . . . bb, Aramaic ^5^ ♦ . ♦ i'*3, )1 . . . "^ 
'any . . . not' = 'none'; or, since Heb. ^^^, Aram. ^\^.^, j^jI , 
' a man ' is commonly used in the sense 'any one', 'none' may be 
expressed by this term with preceding negative. So in Heb., 
Gen. 2' n?^3 r\ir\\ QiD nii^n n<^ ^3, lit. 'any plant of the field was 
not yet in the earth ' (i.e. 'no plant . . . was yet, &c.'); Gen. 4'' ""^P"?: 
iXirb-^D 'inx-nisn^ lit. ' for the ^oAsmiting him of all finding him ' 
(i.e. *that none finding him should smite him'); Ex. 12^^ n3X7tp"73 
•"^^V""^''; lit. 'all work shall not be done' (i.e. 'no work shall be 
done'); Gen. 31^" ^i^y ^^^ PNt, lit. 'there is not a man with us' 
(i.e. 'no one is with us'); Gen. 41^^ "iT-^^ ^'^ Dnj-N^ ^nyb inde- 
pendently of thee a man shall not lift up his hand ' (i. e. ' none shall 
lift up, &c.'). In Aram., Dan. 2^' lini) n^m^ \6 nn^^-b 'any place 
was not found for them ' (i.e. 'no place was found ') ; Dan. 4" T"''? 
^P DpK n;), lit. ' ^t;^ry secret does not trouble thee' (i.e. 'no secret 
troubles thee'); Dan. 2'" ^2'^' t<3^P n^p '•^ ^^^fsr^'V K^^X ^ry^^'nh 
'"'^jrjL'S', lit. 'there is not a man on earth that can show the king's 
matter ' (i. e. ' no one on earth can show, &c.'). 

We find the Semitism 7ras(7rai/) . . . /utrj = ' none*, 'nothing*, in Jn. 

in two passages : 6^^ tva nav o SiSoiKiv /xol jXTj (ZTroXco-o) i$ avrov, 12^^ Lva 
Tras 6 TTKTTcvwv els e/x€ iv rrj crKOTia fjit] fiiivrj. Tra? . . . ov {fJ-t^) IS also found 
in Mt. 24^ = Mk. 13^° ovk av ia-wOr] iraaa (rdp$, Lk. I^' ovk dSwariJo-ct 
Trapa tov @€ov vav prjfxa, Roni. 3^", Gal. 2^*^ (both quotations of 
Ps. 1432), Eph. 4^, 5^ 2 Pet. I », I Jn. 2^' (cf. 2'', 3«''"^ 4', 5'', where 
the renderings ' every one . . . not ', ' no one ' are equally legitimate), 

ApOC. f, l8"2, 21% 22^ 


* No one^ is expressed by ou . . . avOpdiiros in Jn. 3^' Ou 8warat 

' avOp<i)7ros XafjL^dvetv ovSkv lav /mt] ktX.., 5' avOpoiirov ovk ex^i tVa . . . fidXr) 
jxe elg rrjv KoXvjJL/SrjOpav, 7^^ OuSsVore i\dX.r)cr€v ovTOi^ dvOpoiTros* In 
Mk. 11^ we find e^' ov ovSeis ovwoi dvdpdiTTOiv iKdOta-ev, 12^^ ov yap ^XcTrei? 

€15 Trpoo-wTTov dvOpwTTOiv (but herc there is a sense of antithesis to ttjv 
6861/ Tov @€ov following), but elsewhere in the Synoptists there seems 
to be no case of ot" . . . dvOptoTros. 

'Never' is expressed in Heb. and Aram, 'not ... for ever'; cf. 
in Heb. Ps. 30' ^b'^vb trss-^n ' I shall never be moved ' ; Ps. 3I^ 71' 
nW'p r]f\2^-b^ Met me never be put to shame'; Ps. 119^' N^ nbSvb 
•^inipa nsK'S ' I will never forget Thy commandments ' ; Isa. 25^ 
n;3^ ^b D^iy^ ' it shall never be rebuilt ' ; in Aram., Dan. 2'' '1 
b^nnri xp ^^,^5' 'which shall never be destroyed'; Acta Thomae 
(p. jLJijj) );^.'5L H ^a-nsl^^-V. j(i^.b.Xf )lcia^jsQ.a yOOc»jo 'and they 
shall be with Him in the kingdom which never passes away'; 
id. (p. ?,j) );.^^ JJ yi^:^ )lo]<^.aD ^? )?o» 'but this banquet shall 
never pass away '. 

Similarly, ov ixrj . . . eh tov alwva occurs several times in Jn. in the 

sense 'never* : 4^^ ov firj ^Lxj/rja-ei €is rbv alwva, 8"^ Odvarov ov fxt] OewpT^a-rj 
€19 TOV atwva, 8"^ ov firj y€va7)Tai Oavdrov ci? rov alwva, lO^^ ov [jlt] aTroXciiVTai 
€ts TOV alwva, 1 1"" ov /xrj aTroddvy els tov alwva, 13^ ov /jltj VLil/r]<s jxov tovs 
TToSas €19 TOV aloiva. Cf. also 9^^ c/c tov aloivos ovk rjKovcrOy), The phrase 

is only found elsewhere in N.T. in Mt. 21^^ Ov fxrjKiTL Ik aov Kapirh^ 

yivr^Tai €19 tov alwva = Mk. 11^^, Mk. 3"^ ovk e)(€L dcf)€(TLV €19 tov aiwva, 
I Cor. 8^^ ov /XT/ (jjdyoi Kpia €i9 tov alwva. 

To express 'lest' Hebrew has the single term If. To this in 
Aramaic corresponds the compound term ^^9r "^ (Syr. lUo^ik?), formed 
from ^^l? + '"=!, Targ. ^^h from ^<9r' + 1, i.e. lit. 'since why?' This 
properly introduces a rhetorical question deprecating the taking of 
a certain course (cf. Oxford Heb. Lex., p. 554 a ; '"i?^ "^^^ Dan. i'", 
HdW Song I', are instances of the equivalent Heb. phrase in late 
style). This expression occurs once in Biblical Aram., Ezr. 7'^, 
and is the regular equivalent of Heb. |3 in the Targg. iO '•'n 'that 
... not' = 'lest' in the Aram, of Dan. 2'^, 6'-^^; and in Pesh. )).> 
'that . . . not ' is used indifferently with |l^^9 'since why?' in the 
sense ' /est' as the equivalent of Heb. )S. 

* dvOpcoTTos = Tts, like indefinite B^JS, is also found in Jn. s^-*, 723.51^ 

H 2 


We have already remarked that in Jn. tm fjnq is regularly 
employed to the exclusion of fn^-n-oTe. The occurrences; 18 in all 
(as against Mt. 8, Mk. 5, Lk. 8), are as follows : 3'''^, 4^ 5>^ &'''■'', 
^23^ jj37.5o^ J 2=^^ ^5!^^ ^^M^ Thcse occurrences of 'that . . . 

not' do not all carry the sense '/est' ; but this force is clear in the 
following : 

3"" ovK epx^raL Trpos to <^aj9, iva fxrj i\€yxOfj ra cpya avTov. 

5^^ jxyjKiTi aixdprave, iva jxr] yjupov crot Tt yevT/rat. 

"1^^ €t TTcpiTO/xr/v XajjL^dvei dvOpojTros Iv aajS^dTio Iva fxr] XvO-^ 6 vo/xos 

12^ TTcptTraTCiTC ws TO ^ws cx^''"^' ^'''^ i"-^ CTKOTia vjxa<; KaraXd/Sr]. 

12''" Tva /x^ tSwctv TOt? 6(f>9a\fJiOi<;. 

12^" dAA,a 8ta Tovs ^apLaaiovs ov^ wfioXoyovv Iva jxrj d7ro<rvvdy(i)yoL 

16' ravra XcXdXrjKa vpuv tva fxrj o-Kax'SaXia-OrJTe. 

18'^ avTol OVK €L(r^X6ov els to Trpairdipiov, Iva fir] p,LavOu)aiv. 

1 8^ ol VTrrjpirau 01 ifxol rjycovL^ovTO dv, iva jxrj irapahoOd TOts 'louSaiots. 

19"^' Iva pJt] p,€ivr) €7rt tov (Travpov to, o-w/AaTa. 

p^rjiroTc, which never occurs in Jn., is found in Mt. 8 times, Mk. 
/Wc^, Lk. 6 times. 

A striking proof that Jn.'s tm firj — Mest ' represents the Aramaic 
^^^. is to be seen in the quotation from Isa. 6'*' which occurs in 
Jn. 12^". In this quotation the Heb. uses If 'lest', and this is 
represented in LXX by /xr/TroTc, but in Pesh. by JJ? 'that . . . not*. 

Heb. vrp myr]^ 


Pesh. wojaL-i*^ )jLmJ JJ?. 

The quotation is given in Mt. 13'' in the ipsissima verba of LXX ; 
while Mk. 4'^, quoting more freely, yet has the /xyjTroTe of LXX, 

/xiyTTOTC i7rL(TTpiif/(D(rLV Ktti d<f>€Or} avTOL^ (i.e. V ^^^l"! 2^ t i t |B). Jn., 

however, rendering Tm fir) t8too-tv to2s 6(fi0aXpoi<;, departs from the 
Heb. and LXX phrases in order to use an Aramaic phrase which 
is actually employed in the rendering of Pesh. What evidence 
could prove more cogently that his Greek translates an Aramaic 
original ? 



The most weighty furm of evidence in proof that a document is 
a translation from another language is the existence of difficulties 
or peculiarities of language which can be shown to find their 
solution in the theory of mistranslation from the assumed original 
language. There are a considerable number of such in the Fourth 
Gospel, and some of them have already been noticed in the 
preceding discussion. These may first be summarized. 

The particle "^ with a relative sense mistranslated by Tm or on. 

Iva for 1 = ^ whO; which \ .I^ 5', 6^''\ g'', 14'' (cf. p. 75). 

oTt for "^ = ^ who ', S^'% 9' ; less certainly in i^*' (cf p. 76). 

im for "n = 'when' (properly 'which ... in it*), 12% i^\ 16-^^ 

(cf. p. 77). 
OTt for "=1 = ' when \ 9^, 12^^ (cf. p. 78). 

"^ = 'because, inasmuch as', mistranslated as a relative, i^" 
(cf pp. 29. 34). 

1% 12^'. KaTaXajx/^dveLv = i'^?!^ 'take, receive', a misunderstanding 
of b'm Marken' (cf. p. 29). 

i^ rjv = subst. verb ^<jn, probably a misreading of ^^n = cKctvos 
(cf. p. 33)- 

The ambiguity of the particle "^ has, as we have seen in the cases 
noted above, caused difficulty to the translator. There are several 
other passages in which, though the relative force of the particle 
is clear, the fact that it lacks expression of gender and number 
has led to misapprehension. These may conveniently be taken 

lo^"*. 6 "TraTrjp fxov o SeSooKcV /Aot ttolvtiov /j-cl^ov icTTiv. This reading 
has the support of B* H* 6 (boh) @, and is therefore adopted by 


WH. It can only be rendered, 'As for My Father, that which 
He hath given Me is greater than all \ This is explained by 
Westcott to mean that 'the faithful regarded in their unity, as 
a complete body, are stronger than every opposing power. This 
is their essential character, and "no one is able ..." Cf. i Jn. 5\* 
The whole context cries out against the falsity of this exegesis. 
Stress has been laid in the parable upon the weakness of the 
sheep, their liability to be scattered and injured by the powers of 
evil, and their utter dependence upon the Good Shepherd. In 
the parallel clause their safeguard is stated to consist in the fact 
that ' no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand '. But, 
if Westcott is correct, this would seem to J^e merely supplementary 
to the thought of the power of the flock regarded as a unity — 
which is incredible. Again, the phrase 'greater than all' has, 
on this text, to be explained as 'stronger than every opposing 
power'; yet what authority is afforded by the context for thus 
limiting its scope ? Clearly the expression, as it stands without 
limitation, is applicable to God alone. There can be no doubt 
that the sense intended is that which is given by the less 
authenticated reading, adopted by R.V., 6 Trarijp /^oi; os ScSwkcV 
fxoL fjiu^wv TrdvTOiv €<TTLv, whlch suppllcs the reason for the parallel 
clause which follows. Yet there can be little doubt that WH. are 
correct in regarding the more difficult reading as original, and the 
more natural one as a correction of it ; since, had the latter been 
original, it is inconceivable that the former could have arisen out 
of it. Its origin may be traced to an unintelligeni rendering of the 
Aramaic ^Vs-p N31 'b 3n>-| ''DK, in which X|il . . . "^ may be taken 
to mean either 6s . . . fxet^wv or 6 . . . fxiilov. Possibly the first draft 
of the translation rendered "^ only as a neuter (o . . . fieL^wv, X L ^), and 
the other readings are corrections dictated by regard for grammar. 
This explanation of the anomaly offered by the Greek might 
be regarded as less than convincing if the passage stood alone. 
There are, however, other passages in which the text is similarly 
and obviously at fault. In 17" we read, Trjprja-ov avrols iv tw oi/o/xart 
crov (S SeSwKas /x.ot, iva wo-iv iv Ka^ws t^/xcis, and similarly in V.^^, cyw 
iTiqpovv avTOVs cv tw oro/xari (tov w SeSwKas jxoi. Is it possible to believe 

that the sense intended is, 'Thy name which Thou hast given Me'? 
Westcott may well observe on v?^, ' The phrase is very remark- 

able, and has no exact parallel except in v.^-'. Clearly the object 

of SeSoo/ca? is established by vJ^ Iva irav o ScSwKas auT(j> 8(x)(TeL avTOLs 
t,(Dr]v aL(x)VLOv, V.^ 'E^aj'tpoocra aov to ovofia rots avOpwiroLS ovs ISwKcts fiOL 
CK Tov Kocr/xov, v.'"* JJaTT^Pf o 8e8o>Kas fxoL, viXoi iva ottov ilpX eyoj kolkuvol 

SxTLv fi€T Ijxov, the whole burden of the prayer being the commenda- 
tion of the disciples to the Father on the ground that it is He who 
has given them to the Son. Thus oS? SeSw/ca? fxoi, the less well 
attested reading in both v.^^ and z/.^^, certainly gives the meaning 
originally intended; yet in the Greek it must be regarded as a 
correction of the much more strongly attested reading (J ktX. 
(n A B C L Y ^, &c.). The solution is again found in the ambiguity 
of the relative '^. There is another reading o (D* U X 157 al.pauc.)^ 
which may, like o in 10^^, be conjectured to be the original rendering 
of tlie genderless "^ by a neuter, which easily lent itself to correction 
into w. 

That the translator was capable of reproducing 1 by a neuter, 
and then completing the relative by a masculine, is proved by 17"^, 

Harrip, o SeSw/ca? /xoi, OiXis) Iva ottov ct/xl cyw Ka/ccti/ot iixnv fier ifJLOVf 

where 6, representing ' those whom *, is reinforced by KaKelvoi. 

Similarly, we read in 17", iVa Traj/ o SeSw^as avrw 3o>o-€t aurot? ^wryv 

alwvLov. Here irav 6 = the neutral "^ ^^?3, which may stand in 
Aramaic for 'all (or every one) who*, or 'all which'. The same 
phrase is to be seen again in &^', irav o SiSwo-iV fxoi b irar^fp 7rp6<s i/xk 
yjiei, and here the sense intended is 'every one who' (cf. the 
following Koi TOV ipx6p-€vov irpos p-e ktA.), not, ' everything which '. 
In 6"^ the neutral collective conception is continued throughout 

the sentence — tva irav o hi^tuKiv p.01 p.rj aTToAeo-w i^ avTov dAA.a avaaTT^ao) 

avTo Tjj ia-xa-TT] rjpiipa. In Hebrew there is a similar usage of i?3 
with neutral suffix — 'ihe whole o/tt'=' all of them', 'every one*. 
So Isa. i^, 'Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves; 
a/I of it loveth bribes, &c.'; Jer. 6'-', 'For from their least unto 
their greatest all of it maketh unjust gain'; cf Ex. 14^, Isa. 9^", 15', 
Jer. S*"'^", &c. 

Besides these instances of mistranslation we may notice the 
following passages : 

I^°. 'O oTTwro) p.ov kpxpp.i.vo% tpnTpoa-Qiv p.ov ycyovev, oti irpZyro^ p,ov yv. 
Dr. Ball (Expos. Times, xxi, p. 92) remarks that ' This testimony, 


virtually repeated in vv.'^'-'^^\ is most naturally understood as a 
reference to the fact that our Lord's influence was to displace, or 
was already displacing, that of His Forerunner (cf. 3^"). Instead 
o( hath become, we should rather have expected wt'/l become or is to 
become,* He suggests therefore that the Greek ylyov^v may be due 
to the translator's having supplied a wrong vowel to the Aramaic 
Mn, reading it as \'>.l] hawe (a by-form of the Perfect <"ijn hawd) 
instead of \\n hdwe (the Participle) which would bear the sense 
' is becoming' or ' is about to become '. Further, on tt/dcoto? [xov rjv 
* because He was before me ' may be due to a misreading "'O'li^ 
koddmay of an original ''P^i? kadmay, 'first'. Thus the original 
text may have run — 

\i.\) ^p^i^ ""iri? 'r^^i 

- : - : : 

'He who is coming after me, before me will become; 
Because He was the first (of all)': 

i.e. because He existed 'in the Beginning*. The assonance 
between the kindred words ^^"^5 'before me ' and ^P^i^ 'first' offers 
a characteristic Semitic word-play. 

I^ iSc 6 d/>ivos Tou 0€ov 6 atpcov T7]V a^apriav rov Koa/JLOv. Dr. Ball 

(op. cit. supra), while making some valuable remarks about the 
Aramaic original of the phrase 6 a/Avos tov Oeov, questions whether 
the statement ' which taketh away (or beareth) the sins of the world ' 
is original, on the ground that it ' antedates that doctrine of the 
suffering Messiah, which only came home to the Apostles them- 
selves after the Resurrection (Lk. 24-^^^')'; ^^^ 'does not well 
harmonize with the general tone of the Baptist's teaching about 
the Messiah, as reported by the Synoptists (Mt. 3)'. He therefore 
conjectures that the words 'may be supposed to have been added 
by some editor of the Greek text who recollected Isa. 53', and who 
wrote in the light of a later stage of Christian knowledge'. 

It may be argued, on the contrary, that the whole of Jn.'s 
presentation of the Baptist's witness, including these words, is 
fully in accord with the Synoptic narrative. It is agreed that the 
reference of 6 atpoiv ktA. is to Isa. 53, i. e. the culminating passage 
referring to the mission of the righteous Servant of Yahweh 


which forms the main theme of the prophecy of Deutero- Isaiah, 
chs. 40-55, with which ch. 61 (the opening passage of which is 
applied by our Lord to Himself in Lk. 4^^^-), though probably 
the work of a later prophet, stands in close association as further 
drawing out the mission of the ideal Servant. The Baptist's 
description of his own function, 'I am the voice of one crying, &c/ 
(common to Jn. and the Synoptists) is drawn from Isa. 40^; and 
it is therefore reasonable to assume that in preparing for his 
mission he had made a special study of Isa. 40 ff., and was 
impressed with the conception of the ideal Servant of Yahweh 
which these chapters contain. That he regarded himself as but 
the forerunner of a greater One is a second fact common to all 
four Gospels ; and the relation of Isa. 40^ to its sequel might in 
itself serve to justify the conjecture that this greater One was- 
pictured by him as fulfilling the ideal of the Servant. We are 
not, however, limited to conjecture. Our Lord's reply to the 
disciples of the Baptist whom he sent to inquire whether He 
was really 6 lpx6ixevo<i (Mt. ii^~^=Lk. f^-^) took the practical 
shape of performing acts of mercy in their presence; and His 
answer, based on the things which they had seen and heard, 
leaves us in no doubt that the evidence suited to carr3' conviction 
to the Baptist's mind was His fulfilment of the acts which had 
been predicted of the ideal Servant. We may compare especially 
rvf^Xoi dvafiXeTTova-Lv with Isa. 42'' ' to open blind eyes ' (part of 
the Servant's mission),* 61^ ' to proclaim . . . the opening (of eyes) 
to them that are blind ', 35-^ ' Then the eyes of the blind shall 
be opened ' t ; x^Aol TrepnraTova-Lv with Isa. 35*^ ^ then shall the lame 
man leap as an hart' ; tttwxoI ivayy^Xi^ovrat with 61' 'Yahweh hath 
anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor'. The gentle 
words of reproof with which the message ends— Kal /xaKapio? kanv 
05 eav fxrj (TKavSaXL(rOrj eV ifxot — would naturally remind the Baptist 
not to range himself with those of whom it had been written, 
'Like as many were appalled at thee, &c.' (Isa. 52^^), and ^as one 

* The reference in Isa. is of course to the removal of moral bhndness ; but it 
should be unnecessary to recall the fact that our Lord's physical miracles had 
alwa3's their moral analogue, and depended for their performance upon faith in 
the recipient. 

f Isa. 35, which is late, is based upon Isa. 40 ff., and develops its thought. 


from whom men hide their face, he was despised and we esteemed 
him not* (Isa. 53'^j. 

From these considerations we deduce the conclusion that the 
fact that our Lord was to fulfil the role of the ideal Servant, 
though not understood by the Apostles, was in some measure 
realized by the Baptist. If this was so, since the atoning work 
pictured in Isa. 53 formed the culmination of that role, can it be 
maintained that the words 6 aipoiv rrjv d/xaprtW tov koctixov are 
improbable in the Baptist's mouth? In the verses which follow, 
Jn. 1=^0-3^^ he states that he had no previous knowledge of Him 
Whose coming he was heralding, and did not know how to 
recognize Him till it was Divinely revealed to him that the sign 
would be the descent of the Spirit upon Him. This revelation 
was surely deduced from Isa. 42' (the first great passage descriptive 
of the Servant's mission), where Yahweh states, ' I have put My 
Spirit upon him ' ; and Isa. 61^ where the Servant is represented 
as saying, 'The Spirit of the Lord Yahweh is upon me*.* Thus 
evidence unites in indicating that it was the coming of the ideal 
Servant of Yahweh that the Baptist believed himself to be heralding, t 

* Cf. the way in which the heavenly announcement at the Baptism, Mt. 3" and 
parallels, is modelled on Isa. 42^ as quoted in Mt. 12^* (noted by Allen, ad loc). 

t It is perhaps significant that (apart from Jn. 3^^^} the title Xpiaros ' Messiah ' is 
not employed by the Baptist. His titles are o omaoj jxov ipx^fuvos Mt. 3^', Jn. i^*^, 
o Ipx^^foy simply Mt. 11^ — Lk. 7^'', u dfxvus tov Qeov Jn. i29-36^ ^ yj^y t-oO ©fou Jn. 1'*. 
The fact is evident that Deutero- Isaiah's conception of the suffering Servant did 
not enter into the popular Messianic expectation of the time (cf. a sermon by the 
writer on 77ie Old Testament Conception of Atonement fulfilled by Christ, published 
by the Oxford University Press, pp. 10 f.) Very possibly the Baptist avoided 
the title ' Messiah ' in order that he might not mista\enly be supposed to be 
heralding the political Messiah of popular expectation. That he was not alone 
in fixing his hopes upon the ideals of Deutero-Isaiah rather than upon those 
associated with the Messianic King is proved by the Birth- narrative of Lk., where 
Simeon is described (a^^) as irpoaSex'^f^^^os ■napa.KX.rjaiv tov 'lapa'jX — a clear reference 
to 'Comfort ye, comfort ye my people', which forms the burden of Deutero- 
Isaiah's prophecy (Isa. 40^ ; cf. also 49", 518, and in Trito- Isaiah 57'^^ 5^2^ 66^**"). 
Thus, when this latter holds the infant Saviour in his arms and uses the words, 
(ISov ol d(p6a\/xoi jxov to oQjffjpiov aov . . . <pa)s (h aitoKaKvxpiv lOvSiv, he has clearly 
in mind the passage in the second great description of the ideal Servant where the 
words occur, * I will give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be My 
salvation {or, that My salvation may be) unto the end of the earth ' (cf. also ftal 
86(av Katv aov 'laparjX with Isa. 46'', 'and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel 
My glory '). His knowledge of the third and fourth Servant-passages, where the 
Servant is pictured as meeting opposition, persecution, and death (Isa. 50*'"', 


What, however, is the origin of the expression 'Lamb of God' 
as used by the Baptist, and what is its precise force? The phrase 
does not occur in Isa. 53, where z'. ', which brings in the simile 
of a lamb, simply says that the Servant was * like a lamb that is 
led to the slaughter (not, 'to the sacrifice'), and like a ewe 
(LXX aix^voi) that before her shearers is dumb*. The words 
6 aipwv kt\. are based, not on this verse but on v. ^', ' and their 
iniquities he shall bear', where the simile is dropped and 'My 
righteous Servant' preceding forms the back-reference of the 
emphatic *he\ 'The Lamb of God^ suggests the sense, 'the 
Lamb provided by God' as a fitting offering, which reminds us 
of Gen. 22^, ' God shall provide Himself a lamb for a burnt 
offering'; and combining v,'' and z;. " of Isa. 53 with v.^^ which 
states that it was Yahweh who was pleased to bruise him, and 
allowing for the influence of Gen. 22**, we may perhaps consider 
that we have accounted for the use of the phrase. 

