The Aramaic origin of the Fourth Gospel

An Wie eee
ee cn ea
Dy

GIFT OF
HORACE W. CARPENTIER

CLS LAT CC ee
oe
SS

pone ae irae
rt

RECA aR

|

roves
4 Pe me

Sia

rick

THE ARAMAIC ORIGIN

OF THE

FOURTH GOSPEL

ive

Arch

are oo

e

the Interne

ized

igiti
in

iB

rom —

007 with fund

2

soft Cor

jon

M

porati

Icro

?

;

org/deta

ffl

Ino

.
t}

ig

icor

ls/arama

https://archive.

THE ARAMAIC ORIGIN

OF THE

FOURTH GOSPEL

BY

Tue 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

OXFORD
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS

1922

ae f3
ey ; male

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS _
London Edinburgh ~— Glasgow _ ‘Copenhagen
New York Toronto Melbourne Cape Town |
Bombay Calcutta Madras Shanghai — aa
HUMPHREY MILFORD _

- Publisher to the University

etoe

NIV

CONTENTS

PRINCIPAL ABBREVIATIONS EMPLOYED ; ; vii
INTRODUCTION . Bo a ‘ ies ‘ ee I

CHAP.
I. PRELIMINARY TESTING OF THE THEORY

BY EXAMINATION OF THE PROLOGUE 28

ADDITIONAL NoTE _.. L : : ‘ - 43
Peewee SEN FENCE’ 0 9 Go aw ‘ 49
Ill CONJUNCTIONS . 5 ‘ ; ; ; ‘ 66
IV. PRONOUNS BN a) eG ae ay gp ee ee 79
Merete VERB ee oe gs Se Se
MCCA TUR Se 5 8 oe ee a ga
VIl. MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE ORIGINAL
ARAMAIC GF THE GOSPEL. ©. -. 4 IOI
Vill. OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS IN THE
FOURTH GOSPEL. . ae ‘ : - 114
Ree EAU i ee oe ek ee el
Mees tL Be on ieee ae
MR so fo ay wha a ae Ae eee 173

507192

PRINCIPAL ABBREVIATIONS EMPLOYED

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. 25).

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, Gramm. = G. Dalman, Grammatik des jtidisch-paldstinischen
Aramdisch (1894).

Dalman, WJ. = G. Dalman, Zhe Words of Jesus considered in the light of
Post-Bislical Jewish Writings and the Aramaic Language (Eng.Trans.,
1902).

Deissmann, LAL. = A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient Easi (Eng.

Trans., IgIo).

HS”. = Sir John C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae (2nd edition, 1909).

Moulton, V7G*. = 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, Finieitung* = J. Wellhausen, Einlettung in die dret ersien
Evangelien (zweite Ausgabe 1911).

INTRODUCTION

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.
+ Biblical Essays, pp. 126 ff.
2520 B

2 INTRODUCTION

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 Commentarius,
1645, pp. 257f.), I. A. Bolten (Der Bericht des Joannes von Jesu dem Messias, tiber-
setat; 1797, Vorbericht, pp. xiv ff.), H. F. Pfannkuche (Ueber die paldstinische
Landessprache in dem Zeitalter Christi, in Eichhorn’s Aligem. 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 spcken, and long sub-
sequently translated them into Greek and incorporated them into his Greek gospel,

Many scholars, from Grotius (Amnotationes, 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
throw 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,

INTRODUCTION 3

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. 1 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 Siphré
(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

4 INTRODUCTION

tionized our conception of Biblical Greek, proving it to be, not a
thing apart, but a more or less characteristic representative of the
widespread Kowy 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 Kowy 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 Kowy 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
Kowy.* 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 documert 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 2nd edition of Dr, Moulton’s Grammar of 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 eis 7d dvowa 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

INTRODUCTION 5

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 Kowy 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: dvepyopevwv pov dd Kdpns OeadeAdeias Oepiorov pepidos
bro Tov OpOpov érndOav Hpeiv Kakodpyol Ties. . . Kal Ednoay Hpas obv Kal
7 paydwropirAaxt kai tAyyais Has wrioras YKicav [al] tpavpariatov
éroinoay tov [Tlaciw|va Kat eicavnpaly yu |av xorpidi| ov] a kal éBao[ragay
tov Tov Iaciwy jos xitava... The term here used to describe ‘the
guard of the tower’, paydwAopvAag, embodies the ordinary Hebrew
word for ‘tower’, migdol (originally magdoél), and is thus clear
evidence for Jewish influence upon Egyptian Kowy terminology.
Yet Prof. Milligan (Mew 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 xai, 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 Kowy 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 fortiori’ 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, 4 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 Kown itself. The Jews were very numerous in
Alexandria.’

6 INTRODUCTION

paratactic style of the pig-merchants is due to Semitic influence ;
for, as Prof. Moulton justly observes (7G. i, p. 12), in speaking
of co-ordination of sentences with simple xai, ‘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 7 pari materia with the latter.
The theory of elementary culture which 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 of Casus pendens. This, Prof. Moulton tells us, ‘is
one of the easiest of anacolutha, as much at home in English
as in Greek’ (V7G.° 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 zot 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 Kowy,
do we find as a rule more than very occasional instances of the
usage. In the Fourth Gospel, however, it 7s 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 7s a literature in which both the usages which we
have been noticing—parataxis and Casus pendens—are 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

INTRODUCTION. 4

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 Kowy 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. + Cf. Dalman, W/. pp. 18 f.

Sn INTRODUCTION

that he had derived from a reading of the LXX. Lk. also has
Hebraisms, not only in chaps. rf. 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”, xai éyévero; 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 course 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, 10%6-88 = Lk. 12?-® without
arriving at the clear conviction that we either have in it the literal translation
of an Aramaic original, or that the tpstssima verba of our Lord in Aramaic were
branded on the hearts of His hearers and reproduced with a reverential exactitude
amounting to virtualtranslation. Cf. especially the phrases pi} poBnOjre ard (Semitic
[> of aversion after a verb of fearing), dyodoynoe év éuoi (cf. on this expression
even Moulton, V7G.° i, p. 104), dxoAovber dricw pov (Mt. 10%), Mistranslation of an

INTRODUCTION 9

which may be taken to be due to the author himself (such as the
setting of narratives, to which the phrase cited, xai éyévero, 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. 2325.26 Lk. 113941

2 Oval ipiv, ypappareis cal apicaior, 89 Nov ipeis of Papicain 7d efwhev

tmoxpirai, St: Kabapifere 10 ewOev Tov moTnpiov Kai Tov mivakos Kabapiere,

Tov mornpiov Kat HS mapoyidos,

éowbev 5& yénovow ef dpnayijs TO 88 éowbev ipow yéuer apmayis

kal daxpacias. 2% Gapaie Tupré, kal movnpias. *°appoves, ovx 6 monoas
To éfwbev nal 7d Eowbev éEnoinoer;

kabdpicov = mpatov 7rd évrds Tod ‘lady ta évévta Sétre eAenpoovyny,

moTnpiov kat THs tra powidos,

iva yévnra nal 7rd exrds adrod kal idov mavta Kadapd ipiv éorw.

xadapér.

Here it can hardly be doubted that the remarkable variant between Mt. xa@dpicov
mp@trov 7d évtdos erA, and Lk. mAjy 7a évdvta déte EAenpootyny is to be explained
by the fact that New Heb. and Aram. ‘D} means both ‘to purify’ (occurring in
-Aram, as well as normal ‘D1) and also ‘to give alms’ (cf. Wellhausen, Einleitung’,
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 (}3 nord) and provide for him’ ;
sect. 11 (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” (°2 133). They said to him, ‘When we come out we will
give thee alms” (JI j'51). When they came out, they found him dead.’ The
inference is that our Lord used some such expression as fi3} N32 ‘That which
is within purify’; this has been rightly rendered in Mt. and made more explicit
by the addition of rod mornpivv «td., while in Lk, it has been wrongly rendered,
‘That which is within give as alms’. ‘Hppnvevoe 3 aira, ws hv duvarés, Exaotos.

In the opening of the long indictment of the Scribes and Pharisees contained
in Mt. 23, presumably from Q, we find a passage (vv. 2-7) which has clearly
formed a source for Mk. in his short summary of teaching contained in 12°*-*9,
It seems not unlikely that Mk.’s opening phrase, Kai év rp d:daxq abrov éreyer,
which recurs nearly verbatim in 4? (introducing the parable of the sower), may
be his manner of referring to this written discourse-source to which he had access.
Lk. 2045-47 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 :

Io

INTRODUCTION

/

/

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

Mt. 23'*.

1Tére 6 “Inoots éAdAnoev

Mk, 12°80

38 Kal év tH didaxy avTov

i

\

Lk. 2045-47

45’Axovovros 52 mavrds Tov

Tois 6xAas Kal Tois wabnrais éAeyev" Aaod «6 elmev=—s Tots Ss pa nais”
avrov Aéyor" 2. 1 1 ws Bdénere amd TOY ypapparéwv 46 mpocéxere awd TOY ypapparéav
Smavra 5& ra épya aitrav Tav OeddvTay év arTodais TaV Geddy Tw me piTaretv
moovav mpds TO GOeadjva mepitateiy Kal évy otTodais «at gidovvTav

Tois dvOpwros* mAaTUVOVOLW
yap 7a vdaktnpa aitav

donacpots év Tais a-yopais
89 kai mpwroxabedpias év Tais

donacpots év Tais ayopais

kat mpwrokadedpias év ais

kai preryaAdvovaww Ta ouvaywyais Kal mpwrokduaclas auvayaryais Kal mpwrokduolas
Kpdoneda, *girovow 82 év trois deimvas: * oi Kar- év ois Seimvas, * ot ar-

, bd “ > , x , pe a cal A x , ~
™)v mpwrokdiciavy év ois éaOiovres tas oikias TaY ecOiovew Tas oixias Tav
Seinvois_ kat Tas mpwro- xnpav Kat mpopdce paxpa xnpav Kat mpopdce papa
KaOedpias év ais oavy- mpocevxXdpevot, ovToL Anp- mpooevxovTat* ovTot Any

ayaryais * Kal Tovs donacpods

Yovra: wepiaadrepoy Kpipa.

éy Tais dyopais, Krd.

Yovra meprocdTeEpov Kpiva.

The statements of Mk. in vv. °8-39 can be clearly recognized in Mt., except for
Tav Oedévtwy év orodais mepimareiv, which seems to be a paraphrase of «al peya-
Avvovow Ta Kpaomeda, Mt. 23°, In v. 4° 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 tliat the New Heb. and Aram. term for @vAaxrnpa (Mt. 23°) is pA
t’phillin, which properly means ‘ prayers’. Thus there is a suspicious resemblance
between the two statements, ‘make broad their phylacteries’ and ‘make long
their prayers’. Now the verb mAarévovow is rendered in Pesh. by eas,

and Payne Smith in his Thesaurus quotes instances in which this Aph‘el whol”
‘make broad’, as well as the Pa‘el YAS, has the sense ‘make verbose’ (e. g.
Severus Alexandrinus, Rhetorica, 79v., \Kaiy ho, ef ‘If he wishes to be

verbose’). It is likely, therefore, that an original imdan PROT ‘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
pPaA is not the ordinary Aramaic word for ‘ prayers’ cemidy) ; 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 PdaA 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 tu 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

INTRODUCTION II

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. éyéero introducing a time-determination. The use of ‘J}
‘And it came to pass’ is in such a case very idiomatic in Hebrew,
and the LXX equivalent is xai éyévero or éyévero dé. After J}! there
follows the note of time or occasion, which may take various forms,
such as—

An Infinitive with preposition 3; e.g. D822 ‘when they
came’ (lit. ‘in their coming’) = LXX & 76 éOeiv airovs.

An Infinitive with preposition 3; e.g. D823 ‘ at their coming’
= LXX as (or jika) 7AOov.

WWD (or 'D) ‘when’ with a Perfect; e.g. 382 WS3 ‘when
they came’=LXX ais (or jvixa) HAOov.

A Participle Absolute with pronominal or nominal subject ;
e.g. D'NI 77 ‘they (were) coming’=LXX airayv épxopévow.

A specific note of time; e.g. 283 Di2 ‘on the third day’
=LXX (é) rH jpépa tH tpirn; OD? neous V2 ‘after three
days’=LXX pera tpépas tpeis.

After this comes the apodosis, which is most frequently (though
by no means invariably) introduced by ‘and’ (= ‘then’); e.g.
WP ‘and they saw’=LXX (kai) ov (LXX often omits xa‘),
WNW 3) ‘and, behold, they saw’ = LXX kai idod «idov, or simply
WW) ‘they saw’ = LXX <cidov. The subject of the apodosis may
of course vary from that of the time-determination (when this
latter embodies a subject); e.g. CONIPD w NX N¥N DNDD WN ‘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!4 appears
expressly to distinguish him from ‘ those of the circumcision’ previously mentioned
(v.3"); and this is taken by most scholars, such as Dr. Lightfoot (Colossians,
p. 239) and Dr. Plummer (S¢. 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.

12 INTRODUCTION

to meet them’, or pnp) N¥* WN 7377) OND TdT 7 ‘And it came to
pass, they (were) coming, and, behold,a man going out to meet them’.

Instances of this Hebrew construction, with time-determination
év 7 (Infinitive) and apodosis introduced by xai, may be seen in
Lk. 512 gi rq! 19", 19", 2 4'('8) « without xaé, Lk. 1°, 2°, g®3, rr?
17", 18°, 24°*!, With time-determination os (Aorist), and without
xai in apodosis, Lk. 1°, 2", 19%. With specific note of time, and
xa in apodosis, Lk. 5", 8'”, Acts 5’; without xai, Lk. 1°, 2’, 7",
9°, 20), i

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 Lnfinttive.
This modification of the construction, which is zot found in
Hebrew, and only occurs once in LXX (3 Kgs. 11* 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 Kowy construction (cf. Thackeray, Grammar
of the O. T} in Greek, p. 50). So Lk. 3”, 6'*, Acts 4°, o**-**", 14),
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%, 11%, 28%, it is
altogether absent. This is quite un-Hebraic. Hebrew might say
va MN" «And the poor man died’, without note of time except
as inferred from the context (‘and’=‘and then’), or, inserting
note of time, /287 No" DMD yp 1) ‘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 [280 Nd N= eyevero 8 drobaveiv
tov mrwxov (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 éyévero introducing a time-determination is
only found in the five-times repeated phrase kat éyévero Ore éréheoev
Iyoods in Mt. 7%, 11', 13°, 19', 26', and also in Mt. 9”, Mk. 1°, 2
4' (cf. 2"). In Semitic it is specifically a construction belonging to

* With time-determination before éyévero,

INTRODUCTION | 13

Biblical Hebrew, and not found in Aramaic except where this
language copies the Hebrew construction in translation, as in the
Targums.*

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
Gospel.

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” Mn nid ‘Thou shalt surely die’ (lit. ‘dying thou shalt die’)
= LXX Oavéry érobaveicbe, Judg. 15% DPI FINN FOX? WND Nd
yn) ND npn « Nay, but we will bind thee (lit. ‘binding we will bind
thee’) and deliver thee into their hand; but we will not s/ay thee’
(lit. ‘slaying we will not slay thee’) = LXX Oidyi, 67 GAN 7 Seopa
dyjoopev oe Kal Tapadocopev oe ev xeupl aitady, kat Oavdtw ov Oavatwoopéev
oe. An alternative method employed by LXX is the rendering of
the Infinitive by a Participle; e.g: Judg. 1 win XD win “and
did not expel them at all’ (lit. ‘and expelling did not expel them’)
= LXX kai efaipwv oix ééjpev airov.

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” ér-
Ovpia érebipnoa, Acts 5° rapayyedia tapyyyctAapev, Acts 23" avabéuare
aveBeparioapev (cf. also Acts 2” épxw opocev).t Elsewhere in N. T.
we find it only in Mt. 13%, 15‘= Mk. 7” (both O. T. quotations),
Jn. 3” xapa xaipe, Jas. 5” rpocevyn rpoonvéaro.

This enforcement of the verbal idea by the Infinitive, while found
occasionally in other Semitic languages (cf. Babylonian edi¥u lidtS
‘let it be ever new’; Syriac .c>\J \5jx .5 ‘when they are com-
pletely victorious ’), is peculiarly characteristic of Biblical Hebrew.{

* Cf. Dalman, W/. p. 32.

+ Acts 2! é&umvios évummac@noovra, which occurs in an O.T. quotation from
Joel 278 (3! in Heb.) is different, the substantive representing the cognate Accusative
in Heb. aon: nindn, LXX évinma évuniiacéjoovra.

t 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.

14 INTRODUCTION

3. Use of mpooriOnus in place of raAw or a similar adverb in
imitation of Hebrew Di" ‘he added’ to do something, i.e. he did
it again. There are two constructions in Hebrew: (1) the auxiliary
verb *Di0 may be followed by an Infinitive with preposition 4.
e.g. yin mivyh ... %9D4 ‘and they added to do that which was
evil’ (i.e. ‘they agaim did it’) = LXX kai rpooébevro .. . torpor 7d
rovypov, Judg. 3", 4', 10°; or (2) it may be followed by ‘and’ with
a Finite verb, e.g. 788 MB" O7738 ADA‘ And Abraham added and
took a wife’ (‘again took’, or ‘took a second’) = LXX zpoobépevos
St "ABpaip é\aBev yuvaixa, Gen. 25'; WON) sid 1D ‘And Elihu
added and said’ = LXX IIpoo@eis 8¢ "EAuods ere A€yet, Job 36°. Both
of these constructions occur in the Lucan literature: (1) xat rpocé-
Gero Erepov wéuar SodrAov.. . Kat mpowébero tpirov wémpa, Lk. 20°” ;
mpooébero ovAAafBeiv Kat Lérpov, Acts 12°; (2) rpoobeis cirev rapaBoryv,
Lk. 19". The usage is not found elsewhere in N. T.*

4. The phrase zopevov cis cipyvnv, Lk. 7°, 8%, traye eis ecipyvyy,
Mk. 5* (nowhere else in N. T.) is derived from the LXX rendering
of the Hebrew pidyi> 7? ; cf. 1 Sam. 1”, 20%, 1 Kgs. 20 (LXX 2r)*,
2 Kgs. 5", 1 Chr. 12”, Tob. 10%, Judith 8%. The Hebrew preposi-
tion 5 is here incorrectly given the sense cis which it commonly
possesses. It is really an idiomatic usage known as 5 of norm,
Dirwd 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 JmNeaS Sj, i.e. ropevou év eipivy.

5. The expression évwmov is peculiarly characteristic of Lk.
(28 times), Acts (18 times), and Apoc. which is marked by an
Hebraic style (84 times). It is derived from LXX where it is
extremely common (some hundreds of occurrences), and ordinarily
represents Hebrew “IBD ‘before’ (lit. ‘to the face of’), or “gry
‘in the sight of’ (lit. ‘to the eyes of’). évwmiov is only found once
in Jn. (20”), and is unused in Mt. and Mk. In these Gospels we
find éuzpocbev, which also occurs in Lk.

evavTe (Lk. r*, Acts ga 8”), evavtiov (Lk. i 20”, Ya Acts 7" 8”),
exclusively Lucan in N.T., are both very common in LXX, where
they ordinarily render ‘2 ‘in the sight of’ (lit. ‘in the eyes of’),

* Cf. however the text of D in Mk. 14%, od pr) mpocO® meiv.

INTRODUCTION 15

i.e. ‘in the opinton of’. Hebrew always observes a distinction
between ‘yp ‘in the (physical) sight of’, and °2Y2 ‘in the (mental)
sight of’. The same distinction may be notiged for the most part
in the N. T. use of évarov and évavriov.

In place of the distinctively Hebraic expressions "35?, ‘Dy?, ‘2Y2,
Aramaic uses 07? ‘before’, ‘in front of’.

6. The phrase xpd zpocdrov, which is a common LXX rendering
of "DD, occurs in the O. T. quotation Mk. 17 = Mt. 11° = Lk. 7”,
and only besides in Lk. 1%, 9”, 10’, Acts 13”. dad zpoowrov = ‘38%
‘in LXX is found in Acts 3%, 5@, 7%, 2 Thess. 1°, Apoc::6%20"
(dard tod z.). éxi tpdcwrov Lk. 21”, éxi rpocwrov Acts 17%, are LXX
renderings of Bo Dy,

q. The phrase 76 zpécwrov éorypicev, Lk. 9” (nowhere else in
N.T.) is derived from LXX, where it renders Hebrew 0°58 DY
‘set the face’ (Jer. 21”, Ezek. 6’, 13”, 14°, 15’, &c.).

8. AapBavew rpdcwrov, Lk. 207, Gal. 2° occurs 9 times in LXX
as the rendering of Hebrew 0°25 8&2 ‘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 Oavyalew zpdcwrov. The
Semitic phrase occurs in Aramaic as well as in Hebrew. The
N.T.substantives zpoowroAnprrns ‘a respecter of persons (Acts 10%),
mpoowroAnpyia (Rom. 2", Eph. 6°, Col. 3%, Jas. 2') ‘partiality’, are
derived from the LXX Hebraism.

g. The use of the verb dw 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. 7“, 12°*, 15”, 19%, Acts 2”
(quotation from Joel 3°), 2”, 13* (both quotations from Ps 16"), 1o®,
19". This usage comes from LXX where &dwy is the regular
rendering of Hebrew jD2 which, meaning primarily ‘give’, is regu-
larly used also in such wider senses. Cf. the LXX rendering in
Gen. 17” ddécw airov cis COvos péya, Gen. 31' otk wey aitd 6 Oeds
kaxoroujoai pe, Deut.1"* ddre Eavtois avopas codovs, Deut. 2” évapxov Sodvar
Tov tpdpov cov. 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),

16 INTRODUCTION

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 (=1Samuel) contains very nearly two-thirds,
viz. 151, which happens to be exactly the same number as Mark
contains. But then rt 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 1 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 1 Sam. about 6 and in Mark between 9 and 10’
(77S. loc. cit.) 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 (77S. 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

INTRODUCTION 17

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.

+ 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,

2520 rt

18 INTRODUCTION

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 éAcyev, éAeyov (p. 92).
Sparse use of é¢, and preference for xai (p. 69).
iva = conjunctive ‘that’ (p. 70).

apos = ‘with’ (p. 28).

Usages of Jn. found more rarely in Mk.

Asyndeton * (p. 49).

Casus pendens * (p. 63).

xai linking contrasted statements = ‘and yet’ t (p. 66).

iva mistranslation of 1 relative. One case in Mk. (p. 76).

67. mistranslation of 7 relative. Two cases in Mk. (p. 77).
Relative completed by a Pronoun. Two cases in Mk. (p. 84).
ov py)... €is TOV ai@va = ‘never’. Two parallels in Mk. (p. gg).
muortevew eis. One case in Mk. (p. 34).

* Allen quotes Asyndeton as characteristic of Mk. (St. 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. 6'6, 7°, 12!®, 1311,

t The only cases collected from Mk. are 45%, 526-81, 1449,

INTRODUCTION 19

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 ofros, éxeivos (p. 82).
iva mistranslation of 4 == ‘when’ (p. 77).
érc mistranslation of 1 = ‘when’ (p. 78).
épxowat Present as Futurum instans (p. 94).
ov... dvOpwros = ‘no one’ (p. gg).
iva. wy employed to the exclusion of pirore (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
mohAd = NY, and of the auxiliary jpéaro, -avro = "Y; but they are
not equally impressive because—though they fit in with the theory
of translation from an Aramaic original—they are the kind of
Aramaisms which might naturally be introduced by a writer
of Greek whose native tongue was Aramaic. We may also note
the fact that the Kowy 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 wa 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

a

20 INTRODUCTION

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. 10", Ezr. 4°—6",
7%, 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.p.{ 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 wnbD
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.

+ Ezr. 49%, 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. ;
t Cf. Driver, Introd. to Lit. of O.T.® pp. 503 ff.

INTRODUCTION 21

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 3a; Nedarim 375; Jerus. Megilla 74d. The same explana-
tion is given in Midrash Bereshith Rabba, par. xxxvi. 12.
+ Cf. Berliner, Targum Onkelos, ii, p 74, who compares the use of WDD in the

words of the Persian king’s rescript in Ezr. 43, Wasp xpby prandv—7 xn
"1p ‘IP, i.e. most naturally, ‘The letter which ye sent unto us hath been read

before me ix translation’, 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 boy Div

‘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. 1876) 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 employed 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 intercourse 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 befure 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.

22 INTRODUCTION

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. 1). There
is, however, considerably older evidence for the existence of
written Targums—for private reading and not for public worship.
The Mishnat states that portions of the text of the Bible were
‘written as a Targum’ (Yadaim iv. 5); and there exists a
Tannaitic { tradition that a Targum of the Book of Job existed
in the days of Gamaliel the Elder (the grandson of Hillel and
instructor of St. Paul; cf. Acts 5*ff-, 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 4), 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 Jewish Encyclopaedia.

+ 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.

t 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, of. cit.
p. 89.

INTRODUCTION 23

generally binding (7b. 8a). ‘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*thurgeman, gradually
assumed a fixed form; first, no doubt, orally, then in written
shape.

The principal Targums which concern us are as follows:

The so-called Targum of Onkelos+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’. t
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.p. 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 Yerushalmt, 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.{ Comparison
of these two Targums yields evidence that they were originally
identical, their agreement being often verbatim.

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

+ The name pbprsx Onkelos appears to have arisen through confusion made in
Bab. Megilla iii. 1 of a reference in Jerus. Megilla i. 11 to the Greek translation
of Aquila poy Akylas. Cf. Berliner, of. cit. pp. 92 ff.

t Noldeke, Mandaische Grammatik, p. xxvii, quoted by Bacher, of. cit. p. 59 4.

§ Halakhaé (‘ walking’ or ‘ way’; so ‘ custom’) is the exposition and application
of the legal elements of Scripture ; Haggdda (‘narration’) the elaboration of its
historical and didactic portions.

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

{ Dalman, Gramm, pp. 21 ff., and WJ. pp. 84 f., disputes this inference, holding
the most primitive elements to be ‘exactly the parts taken from the Onkelos
Targum’,

24 INTRODUCTION

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’ (of. cit.
p. 61 a).

The Targum of Jonathan on the Prophets* is assigned by
tradition to Jonathan ben Uzziel, who was Hillel’s 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.p. It is frequently
quoted by Joseph, the head of the Academy of Pumbeditha in
Babylonia in the early part of the fourth century a.pD., 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 946; Moed Katon 286; Megilla 3a). Such reference
implies the recognition of the Prophetic Targum as an ancient
authority. ;

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.t{

* 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.

+ Cf. Driver, Introd. to Lit. of O.T.® p. 503; Nédldeke in Encycl. Bibl, 283.

t Cf. e.g. the passages cited on pp. 61 ff. On Hebraisms in the Targums cf.
Dalman, W/. p. 83.

INTRODUCTION 25

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 sofirces, 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 ~
original. ,

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 (rd da terodpwv evayyéAvov), in Greek, and that this
was translated into Syriac during his lifetime, c. A.D. 170.{ It

* Cf. Dalman, Gramm, pp. t2 ff., 31 ff.

+ Cf. the illustrations of this tendency collected by Dr. Driver in his Notes on the
Heb. Text of the Books of Samuel*, pp: |xxi 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. CXXVili.

¢ For authorities cf. Dr, Nestle’s article ‘Syriac Versions’ in Hastings’s Dictionary
of the Bible, iv, p.646a. The view that the Diatessaron was first composed in

26 INTRODUCTION

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*shé, ‘ Gospel
of the Separate’), and ordered its substitution for the Diatessaron
(Evangelion da-Mehall*té, ‘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
Peshitta.

Dr. Burkitt has shown that Syrian writers prior to Rabbula
used the Evangelion da-M*pharr’shé,* 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. Peshittéa. He has
also shown that the Evangelion da-M*pharr*shé 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*pharr’shé being dated
by him ¢. a.p. 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 da-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. tot ff.

+ op. cit. pp. 201 ff.

t op. cit. p. 212.

,
- iaig havi >
© sae as ai, &75 5
>> 8
he
1 9s. 2

INTRODUCTION 33) 2323 2853.27
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.) 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
gth-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

proved by Dr. Burkitt in Journal of Theol. Studies, i, pp. 280 ff. ; ii, p. 429; iii, p. 94.
+ Cf. R. Duval, La Littérature syriaque, pp. 98 ff.

CHAPTER -J

PRELIMINARY TESTING OF THE THEORY BY
EXAMINATION OF THE PROLOGUE

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 zpos rov Oeov in the sense ‘with God’ is
remarkable, as Westcott observes. He cites the parallel usage
in Mt. 13%, Mk. 6, 9”, 14°,,Lk. 9%, 1 Jn. 1%. The last of these
passages is an echo of the Gospel-prologue, presumably by the
same author—jris jv mpos Tov watépa. With regard to the Synoptic
instances we notice (1) that they are all from the Marcan source,
and (2) that Mt. 17”, Lk. 22° alter Mark’s zpos Suas to the more
natural pe? ipav, while Mt. 26° omits the phrase altogether. The
parallel passages are as follows: i

Mk. 6° kai ovx cioty ai ddeAdal aitod Hde zpos Hpas ;

{te 13” kai ai ddeAdal airod ody tacar pds Huas <iciv ;

Mk. 9” éws wore zpos tpas évopar ;

Mt. 17” ws wore pe tpav écopar;

Lk, 9" ws wore Exopon tpds tpas 3.

Mk. 14% xa jpyepay nunv mpos bas ev TO iepd diddoKwr.
Mt. 26” kal? jyépav ev 7G iepO exabeLopnv ddaoxwv.

Lk. 22° xa? jpepav dvros pov pel ipav ev TO tepa.

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

THE PROLOGUE 29

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 mp (possibly akin to the verb "Dé ‘join’) denotes
(1) connexion with, apud, rapa, (2) motion towards, ad, zpds. It
may be suggested that feeling for the second meaning so commonly
borne by m? has moved the translator of an Aramaic original
to represent the preposition by zpés even when used in the former
sense.* |

The usage of zpdés = ‘ with’ is frequent in St. Paul; cf. 1 Thess.
mew enesa. 2, 3" 1 Cor. 16%, 2 Cor. 5°, 11°, Gal. 1°, 2, 4°",
Phil. 1%, Philem.’*. There are, however, many other indications
that this Apostle’s language is tinged with Aramaic influence.

v.*. 6 yéyovey ev aitd Lon jv. This reading has the consensus
of early attestation, the punctuation which connects 6 yéyovey 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
(10) MO WW NTI, Here the opening 7, answering to ‘that
which ’, might equally well bear the meaning ‘inasmuch as, since,
because’; cf. the use of "I in Dan. 2% ANNAN ‘And inasmuch as
thou sawest’; 2” 87 noo SATIN NNN I ‘because wisdom and
might belongeth unto Him’. The Heb. relative "wx 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.*. Kal 7d hos ev TH oxotia daive, Kal 7) oKotia aitd ov KatedaBev.

