! TOC TT Att UATE ATE
LIBRARY
ees OF % weit is
cP
wh a &
ays. #
He “¥
oP 4
BY THE SAME AUTHOR
CLUE: A Guide through Greek to Hebrew
Scripture (Diatessarica—Part I).
Demy 8vo, Cloth, Price 7s. 6d. net.
THE CORRECTIONS OF MARK (Diatessarica—Part II).
Demy 8vo, Cloth, Price 155. net.
FROM LETTER TO SPIRIT (Diatessarica—Part III).
Demy 8vo, Cloth, Price 20s. net.
PARADOSIS (Diatessarica—Part IV).
Demy 8vo, Cloth, Price 7s. 6d. net.
JOHANNINE VOCABULARY (Diatessarica—Part V).
Deny 8vo, Cloth, Price 13s. 6a. net.
See pp. 688 foll. of this volume.
AGENTS IN AMERICA
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
66 Firvu AVENUE, New YORK
JOHANNINE GRAMMAR
BY
Epwin A. ABBOTT
““He settled Hot’s business—let it be!
Properly based Oun.”
BrowninG, 4 Grammarian’s Funeral,
UNIVERSITY |
LONDON
Adam and Charles Black
1906
Cambridge:
PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A.
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
ad
TO
MY DAUGHTER
BY WHOM THE JOHANNINE MATERIALS FOR THIS WORK
WERE GATHERED AND ARRANGED
AND THE RESULTS CORRECTED AND REVISED
“JOHANNINE GRAMMAR” IS DEDICATED
@ 3
156736
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2008 with funding from
Microsoft Corporation
httos://archive.org/details/jonanninegrammarOOabborich
PRE AG
T was said in the first half of this work, /ohannine
Vocabulary (1879), “There are more ambiguities in the
Fourth Gospel than in all the Three taken together, and it is
easy to put one’s finger on the cause of many of them,” One
object of Johannine Grammar is to classify, with the view of
ultimately explaining, these ambiguous passages’. For
example, what Browning calls Hotz on my title-page may
mean “ ¢hat” or “ because.’ Browning extols his Grammarian
—alas! an ideal—who “ settled Yo¢z’s business.” This work
tries to help to “settle” it—unquestionably it has not yet
been “settled ’”»—for passages in the Fourth Gospel, in some
of which our translators halt between “¢hat” and “ because.”
Again, Johannine commentators of repute disagree as to
who is speaking in certain portions of the Gospel. Take, for
example, i. 16—18 “ For he was before me. For of his fulness
we all received...... the only begotten Son, which ts in the bosom
of the Father, he hath declared |him].’ Origen attributed the
italicised passage to the Baptist. So did Irenaeus. Heracleon,
and many critics in Origen’s time, maintained that it pro-
ceeded partly from the Baptist, partly from the evangelist.
Alford and Westcott assert that the whole of it proceeds
from the evangelist.
Next take iii, 15—-21 “...that whosoever believeth may
in him have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he
1 See Index, ‘‘ Ambiguity,” pp. 666—7.
Vii
PREFACE ‘
gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him
should not perish, but have eternal life. For God sent not the
Son...that they have been wrought in God.’ Concerning the
italicised passage Westcott says “It contains the reflections
of the evangelist and is not a continuation of the words of
the Lord.” Alford says that this view—although held by
many commentators—is “as inconceivable as the idea of
St Matthew having combined into one the insulated sayings
of his Master.” Westcott maintains that his own conclusion
is consistent with the tenor of the passage and “appears to
be firmly established from details of expression.” Some of
these details—such as “only begotten Son,” “believe in the
name of,’ “do truth,” which are characteristic of the evan-
gelist—belong to vocabulary rather than grammar. But in
favour of Westcott’s view there is a small point of grammar
to which attention might have been called, as will be seen
from the two passages to be next quoted.
One of these, according to Westcott, follows—or, according
to Alford, is part of—the last words of the Baptist, thus:
ili. 30-36 “He must increase, but I must decrease. He that
cometh from above is above all...For he whom God hath sent
speaketh the words of God, for he giveth not the Spirit by
measure...the wrath of God abideth on him.’ Concerning
the whole of these six verses (“ He that cometh...abideth on
him”) Westcott says that the section ‘contains reflections
of the evangelist”; and he calls attention to the use of the
title “Son” absolutely, and to other details, as well as to the
tenor of the passage, as justifying his conclusion. Alford
calls this view (which is not peculiar to Westcott) an
“arbitrary proceeding”; but he himself abstains from any
argument based on grammatical or verbal detail.
The next instance occurs in the Dialogue between our
Lord and the Samaritan woman, iv. 9 (R.V.) “ How is it that
thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a Samaritan
woman? (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans).”
vill
PREFACE
Chrysostom takes the italicised words as uttered by the
woman. The meaning would then be, “Jews as a rule do
not condescend to have dealings with Samaritans: yet thou
askest a favour from me!” But some authorities omit the
italicised words. Alford and Westcott (the latter, with the
caveat “if genuine”) say that they are an explanatory note
of the evangelist.
In favour of this last conclusion (that “Jews...Samaritans ”
is an evangelisti¢ explanation) is the following grammatical
argument. There are two words, 671 and yap, used by John!
to ‘express the ‘conjunction: “for.” For the most part, in
Christ's words, he uses the former; in his own comments,
the latter (2066). The latter occurs not only in the Samaritan
Dialogue but also in the two previously quoted passages.
It is a matter of minute detail; but, so far as it goes, it
confirms Westcott’s view—favoured also by other gram-
matical considerations —that all three are evangelistic
comments (1936).
The labour has been much greater, and the book longer,
than I anticipated or desired. But the more fully I studied
the Gospel and its most ancient MSS., versions, and commen-
tators, the more necessary it seemed to give the evidence,
if at all, at full length. Conclusions stated confidently, and
with abundance of references, frequently assume an entirely
different complexion when the references are verified and
quoted accurately with their complete contexts.
As to the lines on which the book is constructed, they
are the same as those of my Shakespearian Grammar—
published nearly forty years ago but presumably still found
useful as it is still in demand. Besides many points of
1 By ‘‘John” is meant, throughout the whole of this volume, the writer of the
Fourth Gospel, of which the originator may have been (as the Gospel suggests)
John the son of Zebedee, but of which the writer, the exact nature of the
origination, and the exact extent to which the writer paraphrased, commented,
and blended allegory with fact, are (in my opinion) at present unknown.
ix
PREFACE
similarity in detail, the two works have two broad assumptions
in common.
The Shakespearian Grammar assumed that Shakespeare
wrote, with a style of his own, in English that he read and
spoke. Hence North’s Plutarch, Florio’s Montaigne, the
Elizabethan dramatists—and especially his own works com-
pared with one another—were treated as safer guides to
his meaning than Milton, Dryden, and Pope. A _ similar
assumption is made in the Johannine Grammar. The
Johannine language in general has been carefully classified
with a view to the elucidation of particular passages; and
the LXX, the Synoptists, the New Testament as a whole,
Epictetus, and the Papyri of 50—150A.D. have been recog-
nised as safer guides than writers of the third century and
far safer than those of the fourth. This assumption is even
truer about John than about Shakespeare, to whom was
given, in some measure, the very rare privilege of anticipating,
or shaping, the language of posterity.
* My Shakespearian Grammar also assumed that Shake-
speare was a great poet. About John, I have tried to
subordinate strictly to grammatical inferences my conviction
that he, too, is a master of style and phrase, as well as an
inspired prophet; but I have felt bound to assume that
he did not at all events misuse words like the author of
“the Second Epistle of St Peter,’ or “use one word for
another” like a modern journalist describing a cricket-match
or a boat-race. For example, where John is represented
by our Revised Version as saying that Jesus “ bowed his
head” upon the cross, I argued, in “ Johannine Vocabulary,”
that it must be rendered “laid his head to rest,’ and that,
if so, the expression mystically implied “rest on the bosom
of the Father.” This rendering was based entirely on dry
hard grammatical evidence shewing that ¢he phrase had no
other meaning in the Greek language. I have subsequently
xX
PREFACE
discovered that Origen thrice assumes this to be the meaning
(“zuclinasse caput super gremium Patris”’).
Besides these two assumptions, the Johannine Grammar
recognises one strong probability—namely, that the author
was an honest man (a fact that some commentators hardly
seem to recognise), writing indeed some seventy years or
more after the Crucifixion, but still with some knowledge
of what he wrote about, and with some sense of responsibility
to those for whom he wrote. His Christian readers (I assume)
had read earlier Gospels, which, if authoritative, an honest
writer of a new Gospel was bound to take into account. For
example, the Synoptists express themselves differently and
somewhat obscurely as to the “authority” possessed by
Christ and imparted by Him to the disciples. The meaning
of true “authority” is of great moral importance, and much
discussed by Epictetus. It is assumed as probable that
John’s teaching on this point was intended to elucidate that
of the Synoptists.
I venture to think that the Index to N.T. passages will
supply something like a continuous commentary on the
Fourth Gospel, and that the Index to Greek words will
help the reader to compare Johannine, Synoptic, literary,
and vernacular Greek. The English Index contains copious
references to Origen, Nonnus, Chrysostom, Philo, and
Epictetus, indicating lines of thought illustrative of the
circumstances amid which the Gospel issued from its
originator, was committed to writing by its author, and was
interpreted by the earliest extant commentaries.
Many of the grammatical details must of course be
abstruse and unsuitable for any but Greek scholars. But
an attempt has been made—by translating literally many
of the quotations, by comparing the Authorised with the
Revised Version, and by illustrating Greek from English
idiom—to make several interesting peculiarities of Johannine
Xi
PREFACE
style intelligible to readers unacquainted with Greek literature
~ except through translations. In order to give easy access to
all such oases in the classical desert, and a bird’s-eye view
of some of them, the English Index has been made very
copious. It contains, for example, two columns on “ Am-
)
biguity.” The reader will also find references to “ Allusiveness,”
”)
“Emphasis,” “ Mysticism,” “Narrowing Down,” “Parenthesis,”
“ Quotation,” “ Repetition,” and “Self-correction.” Many of
these subjects will—I sincerely believe—be better understood
by a student with little or no knowledge of Greek but much
knowledge of literature, than by one case-hardened against
intellectual interests by a long course of “the classical
languages” unintelligently and unwillingly studied.
For my “Notes on preceding Paragraphs” (2664—799)
I am under great obligations to Professor Blass’s Grammar
of New Testament Greek, even where I have been led to
differ from its conclusions To Dr Joseph B. Mayor, in
whose works on the Epistle of St James and on Clement of
Alexandria I have found rich stores of Greek learning, and
to Dr W. Khys Roberts, Professor of Greek at the University
of Leeds, whose editions of Longinus, Dionysius, and
Demetrius, are full of interesting and stimulative information
on Greek style, I am indebted for correction of my proofs
and for very useful criticisms and suggestions; nor must
I omit brief but hearty thanks to the Cambridge University
Press.
EDWIN A. ABBOTT.
Wellside
Hampstead
20 Dec. 1905
! See note on p. xxvii.
X11
CONTENES
PAGE
REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS : . XXV—XXVit
INTRODUCTION .
§ 1 The scope of the proposed work (1886—7)
§ 2 The arrangement and proportions of the work (1888—93)
BOOK A
HORMS AND COMBINATIONS OF WORDS
General warning as to use of Index (1894*)
ADJECTIVES
(i) Used predicatively (1894)
(ii) Special
(a) Movos (1895, 2664)
(8) Tperos (1896—1901, 2665—7)
ADVERBS
(1) Intensive (1902)
(ii) Special
(a) “Avabev (1903—8)
(8) “Apri, see viv (1915 (i))
(y) “Eyyvs (1909)
(5) Evdéws and evdvs (1910—15)
(e) Nov and dpre (1915 (1)—(vi))
(¢) Ovres (1916—7)
(7) Uappyoia (1917 (i)—(vi))
(0) Tayevov (1918)
AP VI; Xili b
CONTENTS
ANACOLUTHON
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Generally (1919)
The Subject suspended (1920—2)
Digression (1923—4)
Impressionism (1925—7)
AORIST, see Index
APopDosIs, see Index
APPOSITION
(i)
(i1)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
With proper names (1928)
In subdivisions (1929—30)
Explaining, or defining (not with Participle) (1931—6)
With Participle (1937—45)
Noun repeated in Apposition (1946)
Of Pronoun with preceding Subject (1947)
ARTICLE (see also 2669—74)
(i)
(ii)
Before Nouns in general (1948)
Inserted, or omitted, before special Nouns
(a) Fathers (1949—50)
(8) Feast (1951)
(y) Heaven (1952—8)
(6) Man (1959—61)
(e) Mountain (1962—3)
(¢) Only begotten (1964)
(n) Prophet (1965)
(6) “Teacher [of Israel]” (1966)
(iii)
Before Names (1967—70)
(iv) With Participle and “is” or “are” (1971—81)
(v) With Non-Possessive Adjectives (1982—6)
(vi) With Possessive Adjectives (1987—9)
(vii) Omitted, or misplaced (1990—4)
(viii) With Infinitive (1995)
ASYNDETON
(1) Johannine use of (1996—9)
(ii)
Classification of references (2000—8)
XIV
CONTENTS
CASES
I ACCUSATIVE
(i) Adverbial (2009—11)
(ii) _ Absolute, or suspensive (2012)
(iii) Denoting time, but not duration (2013)
(iv) Cognate (2014)
(v) With special verbs
(a) °Axovow (2015)
(8) Yevoua (2016—8)
(y) Upooxvvéw (2019)
II DATIVE
(i) Of instrument (2020)
(ii) Of time (completion) (2021—4)
(iii) Of point of time (2025—6)
(iv) With wapa (2027)
III GENITIVE
(i) Absolute (2028—31)
(ii) Objective or subjective (2032—40)
(iii) Partitive (2041—2)
(iv) Before Nouns (2043)
(v) Special passages
(a) With mparos and mpéarov (2044)
(8) TuBeprados (2045)
(y) “H dcacropa rev “EXAnvev (2046)
(8) Ta Baia roy howixay (2047)
(€) Tlapackxevn tov racxa (2048)
IV NOMINATIVE
(i) Special passage
(a) ‘O Kvpuds pov (2049—51)
V_ VOCATIVE (see also 2679—82)
(1) Special passages
(a) Iarnp (2052—3)
CONJUNCTIONS (1894*) : for av, édv, orav, ore, see Index
(i) Johannine use of (2054)
(ii) 7 AAG
(a) *“A\Ad=contrariety, “not this but that, or, something
more” (2055—7)
XV b
bo
CONTENTS
(8) *AAAd=difference, “nevertheless ” (2058—9)
(y) Special passages (2060—2)
(8) 7A iva (2063—4)
(iii) Top
(a) Synoptic and Johannine use (2065—6)
(8) Special passages (2067—8)
(iv) Aé
(a) Consecutive or adversative (2069—73)
(8) Third word, or later, in its clause (2074—6)
(y) Mev...d€ (2077)
(v) Hi
(a) Ei, corresponding to av, in Words of the Lord (2078—9)
(8) Ei dé py (2080—6)
(vi) ’Enet
(a) “Emei rapackevn jv (2087—8)
(vii) “Eas
(a) Not confused with ws (2089)
(vill) ”“H and rep
(a) ”H (2090—1)
(8) “Hrrep (2092)
(ix) “Iva (see also 2686—-90)
(a) In John, expresses, or implies, purpose (2093)
(8) In John, never merely appositional (2094—6)
(y) Special passages (2097—2103)
(8) “Iva and Subjunctive, compared with Infinitive (2104)
(e) Omission of principal verb before iva (2105—12)
(¢) Dependent on verb implied in question (2113)
(n) With Indicative (2114)
(6) Connexion of (2115)
(t\) “Iva...iva (2116—21)
(x) Kads
(a) Suspensive (2122)
(8) Followed by kai or cayw in Apodosis (2123—7)
(y) Supplementary (2128—32)
(xi) Kat
(a) Kai in narrative (Hebraic) (2133—4)
(8) Kai connecting affirmation and negation (2135)
(y) Kai=“and yet” (2136—40)
xvi
CONTENTS
(8) Special instances of cai=“and yet” (2141—5)
) Kai introducing an exclamation (2146)
(¢) Kai meaning “also” (2147)
) Kai in Apodosis, after a, «i, ka@ws etc. in Protasis (2148)
(@) Kai tpets (2149)
(c) Kai in Crasis (2150)
(x) Kaxetvos (2151)
(A) Kai “also,” connexion of (2152—3)
(m) Kai “also” in viii. 25 (2154—6)
(v) Kai meaning “{indeed] and” (2157)
(€) Kai éav (2158—9)
(0) Kav (2160)
(3) Kai...xat, “both...and” (2161—6)
(p) Kai yap (2167)
(«) Kai omitted between two adjectives (2168)
(xii) Mév, pévror (2169—70)
(xiii) “Ozov (2171—2)
(xiv) “Ones (2173)
(xv) “Ort (see also 2694—5)
(a) “Ore (1) suspensive, (2) explanatory (2174—7)
(8) “Ore introducing (1) cause of action, (2) ground of
statement (2178—80)
(y) “Ore(?) “that” or “because” (2181—6)
(d) “Ore py (2187)
(e) Ovdx dre (2188)
(¢) “Ore recitativum (2189—90)
(xvi) Ovv
(a) In Christ’s words (2191—7)
(8) Applied to Christ’s acts (2198—2200)
(xvii) ‘Os
(a) ‘Qs(?) for éws (2201)
(B) ‘Qs “as it were” (2202)
(xviii) "Qe-re (2203, 2697)
ELLIPSIS
(i) Of two kinds (2204)
(ii) Contextual (2205 —9)
(a) °Eav ody Bewpnre (2210—2)
XVil
CONTENTS
(i111) Idiomatic
(a) Ellipsis of “some” (2213—5)
(8) Ellipsis (?) of “ gate” (2216)
(y) Ellipsis of “daughter” (or “ wife” ?) (2217)
(8) *AAN iva, see 2063—4 and 2105—12
(e) Ovdx dre (2218—9)
(¢) Ellipsis after “I am” (2220—8)
(n) Ellipsis of eori (2229—30)
IMPERATIVE, see Index
INFINITIVE, see Index
INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES
(i) Interrogative particles (2231)
(a) Ov py (2232)
(8B) Ovxotv (2233—4)
(vy) Mn (2235)
(ii) Interrogative tone (2236—47)
(ii) Questions without interrogative particle (2248)
(iv) Indirect interrogative (2249—51)
Moop
(i) Imperative, Indicative, Infinitive, and Subjunctive, see Index
(ii) Optative (2252)
NEGATIVE PARTICLES
(i) Mr (2253—4)
(ii) Ov py with Future and Subjunctive (2255)
(iil) Et ov (2256)
(iv) Ov...0v8els (2257)
(v) Ovre...xat (2258—9)
(vi) Ov (or py) combined with was (2260—3)
(vii) Ov v.r. otarw (2264—5)
(viii) Ovx¢ (2265 (i))
NUMBER
(i) Plural referring to preceding Singular (2266)
(ii) Plural Neuter with Plural Verb (2267)
(iii) Special words
(a) Atpara (2268—9)
8) ‘IZparca (2270)
XVIll
CONTENTS
PARTICIPLE (1894*)
(i) Causal (2271—3)
(ii) Tenses of (see also Tense 2499—2510)
(a) Tuddgs ay (2274)
(8) ‘O ov ev Te ovpar@ (2275)
(y) ‘H expagaca (2276)
(iii) Present with jv (2277)
(iv) Agreement of (2278)
(v) Prefatory use of (2279)
PREPOSITIONS (for avy see 2799 (ii))
Introductory Note (2280)
(i) *Ava (2281—3)
(ii) ’Avwrt (2284—7)
(iii) *Aré
(a) ’Amo and ex meaning “[some] of,” see 2213—5
(8) °Amo, transposition of (2288)
(y) “Amo and ex describing domicile or birthplace (2289—93)
(8) °Amd, ex, and rapa, with é&épyoua, see 2326—8
(iv) Avdé (see also 2705, 2715)
(1) Ava with Accusative of Person (2294—2300)
(2) Aca with Genitive of Person (2301—4)
(v) His (see also 2706 foll.)
(a) For moreveuy cis, see 1480 foll.
(8) Eis without verb of motion (2305—9)
(y) Eis, “to” or “into” (2310—11)
(8) Eis Conv aidviov (2312—6)
(€) "“Owovra eis (2317—8)
(€) Eis rédos (2319—23)
(vi) “Ex
(a) “Ex meaning “some of,” see 2213—5
(8) ’Ex meaning “native of,” as distinguished from amd
“coming from,” or “resident in,” see 2289—93
(y) 7ExK pérpov (2324)
(6) °Ex with cafw and rnpéw (2325)
(e) "Ex, amo, and rapa, with é&épyopar (2326—8)
(¢) °?Ex with wAnpoe and yepuita (2329)
(vil) ”Epapoobev (2330)
Sci
CONTENTS
(viii) *Ev
(a) ’Ev used metaphorically, e.g. “abide in,” see 1881
(8) °Ev used temporally (2331)
(y) ’Ev quasi-instrumental (2332)
(8) °Ey used locally, ev ro yalopudaxiw (2333—4)
(ix) ’*Eveémvov (2335)
(x) *Eart
(1) ’Emi with Accusative (2336)
(2) ’Emi with Dative (2337—9)
(3) “Emi with Genitive
(a) ’Emi rns Oadaoons (2340—6)
(8) °Emi rov oravpod (2347)
(xi) Kard (2348)
(xil) Merd
(a) Mera Iovdaiov (2349—50)
(8) Ot per’ avrod ovres (2351)
(y) Mera compared with zapa (2352—3)
(xiii) TIapa
(1) Tapa with Accusative (2354)
(2) Ilapa with Dative
(a) Tapa with Dative and pera with Genitive, see 2352—3
(8) Synoptic and Johannine use (2355)
(3) Tapa with Genitive (2356)
(4) Tlapa with Genitive and with Dative interchanged
(2357—9)
(xiv) Tept (2360)
(xv) IIpé
(a) po euov (2361—2)
(8) Tlpo transposed, see 2288
(xvi) TIpés
(1) Ilpos with Accusative, with verb of rest (2363—6)
(2) Ilpos repeated after verb of motion (2367)
(3) Tlpos with Dative (2368)
(xvii) “Ymép (2369—71, see also 2718—22)
(xvill) “Yw6 and trokdtw (2372)
(1) ‘Y6 with Accusative (2372)
(2) ‘Y2o with Genitive (2373)
XX
CONTENTS
PRONOUNS
1 DEMONSTRATIVE
(i) Avrés (2374—80, see also 2723—7)
(ii) *Exetvos (2381—5, see also 2729—32)
(iii) Ovros (2386)
(a) Aca rodro (2387—91)
(8) °Ev rovr@ (2392—3)
(y) Mera rovro or radra (2394)
(8) Avrod omitted and ratra repeated (2395—7)
(iv) Tovotros (2398)
II PERSONAL
(i) Insertion for emphasis (2399—2400)
(ii) ’Eyo (2401)
(iii) 56 (2402—4)
III RELATIVE
(i) “Os
(a) Attraction of the Relative (2405—7)
(B) Ev 7@ dvopari cov @ bédaxds wor (2408—11)
(y) ?EvroAny kauny...6 (2412)
(ii) “Oorts (2413)
(a) “Oars av, or edv (2414—6)
SUBJECT
(i) Collective or noun group (2417—8)
(ii) Neuter plural (2419—20)
(iii) Suspended (2421)
(a) Tay 6 dédaxas (2422, 2740—4)
(iv) Omitted in partitive clauses (2423)
(v) “They” non-pronominal (2424—6)
(vi) “We?” non-pronominal (2427—8)
(a) ‘We know (otSapev)” (2429—-35)
TENSE
Tense-rules and word-rules (2436)
I IN THE IMPERATIVE MoopD
Aorist (first) and Present (2437—-9 (v))
XXI
CONTENTS
II IN THE INDICATIVE Moop
(i) Aorist (see also 2747—55 and 2785—90)
(1) Aorist compared with Perfect (2440—9)
(2) Aorist of special verbs
(a) "Axovw (2450—2)
(B) ~Amooré\\w (2453)
(y) AiSope (2454—5)
(8) Elzov (2456)
(e) "“Epxopa and ée&épxyopa (2457)
(€) Méva (2458)
(3) Aorist for English Pluperfect (2459—62)
(ii) Future, see 2484 foll. and 2255
(iii) Imperfect
(1) The Imperfect in general (2463—6 oy
(a) ”"Edeyov (2467—70)
(8) “H@edov (2471—2)
(iv) Perfect
(1) As the result of Johannine style (2473—5)
(2) As the result of Johannine thought (2476—7)
(3) Second Perfects (2478—9)
(v) Pluperfect (2480—1)
(vi) Present (see also 2760—6 (i))
(1) Historic Present (2482—3)
(2) Present of Prophecy and Present of Law (2484—94)
III IN THE INFINITIVE Moop
(i) Infinitive compared with iva and Subjunctive (2495)
(ii) Aorist and Present (2496—8, 2767)
IV IN PARTICIPLES
(i) Aorist (2499—2505)
(ii) Perfect (2506)
(iii) Present (2507—10)
V_ IN THE SUBJUNCTIVE Moop
(i) Aorist and Present (2511)
(a) In Deliberative Subjunctive (2512)
(8) With éay (or av) “if” (2513—S (i))
(y) With av and Relative (2516)
XXil
CONTENTS
(8) “Av reer kparnre (2517—20)
(e) With éay pr (2521—3)
(¢) With ta (2524—9)
(n) “Iva pry drroOvnoky (vi. 50, in Codex B) (2530)
(6) With érav (2531—-5)
VOICE
(i) Middle
(a) Alrovpa: (2536)
(8) *Amoxpivac@a (2537)
(ii) Passive
(a) “ExpvBn (2538—43)
BOOK “fi
ARRANGEMENT, VARIATION, AND REPETINION
OF WORDS
CHAPTER a
ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION
§ 1 Variation in repetition or quotation (2544—53)
§2 Chiasmus (2554—7)
§ 3 The Possessive Genitive (2558—69, see also 2776— 84)
§ 4 Miscellaneous (2570—86)
CHARTER: Ii
REPETITION
§ 1 The nature of Johannine repetition (2587)
§ 2 Jewish canons of repetition (2588—90)
§ 3 Repetition through negation (2591)
§ 4 Repetition in the Synoptists (2592—3)
$5 The Johannine Prologue (2594—7)
§6 Johannine repetition through negation (2598—2600)
§ 7 Twofold repetition in the Baptist’s teaching (26012)
XXill
CONTENTS
§ 8 Twofold repetition in Christ’s words (2603—6)
§ 9 Twofold repetition in narrative (2607)
§ 10 Twofold or threefold repetition (2608—11)
§ 11 Threefold repetition (2612—23)
§ 12 Sevenfold repetition (2624—7)
CHAPTER III
CONNEXION OF SENTENCES
§ 1 Self-corrections (2628—30)
§ 2 Parentheses (2631—5 (ii))
§ 3. Instances of doubtful connexion (2636—40)
APPENDIX I
TWOFOLD MEANINGS AND EVENTS
§ 1 Our Lord’s Sayings (2641—2), § 2 The Sayings of the Disciples
and of the Evangelist (2643—4), § 3 The Sayings of others
(2645), § 4 Events (2646—9)
APPENDIX II
READINGS OF CODEX VATICANUS NOT ADOPTED BY
WESTCOTT AND HORT
§ 1—2 Introductory Remarks; Tischendorf and the Photograph
S grap
(2650—3), § 3 List of Readings (2654—62), Pause-spaces
(2663)
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS (2664—2799)
For summary of Contents, see pp. 506—7
INDICES
To Johannine Vocabulary, (i) N.T. Passages, (ii) English, (iti) Greek,
pp- 625—5SI
To Johannine Grammar, (i) N.T. Passages, (ii) English, (iii) Greek,
pp. 652—87
XXIV
(i)
(11)
(iii)
(iv)
REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS
REFERENCES
Black Arabic numbers refer to paragraphs in this volume (1886—
2799) or in preceding volumes of Diatessarica:
N= al HS CUNC.
273-— 552=Corrections.
553—1149= Fyrom Letter to Spirit.
1150—1435 = Paradoszs.
1436—1885 = Johannine Vocabulary.
The Books of Scripture are referred to by the ordinary ab-
breviations, except where specified below. But when it is
said that Samuel, Isaiah, Matthew, or any other writer, wrote
this or that, it is to be understood as meaning ¢he writer,
whoever he may be, of the words tn question, and not as
meaning that the actual writer was Samuel, Isaiah, or Matthew.
The principal Greek Mss. are denoted by &, A, B, etc. ; the Latin
versions by a, @, etc., as usual. The Syriac version discovered by
Mrs Lewis on Mount Sinai is referred to as SS, ze. “ Sinaitic
Syrian.” It is always quoted from Mr Burkitt’s translation. I
regret that in the first three vols. of Diatessarica Mrs Lewis’s
name was omitted in connexion with this version.
The text of the Greek Old Testament adopted is that of B, edited
by Professor Swete!; of the New, that of Westcott and Hort.
Modern works are referred to by the name of the work, or author,
vol., and page, e.g. Levy ili. 3434, i.e. vol. ill. p. 343, col. 1.
ABBREVIATIONS
Aq. =Aquila’s version of O.T.
Apol.=Justin Martyr’s First Apology.
Blass, see Addendum on p. xxvii.
Buhl= Buhl’s edition of Gesenius, Leipzig, 1899.
Burk.=Mr F. C. Burkitt's Evangelion Da-mepharreshe, Cambridge
University Press, 1904.
1 Codex B, though more ancient than Codex A, is often less close to the
Hebrew than the latter (C/we 33).
XXV
REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS
C. before numbers =circa, “about” (e.g. c. 10).
Canon. LXX=(¢he canonical books of LXX.
Chr. = Chronicles.
Chri.=¢the words of Christ, as distinct from narrative, see 1672*.
Clem. Alex. 42=Clement of Alexandria in Potter’s page 42.
Dalman, Words= Words of Jesus, Eng. Transl. 1902; Avam. G.=
Grammatik Aramdisch, 1894.
Demosth. 433=Teubner’s marginal page 433 of Demosthenes; but
Demosth. (Preuss) xxvii. 3=p. 3 of Orat. xxvii. in Teubner, as in Preuss’s
Concordance.
Diatess.=the Arabic Diatessaron, sometimes called Tatian’s, trans-
lated by Rev. H. W. Hogg, B.D., in the Ante-Nicene Christian Library.
Ency.= Eacyclopaedia Biblica.
Ephrem=Ephraemus Syrus, ed. Moesinger.
Epistle, the=the First Epistle of St John.
Euseb. =the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius.
Field=Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, Oxford, 1875, also
Otium Norvicense, 1881.
Gesen.=the Oxford edition of Gesenius.
Heb. LXX=that part of LXX of which the Hebrew is extant.
Hor. Heb.=Horae Hebraicae, by John Lightfoot, 1658-74, ed.
Gandell, Oxf. 1859.
Iren.=the treatise of Irenaeus against Heresies.
Jer. Targ. (or Jer.) I and I]=severally the Targum of “ Jonathan Ben
Uzziel” and the fragments of the Jerusalem Targum on the Pentateuch.
K.= Kings.
Levy=Levy’s Neuhebraisches und Cp alaeasche Worterbuch, 4 vols.,
Leipzig, 1889; Levy Ch. =Chaldaisches Worterbuch, 2 vols., 1881.
L.S.=Liddell and Scott’s Greek Lexicon.
Narr.=72 narrative, as distinct from (a) speech of Christ, (4) speech
generally (1672*).
Origen, Huet, or Lomm., ii. 340=vol. ii. p. 340 of Huet or Lommatzsch
severally. The reader is also sometimes guided by reference to the text,
e.g. Numb. xiv. 23 in O.’s commentary on Numbers.
Oxf. Conc.= The Oxford Concordance to the Septuagint.
Papyri are indicated by Paf. [from the] Beri [Museum] ; and Pap.
[of the] Lgyp¢ [Exploration Society], vols. i—vi, viz. Oxy[rynchus] i—iv,
Faytim v, Tebtiunis| vi.
Pec., affixed to Mt., Lk., etc., means peculiar to Matthew, Luke, etc.
Philo is referred to by Mangey’s volume and page, e.g. Philo ii. 234,
or, as to the Latin treatises, by Aucher’s pages (P. A.) es 1608).
Resch=Resch’s Paralleltexte (4 vols.).
S.= Samuel ; SUSGeiz
Schottg. Side s Horae Hebraicae, Dresden and Leipzig, 1733.
XXVI
Sir. =the work of Ben Sira, z.e. the son of Sira. It is commonly called
Ecclesiasticus (see 202). The original Hebrew has been edited, in part,
by Cowley and Neubauer, Oxf. 1897; in part, by Schechter and Taylor,
Camb. 1899.
SS, see (iii) above.
Steph. or Steph. Thes.=Stephani Thesaurus (Didot).
Sym.=Symmachus’s version of O.T.
Theod.=Theodotion’s version of O.T.
Tromm.=Trommius’ Concordance to the Septuagint.
Tryph.=the Dialogue between Justin Martyr and Trypho the Jew.
Wetst.=Wetstein’s Comm. on the New Testament, Amsterdam, 1751.
W.H.= Westcott and Hort’s New Testament.
(a) A bracketed Arabic number, following Mk, Mt., etc., indicates
the number of instances in which a word occurs in Mark, Matthew, etc.,
é.g. ayarn Mk (0), Mt. (1), Lk. (1), Jn (7).
(6) Where verses in Hebrew, Greek, and Revised Version, are
numbered differently, the number of R.V. is given alone.
ADDENDUM
Blass=Second English Edition of Professor Blass’s Grammar of
New Testament Greek, Macmillan and Co., 1905. It did not come into
my hands till this volume was in the press. But I have made copious
use of it in foot-notes, and still more in the ‘‘ Notes on Preceding
Paragraphs” (2664—799). Dr Blass regards as interpolations some
passages that I should treat as evangelistic comment ; and he appears
to me to attach too much importance to the testimony of Chrysostom
(concerning whom Field, Chrys. Comm. Matth. vol. iii. p. 153 uses the
weighty words, “Chrysostomo, Scriptori in libris citandis incuriosissimo,”
of which the reader will find ample proof in the following pages) and
too little to that of Origen. But even where, as is frequently the case,
my conclusions differ from his, I gladly acknowledge my obligation
for his succinct statement of the evidence favouring his views, and for
calling attention to points that had escaped my notice.
XXVII
ie ~
reel sa jue at oy
yo :
ae en / | F
an loan iw 4a
Hit) (eee hemor = Fi Fre aa
’ 5) tbs i Sov @ elarini tA a“ 1a
TAT OE iy » Hint ? = Stee
' at 2d\ "ov Ties Sa nets
= i i ilé view) fea ier ote Talis’ ART ;
i> th nil if Li Ae a Dales = ‘dak : en S505
. Tat he See oe
dak MNT
wisely TO: Sa
oF? Se |
ait OTs es
- j ~~
' j j Ur oe
* file evil Trl
Pret A tras) Oe
-. 7 5 4 af Mm i ie ;
3 4 ety if lt ban
, nue
7 ie vba Pe
- , hs im,“ fe % *
: > : ° . a cm
;
ieee.
,
7
< -
PN TRODUC TION:
S1. Zhe scope of the proposed work
[1886] Obscurity of style in an inflected language is caused
by ambiguity (1) in words’, (2) in inflexions of words*, (3) in
combinations of words‘. The First Part of this work, /ohannine
Vocabulary, dealt with characteristic, or characteristically used,
Johannine words, such as “ believe,” and “authority,” with the
principal Johannine synonyms, and with the relation between
the Johannine and the Synoptic Vocabularies. But the words
were almost exclusively verbs, nouns, adjectives, and adverbs.
The article could not be represented statistically in the Vo-
cabularies, nor could many of the pronouns and conjunctions;
and only a general view could be given of the difference
between the Johannine and the Synoptic use of prepositions.
These words must therefore now be added to the two subjects
above mentioned as remaining to be discussed—namely,
inflexions, and combinations of words.
1 See references on pp. xxvfoll. This is the sixth part of the series
entitled Dzatessarica. The fifth part of the series (“Johannine Vocabu-
dary”) terminated with subsection 1885.
2 E.g. “apprehend” (1443, 1735e—g) may mean “understand” or
“take prisoner.”
3 “Tnflexions” include those of all parts of speech.
4 “ Combinations” include those in phrases, in clauses, in sentences,
and in paragraphs (or sections).
AS Wile I I
lV
b>
— fie) Sie Mey scr imdbese weuilauith ihe ii c ;
a
Fran cae |S vapehamm ccm lioh ment Nene he lr. ected Sa ay tity ADA ia Ce
73 2h beOw On) aici} On) wee) ee BI heal enh ylie ALi son
ep vlhee 0 beled - Gib dadl) GO ig On Sie
cs perines Fels 10 an
‘- ac J) eye = ih, oe *
by ae Pak Nan rae 7
SRS s. yh 77 = fel’, cone ike
a he ine ol de
et) Lae oe deal pele ipa « an
mit ni mie y hie Cele Jee pee gee
ghee) pe is i-~ 7
» © af? F Ti, ijiibee?® _ a
Ais : wee © . ’ Ta ny
Ps, “Ses = om of) oie i
a 7
bade Pa) Pier gi wal) ‘joinun hi baoitaewt i ae
ate Na ia cla ann baw 2 dda a: et aaers
» ek. AV APSh) J tha as
HA aid jar “Tard mal ge ai. dane ete a
ans > Wer ¢ 4) a pene ss i ooo .
a Aviat A : ¥. J rT ie — ‘ iat s.
7 ee * :
ued Me & al ) erleny ae
ky: bene’: 6 Wie No lotr phar Yio -ceptard de pan
CAG aiiy hy fbn 2) Gari ga hie aalliniion it top 'te) erareies T oii
Holger aici ern! Tet dey al Al eee elie aide dipeataaaen
qniboayi'l-aw port wy Go deehart [Bey lan ertondngs pri, FO) ae
gta tnrodiedes' i — ehwe@iietesll ath (OS) eset * Oetyae
Pinph oe heRy etalon’) Pnilegagre @ yyeiullpole [Qi aegee
(Ub ieta UU RS Gaim of el eriineginl ise 10) Tee
We PEP Qa (or) 6) oh owe eye i hile € 9008 See
Aajapiles eclayients. Coun tys, 4) 01t)| ced, Oates, gonna gic) ative tiie
Hud ep] Saledive Gin’ jagey-algee We lie) whee
olde A VIL Tee 1 eye Aer) Tell 4 aaa ee :
INTRODUCTION:
§1. Zhe scope of the proposed work
[1886] Obscurity of style in an inflected language is caused
by ambiguity (1) in words?, (2) in inflexions of words*, (3) in
combinations of words’. The First Part of this work, /ohannine
Vocabulary, dealt with characteristic, or characteristically used,
Johannine words, such as “believe,” and “authority,” with the
principal Johannine synonyms, and with the relation between
the Johannine and the Synoptic Vocabularies. But the words
were almost exclusively verbs, nouns, adjectives, and adverbs.
The article could not be represented statistically in the Vo-
cabularies, nor could many of the pronouns and conjunctions;
and only a general view could be given of the difference
between the Johannine and the Synoptic use of prepositions.
These words must therefore now be added to the two subjects
above mentioned as remaining to be discussed—namely,
inflexions, and combinations of words.
1 See references on pp. xxvfoll. This is the sixth part of the series
entitled Dzatessarica. The fifth part of the series (“Johannine Vocabu-
lary”) terminated with subsection 1885.
2 E.g. “apprehend” (1443, 1735e—g) may mean “understand” or
“take prisoner.”
3 “ Tnflexions” include those of all parts of speech.
4 “ Combinations” include those in phrases, in clauses, in sentences,
and in paragraphs (or sections).
AS Vile I I
[1887] INTRODUCTION
[1887] In /okannine Grammar it is proposed to treat of
these matters with a view to two objects. The first object is
to ascertain the evangelist’s meaning ; the second is to compare
or contrast his Gospel with those of the Synoptists. <A great
deal will be omitted that would be inserted in a Grammar of
New Testament Greek, or in a Grammar that proposed to
examine the differences between Johannine and, for example,
Pauline style. On the other hand, a great deal will be inserted
that would not find place in a treatise attempting simply
to elucidate the obscurities of the Fourth Gospel. As in
Johannine Vocabulary, so in Johannine Grammar, many.
remarks that may seem superfluous for explaining the special
passage under discussion may be found to be justified hereafter
by the use made of them in a commentary on parallel passages
in the Four Gospels’.
$2. The arrangement and proportions of the work
[1888] Logical arrangement, symmetry, and complete-
ness, will be subordinated to the object of illuminating the
Fourth Gospel as a whole, and passages of recognised difficulty
in particular, by ready reference to groups of similar Johannine
idioms. For this purpose, English alphabetical order will be
adopted as regards subjects, e.g. Adjectives, Adverbs, Anaco-
luthon, Asyndeton etc., and Greek order, for the most part, as
regards Greek words discussed separately under these several
headings. Under ‘“ Adjectives”—in accordance with the
promise to omit all that did not bear on Johannine style—
very little will be said except as to John’s use of two or three
special words. For the rest, the reader will be referred to
“ Article ”—since the repetition of the article with an adjective
makes the latter emphatic. The same rule will apply to
Adverbs. On the other hand, under “ Anacoluthon” (z.e. want
1 See Johannine Vocabulary, Pref. p. ix.
°
“=
INTRODUCTION [1890]
of grammatical sequence) space will be given to the discussion
of several difficult passages; and “ Asyndeton ”—ze. the
omission of connecting particles between clauses and sen-
tences—will receive a space proportioned to the number of
instances in which it causes ambiguity.
[1889] Under “ Mood,” the reader will find hardly anything
except a reference to other headings and especially to “Tense.”
The reason is that many Johannine distinctions of mood—
occasionally (2511 foll.) so important as almost to amount to
a distinction of word—arise from the evangelist’s distinction
between the present and the aorist in the same mood and may
be most conveniently discussed as Presents and Aorists rather
than as Imperatives, Subjunctives etc. Concerning the am-
biguous muorevere in xiv. 1 rendered by R.V. “Ve believe in
God, believe also in me,” with a marginal alternative “ Believe in
God,” it was remarked three centuries and a half ago, “It may
be read in four ways” There are several other passages of
a similar character about which much the same thing is likely
to be said till doomsday unless some conclusion can be
arrived at by a grouping of similar Johannine ambiguities.
The best heading for these appeared to be, not “ Indicative”
or “Imperative,” but “ Interrogative.”
[1890] Under “ Prepositions” will be given ava, although
it occurs in only one Johannine passage, 11.6 “two or three
firkins apzece,’ and ayti, although that, too, occurs only in
i. 16 “grace for grace.” In the latter, not much doubt as to
the meaning exists; in the former, none at all. But some
space has been given to both, because it happens that
expressions similar to these occur in the Book of the Revela-
tion of St John and in the works of Philo, and, if questions
should arise hereafter, in dealing with the Fourfold Gospel, as
to allusiveness or latent mystical meanings in either passage,
these external quotations may be of use. Similarly, under
1 So Suicer (ii. 721) quotes Erasmus, ‘“‘ Quadrifariam legi potest.”
3 I—2
[1891] INTRODUCTION
“Pronouns,” in treating the Johannine “I am,” an attempt
will be made to ascertain, by reference to Hebrew and LXX
usage (as well as to Johannine passages) when John uses it
(if he ever does) to mean simply “I am the person you speak
of,’ and when he uses it to mean (or to suggest) the divine
PAM:
{1891] In those parts of the work which relate to the
order and arrangement of words, something will need to be
said about Philonian and Rabbinical canons of sacred
expression, and about the repetitions so frequent in Hebrew
poetry and in Jewish liturgy. For these may explain some
curious twofold and threefold repetitions of the same state-
ment, and some (logically speaking) superfluous combinations
of affirmation and negation. But even when the most
is made of these, much in the Johannine style will remain
inexplicable, perhaps, except by particular influences and
circumstances. The book seems to combine the occasional
diffuseness of an old man with the general and pervasive
subtlety of a master of words in the prime of intellect. It
has curious sevenfold arrangements of events and sayings
that strike a modern reader as highly artificial, and likely to
have required much forethought and elaboration. Yet some-
times it halts, adds after-thoughts, breaks into parentheses,
seems to make inexact statements and to correct them, and it
certainly mixes words of the Lord and of other speakers
with remarks of the evangelist in such a way that the most
careful commentators are tasked to disentangle them.
[1892] Some of the phenomena above mentioned resemble
phenomena that we find in the Apocalypse. Others indicate
a subtle use of Greek grammatical forms quite unlike any-
thing in that book. Yet the Gospel has not two styles.
Indeed, as has been pointed out in the Preface, it has such
a sameness of style that the words of the Baptist or of
Christ
pear to have been confused by some able critics with words of
4
although distinguishable on close examination—ap-
INTRODUCTION [1893]
the evangelist. There may, however, have been one originator
who did not write, and one writer, who did not originate. In
other words, there may have been, in effect, two authors, of
whom the second and later—while impressing his own
character on the style of the whole—may have preserved here
and there with special fidelity (sometimes at the cost of
clearness, 1927c) the traditions of the first, in whose name
he wrote nominally as an amanuensis but actually as an
expounder and interpreter. These considerations will come
before us (2427—35) in discussing the remarkable textual
variations in the passage about “the disciple that beareth
witness of these things,” but they ought to be always so far
present that our minds may be kept open to all evidence
bearing on the question of authorship.
[1893] The Fourth Gospel is admitted by all Greek
scholars to be, in parts, extraordinarily obscure. No honest
writer of history is obscure, as a rule,except through careless-
ness or ignorance—ignorance, it may be, of the art of writing,
or of the subject he is writing about, or of the persons he is
addressing, or of the words he is using, but, in any case,
ignorance of something. But an honest writer of poetry
or prophecy may be consciously obscure because a message,
so to speak, has come into his mind in a certain form, and he
feels this likely to prove the best form—ultimately, when his
readers have thought about it. Instances will come before
us, for example, where 674 may mean “that” or “because,”
and where xca0os may look back to what precedes or forward
to what follows: and as to these we may say that the writer
may have preferred to let the reader think out the meaning
or the connexion for himself. But what are we to say to
x. 38 “that ye may come to know definitely (yv@te) and that
ye may continue in the ever growing knowledge (ywooxnte)
that the Father is in me”? Here the difference between
the aorist and the present subjunctive is so great as to
amount almost to the difference between two distinct words:
5
[1893] INTRODUCTION
but is it like a poet or a prophet to write after this fashion?
We must frankly admit that such language—of which there
are many instances (2524)—would appear highly artificial in
any Greek writer unless there were special reasons for it, as,
for example, a desire to protest tacitly against some popular
and erroneous notions about “knowing” and “knowledge.”
A Grammar is not the place to discuss the question whether
such notions existed and whether the evangelist would be
likely to protest against them; but it may be of use here to
prepare the reader for a multitude of such minute gram-
matical distinctions. In an ordinary book, we should stig-
matize them as pedantry; in the Fourth Gospel, they must
be explained (we may feel sure) by very different reasons.
The business of the Grammar will be to collect and classify
these and other peculiarities so as to lead the way to an
explanation that lies beyond the limits of a grammarian.
BOOK wi
FORMS AND COMBINATIONS
OF WORDS
BOOK™!
FORMS AND COMBINATIONS OF WORDS
General warning as to use of Index
[1894*] N.B. For all matter affecting Adjectives, Adverbs,
Anacoluthon etc., and not occurring under these several headings,
the reader is referred to the Index. For example, under the heading
“ Adjectives” in the following paragraphs nothing will be found about
their frequent use with the reduplicated article for emphasis, nor
about their occasional use with the ellipsis of a noun. But these
deficiencies will be supplied under the heading ‘‘ Adjectives ” in the
Index at the end of the book, where the reader will find references
to “ Article,” to “Ellipsis,” and to passages dealing with emphasis.
Also, as regards some special adjectives, discussed at considerable
length, but not here (e.g. t80s, rodvs, tpoBarixy), the reader will
be referred to the paragraphs dealing with them by the two Indices
of Greek words, where they will be found in their alphabetical order.
The Index to the “ Vocabulary ” will give the statistics of the words ;
the Index to the ‘‘ Grammar,” their grammatical use.
ADJECTIVES
(i) Used predicatively
[1894] The adjective is used predicatively in iv. 18 rodro adnés
eipnkas, which is quite different from totro adnOds eipnxas. The
latter might have meant (1) “‘ Zruly, 1.e. tv truth, thou hast said
this,” or (2) ‘‘Thou hast said this ¢ruy, i.e. with truth.” But the
former means “* Z/zs, at all events, among all that thou hast said, is
S)
[1895] ADJECTIVES
true ”—implying that hitherto the woman has talked in a reckless
and trifling way’.
(11) Special
(a) Monoc
[1895] Movos occurs as follows in v. 44 (W.H.) “How can ye
believe, receiving glory from one another:—and the glory that comes
from the only [God] (tiv d0fav tiv zapa tod povov [Ge0t]) ye seek
not!” @eov is here omitted not only by B but also by a (“gloriam
ab unico non quaeritis”) and 4 (“honorem ejus gui est solus”)*. If
the omission occurred in B alone, it might be explained as an
omission—sometimes occurring in that excellent Ms.—in a group of
similar letters*. But it occurs also in Origen‘, which demonstrates
that the reading was much earlier than the draughting of B. More-
over, the omission, being unusual, would suggest a lacuna, which
scribes would be tempted to fill up, conforming the passage to “the
only true God” later on, and to general usage’. The Greek “only”
is used (as in Shakespeare, “the ov/y man of Italy®”) to mean
“unique ”—more than merely “first.” In N.T. “only” is connected
with ascriptions of glory’. Horace speaks of Jupiter as having “no
like or second” although Pallas occupies ‘‘the place next in honour®.”
Aristotle says that the heaven is “one and a/one and perfect’.” But
1 [1894@] R.V. (‘this hast thou said truly”) is ambiguous, and might agree
with & 6, f, adnOas ‘thou hast zzdeed (or, i truth) said.” Comp. Demosth.
(Teubn. p. 87) rotré ye adnGés (but better MSs. 4767) Néyouc.v. Such a predica-
tive use is prob. without another parall. in N.T.
{18946] In xiii. 34 évToAny Kkawny didwut buy wa dyamaGre addj\ovs—Kabus
nyarnon twas, wa Kal buets dyamdre addpdous, the adj. ‘‘new”’ is not predicative.
The meaning is, ‘‘I give you a zew commandment”: and it is ‘‘new” because it
enjoins a new kind of ‘‘love,” not revealed through the Prophets, but for the first
time through the Son and through His love of men. Comp. 1 Jn ii. 7—8 ‘‘ Wot
a new commandment do I write to you...... on the other hand (rdduw) @ 2ew com-
mandment do I write to you—which [paradox] (6) is true in him and in you,” ze. it
is fold” yet made ‘‘new” in Christ and in His newborn disciples.
2 [1895 a] The Lat. f has ‘‘ quae a Deo solo,” ff *‘ quae ab illo solo est Deo”
(where ‘‘ Deo” looks like an interpolation out of place). Neither of these retains
the Gk order as in d@ (‘‘ gloriam ab unico deo”) and e (‘‘gloriam a solo do ”).
8 [1895 4] See 2650: OT might be omitted coming between the OT of pdvov
and that of Ov.
4 Orig. Huet i. 392, and see 2664. 5 Jn xvii. 3, Rom. xvi. 27, 1 Tim. i. 17.
6 [1895c] Much Ado iii. 1. 92. See also Lucian (ii. 386, Demon. 29) where
a man boasts that he is pévos cal mp@ros T&y diadexrixGy, and is rebuked for being
illogical. 7 Rom. xvi. 27%, 1 Lim. i. 17, Jude 25, Rev. xv. 4.
8 Odes, I. xii. 19—20. 9 De Cael. i. 9. 8.
IO
ADJECTIVES [1897 }
no passage is alleged in the Thesaurus where Greeks call God 6 povos:
and such a use, if it existed, must have been rare among the Jews’.
More to the point is the saying of Philo that the words “ It is not
good for man to be alone” are uttered because “It is good that che
Alone should be alone’,” meaning the Only God. On the whole, it
seems fairly probable that, when speaking about “glory” and _ its
source, the evangelist used 6 Movos—with allusion to the connexion
of the word with “glory” both in Hebrew and Greek—to mean
briefly “He that is a/one glorious” ¢e. “He from whom adone all
glory comes.”
(8) Tlpatoc
[1896] IIparos is followed by a genitive, and is said by some to
mean ‘‘first in regard of,” in (a) i. 15 (R.V.) “ He that cometh after
me is become before me (éuxpooév pov); for he was before me (dre
mpotos pov jv)” and i. 30 (R.V.) “ After me cometh a man which is
become before me; for he was defore me” (R.V. marg. in both
verses ‘“‘first in regard of me”). It is rendered by the conjunction
“before,” supplying a verb, in (4) xv. 18 (R.V.) “If the world hateth
you, ye know that it hath hated me Jdefore [7¢ hated] you (zpartov
DuLav).”
[1897] To deal first with (a). Stephen’s Thesaurus quotes from
Aelian® “those who have investigated these things before me (ot mparol
pov tavta avyvevoartes).” But mpw@rdos tivos éroinoa te is different
from zporos twos nv. More to the point is apdéros oy in the
Scholiast’s Preface to the Phoentssae of Euripides quoted in the
Thesaurus thus: “ Eteocles, as though he were first [in regard | of his
brother (are mpatos wv Tov adeAdpor),” given by Dindorf (presumably
correcting the text) as tov adeAdov. Another Scholiast explains
(Hecuba 458) “firstborn palm (mpwroyoves te gotvé)” by saying
“created jirst [ix regard| of the bay-tree (mpdtov yevvnbévta tis
dapvys).” Origen seems to take zpéros pov as parallel to, and
1 [1895 d] Levy ii. 2346 quotes Genes. Rab., on Gen. iii. 22 ‘fone of us,”
explained as “‘like the Only One of the universe,” and Levy Cha/d. i. 331 4 quotes
a Targ. on Job xiv. 4 ‘‘not one,’ explained as ‘‘shall not the Only One?” (so
Vulg. ‘‘nonne tu qui solus es?”’).
* Philo i. 66 Aca ré Tov avOpwrov, & mpopfra, ovK éore Kaddv elvat wdvoy; “Orn,
gnol, Kadédv éote Tov povoyv eivac pdvov. Moévos dé, kai xa’ airév, eis wy, 6 Beds,
ovdev 6€ Guoroy Gea.
3 [1897a] Ael. WV. A. viii. 12. Steph. also quotes Plut. Vit. Cat. Min. § 18
o’te mpards tis avéSn...Kare&vos oltre torepos amfmAGe: but he thinks mpdrepos
should be restored here, and he expresses doubt about the quotation from Aelian.
yea
[1898] ADJECTIVES
included in, zpwrétoxos macys xticews', ze. “firstborn [brother] of
all creation,” so that zpdérés pov would mean “ firstborn [brother] of
me,” ze. “my eldest brother.” His words are: “The Baptist teaches
[us] how Jesus ‘is become before him [by] being first [in regard] of
him (av zpaéros airod)’ since He was the firstborn (xpwtotoxos) of every
creature?” ; and the same view is suggested by zapa (implying the
metaphor of a household) in the following words, “I understand
that He was first{born in respect] of me and more honourable 7x
the house of the Father (rapa 7 Warpi).” Chrysostom, without using
the word “ firstborn,” argues that the words must refer to precedence
in point of time*—not in point of rank, rank having already been
expressed (as he says) by the words ‘‘ become before me.”
[1898] According to Luke, the Baptist was born before Jesus.
If that was recognised as a historical fact by the earliest readers of
the Fourth Gospel, ‘‘ first in regard of me” could not appear to them
to mean “born before me [on earth].” But some have supposed
it to mean “‘ begotten before. me in the beginning.” If so, why did
the Baptist omit ‘‘in the beginning,” which is essential, and insert
“before me,” which, had “in the beginning” been inserted, would
not have been essential? Many will feel great difficulty in believing
that John the Baptist, at this stage in his testimony to Jesus (if
indeed in any stage) proclaimed to the Jews (1) the pre-existence
of Jesus, as being the Messiah—and proclaimed Him, too, as
pre-existent, not “from eternity” nor “from the beginning,” but
(2) relatively to himself. The former doctrine, the eternal pre-
1 [18974] Col. i. 15 mpwrétoxos mdons xticews, comp. the genitive in Rev.
i. 5 mpwrdroKos Tay vexpOv, and see Col. i. 18 7 apx7), mpwrdroKos Ex TaY veEKpay,
Gen. xlix. 3 mpwrérokés ov, ot icx’s wou Kal apy7 Téxvwy wou, Rom. vill. 29 els TO
eivat ality mpwrébroxoy év moNXois adedpors, Col. i. 18 va yévnrar &v macw avros
mpwrevwy, and 2S. xix. 43 mpwrérokos éyw 7 oU (LXX error). These passages shew
that mpwrérokos, suggesting supremacy among brethren, might be replaced by
mpwrevwv, or mp@ros, if one wished to say ‘‘my firstborn [brother],” because “my
firstborn”? would naturally be taken to mean ‘‘ my firstborn [soz]. The phrase
‘‘my elder [brother], tpeaB’repds wou, would convey none of the old associations
of the blessing and supremacy belonging to the Firstborn.
* Orig. Huet ii. gg.
3 [1897¢] ‘It is not to be supposed, says [the Baptist], that, whereas I was
first, He, by outstripping me (so to speak) in the race, cast me behind [Him] and
‘has become before’ [z.e. superior]. On the contrary ‘He was first [in regard] of
me [in point of time],’ for all that He is coming last into [view],” Ovde yap éx
twos, pnol, mpoxowis mpardv we ovra dmlow plyas eumpoabev yéyovev, adda IIpHrés
pov jv, el kal torepos mapayiverar. He explains tumpocfev as apumpérepos,
évriwbrepos. On ood mpdrés eluc in the Leyden Papyri, see 2667.
| ipt-
“=
ADJECTIVES [1900 |
existence of the Messiah, may possibly have been entertained by
some Jews in the Baptist’s time: but, even if it was, it is difficult
to believe that the Baptist gave it such prominence and in such
a shape.
[1899] The Synoptists', instead of “first in regard of me,” have
“mightier than JI.” This suggests that some word capable of
meaning “firstborn” might also be interpreted as “superior to,”
“stronger than?” The Hebrew ad, the root of ‘ Rabbi,”
“Teacher,” is capable of the two meanings (1897 4). The Baptist
may have said, in effect, “Jesus of Nazareth numbers Himself
among my disciples, but He was from the first my Teacher, or Aad.”
Now whenever a Jewish Teacher spoke about the divinely ordained
relations between the elder and the younger, so prominent in
Hebrew history, he might use the word ad (420) to mean
“firstborn,” alluding to the supremacy of Jacob preordained in the
words “the e/der shall serve the younger®.” But ad is also used for
‘‘mighty” in Messianic passages such as “‘mzghty to save” and
“a portion with the mzghty*.” John may have taken the word in the
former sense, the Synoptists in the latter.
[1900] Apart from the question—which cannot be answered with
certainty—as to the original word used by the Baptist, we may be
sure that this rare expression tparos ov means something more than
petCwv pov. Probably the writer had in view the Johannine
traditions ‘‘I am ¢ke /irst and the Last’.” As one can speak of “ my
God,” “my Rock,” “my Light,” so one might speak of “ my First,”
having in view the Firstborn of God, the Beginning. The evangelist,
without supposing that the Baptist consciously intended hereby to
set forth to the world the eternal pre-existence of Christ as the Logos,
might very well represent him as unconsciously including in his
language (after the manner of all the Prophets and the Psalmists)
more than he included in his thought. According to this view, the
Baptist meant “‘He was from the cradle my superior, my elder
brother” ; but he said words that might be interpreted as meaning
2 IND 1s Gp Millie wit, Tats Ie; hts 1G
2 [1899] In 2 S. xix. 43, the LXX, confusing ‘in David” with “ firstborn,”
uses the latter as a comparative adjective, “I am firstborn than thou,”
éyw jo. But the Hebrew word there erroneously read by the LXX never means
“ strong.”
3 Gen. xxv. 23. = Tish Iksttig ats Init, 12.
2 IRE 7o th Us Sale 1%,
1 pWT OT OKOS
13
{1901} ADJECTIVES
“ He was, from the beginning, my /irs¢,” i.e. the Firstborn of God,
the object of my worship.
[1901] We come now to the use of mporov with the genitive in
(6), xv. 18 “If the world hateth you, ye know that it hath hated me
(R.V.) before [it hated| you.” No precedent is alleged from Greek
literature for such a rendering of the italicised words. But zpwrov
rendered as above will make sense here: ‘‘It hath hated me, your
First, i.e. your Chief.” Something like this (‘ priorem vobis”) is the
rendering of the Vulgate and of one of the oldest Latin Mss. ; and
others, though they omit “you,” take apoérov as an adjective
(“‘priorem').” Thus rendered—if “first” be taken as suggesting
‘firstborn brother”—the words prepare the disciples for the new
sphere of life and thought that was to follow the Resurrection,
wherein Christ was to become “the firstborn of the dead, the ruler
of the kings of the earth’.” He was not to be alone. He was to be
“the firstborn among many brethren*.”. The whole Church was to
be “the Church of the firstborn4,” and He Himself was to be the
First of the firstborn, the “ first-fruits of them that had fallen asleep®*.”
The Johannine context leads the disciples to regard themselves as
branches in the Vine, “friends” (no longer “ slaves”) of the Son—
“friends” that must henceforth partake in His life and in His secret
counsels®. Being now destined to become younger brothers of the
Firstborn, they must expect to share the Elder Brother’s sufferings :
“Tf the world now hateth you, adopted brethren of the Family
of God, remember that it hath hated me—the First[born] of you
[a//]’.” Possibly the evangelist wishes not so much to say this as to
1 [1901a] ‘“ You” is om. by a {(‘‘me prius odiit”) and e (‘‘me primo odiit’’)
and also by D (d has ‘‘me primum odiuit”); 6 and ff have ‘‘me priorem odio
habuit,” fand Vulg. ‘‘ me priorem yobis odio habuit.” See 2665 foll.
2 Rev. i. 5, quoting Ps. Ixxxix. 27, where David is declared “ firstborn.”
3 Rom. viii. 29. eo lebrxiie23.
Pan Cor xvea2c- oD |p ae sO
7 [1901 4] In i. 41 etploxer otros mp&rov Tov ddeXPdr Tov tdcov Liuwva, several
authorities have mp@ros: band e have ‘‘mane,” apparently having read mpwt.
The Syriac (Burk.) has ‘‘And he, Andrew, saw Simon Kepha and saith to him...,”
SS ‘‘And he, Andrew, saw Simon his brother on that day.” It is generally
supposed (17202) that the meaning is, ‘‘ Andrew first found his own brother [before
Andrew’s companion John the son of Zebedee found Azs owz brother James the
son of Zebedee].” But there may be also some allusion to ancient traditions in
which mp@rov Liwwva, or (as in Mt. x. 2) mp@ros Vluwy, occurred at the head of
a list of the Apostles. If mp&ros were read above, it would lay rather more stress
on the fact that Andrew was the first Christian disciple that made a convert.
14
ADVERBS [1903]
suggest this, by expressing the phrase “‘ before you” in a manner that
would convey more than one meaning. See also 2665—7.
ADVERBS
(i) Intensive
[1902] The adverbs Avav, repisoas etc. are rarely used by John,
who differs greatly in this respect from Mark and Matthew, and
slightly from Luke’. When John wishes to emphasize an adverb or
adverbial phrase he gives it an unusual place, ¢.g. at the beginning of
the sentence, xvi. 31 "Apte muorevere, xil. 27 Nov 7 Wyn mov TETApAKTaL,
XVi. 30 €v TOUTwW TioTEvomeY, Vii. 14 75n be THS E pecovays, Vil. 37 ev dE
TH oxXeTH Hpepa..., Xili. I mpd de THs EopTys T. TaaTXA, XVI. 22 Tahw OE
dopa tuas®, See 2636 ¢ and 2668. On apryv ayyy see 2611 a.
(1) Special
(a) “AN@OeEN
[1903] The most important adverb in the Fourth Gospel is aver,
as used in ili. 3—7 (R.V. marg.) ‘‘ Except a man be born from above
(avwGev) he cannot see the kingdom of God....Marvel not that I said
unto thee, Ye must be born from above.” Nicodemus takes this as
meaning “born a second time”; and he replies, ‘‘Can a man enter
a second time into his mother’s womb and be dorm?” Chrysostom
says that our Lord here speaks obscurely in order to lead Nicodemus
on to further question ; and he adds, “"Avwev here means, some say
‘from the heaven,’ others ‘from the beginning.” The following facts
indicate that our Lord is intended by the evangelist to mean “from
1 [1902 a] Alay occurs Mk (4), Mt. (4), Lk. (1), Jn (0): ofddpa, Mk (1),
Mt. (7), Lk. (1), Jn (0): mepeoods, Mk (2), Mt. (1), Lk. (0), Jn (0). Mk has
adverbial forms of zoAvs more freq. than Mt. Lk. Jn taken together.
2 [19026] But see 1914 as to the position of ev@’s, and comp. xi. 29 nyépOn
Taxv with xi. 31 tayéws avéorn, where raxéws (2554) before its verb appears to
be more emphatic than tax¥ on which the voice does not rest. Anadverb may also
be emphasized by coming at the end of a sentence.
3 (1903 a] Chrys. himself, in a very long comment, gives the impression that
he takes dywev to mean ‘‘from heaven” and that Nicodemus materialises it :
‘¢ Why draggest thou,” he says, apostrophizing Nicodemus, “the meaning (\déyov)
down to earth? This kind of birth is adove such birth-pangs (avwrepds éore TOY
To.ovTwy wdivwy obros 6 TéKos).” Origen’s comment ad Joc. is lost, but elsewhere
he contrasts yevvara: dvwOev with éx T&y KaTw yiverar in such a way as to demonstrate
that he took the former to mean ‘‘ born from above.” See 2573.
15
[1904] ADVERBS
heaven,” and that Nicodemus is intended to be regarded as misunder-
standing Him, or affecting to misunderstand Him, as though He
meant ‘“‘a second time.”
[1904] “AvwHev occurs in N.T. thirteen times. Apart from the
passage under consideration, it never means “from the beginning ”
except thrice, and then it is joined to ‘‘again” or “knowing,”
or “ascertaining’.” The Thesaurus shews that (1) it often means
“from the beginning” in connexion with the tracing of a genealogy,
describing one’s ancestry or early life, or a friendship of long date,
relating ancient history, or speaking of ancient times, or repeating a
story over again from the beginning; and Suicer shews that avw6ev
is thus used in connexion with waAw, and with é€ apyjs. On the
other hand (2) it means ‘from above” in a spiritual sense in Jn iii.
31 “he that cometh from above,” xix. 11 ‘given to thee from above.”
In the Epistle of St James, it refers once to ‘‘every perfect gift ” as
being ‘“‘from above, coming down from the Father of lights... By his
will (BovAnfeis) he brought us forth (aexiynoev) by the word of truth ”
—thus connecting ‘‘/vom above” with spiritual generation: in two
other passages St James connects it with “the wisdom that is from
above*.” In the LXX, it always has a local meaning, except once
(where it is joined with zaAuw) in the Wisdom of Solomon*.
[1905] Apart from LXX and N.T. usage, the rendering “from
above” in the Dialogue with Nicodemus is also favoured by the
probability that the intention is to fix the attention not on being born
“over again”—which might be a change for the worse—but upon
being born into a higher life. This latter thought is approximated to
by Philo, in various phrases including avwHev, when he speaks of
“him that is inspired fvom above” (in connexion with those who
avoid the life of the flesh and live to God) and of those who
‘“‘philosophize, so to speak, from adbove*.” Commenting, also, on the
calling up of Moses to Mount Sinai, he describes it as “a second
Pe ouitas AGES xocvis ss Gall. pvenO}
2 [1904] Jas i. 17—18, iii. 15, 17. In Jn xix. 23 €« TOv dvwHev ipayrés, its
meaning is ‘‘ from above.”
8 [19044] Wisd. xix. 6. In Is. xlv. 8 ‘‘Let the heaven drop /rom above,”
Ibn Ezra says, ‘This is a commandment to the angels that they shall drop
righteousness.”
4 [1905 a] Philo i. 482 6 karamvevcbels dvwbev, i. 264 of avwhév rws didogo-
pnoavres, comp. ii. 442 Tod Oelov mveiuaros bmep avwHev KaTamvevobey elaowKhoaTo
TH WuxT, i. 498 ar’ odpavod Karamvevobels dvwher.
16
ADVERBS. [1907]
birth better than the first,” where there is ‘‘no mother, but only
a father, the Father of all’.”
[1906] The use of “from above” to describe a heavenly ideal is
common in Jewish literature. St Paul speaks of “ Jerusalem that is
above” as being free, in contrast with “the present Jerusalem,” which
is in bondage*. The Apocalypse speaks of ‘‘the ez Jerusalem,”
but adds “coming down from heaven*.’ Somewhat similarly St Paul
says that the first man is of the earth, earthy, “the second man
is from heaven’.” In the one case ‘‘ zew,” and in the other ‘‘second,”
might be used to paraphrase the expression ‘“‘from heaven”; and
similarly “generate avez” might be a substituted paraphrase for
“generate from heaven.” But to say that a man on earth must be
“born from above” implies that he must also be “born axew,” so
that the former has the advantage of being ampler. The former is
also more in accordance with Johannine doctrine, as well as with
Johannine use of avwfev, Again, all the Synoptists say that Jesus
asked the Jews whether ‘‘the baptism of John” was ‘“‘/from heaven or
from men®’”; and “from heaven” in such a context might naturally
be expressed by the Aramaic “from above.” Moreover, the very
beginning of the Bible describes, shortly after the motion of the
Spirit on the waters, a separation between ‘“‘the waters and the
waters,” or, as the Jerusalem Targum has it, “‘¢he qazers above and
the waters below.”
[1907] Thus, from several points of view, if a Rabbi came
to consult Jesus about baptism, and if our Lord wished to insist on
the need of a spiritual, and not a mere external, regeneration, we
might expect that the phrase “from above” would occur in His
mention of the operation of the Spirit. If Christ had said “ez ”
or ‘‘anew,” this could not have been misunderstood; for the
Aramaic ‘‘new,” like the Greek xawds, cannot be confused with
“above.” Moreover if the evangelist had desired to represent in
Greek the mere thought of “regeneration” he might have used
dvayevvav. But “regenerate”—unless qualified as it is in St Peter’s
1 [1905 4] Philo (on Ex. xxiv. 16) P. A. 502 “ Sursum autem vocatio prophetae
secunda est nativitas (sive regeneratio) priore melior...cuius non est mater; sed
pater solus, qui etiam universorum.”
Gal. iv. 25—6.
Reva) xxie) 2° = 7 (COR 22% Ze
INDE Bak, Bo Wilts ser, BER AKe, se,
ii ce to
A. VI. 17
bo
[1908] ADVERBS
Epistle'—does not necessarily convey the notion of a birth unto
righteousness. Nicodemus was familiar with the doctrine of “new
birth” applied to baptized proselytes, and he knew that very often it
did not mean much*. But this doctrine of Jesus about “ birth from
above,” he dimly felt, meant a great deal more, some fundamental
change—what he would call a “‘ miraculous” change. He therefore
asks what the miracle is to be: “It cannot be that a man is to
be literally born a second time*?”
[1908] In deciding this question we have to consider, not only
what our Lord may have said, but also how the author of the Fourth
Gospel,—in view of the misunderstandings of what He had said as
1 [1907 a] 1 Pet. i. 3 ‘‘ the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who
regenerated us zzto a living hope...,” i. 23 ‘‘ having been regenerated, sot from
corruptible seed, but from incorruptible, through the word of God, living and abiding.”
Comp. Jas i. 18 ‘he brought us forth dy the word of truth.”
* [1907 4] On our Lord’s opinion of some proselytes, see Mt. xxiii. 15 “twofold
a child of hell.”
3 [1907¢] There are naturally some cases where dvwOev is ambiguous, e.g.
Clem. Anc. Hom. ch. 14 rv é€xxdyolay od viv evar adda avwhev. This (as in the
above quoted Gal. iv. 25—6 77 vov...... 7 6é &vw) might conceivably mean, “ that
the Church is not of this present age ([rod] viv [aidvos]), but from heaven.’ But
such an ellipsis is unlikely; and the contrast is more probably between ov viv
[prov], ‘‘ not now [for the first time] ” (ov viv mp@rov being freq. in Greek) and
‘but from the beginning.” FEpict. i. 13. 3 ‘* Wilt thou not bear with thy brother,
who hath Zeus for his ancestor, [and who] (#o7ep, ? 6s do7ep) as a son, is born from
the same seed and from the same celestial sowing (r7js abrns dvwbev KataBoN7s) ”
might be, but less probably, ‘‘z7z¢¢za/ sowing.” Philo ii. 141 jpxacodoynoey avwier
apéduevos THS TOD TayTos yevéoews probably means ‘“‘beginning from the beginning
[z.e. the First Cause]”’—having in mind the ancient Greek saying ‘ Let us degzz
from Zeus,” and ‘ln the beginning God created.” He proceeds to say that the
first object was to set forth ‘‘the Father and Maker of the world,” and then man
obeying the Maker’s laws.
[1907 ¢@] Justin Martyr 77vph. 63 dvwbev kal dia yaorpos avOpwreias (describing
the birth of Christ) appears to mean [‘‘ by the action of the Spirit] from above and
through a mortal womb” (although the Psalm (cx. 3) from which Justin has
quoted refers to birth (LXX) ‘before the morning star”). Comp. Epiphanius
(Zaer. li. ch. 6, vol. i. 428) about Mark as ‘nowhere saying [that] the birth
[was] from above (ovdapod dvwhev Néywr Thy yévvnow)” and (7.) THs dvwHev
Kataywy7js Geod dédyou. So Simon Magus (Hippol., ed. Duncker, vi. 18)
speaks of the generating principle as “from above.’ In Artemid. Onetrocr. i. 13,
yevvacbat dvwhev undoubtedly means “ to be born agazz,” but there the meaning
is prepared for in a peculiar way by the context: “If a man dreams that he is
being born...... this indicates that he will have a son 7 every respect like himself:
for thus he might seem to be born over again (otrw yap [av] dvwlev adros détee
“yevva Ba).”” And there it should be noted that the meaning is 7o¢ ‘‘ to be born into
a better life,” but “to be born over again in every respect like what one was before.”
18
ADVERBS [1910]
it had been recorded by the Synoptists—might think it right to
recast the saying. Christ’s doctrine, ‘Become ye as one of these
little ones,” might be in danger of being misunderstood literally
(somewhat after the manner of Nicodemus) as encouraging childish-
ness rather than childlikeness (1 Cor. xiv. 20). It is in accordance
with the Johannine method that John should illustrate this danger
by exhibiting a great Rabbi as actually misunderstanding the doctrine
at its first utterance. It is also in accordance with his method of
“narrowing down” (2290) that he should first introduce a general
term ‘from above” including as St James says ‘every perfect gift”
that comes from heaven—and then define it as a spiritual influence.
The saying of Christ, that a proselyte.—who was compared by the
Jews to a new-born child,—might be made a ‘“‘chz/d of hell,” is of
itself sufficient to explain why it might be necessary to emphasize
the truth that regeneration must be ‘from above.” See 2578.
(8) “Apti see n¥n (1915 (1) foll.)
(y) ‘Erre
[1909] This adverb is used (1718) more frequently by John than
by the Synoptists all together. In Jn it never describes the nearness
of a person except in vi. 19, ‘“‘they behold Jesus walking on [the
edge of?] the sea and Jdecoming near the boat (éyyis tod zAolov
ywvouevov).” “Eyyi~w, “draw near,” is frequent in O.T. and N.T.,
and the Synoptists sometimes (Luke most frequently) apply it to
Christ, but John never uses it. Under ‘ Prepositions” (2340—6)
reasons will be given for thinking that John regards the Lord as
“on the sea shore,” and not as advancing over the sea to the boat.
If so, he may use ywomevov éyyvs as we speak of the coast “coming
into view” when we ourselves “come” within sight of it. The words
and their context are susceptible of a spiritual interpretation. At
first the disciples, in terror and unbelief, beheld (1598) Jesus
“becoming near.” Then (vi. 21) ‘they willed to receive him”;
and “straightway the boat was on the land.” That is to say,
like the Ephesians, “they that had been far off were made to
bemnear.”
(6) Eyeéwc and eyéyc
[1910] Mark (1693) never uses etv#éws, but he uses eé@vs abun-
dantly. Matthew uses both pretty often. Luke uses ei@éws and
Tapaxpyya pretty often, but ed@vs only once. John uses ciféws
1 Eph. ii. 13 tmets of more ovres makpay évyeviOnre eyyus.
3 7° Y
19 2—2
[1911] ADVERBS
thrice, and e«é6vs thrice. Whenever Matthew uses dbus (7), it is
Jound in the parallel Mark. The question arises whether John
distinguishes between the two words, or whether he uses now one,
now another, as Matthew appears to do, because he uses now one,
and now another, source of evangelic tradition.
[1911] As to eis ‘‘straightway,” Phrynichus blames “many ”
who used et@v (‘straight away”) instead of it. Hesychius says
about it simply Ev6vs, dyriov, which indicates that he took it to
mean “straight opposite [to],” ‘coming face to face with.” He also
says, Ev6v, dp6ov, ardovv, éyyvs, tapaxpypa, eis evbeiav. Bonitz’s
Index shews that Aristotle uses ev6us of place, before v7, zpds, pera
to mean ‘“‘zmmediately under,” etc. and also to mean “to take the
first instance that presents itself,” ze. ‘‘for example,” which it also
means in Epictet. i. 19. 2 (where Schweigh. refers to many other
passages)’. In LXX, as a rendering of Hebrew, ev@vs occurs only
in Gen. xv. 4 kal ev6ds hwv7y Kupiov éyéveto pos atv, xxiv. 45 «vOds
“‘PeBexxa eerropeveto, XXXVIil. 29 Kal EvOds eEnAG ev 6 adeAGos avTov, Where
the Hebrew has “behold!” Similarly, parallel to Mk xiv. 43 “and
straightway...there cometh up,” Matthew and Luke have ‘‘ dehold !”
A Scholiast on Thucydides, who describes the Plataeans as “killing
their prisoners s¢vaightway,” says that here ev#vs does not mean
immediately but offhand and without reflection®, which is probably
implied. Very likely Mark’s ev@’s may be a loose rendering of
an original Semitic “behold*.” But even without any such hypo-
thesis the above-mentioned variety of meanings suffices to explain
why Luke almost always avoids the word.
[1912] Mark’s non-use of ev#éws does not require explanation in
view of the fact that it is never used by Aeschylus and (though thrice
by Sophocles*) only once by Euripides in a fragment®, whereas both
writers use ev6us frequently. In the Indices of Epictetus and Lucian,
evus is found, but not evféws, and Bonitz’s Index to Aristotle shews
a very great preponderance of the former. The LXX Concordance
1 Evdéws in Polyb. xii. 5. 6 is perh. similarly used.
2 (1911a] Steph. on Thue. ii. 5 of 6€ Inaraugs...... améxrewayv Tovs avdpas
evOUs, ‘‘ Hic enim schol. ait ev@vs non esse rapaxpjua, sed éfevbelas et dokdrrws.””
8 [19114] It has been shewn (352—3) that “behold” in Mt.-Lk. freq.
corresponds to some verb of ‘‘coming to” in Mk. This may be illustrated by
Hesych. evdvs, dvriov z.e. ‘*coming to meet.”
4 Sophocles also uses ev@vs 7 times.
5 Fragm. 31. The Egypt. Pap. Indices have ev@éws (11), evOvs (2).
20
ADVERBS [1914]
gives «véws as only once representing a Hebrew word. It occurs
almost exclusively in Maccabees (especially book II). The insertion
of such a word (whether in Hebrew or in Greek) might depend on
the author’s taste. The Jerusalem Targum has (Gen. 1. 3) ‘And
immediately there was light,” and in Susannah (29) LXX and
Theodotion severally insert evféws and omit it. Aquila uses the
word (Micah i. 7) to mean ‘“straightforwardly,” ‘ righteously.”
[1913] In N.T., apart from the Gospels, evéws is used frequently
in the Acts, and occasionally elsewhere’. Evd@vs occurs nowhere
except in Acts x. 16 “Now this was done thrice and s/razghtway
(evOvs) the vessel was taken up to the heaven.” This occurs in a
Petrine passage describing the vision that resulted in the conversion
of Cornelius. But when Luke rewrites this in Peter’s speech, he
alters the expression (Acts xi. to) ‘“‘ Now this was done thrice and
everything was caught up again to the heaven®.” ‘This indicates (1)
that ev#v’s might be expected in a Petrine Gospel such as Mark’s
is generally believed to be, (2) that Luke, although occasionally
retaining it as part of an old document, might be expected to alter
it in re-editing or re-writing.
[1914] Coming to Johannine usage we find (a) ev@éws in the
Cure at the Pool of Bethsaida, the Walking on the Water, and the
Denial of Peter®. Only as to the last of these (‘immediately the
cock crew”) does the word occur in the parallel Synoptic narrative—
where Mark has ed@vs but many authorities omit it, Matthew has
evvs but many authorities read «dOéws, Luke has zapaypypa',
(4) Ev6vs occurs in Jn xiii. 30—2, “Having taken the sop, therefore,
he [Judas] went out s¢raightway (e&jMev edOvs). Now it was night.
When, therefore, he went out, Jesus saith, (lit.) Now was the Son of
man glorified and God was glorified in him. And God will glorify
him in himself and will s¢vazghtway glorify (ei6is do€ace) him,”
xix. 34 “One of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear and there
PVACHS 1X.110,20,93.4, Xi]. 10) XVi0) TO, XVil. LO, 145 XXI- 30; Xxil. 20, Galli. 16;
Jas i. 24, 3 Jn 14, Rev. iv. 2:
2 [19132] Acts x. 16 evO’s dvednupOn 76 cKedos, xi. 10 dvermdaOn Tad aTrayTa.
Also the Hebraic use of ‘‘all...not” is altered from x. 14 ovdémote payor Trav
Kowdv into xi. 8 Kowvor...... ovdémore elanOev els TO aTOMa MoU.
Seov: O; Vi. 2s XVill. 27.
4 [1914a@] Mk xiv. 72, Mt. xxvi. 74, Lk. xxii. 60 mapaypjua ere AadodyTos
avrod. In the Walking on the Water, Mk vi. 50 0 dé evOds éXddynoev, Mt. xiv. 27
evOvs d€ EXdAnoev are not quite parallel to Jn vi. 21 evdéws Eyévero TO THoiov..,
21
=
[1915] ADVERBS
came out straightway (e&nAOev ed6¥s) blood and water.” Comparing
(az) and (4) we must bear in mind that the Cure at the Pool has
many points of resemblance with the Cure of the Paralytic where
Mark and Luke describe the act as immediate, and that the Walking
on the Water is recorded by Mark and Matthew—so that we may
say generally that the instances in (a) have some connexion with
Synoptic narrative while those in (4) have not. In xi. 30 the
emphasis rests on et@vs, which comes at the end of the sentence
(‘rushed forth straightway”). In xix. 34 the voice passes on from
evOvs tO ata kal vdwp, but the adverb indicates that the “ fountain”
against “sin and uncleanness” (Zech. xiil. 1) was foreordained and
ready to gush forth. Having regard to the rarity of the adverb we
seem justified in thinking that, in xiii. 30—2, John deliberately
uses it twice in one and the same passage concerning the ‘“‘im-
mediate” departure of Judas and the “immediate” advent of
“glory,” the former being subordinate to the latter.
[1915] The conclusion is, that ei#vs and ei6éws are used in
N.T., not indiscriminately but with reference to meaning, or because
they occur in documents of this or that style. The only instance
of edfvs in Luke is in the passage about the house without foundation
(vi. 49) “‘against which the river burst and s¢vaightway it fell in
a heap (et6is ouvérece),” where Matthew (vii. 27) differs. It is
quite intelligible that Luke might be willing to apply to the fall
of a house an adverb that he might think unfit to apply to the
actions of Christ.
(e) Nn and apti
[1915 (i)] In 1719, viv was shewn to mean “at the present time”
(as distinct from apr. “at this moment”) and to imply, in Jn, a
contrast for the most part between the present and the past. This
is its general use in the Epistles, especially in contrasting the past
darkness with the present light (“‘ye were once darkness but zozw are
ye light in the Lord'”). But the interpretation of xat vdv in xi. 22
(1719) is complicated by the use of the phrase in LXX, where ‘‘ avd
now” is often connected with the thought “Amd xow in this crisis,
or, at this stage, or, in these difficulties, or, in conclusion, what is
1 [1915 (i) @] Eph. v. 8 nre yap more oxéros viv dé pas év Kuply. Of course in
special phrases such as 6 viv aldy, 4 viv Tepovcadiju etc. the contrast is with the
future as in 2 Pet. ili. 7, 18 (the only instances of vdv in that Epistle). But in
1 Pet. i. 12, il. 10 (025), li. 25, and iii. 21, the contrast is with the past.
22
ADVERBS [1915 (iii)]
to be done?” eg. “ And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God
require from thee?” ‘“dzd now, Lord, what wait I for? My hope
is in thee'?” So Peter, after reproaching the Jews for crucifying
Christ, says, “dd now, brethren, I know that in ignorance ye did
it,” where the underlying thought appears to be, “Axd now, what is
to be done? Acknowledge your past ignorance’.”
[1915 (ii)] In 2 Thess. 11. 5—6, the words “‘ Remember ye not
that while I was still with you I used to say these things to you,”
come after a prediction about “the man of lawlessness” and before
the words ‘Azd now ye know that which hindereth (xat vdv 76 Karexov
oldate),” where Lightfoot doubtfully inclines to the logical meaning
(“ Well, then, ye know”) and says “this usage is particularly noticeable
with otéa following.” But he suggests alternatively “and as ¢o the
present time ye know what it is that restraineth ”—a transposition like
that in Jn iv. 18 “for thou hast had five husbands, avd he whom thou
now hast (kai viv dv éyeas) ts not thy husbana®.”
[1915 (iii)] These facts indicate that «ai viv, especially in an
author like John, prone to transposition and asyndeton, will
1 [1915 (i) 6] Deut. x. 12, Ps. xxxix. 7, see Gesen. 774 @ quoting Gen. iil. 22
and many other instances. The LXX regularly represents the phrase by kai viv,
and it is extremely frequent, ¢.g. 2S. vii. 28 (sim. 1 Chr. xvii. 26) “And now,
O Lord God, thou art God, and thy words are truth...... now therefore, let it
please thee,” where it might almost be translated ‘‘ And in conclusion.” It
suggests (1) the conclusion of a prayer, (2) a logical or inferential conclusion.
2 [1915 (i)c] Acts iii. 17. In Acts this is often kai ra viv, e.g. Acts iv. 29
** 4nd now (x. Ta viv), Lord, look on their threats,” v. 38 ‘‘ and now (x. [ra] viv)
I say unto you, cesist- from these men.” In Acts xx. 22—32 kal vtv idov, ‘* and
now behold,” is used first temporally (‘‘and at the present time...I go bound”),
then with a suggestion of logical meaning (‘‘ and now behold I know”) and lastly
Kal Ta vov (‘and now [22 conclusion| 1 commend you to the Lord ”’).
3 [1915 (ii)@] Theoretically, the italicised words might begin a new sentence in
asyndeton, ‘‘ Zhe one that thou hast even now is not thy husband.”’ But, even in
an author so prone to asyndeton as Jn, this is hardly possible. Col. i. 24 Nov
xalpw é€vy Tois mabjuacw, coming at the beginning of a paragraph and after a
description of the wealth of God’s mercy, is explained by Lightfoot ‘‘ Vow, when
I see the full extent of God’s mercy...,’ no doubt correctly. But he adds ‘‘compare
also 2 Cor. vii. 9 viv yalpw, otx 6re x.7.d., where again there is no connecting
particle.” This, however, instead of coming at the beginning of a paragraph, is
printed by W.H. thus, 2 Cor. vii. 7—9, ‘‘...WwoTe we “aGANov xaphvar. bre el Kal
ehUmynoa vuds év TH EmioTohy, ov merauéNouac: e< Kal pmeTEeMEhouny, (“BA€rw' Ste 7H
ETLTOAN Exelvyn el Kal mpos woay EUmnoev Upuas,) viv xalpw....” It might be printed
otherwise. But, however printed, the context indicates that viv may be temporal.
According to W.H., the meaning would naturally be, ‘‘I may perhaps have
repented once, I rejoice 7ow.”
23
[1915 (iv)] ADVERBS
depend, for its meaning, on its context. As in 2 Thess. ii. 5, there
is a reference to past teaching in 1 Jn ii. 18, wawdia, €oyarn dpa éoriv,
Kal kalos 7kKovoate OTL Avtixpiotos épyetat, Kal viv avtiypioto. ToAXoL
yeyovacw, the meaning is “even as ye heard the prediction in past
time, even so (Kat) at the present time (viv) it is fulfilled’.” There is
also some reference to past time in 1 Jn 11. 27—-8, but the passage
comes at the end of a section enjoining “[steadfast] abiding,” and kai
viv appears to be logically or rhetorically (not temporally) used,
“But as (ws) his anointing teacheth you...and even as (kat xaOus)
it taught you, abide in it. And now [in conclusion, I repeat| abide
am it *”
{1915 (iv)] There is again a reference to past teaching in
1 Jn iv. 3, ‘“‘and this is the [spirit] of antichrist, [as to] which ye
have heard that ‘it cometh,’ azd now (kat viv) in the world it is
already (y6n)*.” Without any addition, kai viv might have meant
‘“‘and [accordingly] at the present time [in accordance with past
prediction]”: but by adding 76y, the writer shews that he intends
the meaning to be “before expectation.” In 2 Jn 5 there is
reference to past teaching, “I have found some of thy children
walking in the truth, even as we received commandment from the
Father, avd now («ai viv) lask thee...that we love one another,” where
the temporal and the logical meaning seem combined, but the latter
predominates. These are all the instances of «at viv in the Johan-
nine Epistles. Ntv, apart from xa/, occurs in them only once,
1 Jn ii. 2 “beloved, zow are we children of God.” This follows
the mention of what the Father’s love Zas done for us, and precedes
the mention of what we shall become; and vty suggests the thought
of the isthmus between the past and the future.
' [1915 (iii) z] But probably there is a double force in xai so that it also
suggests ‘Seven mow is antichrist here.”
* [1915 (iii) 4] 1 Jn ii. 27—8 ...xal xaOws edidatev buds pévere ev abr@. Kal viv,
texvia, wévere. Theoretically the first wévere might be indicative; but this would
be against Jn’s general use of the word, and does not seem necessitated by 76
xploua péver év duiv in the context: for the meaning may be ‘“‘the Spirit of Christ
abides in you...take care to abide in Him.” Meévec év dui is an instance of the
rule daudando praecipere: the Spirit abideth in you—if ye are Christ’s. The
repetition of ‘tabide” imperatively is like Phil. iv, 4, ‘‘ Rejoice in the Lord alway,
again I will say Rejoice.”
% [1915 (iv) a] As above, cal viv might theoretically mean ‘even now” and is
perhaps intended to suggest ‘‘even now,” which, however, is made clearer by
adding #67.
24
BO gn
AO Ne
d/ C)& 1 ric
( UNIVERSITY
X
ADVERBS” [1915 (vi)]
[1915 (v)] Returning to x1. 22 kai viv ofda or doa av airjon...
we find that many Mss. and versions insert aAAa before kai so as
to make the meaning (A.V.) “ But...even now...” R.V. has “ And
even now,” apparently taking kat viv as “even now” and supplying
“and” for the sake of English connexion. ‘This indicates a tendency
to take the phrase according to classical Greek idiom. But, having
regard to the fact that xat viv or kat viv idov, with ofda, occurs in
N.T. elsewhere Hebraically (1915 (i) ¢) or with a suggestion of
Hebraic meaning, and that xat viv in the Johannine Epistles is
frequent and sometimes Hebraic, we are justified in preferring a
Hebraic meaning here, like that of the Psalmist (‘42d now Lord,
for what do I wait?”). In that case the meaning will be: “ Lord,
if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. [But it pleased
thee to be absent although we sent unto thee.] 4d now [Lord,
what am I to say? JZy hope ts still in thee.| I know that whatsoever
thou shalt ask God, God will give it to thee.” This is confirmed
by two other passages where xai viv seems to introduce a last word,
before the speaker passes from one subject to another: xiv. 29—30
“ And now I have said [it] to you before it come to pass...No longer
shall I speak much with you,” xvii. 4—5 “I have glorified thee on
the earth having perfected the work...avd now glorify thou me.”
[1915 (vi)] “Apze is distinguished from viv as “this moment”
is distinguished from “this present time’.” “Apte is practically
(485 2) not a LXX word, and ax dpm does not occur in LXX
at all. ‘‘The present [dispensation],” 76 vdv, might be said to date
“from the moment (am aptt)” when the revelation of the Father
had been consummated through the Son’, and Jesus says to the
disciples, ‘From this moment ye know him (the Father).” “Eos apre
is used in v. 17 (“My Father worketh (A.V.) Aitherto”) of that
which has been going on “wp ¢o the present moment” and is still
continuing, as also in i Jn ii. g (“is in the darkness wp Zo this very
* [1915 (vi)@] Comp. Mt. xxvi. 64 dm’ dpre dWerbe ‘ye shall see from this
moment the Son of man seated,” with Lk. xxii. 69 do Tod viv 6€ éorat, which
presents much less difficulty than Mt. because amd rod viv might mean ‘‘from the
[beginning of the all but] present [age].” Lk. xii. 52 again uses dad Tod viv,
which Jn never uses (except in viii, 11 interpol.).
> xiv. 7 am’ dpre ywaoxete abrév. ‘Am’ dpre also occurs in xiii. 19.‘ Hrom
this moment I tell you before it come to pass.” On dm’ apr, or dmapri,
“fexactly,” see 485.
to
un
[1916] ADVERBS
moment'”). In the following, a distinction (though a slight one) is
drawn between apt and viv, xiii. 337, “ And as I said to the Jews
‘Where I go ye cannot come,’ 0 you also I say [tt|—for the moment
(kai vpiv A€yw apr).” Then, in answer to Peter’s question, “Whither
goest thou?” Jesus replies ‘Where I go, thou canst not follow
me at the present time (viv), but shalt follow later (vorepor).”
The saying is only “for the moment,” but He gradually reveals to
the disciples that the absence will be more than momentary extending
through “the present time.” Peter, in his second question, is not
content with the promise that he shall follow “later,” nor even
“at the present time (vov).” ‘‘Why,” he asks, ‘can I not follow thee
at this moment (aptt) 2?”
(€) Oytwe
[1916] “Thus” in iv. 6 (R.V.) “Jesus...being wearied (kexo-
miakws)...sat thus (ovtTws) by the well,” is scarcely intelligible. . But
R.V. marg. says “or, as he was.” In classical Greek, ovrws is often
used of something that happens Jefore circumstances have time to
alter, e.g. of a speaker ‘“‘ departing ¢hus,” i.e. without another word,
of an assailant “‘departing ¢iws,” i.e. without suffering in return.
Similar to these is “‘I cannot answer ¢hus,” i.e. offhand. So here
the meaning is, “he sat down just as he was, being thoroughly tired
out.” Probably Chrysostom is right in suggesting that the adverb
calls attention to the “sitting” as being in some sense casual,
although it was divinely foreordained to bring about the conversion
of the Samaritans. It also suggests, as he says, the indifference of
the true King to the external symbols of royalty®. Almost all the
1 [1915 (vi) 4] R.V., in both, ‘‘ever until now,” but in xvi. 24 R.V. and A.V.
have ‘‘ //ztherto have ye asked nothing in my name.” Comp. t Cor. iv. 13, Viii. 7,
xv. 6. Inv. 17 the meaning appears to be, ‘‘My Father worketh [ov the sabbath
Sron the beginning] until this moment, and I accordingly work [such acts as my
Father prescribes on the sabbath].”
* [1915 (vi) c] Comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 12 ‘‘For we see for the moment (dprc) through
a mirror.”’ When Jn uses viv thus, he adds pév in xvi. 22 ‘and ye vow deed
(viv uév) have sorrow...but I will see you again and your joy none shall take from
you.”
[1915 (vi)@] Nov, in Mk xiii. 19, Mt. xxiv. 21 &ws rod viv, Mk xv. 32,
Mt. xxvii. 42, kataBdrw viv ard 7. oravpod, and also in Mt. xxvi. 65, xxvii. 43 has
almost the meaning of dp7u, ‘‘at this moment.” But in Mk x. 30 viv év 7. Kaup@
rovrw it means ‘‘at the present time.’ These are all the instances in Mk-Mt.
In Lk. (1719) it is much more frequent.
% [1916 a] Chrys. ad Joc.: Ava tov Kémov (Cramer rérov) 7 Kabédpa yéyove, dia
26
ADVERBS [1917 (i)]
Latin mss. omit the adverb, and SS has “sat [so] that he might rest
himself,” perhaps confusing koriaw and koralu.
[1917] This passage prepares us for the true reading, and
rendering, in xiii. 25 (R.V.) “He [the beloved disciple] leaning
back, as he was (ovTws), on Jesus’ breast, saith unto him, ‘Lord,
who is it?’” where many authorities omit ovrws. The meaning
probably is, that the beloved disciple, instead of turning round to
speak to Jesus (which would have attracted attention) merely ‘‘leaned
back a little, Aeeping the same attitude.” But further, if any reader
asked, ‘How could any of the disciples venture to ask such a
question ?” this adverb suggested an answer, ‘‘ He did it, at Peter’s
suggestion, and being so close to the Lord, ‘just as he was,’ i.e.
unpremeditatedly*.”
(m) Tlapprcia
[1917 (i)] Tappyoia, “speaking all [one’s mind],” “freedom of
speech,” when applied to language, may be opposed—as Lightfoot
(on Col. ii. 15) says—‘ either (1) to ‘fear,’ as John vii. 13, Acts iv.
29, or (2) to ‘ambiguity, reserve,’ Joh. xi. 14, xvi. 25, 29; but
‘misgiving, apprehension’ in some form or other seems to be always
the correlative idea. Hence when it is transferred from words to
actions, it appears always to retain the idea of ‘confidence, bold-
ness’.... The idea of publicity may sometimes be connected with the
word as a secondary notion, e.g. in Joh. vii. 4, where év zappyota
civac ‘to assume a bold attitude’ is opposed to év xputt@ roreiv
(comp. xvill. 20); but it does not displace the primary sense.”
Hence, in Col. ii. 15 (R.V.) ‘he made a shew of them ofenly (év
mappyoia) triumphing over them in it [ze in the cross],” Lightf.
substitutes “do/dZy,” and (earlier) paraphrases thus, ‘As a mighty
TO Kavua, did 7d Tepmetvar Tos uabyTds: Her mev yap cUUBHobuEvov Td KaTd Tovs
Zapapelras, ovK él TolTo dé HOE mponyoupévws...Ti 5é ect, OtTws; Ovx ém
Opdvou, pyalv, odk Eri rpocxedadalov, add’ amas Kal ws éruxev ex’ Eddors.
1 [1917] Otrws in the Gospels almost always looks dackward, “thus as has
been satd above.” It seldom means “thus, namely, as follows” (e.g. Mt. i. 18,
vi. g, Jn xxi. t). Mk iv. 26 Otrws éorw 7 B. 7. cod ws..., ‘the kingdom of heaven
is even so as [if] a man were to cast seed...,” is exceptional in the Gospels and
also non-classical. Otrws ®ore occurs in Jn iii. 16, Acts xiv. 1, but, in Jn with
indic., in Acts with infin.: Jn’s construction, unique in N.T. (2203), is frequent in
classical Greek and is one of many proofs that the passage was not regarded by
the evangelist as a saying of the Lord, but was written as an evangelistic comment
in a somewhat less Hebraic style (see Preface, p. viii).
27
(1917 (ii)] ADVERBS
conqueror He displayed these His fallen enemies to an astonished
world, leading them in triumph on His cross.”
[1917 (ii)] This view of the adverbial wappyoia, namely, that it
“appears always to retain the idea of ‘confidence, boldness,’” is
confirmed by its use as a noun in the rest of N.T. where R.V.
regularly renders it to that effect’. Moreover in the Johannine
Epistle it occurs four times, and always to express the “boldness,”
or “confidence” of Christ’s followers, confidence ‘‘ toward God,” or
confidence as to future judgment*. Even in xi. 14 “then therefore
Jesus said to them zwzthout more reserve (rappynoia) ‘Lazarus is dead,’”
the meaning may be, that Jesus, having prepared His disciples for
the disclosure, revealed the truth without (as Lightfoot says above)
“misgiving or apprehension” lest their faith should fail: for a
teacher will not use zappyova unless he is ‘‘ confident” as regards his
pupils, that they are ready to receive the teaching. This, too, may
explain xvi. 25 “I will announce to you w¢thout reserve concerning
the Father”; and xvi. 29 “Behold, now speakest thou zéthout
reserve,” 1.e. frankly, and fully, and clearly.
{1917 (iii)] There remain two questions as to zappyoia in the
Gospels. (1) Why do Matthew and Luke omit it in the single
passage where Mark employs it (vill. 32) “and he [ze. Christ] was
boldly (R.V. openly) speaking the word”? (2) What is the reason
for the abundant use of the word in the Johannine Gospel and
Epistle where it occurs thirteen times, as often as in all the rest of
N.T. together (setting aside the Acts, where it occurs five times) ?
Out of these may arise a third question. (3) Is there any reason
for thinking that this is one of the many passages where John
intervenes to explain something in Mark that is omitted by Matthew
and Luke?
[1917 (iv)] In order to understand Mark’s use of “boldly”
(Mk viii. 32 ‘‘d0/d/y speaking the word”) we must bear in mind that
Christ’s prediction of His own crucifixion was the prediction of a
Gospel that proved “to the Jews a stumbling block and to the
1 [1917 (ii)@] See Acts iv. 13, 29, 31, xxviii. 31, 2 Cor. iii. 12 (where A.V.
has ‘‘plainness of speech,” but R.V. ‘‘boldness of speech”’), vii. 4 etc. Sim.
Acts ii. 29 (R.V.) ‘‘I may say unto you freely,” (A.V.) ‘let me freely speak unto
you.”
STM BO; Wit 2s Ve MiysiVen Let
ADVERBS [1917 (v)]
Gentiles foolishness’.” The shock caused by “the word” to the
disciples, and especially to Peter, shews that their Master had need
of “boldness” (not for Himself in facing death, but for them in
predicting it—boldness in believing that He would ultimately carry
them with Him and that they would not abandon Him irrevocably).
But still, to readers that did not realise the circumstances of the
moment, Mark’s brief phrase might seem obscure. Some might
take wappyoia as “openly,” 1.e. to all the world. These might say
that the phrase was misplaced, since Christ was addressing the
disciples alone. Others might take the view of the Sinaitic Syrian,
the Arabic Diatessaron, and the Codex Bobbiensis, which agree (1252)
in making the words fart of a prediction of Christ, that, after death,
Fle would rise again and speak the word “openly” or “with confidence”
to the disciples. Matthew and Luke—perhaps for one of these two
reasons—omit the phrase. Clearly this tradition called for explana-
tion on the part of any writer of a fourth authoritative Gospel.
{1917 (v)] Moreover, at the close of the first century, there were
special reasons why attention should be called—among Christians,
among non-Christian Jews, and among Greeks—to zappyoia as the
mark of a great Teacher of divine truth. It was a time of religious
impostures. Many people made money out of them. St Paul lays
great stress on his own “sincerity,” “confidence,” and ‘boldness ”
(or ‘‘frankness”). He is not one (he says) of those who “ water
down” the Gospel for gain®. Speaking from another point of view,
there was a “veil,” he adds, on the face of Moses proclaiming
the Law (which was unto death) but not on the face of Christian
teachers : ‘‘ Having such a hope [as I have above described] we use
great do/dness—and not as Moses used to put the veil on his face®.”’
?
1 [1917 (iv) 2] Comp. Rom. i. 16 ‘* For I am ot ashamed of the Gospel, for it
is the power of God...to the Jew first and also to the Greek” with 1 Cor. 1. 23—4
“ We preach Christ crucified—unto Jews a stumbling block and unto Gentiles
foolishness, but, unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the
power of God and [Christ] the wisdom of God.”
22 Cor. ii. 17 “watering down” or ‘making merchandise” kamn)evortes,
“of sincerity” é& eiduxpuvelas, ill. 4 ‘‘confidence,” memol@ynow.
3[1917(v)a] 2 Cor. iti. 12 e@xovtes ov rova’rny éAmida mon mappyola
Xpwueba.... Comp. 2 Cor. vil. 4, Eph. ii. 12, vi. 19, Phil. i. 20, Col. 1. 15,
1 Tim. iii. 13, Philem. 8, Heb. iii. 6, iv. 16, x. 19, 35; also Acts xx. 20 ovdev
Umeorekduny, at first limited by trav cuudepdyvtwy, but repeated xx. 27 ov yap
UmrecTEiNaunv TOU mH avayyerhar Tacay Tiv BovAny T. Oeov uty, where ‘‘all the
counsel of God” implies the fore-ordained sacrifice on the cross, which was, to
some, ‘‘foolishness” or ‘‘a stumbling block.”
29
[1917 (vi)] ADVERBS
Philo, describing the freedom of speech used by Abraham toward
God, classes zappyoia among ‘‘admirable virtues,” the sign of a
‘**s00d conscience,” and quotes with approval the saying of a comic
poet that a slave may be a storehouse of knowledge and yet “a
rascal” unless you “give him a spice of zappyoia'.” Arrian, too,
publishing the sayings of Epictetus, just as he had heard them,
describes them as intended to be “notes to remind himself of the
teacher’s understanding and zappyota’.” Epictetus had been a
slave ; but his teaching is permeated with a twofold zappynoia. He is
free from all misgivings as to the truth of his teaching; he is also
absolutely free from personal fear as to the consequences of uttering
what he thinks right to utter.
[1917 {vi)] These facts may well explain the prominence given
by John to Christ’s zappyoia, and the different circumstances in
which he mentions it—so as to suggest that traditions might vary
about it and yet might be reconciled. For example, Christ’s brethren
urge Him, indirectly, to “take a bold attitude*.” He refuses, at the
moment, because His ‘hour was not yet come.” Soon afterwards,
the multitude is represented as “not speaking éo/d/y through fear of
the Jews,” and this timid multitude testifies to Christ, ‘‘ Behold, he
speaketh dofdély*.” Later on, it is said that Jesus would no longer
walk and teach “édo/dly” among the Jews; but this is almost
immediately followed by His final journey to Jerusalem and to
death’. To the Jews, who say “If thou art the Christ, tell us doZdZy,”
He replies in a dark saying; yet to the High Priest He protests
“T have spoken do/d/y to the world®.” The impression left by these
1 [1917 (v) 4] Philo i. 473 ws kal TO Kwutxdy aWevdds wadov 7) KwuLKas elpjaBac
doketv—
“Av wav’ 6 Sod\os jovxagfwr pavdavyn
Ilovnpos €orar* meradidov rappyoias.
2 [1917 (v)c] Letter of Arrian to Gellius, introducing the Déssertations: Ovre
cuvéypawa ey Tovs “Emixrjrov Adyous orws brws dv Tis avyypawee Ta ToLavTa:
otire é&jveyka els dvOpwrous altos bs ye ovdE auyypawar Pnul. boa dé HKovoy a’rov
héyorTos, Taira adra ereipdOny, arots dvouacw ws oldy Te HY ypawduevos, bromy7-
para els orepoy éuavT@ duapuddea ris éxelvov diavoias kal mappnolas. Aristotle
Eth. Nic. iv. 3. 28 says that the weyadéWuxos must be mappyoragrixds. Plutarch
il. 68—g (De Adulatore 27—9) has a long discussion on the good and bad wappysla
rather inclining against rappyolay kuvixhy Kk. Nbyous Tpaxeis.
® See 1917 (i), where Lightf. is quoted as rendering Jn vii. 4 ‘‘assume a bold
attitude.”
ANViie 1350205 CEP Sy bye ly ule 6 x. 24, xvili. 20.
30
ADVERBS [1918]
superficial inconsistencies is that our Lord always spoke “ boldly,”
but not always “clearly,’—at least not clearly to the disciples
because the disciples were ‘‘not able to bear!” the clear and full
doctrine as yet. They also suggest a probability that John may
have had in view misunderstandings arising from the doctrine of
Mark, that “Jesus taught the word boldly.” Perhaps, too, he may
have had before him a version of Mark like that of SS, namely,
that Christ would “77se from the dead and speak the word boldly” :
for this is very much lke the Johannine tradition, “The hour
cometh when I shall no longer speak to you in proverbs, but shall
announce to you wethout reserve concerning the Father’.”
(0) Tayeion
[1918] Tayevoy (or ta xXu0v) occurs in xiii. 27 and xx. 4 “the other
disciple ran on before more quickly than Peter.” In N.T., it occurs
also in Hebrews xul. 19 (R.V.) ‘that I may be ¢he sooner restored to
you,” and xii. 23 “if he come (R.V.) shortZy,” but the meaning is
doubtful (2554 2)*. John also uses both raxéws and tayv*. We
pass to the important passage xlll. 27 6 rovets woinoov taxevov. R.V.
renders this “do guickly.” But it seems reasonable to suppose that
John does not use the form tayewov exactly like taxyéws and tayv.
And it makes excellent sense to suppose that Judas, who had not been
originally purposing to commit the act of treachery on that night, was
t SAialo: 1p
? [1917 (vi) @] xvi. 25. It is interesting to note that the disciples, in spite of
this warning as to the need of waiting for the mappyola, persist in affirming that
Christ already speaks (xvi. 29) €v wappnolia. It should be added that zappnoia occurs
(5 or 6) in Canon. LXX, but only once (cf. Oxf. Conc. Ley. xxvi. 13 “upright,”
z.e. ‘‘with head erect as freemen”) with correct Heb. equiv. Levy iv. 103—4
says that the Hebraized word may mean (1) ‘‘publicly,” (2) ‘‘mit lauter
Stimme.”’
3 [1918 a] The Thesaurus indicates that @accov is frequently used (perhaps
meaning @arrov \éyou, ‘‘quicker than one can tell it”) for ‘‘at once,” as it is also
in the second book of Maccabees iv. 31, v. 21, xiv. 11 (A.V. ‘‘in all haste,” ‘no
sooner but”), and rdxuov is also thus used, though not nearly so many instances are
given. Tdxcov occurs thus in Diod. Sic. and in Plut. AZoral. 240 D ‘Unless you
turn the stranger (Eev’ANov) out of doors at once, he will corrupt you.” It belongs
to vernacular Greek and is condemned by Phrynichus.
+ [1918 4] xi. 29 raxv, xi. 31 Taxéws. In Wisd. xiii. g, r¢4yeov means ‘“‘sooner.”
In 1 Mace. ii. 40 édv...ut Torennowmer...vdv TAXLOV Nuds dNEOpevdaovc.y, the context
allows the meaning to be (1) “quickly” or (2) ‘‘all the more quickly,” ‘‘sooner.”
In view of general usage, (2) is probable. In N.T., raxéws, év rdxet, and raxv,
are all in use, so that there was no lack of words to express ‘‘quickly”’ regularly
and accurately. On the variation in xi. 29—31, see 2554 0.
Yo]
Sik
[1919] ANACOLUTHON
driven to quicker action by the words of Jesus. In other words, Judas
had in his mind some thought similar to that expressed by the chief
priests in Mark and Matthew’, ‘‘Not on the feast day lest there be
an uproar of the people”: but he was forced to do the deed “more
quickly.” And so it was brought about that the crucifixion took
place on the Day of the Passover. Luke omits all mention of this
original intention to delay the arrest of Christ. If John’s raye.ov
refers to it, it is one of the many instances where Luke omits and
John intervenes.
ANACOLUTHON
(i) Generally
[1919] Anacoluthon? (lit. “ot following”) is the name given to
a grammatical irregularity wherein, though the meaning may be clear,
what is expected to follow does not follow, e.g. xv. 6 (R.V.) “Ifa man
(71s) abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch and is withered ;
and they gather ¢hem (atra) [7.e, the branches] and cast them into the
fire.” Here “as a branch” is simile, but “he is withered” is
metaphor: and strictly ‘‘¢Zem” ought to be “‘z¢.” Moreover, the
following words tell only what becomes of the branches, not what
becomes of the man. But the sentence is clear in meaning and calls
for little comment.
(ii) The Subject suspended
[1920] Several instances may be illustrated by the Hebrew
custom of putting the subject at the beginning of a sentence, and
then repeating it as a pronoun, e.g. ‘‘ Zhe Lord, he is God.” So in
Revelation (iii. 12, 21) ‘* He that conquereth (6 wer)” is followed by
“J will make Aem a pillar,” “I will give Zo him.” Somewhat more
correct Greek is given earlier (Rev. ii. 7, 17) “‘To him that con-
quereth I will give to him.” Compare Josh. ix. 12 otrou oi aprov...
epwdiacOnpev adrovs, Ps. cili. 15 avOpwros, woe XOpTos at iEpar
avrov etc. The following passages may be thus explained.
§ Pp g y
1 Mk xiv. 2, Mt. xxvi. 5.
* The Johannine passages quoted under this head are i. 15, v. 44, Vi- 39>
vii. 38, 49, Vill. 53, x. 35—6, xii. 35, xiii. 29, xv. 2—6, xvii. 2, xx. 18, xxi. 12:
also 1 Jn ii. 24—7.
i)
Los)
ANACOLUTHON [1923]
[1921] vi. 39 ‘‘...In order that a@// (wav) that he hath given me
I may lose none of it”; vil. 38 “‘ He that believeth (6 moredvwv)...
rivers...shall flow from his belly”; x. 35—6 “* Whom (ov) the Father
sanctified...do ye say [to him] ‘Thou blasphemest,’” best explained
as [éxeivos] ov (in the light of the preceding passages); xv. 2—5
“Every dranch (kAjpa) in me that beareth not fruit he taketh it
away...and every [one] (zav) that beareth fruit he purifieth it...4e
that abideth ( 6 wévwv) in me and I in him, Ae (otros) beareth much
fruit” ; xvii. 2 “‘In order that a// (wav) that thou hast given to him
[z.e. to the Son] he [z.e. the Son] should give to them eternal life.”
Here, grammatically, the meaning would be that the Son should gzve
all that He has received from the Father, namely, eternal life. But the
meaning is that He should give eternal life to the whole Church
(comp. vi. 39 above). See 2422.
[1922] 1 Jn ii. 24—7 “ Ye (emph.) (vets), that which ye heard
from the beginning—let it abide in you. If in you there abide that
which ye heard from the beginning, ye also shall abide in the Son and
[in] the Father...And ye (emph.) (vets), the chrism that ye received
from him abideth in you, and ye have no need that any man should
be teaching you.” Here the writer emphasizes those that confess
Christ (‘‘ye”) as opposed to those previously mentioned, who deny
Him; and he may perhaps have begun by intending to say, “ Ye,
abide ye (imperat.) in the Son.” But he deviates into saying,
“Jet the chrism of the Son abide in you and then ye will abide
in the Son.”
Having regard to the instances in which the initial word (‘4e that
conquereth,” “Ze that believeth,” “ye”) is clearly nominative, it is
probable that it is nominative in other cases, where the ambiguous
neuter (zav, kAjnua) would allow the accusative.
(iii) Digression
[1923] In the last section, anacoluthon sprang from the desire to
insist and repeat. More often it digresses, e.g. in v. 44 “ How can ye
(emph.) believe, receiving glory from one another and—the glory that
[is] from the only God ye see& not?” The writer perhaps began with
the intention of saying “receiving from one another...and zot
seeking from God,” and then strayed away into the definite statement
“ye seek not.” In vii. 53 ‘‘Art thou greater than our father
Abraham, who (cots) is dead? and the prophets are dead; whom
A. VI. 33 3
[1924] ANACOLUTHON
makest thou thyself?,” as in the preceding example, the writer
deviates from the logical continuation of the interrogative (‘‘and
greater than the prophets who are dead?”) into a more brief and
trenchant affirmation. This deviation is favoured by cotts arebaver,
which may imply an affirmation, “ JVow he (or, for he) is dead,” so as
to prepare the way for a second affirmation. In xii. 35 ‘‘ Walk as
(ws) (2201) ye have the light, lest (iva yu) the darkness overtake you
and [then]—he that walketh in the darkness knoweth not where he
goeth,” the speaker digresses from a particular consequence (“and lest
ye walk in darkness and know not ”) into a general one (‘“‘and then—
what is the consequence? A man that walketh in darkness, knoweth
not whither he goeth ”).
[1924] It was pointed out above (1919) that after mentioning
“branch” John speaks of “hem” instead of “zz.” So he has
vii. 49 “This multitude that understandeth not the Law—|they] are
{all] accursed (éraparoé ciow),” which is more emphatic than the
singular. Also xxi. 12 ‘No one (ovdes) of the disciples was bold
enough to question him, ‘Who art thou?’ Anowing [all of them|
(«iddéres) that it was the Lord,” though ungrammatical, is brief and
clear’.
(iv) Impressionism
[1925] Anacoluthon in John often proceeds from his desire to
let readers receive impressions of things in his pages as they receive
them in nature, that is to say, first seeing the most striking of a
group of things at a glance, and then gradually taking in the rest.
In order to effect this, he may even deliberately let pass a statement
that he afterwards corrects, as where he says that Jesus was baptizing
and then adds that He Himself did not baptize, but His disciples
did (iii. 22, iv. 1—z2). Take, for example, the way in which he
introduces (a) the Baptist’s testimony concerning the coming of
Christ, (4) Mary Magdalene’s testimony concerning the Resurrection :
(a) i. 15 (W.H. marg.) “Iwavns paptupet epi atrod Kal Kéxpayev
e pS 4) > ec a — c ,
A€ywv, Otros jv ov etrov: 6 driow (or,...6v etrov “O dricw) pov
1 (1924a] Clear so far as concerns the pl. But the participle, in such a
context, suggests two interpretations, (r) ‘‘They did not dare to question ¢hough
they knew it was he,” (2) ‘‘They did not dare to question decause they knew it
was he.”’ The Latin has the pl. part., SS has ‘‘decawse they were believing that
it was he,” (Walton) ‘‘szzce they knew that it was our Lord.” See 2273.
34
ANACOLUTHON [1927]
€pxomevos...(W.H. txt A€ywv—otros Hv 6 cirwv—O dricw...)’,
(6) xx. 18 épxerar Mapua, y Maydadnvy ayyéd\Novea rots pabyrais
ott “Ewpaka Tov KUplov Kal TadTa. elTev avTy.
[1926] In the latter (6), W.H. give no various reading: but
A.V. follows a text (similar to that of D and some Latin versions)
that creates regularity by turning both clauses into reported speech,
““M. M. came and told the disciples that ske had seen the Lord and
[that] he had spoken these things unto her®.” The true text, however,
gives prominence to the all-important words—all-important, at least,
for the speaker—“ I have seen the Lord.” ‘Then there is a drop into
reported speech (‘‘and he said these things to her,” where “these
things” refers to the message just recorded by the evangelist and
therefore not repeated). Some might have expected or: to be omitted
before the direct speech, and to be inserted before the reported
speech. But the writer reverses this, apparently using o7c (2189—90)
to mean “these were her words,” as the sign of quotation, (lit.)
“There cometh M. M. bringing tidings to the disciples that”—
Z.e. these were her words—‘‘/ have seen the Lord’—and [that]
he said these things to her’®.”
[1927] In the earlier passage (a) above quoted (1925), we should
expect ovtos Av dv (or, Tepi ov) elroy or1—if the meaning had been
“This was he [concerning] whom I said ¢#a¢t he that cometh after
me is become before me*.” Consequently we are led to another
1 [1925 a] The best Mss. give o exrwy: but (1) SS (Burk.) supports W.H.
marg., (2) the scribal difference turns on a point on which the evidence of B is
comparatively weak, (3) the sequence of similar syllables, O€1TOOOTTICW, may
have been a special cause of confusion (1961, 2650—2).
2 [1926 a] SS has ‘‘and the things which he revealed to her she said to them,”
D kat a evrev aurn eunvvoev (d adnuntiauit) avros, a ‘tet haec dixit illi,’’ 4d ‘et
haec dixit,” /‘‘et omnia quae dixit ei,” e ‘‘et quae dixit ei manifestavit.”’ Con-
fusion may have arisen from reading TAYTAEITTEN as TAYTAAEITTEN and from
supplying what then seemed needful to complete the sentence.
% [19264] Jn xiii. 29 ‘‘ For some thought...that Jesus was saying (Aéyec) to
him [z.e. to Judas Iscariot] Buy (dydépacov) the things we have need of for the
feast, or, that he should give something to the poor (7 Tots mrwxots iva Te 6@)” is
perhaps hardly to be called anacoluthon, but rather variation, the sentence passing
from a direct to an indirect imperative. The change seems to be one from definite-
ness to vagueness, from the authoritative ‘‘buy ” to ‘‘instructions about giving ”—
as to which Judas, the (Jn xii. 6) ‘‘ thief,” might be supposed to need a stimulus
(‘do (1918) more quickly ”’).
4 [1927 a] For the construction of the relative, comp. Jn viii. 54 dv duels Né-yere
Ort...
35 Sea
[1928] APPOSITION
rendering, ‘‘ This was he that I sazd,” i.e. ‘‘meant, or contemplated,
[in all my utterances]” ; and the following words (‘‘ He that cometh ”)
may be a new statement of the Baptist’s. Later on, the Baptist uses
a preposition, thus “This is [Ze] 7 behalf of whom (or, about whom)
I said, ‘After me cometh a man...’.’” It is reasonable to infer that in
the first passage the Baptist must not be supposed to mean “zx behalf
of whom (or, about 7whom),” for else the evangelist would not have
varied the phrase*. On the whole we may believe that, at some cost
of immediate clearness of detail, the evangelist wishes to put briefly
before his readers the essence of the Baptist’s testimony as being,
from the beginning, twofold :—in the first place one of prediction, or
anticipation, in the next place one of subordination. Then he can
fill in the details afterwards. The first point is that when Jesus first
appeared, the Baptist at once testified ‘‘ This was he that J said,” the
second, “ After me yet before me.” Later on, he connects the two.
At first he places them side by side without connexion’.
AORIST, see Index
APODOSIS, see Index
APPOSITION
(i) With proper names
[1928] Apposition is a method of expressing the phrase “ that is
to say” without writing it, by ‘‘apposing” a second word with a case-
ending to a first word with the same case-ending, as in xi. 16
“Thomas, [tat ts to say] he that is called Didymus,” xx. 24
“Thomas, [that is to say| one of the Twelve, [that ts to say] he
that is called Didymus,” vi. 71 “This man (z.e. Judas Iscariot) was
1 Jn i. 30 ovrds éorw Urep ob éyw elrov, ‘Orlcw wou Epxera avip....
2 [19274] See 2360, 2369—70. Supposing vzrép to be used for rept ‘* concern-
ing,’ as it is used by many authors, the argument will still hold good, that John
would not have used wép ov to denote exactly the same thing as ép.
3 [1927] After all attempts at explanation it remains difficult to understand
how any writer—and particularly one that shews himself so subtle and careful
occasionally in distinguishing various shades of meaning—could here express
himself with such extraordinary irregularity, abruptness, and obscurity. Possibly
we have here (1892) some clause of ancient tradition inserted with the result of
dislocating the context. The expression ‘‘ This was he that I said’”’—if it means
longing expectation—is similar to that in Zhe Gospel of the Hebrews (1042) ‘‘ Fili
mi, in omnibus Prophetis exspectabam te.”
30
APPOSITION [1929]
destined to deliver him up [(?) ¢Aat zs ¢o say] one of the Twelve,” xii. 4
“Judas Iscariot, [that zs to say] one of his disciples, he that was
destined to deliver him up.” This construction conduces to brevity
and force, but sometimes to obscurity as is seen in the above queried
vi. 71 ovtos yap eueAAevy rapadiddvar attrov—eis ek THv dwdexa. This
may be mere apposition, but it may be an abbreviation of «is ay,
‘being one,” understood to mean ‘‘¢hough he was one’.” ‘There
is also serious ambiguity in xix. 25 ‘His mother and the sister of
his mother Mary the [daughter] of Clopas and Mary Magdalene.”
Here it is impossible to tell, from the text apart from other evidence,
whether ‘“‘the sister of his mother” is ‘Mary the [daughter] of
Clopas,” or whether they are two persons.
(ii) In subdivisions
[1929] Apposition is used after a broad statement to define its
parts. But the first of the instances given below is not a certain
one. John is referring to a previous statement that Jesus “found
in the Temple ¢hose that were selling oxen and sheep and doves.”
What follows may mean that Jesus (il. 15) “drove all [of them] out
of the Temple, doth sheep and oxen (ravtas é&€Bahev éx Tod iepod, Ta
Te mpoBata Kat Tovs Bdas),” z.e. the men and what they sold, indicating
that “all [of them]” included their belongings, ‘‘sheep sellers and
ox sellers, sheep and oxen.” And this may be his meaning in using
7te—which occurs nowhere else in this Gospel without introducing
a verb. If so, the instance is appositional. Whatever the con-
1 [1928 a] Comp. Mk xiv. 10’I. "Ick. 6 els rév dwdexa, Mt. xxvi. 14 els T. SW.
6 Neyomevos “I. “I., Lk. xxii. 3 “lovdav rov Kadovmevoy “Iok., dvTa ex Tod apiOmod T.
5wd., where Mk’s 6 is very curious. Later on, W.H. read Mk xiv. 43 [6] ’I., eds 7.
6., parall. to Mt. xxvi. 47 “I. es 7. 6., Lk. xxii. 47 0 Aeyduevos I. els 7.5. In
illiterate Gk Mss. of the rst cent., o and w being interchanged, the participle wv
might be written o and confused with the article.
[1928 4] It is worth noting that, in John, these appositional constructions have
to do with (a) Thomas, who was called by some (Zc. 476. 5058) ‘* Judas Thomas,”
with (4) Judas Iscariot, and (xiv. 22) with (c) ‘* Judas not Iscariot ’’—all of whom
might need to be distinguished. But in other cases also, when the Gospels came
to be read publicly in sections, there would be found great use and clearness in
appositional clauses defining personality at the beginning of a section, even though
such a clause had been already inserted on the introduction of the character in an
earlier section.
2 [1929 a] Te occurs only thrice in this Gospel. The other two instances are
iv. 42 TH Te yuvatki €Xeyor, vi. 18 7 TE Oddacoa...dueyelpero. In il. 15, A.V. has
“‘drove them all out...and the sheep,” RK.V. ‘cast a// out of the temple, doth the
37,
[1930] APPOSITION
struction may be, the context implies that Jesus dealt in one way
with the sellers of cattle and in another with the sellers of doves.
[1930] R.V., in v. 3 “A multitude of them that were sick
(acGevovvrwv), blind, halt,” apparently takes the participle as paradlel
to the adjectives; but A.V. takes the participle as zucluding them,
“a multitude of impotent folk,” z.e. ‘of blind, halt....” In that case,
the construction is appositional. If the former had been intended,
we should have expected doGevys the adjective, or some more special
word, such as “paralysed.” Other instances of subdivisional
apposition in v. 29, ix. 2, xx. 12, are perfectly clear, and call for
no comment.
(ii) Explaining, or defining (not with Participie)
[1931] In most of the following instances the writer places at or
near the end of a sentence some word or clause introduced without
any preparatory or connecting word. Often, but not always, the clause
is of such a nature that we may suppose it to have taken the hearer
by surprise, when first uttered. They may be conveniently grouped
here together and discussed severally in 1932—6.
i. 45 “[Him of] whom Moses...wrote...we have found—/esus,
son of Joseph, the | Jesus] of Nazareth” ; iii. 13 ‘‘ He that came down
from heaven—¢he Son of man”; vi. 4 “ Now there was at hand the
passover, the feast of the Jews” (W.H. enclose “at...passover” in
half brackets. Contrast vil. 2) ; vi. 27 ‘‘ For him did the Father seal
—God”; vi. 71 ‘For this [man] was destined to deliver him up—
one of the Twelve,” t.e. probably ‘‘ though he was one of the Twelve” ;
vii. 2 “ Now there was at hand the [great] feast of the Jews—the
feast of tabernacles” ; viii. 40 “‘ Ye seek to kill me—(lit.) a man, [me]
who have spoken to you the truth” (As to this difficult passage, see
1934—5) ; vii. 41 “‘ We have one Father—God” ; viii. 44 ‘“ Ye are of
[your] father—the devil” ; ix. 13, 18 “They bring him (avrév) to the
Pharisees—(lit.) ‘he once blind [man] (tov wore tudpdov)”...‘ they
called his parents—[¢he parents of] him that had recovered sight'” ;
sheep and the oxen.” The former is hardly in accordance with Gk idiom. But
in a writer so fond of parenthesis as Jn the meaning might be, ‘‘ He cast them all
out of the temple—both the sheep and the oxen [did he cast out]—and he poured
forth the money....”
1 [1931 a] Tovds yovets atrod rod dvaB\éWavros (which, strictly, belongs to
apposition with participle, 1937), would mean, in ordinary Greek, ‘‘the parents
of the very man that had recovered sight.” But this, besides making poor sense,
38
APPOSITION [1932]
xii. 46 “I (emph.), Zgh¢, have come into the world”; xiii. 14 “If
I (emph.), then, have washed your feet—/he lord and the teacher...”
(perhaps generally interpreted as meaning “‘¢ough I am the lord
and the teacher,” but possibly meaning “‘ decawse I am the lord and
the teacher,” if Christ assumed that it was the attribute of the lord to
serve); xiv. 16, 26 “And another Paraclete shall he give to you...the
Spirit of truth,” “ But the Paraclete, “le Holy Spirit...he shall teach
you”; xv. 26 “But when the Paraclete shall have come—the Spirit
of truth”; xvii. 3 ‘‘ That they may grow in the knowledge of thee,
the only true God, and of him whom thou sentest—/esus Christ” ;
xvill. 16 “The other disciple—the friend (6 yvworeos) of the high
PrIesty<:.”
[1932] Some of the above quoted instances require little
comment, being simply short and sudden ways of implying ‘‘//at
is to say,” or ‘‘and it ts,” e.g. (vill. 41, 44) “We have one Father
[and it is| God,” “Ye are of [your] father [and ct ts] the devil.”
Similarly xviii. 16, “the other disciple, the friend...”
he was, as I said before, a friend of the high priest, and hence he was
able to introduce Peter into the house.” In 1. 45, “son of Joseph”
and “of Nazareth” are mentioned abruptly by Philip as attributes
of the Messiah, whom he accepts. In 1. 46 and vi. 42 the same
phrases are mentioned as reasons for rejection’. The abruptness
with which Philip obtrudes them (so to speak) on the learned
Nathanael (who is shocked by ‘‘Nazareth”) may be intended
to illustrate Philip’s character and faith. In il. 13 the words
“coming down from heaven” followed, not by “the Son of God,”
o
but by “the Son of man?,” stimulate the reader to think of what was
means “‘xozw
would be a rare Johannine usage. In the only Johannine instance of avros 6
applied to persons (xvi. 27) ‘‘The Father A2mse/f (atros yap 6 maryp),” it means,
‘““of himself” (2374)—that is, unsolicited by me. These clauses (‘‘the once
blind” etc.) are not needed for clearness. They suggest the reason for the ‘‘ bring-
ing” and the ‘“‘calling.” More amply it might be expressed by ‘‘ Here,’ said
they, ‘is the man that was once blind,” or ‘full of astonishment at the cure
of the man that was once blind.”
1 [1932 a] Also in vii. 42, ‘‘ Nazareth” is (in effect) tacitly indicated as an
objection, by the mention of ‘‘ Bethlehem” as the foreordained birthplace of the
Messiah.
2 [1932 6] R.V. adds ‘‘which is in heaven”: but this clause is not even placed
in the marg. by W.H., being absent from the best Mss. and from ancient quotations,
which stop short, omitting these words (W.H. ad /oc.). Probably a feeling of
abruptness and paradox originated the interpolation (if it is one).
sy
[1933] APPOSITION
meant by ‘“‘heaven,” and “‘coming down.” In xiv. 16, 26, xv. 26,
emphasis is laid on the Paraclete, or Advocate, as not being one of
the ordinary kind—the kind that takes up a client’s cause, good or
bad, and makes the best of it—but as being ‘‘o/y,” and—which is
twice repeated—‘“‘a Spirit of truth.”
[1933] In the above quoted xii. 46 “I, “ght (éyw das), have
come into the. world,” the appositional clause comes exceptionally
near the beginning of the sentence. It is not parallel to i. 2 “From
God thou hast come a /eacher',” because the emphasis in the former
lies on “‘/, Zigh¢,” but in the latter on “Zrom God” (and the pronoun
“thou” is not expressed). It may mean, either, ‘I, ¢hough I am
and have been Light from the beginning, have come into this world
of darkness,” or, ‘I, decawse I am Light, and éecause it is the mission
of Light to enlighten, have come into the world.” The reader is
probably zztended to think of both these meanings and to prefer the
/atter, as being in harmony with the saying in the Prologue, “There
was the Light, the true Light, enlightening every human being—
coming [as it does continually| into the world.”
[1934] In viii. 40, there is a very great difficulty fully appreciated
by Origen and Chrysostom, and by the translators of some Latin
versions. Our Lord is proving to the Jews that they are not true
children of Abraham: “If ye are children of Abraham, the deeds
of Abraham ye are doing (2078—9). But as it is ye are seeking
to kill me, (lit.) @ human being (or man, avOpwrov), who have told you
the truth, which I heard from God’.” On this Origen has frequent
comments, trying (2412 a) to explain the insertion of ‘‘human being”
on the ground that it refers to Christ’s human nature, which alone
can be killed etc.* It is difficult to accept these explanations, and
Chrysostom dispenses with the need of them by dropping “ Auman
being” thus: “Ye seek to kill me decause (67) I have told you the
truth.” Also two Latin versions (/ and e) have “hominem qui
locutus est” (‘‘a man that fas,” not “a man, me who have”).
Doubtless either Origen is right in thinking that “human being” has
some definite and emphatic meaning, or Chrysostom is right in
thinking that the text must be altered.
[1935] But the text may be retained and may receive a very
natural and beautiful meaning if we suppose that our Lord assumed
1 Amd Jeod éXfAvOas diddoKaNos.
* Nov 6€ (nretré we arroxretvat, dvOpwrov dbs Thy ahjOecay buly NeNaAKA....
* Orig. Huet li. 262 A, 298 B, 413 B, and comp. 297 AB, 363 B.
40
APPOSITION [1936]
a connexion, in the minds of those whom He was addressing,
between “Abraham” and ‘‘man” (in the sense of “mankind” or
“human being”), and also between “Abraham” and “truth,” so that
Jesus might be understood to say “You say you are Abraham’s
children; but you do not act like him. He loved men and loved
God's truth. I ama man, and I am telling you God's truth, and
you are seeking to kill me.” Philo (ii. 30) speaks of Abraham’s “ove
of man (pirav6pw7rta)'” as being the natural accompaniment of his
piety. Abraham also is the first of Biblical characters to use the
words ‘‘brethren” and ‘‘men” together in a passage in which he sets
a precedent for peace-making. His words and his deeds all suggest
“humanity,” giAavOpwria. Again, the first mention of the word
“truth” in the Bible is connected with God’s manifestation of His
“kindness and ¢ruth” to Abraham®*. Moreover the statement (made
a little later on) that the Patriarch “saw the day” of the Messiah
“and rejoiced*,” implies—if at least the Messiah is the ideal of
humanity—that Abraham was the friend of man as well as the friend
of God. These considerations indicate the meaning of part of
this obscure passage to be, “Ye profess to be the children of
Abraham the friend of man, and yet ye desire to kill a man.”
[1936] On xvii. 3, “And this is life eternal, that they should
know thee, the only true God, and [him] whom thou sentest—
Jesus Christ,” Westcott (ad loc.) says, “(1) The use of the name
‘Jesus Christ’ by the Lord Himself at this time is in the highest
degree unlikely...(2)...‘the only true God’...recalls ‘the true God’
(1 Jn v. 20) and is not like any other phrase used by the Lord,
(3) the clauses, while perfectly natural as explanations, are most
strange if they are taken as substantial parts of the actual prayer.”
These arguments demonstrate that this is one of the many?‘ passages
where evangelistic explanation of a Logion or utterance of the Lord
has made its way into the Logion itself. But what distinguishes this
from other cases is, that the saying not only retains the second
person, but is also addressed to God. The Epistle says (1 Jn v. 20)
“...that we should know the true [One] and be in the true [One] in
1 [1935 a] Gen. xiii. 8 (Heb. and LXX) ‘ Let there be no strife, I pray thee,
between me and thee...(lit.) for men brethren [are] we,” drt dvOpwmra adedpol Ames
éouév. See Origen on Ps. Ixii. 3 “‘a@ man” (2412 a).
2 Gen. xxiv. 27. 3 Jn viii. 56. 4 See Index, ‘‘ Speech.”
41
[1937] APPOSITION
his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.” The
evangelist, or some editor, seems to have applied this definition of
“ eternal life” to the explanation of words in the Prayer (xvii. 2) “that
all that thou hast given him—he may give to them eternal life”; and,
in order to continue in the language of prayer, he perhaps changed
the “we” of the Epistle into “they,” and “the true One” into “thee,
the only true God.”
(iv) With Participle
[1937] Apposition between a noun and a participle with the
article may be ambiguous. For example, 6 xpurros 6 épxopmevos
might mean either (1) ‘‘ the Christ that is to come” (like Tennyson’s
‘“‘the Christ that is to be”), or (2) ‘‘the Christ, He that is to come.”
The former would not be true apposition but definition. Possibly
the first of the following instances may be of the nature of apposition,
although the participle has no article: i. 6 ‘“‘ There came into being
(éyévero) a man (av6pwros)—[one] sent from God (arectadpeévos rapa
Geod).” Here (a) éyévero seems to be contrasted with the previous
nv ini. 1 (“In the beginning was (jv) the Word”), (0) avOpwros, “a
man,” with 6 Aoyos, “the Word,” and (possibly) (c) arerraApevos rapa
“sent from the house of,” with jv mpos “was with” (‘the Word was
with God”).
[1938] i. 18 ‘Only begotten, God, HE THAT LS in the bosom
of the Father—he (emph.) declared him (Movoyevys, Oeds, 0 WN eis TOV
KoATrov Tod Tatpos—éexeivos eEnynoato).” The passage is one of great
difficulty : but it seems best to punctuate (differently from W.H.) as
though the Logos here receives three distinct titles. “Exetvos, 7.e.
“‘He, and he alone,” would be called an instance of apposition in
a classical author ; but, in John, it is the imitation of Hebrew idiom
for the purpose of emphasis (1920). Ini. 29 “The lamb of God—(?)
he that taketh away the sin of the world (6 apvos tod Geod—6 aipwv
TV apaptiav Tov Koopov),” theoretically the construction might be
non-appositional, ‘“‘the lamb that,” ze. “among lambs offered in
sacrifice this is the one that taketh away sin.” But practically the
evangelist’s fondness for apposition almost decides that the con-
struction is appositional here, “the Lamb of God, He that taketh
away the sin of the world.”
[1939] ii. 9 “But the attendants knew—~hose that had drawn
42
APPOSITION [1941]
the water (ot d& diaxovoe ydewcav, of HvTANKOTES TO Vdwp),” probably
apposition, “—([that is to say, not exactly the attendants, but only]
the men that had drawn the water.’ Non-appositionally it would
mean (as W.H. punctuate) “the attendants that had drawn,” #.e.
such of the attendants as had drawn. The meaning is the same
in both cases, but the way of putting things is different. If there
is apposition, it defines, or rather corrects, the larger and incorrect
statement ; and this corrective manner is a Johannine characteristic
(1925). Moreover, if the participle had been non-appositional it
would probably not have been separated from its noun by the
intervention of the verb. In iii. 29 “ But the friend of the bride-
groom, [that ts to say] he that standeth and hearkeneth unto him
(6 8& gidos Tod vupdiov, 6 EaTHKWS Kat aKovwv adrod),” the con-
struction is certainly appositional and W.H. punctuate it so. It
does not mean “That one of the bridegroom’s friends whose task it
is to stand and hearken.” ‘The ‘friend’ of the bridegroom” might
be expressed in modern English, ‘“‘The bridegroom’s ‘best man.’”
In iv. 25, “I know that Messias cometh—he that is called Christ
(M. épxerat, 6 Neyouwevos Xpioros),” the appositional clause is clearly
an evangelistic addition. On iv. 23 “seeketh such—namely, those
that worship him [in such wise],” see 2398.
[1940] In iv. 26 “I am [Messiah] (2205)—Ze that talketh to
thee (éyw eit, 6 NaAGv go)” the appositional clause is added as a
repetition of a statement so startling that the Samaritan woman
might hardly believe that she heard it rightly: ‘‘When I say ‘I,’
I mean ‘he that talketh to thee.’” In vi. 14 “This is of a truth
the prophet (?) [Ae] that is to come into the world (6 mpodytys (?)
6 épxyopevos),” W.H. place no comma after zpogytyns. But John
has, previously (i. 21), ‘Art thou ‘he prophet?” as though that were
a title by itself, familiar to the people; and Matthew and Luke
both represent the Baptist as sending to say to Jesus (Mt. xi. 3,
Lk. vii. 19) “Art thou he that is to come (6 épxopevos)?” On the
whole, the evidence of Johannine usage (1635—9) favours apposition,
“the prophet, he that is to come.” This applies also to xi. 27
‘“The Christ, the Son of God, he that is to come into the world.”
[1941] In xi. 45 “ Many therefore of (é«) the Jews,—those that
had come to Mary and beheld (7oXXoi obv ék tGv “Tovdaiwv, ot eAOovtes
mpos tv Mapiap, xai Oeaoapevor)...,” A.V. has ‘the Jews which
came.” R.V. inserts a comma, “the Jews, which came.” Perhaps
neither version would be generally understood to mean what the
43
[1942] APPOSITION
Greek means, namely, ‘‘ Many therefore of the citizens of Jerusalem!
—[by ‘many, I mean] those that had come to Mary?.”
[1942] The passage presents great difficulty. That John should
here use “Jews” not in his usual hostile sense but apparently to
mean citizens of Jerusalem (as also seemingly in xi. 18, 19, 31 and
xil. 9) need not surprise us much: but the sense seems to demand,
after “‘ Jews,” the genitive tov éX@dvrwr, “ Many therefore of the Jews
[I mean many] of those [ Jews] that had come to Mary...believed, but
some of them (1.¢e. of those Jews that had come to Mary] gave informa-
tion to the Pharisees.” This is actually the reading of D*. But
Origen, in a very long comment in which he mentions the phrase
“those that had come unto Mary” some seven or eight times,
gives express reasons why tov é\Oovrwy should not be read‘.
Chrysostom does not commit himself to anything definite in his
brief statement, ‘Some marvelled ; but others went and carried word
to the Pharisees’.”
1 [1941 a] Jn uses “Iovéaio: to mean citizens of Jerusalem in xi. 18, Ig, where
he says that, as Bethany was close to Jerusalem, “ many of ¢he Jews (apparently
meaning citizens) had come out to Martha and Mary to comfort them”: so, too,
in xi. 31 and in xii, 9, ‘the common people therefore of the Jews.” Elsewhere
(1702), the word ‘‘ Jews,” in Jn, is often almost synonymous with “‘ Pharisees.”
* [1941 4] “‘Many” is a relative term. It would probably mean a very much
larger number in (1) ‘‘AZany of the citizens died of the plague,” than in (2) “Many
of the citizens used to come out to see us as our village was only a couple of miles
off.” In xi. 45, there was need to define “many.” It needed no definition in
xl. 18—1g9 where the context defined it.
[1941] The difficult question remains, Why does Jn repeat a phrase (‘“ many
of the Jews”) that meant one thing above (xi. r8—19), and would mean quite
a different thing here—unless he hastened to explain it? The explanation may
be, that the original text presupposed some distinction between (xi. 19) those Jews
that “‘came to Martha and Mary,” and those that came to (? SS ‘“‘because of ”)
Mary at the tomb of Lazarus. Some may have remained in the house when Mary
went out of it. In that case, (1) ‘“‘the Jews” in xi. 45 mean the Jews above
mentioned, who ‘‘came to Martha and Mary.” (2) ‘‘ Many of these [Jews] ” had
“‘come to Mary” at the tomb of Lazarus and “believed.” (3) ‘‘ But some of these
[Jews]” did not come to Mary at the tomb, and these did not believe but gave
information to the Pharisees.
* [1942 a] SS, quite altering the sentence, has ‘ Many Jews that came unto
Jesus because of Mary from that hour believed in Jesus.”
4 Orig. Huet ii. 353.
® [1942 4] Cramer ad /oc., in an extract closely resembling Chrysostom’s context,
has yevouévou dé rod Oatuaros, ol uev éxlerevoay Trav Oeacapuévwr, ol Se annyyeAav
Trois Papisators—which commits itself to the view that the informers had beheld
the miracle.
44
APPOSITION [1944]
[1943] The impression left by Origen’s long commentary is that
he distinguishes the Jews that followed Mary to the tomb from other
Jews that remained in the house. All had come to comfort the two
sisters ; but only those that followed Mary, in the belief that she was
going to weep at the tomb, were by her means drawn out of the
house so that they unexpectedly met Jesus and witnessed the miracle.
Concerning these one might say, in the words of SS, that ‘they
came unto Jesus because of Mary.” Origen speaks of them as the
persons for whose sake the miracle was mainly wrought’. Perhaps
he regards them as a type of the Church or of the Jewish section
of it.
[1944] Justin Martyr and Irenaeus” regarded Rachel as the type
of the Church. Origen, according to an extract from Cramer, connects
Rachel with persons weeping for their children and not yet instructed
by the Resurrection of Christ, and says that she is a type of the
Church*. Whether Origen connected Rachel weeping for her
children with Mary weeping for Lazarus we do not know, as his
comment on the weeping is lost: but he compares the stone rolled
away by Jacob (for Rachel) with the stone rolled away from the
grave of Lazarus*. Origen censures Martha’s want of faith. Justin
says that Leah, because she had weak eyes, was a type of the
Synagogue, and Irenaeus says that Rachel was a type of the Church
because she ‘‘had good eyes.” By this is meant that Rachel could
discern the truth, which Leah could not. The Johannine narrative
does not justify anyone in drawing this marked distinction between
Martha and Mary; but it certainly leaves on us the impression that
Mary was in some way superior to Martha, and that in very ancient
times, ‘those that came to Mary” were regarded as typical of those
Jews ‘‘who came to Jesus because of Mary,” and that this coming
was associated with the message of Resurrection’.