A more probable solution, however, is suggested by Dr. Ball's 
remark that Heb. n.^ tale 'lamb' has come in its Aram, form ^^^'^ 
talya to mean 'child', 'boy', 'young man', 'servant'.* In the 
last sense it denotes in Pesh. e.g. Abraham's 'young men' 
(Gen. 22^; so also in Targ. Jerus.), the priest's 'servant' 
(i Sam. 2'''^), and the centurion's 'servant' (Mt. S*^-'^). Thus 
6 d/xi/os Tov 0€o{) may stand for ^^^f^- ^t: ^» intended primarily to 
bear the sense, 'the Servant of God', i.e. Yahweh's righteous 
Servant who, according to Isa. 53" '"^ was to bear the sins of many. 
If this is so, there may well be a word-play in the choice of the 
term f<v^, suggesting as it does the lamb-like or sinless character of 
the ideal Servant ; thus, ' the Lamb of God ' is a rendering by no 
means excluded by this new interpretation. Further, since ^^^^^ 
also bears the sense 'child', it is not unlikely that the thought 
of ' the Child of God ' is also present.t In vv?^~^^ the sign by which 

52'' — 53^^)> obliges him, moreover, to warn the holy Mother that the child is 
destined to become a cnjfiaov dvTi\(y6nevov, and to predict nai aov St aur^s rrjv 
if^vxrjv difKfvoeTai po/xcpaia. Anna the prophetess and her circle seem also to have 
rested in the same hope (cf. Lk. z^^s^). All this is not a later invention ; it bears 
upon its face the unmistakable stamp of historical truth. 

* The fern, of this wrord, flUhd ' maiden', is familiar to every one from Mk 5^'. 

f Dr. Ball renders the assumed Aram, original, * Behold the Young Servant or 
Child of God ', and does not bring the expression into connexion with Deutero-Isaiah. 


the Baptist was to recognize 6 ipxofA-a o<s, viz. the descent and 
abiding on Him of the Spirit, was, as we have already remarked, 
the sign of Yahweh*s ideal Servant. After witnessing this, the 

Baptist says, Kayw iwpaKa KOL jXCfiapTvprjKa on ovtos icTTLV 6 vl6<s tov ®€0v. 

It is not impossible that 6 vl6s tov @€ov may again represent the 
Aram. Nnbxn N^p^, interpreted as 'the Child oi God' but intended 
primarily to mean ' the Servant of God \ A sufficient explanation 
for the translation of the same term by d/>ii/os in v.'^ but by vl6^ in 
v.'^ may be found in the difference of context, the first passage 
picturing the ^]?^ as a sacrifice, the second as baptizing with the 
Holy Spirit. 

If it be objected against this explanation of ap.vo'i = ^1?^ in the 
sense 'Servant* that the term used in Deutero-Isaiah to denote 
the ideal Servant is regularly Heb. ^5? = Aram, ^"^^y, properly 
' bond-servant ', it may be replied that the choice of ^< vP rather than 
^■^^y is sufficiently explained by the word-play involved. While 
^^rV = SovAos, ^^ vD = TTttis. Both Greek terms are indifferently used 
in LXX to render the "i?y of DeuteroTsaiah, but the preference is 
for Trats [SovXo^ in 49'^^; vrats in 42^ 49'', 50^", 52^-'); and it is Trats 
which is used of our Lord as the ideal Servant in Acts 3''^, 4'^-^". 

2^". "Ore ovv rjyipOy] c/c v€Kp(x)v, ifJcyrjcrOrjcrav ot fxadiqTal avrov otl tovto 

eXeyev. We note the curious use of the Imperfect, ' He was saying *, 
where the context demands a Pluperfect, ' He had said *. In 
Aramaic an Imperfect sense is indicated by the coupling of the 
Participle ■»P^? *dmar with the subst. verb, while a Pluperfect is 
commonly represented by use of the Perfect "^P^ 'aniar similarly 
coupled with the subst. verb. Thus ^;lj "V^. 'amar hawa ' He had 
said * may easily have been misinterpreted as t<jn "'P? ^dmar hdwd 
'He was saying*, an unvocalized text in W. Aramaic affbrdmg 
(so far as we know) no distinction between the Perfect and the 
Participle beyond that which is indicated by the context. In a 
carefully written unvocalized Syriac text the distinction is marked 
by use of a diacritic point, below for the Perfect, above for the 
Participle. Thus )oo« -^i — ' He had said', )oo» ;^l = ' He was 
saying '. 

6'^\ Ttt prifiaTa a iyw XeXaXrjKa vfuv seems to mean, 'The things 
about which I have beert speaking to you ' (viz. the eating of My 


flesh and the drinking of My blood).* So perhaps in v.^ p-qfxara 
((orjs aldjviov should mean, 'the things of eternal Ufe'. Aramaic ^^^^ 
Hke Hebrew "^^'ij, means both 'word* and 'thing'. Cf. for the 
latter sense, Dan. 2''-^"'>-''''--^ 5'"'', f-''-"^. It is ordinarily rendered 
/)^/xa or Xdyos by Theodotion ; cf. 2^ aTrea-Trj air* ifjLOV to prjixa. 

Similarly Hebrew "'^'^ 'thing' is often rendered p^/xa in LXX ; 

e.g. 2 Sam. 12^ avO' S)v on iiroi-qaev to prj^a tovto, 

rj'it.^s^ 'Ev 8k TTj l(X)(a.Tri "^fJ-epa. Ty /JLeydXy Trj<s iopTrjs IcTTi^Kei 6 ^Irjcrovs, kol 
eKpaie X.€ywv 'Eav tis Siij/a ip)(e(TO<i) Trpos fJLC kol Trtrerw. 6 7rio-TCvo)i/ €is €/a€, 
Ktt^ws ciTTCV rj ypa<jirj, 7rora/xot Ik rq^ KotXta? avrov pev(TOV(nv vSaTOS ^(ovto^. 

The quotation which our Lord here refers to the Scriptures has 
caused great perplexity. The fact has rightly been recognized that 
it is a free combination of several O.T. passages which speak of a 
river of. living waters which, in the Messianic age, is to issue from 
the Temple-mount, and to become the source of life and healing far 
and wide. The principal development of this conception is found 
in Ezek. 47 ~^-. We may notice especially v.^, where it is stated 
that ' it shall come to pass,that every living creature which swarmeth 
in every place whither the rivers come, shall live '. Ezekiel's con- 
ception has been taken up by two later prophets. Joel 3*^ (4'^ in 
the Heb.) predicts that ^ a fountain shall come forth of the house of 
the Lord, and shall water the valley of Shittim ' ; while in Zech. 14^ 
we find the statement, ' It shall come to pass in that day, that living 
waters shall go out from Jerusalem ; half of them toward the eastern 
sea, and half of them towards the western sea' (the latter statement 
is based upon the passage quoted from Ezek., where the word 
rendered ' the rivers ' is vocalized as a dual, D^^D?). We may 
believe that our Lord had all these passages in His mind ; and in 
each of them the expressions which are most significant are itali- 
cized. In addition to these passages, it can hardly be doubted 
that, in using the words 'Eav rts hxpa ipxio-Oa) 7rp6<; /xc kol TTLveTo), He 
was dwelling on Isa. 55'^-, ' Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to 
the waters. . . . Incline your ear and come unto Me ; hear, and your 
soul shall live '; and Jer. 2", ' They have forsaken Me, the source of 
living waters '. 

There still remains the outstanding difficulty, 'out of his belly 

* Cf. Gore, Batnpton Lectures, note 60 (p. 275). 


shall flow, &c/ Even if, as seems more than doubtful, the thought 
is of the distribution of the blessing ^in fuller measure* by its 
recipient (so Westcott, who compares 4^^, 6% 5-"), the fact remains 
that this conception as expressed cannot be connected with any 
O.T. passage ; and though we can understand that our Lord may 
well have combined the sense of the passages noticed above, and 
that so doing His reference would be immediately apprehended by 
His hearers, we cannot believe that He would have imported, or 
that they would have, accepted, an idea which is not found in any 
O.T. passage which speaks of the water of life. 

The difficulty may at once be solved upon the hypothesis that 
the passage has been translated from Aramaic. As we have seen, 
Joel speaks of ^a fountain ', Hebrew IJVP maydn* ; and the word is 
the same in Aramaic (employed, e.g., in the Targum of Ps. 104'", 
Prov. 5'", S-'^). The Aramaic for 'belly* or 'bowels* is PV^ ^^^etn 
(Hebrew ^^V'Q); it is used, e.g., of the belly of the image in 
Dan. 2^'^ It will at once be seen that, in an unvocalized text, 
pyrD 'belly' and iJV^ 'fountain', would be absolutely identical. 
Adopting the word for ' fountain ' our Lord's words would run 
in Aramaic, ^<=l^l3 ">PN^ 'i\^r\ '•2 p^^^»'^ |ip ^r)^)) 'r\)b '•ri'';*, "'^J'^ ]^ 
injJ f\n) ]>V2l pw f;vp-|?p J\bm. If 'fountain' is correct, however, 
how can we connect 'He that believeth in Me' with 'rivers 
from the fountain ' ? There can be little doubt that, as was recog- 
nized by the most ancient western interpreters, the clause really 
belongs to the offer preceding it. On this view the Aramaic yields 
the sense — 

'He that thirsteth, let him come unto Me; 
And let him drink that believeth in Me. 

As the Scripture hath said. Rivers shall flow forth from the 
fountain of living waters '. 

* It is worthy of note that the Joel-passage with its allusion to the fountain 
is directly applied to the Messiah in Midrash Rabba on Ecclesiastes, par. i. 28 : 

pyci '^«iK' D*»n nx nhv' ;nn« bi^): p]n nsnn n« nSsyn pu'sn ^jnw hd 

D^nC^n i)n3 riN rp^rw SV"* "•'"» n^'l'O * just as the first Redeemer (Moses) caused 
the well to spring up, so also shall the second Redeemer cause the waters to 
spring up, as it is said, <' And a fountain shall come forth from the House of the 
Lord, &c." '. This passage follows directly upon a similar Midrashic deduction 
which was clearly in the minds of the people who witnessed our Lord's miracle 


Our Lord, we are told, ' stood forth and cried aloud *, like one of 
the prophets of old; and His words, like theirs, fall naturally into 
grand and impressive parallelism. The reference to Scripture 
which follows the parallel couplet summarizes the main conceptions 
of Ezekiel, Joel, and Zechariah. When the passage was trans- 
lated from Aramaic into Greek, pyo p was taken to mean, 'from 
the belly*; and this was connected with 'he that believeth in Me*, 
and was therefore rendered, 'from his belly*. 

8"^. ^AjSpaa/JL 6 Trarrjp vfiiov r)yaXXid(raTO Tva ISr] t^v -^fiipav rr}v ifJt-'qv, Koi 

€t8ci/ /cat ix^prj. This passage can hardly be preserved in its original 
form. No extension of the use of iva seems adequate to explain 
yyaXkida-aTo Iva lSt], and moreover, if we grant that 'rejoiced to see* 
is the sense intended, the following clause kol cTSev koL ix^prj, instead 
of forming a climax, makes mere tautology. What we expect the 
first clause to say is, not that Abraham rejoiced to see the day, but 
that he longed to see it, and that the satisfaction of this longing was 
the cause of his gladness. After a verb meaning 'longed* the 
construction with tva (Aramaic '^) would be natural ; and this mean- 
ing is expressed both by Pal. Syr. ^.^U and by Pesh. )o« »^afltt.:5D. 
In Syriac »**axD in Pe'al and Pa'el (the form used in Pesh.) means 
both 'wished, longed* and also 'exulted* (cf. Payne Smith, s.v.). 
The verb is not known to occur in W. Aramaic, but there is no 
reason why it should not have been in use ; and the assumption 
that a wrong meaning has been given to it by the translator 
('exulted * instead of 'longed *) at once removes the difficulty.* 

of the loaves and fishes, and, in asking a further sign, recalled the miracle of the 
Manna (6i4.3o.3i) . Qp,^ DD^ Tt3DD '•iDH IDXJC' |Dn DS mn T'^isin b^): HD 

px3 "in noD NT* 'NJK' |Dn n« nnv |nn« Sjku fin D^orn jd ' just as the 

first Redeemer brought down the Manna, as it is said, " Behold, I am about to 
rain bread from heaven for you ", so also the second Redeemer shall bring down 
the Manna, as it is said, " There shall be a handful of corn in the earth "'. 

* (i) What is the basis of the statement that Abraham saw the day of our Lord, 
and (2) what precise! 3' is to be understood by ' My day ' ? There is nothing in the 
text of Genesis, or elsewhere in the O.T., which seems adequately to answer 
these questions ; 3'et we must suppose that our Lord's words, so far from being 
similarly obscure to His hearers, were in fact calculated to appeal to their know- 
ledge of current Biblical exegesis. Perusal of the Rabbinic interpretation of the 
Covenant-scene in Gen. 15, as we find it set forth in the Jerusalem Targum, 
appears at once to shed a flood of light upon both questions ; and lends, moreover, 


9-\ cV oTSa, i.e. njs VT snn, may well be an error for n3« VT ^-rn 
' This I know ' ; and this is actually the reading of Pal. Syr. k*? )>©» 
>*^j.i |u/. The difference between x^in /^«^<^ 'one' and J<nn /^a<yf« 
'this ' in an unvocalized text is merely the difference between n and 
n, which are very easily confused. It cannot be urged, however, 
that tv otSa yields an unsuitable sense. 

20-. The strange use of ovk otSa/Acv in the mouth of Mary 
Magdalen, where we should expect ovk olha, may be due to a 

strong support to the reading ''longed to see My day', which we have adopted 

The Targum of this chapter opens by picturing Abraham in despondent frame 
of mind after his victory over the kings narrated in ch. 14; — 'The righteous 
Abraham pondered in his heart and said, '* Woe is me ! perchance I have received 
the recompense of the commandment in this world, and there shall be for me 
no part in the world to come ; or perchance the brethren and neighbours of those 
slain ones who fell before me shall come and be established in their cities and 
provinces, and there shall be associated with them many legions whom they will 
lead out against me : perchance the commands imposed upon me were but light in 
the former times when they fell before me, and they are spared as my opponents ; 
or perchance merit was found in me in the former times when they fell before me, 
biit perchance it shall not be found in me the second time, and the name of 
Heaven shall be profaned in me " Therefore there came a word of prophecy 
from before the Lord to righteous Abraham, saying, " Fear not, Abraham ; 
although many legions shall be gathered together and shall come against thee, 
My Memrd shall be a protecting buckler to thee in this world, and a shield over 
thee continually in the world to come."' Coming to v.^^^, we find the following 
paraphrase : — ' And the sun was inclining towards setting, and a deep sweet sleep 
fell upon Abraham. And lo, Abraham saw four kingdoms which were to arise 
to enslave his sons, vby H^Sb 11^13 n^tJ'n nD"'N: ''Terror Darkness Great 
Falling upon him '' . nD''i< Terror^ which is Babylon ; X\'2V}T\ Darkness, which 
is Media ; HPIS Great, which is Greece ; DpSb Falling, which is Edom (i.e. Rome), 
that is the fourth kingdom which is destined to fall, and shall not rise again for 
ever and ever, v^"^ And lo, the sun had set and it was dark ; and lo, Abraham 
beheld until seats were ranged in order and thrones set ; and lo, Gehenna which 
is prepared for the wicked in the world to come like an oven with glowing sparks 
surrounding it and flames of fire, into the midst of which the wicked fell because 
they had rebelled against the Law in their lifetime ; but the righteous who kept 
it shall be delivered from affliction '. 

The reference is to the four kingdoms of Dan. 7^"^* (cf. the same interpretation 
of 'Terror, &c.' in Midrash Bereshith Rabba, par. xliv, 20), whose career is 
terminated by the great world-judgement which ushers in the coming of the Son 
of Man (v. '^). If, then, this Rabbinic exegesis lies behind Jn. &>^, * My day ' is 
* the day of the Son of Man ', a vision of which was granted to Abraham in 
response to his heart-searching and longing. This is in entire accordance with 
the eschatological background which we find to the. conception of the Son of Man 
in the Synoptic Gospels. 


misreading ^5VT ^^ Id y^ddnd (ist plur. Perfect) of an original 
^tVIt t l^ ydd^'dnd (fern. sing. Participle combined with ist pers. 
pronoun). Cf., for this latter form, Dalman, Gramm. p. 235. The 
same mistake, ydand for ydda'nd (masc. sing. Participle combined 
with 1st pers. pronoun), is made in the vocalization of NiV*!^ 
Num. 22" in Walton's Polyglot. Possibly ot8a/x€v in the opening 
words of Nicodemus (3-) may likewise represent ^^Vl^ * ^ know '. 

20"^. tp)(€Tai Mapiafx yj MaySaAiyv^ dyycAAovcra . . . otl Ea)paKa tov 

KvpLov KOL Tavra elirev avrfj. The change from direct to oblique oration 
is strange and awkward. 'Ew^m/ca = rrion hdmeth, €0)paK€ = n^DPi 
hamyath* The two forms are identical in the unvocalized text, 
and the latter may easily have been taken for the former by the 
translator under the influence of the ordinary construction with on 
recitativum. Thus we may conjecture that the original ran, 
'announcing that she had seen the Lord, and that He had 
spoken, &c.* 

* We have assigned the Galilaean verb KDn to a native of Magdala. If NTH 
was used in the narrative there might be a precisely similar confusion — ist pers. 

n^n, 3rd pers. n^|n. 



The question whether the writer of the Fourth Gospel cited the 
O. T. from the Hebrew Bible or the LXX is important in its 
bearing on the question of the original language of the Gospel. 
If the author was a Hellenist he would naturally have employed 
the LXX. If he was a Palestinian he would be more likely to 
make his citations from the Hebrew ; and if he actually wrote in 
Aramaic he could hardly have done otherwise. Thus, though 
the question of the Johannine quotations has frequently received 
discussion, a fresh examination may possibly bring to light certain 
points which have hitherto passed unnoticed. This section of our 
examination gives therefore a tabulation of all O. T. citations and 
references, together with the Hebrew text of each passage and its 
translation compared with the LXX rendering. 

1. I^^ 'Eyw (fxovT] ^owvTOs iv ry ip'qfuo 'EvOvvare ttjv oSbv Kvptov, KaOo)<s 
eiTTcv H(ratas 6 Trpo<f)-^Tr]s. 

Isa. 40' njn; tjit 13Q inns? Niip bSp 'The voice of one crying, 
In the wilderness prepare ye the way of the Lord \ 

LXX ^(Dvr] fSowvTos iv ttJ ipT^/xio, 'ETOLjxdaaTe T7]V 68ov JLvpcov. 

Jn. quotes from memory, and substitutes the verb of the parallel 
clause, i^'n'^Nb n^Dl^ n^y^ r\f: ' make straight in the desert a high- 
way for our God', for the verb ^32 'prepare ye \ In doing this, he 
seems to be thinking, however, of the Hebrew and not of the 
LXX, since the latter renders ^"»^! not by EvOvvare, but by evOcLa^ 
TTotctre. The fact that the words ' in the wilderness * properly form 
in the Hebrew the opening of the proclamation (synonymous with 
' in the desert ' of the parallel clause), whereas LXX and Jn., as 


the text of these versions is punctuated; treat them as descriptive 
of the speaker's situation, is unimportant, since the punctuation is 
a secondary matter. 

2. I^^ 'Afjirjv ajxrjv Xeyw vfuv, 6il/€<r6€ rbv ovpavov dvcioyora, kol tov<s 
dyycAov9 tov ®€ov avafiaivovTa^ kox KarajSaivovTa^ evrt toj/ vlov tov 

Gen. 28'^ ''^^^'Q n3ni no^j,f t y'?p \\i^it\\ n^ix 3^p Da»p nani thm 
Sn DHT] ^y)i Q^'?^^{ ' And he dreamed, and lo, a ladder set up on the 
earth, and its top reaching to the heaven ; and lo, the angels of 
God ascending and descending upon it '. 

LXX KoX ivvTrvLOia-Or}' kol iSov K\Lfxa$ iaTrjpiyixevr} iv ry yrj, 17s rj 
KccfiaXr] d.<f)LKV€iTO €ts TOV ovpavov, KOL ol ayyeXoL tov @eov dve/Saivov kol 
Kari^aLVOV iir avTrj<s. 

The quotation takes the form of a free reminiscence. It seems 
clear, however, that in the words, 'ascending and descending upon 
the Son of man', we have an interpretation of the final i3 different 
from that which is generally accepted, ^n is regularly taken to 
mean 'on it* (the ladder); but there is also the possibility of the 
interpretation ' on him ' (Jacob), and this appears to be adopted in 
Jn.'s citation.* Jacob, as the ancestor of the nation of Israel, 
summarizes in his person the ideal Israel in posse, just as our 
Lord, at the other end of the line, summarizes it in esse as the 
Son of man. The Genesis-passage, in which 'the ladder is an 
image of the invisible, but actual and unceasing connexion in 
which God, by the ministry of His angels, stands with the earth, 
in this instance with Jacob' (Delitzsch), points forward to 'the 
constant and living intercourse ever maintained between Christ 
and the Father ' (Driver). The point which concerns us here is 
that the interpretation put upon the passage depends on the 
Hebrew, in which, since 0^5 'ladder' is masculine, the force of 
i3 is ambiguous. In LXX, irr avTrj^ can refer only to KXtfiai. It 
may be added that Jn.'s dva^aLvovTa^ /cat KaTa/SaLvovras literally 

* We should of course expect IvX? in this sense, as in the following verse 
Ivy 2^^ 'standing over him' (not 'standing upon it' — the ladder). We are not, 
however, concerned to argue the legitimacy of the interpretation, but merely its 
origin ; though it may be remarked that this interpretation of 2 might be justified 
by the use of the preposition to denote proximity (see Oxford Hebrew Lex-icon, 
2 § II). 

I 2 


represents the Hebrew participial construction ^^IT] ^r^, which 
is obscured in avipaivov koX Karipaivov of LXX.* 

3. Z^"* ^Ftfxvrj<TBr](Tav ol ixaOyjTOi avTOV on yey/aa/x/AcVov iaTiv 'O t,rj\o<: 
Tov OLKov arov KaTa(f>dy€Tai jxe. 

Ps. 69^*^ ^^^l^^: "^^'i^ ^^i"!? *'i"he zeal of Thine house hath 
eaten me '. 

LXX 6 ^rjXos TOV OLKOV (TOV KaTacfidyeTaL fie. 

Here Jn. and LXX are in verbal agreement against the Heb. 
' hath eaten me '. 

There is a v,l. KaTe<j>ayev which is found in LXX in B^N''*R, and 
in Jn. in (13) &c. !^ (S (vt.s vg.) © (boh) Eus Epiph. 

4. 6"'^ ot Trarepcs rjfJLiov to jxavva. €<f)ayov iv rrj ipi^jxio, kuOws Icttiv 
yeypafxfiivov "Aprov eK tov ovpavov cSw/cev avrots <^ayctv. 