The difficulty of xaréAaBev is familiar. Dr. Ball, in his article

* It was only after finishing this chapter that the writer noticed that the facts
that mpés here = Aram. mp, 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. 156f. The coincidence in conclusion
serves to prove that it is unmistakable for an Aramaic scholar.

30 A PRELIMINARY TEST

mentioned in the Introduction, has made the brilliant suggestion
that confusion may have arisen in Aramaic between the Aph‘el
form DYapN *akbel ‘darken’ and the Pa‘el form bvap 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.
odao/ pads 09 ‘because he hath received him whole’ (cf. other
instances cited by Payne Smith, 3470). The difference between
maps xd ‘obscured it not’ and map xb airé od KaréAaBer is slight ;
and if the construction was the common one of the participle with
the substantive verb, 7D! Nin DYapD N? ‘was not obscuring it’,
there would, in an unvocalized text, be no distinction between
SyapDp ‘obscuring’ and Dap ‘receiving’. The sense ‘darken’
is equally suitable to Jn. 12% wa pa ckoria tyas xatadraBy, NDT
xdap iand»ap ‘that darkness shroud you not’.

v.°. éyevero avOpwros . . . dvopya ait “Iwavyys, i.e. + + + SI SID
jan mY, ‘Whose name was’ is only elsewhere so expressed in
N.T. in ch. 3' dvOpwros ék trav Papiraiwy Nixddnpos dvopa aird,
Apoc. 6° immos xAuwpds’ kai 6 KaOjpevos éravw aitodv, dvoya aiT@ 6
Odévaros, Apoc. 9" tov dyyeAov ris aBicoov' dvoya aitd “EBpaioti
*ABaddav. ;

Elsewhere in N.T. the ordinary expression is é6vépuari (classical) ;
cf. Matt. 27", Mk. 5", Lk. 1°, 5”, 10%, 16%, 23", 24", Acts 6a
g)112.83.36 yo! 77 723 76" 77! 78274 79% 20° 21” 27), 287 (80
occurrences). Other expressions are: dvopuari xadovpevos, Lk. 197;
kal 70 dvopa avtas, Lk. 1°; & (7) ovoya, Lk. 1°”, 2”, 8", 24”, Acts 13°;
ov 70 dvoua, Mk. 14.

Pal. Syr. renders the Gospel-occurrences of évépar. by stam
‘his name’, osasay? ‘who his name’ (i.e. ‘whose name’), oaa0
‘and his name’. Pesh. renders évépatt by osaay (oxa09) ‘who
his (her) name’, Joo osaa9 ‘who his name was’, and once (Acts
16") Joo gaa ‘her name was’. dvouatt xadovpevos, Lk, 19? =
Pal. Syr. ::0kso oanny ‘who his name was called’, Pesh.
Joo) osaay ‘who his name was’. xal 7d dvopa airys, Lk. P=
Pal. Syr. osase0 ‘and her name’, Pesh. Joo ose ‘her name
was’. © dvoya, Lk. 17 = Pal. Syr. caret, Pesh. osaay? ‘who his
name’; Lk. 2® = Pal. Syr. oaaaa Jooy ‘who was his name’ (i.e.
‘whose name was’), Pesh. Joo os ‘his name was’; Lk, 8" =

' OF PROLOGUE 31

Pal. Syr. 20.09, Pesh. osaa9 ‘who his name’; Acts 13° = Pesh.
Joo: oxaay ‘who his name was’. 7 dvoya, Lk. 1%, 24% = Pal. Syr.
(z% caret) qsa.a9, Pesh. oxaay ‘which its name’. ov 7d dvopa,
Mk. 14% = Pal. Syr. caret, Pesh. lu;ohs09 J./ ‘that which was
called’. dvoya aird, Jn. 1° = Pal. Syr. osaany ‘who his name’,
Pesh. ose ‘his name’; Jn. 3'= Pal. Syr. om.e ‘his name’,
Pesh. Joo ose ‘his name was’; Rev. 6° = Pesh. oS bse ‘name
to it’; Rev. 97% = oS hay ‘which, name to it’.

In the Aramaic parts of the O.T. we find, Ezr. 5" ayawewd yam
mow ‘and they were given to Sheshbazzar his name’ (i.e. ‘to one
whose name was S.’); Dan. 2%, 4° syxwnb5a now “ ‘who his
name Belteshazzar ’. |

The Hebrew modes of expressing ‘whose name was N.’ are
two, viz. (1) ‘and his name N.’, Gen. 24”, 38'*, Judg. 13”, 17',
meas F. 5am. 1’, 9, 17", 215 a2”, 2 Sam. 4‘, 9°", 13°, 16°, 17°,
2o', 1 Chr. 2, Est. 2°, Jer. 37" (22 occurrences), or (2) ‘N. his
poet. Sam. 17°", 2 Sam. 20", 1 Kgs. 13", 2 Chr. 28, Job.1’,
Zech. 6” (7 occurrences). Besides these two phrases, we once find
(Dan. 10’) ~ywxnda ww snp: saws Se ‘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 “"pnx ‘270 mMnw ‘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', 1 Sam. 9’,
2 Sam. 9’, where we find ‘who his name’ for ‘and his name’;
in 1 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. ww ‘and his name’ is rendered kat
dvopa. aiTG, except in Gen. 24”, 38'*, where we have @ (7) dvopa.
Heb. nw ‘his name’ is represented by dvoya aird except in Job 1’,
where we have 6 évoya.

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, last go ow
womans) ora .woaahuly ‘one of the chief men of Antioch,
his name Alexander’ (p. $229); Joo owa 0 0: 2ncas) Jean ee? ow
‘Now a certain man, Onesiphorus his name was’ (p. as);
Wewans owmay luda Jiang ‘a bath-keeper, who his name

32 A PRELIMINARY TEST

Secundus’ (Pp. qe); wnllisc Joor opsnay eu los200 s> ‘a procurator’s
son, who his name was Menelaus’ (p. hs).

Thus it appears that dvoya aitd “Iwavvys, Nixoddnpos dvopa att
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 dvoya aité are found in Apoc., which is strongly
Semitic in colouring.

v.'. iva wavres muotevowow 8 airod probably = ‘DD ME pI",
which is most naturally taken to mean, ‘that all might believe
in 7’ (the light) rather than ‘through him’ (John). Cf., for the
sense postulated, 12° as 7d pas exere, muorevere cis TO ds, va viol
gwros yevnobe, and 12% éyw dds cis Tov Kdopov éAndrvba, va was 6
mirTevwv eis €ue ev TH TKOTia py péivy.

v.°. ovx nv éxeivos 76 bGs. The emphatic pronoun éxetvos—so
characteristic of the F “ourth csospel-—has its counterpart in the
Aram. 879, Syriac oo ‘that one’ , or in the Personal Pronoun
S837, See below (p. 82).

GAN’ iva paprupyjoy epi Tod pwrds. The difficulty of the supposed
ellipse (usually supplied by the words, ‘he came’) is familiar.
The whole verse would run in Aramaic, TEAS N77) 87 NI nd
xin) by THOM (cf. Pal. Syr. gag Sr prouy WW? lice oo Jeon y
Jsooy?). It is probable that 7 is here wrongly rendered iva, and
should have its relative force—‘ (ove) who’. The sense then is,
‘That one was not the light, but ove who was to bear witness of
the light’. Cf., for such a use of 7 or ‘\ without expressed
antecedent (‘one who’, ‘he who’), Ezr. 7%, pyTAR yp N? N ‘and
him who knoweth not ye shall teach’; Dan. 2% &?Y2-" AYTA jy2
322 ‘and now Thou hast made known to me that which we asked »
of Thee’. Cf. the similar use of wx in Hebrew in Gen. 44°”
Tay sSennny jAN N31D° TW se e ND) TAD iAS N31! TW ‘ He with
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 Wy N2AvI, Other instances of 4 relative mistranslated by

iva 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% Otre otros fuaprev obre oi yoveis abrou,
GAN’ iva pavepwO Ta Epya Tod Ocod év a’td, where before iva we have to supply

OF PROLOGUE 34

UL". mwavro avOpwrrov €pXOjLevov eis TOV KOO [LOV is rightly recognized
by J. Lightfoot (Horae Hebratcae, ad loc.) and by Schlatter (Sprache,
pp. 18f.) as the common Rabbinic phrase poly ‘Na D3 ‘all comers
into the world’, i.e. all that’ are in it.* The Aram. equivalent
would be Nppya NN LIN 53, Thus Westcott’s proposal to regard
7d. has as the subject of fv épxduevov (‘The true light. . . was
coming, &c.’: so R.V. margin) is excluded, and jv 7d gas 7d
dAnfwov 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 8%, which was
misread 813 and rendered jv.

v.™. Kal 6 kécpos atrov oix éyvw. Notice the adversative force
. of xai = ‘and yet’, here and in v." xai of-iduou xrA. This is very
frequent in Semitic (cf. p. 66).

v.". eis Ta ida nrOe, Kal of tdvot aitov ov trapéAaPov, i,@. md
mabap xd mde xmy mys (cf, Pal. Syr. and Pesh.). The use of
Ta iota, of tdvo. cannot, of course, be claimed as unusual; but the
expressions are striking, and at once suggest to an Aramaic
scholar the phrase m1 ‘which to him’, ie. ‘that which pertains
(or those who pertain) to him’—‘his belongings’. ids is a
favourite term in Jn.; occurring 15 times (1"%*”, 4* 58 78, 8M
1o**”, 13", 15, 16", 19”), as against 5 in Mt., 1 in Mk., 4 in Lk.

v., door d& éXaBov airov, édwxev adtois «tA. The construction

in thought some such words as ‘he was born blind’; and 1525 where before GAA’

iva mAnpw67 6 Adyos wTXr. there is an implied ellipse of ‘This cometh to pass’.
Cf. also Mk. 144% Similarly, Schlatter (Sprache, p. 18) cites parallels from

Mechilta on Ex. 20!9 729” xdSx ywayy cnen nion qsedp waynd awes ids
Mm MINI ‘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 Siphré on Num. 25115 oxy moanw xd goa 1d pyppr ww ps
‘ 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 I = 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 iva
is a mistranslation of a relative.

* Schlatter quotes a remarkable para'lel to our passage from the Midrash Rabba
on Leviticus, par. xxxi. 6—pdyy *xa S55) ca.nnndy pdys wep ans
‘Thou (God) givest light to those that are above and to those that are below, and

to all comers into the world’.
2620 D

34 A PRELIMINARY Teese

with Casus pendens is very frequent in Semitic—Pal. Syr. ‘was
YOAS So obs aSdox v2 EG, Pesh. com voodacy wo geode/
yeas. For the occurrences of the construction in Jn. see p. 64.
Trois TisTevovow eis TO OvO"A avTOD, 1.€. mwa SIOID?, The striking
phrase muorevew cis is strongly reminiscent of the Hebrew and
Aramaic construction (Heb. 2 [O28], Aram. 2 (2). This is
admitted by Moulton (V7G.* p. 68), whose words are—‘ It would
seem therefore that the substitution of «is or eri for the simple
dative may have obtained currency mainly in Christian circles,
where the importance of the difference between simple belief
(? 28) and personal trust (2 7) was keenly realized. The
prepositional construction was suggested no doubt by its being
a more literal translation of the Hebrew phrase with 3.’ The
occurrences of miorevew eis are as follows: (eis rov “Inaody, eis tov
viov tod cod, eis adrdv, &c.) Jn. 2", ies 4°, 69-35-40 7 bpiesniancick 8.
os. 10% TTB BGAS yoN84I4A 7 412 769 t9% 7 Tn, (ag elsewhere,
Matt. 18° = Mk. 9”, Acts 10%, 14’, 19‘, Rom. ro‘, Gal. 2", Phil. 1”,
1 Pet. 18; (cis 76 das) Jn. 12%; (cis 7d dvopa airod) Jn. 1%, 2%, 3%,
1 Jn. 5"; (cis tiv paprupiay) I Jn. 5'° (387 Johannine cases in all; 9 other
cases).
v.%. ot ovk é€ aipdtrwov .. . éyerviPnoay, i.e. f'? ND} 821 iD NDF
PON NIN PD PIN NT MODY po NY SIDR MY, A point of —
great interest is the fact that the Latin variant ds . . . éyervyOy
becomes considerably more plausible upon the assumption of an
Aramaic original. Since the particle 1 is invariable, it might
form the relative either to ‘as many as received Him’, or to
‘He gave’. The question of reading in Aramaic depends, then,
upon the difference between the plural TON ‘they were born’,
and the singular TS ‘He was born’—-a difference which
involves solely the insertion or omission of the letter 1. More-—
over, since the following v." begins with xaf= 4, it is quite
possible that the plural form rv>n'x may have arisen through:
dittography of this 1. Very probably 1 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

OF PROLOGUE 35

will of man, but of God’; i.¢. 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 that which is given above
for vv.**—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 thé world, not by the
ordinary process of human generation, but ‘of God’. Cf. Lk. 1®

Iveta adyov éredcvoetar eri oé,
‘ , e , > , ;
Kal dvvapus Yyiorov émurkiacet cou
A
duo Kal TO yevvopevov ay.ov

KAnOnoetar vids Meod.

_ We note a connexion between vids @cod and réxva @eod of Jn. 1”
which may not be accidental (cf. also érei dvdpa od ywooxw, Lk. 1%,
with ovd¢ éx OeAjparos dvdpds, Jn. 1%). If this explanation of Jn. 1"
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%, 11”, 14") draws out the mystical import for
them of the Resurrection.

On the other hand, the generally accepted reading ot...
éyevvnOnoav surely involves a very strange sequence. The spiritual
birth of believers is clearly the resu/t of the grace described by
edwxev avtois eSovoiay téxva @eod yeveoOar, 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.%. Kat éoxyvocey év jyiv. The verb éoxyvwoey very clearly
suggests the Jewish doctrine of the 722% Sh°kina (Heb.), 8AP=IY
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. 337 from the old
document E; 1 Kgs. 8". Cf. also, for the use of the verb [2¥
Sakan of Yahweh’s dwelling in the midst of Israel, Lev. 26" (FI),
mae 25; 20°, Num: 5°, a5" .(P), x Kgs, 6", Ezek. 49°; of His
causing His Name (/o dwell there, Deut. 12", 14”, 16°°", 26°, & .).
In Hebrew passages in which Yahweh is said to dwell, or to cause

D2

36 A PRELIMINARY TEST

His Name to dwell, in the midst of Israel, the Targumic phimaee is,

He caused His Sh°kinta to dwell there.

Heb.
Lev. 26 ‘And I will walk
among you’.

Ex. 25° ‘That I may dwell in
your midst’.

Ex. 29” ‘And I will dwell in
the midst of the children of
Israel’.

Examples are—

Tare.

‘And I will cause My Sh°hinta
to dwell among you’.

‘That I may cause My Sh*kinta
to dwell among you’.

‘And I will cause My Sh’kinta
to dwell in the midst of the
children of Israel’.

So, of the withdrawal of Yahweh’s Presence,

Isa. 57” ‘I hid Myself’.

Ps. 44° ‘And Thou goest not
forth with our hosts’.

Ps. 88° ‘And they are cut off

from Thy hand’.

‘I caused My Sh*kinta to depart
(ascend) from them’,

‘And Thou dost not cause Thy
Sh*kinta to dwell with our
hosts’.

‘And they are separated from
the face of Thy Sh*kinta.

Thus we may assume with some confidence that kai éoxjvocer
év jyiv represents the Aramaic §)22 ™APDY WR) ‘and caused —

His Sh*kinia to dwell among us’.

The choice of the verb oxnvodv _

was doubtless largely dictated by its close resemblance to the

Semitic root s-2-n.

\- 2 67 4 a i / , a 3 , 3
KQL O KAU7{LEVOS ETL TOV VPOVOV OKYVWOEL ET AVUTOUVS, 21

The same usage is to be seen in Apoc. 7”

"[dov, 4) oKnVvy TOD

, A > ~
@cod peta Tdv avOpwrwv, Kai oKNVODEL PET ALTO".

kat Ccacdpeba thy dd£av adtod.

Here we have a clear reference

to a second term used in the Targums to describe God’s Self-

manifestation to mankind, 7 81: ‘the Glory of the Lord’.

The

conception of the 83! Y*sara goes back, like that of the Sh*kinta,

to O.T. passages.

In these the Heb. term is 133 Kabhddh.

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*kara, like Sh*kinta, in paraphrasing passages which might, as
they stand in the Heb., be taken to describe the actual appearance
of God in bodily form. Thus—

OF PROLOGUE | 37

Heb. Targ.

Ex. 3! ‘And he came to the ‘And he came to the mountain
mountain of God, unto on which the Yara of the
Horeb’. Lord was revealed, even to

Horeb’.

Ex. 3° ‘For he was afraid to ‘For he was afraid to look

look upon God’. upon the manifestation of the

Y ‘kara of the Lord’.
Ex. 24" ‘And they saw the God ‘And they saw the Y*kara of
of Israel’. the God of Israel’. -

We sometimes find Sh*kinta and Y*kara@ coupled; ®12) NP3¥
‘the Dwelling of the Glory ’—
Isa. 40” ‘He that sitteth upon ‘That causeth the Sh*kinta of

the circle of the earth’. His Y°Zara to dwell in lofty
strength ’.
Ps. 44% ‘Wherefore hidest Thou ‘Wherefore causest Thou the
Thy face ?’ Sh'kinta of Thy Y°kara to
z depart ?’

Or, with inversion of order—

Isa. 6° ‘For mine eyes have ‘For mine eye hath seen the
seen the King, the Lord of Y*kara of the Sh*kinta of
hosts’. 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 8éga he has in mind
the Y°fara of the Targums.* In Jn. 12"°"' the writer, after quoting
Isa. 6", adds the statement, radra eirev "Hoaias dru eidev tiv ddgev
airodv. The opening of the vision (Isa. 6') runs in Heb., ‘I saw
the Lord sitting upon a throne’, and this is rendered in Targ.,
‘Il saw the Y°kara of the Lord resting on His throne’. Other
instances in Jn. of dda in this sense are, 2" édavépwoer tiv ddgav
aitod, 11” édy miotevons own tiv ddgav Tod Meod, 17” iva Oewpiow Tiv
dogav tiv éunv. |

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.

38 A PRELIMINARY TEST

of the Prologue must undoubtedly be derived from the third and
most frequent Targumic conception representing God in mani-
festation; that of the “1 82° ‘the Word of the Lord’. We
should no doubt trace the origin of the conception of the NV")
Mémra to O. T. passages in which Heb. 133 dabhar ‘Word’ is
eniployed in a connexion which almost suggests hypostatization,
e.g. Ps. 107%, ‘He sent forth His Word and healed them’;
I'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 DDN WN “And God saia’ in Gen. 1,
where the Heb. verb V8 ’a@mar is identical with the Aram. root
from which Mémra is derived. Mémra 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.

Feb.

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,
&c.’

g” ‘This is the token of the
covenant which I make be:
tween Me and you’.

So in VU 13.15.16.17

larg.

‘And they heard the voice of
the Mémra of the Lord God
walking, &c.’

‘Il heard the voice of Thy
Memra’.

‘And the Lord repented in His
Memra because He had made
man’,

‘Because I have repented in My
Mémra’.

‘And the Lord said in (or by)
His Mémra, | will no more
curse, &c.’

‘This is the token of the cove-
nant which I am making be-
tween My Mémra and you’.

We cannot fail to notice that in Jn. 1% the writer—no doubt
with intention—brings together all three of these Targumic con-

OF PROLOGUE 39

ceptions.* In kai 6 Aoyos caps éyéveTo WE have the Mémra; in
Kal éoxyvwcey ev npiv the Sh°kinta; in kat Ccacdpcba tHv ddéav aitod
the Y°Zara. This is evidence that, so far from his owing his
Aéyos-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.

adypys xapitos Kat dAnOeias. The reference of this statement
back to the main subject of the sentence, 6 Aéyos—which makes xai
eGcacdpefa xrA. a parenthesis—is certainly awkward. It would be
possible to assume that zAypys is a misreading for zAnpy,t referring
to riv degay airod. 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."° dru &
Tov wAnpopatos aiTod ypeis TavTes EAGBopey, i.e. NIIDI SSPE) ANID (OT,
1 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."*. povoyers @cds. This reading has stronger attestation than

the variant povoyerys vids, which looks like a correction. It must

* This has been noted by Dalman, W. p. 231. ’

t+ This is the reading of Cod. D. Deissmann (LAE. pp. 125 ff.) defends mAnpns
as an indeclinable adjective, on the score of popular usage; and is followed by
Moulton (NV7G.5 p. 50). The same view was earlier put forward by Blass,
Grammar (Eng. tr. 1898), § 31, 6, and by C. H. Turner in Journal of Theol. Studies

i (1900), pp. 120 ff.

40 A PRELIMINARY TEST

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 NTDN TN, ‘the only-begotten of
God’, has been misunderstood as NTN Tm (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
(1) the simplicity of construction, with its fondness for co-ordination
of sentences linked by xaé (cf. especially vv.'**""""), 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.*

ee Me ee

NIN M NID TDD

N70" NYT NTP]

ASTON MP NPP NY NAA
TINS ANI NDB
.Ox3 VAYNN NI AID 7
Mo M2 NI
NVI IT RDAD MN
m9 ND2pP2 NAN
-FIEPEPN ND_NDID!

* The differences are slight. We have chosen NiN_ see’ rather than NIN, YT
‘know’ rather than DSN, DN ‘but’ in preference to NDS ; and the nominal
rst plural suffix 8) rather than j—» verbal tst plural suffix NJ__ rather than
12—. Possibly the Relative should be 4 as in Biblical Aramaic; but 4 is the

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

OF PROLOGUE 41

x77} by TAD sD? NOS PTD OP AMY NIDN JD AWD NT NIT
Nin] NIT NTN by TAD aby Nin] an NNT xd Oba 2 poo
NIT NDDdYyI wnby2 ‘ny wor 53d TnI NOW

TINS AI NPY)
FOYT ND NDT

Nn NM?
sapdap xd aden

Few a py? NNN 22 (HT or) WD RMW? find ans APAdapT jin;D
N7DN 1D FIDE NIB MDY pO NP) NDA MDE PD ND (PPT or) NOT ID NPT
DOYS
TRUS NDI NID :
AOE MAY Wwe

AMP? NL XPM

ROE ORY CR
NOVAP) NI 17D
+8930) NID ANZD D7

oNET ROM NEM
NOS AWD jd SOVINI

ANID 11) ROTI) NIN

O32 NT NEST Saya MT NMdN MY Snio’ pp woe sta Nd Nady

e

. ‘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.

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

Wn

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

42 A PRELIMINARY TEST

all might believe init. 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*kinta among us.

g. 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 Ciimactic. In this form stichos 4 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", 113'. ‘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. r21'”? (help); v. *°*; v. 4°";
v.'8*; 122°"8* &c,’ Climactic parallelism is very characteristic

“*
al
4!

OF PROLOGUE 43

of the Song of Deborah; see note in the writer’s Commentary on
Judges, pp. 169f. 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.

g. 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.

Of the remaining couplets, 1, 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 dia "Inootd Xpiorod the translation offers ‘through
the Messiah’ simply, metri gratid. "Inoot may very naturally have
come in as a later addition.

Additional Note on the interpretation of Jn. 1" 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. 1, 2 in working out
their theme. Just as God’s first creative act was the formation of
light, 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°°, od yap éavrots Kypiocopey GAA Xpiorov “Inoodv

44 A PRELIMINARY. TES?

KUpiov, ...0Tt 6 Weds 6 eizadv “Ex oxdtovs Pos Adpwet, Os EAapilev ev Tais
kapdtais Hav mpos PuTirpov THs yvorews THs SdEys Tod Ocod ev tpocwore
Xpurrod. Cf. also 1 Cor. 4°, 2 Cor. 6", Eph. 5°, Col. 1%. Allusion
to Gen. 1, which is clearly seen in the opening words of Jn.1,
‘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 O12, Gen. 1‘) between light and
darkness, so (Jn. 1°) in the Incarnation the Light was shining in
darkness and the darkness did not obscure it ; its introduction into
the world producing a xpio1s whereby Light and darkness were
sharply distinguished and men had to range themselves under the
one or the other (Jn. 3°; cf. 9%, 12° %°).* Turning to the
Birth-narrative of St. Luke, it is surely not fanciful to find in the
words of the angel in 1°, Ivetpa aytov érededoerau eri oé, kai dvvapus
‘Yyiorov émucxidce oor, an implied reference to Gen. 1°, where the
Spirit of God is pictured as brooding or hovering (NNN) 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 dvaroAy é& twous, érupavar rots év oKdrer Kal
oxig Gavdtov kabypevors (1), and Gs eis drroxaduyw eOvav (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 darkness 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 works of the wicked. ‘One
day ’’, inasmuch as the Holy One blessed be He) gave them one day. And what
is this? The Day of Atonement.’

+ This Genesis passage is applied in Midrash Bereshith Rabba to the endowment
of the Messiah with the Divine Spirit; ‘This is the Spirit of the King-Messiah, as
it is said, ‘‘ And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him”’.’ é

OF PROLOGUE pe

the New is explicit in St. Paul’s teaching as to the first Adam and
the second Adam in 1 Cor. 15°; ovtws xai yéyparras “Eyévero 6 mpatos
avOpwros "Adap eis Woxnv Caoav: 6 éxyaros “Adap cis rvedua Cworovoidv.
This is worked out in the frequent antithesis between odpé and
xveda, and in the representation of baptism as a burial with Christ
in which 6 radas jpaov dvOpwros is put off, and the baptized rises
with Christ to newness of life (Rom. 6*#). We find the same
antithesis between oapé and zveidpa in Jn. 3°, 6%, the whole of the
discussion with Nicodemus in ch. 3 turning on the new birth which
is éx tov mvevparos. In 6™ it is stated, in contrast to odpé, that
7 rvedpd. eorw 7d Lworowdv, a thought of which the connexion with
St. Paul’s éyévero. . . 6 évyxaros ’Adip cis rvetpa Cworowdy 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 otrws xai yéyparra: 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 éyévero down to lworouiv.
6 éoxatos "Addy cis tvedua Cworowotv depends upon éyévero introducing
the quotation equally with what goes 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 6 8¢ €oyatos Adap éyévero eis rvedpa Cworo.ody ?

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 fz DIN ‘the first Adam’ is well known in early
Midrashic literature. ANNA DIS ‘the second Adam’, i.e. the Messiah, is not
known to us in Midrash before the N°wé shalém, the work of a Spanish Jew in the
15th century a.p (cf. Thackeray, 7he Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish
Thought, pp. 40 ff.); but the Midrash Bereshith Rabba (ascribed by tradition to
R. Hoshaiah, grd century a.p.) 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 p/ene with } only in this passage and in Ruth 4},

46 A PRELIMINARY TEST

to be ‘EBpatos é€ “EBpatwv (Phil. 3°), i.e. not a ‘EXAnviori)s (cf. Acts 6'),
and he obtained his education at Jerusalem under Gamaliel, 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. Testimonia,
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. yéyparra: introduces a definite citation from
the O. T., and that this is also the case with allusions to 7 ypady

‘These are the generations of Perez’ atin , but elsewhere always nwin), and
cites the inference that }, 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. mvedua (woroodr)
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 weré given to them before their birth, viz. Ishmael, Isaac, Moses, Solomon,
Josiah, and the King-Messiah. On the last it says, ‘The King-Messiah, because
it is written, ‘‘ Before the sun his name shall be Yinnén”. And why is his name
called Yinnén ? because he is destined to gutcken those who sleep in the dust.’ |

Here the Scriptural passage quoted is Ps. 7217 ny yi3s view "BD ‘Before the

sun shall his name propagate’ (or ‘ produ:e 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 11th century a.p. Late as this is, we
have the evidence of the Talmud (Sanhedrin, 98 b) that Yinnén 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 Yimndéu. 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 Yinn6n is to be taken as his name.

Though no part of this Midrashic speculation can be traced back to the
Ist 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.’

OF PROLOGUE 47

(with the possible exception of 1 Tim. 5", where our Lord’s words
"Agus 6 épyarns Tod pucGod airod 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 é« rév ypapév. 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:
_ mpooéxwpev pyrore, ws yéypartal, ToAAoL KAyToL, dAlyou Se exAeKTOoL evpé-
Gwpev. Similarly, the formula A¢yer yap 7) ypady is used in Barnabas
16° to introduce a quotation from Enoch 89”.

If, then, this interpretation of 1 Cor. 15” as wholly a quotation
be correct, the implication is that some time before St. Paul wrote
his Epistle in a.p. 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 theological
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, Benedictus,
and Nunc dimittis. 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

48 A PRELIMINARY. TEST

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
Testimonia for general use. If, then, St. Luke’s rod ’Addp, rod Ocod
links itself on to vids @eod 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.

CHAPTER II

THE SENTENCE
Asyndeton.

Ir 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. U—2‘*, 8—12 are written in Hebrew, while chs. 2!°—7 are in
Aramaic.

Dan. 1'—2** (Hebrew) consists of 23 sentences. Of these, 22
(i.e. all but the opening verse of ch. 1) 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.
v. jm ‘And if’. v wooo my ‘Answered the
0 wm ‘ For if’, king’.
v." snbdo) ‘And the word’. v.’ 3p ‘They answered ’.
v.= sn ‘And the decree’. v5 yotp my ‘Answered the
v.4 5yex7 xa ‘Then Daniel’. king’.
v8> xno pox ‘Then the v.° ww wy ‘Answered the
word’. Chaldaeans ’.
v.¥ Sy Drm ‘And Daniel went —y,*_ p39 bap 53 ‘Because of this’.
in, v.°* “oxi my ‘He answered
vt Syn wax ‘Then Daniel’. and said’.
v.84 Syagyab mae § Then . to yo Sees my ‘ Answered
Daniel ’. Daniel ’.