1 [1943 a] Orig. Huet ii. 352 p. In what follows, he says that Jesus raised
Lazarus ‘‘that the majority of the Jews (oi wodXol, not wodXol), having come to
Mary (€A@dvres pos M., not oi €\Odyres)...might believe in him.” Then he adds,
‘The language is somewhat ambiguous.”
2 Tren. iv. 21. 3, Just. Mart. Zryph. 134.
3 Cramer on Mt. ii. 18. 4 Orig. Huet ii. 343 B.
5 [1944.2] This phrase (‘‘ those that came to Jesus because of Mary”) might
come into use in connexion with the part played by Mary Magdalene as the first
announcer of Christ’s Resurrection. A great deal remains to be explained about
the different Maries, about the sisters Mary and Martha, and the household of
45
[1945] APPOSITION
[1945] xii. 4 “Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples—ke that was
destined to deliver him up (cis tév pabytav aitov, 6 péAdAwv avTov
mapabiddvat).” Judas Iscariot has been previously mentioned in the
same connexion, vi. 71 “for he was destined (éuehXev) to deliver him
up—one of the twelve”: and now, reversing the clauses, John
repeats the statement, when explaining that the words xi. 5 “ Why
was not this ointment sold?” were uttered, not (as Matthew says)
by ‘the disciples,” or (as Mark says) by “certain persons,” but by
“one of his disciples,” namely, Judas Iscariot. It happens that Luke
omits, in his description of the Last Supper, the words of the Lord
reported by Mark and Matthew, “ Oxe of you shall deliver me up'.”
To these Mark alone adds “ One of the twelve’.” John follows Mark
and Matthew in the former statement, ““Oxe of you shall deliver me
up*”; and it is perhaps in view of this pathetic utterance of Jesus—
“one of you,” or “one of the twelve”—that he prepared his readers
for it at the very first mention of Judas Iscariot, and now repeats it.
(v) Noun repeated in Apposition
[1946] A noun is repeated in apposition in i. 14 “ And we beheld
his glory—g/ory as of [an] only begotten.” This is perhaps intended
to suggest that the “glory” cannot be defined by such words as
“light,” “splendour,” ‘“ brightness,” or. by anything except repetition,
with some qualifying phrase to denote unique personality.
(vi) Of Pronoun with preceding subject
[1947] On the apposition, or quasi apposition, of a pronoun with
a preceding subject, as in i. 33 6 méuas....éxetvos, see 1920 and
2386. Bruder (Moulton) p. 678 gives this construction (of 6 with
participle etc. followed by demonstrative pronoun) as occurring
Mk (3), Mt. (6) (including Mt. iv. 16 where it is a transl. of the Heb.
idiom in Is. ix. 1), Lk. (1), Jn (17). On xdxetvos thus used, see 2151.
Bethany. Besides many other variations, SS has the following in Jn xi. 5—45
“Now Jesus was loving to these three, the brother (and sisters) Mary, Martha,
Lazar (R.V. loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus)......(19) that they might
comfort Martha and Mary (R.V. to M. and M. to console them concerning their
brother)...(45) And many Jews that came unto Jesus because of Mary from that
hour believed in Jesus (R.V. Many therefore of the Jews, which came to Mary and
beheld that which he did, believed on him).”
1 Mk xiv. 18, Mt. xxvi. 21.
2 [1945 a] Mk xiv. 20 ‘‘One of the twelve, he that dippeth with me in the
dish,” Mt. xxvi. 23 ‘‘he that has dipped his hand with me in the dish,” omitting
‘one of the twelve.”
A | fale sVbig Care
46
ARTICLE [1949]
ARTICLE
(i) Before Nouns in general
[1948] The Fourth Gospel, more than the Three, represents
Jesus as using the Article to denote (1) ideals such as the Good
Shepherd, the Way, the Truth, the Door, the Life, and (2) types,
such as “the wolf,” “the porter,” ‘the bridegroom,” “the woman
[of the house],” ze. the wife’, “the grain.” In the last instance,
R.V. has xi. 24 “Except a grain of wheat (6 «oxKxos tov cirov) fall
into the earth,” perhaps from a sense that in English, though we
can say “the seed,” we could not say “the wheat-grain.” But we
lose in this translation the recognition of the fact that “¢he grain”
(no less than ‘“‘¢4e sower,” and “the earth”), was present before our
Lord as one of the familiar instruments, so to speak, in His Father’s
hand. Somewhat similarly Mark alone speaks of ‘‘¢he candle,”
where Matthew and Luke have dropped the article’.
(ii) Inserted, or omitted, before special Nouns
(Dee. athens:
[1949] vi. 58 “Not as ¢he fathers ate and died,” vil. 22 ‘“ Not
that it [ze circumcision] is from Moses but from fhe fathers.”
In vi. 58, “the fathers” must mean ‘the generation that re-
ceived the law and died in the wilderness.” But, in the New
Testament generally, ‘the fathers” means ‘‘the patriarchs” (and
especially Abraham) regarded as the original receivers of the Promises
of God*; and the language of the Epistle to the Hebrews, ‘God,
who...spake to the fathers in the prophets*,” is quite exceptional
(2553 ¢). Hence, in the Acts, when the people of Israel (and not
the Patriarchs) is denoted, “our” (or “ your”) is perhaps invariably
inserted®: and we should expect a Jew to speak and write “our
1 [1948 a] xvi. 21 7 yurn Grav Tixryn, z.e. the married woman, not ‘a
woman.” The meaning is “fe woman [of the home],” or ‘ housewife.”” Comp.
Ruth iv. 11 ‘‘ Like Rachel and like Leah, which two did éduz/d the house of Israel.”
Perh. there is allusion to this thought in the description of Jehovah as, so to speak,
building the butlder, Gen. il. 22 ‘‘he duz/t the rib into a woman.” See 1019.
2 [1948 4] Mk iv. 21 6 Adyvos, Mt. v. 15, Lk. viii. 16 Avxvov. A.V. has
even rendered 6 o7elipwy ‘‘a sower” (but R.V. “ the”) in Mk iv. 3, Mt. xiii. 3,
Lk. viii. 5. 3 Rom. ix. 5, xi. 28, xv. 8, Acts xiii. 32 (comp. 2 Pet. ili. 4).
2 Tal@loo ws it
5 [1949 a] Acts ili. 13, ili. 25 ((udv, marg. nua@v), Vv. 30, vil. (Stephen’s speech)
11, 12, 15, 38, 39, 44, 45 (d25), 51 (Omar), 52 (duar), xiii. 17, XV. 10, xxii. 14, xxvi. 6,
Xxvill. 25. Note that, amidst frequent repetitions of ‘‘ owr fathers” in the course
47
[1950] ARTICLE
fathers” when mentioning his own people. The preceding words
are, “This is the bread that came down from heaven,” whereas, in
this Gospel, Jesus is always (1952—8) represented as saying “ from
the heaven.” These facts suggest that vi. 58 may be an evangelistic
summary of the Doctrine of the Bread from Heaven.
[1950] In vii. 22 “‘ For this cause Moses gave you circumcision—
not that it is from Moses but from ¢he fathers—and on the sabbath
ye circumcise a man (1961),” the exact historic truth would
require, not ‘‘from the fathers,” but “‘from Adraham.” But “the
fathers,” meaning ‘‘the patriarchs,” might be loosely used to express
the fact that circumcision, beginning with the first of the Patriarchs,
was continued by the rest of them, and was thus passed on to Moses,
who, though he “gave,” did not originate it. If John wrote vi. 58
in his own person, but vi. 22 in the person of Christ, it is compara-
tively easy to explain how “the fathers” might mean “ Israel] in the
Wilderness” in the former, and ‘‘the Patriarchs” in the latter’. It
is more in accordance with the Johannine method of expression that
our Lord should speak of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as ‘the
fathers” than that He should give this name to the generation that
wandered forty years in the wilderness.
(2) “Feast”
[1951] vii. 2 “ Now there was at hand /he [ principal] feast of the
Jews, the feast of tabernacles (7 €op77) tév “I. 1 oxnvornyia).” Josephus
calls this (Anz. vill. 4. 1) “by far the most holy and important feast
among the Hebrews,” and (zd. xv. 3. 3) ‘most of all observed among
us.” John’s reason for calling attention to this is given in the
context. The brethren of Jesus urge Him to shew Himself in
of Stephen’s speech, ‘‘¢/e fathers” (according to W.H., following NBD) occurs
exceptionally thus, Acts vii. 19 “the same dealt subtilly with our race, and evil
entreated the fathers, that they should cast out their babes.” Is this to be explained
from the special context, as meaning ‘‘ the fathers of newly born children” ?
Stephen calls the sons of Jacob ‘the patriarchs (oi marpudpya) when they sell
Joseph, and ‘‘ our fathers” when they are sent to buy corn, and subsequently
(Acts vil. 9, 12, 15). In Acts iii, 22 (A.V.) the words ‘unto the fathers” are an
interpolation. The title (in Sir. xliv.) ‘‘[The] Song of [the] Fathers,” LXX tyvos
marépwy, is, in Heb., “ Praise of the Fathers of the World.”
1 [19502] Note that Jesus, in replying to the Jews (vi. 31 ‘four fathers ate the
manna”) has said vi. 49 ‘‘ your fathers ate the manna...and died” (comp. Mt.
Xxili. 30—2 ‘* Our fathers...your fathers”). An evangelist, commenting on this
in a Gospel for Greeks and Jews, not being able to say ‘‘ vous fathers,” might
substitute ‘‘ ¢he fathers.”
48
ARTICLE [1954]
public, ‘‘ Manifest thyself to the world,” and this particular feast was
the best occasion for obtaining publicity’.
(Ge) i“ Heaven?
[1952] The article is always used by John (16 times) with
“heaven” except in i. 32 “I have beheld (reOéapar) the Spirit
descending as a dove from heaven (é€ obpavod)” ; vi. 58 “This is the
bread that descended from heaven (6 e& oipavod katafas)—not as the
fathers ate and died—he that eateth this bread shall live for ever.”
Of the sixteen instances of ‘‘heaven” with the article, thirteen occur
in the phrase “from the heaven’.”
all the more remarkable.
[1953] Asa rule, “¢he heaven” means heaven regarded as a place
distinct from “ the earth,” whereas “‘ Zeaven” means what is heavenly
or divine as distinct from what is mortal or human. In the Synoptic
Tradition, ‘The doctrine of John, was it from heaven (e& 6.) or from
men®?,” “from heaven” means divinely inspired, but ‘‘from ‘he
heaven” would have implied a suggestion of an angelic message, or
vision (Acts xl. 5) “sent down from the heaven.” Different writers
might take different views of the Lord “hearing from heaven.”
Solomon in the book of Kings uses the article, Nehemiah does not*.
But the same author may reasonably be expected to take the same
view, and not to use the phrase with and without the article
indiscriminately.
[1954] John habitually represents Jesus as asserting that He has
come down “from ¢he heaven,” using the noun metaphorically in
a spiritual sense like ‘“‘the dosom of the Father,” “the /zgft of the
world,” “the dread of life” etc. If he had used the phrase “from
heaven,” it would have predicated about our Lord what might also
have been predicated—as we have seen above—concerning the
doctrine of John the Baptist. Therefore in the Fourth Gospel both
Christ and Christ’s doctrine, the Bread of Life, are said as a rule to
This makes the two exceptions
1 [1951a] In v. 1, Mera tatra nv éopryn Trav “lovéaiwv, Tisch. reads 4 éopr7.
But W.H. reject the article without alternative. SS has ‘‘a feast of the Jews.”
2 [1952 a] All have éx, except vi. 38 a7é.
Se LOS Sica Vlcuexd ome SONU Len exc Olnoun IU kxexcxauefey COX XVa1 14177 OMOEUT.EpOS
dv Opwros €& ovpavod, and 2 Cor. v. 2 70 €& ovpavod imply “ spiritual” as opposed to
‘“earthly,” ‘‘ fleshly.”’
4 [19534] 1 K. viii. 32, 34, 36, 39, 43, 44, 49 eloaxotoy éx Tod 6., Nehem. ix. 13
éddAnoas mpos avrovs €& 6., ix. 15 dprov c& 6. COwkas avrois, ix. 27 €& 6. cou jKovCaS,
ix. 28 é€& 6. eiojKovoas. Contrast also Ps. lili. 26 Oeods éx T. 6. duexuWev with Ps.
cii. 19 KUptos €& 6. él Ti yay éwéBdeYe.
A. VI. AQ 4
[1955] ARTICLE
have descended ‘“‘from ¢he heaven.” Thus John reverses the usual
custom of speech. Most writers would speak of “the birds of che
heaven,’ and would describe a bird as coming down “from fhe
heaven,” meaning “the sky,” whereas they would say that a prophet’s
message comes “from /eaven, not from earth.” But John prefers to
take ‘‘the heaven” as a materialistic term used by him always in
a metaphorical sense to imply that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Bread
of Life, was not merely of a heavenly origin but came down in
a unique manner from the abiding-place of the Eternal God.
[1955] What bearing has this on the first of the two above-
mentioned exceptions, 1. 32 ‘I have beheld the Spint descending as
a dove from heaven (e& 6.)” ? The answer is complicated by several
facts. (1) The Baptist is speaking, not our Lord, nor the
evangelist in his own person. (2) It is not clear whether ‘‘ from
heaven” should be taken with ‘‘as a dove” or with ‘‘ descending.”
(3) Mark and Matthew in their parallel description of the descent of
the Spirit, mention ‘‘ the heavens” and “from the heavens”: but Luke
has “ the heaven” and ‘from heaven.” If John had written ‘ from
the heaven,” it might have been taken literally in connexion with
‘“‘dove,” so as to mean ‘like a dove from the sky”; or it might
have been taken metaphorically, ‘“‘from the very habitation of God.”
Perhaps neither of these meanings is contemplated in the Fourth
Gospel. More probably John regarded the Baptist as speaking of a
vision that came ‘‘from heaven” and as using the ordinary phrase
about it. This phrase he places exceptionally in the Baptist’s mouth
in order to distinguish it, on the one hand, from any bodily dove
visible to all, and, on the other hand, from those unique spiritual
descents concerning which Jesus spoke, which were from “the
heaven of heavens.” See 685—724.
{1956] The other instance, vi. 58 ‘This is the bread that came
down from heaven” (otrés éotw 6 aptos 6 €€ ovtpavod KataBas),
follows, in the same chapter, no less than eight instances of ‘‘ bread
Jrom the heaven” or “come down from the heaven,” and, in particular,
vi. 50—1 “ This is the bread that is [continually] coming down /vom
the heaven...1 am the living bread that came down /rom the heaven.”
The two challenge, as it were, comparison or contrast. So do their
several contexts: (a) vi. 58 “ This is the bread that came down from
heaven—xot as the fathers ate and died; he that feedeth on (tpwyewr)
this bread shall live for ever,” (0) vi. 49—51 ‘‘ Your fathers ate tn the
wilderness the manna and died. ‘This is the bread that is continually
50
ARTICLE [1957]
coming down from the heaven ¢hat anyone may eat thereof and not die
(aro8avy) (or, be diable to death, arofvyoxy). 1 am the living bread
that came down from the heaven. // anyone eat of this bread he shall
Live for ever.”
[1957] The first point to be noted is that in (a) the passage
under discussion, the eaters of the manna are called “ ¢he fathers,”
but in (4) “your fathers.” This, as has been shewn above (1949),
may indicate that (4) is a saying of the Lord, while (a) is evangelistic
comment. The next point is that the anacoluthon, or breaking off,
implied in “not as (od xa@us),” is paralleled by Westcott here to 1 Jn
ill. r2 ‘““—not as Cain was of the evil one”; and neither here nor in
the Epistle does Westcott refer to any other N.T. instance of such a
construction’, These two peculiarities of John himself, as distinct
from the words of Christ recorded by John, when combined with
“from heaven” —instead of the phrase regularly assigned to Christ
(‘from the heaven”) both here and elsewhere—indicate that the
evangelist is here speaking in his own person and summing up the
whole of the Eucharistic discourse. According to this view, the
teaching of the Lord in the Synagogue at Capernaum concluded
with the words (vi. 57) “ He that feedeth on me, he also shall live for
my sake.” Then John himself thus sums up the doctrine and the
circumstances in which it is delivered: ‘‘ This is* the bread that came
down from heaven |not from men|—not as the fathers {of Lsrae/| ate in
1 [1957a] According to Bruder, ov xa@és—apart from 2 Cor. viii. 5 Kal ov
Kadws 7Aricawev—is purely Johannine, occurring in Jn vi. 58, xiv. 27, 1 Jn ili. 12:
in xiv. 27 (where it is in Christ’s words) the construction is quite regular.
2 [19574] ‘‘ This is” both in (a) and (4) is ambiguous. It may mean, ‘‘ 77s
[dvead] is the bread that came down,” or ‘‘ Zhzs [wean] is the bread that came
down (1974).”’ In Jn, Christ is never represented as saying obrés éorw except
here, and in His lips it probably means ‘‘ This [bread] is.” But it is quite
characteristic of Jn that he should repeat the words of.the Lord giving them their
inner sense ‘‘ This [az] is.” The phrase occurs several times in testimony to
Christ, i. 30 (from the Baptist) ‘ 77s zs he about whom I said,” i. 33 “* Zhzs zs
he that baptizeth,” i. 34 ‘* ZAzs 7s the Son (or, Chosen One) of God,” iv. 42 (from the
Samaritans) ‘‘ 7%zs zs in truth the Saviour of the world,” comp. vi. 14, vii. 40
“¢ Thts is in truth the prophet,” vii. 41 “* 72s zs the Christ.” In some of these
passages, ¢.g-1. 34, lv. 42, it comes at the close of a narrative. In xxi. 24 it comes
near the close of the Gospel, ‘‘ 7/zs 7s the disciple that testifieth these things.” In
the Epistle it occurs thrice: ii. 22 ‘‘ 77s 7s the antichrist,” v. 6.‘* 7zzs zs he that
came through water and blood,” v. 20 ‘‘ 77s 7s the true God and eternal life.”
The phrase comes appropriately in Jn vi. 58 as part of an evangelistic utterance
testifying to the truth of Christ’s Eucharistic doctrine. Comp. 2621—2,
51 4—2
[1958] | ARTICLE
the wilderness and died. He that feedeth on this bread shall live
for ever. These things he said in synagogue teaching in Caper-
naum.”
[1958] In i. 51, “ Ye shall see che heaven opened (perf.),” the
meaning is probably something quite different from a vision of
a “rending” in the sky such as might be inferred from Mark’s use of
the word “rend” in the description of Christ’s baptism. Taken in
conjunction with John’s context about “angels ascending and
descending,” the words (642) “promise a continuous revelation and
a permanent avenue opened up between heaven ”—the sf7ritual
heaven—“and earth.” The evangelistic use of the word with the
article in xi. 28 ‘There came therefore a voice from ¢he heaven,” and
in xvi. 1 “ Having lifted up his eyes to the heaven,” perhaps denotes
in both passages an outer and an inner meaning; for non-believers,
that lower heaven which men call ‘‘the sky”; for believers, “the
heaven of heavens?.”
(4) “Man”
[1959] In the following passages, “‘¢e man” is used (like “ che
dog,” “‘¢he vine” etc.) to mean “man in general,” ‘“ mankind,” or
“human nature”; Jn i. 24—5 “‘ But Jesus himself (2374) would not
trust himself to them because he understood all [men] (zavras) and
because he had no need that any one should testify about human
nature (lit. the man) because he himself (2374) could understand what
was in Auman nature (lit. the man).’ Mark alone has (11. 27) ‘the
sabbath was made for ¢#e man and not fhe man for the sabbath.”
But Mk vii. 15 ‘There is nothing outside the man (i.e. man tn
general) that, going into him, is able to defile him” is imitated
by Mt. xv. 11. In Genesis, vi. 5 ‘‘God saw that the wickedness
of the man, i.e. mankind, was great,” vill. 21 ‘‘the imagination of the
heart of the man, i.e. mankind,” LXX has ist “the men,” 2nd “ the
man.” Comp. Eccles. ill. 11 ‘so that ¢#e man cannot find out,”
where LXX has ‘‘ ¢e man,” but Aquila “man,” and i. 19 “the man
hath no preeminence above the beasts,” where LXX and Theod.
have “‘the man,” but Sym. “man.” So 1 Cor. il. 11 “ Who among
men knows the things of ¢he man?” i.e. the facts of human nature.
The Hebrew phrase is identical with “ ¢#4e Adam,” so that the Pauline
phrases ‘‘¢he old man,” and “ the new man,” are equivalent severally
' For ‘‘judgment-seat ” with and without the article, see 1745.
52
ARTICLE | [1960]
to (1) “the old Adam,” or “first Adam,” and (2) “ the last Adam,” or
* second man,” who is said to be ‘‘ from heaven.”
[1960] In vii. 51, “‘the man” may very well refer to previous
context, which describes an attempt on the part of the Sanhedrin to
arrest Jesus. Nicodemus, a member of the Sanhedrin, pleads that
Jesus ought at all events to be heard: “ Will (or, doth!) our Law
judge ¢he man except it first hear from him...?” Le. the man you have
been trying to arrest. The term is perhaps slightly contemptuous,
and exhibits Nicodemus as affecting to speak from a detached and
superior position—in spite of the fact that he has visited Jesus
by night. Somewhat similarly, in Matthew, Peter detaches himself
under pressure of fear, and, when he is questioned about his Master,
says, “I do not know ¢he man?.” In classical Greek, 6 av6pw7os
often means ‘‘the poor man,” “the poor creature,” and there is
probably a tinge of this mixture of pity and contempt in Pilate’s
saying (xix. 5) ‘“‘ Behold the man,” ze. “ Behold ¢he poor creature—
whom you are persecuting, and who is surely beneath your
hostility!” But Pilate, like Caiaphas (xi. 50), may also be regarded
as speaking ‘‘not from himself,” so that he unconsciously uses an
expression that may mean ‘‘ Behold ¢#e man!” ¢.e. the Man according
to God’s Image, the ideal Man*.
1 [1960 a] The scribe that accented B gives xpuve? fut., which favours the view
taken above; xpivec would favour the rendering ‘‘the man [from time to time
brought before the Law].” Comp. Lk. xix. 22 xpww—where W.H. (with most
Lat. vss.) have kpivww but R.V.
2 [19606] Mt. xxvi. 72, 74 Tov dvOpwrov, Mk xiv. 71 Tov d. TovTov dy
éyere. Lk. xxii. 58, 60 has dvOpwre. Mk softens the harshness, Lk. gets
rid of it.
3 (1960c] Epictetus’ use of the term is worth considering here. He uses it to
mean ‘the ideal man,” what Philo would call ‘‘the man according to the image
[of God],” St Paul ‘‘the new man,” and some ‘‘the Son of man.” It may be
briefly expressed by ‘‘ The Man”? in the following extracts: (ii. g title) ‘“‘ How
that, being unable to fulfil the promise implied in ‘ 7e AZan’ (rhv rot ’“AvOpwrou
émayyeNav mAnp&cat) we take in addition to [it] (mpooAauBdvouer) that of ‘ The
Philosopher,’ ”’ (ii. 9. 1 foll.) ‘‘ Beware, then, lest thou do aught as a wild beast !
Else, thou hast lost Ze Man (dr@Xecas Tov dvOpwrov), thou hast not fulfilled the
promise. Beware, lest [thou do aught] as a sheep! Else, thus also Zhe Jaz is
destroyed (drweTo 6 dvOpwmos).” And again (Epict. ii. ro. 14) ‘‘ But if, from
being a man, a creature mild and sociable, you have become a wild beast, noxious,
cunning at mischief, given to biting, have you lost (drowAexas) nothing? What !
Must you wait to lose the trash in your purse before you will confess to having
suffered damage (a\NG de? ce Képua drodéoat wa (nutwO7js)? Is there no other loss
that damages Zhe Alan (ddNov & obdevds dmadeca Fnusot Tov dvOpwmov) 2?”
53
Kp.
[1961] ARTICLE
[1961] In vii. 23 “If @ man (dvOpwros) receiveth circumcision
on the sabbath,” W.H. have [6] av@pwros, and B inserts 6. But
the high authority of B is weakened as regards the article by the
fact that it makes frequent mistakes (2650—2) about o and the
similar letter c, e.g. v. 7 Tpocemoy for trpoemoy, vi. 19 wcTadloye
for wectadioyc, vil. 38 e1eme for eiceme, and even vil. 43 cyima
for cxicma (where, as in vii. 23, the error of insertion or
omission could not arise from the juxtaposition of similar letters).
Possibly in vil. 23 the scribe of B may have referred to the previous
words (“and on the sabbath ye circumcise a man”) and he may
have supposed the text to proceed, “if the man | just mentioned]....”
In any case “man” is as emphatic here as it is in Mark’s statement
“The man is not made for the sabbath”; and the emphasis is
illustrated by vil. 22 ‘On the sabbath ye circumcise a man.” “A
man” might have been omitted if emphasis had not required it.
But the argument is: ‘‘ You do not hesitate to break the sabbath by
circumcising a human being. If human beings on the sabbath are
allowed to receive this partial purification, are ye angry with me for
having made a whole human being (odov avOpwrov) sound on the
sabbath?” The plea is, in behalf of Aumanity, for a humane
judgment (“judge righteous judgment”). And the whole passage
illustrates the use of av@pwos alleged above (1934—5) to mean
“human being” in connexion with Abraham whose ‘love of men”
is eulogized by Philo.
(5) ‘Mountain ”
[1962] In Genesis (xix. 17) (LXX) ‘Look not behind thee nor
stand in any of the surrounding country (ry zepyywpw), escape into
the mountain,” the context defines “the mountain ” as the mountainous
country near Sodom. So in Mark, before the Choosing of the
Twelve, (iil. 13) “he goeth up into ‘he mountain,” is defined by the
previous mention of (iii. 7) “the sea”—presumably the sea of Galilee—
as being the mountainous country near the sea of Galilee’: but the
parallel Luke (vi. 12) ‘he went forth into ¢4e mountain to pray” is
not defined by anything—unless we suppose it to follow closely on
Christ’s teaching in (vi. 6) ‘the synagogue,” and assume this to
mean the synagogue of Capernaum, so that “the mountain” means
“the mountainous country ” near that city. In Mark and Matthew
’
1 To épos means “ ¢ie mountain,” or ‘*¢ke mountainous country,” defined by
something implied or expressed, like ‘‘ ¢Ae Highlands,” ‘* ‘he Lakes.”
54
=.
ARTICLE [1964]
Christ’s going ‘“‘into the mountain to pray,” after the Feeding of the
Five Thousand, follows a previous mention of going in ‘a boat,”
presumably on the sea of Galilee’. In the story of the Gerasene
demoniac, “the mountain” is also defined (in Mark and Luke) by
a previous mention of “the sea,” or “sailing,” as well as by
“‘Gerasa’.” When the Transfiguration is described, Mark and
Matthew speak of “a high mountain*” (as also does Matthew in the
Temptation‘) but Luke has ‘‘He went up into ¢Ae mountain to pray°.”
[1963] A review of the contexts of the passages in which Mark
mentions “the mountain” makes it probable that he uses the phrase
to mean ¢he mountainous country in view of Capernaum—not that
which was actually nearest to the city on the west of the Lake, but
that which lay on the east of the Lake. The former, though near,
could not be seen by the citizens of Capernaum who lived under it,
so to speak: the latter, being constantly visible to them, might
naturally be called ‘‘the mountain.” ‘This is not always clear in the
Synoptists. But John defines the position thus in the only passages
in which “‘¢he mountain” is used by him absolutely, vi. r—15 “‘ Jesus
went away on the other side of the sea of Galilee....Now Jesus came
up into ¢he mountain....he withdrew again into the mountain.” Luke
makes no mention of “the mountain” in connexion with the Feeding
of the Five Thousand, Mark and Matthew mention it once, John
mentions it twice. It is a case where Luke omits and John inter-
venes.
(6) ‘Only begotten ”
[1964] i. 18 “No man hath seen God at any time. Only
begotten (Movoyevys), God, HE THAT Is in the bosom of the Father,—
he hath declared him.” Under the head of Apposition (1938)
reasons have been given for punctuating as above, and for regarding
‘‘Only begotten,” “God,” and “HE THAT IS” (6 wv qualified by
“in the bosom of the Father”) as three titles of the Logos. The
Greeks, and Philo (the Jewish interpreter of Greek philosophy)
called God “that which is,” 76 ov, neuter. John adopts the Apoca-
lyptic phrase ‘‘ He that is,” 6 wv*, so as to make God a Person, not
a thing. He then adds “in the bosom of the Father” to indicate
1 Mk vi. 46 ‘‘ went away to pray,” Mt. xiv. 23 “went up to pray,” following
Mk vi. 32, Mt. xiv. 13.
2 Mk v. 11, Lk. viii. 32, following Mk v. 1, Lk. viii. 26.
2 Mikaxi2, Mt. xvi. 1, 4 Mt. iv. 8. D ke bie ber
§ Rey. i. 4, 8 etc.
55
[1965 | ARTICLE
a Person, in whom the defining characteristic is not strength or
wisdom but filial union with a Father. Thus an_ expression
implying both paternal and filial love closes the list of ttles
and descriptions of the Logos enumerated in the Prologue. In
the last three of these titles, the first place is given to “Only
begotten,” which, both in Greek and Hebrew—owing to the con-
nexion between an only Son and a beloved son (803)—implied
“beloved Son.” It is not likely that John meant us to render the
word “az only begotten,” any more than to render 6eds, ‘‘a@ God.”
As a Christian would not render Xpiords ‘ax Anointed,” but “ the
Anointed,” or “Christ,” so John intends us to render Movoyerys, ‘ the
only begotten,” or else, as a proper name, Monogenes, ze. ‘“‘ Only be-
gotten.” The alterations of this text are numerous and natural as
John has strained to the utmost the elastic Greek language to express
briefly the intensity of his conviction that the Father is known only
through the Son.
(7)e “Prophet 7
[1965] In i. 21 “Art thou the prophet?” A.V. has “that
prophet,” apparently (unless “¢hat” is “ille” as in 1 K. xvii. 7
(A.V.)) regarding it as a repetition of the previous question “ Art
thou Elijah?” Origen, with more probability, supposes it to refer to
the “prophet” mentioned in Deuteronomy xvill. 15, 18, whom the
Jews (825) seem not to have identified with the Messiah, although the
prophet is thus identified in Acts ill. 22.
(8) ‘‘ Teacher [of Israel] ”
[1966] iii, 10 “Thou art the teacher of Israel (6 6. rod I.) and
knowest not these things!” is probably ironical, meaning “ ¢he
[well-known] teacher.” hat John would not indiscriminately insert
and omit the article in such phrases, may be inferred from his
general carefulness and subtlety in linguistic discrimination and,
in particular, from i. 49 ‘‘thou art ‘Ae Son of God, thou art King
of Israel,” the utterance of Nathanael, as compared with xu. 13
“the king of Israel,” the utterance of the crowd, in the Entry into
Jerusalem. ‘The Son of God” reigns over, or is “ king of,” all the
nations of the earth including Israel. David, or Hezekiah, or a
merely Jewish Messiah, might naturally be called ‘the king of /srael,”
i.e. the king for the time being. Nathanael is made to utter a con-
fession much more inclusive than that of “the great multitude’.”
1 [1966 a] In classical Gk a distinction is drawn between Bacurers, Pe Aaah Gb oY i
56
ARTICLE [1969]
(ii) Before Names
[1967] The article before a name may mean (1) “the [above-
mentioned],” (2) “the [well-known].” This leaves room for great
variety of usage in different writers, and even in the same writer
(when writing in different moods). Mark is singularly consistent
in his use of the article with the nominative, ‘‘Jesus.” He omits
it in the first mention of the name (1. 9) but never again, except in
the phrase (x. 47) “Jesus the Nazarene ”—where custom requires
its omission as the name is defined by “the Nazarene.” Matthew
and Luke omit the article at first, but omit it also (with the non-
predicative nominative) in about five and eight instances, severally,
later on (besides the parallel to Mk x. 47).
{1968] In John—excluding such instances as “ Jesus the Naza-
rene” and others where we might expect omission—we find the
article omitted about sixty-five times’, With Aéye:, John, more often
than not, has 6 Iyo., but he has azexpi6n “Inc. about twenty-two
times and azexpi6y o ‘Ino. only once for certain®. In phrases with
amexptOy and names, the LXX regularly omits the article. John
may have been influenced, in using this word, by LXX usage, while,
in the use of Aéye, he follows Greek usage. With indeclinable
names, case-inflexions are sometimes indicated by the article for the
apparent purpose of clearness; and perhaps it is sometimes inserted
in accordance with an unconscious sense of rhythm so as to avoid
monotony in the long dialogues that characterize the Fourth Gospel.
[1969] John’s general rule is to ¢étroduce a personal name
uniquely, the name given to the sovereign of the East, and 6 Baovevs, “the king”
of this or that barbarous tribe. There is perhaps an inner evangelistic meaning in
the protest of the priests, xix. 21 ‘‘Write not, ‘¢he king of the Jews,’ but that
‘He said, 7 am hing of the Jews (8. rar ’I. eiui),’” besides some allusiveness to the
Synoptic differences concerning the inscription. See 2669.
1 [1968a] The statistics are doubtful owing to the similarity of 0 to Cc and
the weakness of codex B on this point (1961 and 2650—2). But 65 is probably the
minimum.
2 [19684] vi. 29. In iii. 5, xviii. 37, W.H. have [6]. On the other hand
where avrots is inserted after dmexpi0@n we often find 6 or [6] before “Ingois.
Perhaps where avrois or at’r@ is inserted, referring back to the person spoken to,
a corresponding 6 is more often inserted to refer back to Jesus.
[1968 ¢] Johannine variations may be illustrated by the use of ‘‘John (the
Baptist)’ which occurs with article (13), without (5), doubtful (1). Contrast i. 28
év B....dmov qv 6 I. Bamrigwy (where there has been much said about John in
context) with x. 40 els Tov rémov drov nv 'L. TO mparov Bamrifwr.
oh
[1970] ARTICLE
without the article’, and there appear only three or four exceptions
to this. One is “Pilate” in xviil. 29 “There went out therefore
the {governor| Pilate,’ and this may be paralleled by Luke’s first
mention of him in the Passion, “they led him to ¢he [governor]
Pilate,’ where Mark has no article (‘they delivered him up to
Pilate”) and Matthew ‘‘they delivered him up to Pilate the
governor.”
[1970] The other exceptions are indeclinable nouns: 1. 43—5
“He findeth Philip...now ¢he [aforesaid] Philip was from Bethsaida...
Philip findeth (lit.) ¢e Wathanael (tov Na@avayd).” Here “ Philip”
is introduced, according to rule, without the article; ‘“ Nathanael,”
against the rule, with the article: i. 45 ‘“‘We have found Jesus, (lit.)
a son of the Joseph (1. vidv tod "Iwon®).” Contrast this with vi. 42
“Ts not this Jesus, the [well-known] son of Joseph (I. o vids
‘Iwond)?” In iv. 5 “the well that Jacob gave to [the] Joseph his
son,” the reading is doubtful, and W.H. bracket to. “Iwoy¢ is
shewn to be dative by vid adrot, but the article conduces to
immediate clearness. If ‘* Nathanael” were not indeclinable, we
might suppose the article to imply distinction such as is implied
in the words of the Lord (“Behold an Israelite indeed”), but can
this be the meaning of the article just afterwards (‘a son of the
Joseph”), and does it seem likely that John would speak of anyone
as distinguished (‘‘the [great] Nathanael”) when describing his first
approach to Jesus*®?
1 [19692] ‘‘Solomon” (x. 23 €v 77 o70@ Tod DY.) could hardly be said to need
“introducing.” In xvili. 40 ‘Not this man but ¢he [great] Barabbas,” it is the
crowd, not the evangelist, that speaks; and the same applies to xix. 12 ‘‘¢he
[great] Caesar.”
2 [1969 4] Jn xviii. 29, Lk. xxiii. 1, Mk xv. 1, Mt. xxvil. 2. Mk subsequently
has 6 II. invariably, Mt. has it except in xxvii. 62 (pec.). Lk. has it exc. in
xxiii. 6, 13, 24. Jn has 6 Il. 19 times, and once, according to W.H., (xviii. 31)
simply II. Probably W.H. are wrong in following B here, especially as 0 may
have been omitted after the preceding c in ayToic (1961, 2650—2).
8 [19702] Possibly i. 45 vidv rod "Iwoxj may shew traces of some tradition
about ‘‘the carpenter Joseph,” and the evangelist may intend a contrast between
the beginning of the Gospel (when Jesus was described as U. Tod ‘Iwoy) and the
development of the Gospel (after which Jesus was described as 6 0. "Iwo7¢).
[19704] The article before names of persons introduced for the first time is rare
in LXX; but it occurs in 2 K. xxii. 3 to represent e¢A, the sign of the objective
case, before ‘‘Shaphan...the scribe.” The parall. 2 Chr. xxxiv. 8 has eth, but
LXX omits rév. For the article with names of Places, see 2670 foll.
55
ARTICLE [1972]
(iv) With Participle and ‘‘is’’ or ‘‘are’”’
[1971] In the Synoptists, this construction is comparatively
rare, e.g. “Who is 7 that smote thee (tis éotw 0 zaicas ce)!?”,
“These are they that were sown,’ “These are the things that
defile (rata éotw Ta KowovvTa) the man*,” “Who is z¢ [really] that
gave (tis éotw o dovs) thee this authority*?” In the last instance,
the parallel Mark and Matthew have “Who gave thee?” The
construction with the article assumes the existence of some person
or thing defined as doing something. Isaiah writes, ‘‘ There is at
hand one-justifying-me,” LXX renders this, ‘‘ There is at hand he that
justified me (o dixawoas pe).” Isaiah proceeds, ‘‘ Who will contend
against me?” varying the construction. But LXX does not vary it,
“Who is he that contendeth with me (tis 6 Kpwouevos por)?” The
Epistle to the Romans loosely follows LXX ‘God [is] he shat
justipeth: who is he that shall condemn*®?”. In classical Greek it is
”
necessary to insert the article in representing the Hebrew “one
justifying me.” Ifo were omitted above before dicawwoas, the meaning
of the Greek would be “ he is at hand, having justified me®.”
[1972] Whereas Luke scarcely ever uses this construction in the
Words of the Lord’, John uses it frequently as follows (1) v. 31—2
“Tf I be testifying about myself my witness is not true. Another
ts [really] he that testifieth (addos éotiv 6 jpaptupdv) concerning
1 Mt. xxvi. 68, Lk. xxii. 64, not in Mk (490—1).
2 (1971 a] Mk iv. 16—20, Mt. xiii. 19g—23, comp. Lk. viii. 12, 14, the
explanation of the Sower.
3 [19710] Mt. xv. 20 (? Mk vii. 15), not in Lk. Mt. also has this construction
in ill. 3 otrés €or 6 pyoels.
4 Lk. xx. 2 parall. Mk xi. 28, Mt. xxi. 23 rls cor €Owxev;
5 Rom. viii. 34 (quoting Is. 1. 8) Oeds 6 duxar@v, Ths 6 KaTaxpwr;
6 [1971c] In Proverbs xi. 24 (lit.) “‘there exzsts one scattering and yet
increasing,’ the LXX paraphrases, ‘‘there are those who (esly of), [while]
scattering, make things more,” but Aq. and Sym. éor: cxoprifwy, comp. Prov. xii.
TOs XU aye
[19712] In classical Greek prose it would probably be hard to find an
instance of ésri and a participle, without 6, meaning ¢.g. ‘is scattering’? —unless
the meaning were ‘‘zs really scattering.” The instances given by Jelf § 376. 4 are
mostly from poetry and not in the present. Plat. Zegg. 860£ (and Demosth.
p- 853. 29) Taira otrws éxovrd éorw means ‘‘these things ave really so.”
7 [1972a] Lk. xx. 17 7h oty éorly ro yeypapymévoy is (apart from the Parable of
the Sower (1971 @)) the only exception, if it can be called one. Outside the words
of Christ, the constr. occurs (in Lk.) only in xxii. 64, xxiv. 21 dre adrés éorw 6
pé\Nwy NuTpodcOae Tov’ lopanr.
59
[1973] ARTICLE
me...,” and then Jesus goes on to say that this “ Testifier” is not
the Baptist, nor even the works that He Himself does, but the
Father, invisible to those whom He is addressing. "AAXos 0 paptupav
would have sufficed (like St Paul’s Geos 6 duxordv) if the meaning
of “is” were not intended to be emphatic. The meaning really is
twofold (1) “Another and distinct from myself is he that testifieth,”
(2) ‘‘ Another [vead/y] exists [whose existence ye perceive not|, namely,
he that testifieth.” The first is expressed, the second is suggested.
"AAAos means “another [of the same kind]” (2675 —7).
[1973] (2) v. 45 “Do not imagine that I (emph.) (éyw) will
accuse you to the Father. Zhere ts [indeed | (€otw) he that accuseth
you, [namely] Moses...,” ze. “The very person to whom you look
for testimony in your behalf (because you claim to be observing his
law) is all the while testifying against you'.”
[1974] (3) vi. 33 ‘For the bread of God ¢s [not a thing of the
past but of the present] the [one] that ts ever descending from heaven
and offering life to the world®.” Here comes into play the ambiguity
(comp. 19574) sometimes inherent in o with the participle, since
it may refer to the masculine noun last mentioned, namely “ bread,”
or ‘‘loaf,” apros “the loaf of God is the [loaf] that is descending.”
And this the Jews take to be the meaning, for they proceed to ask
“Give us evermore this bread.” But Jesus replies ‘‘I am the bread
of life.” *Eoriv is not here so emphatic as in the last instance: but
the context indicates that stress is being laid on the difference
between the manna—a detail of the historic past—and the ever
present, ever descending, bread of life. It is probable that John
intends “the [one] that is ever descending” to mean the Man,
quite as much as the Bread, or, primarily, the Man, and secondarily,
the Man regarded as the Bread.
[1975] (4) vi. 63 “The spirit is that which giveth life (70 wvetdpa
eotw 70 Cworo.dv), the flesh doth not profit at all®.” The words
1 [1973 2] Comp. viii. 50 éorw 6 (nav kal Kplywv, ‘‘ There [really] exists he
that seeketh....’ This and other passages, and the Johannine love of apposition,
are against the rendering ‘‘ He that accuseth you is Moses,” or ‘‘ Moses is he that
accuseth you.”
* [1974a] A.V. ‘‘the bread of God is he which,” R.V. ‘‘that which,” 6 yap
aptos Tov Heo éoTiv 6 KaTaBalywr.
8 [1975a] Here S omits “the,” before ‘‘spirit,” so as to mean ‘*That which
giveth life is of a spiritual nature.”” SS (Burk. marg.) has ‘‘He is the Spirit that
giveth life to the body, but ye say ‘The body nothing profiteth.’”
60
ARTICLE [1976]
might mean: ‘“ The Spirit (ze. the Holy Spirit) is [distinguished from
all other spirits by being] the [spirit] that giveth life,” repeating
mvedua after Cworootv: and it may be fairly argued that similarly
R.V. (against A.V.) has repeated apros in the passage last quoted
(‘the loaf is ¢he [loaf | that descends”). But in that instance there
was perhaps a deliberate ambiguity, and possibly the primary
meaning did not require the repetition. Here there is no question
of any distinction between one spirit and another, but only between
‘the spirit” and “the flesh.”
[1976] The words are of very great difficulty owing to the
different meanings that may be attached, not only to them (taken
by themselves) but also to their context (2210 foll.). One meaning
may be “It is the spiritual part of man that must give vitality to all
doctrine by receiving it spiritually,” as St Paul says’, and this suits
the antithesis of ‘‘the flesh.” But we have to bear in mind that (1)
the phrase “life-giving spirit” is rare, (2) it occurs here in connexion
with a preceding mention of ‘the Son of man ascending” and it is
followed by a mention of ‘‘words” that are “life,” (3) in N.T.
elsewhere it occurs twice: “The letter killeth, the spirit giveth life’,”
“The last Adam [became] a /i/e-giving spirit®,” (4) the verb occurs
twice in John elsewhere concerning the Father, who “ gzveth life”
and the Son who “ giveth life*.” In the light of these facts does it
seem likely that John would use the phrase “give life” concerning
the Spirit of waz? Would he not more probably use it of the Spirit
of Christ, “the last Adam,” the Son of Man in heaven? If so, the
meaning here would seem to be, “the Spirit [of the Son] is that
which giveth life.”
1 y Cor. ii. 13—14. 2eon Cornel
i COn says 75. 4 Jn v. 21 (d25).
° [1976 a] Perhaps there is a play on the word “spirit” as meaning also
“breath” in Hebrew and Greek, that cannot well be reproduced in English. As
there is a spirit that gives life beneath the /e/ter that killeth, so there is a spirit
that gives life beneath words that (taken literally) may ‘‘kill.” The disciples of
Jesus have to go back beyond the sound of His uttered words to the breath, spirit,
or personality, that uttered them. Compared with the inner meaning, breath, or
‘spirit,’ of a word, the outward meaning or sound may be called its “flesh.”
‘“‘The words that I have spoken to you,” says our Lord, ‘‘they are sfzrz¢ and they
are life, because they have not been mere ‘flesh words,’ or external sounds, but
have passed, breathing life, into your spirits.” And accordingly Peter says (vi. 68)
**Thou hast words of eternal life.”
61
[1977] ARTICLE
[1977] Some such thought appears to have been in the mind of
the originator of the version in SS, “ fe [1.e. the Son of Man] és the
Spirit that giveth life to the body.” We arrives at this by repeating
“Son of Man” as the subject of “is,” by taking 76 z. 76 @ as “the
Spirit that giveth life,” and by altering the subsequent words. The
version may be of value as testifying to a very early interpretation
connecting “giving life” to the dead with “giving life” to words,
and both of these with the Son of man.
[1978] (5) vill. 50—zr “TI honour my Father and ye dishonour
me. But I seek not my own glory; there ts [indeed] he that seeketh
and judgeth (eoTw 6 Cytov Kat xpivwr),” Ze. as explained above
(1971—8) “there is, all the while, though ye know it not.” And
the “judging” is regarded as going on (ill. 18) “already.” Later
on it is said (xii. 48) ‘‘ He that is rejecting me and not receiving my
words (fnpata pov) hath him that judgeth him (éxev tov Kpivovta
avrov),” where a clause in the future follows: “The word (Adyos)
that I spake—that (éxetvos) shall judge him in the last day.” The
Logos is judging zow, and the judgment will be summed up
hereafter.
[1979] (6) vill. 54 “If I (emp.) should glorify myself, my glory
is nothing. Jf zs [zzdeed| my Father ¢hat 7s glorifying me, of whom
ye (emph.) say that he is your God, and [yet] ye have not recognised
him; but I know him'.” Here the context indicates that the
emphatic ‘“‘is,” expressed by eorw at the beginning of a sentence,
describes an action going on in the presence of men ignorant both
of the action and of the agent. The “glorifying” is manifested by
the works that the Son receives from the Father to do in the
presence of men.
[1980] (7) xiv. 21 “He that hath my commandments and
keepeth them, he 77 [veally] 7s that loveth me (éxeivos éotw 6 ayarav
pe). This follows xiv. 15 “If ye be loving me ye will keep my
commandments,” and it adds, in effect, “If ye keep them, shen, and
”
1 [1979 a] “Edy eye dofdow éuavrév, H ddéa pou ovdév Ear. LaoTrw db TaTHp mov 6
dokdfwy pe dv iuets Néyere bre Geos buey (marg. Nudy) éorly, Kal ovK eyvadxare a’réy,
éyw 6€ oida avrév. The éorw at the end of the first sentence is quite unemphatic
and almost superfluous. But, if it were omitted, the following éo7rw might be
taken to be final instead of initial. Moreover, the juxtaposition of the two lays
unusual emphasis on the second. ‘‘ /¢ vea//y ts my Father.”’
62
ARTICLE [1983]
only then, will ye be really loving me,” or, in the third person, ‘‘ He
that keeps them, Ze and he alone, is really loving me!.”’
[1981] Besides occurring in the Words of Jesus, this construction
is found in the words of the Baptist and other speakers. Thus,
whereas the Synoptists represent the Baptist as saying concerning
the future Messiah “ He shad/ baptize you,” John gives the words as
“* He it is that ts baptizing you*”: and the Jews and others also
speak thus*. But the phrase appears to have commended itself
to the evangelist as especially suited to the Logos, who Himself
sees everything, and describes it to others, as it really is, going on
visibly before His eyes, though not before theirs.
(v) With Non-Possessive Adjectives‘
[1982] The reduplication of the article changing a noun-adjective
phrase, e.g. (1) ‘the third day” to (2) “the day ¢#e third,” adds weight
and emphasis to the adjective. In Chmist’s predictions of the
Resurrection Matthew always gives the former: Luke, in the
parallel to one of these, gives the latter. The latter is also used
in the formal and traditional enumeration of the appearances of
Christ after death in the First Epistle to the Corinthians®, The
Revelation has the former in speaking of “ the third living creature,”
or ‘the third angel”; but in more solemn phrases we find ‘‘he
opened the seal ¢#e third,” “the woe ¢he third cometh quickly®.”
[1983] In the Synoptists, the reduplication—apart from words
of Christ and the Voice from Heaven (‘‘ My Son my beloved ”)—
1 [1980 z] Other instances of 6 with the participle and éo7/ are iv. 10 “‘If thou
hadst known who ?2¢ [really] zs that saith unto thee (rls éorw 6 Aéywv got)...,”
lv. 37 G\Xos €oTiv 0 o7elpwy Kal adXos 6 Oepifwy where 6 orelpwy and 6 Gepifwy are,
in effect, nouns. In ix. 37 kal éwpakas avrov kal 6 Nad@y wera cov Exetvds éoTw,
the subject is 6 \ad\@y, and éxetvos is not (as mostly) repetitive but means ‘‘ that
very Son of Man about whom you ask ‘ Who is he?’ as though he were far off.”
2einiges Miksa Ss Mit- niin wleks as16:
3 Jn v. 12 ‘‘Who is ¢he man that said...2” v. 15 “...that Jesus was (lit. is) Ze
that had made him whole,” xxi. 20 ‘‘ Who is he that 7s to deliver thee up?”
+ (1982a@] This excludes noun-participle phrases, e.g. “‘the people that [was]
sitting (6 Aads 6 KaOzevos),” **the miracles ¢hat [were] wrought (ai duvapers ai
yevdueva)” etc. For phrases with possessive adjectives see 1987—9.
5 [19826] Mt. xvi. 21, xvii. 23, xx. 19. The parall. Mk has mera rpets uépas,
Lk. ix. 22 has 77 7. qu. in a prediction of Christ, and also in his account of what
the Saviour said (xxiv. 46) after the Resurrection. But Lk. xviii. 33 (parall. to
Mt. xx. 19) has ry 7. T7 Tp., the form used in r Cor, xv. 4.
6 [1982¢] Rev. iv. 7, vi. 5, vili. 10, contrasted with Rey. vi. 5, xi- 14.
63
[1984] ARTICLE
is very rarely used, except in a few special phrases. Lk. ii. 7 has
“her Son her firstborn”; Mark has often, and Luke twice (viii. 29,
ix. 42) “the spirit the unclean”; Luke has (i. 26) “the month the
sixth” (ii) 26,010. '22)also: Min 29; :xitl. an, Mtiioait 32) 0ethe
Spirit the Holy?”
[1984] John, as a rule, reduplicates the article only in utterances
of the Lord or in weighty sayings about Him, as in the Prologue,
“This was the light, the true [light].” In the less weighty clauses
of the Lord’s utterances he does not reduplicate it, as in “the true
worshippers’*,” contrasted with “I am the Vine the true [vine]*.”
[1985] One or two perplexing instances of reduplication in John
may be perhaps explained by a desire to suggest to the reader some
latent thought, as when he says that Andrew “findeth first A7s
brother his own |brother] Simon’.” Here the evangelist is supposed
to mean that Andrew’s unnamed companion a/so found As brother,
James the son of Zebedee, but not till Andrew had “first” found
Simon. Antithesis is certainly expressed elsewhere in “his name
his own [name]*,” “his glory his own [glory]’.”. In “the day the
third [day]” at Cana—if the text is correct—there is perhaps a
mystical meaning®. In “the five loaves the barley [loaves]*” and
“the ear the right [ear]” of Malchus”, symbolism may be latent,
apart from the fact that (comp. 1983 a@) John is adding details not
mentioned by Mark and Matthew”.
1 [19832] Mk v. 7, [Lk. viii. 28] assign to the demoniac the words, ‘‘Son of
the God the Highest’’; Lk. vi. 6, xxil. 50—when adding facts unmentioned by
Mk-Mt., namely, that the ‘‘hand,” and the “ear,” severally, were ‘‘the right
one”—reduplicates the article.
2 ls ta).
3 [1984a] iv. 23 “*The hour cometh...... when the true worshippers shall
worship the Father in spirit and truth.” The italicised words do not predicate
anything about the Logos, and they are subordinate in emphasis to what follows.
Fale, ae ay ate LEA yee
7 vii. 18. TiS: ite a yieine.
10 (1985 a] xviii. to, Luke may not have intended symbolism. The two
evangelists must be judged in the light of their several Gospels, taken as wholes.
1 [19854] In xviil. 17, the person previously described as (xviii. 16) ‘She
that kept the door,” is now called ‘‘the ‘maid,’ she that kept the door.’ This is
probably not emphasis but afterthought ; the evangelist wishes to retain the old
Synoptic tradition that the Apostle was confused and abashed by a mere ‘‘ maid,”
whom he had previously described as ‘‘she that kept the door.” The meaning,
then, is, *‘ Zhe maid, she [whom I described above as the one) that kept the door.”
64.
ARTICLE [1987]
[1986] ‘The following are the instances in Greek :
(a) i. 9 "Hv 76 dds 70 GAnOwov. Comp. vi. 32 Tov aptov ék Tod
ovpavovd tov aAnOwov, XV. I 7 apmedos 7 GAnOivy. Contrast iv. 23 of
dAnOwoi tpooxvvytat. See above (1984).
(B) i. 41 eipicxe ovTos mporov Tov ddeApov TOV idiov Ziwwve.
(1985). Comp. v. 43 &v TO dvomate 7H idtw, vil. 18 THY dogav TrHv
idtav. In all these there is antithesis. Contrast iv. 44 ev Ty idia
Tatplo., X. 3 Ta lo.a tpoBara, where there is no expressed antithesis.
In the latter, there is no antithesis till x. 12.
(y) il. 1 7 Népa TH Tptry ydwos eyevero, but marg. rH tpiry
npepa (1982 0).
(6) In iil, 16, tov viov tov povoyevy, “He gave his only begotten
son,” the adj. is more emphatic than in ill. 18 76 ovopa Tod povoyevods
viod Tod Geod, “ because he hath not believed in the name of ¢he only
begotten Son of God,” where “God” attracts much of the emphasis.
(ce) iv. 9 9 yuvy 7 Sapopertis (the context lays stress on her
Samaritan origin, “from me being a woman that is a Samaritan”).
(C) vi. 13 €k TOV TevTE aptwy TeV KpHivor, “from the five loaves—
that were, as I have said, of barley.” This detail is not given by the
Synoptists (1985).
(n) X. II, 14 0 woupyy o Kaos (3 times). Contrast il. 10 (2s) Tov
KaAov otvov.
(6) xviii. 10 76 wtapuov TO deétov (1985).
(t) Xvill. 16 6 pabytys 0 adXos 6 yvworos Tod apx. (? distinguished
from Peter, who was zof “an acquaintance of the High Priest”).
Contrast xx: 23.235 4, 80 aNAos p., Xx. 25, xxi. 8 ol7aNNor ep:
(x) Xvill. 17 9 mawdioxy 7 Ovpwpos (called previously (xvill. 16)
‘“‘the door-keeper” (fem.), and now, ‘the maid that [as I said] was
doorkeeper ”).
(vi) With Possessive Adjectives
[1987] The adjective is frequently possessive, and, in that case,
is almost always accompanied by a reduplicated article. Instances
are given below in Greek. The student will find in almost every case
that the phrase with the reduplicated article, e.g. x. 26—7 ‘‘the sheep
that are my own (ra 7. Ta €ua) hearken to my voice,” lays more stress
on the owner than is laid in the phrase with the possessive genitive
xxi. 16—17 ‘‘feed my sheep (ra zw. pov).” The “love” of Christ is
to be regarded as unique, and the command to “love one another”’
with that kind of love is a “new commandment,” which our Lord
A. VI. 65
U1
[1988] ARTICLE
might call A/zs own special commandment. Hence He says, xiv. 15,
“If ye love me, ye will keep my own [special] commandments (ras
€. Tas euas).” But this is followed by an unemphatic repetition of the
clause because the emphasis is to be thrown on something else,
xiv. 21 ““He that hath my commandments (ras é. pov) and keepeth
them—Ae it zs that really loveth me.” So the emphatic is followed
by the unemphatic in xv. g—10 ‘‘ Abide in my [sfectal] love (ev TF a.
TH e4y)...1f ye keep my commandments ye will abide in my love (év
7™ a. pov), where the last words amount to little more than, “‘ Ye
will do this.” On the other hand, the unemphatic is followed by
the emphatic in xv. 1o—12, “If ye keep my commandments (ras é.
pov)...this is my [special] commandment (4 é. 4 evn) that ye love one
another even as I have loved you.” Here, as often elsewhere, an
if-clause, being less emphatic than a predicate, expresses ownership
in the unemphatic form.
[1988] The following are the instances in Greek :
(a) ili. 29 avtn ovv 7 Xapa y eu TerAnpwrar. ‘There is harmony,
not antithesis, between “my [own] joy” and ‘your joy” in xv. 11
iva 7 Xapa 7 eur ev vpiv 7 Kal 7 Xapa tov tAnpwhy. “Yperepos (1774)
is very rare. Comp. xvi. 22, 24, THv xapav tpov and xvil. 13 iva éxywou
THV Xapav THY eunv TeTANPwMEVHY ev EavTOLs.
(B) v. 30, Vili. 16, 7) Kplows 7 én Bdixaia (adnOuy) eorw.
(y) v. 30, vi. 38, TO O€Anpua 76 euov (antithesis in context).
(8) vil. 6 6 Katpos 6 epos...0 b€ Katpos 6 vperepos (antithesis). On
repetition the writer (1987) adopts the less emphatic form vii. 8
6 €“0s Kaupos.
(ce) vill. 17 Kai év 76 vopw b€ TO vperépw, “yea, and even in your
very own law.” There is no antithesis but very strong emphasis.
Contrast vil. 51, X. 34, XVill. 31, 6 vopos vpov (yor).
(C) vill. 31 dv vpels peivyte ev TO AOyH TO EG, 37 0 AOYOS O Epos
od xwpe ev vpiv, 43 Tov Adyov Tov euov, xvii. 17 0 Adyos O Gos.
Contrast v. 24 Tov Aoyov pov, Vill. 51 TOV éuov Adyor, 52 Tov Adyov
pov, Xiv. 23 Tov Aoyov pov, 24 Tos Aoyous pov, XVil. 6 Tov Aoyov Gov,
14 Tov NoOyov cov.
(n) vill. 43 thv AaAwav THY euyv. Contrast iv. 42 THY OV AadLay
(marg. tiv Aaduav cov).
(0) vili. 56 tiv nuepay tHY éuyv, emphatic in a Messianic sense.
(t\) x. 26, 27 Ta mpoBara ra eva emph. Contrast xxi. 16, 17 7a
mpoBaria pov.
(x) xii. 26 6 dudkovos 6 ens, “ my own [true] minister.”
66
ARTICLE [1990]
(A) xiv. 15 Tas évroas Tas eds, XV. 12 7 évTOAy 7 éun. See 1987
and contrast xiv. 21, xv. 10 Tas évToAds pov.
() XV. Q petvare ev TH ayary TH ey, (2b. 10) meveire ev TH dyary
jou (see 1987).
(v) xvii. 24 TH do€av THY éunv. Contrast vill. 50, 54 7 dd&a pov.
(€) xvill. 35 TO €6vos TO cov (contemptuously emphatic on the
part of Pilate).
(0) xvill. 36 4 Baowreia 7 evn (di5)...01 Vrnpérat ot guot. There is
antithesis implied between “my own kingdom” and kingdoms
derived “from this world,” and the same applies to “my own
officers (1388 a).”
[1989] The non-reduplicated article before a possessive adjective
is rare, but occurs as follows: iv. 42 od da tHv on AaAvay (marg.
tiv Aadiav cov) fairly emphatic, being antithetic to an implied “be-
cause of our own hearing,” v. 47 Tots éuots pyyacu, antithetic to rots
exeivou ypappaciw. In vil. 8 6 éuos Kapos occurs after an emphatic
(vil. 6) 6 Katpos 6 éuos. The non-reduplicated form (though more
emphatic than 6 xatpos pov would have been) is probably not so
emphatic as the reduplicated. In vil. 16 9 éu% dvdax7 ovK eoTw
€v, “that which is [in one sense] my teaching is [in another sense]
not [really] mine,” the first éu is moderately emphatic. In viii. 51
tov énov Noyov, “if anyone keep my word,” the emphasis is moderate.
This construction seems to indicate an emphasis greater than that of
the possessive pronoun but less than that of the possessive adjective
with the reduplicated article. As regards xiv. 27 elpnvnv tHv euny,
which must be taken with its context, see 1993.
(vii) Omitted, or misplaced
[1990] In xi. rg ‘“* Now many of the Jews had come to Martha
and Mary (zpos tiv Mapfav kai Mapiip) to comfort them (adras)
concerning their brother (rept tot adeAod),” we should have expected
Tyv either to be omitted before Mdp@av, or, if not, to be repeated
before Mapua. D omits it before MapGav: A has ‘‘to the household
(xpos tas epi) of M. and M.,” and so too has C* (rep): SS (Burk.)
has ‘‘went forth to Beth Anza that they might comfort Martha and
Mary,” omitting “concerning their brother.” The facts indicate that
“the MJartha-and-Mary” was felt by some scribes to be a combina-
tion intended to mean ‘‘the household” of the two sisters, and hence
they (perhaps influenced also by the proximity of [av]ras wept Tov
adeA pov [? taken as an error for “‘¢he household of the deceased brother,
67 5—2
[1991] ARTICLE
tT. 7. Tov ddeApov]) substituted ras wept for tnv. The reading of SS
suggests that the translator took [ai]ras wept tod adeApod to mean
“Martha and Mary,” as being “the household of the brother
(Lazarus).” ‘To Beth Ania” may have been supplied by SS for
sense or may be a further error arising out of “household,” confused
by SS with ‘‘house,” Beth.
[1991] The best Greek mss. have probably preserved the correct
text, the intention of the writer being to represent, by the unusual
omission of the article, that Martha and Mary now made up one
‘household, of which Martha was the leader. Comp. 1 Thess. i. 7—8
év 7H Mak. kai év TH Ax....€v 7H M. kai “Ax. (R.V.) “an ensample to
all that believe 7x AZ. and in A....not only in JZ. and A. but in every
place” (A.V. (dés) “in M. and A.”)—where the article is omitted in
the second clause, partly because one abbreviates in repetition, but
more because there is, in the second clause, an antithesis between
““M. and A.” (as being one place)', and “every [other] place.”
[1992] xii. g—12 (W.H.) éyvw ovdv 6 oxAos Todds Ex TOV *Tovéaiwv....
TH éravipiov 6 dxXos Todds 0 é\Guv eis THY é€optyv is uncertain owing to
the variation of Mss. But it has been suggested above (1739—40)
that it is written with allusion to Mk xii. 37 0 wodvs oxAos, and that
John took advantage of some irregular expression in ancient
tradition, in order to shew that he regards the phrase as meaning,
not “the illiterate rabble,” but “‘the multitude in full force.”
[1993] In xiv. 27 eipyvnv adinur tpiv, eipnvyav Thy ewyv Oldwpt dpiv,
if Jn had written, in the second clause, ry €. T. éuyv, the article
would have suggested, for the moment, a reference to the é in the
first clause (“the peace just mentioned”). Instead of that, the
writer breaks off to indicate that it is something more than the
common kind of peace: ‘‘ Peace I leave unto you. Peace [do / say?
nay, a new kind of peace| the { peace that is mine I give you.” In
this special context the phrase with the single article conveys even
more emphasis than the phrase with the article doubled.
[1994] In iv. 34 enor Bpopa éorw Wa rouow... we Ought not to
say that the article is omitted but rather that the predicate is placed
1 [19912] When ‘the chief priests” are mentioned before “ Pharisees,” the
article is omitted before ‘‘ Pharisees’”’ where the two classes are regarded as forming
one council in vii. 45 ‘came to the chief priests and Pharisees.” But the article is
repeated before ‘‘ Pharisees” where they are regarded as two distinct classes com-
bining in hostility against Jesus (vii. 32 dméoreav, xi. 47 oUryyayor, xi. 57
dedwKecav évToNds).
68
ASYNDETON [1996]
before the subject’. The words might have run otherwise, ‘‘ To do
the will of the Father—that is food for me (or, my food).” But the
disciples were saying to themselves, in effect, “What is his food?”
(“Hath any man brought him aught to eat?”), And Jesus answers
their implied question by putting it foremost in His reply, because
it is foremost in their thoughts: “ AZy food, you ask: What is my
food? it is to do the Father’s will.” The subject of the sentence is
the subject of Christ’s thought, namely, doing the Father’s will’.
(vil) With Infinitive
[1995] The Article with the Infinitive is almost non-occurrent in
John. Its rarity deserves notice as being in striking contrast with its
frequency in Luke, in whom alone there are more instances than in
the other three Gospels together’.
ASYNDETON
(i) Johannine use of
[1996] A sentence in Greek is mostly connected with the pre-
ceding one by some conjunction. This has the disadvantage of
sometimes defining rather narrowly the relation between one thought
and another: and a foreigner, writing Greek without a native know-
ledge of its conjunctions, might define the relation wrongly. But it
has great advantages, especially for readers of an ancient Greek
Ms.—written before punctuation had been introduced. For it often
helps us to discern the beginning of a sentence. From the want of
such a conjunction springs the ambiguity noted by R.V. marg. in
the words “ Without him was not made anything. That which (0)
1 [1994 a] Ini. 1 deds jv 6 NOyos, iv. 24 mvedua O Beds, the predicate comes first
for emphasis, and the subject, distinguished by the article, is placed last. It is very
rare to have a noun predicate thus before a noun subject. An adj. in such a posi-
tion is more freq., as vi. 60 oxAnpds éotiv 6 Adyos ovTos, ‘hard [indeed] is this
saying,” and morés and ev\oynrés are often thus placed (though not in Jn).
2 [1994 46] In Jn iv. 43 (R.V.) ‘after ze two days,” A.V. has omitted ‘‘ the.”
It refers to iv. 40 *‘ they besought him to abide with them and he abode there two
days,’’ and it means that He abode there cose two days and no more. In Jn xviii. 3
(R.V.) “ ¢he band (marg. cohort),” A.V. (‘‘a@ band”) has missed the reference to
‘*the band” that regularly kept guard in the fortress called Antonia.
3 [1995 a] Bruder (1880) gives 76 with inf., Mk c. 15, Mt. c. 24, Lk. c. 7o, Jn
only 4, namely i. 48 mpd Tod ce &. Pwvfcat, xiii. 19 mpd Tod yevérOat, xvii. 5 mpd
Tov Tov Kécpmov elvat, ii. 24 did TO aUTOY ywwoKeEL.
69
[1997] ASYNDETON
hath been made,” where many have taken the meaning to be (as
R.V. text) “anything ¢hat hath been made'.”
[1997] The omission of the conjoining words commonly called
conjunctions is called ‘Asyndeton,” ze. “not fastened together.”
John abounds in instances of asyndeton of the most varied and
unexpected kind, too numerous to quote, especially with an initial
verb (“[There] cometh Mary,” “[There] findeth Philip Nathanael”
etc.); with any form of the pronoun ‘‘¢/zs” ; with the conjunctions
“7f” and “even as”; with an adverbial phrase (‘‘z Azm was light”) ;
with a participle with the article (“he that believeth (0 zicrevwr),”
or sometimes ‘everyone that (as 0) believeth”). Sentences fre-
quently begin abruptly with “wow” or “already,” or with the
emphatic “I’’ or “ye,” expressed by Greek pronouns, which would
not be inserted if emphasis were not intended. There is hardly any
part of speech, or word, that might not come at the beginning of
a Johannine sentence without a conjunction, e.g. “ Because I live ye
shall live also,” “Axcommunicated shall they make you?.”
[1998] The contrast in the use of asyndeton between the Fourth
Gospel and the Three is well illustrated by what the evangelists place
severally after the statement of the Baptist that Ze baptizes with
water :
Mk i. 8 Mt. iii. 11 ik. i. 16 jn3.26
“T baptized “Ton the one “T on the one ‘“‘] baptize in
you with water, hand (pév) bap- hand (peév) bap- water : midst
but he shall tize you in tize you with of you stand-
baptize (6€)....” water to re- water,du/there eth (péoos vey
pentance, dz cometh (é¢)...” oTNHKEL) One...”
he that (6 dé)...”
[1999] Under the head of “ Conjunctions, xa@ws,” instances will
be found where the absence of a yap, d€, or cad, makes it difficult to
tell whether xafws is to be taken as beginning a new sentence or
continuing a preceding one. Moreover, in the same sentence, the
absence of conjunctions makes it sometimes difficult to determine
which is the most prominent of two or three clauses in it, or whether
each clause is to be regarded as a separate sentence, eg. ‘‘ There
1 [1996a] Jn i. 3—4. The meaning ‘That which...” would have been clearly
conveyed by 6 6¢, or (if the writer disliked 6 6€ as confusable with 65e) by éca 6é.
API 1 Oy kVIs 2
7O
3
ASYNDETON [2002 |
came into being (éyévero) [as distinct from jv applied to the Logos]
a man (av@pwros) [as distinct from @eds applied to the Logos] sent
from God. His name was John. This [man] came for witness’....”
The presence of asyndeton is most remarkable in the Prologue of
the Gospel (i. 1—18) and in the Prayer to the Father (xvi. 1—26).
The absence of asyndeton is very remarkable in xvi. 2—r11 (which
includes, as initial conjunctions, GAA, Kai, addAa, d€, €, GAN, GAN,
yap, 5é, kal, pev, dé, dé). “AAAG, “nay,” ‘but indeed,” “but on the
contrary,” often occurs in emotional utterances in Greek literature
generally. Both the presence and the absence of asyndeton appear
appropriate to the tenor of these two passages.
(ii) Classification of references
The following attempt at classification of instances of asyndeton
—according to the part of speech in connexion with which the
conjunction is omitted—may be of use to students investigating the
connexion between sentences in the Fourth Gospel.
[2000] (1) With Adverbs, or Adverbial Phrases :
(a) €ws apti, dx apt, viv, ovkéri, On, iv. 36, xil. 27, 31 (dis),
SIT eG a XLVE 7/0 Os MEVANNSs, ALIGhE XVI. 2400 a O, MEX Vile) Zhshlenen XVAy 20:
pukpov Kai, Xvi. 16.
(B) émeira, cira, xi. 7, Xlll. 5, XX. 27; ovTus, iii. 8.
(y) . TH éravprov, 1. 29, 35, 43, Vi. 22, Xil. 12.
(5) év éxetvy TH NMEpa, XIV. 20, XVI. 26.
See also 2006 for 61a rovro, peta Tatra etc.
[2001] (2) With Conjunctions:
(@) tear, pav,net, (1. 02) V3) 435 cVas Sap Villas 1 7-82 s,evill. TO) 46,
DSU, ole Pl eis Sup) ole Gyo ckehy odie Op pein, Tey any Gp iuiys ota eyo
KVe1 Ops DO; 8 DO,91O,. 20) (G75), 2/2, 24) xvii, 36, xx, 123351(G75).
(8) KaOws, and od xaOws, v. 30, Vi. 57, X. 15, XIV. 27, XV. 4, 9,
SQill, 1835 DOS Maat,
(y) or, XIV. 19 Ore eyo CO Kal twets Cyoere.
(OE oravs wee2s villa Adam Ixenche Xe) Aa. XV 20;
[2002] (3) With Imperatives: :
li. 16, 11. 7, v. 8, 28, v. 39 (?) epavvare tas ypadas (but see 2439 (1)),
Ver Gyavilerz Ooo 7. Vill 2A (ho EXIM XIV T4278 3 Ty KVeT fe
(4) With Interrogatives :
V. 44 Ts, Vl. 42 Ts, VIl. Ig ov Mwvoys, vil. 42 odx 7 ypady.
tie ©:
Val
[2003] ASYNDETON
(5) With Negatives:
i. 8, V. 30, V. 37 ovre, vi. 44 ovdeis, Vii. 7, Vili. 27, 29, xill. 18,
Xiv. 6 ovdels, xiv. 18, xv. 16, XVli. 9, 15, XXl. 12 oddels.
[2003] (6) With the Object:
(a) Object followed by Verb, vi. 68, vili. 26, 41, 1x. 21, 25,
Rw S,) Xt. say sive 27 (Ges)
(8) Object followed by Verb with Adverb or Clause intervening,
We Ai; x39.
(y) Object qualified by Relative or Participial Clause, xiv. 10,
xv. 2; or with Adj., xvl. 2 arocvvaywyovs roujcovow tpuas, XV. 13
peilova tavtns ayaryny ovdeis EXEL.
[2004] (7) With Participles :
(a) Participle without Article, 1 42 éuBAabas abre, xi. 25
avarerov ekeivos OUTWS, XX. 16 oTpadeioa exeivy Eyer aiTG, XX1. 20
erotpadeis 6 Llérpos.
(8) Participle preceded by Article (with or without intervening
Adverb or Adverbial Phrase), iii. 6, 18 (d25), 29, 31 (625), 33, 36,
Vo 123, Vil 35,545.56; Val tS, GO. Ville 02) A, eels 20, es, AG,
SALVA LGye2is U2 ql Soe Ss
(y) Participle preceded by Article and z@s, vi. 45, Xvill. 37,
KIX, 32.
(8) With Prepositions :
(a) Preposition and) Noun;.1. 1, to, £ Wig, ike 32, S12,
XV 33, XVI. 10.
(8) Preposition and Pronoun, v. 3, x. 9. See also 2006.
[2005] (9) With Pronouns:
(a) éyw (apart from éyw eipe) iv. 38, v. 43, vil. 8, 29, vill. 15, 23,
MLO; 20, Ki 46, Kil; TO Kyi) 33) KVL. 4,0, ck y RVI (Ole 7
(8) eyo eigen Vi. 485951, will. 18, 19; 0, Ty xv a, 15.
(y) mets ix. 4 (accus.), 1x. 24, 29; at beginning of speech
Vill. 41, Xll. 34, xix. 7; at beginning of clause iv. 22.
(6) ot xxi. 17 (ravrTa ov otdas, od ywwokess).
(ce) wpels iv. 22, V. 33,°vil. 8, Vili15, 23,40, 44, mu 23, MV. 17,
KV. 14, XVI. 20,
(Z) ViadAo(¢).IW. 38; vii 32, Wii gt, 1 ig’ (G15), % 2m, sae.
()) atros ix. 21, ll. 28 adroit tpets
(9) éketvos lll. 30, V. 35, Vill. 44, ix. 9, XVi. 14, XX. I5.
(t) ovros (apart from radra) i. 2, 7, 30, ili. 2, iv. 18, 47, Vv. 6,
Wi FOy FO, Vill, AO; .¥.8; RM TA, Sa.
(x) ‘ratra i. 28, yi. 59, vill. 30, ix. 6, 22, XI. TI, xX. 16, 36,
72
ASYNDETON [2008 ]
Xi. 41, Xili, 21, XIV. 25, XV. II, 17, Xvi. I, 25, 33, XVii. 1, xviii. z,
xx. 14 (for era Tatra, see 2006).
(A) obtos, ravrnv, ratra etc. in agreement, ii. 11, viii. 20, x. 18,
X. 6, XV. 12 avrn eotiv 7 évrody 4 Eun.
[2006] Forms of otros with Prepositions :
(a) Gta “sour -vil- 22, Vill. 47, 1X..23, X. 17, Xil. 30, Xill.. 11,
VIN Ge IK) Te
(8) &k Tovrov vi. 66, xix. 12.
(y) &v tovTw xill. 35, xv. 8, xvi. 30.
(6) pera rovro il. 12, xix. 28.
(€) peta Tadra ili. 22, V. I, 14, Vi. I, XXi. I.
[2007] (10) With Relative clauses introduced by 6, ézov, wis, dre:
i A, lik 32, ville 2s Xie 30, Xvile 12.
(11) With the Subject:
(a) Subject followed immediately (or with intervening Adverb
or Adverbial Clause) by Verb’, i. 15, iii. 8, 35, iv. 20, vi. 49, 63,
VAMPTS, 350 52) 50, 1k Aly Xs TO, TT exviles,;xix. 20. (In) xvii. 17
the verb is adnea éorw.)
(8) Subject qualified by Relative Clause or by Participle, i. 18,
Wier 37,035 x. Oy 120 26, elie 4S
[2008] (12) With the Verb (not including dzexpiOn, etme, or
Néyer)*:
(2) Verb absolute, or followed by Adverbial Phrase, iv. 30,
xiv. I, xvi. 28 (7s, the second time preceded by zadw), xxi. 3.
(8) Verb followed immediately by Subject or Predicate, i. 6,
OPAC AT AS 4g le 175 1Von 7, 505) Var ls,oVils Bar evils 50,15 4ouIx. 14, 3c)
xl. 35, 44, xii. 22, xiii, 23, xvi. 25, xviii. 25, xx. 18, 26, xxi. 13.
(y) Verb followed thus, but with Adverb or Adverbial Phrase
intervening, x. 22, xiii. 22 €BAerov eis GAAWAovs oF p., XXi. 2.
(8) Verb followed immediately by Object (with or without
intervening Adverb or Possessive Genitive), i. 42, vil. 34, ix. 13,
Kes; exile -iaNe KVIls 10.
(e) Verb followed by ori, viii. 37, ix. 31, otda and oidaper,
Xlv. 28 yKovoare.
(¢) To these add vi. 45 ETL Yeypappevor, 1x. 40 KOVTaY €K TOV
Papicaiwy ravra, where éx rav ®. is the Subject.
1 In xvi. 21 9 yur? Grav Tikry, a conjunction intervenes.
* Asyndeton is also found in i. 39, iV. 7, XIX. 14 Wpa Hv, and x. 22 yeluoy Hy.
* Asyndeton with these initial verbs is too frequent to permit or need a collec-
tion of all the references.
7s
[2009] CASES
CASES
I ACCUSATIVE
(i) Adverbial
[2009] This occurs in Jn vi. 10 Tov dpiOpov, vill. 25 THY apxnv, on
which see 2154—6, xv. 25 dwpeav (from Ps. lxix. 4) which needs no
comment. The present section will deal only with vi. ro (R.V.)
“Make the people (rovs dv@puovs) sit down...So the men (oi avdpes)
sat down zz number about five thousand (rov apiOpov ws mevta-
kioxihuot).” A distinction is probably intended by R.V. between
“the people,’ i.e. the whole number, including women and children,
and the “en,” who are described by Matthew as (xiv. 21) ‘about
five thousand men (avdpes) beside women and children.” But, if this
distinction were insisted on in the R.V. of John, the meaning would
be that although the Lord commanded that a// the “ people” should
be made to sit down, including the women and children, yet, for
some reason or other, only ‘‘¢#e men” sat down. We can however
retain a distinction between av@pw7o. and avdpes by dropping ot with
W.H. marg. “they sat down therefore, [de¢g'] men [exclusive of women |
to the number of five thousand.”
[2010] ‘In number” is not inserted by the Three Synoptists in
the Five Thousand narrative, nor by the Two in the Four Thousand.
Cramer quotes a Greek commentator, ‘‘He numbers ¢e men alone,
following the customs of the Law®”; and it is probable that John
means this. John may have considered that Matthew was right in
inferring, from some ancient phrase about the “numbering,” that
“women and children” were not included: but if the old Tradition
did not mention ‘‘women and children,” and Mark and Luke did
not mention them, John may have preferred to return to the exact
words, while suggesting the truth of Matthew’s interpretation by the
contrast between ‘‘men” and “‘ people.”
{2011] The noun “number,” apart from Lk. xxi. 3 “Judas...
being of the number of the twelve,” and Rom. ix. 27 (Hos. i. 10) is
1 [2009 a] (W.H.) avémecay ‘oty of dvdpes' rov apiOuor ws mevraxtoxiAro (marg.
ov, dvdpes). Less probably, ofv, of dvdpes might be read, ‘* they sat down therefore
—the men [weve, or, bezzg] five thousand.”
2 [2010 a] Cramer ii. 242 ILapoveGv 6é yuvatkav oiv réxvas udvous Tods avdpas
apOue rats kara Tov vouov cuvnfelacs akoovday.
74
ACCUSATIVE [2013]
used only in Acts and Revelation. In the former, it is always (with
one exception) used to describe the growth of the Church'; and it
is appropriate here in a narrative that is typical of that growth. In
the Pentateuch, it is frequently used in connexion with numbering
prescribed by the Law, and xar’ dpiyov is frequent. But the
adverbial tov dpiOmov rarely or never occurs in canon. LXX”*.
(ii) Absolute, or suspensive
[2012] On vi. 39 Wa zav...4n drodeow é& abrod (where 7. may
possibly, but not probably, be accus., see 1921—2), and on xv. 2 wav
KAHMa...alpEel avTO...7aV TO KapToV Pépov KaGaiper aito, see 1920—2.
(ii) Denoting time, but not duration
[2013] iv. 52—3 ‘“‘‘Yesterday, [about] the seventh hour (apav
€Bdounv) the fever left him.’ The father, therefore, recognised that [it
had left him] a¢ that same hour (éxe(vy tH wpe)*.” The accus. is
freq. in LXX in the phrase tyv wpav tavtnv avpiov, which was
apparently intended by the translators to mean ‘‘about this time
to-morrow ” (but see Gesen. 453) representing the Hebrew “as the
time” or ‘‘a¢ the “ike of the time”: and it occurs in Rev. 11. 3 “thou
shalt not know what hour (rotav wpav) I will come against thee *.”
It is perhaps vernacular, like our “‘ wat time did it happen?” If so,
the servants speak in the vernacular, as well as loosely, not knowing
that their master wanted to know the time exactly. Subsequently
the dative is used to denote the exact point of time. The father,
hearing the words ‘‘about the seventh hour,” recognised the
coincidence between “seventh” and the exact hour when Jesus
pronounced the words “Thy son liveth.”
1 Acts iv. 4, vi. 7, xi. 21, xvi. 5. The exception is v. 36.
2 [2011 a] It occurs in 2 Mace. viii. 16 dvtas Tov (A om.) a. é&axioxiAlous,
3 Mace. y. 2 rods éXépavtas motica ovTas Toy a. revTakoctous, also in Susan. 30 of
the kinsfolk and attendants dvres Tov dpiOudv mevTakoo.o TapeyevovTo (Theod, om.).
In classical Gk it is freq. e.g. Aristoph. Av. 1251.
3 [2013 a] Strictly, the sense demands “ The father, therefore, inquired further
and ascertained that it was not only about, but precisely at, the time when....’
But the text is according to nature. The father—fastening on the word “seventh”
apart from its context—says ‘* That was precisely the number.” See 2025—6.
4 [2013 6] See Ex. ix. 18, 1 K. xix. 2, xx. 6. In Acts x. 3 woel mepl wpav
évatny 7. nuépas, D is wanting, and W.H. follow the best Mss. in inserting 7rept.
The accus. of duration in Jn is too frequent and regular to need comment. Mk
xlll. 35 wecov’KTLov is prob. an adverb (2678).
a
[2014] CASES
(iv) Cognate
[2014] Such a cognate accusative as vii. 24 tv Sixatey xplow
Kpivere requires no comment. But it is very unusual that this
construction should accompany an accusative of the person as in
XVil. 26 9) aydrn Hv yydryods pe, and it is surprising that (according
to Alford) no Greek uncial except D has substituted 4 for jv. It is
probably more than a mere coincidence that the only other such
combination of personal and cognate accusative is a similar phrase,
Ephesians il. 4 dua tv woAAHY aydrnv avrod jy nyarncey nas. But
there the relative may have been attracted to the case of the
antecedent. Here no such explanation is possible, and the dative
might have been used as in iii. 29 yapa xaipet, “rejoiceth zzth joy.”
Possibly the evangelist, in these last and most solemn words of the
Son’s Last Prayer, shrank from representing the love of God as
instrumental (“wherewith”). God, he says elsewhere, “7s love,” and
the love “ wherewith” men would describe Him as loving, is really a
part of Himself, emanating from Himself. Therefore a cognate
accusative is preferred even though combined—uniquely in N.T.—
with an accusative of the personal object?.
(v) With special verbs
(a) “AkoYa
[2015] *Axovw with accusative is sometimes to be distinguished
from a, with genitive, the former meaning “ perceive by hearing,”
“catch the sound of,” while the latter means “ understand by
hearing,” “catch the meaning of.” See 1614.
(8) Teyomai
[2016] Tevouae with accusative occurs in ii. 9 (R.V.) “And when
the ruler of the feast sasted the water now become wine (ws de
€yevrato 0 a. TO Vdwp olvov yeyevnuévov) and knew not whence it was
(but the servants which had drawn the water knew) the ruler of the
feast calleth the bridegroom....” A.V. has “the water ¢za¢ was made
wine,” which would require 76 to be repeated after twp. R.V. marg.
has “tasted the water chat it had become wine.’ ‘Chis would explain
the construction here as parallel with that of yevoua. meaning
} [2014 a] I have not found in classical Gk an instance of dyarav twa with
dydrnv. But comp. Odyss. XV. 245 dv...pldree (i.e. éptder) mavrolny pidéryTa, and
Soph. £lectra 1034 Tocodrov &xOos éxOaipw a’ ey.
76
ACCUSATIVE [2017]
“taste and see that,” in Hebrews ‘“‘ Having ¢asted [and seen that] the
word of God [is] good’.” But that construction is very rare. ‘The
writer is there quoting from the Psalms, and perhaps erroneously, as
he differs both from the Greek and from the Hebrew.
[2017] In Jn viii. 52 “he shall not taste of death,” the genitive
is used, and the question in il. 9 is, whether the accusative is used
like the genitive to mean “ taste of” or to mean “taste and perceive
that.” Outside LXX yevouar is rarely used with accusative: but in
LXX the accusative is fairly frequent*. In N.T., yevouar is never
used with the accusative except in Hebrews as above mentioned and
here*. On the whole the grammatical evidence favours the view (of
R.V. marg.) that John would not have used the accusative if he had
not meant something different from ‘tasted of the water.” But
there is great difficulty in harmonizing with the context the marginal
reading of R.V. ‘“‘tasted the water that it had become wine.” For
this is the first indication in the narrative that the water has become
wine, and we should expect—if the taster knew that the liquid had
recently been water—* tasted the water and found to his astonishment
that it had become wine.” Besides, if John meant “taste and see
that,” why did he use the accusative and not ove as in Proverbs
(2016 z)? The context indicates that the taster knew nothing of
the conversion of the water to wine but simply pronounced the
wine unusually good.
1 [2016 a] Heb. vi. 5 Kaddv yevoamévovs Aeod prua (the nearest approach to
which is Herod. vil. 46 yAukty yevoas Tov ai@va “having made us ¢asée, i.e. perceive,
life to be sweet”) is a free quotation from Ps. xxxiv. 8 “‘ daste and see that (yetcaobe
kal idere drt) the Lord is good.” In the context (Heb. vi. 4) yevouwar occurs with
the ordinary genitive (‘Shaving tasted of the heavenly gift”). Tevouac means
“*taste [and see] that (67)”’ ‘‘z.e. perceive that’ in Prov. xxxi. 18. It also means
‘*discriminate the taste of” and governs accus. in Job xil. 11 otra (parall. to
dtaxplvet), Xxxiv. 3 Bpwow (parall. to doxudger), comp. Sir. xxxvi. 19 ‘* As the
palate aiscremznates (yeverat) the flesh of beasts of the chase (8pwuara Anpas) so
doth the understanding heart [a?scrimznate] false words.”
? (2017 a] Steph. quotes only Antig. Caryst., Leonid., and the dictum of
Suidas, yevouat, aitvaricxn. In LXX (besides the instances above mentioned)
yevouat is found with (1 S. xiv. 29—43) Bpaxd 7. médcTos ToUTOV...Bpaxd wed, (Tob.
vil. £1) ovdév, (Jon. iil. 7) uydév: but always with dprov (1 S. xiv. 24, 2S. ili. 35,
1 Esdr. ix. 2). In LXX, the accus. with yevoua is always neuter, except where it
is parall. (Job xxxiv. 3) to doxyudfe. See 2016 a.
8 [20174] The instances with genit. are Mk ix. 1, Mt. xvi. 28, Lk. ix. 27
Oavdrovu, Lk. xiv. 24 y. mou T. detmvou, Jn vill. 52 Oavarov, Acts xxill. 14 pydevds,
Heb. 11. g @avarov, vi. 4 dwpeds.
Ted
[2018] CASES
[2018] These facts are almost conclusive against R.V. margin.
The difficulty of R.V. text may be diminished by punctuating some
of the words as part of a parenthesis and by rendering yevouae with
the accusative (as in Proverbs) ‘‘ tasted” in the sense of “tested.”
The writer speaks of ‘‘ the water—{now] become wine,” somewhat as
he speaks of the blind man of Siloam, when healed, in different
phrases—“ the formerly blind,” “the blind,” ‘‘the man that had
recovered sight.” So here, the wine might be called “the formerly
water” or “the now wine.” The attendants brought it as “‘ water,”
the master of the feast tested it as “wine.” ‘The evangelist combines
the facts thus : ‘‘ Now when the master of the feast tasted the water—
[wow] become wine (and* (xa‘) he knew not whence it was, but the
attendants knew, they that had drawn the water)—the master of the
feast called the bridegroom and said....” This is almost equivalent
to “ Now when he tasted the water—[/ say water, but] it had become
wine...*.” This brief and parenthetic statement of the first of
Christ’s miracles—in which the reader is let into the secret in two
words (‘‘become wine”) while the master of the feast talks, outside
the secret, in twenty (‘Every man—until now”) is_ highly
characteristic of the Fourth Gospel.
(y) TIpockyneo
[2019] IIpocxvvéw in the following passage is used, first, with
dative, then with doubtful case, then again with dative, and then with
accusative: iv. 21—3 “Ye shall worship the Father (dat.) Ye worship
[that] which (?) ye know not, we worship [that] which (?) we know’...
shall worship the Father (dat.)...the Father seeketh...those worship-
ping him (accus.). God is Spirit, and they that worship him (accus.)
must worship in spirit and truth.” See 1640—61, where it is shewn
that (r) the dative is the regular form in LXX, but the accusative in
classical Greek ; (2) the dative emphasizes the notion of “ prostrating
oneself 4o a person, idol, or God,” while the accusative means
“adore” without this emphasis. Here, as between the Jews and the
Samaritans, Jesus uses the Hebrew construction ‘“ Neither in this
HX) 13, 17; 18-
2 Possibly kal means ‘‘and yet,” or ‘* but,”’ see 2136—45.
% [2018 @] Codex a actually reads ‘‘ aqua,” but probably through scribal error:
‘cum autem gustasset architriclinus aqua vinum factum....... ¥
4 [2019] In iv. 22 7. 5 ovk oldare...... 5 oldamev, the antecedent may be dat. or
accus. Heracleon (Orig. Comm. Huet ii. 213 B decay rive mpookuvovcr) took it to
be dative.
78
DATIVE [2021]
mountain nor in Jerusalem shall ye bow yourselves down to the
Father” ; and this is repeated: ‘‘ They shall bow down to the Father
[not in any dace but] in spirit and truth.” But when the doctrine
proceeds to base this prediction on the general statement that God
is Spirit, and seeks such worshippers, the Greek phrase is used,
“those worshipping him (accus.).”
i” DATIVE;
(i) Of instrument
[2020] xxi. 8 “But the other disciples came dy the little boat
(td tovapiw 7AOov),” appears to mean something different from
coming “zz (ev) the boat,” the phrase used by Mark?. In Mk vi. 32,
Tischendorf follows the authorities that omit ev*, and there the
meaning may be that Jesus avoided the multitude by departing
‘““by boat,” as distinct from ‘ox foot” which is mentioned by Mark
in the context. Chrysostom here contrasts ‘“‘coming by the boat”
with ‘ swimming®.”
(1) Of time (completion)
[2021] ii. 20 (R.V.) “Forty and six years was this temple in
building,” recoepaxovra kai && érecw wKodopnby 6 vads ovTos, iS
generally taken by modern commentators as referring to the Herodian
Temple, which, it is supposed, was still being built at the time when
the Jews uttered these words, so that they would mean, in effect,
“Forty-six years is it since the building of this Temple began [and
it is not yet finished].” This would practically give a “dative of
duration of time.” Such a dative is found in late Gk, e.g. Joseph.
Ant. i. 3. 5 TO vowp npepats Teaoapakovta oAats KaTepepeTo, Euseb. v. 1
moAXois erecw...duatpivas, but always in passages where there is no
possibility of confusing the dative of duration with ‘the dative of
+ For the dative with special verbs, ¢.2. muorevw, mpooxuvéw, see the special
verbs in Index.
1 Mk v. 21, vi. 32, with diarepdcavtos and drf\Oov. Mt. xiv. 13 also has ev
mow (but without the article) with aveywpncer.
2 [20202] In Mk vi. 32 dmfdOov év 7@ Toiw W.-H. ins. & without alter-
native: the text there varies greatly.
3 [2020 4] ’AAN ovdé ottrws exaprépynoe TS TOiw Mpds avTdv ENDewy AAA VX OuEVOS
TapeyeveTo.
79
[2022] CASES
completion, which is the natural construction here, “was built [azd
completed | in forty-six years?.”
[2022] Heracleon referred the words to Solomon’s temple.
Origen points out that Solomon’s temple was built in seven years,
and adds that there are no means of clearly connecting “ forty-six
years” with Ezra’s temple*. He takes it for granted that wxodounOn
means ‘‘ was built” in past times, but appears to give up the problem.
The Herodian theory he does not so much as mention. ‘The details
given by Josephus (Azz. xv. 11. 1 foll. and elsewhere) make it clear
that a Jew would say about Herod’s temple, “‘ This work took from
eight to ten years to finish, and the completion was celebrated with
great splendour in Herod’s lifetime.” It is true that, after the great
fire in the reign of Archelaus and some sinking of the foundations,
the Temple constantly needed repairs: but, even if we could suppose
with probability that the Jews were referring to these repairs as
“building,” the number of years would not suit the supposition.
For according to Lightfoot (B.Z. p. 31) the Jews, at the time of
the Passover, might have said forty-seven years, and, according to
Westcott (ad loc.), forty-nine. It is against nature to suppose that
they would have definitely understated this as ‘‘forty-stx.” | Much
more probably they would have said “some fifty years.”
1 [2021a] £.g. there is no possibility of confusing Ezr. v. 16 amd réte Ews Tod
vov @KodounOn Kal ovx éredécoOy, parall. 1 Esdr. vi. 19 dm’ éxelvou méxpe Tod viv
olkodomovpmevos ovx é\aBe cuvTédecav.
% [2022 a2] Westcott does not mention Origen’s and Heracleon’s views, and the
former is represented in Clark’s transl. as saying ‘‘ Someone else will say that the
temple...was...the temple built at the time of Ezra, with regard to which the forty-
six years can be shewn to be quite accurate.” But Huet gives, for the words J have
ztalicised (ii. 188 E) mept ov odk exouev TpavGs Tov Tay TecoapdKovTa Kai EE EToY
amodetear ddnOevdmevoy Adyor, i.e. ‘with regard to which we are not able clearly to
demonstrate that the statement of forty-six years is truly stated” —implying that
Origen knew that there were arguments for it, but not such as were clearly
demonstrative. Clark proceeds, ‘‘ But in this Maccabean period things were very
unsettled with regard to the people and the temple, and I do not know if the
temple was really built in that number of years.” But the words are, €ouxe dé Kal
kara Th paxkaBaixd mod Tis dkaTacracla yeyovévat mept Tov Naov Kai Tov vady Kal
ovK olda el rote WKodouAOn Toco'Tos érecw 6 vads. Steph. gives maxkaPatka as
meaning ‘the books of the Maccabees ” and qove appears to mean “‘ever’’ or “at
any rate”’—‘‘I do not know whether the temple was every built in this number of
years.” The Latin has “ tunc”’ (reading ré7e). Origen introduces all this with
the words (Huet ii. 187 E£) ‘‘ How the Jews [can] say they built the temple in
forty-six years we are not able to say if we are to follow the history exactly,” was rT.
x. €& &reaw @Kodoujoal (sic) pact Tov vadv ol "Tovdator Né-yovrac (marg. Néyew) ovK
exouev el rH loropla KaraKxoNovbyjoouev.
So
DATIVE [2025]
[2023] But the definite ‘“‘forty-sx years” can be explained
as follows in accordance with Jewish feeling, with the views of
Heracleon, with the chronology of Eusebius, with the text of LXX,
and with the language of Josephus. It was an error relating to
the second temple, the temple of Ezra, which the Jews, among
themselves, would regard as merely repaired by Herod, not as rebuilt.
The edict for rebuilding was issued (Ezr. v. 13) “in the first year
of Cyrus king of Babylon” i.e. 538 B.c. But LXX omits “of
Babylon” having ‘‘Cyrus the king.” And the Hebrew itself has
gone further in Ezra i. 1 “In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia.”
But this is 559 B.c. Josephus (Azz. xi. 1. 1) says that the edict
was issued ‘‘in the first year of the reign of Cyrus,” which is
ambiguous: he also says that the temple was completed in the
ninth year of Darius, z.e. B.c. 513. Now from 559 B.c. to 513 B.C.
gives “forty-six years,” as is stated in the chronology of Eusebius
extracted from Syncellius (vol. u. p. 81) ‘‘Now from the second
year of Darius until the sixth it [the temple] was fully completed...
within forty-six entire years from the first year of Cyrus?”
[2024] When the Herodian temple was destroyed it was not
unnatural that Talmudic traditions should dwell upon its splendour :
but it is very unlikely that Jews born in the reign of Herod the
Idumaean would recognise him as a Builder like Solomon or Ezra.
Possibly when it fell into disrepair they would console themselves—
as with the proverb “Rome was not built in a day ”—by reflecting
that the building of the Temple in former times lingered through
two reigns, and by repeating to one another that ‘In the days of
Cyrus and Darius ¢his temple took forty-six whole years to build.”
Josephus, though his chronology may have led to this error, did not
himself commit the error: and possibly our evangelist did not. He
may have taken it as the mere chatter of the “ Jews” whose ignorant
talk he elsewhere holds up to ridicule. But, in any case, no reliance
can be placed on “forty-six” as determining the date at which the
Jews were speaking, or as evidence of the evangelist’s presence
as an ear-witness. He may have obtained this detail from books.
(ui) Of point of time
[2025] iv. 53 “The father therefore recognised fhat [it was]
at that same hour (ore éxeivy TH Opa) in the course of which (ev 7)....”
1° Amo 6é devrépou érous Aapelou ews Exrou dvewAnpwOn...€v wS érerw Odors ard
Tov mpwrov Erous Kuvpou.
IN, WAL. SI 6
[2026] CASES
The majority of mss. (Alford) insert év before éxe‘vy. Its omission
by the best Mss. gives us ‘‘the dative of the point of time”: and this
exactness is more suitable to the contrast, indicated above (2013),
with the accusative in iv. 52 ‘‘aéout the seventh hour,” which the
father interprets as “ precisely at the seventh hour.”
[2026] The phrase ‘in (év) that same hour” occurs in Matthew’s
account of the healing of the centurion’s son or servant, where the
parallel Luke merely says that the messengers returned and found
the servant healed. So where Matthew says that the Syrophoenician’s
daughter “‘ was healed from (a70) that same hour,” Mark merely says
that she returned and found her healed. These are the only two
instances of healing at a distance in the Synoptists. Evidential
proof needed an instance that should combine (1) ‘“‘veturning and
finding” with (2) “at that same hour.’ John’s single tradition of
healing at a distance—which has many points in common with
Matthew’s and Luke’s narrative—contains this combination. It
should be added that “at that same hour” is peculiar to this passage
of John’.
(iv) With rapa
[2027] The Synoptic rapa 6eo—in the phrases “possible zwzth
God?,” “favour with God*,” “ye have no reward with your Father
which is in heaven” (A.V. (txt) ‘of your Father*”)—rather gives
the impression of meaning ‘“‘7x the sight of God.” But the exact
meaning of the preposition is “by the side of”; and this may be
interpreted (in accordance with a frequent use of zapa in Greek
literature) as meaning ‘27 the house of.” John brings out this, which
one may call “the domestic meaning,” much more clearly, vii. 38
‘“That which I have seen zz the house of the Father,” xvi. 5 “ And
now glorify thou me, O Father, zz thine own house (rapa ceavta)
with the glory that I had zz ¢hy house [rapa oot] before the world
was.” The latter may be compared with the saying of Wisdom
about herself and the Creator, “‘ Before his works of old...or ever
the earth was...I was dy him (jpnv zap’ aire)’.” Both here and
1 (2026 a] Luke has “in (év) that same hour” once, vii. 21 ‘‘in that same
hour he healed many of diseases.” But he prefers ii. 38, xxiv. 33 a’ry 7H
wpa ‘Sat that very hour,” x. 21, xii. 12, xiii, 31, xx. 19 & aury T. @., ‘‘in that
very hour.”
2 Mk x. 27, Mt. xix. 26, Lk. xviii. 27. ® Lk, 4..30; 11. 52.
4 Mt. Yi. 1. 5 Prov. viii. 22—30.
82
GENITIVE [2030]
in John, we might render apa ‘‘ by the side of” or ‘in the bosom
of.” On the distinction between zapa 1rO ratpé and zapa rod
matpos in Jn vill. 38, see 2855—7.
III GENITIVE
(i) Absolute
[2028] Mark uses this construction somewhat monotonously for
the most part to introduce the circumstances of a new narrative in
such phrases as ‘‘when it was late,” ‘when he was going forth,”
‘““while he was yet speaking” etc. In four of these instances the
parallel Matthew and Luke employ the same construction!. Mark
never uses it in Christ’s words, except once in the Parable of
the Sower?.
[2029] Matthew, in the Triple Tradition, uses it freely, like
Mark, in the temporal clauses of narrative (often however with é¢
where Mark has xa). He introduces it thrice in Christ’s words,
all in the Parable of the Sower and its explanation; and one of
the three agrees with Mark*. As in Mark, the implied conjunction
is “when” or ‘‘ while,” with perhaps one exception‘.
[2030] In the Triple Tradition, Luke introduces it twice into
Christ’s Discourse on the Last Days in insertions peculiar to him-
self’, once in Christ’s instructions for the preparation of the Passover‘,
and once in the words of our Lord at His arrest’. Luke appears to
use it causally in xxii. 44—5 “There came a darkness...the sun
failing, or, being eclipsed,” and quasi-causally in xxi. 55 “‘ Now as
they had lighted (epiaavrwy dé) a fire...,” xxiv. 5 ‘Now as they
were terrified (€upoBwv de yevouevwv).” Except in these three
1 [2028a] Mk i. 32, ix. g, xi. 27, xiv. 43, and parall. Mt.-Lk. The vb. is not
the same in all these cases. I have not noticed more than these four agreements
of Mt.-Lk. with Mk in about 30 instances of the genit. abs. in Mk. In Mk
the clause is almost always preceded by kal.
2 [20284] Mk iv. 17 eira yevouévns ONlWews, Mt. xiii. 21 yevouévns dé OALWews,
Lk. viii. 13 Kal €v Kaip@ metpacpod.
3 Mt. xiii. 6, 19, 21.
4 [2029 a] Mt. xxvi. 60 kal ovx evpov moh\Gv mpoceNOivTwy Wevdomapripwv.
5 Lk. xxi. 26 dmopuxdvtwr dvOpwrwyv, xxi. 28 apxomévav dé TovTww ylveOa.
6 Lk. xxii. 10 [60d eicehOdvtwy buay els THv wOAW (Mk xiv. 13, Mt. xxvi. 18
Yrrayere eis THY TOdwW).
7 Lk. xxii. 53 Kad’ quépay dvros mov (Mk xiv. 49 juny, Mt. xxvi. 55
exabe(ounyr).
83 o—2
[2031] CASES
passages, Luke appears, like Matthew and Mark, to imply “when”
or “ while.”
[2031] Zn no case does John use the genitive absolute tn recording
Christ's words. Elsewhere he 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 il. 3, v. 13,
vi. 17. “Zhough” is certainly implied in xil. 37, xxl. 11, and
perhaps in xx. 19 “There cometh Jesus, the doors being shut,
z.e. (?) though the doors were shut'.”
(i) Objective or subjective
[2032] In Greek, as in English, such a phrase as “the love of
God” may imply one of two propositions :—(1) ‘‘God (szdyect)
loves man,” (2) “Man loves God (o6ject).” “‘ Of God,” if it implies
the former, is called a swdjective genitive; if the latter, an odjective
genitive. “The love of God” occurs frequently in the Johannine
Epistle but only once in the Gospel, v. 42 “‘But I know you, that
ye have not ¢he love of God in you,”
Tov Geov ovK éxeTe ev é€avtois, where the question arises whether the
genitive is subjective or objective. The following considerations
make it probable that in the Gospel, as in the Epistle, it is sub-
jective, ‘‘the love that God gives to man.”
[2033] In the first place, dyaay in N.T. is very rarely used with
objective genitive, perhaps only once or twice*. It is never thus
> \ >» CLA ee \ > ,
arr eyVOKa UPas OTL THV ayaTnv
1 [2031a@] The meaning ‘‘though”’ is necessitated by the context in xii. 37
** He having wrought so many signs they did not believe,” that is, ‘ though he
had wrought.” This suggests that in Lk. xxii. 53 évros may be intended to
mean, “ ¢hough 7 was [in the temple by day, ye did not lay hands on me].”
2 [2033 a] Westcott, on i Jn ii. 5, says that the genit. with ay. ‘‘once marks the
object of love, 2 Thess. ii. 10 7 dy. Tis aGdnOelas.” He omits Lk. xi. 42
mapépxecbe rhy kplow Kal Ti ayaa Tod Oeov. There it is possible that the words
mean ‘‘ye neglect God’s judgment and God's love,” i.e. the way in which God
judges and loves: ‘* Ye neglect the things that God condemns and God loves, and
condemn the things He loves, and love the things He condemns.” But Cyril
(Cramer) assumes the meaning to be dydan 7 els Oedv (Winer and Alford are
silent) and most people would probably take the meaning to be ‘‘ [just] judgment
and love toward God.”
[2033 4] In 2 Thess. iii. 5 ‘‘ And [may] the Lord guide your heart safe
(karevOivar buay 7. kapdlav) into the love of God,” the regular Pauline usage would
of itself suffice to make it almost certain that it means “ ¢he love of God (toward
men]” (like ‘‘the peace of God”) sometimes regarded (Rom. v. 5) as a gift of God
shed forth in man’s heart, but here regarded as a goal or haven. This is confirmed
84
GENITIVE [2035 |
used by St Paul, who always regards ‘‘the love of God,” and “the
love of Christ,” as, so to speak, divine inmates in man’s heart, sent
from God. As “the peace of God” constrains a man to be peaceful,
and “the [social] fellowship of the Holy Spirit” constrains him
to be social, so ‘‘the love of God” constrains him to be loving,
both to God his Father and to men the children of the Father.
Thus “the love of God” for man causes “the love of God” in man,
i.e. causes man to love God. But this consequent love of man for
God or for Christ is not what St Paul primarily means when he says,
“the love of Christ constraineth us.” He means Christ’s love as
a divine fire in the heart, driving out the fires of “this world.” ‘This
is invariably the meaning of the phrase in the Pauline Epistles.
[2034] And this, almost (if not quite) always, holds good in the
very numerous instances in which the Johannine Epistle mentions
“the love of God.” The writer thinks of it as a gift, spirit, or germ,
that comes from God not from ourselves (‘‘Not that we loved God
but that He loved us’’). It enables us to love, as the light of the sun
enables us to see; but, as the latter remains ‘‘the light of the sun,”
so the former remains “the love of God.” ‘The love of God” in
our heart, like any other vital germ. needs to be (i Jn ul. 5)
“perfected” by responsive human action, and it cannot grow and
expand without pushing out the love of the world’.
[2035] Greek scholars, familiar with 9 a@yarn meaning ‘the
[feeling of] love,” may sometimes think that John uses the article
thus. But apparently he never does. The context always indicates
that he uses “ze dove” (as Jews used “ the Name” and “the Will”)
to mean ‘Zhe love of God revealed to men in Christ,” or ‘‘the real
love as distinct from love so called by the world,’ or “the love
wherewith the Son loved us and bade us love one another.” This
seems to be the meaning in 1 Jn i. 16 “Herein know we ¢he dove
by the use of xarevdivw in Lk i. 79 ‘‘ guide safely zxto the way of peace” and by
general Greek usage (Steph.), especially by that of Clem. Alex. 654 (Steph., but ?
ref.) ‘‘ guide the ship safe,” and by Ps. exli. 2 (LXX) ‘‘ Let my prayer yo straight
[¢o heaven] as incense before thee (karevOuvOnTw) ”? quoted by Clem. Alex. 857. In
the Pauline Epistles, both ‘‘the love of God” and “the love of Christ” always
mean the love of God, or of Christ, for zs.
1 [2034a] But the writer does not speak of ‘‘the love of the world” as an
entity in the same way in which he speaks of ‘the love of God.” He prefers the
verb, thus (1 Jn ii. 15) ‘‘if any man Jove the world the love of the Father is not
in him.” It is the Epistle of St James that speaks of (iv. 4) ‘‘the friendship
of the world.”
85
| 2036] CASES
[revealed by the Son of God] because he laid down his life for us,”
and in 1 Jn iil. 23—iv. to “Let us love one another as he gave
commandment to us....Let us love one another, because ¢he Jove
[wherewith he commanded us to love one another] is from God......
Herein ¢he love of God was manifested in us because he hath sent his
only begotten Son...... herein is the love [of God], not because we
have loved God, but because he loved us.” Unloving conduct on
the part of a Christian is a proof that this divine entity is not in his
soul, 1 Jn ili. r7 “‘Whoso shutteth up his heart...how abideth che
Love of God in him?”
[2036] These statements about “ ¢he [vea/] love” or “the love
{of God]” as an entity given to men and abiding in men, reach
a climax in the doctrine that God Himself is “love,” and that ‘the
love of God” has the power of expelling fear if only it is allowed
scope so as to be perfected. The writer begins by saying ‘“‘ And as
for us, our whole knowledge, yea, our whole faith, consists in ¢he love
that God hath in us’.” That is to say, as we are in the sunlight even
1 [20362] 1 Jn iv. 16 kal jets eyvwkamev Kal remiorevKauer Ty aydmrny qv exer
6 eds év Huiy. The writer seems to have begun with the intention of saying ‘* We
have a full knowledge of the love.” Then it occurs to him that not only our
knowledge, but our faith is wrapped up in this ‘‘love.’’ To have used the dative
‘*we fully trust to the love of God” would not have expressed the meaning, which
is that, as we may be said to ‘‘love [with] love” (cogn. accus. dyama@v aydany
(2014)), so we may be said to ‘trust [with] trust” (risredoa: miorw), or rather to
trust with something more than trust—to ‘trust [with] love (ri7retoa dydamnyv).”
Love is the atmosphere breathed by faith as well as the object of knowledge.
[2036 4] As tor Jn iv. 16 tHy dydarny jy Exec 6 Beds Ev juiv, Westcott gives
several instances of ay. éyew but none of ay. éxew év Tux except Jn xiii. 35 éav ay.
éxnre év ad\ydots, Where év ad\d7Aots—a phrase capable of being applied to inter-
course hostile as well as friendly (Aesch. Prom. 200 ordots r év ddA Aovow: but
mostly friendly, Mk ix. 50 elpnvevere év a., Rom. xv. 5 70 avrd ppovely év a.)—
appears to be disconnected from éxyew and to mean ‘“‘in your dealings with one
another.” Perhaps ‘‘keep love” is intended to come as a climax: xiii. 34—5
** Love one another...... as I /oved you, dove one another...... thus shall men know
you to be my disciples if ye feep ove among one another.” In Phil. ii. 1—2,
“Comfort in Christ...consolation of love...fellowship of the Spirit...zavzng
the same love,” the meaning seems to be that the Philippians are to ‘‘%eep” in
their hearts one and ‘the same” quickening, consoling and comforting ‘‘ love [of
Christ]” as also the same ‘‘ Spirit [of Christ].’’ In 1 Pet. iv. 8 ri els éavrods ay.
éxrevi) exovres the meaning is, ‘‘ keeping constantly in the full tension of exercise
and practice, not letting it become slack.”” By analogy—until there can be found
some instances where ay. éxw év gol means ‘‘I have love for thee ”—we must take
1 Jn iv. 16 “the love that God hath in us” to mean “the spark, or spirit, or
vitalising power, of love, which God keeps in our hearts as His representative and
as our comforter.”
86
GENITIVE [2037]
while the sunlight is in us, so it is with love. Then he proceeds,
‘God is love, and he that abideth in che love [of God] abideth in
God, and God [abideth] in him. Herein hath the dove [of God] been
perfected [working in our souls] along with us...Fear hath no
existence in ¢he love [of God], but the perfected love [of God’ casteth
Out feara.qa We (emph.) are loving [now, simply] because he first
loved us’.”
[2037] In the following passage, however, the objective genitive
seems at first sight intended, 1 Jn v. 2—3 “ Herein know we that we
are loving the children of God when we are loving God and doing
his commandments. For this is ‘he dove of God (lit.) in order that
(tva) we should be keeping his commandments....” Here some
might suggest the following paraphrase: “ Hereby we know that we
are loving God’s children, not selfishly as our playthings or amuse-
ments, but genuinely as our brethren, when we are loving God Him-
self and doing His will: for ‘Our love of God can only be shewn in
the effort to fulfil His will®’” But the “effort,” or purpose, may, in
this passage, be divine, not human. For (r) it will be shewn (2098 foll. )
that, when our Lord says “This is my commandment 27 order that ye
may love one another,” an “effort,” or “ object,” 1s implied on the part
of the Son for the good of men, and (2) the Johannine phrase airy éotw
n regularly introduces the definition of something that comes not from
man, but from God (2396—7). Hence we may with more probability
paraphrase 1 Jn v. 2—3 as follows: ‘“‘ Hereby know we that we are
loving the children of God [with the real love] when we are loving
God in our hearts and doing His will with our hands :—/or this ts the
meaning and purpose of the love of God | His gift in our hearts,
namely] that we should be keeping His commandments....” This
agrees with what is said elsewhere, “‘If a man does not do God’s will,
how dwelleth se love of God in him?” So here, ‘What is the
object of the love of God in you except that you should do His
will?”
1 y Jn iv. 16—18 % Tedela aydqn, z.e. perfected, or fullgrown, in us, corre-
sponding to (iv. 17) TereNecwmévy.
2 [2036 c] 1 Jniv. 19 jets dyarGuev, bre abrds mpOros nyamnoev nuds. Ihave
quoted 1 Jnii. 5—iv. rg fully, because Lightfoot (2 Thess. ili. 5) refers to these
passages as indicating that ‘it is very seldom possible...to separate” the meaning
‘‘love of God for us” from the meaning ‘‘our love for God”—a conclusion
different from the one maintained above.
3 The words italicised are Westcott’s paraphrase of atirn yap éorw 7) dydmn Tov
Oeod iva Tas évrodas avTov Typapev.
87
[2038] CASES
[2038] We return to the single mention of “the love of God” in
the Gospel. It follows the Healing on the Sabbath. Jesus charges
the Jews with rejecting Him on account of this act of kindness and
with refusing the testimony of His works: v. 37—42 “The Father
that sent me, he hath borne witness to me...ye have not his word
(Aoyov) abiding in you (év tpiv peévovta), [I say this] because him
whom he sent ye believe not...... ye desire not to come to me that ye
may have life...... I know you that ye have not the love of God in
yourselves (tHhv ay. t. Beod ovk exere év Eavrois).” Theoretically, and
taken by themselves apart from N.T. and Johannine usage, these
last italicised words might mean, ‘‘Ye have no love or God,” but
that this is not the case is probable for the two following reasons.
[2039] (1) Whenever this writer describes a believer as “having”
or “to have” something “in himself,” he always means “ having in
his heart some vitalising germ placed there by God.” Unstable
believers are described by Mark as “having no root iz themselves,”
and Matthew follows Mark. Luke omits “in themselves!.” Perhaps
Luke thought that “the root” of a Christian life is in God. There
is a difficulty in defining how far the divine seed in the heart of man
is still God’s, and how far it is now man’s, when it takes root there.
But John, though he rarely uses the metaphor of a seed, habitually
regards the life-giving entity as a gift from God: iv. 14 “the water
that I shall give him will become zz him a fountain of water,”
v. 26 “as the Father hath life in himself so also to the Son gave he to
have life in himself,” vi. 53 ‘‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son
of man and drink his blood ye have not Ae in yourselves.” So in the
Epistle (ill. 15) “no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him (marg.
in himself ).” In one passage, the fountain of life is described not as
“in” the believer but as gushing forth from him (vil. 37—8) in
“rivers.” But in every case the evangelist, while insisting that each
believer must have this vitalising source “in his very self”—for that
is the meaning of év éavré—always regards it as the gift of God, not
as the thought of man.
[2040] (2) The second reason is the parallelism between “Ve
have not in yourselves ¢he love of God” and the preceding ‘“ Ye have
1 [2039 a] In the explanation of the Parable of the Sower, Mk iv. 17 ovK
exovow plyav év éavrois, Mt. xiii. 21 ok exer dé plgav év éaur@, Lk. viii. 13 simply
pifay otk &xovow. [So Mark alone has (ix. 50) ‘Have salt im yourselves (év
€avrois) and be at peace with one another (év ddd}Aows).”]
88
GENITIVE [2042]
not abiding in you Azs Logos,” 1.e. “ the Logos that proceeds from God.”
The writer assumes here (as in the Prologue) that even before
the Logos came to ‘“‘his own,” bringing Light into the world, all men
had some affinity to the Logos and some glimmerings of the Light,
But some stifled the sound of the Logos and shut out the Light, so
that when the crisis came—the moment for accepting or rejecting the
incarnate Logos—they had not a trace of the Logos in them, nor a
trace of the Love of God, that might have helped their hearts to go
forth responsively to meet the Love incarnate. In accordance with
this parallelism, “‘the love of God” would mean ‘‘the love that
proceeds from God”: and this rendering agrees with the Johannine
usage elsewhere and also with the contextual phrase “have in
yourselves.”
(ii) Partitive
[2041] In partitive phrases with zodvs, John never uses
Matthew’s and Luke’s expression zoAXoi tev..., “many of the... '.”
But he sometimes uses a modified form of it, interposing a verb or
participle, e.g. “ Many therefore Aaving heard it |many I mean| of his
disciples, said....” In such cases, the genitive is sometimes preceded
by the Hebraic éx®: iv. 39 ék d€ THs réAEws exetvys ToAAOL exiotevoar
bP)
eis avtov TOV &., V1. 60 oAAol ody axovaavtes éx Tov pabytav adTod
elray, Xll. IL ToAXOt Ov adtov bxpyov TGv “lovdaiwy, xix. 20 TodTov ovv
tov tithov rodAoi avéyvwcav trav “lovdaiwv. Comp. vii. 44 twes dé
nOedov e€& avTav midoar avrtor.
[2042] A construction almost if not quite peculiar to John is the
partitive genitive, with or without ék, (a) before the governing word,
or (6) with no governing word. In (6), ék rév Papicatwv means “from
the Pharisees [some].” Obviously, with a verb of motion in the
context this may create ambiguity, because the meaning may be
(1) “ Some of the Pharisees came, were sent etc.,” (2) “They came,
were sent etc. from the Pharisees.” This ambiguity (on which see
Ellipsis, 2213—5) occurs in the first of the instances quoted below :—
1 [2041 a] Ilo\Xoi ré&v does not occur at all in Mk (Bruder) but is in Mt. iii. 7,
Lk. i. 16, Acts iv. 4, viii. 7, xiii. 43 etc., also in Rev. viii. 11.
> [2041 6] The Hebraic ‘‘many from (éx),” ‘some from (éx),” which is also
used by the Synoptists (though very rarely by Mark) is fairly frequent in Jn,
especially in the Raising of Lazarus, e.g. xi. 19, 37, 45, 46. It is quite distinct
from the selective éx in classical Gk, é.2. AploTor EK.
89
[2043] CASES
= ‘ > / > a : /
1. 24 (?) Kat arectadpévor joav ex tov Papicaiwvy, 1. 35 tornKe "I.
ws ° 6 “ > a Ov * > c ¢ Nee A 3 / q
Kal EK TOV MabyTaOV avTOD dSvo, V1. II (?) dwoiws Kal Ex TOV dWapiwv ocoV
»” S > QA \ > i ~ oo ° A > ec e
nOedov, vi. 64 GAAG cioly e€€ Ypav TWés Ol, Vi. 70 Kai Ef Upav els
/ , > * > A »”
duaBodos eat, vii. 31 €x Tod OxXAOV dé roAAOL Eexlorevoay eis adtTOr,
-* > A ” > > , A , , »”
Vil. 40 €k Tov OoxAdov ovv akovoavTes THv oywv ToOvTwWY Eeyor,
° »” > > a , , : ¥ > A
1x. 16 €Aeyov ovv ex Tov Papicaiwy Tivés, 1X. 40 KOVoaV ek TOV
, a > > Aaa: oo ¢ A
Papiraiwv ravta ol pet avTov OvTEs, X11. 42 Ouws pevTOL Kal ex TOV
> , ee) , > > , ° > > 3 A A
APXOVTWV mwoAXot eriotevoay eis QuToV, XVI. I7 €l\7QAV OVV EK TwV pabnrav
> ~ , gO ? cal ,
avTov mpos GAAyAovs, XVill. Q oUK amwAeoa €€ avTav ovdEVa.
(iv) Before Nouns
[2043] The Synoptists place the possessive aitod mostly after its
noun, ¢g. Tov iwavta avtov. John frequently places it before ‘he
article and its noun, e.g. abdtov Tov iwavta'—somewhat like the Latin
dative “loose for him the shoe-latchet”: this throws the emphasis
from the pronoun on the noun. See 2558 foll.
(v) Special passages
(a) With mpatoc and mpaton
[2044] 1. 15, 30 mpwrds pov nv, xv. 18 eue mpdrov vpov pepl-
onkev, see 1896—1901 and 2665—7, where it is maintained that the
latter means “‘me your chief,” and that var is a possessive genitive.
(8) TiBepiadoc
[2045] In vi. 1 ‘Beyond the sea of Galilee [ze. the sea] of
Tiberias,” the apparently superfluous genitive (TiBepiados) has been
thought by some to be corrupt. But it is probably to be explained
as one of the many instances of Johannine intervention coincident
with, or consequent on, Luke’s deviation from the Synoptists. Mark
and Matthew always have ‘“‘the sea of Galilee,’ Luke calls it “the
lake [of] Gennesaret,” and afterwards “the Lake*.” But Mark and
Matthew speak of Gennesaret as a place at which the disciples
disembark*. John mediates, as it were, between the two names,
but inclines towards the ancient tradition “sea of Galilee,” only
explaining it by a name more familiar to his readers. Perhaps
variations in the application of the term Galilee induced Luke
1 Mk i. 7, Lk. iii. 16, Jn i. 27. Tov adrod iudvra would emphasize at’rod.
A Waka Veiks 2s Villy 225 2550905 3 Mk vi. 53, Mt. xiv. 34.
90
a
i lll
GENITIVE [2046 |
to substitute Gennesaret!. But ‘‘Gennesaret” was supplanted by
“Tiberias” in Talmudic Tradition and the latter (which was also
used by Pliny) was preferred by John, who, later on, makes (xxi. 1)
‘“‘the sea of Tiberias” the scene of Christ’s last manifestation to His
disciples. TwBeprados in vi. 1 is a genitive of possession (“ belonging
to”)” governed by “sea” which must be understood as appositionally
repeated.
(y) ‘H AtactopA tan “EAAHNODN
[2046] This phrase occurs in vil. 35 “Will he go to “he
Dispersion of the Greeks (tiv diacropay tdv “EXAjvev) and teach
the Greeks?” In LXX, we find ‘“‘¢he Dispersion of Israel,” and
“the Dispersions of Israel*,’ as one might speak of “the church, or
churches, of the Christians.” But this phrase might be followed
by another genitive describing the city or country to which the
Dispersion belonged: ‘the Dispersion of Israel of, ze. belonging to,
Egypt, Pontus, Cappadocia etc.” Then “of Israel” might be
assumed, and dropped for brevity, and so we might get (1 Pet. 1. 1)
“to the elect sojourners of the Dispersion of Pontus, Galatia etc.,”
and here “the Dispersion of the Greeks,’ meaning, ‘‘the Dispersion
belonging to the Greek-speaking countries.” It may be asked why
the sentence does not proceed thus, “and teach the Dispersion of
the Greeks”? One answer may be, “For brevity.” But another
answer, and a more satisfactory one, is that the words are intended
to represent the Jews as unconsciously predicting the manner in
which the Spirit of the risen Saviour, travelling abroad in His
disciples, would teach, first, the Dispersion among the Greeks,
and then the Greeks themselves (2645)°*.
1 [2045 a] ‘‘Gennesar,”’ or ‘‘ Gennesaris,”’ is used mostly by Josephus, and is
also recognised as the popular name for the Lake by Pliny (v. 15) ‘* Plures Gene-
saram vocant.”
* [2045 4] Wetstein (Jn vi. 1) quotes Zrachin 32 a ‘‘Tiberiadi mare murus
est.” Hor. Heb. i. 142 says that the lake called in O.T. ‘the sea of Chinnereth”
is called ‘‘in the Targumists ‘the sea of Gezesar, Genesor, Ginosar,’ it is the same
also in the Talmudists, but most frequently ‘the sea of 7zberzah.’”
3 [2046 a] Is. xlix. 6 ri 6. 700 Iopanv, Ps. cxlvii. 2 ras 5. (Aq. and Sym. rovs
é£wouevous) Tod Iopand. Wetst. ad loc. quotes Paralipom. Jeremiae MS. 0 6é Bapovx
améareev eis Tv OlacTopav Ta EOvar.
4 [2046 4] In xii. 20, ‘‘ Greeks” means Greek proselytes to the Jewish faith.
The congregations of the Dispersion would contain a large admixture of these: and
so the name ‘‘ Greeks” might be given contemptuously to congregations of Jews
in Alexandria, Antioch ete.
OI
[2047] CASES
(5) Ta Bala TON MOINIK@N
[2047] The difficulty about this phrase xi. 13 7a Bata tov
powikwy is that both Bata and doivixes, separately, may mean ‘“ palm-
branches” (though the latter may also mean “ palm-trees”)', so that
the phrase might mean ‘‘palm-branches of palm-branches.” One
word (it would seem) might have sufficed. The LXX, with various
readings and accents, has Bawv, Baw, Baewv etc., and sometimes
dotvee, but never Baia gowikwv, except as an anonymous rendering
in Lev. xxii. 40 “branches of palm-trees.”” Possibly Bata may have
been loosely used for “ bunches of twigs” of any sort used in festal
processions. The parallel Synoptists mention no palm-branches
taken in the hands, but Mark xi. 8 mentions orBadas ‘“ bed-litter.”
Matthew has the common word xAadovs for ‘ branches,” and these
(like Mark’s ‘“bed-litter”) are supposed to be strewn in the road.
Luke omits all mention of “ branches.” In Mark, A, C, and Origen,
have orouBadas, where SS omits the clause, D has eortBadas*, and
some inferior authorities oresBadas and orvBadas. John’s rare word
Baia has different forms, Bawas, Baas, Baes, and possibly one of
these has been corrupted by Mark into o7Badas. If so, it is a case
where Mark errs, Luke omits, and John intervenes. This hypothesis
would also explain why John took special pains to define the Bata
as belonging to qotvixes.
(e) TlapackeyH TOY TrAcyA
[2048] xix. 14 qv 6€ rapacKevy Tod Tacxa does not present any
grammatical difficulty. If the phrase were used consciously as
meaning “preparing the Passover” it would be objective genitive.
More probably it is possessive—the word ‘“ Preparation” having
come to mean “the eve [of],” and being applied to any feast but
most frequently to the sabbath, so that it is used in the second
century absolutely to mean (Dedach. viii. 1 and Mart. Polye. vii. 1)
“Friday.” But what makes the phrase interesting is that John’s
insertion of tod wacxa differentiates his use of tapacxevy from that
of the Synoptists, two of whom connect it with the sabbath, and
1 See Wetstein ad Joc. and 1 Mace. xiii. 51, 2 Macc. x. 7, xiv. 4 (comp.
1 Macex ‘xii 37).
2 (2047 a] If an early Greek Gospel used (Jelf § 817) éo7e 5° of for aro dé,
‘“and others [carried] palms,” eorido.Bacas, it might explain the readings of Origen
and D. Bata ¢. may be illustrated by L. S. on Avyos and pbrxXoroe AUyourt.
Q2
NOMINATIVE [2049]
none with (2087—8) the passover. Mark xv. 42 is most definite, jv
Trapackeun 0 eotw tpocaBBarov. If that “sabbath” happened also
to be the first day of Unleavened Bread, Mark’s statement, though
true, might be misleading. Hence John might intervene in three
ways, (a) by defining the Preparation here, (4) by stating (xviii. 28)
that the paschal lamb had not yet been “eaten,” and also (c) by
saying (xix. 31) that the approaching “sabbath” was “a great day.”
Thus the genitive in xix. 14 may illustrate—not grammatically but
as a specimen of Johannine methods of dealing with Synoptic
tradition—the genitive just discussed (xi. 13 7a Bata trav dowixwv)!,
’
IV NOMINATIVE
(1) Special passage
(a) “O Kypidc moy
[2049] On the Nominative used suspensively see 1920 foll.
Only one passage needs separate discussion, xx. 27—8 “‘...and
be not unbelieving but believing.’ Thomas answered and said to
him, ‘dZy Lord and (?) my God’ (0 xipibs pov Kai 6 beds pov).”
Here the nominatives are said to be vocatives by Wetstein, who
alleges (1) the LXX use of 6 to represent the vocative, (2) classical
Greek usage of nominative for vocative. But (1) Wetstein alleges
no LXX instance (except one, explicable by special context) of 6
kvpios thus used, although there are many LXX instances of 6 6eds,
and also of «vpte 0 beds nov (which is the regular rendering of “O
Lord our God®”). (2) In classical Greek, the instances of quasi-vocative
with o are (a) accompanied by otros, or ov, or they are like our “Mr”
in vernacular speech (“you, Mr cricketer, Mr Yorkshireman We)
(3) or else, as in & pidos, they are found (Steph. “metri causa”) only
in poetry. (4) The one instance of the combined quasi-vocatives
quoted by Wetstein is Epict. ii. 16. 13 xvpte o Beds which tells
against him, shewing that, although Epictetus could use 6 Oeds
' For the genit. gov. by dxotw, see 1614, gov. by yevioua, see 2017.
[2049 a] 2 K. xix. 19, 1 Chr. xxix. 16, 2 Chr. xiv. 11, Ps. xcix. 8 etc. The
exception is Ps. xxxv. 23 ‘‘ My God and my Lord (Adonai),’’ LXX 6 Oeéds wou Kai
6 Kuptés wou. In the preceding verse, ‘‘my Lord (Adonai)”’ is rendered Kvpve as it
is regularly in LXX when applied to God (see Gesen. 11a ref. to Gen. xx. 4,
Ex. xv. 17 etc.). But here, as it follows the nominatival form of the vocative,
6 Geds wou, it is rendered for conformity 6 ktpids wov. In Jn, 6 Kipios precedes
© Geds. Steph. 876 c gives many instances of voc. ¢éAos but all from poetry.
93
[2050] CASES
vocatively, he could not use 6 xvpios thus. The Egyptian Papyri
use xvpte freely, but never, so far as alleged, 6 xvpuos vocatively.
Thus, a great mass of evidence from all extant Greek shews that, had
the vocative been intended, xvpre would have been employed. This
is confirmed by the Latin versions, which have “ dominus.”
[2050] What then is the meaning? “Lord” certainly cannot
mean “Jehovah.” “My Jehovah” would be an unheard of mon-
strosity. But “my Lord” might mean “my dear Lord,” or “my
dear Master” as the term is used by Mary Magdalene’. And it
would be appropriate that this almost unique appellation should
be used by Thomas, as by Mary, in connexion with a manifestation
of the risen Saviour®. If it is so used here, is ““my Master” subject
or predicate? If it were predicate we should have to supply “ Zhou
art,” or “ {¢ ts,” which is inserted in xxi. 7 “it is the Lord (6 xvpids
eorw).” But could éorw have been omitted there? In any case it
could hardly be omitted here, since the meaning required would be
“at is indeed my Lord,” so that it would be emphatic’. But if we
take “‘ My [dear] Lord” as subject, we may readily imagine a pause
after it, while the speaker, overwhelmed with amazement and joy, is
attempting to express his feeling about the Lord. He might have
added “has indeed risen from the dead” or “has been indeed
restored to me,” but he means a great deal more than that. When
he has uttered “‘my Lord,” he feels that “there is none in heaven”
whom he could ‘desire in comparison” with this “Lord4.” In
effect, his Lord has become to him one with his God, so that he
may say “‘ My Lord is also my God.”
[2051] This accords well with the frequency of the emphatic
cai in John, As for the omission of éo71, it undoubtedly causes some
obscurity; but might not this seem to the evangelist to have the merit
of forcing his readers to think out the full meaning of this confession
—which is, as it were, wrung from the Apostle in a moment of
1 Jn xx. 13, comp. Phil. iii. 8.
* [2050 a] ‘‘My Lord” occurs in O.T., like the French ‘‘ monsieur,” with the
third person, in respectful address, Josh. v. 14 ‘‘ What saith my Lord (but not LXX)
unto his servant,” Dan. x. 19 ‘‘ Let my Lord speak.” But perhaps here affection
is predominant over respect, and Thomas speaks aéout his Master in the act of
replying ¢o his Master.
* [2050 4] See Jn i. 49 od ef...00...€l, ‘thou art the Son of God, thou art King
of Israel.”
4 Ps, Ixxili. 25.
94
NOMINATIVE [2051]
inspired conviction’? ‘Thomas, logically speaking, had no more
right to say to the risen Saviour that He was “his God” than a Jew
would have to say the same thing to Enoch or Elijah, in the event
of their being manifested to men on earth. But Thomas, spiritually
speaking, might feel (justified is not the right word but) necessitated
to say what he said. His Master—he suddenly found—was, at all
events, “Azs God,” the equal of whom did not exist for him in heaven
or earth as claiming his worship. We are not, then, to suppose that
Thomas argued, like St Paul, that Jesus was “defined to be Son of
God by the resurrection from the dead’.” There may have been no
arguing in the matter. According to the view taken above, Thomas,
regaining Jesus of Nazareth from the dead, was instantaneously
possessed with the conviction that his Lord was also his God, and
the conviction forced its way out in utterance®.
1 [2051 a] In N.T. the rule is that 6 képros means ‘‘ the Lord [Jesus],” and the
article before xépios differentiates this confession from Hos. ii. 23 ‘‘ Thou [art] my
God,” ktpios 6 Oeds pou ef ot, Zech. xiii. g ‘‘ the Lord [is] my God,” kijpios 6 Beds
pov, where some copies (Field) insert ‘‘ thou art” (xdpios e?). At the same time it
was hardly possible for John to write down the Greek words ‘‘my Lord and my
God” without considering their association in LX X to express ‘‘ Jehovah our God”’:
and he probably desired to conyey to his readers an impression of the providential
way in which the most unbelieving of the Twelve was led on by the intensity of
affection for his regained Master to utter words that suggested the highest Biblical
expression of belief in His divine nature. Both in Hosea and in Zechariah, the
confession comes from penitents, who had gone astray.
2 [2051 4] Rom. i. 4 ‘‘ defined as the Son of God with power, according to the
spirit of holiness by the resurrection of the dead.” The mention of ‘‘ holiness,”
however, distinguishes the ‘‘ defining” from any merely miraculous revivification.
[2051 c] Among many instances of kvpe and 0 Geds in Boeckh /rscr. gr to foll.
with dvdravoor, tréuvyoor etc., there is 9124 (‘‘lapis in marginibus valde corrosus’’)
e|n[vt] Taew[i] ca. “O x(upe)os avd[rlavoov. But the usual abbreviation for xuptos
is not Koc but KC. Moreover, after the month, and before dvdzavoor, it is usual
(though not invariable) to insert INA 7.e. wd(iKTeGvos) with a number. Possibly
this has been corrupted into OKOC, and dvdmavaor is used here (as it often is) with-
out kvpee or 6 Oeds. The corroded condition of the stone and the exceptional form
OKOC make it probable that some error underlies Okoc. It might be simply an
error for the very frequent 0 @C, Z.e. 6 Beds.
3 [2051 d@] But this is not quite satisfactory. For xiii. 13 gwvetré we 6 dida-
okanos kal 6 kUpios, and Rev. iv. 11 déos el, 6 KUptos Kal 6 Geos Muay, ought to have
been mentioned above. For these, and for further remarks on the vocative use of
6, indicating that Jn may have used it here exceptionally, see 2679 foll.
95
[2052] CASES
V_ VOCATIVE}
(i) Special passages
(a) TlatHp
[2052] According to W.H.*, the word zaryjp is used vocatively by
our Lord (a) in the regular form zarep, in the Raising of Lazarus, x1. 41
“ Father, I thank thee,” (0) after the Voice from Heaven, and xu. 27—8
“What (2512 d—c) should I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’?
... Lather, glorify thy name,” and (c) thrice in the Last Prayer, xvii.
1—11 ‘Father, the hour hath come—glorify thou me, Father,...holy
Father (mrarep aye), keep them in thy name.” In all these cases ratep
is used. But, towards the conclusion of the Last Prayer, when the Son
prays for the unity of the Church that is to be, He thrice uses the
form zatyp: xvii. 21—5 “that all [of them] may be one even as
thou, Father, in me... Father, that which thou hast given me I will
that where I am they also may be... Righteous Father (rarip dixae)....”
The final instance is a remarkable contrast with zarep aye (if
matep is the correct reading), the form and place of the adjective
being the same in both, but the form of the noun different.
[2053] It will be found that the Johannine Last Prayer, in its
earlier portion, down to the words (xvii. 15) “Keep them from the
evil [one],” follows the lines of the Lord’s Prayer in which the form
matep is used by Matthew and Luke. Possibly John desired to
draw a distinction between that part of the Prayer, which was merely
for the present Disciples, and the latter part which was for the whole
Church*,
1 In xx. 28, 6 kiépids wou is probably not vocatively used, see 2049—51.
* See 2053 c, where attention is called to the readings of B, which have, in one
instance, been incorrectly given by Tischendorf.
3 [2053 a] ‘O marnp occurs in Mk xiv. 36, Mt. xi. 26, Lk. x. 21, and is the
regular Hebraic vocative; but Alford and Steph. give no instance that I can find
of marjp thus used, without the article.
[20534] In xvii. 21, ka@ws ov, rarnp, év éuol, might mean ‘‘even as thou [being
Father, art in me [as being Son].”” And xvii. 24 marjp, 6 dédwxkds wor may be
compared with x. 29 6 marnp pou 6 dédwxév wor. If x. 29 is to be rendered ‘‘ that
which the Father hath given me,”’ may not xvii. 24 mean ‘* that which thou, being
Father, hast given me”? Theoretically, it would be possible to take the last two
instances as appositional, at the end of the sentence xvii. 23 Kaus éué qyarnoas—
TAaTHp, XVil. 24 b7t Hydrnods we mpd KaTaBod7js Kbouou—raryp. But though John
is extremely fond both of apposition and of abruptness, these instances would perhaps
go beyond his limits. All we can say is that he has some definite and distinctive
96
CONJUNCTIONS [2056 |
CONJUNCTIONS (1894*)
(i) Johannine use of
[2054] The most remarkable characteristic of John, in his use of
certain conjunctions that take the subjunctive mood, is, that he
makes very subtle distinctions between the tenses with which they
are used. This is especially the case with éay and orav which will
therefore be discussed under ‘‘Tense” and not under “Conjunction.”
For the Johannine omission of conjunctions see 1996—2008. For
his use of the participle in their place, see 2271—3, and 2081.
(ii) ?AdXa
(a) *AA\AA=contrariety, “not this but that, or, something more ”
[2055] °“AAXa@ is used by John more frequently than by Matthew
and Luke taken together (1708). One reason for this, is that it is
the appropriate conjunction for such phrases as “‘zof this du¢ that,”
or “this dv¢ not that,” and John (2598) is fond of stating a truth in
its negative and positive aspects. ‘Theoretically, aAAd implies
difference, or contrariety, not the mere negation of presence or
absence. Nevertheless, in most instances, a negative is expressed
or implied in the context of a Johannine aAdXa.
[2056] In vi. 9, the negative (“this is true du¢ not that”) is
implied by a question, ‘‘ There is a lad here with five barley loaves...
but’ what are they...?” 1.e. du¢ they are vot anything to the purpose.
In vi. 34—6, the Jews say “give us this bread,” and Jesus replies,
“JT am the bread...he that cometh to me shall not hunger... But
I said unto you that ye have seen me, yet believe not.” Here the
meaning seems to be, “ Ye have the bread visibly before you, du (as
meaning in the threefold use of zar7p, following the threefold use of marep, in the
Lord’s last prayer.
[2053 c] The question is complicated by the readings of B in the Voice from
Heaven as well as the Last Prayer. In xii. 27—28 (W.H.) ri eiw; mdtep, c&odv
me...TavTav. mdrep, dbEacdv cou To dvoua, the photograph of B has, most distinctly,
first warep in the rejected prayer, and then waryp in the accepted prayer. [Tisch.’s
txt of B neither reproduces rarnp (2653)—though it reproduces B’s reading pov ro
ovowa for cov T. o.—nor comments on it as an error. Alford does not mention
maTnp. W.H. do not give it as an alternative.] This confirms the view that the
scribe of B in both passages is recognising some distinction that goes beyond the
province of grammar. Perhaps both he and the evangelist reserved the nomi-
native form as best suited to the most exalted utterance (2679 foll.). Codex D, in
xvii. I—25, has marep throughout, except where cv precedes the noun, xvii. 5, 21.
1 [2056 a] Here and elsewhere in this section, ‘‘ dat” =dda.
Ay Vile 97 if
[2057] CONJUNCTIONS
I said) ye do ot accept it because ye do not believe.” But, as the
writer proceeds, the thought “as I said” becomes more and more
prominent, and passes from an implied parenthesis into an expressed
adversative statement!.
[2057] In vil. 26 “Can it possibly be that (wy more) it was
recognised by (€yvwoav) the rulers that this [man] is the Christ ?
Nay, but [as for] this man ('AdAad totrov) we know his origin...”
here aAAa implies something quite different from that which has
been suggested by the preceding context, and might be rendered by
our exclamatory “ Why/” which often means ‘Why ask such a
question?” In vil. 48 “ Can it be said that a single one (un ts) of the
rulers has believed in him, or a single one of the Pharisees? But (ada)
this rabble...are accursed,” there is a reference to an implied negation:
“ Vot a single Pharisee has believed in him : dz¢ the rabble are ready
to believe anything.” The next instance resembles the last two,
though the question is not asked by py, (“Could I possibly say (ny
eizw)?”) but by ré (“What should I say (ré eizw) ?”) (for the various
renderings of this see 2512 4—c) xii. 27 ‘‘What should I say (ré eiw)?
‘Father, save me from this hour’? Vay, éu¢ (adda) for this cause
came I, to [meet] this hour.” ’AAAa implies the negation, or
opposite, of a prayer that is merely oe forward as an impossible one
for the Saviour to utter.
(B) ’Addqa = difference, ‘nevertheless ”
[2058] Passing over other instances (far too numerous to quote)
where aAda is used with an expressed or implied negative in the
sense (1) “[not this] du¢ [the opposite]” or (2) [not this] du¢
[something more],” we come to those where, without a negative in
the context, it introduces something different from the past, some-
thing for which the past has not prepared us, but which xevertheless
will take place, e.g. xi. 42 “I knew that thou hearest me always, du
[ nevertheless | for the sake of the multitude I said it,” xvi. 20 “Ye shall
sorrow, but | nevertheless| your sorrow shall become joy,” xvi. 33 “In
the world ye have tribulation, dt [zevertheless| be of good cheer.”
[2059] It is sometimes difficult to decide whether édAAa means
“nevertheless” or ‘on the contrary,” e.g. xv. 2o—1 “If they perse-
cuted me, they will also persecute yey If A ey KER: my word, piney
A [2066 b] ose vi. ae ‘“The words...are life. But there are some of
you that believe not,” where there is a contrast between the offering of a precious
gift and the non-acceptance of it.
98
CONJUNCTIONS [2061]
will keep yours also. But all these things will they do unto you
because of my name because they know not him that sent me.” Does
this mean “If they kept my word they would keep yours: dz on the
contrary, instead of doing this, they will persecute you”? Or do the
italicised words point back to the earlier part of the section (xv. 18
foll.) so that the @\Aa@ does not refer to what immediately precedes,
but to the tenor of the section, which is, to prepare the disciples for
persecution? In that case, the meaning is “ Wevertheless [take
courage from the thought that) they will do all this to you for my sake
and because they know not God.” In view of the above quoted
instances (xvi. 20, 33) where adAAa means “nevertheless” in Christ’s
utterances of consolation, this meaning becomes all the more
probable here.
(y) Special passages
[2060] *“AAAa means, at first, “not this but more” in xvi. 1—7
“These [warnings about persecution] I have spoken unto you that ye
may not be caused to stumble. Out of the synagogues will they
cast you, zay, more (adda), there cometh a time when everyone that
killeth you will think he is offering service [thereby] to God.” But
in the following verses, @\Aa (1) first means “but, though it cannot
be avoided,” “but nevertheless,” or “but at all events”; (2) then it
means “but,” as usual, after a negative; (3) then, again, it means
“but nevertheless” (or ‘but still”) :—xvi. 3—7 ‘‘And these things
will they do because they have not known the Father nor me. Lu
at all events {though actions arising from such ignorance cannot be
hindered] I have spoken these things to you that when their time
shall come ye may remember that I said [these things] to you...And
(dé) now I go to him that sent me: and zone of you asketh me,
Whither departest thou? du¢ (aAX’), because I have spoken these
things to you, the grief thereof hath filled your heart. But stil?