Ex. 16' d:P,^lI"iP Dn^ ^^) "^'^^P '^^D ' Behold, I will rain for 

* Tliis note stands as worked out by the writer before it occurred to him to 
consult the Midrash Bereshith Rabba for traces of the interpretation of 13 which 
he has suggested as inherent in the Johannine reference. He now finds that such 
an interpretation was actually put forward and debated in early times in Rabbinic 
circles ; cf. Bereshith Rabba. par. Ixviii. 18 : DmVI D^i^iy N"n '•KJ'' '11 N'^'H '"1 

n^'b)]! T'01 .&<n^3 Di?D3 nmvi n'b)V td .spyu nnivi n^b))) N"ni .thoi 
'WK^ M D^r)3iD n Dnsp u d^idn m nnniDi D*bvo .^pvu nmvi 
ni'voi' D^-i^iy .r]bv^b npipn ']b'^ pjip^t^t^ ton dn iNDns ^2 itJ'K ^xnc^ 

^P'' inifc^ D^NilDI niDoi) DnnVI .I^JK^ D^i1p^^< D^Xm '(interpretations of) 
Rabbi Hij'a and Rabbi Yannai. The one scholar says, " Ascending and descending 
upon the ladder", and the other says, "Ascending and descending upon Jacob", 
The explanation, " Ascending and descending upon the ladder ", is to be preferred. 
The explanation, " Ascending and descending upon Jacub ", implies that they were 
taking up and bringing down upon him. They were leaping and skipping over 
him, and rallying him, as it is said, " Israel in whom I glory" (Isa. 49^). "Thou 
art he whose e'lKuv is engraved on high." They were ascending on high and 
looking at his (Ikwi/, and then descending below and finding him sleeping'. The 
words translated ' they were taking up and bringing down upon him ' are very 
obscure in meaning ; but the following note by Dr. Ball offers an elucidation. 
' I would ask why the Genesis text does not say were coming down and going^ 
up thereon ? It seems rather strange that the Angels of God should start from the 
earth. But leaving that on one side, I am inclined to think that the Midrashic 
in Dn''nilD1 DvVO is a sort of general reply to the unasked question, Why were 
the angels going up and coming down ? the answer being. They were taking up 
and bringing down—acting as carriers between Earth and Heaven. In this case, 
apparently, they were taking up to Heaven the cIkwv of the sleeping Jacob (which 


you bread from heaven *. LXX ^iSov eyw vw vfuv aprov^ ck tov 


Ex. 16^^ n^DN^ Mb nin] |n3 ng?^5 Dn^n wn < That is the bread 
which the Lord hath given you to eat'. LXX OSros 6 afnos ov 
e8o)K€v Kvpios vfuv ^ayctv. 

Ps. 78-' ^rob rna DW fn^ 'And corn of heaven He gave them '. 
LXX Kttt aprov ovpavov iSoiKev avrots. 

In Ps. 78^^ LXX's rendering of pT 'corn' by aprov (only so 
rendered here) is dictated by recollection of Ex. i6\ Jn.'s quota- 
tion is a free reminiscence of Ex. 16^'^, probably uninfluenced by 
recollection of the Ps. passage. In rendering "Aprov e'/c tov ovpavov 
it is nearer to the Heb. of Ex. 16^ than is LXX plur. aprovs. 

5. 6^' ea-TLV yeypa/xfjievov iv rotg TrpocjirJTais Kat ea-ovrau Travres SiSaKTOt 

is ** fastened to the Throne of Glory" ; Targ. Jon. ad loc). As Jacob was in deep 
sleep, was this dKwv his wraith or spirit — supposed to be separated from the body 
under conditions of trance ? The case would then be parallel to that of St. Paul 
"caught up to the third Heaven" (2 Cor. 12^^^') where he ''heard" apprjra, much 
as Jacob became conscious of Yahweh " standing by him ", and heard His voice.' 

It is difficult to resist the conclusion that the remarkable explanation of this 
Midrash throws further light upon the Johannine passage. Jacob's ukwv (the 
Hebrew simply reproduces the Greek term) is already existent in Heaven (cf. also 
Targ, Jerus. and Targ. Jon. ad loc.)', this (Ikojv — inasmuch as Jacob embodies the 
national hope and ideal— represents the heavenly Man (cf. i Cor. 15^'^"*^ o Stvrepos 
dvOpojiros «£ ovpavov, whose e'lKcuv we are in the future to bear) who is to come 
on the clouds of Heaven ; if the heavens were opened Nathaniel might behold the 
angels exulting over him. 

The same interpretation of n as referring to Jacob is given a little further on 
(B.R. par. Ixix. i) in a comment on v[>V 3^3 ^"'> HDHl ' And, behold, the Lord 
stood over him' (Gen. sSi^) ; ^2: bv !»''' iTHK^ D'»3bD \J? h^D IH^X "I'^X 

mini inp3^D )^bv nn^ inp3-D k3B^ jvdi ,vbv d^j^k^ nunt rm nony 
vbv nf'.inoK' [•.'•3 .n d^tivi D>hy dni^jn ^dx^d n^ni ni>nn2 ^a .vi)yD 

♦IvyD in"l3 r\^'2pr[ ' Rabbi Abbahu said. It is like a royal child who was sleeping 
in a cradle and flies were settling on him ; but when his nurse came, his nurse bent 
over him, and they flew away from off him. So at first, "And, behold, the angels 
of God ascending and descending upon him ". When the Holy One (blessed be 
He) revealed Himself over him they flew away from off him '. We may note that 
Rabbi Hiya and Rabbi Yannai also differed as to the interpretation of the suffix 
of \^^V, the one explaining that the Lord stood on the ladder, the other that He 
stood over Jacob. 


Isa. 54" njn; n^ts[) T?rHl 'And all thy sons shall be taught of 
the Lord '. 

LXX (in connexion with V, ^' koI O-rja-in ras CTraX^cis crov tacnnvy 
ktX.) kol Travra^ tov<s vlovs crov SiBaKTOv<; ©eov. 

Clearly J n., in treating the statement as an independent sentence, 
is dependent upon Heb. and not on LXX. Nevertheless, it is 
probable that the use of 0co5 — 'taught of God' in place of 'taught 
of the Lord*— is due to LXX influence. If this is so, the natural 
inference is that the quotation was originally made directly from 
the Heb., and was afterwards modified by a copyist under LXX 
influence — possibly by the translator from Aramaic into Greek. 

6. 7^ KaOo)^ €L7r€v 7] ypa(fiy, TroTafiol €k t^5 KocXta^ avrov pevcrovcriv 

This passage has already been discussed, and has been shown 
to involve a misunderstanding of an Aramaic original (cf p. 109). 

7. 7'*' ov)(^ 7} ypacfir) elirev on ck tov cnrepfjiaTos AavetS, kol oltto Bry^Ace/x 
Trj<; KMpiy]^ orrov yjv Aavct'8, €p)(€TaL 6 Xpto-ros ; 

Based on Isa. ii\ Jer. 23^ &c. (Davidic descent), Mic. 5^ (5^ in 
Heb. ; from Bethlehem). The references are general merely. 

8. 8'' iv TO) vofxw 81 T<2 vix€T€p(o yiypaTTTai otl 8vo avOpiairoyv rj fiaprvpta 

Deut. 19'' '^3'n Dip; r]fbp '•a-by ^k any ""p.^ •'3-i>y *At the mouth 
of two witnesses or at the mouth of three shall a word be estab- 
lished \ 

LXX cTTi a-TOfiaTos Svo /xapTvpaiv koX ctti (rT6fJiaT0<s rpiiov ixaprvpiov 
<TTT^(T€TaL TTttv prjfia, 

A vague reference. 

9. lO'^ OvK ecTTLv yey pa fJLjJL€Vov iv rw vopno vfJiMV otl Eyw eiTra 0€Ot 
icTTC ; 

Ps. 82« t^m U'rh^ >nyp^ >^ ' I have said. Ye are gods \ 

LXX 'Eyw ctTra 0eot core. 

Heb. and LXX agree exactly, and the verbal agreement between 
Jn. and LXX has therefore no special significance, since Heb. 
could hardly be otherwise rendered. 

10. 12'^ KOL €Kpavya^ov 'Qa-avvdj evXoyrjfiivos 6 ipxo/xevo^ iv ovofiari 


Ps. ii8''-^^ ^«3 nv'^Sn nin'' xnx 

T ; T 

mn'' D55'3 X3n iinn 

T : •• : T - ' T 

'O Lord, save now! 

Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the Lord ! ' 

LXX w Kvpi€, (Tcoo-ov Syj, 

€v\oyrjiJi€vo^ 6 ipxofx^o<; iv ovofxaTt Kvptbv. 

Heb. and LXX agree exactly. 'Qa-awd represents the Heb. 
hostd-nna 'Save now ! ' which, by substitution of the short form of 
the imperative for that with the cohortative termination, becomes 
hosd-na. cvXoyry/xeVo? ktX. is verbally identical with LXX ; but the 
Heb. could hardly be otherwise translated. 

11. 12'*"^'' evpwv Sc 6 'Ir/o-ov? ovdpiov fKaOta-ev lir avro, kuOms Iotlv 

M^ <f>o/3ov, Ovyarrjp 2iwv 
iBov 6 ySacrtXei;? crov epy^erai, 
KaO-qp.eyo^ iirl ttwXov ovov. 

Zech. 9' P'^"n? '^^?P 'S"a 

rib NiT Tjziijp T^pri 

* Exult greatly, O daughter of Zion ; 
Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem. 
Behold, thy king cometh unto thee; 
Righteous and victorious is he; 
Lowly, and riding upon an ass, 
And upon a colt, an ass*s foal*. 

LXX Xaipc (T(f)6Spa, OvyaT€p Sctwi/* 

KT^pv(ra-€f Ovyar^p ^lepovaraX-qfX' 
iSov 6 /SacnXevs crov epx^raL aoL 
8tKat09 Koi (riot,u)v, 
at'Tos 7rpav<s koL lin(i€py)K^<5 Ittl viro^vyiov 

Kol TTwAoV viov. 


The quotation is abbreviated and somewhat free. It is clear, 
however, that -n-wXov 6vov is derived from Heb. and not from LXX. 

12. 12'^ 'H/Acis r)Kov(rafji€v ck tov vo/jlov otl 6 Xpicrros ftei^et ets tov 

Ezek. sf nbSv^ nrh N^b'J ^"n^y nni ^And David my servant 
shall be their prince for ever \ 

LXX KOi Aav€i8 6 S0GA.0S fJiov apxoiv els tov alwva. 

Cf. also Isa. 9" (9*^ in Heb.), 2 Sam. 7'^ Ps. 89^ S iio^ 
The reference is vague and general. 

13. 12^^. Lva 6 Xoyos 'Hcratov tov 7rpo<f}-^TOV 7rXy)p(j)0rj ov elircv 

KvpL€, TLS lTrL(TT€V(T€V Trj OLKOrj rjfxC^v ; 

KoX 6 ^pa^iwv JLvpiov TLVi a7r€Ka\vcf>0r} ; 

Isa. 53^ ^^^V^f^ PP.^i? V 

nn|?33 ^12-bv njn^ yinti 

'Who hath believed our report ; 
And the arm of the Lord, to whom hath it been revealed \ 

LXX Kvpie, TL<s iTTLa-Tevaev ttj aKofj rjfxwv ; 

KOL o Ppa\iixiv YjvpCov TLVi a7r€Ka\vcl>6r] ; 

Heb. and LXX agree exactly, except that LXX has added the 
opening Kvpie, which is also found in Jn.'s quotation which agrees 
verbally with LXX. It is clear that the text of Jn. is influenced 
by LXX. 

14. 12^^'**' OTL irdXiv €L7rev 'Horaias 
T€TV(j)\(x)K€V aVT(i)V TOVS 6(f>6a\/xovs 
KOL cTTwpcDcrcv avTwv Tr]v Kaphiav, 
lva p,7] lSwo-lv TOts 6<f>6aXfjio'LS 

KOL voT^awa^LV TYJ KapSia /cat (TTpa<jiwcnv, koi Ida-o/xai avrovs. 

Isa. 6'" ^^J] ^V?'?-^ ^W^ 

y^n v^V] n3Dn vm) 

V^^^ vjiNni vj^vn nsT-fQ 

sb «2i"i 2m pn^ unbi 

T T; T : I • T t: 

' Make the heart of this people gross, 
And make their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; 
Lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, 
And understand with their heart, and repent, and be healed '. 


LXX i7ra)(yv6rj yap rj KapSia tov Xaov tovtov, 

KOL TOt? Walv aUTWV l3ap€<J}<S T]KOV(TaV KOL TOV^ 6cf)6a\fJiOV^ 

pL-q TTore tSoxriv Tot9 6(f>0a\p.oL^ koX tols oxAv aKovcrfaxrti/, 
KOL rrj KapSia (rvv(i)(rLv Koi iTna-Tpeif/wa-LVf kox Idcro/xaL avTOV<s. 

Here Jn. is clearly independent of LXX ; contrast Tctvc^Xwkcj/ 

avTwv TOv<; 6cf>0a\p.ov^ with /cat tov? o^^aX/w,ovs iKcifJifivcrav : tva p-iq With 
p.rj TTorc : Kcd voi^crwcnv rfj Kaphia. with /cai tt; KapSta (Tvvu)(nv : <TTpa<^uicri.v 

with iiri(Trpi\l/oi(TLv. Jn. is not, however, merely a free reminiscence 
of the Hebrew, as might be supposed from the fact that the writer 
uses past tenses TervijiXioKev, cTrwpwo-cv, while the Hebrew appears to 
use Imperatives (R.V. 'shut', 'make fat'). i^f^O, Vp\} are either 
treated as Infinitives Absolute in place of Perfects — 'blinding* 
(lit. 'smearing over'), 'making gross', standing for 'He hath 
blinded', 'hath made gross' (a normal and idiomatic usage); or 
the forms are read as Perfects, iP^i?, yK''n, as they might naturally 
be read in the unvocalized text.* Thus (allowing for omission of 
the reference to ears, and the transposition of a clause) Jn.'s read- 
ing is a reasonably accurate rendering of Heb., and is nearer to it 
than LXX in reading sing. T€Tvcf>X(OK€v in place of plur. €Kdfjifiva-av 
which makes the people the subject. 

15. 13^^ dXX' tva rj ypa<fiY] TrXrjpiaOrj *0 Tpwywv fxov rov dprov iTrrjp€V ctt' 
ijxk Tr]v irripvav avrov, 

Ps. 41^° apy ^bv i'^-nan ^Gn^ i^DiX ^ He that eateth my bread hath 
lifted up his heel against me '. 

LXX o iaSiOiv apTOvs fiov, ip.€ydXvv€V Itt c/xe impvi(rp.6v. 

Jn. renders Heb. accurately, and is independent of LXX. 

16. 15^*' dAA' Iva TrXrjpcaOyj 6 Xoyos 6 iv tw vopno avTwv yeypa/xfjiivos otl 
^/xLO-rja-dv /xe Swpedv. 

Ps. 35^' and 69' (' in Heb.) t33n >^p 'my haters without 
cause '. 

LXX in both passages, ol /XLa-owTe^ /ac Saipedv. 

A free reminiscence. 

* Symmachus took the Imperatives 133n, VB'n as Perfects I33n, yB'n, but, 
unlike Jn., made the people (not Yahweh) the subject— 6 \ads ovtos to. ura i^apwf, 
Koi Tcirs dip9a\novs avrov e/iuce. 


17. 19""* Lva rj ypacfiY) TrXrjpiaBrj 

Aie/xepca-avTO ra i/xarta jxov €avTot<s 

Koi £7rt Tov l/xaTL(rix6v fxov e^aXov KXrjpov. 

Ps. 22'«0« in Heb.) DnS ^nn ^p^n^ 

' They part {or parted) my garments among them, 
And upon my vesture do {or did) they cast lots*. 


KOL iirl TOV l/JLaTicr/JLOV fiov e^aXov KXrjpov, 

Heb. and LXX agree closely. The verbal agreement between 
Jn. and LXX points to LXX influence. 

18. 19^-^ Mcra ravra ctSws 6 ^Irjcrov^ otl ■^Sr] iravTa T€rcXeo"rat lva 
TcXcLioOrj T) ypacfyr] A/yet Anf/Q). cr/ccuos €K€lto o^ovs fxecrrov (nroyyov ovv 
fxea-Tov TOV o^ous voto-wtto) TrepiOevTes Trpoori^veyKav avTOv t(o aTo/xaTL. 

Ps. 69^'f- in Heb.) r?" '•^ipf: ^N^lfh 'and for my thirst they 
gave me vinegar to drink \ 

LXX KOL ih T7]V Siif/av flOV iiroTLorixv IX€ o^os. 

The reference is general merely. 

19. 19^*^ cycVero yap ravra Lva rj ypa(f)r] TrXrjpoiOrj ^OaTovv ov crwrpi- 
jSi^a-eTaL avTov. 

Ex. 12^'^ n-n^K^n-t^b n^^] 'and ye shall break no bone of it\ 

LXX KOL ooTTOvv ov avvTpL{j/eT€ (ITr' avTov. 

Num. g'' in-mK'^ i6 Dyj;i 'and they shall break no bone of it*. 

LXX KOi oa-TOvv ov (TVVTpLif/ova-Lv ttTr' avrov. 

Ps. 34-" f^ in Heb.) vnmy-^B 112^ 

T|t: • T •• •• - - 

' He keepeth all his bones ; 
Not one of them is broken*. 

LXX [KupiosJ cfivXd(ra-€i iravTa ra ocrra avroii', 

tv i$ avrwv ov avvTpi/3rja€Tai. 
The quotation is a free reminiscence. 

20. 19^' KOL ttolXlv €T€pa ypa(f>r] Xiyei^OxpovTai ct? ov iieKivTrjaar. 

Zech. 12^° 1"»PV"^'^« n« ^i)X iD-ani 'and they shall look on me 
whom they have pierced '. 

LXX KOL iTn^Xixj/ovTaL irpos /xe av9* S>v KaTuip)(7JaavTO. 


Some fifty Heb. MSS. read ">^^? 'on him ', and it is this text upon 
which Jn. is dependent ; or — since "^f^. ns (7s) VPX is scarcely 
possible as a Hebrew construction — he may presuppose the more 
natural reading Tf^"''?. The strange LXX rendering is based on 
a reading 'nfJI 'they danced', an erroneous transposition of the 
letters of l"!!^"^ ' they pierced '. 

Several LXX MSS., representing the Lucianic recension, read 
Ktti iTTiftXeif/ovTai Trpo? /xe ets ov i^€K€VT7](rav, which is the rendering of 
Theodbtion. Aquila .... a-vv w i^eKivrrjcrav, Symmachus . . . efiTrpoaOiv 

It is obvious that Jn. is independent of LXX, whose rendering 
destro3^s the point of the quotation. The connexion with Theo- 
dotion in the rendering cis ov c^c/ccVrr/o-av appears to be fortuitous 
merely, and does not imply that Jn. and Theodotion were dependent 
upon an earlier non-Septuagintal rendering (as suggested by 
Swete, Inirod. to the O. T. in Greek, p. 398). 'EK/cei/reii/ is the 
natural rendering of ^pT (used by LXX in Judg. 9^^ i Chr. io\ 
Jen 44 (37)'", Lam. 4*^, and by Aquila and Symmachus in Isa. 13^^); 
and the variation between Jn.'s oxpovrai ci9 ov and Theodotion's 
liripXoj/ovTaL 7r/)0s yae cis ov is decisive against common borrowing 
from an earlier Greek source. In the LXX MS. 240 we find the 
rendering o^ovrai irpbs />te ek ov iieKivrrjcrav CIS a doublet, and this no 
doubt is a Christian marginal variant influenced by Jn. The 
Apocalypse, which is thoroughly Hebraic, has an echo of the O.T. 

passage in V koi oif/eraL avrbv ttS? 6cj>0aXixo<s Koi oiTLves avrbv i^€KevTr]a-av. 

Here we notice that the two verbs are the same as those employed 
in Jn. 

Thus the following classification of Jn.'s O. T. quotations may 
be made : 

(a) Quotations dependent on the Hebrew ; Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 
11, 14, 15, 20. 

(b) Quotations agreeing with LXX where this is an accurate 
rendering of the Hebrew ; 9, 10, 17. 

{c) Quotations agreeing with LXX where this differs from the 
Hebrew ; 3, (5), 13. 

(d) Free reminiscences ; 4, 7, 8, 12, 16, 18, 19. 

(e) Misreading of an Aramaic original ; 6. 


Under (a) we notice that, while in 4 and 11 the points of agree- 
ment with Heb. against LXX are sHght, all the other cases are 
weighty and preclude any other theory than a first-hand knowledge 
of the Heb. text. 

Under (b) the agreement with LXX in 9 and 10 might be acci- 
dental; since the Heb. could scarcely be translated in other words. 
This, however, is a point not to be pressed, since 17 and the three 
cases under (c) show a connexion with LXX which cannot be 

Under (c) we observe that the variations of Jn. and LXX from 
Heb. are very slight, and that the point of the quotations in no way 
depends upon them. In 3 (2'^) the Heb. reading 'hath eaten me* 
is represented by Jn.'s v. /. Karecfiayev which has considerable 
attestation. In 5 the variation from Heb. consists only in the 
substitution of ©coC for ' the Lord \ and in 13 only in the prefixing 
of Kvpie. 

We have now to seek an explanation of the fact that, while 
a considerable number of the quotations in Jn. presuppose direct 
use of the Hebrew Bible, certain others are as clearly conformed 
to LXX. We may rule out the possibilities that the writer was 
familiar with both Heb. and LXX, and quoted from both indis- 
criminately ; or that the Gospel is composite, the use of Heb. and 
LXX marking different strands of authorship. There remains the 
theory that the writer used either Heb. or LXX solely, and that 
the variations from his regular usage are the work of a later hand. 
Now it is obvious that the agreements with Heb. cannot be due to 
alteration, since e.g. 2 and 20 exhibit points of connexion vital to the 
quotation which are absent from LXX. On the other hand, all 
the quotations which now agree verbally with LXX might very 
well have been quoted from Heb. and subsequently modified so as 
to agree with LXX, since the variation between Heb. and LXX 
is in every case slight and unimportant. This inference, which 
emerges from a consideration of the quotations as a whole, seems 
to be raised to a certainty by the fact that 5 has points of con- 
nexion with both Heb. and LXX. The words 'And they shall 
be all taught of God ' agree with Heb. as being an independent 
sentence, and can hardly depend upon LXX, 'And I will make . . . 
all thy sons to be taught of God'; while the point of connexion 


with LXX — 'taught of God' instead of Heb. 'taught oi the Lord' — 
is just the kind of alteration which might subsequently be made 
under LXX influence. If this be granted, the fact that the writer 
of the Gospel was a Palestinian Jew employing the Heb., and not 
a Hellenist dependent on LXX, is proved. Further, it must 
surely be admitted that slight modifications of passages originally 
quoted from Heb. into verbal agreement with LXX, though they 
might very possibly be made by a reviser or copyist of the Greek 
text, would be far more likely to arise in process of translation into 
Greek from another language, such as Aramaic. And in 6 (7^) we 
have very striking evidence that the language in which the O.T. 
reference was originally cast was Aramaic. 



At the close of this discussion the writer may be expected to 
offer some remarks as to the influence which his theory should, if 
it gains acceptance, exercise upon current historical criticism of the 
Fourth Gospel. This is a task which for two reasons he feels 
somewhat loth to essay. Firstly, the question has been mainly if 
not wholly linguistic, and ought at the outset to be presented for 
consideration uncomplicated by ulterior issues. And secondly, the 
writer is conscious that in attempting to touch upon such larger 
issues he is in danger of getting outside his province ; for, while to 
the best of his ability he has made a minute study of the Gospel 
itself, and can claim some knowledge of the external criteria 
bearing upon the question of authorship, he cannot claim con- 
versance with more than a small portion of the gigantic mass of 
modern literature which has been directed towards the solution 
of the Johannine problem. 

Still, it goes without saying that in the course of the linguistic 
investigation the question of its bearing upon the authorship of the 
Gospel has been constantly in his mind. If the theory is soundly 
based, it must surely affect something like a revolution in current 
Johannine criticism ; for, while cutting at the roots of the fashion- 
able assumptions of a particular school of critics, it may be held to 
go even farther, and to demand a re-examination, if not a recon- 
struction, of certain fundamental postulates which have hitherto 
been accepted by all schools of criticism. Thus it may be thought 
fitting that the author of the theory should indicate in brief the 
results to which he believes that it points. 