2520 E

50 THE SENTENCE

p90 Sey mix ‘Then Daniel’. v. xby yin ‘He revealeth’.
v.” WYN pS ‘Then Arioch’, v. spnax mds 75 ‘To thee the
v.™ ms) ‘And IT’, God of my fathers’.
v.” spt fsa) ‘Then were vast Sap 55 ‘Because of

broken’, this’.
v.™ Jana ‘And after thee’. v.6 xobo my ‘Answered the
v. ssyan 1250) ‘And the fourth king’.

kingdom’. v. Sem my ‘Answered
v. anin 1 ‘And _ whereas Daniel ’.

thou sawest’. v.8 ynbm ‘Thy dream’.
v2 3wds4 nyaye ‘And the toes’. v. xob5p vn ‘Thou, O king’.
v.* anin)‘Andwhereasthou _—_v.*"* 7d.

sawest’, v.16 194 xDby ‘This image ’.
v.* jayoyn ‘And in their days’. v.2 soby sin ‘That image’.
v.° x2dp pasa ‘Then the king’. v.* nn nin ‘Thou sawest’.
v.8 x9bp px ‘Then the king’. v.* xobn an ‘This is the
v.© Sx “And Daniel’. dream ’,

v.7 xobp anos ‘Thou, O king’.

v.” Ann Sap Sy ‘Whereas
thou sawest’.

v.” xobo my ‘Answered the
king’.

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 zatural in Greek as in English—we find 34 asyndeton

THE SENTENCE 51

openings, as against 28 with connective particle. In the 28 sen-
tences which have connective particles, these are xai 19 times,
dé 4 times, dr twice, otv 8 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. Without connective particle.
> > a 2
ev apxn nV.
k 2d >
OUTOS NV.
4 > > 2 fe ee 2
mavta Ou avtod éyévero.

> ita Cw) 7
€V GUTW CW) NV.

=
ou

Kal TO pds. uv. éyéveto avOpwros.
v.' ovtos 7AGev.
> > > “ \ lal
OUK HV EKELVOS TO Pas.
v.. hv Ta POs TO GANOwov.

aes por ae kA
Vv. €V TH KOTPW 7V.

Vv." eis Ta tdia HAG€.

v.” door 8é.

v.4" Kai 6 Adyos.

v.” Kai Ceardpeba. v." "Iwavyns paptupe.

v.° Ore €k TOU wANpwparos.

v."* Oru 6 vopos. v.i° % yxdpis Kal } dAnOeva.
v.'°* @cdv oddels Ewpaxe.

186 ‘ ,

Vv.” Kal avrn éotiv. ity Sak Rats

UV.” Kal oporoynoer.

v.** Kal Hpotycav. —

v2” Kat Aéyet.

v."° Kal daexptOn.

UV.” eiay ovr. v.> én.

v4 Kal drectaApévor. .

Vv." Kal Hpotnoay.

vm” T oby Bamri€ets ; Vv." amexpiOn aitois.
v2? nécos Sav orHKet.
v. radta ev Bybavia éyéverto.
Vv.” rH éravpiov Bréret.

a A ,
y.*! Kay® OvK qoew adrov.

Kal €waptupyoer.

52 THE SENTENCE

> A 3 yy > ,
U KayW OUK moet QuTOV.
v4 a , ¢ ,

Vv Kayo €wpaka. Vv.” TH eravpiov waAw ioTHKEL.
v. = Kat euPrdWas.

Lee
Uv KQL 1)KOUVCOGY.
VU

otpadeis dé.

v.**” of 8& etrav. : vu." déyet adrots.
s90 DAOav ovr. v.°° dpa nv as Sexarn.
v.° i "Avdpéas.
Vv." ebpioxet ovTOS.
v.°* nyayev aiTov.
v.” éuBrebas airs.
Vv.” rH eravpiov nOéedrAnoev.
v. © Kal evpioxer Bidurrov.
uv." jv 8 6 Pidurmos. © ebpioxer Pidurros.
v.°* Kal eirev ado. 46b A€éyer adt@ 6 Pidurros.

elev Incods.

Aéyer aitG NaGavanX.
aarexpiOn ‘Incods.
amexpiOn aitd NaGavayr.
azrexptOn “Incods.

UV.’ Kai A€yer aiTa.

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 mainly of narrative. Ch. 11 contains
59 sentences, of which 17 have no connective particle (vv. *°%7!3**
29.26.27.34.95.39 bis. 40-44bis-48) « ch 78 contains 52 sentences, and 20 of these
are without connective particle (vv. 1.5b #8.1°20.21.98.25 26.00.2131. are
This is a smaller proportion than in ch. 1; 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, zone without
connective particle ; Mk. 1 contains 88 sentences, 2 only without
connective particle (vv.'*); Lk. 8 contains 60 sentences, 2 only
without connective particle (vv.*”).

Asyndeton arexpiOn, drexpiOnoav = asyndeton 1Y, '3Y.
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,

THE SENTENCE 53

' 28 examples occurring in the six Aramaic chapters, while there
are only 2 cases of ‘Then answered’ (5", 6"), and uone 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) ’, 1y%, 199, &c.

Throdotion’s version of Dan. does not always represent this
Aramaic ‘Answered’; but where it does, it regularly renders
_ amexpiOn, aaexpiOnoav (11 times; once dzoxpiGeis), preserving the
asyndeton in 4 cases (2°""°, 4”), but elsewhere prefixing xa‘. 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:

2° gS. Ca ty drrexpiOn.

2! POON... WY drexpiOnoav.. . Kat elrav.
2° AM. « TOY Kal aaekpiOn .. . Kal €LIreVs
PIR 6 ct OY amekpiOnoav ... Kal Aێyovow.
25 “EN1... MY Kal dwexpiOn... Kal elev.
27 98)... TY ~~ Kal daexpiOn .. . Kai A€yen.
27 ON)... WY Kat daroxpiOeis . . . etrev.

3 WN)... IY kat aexpiOn . . . Kal elev.
3° puoNi... WY Kal drexpiOnoay... deyovTes.
37) “Ni... MY = al drexpiOn .. . Kat elrrev.
4° WENT... IY at aexpiOn .. . Kat elmer.
4% WON... MY daexpiOy... Kal etre.

In the Fourth Gospel ézexpiOy or daexpiOnoav occurs as asyndeton
openings 65 times (see below), dzoxpiverar once, 13°. On the other
hand, we have drexptOn ovv, icf ge a: arexplOnoav ou, a, 7 gst 9”;
Os 5 drexpiOn, 5"; daexpivaro otv, 5°; 6 5é daexpivato, 5"; daoxpiverar
otv, 13°; 6 8& “Incots droxpiverat, 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. dzexpé6n as an asyndeton opening
occurs only in Mk. 12”. In the Synoptists the common phrase
is 6 8& doxpiHeis (dzroxpiels 52) efrev, which rather resembles the
common Hebrew phrase 7px jy ‘And he answered and said’,
of which it is frequently the rendering in LXX.

Of the 65 cases of asyndeton opening dzexpiOn, daexpiOnoav in

54 THE: SENTENCE

Jn., 88 introduce the words spoken without further verb, viz.
1”, =, har Gar > igegd 2 a aneraa ~* Bagabis psa aa gt 153 13° =. ie,
1Q°-8-20.28-84.95.86.57 97-11-1522 515; we once have daexpibn.. déyov, 17;
while in the 26 other cases the opening is dzexpiOn (daexpibncav).. .
cai elrev (clay), viz. 19, 2% 9391.27 410.1817 6262048 pte gitsn4s
9° T2137, 14%, 18", 20%. It is difficult to resist the conclusion
that daexpi@n kat «trey is a literal rendering of the Aram. 78) 73),
and daexpiOnoav kat trav of } 28) 3Y, for which, as we have seen,
they stand in Theodotion’s Daniel.

Asyndeton déye, €yovrw = asyndeton VS (partictple), PON.

Similarly, we constantly find that Jn. uses Aye as an opening
without connective particle. The cases are 1°, 2°7, 94, 47-11-16-16.17-19.
Fe ORS oe 6%, a 8", a"; § Relea chest so asada if
1 BP-17-26.38 19°", 2019. 5.16.17.29 2 13-10.12.15 bis.16 fer.17 bis.22 « a total of 63.
Aéyovsw without connective particle occurs in 11°", 16°, 21°;
éxeivn .. . A€yet, 20"; adAou €Aeyov in Io”, 12%. On the other hand,
we have the opening kal Ayer In 2*%, 19; Kal A€yovow in 20";
kat édeyey in 6, 8*; Kai eAeyov in 6”; Ayer ovv in 4°, 7°, 13%, 18",
19", 21°"; A€yovow otv ing”; éAeyer ovy in 8"; eAeyov ovr in 4%, 5",
ape cad " 11, 16%, 19", 20”; A€yea d€ in 12°; eAeyey d€ in 6; eAeyov |
dé in 10”; eira A€yee in 19”, 20%; i.e. a total of 31 openings with
connective particle, as against 70 without such particle.

In Mt. Aéyee as an asyndeton opening occurs 16 times, viz.
16", 197% 18") 198, 20/7 or"2 po8 26H ane héyovow
10 times, viz. 9*, 19°", 20°", 21°"! 22% 297% In Mk. Neve: tome
never; déyovow in 8".* In Lk. Ayer in 16’, 19%; A€yovow never.
In Acts there are no occurrences of déKye, Aéyovow as asyndeton
openings.

That the historical present in Jn., of which A¢ye 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 “8 (participle) in Dan., because the

* The absence of this asyndeton usage in Mk. is a point against the view that
this Gospel is a /iteral translation of an Aramaic document. There are very many
cases where Mk. uses «al Aéyer, 6 5¢ A€yer as Openings, where Jn. would certainly

have used asyndeton Aéya. Cf. e.g., for the difference in style, the dialogue of
Mk. 1a!¢-I7,

THE SENTENCE 55

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 78, 20 /" (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 Aéye. 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. +s»):

‘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,

9

“T was seeking just such a workman”.

With this we may compare the structure of the dialogue in
a. ar"! :

‘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

”» >

sheep ”’.

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

56 THE SENTENCE

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

Parataxis,

Peculiarly Semitic is the simplicity of construction employed
throughout the Fourth Gospel. Sentences are regularly co-ordi-
nated, and linked by xai. 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 dzexpiOn xai eixev, we noticed
that the Synoptic equivalent subordinates the prior action by use
of the Aorist Participle, e.g. 6 d€ daoxpibeis eizev, i.e. the natural
Greek construction. Though we occasionally find this latter con-
struction in Jn.—e.g. 1° kai éuBrAdwas... A€yee—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 ye? 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.’ =

+ We may note that v.? contains two out of the only seventeen ofcurrences
of the Genitive absolute which are found in Jn.

THE SENTENCE 57

pp. n WH. Occurrences. oe
Mt. 68 © 338 5
Mk. 41 224 5d
Lk. 72 324 43
Jn. 53 58 1

Prof. Moulton (V7G.* i, p. 12), in speaking of ‘co-ordination
of clauses with the simple xa, 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 Kowy 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 Kowy 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 23
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 (‘‘as” or “ because”) is implied,
probably or certainly, in 2%, 5", 6%. “Though” is certainly implied
in 12%, 21", and perhaps in 20”’ (Abbott, /G. 2028-31).

The rarity of the Genitive absolute in Jn. is due partly to the
use of parataxis: e.g. I” Kal npwtnocav aitév Ti ov; od ’HXeias «i;
kal A€yer Odx cipi. 1% wal etrev aitd NafavayA, . . Aéyer aitG 6 Pidurros.

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

58 THE SENTENCE

1* eye aire Nadavaynr... arexpiOyn “Incods kai eirev aird (contrast
Mt. 17” cimdvros 5é ’Awo trav ddXoTpiwv, pn aitd 6 “Inoots. Lk. 21°
kai twwv eyovtwv... cirev). 4° NAO otv... Kal HV Tis BacrsKds.
7° "HAGov ody ot tanpérar mpos Tos apxiepets Kai Papuruiovs, Kal elrov
abrots éxetvor (contrast Mt. 8* kai éX@dvros aitod .. . tryvrncay aire.
Mt. 17'*4, 21%), 6" Kai oxoria 75y éyeyovet, Kal ovrw eAndvOer mpds
aitovs 6 “Inoots (contrast Mt. 8° dias dé yevomevyns tpoonveyxay avT@).
10°" Kai weprerare 6 “Inoods év TO tep@d.. . extikAwoay ovv avTov ot
Tovdator (contrast Lk. 11” Tay dé 6xAwv éxabporLopevwv npgaro déyew).

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 ore has an antecedent (e.g. Jn. 4”!
EpxeTat wpa ote. So 4”, 5”, 9', 16”), there are 16 cases of ore intro-
ducing a temporal clause in Jn., 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; ifas long as Lk., 22 cases; if as short as Mk.
18 cases. The occurrences of #s= ‘when’ introducing a temporal
clause in Jn. are 16; Lk. 16; Mt. and Mk. none.

In cases where the subject of the dre or és 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—dre, 6%, 13%, 17, 19°? a1 Gg: ote
7 1°70.952-383 tg, 21°. There remain 8 cases in which, the subject
of the dre clause being different from that of the principal clause,
the Genitive absolute might have been used; and 5 similar cases
of the ds clause. These are—ére, 1°, 2”, 4%, 12°", 13%, 207,
21"; ws, 2%, 6'7'6 7 18°, Similar cases in Lk. are—dre 6, ds 8;
Mt. ore 7; Mk. dre 9. Thus cases in which a dre or és 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 zarrative,
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 ére or és, which serve to explain

THE- SENTENCE 59

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

Now the use of "73, 13, Syr. .5=‘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? jyepovedvovros tis Supias Kupyviov.

Pal. Syr. kLigams wanno Joo oo ‘when Quirinius was in
Syria’.

Pesh. [ugam> warjasy Jlarmao> ‘in the hegemony of Q.
in S.’

Sin. bsamy bamgo watino was ‘in the years of Q.,
governor of S.’

Lk. 2° kai ore éyévero érav dadexa, dvaBawdvrwv avToav Kata TO Gos
THS €opTHs, Kat TeAeLwodvTWV Tas NpEépas, KTH.

Pal. Syr. yoo pSacsS asda gaa comrlil im Joo .00
JNsogs ama 400 +J,0209 ohooh? ‘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} wyepovevovros Tovriov Widdrov tijs “lovdaias, xd.

Pal. Syr. bagcas yargo wap s.d was Joo » ‘when
Pontius Pilate was governor in Judaea’.

Sin. Jroon> wahS.2 mapids Jlhais wos ‘in the hegemony of
Pontius Pilate in Judah’. So Pesh.

Lk. 3” zpocdoxGvros dé Tod Aaod, Kal diaroyiLopevwv wavTwv ev Tais
Kapdtais abrov.

Pal. Syr. (Oma d>S (oo ao gaan Koo Yoo famrxw Joo us Pea)
‘Now when the multitude was expectant, and all of them were
debating in their hearts’.

Sin., Cur, .ooaasids coo gdihrxo od cco ge dmra? bests ‘And
the men that were hearing him were reflecting in their minds’.

Pesh. eras» .oosco teins Sod faas Joo samrxw ve?

60 THE SENTENCE

yeaa d> oom ‘Now when the people were speculating concerning
John, and all of them were debating in their heart’.

Lk. 3” “Eyévero 8¢ &v 7O BartwOjvar aravta tov adv Kai “Incod
Barricbévtos Kal rporevxopevov avewxOnvat Tov ovpavov.

Pal. Syr. 9 wams Jiro Solo oo oXao 924;/ 2 of eash/
Jasoam auhkol/ + wd3° sag;/ ‘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. Joo Wyso oo eas Sams 9/f fran odo Joo smn 90
Jxsam awhol/ ‘And when all the people had been baptized, Jesus
also was baptized. And when He was praying, the heavens were
opened ’.

Pesh. so p00 +e sams oto shox odo wor 2 ge? Joo
Jrsam awkol/ ‘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? kai ovvredcoOeucov abrav éreivacer.

Pal. Syr. caret. |

Sin. e202 Joo ply? JNRsx0 04 gedi/ IK> gro ‘and after forty days
on which He fasted, He was hungry’.

Pesh. ¢29 lim as/ po .o ‘and when He had completed
them, afterwards He was hungry’.

Two cases occur in which Mk.’s ére with finite verb (suiting the
theory of an Aramaic background) is altered into the Genitive
absolute in the other Synoptists.

Mk. 1” dre év 6 HALos.
Lk. 4” ddvvovros 5€ Tod HAtov.

Mt. 8"° éias dé yevopevns.*

Mk. 4° kat dre dvérerXev 6 HALOS.
Mt. 13° nAvov dé dvareiAavTos.
Lk. 8° omits.

* Mk. also has dyias 52 yevouévns before ore Ev 5 Hrvos. If this is part of the
original Mk. and not a conflation, and if Mk. wrote in Aramaic, the text must have
run Nv Jy 33 xv ‘And in the evening, when the sun was set’. It
would be more natural to write xwinw JT) xvIDI 810 72) ‘And when it was

evening, and the sun was set’; but would this have been translated as we have it?

TFHE SENTENCE 61

It is interesting to note that this construction of ‘when’ with
a finite verb avd the absence of an alternative construction resem-
bling the Genitive absolute in Greek, is not common to Semitic,
but is specifically Aramaic. Hebrew uses W832 ‘when’ with a finite
verb .somewhat rarely, but far more frequently employs the Infini-
tive construct with pronominal suffix, and prefixed 3 ‘in’ or 3 ‘as’;
e.g. Inikta ‘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 itin 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 .5 ‘when’ with a finite
verb. The English renderings aim at exactly reproducing the
Semitic constructions.

Gen. 42” \pwa IDI WY WN AA OMpY Op ID oF AN ‘And it
came to pass, they emptying their sacks, and behold, each man’s
bundle of money in his sack’.

LXX éyévero dé év 76 Kataxevoiv aitovs To’s oaKKovs aiTov, Kal 7V
éxaotou 6 decpods TOU apyupiov év TO GdkKw adTdav.

Targ. Mpwa maDD WAY 737 NA) APY Pp Io p»NKX mm, exactly
follows Hebrew.

Pesh. Jiagy 20009 Js3, Jo % \OORME gaOsmMr \QVO 2d? Jooo
ot>{ poa> ‘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’.

1 Kgs. 13” may nat tay qndwn Sy vay nn om «And it came to
pass, they sitting at the table, and there came the word of Yahweh’.

LXX kai eyévero abriv xaOnpévev [emt ris tparélys |, cai éyévero Adyos
Kvpiov.

Targ. mm DIP jo ANIaD DIND mM sone Sy PnnDD PNT TY 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, kjs09 omgh® Joo Jiok®o Na pohs wo oo ‘And
when they were sitting at the table, there came the word of the
Lord’.

62 FHE SEN TEACE

2 Kgs. 2" wx az7 mom aan pon ohn nen my ‘And it came
to pass, they going on—going and talking (= and talking as they
went), and, behold, a chariot of fire, &c.’ |

LXX kai éyévero aitdv wopevopévwr, éropevovto Kat éAaAovv" Kat toov
Gpwa Tupos KTA. 7

Targ. snest pon xm pooon Spo pois pews sy may ‘And it
came to pass, whilst they were going on—going and talking, and
(= then) behold, chariots of fire’.

Pesh. Jiasg JKaosxo Joo eadsox2e0 gddmxw (wo 2d? Jooo
‘And it came to pass that when they were talking and going on,
and (= then) behold, a chariot of fire’.

2 Kgs. 8 mayen mom non ns ann saws ny bod app an
yoon 5x npyy ma nsx mnn awe ‘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 xal éyévero aitrod eényoupevov 76 Baoitee ws eLwripnoe vidv
teOvynKoTa, Kat idov 7 yuvy ys eLomipnoe Tov vidv aitns Bodoa mpos Tov
BaoXéa.

Targ. 992 0) ‘ANT NNMS NAD NN MY nN NDIdNd5 cyneD NIA MM
xan op xdap, as in Hebrew.

Pesh. Jiar o> vmle JLRG? Jie INaro auly Jada [rbaro 0
JaSso peo ‘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" oyn om... voy 220m os nN aD add pp sin mM
ond ‘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 kai éyevero airod dvacraytos, kat érdragey Tov Edam Tov KUKAG-
gavta éx avtov ... Kal épvyev 6 Aads KT. |

Targ. Noy Jaxr... > pepot ove wos manny soda op sin aim
‘mpd, construction as in Hebrew.

Pesh. apsd0 . . . oS ganeio? Jussos some LANS po 420
\SomideasaS fsas ‘And when he arose by night that he might
destroy the Edomites who were surrounding him... and (= then)
the people fled to their homes’.

THE SENTENCE 63

2 Kgs, 137 ‘1027 NN ISS AIT WS OMAP on ‘ny ‘And it came to
pass, they burying a man, and, behold, they saw the robber-hand’.

LXX kai éyévero aitav Oamrdévtwv Tov avopa, Kai idod tdov Tov
povolwvov.

Targ. mw nN NM NID Pp pPrNt Ty mm ‘And it came to
pass, whilst they were burying a man, and (= then) they saw, &c.’

Pesh, farg, ole + Jiay @i28 (vo eo ‘And when they were
burying a man, they saw, &c.’

2 Kgs. 19” 22 “YNIW qo) pads Job) ma mnnwp Ninoy
yan ‘And it came to pass, he worshipping in the house of Nisroch
his god, and Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote him’,

LXX xai éyévero adTov mpooKvvodrvTos év oikw Eodpax Geot aitod, Kat
A. kai &. of viot airod érdrakav airov.

Targ. mbpp smaa sysiey Jove) mmyy JI) m2 PID NIT MM,
as in Hebrew.

Pesh. soais lino gds01/ soo yeas Kad Joor pqe 490
woasfo ‘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 (o-Amyn N19) of the tree and I did eat’; Gen. 15‘, ‘But one
that shall come out of thine own bowels, he shall be thine heir’
(WwW 837); Gen. 24’, ‘Yahweh, the God of heaven, who took me
from my father’s house, &c., He shall send (nde 87) His angel
before thee’; Deut. 13, ‘All the word that I command you, it shall
ye observe to do’ (nivy2 mp¥in ink); Ezek. 18%, ‘In his trespass that
he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them
shall he die’ (N* D3), See further, Driver, Tenses, § 123 y Obs.

64 THE SENTENCE

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’
(S207 97 AWNT NIT AMIN); Dan. 3”, ‘Those men that took up
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, the flame of the fire slew
them’ (NT) "I N22v iT Sep); Dan. 47-", ‘The tree that thou
sawest, &c., it is thou, O king’ (S220 Ni TAIN); Ezr. 54, ‘And
moreover, the vessels of the house of God, &c., them did Cyrus
the king take out (¥i3 i] PBI) of the temple of Babylon’;
Ezr. 7%, ‘All priests and Levites, &c., it shall not be lawful to
impose tribute, &c., upon them’ (ony NID); Ezr. 7%, ‘Every one
that will not perform the law of thy God and the law of the king,
let judgement diligently be executed upon him’ (73) 732 N1nD).

seen ee
ray

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

I” 6001 dé €AaBov airov, édwxev aitots eLovoiay réxva Meod yeveoGa.

‘ \ ex > ‘\ / lal ‘\ > ~™ > 7,
povoyevis @eds 6 dy eis Tov KéATov TOU TaTpds exetvos eEnynoaro.
€ , / > MA , Pee TE ¢ -
I* 6 wéuwas pe Barrilew év date exetvds prot cizrev.
3° Os Hv peta god... ide ovtos Bamrilea.*
33 aA er \ » A =
3° 0 €wpakey Kal NKOVOEV TOUTO papTUpEl.
5" 'O roujoas pe typ éxeivds poe elrrev.
5° & yap av éxeivos ron, Tadra Kal 6 vids duotws rovei.
36 ‘ x ” a , , € a 7 , Sin, e ben . 9 a
5° Ta yap épya & dédwxév pou 6 raryp iva TeACwWow aiTa, adiTa Ta Epya &
Tod, papTupel wept éuod drt & waTyp pe améotadxev (we should surely
omit the comma after zo, and make aira ra épya the subject of
paptupel, reinforcing 7a yap épya after & dédwxév pot xtX.)

5" Kat 6 wémbas pe warp éxelvos pepapripyKev Trept e100.

5° ov améorevev éxelvos TovTw tpels od TioTEverTE.

6” iva wav 6 débwxev pow py arod€ow e€ airod.

6** ex \ a la e $i \ ,

6 Ov Tapa TOV Meov, ovTOS EwWpakey TOV TaTEpa.
8 6 d¢ Lytav rhv dd€av Tod Témfavtos abrov otros GAnOys eorw.
pray Ty bed ‘

8” Kayo & HKovea tap’ aitod Tadta AadG eis TOV KdcpoY.

i ‘ > / \ fal , > A , > ‘ A ,

I0' 6 py eioepxopevos dia. THS Ovpas ... exelvos KAETTS EoTiv Kai AnoTyHs.

* Schlatter (Sprache, pp. 49 f.) quotes a number of instances from Rabbinic
Hebrew in which 7} 7 ‘behold, this one, &c.’ reinforces a Nominativus pendens.
Thus e.g. Mechilta on Ex. 164, 72.8) OY Sox + nD dS ww mM 5p

; - .
NIN ADIN AY A AND? ‘Whosoever hath what he may eat to-day, and saith,
What shall I eat to-morrow ? behold, this one lacketh faith.’

THE SENTENCE 65

AS

: 25 \ » aA ~~, ~s ~ : oes an , aA A
10° -7& Epya & Ey TOW EV TW OVOMATL TOV TATPOS (LOV TATA pPapTUpEL
‘
Tept €L0v,

cf Xo a 2X, LX > “ “ SX > ome) /, € ,
oyos OV CAGANCA €KELVOS KPlVEL QUTOV €V TY €7XATH) Epa.

be

©)
%

°

/ ‘ f nee’ > ‘ /
Temas pe TaTHp altos por evroAny Séduxev.

ke

N
©

On

, > SS \ » es Fi-y “ > ~ 4
TLOTEVWV ELS Efe TA epya a eyw TTOLW KQKELVOS TOLYT EL.

La
>
no
On

14” Kai ore Gv aitnonrte ev TO dvopari pov TotTO ToL{ow.

14” 6 éywy tas évroAds pov Kal TypOv aitas exeivds eat 6 Gyarrav pe.

14” 6 d& rapdxAnros, TO rvedpa TO Gyvov 6 TéepWe 6 TaTHP ev TO dvopartt
pov, exeivos tuas diddéer wavra.

15° wav kAnpa ev éuot pn pepov Kaprov aipe: avd, Kal wav TO Kapmov
pépov Kabaipe aid.

15° 6 pevwv év éuot Kaye ev aitG ovtros peper Kaprov Todvv.

17? iva wav 0 dédwxas aitd dice aitots Cwiv aidviov.

17" 0 dddwxds por, Oédw iva drov cipl eyo Kaxelvor Gow pet epod.

18" 10 rornpiov 0 dédwxey por 6 ratHp ob py Tiw adTo ;

Against these 27* instances in Jn. we can only set 11 in Mt.
(4%, 137785 rel 19% 21", 24", 25” 26%), 4 in Mk. (6% 7”, 12"
Pa}, and 6 in Lk, (8°", 12°, 20”, 21°, 23° **); and of these Mt. 4*
and Mt. 21°= 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’ (N7G.* i, p. 69). The fact which concerns us is the
remarkable frequency of its occurrence in Jn. as compared with
the Synoptists. If Lk., for example, is a fair specimen of Kowy
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 10%5-36, }y § marip jyiacey Kal amécreidrev eis Tov Kdopov
bets Aéyere Stt BAaodnpeis ; ‘‘* Whom the F ather sanctified... do ye say [to him]
Thou blasphemest ?”’, best explained as [éxeivos] 6v.’ 7°8, 6 moredwy eis eué...
moTapot éx THs Koidlas avTod (also cited by Abbott) is not included as involving—on
our theory—a mistranslation. Cf. p. tog.

2520 F

CHAPTER III

CONJUNCTIONS
Kal, ouv.

As compared with the Synoptists, «af 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. «ai 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. |
So 11, 2% gie.tissgs 420 Symsesiner he care meee ama AE gee 9 12",
16°, 20", 21", Cf, in Hebrew, Gen. 2'*”, ‘Of every tree of the
garden thou mayest eat; and (= du?) of the tree of knowledge of
good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it’; 37°, ‘Of the fruit of the
trees of the garden we may eat; and (=u?) 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 (=#u?) my covenant will
I establish with Isaac’; 32‘ (Heb. 32°), ‘1 have seen God face
to face, and (=and yet) my life is preserved’ (other instances of
this common usage in Oxford Heb. Lex. p. 2526). 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 (=du?) 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

CONJUNCTIONS 67

and worship the golden image, &c.; and (=du?) whoso falleth not
down, &c.’; 3", ‘If our God, whom we serve, be able to deliver
us, He will deliver, &c.; and (=du?) if not, be it known, &c.’;
4’ (Aram. 4‘), ‘And I told the dream before them, and (= ye) 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. 11", ‘ 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
ZI go into my house, to eat and to drink, &c.?’ (lit. ‘and J 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. a&0). ho? jus Jokes holo sertahsro oo hyros juxes (oom.
‘All buildings are built in summer; and ¢hou buildest in winter !’

(Dp. wd) Jarman gro Jadsro opis vito go MA|ha/ whdspn
wrod amends ohio, WY shoto. ‘On thy account I excused
myself from my lord, king Mazdai, and from the supper; and
thou dost not choose to sup with me!’

(PD. dam) wes Wo sia Jone af WO Mase I rods ex yO O10 haf
C200 gaat jun.’ Nu?. ‘Thou thyself hast not departed from
us, except for a moment; and thou knowest not how we were
shut up!’

With inverted order, (p. $3) JASBS Is wmaao hu? os Ko/
gr>w? bd oyois Jad ephso. ‘Zhou sittest and hearkenest
to vain words; and king Mazdai in his wrath is seeking to
destroy thee!’

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

2” Teooepdxovra kal e éreow oixodopyOn 6 vads ovTos, kal ov ev Tpiciv
Hpepais eyepeis avror ;

3° Sb ef 6 diddoKaros Tod “IopayA Kal radra od ywwokets ;

8” Tlevryxovta érn ovrw exes Kal “ABpadp éopaxas ;

F 2

68 CONJUNCTIONS

9” "Ev dpapriaus od eyevviOns dros, kal ob SiddoKes Hpas ;

11° ‘PaBBei, viv eLyrovv ce ALOdoat of "Tovdator, Kat rédw brdyes exe ;

The use of ‘and’ with the sense ‘and so’ is very frequent in
Semitic. Some few cases of xa/ so used are to be found in Jn.,
e.g. 5° SaBBarov éorw, kat od« e€eoriv cor dpa tov KpdBBarov, 6 xabdrs
dréorehév pe 6 Cav marnp Kayo C dia Tov warépa, kal 6 Tpwywv pe
kaxeivos Cnoer du eve, TI* Cav abdpev airov ovrws, waves mucredoovoew
cis abrév, kat eXevcovtat of “Pwpator Kat Gpovow nav Kal Tov TOroV Kal TO
éOvos. Usually, however, this consecutive connexion is expressed
in Jn. by ody, which, as we have seen, is extraordinarily frequent
(200 occurrences). It is highly probable that oév 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 oty while Mt. or Lk. has it
in parallel passages, suggests that the particle in Jn. is due to the
translator. Oty is usually rendered in Pal. Syr. by o ‘and’ simply;
but sometimes by w= dé.

pév, 3€, ydp.
pev, 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 otv 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 eds 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 ‘‘waw 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
‘‘ waw consecutive’’ is that the event related is regarded as happening in due
sequence to what has gone before. To express this «al is too inadequate a link,
while 52 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 «ai ev@vs, and it is what is generally meant in the Fourth Gospel
by odv. Simon's wife’s mother was sick of a fever and so they tell Jesus of her
(wat evOvs Mk. 18°): 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 ¢izev otv or eimoy otv where “he said therefore” brings out too prominently
the idea of causation. All that is meant is WON “and so he said’’, or “and so
they said”, as the case may be.’ That ovy corresponds to the Hebrew waw con-
secutive was noticed by Ewald, Die johann. Schriften (1861), p. 45, n. 2.