(aAX’) I tell you the truth, it is profitable for you that I should
depart.” In the last sentence, it is not clear whether the writer
means ‘I cannot expect you to believe me, dz? s¢i/7 I tell you the
truth,” or whether the vea/ contrast is between “ grief” and “ profit-
able,” so that the meaning is, “Sorrow hath filled your heart, du¢ stz/Z
it is for your profit (as I have truly told you) that I should depart.”
[2061] The use of dAdAd in the following passage seems in-
explicable as it stands, iv. 2t—3, ‘‘ Believe me, woman, that there is
coming a time when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem shall
99 7—2
‘
[2062] CONJUNCTIONS
ye worship the Father. [Ye worship that which ye know not, we
worship that which we know, because salvation ts from the Jews.| But
there cometh a time and now is, when the true worshippers shall
worship the Father in spirit and truth'.”
It has been shewn elsewhere (1702, 17137) that “Jews” in the
Fourth Gospel is almost always used in a bad sense, and that for this
and other reasons (1649—51), the italicised and bracketed words
should perhaps be transposed and assigned to the Samaritan woman
as her account of what the Rabbis say. Then our Lord’s words
would be to this effect: “Not in Jerusalem or in Gerizim, df in
spirit and truth shall the Father be worshipped.”
[2062] It is hard to find a satisfactory explanation of vill. 26
‘“T have many things concerning you to say and to judge. Sut he
that sent me is true, and [as for me] the things that I have heard
from him these do I speak unto the world.” Perhaps the meaning is,
“ But, though there is much to judge, the judgment must wait till
the time appointed by the Father. He is the Truth. His word,
which I utter (x. 48), will be the judge?.”
(6) °AAN ina
[2063] Where ad iva is preceded by another parallel wa
(expressed or implied) the verb in the first (va clause may sometimes
be regarded as repeated in the second iva clause, as in i. 7—8 “he
came iz order that (iva) he might bear witness concerning the
1 [2061a] Westcott explains ‘At’ thus: ‘‘The old differences of more and
less perfect knowledge were to be done away.’’ He apparently means that the
preceding sentence describes ‘‘more and less perfect knowledge” and that ‘‘but”’
introduces the perfect knowledge. But do the preceding words describe “more
and less perfect knowledge”? Concerning the Samaritans it is said “‘ye know
not”; concerning the Jews, “‘we know.’ Is not this rather the “difference”
between vowledge and ignorance? On 1 Jnii. 19 & judy é&MdOav, adN’ odK Hoar
€& judv, where the meaning of d\\d may be affected by the meaning of €&7\éay,
see 2110.
* [2062] Westcott explains ‘‘but” by a paraphrase differently thus: ‘‘The
utterance of these judgments will widen the chasm between us. Az? they must be
spoken at all cost; they are part of my divine charge; he that sent me ts true....”
[2062 6] Chrys. says ‘‘I have many things both to say and to judge, yea, and
not only to convict but also to punish, dz/ He that sent me, z.e. the Father, doth
not desire this (a\\’ 6 méupas we, Touréorw, 6 ILarjp, ov BovNerat TovTO).”? Theod.
of Heraclea (Cramer) says ‘“‘ Even if ye do not take into your minds at present the
day of judgment, yve¢ He that sent me is true, and He hath decreed the day of
requital (kav els vodv wh NauBdvyre Tov rhs Kploews Katpdv, ANN’ 6 TéuWas we, Poly,
ddnOrjs ear, ds woise Tov THS amrodécews Kaipév).”’ This is the view taken above.
100
CONJUNCTIONS [2065]
77
light...: he was not the light, du¢ [? came] 77 order that (aN iva) he
might bear witness concerning the light.” This, then, is perhaps
a case of ellipsis supplied from context, called below (2204—5) “con-
textual” ellipsis as distinct from “idiomatic” (2213). Even where
there is no preceding parallel iva, a preceding verl) may sometimes
perhaps be supplied as, possibly, in ix. 3 “ Neither this man sinned
nor his parents ; but [he was born blind] in order that the works of
God might be manifested in him”—where “he was born blind” is
regarded by some as repeated from the question of the disciples
‘““Who sinned, that he was born blind?” But there (ix. 3) it is
perhaps better to take GAN’ Wa as meaning “but [it was ordained]
in order that.” And even in i. 7—8 @dQX’ iva might have that
meaning.
[2064] The ellipsis is certainly sometimes not contextual but
idiomatic’. Instances must be considered separately, but generally
it may be said that add’ wa, even where it is a contextual ellipsis,
conveys a notion of divine ordinance. In i. 31, the best rendering
is, “And I knew him not, du? [all things concerning him—whether
I knew them or not—were ordained] zz order that he should be
manifested to Israel. For this cause came I baptizing in water.”
This has the advantage of keeping “for this cause” at the
beginning of the sentence, where in John, it is almost invariably
placed (see 2006 and 2387).
(iii) Tép
(a) Synoptic and Johannine use
[2065] In Matthew and Luke (when both are independent of
Mark) ydép is hardly ever used in strict narrative’, but almost always
in the words of Christ and other speakers. Out of Matthew’s twelve
instances in strict narrative, ze (‘for they were fishers,” ‘‘ fox he
was) teaching them,” * “joy ‘she! said’.alf i “touch=..,” “jor Herod
having seized John,” “for John repeatedly said to him,” ‘
wind was contrary,” “for he was one that had great possessions,”
“for their eyes were weighed down,” “for he knew that through
envy they had delivered him up”) agree verbatim, or nearly so, with
or the
l F.g, xili. 18 éyw olda...d\X’ a ) ypadn mwAnpwby, xv. 24—5 viv dé Kal
éwpdkacw kal wemonkacwv...ddX’ wa mAnpwO7y 6 Adbyos.... See 2105—12.
2 [2065 a] ‘‘Strict narrative’ excludes the words of the Baptist, the disciples,
the Pharisees etc., which are zzcluded generally in the term ‘‘narr.,”’ as distinct
from ‘‘Chri.” (1672 *).
IOI
[2066] CONJUNCTIONS
Mark’. Yap is used by Luke altogether about a hundred times,
and by Matthew still more frequently, but almost always in Christ’s
words (and in the words of other speakers). In strict narrative Luke
uses it only eleven times; and in three of the eleven he agrees
substantially with Mark’. Mark uses yép altogether about seventy
times, and, of these, as many as thirty or more are in strict narrative.
The use of yap, therefore, in strict narrative, is characteristic of Mark
(as distinct from Matthew and Luke), and the fact that Matthew and
Luke agree with Mark in so large a proportion of the few instances
in which they use “strict narrative” yap indicates that they have
copied these clauses from Mark.
[2066] John uses yap about twenty-seven times in Christ’s
words—exclusive of its use (about nine times) in the words of other
speakers—and about twenty-seven times in strict narrative, so that
he agrees (roughly) with Mark’s usage. But there is this difference,
that John’s “strict narrative” includes what would commonly be
called evangelistic comment, e.g. iii. 15 foll. ‘“...that whosoever
believeth may in him have eternal life. v7 God so loved the
world that he gave.../or God sent not the Son...and men loved
the darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil. Zor
every one that doeth ill hateth the. light....” This use creates
ambiguity. Many commentators have taken iii. r6—21 as Christ’s
words. Similarly Chrysostom* appears to assign to the Samaritan
woman the words, iv. 9 “or Jews have no dealings with Samaritans,”
1 [2065 4] Mt. iv. 18, vii. 29, ix. 21, xiv. 3, 4, 24, xix. 22, xxvi. 43, xxvii. 18.
The exceptional instances are Mt. xxviii. 2 dyyedos yap xuplov, which finds no
apparent parallel in Mk xvi. 4 7m yap méyas opddpa, and Mt. ii. 5 otrws yap
yéypamrat..., ili. 3 obTos yap éorw oO pnéeis....
* [2065c] Lk. viii. 29, xviii. 23, xx. 19. Lk. uses ydp twice in the short
account, peculiar to his Gospel, of the mocking of Christ by Herod Antipas
(Lk. xxiii. 8, 12) and once in the Miraculous Draught (Lk. v. 9).
3 (2066@] Chrys. ad loc. Ti otv 4 yuv7...Aéyet, Ids ob. wy...... Lamapelrais...
Kai rédev...évduigev...00 yap etre bre S. trois 1. ob cvyxpa@vrat adn’ Tovéaton Saua-
peiras ob mpocievrat, z.e. “For she did not say that Samaritans have no dealings
with the Jews but Jews repudiate Samaritans.” Apparently Chrysostom thinks
that ob ovyxpavrac means what his hearers would render ov rpoolevra:, which is a
little stronger (see Steph.).
[2066 4] In other passages, the abundance of ydp ought not to be ignored as a
possible indication of evangelistic origin, e.g. v. 21, 22, 26. Here womep ydp
twice occurs. wozep is not elsewhere found in John, and it would be possible to
regard v. 21—3, and v. 26—7 as comment on the clauses addressed to the Jews in
the second person.
102
CONJUNCTIONS [2068 |
which are regarded by many modern commentators as a comment
of the evangelist, if not an interpolation.
(8) Special passages
[2067] Different interpretations have been given to iv. 43—4
“But after the two days he went forth thence to Galilee: for (yap)
Jesus himself testified that a prophet in his own country hath no
honour.” Some have interpreted this (1), ‘‘He went to Galilee from
His own country, /wd@ea, because He had not been honoured in the
latter.” A second interpretation might be (2), “After having acquired
honour in Judzea, which was not His own country, He went to
Galilee His own country, because He did not desire to gain honour
at the expense of the Baptist, and He had testified that a prophet
in his own country does not gain honour.” The decision rests on
several considerations that need separate discussion in a comparison
of the Four Gospels: but the differences illustrate the vagueness of
the inferences deducible from the mere statement of a motive
with “for.”
[2068] In vii. 41—2 “Others said, ‘This is the Christ’; but
others again said, ‘/vr can it be that (4 yap) the Christ is to come
from Galilee?’” we must supply “No” before “for.” Or, more
accurately, the rule in such cases is that the preceding words
should be mentally repeated in some phrase (expressing astonishment)
equivalent to a statement, after which “for” follows, introducing the
reason for this implied statement. [‘‘This the Christ! Impossible !]
jor....”. The same explanation applies to ix. 29—30—after the
Pharisees have said concerning Jesus “ But as for this [man] we
know not whence he is”—where the man cured of blindness by
Jesus replies “or herein is the wonder of wonders (év tovtw yap
70 Gavpactov) because ye (emph.) know not whence he is and [yet]
he opened my eyes.” The man repeats the words of the Pharisees
“Ye ‘know not whence he is’! A wonderful confession !] fo herein
is the wonder...’.” But the text is doubtful. See 2393, 2683.
1 [2068a] So in Mk xv. 14, Mt. xxvii. 23, Lk. xxiii. 21 Pilate’s reply ‘‘ For
what evil has he done?” coming as a reply to the demand ‘‘Crucify him !” may
be explained ‘“‘[An amazing request!] For what evil has he done?” Comp.
Demosth. 43 Aéyerai me kawévy; [An amazing question !] yévorro yap dy Te Kat-
vorepov ; Soph. Ajax 1125—6 ody dixy... [An amazing statement !] dikava ydp...;
where xawév and dikn are, practically, repeated. So mas yap (or, yap ov) ; means
‘*[A surprising question!] For how could it be so [or, otherwise] ?”’
103
[2069] CONJUNCTIONS
(iv) Aé
(a) Consecutive or adversative
[2069] In classical Greek, 6€ calling attention to the second of
two things, may mean (1) “i the next place,” (2) “on the other hand,”
somewhat as our English word “other” may mean “another |of the
same kind\” or “other {in kind|,” i.e. different, opposite. The former
may be called “narrative 6€” because it is frequently used to
describe the sequence of events in a story. But in this sense John,
as compared with Matthew and Luke, very rarely uses it except in
the phrase “so when (es 6€).” He uses it much more frequently in
the latter sense, though not nearly so often as Matthew and Luke.
[2070] But there is also another sense in which John uses 4¢, to
introduce that which comes second of in point of time but in point
of thought, as being the next point to note, thus: “‘ His mother saith
unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. Wow [the
next point to note is that| there were (joav 6€) six waterpots...Jesus
saith unto them, Fill the waterpots®.” Similarly in the Feeding of
the Five Thousand, after recording the command, “ Make the men
lie down,” John adds, “Wow |the next potnt to note ts that| there was
much grass in the place*.” And this quiet particle may occasionally
introduce something of the nature of an epigram, e.g. “They cned
out...‘Not this man, but Barabbas.’ Mow [the next point to note ts
that] this Barabbas was a robber*’—thus briefly implying the con-
demnation (amplified in the Acts*) of the preference of a “robber”
to the Prince of Life. This parenthetic or supplementary use of 3€
to introduce to the reader the “next pomt” for him to notice ts
hardly found in the Synoptists.
[2071] It is sometimes difficult to decide whether é€ in John is
adversative or consecutive, e.g. “They took his garments and made
four portions, for each soldier a portion, and the tunic. Wow
the tunic was (mv é€ 6 yerew) without a seam®,” where the meaning
1 [2069 a] ii- 9 “‘So when (ws 6€) he had tasted,” ii 23 “‘ So when he was in
Jerusalem.” Comp. vi. 12, r6 etc. Bruder (1888) gives to the instances of 6é in
Mt. and Lk. severally about g and 9} columns, in Mk 33 (less m W-H.), in Jn 4
(less in W.H. especially when the interpolation in viii. r—r1 is removed). The
statistics, though rough, suffice to establish an enormous predominance of dé in
Mt. and Lk., as compared with Mk and Jn.
ae
3 vi. Io. * xviii. 40. 5 Acts iii. 14, 15- * 1x. 's3.
104
CONJUNCTIONS (2073)
may be either “Sut the tunic on the other hand [as opposed to the
cloak],” or “Now [the point to be here noted is that] the tunic was
seamless.”” In any case it would be an error to suppose that the
events introduced with this particle are of secondary importance.
For #v d¢€ is used to introduce Nicodemus (“‘Now there was a man
of the Pharisees”), the man cured at Bethesda (or Bethsaida),
Lazarus, and perhaps the “nobleman” whose son is cured near
Cana’. On o éé in John, see 2684.
[2072] The uses of é¢, adversative and consecutive, may be
illustrated by the only two instances in which it occurs in the
body of Luke’s Gospel after “Ijvots without the article. The first
introduces “ Jesus” as representing a new character entering on the
stage of public life*; the second represents contrast between Judas
and Jesus*. The first of John’s only two instances appears to be
adversative, “‘They therefore took up stones to cast at him. Auf
Jesus (I. 6é) was hidden from them and went forth from the Temple*.”
The second introduces Christ’s last public words, and follows an
evangelistic comment on the national rejection of the Light. W.H.
place a space between the two, “‘...for they loved the glory of men
rather than the glory of God. || Aut Jesus (I. 3€) cried and said....°”
It is not clear whether this merely introduces a new subject, and
marks an interval (perhaps of time) or whether, as in the previous
case, it implies a contrast between the rejection of the Light and
Christ’s protest against the rejection.
[2073] When 6é€ is used, without the article, after other proper
names, there is a somewhat similar doubt. Probably however con-
trast is intended—Mary being distinguished from the two disciples,
who had entered the tomb of the Saviour and had returned to their
homes, one at least believing—in the words “ But Mary (M. 8€) stood
near the tomb outside weeping®.” Similarly the words, “ Aut
Thomas (. ée)’,” contrast Thomas, who had not seen the Lord,
1 (2071 a] iii. 1, v. 5, xi. 1, and iv. 46 (marg.). In some of these cases Jn
specifies time (‘‘after these things,” “‘after the two days” etc.) and place, and then
introduces persons and circumstances. In ix. rq ‘‘ Now it was (qv dé) the sabbath”
introduces a point essential to the comprehension of what follows.
2 [2072] Lk. iv. 1 “I. 6 rdhpns mvetiuaros aylou iréorpeper....This follows
the genealogy (tii. 2438) which is preceded by ili. 23 kal abrds mv ‘Il. dpyduevos....
The nom. (as subject) has previously occurred without the article in Lk. ii. 43
bmréuewev "I. 6 mais, ii. 52 cal "I. rpoéxorrer..., tii. 23 kal alos Hv “I. dpxduevos....
® Lk. xxii. 48 Incois dé elev air@, “Tovda....
4 viii. 59. 5 xii. 44. Ons TY: 7 xx. 24.
105
[2074] CONJUNCTIONS
with the rest of the disciples, who had seen Him. In both cases,
the particle introduces a new event and one of the deepest interest.
And this, as a rule, is characteristic of John’s use of é€: it draws
attention, sometimes to the beginning of a manifestly great event,
sometimes to a detail, not manifestly, but really, important—either
in itself or because of some latent symbolism.
(8) Aé, third word, or later, in its clause
[2074] ‘The instances are as follows, vi. 51 kai 6 aptos d€ ov éyw
diocw 7 capé pov eoriv..., Vil. 31 €k TOD dyAov b€ woAAOl éxicTeveay eis
aitov, Vill. 16 kat éav Kpivw dé eyo, viii. 17 Kal év TO vopw dé TO
tpetéepw yéyparrac (comp. 1 Jn 1. 3 Kal 7» Kowwvia d&€ 7 yperépa),
XV. 27 €xelvos paptupyce Tepl €0d* Kal tpweis SE papTupeire, XVI. Q—IO
Tept apaptias pev...m7epi Sikatocvvyns O€, XVil. 20 ov wept TovTwv dé
€pwTd povov, XXl. 23 ovK eimev b€ aitd 6 “Inoots... These may be
classified according as é€ (1) is not, or (2) is, preceded by kad.
[2075] (1) In vii. 31, é« d€ tod dxAov was perhaps avoided as it
would lay too much stress on the preposition, which here means (in
effect) ““some of” and is so closely connected with rod oyAov that
€k Tov dyAov might be regarded as almost a compound noun. In
XVl. g—1I0, pev and é¢ are placed third after preposition and noun
as is frequently the case. In xvii. 20 od d€ would have been against
the rules of Greek. Compare 1 Jn il. 2 repi tov dGpaptiov nav, od
Tept TOV nueTepwv Se povov, aAXAG xal.... But, in both, the unusual
position of dé probably calls rather more attention to the context as
worthy to be noted. In xxi. 23, A, D, and a, 4, e, fetc. read Kai ovK
elev for ovx eizev d€. The weight of NBC 33 and Origen is so
great that we must accept 6¢, as representing the earliest Greek
text. But, on the other hand, xai—where we should naturally
expect dAAa or pevtor—is so difficult that it can hardly be a mere
correction for regularity’s sake. So far as regards difficulty, it would
be more likely that the difficult xa¢ would be corrected by a marginal
dé. When scribes began to transfer this to the text as a substitute
for xac they could not place dé after ovx, so they would place it after
ov« eizev. Possibly this very ancient tradition about the oldest of
the Apostles may have been current in the Galilaean Church in
a form in which the Hebraic “and” was used for ‘‘and yet.” As
it stands, ov elev d€ is perhaps without parallel in Johannine Greek’.
1 (2075 a] Aé is irregularly used in x. 41 "Iwdvns wey onuetov érolnoev ovdér,
mavra 6é doa elrev I. repl rovrov ddnbl7 jv. But there the irregularity arises from
106
CONJUNCTIONS [2078]
[2076] (2) In the combination of «aé and 6¢, since kai would
have sufficed to express mere addition, d€ seems to be devoted to the
expression of emphasis, so that xat...d€ probably means “ and...what
is more,” in the sense “‘and...what is Zo be specially noted.” Winer-
Moulton (§ 53 p. 553) indicates two opinions as to kai dé:—(r1) that xaé
=‘‘also,” (2) that xac= “and.” If xa¢ meant ‘“‘a/so,” emphasizing the
following word, Mt. xvi. 18 kayo d€ cou A€yw would mean “TI also,”
or “ Zven I”; and, in Jn vi. 51 kat 6 apros would mean “even the
bread” or ‘“‘the bread a/so”—not likely interpretations. There are
cases where initial «ad is shewn by some special preceding context to
be, not “and,” but ‘‘also” or “even.” But, as a rule, xaé standing
first in a sentence is to be assumed to mean “and.” Kaz in viii. 16,
Kal é€av kpivw d€ might possibly be emphatic (not connective) “ Aven
if”; but, if so, the best course would be to treat both xaé and dé as
contributing to emphasis, “ Yea, evex if I should judge.”
(vy) Men...d€
[2077] In Johannine Words of the Lord, pév occurs only twice,
and there dé follows. Both instances occur in the chapter containing
Christ’s last words to the disciples: (1) xvi. g—11 wept duaprias pe
...Tepl Oucavoovwys O€...7epi O€ Kpioews, (2) XVI. 22 Kal buels odv Viv pev
Avrnv €xete> mwadw de Gono tuas. In xvi. 11, wept Kpioews 8é
would have corresponded so exactly with the two previous zepé
clauses as to produce an artificial effect: and perhaps the writer
wishes to call special attention to the clause “about judgment ”
and effects this by a slight variation of order. Meév...d€ nowhere
occurs in the Epistle.
(v) Ki
(a) Ej, corresponding to an, in Words of the Lord
[2078] Mark (followed by Matthew) only once attributes to
our Lord a saying about what “ould have happened,” and
such sayings are rare in Matthew and Luke*. But in John they
the position of wév. Tdvra 6€ would have corresponded to onmetoy pév. Or we
might have expected a\Ad or wévro following I. without pév.
1 [2078 a] Mk xiii. 20 (Mt. xxiv. 22) “If the Lord had not shortened those
days no flesh would have been saved.”
* [2078 4] Mt. xi. 21—3, Lk. x. 13 ‘‘If in Tyre...,” also Mt. xii. 7 (pec.) ‘‘If
ye had known...ye would not have condemned,” Mt. xxiii. 30 (pec.) ‘‘ Ye say, If
we had been in the days of our fathers,” Mt. xxiv. 43, Lk. xii. 39, ‘“‘ If the master
107
[2079] CONJUNCTIONS
occur more often than in all the Synoptists together’. The only
passage that requires comment is one in which W.H. omit av,
vill. 39 “If ye are children of Abraham, then ye are doing (zovetre)
the deeds of Abraham. But as it is (viv 8é) ye are seeking to
kill me?.”
[2079] Here B alone has zoveire, and a scribe (possibly the
first hand) has added « in smaller characters, so as to make exoverre
(without av). L reads erovere av, D e7TOLELTE, N ETroLetTaL, Corr. adds
ay. The inferior Mss. have “If ye were (jre)...ye would be doing
” SS renders zovetre imperatively, “If ye are...do ye
the deeds of Abraham”: but no instance occurs in John of an
imperative preceding viv d¢, “but as it is,” which requires before
it either “ye would be doing” or something equivalent to it®. We
therefore have probably to choose between zoveire indicative and
emovette, ‘The former would be a vivid and almost ironical way of
saying “in that case you are doing,” or “of course you are doing,”
the works of Abraham. The latter would be for éroveire av. Omis-
sions of ay are found in John elsewhere‘: but ¢hey are always with a
negative, lovetre is therefore to be preferred here. In a similarly
irregular passage, Lk. xvii. 6 ei éyere miotw...éXéyere dv, Many MSs.
alter the present €xere into the imperfect; and the tendency to do
the same here would naturally be strong. If Codex B had been
(€xovetre ay).
lost and only a fair copy of it preserved, writing ‘troleite as emoleite,
not a single Greek uncial ms. would now preserve what appears to
be the correct reading’.
of the house had known...” Lk. xvii. 6 has ef éyere mlorw...édéyere Gv, where
Mk xi. 23 (? parall.) has éyere mwiorw, Mt. xxi. 21 édv eynre mlorw, followed by
future. In Lk. xix. 42 “If thou hadst known,” the apodosis is dropped.
* [2078c] iv. 10, v. 46, viii. 19, ?viii. 39, ix. 41, xiv. 7, 28, xv. 19,
xviii. 36; also with ef wy in xv. 22, 24, xix. 11. In these last three instances
dy is omitted.
* El réxva Tov A. éore, ra épya rob A. movetre (marg. éroceire). viv dé (nretré me
amoKTeivat.
% [2079 a] ix. 41, xv. 22, 24, xviii. 36. In all these cases, the sense is, ‘‘ If so-
and-so had happened things would have been different...... but as tt ts (viv 6é)....”
In xvi. 5, xvii. 13, the meaning is, ‘‘ Things were different once...... but as it ts
(viv 6é)....”
4 [2079 4] ix. 33, xv. 22, 24, xix. rr ef wh in every case, 1x. 33 is not a saying
of Christ’s. On dy omitted with indic. see 2213 a and 2698.
® [2079 c] Origen’s present text, when he is not expressly commenting on the
passage, uses (Huet i. 72, ii. 96) the reading of the inferior Mss. But in his
comment on the passage he agrees about six times (Huet ii. 286, 294—6) with
W.H. txt, twice (7d. ii. 2g0, 293) with W.H. marg., comp. 2659 e.
108
CONJUNCTIONS (2082
(8) Ei dé mH
[2080] Ei 8 py, without a verb, in LXX, almost always follows
an expressed or implied imperative’. Apart from John, in N.T.
(sometimes as «i d€ pyye) it follows (1) description of what ought
to be done, (2) precept, (3) an ifclause*. In John, where it occurs
twice, it follows an imperative in xiv. 11 “Believe me (ov) that
I [am] in the Father and the Father in me. Sut 7f not (ei dé py),
because of the mere works believe,” ze. if ye cannot believe me
on the ground of my personality and the words that I utter, then
believe because of the signs that I perform.” This is according
to rule. But the other instance, which comes earlier in the same
chapter, is not according to rule—not, at least, as translated in the
text of R.V., thus xiv. 1—3 “‘Let not your heart be troubled: ye
believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many
mansions; 7f 7¢ were not so (ei dé wy) I would have told you; for
(ort) 1 go (zopevowor) to prepare a place for you. And if I go
(xopevés) and prepare a place for you, I come again, and will
receive you unto myself; that, where I am, [there] ye may be also.
And whither I go (trayw) ye know the way.”
[2081] (1) The first point to be noted about this difficult
passage is that ei d€ py in this second instance—as in the first,
though here at a somewhat longer interval—follows an imperative,
and the imperative of the same verb as above (“believe”). Ac-
cording to the analogy of the first instance, and of all Biblical usage,
endeavouring to connect «i dé wy with the imperative “believe,”
we must suppose the clause about ‘“‘ mansions” to be parenthetical ;
and the meaning will be, ‘‘ Ye believe (or, Believe) in God. Believe
[similarly] in me...da¢, 7f [ you can] not [rise to this|—then,....”
[2082] (2) The next point to be noted is that R.V. has failed
to represent a distinction drawn by our Lord here between “ going
on a journey” (zopevouor) and “going back, or home” (izayw)
(1652—64). Earlier in the Gospel, the Jews themselves are dramati-
cally described by John as failing in much the same way when Jesus
says (vil. 33) ‘‘I go back (érayw) to him that sent me,” and they
say (vil. 35) “‘ Where doth he purpose to go (ropeveo@ar) z.c. journey ?,”
1 [2080 a] The exceptions are Gen. xviii. 21, Job xxiv. 25, xxxil. 22. In Sir.
xxix. 6 ef 6€ uy follows ay icx’on. In 2 S. xvii. 6 coujrouev...ef dé uh, the verb
may be intended to imply an imperative, ‘‘let us do.”
2 Mk ii. 21, 22, Mt. ix. ry, Lk. v. 36, 37; Mt. vi. 1, Lk. x. 6, xiii Xiv. 32
li, 21, 22, v ix. 17, Lk. v. 36, 373 Bio Alig xaos - 9; Xiv. 32,
2 Cor.,x1. 16MIREV. tis 5310: ?
109
[2083 | CONJUNCTIONS
adding ‘‘Doth he purpose to go to the Dispersion of the Greeks ?”
It is also noteworthy that, up to this point (xiv. 1) in the Gospel,
Jesus has repeatedly described Himself as “going home, or back
(ixayw)” to the Father, but never, spiritually, as “going [on a
journey (zopevouat).” In the preceding context He has just said
to the disciples twice (xiii. 33, 36) ‘“‘Where I go home (irayw) ye
cannot come,” and they have been perplexed and troubled, not
being able to realise the Lord’s “‘ going home” and treating it simply
as a separation. At this point Jesus Himself begins to speak of
Himself as “going (wopevopat),” and the context suggests that He
does this in order to adapt His language to the understanding of
the disciples’.
[2083] (3) A third point is, that etrov dv ipiv dre ropevouar,
according to Greek usage in general as well as Johannine usage
in particular, would naturally mean—unless some very clear prefixed
context prevented the meaning—“I should have said to you ¢hat
I am going.” SS takes it thus. Chrysostom and many other
authorities do the same, but omit or (“I should have said to you,
‘I am going’”). On this point, see 2185—6.
[2084] (4) Another consideration is that “If it were not so
[as I have said]” would imply a supposition that Christ had stated
an error; and this—even in the form of a supposition at once
dismissed as impossible—is hardly in accordance with Johannine
thought. There results a considerable negative probability, that
ei 5€ pn does not mean «i dé 7 ovtTws Hv (“but if it were not so”).
There is also a positive probability, if the text is not corrupt, that
it relates to the imperative ‘“‘believe” and means “otherwise,” 2.e.
“if ye cannot do this.”
[2085] According to this view, the disciples have been unable
to realise all that was implied in the Son’s “going home” to the
Father. It meant that He could take His friends thither, and that
the Father would find room for them all. It was not a strange
place, or an inn, to which it was necessary that the Son should
go first, to make preparations for the disciples. Nevertheless, if
the disciples could not understand the unity of the Son with the
Father and could not trust unreservedly in the Son’s power without
detailed assurances, He was willing to lower His language to their
1 On brdyw (not in Pap. Index, but colloquial, so that it has passed into modern
Greek) and ropevouat, see 1652—64. Jn carefully distinguishes them.
I1O
CONJUNCTIONS [2087]
level and to ask them to trust in a special assurance. We may
perhaps suppose Him to repeat, in thought, the precept “ believe
me” somewhat to this effect; ‘Ye believe (or Believe) in God?
Believe also [similarly] in me—in my Father’s house are many
abiding places—: but if not [1.e. if ye cannot believe in me to this
full extent, then believe me at least to this extent.]—I could have
said to you [instead of speaking about ‘going home’] that I was
going on a journey to prepare a place for you.”
[2086] This is not wholly satisfactory. For, strictly speaking,
etxov av means “I shouwld have said,” not “I could have said.” But
the whole passage is surcharged with emotion, and Christ may be
represented as having two thoughts in His mind, (1) “If I had
known your weakness I show/d have spoken differently,” (2) “If you
are so weak, believe me, I cow/d have put things for you differently.”
From the objective point of view, the Son does not “go to prepare
a place for the disciples” because the places are already (Mk x. 40)
“prepared ” (Mt. xx:'/23) “by mys Father:”) But, adapting: ‘His
language to the weakness of their faith, Christ proceeds to say,
“And if—to use the language suited to you—even if I should
‘go and prepare a place for you, yet I come again....” Literally, the
Lord can hardly be said to ‘‘go to prepare a place,” like a courier
engaging rooms in an inn; and Jesus seems to have implied this
by His previous mention of “many abiding-places,” as if He had
said, “We shall be in my home—your home, large enough to
hold all.”
(vi) ’Erreé
(a) °Enei mapackeyH HN
[2087] This conjunction did not appear in Johannine Vocabu-
lary because it occurs, though rarely, in each of the Gospels!, and
there is nothing grammatically remarkable in the two Johannine
instances of it. But historically it is remarkable that Mark’s only
use of it is in connexion with the Preparation for the Passover, and
that one of John’s two instances is similarly connected. The Gospels
all mention the Preparation, but differently :—(1) Mk xv. 42 “ since
(émet) it was the Preparation, which is ‘eve of the sabbath,’ there
came Joseph of Arimathaea,” (2) Mt. xxvii. 62 “But on the morrow,
‘ [2087 2] Mk only once (xv. 42 érel mv mapackev), 6 éorw mpocdBBarTor),
Mt. (3), Lk. (1+1 marg.), Jn xiii. 29 éwel 7d yAwoo. eixev “I., xix. 31 émel
TApacKevy AY.
MALL
[2088 CONJUNCTIONS
which is [the day] after the Preparation, there were gathered together
the chief priests and the Pharisees to Pilate,” to ask him to guard
the tomb, (3) Lk. xxi. 53—-4 ‘“‘he placed him in the tomb...where
no man had yet lain: and it was the day of the Preparation and
the sabbath was dawning.”
[2088] °“Eveé means “z/en,” as well as “‘szzce,” and is inter-
changed with éewdy, “zen,” in Daniel, Luke, and Acts’. Matthew
and Luke, who omit éeé above, may have supposed that here it meant
simply ‘‘zhen,” not perceiving that it stated the cawse for the
coming of Joseph. John intervenes, at great length. Whereas Mark
and Luke, in different ways, connect the day with “the Sabbath,”
John, in the first mention of it, says (xix. 14) “it was the Preparation
of the Passover.” He adds that the Jews desired the bodies of the
crucified to be taken away (xix. 31) “‘szzce it was the Preparation,”
and that Joseph of Arimathea came hereupon and took the body
of Jesus, and also that the body was buried as it was (apparently
meaning buried in haste) “‘decause of the Preparation.” ‘Thus he
repeatedly brings out the causal meaning of Mark’s éze/, which is not
represented in Matthew and Luke.
(vi) “Eas
(a) Not confused with we .
[2089] “Ews, with the present indicative, occurs perhaps once in
Mark’, but nowhere else in N.T. except 1 Tim. iv. 13 €ws epyopau
“awhile I am [still| coming {and not yet present],” and thrice in John,
ix. 4 “we must work...zwAz/e (€ws, marg. ws) (SS “while yet”) i ts
day,” and xxi. 22—3 (bis) “while [ am [still] coming.” The
Thesaurus gives many such phrases as “ While (€ws) there is [still]
opportunity,” “ Wzle he [still] has breath and power®,” and—with
“still (érv)” inserted and verb omitted—“ While the sea [is] still
navigable,” ‘“whzle [there is] still hope” etc* SS_ therefore
expresses the sense in adding “yet.” The importance of these facts
consists in their indication that, when John uses os later on in xi. 35
ws TO pas exere, he means something different from ‘‘ zw/z/e” (2201).
1 [20882] Dan. iii. 22, Lk. vii. 1 (v. r.), Acts xiii. 46 (v. r-). 1 Esdr. vi. 14
émet is parall. to Ezr. v. 12 ag’ dre, R.V. ‘after that,” marg. ‘‘ because that.”
2 [20892] In Mk vi. 45 (W.H. dmodve) NBL have éws atrds (L_ avrods)
amodter, where D has av’rds dé darodvec and the other MSS. amoAvoet or -o7: the
parall. Mt. xiv. 22 has &ws ot) drodvon.
3 [20894] Dem. 15.5, Synes. Zfist. 44. ’Eorl is om. in Plat. Legg. 789 E rd
yevouevov 5é marrew Ews vrypov.
4 Thuc. vii. 47, viii. 40, also Xen. Cyrof. vii. 1. 18 ws ére oor TXON7).
I12
CONJUNCTIONS [2092]
(viil) "H and qrep
(a
[2090] In the Synoptists, 7, “or,” is frequently used in Christ’s
words for rhetorical fulness or impressiveness (‘tribulation or perse-
cution,” ‘under the bushel ov under the bed” etc.)'. In John,
where it seldom occurs, it is mostly outside Christ’s words. In
Christ’s words it occurs only thrice’. Once it introduces a direct
question as follows :—xvill. 34 “‘Sayest thou this from thyself, ov (7)
did others say [it] to thee concerning me?”
[2091] This is our Lord’s answer to Pilate’s words, “Thou art
[it seems] the king of the Jews!” which are probably (2234, 2236
foll.) to be read as a contemptuous exclamation expressed in an
interrogative tone. It is clear that, as Chrysostom says, our Lord’s
reply is not a request for information. Pilate obviously did wot say
this from himself. Others ad said it to him. In Greek questions,
an absurdity is often put before the reality, thus: ‘‘ When horses are
injured do they become Jdetter, or worse?” ‘In states, are rulers
without error, or liable to error?” ‘‘Do you permit [a bad ruler| to
rule, or do you appoint another*?” ‘There is nothing in the literal
English rendering of our Lord’s reply to indicate the meaning
conveyed by this Greek usage. But the meaning might be fairly
paraphrased as ‘‘ Will you venture to assert that you say this from
yourself, or will you admit, as you must be conscious, that you were
prompted by others ?”
(8) “Hrep
[2092] “Hiep occurs only once in N.T., namely in Jn xii. 43
“They loved the glory of men rather ‘Aan (yep) (marg. vzep) the
glory of God.” Chrysostom, in his comment, quotes (v. 44) “ How
can ye believe...since ye seek not the glory that is from the only
God?” And perhaps this is almost the meaning here :—“‘the glory of
men and not’ the’ glory of God:” Compare 2° Macc: xiv. 42
1 [2090 z] In the Sermon on the Mount alone, it occurs about ten times.
2 [20902] Two of these contain indirect questions, vii. 17 ‘‘ He shall know...
whether it is from God ov I speak from myself,” viii. 14 ‘‘ Ye know not whence I
come ov where I return.”
3 [2091 a] Steph. quoting Plato 335 B, 339 B, Xen. Cyrof. iii. t. 12 (to which
add zd. ‘Do you let him [?.e. the bad ruler] retain his wealth, or do you reduce
him to poverty ?”).
Aa Vie LE3 8
[2093] CONJUNCTIONS
“desiring [rather] to die nobly than [i.e. avd nof]...to be subjected
(Jéwv arofaveiv nrep...vroxeipios yevéoOar),” and the variously inter-
preted //vad i. 117 BovAop eyo Aadv Goov Eupevat 7) azoh€cOa, where
7 (Eustathius says) was explained as being “for 77ep,” so as to
mean emphatically “than,” not “or.” According to this distinction,
whereas (1) pa@AAov 7 might have meant that they loved the glory of
God somewhat but the glory of men more, (2) paddov trep suggests
that they loved the glory of men, and the glory of God they loved
not at all. Compare the only other passage where John uses paAAov 7,
il. 19 “The light hath come into the world and men loved rather
the darkness than the light (paXXov 16 cxotos 7) 70 das).” The likeness,
and the unlikeness, are remarkable. The evangelist appears to con-
demn both “the world” and ‘the rulers,’ but the latter more
severely. The “world” had perhaps some love for the light: the
“rulers” had no love at all for the glory of God?. See 2685.
(ix) “Iva
(a) “Ina, in John, expresses, or implies, purpose
[2093] The frequency of tva in John (2686) illustrates in part his
preference for colloquial as distinct from literary Greek, but in part
also the tendency of his Gospel to lay stress on purfose, e.g. on the
purpose of the Baptist’s birth and mission’, on the purpose of the Son’s
mission’, on the purpose of His actions and words*, and on the
Father’s purpose in appointing for Him these actions’, which purpose
may also be described as the Father’s will’, John’s view is that
actions are appointed for men 7 order that, in doing them, they may
do the will of their Father ; and ¢he essence of the action consists in the
motive, namely, to do that will. In English, “Zo do” often means
“doing,” having quite lost its old notion of “‘/o doing,” i.e. “toward
doing,” i.e. furpose: but in John—whatever may be the case in
other writers—tva seems always to retain some notion, or suggestion,
of purpose, or motive, as being the essence of action’.
} [20922] "H7ep (‘‘than”’) differs from # (‘for” or ‘‘than”) in being non-
ambiguous and emphatic. ‘Yzép, v.r. for mep, substitutes a common for an
uncommon word and weakens the sense.
2 i. 7, 8 a wapruphoy, comp. 1. 31 wa pavepwOy.
3 iil. 17 etc. Ne ay SEV ea Os
6 vi. 40 ToITO yap éorw TO OéAnua T. TaTpds pov iva....
7 [2093.2] Jn does not use the infinitive of purpose with rod, or ™pos 76, SO that
a priori we might expect him to use Wa as a substitute. Bruder gives the article
114
if UNIVER ry \
CONJUNCTIONS
(8) “Ina, in John, never merely appositional
[2094] If ta were merely appositional like our English “to,”
N.T. writers would be able to employ iva, like ‘‘to””—irrespective of
good or evil, of positive or negative—in such sentences as “It is
good, or evil, for thee Zo do this,” “I command, or forbid, thee to do
this.” But va can only be used with “ good” and “command,” not
with “evil” and “forbid.” The reason is that “goodness” and
“command” suggest a positive object to be attained or a positive object
in commanding ; and object suggests purpose’. “ Evil” and “forbid”
do not—or at least not to the same extent. In xii. 34, R.V. marg.
has “A new commandment I give unto you, ¢hat ye love (iva
ayamate) one another; even as I loved you, that ye also may love
(iva xal ¥. ayarare) one another,” apparently taking the first va
as introducing the sazbstance of the command (“that ye Jove”), and
the second as introducing its purpose “that ye may love.” It seems
better to give the same rendering in both cases, the second being an
emphatic and much more definite repetition of the first. The
meaning is, in both cases, “ AZy command ts, and my purpose ts, that
ye love one another.” But in the second clause the kind of love
is defined (‘‘Even as I loved you”).
[2095] Similarly in xv. 13 ‘‘Greater love hath no man than this
(wetCova ravrns ayarny ovdeis €xe.)—that a man lay down his life (iva
Tis THY Wuxnv adtov On) for his friends,” the tva clause (in view of the
frequency of Johannine apposition) is best taken as being in
and the inf. as occurring Mk (15), Mt. (24), Lk. (c. 70), Jn (4) (thrice wpd rod,
once 6a 76). “Iva occurs in Jn almost as often (1726) as in all the Synoptists
together.
[20934] In xil. 40 ‘‘2 order that (iva) they may not see with their eyes”
represents the divine purpose of ‘‘ blinding” those who do not wish to see: and
this phrase, derived loosely from Isaiah (vi. to), is quoted by Mark (iv. 12) and
Luke (viii. ro), but not in the parallel Matthew who avoids it (xiii. 13 87v...00
BXérrover, supplemented by xili. 14 od um inte), When once the stupendous
admission is made that evil in some sense may be decreed by God, there ceases to
be any difficulty in xvi. 2, ‘The hour cometh [decreed] in order that whosoever
killeth you shall ¢hizk (66&n) he doeth God service.” If persecution is ‘‘ decreed,”
it must be decreed that some shall persecute ; and the evil is not always made worse
by the fact that a man persecutes, thinking that ‘‘ he doeth God service.”
In v. 7, wa depends on érocmov implied in éxw ‘‘I have no one [ready].”
1 [2094 a] In the following, there is a notion of some standard of excellence to
be attained, something desired or needed, some customary privilege that is prized
and asked for, 1. 27 ‘‘I am not worthy ¢a¢ I should loose the shoe latchet,” i. 25
““He had no need ¢hat anyone should testify,” xvii. 39 ‘‘ There is a custom
[established] for you ¢ha¢ I should release....” See 2104 a.
115 8 —2
[2096 | CONJUNCTIONS
apposition to tavrns [THs a.], but tva tis O97 is not the same as
tov Geivar. For the love is, not “the laying down of life,” but the
Spirit that prompts the laying down or stimulates one man that he may
lay down his life for another. And this suggestion of motive or effort
is latent in tva. So, too, iv. 34 “ My meat is zz order that I may do
(iva towjow) the will of him that sent me” implies that the “meat ”
consists in the will to do His will. Comp. xvi. 3 “This is eternal
life, 7 order that they may know thee,” which perhaps combines
(1) “the effort to know thee,” (2) “given to men that they may know
thee;
[2096] In answer to the question of the Jews, “ What are we to
do in order that we may work the works of God?” Jesus replies
(vi. 29) “This is the work of God [namely] zz order that ye may
believe,” which appears to mean that the “works” are not of the
nature assumed by the questioners (e.g. sabbath-keeping, alms-giving
etc.) but of the nature of motive or purpose: and if they are to do
the works it will be because they take into their hearts God’s purpose
and will, which is an effort to make them believe, literally, an effort
“tn order that ye may believe.” Similarly vi. 40 ‘‘ For this is the
will of my Father {and His purpose and effort] 7 order that every-
one that beholdeth the Son...may have life eternal,” and xv. 12
(comp. xlil. 34) “This is my commandment [and purpose] zz order
that ye may love one another.” ‘The following passages shew that
John, differing from Epictetus and others, never uses iva exactly for
ote Or ware (2697).
(y) Special passages
(2097] In vili. 56 “Abraham, your father, rejoiced that he might
see my day,” the meaning is that Abraham, receiving the promise of
the son in whom all the nations of the world were to be blessed,
(Gen. xvii. 17) “laughed” for joy, being strengthened by God with
hopeful faith, zz order that, under God’s providence, he might thus
fulfil the overruling will of God working for the salvation of ‘the
nations.” Philo (i. 602—3) compares the “ laughing” of Abraham
to the “laughing” of the day in anticipation of the early dawn: and,
playing on the meaning of the name of Isaac (ze “laughter ”) who
was not yet born, he declares that ‘‘ Abraham, so to speak, laughed
before laughter existed, as the soul, through hope, rejoices before joy
and delights before delight.” The meaning is, that Abraham, being
helped by God, performed a “work of God,” namely, “ believing ”
116
CONJUNCTIONS [2101]
and “rejoicing,” zz order that he might fulfil a purpose of God,
namely, might see the day of the Messiah’. See also 2688—9.
[2098] ix. 2 “ Rabbi, who sinned, this [man] or his parents, zz
order that he might be born blind?” is answered by Jesus in language
that does not deny purpose but calls attention to an ulterior purpose :
“Neither did this [man] sin, nor his parents, but [it came to pass] 7
order that the works of God might be manifested in him.”
[2099] In xi. 14—15 “Lazarus is dead, and I am glad, on
account of you, that ye may believe, because I was not there?,” the
first question is, What is the verb, expressed or implied, on which
there depends the clause ‘“‘that ye may believe”?
(1) The only verb expressed is ya/pw: and, taken by themselves,
the words ‘“‘ Lazarus is dead and I rejoice in order that ye may
believe” might mean “I force myself to rejoice over it and to express
my joy in order that ye may believe ”—as a general, after the death
of a brother in battle, might say to his soldiers, ‘I rejoice over it in
order that you may be encouraged to follow his example.” According
to this view, the Son “rejoices” over His friend’s death—foreseeing
the triumph over death—being filled by the Father with joy in order
that He may accomplish a work for the strengthening of the faith of
the disciples.
[2100] (2) But we have not here yafpw and iva consecutively,
(as above (2097) yyakAvacaro iva). “For your sakes” intervenes.
Now “for your sakes” implies that the speaker deszves something for
the sake of those spoken to. And, in answer to the question, “‘desiring
what?” ré OéAwv; the reply would be OeAwv iva mictevonre, “desiring
that ye may believe.” Hence iva may depend upon 6édw implied in
d0 vuas: ‘TI rejoice for your sakes desiring that ye may believe.”
[2101] (3) The next clause to consider is “ because (drv) I was
not there.” (a) This may depend upon “believe.” Then it would
mean, ‘‘that ye may believe in me because your faith has not been
shaken at the spectacle of Lazarus dying in my presence when I, you
might think, could have healed him.” In this spirit, Martha and
Mary say to Jesus, “If thou hadst been here, my brother had not
died,” and Martha may be supposed to add, “‘ Yet even now [though
1 [2097 a] ’AyaAXcdouae is never used in the Bible with iva to mean ** rejoice
(to do).” Once, when meaning ‘‘ rejoice to do,” it is used with infin. (Ps. xix. 5)
“*rejoiceth ¢o rz (Spauetv) his course.” For Origen’s comment, see 2689.
2 Adéapos dmréBavev, kat yalpw, 50 dpas, wa mustedonre, dre ovK juny exe. I
have added a comma after xalpw.
Piey
[2102] CONJUNCTIONS
the faith of some might have been shaken] I believe that whatsoever
thou shalt ask from God, God will give thee.” But is it likely that
Christ would rejoice in the prospect of a belief so xegative and frail
that it depends upon His aédsence? More probably, if this were the
grammatical construction, there would be a latent posztive meaning,
‘“That ye may believe decause I was not there to save him from death
and decause J shall consequently go thither to raise him from death,”
z.e. that ye may believe because I shall raise him from death as a
consequence of my absence. (4) Again, the words ‘because I was
not there” may depend upon “rejoice,” the meaning being, “I
rejoice—on your account, desiring that ye may believe —because I
was not there,” z.e. “I rejoice that I was not there, not for my own
sake, not to avoid the spectacle of his death, but for your sakes
desiring that ye may believe.”
[2102] (4) On the whole—having regard to John’s frequent use
of wva to introduce divine preordinance and to the stress laid on
Christ’s knowledge of all that was happening to Lazarus, combined
with His determination to remain at a distance till His “friend” was
dead—we shall probably come closest to the meaning, if we take the
words as signifying that the Son rejoiced over all the circumstances
of the death of Lazarus, as He was ready to rejoice over His
own death, and for the same reason—namely that, in both cases,
the death would tend to the glory of God by strengthening men’s
faith in God. We are intended to listen to Jesus as the words
dropped slowly from His lips, clause by clause. ‘The same shock
that the disciples would have felt we also are intended to feel, when
we hear Jesus say, “‘ Lazarus is dead, and I rejoice.” Then we are
to be in part comforted by His affection and in part bewildered by
“for your sakes,” ‘Then some reassurance follows when we hear
‘in order that ye may believe.” Then we are plunged into be-
wilderment again by the words “ because I was not there.” This is
what we are to realise as the confused feeling of the hearers at the
time. But realising it as readers, in the light of subsequent events,
we are to interpret the oracular words as meaning that the Son
rejoiced in all that the Father revealed to Him, in the death, and in
His absence from His friend’s death-bed, for the sake of His
disciples, and that the death, the absence, and the rejoicing, were all
ordained for the fulfilment of the divine purpose’.
>
1 [2102a] Chrysostom’s comment is ‘* Died and TI rejoice on your account.
Why, pray, om your account? Because I foretold [it], not being there, and
118
CONJUNCTIONS (205 |
[2103] In xii. 7 “Ades aidryy iva eis Hv nuepav Tod evradiacpod pov
Typynoy avro, obscurity arises, not from the construction of iva typyon
“in order that she may keep,” but from the doubtful meaning of the
context (which will, I hope, be discussed in a future treatise) and
from the possibility of some corruption’,
(8) “Ina and Subjunctive, compared with Infinitive
[2104] In xi. 50 “It is profitable for you (lit.) zz order that one
man should die for the people,” and in xvi. 7 “It is profitable for
you (lit.) 7 order that | may depart,” tva follows a word that suggests
a profitable object to be pursued (as explained above 2094). But
owing to the context, in each case, there is probably a notion of
preordinance. For this reason, perhaps, iva and the subjunctive are
put into the mouth of the High Priest when he utters the words
under higher influence than his own (“not of himself”) as being
a divine decree: but afterwards the evangelist, when referring to
these very words, uses the infinitive, xviii. 14 “‘ Now Caiaphas was
he that gave counsel to the Jews that it was expedient that one man
29)
should die (ore cuppépe eva avOpwrov arobavetv) for the people’.
(e) Omission of principal verb before j’na
[2105] As the /éad declares its subject to be the wrath of
Achilles but adds that the “purpose that was being accomplished ”
was that of Zeus, so, though in reverse order, the Fourth Gospel
begins with the Logos and God and Light ; and then, coming to “a
man,” indicates that the purpose of the man’s “coming” is to bear
witness about the Light. To express this purpose the evangelist
because, when I shall have raised [him] up [from the dead], there will be no
suspicion (ovdeuia éorat vrovia).”” Theodorus (Cramer ad Joc.) says ‘I rejoice, He
says, for your sakes (Uua@v évexev). For the fact that I was not there will contribute
to your faith (76 yap un eval we exe? ouvTedéoer mpds Thy TicTLy Thy UueTépay) since,
if (et wév) Thad been present, I should have healed him while still ailing (dppw-
orotvra éGepdmevoy), but such a wonder as that would have been slight for the
manifestation of power.”
1 On xv. 8 & rovrw éd0Edc0n 6 marhp mov iva Kaprov Troddy PépyTe, see 2393.
2 [2104 a] Jn’s preference of iva to the infinitive is illustrated by (a) i. 27 “I
am not worthy ¢#az (iva),” contr. with ‘‘ worthy éo” in Lk. xv. 19, 21, Rev. v- 2,
4, 9, 12, and by (4) ii. 25, xvi. 30, 1 Jn ii. 27 xpelay evew iva, contr. with x. éxew
and infinitive in Mt. i. 14, xiv. 16, 1 Thess. i. 8 (comp. Heb. v. 12 Tod diddoxew).
On the infinitive with rod see 2093 a.
11g
[2106] CONJUNCTIONS
uses tva for the first time’. As the man is described as “sent from
God,” the purpose of the ‘‘coming” may be supposed to be that of
God, not of the man except so far as the man makes it his own as
well. The Gospel then proceeds to subordinate the “‘man” to the
“light” by saying, 1. 8 “He, was not the light, du [ | x order
that (ad iva) he might bear witness concerning the light.”
[2106] How are we to fill the bracketed gap? R.V. supplies
“came,” and perhaps correctly: but the passage should be con-
sidered with others like it, ix. 3 ‘“‘ Neither did this man sin nor his
parents, duz [ | «x order that® the works of God should be
manifested in him,” xii. 18 “I speak not concerning you all: I
know whom (rivas) I chose, but [ | «x order that the Scripture
might be fulfilled...,” xiv. 30—1 “And he [ze the prince of the
world] hath nothing in me; dz [ | ¢ order that the world may
know that I love the Father and as the Father gave me command-
ment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence,” xv. 24—5 “If I had
not done...they had not had sin; but now (vdv dé) have they both
seen and hated me and my Father; du [ | 2x order that the
word that is written in their law might be fulfilled, They hated me
without a cause.” Similarly 1 Jn u. 19 “They came forth [ze.
originated] from us, but (aAd’) they were not of us: for if they had
been of us, they would have continued with us, du [ | «x order
that they might be made manifest how that they all are not of us.”
[2107] Attempting to supply these ellipses we may first take
those passages in which adda is preceded by a negative. In these,
where we can supply a verb by repeating it from the preceding
context, it will be reasonable to do so: i. 8 ‘He was not the light
but on the contrary |was, or was sent, or came| in order that he might
bear witness concerning the light,” repeating éyévero, or aweotad-
pevos [nv], or 7AGev, from i. 6—7 (but see 2112)*: similarly ix. 3
“Neither did this man sin zor his parents dut on the contrary |he
was born blind| in order that the works of God should be manifested,”
1 [21052] i. 6—7 éyévero dvOpwros dmecrahuevos rapa Oeod...ovT0s 7Oev
els papruplav, va waprupnoyn... Comp. Is. lv. 4 ‘¢1 [#.e. Jehovah] have given him
for a witness to the peoples.”
EST ] in order that,” in the whole of this paragraph=dXN iva.
8 [2107 a] The view that d\\d means ‘‘ dat on the contrary [subordinated to
the light]” and not, ‘‘ dv? s¢7// [in some way connected with the light]” is favoured
by Jn iii. 28 ov«...dAN, ‘‘not...de¢ on the contrary,” uttered by the Baptist himself
about his relation to Christ.
b]
120
CONJUNCTIONS [2110]
referring to the question of the disciples “‘ Who did sin...that Ze was
born blind?” (but see 2112).
[2108] In xiv. 30—31 above quoted, the negative clause “hath
nothing in me,” means “he finds no sin in me.” The opposite of
this would be “he finds righteousness in me.” But instead of
supplying this or any clause, the best plan perhaps is to connect
together “ But on the contrary...even so I do (ovrws tow),” so that
the meaning is, “Satan does not find sin in me [and constrain me
to die because of my sin], dut on the contrary—|unconstrained by any
law of sin or Satan] in order that tne world may know..., and even
as the Father gave me commandment—so J do,” i.e. I act siniessly
and voluntarily for His glory. In that case, the principal verb is not
omitted but is placed at the end of the sentence.
[2109] In the following instances, where there is no negative
clause immediately preceding adda, the context suggests the ellipsis
of some exclamation of sorrow for sin as being ‘‘[evil indeed], dat
yet [ordained] zx order that” some divine purpose, or saying of
Scripture, may be fulfilled: xiii. 18 “I know that you will not all be
saved; I know whom I have chosen: [evil indeed] du¢ yet [7¢ has
so come to pass| in order that the Scripture may be fulfilled.” Similarly
in xv. 24—5 adda means “but still,” and the speaker falls back, in
trust, upon the fulfilment of ‘‘the word that is written in their law”
as being the only consolation: ‘“‘ They have both seen and hated me
and my Father; dwt sti// [it has been so ordained] in order that....”
The evil is regarded as evil, but as evil resulting in the fulfilment
of the Law.
[2110] In 1 Jn ii. r9, where a negative precedes, but at some
interval, akAa appears to mean “dw? stil,” and to suggest, in the
thought of a mysterious and divine justice, some compensation for the
defection of disciples: “They went out from us, ze. they originated
from us, but they never really belonged to us. Had they belonged to
us, they would have continued with us—[ev¢/, indeed] but [at all events
an evil working for good | in order that they might be manifested....'.”
[2110] R.V. supplies ‘‘ they went out” from what precedes, and takes it as
“they revolted” or “deserted.” ’Bz%\Oov might, in suitable context, apply to
“coming forth” either (a) as sons from a home, soldiers from a camp etc., or (4) as
runaways, deserters, rebels. Here, the following words, dN’ ov joav é& quar,
rather suggest antithesis, ‘‘ They [at first] came out from us [as children from our
home, or soldiers from our camp] but they were not really [in heart] belonging to
ws... For é&épxouar éx, wapd, dd, meaning ‘‘originate from” or ‘‘ come from,”
see Jn Vili. 42, xiii, 3, xvi. 28, 30, xvii. 8.
[21104] Origen, however (Huet ii. 410 D), commenting on the going out of Judas
121
[2111] CONJUNCTIONS
[2111] There is but one instance of ellipsis with aX’ iva in the
Synoptic Tradition. It occurs in Mark alone, and the parallel
Matthew and Luke are of interest as shewing how such a missing
clause might be variously supplied. The Three Synoptists, after
substantially agreeing that Jesus said “I was with you ‘[day] by
day’ in the Temple and ye did not seize me,” give His following
words thus:
Mk xiv. 49 Mt. xxvi. 56 Lk. xxil. 53
“but in order that “but (d€) all this ts “but (add) this is
(adAX’ iva) the Scrip- come Lo pass (yéyovev) your hour and the
tures might be ful- in order that the power of darkness.”
filled.” Scriptures of the
Prophets might be
fulfilled.”
Here it would be an extremely weak interpretation, in Mark, to
repeat the preceding verb, ‘seize’ (so as to make the sense ‘but
[ye have seized me] in order that”). A better course is to explain
it as above, as being an exclamation of mingled sorrow and self-
consolation at the temporary triumph of evil: “[evil and strange] dz
yet, [ordained| in order that the Scriptures might be fulfilled.”
Matthew takes it so, and expressly asserts that “all this” (rotro
oAov) came to pass according to divine decree. Luke, on the other
hand, seems to emphasize the fact that the arrest took place by xzgh?:
“Ye did not seize me by day; dut [now ye seize me by night], this
is your [appointed] hour, fit for a deed of darkness.”
[2112] In the light of this passage we must perhaps be prepared
to say that in one at least of the Johannine instances (i. 8, 1x. 3)
explained above (2107) by a repetition of a preceding verb, John
may have intended to supply, as Matthew does here, ‘‘now all this
came to pass,” so that the meaning of Christ’s reply about the blind
man (ix. 3) would be, ‘No particular sin of the parents or of the
child in any pre-existing condition explains the facts: the whole was
ordained for the glory of God.” Possibly the same explanation
applies also to the saying about the Baptist (i. 8). It is
characteristic of John’s style that he so often uses a phrase—
after receiving the sop from Jesus (xii. 30) says TéNeov Mev dwd Tod "Inood
dvddoyov 7m 'HEAOov €& judy, apparently illustrating the ‘‘ going out” in the
Gospel by the ‘‘ going out” in the Epistle, and taking the latter as revolt, or
secession. According to that view, the rendering would be ‘*t They went out as
rebels from us. [An evil, indeed, ] dz st7// they were never in heart belonging to
us,” z.e. but still the evil would have been greater if they had really belonged to us
and had yet fallen away.
I22
CONJUNCTIONS [2115]
perhaps borrowed from the early Greek vernacular Gospel and
retained in one instance by Mark alone of the Synoptists—that
leaves the reader zz some doubt as to what is alleged to have happened,
but insists that it happened for a certain purpose.
(£) “Ina dependent on verb implied in question
[2113] i. 22 “They said therefore to him, Who art thou (ris «?,) ?
that we may give an answer to them that sent us.”
ix. 36 “He answered [and said], And who is he, Lord, ¢ha¢ I may
believe on him ?”
“Tell us,” and (2157) “thou wilt surely tell me,” may be
severally supplied before “that.”
(n) “Ina with indicative (2690)
[2114] “Iva with future indicative occurs in vil. 3 ‘7% order that thy
disciples also shall behold (Gewpyoover),” xvii. 2 “in order that all
that thou hast given to him Ze shad/ give (dwoer) to them eternal life.”
This (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 18 va @yow) is fairly frequent in N.T. But
1 Jn v. 20 “he hath given to us a mind that we may be recognising
(va ywwoxopev)” stands on a different footing, being probably a mere
misspelling arising from the confusion of o and w (966 a). Compare
Gal. vi. g—12 Oepicopev (NCFG etc. -wpev)...ws Karpov exwpev (so W.H,
with NB*, but Lightf, (2696) exomev)...épyalwueba (AB* -one6a)...
dwxwvta (ACFG etc. -ovtar). In the context, the writer says “See
with what large (r7Ackous, but B* wAcKous) letters I have written to you
with my own hand.” It is possible that the Apostle, like some
writers in the Egyptian papyri, habitually interchanged o and w; and
early reverence for the autograph may have preserved some traces of
the interchange in the best Greek mss. (2691). This however will not
explain Jn xvu. 3 (ADL etc.) a ywwoKxovow (@ cognoscant) where
possibly some scribes took the meaning to be ‘‘so ¢hat they know.”
In the difficult passage (1673 c) v. 20 Wa tpets Oavpatyte (SS ‘and do
not wonder”) NL have Oavya€ere. In xil. 4o Wa py ldwow...Kat
iagopat avtovs, John follows Is. vi. 10 (LXX, but Sym. ia), and so
does Mt. xi. 15. Compare Eph. vi. 3 Wa & oor yévntar Kai eon
(which deviates from LXX both of Ex. xx. 12 and of Deut. v. 16).
This resembles W.H. marg. in Jn xv. 8 Wa xapzov...pepyte Kat
yevyoeobe éuot pabyz7ai—a natural transition, but BDL have yevycde.
(@) “Ina, connexion of
[2115 | A iva clause generally follows the principal verb, but see
2108 and comp. xix. 31 (where fva occurs with a negative) ot ovv
123
[2116] CONJUNCTIONS
*Lovéator, éret 7. 7, iva py pelen...qVv yap...npwTncav tov II. iva...’
The connexion is doubtful in xix. 28 peta todro «idds 6 “Incods ort
q0n TavTa TeTEeLecTaL iva TehewOH 7 ypadhy A€yer, Auld. Chrysostom
paraphrases thus, eidas otv wavra rerAypwpeva, déyer, Aupo, madw
evTavba tpopyteav tAnpoy, apparently connecting the iva clause with
Xeye, and the rhythm of the sentence being like that of xix. 31
somewhat favours this view. If that were correct, the best inter-
pretation would be that the Son felt the thirst and uttered the
expression of it in order that the Scripture might receive its fulfilment
(not that He deliberately uttered the word in order that a particular
passage of Scripture might be fulfilled (1722)). But, on the other
side, Johannine usage decidedly favours the rendering ‘“‘ knowing that
all things were now accomplished in order that the Scripture might be
perfectly fulfilled” —provided that we read what follows in the light
of these words. ‘Then “ He saith, ‘I thirst’” will mean, ‘“{ Knowing,
I say, that the time had come for the supreme perfection of the
Father’s will as expressed in Scripture] he saith, ‘I thirst.’” The
writer indicates (1) that all things were accomplished that the
Scripture might be fulfilled, (2) that Jesus knew this when He
uttered the words “TI thirst.” He leads us to infer that Jesus
uttered the words as the crown of that accomplishment and with
a view to that fulfilment. Our conclusion is, then, that according
to Johannine grammar the tva clause depends on rteréAcorar; but,
according to Johannine suggestion and intention, the wva clause is
to be repeated so as to depend on Xéye.
(c) “INa...Nad
[2116] Such a sentence as “/z order that x may come to pass
in order that y may come to pass” would naturally mean that an
immediate object x is to be attained with a view to the attainment
of an ultimate object y—so that the second iva clause would be
grammatically (though not mentally) swbordinaze to the first. But
the second clause may be reiterative—y being another form of
expressing «—“in order that [I say] y may take place,” so that
1 [2115 a] In this sentence iva uv could not depend on 7pwrycay, the principal
verb, without changing the meaning into ‘‘asked Pilate that the bodies might not
remain.” But they ‘‘asked” for something rather different—‘‘ that their legs might
be broken and they might be taken away.” The sentence does not give grounds
for supposing that in ordinary cases (where ta is used without a negative and
where no épwrav iva follows) John would place a iva clause before the principal
verb.
124
CONJUNCTIONS [2118]
the second clause is coordinate with the first. In xiil. 34 “A new
commandment give I unto you, ¢/at (iva) ye love one another—even
as (xa6ws) I loved you, ¢hat (iva) ye (tpets) also love one another,”
the second clause is reiterative (though amplified by the definition,
‘even as”).
[2117] This sequence of tva...xa6ws...iva (‘In order that ye
should love—| How love?] Even as I loved, that ye should love ”)
suggests that we should arrange in the same way (as being an answer
to the question “How glorify the Father?”) xvu. 2 ‘‘Glorify thy Son
that the Son may glorify thee—evez as thou gavest unto him authority
over all flesh, /Za/ all that thou hast given to him, he may give unto
them life eternal.” According to this view, we may briefly paraphrase
the latter part of the sentence thus, “ [ How say I ‘that the Son may
glorify thee’? I mean] that the Son may glorify thee by giving
to others even as thou hast given to him.” It is implied that the
Father is the Supreme Giver and that the supreme authority consists
in “giving.” Moreover the highest glorifying of the Father consists
in giving. Whosoever gives to others, as from the Father, gives what
he has received from the Father, and glorifies the Father in the
hearts of those who ‘“‘see his good works and glorify his Father who
is in heaven!.” Nearly the same sense might be obtained (but not
in such accordance with Johannine style) by making the second tva,
not parallel with the first, but dependent on édwxas, and by taking
kaOws as, in effect, cai yap, “for indeed”: ‘Glorify thy Son, that the
Son may glorify thee: for czdeed thou hast given all authority to him
in order that he may give life to others [and that he may thus glorify
thee].” A third arrangement, to take the second wa clause as
grammatically subordinate to the first (“that he may glorify thee...
that he may give unto them eternal life”) would be quite contrary
to all Johannine thought as well as to the interpretation of the
sequence in Xill. 34.
[2118] A similar sequence of (va, xafws, and tva, but followed
by a third wa, is in xvii. 2o—1 “But not about these alone do
I pray but also about them that are to believe through their word
in me, ¢ha¢ all may be one—even as (kafws) thou, Father, in me, and
I in thee, ¢hat |Z say| they also may be in us’, ¢at the world may
Mites ventos
2 [2118 a] xvii. 21 (R.V.) ‘‘That they also may be zz ws,” A.V. has ‘‘ That
they also may be ove zz ws,” reading Wa kal avrol év nui & wow, with NAC?L.
125
[2118] CONJUNCTIONS
believe that thou didst send me,” where the second fa clause
appears to be reiterative, and coordinate with the first, while the
third iva clause is subordinate. The same sequence, but perhaps
not the same connexion, occurs in xvii. 22—3, which, if arranged
like xvii. 20—1, would run thus, “And I too have given to them the
glory thou hast given to me ¢hat they may be one—even as (Kaus)
we (nets) [are] one, I in them, and thou in me, /#a¢ they may be
perfected into one, tat the world may recognise that thou didst
send me and didst love them even as thou didst love me.” The
sense, however, demanded in the latter passage seems to require
“T in thee” [not ‘“them”| “and thou in me”—if the words are to
be arranged thus. If the words are not corrupt, it seems necessary
to punctuate xvil. 22—3 as W.H., with no pause before xaOus:
“that they may be one even as we [are] one, I in them and
thou in me, ¢hat [I say] they may be perfected into one.” But,
even taken thus, the words seem to shew a want of parallelism. We
seem to need either (1) “that they may be one...[namely] I in them
and ¢hey in me,” or (2) “even as we are one, [namely] I in ¢#ee and
thou in me.” The present text seems to confuse (1) and (2). If
SS has a blank in the Ms. ‘‘ may be [ ] that the world may believe.” Burk.
suggests ‘‘a possible restoration ” meaning ‘‘united.” On xdyé see 2127 4.
' [2118 4] The passage may have been confused at an early date owing to (1)
its various possibilities of connexion, (2) the juxtaposition of €N meaning “in”
and €N meaning ‘‘one,” (3) doctrinal controversies as indicated by Epiphanius
(Haer. lxix. 19 and 69, 743 A and 7938). Clem. Alex. quoting xvii. 2I—23 as
“gospel” and as ‘‘the Lord’s utterance,” says (140) "Eva pév atrov [2.c. rv Ocdv]
Neyer, “Siva mavres & wor xabws ov, marep, ev éuol, Kaya &v col: iva Kal avroi év
nplv €v OOl...... wa dow &v, Kaas hues ev, yw ev adbrots Kal cd ev epol, iva wor TeTE-
* But in the whole of this quotation there is nothing that contains
a statement that ‘‘God is one,” unless in oJ, mdrep, év and av év, Clement read &
for év. éy éuol might perhaps be taken to mean ‘‘ one with me,” as eés is used with
a dat. by Plutarch (AZor. 1089 a) ‘ having drunk from one and the same cup with
[that of] Epicurus (ék puds olvoxéns "Emxotipw memwxéres).” Origen uses éy dua
in connexion with the passage, (Zxhort. ad Mart. 39) ‘‘ Become worthy of becoming
one with (rot év -yevéo@at dua) Son and Father and Holy Spirit, according to the
Prayer of the Saviour saying ‘ 4s / and thou are one (‘Qs éyco kal od & écper) that
they may be (?) one with us (va kat abrot év huiv év Sow, where “ deest & in edd.
Wetst. et Ruaei”).’” Here the last words may mean ‘‘in us” or ‘‘one in us,” or—
if év takes a dat., like 7d av’r6—‘‘one and the same with us.” So Origen speaks
of (Cels. vili. 12) 7d’Eya kat 6 marhp & éopev, al ro év evX 7 elpnuévov bd Tod
viod To Deod év 7H, ‘Qs eye kal ob ev eon.
[2118¢] Although the text of Clement, in the extract given above, now quotes
Jn xvii. 21—3 as in A.V., it is not at all certain that he did so in the original text
126
bP)
Necanévor els Ev,’
.
.
|
CONJUNCTIONS [2120]
the text is correct, the best plan will be to take “I in them and
thou in me” as an appositional clause explaining the meaning of
“one” in “that they may be ome.”
[2119] The underlying thought is, perhaps, as Clement says, that
“one” means “God,” and that the indwelling of God is the sole
cause of unity. But how can God the Father dwell “in” men?
Only if the Son dwells “in” men. If the Son dwells “in” men, and
the Father dwells ‘‘in” the Son, it follows (spiritually as well as
logically) that God the Father dwells in men, which means also that
unity dwells in them, so that they are one. Probably this is the
meaning: but the precise text and the precise grammatical ex-
planation of it, must, at present, be given up as unascertainable.
[2120] The following instance has been placed last, out of order,
owing to its special character, xv. 16 ‘‘ Ye chose not me, but 1 chose
you, and set you [in the vineyard] ¢ha¢ (iva) ye might go [the] way
[that I go] (1659—60) and [that ye] might bear fruit and [that] your
fruit might abide—¢/at (iva) whatsoever ye ask the Father in my
name he may give you.” “Fruit,” as always in John’, means the
vintage or harvest of souls, which elsewhere the Apostles are said to
of his work. A long extract would naturally be conformed by scribes to the
canonical text. They would take more pains about it than about a short quotation
or allusion. Origen (De Princip. i. 6) quotes xvil. 22, 23 correctly, but, later on,
he mixes up xvii. 24, 21, 22, giving, as part of the quotation (2d. ii. 3. 5) ‘‘ and
that, as Zand thou are one, these also may be ove zz us (? one with us),”’ and, later
still, (24. iii. 6. 1) ‘‘and that as thou and J are one, they also may be one in (?) us,”
where Jerome confirms Rufinus in his translation of this quotation of Origen’s
(Clark transl. vol. ii. p. 264). Epiphanius, too, quotes as a saying of Jesus (Haer.
743 A) ‘‘and the saying, ‘ he two of us are one, that they also may be one? (kal 61,
Oi dvo0 év écpev iva kal abroi év wow)” and (2b. 793 A) ‘‘ Make them that they may
be in me (? one with me) as also and thou are one (rotnoov abrods va wow év Euol
ws Kayo Kal od év €ouev)” and (zd. B) “* the two of us are one (oi dUo &v écpev).”’
[2118 7] xvii. 22—3 is thus given by W.H....tva wow év xadws quels ev, éyw ev
autos Kal ov év éuol, but by R.V. ‘‘ that they may be one, even as we [are] one; I
in them and thou in me,” SS begins a new sentence at xvil. 23 thus: “‘...that they
may be one evenas we areone. J shall be with them and thou with me,” introducing
the new sentence with ‘‘I.”” Similarly Migne prints both a (which has ‘‘ Et ego
in illis”) and 6 and f (‘‘ Ego in eis”). Many Gk and Lat. authorities ins. éouev
before éy. All these facts indicate early differences of connexion. It may be
worth noting that a, 6, and f, have (at the end of xvii. 22) ‘‘sicut e¢ nos,” é€
**quomodo e¢ nos ”—facts that suggest confusion between kadws, kat ws, and ws Kat.
1 [2120 a] iv. 36, xii. 24, xv. 2—16. Comp. Rom. i. 13. To an Apostle, it
was ‘‘gain” to die and be with Christ, but it was (Phil. i. 22) ‘‘ fruit” to live and
gain souls for Him.
127
[2121] CONJUNCTIONS
“reap,” but here they are said to “bear” it as a vine-branch bears
its clusters’. :
[2121] The question is, Why does not the sentence end with
“that your fruit might abide,” ze. that the Church of Christ might
be spread? Is not that worthy to be the ultimate object? Is it not
bathos to say to Apostles “iz order that (iva) the Church of Christ
may be spread—zz order that (iva) your prayers may be answered”?
It certainly would be bathos if we did not assume the last words to
mean “in order that your prayers for more fruit and for more
gaining of souls may continually be answered.” Thus taken, the
clause is not bathos. It reminds the Apostles that the more they
succeed, the more they must remember that their success depends
on God’s answer to their prayers, and—since divine answer to
human prayer depends on human unity with divine will—on the
oneness of their will with His. According to this view, the meaning
is, “ Zhat ye may save souls—that |Z say] your prayers for the souls
of men may ever be heard”.”
(x) Kates
(a) Suspensive
[2122] Kaéws, when suspensive, keeps the reader’s attention in
suspense till he reaches the principal verb later on, e.g. “even as 1...
so do ye”; when supplementary or explanatory, it follows the verb
(“Do ye...even as 1”). Kass is never used suspensively in
Matthew. Luke uses it thus thrice in the Double Tradition, where
the parallel Matthew has do7ep etc.” John has suspensive Kaus
1 [2120 4] It is hardly possible that épyre can mean “‘carry home as
vintagers.” Apart from other reasons, the freq. kaproy pépe in the context
applied to (xii. 24) the grain of wheat, (xv. 2, 4, 5) vine-branches, precludes this.
2 [21212] Comp. 1 Jn v. 15—16 ‘‘If we know that he heareth us what-
soever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we have asked of him. If
any man see his brother sinning a sin not unto death, he shall ask....” In xv. 16,
if the 2nd Wa is subordinate to the rst, the meaning is ‘‘7 order that by saving
souls, ye may acquire apostolic strength 2 order that your prayers for souls may
be still more completely heard.” This would be in accordance with the law, ‘* He
that hath, to him shall be added.” So, he that gains “talents” for his Master,
may be said to gain them ‘‘in order that” he may gain more. But the coordinate
interpretation is more in accordance with Johannine usage.
® (2122a] Lk. vi. 31 Kadws (Mt. vii. 12 mavra ow boa éav) GédeTE...... TOLELTE
abrois dmolws, xi. 30, xvii. 26 Kabws éyéveTo...... (Mt. xii. 40, xxiv. 37 Wo7ep).
Mk i. 2—3 may possibly be suspensive. Lk. xvii. 28 has dpolws Kadws......+
128
CONJUNCTIONS [2124
about a dozen times, always in Christ’s words, and mostly indicating
a correspondence between the Father and the Son, or between the
Son and those whom the Son sends’.
(8) Followed by kai or kAro in apodosis
[2123] ‘‘ ven as” in protasis naturally prepares the way for
“precisely so,” “altogether so,” “ad(t)so” in apodosis (“even as you
do, he aéso will do”). In the Johannine Gospel, exhibiting the
correspondence between the Father and the Son, as proclaimed by
the latter, and between the Son and the children of the Father, cases
of this idiom are necessarily frequent, and, in particular, ‘‘ Zven as
he [the Father] does...7 also (xéys) do.” In English, there is no
ambiguity except that we may not feel quite sure whether “‘also” is
intended to suggest “besides” or ‘‘in precisely the same way.” But
in Greek, where ‘“‘also” is represented by xai, which regularly means
“and,” the words will be manifestly liable to ambiguity, if the sense
admits of the rendering “ Avex as he does...and [even as] I do.”
Ka6ws followed by xéyw occurs in the following five instances :—
[2124] (1) vi. 57 “Even as the living Father sent me and J
(kayo) live on account of (dua) the Father, Ze a/so (R.V. so he) that
eateth me (kal o tpwywy pe)—he also [I say] (kaxeivos) shall live on
account of me.” Here R.V. agrees with A.V. in rendering kayo
“‘and I,” but Chrysostom and Severus of Antioch both render it “so
7,” and this makes good sense: ‘‘ Even as the living Father sent me,
so I live on account of the Father” [i.e. so Z corresponding to His
zwtll, live (2297 foll.) merely to do His will, or on His account|, “and
he that eateth me shall [in the same way] live on account of me®.”
1 [2122 46] Kadédés in i. 23, vi. 31, vii. 38 (? 2129), xii. 14 introduces (or follows)
Scripture, and is supplementary, but is suspensive in ill. 14, v. 30, vi. 57 (Chrysost.
agst. R.V.), vill. 28, x. 15 (2125—6), xii. 50, xiii. 15, 33, 34, XIV. 27, 31, XV. 4, 9,
xvii. 18, xx. 21. In vi. 58, ‘‘ Wot as the fathers died [shall ye die],” the verb
should probably be supplied afer ov Kafds (as in xiv. 27 ov Kabas 6 Kdopos didwow
éya didwut), and in that case xa@ws would be suspensive. In v. 23 it does not
introduce Scripture, and it is supplementary ; but it may possibly be evangelistic
comment, not words of the Lord (2066 4).
(2124a] See Cramer and Chrysost. ad loc. §@ éyw otrws ws 0 Ilarip.
The words might, in theory, be connected with what precedes: vi. 56—7
6 Tpwywy ov Thy adpka Kal Tivwy pov Td aiua év enol wéver Kayw ev alte, Kafws
dméorei\ev we 6 fav marnp Kayo 6S dia Tov warépa. But it would be against the
suspensive usage of xa@ds, and is in other respects improbable. In the next
instance, however, R.V. treats xa@ws as non-suspensive.
Ace 129 9
[2125] CONJUNCTIONS
[2125] (2) Ka6ws is taken as explanatory (not suspensive) by
R.V. in x. 14—15 “I am the good shepherd; and I know mine
own, and mine own know me, even as the Father knoweth me,
and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep!.”
But the generally suspensive use of xafws in Christ’s words, up to
and beyond this point in the Gospel*, would suggest that it is to be
taken as in A.V., “As the Father knoweth me, evex so know I the
Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep.” It is true that there
is an attractive symmetry and equality in a kind of double proportion
between four terms in R.V. “ Z know mine own and mine own know
me, even as the Father knoweth me and J know the Father.” More-
over A.V. may have been somewhat influenced by inferior mss.,
which alter “mine own know me” into “I am known by mine.”
But still there is something to be said for the view of Chrysostom,
who says that “the knowledge is xot egual” between the shepherd
and the sheep but that it zs “equal” between the Father and the
Son*.
[2126] According to this view, there would be (one might
suppose) a distinct pause after the words “‘mine own know me,”
while Jesus is preparing to teach His disciples for the first time what
is implied by fersonal knowledge. ‘This has not yet been mentioned
by Him, though He has spoken of knowing “concerning the
teaching whether it be of God,” of knowing “the truth,” and even
of knowing “that I AM*” According to the Greek doctrine,
summarised in the epigram at Delphi ‘“‘ Know thyself,” the knowledge
of one’s own nature was the highest knowledge. According to the
Synoptic doctrine of Christ, some knowledge of one’s own defects
(the beam in one’s own eye) was but a rudimentary preparation
for ‘“‘seeing clearly” to help one’s neighbour. According to the
Johannine doctrine, the highest knowledge of all was that knowledge,
1 ’Byw eluco momuhv 6 kadds, kal ywwokw Ta Eud Kal ywwoKovol me TA Eud, KaOws
ywhoKer me 6 TATHpP Kayw ywwokw Tov waTépa, Kal Ty PuxTY mov TLOnu UmEep TOY
mT popaTwr.
2 [2125 a] Kaéw&s supplementary—apart from quotations of Scripture (2122 4)—
is almost confined to the Last Discourse (2128—32).
’ Chrys. (Migne) (reading as A.V.) "Akovgoy ri émiyaye* Kal ywwonw ra éud,
Kal ywwoKopar Vrd TOV EuOV...... Kira, wa wh THs yvwoews loov Td méTpov vouions,
dkovoov mas dtophoira aitd Ty éraywyn’ Cwdoxw ra éua, pyol, Kal ywoorouat
ird Tav éudy. "AN ovk ton 7 yr@ouss adda Tov ton; "Emi rod Ilarpds Kai éuod.
"Exe? yap, Kadws ywooxe we 6 Ilarip, kayo ywwokw Tov Iarépa.
4 vil. 17, Vill. 28, 32.
130
CONJUNCTIONS [2128 |
or understanding, between the Father and the Son which, in some
mysterious way, implied self-sacrifice: “‘I know mine own and mine
own know me. [But what is this ‘knowing’? It is a mystery to be
perceived through experience, and to be felt and acted on, not to be
expressed or comprehended in mere words|—Even as the Father
knoweth me so I too know the Father and [this knowledge is the
reason why] I lay down my life for the sheep.”
[2127] (3) In xv. 9 (R.V.) “Aven as the Father hath loved me,
L also (xayw) have loved you: abide ye in my love’,” (A.V.) “As the
Father hath loved me so have I loved you,” W.H. txt places only
a comma before “abide,” so that the meaning would be “ Even as
the Father loved me avd / loved you, abide in (etvare ev) my love.”
But, if that were the meaning, might not John have marked the
apodosis by inserting ‘‘ye also” (meivare kai vpeis)?? And is not
R.V. (and A.V.) more consonant with the general meaning of kaye
in these sentences, and with the fact that John says “abide in my
love” (not “in our love”)? (4) In xvii. 18 “ Aven as thou didst
send me into the world, / a/so (kay) sent them into the world,”
RaVecand A“ NVewasree in As thouz..czcmsso:./.0 ) Ln (5) ) xx: 625
“Even as the Father hath sent me, Z a/so (xayw) send you,” R.V.
and A.V. have “ As...even so send [ you.” A comparison of the five
instances confirms the view that A.V. is right in (2) and that in each
of the five xayw should be rendered ‘I aso,” or, more idiomatically,
wCUCTASO: Le”
(y) Supplementary*
[2128] Outside Christ’s words, supplementary xaws occurs early
in the Gospel in the phrases “‘even as Isaiah said” and “even as it
is written,” and, later on, “even as it is written” and ‘even as is
the custom’.” Sut, in Christ's words, the earlier portion of the
1 Kadas nydrncéy me 6 marnp, Kayw buds yydmnoa, (marg. yydwynoa:) pelvare
€v TH Ayan TH ELH.
2 [2127a] Comp. xiii. r5 ‘‘ For I have given an example to you that, evex as I
have done to you, ye also (kat bmets) may do,” xiii. 33 ‘‘ And ever as I said to the
Jews I say ¢o you also (x. buiv)” (comp. xiii. 34).
3 [21276] In xvii. 21 ‘‘in order that all may be one—even as thou, Father, in
me, (?) I also in thee—in order that they also may be...... , the connexion is
doubtful (2132 a). It may be an exception. But it is quite consistent with John’s
style that the words ‘even as thou [art] in me, so [am] I in thee,” may be a
parenthetic explanation of the divine unity implied in ‘‘ One.”
4 This section includes doubtful cases.
Sein 2 ay. Vin See Kal. Lay xix 40:
131 G2
[2129] CONJUNCTIONS
Gospel affords hardly any instances. The first is v. 23 “that all
may honour the Son even as they honour the Father.” There are
some indications (2066 4) that this may be evangelistic comment.
[2129] (?) vii. 37—8 “If any man thirst let him come unto me
and drink: he that believeth on me—even as the Scripture said—
rivers from his belly shall flow, of living water!.” Here it is im-
possible to tell what passage or passages of Scripture the writer has
in view (1722 £), and whether “even as” refers to what precedes or
follows. Perhaps the most probable “Scripture” is Isaiah’s invita-
tion ‘‘ Ho every one that thirsteth come ye to the waters,” with the
context describing the fertilising of the wilderness as the result of the
Word of God*. “He that believeth on me (ze. in the Word) ”
appears to be parallel to “If any man thirst [ze. for the Word]” ;
and ‘“‘the Scripture” may refer to what precedes (¢.e. the “ thirsting ”
or “believing”) as well as to what follows (ze. the “flowing” or
diffusion). We cannot confidently say that xafws here is suspensive
or supplementary.
[2130] In xiii. 34 “A new commandment give I unto you that
(wa) ye love one another—even as I have loved you, that (iva) ye
also love one another*,” R.V. txt and A.V. agree in making xa6ws
suspensive. If the second “that” had been omitted, xa#ws would
be manifestly suspensive (‘Even as I...so ye”). As it is, after
giving the simple precept “that ye love,” the writer seems to repeat
it emphatically in order to define the nature of the love of the
brethren for one another and to shew its correspondence to the love
of the Son for them: “that ye love one another—[/ mean] even as
I have loved you, that ye also love one another.” It would be very
weak to take xa6ws supplementarily and the last clause as a mere
repetition, “‘that ye love one another as I have loved you—that ye
also [I say, likewise] love one another.”
[2131] The last quotation, shewing an emphasis laid upon the
nature of the New Commandment of Christ, prepares us to find
1 "Bay mus dupa épxécOw mpbs we kal mwérw. 6 mioretwy els éué, Kabws elrev 7
~ypapy, morapol €k THs KowNias avTOD pevaovow Vdaros (vTos.
2 Ts. lv. 1—13.
8 [2130 a] “Evrodny Kavi dldwue vuiv va dyamrare addrjous Kabws Aydaryoa
tas wa Kal tuelts dyamrare addjdovs. W.H. have a comma after addous.
R.V. marg. gives the last clause as ‘‘that ye also may love one another,’
apparently
meaning ‘‘ 27 order that ye may love” (2094). But that does not interfere with the
suspensive nature of ka0ws.
132
CONJUNCTIONS [2133]
Him defining the future love that the brethren are to have for one
another by reference to the past love that He has had for them:
“love one another even as 7 have loved you.” And, as a fact, in the
Last Discourse, the hitherto almost invariably suspensive construction
is occasionally exchanged for a supplementary one, e.g. xv. 10 “If
ye keep my commandments ye will abide in my love evez as I have
kept the commandments of the Father and abide in his love,”
xv. 12 “This is my commandment that ye love one another ever
as I have loved you.” Of the same character are the next four
instances of kafws in xvil. 2, II, 14, 16.
[2132] This is not unnatural. As long as Christ is looking
Jorward to His work on earth, He impresses on His disciples the
truth that, ‘‘evez as” this or that is in heaven, so He we// do, or zs
doing, this or that on earth. But when His work on earth is on the
verge of completion, He refers to it (after the manner of Jewish
references to Scripture, ‘“‘evez as it is written”) mentioning it as an
accomplished fact, a new Law for His disciples, ‘obey even as I
have obeyed,” “love evex as I have loved.” And this view prevails
in the Last Discourse except when He is looking forward to the
future on earth, not now for Himself, but for A7/7s disciples (xvii. 18
and xx. 21), “ Even as the Father hath sent me / a/so send you” —
which is the last instance of all’.
(xi) Kat
(a) Kaj in narrative (Hebraic)
[2133] The opening words of the Bible exhibit a frequent Hebraic
use of “and,” e.g. ‘And the earth was...azd darkness was...and the
[2132 a] The occasional difficulty of distinguishing suspensive from supple-
mentary xa@ws may be illustrated by xvii. 21—2, punctuated by W.H. thus,
wa mavtes & wow, Kadws ov, marip, év euol Kayw év col, Wa Kai avrol év ju wow |
wa 0 Kodcuos TicTe’n...Kayo Thy Odsav jy dédwKds mor Oédwka avTots, iva wow ev
Kabws juets ev, eyu év adrots kal ad ev émuol, va wow TeTENELwWUEVOL Els Ev, Wa yLWHoKN
0 kéopos.... Here W.H. differentiate their punctuation, making the former clause
apparently suspensive but the latter supplementary. Some reasons for this migh
be alleged, based upon rhythm and possibly on the use of cay in the first sentence:
but the difference is extremely subtle.
[21324] In the Epistle, xa@ws (total g) is sometimes suspensive, e.g. Ul. 27
‘* And even as he taught you, abide”’ (1915 i114) ; sometimes supplementary, e.g.
iii. 23 ‘‘That we may love one another ever as he gave commandment.” Its most
noticeable use is in the phrase ‘‘even as he,” where He means Christ, always
expressed by éxeivos (2382), in passages bidding Christians do, and be, ‘‘ even as”
their Lord (ii. 6, ili. 3, 7, iv. 17).
133
(2134] CONJUNCTIONS
spirit of God moved...avd God said...avd there was light...azd God
saw the light...azd God divided the light...azd God called...and the
darkness he called...avd there was evening avd there was morning.”
Bruder, referring to this use of xacé as “in oratione historica ex
simplici Hebraeorum narrandi modo!,” shews, by his tabulations,
that John uses it very rarely as compared with any of the Synoptists.
The short Gospel of Mark has it more than 4oo times’, John less
than 100 times. It may be said that John does not deal much with
narrative, but mainly with discourse. That holds good also of
Matthew, and in some degree of Luke, so that it does not explain
John’s abstinence.
[2134] Besides, if we take the first and the last chapters of John,
both of which consist almost wholly of narrative, how are we to explain
that in the last chapter, consisting of twenty-five verses, Bruder gives
the Hebraic xai as occurring only once®, whereas in the first twenty-five
verses of the first chapter we have about eighteen instances? For
example, the Prologue begins ‘“...azd the Word was with God and
the Word was God...avd without him was not anything...azd the life
was the light...azd the light shineth...azd the darkness apprehended
it not.” The usage continues even when the writer brings us down
from the Word to the testimony of John, “‘Avzd this is the testimony...
and he confessed and he denied not...avd they asked him...azd he
saith...azd@ he answered” etc. The explanation is probably this.
In the opening of the Gospel John follows the style of the opening
of Genesis, not in affectation, but with a symbolism natural to him,
sympathetically describing what was “in the beginning” of spiritual
Being, as Genesis describes what went on in the beginning of
material creation. But after the Resurrection, when the Apostles
are receiving their morning meal before going forth to convert the
whole world, Greeks as well as Jews, “all things are become new,”
and the old-world Hebraic style is thrown aside. The Johannine
use of xa‘ in narrative, meaning ‘“‘and” (as distinct from “also,”
1 (2133 a] He inserts by error cai (for 671) in i. 16 and omits kaé in i. 4 Kal 7
twn mv. His list refers the reader elsewhere for the special phrases kai éyévero,
kal éorat, xai ldo’. But these are not Johannine phrases. If they were included,
John’s abstinence from xaf would appear still more clearly. Some of Bruder’s
instances might be otherwise classified ; but his statistics suffice as a rough test.
2 [2133 4] Of course, this is in part explained by the predominance of narrative
in Mk. Mt. has it about 250, Lk. about 380 times.
3 xxi. 19 Kal TovTo elma éyet.
134
CONJUNCTIONS [2136]
5]
“even” etc.) seldom if ever causes ambiguity and calls for no
detailed comment. The following sections, which will deal with «ai
in speech as well as in narrative, will confine themselves almost
entirely to cases where the meaning is ambiguous or obscure, or
where the precise emphasis is doubtful.
(8) Kai connecting affirmation and negation
[2135] In Hebrew, ‘“azd” is frequently used where English
would use “and yet” or “but.” John adopts this usage in many
cases, especially where one of the clauses connected by “and” has
a negative, or a word implying a negative :—i. ro—r1 ‘The world
was made through him avd [ yet] the world knew him zo¢. He came
unto his own [house] avd [ ye/] his own [household] received him
not,” il. 11—12 “That which we have seen do we witness azd [ yer]
our witness ye receive zof....I told you and | yet] ye believe xot,”
il. 32 ‘‘What he hath seen and heard, this he witnesseth, avd [ yet]
his witness 70 one receiveth,” vii. 19 ‘‘ Hath not Moses given you
the law, and [| yet| none of you doeth the law?” vii. 30 “They sought
therefore to seize him, avd [ yet] no one laid his hand on him because
his hour had not yet come,” viii. 49 “I honour my Father and [ yer]
ye dishonour (atya€ere) me” (where a. has a negative force), vill. 54—5
“Of whom ye say that he is your God, avd [ yet] ye know him zo¢,”
vill. 57 “Thou art wot yet fifty years old and [ yet] thou hast seen
Abraham?” ix. 30 “Ye know zot whence he is and [ yet] he hath
opened mine eyes,” xiv. 9 ‘ Have I been with you so long, and [ yet]
knowest thou me of, Philip?” xiv. 24 “He that loveth me not
keepeth zo¢ my words and [ yet| the word that ye hear is not mine
but the Father’s who sent me,” xvi. 32 ‘‘ There cometh a time....and
ye shall leave me alone; and [ yet] I am xot alone, because the
Father is with me,” xx. 29 “ Blessed are they that have wot seen and
[ yet | have believed.”
(Gy) akon anduyet 2
[2136] Kad is thus used in some cases where both the connected
clauses are affirmative, or affirmatively interrogative (‘‘is it not?”),
but the sense implies contrariety: ili. 19 “The light hath come....
and | yet} men loved the darkness,” iv. 20 “Our fathers worshipped
in this mountain, azd [ yet] ye say that in Jerusalem is the place....,”
vi. 49 “ Your fathers did eat the manna...and [ yet] they died,” i.e.
and yet it did not save them from death, vi. 70 ‘“‘ Did not I choose
135
[2137] CONJUNCTIONS
you the twelve, azd [| yet] one of you is a devil?” ix. 34 “Thou wast
altogether born in sins avd [ yet] thou teachest us!” x. 39 “They
[therefore] sought again to seize him, avd [ yet] he came forth from
their hand,” xi. 8 ‘‘The Jews but now were seeking to stone thee
and | yet] thou goest thither again !”
[2137] Contrast the Hebraic ‘‘azd,” used in the manifestation of
the risen Saviour to Mary Magdalene, with the Hellenic “however”
used in the manifestation to the Seven Disciples :—(1) xx. 14 ‘And
she beholdeth Jesus standing avd [ yet | knew not that it was Jesus,”
(2) xxi. 4 “Jesus stood on the shore; the disciples did not however
(ov pevtor) know that it was Jesus.”
[2138] Perhaps the construction with “avd” is sometimes pre-
ferred by John because he wishes to emphasize the mystery of the
ways of Providence. At all events, on two occasions, after saying
that people wished to seize Jesus, or that He was teaching in the
Temple, (vii. 30, vill. 20) ‘‘azd no man” arrested Him, he adds
“because his hour had not yet come.” But elsewhere, when there is
no such reference to the “hour,” he does not use the Hebraic
construction: vii. 44 ‘‘ Now some wished to seize him, dut [zn spite
of that\ (4X) no man laid hands on him.”
[2139] Whatever his motive may be, the statistical fact is un-
deniable that the phrase “avd no one” (kai ovde’s) (unbroken by
intervening words) is not often (perhaps only thrice) used by
John in what we should call its natural sense, z.e. additively or
consecutively, eg. “My Father...is greater than I, avd no one is
able to snatch them out of my Father’s hand?.” More frequently
(about six times) it may mean “ avd yet no one.”
[2140] The same rule does not apply so frequently to the
Johannine use of ‘and not,” which is used in varied contexts,
e.g. A little while avd ye behold me wot,” ‘They have taken the
body of the Lord avd we know zot where they have laid him,”
1 [2139 a] Jn x. 29. The text and the translation are doubtful (see 2496 4).
The preceding context has the words (x. 28) ‘‘they shall assuredly not be lost...
and no one (kal ov...7ts) shall snatch them out of my hand.” ‘The other instances
are viii. 33, xvii. 12. On iii. 13 see 2141. [In xvi. 22 ‘amd your joy 20 one
taketh,” the phrase is broken by the intervening words.] In xvi. 5 the meaning
may well be ‘‘ You are full of sorrow at the thought of my departure ava yet not
one of you (kal obdels €& budv) asks me whither I am departing.” ‘‘ And nothing”
occurs thus in vii. 26 ‘‘Is not this he that they seek to kill? And yet (kal) see! he
speaketh openly and nothing (kai obdév) do they say to him.” It might be fairly
ce
maintained that the ‘‘ yet” implied in the preceding xa runs on to the second kat.
136
CONJUNCTIONS [2141]
“Thou knowest all things avd hast zot need,” ‘Ye have neither
seen him avd ye have xot his word abiding in you.” Still, the
instances in which ‘‘azd not” is, or may be, adversative, slightly
exceed the non-adversative'. Nor is it fanciful to say that this curious
Johannine characteristic reflects the writer’s view of the world
—its double nature of light and darkness, its disappointments,
incongruities, and pathetic paradoxes, which he feels to be often
expressible better by an ‘‘avd” than by a coarse, commonplace,
obtrusive “ du¢”: “ He was in the world azd—the world knew him
not,” ‘‘ He came unto his own, azd—his own received him not.”
(8) Special instances of kai = “and yet”
[2141] This general preponderance of adversative meaning must
weigh in the interpretation of particular passages of which the mean-
ing is disputed, e.g. 1. 5 ‘‘ The light shineth in the darkness avd [yer]
—the darkness apprehended it not” (1443, 1735 ¢foll.) [instead of
“and the darkness overcame it not”]. In ili. 13 “If I told you
earthly things and ye believe not, how shall ye believe [ze ye will
assuredly ot believe] if I tell you heavenly things? Avd [yer] no
man hath ascended into heaven except him that descended out of
heaven...,” the meaning appears to be, “ Ye will wot believe and yet
the truth is told you by him who alone knows the truth.” In
v. 39—40 (“Ye search the Scriptures, because ye think to have in
them eternal life, and they are they that bear witness concerning me,
and | yet] ye have xo desire (kai ov OéAere) to come unto me that ye
1 [2140 az] This conclusion is reached by reference to od in Bruder (1888) and
by examining instances of kal oJ. An examination of the same phenomena, under
the same heading, in Luke, reveals very different results. In the first place, John
uses o¥ more frequently than Luke does in the proportion of about 44 to 23—
a testimony to John’s predilection for contrasts and opposites. In the next place,
whereas John exhibits this predilection even more in his Prologue than in the rest
of his Gospel, Luke does not use kai od adversatively till the end of his sixth
chapter in the words of Christ, ‘‘ Why call ye me Lord, Lord, azd [yet] do not the
things that I say?” Subsequently he uses it fairly often, mostly in words of Christ,
or in parables, or in passages where he follows the Synoptic Tradition, especially
in such antitheses as ‘‘ They desired to see and [yet] they saw not,” ‘‘ He came
seeking and [yet] he found not,” ‘‘ They shall seek avd [yet] they shall not be able
to find” etc.
[2140 4] In his first six chapters Luke freely uses the additive ‘‘ ad not,” i. 7
‘*and they had zo child,” ii. 43 ‘‘ asd his parents knew vot,” ii. 50 ‘‘ and they
understood wot,” iv. 2 ‘Sand he ate nothing.” Later on, in Luke’s adversative
instances, there is probably not one that presents any ambiguity.
137
[2142] CONJUNCTIONS
may have life”) “ye search...and” is more probably correct than
** Search...and” (2489 (i)).
[2142] In vii. 278, the Jews first declare that they know the
origin of Jesus, implying that consequently He cannot be the
Messiah, “But [as for] this [man] we know whence he is, whereas
(dé) the Messiah—when he comes, no man is to know whence he
is.” Jesus replies, apparently repeating their assertion of knowledge
as an exclamation of His own, and shewing its falsity: “(lit.) Both
me ye ‘know’ and ye ‘know’ whence Iam! And [ yer] I have not
come from myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not,”
z.e. “Ve say ye know my origin, avd yet I come from Him who is
Truth whom ye know not?.”
[2143] In x. 35 “If he [David] called them gods...and [if] the
Scripture cannot be broken,” the meaning might be “and [if never-
theless, in spite of so difficult a meaning] the Scripture? cannot be
annulled.” But ov, before dvvara1, may be regarded as 4 in ddvvatos,
and kat ov dvvarac may be regarded as differing little from a parenthetic
advvatov 6é. And this perhaps is the best view: “ If the Psalmist called
them gods—and [all know that] the Scripture cannot be annulled—
how can ye accuse me?”
[2144] In some cases the choice between “and” and “yet” may
be called a mere matter of taste, as in the following :—
Mt. vi. 26 (A.V.) Lk. xii. 24 (A.V.)
“..they sow not neither do they “<’,.they neither sow nor reap...
reap...yvet (cai) [R.V. and] your and (kai) [R.V. and] God feedeth
heavenly Father feedeth them.” them.”
Isaiah vi. 9
R.V. LXX and Mt. xiii. 14 (R.V.)
“Hear ye indeed du¢ (Heb. vaw, “ By hearing ye shall hear and
“and”) understand not.” (comp. Acts xxviii. 26 ‘“ and”)
shall in no wise understand.”
1 [2142 a] "ANAa Todrov oléauev wbbev Eorly* 6 dé xpioros bray Epynrac ovdels
ywhoKe. wbbev ésrlv. “Expatev otv...\éywv Kae oldare cal oldare wédev elul- cat
am’ éuavrod obk €AjAVOa, ANN Eoriv adnOwos 6 wéupas pe, dv wets ovK oldare. ‘Both
me do ye know” is intended to reproduce the ambiguity of the original which may
be either exclamatory or interrogative. Oldare repeats oldauev ironically. Comp.
ix. 29—30 ‘‘‘ We know not.... ‘ Ye know not...!’”
2 On 7 ypady, see 1722 %.
138
ee
CONJUNCTIONS [2146]
[2145] Apart from all questions of taste it is certain that our
Lord, speaking in Aramaic, used the ambiguous vaw, capable of
meaning “and” or ‘“‘and yet,” and certain also that any Greek
translators of Aramaic Christian traditions or of Hebrew Gospels
would have the alternative of rendering vaz, when used in the latter
sense, either literally by xai/ or freely by words meaning ‘ but,”
““however” etc. There results a reasonable probability that John,
writing many years after the circulation of the Synoptic Tradition,
which seldom uses the Hebraic xa/ in the sense “and yet,”
deliberately resorted to it as one of many means of forcing his
readers to reflect on the many-sidedness of the Lord’s doctrine
and on the occasional inadequacy of the letter of the earliest
Gospels to reproduce the living word. Whatever may have been
his motive, or motives, the fact remains that he uses—with a
frequency and boldness unparalleled in the Synoptists—the Greek
additive conjunction in a non-Greek adversative fashion to introduce
adversative clauses with a suddenness that heightens the sense of
paradox, thus: v. 43 “I have come in the name of my Father and
—ye do not receive me,” v. 44 “‘ How can ye believe, receiving glory
from one another azd—the glory that comes from the only God ye
do not seek?” vi. 36 “Ye have both (xa‘) seen me and—ye do not
believe,” vil. 36 ‘‘ Ye shall seek me azd—ye shall not find.”
(e) Kai introducing an exclamation
[2146] Kad occasionally introduces an exclamation that may be
treated as a question, implying incongruity with a previous state-
ment: 1. 20 “This temple was built in forty-six years: and [ yer]
thou (emph.) («at ov) in three days wilt raise it up!” vii. 57 “Thou
art not yet fifty years old, avd | yet] thou (unemph.) hast seen
Abraham (emph.) (kai ’A. édpaxas ; marg. kal "A. éwpaxév oe)!” xi. 8
“The Jews but now were seeking to stone thee, avd [ yet] again thou
(unemph.) goest thither?!”
1 [2146 a] In i. 16 ‘‘ From his fulness did we all receive, avd grace for (dvri)
grace,” the cai does not mean ‘“‘namely,” or ‘‘ that is to say,” but ‘‘and, what is
more,” ‘‘and indeed,” or ‘‘yea” (see dvri, 2284—7). There is probably no instance
in Jn where kai means ‘‘namely.” ‘‘Receive” is used absolutely (comp. 1315 and
Aboth i. 3, 4, 7 etc.), and xaé introduces a new statement about the nature of the
reception.
139
[2147 | CONJUNCTIONS
(€) Kai meaning “also”
[2147] Kai defore a noun or pronoun, corresponding to our
“also” after a noun or pronoun, is sometimes used by John to
predicate again, what has been predicated before, about a different
person or thing’. Where “not only” precedes’, attention is called
to “adso,” and there is no ambiguity or obscurity. But the meaning
is liable to be missed in passages where the previous predication is
implied (not expressed) or expressed at a considerable interval, €.8.
vil. 3 “Depart to Judaea that thy disciples a/so (iva xai of p. cov)
may behold thy works,” ze. “‘ Here in Galilee, among thy countrymen
and kinsfolk, thou hast no disciples worth mentioning : go to Judaea,
where thou hast disciples, that they a/so may behold thy works®.”
In xii. ro “But the chief priests took counsel that they might kill
Lazarus a/so,” the reference is to xi. 53, the meaning being, in
effect, “I have said above (xi. 53) ‘From that day forth therefore
they took counsel that they might kill him [Jesus]’: now I say that
they included Lazarus a/so in their plans‘.”
(7) Kai in Apodosis after X, ei, kA@ac etc. in Protasis.
[2148] This construction is frequent in John because he dwells
on the principle of correspondence between the visible and the in-
visible, between the incarnate Son below and the Father above:
v. 19—26 “For what things soever he [7.e. the Father] doeth, these
the Son also (kai 6 vios) likewise (60tws) doeth....For as the Father...
raiseth up, so (ovtws) the Son also (kai 6 vids) quickeneth....For as
the Father hath life in himself so (ovrws) to the Sox also (kai 74 vid)
gave he to have life in himself,” viii. 19 (comp. xiv. 7) “If ye knew
* [2147] This construction is most freq. in Lk. In Jn it is about as freq. as
in Mt.
® [2147 4] ‘* Not only,” ov, or pu}, wdvov (adv.), Jn v. 18 before verb, ov} udvov
Ave, elsewhere before noun, xi. 52 obx imép Tod €Ovous udvor, comp. Xii. 9, Xili. 9,
xvii. 20. This precise constr. (Bruder) does not occur in the Synoptists exc.
Mt. xxi. 21. When Mt. iv. 4, Lk. iv. 4 quote Deut. viii. 3 ‘‘ Not by bread alone,”
they have ov ém’ dprw udvy (adj.) (as LXX). In Jn xi. 52—xvii. 20, od and pdvoy
(adv.) are always separated, ‘‘ zo¢ for the nation alone,” “not because of Jesus
alone” etc.
% [2147 c] Comp. Rom. i. 13 ‘that I might have some fruit in you also (Kal év
ipiv)—as also (kafws kal) in the rest of the nations,” where ‘‘in you also” would
not have been quite clear unless the writer had added the subsequent words to
make it clear.
+ [2147 d] Kal, meaning ‘‘also,” is preceded by 6¢ in ii. 2, iii. 23, xviii. 2, 5,
18, xix. 19, 39, xxi. 25 [But in ii. 2 6€ xaé may mean ‘‘ now both...”’].
140
CONJUNCTIONS [2151]
me, ye would know my Father also (x. tov 7. pov),” xii. 26 “ Where
I am there shall be my servant also (x. 6 duaxovos 0 €0s)!.”
(A) Kai ymeic
[2149] Kai tpeis, iuas etc., meaning “ye also,” “you also” etc.,
is so frequent in John’, that the frequency almost suffices of itself to
determine the sense in xiv. 19 “‘...but ye behold me: because (67z) I
(emph.) (éyw) live, ye also (kat vets) shall live.” Here R.V. marg,
gives “and ye shall live.” But this,—whether rendered “ ye behold
me...avd ye shall live,” or “‘ because I live and [because] ye shall live”
——makes very weak sense. R.V. txt makes perfect sense and
accords with Johannine usage. In xvi. 21—22 “the woman hath
sorrow...avd@ ye (R.V.) therefore (otv) have sorrow,” might, and
probably should, be rendered ‘‘ye a/so therefore have sorrow,” since
«ai implies correspondence, and not mere addition.
(c) Kat in Crasis
[2150] Kai is always combined by crasis with éyw (freq.), with
éuot (once, xvil. 6), and with eye (twice, vil. 28, xvi. 32) except in
antithesis xv. 24 Kal éue kal Tov warépa pov. It is combined with
éxet in xi. 54, but not in il. 12, ill. 22, vi. 3. With the masculine
€xecvos it is always combined, except in xix. 35 on which see 2383.
For xav, see 2160.
(ck) Kaketnoc®
[2151] After a subject expressed by a participle, éxetvos is some-
times used appositionally for emphasis, ‘‘ Ze and no other,’ and where
xa‘ is prefixed to it, the meaning is “he also,” or “he in the same
way, or “he on his side” etc. :—vi. 57 “‘ He that eateth me, ke also
(kaxetvos) shall live on account of me,” z.e. just as I live on account
of the Father (see context); xiv. 12 ‘‘ He that believeth on me, the
works that I do shall Ae also (kdxetvos) do,” z.e. as well as I myself.
In vil. 29 “I am from him (zap’ avtov) axd he (emph.) sent me
(kaKetvos pre ameoterAev)” the xai is probably additive, and the
meaning is that Jesus comes not only from the presence of the Father
1 [2148 a] On the possibility of ambiguity when xaé, after a clause with xaOds,
may mean ‘‘also” or ‘‘and,” see 2123, and on ka@as followed by xayw in particular,
see 2124—7.
* vii. 47, ix. 27, xlil. 14, 15, 33, 34) XIV. 3, xv. 20. On viii. 38 cal dpeis odv...
moveiTe, see 2193—4 and 2359.
3 [2151 a] Kal éxetvos never occurs exc. in xix. 35, where NA read kdketvos
(2383). In xvii. 6, NA Kai éwoi—here with CD—again differ from W.H. kaoi.
141
[2152] CONJUNCTIONS
but also by His express sending, “‘and fe, and no other, sent me’.”
In x. 16 “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them
also (xaxeiva) must I bring...,” the meaning might be (theoretically)
“and them must I bring,” but John’s predilection for asyndeton, and
the appropriateness of the meaning “also” here, indicate that xa/ is
emphatic, not additive. The only other instance is xvi. 24 “that
where I (emph.) am they also (kaxeivol) may be together with me
(wer euod),” ze. “that they, as well as I, may be there”; the phrase
per éuod suggests that they are to be not only in the same place but
“together” in mind and spirit.
(X) Kai, “also,” connexion of
[2152] Kai, “also,” before nouns and pronouns, has been dis-
cussed above. But xai, “also,” before a verb, is sometimes lable
to be confused with «ai before the subject of the verb. Thus, da
TovTo Kal UrHVTNTEV a’TO O dxAos might be confused with 6.4 todro
imyvrnoev avt@ Kal 6 OxAos. Yet the former means (1) “For this
cause the multitude went a/so to meet him,” z.e. besides doing, or
having done, something else, it did this additional act. The latter
would mean (2) “But there went to meet him the multitude a/so,”
i.e. the multitude, as well as Christ’s disciples, or companions.
[2153] This distinction is ignored by A.V. in xi. 18 61a rodro
Kal vUmyvtTycev atta o dxdos, where A.V. has “for this cause the
people adso.” R.V. has “for this cause a/so the multitude,” which
would naturally mean “for this cause as well as for other causes.”
But the words ought to mean that the multitude, deszdes doing other
things (e.g. noising abroad the raising of Lazarus) a/so, or actually,
took the extreme course of organizing a procession in Christ’s
292
honour, é.e. ‘went also to meet him,” or “actually went to meet him”*.
(uw) Kai “also” in vill. 25
[2154] There is great difficulty in vii. 25 “They therefore said
unto him, Who art thou? Jesus said unto them, [In] the beginning
1 [2151 4] Asyndeton (‘‘ He also”) is less probable here. If that were the
construction, the sentence and its context would mean ‘‘I (emph.) know him
because I (anemph.) am from his presence: he, 07 his side, sent me.”
2 [2153 a] Possibly A.V. may have considered that cai represented a distinction
between two multitudes, (1) xii. 12 6 8xAos wodvs, which came owt of Jerusalem,
(2) xii. 17 6 dyAos 6 dy per’ abrov dre Tov A. épavnoev...which accompanied Jesus
into Jerusalem, and which is said to have (zd.) ‘‘testified.” John does distinguish
between these two multitudes. But xaé here has nothing to do with emphasizing
the distinction.
142
CONJUNCTIONS [2155 }
whatever I also speak unto you (rtyv apyxiv ote Kai AarG vpIlv,
punctuated by W.H. txt interrog., marg. affirm.).” Chrysostom’s
explanation is as follows, ‘‘Now what he means is to this effect,
Even at all to hear the words that fall from me ye are unworthy,
much more are ye unworthy to understand also who I am'.” Cramer
quotes Cyril thus, ‘I am justly punished, says [He], because I made
a beginning even of |recetving| word[s] from you, because I have
addressed to [you] aught of the things that know [? elWotwNn
? EoIkKOTWN “that seem likely”] to profit [you] and took counsel
[how] to deliver [you], I have been counted thus cheap in your
estimation.” It will be observed that the two do not agree.
Chrysostom apparently takes tiv apxyv as oAws, “at all,” but Cyril
takes it as ‘‘ beginning.” Chrysostom’s interpretation would require
ov, Or Ti Kal, Or some negative context, which is found with ryv
apxnv when it means “at all” (“ever at all,” “not at all” etc.)*.
[2155] As regards or, Chrysostom apparently takes it as the
neuter pronoun (“that which I even speak,” paraphrased by him
as “the words that fall from my lips,” roév Aoywv tov wap’ eov) :
Cyril takes it as “because” (‘‘decause I made a_ beginning ”).
Neither of them takes or: interrogatively. Of the instances alleged
by Westcott here for interrogative o71, one is probably corrupt, and
two are not parallel to the instance in question*. Even if the inter-
rogative use in Mark could be proved, it would be alien from
Johannine usage (2231 c—e).
1 [2154 a] “O 6€ Néyee Tovodrév éott: Tot ddXws axovew THY NOywY TeV Tap’ E“od
dvdévol €ore, unre ye Kal wadetv Gatis eyw elm.
2 [21546] Cramer ad loc. Alxata wdoxw, Pnolv, ote kai Néyou map tuav
émoinoduny apxiv, 6Tt mpooreparvnkd Te Tay eElddTwV (2) WHeEdEV, Kal dracucew
éBovrevodunv, evTEAns oUTwW NeA6ytomat Trap’ Wuivy. Perhaps there should be a full
stop after adpyjv. Cramer also has a comment (resembling Chrysostom’s) quoting
the text as “‘rqv apxny 6 Te kal NaS byly, oda exw Tap’ Yudy Nadew Kai Kpivew.
3 [2154c] It is very doubtful whether such a negative could be implied here
from the tone of the answer (‘‘[You ask me who I am. I give you no reply.
I tell you not] a¢ all even that which I say [much less that which I am]”).
[2154] No negative v.r. is given by Alford. SS (Burk.) has ‘‘The chief [is]
that I (e7ph.) should speak [myself] with you,” @ ‘‘initium quod loquor vobis,”
6 “inprimis quia loquor vobis; cum...,” @ ‘‘initium quoniam et loquor vobis,”
J “‘principium quod et loquor vobis,” gaz. and mm. ‘‘principium, quod loquor,”
eand Vulg. ‘‘principium qui et loquor vobis.”
4 [2155 a] In Mk ix. 11, 28, dru is preceded by érnpérwv, and the best transla-
tion would probably be an affirmative—érv or AéyorTes b7e being simply used to
introduce the statement—‘‘They questioned him saying, ‘The scribes say Elijah
must first come. [How is that?’],” ‘‘They questioned him saying ‘ We could not
143
[2156] CONJUNCTIONS
[2156] If or is a relative pronoun the meaning would seem to be
that Jesus identifies Himself with that which He speaks, z.e. with the
words which, as He says (xii. 48), ‘‘shall judge” those who reject
Him. Then, perhaps, the xaé may be explained with reference to what
precedes—where He has said to the Jews, “If ye believe not that
Z am”—so that the meaning is, “[Z am] that which I also speak.”
From an ordinary person, this would mean “I am as good as my
word.” From a prophet, it might mean “I am the messenger of
God, nay, the message of God.” But coming from the Logos—who
is both the Word and the Act of God, the Messenger of righteousness
and justice and also the Righteous Judge Himself—it implies a
unique and mysterious identity between the Personality and the
Word. As John the Baptist says (i. 23) “‘Z [am not to be accepted
as the son of Zachariah the priest, or on any other personal grounds,
but as being] @ voice (éy® pwvy),” so Jesus says “I am [not to be
accepted as the Son of David, born at Nazareth, or Bethlehem, but
as being] that which also I speak from the first,” z.e. the Logos, as
He had spoken it from the first, consistently’.
(v) Kat meaning “[indeed], and...?”
[2157] In ix. 36 “And who is he, Lord, that (2118) I may
believe in him?” the question (uttered by the blind man whom
Jesus had healed) follows the words, “Thou believest [dost thou
not] in the Son of man?” ‘The man is startled by the unusual
cast it out. [How was that?].’” In both cases, the question is implied in the
tone, and in the verb “questioned,” which makes all the difference. In Mk ii. 7
Stadoy.fouevar év Tats Kapdiats avra@v, Ti otros orws Nade?; W.H. print orc only in
marg., and Swete gives, as the authority for it, only B (whose authority is weak on
insertion and omission (2650) of O) and one cursive. See 2231 d—e.
The adv. dpxyjv (and tiv dpxjv) when meaning ‘‘at all” appears always
(Steph.) to have a negative context expressed or implied. It is implied in Clem.
Hom. vi. 11 th Kal rv apxiv Stadéyouar,; z.e. ob det dtadéyerOar. Comp. 70. xix. 6.
Without a negative, it means ‘‘at the first,” as in Gen. xli. 21, xliii. 18, 20, and
Just. Mart. AZpol. § 10 (dzs).
1 [2156 a] So Nonnus, Tés od wédets; kal Xpiords aviaxev, drre wep buiv "HE
apxns odpifov, éxwv vynpOua duxdgfew. This, though probably not an actual utter-
ance of Jesus, may be a Johannine and mystical paraphrase of something expressed
differently by the Synoptists, according to whom, Jesus expressed His desire to go
back to the ‘‘ beginning” of things, before the Law of Moses was given ‘‘ because
of the hardness of men’s hearts.” He also said that His ‘‘ words” would ‘‘never
pass away.” He claimed for ‘‘the Son of man” that He was ‘‘ Lord also of
the Sabbath.” Combining these statements we shall arrive at a claim on the
part of the Son of man to identify Himself with the Father's Law or Word.
144
CONJUNCTIONS [2159]
phrase (‘‘believe in the Son of man”), and he craves additional
explanation ‘“[Thou sayest this] avd [thou wilt surely tell me] who
is he?” Somewhat similarly in answer to Christ’s startling statement
about the spiritual disability attendant on riches, the disciples reply,
“(Thou sayest this] azd—who [then] can be saved'?” Probably,
later on, John finds a parallel and a contrast between this question
asked by a believer and the question asked by the unbelieving Jews,
(xii. 34) ‘‘Who is this Son of man?” and the surprise of the former,
together with his readiness to believe in what surprises him, brings
out clearly the nature of the man’s faith. He is ready to believe
in anyone that Jesus bids him believe in. In effect—before Jesus
had spoken—he already believed, heart and soul, in Jesus as a
divine incarnation of kindness and power.
(E) Kai édn (See also 2513—5 (i))
[2158] In Isaiah x. 22 ‘For though thy people Israel be as the
sand...only a remnant shall return,” LXX has xat éav yevyrar
St Paul, for «. é yévytar, has (Rom. ix. 27) éav 7 (A.V. “chough,”
R.V. “zf”). Probably St Paul used éeay with the consciousness that
the apodosis gave it the meaning ‘“‘even if,” and LXX intended kad
to mean ‘‘even.” In an author like John, much given to asyndeton,
there is an antecedent probability (in doubtful cases) that xat éav
would mean, not “and if,” but “even zf-”
[2159] Kat édv occurs as follows: vill. 16 “I judge no man,
(R.V.) yea, avd if I judge (kat éay kpivw dé éy#), my judgment
issue) (ALN, “and vera) judge.) + Perhaps, ““yea, even 77
judge”; xil. 46—7 (R.V.) “I am come...that whosoever believeth
on me may not abide in the darkness. And 7f (kat éav) any man
hear my sayings and keep them not, I judge him not,” better,
perhaps, “‘Zvex zf any man hear and disobey, I judge him not”;
xiv. 3 (R.V.) ‘And if (kai éav) I go and prepare a place for you,
I come again, and will receive you...,” better, perhaps, “Zven ef
(or, And even if) I go...[yet] again do I come.” There is great
1 [2157 a] Mk x. 26, Lk. xviii. 26 (Mt. xix. 25 ris dpa). So Xen. Cyvrop. v.
4. 13 ‘** You are passing over a still greater marvel.’ ‘[/deed] and what might
that be (kai ri 6) rodr’ éoriv;)?’’’ And, in reply to Cyrus’s orders as to the
drawing up of soldiers for an attack, an officer replies (zd. vi. 3. 22) ‘*[Zrdeed]
and do you think we shall be strong enough (Kai doxotuév cor, pn, w Kipe, ixavas
éfev)...2” Similarly, in English we might have ‘‘ ‘Give him what he asks.’
“And where am I to get it?’” Sokal mas; freq. (Steph. 2305 B).
A. VI. 145 10
[2160] CONJUNCTIONS
difficulty about the whole of this passage, but it seems to mean
“T should not myself call it going on a journey (zopevouor) but going
back to the Father (izayw): however, to use your word, even if
I do ‘go,’ yet I will return” (2080—6). In the Epistle, cat éav occurs
twice. It is used with indic. in 1 Jn v. 15 xai éav oidapev “and if we
know ” (see 2515 (i)). R.V. “and if” does not seem adequate to the
meaning in I Jn il. 1—2, “I write...that ye sin not. Grant however
that one sin (kai éav tis dpaptn) we have a FParaclete.” It is not
meant that we have no Paraclete if we do not sin. The meaning
is, “Even if we do sin [det us remember that| we have a Paraclete.”
(0) Kan
[2160] Kav occurs four times in John and means “even if”
certainly in vill. 14, x. 38, xl. 25, and possibly in viii. 55, (R.V.)
“But I know him [ze. the Father]; avd 7f I should say (kav eizw)
I know him not, I shall be like unto you, a liar.” It is true that «av
means “and 7f” in Luke, and in the Mark-Appendix’; and three
Johannine instances are hardly enough to establish the necessity
of a similar meaning in the fourth. Yet, having regard to the
instances, so far as they go, and to the frequency of asyndeton in
John, and to the extraordinary force and abruptness of the thought,
the balance of probability inclines slightly toward the latter rendering:
“T know him. ven zf I say I know him not—[what then ?] I shall
be a liar.”
(7) Kal...kal, “ both...and ”
[2161] In vi. 36 “But I said unto you that ye (wmemph.) have
both seen [me] and [yet] do not believe,” GX’ eirov tyiv ore Kat
éwpaxate [pe] kat ov mortevere, A.V. has “ye also,” which would
require kai vets. R.V. omits “doth.” The word “doth” increases
the abruptness of the paradox, as in xv. 24 (where R.V. inserts it)
2»)
“they have doth seen and hated both me and my Father’.” Possibly
1 [2160a] Kady, in Mk v. 28, vi. 56 means “though it were but,”’ 7.c. ‘‘merely,”
in Mt. xxi. 21, xxvi. 35, ‘Seven if.” But in Lk. xii..38, xiii. 9, Mk-App. [xvi. 18],
Jas v. 15 (on which see Mayor), it means ‘‘and if.” This evidence, so far as it
goes, favours the view that John would always use the word in one sense as is
the case in Mk, Mt., and Lk.
2 [2161 a] In vi. 36, we is om. by almost all authorities exc. BD, prob. because
the scribes did not understand that the reference was to vi. 26 “not because
ye saw signs” combined with vi. 29 ‘this is the work of God that ye de/éeve.”
146
CONJUNCTIONS [2163]
R.V. omits it here because it is contrary to English idiom, and
because the paradox is expressed by rendering the second kai “and
[yet].” This however does not give the suspensive force of the first
kai, which might be freely rendered “‘ though” (‘‘ though ye have seen
me yet ye do not believe ”).
[2162] This usage is almost peculiar to John in N.T. Other
books use xaé...kai to represent (1) the same verb applied to two
nouns, ¢g. “healing doth the d4nd and the /ame',” or (2) the same
noun or pronoun applied to two verbs, eg. “he began doth to do and
to teach.” But these and other instances (“both hungering and
thirsting,” and even “‘both to be filled and to be hungry””) are unlike
the Johannine coupling (with ‘and [yet]”). Sometimes also John
couples, not opposites, but correlatives, or correspondent statements
like that of St Paul, “God dofh raised up the Lord azd will raise up
us*,” where the text suggests that Redemption is one great fore-
ordained plan including past and present. Thus the Voice from
Heaven says xii. 28 “TI have doth glorified and will again glorify,” ze.
as it was, so it shall be.
[2163] ix. 37 “Thou hast dot seen him and he that is speaking
with thee is he*,” is the reply of our Lord to the man born blind,
asking who “the Son of man” is, in whom he is to believe. Jesus
does not at once say, as to the Samaritan woman, “‘/ ¢hat speak unto
thee am he.” ‘The words “Thou hast seen him” coming to the
blind man from Jesus, who had just made him ‘‘see,” and whose
voice he would recognise, could hardly fail to be clear. The blind
man could hardly think of asking, ‘But of all those whom I have
seen since I received sight a few hours ago, which is he?” Perhaps,
The former implies that the Jews had ‘‘ seen” the Messiah manifested by “ signs” ;
the latter, that, in spite of this “seeing,” they still ad not “ believe” and needed
to be commanded to * believe.”
1 [2162 a] Comp. Mk iv. 41 ‘‘(?) doth (R.V. even) the wind and the sea,” sim.
Mt. viii. 27. Luke in the parall. (viii. 25) by a difference of order (kal rots dvémous
émirdcoe. kal Tw VdaTL, not Kal 7. avéwous kK. T. UbarTt) perh. indicates that he takes
kal...kat as “‘ even...and.”
2 [21626] Phil. iv. 12 ol6a kai tawewotcba, olda Kat mepiocevew is interesting
as shewing the Apostle in the act of writing cal raz. xal mepioo. and then changing
his mind, inserting of6a: as Lightf. says, kal ramewwotcAa was “shaped in antici-
pation of the cal repuscevew which follows.”
3 [2162 c] 1 Cor. vi. 14 6 6€ Beds Kal Tov KUpioy nyeipey Kal nuds é&eyepet (B
eényetpev). B’s reading would mean that ‘‘ God doth raised up the Lord azd (ipso
facto) raised up us,”’ as part of one plan.
4 Kal édpaxas avrov cal 6 N\adGy pera cod éxeivds Eorw.
147 IO—2
[2164] CONJUNCTIONS
therefore, Chrysostom has not chosen the right epithet in calling the
clause “‘obscure’.” But it is purposely preparatory and incomplete—
as though beginning from the physical and passing to the spiritual.
As, after the feeding of the Five Thousand, the Saviour says (vi. 63),
“The flesh profiteth nothing, the words that 7 have spoken to you
are spirit and are life,” so, after the healing of the blind man, Jesus
does not say, ‘“‘I that healed thee am he,” but describes the Son
of man as “He that is speaking with thee.” He thereby suggests
another aspect of the Messiah. He is not only the Healer, but also
the Speaker of the words of God’.
[2164] Kai is not immediately before the verb in xvii. 25 (lit.)
“Q righteous Father, doff (kat) the world did not recognise thee—
but I (éyw dé) recognised thee—and these (kai otro) recognised that
thou didst send me.” Here the first xaé is intended to keep the
reader in suspense, aware that the meaning is incomplete*, and
perhaps the sentence starts with the simple antithesis, “ Whereas (kai)
the world did xot...on the other hand (xai) these did.” But the
sentence is broken by a parenthesis (“but I recognised”) and this
perhaps suggests the reason why “these did [recognise],” namely,
because the Son imparted to the disciples His power of recognition—
so that a new connexion is introduced, “but I did avd consequently
these did*.”
[2165] These words (xvii. 25) resemble—spiritually, though not
verbally—the saying in the Double Tradition, “I confess unto thee,
O Father...because thou hast hidden these things from the wise...
and revealed them unto babes. Yea, Father, for so it hath seemed
1 Chrys. Ovx« efrev, Eyw eur: adda wéoos re Kal vrecradpévos. Kai éwpaxas
avtéy. otro ért addndov nv: 61d 7d cadéorepov émipyayev’ ‘O adGv pera cod,
éxetvés éott. By uéoos he seems to mean ‘‘going half way.”
2 Comp. vi. 68 “ Thou hast the words of eternal life,” which implies ‘ Thou
art the Saviour.”
$ [2164a] As a rule, kat 6 xécuos, in such a position as this, would mean
“< Buen the world,’ and in some contexts it would make good sense to render
it thus, ‘‘ vex the world, even God’s own creation, did not know Him”;
but this would not be appropriate in a context where ‘the world”’ is clearly
regarded as an enemy.
4 [21642] See 21624 on Phil. iv. 12. In Jn xvii. 26, the words kal éyvdpica...
kal yvwplow might begin a new sentence (like xii. 28 kal é56éaca...cal mad
(o&dow) ‘I have do/4 made known...and will make known,” and this hypothesis of
asyndeton is more in accordance with Johannine style than the hypothesis of xai
**and” repeated thrice after cal ‘‘ doth.”
148
CONJUNCTIONS (2166 ]
good in thy sight!” There, too, the context says that no man
knoweth the Father save the Son and he to whom the Son reveals
Him. So, we might paraphrase the Johannine “ 7rig/teous Father”
as meaning substantially “I confess the righteousness of that which
hath seemed good in thy sight.” The Johannine antithesis between
“the world” and ‘‘these” corresponds to the antithesis between
“the wise” and “babes.” Also the parenthesis ‘‘But I knew thee”
followed by ‘‘and these knew that thou didst send me,” suggests—
what Matthew and Luke express—that the knowledge of the Father
is peculiar to the Son and to those who receive the gift from the Son.
The xac in the Fourth Gospel supplies the connexion between
“hiding” from the “ wise” (ze. “the world” meaning “the worldly”)
and the revealing unto “babes” (ze. the little ones of Christ, whom
the Fourth Gospel calls “these ”). The two are parts of one plan.
In John, “hiding ” and “revealing ” are expressed by “not knowing ”
and “knowing.” The thought is the same as in Matthew and Luke.
[2166] In xxi. 24, obrds éorw 6 pabyrys 6 Kal paptupav zepi
TovTwy Kat 6 ypawas Taira is the reading of B. On the context,
see 2169 and 2429-35. It would be against Greek usage to
suppose that this means, “he that both testifieth and wrote,” 6 Kai
paptupav Kat ypawas. In B, therefore, we must take the first kad as
“also”: “This [z.e. the beloved disciple above described] is the
disciple that a/so [besides seeing the Saviour in the way described
above] testifieth concerning these things,” z.e. he not only saw the
Saviour but testifies to what he saw’. After these words the
evangelist continues, ‘‘and the one that wrote these things,” making
a pause after tovrwy and deliberately separating the two statements.
As a rule, an apostle would ‘‘testify” and his amanuensis or
interpreter would write (as in the case of St Paul’s Epistles): but
in this case the “beloved disciple” did both*®.
1 Mt. xi. 25—7, Lk. x. 21—2.
2 [2166 a] ‘‘ These things’ may perhaps not refer to the whole of the contents
of the Gospel, but to the events just described, like radra in xii. 16 (2621—2) :
Codex a has “de Jesu” and ¢ ‘de ihm,” but these are perhaps confusions of ‘de
his,” read as ‘‘ de ihs.”’
3 [21664] Kai would naturally be omitted by scribes before uaprupav because
it would seem to them, if genuine, intended to mean ‘‘both”’: and this it could
not mean. If we omit it, the rendering will still be as above, only omitting the
emphatic ‘‘also.”
[2166 ¢] If we adopt the two marginal readings of W.H. and assume [6], in the
149
[2167 } CONJUNCTIONS
(p) Kai rap
[2167] Kai yap occurs in John twice. Once advroé intervenes
(IV. 45 xai avrot yap 7AOor, “for they a/so went”) perhaps receiving
special emphasis from its intervention (2692). The other instance is
iv. 23, “For the Father a/so (kai yap 6 waryp) seeketh such for his
worshippers (rovovtovs Cytet tovs mpooKvvodvtas avrov),” R.V. txt
‘for such doth the Father seek to be h. w.,” marg. ‘for such the
Father a/so seeketh.” This rendering (“‘for...also”) is more probable,
here, than “for indeed.” Kai yap may mean “ for indeed ”—empha-
sizing the cogency and truth of a causal proposition—cwhen there ts
no noun or pronoun that comes close afterwards. But where there is
such a noun or pronoun the force of xaé is to emphasize it, as in
“For I also am under authority’.”. Taken thus, the words are
appropriate as a reply to the Samaritan woman, whose tone suggests
that she may have thought it a mark of weakness in man, much more
in God, to “seek,” since “seeking” implied want and need®. Mark
records a saying of the Son about Himself, “‘ Aor the Son of man also
{kat yap 6 t, rt. a.) came to be a minister*.” John here records
a similar saying of the Son about the Father, and with the same
conjunction, ‘‘ For the Father also (kai yap 6 7.) seeketh*.”
On xat...d€ see 2076, and on ovre...Kai see 2258—9.
(ac) Kat omitted between two adjectives
[2168] Such collections of adjectives as we find in the Pastoral
Epistles (2 Tim. ii. 2 foll.) ‘“Self-loving, money-loving, boastful,
haughty etc.” are not to be found in John, where two contiguous
second, to be part of the text, the translation will then be ‘‘ This is the disciple
that also testifieth concerning these things, the [disciple] that also wrote....” But
the possibilities of combining various readings are so numerous that it is not worth
while to enter into further detail.
1 [2167 a] Mt. viii. 9, Lk. vii. 8. Comp. Mt. xxvi. 73 ‘‘ for thy speech a/so,”’ i.e.
besides other suspicious circumstances, Mk x. 45 ‘‘for the Son of man ad/so,”’ i.e.
He as well as others, not exempting Himself from the duty of common men,
Lk. vi. 32 ‘‘ for sinners a/so,” i.e. as well as the righteous, etc.
* [21674] Christ had said to her “ Give me to drink” and had then perplexed
her by saying that He could gzve her to drink. The evangelist here represents the
Son as saying ‘‘ Give,” just as a father might say to his children ‘‘ Give me your
*and just as God is represented in O.T. as saying to Israel ‘‘ Seek ye my
seeking” them—in the hope that they may reply ‘‘Thy face, O
Lord, will I seek.”
SM aa Ss 4 Jn iv. 23.
hearts,’
“ec
face ’—thus
150
CONJUNCTIONS [2170]
adjectives may always be explained by special circumstances. In
XII. 3, vapdouv muotuxys (1736 2) (perhaps intended to suggest an inward
symbolical meaning) may be taken as a compound noun followed by
moAutijov. In Xxvil. 3, o€ TOV povoy adnO.vov Geov may be illustrated
by Rom. xvi. 27 povw cops Og, where povos perhaps implies (1895,
2664 a) an adjective (“One”) and an adverb (“uniquely”). It is
characteristic of John that, instead of saying “the last and greatest
day of the feast,” he should say (vil. 37) ‘‘ Now on the last day—the
great one [too |—of the feast (ev d€ tH eoyaty nuépa—ry peyadn—rTns
€optys),” adding “the great one” as a parenthetical remark’.
(xll) Mév, pévrou
[2169] The Johannine use of pe is interesting mainly in its
bearing on the question whether oidapev in xxl. 24 may have been
taken by Chrysostom as oida pév, on which point see 2429—35.
Apart from vii. 12 of pev eAeyov...adAor [d€], and x1. 6 Tore pev epeuvev
...€MELTA pLeTA TOUTO, It is generally followed by 6¢, as in xix. 24 of pev
OUV OTPATLUTAL...LaTHKELTaY O€, XIX. 32 TOD pev Mpwrov...emi de TOV ’L.,
XX. 30 ToAAG perv ovv x. aAda...tatra d€. In x. 41 “Iwavys pev onpetov
eroinoev ovdev, Tavta d€ ooa eltev Iwavns rept Tovtov adnOy qv, the
antithesis suggested by the beginning of the sentence is ‘‘ John on
the one hand did no sign, but this man, who was predicted by John,
has fulfilled all John’s predictions”—but the subject is changed in
order to emphasize ravta. The two remaining instances of ev are in
words of the Lord, xvi. 9 repi apaprtias pev...mept dukavoovvys b€...7epi
(2077) d€ kpioews, and xvi. 22 k. tpets ovv viv pev Avy exeTte* Tadw be
ooo tas, where, in strict regularity, the second verb should have
continued in the second person (‘“ but hereafter ye shall rejoice ”),
but the writer passes off to the cause of the future joy.
[2170] Meévro: occurs nowhere in the Synoptists, but five times in
John. Iniv. 27 “No one, ozwever, said, What seekest thou?” and
in xx. 5 ‘He did not, Zowever, enter in,” a feeling of reverence is
suggested: in vil. 13 “No one, Aowever, spake freely about him,” the
reason is added—‘ owing to the fear of the Jews.” In xii. 42—after
having said “they did not believe ”—the evangelist says ‘yet
1 [21682] Some Latin translators have been perplexed by the Gk article and
by taking éopr7 as feast-day; a has “in novissima autem magna die festi Judaeorum,”
but 6 ‘‘in novissimo autem die magno ac solenne,” e¢ ‘‘in die autem novissimo
magno die festo,” @ and # ‘‘in novissimo autem die (f+ illo) magno diei festi,”
SS ‘‘and on the great day of the feast.”
151
[2171] CONJUNCTIONS
however (ows pevtor) even of the rulers many believed in him, but
owing to [fear of] the Pharisees they did not confess him.” In xxi. 4
‘Jesus stood on the beach. The disciples, Aowever, did not know
that it was Jesus” is the only remaining instance’. Reviewing the
whole, we may say that évrou is never used except where the context
indicates prevention of some action by fear, or reverence or
some mysterious restraint. As bearing on the last instance comp.
Lk. xxiv. 16 “ But their eyes were holden that they should not know
him.”
(xil) “Orrov
[2171] In classical Greek, ovov is not used after a definite
mention of place, as it is in John, e.g. i, 28, ‘Bethany, beyond
Jordan, where (orov) John was...,” xil. 1 “Bethany, weve Lazarus
was” etc.. Compare especially xix. 17—18 “...to the place of a
skull called in Hebrew Golgotha, were (orov) they crucified him,”
Z.e. almost equivalent to, “and there they crucified him.” This
Johannine use is not borrowed from the LXX, where ozov is so rare
that it is non-occurrent in the Pentateuch, Joshua and Kings. Nor
does the Thesaurus give instances of it. But Mark uses it thus four
or five times, and Matthew—probably sometimes borrowing from
Mark—uses it about thrice2 In connexion with the Resurrection, it
1 (2170 a] Out of Jn, it occurs only 2 Tim. ii. 19 6 uw. orepeos Geuédos, Jas il. 8
el p. vouov TeetTe Bacidexdv, Jude 8 duolws mw. Kal ovTOL.
2 [2171a] Mk ii. 4 thy oréynv brov jv...Tdv KpdBarrovy bmov 6 mapaduTiKds
KarékecTo, (2?) iv. 15 of mapa Thy dd0v rou omelperar 6 NOyos, ix. 48 yéevvay Grou 6
oKkw\nE avTa@v ov TedevTG, xvi. 6 see below (2171l¢): Mt. xiii. 5 (definite) 7a
meTpwon Sov ovK elxev yy mwoddyv, but Mk iv. 5 (indefinite if kai is inserted) 76
merpades [Kal] Orrov ovK elxev yqv moddAjv. In Mt. xxvi. 57, dou follows Ka:agay
which implies ‘‘ the palace of Caiaphas.” Mt. xxviii. 6, see below (2171).
[2171 4] Mt. vi. 19—20 (Lk. xii. 33) is of a somewhat indefinite nature, and
dmov in Mk xiv. 14 (Lk. xxii. 11) (Mt. om.) mod éoriv 70 Kardd\uua mou Orrov...
payw, is interrogative, and, so far, indefinite.
[2171 c] “Ozov occurs, in the Acts, only in xvii. 1 Qeooaovixny, drov..., Xx. 6
(v. r.) rhv Tpwdda...rov (W.H. ot). Lk. uses ézov five times, but never as
above, unless an exception is to be recognised in Lk. xii. 33 (where Lk. follows
Mt. vi. 20) Grou kdémrns ovK éyyl fer.
{2171¢@] The Johannine combinations of é7rov with eu above, as well as the
non-use of elju ‘go’? in N.T., and almost complete absence of ei in O.T., shew
that ézrov elul (not efuc) must be read in vii. 34, ‘‘ where I am” (rep. by the Jews in
vii. 36) although the Jews refer to it in vii. 35 as mopevecOai. If the meaning had
been where I ‘‘ go,” bad-yw or mopevouat would almost certainly have been em-
ployed (as Jesus frequently uses both). A strong incompatibility is suggested by
“‘where I am, there ye cannot come.”
152
CONJUNCTIONS [2173]
occurs in Mark and Matthew in an angelic utterance (‘see the
place”), but in John in a description of two angels in the tomb!?.
Here Matthew approaches a dependent interrogative, but Mark and
John do not.
[2172] John frequently uses érov, with or without a preceding
tovos, to denote that the place now mentioned had already been the
scene of some notable action: iv. 46 “Cana...where (dmov) he had
made the water wine,” vi. 23 ‘‘near the place where (orov) they ate
the bread,” vil. 42 ‘‘ Bethlehem the village were David [once] was,”
x. 40 “the place where John [once] was, at the first, baptizing,” xi. 1
“He came to Bethany where was Lazarus,” z.e. “where (as I said
above, xi. 1), Lazarus lived, whom Jesus raised from the dead.”
Had it not been for the other passages quoted above, this last might
have been supposed to mean ‘‘where Lazarus was” at the time when
Jesus ‘‘came.” In i. 28, a comma should perhaps (2277 a) be
inserted after jv, thus: ‘These things came to pass in Bethany
beyond Jordan—(lit.) where John was (nv), baptizing (Barri~wv),”
and 7v may mean ‘‘was and had been for some time” (2648).
Under ordinary circumstances we should translate oaov éxe:to in
xx. 12, “here day the body of Jesus,” but it is shewn by the context
to mean ‘ where zt had lain*.”
(xiv) “Oras
[2173] This (1695) occurs frequently in Matthew and Luke, but
only once in Mark (iii. 6 ‘“‘that they might destroy (arod€cwow)
him”) and once in John (xi. 57 “that they might take (ridéowovw)
him”). Matthew’s parallel to Mark iii. 6 agrees with Mark verbatim,
but Luke’s differs*. Elsewhere, Matthew uses ozws (but Luke never)
1 [2171¢] Mk xvi. 6 ide, 6 rémos dmov €Onxav avrév, Mt. xxvili. 6 dere
Tov Tdémov Omov ékeTo, JN Xx. 12 Oewpel Svo dyyédous...6mov exerro TO coma
Tod ‘Inocod.
2 [2172a] A ‘‘where-clause,” e.g. ‘‘Etam where (é@a) Samson lived,” is
common in the Ozomasticon of Eusebius, and such clauses are natural in works
about sites of interesting scenes. But in John something more than this is apparent
in the emphasis laid by him on the fact that the public work of Christ begins, and
almost ends, in two places of the same name, Bethany. There is, perhaps, a
feeling that history repeats itself and that things appear to move in a circle
even when they are really going on, as when the Son (vi. 62) “ goeth up where
he was before.” Comp. i. 28 émovu qv 671. Bamrifwy and x. 40 dou qv 'I. 76 prov
Barrifov.
3 [2173 a] Mt. xii. 14. Lk. vi. 11 has dveAddouvw mpods adAHAous Th dv wonoaery
T@ ‘Inco’. On miagw see 1723¢ and Ox. Pap. 812 (B.C. 5) memiacrat Aoxpiwr.
153
[2174] CONJUNCTIONS
in similar contexts’, These facts suggest that érws was current in
Mark-Matthew traditions about the plots of the Jews “in order to
destroy, or ensnare, Jesus,” and that Luke avoided, while John
adopted, this method of expression. See 2693.
(xv) “Or?