In the first place, it should establish beyond question the fact 
that the Gospel is a product of Palestinian thought. This is a 
conclusion which emerges with no less clearness even if it be held 
that the evidence which has been offered is insufficient to prx)ve 


actual translation from Aramaic; for at least it cannot be disputed 
that the case for virtual translation is irrefragable. The author's 
language is cast throughout in the Aramaic mould. He is 
thoroughly familiar with Rabbinic speculation. He knows his 
Old Testament, not through the medium of the LXX, but in the 
original language. 

If this be granted, the figment of Alexandrine influence upon the 
author must be held finally to be disproved. His Logos-doctrine 
is the development of conceptions enshrined in the Targums, and 
is not derived from Philo. This can hardly be disputed in face 
of the evidence adduced on pp. 35 ff. Could New Testament 
scholars ever have arrived at any other conclusion if they had 
approached the subject with an adequate Semitic, as well as a 
Greek, equipment ? Not, indeed, that Palestinian Rabbinism was 
wholly uninfluenced by Greek thought; the Midrashim prove the 
contrary. Yet, when this is admitted, Palestinian Jewish thought 
is one thing, Alexandrine Hellenistic thought another. It may be 
true that there is an ultimate connexion between the Logos-concep- 
tion of Philo and that of the Gospel-prologue ; but this connexion 
is no closer than is implied by a common parentage. Philo*s 
doctrine was in no sense the moulding influence of our author's 

It may be observed that the theory that the Gospel was written 
in Aramaic fits in admirably with other well-ascertained results 
of internal evidence — the author's intimate knowledge of Pales- 
tinian topography, of Jewish festivals and customs, and of the 
current Messianic expectations at the time of our Lord. On all 
these questions, in which in time past his accuracy has in one way 
or another been impugned, he has been triumphantly vindicated. 
If, in addition, it is proved that he actually wrote in Aramaic, we 
have added the coping-stone which harmoniously completes the 

Here, however, we find that our theory seems to call for the 
re-opening of a question which is generally supposed to be settled. 
If the Gospel was written in Aramaic, it must surely have been 
written in Palestine or Syria ; it could hardly have been written at 
Ephesus. This conclusion is by no means necessarily at variance 
with the tradition that the author spent the latter part of his life at 



Ephesus ; for obviously we have the possibih'ty that he may have 
written the Gospel at an earlier period. It may be observed that, 
while tradition generally assigns the writing of the Gospel to 
Ephesus, there are traces of a different opinion. The Muratorian 
Canon seems to state that the Gospel was written before the 
breaking up of the Apostolic circle.* therefore, presumably, in 

The assignment of a Palestinian or Syrian origin to the Gospel 
would seem to carry with it an earlier date for its composition than 
that which is commonly accepted (a.d. 90 or somewhat later); 
possibly even a considerably earlier one. But this is by no means 
at variance with the facts of internal evidence. Even apart from a 
full acceptance of the theory propounded in the present volume, it 
must surely be admitted that the facts which have been brought 
together greatly strengthen the case for holding that the Gospel is 
^the work of an eye-witness. The view that it represents the 
mature Christian experience of that witness is doubtless sound ; 
but if we are to assume that he was a man of eighty or more when 
he took up his pen, we are postulating for him a mental vigour 
quite exceptional in one so old. Opinions may differ as to the 
impression of the author's personality conveyed by the Gospel ; 
but the present writer feels that, while the First Epistle might 
fairly be regarded as the product of extreme old age, the planning 
and execution of the Gospel is hardly consistent with such a 
theory. The age of sixty-five or seventy would at any rate be 
more normal for the composition of a work which exhibits so 
markedly a maturity which is as yet unimpaired. Assuming that 
the author was about twenty at the Crucifixion, this would lead us 
to date the Gospel a.d. 75-80. The question whether it would be 
reasonable to place it even earlier demands an expert knowledge 
of its relation to the Synoptic Gospels and a first-hand conclusion 
as to the dates of these latter ; and on these points the writer does 

* The Fourth Gospel is said to be the work of ' loannis ex discipulis '. The 
occasion of its composition is given as follows : ' Cohortantibus condiscipulis et 
episcopis suis dixit, Conieiunate mihi hodie triduo et quid cuique fuerit revelatum 
alterutrum nobis enarremus. Eadem nocte revelatum Andreae ex apostolis ut 
recognoscentibus cunctis loannes suo nomind cuncta discriberet.' Since John 
himself is named ' one of the disciples ', it seems to follow that ' his fellow- 
disciples ' (one of whom is Andrew) are the other Apostles. 


not feel qualified to venture an opinion. We may note, however, 
that there seem to be no indications pointing to a date prior to the 
destruction of Jerusalem in a. d. 70; the evidence of 5^/Eo-tiv Se iv 

TOt5 *Iepoo-oA.v/xois CTTt ry irpo^aTLKrj Ko\vfx/3rj6pa . . . Trivre trToas €;(ovo-a, 

which has been thought to imply that the city was still standing 
intact, being of doubtful validity if the Greek is regarded as a 
translation from Aramaic* 

On the other hand, there are a number of indications which 
suggest a certain remoteness, both in time and place, from the 
scenes described, and also seem to imply that the author was not 
writing, at least primarily, for Jews, but for a larger circle of 
Christians. What Jew, or indeed what Gentile inhabitant of 
Palestine, would need to be informed that the Jews have no deal- 
ings with the Samaritans, that Tabernacles was the feast of the 
Jews, or that the festival of the Dedication took place in winter ?t 
Of course it might be maintained that the author, writing not 
merely for his contemporaries but for posterity to whom such 
details would not be obvious, took care to insert them ; but such a 
theory can hardly claim probability. 

We arrive, then, at the impression that the Gospel was not 
written at an earlier date than a.d. 75-80, nor from Palestine; yet 
on the other hand our theory of an Aramaic original seems to 
demand that it should have originated in an Aramaic-speaking 
country. Thus Syria is indicated, and if Syria, then Antioch. 

* The meaning ^was^ or ^ is' might be left in Aramaic to be inferred from the 
context, or at any rate expressed in such a way that confusion would be easy 
in translation. For 'Etrrti' . . . exowo-" Cur. has ^^ l^|o . . . jooi l^/> li^ 
'Existing was . . . and existing in it'; Pesh. ©^^ j©©, hs-»|o . . . )oo» ]^/ 
* Existing was . . . and existing was in it'; while in Pal. Syr. we find ]^^ 
g^ V joojo . . . j6o» 'Existing is . . . and is in it'. Here, however, the only 
time-determining factor is the dot above j6o», which marks it as the Participle 
hdwe, not the Perfect hdwa. In W. Aramaic there would probably have been no 
mark of distinction. 

t Instances of such touches may be seen in 26.13,23^ ^b.9^ ^2^ 6'-'*, 72-37^ lo'^^^ ri^', 
jp3i.40^ Two of these passages, viz. 2^^ kv t^ Tracrxa h rrj (opr^, 6^ ntpav rijs 
dahaaarjs t^s TaXiXaias ttjs Til3(pia8os, convey the impression of conflation. Of 
course it must be assumed, on the hypothesis of translation, tliat in 42" (6 \ey6fievoi 
Xpiaros), 5- {'EfipaiaTi), 19^^ (jiieuaTpojTov, 'E0p. 5f), 19^"^ {Kpaviov Tonov, t Xiyerai 
'E/3p.), 20^* CE/3/). . . . o Keyerai AiddaKaXt) the translator has glossed the text for 
the benefit of his readers. It is possible that some of the touches in the first set of 
passages given in this note may be translator's glosses. 

2520 K 


Though Antioch was a Greek city, it stood not far from the heart 
of the district whence from the earliest times the Aramaic speech 
was diffused, eastward into Mesopotamia and southward through 
Syria and Palestine. The city must have been bilingual, and though 
Greek was doubtless the language of the upper classes, there must 
have been a large substratum of population to whom Aramaic was 
the more familiar language. This follows necessarily from the 
exigencies of trade — both the regularly organized caravan-trade 
from beyond the Euphrates, and the local trade which brought the 
country people into the metropolis to sell their food-stuffs, and to 
add new blood to the population. As we learn from Acts, the 
natural line of expansion for the infant-Church at Jerusalem was 
northward to Antioch. If the writer of the Fourth Gospel really 
spent the last part of his life at Ephesus, then we have in Antioch 
a half-way house between this and Jerusalem ; and if the line of his 
missionary activity was Jerusalem — Antioch — Ephesus he was 
following in the footsteps of St. Paul. 

It is interesting to note that we are not entirely without external 
indication that St. John was at Antioch and wrote the Gospel there. 
Mr. F. C. Conybeare has quoted a statement translated from a 
Syriac fragment appended to the Armenian translation to the 
commentary of St. Ephrem on Tatian's Diatessaron : ' lohannes 
scripsit illud [evangelium] graece Antiochiae, nam permansit in 
terra usque ad tempus Traiani'.* There exists a wide-spread 
(though not very early) tradition that St. Ignatius was a disciple 
of St. John. The MaprvpLov 'lyvariov (5th or 6th century a.d.) so 
describes him at its opening, and adds later on the scarcely credible 
statement that he and Polycarp (born a.d. 69) had together been 
disciples of the Apostle.t 

The facts which lead the present writer to suggest the theory that 
the Fourth Gospel may have been written at Antioch are as follows : 

I. The Epistles of St. Ignatius (c. a.d. no) are full of Johannine 
Theology. It is true that there is only one passage in them which 
approximates to an actual verbal quotation, but reminiscences of 
the teaching of the Gospel are more numerous than is generally 

* ZNTIV. 1902, p. 193. 

f Cf. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, II. ii, pp. 473 f., who argues against the 
historical value of the statement and seeks to explain how it may have arisen. 


recognized. Dr. Inge's conclusion is that * Ignatius* use of the 
Fourth Gospel is highly probable, but falls some way short of 
certainty'.* One of his reasons for this doubtful verdict is 'our 
ignorance how far some of the Logia of Christ recorded by John 
may have been current in Asia Minor before the publication of the 
Gosper. This is met if it can be shown that Ignatius was 
probably also acquainted with the First Epistle of St. John ; and 
this seems to be the case.t The Ignatian expressions, 6 apx<Jiv tov 
almvos TovTov and T€Kva <f>oiT6<s aXrjOeias may actually imply acquaintance 
with the original Aramaic of the Gospel. 

2. Drs. Rendel Harris and Mingana, in their recent edition of 
the Odes and Psalms of Solomon (1920), have made a case for a 
connexion between the Odes and the Letters of Ignatius, and have 
shown that the dependence is almost certainly on Ignatius's side. 
There is a tradition recorded by the historian Socrates that 
Ignatius instructed the Antiochenes in the composition and singing 
of hymns. X Theophilus of Antioch was also familiar with the 

* The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, by a committee of tlie Oxford 
Society of Historical Theology, p. 83. 

t Cf. especially the group of passages reflecting the teaching of i Jn. quoted 
from the letter to the Ephesians on p. 154. 

X * We must also tell whence the custom of the Church of singing antiphonal 
hymns had its origin. Ignatius, the third bishop after Peter of the Syrian Antioch, 
who also had personal intercourse with the Apostles themselves, saw a vision 
of angels praising the Trinity in antiphonal hymns, and delivered the fashion of 
the vision to the church in Antioch : from whence also the same tradition was 
transmitted to other churches.' — Socrates, HE. vi. 8, quoted by Harris and 
Mingana, p. 43. These editors also aptly call attention (p. 47) to two passages 
in Ignatius's letters in which he uses chorus-singing as a metaphor for Christian 
harmony; Ephes. 4, ^ In your concord and harmonious /oz/^ Jesus Christ is sung. 
And do ye, each and all, form yourselves into a chorus, that, being harmonious 
in concord, and taking the key-note of God, ye may in oneness sing with one voice 
through Jesus Christ unto the Father, that He may both hear you and acknowledge 
you by your good deeds to be the members of His Son ' (i. e. His children) ; Rom. a, 
* Forming yourselves into a chorus, in love sing to the Father in Jesus Christ.' 
These passages find a striking parallel in Ode 41, which begins as follows : 

' Let all of us who are the Lord's bairns, praise Him : 
And let us appropriate the truth of His faith : 
And His children shall be acknowledged by Him : 
Therefore let us sing in His love. 

Let us, therefore, all of us unite together in the name of the Lord. 
The italics draw attention to the parallelism in thought. 

K 2 


Odes.* It seems clear that they were originally composed in 
Syri.ic.t The conclusion of these editors is that they were 
probably written at Antioch in the first century.^ 

Now the fact that the writer of the Odes was acquainted with 
the Fourth Gospel can be proved fairly clearly; though here 
again the evidence takes the form of reminiscence of the teaching 
rather than actual verbal quotation. Surprising as this may seem 
in view of the very early date which is assigned to the Odes, it 
is the less surprising if, as on our theory, the date of the Gospel 
is earlier than is commonly supposed ; and it becomes quite 
comprehensible if the Gospel was actually composed at Antioch 
and first circulated there in Aramaic. It is noteworthy that a great 
part of the connexions with the thought of the Gospel, both in 
Ignatius's Letters and in the Odes, are with the Last Discourses, 
Jn. 13—17. 

The evidence for all this appears so highly important that it 
is given in detail in an Appendix. 

The supposed influence of Pauline Theology upon the Fourth 
Gospel in no way conflicts with our new theory as to the date 
and place of the Gospel. A period of twenty years or so allows 
ample time for the principal epistles of St. Paul to have become 
well known at Antioch. The present writer has, however, put 
forward suggestions (pp. 45 ff.) which may indicate a somewhat 
different conclusion, viz. that both St. Paul and the author of the 
Gospel may have been influenced by a common earlier source 
of teaching. Both of them were Rabbinists; and the course of 
the present discussion has revealed several instances of a know- 
ledge of Rabbinic speculation on the part of the Gospel-author 
which is independent of St. Paul. Both again were mystics ; but 
there is no reason for assuming that the mysticism of the Gospel 
was a development of Pauline teaching. Mysticism is one of the 
characteristics of the Rabbinic method of treating Scripture ; and 
the question how far this trait in the two Christian writers is 
based on Jewish Haggada is one which calls for further investi- 
gation. The inclusion within the early Church at Jerusalem of 
a large contingent from the priestly class (Acts 6') must almost 

* op. cit. ch. iii. f op. cit. ch. xiii. + op. cit. ch. iv. 


certainly have resulted in the application of Rabbinic speculation 
to the service of the new Faith. 

As to the author of the Gospel — while the conclusion that he 
wrote his Gospel in Aramaic strongly confirms the opinion that he 
was an actual eye-witness of the events which he describes, it 
must be admitted that the clear traces which we have noticed 
of his acquaintance with Rabbinic learning * seem to diminish the 
probability that he was St. John the Apostle. St. Peter and 
St. John impressed the priestly authorities at Jerusalem as avOpui-n-oL 
dypafXfjLaTOL kol iStwrai (Acts 4^^) ; and though the phrase is used in 
connexion with their unexpected eloquence, the paradox consisted, 
not in the fact that having previously been aypa/x/xarot — i.e. untrained 
in Rabbinic methods of exegesis — they now appeared so to be 
trained ; but in the fact that, though still dypa/x/>iaroi, they were able 
to speak and argue eloquently and convincingly. It is of course 
conceivable that the Galilaean fisherman, especially if a young 
man, may have had a natural aptitude for assimilating the Rabbinic 
methods of argument ; and that, his interest being whetted through 
listening to our Lord's discussions with the Rabbinists at Jeru- 
salem, he may subsequently have carried his studies farther in 
this direction, e.g. through intercourse with the Christian members 
of the Jewish priesthood. It is clear, however, that if we had 
reason to think that, like St. Paul, he had actually undergone 
a thorough Rabbinic training, much light would be thrown upon 
the Gospel. We should then understand how it was that the author 
was able to retain the substance of our Lord's arguments with his 
former teachers, and why these arguments appealed to him more 
than the simple parabolic teaching which was adapted to the 
Galilaean peasantry. His first-hand use of the Hebrew Bible would 
be explained ; and, supposing that he may also have been the author 
of the Apocalypse, we should understand how he was able to 
construct this work upon a Biblical Hebrew model. 

Now, as Prof. Delff was the first to remark,+ there are details in 

* Cf. especially pp. 35 ff., 43 ff., iion., iiin., 116 n. 

f Gesch. d. Rabbi Jesus v. Nazareth (1899). pp. 67ff. ; Das vierie Evangelmm (1890), 
pp. I ff. Delff 's theory was followed by Bousset in the ist ed. of his Offenbarimg 
Johanm's {1896, but dropped by him in the and ed. (1906) ; cf. p .46, n. 2. It is 
regarded with considerable favour by Dr. Sanday, Criticism 0/ the Fourth Gospel, 
pp. 17 f., 90, 99 ff. 


the Gospel which; taken together, strongly suggest that the 
author had some connexion with priestly circles. He (on the 
assumption that he is the unnamed disciple) was known to the 
high priest and gained ready admission to his house, which was 
denied to Peter until he intervened (i8'^"^). He alone of the 
Evangelists mentions the name of the high priest's servant, Malchus, 
whose ear Peter cut off (i8^"), and also the fact that one of those 
who questioned Peter was a kinsman of Malchus (18^'''). He has 
special knowledge of persons like Nicodemus and Joseph of 
Arimathaea, who were both members of the Sanhedrin i^^^-, 7^, 
19^^^), and seems to have gained inside information as to what 
went on at meetings of the Sanhedrin (7'^"^", ii''^"^^, 12'"), which 
may have come to him through Nicodemus. The fact that, when 
our Lord commended His Mother to his care, he took her ek to. 
tSia 'from that hour* suggests that he had a house at or near 
Jerusalem (19^")- 

The deduction based on these internal indications serves further 
to explain the remarkable statement of Polycrates of Ephesus that 
John, who reclined on the breast of the Lord, was a priest wearing 
the sacerdotal frontlet (09 iyev-^Orj Upev^ to TreraXov 7ricbopeKO)<s), which 
otherwise is an insoluble enigma. Moreover, if Polycrates sup- 
posed that John the author of the Gospel was the Apostle St. John, 
it is in the highest degree anomalous that he should mention 
him subsequently to Philip, whom he defines as tCjv SwSeKa avo- 
a-TokiDv, and the daughters of Philip, and should then describe him, 
not as an Apostle, but as /xaprvs koL BiSda-KaXo? simply — this too 
in spite of the fact that ' he sleeps at Ephesus ' where Polycrates 
himself was bishop, while Philip 'sleeps at Hierapolis* (Eusebius, 
HE. V. 24). If one of the most famous members of the original 
Apostolic band had actually preceded him in his own see, he 
would surely have named him first of all. 

The familiar quotation from Papias (Eusebius, HE. iii. 39) seems 
likewise to indicate that the celebrated John of Ephesus was not 
the Apostle. Papias tells us that 'if any one chanced to come 
my way who had been a follower of the presbyters, I would 
inquire as to the sayings of the presbyters — what Andrew or 
Peter said (cTttcj/), or Philip or Thomas or James or John or 
Matthew, or any other of the Lord's disciples; and also what 


Aristion and John the presbyter, the Lord's disciples, say (Xiyova-tv)*. 
Unless we adopt the view that the Apostles mentioned are termed 
' the presbyters ' * (a view both improbable in itself and also 
apparently excluded by the distinctive application of the term to 
the second John), it is clear from this passage that Papias only 
claims to have learned the Apostles* sayings at third hand, i.e. 
he learned from his informants what the presbyters said that the 
Apostles said. On the other hand, the obvious deduction from 
the statement 'also what Aristion and John the presbyter, the 
Lord's disciples, say\ is that Papias learned the sayings of these 
disciples at second hand; and since the change of tense from 
fxTTiv to Xiyova-Lv is clearly intentional, it is natural to infer that 
Aristion and the second John were still living, and that Papias might 
have heard them at first hand if he had had the opportunity.t 

If this conclusion is sound, and if the title ' the Lord's disciples ' 
implies — as in the first occurrence, where it is applied to the 
Apostles— actual knowledge of our Lord during His earthly life, 
then the date at which Papias collected his materials cannot be 
later than a. d. 100 — a conclusion which fits in with the statement 
of Irenaeus that he was a companion of Polycarp (a.d. 69-155) 
and 'one of the ancients ' (dp^ato? a»'^p)+ It follows that c. a.d. 100 
Papias knew of a John whom he termed ' the presbyter ' (appar- 
ently in distinction from John the Apostle before mentioned), who, 
though an actual disciple of our Lord, was still living at that date, 
and must therefore have been of a very advanced age. On the 
other hand, all that he claims to have learned (or to have 

* This is the view of Eusebius (see foot-note following), and it is taken e. g. by 
Lightfoot, Essays on Supernatural Religion, p, 145, and by Westcott, Canon of the 
N.T. p. 70, n. I. On the contrary, see Moffatt, Introd. to Literature of N.T^ 

p. 599- 

+ Papias does not state in this passage that he was an actual hearer of Aristion 
and John the presbyter, as is unwarrantably assumed by Eusebius ; Kat 6 vvv hi 
fjHiv dTjXovfJievos IlaiTias rols fi\v raiv olitootoXwv \6yovs irapd tSjv TrapijKoKovdrjKoTOjy 
ofioXoyfi 7rapfi\T]<p(vai, 'Apiariojvos Si nal rod irptaffvTtpov 'Iojclpvov avr-qKoov kavrov 
(prjai yeveaOai. Why Dr. Lightfoot (Essays on Supern. Rel, p. 146) should accept 
Eusebius's opinion on this point against the plain sense of the passage is incom- 

X Haer. V. xxxiii. 4 ; Eusebius, HE. iii. 39. a.d. 100 is adopted by Dr. Sanday 
(Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 250 f.), as against the extreme date adopted by 
Harnack (c, a.d. 145-60). Eusebius {HE. iii. 36) states that his episcopate was 
contemporary not only with Polycarp's, but also with Ignatius's (d. a.d. iio). 


endeavoured to learn) by word of mouth about the Apostolic 
son of Zebedee is what others said that the presbyters said that 
he said ; and so far is he from attaching any special prominence 
to him that he mentions him only sixth in a list of seven of the 

Now Irenaeus tells us that John, 'the disciple of the Lord', who 
wrote the Gospel, survived at Ephesus until the times of Trajan,* 
i.e. until after a. d. 98. If this John was the son of Zebedee, would 
Papias — who must certainly have been born long before his 
death, and who was probably collecting his information, if not 
before, at any rate not long after that event, and who was bishop 
of a Church which was close to Ephesus — have been reduced to 
learning at third hand as to his teaching ? And since, for one man 
who could give him authentic information as to what Andrew or 
Peter had said, there must (on this hypothesis) have been ten who 
could give him fuller and more recent information as to what John 
the son of Zebedee had said, is it at all likely that the vastly 
superior importance to Papias of John as a witness to our Lord's 
acts and teaching, involved in the fact of his nearness to him both 
in time and in place, should be ignored to such an extent that he 
only mentions the Apostle sixth in a list of seven ? 

The inference is clear that Papias did not claim to have any 
better knowledge of John the son of Zebedee than he possessed of 
Andrew, Peter, and the rest who had died years before he began 
to collect his materials. The absence of such a claim fits in with 
the statement attributed to him by Philippus Sidetes (5th cent.) and 
Georgius Hamartolus (9th cent.) that John and James his brother 
were slain by the Jews, which certainly seems to imply that John 
the son of Zebedee did not survive to a ripe old age in Asia, but 
lost his life through Jewish persecution, and therefore probably in 
Palestine and prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in a. d. 7o.t 
There exists, however, yet another statement attributed to Papias 
in an argument prefixed to a Vatican MS. of the Fourth Gospel 
(9th cent.): — 'Evangelium lohannis manifestatum et datum est 
ecclesiis ab lohanne adhuc in corpore constituto, sicut Papias 

* Haer. II. xxii. 5 ; III. i. i ; III. iii. 4. 

t On further evidence as to the martyrdom cf. Moff.itt, Introd. to Lit. of N.T.^ 
pp. 601 ff. ; and most recently, Charles, Revelation, i, pp. xlv ff. 


nomine Hierapolitanus, discipulus lohannis carus, in exotericis, id 
est in extremis [externis] quinque libris retulit. Descripsit vero 
evangelium dictante lohanne recte\* Confused and improbable 
as this statement seems in detail, we have no grounds for question- 
ing the main facts, viz. that Papias may have stated that the 
author of the Gospel was John of Asia who survived into his 
own times. 