CONJUNCTIONS 69

8¢ is uncommon in Jn. and Mk. as compared with Mt. and Lk.*

The numbers are, Mt. 496, Mk. 156, Lk. 508, Jn. 176. +
_ Thus, while the average number of occurrences per page (WH.)
are 74 in Mt. and 7 in Lk., in Mk. they are only 32 and in Jn, 33.

Now W. Aramaic, like Hebrew, has no equivalent of é¢, both
languages employing ‘and’ in its place, or (Aramaic) an asyndeton
opening. The comparative avoidance of d¢ 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 d€ was,
under Greek influence, so much felt that the Greek particle was
introduced in the form q dém, in Pal. Syr. o dz.

yép 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, IS, 7 O13, Biblical Aram, 7 bap-?3, &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 ydép in Jn. Syriac, feeling the need for
alight particle like ydp, introduced it in the form sq ger.

o

twa.

The frequency of iva 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 py occurs in Jn. 18 times, in Mt. 8 times, in Mk.
5 times, in Lk. 8 times. On the other hand, pirore in the sense
‘that... not’, ‘lest’, never occurs in Jn.,t whereas it is found in
Mt. 8 times, in Mk. twice, in Lk. 6 times.

* In Apoc. 5€ is excessively rare, occurring some 5 times only. ;

+ The numbers for the Synoptists are those given by Sir John Hawkins, HS ?
p. 151.

¢ Similarly in Apoc. we find iva pq 11 times, pymore never.

70 CONJUNCTIONS

Now there exists in Aramaic a particle—in origin a demon-
strative—which is used with peculiar frequency to denote various
shades of connexion. This particle appears in W. Aramaic as "7 dz
or 3 dé, in Syriac as » dé. 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. 2 WX “4
‘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. nore)
ND ‘the king’s captain’ (lit. ‘the captain, that of the king’).
Further, it is especially frequent as a conjunction, ‘hat, in the
sense im that, inasmuch as, because, and in a final sense, in order
that. Our purpose is to show that ta occurs in Jn. in all the
senses of “I or 7% except that which marks the genitive
relation.

The frequent occurrence of wa in a telic sense calls for no
comment, beyond note of the fact that the use of wa py to the
exclusion of pyrore favours the theory of literal translation of the
Aramaic phrase NDF ‘that...not’.* Further, the use of va = con-
junctive that, followed by a finite verb, where in classical Greek we
should expect an Infinitive, is a well-ascertained characteristic of
Kowy Greek, and has come through the Kowy into modern Greek
in the form va. What zs 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 wa,
whether used in a final sense or otherwise.t

Mk. 4” Kat €deyev adrots 671 Myre Epyerar 6 Avxvos iva bd Tov pddi0v
mH \ ‘ 4
teOn 7) bd THY KAivyy ;
4 Mt. 5° ot xaiovow Avxvov Kai tH€acw adbtov bd Tov podiov.

Lk. 8 Oddeis 8 AvXVov das Kadvrrer aitov oKever 7 troKadTw KALvys

\ tiOnow.

* Contrast the translation of Hebrew {B ‘lest’, Isa. 6", by wnmore (as in LXX)
in Mt. 1315, Mk. 42, with Jn. 12" iva pi) tSwow ois SpOaApois KTA, (cf. p. 100).

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

CONIJUNCTIONS — 71

Mk. 4” od yap éorw xpumrov éoy py iva davepwO 7.
Mt. 10° ovdev yap éorw Kexadvppévov 6 ovK aroxadupOnoera.
Lk. 87 od ydp éorw kpurrov 6 od havepov yernoerat.
Mk. 5" kai éuBaivovros abrod cis 76 rAoiov rapexdrde adrov 6 Sapov-
6 > a, 2 > > a >
abeis iva per’ adrov 7.
+Mt. 8* om.

Lk. 8° airds d¢ éuBas cis rAolov iéotpefer. édeiro dé abrod 6 avyp

ap ov eeAndrvOe ra daipovia civar crv aits.

(Mk. 5° kai rapaxadei airov ToAAA A€ywv Sti TS Ovyarpidv pov éoyarws
+ om. : > 66 > An a4 “a o * On \ /,
€xel, va eOwv ériOys Tas xetpas airy iva cwOH Kai Lyon.
Mt. 9" idod dpywy cis tpooeAOav rpocekiver aitd, éywv Ori “H Ovyadrnp
Fe 3
) pov apt éreAc’Tnoev, GAAG EAOdv ewifes Tiv xEipa Gov ér
> , ‘\ ,
aitTyv, Kat Cnoerat.

Lk. 8°” Kat recov rapa trois 7odas “Inocod wapexddAe airov cicedOeiy eis

\ > 3 “A Lid , \ > 3. * ‘ Ss
TOV OLKOV QUTOV, OTL Ouydrnp PovoyEvyS NV GUTM . « . KAL AUTH
\ > ‘g
amre0vyo KEV.

Mk.5* kai dueore‘Aaro abrois roAAd iva pydels yvot TodTo.
Mt. 9” om.
Lk. 8” 6 32 zapiyyetrev adrois pydevi ciety 7d yeyovds.

Mk. 6” @édw Wa eEavris 8Gs por emi rivak. THY Kepadrv “Iwdvvov Tot
Barricrod.
+ Mt. 148 Ads pot, dyoiv, &de_ ert mrivaxe tiv Kehadryv “Iwdvvov rod

Bartiorod.

Lk. om.

Mk. 6" kai édé8ov rots pabyrais va rapatiicw adrois.
Mt. 14% edwxev rots pabytais tovs dprovs, ot dé paPyrat Tots d6xAous.

16 \ 397 a te a a na
Lk. 9 KQL €did0v TOLS pabyrats trapabetvar TH oxAw.

(
Mk. 9° Kai xataBawévrwv aitav éx tod dpovs, dSueoreiAato adrois iva
Lk ee ,
pndevi & eidov Sinyjowvrat.
4 Mt. 17° Kai xataBawovrwv airav é« rod dpovs évereiAato abrois 6 “Inoois
Aéyov Mydevi ciryre xr.
Lk. om. |

Cases in which Mk.’s iva is retained by one or both of the other
Synoptists are Mk. 6®= Mt. 14%; Mk. 8° = Mt. 16” (contrast

72 CONJUNCTIONS

Lk. 9”); Mk. 9° = Lk. 9® (contrast Mt.17"°); Mk. 10% = Mt, 20” ;
Mk, ‘10% = Mt. 20° =. Lk. 36"; Mk... 20" = Dk oe (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 wa are merely accidental. Mk.’s use of wa,
which in proportion to the length of his Gospel is 3 times as
frequent as that of Mt., and 2} 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
under discussion ; and such an inference is supported by the fact,
already noted, that the Aramaic “4 or 7, which is the natural repre-
sentative of iva with a telic force, has a pee wider range of usage,
standing, for example, for the conjunctive ¢hat which fva 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 wa is
there proportionately nearly twice as frequent, while it is some
5 times as frequent as in Mt., and some 43 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 wa
with finite verb and the Infinitive construction, and that in these ©
the Syriac versions normally represent both constructions by 9 dé
followed by the finite verb, i.e. the construction which, on our
theory, is literally rendered by the wva construction.

One such is introduced by ovx «iyi adftos (or ixavds)

~ 9 “a \ 4
Jn. 17% ob otk eipl | éye | agus iva Avow avrod tov ipavtra Tod

brodynparos.
Pal. Syr. owoany Jond Jeary Jon bof Made vy
Sin. voaims hos Jialy baa Ilr 0
Pesh. wordsmnry ocr Jemle Jan W blr oc

. 4

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

CONJUNCTIONS 73

Mk. I’ ov ovk eipt ixavos Kiwas doa Tov ipavTa TOV UTOOnpaTwV avToDd.

Pal. Syr. coats? JRoid Jims yarasy ollwoy b lu? Mudy v

Sin. deest.

Pesh. worasmsoy hors Jia? yortly bf Jan Wy oc
‘That one who I am not worthy that I should stoop should loose
the latchet (Pesh. latchets) of His sandals’.

Lk. 3” ob otk eipi ixavos Adoa Tov ivavta TOV brodnpdTwv airod.
Pal. Syr. saosany JRors Jiasy ullsoor bf MAd yy
Sin. eocsmsy hors Jialy ban lly oo
Pesh. wordsmso? hors Jials bu? Jan Ip 06

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

Acts 13” o@ otk eipt dios To irddnpa Tov Today Adora.

Pesh. wordsmry floss Jialy bb? Jaa lly 06;
‘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. 1”.

Lk. 15°?! ovxére eit d£vos KAnOAvaL vids cov.

Pal. Syr. ys> Jiobuy Joa bb? RS gan

Sin., Cur. Jeol? gee? Yaaro loam Wo

Pesh. Jem? yer? Is? Jam Nua Ilo
I am no longer worthy that I should be called thy son’.

In the Q passage Mt 8* = Lk. 7° where we have the iva construc-
tion after ovx eiui ixavds, the Syriac versions naturally represent this
by 9 with the finite verb.

Lk. 7’ 816 obde épautov nkiwca mpos ot edOeiv.

Pal. Syr. yhas Jhhy Jan Muy V usin I 90/ ye?

Sin. om.

Pesh. JL? ghads hua I fy) oo Sho
‘Therefore I did not count myself worthy that I should come to
Thee’.

Thus out of all these passages only Jn. 1” and Mt. 8°= Lk. 7°
have the wa construction, and this agrees with the construction
with 9 which is used in all passages by the Syriac versions.

74 CONJUNCTIONS

Again, ovpdépe is followed both by the wa construction and by
the Infinitive, and both constructions are represented in the Syriac
versions by » followed by the finite verb.

Jn. I td ocupdépe bpv iva. eis avOpwrros azrobavn.

Pal. Syr. lasas wid eu? GX oJ

Sin. and Pesh. Lasas Jeag wu? G& wae
‘It is good (Sin., Pesh. profitable) to us that one man should die’.

Jn. 18% cupdépe eva avOpwrov arobaveiv.

Pal. Syr. Lara. wir pu? oF a

Sin. and Pesh. Lasay Jing, pu? (wae Pesh.) Ilo
‘It is good (Sin. fitting, Pesh. profitable) that one man should die’.

Mt. 19” od cupdéper yapjoa.

Pal. Syr. ws? ohKase ad !

‘It is not good that a man should marry’.

But Sin., Cur., Pesh. JLo? amas uns I
‘It is not profitable to take a wife’.

cupépe iva is also found in Jn. 16’, Mt. 5**°, 18°.

The construction ovw7ideyar iva in Jn. 9”, Ady yap cvvereewro of
‘Tovdaion iva édv tis aitov Sporoynon Xpiotév, dxocvvaywyos yévyrat, IS
reproduced in the Syriac versions by » with the finite verb; so
Pal. Syr. 009 as? o> Joos aly (coins L904 atohly Joo tay 229
Jnentd go cad 2.2) Jos buraxo. In the other two occurrences
of cvvribeua, 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° cuvvéGevto airG dpy'piov Sodva, Pal. Syr. yas Oo
Q.05 oS ‘they agreed that they should give him money’; Acts 23”
ot Tovdator cvvebevto Tod épwrjcai oe, Pesh. yi oss anawh) Jsjoos
‘the Jews have planned together that they should ask of thee’.

Similarly, in the variants é/30v. . . va zapariOaow Mk. 6", eé8ov
rapabeiva Lk. 9", Pesh. reads (amdacs? .. . cow ‘gave... that
they might set’ in both places (Pal.Syr. and Sin. desunt in Lk.);
in Lk. 8* éctro . . . efvat civ airG is rendered by Pal. Syr.. . . bas
om Jouwe, by Sin. and Pesh. Joos ohad;.. . Joo iss ‘was
begging... that he might be with Him’, as in wapexddka... va
per airod 4 of Mk. 5%; in Lk. 8% 6 8 wapyyyere atrots pydevi eiretv
is rendered by Pal. Syr. .o¥as}. V milly ook. -a2 oo, by Sin.,

CONJUNCTIONS 15

Cur. ors Y aly oo! +22 oo, by Pesh. wills yoo! FO) ge? Oo
orl Y ‘He commanded (Pesh. warned) them that they should
tell no man’, as in kat dvecre‘Aato adrots woAAd iva xtA. Of Mk. 5%,
Such illustrations could be almost indefinitely multiplied.

iva 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 iva in
Mk., and still more in Jn. may be due to the fact that the
writers of these Gospels were accustomed fo think in Aramaic.
The frequent use of the wa 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 Kowy construction which resembled his
own native idiom. Now, however, we have to notice a usage of
va in Jn. which can hardly be explained except by the hypothesis
of actual mtstrans/ation of an original Aramaic document. There
are several passages in which wa seems clearly to represent
a mistranslation of 1 employed in a relative sense. Translate
them into Aramaic in the only possible way, representing iva
by 7%, and an Aramaic scholar would, without question, give to
that 1 the sense ‘who’ or ‘which’.

1° ovk jv éxeivos TO as, GAN iva paptupyon wept Tod dwtds. This
passage has already been discussed in our notes on the Prologue
(p. 32). The accepted interpretation of wa with a telic force
involves the assumption of an ellipse—‘but (he came) that he
might bear witness, &c.’ If wa is a mistranslation of 7 relative
no such ellipse is required, the passage meaning, ‘He was not
the light, but oze who was to bear witness of the light’.

5) avOpwrov obK éxw va... Badrn pe eis THY KoAYpPBHOpav. Pal. Syr.,
quite literally, lunar oh. bow... 2 OS MAX wes. The
obvious meaning of this in Aramaic is, ‘I have nota man who...
shall put me into the pool’.

6” Ti oty zoveis od onpeiov, va idwuev; Pal. Syr., quite literally,
hao) pas 1? &.? bso. The sense intended may well be, ‘What
sign then doest thou which we may see?’ though, since the final
sense of 1 would here be appropriate in Aramaic as in the Greek
iva, the evidence of this passage is not pressed.

76 CONJUNCTIONS

6” obtds éorw 6 dpros & éx Tod ovpavod KataBaivwv iva tis e€ adrov
pdyn Kal pH drobdvy. Pal. Syr., quite literally, Go? laws of Vo
bases Wo qaso wi) Nraokey Maw base. 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 ris éorw, xipie, iva miotevow cis airov; Pal. Syr., quite
literally, o> grQsow? 24420 oo exo. 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 va 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
named. ;

14’° GAXov rapaxAnrov doce tyiv va 7 pe ipGv eis Tov aidva. Pal,
Syr., quite literally, sax Jone Gaui Gau yaad co oo
poss aax»r. The natural meaning is, ‘He shall give you
another Comforter, who shall abide with you forever’. So & (vt.%)
‘qui’. . |

If the fact that fa in these passages is a mistranslation of
1 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. 10”, Lk. 8" already noted. Here Mk.’s éay py iva
gavepwhy is reproduced in Mt. by 6 ovx droxadvdOyoerar, and in
Lk. by 6 od davepov yevnoerar. Thus éav py Wa davepw6yi seems
clearly to represent an original ‘DENT IPN ‘except that which
shall be revealed’, i.e. ‘which shall not be revealed’, and this
is the rendering of Pesh. Jk.dv Jy (Pal. Syr., Sin. vacant).*

Sti similarly a mistranslation of * relative.

In Jn. 9” Ti od Ayes wept airod, dtu jvéewEev Gov Tors dhOadpoirs ;
the use of 6m is very awkward, and the ‘in that’ of R.V. un-
convincing. The passage, however, at once becomes clear when
we recognize that dr is simply a mistranslation of 7 relative—
‘What sayest thou of him who hath opened thine eyes?’ This

* That iva is here a mistranslation of "| relative has been noted by Wellhausen,
Einlettung*, p. 15. ;

CONJUNCTIONS 17

sense, which is naturally to be deduced from the Aramaic, is given
by the Arabic Diatessaron ,:5 (siJl; and the best-attested reading
of 2 (vt. vg.) is ‘qui aperuit’. Similarly, in 8° éya dé dru rHv dAnOevav
Aéyw is rendered by Pal. Syr. \\aao 225/ bly oy b/, 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 (¢M\ ‘who’, and by two MSS,
of & (vg.) ‘qui’. In our notes on the Prologue a similar case
of mistranslation is suggested in 1'° dru ék rod wAypdparos abrod
xtX. (cf. p. 39), and, conversely, 1= ‘because, inasmuch as’ seems
to have been wrongly treated as the relative in 1** (cf. pp, 29, 34).
A case in Mk. where 67 seems to be a mistranslation of 7 relative
(4) is 4", Tis dpa otrdés éotw Gru Kat 6 dvepos Kal 7 Oadacoa sizraxover
aité ; ‘Who then is this whom (6. . . aird) even the wind and
_the sea obey?’* Another may very possibly be seen in 8%,
Brérw tovis avOpHrovs dtr ws Sévdpa 6p mepirarovvras, where the
difficult 6r may represent a wrong rendering of 7 (ovs).¢ In
Mt. 13° tay d¢ paxapior of d6POarpoi dre BA€rovow, kai ta dra [ipdv |
oT. axovovow, the words or BrAéerovew . . . 6tu Gkovovow are rendered
by Sin., Cur., Pesh. grad... hut, which may mean ‘ because
they see, &c’, or ‘which see, &c.’ The latter sense is given by the
Diatessaron gos el... ,e3 (gl, and by several MSS. of &
(vt. vg.) ‘qui vident. . . quae audiunt’. Hegesippus quotes the
passage in the form paxdpior of 6pOadpoi tuav ot BAérovtes, kal Ta Gta ~
tpav ta dxovovra.t 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 9 in
the contexts in question. Conversely, the same influence upon the
so-called Western text is seen in Jn. 8°D, py od petLov @ rod
"ABpadp én drébavev, where WH. rightly has doris dréOavev.
" ~“
* Noted by Wellhausen, Zin/eitung’, p. 15. + Cf. Allen, St. Mark, ad loc.
t 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 ofa very
antient recension of the Four Gospels in Syriac, p. xxv.

73 CONJUNCTIONS

iva as a mistranslation of 1= ‘when’.

We have noticed, when speaking of the usage of 7, that it can
bear the meaning ‘when’, ore. Strictly speaking in such a usage
it is relatival ‘which’, with ellipse of ‘in it’—*2) ‘which in it’
=‘in which’; cf. Jn. 5%, where épxerar apa év 4 appears in Pal.
Syr. as a9 Jeo bya bed?. The following cases occur in Jn. of
iva, standing for dre:

12” édyAvbev 7 Opa iva dogacOy 6 vids Tod avOpwrov.

Pal. Syr. fesis9 or> woes? Joa L)?.

13) 7AGev adtod 7 dpa iva petaBH ex Tod Kdopov ToUTOV.

Pal. Syr. JoaXx gts eco hissy obse LL).

16° épxerar wpa va mas 6 aroxreivas byas bof) Aarpetav mrpordéepev
TO Mcd.*

Pal. Syr. g23009 saw Joo caoks Sdor gx Saye Je fol?
JoSI crax oo.

16” épxerar dpa... iva oKxopricOyre.

Pal. Syr, yodeolly . . . bse ly.

That in all these cases iva simply stands by mistranslation for ére,
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
epxerat dpa. ore in 47, 5”, 16°, and epyerar dpa év n in 5™.

8 similarly a mistranslation of 1= ‘when’.

In 9® of Oewpodvres aitov 76 zpoTepov dT. tpocairns Hv We have a very
awkward on, 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 (dre) he
was a beggar’, and the natural inference is that 1=‘ when’ has
been wrongly interpreted as conjunctive ‘that’. Another clear
instance of the same mistranslation is seen in 12“, radra eirev
"Hoaias or cidey tiv ddéav airod (R.V. ‘because he saw his glory’),
where the sense demanded is ‘ when (6r<) he saw His glory’.t

* Freely quoted in the letter from the church at Lyons (Eusebius, HE. v. 1) with
the correction év 6... ddfe: for iva. . . 5dfy—éAedoera Kaipds év G nas 6 dmoxteivas
ipas 5dfer Aarpeiay xpoaépew TO ec.

+ It is just possible that 67: may here be a mistranslation of 4 relative—‘ These

things said Isaiah who saw His glory and spake concerning Him’, but the sense
‘when’ seems to be preferable.

CHAPTER IV

PRONOUNS
ey, hic: ov, dpets.

Tue 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:

Mt. Mk. Lk. Jn.

eyo 29 17 23 134
Kayo 9 — 4 27
jpets 5 3 5 18
av 18 Io 27 60
bpets 31 II 23 68
Totals 92 4l 80° | aT

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—éyw—in
contrast to that of Christ (17°?%?714 854, 4), Our Lord lays stress
upon His claims —éyo an ne, pia Sess alga 1
yi*. ee 14°, eg to 18"), or His acts (15 +6. gees, 167),
bringing Himself into antithesis with others—the disciples, the
Jews, the world, &c. ( Peete acaeaty copenacer) G15.216.22.23 bis. 38.45.55. ToO!8, 726-47
ROR ph ees | pote. p74). or He defines His relation to
God the Father (5, 6°, 81-86 to 5 16%, 17%). Emphatic ipets
is frequently antithetical to éy#, and implied or expressed antithesis
often accounts for the use of jets and ov.

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 éys in 1%, 3%%, 4%,

80 PRONOUNS

on. 7, eee iee eer fora, Le; 12”, 8 ahaa 14a
151426 yGA7bis 7 7oia.22 18 %0i.21.37 « jpets in 18, 629, 7% Qe gee
19’; ov in 3% 4 10% 14° 18457 « ipets in 1%, 4, 5A
G46 779 198 7 ae, 155160,

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 (/uturum 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 ‘228, ‘38, ‘1’, with the Participle expressed by éyo
in Genesis are as follows. 7 YODD ‘DN eyo erdyw terdv, 9”
n3 YN eyo didopr 15" JIN lI xpw® éya, 30' 238 MND reXcuTHow
eyo, 24343 A¥I DIX 73 iBod eyo eorynxa. So also 16°, 18%, 245%”,
an a 95", 35 32" 42, 487, 49%. The only cases without eyo
are 37'°°™,

Cases of nN, ‘we’, with the Participle expressed by jets in
Genesis—Kings are: Gen. 19" 737 DIPEITNN WW ONT D on
ardhAvpev ets TOV TOTOV TOUTOY, 43° DST WIN.» + ADDI sayy
Avs 7d- dpyipiov ... jets civayopefa, Num. 10” “pipaaby WAI Oyd3 ,
"Egaipopev jets eis tov torov. So Deut. 1%, 5”, 12°, Judg. 18, 19°,
1 Sam. 14°, 1 Kgs, 22°, 2 Kgs. 6', 7°°, 18°. No cases with omission
of apts. .

Similarly, in Genesis—Kings there are 40 cases of TAN ‘thou’
with the Participle expressed by ov (e.g. Gen. 13° MANTWS pINTdD
MN racav tiv yiv iv od dpds), as against 14 without ov: and 85
cases of DAS ‘ye’ with the Participle expressed by tyes (e.g.
Ex. 16° ond DEN WE DI NsoA-Ns TOV yoyyvopov tuov ov tpets

PRONOUNS 81

Siayoyyélere) and one case with aérof (Ex. 10"), as against 6 cases
without ipeis.

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
Greek.

we I":

Dan, 2° TIN YR 3A¥* fd "Er dAnbeias ofa eyo.

nya P1238 A NINN "Ode eye bpd avdpas técoapes.

4* MDIP AWW Wx NxDon TO éviTrviov elra, éy@ évwTriov avTav.

NomIN ‘we’
Dan, 3° S28 pAVNd Od xpeiav exomev Hpeis.
3" pnb SITING © qwels Aatpevoper.
Ezr. 4"° N30? MIMI PyTAD yopilopey jets TH Baorrel,
mnas ‘thou’ |
Dan. 4% 202 TRIN) ob 8, Acid, Sivacan.
617-71(16-20) SYN mp-nde nas TDN ‘O eds cov, @ od darpeves
evdedexas.
pnw ‘ye’
Dan. 2° P31 PAIS NITY Karpov tpets eSayopaLere.

The only exception to the expression of the Pronoun is found in
Dan. 2" AQX Mavi NTiND "NAIK AN 7 coi, & Oeds rdv warépwv pov,
eEopodoyotpar kat aiva.

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° NYT! TIN 7 oy éye eyvov, 57° Poy nyo 72)
Kat eyo nkovoa Tept ov.

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 abe the Pronoun was
expressed with the Participle. Thus e.g., 1% pécos tyav orjke dv
bpets ov« oidare exactly represents |} o. WAIN wo oNp pir Pa;
1” ovrdés éorw tizép ov éyw elzov, niey AIS WT 8 PI. In other
cases we may find the Aramaic Pronoun coupled without special
emphasis with a Perfect or linperfect ; e.g. 1°? GAN Wa havepwhp TO

“Iopandr dua todto AAOov éyw ev Vat. Barrifur, -?3 Nyy» ay ma
2520 G

82 PRONOUNS

Moa payd MIN NNN 77 pat Again, in a hpeis wavtes éhdBopev, the
ypets naturally reproduces the suffix of rae) ‘all of us’.

Particularly noteworthy is the throwing of ov to the end of the
sentence, whether in a question, as in 17% ‘O zpodyrys & ov; 18%
Oixoty Baottedls ci cd; 19° db ef od; or in a statement, as in 4”
Gewpd dt. rpopyrys «i ov, 8% Sapapeirys ef ov. This is never found
elsewhere throughout the N. T. except in Acts 13°, Heb. 1° Yids
pov e ot, a quotation of Ps, 2’ with accurate reproduction of the
Hebrew order 778 ‘23, 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% %32 72 TAN), and Jn.’s use of both
orders (cf. od ef in 1%, 3", 7%, &c.) looks much like a close Bi
duction of an Aramaic original.

> a a
adTdés, oUTOS, éketvos.

To express the 3rd person adrés is fairly frequent in Jn. The
figures for airds (-7) 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 otros ‘this one’, éxetvos ‘that one’, and he employs
these Pronouns substantivally with far greater freedom than do the —
Synoptists. The figures for otros (avrn) as subject are

Mt. 85, Mk. 14, Lk. 86, Jn. 44.

For éxeivos (-y, -o) used substantivally, whether as aulgees or
obliquely, the figures are

Mt. 4, Mk. 8 Lk. 4, - Jn. 51.
éxeivos 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 8" /d@ as
subject is rendered airés 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

PRONOUNS 83

verb: e. g. 6 SN PP ‘faithful (was) he’ = moros jy, 6" 2 NH
‘he (was) kneeling’ = jv xdprrwv.

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

N21 d*na ‘this’, fem, 83 da, plur. c. SDN *illén, Dan. and Ezr.
passim. Targums [7 dén, fem. 81 da; strengthened by demon-
strative prefix 1 ha-, "5 hadén, fem. N13 hada = Syriac io hand
(contracted from héa*nd), fem. J$& hddé; plur. c. pa ha illén =
Syriac «So hallén, 727 both as nrononeaat subs. and adj. i
regularly rendered otros in Dan. and Ezr. (in a few cases of adj. use
it is represented by the definite article only).

1D1 dikkén ‘this, that’, c., Dan. 2° J371 NPY F edxdv exetvy (LXX
and @.), Dan. 7°2! {27 SIP 73. xépas exeivo (LXX, @.). Plur.c. 728
*lékh, Dan 3°, 68 (also found in Ezr.).

To this corresponds in Ezr. :

73 dekh, fem. 13 dakh ‘this’. JI SOP 7 wddus éxetvn, Ezr. 419161971;
4 ods adry, 41>; TI WAVY, Pissed éxelvos, 5°°; FI SAVIY 7d epyov
éxeivo, 5°; J NIN ND, (dv) ofkov tod Geod éxetvov, 5", 6", otkov Oeod, 6”.

In addition, we find in Talmudic Aramaic 8179 4aha = ‘that’ or
‘that one’ (i.e. 3rd personal pronoun fi +demonstrative particle
ha), contracted in Syriac into oo hau (Pal. Syr. also ofc), fem. 877
hahi (also ‘xn), contracted’in Syriac into uo Adi (Pal. Syr. also ufc),
plur. 1939 hanhé, Syriac m. sve hénniin, fem. hénnén, 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” NIDDY S37 ‘that
image’ (explained as Nom. pendens—‘it—the image’). This is
remarkably like éxeivos 75 Ivetdya ris adn Oecas in Jn. 16%, an expres-
sion which amounts to ‘¢hat Spirit of truth’ or ‘the Spirit, &c.’
(Pal. Syr. |\aacy Juod of6. This version at times uses ole to
express the definite article, e. g. hass> oles = 6 dvOpwros.)

There can be no question that where ékeivos is used adjectivally
it would naturally be represented by xin. Thus 4° éxetvy 77 apa.
would appear in the Jerus. Talmud as xnyw x3 (Cur., Pesh. vga
Nya, but Pal. Syr. Ja obs). When used: substantivally as
subject—especially when reinforcing a Nom. pendens (cf. p. 64)—
it is probable that éxetvos represents the Personal Pronoun xi;
but there are other cases in which it looks much like a Sone
tion of xin. Pal. Syr. represents it by oo (ole) in 3”, 5, 7", gi";

G 2

84 PRONOUNS

Pesh. by oe in vs "ecm + a 8", on", to: i, 14”. We may
note especially the rendering of oblique cases by Pesh. in the
following passages :

3” éxetvor Set abédvew = basin Io 00 oN (Cur. oo oS)

5° éxelvov Anuweabe = yasaoh ood (so Cur.)

5" tots éxeivou ypdppaow = O49 wodshaS (Cur. 09).

9” od pabyris ef exeivou = coy oral oo uf (Sin. om. 069).
10 et éxetvous elev Oeovs = Jods? zx0/ (ods (Sin. om.).

In cases such as these the idiomatic force of the Aramaic demon-
strative satisfactorily accounts for the Greek usage. Again, the
phrase ékeivés éorw, rendered oo om —lit. ‘that one (is) he’—in 13”,
14”, is one in which xin would naturally be employed.