(a) “Ot! (1) suspensive, (2) explanatory
[2174] “Ori is used by John much more frequently than by Luke,
and somewhat more frequently than by Mark and Matthew taken
together. One reason is, that John deals largely with causes, and
uses ove very frequently in the sense “because.” In theory,
ambiguity might arise from the fact that Aéyw, moTevw, Oewpéw etc.,
followed by or, might mean “I say, believe, behold, ¢Zaz,” or, “I
say, believe, behold, decawse.” In practice, however, such ambiguity,
though not infrequent, is not very serious, except perhaps in one
important passage to be considered later on—because John adheres
to regular Greek usage, which would not sanction the conjunction
after such verbs, except to mean “‘‘¢a/,” introducing the object of
the verb.
[2175] A more serious cause of ambiguity is that dr.—like
xabus (2122—82)—may be used (1) suspensively (“decause I live ye
shall live”) as well as (2) explanatorily (“‘ye shall live” [why ?]
“because I live”). The former construction is comparatively rare.
Where it occurs, “because” ought to be, so to speak, protected from
the preceding sentence by a d€ or other conjunction as in Gal. iv. 6
“But because (ort dé) ye are sons, God hath sent forth his Spirit.”
Else, ‘‘ because ye are sons” might be connected with the last words
of the preceding sentence. In the following passage the first dru is
certainly suspensive after ovrws: the second oz is probably sus-
pensive—but vot certainly (owing to the absence of a conjunction)
Rey. iit. 16—17 “Thus (ovtws), decause (dr) thou art lukewarm...I
am about to spew thee out of my mouth. Aecause (6rr) thou sayest
‘T am rich...’ and knowest not..., I counsel thee to buy....” Here
the construction might be “ Because thou art lukewarm I purpose to
spew thee out, decause [7 say] thou sayest...,” and “I counsel”
[2173 4] Mt. xxii. 15 dws avrov maydetrwow ev N6yy, Xxvi. 59 dws avrdv
Bavarwowow. Blass (p. 211) on Jn xi. 57 says “‘ for the sake of variety’; but the
repetitions of iva in 2116—20 are against this view.
*"Oray is discussed under Tense, Aorist and Present Subjunctive (2531—5).
154
CONJUNCTIONS [2177]
might begin a new sentence; and the English Hexapla prints the
words thus in all versions after that of 1380 a.p.’.
[2176] The suspensive use of oz in the Greek Testament is first
found in Genesis iii. 14 ‘‘ And the Lord God said unto the serpent,
Because (ort) thou hast done this, cursed art thou,” andi. 17 “ Unto
Adam he said, Because (or) thou hast hearkened...cursed is the
ground.” In the second case, it would be quite possible to take
ore as introducing the words of the speaker, ‘‘ Unto Adam he said
[that] ‘Thou hast hearkened...Cursed is the ground.’” It is perhaps
for this reason that in Deuteronomy (i. 27 “and said, ‘ Because the
Lord hated’”) where the Hebrew is the same, the LXX has 6a 7d
which Luke also has (xviii. 5 ‘‘ Yet decawse this widow troubleth me ”).
In N. T., suspensive or: is almost confined to the Johannine writings
and the Apocalypse, and it is one of a few very interesting similarities
of style suggesting that the author of the Gospel may have been a
disciple, or younger coadjutor, of the author of the Apocalypse’.
[2177] In John, the ambiguity of suspensive ot: is greatly increased
by his excessive use of asyndeton, eg. xiv. 19 ‘‘ But ye behold me.
Because (ort) I live, ye also shall live.” Here it is possible, theo-
retically, to connect “because” with what precedes, and R.V. marg.
assumes this connexion, so as to give either (1) ‘‘ But ye behold me
because I live; and ye shall live,” or (2) “‘ But ye behold me, because
I live and [because] ye shall live.” If the words occurred in a
Synoptic Gospel, one of these marginal renderings would be probable.
But in John, regard being had to his suspensive use of o7u else-
1 [2175 a] The suspensive construction is preferable (as in R.V.). It might
also be adopted in Rev. xviii. 7 ‘‘ How much soever she glorified herself...so much
give her of torment and mourning. Secazse she saith in her heart, ‘I sit a queen
and am no widow and shall in no wise see mourning,’ therefore (5a roOro) in one
day shall her plagues come....” Here, however, all the English versions have
‘* for she saith in her heart’’ and begin a new sentence with ‘‘ Therefore.” “Oru is
also suspensive in Rev. iii. ro ‘‘...that they may know that I loved thee. ecazse
(671) thou didst keep the word of my endurance I also (kay) will keep thee...,”
where it would be quite possible to render the words “ that they may know that I
loved thee decause thou didst keep...azd I....... ” That is to say, it would be
theoretically possible. But no one familiar with the style of the author would so
render it.
° [2176 a] Besides Gal. iv. 6 (above quoted) 67: suspensive occurs in 1 Cor. xii.
15—16 (dzs) ‘If the foot shall say, ‘ Because I am not the hand, I am not of the
body’ it is not therefore not of the body,” and Rom. ix. 7 ‘‘ Neither, decawse they
are Abraham’s seed, are they all children.”
155
[2178] CONJUNCTIONS
where’, and to his habitual use of (2149) xat vets to mean “Ye
also,” the rendering given above, which is in the main that of R.V.
text, may be pronounced the only possible interpretation.
(8) “Or introducing (1) cause of action, (2) ground of statement
[2178] A doubt may sometimes exist whether ér, “because,”
introduces (1) the ground or motive of an action (“he does this
because he likes it”) or the proof of the truth of an assertion (“ You
did this, [I know] decawse you were caught in the act”), where (in
English) we should mostly use “for.” Such a sentence as x. 5 “ They
will flee...decause they know not,” introducing a cause inherent in the
persons spoken of, presents no difficulty. And in this way “ because”
would generally be used where it connects two verbs in the same
person (“you (or, they) do this decause you (or, they) do that”).
But the meaning is not so clear in v. 38 “Ye have not his word
abiding in you decause (6t-) whom he sent him ye believe not.” Does
this mean (1) that, decause they rejected Christ and refused to believe
in Him, the Jews darkened their minds and made it impossible for
the word of God to “abide” in them? In that case, ore introduces
the reason why the “word” did not “abide.” Or does it mean (2)
“Ye have not his word abiding in you: [I know this] decawse whom
he sent him ye believe not”? In that case dre introduces che cause
of the speaker's knowledge, the proof of his assertion. The use of dre
to mean “[TI say this] because,” “[And this is true] because,” is so
frequent in John that the latter (2) is the more probable explanation.
If John had meant the former (1) he would have probably written “or
this cause (6a todro) ye have not his word abiding in you Jecause”—
a very common formula with him’.
1 [2177a] Comp. i. 50 ére eldv cor, xx. 29 6rt Ewpakds we, where dri is
suspensive and initial. Suspensive 67c is also initial with 6é in xv. r9, and aX’
rt is initial and suspensive in xvi. 6. In viii. 45 éyw dé dre Thy dAnOetav NéEyw, ov
meoreveTé wot, the dé introduces an antithesis to the previous sentence: ‘‘ Ye ov the
one hand are the children of the Father of lies and move in falsehood as your
atmosphere: but I oz the otaer hand—just because I say the truth, ye do not
believe me.”
* (2178a] R.V. and A.V. ‘‘for.” Westcott says (ad loc.) ‘‘ For (because)....]
This is not alleged as the ground but as the sign of what has been said. Comp.
Luke vii. 47; 1 John iii. 14.” The former passage (‘‘her sins...are forgiven
because she loved much”’) states the cause of being forgiven, in accordance with
the Law of Forgiveness: the latter (‘‘we £ow that we have passed from death...
because we love the brethren”) states the ground of ‘*knowing,” which may be
156
CONJUNCTIONS [2180]
[2179] In ii. 18 “‘What sign shewest thou Jdecause thou doest
these things?” the meaning of 67. seems to be “[We ask thee this
question] because’,” and similarly in vil. 35 “Where doth this man
purpose to go, [we ask this] because [according to what he says] we
shall not find him?” In xii. 48—9, ‘‘The word that I spake, the
same shall judge him in the last day, decause I spake not from
myself; but the Father...,” the meaning may be explained by turning
“because I spake” into ‘‘ because it is spoken.” ‘The word” will
have the right to judge you, and will judge you, decause it comes
ultimately, not “from myself,” but from the Father, the righteous
Judge. In x. 12—13 “But the hireling...fleeth, and the wolf
snatcheth and scattereth them Jdecause he is a hireling,” some
authorities insert “the hireling fleeth” before ‘‘ because,” and R.V.
supplies these words in italics; but the sense may very well be that
“the wolf scatters the flock—| Why ?] because the shepherd is a
hireling.” Similarly the laziness of a sentinel is a contributory cawse
to disaster, and an enemy may be said to surprise a camp “ decause
the sentinel was asleep.” The passage illustrates John’s varied use
of ort.
[2180] In i. 14—18, a complicated passage in which connexions
of thought are broken by interventions of parentheses, 67. occurs
thrice, and in each case seems to base a new statement on some
preceding similar one, with a curious mannerism frequent in the
Fourth Gospel but particularly noticeable here. “Ors seems to mean
in each case “|I say ¢#zs| because of chat,” where “this” and “that”
are similar or identical words (like “‘fud/” and “fulness,” “first” and
“ before,” “ grace” and “ grace”) thus: (a) “He is become defore me,
[Z say ‘ before’) because he was first in regard to me”; (4) “the Logos
tabernacled among us...fud/ of... [Z say ‘full’| because from his
Julness did we all receive” ; (c) “...and grace for grace, [Z say‘ grace’|
because, whereas the Law [of God] was given [as a preparatory grace
also called the cazse of knowledge. The analogy of both of these would seem to
point to (1) rather than (2): but Westcott seems to favour (2), if ‘‘the sign of”
means ‘‘the sign of the truth of.”
? [2179 a] Somewhat less probable would be ‘‘ Zz consequence of your taking
upon yourself to do these authoritative works you must be certainly intending to
prove your authority to us by working a sign—what is that sign?” See 2183 a.
* [2180 a] The intervening verse (i. 15 ‘“‘John beareth witness...... before me”’)
is probably to be regarded as a parenthesis. It is so printed by W.H., but not
by R.V.
[2181] CONJUNCTIONS
or preparation for grace] through Moses, the [real] gvace [of God] and
the truth [of God] came into being through Jesus Christ.”
(y) “On (?) “that” or “because”
[2181] “Orc is interpreted “decause”” by Chrysostom, but “ ¢Aat”
by R.V., in ili. 19 “And this is the judgment, ¢iat (avrn d€ éorw 7
kpto.s ott) the light hath come into the world and men loved the
darkness rather than the light.” Here Chrysostom—taking “ judg-
ment” as condemnation bringing punishment with it—paraphrases
thus, “ What he means is to this effect, For this cause (6ua totro)
they are punished because they did not desire to leave the darkness
and run to the light.” But the use of a similar phrase in r Jni. 5
and v. 14 “ And this is the boldness that we have...[zamely] that...”
confirms the view that om here means “that.” The very fact that
men love darkness is their condemnation. Similarly (2187) iii. 18
0 py murTevwv NON KeKpiTaL OTL py TeTioTevKev 1S More accurately
rendered “found guilty of not having believed,” than ‘‘found guilty
because he has not believed”: and Ammonius (paraphrasing “ found
guilty” as “‘punished”) suggests this view of ore in his comment:
“Disbelief is of itself a punishment?.”
[2182] “Or probably means “TI say this because” in xvi. 8—11
“He will convict the world about sin and about righteousness and
about judgment; in the first place (uév) about sin, [7 say this] because
they believe not on me; in the next place (3) about righteousness,
[7 say this| because 1 go unto the Father and ye no longer behold
me; in the next place (8¢) about judgment, [7 say this] because the
prince of this world hath been judged.” The absence of the defining
clause atry 5€é éorw differentiates this passage from iil. 19, and the
statement “I will judge the world about these three things” suggests
to the reader ‘‘Why about these three in particular?” so as to
prepare the way for a threefold ‘“because.”—“I say about sin,
because it will be shewn that they are unbelieving and unbelief is at
the bottom of sin; I say about righteousness, decawse it will be shewn
that they drive me out of the world, and to be driven out of the
unjust or unrighteous world’””—as Aristides the just was driven out
of unjust Athens—‘“‘is a proof of justice or righteousness*; I say
about judgment, dJecause the prince of this world, who—by means
1 Cramer ad Joc. abo 76 amore KbNacls éore.
2 Comp. Heb. xi. 37 ‘‘Evil entreated, of whom ¢he world was not worthy,
wandering in deserts....”
158
CONJUNCTIONS [2184]
of his agents, Pilate and the priests—will have judged and sentenced
me to the death of a criminal, will himself have been judged and cast
into hell, so that the judgment of this world will have been judged
and condemned?.”
[2183] R.V. and A.V. differ in ix. 17 ‘‘ What dost thou (o¥) say
about him, (R.V.) zz that he opened thine eyes?” (A.V. “that he
hath opened thine eyes?”). The object of “sayest” has preceded
(‘What sayest thou?”) and the blind man has already said (ix. 15)
in effect, “he hath opened mine eyes.” Consequently, we may
naturally expect om to introduce, not the object of “sayest,” but
a reason for the saying: “In consequence of this cure—what do
you say about him?” At all events the blind man takes it in this
way, for he replies ‘‘[I say] he is a prophet,”—and not, as the A.V.
rendering would require, ‘Yes, I say that he dd open my eyes.”
But, if R.V. is right, it would be better not to insert a comma (as
R.V. does) before “in that” but to run the words on thus, in effect,
“What sayest thou (emph.) about him for having [as thou sayest]
opened thine eyes?” The comma of R.V. before om might lead
the reader to give om the force of “we ask this because” or “ for
indeed ”—as though the questioners acknowledged the miracle: but
the next verse shews that they did not acknowledge it?.
[2184] In the following, dru certainly means “that”; but the
instance may be conveniently placed here, because, as in the in-
stances last discussed, 67: follows té and a question. R.V. punctuates
the sentence as two questions, A.V. as one. It represents what the
Jews “kept saying” to one another while they “kept looking for ”
Jesus*, asking one another whether He would come to the Feast, in
view of the attempts, mentioned in the context, to kill or capture
1 [2182a] The ‘‘judgment” (or ‘‘condemnation”) of ‘‘the prince of this
world,” would be regarded by Christians as demonstrated primarily by the
Resurrection of Christ and its triumph over death. But external signs of it would
also be looked for in all that subsequently befel Pilate, Herod Antipas, and the
rulers of the Jews, who would be regarded as the agents of ‘‘the prince of this
world.”
2 [2183] According to this view, this passage differs slightly from ii. 18,
where a comma precedes 671: ‘‘What sign art thou about to shew unto us—[we
ask this| because thou doest these things (2179)?” Here the position of the
authoritative nuiv, in tl onuetoy decxvvers Hutv, indicates that the sign must be
shewn ‘‘unto ws,” and that ‘‘we” have a right to ask for it.
3 xi. 56 imperf. é(jrour...é\eyov.
159
[2185] CONJUNCTIONS
Him: xi. 56 “What think ye? That he will assuredly not come to
the feast?” Ti doxet viv; ore od pn EAGn eis THY éoprnv; The intention
certainly is to give prominence to Christ’s courage in the face of
dangers recognised by everybody, and the meaning of the text
appears to be: “What do you (emph.) think? [Do you think, as
we do,| that he will never dream of venturing to come to the feast?”
But the text is not quite certain’. The passage, however, comes
usefully here as shewing how complex may be the considerations on
which the meaning of ore may depend, and how even the Greek
commentators may be puzzled by John’s use of it.
[2185] Other instances in the Fourth Gospel where A.V. and
R.V. differ in this respect are unimportant eg. iv. 35, (R.V.) “ Lift
up your eyes and look on the fields, ¢#az (orc) they are white already
unto harvest”.” Here A.V. has “for they are white”; and, in favour
of A.V., it might be fairly argued that if John meant “behold ¢/az...,”
he might have written “behold ¢/az¢ the fields are white,” as else-
where (vi. 5) “‘beholding ¢Aa¢ (orc) a great multitude cometh*.”
1 [2184a] D reads Ti doxe?re, a, 4, e, Aoxetre, ‘‘Do ye suppose?” (instead of
Ti doxe? buiv;). SS has ‘‘Do ye suppose that perchance he cometh not to the feast?”
Origen ad Joc. has at first ri buy doxet od un Oy... (“What do you think? He
will never surely come [will he]...2?”) though quoting correctly afterwards.
Chrysostom (Migne) ad loc. has doxeire, and ‘‘in the course of (év) the Feast.”
He adds rouréoriv, “Evratéa airoy éumecety det, Tod Kkatpod Kadobvros avrér.
Cramer has ti buiv Goxe?, 67 ov wh EO els Thy EoprHy, adding 4 dé Eyer ToLodrév
éoTw, évtaiba abrov éumeceiy Set Tod Kaipod KadodvTos avrév. Steph. iii. 882 gives
éumlmtw absol. ‘‘temere irruere.” Chrysostom uses éuzrecety again (on Jn vii. ro)
about coming to a feast in the midst of excitement.
2 [2185 a] In iii. 21 (A.V.) ‘‘that his deeds may be made manifest, ‘hat they
are wrought in God,” R.V. has txt ‘‘¢hat,” marg. ‘‘decause.” In vii. 52 (A.V.)
“Search and see, for,” R.V. has txt ‘‘that,” marg. ‘‘for.” In viii. 22 (A.V.)
‘©Will he kill himself? decazse he saith...” i.e. ‘‘[ We ask this] because,” R.V. has
“‘that” he saith (presumably attempting to correct not the sense but the English).
On xiv. 2 see 2186 foll. Cases of ‘‘not that” meaning ‘‘not because” are not
included in this list.
[2185 4] In xviii. 37 (R.V. txt) ‘‘Thou sayest ¢#a¢ I am a king,” R.V. marg.
has, ‘‘ Thou sayest [it] decawse I am a king,” on which Westcott justly says, ‘‘ The
translation ‘ Zhou sayest (7.e. rightly), decause 7 am’ seems to be both unnatural as
a rendering of the original phrase, and alien from the context.” In xxi. 23 ov«
elrev 6€ aire 6 “Inoots bre obk amobvjicke, SS has ‘‘for that” z.e. because, ‘* But
Jesus, not for that he was not to die said he [it].” In such cases, the Latin gzod,
or guia, would often reproduce the ambiguity of the Greek.
3 [2185 c] OedoOal re bre foll. by indic. (like v. 42 @yvwxa Umas dre ovK Exere)
does not appear to exist elsewhere in N.T. Weste. says ‘‘ For, rather ¢hat,” but
gives no reasons; Thayer recognises r¢ as the ordinary accus., apparently favouring
A.V.; Alford has no remark about the construction.
160
CONJUNCTIONS [2186 |
But perhaps R.V. is right in judging that John (even when an
accusative intervened) would not use or (2174) after any verb of
perception in any sense but “that,” because to use it in any other
sense would, as a rule, involve obvious and immediate misunder-
standing?.
[2186] In all the passages bearing on 671, up to this point, no
instance has been found of A€yw closely followed by 67: meaning “I say
... because.” This makes it all the more remarkable that in one passage,
according to R.V., John has used eizety 6r to mean, “say [it] because,”
on which is based the following rendering (xiv. 1—2), “ Let not your
heart be troubled: ye believe (or, believe) in God, believe also in
me. In my Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so,
I would have told you; for I go (ei 5€ py, etrov av bpiv ote topevopar)
to prepare a place for you.”” It has been shewn, under the head of
ei de xy (2080—6), that there is no authority for the rendering “7 z¢
were not so.” Even if it were allowable to supply the sense in that
way (ei dé i) [ovTws Av]), it is doubtful whether such an ellipsis could
be repeated as a second ellipsis, so as to make the sense ‘I should
have said to you [that it was not so]” eiov dv vpiv [ote ody ottws
eotiv|. No authority has been alleged for this*. But, apart from alk
these facts, the regular Greek and Johannine use of Aéyew or eizetv
ort, “say that,” should oblige translators to assume, in the first
instance, that, if the text is not corrupt, the meaning here is, “I
should have said to you ¢hat J am going*.”
For dre equivalent to wore, in xiv. 22, see 2694.
1 [21852] In Jn xx. 13 R.V. and A.V. have “‘ Because they have taken away
my Lord,” but W.H. txt has Néyee adrots ére “Hpay (marg. “Ore jpav), which—
being more impassioned and more like xx. 18 67¢ ‘Ewpaxa—is prob. correct, in
spite of the fact that the words are an answer to the question ‘‘Why weepest
thou?”
* [2186 a] The instances, Mt. xxviii. 7 ‘‘Behold I have said [it] to you,”
Mt. xxiv. 25 ‘‘I have said [it] to you before,” Jn x. 25 “‘I said [it] to you and ye
believe not” all refer to something preceding, and more or less definitely expressed.
For example, Jn x. 25 ‘‘I said [it] (etrov) to you” refers to the preceding words
“If thou art the Christ say [so] (elrév) to us.” In xiv. 29 ‘‘I have said [it]
(eipnka) to you” (better than ‘‘I have told you”) probably refers to xiv. 28
**T said (efrov) to you, I depart.”
3 [21864] For the new meaning that would be given to the whole passage by
this interpretation the reader is referred to ef dé uw (2080—6). Here it may be
added that several authorities (including @ and e) omit 67, and that the Syriac
(including SS) has ‘‘I should have said that I go.” In LXX, dru “‘recitativum”
is omitted after ‘‘I said” in Ps. xxx. 6 ‘‘I said I shall never be removed,” xxxi.
A, VI. 161 Wi
[2187] CONJUNCTIONS
(8) “Ot mH
[2187] In one instance, dre py in the Gospel curiously contrasts
with oz: od in the Epistle: Jn iii. 18 “He that believeth not (6 pi)
motevov) hath been judged already decause he hath not believed (dr
py meriotevkev) in the name of the only begotten Son of God,” 1 Jn
v. 10 “ He that believeth not God (6 pa tiredwv 7d Oe6) hath made
him a liar; [I say this] decawse he hath not believed in the testimony
that God testified (6ru od wemlorevKev eis THv paptupiav)....” In the
latter, 67. od states the fact objectively ; in the former, dre py states it
suljectively, as the judgment pronounced by the Judge, ‘‘This man
is guilty 7 that he hath not believed,” so that the meaning is almost
“hath been pronounced guilty of not believing.” See 2695.
(e) Oyy 6m
[2188] In classical Greek, ody dz often means “mot only” and
may be explained as “not [only do I say] that,” so as to prepare the
way for aAXa Kai “ but [I] also [say this].” But in N.T. it never has
that meaning. When it comes immediately after a statement that is
in danger of being misunderstood, ov~x éru might be explained as
(1) “[Z say this], not because...” (2) “[L do] not [mean to say] that...”
The latter is generally the more probable. See Ellipsis, 2218—9.
(G) “Om “recitativum ”
[2189] “Or “recitativum’’ is a Greek way of expressing our
inverted commas, or the Hebrew “saying,” as in i. 20 “he confessed
that (orc) Z am not the Christ,” i.e. “ saying ‘I am not the Christ.’”
This is very frequent in Mark, frequent in John, somewhat less so in
Luke, and comparatively rare in Matthew’. The use of 6m "Eyo in
the case of the Baptist above and of the blind man in ix. 9 éAeyev ér«
*Eyo eiyu, may be contrasted with the omission of 67u when “I am”
is uttered by Jesus in xvill. 5 A€yer avrois "Eyw cipt...ws odv etrev
avtois “Eyw eit. Neither here nor elsewhere—except in two or
three instances where sayings of Christ are repeated for the second
22 “I said...I am cut off,” xxxii. 5 ‘‘I said I will confess” etc. This may have
influenced the scribes that omitted it here. If it did, the fact would indicate that
the scribes regarded 67: as meaning ‘‘¢hat,” not ‘‘ because.”
‘ [2189 a2] The Mss. vary, and editors print the same text differently (e.g. dr
éy# and ére Ey) so that it is difficult to obtain exact statistics. W.H. print
Mt. x. 7 Knptacere Néyoures bri “Hyyixev, but Lk. vii. 4 Aéyovres dre déds Eorw J
mapééy To0To, dyamg yap TO COvos huav....
162
CONJUNCTIONS [2190}
time (2190)—does John use oru before drect speech of the Lord after
“he said”: consequently when we find “JZ sazd@” a little later on,
XVill. 8 <iov viv ore éyw eit, there is some reason for thinking that
this is reported speech, “I said to you that Il am'.” ‘There are many
instances of this phrase (“I said that”) because John (differing from
the Synoptists) frequently represents Christ as referring to what He
Himself has previously said, e.g. 1. 50 ‘‘ Because 7 sazd unto thee that
(orc) I saw thee under the fig-tree,” vi. 36 “ But / sazd to you that ye
have seen me,” vill. 24 “J said...to you that ye shall die in your
sins,” xi. 40 “Did I not say to thee ¢haz¢, if thou wilt believe, thou
shalt see the glory of God?,” xvi. 15 ‘‘ For this cause I said to you
that he taketh from that which is mine and [that he] will declare
it unto you.” In all these passages there is nothing to shew whether
ore introduces (1) direct or (2) reported speech; but W.H. print the
text as the latter, and their view agrees with the general absence
of ore recitativum elsewhere after “he said” introducing words of
Christ.
[2190] The text varies somewhat in xiii. 33 ‘Even as I said to
the Jews ¢haz ‘ Where I go, ye are not able to come,’ [so] to you also
I say—for the moment”; but if the text is correct? and if the
reference is to vill. 21, then ove recitativum is here used in exact
quotation of a saying of the Lord. The quotation is not exact in
XVill. g va tANpwOH Oo Aoyos Ov eirev OTe Os dédwKas pot OvK amweoa
1 [21894] For the omission of 67 elsewhere before éyd efus, in words of the
Lord, see vi. 20 Néyer avrots "Hy elu, and vi. 35 elev avrots 6 “Inoods Eyw ei 6
dptos THy Fw7s.
[2189] In the Baptist’s words, W.H. print iii. 28 efrov [éya] Ovx eiut eye 6
xptoTds, GAN’ bre’ Amecradudvos elul Eumporbev éxetvov. However printed, the text
seems to blend (1) ‘‘I said ‘Z am not the Christ but am one sent,” (2) ‘‘I did not
say ‘/ am the Christ, but I said, ‘7 am one sent.’”
* [2190 az] “Or. is om. by ND 4, e. SS has ‘‘that, where I go ¢hey cannot
come.” Christ had said in vii. 34 ‘‘Where I am, ye are not able to come,” and
(perhaps for this reason) @ and e read ‘‘sum” in xiii. 33; 4 reads ‘‘eo” which may
be intended for ecue accented eiue ‘‘I go” (in vil. 34, a renders elué ‘I am” by
*‘vado” and sim. SS ‘‘go”). Another instance where 67: is omitted by Bruder
(following NA) but ins. by W.H. is xili. 11 dia ToOTo elrev bre Odxt rdvres Kaapol
éore. What Jesus had actually said, was ‘Twets kaapoi éore adN’ obxl mavTes, so
that this quotation is not exact. In view of a future consideration of Johannine
quotations it is worth while noting that (a) vii. 34 dou elul eyo vpets od divacbe
€\Getv is exactly repeated by the Jews in vii. 36, that (4) viii. 21 dmov éyw brdayw
dpets ob dUvacGe €NOeiv is exactly repeated by the Jews in viii. 22, and that (c) the
second of these sayings is exactly repeated by Christ, with 67 in xiii. 33 dre “Omov
éyw...€ew.
163 TI—2
[2191] CONJUNCTIONS
e€ avtév ovdéva, which is a certain instance of 67 recitativum before
words of the Lord. It is assumed by Westcott and Alford that the
reference is to xvil. 12 ér#povv avrovs év TO dvopati cov @ dédwKds prot
...Kal ovdets €& adtdv arwAero, But there is a great difference between
“Those whom thou hast given me I lost not one of them” and “I
kept them in thy name which thou hast given me...and not one of
them was lost.” Why does not the evangelist give the words
exactly? This question must be considered under “ Variation ”
(2544 foll.). It does not come under the present heading except so
far as it suggests a possibility that the writer may sometimes use 6re
to mean “‘[¢o this effect] that” —when he does not propose to give the
exact words in a quotation’.
(xvi) Otv
(a) In Christ’s words
[2191] Oty, in Matthew and Luke, when used by our Lord,
introduces a precept, or inference, as being based on something that
precedes (often a parable or statement of considerable length) of
a very cogent nature: “Be not ye ¢herefore anxious,” “ Look to it
therefore whether the light within thee be darkness,” ‘If therefore ye,
1 [21904] Thus our Lord says to the Jews ix. 41 Aéyere S74 BNérouev, and
x. 36 Aéyere drt BAaognuets, meaning ‘‘ Ye say in effect.” In reality (1) they had
not said, ‘* We see,” but ‘‘Are we blind also?” and (2) they had not said ‘*Thou
blasphemest,” but ‘‘ We stone thee for blasphemy and because thou, being a man,
makest thyself God.”
[2190] It will be found that almost all Jn’s quotations and repetitions, with
or without 67, are given with variations (2544 foll.). But &re introduces an exact
quotation (soon after the passage last quoted) in x. 34 Ovx éorw yeypaumevor év To
vouw dpiov bre Ey ela Oeol éore, where a short saying is quoted exactly to
illustrate the pervading thought in ¢he whole of what Jesus calls “‘your own Law,”
that those to whom the word of God comes are in some sense ‘‘gods.” In xx. 18
ayyé\ovea Tots padnrais bre 'Ewpaxa roy Kipiov kal radra eirev ary, the tidings
of Christ’s Resurrection are first summed up in one phrase of direct speech ‘‘I
have seen,” and then the fact that He said certain things is expressed in reported
speech.
[21907] In xvi. 17 rl éorw rodro 5 Neyer Huty Muxpoy Kal ov...Kal "Ore irdyw
mpos Tov marépa, bre is probably ‘‘because.” Jn would hardly omit é7c recit.
before Mcxpéy and insert it before ‘Ywdyw—if both were the first words of quota-
tions. ‘‘ Because” may be the first word of ‘‘ Because I go to the Father” repeated
from xvi. 10 ‘‘decause I go to the Father and ye no longer behold me.’ Several
authorities interpolate the italicised words in xvi. 16, and it is clear that these
took 67t as ‘‘because.”
164
CONJUNCTIONS [2192]
being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much
” “Tf therefore in the unrighteous mammon ye were not
faithful, who shall entrust to you...1?” John (1883) uses ody very
frequently in his Gospel, about 195 times in all, but in Christ’s words
very rarely, only 8 times. It occurs most frequently when He
is arguing with unbelievers or doubters ; but He uses it twice in the
Discourse with the disciples before the Passion, and, for the last
time, to the soldiers arresting Him. He has twice asked them ‘“‘Whom
seek ye?” And they have twice replied, ‘‘ Jesus of Nazareth.” Now
He replies (xviii. 8) ‘I told you that I am he. Therefore, if it is I
that ye seek, let these depart.” “Therefore,” in R.V., has the advan-
tage of uniformity, but “then” would sometimes be preferable.
[2192] The other instances in Christ’s words are as follows:
vi. 62 ‘‘Doth this cause you to stumble? (lit.) Z/ therefore ye should
be beholding (éav otv Bewpyte) the Son of man ascending where he
more...?
1 [2191 a] Mt. vi. 31, Lk. xi. 35, Mt. vii. rr, Lk. xvi. 11.
Luke often inserts
it as follows—mostly in Christ’s words—where the parall. Mk omits it :—
Mk
iv. 24 BNérerTe TL...
iv. 30 kal €Xeyev, Ids
ix. 50 Ka\dy TO adas
xll. Q TL moujoer
xll. 10 ovdé Thy ypapny
TavTny avéyvuTe
xii. 20 émTa ad. Hoay
xil. 23 €v T. ad. Tivos av-
Tay EgTaL yun
xii. 37 Avros A. Néyer
avrov Kup.ov
xlil. 4 elmov nuiv more
TavTa éoTaL
xiv. 61 ZU el 6 xpioTos 6
vids Tov evNoynToU
xv. Q @é\eTE arodocw
Umiy
Mt.
om.
xiii. 31 GAY trapaBodny
w.a. Neywr “Onola
v. 13 vuets Eoré TO Gras
XXi. 40 6rav ovv €NO7...Th
TOLYTEL
Xxl. 42 Déyer avrots o
"Ino. Ovdérote avé-
yvwre
Xxlil. 25 yoav 6€ ap’
Qu ewTa a.
Xxli. 28 év TY d. obv Tivos
TOV ENTa CoTAL YUVH
xxii. 45 ef oty A. xadet
avrov KUptov
xxiv. 3 as Mk
Xxvi. 63 ef ov ef 0 xpt-
oTos 0 vids T. Beot
XXVIl. 17 cuvnyMEevav ovv
avT@y cimev...Tiva Oé-
etre atroNvow
Lk.
vill. 18 BNérerTe ody Tas)
xlii. 18 €Neyev otv, Tie
Xiv. 34 KaNdv oby To ahas
XxX. I5 Ti ovv Toijoec
avrois
Xx. 17 Tb ovv éoTWW TO
VEY Pauper ov
XX. 29 €7Ta& ody a. Hoa
XX. 33 17) yuvh ovv év T.
a. Tivos avrav yiverat
yun
xx. 44 A. oby adrov kv-
pov Kahee
Xxl. 7 wore oty TavTa
éorat
xxii. 70 (perh. parall.)
av otv ef Oo vids T.
Qeod (see context).
xxlil. 16, 22 madevcas
ovv avTov amoNtow
In the last five passages of Lk., only Lk. xx. 44 is in Christ’s words. The
result indicates a general preference of oty in Lk.
165
[2193] CONJUNCTIONS
?
was before—”. Here there is an ellipsis of the apodosis—“ What
will ye do?” or “What is to happen?” The passage is extremely
obscure (2210—12): but the meaning appears to be that, if they
stumble already at the truth, they will, as an inevitable consequence,
stumble again when a higher truth is set before them. In vill. 24
“T said therefore to you ‘Ye shall die in your sins,’” after “ Ye are
of this world,” Jesus assumes that “this world” (1 Jn v. 19) “lieth
wholly in the evil [one],” ze. in the hands of sin and death, so that
those who “are of this world” will “ therefore die” in their sins; in
viii. 36 “The Son abideth [in the house] for ever. If ¢herefore the
Son shall free you, ye shall be free indeed,” it is assumed that what
the Son of the house does will be ratified by the Father, and “ there-
fore” will be permanent and “real.”
[2193] In the following difficult passage, ody may help to decide
between the alternative renderings given by R.V., (viii. 37—-8) (lit.)
“Ve seek to kill me... The things that I (emph.) have seen in the house
of the (rapa 76) Father I speak: ye also therefore (kat vpets ovv)—
the things that ye heard from the (apa rod) father, ye do (4 NkKOUTaTE
mapa tov matpos moveire).” Here R.V. txt has “and ye also do”
(apparently rendering xaé by “and,” ovv by “also”), but R.V. marg.
“do ye also therefore the things which ye heard from the Father.” In
R.V. txt, it is affirmed that the Jews do the works suggested from
the devil, who is to them “ the father”; in R.V. margin, the Jews are
exhorted to do the works suggested by the Father, God.
[2194] In favour of the former rendering (“ye do”) there is the
precedent of kat tpets ovv quoted from xvi. 22 above (2149, comp.
2196—7) with the indicative, where it meant “ye also 7 a cor-
responding way.” So here, the meaning seems to be that there is a
correspondence between the conduct of Christ and that of His
persecutors. They are as consistent in evil as He in good: “The
things that I have seen in the house of Light I speak: ye, y the law
of your nature as I by the law of mine—\ do not say ye ‘speak,’ but,
more than that—the things that ye have heard from the house
19)
of darkness, ye do.
1 [2194a] It is implied that they ‘‘see” nothing, being children of darkness ;
but they execute the whispered suggestions of evil that come to them from ‘‘the
father” of the house of darkness (somewhat as the mutterings of Satan are
represented by Milton as coming to Eve in her sleep). There is a paradoxical
antithesis: ‘What I see, I speak; what ye hear, ye do.”
[21944] For “the father” used to mean ‘‘Satan,’’ comp. viii. 44 ‘Ye are of
166
CONJUNCTIONS [2196 |
[2195] In xii. 49—50 “The Father that sent me—he hath given
me commandment what I should say and what I should speak. And
I know that his commandment is eternal life. The things ¢herefore
that I (emph.) speak—even as the father hath said [them] to me, so
speak I,” Chrysostom has excellently expressed the force of odv by
the paraphrase “ /¢ 2s not natural (oix éxa piow 76 rpaypa) that the
Father should say one thing and I utter another.” The meaning is,
“T not only know what I am commanded to say, but also know that
it is my Life, Life Eternal, to fulfil the commandment, z¢ follows
therefore that I must speak the Father’s words.” ‘There is an argu-
ment @ fortior? in xiil. 13—14 “ Ye address me [with the titles] ‘the
Teacher’ and ‘the Master («vpuos),’ and ye say well, for such I am.
If therefore I washed your feet—‘the Teacher’ and ‘the Master’—
ye also are bound to wash each other’s feet.” In Matthew and Luke
this cogent “therefore” would perhaps have been accompanied by
“ How much more!” and SS has something like it here “And if
I, your Rabbi...ozw much doth it behove you...!”
[2196] In xvi. 21—2 ‘The woman [or, wife] when she is in
travail (oray rikry) hath sorrow because her hour hath come: but
when she hath given birth to (yevvyon) the child she remembereth no
more the anguish because of the joy that a man is born into the
world. Ye also ¢herefore (kat yuets ovv) now indeed (viv pév) have
sorrow: but I will see you again and your heart shall rejoice and
your joy no man shall take from you,” we may explain “therefore ”
in a broad and general way by saying that the argument takes child-
the father the devil.” As in French “the head”? means ‘“‘ my, your, his head”
according to the context, so may ‘‘¢/e father” in Greek; and the writer deliberately
uses the ambiguous expression ‘‘¢e father” in order to prepare for the defining
climax in viii. 44, (1) “the father,” (2) “the devil,” (3) ‘‘ your father.”
[2194c] The view that moetre is indicative is supported not only by the
analogy of xvi. 22, but also by the fact it is in Jn’s manner to repeat a statement
twice or thrice with variations, and we find the indicative again in viii. 41 “ye do
the deeds of your father,”’ viii. 44 ‘‘ye are fain to do the lusts of your father.”
Moreover the imperative rendering, ‘‘ Do ye also the things that ye heard from the
Father,” z.e. God, would imply that the Jews Zad heard the Father’s voice, which
(though theoretically arguable as referring to the Law of Sinai) is somewhat
inconsistent with v. 37 and viii. 43. The statement in viii. 37 ‘‘ye seek to £7/7
me” implies, ‘‘ye are doing the work of your father Satan,” as appears from
vill. 44 (‘She was a murderer from the beginning”’) and from 1 Jn iii, ro—12 ‘fin
this the children of God are manifest and the chi/dren of the devil...Cain was of
the evil one and slew his brother.’
167
[2197] CONJUNCTIONS
birth as a type of a fundamental Jaw in human nature that all deep
and lasting joy must be reached through pain and sorrow. But
probably there is a more definite reference in the evangelist’s mind.
For Micah combines the prophecy about the Messiah from Bethlehem
with a mention of affliction and temporary abandonment of Israel.
“He will give them up wntil the time that she which travaileth hath
brought forth',” and the phrase “birth-pangs of the Messiah” is
associated with this prophecy in the Talmud, where it occurs several
times’.
[2197] Mark and Matthew represent our Lord as saying, just
before His prediction of persecution for the disciples, “‘ These things
are the beginning of ¢ravaz/-pangs (wdivwv)*.” Besides the “ travail-
pangs ” of the Church collectively, it was necessary that there should
be “travail-pangs” in the soul of each believer before it could give
birth to the idea of the spiritual Christ*: and both these doctrines
may have been in the mind of this evangelist, who is the only one
that records, in exact words, the doctrine that a man cannot enter
into the kingdom of Heaven unless he is ‘‘ born from above.” ‘Thus
a number of considerations, not present to modern readers, may
have suggested the thought of inevitable consequence in the words
“Ye also, therefore, now indeed have sorrow.”
(8) Oyn applied to Christ’s acts
[2198] Setting aside instances where ovy introduces words of the
Lord, we find that it either introduces an act of special solemnity, or
else—as is most frequently the case—it is applied to His various
journeys. The writer perhaps had in view the objections of con-
1 [21962] Mic. v. 2—4 ‘But thou Bethlehem Ephrathah...out of thee shall
come unto me he that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old,
from everlasting. Therefore will he give them up until the time that she which
travatleth hath brought forth. Then the residue of his brethren shall return unto
the children of Israel, and he shall stand and feed his flock in the strength of the
Lord.”
* [21964] Sanhedr. 986. Levy ii. 5a refers also to Schabb. 118 a, Pes. 118 a.
3 [2197 ¢] Mk xiii. 8, Mt. xxiv. 8. The parall. Lk. omits this, but inserts
(xxi. 12) ‘‘ Before all these things,’ perh. intending this as a paraphrase of the
metaphor.
4 [21974] That appears to be the metaphor here, the “soul” being regarded
as the mother in travail. From one point of view, the ‘‘new birth” is that of the
soul itself: from another, it is that of the idea of Christ zwzt/inz the soul, which
transforms the soul into His image.
ee
168
CONJUNCTIONS {2200 |
troversialists, some of whom, like Celsus, might regard Jesus as a
vagrant exorcist, or as a fugitive escaping from arrest. ‘The first
instance of all (iv. 1 “when ¢herefore the Lord knew”) represents
Him as departing not from pursuit but from too much popularity.
The next two (iv. 5, 6) represent His coming to Sychar and sitting
at the well—actions providentially arranged with a view to the
conversion of Samaria. The words (iv. 46) “He came ¢herefore
to Cana,” introduce the healing of the nobleman’s son. In vi. 11
occurs the first instance that does not apply to journeying, “Jesus
therefore took the loaves,” of which the symbolical importance needs
no comment. In vi. 15, the multitude sought to make Jesus a king
by force ; “therefore” He retired. In the Raising of Lazarus, ovv is
four times used, first, paradoxically, “When ¢herefore Jesus knew”
of the sickness of Lazarus, “he abode” at a distance three days ;
“ therefore,’ when He arrived, He “found that Lazarus had been
four days in the tomb”; seeing Mary weeping Jesus “‘¢herefore...
troubled himself”; some of the Jews ask, in effect, why Jesus did
not save Lazarus, “Jesus ¢herefore...cometh to the tomb.” The
fourfold conjunction sounds strange in English. But the intention
of the narrative as a whole is to represent the Raising of Lazarus as
foreordained ; and this repetition of “therefore” may be intended, in
particular, to shew how the Son, step by step, moved forward in
a regular and predetermined sequence to do the Father’s will in
performing the last and greatest of His “signs.”
[2199] The next two instances refer to Christ, as first avoiding
peril, and then confronting it, when the Jews took counsel to kill
Him: xi. 54 “Jesus ¢herefore no longer walked openly among the
Jews,” xii. 1 “Jesus ¢herefore came to Bethany”—following im-
mediately on the statement that the chief priests had taken steps
to seize him! It is not surprising that Chrysostom alters this
second otv to dé But the meaning, perhaps, is, that both in
avoiding peril and in meeting it Jesus followed the Father’s will,
not the ways of ordinary men.
[2200] After the instance in the sacramental Washing of Feet
(xi. 6 “‘He cometh ¢herefore to Simon Peter”), the next is in the
narrative of Gethsemane, where, upon the arrival of Judas and the
soldiers (xviii. 4) “Jesus, ¢herefore, knowing all that was coming
upon him, went forth and said to them, Whom seek ye?” There
? xi. 6, 17, 33, 38.
169
[2201] CONJUNCTIONS
remain but two more instances. One (“Jesus ¢herefore went out”)
introduces the exclamation of Pilate “Behold the man!!” The
other introduces the first manifestation of the risen Saviour, ‘‘ When
therefore it was evening...came Jesus and stood in the midst®.” The
facts as a whole indicate that, although “therefore” is an exaggerated
rendering of ovv, yet the particle, when used in connexion with the
acts of Christ, is often intended to suggest a sequence of cause and
effect *.
(xvil) ‘Os*
(a) ‘Qc (?) for éwe
[2201] ‘Qs is translated “while” by R.V. in xii. 35—6 “ Walk
while ye have the light...w/z/e ye have the light, believe in the light.”
Several Mss. and authorities read ews for ws, but the difficulty of the
latter, and its double occurrence, demonstrate it to be the true
reading. But that ws does not mean “while” is made _ highly
probable by ix. 4 “I must work the works of my Father w/z/e (éws)
(marg. ws) it is day.” It is scarcely credible that a writer like John
should use ws twice in precisely the same sense in which he has used
€ws. “Qs in Gal. vi. 10 ws Katpov éxwpev is doubtful. Lk. xii. 58 ws
yap vmdyes is not quite parallel”. Taking the text as it stands,
1 xix. 5. See 1960 and 2645. J 35% i):
3 [2200a] These instances are taken from Bruder (1888) with whom, in each
case quoted above, W.H. agrees. There may be other instances in W.H. not
included in Bruder. The list given above does not include vi. 5 érdpas ofv,
xiii. 12 “Ore oy évupev rovs médas a’r&y, xix. 26 "I. ofy lddv Ti unrépa, xix. 30
éte otv €aBe TO dkos, xxi. 15 bre ov Hplarnoay, because the principal verb that
follows is, in each case, ‘‘said”’ (not a verb of action). Perhaps, however, there
might have been included (on the ground that “cry aloud” is a kind of action
distinct from mere saying) vii. 28 &xpazev ofy év r@ iepw. This occurs as follows
vii. 25—8 ‘‘Is not this he whom they seek to kill? And, lo, he speaketh openly
..no man knoweth whence he is. He cried aloud ¢herefore in the temple....”
See the context. It is uncertain whether the ‘‘therefore” means ‘‘in consequence
of the words ‘xo man knoweth,’” or ‘‘ Accordingly, ‘speaking openly’ in spite of
the attempts to kill him.” On ofy used after parentheses, or resumptively, see
2631—5. Of course it must be remembered that o’v, being used by Jn freely
(1) to introduce action of azy kind, would naturally be used by him (2) to
introduce actions of Christ without any intention to express providential sequence.
Still, if the actions of Christ introduced by oty are compared with the actions of
Christ introduced by 6é or by asyndeton, I think it will be found that the first
class are specially important.
4 On ws, ‘‘when,”’ see 1775 d—e.
5 See 2696.
CONJUNCTIONS [2202]
we may make fair sense of xil. 35—-6 by rendering ws “as.”
Compare 1 Jn il. 27 “As (ws) his anointing teacheth you [in the
present]...and even as (xa@ws) it taught you [in the past], abide? in
it.” This harmonizes with St Paul’s precepts, ‘“‘ Walk by the Spirit,”
and “Live up to the standard you have reached [hoping for a higher
one]”.” So here the meaning—or, at all events, the meaning of the
best text—is ‘‘ Walk according to your light as far as it goes.” This
rendering of ws enables us to take wepirarety with an implied ovrws,
“Walk [/2us, namely] as ye have light [to walk],” and delivers us
from the necessity of taking it absolutely, ‘Walk [in the paths
of righteousness].”
(3) eWeraasuit were”
[2202] In vii. ro ‘‘He went up [to the feast] not openly but as
it were in secret (ws év KpuTTe),” the meaning is “like one going up
in secret,” ze. not actually in secret but in a manner resembling
secrecy. Compare St Paul’s words to Philemon (14) “in order
that thy good deed may not be as 7# were compulsory (ws xara®
avayknv).” The particle may be a short way of saying “people
might call it so,” and it is perhaps inserted with a view to the
vindication of the Johannine view of the publicity of Christ’s life,
as in xvill. 20, ‘In secret spake I nothing”; and in this very feast
Christ is described as (vil. 26) “speaking openly (7appyoia),” and
(vil. 28) ‘‘he cried aloud in the temple teaching.” According to this
view, “as if were in secret” means that Christ refused to take the
advice of His brethren and to go up with them to the feast accom-
panied by such a multitude as attended Him when He “went up”
finally. This going up was “comparatively in secret.” But, in case
any opponent of the Christians might refer to the saying of Christ’s
brethren (vi. 4) “No man doeth aught 77 secret and himself seeketh
to be in publicity,” the evangelist wishes to shew that there was
nothing “77 secret” in the exact sense of the term. For this purpose
he inserts ws here and zappyo‘a later on.
1 [2201 a] ‘‘ Abide,” imperative. The writer has admitted that it does (zd. 27)
“abide” in them, and that they ‘‘have no need that anyone should teach” them.
But still he does teach them as St Paul does after similar admissions (1 Thess.
iv. 10 and elsewhere). See 2437—9.
* Gal. v. 16, Phil. iii. 16 eis 6 épOdoamev 76 abt croyeiv.
3 [22022] Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 17 ws év agppooivy, xiii. 7 ws dddxeyuor. In Rom.
ix. 32 ovx €x miaTews add’ ws €& Epywr, the meaning is ‘‘on a false basis of works,”
or ‘‘as though it could be attained from works.”
ina
[2203] ELLIPSIS
{xvili) “Qere
[2203] This conjunction, which is found frequently in Mark and
Matthew, and four times in Luke, occurs in John only once, and
then with a unique construction, thus, iii. 16 ov7ws yap yyarncev oO
Geos TOV KOopov ware TOV vidv TOV povoyevn <dwKkev. In the rest of N.T.,
aore occurs either (1) at the beginning of a clause (“so that ” meaning
“and so”) with an emphatic zzdicative or imperative (Mk i. 28
““ And so the Son of man is lord of the sabbath,” 1 Thess. iv. 18
“ And so (or, Therefore) comfort one another”) or else (2) post-tnitially
with an znjfinitive (Mk i. 27 “so that they questioned together ”)’.
Both these constructions are frequent. But wore never occurs
post-initially with an indicative except in John i. 16% This
unigue use of ovrws and wore with indicative is common in the
best classical authors’, but it is unlike the style of any evangelistic
tradition in N.T. It is one of many proofs that the passage under
consideration was not regarded by the writer as a saying of the Lord,
but as an evangelistic explanation (see 2066 and 2697).
ELLIPSISs?#
(i) Of two kinds
[2204] (1) Ellipsis, “leaving out,” or “deficiency,” may exist
when something is /e/¢ owt that can be supplied from the preceding
context, eg. “I said, Go. But he would not (go],” “You have
taken my book and left your own [book].” ‘This ellipsis may be
1 (2203 a] W.H. and R.V. in some cases punctuate differently from Bruder,
and the classification is to some extent a matter of taste except where wore is pre-
ceded by otirws, wie, els Toooirov etc., so that the ware cannot possibly be called
initial. Bruder 1888 prints wore ‘‘in principio periodi” separately, and always with
indic. or imperat.: but he prints Gal. ii. 13 cuvumexptOnoav...dore kal B. cvvar7XOn,
under the same heading as Jniii. 16 oUrw yap jydrncev...wore...€dwkev, and marks
these as the only two passages (in the group) where the indic. is used. I should
take Gal. ii. 13 quite differently, “And the consequence was that even Barnabas
was carried away.”
2 [2203] Acts xiv. 1 éyévero...\adjoat olirws wore misredoat..., is the only
other passage in N.T. where wove is preceded by ofrws. Heb. xiii. 6 dare Oappodv-
Tas nuas \éye rather suggests what we may say than states what we do say.
> See Steph. viii. 2r28—g, and, in particular, the first definition of ‘‘log-
rolling” in Plato 257 olrws dyamaou Trois émawéras WoTe Tpormapaypadovat
mpwrous ot dy éxagraxov érawaow avrous.
4 Steph. (quoting Athen. 14, p. 644 A onoauods car’ E\XNewYw Tod dpros) calls it
“* Praetermissio, Omissio,” adding ‘‘ Potest vero et Defectus reddi.”
172
EELIPSIS [2207 }
called “contextual.” (2) Ellipsis may consist in the customary
omission of words (apart from contextual influence) in certain con-
densed phrases, eg. “Away!” for [Go] away !” or “the first of the
month” for “the first [day] of the month.” This' may be called
“tdiomatic.”
(ii) Contextual
[2205] iv. 25—6 “‘ Messiah cometh...‘I am [Messiah].’” This
must be distinguished from (a) vi. 20 “I am,” rendered by R.V. “It
is I”—like our idiom in English, “ It [that you see, or, hear] is I’”—
and also from (8) any special use of I AM with Hebraic associations.
The present instance may be illustrated by xvill. 5, 6, 8 “I am [Jesus
of Nazareth]”—which refers to the preceding mention of the name
in xvill. 5 ‘““‘Whom seek ye?’ ‘Jesus of Nazareth’”—and also by
ix. 9 “I am [(ix. 8) ‘the man that used to sit and beg’].” Here
the Samaritan woman—who is described as saying aloud “ Messiah
cometh ”—is to be regarded (comp. Lk. iii. 15 ‘“‘reasoning in their
hearts...whether he might be the Christ”) as saying in her heart
“Can it be that ¢hzs 7s Messiah?” and Jesus answers her silent
question, “I am [Messiah].”
[2206] iv. 52—3 “They said...[that] ‘Yesterday, [about the]
seventh hour (otc "Exés wpav® éBddunv) the fever left him.’ The
father therefore recognised chat [it had left him] at that [same] hour
” Phrase mentally repeated. In v. r1—12
““*He that made me whole, he [it was that] said to me, Take up
thy bed (xpaBarrov) and walk.’ They asked him, ‘Who is the man
that said to thee, Take [it] up and walk?,’” the omission of the
object of the verb* is somewhat harsh, and many mss. and versions
insert “bed.”
[2207] viii. 16 “Yea, and even if I should judge, my judgment
is true, because I am not alone but [am to be regarded as] I and the
? > , Ai
(ort EKELVY) TY) wpa)...
' On this, see 2220. Contextual ellipsis is sometimes called ‘‘ brachylogy.”
? [2206 a] On the change of case, see 2013, 2025—6. In v. 6—7, after Christ’s
question, ‘Dost thou desire to be made whole?” we might expect the sick man
to reply ‘‘Yes.” But the man takes the question as an implied reproach on his
sluggishness, and replies, ‘‘I have no man to put me in the pool.” It is not a
case of ellipsis but of an answer made to the spirit, rather than to the letter, of a
question.
* [2206 4] No other instance in this group omits the object thus. KpdBarros,
the word here used by the sick man and previously by our Lord, is (1736 a)
avoided by Luke and condemned by Grammarians as vulgar.
173
{iB
4
f OF THE
fi ee ek
FY
[2208] ELLIPSIS
Father that sent me,” orc provos otk eit, GAN eyo Kal o Temas pe
[xaryp]. Chrysostom says, “ Hereby he hinted (yviga7o) that it was
not He Himself alone that was to condemn them (671 ov« atros povos
aitovs katadixaler) but also the Father”: and Cramer quotes Am-
monius to the same effect. In that case we should have to supply
the sense as follows: “I and the Father that sent me [are together
as Judges].” But the simple repetition of ei, so as to mean “ But
[I am] / and the Father’,” seems more in accordance with Johannine
ellipsis and with Johannine theology. This latter view, taking the
words to declare the eternal unity of the Father and the Son, would
also include their unity in the act of judging.
[2208] xii. 8—g ‘‘Thou shalt assuredly not wash my feet.’...
‘Except I wash thee, thou hast no part with me’...‘ Lord, do not
(un) [wash] my feet (xédas) alone but also my hands and my head!’”
Verb repeated. Here, ny implies an imperative, and the accusative
shews that the construction cannot be “let not my feet (nom.) be
washed alone,” so that the grammar combines with the context to
make the elliptic construction clearer than even in English. In
xv. 4 “Abide in me, and I (or, I also) [abide] in you’,” the verb is
to be repeated, and the meaning may be paraphrased “ Your abiding
in me shall be mine in you,” or “Cause yourselves to abide in me
and [thereby] me also to abide in you.” ‘The two “abidings” are
regarded as inseparable’.
[2209] In xvilil. 39—40 “ ‘Desire ye therefore that I release
unto you the king of the Jews?’....Do not (yu) [release] this man
(rotrov)...,” as in xiii. 8—g, the py implies that the verb is to be
repeated imperatively, but instead of repeating the object (m7 ror
Bao.réa 7. *I.) a pronoun (rodrov) is substituted so that the Jews
1 Or we might supply éo7i, ‘‘ But [it is more correct to say] ‘I and the Father
that sent me.’”
* (2208 za] There follows an ellipsis of d¥vac0e kaprov pépew ad’ éavrdv, which
has to be mentally supplied after ovdé duets from the preceding dtvarac x. . ag’
€QAUTOU.
8 [2208 4] In xvii. 21 ‘‘that they may be all one: even as (xka@ws) thou, Father
{art] in me and I [am] in thee, that they also may be in us,” if the punctuation
were ‘“‘that they may be all one even as thou, Father, [art] in me,” it might be
contended that ‘‘art” is supplied from what precedes. But, if a fresh sentence
begins at ‘Seven as,” ‘‘art” is omitted in accordance with Greek idiom and must
be supplied in accordance with it—without any reference to what precedes. So
it would not fall under this group of ellipses. See 2127 4, 2132 a.
174
ELLIPSIS [2211]
avoid calling Jesus “king.” In xxi. 19—21 “‘Follow me’......
[My] Lord, but ‘Ais man, what?’” the dé denotes antithesis and
implies a preceding peév-clause, ‘ My Lord, [I on the one hand am to
do this that thou sayest] but this man on the other hand—what [is
he to do?]” The preceding context describes Peter as first
receiving the command, ‘‘ Follow,” and then (while apparently in
the act of following) as “turning” and seeing the unnamed disciple
also “following.” Hence the meaning might possibly be “I am
following thee as thou commandest, dwt this man, what [ts he doing,
following without command|?” But the subsequent context (“If
I will that he tarry till I come...”) points to the /wéure as the object
of Peter’s question : and both Origen and Chrysostom take it thus’.
(a) “EAN OYN BewpATe (vi. 62)
[2210] Perhaps the following extremely difficult passage is a case
of contextual ellipsis, vi. 62 ‘This [it seems] causes you to
stumble! Jf (éav) therefore (ovv) ye should be beholding (Pewpyre)
the Son of man ascending where he was before—*.” ‘The interpre-
tation turns on (1) the connexion implied by “therefore,” (2) the
meaning of “behold,” whether literal or spiritual, and in good sense
or bad, (3) the nature of the ‘“‘ascending,” whether literal or spiritual,
(4) the words omitted in ellipsis.
[2211] (1) “Therefore,” following an implied statement “ye
stumble at this,” would naturally introduce an argument @ fortiori,
“Much more, therefore, will ye stumble” (see ovv, 2192) or some-
thing equivalent to it. (2) ‘ Behold” dewpyre (for which Chrysostom
reads idnre) has been shewn (1598) to include vacant, unintelligent,
and unspiritual “‘beholding.” (3) ‘‘ Ascending to heaven,” when
previously predicated concerning the Son of Man in this Gospel
(ii. 13 ‘“‘No man hath ascended into heaven but only he that
descended from heaven, the Son of man”) is connected with the
“lifting up of the serpent” in the wilderness, and apparently with
sacrifice for sin. If that is the meaning here, “‘ascending where he
1 [2209 a] ’AxodovPe wor...Obros dé ti; On this Origen says (Huet ii. 405 D)
BovNomevos wabety kal 7d kata Tov “Lwavyyy Tédos, and Chrys. ad loc. ov Thy avriy
new oddv née; For an altern. ellipsis of yerjoerar see 2386 c.
2 [2210 a] Todro buds cxavdadifea,; édv otv Oewpire Tov vidv ToD avOpwmrov ava-
Baivovra drov jv TO mpétepov; SS has ‘‘but if,” @ has ‘‘quod si,” 6 and e ‘‘ quid
si,” f ‘‘si autem,” ff ‘quid ergo cum.” Though D has éay ofv, d has ‘‘quid si.”
NS om. ody.
175
[2211 | ELLIPSIS
was before” means “offering up in the flesh that supreme sacrifice
which raises the incarnate Son to the place that He had in the
bosom of the Father as the pre-incarnate Word.” But the offering
up of this sacrifice in the flesh is described by Jesus, in the passage
under consideration, as giving His “flesh and blood” to be the food
of men ; and it is the announcement of this that has caused them to
1»
**stumble’.
1 [22112] The explanation of the Johannine use of the words ‘‘ascend” and
“exalt” and of their relation to Jewish thought does not strictly belong to
Johannine Grammar: but some remarks on these points are necessary here. The
Jews were familiar with the thought of the Deliverer ‘‘ sitting on the right hand”
of God, and with the image of one like unto a Son of man ‘‘coming with the
clouds of heaven,” as also with the Psalmist’s apostrophe to the everlasting gates
to open and admit ‘‘the king of glory.” Jesus appears from the Fourth Gospel
to have given a spiritual interpretation to these metaphors. To Him ‘‘the ever-
lasting gates” were the gates of self-sacrifice. The ‘‘glory” was service. To
sacrifice Himself for men was, relatively to men, giving Himself up entirely, to
them and for them. But, relatively to God, it might be called the ‘‘ ascending ”
of the Son to the place ‘‘ where he was before.”
[2211 4] The whole of Christ’s life might be accurately described as a sacrifice,
or a ‘‘ glorifying” of God, or as a process of ‘‘ascending” to the Father: but the
term ‘‘ glorifying” is more particularly used for the Crucifixion and the Resur-
rection as summing up the essence of the life: The punishment of Crucifixion (as
we know from Artemidorus’ Manual of Dreams and from Jewish sources) was
frequently referred to as a ‘‘lifting up”; and similar allusions are found in the
Fourth Gospel, never in the Synoptists. Hence, when the Jews stood round the
Cross of Christ ‘‘staring and gaping” upon Him, as the Psalmist says, they were
really ‘‘ beholding Him going up to the place where He was before.” And some
thought of this kind—some notion of unintelligent ‘‘staring and gaping ’’—may
have been in John’s mind when he described the soldier piercing Christ’s side, as
fulfilling the prophecy ‘‘ they shall look on him whom they pierced.”
[2211 ¢] On the late Jewish use of ‘“‘lifted up” for ‘‘crucified,” or ‘‘ hanged,”
see Levy i. 549 6 (quoted in 1003c). Artemidorus, too, writing in the second
century, connects dreams about “ /é/ting up” and ‘‘stretching out of hands” with
crucifixion, thus, i. 76 €/ dé rus WnNos él Tivos dpxotro, els PbBov Kai déos Tecetrac:
Kakoupyos O€ wv oTravpwinoeTat dia TO UWos Kal Thy THY XEipGy ExTaow, and again
in his special section on dreams ‘‘about the Cross” (ii. 53) dyadv 6€ kal mévynre-
kal yap bWndds 6 cravpwhels Kal modXovs Tpédet, z.e. ‘* Such a dream betokens good
for a poor man also; for the crucified is ‘/z/ted up’ and he ‘feeds many.” ‘*To
feed many” means to be a rich man with plenty of slaves. But it also contains a
grim allusion to the fact that the crucified ‘‘ fed the crows” (*‘non pasces in cruce
corvos”’), which he refers to in the context, Tas cdpxas dro\NVovew ol cravpwhévTes,
“*the crucified /ose their flesh.” For a bachelor, he adds, the cross betokens a
marriage, ‘‘but not at all a profitable one,” by reason of the ‘‘dznding.’ The
cross also prevents a man from going forward (émiBaiverv) on the land and from
>
staying where he would like to stay. To be crucified in a city (zé.) ‘‘ signifies
176
ELLIPSIS [2212]
[2212] According to this view, Gewpew is used here, as in some
other passages of the Fourth Gospel (1598) for unintelligent “be-
holding,” seeing with the eyes of the flesh: and the meaning of the
passage is, “ Doth this cause you to stumble, [the mere setting forth,
in word, of the doctrine of a self-sacrificing Messiah]? [ Wiad]
therefore {will ye do, and how much more grievously will ye stumble|
if ye behold! [the fulfilment, in act, of my doctrine, not your doctrine,
of the Messianic glory ; if, instead of gazing at the King of glory
going up in visible splendour on the clouds of heaven, ye ‘stand
staring and gaping’ at] the [crucified] Son of man, [going down as
ye suppose to Sheol, but in fact] going up where He was before*?”
some office corresponding to the place wherein the cross is erected (apx7jy Tova’rny
onualver olos dv 7% 6 Témos év 6 aTaupos EornKev).” In a later section about
“carrying (Baord¢ew) and being carried (BaordferGaz)” (ii. 56) he again refers to
the cross. Some of these details are curiously similar to xxi. 18 ‘‘thou shalt
(1) stretch out thy hands, and another shall (2) gzvd (i.e. bind) thee, and shall
(3) dear thee where thou dost not desire,” to which is added, ‘‘ this he said signifying
by what death he [z.e. Peter] should glorify God.” See 2642 6.
1 [2212a] The present subjunctive may, perhaps, be regarded as prophetic
present, or it may denote continuance, ‘‘what if ye find yourselves beholding....”
2 [2212 4] Chrysostom, reading av oty tdnre, likens this mention of ‘‘ascending”
to Christ’s promise to Nathanael (‘‘thou shalt see greater things than these...
[angels of God ascending]”’) and to Christ’s argument with Nicodemus (‘* No man
hath ascended to heaven except the Son of man...’”). He seems to reject the in-
terpretation given above, saying ‘‘Doth He knit perplexities with perplexities ?
No. God forbid! But by the grandeur of His doctrines, and by their abundance,
He desires to attract them (7r@ peyé0e Tv Soyudtwy Kal TH mAnAE aTovs
émayayéobar Boverat).””
[2212c] This feeling (namely, that Christ is looking forward to a time when
the disciples will zo¢ ‘‘stumble”) has probably caused the alterations in the text
mentioned above (2210a). For, if dé be read for otv, then contrast replaces
inference, and the whole meaning is changed to something of this kind: ‘* Zhds
(emph.) causeth you to stumble: du¢ [wazt a little, what will ye say] if ye should
be [soon] beholding the Son of man visibly ascending [in triumph] where He was
before? [Then ye will cease to stumble].” There is much against this. It
involves an alteration of a difficult text to a less difficult one. Moreover, though
all Christians (like the martyr Stephen) might be represented as seeing Christ at
the right hand of God, only an exceptional few (Acts i. 2—13) could be repre-
sented as seeing Him 7 the act of ascending to God. It seems to take @ewpijre as
being a fleshly ‘‘beholding” and yet as one that will remove a stumbling-block.
It does not tell us who will thus ‘‘behold”—or when, and how, they will be
delivered from “stumbling” by the ‘‘beholding.” The Acts, which relates the
Ascension, implies that a small number witnessed it. But those whom Christ
was now addressing were apparently a large number, for He says to them (vi. 64)
“‘There are some of you that believe not,” and then it is added ‘‘Many of his
disciples went back.”
A. VI. 177 12
[2213] ELLIPSIS
(iil) Idiomatic
(a) Ellipsis of “some”
[2213] The most important elliptical expression in John is the
Graeco-Hebraic use of “I am” (without any predicate expressed or
implied in the context) for which see 2220foll. There are two or
three omissions of av with the indicative, which need little comment?.
But the omission of ‘‘some” in the phrase “some of” requires
notice. For the most part it is free from ambiguity, as in vi. 39
“that...[ may not lose [azy] of it (Wa... dodeow é€ avrod),”
where, strictly speaking, sdév would be supplied, not tm, vii. go
[Some] of the crowd, therefore (é« tod dxAov odv), having heard
these words, said...,” xvi. 17 “ There said therefore [some] of («trav
ovv éx) the disciples...,” xxi. ro “ Bring [some] of (azo) the fish.”
[2214] The following is ambiguous, i. 24 Kai dreoradpévor joav
ex tov Papicaiwv, R.V. txt ‘‘And they had been sent from the
Pharisees,” R.V. marg. “and [certain] had been sent from among
the Pharisees.” In favour of R.V. marg. are the following facts,
(1) The partitive use of é« is very frequent in John®. (2) John has
already told us who sent the deputation (i. 19 “The Jews sent to
him ”). (3) ‘“‘Some of the Pharisees” makes excellent sense. ‘Priests
and Levites” alone have been as yet mentioned: and they (we may
suppose) have asked their questions, and have been silenced. They
are on the point of going back to those who sent them, carrying
a merely negative answer (“I am not the Christ” etc.). But now it
is added that there were “‘ Pharisees” on the deputation, men learned
in the Law and the Traditions, given to ask “ By what authority ?”
and not so easily silenced: these therefore intervene with the question,
‘“Why baptizest thou then?” ‘These arguments are not conclusive,
but they make it probable that there is an ellipsis of ‘some*.”
[2215] ix. 4o “ [Some] of the Pharisees heard these things (jxoveav
ex tov ®, radra)—those that were with him (ot wer’ avrod ovres)—and
1 [2213 a] xv. 22, 24 duapriay ovk elyooay, xix. 11 ovK elxes €ovclay. In Viii.
39, we ought probably to read, with W.H. txt, wovetre (not, with W.H. marg.
éroetre), see 2078—9. “Av is said to be (Winer p. 382) regularly omitted in modern
Greek in such instances, and the omission is freq. in later classical Greek. It
might also be a Latinism. Perhaps in N.T. it adds force, ‘‘they would assuredly
have had no sin.” See also 2698.
2 It is about as freq. in Jn as in Mk, Mt. Lk. together.
$ [2214a] Chrysostom and many scribes of various Mss. read ol before
dmecradpuevor, as A.V. “they which were sent,” so as to leave no ellipsis.
178
}
ELLIPSIS [2216 |
said, Are we also blind?” A.V. “And [some] of the P. which were
with him,” R.V. “Zhose of the Pharisees which were with him.”
John’s frequent use of apposition (1928—47) combines here with
his frequent use of partitive é«, to make an ellipsis of teves almost
certain. Chrysostom in his comment (“There say unto Him [some]
of those that were following Him!'”) apparently takes it thus, and
he suggests that the evangelist added the clause ot pet avrod to
shew that they were the same that had previously revolted and
afterwards tried to stone Him*. This construction (“[some] from,”
z.e. [some] of ”) is frequent in Hebrew and fairly frequent in LXX.
In both, it gives rise to ambiguities, eg. Lev. xxv. 33 (R.V.) “If one
of the Levites redeem,” marg. “redeem from the Levites,” where
LXX (apa) takes the latter view, but Aquila and Symmachus (ék)
the former®.
(8) Ellipsis (?) of “gate” (v. 2)
[2216] v. 2 (R.V.) “ Now there is in Jerusalem dy the sheep [gate]
(eri 7H mpoBatixH) a pool...,” A.V. “dy the sheep [market] (marg.
gate).” The text is probably corrupt. But in any case no solid
grounds have been alleged for the hypothesis of an ellipsis of ‘‘ gate.”
(1) Eusebius, Jerome, Chrysostom, and the ancient Latin and Syriac
versions make no mention of “gate” in connexion with this passage.
(2) Nehemiah mentions all the gates of Jerusalem, the ‘ sheep-gate”
among them, where the context would make his meaning quite
clear without ‘‘gafe”; yet the noun “gate” is never omitted by
his narrative in Hebrew or Greek*. (3) No instance of such an
ellipsis has ever been quoted from Greek literature (although it
would probably have been frequently used if it existed in that
language, as in German). (4) Wetstein has shewn that a Jewish
1 Adyoucw abt@ éx Tay akoNovdotvTwy ait, Mh Kal juets TUPAol éecper 5
2 [2215 a] Ovx amdas dé 6 evayyedtoTis euvnudvevoery, STL HKovcay éx TOV
Papicaiwy raira oi wer’ adTod ovres, kal elrav: Mi kai tuets TUPAol éEowev; GAN iva
ge dvauvjoy OTL ovTa EKxelvot joav ol mpdTepov amocrdyTes, elra NOdoavTes, Kal
padiws els rovvayrloy meraBaddduevor.
3 [22156] In Dan. i. 6 Theod. éx ‘‘of the number of =LXX €éx 706 yévous
“descended from.’ Int Esdr. v. 45 of ék alters the sense of the Heb. of Ezr. ii.
70 “‘some of,’ LXX dréd Tov. Int Esdr, i. 8, €x rOv Baoicxdy ‘from the king’s
[treasures] (?king’s officers)” =2 Chr. xxxv. 7—8 ‘‘from the king’s substance.
And his princes....”
a [2216;a)| Neh. ii. 13, 145 il. 1,3, 13, 14 etc. Im Neh. xit. 31 <‘the dung-
gate,” LXX omits the whole; & has rjs xowplas, with rs w¥Ans superscr.
179 12—2
[2217] ELLIPSIS
word similar to zpoBarexy (and perhaps transliterated from it) was in
use to mean “bathing place.” (5) This might be interpreted in
Greek as ‘‘pool (xoAvpBn6pa),” besides being transliterated in the
text as mpoBarixy, “bathing place.” (6) On the three occasions
where zpoBatixy occurs in LXX it happens to be joined to 7vAy
(Neh. iii. 1, 32, xii. 39) so that the adjective might naturally suggest
the interpolation of “gaze” to any persons perplexed by the apparent
use of zpoBarixy as a noun. (7) Thus the two words might be
combined so as to give the sense of a “pool” near a “‘sheep-gate.”
There may not be quite enough evidence to support this expla-
nation ; but, in any case, so far as we are acquainted at present with
the Greek language, there is no evidence at all for the ellipsis of
“cc 199
gate.
(y) Ellipsis of “daughter ” (or “ wife”?)
[2217] xix. 25 (R.V.) “Mary ¢he [wzfe] (y) of Clopas.” The
almost universal practice in Greek writers is to use 7 Tod ’A. to mean
“the [daughter] of A.” Ina few special cases, where the relationship
was historically known, 7 rot ‘A. might mean “the mother, or sister,
or wife, of A.,” but these are not to the point here. In Latin,
“Verania Pisonis” is used for ‘Piso’s [wife] Verania,” and such
a use of the genitive is current in some parts of England: but
obviously it would lead to confusion if ‘‘Clopas’s Mary” could
mean indiscriminately either ‘mother, daughter, or wife, of Clopas.”
The reasons for believing that 7 rod must here have been intended
to mean “‘ daughter” must be deferred to another work.
(d) *AAN ina, see 2063—4 and 2105—12.
(e) Oyy on
[2218] Some verb or phrase is omitted in connexion with odx
ott as follows: (1) vi. 45—6 (R.V.) “Every one that hath heard
from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me. JVof ¢hat (od x
671) any man hath seen the Father, save he which is from God, he
1 [22164] As regards the possible ellipsis in v. 44 Thy ddéav Thy mapa Tod
pévov [Ae00], and the question whether ‘‘the Alone” is here used for God, see
1895. For the ellipsis of iwariow in xx. 12 év devKois, comp. Rev. iii. 4 mept-
marhocovow...€v Nevxots, and Artemid. ii. 3 év Neuvxols expéperPar, also Mt. xi. 8,
Lk. vii. 25 év wadaxots. Wetst. on Jn v. 44 supplies more instances, Latin as well
as Greek.
180
ELLIPSIS [2219]
hath seen the Father’,” (2) vii. 22 (R.V.) “For this cause hath
Moses given you circumcision (ot that it is of Moses but of the
fathers); and on the sabbath ye circumcise a man” (A.V. “xot
because it is of Moses”)?. Compare 1 Jn iv. g—10 (R.V.) “Herein
was the love of God manifested in us, ¢hat (or) (A.V. because that)
God hath sent his only begotten son...Herein is love, ot that (odx
ott) we loved God but that (aAX’ dre) he loved us and sent...%.” In
the Epistle év rovrm...or. appears to mean “Herein...[Z mean tn the
Jact| that,” and év rovrw...odx ote “ Herein...[Z do] not [mean in the
Sact| that.”
[2219] As regards the two passages in the Gospel, it is not
possible to demonstrate that or: means “that ” (and not “ because ”)—
just as, in English, it is not possible sometimes to decide whether the
expression “ot that I wish” means “|Z say this] not because 1 wish”
or “|Z do] not [mean to say| that \ wish.” But, having regard to the
classical* and the Pauline’ uses of odx or, and to the contexts of the
two Johannine passages, we may conclude that ‘7 say” (whether
in the sense of “I mean” or otherwise) is to be supplied in both
of them. That being the case, it will be more in accordance with
1 [2218 a] Ilds 6 dxo’cas mapa Tod matpods Kal pabwy epxerar mpods Eué. ovdKX STL
Tov matépa éwpakéy Tis ef wy 0 Wy mapa [Tov] Aeod, otros Ewpakey Tov Tarépa.
Origen (Huet ii. 293 A) 6 wy mapa 7T@ marpi, and so SS ‘‘he that is with God,”
Chrys. Ist, 6 @y rapa Tod Geod, 2nd, 6 wy éx Tov Geod.
2 [22186] Arad rodro Mwvojs dédwxey buiv tiv mepirouny,—ovx Gri Ex Tov
Mwvoéws éotiv add\’ éx Tov Tarépwr,—xal [év] caBBdtw mepitéuvere dvOpwrov.
SS ‘‘not because...but because,” 4, e, and f ‘‘not because,” @ om. ‘‘ because.”
3 [2218 ¢] Ev ro’rw épavepwOn h ayaa Tod Oeod ev nuty, bre Tov viov ad’rov Tov
movoyev améoraNkev 6 Oeds...€v ToUTW éoTly N aydmn, ovX OTL NuEls NyaTHKauev TOV
Gedy, adr’ bre abros jydrnocev Huds Kal améoreriey.... But Jn ix. 30 €v TovTw yap
7) Oavuacréy éotw ore is to be explained differently, since ‘‘in this” means ‘‘in
your not knowing” (comp. ‘‘ we know not”) and 67: means ‘‘because.”” See 2393.
4 [2219 a] In classical Greek ovy 67s means (1) ‘‘[I do] zot [say only] ¢haz,”
i.e. ‘Snot only”; (2) ‘‘[I do] zo¢ [mention the fact] chaz,” i.e. ‘‘I pass over the
fact,” e.g. Plat. Protag. 336 D ‘‘Socrates will not forget—J take no account of the
fact that (obx ért) he jokes and says he is forgetful,” z.e. ‘‘although he jokes,”
comp. Gorg. 450E. Similarly, but with iva wh Néyw cou drt, Philem. 19, “‘7o0¢ to
say that you owe me also yourself.”
> [2219 4] In 2 Cor. vii. g ‘‘ Now I rejoice, #of because,” the meaning is clear,
and there is no ellipsis, and prob. in 2 Cor. iii. 4—5 ‘‘This great confidence we
have...#o¢ because...,” and 2 Thess. iii. 7—9: but in 2 Cor. i. 23—4 ‘‘I gave up
my plan...from a desire to spare you,” the best meaning of the following ovx 6re
is attained by some insertion of ‘‘say” as ‘‘[Z say this] not because,” or ‘‘[Z do]
not [mean to say] that,” and so in Phil. iii. r1o—12, iv. 1o—11, 17.
181
[2220] ELLIPSIS
general Greek usage if we supply A€yw not before odx dr, but before
ort, giving Aéyw the sense “I mean to say,” which it repeatedly has
in N.T., and in Greek generally, so that ov» oru is equivalent to “[Z do]
not [mean to say| that.” Then, in both passages, it will correct a
possible misapprehension. In the former, vi. 456, the words “ from
the Father ”—naturally meaning “from the home of” (2356) or “from
the side of,” the Father—might suggest a person seeing the Father
face to face. This is disclaimed by the words “‘[Z do] not [mean] that
any one hath seen the Father.” In vu. 22, there is a similar disclaimer,
“Moses hath given you circumcision—[Z do] not [mean to say] that
he originated it, but it was from the fathers.”
(€) Ellipsis after “I am”
[2220] In the Walking on the Waters it is usual to assume that
vi. 20 éeyw eis means “/ am [indeed that which I appear to bel,”
“Tam (my very self |,” or, according to our English idiom, “/¢ zs 71.”
This would accord with what is stated in the parallel Mark-Matthew,
namely, that the disciples ‘thought they saw a phantasm’*.” In
opposition to this, Christ might naturally be supposed to say “ / am
[zot a phantasm but| I [myself |.” But there is no proof that the
Greek words can mean this. And there is proof that, in the Discourse
on the Last Days, Mark uses éyw «ips to mean “J am [the Saviour,
Deliverer, or Christ).” Moreover in that Discourse Luke (who
omits the Walking on the Waters) agrees with Mark in the use of
éyw eit, and Matthew shews that he understood the phrase thus by
supplying the ellipsis, “Z am the Christ®.” Lastly, Luke indicates
that he would not have agreed in rendering ey eiwe “I am my
very self” by the fact that elsewhere, when he actually attributes a
meaning of this kind to our Lord, he adds airés’.
[2221] The N.T. use of “Z am” to mean “J am the Saviour”
is in accordance with passages in Deuteronomy and Isaiah, where
1 The same interpretation is usually given to Mk vi. 50, Mt. xiv. 27 @apceire,
éyw elut, un poBetcbe. Jn vi. 20 om. Oapoeire.
> Mk vi. 49 @6ofav dre padvracud éorw, Mt. xiv. 26 érapdxOnoav déyovres dre
Pavracpda éorw.
3 [2220a] Mk xiii. 6, Mt. xxiv. 5, Lk. xxi. 8 all have woddol (Mt.-Lk. + ydp)
éXevoovrat éml TH dvduarl wou NeydvTes (Mk + 6rt) Ey eluc (Mt.+06 Xpiords). In
Mk xiv. 62, éyw ely is not used absolutely but answers the question ‘‘Art thou
the Christ ?” where the parall. Mt. xxvi. 64 has od elwas and the parall. Lk. xxii.
67—70 has, st, éav butv elrw... and, 2nd, vmets Aéyere dre eyw elme.
4 Lk. xxiv. 39 éyw eluc ards.
182
ELLIPSIS [2222]
éyw ciue corresponds to the Hebrew “JZ [am] he [to whom all must
look|,” and is applied to God. The LXX uses the same phrase to
render the boast of Nineveh in Zephaniah, “7 [am], and there is
none else beside me.” Nor is there (as at present alleged) any
solid evidence to shew that éyw eiue could bear, at least in the first
century, anything else but this meaning—derived through LXX from
Hebraic sources—‘“‘/ am the Saviour, or Deliverer.” The Thesaurus
gives no instance of the meaning ‘‘I am my very self.” Wetstein
(on Mt. xiv. 27) quotes authority for phrases in the context, but
none for “/ am” in this sense. Westcott and Swete quote none
to the point®.
[2222] If therefore we are to be guided by evidence, we must
suppose the meaning to be, not “I am myself, Jesus of Nazareth,”
but “I am your Saviour®” It is to be interpreted as a vestige of
the poetic and Hebrew element underlying the story of the Stilling
of the Storm, in which the disciples saw the form of Jesus, and
heard Him saying, “I AM [HE],” meaning “I am He that helpeth.”
It is, then, a genuine case of ellipsis, for the meaning is not “I am”
in the sense of “I “ve” or “I exzst-eternally*.” ‘There is an ellipsis
of HE meaning, in Jewish tradition, ‘“‘ Deliverer,” but also implying
more than this, as will appear in the next Johannine instance of
e‘liarns
1 Deut. xxxii. 39, Is. xliii. 10, Zeph. ii. 15. The Heb. has ‘‘/ 4e” in the first
two, and simply ‘‘ 7” in the third.
2 [2221 a] Swete (on Mk vi. 50) says ‘“‘éyw efus=‘It is I,’ cf. Le. xxiv. 30,
ey eiut avrdés, and the use of ‘JN, LXX éyw# in the O.T. (B.D.B., p. 59).” But
Lk.’s insertion of av’rés separates his usage from that of Mk, and Gesen. p. 59
merely says that Heb. JN (LXX éya) is used ‘‘alone in response to a question,”
e.g. Gen. xxvii. 24 ‘Art thou my son Esau? And he said I [am]” 6 6€ eizev,
"Ey. None of these instances are to the point.
[2221 4] Westcott (on Jn vi. 20) says, “It is I. Comp. iv. 26, viii. 24, 28, 58,
(ix. 9), xiil. 19, xvill. 5, 6, 8; Mark xiii. 6, Luke xxi. 8.” But (2205) these are
either cases of contextual ellipsis or else of special and technical meaning, I AM :
and indeed Westcott himself (on viii. 24) distinguishes the technical usage from
**cases where the predicate is directly suggested by the context.”
3 [2222] Comp. Orig. on Mt. xiv. 27 (Huet i. 242 A—B) tapaxOnoducba mpiv
TpavGs kaTtahaBeiv rt 6 cwrnp july émdediunxev, which suggests how ‘‘ Saviour”
and ‘‘Jesus” might be interchanged, especially in translating from a language in
which ‘‘ Jesus” meant ‘‘ Saviour.”
4 [2222 6] The Syr. of éyw eius is a reduplication of ‘‘I,” which pronoun (Thes.
Syr.) also represents the copula, so that ‘‘I 1” may mean ‘“‘I am.”
183
[2223] ELLIPSIS
[2223] viii. 245 ‘‘‘For except ye believe that I AM, ye shall die
in your sins.’ ‘They therefore said to him, ‘Who art thou?’ Jesus
said to them, ‘[From] the beginning that which I also speak to
you'.”” The words “believe me and understand that I AM HE”
occur in Isaiah, as follows, “Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord,
and my servant whom I have chosen, that ye may know and believe
me, and understand that I[AM] HE...Yea, since the day was, I [AM]
HE’.” In the Psalms, this use of HE occurs with an ellipsis of
“art” in addressing Jehovah, ‘Thou [art] HE and thy years shall not
fail®*.” The Song in Deuteronomy says “See now that I, I, [AM]
HE,” where LXX has “See, see that I AM*” Here Philo para-
phrases I AM as “that there is from the beginning a Cause of the
Universe’.” Ibn Ezra (on Isaiah xlili. ro—13) says, “This is the
sublimest expression of the unity of God; for every other being
is different from its real form ”—apparently meaning that, whereas all
other things deviate from their ideal, God alone is true to the Ideal.
Hence God is Truth and also Perfection. Apparently he takes
I [AM] HE to mean “I am he that is,” ze. is really, eternally,
and unchangeably.
[2224] In LXX, the Hebrew I HE is regularly rendered eyo
eit. Aquila certainly rendered it so once and presumably always’.
In Hebrew, the personal pronoun ‘“‘hé” is so frequently used as a
substitute for the verb “‘to be” that Greeks might well translate ‘he ”
by eiué in this phrase. In Aramaic also (Levy) “he” is “used for
the copula” as well as for the personal pronoun’. Hence any
Semitic Logia of Jesus using this idiom would probably be rendered
in Greek for the most part by éyw civ. In the Psalms, HE in “Thou
[art] HE” is once rendered 6 airds, “the same*.” The Semitic I
HE is perhaps latent under éyw cis adrds, assigned to Christ by
Luke alone’. But the text is doubtful (2699 foll.).
1 [2223 a] "Hav yap wh mustevonre bre ey eluc amobavetabe ev Tats auaprlas
ipav. As to “the beginning” and ‘‘that which I also speak,” see 2154—6 and
2225.
2 Is. xliii. 1o—13, comp. xlvi. 4, xlviii. 12 (2224).
3 Ps. cii. 27 (lit. Heb.) R.V. ‘‘Thou art the same.” 4 Deut. xxxil. 39.
5 [22234] Philo i. 258 Gre éore Te Kal bmdpxe TO THY Swy alriov, and he
paraphrases dre "Evyw eluc tere as Ti éuhy traptw Oedcacde.
6 [2224] In Is. xlviii. 12, where LX X om. the phrase, Aq. Sym. and Theod.
render I HE by éyw elu, and Aq. is so consistent in his general renderings that
he may be presumed to have been consistent in this particular one.
7 Levy Ch. i. 195 4. S Ps. cil. 27. 9 Lk. xxiv. 39:
184
oe
ELLIPSIS [2226]
[2225] That John, when writing “believe that I AM,” did not
mean exactly “believe that I am the eternal God,” may be inferred
from several facts. (1) Christ’s hearers (until they heard the words
“before Abraham?!”) did not take I AM in that sense. Else they
would have stoned Jesus at once. (2) The words are put by the
Synoptists into the mouth of any false Messiah that might say, in
effect, “I am the Deliverer.” (3) John always represents the Son as
claiming to reveal the Father and to be one with the Father, but never
as claiming to be the One God. It is not so easy—probably it is
impossible—to define exactly John’s positive meaning: but some light
may be thrown on it by the first of the passages in which Isaiah uses
the phrase. It runs thus in Hebrew ‘‘ Ye are my witnesses, saith
Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen, in order that ye may
know and believe in (lit. to) me, and may understand that I[ AM] HE®.”
The Targum has (after ‘‘ Jehovah”) ‘my servant Christ whom I have
chosen that ye may know and believe before me and may understand
that I [AM] HE ¢hat is from the beginning.” Thus, if we, as it were,
interrogate the speaker in Isaiah as to the meaning of I HE and ask
“What art thou?” the Targum answers “HE ¢hat zs from the be-
ginning.” But this is curiously like the question and answer in John
after Jesus had insisted on the necessity of believing ‘“‘that I AM.”
The Jews had asked “Who art thou?” and the first word of Christ’s
reply is “[In] the beginning (rv apxyv)’*.”
[2226] There are several interesting resemblances between the
Hebrew doctrine of the I HE (or the Greek doctrine of the I AM)
in Isaiah and the Johannine doctrine about the unity of the Father
and the Son. For example, “My Father worketh from the beginning
1 viii. 58. 2 Nssexiitie TOs
3 [2225a] The Targ. paraphrases I HE elsewhere as follows, Deut. xxxii.
39 (Heb. “I, I, HE”) (Jer. 1) ‘‘I [am] He who Am and Was, and Will be,”
(Jer. 11) ‘‘I 22 my word [am] He”; Ps. cii. 27 ‘Thou [art] He that created us” ;
in Is. xliii. 13 Heb. “From the day I HE” is (Targ.) ‘‘From eternity I HE”;
in Is. xlvi. 4 ‘‘Even to old age I HE” =Targ. ‘‘Even to eternity I HE.” Perh.
the Targumist regarded ‘‘from eternity” and ‘‘to eternity” as attributes, and
therefore did not in these last two passages insert such predicates as ‘‘that created
us” or ‘‘that is from the beginning” etc. Comp. Is. lii. 6 ‘‘ Therefore my people
shall know my name, therefore [I say, they shall know] in that day that I [AM]
HE that speaketh, behold me” (Ibn Ezra ‘‘when I shall proclaim, Behold it is
I”). Swete punctuates the LXX é7e éyw elms adds 6 NaAGv* maperme, but there are
many ways of combining the words. The Targ. is (Walton) ‘‘scietis, quoniam ego
sum qui loquebar et Verbum meum permanet.”
185
[2227] ELLIPSIS
and I work,” ‘“‘I—and yet not I, but I and the Father that sent me,”
combined with the present passage (“I AM....From the beginning
that which I speak unto you”) appear to represent the Son as “from
the beginning” at one with the Father in “working” the work of
supporting and redeeming man. So in Isaiah, we find, in one and
the same context, “I AM,” together with “from the beginning” (in
Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek’), and “I will work*, who shall hinder
it?” Another passage introduces “speaking,” “I [AM] HE that
speaketh’.”
[2227] One of the most spiritually minded of the early Rabbis,
Abba Saul, who flourished about 130 4.D., extracting the words
I AND HE out of a passage of Scripture where they -have no
existence, paraphrases them thus, “I will be like Him [z.e. God]: as
He is merciful and kind, so will I too be merciful and kind*.”
Commenting on the Isaiah passage (Is. xlvi. 3) that describes Jehovah
as carrying His people, Ibn Ezra says “The idols of Babylon are
carried by their worshippers but I, the God of Israel, carry the
Israelites.” This conception of man as being zz ‘‘the arms” of God,
his Father—and not as crouching wuder “the arm” of God, his
Chastiser, pervades the whole of the Fourth Gospel. It may be
taken as certain that the evangelist attaches some meaning of this
kind to the Greek words I AM in virtue of their association with the
thought of God carrying man in His bosom, It would be bathos
to suppose that Jesus, after saying “I am the bread of life” and “1
am the light of the world,” now comes down to the bare “I am”
implying nothing more than mere existence, conceivably bad as
well as good.
1 [2226a] The Heb. is (Is. xliii. 13) ‘from the day” (R.V. txt “since the
day was”), which is rendered by LXX ‘‘ from the beginning.” The Aramaic has
here ‘‘ from eternity,” and inserts in xliii. 10 ‘‘he that is from the beginning.”
2 (22264) The Heb. of Is. xliii. 13 ‘‘ work” is regularly rendered épyagouac
(though LXX renders it ‘‘make (70) ” here) which is the word in Jn v. 17 ‘‘My
Father worketh and I work.”
[2226¢] The curious juxtaposition of ‘‘szow” and ‘‘ dedieve” in connexion
with I AM in Is. xliii. 10, and the phrase (Is. lii. 6) ‘‘[they shall know] in that
day that I [am] he that sfeaketh,” may be compared with the Johannine form of
Peter’s confession (Jn vi. 68—g) ‘‘ Thou hast words of eternal life, and we know
and believe that thou art the holy one of God.”
PMSealite Oe
4 See 1022. Bacher (Die Avada, ii. 367) shews that some versions have ‘‘ Be
thou like,” but prefers the above.
186
ELLIPSIS [2228]
[2228] Much more probably we may suppose I AM to come
here, absolutely,—as a climax after the previous declarations about
the “bread” and the “light ”—conveying a great mass of meaning
that would not be fully intelligible to any readers that had not
pondered on the meaning of the divine I AM, and perhaps on
the meaning of “I’.”. On the one hand I AM means more than
“T am the Deliverer”; on the other, it means less than “I am
the eternal God.” Taken by itself, “Believe that I AM” might
mean, as it means in Deuteronomy, “Believe in the unity of the
Supreme God, the Deliverer of Israel”: but, taken here, along
with other declarations about what Jesus IS, it seems to call
upon the Pharisees to believe that the Son of man is not only the
Deliverer but also one with the Father in the unity of the Godhead.
Many may be unable to believe that our Lord actually uttered these
precise words in this sense and may yet find it quite possible to
believe that they represent the essence of His doctrine, namely, that
the Father is revealed to men in the ideal of humanity (with which
He is at one) and not in a written law. Others may go further, and
may believe that Jesus felt Himself to be thus absolutely at one with
the Father.
1 [2228 a] The doctrine of Epictetus (ii. 22. 15—20) concerning the ‘‘I” is
worth noting in this connexion. Wherever the ‘‘1” and the ‘‘ Mine” are, there,
he says, will be every creature’s inclination (compare ‘‘ Where your treasure is
there will be your heart also”) : Every creature loves its own “‘ profit (suu@pépov)”
above all things, ‘‘ This, z.e. profit, is father and brother and kindred and country
and God.” If therefore a man ‘‘ identifies ‘profit’ with piety and honour and
country and parents and friends, these are saved, all of them”; if not, they are
outweighed by ‘“‘profit.” Zhdzs zdentification of the “profit” of the “I” with
Goodness, is what a Jew might express mystically by saying ‘‘Z am He.”
Epictetus adds (2é.) that we must needs desire to destroy anyone—brother,
father, child—that comes between us and ‘‘ profit” (‘‘ Unless a man hate his
own father...he cannot be my disciple”) but that if the ‘‘I” is identified with
virtuous purpose, he will become a perfect friend, son, and father (Mk x. 30 ‘“‘he
shall receive a hundredfold...mothers...”).
[2228 6] The Synoptic form of these doctrines may have influenced Epictetus
and may have led him to think that virtuous philosophers might find their Son of
man in themselves, each man in his own heart: ‘‘I will zo¢ ‘ lose my soul that I
may find it.” I will worvshzg my own soul, my own higher purpose, my spirit
contending against the flesh.” John may have written with some regard to such
conclusions, putting the Synoptic doctrine in a new aspect, or developing it in an
old aspect neglected by the Synoptists, in order to shew that the regeneration of
man, if it was to be based on ‘‘I,” must be based on a different one from the
philosophic ‘‘ Ego.”
187
[2229] ELLIPSIS
(7) Ellipsis of écti
[2229] In ii. 4 ré éuot wat coi, and in xxi. 22 rf mpods o€; there
is an ellipsis of éoré. Ti mpos oé (of which Wetst. ad Joc. alleges
comparatively few instances) presents no difficulty, as meaning
“What [is it] in relation to thee?” ¢.e. What does it concern thee?
Wetst. quotes Glycas, Anna. iv. p. 255, Athol. Mss. i. 1, and
Epictet. (but without reference) py tpooéAOys* ovd€ev éate mpéds ce (sic),
and ri rpos eye;
[2230] Tv éuoi cai cod might, theoretically, be rendered “What
does this concern me and thee?” for ti pou, dy itself, might mean
“what does it concern me?” as in Epictet. iii. 22. 66 (foll. by infin.).
But, as a fact, both in Hebrew and Greek (Wetst. on Mt. viii. 29)
“What [is there] Zo me and thee?” always implies “to me and thee
zn common,” so that the meaning is, ‘““What have we to do with one
another?” [Wetst. compares Josh. xxii. 24, 2 S. xvi. 10, 1 K. xvii. 18,
2K. xvi. 10, 2 Chr. xxxv. 27, Joel um. 4. But mJosh. xxi 24, TeX
omits kai, 2 K. xvi. ro is a repetition (by error) of 2 S. xvi. 10, and
in Joel ili, 4 LXX has (as Heb.) té tpets euod;] It occurs in
Aristoph., Demosth., Epictet., Achill. Tat., Anacreon etc., and none
of Wetstein’s numerous quotations adds an explanatory phrase except
Synesius, dypwm yap 6) Kal ptocodpia té zpos GAAHAOvs; The phrase
was so common that no contemporary (2642) Greeks could doubt
that zpos édAyAovs had to be supplied’.
[2230 (i)] The ellipsis of éo7/ in the phrase én puxpdv is found
in no Gospel but the Fourth, xiv. 19 “ Yet a little (ére puxpdv) and
the world no longer beholdeth me: ye (emph.) behold me.” The
Epistle to the Hebrews, quoting from prophecy, says, ““Ye have
need of patience, that having done the will of God ye may gather
‘ [2230 a] In v. 36 ‘‘ The witness that I have is greater than [that of] John,”
éyw d€ éxw Thy papruplay pelfw Tod "I., there is, perhaps, no ellipsis of ris
Haprupias before rod “I. Somewhat similarly we sometimes substitute the
person for his work in vernacular English (as well as in Latin and Greek)
especially when speaking about a picture or poem, ‘‘ This is rather /é#e Gains-
borough,” ‘‘ deter than Linnell,” ‘‘ almost egua/ to Tennyson,” ‘‘ He was better
than his word,” ‘‘ How very ke him to say that!” etc. Winer explains in the
same way (Mt. v. 20) ‘‘ Except your righteousness (lit.) abound more than the
scribes,” and gives frequent instances in Greek and Latin. Probably the meaning
here is all the stronger for the omission of ris u.: ‘* The witness that I have is
above the level of John.”
188
ELLIPSIS [2230 (iii)
in (kouionoGe)' the promise, For yet a “ttle, just a little, [and] he
that cometh will come’.” ‘This illustrates the regular use of the
phrase in O.T. in predictions announcing the approaching doom
of the enemies of Jehovah and the deliverance of His people, who
are exhorted to wait “yet a little” The ellipsis of éoré after ez
is not mentioned in the Thesaurus and appears to spring from
Hebrew sources.
[2230 (ii)] Similar ellipses of ‘‘are,” with mention of time, occur
in O.T. in connexion with the judgment of Jehovah that will surely
come to pass in “yet seven days,” ‘“‘yet forty days,” “yet a year” etc.*
Compare the ¢hought in iv. 35 ‘“‘Say ye not, ‘Yet are four months
and the harvest cometh’? Behold, I say unto you, lift up your eyes
and contemplate the lands how that they are white for reaping.
Already doth the reaper receive hire and gather fruit for life eternal.”
As the Gospel connects this numbering of “ months” with a sub-
sequent mention of ‘““zre,” so does Isaiah, “Within yet a year as
>P)
the year of a hireling,” and elsewhere he says, “Within ¢iree years,
as the years of a hireling, and the glory of Moab shall be brought
into contempt’,” meaning apparently that Israel counted the days
“like the days of an hireling, as a servant that earnestly desireth
the shadow, and as an hireling that looketh for his wages*®.”
[2230 (11i1)] As regards the period of “four months,” it appears”
that the Jews divided the agricultural year into six periods of two
months, the first four being “‘ seed-time,” “winter,” “winter-solstice,”
“harvest.” It might therefore be common for farmers and labourers
>
1 [2230 (i) a] Not quite the same as ‘‘receive,” see L.S. quoting Dem. 304.
26 Tous Kapmovs Kexouobe ‘ ye have reaged the fruits,” and Herod. ii. 14 kapzoy x.
“* gather im corn.”
* Heb. x. 37 ere yap puxpov dcov door, 6 épxdmevos n&ec quoting from Is. xxvi. 20
amoxpv3nOe urxpov 6cov dcov and from Hab. ii. 3 foll. (LXX).
3 [2230 (i) 6] Comp. Rey. vi. 11 ‘‘that they should rest yet a /éttle time,” and
See IIS; oo BE webs Wy Ie Me BS, IalOss To Zc
4+ [2230 (ii) a] Gen. vii. 4 (R.V.) ‘‘ For yet seven days and I will...” ém yap
nuepav érra éyw (Heb. lit. ‘to days” and om. ‘‘and”), Is. xxi. 16 ‘‘ Within yet
a year as the year of a hireling and all the glory of Kedar shall fail,” ére évcauros
ws €. wis Awrod, exeiWer 7 ddEa T. viGy K., Jon. iil. 4 ‘* Yet forty days and Nineveh
shall be overthrown,” LXX (by error) ére rpets judpar kal N. karacrpapjoerat.
PWS S8a 1A,
6 [2230 (ii) 6] Job vii. r—2. So Ibn Ezra (Is. xvi. 14) ‘“‘As the years of a
hireling, who daily counts when the end will come; so the prophet is satisfied,
when he sees that the time of the calamity of Moab approaches.”
" Hor. Heb. on Jn iv. 35, quoting Baba Mezia 106 4,
189
[2231] INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES
at the conclusion of “‘seed-time,” to say ‘Yet four months |1.e. winter
and wenter-solstite| and the Aarvest cometh,” and from agriculturists
the saying might pass into a proverb inculcating patient expectation.
It is to be noted that Jn iv. 35 foll. is the only place in this Gospel
where “/zve” is mentioned. The meaning may be paraphrased
thus: “Do not the farmers say, /our months precisely, as the days
of a hireling—and then cometh the harvest? But I say to you,
Lift up your eyes, and see the harvest already white, and the hire
19
of the reapers already present.
IMPERATIVE, see Index
INFINITIVE, see Index
INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES
(i) Interrogative particles
[2231] John’s use of the interrogative ob”, odxi, as, 7éGev, and 7°
seldom causes ambiguity and requires littke comment. But his uses
of od py and ovxodv are unique in N.T. as follows :
1 [2230 (iii) a] Comp. Jas v. 7 ‘‘ Be therefore long-suffering...the hushandman
waiteth....” In Jn iv. 35 terpdunvds €or, there is no ellipsis; but the thought
is similar to that of the above quoted passages from O.T.
2 [2231 a] In xix. 10 éuol od Nadets ; ‘‘To me thou speakest not!” od has the
force of alpha privative, “‘ Thou refusest to speak to me!” As regards o'xi—
which (1861) is never used by Mk and is more freq. in Lk. than in Mt. and Jn
taken together—there are abundant instances in N.T. of its use interrogatively as
in Jn xi. 9. In vi. 42, W.H. has ‘ovxi! (marg. ovx) otréds éoriw “Inoois 6 vids
Twonp...; Comp. Mk vi. 3 otx otirés éorw 0 Téxrwy...; Kat odk...; Mt. xiii. 55
obx ovrés éotw...; Kal...ovxl...; Lk. iv. 22 odxi vids éorw “Iwai obros; In
Mt. v. 46, 47, vi. 25, xil. 11, the parall. Lk. rejects odxi. But Lk. freq. has ovxé
interrog. elsewhere, in traditions peculiar to himself, and also in the parall. to Mt.
x. 29. On ovxi negative, see 2265 (i).
% [22314] On xii. 27 rt eiw, see 2512 6—c, which (the view taken in 933 being
retracted) accepts the ordinary rendering *‘ What should I say...?” In iv. 27 ré
Nadeis, A.V. and R. V. give ‘‘ Why,” without alternative, and Westcott makes no~
comment. SS however has ‘‘/Vhat wast thou saying?” The Latin mss. also
have “guid loqueris” (following ‘‘guzd quaeris”) clearly meaning ‘‘what” (but
Chrys. has ov« jpéryncay rH alriav).
[2231¢] As to the interrogative use of rf generally, it has been noted (939 4)
that Jn never uses iva ri. Aca ri he never uses without a negative. Ti, “why?”
he uses frequently. “Ovi, interrogatively used sometimes in LXX, Jn never uses
thus.
190
INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES [2232]
(a) OY mA
[2232] xviii. rr “The cup that my Father hath given me sha//
T not assuredly drink it (od py wi ard)!” See 933—6, 1007, where
it is maintained that this rare interrogative is rather an exclamation
than an interrogation, and that it means literally “I am of course not
to drink it [according to your desire]!” This view is confirmed by
many details in this section shewing John’s proneness to the exclama-
tory interrogative ; and it also helps to explain (1508) one aspect of
the meaning of iv. 48 “Except ye see signs and wonders ye will
assuredly not believe (ov pa) tuotevonre)!” addressed to the nobleman
from Capernaum. Chrysostom suggests that ‘‘ye” may mean “ye
citizens of Capernaum,” and that our Lord is chiding and stimulating
his faith as being weak like that of his fellow-citizens. But the words
[2231.7] As regards ér, the LXX uses it to express a great number of Hebrew
particles, and it often represents Heb. ‘‘Why?” ‘‘For what?” ‘Is not?” ete.
But there is often v.r. ri 074; and, where oze introduces a speech, confusion may
arise from the use of 67 recitativum, e.g. Gen. xviii. 13 elrev K. mpds ’A. “Ort
éyé\acev S. (D ri ore) ‘‘ Wherefore did S. laugh?” Comp. Judg. ii. 2 v.r. 67e,
Judg. iv. 14 v.r. odx ido (where Swete marks no interrog. and 67s may mean
“*for indeed”), 2 S. vil. 7 v.r. Tt and rl o7t, xii. 9 v.r. Ti, 2 K. viii, 14 (Swete 6
, called by Blass ‘‘v.1. (in AB) for zi,” but Swete gives no v.l.), Job xxvii. 12
v.r. dia Ti O€ etc. The instances are extremely numerous.
[2231¢] These special circumstances differentiate LXX Greek (and Greek
influenced by LXX) from all other Greek, as to the use of 67 in particular and
interrogative and relative particles in general. Blass says (p. 176) ‘*the employ-
ment of éc7.s or even of és in a direct question is quite incredible, except that 6, re
appears to be used as an abbreviation for 7i 6, 7« ‘ why.’” Blass (p. 331) mentions,
as quoted against him, (1) Plut. De Sera Vind. 14 p. 558 E: but this is best punctu-
ated 76 ye capées...006’...dopadds elety éxouer, olov, did Th..., 7) wad Ov Hy airiav....
(2) 2 K. viii. 14 (see 2231@) which should not be mixed with non-LXX Gk,
(3) [Justin] Cohort. ad Graec. 5 ad fin., where the txt is doubtful, but there is
high authority for paraphrasing thus, ‘‘ Hor the same reason for which (6¢ jv airiar)
you say Homer speaks the truth when he is on your side don’t you think he speaks
Tl
the truth when we prove (adropnvauévwy for admopnvduevos) from Homer a view
opposite to yours?” (4) Euseb. PZ. vi. 7. 12 (Giff. p. 257d) ‘Qu 6€ &vexa radra
Mpoceonveyka TW Noyw—Ore oe eExmépevyev..., rendered by G. ‘‘ But do you ask
the reasons for which...”: but I should prefer: ‘‘ And now to come to the reason
for which I have introduced these matters—[it is] because....”” To these may be
added Euseb. P.Z. vi. 7. p. 256C, éxetvd wor Néye...apd yé Ti éopev ey Te kal ov;
—gains dv—rtotro dé ordev isuev; where I should suggest a repetition of Aéye.
“Tell me this...Do we exist, you and I—yes, you say of course—but [tell me]
whence we know this.” Gifford renders, in note, ‘‘ But do you ask whence do
we know this?” The facts confirm Blass’s conclusion.
IQI
[2233 | INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES
apply to men of the world generally, “Ye that are rich and great will
not believe without signs and wonders! [Is it to be so with thee '?]”
(8) OyKo¥n
[2233] xvill. 37 (R.V.) “Pilate therefore said unto him, Art
thou a king then (ovxody Bactdeds ef ov;)?” Ovxovy, unaccented, may
mean (1) “Not therefore,” (2) “It is not, then?” (3) “Then it is
so [is it not?]” In this last sense, in which it is commonly
accented ovxovv, it drops the negative and interrogative force,
so that it can be used, in the sense “well then,” even with
an imperative, as in Kings (Heb.) “Be content, take two,” where
Symmachus has “ Well then, take,” ovkodv (A ouxovr, sic) Aafe.
In such cases it means, ‘You'll do it, then, won’t you?” It may
be paraphrased as “‘come” when Persephone coaxes her husband
to make Protesilaus young again, ‘‘ Come, husband, prithee do thou
cure this ill, also®.”
[2234] In xvii. 37, the force of ovcody cannot be understood
without reference to context (and perhaps to the Synoptists). All
the four evangelists agree exactly in words and order as to the
question addressed by Pilate to Jesus, “Thou art [it seems] the king
of the Jews*!” But as to our Lord’s answer, “ Zhou sayest [this]°,”
the Synoptists assert that it followed at once, whereas John says that
Jesus answered at once, “Sayest thou this from thyself...... irk
Moreover, according to John, this answer provoked a contemptuous
reply from Pilate, which led to Christ’s explanation: ‘‘My kingdom
1 [2232a] Comp. 1 Cor. i. 26, which says that “not many mighty, not many
noble,” are chosen, after stating that (i. 22) ‘‘ Jews seek s¢gvs and Greeks wisdom.”
* [2233 a] 2 K. v. 23. Other copies have émvetk@s Ad Be, ‘‘ kindly take.”
3 [2233 6] Lucian, De Mort. xxiii. 3 (i. p. 428) odKodv, & dvep, od Kal TodT’
iacat.... Steph. quotes also De Mort. x. 4, xxiii. 2 with imperatives.
4 [2234a] Mk xv. 2, Mt. xxvii. 11, Lk. xxiii. 3, Jn xviii. 33 Dv ef 6 B. rT.
"Tovdaiwy ;
5 [22346] Xv Aéyers, but Jn has awd ceavrod ob Tobro Néyers at once, and
afterwards (xviii. 37)—in answer to the question, ovKotv Baoiels ef ci—od Néyers
ore B. elut. On od Néyers, as a formula of assent, see Wetst. on Mt. xxvi. 25. His
instances of ‘‘ vos dixistis” are from Talmudic sources. They express assent to
bad news (‘‘‘ Num mortuus est Rabbi?’ Respondit ille, ‘ Vos dixistis’”) which
a messenger shrinks from repeating to a questioner. Soin Eurip. Hzppol. 352 cod
745° odK €uod KNJets and fr. 379 (not in Dind.) od dé Néyets Tab7’, obK éyw. His only
instance from Gk prose is Xen. AZem. iii. 10. 15 a’rés, py, Todro Néyets, where
there is no bad news in the context. The use in the Gospels is prob. from
Jewish sources.
192
INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES [2235 |
is not from this world.” ‘Then, when Christ had thus admitted that
He had, zz some sense, a “kingdom,” Pilate replies—dropping “‘Jezs”
and “the”—“ Well then (ovxodv) [we will not dispute about details,
such as “the king” and “‘¢he Jews” | thou art a king.” To this, and
only to this—according to John—does Jesus assent by replying
“Thou sayest that I am a king.”
(y) MH
[2235] My (“it is not so, is it?” “can it be that?”) is used
interrogatively in the Fourth Gospel’ more frequently than in all
the Three Gospels taken together: but whereas the Three (Mark
only using it once) restrict it to the words of Jesus, John almost
restricts it to the words of others. There are but two instances
of it in Christ’s words, one being vi. 67, ‘‘ Can it be that (py) ye also
(kai tpets) desire to go away?”
1 [2235 a] It occurs about 17 times in Jn. Mk uses it only in ii. 1g (Mk xii. 15
being (933) not to the point). In Jn v. 45 mi doxe?re, imperative, SS takes uy
as interrogative, ‘‘ Can ye suppose ?”
* [2235 6] The other is xxi. 5 Havdla, uy re rpoopdyrov éxere; Field says (ad
Joc.) ““éxes TL; is the usual question...answering to our ‘ Have you had any sport ?’”
By adding y7 to the usual phrase, the negative expectation is emphasized, ‘‘ You
have caught no fish, have you?” But ought we not to read pyre (2702) ?
[2235 c] On éxere, Wetst. ad /oc. quotes conclusively Schol. on Aristoph.
Nub. 731, and Field adds, from Nonnus, 7 ‘p’ éxouév tt; where Schol. has dpa
eOnpdcauév 71; but the statement quoted by some from Euthymius that racdéa is
a term freq. applied to labourers (0s yap rods épyarixovs otrws dvoudgew) is not
proved (so as to be applicable to xxi. 5) by Aristoph. Ran. 37, Mub. 132 macdior,
“boy!” rightly explained by Steph. as ‘‘servulus.” A Greek could say macdlov
to the ‘‘ boy [at the door]” of the house he was visiting, but not racdéa to strangers
fishing. Chrys. and a omit radia. Acts of John § 2 represents Christ Himself as
appearing on the bank to James as a macdiov. See 2701.
[22352] On mpoopdyov, Field, quoting A.V. ‘‘any meat,” and R.V. ‘‘ aught
to eat,” says ‘‘ Rather, ‘Have ye taken any fish?’” Steph. shews that rpoopd-ycov
was a vernacular word for mpocdynua, dYdpiov (or dYov, which Clem. Alex. 104
substitutes (2307 2) when quoting this passage): and these words, though meaning
literally ‘‘[{relish] to food,” were frequently used for ‘‘ fish,” in places where the
habitual relish was ‘‘fish.” In Oxyr. Pap. 736, mporpdyov is rendered “relish ”
after ‘‘beer, leeks,...asparagus, a cabbage ”—‘‘a relish half an obol,” and again
“‘reltshes for the women on two days two and a half obols.” Similarly 739 ‘‘a
relish for the builder” thrice, 498 ‘‘ each of us shall receive one loaf and a relish
per diem.” In 736, the editors also give ‘‘ sauce (6Wapiov) one obol...sauce (you)
one obol, sauce (dyapiov) one obol.” These entries are on three consecutive days,
and—vegetables being excluded here by the mention of them in the context—it
would seem probable that éYov means nearly the same thing as éWdpiov and as
mpoopaytov, namely ‘‘fish” insome form. Comp. Fayum Pap. cxix. 31 ‘for G.’s
A. VIL 193 13
[2236] INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES
(ii) Interrogative tone
[2236] ‘There is frequent ambiguity in sentences where the
interrogation, if it exists, is expressed not by a particle, but by tone}.
In the first two of the following instances there is a protasis with
a suspensive 67, in the third there is not: 1. 50 (R.V. and A.V.)
“Because (7c) I said unto thee I saw thee underneath (A.V. under) the
fig-tree be/ievest thou ? thou shalt see greater things than these” ; xx. 29
(R.V. txt and A.V.) “Because (or) thou hast seen me ‘hou hast
believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen and [yet] have
believed” (R.V. marg. “hast thou believed?”); xiv. 1 (R.V.) “Ye
believe (marg. Lelieve) (murtevere) in God: believe (miocrevere) also
in me.”
[2237] The following facts bear on the last (xiv. 1) of these
ambiguous instances. ‘The meaning of the ambiguous form of the
2 pers. pl. in -ere, when it may be (theoretically) either interrogative
or affirmative or imperative, is largely determined by special custom.
@éXere, BovrAcoGc, doxeire, would naturally be interrogative, “Do ye
desire?” “Think ye?” “Axovere and Bdézere would naturally be
imperative, “‘Hear ye,” “See ye.” Apart from such special custom,
the ordinary meaning of -ere would be—where the context does not
decide otherwise—affirmative in classical Greek, because ¢he inter-
rogative force, if intended, might have been expressed by an interrogative
particle, and because the imperative might (in many cases) be
expressed by the unambiguous aorist, eg. murrevoarte®.
birthday feast send (?) fish (Wdpua) (szc) (edd. delicacies)...and an artaba of wheaten
bread”; and Oxyr. 531 Tots é6Wapiows €&n\Nak~as Huds (2?) ‘‘you won me over by the
Jish (edd. dainties).” The editors add that certain ‘‘cloaks’” mentioned in the
context may have been ‘‘in exchange for the daa.” Either interpretation would
be compatible with the rendering ‘‘fish.” Possibly, as ‘‘ pickles” with us means
“pickled (vegetables),” so the three Greek words above mentioned came to mean
in certain localities, ‘‘[ /7s/] for eating [with bread],” but different terms may have
been applied to different kinds of fish, fresh, salt etc. Oxyr. Pap. 736 perhaps
resembles Jn xxi. 5—g in using 1st mpoopdycov and 2nd 6Wdproy to mean nearly
the same thing. But in Jn the word may have a symbolic meaning (2703).
1 (2236 a] This is much more frequent in Jn than in the Synoptists, e.g. xiii. 6
ot) pou virrers rods médas ; ‘* Thou dost wash my feet!”
2 [22364] i. 50 "Ore elmdv cor ort elddy o€ broKdTw Tis cuKHs misrevers; mel~w
ro’rwy own, xx. 29 "Ore éwpakds me wemlorevkas; paxdpior olf uh lddvTes Kal
misrevoavTes, xiv. I murrevere els Tov Oedv, Kal els éuée mioreveTe, Marg. TioTEVETE,
els Tov Oedy Kal els Ewe muorevere.
3 [2237 a] The unambiguous aorist imperative, though theoretically somewhat
different in meaning, differs sometimes little (in practice) from the present
104
INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES [2240]
[2238] Ilurrevere is certainly imperative twice in Mark’ and
thrice in John? (apart from the instance (xiv. 1) under discussion).
St Paul’s exhortation to the jailor in the Acts, ‘‘ Be/zeve in the Lord
Jesus®” is in the singular besides being in the unambiguous aorist.
But it reminds us how frequent would be the plural imperative use
of the verb among evangelists during the period of numerous
conversions in the early Church.
[2239] On the other hand, muorevere occurs in Matthew’s version
of Christ’s words previous to His healing two blind men—theoretically
capable of meaning “ Believe,” or “Believe ye?” or “Ve believe [I
suppose” —before the words “that I am able to do this*.” Here
it might have been plausibly argued that Jesus used the imperative
to stimulate their faith, as He stimulates that of Jairus (“Be of good
cheer, only believe’”): but this would be incompatible with the
answer of the blind men, “Yea, Lord,” which necessitates in muorevere
a meaning either directly interrogative (““Do ye believe?”) or
indirectly (“Ye believe [I assume before going further]?”). The
latter is frequently used in English (eg. “You will come with me?”
“You will come with me, then?” for “You will come with me [will
you not ?]”).
[2240] This last disconcerting instance from Matthew shews the
difficulty and the danger of laying down a rule including all books
of N.I. Each writer may have his own usage. But the usage of
John (and of Mark, with whom John curiously agrees in some idioms)
makes it probable that in the third Johannine instance above quoted
(xiv. 1) wuxrevere is imperative, ‘‘ Geieve in God,...°.”
imperative. Comp. Mk y. 36 mloreve=Lk. vill. 50 miorevoov, and Sir. ii. 6
miotevoov adTa, ii. 8 mucrevoaTe aTw, xi. 21 TlaTeve TW KUpiw, with little apparent
difference of meaning. Some writers may be more strict than others in dis-
criminating between the two. Moreover, in particular verbs, e.g. épxouat, the use
of the present and of the aorist imperative may vary according to special circum-
stances (2438 0).
BOMB 5 ees ogi Ore 2p) impxtiey 3.05 X1ven WN (O25) 2
3 Acts xvi. 31 mlorevoor. a) Mit. ax.) 28:
5 Mk v. 36, Lk. viii. 50. Comp. Mk xi. 24 ‘‘whatsoever ye pray...de/eve
(micrevere) that ye have received them.”
6 [2240 a] Chrys. ad Joc. says, “‘Iluorevere...kal els ewe MLIOTEVETE.” TOUTETTL,
mdvra mapedevoerac Ta Sewd (Cramer, wdvta Pyoi mapedOeiv Setrac(?) Ta dewda).
“H yap els éué mistis kal tov yeyevynkéra Swvatwrépa Tey émidvtwy éori (Cramer
Tuyxdvet) Kal obdév édoer Kparjoae Tav Svoxepdv. On this Erasmus says that it
favours the rendering ‘‘Creditis in Deum et in me creditis. Atque ita legisse
195 Ul 3
[2241 | INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES
[2241] The other two instances (i. 50, xx. 29) differ from the
third, and agree together, in being preceded by a protasis with
suspensive ore (“Because I said unto thee...,” “Because thou hast
seen...”): and this leads us to ask what is John’s usage after other
Johannine instances of suspensive o7t. We shall find that there are
four, and that the verb in the apodosis is always affirmative. This
turns the scale in favour of an affirmative in i. 50 and xx. 29
“Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig-tree, thou
believest!” ‘Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed*\”
[2242] Similarly in the Acts, Paul says to Agrippa ‘Thou
believest (wuorevers) the prophets [is it not so?],” and goes on to
add the answer to this suggested question, “I know that thou
believest®,” and the Epistle of St James addresses a controversialist
ironically thus, “Zou (emph.) (av) [of course] believest that there
is one God4?”—assuming, before the writer goes further, that this
must be so, but putting the assumption as an affirmation with an
interrogative tone. In the Fourth Gospel, moreves is used by
Jesus to Martha, “thou believest this [is it not so?]*,” and, with
videtur ex interpretatione sua Chrysostomus, quasi fides guam habebant...illis abunde
preesidio esset.” But might it not be consistent with an imperative rendering:
** Be not troubled. Continue to believe.... That is to say, Your terrors will all pass
away. For the belief in me and in the Father is stronger than your enemies” ?
Erasmus says that Cyril interprets both verbs imperatively. SS and a have
“‘credite...et creditis,” z.e. ‘‘ believe in God and then zfso facto ye will believe in
me”; but if this had been the meaning, would not Jn have written ‘‘the Father”
(instead of ‘‘God”’)? The Vulgate and f/ have ‘‘creditis...credtte” ; Diatess.,
Syr. (Walton), 4, d, and ¢ have ‘‘credite...credite.” Erasmus enumerates four
possible interpretations (1) ‘‘creditis...creditis,” (2) ‘‘credite...credite,” (3) ‘‘creditis
...credite,” (4) ‘‘credite...creditis.” To this may be added (5) (W.H. marg.),
‘‘credite, in Deum et in me credite” taking the Ist mucrevere absolutely; and possibly
(6) ‘‘creditis in Deum? Et in me credite,” ‘‘Do ye believe in God? Then
believe also in me.” The passage is one of the most conspicuous instances of
Johannine ambiguity.
1 Jn viii. 45, xiv. 19, xv. 19, xvi. 6, comp. Gal. iv. 6.
* [22412] But the /ove in i. 50, xx. 29 is quite different from that of ordinary
affirmation, e.g. xiv. 19 ‘‘Because (67) I live, ye also shad/ “ive,” where the
sentence ends and the reader rests on ‘‘shall live” as a natural consequence. In
the two instances above mentioned, the sentence goes on to a contrast, and there
is an implied exclamation: ‘‘Thou believest [but on how slight a ground]!”
‘*Thou hast believed [it is true, but not with the highest belief]!”
3 Acts xxvi. 27.
4 [22420] Jas ii. 19. W.H. punctuate interrogatively, Mayor prefers an affir-
mation. The emph. ov seems to mean, ironically, ‘‘thou, the orthodox disputant.”
5 xi. 26 ‘*...he shall never die. Thou believest this?”
196
INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES [2243]
a different shade of meaning, od miorevers to the blind man: “He
[Jesus] said, Zhow (emph.) de/ievest in the Son of man*.” This
apparently refers to the preceding facts—to the blind man’s defence
of Christ against the Pharisees, to his avowed belief in well-doing,
and to his confidence that ‘“‘ God heareth ” those who do His righteous
will. If so, the meaning is, “ Zhou [Z am sure] believest in the Son
of man?,” and there is little or nothing of the interrogative tone.
[2243] In xill. r2—although R.V. and A.V. agree in the inter-
rogative—‘“‘He said unto them, (R.V.) Avnow ye (ywooKere) what
I have done to you?” the imperative is somewhat more probable,
in view of xv. 18, “If the world hateth you, (R.V. marg.) know ye
(ywwoxere) that it hath hated me...” (1901, 2665—7), Le. “understand,
recognise, that the world hated me.” The LXX usage rather favours the
imperative®. In any case, we could not explain yuwwoxere in xiii. 12
1 Tee Be
2 [2242 6] It may be said that Jesus could not have meant this, as the next
words of the blind man are ‘‘And who is he, Lord?” But it may be replied that
the blind man virtually believed in the ideal Son of man already, and that the
Logos was supposed by the evangelist to discern this belief even before the blind
man expressed it in the words (ix. 38) ‘‘I believe.”
3 [2243 a] Twowoxere does not mean “‘know” but ‘‘ begin to know,” ‘come to
know,” ‘‘recognise.” It is therefore quite different from éyvwxare (which is probably
never imperatively used). Dudonére is imperatively used in the LXX, after éayv
yap amoorpapyre, in Josh. xxiii. 13. It is also imperative in Dan. iii. 15, 3 Macc.
vil. g (and the sing. imperat. Wake occurs in LXX 4 times) ; the only indicative
instances are either with vets insérted (Gen. xliv. 27) or in the phrase ‘‘Do ye
know so-and-so?” (Gen. xxix. 5, Tob. vii. 4). In the Synoptists, the imperative
and the indicative are about equally balanced. In 1 Jn ii. 29, ywdoxere is taken
by Westc. as prob. imperative, but by Lightf. (on Gal. iii. 7) apparently as
indicative. In 1 Jn iv. 2, the mood is doubtful, but taken by Westc. as indicative.
In Jn xiii. 1g it iS generally taken interrogatively; it certainly cannot be
affirmative. In xiv. 7 and xiv. 17 it is preceded severally by dm’ dpre and vets
and is indicative. In Heb. xiii. 23 ‘‘mow ye that our brother Timothy hath
been set at liberty,” yuvwoxere is almost certainly imperative, and the only two
Pauline initial uses of the word (2 Cor. viii. 9 y. ydp, Gal. iii. 7 y. dpa) indicate
that y. would seldom be placed at the beginning of a clause indicatively without
some word such as yap, dpa, vets etc. to denote that the word is used affirmatively
or argumentatively, or to emphasize fact. Indeed, in one of these two passages
(Gal. ili. 7), R.V. txt and A.V. have the imperative. In Phil. ii. 22 riv 6€ doxiuiy
avrov ywwokere, the verb is non-initial, and the meaning appears to be ‘‘ Ye are
alive to his tried worth” (not quite the same as éyvwxare): Chrys. paraphrases it
as vuets avroi (v.r. a’rév) éxictacbe. But even there it is not certain that the
Apostle is not bespeaking respect for the somewhat retiring Timothy, whose quiet
unselfish labours might fail to obtain due recognition even from those who (like
the Philippians) were familiar with them: ‘‘For all seek their own interests, not
197
[2244} INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES
like zuorevere above, as “ Ye know [do ye nof?].” And the rendering,
“Understand the meaning of what I have done to you,” makes
excellent sense. Origen (ad /oc.) allows both renderings.
[2244] In two instances, a conditional clause (“‘if...as you cannot
deny”) prepares the way for something incongruous with that
condition, which incongruity is expressed by an interrogative or
exclamation of amazement: vi. 23 “If circumcision is received on
the sabbath—[in the face of that fact] ave ye angry with me (épot
xoAare) for healing on the sabbath?” x. 35—6 “If he called them
gods...and the Scripture cannot be broken—{in the face of that fact]
do ye (emph.) (dets) say (A€yere), Thou blasphemest?” Here the
emphatic “ye” means ‘ye the guardians and interpreters of Scripture.”
Only under special circumstances could tmets Aéyere, “ye (emph.)
say,” at the beginning of a clause, be used interrogatively.
[2245] An interrogative or exclamatory tone may be suggested
by initial words that imply incongruity or the need of explanation,
“From Nazareth can any good thing come?!” “ Zhus answerest thou
the High Priest?!” ‘Your king am I to crucify®!” “Our fathers
worshipped in this mountain, and [yet] (2186) ye say (ipets éyere)
that in Jerusalem is the place*!” Thus, an initial od A€yes, where
there is no incongruity between the person and the utterance, would
naturally mean “¢4ow (emph.) sayest”; but an incongruity would
make all the difference, e.g. “Dost thou [the General] say, ‘Flee’?”
‘Dost thou [the Priest] say, ‘Murder’?” Also such a sentence as
‘From thyself sayest thou this vv did others say it to thee?” may be
those of Jesus Christ. But as for his tried worth, 7 would have you recognise it,
because, like child with father, he did laborious service with me for the Gospel.”
It must be borne in mind that the pres. imper. ywwoxere ‘be recognising,” ‘‘ try
to recognise,” would naturally be distinguished from yw@re ‘‘ recognise [once for
all],” by a careful writer (2437—9).
[2243 4] In Euripides, yliywoxe freq. means ‘‘recognise [the facts of life etc.],”
Inus fr. xxi. 1 y. TavOpwreva (comp. Hec. 227, Alc. 418, Hel. 1257) whereas y. in
2nd pers. indic. does not occur except interrog. Her. 639. Also, in Nenophon
and Lucian, the imperat. ylvwoxe (Steph.) is freq., especially in the phrase otrw
ylwwoke ‘‘make up your mind to this,” which Lucian has in 2nd pers. pl. (i. 337,
Pluto § 2) ‘‘ Make up your mind to this that I shali not stop for a moment (otrw
ywwoKere ws o6€ mavoouévov pov).” Clem. Alex. 759 quotes the Preaching of
Peter thus, Ilérpos év rw Knptymare Neyer, Vwdoxere otv Ore els Oeds Eorw..., which
can hardly be otherwise than imperative.
Oey 2 xviii. 22. J Sab tt 4 iv. 20.
198
INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES [2246 |
interrogative, a question being suggested by the words “from thyself ”
followed by the alternative “‘or from others!?”
[2246] In xvi. 32, a contrast is implied between apr, “at the
present moment” and the ‘“‘hour” that ‘‘is coming and hath come”
(1915 (i) foll.). “Ido here, as in the only other Johannine instance
where our Lord uses it, is almost equivalent to the Greek 6é, ‘‘but*.”
As in the First Epistle to the Corinthians (‘‘ Aor the moment (aprv)
we see through a mirror darkly but ¢#ex face to face*”) so here, the
antithesis, having an affirmative in the second clause, requires us to
suppose an affirmative in the first clause also, thus, “ Aor the moment
(aptr) [zzdeed | ye believe, [but] behold the hour cometh...when ye shall
be scattered every man to his own.” ‘This rendering agrees with
xvi. 27 “Ye have believed” and xvii. 8 “They [ave] believed.” Our
Lord recognises that the disciples did really and truly “ believe.”
They had said, however, too confidently (xvi. 30) ‘‘ Wow (at Jas?)
(viv) we know...herein ze believe” ; to which Jesus replies, in effect,
“Do not say Vow at last, say rather, For the moment. Ve believe for
the moment, but the impending hour of trial will dissipate your
belief.”
1 [2245 a] xviii. 34 Amd ceavrod od Totro eyes, 7 aAXot Eloy cou Trepl Euod ;
This is clearly interrogative. But in xviii. 37—in answer to Pilate’s second
question, ‘‘ Well then, thou art [it seems] a 4¢ng?”—when Jesus replies 20 Aéyes
6rt Baoirev’s elu, there is no reason to suppose that this is interrogative (as it
is punctuated in W.H. marg.). <A distinction is clearly drawn between ‘“‘ the
hing of the Jews” and ‘‘a king.” The former our Lord puts aside with contempt
as a question dictated by ‘‘others,” 7.e. the chief priests. The latter was of
a different kind. Everyone knew, even the boys in the streets of Rome, that the
wise and virtuous philosopher claimed to be in some sense ‘‘a &ing,” and the
Book of Revelation (Rev. v. ro) claims that the followers of Christ are to be
“‘kings and priests.” To the latter, then, Christ assents in the words ‘‘ thou
sayest that I am a king.” Comp. Lk. xxii. 70 ‘‘Ye say that I am [a king].”
Mt. xxvi. 64 ‘‘ Thou saidst [it],” od etras is parall. to Mk xiv. 62 ey etm. At
the same time it must be admitted that (2234 4) the use of ov Aéyers, outside N.T.
(so far as Wetstein’s evidence goes) generally implies bad tidings. It is a phrase
that might be explained (as a saying of Christ) by various contexts. In the
bringing of bad news, it means (1) ‘‘Thou sayest this [vot 7]; but where there
is no bad news, it might mean (2) ‘‘Thou [of thyself] sayest this, unprompted
by others.” Jn combines (r) with (2) taken interrogatively.
2 [2246 a] Jn iv. 35 ‘‘Do not ye say...? Behold, I say unto you,” z.e. ‘‘Ye
are in the habit of saying, ‘The harvest is coming.’ Azz I tell you it is come.”
There, the first clause is, in effect, not a question, but the Hebraic interrogative
(comp. ‘‘Is it not written?” etc.), which is a Greek affirmative.
3 [22466] 1 Cor. xiii. 12. “Apre is contrasted (Jn xiii. 7) with pera radra,
{xili. 37) with a preceding torepoy, and (xvi. 12) with a preceding éru.
199
[2247 | INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES
[2247] In almost all the instances of affirmative, or exclamatory
interrogation, it would be better for an English translator to imitate
the Greek by leaving the sentence affirmative so far as concerns the
words, trusting to context and punctuation to suggest the interrogative
tone: ‘ Zhou (emph.) washest my feet!” If this were done, many
sentences would be left less definite than in our R.V., but they would
be closer to the meaning of the original.
(iii) Questions without interrogative particle’
[2248] The list of interrogative sentences in the footnote
appended to this section will be limited to those that have no
interrogative particle. Some have been discussed under «ai meaning
“and yet” (2136—45). In i. 10, od is in such a context that
it might possibly be called an interrogative particle, ‘Thou art the
teacher of Israel; and [yet] dost thou not know this?” But on the
other hand the whole of the sentence may be regarded as
exclamatory, and ov as merely equivalent to a/pha privative (“The
teacher of Israel...and ignorant of this!”). Hence the instance is
included below”. The dozen or more of interrogatives with ov are
excluded as they do not throw light on ambiguity®.
1 [2248] These are punctuated as in W.H. But in the preceding remarks,
reasons have been given for punctuating many of them differently. Greek has
no note of exclamation. That being the case, an editor of N.T. has to choose
between two defective representations, a note of interrogation or a full stop.
2 [2248 4] In vii. 19, (R-V.) ‘‘Did not M. give you the law, and [yet] none
of you doeth the law?” is prob. preferable to W.H.’s text, which ends the
question at *‘give you the law,” and makes the following words a statement.
In vii. 35, R.V. (‘Whither will this man go ¢ha¢ (671) we shall not find him?”)
gives the impression of meaning ‘‘so that we shall not find him.” But that is
not the meaning of the Greek. Jesus had previously said (vii. 34) ‘‘ Ye...shad
not find me.” The Jews now say in consequence ‘‘ Where is he going? or
[according to his account] (ért) we shall not find him.” The initial 67¢ means
“(We say this] because” or “for,” and introduces the reason for asking ““Where
is he going?” (2179).
3 [2248 c] i. 21 qpwrnoay adrov Ti obv; [od] H. et; (marg. Ti obv a; 'H. ei;)...
‘O rpopyrns clot; i. 46 elev aitw N., Ex N. dvvarai te ayaboy eva; 1. 50 eimev
ara “Ore elmév cot dre elddv oe broKdTw THS UKAS MutTEvES; ii. 20 eirav...Teooe-
paxovra Kal && érecw olkodounbn 6 vads otros, Kai od év Tpialy Nuepas eyepers avrov;
iii. 10 elev abr@ Dv el 6 bddoKaNdos Tod "I. Kai Tadra ob ywwoKxes; Vv. 6 héyer...O€des
byuhs yevérOar; vi. 61 elrev...Todro buds cxavdaniva; av odv Oewpire...; Vil. 23
el mepirouhy NauBdver...iva wy VIF 6 viuos Mwvadws, éuol Xodare 6rt b\ov avOpwrroy
by érolnoa ev caBBdrw; viii. 57 elray...revrjxovra ern odmw Exes kal ’A.
édpaxas; ix. 19 hpwrnoav abrods Néyorres Odrés Eat 6 vios Uuav, dy buets NEyeTE
200
INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES [2250 |
(iv) Indirect interrogative
[2249] This is rare inJohn. He prefers the direct interrogative
even where it involves such a repetition as (xi. 24) ‘Simon Peter
beckoneth to him and saith to him, ‘Say Who ts i¢? about whom he
saith [this],’” where many Mss. have (A.V.) “beckoned to him ¢hat he
should ask who tt should be (rvOéoOat tis av e€tn),” an alteration made
(no doubt) for style. But he uses the indirect form in two passages
as follows.
[2250] (1) vii. 16—17 “My teaching is not mine but [is the
teaching] of him that sent me. If any man have a will to do his
will, he shall know concerning the teaching, whether (zortepov) it 7s
JSrom God, or |whether| I am speaking from myself.” Uorepov is not
found elsewhere in N.T.! But it is here used deliberately to
prepare the way for the weighty statement of an alternative that
might at first sight seem superfluous—‘‘ speaking from oneself.” Why
is not John content to say ‘‘He shall know 7/[ie. wether] it is from
God’*,” and there to stop? The answer is, that John desires to
emphasize “ speaking from oneself,” as being a crime. Some might
urge that, according to the Synoptists, Christ taught “with
authority,” and that, in the Sermon on the Mount (‘‘ Ye have heard
that it hath been said to them of old...but 7 say”) He “spake from
dre Tupdos éyevv7nbyn; ix. 34 elwav...Ev duaprias od éyevviOns 6dos, Kal ad
didoKers Nuds; ix. 35 elmev XY miorevers eis Tov viov Tod avOpwmrov; xX. 35—6 et
€xelvous eimev Oeovs,...dv 6 marhp jyiacev...ijpeis Néyere bre BNacgpnuets Ste elroy
vids Tov Geov elut; xi. 8 Aéyouow...’PaSBel, viv E~jrovv ge AOacat ot "Lovdaior, Kal
mwahw tmdyers exe; xi. 26 ob wy amobdvy els Tov aiGva: moreves TOUTO; Xiii. 6
Néyet...Kvpie, ot pov vimres tovs médas; xiii. 12 elrev... Lwdoxere (2243) ri
memoinka vuiy; xili. 37—8 rhv Wuxnvy wou brep cod Ojow. droKplverac ’Inoois
Thy wuxny cou brep éuod joes; xiv. Q Neyer... TooovTov xpévov med’ budy eiul Kal
ovK eyvwKds pe, Piturme; xvi. 19 elmev...[epi rovrov (nreire wer’ aAAHWY STE
elmov...; XVi. 30—1 misrevouev bre awd O. e&HAOEs. ameKplOn adrois I. “Apre
mioTeveTE; XVill, 22 elmdyv Otrws droxpivn Tw apxLepel; xviii. 33 elmev...D0 ef
0 Bacired’s rev Tovdalwy; xviii. 34 admexplOn... Awd ceavToi ad Toro héyets 7} aol
eirév cot mepi Euod; xviii. 37 dmexplOn... D0 Néyers ve Baoirevs eiuc; (so marg. but
text, affirmative). xviii. 39 BovecOe ofy dmodiow ipiv Tov B. Tay "l.; xix. 15
Aéyet...Tov Baoiréa tuwy sravpwow; Xxx. 29 Aéyel..."Ore Ewpaxds je memiorevKas;
XXl. 15 Néyet...Diuwy "Iwdvov, ayamds we wdéov TovTwy; xxi. 16 Néyet...Diuov
"Iwdvov, ayamas me; XXi. 17 Neyer... Liuwy "Iwdvov, didets pe;
1 [2250 a] In LXX, it occurs only in Job, and there always (12 times) in
direct interrogation.
2 Comp. Jn ix. 25 ‘‘/f (i.e. whether) (et) he is a sinner I know not,” also
1 Cor. vii. 16 etc.
201
[2251] INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES
himself.” John represents Christ as affirming, some seven or eight
times!, that He is zo¢ sent “from himself,” and that He neither says
nor does anything “from himself.” Not even the Holy Spirit speaks
“from itself’.”. Ihe spontaneous or originating power of the Son,
and of the Spirit, springs from the Father, or from the Son in union
with the Father. To do anything “from oneself” in this Johannine
sense—that is, apart from the fountain head of life, order, and
harmony—is always evil®.
[2251] (2) x. 6 “This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they
understood not what things they were that he spake unto them
(€xeivou d€ ok éyvwoav tiva qv a eAdAev adrois).” The apparently
superfluous words in “ what things they were that” (instead of ‘‘what
things” or “the things that”) are intended to emphasize the absolute
ignorance of the persons addressed*, Jesus had been “talking
(AaAéw) ” about a shepherd that rules the flock with his voice and not
by coercion. Those whom He was addressing had no conception of
ruling except by Law and punishment. The evangelist might have
expressed this by the phrase used in the First Epistle to Timothy’,
“did not understand about what things (rept tivwv)” Christ was
teaching. But John wishes to say more, namely, that the very
language was foreign to them. It might as well have been Iberian or
Gallic. The thought must be compared with that in viii. 43 ‘‘ Why
do ye not understand my speech (AaArév)? Because ye are not able
to hear my Word (axovew tov Aoyov tov éuor),” z.e. ye have not the
spiritual sympathy that would give you a key to my language®.
V. 30, vii. 17, 18, 28, viii. 28, 42, xii. 49, xiv. Io.
XVIE 3s
[22504] It is worth noting how indignantly Pilate—a mere puppet in the
hands of the chief priests, whose charge against Jesus he at first assumes to be
true (xviii. 33), instead of first attempting to ascertain whether it is true—disowns
the notion suggested to him by Jesus that he is of speaking ‘‘ from himself”
(xviii. 34 ‘‘sayest thou this from thyself?”’).
4 [2251 a] In vi. 64 pode yap €& dpxns 6 'Inoois tives elaiv of uh moretovres Kal
ris €orw 6 mapadwcwv avrév, the meaning is that Jesus could distinguish from the
crowd of apparent believers the real non-believers and even the future traitor—not
that He knew all about them. ‘‘From the beginning” may mean ‘“‘from the
time when the Gospel of the Cross began to be preached publicly in Capernaum,
when schism and desertion first appeared among the disciples ” (see 2254).
Per Abani 7
6 (2251 6] Aaid occurs, elsewhere in N.T., only in Mt. xxvi. 73 ‘‘thy [Galilaean]
dialect,” Jn iv. 42 ‘‘thy talk,” z.e. the talk of the Samaritan woman. In classical
eo to =
202
MOOD [2253]
Moop
(i) Imperative, Indicative, Infinitive and Subjunctive, see
Index, also Tense (in Contents) p. xxi.
(u) Optative
[2252] The optative mood is practically non-existent in the
Gospels except in Luke. For example, the optative of yiveo6ac
occurs in Lk. (2), and that of efvacin Lk. (7), but neither of these
occurs in Mk, Mt., Jn. In Jn xiii. 24 the v.r. rv6éo6ar ris dy ety (not
in W.H.) is a corruption. In Mark, the forms iv. 29 rapadoi, v. 43
and ix. 30 yvor, vill. 37 do¢ are subjunctive: but xi. 14 Kapzov dayou
has a true optative corresponding to Mt. xxi. 19 Kapmos yévytat.
Compare 2S. i. 21 py KataBy dpocos, B xataBot, A KxataByrw, and
Deut. xxxiii. 24 “let him be,” LXX éorar; also Oxyr. Pap. 742 wo
radw [(|Aos ypety tapadot.
NEGATIVE PARTICLES
(i) M4
[2253] In later Greek, sy encroached on ov, especially in
connexion with participles’. In John, py for ov is not so frequent
Gk \adéw means ‘‘talk freely,” as at table, or in one’s family, or in gossip
abroad. In N.T., it means ‘‘ talk freely,” sometimes in bad sense, 1 Tim. v. 13,
Jude 15, 16 or with suggestion of bad sense ; but much more often of the free and
public proclaiming of the truth of the Christian Gospel, as freq. in the Acts and
the Pauline Epistles, and also of spiritual song and prophecy. Hence John—who
deprecates the view that Christ taught secretly or privately—uses this word more
freq. than Mk and Lk. taken together, and assigns it to Christ 33 times in the
jirst person, whereas it ts never thus used by any Synoptist (exc. Lk. xxtv. 44,
after the Resurrection). Comp. Jn xviii. 20 ‘‘I have spoken freely to the world
and in secret spake I never (lit. nothing).” The word is used in Mk xiii. 11,
Mt. x. 19, to represent the wspremeditated speech that was to flow from the
disciples (when put on their defence before kings and rulers) under the influence
of the Holy Spirit, when they would not speak ‘‘ from themselves” but the Spirit
would speak for them. That exactly represents the Johannine use of A\adéw when
used by Jesus concerning His own teaching.
1 [2253 a] Winer, p. 606 n. “In modern Greek the participle invariably takes
uy.” A striking instance of u% for od is Mt. xi. 18 (Lk. vii. 33) j\Oev yap I.
mire (Lk. wy) éoOiwy pire mivwv, and Mt. xxii. 12 m@s eloAdOes woe wy Exwv &-
duua yduou; Lucian (iii. 104 Zzdoct. §5) Kai 6 KuBepyay ovK elds Kal immevew un
fewedeTHKws is an excellent instance of the context that might in a few rare cases
cause 0 ot to be used, namely where oJ =a/pha privative, ‘‘absolutely tgnorant of
steering and not haying given much pains to riding.”
203
[2254] NEGATIVE PARTICLES
as in the Synoptists. But it is probable that vii. 15 “‘How doth this
man know letters zot having learned (pi penabynxws)?” does not
imply doubt as to the negation (“‘if as we are given to understand he
has not learned”) but means “being, as he is, one that has not
learned,” ‘one of the illiterate class.” In vii. 49 6 6xAos ovTos 6 py
ywwokov, John could not have used ov without limiting the assertion
to a particular crowd pointed out, whereas the meaning is “This
multitude [these and their like, this rabble] that knoweth not the law
are accursed.” Inui. 18 ‘‘He that believeth not is already condemned
because he hath not believed (ott pa weriorevkev),” the unbelief,
though implied as a fact, is stated, zof as a fact, but as the ground
for condemnation, and the meaning ‘“‘condemned for not having
believed ” (2187) approximates to ‘“‘pronounced guilty of not be-
lieving.” See 2695.