If, however, the other statement referred to Papias means that 
John the son of Zebedee suffered martyrdom in Palestine prior to 
A. D. 70, the statement as to the writing of the Gospel can only be 
squared with it on the assumption that the references are to two 
different Johns — in the first case to the Apostle, in the second to 
John of Asia, i.e. the presbyter. 

Now the writer of the Second and Third Epistles of St. John 
actually describes himself as 6 Trpco-ySuVcpos, and the inference from 
the contents of the Epistles is that they were not intended to be 
anonymous, but that this title was sufficient to mark the writer's 
identity. If they are rightly ascribed to John, the inference that 
this is the 'Iwaj^s 6 Trpco-ySrVepo? of Papias is obvious. t Dr. Charles 
in his Commentary on Revelation (i, pp. xxxiv ff.) has argued from 
a careful linguistic study that the Fourth Gospel and the three 
Epistles of St. John are by the same author. It follows that the 
Gospel is the work of John the presbyter, and that the tradition 
that it was composed at Ephesus is wrapped up with the fact of his 
authorship. Thus the earliest Asian tradition, as represented by 
Papias and Polycrates and confirmed by the testimony of the 
Second and Third Epistles, points to the presbyter and not the son 
of Zebedee as the author of the Gospel. 

* Cf. Lightfoot, Essays oh Supern. Rel. pp. 210 ff. ; Westcott, Canon of N.T. 
p. 77, n. I. Lightfoot (p. 214) has an ingenious suggestion as to the way in which 
the statement may have arisen that Papias was actually the amanuensis of John. 
* Papias may have quoted the Gospel " delivered by John to the Churches, which 
they wrote down from his lips" (5 dir(ypa(pov dno tov CTOfxaro'i aiirov) ; and some 
later writer, mistaking the ambiguous uiriypacpov, interpreted it "/wrote down", 
thus making Papias himself the amanuensis.' 

t This seems to be hinted by Eusebius, HE. iii. 25 : luiv 8' dvTiKeyofiivojv, 
yvwpifioiv 5' ovv onous rots rroWois . . . j) ovofia^ofxivrj Sevrepa Kal rpirrj 'loidwov, (ire 
TOV (vayyeXiaTov rvy\avov<yai, €iTf Kal erepov ofjuovvfiov i/teivfp. The view is 
definitely taken by Jerome, de viris illust. cc. 9 and 18. 


Our evidence, however, is incomplete without examination of the 
testimony of St. Irenaeus, which is important because, in the well- 
known passage from his letter to Florinus (Eusebius, HE. v. 20), 
he states that in his boyhood (TraTs In wv) he was a hearer of 
Polycarp and could remember his description of 'his intercourse 
with John and with the rest who had seen the Lord *. Irenaeus 
appears unjustly to have suffered considerable misrepresentation. 
While claimed on the one hand as a conclusive witness to the 
fact that the John of Ephesus was the Apostle St. John, he is 
commonly accused, on the other hand, by the opponents of this 
theory of having mistaken the meaning of his teacher Polycarp, 
and supposed that he was referring to the Apostle when all the 
time he was speaking of the presbyter. Similarly, he is taken to 
task by Eusebius {HE, iii. 39) because he describes Papias as 

6 'Itoavvov /i,€V aKOvarvtYi^ HoXvKdpTrov 8e eratpos ycyortos. Eusebius's 

comment on this statement is Avt6<s ye firjv 6 IlaTrtas Kara to 
vpooCfxiov Tfjiv avTOv Aoywv, d/c/ooar^v /xiv kol avTOTrrrjv ov8a/x,ws cavrov 
yeviaSai roiv UpQ)v aTroa-ToXoyv e/x^atVci, TrapeiAr/^eVat Sk to. t^s tticttcci)? 
Trapa twv €K€ivol^ yvMpLfxoiv. The error of which he is accused 
by Eusebius is cited by modern critics as enhancing the 
probability that he made the additional error of mistaking 
Polycarp*s reminiscences of the presbyter as referring to the 

In reality, it is doubtful whether Irenaeus makes any mistake at 
all. The true state of affairs may best be gathered by tabulating 
all his references to the author of the Fourth Gospel, whom he 
also regarded as author of the Apocalypse.* 

'John the disciple of the Lord * 

In references to the Gospel .... 9 
In references to the Apocalypse • • • 3 
In references to incidents at Ephesus . . 2 

Total 14 

* These computations are as complete as the writer could make them ; but he 
cannot claim that they are more than approximately so. They cover the fragments 
as well as the Contra Haer. Under * John ' a few Gospel references referring to 
the son of Zebedee have not been reckoned. 



' The disciple of the Lord ' i 

' His disciple John ' i 


In references to the Gospel . . . . 20 
In references to the Apocalypse . . .10 
In references to incidents at Ephesus . . i 

Total 31 

' The Apostle * .2 

With these references we may compare Irenaeus's references to 
other Evangelists and Apostles : 

* Matthew the Apostle ' .1 

' Matthew ' elsewhere. 

* Mark the interpreter and disciple of Peter * 
' Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter ' 
' xMark ' elsewhere. 

' Luke the follower and disciple of the Apostles * . 
' Luke the disciple and attendant of the Apostles ' 

* Luke the attendant of Paul ' . . . . 
' Luke * elsewhere. 

* Peter the Apostle ' .... 
' Peter ' elsewhere. 

* Paul the Apostle ' . . . . 

' Paul, being the Apostle of the Gentiles ' 

* Paul His Apostle ' . . . . 

' Paul ' 

' The Apostle * 




Here we notice the extraordinary care which Irenaeus takes 
accurately to define the position and authority of his witnesses. 
This comes out especially in his description of Mark and Luke ; 
while Matthew alone of the Synoptists is correctly given the title 
of Apostle. 

We notice again that, while Matthew, Peter, and Paul are 
defined as Apostles, John ts never so defined by name. It is true 
that in two passages which come near together {Haer. I. ix. 2, 3) he 
is mentioned as 'the Apostle ' simply, having just previously been 
cited as 'John' ; but this is different from the direct attachment of 


the title to his name. Irenaeus, when not specially defining the 
rank of his witnesses, uses the term ^Apostle' in a wider sense. 
Thus in Haer. III. xi. g, after a summary of the teaching and 
scope of the four Gospels, he remarks, ' Having thus ascertained 
the opinion of those who delivered the Gospel to us . . . let us 
proceed to the remaining Apostles * ; and again in IV. pre/, i, 
'Accordingly, in the book before this we have set forth the 
sentence of the Apostles upon them all '. There are several 
passages in which John is included by inference among the 
Apostles; II. xxii. 5, 'And all the elders testify, who in Asia 
conferred with John the disciple of the Lord, that John had 
handed down these facts; for he abode with them until the times 
of Trajan. And some of them saw not only John, but also other 
Apostles'; III. iii. 4, 'And Polycarp too, who had not only been 
trained by the Apostles, and had conversed with many of those 
who had seen Christ, but also had been constituted by the Apostles 
bishop over Asia in the church of Smyrna . . . having always taught 
these things, which he had learned from the Apostles' ; 'And there 
are some who have been told by him (Polycarp) that John the 
disciple of the Lord, when he had gone to have a bath at Ephesus 
. . . and Polycarp too himself. . . . Such pious care had the Apostles 
and their disciples, &c.* ; ' Yea, and the church at Ephesus, having 
had both Paul for its founder, and John to abide among them 
until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the 
Apostles ' ; Letter to Victor (Eusebius, HE. v. 24), ' For neither 
could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe (the Quarto- 
deciman practice), inasmuch as he had always observed it with 
John the disciple of our Lord and the rest of the Apostles with 
whom he had associated *. 

Let us attach full weight to these passages (which the writer 
believes are all which come into question), and we are still brought 
to a standstill by the fact that, if Irenaeus believed John of Ephesus 
to have been one of the Twelve Apostles, it is most remarkable that he 
never styles him 'John the Apostle', but always 'John the disciple 
of the Lord \ We note specially the fact that even where the four 
Evangelists are most carefully described in III. ix. i ; x. i, 6 ; xi. i, 
and the first of them figures as ' Matthew the Apostle ', John is 
still simply 'John the disciple of the Lord*. Had. Irenaeus taken 



him for the Apostle John, it would have been so natural in this 
case to have added ' who was one of the twelve Apostles '. We 
are bound also to contrast the way in which he is only twice 
referred to unnamed as Uhe Apostle', with the 74 occasions on 
which St. Paul is so styled. 

Now arises the question — Whence did Irenaeus obtain this 
distinctive title, Uhe disciple of the Lord'? It is not derived from 
the Fourth Gospel ; for, had this been so, we should have expected 
' the disciple whom Jesus loved '. Looking at the titles of other 
witnesses, we observe that ' Mark the interpreter and disciple of 
Peter ' seems clearly to depend upon Papias's statement, MapKos ^lkv 

€pjJLr}V€VTr)<s Tlerpov yevo/JLivoi; . . . Ovre yap tjkovctg tov Kuptbv, ovt€ iraprj- 
KoXovOrjcrev avrto' vcrTepov 8c, ws ^<f>r}V, HcTpo) (Eusebius, UK. iii. 39). 

In the same way, we observe that Papias styles Aristion and John 
the presbyter 01 tov Kvpcov jxaOriraL It is true that in the same 
paragraph he subjoins ^ ns eT€po<s tQ)v tov Kvpiov jxaOrjriov to the 
names of the seven Apostles whom he mentions, and so may be 
taken to include them as pLaOrjTat. Here, however, we mark a 
difference ; since the sense obviously is that Papias was anxious to 
gain information coming from any (presumably deceased) fiaOrjrrjs 
Kvpiov (i. e. direct associate of the Lord), whether Apostle or other- 
wise. But in the cases of Aristion and John the presbyter ot tov 
KvpLov fjLaOrjTat is their disttnctive tt't/e, i.e. they were not Apostles, 
but they were (presumably) associates of our Lord who fell into 
a class by themselves as still living when Papias was collecting his 

On the basis of these facts we conclude without hesitation that 
by ^ John the disciple of the Lord ' Irenaeus means John the pres- 
byter, and that when he refers to Papias as 6 'Ia>ai/vov fikv aKovarrj^y 
he is at any rate as correct as Eusebius when he says 6 vvv 8c rnjiLv 

d7)koviM€vo<s IlaTrtas . . . tov Trpea^vTcpov 'Iwavi^ov avrr/Koov iavTov cf>rj(rL 

yeviaOaL. It is Eusebius who, jumping to the conclusion that John 
the Apostle (mentioned sixth by Papias in his list of seven 
Apostles) must be the Evangelist (o-a</>ws SrjXwv tov ivayyekiarrqv), 
attaches to Irenaeus the charge of misconstruing Papias's evidence 
which has stuck to him ever since. In reality Irenaeus appears to 
be an impeccable witness as to the early Asian tradition in regard 
to John ; and he completes our evidence that John the Evangelist 


and disciple of the Lord, who survived to old age at Ephesus, was 
not the son of Zebedee, but the presbyter. 

Thus all the early Asiatic evidence, i. e. all the external evidence 
that matters, unites in indicating that the only John of Ephesus 
was John the presbyter, and that he wrote the Fourth Gospel. 
This, as we have seen, fits in wonderfully well with the internal 
evidence which favours the view that the author was not John the 
son of Zebedee, but a Jerusalemite of priestly family. There are, 
however, other internal considerations which may seem to tell 
against this view. If there were not, then surely there would be 
no problem of authorship remaining. 

The first difficulty is the finding of a place among the com- 
panions of our Lord for a young man of priestly family who was 
not one of the twelve Apostles. This is largely based, it seems, 
upon the presupposition that the Apostles were our Lord's only 
openly-confessed adherents and regular companions. This of 
course is not the case. There were others from whom the seventy 
(or, according to the alternative reading of WH., seventy-two) 
missioners were drawn, who must, we may conjecture, have com- 
panied with Him not a little before they were fit to be entrusted 
with their mission. Yet of these we should know nothing apart 
from Lk. lo^^. There were, again, the women who accompanied 
Him during a part at least of His evangelistic tours, and minis- 
tered to Him and His Apostles out of their substance. Of this 
fact too we should have been ignorant but for Lk. 8^^. According 
to St. Paul in i Cor. 15®, one of our Lord's Resurrection-appear- 
ances was 'to above five hundred brethren at once*. After 
the Ascension the number of * the brethren * at Jerusalem is 
given in Acts i^^ as about one hundred and twenty, all of whom, 
apparently (perhaps with the addition of other disciples who had 
come up to Jerusalem for the Feast), received the outpouring 
of the Spirit at Pentecost. 

Thus, if it were necessary to suppose that the young priestly 
disciple regularly accompanied our Lord upon His travels, this 
would not constitute an insuperable difficulty. But it is not so 
necessary; and indeed the probability is against such a theory. 

Let us ask ourselves — How is it probable that our Lord would 
have dealt with a young man of good family and priestly con- 


nexions whom we may assume to have been a mere youth (perhaps 
not more than sixteen), who was keenly desirous of joining Him 
and becoming His disciple? Is it not likely that, while reading his 
heart and recognizing the great sincerity of his desire, He would — 
just because of his youth and the great renunciation of home and 
prospects which He knew that the step would entail — have refused 
with all tenderness to allow him at once to throw in his lot with 
the Apostolic band, and commanded him for the time to remain at 
home at Jerusalem ? Meanwhile, whenever our Lord came up to 
Jerusalem and engaged in discussion with the Rabbinists, the 
young disciple would be there, making as much as he could of the 
great Teacher's temporary presence, keenly following the debates 
which his scholastic training so well enabled him to appreciate, 
drinking in every word of the subtle arguments of which the 
Galilaean Apostles could make nothing.* 

Thus may well be explained the fact that the great bulk of the 
Gospel has to do with scenes and discourses at or near Jerusalem, 
the Galilaean episodes taking a comparatively subordinate part. 
And, in assessing the qualities in the young disciple which made 
him pre-eminently ^the disciple whom Jesus loved*, shall we be 
wrong in attaching full weight to the intellectual bond — the fact that 
the youth's upbringing enabled him, in a far fuller measure than 
the untrained and more slow-witted Galilaean Apostles (at least 
before Pentecost), to enter into our Lord's point of view, to follow 

* It is important to notice that the opinion of Jewish scholars distinctly favours 
the general historical character of the discourses in the Fourth Gospel, as repre- 
senting one aspect of our Lord's teaching. Cf. the words of Dr. Abrahams in his 
essay 'Rabbinic aids to exegesis', Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. i8i. ' One of the 
most remarkable facts about the writings of recent Jewish critics of the New 
Testament has been that they have tended on the whole to confirm the Gospel 
picture of external Jewish life, and where there is discrepancy, these critics tend 
to prove that the blame lies not with the New Testament originals but with 
their interpreters. Dr. Gudemann, Dr. Buchler, Dr. Schechter, Dr. Chwolson, 
Dr. Marmorstein, have all shown that the Talmud makes credible details which 
many Christian expositors have been rather inclined to dispute. Most remarkable 
of all has been the cumulative strength of the arguments adduced by Jewish 
writers favourable to the authenticity of the discourses in the Fourth Gospel, 
especially in relation to the circumstances under which they are reported to have 
been spoken. Much more may be expected in this direction, for Jewish scholars 
have only of late turned themselves to the close investigation of the New 


His expositions of the inner meaning of the Old Testament, and to 
grasp the fact that He was in the highest sense the embodiment 
of its ideals ? 

It is only natural that such a disciple should have been present 
at the Last Supper, and that the Apostles should not have grudged 
him a place next his Lord to which his deep affection and high 
gifts entitled him.* Nor is it surprising, even apart from his 

* It would, however, not be strange if the position of privilege granted by our 
Lord to the young disciple should have excited the disapproval of some members 
at least of the Apostolic Twelve. Lk. 222i~5* — a passage of extraordinary interest 
as appearing to offer a summary of the events of the fuller narrative contained in 
Jn. 13 — states in v.^^, 'Eyivero 5c Kal <pi\ov€iKia ev avruis, to tU avrwv Sokci fivai 
fiei^ojv. This is met by our Lord's words of reproof, in which «7(u 5e ev fxeao) vfxwv 
elfil ws 6 StaKovwv is the verbal summary with which the foot-washing of Jn. 13 
corresponds as the acted parable. Occasion for the Apostles' strife as to pre- 
cedence may, as Dr. Plummer suggests, have arisen respecting the places at the 
Last Supper ; but when we consider that the Twelve must presumably have sat 
at meals alone with their Master on many other occasions, the reason why the 
strife should have arisen on this occasion of all others is not apparent. Supposing, 
however, that this time the circle was enlarged by admission of the j^oung disciple, 
and that he was placed by our Lord next to Himself, it may be that we have found 
the cause of this outbreak of (ptXovdKia. Adopting this hypothesis, we seem to 
read our Lord's words of reproof with a new understanding. In the injunction 
d\\' 6 fxti^cov kv vfxiv yiviaOai ws u vearrepos the young disciple John becomes the 
concrete example of 6 vewnpos, which seems almost to acquire the meaning, ' this 
youth* (cf. Mk. q^s-ii and parallels). Again, the point of v. ^^ appears to stand out 
more clearly : 'But ye (Apostles, in contrast to this young disciple) are they which 
have continued with Me in My temptations ; and I appoint unto you a kingdom, 
even as My Father hath appointed unto Me, that ye may eat and drink at My table 
in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel '. These 
words, with all the fullness of promise which they undoubtedly contain, seem to be 
cast— with something like a touch of irony — in language adapted to appeal to the 
then-condition of the Apostles' ideals. 

If our theory be true, the relation of the Twelve to St. John presents a close 
analogy to that of Martha to Mary (Lk lo^^-^"^). Like Martha they were eager 
to spend and be spent in the service of their Master; but they were not, at that 
stage, endowed with the religious insight and spiritual (as distinct from practical) 
devotion possessed by Mary and the young disciple John. John, like Mary, had 
chosen the good part, which was not to be taken away from him. 

If such was the occasion which led to the sublime example of the foot-washing, 
we see at once why the Fourth Evangelist gives no hint of the special circumstances 
which led up to it. As elsewhere, he suppresses his own personality as far as 
possible ; and would, we may think, be the more careful to do so if it was his own 
position at the Supper which excited the envy of the Twelve. It may be added 
that the words ixeTo. twv 5w8fKa Mk. 14^^, fierd twv 8w5(Ka \^fia6T]TU}v'\ Mt. 26^°, Kal ol 
diruaTokoi avv aitTu) Lk. 22^*, by no means exclude the presence of a non-Apostolic 
guest at the Supper. The presence of John (as we picture him) might well have 


devotion, that when the Galilaeans fled in panic at the arrest, 
he should have followed on and entered boldly into the high 
priest's house. 

We have now, it may be observed, further explained the bond 
of union between St. John and St. Paul to which allusion has 
already been made. Similarity of social position, a common 
Rabbinic training, common ideals and pride of race and enthusiasm 
for Judaism in its higher developments, account for much. We 
seem here to find explained the remarkable double attitude towards 
the Jews which characterizes both the Christian converts. If 
from one point of view the unbelieving Jews excite St. Paul's 
keenest antipathy, as those 'who both killed the Lord Jesus and the 
prophets, and drave out us, and please not God, and are contrary 
to all men ; forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may 
be saved ; to fill up their sins alway : but the wrath is come upon 
them to the uttermost ' (i Thess. 2'^-^^) ; from another he can assert 
with all earnestness, ' I could wish myself anathema from Christ 
for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh : who 
are Israelites ; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the 
covenants, and the giving of the law, and the cultus, and the 
promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ after 
the flesh' (Rom. 9^"^), and can speak not without satisfaction 
of the privileges which he inherited as 'a Hebrew of Hebrew 
parents * and the recipient of a thorough training in the strictest 
principles of Judaism (Phil. 3^"^). So to St. John 'the Jews' 
from one point of view stand as the embodiment of unbelief and 
hardened opposition to the Embodiment of Light and Truth ; yet 
from another he can record (with certainly a strong touch of 
national feeling) our Lord's words to the Samaritan woman, 'Ye 
worship that which ye know not : we worship that which we know : 
for salvation is from the Jews* (Jn. 4^), and can refer, with a glow 
of enthusiasm, to 'the last day, the great day of the feast' of 
Tabernacles (Jn. 7"). 

It was precisely the grasp of Judaism from the inside only 

seemed not to call for record. He may have counted for no more to the Apostles 
<if that ttme than would nowadays a young scholar and thinker in the minds of men 
of practical ability holding high official positions in the Church. 


possible to a trained Rabbinic scholar which emphasized the sense 
of its privileges and opened out the vista of its lofty possibilities 
in the light of the teaching of Him who was seen to be both 
its supreme exponent and its ultimate goal; while at the same 
time strengthening the recoil from those its professed teachers 
and practitioners who resolutely shut their ears to and re- 
sisted the Truth, and would not come to Him that they 
might have life. Such scholars were St. Paul and the Fourth 

The other difficulty which may be urged against our view lies 
in the fact that there are indications in the Gospel which un- 
doubtedly may be taken to point to John the son of Zebedee as 
the author. This conclusion, however, is largely bound up with 
the line of reasoning with which Dr. Westcott has familiarized 
us, in which we first take our stand upon the indubitable indica- 
tions that the author of the Gospel was an eye-witness, and then 
argue— if an eye-witness, then an Apostle ; if an Apostle, then John 
the son of Zebedee. If, however, the inference from eye-witness 
to Apostle may be questioned (as the present writer has questioned 
it in the preceding argument), and if the grounds upon which it is 
questioned be held to be valid, then the case for the authorship 
of John the son of Zebedee is clearly weakened. The fact that 
John the son of Zebedee is not mentioned by name is weighty 
if the author must needs be an Apostle. If there are grounds 
for holding that he was not an Apostle, then this omission falls 
into the same category as the omission of the names of James 
the son of Zebedee, Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon 
Zelotes, and possibly Bartholomew, i.e. it may be due to accident. 
We may feel surprise that two of the Apostles who so frequently 
in the Synoptic Gospels accompany Peter as special attendants 
of our Lord should not receive mention ; but we should hardly be 
justified in arguing from this that one of these unnamed Apostles 
must be the author, even in the absence of strong indications to 
the contrary. From the opening of ch. 21 it is clear that the 
disciple whom Jesus loved is included under ot tov Ze^cSatov on 
the ordinary view, but under aXkot Ik twv fxaOY}rS>v avrov 8vo upon the 
view which we are maintaining; and it is legitimate to argue 
that, since the author always elsewhere deliberately conceals his 


identity, the latter conclusion is (apart from evidence to the con- 
trary) more probable than the former.* 

The argument from the fact that the disciple whom Jesus loved 
is brought into connexion with Peter three times in rather special 
circumstances (132^^-, 202^-, 2i'^<>ff) is weakened when we reflect that 
Peter stood in a special relation to our Lord as leader of the 
Apostolic band, and therefore any one else who for any reason 
likewise stood in a special relation was bound to come into close 
connexion with Peter. In 1323 ff- all that the connexion amounts 
to is that a privileged Apostle of greater boldness than the others 
suggested a question to a disciple whom he recognized as still 
more intimate with our Lord than himself; in 2i2off- that, having 
heard a prediction as to his own future, he inquired as to the 
fate of that other who was similarly united to his Master by 
a special tie of devotion. The remaining passage, 20"^^-, suggests 
indeed that the two disciples were lodging together — or it may 
have been, keeping vigil— in the same abode ; but this is natural in 
the circumstances. The very facts that the younger disciple had 
witnessed Peter's denial, and at the same time was animated by 
a kindred affection for our Lord which would make him understand 
the better the dreadful grief of the repentant Apostle, would un- 
doubtedly draw him close to him in the hour of need. 