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

Substantival use—
avtos = hi.
éxecvos = ha and haha.
outros = hadén.

Adjectival use—
ovtos = dén, d’na, or hadén.
éxeivos = dikkén, dekh, or hahi.

The Relative completed by a Pronoun.

The Aramaic relative particle ‘1, t—originally, as we have
already remarked (p. 70), a demonstrative ‘that one’— is in-
variable, and, like the Hebrew relative YS, 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 fo whom I gave the book’ has to be expressed in Semitic
in the form, ‘I saw the man who I gave the book to him’. There
are several instances in Jn. in which the Greek copies this Semitic
construction. |

1° "Eyévero dvOpwros . . . dvoua aitd “Iwavvys. Here the relative

PRONOUNS 85

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

I” ov éyw ovk cipl aéios iva Avow avtod Tov ipavra Tod trodjparos.

1% "Ed dv av tdys 7o Llvetpa xataBaivov cai pevov er aitév =
Pal. Syr. vad» Jikaswo Iku buod boas Ly yo lit. ‘He who
thou seest the Spirit descending and abiding upon him’.

9” Kai ris eorw, xipte, va micredow eis airov; Here iva is a miss
translation of the relative 7; cf. p. 76.

13” “Excivds éori © eyo Bao 76 Ywpiov kat dd0w aitd. Peculiarly
Aramaic—""? a) xond MX YayT ST NNT ‘That is he dé 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 dédwxds por odk atwdeoa e€ adtav ovdeva.

Wellhausen (Eznlettung’, p.15) cites two instances of this con-
struction from Mk., viz. 17 of otk eipi ixavds Kias Adoau Tov ipavra
Tov brodynpatwv avtov, and 7” is elyev TO Ovyatpiov airys tvetpa axabaprov,
besides three cases from the text of D in Mt. 10", 18”, Lk. 8".*

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 ‘His name of God’ (2”), ‘in their
days of those kings’ (2*), ‘ate their pieces of the Jews’ (i.e. slan-
dered them, 3°), ‘zs appearance of the fourth (3%), &c.; Pal. Syr.
in Jn. I writes ‘their light of mankind’ (v. *), ‘z#s news of the light’
(vv.**), ‘in His bosom of the Father’ (v."%), ‘47s witness of John’
(v.*), &ce.

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 yovels aitov tov dvaBdéWavtos, ‘his parents of him that had
received sight’. This appears naturally in Pal. Syr. as ohows/
hanes voy. Cf. Mk. 6” ciceAOovons ris Ovyatpds airod (v./. abris)
THs Hpwé.ddes, which is clearly an attempt to reproduce the Aramaic

* He also cites Mt. 3)2 = Lk 3%, of 70 mrvov év TH xe:pi ad’rov, upon the assump-
tion that od is reinforced by é 7H yxetpi avrod, ‘In whose hand is the fan’ (not
‘Whose fan, &c.’); but this is very doubtful.

86 PRONOUNS

construction DYW77 AAI ‘her daughter of Herodias’, i.e. ‘the
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 wam. Jiao oh vok./ “he brought Him (viz.)
the Lord Jesus’, 19" wams Jem oh. ox59 ‘they led Him the
Lord Jesus’, 19% gdSan oh. wow ‘he pierced it His side’.*
An example of this idiom is seen in the Greek of Jn. 9% ”"Ayovow
aitov mpos tovs Papiraiovs tov rote tupAdv = Pal. Syr. ob oh?
jadco pras gx Jooy CoS Cased Lod.

* 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
Sxeo72 AD nnanwn ‘was found in him in Daniel’ (Dan. 5!2), x°5%52 7a ‘in
it in the night’, i.e. ‘in the same night’ (Dan. 5), NNWWNNS by smby indy
‘they sent to him to Artaxerxes’ (Ezr. 44). A few cases of the construction are
found in Hebrew: cf. Brockelmann, Vergleich. Gramm. der semit. Sprachen, ii. 227.

CHAPTER V

THE VERB

The Historic Present = Aramaic use of the Participle.

Tue Historic Present is extremely frequent in Jn. The occur-
rences are as follows:
dyovow, 9”, 18%.
darokpiverar, 12”, 13%,
Barre, 7.
Brére, 1”, 20'°, 21%; Brérovew, 21°.
didwow, 13°, 21".
eyeipera, 13%,
— Spxerar, 4*7, 118, 12Bs 13°, 18%, 2012-588, 9713,
ctpioxer, 1-85, 5M,
Gewpet, 20°" 5 Pewpodow, 6".
AapBave, 13%, 21%.
eyet, 121299638.8041 4.454047 A851 DB45.7.89 oA 479.11.15.16.17.10.21.25.26.28.4.49.50 56.8
G'81210 7650 9! gi? 77.1138. 27-89bie.40.44 Tatts, 7959.10.24.26.97.31.9687
I P cota eS ade tear aa ign 20 tne 7 eee,
Q1557.10.12.15¢er.16¢er.17046.19.21.22 - \Eroygy, g”, 11**, 12”, 16%, 20", 21°,
paptupe, 1”.
vevet, 13”.
tiOnow, 13°.
TPEXEL, 20”.
gaiver, 1°.
dyow, 18”,
hovel, 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 112°), He has, however, kindly lent his MS. list to the present
writer, who has added ¢aive 15 (which may be open to dispute) and didwoww at.

88 THE Vis

Mt. 78 (21 of which are derived from Mk.: in addition there are
15 Presents in Parables); Mk. 151; Lk. only 4 [or 6]; 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
Aorist.

mY ‘(was) answering’ (always followed by 28) ‘and (was)
saying 7), QPS. | o14-19.24.26.95 gisbiea grey 61721, 7? (this verb is
frequently omitted in Theodotion’s rendering).t+ {%¥ ‘(were)
answering’, 3”.

WON ‘(was) saying - Ea rhea c Vacaraatoa ated hea? os
7. $8 ‘(were) saying’, 277°, 3°14, 6°7-31416 7°, Theodotion, A€yer
in 2”, A€yovow in 2”, 6°46 edeyov in 7’.

/'W23M ‘(were) gathering together ’, 3°; MNP ‘(were) standing ’, 3°;
N12 ‘(was) crying’ (éBéa), 3'; PY2Y ‘(were) hearing’ (jxovor), 3° ;
PRI + +s pdb3 ‘(were) falling down. . . and (were) worshipping ’
(zimrovres . . . mpocekivovv), 3’; j*PDI ‘(were) coming forth’, 3”;
W222 ‘(were) gathering together’ (cvvdyovra:) 3%; IMO ‘ (were)

* Cf. HS.? pp. 143 f.

+ It is remarkable that, though we constantly find my (participle) coupled with
WON) (participle) in the singular—‘he (was) answering and (was) saying’, we do
not (with the single exception 3”) find the participle plural ['2Y coupled with the
participle plural PWN}. In the plural the regular usage is the coupling of the
perfect ab) with the participle j*OX}—‘ they answered and (were) saying’. This
fact suggests the possibility that ‘the singular form should be vocalized, not 73)
‘ané (Participle), but Mp ‘ana (Perfect). a

THE VERB in ee

seeing’ (éedpovv), 3%; MM ‘(was) descending’, 4; NWP ‘(was
crying’, 4"; NW ‘(was) drinking’, 5'; [292) ‘and (were) writing’
(kai 2ypaov), 5°; 79 ‘(was) seeing’ (espe), 5°; RVD ‘(were) being
loosed’ (8eAvovro), 5°; 122 ‘(were) knocking’ (cvvexporotvto), 5°;
S12 ‘(was) crying’, 5’; roby Keré Spy ‘(were) entering ’ (ciaezopevovTo),
55 pons-xd ‘(were) not being able’ (ot« 7dvvavro), 5°; onam ‘(was)
being terrified’, 5°; 12% ‘(were) being changed’, 5°; WaAvD (were)
being perplexed’ (cuverapdccovto), 5°; POTIND ‘(were) not being
able’, 5%; [NY ‘(were) drinking’ (érivere), 5°; wmiata-by 72a NA
xin} NPyD ‘he (was) kneeling on his knees and (was) praying and
(was) giving thanks’ (jv xayparrov éri ta yovata aitod, kai tpooevxdpevos
Kat €£op0hoyovpevos), 6''; {13 ‘(were) bursting forth’ (rpocéBadXov), 77;
1222 ‘(were) coming up’ (4véBauver), 7°; MDD» + « MDW TB “ (was)
eating and (was) breaking in pieces . . . (was) trampling’ (éo6iov
kal Aertivov . . . cuverdre), 7°; PB2 332 ‘(was) issuing and (was)
coming forth ’ (ciAxev), 7°; NDpDD ‘(was) speaking’ (éAdAe), 7°; STQY
‘(was) making’ (ézoée), 7” ; np>* ‘(was) prevailing’, 7”.

The fact that in the 1994 Aramaic vv. 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 ts) is absent from the original and can only be
inferred from the context, they can hardly fail to come to the same
conclusion. }

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 :x/ ‘say’.* In the 151 instances
of the Historic Present in Mk., 72 are cases of A€ye, A€yovow. In
the 164 instances in Jn. the proportion borne by Aéye, A€yovew to

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

90 THE VERB

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

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 (Evnleitung 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
phenomenon.

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:

dueyeipero, 6",

duerpiBev, 3”.

dinkover, 12”,

eBarriley, 3°, 4°; éBarrilovro, 3”.
éBacralev, 12°.

éBAerov, 13”.

eyivworKev, 2”.

eyoyyvfov, 6".

eer, 4°.

edidackev, 7\*,

edidocav, 19°.

ediwKov, 5°.

eddxouv, 13”. 3

ere, 195 efrowy, 5", 7, 10", 11856,
eCwvvves, 21°,

eavpalov, 47, 7”.

eOeppaivovro, 18".

eOewpovv, 6”.

elxov, 17°; «tyes, 19"; etyev, 2”, 13”; eixere, 9"; eixooav, 15°.
exabélero, 4°, I1™.

exdOyro, 6°.

éxeiTo, 19”, 20”,

THE VERB gI

éxAaev, 20"'.

expavyacov, 12”,

éAdre, 47%, 7%, 10°.

dheyev, 22%, 51519 65.65.21, Q32731 9 7o%3- Aevoy, 4342, 510 G42
Fs easiela eat inhes pase * cbemahicadiat Ou > aaa 12”, 16",
19"!, 20%,

éAve, 5°.

éudxovro, 6°,

€uapripe, 12”,

épedev, 12°,

euedXev (jy.), 4%, 6°", 1151, 12, 18; Eweddov, 7.

euevev (Uv. 1, euewev), 10".

5

a. 7
ETLOTEVOV, 7°,

46 et 12)!-87,

ériotevevy, 2"; erioredete, 5
éréxeito, II”.

erolel, 2”, ait 6°.

eropeveto, 4°.

érnpouv, 17”.

éroApa, 21".

érpexov, 20%,

épy, I”, 9”.

éhoBoivto, 9”.

épirea, 11%, 15, 207.
gyana, 11°, 13°, 19", 21’; vardre, 8", 14”.
nyowvilovro, 18%,

- ndvvaro (28.), 9, 11°; Hdvvavro, 12.

nOeres, 21°; nOedrev, 7'; nOcdov, 61, 7%, 16%,
nkorovda, 6’, 18”,

NpXETO, LI”; npxovto, 4°, 6, 19%, 20%,

jpara, 475 jpdrov, 4°, 9”, 12”,

nobeve, 4%, 11,

toxvov, 21°,

KQTEKELTO, 5°.

tapeyivovtTo, 3”.

mepierarets, 21°; mepierdre, 5°, 7', 10”, 11%; mepreratouv, 6%.
trjyov, 6", 12”.

opoddyovv, 12”.

92 THE VERS

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., 183. 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 éAeyev, eAcyov
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 11.t It may be remarked that
éXeyev, €Aeyov 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 :

Aramaic. Literal rendering. “LAAs Theodotion.
22 nami ‘Thou wast seeing’. Ewpakas. eOewpers.
a id. td. td. td.
47 min mn ‘TI was seeing’. exdBevdov. eOewpour.
4 ta. : eOecspovr. td.
5° pyst ia ‘They were trembling vacat. NOav Tpe“ovTes
Psa! and fearing’. Kai poBovpevot.

* Cf. HS.? p. 51, where the figure 163 for Jn. requires correction, as also the
printer’s error 12 for the occurrences of én, which should be 2.
+ Cf. HS.3 p. 12.

a

“1 4
n

is, ae *

o

_
=
o

Ys

ee

A ls SS a
a

Aramaic.
Sy NY
“TER mM
ma N2¥ mn
mir 82
DM Ny) N3Y
Sea
mByD NNT

myn aM
a:
nya hn
Tay Nn

SAAD TD

ma mn
id.
1d.
=) ths
nny OpAvD
mn mn
td,
id.
td.
mae Min

min mn

THE VERB

Literal rendering. LXX.
‘Whom he was willing om.
he was killing, and
whom he was willing
he was smiting, and
whom he'was willing
he was raising up,
and whom he was wil-
ling he was abasing’.
‘he was _ presiding om.
over’.
‘they were seeking’. aiff.
‘he was doing’. emote.
‘he was striving’. aiff.
‘I was seeing’. €Oedpouv.
td. ta.
td. 1d.
1d. td.
4 was considering o arf.
‘I was seeing’. _ Gedpovr.
td. td.
1d. Pewpav nunv
td. eJewpovv.
‘it was differing’. diapOeipovtos
(sic)
‘T was seeing’. KTEVOOUV.

93
Theodotion.

a
ovs 7PBovAeTo
b pote." > /
adTos avpeEt,
\ a 3 ,
kat ous nBov-
~
Aero §=avTos
» \
€TUTTEV, Kal
a
ovs 7BovrA€To
bot,

‘ a 3 /
Kat ovs nBov-

aN
QUTOS

A
Aero 3=—_ av TOS
4
€TATELVOU.

> e ,
YVie es UTTEp.

eCnrouv.
> nw
nV ToLov.
3 4
Nywoviearto.
eJecpovr.
1d.
1d.
1a.
Tpooevoouv.
eJedpouv.
td.
deest.
ePewspovv.

nv dtac€pov.

> ,
eJewpovr.

The use of the Substantive verb with the Participle of mx ‘he
was saying’ is frequent in Aramaic, and especially in Syriac, just

as éAeyev, EXeyov are particularly frequent in Mk. and Jn.

NIT WN

does not occur in Dan., the writer preferring the simple Participle
WON (cf. p. 88).

94. THE VERB

The Present sometimes = the Aramaic Participle as
‘Futurum instans’.

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

¢

15.27 RY > ,
I O OTLOW [LOU EPXOJLEVOS.

érriow mov EpxeTar av7p.
wre Be afl on" €pXeTau @ wpa.
oida ott Meooias épyxerat.

TeTpapnvos eat. kai 6 Oepiopos Epyxerat.

1°

Po

4°

4*

al eis Kpiow ovK EpXETAL.
6" 6 mrpodyrys 6 épydopevos eis TOV Koo pov.

7" 6 8& Xpwrrds Gray épyyrat.

7 My yap éx r7s TadtAaias 6 Xpuords épxerar ;

7” add ByOdctu . . . epyerar 6 Xprords.

4

9
11” 6 Xpuords, .. . 6 eis TOV KOapoV épxdpevos.
14° maw épyopmat.

14°*8 épyouau mpos bas.
14° &pxerar yap 6 Tod Kéopov apxwv.

EpxeTar vv&, Ore ovdels Sivara épydler Oa.

21° “Epxopeba cal jets ovv coi.

21” “Kav airov OéAw peéverv ews Epxopau.

This use of épxoua is found also in the Synoptists, though with —
not nearly such frequency :—Mt. 3" (Mk. 1’, Lk. 3"), Mt. 11°
(Lk. 7”), Mt. 17" (€A6av Mk. 9”), Mt. 21° (quotation), Mt. 24”
(Mk. 12°), Mt. 248 (Lk. 12°), Mt. 27°, Lk. 17°" 29% As
might be expected, it is particularly frequent in the Apocalypse—
qt78 obl6 qt 4% g?, 11", 16%, 2072,

Instances of other Presents so used in Jn. are:

1” "Ide 6 dvds Tod Geod 6 alpwv tiv dpapriav TOD Kd pov.
2” 6 gildv tiv Wrxnv aitod droAd\va airyv (contrast Mt. 16%,
Mk, 8”, Lk. 9”, 17%, dodge: airjy).

20 ‘ la / . “A 4 eS: > > /
17” wept trav muotevdvtwv bia Tod Aoyou avTav Eis Ene.

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

THE VERB | on

in which épyoua. has the sense of a Futurum instans, Pesh. repre-
sents it by the Participle, except in 14°, 16’, where the future
sense is expressed by the Imperfect. Moreover, in the only cases
in Jn. where the Greek uses the Future éAce’ooua, we find that
Pesh. represents this by the Participle; 11 éAevoovrar of “Pwpator
kal dpotow = waa Lwoos cehlo, lit. ‘and the Romans coming,
taking away’; 14” pos atrov éAevodpcba = qtah/ ohaso, lit. ‘and
to him we coming’; 16’ 6 zapdxAnros ob py On (TR. ovdx édevoera)
= fl} Y \ydois, lit. ‘the Paraclete not coming’. Cf. elsewhere,
Mt. 9” edevoovras dé qugpar = Nas we? ell, lit. ‘but days coming’ ;
25° "Orav dé €EAOyn 6 vids Tov évOpdrrov = hasty o> we? JLly so, lit.
‘When the Son of man coming’; Mk. 8% drav Oy év tH 50Ey Tod
Tat pos airov = worasly busaad hls hoo, lit. ‘when He coming in
the glory of His Father’ (so Lk. 9”). Instances of the usage
in the Aramaic of Dan. are, 2” porpnig 99M) NPB] NNT ‘So the
decree went forth and the wise men being killed’ (i.e. ‘were about
to be killed’); 4 8Y28 PT 7) ‘And they driving thee from
men’ (i.e. ‘they shall drive thee’); so v.%; 4” Pyay 7> ‘they
wetting thee’ (i.e. ‘they shall wet thee’).

Verbal sequences.

1” "EpxeoOe Kai dfeobe ‘Come, and ye shall see’. A similar

sequence is idiomatic in Hebrew. Cf. Gen. 6", ‘Make ("¥¥) thee
an ark...and thou shalt pitch (F122) it within and without with
pitch’; so Targ. Onk., “n) ‘SIM... 72 T2y. 1 Sam. 15°
p2py"nis nD} q2 < Go, and thou shalt smite Amalek’; so Targ.
Jon. pony may nm) ‘npn D1. See for further instances in
Hebrew, Driver, Zenses, § 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 (B23) before the God of Jerusalem; and
whatsoever more is needful... thou shalt bestow (jf2F) out of the
king’s treasure house’. Acta Thomae (p. 23), ‘But conduct
yourselves (yoo? 0339h/) in all humility and temperance and
purity, and in hope in God, and ye shall become (oh? econo)
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

96 THE VERB

regarded (as in the last instance) as the result of the preceding
Imperative. This, however, is clearly implied in the expression
"Epxeabe xai dere. So 16%, airetre xai AjpperOe.

Change of construction after a Participle is seen in two passages
in Jn.—1™ TeOéapor Tro rvedpa KataBaivov... kai éuewey er aidrov,
and 5“ AapBavovres, kal... ov fnreire. These are exactly analogous
to a frequently-used Hebrew idiom; e.g. Ezek. 22° n3av Wy
pvdad3 nmnyyi... DF, lit. ‘a city shedding blood... and makes
idols’ (i.e. ‘that sheds ...and makes’, or ‘shedding... and
making’); Ps, 18% ‘27"2Y. ‘DO Oy) MiowD 72 mivIN, lit, ‘Making
my feet like the harts’, and on my heights He sets me’ (i.e
‘Who makes ... and sets’); Gen. 27% S32 TS 780, lit, ‘the
one hunting venison and brought it’ (i.e. ‘who hunted... and
brought’). See other cases in Driver, Zenses, § 117. In accord-
ance with this usage, we should render xataBaivoy ... Kai €yewver
in Jn. 1”, not as R.V. ‘descending . . .; and it abode’, but
‘descending..., and abiding’ ; and AapBavovres, kai... ov Cyretre 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. 1° 7 dyardvru jas... Kal éroinre Hpas
‘Unto Him that loved us. . . and hath made us, &c.’ (not as R.V.
‘and He made us’, after semi-colon); 157° éordras . . . exovtas
KiGdpas... kat adovow ‘standing... having harps... and simging’
(A.V., R.V. ‘And they sing’, after full stop, are incorrect). Other
cases may be seen in 9°°7™, 3", 7", 13", 14°7.*

The construction is rather Hebrew than Aramaic, though we
may note Dan. 4° Pmyb) I? PUAD Navy. . . NVINTO PTD 1)

* Not, however, (with Dr. Charles) 1'8 nai 6 (av nat éyevdpunv vexpds, or 204
(with rejection of oitives as an editorial gloss) tds Yuxds Trav memeAexiopéevew ... Kai
ov mpocexvvnoay TO Onpiov. 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 } 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 xof 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.

THE VERB Fe

‘And they shall drive thee (lit. driving thee) from men... and
with grass like oxen they shall feed thee’. We have it in Jn. 1”
Pal. Syr.'. . . sad Likoo ... Jw, Pesh. Kusano... Ihe
voass. In 5 lyreire is represented by the Participle; Pal. Syr.
es oh? MS... ads oll, Pesh. cao> a oh/ goaas
“oh. 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 7, and then to follow it
by another Perfect or Imperfect.

2520 H

CHAPTER VI

NEGATIVES

THE Semitic languages do not for the most part possess negative
expressions such as mone, never, but express them by using the
corresponding positives coupled with the simple negative mot.
Thus e.g. Hebrew oe 53, Aramaic Sy) ey, bb, Ree
‘any... not’ = ‘none’; or, since Heb. &&, Aram. 28, asl,
“a man’ is commonly used in the sense ‘any one’, ‘one’ may be
expressed by this term with preceding negative. So in Heb.,
Gen. 2° 7282 Mn) Ob Aw OY bd, lit. ‘any plant of the field was
not yet in the earth’ (i.e. ‘o plant ...was yet, &c.’); Gen. 4” DIP
iNyo~d2 ink-nid3, lit. ‘for the vofsmiting him of all finding him’
(i.e. ‘that mone finding him should smite him’); Ex. 12” MINDO-PD
mynd lit. ‘all work shall not be done’ (i.e. ‘vo work shall be
done’); Gen. 31° 3) WN PX, lit. ‘there is not a man with us’
(i.e. ‘no one is with us’); Gen. 41“ TNS WN pvyrnd ywyr ‘inde-
pendently of thee a man shall of lift up his hand’ (i. e. ‘one shall
lift up, &c.’). In Aram., Dan. 2* find naAvia ND ANN-?3 ‘any place
was vot found for them’ (i.e. ‘”o place was found’); Dan. 4° mb
1 DIS ND, lit. ‘every secret does not trouble thee’ (i.e. ‘ mo secret
troubles thee’); Dan. 2° 52% xzdp nb v1 xmvardy was soaced
mn, lit. ‘there is mot a man on earth that can show the king’s
matter’ (i.e. ‘20 one on earth can show, &c.’).

We find the Semitism was (av). . . pn = ‘none’, ‘nothing’, in Jn.
in two passages: 6” iva wav 6 dédwxév por py arod€ow e€ aitod, 12° wa
Tas 6 mustevwv eis emt ev TH OKOTia py peivy. Tas... ov(uy) Is also found
in Mt. 24” = Mk. 13” otk dv éoOy waca cap, Lk. 1% otk advvarnoe
rapt Tod @cod wav ppya, Rom. 3”, Gal. 2" (both quotations of
Ps. 143°), Eph. 4”, 5°, 2 Pet. 2°, 1 Jn. 2” (cf. 2%, 3°", 4° 6
the renderings ‘every one... not’, ‘no one’ are equally legitimate),
Apoc;: 7", 137,21 ao".

NEGATIY £ S 99

‘No one’ is expressed by od... dvOpwros in Jn. 3% Ob dStvara
-avOpwros NapBdvew ovdey ay py KTA., 5/ GvOpwrov obk éxw iva... Bary
pe eis THv KodvpBnOpav, 7° Oddérore eAdAnoev ovTws dvOpwros.* In
Mk. 11? we find éq’ dv obdels otzrw avOpdrwv éexabicev, 12" ob yap BAéres
cis tpdcwrov dvOpaérwv (but here there is a sense of antithesis to ri
650v Tod @eod following), but elsewhere in the Synoptists there seems
to be no case of of. . . dvOpwros.

‘Never’ is expressed in Heb. and Aram. ‘not... for ever’; cf.
in Heb. Ps. 307 diy witay-3 ‘I shall never be moved’; Ps. 31°, 71!
noo mvAIN- De ‘let me never be put to shame’; Ps. 119” xb Diy?
J PPS Nave ‘T will never forget Thy commandments’; Isa. 25°
m3) ND) pdiyp ‘it shall never be rebuilt’; in Aram., Dan. 2% “4
Sannn Sp) apy? ‘which shall never be destroyed’: Acta Thomae
(p. bso) Jeax YP grads pdady Jlaarsas como ‘and they
shall be with Him in the kingdom which never passes away’ ;
id. (p. 9,3) Jens YP pdSods Jloher |? Jro ‘but this banquet shall
never pass away’.

Similarly, od pi). . . eis rév aidva occurs several times in Jn. in the
sense ‘never’: 4" ot py dupjoe eis Tov aidva, 8 Cavatov ov py Oewpjoy
eis Tov aidva, 8° od py yevontar Gavarov eis Tov aidva, 10” od py axroAwvTaL
eis TOv aiwva, II” od py amobavy eis Tov aidva, 13° od py villys pov Tors
médas eis Tov aiava. Cf. also g” éx Tov aidvos ok nKovacbn. The phrase
is only found elsewhere in N.T. in Mt. 21” Od pyxére éx ood Kapzros
yévytat eis tov aiava = Mk. 11", Mk. 3” otk exer ddeow eis Tov aidva,
1 Cor. 8" od py dayw Kpéa eis TOV aidva.

To express ‘/est’ Hebrew has the single term 12. To this in
Aramaic corresponds the compound term Ndr (Syr. ksaX9), formed
from NO) + "a Pare: NDT from NDD+4 77, i.e. lit. ‘since why ?’ This
properly introduces a rhetorical question deprecating the taking of
a certain course (cf. Oxford Heb. Lex., p. 554; 72? "WS Dan. 1”,
modyi Song 1’, 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. /B in the Targg. ND “I ‘that
...not’= ‘lest’ in the Aram. of Dan. 2", 6°"8; and in Pesh. Js
‘that... not’ is used indifferently with \seX¢ ‘since why ?’ in the
sense ‘/est’ as the equivalent of Heb. 8. -

* dvOpwros = T15, like indefinite YIN, is also found in Jn. 3!-4, 725-51,

H 2

100 NEGATIVES

We have already remarked that in Jn. tva py is regularly
employed to the exclusion of pyjrore. The occurrences, 18 in all
(as against Mt. 8, Mk. 5, Lk. 8), are as follows: 3, 4, 5", 619%,
73, 1140, yo%40.42-46 16', 1835, 19". These occurrences of ‘that...
not’ do not all carry the sense ‘/est’ ; but this force is clear in the
following :

3” obk épxerar mpds TO Ps, iva pn éheyxOy Ta Epya avrod.

5" pykere dpaprave, va py xetpov cot Tu yevyTat.

7° ei wepitropnv AapBaver avOpwros ev caBBatw iva pi AVOH 6 vopos
Moveéus.

12° wepirateire Hs TO Hs ExeTE, iva pH oKOTia tas KatahaPBy.

40

12” iva py idwow Tots 6Oadpots.

I2”

5 \ ‘ \ , 3 e / 9 \ 5 ,
G\Aa Oa Tors Papicaiovs ovx wporoyovv Wa py arocvvaywyot
yévovTa. 7
16' radra NeAdAnKa bpiv va py cxavdadic Fyre.
18° adroit ovK eianAOov eis TO tpaiTwptov, iva py pravOdow.
36 << 4 os V3 , »” 9 ‘ 8 65 a >? ,
18” of imnpéranot émot yywviCovto av, va py tapadoG® tots Tovdaiors.

a “a ‘ ,
19” iva. py peivy éri TOU OTAVPOV TA TWPATA.

pyrore, Which never occurs in Jn., is found in Mt. 8 times, Mk.
twice, Lk. 6 times.

A striking proof that Jn.’s wa py = ‘lest’ represents the Aramaic
OF is to be seen in the quotation from Isa. 6" which occurs in
Jn. 12°. In this quotation the Heb. uses {B ‘lest’, and this is
represented in LXX by pirore, but in Pesh. by }y ‘that .. . not’.

Heb, MN rE
LXX pnrote lwo Tots 6pOadpois
Pesh. eoalss Ju Is.

The quotation is given in Mt. 13” in the zpsrssima verba of LXX; |
while Mk. 4”, quoting more freely, yet has the pyrore of LXX,
pymote eriotpeywow Kal apeOy airois (i.e. $ NEW IW... iB). Jn.,
however, rendering wa pH idwow tots 6f0adrpois, 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 ?

CHAPTER: Vil

MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE ORIGINAL ARAMAIC
OF THE .GOSPEL

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 4 with a relative sense mistranslated by iva or ort.

va for = ‘who, which’, .1°, 5’, 6, 9”, 14"° (cf. p. 75).
ore for 1 = ‘who’, 8”, 9”; less certainly in 1” (cf. p. 76).
iva. for 1 = ‘when’ (properly ‘which. . . in it’), 12”, 13', 16°°

(cf. p. 77).
ore for 1 = ‘when’, 9%, 12" (cf. p. 78).

1 = ‘because, inasmuch as’, mistranslated as a relative, 1**
(cf. pp. 29, 34). |

1°, 12°. xaraAapBavew = byap ‘take, receive’, a misunderstanding
of ape ‘darken’ (cf. p. 29).

1°. 7v = subst. verb 810, probably a misreading of S71 = éxeivos
(cf. p. 33).

The ambiguity of the particle 1 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
together.