[2254] The words of Christ, vi. 64 ‘““There are among you some
that do not believe (cioty e& pov tivés of ov tirtevovow)” are followed
by the comment “For Jesus knew from the beginning (lit.) who are
those that are not believing (tives ciow of py murtevovtes) and who
is he that shall betray him (xat ris éorw 6 rapaddowv aitov).” It
had been previously stated, before any mention of Christ’s preaching,
that many in Jerusalem, being impressed by His “signs,” “believed”
in Christ after a fashion, in whom Christ Himself (ii. 24) did not
beleve—presumably knowing that they did not veally believe.
From the first, then, Christ had this power of distinguishing unreal
from real belief, so that He could answer with an affirmative the
question ‘‘Knowest thou who are they that do not really believe ?”
But, since that time, the Twelve had been appointed and the Gospel
of the Bread of Life had been preached in Capernaum. And, from
the beginning of this Gospel, Judas (it would appear) had shewn
signs of his future treason. Here it is added that Jesus noted these
signs and knew to what they pointed. (See 225la@.) We are not to
suppose, with some ancient Greek commentators, that “from the
beginning” means “from the foundation of the world’.” As to the
1 [2253 4] This utterance however takes place at Jerusalem, among strangers,
not in Nazareth or Galilee: and therefore it is not quite certain that the other
meaning is wrong. Winer (p. 607) quotes Philostr. AZo//. iii. 22 bs Kal ypader ur
uabwy ypappara.
* (2254a] Chrys. dvw0ev, Cramer mpo karaBodjs kbouov. "HE apxijs, ‘‘from the
beginning,” is similarly used in xvi. 4, and a7’ dpx7js in 1 Jn ii. 7, 24 etc.
204
NEGATIVE PARTICLES [2256 |
change from ov mustevovow to py TiotevovTes, it is what might have
been expected in consequence of the change from the indicative to
the participle. On x. 12 6...0v« @y rouuny, see 2704.
(ii) O¥8 pA with Future and Subjunctive
[2255] Ov px is comparatively rarely used with the future in N.T.
In John it occurs fourteen times with subjunctive’ and thrice with
future, as follows: iv. 14 00 py dubyoe eis T. aidva, Vi. 35 6 Epxopevos
mpos ee ov py Tevaon K. 6 TioTEVwV eis E“e OV pi) OUpyoEL TUTOTE,
x5 adXotpiw b€ ov pA) akoXovbnoovow aAXGa hevéovrar. The second
instance (vi. 35) invites inquiry, in view of the parallel wewaoy and
dwyoe. But a review of N.T. usage indicates no settled or general
distinction of meaning. Compare Heb. vill. 12 ov py pryobo,
quoting Jer. xxxi. 34 correctly, with Heb. x. 17 ov py pvnobyoopa
quoting the same incorrectly: also Mt. xxiv. 35 ov py rape\Gwow
with parall. Mk xiii. 31 (W.H. marg.) ov pa rapeAevoovra: (W.H.
txt om. yw) and parall. Lk. xxi. 33 ov pi wapeXevoovta. In John’s
three instances there occur severally (1) eis Tov aidva, (2) twrore,
(3) a following future (fevfovrar). These facts suggest that he had
in his mind an emphasis laid rather on futurity, than on certainty
(which would have been indicated by the subjunctive).
(iii) Et o8
[2256] Ei ov never occurs in John, as an undivided phrase, except
in antithesis (twice) v. 47, “If ye fail to believe (ov mrevere) his
writings how can ye [succeed in| believing my words,” x. 37 “If I fad
to do (ov wows) the works of my Father...but if I [swcceed in| doing
them....”. In both cases ov has the force of a/pha privative, or
may be treated as part of a compound verb, the hypothesis being
positive but the compound verb negative. It is not the same as
a negative hypothesis (“except ye believe,” “except I do”). In il. 12
od muotevere is divided from «i, “If I have told you earthly things
and ye disbelieve (ov mioteverte).”
1 (2255a] This includes xx. 25 0’ ay meotevow, which, so far as the form is
concerned, might be future. On xi. 56 ri doxet tu ore od mH EOy... see 2184.
On xviii. 11 od} wh miw see 2232. In the Pauline Epistles od um occurs only six
times: two of these instances are from LXX: one of the two (Gal. iv. 30) is in the
future.
205
[2257] NEGATIVE PARTICLES
(iv) O8...0d8ets'
[2257] This particular phrase with the double negative, which
Mark frequently uses in narrative but only once (Matthew and
Luke never) in Christ’s words’, John uses, never in narrative, but
frequently in Christ’s words*. It is never ambiguous.
(v) Odre...xat
[2258] This construction is of the nature of a Latinism in
3 Jn 10 “he neither himself (ovte aitds) receiveth the brethren and
those that desire [to come] he hindereth,” where the sentence is long
and periodic. It is quite different in Jniv. 11 “Neither (ovre) a bucket
hast thou—and the well is deep,” where it is strange that more Greek
Mss. have not adopted the obvious alteration introduced by D, ovdé,
“not even a bucket” (so too SS). But ovre...«ad is highly character-
istic of the style of the woman’s talk, which is somewhat flighty,
passing from “wether bucket hast thou [wor rope to let down the
bucket|”—which she had at first in her mind—to the thought of the
“depth” of “the well.” The construction is not alleged to occur
in N.T. outside these two passages (Winer p. 619, Westc. on
3 ejJiy to):
[2259] In v. 37—8, R.V. punctuates “Ye have neither (ovre)
heard his voice at any time, nor (ovre) seen his form. And (kad) ye
have not his word abiding in you,” but W.H. better “Ye have
neither at any time heard his voice nor seen his form, avd [as
a consequence, or, bestdes| ye have not his word abiding in you:
[I say this] because...ye believe not.” Perhaps R.V. was influenced
by the supposition that “decause ye believe not” introduced the cause
why the Word was “not abiding in them,” but see 2178. “And,”
introducing the consequence, or accompaniment, of two negations,
is perfectly regular; “nor” (in the place of “and not”) would
not have expressed the meaning.
1 [2257.a] This does not include ov...ovxKéTt, Which does not occur in Jn but
occurs 6 times in Mk (in Mt. and Lk. once, parall. to Mk xii. 34) nor ovdév...08
un, which is in Lk. x. 19. On ov...7ts see 2586 d—e.
* Mk iti. 27 ob divarac obdels els ri olktay...laxupov elaehOdy...diapracat.
$ [22574] Jn v. 19 ob dtvarac 6 vids rovedy ag’ éavrod ovdév, v. 22 obde yap 6
maTnp Kpiver ovdéva, Vv. 30 ov Sivamat eyw rovetv am’ Euavrod ovdéer, Vi. 63 7 capt ovK
wpede? ovdev, vill. 15 éyw ov Kpivw ovdéva etc. (about 12 times). It is also used in
the words of others, iii. 27, vi. 33 etc. Jn has once ovdémw ovdels in xix. 41
pvnpetov Kawov ev @ obdérw ovdels Av TeOeuévos, which resembles Lk. xxiii. 53
punuare NakevT@ ob ovK AV ovdels odrw Kelwevos.
206
NEGATIVE PARTICLES [2262 |
(vi) Ov (or, py) combined with was
[2260] A distinction must be drawn between (1) ov...7as, (2) mas
...0v, and (3) ov was. The first two belong mostly to Hebraic, the
third—in which vas follows ov without any intervening word except
perhaps the verb ‘“‘to be”—belongs mostly to Greek idiom. In (1)
and (2) the meaning of was is generally to be expressed by “any,” in
(3) by “every.” But in John a literal translation is sometimes
preferable as will be seen below.
[2261] In Hebrew, when “not” and “all” occur (as mentioned
above) in the same sentence, the “not” goes with the verb in
a manner unusual in Greek and English, (Gen. 1. 5) ‘‘ad/ plants
of the field weve not as yet,” i.e. no plants yet existed; (Gen. iv. 15)
“for the not-smiting him of ad/ finding him,” ze. that none finding
him should smite him; (Ex. xii. 16) ‘‘a/7 work shall vot be done”* etc.
The last sentence might well be understood to mean “ad/ kinds
of work must not be done, but only the following”: and, generally,
the Hebrew idiom might produce ambiguity, which we escape in
English and Greek by saying “of any (or, xo) work” —and in Greek
sometimes by repeating the negative (“wo work shall zo¢ be done”).
In the Synoptists, we have but few instances of either (1) ov...7as or
(2) mas...ov”.
[2262] In John’s Gospel, and perhaps in the Epistle, there are no
instances of ov...7aés meaning ‘‘not any,” but was followed by ov
(or, #4) is very frequent in both. It is partly explained by the
writer’s love of universal propositions, especially in connexion with
the Church (“all that thou hast given me,” “every branch in me,”
“everyone that believeth®”). These are connected mostly with
affirmatives, but (a) sometimes with negatives followed by affirma-
tives thus: ill. 16 “‘in order that everyone (was) that believeth should
not (wn) perish but should have eternai life,” vi. 39 “in order that
1 [2261a] Gesen. 482a. Ex. xii. 16 Hay &pyov Narpevrov ov moijoete ev avrats,
mAnY Oca... Comp. Ex. xx. 10 ov mounoes é€v adry Tay Epyov.
2 [22614] See (1) ov...7dés in Mk xiii. 20, Mt. xxiv. 22 ‘‘not...azy flesh,”
Lk. i. 37 ‘‘not...azy word,” (2) mas...o0 in Mk vii. 18 @v...00 dUvarat, Mt. xii. 25
maca...oikia pepicbeica...o8 stabjoerac (parall. Mk iii. 25 édy olkia...uepicO7n, ov
duvjoerar orfvat), Lk. iv. 33 (pec.).
3 [2262 a] In Is. xxviii. 16 “he that believeth,” Heb. and LXX om. “all,”
but Rom. x. rr inserts it, thus, Ilé@s 6 mioredwy ém’ ai’rw. Parallel passages in
Kings and Chronicles freq. differ in inserting or omitting Heb. “all’’: and LXX
freq. differs similarly from Hebrew.
207
[2263 | NEGATIVE PARTICLES
everything that he hath given to me I should of (yu) lose [aught]
from it but should raise it up”: (4) sometimes with negatives implying
a negation of death or darkness, xi. 26 “everyone that liveth and
believeth in me shall surely not (od py) die,” xi. 46 “in order that
everyone that believeth in me may ot (pj) abide in darkness’.”
[2263] On the other hand, the Greek usage of ov mas, “not
everyone,” is frequent in traditions that say, in different forms, what
the Lord says in the Sermon on the Mount, “ ot everyone (ov mas)
that saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of
heaven®.” So in the Epistle to the Romans, “‘/Vof a// that are from
Israel” are really Israel, “or yet (ovde), because they are the seed
of Abraham, are they a// children” ; the Gospel was preached to
them “but zot a// hearkened*”; so to the Corinthians, “/Vot 7m all
[men] is knowledge,” “‘ Wot with the most of them (ov év Tots TAEloow
avrov, Clem. Alex. Gow avrois) was God well pleased.” And in the
Fourth Gospel Jesus says to the disciples (xiii. 10, 11, 18) “Ye are
clean but zof all,” “ Not all of you are clean,” ‘‘ ot about you a// do
I speak.” Some uses of the phrase “vot a//” may be derived from
Attic and colloquial Greek, as in the famous saying, familiar to us
through Horace, but Greek in origin, “The voyage to Corinth
is not every man’s.” How naturally it might occur to evangelists
1 [22626] In the Epistle, the negation is sometimes a negation of truth, life,
light etc., ii. 21 ‘‘every lie is mot of the truth,” ii. 23 ‘‘everyone that denieth the
Son hath also 7o¢ the Father (ovdé rov marépa &xet),” iii. 6 *‘ Bveryone that sinneth
hath vot seen him” (antithetical to iii. 6 ‘‘ Hveryone that abideth in him sinneth
not”), iii. 10 ‘‘ Everyone that doeth not righteousness is zo¢ of God,” iii. 15 (lit-)
“ Every murderer hath zo eternal life” (a sentence hardly English, and certainly
not Greek, in form), iv. 3 ‘‘Zvery spirit that confesseth not Jesus is 20¢ of God.”
[lds is followed, as in the Gospel, by negation of death, darkness etc. in r Jn iii. 6,
g, v.18. In x Jn ii. 16 ‘everything that is in the world” is separated from ‘‘ is
not from the Father” by an intervening appositional clause—‘‘the desire of the
flesh and the desire of the eyes and the vain glory of life.” To the negations of
good may be added 2 Jn 9 *‘ Everyone that...abideth zzo¢ in the teaching of Christ
hath ot God.”
2 Mt. vii. 21.
3 [2263 a] Rom. ix. 6—7, x. 16, 1 Cor. viii. 7, x. 5. It is also used in
Mt. xix. 11 “‘ Wot all are capable of receiving this saying,” 1 Cor. vi. 12 ‘‘ ot all
things are profitable,” x. 23 ‘‘wot all things are profitable...so¢ all things edify.”
In the two passages last quoted there is an antithesis to a previous “ aS: sine cee
things are lawful.” And such an antithesis is generally implied in the Greek
idiom ‘‘{.A// may do that, but) not all can do this.”
4 [22634] Lewis and Short quote Aul. Gell. i. 8. 4 00 mavros dvdpds els
KépwOdv éo0’ 6 mots, and see Steph. vi. 567 on mavrés éort.
208
NEGATIVE PARTICLES [2263 |
failing to make converts, or finding converts relapse into unbelief and
hostility, is shewn by St Paul’s prayer “that we may be delivered
from unreasonable and evil men; for the faith [of Christ] 7s zo/
1»
the portion of all (ov yap mavtwv n riotts)'.
1 [2263c] 2 Thess. iii. 2. This traditional use of od mdvres to describe the
falling away of Israel after the flesh, and the defection of converts, and the
practical failure of mere professors, may have a bearing on the difficult and
doubtful Johannine utterance about ‘‘antichrists” in 1 Jn ii. rg ‘‘They went out
[at first (but see 2110 a—é) as our soldiers] belonging to our camp (lit. from us,
é jev): but they were not [really] belonging to our camp ; for, if they had been
[really] belonging to our camp they would have remained on our side (uenevjKeoar
av ped’ hucv): but [their not remaining was foreordained] in order that they
might be manifested [shewing] that sot all are (or, they are not all) belonging to
us (4AN’ va Pavepwhaow sre od eloly mayTes EE hucy).”
[2263 7] Westcott paraphrases this, ‘‘that they may be made manifest that
they are vot, xo not in any case, however fair their pretensions may be, of us.”
The words I have italicised indicate that he takes the negation as universal, ‘‘zof
any of them.” We gives, as a reason, that ‘‘when the m@s is separated by the
verb from the ov, the negation according to the usage of the New Testament
is always universal.” This is true; but does it apply when the verb is elya, and
in such a writer as John, who nowhere else uses the Hebraic ov...rds? If, for
example, John had written in xiii. 11 ov« éoré mavres xaOapol (instead of ovdx!
1. kK. €Te€) Should we have translated this, ‘‘Ye are not avy of you clean”? Tam
disposed to think that 1 Jn ii. 19 does not afford a unique instance of the Hebraic
ov...ras, and that the words refer to the departure of ‘‘Israel after the flesh,”
and of other temporary converts, very much as the Epistle to the Romans mentions
it. If so, there is a confusion between (1) pavepwOaow dre ovK eal €& quov, and
(2) pavepwOy bre ob wdvtes [oi doxodyTes] eicivy e& juwv. One thought is “‘ chey
were not really ours”; another, ‘‘7o¢ all that seem to be ours are really ours.”
Origen illustrates the ‘going out” of Judas by the ‘‘ going out” in the Epistle.
Now concerning Judas it is said in the Gospel ‘‘ zo¢ all of you are clean,” and
‘* ot all” is repeated in this connexion. This seems to confirm the view that
“not all” in the Epistle is similarly used as meaning that ‘‘many are called
but zt all chosen.”
[2263¢] In viii. 35 ‘‘the slave doth not abide in the house for ever (0 d€ dodXos
od uéver €v TH oikia eis Tov alava),” if we are to adopt here the meaning of ov (or
uh, unxére etc.)...e¢s Tov aiava everywhere else in N.T. (Mk ili. 29, x1. 14, Mt. xxi. 19,
Jn iv. 14, viii. 51, 52, x. 28, xi. 26, xiii. 8, 1 Cor. viii. 13) it should mean ‘‘ xever.”
Then the sentence would mean ‘‘The slave, e.g. Ishmael, shall sever [de allowed
to| abide permanently in the house,” with allusion to the tradition quoted by St Paul
(Gal. iv. 30, ‘cast out the handmaiden and her son”). The preceding words are
“everyone that doeth sin is a slave [of sin],” but SS, D, 4, and Clem. Alex. omit
‘* of sin,” which may be a gloss added to explain ‘‘slave.” With this omission,
the whole may be paraphrased, ‘‘Whosoever doeth sin is not a son but a slave.
Now the slave, who is not under grace but under law and constraint, has xo
abiding-place, and never shall have, in the family of the Father.”
[2263 /] The following words, ‘‘But the Son abideth for ever [in the house
of the Father], if therefore the Son shall free you, ye shall be really free,” may
A. VI. 209 14
[2264] NEGATIVE PARTICLES
(vil) O28, V. Yr. otto
[2264] In vi. 8 (R.V. txt and W.H. txt) “I go xot up yet to
this feast,” the reading, “I go wot up to this feast” is very strongly
supported. W.H. and R.V. place it in their margin, and it is now
confirmed by SS. Porphyry’ attacked Christ for the change of
purpose implied (by “go. zo¢ up’’) in this passage, when contrasted
with vil. ro—14 “then he also himself went wp...now about the
middle of the feast Jesus west up to the temple and began to teach.”
Chrysostom and Ammonius the Elder (Cramer) write apologetically
on it without any apparent knowledge of such a reading as ov7w*.
It is almost incredible that ovzw, if genuine—a reading that supplied
so obvious an answer to all objections—should have been unknown
to these commentators, and should have been supplanted in so
many versions and mss. by the difficult reading oi.
[2265] The explanation of “I go zof up to this feast,” and its
reconciliation with what follows, must be sought perhaps in the
be paraphrased, ‘‘ But the son and heir, like Isaac the child of promise and grace,
abides for ever in the house: if therefore ye shall receive into your hearts the Son
of God and the Spirit of Sonship, then shall ye be really free, being freed from all fear
of being ‘cast out,’ and knowing that ye are the heirs and inheritors of the House.”
If the positive ‘‘abzdeth for ever” had preceded the negative ‘‘adideth not for
ever,” it might have been argued (though not cogently) that in this particular place
“‘not...for ever” must be taken in an unusual sense because of antithesis. As it
is, there is no basis for any rendering except ‘‘ zever” for ov...els Tov alava.
[2263 ¢] Cyril (Cramer ad Joc.) explains od wéver els 7. al@va by adding ‘for
he will hurry into the outer darkness (dpapuetra: yap els 7d éEwWrepov oKéTOos).”
Ammonius says, 6 wh pévwrv els Toy alwva Kai woatTws Exwy adel SovNbds éoTe TH
pice...ravta yap Sota Tov KricayTos, péver dé els TOY alwva woatTws Exwv 6 Tids
ws pice Oeds, where the punctuation is doubtful but the phrase ‘‘all things are
slaves of the Creator” suggests that he did zzof read ‘‘slave of stv.” Chrysostom
(Migne) thrice drops els rév aiwva after ot péver and interprets the words ‘the
slave doth not abide for ever,” as implying a ‘‘gentle casting down (7péua xata-
Bader)” of the things of the Law and the sacrifices prescribed by Moses (comp.
Heb. iii. 5—6). Perhaps he took the words to mean, ‘‘The slave [even though
he be faithful, as one of the prophets, or as Moses himself, is still below the son
and heir, and] does not abide [as the son abides] in the house.”
l Dict. Christ. Biogr. ‘‘Porphyrius,” p. 442 a, referring to Jerome, Dial. c.
Pelag. ii. t7-
2 [2264] Migne prints a quotation from Chrys. ovx dvaBaivw apr, and then
(punctuating thus) lds otv, @yoiv, avéBn, elrav, OvK avaBalyw; OvK elev xabarak,
OvK dvaBaivw: adda, Nov, elev, rouréort, wed’ budv, where apparently the writer
does not mean that Jesus sazd viv, but that He meant viv. In Cramer, this
appears, with od, thus, Adros 6€ Gs avéBy, Pyolv, elmiv, ‘‘éyw obrw dvaBalvw....”
It is clear that neither otww nor viv nor dpre was a part of the text thus com-
mented on.
210
NEGATIVE PARTICLES [2265 (i)]
”?
Johannine view of Christ’s ‘going up” to Jerusalem as a whole.
Two acts of this kind have been mentioned (il. 13, v. 1), the first
of which excites jealousy, the second hostility, and (v. 18) a desire
to kill Him, in “the Jews.” In view of this hostility, Jesus is
regarded as now contemplating a time when He will “go up” to
a feast and die, but this has not yet come: “I go not up to “his
feast, because my time is not yet fulfilled.” Accordingly, though He
goes up later, He does not “go up” to keep the feast as a whole, and
does not enter the temple till the middle of the week. Ammonius
the Elder says, fairly enough, “‘He has not contradicted His words
by His actions, for He did not go up to keep the feas/'...” But some-
thing more is probably intended to be implied: ‘‘When my hour
has arrived, then and not till then shall I really go up to the feast”:
and we are also probably intended to think of Christ’s habitual
language about ‘‘going up,” meaning, to heaven, or to the Father.
(vill) Ovxé
[2265 (i)] Ody? presents nothing remarkable in ix. g adXou éXeyov
Oixi, GAG Gpouos ait@ éotiv: for its use before a pause, and especially
1 [22652] Ammonius also adds that He went up ‘‘not with joy as is customary
with feast-goers.” Joy was particularly characteristic of this feast, the feast of
Tabernacles. Some authorities have inserted ‘‘this” in Christ’s words to His
brethren ‘‘Go ye up to zs feast,” and have substituted ‘‘ the” later on, ‘‘I go not
up to ¢he feast,” or have inserted ‘‘this” in both clauses. The difference, though
subtle, is important: ‘‘Go ye up to fhe feast, as usual; I shall not go up to ¢his
feast, but to another, before long, when the time will have arrived for what some
call death, but what I call going up to the Father.’ On Christ’s uses of dvaBalyvw
elsewhere, see i. 51, lil. 13, vi. 62, xx. 17 where it is used of ‘‘ going up to heaven.”
[2265 4] The remaining instance of dvaBaivw in Christ’s words is x. r ‘‘ He that
entereth not through the door into the fold of the sheep but goeth up from some
other quarter (dvaBaiywy d\\ax60ev)—that [man] is a thief and a robber.” Beside
the literal meaning we are intended to think of the two kinds of ‘‘ going up”
mentioned in the Bible. Rezin and Pekah (Is. vii. 1) ‘‘g0 up to Jerusalem” as
enemies. When our Lord said (Mk x. 33, Mt. xx. 18, Lk. xviii. 31) ‘‘ Behold,
we go up to Jerusalem,” He added, in effect, that He was to ‘“‘go up” asa sacrifice.
John is probably alluding to these two kinds of ‘‘going up.” Jews would contrast
Hezekiah, who (Is. xxxvii. 14) ‘‘zvevt wp unto the house of the Lord” to supplicate .
as a mediator, with the Roman Emperors, who exalted themselves and sat in the
temple of God, setting themselves forth as God (comp. 2 Thess. ii. 4) and who
said (Is. xiv. 13) ‘‘I will go zp into heaven.”
[2265 c] The ‘‘ door” is probably the door of service (not, as Chrys., the door
of the Scriptures). The Shepherd goes in by the same door as that ‘‘of the
sheep,” making himself one with them not as a mere act of ‘‘ voluntary humility,’
but to guide them and protect them; the ‘‘robber” prefers to ‘‘go up” by the
path of what men call ‘‘glory,” to make himself ‘‘a mighty hunter” of men.
211 14—2
[2266] NUMBER
before a pause followed by aAda, is frequent in Greek and in N.T.
But neither N.T. nor the Thesaurus affords a parallel to the following,
xlil. ro—11, “ye (emph.) are clean but not all (adn odxi waves)...
for this cause said he (lit.) that ‘Ve are not all clean, 611, Oixi mavtes
kafapol éore'.” Ovyi is so frequently interrogative that, if the last
tradition were found as a detached Logion of the Lord, we should
certainly render it (as in Heb. 1. 14 odxi wavtes cio evtovpyiKa
mvevuata) “Are ye not all clean?” But in Numbers (“I shall see
him éut not now”) LXX has kai odxi?, as John has in xiv. 22 yptv...
Kal ovxt T® KOopw. Greek writers seem to have differed among them-
selves—and John seems to have differed from most—in the use of
ovdxé and its equivalents ®*.
NUMBER
(i) Plural referring to preceding Singular
[2266] This occurs when the speaker passes from considering
a multitude as a whole to considering them as units, vil. 49 ‘‘This
multitude that knoweth not the Law—(they] ave accursed,” xv. 6 “If
anyone abide not in me he is at once:cast out as the branch [from the
vine] (7O «Ajpa)...and they gather ‘hem (z.e. such branches, aira),”
xvii. 2 “In order that all (sing.) that thou hast given to him—/o [a//
of | them (avrois) he may give eternal life” (see 1919 foll. and
2417—20).
(ii) Plural Neuter with Plural Verb
[2267] This construction, which is rare in classical Greek, is also
rare in John. “Exepiooevoay is supported by BD against SAL (-cer)
in vi. 13 “[the fragments] that (a) superabounded,” where the
previous mention of “twelve baskets,” and the desire to emphasize
1 [2265 (i) a] In 1 Cor. x. 29 cvvelinow dé Néyw odxl Thy EavTod..., ard follows,
as also in Lk. i. 60 obi, GANA KANOHAoETAL, xii. 51 ovXL, NEyw buy, ANN’ 7 Srawepitudr,
Rom. iii. 27 obxl, d\da bia vdpou mlatews. The anomaly here is that a\A\d
precedes. Lk. xvii. 7—8 Tls...épe?...ad\rX’ obxt épe?...is interrogative.
2 [2265 (i) 6] Numb. xxiv. 17, LXX deléw ai’r@ kal odxl viv, representing the
Heb. vaw by cai. I have not found ovxé in the Egypt. Pap. Indices.
% [2265 (i)c] Steph. (v. 2351) shews that Xenophon regularly says Ovx, a\dd
whereas Epictetus says Ov, d\\d. It has been shewn above (2231 a) that where
Mt. has odxé interrog. the parall. Lk. sometimes differs. On the other hand where
Lk. xii. 51 has the negative ovxl, Aéyw buiv, add’ 7 dtamepioudr, the parall. Mt. x. 34
has ovc...d\\d. Mt. never uses otxé otherwise than interrogatively. Mk does not
use it at all. Steph. quotes Porphyr. for a freq. and peculiar use of ovxi 6é.
212
NUMBER [2268]
plurality may explain the plural (if genuine). In xix. 31, wa py
pen ert TOD GTavpod TA TupaTa...iva KaTeayoow avtav Ta GKEAH Kal
aplaow, is, if genuine, an extremely remarkable variation of singular
and plural verbs with neuter plural subjects—and that too in similar
construction and order (iva py) peivy...va. KaTEayoowr). But (in spite
of the genitive atrav, 2419) oxeAy may be accusative: “that ‘hey
might have their legs broken and be taken away.” In the parable of
the Good Shepherd, zpéBara is at first regarded as the flock that
(x. 3—4) “hears” and “follows” the shepherd. Then the reason
is given (x. 4) “they know (oidaow) his voice,” and, having thus
dropped into the plural, the writer continues to describe them
individually: x. 5—8, “‘¢ey will not follow,” ‘“‘¢hey will flee,” “they
know not,” “the sheep /eard (pl.) them not (ov« yKoveav avtav Ta
mpoBara).” Finally the writer returns to the singular with ov« éorw—
an emphatic phrase frequent in classical Greek—describing the
“hireling” as one (x. 12) “whose own the flock zs not (ov ovx éorw
Ta mpoPata id.a).”
(i) Special words
(a) Aimata (i. 13)
[2268] Concerning those who (1. 12) “received” the Logos it is
said that ‘‘he gave them authority to become children of God,” and
that these (lit.) “not from d00ds (aivatwv), nor yet from will of
flesh, nor yet from will of man (avdpos), but from God were begotten.”
The plural of “blood,” both in classical Greek and in Hebrew,
almost always means “bloodshed’.” But “ore Hebraice (ad loc.)
calls attention to a passage of Shemoth Rabba (referring to Ezekiel),
where Jerusalem is described as a babe born in uncleanness, but
purified by Jehovah; and in Ezekiel the Hebrew four times uses
the plural ‘‘dZoods*” in such a way as to indicate that it might mean
1 [22682] Gesen. 1964, and Steph. afua: but Steph. does not quote Eurip.
Lon 693 (Chorus) é\Awy Tpadels ap’ aiudtrwy where the context indicates that the
meaning may be “‘born from another mother.” Macarius ($27, p. 117) speaking
of Peter, to whom ‘‘flesh and blood” did not reveal the Messiahship of Jesus, has
ovK €£ aiudrwy ovdé capKkav...madevdels..., GAN’ €& aylou mvevmaTos pabuwy....
2 [2268 4] Ezek. xvi. 6 (lit.) ‘‘in thy d/oods” (thrice) LX X év 7@ aiware...€k Tod
aiwarés cov (and om.) (Field, 6 ‘ESpatos év rn vypacig cov) rep. xvi. 22 LXX év
TW aiari gov.
22
[2269] NUMBER
there, as Chrysostom says it means here, “the fleshly pangs of
childbirth.”
[2269] An objection that may be raised against this view is that
it represents the evangelist as describing at great length (saying in
effect “begotten of no mortal mother, nor of any fleshly union, nor
of any mortal begetter,” dvdpds as distinct from yvv7}) what might have
been expressed more briefly in one or other of the shapes in which
the best Greek ms. and the earliest Fathers quote it. Possibly one
1 [2268 ¢] Chrys. rév capkixav ddlywy, and similarly Cramer. Hesych. refers
to aiwaros and yevens in the //iad vi. 211, as if the former meant birth from the
mother, the latter from the father—no doubt erroneously as to Homer’s meaning,
but perhaps instructively as to the various meanings conveyed by aiua to Greeks
in later times.
[2268 /] In LXX, no attempt is made to render literally the Heb. pl. ‘‘bloods”
in the Pentateuch, but aiuvara, “bloodshed,” is freq. after Judges. ‘His d/oods
be upon him” is évoxos éora in Lev. xx. 9 etc., but “AXXos has aiua there and
aiwara in Lev. xx. 11. In the obscure passage about (Ex. iv. 25, 26) “‘a husband
of d/oods,” connected with circumcision, LXX_ has aiwa, but the rest of the
translators have aiudrwy in one or both of the verses.
* [2269 a] Codex B omits (but ins. in marg.) o¥d€ Ex BeXjuaros avdpds, which is
also perhaps omitted in a paraphrase by Clem. Alex. 460 rév ok é& aiudrwr obdé
€k Oedjparos capkés, év mvetuare d€ dvaryervepuevory. Irenaeus (iii. 16. 2 and iii. 19.
2) twice omits é§ aiudrwv, and has once “‘from ¢he will of God.” Tertullian (De
Carne Chr. 19, and comp. 24) quotes the text several times, but scribes have
conformed some of his quotations to the received text. The most trustworthy is
perhaps ‘‘ Quid utique tam exaggeranter inculcavit, non ex sanguine, nec ex carnis
voluntate, aut viri, natum?” Origen (on Josh. i. 2) has ‘‘neque ex voluntate
viri” before ‘‘neque ex v. carnis.” Hippolytus (vi. 9, Dunck. i. p. 236) has é&
aivdtuv kai émOuuias capxexns. Irenaeus and Tertullian must have read, with 4,
éyevvny (natus est) for éyevy7Oyoayv: for both of them take the passage as
describing the birth of Christ, and Tertullian accuses the Valentinians of altering
the text so as to apply it to the above-mentioned ‘‘credentes” instead of Christ.
SS has ‘‘in blood.”
[2269 4] Justin Martyr has several passages that indicate an ancient tradition,
‘Not of man’s seed but of God,” referring to Christ, and some of these mention
‘‘blood.” In the following extracts, yevn@jvac is rendered **oenerated,” to dis-
tinguish it from yevynOjvar, “begotten”: Afol. 21 ‘That the Logos, which is the
first begotten offspring (yévynua) of God, has been generated (yeyevng Pat) without
sexual union (€miutlas), Jesus Christ our teacher...”; Afol. 22 ‘But even if [or
But if also, referring to previous ef kai xowds] we say that uniquely, contrary to
common birth (yéveow), He has been generated (yeyerjc0at) from God [as] God’s
Logos, as we said above, let this be in common with you (kowdv Totro ésrw tiv)
who say that Hermes is the Logos that brings messages from God”; Afol. 32
‘For the phrase (Gen. xlix. 11) ‘blood of the grape’ was significant of the fact
that He that was to appear would indeed have 4/ood, but not from human seed
but from divine power...: for as not man, but God, hath made (zemolnxev) the
214
NUMBER [2269]
of the two clauses OeAyparos capxos and OeAnparos dvdpds may be
an interpolation; but e€ atjarwy is too original a phrase to be thus
explained. It points to some allusive meaning such as that in
Ezekiel above mentioned, which was interpreted Rabbinically as
referring not only to the blood attendant on childbirth, but also
to what may be called the Jewish sacraments of Circumcision and
Passover, by which the Israelites were ‘‘brought into covenant?.”
If that allusion is included here, the meaning of “not from bloods ”
is twofold, rst, ‘not from mortal generation,” 2nd, “not from
such sacramental regeneration as Jews could offer to Gentiles through
the Law.”
blood of the vine, so this blood also was hereby indicated as to be generated
(€unviero...yevjoec@at) not from human seed but from [the] power of God.”
[2269¢] Justin’s Dialogue has similar passages: 77yph. 54 ‘‘Christ hath
indeed é/ood, but not from seed of man (dv@pwrov) but from the power of God
(rod Geo0). For as not man, but God (lit.) begot (éyévynoev) the blood of the vine,
so [the prophet] indicated beforehand that the é/ood of Christ also would be not
from human birth (yévous) but from [the] power of God. Now this prophecy...
demonstrates that Christ is not man from men begotten (yevynels) in the common
way of men (kata 76 Kowdr tev avOpwrwr)”; Tryph. 61 ‘*[The Logos] may be
called by all [these] names from the fact that He ministers to the Father’s desire
and purpose and from the fact that He has been generated dy the Father by will
(kai €x Tov amd Tov waTpos Hednoer yeyernoba)”; Tryph. 63 ‘‘since His blood
(lit.) has not been begotten from human seed (ws Tod aluatos a’rod ox é& avOpw-
melov omépatos yeyevynuevov) but from [the] will of God (a\X’ éx OeAjaTOos Oeod)” ;
Trvph. 76 ‘‘ For the phrase (Dan. vii. 13) ‘/¢e a son of man’ makes it clear that
He was to appear and to have been brought into being (@awdpuevoy Kal yevduevor)
aman, but not from human seed... He was indeed to have é/ood, but not from men ;
even as not man, but God, begot the blood of the vine.”
[2269 7] These passages indicate the existence of early discussions about
“* blood,” in connexion with the birth and nature of Christ. [The mention of
(Lk. xxiv. 39) ‘‘flesh and bones” (without ‘‘éd/ood”) suggests that there were
other discussions about the nature of His body after the Resurrection.] Justin
appears to have laid great stress on these; and they seem to have influenced
Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others, to such an extent that they have modified John’s
text, perhaps taking aiudrwy to mean, ‘‘ zot from ordinary blood,” or ‘‘ not from
mortal blood.” But, in fact, the Johannine tradition teaches that the truth applies
to all the children of God, so that ‘‘ 6/ood,” in any sense, may be excluded from
a consideration of the nature of the birth.
1 [2269e] Hor. Heb? on Jn i. 13 says, ‘‘The Israelites were brought into
covenant by three things; by circumcision, by washing, and by offering of
sacrifices,” and quotes Skemoth Rab., sect. 19, and Gloss. in Vajikva Rad. fol. 191
as to ‘‘ the blood of the passover mingled with the blood of the circumcised.”
25
[2270] NUMBER
(8B) ‘Imatia
[2270] ‘Indria (pl.) occurs in John as follows, xiii. 4 “he layeth
aside his garments,” xiii. 12 “he took his garments,” xix. 2a, the
soldiers therefore...took his garments,” xix. 24 (quoting Ps. xxii. 19)
“they parted my garments among them.” In the last passage, the
writer distinguishes iudria from the yurwv (Ze. undergarment), and
describes the former as being divided into four pieces, Although
the word is in the plural—meaning “the upper clothes,” all except
the tunic—yet the plural might apparently denote “cloak ” when,
as would be the case with the poor, the “upper clothes” consisted
of a cloak alone, and not of a cloak and doublet. Hence “garment”
is parallel to “garments” in the Synoptists, and Matthew in one
passage interchanges singular and plural’. All the Synoptists use
the plural to describe the parting of Christ’s “ garments ” among the
soldiers. John does the same, but he indicates that the plural
means a single cloak in seams capable of being divided equally
among four soldiers. John adds a negative detail about “not
rending the tunic*,” but casting lots for it; and he quotes the
Psalmist’s prophecy “They parted my clothes (ipdria) among them,
and on my clothing (ipatwpcv) they cast [the] lot.” This prophecy
may have afforded John an additional reason for preferring the
plural iwarva, even though our Lord wore nothing but the cloak
over the tunic’.
1 [22702] Mk v. 28 imariwy=Mt. ix. 21 iwartov: Mk v. 27 has imariov (but
ib. 30 iuariwy). Mk v. 27—30 has pl. in speech, sing. in narrative.
* [22704] The only Synoptic mention of “tunic” in the Passion is in
Mk xiv. 63 “he rent his tunics,” where the parall. Mt. xxvi. 65 has ‘‘ garments.”
But this applies to the Highpriest. Luke omits it. In Acts xvi. 22 mepipjiavres
avTayv Ta iwdria, two or three scribes have éavrér, supposing that the praetors rent
their own garments (2563c) ; but the meaning is that they caused the garments
to be rent off from the Apostles. ‘‘Rend (garments) ” in Mk-Mt. is dtapyoow, but
in Jn oxlfw.
* [2270c] In iii. 33 bOara woddd, the pl. of tdwp, being freq. (Steph.) in non-
hebraic Greek as well as in LXX, calls for little comment except as to the com-
bination *‘ many waters,” which occurs in N.T. only here and Rev. i. 15, xiv. 2,
xvil. I, xix. 6. In Rev. xvii. 1 (Jer. li. 13, LKX pl.), it is used of turbulent forces
(as in Is. vill. 7, LXX sing.). The first use of Heb. ‘‘ many waters” (Gesen. 913 2)
refers to the waters of Meribah (Numb. xx. 11, LXX sing.). In the Psalms
XXIX, 3, xxxil. 6, Ixxvii. 19, xciii. 4, cvii. 23, cxliv. 7, béara rod denotes stormy
violence, over which Jehovah rules, or from which He delivers the Psalmist. In
oe
Ezek. xvii. 5, 8, xxxi. 5, ‘‘ many waters” (LXX tdwp odd sing.) denotes fertilising
streams, but in Ezek. xxvi. 19 (UXX sing.) it denotes destroying inundation.
216
PARTICIPLE [2272 |
PARTICIPLE (1894*)
(i) Causal
[2271] This is more frequent in John than in the Synoptists.
The Johannine phrase “answered avd said,” as distinct from the
Synoptic ‘‘answering (aroxpiGe’s) said,” shews that John avoids the
participle as a substitute for “and.” But he frequently—or at all
events more frequently than the Synoptists—uses it for ‘‘ because.”
[2272] In iv. 6 “Jesus, therefore, because he was qwearied (xexor-
taxws) by the journey, was sitting, just as he was (ov7ws) by the
well,” kexomwvaxws must be interpreted in the light of the fact that the
word occurs in John only here and in the context (iv. 38) “I have
sent you to reap that over which ye have not wearted yourselves :
others have been weary.” The “weariness” is that of the labourers
in the harvest of God. And the “weariness” of the Messiah,
thirsting, and preaching the Gospel in “the heat of the day’,”
prepared the way for the work of the Apostles in later times,
as described in the Acts (vill. 25). The phrase “just as he was”
indicates (from the human point of view) fortuitousness, or at all
events (1916—7) absence of premeditation. But the narrative
suggests that what might be called ‘‘ casual” in all these details was
really foreordained. On another occasion, when our Lord was
apparently even more exhausted so that He fell asleep, Mark—and
Mark alone?—says that the disciples conveyed Him ‘‘as he was (ws
nv)” in the boat; and then He arises out of sleep to manifest
Himself as Lord of the winds and waves. So here, the weariness is
represented as the instrumental cause of an apparently casual
consequence. It would have been somewhat too logical, and perhaps
almost stilted, to say “ decause (ort) he was wearied ” ; but the participle
suffices to suggest it. And the story as a whole makes us feel that
the journey itself, the intense weariness, and the sudden sitting down
to rest just before the coming of the Samaritan woman, were all
foreordained to divine ends.
“1 [9272 a] Mt. xx. 12, comp. Jn iv. 6 ‘“‘it was about the sixth hour,” i.e. noon.
The “weariness” was not accidental but providential, like the journey itself
(iv. 4 ‘‘ there was need (é5e) that he should go through Samaria”). In Jn (as
in Rev.) de? always refers to spirztual decree or spiritual necessity, ill. 7, 14, 30,
Vien 2OsN 24 5nI Kel 4s Xe) 105) Kile) 34) XKo 0
2 Mk iv. 36.
207,
[2273] PARTICIPLE
[2273] In the same narrative (iv. 9) ‘‘ How is it that thou, deeng
a Jew, askest drink from me, ée¢vg a Samaritan?” the participles
might be most obviously explained as “ ¢hough thou art,” and
“though I am.” But an explanation more in accordance with
Johannine usage would be to render the participles by “sznce,”
having regard to the negative implied in the question: “Thou hast
no right, sézce thou art a Jew, to ask drink from me, sézce I am
a Samaritan.” So, in English, we should say, ‘You, being under
age—what right have you to vote?” or ‘how is it that you vote?”
In iv. 39, “because of the word of the woman féestifying (rHs y.
paptepovons...)” means “testifying as she did,” suggesting “ decause
she repeatedly testified’”: and in iv. 45, “having seen” means
“because they had seen.” It would be impossible to find such
a group of causal participles in the Synoptists. In xxi. 12 «idores
probably means “‘decause they knew,” not “¢hough they knew”
(1924 a).
(ii) Tenses of (see also Tense, 2499—510)
(a) TydAdc odn (ix. 25)
[2274] In ix. 25 “One thing I know, that [¢hough] being [once |
blind, now I see (rupdds dv apte BA€rw),” the present participle
is perhaps used for brevity and zoré is omitted because it has already
been used (ix. 13 tov wore tupAov). Compare ix. 17 “they say to the
blind man” for “to the once blind man.” But the writer may possibly
intend to suggest that the blindness had been so recently cured that
it was almost present, “being [up to this moment] blind.”
1 [2273.2] iv. 39 (A.V.) ‘the woman, which,” (R.V.) ‘the woman, who.”
Possibly R.V. took it as rs y. THs wapr., which Shakespeare would have rendered
“the woman /hat,” but which A.V. (according to its custom) renders ‘‘ the
woman which.” R.V., which generally follows A.V. in this use of ‘*which,”
deviates here,’ and adopts ‘‘ who,” presumably meaning ‘‘and she” or ‘‘for she.”
According to a convenient usage generally adopted in the English of Shakespeare
and Addison, and one that would conduce to clearness in modern English, ‘‘zv/o”
should introduce a non-essential statement about the antecedent (‘‘I heard it from
the policeman, who heard it from the postman”). ‘“ That” should introduce
a statement that is essential to the complete meaning of the antecedent (‘tI heard
it from the boy ¢/a¢ cleans the boots”). See the author’s How to Write Clearly,
Seeley and Co., and comp. 1493 a, 15644.
218
PARTICIPLE [2275]
(8) ‘O on EN TH Oypand (ill. 13, R.V.)
[2275] In iii. 13 “No man hath ascended to heaven save he
that descended from heaven, [even] the Son of man,” R.V. text adds
““who is in heaven,” 0 av ev To otpave. W.H. reject the addition
(without marginal alternative), pointing out that it is omitted in many
early quotations in which the insertion of the words—had they been
recognised by the quoters as genuine—might be described as
“morally certain'.” Without this addition the words appear to mean
that the real and spiritual ascension to heaven has always been the
result of a descent from heaven. The descending influence was
referred to earlier in reverse order, (i. 51) ‘“‘the angels of God
ascending and descending on the Son of man,” where it seems to
mean the prayers of the Logos going up to heaven and returning to
earth. Here the meaning seems to be that the Logos has always
been descending on man to lift man up to God. This Logos, the
express Image of God, is here identified with the incarnate Image of
God, the “Son of man.”
1 (2275 a] W.H. point out that Origen’s alleged quotations of the clause are
only from the Latin of Rufinus, and elsewhere Origen omits it. They think the
interpolation “ perhaps suggested” by i. 18 6 wy eds Tov KéArrov T. TaTpds. Possibly
“the Son of man” seemed a weak ending, unless it was defined in some way
as meaning the Divine Ideal of Man, the Man in Heaven. Some Greek conflation
of OYC Toy ANOy (2.e. ‘‘the Son of man”) and 0WNENOYN® (?-e. ‘who is in
heaven’’) may have favoured the interpolation. A®* omits wn.
[2275 4] Inv. 35 éxeivos nv 6 AU’xXVOs 6 Katduevos Kai Paivwy there are perhaps
two allusions. The first is to Christ’s doctrine about lighting the candle (Avxvos)
and putting it where all may see (Mk iv. 21, épxerar, but Mt. v. 15 has kaiovow
and Lk. viii. 16 ayas), and prob. to a proverbial distinction between the candle
that has to be thus daily “lighted” (6 katéuevos) or ‘continually burns,” and the
sun, which needs no such lighting (comp. Philo i. 485 ‘‘for the one [the eye
of the soul] is like ¢4e sun but these [the bodily eyes] are like candlebearers
(Auxvovxors)).”” The second may be to Sir. xlviii. 1 ‘‘his word [z.e. the word of
Elijah] durned continually like a torch (ws Naumas éxalero)’; but there the
Hebrew (‘‘His words were like a burning furnace”), and the Greek context,
indicate that xaiw has a different meaning from that in Mt. Does xacduevos here
mean “continually burning” or ‘‘lighted day by day”? In view of kacduevos
“‘steadily burning” in Lk. xii. 35 AUxXVOL Katduevor, Rev. iv. 5 Naumaddes mupds
Katouevar Evwiov T. Opdvov, xxi. 8 7H ALuvy TH KaLouévy (comp. Rev. viii. 8, xix. 20)
and €kaiero in Sir. xlviii. 1, we are justified in concluding that the present participle
means continuousness (‘‘ steadily burning”): but the verb itself (“‘ dz”) and the
context, suggest that the continuousness is only for its appointed hour, and that
the ‘‘candle” not only “ durns” but also ‘‘ burns away.”
219
[2276] PARTICIPLE
(vy) ‘H ékmazaca (xi. 2)
[2276] In xi. 2 “Now Mary was the [Mary, or, woman] ‘hat
anotnted...,” it is correct, but not enlightening, to say that the
Anointing “ presented itself to the writer as a past event’,” and thus
to explain the aorist participle used concerning an act that the
evangelist records later on. Every event in the Fourth Gospel
“presented itself to the writer as a past event.” But, as to this
particular event, the Anointing of Christ by a Woman—probably
well-known, in some form, to all Christians at the end of the first
century, but connected by Luke alone with a “sinner ”—the Fourth
Evangelist takes this opportunity (afforded by the necessity of
mentioning Mary in connexion with Lazarus) to say, before he comes
to the Anointing, that this same Mary was the Mary (or, woman)
whose story was in everyone’s mouth. It would have been tedious
to say “the woman that will presently be described by me as
anointing....”
(ili) Present with jv
[2277] The Hebraic use of jv diuddoKwv, Kkypiocowyr etc. for the
imperfect, ‘“‘he was teaching, preaching etc.” is quite distinct from
such phrases as jv €xed kaGypevos “there happened to be on the spot
sitting ” (where 7v is separated from the participle) and also from jv
with the perfect passive participle. In N.T., when 7y is separated
from the present participle, it is often better to supply some
predicate from the context and to take the participle as in classical
Greek, especially in those Gospels where the Hebraic participle is
rare. In John, it is very rare. But there are approximations to the
Hebraic participle in xiii. 23 #v avakeiwevos (which however resembles
both in meaning and in sound the passive pluperfect) and in xviii. 30
ei py QV ovUTOs Kakov 7owwv, Where perhaps the intention is, not to
represent Hebraically the imperfect éxaxo7oer (“if he had not been
doing mischief”) but to suggest “if he had not been a man
continually doing mischief,” ze. an habitual mischief-worker (SS, 4,
and f, “if he had not been an evi/doer®”). John’s general separation
S Winer; ps 420,
* (2277a] In Jn iii. 22—3 “ Jesus and his disciples came into the land of
Judaea and there (éxez) he tarried with them and was baptizing (€8am7ufev). Now
there was also John (jv 6é kai [6]’I.) baptizing (Bam7ifwy) in Aenon,” the context
suggests the meaning “‘ John, also, was in that neighbourhood, namely, in Aenon,”
so that it is not quite like the jv xnpicowy or dddoxwv of Mark and Luke.
220
PARTICIPLE [2279]
of participles from ¢yévero and 7v favours their separation in
i. 6 “There came [into being] (éyévero) a man (av@pw7os), sent from
God (dweotadpeévos rapa Geov),” where (1937) €yévero is contrasted
with 7v above, avOpwros with Acyos above, and az. 7. Geod with nv
apos tov Oedv above. The same applies to i. 9 ‘There was [from the
beginning] the light, the true [light], which lighteneth every man,
coming as it does (épxomevov) [continually] into the world.” On this,
see 2508.
(iv) Agreement of
[2278] A singular noun, when plurai in meaning, is often the
subject of a plural verb, but is not so often followed by a plural
participle, as in xll. 12 6 oyAos Todds Oo EAOwV...akovoarTes...€AaBor.
In €AaBov alone there would have been nothing remarkable, nor in
axovoartes if it had followed €AaBov: but, coming before the plural
verb, the unusual plural participle suggests a desire to emphasize the
plurality of the crowd,—a desire also apparent in the extraordinary
phrase o oyAos rodvs (1739—40). In 1. 48 apo rod ce Bidtrrov
dwvyncat ovta bro THY GuUKHV €loov oe the participle may agree with the
first or second oe, see 2372 4.
(v) Prefatory use of
[2279] John uses prefatory participial clauses, to an extent
unequalled in the Synoptists, to prepare the reader for some
especially solemn utterance or act of Christ’s. A combination of
this use with the genitive absolute is particularly noticeable in the
preface to the Washing of Feet: xii. 1—4 ‘‘ Now before the feast...
Jesus Anowing that his hour had come...faving loved his own...he
loved them to the end. And, zwhzle supper was going on (deirvov
ywopevov), the devil having now put it into the heart...vow2ng that
the Father had given him all things into his hands, and that..., he
riseth from supper.” Similar phrases introduce some of the most
important events in Christ’s life’.
1 [2279 a] The conversion of the two disciples that constitute the firstfruits of
the Church is preceded by i. 38 orpadels 5é 6 "I. kal Oeardmevos, the cure of the
impotent man by v. 6 Tofrov id 6’I....kal ywots dr..., the feeding of the five
thousand by vi. 5 émdpas oy Tovs 60. 6 “I. kal Oeacduevos Orv..., the spiritual
explanation of the doctrine of the flesh and blood by vi. 61 efdws dé 6 "I. ev éauT@
ére...(referring to the ‘‘ murmuring” of some of the disciples), and Christ’s last
two utterances on the Cross by xix. 28—30 pera tadra eldws 6 I. dre Hon...... bre
ovv éhaBev 7d d&0s 6’I., where we have the subject preceded first by a participle
and then by the equivalent of one.
221
[2280] PREPOSITIONS
PREPOSITIONS
[2280] For a brief comparison of the Johannine with the
Synoptic use of prepositions in general and statistics bearing on
the comparison, see 1881—5. ‘The following remarks will deal with
particular prepositions in alphabetical order, including some passages
that may be of interest (apart from grammatical usage) because
of their bearing on Johannine thought and purpose as distinct from
mere style.
(1) ’Ava
[2281] “Ava occurs only once in John, as follows: ii. 6 “Now
there were szx waterpots of stone set there after the Jews’ manner of
purifying, containing ¢wo or three firkins apiece (xwpotoat ava petpytas
dvo 7) Tpeis).” "Avda, with numbers, occurs elsewhere in N.T., though
very rarely’. In the Apocalypse, it occurs in connexion with the
“stx” wings of the seraphs, whom Isaiah describes as with fo
covering the face, with fwo the feet, and with ¢wo flying?. Philo
(2283 4) speaks mystically of the number “szx” as ‘composed of
twice three, having the odd as the male and the even as the female”
and as generating the things that are “perfected by the sevez.” No one
disputes that purifying vessels of the Jews may have held “/zo
or three firkins apiece” and that dva petpytas dvo 7) tpeis means this:
but if the phrase is also symbolically intended®*, the symbolism may
affect the grammatical interpretation of other parts of the narrative.
According to a literal interpretation—which must be presumed to be
part of the meaning even though the spiritual interpretation may be
the chief part—the stone vessels were first filled to the brim by the
attendants, and then they “drew” either (1) from them or (2) from
the well*, and “‘carried” to the Ruler of the Feast, who said that “the
1 Mt. xx. g, 10 ‘‘fone] denarius afzece,” Lk. ix. 14 ‘‘ dy fifties,” x. 1 ‘‘ dy
twos,”’ Rev. iv. 8 ‘‘six wings apiece,” xxi. 21 ‘Seach one (ava eis) of the several
gates.” In LXX, Oxf. Conc. mentions dvd (in any sense) as occurring—apart
from dva uécov—only nine times.
2 Rev. iv. 8, alluding to Is. vi. 2 (where dvd is not used).
3 See Enc. 1796—7 (‘‘Gospels” § 47) on the apparent symbolism of Johannine
numbers generally and, in particular, the (xxi. rr) ‘‘one hundred and fifty three”
fish.
4 [2281 a] Field (ad oc.) ‘‘ Ot jvTXynKores 7d Udwp. This is generally under-
stood of drawing the water from the well, as in Ch. iv. 7. So St Chrysostom :
el yap €weddbv Ties dvatoxurTetv, HOvvavTo mpds avrods Néyew ol dtaxovnodmevot-
222
PREPOSITIONS [2282]
good wine” had been “kept to the last.” (1) If the “drawing”
was from the vessels, of which the contents were all changed into
wine, then we have to suppose that 130 gallons of water were thus
converted’. (2) If, as Westcott explains it, the “drawing” was
from the well—which would be the usual sense of avrAéw—then we
have to suppose the filling of the vessels to be a preliminary and
independent act, as though Jesus had said, ‘‘Before the water from
the well can be turned into the wine of the Gospel, it must first
be used to fill the vessels of purification of the Law.”
[2282] The former interpretation (“drawing from the vessels”)—
besides the difficulty of the supply of wine being very far in excess of
the need—describes the wine as being in the ‘“‘stone vessels” of which
the interpreters of the Talmud said, “If anyone have water fit
to drink, and ¢hat water by chance contract any uncleanness, let him
fill the stone vessel with it’.” Westcott’s interpretation avoids these
Tuets TO VOwp WvTAnTaMEV* Tuets Tas VSplas éverhjoapev....” But Migne omits
nuets T. v. evemjogauev and gives nov. r. The omission would leave the reader
free to suppose that the attendants, according to Chrysostom, could say ‘‘ We
drew the water [out of the vessels|”—which accords with the view taken by Field.
He apparently thinks that other attendants (or perhaps women) would have
previously drawn water from the well for all the needs of the household, and
that ‘‘the attendants” merely filled the vessels to the brim with this water and
then ‘‘drew out” the water from the vessels. This is certainly more probable
than that the attendants were sent away from the house to draw water from the
well. Chrysostom clearly believes that the wine came out of the vessels—and not
direct from the well (as Westcott suggests)—for he meets the objection of sceptics
that perhaps these vessels had been used for vintage purposes and retained
a savour of wine.
1 A “‘firkin,” wetpytys, Heb. ‘‘ bath,” was nearly g gallons, so that the 6
vessels would contain 6 x 24 xg gallons.
2? [2282.a] Hor. Heb. ad loc. quoting Gloss. (apparently) on Ke/im cap. 1,
hal. 1. The phrase ‘‘/4e stone vessel” suggests that ove vessel sufficed most
households. And it seems reasonable to believe that this would often be the case
if the vessel held 22 gallons. As for the petpyr7s, Steph. says that the Attic
measure differed from the Roman or Italian, and also quotes Aristotle as mention-
ing a metpytns Maxedovxds. The grammarian Thomas said, duope’s Néye, “7
oTdpvos unde pmerpnT7s, ef Kal Tes. It is applied, however, by Polybius ii. 15. 1
to wine in Gaul (rod 6’ oivou Tov werpnr7jv) as though it needed no explanation. In
the Indices to Egypt. Pap. it does not appear except in the Fayum vol., where it is
used as a measure for oil, 95, 96 etc. Steph. describes it as ‘‘ vas magnae cujus-
dam capacitatis nulla certa definitum mensura.” It is made the subject of witticism
when a man gives another a “etpyr7s of wine on condition that it shall keep its
name because of merpudr7s, z.e. he is to drink moderately. On the other hand,
Xenarchus the Rhodian was called perpnrjs because of his vast drinking.
223
[2283] PREPOSITIONS
two difficulties—but at the cost of converting the “filling of the
vessels” into a mere symbol, while still taking the rest of the story
literally. Nor is the symbol quite clear. The water of the Gospel,
the water that becomes wine, comes independently from the well or
spring. ‘The preliminary water goes into the vessels of the Law ae
stays there. It does nothing.
[2283] On the whole it seems more in accordance both with the
literal and with the spiritual interpretation that the water of the Word
should be supposed to be placed frst in the vessels of the Law.
Thence, having been transmuted, it is ‘drawn forth zow (emph., viv),”
at Christ’s command, as the wine of the Gospel. ‘To the objection
that such water was “unclean” for purposes of drinking, might not
the evangelist reply (like the voice that replies to Peter’s objection
in the Acts’) that what God hath “cleansed” is not to be called
“common or unclean”? According to this view, Christ, in this
symbolic story, transmutes the outwardly purifying element of the
Law into the inwardly purifying element of the Spirit. If some such
symbolism is really latent here, we should expect (according to the
principle of Philonian interpretation) to find traces of it in the
mention of the numbers “two,” “¢hree,” and “six,” here mentioned
by John. In a history, describing the sinking of so many triremes
or the destruction of so many soldiers, numbers would be simply
numbers. But in a symbolic story unfolding the future transmutation
of Law into Gospel, numbers (not necessary for the narrative) would
rarely be inserted unless they lent themselves to symbolism. From
the allegorizing point of view, the numbers ‘‘two,” “three,” and “six”
are easily capable of an appropriate meaning’.
1 [2283 a] Acts x. 14. Comp. Ephrem p. 56 ‘‘ Denique hoc miraculum fecit
ut ves viles in delicatas permutando doceret eas non esse natura malas ”—where
perhaps ‘‘viles” means ‘‘ common, cheap.”
2 [2283 4] Philo says (ii. 281) ‘‘ The number Szx is even and odd, composed
of twice three, having the odd as the male and the even as the female, from which
[numbers] are the origins [of things] according to the unalterable laws of nature,”
and ‘*‘ What things the Sx generates these things the Seven exhibits when per-
fected.” In Isaiah’s above quoted description of the seraphim (each of which had
‘‘ six” wings) giving glory to the Lord in the Temple, ‘‘six” might be taken as
symbolizing the created world giving glory to the Creator, and Isaiah’s mention
of the uses of each of the three pairs of wings would favour Philo’s allegorizing
wo” and the ‘‘¢Avee”” as making up the “‘szx.” A work
> 6¢
ee
interpretation of the
like the Fourth Gospel, which appears, even when narrating facts, to set them
forth with symbolism and allusion, might naturally illustrate this sign, apparently
224
—_
PREPOSITIONS [2285 |
(ii) *Avré
[2284] *Avré occurs only once in John as follows: i. 14—17 “And
the Word became flesh and tabernacled in [the midst of] us...full of
grace and truth...because from his fulness we all received and grace
in the place of (avti) grace: because [whereas] the Law through
Moses was given [by God,] the grace [of God] and the truth [of God]
through Jesus Christ came into being.”
[2285] In classical Greek, avr’ is used in phrases describing the
lex talionis of “like for, i.e. tn the place of, like.” The Thesaurus
quotes ‘‘man for man,” “woman /or woman,” “insult for insult,”
performed on the sabbath, by a numerical detail suggesting ‘‘ ¢wo” and ‘‘ three”’ as
part of the preparation for what Philo calls ‘‘ ze Seven when perfected.”
[2283] Origen (Phzlocal. i. 12) explains dva perpnras S00 7 Tpets as referring
to three different aspects of the Scriptures, and he adds é dé Jdpiar evAdyws eici
Tos & TH Kbouw Kabapfoudvas yevouévw (Robinson yeyevnuévw) év & nuépacs
apiOug tedelw. By ‘perfect number” (Plato 546 B, and see Steph.) he means
a number that is ‘‘ perfected,” or ‘‘ completed,” by adding the terms of an Arith-
metical Progression. Thus 3, 6, and ro are called perfect numbers, because 3 = 1+ 2;
6=1+2+3; 1o=1+2+3+4. Philo (ii. 183) and Clement of Alexandria (782)
call 10 “the a/l-perfect or all-perfecting decad” (dexddt TH Tavredela, Sexas de
6moroyeirac mavTédevos eivar (the fem. in -efa should be recognised in L. and S.)),
but six is also a ‘‘ perfect’ number and one that would commend itself to a Jew
as symbolical of creation. Since six derives its ‘‘perfection”’ from the addition
of ‘“‘two” and ‘‘three”’ to unity, it is all the more intelligible that Jn should here
introduce the ‘‘two” and ‘‘three” as well as the ‘‘six.” It may be added that
Augustine interpreted the ‘‘one hundred and fifty three” in xxi. 11 as being a
**perfect number,” the sum of 1+2+3... up to 17, where 10 and 7 represent
severally the ‘ten commandments” of the Law and “‘ the seven spirits of God.”
[2283 7] A number may be allegorized variously by different interpreters, and
the variation may be alleged as proof that no allegory or inner meaning was ever
intended. As an instance, however, to the contrary, see Gen. xiv. 14 ‘‘three hundred
and eighteen,” allegorized by Barn. ix. 8 and Clem. Alex. 782 as referring to the
cross of Christ, but Hershon says: ‘‘ Our sages say: ‘He went in pursuit with
Eliezer alone, whose name has the numerical value of three hundred and eighteen.’”
The application of ‘‘numerical value ” to names may be illustrated by the ‘‘number
of the beast” in the Apocalypse, 666, a sort of parody, thrice repeated, of the
*all-perfect number.”
[2283 ¢] In renderings of O.T., jwerpnrjs represents the Hebrew dath, a
measure of liquid, as follows: Ezek. xlv. 14 ‘‘the édath of oil...tenth part of a
bath out of the cor which is ten daths, even an homer ; for ten da¢hs are an homer,”
LXX thrice corvAn, Aq. (twice) uerpntns, Theod. twice Bdros: 2 Chr. iv. 5 ‘‘ three
thousand éaths,” LXX jwerpyrds (Field)”"AdXos: Kepdyua (comp. Is. v. 10 ‘‘ bath,”
Kepapuov, Oi Aowroi- Bator), parall. 1 K. vii. 26 ‘‘ two thousand éaz¢hs,” LXX om.,
A dirxidlous xoets: 1 Esdr. viii. 20 ‘*an hundred measures (uerpnrav) of wine,”
corresponding to Ezr. vil. 22 ‘fan hundred daths of wine,” droOnkav, A Bdduwr.
In Dan. Bel 3 LXX has éXaod (Theod. olvov) perpyrai éé.
A. VI 225 15
[2286 ] PREPOSITIONS
“blow for blow” etc., and the Sermon on the Mount has “eye for an
eye,” “tooth for a tooth’.” But, apart from contexts suggesting end-
less vendetta, avri might mean “[coming constantly] in the place of,”
so as to denote “one thing [ fo//owing| upon another”; and Origen
actually paraphrases it so here, ‘‘a second grace wfon (éri) a former
grace,” though both in the preceding and in the following context he
quotes the clause with avri?, ’Avri is used by Philo® similarly, but
somewhat differently, to describe the succession of the graces of God,
who ¢akes away the old, and dispenses to us constantly “‘new zz the
place of old.” Elsewhere He is said to pour them on us in an
unceasing and continuous succession or orbit‘.
[2286] There is probably in John, as in Philo, an intention
to suggest the notion of ‘‘exchange” rather than that of mere
succession. Both Ongen and Chrysostom appear to discern, in this
passage, a taking away of the old grace, or gift of the Law (“the Law
was given”), in order to substitute the new gift of the grace and truth
that are in Christ. The Zaw was given to Israel through Moses
because (Deut. vil. 7) the Lord “loved” them and “chose” them,
that is to say, God gave it as a gift, or grace; but His full grace and
truth, latent under that Law, did not come into being till the Word
became flesh as Jesus Christ in order to “‘¢ake away” the first grace,
i.e. the Law of Moses, so as to establish the second grace, 7.e. the
grace of freedom, or sonship,—the grace of the Father as manifested
in the grace of the Son’.
[2287] ‘We all” is perhaps intended to mean more than the
“we” that is so common in the First Epistle (‘“‘we know,” “ze
are the sons of God” etc.). ‘‘We” means “we Christians.” But
“we all”—like “every man” at the beginning of the Prologue—may
mean “every human being from the creation of man.” All have
1 (2285 a] ‘‘De rebus adversis dicitur,” says Steph. Comp. Theogn. 342—3
el wh Te Kak@v dumavua pepyuvéwy evpoiunv, Solnv & avr’ dvidy avias. Alf. quotes
Chrys. de Sacerdot. 6. 13 vol. i. p. 435 érépav av0’ érépas ppovrida.
2 Orig. Huet ii. 95.
3 [22856] Philo i. 254 Tas mpwras del ydpiras, mplv KopecOévras éfuBpicac (so
Wetst., Mang., by error, -ec@év -ice) rods Naxdvras, émoxuv, Kal TaplevTdmevos,
elaaiOis érépas dvtl éxelywy, kal rpiras av7l r&v Sevrépwy kal ael véas avril madao-
répwv, ToTe pev Otapepotioas, ToTe 6 av kal ras a’ras érdldwer.
4 [2285] Philo i. 342 6 rHv T&v SwpeGv éwdddndov Hopdy aravaTws cuvelpwy,
6 Tas Xdpiras exouévas adAjAwY avakuKNov.
5 Comp. Heb. x. g ‘‘He taketh away the first that he may establish the
second.”
226
PREPOSITIONS [2289]
received, in various degrees and kinds, gifts from the Pleroma,
the Fulness of Him that filleth all in all’.
(iii) ’Amé
(a) °Ano and ék meaning “[some] of,” see 2213—5
(8) ’Amo, transposition of
[2288] *A7d, meaning “off,” is placed before rnyov in xxi. 8
“about two hundred cubits off (ard wnyav diaxociwv).” It is a
natural transposition arising from the desire to give prominence to
the notion “distant,” as in our “distant two hundred cubits,” and
then, illogically, allowing the preposition that signifies distance to
govern “cubits.” Similarly zp is transposed in xii. 1 (lit.) “before six
days the Passover (po €& npepay tod racyxa),” for “six days before the
Passover,” like the Latin ‘‘defore the fifth day the Kalends” for ‘che
Sifth day before the Kalends.” Abundant instances will be found in
the Thesaurus, and there is nothing in the Johannine passages that
needs comment, except that the former transposition may be largely
the result of Latin influence, and that it is found in Revelation (xiv.
20) ‘‘at a distance of...furlongs (ad oradiwv...).”
(y) “And and éx describing domicile or birth-place
[2289] *Awo and é« occur in i. 44 “Now Philip was from (amo)
Bethsaida?, from out (ex) the city of Andrew and Peter*,” and
1 [2287 a] ‘‘Grace for grace” may be a different aspect of the saying ‘‘ He that
hath, to him shall be added,” and of the Synoptic doctrine concerning ‘‘ reward.”
A ‘‘talent” given by the Master of the House may be called a ‘‘grace” given by
the Father. In the Parable of the Talents the Master gives the talents. The
servant returns the talents doubled. Lastly, the servant receives, in return, the
joy of his Lord. By calling the talent ‘‘a grace,” a writer would indicate that the
transaction is one of free gift, on both sides, with no thought of bargain. The
child that returns to the Giver the grace or talent of childhood with interest,
receives the grace or talent of youth, and the youth, again, the grace or talent of
manhood, and, finally, that of old age. God, in each case, may be said either to
“take away,” or receive back, the first grace, that He may ‘‘establish” the
second.
[2287 4] Perhaps, also, John wishes, at the outset of his Gospel, to indicate to
his readers why he will very rarely use the Synoptic word, pucGds, 7.2. ‘‘ hire,”
‘“wages,” or ‘“‘reward.” It expresses a truth: but, if used too often and without
care, it might lead some to suppose that God bargains. The Fourth Gospel uses
the word only once, when Jesus says (iv. 36) ‘‘ A/ready is he that is reaping
receiving wages,” i.e. ‘‘The very act of reaping God’s harvest is your ‘wages,’ just
as the very act of doing God’s will is my ‘meat.’”
2 Comp. xii. 21 rpooH day (2.e."E\Anves) Pudi To ard B. rs Tadidalas.
3 [22892] A.V. ‘‘of B., the city,” R.V. ‘“‘from B., of the city.” The Latin
MSS. render dé by ‘‘a,” éx by ‘“‘de,” ‘‘ex” (or om.).
227 2
[2290] PREPOSITIONS
i. 45—6 “We have found...Jesus son of Joseph,—him [that is] frome
Nazareth (I. vidv tov “Iwonp tov ard Nalapér).../rom out (ék)
Nazareth can any good thing be!?” These two passages, so far as
they go, suggest that (in both) azo signifies domicile and 逫 extraction.
In the former, ek may be used to imply that Philip, though resident
in Bethsaida, had sprung “from” Capernaum, the city of Andrew
and Peter; in the latter, to imply that the Messiah could not spring
“from” Nazareth (instead of Bethlehem). But this rule seems
broken in vii. 41—2 “ But others said, Can it be that the Christ is to
come from out (éx) Galilee? Did not the Scripture say that from out
(€x) the seed of David, and from (azo) Bethlehem, the village where
David was (orov jv A.), the Christ is to come*?” Here, where we
might expect ‘‘/rom out Bethlehem,” to denote that the Messiah was
to be dorn there, the weaker preposition is substituted, perhaps
because the stronger has been already used to denote extraction from
the family of David.
[2290] Concerning xi. 1 (lit.) ‘‘ Now there was one [lying] sick
(qv 8€ tis dobevav) Lazarus from Bethany (A. azo Byfavias) from out
(ex) the village of Mary and Martha her sister” Chrysostom says,
“Not at haphazard does the evangelist tell us whence Lazarus was
(zoOev nv o A.), but for a certain cause, which he will subsequently
mention.” By the “cause” Chrysostom (doubtless) means Christ’s
special affection for the whole family at Bethany. For this reason,
we ought perhaps to connect ‘from Bethany,” not with “ Lazarus”
adjectivally, but with “was” predicatively, thus: ‘‘ Now a certain
man, lying sick [at the time], Lazarus [by name], was from
Bethany*,” which agrees with the construction in (2289) “ Now
>
Philip zvas from Bethsaida.” The writer proceeds on the principle of
”: and
1 [22894] The Latin versions here translate both dé and ék by ‘‘a
**Joseph a Nazaret(h) (or, Nazara)” in a, 4, e, and 7, might mean ‘‘Joseph of
Nazareth”; ff has ‘‘Joseph qui est a Nazareth,” which perhaps increases the
ambiguity.
= [2289'c]"\ Codex a, “‘dert-de:.:a 220,“ ex,--ex--- (OMe) caste nas. eX.. des =
e, “de Galilaea...de semine David a Bethlehem de castello David venit.” Mic. v.
2 has éx, not a7é, in the prophecy about ‘‘ Bethlehem” here alluded to.
8 [2290a] Comp. iii. 1 qv dé dvOpwros, éx Trav ®., N. dvoua avra, dpywy Trav’ I.
ovros nAGe, Where dpxwy is certainly the emphatic, if not the predicative part, of
the sentence. In xi. 1, a, 6, fhave ‘‘infirmus Lazarus nomine (07, nomine Lazarus)
a Bethania,” 7.e. ‘‘a sick man, Lazarus by name, from Bethany”; e has ‘‘erat
autem quidam Lazarus a Bethania qui tenebatur infirmitate magna”; all render
amé by ‘‘a,” éx by ‘‘de.” But @ has ‘‘de” for both,
228
PREPOSITIONS [2292]
“narrowing down.” As Lazarus has not been mentioned before, he
does not speak of “Lazarus from Bethany,” but thus: (1) “one,”
(2) “lying sick,” (3) “Lazarus,” (4) “domiciled at Bethany,”
(5) “a native of the village of Mary and Martha.” Then follow
(6) “Mary was the woman that anointed the Saviour’s feet,”
(7) “Lazarus her brother was sick,” (8) “he whom thou lovest is
sick.” It is not certain, he seems to say, that Lazarus was Jorn in
Bethany ; but it is certain that he was born in the same village as his
sisters, and that he was living now at Bethany. The passage
suggests that the evangelist is writing cautiously, in view of differences
of opinion; but it favours the conclusion that he uses azo to mean
domicile and éx to mean extraction.
[2291] xix. 38 “But after these things Joseph from (amo) Arima-
thaea asked Pilate...” All the evangelists use azo here. But the
parallel Mark and Matthew have ‘‘came” in the context of “from
Arimathaea” in such a way as to suggest that Joseph came from that
town for the purpose of presenting his petition to Pilate. Luke and
John make it clear that “from Arimathaea” indicates Joseph’s
domicile, and does not mean that he came on that day from that
village’.
[2292] From the Johannine combinations of azo and é« above
we may conclude with certainty that John makes a distinction
between them. Light on his motive may be thrown by the following
facts. (1) Mark’s only use of the phrase “Jesus from Nazareth” is
connected with “come,” so that it is ambiguous, ‘‘ There came Jesus
from (azo) Nazareth of Galilee*,” where the parallel Matthew omits
“Nazareth” and has merely “from Galilee.” (2) Matthew elsewhere
says that Jesus left “the [city] Mazara” (in which Joseph of
Bethlehem had settled on his return from Egypt’) and settled in
Capernaum®, but that the multitude called Him (not “Jesus from
Capernaum” but) “the prophet, Jesus, the [man, ov, prophet] from
1 [2290] The process of ‘‘narrowing down,” probably used unconsciously by
many, was recognised by the Jews (Sazhedr. 896) in God’s command to Abraham,
(Gen. xxii. 2) ‘Take now thy son” (Abr. ‘‘But I have two”); ‘‘ thine only son”
(Abr. ‘‘but each is the only son of his mother”); “‘ whom thou lovest” (Abr, ‘but
I love them both”); ‘‘Isaac” (to which there is no reply except in act).
2 The Latin codices mostly render dé by ‘‘ab,” but e by ‘‘qui ab” perh.
reading 6 am’ ’A. with &.
3 Mk xv. 43, Mt. xxvil. 57, Lk. xxiii. 51. 4 Mki. 9.
5 Mt. ii. 23 Nagapér. 68 Mt. iv. 13 7Tnv Nagapd.
229
[2293] PREPOSITIONS
Nazareth of Galilee?.” Luke never uses the phrase ‘‘ Jesus from (or,
the [man] from) Nazareth”; but, in his Introduction, he describes
Nazareth as the home of Mary and Joseph from the beginning
(although Jesus was born at Bethlehem), and, in the body of his
Gospel, on the only occasion on which he mentions Nazareth, he
says, “And he came to Wazara where he had been brought up’.”
The only mention of Nazareth in N.T. apart from the Gospels is in
the speech of Peter to Cornelius “ Jesus the [man] from Nazareth®.”
[2293] This, then, is one of the very many instances where John
uses a phrase used by Mark and Matthew and disused by Luke—
probably because Luke thought it likely to make people suppose that
Jesus was dvrn at Nazareth instead of Bethlehem. John takes up
the phrase azo N. and puts it before the reader, at the outset of his
Gospel, along with ex N., leading us to infer that Jesus might be
domiciled at Nazareth without having been dorm there. At the same
time he makes us applaud the faith of Philip, who could accept as
the Messiah “Jesus a son of Joseph,” domiciled at Nazareth, on the
strength of His personality alone*.
Mt. xxi. 11 6 mpopyrns Inoods 6 awd N. rijs TadeAalas.
Lk. iv. 16 7\Oev eis Nafapd, of ny TeOpaymévos.
[22922] Acts x. 36—8, an inextricably confused sentence, or rather group of
clauses, in which—without any certain grammatical construction—rov doyor, and
7d yevouevoy prua, and “beginning from (a6) Galilee” occur in connexion with
“Jesus from (a6) Nazareth.” Possibly there was some early confusion between
“Jesus beginning” and ‘‘the Word beginning,” and between the ‘‘word” in two
senses. W.H. have a long marginal alternative.
4 [22932] ’Aré, of domicile, is not quoted in Steph. from secular authors,
though there are abundant instances of it as denoting a school or sect, ‘*those from
(oi dé) the Porch” (also ‘‘ those from Aristarchus, Pythagoras etc.”). Swete (on
Mk xv. 43) quotes Joseph. Avt. xvi. 10. 1 (301) Evpuxdjjs ard Aaxedaluovos. But
the quotation, after a parenthesis about the man’s character, has émdnujoas ws Tov
‘Hpwonv, which suggests that dd A. é. may mean ‘having come from Lacedaemon
on a visit to Herod.” Even if that were not the exact meaning there, aaé would
probably be influenced by the impending verb (like Soph. Electr. 135 T6v y' €&
’Atda...Aluvas...avordces, quoted by Jelf $647). Thayer quotes no instances from
secular authors. In LXX, between ‘‘Jephthah the Gileadite” and ‘‘Elon the
Zebulonite,” we have Judg. xii. 8 ‘‘“Ibzan from Bethlehem,” amd (but A éx), and
sim. in 2 S. xxiii. 20 a6 (parall. to 1 Chr. xi. 22 dwép by error, al. ex. ad). Comp.
also the predicative use in Judg. xiii. 2 Kal qv avhp els amd (A éx) Sapad azrd (A ék)
Shuou svyyevelas To0 Aavel kal dvoua air Mave, Judg. xvii. 1 Kal éyévero avip
dard (A ef) dpous Eqpalu, cal dvoua aire Mecxalas. The variations of A are useful
as indicating that different writers might distinguish differently between amé and
oo to ~
éx in phrases of domicile or extraction.
[22934] The difference between awé and é« may also be illustrated by the
230
PREPOSITIONS [2295]
(5) *Ard, ék, and mapa, with éZépyomal, see éx, 2326—8
(iv) Ava
(1) Aids with Accusative of Person
[2294] An action may be done é:a twa when it is done “ because
of a person” in various aspects of causation: (1) (motive) “ decause
of the doer’s love of, or fear of, or, desire to please, the person,”
(2) (action) ‘‘decause the person helped, prompted, or constrained,
the doer.” In the former aspect appear “‘The Sabbath was made
because of {God’s love of] man',” and similarly “ decause of the elect ”
and ‘‘decause of Herodias®.” The latter, if it occurs at all in N.T.,
may be exemplified by the phrase “ because of the multitude,” which in
various contexts may suggest (1) because of some one’s desire not to
jostle, or press through, the multitude, or (2) because the multitude
hindered, constrained etc. But in xi. 42 it means “for the sake of
helping the multitude®.” The Epistle to the Hebrews contains the
only passage in N.T. that combines the personal accusative and the
personal genitive thus: “It became him, ¢.e. the Father, decause of
whom are all things and through whom are all things (dv 6v ta ravTa
kai 60 ov Ta wavra), in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the
captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.” It is also
concerning the Father that the Epistle to the Romans says, “ From
him and ¢hrough him, und to him, are all things’.” But the Epistle
to the Colossians says concerning the Son, “All things ¢hrough him
and to him have been created ®.”
[2295] These quotations, by themselves, would suffice to make
it probable that, by the end of the first century, Greek Christians
would be weighing and discussing the exact phrases by which they
ought to express the mediatory action of the Son in the regeneration
of the world. Philo actually exhibits such a discussion concerning
unique phrase (Jn xii. 49) €& €uavrod otk €Xd\noa as compared with the usual ovK«
am’ éuavtod \aXG. The former goes back more definitely to the fountain-head.
It is also more emphatic and comes appropriately in the solemn protest that
concludes Christ’s public preaching.
1 Mk ii. 27. 2 Mk xiii. 20, Mt. xxiv. 22, and Mt. xiv. 3.
3 [2294a] Mk ii. 4, iii. 9, Lk. v. 19, viii. 19, 6c& roy 8xAov. Comp.
Mt. xxvii. 19 6’ avréy=(1) ‘‘ because of my thoughts about him,” or (2) ‘‘ because
he terrified me in a vision.” On xii. 11 ‘‘ for the sake of [seeing] him [i.e. Lazarus]
&’ atrév)” (less probably “ by reason of [their having seen] him”) see 1652 0.
a Eleb, i. 10:
> Rom. xi. 36 €& avrod cal dv a’rod Kai els adrov Ta TayTa. SS Colwis 10;
231
[2296] PREPOSITIONS
the mediatory action of the Logos. He finds fault with Eve and
with Joseph for using the phrase ‘‘ trough God (1 Tov Got)?” —for
which he would certainly have rebuked the author of the Epistle to
the Hebrews, as implying that God was an instrument. Towards
the creation of anything there must be, he says, a combination of
several things. To make a house, for example, there must be
(1) builder, (2) materials, (3) instruments. In the abstract, he adds
a fourth term as follows: (1) the i¢’ ov, “by what,” 70 aizvov, “the
causal,” (2) the éé ov, “from what,” 7 vAy, “the material,” (3) the d¢
ob, “through what,” zo épyadetov*, “the instrumental,” (4) the du 6,
“because of what,” 7 airia, “the cause (07, reason).” Applied to
the House of the Universe, the Causal is God, the Material is the
four elements, the Instrument is the Word of God’.
[2296] Philo lays great stress on this distinction between the
Instrument and the Cause or the Causal. ‘“‘It characterizes,”
he says, ‘‘those who love truth, and who desire true and wholesome
knowledge: but those who say they have ‘obtained a thing through
God, [wrongly] suppose the Causal, the Builder, to be a [mere |
instrument, and [suppose] the instrument, the human mind, to be
the Causal.” The passage concludes with the assertion that salvation
is not ‘‘through God,” but “[a gift] from Him (rap’ airod) as being
the Causal*.”
1 Gen. iv. 1, xl. 8.
2 [2295a] Philo i. 161—2. Instead of 70 épyadeiov, he regularly uses 76
Bpyavov, or Ta Spyava, in the context. Aristotle defined a slave as “a living
organon” and Philo says expressly here dpyava yap 7uets, so that the term
includes ‘living instruments.”
3 [22955] So far, so good; but as regards the Cause, the 6c’ 6 or airla, the
parallel between the earthly house and the House of the Universe is not
maintained. For, in dealing with the former, instead of asking the question
<« Because of what?” (Aca ti ;) he asks ** On account of what?” (Tivos évexa ;)—
<< On account of what [is the house built] except for shelter and safety...,” Thos dé
dvexa mAHY oKémns Kal doparelas du’ 5 rovTs €ottv; The sense seems to require 76 6é
iu’ 8 To0Td éorw, ‘and this constitutes the 6.’ 6 or Why.” In his description of the
necessary conditions for a material house, he enumerates only three, (1) architect,
(2) stone and wood, (3) tools. He omits the cause or motive. Also, in speaking
of the House of the Universe, he says that ‘‘ the cause (alria) of its creation is the
goodness of the Architect.” Apparently he makes the odyect of the human architect,
which he calls ‘‘shelter and security,” parallel to the motive of the divine
Architect, which he calls His ‘‘ Goodness.”
4 [2296a] Ov did Tod Beod, dda wap’ adrod, ws alriov, Tb TwLerIa, where
mapd implies proceeding from a fersv7, whereas éx might mean “ from a source.”
The whole of the passage indicates a controversial attitude towards loose thinkers,
232
PREPOSITIONS [2297]
[2297] What, then, is the meaning of ‘because of the Father”
and “because of me” in vi. 56—7 “He that eateth my flesh and
drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him. Even as the living
Father sent me and I “ve because of the Father (6a tov ratépa) so he
that eateth me, he also shall “ve because of me (noe dv ene)!” ?
Starting from the second clause we begin by assuming that this
is different from the corresponding phrase with the genitive in
the Epistle, r Jn iv. 9 “In this was manifested the love of God in us
because God hath sent his only begotten Son into the world that we
may live through him (Cyowpev dv atrod).” The phrase Go du o€
may mean “I live decause of thee” in two senses: (1) “I live because
of thy action in the past [whether that of parents in giving life, or
that of friends in saving it],” (2) “I live because I desire to serve
29
thee, must serve thee, for the sake of serving thee [in the future].
who confused these distinctions. Taken all together, these extracts from Philo
strengthen the probability that John deliberately reserved the instrumental phrase,
6 at’rod, for the action of the Logos, or Son, both in the Gospel and in the
Epistle, so that he would not apply it to the action of the Baptist (2302—4).
But they also suggest that John would take pains to distinguish his doctrine of
the instrumental action of the incarnate Logos from that of Philo which contem-
plated no incarnation and perhaps no personality in the Logos. In any case the
facts make it absolutely certain—at least for those who regard the evangelist as
a careful writer (not to speak of his being more than usually careful) writing after,
and in the midst of, such discussions as these—that John would not use the 6x’ 6v
for the 6.’ ob or vice versa.
1 [2297a] A.V. ‘I live dy the Father...he shall live 6y me.” A.V. mostly
uses ‘‘ by ”’ to translate did with personal genitive when it refers to the action of
the Logos. Apparently A.V. took 6d with accusative here as meaning the same
thing as dud, with genitive.
? [22974] For (1) comp. Plut. Vit. Alex. § 8 (p. 668 d—e) concerning
Alexander, who said he owed life to his father, but good life to Aristotle, 6’
€xeivov wev (av dia TodTov dé Kad@s (Gv, Dion. Hal. 1579 did rods Beo’s (478 du’
ods) ué-yas éyevouny (Sylb. “ frequentius genetivum ”), (?) Aristoph. Plt. 470, Plutus
says 6.’ éué re (Gvras buds (ambig., perh. ‘‘to gain me”). In Hesiod Works 3—4,
ov Te dua Bporol dvdpes...Avds pweyddovo Exnte may mean “ because of his action in
the past...and thanks to whom (or, at whose mercy) in the future.” Timaeus
(quoted in Longinus iv. 3) says that Athens was punished as a whole, for the
mutilation of the Hermae, more especially 6’ éva dvdpa, ‘‘ because of one man,”
(Roberts) ‘‘the infliction of punishment was chiefly due to Hermocrates the son
of Hermon, who was descended...from the outraged god.”
[2297 c] For (2), Wetstein (on Jn vi. 57) quotes Xiphilinus in Caracalla p. 328
““T would fain déve because of jou alone (du buds povous (Hv €0é\w) that I may be
continually heaping favours on you f[all],” and Eustathius, who (on //iad v. 875
gol mavTes waxduecOa) says Fyouv dia oé, duocoy TH Dol (G, Aro dia oé. This is
important as indicating that ¢ dia oé was a familiar phrase meaning ‘I live for
thy sake,” z.e. to do thee service. Comp. Epictet. iv. 1. 150 (given by Wetst. as
233
[2298] PREPOSITIONS
But in later Greek the second of these interpretations predominates,
especially with the word “live,” and where the future is contemplated.
Moreover the first interpretation (‘I live because of thy action in the
past”) is scarcely to be distinguished from the genitival form “TI live
through thy action in the past.” Hence we infer that in the present
passage the phrase means—or perhaps it will be safer to say, includes
as its first meaning—‘‘he also shall live #o do me service, or, to do
my will,”
[2298] Going back to the parallel and preceding clause, “I live
because of the Father,” are we to infer that this means ‘‘I live Zo do
the will of the Father”? This is certainly one aspect of the truth,
and it agrees with the tenor of the whole Gospel, and particularly
with the words ‘“‘I am come down from heaven, xoft fo do mine own
will, but the will of him that sent me’.” But Jesus also says ‘‘My
meat is to do the will of him that sent me?,” and this implies that
the Father gives the Son “meat,” that is, supports and strengthens,
and causes the Son’s life. Thus we have here the two aspects of
causation mentioned above. The first is (motive) “I live decause
T desire to serve the Father”; the second is (action) “I live decause the
father gives me life.”
[2299] It is quite in John’s manner to avail himself of this
twofold meaning in order to suggest to his readers something of the
manysided mystery of the relation between the Father and the Son.
Epictetus (2297 ¢) had implicitly denied that it was nght for anyone
iii. 26) ‘‘ For my part I had as soon not live, if one were bound to live for che
sake of Felicion (61a iAnkiwva) [z.e. to do F. service] putting up with his frowns
and fits of slave-like fury (SovAcKod ppudyuaros, z.e. such as one might expect from
a slave promoted to office).” Also Winer (p. 498) quotes Long. Pastor. 2 p. 62
(Schaef.) dia Tas vias &fyoe. So the philosopher in Epictetus says to God ‘I
abide on earth merely for thy sake (dua oé)” (2705).
[2297 7] Comparing the two groups, we see that later Greek takes dud Tia
in the second sense, ‘‘to do anyone service,” and especially in the phrase (@ did.
Where the future is in view, ¢@ dvd would naturally have the second meaning.
[2297 ¢] Av addov, (dc? ovdéva etc.) without jv, occur in Epictetus in con-
nexion with his doctrine that we ought not to regard ourselves as unfortunate or
in evil case ‘* because of another person,” e.g. i. 9. 34 ados de’ AAXNov ov SuTTuXEt,
and Ench. xxiv. 1 ot divaca év Kax@ elva de’ &dXNov. According to Epictetus,
duorux@ 6’ &\Nov means ‘*I am made unfortunate decause of [my thoughts about]
another.” And this, he says, we ought never to say. This may include both
meanings ‘‘ we are not to be unhappy éecause of what anyone has done in the
past,” or ‘* because of what anyone may experience in the future.”
VAIS Os “h1Visy 34
234
PREPOSITIONS [2301]
to live ‘“‘decause of another.” But here John speaks of the disciples
as “living decause of the Son” and of the Son as “living decause of the
Father” in a manner that suggests that this is the highest kind of life,
hinting even at a reciprocal action, as though the Father also, from
the beginning, might have “lived because of the Son” —as we may
surely say that the Son “lived because of the Church.”
[2300] This passage, also, partially answers the question, Why
does John altogether omit the Synoptic doctrine that the disciples
are to do this and that “‘for the sake of (évexa)” Christ? The doctrine
is here. It is implied that those who receive Christ’s flesh and blood
are so impregnated with the common life of the Church that hence-
forth they “live decause of (da)” Christ. They do not serve Him
in this or that single act, by a separate effort on each occasion,
but spontaneously as the branch develops in the vine according
to the law of the vine—a metaphor not yet mentioned by John but
prepared for in the preceding words ‘‘He that eateth my flesh and
drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him’.”
(2) Ata with Genitive of Person
[2301] Strictly described, the author of an action (mentioned
passively) is distinguished from his agent or instrument by two
distinct prepositions, as in Matthew, ‘‘that which was spoken dy (iz0)
the Lord through (6a) the prophet’.” But Luke only once uses
this instrumental dca in connexion with “prophets” (‘‘written (lit. )
through (64) the prophets”); and once he has “‘¢hrough (dia) the
mouth of his holy prophets” (avoiding personal instrumentality)*.
Where Matthew describes the Baptist as sending “‘through (6.4) his
disciples,” Luke has ‘‘¢wo (dvo twas) of his disciples*.” In the
Triple Tradition, this personal genitive with dua occurs only in the
passages pronouncing woe on him “¢ivough whom (dv ov) the Son
1 [2300 a] Chrysostom comments thus: Kai iva un ayévynrov vouions mpocebnkev
evOis To, Ara Tov Ilarépa, ot Toiro deckvis Ste evepyelas Twos xpelav EXEL pds
To Chv...Tt ody éotw, Aca rov Marépa; Ti airiav évratda aivirrerar pdvov. “O dé
héyer Towodrév éort, Kadds éore fav 6 Ilarnp otrw Kayw fo. He seems to take
dud as ‘* because of [the divine begetting]” (in sense (1) given above (2297)), and
to interpret the clause as meaning ‘‘decause of the life similar to His own
transmitted to me permanently by the Father.”
25 Miz vinez2e © Comps i. 5, 15,17, 23; il. 3, iv. 14, Vill.’ 7, Xil. 17, XII. 35;
XXI. 4, XXIV. I5, XXVIi. Q.
SMICkeexvilleyo tenlon7 Os 4 Mt. xi. 2, Lk. vil. ro.
235
[2302] PREPOSITIONS
of man is to be delivered up’.” In John, dé with genitive of person
is repeatedly used to denote the agency of the Logos or of Christ,
“All things came into being ¢#rough him (6c avrod),” “The world
came into being ¢hrvough him,” “The grace [of God] and the truth
[of God] came into being ¢hrough Jesus Christ,” “God sent not the
Son into the world to judge the world but that the world should be
saved ¢hrough him”*” ete.
[2302] There is ambiguity in i. 7 “This [man] came for witness
that he might bear witness concerning the light (gw7ds), in order that
all might believe ¢hrough him (or; through it, ¢ airod). He (€xetvos)
was not the light, but....” Is it meant (a) that all might believe
through John the Baptist, or (6) that all might believe through
the Light, or through the Logos in whom is “the Life” that is “the
Light of men”?
In favour of (a) are these considerations. (1) John frequently
speaks elsewhere of believing the Son, and on, or in, the Son, and of
believing in the Light*®; but (2) there is no other Johannine instance
of “believe chrough the Son, or through Him, or through the Light.”
(3) The change from an unemphatic pronoun (‘‘through him (avrov)”)
to an emphatic “he (éketvos)” may be illustrated by other instances
in N.T.*, so that there is no difficulty in supposing both pronouns
to mean “the Baptist.” (4) In view of i. 17 “the Law was given
through Moses,” where subordinate agency is clearly attributed
to Moses, why may it not be attributed to John the Baptist?
[2303] In favour of (4) are the following arguments. (1) This is
the first passage in which the word “believe” is mentioned. Now
belief, in itself, may be either good or bad, belief in the true
God or belief in false gods. Is it likely that the new “belief”
should be introduced by the evangelist, as being ‘“‘de/ief through”
a “man”? (2) When first introducing a term, it is in accordance
with the evangelist’s style to use it in a broad sense, which he
afterwards “narrows down”; and all that he may mean here is that
the belief is to be “through the Light” (not, like superstitious
beliefs, “through the darkness”). > (3) “That a// might Jdelzeve
1 Mk xiv. 21, Mt. xxvi. 24, Lk. xxii. 22. Comp. Mt. xviii. 7, Lk. xvii. r.
2 [2301 a] Jn i. 3, 10, 17, iii. 17 etc. In xiv. 6 ‘‘No man cometh to the
Father save ‘through me,” the context (“I am the way”) may justify the
supposition that the phrase is metaphorical, and that the genitive is local, 6c’ 6600.
3 xii. 36 1. els 7d us.
4 See Field, O¢tz (on 2 Tim. ii.26).
236
PREPOSITIONS [2304 |
through John the Baptist”—even if we admit that this was the
will of God in sending the Baptist—is not so natural, in any
Christian writer, as “that a//7 might believe through ‘he Christ,
or through ¢#e Son,” or “that /srae/ should believe through she
Baptist.”
[2304] (4) In the Fourth Gospel, which consistently subordinates
the Baptist to the Messiah, and in which the former is called by the
latter a mere lamp (v. 35), is it likely that the evangelist should say
that this “lamp” was sent to bear witness concerning the Light “in
order that all men should believe—through the ‘lamp’”? (5) The
agency attributed to Moses is merely the transmission (from God to
man) of the written Law, which the context contrasts with “Grace
and truth”; but the agency that would produce Belief is of a much
higher and more subtle kind. (6) The work to be accomplished
through the agency of the Baptist would be better described in his
own language (“zz order that there may be manifested to Israel”) as
the manifestation of the Son, through whom “all” were to believe
in the Father. (7) In xvil. 20 (‘‘those who believe through their
logos or word,” z.e. through the word of the disciples) the evangelist
avoids saying ‘‘believe through them” (although St Paul uses that
phrase’) and this, too, although the disciples were destined to
receive the Spirit: much more does it seem likely that John would
avoid saying that “a// men” were intended (in the divine Providence)
to “believe through the Baptist.” (8) The pronoun avrés—with
the exception of the unemphatic and parenthetic “his name was
John” (ovopa avr *1.), rendered in Latin as well as in English
“whose” —is used always in this Prologue for the Word, the Light
etc.; and the words or phrases “through him,” “without him,”
“in him,” “it,” “shim” etc, occur so frequently that the interpretation
of a particular “through him” as referring to John the Baptist carries
with it a sense of incongruity. It may be added that the only
instance of 6¢ avrod in the Epistle refers to the Son (‘that we may
it (Clore, sinle Fe
? [2304a] The Epistles teem with phrases indicating that ‘‘ through him (av70@),”
z.é. through Jesus, would be used in connexion with every gift of God to man,
and, although mioredw is not thus used, the adjective micrés in the First Epistle
of St Peter (i. 20—r) describes the Messiah ‘‘ foreknown before the foundation
of the world but manifested at the last of the times for your sakes who through
him are made firm in trust to God (rods 6 abtod miatovs eis Oedv).”
237
[2305] PREPOSITIONS
live through him'”). There appears a preponderance of probability
in favour of the interpretation ‘‘that he might bear witness con-
cerning the Light that all might believe ¢hrough that | Light]*.”
(v) Eis (see also 2706 foll.)
(a) For tictey¥a eic, see 1480 foll.
(8) Eic without verb of motion
[2305] This construction is used in the words of Christ, ix. 7
“Go wash Zo the pool of Siloam,” repeated by the blind man thus,
ix. 11 “He said to me, Go Zo Siloam and wash*.” Motion is also
implied in xx. 7 ‘the napkin...apart, rolled up [azd put] znfo one
place,” which perhaps implies more deliberateness (“first rolled
up and then carried into a place apart”) than would have been
implied by ev.
[2306] Far more important than these, are passages, in connexion
with some spiritual doctrine of unity, where John uses eis with a verb
that does not imply motion, such as xvil. 23 “that they may be
completely perfected into one (reTeXewpévor eis ev).” This is perhaps
little more than a brief way of saying ‘“‘that they may be completely
perfected and brought into unity.” But it is not so easy to explain
1 Jn. 8 “Three are they that bear witness, the spirit and the water
and the blood, and the three are zzfo the one (oi tpets eis TO &v
ciow).” Eiow appears to be emphatic (‘are essentially”), and the
writer seems to suggest (1) the reality of three witnesses Zending “to”
one truth, and (2) the reality of three essences harmonizing themselves
“into” one nature, namely, that of the crucified Son who first
1 7 Jniv. 9 wa fjowper 5 adrod.
2 [23044] Origen, after an exposition of the words ‘‘he came for witness
to bear witness of the light,” says (Huet ii. 85 D) ‘‘we must next consider what
is to be thought about the words ‘That all might believe through him.’”
Unfortunately what should follow has been lost. Cramer, however, prints, as
from Origen, ‘“‘That is to say, so far as He was concerned (écov éfp éav7@)—even
though ‘all’ did ot ‘believe.’ For [similarly], if all men should not receive
the light that comes from the sun, one would not say, as a consequence, that the
sun did not rise for the purpose of universal enlightenment ; for the purpose of Him
that sent him was that all should believe ( yap mpé@eors Tob wéuWavros adroyv jy
”
migTevoal mavras) This rather suggests that Origen took 6’ a’rod to mean
“through the Light—so far as the Light is concerned.”
’ [230542] For ovew els, see Epict. iii. 22. 71 tv’ adro Notion els cxddny
(lit.) ‘‘to bathe the child zz/o the tub.” Nirrw els is not given by Steph.
On els for év in the Synoptists and later Greek, see 2706 foll.
238
PREPOSITIONS [2307]
delivered up His Spirit to God and then poured forth from His
side “water and blood” for the sake of men.
[2307] As regards the phrase twicet used to describe Christ’s
visitations after the Resurrection (xx. 19, 26) “and he stood (lit.) zo
the midst of the disciples,” it is preceded in the former case by
“Jesus came” and in the latter by “ Jesus cometh,” so as to preclude
the explanation that it is a condensed form of “came to, and stood
among, the disciples.” And it is the more remarkable because,
concerning a similar visitation, Luke has (xxiv. 36) “ And while they
were speaking these things he himself stood zz the midst of them” ;
and the tradition about Jesus “zz the midst” of the disciples is found
in the Epistle to the Hebrews*. The writer of that Epistle regards
Jesus as “singing the praises of God zz the midst of the disciples.”
Justin Martyr takes the same view. He mentions the “singing”
immediately after mentioning the Resurrection ; he says that Jesus
“stood in the midst of the disciples,” and he appeals for confirmation
to “the Memoirs of the Apostles.” His language indicates that he
has in view the manifestation to the Eleven described by Luke®*.
John—on the supposition that he knew this traditional phrase
to have been connected with Christ’s resurrection by Luke—may be
presumed to have had some good reason for departing from Luke’s
1 [2307 a] In Jn xxi. 4 W.H. éo7n Inaois eis (marg. émi) Tov aiyadédy, all the
Mss. (Alford) exc. BC have éri. The Latin versions have ‘‘in,” exc. @ which
has ‘‘ad” corresponding to D éi. In BC the juxtaposition of the two similar
syllables 1Ceic suggests that 1¢ may have been repeated as es (comp. 2661 c) and
may have supplanted émi. There would also be a temptation to alter éorn ézi to
éorn eis in order to assimilate the phrase to the two instances of éo77 eis applied
by Jn to manifestations after the Resurrection. Clem. Alex. 104 quotes freely as
follows: év yodvy 7@ evayyeNw, orabels, pynoly, 6 Kipios émi Te alywakw mpds Tovs
padnrds—aevovtes 6é Ervxov—evepuvnaey (?) Te, ILacdia, wx Te (?) Por exere;
2 [2307 4] Heb. ii. 12 ‘‘He is not ashamed to call them 4rethren, saying,
‘T will announce thy name to my brethren; ¢ ¢he midst of the assembly (€xxAyotas)
I will sing of (#uvjow) thee’” (Ps. xxii. 22). So Just. Martyr 77yph. 106 kal bre
é&y wéow Tov ddeAPay abTod gory, THY amooTbdwr...Kal wer aitav didywr Yurnoe
Tov Bedy, ws Kal év Tots drouvnmoveduace TOv dmooTéhww OndoUTaAL yeyernuevor, TA
Nelrovta Tod Waduod ed7jrAwoev. “Hate de tadra. Amyjoouat TO dvoud gov Tots
ddepors pov, év wéow exkAnaolas buvjow ce. The words ‘“ not ashamed to call them
brethren” are illustrated by Jn xx. 17 “Go unto my érethren, and say to them,
I ascend to my Father and your Father.” This and Mt. xxviii. 10 are the only
passages in the Gospels where Jesus uses the term thus definitely (1749).
3 [2307 c] Mk xiv. 26 and Mt. xxvi. 30 place the ‘‘singing [of a hymn]” on
the night before the Crucifixion. Lk. xxii. 39 omits it there.
239
[2308] PREPOSITIONS
language. Perhaps he wished to describe the Saviour, not as singing
praises to God, but as bringing strength to men; and on that account
he first mentions the “coming” (1633 foll.) so as to suggest the
Helper, and then he mentions Him as “standing zz¢o the midst of
the disciples,” so as to combine mystically the ancient notion of the
firm, erect, and immoveable Deliverer with that of the Spirit passing
““tnto the midst” of the Church, and “‘zz¢o the midst” of each of
the disciples'!. This view is somewhat confirmed by the next
instance to be discussed.
[2308] i. 18 provoyevis Oeds 0 dv eis Tov KdATOV TOd TaTpds is the
only passage where the Fourth Gospel uses eis with a form of etvat.
SS has “an only [one] a Son from the bosom of his Father,” and
codex @ “nisi unicus filius solus (? es) sinum patris ipse enarravit.”
But there can be no doubt that eis 7. xoAov is the true reading and
that it is intended to mean something different from (xili. 23) ev Té
KoATw. In 1. 1, 6 Adyos Hv mpos Tov Oeov, Kai Heds Av oO Adyos, the
preposition zpos is used to describe “God, the Logos” as from the
1 [2307 7] The passage may be compared with 1 S. iii. ro ‘‘ And the Lord
came, and stood, and called as at other times, Samuel, Samuel” (LXX xaréorn,
but ‘‘ Another” (Field) éstm\dé@n). Fhe Lord had been previously thrice
described (1 S. iii. 4—8) as simply ‘‘ calling ” Samuel; but the latter did not recog-
nise Him. Now at last, it is said, the Lord ‘‘came and stood, or took up his stand
(Gesen. 426)”—and now Samuel recognises and replies, ‘‘ Speak, for thy servant
heareth.” The Targum, understanding the meaning of the Lord’s ‘‘ coming” to
be, mot that He really ‘‘ came,” but that He revealed Himself as present, has ‘* And
Jehovah was revealed and stood ready (Levy Ch. ii. 250 a) and called.” Both in
Heb. and Aram. the word for ‘‘ stand” here means ‘‘ stazd fast, or ready.” There
is little doubt that the Targum attached a spiritual meaning to the ‘‘ standing” as
well as to the ‘‘coming.” A whole treatise might be compiled about Philo’s
views of God as ‘‘ standing (ésréra)” and unchangeable, and of the Logos as
“* standing and health-giving” (i. 94 ‘‘ None but the true God standeth,” i. 93
“the standing, wholesome, and right Logos,” comp. i. 269, 276, 425, 586, 591,
687, 688). Simon Magus (Clem. Alex. 456) claimed to be ‘‘the standing One.”
Origen (Huet ii. 82 (comp. ii. 129)) says that this ‘‘ s¢anding” denotes Christ’s
Tponyounevny vrdcracw dSinKovoay éml wavra Tov Kbomov KaTa Tas PuXas Tas NoyiKAs.
Comp. Log. Oxyriynch. “1 stood (éornv) in the midst of the world (xécuov) and
in the flesh appeared to them.” It is quite characteristic of John that he should
introduce at the beginning and at the end of his Gospel similar yet varied traditions
about the Logos, ‘‘ standing in the midst” (2646—9).
* [2308 a] Chrys., however, reprinted by Migne, after quoting the text 6 oy
els at the head of his discourse, quotes it (f. 99) thus, ela, ,b7e'O dy év t@ Kb
7. marpos, and henceforth has, consistently, év (once (~. 100) ws év rots KéXrous
évTos Tots TaTpLKoLs).
240
if
f PRaT —F 7h oh
(f UNIVERSITY
PREPOSITIONS [2310 |
beginning ‘‘ [ooking] toward (xpos) God.” In xvii. 21 and elsewhere
He is described as being “27” the Father and the Father “zz” Him.
But the present passage describes Him as Only begotten, incarnate,
on earth, declaring the invisible mysteries of God to man. As He is
“Only begotten,” the word “bosom” is introduced to suggest the
love of the Father for the Son; and as He is Mediator and
Interpreter penetrating from earth zz¢o (eis) the deepest secrets of
God in heaven,—where He IS, in Spirit, even when His body is
on earth—He is described as ‘He that IS zzfo the bosom of the
Father.”
[2309] As a whole, the evangelist’s use of eis without verbs of
motion leads to the conclusion that when he uses it of divine
mysteries, he wishes to combine the notions of motion and rest as
belonging to God and to the manifestations of God. From God,
the Logos is ever coming ¢o men and is also abiding 77 them. From
Man the Logos is ever going up ¢o God and is also abiding zz Him.
Hence concerning the Son incarnate on earth, but ever going up in
thought and word and act ¢o the Father, the evangelist says that “He
IS #0 the bosom of the Father.” Again, concerning the Son, when He
has ascended to heaven, but is ever coming down ¢o the hearts
of men, it is said that He “‘came, or cometh, and stood Zo the midst
of the disciples.”
Gp eBoy tovion “into:
[2310] Eis is sometimes ambiguous, since it may mean “to” or
“into.” In iv. 5 “He cometh therefore 0 a city (eis roXw),” eis has
not the same meaning as in iv. 8, 28 “‘had gone away, or, went away,
into the city (eis thv 7.)”: for the context indicates that in the former
passage eis means only “to the neighbourhood of.” The ambiguity
might have been avoided by writing “ He draweth near to a city’,”
but John prefers to give the meaning vaguely first and to “narrow
down” afterwards (2290). It follows that, in the account of the
Resurrection, (xx. 1) “she cometh to (€pxetau eis) the tomb” may be
John’s way of expressing what Mark and Luke express by the
preposition ézi, “up fo,” or “towards,” where Matthew has “they
came 70 behold the tomb’” John perhaps hardly ever uses exé
1 [2310 a] Comp. Mt. xxi. 1 #yyeoar eis I. kal mdOov eis B., Mk xi. 1 €yyifovow
eis I. eis B. Lk. xix. 29 has kal éyévero ws Hyyirev eis B. preceded by xix. 28 kal
elmwv TadTa éropevero Eumpoobev avaBaivwy eis I.
2 Mikoxvail2. ice xxive Ty ity xxviii. 1.
A. VE 241 16
[2311] PREPOSITIONS
of motion “up to” or “towards” a place (2836). After making this
general statement about Mary Magdalene, he leads us to suppose
that she did not go right up to the tomb but ran back—as soon as
she perceived that the stone had been rolled away—to tell the story
to Peter and his companion.
[2311] Mark and Luke describe the women as subsequently
“entering (ef7eAGotaar).” Matthew omits this. John has an account
of the two disciples and Mary, in which the details—how the two
“began to come to (jpxovto eis)” (R.V. “went toward”) the tomb,
and the other disciple ‘came first,” yet ‘‘entered not in,” and how
Peter “cometh” and “entered,” and then the other disciple
“entered” (he that ‘‘came first”) and how Mary “stood outside ”—
are fully described in such a way as to suggest that the Fourth
Evangelist desired to clear up obscurities in early tradition, and to
shew how it came to pass that Mary Magdalene—although she did
not actually “enter the tomb”—was the first to see the risen
Saviour; and the unnamed disciple, though not the first to enter the
tomb nor the first to see the Saviour, was the first to ‘‘ believe.”
(8) Eic Z@HN al@NIoON
[2312] In vi. 27 “work not for the food that perisheth, but for the
food that abideth unto eternal life (riv péevoveay eis €. aiwvov)” if John
had meant merely “‘abideth for ever,” would he not have written, as
elsewhere (viii. 35, xl. 34), “‘abideth for ever (wéveu eis TOv aiwva),” and
consequently does he not mean here “‘ abideth with a view to eternal
Zife” i.e. in order to produce eternal life? That meaning is probably
included. But as the ‘‘ bread” is itself called (vi. 51) “living,” and
the “water” also (iv. ro, 11) “living,” the full meaning probably is
“‘abideth for life eternal” in the double sense of our English “for,”
namely, (1) “‘dasting for,” (2) “for the sake of,” or “for the purpose of
producing.”
[2313] Another interpretation would make a pause after
‘“abideth ” (as in xv. 16 “That your fruit may aézde)',” so that the
meaning would be, ‘Work not for the transitory but for the abiding
food—with a view to life eternal.” The same doubt attends iv. 36,
“Already doth he that reapeth receive wages and gather fruit—ze¢h
1 [2313 a] Comp. 1 Pet. i. 23 ‘‘ Having been begotten again, not from cor-
ruptible seed but from incorruptible, through the Word of God living and adzding
(dia Abyou Gvros Oeod Kal wévovros)” and x Cor. xiii. 13 ‘And now adideth faith,
hope, love.”
242
PREPOSITIONS [2316 |
a view to life eternal',” where the ‘‘ view” is probably not man’s view
but God’s. ‘That is to say, the reaper is not described as working
with /zs eyes fixed on life eternal, but the fruit is regarded as stored
up, 7x the eyes of God (or according to the will of God), for eternal
life.
[2314] In iv. 14 “The water that I will give him shall become in
him a fountain of water leaping (a@AAopévov)—unto (eis) life eternal,”
some have taken the meaning to be “‘ leaping into life eternal.” ‘This
would imply that the water was, at first, in the human being, stagnant
as in a cistern, and now became transmuted to a bubbling fountain.
But all the Biblical traditions about the divine ‘‘ Water,” and
especially those in John, suggest that the water from heaven is
“living” from the first. Moreover, though ‘leap info life” is good
English, the metaphor is not alleged to occur in Greek. Nor is
aAAopnat alleged in the Thesaurus to be elsewhere applied to water.
The Greeks have an abundant vocabulary to express a bubbling
fountain*—but (so far as is known) they never use aAXAopau thus.
[2315] But a clue to the Johannine expression may be found in
the fact that the evangelist always connects the “water” of heaven
with the Spirit, directly or indirectly, and that he does this expressly
in the words (vil. 38) ‘‘He that believeth on me...rivers from his
belly shall flow—of “ving water,” where he explains that this was
“said about the Spirit,” which was to be transmitted from Christ to
the disciples and through them to the world in a continuous stream.
Now addopo, or edadAouar, in LXX, is applied to the action of
a “spirit of God,” “ forcing its way” or “ falling violently ” on Samson,
Saul, and David*.
[2316] These passages suggest that “leaping” is used in the
Gospel with some special reference to the action of the Spirit. As
the Spirit, when likened to wind, may be said to ‘‘ blow” or “breathe”
where it listeth, so, when likened to water from heaven—which leaps
1 [2313 4] "Hon 6 Oepifwy uicbdy NauBdver Kal cuvd-yer Kapmov els Cwhy aldviov.
In xii. 25 els (wiv aldvoy puddee, the nature and the position of the verb make
the meaning certain.
* [23142] £.g. in Prov. xviii. 4 ‘‘the wellspring of wisdom is [as] a flowing
brook” LXX dvamrndver (al. dvarndav), Aq. Sym. dvaB\vfwv, Theod. avouBpar.
Steph. quotes no passage except this to illustrate the use of dANoua ‘de aqua
scaturiente.”’
% [2315 a] “ANAouae in Judg. xiv. 6, 19, xv. 14, 1 S. x. 10, €PdANouae in 1 S. x. 6,
xi. 6. In 1 S. xvi. 13 ‘The Spirit of the Lord Zaft on David from that day
forth,” LXX has é¢7daro, Aq. has évnudlcOn, Sym. Spunoev, Theod. érépaver.
243 16—2
[2316] PREPOSITIONS
down upon the earth and fertilises it—the Spirit may be said to
“leap” with a mighty rush; and indeed this notion of rushing down
mightily is connected by Luke with the Pentecostal descent of the
Spirit manifested in tongues of flame’. It is possible that there may
be a double meaning in the word here. Superficially, and literally,
it is intended to convey to the Samaritan Woman (or to readers in
her position) the notion of a fountain “leaping “7p” (as in Numbers
xxi. 17, “Spring wf, O well”) in opposition to a deep well. But
mystically it appears to mean water “‘/eaping down” to convey life,
or else “pulsing” with life, the water of regeneration”.
1 Acts ii. 2.
2 [2316 a] The noun aAya (Steph.) is used for the pulsation of the heart and
also for the first ‘‘ leaping” of the unborn babe in the womb, corresponding to the
verb oxiprdw in Lk. i. 41 éoxlprncev 7d Bpépos év rq Koidia adrijs Kai erdjaOy
mvetuaros aylov EXewdBer. It is, perhaps, a general belief that, in the Dialogue
with Nicodemus, the words (Jn iii. 5) ‘“‘ unless a man be begotten from Water and
Spirit” mean ‘‘unless a man’s body be baptized in material water and his soul
be regenerate from the Spirit.” But the meaning appears to be “‘degotten from
spiritual water,” the water of inward generation.
[2316 4] Origen often quotes iv. 14, sometimes blending it with vii. 38 “‘rivers
of water,” and seeming to interpret 4\\ouévou in different ways, occasionally alter-
ing es to émi to suit his interpretation. A passage in his Comm. ad Joc. has ware
mnynv...awaBrvcbdvew év atte dvw rndwyTwv bddrwr...d\decba Kal mndav éml To
avorepov, eri Thy aldviov (wiv. But he proceeds to quote Cant. ii. 8 *‘aping upon
the mountains, skipping upon the hills,” wydav eri ra dpy Ocaddbuevos ert Tovds
Bowvots, which he explains of the Bridegroom—presumably the Holy Spirit, or
the Word—‘“‘leaping” now upon the more exalted, now on inferior, souls;
‘Similarly here the fountain created in him that hath drunk of the water that
Jesus giveth leapeth to eternal life.” Then he adds ‘‘ But perhaps also it will
leap after (wndnoer werd) the eternal life, [namely] to (es) the Father [who is]
beyond the eternal life. For Christ is the life. But He that is greater than Christ
is greater than life.” Later on, he looks favourably on Heracleon’s explanation of
“leaping.” Ovk dmiOdvws 5€ 70 ddouevov dny7Tar7Oo, Kal Tos peTaauBavovTas Tou
divwoev ércyopnyounevou mrovolws Kai adrovs ExBAVoae els THY ETEPwY alwvov (why Ta
émuexopnynuéva avroits. Heracleon’s rendering of eis ad. 6, “Swith a view to
produce eternal life” in others, agrees with the doctrine in vii. 38; but it will be
observed that he does not paraphrase a\\opuévou by dva8dvcae but by éxSdvcar. In
Saul of Tarsus, for example, the water of life became a fountain—not merely
‘‘leaping [up]” to As own eternal life, but—‘/eaping [out]” to the eternal life of
the Gentile world.
[2316 c] Comp. Adoth ii. ro—11 (ed. Taylor), where Rabban Jochanan,
praising his five best pupils, calls Eliezer son of Hyrcanus *‘a plastered cistern,
which loseth not a drop,” and Eleazar son of Arak ‘‘a welling spring.” He gave
the palm to Eliezer, but the spiritually minded Abba Saul (1022) said, “If all the
wise of Israel were in one scale of the balance, and Eliezer son of Hyrcanus with
them, and Eleazar son of Arak in the other scale, he would outweigh them all.”
244
PREPOSITIONS [2317 |
(e) “Oyontat eic (xix. 37)
[2317] Kis twa is used with idetv, opav and Pdé€rew to mean
“looking Zo” a person for help or encouragement, or in regard and
deference!. THis is also used thus in LXX, sometimes without a verb
(“our eyes [are] to the Lord”) but sometimes with one, about
“looking to” Jehovah, to Abraham etc.” Hence in xix. 37 “And
another scripture saith, They shall Zook fo (oovrac eis) him whom
they pierced” we must be prepared to find the “looking” of
a reverential kind. The “scripture” is from Zechariah’s prophecy
about “looking” and “mourning,” where LXX and the other
translators differ greatly*, and quotations from Revelation, Barnabas,
and Justin indicate early Christian divergences as to traditions about
“looking to” or “looking at” Jesus, and “ mourning*.”
1 [2317 a] Steph. (6pdw, 2137, 2139, and efs 292) quotes abundant instances.
2 [2317 5] With éuBdérw in Is. xvii. 7, xxii. 11, li. 1, 2. The Heb. prep.
“to” corresponding to els (Gesen. 40a) is used with verbs that imply looking
to anyone in love, hope, expectation, or longing.
3 [2317c] Zech. xii. 10 ‘‘they shall look unto me (marg. him) whom they
pierced and they shall mourn for him.” LXX kai émiBdépovrar mpods pe avO” wy
KaTrwpxjoavto kal koWovra ém’ airév (al. exempl. éd’ éavrovs), Aq. ody w é&exévrnoay
kal koWovrat adrov, Sym. eumpoobev éretexévtncay Kal xbyovra airdv, Theod. Kal
émiBréovrar mpods pe els dv éLexévtnoay Kal kdporvrac airév. The Targum renders
“They shall look unto me” (Walton) “ Rogabunt a facie mea,” implying ‘‘ they
shall stand looking in expectation and in supplication before my face.” The
variant éf’ éavrot’s should be noted. It converts the ‘* mourning” for the ‘* pierced”
into “ mourning” for the piercers themselves, and quite transmutes the passage.
4 [2317d@] There was an early twofold application of Zech. xii. 10. Those
who “looked” might be (1) Gentiles, (2) Jews; Gentiles, or “nations,” might
be taken to include (3) the whole world, when referring to the Last Judgment.
Zech. xii. 12 ‘And the Zazd shall mourn, every family apart,” clearly refers to
the ‘‘ Zand” of Judaea, and the ‘ families” are immediately mentioned as those
of David, Nathan, Levi, and Simeon. But the LXX kal xdWerac % yh Kara
gudas gpudds, might be rendered ‘“‘the earth...tribe by tribe,” and this might
be taken to mean “‘ the tribes, or nations, of the earth.” Moreover, in Zech. xil. ro,
N has é6Wovra for xéYovrat, and this indicates that dyovrar avrév, ‘‘shall see hin,”
might be substituted for (Aq. Sym. Theod.) xéyovrae airéy, ‘shall mourn for
him,” by Greek corruption.
[2317¢] Rev. i. 7 has dWera abrdv ras 6@Oaduos Kal olrwes abrov cLexévTncay,
kal KoWovrat éx’ abrov aca ai pudai THs yqs, which applies the prophecy to the
whole world under the term “tribes of the earth.” But it drops the preposition
after the verb of seeing, thus giving, ‘‘ Every eye shall see 42,” instead of *‘ Every
eye shall ook to him.” However, it retains ‘‘for him” in ‘they shall mourn
Sor him.”
[2317 f] Mt. xxiv. 30 has kal rére [pavjoera Td onuetov Tod viod Tov av Opwrrou
év obpavy kal Tore KdWovTar Maca ai pudrai Tis ys Kal] OPovra T. UV. T. a. EpXouevov
245
[2318] PREPOSITIONS
[2318] All the Synoptists mention a ‘‘deholding (Gewpeiv)” of
some kind immediately after the death of Jesus. But Mark and
Matthew connect it simply with the women “standing afar off?” and
do not mention any “mourning.” Luke, besides mentioning the
women, describes “all the multitudes that had come together to
behold this,” as “beholding the things that had come to pass, and
eri 7. vepeAwv. Here the three Synoptists agree in the words “And then shall
they see the Son of man coming...,” but the bracketed words, which are in
Matthew alone, represent a version of the tradition of Revelation ‘‘ they shall
mourn for him,” from which ‘‘ for him” has been dropped, so as to represent
the ‘tribes of the earth” as “‘ mourning” for their own sakes—an entirely new
departure.
[2317 ¢] Barnabas applies the prophecy to those who crucified the Lord, vii. 9
“Since they shall see Him (épovrac airév) then in the [last] day (Zech. xii. 10
“‘in that day”) wearing the scarlet robe...and they shall say, ‘Is not this He
whom we crucified, having set Him at naught and pierced and spit upon Him?’”
And he, too, drops the preposition that is essential to the meaning (‘look ¢o”)
and omits all mention of ‘‘ mourning.”
[23174] Justin expressly applies Zech. xii. 10 to the Jews, after mentioning
a repentance that comes too late to prevent the tortures of hell, 1 4fo/. 52 ‘And
what the peoples (Aaoi) of the Jews will say and do...was prophesied thus by
Zechariah the prophet... They shall mourn (kéyovra) tribe to (apés) tribe, and
then they shall look to(?) Him whom they pierced (rére dWovrar els bv éZexévTnoav)” —
a curious disarrangement, where perhaps Justin misunderstands ‘‘look to” (see
below). The preposition ‘‘ to” is retained, though ‘‘ look” zs dropped, when Justin,
mentioning Hosea (!) and Daniel, says to Trypho (77yfA. 14) ‘ Your people will
see and understand ¢o whom they have pierced (dYerar 6 Aads dudy Kal yywpe? els
dv éSexévrnoav),” and again (32) ‘one [Advent] in which He was pierced by you,
but a second when ye shall recognise ¢o whom ye pierced (émvyvdceae els dv é&-
exevryoare) and your tribes shall mourn (xédYovra:) tribe to (pds) tribe...,”” (64)
““whom they that pierced Him are destined to see and mourn (dv épav uédXovor
kal komrecOa oi éxxevtnoavres adrév),” (126) ‘who shall come again also and then
your twelve tribes shall mourn (xé~ovrac).” In all these passages Justin drops
the prophetic “ for him,” and makes the Jews ‘‘ mourn” for fear of punishment.
In two of them he alters look” into ‘*know” or ‘‘ recognise”? in such a way
as to suggest that he takes bpovrac els dv é&ex. to mean, ‘“‘they shall see and
recognise Him against whom they have raised their hands to pierce Him.”
[23177] The Gospel of Peter says that after the crucifixion (§ 7) ‘the Jews
and the elders and the priests...began to mourn (xémrec@ac) and to say, Alas for
our sins,” and also that (§ 8) ‘‘the scribes and Pharisees and elders...heard that
the whole people (\aés) murmured and [mourned] beating their breasts (xémrrerac
7a 670m). This resembles Lk. xxiii. 48 rémrrovres Ta o77)0n (where SS and
other authorities add a clause like that of the Gospel of Peter).
* [2318a] Mk xv. 4o, Mt. xxvii. 55 joav dé cal (Mt. xe?) yuvatkes ard
Haxpddev Oewpotoa. Lk. xxiii. 49 mentions the women later xal yuvatkes...dpdorae
Tatra.
246
PREPOSITIONS [2320]
1»
beating their breasts'”—-apparently indicating the dissent of the
multitude of pilgrims from the act of the rulers of the Jews. John
applies the prophecy of Zechariah (concerning the “looking” of the
house of Judah “70” Him whom “they pierced”), not to the Jews
but to the four soldiers used by the Jews as their instruments with
the intention—so to speak—of ‘‘ breaking the bones” of the Paschal
Lamb. This intention is frustrated. Instead of ‘‘breaking the
bones,” one of the soldiers pierces the side of the Saviour, thereby
drawing forth “blood and water.” ‘Then the four soldiers—re-
presenting the four quarters of the world—are supposed to stand
‘looking zo him whom they pierced,” and the reader is left to
interpret this in a twofold sense, present and future. They look
to Him now in amazement; they will look to Him for forgiveness
and salvation”.
(€) Eic téAoc
[2319] Eis réAos occurs in John once, in the only passage where
he mentions réAos, xiii. 1 (R.V.) ‘Jesus, knowing that his hour was
come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having
loved his own which were in the world, he loved them wmfo the end
(marg. fo the uttermost) (cis tédos).” It will be shewn that the
ambiguity of this phrase has influenced other passages in N.T. and
that John probably desires to suggest to his readers doth the
meanings given by R.V.
[2320] In LXX, eis réAos means “Zo ¢he end” in the sense of “‘¢o
the [bitter] end,” i.e. utter destruction, or “to the [good] end,”
i.e. perfect deliverance or salvation. Hence it sometimes represents
the Hebrew verb reduplicated for emphasis (Gen. xlvi. 4) “I will also
surely bring thee up again,” LXX “TI will bring thee up Zo the
uttermost, or, in the end (eis rédos).” On the other hand, in Job,
LXX has “let him not cut me off fo ¢he [bztter| end (eis rédos),” where
the Hebrew and Aquila have “et loose the hand | for destruction|*.”
1 Lk. xxiii. 48 kai rdvtes of cuvrapayerduevar Oxo emt THY Oewplay TavTnY,
OewpnoavTes TA yevoueva, TUTTOVTES TA GTHON UTéoTpEpor.
2 [23184] Any prophecy about Israel might be transferred by Christian
evangelists (following St Paul) to the Gentile Churches as being ‘‘Israel after
the Spirit.”’ But this particular prophecy about the ‘‘tribes of the /azd” might
lend itself in a special way to such a transference by being supposed to refer
to the ‘‘tribes of the earth.” Concerning the soldiers and their superiority to the
Jews as regards expectation of forgiveness, see the early tradition in Lk. xxiii. 34.
3 Job vi. 9 Aq. Sym. émiBarav rhy xeEipa.
247
[2321 | PREPOSITIONS
Elsewhere «is réAos means “to consummation,” or “for ever,”
in such phrases as “the poor will not be forgotten for ever,” “‘ Arise
and cast us not away for ever,” “ Wherefore hast thou, O God, cast
us away for ever!?” Somewhat different is its use in Ps. xvi. 11 “In
thy right hand are pleasures [for] evermore” and (xlix. g) “that he
should still live a/zway”*.”
[2321] In Greek literature of all periods és réAos is almost always
used of that which lasts “¢o the end,” or “‘turns out to be the fact
when one comes to the end®.” Exceptionally, in Polybius (where it
is very frequent indeed), it means “ferfectly”; but the Thesaurus
quotes no instance of this meaning from any other ancient author.
Lucian perhaps uses it once to mean “ ferfect/y*,” but he certainly
uses it once to mean ‘“‘ferszstently’,” and the former passage may
mean ‘“‘even though you have not yet come to the end of your
experience of me.” In any case the meaning “/o the end” is
unquestionably predominant.
(2322] In N.T. the usage of eis réXos is as follows. In 1 Thess.
ll. 16 €pOacev d€ ex avtovs 7 py?) eis TéAos ‘the wrath [of God] hath
come upon them Zo [Zhe ditter| end,” the meaning follows the LXX.
1 [2320 a] Ps. ix. 18, xliv. 23, Ixxiv. 1. Comp. Ps. ix. 6 etc. In the Psalms,
these questions, or negations, may sometimes be said to imply the ultimate
triumph of good because evil will ‘‘ ot” last ‘‘ for ever.” But in Hab. i. 4 (R.V.)
“judgment doth zever (marg. not to victory) go forth,” this hopeful view is not
taken. In Job xiv. 20 ‘‘thou prevailest for ever against him,” xx. 7 ‘‘he shall
perish for ever,” it describes the destruction of man, but not in xxiil. 7 ‘‘So shall
I be delivered for ever.” The word rendered réXos means illustriousness, eminence,
enduringness, and is applied to God, in 1 S. xv. 29 (R.V.) ‘‘the Strength (marg.
Victory, or Glory) of Israel” (LXX in error). Wisdom xvi. 5, xix. I uses Méxpt
téXous thus, ‘‘ Not Zo the end did thy anger abide,” ‘‘on the impious there pressed
unpitying anger fo the end.”
[2320 4] Wis 70 rédos, Ps. iv. (title) R.V. ‘‘For the chief musician” (Aq. 7T@
vixoTo, Theod. els 7d vikos, Sym. ézuvixios) represents a different form of the
same Hebrew root that is rendered els réXos above. It is consistently given by
LXX in the titles of the Psalms where R.V. has “ For the chief Musician.”
* [2320 c] Ps. xvi. 11 Aq. vikos, xlix. g Aq. els vixos, Sym. els al@va.
3 [2321 a] Steph. (réXos 1996—7) qu. Solon ap. Stob. Fl. 9, 25, 28: Adel
5’ o'r NEANO€ Straprrepes dais adeTpoy Ovpdv Exer, wavTws 5° és TédNos ESehavy. Eur.
[ph. A. 161 Ovnrév 5 odB.0s és TéXos Sets. Steph. quotes no authors but Polybius
and Theodor. Prodr. for the meaning ‘‘ perfectly.”
4 [2321 6] Lucian Som. g (i. 12) ‘1 am Education, my child, a familiar
acquaintance of yours for some time, even though you have never yet had a
perfect experience of me (el kal pndérw els réXos jou Tremelpacat).”
5 Lucian (Vavig. 28 (iii. 266) ‘‘you keep om jeering at my vow (és TéXos...
émnpedgwyv),” referring to (7b. 25) a previous mockery.
248
i es
‘
PREPOSITIONS [2322]
In Lk. xviii. 5 p27 eis TéAos epyoméevyn trwmidly pe, R.V. has “lest she
wear me out by her continual coming,” and this is probably correct,
as the present subjunctive denotes a continuous “wearing out.”
Mark and Matthew assign to our Lord the saying, “He that
endureth Zo ¢he end he shall be saved,” and this is (no doubt correctly)
punctuated as meaning ‘He that endureth to the end—he shall be
saved'.” But even in Greek, apart from Hebrew originals, eis réAos
is liable to create confusion by being connected with what precedes
instead of with what follows?. Much more, in Hebraic Greek, might
a doubt arise, whether “to the end” ought not to be connected with
“saved” (“he that endureth—éo the end shall he be saved”) as
meaning “‘saved fo the utmost,” “saved in body, soul, and spirit.”
The parallel Luke omits “0 ¢he end,” but has two clauses, “(1) A hair
of your head shall surely not perish, (2) in your endurance ye shall
” This (“a hair of your head”) resembles the
saying to the Thessalonians ‘‘ May the God of peace himself sanctify
you wholly, and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire
without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ*”; whereas
the Epistle to the Corinthians rather resembles Matthew and Mark,
“Waiting patiently for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ who
also shall confirm you Zo the end (€ws TéAovs) unreproveable in the day
of our Lord Jesus Christ*.”
win your souls’.
H IMMe satis 1935 Willis 5 Oy Reais 12%
[2322a] See Steph. réd\os 1996 D ‘‘Polyb. 8, 2, 2: To wey yap pnéevi
moTevew eis TéNos Ampaxrov* ubi Schweigh. non recte disjungere e/s TéNos ab seq.
ampakrov ostendit.”
3 [23226] Lk. xxi. 18—1g. Comp. Jas v. rr ‘‘We call blessed them that
endure. Ye have heard of the endurance of Job and have seen the end of the
Lord,” where ‘‘end” seems to mean ‘final salvation,” and ‘* endure” is taken
absolutely as in 2 Tim. ii. 12 ‘Sif we ezdure.” It is also absolute in r Pet. ii. 20,
Rom. xii. 12, and should almost certainly be taken so in Heb. xii. 7 ‘‘It is for
[your] training that ye endure,” i.e. God chastens you, not to give you pain, but to
train you.
ee tlhessenven23.
5 [2322 c] 1 Cor. i. 7—8. Comp. Heb. vii. 25 owfew eis TO mavrehés Sivarat
“to save fo the utmost,” which, however, Chrys. explains as meaning ‘to all
time,” ded, and éxe? ev TH meNovon (wn. Comp. 2 Clem. 19 iva els TéNos TwWIWmEY
““be saved wzto the end,” i.e. ‘‘ retain salvation to the end,” differing little from
‘*“be saved in the end,” Barn. iv. 6 ‘‘ a¢terly (or, for ever) lost,” eis Tr. dmddeoay,
x. 5 “‘utterly (or, zvrevocably) impious and already adjudged to death,” xix. rr
“ Utterly (or, for ever) shalt thou hate the evil[one].” In Hermas Ves. 111. x. 4—5
iNapa € eis réXos follows, as a climax, on iAapwrépa, and means “‘ joyful ¢o the
uttermost.”
?
249
[2323 | PREPOSITIONS
[2323] Returning to xiii. 1 eis TéAos Hyarnoev avtovs, we have to
bear in mind that John must certainly have known (1) that eis réAos
was used in the first century to mean “/o the uttermost” and “to the
end,” (2) that it was associated with traditions about final salvation
after trial or temptation. Further, if we believe that he was
acquainted with the first three Gospels, we must suppose him also to
have known (3) that two of the three evangelists reported Christ’s
saying about the “saving” of those who should “endure ¢o the
end,” and that the third had a parallel tradition (in effect) about being
“perfectly saved” if men “endured.” It may be also assumed
(4) that John does not mean to say merely—a platitude beneath the
level of this Gospel—that the Son of God continued steadfastly
loving His disciples to the end. (5) It has been shewn (1744 (iv) foll.)
that in the Pauline Epistles and elsewhere the aorist yya7ycev is
applied to love expressed in action, and especially to the love
of God for man expressed in the act of redemption. We may
therefore infer that here, as in many other cases, John uses a phrase
of ancient Christian tradition in more than one meaning—not ex-
cluding the interpretation of Aquila (2320c) suggesting victory as
well as consummation—and that he means something to this effect :
“Having loved them before, he now loved them /o ¢he dast, in a last
and crowning act of victorious love'.”
(vi) °Ex
(a) *Ex meaning “some of,” see 2213—5
(8) ’Ex meaning “native of,” as distinguished from aro “coming
from,” or “resident in,” see 2289—93
1 [2323] Chrys. appears to give two interpretations, taking els TéNos @y., Ist,
as opbdpa dy., 2nd, as dyamav dimvexa@s:—(t) Hides mas wé\Nwy eyKaTaumrdavew
alirovs spodpotépay Thy aydmny érdelxvura; Td yap, "Ayamnoas, els TéNOS HyaTHoEV
avrobs, TodTo Snot’ Ovdsev évédurev wy Tov opbdpa ayaravra elkos Hv morjom. Th
Shore d€ ovK €& dpxis Tobro ewoince; Ta welfova Uorepov Epydserac..., (2) Té dé
€or, His réXos iyamnoev avrovs ; "Avril Tov, Emevev dyar@v dunvexas, kal TexuApprov
THS WONAHS ayamns TOUTO Evel.
[2323 4] There is a similar expression with barepayamray and mépas in Barnabas
vy. 8 répas yé To HiddaKwy Tov Iopahd\ Kk. THALKADTa TépaTa K. TnMEla ToLeY Exypvaocer,
k. vrepnydrncey atitév, where mépas means ‘‘as a climax” (or ‘‘finally”’), vmép
means “to the utmost,” and the aorist means that love was expressed in definite
action.
250
PREPOSITIONS [2325]
(y) °Ek metpoy
[2324] This phrase occurs in ui. 34 “For he whom God sent
speaketh the words of God: for not (lit.) from measure doth he give
the spirit. The Father loveth....” It is non-occurrent in LXX and the
in’ Judith vine 2,
Ezek. iv. 11, 16, but “in /arge measure” in Ps. lxxx. 5 (where Aq.
has tpoodv, and Sym. perpw without év'). The Thesaurus gives
pétpw for “in due measure,” or “by measure,” usually in a good
Thesaurus. “Ev pérpw means “in small measure’
perpy
665
sense, and év pérpo for “in metre.” The text is uncertain®. If “he”
could be taken as the Son, the meaning might be “[the Son] doth
not give from measure,” i.e. from a Limited store, it being implied that
the store is unlimited from what follows, namely, ‘He hath given all
things into his hand.” The objection remains that é« pérpov is not
found in Greek literature*. See 2714.
(6) °?Ek with cwzu and THpew
[2325] It has been shewn elsewhere (940) that in LXX, and in John,
éx, with cwlw and typéw, does not always imply “take me owt of evils
in which 7 am.” It may be used in the prayer ‘“‘Keep me a/fogether
1 [2324a] So, too, Apollinarius here (Cramer ad loc.) nueis péev odv, pyot,
métpw Thy evépyeav Tod Ilvevuaros EXdBopuev, avros dé ox olirws.
2 [23244] B omits ‘‘the spirit” (but B? adds it in margin): Syr. Burk. ‘‘ for
not dy measure did the Father give [the Spirit] to his Son, but he loveth....” SS
is partly illegible, but reads ‘‘ For not éy measure gave God the Father, but to his
Son [he was loving] and....” Cramer prints a comment of Ammonius, 6dov éxet
7d Ivedua 6 Tids otcwwdds, od pi ex mépous ws kTioua: and Wetstein mentions €x
épous as a substitute for é« mwérpou in three cursives. Many Mss. and versions
insert 6 Oeds after didwow.
3 [2324] Perhaps ovk €k pérpou is used with allusion to the LXX otk €xuerpy-
Ojoerar (Hos. i. 10, Jer. xxxiii. 22 (Theod.)) and to the LXX use of mérpor for
a ‘*measure” of corn, oil etc. Origen on Ps. xvi. 5—6—after saying that ‘‘the
knowledge of God is Christ’s allotted portion («Anpovouia)” and that the Lord is
this ‘‘ lot (wepls)”—comments on ‘‘lines (cxouwla)” as follows, Ei 76 cxouwlov pérpov
éorl, was yéypamtat &v tT. x. "I. evayy. (iii. 34); and he suggests that the term
uérpov is used od mpds abriw Thy yuGow adda Tapa Tov Urodexduevor TH UN elvar
avrov pelfovos dexrixdv, ‘‘for,” he adds, ‘‘the rain, though itself immeasurable,
is measured in the vessels that receive it: ék\ynpodornOn 5é wor, pyoiv, womep €K
uérpov yh, 7 Kal dpxodua. Apparently he takes é« wérpov as meaning, for the
Psalmist, ‘‘ proportionate [to my wants|” and ov éx pérpov for Christ as ‘‘ @-
measurable.”
[2324 7] “Ex uérpov might conceivably be a way of expressing éxuerpos i.e.
“ outside measure” so as to mean that the fulness of the gift of the Spirit to the
incarnate Son was not ‘‘ beyond the measure of His stature” (comp. Eph. iv. 13).
But this adj., though freq. in non-Hebraic Greek, does not occur in LXX; and
€x wérpov, in such a sense, is still more improbable. See 2714.
251
[2326 | PREPOSITIONS
out of evil” and is probably thus used in xii. 27 “save me from (éx)
this hour” and xvii. 15 “keep them from (éx) the evil [one] (rod
Tovnpov).”
(ce) °Ek, aro, and mapa, with é€Zépyomat
[2326] These three prepositions are used as follows to describe
the coming forth of the Son from the Father:—
(1) (é«) vil. 42 “For I came forth from (éx) the Father and am
come (7«w),” where the first clause expresses origin rather than
coming, and the origin of the Son is contrasted with the origin
of the Jews, who are said to be (vill. 44) “from their father the
devil (é€k tod marpos tov diafodov)”: xvi. 28 “I came forth from
(éx) the Father and have come (éA7Av@a) into (eis) the world,” where
the preceding verse says wapa 7. matpos é€&pdOor, 1.e. “from the side,
bosom, or home, of the Father,” but this states merely origin, ‘‘out of”
contrasted with “into,” without the suggestion of domesticity or
affection.
[2327] (2) (a4xé) The words of the evangelist, xii. 3 “Knowing
that.../rom (a0) God he came forth and unto (zpos) God he goeth
back,” are to be compared with those of the disciples, xvi. 30
“Herein we believe that /xom (a76) God thou camest forth,” where
the disciples alter the words of their Master in repeating them, for
Christ had said (xvi. 27) “I came forth from the side of (apa)
the Father,” and (xvi. 28) “I came forth (lit.) owt of (é«) the Father.”
The disciples repeat neither of these prepositions. Possibly the
same feeling that induces them to alter “Father” to ‘‘God” induces
also the change from zapa and éx to azo. It is not for them to lay
stress on the domesticity of the relation between the Father and the
Son. ‘The same feeling may have influenced the evangelist.
[2328] (3) (zapa) xvi. 27 “For the Father of himself taketh you
as friends (vA twas) because ye have taken me as friend (€me
medidyxare) and have believed that I came forth from the side of
(apa) the Father.” Here the personal preposition is used because
personal feeling predominates—the notion of a household bound
together by affection. The same explanation applies to xvii. 8
“They [ze. the disciples] recognised (€yvwaar) in truth (aAnOas) that
I came forth from thy side (xapa ood) and believed that thou didst
send me.” ‘This is the last statement of the Son about His coming
forth, and it seems appropriate that it should use the personal
preposition. On dure, see 17287 and 2584 c.
252
PREPOSITIONS [2329 (i)]
(€) °Ek with mAHpo@ and remiza
|2329] In xii. 3 “‘but the house was filled full (érAnpw6y) from
(é€x) the odour of the ointment,” B reads érAno6y (for émAnpwOn) and
this is the word used in 2 Chr. vil. 1 “the glory of the Lord filled
(€rAnoe) the house,” as also by NA in Is. vi. 4 “the house was filled
(LXX éverAynoOn) with smoke.” But perhaps John uses zAnpow
to suggest spiritual filling, such as makes the -Church really the
Church, the full-filling, or Pleroma, of divine graces and powers.
And some symbolism of this kind may also explain ex, which is very
rarely indeed used with verbs of filling in LXX and N.T.' It might
be originally merely a Hebraistic form, such as may be found in the
Apocalypse, in which ék expressed the Hebrew preposition used with
“fill.” But John might give it a spiritual application by taking the
house as the House of God, ze. the Church, which is “fulfilled,”
i.e. brought into the fulness of the glory of Christ, as a result of (é)
this sacrifice of sweet savour. Origen takes some such view of the
“house,” which he calls “omnem hujus mundi domum ac totius
ecclesiae domum?.”
[2329 (i)] In vi. 13 éyémioay dwdexa Kodivors kAacpatwv éx Tov
révte dptwv tov Kpilivoy a eérepiocevcay trois BeBpwxoow, is the
connexion “filled [full] of fragments” or “baskets of fragments”?
Our English versions adopt the former. A.V. has “‘filled twelve
baskets zzth the fragments of the five barley loaves,” R.V. “‘zezth
broken pieces from the five barley loaves.” Westcott does not dissent.
His comment on A.V. is ‘fragments ze. the pieces broken for
distribution (Ezek. xiii. 19).” But John has not mentioned any
“breaking” for distribution. Chrysostom ad /oc. calls the fragments
NelWava, a word denoting “fallen fragments.” Origen speaks of “the
barley loaves from which (af ov) there superabounded the twelve
baskets®.” The Latin and Syriac versions indicate that K0ogvvov
1 [2329 a] See Winer xxx. 8 (6) p. 251 quoting Rev. vill. 5 yeuigeuw ex, X1x. 21
xopracew €xk, xvil. 2, 6 wedvew, or meOUoKerbat, Ex. Comparing Mt. xxili. 25
Zrwlev yéuovow & dpmayns with Lk. xi. 39 70 eowbey tuay yemer aprayns, he
thinks the former means that the contents of the vessels are derived from
robbery.