We are left, then, with the account in Jn. i^^ff- of the first 
meeting with Jesus of the two disciples of St. John Baptist, one 
of whom we are told was Andrew the brother of Simon Peter, 
and the other, we infer, was the author of the Gospel. In v. ^' 
it is said of Andrew, evpla-KeL ovros Trpiarov Tov dS€X<l>ov Tov iSiov ^Liiiiivaf 
and from this Dr. Westcott draws the deduction — 'The words 
imply that some one else was afterwards found ; and from the form 
of the sentence we may conclude that this is James the brother 
of John \ 

This narrative is not a duplicate of the account of the call of the 
two pairs of Apostles in Mk. i'^-2"=Mt. 4'^^^ for (not to speak 
of the difference in detail) the scene is different — in Jn. Bethabara 
(or Bethany) beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing; in the 
Synoptists, the sea of Galilee. The two accounts may quite well 

* Notice the similarity of the phrase to ix rwv /xadrjTwv avTov 5wo i^**, 6 aXKos 
fiaOrjrfjs ao'-^-^.s, 

L 2 


be harmonized if we suppose that the definite call (Aevrc oTrto-w /xov) 
of the Synoptic narrative came subsequently to the virtual call 
described by Jn. ; and on this view the readiness of the disciples 
at once to leave their occupations and follow Christ receives 
considerable elucidation — they came at once without question 
because they had already been prepared for the call by the meeting 
described in Jn. 

It muse be remarked, however, that while this conclusion is 
clear as regards Andrew and Peter, the question as to the second 
disciple mentioned in Jn. i^sff- is involved in considerable obscurity. 
In the first place, we cannot be quite sure that the author of the 
Gospel is referring to himself; though this assumption is natural, 
and explains the author's detailed knowledge of the circumstances, 
both here and in the preceding tw.^^ff-. Secondly, Dr. Westcott's 
deduction from the statement eupto-Kct ovtos tt/dwtov ktX. is surely 
much too categorical. Why should -n-pwrov imply that some one 
else was afterwards found ? Comparing the use of the adverb 

in Mt. 6^ t,r]T€tT€ Se TrpCiTov ttjv fiacriXetav kol rrjv SLKaLoavvrjv avrov, 
we may say rather that it implies that Andrew made it his first 
business to find his brother — ' found him then and there \ If, then, 
the author of the Gospel is describing his own first interview with 
our Lord, there is nothing in the narrative which really conflicts 
with the theory that he was not the son of Zebedee but a member 
of a priestly family from Jerusalem. It is quite likely that such 
a one may have joined the multitudes who flocked to hear the 
Baptist, may have attached himself to him as a disciple and so 
have formed a friendship with Andrew, from whom incidentally 
he may at a later time have learned the details of the feeding 
of the five thousand (cf. 6*^), if, as on our view, he was not permitted 
to become a constant follower of our Lord, but was an actual 
eye-witness of the Jerusalem-scenes only. 

In endeavouring thus to strike a balance between the two views 
of authorship which we have been discussing — Apostle or young 
priestly disciple — we find that, while there is much both in internal 
and external evidence which is difficult to harmonize with the 
former view, the latter view seems wholly to be supported by 
the earliest external evidence, and to have the preponderant 
support of internal evidence; such internal indications as may 


seem, at first sight, to tell against it, being amenable to n reason- 
able solution. 

A last point to which reference must briefly be made is the 
bearing of our theory of an Aramaic original for the Fourth 
Gospel upon the question of the authorship of the Apocalypse. 
In making the few remarks which he has to offer on this subject, 
the writer would guard against the impression that he has come 
to a fixed opinion. He has not studied the Apocalypse sufficiently 
thoroughly to do this. All that he has to put forward are certain 
obvious considerations which seem necessarily to arise out of his 
new theory as to the Gospel. 

The case against the view that the Gospel and Apocalypse are 
by the same author has always been based chiefly upon the differ- 
ence in Greek style. It is held that the extraordinary solecisms 
of the Apocalypse find no parallel in the Gospel, in which the 
language 'flows along smoothly from the prologue to the end; 
there is no startling phrase, no defiance of syntax ; if it is 
obviously the work of one who was more familiar with the con- 
struction of the Semitic than of the Greek sentence, yet the author 
seldom or never offends against definite laws. In these respects 
he not only differs from the Apocalyptist, but stands at the opposite 
pole to the eccentricities, the roughnesses, the audacities of the 

It is obvious that, if the Gospel is a translation from Aramaic, 
the criterion of Greek style as differentiating the two books at once 
falls to the ground. On the other hand, if the Gospel was written 
in Aramaic prior to the author's arrival in Ephesus somewhat late 
in his life, and he then adopted Greek owing to the exigencies of 
his new surroundings, such Greek as we find in the Apocalypse 
would not be surprising.t 

* Swete, Apocalypse"^, p. cxxviii. It may be remarked that this estimate of the 
smoothness of the Greek of the Gospel is perhaps somewhat exaggerated in 
face e. g. of the group of passages which the present writer has brought together 
on pp. loi ff. 

t It may be urged that, if the Gospel is a translation, the Epistles still remain ; 
and they, though presumably written in Greek, do not display the solecisms of 
the Apocalypse. But the Epistles may well have been dictated to an amanuensis, 
who was in some degree responsible for the correctness of the Greek ; and possibly 
this amanuensis may have been the translator of the Gospel. 


Again, we have to notice that, as Dr. Charles has ably pointed 
out, the author of the Apocalypse frames his style upon a Biblical 
Hebrew model. Such a knowledge of Biblical Hebrew, though 
unexpected in a Galilaean fisherman, would be natural in a trained 
Rabbinic scholar. We have found reason to believe that the 
author of the Gospel was such a scholar ; and it seems necessary 
to hold that the author of the Apocalypse, who must likewise have 
been a Palestinian, was similarly equipped.* 

It is a remarkable fact that, though Dr. Charles holds that the 
author of the Apocalypse was not the author of the Gospel, the 
description which he gives (i, p. xliv) of the characteristics of 
the former is applicable, in its main details, to the latter according 
to the conclusions which we have formed in the present discussion. 
Thus we are told that the author of the Apocalypse * was a Pales- 
tinian Jew. He was a great spiritual genius, a man of profound 
insight and the widest sympathies*. He had an 'intimate acquain- 
tance with the Hebrew text of the O.T.* ' The fact that he thought 
in Hebrew and translated its idioms literally into Greek, points to 
Palestine as his original home/ ' His extraordinary use of Greek 
appears to prove not only that he never mastered the ordinary 
Greek of his own times, but that he came to acquire whatever 
knowledge he had of this language when somewhat advanced in 
years.* All these characteristics are precisely those which we 
should expect that the author of the Fourth Gospel would display 
if he turned himself to the composition of a book like the 
Apocalypse. Is this coincidence merely accidental ? 

The following is a rough list of Semitisms common to the Fourth 
Gospel and the Apocalypse : 

Asyndeton (cf. p. 49), which is an Aramaic characteristic, is 
naturally not to be expected in a work which conforms itself to 
Biblical Hebrew style. The author of Apoc. slips into it, however, 

* Dr. Charles is hardly accurate in speaking (i, p. xliv) of 'his use of Hebrew 
practically as his mother tongue (for Hebrew was still the language of learned 
discussions in Palestine) '. The language of learned discussion in Palestine was 
New Hebrew, which is in many respects more closely akin to Aramaic than to the 
classical Hebrew in which this writer correctly finds the author's model (cf. p. 17, 
foot-note). Rabbinic scholars were, however, naturally skilled in their knowledge 
of the O.T. in the original ; and the author is deliberately modelling his style upon 
the O.T. and not upon New Hebrew. 


not infrequently towards the end of his book, possibly owing to the 
fact that Aramaic was his mother-tongue. It may be noted that 
Aramaic has influenced New Hebrew in this respect (cf. p. 50). 
Cf. Apoc. i6«, 19^, 20^-^-^-'\ 2l\ 22^^-''. 

Parataxis (cf. p. 56). The co-ordination of sentences by Kai . . . 
Kttt is so frequent in Apoc. that it needs no illustration. 

Non-use of A ovist Participle describing action anterior to Finite 
verb. There seems to be only one instance, viz. cTrto-rpe'i/ras cTSov i^^ 
In Jn. the usage is far less frequent than in the Synoptists 
(cf. p. 56). 

Avoidance of the Genitive absolute construction. This construction 
is totally absent from Apoc. Though used occasionally in Jn., it is 
far less frequent than in the Synoptists (cf p. 57).* 

Use of Casus pendens (cf. p. 63). See Swete, p. cxviii ; Charles, 
i, pp. cxlix, 53. This construction is more frequent in Jn. than 
in Apoc. 

Ktti linking contrasted statements (cf. p. 66). Cf. Apoc. 2^^^\ 3^^ ^ 

Great rarity of 8e. There seem to be 5 occurrences only in 
Apoc, viz. i^", 2^\ 10", 19^^, 2I^ 8e in Jn. is proportionately slightly 
less frequent than in Mk,, and less than half as frequent as in Mt. 
and Lk. (cf. p. 69). 

Infrequency of>(6.p (cf. p. 69). Only about 17 occurrences. 

im \i.-f\ frequent, fxTJiroTc never. There are 11 occurrences of Iva firj 
in Apoc, and none of firjirore. ixrproT^. never occurs in Jn. in sense 
' that . . . not *, ' lest ', its place being regularly taken by Iva fL-q 
(cf. pp. 69 f., 100). 

The Relative completed by a Pronoun (cf p. 84). Cf. Apoc 3", 
t\ I2«", it'% if, 2o\ 

oi'ofjiaauTw = ' Whose name was \ Jn. i^, 3', Apoc. 6^, 9". Never 
elsewhere in N.T. (cf. p. 30). 

epxerai Present used as Futurum instans (cf. p. 94). Cf Apoc. i"*^ ^, 
2"-^^, 3'S 4^ 9'^ 11^^ 16'', 22''-^^^". The same usage is seen with other 
verbs in 11^ (cKTropciJcTat, Karco-^tct), 1 1^"^" (y8A.€7rova-tv, d^iovo-ti/, xaipova-iv, 
€v<f)paLvovTai), 14^ (TrpocTKWCt, Xa/Jil3dv€t). 

* Dr. Charles (i, p. xxxv) states that the Genitive absolute ' occurs often ' in Jn. 
As a matter of fact the occurrences are 17, as against Mt. 48, Mk. 36, Lk. 59, i. e. it 
is proportionately about 2| times as frequent in the Synoptists as in Jn. 


Change of construction after Participle (cf. p. 96, where the cases 
in Apoc. are noted). 

iras (iraK) . . . 06 = ' none' (p. 98). Cf. Apoc. 7'^ 28'^^ 21^', 22I 

Thus it appears that the case against identity of authorship of 
the Gospel and Apocalypse can certainly not be maintained upon 
the ground of style. The evidence is all in the other direction. 

A few words may be added as to the claim to authorship made 
by the Apocalyptist. He describes himself as 'John' simply in 
J 1.4^ 22^; in i^ with ^he addition of 'your brother and companion in 
the tribulation and kingdom and endurance (which is) in Jesus *. 
In 18^, 21^'' he seems to distinguish himself from the Twelve 
Apostles. In 22^ he is ranked among the prophets. Though the 
tone of authority in which he delivers his message is bound up 
with the fact that he is the mouthpiece of the glorified Christ, it is 
clear that he recognizes that his name carries the authority of 
a true mouthpiece, i.e. he is a man well known and of important 
standing in the churches of Asia. His work, though apparently 
utilizing older sources, must almost certainly be dated towards the 
end of the reign of Domitian, i. e. shortly before a. d. 96. 

Now the evidence which we have already reviewed points to the 
conclusion that there was but one John of great note in Asia at this 
period, viz. John the presbyter, who was known as 'the disciple of 
the Lord '. Evidence also indicates that this John was the author 
of the Fourth Gospel. Unless, therefore, the Apocalypse is 
pseudonymous (against which see Dr. Charles, i, pp. xxxviiif), 
the conclusion is certainly cogent that the author who signs him- 
self 'John * is John the presbyter. 

Thus the evidence of claim to authorship combines with that of 
Semitic style in suggesting that the author of the Apocalypse is 
one with the author of the Fourth Gospel and Epistles. Whether 
there exist criteria of Theological thought or other internal charac- 
teristics which are sufficient to disprove this inference is a question 
which the writer must leave to others to decide. 


I. Reminiscences of the teaching of the Fourth Gospel 
(and I Jn.) in the Epistles of St. Ignatius. 

To the Ephesians. 

2. irpcrrov ovv ecrrtv Kara Travra J n . 1 7 /cayo) r/yv oo^ai/ rfv deotUKas 

rpoTTov So^dt,€iv 'Irjaovv Xptcrrov tov /xot ScScoKa avTols, ?va wcrti/ ci/ KaOoJS 

So$d(TavTa vfia's' iva iv fxia VTrorayrj rjfjiii'i tv. 

KarripTLafjiivoL . . , Kara TrdvTa ^re Jn. 17^^ iva wcrtv xat avTot rjyia- 

Yiyiad^ivoL. crjxivoL iv dXrjOeia. 

4. Sta TOVTO iv rrj b/xovota vfiMV Jn. 13^" iv tovtio yv(i)<TOVTanrdvT€S 
Koi <rvfi<f><x)vio dydTrrj 'Ir^o-oGs X.piCTTO's otl ifxol fiaOrjTat i(TT€, iav dydir-qv 
aScTtti. ^XV^^ ^^ dX.Xr]XoLS- 

5' TTocrw fJiaWovvfxa^ fjiaKapL^(j)Tov<s Jn. 17^^ Tva TravTcs €»/ wcrii', KaOw'S 
avaK€KpafX€vov<; ovTOis, o)S 17 iKK\r](rLa crv, Trari/jp, iv ifJLol Kctyw €i/ o-ot', ii/a 
'Ii;o-o9 Xpto-Tw Kttt ws 'Irycroi)? Xptaros /cat avroi ci/ ^jM,tv [«»'] <o<rtv. 
Tw Trarpt, iva rrdvra iv ivorrjTL crvfi- 
<f>o}va y. 

T- Christ is ivOavdT(o(oir]d\y]OLvrj. Jn. ii^^-'^ 'Eyw ct/xt . . . 17 ^wt/- 
Cf. II. fwvov iv Ji-puTT^ ^Irjaov 6 Tna-Tevwv et? e/xe Kaj/ diroOdvy 
evpeOrjvaLehTodXriOivovCw- Trail. ^T/o-CTat' ktX. Cf. also I Jn. 5^^ 
9. ev JLpia-Tio ^Irjcrov, ov ;(<opts to 
dXriOivov t,rjv ovk t)(op.€V. 

We may note that the adj. dX-qOivos is specially characteristic 
of Jn. (9 times), i Jn. (4 times), and Apoc. (10 times), occurring 
but 5 times besides in the whole remainder of the N.T. 

II. E(r;(aToi KaipoL 

I Jn. 2}^ i(T)(dTr] Sipa ccttiv. 



I Jn. 4^"^^ 6 0€os ayaTTi) ia-riv. 
I Jn. 2" d\r]Oo)S Iv TOVTO) rj dyaTTT/ 
Tov 0fov TCTcXeiWat. Cf. ^'^^ 

14. ^fiv ovSeJ' XavOdvii vfidsi idv 
TeXctfos CIS ^Irjcrovv Xpurrov ^XT^^ '''V^ 
TTiCTTLV Kol TYjv dydirrjv' rjTi^ iariv 
"■RXV ^^^5 KOL reAos* d.p^r] jjlIv ttlcttls, 
TeAos Bk dyoLTn]' to, Se 8vo ei' evorrjTL 
yivojjicva ©cos icTTLV. 

The Johannine teaching is here combined with that of St. Paul 
in I Cor. 13. 

I4« ovSeis TTLorTLV c7rayycXXo/x€VOS 
dfjuaprdvii ovhk dyaTrrjv K€KTy)ix€vo<s 

I^. TrdvTa ovv TroLiOfiev, ws avrov iv 
rjfuv KaroLKOvvTOSy tVa S>/x€v avTov 
vaol KOL avTos y iv yfuv 0eos. 

17. A to. TovTO jxvpov eXa^cv ctti 

I Jn. 3** Tras 6 iv avrui fxeviov ov)(^ 

I Jn. 4^° idv TLS €i7ry on 'AyaTrw 
TOV ©COV, Kttt TOV aS€X<^oi/ avTov fiLO-fj, 
\(/€va-Tr)'i ia-TLV. Cf. also 2^". 

I Jn. 3^^ Kttt 6 TTJpWV TttS €|/ToAAs 

avTov iv avTw />tev€t Kat avTOS iv 

Jn. 12'' Y] Sk oiKia i7rXrjp(i)6r) e/< t^s 

T^9 Ke<f>aXrj<s [avrov] 6 Kvpto?, ti/a oa-fxyj^ tov /xvpov. 
TTvirj TTj iKKXrjCTLa d(j>OaparLav. 

The words cttI t^s K€cf>aXrjs avTov prove that St. Ignatius has in 
mind the narrative of the anointing as recorded in Mk. 14^"^= 
Mt. 26''""^l According to Jn. 121^- our Lord's /^^/ were anointed; 
yet it is difficult to resist the conclusion that Ignatius's words 
im TTvirj ktX. are based on recollection of the passage from Jn. 
which we have placed as a parallel, 'the house* being allegorized 
as referring to the Church. 

17, 19. The phrase 6 apx^iv tov aloyvo^ tovtov occurs six times 
in St. Ignatius's letters (the other occurrences are Magn. i ; Trail. 
4; Rom. 7; Phil. 6). In the Syriac version the equivalent is 
l^jo* ^'^^■N 9 o»jar>>/ (Eph. 19). In Jn. 12^', 16^^ we have the 
phrase 6 dpxoiv tov koo-/xov tovtov, which is rendered by Sin. 
\joi l-'ia^Ji.f {o^Ji^^:^ 12^') opCLOj/, and by Pesh. )jo» Ijjci^:^? I^ciof/; 
in 14^" 6 TOV Koa-fiov [tovtov] dpxoiv is rendered by Sin. and Pesh. 
|>v>N.Vf loooy/. In Jn., as in Ignatius, the thought is of the 
spiritual ruler of the present age or world-pertod (properly tov aiwos 
tovtov), just as in i Cor. 2^-^ tZw dp^ovTOiv tov alwvos tovtov denotes 



the earthly rulers of the present age. Aramaic has but one term 
^?rR (Syr. [ 4\\ji .) to denote aUHv and Koa-fjLos, and the Johannine 
rendering tov koo-/aov tovtov is less accurate than tov alCjvos tovtov, 
and mistranslates the original which must have been ^9r,V1 ^J^^"!^ 
r^n. It can hardly be doubted, then, that Ignatius drew his 
phrase from Jn., and the form in which he gives it suggests that 
he may have known the Aramaic original of the Gospel. 

To the Magnesians, 
I. Iv axs [iKKkria-Laui] Ivma-tv ev^o- Jn. 17^^ (quoted above on 

yw,at (TapKos kol Trvev/x^ro? *Ir)(rov Eph, 5). 
XpioTOV TOV 8ia TravTOS rjixwv t,rjvy 
irto-TCWS T€ Kttt dyaTrr/s rjq ovSev 

TrpOK€KpLTai, TO SI KVpiWT€pOV, ^IrjO-QV 

KOL Trarpos. 

5. w(nr€p yap €(TTLV vofiLO-paTa 8vo, Jn. 15'' ct €k tov koo-jxov ^tc, 6 
o jjiiv ©eov o 8c KocTfiov, Kai eKaaTov Koa-fios av to iSlov c^t'Acf ort Be Ik 
avTWV Ihiov \apaKTrjpa. CTrtKCt/xci'OV tov Koa-fMOv ovk iaTe, dAA* cyw e^c- 

€)(€l, 01 aTTLO-TOL TOV KOaflOV TOVTOV, XiidfirjV VfmS iK TOV KOOTflOVy 8ta 

OL 8e TTLCTTol €V ayoLTrrj )^apaKTrjpa 

®eov Trarpos 8ia 'It/o-oD XpiaTOv . . . 

5. TO ^yjv avTOv ovk Icttiv iv rjplv. 

TOVTO fiio-et v/xas o koot/jx)^. 

I Jn. 1^ y aXn^Oeia ovk Icttiv iv rj/juv. 

I Jn. I*° 6 Aoyos avTov ovk Io-tlv Iv 

Jn. 8^' 6 Aoyos 6 t/xos ov x^P^^ 
iv vfuv. 

I Jn. 3^" OVK l;j(€t t,(i)7]v al(i>vLOV iv 
avT(o fX€vov(rav. 

6. irdvTes ovv ofio^OiLav ©eov Jn. 13^ (quoted above on 

XaPovTes ivrpiiriaOe dXX.T^kov<i . . . Eph. 4). 
iv 'ly]<TOv X.pL(TTw dXXrjXovs 8ta 7rai/- 
To^ dyaTrdre. 

7. "Qanrep ovv 6 Kvptos dv€v tov Jn. 5'^ ov SvvaTai 6 vlbs ttouZv d<j> 
Trarpos ovSikv iTroirja-ev [i^vw/xo'os iaxrrov ovSev av firj rt ySXcTny tov 
wv], ... Trarcpa TroLovvTa. 

Jn. 8^ dTr' ifxavTov Trotw ovSiv, 



7. €7rt €va *Ir](Tovv XpicTov tov a<f> 
evos Trarpos TrpoeX^ovra Kal eis cva 

Kai xiaprjcravTa* 

8. OTL ets 0COS cCTTtv 6 <j>av€p(ji)(Ta<s 
iavTov Slol *Ir)<Tov Xjokttou tov vlov 

OS iaTiv avTov \6yos airo crty^s 

OS Kara Travra €vr)p€o-Tr](Tev t(o irefx- 
if/avTi avTov. 

9. TTws T7/X€ts Svvrja-ofiiOa ^rja-aL 
X<i>pi-S avTov ; cf. Trail. 9. ov ;(CD/)i9 

TO dXTy^tVOI' ^^V OVK €)(OfX€V. 

dXXa Ka^ojs eStSa^cV /x€ 6 Trar^p 
rarra XaXw. 
Jn. 10^^ €yo) Kttt 6 TraTTjp tv i(Tp.€v. 

Cf. also io^^=*'=*«. 

Jn. 16^ c^X^oi/ CK TOV irarpos koI 
iXrjXvOa ets toi^ Kocrfiov' ttolXlv d^try/tt 


TTttTcpa. Cf. 8^^ 13I 

Jn. I^^ 6 OiV €tS TOV KoXtTOV TOV 

7raTp6s. Cf. I4^^"-2«. 

Cf. 14^2-^ I6^«•'^ 

Jn. 17^ 'E</)ave/30)crd cov to ovofia. 

Jn. iiff- 

Jn. 8^^ Kttt 6 Tre fjnj/a<s fxe fieT ifiov 
icTTLv' . . . OTt iyo) TO. apcaTa avToi 
TTOtw TrdvTOTC. Cf. also with TW 

/I J / Ti-» >|34 - 

7r€ fjuf/avTL avToVi Jn. 4 , 5 ', 

638.39.44 „ 016.18.26 ^4 ' " 

21 -r^O „^21 

13"", H% I5'^ i6", 2o^ 
Jn. 15^^-. Cf. especially v. '" 

)((i)pLS ifiov. 

To the Trallians. 

Jn. 1512.6 xhe Father is the 
husbandman who tends the vine 
and removes the worthless 

II, <I>€vy€T€ ovv Ta.% KaKOLS Trapa- 
tfivdSas TttS y€Vva>o-as Kapirov OavaTr}- 
<f)6pov, ov eav y€V(rrjTat tl<s, irapavTa 
airoOvrjo-K^u ovtoi yap ovk eia-iv 
<f>vT€ia Tcarpos. 

Lightfoot compares Clement Alex. Paed. i. 8 KaOvXofxavel yap ixrj 

KXaSevofJievr) r^ d/XTrcXos, ovTOiS 8c /cat 6 avOpoyiros' KaOaipei Sk avTOV Tas 
iiv^pi^ovcras 7rapacf>vdBas 6 Xdyo?, ktX. The word 7rapa(f>vds denotes 

a side-growth or worthless sucker which detracts from the fertility 



of the plant. According to Aristotle, Plant, i. 4 Trapa<fivd8€<s Be ela-i 
TO. ttTTO T^s pit,y]'i Tov SivSpov ^XacrTavovTa. Thus the thought of 
Ignatius is allied to that of Jn., with the difference that the /x,^ 

<f>€pov KapTTOv of the latter becomes ra? y€vvoiaa<s KapTTOV 6avaT7]<f>6pov. 