10”. 6 rarnp pov 0 dddwxév pou tavtwv peilov éotw. This reading

has the support of B*%@ (boh) G, and is therefore adopted by

q 4 »', os] .
“

i 9» @ 6 Fa 4 5
, )

‘gon FH UMISTRANSLATIONS OF THE

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. rJn.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 be 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 zarnp pov bs dédwxev
por petLwv wavtwv éoriv, Which supplies 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 unintelligent rendering of the
Aramaic Nbd7}9 N27 ” 373" ‘38, in which SD]. + » 7 may be taken
to mean either és... pet{wv ord... petCov. Possibly the first draft
of the translation rendered 7 onlyas a neuter (6... peiZwv, 8 LW), 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, ryjpyoov aitods ev 7G dvopari
~wou @ d€dwKas pot, iva aow ev Kalas Hpets, and similarly in vu", eyo
ernpovv avdtovs év TO dvdpati gov & dédwxas pot. 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-

ORIGINAL ARAMAIC OF THE GOSPEL 103

129

able, and has no exact parallel except in v."’. Clearly the object
of dédwxas is established by v.” Wa way 6 béduxas aitd ddéce aidtois
Conv aidnov, v.° "Edavepwod cov TO dvopa Tots avOpurois ods edwKds por
éx Tod Kédapov, UV." Iarnp, 6 d€dwxds pot, Gédw iva drov cipl eyd KaKelvor
dow per éuov, 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 ois déduxds por, the less well
attested reading in both v."' and v.”, certainly gives the meaning
originally intended; yet in the Greek it must be regarded as a
correction of the much more strongly attested reading @ xra.
(MA BCLY¥Y, &c.). The solution is again found in the ambiguity
of the relative 31. There is another reading 6 (D* U X 157 al. pauc.),
which may, like 6 in 10”, be conjectured to be the original rendering
of the genderless 7 by a neuter, which easily lent itself to correction
into @.

That the translator was capable of reproducing 7 by a neuter,
and then completing the relative by a masculine, is proved by 17”,
Ilarjp, & dédwxds po, GéAw wa Orov eit eyo Kaxeivor Gow pet ey0%,
where 6, representing ‘those whom’, is reinforced by kéxeivor.
Similarly, we read in 17°, iva wav 8 dédwxas ait@ dwooe atrois Cunyv
aioviov. Here wav 6= the neutral 4 NDD, which may stand in
Aramaic for ‘all (or every one) who’, or ‘all which’. The same
phrase is to be seen again in 6”, wav 6 didwotv pot 6 ratip pos ene
née, and here the sense intended is ‘every one who’ (cf. the
following xai tov épxdpevov pds pe xrX.), not, ‘everything which’.
In 6° the neutral collective conception is continued throughout
the sentence—iva wav 6 dédwxeév por pn arroA€ow é€ aitod GAXA avacTicw
aiTo tH éoxarn jpépa. In Hebrew there is a similar usage of ib3
with neutral suffix—‘the whole of it’ = ‘all of them’, ‘every one’.
So Isa. 1%, ‘Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves;
all of tt loveth bribes, &c.’; Jer. 6", ‘For from their least unto
their greatest a// of 7t maketh unjust gain’; cf. Ex. 14’, Isa. 9", 15°,
per, OF"; Ge. |

Besides these instances of mistranslation we may notice the
following passages :

1°. ‘O ériow pov épxdpevos eurpoobev pov yéyover, Ste tpards pov Fv.
Dr. Ball (Expos. Zimes, xxi, p.92) remarks that ‘This testimony,

104. MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE

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
of hath become, we should rather have expected will become or ts to
become. He suggests therefore that the Greek yéyovey may be due
to the translator’s having supplied a wrong vowel to the Aramaic
“in, reading it as ‘1 hawé (a by-form of the Perfect 10 hawa)
instead of 0 hawé (the Participle) which would bear the sense
‘is becoming’ or ‘is about to become’. Further, ori zpards pov jv
‘because He was before me’ may be due to a misreading ‘272
kodamay of an original 212 sadmay, ‘first’. Thus the original
text may have run—

MR ME DN
ae

NIT IPT wD
‘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 "27? ‘before me’ and ‘1? ‘first’ offers
a characteristic Semitic word-play.

1” "Ide 6 duos Tod Ocod 6 aipwv tiv dpaptiavy tod Kdopov. Dr. Ball
(op. cit. supra), while making some valuable remarks about the
Aramaic original of the phrase 6 dvds rod Geot, 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°)’, and ‘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 aipwy xrA. is to Isa. 53, i.e. the culminating passage
referring to the mission of the righteous Servant of Yahweh

ORIGINAL ARAMAIC OF THE GOSPEL 105

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. 4off., 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 épyopevos (Mt. 117 *=Lk. 7'**) 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 carry conviction
to the Baptist’s mind was His fulfilment of the acts which had
been predicted of the ideal Servant. We may compare especially
tuddot dvaBrérovow 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 ’ + ; xwAoi repurarodow with Isa. 35° ‘then shall the lame
man leap as an hart’; zrwxoi edayyeA(Lovras with 61' ‘ Yahweh hath
anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor’. The gentle
words of reproof with which the message ends—xai paxdptos gorw
Os éav pn oxavdahioOn év évoi—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 blindness ; but it
should be unnecessary to recall the fact that our Lord’s physical miracles had
always their moral analogue, and depended for their performance upon faith in
the recipient.

+ Isa. 35, which is late, is based upon Isa. 40 ff., and develops its thought.

106 MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE

\
\

\

from whom men hide their face, he was despised and we esteemed —

him not’ (Isa. 53°).

From these considerations we deduce the conclusion that the
fact that our Lord was to fulfil the rdle of the ideal Servant,
though not understood by the Apostles, was im some measure
realized by the Baptist. If this was so, since the atoning work
pictured in Isa. 53 formed the culmination of that rdle, can it be
maintained that the words 6 aipwy tiv dyaptiay tod Kdopov are
improbable in the Baptist’s mouth? In the verses which follow,
Jn. 1°, 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. 37 and
parallels, is modelled on Isa. 42! as quoted in Mt, 12'8 (noted by Allen, ad /oc.).

+ It is perhaps significant that (apart from Jn. 3%8) the title Xpiards ‘ Messiah’ is
not employed by the Baptist. His titles are 6 émiow pov épxdpevos Mt. 3", Jn. 177,
6 épxdpevos simply Mt. 118 = Lk. 72°, 6 dvds Tod Ocod Jn. 129-36, 6 vids Tod Ocod Jn. 1%4.
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 Zhe Old Testament Conception of Atonement fulfilled by Christ, published
by the Oxford University Press, pp. tof.) 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 (2%) as mpoodexdpevos mapaxAnow Tod Iopa}A-—a clear reference
to ‘Comfort ye, comfort ye my people’, which forms the burden of Deutero-
Isaiah’s prophecy (Isa. 40! ; cf. also 49'%, 515, and in Trito-Isaiah 57'8, 61%, 661418),
Thus, when this latter holds the infant Saviour in his arms and uses the words,
el5ov of dpOadrpot pov 7d owrnpidv cov... Pas cis dmondAufw eOvav, 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 «at
défav Aad gov "IopandA with Isa, 46'8, ‘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*,

j

|

ORIGINAL ARAMAIC OF THE GOSPEL 107

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 v.’, 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 dvds) that before her shearers is dumb’. The words
6 alpwy xrX. 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 v.™ 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. mgd falé ‘lamb’ has come in its Aram. form Se)
faly@ 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’
(t Sam. 2%), and the centurion’s ‘servant’ (Mt. 8°"). Thus
6 dpvds Tov @cod may stand for NTN N90, 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 NuDD, suggesting as it does the /amb-lke 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 syn
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"3—531?), obliges him, moreover, to warn the holy Mother that the child is
destined to become a onyeiov dytiAeydpevov, and to predict nal cod 5é abras riv
puxi dveAcvoera foypaia. Anna the prophetess and her circle seem also to have
rested in the same hope (cf. Lk, 286-88), All this is not a later invention; it bears
upon its face the unmistakable stamp of historical truth.

* The fem. of this word, ¢/itha ‘ maiden’, is familiar to every one from Mk 511.

+ Dr. Ball renders the assumed Aram. original, ‘Behold the Young Servant or
Child of God’, and does not bring the expression inté connexion with Deutero-Isaiah.

108 MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE

the Baptist was to recognize 6 épxdmeros, 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, ayo édpaxa Kai pepaptipyKka Ott ovTdés éotw 6 vids TOD Meod.
It is not impossible that 6 vids rod @cod may again represent the
Aram. NIONT NyoD , interpreted as ‘the Chi/d of God’ but intended
primarily to mean ‘the Servant of God’. A sufficient explanation
for the translation of the same term by dpvés in v.” but by vids in
-v. may be found in the difference of context, the first passage
picturing the Nyon as a sacrifice, the second as baptizing with the
Holy Spirit. o

If it be objected against this explanation of dpvdés = Se) in the ~
sense ‘Servant’ that the term used in Deutero-Isaiah to denote
the ideal Servant is regularly Heb. 732 = Aram. 873Y, properly
‘bond-servant’, it may be replied that the choice of Sa rather than
N72) is sufficiently explained by the word-play involved. While
NIZY = dodtdAos, Seas =zais. Both Greek terms are indifferently used
in LXX to render the 122 of Deutero-Isaiah, but the preference is
for vais (dodAos in 49*°; wats in 42’, 49°, 50", 52"); and it is ais
which is used of our Lord as the ideal Servant in Acts 3", 47.

2”. “Ore ovv jyepOn ex vexpov, euvycOyoav ot pabytat airod ott TodTO
éheyev. We note the curious use of the Imperfect, ‘Ile was saying’, —
where the context demands a Pluperfect, ‘He had said’. In
Aramaic an Imperfect sense is indicated by the coupling of the
Participle YO8 ’amar with the subst. verb, while a Pluperfect is
commonly represented by use of the Perfect “28 ’amar similarly
coupled with the subst. verb. Thus 817 "D8 ’a@mar hawa ‘He had
said’ may easily have been misinterpreted as S10 WO8 ‘amar hawa
‘He was saying’, an unvocalized text in W. Aramaic affording
(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 Joo zx0/ = ‘He had said’, Joo 3x07 = ‘He was
saying’.

6%, ra pypara & eyo AceAdAnka tyiv seems to mean, ‘The things
about which I have been speaking to you’ (viz. the eating of My

ORIGINAL ARAMAIC OF THE GOSPEL tog

flesh and the drinking of My b'ood).* So perhaps in v.® fyjyara
Cons aiwviov should mean, ‘the things of eternal life’. Aramaic nb,
like Hebrew 723, means both ‘word’ and ‘thing’. Cf. for the

+1)

latter sense, Dan. 2°701-%173, 5226, 71-168 Tt is ordinarily rendered
phpa or Adyos by Theodotion; cf. 2° dwéory dm’ éyod 1d pyya.
Similarly Hebrew 737 ‘thing’ is often rendered pjya in LXX;

e.g. 2 Sam. 12° dv” dy ore éroinoer 76 pypya TodTo.

Ti. “Ev 8& tH eoxary Hpepa TH peyaAy THs Eoprys toryKer 6 "Ingots, Kai
expage Aéywv "Edy tis Sula épxécOw pds pe kai twétw. 6 TisTevwv «is epé,
Kalas cirev ) ypadhy, ToTapol ék THs Koias aiTod pevcovew Bdatos CavTos.
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 Aving
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{9M)). 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 tis Ewa épxéoOw pds pe cat rwerw, 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, Bampton Lectures, note 60 (p. 275).

IIO MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE

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 {3 ma‘ydn* ; and the word is
the same in Aramaic (employed, e.g., in the Targum of Ps. 104",
Prov. 5", 8°). The Aramaic for ‘belly’ or ‘bowels’ is 2 méin
(Hebrew OY); it is used, e.g., of the belly of the image in
Dan. 2”. It will at once be séen that, in an unvocalized' text,
Py ‘belly’ and {> ‘fountain’, would be absolutely identical.
Adopting the word for ‘fountain’ our Lord’s words would run
in Aramaic, 8292 WONT FT °2 PTT yO *ARY MP MY MYA yp
P22 fim Py? pwr pyow PMI. Lf ‘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: _

pyr “Now ONO ASN nbys AS pIsay) AX INIT OS nbyn wR Sau nD
oown Sno ns mpwm) Nyx”) MID ‘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

ORIGINAL ARAMAIC OF THE GOSPEL 111

“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, }*y j® 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”. “ABpadp 6 ratip tpov jyyadAuacarto iva ty THY Hpépay THY éuHV, Kat
<idev kai €x¢pn. This passage can hardly be preserved in its original
form. No extension of the use of iva seems adequate to explain
nyoaAMdcaro iva idy, and moreover, if we grant that ‘rejoiced to see’
is the sense intended, the following clause xat «dev cai éxdpy, 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 /onged 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 7) would be natural ; and this mean-
ing is expressed both by Pal. Syr. -auh/ and by Pesh. Joo wams.
In Syriac was 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 (6!4-30.31) ; ond oo VDDD 30 TSI’ jon NS Wh AVA; San md
YIN] 72 ND| ny “aw pon nN Ty pn bana AS OMT yD ‘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’.

* (1) What is the basis of the statement that Abraham saw the day of our Lord,
and (2) what precisely 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 ; yet 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,

112 MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE

9”. év oida, i.e. TIN YR NIN, may well be an error for MS YR Sw
‘This 1 know’; and this is actually the reading of Pal. Syr. oy Jac
ws. bb. The difference between sn Adda ‘one’ and sin hada
‘this’ in an unvocalized text is merely the difference between n and
nm, which are very easily confused. It cannot be urged, however,
that év otda yields an unsuitable sense.

20°. The strange use of ov« oidayev in the mouth of Mary
Magdalen, where we should expect ov« ofda, may be due to a

strong support to the reading ‘longed to see My day’, which we have adopted
above.

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,
but 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 Meémra 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, yoy nop) nd navn MOS ‘‘Terror Darkness Great
Falling upon him” MON Terror, which is Nitivtok | nwn Darkness, which
is Media ; no Great, which is Greece ; nbBd 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.17 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.1%). If, then, this Rabbinic exegesis lies behind Jn. 858, ‘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.

oe.

‘) cay o

ORIGINAL ARAMAIC -OF THE GOSPEL 113

misreading S27 >) la y’da‘na (1st plur. Perfect) of an original
Nyt ND la yad“ana (fem. sing. Participle combined with 1st pers.
pronoun). Cf., for this latter form, Dalman, Gramm. p. 235. The
same mistake, y’da‘nd for yada‘na (masc. sing. Participle combined
with ist pers. pronoun), is made in the vocalization of ssy7
Num. 22° in Walton’s Polyglot. Possibly oiéayev in the opening
words of Nicodemus (3?) may likewise represent 82YT ‘TI know’.

20", épyerar Mapiap, Maydadrnvy dyyéAAovoa . . . te “Edpaxa tov
KUplov kat Tadra etrev aity. The change from direct to oblique oration
is strange and awkward. ‘Ewpaxa = MON haméth, édpaxe = NOD
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 dru
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 Non to a native of Magdala. If NIN
was used in the narrative there might be a precisely similar confusion—1st pers.
MIN, 3rd pers. NNN.

2520 I

CHAPTER VIII

OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS IN THE
FOURTH GOSPEL

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. 1% “Ey® dovy Bodvros ev rH epjpw EvOivare tiv 6d0v Kupiov, xabds
ceirev Hoaias 6 tpopyrys. :

Isa. 40° TIN FT] BB Jawa NIIP bip “The voice of one crying,
In the wilderness prepare ye the way of the Lord’.

LXX ®wv7 Bodvros év rH épype, “Erowsdoare tiv 6d0v Kupiov.

Jn. quotes from memory, and substitutes the verb of the parallel
clause, 3798) Nido nwa Mw‘ make straight in the desert a high-
way for our God’, for the verb 38 ‘prepare ye’. In doing this, he }
seems to be thinking, however, of the Hebrew and not of the
LXX, since the latter renders W! not by Eiivare, but by «dOetas
mouite. 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

?

MWUOTATIONS IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL :15

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. 1° ’Apny apiv A€yw ipiv, dwerGe tov oipavdv dvewydta, Kal Tovs
dyyéAovs Tod Meov dvaBaivovras kai KataBaivovras émi tov vidv Tod
évOpdrov.

Gen. 28° *2xbo mam mower ye iwi my sep odd nan odny
aon Dy pbs ‘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 kai evurvidcOy Kai idod Kripas eornprypevn ev TH yh, Hs 7
Kepady adixveiro «is Tov ovpavdv, Kal ot ayyeAou TOU Beod dvéBawov kai
KatéBawov ér auras.

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 {a different
from that which is generally accepted. ja 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 nod ‘ladder’ is masculine, the force of
1A is ambiguous. In LXX, éw aérjs can refer only to xdipag, It
may be added that Jn.’s dvaBatvovtas xai xataBaivovras literally

* We should of course expect yoy in this sense, as in the following verse
yoy 3¥} ‘standing over him’ (not Ceanding upon it’—the ladder), We are not,
ieivever. concerned to argue the legitimacy of the interpretation, but merely its
origin ; though it may be remarked that this interpretation of 3 might be justified
by the use of the preposition to denote proximity (see Oxford Hebrew Lexicon,
3 § Il).

12

T16 OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS

represents the Hebrew participial construction 0°71 D?9, which
is obscured in évéBawov Kat xatéBawov of LXX.*

83. 27 "EurvjoOyoav of pabytat airod ot. yeypappévov eoriv “O fidos
TOU Olkov Gov KaTapayeTat pe.

Ps. 69” ‘1,8 ya n8Ip ‘The zeal of Thine house hath
eaten me’. a

LXX 6 Gyros 70d oixov cou katapayerat pe.

Here Jn. and LXX are in verbal agreement against the Heb.
‘hath eaten me’.

There is a v./. xarépayey which is found in LXX in B®x**R, and
in Jn. in (13) &c. & S (vt.8 vg.) € (boh) Eus Epiph.

4, 6" of warépes Hudv Td pavva epayov ev TH épyjpw, Kalws éorw
yeypappevov "Aprov éx Tod ovpavod edwxev adrois payeiv.
Ex. 16' DywaTy On? 02) WHO 27 ‘Behold, I will rain for

* This 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 {2 which

he has suggested as inherent in the Johannine reference. He now finds that such
an interpretation was actually put forward and dcbated in early times in Rabbinic

circles ; cf. Bereshith Rabba, par. lxviii. 18: DT" pyday NT OND 71) NVM 9
ody sy asm dpa asm ody ap .spya ov ody xm .obpa
Mw 2 DWND 12 DP 12 OMX aa omy odyD Japya DA |
mynd ody .ndynd appn sow papxw xin ms INanN Ja ws See

wom ows noed omy aby ope pny «(Interpretations of)

Rabbi Hiya 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 eixay is engraved on high.’”? They were ascending on high and
looking at his eixwv, 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

p= > is a) 2) | p»dyn 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 eixwy of the sleeping Jacob (which

IN: FHE FOURTH GOSPEL 117

you bread from heaven’, LXX “Idod éyo tw tyiv dprovs éx rod
ovpavov.

Ex. 16% boyd ob mhy joy we onba Ni ‘That is the bread
which the Lord hath given you to eat’. LXX Otros 6 dpros év
cOwKev Kvpuos piv payeiv.

Ps. 78" nd n2 DYOY 72H ‘And corn of heaven He gave them’.
LXX xai dprov otpavod édwxev airois.

In Ps. 78% LXX’s rendering of {47 ‘corn’ by dprov (only so
rendered here) is dictated by recollection of Ex. 16%. Jn.’s quota-
tion is a free reminiscence of Ex. 16*", probably uninfluenced by
recollection of the Ps. passage. In rendering ”’Aprov éx rod otpavod
it is nearer to the Heb. of Ex. 16* than is LXX plur. dprovs.

5. 6° éorw yeypappévov év tois tpopyras Kai évovtar mavres didaxrot

cov.

is ‘* fastened to the Throne of Glory’”’; Targ. Jon. ad loc.). As Jacob was in deep
sleep, was this eixwy 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” dppyta, 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 ¢ixwy (the
Hebrew simply reproduces the Greek term) is already existent in Heaven (cf. also
Targ. Jerus. and Targ. Jon. ad loc.) ; this eixwy—inasmuch as Jacob embodies the
national hope and ideal—represents the heavenly Man (cf. 1 Cor. 1547-#9 6 dSevrepos
avOpwros é£ ovpavod, whose eixwy 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 3 as referring to Jacob is given a little further on

(B.R. par. Ixix. 1) in a comment on poy ay) 9”) 737) ‘And, behold, the Lord
stood over him’ (Gen. 2813): 933 by je me pabp mbt “VD ININ WS
AD NPI" poy Any 3npywd NAY jVPd) wy Do” DAW VN ADMy

poy adsmow pro aa osm ody omds oxdo mam abmna qo ody

apbyp WN. “3p ‘ 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 py, the one explaining that the Lord stood on the ladder, the other that He
stood over Jacob.

18 OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS

Isa. 541 mynY "HD 23772) ‘And all thy sons shall be taught of
the Lord’.
LXX (in connexion with wv.

12

kal Onow Tas érad€es gov tao,
KTX.) Kal wavras Tovs vio's cov didaKxTors Bcod.

Clearly Jn., in treating the statement as an independent sentence,
is dependent upon Heb. and not on LXX. Nevertheless, it is
probable that the use of @co3—‘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° Kxadas cirev 4 ypady, motapot éx THs Kolias adtov pevoovow
voatos CavTos. ;

This passage has already been discussed, and has been shown
to involve a misunderstanding of an Aramaic original (cf. p. ro9).

7. 7° odx % ypadby elev Ott ex TOD oréeppatos Aaveid, kai ard ByOdceu

THS KOENS OTrov HV Aaveid, Epxerar 6 Xpiords ;
Based on Isa. 11, Jer. 23°, &c. (Davidic descent), Mic. 5” (5' in
Heb. ; from Bethlehem). The references are general merely.

8 gv 2 mF 5 ~ s , ¢ Ba 3 6 , € ,
. €V TM VOULW OE TW UVUMETEPW VEypartat OTL OVO AVUPWTWV Y PAapTUPLa

adnOys eoriv.
Deut, r9® 723 oxpy nvdy randy ix ovy sav oeby “At the mouth

of two witnesses or at the mouth of three shall a word be estab-

lished’.
LXX éri ordpatos dv0 paptipwv Kal éxt ordpatos Tpiav paptipwv
OTHTETAL TAY pHya.

A vague reference.

9. 10% OvKx éorw yeypappevov ev TO vopw tov dt “Ey eira @eot
€OTE ;

Ps, 82° DRS DION ‘ON IN ‘1 have said, Ye are gods’.

I.XX "Eyo eira @eol éore.

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 kai éxpavyalov ‘Qoavva, etdoynpévos 6 épxdpevos ev dvopare

K upiov.

ete cen oes,

tee
~~ Lag. Seboep et
Pe yee ee ay

Ps. 1187

IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL 11g

82 TY Win TiN) NIN

may OVA XIN Fy

‘O Lord, save now!

Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the Lord !’

ARS

© Kupte, cGoov 57,

> / =. 3 4 > bee ,
evAoynpevos 0 €pxopevos év Ovoyxatt Kupiov.

Heb. and LXX agree exactly. ‘Qcavva represents the Heb.
hésia-nna ‘Save now!’ which, by substitution of the short form of
the imperative for that with the cohortative termination, becomes
hésa'-na. «vdoynpévos «rr. is verbally identical with LXX ; but the
Heb. could hardly be otherwise translated.

5 > ~
11. 12% eipov dé 6 "Incots évdpiov exabicey éx’ aitd, xabus éorw

YEYPappEevov

Zech. 9°

LXX

My dood, Ovyarnp Zu:
idov 6 Bactre’s cov épyxerat,

kaOypevos ert t@Aov Ovov.
Hyena iN %3
povinena yn
79 Nin. 270 737
Nan periny pry
niorrby a34) 2p
nishy71a Wyo y

‘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’.
Xaipe cpddpa, Oiyarep Seu

kypvoce, Oiyarep ‘lepovoeadAnp-

idod 6 Bacire’s cov Epxerai cor

dixatos Kal color,

aitos mpgvs Kal ériBeByxws eri broliyov

‘ cal ,
Kal 7@Aov veov.

=<"

ei? an

120 OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS

The quotation is abbreviated and somewhat free. It is clear,
however, that z&dov évov is derived from Heb. and not from LXX,

12. 12% ‘Hyels jxovoapev éx Tod vopsov OT. 6 Xpiords péver eis TOV
aiova.

Ezek. 37% odiyd ond sw “ay TWN ‘And David my servant
shall be their prince for ever’.

LXX kai Aaveid 6 d0dAds pov dpxwv eis TOV aidva.

Cf. also Isa. 9’ (9° in Heb.), 2 Sam. 7", Ps. 89'f, r10%.

The reference is vague and general.

, TT , a , , a Aa
13. 12°. iva 6 Adyos “Healov tod rpopyrov rAnpwO7 Ov cirev
K , / >. PF ~ > a ¢ A é
Uple, Tis ETiDTEVTEV TH AKON HOV ;

kal 6 Bpaxiwy Kupiov rit drexadiOy ;

Isa. 53) ssNYOw? PONT
mindy ->y vind yin

‘Who hath believed our report ;
And the arm of the Lord, to whom hath it been revealed ’.
LXX Kvupe, tis ériotevoev TH akon pov ;
kat 6 Bpaxiwv Kupiov rin drexadifOy ;

Heb. and LXX agree exactly, except that LXX has added the
opening Kvpre, 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°° Gru wdAw eirev “Hoaias

Tetidrwxevy aitav tors dpGadpors
Kal éropwoev aiTtav THY Kapdiay,
iva pn Wwow Tots 6pGadpois
kal vonowow TH Kapdia Kai otpapocw, Kai idcopar adtors.
Isa. 6" mya pynva> ppwin
yon NY) TAIT NI
POY) WIND NPYI TANT
9 NBT Wy pH iaa7
‘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’.

th THE FOURTH GOSPEL I2I

> 4 \ i 4 a lal ud
LXX éraxtvvOn yap 7 Kapdia Tod aod Tovrov,
‘ “a . AE SA , + \ ‘ > ‘
Kat Tois @ow aitav Bapéws HKovcav Kat Tors 6POadpovs
EKA PPLVTY,
, ” ” > 0 a ‘ “ > 4,
pn Tote towow Tois 6pOadpois Kal Tos WOW akovTWoL,,

‘\ “ , cal XN > tA % -S.7 > ,
KQU TY) Kapoto. OvUVWOLV Kal ETLOTPEWWOL, Kal LAT OMLAL QuTOUS.

Here Jn. is clearly independent of LXX; contrast TeridAwxev
aitav tors dbOarpovs with Kal rods dpOarpors exappvoav: tva py with
pH woTe: Kal voyowow TH Kapdia With kal TH Kapdia ovvaow: otpapoow
with emrrpafwow. Jn. is not, however, merely a free reminiscence
of the Hebrew, as might be supposed from the fact that the writer
uses past tenses rerdAuxev, éxopwoev, while the Hebrew appears to
use Imperatives (R.V. ‘shut’, ‘make fat’). j2¥0, Y27 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, {2¥i, 3¥, 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. reridAwxev in place of plur. éxappucav
which makes the people the subject.

15. 13° GAN va H ypady wAnpwby ‘O tpwywv pov Tov aprov éemnpev ex’
€me THY TTEpvav avTOv.

Ps, 41 apy ‘dy SYD wand bis ‘He that eateth my bread hath
lifted up his heel against me’.

LXX 6 éobiwv dprovs pov, éweydduvev ex” ewe Trepvic pov.

Jn. renders Heb. accurately, and is independent of LX X.

16. 15° GAX’ iva rAnpwby 6 Adyos 6 év TS VOpw adlTov yeypappévos STL
"Epionody pe dwpecv.

Ps. 35" and 69% (° in Heb.) 039 ‘S3¥ ‘my haters without
cause ’.

LXX in both passages, of pucodvrés pe Swpedy.

A free reminiscence.

* Symmachus took the Imperatives 732537, yw as Perfects T3371, yun, but,

unlike Jn., made the people (not Yahweh) the subject—é Aads otros ra @ra éBapure,
Kat Tovs dpOadrpods adTod éuvoe,

122 OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS

17. 19% wa } ypadi tAnpwO7H
Atenepicavto Ta iuaria pov EavTots
Kal él Tov iwariopov pov €Badov KARpov.
Ps, 22°°(in Heb.) b> “93 ppm
bata adeay werab-byy

»

‘They part (or parted) my garments among them,
And upon my vesture do (or did) they cast lots’.
LXX SuepepioavtTo TA tari pov éavrots
Kal émt Tov ipatiurpov pov €Badov KAnpov.
Heb. and LXX agree closely. The verbal agreement between
Jn. and LXX points to LXX influence.

18. 19% Mera. radra ciddas 6 “Inoods bre dy wdvta Terédeorar tva
tehewwby 7) ypapy AZyer Auf. oxedos Exeito dEovs peotdv’ oTdyyov ovv
peotov Tod dfors toowmrw weplevres TpooHveyKay adTOd TO oTOpaTL.

Ps. 697 (” in Heb.) En ‘sper NDP ‘and for my thirst they
gave me vinegar to drink’.

LXX kai eis tiv divav pov éroticav pe O€os.

The reference is general merely.

19. 19° éyévero yap tatra wa 7 ypady tAnpwhyH ’Ocrodtv od ovvTpi-
Byoerat airov.

Ex. 12% ja-awiN-ND DS¥¥) ‘and ye shall break no bone of it’.
LXX_ xat écrotv od ovvtpiere ar’ airov.
Num. 9” ia-a¥" NP D¥Y ‘and they shall break no bone of it’,
LXX xai dcrotv od cvvtpivovew am’ adrod.
Ps. 34°! in Heb.) vnyy-oa Ee

maw) NX> man nos

‘He keepeth all his bones ;
Not one of them is broken’,

LXX [Kupwos] pvddcoe mavra ta 607 avtov,
ev e€ attav ov cuvtpiByceTat.
The quotation is a free reminiscence.
20. 19” Kal rddw érépa ypady A€yer “OWovra cis Ov eLexevTnoar.
Heeh. i2” MPITWN ms *dyg 12am) ‘and they shall look on me
whom they have pierced ’.

LXX kat ériBrePovrar zpos pe avO dv Katwpynoavto.

IN FHE FOURTH GOSPEL 123

Some fifty Heb. MSS. read "28 ‘on him’, and it is this text upon
which Jn. is dependent; or—since WS NN (88) YON is scarcely
possible as a Hebrew construction—he may presuppose the more
natural reading WINTON The strange LXX rendering is based on
a reading 11P7 ‘they danced’, an erroneous transposition of the
letters of MPI ‘they pierced’. |

Several LX X MSS., representing the Lucianic recension, read
Kal ériBddpovra mpos pe eis Ov e€exevtnoav, Which is the rendering of
Theodotion. Aquila... . civ 6 ééexévrnoavy, Symmachus.. .. éurpoobev
eregexevTnoav.