2 [2329 6] Hom. on Cant. i. 12. He takes the fragrance however to be that
of the ‘‘ odor doctrinae qui procedit de Christo et sancti Spiritus fragrantia.”
* Origen Comm. Matth. about ‘the seven loaves.”
253
[2330] PREPOSITIONS
kAacpatwy should be connected—as probably in Luke? (though
Luke may mean “pieces broken for distribution”)—and that the
meaning may be, as in the Syriac, “filled twelve daskets-of-fragments
from the five barley loaves’,” taking yeuéZw and é« together.
(vil) ”Eprpoobev
[2330] “EpsrpooGév cov occurs in Matthew and Luke (“‘frepaze...
before thee”) quoting Malachi about the messenger that was to
“prepare the way,” and applying the prophecy to John the Baptist
as being the messenger. In Malachi, both the Hebrew and the LXX
have “‘defore my face,” tpo tpotwrov pov, instead of ‘before thee.” Mark
omits the clause with “prepare,” but has ‘send my messenger defore
thy face (7p0 mpocuwrov cov),” and attributes the prophecy to “Isaiah.”
These facts shew that there were early Greek variations as to
eumpoobev applied to the Baptist as being the forerunner of Christ.
Like the English “before” (in “placed Jdefore,” “stands before,”
“ranked before”) so éurpooGev, in certain contexts, might mean
“superior to,” “above [in esteem].” This word, belonging to the
Matthew-Luke tradition, is put by John thrice into the mouth of the
Baptist himself testifying twice, (1. 15, 30) ‘““He is become Jefore me,”
i.e. “ranked before me,” and, in the third instance, (ill. 28) “I have
been sent defore him,” i.e. as His herald or harbinger*.
1 [2329 (i) a] Lk. ix. 17 #p0n 76 mepiocetoay av’rots KNacudTav Kipwoa SwoeKa.
This prob. means ‘‘daskets of,” not ‘‘seperabundance of.” Comp. Lk. xiii. 8,
where D and the Latin Mss. have ‘‘a basket of dung,” and see Steph. for kéguwos
meaning ‘‘a measure,” and for the curious phrase olvov kégwos.
2 [2329 (i) 6] The Syr. (Burk.) has ‘‘they gathered and filled twelve daskets of
Fragments from the five pieces of barley-bread—those which remained over from
them that ate” (SS ‘‘they gathered them, the fragments that remained over of
them and filled twelve baskets, the superabundance of those five loaves of barley
and of those two fishes. Now the men that had eaten of that bread had been
five thousand”). The Latin versions also have ‘‘ fragmentorum” which prob.
depends on ‘‘ cophinos.”
% [2330 a] See 830—5, where this Johannine use of éumpoobevy should have
been noted. In Heb., Gesen. 8176 mentions only two instances of Malachi’s
word as denoting superiority, Gen. xlviii. 20 ‘‘set Ephraim déefore Manasseh
(€Onxev...€umpoobev),” Job xxxiv. 19 (LXX confused). “Humpoo@ev does not mean
**superior” elsewhere in N.T., for Jn x. 4 ‘‘[the shepherd] goeth déefore them” is
not an instance. No instance quoted by Steph. means ‘‘ superior” except Plato
631 D Tatra 6¢ mdvra éxelyvwy €umpordey réraxra gpioer, ‘‘ these have a natural
superiority to those,” but comp. Plato 744 A cwdpoovvns Eumpoober vyleay...momy
Tyslav, and 805 D éumpoobev.. Jetwev dv.
254
PREPOSITIONS [2331]
(viii) *Ey
(a) *En used metaphorically, e.g. “abide in,” see 1881
(8) °En used temporally
[2331] ii. 19 —20 “Destroy this temple and [zvth]in (év) three
days I will raise it up...thou zwz¢hzn (év)' three days wilt raise it up?!”
The corresponding utterance in Mark and Matthew (omitted by
Luke) has ‘after an interval of (Sia) three days,” and the context
leaves the impression that no such words proceeded from Jesus but
only from false witnesses. In the predictions of the Resurrection,
whereas Mark has “after (wera*) three days” (1297, 1301—2) Matthew
and Luke have “the third day,” and as these early variations cannot
well be regarded as accidental, we are led to infer that something
may be intended by John’s variations here (‘in” and ‘within”).
B’s reading represents Jesus as saying “zz three days” and the Jews
as quoting Him not quite correctly, “‘wthinm three days.” If the
evangelist wrote this, his meaning may be that the Jews, while
slightly exaggerating what Jesus had actually said‘, nevertheless (by
a sort of irony of Providence) more exactly predicted that which
actually came to pass: Christ dd raise up the ‘'emple of His body
“within three days’.” See 2716.
1 [2331 a] Comp. Xen. Wem. iii. 13. 5 ‘‘ within five or six days,” Plato 240 B
““qtthin three days,” Steph. (Vol. iii. 962) ‘‘Quod Hippocrates dixit "Ev émra
nuépnow amodvycxovow, interpr. Celsus, Zzdra septimum diem,” also Xen.
Cyropaed. v. 3. 28 ‘To come (lit.) less than within (uetov 7 év) six or seven days.”
2 [2331 6] The first év is om. by B but ins. by &, the second éy is om. by &,
a has ‘‘in triduo...tribus diebus,” 6 ‘‘in triduo...in triduo,” e ‘‘in trib (s¢c) diebus
...in triduo.”
3 Mk xiv. 58, Mt. xxvi. 61.
+ There are many other instances in which Jesus is not quoted exactly; but the
whole subject of quotations and repetitions in Jn is attended with great difficulty :
they are so frequently inaccurate (2544—53).
® [2331 c] It would be wrong to translate Mk xiv. 58, Mt. xxvi. 61 dca Tpray
nuepav, ‘‘ within three days,” or anything but ‘‘after an interval of three days”
(comp. Mk ii. 1 &’ juepSv), just as Mk viii. 31 wera 7. 7. must be rendered
“* after three days.” And these two expressions must be reconciled with ry tpiry
nuépa partly (see Field on Mt. xvi. 21) by Greek looseness of expression, and
partly by Biblical influence. As regards Acts i. 3 6.’ QuepOv recoepdxovra, Cramer
publishes, as from Chrys., ‘‘he said not for forty days but (?) at intervals during forty
days, for He was [during that time, now] approaching nigh and [now] removing
again,” oJ yap ele TecoapdKkovTa 7uépas dda Ov Nuepav TecoapdKovTa: épicTaTo
yap kal ddiorato mddw. If that is the writer’s meaning, he gives to did with juepav
an unprecedented rendering, which completely changes the sense. No authority
255
[2332] PREPOSITIONS
(y) °En quasi-instrumental
[2332] John does not use the Hebraic év for “with” in such
phrases as “‘slay zwei the sword’”: but Hebraic influence may in
part account for his use of év rovre where many would use da
tovrov “hereby”: xili. 35 “By this shall all men know that ye are
my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” In part it may arise
from his proneness to see things as though they were going on in
spiritual regions (¢,g. light, darkness, love), “‘/ ¢hzs region shall men
for it is alleged by Blass (p. 313) except Mk xiv. 58, Mt. xxvi. 61, which, as
stated above, must be rendered ‘‘ after an interval of.” D omits 6d in Acts but
places it above the line between reoo. and nu., d has ‘‘ post dies quadraginta.”
This makes excellent sense, ‘‘ After an interval of forty days, giving them a vision
of himself (6r7avdéuevos adrots) and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom
of God, and (?) uniting himself with [them] (cuva\cGéuevos), he exhorted them not
to separate from Jerusalem.” This would vividly represent what the Lord said
and did in His last manifestation. The words attributed to Chrys. are not quite
incompatible with the meaning in D, ‘‘ After forty days [from the Resurrection]
appearing [for the last time].” Chrys. may mean, ‘‘ Luke said ‘after,’ not ‘during,’
for [during all those days] He came and went [not appearing continuously].”
[2331 d@] Jn xx. 26 ‘‘after eight days,” indicates that Christ had not appeared
to the disciples since the appearance last (xx. 19) recorded, and favours the view
that the manifestations after the Resurrection were not continuous. It also shews
how divergent traditions about the intervals might arise; for the Hebraic phrase
du’ NuepG@v ‘‘after [some] days,” being as strange in classical Gk as in English,
might be supposed to have accidentally omitted the number. Hence H, “‘eight,”
or M, ‘‘ forty,” might naturally be inserted, being supposed to have dropped out
before H in HMEpWN. Even if Chrys. interpreted du¢ as meaning ‘‘at intervals
during,” it is impossible to accept his interpretation without a great deal of
evidence for such a use of 6ca with a plural (‘‘ days,” ‘‘ years” etc.). See 2715.
[2331 ¢] In Lk. ix. 37 77 és quépa, D has da ris juépas, d ‘‘ per diem,” Syr.
‘*on that day again (SS om. again).” The Gk of D, if it is another way of saying
TH €&qs H., must mean ‘‘after the interval of the day,” but seems to have been
taken by the Latin translator as meaning ‘‘in the course of the day.”
1 [2332 a] Rev. vi. 8 dmoxretvar év pougpaia. Comp. Lk. xxii. 49 & paxalpn.
A Tebtunis Papyrus 16 (B.C. 114) has évy waxatpnc—and others (26. 41, 45, 46, 47)
have the same phrase (in pl.)—to express ‘‘ [armed] with a sword.” Comp. 7d. 48
Adxos civ dos év drdots, foll. by kal cracauévwy tas waxalpas. As év bmdows
practically means érodépos, ‘‘ bearing arms,” so é€v waxalpy by analogy might come
to mean paxatpopdpos, ‘‘bearing a sword.’”’ None of these papyrus passages have a
verb like droxrelvw or mardoow, asin Rev., Lk., and LXX (2 K. xix. 37, Jer. xxvi.
23 etc., where év represents Heb. “‘in”). So, too, 1 Cor. iv. 21 €v papdw éhOetyv—
until instances are alleged from non-Hebraic Gk of &pxouac év—must be regarded
as akin to 1S. xvii. 43 épyp...€v paBdm Kal NlOots, 7b. 45 Epxy...€v poudala,
2S. xxiii. 21 karéBy...(Field) év pa86w,parall. 1 Chr. xi. 23 KaréBy...€v paBdw. The
Targum follows the Heb. in using ‘‘in,’? and Deissmann (p. 120) gives no reason
for rejecting the obvious explanation that the Pauline phrase had a Semitic origin.
256
PREPOSITIONS [2334]
discern that...,” namely, in Christian fellowship. So xvii. 10 “TI have
been glorified zz them” does not, perhaps, mean merely “in their
hearts” (still less merely “by them”) but “in the Church” as repre-
sented by the small band of disciples: and xvi. 30 “Ju this we
believe that thou camest forth from God” may be intended to
suggest the thought that, after wandering in the dark, the disciples,
finding that Jesus miraculously knows their thoughts, seem to
themselves to have emerged into light: “Zz [the light of | this [thy
saying|, we believe....”
(8) ’En used locally, €n Ta razodmyAakiw (vill. 20)
[2333] vill. 20 ‘These words he spake zz (év) the Treasury
teaching in the Temple.’”’ As no authority has been alleged for the
supposition that the Treasury (ya€ofvAakcov) was open to the public},
it has been suggested that é€v must here mean “near.” But no
authority for this hypothesis is alleged from N.T. Either therefore
we must suppose that (1) a special part of the Women’s Court,
opposite the Treasury, was familiarly known as “the Treasury,”
or else that (2) John has used the expression loosely for some other
reason. In support of (1), no instance has been alleged.
[2334] It is true that, according to the LXX of Nehemiah, the
people were to bring their gifts “/o the Treasury’,” and this might
suggest that the public had access to the Treasury. But according
to Mark, Jesus stood ‘‘ofposzte the Treasury” when He taught the
disciples to judge the widow’s gift not as man sees it, but as God sees
1 [2333 a] It would have been correct to say (1) ‘‘in the women’s court,” on
which the Treasury abutted, or (2) ‘‘opposite the Treasure-chests” (called
*“Trumpets’’) into which offerings were put by people in the women’s court,
or (3) ‘‘ opposite the Treasury ” (Mk xil. 41) z.e. in that part of the women’s court
where one could see people ‘‘ casting their gifts into the Treasury” (Lk. xxi. 1).
Josephus says (Wars vy. 5.2) that a portico ran ‘‘in front of (mpé) the treasure-
boxes (rév yafopudakiwy),” and (Azz. xix. 6. 1) that Herod Agrippa suspended a
golden chain ‘‘up above the Treasury (v3ép 76 yafopuAdkcov) ” 7.e. presumably on
the wall of the Treasury abutting on the Court, where it would be visible to those
in the Court. But none of these facts suggest that people had access to the
Treasury, and the access is antecedently most improbable. for. F/ed. i. 226 says,
‘When John saith, ‘Jesus spake these words in the treasury,’ it is all one as if he
had said, ‘ He spake these words in the court of the women’...”—7.e. in the place
where the ‘‘ Trumpets” abutted on the women’s court.
2 [2334a] Nehem. x. 37 ‘‘to the chambers of the house of our God,” eds
yavopuNdktov olxov Tov Geov. This might give the impression that the people came
into the Treasury.
A. VI. 257, 17
[2334] PREPOSITIONS
—_——
it; why then did not John adhere to Mark’s tradition (supposing him
to have known it) and say, “These things spake Jesus teaching
opposite the Treasury”? May not the reason be that, from the
symbolical point of view, the old phrasing was not quite appropriate ?
John perhaps accepted from the Synoptists the tradition that the
Treasury was the scene of Christ’s doctrine about judgment con-
cerning gifts, as judged by man and as judged by God. But he may
have also adopted a further tradition that His doctrine on that
occasion included judgment in general (vill. 15 “ye judge after the
flesh”), since the whole life of man may be regarded as a “gift” or
“ offering” to God’. From his point of view, then, the Treasury has
1 [23344] Mt. xxiii. 23 and Lk. xi. 42 protest against the tithing of mint,
when accompanied by the neglect of ‘‘judgment.”’ Mt. xii. 7 says, ‘If ye had
known what that means, ‘I will have mercy and not sacrifice,’ ye would not have
condemned the guiltless.” Compare the tradition of Micah (vi. 7—8) that ‘‘to do
justly ” is better than offerings of ‘‘ thousands of rams,” and ‘rivers of oil.” The
Treasury, the receptacle of God’s offerings, might well seem an appropriate place
for doctrine about ‘‘ doing justly ” or ‘‘ judging righteous judgment.”
Note also the following uses of év :—
[2334] “Ev xecpi in iti. 35 mdvra dédwkev ev TH XEWpl a’rod is Hebraic as
compared with xiii. 3 mdvra édwxev ait@ els ras xelpas. The second is the more
emphatic—‘‘ gave him all things [giving them absolutely] into his hands.” But
indiscriminative writers or translators might use the two indifferently as in Josh.
X. 30, 32 (bzs) “‘ delivered into the hand of Israel,” Heb. ‘‘ gave, or placed, zz the
hand,” LXX els xelpas...els Tas xetpas, but A év yeupl...els Tas xelpas. Comp.
Dan. i. 2 Theod. @wxey év xeupi atrov, LXX mapédwxev...eis xetpas avrod.
[2334] The interpolation in v. 4 xaréBawev év 77 KkoduuBHPpa is probably
from a Semitic source. Comp. Judg. vii. 9 xardBy@ év (A eis) rH mapeuBorn and
1S. xiv. 21 ‘‘zmfo (marg. zz) the camp,” Josh. vill. 13 etc. Blass (p. 130) quotes
Herm. Sim. i. 6 awéXOns é&v TH Wéder cov, and refers to Clem. Hom. i. 7, xiv. 6,
and (p. 313) quotes Epict. i. 11. 32 dvépyn é€v ‘Pwun. But in Clem. Hom. i. 7 &
mupl acBéoTw pipbeicas Tov aidva KoNagbjocecPa, the meaning may be ‘‘ punished
zm fire unquenchable.” In Clem. Hom. xiv. 6 €v adddoddry oOpujcaca is im-
mediately described as év a\Nodamy yevouévn. The context lays stress on a voyage
by sea, and suggests that the meaning may be, not “having set out 77 (for ¢o),”’
but “‘ having found anchorage in (opuéw) a foreign coast.’ In Epictet., Schweig.
says that davépxy covers an erasure, which, he says, may be amépxy. Comp.
tb. il. 20. 33 dmeNOew év Badavely. This would reduce the two instances in Epict.
to agreement with Herm. Szm. i. 6, and comp. Steph. 1289 D quoting Mustoxydis
Anecd. aredOévros év ry marpié, and ‘‘alia non minus barbara schol. gournrhs 6
ouvexGs mapa To didackdd\w amepxdmevos.” The facts indicate that in vernacular
Gk, independent of Semitic influence, the use of év was freq. with dmépxec@ac but
not with other verbs of motion. Epictet. elsewhere uses avépxouac with els, and
also absolutely (but not with év), of ‘‘ going up [to Rome].” ’Amépyouac év seems
to have meant ‘‘I go and stay in [a place].”” But the Fayiim Pap. 116, 138 give
dreNeiv els 76d (not év, though the writers are illiterate).
258
ie
PREPOSITIONS [2336 |
a typical meaning. It belongs to the Father, and the Son comes to
visit it in order to inspect the offerings made to His Father. In this
light—the Son being regarded as Lord of the Treasury—it is more
appropriate to think of Him as standing ‘‘z7” it than “‘ opposite to”
it, or “looking up” to it’.
(ix) ’Evéamvoy
[2335] “Everov occurs only once, xx. 30 (lit.) “‘ Many and other
signs therefore on the one hand (oAAa pev ovv Kat adAa® onpeta) did
Jesus zx the sight of (évwrvov) the disciples,” and once in the Epistle,
I Jn iil. 22 “we do the things that are well pleasing zz fis sight
” Mark and Matthew never use it. Luke uses it twenty-
two times, the last instance being (xxiv. 43) “he ate zm their sight,”
i.e. “zn the sight of” the disciples. This refers to the period after
Christ’s resurrection: and it is noteworthy that the only Johannine
instance of the word refers apparently to the same period, and to
events of the same kind z.e. to signs wrought by Jesus “zz the sight
of” the disciples alone, and not in the sight of the world at large. If
the ‘‘signs” had not been restricted fo the “sight” of “the disciples,”
the phrase (it seems probable) would not have been inserted.
(é. avrov).
(x) ’Ent
(1) Eni with Accusative
[2336] “Ei with accusative, which is frequently found in the
Synoptists to express “coming up to” or “against” a person, thing,
or place, is never used thus of literal motion by John except in xix.
33 et de Tov “Incoty éAGovres. John uses it however of the Spirit
(i. 33, 51) “coming down oz” a person, and in vi. 16 “came down
1 Lk. xxi. 1 dvaBnépas.
2 [2335 a] This use of ‘‘and” after ‘‘many,” though (Steph.) regular in classical
prose, is not found elsewhere in N.T. except in Luke iii. 18 wod\a ev ovv Kal Erepa,
and Acts xxv. 7. Jn xxi. 25 €o7w 6€ cal &\Na odd omits ‘‘and.” Both in the
use of évwmov, and in the insertion of kai, this passage resembles the style of
Luke. Also pév ody, which occurs in Jn only here and xix. 24, is extremely
frequent in the Acts. ’Evwvov, in Lk., in connexion with ‘ eating,” occurs in
Lk. xiii. 26, ‘‘ we did eat and drink 7” thy présence...,” where Mt. vil. 22 has ‘‘ we
prophesied in thy name....”” Justin Mart. Aol. 16, Zxyph. 76 has ‘‘we did eat
and drink zz thy name.” So has Origen repeatedly (Huet 11. 389—90, 393,
Cels. ii. 49). Acts x. 41 has (Peter’s speech) cuveddyouey x. cvveriouey abr,
Ign. Smyrn. 3 ovvédayev [2.e. the Lord] a’rots kal cuvércev ws capkixds.... The
narrative of Jn xxi. 13 describes the disciples as eating in Christ’s presence and
from His hand, but makes no mention of His eating.
259 =D
[2337 | PREPOSITIONS
on (R.V. unto) the sea.” On the reading in xxi. 4 €orn éxi, where no
verb of motion is expressed, see 23807 a.
(2) ’Eni with Dative
[2337] “Eze, “close on,” “at,” “by,” in iv. 6 éxt tH znyp, and in
V. 2 érl 7H mpoBarixy, calls forno comment. In the latter, é7/—since
it might be thus used whether the meaning were “by a ga¢e” or “by
a pool” —throws no light on the disputed ellipsis (2216).
[2338] In iv. 27 “And upon this (éri tovrw) came his disciples
and were amazed that he was speaking with a woman,” it has been
shewn (1673a) that “amazed” probably conveys a notion of being
“shocked” or “scandalized.” ‘‘ Upon this,” literally “on the top of
this,” is frequent in classical Greek, where ézé occurs not only in
such phrases as ‘“‘evil o evil,” “one om another,” but also in the
?
ordinary meaning of sequence, ‘‘on this,” “hereon,” ‘hereupon.”
But in N.T. this use of ézi rovrw—apart from some verb preparing
the way for émé—is unique’. Origen has émi rodto: SS has “while
they [were] speaking”; the Latin versions, “meanwhile,” “forth-
with” etc.; Ds*, ev. Chrysostom says, “‘ Upon this came Fits
disciples’: they came most seasonably when the teaching of the
Lord had been completed?”—perhaps meaning “ Jesus had jus? time
to utter the words, J am He,” whereas the writer of SS (‘“‘ while they
were speaking [as above described]”) perhaps means “The woman
had wot time to add a word of question.” Both interpretations
appear to recognise the exceptional meaning of “‘wpon this” by an
attempt to paraphrase it. The context supposes that the disciples
did not hear Christ’s words; else they would have been “amazed ”
at what He said, not at the mere fact that He “spake with a
woman”: but they came up just in time to prevent the woman from
saying anything more.
[2339] In xii. 16 tatdra qv em atte yeypappéva, D reads repi
(comp. v. 46 epi yap ewod exetvos Eypawev) which would be the usual
preposition if the meaning were simply “concerning”: but em ‘on
the basis of” (not «is, ‘with a view to”), means that the Scripture was,
1 The references given by Alford (ad /oc.) are not to the point, as they have
verbs (‘‘ rejoice,” ‘‘console” etc.) in the context and mean ‘‘ rejoice az, console
over” etc. Eph. iv. 26 um émidvérw éml reproduces a phrase from Deut. xxiv. 15.
92 66
2 [2338 a] Xddbdpa els xaipdy amivrnoav ris didackaNlas dmaprioGelons. On
Origen (ad loc.) él rotro, note confusion of o and w. Nonnus is strangely confused,
Xpiords éya yeviunv’ ov devrepos dddos ixdver* OvdE uv npero Ilérpos are Opacus....
260
PREPOSITIONS [2342]
by foreknowledge, ‘‘ based on,” and ‘“‘adapted to,” the act of Christ
that fulfilled it. The context is quite different in Lk. xxiii. 38
éextypapy éx aita: but probably em, there too, means “suited to the
case of,” and hence “concerning ”—not “over his head” (506 (1) 2).
(3) °Eni with Genitive
(a) °Emi tAc @addccue (vi. 19, xxi. I)
[2340] John seldom uses éxé with genitive, for it does not (1882)
lend itself to metaphor. The only instance of ex/ with the genitive
in Christ’s words is in xvii. 4 ‘‘I have glorified thee on the earth.”
But the following passages claim attention :—vi. 19—21 “They
behold Jesus walking on (? near) the sea (repuratotvta eri Tijs
Gadacoys)...and straightway the boat (lit.) became on (? wear) the land
(evbéws €yévero 76 motov ext THs ys) to which they were returning
(cis Av barqyov),” xxi. 1 “After these things Jesus manifested himself
again to the disciples om (? near) the sea (ert tHs Garacons) of
Tiberias.”
[2341] In the latter, there is no intention to represent Jesus as
walking on the sea, for it is expressly said that “Jesus stood on the
beach.” Why, then, does not John use the customary” phrase “ dy
(xapa) the sea”? Turning to the Synoptic account of the Walking
on the Sea*, we find that Matthew curiously differs from Mark and
John. Matthew has the phrase first with the accusative, “ He came
toward them walking on (? over) the sea (ert rnv 6.)”; then with the
genitive, “seeing him oz the sea (ézt rs 6.) walking.” This change
of case may be explained as follows, from a desire to clear up an
early obscurity attaching to the phrase ‘oz the sea,” and to the word
“walk.”
[2342] “ Ox the sea” is ambiguous—capable of meaning “ear
the sea,” as when we say that a city “lies o# the sea”—and more
ambiguous in Greek than in English. We could not say, of a
person, “‘4e stood on the sea,” for “on the edge of the sea.” But
Greek and Hebrew can say this. Moreover zepirarety means as
a rule “walk about” and not “walk” in the sense of progression.
1 [2341a] xxi. 4 orn eis (marg. él) tov aiyiaddv. For the reasons for
preferring él, see 2307 a.
2 [2341 4] ‘‘ Customary,” even where there is no verb of motion, both in LXX
and in Mk-Mt. Comp. Mk iv. 1 duddoKew 1. THY O., Vv. 21 Hv 1. THY O., Mt. xiii. I
é€xdOnro mw. Thy. 0.
3 Mk vi. 48—9, Mt. xiv. 25—6, not in Lk.
261
[2342] PREPOSITIONS
In LXX it is used of “ walking to and fro,” on a roof, or palace wall’,
and in classical Greek it was so frequently used about the ‘“ walking up
and down” of the philosophic teacher that it gave the name to the
Peripatetic philosophy. Plutarch says that people use the term
“walk about” concerning those who “move up and down in the
porches,” not about those who “ walk (@ad/Zovras) into the country or
to see a friend.” Hence zepurareitvy could not well mean “walk
forward” except in some special context, as where Herodian says
“He used fo travel with them, mostly walking (repuratov), rarely
in carriage or on horseback*.” If therefore Matthew desired to use
the verb in the sense of “advance,” some change in the context
might be usefully introduced to suggest this*. Now from the time of
1 [2342 a] 2S. xi. 2 1m. éml Tod dwuaros, Dan. iv. 26 émi ray retxav (Theod. ézi
Tw vaw). Job ix. 8, Ps. civ. 3, describing Jehovah as ‘‘ walking about (repiratav)”
on the waters, or on the wings of the wind, are prob. to be expl. in the light of
Job xli. 23 (24) (LXX) ‘‘ he reckoneth the abyss as a portico (els mepimaror),” i.e.
as a place for walking up and down in. Prov. vi. 28 “‘ walk about on coals”
conveys no notion of progressing. The accus. occurs in an erroneous rendering of
Is. viii. 7 ‘‘ go over all his banks,” mepurarjoe: émt wav retxos vay.
* [234246] Plut. Mor. p. 796D rods év rats oroats dvakdumrTovras TepiTarely
pacty...ovKére 6€ Tods els aypov 7 pos Pirov BadifovTas.
% [2342] Steph. quotes Herodian, iv. 7. 11 Ta mXeloTa Te adbrois cuvwdeve
TepiTaT@y, omaviws apuatos 7} immou émiBaivar.
4 [2342 ad] It may be urged that Mark himself distinctly mentions advancing
in the words ‘‘ cometh (€pxerat) towards them.” This is true, but the context
indicates varieties of tradition. For (1) Mark adds ‘‘he wzshed ¢o (lit.) come past
them (jOedev mapedOeiv av’rovs).”” (2) Matthew omits this, but has 7\Gev instead
of épxera. (3) John also omits this (‘‘ wished to pass by”) but has 7@eNoy in
quite a different context (‘‘ ¢hey wzshed to receive him”). (4) Ilape\Getv, instead
of ‘‘ pass by,” might mean ‘‘ come to [them]” in classical Greek, and might be
taken by some as having that meaning here. (5) The three words HOEAON,
HOEAEN, and HAOEN might be easily confused. (6) The tradition that Jesus
‘‘wished to pass by the disciples’”—and presumably gave up His wish—is
fraught with great difficulty. (7) Matthew alone introduces a story about Peter
here, asking Jesus to bid him ‘‘come” to Him ‘‘ over the waters (émt ra tdara),”
and then Peter ‘‘ walked over the waters (wepewarynoev emi 7a tara)” and ‘* came
to Jesus.” Taking all these facts into consideration we appear to be justified in
inferring that Matthew’s reason for deviating from Mark’s use of the genitive
(which is also the usage of the LXX) in the first instance in which he speaks
about the ‘‘ walking,” was, that he desired to emphasize the meaning ‘‘ walking
onward,” as distinct from ‘‘ walking about.”
[2342 ¢] Ilepiuraréw in N.T. means (1) ‘‘ walk about,” (2) ‘‘ walk in love, faith,
light etc.” Applied to the lame, or paralysed, it may mean ‘‘ recover the power
of walking.” When applied to Jesus, it probably means in most cases, as in
classical Greek, ‘‘ walk about while teaching.’ \Nhere Mark describes Jesus as
(xi. 27) ‘‘ walking about in the Temple,” Matthew has (xxi. 23) ‘‘ came into the
262
ee
——————— ie
PREPOSITIONS [2342 |
Homer and Hesiod, éxi with the accusative of Oadaccav, rovtov etc.
was extremely common in the sense of sailing, advancing etc. over
the sea or ocean’. Consequently, by the slight change of the genitive
Temple,” and Luke (xx. 1) ‘‘ teaching the people in the Temple and preaching
the Gospel”; and this is probably the real meaning of Mark’s tradition, For
several authors use the word thus (Steph.) Philostr. p. 21 ‘‘ /ecturing to one’s
audience (repurarotvTos és To’s dxpowpévous),”” 7b. 302 ‘‘ lecturing to people that are
in a state of depression (7. és dv@pwrous aOvuws éxovras),” Diog. Laert. vii. 109
“Ask and answer and /ecture (rd épwrdv Kal dmoxplvecOar Kal mepirareiv).” As
Jewish teachers ‘‘sat” while teaching, reperaréw would not probably be applied
to Jesus in this sense, except either as a Greek paraphrase, or as referring to
His ‘‘going from place to place” while preaching the Gospel.
[2342] Mt. iv. 18 meperar@v (Mk i. 16 mwapdywv) 6€ mapa thy Gddacoay
rs I. occurs before the call of Peter. The corresponding narrative in Lk. v. 1
has éyévero év Té Tov dxXov EmixetoOar alTw Kal dxovew Tov éyov TOU Heod Kal avTos
qv éoTas mapa Thy Nuvnv Vevynoapér. If this detail in Lk. is parallel to the
detail in Mk-Mt., Lk. would seem, as above, to have taken 7. as ‘‘ teach.” In
Lk.’s sequel, Jesus goes into a boat and (v. 3) ‘‘sitting down, from (éx) the vessel
he taught the multitudes.” This resembles an incident, omitted by Luke, but
recorded by Mark and Matthew before the Parable of the Sower, where the three
Synoptists relate the gathering of a crowd. Mark and Matthew add :—
Mk iv. 1 Mt. xiii. 2
‘* so that he himself went into a
boat and sat 27 (év) the sea, and all the
multitude were toward the sea on (or,
on the edge of, éri) the land (ém
««.so that he himself went into a
boat and sa¢, and all the multitude
had taken up its stand on the beach
39
(éml Tov aivycanddv ior7KeL)
THS yis).”
[2342 ¢] The facts indicate that there were many traditions about Jesus
teaching the disciples ‘‘ 2 the sea” or ‘‘ by the sea.” It is not at all likely
that reperdryncev emi ris Oaddoons eis robs wabyrds originally meant (according
to the idiom of Philostratus) ‘‘ He discourvsed, on the edge of the sea, fo the
disciples” —for the idiom was probably confined to educated writers. But,
reversely, it is possible that the original and poetical tradition about Jesus
walking on the sea to the disciples may have been explained by some as meaning
that He ‘‘stood on the edge of the sea and a/scoused to them,” or else ‘‘ He, in
the sea, z.e. in a boat on the sea, discoursed to the disciples.”
[2342 4] In Jn xii. 35 ‘* Walk about (mepumaretre) (R.V.) while (ws) ye have
the light,” the Syr. (Burk. txt) has ‘‘ wadk in the light” ; and a little later (xii. 36)
instead of ‘‘ believe in (eis) the light,” Chrysostom has ‘‘ wa/k [having regard] to
(eis) the light.” If as meant ‘‘ while,” we should have to interpret the former
passage “‘ Be active,” “‘ be doing,” assuming that the ‘‘ walking about ” is in the
paths of righteousness ; but more probably (2201) ws means ‘‘as” and the sense is
“Walk according as ye have the light.”
1 [23427] Steph. quotes abundant instances from Homer and Hesiod of éri
with accus. in this sense (‘‘ over the sea”), but none (nor do L. S. and Jelf) from
later authors. Matthew, however, uses it twice in the story of Peter walking on
the waters, as well as once in the Synoptic Tradition. And comp. Eurip. /Zec.
446 én’ oldua, also Hel. 400, Zph. T. 395, 409. It seems a poetic idiom.
263
[2343 | PREPOSITIONS
to the accusative, Matthew suggests that the meaning of the old
tradition was not “walking about on the edge of the sea,” but
“walking over the sea [toward the disciples].” In the light of this,
his readers would naturally interpret the next clause as “having
beheld him, ov the sea, walking [towards them].”
[2343] Mark’s narrative suffers from ambiguity. He has the
same two phrases as Matthew, but with the ambiguous genitive
in both clauses. John has only one clause, and that contains the
ambiguous genitive, “‘ They behold Jesus walking on the sea (ért ris
0)?
[2344] The variations may be illustrated by the description
(LXX) of Israel ‘‘encamped dy the [Red] Sea.” The Hebrew
preposition means literally “upon.” In the first instance, LXX
renders this literally by éx/ with the genitive, but a few verses after-
wards by zapé with the accusative’, which is the regular rendering
all through the Bible, wapa 6¢Aaccay being very frequent whereas
ézi OaXaoons is extremely rare. When the latter occurs in the
Psalms (R.V.) ‘terrible things dy (Heb. ov) the Red Sea,” the
Hebrew writer and the Greek translator (who uses éz¢ with the
genitive) may be alluding to the passage in Exodus where the
meaning is ‘“‘on the edge of the sea*.”
[2345] It appears, then, that the phrase used twice by Mark, “‘on
the sea,” is, both in Hebrew and in Greek, ambiguous. Matthew
alters it in one case so as to make the meaning clear, ‘‘ walking over
the sea.” John retains ‘walking oz the sea.” In view of Matthew’s
alteration, and of Luke’s omission of the whole story, it is reasonable
to conclude that there were early divergences of opinion as to the
meaning of “on the sea” and to regard it as probable that John
1 [2343a] Mk vi. 48—9, Mt. xiv. 25—6, Jn vi. 19. Some of the Latin mss.
distinguish between the two clauses. In Mt., @ has ‘‘ambulans supra mari...supra
mare ambulantem” (4 om. 2nd clause), e has ‘‘ambulans super mare...in mari
ambulantem,”’ / has ‘‘ambulans super mare...supra mare ambulantem,’’ SS has
“fon the water...on the waves of the sea.” In Mk, SS has ‘‘ walking on the
water...on the water [and] walking.” In Mk, @ has ‘‘ambulans Jesus super
marem (s7c)...ambulantem super mare.’’ In Mk, D has 7. éml rijs Oaddoons twice.
In Mt., D has two genitives; L has genitive first, accusative second.
* [2344] Ex. xiv. 2 éml ris 0., xiv. g mapa tHv 8. “Emi rq @. occurs in
Ex. xiv. 16, 21 etc. of Moses “stretching out his hand over the sea.”
% [23444] In Ps. cvi. 22, the Syr. and Vulg. have ‘‘ zz the Red Sea”: Walton
renders the arg. ‘‘in,” but the Heb. ‘‘ super,” but the preposition, in both, is the
same as in Ex. xiv. 2 (Heb.).
264
PREPOSITIONS [2346 |
intended “walking oz the sea” to mean something different from
Matthew’s “walking over the sea”—something more in accordance
with the usage of Polybius—who describes the Roman soldiers
as ‘‘standing om (i.e. on the edge of) the sea’,” and not venturing
into it in order to attack the Carthaginians—and also in accordance
with the LXX version of the Deliverance on the Red Sea and the
allusion to it in the Psalms. And this hypothesis is made all the
more probable because we thereby interpret the Johannine “oz the
sea” precisely as we are to interpret the Johannine “oz the land” in
the same story, and also as we interpret the Johannine “oz the sea”
in the narrative of the manifestation after the Resurrection. In each
of these three cases ‘‘ 07” means “close to,” “on the edge of.”
[2346] It has been shewn elsewhere that John’s use of the rare
(1735 4c) word HOEAON in the context indicates that he was writing
with allusion to Mark’s H®EAEN. Mark had said that Jesus
“cetlled” to pass by the disciples. John says that the disciples
“‘ztlled” to receive Jesus: and then there was a miracle. The boat
was “immediately on the edge of the shore”! But the difference
between the Synoptic and the Johannine miracle is this, that in the
former the Lord comes to the disciples, in the latter He draws the
disciples to Himself?. See also 2716—7.
1 Polyb. Bell. Pun. i. 44 émt 6€ ris Oaddoons Eorynoay [oi ‘Pwuator] katarerdny-
pévot Thy TOY Todepiwv TOALAY.
2 [2346 a] John, like Origen, may have regarded the story as typical of the
Storm of Temptation. The narrative has some points of similarity to that of
Adam and Eve, when they, after yielding to temptation, heard the voice of ‘‘ the
Lord God walking (mepurarotvros),” and they were afraid. Before they had
tasted of evil, says Philo (on Gen. iii. 8), they were at rest themselves and
believed God to be at rest: now, being themselves in commotion, they impute
motion to Him. This is not the place to discuss the relation between the two
Johannine descriptions of Jesus ‘ox the edge of the sea (éml ris Oaddoons)” of
Tiberias—one before, one after, the Resurrection. But, as regards the former,
the facts indicate that John found this ambiguous phrase in the Original Greek
Tradition. Instead of omitting it, or altering it, he desired to set forth what
appeared to him the true and spiritual traditions containing it. In other words,
whereas Luke omits, John intervenes and explains.
[23460] The Acts of John says § 2 (ed. James) ‘‘ When He had chosen Peter
and Andrew, who were brethren, He cometh to me and to my brother James,
saying, ‘I have need of you: come unto Me.’ And my brother <hearing> that,
said ‘John, what would this child have that called to us upon the shore?’ (kal
0 ad. pou TovTo eirrev, “I. TO ratdlov TodTO <TO> émi Tod aiyahod Kadécay Huds
TL BoveTat ;).”
[2346 c] The narrative goes on to say that, when they had ‘“‘ brought the ship to
265
[2347] PREPOSITIONS
(8) °Emi toy ctaypoy (xix. 19)
[2347] Jn xix. 19 émt tod oravpot—which is parallel to Lk. xxiil.
38 é aird, R.V. “over him,” but better, perhaps, “concerning him”
(506 (i) 4)—requires in itself no grammatical comment, but perhaps
points to mistranslation of Semitic tradition by one or more of
the evangelists.
( x1) Kara
[2348] Kara, in the Synoptists, is occasionally used of locality,
both with genitive and with accusative. In John it is never thus
used. In Mark, it occurs no less than seven times in the phrase kar’
idtav, “privately.” John never represents Jesus as doing anything
‘‘ privately ” (comp. xviii. 20). This is one explanation of the rarity
of xard in John as compared with Mark. It is interesting to note
that one out of two instances with the genitive, and one out of eight
instances with the accusative, occur in interpolations (viii. 6, v. 4).
The phrase ets xaé’ efs is also part of an interpolation (vill. 9).
(xii) Meré
(a) Meta’loyaatoy (iti. 25)
[2349] Mera with the accusative requires no comment, meaning
almost always “after,” of time, as in the Synoptists*.
Mera with the genitive of the person in N.T. regularly means ‘in
company with,” and frequently “associated with (as a friend),” “on
the side of.” Except in Revelation, it is not used in N.T. with verbs
land,” the brothers presently saw Jesus ‘‘helping along with us to settle the
ship (76 mXotov édpdcwuev).” For this remarkable expression comp. (Steph.)
Callixenus Athen. 15, p. 204 D €dpacOnvat 7 mrotov aopares éml Tay parayywv
(7.e., Steph. viii. 603, on the (1) “stocks” or (2) ‘‘rollers”), and Constantin.
Basil. Mac. c. 34, p- 90 él twos dopadois édrridos édpacOjvac (metaph.). In
N.T. also we have ‘‘hope” connected with steadfastness in two metaphors, (1)
Col. i. 23 TeOeuediwpévor kal edpaioe Kal ph pmeraxwovmevoe amd THs édrldos...,
(2) Heb. vi. r8—19 éArldos, jv ws dyKupay EXomev. This ‘‘ settling the ship” is
perhaps originally derived from some poetic metaphor.
1 [23492] Merd with accusative occurs (12) in the phrase pm. Travra (or, TovUTO)
(2394), also in iv. 43 mera dé Tas dvo quepas, xx. 26 ue0’ huepas 6x7. It is foll. by
other nouns in [v. 4] wera rhv rapayny (interpol.), xiii. 27 mera 7d Wwpulov.
In the historical books of LXX, mera tadra is very common (much more so
than pera Todro). It occurs (5) in 1 Mac., but not in 2 Mac., 3 Mac., 4 Mac. It
occurs (3) in 1 Esdr. but never in Ezr., which has pera rodro twice. Mera
radra is non-occurrent in Mk and Mt., but it occurs Mk-App. xvi. 12, and in
Lk. (both speech and narr.), It is very freq. in Rev. (i. 19, iv. I, 2, Vil. 9 etc.).
266
PREPOSITIONS [2350]
of contention eg. “fight zth (i.e. against)',” a use apparently
confined to Hebraic Greek. In John, when it is used of people
“talking,” or “murmuring,” or ‘questioning with one another (jer
aAndwv)*,” the speakers ave al/ on one side—either the Jews against
Jesus, or the disciples wishing to question Jesus (not some for, others
against, Him). And ovv€yreiv, &jtnows etc. elsewhere are found with
mpos or ovv or dative, but not with pera®. These facts bear on the
interpretation of ili. 25 (lit.) “There arose therefore a questioning
Srom (? 2350) (ex) the disciples of John along with (wera) a Jew about
purifying, and they came to John and said to him, Rabbi,....”
[2350] The whole of the context—which turns on the possibility
of rivalry between the Baptist and Christ, who had come into the
Baptist’s neighbourhood—suggests that the Jews and some of the
Baptist’s disciples wished to incite the Baptist to jealousy. If we
take Cyryors to mean (as it does in the Acts and Pastoral Epistles)
a quarrel*, and a quarrel about some matter that seems to the writer
unimportant, we can give pera its usual Johannine signification by
supposing (1) a parenthesis after ‘‘quarrel’,” (2) an ellipsis of tuves,
“some,” after ex (2213—5), (3) wera meaning “allied with”: “There
arose therefore a quarrel—{some] of the disciples of John [szdzng']
with a Jew [or, Jews] about purifying; and they came to John
and said, Rabbi,...” ze. they tried to rouse him to jealousy of
Jesus®. Nonnus has épis... lwavvao pabytats “ERpaiov peta pwrds.
1 Rev. ii. 16, xi. 7, xii. 7, xiii. 4 etc. But comp. 1 Cor. vi. 6—7 ddedpds
Meta adeNpod xKplverat...xpluata exeTe med éavTdv. Steph. gives no instance.
2 Jn xi. 56 @deyov, vi. 43 yoyyufere, xvi. 19 (nre?re, all foll. by wu. dddpAwr.
3° Mk vii. 11 dat., ix. 14; 16° amps, Lk. xxii. 23 mpés, Acts xv. 2 ampés
(v. r. ovv), Acts xxv. 19 mpés: Acts vi. g dat., ix. 29 mpés.
4 [2350a] Zjrnows is not in LXX. In N.T. it occurs elsewhere 6 times.
It implies strife in Acts xv. 2, 7, foolish discussion and pedantical wrangling in
1 Tim. vi. 4, 2 Tim. ii. 23, Tit. iii. 9, and prob. in Acts xxv. 20. Zyrnua is
also used in an unfavourable sense in Acts xv. 2, xvill. 15, xxilil. 29 etc.
> [23506] Comp. Rev. xii. 7 ‘‘And there was war in heaven—Michael and
his angels making war with the dragon—and the dragon made war and _ his
angels...”
§ [2350c] The Latin versions have ‘‘Jews” instead of ‘‘Jew” and render
éx as follows :—a and f ‘‘ inter,” 6 ‘‘ ex,” e ‘‘de,” d“‘a.” They render uerd thus :—
a “et” (but @ has ‘‘inter Judaeos et discipulos Johannis”), 4 and e ‘‘cum,”
J “et,” d “ad.” Syr. Burk. has (txt) ‘‘among the disciples of John with the
Jews,” but his marg. gives ‘‘of one of the disciples of John with a Jew (07, ‘the
Jews’) S,” and the Arabic Diatessaron has ‘‘ between ove of John’s disciples and
267
[2351] PREPOSITIONS
(8B) Oi met’ aytoy ONTEC (ix. 40)
[2351] In ix. 4o (lit.) “‘ There heard [some] of the Pharisees these
things—those that were with him (nxovoav é€x tov ®. Tatra ot per
avrod ovres),” SS has “the Pharisees which were zear him.” This
rendering, if allowable, would remove a great difficulty ; for the con-
text represents Christ as severely condemning them, so that “on Azs
side,” or “his companions” —the rendering demanded by usage’—
seems out of place here. But (1) pera is hardly ever used of mere
proximity, (2) the article would surely have been omitted, since the
sense would require “some, being casually with him.” Chrysostom
paraphrases it as “following him superficially (€urodaiws)”: but
how can the supposition of such an ellipsis be justified? It would
be more allowable to suppose that, as in ix. 25 tufAds wy means
“being once blind,” so here ot 6vres means “ those who once were.”
But there the context continues “ now I see (apt BA€rw),” so that
the antithesis and the context together make the meaning clear:
‘“‘Being [known to everyone as] blind,” or “being [up to this
moment] blind,” now I see. Here there is no such context, and no
satisfactory explanation presents itself?.
(y) Meta compared with tapa
[2352] John only once says pévety pera®, the reason being perhaps
b]
one of the Jews.” These last two renderings necessitate that the ‘wo must be
described as going ¢ogether to John and saying ‘‘Rabbi” etc.
[2350 2] Chrysostom supposes that the ‘‘Jew” was one of Christ’s followers,
one whom the disciples of John tried ineffectually to persuade. But this view,
besides not explaining perd, fails to explain why the evangelist here alone uses
the word “Jew” instead of ‘‘a disciple of Christ,” the term he elsewhere applies
(xix. 38) to Joseph of Arimathzea.
1 [2351 a] Even where Peter is represented as (xviii. 18) “‘ along with” the High
Priest’s servants (as Judas is ‘‘ along with” the soldiers that arrest Jesus) pera
probably suggests blame, ‘making himself their companion.” And, with the
article, the notion of companionship is strengthened.
2 [23514] Iloré, ‘‘ once,” occurs in this narrative, a little earlier (ix. 13) ‘‘him
that was once blind (rév more rupdév).” And the context implies that, whereas
“the once blind” had been caused to see, so, ‘‘those who had once seen”—2z.e.
those who, being Pharisees, had ovce been disciples of the Lord had been made
blind. It would therefore make good sense to read of wore jer’ avrod ovres, and
more might have been dropped owing to its similarity with OTeEc of which it
seemed a repetition. But there is no variation in the Mss. except that A places
bvres before wer’ a’rov.
3 [2352 a] Jn xi. 54 ‘‘and there he abode with (mera) the disciples’
by the following words (‘‘ Now the passover of the Jews was nigh”) to denote
a brief period.
> is shewn
268
PREPOSITIONS [2354 |
that pera mostly implies companionship, friendly conversation, aid
etc., for a special occasion, unless the contrary is implied by adding
“for ever” etc.! When the Paraclete (z.e. Friend and Helper) is first
mentioned, it is with pera, but qualified by “for ever,” then with zapa,
‘“‘at home with,” then with ev, as follows, xiv. 16—17 ‘another
Paraclete will he give to you that he may be zz companionship with
you (peF tudv) for ever, even the Spirit of truth, which the world is
not able to receive, because [the world] doth not behold it or under-
stand it. Ye understand it because it abides, as zz a home, with you
(rap tpiv wéver) and zz you it [really] is (kati ev vty eorw, v.r. éoran,
W.H. txt €oriv).”
[2353] Here are three stages of revelation. ‘The first is, that the
new Friend—instead of being the companion of the disciples for
a few months (like the Lord in the flesh) (wera)—would be their
companion, guide, and prompter, “for ever (eis tov aidva).” The
second is, that since the companion was the Spirit of Truth and
the disciples had a spiritual affinity with Truth, they were al-
ready in sympathy with the Spirit, and it was already (in the eyes of
the Lord who saw things as they were) at home with them (zapa).
The third statement is, that the Spirit was indeed essentially “in
them,” z.e. in their inmost being (ev)*. The mss., except BD, read
(xiv. 17) eorar “ shall be in you.” But “ye understand it because 7¢
shall be in you” makes very poor sense. Our Lord has previously
used the present tense to the disciples (“ Ye are”) telling them that
they are (xv. 3) “pure” by reason of “the Word” that He has, as it
were, spoken into the hearts of all but Judas. This “word” is
regarded as being the beginning of the Spirit, which, therefore, He
now says, ‘‘in you [essentially] is.”
(x11) Lapa
(1) Tlapaé with Accusative
[2354] This construction is never used by John. Whereas Mark
and Matthew have “dy the sea (rapa tyv badaccav)” with verbs of
1 [23524] In xii. 7 ‘‘The poor ye have always wzth you (med buaev)” is
omitted (1688 4) by SS and D. If it were genuine it would be Jn’s only mention
of 77wxot in Christ’s words.
2 [2353 a] In some contexts, év vuiv might mean ‘‘
among you all” and not
‘*?~ you individually.” But the whole passage indicates that the three prepositions
describe three stages of spiritual help for each one of the disciples individually,
the Spirit being (1) ‘‘ by his side,” (2) ‘‘at home with him,” (3) ‘‘in his heart.”
Moreover, the Johannine év almost always means ‘‘in,” not ‘‘ among.”
269
[2355 | PREPOSITIONS
rest or motion, and Luke twice has “ standing by the lake (€o7wWs, or
éotota, Tapa tiv Aiwvyv)',” John, though he at least once describes
Jesus as standing by the sea, never uses zapa thus. It has been
shewn (2340—6) that once at least (and probably twice) he uses ézd
with the genitive to mean “on the edge of the sea.”
(2) Tlapa with Dative
(a) Tlapa with Dative and meta with Genitive, see 2352—3
(8) Synoptic and Johannine use
[2355] In the Synoptists, tapa 7 ed, or To warpt, “ with God,”
or “with the Father,” mostly suggests “in the sight of God,” “in the
estimation of the Father,” not “in His, [so to speak, literal] presence.”
But in John the sense is local and metaphorical, as in vill. 38 “that
which I have seen wth (rapa) the Father,” that is ‘in the home of
my Father,” or “by the side of my Father.” It means the spiritual
region that we call “heaven.” Compare xvil. 5 ‘glorify me...dy thy
side (rapa ceavts)...with the glory that I had dy thy side (rapa cot).”
In xix. 25 “Now there stood (iotyxeav d€) dy the cross (rapa 76
Pb)
otavpw) of Jesus his mother...,” there occurs the only instance in
N.T. where zapa is used with an impersonal dative. It is quoted by
Chrysostom with wapeorynxévar and the dative. Is it possible that
“the cross” had already acquired a shade of suggestion of a “sign”
or military “standard,” so that when Christ’s disciples had abandoned
Him in the conflict, the women are described as still ‘‘ standing by
the cross,” as soldiers “stand by the colours” ?
(3) Tlapa with Genitive
[2356] On zapa and ex, with e€épxoua, see 2326—8. Tapa
Kvpiov occurs in Mark and Matthew as a quotation in connexion
with the Corner Stone (‘This [thing] is from the Lord”) and in
Luke, in connexion with the Incarnation, just before the Magnificat®.
In John, zapa with genitive almost always means “from [the bosom,
or home, or hand, or immediate presence, of]” God*.
1 Lk. v. I—2.
2 [2356a] Mk xii. r1, Mt. xxi. 42 (Ps. exviii. 23). Lk. i. 45 €orae redelwors...
mapa Kuplov, and also i. 37 ox dduvvarjoer mapa Tov Beov wav piua (alluding to
Gen. xviii. 14 ‘‘ too hard for the Lord,” rapa 7@ Ow pjua) refer to the Incarnation.
3 In this sense it occurs about 18 times, in other senses about 7 times.
270
PREPOSITIONS [2359]
(4) Tlapa with Genitive and with Dative interchanged
[2357] In the following, the dative construction is followed by
the genitive construction (but D, and most Latin and Syriac versions,
have assimilated the latter to the former) vill. 38 & eyo éwpaxa rapa
TG rarpi akdG* Kai vpLels ovv a& nKovoaTe Tapa Tov TaTpos TroLeEtTe.
Commenting on this, Origen adduces vi. 45—6 was 0 dxovoas rapa
Tod maTpos Kal pabuv épxeTar Tpds Eve, OdX OTL TOV TaTEpa EwpaKeEV TLS
ei py 0 Ov Tapa [rod] Geod, ovTOS Ewpaxev TOV mwatépa. But in the latter
Origen reads 6 dv rapa to warpé instead of 6 dv rapa [Tod] Geod', and
Chrysostom reads 0 é« Tov Geod at least once’.
[2358] Retaining the text in vi. 45—6, we may explain o ov mapa
[rot] Geov, like o dv eis Tov KOArov Tod Tatpos above (2308—9), as
a combination of rest and motion, suggesting the divine nature of
the Son on earth, not ‘‘sez¢ from the side, or home, of God” like
John the Baptist (i. 6 dreoraApévos zapa) but “BEING from the
side of God,” ze. eternally existing and proceeding from God.
There is a distinction between the believer—who (through the Law
of Moses and of Nature) ‘hath heard” voices issuing from the
Father’s House and “hath understood” their humanising and loving
tendency—and the Son, in the Father’s House, who “hath seen the
Father.”
[2359] In viii. 38, the interpretation of the whole largely depends
on the interpretation of zoveire as indicative or imperative, on which
see 2193 foll. On this, too, rests in part the application of tov zatpos
to God, or to Satan (who is shortly afterwards described as the
“father” of those whom Jesus is addressing). But in any case there
is the same contrast as in vi. 45—6 between the distinctness with
which the Son “sees” the things zz the House of the Father and the
2 ,
1 [2357 a] Huet ii. 293 A Erepos cuyxpwuevos Kal Tw, Ils 6 axov’ocas mapa Tod
matpos kal uwabav Epxerar pds pe, ovx OTe Tov Tarépa Ewpaké TIS, El Uy O WY Tapa TH
Tarpl ovTos €wpake Tov TaTépa, epel Ore elal Tes THY EvowpaTouLevwY WuXaV ply ets
yéveow éhfeiv, mewabnrevpévat mapa Tw TaTpl, Kal dkovcaca av’Tov, al Twes Kal
epKovTa: pos Tov Twripa...-
2 [2357 6] Chrys. Hira éwdyec: Ovx dre Tov Ilarépa tis éwpaxey ef wt 0 wy Ex
Tov Qeotd* ov Kata Tov THs aitias Néyov evTavOa TovTO Néywv aNd KATA TOY TpOoTroY
THs ovclas. “Errel el toro €deye, mavTes mapa Tov Beod éouév* Tod otv TO e&aiperov
Tod Tiotd Kal kexwpiouévov; That is to say, mapaé would apply to ‘‘all men,”
€x to the Eternal Son alone. One may infer from this that 6 dv mapa, in Chrys.,
a few lines above, when the text is first introduced, is (as often in such cases)
a corrupt conformation to the received text. Cramer reads ex repeatedly, but
has a strangely different text, with mdvres yap €x Tod Oeot eoue.
Dy
[2360] PREPOSITIONS
indistinctness with which men receive promptings /vom the invisible,
whether for good or for evil. About the promptings for good Jesus
said, ‘everyone that hath heard and understood.” He does not here
say, ‘‘the things that ye have heard and understood.” Perhaps the
evangelist wishes to suggest that the muttered instigations to evil
need no such effort to “understand” them as is required by the
promptings to good.
(xiv) Tep¢
[2360] Ilep¢ with accusative does not occur in John. On the
v.r. In xl. 19 tas wept MapOav, see 1990. With the genitive, zepi
occurs in John almost as often as in all the Synoptists together,
because of the frequency of the Johannine phrases “testify con-
” “speak concerning” etc. This makes it almost certain
that wepé, the reading of A etc. in 1. 30 trép ov éeyw eizov, is
incorrect ; for there would have been no temptation to alter it. It
also demonstrates that izép ov, in that passage, cannot mean pre-
cisely ‘concerning whom,” for, had that been the meaning, John
would have written wept. See 2369—71. The frequency of zepé,
and the existence of ypddew zepi in v. 46, shew that xil. 16 Av ér
cerning,
avT® yeypappeva does not mean quite the same as zepi avrod. See
2339.
(xv) IIpo
(a) TIpo émo¥ (x. 8)
[2361] In x. 8 “As many as came Jdefore me (xpd éuod) are all
thieves and robbers,” the difficulty of “before me” has caused its
omission in several versions and quotations, because the phrase
might be used against the Prophets and Saints of Israel. Ipo, in
some contexts, might mean ‘“‘znz preference to”—as in “Thou shalt
have none other gods defore me',” if rendered into classical Greek.
But zpo, with eAGeiv, could hardly mean anything except “in front of ”
or “previously to.”
[2362] In the second of these two senses, however, the phrase
will harmonize with the context, if ‘‘defore me,” referring to what has
1 [2361 a] Ex. xx. 3, LXX dn éuod, Deut. v. 7, comp. Deut. xxi. 16. In
Deut. v. 7, LXX has mpd mrpoowmrov mov, but AF rdAnv éuod. The LXX, so far
as can be judged from the instances given by Trommius under seven Hebrew
headings, never uses mpé to mean ‘preferred to.”
272
PREPOSITIONS [2363]
just been said (“I am the Good Shepherd”) can mean “ defore the
coming of the Good Shepherd in the dawn to open the door of the
fold and to bring out the flock for pasture.” In contrast with Him,
the evil shepherds, or hirelings, may be supposed to come prema-
turely, while it is dark, trying to force their way into the fold in
order to steal and kill. Possibly zpo éuov may be also intended to
suggest a notion of “ preferring himself to me,” but the fundamental
meaning is that of time. Only, we are not to suppose that ‘“ before
me” means “before I became incarnate” or that it is limited (as
Chrysostom seems to stggest) to leaders like Judas and Theudas?.
It appears to be uttered by Christ in the character of the Good
Shepherd—whether called the Shepherd of Israel, or the Shepherd of
the world—and to mean “ As many as have come to the flock, from
the beginning, not waiting for the Good Shepherd’s time, nor
associating themselves with Him, but pressing forwards to rule
mankind by the short methods of constraint.”
(8) Tlpo transposed
For xii. 1 7p0o && ypepwv tod tacxa, see 2288.
(xvi) TIpés
(1) TIpdc with Accusative, with verb of rest
[2363] The only Johannine passage that needs comment is i. 1
“In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with (xpos) God
(tov edv),” where the question is, What is precisely meant by zpos?
An evangelist might have used ow “together with,” or mera “in
companionship with,” or zapa (with dat.) “by the side of,” “in the
household of ”—as, in Proverbs, Wisdom personified, describing her
close connexion with God, says, “Then [7.e. during the Creation]
2»)
I was by His side (zap avré)*.” But John uses a preposition that is
(so far as present evidence goes) not used in this connexion by any
1 [23624] Origen says (Huet ii. 41 D) mpd yap ris TeNeLoews TOO NOyou mdvTa
pexta Ta év avOpwmas are évdeH Kal €AdrH. In his context he mentions the
““cuhite horse” in the Apocalypse (xix. 11) with Ps. xxxiii. 17 ‘‘A horse is deceitful
for safety” and Ps. xx. 7 ‘‘Some trust in chariots and some in horses.” The
passages suggest a contrast between the true Deliverer, or Captain of Salvation,
and the false Deliverer, between the Warrior and the Brigand.
2 Proy. viii. 30.
A. VI. 273 18
[2364] PREPOSITIONS
Greek classical author, nor in LXX.' And this is all the more
remarkable because rapa with dative is used by John to describe
“abiding wth,” spiritually, as well as literally, and this is also used
in classical Greek, and in the Synoptists, to mean “in the house of,”
“at home with.”
[2364] In N.T. zpos twa is frequently employed, to mean, not
exactly “at home.with,” but “in familiar intercourse with,” “close
contact with,” sometimes hostile, but in any case close, communica-
tion’. In the Second Epistle to the Corinthians the Apostle says
that he desires “to be at home zz converse with the Lord (évéquety
mpos Tov K.)” and in any case to be “‘ well pleasing” to Him; and he
uses this preposition to describe his “staying zz converse with” Peter,
and to express his hope that the youthful Timothy may ‘be free
from intimidation in his zz¢tercourse with” the Corinthians’.
[2365] According to the analogy of Mark’s usage, 0 ddyos jv
mpos tov Oeov would mean “the word was zz converse with God”:
and John, in writing the words, might possibly have in mind the two
passages (2364 a) in Mark’s Gospel where Christ. speaks of Himself
as “having converse with” men, and where, in each case, either
Matthew or Luke has omitted or altered the preposition. As the
Logos on earth jv mpos dvOpwrous, so from the beginning He was
1 [2363 a] Steph. and Thayer give no instance of eivac wpés twa from classical
Greek. Wahl’s classical instances bear on ypdgeoOar, or doypaderPat, mpéds etc.,
and contain no example with eva: or with a verb of simple rest. Swete
(Mk xiv. 49) says ‘‘see W. M., p. 504, and cf. ix. 19, note”; but ix. 19 note
says simply ‘‘ pos buds=meb’ tuay (Mt.), cf. vi. 3”; and vi. 3, commenting on
mpos juas, simply says, ‘‘They were settled at Nazareth (@de mpds nuiv)”—
presumably a misprint for judas. W. M. p. 504 gives no classical instance exc.
Demosth. Apat. 579 a (Teubner 892) Tots péy é...elvac Tas dikas mpos Tovs Oeo-
pobéras, z.e. ‘‘ bring their suits 4o’’—which is not to the point.
[23634] In 2 Chr. xxviii. 15 ‘‘they brought them to Jericho...unto their
brethren,” xaréornoav avrovs els "I...mpds rods ddeApovs a’rGy, motion is implied.
No instance has been hitherto alleged of elvac rpés twa in LXX.
2 [2364a] Mk vi. 3, Mt. xiii. 56 (Lk. diff.) ‘‘ they are all 2” familiar intercourse
with us (wacat mpos huds elolv),” Mk ix. 19, Lk. ix. 41 (Mt. xvii. 17 wed” buadv)
“How long shall I hold converse with you (mpos buds)!” Mk xiv. 49 (Mt. xxvi. 55
om., Lk. xxii. 53 wed’ budv) ‘‘I was daily 2 converse with you (mpds tuds) in the
Temple teaching and ye did not seize me.” Comp. Mt. xxvi. 18 (Mk-Lk. diff.)
mpos cé Tow To IIdoxa ‘‘I keep the Passover zm ¢hy house.” The context suggests
a sign, and a secret arrangement, and confidential communication.
3 [23644] 2 Cor. y. 8, Gal. i. 18, 1 Cor. xvi. 10 a@dBws yévnrac mpds Uuas.
Comp. Gal. ii. 5 ‘‘that the truth of the Gospel might adzde in converse with you
(dtapyelvy wpos budas).”
274
PREPOSITIONS [2366 |
mpos tov Geov, and the twofold application of the phrase ‘“‘in converse
with” prepares the way for the thought of a Mediator. Moreover,
this preposition, being regularly used with many verbs of speaking!,
might seem appropriate to the definition of the Word.
[2366] But would an educated Greek at once understand jy zpos
tov Geov in this sense? In Mark, the context shews the meaning of
eivat mpos, but it is not shewn thus at the beginning of the Fourth
Gospel: and zpos with the accusative, in classical Greek, means
“having regard to,” as in mpos tadra “having regard to these things,”
one of the commonest phrases in the language. Hence zpos tov
Geov might be taken by Greek readers to mean “having regard to
God.” And this would agree with abundant instances of Gjv zpos
twa, in classical Greek, meaning ‘“ ¢o “ive in absolute devotion to
anyone,” as where Demosthenes describes patriots as “living zw7th
constant regard to (xpos) their country’.” This sense, too, suits the
whole of the Fourth Gospel, which describes the Son as doing
nothing except that which He sees the Father doing, so that the
Logos is regarded as always, so to speak, [looking] toward,” or
“having regard to,’ God. Probably John combines this spiritual
meaning (‘‘devoted to”) with the more local meaning (‘in converse
with ”) and, in his own mind, the former is predominant’.
1 [2365 a] Not however so freq. in Jn asin Lk. Aéyew and edreiy mpéds in Jn
occur only thrice of Christ’s words, but more freq. as to the words of others.
* [2366 a] Aristot. Ahet. i. 9. 4 éNevGépov yap 7d wy mpods aAdov (pv, Plut. Aor.
471 B émel mpos Erépous 7 mpods adrovs eldicueba fv, Demosth. 411. 33 Tots dé
mpos buds fwow (comp. 2). 361. 4 mpos TovTov mdvr’ écxémovv), Lucian iii. 312
mpos movoy ce &@. It is frequent in Aristotle.
8 [2366 4] Ipés tuva with verbs of speaking—which is prob. non-existent in
Mk-Mt. except in mpds addxjouvs or é€avrovs—is fairly frequent in Jn, but not
nearly so frequent as in Lk. Jn seldom has it of words addressed by Jesus to
others (iv. 48 ‘‘Except ye see signs...,” vi. 5 ‘‘Whence are we to buy loaves?”
viii. 31 ‘‘If ye abide in my word...,” addressed to those who are soon afterwards
called the children of the devil), byt more frequently of words addressed to Jesus
(il. 3, ili. 4, iv. 15, 49 etc.) In Lk. it is so freq. as to occur six times in the
first chapter. In LXX, zpés twain 1 Kings xii. 5, 7, 10, xxii. 18 etc. corresponds
to twi in 2 Chr. x. 5, 7, 10, xviii. 17 etc.
[2366 c] In Mk xil. 12, mpds avrovs elev means ‘‘wz7th reference to (or, against)
them.” In Mk x. 26, W.H. read Néyovres pds adrév without altern. following
BC, and this would mean ‘‘to Jesus.” But the text varies greatly. SS omits
“*saying” and has ‘‘in themselves,” and AD and the Latin vss. have mpés éavrovs.
There does not appear any reason why zpos a’rév, had it been in Mk, should
ee
have been altered to mpos €avro’s. But if the € in éavro’s were dropped in
some Mss. after the C in zpés, or if éavro’s were spelt airovs, it would be
275 I18—2
[2367] PREPOSITIONS
(2) Tlpoc repeated after verb of motion
[2367] In xx. 2 “She runneth therefore and cometh ufo (xpés)
Simon Peter and wxfo (xpos) the other disciple whom Jesus loved
and saith to them...” why is zpos repeated? The repetition would
certainly indicate a desire to distinguish in a marked manner between
the two, if zpos had been repeated in a brief phrase like zpos 3.
kat tpos ‘Iwavyv. Perhaps here it means simply that the two were not
living in the same house, and Mary is to be supposed as being
accompanied by Peter to the house of the other disciple. No other
instance quite like this is given by Winer-Moulton (p. 522, Part iil.
sect. 1. 7. a). Elsewhere prepositions are repeated to give dis-
tinctness and weight to separated clauses as in Jn xvi. 8 (and,
without kad, in Eph. vi. 12).
(3) TIpoc with Dative
[2368] This occurs four times in John (Mk (r), Mt. (0), Lk. (1)*)
always meaning “at,” ‘“‘close to,” xvill. 16 “Peter was standing a¢
the door,” xx. 11 ‘‘Mary was standing a¢ the tomb outside,” xx. 12
“two angels sitting one a¢ the head and one af the feet.” Ipods,
“near,” with dative of person, occurs in Sophocles (Azz. 1189, Oed.
Col. 1268) (comp. Aesch. Suff/. 242) and might conceivably have
aD:
been used (zpos 7 ed) in 1, 1 if John had meant merely “near’.
(xvil) ‘Ymép (see also 2718—22)
[2369] ‘Yzép with accusative occurs as v.r. for (xil. 43) 97rep, see
2092. ‘Yep with genitive occurs 13 times in John, more than twice the
number of instances in all the Synoptists. In almost all the Johannine
instances it refers to the death of one for the many*. But in the
comparatively intelligible that abrovs (read as avrovs) should be changed to avréy :
and atréy might be thought by the scribe of B to agree better with Mt.-Lk. and
with the context, which describes Jesus as answering what is said by the disciples.
W.H. reject B’s reading of éavr. for adr. in Mk viil. 37 and xi. 8, and place
it in the margin in xi. 7. On the whole, in Mk x. 26, éavrovs seems more
probable than av’rév.
1 Mk v. 11 my 6é éxe? mpos TH Bpet, Lk. xix. 37 éyylfovros 5¢ avrod nd mpds
TH KaTaBdoer T. Opous Twv ’EXawv.
2 [2368 a] IlA\nolov, “near,” deserves mention as a preposition peculiar to Jn in
iv. 5 wAnaoloy Tod xwplov, R.V. ‘‘ near to the parcel of ground.” TI\qoiov, ‘‘near,”
occurs nowhere else in N.T., nor does Steph. quote it freq. except with genitive of
person (but see Aesch. Prom. 364). Jn may have been influenced by LXX where
it occurs (Tromm.) 10 times, once (Josh. viii. 33) in connexion with Gerizim,
called in John (iv. 2o—21) ‘‘this mountain.”
% Jn xvii. 19 Urep abray ayid{w éuavrdv refers also to mediation.
276
PREPOSITIONS [2371]
following it is rendered by R.V. (as well as A.V.) “of”: i. 30 “This
is he of whom (izép ov) I said, After me cometh a man which is
become (A.V. “is preferred”) before me....”
[2370] Against this rendering is the fact that (2360) zepi is the
regular Johannine preposition in the phrase “speak of” meaning
“speak about.” “Yzép, it is true, is used by some authors in a sense
closely resembling that of wepi, as we might use “on” (“oz this
subject the writer urges etc.” often with a notion of advocacy): but
in such cases the context—referring generally to a thing, not to
a person—ought to be such as to make the meaning clear’. Here
the context suggests ‘in behalf of.” For the Baptist is speaking as
a messenger or ambassador of the Messiah, and he might have used
the words of St Paul “‘We are ambassadors 7x behalf of Christ?.”
[2371] Ammonius®’, among other explanations, suggests that avyp is
here applied to Christ by John the Baptist in the sense of vupdios,
“bridegroom,” and it is an undoubted fact that in the Fourth Gospel
the singular of avqp is always capable of this sense*: and the Baptist
is introduced later on in this Gospel as calling Christ the “ bride-
groom” and himself the ‘“bridegroom’s friend’.” This suggests
a new way in which we may interpret trép in accordance with its
legitimate meaning: “This is he zz behalf of whom [coming as the
bridegroom's friend in behalf of the bridegroom| 1 said, After me
cometh a man....” It would be too much to substitute “husband”
for “man”: but a play upon the word, swggesting the former, may
very well be intended. In the first statement of the Baptist’s evi-
dence the word “man” did not occur (i. 15) ‘This was he (lit.) that
(1927) I said (otros jv év etrov), He that cometh after me....” The
insertion of the word avyp is therefore all the more remarkable here:
and so is the insertion of izép. We may suppose that in the first
moment of discovery the Baptist simply announces a superior.
After an interval he is able to define the superiority: ‘He is the
1 [2370 a] Z.g. in Xen. Cyrop. vii. 15. 17 Abradates has been, in effect,
pleading in behalf of the flanks of the army that they will be exposed while he
himself will be so safe that he is almost ashamed to take the position assigned to
him. Cyrus replies, ‘‘Well, if your part [of the army] is right, be not alarmed
Jor them (ei Ta mapa col kadws exer Oapper iwép éxelvwv).” See 2719 a.
2.2 Cor. Vv. 20. 3 Cramer ad Joc.
4 [2371 a] In iv. 16, 17, 18 the context shews that it #zws¢ mean ‘‘ husband.”
In i. 13 o¥d€ Ex OeAHpaTos avdpds, the use of avyp instead of &vOpwmos may indicate
““husband,” the meaning being ‘‘ not by mortal begetting.” See 2722 c.
> Jn iii. 29.
277
[2372] PREPOSITIONS
avyp, the lord, the husband of Israel. I came and spoke zz his be-
half, preparing the way for him as the bridegroom.” See 2718—22.
(xvill) ‘Yd and troxdtrw
(1) ‘Yn with Accusative
[2372] “Yo with accusative occurs only in i. 48 “Before Philip
called thee being under the fig-tree I saw thee (xpd rod oe Pidurrov
gwvica. ovta Ure THY ouKAV €ldov ae).” This should be compared
with the following, which contains the only instance of vzoxarw
in John, i. 50 “Because I said to thee that I saw thee underneath
the fig-tree (ott «idov oe vroKatw THs ouvKys) thou believest!” Here
a phrase with vo and accusative is quoted with vroxarw and genitive.
Perhaps the more emphatic form vroxatw, “under cover of,” em-
phasizes the notion of secrecy: “Because I said to thee that I saw
thee under cover of a fig-tree {as if that were, in thine eyes, so very
marvellous].” The same substitution is found in Luke’s, as compared
with Mark’s, description of the suppressed light. Mark has ‘“‘wader the
bed,” but Luke ‘“‘zader cover of a bed,” or “thrust down under
aediaar
1 [23714] For tmép with personal object and verb of speaking, comp. Xen.
Cyrop. iii. 3. 14 érrel ofv ot owas éyw héEw kal bwep cod Kal brép Huey, Polyb.
Xxi. 14. Q Tabra...dmepivaro brép mavrds Tod cuvedplov, xxviii. 16. 4 brép 7s
[wpecBeias| éroretro Tov xpnuaticpov Kal Tovs NOyous.
2 [2372 a] Mk iv. 21 bd Ti KAlyny, Lk. viii. 16 brokdtw kMvns. In LXX,
(1) ‘“‘under the tree, oak, pomegranate etc.” is regularly 76 weth accusative, but (2)
‘‘under every green tree,” referring to idolatry, is regularly broxdrw (in Is, lvii. 5,
where LXX has tré, Aq. and the rest have troxdrw) with genitive. By so
allusive a writer as Jn this distinction might be utilised here if the intention was
to indicate in the second phrase (Uroxdrw) that Nathanael was passing through
some spiritual crisis and perhaps wrestling with the solicitations of evil thoughts
just before Philip called him.
[2372] There is ambiguity in the first words, 7pd rod...cuxjv. The caller
might be Nathanael or Philip, and either Philip or Nathanael might be under the
fig-tree. We have to infer the meaning from the context. And, even when
eldév ce is added, there is still ambiguity. “Ov7a may agree with (1) the preceding
or (2) the following oe: and the meaning may be (1) ‘‘[Long, or just] before
Philip called thee at the moment when thou wast under the fig-tree—I saw thee,”
(2) *‘[ Just] before Philip called thee—I saw thee in that moment when thou wast
under the fig-tree.”
[2372] Chrysostom has a long and not very clear commentary, in the course
of which he seems to assert that Christ had seen Nathanael not only ‘‘ 72st defore
(rplv 7) pwvjoa)” the calling but also “ defore this (pd ro’rov)”: only the time
had not come to say this. And yet Chrysostom previously says ‘‘ But Jesus
278
DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS [2374]
(2) ‘“Yno with Genitive
[2373] “Yo with the genitive is avoided by John (1885) as he
prefers to speak of an agent performing an action rather than of an
act performed by (v7) an agent. It occurs only in xiv. 21 6 €ywv tas
évroAds pov K. THpaV avTas exelvos eoTw 6 ayaTav pe: 6 d€ ayaTOV pE
ayarnOnoerat bro 7. TaTpos ov, Where perhaps the writer desires to
repeat precisely the words 6 dyardv pe so that they may constitute
the two middle terms of the sentence (2544). Perhaps the frequency
of the nominatives 6 @yamav and 6 yw» ayarev in the Epistle (1 Jn i.
IO, lil. 10, 14, iv. 7 etc.) may partly explain the shape of the sentence
here. Had the verb been tyxaw we should have expected édv tus ene
TYG. TyULnTEL adTov 6 TaTHp Similarly to xi. 26.
PRONOUNS
I. DEMONSTATIVE
(1) Avrds (see also 2723—7)
[2374] Avrds (nom. sing.), in Luke’, sometimes means “he” (un-
emphatic); but John uses it always to mean “himself,” sometimes in
a context mentioning other persons (‘‘Aimself (avros) and his mother,”
“himself and his household*”) but more often without such context
to mean “of his own knowledge, or motion,” ‘“ unaided,” “un-
prompted,” e.g. ii. 24—5 “ But Jesus [of | Aemself (a. 8€°1.) would not
trust himself to them because he understood [of] Azmsedf (6a 70
avtov ywwoxewv) all men...for he knew [of | Acmself (avtos yap éyivo-
answered as God. For indeed He said I have known thee from the beginning...
and ‘But now (z.e. just now) did I see thee in the fig-tree (Kai yap eimev, dre
Avwhé ce otda...xal, Nov eiddv ce év TH cuKy...).”” Probably kai yap elev means
“For indeed He sazd [ix effect)” i.e. He meant. And Chrysostom perhaps
implies that the words of Jesus contained both of the meanings above mentioned,
though the time had not yet come when the former (‘‘long before”) could be
clearly expressed. It will be noted that he paraphrases ‘“‘ wzder the fig-tree”
as ‘‘7z72 [the covert of | the fig-tree.”
1 [2374a] Comp. Lk. xix. 2 xai lod dvijp dvéuare Zax. kal adros ny apxiTrehov ns
with Judg. xvii. 7 Kai éyev40n veavias...cai aidros Aeveirys, a literal rendering of
the Heb. ‘‘and he [was] a Levite,” and see Lk. iv. 14—15, viii. r etc. In Lk.,
this use is probably Hebraic.
2 [2374 4] Jnii. 12, iv. 2,12, 53, xviii. r (R.V.) “Ae entered himself (d.) and
his disciples,” (A.V.) ‘‘4e entered and his disciples.”
2719 ES BRA RS
VA Neo OF <TH }- \
Mf "a ‘5 pes
({ UNIVERS
Fa
[2375] PRONOUNS
oxev) what was in man’,” vi. 6 “ For he himself (&. yop) knew [z.e. he
knew of himself, although he asked a question]...”
[2375] So in vi. 15 “Jesus withdrew again into the mountain
himself alone,” avros povos is in contrast with the multitude that
wished to seize Him, and perhaps it does not merely mean “ by
himself alone.” Several authorities omit airés. Perhaps it has a
mystical emphasis (2724—6). The same phrase, avrds pudvos, is applied
to the grain of seed that will not die, xii. 24, A.V. “It abideth alone,”
but R.V. “it abideth dy z¢sedf alone.” It would be well to use the
emphatic pronoun elsewhere, e.g. vii. 1o “Then he Aimse/f also went
up [following his brethren].” In v. 20 “The Father loveth the Son
and sheweth him all things that he Aimse/f doeth,” R.V. has “ himself,”
but does not have it in xii. 49 “The Father that sent me hath himself
given me commandment (6 wéyas pe rariyp avros por evroAnv
déduxev).” In the latter, adtds is not quite the same as ékeivos, “He
and no other”; it is rather, “He in His own person,” or “He in
His own character of Father’.”
[2376] Avrovs (accus. pl. masc.) occurs very frequently in the
Synoptic narrative, to denote disciples, multitudes, Pharisees etc., in
relation to Jesus, describing how Jesus “taught ¢hem,” “healed
them,” “called them,” “sent them,” “questioned them” etc. In John
it occurs ¢hus only four times® (excluding one instance in an inter-
polated passage*). On the other hand it occurs nine times in Christ’s
Last Prayer referring to the disciples, when He is praying to the
Father concerning “ them’.”
1 [2374c] A.V. omits “self” in each of the three cases, R.V. in every case
but the third. The threefold repetition of atrés is remarkable. In reality it
does not mean ‘Jesus, by himself ”—for Jesus repeatedly declared that He does
nothing ‘‘from, or by, himself” —but Jesus being one with the Father or with
the Spirit. Comp. the threefold repetition of rata in 2396—7.
* [2375 a] In xii. 49 R.V. has ‘‘The Father which sent me, he hath given me....”
In vii. 4 ovdeis yap 7. év kpurr@ rove? Kal fnret 'airds) év wappyola eva, the txt, if
correct, means “‘himself in opposition to his work.” W.H. marg. has adré, with
BD d; but (1) c might be dropped before €, (2) although Syr. Cur. omits aurés,
SS inserts it, (3) (776 with accus. and inf. is not found in N.T. See 2727.
* Disciples in i. 38, vi. 17, xiii. 1, soldiers in xviii. 7.
* Vili. 2.
® [2376 a] xvii.6—23. The nom. pl. airol is used (perh. in a more personal
and emotional sense than éxeivoc) in Christ’s Prayer for the disciples, xvii. 19
“that they may be also ¢hemselves hallowed,” xvii. 21 ‘that they may be also
themselves in us.” In xvii. 8 kat avrol €\aBov, there is perh. a notion of spon-
280
DEMONSTRATIVE [2378 |
[2377] In xviii. rx 7d roryprov...ov px mw avro, there is probably
a combination of two constructions (1) “that very cup (av70 7. 7.),”
z.e. the cup just as the Father presents it, and (2) the repetition of
avro (more usually éxetvo) to emphasize the object’. In xx, 2—15,
after Mary has said “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb,”
the two disciples run thither, and one of them happens to be indicated
by a pronoun (xx. 6 “Simon Peter following 47m”): but the narrative
proceeds to describe how Peter (xx. 7) “entered into the tomb, and
beholdeth...the napkin, which had [before] been upon /7zs head,”
where “his,” of course, means “the Lord’s”—very naturally and
dramatically since “the Lord” is in the mind of the evangelist and
is assumed by him to be in the minds of sympathetic readers: and
similarly Mary addressing, for the first time (as she supposes), the
“gardener,” says “Sir, if thou hast conveyed zm away,” although
the “gardener” has merely said, ““ Whom seekest thou? ?”
[2378] The meaning of avrod is disputed in the following, vil. 44
“‘ He (€xeivos) was a murderer from the beginning and stood (€oryxev)
not in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he is
speaking chat which ts false (ro Weddos) he speaketh out of his own
(ex trav idiwv) (2728) ; because he is a false speaker (Wevorys) and the
father of zt (avrod).” Here “of zt” probably means “of that which is
false.” Falsehood is regarded as being slanderous, ze. diabolic, or
Satanic. Whenever Satan utters that which is false he speaks “‘out
of the abundance of his heart,” ‘out of his inmost nature”; but it is
also suggested (by “‘your father” in the context) that, when the
Slanderer causes men to slander, re speaks out of them as “his
family” —idiov being either masculine or neuter. For Origen’s and
Chrysostom’s views see 2728. R.V. has “speaketh of his own ”—
which, if “of” is meant for “from” (as in “give of,” “take of”), is
probably not English (2728 2), or only the English of scholars.
taneousness, ‘‘and they of themselves received the words I gave them.” (In
xvii. 11 avroé (v. r. ovro.), if genuine, is antithetical to the following éyw.)
1 [2377 a] Winer-Moulton p. 184, after quoting Jn xviii. 11, says ‘‘The
pronoun is used for emphasis: so also in Mt. vi. 4, 1 Pet. v. 10 (Acts ii. 23),
Rev. xxi. 6.” But W.H. reject adrés in Mt. vi. 4, Rev. xxi. 6, not even giving
it in the margin. In 1 Pet. v. 10 ai’rds Karaprioe: probably implies the willingness
of the Father to strengthen those who resist temptation (not ‘‘ He [as distinct
from others]”). In such a solemn utterance as xviii. 11, it is hardly possible that
av7é should be ‘‘ pleonastic.”
2 On avrod, as distinct from éavrod or idios, used possessively, see 1720 a—z.
281
[2379] PRONOUNS
[2379] Some have suggested that avrod above (vill. 44) refers to
tus “anyone,” implied as the subject of AaA#, “ Whenever anyone
speaks...he is a liar, and so is his father,” i.e. so is the devil. But
(1) the alleged instances of the omitted 7s are quite different from
the context here’. (2) Such an end to a sentence as kal 6 ratyp
aurod, leaving the reader to supply ‘“‘is the same,” or “likewise a liar,”
is quite unparalleled in this Gospel. (3) Where the subject is
omitted, it would not be permissible (except in very special cases,
such as Mt. xix. 3 eeorw [rw], “a man may”) to use a pronoun
referring back to the non-existent subject.
[2380] In xi. 45—6 “ Many therefore of the Jews, [by ‘many’ I
mean] those that had come (oi €A@ovres) to Mary... believed in him: but
some of them (twés dé é€ avtav) went away to the Pharisees and told
them...,” the pronoun “¢4em” may mean either ‘‘the Jews” or that
section of the Jews which “had come to Mary.” For a discussion of
this see 1941 foll. Itis not likely that those who “told the Pharisees ”
told them from good will to Jesus, desiring to glorify the latter: for,
had that been the meaning, the writer would probably have used
“and,” or “therefore,” instead of “ but” (“‘éu¢ some of them went’ ”).
1 [2379 a] Of the instances alleged by Winer-Moulton p. 736 n. 3, Job xxviii. 3
has ‘‘man” supplied in R.V. but ‘‘He” (z.e. God) in A.V.; both R.V. and A.V.
agree in supplying ‘‘God” in the context (xxvii. 22), and its poetic character
makes it of little use as a parallel to Jn. In 2 S. xvi. 23, dv tpdmov éwepwrjcy is
a literal rendering of Hebrew, ‘‘as though [one] were to take counsel,” and has
little bearing on independent Greek. In Mt. xix. 3, 7w« may be easily supplied
after ¢eorw, ‘‘[one] is permitted,” and the parall. Mk x. 2 has avépl. In
1 Thess. iv. 9, the substantival infinitive in od xpelay éxere ypdpew vuiv is very
doubtful, having regard to (1) etyouey in B, €xouev in other good authorities,
paper Oar in some authorities, and to (2) the likelihood of conformity to 1 Thess.
v. 1 ob xpelav exere iuiv ypdperOa. In any case it supplies no parallel to AaA7 in
Jn vill. 44.
[2379 4] Winer himself does not recognise the omission of the indefinite tis
in any instance except where the subject can be supplied by the reader from his
own knowledge or reading, or where it means ‘‘ God,” ‘‘ Scripture,” “the sacred
writer” etc.: and, though it is frequent in LXX (as literal transl. of Hebrew,
e.g. Ezr. iv. 15 “that [one] may search” émioxéyyrat, but 1 Esdr. ii. 18 émirxep67)
it requires more support than is alleged by Winer-Moulton before it can be
recognised in any book of N.T., and especially in John, who had, other ways
of expressing himself (édv tts ag, 6 AaAGy etc.), so that antecedently he would
not be likely to use such an ellipsis even if the other evangelists used it.
2 [23802] It may be said that the impotent man cured by Jesus gave
information similarly (v. 15) to the Jews. But we are not told that he ‘‘ believed
in Jesus”; and it is quite possible that the evangelist regarded him as ungrateful
and unbelieving—a contrast to the blind man, of whom it is expressly said
that (ix. 36—8) he “worshipped,” after expressing ‘‘ belief.”
282
DEMONSTRATIVE [2382]
It is difficult to explain how some of those who “believed in” Jesus
could (apparently) act against Him. Possibly, it is one of the
instances of John’s manner of stating a fact, first, loosely and (strictly
speaking) even inaccurately, and then correcting the statement
(1925). If so, the meaning may be “those that had come to
Mary [as a whole or, almost without exception]...believed...but
some [few] of them [did not believe, but] went away to the
Pharisees...” For 85=atrds or éxetvos, see below’.
(il) “Exetvos (see also 2729—32)
[2381] This pronoun is used frequently by all the evangelists as
an adjective, especially in temporal phrases suchfas “‘in those days,”
“from that hour” etc., and all the Synoptists have it in the phrase
“woe unto that man (ro dvOpwrw éxeivw)’.” But the singular, as a
personal pronoun, is almost confined to John®. He uses it some-
times, without much apparent emphasis, in narrating a dialogue (“ he
answered,” ‘Ae saith”) to mean “he, on his side, replied, said,
denied: ete. 22
[2382] Outside dialogue, when John uses éxetvos in his own
words, or in the words of others reported in the first person, it
generally has considerable emphasis as in i. 8 ‘He was not the
Light” (ze. do not suppose that 4e, the Baptist, was the Light),
i, 18 “The only begotten...4e [axd no other] hath declared,” i. 33
“He that sent me.../e [and no other] said to me,” ii. 21 “ [The Jews
took the words literally] but Ze was speaking about...°.” It is often
used by the Son concerning the Father, v. 19 “‘ Whatsoever things he
doeth” and similarly in v. 38, vi. 29, vill. 42. The Samaritan
woman also uses it about the Messiah, iv. 25 “when 4e (emph.) (é.)
1 [23806] In v. 11 ds 6€ darexplOn a’rots, AB alone retain és dé, which is omitted
or changed to 6 6é by other authorities. “Os 6é is prob. more emphatic than o dé
and less emphatic than atros 6é (which, in Jn, would mean ‘he [of] himself said”).
"Os, in this sense, occurs in N.T. elsewhere only in Mk xv. 23 ds dé ovx é\aBev
(where SB and 33 almost alone preserve és). It is one of several curious
characteristics common to Mk and Jn. Steph. gives abundant instances of kal és
in Plato and Xen., but none of és 6é. But comp. Job xxii. 18 ds dé évérdnoev,
where és represents the Heb. pron. ‘‘he” and is emphatic, Aq. and Theod. have
kal ards (A ore ye), Tob. v. 13 ds dé elev, Eyw Afapias (S Kal elev aitw). “Os
pev...ds dé does not occur in Jn. 2 Mk xiv. 21, Mt. xxvi. 24, Lk. xxil. 22.
* Lk. xviii. 14 has rap’ éxewov, Mk-App. xvi. 10 has éxely7.
+ |fiitbss Tit, BGs ZY) (Qh sail WGPs Orr
5 Comp. the pl. in x. 6 ‘But ¢hey (é. 6€) did not know,” xi. 13 ‘‘But ¢hey
thought....”
283
[2383] PRONOUNS
cometh, he (unemph.) will tell us all things.” In the Epistle, it is
the pronoun used to denote Christ, as being the Person always before
the writers mind as his example. "Exeivos is used thus six times
there, and in no other sense!.
[2383] In John, éxetvos?, when preceded by xaé, is generally
combined with it in the form kdxeivos. The following is exceptional,
xix. 35 ‘And he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his witness
is true (GX, abrod éoriy 7 paptupia) and he (kai ékeivos*) knoweth that
he (unemph.) saith true (otdev dru dAn67 Ae€yer), in order that ye also
may believe.” Here éxeivos might theoretically be a mere emphatic
substitute for the preceding airdés. Then the meaning would be
simply, ‘the that hath seen is quite certain that he himself is speaking
the truth.” But this does not make very impressive sense, whereas
the occasion demands something not only impressive but uniquely
impressive. Moreover it seems to demand a combination of more
witnesses than one, as in the Gospel, where (viii. 17) “the testimony
of two men” is mentioned, or in the Epistle, where (1 Jn vy. 8)
“three” witnesses are mentioned in connexion with “the water,”
“the blood,” and “the spirit.”
[2384] The passage may perhaps in some respects be illustrated
by v. 32 “Another ts he that witnesseth concerning me and I
know that the witness..is true,” where, though Chrysostom supposes
Jesus to mean the Baptist, He probably means (2730) the Father,
who “witnesseth” to the Son by the works that He (v. 36) “hath
given” to the Son to accomplish. St Paul appeals sometimes to the
testimony, as it were, or presence, of God or Christ‘; and, on one
occasion, not long after the words “the God and Father of the Lord
Jesus Christ...knoweth that I lie not,” he passes to “visions and
revelations of the Lord’.” So here, we appear to have a solemn
appeal on the part of the evangelist touching the truth of a statement
that he obviously regards as symbolical of a profound mystery not
apparent to the soldiers at the crucifixion but revealed to him. To
whom should he appeal except to the Lord Himself from whose side
1 1 Jn ii. 6 (see Westc.), iii. 3, 5, 7, 16, iv. 17. The fem. occurs in v. 16, the
neut. never. Comp. 2 Pet. i. 16 éwémrac...ris éxelvouv meyadetbrnros.
* [2383 a] Perhaps the only exception in Jn, besides the one above discussed, is
v. 39 ‘Ye search the Scriptures, and they are they (kal éxetval elow) that testify
concerning me.”
8 Alford reads xdxeivos with N.
+ Rom. ix. 1, Gal. i. 20, 2 Cor. xi. rto—11. 5 2 Cor. xi. 31 foll.
284
DEMONSTRATIVE [2385]
(as he declares) there flowed forth “blood and water”? — But, if so,
we have seen from the Epistle (2382) that the evangelist might
naturally speak of the Lord as éketvos, when recording His testimony
to the truth of a tradition revealed to ‘‘him that had seen it,” whether
in a vision or otherwise, “And he that hath seen hath borne witness,
and his witness is true, and He knoweth that he saith true, that ye
also may believe'.” For a parallel from Barnabas, see 2731.
[2385] Chrysostom has the following comment on vii. 11 zod
éotiv éxeivos; “By reason of their great hatred and rancour they
would not even call Him by His name’.” The same pronoun that
might mean, in the mouths of admirers, ‘that [great] man,” might
mean, in the mouths of enemies, “‘¢hat [notorious] man.” In vii. 45
“There came therefore the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees
and f¢hey (éxetvor) said to them, Why did ye not bring him?”—we
must bear in mind that John has previously described (vil. 32) “the
chief priests and the Pharisees” as sending officers to arrest Jesus.
Meantime, he has told us about the talk of ‘‘the multitude,” of whom
“some” say this, “others” that, some for, some against, Jesus: now,
in contrast with the “division” in the multitude, he describes the
fixed and virulent determination of the Pharisees by emphasising the
pronoun in ‘“¢hey said*.” See also 2732.
1 [2384 a] If the evangelist is distinct from ‘‘him that hath seen,” then this
sentence implies three witnesses. It should be noted that this evangelist alone
records that the Saviour, after the Resurrection, shewed the disciples His wounded
side (xx. 20, 27). Nonnus (iémev) prob. read oldapev.
[23846] On xix. 35 Blass (p. 172) says, ‘‘ There is doubt about the whole
verse, which is wanting in e, and Cod. Fuldensis of the Vulgate, about this
particular clause [7.e. the éxetvos clause], about the text of this clause, as Nonnus
read é€xetvov oldapev, etc.” But e, besides omitting the verse, alters the order of
the preceding words ‘‘sanguis et aqua” to “‘aqua et sanguis”’; and it is possible
that the omission may be from homoeotel., in passing from -is in sanguis to the -is
in ‘‘ credatis” (‘Sut et vos credatzs”). So difficult a verse might naturally be
amended into éxetvov oldauev ; but the emendation is manifestly based on xxi. 24
oldauev Gre adXnOHs atrod 7) paprupia é€oriy. But there is great force in Blass’s
warning against basing ‘‘ theories as to the origin of the fourth Gospel on this
verse,” and in his objection to ‘‘the meaning ordinarily attached to it.”
*» So, too, Cramer, rivos évexev...; wd modNod ploous Kal Tis dmexOelas
ouvex devot.
3 [2385 a] The antithesis is much more obvious in Acts ili. 13 6 vpets wev
mapedwKate...kaTa mpdcwmov Ile\drou Kplvavtos éxelvov. amonvev, ‘Ve on your side
delivered up...when he on his side had decided to acquit.” In the context of Jn
there is no uéy and there is a considerable interval between éxeivos and the earlier
member of the antithesis. Still, antithesis is the explanation.
285
[2386 | PRONOUNS
(ili) Otros
[2386] Otros nom. sing. masc. is about as frequent in John as in
Mark and Luke taken together. This arises partly from the frequency
of testimonies to Christ from the Baptist and others (“this is he
that...”)1, but partly also from the evangelist’s habit of using otros
after a previous description to sum up, or repeat, i. t—2 “In the
beginning was the Word...t#zs [same] was in the beginning with
God.” So, too, at the close of his Gospel, after the many hints and
suggestions as to “the disciple that Jesus loved” etc., xxi. 24 ‘ This
[same] is the disciple that testifieth concerning these things....”
Otros is also used, in apposition, to sum up a collective participle,
vi. 46 6 dy mapa [rod] Geot, obros..., vil. 18 6 de Lytav...ovTos, XV. 5 6
pevwv...ovtos (where the meaning would be quite different if otros
were after a participle without a pause, ¢.g. 0 pévwr ovtos, “this man
that remains”). In all these cases, the meaning is that zf a man
does a certain antecedent act, then “this [same] man (ovros)” also
does a consequent act’.
1 [2386 a] i. 15 (reading dy eizov), i. 30, 34, iv. 42, vi. 14, vil. 40. In i. 34
(W.H.) obrés éorw 6 vids 7. Oeov, the reading éxXexrés for vids, supported by SS
and & (815), appears to have been in the txt of a papyrus of the 3rd century, Oxyr.
Pap. yol. ii. p. 7, where the editors have shewn that a lacuna is prob. to be filled
thus.
* [2386 4] In the Epistle, ovros nom. sing. masc. occurs only thrice, ii. 22
6. €orw 6 aytixptoTos, v. 6 6. éorw 6 EMay bv UOaTos x. aluaros, v. 20 6. éoTLv
6 adnOwos Beds. On the difference between otros 6 ad. and 6 da. ovTos, see 2553 c.
The following is exceptional, ix. 16 odx éorw obros mapa Pe00—6 dvOpwros (altered
by many authorities, but probably meaning ‘‘ This [man] is not from God—this
fellow !” contemptuously, and at the same time perhaps intended by the evangelist
to suggest an inner meaning—a radical sense of antagonism between ‘‘ God”
and ‘‘man,” resulting in a rejection of the doctrine of the Incarnation). In
xil. 18 jKovcav Toro a’rov memonKxévat—rdo onuetov, the meaning seems to be
“* They heard that he had done this—([this great] sign.”
[2386 c] On xxi. 21 otros 6é rl; Blass (p. 177) compares Acts xii. 18 rl dpa 6
Ilérpos évyévero, Lk. i. 66 ri dpa 76 ratdloy éorat; Joseph. Vit. § 296 of elxoor xpucot
ti yeybvaow ; Xen. Hell. ii. 3. 17 rb €oouro 7 wodtrela, and gives the rendering
‘* what will become of him?” This is possible. But in all these instances there
is no ellipsis. And the context in xxi. 21 points (2209) to some action, some-
thing more than mere passive ‘‘ becoming.” Comp. Luc. Dial. AZort. vii. 2
(i. 357) 6 yépwv dé rl rpds ratra; ‘and the old man—wat [did] he in conse-
quence?” Plat. Gorg. 502 A rl 6€ 6 rarhp alrod MéAns; 7b. Rep. 332E Ths dé
méovras [duvardrarés éorw eb rrocety] mpds Tov THs Oaddrrns Klyduvoy ; KuBeprijrns.
Ti 6@ 6 dixavos; All these imply contrast, ‘‘so-and-so did thus: what shall this
man do?” —so that they are parallel to xxi. 21. Nonnus supplies red\éooer.
286
DEMONSTRATIVE [2386 (i)]
[2386 (i)] Otros, if connected with a noun and not used pre-
dicatively, requires an intervening article as in classical Greek’. In
il. II tavtnv eroinoey apxiv Tov cnpeiwv, R.V. has “this beginning
of his signs,” following 8 and Chrys., who read tyv apyyv?—an
interpolation so natural that its non-prevalence in the mss. is
surprising. Basilides, after speaking of the ineffable spiritual life,
likens it to the water at Cana and says, ‘‘This is the great and
genuine ‘beginning of the signs,’ [that beginning] which Jesus
wrought in Cana of Galilee®.” Origen comments on the fact that the
Synoptists did not give the title “beginning of the signs” to the first
“wonders” or “mighty works” wrought at Capernaum. He takes
“beginning” as appositional or predicative and as meaning “chief of
signs (zponyovpevov onjetwv),” and he justifies this by saying that the
creation of the draughts of sober joy is greater than acts of healing’.
A similar predicative use of apyy occurs in O.T. once, and perhaps
only once, Proy. viil. 22 Kvpios exturé pe Gpyiv oddv avtov, about the
creation of Wisdom*®. The Hebrew word there rendered xrifw is
cana—Targum dara “create”—and means kraopat as well as ktilw:
and Aquila and the rest substitute éxryoaro. Krjows, or xtppa, is
accepted by Origen as representing the meaning of Cana®. In the
first verse of Genesis, where LXX has zovéw for the Hebrew dara
“create,” Aquila has xriZw. Philo (1. 361), inveighing against drunk-
enness, quotes the passage from Proverbs thus, 0 6eds éxtyoato pe
mpwtiotny THv éavtou epywv’. These facts shew that wow, rio, and
xTaopo. might be interchanged. Origen’s direct comment on ‘‘Cana”’
1 [2386 (i) @] Ezr. x. g ofros uny 6 évaros is a literal rendering of Heb. and
means ‘‘this [is] month the ninth,” parall. to 1 Esdr. ix. 5 otros 6 wiv évaros—
perhaps intended to mean, “‘ this month [is] ninth in the year.” Comp. 1 Chr. xi. 4
atirn TeBous ‘ this [is] Jebus.”
? [2386 (i) 6] Alf. omits Chrys., but mentions ‘‘ Eus, [-mss.].’’? As he does not
mention Clem. Alex., he presumably refers to Eus. iii. 24. 11, quoting Clem. Alex.
TavTny apxnv émolnoe TGv wapaddgwy 6 “Inoots. But Heinichen and Schwegler
mention tH only as an inferior reading (ra’rnv Thy apx7y).
3 [2386 (i) c] Hipp. v. 8 (pp. 107—9) atrn, dnoiv, éorly 7 weyddyn Kal adnOut
apxn Tav onuelwy, jv eroincey 6 Inoods &v K. tH T.
4 Lomm. vol. i. 295—6. Nonnus has IIpwrodaves réde Oaidpua...érédeocev.
> [2386 (i) @] Comp. Sir. xxiv. 9 (A) mpd Tod aidvos drapxny exticé pe.
§ Lomm. ii. 117 BeBarv éauT@ Krijow Tov awd Ta’rys THs yhs wisTevdvTwy eis
tow marépa di’ avrov, 2b. 128 mapa TO kThua adrov...Kava wvoudodn.
7 Philo proceeds (i, 362) to describe the infinite flow of the graces of God as
a fountain (éippeovons THs Tov Beod Yapitwy mys).
287
[2387] PRONOUNS
is lost; but he refers to what he had written as indicating that it
denoted the “creation” or ‘‘acquiring” of the Church by Christ;
and the Hebrew cava is used in O.T. of God (Gesen. 888—g)
(1) “creating” heaven or Israel, and (2) “acquiring” or “redeeming”
His people. ‘The latter is symbolized in O.T. by wedlock. Using
the same metaphor, Origen warns men to “abstain from the harlot
Matter (vAn) and to be made one with the Logos that was in the
beginning with God, and with His Wisdom, whom Ze created as the
beginning of His ways’.” The facts indicate that ii. 11 tavrnv
eroinoev apyyv Means Todto éroinoev ws (OF Wate eivar) apynv, that
it is intended to sum up a typical description of the marriage feast
of the Logos or Wisdom of God, that it was based on the above-
quoted passage in Proverbs, and that Origen has rightly interpreted
its Inner meaning.
(a) Ata toyTo
[2387] Aca rotro, “for this cause,” ‘consequently,’ is almost
always placed by John at the beginning of the sentence. An
exception is xv. 19 “If ye were of the world the world would love
its own. But because ye are not of the world but I chose you out
of the world—/jor ¢his cause (61a Todo) the world hateth you.” The
initial “for this cause” is so frequent elsewhere that we may infer
that here, too, John writes with the fee/zmg that he is introducing
a new sentence, as though the last terminated with the statement
‘‘T chose you out of the world,” as a consequence of which, “the
world hateth” them*. Another exception, according to R.V., is
i. 31 “And I knew him not; but that (adX’ iva) he should be made
manifest to Israel for this cause came I baptizing with water.” Here,
however, there is probably (2064) an ellipsis, as in other cases, before
1 [2386 (i) ¢] Lomm. ii. 233. Origen perh. has in his mind the context in
Proverbs which contrasts Wisdom, who cries to men ‘‘ Drink of the wine that
I have mingled” with Folly, or ‘‘ the Foolish Woman,” who cries ‘‘ Stolen waters
are sweet” (Prov. ix. 5—17). Epiphan. p. 443 A has rotro mp@rov onueior
érolnoev, and Chrys. quoting with ryv apxnv, says elre dé Tovro etre Erepov mp&rov
onpeiov eyévero Tv meTa TO Bamriopa yevouévwy ot oPbdpa Sucxuplferbar dvayKaiov
elval rot doxet. Their words indicate that any Greek writer would naturally have
used mp@rov if he had meant merely ‘‘first,”” but that John meant something more.
2 [2387 a] The three instances in which N.T. (Bruder) quotes from O.T.
clauses with 61a rodro, all have it at the beginning, Acts 11. 26, Rom. xv. 9,
Heb. i. 9.
288
DEMONSTRATIVE [2390]
iva, and the rendering should be “But [it came to pass] in order that
he should be made manifest to Israel. For ¢his cause came I etc.”
(2388] In vii. 21—2, “...I did one work [on the sabbath] and
ye all marvel. For ¢his cause hath Moses given you circumcision...
and on the sabbath ye circumcise a man,” R.V. marg. gives “and ye
all marvel decause of this.” But the text is to be preferred (in con-
sequence of the regular Johannine usage) in spite of its difficulty, the
meaning of “for this cause” being, perhaps, ‘‘in order to typify the
subordination of the sabbath to man.” The words point back to
the cure just effected on the sabbath, at which the Jews, instead
of welcoming it, “marvel,” ze. are amazed with a foolish and faithless
amazement (1673 a—e). Rebuking them, Jesus says, ‘‘ For ¢his
cause,” 1.e., for the cause of kindness, to reveal love and not law
as the key to the mysteries of the Father, there has been ordained
the rite of circumcision, always on the eighth day after birth, so that
ye are forced sometimes to circumcise on the sabbath.
[2389] Aca rotro, with an interval, frequently precedes or,
“‘decause,” e.g. vill. 47 “He that is from God heareth the words
of God. Lor this cause (61a totro) ye hear not, because (ort) ye are
not from God.” Here, ‘“‘for this cause” looks back to the general
cause (“he that is...””) and then forward to the particular cause (“ye
are not...”). Some such restatement of a cause (“‘decause of thts,
which I have just mentioned,...because, in other words, so and so
happened”) is very frequent in John. ‘The phrase is almost always
in asyndeton ; but it is preceded by ‘‘and” and followed by ‘‘there-
fore” in one of the very few passages where it occurs in narrative,
v. 15—18 “The man...told the Jews that it was Jesus that had made
him whole. Azd (kat) for this cause did the Jews persecute Jesus;
because [in other words| (ot) he did these things on the sabbath.
But he answered them, My Father worketh...and I work. For this
cause therefore (ovv) the Jews sought rather (2733 a) to kill him,
because |in other words, or, from their point of view| he not only
brake the sabbath but also called God his own Father...1.”
[2390] It is sometimes difficult to define exactly the noun
I [2389 a] Aca rodro follows a\\a@ and precedes es in xil. 27 (see 2512 6—c),,
‘‘ And what should I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? Way (ada), for this:
cause (da TovTo) came I, to [meet] (e/s) this hour.” Here ‘‘ for this cause” looks
back to ‘‘this hour,” and forward to a phrase in which ‘‘hour” is repeated for
emphasis (‘ to [meet] this hour”’).
ARaVile 289 19
[2391] PRONOUNS
represented by rovro, e.g. in xil. 37-40 “ But...they did not believe,
in order that the word of Isaiah might be fulfilled, ‘Lord, who [hath]
believed...?’ or this cause they were not able to believe, because
again Isaiah said, ‘He hath blinded their eyes....’” Apparently,
however, ‘‘¢izs” means the Law of fulfilment of Prophecy as being
the Will of the righteous God. Isaiah’s question (“Who hath
believed?”) amounted to a predictive statement, ‘None believed.”
John, having expressed the fulfilment of this statement in the form
“they were not able to believe,” goes on to explain this by another
prophecy referring to retributive blindness’.
[2391] An apparent, but only apparent, exception (to && todro
looking back) occurs in x. 17 ‘“‘ For this cause doth my Father love
me decause I lay down my life.” No doubt, the immediately pre-
ceding sentence (about “other sheep”) contains nothing to which
the phrase could well point. But we must go back further and take
the passage as a whole: “Even as the Father knoweth me..../ day
down my life for the sheep—and other sheep I have...and they shall
become one flock, one shepherd. for ¢his cause doth my Father
love me ecause I lay down my life that I may take it again.” It will
then appear that “for this cause” looks back, past the intervening
parenthesis, to the words “‘/ay down my life for the sheep,” which are
repeated, with modification, after “because.” Similarly in 1 Jn iii. 1
“...and we are [the children of God]. For this cause the world
knoweth not us because it knew not him,” the reference of ‘“‘¢/zs
cause” is to the preceding words, ‘‘and we are [the children of God]”;
and the meaning is, “ Because we are His children the world knows
us not—naturally, because it knows not the Father.”
(8) 7En toytw
[2392] Ev rovrw, (neut.) “in this,” “herein,” “hereby’,” occurs
five times in the Gospel and twelve times in the Epistle. The uses
are not quite similar. In the Epistle, when followed by or: or éay, it
1 [2390 a] For 6ua rodro (1) looking back to a previous statement and at the
same time (2) preceding a sentence with initial 671, see Ps. xvi. 8—1o (Acts ii. 26—7)
dia TodTO nUPpdvOn 7 Kapdla pov...kal ) cdp= wou KaracKnvwcer Em’ EArldt. Gre ovK
évearadelers.... Here dia rodro merely looks backward. “Orc begins a new
sentence and introduces a restatement of the cause for joy (‘‘/for zdeed thou wilt
not leave my soul to Sheol’’) stated previously in the words ‘‘ Because he is
at my right hand I shall not be moved.”
2 Not in the Synoptists exc. Lk. x. 20 ‘‘ J ¢/its rejoice not.”
290
DEMONSTRATIVE [2394]
seems sometimes to look forward, as in r Jn tl. 3 “And hereby know
we that we know him—// we keep his commandments,” ¢.e. by the
following test. There is nothing in the preceding context to which
“hereby” can well point. In the Gospel it always looks back. But
(like d:a rodro) it may also look forward to something supplementary.
This, however, is not the case in iv. 36—7, “He that reapeth re-
ceiveth wages and gathereth fruit unto life eternal; in order that he
that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together. For herezn
is the saying true that ‘One soweth and another reapeth.’” Here
the meaning is, that in the joy of the sowers and the reapers of the
heavenly harvest there is fulfilled in the real and spiritual sense—
namely, in the sense that the sower rejoices to sow for others—the
proverb current among men of this transient world in the unreal
saying that “fools sow and clever men reap.” The ore clause
has nothing to do with év rovtw but defines o Adyos.
[2393] But év rovrw is explained by a following oz clause in
ix. 30, where, the Pharisees having said “We know not,” the blind
man just healed says ‘‘ erecn [z.e. in your not knowing] is the marvel
[namely] decawse (or) ye know not whence he is, and [yet] he opened
mine eyes.” In xii. 35 “...even as I have loved you that ye also
love one another. Yerern shall all know that ye are my disciples,
if ye have love one to another,” the cause is first stated before
“herein” and then repeated with slight modification—‘if [1 say] ye
have love among one another ”—as though the “love” were a book
in which “all” could read the truth of their discipleship. In xv. 8
“ Herein |i.e. in your abiding in me| my Father was glorified in order
that ye might bear (iva...¢épyre) much fruit and might become my
disciples,” the reference is to previous statements (xv. 5—7) that, if
the disciples ‘“‘abide” in Christ (as the branches abide in the vine)
they will ‘“‘bear fruit,” and that this “abiding” will procure the
accomplishment of all their prayers. Here, as a climax, it is said
that in this abiding the Father “was glorified,” in the fulfilment of
His will and effort (2093—6) “in order that (‘va)” the disciples “may
bear much fruit.” Thus the tva clause does not define “herein” (as
though it meant “‘in the fact that ye bear”) but explains the odyect of
the ‘‘abiding.”
(y) Meta tofto, or Tayta
[2394] Mera rotro is rarer in John than pera tadta. The former
occurs only as follows, mostly implying a short interval, 11. 12 ‘‘ After
291 19—2
[2395] PRONOUNS
this [7.e. after the sign at Cana] he went down...,’’ xi. 7 “after this [i.e.
after abiding two days] he saith,” xi. 11 “These things he said, and after
this |i.e. after saying these things] he saith to them,” xix. 28 “After
this (i.e. after giving His mother to the beloved disciple]...he saith
‘I thirst.’” In all these instances there follows some word or deed
of Jesus. This is not the case after pera tatra in xix. 38 “after these
things Joseph asked Pilate”; but in v. 1 ‘“‘after these things there was
a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up,” an action of Christ practically
follows as elsewhere’. In i. 12 and xix. 28, pera rodro might refer
to the completion of a definite period or act (like the Hebrew in
Gen. xxill. 19 “After this he buried Sarah””’) as distinct from pera
tavra referring to a collection of actions. But in xi. 7—11, the story
of Lazarus, it is difficult to understand the twice-used phrase unless
the intention is to describe the miracle as not being merely wrought
at the grave but also prepared for, stage by stage, during the period
of anticipation prescribed by the Father to the Son.
(85) Aytoy omitted and tayta repeated
[2395] For the most part, John avoids pronouns where classical
Greek would use them, and prefers nouns, as in the Prologue and
elsewhere (‘‘ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God,” “not to judge the world but to save
the world” etc.*). In the following, the Mss. vary (1. 12) ‘‘ He went
down to Capernaum, himself, and his mother and [his ?] brethren and
his disciples.” The Synoptists similarly vary when they describe
Christ’s family as seeking to speak to Him; Mark has “his” twice,
‘‘his mother (avrod) and his brethren (avrov),’? but Matthew and
Luke have “his mother and brethren (7 p. kai of a. avrod),” thus
knitting them into one group*. In John, inferior authorities have in-
serted ‘his ”—naturally, because ‘‘ his” comes before disciples. But
perhaps John did not wish to apply the epithet “ his” to ‘‘ mother,”
1 [2394a] The other instances are iii. 22, v. 14, Vi. I, Vii. I, xxl. 21. It
occurs once in speech, xiii. 7 ‘‘But thou shalt know after these things.”
2 [23940] LXX pera raira. The more usual Hebrew is (lit.) ‘‘ after these
words” pera Ta phuata tatra, Gen. xv. 1, xxii. 1 etc. Neither “era rodro nor
pera ravra is found in Mk or Mt. But Mk-App. xvi. 12 has werd ratra. Lk.
has wera tadra, about past action, twice pec. (x. 1, xviil. 4) and once (v. 27) where
Mk ii. 13 has rdd\w mapa thy Odd\acoay, and Mt. ix. g éxetOev. Lk. has pera
ratra twice about the future (xii. 4, xvii. 8).
PPiemt, ellen dy COMP nIK.h 9 Kee
4 Mk iii. 31, Mt. xii. 46, Lk. viii. 19.
292
DEMONSTRATIVE [2397 |
“brethren” and ‘‘disciples” in that impartial way. He may have
omitted ‘‘his” before ‘‘ brethren” and inserted it before ‘ disciples ”
because he has in view—what he tells us later on—that ‘‘his brethren
did not believe in him?.”
[2396] This general habit of omitting pronouns makes the
following passage all the more remarkable, xi. 16 “ These things
(ratra) his disciples understood not at the first: but when Jesus was
glorified, then remembered they that these things (radra) were written
(yeypappéeva) concerning (2339) him, and that they had done /hese
things to him.” On this Westcott says, ‘‘ The threefold repetition of
the words is to be noticed.” He refers to the “threefold repetition ”
of tatra. Schéttgen” gives a multitude of instances in which “this
thing,” represented by the Hebrew feminine “‘ ¢4zs” (mostly altered as
to gender in LXX), is mystically interpreted as referring to the
Messiah. The most important is Ps. cxvil. 22—3 ‘‘The stone that
the builders rejected is become the head of the corner. Zhzs [thing]
(avtn) is the Lord’s doing.” ‘This is quoted by our Lord, soon after
the Entry into Jerusalem, in Mark and Matthew, who follow the
LXX in retaining the literal (but from the Greek point of view quite
misleading) feminine*. Luke, however, stops short at the word
“corner.” This, then, is just one of the occasions where we might
expect John to intervene (see Index, ‘“ John, interventions of”).
[2397] There are good reasons for thinking that our Lord’s
quotation about the “stone” originally terminated with the words
‘“‘head-stone of the corner,” and that an early Christian congregational
ascription of glory, or utterance of hope or thanksgiving, to God, was
1 [2395 a] vil. 5. Of course it might be urged, on the other side, that by
writing 7 u7nTnp avrod Kal oi ddeNPol Kal of wa@nrai adrov, he groups ‘‘the brethren”
with ‘‘the disciples,” apart from ‘‘the mother.” This must be admitted. If
therefore a meaning is intended, the meaning is ambiguous (as often in this
Gospel) and only to be decided by the sequel, which states that His brethren
remained unbelievers.
2 [2396 a] Schottg. ii. 45. Gen. ix. 12, 17 ‘‘ Zhzs (rovro) is the sign,”
Ps. xxvii. 3 ‘‘In ¢his (ratvrn) do I trust,” Jer. ix. 23—4 ** Let him boast in ¢his
(rodrw)” are interpreted of the Messiah.
3 [23966] Mk xii. rr, Mt. xxi. 42 (Lk. om.) rapa Kuplou éyévero atirn. Comp.
1S. iv. 7 ‘‘There hath not been sach a thing,” ob yéyovev tro.a’Tn, 1 K. xi. 39
** And I will for ¢Azs afflict the seed of David,” LXX. om., A éca ratrnv. Field
(on Mt. xxi. 42) says that some modern commentators have committed the error
of taking atin as referring to cepahy, ‘‘ This (head of the corner) was from the
Lord.” I fear we must add Origen (ad Joc., Huet i. 468 A) cal @avuacrh Kepadn,
and probably Chrysostom. See 2621—2.
293
5)
[2398] PRONOUNS
variously added (1) by Mark and Matthew, (2) by Luke, (3) by
Barnabas’. If this was the case, John, taking up Mark’s tradition
about avry, and converting it into the more intelligible ratra, may
have placed the tradition in its right position, zof as an utterance of
Christ's, but as an evangelistic statement, namely, that the Church,
in later days, recognised ‘‘ these things,” which took place in connexion
with Christ’s Entry into Jerusalem—meaning the whole, and not
excluding the contrast between the fixed rejection by the rulers and
the recognition by the multitude (xii. g—10)—as being divinely
ordained.
(iv) Tovotros
[2398 | As to iv. 23 Kat yap 6 matnp Tovovtovs Lyte Tovs TpocK-
vovvtas avrov, Winer-Moulton (p. 138) parallels it to Mk ix. 37 [év]
‘one of such little children®.”. But John has not
prefixed the article as Mark has ; and /he article ts invariably prefixed
in IV.T: wherever tovovtos ts used as a masc. pronoun, referring to
some previous description. It follows that tovovrovs must be taken
predicatively, although the construction presents difficulties. Per-
haps Cyret is nearly equivalent to “desire” (Dan. vil. 19 Theod.
eCytovv, LXX 7Oedov) and the meaning is “deszres [fo have| his
worshippers such,” as Horace uses “te semper amabilem sperat ” for
‘‘ hopes [to have| thee ever amiable.” But of course yret does not
fol , /,
TWV TOLOUTWV TALOLWV
1 [2397 a] Luke xx. 18 (instead of Mk-Mt.’s continuance of the Psalm
quotation) has a prediction that (see Dan. ii. 35—44) ‘‘ Everyone that falleth
on that stone shall be broken in pieces.’ Barnabas, after the words ‘‘ He hath
made me as a hard rock,” continues, vi. 4, Aéyer 6€ madw 0 mpopytns: AiBov dv
amedokiuacay ol olkodomovvTes, ovTos eyev7On els Kepadnv ywvias. Kai maw NéyeL*
Alrn éortiv 7 huépa 7 meyady Kal Oavuacrn, qv érolncer 6 Kiptos.
[2397 4] The words in the LXX ‘‘ This (atr7) came (éyévero) from the Lord
and it is marvellous 7 ows eyes” supplied an extremely appropriate congregational
utterance for Greeks, coming after the words ‘‘The stone that the builders
rejected ”—as though the Gentile converts said, ‘‘ The rulers of Israel, the builders
of the Temple, rejected the Stone that was to become the head (keg@ady}), but we
accept it, z.e. the head, and it is marvellous in our eyes.” This would be an error;
but, as we have seen, it was one that Origen certainly, and Chrysostom probably,
adopted. Both these commentators connect the text with the notion of the corner-
stone as uniting the believers in Israel with the Gentiles (Orig. Huet i. 467 £,
Chrys. ad /oc.).
2 (2898.a] Mk ix. 37, x. 14, Mt. xix. 14, Lk. xvii. 16, Acts xxil) 22,
Rom. xvi. 18, 1 Cor. v. r1, vii. 28, xvi. 16 etc. Chrys. ad loc. el rotovrous (Morel.
rovrous) mdédac éfjrec seems to have taken rovo’rous non-predicatively, but the
usage of all books in N.T. (including 3 Jn 8) is hardly to be disputed.
204
PERSONAL [2400]
mean ‘desire’ exactly: and the evangelist may intend to suggest
not only what the Father ‘desires ” His worshippers to be, but also
the fact that He is ‘‘seeking” them out of the world, and “seeking”
to help them, as the shepherd “seeks” his flock.
II. PERSONAL
(i) Insertion for emphasis
[2399] In classical Greek the personal inflexion of a verb
dispenses mostly with personal pronouns, ¢.g. dmets, as subject. But
John uses dpets about as often as it is used by all the Synoptists
together. The main reason is his love of contrast as in vill. 23 “‘ Ye
(vueis) are from beneath ; 7 (éyw) am from above: ye (vjeis) are from
this world; 7 (éy#) am not from this world.” Sometimes, however,
emphasis may be intended, and may be in danger of being confused
with contrast. Thus, in the first instance where vpets occurs,
1. 26 (‘I (é€y#) baptize in water; midst of you standeth [he] whom
ye (vpets) know not”) a contrast might be supposed to be intended
between “ye” and “I.” But there “ye” perhaps means ‘‘even ye’,
although he is in the midst of you”; and “1” is contrasted, not with
“ve” but with “he whom ye know not.”
[2400] But a great deal is lost by readers of the English versions
of the Fourth Gospel from the general neglect of the translators to
distinguish the instances where the English personal pronoun does,
1 [2399 a] There is very little in the Synoptists like this use of tmets. The
nearest approach to it is the contrast between the ‘‘my” of prophecy, meaning
God’s (‘‘ my house’’) and “tye,” in Mk xi. 17 (comp. Mt. xxi. 13, Lk. xix. 46)
‘My house shall be called a house of prayer...but ye (dme?s) have made it a den
of robbers”: and the Sermon on the Mount contrasts ‘‘Z say unto you” with
what was ‘said to them of old time” (Mt. v. 21—2, 33—4).
2 [23994] ‘‘ Even ye.” Perhaps the emphasis is condemnatory, not ‘even
ye,” but ‘‘ ye of course,” ‘‘ ye, being such as ye are.’’ Comp. v. 44 ‘‘ How can
ye [being such as ye are] believe, [ye] that receive glory from one another.”
[2399] In 1 Jn, there is a clear distinction between ‘“‘ we write” and °° J
write.’ he Epistle opens with “we” thus (i. 1—ro) “That which we have
heard, that which zwe have seen...And these things we (emph. jets) write unto you
that our (jugv, marg. tuay) joy may be fulfilled.... If we say that we have not
sinned we make him a liar and his word is not in ws.” After thus writing in the
name of the Apostles and Elders generally, describing their testimony, their
privileges, and their dangers, the writer passes to his individual testimony (ii. 1)
‘* My little children, these things 7 w7z¢e unto you,” and this is repeated nearly
a dozen times, ending with v. 13 ‘‘ These things lave / written.” But no pronoun
is inserted except for emphasis or antithesis, i. 4 ‘‘And these things we wrife
(ypapouev jets) that our (vy. r. your) joy may be fulfilled.”
295
[2401] PRONOUNS
from those where it does not, represent a Greek pronoun. ‘Thus,
ii. 18 (A.V.) “What sign shewest thou unto us?” and vi. 30 ‘* What
sign shewest thou then?” appear on the same level. But in the
latter the pronoun, “thou,” is inserted in the Greek ; and the context
shews that the Jews emphasize the pronoun, possibly meaning ‘‘ chou
also [like Moses,” whom they presently mention, or else meaning
“thou on thy side | since thou demandest obedience Jrom us|*.” So in iv.
to “If thou hadst known...thow (o%) wouldst have asked Aim
(airdv),” the second ‘‘thou” is emphatic and the meaning is, “ Zhou
wouldst have asked Am [not waiting for Aim to ask thee).” There
is also a deliberately intended difference between pets oidapev and
oldapev in the following, ix. 29 “ We (nets) know that God hath
spoken to Moses, but this man—we know not whence he is” where
the former means, “ We, the guardians of the Law about which you
know nothing.”
(ii) *Eya
[2401] For eyo with «iui, see 2220-8. For €yo, as denoting
emphasis generally, see 2399 and 1713. The emphatic use of “I”
in the testimony of the Baptist—attested sometimes by B alone among
the uncial mss.—has perplexed some, who have not perceived that
the Baptist is intended, by the use of this pronoun, to emphasize his
own inferiority to Christ, or else the spontaneousness of his testimony,
“fam not the Christ,” “Zam [but] a voice,” “Z baptize with
water,” “7am not worthy to loose fs latchet” etc. The following
are the instances in Greek: i. 20 éyw otk «iui 6d xp., i. 23 eyo dovy,
1. 26—7 eyo Barritw...ov ov eipi [eyo] aévos’, i. 30 otros éotw UTEP OU
€yw etrov (where Chrys. not only changes vxép to the more usual zepé
but also drops ey), i. 31 (rep. 33) Kayo ov qdev, Ze. “and I for my
fart did not know him, it was God that revealed him to me,” i. 31
61a TovTo 7AOov eyo ev voate Barrilor, i. 34 Kayo éwpaxa, Ze. “and
I, with my own eyes, opened by God, have seen,” iii. 28 avrol vpeis
1 [2400 a] In vi. 30 rl ofv roves od onuetov; the R.V. * What then doest thou
for a sign?” may be intended to emphasize ‘ thou,” but there is nothing to make
this clear to an English reader. Lither italics in the text, or some sign in the
margin, might have indicated it. And the absence of any such indication
obscures the sense in many passages.
* [2401 a] So, too, Mk i. 8 éyw éBdarica...adros 5é, Mt. iii. 11, Lk. iii. 16
éyw pév...avrés. But the Synoptists om, éyd in the clause about the shoe-latchet
or shoes, of obx elul ixavéds.
290
PERSONAL [2404 |
prot paptupeire Oru eirov [eyw] Ov eipi eyo ypioros, ze. I did not
wait for others to dispute my claim to be Messiah, I myself
spontaneously denied all claim. Here Alford rejects the first eyo,
apparently on the ground that B, alone of the uncials, has it.
(ili) 2s
[2402] The pronoun “thou” (1726) occurs in John more
frequently than in all the Synoptists together. It occurs four times in
the short cross-examination of the Baptist by the Jews, four times in
the Samaritan Dialogue, and seven times in Christ’s Last Prayer—
whereas in the whole of Mark’s Gospel it does not occur more than
ten times. In many cases the Jews use it to Jesus “ 7ow testifiest
about thyself,” “Art ¢ow greater than our father Abraham?” etc.
But its frequency extends to the whole of the Gospel and indicates
the evangelist’s tendency, rst to lay stress on personality and, 2nd, to
express personality in dialogue.
[2403] In xix. 9 “whence art thou (rev ef av ;)?” a difficulty is
raised by ov as well as by rofev. As to ro6ev, it is barely conceivable
that Pilate might have been so impressed by the charge of the
Pharisees (xix. 7 ‘he made himself a son of God”) that he returns
to his mysterious prisoner with the question “ Arom what source,
celestial or terrestrial, art thou?” But, even in that case, there is no
need of ov, which in questions, as in imperatives, sometimes implies
contempt (2734). Chrysostom—who apparently had a different
reading—says that Pilate, terror-stricken, “begins his examination
all over again saying, Art thou the Christ? (dvwbev...rA€ywov Ei ov
et 6 Xpiotos ;) But He gives him no answer!.”
[2404] The Index to Epictetus shews that ro6ev coc; and robev
ov; might be used, as detached phrases, to mean “ How could you
have the power to do so-and-so?” ‘ How are you able to do this
or that ?”—with a suggestion of incredulity. This suggests another
explanation of the words of Pilate. Fresh from the saying of the
Pharisees (“‘ He made himself So of God”) he comes back into the
Praetorium repeating to himself “This man son of God!” and then
utters his thought aloud to the prisoner, “ Hozw could you possibly be
1 [2403 a] It is possible that Chrys. has confused the utterance of Pilate with
the utterance of the High Priest in Mt. xxvi. 63, see 2734 d.
297
[2405] PRONOUNS
[Son of God]?” rofev ef od'; Some might take this as an inquiry
about the province from which Jesus came—an inquiry mentioned
by Luke alone*. John, believing that this was an error, might insert
the exact words that caused the error®. But see 2733—7.
II. RELATIVE
(i) “Os
(a) Attraction of the Relative
[2405] In iv. 5 rod xwpiov ob Swxer ’I., iv. 14 Tod Voatos ov eyo
dwow, Xvil. 5 7H O0f) 7 (Marg. Av) elyov, xxi. 10 Tov dWapiov dv
éexuacate, the relative pronoun corresponds to the defining relative in
English (“ that,” as in “the water ¢#a¢ I shall give”) and John’s
adherence to the Greek idiom of the attraction of the relative into
the case of the antecedent helps to indicate that the latter without
the former is incomplete*. Similarly in xv. 20 pyynpovevete Tod Adyou
ov éyw elrov ipiv, the attracted relative indicates that “the saying” is
meaningless until it is defined and completed. The meaning is not
“the word, which 1 said,” but ‘the word that I said.”
[2406] But, if so, why is the relative not attracted—not at least
in the best Mss.—in li. 22 érlotevoay tH ypady Kal TO Oyw Ov Eirev
6 “Ingots, and in iv. 50 ériotevoev.6 avOpwros TO AOyw dv civev ata
6 “Inoods’? The answer may be that in these two passages the
“saying ” is special, and may be called in some sense complete—not
“the word that Jesus uttered [as a general doctrine],” but (1) “the
[mysterious] word [about destroying the Temple], zA7ch Jesus then
uttered,” (2) ‘‘¢he word [of healing, ‘Thy son liveth’], zAzch Jesus
1 [2404a] The insertion of ef in such a phrase is, however, improbable.
On Epictet. i. 19. 9, for rédev ov, the editor suggests 7éev coi. Similarly in Jn,
if oc were written over ou, the former might easily be added to the text as et,
resulting in od ef. But the subject requires further investigation in connexion
with the phrase 7é0ev elui, frequent in this Gospel (2736).
* Lk. xxiii. 6—-7.
* Against this view, it may fairly be urged that ré0ev ov, in the Epictetian
<Cafraidi-*s
and, in favour of it, that a character like Pilate’s is apt to oscillate between
arrogant contempt and servile fear. For the paraphrase of Nonnus see 2734.
4 [2405 a] The instances given by Bruder (1888) where (in this construction)
the antecedent is omitted, are vi. 29 mioretinre els dv diréoretNev, Vii. 31 melova
onweta Tovnoe: wy ovros érolnaev, xvii. Q mepl wy SédwKds mot.
idiom, suggests an incredulity approaching contempt, whereas Pilate is
° Here W.H. give év in both passages without marg. altern. although some
authorities read @.
298
RELATIVE [2409]
had just uttered.” It may be urged that the same reasoning applies
to xv. 20, which repeats the word “just uttered” in xii. 16 “A
bondservant is not greater than his lord.” ‘True, but it is also
a word that Jesus uttered as a general doctrine (1784) ‘‘ A disciple
is not above his teacher.”
[2407] The same explanation applies to the reading of B in
vil. 39 TovTO O€ eimev wept TOD TVEVpaTOs, 6 euedArov AapBavew... Here
W.H. place 6 in marg. and ov in text. But the former may make
better sense if the object is to make a pause after “Spirit.” In that
case, the meaning is not “the [new] spirit Za¢ was about to be
received,” but “the [Holy] Spirit, ze/zch (i.e. for indeed it) was about
to be received.” The relative ‘‘that” would differentiate the new
outpouring of the Spirit from outpourings of the Spirit under the O.T.
dispensation, by defining the former as ‘about to be received by
believers.” The relative ‘‘which” assumes that the readers know
“the Spirit” to be “the Holy Spirit,” and introduces a new fact
about the Spirit, namely, that it was to be received after Christ had
been glorified’.
(8) “EN ta ONdmati coy G A€AwKAc mot (see also 2740—4)
[2408] The relative has been altered by some authorities, because
of its difficulty, in xvii. 11—12 “Holy Father, keep them in thy
name that thou hast given me (év 76 édvopari cov © dédwKas por) in
order that they may be one even as we. When I was with them I
kept them zz thy name that thou hast given me (év Ta 6. cov @ bédwxas
pot).” Some in the first clause, and more in the second, have
changed @ to ous (“those whom thou hast given me”), and SS omits
both clauses. Chrysostom explains ‘‘in thy name” as ‘through
thy help,” and reads ovs in the second clause (if not in the first).
[2409] If the text is correct, it implies a spiritual conception of
God’s Name and (probably) an indirect attempt to deliver the reader
from some popular and philosophic misconceptions, which require a
brief notice. All Jews were familiar with the prediction about the
Prophet “like unto” Moses (that God’s Name was to be “zz him”),
and with the language of Jehovah saying ‘“‘I will put my name on”
persons and places chosen by Him®. The Epistle to the Philippians
says that God “gave as a free gift (€xapioaro)” to Jesus “the
name that is above every name,” in order that ‘‘in the name of
? On the difference between ‘‘that’’ and ‘‘which,” see 2273 a.
2 Ex. xxiii. 21, Numb. vi. 27, 1 K. viii. 16 etc.
299
[2410] PRONOUNS
Jesus every knee should bow,” whether in heaven or earth or beneath
the earth’. The Acts of the Apostles® relates an attempt of un-
believing Jews to use “the name of Jesus” as a sort of hocus-pocus
for the purpose of casting out a devil; and the possibility of such an
attempt is recognised in one version of Matthew-Luke’s Tradition’.
The Apocalypse says ‘‘To him that overcometh I will give a white
pebble, and on the pebble a new name written, which none knoweth
save he that receiveth it*”: it describes one sitting on a white horse
as “having a xame written that none knoweth save himsedf, and clad in
a cloak sprinkled with blood, and his name is called the Word of
God’,” and adds, “‘ His servants shall serve him and shall see his
face and fis name [shall be] on their foreheads®.” These beautiful
Apocalyptic traditions may be best and most naturally interpreted in
a spiritual sense, but they are open to materialistic perversion.
[2410] Philo apparently implies that “the name of God” repre-
sents something inferior to God. The object to aim at is, to be
(Deut. xiv. 1) “sons of the Lord God,” but, he adds, “If anyone is
not yet worthy to be called ‘son of God,’ let him aim at ordering
himself after His firstborn Logos, the Angel, eldest [of angels] as
being Archangel with many names: for He is addressed as ‘ Be-
ginning,’ and ‘ Vame of God,’ and ‘ Logos,’ and ‘the Man according
to the Image,’ and ‘Seeing Israel’.’” And Justin says “‘ As for name
applicable to the Father of all, being unbegotten, there is no such
thing... The words ‘ Father’ and ‘God’ and ‘Creator’ and ‘ Lord’
and ‘Master’ are not names, but appellations (zpoopyoas) derived
from beneficent actions and works’.”
[2411] John’s doctrine appears to be that the highest “name” of
God is that of Him as Father—only as Father revealed through such
SS Phils a9: SPACES XIX ery
% Mt. vii. 22 ‘‘In thy name have we cast out devils,
”
where the parall.
Lk. xiii. 25—6 omits the clause.
4 [2409 az] Rev. ii. 17. WHpos ‘‘ pebble,” here (as in Acts xxvi. ro and in Gk
generally) probably means a voting tablet either for condemnation or acquittal, so
that it may mean ‘‘forgiveness of sins.” There may be a play on the phrase
didwu Yipov which means ‘‘I give my vote.” Comp. 1 Jn iii. 20 ‘‘If our heart
condemns us not we have confidence toward God.” ‘The context in 1 Jn indicates
that this ‘‘non-condemnation” proceeds from ‘‘loving in deed and in truth”: and
Rey. ii. 17 perhaps means by ‘‘the new name” that new kind of love which the
Son brought into the world and which ‘‘none knoweth save he that receiveth it.”
5 Rev. xix. 12—13. 8 Rev. xxii. 3—4.
7 Philo i. 426—7. 8 Just. Mart. 2 Aol. 6.
5
300
RELATIVE [2411]
a Son as Jesus Christ. In his Gospel, the word “name,” when
uttered by Christ, occurs almost always in the phrase (1) “thy zame,”
or “the zame of the (or, my) Father,” or else (2) ‘‘in my zame” as
being the avenue through which the requests of the disciples are to
pass to the Father’. Christ’s first mention of “the name of my
Father” indicates that it is the stamp of the true Deliverer as dis-
tinguished from the false deliverer, who “comes in his own name.”
Hence, “thy name that thou hast given me” means “ thy essential
being, of Fatherhood, in the form in which thou hast given it to me,
the Son.” ‘Thy name,” alone, might mean thy name as revealed to
Israel under the Law, through Moses ; but this “new name” is “the
name of Fatherhood as given to the Son in order that He may
transmit it to others, making all one in the Family of God?.”
1 [2411a] Apart from x. 3 ‘‘he calleth his own sheep by name” (and iii. 18
‘in the name of the only begotten,” which is (1497, 2066) not to be taken as an
utterance of Christ’s) the word ‘‘name” is used by our Lord as follows:—v. 43 “I
have come in ¢he name of my Father...if another come in his own name,” x. 25
“the works that I do in the name of my Father,” xii. 28 ‘‘Glorify thy name,”
xvil. 6, 11, 12, 26 ‘‘¢hy mame”—making seven mentions of the Father’s name by
the Son.
[2411 6] ‘‘M/y name” occurs only in the Last Discourse, addressed to the
disciples. Excluding the prediction xv. 21 ‘‘all these things will they do unto you
because of my name, because they know not...,” it is always in the phrase ‘‘in my
name,” concerning the disciples as asking, or the Father as ‘‘ giving,” or
“*sending” the Spirit, xiv. 13, 14, 26, xv. 16, xvi. 23, 24, 26—seven mentions.
2 [2411 ¢] The ‘‘name,” z.e. essence, of the Father (not of the Son) is ‘‘ g7ven”
to the Son (not ‘‘vevealed,” which would imply unveiling). So in O.T. the Name
of God is ‘‘ put upon” the Temple. The Johannine doctrine bears on superstitious
abuses of the name or names of God (see Orig. Ce/s. 1. 6 and 24, comp. v. 45),
and also on the interpretation of the words in the Lord’s Prayer, ‘‘Father, be
thy zame made holy.” In the Fourth Gospel, Christ only thrice uses the word
“holy,” namely, here, xvii. r1—12 ‘‘ Holy Father, keep them in thy name that
thou hast given me,” xiv. 26 “‘the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit,” and xx. 22 ‘* Receive
the Holy Spirit, whosesoever sins ye forgive they are forgiven....”” Taken together,
the three passages suggest that ‘‘holiness” is manifested in connexion with the
Holy Spirit, through unity and forgiveness of sins, and that God’s ‘‘name” is
‘‘made holy” when the Spirit attains these objects.
(2411 7] Another aspect of the Johannine doctrine is in the Drdaché x. 1
‘*Now after ye are filled (€uwdno@jvat) give thanks thus, ‘We give thanks unto
thee, holy Father, for (imép) thy holy name which (ot) thou didst cause to tabernacle
(kareckjvwoas) in our hearts,’” where the writer means the relative clause to be
essential, ‘‘the Holy Name of thine ¢haz” or ‘‘¢hat Holy Name of thine wich.”
[2411¢] Why does Jn add ‘‘that thou hast given me” to ‘thy name”?
Probably to lay stress on the free and full “ giving” —“ Not as the world giveth,
give I unto you.” This includes the Pauline distinction between attainment
301
(2412) PRONOUNS
(vy) “ENTOAHN KAINHN...6 (1 Jn ii. 8)
[2412] In connexion with the above-mentioned ‘ew name” of
love, or Father, the following passage also may be mentioned as
illustrating the use of the relative, 1 Jn 11. 8 ‘“‘ Again a new command-
ment (évtodnv) I write unto you, which thing (0) is true in him and in
you.” Here, the preceding context bids the readers “walk” as
Christ “ walked,” and the following context says that the true light is
now shining, and (1 Jn ii. 10) “he that /oveth his brother abideth in
the light.” In view of these contexts, the meaning of “ which thing”
appears to be “which assertion,’ namely, the assertion that the
“commandment,” which he has just called (1 Jn 11. 7) “ zot new,” is
also, paradoxically, ‘‘zew.” ‘To love one’s neighbour is a com-
mandment of the Law, “old”; to love as Christ loved us is a
commandment of the Son, “new.” The only instance in which our
Lord uses the word “new” in the Fourth Gospel is ‘fA new com-
mandment give I unto you that ye love one another—even as | loved
you that ye also love one another'.” It is to this saying that the
author of the Epistle is referring. ‘The words may be paraphrased :
“7 have called the commandment ‘old,’ I now call it ‘new’: and
truly the ‘ newness’ is manifest—manifest in Him, giving His blood
for us, manifest in you, made one with Him by His blood’®.”
attempted “through works,” and ‘‘¢he free gift” received through ‘‘/azth.” The
Hebrew ‘‘give” often means ‘‘appoint,” and ‘*the Law” is said to have been
(i. 17) “given through Moses”: but the same sentence adds that “the grace”
(including all the grace that reached Israel through the Law) came through Jesus
Christ.
Salih BY/le
2 [2412a] On viii. 40 (nretré we amoxretva, dvOpwrov os...\eXadnka, where
dvOpwrov, at first sight, seems needless, see Origen who refers to it in his
comment on Ps. Ixii. 3 €ws wére éritidecde én’ &vOpwrov, saying, Todro buoy éore
T@ Nov (nretré we amoxretvat. “AvOpwrov (nrodow amoxrewa’ Kal of €miTiOéuevor
avOpwmrw émiridevrar. In the Hebrew of the Psalm, ‘‘man” appears to be
emphatic, Sym. has dvdpés, and the Targ. has ‘‘a merciful man,” as though the
meaning were: ‘‘ How long will ye spend your time in setting upon a maz [made
in God’s image]! To this emphasis Origen calls attention saying ‘ This
[expression of the Psalmist’s] is like ‘Mow ye seek to kill me’ [in the Gospel. In
the Gospel] they ‘seek to kill a man,’ and in the Psalm those that ‘set upon [him]’
set upon ‘a man.’” Perhaps the present text in Origen has dropped dy@pwror,
and we ought to read Nov (nreiré we droxreivat, dvOpwrov, “AvOpwrov....
In Origen’s Comm. Johann. (on viii. 40) although he does not quote Ps. Ixil. 3
émitideabe, the influence of it may be traced on his statement about Tols T@ dye
Tod Oeod émiBovdevovras that TY dvOpwruwrépy atrod x. BreTouévw émiridevrat.
302
RELATIVE [2413]
(ii) “Ootis
[2413] “Oorts, “ whoever,” “one that,” is mostly used of a class.
But it is also used in N.T. of an individual, to mean ‘the one that,”
especially at the beginning of a clause that introduces explanatory or
illustrative statement’. In such cases ootis, yris etc. may be
rendered “now he, she etc.,” eg. Gal. iv. 24—6 “One from mount
Sinal...zow this (nts) is Agar... ; but Jerusalem that is above is free,
now this (yris) is our mother.” Soin Jn viii. 53 ‘“‘Art thou greater
than our father Abraham (R.V.) wich (Gots) died?” the purpose is
to introduce the death of Abraham as illustrative of the necessity
that all men should die. We may paraphrase the relative clause as
“* One that [great as he was) died,” or “yet he died.” In viii. 25
“Jesus said unto them (lit.), In the beginning whatever also I speak
” some take ore as a con-
junction, “because,” but it is probably the neuter of éoris. This is
discussed elsewhere (2154—6).
unto you (tyv apxnv ore kal Aad vpiv),
Subsequently he says ovx €or Gre 6 Kata Tov Inaoiy TpomiK@s voovjmevos dvOpwros
ovx émedjuer T@ Bim. These facts bear on the statement made above (1934—5)
that av@pwmov is emphatic in vill. 40, which means ‘‘a maz, who”—quite distinct
from ‘‘a an that” meaning ‘‘one that.”
[2412 4] Invi. 9 dorw maddpiov woe ds Exe, some authorities, including 8, have
6. Some have éy before wée. Blass says (p. 317) ‘‘better wasd. éxov, Chrys.
Nonnus.” Some corruption is indicated by the variations of words and order
(6 e, Syr. (Burk.) Chrys. ‘‘there is here a lad,” a ‘‘est puer hic,” f ‘‘est puer unus
hic,” SS ‘‘a certain lad hath on him here”). But éyec is probably correct. For
Chrys. goes on to say mera yap TO elreiy “Exec mévre dprovs KpiOivovs—which
suggests that a scribe has given his previous quotation incorrectly. As to the
change of gender, comp. 2 S. xiii. 17 €xdAece TO maddprov abtod Tov mpoectynKdTa
(unless the particip. is regarded as an appositional noun). Note also that &,
which reads 6 here, substitutes 7uva in 1 Mac. xvi. 16 tTivas Tey madapiwy, and that
D has oc here with a line drawn through the c. The facts indicate that 6s was
the original reading. On xix. 17 Kpaviov Tézrov 6, see 2738.