In the last clause there is allusion to Mt. 15'^, Ilao-a (jiVTeta rjv ovk 

i<f>vT€va-ev 6 Trarr/p fiov 6 ovpdvLO<s iKpL^wOrja-eraL. 

II. Kttt ^v av 6 KapTTOs avrdv Jn. 15"' 
a<fiOapTo<:. h'-^^V- 

To the Romans. 

3. payiOov^ icrrlv 6 ^(jpurriavLcrp.o'i^ Jn. 15'^ 

6 KapTTOV Vp.tiiV 

OTav fJLLarjTai vtto koo-jxov. 

7. p-y] XaAetre ^l-qaovv ^pKXTov 
KO(r/xov 8c i7nOvp.€iT€. 

7. vBoip Sk ^(ov Kttt A.aAoi'j/ iv ip.OL, 
t(T(ji6ev /xoL Xiyov kt\.. 


Koap.o'i av TO lSlov et^iXct* oTt 8c t/c 
TOV k6(t/xov ovk co-tc, dXA.' €ya> c^c- 
Xeidp,rjv vftas c/c tov Koa-fJLOv, 8ia 

TOVTO p.L(T€L V/Att? 6 KOCTp-O^. 

I Jn. 2^° idv TL<s dyaira tov Kocrp^ov, 
OVK t(TTLV r) dyd-Trrj tov TraTpos iv avTw. 

Jn. 4**^ c8(o/c6v dv croi vScDp ^(x>v. 

Jn. 4*^ TO v8ajp o Sd)(TO) avrio yevri- 
(TCTUL iv avT(o Trrjyr] v8aT09 dX\op,ivov 
CIS ^(arjv ald)viov. Cf. also Jn. 7^. 

at^a avTOV, o ia-TLv ay drrrj d(f)0apTO<;. 

7. dprov 0€oi) ^cAo>, o co-Tii/ o"ap^ Jn. 6^"'^ 6 ttutt^p p-ov 8i8<si(TLV vp.iv 
TOV XptoTov . . . Kttt TTo/x-a OiXu) TO TOV dpTov €K TOV ovpuvov TOV oXrjOivov' 

6 yap dpTO^ TOV 0eov i(TT\v 6 KaTO- 
ySaiVcov CK TOV ovpavov Kat ^w^i/ 8i8ovs 
TO) Koa-pno. 

Jn. 6^^ 17 yap o-ap^ p.ov dXyjOrfi i<TTL 
fipu)orL<s, Kttt TO at/xa /xov ctAiy^i^s eo-Tt 

To the Philadelphians. 

2. TcKva ovv <I>o}t6<s dXtjOeia^,* Jn. 12^^ ws to ^(05 cx^^^ irto-TcvcTe 
«/)€vy€T€ TOV pLipL(Tp.ov KoX Ttts KttKO" CIS TO ^ws, iva vtoi <f><i)Tos ycvrjaOc, 

* Lightfoot's verdict is, 'The reading of the Greek MSS. (Jxutos dKrjOdas '<of 
the light of truth", cannot stand; for definite articles would almost certainly be 



SiSaa-KoXia^' ottov Be o Trot/tryv iarLV, Jn. lO"* orav ra tSta TrdvTa iKJSdXrj, 
i ::■'. hi r})3 tri IoVjj ).->£• tt oWol efiirpoa-Oev avrwv Tropeverat, koI ra 
yap XvKOL . . . ai)(jxa\uiTit,ov(Tiv tov? 7rp6/3aTa avrio aKoXovOcL. 


3. A7r4)(€(T6€ tQ>V KaKWV /3oTaVii)V, 

aarTLva<s ov ycwpyct Irjcrovs ^pi(tt6<;, 
OLOL TO /XT] €ivaL avTov^ (fiVTctav Trarpo?. 

Cf. on Trail. 11. 

7. TO TTvevjxa ov TrXavaTat. oltto ®€ov 
ov otSci/ yap TroOev tp)(erai /cat ttov 
vzrayei, /cat ra KpvTTTa cAey^^et. 

Z/.^^ Kttt 6 AvKos dpird^ei avrd Kat 

Jn. 15 


8. TrL(TT€V(a rfj )(dpLTi *lr](Tov Xpt- 
o"TOv, OS Avcret d^' vfxwv TrdvTa 

9. avTos tiv Ovpa tov Trarpos, St' -^s 
€l<r€p)(ovTaL *APpad/jL Kat lo-aaK Kat 
laKwyS Kat ot 7rpo(f>rJTaL Kat ot aTro- 
(TToXot Kat 17 iKKXyja-ia. 

Jn. 3^ TO TTvevfia OTTOV OiXei Tirtt, 
Kat T^v <f>(Dvr]v avTOv ctKOvet?, dAX' ovk 
otSas TTo^cv epx^Tai Kat ttov VTrayet" 
ovTO)? co-Ttv Tras 6 yeyevvr]jX€VO<s Ik tov 

Jn. 3'" Kat ouK tpy^erai irpo'i to (j^ws, 
iva /A"^ iXeyxOy ra e/yya avrov. 

Jn. S^'^'^^ Kat yvdxrea-Oe tyjv dX-^- 
OeiaVy Kat 17 dXiJ^cia iXevdepioaei 
vfids. . . . cav ovv 6 vl6<s vfxd^ eXev- 
Oepdio-rjy oi/Tws iXevOepoL eoreade. 

Jn. lO''^ iyd) elpLL rj Ovpa rwv 
TrpojSdTOiV. . . . lydi elfit rj Ovpa' St* 
kfxov idv TL<s ilcreXOrj (rwOrfcreTaL, 

required."^ The text might be mended by inserting a Kai, as the Armenian Version 
gives 'Might and truth". On such a point however a version has little weight, 
since this would be a very obvious expedient for a translator. I am disposed 
to think that xiKva dXrjOeias was the original reading of Ignatius ; and that 0<ut<Js 
was first intended as a substitution or a gloss or a parallel, suggested by the 
familiar scriptural phrase TtKva (yloV) </>cyTos'. It may be remarked, however, that 
the Aramaic method of expressing 'the true light ^ is NDEJ'Ipl NliHJ, Syr. 
jnjfc^f jjotcu ^ light of truth\ this latter being used e.g. to translate to ^ws t^ 
aXriQivov in Jn. i^. Thus ^outos a\T)6(las, which, according to Lightfoot 'is older 
than any existing authorities ', may well be an Aramaism, possibly pointing (like 
o dpxQJv TOV aiwvos rovrov noted on p. 154) to an acquaintance with the original 
Aramaic Gospel. For omission of the definite article in rendering such a Semitic 
phrase into Greek cf. Gen. 24*^ riDK "HUS ' in the true (right) way ' (lit. * in way 
of truth ') = LXX iv 65^ dXrjOdas, Ps. 118 (119)'® 65dv aKfjOfias T^peTiadfirjv. 


To the Smyrnaeans. 

I. TreirXrfpocfiopyjfjLevov^ ctS tov Jn. 3^^'^" Kat Ka^ws Mwvo-^S vi/^wo-ev 

Kvpiov rjfiwv . . . oiX.rjO(x)<; ctti Hovtiov tov o^iv iv rrj iprjfjiia, ovtcds ri^o)- 

IIiAaTOi; *cat 'HpcuSov rerpap-^ov OrjvaL Set tov viov tov av6p<iyjroVf Lva 

Ka6r}Xiiip.ivov virep rjp.(i)V iv crapKL' ttSs 6 TncrTevoiV iv avTw exy ^oirjv 

. . . iva apr; (rv(T(TY}fxov cts tovs atwviov. 

aiwvas 8ta t^s dvao-Tao-cws cts tovs Jn. 12^' Kayoi av vi/^w^oi cactus yi}?, 

dyt'oVS KoX TTLCTTOVS ttVTOV, €tT€ €V TrdvTttS cXkVO-W TTpOS i/XaVTOV. 

'lovSatbts ciT€ €1/ iOvecTLVi iv evl Cf. also Jn. ^-. 
(Tio/xaTL Tr]<5 iKK\r](TLa<s avTOV. 

The allusion of crva-a-rjfiov seems to be to the D?. * standard ' or 
'signal-post* on which the brazen serpent was set, Num. 21^^ 
LXX Koi Oh avTov €7rt (rr)fJi€LOv. D3 is rendered a-varcrrjpov by LXX in 
Isa. 5^^, 49^2, 62'". It is so rendered by Aquila in Ps. 60 (59/, 
Isa. 11'", 33^'*; by Symmachus in Isa. 11^", 33^'; and by Theodotion 
in Isa. 33^. 

2. Reminiscences of the Odes of Solomon in the 
Epistles of St. Ignatius. 

The principal passages from which Drs. Rendel Harris and 
Mingana argue that the Odes were familiar to Ignatius are as 
follows : 

Ode 38' « 

jlcU2»^9 tiXl.'^JO yO O » S '^ \ 

*But Truth proceeds in the right path, 
And whatever I did not know it made clear to me; 
Even all the drugs of error, 
And the plagues of death which men think to be sweetness.* * 

* In the last line the Syriac construction is somewhat harsh; lit. 'And the 
plagues which they think to be sweetness, of death '. The separation of * of 
death ' from ' the plagues ' (if not merely an accidental misplacement) may have 
been dictated by desire to bring it into sharp contrast to ' sweetness ', the sense 
being, 'And the plagues which they think to be sweetness, (though they be the 
plagues) of death '. 


In Trail. 6 Ignatius warns his readers against the teaching of 
heretics in the following terms : ' For these men do even mingle 
poison with Jesus Christ, imposing upon others by a show of 
honesty, like persons administering a deadly drug with honied 
wine, so that one who knoweth not, fearing nothing, drinketh in 
death with a baneful delight * (wo-Trcp Oavda-Lfiov <j>ap^aKOv StSdi/res /xera 
oiro/xeAiTOS, OTTcp 6 ayvouiv aZ^oi^i Xajx/^dvei iv -qSovrj KaKrj to ciTro^avcti/). 

In the view of the editors ')la*:^»*. halyuthd is not merely "sweet- 
ness", but something with which the poison is taken, i.e. a sweet 
drink *. This is substantiated by a passage in which Ephrem states 
that Bardaisan, in composing his Psalter in imitation of David, 
' was administering to the simple bitters in halyuthd \ It is a fair 
inference, then, that the olvofxeXi of Ignatius corresponds to the 
Syr. halyuthd. Thus both the Ode and Ignatius compare heretical 
teaching to a poisonous drug concealed in a sweet drink, so that 
men imbibe it unwittingly. The coincidence in thought can hardly 
be accidental. 

Ode ii« 

wloo>tiftN ci^;jd llS^o |uJ)Oo 

'And speaking waters drew near my lips 
From the fountain of the Lord, without stint.' 

Ignatius, Rom. 7 ; ' My lust hath been crucified, and there is no 
fire of material longing in me, but only water living and speaking 
in me, saying within me. Come to the Father* (vSwp Sk ^lov koL 

AaA.ov»/ iv ifxoL, ecrw^cv /xoi Xcyov* Aevpo irpos tov Traripa). 

In explanation of XaXow, Lightfoot cites Jortin (Eccles. Hist, i, 
pp. 356 f.) as finding an allusion to the heathen superstition that 
certain waters communicated a prophetic power to the people 
drinking them. As there was one of these ' speaking * fountains at 
Daphne (Sozomen, HE. v. 19 ; Evagrius i. 16), the famous suburb 
of Antioch, Jortin supposes that the image could readily suggest 
itself to Ignatius. Lightfoot himself is inchned to question the 
text, and to prefer the interpolator's text aXXo/terov (cf. Jn. 4^^); but 
the correctness of XaXovv is now confirmed by the passage in the 
Ode, with which we can hardly fail to trace a connexion. 


In assessing the character of that connexion, in this and the 
former passage, Drs. Harris and Mingana remark with justice that 
'it is far more likely that Ignatius, writing letters rapidly on his 
western journey, should quote the Hymn-book of the time, than 
that the early Hymn-book should have picked up an obscure 
passage in a letter which had hardly got into circulation at a very 
early date '.* 

Ode 17^'^'^ 

«.^/ «^ uJ:^ ^u*ll f^ Do 

.yOj/ );jfci0.ii. ^*^^! yOO^^O "^.v )is».oo» ^)io 

'And nothing appeared closed to me; 
Because I was the door of everything : 
And I went towards all my bondmen to loose them '. 

Cf Ignatius, Phil. 8, 'Christ Jesus shall loose you from every 
bond '. This is followed by the statement (9) that ' He is the door 
of the Father, by which enter Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and 
the Prophets and the Apostles and the Church'; i.e. Jesus 
Christ is the door o^ everybody, which is an explanation of 'the 
door 0/ everything' in the Ode. 


The connexion of this passage with Ignatius, Rom. 2, has 
already been noticed on p. 131, n. I. 

These are the principal parallels between the Odes and the 
letters of Ignatius which Drs. Harris and Mingana have collected. 
The few others which they cite are of but slight importance. The 
case for Ignatius's knowledge of the Odes is, however, considerably 
strengthened when it is noticed that in Eph. 19 he actually seems 
to be quoting at length an ode of a similar character. The passage 
runs as follows : 

Kai iXadev rov ap^ovra tov alOivos tovtov rj TrapOevia Maptas koX 6 
TOKCTos avT^Sj 6/AOtws Kol 6 OdvaTO<s TOV K.vpLov rpia fivo-rqpLa Kpavyrj'i, 
ariva iv r]crv)(La @eov €7rpd)^0r]. ttojs ovv icfiavepwOi^ rois al(o(rLV ; dcTTrjp iv 
ovpav^ €\afx\f/€V virkp Travras Tov<i acTTipas, kol to ^tus avTOv dv€K\dX.rjTOV ■^v, 
KOL $€Via-fi6v 7rap€2\€v rj KaLVOTtjs avTOV' to. Sk koLira irdvTa dcTTpa djxa rjXiia 

* op. at. ii, p. 43. 

2620 M 


/cat creXi^vr} )(opo<s iyevero tw darepL, avrbs Se rjv v7r€p^dXX(x)v to <^a)S avrov 
virep TrdvTa' rapa^ t€ ^v TroOev ri Kaivorrjs rj dvopiOLO^ avrot?. oOev IXvero 
Trdo-a /xaycta, kol ttus SecTjaos r^cfiavL^eTO KttKt'a?, ayvota KuOyp^LTO, TraXata 
^acrtXcta 8L€<f>0€ip€TO,* ®€0v dvOpoiTTivios <f>avipoviJL€vov CIS KatvoTrjTa di'Siov 
^(D^S. ^PXW ^^ lXdp,fiaviv TO Trapa ©eov dTrqpTKrp-ivov. ivOev to, Travra 
cn;i/€KtV€tTO Sia to p^eXeTdaOaL Oavdrov KaTdXv<rLV. 

It seems clear that the description of the Incarnation introduced 
by the query ttws ovv i<f>av€pd)Or) rots aluxriv; which is poetical in 
character and not in Ignatius's usual style, is a hymn which he is 
quoting. Translated into Syriac it is seen to consist of four 
stanzas, carefully constructed to consist of 4, 6, 6, 4 lines. The 
following translation is based, from oOev iXv€To -n-da-a /xaycta, upon the 
Syriac version of the letter, in which the earlier part of the poem 
is not included. 

loot ^^^<«]^«J)0 1)9 otfotcuo 

yOo»^^ ll^^Cd? lo«Jk,0 
. . OC»No ^^^ OtVotCU loot 9]^s.kJ^9 

jlol«^ \a*! ^ )oot |l:^o)o 

.yOO»i^ l^^t V} wot 

*. ^*qS^ )Iqj>^.7>» liicixoio 

loot )»l]^m.>P JIoa.^ 

*. ]«^/ ]]^u&^]^>«J^ )lon\.v>o 

* Following the older punctuation. Lightfoot punctuates 66cv (Kvero -ndaa fxa-ycia 
KOL Tids hioyioSf i]<pavi.^eTO Kaxias dyvoiUj KaOrjpeiTO irakaid fiaaiKfia, [Si^pOfipeTo], 
regarding the last verb as a gloss. This, from the poetical point of view, upsets 
the balance altogether. 


.)Icl:«o9 om;a |oo) "^j^A^lsoof 

1. A star shone forth in the heaven, 
Surpassing all the stars; 

And its light was not to be uttered, 
And its newness caused amaze. 

2. Then all the rest of the stars, 
Together with sun and moon, 
Joined in concourse round the star ; 
But its light outshone them all. 
Bewildered, they questioned whence came 
The new thing, unlike to themselves. 

3. Thenceforth was magic annulled. 
And bonds of evil dissolved ; 
Error was swept away, 

And the ancient kingdom passed ; 
When God appeared in the flesh 
Unto newness of life without end. 

4. I'hus was begun the scheme 
Perfected in God*s design : 
Hence all things were perturbed 

For that death's destruction was planned. 

In this ode the following points of connexion with the thought 
of the Odes of Solomon may be noticed : 

1. Conception of the star shining in the world. 

Ode S*^ ' Let not the Luminary be conquered by darkness ; 

Nor let Truth flee away from falsehood*. 
Ode 41'^ 'And Light dawned from the Word 

That was beforetime in H im \ 

2. The stars gather round the new star, and express their 

Ode 12^ 'And the Most High hath given Him to His worlds, 

(Worlds) which are the interpreters of His own beauty, 
And the repeaters of His praise*. 
M 2 


3. ' And bonds of evil dissolved *. 
Ode 17"^ 'My choking bonds were cut off by His hand'. 
Ode 21^^ 'Because He hath cast off my bonds from me'. 
Ode 25^ ' I was rescued from my bonds ', 
Ode 42^" ' And bring me out from the bonds of darkness '. 
Ode 17*' (Christ speaks) 

'And I went towards all my bondsmen to loose them, 
That I might not leave any man bound and binding'. 

* Error was swept away '. 

Ode 7^^' ' For ignorance hath been destroyed, 

Because the knowledge of the Lord hath arrived '. 

We have adopted l^cu:^ ' error ' in our rendering, following the 
Syriac text. The Greek, however, has ayvoia, which is exactly 
ll^j:^^.. JJ (lit. 'not- knowledge') of the Ode. We have both terms 
in the following passage : 

Ode 18^"" 'And error ()lcb^) Thou knowest not, 
For neither doth it know Thee. 
And ignorance (Jl^^J^?-» U) appeared like dust, 
And like the scum of the sea'. 

Ode 38" 'And error fled away before Him, 
And would not meet Him '. 

With the whole passage cf. Ode 22^^- (where Christ is represented 
as speaking) : 

* He who scattered My enemies 
And My adversaries ; 
He who gave Me authority over bonds. 
That I might loose them ; 

He that overthrew by My hand the dragon with seven heads, 
And set Me at his roots that I might destroy his seed — 
Thou wast there and didst help Me; 
And in every place Thy name was round about Me'. 

Later on in the same Ode we read — 

'Thou dt'dsi bring Thy world to corruption, 
That everything might be dissolved and renewed, 
And on it Thou didst build Thy kingdom ; 
And it became the dwelling-place of the saints '. 


This recalls the passage in our Ignatian ode — 

'And the ancient kingdom passed {]J:>1 perished); 
When God appeared in the flesh 
Unto newness of life without end*. 

4. * Hence all things were perturbed, &c/ 
What is covered by the expression 'all things' ? It is difficult 
to think that the whole universe is intended ; since, though the 
verb o-wcKivctTo = a:Sw» ill ( might mean simply 'were moved' or 
' excited ', we hardly expect the terror and disquiet of the powers 
of evil and the joyous excitement of mankind destined to be 
redeemed to be included under one term. Probably the thought 
uppermost in the poet's mind is of the powers belonging to the 
ancient kingdom, responsible for the magic, the bonds of evil, and 
the error mentioned in stanza 3. The somewhat obscure Ode 24 
seems to describe a similar state of perturbation caused by our 
Lord's baptism in the ancient order of things which through this 
event was condemned to pass away ; and this is perhaps pictured 
as universal, tt)v twv a-aXevo/xivoyv fieTaOea-Lv ws imroiyj^iviiiv, ha fJieivri to, 
fxrj (raXevofxeva. 

' The Dove flew over the head of our Lord the Messiah, 
Because He was her Head ; 

And she sang over Him, 
And her voice was heard ! 

And the inhabitants were afraid. 
And the sojourners trembled ; 

The birds took to flight. 

And all creeping things died in their holes. 

And the abysses were opened and closed ; 

And they were seeking for the Lord, like (women) in travail : 

But He was not given to them for food 
Because He did not belong to them : 

And the abysses were submerged in the submersion of the 

Lord ; 
And they perished in the thought in which they had existed 

from, the beginning. 


For they travailed from the beginning, 
And the end of their travail was Hfe. 

And every one of them that was defective perished ; 
For it was not permitted to them to make a defence for 
themselves that they might remain'. 

Drs. Harris and Mingana compare a somewhat similar passage 
at the beginning of Ode 31 : 

'The abysses were dissolved before the Lord; 
And darkness was destroyed by His appearance. 

Error went astray 

And disappeared from Him, 

And (as for) Falsehood, I gave it no path, 

And it was submerged by the Truth of the Lord *. 

' For that death's destruction was planned '. 

Ode 15^ ' Death hath been destroyed before my face ; 
And Sheol hath been abolished by my word. 
Ahd there hath gone up deathless life in the Lord's 

Thus our Ignatian ode appears throughout to be thoroughly in 
keeping with conceptions contained in the Odes of Solomon. 

3. Reminiscences of the Johannine literature in the 
Odes of Solomon. 

The list includes some points of connexion with the Apocalypse. 

Ode i^ 'For I should not have i Jn. 4'^ 'We love (Him) be- 

nown how to love the Lord, if cause He first loved us'. 
He had not loved me '. 

Ode i^ 'And where His rest Jn. 14^ ' That where I am, there 
is, there also am I '. ye may be also '. 

Ode i^ ' For he that is joined Jn. 14'^ ' Because I live, ye shall 
to Him that is immortal, will live also '. 
himself also become immortal ; 
and he that hath pleasure in the 
Living One, will become living '. 

Ode i"^ 'This is the Spirit of 
the Lord, that doth not lie '. 

Ode 7^ ' He became like me, 
that I might receive Him ; in 
fashion was he reckoned like 
me, that I might put Him on *. 

Ode 8" ' Pray, and continue 
in the love of the Lord ; 

Ye beloved ones, in the 
Beloved ; 

And ye that are kept, in Him 
that lived (again) *. 


Cf. ijn. 4^-^ 


Ode 9'^ 'And all those that 
have overcome shall be written 
in His book'. 

Ode 9'- ' For their inscription 
is the victory, which is yours '. 

Ode 10' 'I (Christ) took the 
world captive *. 

Ode 10^ 'And the nations were 
gathered together as one that 
were scattered abroad *. 

Ode 10'' 'And the traces of the 
light were set upon their heart ; 
and they walked in My life and 
were saved; and they became 
My people for ever and ever '. 

Jrr. i^^ 'And the Word became 
flesh, and tabernacled among 


Jn. i'- 'But as many as re- 
ceived Him, to them gave He 
power to become the sons of 

Jn. 15'' 'Continue ye in My 
love '. 

Jn. 15^ 'As the Father hath 
loved Me, so have I loved you '. 

Jn. 17'^ 'Keep them in Thy 
name '. 

V. '- ' I have kept them in Thy 
name '. 

v,^'^ 'That Thou shouldest keep 
them from the evil (one)'. 

Jn. 14" 'Because I live'. 

Apoc. 3' ' He that ovcrcometh 
... I will in no wise blot his 
name out of the book of life '. 

I Jn. 5^ 'And this is the victory 
that overcometh the world, even 
our faith '. 

Jn. i6-'^ 'I have overcome the 
world '. 

Jn. II'- 'That He might gather 
together into one the children of 
God that are scattered abroad '. 

Apoc. 21^' (Pesh.) 'And the 
nations that are saved shall walk 
by the light thereof. 

Apoc. 21^ 'And they shall be 
His peoples' (Pesh. 'people'). 