It is obvious that Jn. is independent of LX X, whose rendering
destroys the point of the quotation. The connexion with Theo-
dotion in the rendering éis dv é&exévryooy 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, Zntrod. to the O. T. in Greek, p. 398). "Exxevreiy is the
natural rendering of 1p3 (used by LXX in Judg. 9”, 1 Chr. 10%,
Jer. 44 (37), Lam. 4’, and by Aquila and Symmachus in Isa. 13");
and the variation between Jn.’s dWovra eis 6v and Theodotion’s
éeriBAeWovrar mpds pe cis ov is decisive against common borrowing
from an earlier Greek source. In the LXX MS. 240 we find the
rendering dwWovra: mpos pé eis dv eLexevtrnoay as 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 1’ Kal dWerat adrov ras 6pOadpos Kal oirwes airov eLexevtnoay.
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. ;

(6) 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 ; 38, (5), 13. .

(d) Free reminiscences ; 4, 7, 8, 12, 16, 18, 19.

(e) Misreading of an Aramaic original ; 6.

124 OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONG

Under (a) we notice that, while in 4 and 11 the points of agree-
ment with Heb. against LXX are slight, all the other cases are
weighty and preclude any other theory than a first-hand knowledge
of the Heb. text.

Under (0) 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
accidental.

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 8 (2”) the Heb. reading ‘hath eaten me’
is represented by Jn.’s v. 1. xarépayeyv which has considerable
attestation. In 5 the variation from Heb. consists only in the
substitution of @cod for ‘the Lord’, and in 18 only in the prefixing
of Kvupve.

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

a toe
ey ats

, w ot
*. + A ees
iS toa
Cie Fiabe ae.

—

ear ie.

th THRE SOUR H GOSPEL 125

with LX X—‘ taught of God’ instead of Heb. ‘taught of 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.

CHAPTER. 12%

EPILOGUE

Ar 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 prove

EPILOGUE 127

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
thought.

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
building.

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

128 EPLLOGUE

Ephesus ; for obviously we have the possibility 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
Palestine.

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.99 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.p. 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 ‘ Ioannis 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 Ioannes suo nominé 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.

EPILOGUE 129

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 57, "Eorw de év
trois ‘lepocoAvpois eri rH mpoBatixn KoAvpBHOpa. . . TévTE GTOaS ExovTA,
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 ave 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-
irgs with the Samaritans, that Tabernacles was the feast of the
Jews, or that the festival of the Dedication took place in winter ? +
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.p. 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 *Eorw ... éxovoa Cur! has o> hulo Arey Joo ests lit.
‘ixisting was... and existing in it’; Pesh. ys Joo Lulo as, Joo hu /
‘Existing was... and existing was in it’; while in Pal. Syr. we find hu/
ods Joo... Joo ‘Existing is... and és in it’. Here, however, the only
time-determining factor is the dot above Joo, which marks it as the Participle
hawé, not the Perfect hawa. In W. Aramaic there would probably have been no
mark of distinction.

+ Instances of such touches may be seen in 29-1828, 45.9, 52, 61.4, 72.87, yo22, 718,
19*!-40. Two of these passages, viz. 2% éy 7d macxa év TH éopTh, 6! mépay THs
Oadacons THs TudsAaias ris TiBepiddos, convey the impression of conflation. Of
course it must be assumed, on the hypothesis of translation, that in 475 (6 Aeyopevos
Xpiorés), 5° (‘EBpaiori), 19! (AcOdaTpwrov, ‘EBp. 5€), 1917 (Kpaviov Témov, 5 A€éyerat
‘EBp.), 2016 (“EBp.... 6 A€éyeras Arddoxade) 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

130 EPILOGUE

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: ‘Iohannes~
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 Maprvpuoy “Iyvariov (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.p. 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:

1. The Epistles of St. Ignatius (c. A.D. 110) 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

* ZNTW. 1902, p. 193.
+ Cf. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, Il. ii, pp. 473 f., who argues against the
historical value of the statement and seeks to explain how it may have arisen.

EPILOGUE 131

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
Gospel’. 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 dpxwv rod
aidvos Tovrov and réxva gwrds ddyGeias 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.t Theophilus of Antioch was also familiar with the

* The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, by a committee of the Oxford
Society of Historical Theology, p. 83.

+ Cf. especially the group of passages reflecting the teaching of 1 Jn. quoted
from the letter to the Ephesians on p. 154.

t ‘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, ‘Ju your concord and harmonious Jove 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 7 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. 2,
‘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 Hts 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

132 EPILOGUE

Odes.* It seems clear that they were originally composed in
Syriac.t The conclusion of these editors is that they were
probably written at Antioch in the first century.

Now the fact that the writer af 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 therein 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. + op. cit. ch. xiii. t op. cst. ch. iv.

EPILOGUE : 133

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 dvOpwror
aypapparo. kai idi@rar (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 éypaéuparo—i.e. untrained
in Rabbinic methods of exegesis—they now appeared so to be
trained ; but in the fact that, though still dypéyparo, 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. Weshould 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 ts
construct this work upon a Biblical Hebrew model.

Now, as Prof. Delff was the first to remark,t there are details in

* Cf. especially pp. 35 ff., 43 ff., 110n., 111 n., 116 n.

+ Gesch. d. Rabbi Jesus v. Nazareth (1899). pp. 67 ff. ; Das vierte Evangelium (1890),
pp. 1 ff. Delff’s theory was followed by Bousset in the 1st ed. of his Offenbarung
Johannis (1896', but dropped by him in the 2nd ed. (1906) ; cf. p .46, n. 2. It is
regarded with considerable favour by Dr. Sanday, Criticism of the Fourth Gospel,
pp. 17f., 90, 99 ff.

134 EPILOGUE

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 (18'*"). He alone of the
Evangelists mentions the name of the high priest’s servant, Malchus,
whose ear Peter cut off (18), 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 (3'*, 7%,
19°°f-), and seems to have gained inside information as to what
went on at meetings of the Sanhedrin (7*—”, 11“-**, 12"), which
_may have come to him through Nicodemus. The fact that, when
our Lord commended His Mother to his care, he took her eis 7a
tua ‘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 (6s éyevjOn iepeds 7d réradov redopexws), 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 trav dHdexa dzo-
oroAwv, and the daughters of Philip, and should then describe him,
not as an Apostle, but as pdprus xai dddcxados 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, | would
inquire as to the sayings of the presbyters—what Andrew or
Peter said (efrev), or Philip or Thomas or James or John or
Matthew, or any other of the Lord’s disciples; and also what

EPILOGUE 135

Aristion and John the presbyter, the Lord’s disciples, say (A¢yovow)’.
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
cirev to A€yovow 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. 100o—a conclusion which fits in with the statement
of Irenaeus that he was a companion of Polycarp (a.p. 69-155)
and ‘one of the ancients’ (dpyatos dvjp).t 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. jo, n. t. On the contrary, see Moffatt, Introd. to Literature of N.T2
P- 599-

+ Papias does not statein this passage that he was an actual hearer of Aristion
and John the presbyter, as is unwarrantably assumed by Eusebius; Kal 6 voy 8
Hpiv Sndodpevos Tlanias Tous pev tov dmooréAwy Adyous mapa THY TapnKoAoVOnKdTwY
dpodoyel mapeAnpéva, ’Apiotiovos 5¢ xai tov mpecBurépov “Iwavvov aitnxoov éautéy
gna yeveoOa. 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-
prehensible.

$ Haer. V. xxxiii. 4; Eusebius, HE. iii. 39. a.p. 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. 110),

136 EPILOGUE

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
Apostles.

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. Ifthis 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 (gth 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. 70.+
There exists, however, yet another statement attributed to Papias
in an argument prefixed to a Vatican MS. of the Fourth Gospel
(oth cent.):—‘Evangelium Iohannis manifestatum et datum est
ecclesiis ab Iohanne adhuc in corpore constituto, sicut Papias

* Haer. II, xxii. §; III. i. x3 III. iii. 4.
+ On further evidence as to the martyrdom ef. Moffatt, Jutrod. to Lit. of N.T.8
pp. 6o1 ff. ; and most recently, Charles, Revelation, i, pp. xlv ff.

EPILOGUE 137

nomine Hierapolitanus, discipulus Iohannis carus, in exotericis, id
est in extremis [externis] quinque libris retulit. Descripsit vero
evangelium dictante Iohanne 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 assumpticn 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 zpeoBurepos, 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 Iwdvys 6 zpecBirepos 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 on Supern. Rel. pp. 210 ff.; Westcott, Canon of N.T.
p.77,n-1. 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” (8 dméypagov dnd rod orépatos aitod) ; and some
later writer, mistaking the ambiguous dwéypagor, interpreted it ‘‘ 7 wrote down”,
‘thus making Papias himself the amanuensis.’

+ This seems to be hinted by Eusebius, HE. iii. 25: Tay 8 dvtiAcyopévar,
ywoupipow 8 obv Syws Trois TodAois ... % dvopalopevn Sevtépa Kai tpitn “Iwavvov, cite
Tov evayyeALoTOU TYyxXdvovca, eiTe Kai éErépov Sywvdpov éexeivw. The view is
definitely taken by Jerome, de virts illust. cc. g and 18.

138 EPILOGUE

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 (zais ér dv) 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 *Iwdvvov pév axovarys, TloAvkdprov 8 éraipos yeyovds. Eusebius’s
comment on this statement is Airés ye pay 6 Ilarias xara 70
Tpootp.ov Tav avtov Adywv, akpoaTynv pev Kal adtérTnv ovdapas EavToOV
yevérbat Tdv icpdv arootéAwy éudaive, tapeAnpévar 5 Ta THS TicTEWS
Tapa Tov éxeivos yvwpipwv. 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
Apostle.

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.*

Occurrences.
‘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.

EPILOGUE 139
‘The disciple of the Lord’.

‘ His disciple John’
‘John’
In references to the Gospel . R : eae
In references to the Apocalypse . ; 430
In references to incidents at Ephesus . nce
Total 31
©The Apostle’. : : , : ao geet

With these references we may compare Irenaeus’s references to
other Evangelists and Apostles :

‘Matthew the Apostle’. . : : ‘ re
‘Matthew’ elsewhere.

‘Mark the interpreter and disciple of Peter’ . 1
‘Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter’ . I
‘Mark’ elsewhere.

‘Luke the follower and disciple of the Apostles’. 1
‘Luke the disciple and attendant of the Apostles’ 1
‘Luke the attendant of Paul’. ; : ee
‘Luke’ elsewhere.

‘Peter the Apostle’. : ; ‘ . re
‘Peter’ elsewhere.

‘Paul the Apostle’. : ee
‘Paul, being the Apostle of the Gentiles” ‘ fae
‘Paul His Apostle’. : , : ea
“Paul”. , : ‘ : ; Fase es 8
‘The Apostle’. ; ‘ : . P oe

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 ;
whilé 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 7s 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

140 EPILOGUE

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. 9, 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. pref. 1,
‘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, HZ. 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. 1; x. 1, 6; xi.1,
and the first of them figures as ‘Matthew the Apostle’, John is
still simply ‘John the disciple of the Lord’. Had.Irenaeus taken

EPILOGUE 141

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 ‘the Apostle’, with the 74 occasions on
which St. Paul is so styled.

_ Now arises the question—Whence did Irenaeus obtain this
distinctive title, ‘the 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, Mdpxos pev
Epunveutys Ilérpov yevopevos . . . OvTe yap HKovoce Tod Kupiov, ovre tapy-
KodovOnoe aita: totepov dé, as Epyv, Ilérpw (Eusebius, HE. iii. 39).
In the same way, we observe that Papias styles Aristion and John
the presbyter of 7od Kvupiov pafyrai. It is true that in the same
paragraph he subjoins 7 tis erepos tov tov Kupiov pabyrav to the
names of the seven Apostles whom he mentions, and so may be
taken to include them as pa@yrat. Here, however, we mark a
difference ; since the sense obviously is that Papias was anxious to
gain information coming from any (presumably deceased) pafyrjs
Kypiov (i.e. direct associate of the Lord), whether Apostle or other-
wise. But in the cases of Aristion and John the presbyter oi rod
Kvupiov palnrai is their distinctive title, 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
information.

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 Iwdvvov pév dxovorys,
he is at any rate as correct as Eusebius when he says 6 viv 8 jpiv
SnAovpevos Iamias.. . tod mpeaBurépov “Iwdvvov airixoov éavtov pyar
yevéoOa. 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 (cadas dyAdv rov cdayyedioriy),
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

142 EPILOGUE

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. 10'f. 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 1 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 1” 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-

EPFILOG U'E 143

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 ¢wtellectual 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. 181. ‘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, Giidemann, Dr. Biichler, 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 tle close investigation of the New
Testament.’

144 EPILOGUE

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. 22?!~84—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.%, "Eyévero 5€ kal gidoveia év aitois, TO tis a’tav Sond eivat
pet{av. This is met by our Lord’s words of reproof, in which éya@ 6é év peow byav
eiui ws 6 Siaxov@v 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 ¢his occasion of all others is not apparent. Supposing,
however, that this time the circle was enlarged by admission of the young 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 giAovexia. Adopting this hypothesis, we seem to
read our Lord's words of reproof with a new understanding. In the injunction
GAN’ 6 peilov ev tyiv ywécbw ws 6 vewrepos the young disciple John becomes the
concrete example of 6 vewrepos, which seems almost to acquire the meaning, ‘ this
youth’ (cf. Mk. 9%8-4! 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. 10%8-##), 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 pera trav dwiexa Mk, 1417, pera r&v Swdexa [padnrav] Mt. 26°, «ai of
amdoToAo atv avtgé Lk. 22'4, 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

EPILOGUE 145

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. 2

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’ (1 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
at that time than would nowadays a young scholar and thinker in the minds of men
of practical ability holding high official positions in the Church.

£520 L

146 EPILOGUE

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
Evangelist.

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 oi rod ZeBedaiov on
the ordinary view, but under dAAou éx tév pabyradv attod dvo upon the
view which we are maintaining; and it is legitimate to argue
that, since the author always. elsewhere deliberately conceals his

EPILOGUE. 147

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 (13% #-, 20?#-, 21°0ff-) 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 13%#- 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 217: 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. 1% 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. Inv.”
it is said of Andrew, cipioxe: otros rpGrov Tov ddeApov Tov idvov Zipwva,
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. 1'-*=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 €« tay padnTay avtov Svo 1°5, 6 aAAos

padnrns 207-3.4.8,
L 2

148 EPILOGUE

be harmonized if we suppose that the definite call (Acdre dricw pov)
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 musc be remarked, however, that while this conclusion is
clear as regards Andrew and Peter, the question as to the second

disciple mentioned in Jn. 1*%4- 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 vv.*#-. Secondly, Dr. Westcott’s
deduction from the statement eipicxe. ofros zparov «rd. is surely
much too categorical. Why should zpérov imply that some one
else was afterwards found? Comparing the use of the adverb
in Mt. 6* fyretre 8& zpdrov tiv Bacrciav Kat tiv. Sixavocivny adrod,
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

7
: .
a a a ee eg

EPILOGUE 149

seem, at first sight, to tell against it, being amenable to a 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
latter ’.*

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. ror ff.

t It may be urged that, if the Gospel is a translation, the Ep’stles 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.

150 EPILOGUE

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.

EPILOGUE I5I

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).
"ig? i Apoc. 16°, 19”, 20°64 a7 oplbl7,

Parataxis (cf. p. 56). The co-ordination of sentences by xai...
xai is so frequent in Apoc. that it needs no illustration.

Non-use of Aorist Partictple describing action anterior to Fintte
verb, There seems to be only one instance, viz. émurrpépas elSov 1%
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.

kat linking contrasted statements (cf. p.66). Cf. Apoc. 2'3*!, 2158,

Great rarity of 8é. There seem to be 5 occurrences only in
Apoc., viz. 1%, 2%, 10°, 19”, 21°, d¢ 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 yép (cf. p. 69). Only about 17 occurrences.

iva ph frequent, phmwore never. There are 11 occurrences of iva. ui}
in Apoc., and none of pyrore. payrore never occurs in Jn. in sense
‘that... not’, ‘lest’, its place being regularly taken by iva py
(cf. pp. 69 f., 100). |

The Relative completed by a Pronoun (cf. p. 84). Cf. Apoc. 3°,
7, 12°) 138 179, 20%, |

dvopa atte = ‘Whose name was’. Jn. 1°, 3', Apoc. 6*,9". Never
elsewhere in N.T. (cf. p. 30).

épxetar Present used as Futurum instans (cf. p. 94). Cf. Apoc. 1*7%,
2°16 3" 48, 9”, 114, 16", 2277, The same usage is seen with other
verbs in 11° (éxropeverat, kareoGier), 11°" (BA€rovoew, adiovow, xaipovow,

eippaivovra), 14° (rpockvuvel, AapBaver).

* 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, ie. it
is proportionately about 23 times as frequent in the Synoptists as in Jn.

152 EPILOGUE

Change of construction after Participle (cf. p. 96, where the cases
in Apoc. are noted).

mas (wav)... 0d = ‘none’ (p. 98). Cf. Apoc. 7", 28°, 217, 22%, _

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
1'*, 22°; in 1° with the 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 ove 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.

APPENDIX

1. Reminiscences of the teaching of the Fourth Gospel
(and 1 Jn.) in the Epistles of St. Ignatius.

To the Ephesians.

/, > > \ ,
we T pemrov OUV E€OTLV KATA TAVTA

4 > A
tporov dogdlew Incotv Xpiorov Tov |

5 / . ee eh > m € a
ofdcayta ipas’ iva év pug brotayy
/
KATYPTLTPLEVOL « .
NYyLac evo.

‘ £ >
« KATH TWAVTH TE

\ “ > ba e / e a

4. ua Todtro ev TH Spovoia tov
\ , 3 4, > A ‘\
kal cuppove ayarn Inoots Xpioros

Goer al.

4 A e a“ / XN
5: Toow padrov tpas paxapilw Tovs
5 la YY e c-- 9 /
AVAKEKPA[LEVOUS OUTWS, WS 7 EKKANTLA
2 ~ nn wie > a) ‘
Inoov Xpiot@ kat ws Incots Xpurros
~ ia , > a a 4
TQ TATpl, Wa, TAVTA EV EVOTYTL OVE

pova 7

7. Christ is év davarw Lot éAnOuw7.
Cf. 11. povov év Xpictd “Inood
etpeOnvat cis 70 GAnOwov Cyv. Trall.
9g. & Xpictd “Iycod, ob} xwpis Td

adAnOwov Env oik exoper.

Jn. 17” Kayo rhv dogav nv d€dwxds
pot b€dwxa avrots, iva Gow ev kabas
€ &.. & ;
pets ev.

Jn. 17° wa dow kati adrot iy-

opevor ev dAnGeia.

5 , ,
Jn. 13” &v rovtw yvioovras wavTes
bid > X wf; 9 2X a £
OTe énot pabyrai ore, av ayarnv

exnte ev GAANAaLS.

E a. 9
Jn. 17” wa wavres &v dow, Kabus
, , 2 > ‘ a. * Ss > em A
ov, TaTHp, ev epol Kayo ev Goi, iva

‘ > ee e€ a a >
KQ.L QUTOL EV NULL [ev] WOW.

> © >
Jn. 11” “Eyd cit... Lon
¢€ , > : ae 5) > 4
6 murtevwv cis eve Kav amobdvy

Cyoerau’ xtA. Cf. also 1 Jn. ge

We may note that the adj. dAyOweds is specially characteristic
of Jn. (9 times), r Jn. (4 times), and Apoc. (10 times), occurring
but 5 times besides in the whole remainder of the N.T.

TI; "Eoyxarou Kapot.

I Jn. 2"° éoxdry dpa éoriv.

154

e a
14. “Ov otdev AavOdver tyas, eav
, a Meee ‘
teXeiws eis Inootv Xpiorov Exnre THV
‘ ‘ ep e ee A > \
TioTW Kal THY ayarnv’ YTIs €oT
pees. a GT: noe ae. ein ,
apxn Cwns Kal TeAOS* apn pev TIOTLS,
téXdos b¢ ayary Ta de dvo ev Evoryrt

yevopeva Meds eorw.

APPENDIX.

1 Jn. 4°" 6 cds dyarn éoriv.
I Jn. 2 ddnOas ev tovTw 4 a&ydary

C£ ere

Tov @Meod TeTeXciwTat.

The Johannine teaching is here combined with that of St. Paul

in t Cor. 13.

14. ovdels miotw érayyeAdopuevos
¢ , EBNe. > /, ,
dpapraver ov0e aydmrnv KEKTNMEVOS

pcre.

, > “ e > ee

15. TavtTa ovv ToLmpev, WS av’TOD ev

e “~ “~ nw

Helv KaTOLKOvVTOS, va @pmev avTOU

\ ‘ > » el Res 4

vaol Kal avTos n €v Huw eos.

‘\ 4, A

17. Awa rotto pipov éAaBev eri

ths Kehadys [airod] 6 Kupws, tva

1 Jn. 3° ras 6 &y ait pevov ovx

GpapTravel.

1 Jn. 4” édy tis eizy ore “Ayard

Tov Medv, Kai Tov ddeAov adrod pio7,

wevarys éeoriv. Cf. also 2°".

1 Jn. 3” kai 6 tTypdv Tas évroAas
> a > 7 A / ‘ So 5m >
aiTov év aiT@ pever Kal avTos év
avTo.

Jn. 12° 9 dé oikia érAnpweOy ex THs

dapns Tod pvpov.

mven TH exkAnola apbapciav.

The words ézi rijs xehadjs airod prove that St. Ignatius has in
mind the narrative of the anointing as recorded in Mk. 14°°=
Mt. 26°". According to Jn. 12'#- our Lord’s feet were anointed ;
yet it is difficult to resist the conclusion that Ignatius’s words
iva mvén xtA. 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 dpywv rod aidvos rovrov occurs six times
in St. Ignatius’s letters (the other.occurrences are Magn.1; Trall.
4; Rom. 7; Phil. 6). In the Syriac version the equivalent is
Joo bsaSay cwans/ (Eph. 19). In Jn. 12%, 16" we have the
phrase 6 dpxwv rod xécpov tovtov, which is rendered by Sin.
Jooy braSxo (overex 12%) ovaod/, and by Pesh. bo fsaSay boos;
in 14° 6 rod Kdcpov [rovrov] dpywv is rendered by Sin. and Pesh.
sad brass’. In Jn., as in Ignatius, the thought is of the
spiritual ruler of the present age or world-pertod (properly rod aidvos
rovrov), just as in 1 Cor. 2% rév dpxdvrwv tod aidvos tovrov denotes

APPENDIX 155

the earthly rulers of the present age. Aramaic has but one term
xpdy (Syr. |sxaSs) to denote aidy and xéopos, and the Johannine
rendering rod xéopov tovrov is less accurate than rod aidvos rovrov,
and mistranslates the original which must have been NPY N2DIN
'3, 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. év ais [éxxAynoias] evwow evxo- Jn. 17% (quoted above on
par oapkds kal mvevpatos ‘Inycod Eph. 5).

Xpisrod tov Sia ravros juaov Ly,
, , ‘ 3 , e poe
mioTews TE Kal aydrys 7s ovdev

/ ‘\ X , > a
mpoxeKpitat, TO dé Kupwwrepov, Incod

\ ,
KQL TATpos.

5. aomep yap éotw vopicpara. duo,
a ‘ aa X , > we,
0 pev Ocod 0 d€ Kdcpov, Kal ExagTov
aiTav idtov xapaxTnpa émuKeipevov
“~ 4,
éxel, of arurtot TOU KOGpoV TOUTOL,
ec ‘ ‘ > 3 - an
ot b€ muro. év aydry xXapaKxThpa
“ > ~ A
®@cod rarpos dia “Incod Xpiotod...

. on 5 eee Mae ee ee
5. 70 Cav avrov oix éotw év piv.

6. amavtes ovv dponfeav Meov
AaBovres evrpérecGe GAnAovs.. .
év Inood Xpiot@ adAnAovs bia Trav-

TOS ayaTrare.

7. “Qorep otv 6 Kipuos avev rod
‘ 398 > if € ,
matpos ovo éroincew | pvwpevos

ov|,...

Jn. 15” ef ék rod xdopov Fre, 6
4 x
KOgpos av TO tOtov eirer’ Ott dE éx
TOU KOopov ovK eat, GAN’ éyw e€e-
4 Cc. A > ~ 4, ‘
AeEapnv ipas ék Tod Kkoopov, da

TOUTO poet Dpas 6 KOT POS.

1 Jn. 1° 7 GAnOea odx €orw év Hiv.

I Jn. 1° 6 Adyos atrod ovK éorw ev
Hpi.

Jn. 8% 6 Adyos 6 eds od Xwpet
év bpiv.

zt Jn; 3”

2A ,
avUT®@ fLEVOVO EV.
t

Jn. 13” (quoted
Eph. 4).

Se \ 27 >
OUK EXEL Conv GQLWVLOV €EV

above on

Jn. 5° ob Svvarat 6 vids rovety a’
BI \
€avTov ovdey Gv py te BrEry Tov
TaTépa TOLOvVTa.

Jn. 8% dw éeuavrod row oder,

156

a \ \ > 4?

7. eri eva Inootv Xpiorov tov ad
| a, ‘ 4 \ > 7

_€v0s Tatpos mpoeAOovra Kai eis Eva.

” \ ,

OVTQ KAL KWPYCAVTA.
St ae +

€ts €VQ OVTA.

,
Kal XwopynoavTa.

bi ? , 2 ¢ ,

8. ore eis Weds Eotw 6 havepwoas
¥ \ a; 2 a a cal ea
éavtov 61a Incod Xpicrod tod viod

3 ~
auTov,
bd > > a , 2%, Les
os €oTtw avtov Aoyos amo avyys
mpoeA Ou,

a \ , 3 , “~ ,
OS KATA TAVTA EVNPETTYTEV TO TEp-

Warte adrov.

Q. mas pets dSuvycopcla Choa
xwpis adrod; cf. Trall. 9. od ywpis
To aAnOwov Cav odk Exopev.

APPENDIX Naga

GAAG Kabas edidasév pe 6 raTHp
tavta Aado. |

Jn. 10° eyo xai 6 zarnp & éopev.
Cf. also 10°°7**,

Jn. 16% é&#AOov éx Tod warTpos Kai
eAnAvoa cis Tov KOopov" mwadw apinwe

‘ : ‘ X
TOV KOG}LOV Kal 7opevopat pos TOV

TaTépa. Cf. 8”, 75
Jn. 18 6 dv eis tov KoAmTov Tod
TaTpos. Cf. re,

Cr T P ascait 1610-17,

Jn. 17° "Edavépwod cov 76 dvopa.

Jn 1's

> A
Jn. 8” kai 6 wéuwas pe per epod
> Met 4 aes, ‘ 3 \ x, A
éotiv' ... OTL eyo TA apsoTa avTo
rou mévtote. Cf. also with 7a

24.30.37
méwbayvt. aitov, Jn. 4%, 5274808,

38.39.44 16.18.28.33 16.18.26 4 44.45.49
oye , Os 9, 16 ae

20 24 21 5 21
13”,.14", 55 7 10, 20.

Jn. 15'@. Cf. especially @, *

xwpis €pov.

To the Tralhans.

4 bd \ ‘\
II. Devyere ovv Tas Kakas Tapa-
/, ».' , . A

duddas Tas yevvooas Kaprov Oavary-

4 *' ss U4 / ‘
popov, ov €av yevonTal Tis, TapavTa
> , e ‘ >» >
aroOvycKe, ovTor yap ovK ciow

guteia Tarpos.

jn. 15° The Father is the
husbandman who tends the vine
and removes the worthless

shoots.

- Lightfoot compares Clement Alex. Paed. i. 8 xaOvAopavel yap pH

‘3

KAadevopevn 1)

. 4 :
dparedos, ovTws d€ Kat 6 avOpwros* Kabaiper 5€ adtrod ras

eEvBpilovocas wapapvddas 6 Adyos, xrA. The word zapadvds denotes
a side-growth or worthless sucker which detracts from the fertility

APPENDIX

of the plant.

Ta amo. THs pins Tod devdpov BAacTavovTa.

157

According to Aristotle, Plant. i. 4 wapaduddes 8€ ctor

Thus the thought of

Ignatius is allied to that of Jn., with the difference that the p
épov xaprov of the latter becomes ras yervwoas xaprov Oavarnddpov.
In the last clause there is allusion to Mt. 15", [aoa dureéa Hv otk

> 4 e , ¢ > , > 6 /
épitevoev 6 TaTHp pov 6 ovpavios expilwOyoerat.

‘ > 5 \ lal
II. kat mv av 6 Kapmos aitov

ad Oapros.

9

Jn. 15° wa .
pevy.

¢ \ la
. 0 KapTos tpov

To the Romans.

3. peyeBous eotiv 6 xpiotiavicpos,

7 nw /
OTaV plonTaL UTO KOT pLOV.

7. ph Xadreire “Incotyv Xpicrov

, are A
KOO [LOV ny eruOupetre.

q. vowp dé Lav Kat Aadodv ev enol,

eowbev por héyov KTA..

7. aptov @cov Oéddw, 6 éotw caps
tov Xpisrod... kai mopa OédrAw 7d

e > a @ >» > 4 +
ALLA AUTOV, O EOTLY AyYATTH apGapros.

Jn. 15" «i ék rod Kédopov Fre, 6
KOopos av TO idvov éirer: re dé ex
TOU KOopov OvK éoTé, GAN eyw ee-
Aekapnv ipas ek tod Kdopov, dia

TOUTO pLoEL DAS O KOT pOS.

16 27 E) a oN ,
I Jn. 2” €ay TIS AYATA TOV KOO LOV,

> » e¢ 3 4, “a ‘\ > re
OUK EOTLY 7) GYAN TOV TATPOS EV AUTO.

Jn. 4° wxev dv cor ddwp Cav.
Jn. 4% 7d vdwp 0 deécw aitd yevy-
wera ev avTo n voaTos dAAopevou
> mya) y.

Cf. also Jn. 7*.

> \ OF
eis Cwnv aiwviov.

Jn. 6° 6 zarnp pov didwow tpiv
‘\ + > Led > “A ‘ > /
TOV GpTov €k TOD Ovpavod Tov dAnOwWor

c ‘ » lal 29 \ 4
6 yap aptos Tov Meod éotiv 6 Kara-
, 3 “a 3 “ ‘\ ‘\ \
Baivwv éx Tod otpavod Kai Cav didovs
“ 4
TO KOTPLO.
Jn. 6° 4 yap cap pov adnOys éorre
a \ \ e /, LX 6 / >
BpGors, Kai 70 aia pov GAnOys éore

TOS.

To the Philadelphians.

2. Téxva otv gwrds dAnbeias,*

,
hevyete Tov pepispov Kal Tas KaKo-

Jn. 12% as 76 pas exere TicreveTe

eis TO hs, tva viol Pwtds yevynoOe.