1 [2413 a] In the parables, Matthew uses dors to introduce the point of
resemblance (of the householder, king, virgins etc.) between the emblem and
the reality (e.g. ‘‘¢hat planted a vineyard,” ‘‘¢hat took their lamps” etc.). So in
Lk. vil. 37 ‘“‘a woman ¢hat was in the city a sinner,” the relative clause introduces
what is essential to the narrative that follows. Comp. Mk xii. 18 ‘‘ Sadducees
(R.V.) which (otrwes) say,”’ where the ‘‘ saying” is not a detached fact but bears
on the following discussion. But initial 6071s means ‘‘and accordingly or con-
sequently ” in Acts viii. 15 ‘‘ They sent to them Peter and John, who accordingly
(oirwes) went down and prayed.’’ It has been shewn (2273 a) that A.V. differs
from Shakespeare, and R.V. from both, in the use of relative pronouns; and we
must not expect Gk writers always to agree with one another in their use.
$93
[2414] PRONOUNS
(a) “Octic aN, Or €ANn
[2414] “Oors with dv or éav in the Johannine Gospel and
Epistles occurs, certainly, only in the neuter, il. 5 ‘‘ Whatsoever (av)
he may say,” xiv. 13, xv. 16 ‘‘zwhatsoever (av) ye may ask.” It is also
probable in 1 Jniii. 20 “[zz] whatsoever (ort édv) our heart may
condemn us.” Bruder (Moulton) marks under this head xxi. 25 éorw
dé kal GAXa woAAG a exoinoe o “Inoots, arwa eav ypapyrat’. But
éav here is generally regarded as meaning ‘‘if,’’ in which case the
construction would be quite different from that of doris ay (or
éav), and the meaning would be “‘ Of such a kind that if they should
be written®.” It is certainly strange that arwa and éav should be
placed together by any N.T. writer except in the sense of “‘z/atsoever
things*” ; and the fact is one of several that render the text extremely
doubtful’. On ay and éav interchanged see 2739.
1 Tt is not so marked in the original Bruder (1888).
2 SS ‘‘ that if one by one they were written,” a, 4, e, f, ff, ‘‘ quae si.”
3 [2414 a] "Edy or av, meaning ‘‘soever,” immediately follows some form of
dors in Mk vi. 23 ‘Ore édv' (marg. dre 'O édv), Lk. x. 35, Acts ili. 23, 1 Cor. xvi. 2,
Gal. v. 10, Col. iii. 17. I do not know any passage in N.T. where éday, in such
a position, means ‘‘if,”’ except the one under consideration (if genuine). There
is not the same ambiguity about 67ep édv, which occurs in Ox. Pap. vol. ili. 653
érep €av uy) Tovhons apparently meaning ‘‘and unless you do this” (A.D. 162—3).
This is closely followed by 6 éay od dys apparently meaning ‘“‘whomsoever you
appoint,” not ‘‘ whom, if you appoint.” For further evidence from the Papyri see
2416 a.
4 [24144] Origen quotes Jn xxi. 25, as follows (omitting avrév) Phdlocal. 15
onow 6 “Iwdvyns ws dpa Ovde Tov Kdcmov oluar Xwpely TA ypaddueva BiBla,
continuing ‘‘ For the [saying] that ‘the world has not room for the books
to be written’ must be understood not [as being true] on account of the
multitude of the writings, as some [say], but on account of the greatness of the
acts, since the greatness of the acts cannot possibly be either written or reported
by tongue of flesh, nor signified in languages (dcaNéx7ors) and sounds of men.” He
seems to take ‘‘the world” as meaning ‘‘ mankind,” and ‘‘has not room for”
as meaning ‘‘has not capability to express.”’ But it is not easy to see how he
obtains this meaning : it needs either the omission of 7a ypaddueva Bi BXla, or else
a conjunction od tov Kécpov...ovd€ Ta ypadbueva BiBNla, ‘‘neither the world...
nor yet books.” kl
[2414c] In a second quotation, after describing Jesus as being (lit.) ‘Sa
multitude of good [things] (7rAj@0s dyabev)” Origen says about these ‘‘ good
[things], ” (Huet ii. 12) ‘‘They have not however had voom found for them
(kexwpnucvwv) by writings (v7rd ypauudrwv). And why say I ‘by writings,’ when
John says even (kal) concerning the whole world [that] ‘ Not even the world itself
I think would have room for (ob6é abrov oluat Tov Kéopov XwpHaa) the books to be
written’?” Here Origen seems to understand ‘the world would not have room” for
the necessary books as meaning that not only ‘‘ books,” but even the ‘‘ world,”
304
RELATIVE [2414]
would be insufficient to ‘‘ find room for” the expression of the acts of the Logos.
The context and the quotation would make excellent sense if the two ran thus, in
effect, ‘‘ Why say I ‘ xot by writengs,’ when John says ‘ zot even by the world’ ?”—
omitting ‘‘the books to be written.”
[24147] In a third quotation, the context of which resembles that in the
Philocalia above, Origen (Huet ii. 201 D/o//.) says that ‘‘ writing (ypa¢7y)” in
some cases, and ‘‘the tongue of man” in others, ‘‘ have not made room for (od
Kexwpnke),” z.e. have not been capable of expressing, the highest mysteries of
God; and he proceeds, “Eort yap kcal d\X\a woddd & Erolncey 6 ‘I. drwa éav
ypapnra xa’ év ode adrov [Tov Kdcmov is omitted] oiuar ywpyoew Ta ypaddueva
6.8Nia. Both in the PAzlocal/ia and here, he illustrates his view by St Paul’s
hearing (2 Cor. xii. 2foll.) ‘‘ words not to be uttered.”
[2414] Again, in a fourth quotation, Origen (Huet ii. 326 D—E£) speaks
about the numerous words (pyudrwv) of God ‘‘not only those that are written
but also those that are (2 Cor. xii. 4) ‘not to be uttered, which it is not lawful for
a man to speak,’ and these about which John says, odd’ adrov otuae Tov Kédouov
Xwphoa Ta ypaddueva BiBia”: and he alludes to xxi. 25 as shewing that John
could have written more Gospels than the world would hold (Huet ii. 88)
"Iwdvvou, ds evayyédov év Karadédourev, OMoNoyav Sivacba Tocaidta Tojoew a
ovdé 6 Kdopos Xwpnoa eEdtvaro. Headds éypawe de kai thy ’Amoxddupu Kedevabels
clwmnca Kal uw) ypaya: Tas THY émTa Bpovrev pwvds—apparently as an instance of
divinely commanded reticence.
[2414 7] In his Comm. on Lk. ili. 18 ‘‘ Multa quidem et alia exhortans
annunciabat,” Origen freely refers to Jn thus, ‘‘ De Christo refertur quia multa
et alia locutus est quae non sunt scripta in libro isto quae si scriberentur neque
ipsum puto mundum capere potuisse libros qui scribendi erant ”’ (combining xxi. 25
with xx. 30 ‘‘not written in this book” and substituting ‘‘locutus est” for ‘‘fecit”
so as to afford a parall. to Lk. iii. 18 ‘‘annunciabat”’). On Lk. iv. 1 he has ‘‘ Sicut
mundus capere non poterat omnes libros si scripta fuissent quae feczt et docuit
Jesus.” Bearing on the manysidedness of Christ’s acts and words is a remark of
Origen in his Comm. on Mt. xxvi. 55 indicating that he was disposed to believe
that Christ’s form was transfigured not only in the Transfiguration but on many
other occasions: ‘‘ Venit autem traditio talis ad nos de eo quoniam non solum
duae formae in eo fuerunt, una quidem, secundum quam omnes eum videbant,
altera autem, secundum quam transfiguratus est coram discipulis suis in monte,
quando et resplenduit facies ejus tanquam sol, sed etiam unicuique apparebat
secundum quod fuerat dignus. Et cum fuisset ipse, quasi non ipse omnibus
videbatur: secundum quod de manna est scriptum, quando Deus filiis Israel
panem misit de coelo omnem delectationem habentem, et ad omnem gustum
convenientem: quando desiderio offerentis obsequens, ad quod quis voluerat
vertebatur. Et non mihi videtur incredibilis esse traditio haec, sive corporaliter
propter ipsum Jesum, ut alio et alio modo videretur hominibus, sive propter ipsam
Verbi naturam, quod non similiter cunctis apparet.” This belief comes out in the
Acts of John (§ 2) where Christ standing on the shore of Gennesaret appears to
James as a ‘‘child” but to John as a man, and afterwards in different shapes.
[2414.¢] Again, Pamph. Mart. Pref. quotes from Origen ‘‘Ejus [Christi]
gloriamur esse discipuli, nec tamen audemus dicere quod facie ad faciem ab
ipso traditam susceperimus intelligentiam eorum quae in divinis libris referuntur :
‘quae quidem certus sum quod ne ipse quidem mundus’ pro virtute ac majestate
sensuum ‘capere potest,” and 26. 3 ‘‘Sicut scriptum est: ‘Me ipsum quidem:
AVE 305 20
[2415] PRONOUNS
[2415] On the whole it seems probable that the writer or editors
of this Gospel have put down at its close a grammatically irregular
utterance (perhaps one of the last utterances) of the aged Disciple,
which combined the spiritual meaning of Philo with the hyperbolic
expression customary among the teachers of Palestine. It also
corresponded to the evangelist’s saying in the Prologue that ‘the
law [of God] was given through Moses but the grace and the truth
[of God] came through Jesus Christ,” and it came well here as a final
warning: ‘‘Law may be put into writing but Grace and Truth
cannot. No, even if a world full of books were written, more books
would still need to be written, and yet the Grace of the Father and
the Truth of the Father—which were the ‘works’ of the Son—would
remain unexpressed.” ‘This statement has been placed in such
a context that it might seem to refer to the great number of Christ’s
“mighty works,” or “miracles.” But that was probably not the
Disciple’s intention.
[2416] According to this view, in its original utterance the saying
meant, in effect, “ Whatever things (atwa éav) may be written about
the Lord Jesus Christ, in detached narrative, [they will not suffice,
nay,| even the whole world will not suffice to hold—{I will not say
mundum capere posse arbitror libros qui scriberentur’ de gloria et de majestate
Filii Dei. Impossibile namque est literis committere ea quae ad Salvatoris
gloriam pertinent.” Here there is a distinct statement that the truths ‘‘ cannot
be committed to writing.” This is quite a different statement from ‘‘ the world
could not hold the books,” or ‘the mind of man could not take in the meaning.”
[2414 2] Origen’s view that ywpet, ‘‘ make room for,” has for its object, not
“books” but the attributes of the Logos, agrees both verbally and substantially
with Philo (i. 253) rls dv éxapnoe Beod Nbywr iaxiv Tov amdons Kpetoodyvwv ako7s...
ovde yap el mNovTov émdelxvutbar BovdrAnfein Tov EauTOV, Xwpjcat av (jreipwOelons
xal Oaddoons) ) cummaca yi, (i. 362) odd yap TaV Swpedy ixavos oddels YwpHrat
TO apOovoy mrHOos, isws dé ovde 6 Kdauos, (ii. 218) dpéyw TH XapiTos atiw macas
Scas dy olds re 7 OéEacAar Swpeds, Tiy 5 Euny KaTadnyw odx olov avOpwrov piats
aX’ 006’ 6 ctumas obpavds TE Kal Kbopos duvjoeTar Xwpjgat. In the context of
the first of these three passages, Philo describes the flow of God’s ‘“‘ graces
(xdpiras)” érépas avril éxelvwy kal rpiras avril rev devrépwr... in language remarkably
like that of John (i. 16 xdapw dvi xdpiros “* grace for grace’’); in the context of
the second he quotes Proverbs (viii. 22) as attesting the existence of the Wisdom
of God (which John calls the Logos) from the beginning. Add Long. De Sudd.
ix. 9 6 T&v “Tovdalwy Oecpobérns...rhv Tov Belov Sivauw Kara Thy akiay éxapnoe
katépnvev. Wetstein (ad doc.) quotes hyperbolical and literal traditions from the
Talmud, that the world and the sky and the sea would not supply paper pens
and ink sufficient to write out the knowledge of this or that Rabbi.
306
SUBJECT [2419]
the portrait of the Lord, but] the books that would have to be
written [in the attempt to represent Him ].”
SUBJECT?
(1) Collective or noun group
[2417] When the subject is a collective noun it may have in
agreement with it a singular participle followed by a plural verb as
IN Vil. 49 6 dyAos ovTOS 6 pa y-wooKwY TOV VOMoV érapaToé EioLY, XII. 12
6 oxXos Todds 6 eAGOv e€is THY EopTHY aKovoavTes...<l\aBov. These
two instances favour the plural reading in vi. 22 6 6xAos 6 éoryKs
tépav ths Oadacons etdov (marg. idwv)*. In a subsequent clause,
referring to “the multitude,” the plural would naturally be used as
in English, vi. 2 “There followed him a great multitude because
they beheld” (comp. Xi. 42, X11. 9, 18).
[2418] When the verb precedes several nouns that constitute its
subject, the verb is mostly in the singular’ But in a few cases
where perhaps the intention is, from the first, to set a list of names
before the reader, the verb is plural, as in xix. 25 “‘ Now ¢here were
standing...his mother, and his mother’s sister, and...,” xxi. 2 “ There
were together Simon Peter and Thomas and....” When a second
verb subsequently refers to two subjects introduced by a first verb in
the singular, the second verb is plural, xii. 22 epyerau ’A. kat ®. Kat
Néyovow, xx. 3 e&pdAOev ovv 6 IL. Kai 6 GAs pabyrHs Kai npxovto.
(ii) Neuter Plural
[2419] When the subject is a neuter plural, John’s usage varies
strangely. In most authors, the neuter plural with plural verb can
often be explained on the ground that though the author zwyrvz/es a
1 [2416 w] Deissmann (pp. 203—5) has given, from Papyri, more than fifty
instances of édy with 6s, dc0s, dmére, olos, ws, el Tis, darts, Grou (from B.C. 27 to
A.D. 586). From the same collections of Papyri he gives only eight instances of
dy with similar words. His conclusion concerning the use of édy for dv with these
relatival words is, ‘‘the first and second centuries A.D. constitute its definite
classical period ; it seems to become less frequent later.” These lists are not
put forth as exhaustive; but they decidedly favour the conclusion that in xxi. 25
atwa édv means ‘‘ whatsoever.”
2 See also Anacoluthon, Ellipsis, and Number.
3 (2417a] The changes are interesting in vi. 22—4 ‘‘ The multitude that was
standing (sing.)...[all] saw (pl.).... When therefore the m. sazw (sing. before the
vb, eidev 6 dxXos)...they themselves embarked (évé8noav airol)....”
4 [2418 a] i. 35, ii. 2, 12, iii. 22, iv. 53, xviii. 1, 15. Ini. 45 dv eypapev M.
év T@ vouw Kal oi rpopHrat, the last three words are of the nature of an appendix.
307 20—2
[2420] SUBJECT
neuter noun, he is ¢Azzking of a masculine or feminine noun. But
XIX. 31 Wa py petvy ert TOD oTavpod TA cwpata...iva KaTEayoow avTov
Ta oKéAy Kat apOwow exhibits the two constructions side by side: and
it can hardly be argued that oxéAy is more suggestive than cwpara of
“aq masculine noun.” Is it possible that 7a oxéAy is accusative,
a construction very common with xateayévat in such phrases as “to
have one’s head, skull, collar-bone etc. broken!”? This would have
the advantage of avoiding the abrupt change of subject in passing
from kateayaow to ap$dow (which, in classical Greek, would require
avtoi before dpOdow: “that their legs should be broken and ¢he men
themselves (abtot) carried away”). Without avroé, if oxéAy is nomin-
ative, the text reads as though the meaning were “‘that their legs
should be broken and carried away.” But if oxéAy is accusative, the
meaning is “that they should have their legs broken and be taken
away.” In vi. 13, kAacpdrwv...d érepicoevcav AN have -cev, but the
tendency to make this correction would be strong in some scribes ;
W.H. have -oay without alternative.
[2420] The following variations deserve attention, x. 3—27
‘ / a ~ n > “~ > ’ A , > ~ > , 6 col Lf
Ta TpoBata THS pwvys avtod axovel...7Ta TpoPata avtT@ aKxohovOet, OTL
oidacw...... adXorpiw b€ ov pH axohovOycovew...... OUK 7/KOvCaY ayTOV
Ta TpoBata...o0 ovK eoTW Ta mpdBata tdia...adda mpoBata exw & ovK
COMUNE at Kat THS Pwvys pov akovoovow...7a TpoBata Ta eua THS
gwvys pov dkovovow. At the beginning of the Parable the sheep are
regarded as a flock, collectively, acting in a certain way, “the flock
hearkens and follows.” But the thought of motive introduces the
thought of individuality and hence the grammatical plural, “ ¢hey
know...they will not follow.” Thenceforth individuality and plurality
prevail, except in the phrases describing to whom the flock “‘ de/ongs,”
where personality is merged in collectiveness.
(iii) Suspended
[2421] ‘O morevwy, in vil. 38 (“ He that believeth...rivers...shall
flow from his belly”) might be defended by some grammarians as
implying doris av murrevon (where dois might be regarded as having
1 [2419a] Steph. (kardyruue) qu. Plat. 342B, 515 with dra, Pollux iv. 188,
with «detv, Demosth. 1268. 3 and many others with kepadyyv.
[24194] The objection to this suggestion is that abrav should not have been
inserted, as ‘‘their” is sufficiently expressed by the article. No authority omits
a’rav, but a renders it ‘‘illis.”” D and SS are missing. Syr. (Walton) has ‘‘ut
confringerent crura eorum suspensorum atque deponerent eos,’ and so has the
Diatessaron. In Nonnus, rédes réuvowro favours the usual rendering.
308
SUBJECT [2422]
avrov for its antecedent), But the construction is Hebraic (1920—2)
as well as natural. In one or two passages, a word, or clause, with
neuter noun or adjective, might be either subject or object, e.g. xv. 2
wav kAnpa ev enol pn depov KapTov aiper avto. In the Parable of the
Sower, Matthew and Luke have 6 €ywv where Mark has és éxe', but
there 6 €ywv is the subject of axovérw.
(a) TI&nN 6 A€AwKaC (XVI. 2)
[2422] The following requires separate discussion, xvii. 2 (R.V.)
“Even as thou gavest him authority over all flesh, shat whatsoever
thou hast given him, to them he should give eternal life,” (A.V.) “that
he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him*.” R.V.,
though closer to the Greek than A.V., has substituted ‘‘ whatsoever ”
for “all that.” Grammatically, the Greek of the italicised words can
only be construed as follows: ‘“‘'That he may give all that thou hast
given him—[namely] eternal hfe—to them.” But the previous
sentence mentions no persons that could be here referred to as
“them,” so that this makes no sense. _D alters ‘‘ he may give” into
“may have” and omits “to them,” leaving “that all that thou hast
given to him may have eternal life.” This makes excellent sense
and grammar, but there is no reason for supposing that it was the
original text. Later on, we find “Father, [that] which (6) thou hast
given me, | will that where I am they also may be with me’®,” which
again indicates a desire to give prominence to the clause “ ¢hat which
thou hast given me” by assigning to it an irregular position in the
forefront of the sentence. In these two passages, “a// that (ray o)
thou hast given me” (with or without “all”) means the Church
collectively, and the subsequent pronoun (“to them,” “they also”)
means the members of the Church individually. In the second of
the two passages the pronoun happens to be capable of an apposi-
tional construction’, in the first it is not (1921—2). See also 2740—4.
1 Mk iv. g, Mt. xiii. 9, Lk. viii. 8: so Mt. vii. 24 was oty darts dxover= Lk.
Vi. 47 Tas 0...akovwv. Comp. Rev. ill. 21 6 vixéy dow abt, and Prov. xi. 26,
where, with a nom. particip., Aq. alone retains the Heb. idiom, xatapdcovrac
avtéy, while Theod. has énuoxardpatos, Sym. \aoxardparos.
* xvii. 2 Ka@ws COwkas atr@ éfovclay mdons capxds, va wav 6 dédwKas aro
Owoet avTols fwhy aiwvior.
® xvii. 24. Here D makes no alteration.
4 [2422] In xvii. 24, we might theoretically explain the construction as 0é\w
iva 6 dédwkds wor—éxetvor Wow per’ €uod: but the author must not be supposed to
have premeditated any such construction.
5389)
[2423] SUBJECT
(iv) Omitted in partitive clauses
[2423] For the omission of the subject in a partitive clause as in
xvi. 17 “‘[Some] of his disciples therefore said,” and for consequent
ambiguity, see 2042 and 2213—5.
(v) ‘* They ’’ non=pronominal
[2424] The subject is sometimes omitted by John—not quite
after the manner of Mark when he uses the 3rd pers. pl. of a verb to
mean “people ”—zf “they” can be implied from something in the
context, e.g. ii. 10 ‘Every man first putteth the good wine [before his
guests], and, when [/Zey] have drunk freely...’,” iii. 23 ‘‘ Now John
also was baptizing in Afnon...and [//ey, i.e. ‘those whom he
baptized’|] came thither (zapeyivovro) and were baptized.”
[2425] In xviii. 25 “Now Simon Peter was...warming himself.
[They] said therefore...,” we must not render “they” by “people”
but must go back to xviii. 18 “ Now Peter also was standing with them
and warming himself,” treating the intervening words (xvill. 19 —24)
as a parenthesis. In xix. 29 “there was set there a vessel full
of vinegar,” the evangelist probably assumes that “vinegar” would
be understood to mean “ zz7ne for the soldiers on guard” (just as, in
ii. 10, “wine” implied “wine for the guests”). Consequently he
assumes that the following words, ‘“‘so [they] put a sponge,” would
be understood to refer to ‘the soldiers.” In xx. 1—2 “ Mary
Magdalene...seeth the stone taken away from the tomb ; she runneth
therefore...and sayeth...[‘ They] have taken the Lord out of the
tomb,’” “they” cannot mean “people.” Mary’s mind is full of the
thought of Christ and of what His enemies have done to Him.
She infers, from what she naturally regards as a hostile act, that the
chief priests, not content with killing Him, have removed the body,
and “they” means “the chief priests,” or ‘the Lord’s enemies.”
1 [2424] R.V.supplies ‘‘men.” But ‘ putteth”? means ‘ puts on the table,”
and the subject appears to be ‘those at the table,’’ not ‘‘men [in general].” ‘This
is somewhat different from the indefinite ‘‘¢ey” so frequent in Mark—and
common in vernacular English, like the French ‘‘ on ”—where the pronoun does
not refer to any noun expressed or implied in the context.
2 [2425] Similarly, in ix. 24 ‘‘[¢4ey] therefore called,” we have to pass over
the immediately preceding verse about the man’s ‘‘parents”’ and to go back to the
statement about ‘‘the Jews.”
310
SUBJECT [2427]
Reviewing the instances, so far, we do not find any in which the
missing subject cannot be supplied from the context’.
[2426] We come now to omissions of the subject in words
of our Lord. In one of them, ‘‘¢sey” appears to refer to “the
world” previously mentioned “If the wor/d hateth you, reflect that it
hath hated me...remember the word that I said unto you, ‘The
servant is not greater than his Lord.’ If [¢#ey] persecuted me they
will persecute you also®.” But there is nothing for the pronoun to
refer to in the earlier instance ‘‘If a man abide not in me he is cast
forth as the branch [of the vine] and is withered, and THEY gather
them and cast them into the fire and they are burned’.” Here,
theoretically, we might supply “people,” and if the passage occurred
in Mark that would perhaps be the best rendering ; but as there has
been no previous mention of vine-dressers, and as there has been a
previous mention of the Father as “cleansing ” the vine, it is probable
that THEY W—in accordance with frequent Jewish tradition as well as
occasional Synoptic usage—means ‘‘the powers of heaven” or ‘the
angels.”
(vi) ‘*We” non-pronominal*
[2427] “We” non-pronominal—z.e. expressed by verbal inflexion
and not by pronoun—in 1 Jn 1.1 “that which ze have heard, that
which we have seen with our eyes...,” appears to mean the writer of
the Epistle and his companions, as ‘‘we” means in the opening
sentences of a Pauline Epistle: but it may mean ‘we all,” “we
disciples of Christ,” as probably in 1 Jn u. 28 “And now, little
children, abide in him, that, if he shall be manifested qe [a//] may
have confidence.” The most serious ambiguity arising from this use
of “we” is in xxi. 24 “ze know that his witness is true.” Are these
1 [24256] With these contrast Mk i. 32 (Mt. vili. 16 sim.) ‘*But in the
evening...[¢4ey] brought unto him all that were sick” (where Mk i. 29—31 has
previously mentioned the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law without any suggestion
of persons that could be called ‘‘they”’); the parall. Lk. iv. 40 has ‘‘ Ad/ that had
sick folk...led them to him.”
2 xv. 16—20, where ‘‘the world” is six times mentioned.
3 xv. 6. On THEY, see 667a, 738a—d. On the alleged omission of an
indefinite subject, ‘‘any one,’’ and on the question whether 6 maryp avrod is
predicate or subject, in viii. 44, see 2378—9.
4 [2427a] The difference between the non-pronominal and the pronominal
“‘we” is illustrated by r Jn ili. 2, v. 15 (625), 19, 20 ol6apev and ili. 14 Huets oldauey
(where ‘‘we” is opposed to ‘‘the world”). In Jn vi. 42, ix. 24, 29 ‘‘we (pets)
know” implies ‘‘zve know, even if others do not” (2399—2400).
ei
[2428] SUBJECT
the words of the evangelist, and do they mean “ We al/ know that
the witness of the Son to the Father is true”? Or are they the
words of some unknown persons, e.g. the elders of the Church of the
city where the evangelist was writing, and do they mean, in effect,
“ We {elders of Ephesus, Antioch, or Jerusalem] hereby certify that
the witness of this evangelist is true” ?
[2428] Before discussing this very important passage, we may
mention some instances in which our Lord includes Himself in the
non-pronominal “we” :—ill. 11 (to Nicodemus) “ We speak that
which we know and testify that which we have seen and ye receive not
our testimony,” vi. 5 (to Philip) ‘‘ Whence are ze to buy bread that
these may eat?” xiv. 31 “ Arise, let ws go (adywpev) hence.” In the
first of these, there may be, on the surface, some slight irony—when
our Lord ranks Himself with other teachers of spiritual truth, in
addressing Nicodemus, who had called Him (iu. 2) “@ teacher,” and
whom He had called (i. 10) ‘“¢he teacher.” But there is also
an inner meaning, namely that the Son is ‘‘not alone” in His
testimony, which corresponds to that of “two men!,” being the
testimony of the Father and the Son, so that “we speak” means
“the Father and I speak.” A similar inner meaning seems to belong
to vi. 5 “Whence are we to buy bread,” where the Johannine
“buying”—an entirely new version of the parallel Synoptic
‘‘ buying” ””—appears to be typical of the procuring of the Eucharistic
“flesh” and “ blood,” the sacrifice ordained by the Father and offered
by the Son. The third instance has been discussed elsewhere, and it
has been shewn that “ Arise ye, let us go,” is a tradition of Mark and
Matthew omitted by Luke and liable to be misunderstood as meaning
flight, but really meaning appeal to Justice. It ought however to be
added that the insertion of “hence” by John (“Arise ye, let us go
hence”) assimilates the words to a famous tradition recorded by
Josephus that before Jerusalem was taken by the Romans there was
a noise in the Temple as of a rushing host, and the gate opened, and
a Voice was heard, ‘‘ Let us pass hence (évredOev)*.” Of course these
last two passages also have their literal meaning, in which Christ
associates Himself with the disciples: but the non-pronominal “we,”
1 viii. 16, 17 and context.
2 [2428a] Mk vi. 36—7 ‘‘that they may buy...are we to buy,” Mt. xiv. 15
“that they may buy,” Lk. ix. 13 ‘‘unless...we are to buy.” In Mk-Lk. “we”
means the disciples. Chrys., however, in Jn, omits the ‘t buying.” See 2745.
3 See Paradosis, 1872—7 and Joseph. #ell/. vi. 5. 3.
312
SUBJECT [2428 ]
in a saying of Christ, is so fraught with probabilities of latent
mysticism that it gives us very little help on the words, not uttered
by Christ, now under discussion (xxi. 24) “ We know that his testimony
ISeeEUG.
lV [2428 4] In ix. 4 “We (juas, al. éué) mast work (det épyafecda) the works of
him that sent me (ye, al. 7uds),” the insertion of judas differentiates the passage
from those quoted above: but it will be discussed here, because, unless it can be
shewn to be corrupt, it would seem to shew that, here at all events, Christ does
place Himself on a level with His disciples in the emphatic nuads. The preceding
words are va pavepwOy Ta Epya Tod Oeod év atrw, ‘‘that the works of God might
be manifested in him,” z.e. in the man born blind. Then follows, in B, nuas dec
epyageode (2.e. -at, to work). Origen twice (Huet i. 125, ii. 25) omits muds de?
and quotes the saying as beginning with épydfeode ‘‘work ye.”
[2428 c] D has & nuas epyagec@ar. This might mean ‘‘for our sakes. Work
ye.” But D means 6e¢ by 6, ‘‘it is necessary for us to work.” Mss. often express
ec by « (see Boeckh Zzscr. Gr. 4588 xe 6u=xal dec) and errors arise in consequence.
Again judas and tds are liable to confusion—as may be seen from Jn viii. 54, 1 Jn
i. 4 where W.H. give the two (tuay and 7juev) as alternatives. Origen, then,
might easily have read the words before épyaferGe as 6c’ buds ‘‘in order that the
works of God may be manifested in him, z.e. the blind man, for your sakes.”
This would make excellent sense. Comp. xi. 42 (in the Raising of Lazarus) dca
Tov dxNov...elrov, **I said it for the sake of the multitude,” xii. 30 ob bu’ Eve h pwvy
atirn yéyovey adda 6’ buds, “for your sakes,” and so, xi. 15 xalpw de was va
TLOTEVTNTE.
[24287] SS has ‘‘azad me it behoves to do...,” and so Ephrem (p. 197) ‘‘e¢
me oportet operari....”” The Vat. Ms. of the Arabic Diatess. (ed. Hogg) has, as
the preceding words, ‘“‘that we may see the works of God in him,” and the
Clementine Homilies (xix. 22 Clark) have ‘‘that the owe of God might be made
manifest through him in healing the sins of ignorance.’’ SS, Diatess. and the
Latin vss all have ‘‘me” twice (‘‘it behoves me—him that sent me’’), but N*L
have ‘‘us” twice.
[2428] Origen’s first quotation is in a comment on Jer. xiii. 16 ‘‘Give glory
to the Lord your God before (marg.) it grow dark,” thus (Huet i. 125) ‘‘ Perhaps
we shall understand this scripture (rd yeypaupévov) by applying (xpnodmevor) a
Gospel saying uttered by the Saviour, which runs thus (ows éyovon) ‘Work while
(€ws) it is day. There cometh night when no man can work.’” He adds that
Christ gives the name of ‘‘day” to ‘‘this world,” contrary to custom. His second
is from the early part of his commentary on John (Huet ii. 25) ‘‘ He says to them
that are partakers of His own Light, ‘Work as (ws) it is day. There cometh night
when no man can any longer (ovxéri o¥deis) work: when (dérav) I am in the world
I am the light of the world.” It will be observed that in both these quotations
Origen omits ‘‘the works of him that sent me (or, us)”: and the length of the
quotation, in the second instance, suggests that he is not quoting from memory
but from Ms. These and other variations, if they do not demonstrate that the
passage is corrupt, suffice to shew that W.H.’s text cannot be relied on as a proof
that Jesus here uses judas to mean ‘‘ My disciples and I.”
313
[2429] SUBJECT
(a) “We know (oiAamen)” (xxi, 24)
[2429] We return to the discussion of the words “we Anow that
his witness is true,” in the hope of ascertaining what “we” means.
According to the analogy of the Epistle, it might mean (1) the
writer, associating himself with others (“ze a// know”), or (2) with
some fellow-evangelists or fellow-teachers (“we know”) as distinct
from those who are taught, who might be addressed as “you.” Both
these meanings occur (2427) in the Epistle. But it might mean
(3) “we, the elders of the Church among whom this Gospel has been
preached and is now being published, know that the witness of the
evangelist is true.” This third hypothesis must not be discredited
by the mere fact that such an attestation is unique in this Gospel.
For how could it well be otherwise? It would come naturally at the
end of the book, once for all.
[2430] One argument against this third hypothesis is the fact
that it does not come quite at the end of the book. After it there
comes one more sentence, which contains the first person singular,
xxl. 25 “But there are also many other things that Jesus did, the
which (?) ¢f they are to be written (éav ypapytat) one by one, I think
not even the world will hold the books that are [to be] written.”
Portions of this sentence are repeatedly (2414 4—/) quoted by Origen,
and thrice as coming from the evangelist. It could hardly come
from any one else, at least in substance”. For what mere scribe, or
Editor, would venture to append his own expression of personal
opinion to such a work as the Fourth Gospel? Moreover, it
exhibits a strong sense of the inadequacy of any “books” to
represent the multiform action of Jesus—just such a sense as we
might suppose likely to be expressed again and again by a very aged
' [2430a] “Eorw dé cal édda ToANG a érolncey 6'T., aTwa édy ypddynra Kad’ éy,
ovd" avréy olua Tov Kéomov xwphoew Tad ypaddueva BiBla. On adrwa édy as
generally meaning ‘‘whatsoever things” but here, possibly if the text is correct,
‘which things, if,” see 2414—6.
® [24304] Tischendorf says that xxi. 25, in &, is written by a different scribe
from the one that wrote the body of the Gospel. But this scribe (according to
W.H. ad Joc.) appears to have been D, the diopAwris, or corrector, of the Ms.,
who also probably (according to Tischendorf (8 p. xxi)) wrote the last leaf of Mk
and the first of Lk., as well as what may be described as the title and the
salutation in Rey. i. 1—4 ‘*The Revelation...and from the seven Spirits which are
before the throne and from Jesus Christ.” These facts are consistent with the
hypothesis that the change of handwriting may imply some special circumstances
but not necessarily interpolation or diminished authority,
314
SUBJECT [2433]
disciple of Jesus contrasting his personal recollections of the Lord
with “the books that were being written.”
[2431] This postscript must be compared with a previous post-
script. After the manifestation to Thomas ending with the words,
“Blessed are they that have not seen and [yet] have believed,” the
writer adds, xx. 30—1 “‘ Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the
presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book. But
these have been written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ
the Son of God, and that, believing, ye may have life in his name.”
This apparently deals solely with the Resurrection and the signs
wrought by the Lord “in the presence of (2335) the disciples ” after
the Resurrection, committed to writing in order that, profiting by
the rebuke to Thomas, the readers of his narrative (“ye”) might be
“blessed,” “not having seen and yet having believed.”
[2432] That would seem to have been a fit termination to the
Gospel—a statement of its object, addressed by the impersonal
writer to the readers in the second person “that ye may have life in
his name.” But something seems to have happened to make
another termination desirable. The reputed author, or originator—
the disciple whom Jesus loved—lived (so says tradition) to a great
age prolonged past decrepitude: and it was commonly reported, on
the basis of an utterance imputed to Christ Himself, that he was
not to die till our Lord’s coming. When the old man’s end had
arrived’, or drew manifestly near, it would become desirable to
contradict this rumour and to shew how it had arisen. For this
purpose an account of the utterance and of its occasion and circum-
stances was committed to writing. And this we find in the last
chapter.
[2433] These circumstances would be exceptional, and might
well explain an exceptional conclusion. After this Appendix (con-
cerning what may be called the Johannine manifestation of the
Resurrection) had been written out, it may have been submitted to
the aged Disciple of the Lord, to receive, perhaps, a word or two of
writing in his own hand like that at the end of the Epistle to the
Galatians “in large letters.” If so, it might be difficult to say which
* [2432] The difficult words ‘‘ This is the disciple that Jeareth witness” and
“*he that wrote” (2166) do not necessarily imply that he was still living to bear
witness. On the contrary they might be written (in any Christian Church familiar
with the saying (Heb. xi. 4) about Abel) to indicate that the aged Disciple ‘‘being
dead yet speaketh.”
ape)
[2434 | SUBJECT
part of the Postscript belonged to the evangelist—who regards
himself as writing the Gospel in the Disciple’s name—which part
(if any) to the Elders of the Church, and which to the Disciple
himself’. Chrysostom most certainly recognises nothing as coming
from Elders. And he quotes otdayev, once at least, as oida, “7
know, he says, that the things that he says are true.” One might
have supposed this to mean that the evangelist was “setting his
seal” to the truth of the “testimony” of Christ® about which the
Gospel speaks so often: but apparently Chrysostom means “I know
that the things I said about Him were true.” The context is not
very clear, and it is possible that Chrysostom may have read oiéa
pev and éeorw oe, although he quotes the text freely as otda and
éorTt yap’.
[2434] Some variations in the mss. and Latin versions add to
the uncertainty of interpretation®. Of course unaccented Greek mss.
would give no guidance as to olAamen whether it was to be taken as
two words or one. The main internal evidence for men, “on the
one hand,” is found in the following éorw dé: but this is omitted by
SS and by the best Latin versions®. Yet eorw d€ is almost certainly
1 [2433a] The same difficulty of distinction would arise if the Disciple died
before this attestation and if the writer of the Gospel or the Elders attached to the
MS. a fragment in the Disciple’s handwriting recording a favourite saying of his
about the inadequacy of books.
* [24334] Kal oléa, Pyotr, drt dd\yO7 Eotw a Néyer. Above, the text is printed
as oléauev, but this might be an error for of6a wév. Chrys. previously speaks of
the evangelist as ‘‘testifying to himself (uaprupay éavT@).”’
3 iii. 33 6 AaBwy avrod Thy wapruplay éoppayicev Ort 6 Geos aXnOys Ear, Comp.
Vill. 14 aGAnOHs éoTiv N Maprupia pov. j
4 [2433 c] The pév after ofa may have been omitted because the rest of the
sentence was not given, and the éore yap in éore yap dnote kal dAXNa 7od\Na May
have been a part of Chrysostom’s framework of the quotation, not a part of the
quotation itself.
® [2434a] SS has the past (‘‘dave witness”) and omits éorw dé, ofwac and
“itself” (in ‘‘the world z¢se/f”): ‘‘This is the disciple that dave witness of these
things and wrote them and we know that true is his witness. And many other
things did Jesus, that if one by one they were [all] written the world would not
be sufficient for them.” Codex a perhaps took the Latin ‘‘Azs” for zhs, i.e. ‘‘Jesus,”
and it repeats ‘‘scimus” and turns ‘‘qui” into ‘‘quis” thus, ‘‘ Hic est discipulus
qui testificatur de /esw et guzs scripsit haec sczmus; et scimus quod verum est
testimonium ejus.” W.H. give txt 6 waprupav rep rovTwy Kal 6 ypawas raira, but
marg. kal (before waprup&v) and [6] cal for cal 6, Ze. 6 Kal paprupdy a. 7. [6] Kal
ypawas Tavra,
§ [24344] Oldamev occurs in i Jn iii. 2, v. 15 (425), v- 19, 20, and jets oldauer
316
SUBJECT [2435]
an integral part of the sentence in which it stands. If both ofa pév
and éorw d€ belonged to ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved,” the most
natural explanation of ‘“‘ Azs testimony ” is ‘‘ Christ’s testimony ” ; and
the Disciple must here be regarded as declaring his conviction that,
whether he is to await the Lord’s coming or to die—however much
some may have misinterpreted the words “If I will that he tarry ”—
the Lord’s testimony, and especially the testimony after the Resur-
rection, is absolutely true’.
[2435] On the whole, the most probable conclusion is that
oidayev is one word and represents the attestation of unnamed
persons, and that the words following the attestation in the first
person are an addition, supposed to come from the teaching of the
aged Disciple, repeating, in effect, what he had said at the conclusion
of the first edition of the Gospel. Then he had said that there were
many more details, “not written in this book,” of that vivid period
after the Resurrection during which the Saviour was continually
manifesting Himself to the disciples. Now he says that “‘if these
details continue to be written,” the world will not “hold” or
‘contain ” all this ‘writing of books ”—and he probably implies also
that, ‘‘whatever number of these details may be written,” the
ini Jnii. ry. In all these cases it means ‘‘ We, the disciples of Christ, know.”
On the one hand, this might be urged as shewing that of6a méy would be assimi-
lated to the phrase in the Epistle by the error of scribes. But it seems to me
a stronger argument, that a writer so fond of oi6ayey would not write ofda pév.
1 [2434¢] Strictly after of6a wév we should have something like Eurip. W7zpfol.
1091 ws oda wév Tair’, oida S ovx brws dpdow: but the clause with dé strays away
as in Jn x. 41 (2169). A much more serious objection is that if the Apostle had
meant ‘‘Do not lay stress on we as bearing witness. It is rather He that beareth
witness and I know that //zs witness is true,” he would have said éketvos, as the
Epistle, not adrés (2382—4),
[2434 a] If oidauev proceeded from the evangelist as part of the same sentence
in which he also says oijwat, we should have to suppose the meaning to be ‘‘ We
[the disciples of Christ, all] know that the testimony of the Lord is true, but...,”
which seems improbable.
[2434¢e] On Ron. vii. 14 oldapev yap bre 6 vdmos mrevpatixds €orw, Alford says
that Jerome has ‘‘sczo.” Gennadius (Cramer) certainly read o@éa pév, for he has
emlotamat Ott 0 vouos mv. €. Cyril may have done so, for he has duwpudy pow
eivat TOV vomov, oid€ yap auwmous amoredety. This is applied to David, asa parallel
to the Apostle, who loxupiferar wév bre mvevwariKds 6 vduos aitidras dé Thy avOpwmrov
giow. Olde and pév combine to suggest that he read oiéa wev. Origen (Lomm.
vil. 3I—2) seems to recognise, and to correct, this interpretation, by saying—after
quoting the text with ‘‘sc¢mzas”—‘‘ Legem vero spiritualem esse 207 solus Paulus
sczebat, sed et hi qui ab ipso imbuebantur.”’
317
[2436] TENSE
portrait of the Saviour will not be “held” or “contained” in the
“ books}.” ‘
TENSE
[2436] Tense-idioms will be conveniently arranged under sub-
divisions of Mood. Tense-rules are sometimes interfered with
by word-rules, e.g. the perfects of some verbs are rarely or never used,
so that writers may be led to use the aorist for the perfect in those
words. Hence the difference between two writers can sometimes be
best illustrated by comparing, not their tense-usage in general, but
their uses of the tense of one or two words in particular: and the
shades of meaning intended by a single writer can often be perceived
in the same way.
I. IN THE IMPERATIVE MoopD
(i) Aorist (first) and Present
[2437] The first aorist imperative is (1) sometimes more definite,
(2) sometimes more authoritative’, (3) sometimes more solemn® than
the present imperative, which may denote continuous action. John
uses the aorist “abide” in the Lord’s mouth, but the present is used
1 [2435a] It is desirable to make ‘‘books” the last word in the English
rendering so as to call attention to its emphatic position. Comp. the saying
of Papias (Eus. iii. 39. 4) ‘‘I did not think I should be so much helped by
what I could get from [the] dooks as by the [truths that came] from living and
abiding Voice,” od yap 7a €k [Tv] BiBXiwy TocotTdy we wpehew brehauBavor door
Ta mapa (wons pws kai wevovons. Nonnus omits the words cat oldamev dru ddynOis
avTod 7 waprupla éorly.
2 [2437a] But different writers might take different views of the authoritative-
ness of the same utterance. Comp. Mk vi. ro, Lk. ix. 4 muévere, but parall.
Mt. x. 11 welvare. Here we might say that Mk-Lk. meant ‘‘continue to abide.”
No such explanation avails for Mk vi. 11, Mt. x. 14 éxrwagare, Lk. ix. §
dmorwdooere. But note that Lk. ix. 5 dco: av un SéxwvTa...dmoTrwaccete, twice
uses the pres., while Mk vi. 11, Mt. x. 14 ds dv (Mk+7670s) uy d€Enrae...
éxtwdéare ¢wice use the aorist. Perh. Lk. means ‘‘do so habitually.” Comp.
Lk. ix. 23 ‘‘take up the cross daz/y” where the parall. Mk viii. 34, Mt. xvi. 24
omit ‘‘daily.”’
3 [24374] ‘More solemn.” £.g. Jn xiv. 8 Settov, in Philip’s mouth, is
‘“solemn” and reverential (but not authoritative)—like Kupre, 6¢(5aéov in Lk. xi. 1,
éuddvicby jot ceavréy in the corresponding prayer of Moses (Ex. xxxiii. 13, 18)
and édénoov passim. So “thou,” in Elizabethan English, is used to the Highest,
and to the lowest.
318
AORIST AND PRESENT IMPERATIVE [2439 |
by the writer of the Epistle’. The authoritative imperative occurs
in the miracle at Cana, i. 5 (Christ’s mother) zowmoare, ii. 7—-8
(Christ) yeuioare,...dvrAyoare: at the Cleansing of the Temple,
li. 16 apare, and ii. 19 AvVoare: in Christ’s words to the Samaritan
woman, iv. 16 @wvynoov cov tov avépa, and afterwards to the disciples,
lv. 35 émaparte...xat Oeaoacbe: in the Feeding of the Five Thousand,
Vl. IO mowyoate: in the Healing of the Blind, ix. ai Uraye vivac :
in the Raising of Lazarus, xi. 39, 44 apare,...\voare: in the rejected
(937—40) prayer xii. 27 c@oov pe, and inthe accepted prayer (zd.)
dofacov cov To ovoza: in the last words to Judas Iscariot, xiii. 27
moinrov taxeov: in the Last Discourse, xv. 9 petvare ev TH dyary TH
€y: in the narrative of the Draught of Fish and the subsequent
meal, xxi. 1o—12 evéyxate and apiotyoare.
[2438] The instance in the Last Discourse (‘‘ Abide in my love”)
is perhaps the nearest approach to an authoritative command (in
John) to obey a moral or spiritual precept. Our Lord never uses
(1507 a) the authoritative form of the imperative in “ believe ye,” but
frequently the present imperative, which occurs also in vi. 27 épya-
CeoOe, vil. 24 kKpivere, and xil. 35 zepuraretre etc.2 The three
Synoptists have ‘“‘thou shalt love.” Two (Mt.-Lk.) have “love ye
(ayarare).” John has neither. Yet his Gospel connects “love”
with what Christ calls “my commandment,” and his Epistle abounds
in “love ”—but never “love ye” except in the phrase “love not the
world.”
[2439] John’s avoidance of the aorist imperative of murevw may
be illustrated by the charge brought by Celsus against the Christians
who, he asserts, authoritatively exclaim “Believe!” (aorist im-
perative) instead of allowing time for reasonable examination
(present imperative) “ Do not spend time in examining (py é&éra€e),
”
.
1 [2437 c] Jn xv. 4,9 melvare, but 1 Jn ii. 28 wévere (comp. 2 Tim. iii. 14 péve).
Mk xiv. 34, Mt. xxvi. 38 meivare woe is an utterance of the Lord. Lk. xxiv. 29
Meivov we0” uay may represent the (zd.) ‘‘constraint” put on the unknown Lord by
the two disciples (‘‘thou must needs abide with us”).
* [2438 a] In ii. 8 dvrA\joare x. Pépere, Vv. 1 dpov K. wepimdres why have we
not €véykare (as in xxi. 10) and wepimdrynoov? Probably because only the first
action is to be done at once.
[24384] The remarks in this section apply only to the first aorist imperative.
The second aorist has not this solemn or authoritative meaning. Indeed, in
special words, the second aorist may be less authoritative than the present. For
example, in iv. 16 @avyoor...x. EXO, it is probable that the substitution of épxou
for €\@é would have been more solemn (as in i. 46, xi. 34, Rev. vi. 1, 3, 5, 7;
xxii. 17 (425), 20) or authoritative (as in Mt. viii. 9, Lk. vii. 8).
319
[2439 (i) | TENSE
but delieve at once (xictevoov)'.” The aorist imperative is indeed
assigned to Christ once (so W.H. without alternative) by Luke, in
the Healing of Jairus’s daughter. But the corresponding passage in
Mark has the present*. Mark again prefers the present imperative
in xiii. 21 “If anyone say unto you, ‘See, here is the Christ,’ (lit.)
Be not disposed to believe (pn murrevere)” where Matthew has (xxiv.
23, 26) “Believe [them] not,” py miorevonre. This use of the
present imperative (Mk xi. 21 ‘‘de not disposed to believe”) may
perhaps be applied politely to things already done (like the formula
“let not my lord say so,” applied to what is already said) as in Jn
XIX. 21 47) ypade, concerning what is already written. Itis equivalent
to “let not my lord write,” and invites Pilate to cancel what he has
written *.
[2439 (i)] Both Origen and Chrysostom accept without question
the imperative rendering of épavvaw in v. 38—g Tov Aoyov...ovK
EXETE...OTL...00 TuoTEveTE, epavvaTe Tas ypadds, OTL vets doxKetTe €V
autats Cwnv aiwviov €xew* Kal exetval eiow at papTupodvorat Tepl ewov* Kal
ov Oédere €AGety zpos pe..... But against this view is the fact that
in the few cases where épavvaw is imperative in O.T. and N.T. the
aorist is used*, and that one of these passages is in John and refers
to the searching of Scripture. Chrysostom says that the Jews merely
‘“‘yead” the Scripture whereas Christ bade them “‘ search” and “ dig”
in them. But the answer is (1) that the Jews dd “search,” (2) that
their term “ Midrash” implied most diligent “searching,” and (3) that
the Pharisees themselves exhorted Nicodemus to “search.” It is
also antecedently more probable that Christ would have advised the
Jews to turn their hearts toward the love of God rather than to
“ search the Scriptures.” Moreover the indicative agrees better with
the indicatives that precede and follow: “‘ Ye have not his word in
you...because...ye believe not. Ye search the Scriptures (1722 g)
1 [2439a] Orig. Cels. i. g. He might have said uy é&erdons if he had not
wished to emphasize the lingering over the task of examining.
* [24396] Mk v. 36 ovo mioreve, Lk. viii. 50 uévoy miarevoov Kai cwOjoeTat,
‘only a special act of faith and she will be healed!” Comp. Epict. Aragm. § 3
‘“If you wish to be good, first believe once for all (rlarevoov) that you are bad.”
3 The explanation ‘‘ Do not persist in writing” would apply to Jn xix. 21, but
not to Mk xiii. 21.
4 [2439 (i)a] 2 K. x. 23 épavwvyjoare xal Were, Jer. 1. 26 épavyjoare adriy,
Jn vii. 52 épatvnoov cai te. Comp. Judg. xviii. 2 (A) éEepauvyoare (of which
the pres. imper. does not occur in LXX). Of course these facts prove little except
that the pres. imper. was not in common use.
320
AORIST AND PRESENT IMPERATIVE [2489 (iii)]
[book by book] because ye suppose...and they are they that testify of
me, and [yet] ve destve not to come to me.”
[2439 (ii)] In xii. 19 of ody ®, eirav mpods Eavrovs, Oewpetre Ore odK
wodedcire ovdéev, A.V. has ‘ Perceive ye... ?’ R.V. ‘ Behold ” imper., but
marg. ‘Ye behold.” The indicative is supported by Acts xix. 25—6
eriotacbe—xai Oewpeite Kal axovere, 2.¢. “ye behold with your own
eyes, or see for yourselves,” where the Ephesians are asked to
“behold” how ‘this Paul” has perverted almost the whole of
Asia—a passage remarkably like the Johannine one, in which a
similar charge is brought against Jesus. @ewpeire is also indicatively
used in Acts xxv. 24 and Oewpets in Acts xxi. 20. “Thou seest [for
thyself] brother [without words from us] how many myriads there
are....” The imperative (twice) in LXX is followed by an accusative
or wés, and nowhere by a clause with orc’. On the whole, the
meaning probably is ‘‘ Ye see for yourselves that ye profit nothing.
Behold (ide)! the world hath gone after him.” If so, the conclusion
slightly confirms the view that epavvare above (24389 (i))—which is
similarly initial and without tmets—is also indicative. Comp. Jas
il. 24 pare ore e€ Epywv dukavodrat avOpwros where R.V. has ‘ye see”
without alternative’.
[2439 (i1)] Avoare in ii. 19 “destroy this temple and in three
days I will raise it up” is explained by Blass (p. 221) as ‘‘ equivalent
to a concessive sentence... = éav Kai Avante” and illustrated by Soph.
Ant, 1168 ff. and also (2. p. 321) by “Eph. iv. 26 O.T. dpyileoe
Kal py dpaptavere, Which must mean ‘angry you may be, but do not sin
withal.’” This last passage, however, is from Ps. iv. 4 “Stand in
awe (marg. be ye angry) and sin not,” and Origen, ad /oc., after a
long discussion of LX X épyi€eo6e, which, he says, may be “indicative
(6purtexov)” or “imperative (zpootaxtixov)” decides for the former.
Of course he may be wrong, but his decision makes it probable that
the LXX meant the indicative and that St Paul took it so: “ Ye are
1 [2439 (ii) @] Comp. iv. 19 GewpS bre rpopyrys ef ov, ‘I see [without more
words] that thou art a prophet.’’ The imper. occurs in 2 Macc. vil. 17 Gewper
TO meyahetov av’rov kpdros. In 4 Mace. xiv. 13 pi Gavwacrov nyetobe...Pewpetre dé
m@s..., and in Aischin. p. 13, 19 (quoted by Steph.) Qewpe’re TO mpadyua wn ex Tod
mapovTos, the contextual 4 prepares for, or subsequently suggests, the imperative.
In Heb. vii. 4 Oewpetre 6 mydikos ovTos, the dé makes it prob. that @. is imper. ;
but it might be a parenthetic indic. following the details about Melchizedek: ‘* But
ye see for yourselves how great this man was.” Tob. xii. 19 (S) Qewpetre is.
doubtful. The oratorical imper. is naturally predominant in Demosth. (see Preuss).
2 On xiv. 1 (R.V.) ‘* Ye believe (marg. Believe),” see 2237 foll.
A. VI. 321 21
[2439 (iv)| TENSE
angry [from time to time, it needs must be so], but? do not let your
anger become a sin.”
[2439 (iv)] What might be called a ‘“‘concessive” imperative
occurs in Eccles. xi. 9 ‘“ Rejoice, young man, in thy youth...and
walk in the ways of thine heart and in the sight of thine eyes, but
(Heb. and) know that for all these things God shall bring thee into
judgment’.” This imperative—which might perhaps be better called
“minatory,” for it implies a threat, ‘“‘do this if you will, but at your
peril,” “do this, but take the consequences ”—is well instanced in
Epict. iv. 9. 18, addressing those who seek other objects than virtue,
“Tf thou seekest...continue doing as thou art doing (oie a roveis),
not even a god can any longer save thee.” ‘This ‘‘minatory” im-
perative is common to all languages, e.g. Is. viii. 9 ‘‘ Wake an uproar
...and be broken in pieces,” Soph. Anz. 1168, in effect “Go on
making money and it will all be a shadow” etc.
[2439 (v)] Whether il. 19 Avoare should be called a “ concessive ”
or “‘minatory,” or some other imperative is rather a matter of taste
than of grammar. I should prefer to illustrate it by the imperatives
in Isaiah vi. 9 “Go and tell this people, Hear ye indeed but uzder-
stand not; and see ye indeed but ferceve not” uttered in obedience
to the command of Jehovah, “‘ Wake the heart of this people fat.” So
after the cleansing of the Temple by Jesus, when the Jews refuse to
accept the act, Christ regards them as virtually bent on defiling and
destroying the Temple, and says, in effect, ‘‘ Destroy zt, then, and
I will raise it up.” And similarly when Judas, after the washing of
feet, and after receiving the ‘‘sop,” adheres to his treachery and
receives Satan into his heart, Christ says, “ What thou art doing, do
more quickly.” With the condemnation of Israel by Jehovah pro-
nounced by Isaiah it is usual to connect the phrase “judicial
blindness”: and perhaps we might say that John regards the verbs
in il. 19 and xiii. 27 as “judicial imperatives*.”
1 [2439 (iii)a@] The Hebrew vaw, ‘‘ and,” so often means ‘‘but” that the
ILXX may well have taken it thus here. Indeed Sym. substitutes a\Ad (as well
as dpylc@nre to make it clear that 4e takes the verb imperatively).
2 [2439 (iv) a] Here the LXX has “ walk sfo¢less in [thy] ways and zo¢ in the
sight of thine eyes and know....” ‘The Targum corrupts the text in the same way
so as to make all the imperatives hortative. ‘‘/7...¢hzne eyes” implies self-will.
3 [2439 (v) a] On ii. 1g Origen (ad /oc.) says nothing that bears on Nvcare
except (Lomm. i. 348) rodrov Tov vadv AvOjvas det bd Tay ériBovdevivTwv TY oyw
Tov Oeod. On xiii. 27 molnoov he says (ad doc.) that Christ speaks mpoxadovmevos
322
AORIST INDICATIVE [2440]
Il. IN THE INDICATIVE MoopD
(i) Aorist
(1) Aorist compared with Perfect
[2440] Commenting on Col. i. 16 “in him all things were created
(éxr’oOn)...all things through him and to him have been created
(éxrurtac)” Lightfoot says, ‘“‘The aorist is used here: the perfect
below. 7’Exrio@y describes the definite historical act of creation ;
éxtiotac the continuous and present relations of creation to the
Creator: comp. Joh. i. 3 xwpis avrod éyévero ovdé ev with 70, 6 yéyover,
t Cor. ix. 22 €yevouny tots acbevéow acbevys with 7b. tots raow yéyova
wavra, 2 Cor. xll. 17 py twa wv aréotadxa with ver. 18 Kai ovv-
aréotet\a Tov adeAdov, 1 Joh. iv. 9 Tov povoyevn améotadkev 6 Geds
eis TOv Koopov wa Cyowpev dv avtod with ver. 10 OTe avTos yyarnoev
eas Kal améoteWev Tov vidv avTov.” ‘This comment supplies a clue
to several Johannine distinctions between the aorist and the perfect’.
For example, as regards Christ’s “coming into the world,” or in-
carnation, “ / came” represents the definite act, “‘ 7 have come” the
continuous and present relation. But other explanations are some-
times called for by Johannine use, which presents the following
paradoxical characteristics’.
Toy avtaywrioThy (7.2. Satan) érl tiv wadnv 7} Tov mpodérny emt Td Staxovajca TH
cwrnpiy Kbopmm ecouévn oikovoula, nv ovK eTt...uéANew ovdE Bpadivew aN bon
Ovvauts Taxvvely HOeXev. ‘These last words favour the view taken elsewhere that
TaxXLov means, not ‘‘ quickly,” but ‘‘ wove quickly ” (1918, 2554 4—e).
[2439 (v) 6] The nearest approach to a judicial imperative in the Synoptists
would be, if the text were correct, Mt. xxiii. 32 kal duets mAnpwoate: but W.H.
marg. gives mAnpwoere with B and e, and this reading is now supported by SS.
Alford suggests that the v. r. mAypwoere and ewAnpwoare arose from the ‘‘im-
perative not being understood.” But it is not more difficult to understand than
Naare above, for which there is no v. r. Moreover the position of bmets before
the imperative (without antithesis as in Mt. vii. 12 or “7 as in Lk. xii. 29 etc.) is
somewhat suspicious.
[2439 (v)c] In vill. 38 Kal dpets obv a HKovcaTe Tapa To maTpds Troveire, One of
several renderings of that difficult passage takes zovetre as imperative, but reasons
have been given (2194) for taking it as indicative.
1 [2440 a] Comp. xviii. 20 éyw mappnola NekdAnKa TWO Kbopw...mdvTOTE EdlLbaza
év cuvaywyy...€v KputT@ édddnoa ovdév, where the ‘‘ continuous and present
relation” comes first, ‘7 have spoken openly”; and this is supported by appeal
to the past, ‘‘7 ever taught,” ‘‘ Not once spake / in secret.”
2 [2440 6] On iv. 3 ampdGev rary els tiv Taddalav, Blass (p. 192) justly says
that the aorist ‘‘is at least remarkable, since the aorist denotes the journey as
completed....” On this, and on the treatment of the passage in the Diatessaron,
see 2635 (i).
323 21—2
[2441] TENSE
[2441] On the one hand John uses the aorist where English
would use the perfect, eg. x. 32 “many good works have I shewed
(@ea) you,” xii. 28 “7 have both glorified (ed0géaca) it and will
glorify it again,” xiii. 14 “If / have washed (évuya) your feet,” xiii. 18
“T know whom J have chosen (R.V. marg. chose) (e€eXeEapny),” Xi. 34
“As I have loved (nyarnoa) you,” xv. 15 “L have made known
(€yvwpica) to you,” xx. 2 “ They have taken away (jpav)...they have
laid (€yxav) him?,” xxi. 10 “Bring of the fish that ye have now
caught (érutoare).” These aorists may be explained in part because
Greek does not use the perfect so frequently as in English to denote
a recently completed action, but in part by the fact that the Greek
perfects of these particular verbs are comparatively seldom used, and
John, having no special reason for laying stress on the completion of
the action, may prefer the more usual form’.
[2442] On the other hand John uses the perfect where we might
have expected the aorist, or the present, e.g. v. 45 “ Moses, in whom
eee
1 Yet comp. xi. 34 TeOelxare.
2 [2441a] The Greeks seem to have avoided several actzve perfects, ¢.g. of
kritw, opitw, (nréw, yvwpifw, somewhat as we might avoid the perf. of ‘‘awake”—
doubting between ‘“‘have awaked” and ‘Shave awoken” (2747—53). The rarity of
a suitable perfect may explain the aorist in vi. 70 (A.V.) “Have not I chosen you?,”
but there R.V. has ‘‘ Did not J choose?” without alternative, as also in xv. 16—19,
where A.V. has ‘‘ Ye have not chosen me but J have chosen you... I have chosen
you out of the world.” I do not understand why R.V. txt adopts ‘‘have chosen”
(Weste. chose”) in xiii. 18 alone (“I know whom I have chosen”). ‘‘ Have,”
if denoting recent choice, would seem most appropriate to vi. 70.
[2441 6] The aorist of éxAéyouar is applied to God or Christ in Mk xiii. 20
dud Tods ExNexTods ods é&eAéEaro (Mt. xxiv. 22 om. ods éf., Lk. diff.), Lk. vi. 13
éxdeEduevos am’ atrav dddexa (Mk-Mt. diff.). "EgeeEaro occurs In re GOnenen27
(dis), 28, Jas ii. 5, to describe God as choosing the poor and despised, and
Eph. i. 4 has xa@as éfeéEaro juas &v ait@ mpd KaraBodfjs xbcuov. In Acts, it
refers to the choosing of apostles or missionaries in i. 2, 24, Wiel. XVel fal 22a a mlelGes
and only once (xiii. 17) to God’s choosing the ‘‘ fathers” of Israel.
[2441] It seems clear that Mk xiii. 20 éfe\éfaro means *“chose,” em-
phatically, implying final or irrevocable election or something of the kind.
This is also implied in Mk xiii. 22, Mt. xxiv. 24 el duvardy (Mt. +xal) rods
éxdextovs (which suggests that ‘‘the elect” could not possibly be led finally
astray) and in Mt. xxii. 14 ‘‘many are called but few chosen.” But Lk. omits
all this, as well as (Mk xiii. 27, Mt. xxiv. 31) the gathering of the “ elect.”
[2441 7] Jn agrees with Lk. in applying é«Aéfao@ar once to the choice of
apostles, but he adds words that destroy the notion of finality, vi. 7o ‘* Have I
not [just] chosen (2254) you the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” On the other
hand, later on, he appears to exclude Judas, and to imply a different, spiritual,
and final election in xiii. 18 ‘*I know whom / chose” following the words (xiii. 11)
**Ve are not all clean” (comp. xv. 16, 19).
324
AORIST INDICATIVE [2443]
ye have hoped (ydzixate),” xv. 24 “They have seen and have hated
both me and my Father,” xvi. 27 ‘‘The father loveth (@iAet) you
because ye have loved (reptAyjxare) me and have believed that...,” vi. 69
“We have believed (remuorevcapev)...that thou art the Holy One of
God.” In modern English, “ 7 ave believed in him,” if the emphasis
is laid on “have,” may mean “ / fave believed in him, in times past,
or up to the present time, but 7 do so no longer.” In John the
context clearly implies ferszstent belief, and the same applies to the
other instances.
[2443] How is this Johannine use to be explained? Probably
as a modification of the LXX rendering of the Hebrew perfect in
cases where it implies persistence. The Hebrew perfect is frequently
used with verbs of “ believing,” “hoping,” ‘‘ hating,” and “ loving,”
to represent a feeling continued from the past into the present. But
LXX inadequately renders this almost always by the aorist. Thus
St Paul quotes the Psalms ‘7 have believed (LXX éxictevoa)
therefore I spake,” and continues, ‘‘ We also de/zeve therefore also we
speak,” thus applying the Hebrew perfect (LXX aorist) to himself in
the present tense’. In that Psalm, A.V. has “ / deZeved” and R.V.
txt “J believe” (marg. ‘‘ J believed”) ; but elsewhere the two agree in
the perfect (Ps. cxix. 66) “JZ have believed in thy commandments.”
So when the Psalmist repeatedly says to God, “7 have hoped (jAmwa)
in thee, or in thy mercy,” the meaning (however it may be rendered
in English) is ‘‘Z steadfastly hope,’ or “my hope is fixed?” The
aorist “I hated (é€utonoa)” occurs several times in the Psalms,
variously translated by R.V. and A.V.; and always in the sense of
“ steadfastly hating.” In Proverbs, it is uttered by the Wisdom of
God (Prov. vii. 13) ‘‘ Pride and arrogancy...do I aze,” and there
LXX has the perfect peuionka, but Symmachus, Theodotion, and
“another,” have the aorist. The perfect also occurs in Judges
xiv. 16 “only hast thou hated me (pepionxas) and hast not loved me
(yyarnoas, but A wyarnKas),” where R.V. has “Thou dost but haze
me and /ovest me not*.” In all these cases, it is quite clear that the
1 2 Cor. iv. 13 quoting Ps. cxvi. Io.
* [2443 a] “HAmica in the Psalms= Ps. vii. 1, xvi. 1 (R.V. and A.V.) ‘‘I do put
my trust,” xiii. 5 (R.V. and A.V.) ‘<I have trusted,” xxxi. 1, 6, 14 (R.V. and A.V.)
“*T do put my trust,” ‘‘trust,” ‘‘trusted” etc.
3 [2443 6] The Heb. perf., LXX aorist of wucetv=Ps. xxvi. 5 A.V. perf., R.V.
PLCS=5 XL Vet 7e NeAVict LESS) Vay peLionin essay ssilail 7p fCXIX O45) TL 3511 20,) CXOCKIX. 211,
R.V. and A.V. agree in having present. It is interesting to note that in Heb. i. 9,
325
[2444] TENSE
“hate” described by the Hebrew perfect is a permanent and intense
feeling ; and the same statement applies to the other verbs. Nothing
like this usage can be alleged from Greek literature, and the coin-
cidence of Hebrew usage as to these particular verbs makes it
a reasonable conclusion that a Hebrew origin must explain the
Johannine use of them.
[2444] In another Hebraic use of the perfect the speaker regards
a future action as already accomplished or, as we say, “as good as
done.” This is particularly common with the verb “give,” e.g. in
Genesis, in promises made by God, “/ have given you every herb,”
“Unto thy seed have 7 given (LXX, J will give) this land,” but also
made by Ephron “7 have given thee the field...7 have given...I have
” and by Abraham, in return, “Z ave given thee money,”
where R.V. has thrice “gzve” and once “wll give,” and LXX has
didwpr and déduxa or omissions’. This Hebraic idiom may have
suggested the Johannine phrase “all that thou hast given me (or, hast
given him)” so frequently used (1921, 2454—5) to denote the future
Church. It might also explain xvil. 18 “Even as thou didst send me
into the world, so I also sez¢ them into the world.” Here the aorist
is used in both cases, and “I sent” has been taken by some as
LtVEN...,
quoting Ps. xlv. 7 #ydmnoas...éuionoas..., R.V.—which usually renders aorists as
aorists—follows A.V. in the perfect, “thou hast loved...and [hast] hated.”
[2443 ¢] This Hebraic ‘‘ Aorist of Persistence” in LXX is quite different from
(a) the Greek aorist used to describe what happened before now and will happen
again, z.e. the aorist of experience or habit. It is also different from (4) the Greek
use of (Jelf § 403. 1) érqveca, rapyveca, qveca, drénruca, Buwia, cdetdunv, &yver.
Jelf explains these as ‘“‘referring to a thought supposed to have been long and
firmly conceived in the speaker’s breast.” But in many cases they refer simply to
what is ‘‘before,” and sometimes only ‘‘a moment before,” or “a moment ago,” as
in Eurip. AZed. 63—4, where, in answer to the nurse’s appeal (‘‘ What dost thou
mean? Do not begrudge to tell me?”) the old servant replies ‘‘Nothing. Z
changed my mind [just this moment] about even what I had said before (Ovdéy,
Heréyvuw Kal Ta mpbcQ’ elpnuéva).” So amérrvoa may mean ‘‘Z spat at [ your
words as soon as they were uttered|” etc. In no instance probably do these aorists
contain any notion of anything “long and firm.” Goodwin (Moods and Tenses § 60)
renders Aristoph. 2g. 696"Ho@nv dmeidais, éyéXaca WoNoxoumlas, “7 am amused...
/ cannot help laughing,” but the English past would there express the sense better
“ was amused...7 cou/d not but laugh,” as soon as you opened your mouth.
So noOqv in Nub. 174, 1240. And that is the meaning—though perhaps idiomatic
English will hardly allow the past tense—in Soph. Electr. 668 ‘‘Z welcomed
(édedunv) your [well-omened] utterance [as soon as uttered].”
‘ [24444] Gen. i. 29 dédwxa, xv. 18 ddéow, xxiii. rr om., dldwu, dédwKa,
xxiil. 13 om,
326
ET em
AORIST INDICATIVE [2446]
referring to the previous mission of the Apostles into Palestine.
But it is more consonant with the high tone and Hebraic thought of
the context to suppose that the Lord, after the manner of Hebrew
prophets, mentions the ordained future ‘‘ sending” into the world at
large (not Palestine merely) as already past.
[2445] In xv. 6 (lit.) “If a man be not abiding (wevy) in me—
[behold] Ze was cast (€8y Oy) outside...and was withered,” the reader
is asked as it were to pause after the statement of the conditional
“not abiding.” Then he looks back and—the branch “has been
cast out.” This is not like the Greek instantaneous aorists above
mentioned (2443 ¢), all of which are in the first person. Probably
it springs from Hebrew literature, which regards the sweeping away
of things evil as an act of Jehovah so speedy that it is past before
there is time to speak of it as future or present: “A thousand years
in thy sight ave but as yesterday when it ts past, and as a watch in the
night. Thou hast carried them away as with a flood’.” ‘The most
conspicuous instance of this is in Isaiah’s prophecy (Is. xl. 6—8
LXX, (lit.)) “All flesh [is as] grass...the grass was dried up and the
flower fe// away...but the word of our God aédideth for ever,” which
has been reproduced in the Epistle of St James with aorists thus,
“‘Tike the flower of the grass he shall pass away. For the sun 7ose
up (avéredAev) with the scorching wind and dried up (é&ypavev) the
grass and its flower fe/7 away and the fair show of its countenance
perished (amXero)*.” In the light of these passages, and of the above-
mentioned (2443) instances of Hebrew influence on Johannine tense
construction, éBA76y appears to be a Hebraic, not a Greek,
instantaneous aorist. But see 2754—5.
[2446] According to different contexts, the aorist of the same
verb may have very different meanings. For example, in xv. 8,
év TovTw edogdcbn 6 Tatyp pov appears to mean (2393) “ Herein
[namely, by your abiding in me, the Vine] was my Father glorified,”
1 Ps. xc. 5, Sym. ws xatraryis eferivakas avrous.
2 [2445 a] Jas. i. 11, comp. Jas. i. 24, 1 Pet. i. 24. Some excellent Greek
scholars call these aorists ‘‘gnomic,” on which see 2754—5. In view of the
Hebrew origin of the quotations, the Hebrew use of the past tense, and the
corresponding LXX use of the aorist, Hebrew thought seems to suggest the best
explanation of the aorists in Jas. and Pet. ‘‘Gnomic” implies an inference of
regularity: but the context in these Epistles calls attention to vapzdity. It will
be found, however, that an aorist, even in the 3rd pers., when in apodosis, some-
times expresses instantaneousness in non-Hebraic Gk. Hence xv. 6 may be
independent of Hebrew influence. But it is certainly not ‘‘gnomic.”
327
[2447] 7 TENSE
and the reference is perhaps to the definite fact that when one
“branch,” Judas, fell away from the Vine, the rest abode in it, or else
it is to their whole past “abiding.” But in xill. 31 Niv éd0€ac6y
0 vids T. avOpwrov Kk. 0 Geos edokfacOn ev avta, there may be a twofold
meaning. The “glorifying” certainly refers to the sacrifice of the
Son upon the Cross, and that is future, and the aorist, if referring
solely to that, would be the Hebraic aorist of prophetic anticipation
above mentioned (2444—-5). But it might also refer to the “going
out” of Judas, just mentioned, and to the resignation of the Son
to the treachery that had (xiil. 21) “troubled” Him “in the spirit,”
so that He made no further attempt to hinder it. In that case
the tense would refer to what has just passed, ‘‘ Now at last has the
Son of man been glorified,” because the sfzritual act had taken
place. This latter seems to be the primary meaning.
[2447] In xv. 15 “‘all things that 7 heard (nKxovoa) from my
Father (R.V.) Z have made known (é€yvwpioa) unto you,” the R.V. is
justified—so far as grammar is concerned—in rendering the two
aorists differently, because of the rarity or non-existence (2441 a) of
the perfect of the latter verb, whereas forms of axyxoa are frequent
if we include instances in the Epistle. But the meaning of éyvwpura
must depend on the context, which represents Jesus as “‘o longer”
calling the disciples “‘servants” because He has now revealed to
them the things that He “heard from the Father.” This seems
to refer to the recent sign of the Washing of Feet and to the
doctrine of “loving” as being the sign of discipleship. If so, the
meaning may be, “‘ That which / eard from my Father when I came
into the world to do His will 7 made known to you just now in the
Washing of Feet.”
[2448] In order to distinguish between the aorist and perfect of
ywwokw it is well, in many passages of John, to render the verb
“recognise,” thus, xvi. 3 ‘‘ These things they will do because ¢hey did
’ xvil. 7—8 “ Now [at
last] (vdv, 1719 /) have they recognised (€yvoxav) that all things as
many as thou didst give me are from thee, because...and ¢hey
recognised (€yvwoav) truly that I came forth from thee.” In the
second passage, the perfect describes the present completed result of
not recognise (ovK €yvwoav) the Father nor me,’
the previous definite recognition’. In xvi. 3, R.V. has “they have
1 [2448 a] SS has ‘‘ And now / &ow that all what thou hast given me is from
thyself, because the words that thou didst give to me I have given to them, and
328
AORIST INDICATIVE ‘ [2449 |
not known”: but the aorist should mean “they did not recognise”
either Father or Son, when the Son announced the Father to
them.
[2449] In vill. 29 “And he that sent me is with me: fe did not
leave me (R.V. hath not left me) (ovx apne pe) alone,” the aorist (if
not used as a perfect (2441) for the rare adeika) would mean that the
Father when He sen? (aorist) the Son into the world did not leave
Him alone. R.V. has “ath not left me alone,” and some have
taken these words with the following ones, “ because I do always the
things that are pleasing to him,” as though the Father’s presence,
throughout the life of the Son on earth, has been the spiritual reward
or spiritual consequence of the Son’s conduct (“The Father has been
with me because I have done right”). But 67s means more probably
(2178) ‘‘{I say this] because,” introducing the ground of the state-
ment: ‘The Father when He sent me hither did not deprive me of
His presence. [I have a right to say this] because I do such deeds
as could not be done without His presence?.”
they have received them from me and they have known truly...,” and ® has
éyvwy for éyywkav. Some Mss. support Chrys. in reading éyywoay for éyywxar,
and one or two have éyvwxaocw. Several Mss. omit kai éyvwoav. The textual
variations of éyywkav are easily explained as resulting from an original eF-NWKA&
and from a failure to perceive the shade of difference indicated by the perfect and
the aorist:—‘*They are now at last grounded in recognition...because I have
definitely given them the regenerating words of life and they [a¢ once] received
them and [at once] recognised in truth that I came forth from thee.” That is to
say, the present steadfastness of the disciples arises not only from the word of Christ
but also from a certain affinity between that word and the disciples, which affinity
caused them /o receeve zt at once with a certain amount of recognition. Comp. i. 12
doo dé EXaBov avrév, and note the immediate ‘‘reception” of Christ by Andrew
and his companion and their brethren and successors.
1 [2449a] In xii. 40 ‘‘He hath blinded (rerU@dwxev) their eyes and he
hardened (érwpwoev) their heart,” mwpdw represents Isaiah’s word (vi. 10) ‘‘ make
fat,” émaxvv0y, and means not ‘‘ make stiff” oxdynpivw, but ‘‘make callous.” Buhl
gives no other instance of Heb. ‘‘make fat” applied to ‘‘heart”; and it was
very natural that St Paul in writing to the Romans (Rom. xi. 7 of dé Nocrol
érwpwOnoayv) and Corinthians (2 Cor. ili. 14 émwpwOn 7a vojuwara a’rdv) should use
mwpow instead of maxvvw in alluding to this famous passage—which describes the
‘‘heart” of Israel as ‘‘hardened” in the sense of ‘‘made callous” although a
remnant (Is. vi. 13) was to be faithful. Ilwpdw is used by Mk (vi. 52, viii. 17)
alone elsewhere in N.T. Its occurrence there, and in Hermas (J/and. iv. 2. 1,
xii. 4. 4), and always applied to ‘‘the heart,” suggests that the rare phrase ‘‘ make
the heart callous” found its way into the Roman Church—and thence into the
works of Mark and Hermas which have Latin characteristics—through St Paul’s
Epistle to the Romans. The mention of ‘“ blindness” in the context of Isaiah
329
[2450] TENSE
(2) Aorist of special Verbs?
(a) “Akoya
[2450] “Axovw in the Fourth Gospel may be illustrated by dxovw
in the Epistle, where axyxcdapev occurs thrice at the beginning to
denote the sum total of the doctrine of Christ possessed by the
writers, who “ave heard” that which was from the beginning; and
the same notion of completeness and satisfaction appears in the
saying of the Samaritans, ‘‘We ourselves Aave heard and know that
this is truly the Saviour of the world®.” “Hxovoare occurs five times
in the Epistle in connexion with the definite word “heard” by the
readers at the beginning of their Christian profession (“from the
beginning” being thrice inserted to define the aorist). ‘This is the
general distinction in the Epistle®.
(vi. ro) and Jn xii. 40 might lead scribes to confuse twpdw with mnpdw ‘‘make
blind” (comp. Job xvii. 7 ‘‘mine eye also is dim,” Bremdpwvra, AN* remjpwvrat)
and Hesych. explains rerwpwuévor as éoxA\npwuévo Tervphwpuévar, but this may
mean that he took the verb to mean literally ‘‘ hardened,” and hence ‘‘hardened
against true impressions,” which seemed equivalent to ‘‘darkened,” or ‘blind to
the truth.”
[2449 4] A corrector of Codex B has altered éma@pwoev in xii. 40 to meTupwKev
to conform it with the preceding perfect rer’p\wxev, and this is very natural.
There appears no reason for the change of tense, so far as sense is concerned.
Perhaps, however, Jn may have been influenced by Pauline and other traditions,
which described the act of God in visiting Israel with ‘‘ callousness of heart” as a
historical fact in the past. Rom. xi. 7—8 says ‘‘ That which Israel seeketh after,
this it odfained (aorist) not (ovx ééruxev), but the election odtaimed (aorist) ; but
the rest were made callous (aorist) (érwpéOnoav), even as it is written, God gave
(aorist) (¢6wxev) them a spirit of torpor, eyes that they should not see...,” and LXX
also has the aorist in Deut. xxix. 4 ‘‘ The Lord gave not unto you a heart to know
and eyes to see and ears to hear...[no, not] unto this day.” As Jn xil. 40 deviates
from the Heb. and from the LXX, there are special reasons for thinking that the
writer may have been influenced by Christian tradition, perhaps oral, which
associated the aorist with the ‘callousness of heart” inflicted on Israel, as by a
divine decree, at the time of the Incarnation.
! On the aorist of dyamdw, see 1744 (iv) foll. =e [pels ty By Gy [PNG Ze
3 [2450a] There is an apparent inconsistency in 1 Jn ii. 18 Ka@as HKovcare dre
dvrixpistos épxerat, iv. 3 TotTd éotw 7d Tod avrixplorou 5 axnkdaTe bre Epxerat.
But the former may be rendered ‘‘ Even as ye were taught at the beginning.”
The latter may be intended to include a reference to the former: ‘‘ This is that
doctrine of Antichrist as to whom ye Aave heard above and on many other occasions
that he must needs come.” Kaé&s 7xovcare am’ dpxyjs occurs also in 2 Jn 6. In
Jn xviii. 21 épwrnoov 7. dknkoédras means ‘‘ask those who have regularly heard me.”
But with od the perfect means (Rom. xv. 21 quoting Is. lii. 15) ‘‘ have not [up to
this time] heard,” and comp. Jn v. 37 otre dwrhv avrod marore axnxdare (2764).
330
——————
AORIST INDICATIVE [2452]
[2451] “Axovw in the Fourth Gospel is in the aorist when Christ
describes Himself, or is described, as “hearing” from the Father’:
and this is the case even when “heard ” is parallel to “hath seen” as
in il. 32 “That which fe hath seen (éwpaxev) and [that which he]
heard| (x. nxovoev) this he testifieth.” The explanation here is
complicated by the fact that (apart from forms of of6jvat, doar etc.)
the perfect of opav is the only part of the verb used by John. He
might therefore conceivably use the perfect of opay, concerning
spiritual vision, parallel to the aorist of another verb. But the two
tenses may be explained as meaning “that which the Son hath seen
[from the beginning], and ¢hat message which He heard [when He
came down from the Father to save mankind].” So, whereas
witnesses in Mark say concerning Jesus, “We heard him say,”
witnesses in the Acts say concerning Stephen, “ We have heard him
say.” In the former, the meaning is “we heard on one occasion,” or,
‘“zve heard this definite statement”; in the latter, “we have repeatedly
heard him say” words to this effect, as is shewn by the context?,
[2452] In xi. 41 “Father, I give thanks to thee that thou dds¢
hear me (nxovoas pov),” uttered at the grave of Lazarus, the aorist
should refer to some definite prayer, and ought not to mean “thou
hast always heard me.” Origen and Chrysostom both emphasize the
fact that no prayer has been mentioned as preceding ; and the latter
seems to say that there was no real prayer, “‘ Why,” he asks, “‘ did He
even assume the appearance of praying (rivos dé evexev Kai edyns oXHpaA
avehaBev ;)°?” But Origen suggests that a prayer, rising in Christ’s
mind and not yet uttered, was anticipated by the Father, who sent an
answer, “It is fulfilled,” into the heart of the Son. Some might
urge—and with logic on their side—that the prayer must have been
uttered some days before, when Jesus first heard ‘‘ He whom thou
lovest is sick” and replied (xi. 4) ‘This sickness is not unto death
but for the glory of God, in order that the Son of God may
1 fii. 32, vill. 26, 40, xv. 15.
? [2451 a] Mk xiv. 58 qyuets neovoapuev atrod Néyovros, Acts vi. 11—13 dxnkbamer
avTov Nadovvros phuata BrAdogpyua eis M. x. Tov Oedv...o0 maverat NaAGy phuata Kata
Tov Tomou T. aylou [rovrou] K. T. vouou, aknkbauev yap abTod Né-yorTos....
3 [2452a] See the whole context, which shews the influence of controversial
considerations : “‘ Let us therefore ask the heretic, ‘Did He receive the [necessary]
impetus (fo7jv) from the prayer and [thus] raise up the dead? How then was He
wont to do the other works [of His] without prayer?”—and he quotes Christ’s
words of authority ‘I will, be thou clean’ etc.
331
[2453] TENSE
be glorified through it.” But the evangelist may intend to convey to
his readers the impression that, although it was revealed to the Son
from the first that the sickness would in some way prove to be “not
unto death,” He nevertheless waited from day to day for further
revelation of the Father’s will, and that the actual revivification was
not effected without an effort on the part of the Son, at the time
when He “wept” and “troubled Himself” on His way to the tomb.
In any case John—who neither describes Jesus as using the zord
“pray,” nor himself speaks of Him as ‘‘Avayzmg”—here teaches the
lesson that prayer may be sometimes most efficacious, and perfectly
definite, when not expressed in words}.
(8B) “AtroctéAAw
[2453] “AzooréAAw is mostly (15 times) in the aorist, when
applied to God as sending Christ, but twice in the perfect, v. 36 7a
€pya & d€dwKev LOL... LAPTUPEL...OTL 0 TaTnp pe amreatalkev, and xx. 21
Kadws aréoTaAKé pe oO TaTHp, Kay Téeurw vas. In the former, the
perfect is perhaps used for parallelism with the preceding perfect
dédwxev. In the latter, the mission of the Son on earth, being
completed or perfected, is appropriately referred to in the complete
or perfect tense.
(y) Aidcomi
[2454] In the Epistle, d/dwu. is used in the aorist to denote
the gifts or commandments given to believers at the commencement
of their Christian life; in the perfect, to denote the same gifts when
regarded as present possessions. Compare “from the Spirit, which
he gave us,” with “because he hath given us of his Spirit?.” In the
Gospel, a corresponding distinction is generally made between
the aorist and the perfect with reference to Christ. The aorist
usually describes gifts regarded as given by the Father to the Son on
His coming into the world to proclaim the Gospel; the perfect
1 [2452] Origen (Huet ii. 347) quotes Is. lviii. g ‘* While thou art still
speaking I will say, lo, I am present,” and argues that if Jehovah says this about
mere men, He would say about the Lord ‘*‘ Before thou speakest, I will say, Lo,
I am here.” He does not quote Is. Ixy. 24 ‘‘ And it shall come to pass that, defore
they cry, I will answer,” where “‘ cry” is Kexpdéat, a word somewhat resembling
the remarkable word éxpavyacev in Jn xi. 43. Possibly, ‘‘¢hey” was an obstacle.
2 (2454a] 1 Jn ill. 24 Gdwxey, iv. 13 dé6wxev. Comp. I Jn ili. 23 KaOds COwKev
évroNy juw:and v. 11 why aldviov Edwxev 6 Oeds Huiv, with ili, 1 Were rorarhy
aydrny dédbwkev july, Vv. 20 ...7KEL, Kal dédwKev Huiv Sudvoiay. These are all the
instances of aorist and perfect in the Epistle.
332
ng ee
AORIST INDICATIVE [2455]
describes gifts regarded as having been given to the Son and as now
belonging to Him. More particularly, the future Church is
frequently mentioned as “‘all that thou hast given me” as though the
Son placed Himself in the future and looked back upon the Church
as a completed gift. But from a different point of view the collection
of faithful believers may be regarded as a gift made to the Son
definitely at the Incarnation, and might be called ‘‘those whom (or,
all that) thou gavest me.”
[2455] The distinction is illustrated by xvi. 6—g “I manifested
thy name to the men that ¢how gavest me out of the world. Thine
they were and ¢hou gavest them to me...(g) I ask not in behalf
of the world but in behalf of those whom ¢hou hast given me.” In
the opening of the Last Prayer (xvii. 1—2) the Church is called
“all that thou hast given him,” but the aorist is used in the words
“ As thou gavest him authority.” ‘Towards the end of the Prayer the
aorist is almost, if not entirely, superseded by the perfect, because
the mind of Christ is fixed on the completion of God’s gifts. But
perhaps the aorist is to be read in xvi. 24 “that they may behold
the glory that thou gavest me (W.H. marg. édwxas, but txt dédwxas)
because thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.” The
previous context says (xvi. 22) ‘The glory that ¢hou hast given to
me I have given to them, in order that they may be one.” Scribes
would, therefore, be tempted to conform xvii. 24 to xvii. 22. But
Xvil. 22 may mean “the glory that shou hast given me |on earth| so as
to shew forth the unity between the Father and the Son,” whereas
Xvli, 24 may mean “the glory that shou gavest me [in the beginning,”
which is explained by ‘“‘for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the
world.” On 7av 6 dédwxas, see 2740 foll.
1 [2455a] B has @éwxas here. Aédwxev and édwxev freq. occur as v.r.: see
vi. 32, Vii. 19, xiii. 15 (Tisch. dé6wxa, but W.H. édwxa without alt.), xvii. 7, 8, 24.
In vi. 32 ot M. édwxev (marg. dédwxev) tuiv Tov dprov Ex 7. ovpavov the aorist would
mean that the bread given on that historic occasion was not the real and true
bread ; the perfect would mean ‘‘M. has never gzver you.” It follows a quotation
(vi. 31) dprov éx 7. ovpavod Owkev adrois paryetv, from Ps. lxxvili. 24. In vii. 19
ot M. €dwxev (marg. dédwxev) tuty Tov vowov; the aorist would mean ‘‘ Yd not M.
give you the Law from Mount Sinai?” the perfect, in effect, ‘‘ Wave you not the
Law, given you by Moses?” To these and many other passages Lightfoot’s
explanation (2440) applies: the aorist describes a ‘‘ definite act,” the perfect a
‘continuous and present relation.” With ov, the aorist means ‘‘not, 07 a single
occasion” ; the perfect ‘‘not, up ¢o this time.”
333.
[2456] TENSE
(8) Ejmon
[2456] Etre generally introduces longer and more weighty
utterances of Christ than those introduced by the historic present
déye. In dialogue between Christ and a single person, ete very
rarely introduces His words as compared with Aéye. The former is
never thus used alone (ze. without azexpi6y cai) in dialogue, except
in a few cases of momentous utterance, six of which are in narratives
of miracles’.
(e) “Epyomai and €Zépyomai
[2457] “Epxopwar and e&€pxouar are used for the most part in the
aorist (1637) to describe the Son as coming (or being sent) from the
Father, but in the perfect to describe His having arrived in the world.
*E&eAnAvéa never occurs in any context, but €A7jAvéa occurs three
times? with eis tov koopov, and once as a sequel to eépAGov thus,
vii. 42 ‘*7 came forth from God and am come (jxw); for indeed
I have not come (€AndvOa) from myself, but he sev¢ me.” In all
cases the aorist points to the definite ‘‘coming” of the Incarnation.
On the curious contrast (vill. 14) between ‘“‘whence 7 came” and
‘‘whence J come,” see 2482, 2490.
(€) Meno»
[2458] Mevw, in a past tense, is used literally of persons re-
maining in a place in six instances, always in the aorist except x. 40
W.H. txt éuevey, marg. guewev. In four of the six instances (i. 39,
ii. 12, iv. 40, xi. 6) the aorist is accompanied by a mention of the
“days,” but not in vil. g and x. 40. The explanation of the imper-
fect in x. 40 may be that the writer means “he s¢ayed on there [i.e.
stayed for some time|” and the context (“many came...and many
1 [2456 a] Jni. 42 (in the calling of Cephas), iv. 48 (to the nobleman before
healing his son), v. 14 (to the impotent man after his being healed), ix. 7, 35, 37
(to the man born blind, ‘‘Go, wash,” ‘‘Dost thou believe,” ‘‘He that speaketh
with thee is he’), xi. 25 (to Martha, ‘tI am the resurrection and the life”),
xii. 7 (to Judas, about keeping the ointment for ‘‘embalming”), xviii. 11 (to Peter,
““Put up thy sword”). Elze, followed by IIdrep, is also used in xvii. 1 (the
Prayer to the Father) and, without Idrep, in xix. 30 (‘‘It is finished”). Aéyec on
the other hand introduces words of Jesus in dialogue no less than six times in
three verses in xxi. 15—17- In Lk. ix. 58—62 elze occurs no less than four times
in sayings of Jesus to individuals, and it is his regular word in such cases, comp.
Lk. vi. 8, 10, vil. 43—50.
2 xii. 46, xvi. 28, xvill. 37-
334
AORIST INDICATIVE [2461]
believed on him there”) favours this view. Ini. 32 “I have beheld
the Spirit descending...and it abode (ai euewev) upon him” (where
x, 2, and e have “and abiding”) the meaning is “it abode once
for all.”
(3) Aorist for English Pluperfect
[2459] The aorist, e.g. éroinoe, if preceded (a) by yxoveay or, or
(6) by ws (“when”), is sometimes rendered “he had done” (“ ¢hey
heard that he had done,” “when he had done”). ‘Thus (a) iv. 1 “the
Lord knew how that the Pharisees had heard (nxovoar),” iv. 50 “the
man believed the word that Jesus (A.V.) Aad spoken (R.V. spake)
(etzrev),” ix. 35 “Jesus heard that they had cast (€€éBaov) him out” ;
(4) ii. 9 “ When the ruler of the feast (A.V.) Aad fasted (R.V. tasted)
(€yevoaro).”
[2460] Quite distinct from these is the use of the aorist to mean
“he [previously] dd ”—equivalent to “had previously done ”—intro-
ducing a mention of something that, in chronological order, should
have been mentioned before, e.g. v. 13 ‘But he that had been healed
knew not who it was: for Jesus [ previously] conveyed himself away
(e€évevoev),” R.V. and A.V. “had conveyed himself away.” ‘This also
appears to be the best rendering of 7A@ov (and perhaps of €zoiqoev)
in iv. 45 ‘‘When therefore he came to Galilee the Galilaeans received
him, having seen all that fe had done (erotnoev) in the Feast: for
they also themselves Zad come (ndOov) to the Feast”—where R.V.
and A.V. have “went,” but the Latin versions have the pluperfect’.
[2461] The English pluperfect is perhaps intended in il, 1—2
“There was a marriage in Cana...and the mother of Jesus was (7)
there. Vow there had been invited also Jesus (exdyOy 5é kai 6 “I.) and
his disciples to the wedding’.” So, after describing the Entry into
1 [2460.2] So, too, has the Syriac (Burk.). The best instance of this—which
might be called the aorist of ‘‘previousness” or “afterthought”—is Mk vi. 17
(sim. Mt. xiv. 3) exparnoev “had laid hold of,” describing Herod’s arrest of the
Baptist, which had occurred long before. Lk. ili. r9g—20 mentions it much
earlier.
* [2461 a] ‘‘Vocatus erat” is also read by a and f/f. Chrys. expressly reads
twice (after é€v Kava ris T.) cai €xd7On 6 I. eis Tovs yduous. “Hy dé kal 4 unrnp
tov “I. éxet x. of ddeApol ad’tod, or, in Cramer, yv 6€ 7 mw. TOD "I. Kal of ddedgol
atrod éxet. Chrys. says that the last sentence was intended to ‘‘hint (qvtéaro)”
that Jesus was not invited as being a ‘‘great person” but only as an acquaintance.
Nonnus has Xpioros.s.KXnros env ctvdopros ouoxdwées Te padynrai Ildvtes Eoav
otoxndov. “Es elNarlyny 6€ kal aith Lapbevixn Xpioroio Genrdxos ikero prjrnp-
If €kAj@n is to be rendered as an aorist, the meaning may be that the mother of
Jesus was staying at Cana first and that Jesus was invited thither afterwards.
335
[2462] TENSE
Jerusalem and the cries of Hosanna, without mention (2756) of the
finding of the ass, John adds, apparently as an afterthought, xll. 14
“ But Jesus Aad found an ass and sat upon it (ebpdv dé...exabioev).” It is
possible then, grammatically, that xix. 39 7AGev de Kat Nixodnmos might
mean “ Now there had come also Nicodemus.” The preceding words
are, “He [Joseph] came (jAGev) therefore and took his [Christ’s |
body,” and the question is whether John may mean, not that Nico-
demus came after Joseph’s “coming,” but that “he also had come”
to the tomb, and was waiting for Joseph, having procured the spices
in the hope of the success of Joseph’s application to Pilate. This, at
all events, may be the view of Acta Pilati (B) § 11, which represents
Nicodemus as saying to Joseph “I am afraid...lest Pilate should be
enraged... But if thou wilt go alone, and beg the dead, and take Him,
then will I also go with thee, and help thee to do everything necessary
for the burial.”
[2462] In xvi. 24 "Aréoredev...avtov 6 "Avvas dedenévov mpos
Kaiddav, A.V. has “Now Annas ad sent him bound,” but the
correct reading, which gives ovv between azreoretev and auTov, makes
this rendering impossible. The otv has been omitted by some
authorities, and altered by others to é¢, in order to suggest that the
previously mentioned examination was identical with the examination
described by the Synoptists as occurring before Caiaphas, which is
omitted in the Fourth Gospel.
(ii) Future, see Present of Prophecy 2484 foll., and ov pn 2255
(iii) Imperfect
(1) The Imperfect in general
[2463] The imperfect tense, érolovv, may call attention to the
beginning of an uncompleted action (“I began to do”), or to its
non-completion (“I was [still] doing”), or to its repetition in an
incomplete series of actions (“I kept on doing,” “I was in the habit
of doing”). With a negative, “I did not begin to do” may imply
“T shewed no tendency to do,” and with special verbs (e.g. “ 7 shezwed
no tendency to help, pity, forgive”) the imperfect may imply “I would
”
not.” In John, who (in striking contrast with the Synoptists) only
once (1674) uses the verb “begin,” the imperfect is frequently
used in many shades of meaning not briefly expressible in English.
[2464] The following passage occurs soon after an act of healing
on the sabbath. Assuming that no similar act was wrought in the
330
IMPERFECT [2464]
interval, we cannot render ezrove: ‘
‘was wont to do these things” and
the rendering must be “was beginning to do,” thus, v. 16—18 “ And
for this cause the Jews began-to-persecute (ediwxov) Jesus because he
began to do (éroier)* these things on the sabbath. But Jesus answered
them, My Father worketh even until now, and I work. For this
cause therefore the Jews éegan-to-seek (eCyrovv) rather (2733 a) to kill
him because he was not only continuing to break (or, thereby breaking)
(€Ave) the sabbath, but also deginning to say* (eye) [that] God [was]
his own Father...... ” Here, at all events in the first sentence, the
evangelist seems to indicate a “ beginning” to persecute, dating from
a special act, and perhaps “these things” means “such things as
this.” In xi, ro—11 “the chief priests took counsel that they
might put Lazarus also to death because, for the sake of [seeing] him
(1652 4), many of the Jews were going away and were believing (imijyyov
x. eriotevov),” the meaning may be either that these things were
beginning, or that they were going on under the eves of the chief
priests and would go on till they were stopped. In xi. 28—9
ovdels eyvw...twes yap €ddxovy, the meaning is, “No one [exactly]
understood...some were [at the time| under a vague impression...... aoa
PRaV ier cclidan eNaVeneohadidoness
* But see 24686. “EXeye may=‘‘he meant,” ‘‘he was virtually saying.” On
aor, not ‘‘all the more” but ‘‘rather,” see 2733 a.
3 [24642] So Acts xii. g éddxer dé dpaua BAéwew. Contrast the definite
though erroneous supposition implied in Mk vi. 49 @ofav or pdvracud éoTu,
Jn xi. 13 éxetor 5é Gdokav Sri mepl T. Kowunoews Tod Urvov Néyet.
[24644] The imperfect of custom is illustrated by Mk xv. 6 xara d€ éoprip
amédvey (Mt. xxvii. 15 €lwOe...dmodvew), Lk. om., Jn xviii. 39 or 5€ cw7Oera
tu a éva admovow tuw [ev] T@ mdoxa. The comments of Origen (on Mt. xxvii.
15) and of Cyril (Cramer) make it clear that they know of no such ‘‘custom” of
pardoning criminals, and that they are at a loss to explain the allusion to it: nor
is there any historical evidence of its existence. This may explain Luke’s
omission. Zuv7Heca occurs in N.T. only here and t Cor. viii. 7, xi. 16 where it
means an ‘‘unreasonable habit.” Perh. Pilate is supposed by John to mean
‘‘a practice that has sprung up through my indulgence towards you.” In any
case, this is an instance where Lk. omits and Jn intervenes.
[2464¢] Kara 6€ éopriy (A.V. “at [that] feast,” R.V. txt ‘at she feast” marg.
“at a feast”) is (like xa@’ quépav) ambiguous. The best rendering is “at feast-
time,” which (according to context) may mean ‘‘at [the approaching] feast”
or “at [any] feast.” SS (in Mt.) has ‘‘at every Feast” and & (in Mk) has
“singulés autem diebus festis”: D reads rj in both. The ambiguity is
removed (whether in accordance with fact or not) by Jn’s insertion of ‘the
Passover.”
Ave 337.
AS)
i)
[2465] TENSE
[2465] The imperfect of “come,” after the aorist of another verb,
and before the aorist ‘‘came,” means “began to come,” or ‘were
coming,” as follows, iv. 30-—40 “ They (é.e. the Samaritans) came out
(eێ7AOov) from the city and degan fo come (ypxovre) unto him. In the
meanwhile...... When therefore the Samaritans came (7A@ov) unto
him,” xi. 2932 ‘‘She (Mary) arose (yyépy) quickly and began to come
(jpxero) unto him. Now Jesus was not yet...The Jews, then,...
followed her...Mary therefore, when she came (7AGev) where Jesus
was...,” xx. 3—4 “‘ Peter therefore came forth (e&j\6ev) and the other
disciple, and ¢hey began to come (npxovro) to the tomb. Now the two
were running together; and the other disciple...came (7Oev) first.”
In all these cases the context mentions an interval between the
“beginning to come” and the “coming’.” John often uses these
imperfects as an introduction to some important action’.
[2466] With a negative, the imperfect may mean “was not
beginning to do,” and this may often mean “had no intention of
doing.” In ii. 23—4 “many believed (or trusted, éréarevoar) in his
name...but Jesus himself dd not trust (oix éxiotevev) himself to
them,” the meaning is ‘‘did not even degin Zo trust to them,” because
He knew their character from the first. It might almost be rendered
“would not trust.” The same phrase, applied to non-believing Jews
in xii. 37 means “they shewed no tendency to believe,’ “ did not even
make a beginning to believe,” and it is followed by xii. 39, “they
were not able to believe.” Nearly the same meaning is in xxi. 12 ‘‘no
one shewed a tendency to venture (ovdeis érodApa),” or, “so much as
began to venture.” But, in vil. 5 ovd€ yap of ddeApot adrod éricrevov
eis avtov, the separation of the verb from the negative favours the
rendering “‘not even his brethren weve [at that time] believing in him.”
1 [2465a] The imperf. is rendered thus, iv. 30 (A.V.) ‘‘came,” (R.V.) ‘were
coming”; xi. 29 (A.V.) ‘“‘came,” (R.V.) “‘ went”; xx. 3 (A.V.) ‘‘came,” (R.V.)
“‘went.”
2 [2465 4] In xix. 3 (describing the soldiers mocking Christ), the imperfects,
Hpxovro, éeyor, and édidocav, mean “kept coming,” ‘‘kept saying,” ‘kept giving.”
[2465-] The imperf. éruv@avero might be expected in Jn iv. 52 where,
according to Blass (p. 191), ‘‘émd@ero is incorrectly used and the correct form
éruvOdvero has weak attestation (in xiii. 24 mu@éc@ac [which should strictly be
muvOdver bat] is only read by AD al...).” In classical Gk, érv@ero would mean ‘“‘he
ascertained,’ and émrvv@dvero would be used (as in Mt. ii. 4, Lk. xv. 26 etc.) to mean
“he tried to ascertain.” In iv. 52 Chrys. has éruvOdvero and a, d, f have
‘tinterrogabat,” but this attestation is certainly weak. It is noticeable, however,
that, in what follows, ND aé/ have kai for ody (SS om. otv) so as to make the
338
IMPERFECT [2466 (i)]
{2466 (i) ] When orc jv is used after imperfect or aorist state-
ments of perception (“saw that it zvas so”), the natural presumption,
in John, is that the meaning is “‘saw that it Aad deen” ; for, in order
to express “saw that it was,” John would probably use the present,
as in vi. 24 “the multitude saw that Jesus was not there («idev...071
"Il. ovk éotw éxet)” Ze. saw [and said to themselves] “Jesus zs not
here” (comp. Mt. xvii. 25 ‘‘commanded him to be sold...and all,
[said he], that he Aazh (exer)”). With other imperfects, distinguishable
from aorists, the imperfect meaning may be retained, eg. xvi. 19
“recognised that they were and had been desiring (nO<dAov) to
question him,” but not with jv. In v. 13 ov« dea tis eat, D reads
jv: but the Pharisees have just asked ‘“‘ Who zs 7#?” Tis éorw; and
now it is added that the man “did not know [and could not answer
this question] Wo zs 7#?” and then (v. 15) “he said to the Jews
(lit.) that ‘/¢ zs Jesus.” In vi. 22 efdov (marg. idwv) dre mAotdprov
adXo otk av éxet, the sense requires “that there had been no other
boat,” and (as there are v. r. evdwv, udov, edev, and ¢ has “‘scirent”),
Blass’s (p. 192) suggestion that the orig. was eidws is probably nght :
“the Jews knew there ad deen no other boat there on the previous
night.” In ix. 8 of Gewpodvtes atrov TO rporepov OTL Tpoaairys jv, the
present éeoré could not have been used, because the meaning is not
‘‘Beheld [and said] He zs a beggar,” but “those who formerly were
in the habit of beholding that he was a beggar.” SS has “ those by
whom it had been seen that he was begging,” and this conveys
correctly the pluperfect meaning, that “the begging” belonged to
the sphere of the ‘‘ Aad deen.”
meaning, ‘‘He therefore ascertained the hour—and they said, ‘Yesterday about
the seventh hour...,’” z.e., in effect, ‘“‘the father ascertained the hour and found
it was the seventh.” But as the text stands, Jn must be admitted to have
used érvOero incorrectly, erring, however, with Plut. wt. Demetr. ch. 27 (1076C)
Tod Anuntptov mudouévou, Ti co doxel; (also 7d. ch. 28) and with Hesychius, who
says, Ilvéécar* akovoat, Epwrica, yrwoerbae.
[2465a@] On the other hand the v.r. xiil. 24 mv@éo0ac may be defended as
meaning ‘‘/o ascertain.” Similarly, in LXX, mv@écOa, “to ascertain,” in Gen.
xxv. 22 and 2 Chr. xxxii. 31, is as justifiable as émuv@dvero and érvvGavdueba,
“tried to ascertain,” in 2 Chr. xxxi. g and 1 Esdr. vi. 11; but Esth. ii. 13
mudouévov is an error for muy@avouévov which is read by AN*. In Ox. Pap. 533
(edd.) ‘‘sell the grass-seed and ask (ri@eoGe)...whether he wants...,” I should
prefer ‘‘ascertain.” It would be quite correct to say that a man, “‘éxyzng to ascertain
something (muvOavéuevos)” sends messengers ‘‘to ascertain tt (Tov mubécbat).”
1 [2466 (i)a@] Comp. Mk xi. 32 efyov tov “Iwavnv dvTws bre mpopyrns 7V,
b)
Mt. xxi. 26 ws mpopyntny exovow Tov "L., Lk. xx. 6 memewpévos yap éoryw 'I.
339 Z2——2
[2467] TENSE
(a) “EXeron
[2467] John very frequently uses éAeyov to describe what “was
being said” about some one subject, first by some, then by others,
of a chattering multitude’, or what people ‘‘ began to say,” or ‘‘said
repeatedly ” to some one person®*. But he also uses it sometimes to
introduce Christ’s sayings, as follows i. 21 éxetvos d€ eAXeyev meplt Tod
vaov TOV Gwpatos atTov, Vi. 6 TodTO de eAeyey Teipalwy adTov, Vi. 71
edeyey be tov “Tovday, xil. 33 Todro b€ eAeyev onpaivwv Toiw Oavarw
npedAev aroOvyoKxew. In all these cases the saying is mysterious and
not understood by the hearers, and eAeyey means “he was saying [all
the while this or that, though the hearers did not perceive it.” Once,
this is expressed by the pluperfect xi. 13 elpye d€ 6 “I. wept rod
Gavatov attov. This statement of Christ’s meaning follows a state-
ment of the misunderstanding: “Lord, if he is asleep, he will recover.
But Jesus had been saying { this| about his death.”
[2468] In each of these instances 6€ follows the verb; and é¢,
and the context, indicate that the evangelist is adding something to
make clear to his readers that which was not clear to the hearers at
the time when Jesus was speaking*. A somewhat similar meaning
may be conveyed by eivev with 6é, as in vil. 39 Todro 6€ elzev (v. r.
éleyey but not marg.) epi tod mvevpatos, xxi. Ig TodTo dé elev
onpaivwv. In both these cases more emphasis is laid upon the
weight of the authoritative prediction than on its being misunder-
stood : and indeed, as to the latter, it is quite possible that Peter is
regarded as perceiving that the prediction pointed to a death upon
the cross. Aéyw, in Greek literature, must often be rendered ‘I
mean,” so that €Xeyev may often be rendered “‘he was [all the while]
meaning,” as in vill, 27 ‘They did not understand that Ae was [ad
the while| meaning the Father [in speaking] to them*.”
mpopntny ewa. Mk’s Hv, with reference perh. to his recent death, means that
‘the had been a prophet.” Acts iii. 10 émeyivwoxor.. dre otros Hv ‘began to
recognise further that this man was...” is rather different. Jn perh. would have
here written éorivy which (Alf.) is read by some authorities, including Chrys.: but
the meaning may be “‘had deen but lately sitting as a beggar.” The mpérepov in
Jn ix. 8 differentiates it from Acts iii. 10,
liv. 33, Vil. II, I2 etc. 2 iv. 42, v. Io etc.
% [2468 a] Comp. x. 6 éxetvor dé obk éyvwoar, xi. 13 éxetvor 5é €SoEav, where dé
introduces a statement of misunderstanding.
4 [24684] This sentence may be illustrated by xvi. 17 “what is (emph.) (71
éorw) this that he says (yer) to us?” which seems to be a blending of (r)
340
IMPERFECT [2470]
[2469] After i. 21 “But he was speaking (édeyev) about the
temple of his body” there arises some doubt as to the meaning
in 11. 22 “ When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples
remembered that Ae (R.V.) spake (A.V. had said) (eeyev) this, and
they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus (R.V. and A.V.)
had said (etvev).” It is but fair to assume that the writer means two
shghtly different things by eAeyev and elev, and that éAeyev in the
two consecutive verses has the same meaning. Also “remembered ”
may be used here as in the Entry into Jerusalem, where it is said
that the disciples (xii. 16) ‘“‘remembered that these things were
written concerning him [Jesus] and that they had done these things
to him ”—perhaps (2757) meaning, “ remembered that Zechariah had
written about the King riding on the ass, and vemembered that
certain similar things had happened to Jesus, and znferred that
‘these things were written concerning him.’” So here, in this
prediction about the Temple, ‘“‘zemembered” is probably a short
way of saying “remembered and recognised”; and €édeyev zepi is
but a longer form of €deyev, “he was speaking [about], or speaking
[of],” thus: “ But e was [all the while| speaking about the temple of
his body. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples
remembered |and recognised] that he was [all the while] speaking [of |
this; and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had
said.”
[2470] In two instances eAeye appears to be used by John as in
Mark to mean “began to say,” or ‘‘went on to say,” or “used to
say”: vi. 64—5 ‘‘...but there are some of you that believe not.—
‘“What really is this?” ré ésrw rodro; (2) ‘‘What does he mean?” rf déye;
(3) ‘‘ What is he saying to us?” ri Névyer Nuiv; in v. 18 S7t...matépa idvov ereye Tov
Gedy, the meaning is uncertain (2464) because of the context: but it may mean
“‘because...he was [virtually] declaring God [to be] his own father.’ This differs
a little from éxdXer. Comp. Mk xii. 37 Aéyee adrov Kuproy ‘‘[virtually] declares
him [to be] Lord,” where the parall. Mt. xxii. 45, Lk. xx. 44 have xade?, and
comp. Mt. vil. 21 od mas 6 Aéyww wor, Kipre, Kipve with parall. Lk. vi. 46 ré dé we
Kadetre, Kupre, Kuipre ;
1 [2470 a] In Mark, @deyev (which is often (535 (v)) corrected by Matthew and
Luke) may sometimes mean ‘‘used to say.” In the Aéoth the sayings of a Rabbi
are introduced (az) sometimes by ‘‘was,” with participle ‘‘sayzng,” as in i. 2,
3 etc., (4) sometimes by ‘‘sayzng,” without ‘‘was,” as in i. 4, 5, 7 etc., (c) very
rarely by the past tense, ‘‘sazd,” in the case of sayings to special persons etc.,
ii. 7 “She saw a skull...azd he said to it,” ii. 12, 13 “He satd to them, ‘Go and
see...” Dr Taylor renders (a) by ‘‘zsed to say,” (6) and (c) by “said.” The
341
[2471] TENSE
For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not
and who it was that should betray him.—And he began to say (kat
é\eyev), For this cause I have said unto you that no man can come
unto me except it be given to him from the Father...,” vill. 30—1
“While he was saying these things many believed on him. Jesus
therefore Jegan to say unto those that had believed him [those that
were] Jews.” In the former, besides other variations in the text
(2636) the Latin ¢ has “et dicebat propterea quia nemo,” Le. “4nd
it was on this account that he said No man can come unto me?.” This
is equivalent to, “And this was what he meant when he said.” But,
as the text stands, eAeyeyv must be rendered as in Mark. ‘These two
exceptional instances as compared with the multitude of instances in
Mark, make John’s ordinary deviation from Mark all the more
striking.
(8) “H@edon
[2471] Both Oedev and 7OeAnoev occur in John. The latter in
i. 43 (R.V. “was minded to,” A.V. “ would”) means “it was his
pleasure, he resolved, to go forth to Galilee.” Also in v. 35 74eAnoare
(A.V. and R.V. “were willing”) there is perhaps a suggestion of a
decision on the part of the rulers of the Jews to accept John the
2%
Baptist, “ /¢ was your pleasure to rejoice for a season’.” The aorist
LXX often renders the Hebrew participle, when used as a tense of the indicative,
by the Greek imperfect. These facts indicate that the- habitual sayings of
a Jewish teacher might easily be confused with his sayings on special occasions.
1 To take 6:a Todro as non-initial (as e does) would be contrary to Johannine
usage (2387—91). For vi. 65 compared with vi. 44, see 2548 a.
2 [2471a] In LXX and N.T., (apart from negative and relative clauses, in
which it is very frequent in LXX) 7@éAynoa with an infinitive is rare. In Judg.
xx. 5, Tobit iii. ro (NS), it is used of a desire entertained but not accomplished.
In N.T. it is similarly used, of a desire frustrated, in Mt. xxiii. 37, Lk. xiii. 34
mocdkis nOéAnoa, and in Lk. x. 24 70éAnoay idetv (where the parall. Mt. xiii. 17
has-éreOiunoav). Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 18 70eAjocapev éOeiv mpds buds éyw ev IL.
k. dat kK. dls, x. évéxowev Nuas 6 Laravads, which seems to mean ‘‘resolved once,
yea twice.”
[2471 4] In Mt. xviii. 23 (R.V.) ‘‘ which woz/d (70€Anoe) make a reckoning,” the
modern English might be ‘‘ who decéded to have an audit,” and so Acts xvi. 3 ‘‘ Paul
decided that he [Timothy] should go forth with him.” So Xen. Cyrop.i. 1. 3 ‘‘We
know that many made up their minds (€0ehjoavras) to obey,’ Winer (p. 587)
quotes Isocr. Ca/lim. 914 ol...mpoxwdvvevew dvuav 70énoav, which should be
rendered ‘made up their minds to meet danger for your sake”: so in Lucian
ii. 408 (Amor. 10) €Oejoavras abrods Ernyduny, it means ‘of their own free-will
and resolution.”
342
OS ae
IMPERFECT [2472]
in LXX sometimes means “7¢ was the pleasure” of God, or a king,
where it conveys the notion of a decree’. The meaning of deliberate
resolve is also usually conveyed by the aorist when used affirmatively
in classical Greek.
[2472] In John, the imperfect 7eAov occurs (apart from a
negative or relative) in vil. 44 Twés d€ 7Gedov...midoa, “now some
would have liked to have taken him,” where it is perhaps (2575)
implied that their desire was frustrated because (vil. 30), His “hour
>p)
was not yet come....” In xvi. 19 70eAov (& npedXov) adtov epwrav the
meaning is, ‘‘ Jesus knew that they were wishing to ask him” so that
the imperfect has its proper force. In Mark vi. 19, 48 (17385 4),
Acts x, 10, Xiv. 13, xix. 33, 70eAe refers to a desire given up, or not
fulfilled, owing to something intervening. On the strength of these
facts, coming to the most important of all the Johannine instances
Vi. 21 76eAov ovv AaPetv, we are justified in saying that the desire
must be supposed unfulfilled: ‘‘ Zhey degan to wish to take him into
the boat.” The sequel shews that the wish was not fulfilled, for
want of time: “‘Straightway the boat was at the land®.”
1 [2471 c] Job xxiii. 13 6 yap abrés 70éXnce Kal erolnce, comp. Ps. exv. 3,
Gweoay (Wy ION, ih hott IS Tey ae
2 [2472a] A.V. “‘they willingly received him” makes quite a different sense.
R.V. ‘they were willing to receive him” is ambiguous, for it might mean ‘“‘they were
willing [as before].” Chrysostom says, ‘‘Why did He zo¢ go on board the vessel
(rivos dé évexev ovK avéBn els TO TNotov;)?” So Cramer ovk évéBn dé es TO wAotovy. On
the occurrence of 7e\ev in the parall. Mk. vi. 48, see 17356. The rst pers. in
Gal. iv. 20, 70eNov dé mapetvar, A.V. ‘‘I desire,” R.V. “I could wish,” Lightf.
‘‘T would I had been,” is equivalent to our curious expression ‘“‘Z could have
wished,” the literal meaning being ‘‘I began to wish but gave it up as the thing
was impossible.” But the 1st pers. usage is not a safe guide as to the general
meaning because it is often used to express modestly a wish that the speaker has
not given up, as in Hermas Mand. v. 7 70€Xov yy evar.
[24724] Comp. Lk. xxiv. 21 jmets 6€ nAmifouey bre abrds eotw 6 wéANwY
AuTpotcAa tov “Iopand. R.V. has ‘‘But we hoped that it was he which should
redeem Israel.” Apart from the context, ‘‘we hoped” might mean ‘‘we hoped
that it was—and it proved to be so,” and R.V. is not the English of any particular
century. A.V. is good seventeenth century English (except for the “ which”):
‘*But we trusted that zt had been he which should have redeemed”; and it brings
out the non-fulfilment of the ‘‘trust,” though it does not directly attempt to render
the imperfect. The meaning is, ‘ We were hoping [almost up till to-day and
saying] that ‘This is he that is destined to redeem Israel.’” (B has #Amifauer,
and, in the context yevdmwevac and 7\éay (an interesting cluster of forms in -a).)
The tense of 7Amifouev, like that of 74eXov in some of the above-mentioned instances,
implies frustration. On #@eAov implying unfulfilled desire, see 2716—7.
343
[2473] TENSE
(iv) Perfect
(tr) As the result of Johannine style
[2473] It has been pointed out above (2442—3) that, in part,
the Johannine perfect corresponds to the LXX aorist representing
the Hebrew perfect ‘‘I have loved,” “I have hated” meaning “I
have always loved,” “I have always hated,” with the implication
“JT continue to love and hate.” We know from Epictetus and Pliny
that Roman gentlemen borrowed the Greek xéxpixa to express what
the French call chose jugée, “I have decided [once for ail}’.” John
takes advantage of the Greek distinction—non-existent in Hebrew
and Latin—between the aorist and the perfect so as to represent
Pilate as saying (xix. 22) 6 yéypada yéypada, ze. “What I have
written, 7 have written [and shall not rewrite|.” This is the usual
meaning of the Johannine perfect—permanence. For example,
pepaptvpyxa (i. 34) might mean “my testimony is completed,” as
though the Baptist were thinking of himself as released from a com-
pleted task. But it probably means “I have witnessed [and abide
as a witness].” So in i. 32 “Z have beheld (A.V. I saw) (rebéapar)
the Spirit descending,” the meaning might be “7 have [ just] beheld”;
but—in view of 1 Jn iv. 14 “we have beheld (rebeapeba) and testify”
—it more probably denotes the present and permanent result of the
vision, such as Luke (ii. 30) expresses by the Hebraic efdov, “mine
eyes have seen [once for all| (etdov) thy salvation *.”
[2474] The most interesting uses of “ the perfect of permanence”
are 7Amua and remiorevxa. As to the former which occurs in v. 45
(R.V.) “ Moses, on (cis) whom ye have set your hope (yAmixare) (A.V.
in whom ye trust),” there can be no doubt that the perfect in N.T.
corresponds to the LXX aorist 7Ama above described (2443) and
it is fairly frequent in N.T.? It may be contrasted with the imperfect
1 (2473a] Epictetus ii. 13. 5 calls on a friend, who has decided to starve
himself to death: ‘‘I called on him and began to ask him what had happened [to
cause this]. ‘/ have decided [xéxpixa], he replied.” Comp. Plin. £fes¢. i. 12. 10
“‘Dixerat sane medico, admoventi cibum, Kéxpika.”’
[24734] In xx. 23 dv twwy Kparijre Kexpdrnvra, the meaning of kparéw is
doubtful, but the perfect appears to imply instantaneousness, see 2517—20.
2 Comp. i. 34 éwpaxa A.V. “I saw,” R.V. ‘I have seen.”
$ [2474a] 1 Cor. xv. 19 év Xp. HAmikéres éouév, R.V. ‘“we have hoped in
Christ,” A.V. ‘‘we have hope in Christ’; 2 Cor. i. 10 els dv #Amikauev, R.V. “on
whom we have set our hope,” A.V. ‘fin whom we trust”; 1 Tim. iv. 10 7Amlixapey
émt Oe@ favrt, R.V. ‘*we have our hope set on the living God,” A.V. ‘we trust in
the living God,” and sim. in £ Tim. v. 5, vi. £7.
344
PERFECT INDICATIVE [2476 |
nArigopev describing, in Luke, the disappointed hopes of the disciples
a few moments before the manifestation of the risen Saviour (2472 0).
[2475] Ilemiorevxapev occurs in the Epistle r Jn iv. 16 “We
have a perfect knowledge and we have a perfect belief,” and in the
Gospel vi. 69 “We have a perfect belief and we have a perfect
knowledge,” which have been explained above (1629). In the latter
passage Peter speaks, and, in another, Martha, xi. 27 ‘7 perfectly
believe (weriorevka) that thou art the Christ.” Peter’s belief fails for
a time in the hour of trial, and Martha’s faith does not enable her to
enter into the Lord’s purpose; but these facts do not preclude ‘‘I have
believed” from meaning, on the lips of the two speakers, ferfect
conviction. And, although the disciples had zof attained a perfect
belief in Christ, they may have ‘‘ believed perfectly” that He “came
forth from God.” This might explain an apparent inconsistency
where Jesus says (xvi. 31—2), ‘‘Ye believe for the moment” and
predicts that the disciples will “be scattered,” and yet He has
previously said (xvi. 27) “‘ye have a perfect belief (reriotedxare) that
I came forth from the Father.” Even in the reproof to Thomas in
xx. 29, the perfect may retain the meaning of completeness, the
reproof being based not on the incompleteness, but on the cause,
of the belief. This use of the perfect extends even to the expression
of ‘a perfect hatred” in xv. 24, where—in spite of the saying ‘“‘ No
man hath seen God at any time”—Jesus says of the Jews “ 7hey
have both seen and have hated (kai éwpaxacw Kat peuonkacw) me and
my Father,” meaning that so far as their vision goes, they are perfect
haters of the Light.
(2) As the result of Johannine thought
[2476] In contrast with reriorevxa, nAmika, and peuionxa, the
form yyarn«a is not found either in the Gospel or in the Epistle
(not at least without a negative to deny the existence of such a
“love”)*, But the perfect of #iAéw occurs once thus, xvi. 27 “ For
1 [2475 a] If so, there may be intended a suggestion of incongruity (comp.
Rom. viii. 24 ‘‘What a man seeth, how doth he yet hope for?”) between ‘‘seeing”’
and ‘‘perfect belief”: ‘‘Because thou hast seen me ¢how hast attained [what
seemeth to thee| perfect belief.” The only other Johannine instance of mremlorevxa
is in ili. 18 67e wh memiotrevxey ‘‘condemned for not having believed,” where the
tense may have merely a temporal force (‘‘disbelieved up to this very moment’’)
or may mean ‘‘for having no settled belief.” Elsewhere it is without the negative.
For (viii. 31) memcotevkws, see 2506.
2 [2476 a] If W.H. txt is correct, the perfect occurs in I Jn iv. 10 ovx dre tues
345
[2477 | TENSE
the Father himself loveth you because ye have loved (redtAnKarte)
me.” It has been maintained elsewhere (1716 ¢, f, 1728 m—~,, 2584c)
that John always uses ¢vAéw to denote love of a lower kind than that
expressed by dyaraw. Using the higher term, St Paul says “Owe no
man anything save to love one another'”’; and perhaps the evangelist
thought that “loving,” in the higher sense, is the one spiritual action
that must never be spoken of as completed. Desiring to describe
the disciples as having attained—even before the Resurrection and
before the gift of the Holy Spirit—to a complete love of their Master
in the lower sense of the word, he uses weiAnxa.
[2477] If this is the correct explanation of the use of weiAynKa
and the non-use of 7yarnxa, it follows that we must be prepared in
other instances for similar explanations—that is to say, explanations
not based on Greek style like yéypada, nor on attempts to render the
Hebrew ‘perfect of permanence,” but on Johannine thought. In
the first century, when Christian evangelists were comparing or con-
trasting prophecy with the Gospel, one might say ‘The prophets
prophesied,” another, “They have prophested.’ Thus, Matthew and
Luke have “ All the prophets and the Law prophesied until John”
and “‘ From that time the kingdom of God is dezng preached’.” John
has “‘ Other men have laboured and ye have entered into their labours®.”
John often prefers the latter aspect, viewing ¢he present as a com-
pleted result of the past. Sometimes the perfect may include the
notion of instantaneousness—the thought being that one has not
time to say “God zs doing” but must say ‘‘God hath done.” Thus
the Epistle to the Hebrews says ‘‘In saying ‘new covenant,’ he has
[ay the mere word, at once) made antiquated the first [covenant]*.”
So, when the Lord has washed the feet of the disciples, and when
He has for the first time called them “friends,” the evangelist may
perhaps indicate the sudden introduction of that which is new in the
words, ‘‘ Understand (2243) what 7 ave done unto you” and “ But
you J have called friends’.” And when He speaks of the inevitable
hyanhkawev Tov Oedv AXN bre adrds ydrynoev Huds, ‘Snot that we have loved God,
but that He loved us.” Here the actual redeeming love of God for man is
expressed in the aorist, and the statement in the perfect, ‘‘we have loved God,” is
stated only to be denied. But W.H. marg. has 7yamjoauev.
1 Rom. xiii. 8 ef wy TO ddANAOUS ayaa.
2 Mt. xi. 13 and parall. Lk. xvi. 16. $ Jn iv. 38: + Hebr viii:
5 (2477 a] xiii. 12 yevdoxere rl merolynxa, contrasted with xiii. 14 el éyw éupa
(but this is partly the result of the general non-use of the perf. of vlrrw), xv. 15
buds dé elpnxa Pidous.
346
:
PERFECT INDICATIVE [2479]
sequence of divine judgment and reward, He says that the unbeliever
“hath been condemned already,” and that the believer “ath passed
from death into life’.” Similarly, placing Himself where He sees
future glory and victory as already achieved, He says “7 have been
glorified in them,” “/ have conquered the world’.” The Johannine
perfect is never “used for the aorist” (2747—55).
(3) Second Perfects
[2478] Téyova is, no doubt, correctly (so far as tense is concerned)
rendered by R.V. in i. 3 “hath been made,” (A.V. “was made”).
But there is difficulty in vi. 25 wdre de yéyovas; (R.V.) “when
camest thou hither?” The perfect would seem to accord better with
“how long” (“ How long fast thou been here?”). Perhaps it is a
condensed expression for “ When [camest thou, and how] art thou
[thus suddenly] here?” Some instances in which Matthew applies
yeyove to the fulfilment of prophecy suggest that he uses it as an
aorist®*. But the general Johannine use keeps the sense of the
perfect * Nonnus has Ilore detpo mapémdees; Chrysostom asks
whether wore may be here used for wos, but does not explain
yéyovas. The Latin and Syriac versions paraphrase it by ‘‘come.”
[2479] Kexpaye in 1. 15 ‘Iwavyns pwaptupet epi abtod K. Kéxpayev 1s
rendered by R.V. “John deareth witness of him and crieth,” A.V.
1 [24776] ili. 18 4On Kéxpirar, v. 24 pmeTaBeBnxey ex T. Oavdrou eis THY Fwy,
where the judgment and transition are regarded as having actually taken place, not
as being vividly predicted by means of a perfect. In xvi. 11, Kéxpita applied to
the “ prince of this world” describes an invisible condemnation that has just been
ratified; and xiv. 7 éwpdxare describes a vision of the Father that has just been
imparted to the disciples.
2 [2477 c] xvii. 10 deddEaocmar év adrois, xvi. 33 eyw veviknka Toy Kéouov. It
would be impossible to say how far these perfects are proleptic, how far regarded
as actually expressing completion (in the eyes of God).
3 [2478 a] Mt. i. 22, xxi. 4, xxvi. 56 R.V. ‘‘is come to pass,” which seems
contrary to English idiom (A.V. ‘‘ was done”). Int K. x. 20 (R.V.) “ there was
not the like made in any kingdom,” ov yéyovey is parall. to 2 Chr. 1x. 19 ovK
éyevn On.
= [24 78))|i in) 12053) 30, Va 04,.xil) 305 xiv 22. InerCor. xii. Tr) A.V But
when J éecame (yéyova) a man,” is rightly corrected by R.V. to “now that 7 am
become.” Yéyova (Steph. ii. 623)=‘‘natus sum” in such phrases as ‘‘/ am ten
years old,” yéyova érn d6éka, comp. Rom. xvi. 7 ‘‘my seniors in Christ (apd éuod
yéyovav €v Xpicr@).” Alford and Thayer quote no instance of yéyova meaning
“tam come,” or ‘‘I came”: ND and the Latin and Syriac vss. substitute in Jn
vi. 25 some form of the verb ‘‘come.” The aorist in Jn vi. 21 ev@éws éyéveto TO
m)otov emt Tis yHs, seems to imply supernatural and instantaneous arrival. Is that
the meaning in Jn vi. 25 yéyovas ‘‘suddenly come”? See 2758.
347
>
[2480] TENSE
“bare witness...and cried.” Keéexpaya, “cry aloud,” is connected by
Origen! with the effort of voice needed to make the deaf hear, and is
distinguished by him from “cry,” Boaw, the word used in the LXX of
Isaiah (quoted by the Synoptists) ‘the voice of one cryzmg in the
wilderness.” John probably associates it with the “ cryimg aloud” of
Wisdom in the Book of Proverbs “ Ye fools, be of an understanding
heart.” But why does he use the Second Perfect instead of éxpagev ?
Partly, perhaps, for the purpose of differentiating the cry of the
Baptist, whose whole mission was ‘“‘crying” and ‘crying aloud,”
from the “crying aloud” of our Lord Himself, which took place on
three special occasions of public teaching or warning, vil. 28, 37,
xll. 44, always expagev*. But partly also the reason may be that he
wishes to make the verb of ‘‘crying” parallel to the verb of ‘ bearing
witness,” paptupet—his first use of the historic present (2482) so
frequent later on in this Gospel. It is as though the Prologue of the
drama had almost concluded, bringing us down from the Word in
heaven to the Word on earth (“In the beginning was the Word...
and the Word became flesh...full of grace and truth”). Now, before
the curtain rises on the terrestrial scene, the dramatist inserts, as it
were, a stage direction, ‘‘ John ts discovered testifying (1. paprupet) and
crying aloud (Kk. Kéxpayev).”
(v) Pluperfect
[2480] The pluperfect is perhaps more frequent in John than in
any of the Synoptists, and his use of it (like his use of the perfect)
shews a disposition to represent distinctions not capable of being
represented in Hebrew (which has no pluperfect). It often expresses
1 [2479] Orig. Huet ii. 111 B ‘*But he crves and cries aloud (Bog 6é Kai
kéxpayev) that those who are far off may hear the speaker, and that those who are
dull of hearing (Sapuj«oo.) may understand the greatness of the things that are
being spoken.” As regards the ‘‘dzd/,” lit. ‘‘ heavy” of hearing, comp. Is. vi. ro
(LXX) ‘‘ For the heart of this people has been made fat and with their ears they
have heard dully (Bapéws #Kkovoav).”” Those who are ‘‘far off” are the Gentiles ;
those who are ‘‘ dull of hearing” are the Jews. For the former, ‘‘crying” suffices,
for the latter, ‘‘crying aloud” is resorted to and yet does not suffice. Comp. Prov.
vill. r—5 ‘Doth not wisdom cry (LXX knpvéers, but Theod. kexpdtera)...she
crieth aloud (ipvetra)...O ye simple, understand subtilty, and, ye fools, be of an
understanding heart.” Chrys. has Té éore ro, Kéxpaye; Mera mappyoias, pyol,
pera €evbeplas, xwpls brooro\js amdons avaxknpitre. But Origen’s hypothesis of
the ‘‘dull of hearing” seems far better. Comp. Oxyrh. Pap. 717, a petition of
‘‘late ist cent. B.C.,” éyw oly €Bédwy kal Expagorv...Bodv Kal kpdgwv bre TodTé éort....
* Comp. xi. 43 éxpavyacev, in the Raising of Lazarus, and see 1752 a—/.
348
PLUPERFECT [2481]
a parenthesis, or a statement out of its chronological place, of the nature
of an after-thought : ili. 23—4 “‘ Now there-was John also baptizing
in Aenon—for not yet had John been cast (ovrw yap jv BeBAnpEév0s)
into prison” (which corrects a misapprehension likely to arise in
readers of the Synoptic Gospels'): iv. 8 “for his disciples [/ should
have said before| had gone away”: ix. 22 “These things said his
parents because they were afraid of the Jews. For [7 should have
said that} some time ago (76) the Jews had agreed together...” :
xl. 17—19 “Jesus therefore, having come [thither], found him
[Lazarus] already four days in the grave. Now (de) Bethany was
near Jerusalem... Now (6€) many of the Jews 4ad come to Martha,”
where the writer goes back from “having come and found” to the
circumstances that preceded the ‘‘ coming” and the “finding”: xi. 30
“Now (d€) Jesus ad not yet come into the village”: xi. 57 “ Now
(dé) the chief priests and the Pharisees ad given commandments...
that they might take him.”
[2481] This tense takes the reader, as it were, behind the scenes
—after some mention of deeds or words—to tell him what veal/y had
been the cause of the result, or what had been the motive or meaning of
the words. Thus the non-arrest of Jesus is twice explained, vil. 30,
vill. 20, “‘because his hour #ad not yet come.” The disciples say
about Lazarus “Lord, if he is asleep, he will recover,” but the
explanation comes, x1. 13 “ But Jesus Aad said [it] (<ipyxes, ze. had
said “is asleep”) concerning his death.” In i. rg —24, terminating
with the words x. arectadpevor joav éx tov Papicaiwv, the reader
may naturally ask why these ‘“ Pharisees” had not been mentioned
in i. 19 along with “ priests and Levites.” The explanation is, that
the deputation is first described from one point of view, as having
ecclesiastical status and as baffled in the attempt to extract from the
Baptist an answer satisfactory to themselves. Then the Pharisees,
who have the status of teachers of the Law, are on the point of
stepping in to ask by what right he baptizes, and at this point the
evangelist breaks the course of events to tell us that Pharisees ‘‘ had
been” (2214) included in the deputation’.
1 [2480 a] Luke (iii. 19—20) narrates the imprisonment of John the Baptist,
and then proceeds (iii. 21) ‘*‘ Now it came to pass when all the people were (or,
had been) baptized and when Jesus was (or, had been) baptized....” This, if
connected with what precedes, might easily give the impression that the imprison-
ment of the Baptist immediately followed the baptism of Jesus.
* [2481 a] The pluperf. pass. also occurs in xix. 11 ef wh Hv Sedouévov, and xix.
41 év @ ovdérw ovdels Hv TEHeuévos.
349
[2482] TENSE
(vi) Present
(1) Historic Present
[2482] The historic present, which is much more frequent in
Mark than in the other Synoptists', is also a striking characteristic
of John. But Mark and John differ in their use of it. For example,
before the historic present of épxeoGo1, Mark makes a rule of prefixing
kai’, and uses it rather monotonously. John frequently uses it in
asyndeton, often at the beginning of a sentence, and in such a way
as to give life and vividness to the narrative, sometimes perhaps also
(when applied to the “coming” of our Lord) suggesting that the
Messiah is “he that cometh” to deliver (1632—6)*. John also,
alone of the evangelists, uses BAérec and—with one Synoptic excep-
tion—etpioxe as historic presents*. When the risen Saviour came for
the first time to the Disciples it is said that He “came (\Gev)”: but
when, after Thomas had refused to believe, He comes to help
1 [2482 a] Comp. orae Synopticae, pp. 114—7, where it is shewn that, of 151
historic presents in Mk, Mt. has only 21, Lk. only 1. In some passages of LXX,
the historic present represents the Hebrew ‘‘converted future,” e.g. 1S. xxxi. I—3
éroN€éuovw ... WirTovsw ... cwamrTovew ... TUTToVeW ... Baptvera... ebplakovew, with
parall. 1 Chr. x. 1 foll. érodéunoav...érecov...xkaTediwéav...émaragay...€Bapvv7...
evpov, also 1 S. xxxi. 8 ‘‘and it came to.pass when (lit. and) they came...then (lit.
and) they found,” kal éyevj0y Ty émadpiov, Epxovrat of aAX...Kai evploxovow.
Contrast this with parall. 1 Chr. x. 8 kal éyévero 7H éxouévy Kali nOov adX...Kal
evpov....
2 [24826] Mk i. 40, ii. 3, 18, ili. 20, 31, v. 15, 22, 38, vi. 1 etc. An exception
is v. 35 rt a’ro0 A\adobvTos epxovra, which is the only instance where the parall.
Lk. has historic present.
3 [2482c¢] It is applied to Philip and Andrew (twice) in xii. 22 coming to
introduce the Greeks, and thrice to Mary Magdalene on the morning of the
Resurrection, xx. 1, 2, 18 concluding with épyerac M. 7 M. dyyéAAovoa rots wm. dre
“Ewpaxa tov xtpiov, where édpaxa, of direct speech, is followed by elev, of
reported speech. Somewhat similarly in vi. 24 eldev 6 dxAos Ste’ Inoods od Eorw
éxe?, there is a blending of (1) ‘‘The multitude perceived and said ‘Jesus zs not
here,” and (2) ‘‘ The multitude perceived that Jesus was no longer ¢heve.” The
historic present of other verbs is also frequent in (xiii. 4—6) the Washing of Feet
and (xx. 1—18) the description of the Resurrection. When John says that the
Samaritan woman (iv. 7) ‘‘cometh” to draw water—almost immediately after
saying that (iv. 4—5) ‘‘it was necessary” that Jesus should go through Samaria—
and that He ‘‘cometh therefore” to a city of Samaria near Jacob’s well, he may
have in view the coincidence of the two acts of ‘‘coming” appointed by a divine
‘* necessity.”
4 [2482] Bdére i. 29, xx. I, 5, Xxi. 9, 20; edploxer i. 41, 43, 45, V- 14. The
Synoptic exception is Mk xiv. 37, Mt. xxvi. 40 evploxer avrovs xadevdovras (where
parall. Lk. xxii. 45 has evpev).
350
PRESENT INDICATIVE [2483 |
Thomas and other doubters, it is said that He “ cometh (€pxerac)'.”
The former, like the coming into the world at the incarnation (2457),
is described as a matter of past history; the latter as the action of
6 €pxopmevos.
[2483] There is difficulty in xxi. r2—13 “Jesus saith unto them,
[Come] hither, break your fast. None of the disciples would be so
bold as (eroApa (2466)) to question him, Who art thou ?—knowing
{all of them] that it was the Lord. Jesus cometh (€pxerac °I.) and
taketh the bread and giveth to them, and the fish likewise.” If the
disciples are commanded to come “hither” by their Master, how is
it that He is described as “coming” to them? One suggested
explanation is that they “hang back*.” But Peter had previously
leaped into the water, uninvited, to hasten towards the Lord. Would
he now “‘hang back”? Even if he had done so, would the beloved
disciple “‘hang back”? Again, the evangelist comments on the
mere silence of the disciples (“none of them durst question him”).
If there had also been a ‘‘ hanging back,” would not the writer have
commented on this also (e.g. “ But when they were afraid and did not
draw near, He Himself came unto them”)? It is more in accord-
ance with the tone of this Gospel to suppose that the writer assumed
obedience. The Apostles come, as commanded, and recline, as for
a meal, around the bread and the fish: then “cometh Jesus,” ze. to
the disciples assembled round the food*. In the Washing of Feet it
had been said ‘‘ He cometh therefore to Simon Peter.” Now He
“cometh” to them all, severally. Then He washed their feet for the
journey of an evangelist; now He gives them food to prepare them
for it. Both are the acts of ‘‘ Wim that cometh*.”
TEx. LQ, 20:
2 Westc. ad loc. ‘“‘As the disciples hang back, ‘Jesus cometh’ and gives to
them of ‘the bread’ and ‘the fish’ which He had Himself provided.”
% [2483 a] This somewhat resembles Luke’s account of Christ’s appearing to
the disciples and partaking of fish in their presence (Lk. xxiv. 36—42): and it
suggests that there may have been various traditions combining a literal and a
symbolical meaning (1) about the catching of fish, (2) about a Eucharistic meal
(after the Resurrection) in which fish formed a part. In that case, épxerac might
be variously interpreted as ‘‘cometh to help,” ‘‘cometh suddenly,” or ‘‘ cometh
into the assembly of the disciples.”
4 [2483 4] It is worth noting that, in describing the Eucharist, épyera: is used
by Mk xiv. 17 &pxera wera T&v 6Wdexa, where the parall. Mt. xxvi. 20 has avéxecro,
and Lk. xxil. 14 dvérecev.
Son
[2484] TENSE
(2) Present of Prophecy and Present of Law
[2484] ‘“ Whoever stirs des” contains a prophetic present ; but
“Whoever is convicted of murder des,” and ‘If a stone is dropped
it fad/s,” contain ordinary presents, describing what is the law (either
conventional or natural). The latter might be called the Present of
Law. ‘The present of law” and ‘‘the present of prophecy ” are not
always easily distinguished, especially in an author prone to
contemplate in the present a future—a future when a Law now
invisibly at work will be visibly fulfilled. John is such an author,
and in his Gospel it is best to take the present (wherever the sense
permits) as the present of law, or as the literal present, and not as
the present of prophecy. ‘The present in x. 15 “I /ay down my life
for the sheep” is certainly intended to include a reference to the
Crucifixion. But it might refer also to the whole of Christ’s work as
being a “laying down of life,” in so far as it realises the ideal of the
Good Shepherd, of whom it is said, not that he zev//, if need be, do
this, but that he does it: x. 11 ‘The good shepherd /ayeth down his
life for the sheep.” In iii. 18 “He that believeth in him zs xot
judged,” the meaning is, ‘‘does not, now or ever, come under the
operation of judgment.” That the present is not prophetic is made
almost certain by the context, “He that believeth not hath been
judged already (89 xéxpetac)”—which indicates that “judgment ” has
been in operation 7 time past, up to the present moment. If a law in
present operation is contemplated in the latter clause, it must be
contemplated also in the former.
[2485] This notion of a law in present operation occurs also
in xil. 25 “he that loveth his life Zoseth (A.V. shad/ lose) (aroddve) it,
and he that hateth his life in this world sha// keep (dvdAaéer) it to life
“7s destroying,” rather than “ doseth” or
“shall lose,” and the writer desires to suggest the present operation
of the corrupting influence of self-love when it takes the form
of selfishness. He might have said “ shad/ dose” in strict antithesis
with “shall keep,” but he is glad to break the antithesis in order to
emphasize the fact that “he zs already losing.”
eternal.” It seems to mean
' [2485 a] The thought of a law already acting invisibly and soon to be
manifested, may perhaps be illustrated by some uses of the phrases (a) ‘‘ The hour
cometh,” and (6) ** The hour cometh and now is,” especially where the two occur
together. The former refers to the time when (iv. 21) Jerusalem and Gerizim will
cease to be the special homes of worship ; the latter to the earlier and immediate
352
5
)
9
'
}
'
PRESENT INDICATIVE [2487 |
[2486] (1) The present in x. 32 ‘For which of those works ave
ye stoning me?” and in xiii. 6 “ Thou (emph.) washest my feet!”
is interrogative or exclamatory, and refers to actions of which the
beginnings have been described—as it does also in xii. 27 ‘What
thou art doing (roves), do more quickly.” In xxi. 3 “J am going
(izayw) fishing,” the phrase “7 am going” is so suggestive of the
future that it may be almost called a form of the future in Greek, as
it certainly is in English. This also applies to “Z am coming,” which
may be combined with ‘‘soon” or other temporal adverbs so as to
denote a speedy future. Hence xiv. 3 “If I go...Z come back (rédw
€pxopar) (2649 (1i)) and wz// rececve you unto myself,” “I come” or
“am coming” may combine the notion of speed with that of pro-
phetic certainty. The present in xxi. 23 “that disciple zs not to die
(ov« aroOvyoKer)” and “he said not, ‘ He zs not fo die,” may perhaps
be explained by the Greek usage of that particular word (2530),
as in 1 S. xx. 32 “wherefore should he be put to death? (Heb. why
shall he die ?),” LXX, “ Why deth he?” wa ti aro6vyjcKe ;
[2487] (2) In xii. 26 “,, let him follow me, and where J am (orov
eit éyw) there shall my minister also be,” a suggestion is probably
intended that the Son, even while on earth, is in heaven, or with the
Father ; and the writer wishes to turn the reader’s mind to something
more than a local heaven. Hiwi éyw is repeated in xiv. 3, xvil. 24,
and always precedes the antecedent clause (“that where 7 am ye
also may be,” “‘that where 7 am they also may be with me”). It
is distinguished by the order of the words from E[Q EIMI (2226—8).