Apoc. ii^° 'The kingdom of the 
world has become our Lord's 

1 68 


Ode 17'" 'And nothing ap- 
peared closed to Me, because 
I was the door of everything '. 

Ode 18^ "^ ' O Lord, for the sake 
of them that are deficient, do not 
deprive me of the Word . . . Let 
not the luminary be conquered 
by the darkness, nor let Truth 
flee av^^ay from falsehood \ 

Ode 22'' (Christ speaks) ' He 
that overthrevi^ by My hands the 
dragon with seven heads, and 
set Me at his roots that I might 
destroy his seed '. 

Ode 30^ ^ ' Fill ye water for 
yourselves from the living foun- 
tain of the Lord ; for it hath been 
opened to you : 

And come, all ye thirsty, and 
take a drink, and rest by the 
fountain of the Lord '. 

Ode 36^ (Christ speaks) 'And 
although a Son of Man, I was 
named the Luminary, the Son 
of God \ 

Ode 41^^ 'And His Word was 
with us in all our way, even the 
Saviour who giveth life and doth 
not reject our souls \ 

Ode 41^^ 'And light dawned 

and His Christ's, and He shall 
reign for ever and ever '. 

Jn. 10^ ' I am the door ; by Me 
if any enter in, he shall be 
saved \ 

Jn.iiff-' The Word'. 

V.''' 'And the Light shineth in 
the darkness, and the darkness 
obscured it not '. 

Apoc. 12^ 'And there was seen 
another sign in heaven : and, 
behold, a great red dragon, 
having seven heads, &c.' Cf. 
the whole chapter. 

Jn. 4^° 'Thou wouldest have 
asked of Him, and He would 
have given thee living water'. 

V. ^^ ' The water that I shall give 
him shall become in him a fount 
of water for life eternal'.* Cf. 
Jn. 7^ as emended on p. tig. 

Jn. f* ' If any man thirst, let 
him come unto Me and drink'. 

Jn. I" 

That was the true 

Jn. i^ff- 'The Word'. 

Jn. 6='" 'That giveth life to the 
world '. 

V. ^' ' Him that cometh to Me 
I will in no wise cast out '. 

Jn. i^" 'In Him was light, and 

* So Sin. and Cur., omitting * springing up '. 



from the Word, that was before- 
time in Him*. 

Ode 41^^* 'The Messiah is truly 
One; and He was known 
before the foundation of the 
world *. 

the light was the life of men. 
And the light shineth in dark- 
ness '. 

Jn. 17-^ ' For Thou lovedst Me 
before the foundation of the 
world *. 

From the poetical character of the Odes it is obvious that more 
or less exact quotations could hardly be expected ; yet even so, 
some of the above-noticed coincidences are very remarkable. 
Ode 8^^ is entirely built up upon thoughts derived from the Last 
Discourses of Jn. Ode 9^^ is a fairly close representation of 
Apoc. 3^ Ode 10'*^ is a passage which illustrates very remarkably 
the poet*s use of the Johannine writings. His theme is the 
gathering of the Gentile nations into the Church ; and he seems 
deliberately to have selected outstanding passages on this subject 
. from Jn. and Apoc, and worked them up in a manner which utilizes 
their most striking phrases. This appears very clearly through 
comparison of the Syriac text with the corresponding phrases of 
Pesh. in Jn. and Apoc. 

'And were gathered together 
as one 

Imm^^ jUAJ 

'He might gather together 

into one ' 

Jn. 11'^ 

the nations 

the nations' 
Apoc. 21^* 

that were scattered 

abroad ; 

ooot ^»,-^v>» 

' that were scattered 
abroad ' 
Jn. ir- 

and were set the 

of light 

JfO)QJ fj>^ 

' by the light 
Apoc. 21-^ 

upon their 

and they walked 
in My life 

' and they shall 
Apoc. 21-^ 



and were saved 

' that are saved ' 
Apoc. 21-' 

and they became My people 



<H^? IcAJ^ 


'and they shall be His 

people ' 

Apoc. 21^ 

for ever and ever *. 

' for ever and ever *. 
Apoc. 11^' 

We notice incidentally that the text of Pesh. appears to be 
presupposed in Apoc. 21^^ (cu5-i3l!>=Twi/ arw^ofxivwv. WH. om.) and 

Apoc. 21^ {o^*} |jaaJi^ = Aao5 avTov. WH. Xaol avTov). 

These three lines of evidence taken together form an argument 
for the early date of the Fourth Gospel which is exceedingly 
weighty. St. Ignatius, writing in a.d. no, was thoroughly familiar 
with the Theology of Jn. and i Jn., and therefore (we must surely 
infer) with the documents themselves. He also appears to have 
known the Odes of Solomon, and at any rate quotes an ode which 
is marked by the same lines of thought. Lastly, the Odes of 
Solomon appear unmistakably to have known not merely Jn. and 
I Jn., but also the Apocalypse. The knowledge of the Apocalypse 
shown in the Odes is perhaps the most surprising fact of all. 
If Ignatius knew the Odes, they are carried back, if not to the 
first century, at any rate to the very beginning of the second. 
But if the Apocalypse is, as is commonly thought, not earlier than 
the last years of Domitian's reign, i.e. c. a.d. 95, there scarcely 
seems sufficient time for the book to have influenced the Odes; 
even when we make full allowance for the facts that intercourse 
between Ephesus and Antioch was easy, and that the Apocalypse 
was precisely the kind of work which was likely to gain ready 
circulation in the east, and to be speedily utilized in time of 
persecution. This difficulty seems, however, to be resolved by 
the consideration that the book, if as late as Domitian, is generally 
admitted to embody much earlier elements ; and it may be from 
these that the reminiscences in the Odes are drawn . 

The weakest strand in our threefold cord is undoubtedly that 
which postulates Ignatius's knowledge of the Odes of Solomon. 
Though it will probably be admitted, upon the evidence adduced, 
that Ignatius quotes a hymn like the Odes, and though the evidence 
that he was interested in hymnology and actually knew some of 


the Odes is sufficiently striking, it has not been proved that he 
knew all the Odes, or that they are all by one hand, and not (like 
a modern hymn-book) the work of different authors at various 
dates. At present, however, the fact which principally concerns 
us is Ignatius's knowledge of the Fourth Gospel, which seems to 
be proved to demonstration. The manner in which he utilizes 
its. teaching shows further that his acquaintance with it was not 
merely superficial, but that he had assimilated it through a familiarity 
extending over many years. This thoroughly favours the theory 
of the Antiochene origin of the Gospel.* 

* The peculiar character of Ignatius's indebtedness to the thought of the Fourth 
Gospel is emphasized by Freiherr von der Golz {Ignatius von Antiochien ah Christ 
vmd Theologe, in Texte und Uniersuchungen, Band xii), and by Dr. Sanday {Criticism 
of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 242 ff.). The former scholar concludes (p. 130) that 
' Ignatius must have come under the prolonged influence of a community itself 
influenced by Johannean thought'. Dr. Sanday says, ' I do not think there can be 
any doubt that Ignatius had digested and assimilated to an extraordinary degree 
the teaching which we associate with the name of St. John ... I had occasion 
a few years ago to study rather closely the Ignatian letters, and I was so much 
impressed by it as even to doubt whether there is any other instance of resemblance 
between a biblical and patristic book, that is really so close. Allowing for a 
certain crudity of expression in the later writer and remembering that he is a 
perfervid Syrian and not a Greek, he seems to me to reflect the Johannean 
teaching with extraordinary fidelity.' The writer concludes by expressing his 
belief that, to explain the connexion in thought, the alternative lies between falling 
back upon the tradition that Ignatius was an actual disciple of St. John, or 'had 
actually had access to the Johannean writings years before the date of his journey 
to Rome, and that he had devoted to them no mere cursory reading but a close and 
careful study which had the deepest effect upon his mind '. Elsewhere in the same 
work (p. 199) Dr. Sanday remarks, 'I have long thought that it would facilitate our 
reconstruction of the history of early Christian thought, if we could assume an 
anticipatory stage of Johannean teaching, localized somewhere in Syria, before the 
Apostle reached his final home at Ephesus. This would account more easily than 
any other hypothesis for the traces of this kind of teaching in the Didache, and in 
Ignatius, as well as in some of the early Gnostic systems.' 


Abbahu, R., 117 

Abbott, Dr. E. A., 57, 65, 66, 68 

Abraham sees the day of the Son of 
Man, III f. 

Abrahams, Dr. I., 143 

Acta Thoniae, 27, 55, 67, 95 

Adam, first and second, 45, 47 

Akiba, R., 23 

Alexandrine influence on Fourth Gos- 
pel, theory of, 39, 127 

Allen, Canon W. C, 2, 7, 16, 17, 18, 19, 
77, 86, 90, 106 

Ammi, R , 22 

Amoraim, 22 

Andrew, 147, 148 

Anna, 107 

Antioch, as home of Fourth Gospel, 
129 ff., 171 

Aorist Participle describing action an- 
terior to finite verb, 56 f, 151 

Apocal3pse, Greek of, 15, 149 ff. ; author- 
ship of, 149 ff. ; date of, 170 

' Apostle ', wider usage of term, 140 

Aquila, 23, 123, 159 

Aramaic, Palestinian, 20 ff. ; rise of use 
of, among the Jews, 21 

Aramaic constructions and usages con- 
trasted with Hebrew. 7 ff., 12 f., 13, 
14, 15, 16 f., 49 f., 53, 61 fif., 96, 99 

Aramaisms, 7 fT. 

Aristion, 135 

Asyndeton, in Aramaic, 49 f., 52 f., 54 f. ; 
in Fourth Gospel, 18, 50 fF. ; in Mark, 
18, 54 ; in Apocalypse, 150 f. 

Bacher, Dr. W., 22, 23, 24 

Ball, Dr. C. J., 2, 29!'., 103, 104, 107, 

Barnabas, Epistle of, 47 
Bertholdt, L., 2 
Berliner, Dr. A., 21, 22, 23 
Bertholet, Prof. A., 21 
Blass, Prof. F., 39 
Bolten, I. A., 2 
Bousset, Prof. W., 133 
Box, Prof. G. H.,48 
Brazen serpent, 159 
Brockelmann, Dr. C, 86 
Biichler, Dr., 143 

Burkitt, Prof. F. C, 26, 27, 28, 68, 89 
Casus pendens, 6. 34, 63 ff., 151. 

Charles, Dr. R. H., 15.96, 136, 137, 150, 

15^ 152 
Chwolson, Dr , 143 
Conybeare, Mr. F. C, 130 
Creation, the Incarnation regarded as a 

new, 43 fT. 
Cureton, Dr. W., 26, 77 

Dalman, Prof. G. II., 7, 13, 20, 23, 24, 
25. 39, 40, 55 

Daniel, Aramaic section in Book of, 20 ; 
asyndeton in, 49 f. 

Daphne, speaking fountain of, t6o 

Deissmann, Prof. A., 4. 5, 39 

DelfT, Prof. H., 133 

Delitzsch, Prof. Franz, 115 

Demonstrative Pronouns, 82 ff. 

Diatessaron, 25f., 77, 130 

Discourses in Fourth Gospel, authen- 
ticity of, 143 

Driver, Prof. S. R., 20, 24, 25, 42, 61, 
63, 96, 115 

Duval, R., 27 

Egypt, Jews in, 4 f. 

Ellipse, 32 

Enforcement of verbal idea, 13 

Ephesus, supposed writing of Fourth 

Gospel at, 127; John of, 130, 134 ff., 

Eusebius, 77, 78, 134, 135, 137, 138, 140, 

Evagrius, 160 
Evangelion da-M^liaWte, 26 
Evangelion da-M^phavr^shc, 26 
Ewald, Prof. H., 2, 68 
Ezra, Aramaic sections in Book of, 20 

Florinus, 138 

Gamaliel the elder, 22, 46 ; Gamaliel 1 1 . 22 
Gemara, 22 

Genitive absolute, 57 ff., 151 
Genitive anticipated by Possessive Pro- 
noun, 19, 85 
Georgius Hamartolus, 136 
' Glory of the Lord, the ', 36 ff. 
Golz, Freiherr von der, 171 
Gore, Dr. C, 109 
Grabe, J. E., 77 
Greek, character of Biblical, 3 ff. 



Greek words and phrases : 

aKokovdfiv orriao}, 8 

dXrjOivos, 153 

dfivos = falyd, 107 f. 

dvdfHtiTTCS = Tts, 99 

dvOpojiros l£ ovpavov, 6 SfvTfpos, 117 

direKpiOr], dtiiKpiO-qaav as asyndeton 
opening of sentence, 52 AT. 

d-nb irpoawnov, 15 

dpxojv Tov aiS/vos tovtov, 6, 154 

7ap, 69, 151 

ytypaiTTai, 46 

5e, sparse use of, in Fourth Gospel and 
Mark, 18, 69 ; extreme rarity of, in 
Apocalypse, 151 

SiSaipii in wide range of senses, 15 

So£a, 36 flf. 

ky€v(To introducing time-determina- 
tion, II f. 

€\€y(v, (Keyov, frequency of Imper- 
fects, 18, 92, 93 

evavTi, kvavTiov, 14 

(vdimov, 14 

inl Trpoccjnov {irpoauntov), 15 

kcrfcrjpucfev, 35 ff. 

tvdvs in Mark, 68 

ijpiaTo auxiliary, 19 

IVa, frequency of, in Fourth Gospel, 69, 
70 ; Mark's i'va avoided by the other 
Synoptists, 70 flf. ; Aramaic character 
of iVa construction, 70, 72 ff. ; Iva = 
conjunctive ' that', 18, 19, 70 flf. ; 
mistranslation of Aramaic relative, 
18, 19, 32, 75f., loi ; mistranslation 
of "1 = ' when ', 19, 78. 

iva pLT), 19, 69, 70, 100, 151. 

Kai linking co-ordinate sentences, 5 f., 
56 ; Unking contrasted statements, 18, 
33, 66 f., 151 ; introducing apodosis 
after time-determination, 11 f. 

\afiPdv€iv Ttpoaojvov, 15 

Ae7«i, Keyovaiv, asyndeton, 54 flf. ; 
Historic Presents, 87, 89. 

fiay5o}\o(pv\a^, 5 

fjiev, 68 

ofioKoyeiv Iv, 8 

ovofJLa avTw, 30 f., 151 

ore introducing temporal clause, 58 ff. 

on mistranslation of Aramaic relative, 
18, 76 f. ; mistranslation of "n = 
* when', 78 

ov . . . dvdpunos = ' no one ', 19, 99 

ov firj . . . ets rbv a'.wva, 18, 99 

oZu, 66, 68 

TTttS (frar) . . . ov (h'n), 98 

iriareveiv ds, 18, 34 

^^VPVh 39 

■nvfv/Jia (cuoiroiovv, 45 f. 

TToAAd, adverbial, 19 

■jTopeveaOai {vvdyeiv) ds tlp-qvqvj 14 

TTpo npoaunov, 15 

vpos = ' with', 18, 28 f. 

■npoaTiBr)p,i in place of itdXiv or similar 
adverb, 14 

iTpo(ra)no\ri/j.rrTrjs, npoaojiroXrjuipia, 15 

p^fia = ' thing ', 108 f. 

odp^ and irvev/xa, 45 

arijpi^eiv to -npoaoj-nov , 15 

TiKva ({xvTis d\rj6eias, 157 f. 

<po0eia0ai diro, 8 

Xpiaros not employed as title by the 
Baptist, 106 

us introducing temporal clause, 58 
Grotius, H,, 2 
Glidemann, Dr., 143 

Haggdda, 23, 132 

Hdldkhd, 23 

Harnack, Prof. A., 135 

Harris, Dr. J. Rendel, 29, 131, 159 flf. 

Hawkins, Sir J. C. {HS."^), 8, 16, 69, 70, 

87, 88, 92 
Hebraisms, 7 flf. 
Hebrew, New, contrasted with Biblical 

Hebrew, 17, 150 
Hebrew Bible employed by writer of 

Fourth Gospel, 114 flf. ; by writer of 

Apocalypse, 150 
Hegesippus, 77 
Hillel, R., 22, 24 
Historic Present in Fourth Gospel, 18, 

54 flf., 87 flf.; in Mark, 16, 18, 88, 89; 

in LXX, 16 
Hiya, R., 116, 117 
Hoshaiah, R., 45 

Ignatius, Epistles of, 130 f.; reminis- 
cences of Fourth Gospel and First 
Epistle of St. John in, 153 flf., 170, 
171 ; Syriac ode quoted in, 161 flf. 

Imperfect in Fourth Gospel, 90 flf. 

Inge, Dr. W. R., 131 

Irenaeus, 135, 136, 138 flf. 

Jacob, 1 15 flf. 

Jerome, 137 

Jerusalem, predominance of scenes at or 

near, in Fourth Gospel, 143, 148 
John, Epistles of, 137, 149 ; First Epistle 

of, 131, 153 flf., 166 f ; Second and 

Third Epistles of, 137 
John, Gospel of, style of, 5 flf., 149; a 

product of Palestinian thought, 39, 

126 f. ; written in Palestine or Syria, 

127 flf. ; date of, 128 ; glosses in, 129 ; 
author of, 133 ff. ; discourses in, 143 

John the Baptist, 104 flf. ; the disciples 
of, 147 

John the presbyter, 135 flf., 152 ; author 
of the Fourth Gospel, 137 

John the son of Zebedee, 133, 134, 135 f., 
138, 141, 146 flf. ; tradition of martyr- 
dom of, 136, 137 



Jonathan ben Uzziel, 24 
Joseph of Arimathaea, 134 
Joseph of Pumbeditha, R., 24 
Joshua ben Levi, R., 22 

KoivY] dialect, 4 ff., 57, 65, 70 

Last Supper, 144 

Lewis, Mrs,, 26 

Lightfoot, Dr. John, 33 

Lightfoot, Dr. J. B., i, 11, 130, 135, 137, 

156, 157, 160, 162 
Logos-conception, origin of, 37 fF. 
Luke, nationahty of, 10 f. ; Gospel of, 

style of, Sff. ; Hebraisms in, 11 ff. ; 

Birth-narrative of, 16, 44, 47 f. 
Luthardt, Prof. C. E., 2 

Malchus, 134 

Mark, Gospel of, Aramaic style of, 2, 7f., 

16 ff., 29; comparison of style with 

that of Fourth Gospel, 18 f. 
Marmorstein, Dr., 143 
Martin, Raymund, 46 
Matthew, Gospel of. See Q document. 
Mechilta, 3, 33, 64 
Memrd, 38 f. 
Messiah in Rabbinic Literature, 44, 

Midrashim, 17, 25 
Midrash Rabba, 3, 9, 33, 44, 45, 46, 56, 

no, 112, 1 16 f. 
Milligan, Prof. G., 4, 5 
Mingana, Dr., 131, 159 ff. 
Mishna, 17, 22, 50 
Mistranslation of an Aramaic original, 

in Q, 9f. ; in Fourth Gospel, 18, 19, 

29, 30, 32, 34, 39, 40» 75ff-> Toiff. ; in 

Mark, 76, 77 
Moffatt, Dr. J., 135, 136 
Moses had-Darshan, 46 
Moulton, Prof. J. H., 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 39, 

Muratorian Canon, 128 
Mysticism in Fourth Gospel and 

St. Paul, 132 

Negatives, 98 ff. 
Nestle, Dr. £.,25 
N^we shdlom, 45 
Nicodemus, 134 
Noldeke, Prof. T., 23, 24 

Old Testament quotations in Fourth 

Gospel, ii4ff. 
Onkelos, origin of name, 23 

Palestinian Syriac Lectionary, 25, 26 
Papias, 134 ff., 141 

Papyri, modern discoveries of Greek, 

Parataxis, in papyri, 5 f. ; in Semitic 
literature, 6; in Fourth Gospel, 5f., 

18, 56 ff.; in Mark, 18; in Apoca- 
lypse, 151 

Participle, change of construction after, 

19, 96, 152 

Participle in Aramaic, 88 f. ; with Sub- 
stantive verb, 92 f. ; as Futurutn in- 
starts, 94 

Paul, St., Aramaic influence upon style 
of, 29 ; Theological conceptions of, 
43 ff. ; Rabbinic influence upon, 45 f., 
132 ; relation of writer of Fourth 
Gospel to, 45, 47, 132, 145 f. 

Payne Smith, Dr. R., 10, 30, in 

' Perez, the son of, 46 

Personal Pronouns, frequency of, in 
Fourth Gospel, 79 ff. ; in Semitic, 80 f. 
I Peshitta, O.T., 25 ; N.T., 26 

Peter, St., association of, with writer of 
Fourth Gospel, 146 f. 

Pfannkuche, H. F., 2 

Philip the Apostle, 134 

Philippus Sidetes, 136 

Plummer, Dr. A., 11, 144 

Polycarp, 130, 135, 138 

Polycrates, 134 

Present as Futurum instans, 19, 94 f., 

' Prince of this world, the ', 154 f 
Prologue of Fourth Gospel, 28 ff. ; poeti- 
cal form of, 40 ff. ; climactic parallelism 
of, 42 f. 
Pronoun anticipating direct object of 
verb, 19, 86 ; marking subject of Par- 
ticiple in Semitic, 80 

Q document, original language of, 8 ff. ; 
Mark's knowledge of, 9 

Rabbinic influence on Fourth Gospel, 
35 ff., 43 ff., no, III, 116, 132, 133, 
145 f , 150 ; on Apocalypse, 150 
Rabbula, bishop of Edessa, 26 
Relative completed by a Pronoun, 18, 70, 

84, 151 
Relative particle invariable in Aramaic, 

70, 84, 10 1 ff. 
Richards, Mr. G. C, 4 
Robertson, Dr. A. T., 5 

Salmasius, C., 2 

Samuel ben liaac, R., 22 

Sanday, Prof. W., 46, 133, 135, 171 

Scliecliter, Dr., 143 

Schlatter, Prof. A. , 2 f., 33, 56, 64 

Schmiedel, Prof. P. W., 7, 8, 9, i6 

Semitic Influence on Biblical Greek, 4 ff. 

Semitic Studies, importance of, to N.T. 

research, i ff. 
Semitisms, 4, 17 



Septuagint, influence of, on Luke, 8 (T. 

Servant of Yahweh, the ideal. 104 ff. 

Sh'-kind, Sh^kuitd, 35 ff. 

Simeon, 106 

Siphre, 3, 33 

Socrates, 131 

Solomon, Odes of, 131 ; reminiscences 

of, in Epistles of Ignatius, 159 ff. ; 

Johannine literature known to, 132, 

166 ff. 
Son of Man, the, 1 12, 1 15 ff. 
Sozomen, 160 
Slenning, Mr. J. F., 26 
Swete, Prof. H. B., 4, 123, 149 
Symmachus, 12 r, 123, 159 
Syriac version ot the Gospels, Old, 26 

Tannaim, 22, 23 

Talmud, 22, 46 ; Palestinian, 3, 25 

Targums, 20 ff. ; Hebraizing renderings 

of, 13, 14 24, 61 ; conceptions derived 

from, 35 ff. 
Targum, Jerusalem, 23, 24, 11 1 
Targum of Jonathan on the Prophets, 2\ 

Targum of Onkelos, 22, 23 

Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan on the 

Pentateuch, 23 
Tatian, 25, 130 
Temporal clauses, 58 ff. 
Tcstintonia, early Christian, 46 
Thackeray, Dr. H. St. J.. 12, 45 
Theodotion, 53 f.,8i, 82, 88, 92, 123, 159 
Theophilus of Antioch, 131 
Thumb, Prof. A., 4 
Turner, Prof. C. H., 39 

Verbal sequences in Fourth Gospel, 95 f. 
Virgin-Birth, the, 34 f., 43 ff. 

IVdw consecutive in Hebrev/, 68 
Wellhausen, Prof. J , 2,9, 19, 76, 77,85,90 
Westcott, Dr. B. F., 28, 32, 33, 78. 102, 

no, 135, 146, 147, 148 
• Word of the Lord, the ', 38 

Yannai, R., 44. 46, 116, 117 

Y^kdrd, 36 ff. 

Yinnon as Messianic title, 46 








Wl-U BE *^sES|l^;'^;''ouE. THE PENAUTV 

THIS book^i<thb^^a fourth 

r...NCr,^^T0f2;fJiSE%EVENTH DAY 

DAY AND TO 51-"" 



T L I U I D J7