* Lightfoot’s verdict is, ‘The reading of the Greek MSS. gwrds dAndeias ‘of
the light of truth’’, cannot stand; for definite articles would almost certainly be

158 APPENDIX

dWacKahias: drov S¢ 6 rojv éorw, Jn. 10* drav ra ida rdvra éxBdAy,
> 5G , > . ‘ + a2 a , \ \
€cel a3 TIIZSurn ter\ovIzlrz wodAol eEumpocbev aitav ropeverar, Kal Ta
yap AvKor.. . aixparwriLovow tos mpoBara aitd dxodovbe?.

Geodpdpovs. v.” Kai 6 AvKos dpraler atta Kal

,
oKopmicet.

3. “Améxerbe tOv kaxdv Boravdv, Jn. 15'*-,
7 B) an > cal /
agtivas ov yewpyet Incots Xpioros,

\ ‘ o-. > \ / /
did 76 put elvar abrovs putetay rarpos.

Cf. on Trall. rr.

7+ 70 rvedpa od tAavarat, dd @cod = Jn. 3° 7d rvedpa Srov Oéde vel,
7 ee 75 2 50 + \ a RS \ > a 3 , > >
ov’ oldev yap woGev Epyetrat Kal TOU Kal THY hwvHy aiToOd aKoves, GAA’ OK
e / \ ‘\ XS / Ss 4 »” \ “~ e / .
vrdyel, Kal TA KpuTTa e€yxel. oidas roGev EpxeTar Kal Tod drayer
oUTws €oTiv Tas 6 yeyevvnpéEvos EK TOD
P TVEVPLATOS.

rh pee eds Meee BOR \ XL yA

Jn. 3° kai obk Epxerar rpds 7d pads,
iva pn eeyxOy Ta. Epya abrod.

8. moredw tH xdpitt “Iyood Xp- = Jn. 8° Kal yrdoerbe rhv ad7-
orov, Os Avoca. ad ipov wdvta Oeav, Kal 7 dAnOea edevdepdcer
8 4 eae aN > € ey | >
€o MOV. tpas....€av ovv O vios vmas éA€ev-

g »” > 4, ”
Gepwion, dvTws eAevOepor Eveo Oe.

Q. aitds dv Bipa tod ratpds, Sv is = Jn. 10" ays ci 4 Opa Tov
cinépxovrar “ABpadp Kat “Ioadx wal mpoBdrwov.... éyd ei % Odpar &”
‘TaxoB cal ot mpopyrar Kal of dré- nod édy Tis cic AON TwOHoerar.

ek /
oToAo Kat 9 €xkAnoia.

required,~ The text might be mended by inserting a «ai, as the Armenian Version
gives ‘‘light 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 réxva dAnOeias was the original reading of Ignatius; and that gwrds
was first intended as a substitution or a gloss or a parallel, suggested by the
familiar scriptural phrase réxva (viol) gwrds’. It may be remarked, however, that
the Aramaic method of expressing ‘the true light’ is NDOVAPT x72, Syr.
Joind Jsancy ‘light of truth’, this latter being used e. g. to translate TO pas 70
aAn&vév in Jn. 1°. Thus dwrds ddnOeias, which, according to Lightfoot ‘is older
than any existing authorities’, may well be an Aramaism, possibly pointing (like
6 Gpxewv Tod aidvos 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% NS FTI | ‘in the true (right) way’ (lit. ‘in way
of truth’) = LXX év 686 dAndeias, Ps, 118 (119)8° d5dv dAnOeias 7 peTicdpny.

APPENDIX -

159

To the Smyrnaeans.

I. memAnpopopypéevovs cis Tov
Kipwov jpav .. . dAnOds emt Tovriov
IlAdrov

6 / ¢ \ c ~ > 7
KabyrAwpevov vrép Yuov ev capKi:

\ e / ,

kat “Hpwdov rerpdpxov
7 + 4 > ‘

. va apy cioonpov «is Tovs

bal ‘ io > / > ‘
aidvas 5a THs dvaoTdcews cis TOUS
ae \ \ > “A 4 >
dyiovs Kal murtovs aiTov, «ite év

> , 4
lovdaiois eire ev COveow, & Evi

Jn. 3%” kai xabas Movojs twwoev
‘\ »” > ~ > 4, 9 c -
Tov opi €v TH Epynpw, ovtws vw
cal ~ 7 es Fins, 9d / 7
Onvar det Tov viov Tod dvOpdrov, iva
“A € 4 > PS Be ‘
mwas 6 TusTevwy ev aiT@ exn Cw
>7
aiwvov.
3 vn a a A
Jn. 12” kayo av iwOS é« rips yijs,
4 € , ‘ > /
TavTas EAKVTW TPOS ELAUTOV.

Cf. also Jn. gG&

cwopat. THS éxkAnoias airod.

The allusion of ovconpov seems to be to the D2 ‘ standard’ or
‘signal-post’ on which the brazen serpent was set, Num. 21°.
LXX kai és airov ért onpeiov. DJ is rendered ciconyov by LXX in
Isa. 5%, 49”, 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 387°

us Joo Janse Mirco wes Ils preadsoo
JhawSg9 bisasdo yooSad
Jhassy wor Jhadcy qeeaeo? (aor Jeg so
‘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’.

160 : ; APPENDIX

In Trall. 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’ (éc7ep Oavdécipov pdppaxov Siddvres pera
oivopeAutos, Orep 6 ayvodv adeGs AapBave ev Hdova Kaxy Td GroOaveiy). a

In the view of the editors ‘JLasNu Zalyitha is not merely “ sweet-
ness”, but something with which the poison is taken, i.e. a sweet
drink’. This is substantiated bya passage in which Ephrem states
that Bardaisan, in composing his Psalter in imitation of David,
‘was administering to the simple bitters in Zalyutha’. It is a fair
inference, then, that the oivéuedk. of Ignatius corresponds to the
Syr. Zalyitha. 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 11°

vlads aso INSw liso
paw Wy lizsos od Aa. ee

‘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’ (ddwp d2 fav Kat
Aadodv ev enol, ZrwHév por Aéyov’ Acipo zpos Tov Tatépa). |
In explanation of daAotv, Lightfoot cites Jortin (Eccles. Hist. 1,

pp. 356f.) 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 inclined to question the
text, and to prefer the interpolator’s text dAAdpevor (cf. Jn. 4"); but
the correctness of Aadodv is now confirmed by the passage in the
Ode, with which we can hardly fai! to.trace a connexion.

APPENDIX 161

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 170!

; RO +2 wo whaol/ pee Wo
Meco LMA) Li) peradoy bukoy Sgro
+as/ ce | sass Sx Mooo Sito

‘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 of everybody, which is an explanation of ‘the
door of everything’ in the Ode.

Ode 41'*,

The connexion of this passage with Ignatius, Rom. 2, has
already been noticed on p. 131, n. f.

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: 7

\ » \ a “~ 4,
Kai €Aafev tov dpyovra tod aidvos TovTov 7 mapbevia Mapias kai 6
‘\ ro 2 ¢ “4 XN. ¢€ , ~ , iA , “~
TOKETOS GUTHS, dpoiws Kat 6 Oavatos tov Kupiovy tpia pvotypia Kpavyis,
7 >. 4 , nn > , lal > > , wn 7A 5 ‘\ >
atwa év novxia Ocod éerpaxOyn. mas ovv éhavepdOy Tots aidow ; aorHnp év
> “~ ex. ¢€ \ / ‘ > , \ ‘ lal 3 a: 3 Xr tA: > ,
ovpav@ éAapev brép ravras Tos aoréepas, kal TO Has avTod avexAaAnTov Hy,
K i €evic OV a“ € 4 > ae ‘ be X ‘ 4 » Ld aE
at Eeviopov Tapetxev Y KaLvOTYS adTod: Ta O€ AoLTA TavTA GoTpa apa HALw
>
* op. cit, ii, p. 43.
2520 M

162 APPENDIX

Kal oeAnvn xopos eyevero TO aorépt, adres O€ Hv trepBddAdrAwv Td Pas adrod

e ‘\ 4, , > / € /, ee: SS 4 > a“ hd 3 ,

vTEep TAVTA’ TAapPaX)) TE HV wobev 9) KQLVOTYS 7 GVO {LOLOS QuToLs. bev eAver oO
~ , \ a A 3 , 4 > a ‘

maca paryeia, Kat was Seopos Hpavilero Kakias, d&yvoia Kafypetro, madara

Baoireia dePOeipero,* Meod avOpwrivws pavepovpévov cis KawdryTa didiov

” 3 ‘ \ > 4, \ \ “ 3 rd ” \ Ko
Lwns. dapxnv d€ éAduPBavev 70 rapa. Oeod darypticpévov. evOev Ta TavTa
ovvekweito bua TO pedeTaaOat Oavarov Katadvow.

It seems clear that the description of the Incarnation introduced
by the query zés otv éfavepwby trois aiéow; 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 d6ev éAvero waca payeia, upon the

Syriac version of the letter, in which the earlier part of the poem
is not included. .

jos bares faoao

+ oorss lacds wo wh.
Joo NAxhkoo Ip odo1as0
Loos Jookiso obolwo

yoodo facdoy boinc

Jaqjc00 jason p>

|moao dem C8 ermto ho
HLOHDSD EO OHH Joo dKusoy
JLohen Jas? c~ Joo hoje
Ooms Juror Wy oo

Jhamin WKsao faso

+ easy Jhamnd? Jiaslo
Loo Jol Konr0 Jhonny
~Jed/ JNeuKo& Jlaadtwo
Jhamsh> Jod? woh? oo
spsody bay Jobs

* Following the older punctuation. Lightfoot punctuates S@ev éAvero maca payeia
wat was Secpds, i,pavilero Kaxias ayvowa, KaOppeiro madad Baorreia, [drepOeipero),
regarding the last verb as a gloss, This, from the poetical point of view, upsets
the balance altogether.

APPENDIX 163

pred hice Jooo
phase Jod/ body
pesado assthh? lose ee
Shasoy omsa Joos Nauwkrwy

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. [henceforth 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. Thus 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 8° ‘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 Him’.

2. The stars gather round the new star, and express their
wonder. 7
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

164 APPENDIX

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 Jha.sJ ‘error’ in our rendering, following the
Syriac text. The Greek, however, has dyvow, which is exactly

JN I (lit. ‘not-knowledge’) of the Ode. We have both terms
in the following passage :

Ode 18°" ‘And error (JLa.3) Thou knowest not,
For neither doth it know Thee.
And ignorance (JK. J) 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 didst 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’.

APPENDIX 165

This recalls the passage in our Ignatian ode—
‘And the ancient kingdom passed (|.3( 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 ovvexwetro = aSsjhL/ 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, riv tév cadevopévov petabeow ds reromnpevor, iva peivy TH

py cadevopeva.

‘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.

166 APPENDIX

For they travailed from the beginning,
And the end of their travail was life.

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. | ,
And there hath gone up deathless life in the Lord’s
land’.

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 1° ‘For I should not have 1/Jn. 4" ‘We love (Him) be-
nown how to love the Lord, if cause He first loved us’.
He had not loved me’.
Ode 1° ‘And where His rest Jn.14° ‘That where I am, there
is, there also am |’. ye may be also’.
Ode 1° ‘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’.

APPENDIX

_ Ode 1" ‘This is the Spirit of
the Lord, that doth not lie’.
Ode 7* ‘He became like me,
that 1 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
Beloved ;

And ye that are kept, in Him
that lived (again)’.

the

Ode g" ‘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 to’ ‘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’.

167
CEI pn. 4.

Jm. 1 ‘And the Word became
flesh, and tabernacled among
us’.

Jn. r® ‘But as many as re-
ceived Him, to them gave He
power to become the sons of
God’.

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.” ‘T 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 overcometh
...-I will in no wise blot his
name out of the book of life’.

1 Jn. 5‘ ‘And this is the victory
that overcometh the world, even
our faith’,

Jn. 16% ‘I have overcome the
world’.

Jn. 11° ‘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. 11” ‘The kingdom of the
world has become our Lord’s

168

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 away from falsehood’,

Ode 22° (Christ speaks) ‘He
that overthrew 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

APPENDIX
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. 1!f- ‘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. Tio.
Jn. 7% ‘If any man thirst, let
him come unto Me and drink’.

Jn. 1° ‘That was the true

Light’.

Jn. 1'# ‘The Word’.

Jn. 6% ‘That giveth life to the
world’,

v.** ‘Him that cometh to Me
I will in no wise cast out’.

Jn. 1*° ‘In Him was light, and

* So Sin. and Cur., omitting ‘springing up’.

See es

APPENDIX

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 ’.

169

-

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 g" 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
eno? aatohlo
Jens vabas
‘He might gather together | ,
into one’
jn. 32"
and were set the oF tiahhe
traces
Naar csnrcollic Jdorass
Jonas gad

Apoc. 21”

‘by the light’

the nations

ae

ee

the nations’

Apoc. 21”

upon their
heart,
(Oo ee

that were scattered

abroad ;
SO QeIprro?
eeyeae?

‘that were scattered

abroad’
ais vae © oe

and they walked
in My life
wand Gado
(Aa wo
‘and they shall
walk ’
Apoc. 21"

170 APPENDIX

and were saved ;|and they became My people| for ever and ever’.

as2hle UMN C00 ga da~wsay

anol} yocow oda? boas qa | fsaSay boaSse
‘that are saved’ eae ais. sips Soe for ever and ever’.
people
Apoc. 217 Apoc. 21° Apoc. 11”

We notice incidentally that the text of Pesh. appears to be
presupposed in Apoc. 21% (ass2hly=rav cwLouévwv. WH. om.) and
Apoc. 21° (oS.9 |aax=)ads aidrot. WH. daol airod).

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. 110, was thoroughly familiar
with the Theology of Jn. and 1 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
1 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

4 oe
bit iu
sos an
te abies See

APPENDIX 191

the Odes is sufficiently striking, it has not been proved that he
knew a// 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 als Christ
und Theologe, in Texte und Untersuchungen, Band xii), and by Dr. Sanday (Cniticism
of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 242ff.). 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 1 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 thcught, 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 Didaché, and in.
Ignatius, as well as in some of the early Gnostic systems.’

INDEX

Abbahu, R., 117

Abbott, Dr. E. A., 57, 65, 66, 68

Abraham sees the day of the Son of
Man, rirf.

Abrahams, Dr. I., 143

Acta Thomae, 27, 55, 7; 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, To,
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, 56f., 151

Apocalypse, 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., 12f., 13,
14, 15, 16f., 49f., 53, 61 ff, 96, 99

Aramaisms, 7 ff.

Aristion, 135

Asyndeton, in Aramaic, 49f., 52f., 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 f., 103, 104, 107,
116

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., 14

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,
151, 152 pet

Chwolson, Dr, 143

Conybeare, Mr. F. C., 130

Creation, the Incarnation regarded as a
new, 43 ff.

Cureton, Dr. W., 26, 77

Dalman, Prof. G. H., 7, 13, 20, 23, 24,
25. 39, 49, 55

Daniel, Aramaic section in Book of, 20 ;
asyndeton in, 4of.

Daphne, speaking fountain of, 160

Deissmann, Prof. A., 4. 5, 39

Delff, 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,
149

Eusebius, 77, 78, 134, 135, 137, 138, 140,
141

Evagrius, 160

Evangelion da-M°hall°té, 26

Evangelion da-M°pharr’shé, 26

Ewald, Prof. H., 2, 68

Ezra, Aramaic sections in Book of, 20

Florinus, 138

Gamaliel the elder, 22, 46; Gamaliel II, 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.

174

Greek words and phrases:

axodovbeiy bricw, 8

dAnOvos, 153

duvés = talyd, 107f.

avOpwmcs = Tis, 99

avOpwnos éf ovpavov, 6 5evTEpos, 117

dmexpi0n, amexpiOncay as asyndeton
opening of sentence, 52 ff.

amd mpoowmov, 15

dpxwyv Tov aigvos TovTov, 6, 154

yap, 69, 15!

yéypamra, 46

5€, sparse use of, in Fourth Gospel and
Mark, 18, 69; extreme rarity of, in
Apocalypse, 151

5idwyu in wide range of senses, 15

ddfa, 36 ff.

éyévero introducing time-determina-
tion, 11 f.

éAeyev, éAdeyov, frequency of Imper-
fects, 18, 92, 93

évaytt, évavTiov, 14

évwmov, 14

éni mpvownov (mpoowmov), 15

éoxnvacev, 35 ff.

evdvs in Mark, 68

jpéaro auxiliary, 19

iva, frequency of, in Fourth Gospel, 69,
70; Mark’s iva avoided by the other
Synoptists, 70ff.; Aramaic character
of iva construction, 70, 72 ff. ; iva =
conjunctive ‘ that’, 18, 19, 70 ff. ;
mistranslation of Aramaic relative,
18, 19, 32, 75f., 101 ; mistranslation
of = ‘when’, 19, 78.

iva Bn, 19, 69, 7O, 100, 151.

«ai linking co-ordinate sentences, 5 f.,
56; linking contrasted statements, 18,
33, 66f., 151 ; introducing apodosis
after time-determination, 11 f.

AapBavew mpdowmnor, 15

A€éyer, A€youow, asyndeton,
Historic Presents, 87, 89.

payiwropuarag, 5

per,

dpodoyeiv év, 8

évopa avT@, 30 f., 151

ére introducing temporal clause, 58 ff.

dr mistranslation of Aramaic relative,
18, 76f.; mistranslation of J =
‘when’, 78

ov... GvOpwros = ‘no one’, 19, 99

ov py... eis TOV al@va, 18, 99

ovv, 66, 68

mas (wav)... ov (uh), 98

moreve eis, 18, 34

TANPNS, 39

mvedua (wotraour, 45 f.

m0AAd, adverbial, 19

mopeveoOa (ind-yev) cis elpyyvnv, 14

mpo mpogwmou, 15

54 ff. ;

INDEX

mpos = ‘ with’, 18, 28 f.
mpooTiOnu in place of maw or similar
adverb, 14
TpoowmoAnunTns, MpoownmoAnpvia, 15
pbjua = ‘thing’, 108 f.
odpt and mvetpa, 45
oTnpicew TO mpdacwmorv, 15
Téxva puts ddnbeias, 157 f.
poPeicba ard, 8
Xpiorés not employed as title by the
Baptist, 106
ws introducing temporal clause, 58
Grotius, H., 2
Giidemann, Dr., 143

Haggdda, 23, 132

Halakha, 23

Harnack, Prof. A., 135 .

Harris, Dr. J. Rendel, 29, 131, 159 ff.

Hawkins, Sir J. C. (A/S.*), 8, 16, 69, 70,
87, 88, 92

Hebraisms, 7 ff. —

Hebrew, New, contrasted with Biblical
Hebrew, 17, 150

Hebrew Bible employed by writer of
Fourth Gospel, 114 ff.; by writer of
Apocalypse, 150

Hegesippus, 77

Hillel, R., 22, 24

Historic Present in Fourth Gospel, 18,
54 ff., 87 ff.; in Mark, 16, 18, 88, 89;
in LXX, 16

Hiya, R., 116, 117

Hoshaiah, R., 45

Ignatius, Epistles of, 1g0f.; reminis-
cences of Fourth Gospel and First
Epistle of St. John in, 153ff., 170,
171; Syriac ode quoted in, 161 ff.

Imperfect in Fourth Gospel, go ff.

Inge, Dr. W. R., 131

Irenaeus, 135, 136, 138 ff.

Jacob, 115 ff.

Jerome, 137

Jerusalem, predominance of scenes at or
near, in Fourth Gospel, 143, 148

John, Epistles of, 137, 149; First Epistle
of, 131, 153 ff., 166f.; Second and
Third Epistles of, 137

John, Gospel of, style of, 5 ff., 149; a
product of Palestinian thought, 39,
126 f. ; written in Palestine or Syria,
127 ff.; date of, 128; glosses in, 129;
author of, 133 ff. ; discourses in, 143

Jchn the Baptist, 104 ff.; the disciples
of, 147

John the presbyter, 135 ff., 152; author
of the Fourth Gospel, 137

John the son of Zebedee, 133, 134, 135f.,
138, 141, 146ff.; tradition of martyr-
dom of, 136, 137

INDEX

Jonathan ben Uzziel, 24
Joseph of Arimathaea, 134
Joseph of Pumbeditha, R., 24
Joshua ben Levi, R., 22

Koavy dialect, 4 ff., 57, 65, 70

Last Supper, 144

Lewis, Mrs., 26

Lightfoot, Dr. John, 33

Lightfoot, Dr. J. B., 1, 11, 130, 135, 137;
156, 157, 160, 162

Logos-conception, origin of, 37 ff.

Luke, nationality of, rof.; Gospel of,
style of, 8ff.; 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.

Mechilta, 3, 33, 64

Mémra, 38 f.

Messiah in Rabbinic Literature, 44,
t10f.

Midrashim, 17, 25

Midrash Rabba, 3, 9, 33, 44, 45, 46, 56,
IIo, 112, 116f.

Milligan, Prof. G., 4, 5

Mingana, Dr., 131, 1509 ff.

Mishna, 17, 22, 50

Mistranslation of an Aramaic original,
in Q, 9f.; in Fourth Gospel, 18, 19,
29, 30, 32, 34, 39, 40, 75 ff., torff. ; in
Mark, 76, 77

Moffatt, Dr. J., 135, 136

Moses had-Darshan, 46

Moulton, Prof. J. H., 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 39,
57, 95

Muratorian Canon, 128

Mysticism in Fourth Gospel
St. Paul, 132

See Q document.

and

Negatives, 98 ff.

Nestle, Dr. E., 25

N¢wé shalém, 45
Nicodemus, 134
Néldeke, Prof. T., 23, 24

Old Testament quotations in Fourth
Gospel, 114 ff.
Onkelos, origin of name, 23

Palestinian Syriac Lectionary, 25, 26

Papias, 134 ff., 141

xapo i modern discoveries of Greek,
3 .

479

Rarataxis, in papyri, 5f.; in Semitic
literature, 6; in Fourth Gospel, 5f.,
18, 56ff.; in Mark, 18; in Apoca-
lypse, 151

Participle, change of construction after,
19, 96, 152

Participle in Aramaic, 88f. ; with Sub-
stantive verb, 92f.; as Futurum in-
stans, 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, 111

‘ Perez, the son of’, 46

Personal Pronouns, frequency of, in
Fourth Gospel, 79 ff. ; in Semitic, 8of.

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.,
151

‘ 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., 110, 111, 116, 132, 133,
145f, 150; on Apocalypse, 150

Rabbula, bishop of Edessa, 26

Relative completed by a Pronoun, 18, 70,
84, I51

Relative particle invariable in Aramaic,
70, 84, ror ff.

Richards, Mr. G. C., 4

Robertson, Dr. A. T., 5

Salmasius, C., 2

Samuel ben Isaac, R., 22

Sanday, Prof. W., 46, 133, 135, 171

Schechter, Dr., 143

Schlatter, Prof. A., 2 f., 33, 56, 64

Schmiedel, Prof. P. W., 7, 8, 9, 16

Semitic Influence on Biblical Greek, 4 ff.

Semitic Studies, importance of, to N.T.
research, 1 ff.

Semitisms, 4, 17

176

Septuagint, influence of, on Luke, 8 ff.

Servant of Yahweh, the ideal, 104 ff.

Sh®kind, Sh®kinta, 35 ft.

Simeon, 106

Siphré, 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, 112, 115 ff.

Sozomen, 160 ;

Stenning, Mr. J. F., 26

Swete, Prof. H. B., 4, 123, 149

Symmachus, 121, 123, 159

Syriac version of 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, II

Targum of Jonathan on the Prophets, 24 |

INDEX

Targum of Onkelos, 22, 23

-Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan on the

Pentateuch, 23
Tatian, 25, 139
Temporal clauses, 58 ff.
Testimonia, early Christian, 46
Thackeray, Dr. H. St. J.. 12, 45
Theodotion, 53 f., 81, 82, 88, g2, 123, 159
Theophilus of Antioch, rg3r
Thumb, Prof. A., 4
Turner, Prof. C. H., 39

Verbal sequences in Fourth Gospel, 95 f.
Virgin-Birth, the, 34 f., 43 ff.

Waw consecutive in Hebrew, 68

Wellhausen, Prof. J., 2,9, 19, 76, 77, 85,90

Westcott, Dr. B. F., 28, 32, 33, 9a 102,
110, 135, 146, 147, 148

‘Word of the Lord, the’, 38

Yannai, R., 44, 46, 116, 117
Y°kara, 36 ff.
Yinnén as Messianic title, 46

PRINTED IN ENGLAND

AT THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

ap

Ses
,

=e

ey
ve

re
is
:

ada
Sen
mf

WILL BE ASSESSE
THIS BOOK & 1

Big ct a ae Sega aie MET

REC’D LD

LD 2.1-100m-7,'40 (69368)

<

TUILULSGO?

«
‘
‘ *

“ i
howe + a ‘
wy Wim 2

: ts
i ’

‘
\ ’ ‘
|
.
‘ ‘ "
‘
’
\ .
‘
i rae A hy
Sb >
¥, “a¥ oe
a"
om”
* ;
-* ~ < bd _ =

eres c
ae

axes
‘tack;

ie At f, ; ,!
LAMY Hig ace tats Pras eat Hil
a Tileanny tyra! i Ati ates ied yabaua rant
et PORTS PN i
q ie ich
¥ Mi
say

‘h

soe Neiec hon

eS!

Sea aera
pore eee

eS
See
rs

co =

t
tbat tangs

*
Hepner
ately
sei y
way

Hi
;

ef
Sa
i ih oF

ye

oe

22

dates

:
Hi

eee
eee

aS
2
ae
SS

moons estes es pina : soe santas

atk
yt
iss

aS

te
ray \
KANE:

“ins
oe handy B

BD
at

Ae
ees

eet

ser

miler
‘ By We asd ‘|
Tad bits es NS
Peet iH MeN (0
ig aul Peateiehs sey
ea : ese asa vs
Se Mi Stl i is re if ne f ii
AND ee tenets asl hi et Sat pO Brae :
Ae ME TU Rigueci tutelage
iy iat aseaon eh Hite SST Ore u rope
ta ore Na init 5
TRE ne
: italia yc eee! os Reid
Res ARCO OSU ae Rec i aE Ran Pesky a
cee dat LD ? AT aagy easton de : Bune) Print y: HCE ita! raya RUSH!
SANE ec aS Lan rR CANN SO } No SOME Nh : Oe
Menile . Y ‘¢ , ey

a Nt

eee

ou

tei

Ge

a

y,
it

s
hy

ae

—*
Ske

es

f ath
Ya steP ah aii t

mate Aue tally
Cara Ta
ay

mp

as

a SaNoa
Seta tse aN
Re ene aoe = es
mae ene.
nat
gt tae

oe de
SOT

oe

Ri th

fa Dd eli ia ie pig ; j ify Maret a i tH

fy ce R naieey hot i aii h Niet \i sit) i
sity Pf, Muh

N ie
outa

SS

<=

Ss
ae
are:

it iN) Hy

ha
CARCI
nies

a
mere eevee

say Bind iy
2 ,

D Pais

e

AME
?

ee erts
Es
eo

+ pe

Satie
Raa
,

st fi

aid

oe

Hicinjel
wid

Se
=
ed

ap as
Ens
a

ATES

A
f
ane

Sie
Se
See

Kent
Ses

Senet

x=

pave:

spec

cH

hye
mi
% ‘i 4

wk
aah,

Pn

aoe
aa

PIS
al

anne

aie Dey SARS
UNE R ay 9 kaon,
$i a UN ice be ditts . Ones Ua arts it
M, ‘ ? 4 4 oe < 9] io Mss oe
iy i Paty y i HE Se nee ah H
EN DUNN SUSE CHARA ENA UE ONE AN
ih ‘ pele é hil ate
Py ii Ns

eee
243

Be
en

Sts

ein

—S

Siar Yeaty

‘ inh

: AR Nir 4

f IOs
MAN ot

i
a]

ts
ZA

ee
mS

Sees
—

i

if) Seas

*

} i
ne) ig (HAS ¢
+ : i oe MTNA,
RRKANou NN RUN

Si} tat Rie
CRN saat a
ee Mint

4
4

Se
=

pee
bea Soi
aos

4

pane
a
eae aa

=

eared
See

he i ASIN

: , vi)

Wye OO iQresitasea ey ia! he
vegukis) Yh:

ai

Sedat les the
yi VW, eK
x “y x.

ey
se

a
et

ye

~

REHAB GMA MN)
jee We
ys i

BARRED

PRON te

Se
ete
as

Suh ae

ae

seah iain

es

ee

ee ~

nos

oF

ae on
res

Sea

os
eee

ca

ee

are
——

= “

Fs, 2 <
Sage Re
Se

Sees
ae

=;

=<

ee 5s,
5 Soa s
ero
SISO
Soar :

=i
Le

Pears
vetoes
Rese

oy fee =

a

=e

=

ee

Sr See ae eA

SFO CUS

Baws eae ee

ee tere e SE ie
ee eee

: a: soe

sean

7.

en
ini a ae,
eit G

= Swe

(2

eae ee

ae

MM
ay

es

ae
AES

: aes
oe oa

i,

Sos
earn

ans

aes

Saas
ees
aot ah
es

i)

hi)?

a eee

Soe
<x
oy
re
Z

=
:
=

41st)

ce
ibe urhege fats

NASON RRR

, 4.4.

Ay,

. -
ice

Ns

SS
=r Z PPP
Lp rte Se

ier ey rr

ee
ee
>

eas

at
rae

=

‘«
1,

ne

z)
Ni

=

Soe oe

a.
eS tier
a te es, -
z a Bas ie S
Ses Lee we nom
SAS rm =

oS:
sen

ty 4
aes
bo i

i
‘

oe rat a
SI
”

HRA
sy
i

mh a
ASP It)
Gane uit

1
D
ahh

aS

aS

nt

(AM,

SSS
aD N od.
eye

pee

Re at

yi x
saa AN
ite

Hsisis}

E

pin
hy

ta}
ii

NY
ie
n

.

{ALAR
Pep Lt

‘if ANN Me
PARE

S y hn anise *
Baas

fis

iy

va
Ai

CON

i

a
nit

coe)
ee

FR =

OPT RAE
eet et
a se!

fi mite
e =
So eee > =
ene Pee ee Ras
eins es
eer
: : aos
eee
S ;

iXs

Sot es
ae atone:
Leto a

‘

if

i]
4

rh
‘
ty,

NCHA a

RNA!
RD
“

a i
ea

pases

o—

eat

a = = ss >

> 3 Mensa =
a Se Sa ee es
sae : eR on is eR
parece uz = eas o Sate an Si aw

‘s
soi

aes

Pos

ain.