So, too, is the simple eiz/ in xvi. 32 “ye shall leave me alone, and
yet 7 am not alone because the Father is with me.” Yet even there,
“T am” is not prophetic present, but expresses the real, and existing,
though invisible fact’.
time when worship is to be (iv. 23) ‘‘in spirit and truth.” The former is used to
predict (v. 28) the resurrection of those ‘‘in the tombs”; the latter to predict
(v. 25) the proclamation of the Gospel to those who are “dead [in sins]. In
Xvi. 2, 25, the shorter form is used to predict the persecutions and revelations
that await the disciples after Christ’s death ; in xvi. 32, a version of the longer
form, ‘‘the hour is coming and hath come,” predicts the ‘‘scattering” of the
disciples on that same night, and, perhaps literally, in that same “hour.”
1 [2487 a] What is the precise difference between vii. 34 dzov eul éyw ters od
dvvacbe éhOety and vill. 21 drov éy& Urdyw bueis ov Sivacbe Ee? The former
is preceded by &re xpdévov puxpdy me” buev eiul Kai brdyw pos Tov TéupavTa Me,
which says, in effect, ‘7 am on earth where ye are...I go to the Father where ye
cannot be.” There is an apparently intentional inconsistency in saying to the
A. VI. 353 23
[2488] TENSE
[2488] The following passage is noteworthy because it represents
Jesus as varying His own words by converting a future into a present :
xvi. 14-15 “He [the Holy Spirit] will glorify me: because he wild
take (Anpayerac) from what is mine and will announce [it] to you.
All things as many as the Father hath are mine. For this cause said
I that (071) ‘He taketh (XapBave) from what is mine and will
announce [it] to you.’” The change is perhaps best explained, not
as though our Lord meant “[Yea, already] he taketh ”—for in that
case He would have hardly added “I said”—but as a transition
of thought from what the Spirit zwz/7 do to what the Spirit does
in accordance with eternal Law. After a mention, in the future, of
what the Spirit wz7 do (‘will glorify me...will take...will
announce”) the Law is stated in the present (‘All things that the
Father hath ave mine”) which leads'to a re-statement of the Lord’s
words about the action of the Spirit as though He had said “the
Spirit ¢aketh.” But the future is immediately resumed in the phrase
“will announce [it] to you.”
[2489] The present is apparently used as a future in xx. 17
“Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to the Father: but go
unto my brethren and say to them, / ascend’ (avafaivw) unto my
Father and your Father....” In vil. 33—4 Jesus says to the Jews
“a little time 7 am with you,” and, in the same sentence, “ Where
I am ye cannot come.” Here He says “‘l have not yet ascended” and,
in the same sentence, ‘‘/ ascend.” In some authors this present
might mean simply “I am on the point of ascending.” But this
is unusual in John—at least as the sole meaning of the present.
More probably the words are intended to suggest the thought of
a spiritual ascending, already begun, ‘‘ 7 have not yet ascended...[ am
ascending.” The mysterious words “Touch me not for I have
not yet ascended” seem to mean that when the Lord had ascended
Jews ‘‘ Where I am ye cannot come” immediately after saying ‘‘Z am with you”—
the object being to indicate that ‘‘7 am,” in the Saviour’s mouth, often has a
spiritual meaning, especially when it follows such a phrase as ‘‘T go to the Father.”
The two sayings, then, represent the same fact from two points of view, heaven
being regarded first as a state in which one zs and then as a place to which one
goes—‘‘ Where I am [i.e. with the Father] ye cannot come. [Do ye not understand
this? Then] where I vo, there ye cannot come.” The difficulty of ‘‘am” has
caused some authorities (2190 a) to take eww as elut “SI go.” So Nonnus, ddevou.
1 [2489 a] Origen (Huet ii. 144, 265, 331) freq. (though not always) has opev-
oat (and so does Chrys. ad /oc.) for avaBalyvw: Nonnus, elme...atris ixdvw.
354
\e
I
PRESENT INDICATIVE [2491]
His disciples woud be able to “touch” Him (perhaps as being the
Bread of Life). The Ascension may be regarded in two ways,
rst, as an uplifting from the material earth up to and beyond the
material clouds and out of sight, 2nd, as an uplifting of the Messiah
in the invisible world, and simultaneously in the hearts of the
disciples, to the throne of God. Luke describes the former in the
Acts. John may be thinking of the latter here, and, if so, avaBaivo
may mean, not “I shall ascend” but “Z am ascending,” i.e. the
Father is preparing the moment when the Son shall be exalted to
heaven in the sight of angels above and in the hearts of believers
below?.
[2490] In viii. 14 “I know whence / came (7\Oov) and where
I go...ye know not whence / come (€pxopar) or where I go,” a contrast
seems to be implied between the particular place from which
a traveller may “have come,” and the quarter or direction from which
a man met in the street may “be coming.” Io6ev 7\Ges would be the
more definite, serious, and important question. TloGev épye. (almost
equivalent to ‘““What have you been recently doing?” “ What have
you been about?”) might be asked out of mere curiosity. The
distinction seems intended to express that the Jews have not even an
indefinite notion of the origin and mission of the Son’.
[2491] In xiv. 7 ef éyvuixerré pre, Kal Tov TaTépa prov av pdeTe™ Gar
apTl ywwoKere avTov Kal éwpaxate (Marg. + adrdv), the reading is un-
certain (2760—6)*. If ywwoxere is correct, it seems to mean “ye are
1 [2489 4] Of course the spiritual Ascension may be manifested to believers by
a vision of a local Ascension, such as Luke describes in the Acts, and Isaiah in his
vision of the Lord in the Temple, ‘‘high and lifted up.” Origen (Huet ii. 418—g)
points out that Christ’s presence with the disciples ts dependent on them, as well as
on Him. ‘Nhere two or three are gathered together in His name, He is ‘‘in the
midst of them” even after His death. When He says to the disciples (xiii. 33)
** Vet a little while am I with you,” He does not mean ‘‘I shall be dragged away
by the guard of the chief priests” but ‘I shall be parted from you by your want
of faith, because ye will be ‘scattered’ from me.” Similarly the moment for His
full and final ascension will not have arrived till He can be so ‘lifted up” as to
‘draw all men” unto Himself: and until the moment arrives when the disciples
will be ready to be ‘‘drawn” to Him, the Ascension, for them, is non-existent.
For that moment the Lord prepares by calling the disciples ‘‘ brethren” (‘‘Go
unto my brethren and say I am ascending unto my Father and your Father”).
* [2490 a] Chrys. says nothing about this distinction. Origen (Huet ii. 262 C)
omits from 70d brdyw to rod brayw (homoeotel., 25492). On Nonnus see 2759.
3 [2491 a] D and & have ei éyvaxare éué Kal Tov maTépa pou yvaoerGar (a scietis)
kal dmdpre yewwoxere (d cognoscite) (N yradoecOat) aidrov kai Ewpdxare avrov: Tren.
355 23-2
[2491] TENSE
recognising” or “ye begin to recognise.” If so, what is the meaning
of the addition ‘‘and ye have seen”? How can a person begin to
“recognise” unless he ‘‘has seen” previously? The passage must
be compared with that in the Epistle ‘‘ Every one that sinneth hath
not seen him (i.e. the Son], zor even known him'.” In both, according
to the general Johannine usage, “ath seen” must be regarded as
indicating not material but spiritual vision, and “seeing” is higher
than mere “recognition” or “coming to know.” In ordinary Greek,
and indeed in ordinary language of any nation, “knowing” a person
would be taken as a later and higher stage than “seeing” him; and
Chrysostom (in his comment ‘those whom we see we may simul-
taneously see and yet not know”) appears to have been misled by
ordinary usage into adopting the corrupt “ ye shall know (yvwoece),”
as though that were the goal to be reached after ‘‘having seen
(€wpaxare).” But John seems to mean, in the Epistle, ‘‘hath xot
seen nor even recognised,” and, in the Gospel, ‘‘ Ye are deginning to
recognise, { yea] and {what ts more] ye have seen”.” One may “ recognise,”
III. 13. 2 ‘‘amodo cognovistis eum et vidistis eum,” and Iv. 7. 3 ‘‘ Si cognovissetis
me et Patrem meum cognovissetis et amodo cognovistis eum et vidistis eum”;
a ‘*Si me cognovistis et Patrem meum cognovistis: jam ex hoc nostis illum et
vidistis illum,’ 6 and /f ‘‘ Si cognovistis me et Patrem meum cognovistis : et amodo
nostis eum et vidistis eum,” f ‘‘Si cognosceretis me utique et Patrem meum
cognosceretis et amodo cognoscetis eum et videtis eum”; ¢, alone of the latt. vss.,
has the present tense of ywwoxw, but in the wrong place as follows, ‘‘ Si cognovistis
me et Patrem meum cogmosct?s et amodo nostis illum et videtis eum.”’
[24914] Chrys. is printed by Migne as commenting thus: I@s 6é elarav,"“Omou
brdyw oldare, Kal Thy dd0y oldare, émnyayev’ Hl eve éyvaxerre, kai Tov Ilarépa “ov
éyvuoxere dy, Kal dmdpre yywoerbe attov, Kal éwpdxare adtév; Ovxl évavTiodoyav*
Hoecav pev yap atrov, obx otrw 6é ws éexphv. Oeov wév yap ydecav, Ilarépa de
ovdérw* torepoy yap TO IIvetua éreNOov, wacay év avrois KaTreckevace THY yyour.
O dé Néyet, Torodrév éorw: Hi nderre hv Euny ovalay kal rhv aélav, cal ri Tov
Ilarpos joere. Kat amdpre yvaoeode airov, kal éwpdxare avrov (7d pev édovTos,
To dé mapdvros)* TouvréoTiv, du Euod. “Oww dé éyer Thy kara dudvotav yvaouw. Tovds
bev yap dpwuévous Suvvdueba Kal opav Kal dyvoeiv: Tods dé ywwoxouévous ob duvdueda
ywioKkew Kar ayvoeiv. Aa Tord pyar: Kal éwpdxare atrév: worep pyolv, "OPO
kal dyyédots (1 Tim. iii. 16). Perhaps éyrwxecre and 7jderre have been confused
here in the text or in the comment. But it may be taken as certain that he read
ywoecbe for ywioxere, so that he is able to say, in effect, ‘the ‘knowing’ is
future, the ‘seeing’ is present.”” On Nonnus, see 2760.
1 | Jn iii. 6 was 6 dpwapraver obx éwpaxev a’rdy ovde EyvwKev adrov.
2 [2491 ¢] Winer-Moulton (p. 342) illustrates this passage by one from
Demosthenes Lacrit. 597 (error for 937 a) “Do the terms of the bond bid the
defendants to lend our money,
no acquaintance and whom we have never seen (dvOpary dv jyuets ore ywaoKomev
000’ éwpdkapev wwmore)?” But the negative makes a great difference in all phrases
350
and this, moreover, to a man with whom we have
PRESENT INDICATIVE [2491]
about ‘‘knowing.” And, if ywwoxw and opdw are used by John in a spiritual
sense, the usage of Demosthenes may be misleading as a guide to Johannine
meaning. In John, when a person is described as ‘‘being known,” the present,
ywwoxw, always implies sympathetic or moral knowledge, insight, understanding,
as ini. 48 ‘‘ Whence &zowest thou me ?”’—that is ‘‘that I am an Israelite indeed
without guile”; ii. 24 ‘‘Because of his knowing (ywwoxev) all men” (comp.
ii. 25 ‘the kvew (éyweoxev) what was in man”), x. 14 ‘I £zow my own and my
own &zow me,” x. 15 ‘‘Even as the Father 2voweth me,” x. 15 ‘‘I vow the
Father,” x. 27 “I £ow the sheep,”’ xiv. 17 ‘doth not 27ow it—but ye know it
(z.e. the Spirit).”” Comp. xvii. 3 “that they may kzow (ywwokwow, Tisch. ywao-
kovow) thee the only true God,” and 1 Jn v. 20 ‘‘in order that (va) we may
know (ywwoxouev) the true [one].”” In almost all these cases sympathy
many of them mutual sympathy—understanding, or insight, is implied.
[2491 d] In ii. 24 above, the knowledge or understanding had for its object the
weakness or imperfection of human nature: and, still more distinctly the Epistle
uses the present, ywwoxw, concerning moral understanding or knowledge of evil,
as well as of good, repelling disciples of Christ antipathetically from the evil, and
attracting them sympathetically to the good, 1 Jn iv. 2—8 ‘‘ Herein ye wnderstand
(ywwoere) the Spirit of God...he that wzderstandeth God hearkeneth to us...
From this we znderstand the spirit of truth and the spirit that decetves and leads
astray (70 7. THS wAadvys). Beloved, let us love one another, because the love [of
the brethren] is from God, and everyone that loveth [his brother] is born of God
and wnderstandeth God.”
[2491 ¢] Whence did John derive his use of the present, ywwoxw, to mean
personal knowledge and sympathetic insight into character? Probably not from
the LXX. The very first use of ywworw in LXX (Gen. ii. 17, ill. 5, 22) refers
indeed to the ‘‘understanding”’ of good and evil, but this is expressly distinguished
from ‘life,’ and it brings upon itself the curse of death. TI'waoxw is occasionally
applied (2 Chr. vi. 30, Ps. xliv. 21) to God’s knowledge of the human heart, in
Gen. xxix. 5, and Tobit (fass¢m) to “knowing” a person in one’s town or village
so as to be able to direct a stranger to him. But the style of Genesis and Tobit is
not like the style or styles of most of the books of LXX, in which, as a whole, the
pres., ywwoxw, signifying knowledge of a person, is very rare. Nor does it appear
to be common in the Greek translators of the first century. For example, in
Jer. xil. 3 od, Kipre, ywwoxers we, Aq. and Sym. have éyvws.
[24917] More probably John derived his use of the present, yuwwoxw, from
Greek literature. In Homer and the tragedians it is often used of ‘‘ distinguishing,”
or ‘‘ recognising” persons, and friends, and also of recognising one’s own nature
and the nature or purpose of others, e.g. in Aesch. Prom. 309 ylywoxe caurév,
““vecognise thy weakness,” Soph. PAz/. 1388 ‘ Thou wilt destroy me, Z see through
thee (ywaoxw oe) with these words of thine,” comp. Eurip. /er. 639, Hel. 567,
£1. 768. The Eudemian Ethics of Aristotle (vii. 4) speaks of mothers of children
out at nurse as preferring “‘to recognise rather than be recognised (ywwoxew 7
ywooxer@a).”” In the Szbylline Oracles (i. 74 yvworors & od éyivwoxov) the
imperfect means ‘‘vecognise [as having the claims of kindred].” The use of
“know” in the sense of ‘‘ recognising,” or ‘‘ acknowledging,” or ‘‘ appreciating”’
persons (Gesen. 3942) is fairly common in Hebrew, and is not absent from St
Paul (1 Thess. v. 12 eldévat, 1 Cor. xvi. 18 émvywwoxere) and from Ignatius
(Smyrn. 9 Kadds exer Gedy x. ewloxoroy eidévat). But these passages do not contain
the pres. ywwoxw. Perhaps John’s principal debt is to Plato (2763 a—é).
357
and in
[2492] TENSE
to some extent, God’s being and attributes long before one has
“‘ seen” Him, in the Johannine sense, as revealed in the Son.
[2492] No one has satisfactorily explained the extraordinary
statement attributed to the Pharisees in vii. 52 ‘Out of Galilee
ariseth no prophet (é« tas T. rpodyrys otk eéyelperat).” On this,
Westcott remarks, “Jonah, Hoshea, Nahum, and perhaps Elijah,
Elisha, and Amos were of Galilee.” How then could the Pharisees
first say to Nicodemus, ‘Search and see,” that is, in effect, ‘‘ Look at
the Scriptures [for you know nothing about them]” and then make
such an astounding statement, inviting from Nicodemus an obvious
refutation, “Search ye the Scriptures—and ye will learn that prophets
do ‘arise from Galilee’”? The only approach to an explanation is
that the present “arises” means “ avises asa rule.” But this—besides
being forced—would expose the Pharisees to the charge of impiety,
“Would you lay down ‘a rule’ for God and assert that He cannot
do anything but what you say He does ‘asa rule’?” As it stands,
the text seems inexplicable. And there is no variation of the text
sufficient to afford a solid ground for emendation'. Otherwise the
conjecture would be obvious that, after the final c in “‘ Galilee,” 0 has
dropped out. The result of this would be to convert “the prophet”
(mentioned just before in vil. 40) to “Prophet.” Concerning “ ¢he
prophet,” the Pharisees might have traditions identifying His birth-
place with that of the Messiah so that they might say “the prophet
ariseth not from Galilee.” In that case the present would be pro-
phetic—‘“‘ zs not to arise.”
[2493] In xi. 47 7 rovodpuev, Wetstein simply refers to Acts iv. 16
Ti Touowpev ; as though the meaning were “ What ought we to do?”
} [2492 a] In vii. 52, B and L have cde ore ex trys y. mpod. ovK evelpeTat
(L eynyeprat). The order is given differently (‘‘a prophet from Galilee”) in
N ide ore mpod. ex THs y- ovk evyerperat, D ide Tas ypadas ort Tpod. EK TNS Y- OUK
eyetperat, SS “see that a prophet from Galilee hath not arisen,” and in a@ (6 is
missing) and f/ Origen has (Huet ii. 278 8) the order of B, but ov« é€pxerac ovde
éyelperat. There happens to be no other instance in the Gospels of tée re
(Lk. xxiv. 39 Were 67 not being to the point). “Ide is used absolutely in i. 46,
xi. 34 ‘‘come and see.” If the Greek ran originally é. x. te, ‘O mpopyrns éx 7.1.
ovx éyelperat, ‘‘ Search and see, The prophet ariseth not out of Galilee,” scribes
and editors might be inclined to alter cde o rpomnrns because according to Johannine
usage (1. 29, 36, xix. 14, 26, 27) it would mean “ Behold, [here is] the prophet.”
This might explain why D inserts “ the scriptures” after ‘‘ behold.” Among other
changes, ott might be substituted for 0. The o before mpog¢ijrns is omitted in
i. 21 by NS and in i. 25 by C. Moreover SS, although it has ‘‘the prophet”
correctly in i. 21—5, has ‘‘a@ prophet” incorrectly in vii. 4o.
358
PRESENT INDICATIVE [2494]
But there, as in Lk. iii. 10, 12, 14, Acts il. 37, the aorist subjunctive
is used. Also the subjunctive in Jn vi. 28 (ré rower) (2512)
indicates that John would have used that mood here if he had meant
“ What ts to be our course of action?” Tf ri rovodpev; could be used
like ri wovets; ‘what folly art thou committing?” (Epict. il. 15. 7,
ili. 5. 15, Aristoph. Vud. 723, Vesp. 1443) it might mean here “ How
foolishly are we acting in doing nothing!” Such exclamations in
the first person are existent in rf dni; and té ravyw; but they are
not given in the Thesaurus under ow.
[2494] Philo i. 205 says that ri éroiyoas is ioov To ovtdev eroinoas
or ovdev yvvoas, and this meaning,—z.e. non-accomplishment—is very
suitable here, “ What are we accomplishing?” ze. “‘We are accom-
plishing nothing.” This also brings out more clearly the play upon
Christ’s ‘‘ doing” mentioned in the context, saying in effect, ‘“‘ We are
doing nothing while this man is doing miracle after miracle.” More-
over it prepares the way for the utterance of Caiaphas, who tells
them wat to ‘“‘ do” (“it is expedient that one man should die”). It is
on the same line of thought as xii. 19 ‘‘ Ye behold that ye ave doing
no good (weXeire ovdév). See, the world is going after him!” Up to
the time when they exclaim, “what are we doing?” they had been
“doing” nothing: it was (xi. 53) “from that day,” that they “took
counsel to put him to death.” The note of interrogation should
follow zovodpev, and om, as frequently in John (2178), should be
taken as an initial “for,” thus, “What are we doing [apart from
talking]? For this man is docng signs daily. If we let him continue,
he will be our ruin?.”
1 [2494] Blass says (p. 210) ‘‘ The pres. indic. is used very rarely in a
deliberative sense in place of the fut. ind. (§56, 8): Jo. xi. 47 (Herm. Szm.
ix. 9. 1) Tl movoduev; for which there are parallels in colloquial Latin.” But he
alleges no parallel from Gk and he adds ‘‘ Plato Sym. 214 A 1@s rovo}me is not
quite a similar case ; it is not deliberative like 7é wov@uev ibid. B, but the present ”
—z.e. the present indicative—‘‘ contains a gentle rebuke.” This appears to me to
apply to ré mrovovmev in John, which also ‘‘ contains a rebuke” and is distinct from
Te wompev; For ri moovmey; in Epictetus, distinct from rt moujowmer ; see
2766 (i).
559
[2495] TENSE
III. IN THE INFINITIVE Moop
(i) Infinitive compared with ta and Subjunctive
[2495] The accusative and infinitive as the object of @édw in
affirmations is rare in the Gospels’. In xxi. 22—3 (d7s) édv avrov
Gédw pevew, the context is somewhat parallel to that in xvii. 24
Gedw va orov eipi éym Kaxetvo. Oow pet éeuod. The comparison
suggests that va conveys some notion of spiritual effort and purpose
(2093—2104), which is not implied in the accusative and infinitive
(“if I desire 27s abiding’).
(i) Aorist and Present
[2496] The difference between the aorist and the present in-
finitive, in John, may be illustrated by his use of both after dvvapat
Where, for example, the infinitive represents what one can Aaditualy
“ do,” or “not do,” in accordance with the law of one’s nature, zovetv
is used. And, as John deals principally with this aspect of “ doing,”
he never uses woujoar, except in x1. 37, “Was not this man [z.e.
Jesus], who opened the eyes of the blind man, able (lit.) [so] ¢o do
(xovjoat) that this man also [z.e. Lazarus] should not have died (iva
Kal ovTOos (47) aro8avy) ?”—where the aorist is used because the reference
is not to a course of action, but to a particular act. Hence é\Gety
regularly follows ov dvvayac or ovdeis dvvarar, denoting the definite act
of entering into the Kingdom of God, or of going with Christ on
the path of the Cross*. Hence, too, a distinction is to be drawn
between v. 44 7ds dvvacbe tpets tiaTedvoa, Which may be paraphrased
as, “ How is it possible for you (emph.) so much as to reach the
threshold of belief?” and the ordinary course of action contemplated
in xii. 39 ‘‘ For this cause they were not able Zo delieve (ov« 7dvvavTo
1 [2495 a] With negative, it occurs in Mk vii. 24 ovdéva #OeXev (Tisch. 70éAncev)
yvavar (contrast Mk ix. 30 ok #OedXev iva Tis yvot), Lk. xix. 14, 273; without
negative in Lk. i. 62 70 rl dv OéNoe KadeioOa airs. In the Epistles it is more
freq., Rom: 1. 13, X1- 25, xvi. 19} 1 ‘Cor. vil. 7 ete:
2 [2496 a] For rocety with divapuar, see v. 19, 30, ix. 16, 33 etc.
[2496 4] There is great difficulty in x. 29 ovdels d¥vara: apragew. The Greek
MSS. present no variation. But SS, Origen, and perh. Chrys., seem to have read
ovdels dprdfer, and this is prob. right (2767).
8 [2496 c] So, too, deity and eiceNOeiv, yevynOjva etc., see ill. 3, 4, 5, Vie 44, 65,
vii. 34, 36 etc. Comp. Mk viii. 34, Mt. xvi. 24 €d@etv with parall. Lk. ix. 23
&pxec0ar (about the path of the Cross) where Lk. indicates continuousness by
adding ‘‘daily” to ‘‘take up the cross.”
360
AORIST AND PRESENT INFINITIVE — “[2498]
motevew)'.” In iil. 27 ov dvvatat avOpwros AapPavew, the Baptist is
enunciating a general law, that no man can from time to time
“receive” except what is given him ; but xiv. 17, 0 Kdopos ov dvvarac
AaBetv, perhaps refers to the preceding definite promise “He will
give you the Spirit of truth,” and means “cannot receive when you
receive it.” It may however mean ‘the world cannot even reach
the state of reception.”
[2497] In xii. 36—7 (W.H.) ov dvvacal pou viv axodovbjoa...
dua Ti ov dvvapal vor axodovbety ape; the first clause speaks of the
“following” as a new act, the second treats it as the continuance of
an old one: ‘“‘Why can I not continue following thee—(both at all
times and] at this moment?” Or else the present may mean “de az
this very moment following” as in xvi. 12 “ But (lit.) ye are not able zo
[de] bearing] them (Baoralev) at this moment (aptt),” contrasted with
Rev. 11. 2 ov dvvy Baoraca Kaxovs, “thou art not able so much as to
tolerate evil [men],” or “ ever to tolerate.”
[2498] With @edAw and ov Oedw the present infinitive means “ go
on doing,” as in vil. 1 “he did not wish /0 continue teaching (repira-
tetv) (2342 e—/) in Judea,” vi. 17 “If any one be willing Zo continue
doing (rovetv) his will” (comp. vill. 44), ix. 27 “Why do ye desire Zo
be hearing {it] (axovew) [all over] again (wddw)?” xxi. 22—3 (d75)
“Tf I desire him Zo remain permanently (wévew).” ‘There is an inter-
esting difference between vi. 21 76eXov ovv AaBetv and vil. 44 Tues de
nOedov...7Lacat, contrasted with xvi. 19 7OeAov avtov épwrav. All
three refer to particular actions ; but perhaps épwray, “‘to be asking,”
means “to ask all about” the mysterious saying, and not merely to
put a definite question. Or possibly, as in the Acts, the present
may denote an action almost begun but stopped because Jesus anticipated
the question, “they wished [azd were almost beginning] to ask*.”
1 [24967] The latter may mean ‘‘form a habit of belief.” Comp. Arrian’s
introductory remarks about the fascination of the uttered words of Epictetus, so
that, ‘‘ whenever he himself was uttering anything, it was inevitable that his
hearer should feel on every occasion (radoxew) what Epictetus desired him Zo fee/ on
that spectal occasion (rep éxewos abrov mabety 7BovdeTOo).”
2 [2498 a] Comp. #GeNe foll. by Acts xiv. 13 QUew, xix. 33 dmoNoyetcAar, where
the actions are stopped severally, by the Apostles and by the multitude, and
see 2472 and 2716—7. “Hpwrnoa suggests ‘‘ cross-examine” in i. 21 (comp. 19),
25, Xvill. 19; but not in ix. 2 7pwrncay avrov oi uabnral a’rod éyorTes, PaBBel, ris
juaprey...; Hence it does not seem likely that John would avoid the aorist infin.
from a feeling that it suggested disrespect.
361
[2499] TENSE
[Ve IN PARTICIPLES
(i) Aorist
[2499] The aorist participle with the article is comparatively
rare in John except in the phrase ‘‘ he that sent me” or “‘the Father
that sent me'.” In some instances it occurs in reference to future
time, where we might have expected the future participle. But the
meaning is ‘‘those that [shall] have,” as in the Synoptic Tradition,
“ But he that shall have endured (0 8& vropeivas) to the end, he shall
be saved®.” So in John v. 25—g ‘“‘ The hour cometh, and now 1s,
when the dead shall hear...and ¢hey that shall have heard (ot dxov-
cartes, i.e. really heard, or hearkened, or obeyed) shall live...they that
shall have done (oi rouncavtes) good...... they that shall have practised
(ot mpa€avtes) evil...” ; vii. 39 “ Now he spake concerning the Spirit,
which they (lit.) were destined to receive that should [hereafter] have
believed on him (ot €ueAdov Aap Pavew ot mirrevoartes (al. wurTevovTes)
eis avtov),” xvi. 2 “the hour cometh that every one that shall have
killed you (was 6 amoxteivas vpas) shall think...... 2 xx, 29 4 Blessed
[are] they chat [hereafter (1554)] shall not have seen and shall | yet]
have believed (. oi pr devtes Kal TixtevoavTes)*.”
[2500] In xvii. 20, “Neither for these only do I pray, but for
them also that (R.V.) dedieve (A.V. shall believe) (morevovtwv) on me
through their word+,” the R.V. might give the impression that ‘‘them
that believe” denoted the converts already made by the Twelve
1 [2499 a] See Bruder (1888) pp. 588-9. Zn the séng., without was, et probably
always refers, in John, toa definite person, as in V. 11, 13; 15> Xl. 2, xviii. 14. On
iii. 33 probably referring to the Baptist, see 2501—2.
2 Mk xiti. 13, Mt. x. 22, xxiv. 13.
8 [2499 6] In view of the freq. use of uw with participles where od might be
logically expected, some may urge that oi wy l. kal m. may refer ¢o chose who, in
the course of the last seven days, had believed in the Resurrection of the Saviour,
not having seen it themselves, but having accepted the testimony of the disciples
that had seen it. But, if so, would not the Evangelist have stated, however briefly,
that certain persons did thus believe? And does it seem likely that he would
suppose the Saviour to have thus limited His benediction? Moreover, if that had
been the writer’s meaning, he could have made it clear by using od as in 1 Pet. ii.
1o and Rom. ix. 25 (from the LXX). In Mt. v. ri (sim. Lk. vi. 22) (R.V-)
“blessed are ye (uaxdpiol éore) when [men] shall reproach you (é7ay dvediowow
ipas),” the reference is to future time, although the blessing is indicated (by the
insertion of ‘‘are”) as present. Much more might the reference include future
time when ‘‘ ave” is not inserted (see 1554—5).
4° W.H. miorevévtwv. Some authorities read morevodvTwr.
362
AORIST PARTICIPLE [2502]
when previously sent out by Jesus to preach the Gospel. On the
other hand, A.V. (‘shall believe”) has probably followed the in-
accurate authorities that have altered the difficult present into an
easy future. But of mucrevovres may be regarded as a noun,
“believers” or “converts”; and, without regarding the present
participle as ‘‘prophetic,” we may say that the prayer “for the
converts through their word” includes future converts (as well as
present) made through the preaching of the apostles and their
successors.
[2501] The aorist participle presents difficulty in i. 32—3, ‘“‘No
one receiveth his testimony. /e that received (6 haBuv) his testimony
set his seal [to the statement] (€oppdyiev) that God is true.” The
words are (Preface, p. ix) part of an evangelistic comment im-
mediately following the Baptist’s last words, “ He must increase
but I must decrease.” The “testimony” is that of Christ, and the
question arises, What person or persons does 6 Aafwr indicate? It
is probably John the Baptist, who was the first to “receive” that
“testimony” to the Messianic character of Jesus of Nazareth which
was conveyed to the prophet by Christ’s inherent grace, truth, and
power. ‘This view is confirmed by other passages. If the writer had
meant “he that hath at any time received,” we should expect, in
accordance with Johannine style, either (i. 12) ‘‘as many as received
(coor d€ €laBov),” or (as In V1. 45, TGs 0 axovoas...uadwv and comp.
?
xvl. 2) ‘every one that hath received,” or the plural participle,
“those that [shall] have received” (comp. v. 25, 29 of dxovoavtes,
ot Ta dyaba roujoartes)'.
[2502] The usage of the Gospel, then, suggests a definite person.
And the usage of the Epistle tends in the same direction. For there,
the aorist participle with o (nom.) in one of the two instances in
which it occurs probably refers to Christ, and in the other certainly
does so”. On the whole, both context and idiomatic usage indicate
that the words are a part, so to speak, of the Baptist’s epitaph,
1 [2501 a] Besides 6 karaBas and 6 wéuwas, the sing. aor. part. occurs in v. II
6 moujoas, Vv. 13 6 6€ iadeis, V. 15 6 Towjoas, xi. 2 7 ddelWaca, xi. 37 0 avoléas,
XVili. 14 0 guuBovdevoas. All these refer to single persons and definite acts.
2 [2502a] Bruder p. 592—3 gives, in the Epistle, about 47 instances of the
article with participle; of these about 40 have o (nom.) with pres. particip., but
only 2 have 6 (nom.) with aorist particip., 7.e. 1 Jn v. 6 6 éd@wy and v. 18 6
yevyndels €x T. Oeod. The latter occurs in the same sentence with was 0 yeyevy nuevos
€x T. 0e00, from which it appears to be deliberately differentiated.
363
[2503] TENSE
declaring that he sealed an attestation to the truth of God. This
accords with the Johannine account of the Baptist. The Fourth
Gospel is the only one that represents the Baptist as declaring that
God had said to him, i. 33 ‘“On whomsoever thou shalt see the
Spirit descending and abiding on him, he it is that baptizeth in the
Holy Spirit.” And the next words describe the Prophet as attesting
the truth of this message from God: ‘And I have seen and have
borne witness that this is the Elect (815—6) of God!?.”
[2503] The aorist and the present participle are used in two
different contexts to describe the “descending” of the Son of man,
or of the Bread of Life. The first is as follows: ‘No one hath
ascended into heaven but Ae that descended out of heaven”, the Son
of man.” In the next passage, addressed by Christ to the multitude?
after the Feeding of the Five Thousand, o may mean either “the
[bread] that,” or “the [man] that”: ‘‘The bread of God is ¢he [one]
that (o) descendeth from heaven and giveth life to the world*” The
multitude obviously take “the [one] that” to mean ‘the dzead that”;
for, without shewing any surprise, they reply ‘“‘ Give us evermore this
bread.” Then Jesus answers “I am the bread of life,” and ‘7 have
descended (xataBéBnxa) from heaven.”
[2504] At this point, ‘the Jews” are introduced. We are not to
suppose that the scene is shifted to Judeea, for we are subsequently
told, ‘‘ these things he said, teaching, in synagogue, in Capernaum?.”
Here, as elsewhere, ‘‘the Jews” mean the Pharisees, and more
particularly Pharisees of eminence in Capernaum, who had ap-
parently heard of Christ’s doctrine to the ‘“‘multitude.” The
1 [2502 4] When Samuel anointed David to be king of Israel on the strength
of the word of the Lord 1 Sam. xvi. 12 ‘‘Arise, anoint him, for ¢4zs zs he,” this
may be called—and truly, in the spiritual sense—witness from God: but it might
also be called a witness from David himself, from the personality of the future
king, appealing to the heart of the Prophet and saying ‘‘7 am he.”
[2502] Matthew, in a tradition peculiar to his Gospel, indicates the effect that
might naturally be expected to be produced upon the Baptist by the personality of
Jesus of Nazareth, (606—9) (Mt. iii. 14) ‘‘I have need to be baptized by thee ”—
even before the culminating revelation.
2 jii. 13 6 €x Tod ovpavod KaraBds. This is either an utterance of Christ to
Nicodemus, or an evangelistic comment on Christ’s utterance to Nicodemus
(which, in that case, terminates with the words ‘‘how shall ye believe if I tell you
of heavenly things?”).
® Comp. vi. 24—6, which shews that in the following dialogue ‘‘the multitude”
are the interlocutors, at all events up to vi. 41, where ‘“‘the Jews” are introduced.
SEVIS As PRYIRE5D
364
PERFECT PARTICIPLE [2506 |
narrative—which seems to imply an interval after the address to
“the multitude,” but does not say how long it was—proceeds thus:
“The Jews therefore began to murmur concerning him because he
said I am “he bread that descended (0 aptos 6 katafas) from heaven’.”
Jesus is not recorded to have said this as yet, but it appears to be
their inference from Christ’s words “I am the bread” and “TI have
descended.” In replying to them Jesus says, “I am the bread of
life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness and died. ‘This
is the bread that descendeth (6 a. 6 xataBaivwv) from heaven that
anyone (tvs) may eat of it and not die*.” But when He repeats
the phrase in the first person, the aorist is used, “I am she “Aving
bread that descended (6 a, 0 xatafes) from heaven®*.” The aorist is
also repeated in the last sentence of the discourse, “As the living
Father sent me and I live on account of the Father, so he that eateth
me he also shall live on account of me. This is the bread that
descended (0 a. 0 xataBas) out of heaven...4.”
[2505] Reviewing all the passages about “the descending bread”
we are led to the conclusion that besides the contrast between the
bread from heaven and the bread from earth, some distinction is
intended between (1) the Bread that is, and has been from the
beginning, descending to man from God through the ordinary
influences of animate and inanimate Nature’®, and (2) the definite
and supreme gift of that Bread in the Incarnation. The former is
expressed by the present, the latter by the aorist.
(ii) Perfect
[2506] In vill. 31 “Jesus therefore said to those Jews (R.V.)
which had belicved him (A.V. which believed on him), If ye abide in
” the words tovs memioTevKoTas avtT® mean (as REV)
my word...,
simply “had believed,” without conveying any such suggestion of
completeness as often attaches itself to the Johannine perfect in-
dicative. For here the context excludes the notion of completeness.
8 Sil Ate 2 vi. 48—50. o Sale Bil
4 vi. 57—8, on kayw see 2123—4.,
® [2505 a] Comp. the saying of Deut. viii. 3 quoted in Mt. iv. 4 that man lives
“by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God,” and Heb. i. 1, which
indicates that these ‘‘ words” had been “ proceeding” long before the Incarnation.
See also below for the illustration of the discrimination between xataSatywy and
karaBas, applied to ‘tthe bread,” by the discrimination between épxémevoy and
mdOev applied to ‘the light” (2508).
365
[2507] TENSE
As there is no pluperfect active participle, John, like other authors,
employs the perfect participle as an equivalent. The preceding
verse says, “As he spake these things many believed on him (eis airov).”
The perfect participle seems to refer to this recent “believing,” and
to mean “those that ad just entered on belief’.” But in any case
there is no intention to imply /ezfect belief. On the contrary, the
subtle change in passing from “believed oz him” to “believed him,”
indicates an inferior belief in the latter case (1522—3). The context,
too, indicates that these believers soon fall away and pass into the
bitterest enmity. For such an issue the order of the words is perhaps
intended to prepare us: “Jesus therefore said to those that had [just]
believed him [being] /ews”—a term that in this Gospel almost
always means that part of the nation which identified itself with
the Pharisees and was systematically hostile to Jesus.
(iii) Present
[2507] The present participle, with the article, is regularly used
by John (as in the LXX “he that curseth (6 kaxoAoyav) father or
mother’”) in stating a general law so as to include future as well as
present, and sometimes referring mainly to the future: xili. 20 “He
that receiveth (0 apPBavwv) whomsoever I send (av twa repo)
receiveth me,” vi. 35 “Ae that cometh unto me shall not hunger,”
vi. 37 ‘‘him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out.” In the
above quoted instances a class, not an individual, is denoted. But
the context shews that an individual, not a class, is denoted in 1. 15
(W.H. marg.) “‘John testifieth concerning him, and crieth aloud,
saying, ‘(lit.) This was he that I said, He that cometh after me ts become
before me’....”
usage, would naturally mean “ whosoever cometh after me”: but the
preceding words, ‘‘ Zizs was he that I said,” shew that a special
person is intended, and make the meaning clear. W.H.’s text
“ This was he that said” would not make the meaning clear, or
Here 0 oziow pov épxopevos, according to Johannine
1 [2506] The perfect participle often refers to quite recent events in John,
e.g. ii. g “the water just made (yeyevnuévoy) wine...those that had just drawn
(jvTAnkbres) the water,” v. 10, vi. 13 etc.
[2506 4] It has been shewn (1703 a) that John uses the perf. of opav much more
freq. than the Synoptists do. But it may be added that he is also far more prone
than the Synoptists to the general use of perf. participles.
2 Ex. xxi. 17 quoted in Mk vil. 10, Mt. xv. 4.
306
meray,
PRESENT PARTICIPLE [2508]
rather would make the meaning different from what is intended.
For this and other reasons the marginal reading is preferable’.
[2508] The present participle without the article is variously
interpreted in i. 9 “The true light, which lighteth every human
being (evra avOpwrov)*, coming (épxopevov) into the [whole] world.”
A.V. “every man ¢hat cometh” is not in accordance with the usage
of John, who would probably have written ravra tov épyopevov if
that had been his meaning. R.V. marg. ‘‘as he cometh” is liable
to the objection that it introduces an inappropriate metaphysical
suggestion as to the precise moment when the Light shines on the
soul; and it is not supported by the Hebrew phrase “all that come
into the world” (which favours A.V. rather than R.V.)*. The
context, and the tone of the Fourth Gospel, favour the connexion
of “coming” with “fight.” Like the distinction above (2505)
between xataBaivwv and xatafBas, there appears a distinction here
between épxopvevov and 7AGev, and the passage says, first, that the
Light was “continually coming” to all mankind (more especially to
the prophets and saints) and then that it definitely “came” in the
Incarnation‘.
1 [25072] W.H. marg. dv elroy, txt o elrwy. The Syr. and Lat. vss have
“* This was he that I said,” or “about whom I said.” But B has, at end of line,
O€ItTT® with a corrector’s y above the 9 and 9 above the w, C has \eyw ouTos ny o
erwy with o ecrwy corrected into ov eXeyor: NS omits Aeywy and has Kexparyev ovros
nV 0 omiow, a corrector has ins. Aeywy...o evmwy (altered into ov erov): D (Latin
lost) has xexparyev ovros nv ov exrrov o omtaw with ymin (szc) above the line after
ecmov. The facts point to early confusion between €)1 and e170, which might
spring from the interchange of 0 and w frequent in Mss. (2691). Origen has
(Lomm. i. 154) ds waprupav Kéxparye, Neywv: ‘O drricw..., omitting ovros nv dy elrror,
(26. 177) dv elrov, (2b. 184) dv elwov (Huet 6 eiréy, but the context, protesting
against the view that the Baptist’s words are ‘‘broken” by the evangelist’s, favours
eirov). Nonnus has efzrov, Chrys. has it thrice.
? [2508 a] See Lightf. on Col. i. 28 where he says that “‘every man” is ‘‘three
times repeated for the sake of emphasizing the universality of the Gospel.”
3 [2508 4] Hor. Heb. ad loc. quotes four instances of this freq. Heb. phrase, ‘‘all
that come into the world,” but none have ‘‘7za7z” in the Hebrew.
4 [2508 c] Comp. i. g—r11 épxdpevor eis Tov Kdopov...eis Ta (dia mAOEV, ‘coming
continually into the world...into his own house he came [once for all].” Alford
says that Origen, Chrysostom and most of the Greek commentators take épxoumevov
with av@pwrov. It is true that the Latin translations of Chrys. and Origen have
‘‘venientem,” but the argument of Chrys. suggests (though it does not prove) that
he followed Origen in regarding the metaphor as that of the sun ‘‘coming to,” and
shedding its light on, ‘*the world.” Moreover Cramer’s version of Chrysostom has
mavras nAOe pwricat, and Theodorus says (Cramer) elmav Tov épxdmevov eis Tov
367
[2509] TENSE
[2509] Exact instances of the prophetic present participle in
John are very rare. Strictly speaking, if the Holy Spirit must be
described as “not yet” being (vii. 39) till Jesus was ‘ glorified,”
then i. 33 ‘‘ This is he shat baptizeth in the Holy Spirit” is prophetic
present, and the same must hold good about 1. 29 6 apyos...6 aipwv
“the Lamb...that taketh away the sin of the world,” unless the Lamb
of God may be regarded as already beginning to do its work. Both
these instances are in words of the Baptist, and perhaps the evan-
gelist deliberately assigns to the last of the prophets the prophetic
present. Elsewhere xxi. 20 “Who is it that delivereth thee up?” is
a repetition of the question xii. 25 “Who 7s it?” which follows
xl. 21 “One of you shal deliver me up,” so that it meant ‘Who
is the man ¢hat shall deliver thee up?” Possibly, then, xxi. 20 is a
case of prophetic present. But it must be remembered that xii. 2
has previously described the intention of ‘delivering up” as having
been put into the heart of Judas, and the Synoptists tell us that the
treacherous compact had already been made.
[2510] At an earlier point in the Gospel the future participle is
used in connexion with the treachery of Judas, vi. 64 ‘‘ He knew...
and who it was that should deliver him up (0 zapadwowv adrov)”—
the only instance given by Bruder of a Johannine future participle
with the article. Comparing this with xiii. 11 “for he knew him
that was delivering him up (tov rapadidevta airov)” we can hardly
Kbopov mepl Too Seamérov Xpiorov. Origen Ce/s. vi. 5 quotes Is. lx. 1 ‘* Thy light
hath come” to illustrate the ‘‘coming” of the light ‘‘into the world,” which he
describes as Tov d\nOwdy Kal vonrév apparently meaning ‘‘the hearts and minds of
men.” So in his Comm. on Jn (Huet i. 25) Origen says that, as the material sun
is the light of the material world, so the Saviour shines on the reason (rots NoycKots
Kal nyewovixots). Comp. Orig. (on Jer. xi. 1—10, Hom. ix.) quoting Jn i. g—11
with the preface 7 émidnula [7.e. rod Xp.]...€midupaca b\w THe Kdouy. In the
Latin Hom. on Ex. xxxv. 5, when Origen quotes Lk. xii. 49 ‘‘/ have come to send
fire’? with Jn i. 9, ‘‘iste ignis (wip) quem venit mittere Jesus illuminat quidem
omnem hominem vezedzenzen (2? veniens, épxduevov)” it is probable that Orig. meant
mip épxduevov to be taken together. See also his Comm. on Judg. ii. 7 (Lomm.
xi. 218) ‘‘Si enim intelligamus ‘lumen verum quod illuminat omnem hominem
venientem (?error for “ veniens”)in hunc mundum’ et praebeamus ei ad illuminandum
animas nostras, aut si oriatur nobis sol justitiae, et *meznzdum animae nostrae
habemus hospitium,” where men are apparently said to ‘“‘have as it were the
world of their soul as the abiding-place of the Light.” Similarly later on
(Lomm. xi. 222) the argument would be improved by substituting ‘“veniens” for
‘‘venientem.” But Nonnus has dvdpav "Epxouévwy émt yaiav.
1 Bruder (1888) pp. 588—9.
368
= a, Nai
es
AORIST AND PRESENT SUBJUNCTIVE [2512]
ce
think it an improbable hypothesis that o zapad.ovs means “ engaged
in the work of delivering up” and is not a prophetic present.
V. IN THE SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD
(i) Aorist and Present
[2511] That John, more than many Greek authors, utilises the
shades of difference between the aorist and the present subjunctive,
may be inferred from a single passage x. 38 “in order that ye may
recognise (yvate) and go on recognising (ywwoknre) that the Father is
in me'.” His usage will be conveniently considered for the most
part under the headings of (a) Deliberative Subjunctive, (B—e) édav
(or av), (C—») wa, (@) 6rav—with which conjunctions the subjunctive
most often occurs.
(a) In Deliberative Subjunctive
[2512] The deliberative subjunctive in vi. 28 té wowpev, “ what
must we habitually do?” (with v.r. romowper, -noopev, -ovpev) differs
from ré romowpev in Luke®, in that the former indicates a course of
action, the latter a special action at a certain crisis. In vi. 5, John
agrees with Mark vi. 37 ayopacwmev “are we to buy [in this
emergency]?”—where Matthew and Luke differ from Mark, and
John, though agreeing in the deliberative, differs as to the speaker®.
John’s use (though rare) of the deliberative subjunctive bears on
Xl. 47 Tt wototpev ; shewing that it must not be rendered “‘ what must
we do?” since this would have been expressed by him in the usual
way, by the subjunctive’.
1 [2511a] Comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 12 ‘‘For the moment (dp7c) I am [merely]
recognising (ywvdoxw) in part, but then I shall further recognise (émuyywoouat).”
Applied to spiritual truth, ywaéoxnw=‘‘T recognise,” éyywy=‘‘T recognised at
a certain point of time,” éyvwxa = ‘‘I have recognised and possess the recognition,”
émvywwoxw = ‘‘T have a further recognition,” z.e. an advanced spiritual knowledge.
The Johannine and the Pauline aspects differ. In 1 Cor. xiii. 12 ‘‘recognition”
is regarded as present and partial when contrasted with the future. In Jn x. 38
it is present and progressive, as contrasted with the past when the believer first
recognised (yv@re).
2 [2512 a] Lk. iii. 10, 12, 14 asked by candidates for baptism.
3 Mk vi. 37 Aé€youow atr@ ’AmedObyTes ayopdowuev...; Jn vi. 5 6'1...Néyer pos
Pirirmov Ildbev dyopdowmev...;
4 [25124] See 24934. In xii. 27, ri e’rw; if it means ‘‘ what should I say?”
is deliberative subjunctive. If it meant (933 foll., a view now retracted) ‘‘ Why
should I say?” z.e ‘‘Surely I ought not to say,” it would not be what is commonly
AL Vi. 369 24
[2513] TENSE
(8) With an (or an), “if”
[2513] In the Synoptists, éav, “if,” apart from yp, very rarely
occurs—if we except clauses with éyw or #é\w—without the aorist
subjunctive or some equivalent. ‘There are only two passages of
Mark that contain exceptions to this rule’. In the two instances
called deliberative subjunctive, but a negative interrogative. I cannot, however,
find an instance of ri el7w; ‘‘why should I say?” Ps. Ixxix. ro *‘ Wherefore should
the heathen say?” isin LXX wyrore eirwow; (al. els ri Neyer, or épet;). Ids eirw;
““how could I say?” might be illustrated by Ps. cxxxvil. 4 m@s dowpev **how could
we sing?” But 7 eizrw (like ri $6; comp. Aristoph. Vz. 1378 rio’ eirw;) seems to
require the rendering ‘‘w/a¢ ought I to say?” It is quite true that (939) ‘‘what
ought I to say?” savours rather of Greek tragedy than of Hebrew literature, and
does not at first seem appropriate to the Johannine conception of Christ. But it
may be explained by xii. 49 évroNnv dédwxev Ti eiw, ‘‘the Father hath given me
commandment what J should say.” The Son, listening for the Father’s voice,
says, ‘‘what should I say? [Should I say] Save me?”—and then recognises at
once that this showld not be said and utters the prayer that shoz/d be said.
[2512c] Irenaeus i. 8. 2 says that the Valentinians, along with ‘‘My soul
is exceeding sorrowful,” and ‘‘If it be possible let this cup pass from me,” quoted
the words kai ri etw ovx oida, ‘‘and what ought I to say? I know not”—as
a manifestation of dopia. This at all events proves that in very early times
vi was rendered ‘‘ what?” Chrys. paraphrases thus, ’AAN ovbk éxw Ti elrw, pyoiv,
amaN\ayny airovmevos, da yap ToOTO HNOoy eis THY Wpay Ta’Tny, ‘‘L do not know what
Z should say petitioning for release.” For contextual variations, see 2768—70.
1 [2513 a] One of these is Mk xiv. 31 édy déy, ‘‘if it be necessary [¢.e. the
present decree of God].” The other is Mk ix. 43—7 ‘‘And if thy hand offend
thee...(45) and if thy foot offend thee...(47) and if thine eye offend thee,” in which
the following variations deserve note:
ix. 43 ix. 45 Le 7)
B k. éav...-toy K. €ay -i( kK. eav...-L&
Ss a -lon 50 -LFeL ” ”
A, C ” -16 ” -on ee) Le)
ID ng ier Kav -L Kt -Lfet
IG, >» lon k. €av -loet Kk. e€av -l&
a et si -izaverit et si -izat et si -izat
6, det si -izat et si -izat quod si -izat
fet si -izaverit et si -izat quod si -izat
ket sic -iziaverit et si...et -iziat et si -iziaverit
[25134] These three sayings about ‘‘hand,” ‘‘foot,” and ‘‘eye” are given
in full by Mk alone. Mt. condenses two of them (‘‘hand or foot’’) into one.
Lk. omits them all. Mk places before them a saying about ‘‘a mill-stone” and
“‘whosoever (és dv) shall cause to stumble (cxavdaNion),” Mt. agrees, Lk. varies
(j wa oxavdaNloy) but retains ‘‘the mill-stone.” There, D has, in Mk ix. 42
oxavdanéy, in Mt. xviii. 6 cxavdadeloy, in Lk. xvii. 2 cxavdaNioy. The hypothesis
suggests itself that Mk reflects the influence of oral tradition, and of sayings
addressed to converts or to possible converts in different forms on different
370
AORIST AND PRESENT SUBJUNCTIVE [2514]
where it occurs with the present subjunctive in Matthew, the clause
means ‘‘If so-and-so be just happening,” or, “ If so-and-so be going
on, [what will be the immediate consequence]'?” In Luke there are
two instances of éav with present subjunctive, and there the force of
the present is not so clear”.
[2514] In John, éay with the present subjunctive is much more
frequent than in the Synoptists, and it is not always easy to perceive
the difference of meaning. For example, the aorist is used in
viii. 31 “If ye abide in my word,” vill. 51—2 (ds) “‘ If any one keep
My, WOnde axvengn li yer aridein™ me; xv. 10 “lip ye! “Aeep* my
commandments.” In vill. 31 the apodosis is present, “ye ave
my disciples” : does not this seem to shew that “if ye adzde” means
“if ye are abiding”? In xv. 7 the apodosis is an imperative ‘“‘ask” :
and this, too, seems to imply the condition of a present “ abiding,” on
the strength of which the disciples are encouraged to “ask” at once’.
The fact is that, owing to the disuse of some of the old classical
Greek conditional forms, a great burden is thrown on this particular
form, éav with aorist, just as, in English, a great burden is thrown on
such a form as “if he comes,” which, in spoken English, often does
occasions :—at one time, ‘“‘If thy right hand should offend thee (oxavdaNion)” ;
at another, ‘‘If thy right hand de [ow] offending thee, cut it off [and come fo the
Lord Jesus Christ].” I believe it would be found that the misspellings of uncial
MSS. are more numerous and striking in Mk than in Mt. and Lk., and that these
misspellings—though in part attributable to other causes—may be partially
explained by the fact that the author of Mk was comparatively illiterate, and
that it was largely based on oral tradition. The same statement would apply,
in the Double Tradition, to Mt. as compared with the better spelt version
of ek:
1 [2513 c] Mt. v. 23 ‘‘if therefore thou be in the act of offering (wpoagépys) thy
gift and there [on the spot] shozd/dst [suddenly] recollect (kaxet uynoOys),” xv. 14
“But if a blind man de leading (6dnyy) a blind man”—the parall. Lk. vi. 39 has
**Can a blind man /ead...?””—‘‘shall they not both fall into the ditch?”
2 [2513 a] Lk. vi. 33 kal [yap] €av ayaforojre does not greatly differ (as
regards hypothetical force) from Lk. vi. 34 kal €dv davionre, and from the aorists
in parall. Mt. v. 46—7, dyamjonre and domdonobe. Lk. xix. 31 édv Tis duds
€pwra is parall. to Mk-Mt. etry. Perhaps Lk. vi. 33 dyalorojre implies
continuous action as compared with davionre, and Lk. xix. 31 may mean “If
any one venture to ask,” or ‘‘begin to ask.”
3 [25144] In xv. 7, 6 éay OednTe airijoacbe Kal yevnoera, ® has airjoecte,
aand f have taken airjoacde as inf. and omit xai—‘‘ whatsoever ye desire to ask,
[this] shall be done.” The imperative is spelt with -ac in A and D. But @ transl.
airnoacOa correctly as ‘“‘petite.’ Nonnus must have read dédyre kal airjonode.
He also has ‘Tyuiv ety évi (? corruption of final syll. of tui and the following €v)
mavTa TedeleTat.
371 24—2
[2514 (i)] TENSE
duty for “if he come” (which may now be regarded as pedantical),
“if he should come,” “if he zs coming,” and “if he ts about to come.”
John accepts, with the Synoptists, the loose aorist with éav, which,
though mostly referring to the future, may include the present: but
he differs from the Synoptists in that he uses the present with éar,
much more frequently than they do, to express something that say
be at the present time going on, and to introduce the consequence
that must be (conditionally) going on at the same time, ¢.g. x1. 9 ‘If
any one de wa/king in the day, he is not stumbling.”
[2514 (i)] John’s free use of éav with present subjunctive allows
him to make distinctions not so clearly recognisable in the Synoptists
between such phrases as (1) €i tadra rrovetre*, “ tf, as ye say, or tf, as
I assume, ye are doing this®,” (2) éav tatra rounre, “on the supposition
that ye are doing this” or ‘‘put the case that ye are doing this,” (3) éav
tavta touonte, “should ye do this*.” In xiil. 17 «i ratra oidate,
1 [25144] As for such English phrases as “If he shall come” and ‘‘If he shall
have come,” they are not really English at all, but may perhaps be tolerated
occasionally in a treatise like this, which sometimes aims at expressing for readers
unacquainted with Greek the different shades of meaning in Greek conditional
sentences. ‘‘/f then we shall shake off our slavish yoke” Rich. Jf. ii. 1. 291
means “if we ave to, or ought to, shake off”; and even that is quite excep-
tional.
2 [2514 (i) a] El conditional with the fut. is non-existent in Jn. In N.T. it is
very rare except in Hebraic interrog., e.g. Mk viii. 12 ef do8jcerac; and indirect
interrog. The fut. occurs (1) after ef cat in Mk xiv. 29 (D cal édy and subjunct.,
and par. Mt. xxvi. 33 om. cal) and Lk xi. 8 (D om. e xai):—where the meaning
is ‘I grant that.” Elsewhere ei and fut. are perh. restricted to phrases about an
appointed time of harvest, trial, judgment etc. (1 Cor. ix. 11 uéya el Beplooper,
ili. 14 el Twos TO Epyov pevet, ill. 15 el Twos Td Epyov Karaxajoera). In 2 Tim.
ii. 12 el dpynodueba, 1 Pet. ii. 20 (dzs) ef bromevetre the futures are prepared for by
present verbs, and the fut. means ‘‘if [in the hour of trial].”
[2514 (i) 4] Ei with the optative (exc. in the phrase el téxor and a few passages
in the Acts) does not occur in N.T. except in 1 Pet. iii. 14—17 in connexion with
suffering persecution, ef kal mdoxorre...xpetrrov...el Odor TO GéAnua Tov Geod,
maoxew.... Emphasis seems to be laid on the hypothesis of a mystery “If ye
should izdeed suffer...if the will of God should [so mysteriously] will.”
3 [2514 (i)c] El, with indic., means ‘‘if, as is the fact” in iii. 12, vii. 23,
viii. 46, x. 35, 38 etc. It means ‘‘if, as you say” in Vil. 4, vill. 39, x. 24, xi. 12 etc.
Ei rts, for doris, occurs more or less freq. in almost every book of N.T., but not
in Jn and 1 Jn.
4 [2514 (i)d] In 1 Jni. 6, 8, 10 é€av eirwuev tf we should say” introduces
three statements of false doctrine, while i. 7 €dy 6€...meperarGuev and i. g édv
dpodoyGpuev introduce the hypothesis of present and continuous Christian life,
“on the supposition that we are walking or confessing”; and this is the general
(though not invariable) use in the Epistle.
372
AORIST AND PRESENT SUBJUNCTIVE = [2515]
paxdp.ol éore eav moujte adta, the meaning is, perhaps, “Z/ ye know
this [as ye suppose ye do, though one of you, Judas, knoweth tt not}
blessed are ye—on the supposition that ye are giving effect to your
knowledge by action.” In v. 31 édv éyw paptupd repli euavtod 7
paptupia ov ovk éotw adnOys, “ put the case that [(emph.) am bearing
witness about myself; [then] my witness is not true,” the meaning
seems to be that the Son is not really bearing witness about Himself
because, though His lips may utter the words of testimony, the
Father is speaking through the Son. This must be compared with
viii. 14 “ Even though I (emph.) be bearing witness (kav eyo paptupa)
about myself, my witness is true’.”
[2515] Where the protasis contains éav with present subjunctive
the apodosis generally contains an indicative present, or imperative’.
1 [2514 (i) e] Comp. Eurip. Zou 532 waprupe’s cavr@. Chrys. ad loc. maintains
that the meaning is, ‘“‘If I bear witness about myself, my witness—according to
what you say, you Jews—is not true.” The Jews have said nothing of the kind as
yet. But they say it afterwards (viii. 13) and Chrys. maintains that Jesus was here
“anticipating (rpodkaBwv)” the charge that the Jews are going to make. But the
context (v. 30 ‘‘I am not able to do anything from myself’’) indicates that Jn has
in view the unity of the Son with the Father (as suggested in Is. xi. 3) and that
“I” means ‘‘I apart from the Father.” Subsequently the statement is verbally
and superficially contradicted in viii. 14 ‘‘Even though I [the Son] be bearing
witness about myself, my witness is true”—because the Father is bearing witness
through the Son.
2 [2515 a] See v. 31, vii. 37, xi. g, 10, xii. 26a, xiii. 17, xv. 14. In viii. 16 éay
kplvw d€ éyw, the verb is prob. present—the apodosis being ‘‘zs.”’ ©€Ay (owing to
the rarity of the aorist subjunctive of @é\w) perh. represents the aorist subjunctive
in vii. 17 “If any man’s we// shall be (0€dy) to do...he shal/ know” (to be con-
trasted with xxi. 22—3 (dzs) “If 7 wil] (@é\w)... what [is] that to thee?”). Soin the
Epistle, 1 Jn i. 7, 9, ii. 3, 15, iv. 12, v. 14 the verb in the apodosis is present and
both protasis and apodosis refer to the present: ‘‘ If we de walking, de confessing, be
keeping his commandments etc...so-and-so follows.”
[25154] The future is exceptionally found in the apodosis in xii. 266 “If any
one be ministering (dvaxov7n) to me, him w7d/ my Father honour,” xiii. 35 ‘‘ Hereby
shall men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have (€ynTe) love one to another ”
(where, however, not much stress can be laid on the pres. éyqre, as the aorist
subjunctive is rare and does not occur in the Gospel, though found in the Epistle).
As to xii. 266 comp. Lk. xii. 37 on the honour that will be paid by the Master to
those servants whom ‘‘he shall find watching”: perhaps the meaning is “‘If any
one be [ found in the day of visitation] ministering to me.” This suggests a similar
rendering in xiii. 35 “If ye de [ found] having love.” But, as to this and xiv. 15
édy ayamaré me...Tnphoere, xiv. 23 édv Tis dyama me...THPHTE..., it must be noted
that the aorist of dyardw sometimes means (1744 (iy) foll.) ‘‘manifest love by
action,” and might be unsuitable where the writer desires to say “‘if ye de really
loving me in your heart ye will keep my commandments.”
Bye)
[2515 (i)] TENSE
In vi. 62 éav ody Oewpyte... Chrysostom reads the aorist ténre while
Nonnus paraphrases as a@pyonte—and an aorist in the protasis would
of course affect the character of the implied apodosis’. The difference
between vill. 51—2 éav tus typyon (comp. XV. 10 éav THpHoNTe) and
1 Jn il. 3 éav...rypdpev, is that the Gospel declares a future con-
sequence of a future act or state while the Epistle declares the
present consequence of a present act or state: “And herein we
recognise that we [have recognised and| know him if we de keeping his
commandments”.” In xil. 26, what is the difference intended by the
variation of order, éay éol tis biaKxovy...€av tis euoi dvaxovy? In the
former, é~o/ seems (2553) more emphatic than in the latter: “Ifa
man be servant of mzne let him follow me on the path of the cross:
if a man Ze [ found in the act of | serving me, him will my Father
honour.” ‘The context shews that dsaxovy in the first clause means
“be servant in name and in profession,” which may be compared
with the tradition in Mark and Matthew “If any one (lit.) zwz//eth (et
tis Geer) to come after me.,.\et him take up his cross and follow me,”
where Luke has “If any one zw/leth to be [datly| coming (€pxeoOat)...
let him take up his cross daily (xa@ nyépav) and follow me?®.”
[2515 (1)] “Eav with indicative does not occur in John; but it
occurs once in the Epistle (1 Jn v. 15) «ai éav otdaper, and it is
supported by Blass (p. 214) from t Thess. ili. 7 éav tyets oryKere
(-nre 8* DE)—also Job xxii. 3 éav od 706a—and he says “the only
irregularity is that this present indicative is occasionally preceded
by éay instead of «i.” The facts alleged hardly justify the phrase
“occasionally preceded.” For oidapev is not exactly a present,
1 [2515c] The Latin versions, including d, have ‘‘ videritis” (D @ewp7re). In
order to give the usual Johannine force to the pres. subjunct., it would be necessary
to suppose that the preceding verbal enunciation of the doctrine of sacrifice by
Christ was a¢companied by a spiritual act on His part, of the nature of an Ascension
(2489) at which the Jews were unconsciously present, “‘hearing but not understand-
ing, seeing yet not seeing,” and that this ‘‘seeing yet not seeing” was denoted by
Oewpeiv (2210—2). For Nonnus’ version and further details see 2739 0.
* [2515 d@] 1 Jn ii. 3 Kal év rovrw ywdoKxouev Ore éyvbkapev avrdv. See 2491
and 2760—6 on ywookw and éyvwka. Here ywwoxouev appears to mean, not, “‘we
recognise for the first time” or ‘begin to recognise,” but “ we spiritually recognise
that we have a complete spiritual recognition.”
3 [26515 ¢] Mk viii. 34, Mt. xvi. 24, Lk. ix. 23. In Jn xii. 26, Chrys. twice
reads, in the first clause, 6 éuoi dtaxovv, and illustrates it by the Synoptic
tradition about ‘‘taking up the cross.” Cramer has éav ris éuol diaxovet, but this
is in the second clause, ‘‘Z/ any one be [found | ministering to me, him will my
Father honour.” '
374
AORIST AND PRESENT SUBJUNCTIVE — [2515]
so that the inference is drawn from a single instance in N.T. More-
over in the LXX, so far as concerns several books at all events, there
appear to be no instances of éav with pres. indic. except as various
readings'. “Eav with 76a may be explained by _ peculiarities
connected with 7o6a, not with éav?. So, too, in all probability, may
éav with ornxere®, In 1 Jn v. 15 and in the preceding words, there
are several variations; NA omit the words in question (prob.
through homoeotel.); in 1 Jn ii. 29, éav eidj7e is corrupted by several
1 [2515 (i)a@] The Oxf. Conc. gives hardly any instances of édy indic. without
+ indicating v. r. In Gen., Ex., Lev., Numb., Josh., Job, Psalms and Isaiah,
I have not found édy with pres. indic. anywhere except as v.r. and then very rarely,
e.g. Lev. xxvi. 21 (A) kal éav...mopeverde (comp. xxvi. 23 -nobe, A -etvonade,
F -eveoGe), Is. i. 19 Kal éay Oédynte (A Oédere) foll. by éav 5é wh OéXnTE which
A keeps. In N.T., kai édy is occasionally foll. by indic. v. r. in such a way as to
suggest that a scribe regarded xal édv as meaning ‘‘even if,” ‘‘grant that,” and
thought that it might be foll. by indic. as representing an assumed fact.
* [2515 (i) 4] Phrynichus says, “Hs év dyopa,” cddokov. éye ovv
‘¢ no Oa.”
"OpOdrepov 5é xparo (2) av 6 Néywv, édy Fs €v dyopa. This apparent ‘uncertainty
”
about 7s and joba” is justly called by Dr Rutherford (p. 240—1) ‘‘ surprising.”
But prob. Phrynichus wrote ypw|rw\t ze. ‘‘use the iota subscript” (2772—5). In
LXX, 7s occurs (Oxf. Conc.) 5 times (only 2 without v.r.). Comparing Job xxxviii.
478 (A 76a) with Job xxii. 3 éav od jo0a (A qs) we may infer that LXX here
confused 7s and no#a together—not a difficult matter in view of the general con-
fusion of the forms of the imperfect of edi. Comp. Ex. xxi. 23 édv 6€ qv (3rd
pers.) AF 9, Lev. xxi. 17 éav 7 (A qv). In Numb. xxvii. 8 dvOp. éav droddvy...
kal vids un nv (AF 7) atr@ the distance of jv from édvy may have caused the qv
clause to be taken parenthetically. As regards qv and 7 or 7; the insertion or
omission of » may be explained in the usual way (360a). The Editor of certain
Berlin Papyri (27 B.c.—250 A.D.) would read éay # for éay qv in some cases where
Deissmann (p. 201) would retain the latter; and Deissmann states that ‘‘ édv with
the subjunctive is found three times in the same papyrus” that contains the
indicative. See 2771.
$ [2515 (i)c] As regards 1 Thess. iii. 7 édy tues orjxere (-nre N*DE), comp.
Mk xi. 25 W.H. érav orjxere (but B and Orig. oryknre, al. ornxerre, eotnkyrat,
oTNTE, eoTnKeTe, a, a, f stabitis, & steteritis), and Josh. x. 19 mh éorHKaTe,
Aq. Theod. uy orjxere, Symm. wy dmoorqre, and note Ex. xiv. 13 o7fTe
(A orjxere), 1 K. viii. 11 orjxew (A orfvat). To these add the var. in Jn viii. 44
and Rev. xii. 4, éornxey (v.r. €ornxev). The facts indicate that forms of orjKw
were liable to be confused with forms of ésrnka. The perfect subjunctive is rare
in Gk. The //ad i. 524 has dppa merolOns but Odyss. x. 335 dppa memrolOomev
(which Eustath., says Steph. 6648, derived from memrol@w, like memr\jyw and
mepixw). Isaiah has memodws with 7s and dow in Is. viii. 13, x. 20, xvii. 8.
[2515 (i) @] The conclusion is that particular phrases with ola, elui, and
o77jkw, do not form a solid basis for inferences about the general usage of édv and
drav. Very often word-usage might override grammatical usage. In London,
“We have drank” was (at all events between 1865 and 1889) frequently used for
375
[2516] TENSE
authorities to éay iéyre', and if 1 Jn v. 15 originally had evdopev, a
spelling of edwpev, the former might easily be taken as an error for
oapev. On the whole, however, oidapyev is probably correct. But,
if so, it seems used, not to emphasize the indicative, but because
the writer avoids the subjunctive «ids, familiar indeed (2729 a) in the
phrase w’ ¢idjs, -77e, but (perhaps on that very account) almost
restricted to that phrase—as “hanged,” in English, has come to be
almost restricted to judicial executions.
(y) With an and Relative
[2516] Whereas the Gospel has (xiv. 13, xv. 16, xvi. 23) 6 Te dv
(or av 71) aityonre referring to the future, the Epistle has (1 Jn iii. 22)
6 dv aitdwev (and 1 Jn ii. 5) 6s & av rypy referring to the present”.
In Jn v. 19 ‘The Son can do nothing of himself but (R.V.) what he
seeth the Father doing (av pn te B€éry tov watépa rowdvra),” a closer
rendering would be “The Son can do nothing of himself—{nothing]
unless e be [at the moment] seeing the Father doing something,” and
the reference is to the preceding words, ‘‘ The Father loveth the Son
and is [always] shewing him all things that he himself zs doing.”
The exact rendering is of little importance provided that the reader
understands that the whole passage (including the statement that
“the Son quickeneth whom he will”) is not in a prophetic present
referring to the future. It regards the incarnate Son as continually
“seeing” on earth what the Father is doing in heaven, and as
Himself doing the same thing (1607)*.
*“we have avunk,” for seemliness. So (1) the familiar imperative or7jxere might
replace the rare éor7Kyre or or7}KnTE, (2) eld@uev, being ambiguous as well as rare,
might be replaced by oféauev, and (3) the two indicative forms 7o@a and 7s might
be confused with the subjunctive 7s.
1 [2515 (i)¢] Similar confusions are very frequent in LXX, see Oxf. Cone.
eidew. Also in Epictet. Index Schweig. has a long note on the confusion between
wa eldQuev and va idwuer referring to 1. 6. 23, 29. 24, 29. 42 (comp. ili. 9. 14, 21.
6).
* [2516] 1 Jniii. 17 bs 6° av &xn 7. Blov 7. Kbcmov x. Oewpy...k. KNeloy, May
be compared with Mt. v. 23 quoted above (2513 c); the man ‘‘is staring ” stolidly at
his distressed brother and then, by a definite act, suddenly shuts up his heart
against him. Bruder (1888) prints xv. 7 as the only instance in the Fourth Gospel
of éay used for dv with relative and subjunct., on which see 26602. Bruder
(Moulton) prints also xxi. 25, perh. by misprint, see 2414—6.
% [2516 4] Another instance of dv with pres, subjunct. is ii. 5 6 re av Nyy buy
mowmoare, not important, but interesting in view of the freq. use of elzw and
elrwuev in the Gospel and Epistle, and of the non-occurrence of the subjunctive
Aéyw, in either, elsewhere. (1) Aéyw is not so formal as efrw. (2) Mary probably
376
AORIST AND PRESENT SUBJUNCTIVE — [2517]
(8) “AN TINWN KpaTfite (xx. 23)
[2517] In xx. 23 av twwv (marg. twos) afyte tas dpaptias
adewvra. (Marg. adiovrar) adtots, av twwv (marg. Tivos) KpatHre
(D kparyonre) Kexpatnvrat, the aorist (afyre) may imply a definite act
‘if ye let go,” the present (kparjre) a keeping of things as they are,
“if ye go on retaining.” But the use of xparéw creates difficulty.
It may mean “I hold,” “take [hold of],” or, “retain.” But does it
ever mean “I retain a burden zz zts position on someone else!”? There
anticipated some immediate action or utterance from her Son; and hence the
meaning seems to be “‘ Whatever he may be shortly saying to you, obey it [at
once],” suggesting that the attendants are to catch up any word that may fall in the
next few moments from Jesus. In v. 19 ay yy tm, the separation of te from
av seems to differentiate it from édv Tus, 2.e. doris dv.
! [2517a] In the Gospels elsewhere, xparéw (active) (apart from xecpés) is
always used with the accusative. When applied to living things, it means ‘‘ fake
hold of,” “ setze,” ‘‘arrest.” ‘When applied otherwise, it means “ old fast,”
“ keep,” see Mk vii. 3, 4, 8, ix. 10 “‘ hold fast tradition” etc. In Lk. the active is
never used apart (viii. 54) from xecpds. In the Acts, when the active is applied to
persons, it means (iii. 11) ‘‘ hold fast (in a friendly manner),” (xxiv. 6) “seize” or
“arrest.” In Rev., it means ‘‘hold fast” applied to teaching, but ‘‘take”
or ‘lay hold of” applied to (Rev. xx. 2) ‘‘the dragon.” In Col. ii. 19, 2 Thess.
ii. 15, it means ‘‘holding fast the head,” ‘‘ traditions,” with accus.; but in
Heb. iv. 14, vi. 18, ‘‘holding fast the confession,” ‘the hope,” with genit. ;
comp. Acts xxvii. 13 ddfavres Tis mpobécews Kexparnkevat.
[2517 4] Kparéw with genit., which (without xecpés) is very rare in N.T., is
much more freq. in LXX, where xparéw sometimes means “conquer” and
‘control’? as well as ‘‘hold.” In Sir. xxvill. 22 00 uw Kparnon evoeBGv means
“Death, or the tongue] shall not xz/e over the pious” (comp. Prov. xvii. 2). In
Judg. vii. 8 (A) r@v 5€ Tprakociwy dvépwr expdrnoev means “ refarned the three
hundred men.” In classical Gk, the genit. is more freq. than the accus., and
kpareiv éavrov, dovav etc. are frequently used for ‘‘cortrolling oneself,
pleasures ” etc.
[2517c¢] Kparéouar (passive), in N.T., occurs elsewhere only in Lk. xxiv. 16
“but their eyes were holden (éxparoivro),” z.e. supernaturally bandaged or bound,
and Acts ii. 24 ox qv duvarov Kparetoba adrov bm’ avrov, which, coming after the
expression ‘‘ loosed (NUcas) the pangs of death,” indicates that xpareto@ac means
““to be held fast,” ‘‘to remain in bonds,” or ‘‘to remain shut up in Hades.”
[2517¢@] SS (Burk.) has, in Jn xx. 23, “and whom ye shall shat [your door]
against—it ts shut,” as in Ps. Ixix. 15 (quoted by Mr Burkitt ad doc.) ‘* Let not the
pit sez its mouth upon (or, against) me,”’ which suggests that the translator took
Tivwy as governed by xparjre, and understood the meaning to be *‘ whomsoever ye
shut up in prison.”” Mark and Matthew never use xpatety twos thus. But they
use kparety Twa as follows :
Mk vi. 17 Mt. xiv. 3 Lk. iii. 20
éxpatyncev Tov “I. kK. Kparnoas Tov I. édnoev KkaréxNewwev Tov “I. ev
édnoev avrov év pud\aky. kK. €v pudaky admébero. pu\aky}.
377
[2518] TENSE
is some reason for believing that John is restating, in a new form,
a tradition like those peculiar to Matthew (xvi. 19, xvill. 18) about
‘binding and loosing.” Matthew’s traditions have in both clauses an
aorist subjunctive in the protasis followed by a perfect participle of
permanence in the apodosis, ‘ Whatsoever ye bind (dyonTe)...shall
be once for all bound (éorar dedepéevov)...whatsoever ye loose (Avante)
... shall be once for all loosed (éorat XedXvpévov)'.”
[2518] If John was writing with allusion to Matthew’s tradition,
he might naturally wish to differentiate the Christian “loosing” and
“binding” from the Jewish “dzading and loosing” of which, says
Horae Hebraicae (on Mt. xvi. 19), “one might produce thousands of
examples,” and in which “dud” meant “ pronounce sinful, or unclean”
(and hence “forbid,” e.g. of actions on the sabbath) in allusion
to which our Lord said that the Pharisees dound heavy burdens on
their brethren. Hence, whereas the usual Jewish order (and the
order in Matthew) is “bind and loose,” John might give prominence
to the “loosing” by putting it first, and he describes the “loosing”
as a forgiveness of sins.
[2519] The inference is fairly probable that John is writing with
some allusion to Matthew’s tradition about “ binding ” and “‘ loosing.”
Beyond this, it is difficult to advance. The exact meaning is
doubtful. The antithesis favours the supposition that (as in R.V.)
“sins” must be supplied as the object of xparyre and as the subject
of xexpdtnvra. Yet «kpareiv, in the sense of “hold fast,” though most
appropriate to “holding fast hope, tradition, teaching” etc., seems
quite inappropriate to “szzs.” The interpretation suggested by SS of
“keeping in prison,” cannot be paralleled from N.T., nor from Greek
Here Luke substitutes ‘‘ shat wp” for the Synoptic “ arrested and bound.” And it
should be noted that Luke never follows Mark in any of the numerous passages
where Mark uses xpareiy to mean “take,’’ “arrest.” Also, in a metaphorical
passage, dealing with remission of sins. where Mark describes the “‘ strong [man] ”
as being ‘‘ bound” (Mk iii. 27, Mt. xii. 29 “unless he first d¢zd (dijon) the strong
{man]”’) Luke (xi. 22) has ‘* conquer (vixjon).”
[2517] There are two passages about “ binding” and ‘‘ loosing” (both in the
aorist) peculiar to Matthew. One is addressed to Peter, one to the disciples,
Mt. xvi. 19 6 dy Shops érl rhs ys orae Sedeudvor év rots obpavois, Kk. d éav AVTYS
éml rhs ys €arar NeXuwévov év Tots ovpavois, Mt. xviii. 18 sim. with dca éav dnonTe
and év o’pavw. In the latter, the context is connected with forgiveness of sins.
1 [2517] In Jn xx. 23, where there is no éo7ra., the perf. implies also ‘‘a¢ once.”
For xparéw in connexion with ‘ binding ” or ‘casting into prison,” comp. Mk vi.
17, Mt. xiv. 3 (2517 @), Mt. xviii. 28—30, Rev. xx. 2.
378
—
AORIST AND PRESENT SUBJUNCTIVE — [2521]
literature generally except so far as xparety with the genitive means
“keep in control.” Moreover, it interferes with the antithesis.
[2520] But it is worth noting that the author of Horae Hebraicae
sees in the passage some allusion to the phrase “ delivering over to
Satan,” and that this sort of ‘‘dedtvering over” in Deuteronomy
(xxxul. 30) is rendered by Aquila “ shutting up [in prison|” ovvéxreoev.
Moreover the Double Tradition has a passage describing how
a persistence in injuring one’s brethren, followed by a refusal to
be reconciled, brings with it a “‘ delivering over” and a ‘casting into
’ where the offender is to remain till the last farthing is paid’,
Chrysostom also, in his brief comment on the Johannine passage,
illustrates it by a mention of ‘‘a king, who sends rulers with power
to cast into prison and to let loose from prison*.” Thus, a number of
early Christian and Jewish traditions point to the conclusion,
although it cannot be proved, that John may here be referring to
“binding” or “imprisoning,” and that the tradition meant something
to the effect, metaphorically, that whomsoever the disciples from time
to time “arrested”—these were “at once and permanently arrested.”
prison,
(e) With €An MH
[2521] *Eav px with present subjunctive is very rare in N.T. It
occurs however thrice in xv. 4—6 “As the branch cannot bear fruit
of itself except it be abiding in the vine, so neither can ye except ye be
abiding in me...Lexcept a man be abiding in me he is [straightway |]
cast (€BAn6y) (2445) out.” The only other instance in the Gospels
is Lk. xi. 3 “except ye be repenting (édv pa) petavonte) ye shall all
likewise perish,” where there is a threat of retribution, as also in the
1 Mt. v. 25--6, Lk. xii. 58—9.
2 [2520 a] Chrys. ad loc. Kaédwep yap tis Baoiheds dpyovras dmocré\\wv
efovoiay eis decuwrypiov Kai euBarety kal adrévar didwow.... It was the part
of a disciple of Christ (Is. lviii. 6) toa ravra obvder nov adixias, but Peter
is forced to say to Simon Magus (Acts viii. 23) els o’véerpov dédikias Ope ce
évra. The Apostle did not cast Simon Magus into the prison of sin, but was
forced to leave him there and to tell him he was there, at the same time warning
him to repent. The word seems to have been used by the disciples of Simon
Magus (as quoted by Hippol. vi. 19 od yap uh KparetoOar avrods emi Tue vouefouevyy
kaxw, Aeh’TpwvTac dp) to mean that ‘they were not zder bondage for any
supposed evil [deed], and it is opposed to being ‘‘ vansomed.” In Fayim Pap.
10g (1st cent.) ‘‘whenever you...want to borrow anything from me, (edd.) / a¢ once
give in to you,” evObs oe ob Kpar&, might not the meaning be, ‘‘ Z do not restrict
you”? Comp. Arrian /zd. xvi. 12 of the bit, which xparéec rv tmmov ‘‘ pulls the
horse 2.”
379
[2522] TENSE
last clause of the Johannine passage. It would make good sense,
in both, to supply “found ”—with a reference to the Day of Retribu-
tion—“ except a man be [ found] abiding,” “except ye be | found]
repenting.” In Luke there follows the usual aorist, xi. 5 (W.H. txt)
“except ye repent (éav ph petavononte) ye shall all likewise perish,”
but W.H. marg., following B, repeats the present subjunctive’.
[2522] In Luke xiii. 3 it would have made good sense to render
“Except ye be beginning to repent,” but that would not have suited
the Johannine passage well. Nor would it suit what is the only real
instance of éay py with present in the Epistles, Rom. xi. 23 “And
they also, except they be persisting (éav pH érysévwcr) in their unbelief,
shall be grafted in®.” This agrees with the two passages from the
Gospels in expressing or implying a warning. ‘The Gospels express
a warning of the evil that will follow unless a certain state of things
shall be found existing in the Day of Judgment. The Pauline
Epistle implies a warning that there will be no change for the better
(‘grafting in”) if a present state of things is persisted in. The only
point peculiar to the Johannine passage is that on the repetition of
the warning, the writer throws the consequence of the neglect of
that warning into the form of an aorist to express instantaneous
consequence “he was [then and there] cast out®.”
[2523] Comparing the Johannine éav py pévyre with the Johannine
éav pecvnte above discussed, we infer that the former means “If ye
be not [found] abiding when the crisis comes there follows instan-
taneous judgment,” while the latter means, simply, “If ye abide,
1 [2521 a] In Lk. xiii. 3—5, a, e, f make no distinction between the two
subjunctives (having, in both, ‘‘nisi poenitentiam egeritis”) but 6 has ‘nisi
poenitentiam habeatis...si non credideritis omnes homines peribitis.” In Mk xi.
23 ds dv elry...kal uh dcaxpiOy...d\da mioTevy, the present, following two parallel
aorists, perhaps means “ de [steadfastly] believing,” whereas wh dtaxpi6y means ‘‘not
entertain a momentary doubt.”
2 [2522 a2] Comp. also passages in which éav uH is followed by éyw: 1 Cor. xiii. 1
édv NadG...d. JE wh Exw, Jas ii. 14 €dv wiotw éyy Tes Exew Epya dé wh Exy, Jas ii.
17 édv wh exn épya. These three passages are all of the nature of warnings. In
I Jniii. 21 édv 4 Kapdla uy Kataywéoxy, the verb is repeated from what precedes
and wh=alpha privative. For Jn v. 19 av uy 7 BdéEry, see 2516.
8 [25224] This is certainly more probable than that it is ethical aorist, z.e. the
aorist that implies a present custom from past actions. The context and the style
of the author are against this. It implies instantaneousness, but, as has been
shewn (2445, 2443), with a different shade of meaning from that of the classical
Greek aorist of instantaneousness; nor is it very similar to Jn xiii. 31 viv éd0facOn,
where the meaning is helped by vév ‘‘ now at last.” See also 2754—5.
380
AORIST AND PRESENT SUBJUNCTIVE = [2525]
there w7// be blessing,” without any reference to impending retri-
bution!.
(€) With tna
[2524] Most Greek writers observe the distinction between the
aorist and present subjunctive, as Englishmen observe that between
“shall” and “will,” unconsciously and without any appearance of
deliberately emphasizing the difference. But we have seen above
(2511) that John employs the two forms with an unusual deliberate-
ness, even in the same sentence, to distinguish between the beginning
of “knowing” and the development of it. A similarly deliberate
discrimination is apparent in his references to the beginning and the
permanent developments of ‘“‘dedéeving (xirtevw),” as to which it
should be noted that zz every case D alters the present into the
aorist®.
[2525] “Iva with aorist of muctevw: 1. 7 (The evangelist, con-
cerning the Baptist) “[John]...came for witness...that all might [or,
may] believe...,” vi. 30 (The multitude, after the Feeding of the Five
Thousand) ‘“ What, then, doest thou for a sign, that we may see and
believe thee?” 1x. 36 (The blind man, after being healed) “‘ And who
is) ne. ord) that I may) believe’ on) himir” x 15 (Jiesus' to: the
disciples, before the raising of Lazarus) “I am glad for your sakes
that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe,” xi. 42 (Jesus to
the Father, before the raising of Lazarus) ‘‘ Because of the multitude
I said it...that they may believe that thou didst send me,” xiv. 27—9
(Jesus, to the disciples, when their heart is troubled) ‘ Let not your
1 [2523 @] The hypothesis that éay «7 with pres. subjunct. means ‘‘2z/ one be not
found tn a certain state when the hour of trial arrives” is favoured by the
frequency of this notion of ‘‘ finding” in N.T., in connexion with a crisis or day
of trial, even when not expressed with these conjunctions. Comp. 2 Cor. v. 3 “7f
at least...we shall be found not naked (el ye...ov yupvol ebpeOnadueba),”’ ix. 4 éav...
eUpwow buds amapackeudorous etc., Rev. ii. 2 etipes adrods Wevdels, ili. 2 od yap
etipnka cou épya memAnpwuéva. ‘This last passage suggests that Jas ii. 14 €dy miorw
Aéyn Tis Exe Epya dé wh Exy may, in the mind of a Jewish writer, suggest the
thought of one who, in the midst of his talking about faith, ‘zs fownd,’””—when
the Judgment arrives—‘‘having no works to shew.’ And perhaps this may be
also latent in r Jn iii. 21 éav 4 Kapdia wn Karaywaokn, “tf our heart be not found
condemning us” (although there a special preceding context may influence the
meaning of the words).
2 Except in xix. 35 where D is missing.
381
[2526] TENSE
heart be troubled...I have told you before it come to pass, that, when
it is come to pass, ye may believe.”
[2526] “Iva with present of miotevw: vi. 29 (Jesus to the mul-
titude, after the Feeding of the Five Thousand) “This is the work
of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent,” xiii. 19 (Jesus
to the disciples, on the night before the Passion) “I tell you before
it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that
I AM,” xvii. 21 (Jesus to the Father, in the Last Prayer) “That they
also may be in us, that the world may believe that thou didst send
me,” xix. 35 (The evangelist) “And he knoweth that he saith true,
that ye also may believe,” xx. 31 (The evangelist) ‘These [things]
are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son
of God.”
[2527] From a comparison of these passages it appears that on
the first occasion when our Lord uses the phrase, the present (vi. 29)
is employed; it is “‘the work of God that ye believe on him whom
he hath sent.” But the multitude, in their reply, speak of an inferior
kind of belief, “‘ dedzeving” not “ believing on,” and in the aortst (vi. 30),
“that we may see and believe thee.” Again Jesus, when speaking
of what takes place for the sake of the disciples or for the sake of
the multitude that their faith may be strengthened (xi. 15, 42, xiv. 29)
uses the aorist, but when He speaks similarly to His disciples with
the addition of the words “that I AM” (xiil. 19), apparently
indicating a higher faith, He uses the present, which is also used in
the only instance (xvii. 21) where the phrase occurs in Christ’s Last
Prayer. Moreover the evangelist himself, though he uses the aorist
in mentioning belief as the object of the labours of John the Baptist,
resorts to the present when he attests (xix. 35) the mysterious blood
and water from Christ’s side, and when he closes what appears to
have been the first draught of his Gospel (2431—2) with the declara-
tion that it is written “that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ
the Son of God.”
[2528] The conclusion is that the author prefers the present
subjunctive of ziarevw to denote a continuous faith—that kind of faith
for which the Son of God prays and His evangelists labour. ‘The
aorist may of course represent a genuine belief, but it is belief in its
entrance or first formation, as when the man born blind says, ‘“ And
who is he, Lord, that Z may [at once| believe on him?” ‘This con-
clusion may throw light on the disputed reading in the Epistle,
“ And this is his commandment ¢hat we should believe (va rustevowpev)
382
AORIST AND PRESENT SUBJUNCTIVE — [2529]
17)
the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love (a@yarwev) one another’.
If the aorist is genuine, as it probably is, it seems intended to denote
initial faith, the faith that is connected with baptism and with
entrance into the Church?, and the meaning is, “ that we should [first]
believe the name®...and [then habitually] love one another.”
[2529] The meaning attached by John to the present subjunctive
em LOVer
“‘remember”) and the emphasis that he lays on this grammatical
distinction, are illustrated by the fact that it occurs (in connexion
with iva) in the Discourse and Prayer on the night before the Passion
more often than in all the words of Christ up to that time. ‘That is
because the Saviour is represented as so frequently expressing His
care for the permanent future of the Church—that they “may be doing”
as He has done, that they ‘‘ may be remembering,” “may be growing
in knowledge,’ “may be beholding” the glory of the Son with the
Father, and, above all, “‘ may be loving one another*.”
(not only of morevw but of other verbs such as “ know,’
1 [2528 a] 1 Jniii. 23. Here NAC read morevwev. But the authority of B
is deservedly great on the use of this particular word. Moreover the naturalness
of a tendency to conform the mood of miorevw to that of the following ayaramev
lessens the weight of the evidence of NAC.
2 [25286] Similarly, in the Epistle, the aorist subjunctive is connected with
purification, taking away sins, and being called the children of God (1 Jn i. 9,
iii. 1, 5), but the present with the duty of loving, keeping commandments and
walking therein (1 Jn iii. 11, iv. 21, v. 3, also 2 Jn § and 6 (dzs)). Ini Jn ii. 28
iva éay pavepwOh cx@uev twappyoiay x. wy alcxvvOGpyev am’ a’rod év rH wapovola
avrov, there is reference to a definite moment and to a definite action—‘‘ coming
forward boldly” as distinct from ‘‘shrinking back ashamed”: 1 Jn iv. 17 wa
mappynoiay éxwuev ev TH Huepa THs Kploews implies a state of mind (not a definite
action) ‘‘ that we may be found possessing boldness.”
3 [2528 c] As mucrevw Twi is weaker (1480 foll.) than 7. els Tuvd, so ‘‘ believe the
name” would seem to be intended to denote something more rudimentary than
“‘believe oz the name.”
4 [2529 a] It may be urged that in xv, 12, 17, the words ‘‘that ye may be
loving one another” occur as a precept, not as a prayer. But they recur, in
effect, as a prayer in xvii. 26 iva 7 dydmn ny ayydrnods me ev avrols 7 Kay@ ev
airois. The greater part of the requests of Jesus for the disciples are expressed
with the phrase iva wow which occurs in xvii. 11, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, seven
times, perhaps meaning that the Church, becoming one with the I AM, may BE,
z.e. may be essentially and eternally existent. Other requests, for them or for the
world, are expressed by xvil. 3 ywwokwor, 13 EXwow, 21 MioTE’N, 23 ywwoky,
24 Oewp@ow. On the other hand the action requested from the Father is expressed
by tva with the aorist subjunct. xvii. 15 typyogs.
383
[2530] TENSE
(7) “INa MH ATIOONHCKH (vi. 50, in Codex B)
[2530] In vi. 50 (W.H. txt) “This is the bread that is coming
down from heaven that a man may eat thereof and not die (uh
azofavy),” W.H. marg. has aro6vyoxy. Codex B is the only ms. that
has this reading. But avo@avy is suspiciously easy, aro6vjoKy labours
under no such suspicion. ‘There is nothing on the surface of the
context, and nothing in Greek usage generally, that would cause
a scribe to correct the aorist to the present. Moreover, B is almost
the sole authority for some of the present subjunctives that are
undoubtedly a genuine characteristic of John’. If B is right, the
meaning is “may eat thereof and may zoft be [any longer] under
sentence of death.” Vater on, Christ quotes a Psalm that contains
a similar expression, ‘“‘I said, Ye are gods and all sons of the Highest:
but ye are under sentence of death as |mortal| men (ipeis dé di ws
avOpwro. arobvnckere)” ”—where the meaning might be “ destined to
death,” but the notion of a “sentence” is favoured by Deuteronomy
xvii. 6 “He that ts under sentence of death (0 arofvncKwv) shall be
put to death (azo@avetrar) on the evidence of two or three witnesses.”
A “sentence” seems also implied by Ben Sira, “‘ From a woman is
the beginning of sin, and on account of her we are all under sentence
of death (aro6vyocKopev)” and perhaps by St Paul, “ As in Adam ad/
are under sentence of death (aro6vycKover) so in Christ shall all be
made alive*.” These facts indicate that W.H. were justified in giving
to dzobvyoky a place (at least) in their margin: and but little more
evidence would be needed to entitle it to a place in the text*.
1 [2530 a] Great importance must be attached to this fact, and to the untrust-
worthiness of D, for example, which regularly (2524) corrects the pres. subjunct.
of aorevw with iva, in Jn, to the aorist.
2 Comp. x. 34 éyw ela Oeol éore quoting Ps. 1xxxii. 7.
3 [2530 4] Sir. xxv. 24, 1 Cor. xv. 22. ’Amo@vnoxw, in Gk, would often mean, not
what we should express in English by ‘‘I am on the point of dying,” but ‘‘I am
on the point of being put to death” or ‘on the point of being executed,” as in
1 S. xx. 32 ‘“‘wherefore should he be put to death (iva tl aroOvioKer)?” and
Susann. (Theod.) 43 dmodvijckw ph roujoaca undev av obra émovnpevoavTo Kar’
éuou.
4 [2530c] It is true that B cannot always be trusted as regards aorist and
present subjunctives where the c of the aorist comes next to C or €, but this is not
the case here, and the difference between -@v74oxy and -@dvy could not be the result
of scribal error.
[2530¢@] In accordance with the use of dro@vijoKxec above-mentioned, “‘he zs
under sentence of death,” the phrase might be applied to an apostle on the point
of martyrdom (comp. 2 Cor. i. 9 ‘‘we have had the answer (marg. sentence)
384
AORIST AND PRESENT SUBJUNCTIVE — [2531]
(0) With dtan
[2531] It is somewhat misleading to say that in N.T. 6rav with
present subjunctive—which is very rare as compared with the aorist
—‘usually indicates an action of frequent recurrence not limited to
any particular time’.” No doubt, this construction is used sometimes
with actions of frequent recurrence, such as “ eating,” “praying” ete. :
but 6rav with the present does not lay stress on, or imply, frequency.
It refers to cotncidence of time (“during the time when this or that is
going on,” or “at the moment when this is beginning”). This is seen
clearly in cases where the action is not of frequent recurrence, as in
Rev. xviil. 9, “they shall weep and mourn...when they are watching
(orav PBAérwowv) the smoke of her burning, standing afar off,”
1 Thess. v. 2—3 “The day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the
night. For [zz the moment| when they are saying (otav éywow)
‘Peace and safety,’ then sudden destruction cometh upon them,”
t Cor. xv. 24 “Then [cometh] the end [the hour of consummation]
when he |Christ| is delivering up (orav wapadido) the kingdom?.”
This applies to one of the three* Johannine instances of oray with
present subjunctive, vil. 27 (lit.) “The Christ—zhen he ts in the act
of coming (étav &pxntar)—no one is [to be found, in that crisis]
understanding (ovdeis ywwoxer) whence he is coming*.”
73 9 66
(daéxptua) of death in ourselves,’”? and 1 Cor. iv. g ‘‘the apostles last, as men
appointed to death”). On the other hand ov« dmoévjoKe might be said of a
martyr ‘‘2ot appointed to death,” or of one whose sentence was remitted. ‘Thus the
saying about the beloved disciple of whom it was reported among the brethren
(Jn xxi. 23) ‘he ds not to die (ovK awoOvijoxer)” (in apparent antithesis to Peter, ;
who was to be crucified) might be connected in some way with various traditions
relating how the disciple was actually subjected to punishment that would have
been naturally fatal, and how he was miraculously delivered from it.
1 [2531a] Winer, p. 387. He adds ‘‘or else represents something which in
itself is future simply as an event (1 C. xv. 24 where it stands by the side of the
aorist conjunctive).” See next note.
2 [2531 4] 1 Cor. xv. 24 dray mapadd@...drav katapynoy “when he is delivering
up...when he has brought to naught.” “Orav pédXy is connected with the Day of
Consummation in Mk xiii. 4, Lk. xxi. 7, and with the sounding of the seventh
trumpet in Rev. x. 7; but not much stress can be laid on these instances of the
pres. subjunct. as the aorist éué\qoa is not used in N.T.
3 [2531c] “‘ Three,” excluding ix. 5 drav év T@ xbcum G, because @ may be
regarded as either pres. or aorist subjunctive. In any case the meaning there is
not ‘‘ Whenever I am in the world,” but ‘‘during the time when.”
4 [25317] The four instances above quoted all refer to what will take place in
a future day of retribution. The last three refer to what is commonly called the
AGN 385 25
(2532) TENSE
[2532] “Orav dywow tyas rapadidovres in Mk xiii. 11 is paraliel
to drav 6€ cioépwow vpas in Lk. xii. 11 (where the parallel Mt. x. 19
mapaddow has the aorist) and is better interpreted “/x the hour of
trial when men are leading you,” than “whenever, as may often
happen.” Elsewhere drav, in connexion with other verbs, may
mean ‘77 the moment when” ye are beginning to “pray,” “fast”
etc., and so in Mt. xv. 2 “They do not wash their hands just when
they are beginning to eat (otav aprov éobincw)!'.”
Day of the Lord, as to which the prophetic present indicative might naturally be
used in the principal verb, and this would favour the sympathetic use of the
present subjunctive in subordinate verbs.
1 [2532 a] See Lk. xiv. 12, 13 ‘‘ At the time when you are making (6rav Togs)
a dinner or feast” etc., comp. Mt. vi. 2, 5, 6, 16. This is perh. the meaning of
Mk xi. 25 (pres. indic.) 6rav ornkeTe mpocevxdpevar ‘‘at the moment when ye stand
up in the act of prayer,” and ot Lk. xi. 2 6rav mpocedxnabe ‘‘at the moment when
ye are praying, say as follows.” This runs into the meaning of ‘‘whenever ye
pray”: but ‘‘at the moment when” is better in some respects, because it suggests
a precept to remember to do this or that at the moment when one is beginning to
do something else. In Mt. x. 23 éray 6€ dudKwow, better sense is made by ‘‘as
soon as they begin to persecute” than ‘‘as often as they persecute,” or ‘‘zwhenever
they persecute ”’—though the latter is of course a possible rendering.
[2532 6] In Mk xiv. 25 (Mt. xxvi. 29) ‘‘until that day when Lam drinking (6rav
mivw) it new with you,” D reads wiw in Mt. but not in Mk. It seems to be of the
nature of a prophetic present after é67ay, used in connexion with the Day of the
Lord, as in 1 Cor. xv. 24 quoted above. The only possible instance of é7ay with
indicative in Lk. is Lk. xiii. 28 marg. 6rav oWeo@e, in connexion with the Day of
Judgment.
[2532 c] Lk. xi. 36 el ofy 76 cHud cov ddov gwriwiv, un Exov "uépos Tr oKoTwdr,
estat pwrwdv ddov ws bray 6 A’xvos (marg. +€v) TH dotpaT] Pwrify ce is so difficult
‘that (Burk. vol. ii. p. 295) ‘‘ the best western Mss. (D a@é e f/7r) simply substitute
Mt. vi. 23 for Lk. xi. 35—6,” and SS has ‘‘ Thy body also, therefore, what time
there is in it no lamp that shineth, becometh darkened; so what time thy lamp
becometh bright, it shineth for thee.” The difficulty may be removed by
recognising (1) that @w7ifw almost always means ‘‘deg7n to light up,” “bring to
light,” ‘‘dawn on” (not ‘‘shine on” or ‘‘steadily enlighten”) and that it is
especially applied to the light that dawned on Christians in baptism. The present
passage warns those who have been (Heb. vi. 4) ‘‘once ¢/duminated (pwricbévras)”’
against quenching their light. (2) "Aorpam7 does not mean “the steady light of
a lamp” in any alleged Gk passage, and certainly not in Aesch. fragm. 372
Napmpatow aorparaice Naumddwy obéver where it is applied to the blazing or
flashing torches in the Eleusinian mysteries. In Lk. it is applied to a lamp newly
brought into a dark room. (3) In Lk. the context speaks of ‘‘kindling (aWas),”
se
in Mk of a lamp ‘‘ coming (€pxerac)” into a room; and dorpam7 refers to the first
“*flash” of the light on those who are in the dark room. (4) “Oray with pres.
subjunct. may mean ‘‘ just at the moment when.’ ‘Then the sense will be that, if
the believer, after receiving the light, keeps it unquenched, he will be ‘‘ entirely
386
AORIST AND PRESENT SUBJUNCTIVE — [2534]
[2533] “Orav Oédnre in Mk xiv. 7 may mean “ zwhenever ye will”
i.e. as often as you like. But it would also make good sense to
understand the passage as meaning, in effect, “The poor ye have
always with you and ye need not wait long to do them kindnesses,
ye are able to do them good 7 the very moment in which ye form the
wish to do it: but me ye have not always.” In Lk. xi. 21 orav...
dviacoyn, the meaning is not, “Whenever the strong man guards,”
but “During the time when the strong man ts guarding his court his
possessions are in peace,” and this is contrasted with the aorist (“but
when (éray d¢) the stronger man comes and conquers (vixyoy) him ”)
which describes a single act’.
[2534] In the Pauline Epistles, it makes very good sense to
suppose that the Apostle meant to say to the Corinthians “| /x the
very hour| when I am weak (orav yap adobeva) then am I strong,” and
“we rejoice [7 the very hour| when we are weak*.” So, too,
1 Cor. ill. 4 dtav yap Aé€yy tus does not mean “As often as a man
says,” but “Jn the very moment of saying,” and the meaning is that
aman stamps himself as “carnal” zz the very moment when he says
lammonebauly son .oluam of pollos* "In HRomenie450 the
light, even as at the moment when the lamp enlightens him with the flash [of its
first coming].” W.H. marg. év, the reading of B, is probably correct, being a
literal rendering of the Semitic original, as in Job xxxiii. 30 ‘‘to be enlightened
with the light of the living,” A and Theod. rod dwrica airge & purl SevTwv
(LXX diff. but €v @wri).
[2532 @2] Comp. Epict. iii. 17. 1 ray te TH Ipovoia éyxadys, émvotpdgpn...,
z.e., not, ‘‘ Whenever you accuse,” but ‘* When, at any moment, you are in the act
of accusing Providence, turn and reflect and you will recognise that things have
happened according to Reason.”
1 [2533 a] In Dan. ili. 5 ‘‘at what time,” LXX has 6ravy where Theod. has 7
av wpa, but axovonre follows, because the meaning is, ‘‘A¢ the instant when ye
have heard the trumpet you must obediently pay worship.”
[2533 4] In Ex. xxi. 7, Lev. v. 15, where the Heb. has ‘‘when,” LXX has éay
(with aorist subjunct.), but Aq. ovay. ‘There is sometimes little difference, in a
legal enactment, between (lit.) ‘‘ When a soul shall have sinned” and ‘‘if a soul
shall have sinned.”
* [2534 a] 2 Cor. xii. 10, xiil. g. It is the simultaneousness, not the frequency,
that is insisted on—the perfection of ‘‘strength,” or the ‘‘ rejoicing,” along with
weakness (2 Cor. xii. g ‘‘ made perfect zz weakness,” z.e. in the midst of physical
weakness, not by driving it away).
3 [25344] Comp. 1 Thess. v. 3 d7ay Néywaou quoted above (2531). So 1 Cor.
xiv. 26 ‘‘[ Just] when ye are assembling [for sacred worship] (6rav cvvépyno be)—
and ought to be thinking of Christ and of Christ’s Body, the congregation—each
one is perhaps thinking of himself ‘I have a Psalm,’ ‘I have a Doctrine,’ ‘I have
a Revelation.’ [Have done with this!] Let all be done to edification.”’ This
appears to be the meaning of the passage.
387 25—2
[2535] TENSE
meaning is “‘A¢ the moment when (drav) Gentiles...are doing (rowaw)
by force of nature the works of the Law, these though nominally
without Law are really Law to themselves.” The foregoing remarks
include all the non-Johannine instances of érav with’ present sub-
junctive in N.T.; and they indicate that (having quite a different
meaning from dod«is édv, “as often as,” or “whenever!”) it em-
phasizes, not frequency, but szmzltaneousness.
[2535] Of the Johannine instances, vii. 27 06 6€ xpiords drav
épxntac has been explained above (2531) as meaning “‘[zz the Day
of Deliverance| when the Christ ts in the act of coming.” In xvi. 21
n yuvn oTav tikty...oTav d€ yevvyoy, the contrast between the two
tenses indicates that the meaning is “[in the critical hour] when
she is giving birth to a child she hath sorrow—but when she hath
given birth to the child she remembereth no more the sorrow.” The
only other instance in the Fourth Gospel is viil. 44 drav Aady 7d
Wevdos €k tov idiwv ade. This is exactly parallel to the Pauline
warning to the Corinthians quoted above (2534) “/z the very act of
saying so and so, do ye not prove yourselves to be carnal?” So
here, the meaning is “7x the very act of speaking that which is false
he speaketh out of his own (2728),” proving himself a liar. There is
one instance in the Epistle, 1 Jn v. 2 “Herein do we understand
that we are loving the children of God—[/ mean, in the moment]
when (oTav) we are loving God and [when we] are doing his com-
mandments,” where the writer is insisting on the necessary
simultaneousness of the fulfilment of the First Commandment and
of the Second’.
1 [2534 c] ‘Oodxis édv occurs in 1 Cor. xi. 25, 26, Rev. xi. 6. "Edy with pres.
subjunct. might almost be translated ‘‘ whenever” in Mk ix. 45—7 ‘‘whenever thy
foot causes thee to stumble...whenever thine eye causes thee to stumble...,”’
Mt. v. 23 ‘whenever thou art offering thy gift,” Mt. xv. 14 ‘‘whenever the blind
lead the blind” etc. But in o7ay time is expressly included, and the emphasis on
time differentiates 6rav from édv where both are used with the present.
2 [2535 a] Bruder gives 17 as the total number of instances of oray in Jn. Of
these, 13 are followed by the aorist subjunctive, 3 (as above) by the present. One
is (ix. 5) 6rav év r@ kécpm G. There is only one in the Epistle (as above). The
suggestion of a Day of Judgment or hour of crisis, apparently conveyed by érav
with pres. subjunct., accords with the similar association of the pres. subjunct., with
éav ph (2521—3). In Philo i. 96 Ato xai ’Aapwy bray redeuvrg (TouréoTw bray
redewhy) els "Qp, 6 éore POs, avépyera, if the bracketed words are not a gloss,
the meaning may be ‘‘ when he is iz the act of attaining the end through death
(that is, has been perfected).”
388
MIDDLE [2536]
VOICE
(i) Middle
(a) AitoYmai
[2536] Airoduo. in N.T. generally means “ask for myself,” “ask
a favour,” and can almost always be thus rendered in the Synoptists!.
In LXX, the usage varies in different books’, and also in different
Mss.* On the whole, the active is used colloquially and for ordinary
asking of “food,” “money” etc.4, but the middle in petitions for
blessings from God, or for favours from a king, or in elevated style’.
Variations can generally be explained as in Isaiah, when the prophet
says “Ask as a favour for thyself (atryoa: ceavtd) a sign,” and Ahaz
replies “I will surely not ask (od py aitryow).” The prophet em-
phasizes “as a favour for thyself,” the king emphasizes the negative,
“YT will zof ask,” ze. not ask in any way®. From meaning “ask
a favour,” the middle came to mean “‘ask specially,” “ask earnestly,”
as in Ps, xxvil. 4 “One thing have I earnestly asked (nrnoapnv) from
the Lord,” and Prov. xxx. 7 “Two things do I earnestly ask (aitotpar)
from thee.” The Epistle of St James implies that Christians
1 [2536a] Mk vi. 24, 25, x. 38, xv. 8, 43, Mt. xiv. 7, xviii. 19, xx. 22,
XXvil. 20, 58, Lk. xxill. 23, 25, 52. In Mk xi. 24 mpocedyecde Kal aireiode, the
parall. Mt. xxi. 22 (which somewhat differs) has alrjoynre €v Tn rpocevxy. Ailroduac
in Acts is often in a bad sense “‘ asking a favour” that ought not to be granted as
also in Mk vi. 25 (the asking for the head of John the Baptist). Aldroduac does not
occur in the Pauline Epistles, exc. Eph. ii. 13, 20, Col. i. g (and airéw only in
oe Com ie022))e
2 [2536 4] Comp. 1 K. iii. 11 y77jow...00K ATHow (3 times)...dAN 777}ow with the
parall. 2 Chr. i. 11 odK yrjow (twice)...kal Hrnoas ceauTH.
3 [2536 c] In Judg. viii. 26, LX.X has active, but A middle. In Dan. (Theod.)
vi. 7, 12, 13, txt. has active, but A middle.
4 [2536 d] Ex. iii. 22, xi. 2, xll. 35, xxl. 14, Judg. i. 14 dypov (but contrast
Josh. xv. 18), v. 25 Udwp, viii. 26 evwmria, 2 K. iv. 3 cxe’n etc. So Ps. Ixxviii. 18,
cv. 40 of asking food, 2 S. xii. 20, Lam. iv. 4 dprov (but, in the elevated style,
Wisd. xix. 11 77HoavTo €déouata TpvPis).
® [2536 e] Alrodwac (not airéw) is always used int K. e.g. 1 K. ii. 15, 20(dzs),
22 (42s), ili. 5, to, 11 (freq.) etc. and always (4 times) in Joshua.
6 [25367] Is. vil. rr—12. In Mk vi. 22—4, dramatically, Herod Antipas does
not dwell upon the fact that he is giving Herodias a gift for herself, but simply
says—with royal munificence—airnadv me 6 Edy Oédys and ort édv we airjons. But
Herodias, with her mind full of the favour she may ask for, says to her mother
“What favour am I to ask (ri airjowpat)?” Mt. xiv. 7 dodvar 6 éay airhaonrac
expresses it historically, ‘‘to give her whatever favour she might ask (6 éav
altjonra).”
389
(2536 (i)] VOICE
fulfilled formally the Lord’s command “Ask (airetze) and ye shall
receive,” but that they did not obtain because they did not “ask
earnestly” (odx €xere bia TO py aiteioha vas) or rather they “asked
earnestly but wickedly” (xaxds aireiofe)’. It was natural that
distinctions between the middle and the active should be made
by Christians in the first century. For, whereas Mark and Matthew
contain a precept about “asking earnestly,” airotpa, the result being
conditional on “ believing’,” Luke omits this precept altogether and
merely agrees with Matthew in the unconditional precept “Ask
(airetre), and it shall be given to you’.”
[2536 (i)] In the Last Discourse and in the Epistle, John, as will
appear below‘, adheres (thrice) to Matthew’s and Luke’s active,
1 [2536 2] Jas iv. 2—3 ‘‘Ye have not because ye ask not earnestly (dia TO wy
airetoOa buds): ye ask (airetre) and ye receive not, because ye ask earnestly in an
evil spirit (dubTt kax@s airetoOe) that ye may spend [money] on your pleasures.”
See Mayor ad Joc. and his collection of passages from Justin and Hermas
containing airéw and airodua in juxtaposition, e.g. Herm. Vis. 111. x. 7—8 ri ov...
airets dmoxahtWees...; Béme uw WoTE TONG airovmevos...KUpie, TOUTO Lovoy airovmar.
Herm. J/and. ix. 1—8 insists on the need of ‘‘ praying earnestly without dis-
traction” (airod...dd.ordxrws) and uses the middle about nine times, only twice
falling into the active. Mayor suggests alrjon in ix. 4 éav ddtoTdxTws airnons.
But if that is to be altered, must not we also alter ix. 7 7a aitjard cou a airels
Anyn? Is it not natural that in a string of exhortations using the middle airodua,
“ask earnestly,” the active, airéw—simply ‘‘ask”—should be sometimes used
in clauses describing the spirit in which one is to ‘‘ask,” or promising a reward
to petitions ‘‘ asked” in that spirit ?
2 [25364] Mk xi. 24 mavra doa mpocetyxecbe Kai alretcbe, mucrevere OTL EAABETE,
kal ora buiv, Mt. xxi. 22 mwavta doa dy airjontre ev TH mpocevxyH mioTevovTeEs
Anuweobe, after the withering of the fig-tree. Lk. omits both the miracle and this
comment.
$ Mt. vil. 7 (in the Sermon on the Mount), Lk. xi. 9 airetre cal doOjoerar vuiv.
4 [2536 (i) a] Apart from xi. 22 60a dy airjon Tov Gedy addressed by Martha to
Jesus, and from the Samaritan dialogue (iv. g—10 map’ €uod metv ailre?s...cd dv
nTnoas avrév) the two voices occur as follows in Jn and 1 Jn:
Active Middle
Xiv. 12—I4 6 mioTEevwv...Toljoel...
k. o7t dv alrhonre (marg. airjre) ev 7@
évéuarl pov Tovro moujow twa dotacby Xv. 7 éay melynre év Euol K. Ta phuatrd
Omarip év 7a viw. édv te alrnonré [ue] pou év byutv pelvy, 6 éav OéAnTE airjoacbe
év Tw dvéuarl mov “rovro' (marg. éyw) K. yevyoerac vey.
TOT.
xv. 16 k. €Onka buds tva...k. 6 Kapros
tua pévy, wa ore av alrnonre (marg.
alrjre) Tov marépa ev rH dvduarl pou
6@ byuiv.
390
MIDDLE [2537]
“ask.” when he connects ‘‘asking” with “receiving” or with
“having.” But whenever (five times) Christ is represented as
using the active, “7 my name” is added in the context, thus
excluding selfish or arbitrary asking. When John for the first
time uses the middle, he seems, for the moment, to countenance
the most reckless asking of favours—“‘ask for yourselves whatsoever
ye will (6 éav Oédnte aitnoacGe)”: but this is preceded by “if ye abide
in me and my words abide in you.” And how can the words of the
disciples ask recklessly or selfishly ‘‘if” Christ’s own “ words ” abide
in their hearts and on their lips? This is John’s way of saying “ If
ye steadfastly believe.” Only it is not subjective (“believe”) but
objective: “If ye stand fast in me and I stand fast in you.” As
regards this “asking of favours” or ‘asking what ye will,” he does
not say “ye shall receive,’ but “zt shall be done for you,” resembling
Mark’s tradition (2536 %) as distinct from Matthew’s. In the Epistle,
this ‘‘asking of favours” is to be “according to the will of God,”
and the result is, not, ‘‘ 7¢ shall be done,” but “ He heareth us.”
(8B) “Attowpinacéat
[2537] *Azoxpivoo. is twice used by John in the first aorist
middle (instead of the much more frequent aorist passive) in the
passage that describes the first attempt of the Jews to ‘“ persecute”
XV. 23—4 ay Tt alrhonre Tov Tarépa xvi. 26 év éxelvn TH Nudpa ev TH
dwoe buiv ev TO dvouarl mov: ews dpre évouati ou aitjncerbe, Kat ov éyw
ovK ATHTaTE OvdeY ev TH dvduaTi jmov* tuiy OTe €ym Epwrncw Tov marépa mepl
airetre kal Arjupecbe. budv* ards yap 6 marnp pret buds Ore...
[2536 (i) 2] x Jn iii. 21—22 éay 7 1 Jn v. 14 k. atryn éorly 7 Tappnoia
Kapola i) KaTaywwokn Tappyolay Exomev nv EXomEV Tpos avTOy, OTL Edy TL aiTwUEOa
mpos Tov Gedy, x. b av air@uev AauBavo- Kata TO OéXnpa av’rov axover nud.
mev aw’ avrov.
1 Jn v. 15 (4) [after ol6auev dre] Exouev I Jn v. 15 (a) x. éav oldamev ort
Ta aiThuara ad yTHKawev am’ avrov. axover Nuav 6 édy airdmeba, oldapev
A
Orbos:
I Jn v. 16 édv ris i6y...airnoer, Kk.
dwoe adT@ (why.
[2536 (i)c] In xi. 22 dca dy airhon Tov Oedv duce cor 6 Beds, Martha is
probably described as applying to Christ, from her own point of view, a word
never applied to Him by the evangelist; and the middle ‘‘ask for thyself,” or ‘Sask
earnestly,” or ‘ask as a favour,” emphasizes her error. Similarly (1728 £) she uses
the word ¢iAéw to describe Christ’s love of Lazarus, whereas John uses dyardw.
Whenever Jn connects ask” and ‘‘ give” elsewhere in his own language or in
that of Christ, he uses the active, iv. 10, xv. 16, xvi. 23, 1 Jn v. 16, and this
accords with the Matthew-Luke Tradition (Mt. vii. 7, Lk. xi. 9).
391
[2537 | VOICE
(v. 16 da Todro édiwxov) Jesus. It was for an act of healing on the
Sabbath. Jesus (v. 17) “made answer (amexpivato) to them....” It
is then said, ““On this account therefore did the Jews seek rather
to kill him,” and again (vy. 1g) “‘ Jesus therefore made answer (ame-
kpivato).” “Azrexpi6y occurs in John more than 50 times, but azexpivaro
only here. It must be rendered according to its frequent use in
Greek, “made answer to the charge,” “made his defence.” ‘O dwikov,
as a legal term, regularly means “the pursuer,” in the Scotch sense,
z.e. the prosecutor; and the verb often means “prosecute.” No
doubt, John means “ persecute” here; yet he means persecuting
with charges of blasphemy implying threats of ‘ prosecution,” so that
““made his defence ” is particularly appropriate to the context, where
a charge is being brought against Jesus for the first time in this
Gospel. “Azexpivato is used only once in the Acts (iii. 12), and
there it introduces a speech of Peter “ to all the people,” not directly
of the nature of a defence, but rather an attack upon the Jews for
killing Christ. Yet indirectly it is of the nature of a defence or
apologia. In Mark and Matthew it is used only negatively, describing
the refusal of Christ to “make a formal defence” on the day of His
trial. Luke has a parallel use of it in somewhat similar circum-
stances’. But Luke also uses the aorist middle once more con-
cerning the public answer given by John the Baptist “to all [men]”.”
1 [2537 a] Mk xiv. 61 ovx dzexpivaro ovdév (of the silence before the Sanhe-
drin) (Mt.-Lk. diff.) ; Mt. xxvii. 12 o¥6€y daexplvaro (of the silence before Pilate)
(Mk-Lk. different) ; Lk. xxiii. g (of the silence before Herod). These facts
must be contrasted with the frequency of the aorist passive form dzoxpi6els in all
the Synoptists.
[2537 4] In LXX, doxplvacba: is extremely rare. It occurs in Ex. xix. 19
“* Moses spake and God azswered him by a voice,” 1 K. ii. 1 ‘* He [David] charged
Solomon his son,” dmexpivaro, Aq. etc. évereiNaro, 1 Chr. x. 13 Kk. daexplvaro
atrg =. 6 mpopyrns (not in Heb., ‘* Samuel made answer to Saul” when the latter
inquired of a soothsayer), Ezek. ix. 11 ‘‘ reported the matter.’ In Judg. v. 29, of
Sisera’s mother “making answer” to her own question, LXX has dmécrpevev
Aoyous, but A amexplvaro év pyuaow. Mic. iii. 11 ‘‘the priests ¢each for hire,” has
the imperf. middle azexpivovro, Aq. Theod. épwrifov, where LXX perh. took it
(as in 1 Chr. x. 13) to mean oracular response. In none of these instances does
the middle mean ‘‘ make answer to a charge”; but in each of them there is some
notion of publicity, or oracular response, or solemnity, so that the meaning is
different from that of dmoxpOjqva.
* [2537 c] Lk. iii. 10 dmexplvaro Néywv waow. In the account of the trial, Jn
does not use dmrexplvaro. But he represents Jesus as freely conversing (dwexpi07 etc.)
with Pilate up to the moment when Pilate asked Him ‘‘ Whence art thou?” Then
392
MIDDLE [2537 (i)]
[2537 (i)] Under this head it is convenient to consider the middle
or intransitive sense of the active form «a@iGm in xix. 13 0 ovv
TleAGros...nyayev ew tov “Inootrv, kai éxabiocev ert Byparos, concerning
which it has been suggested in modern times that the verb may be
transitive, as in 1 Cor. vi. 4 tovtovs ka6itere, Eph. i. 20 (W.H.)
€yeipas avtov ex vexpav Kat Kabioas ev de&ta avtod. Add Hermas lzs.
lll. 2. 4 éyeiper pe Kal Kailer, “makes me sit on the bench to the left,”
followed by “and she herself, too, sat (€xaéCero) on the right.” But
in all these the transitive meaning of the verb is made clear by the
context (although in Eph. i. 20 some scribes make it clearer by
adding avrév). In xix. 13, avrév might certainly be supplied after
exaficev' if the sense demanded it; but the transitive use of ka6ilw
would be unique in John’; and the phrase xa6icas eri tod Byparos,
which occurs thrice in the Acts about a judge “ ¢aking his seat on the
tribunal*,” would here be employed to describe the judge as causing
the accused to sit on the tribunal! It is needless to dwell on the
antecedent improbability that a Roman Governor—even such a one
as Pilate—would place an alleged criminal upon the Governor’s own
seat. No ancient authority is alleged for the interpretation “‘ caused
to sit.” The Acta Pilati (A and B) takes the word intransitively ;
so do the Latin translators, the Syriac, and Nonnus; and Chry-
it is said (xix. g) ‘‘Jesus gave him no answer (améxpicw)”—a word meaning
an answer to a definite question or questions (as in i. 22). It is clear that there
were different traditions about Christ’s ‘‘not making answer” at the trial. By
avoiding the traditional phrase ov« dmexplvaro, Jn avoids committing himself to, or
against, any one of the three Synoptic accounts.
[2537 7] Some Mss. and versions read amexpivaro in xii. 23 (W.H.) 6 6€ Incois
amoxplvera avtois Méywv, preceding the solemn words, *t’The hour hath come that
the Son of man should be glorified.” It is the occasion of the arrival of the
Greeks and an oracular solemnity is appropriate to the verb of speech. ‘This
might be suggested by the unusual present middle, though not so clearly as by the
aorist middle. The present is probably the correct reading. ’Azroxpiverat (pres.) is
also used to introduce Christ’s indication (xiii. 26) of Judas Iscariot as the traitor,
and (xii. 38) His prediction of Peter’s denial.
1 [2537 (i)a@] Comp. iv. 47 arf ev mpos adrov Kal npwra [v.r.+avrov]...,
Vil. 15 aprdagew atroy iva mojowow [v.r. +avrov] Baoidéa, xvili. 12—13 cuvédaBov
Tov “Inoovv kai €dnoav airov Kal jyayov [v.r. amiyayov atrév].... Conversely
in xl. 44 AvoaTe abrov kK. dete adTov Urdyew, some auth. om. 2nd. avrév.
* [2537 (i) 6] Apart from the spurious viii. 2 xa@ioas, Jn has xii. 14 é€xd@uev, on
which see 2537 (ii). He also has (4) ca@7jo@ac and (3) cavéfecdar.
3 Acts xii. 21, xxv. 6, 17. Comp. Epict. iv. ro. 21 ‘‘ And what is the net
result [of being a consul]? Twelve bundles of rods, and three or four times sz¢t2ng
on a bema (emt Bhua xabioa)!
393
[2537 (ii)] VOICE
sostom expressly says that “ xaOicac makes it clear” that Pilate pro-
fessed an intention to “investigate the matter” as a judge’.
[2537 (ii)] The suggestion of a transitive meaning in xix. 13 would
not have been worth discussing except for its possible bearing on Mk
xi. 7 exabioev (D xabeler, dsedebat), Mt. xxi. 7 emexabioev (D exa6nr0),
Lk. xix. 35 éreBiBacav. Here Lk. has a transitive meaning, but
John not only supports Mt.-Mk in xii. 14 evpov do °L dvaptov
éxabioev éx atré, but also alters the prophecy of Zech. 1x. 9 “riding
on an ass,” LXX émPeByxus, to (xil. 15) “seated (kaOnpevos) ” which
accords more exactly with é«dé@iev. There was nothing arbitrary in
John’s action, for the Hebrew word meaning “ ride” in Zechariah is
also rendered “sit” three or four times in LXX, and indeed the
Syriac—in which the Hebrew word exists and is used in the Syriac
version of Mk-Mt. here—is rendered by Mr Burkitt “‘7zde” in Mk
xl. 7, Mt. xxi. 7. There can be little doubt that John, in the Entry
into Jerusalem, is writing with allusion to two traditions, possibly
arising from variations of éxa@way (trans.) and éxafurev (intr.): and,
while Lk. adopted the former, “ made fo sit,” John supported Mk and
Mt. in adopting the latter, “saz.” Perhaps some tradition followed
by Lk. made the same mistake as the LXX made in 2 K. x19
“and he sat,” LXX kai éxaGucav avtrov, A éxafioev. The spurious
Gospel of Peter and Justin Martyr have wild traditions telling how
the Jews place Christ on a tribunal or place of judgment*. Perhaps
1 [2537 (i) c] Acta P. (A) 9 rére éxéXNevoev OTL. rov Bidrov EXxvoO7va Too Bhuaros
ob éxabévero, (B) rote éxdOicey 6 IL. els roy Opdvoy abrod Wa Tojoyn aropacw
(Evang. Nicod. merely ‘‘tunc jussit Pilatus velum solvi”’). The Lat. vss have
“sedit,” SS is missing, but Walton gives all versions (including Syriac) as having
<‘cedit” or “insedit.” Nonnus has dpriddum 6 éxdOnTro NOocTpHTw Tapa Xapw,
Chrys. é&€pxerar mev ws ékerdfwy 7d mpayua (ro yap KaBloa Tovro €d%)ov)*
ovdeuiay 5¢ momnodpevos ekéracw Trapadldwow atrov voulfwy dutwrnoew avrous.
2 [2537 (ii) a] Justin Martyr, after quoting from Is. lviii. 2 (LXX) “ They ask
me now for judgment,” adds (A/o/. 35) ‘‘ For indeed, as the prophet said, dragging
Him along they made Him sit upon a seat of judgment (duacvpovres avrov éxdbicav
émi Bhyaros) and said Judge for us.” The Gospel of Peter has (§ 3) ‘‘ Let
us (?) drag (evpwuev corrected into otpwuer) the Son of God...and they made Him
sit on a chair of judgment (éxd@icay avrov éml xabédpav kploews), saying Judge
justly, O king of Israel.”
[2537 (ii) 4] At the same time Jn may also be correcting (1745) a misunder-
standing arising from Mt. xxvii. 19 Ka9nuévou dé él rod Byuaros. According to
Jn, the Baya was not ‘‘the tribunal” but ‘‘a@ tribunal,” set up specially in
Gabbatha (comp. Joseph. Zed/, ii. 14. 8) outside the Praetorium. If the sentence
was to be pronounced publicly, it could not be done from “ ¢#e tribunal” inside
the Praetorium, as the Jews (xviii. 28) would not enter it.
394
PASSIVE [2540]
some of these were already in the air at the time of the publication
of the Fourth Gospel, and the author may have desired, while tacitly
refuting them, to use the very phrase that originated them—thus
destroying the error by explaining it.
(ii) Passive
(a) ~“ExpyBu
[2538] In vill. 59 “They therefore took up stones to cast at him,
but Jesus was hidden and went out of the temple,” xu. 36 “ As ye
have the light believe in the light that ye may become sons of light.
These things spake Jesus and went away and was Azdden from them,”
the second aorist passive éxpv8y is twice rendered as a middle in
R.V. txt and A.V., but as a passive in R.V. marg. In favour of
“hid himself” may be alleged the usage of LXX. But in LXX
expvn means “hide oneself in fear,” ‘‘ crouch,” ‘‘ cower,” like Adam
and Eve in Paradise’. Such usage appears inapplicable here.
[2539] In N.T. the 2nd aorist passive of xpvz7w is applied to
persons in Heb. xi. 23 “‘ Moses was Azdden three months,” and to
things in Mt. v. 14 “‘a city ona hill cannot de Ard (xpvBjvar),” Lk.
xix. 42 “but now ave they hid (éxpvfn) from thine eyes,” 1 Tim. v. 25
“cannot de Aid (kpvByvat).” Almost all the instances of middle
meaning alleged by L. S. may be explained passively, or else they
do not affect the usage of the 2nd aorist?.
[2540] On the side of the middle interpretation, however, we
must place Chrysostom, who, though he does not quote éxpvfy in the
first passage, says “Then He flees back again after the manner of
1 [2538 a] Comp. Gen. iii. 8, 10, Judg. ix. 5, 1 S. xiii. 6, xiv. 11, Job xxiv. 4,
xxlx. 8etc. Aq. uses it in Gen. xxxi. 27 ‘‘ why didst thou flee secretly (ExpUBns Tod
amodpavat)” LXX om. When xpirrw is applied to God hiding His face, Aq. has
KpUmTw sometimes where LXX has dzoorpépw (? for seemliness) e.g. Ps. xiii. 1,
Is. Ixiv. 7. In Js. lvii. 17, ‘‘ face” is omitted by Heb. but ins. by LXX améorpeva
TO Wpodcwmrdy Lov.
2 [2539 a] Kexpigara: Hes. Of. 384 of stars, means ‘‘ they remain hidden,” as
Steph. ‘‘absconditae sunt, Ionice pro xexpuypévac efor.” Eurip. Hel. 606 ovpare
dé xpUmrerac is much more probably passive as is shewn by the context, dpOetc’
apavros, ovpave 6 kptrrerat “lifted out of sight and hid in heaven [by the will of
Zeus]: Cycl. 615 Kptwrerat és crod.av Spvds &omerov épvos, however punctuated,
almost certainly means that the stake is ‘“‘ detxg hidden” in the embers. The only
remaining instance is an imperfect middle Babr. 5. 4 éxpimter olkov ywviny,
rendered by L.S. ‘‘ van to hide himself in a corner.”
395
[2541] VOICE
man and (?) Aides Himself (kpvwrera)',” where the parallel “flees ”
makes it probable that he uses kp’zrerac as a middle. Theodorus
expressly explains éxpvBy thus, “How éxpvf8y? Not by coiling
himself up in a corner of the Temple in a cupboard...nor yet by
twisting round behind a wall or pillar, but making Himself invisible
by divine authority (e€ova(a Oeixy) to those that were plotting against
Him?*.” In the second passage, Chrysostom twice quotes ékpv3y and
twice explains it as xpvzterat. Possibly vernacular Greek usage, as
well as that of LXX, may have caused Chrysostom to prefer a form
less associated with “slinking away*”: but in any case both these
interpreters take éxpv$n as middle.
[2541] Some light may be shed on these two passages by another
in which Jesus is described as retiring: v. 13 “For Jesus conveyed
himself away (eévevccev, ND evevoev), a multitude being in the
place.” Here Chrysostom, in quoting, substitutes eféxAwev, and
explains it as éxpuWev €avtov and avaywpyoas. Now éxvevw is thrice
substituted by A for LXX éxxAtvw in Judges iv. 18. And (2538 a)
the LXX has been shewn to use arootpédw for kpvrtw concerning
the “hiding” of God’s “face.” Thus it appears that “hiding” and
“turning aside” are expressions that might be interchanged in this
sense. And, practically, this passage (v. 13) describes a “ hiding,” or
“retiring,” as Chrysostom calls it. .
[2542] In vill. 59 several Mss. add that Jesus “passed through
the midst of them (dveAGOv 61a wéoov adrov)” and that He “passed away
just as he was (rapjyev ovtws).” The first of these clauses is identical
with one in Lk. iv. 30 describing Christ’s “‘ passing through ” the mult1-
tude of Nazareth, when they were attempting to cast Him down a
precipice. That escape is generally regarded as miraculous, and the
addition of such a clause in Jn vill. 59 indicates that the scribes
1 [2540 a] Hira devyec radw dv@pwrivas kal kpiwrerat ixavny didacKkadiay avrots
mapabéuevos.... Chrys. does not quote the text with éxp’8n. Cramer prints Td dé
“éxpiBn Kal é&7Oev ex Tod lepod” dvOpwrivws madw Tove, ikavnv didacKadlav
mapadéuevos.... Nonnus has the middle twice, vili. 59 tao mrixa KevOero vod,
xii. 36 KevOer "lovdalwy yopdy...édcas.
2 [2540 2] Cramer ad foc. Origen (on Lk. Hom. 19, Lomm. v. 156) ‘‘...sed
quomodo in Joannis evangelio scriptum est quoniam insidiabantur ei Judaei et
elapsus est de medio eorum et non apparuit,” where the context indicates that he
regarded the event as supernatural.
$ [2540c] Phrynichus warns people against spelling kp’Serac with a B, and
ee ’
Hesychius gives xpuBduevos and irorlrrwy “ cringing,’”’ as paraphrases of rr#oowr,
p Id gs ’ U/)
“*cowering down.”’
396
PASSIVE [2543 |
adding it regarded Christ’s escape from stoning as miraculous. If
so, they must have taken éexpvBy as “ miraculously concealed himself”
or “‘was miraculously concealed.” In any case, this scribal addition
indicates a desire to explain the meaning of éxpvB7.
[2543] Summing up the evidence, we find the usage of LX X and
three Greek commentators favouring the middle “ 27d himself,” but
“was hidden.” The latter
ought to count for more than the former’. And the passive is also
favoured by the context in the last of the three Johannine passages ;
for it says that the Jews “did not believe” because God had (x1. 40)
“ blinded their eyes.” But some explanation is needed of the motives
that induced John to use so ambiguous a phrase. We know from
the usage of N.T. favouring the passive,
Origen’s treatise against Celsus that charges of cowardice were
brought by unbelievers against our Lord’s character: and if some of
these were based on variously expressed traditions that He on certain
occasions “hid himself,” one way of meeting these charges would be
to report the tradition in such a way as to shew how it might be
misunderstood. Luke had described Christ as ‘“ passing through”
the Nazarenes, but had not explained how this was effected*. John
suggests that it was literal and miraculous, but also that it was typical
of a spiritual blinding whereby Christ ‘‘was hidden” from those who
rejected Him*.
1 [2543 a] Of special importance is Heb. xi. 23, because that Epistle is written
by someone familiar with Alexandrian thought, and, to that extent, similar to the
author of the Fourth Gospel. The Greek commentators are all late.
2 [2543 5] Cyril (Cramer, on Lk. iv. 29—30) says of the Nazarenes ‘‘ Fie on
their folly !...chey have eyes and do not see...and then goes on to say, ‘ He passed
through the midst of them.’ He does not state that they were literally ‘‘ blinded,”
or that Jesus was thus miraculously ‘‘hidden” from the Nazarenes. But the
juxtaposition of the two traditions shews how the former might originate the
latter.
3 [2543 c] If Chrysostom is right in calling Christ’s ‘‘ conveying himself away”
(from the pool of Bethzatha) an act of ‘‘hiding,” then there are three such acts in
John, each followed by an expression of unbelief or hostility on the part of the
Jews, or by some evangelistic statement about unbelief (1) “‘ He conveyed himself
away,” (2) “He was hidden and went out of the Temple,” (3) ‘‘ He went away
and was hidden from them.” The last seems intended as a climax, implying the
final departure of the Light so that it was ‘‘ hidden from” the Jews.
B27
BOOK ti
ARRANGEMENT, VARIATION, AND
eee Li RiOnN es Or Wy ODS
Mag
Glavenle hel 1s 911
ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION
§1. Variation in repetition or quotation
[2544] It has been shewn in Johannine Vocabulary that John uses
words with extraordinary discrimination and with subtle shades of
meaning. The First Book of Johannine Grammar has shewn that
the same subtle discrimination pervades his use of grammatical forms
and constructions. We have now to consider whether the same
characteristics may be traced in his arrangement and variation of
words and expressions. Finally we must consider his habit of
repetition—a subject that would find no place in a Shakespearian or
Euripidean Grammar, but one that will claim a good deal of comment
in the following pages. As regards arrangement, John will sometimes
be found to combine with parallelism what is commonly called
Chiasmus, ze. an order in which the extremes and means of a
sentence are alike’: and this is so frequent that it will receive a
separate section. But the first place must be given to Johannine
variation—that is, the habit of repeating the same thing (or repre-
senting his various characters as repeating the same thing) in slightly
dissimilar words and with slight dissimilarities of order.
1 [2544a] #.g. Ps. xxvii. 8 “Seek ye my face: thy face, Lord, will I seek,”
Ps. cv. 15—16 ‘Touch not mine anointed and my prophets harm not,” ‘* And
he called for a famine on the land; every support of bread he brake.” In these
three sentences, the verbs come at the extremes, and the nouns in the middle. In
parallelism, the sequence in the first clause would be reproduced in the second, e.g.
(Ps. cv. 29—33) “ He turned their waters into blood, and slew their fish...he
smote their vines also and their fig-trees, and brake the trees of their borders.”
In the first of the three instances of chéasmus given above, the two means and the
two extremes are identical (‘‘ face” “face,” ‘‘ seek” ‘‘seek”’) ; in the others, they
differ.
ACV 401 26
| 2545 | ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION
[2545] Inthe list of variations given below, the reader’s particular
attention is called to the passages, marked t, where an utterance of
our Lord is repeated after “I said,” “He said” etc. but not with
exact accuracy. It is impossible to believe that the evangelist
misquoted Jesus or represented Him as misquoting Himself. Our
conclusion must therefore be that he wished to compel his readers to
perceive that they have not before them Christ’s exact words, and
that they must think of their spirit rather than of the letter. On at
least one occasion Christ is represented as appealing to words that
had been previously uttered by Him, but have not been recorded in
this Gospel, xi. 40 ‘Said I not unto thee that, if thou believedst,
thou shouldst see the glory of God?” This cannot be identified with
any previous utterance of Christ’s to Martha’. On other occasions (e.g.
vi. 26—36, and 44—65), the reference is doubtful. Even where Christ
is certainly repeating His own words they are never repeated exactly
except once (2190@). In that single instance, Jesus says to His
disciples xiil. 33 ‘‘ Even as I said to the Jews, ‘ Where I go ye cannot
come, so to you also I say it for the present.” He had uttered these
exact words (vill. 21) to the Jews. But is it not clear that they are
now uttered to the disciples in a meaning made widely different by
different circumstances? Probably it is something more than a
coincidence that this is the only saying of Jesus quoted by Jesus
Himself (“I said”), with exact accuracy”. It seems as though the
writer wished to bring home to us the truth of Christ’s warning, “The
spirit it 1s that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing. ‘The words
that I have spoken to you are [truly] spirit and are [truly] life.”
1 [2545 a] Here, Alford describes Jesus as ‘‘ referring her [z.e. Martha] to the
plain duty of simple faith insisted on by Him before (vv. 25, 26? or in some other
teaching?).”” Westcott says, ‘‘ The Lord directs Martha to the deeper meaning of
His words....The general description of the victory of faith (v. 26) contained
necessarily a special promise. The fulfilment of that promise was a revelation of
the glory of God (v. 4) for which Christ had from the first encouraged the sisters to
look.” The meaning of this is not clear to me. The words in xi. 4 “ this sickness
is not unto death but for tre glory of God,” were not uttered to Martha and Mary,
but at a distance from them. Perhaps, however, Westcott assumes that they were
reported to the sisters by their messenger, who had informed Jesus of their
brother’s sickness.
2 [2545 4] This is all the more extraordinary because the Jews on at least two
occasions (vil. 36, vill. 22) quote the words of Jesus at some length and with exact
accuracy (2190 a).
% [2545] vi. 63. Comp. Orig. Huet ii. 405 D elmep dé a éNdde priuwara 6
"Inoods mvedud éore kal ob ypdupa, where as elsewhere he indicates that: it is
402
ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION [2546 |
The “letter” of words may be described as their “flesh,” and the
spirit of the words.of Christ passes away from us unless we are one
with the Person that uttered them, placing ourselves, as far as we
can, in His circumstances and receiving from Him His thoughts.
INSTANCES OF VARIATION!
[2546 | ZO "Eyo ovK eit 6 xpiords, COMP. ill. 28 airol tpets
pou paptupeite Ort troy | éyw] Ov eipt eyo 6 ypurtos, GAN’ Srv...(2553 a,).
i. 26—33 Ey Barrilw év voate... (31) dua Todto AAOov eym ev Voate
Bamrilwv... (33) 6 mepas pe Parrilew ev vdart,
. m” cod
t i. 48—50 ovta v0 THY ouKHV Elddv oe... (50) elrdv Gor OTL Eldov
oe VToKaTw THS TUKNS (2545).
i. 49 ov ef 0 vids TOD He0d, ad Bacrreds ef Tod “Iopaynd (1966).
il. 12 Kal €xei enewav ov Todas Hyepas, but iv. 40 Kai emervev exer
dvo 7pépas, and x. 40 kai ewevev (Marg. ewerver) éxel. .
ll. 13 kat dvéBy «is ‘lep. 6 'L., but v. I Kal aveBn “I. eis “Tep., and
Vii. 14 907 O€ THS E pecovons, avéBn "I. eis TO tepov Kal edidacKer.
ll. 14—16 Tovs twAotvtas Boas kat mpoBata Kai wepiotepds... (16)
a \ \ A
TOLS TAS TEPLOTEPAS TwAovew.
o. , an 5 , ea 7 4 a a , >
Vs Tikes Ge OVLELOV OELKVVELS HILLY, OTL TAVTA TFOLELS ; but vi. 30 Te Ov
TTOLELS ov On}LELOV, iva LOWLEV...
ili. 3—5 édv py tes Le rte avobev... (5) eav pn tis yevvnby
e€ voatos Kal mvevpatos (2578).
ll. 3—5 od dvvarar idetv tnv Bacrciav Tov Oeod... (5) od dvvarat
cicedOety cis THY Bacirelav Tod Geod (2573).
tee > \ , > CoA \ + ea X 4
ill, 12 €i TA €mlyeia elroy UplV...€aV ELTH UpLY TA ErrOUpaVia.
OOD « + > / c BI > a ton c > a > nn
ll. 31 0 avwhev Epxomevos...0 OV EK THS YnS...0 EK TOV OVpavo”
/
EPXOMLEVOS....
° : ‘A ey yw > A \ » »y a nw
lv. IO ov av nTNHOAS AUTOV Kal COWKEV AV GOL vowp Cov.
iv. 17 amexp. 4 yuv7...OdvK exw avdpa, Neyer airy 6 “Inoots Kadas
eires OTe Avodpa ov exw (2552 and 2553 a,).
through being in the position of the beloved disciple that a believer understands
the thoughts of the Son (1744(x)). Origen elsewhere connects the Feeding of the
Five Thousand with the epithet ‘‘fleshly”’ or “ carnal”’ as referring to the literal
interpretation of Scripture (Huet i. 236 D); and he quotes—in connexion with the
error of disciples taking ‘“‘leaven” and ‘‘ loaves” literally—Gal. iii. 3 ‘‘ Having
begun in the sfzri¢,”’ and warns us against “running back to fleshly things uy
(Huet i. 269 D).
1 Instances marked + are sayings of Christ varied as indicated in 2545.
403 26—2
[2547 | ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION
iv. 37 €v yap TovTw 6 Aodyos éotiv aAnOwoes orTt..., but 1x. 30
év tovtw (2553) yap 70 Gavpactoy éorw ort....
[2547] v. 26 worep yap 6 watnp exer Cwny ev EavTe, OUTS Kal TO
vid cdwxev Cwiv exew ev EavTo.
V. 31—2 édv eyo paptupo epi euavtod 1 paptupia pov ovK Eat
> , > Lud > / 3 < 4 a ‘al \ S =
GAnOns*... (32) otda OTe GAnOys ot 7 papTvpla nv papTupEl rept e020,
comp. Vili. 13—14 elzov ovv aire of ®. Sb repi ceavtod paptupets:
n paptupia cov ovK ext GANOyS’ amexp. “Ino....Kav éyo paptupd zept
évavtod, adnOys éotw 4 paptupia pov (Marg. 7 p. pov adnOys eotw).
Vv. 43 €yo eAnAvéa...kai od AapPdveré pe: eav GAAOS EXON... eKEtvOV
AnpwerGe.
vi. 14 6 mpodyryns 6 epxopevos eis TOV Koopov, but Xi. 27 0 xpuoTos
6 vids TOU Geod 6 Eis TOV KOT pov epYOLeEVOS.
T vi. 26—g cidere onpeta... (29) TodTO éotw TO epyov Tod Geod iva
muorevnte, COMP. Vi. 36 GAN eElrov vuty OTL Kai éwpakaré |pe] Kal ov
motevere (2045, 2161 a).
. c , < r+ \ / » > Are? , , 5]
Vi. 31 of warepes yuwv 70 pdvva epayov ev TH epynuw, Kabws eotw
yeypappevov..., but vi. 49 of 7. vuwov epayov ev TH épypw TO pavva
kat aréGavov, and vi. 58 ov xaflws efayov of watépes Kai amebavov
(194950, 2553 e—/).
[2548] + vi. 33—58 0 yap apros Tod Geod éotiy 0 KataBaivwr éx Tod
ovpavov... (41) OTe eimev “Eyw eit 0 aptos 0 KataBas éx tod ovpavod
... (50) ovT0s €otw 0 aptos 0 &k Tod odpavod KataBaiwr... (5 T) eyo eipe
c m” « n ¢ > lal > A / 2 , > c »”
0 aptos 6 Cév 0 €k TOU otpavod KatuBas... (58) ovtos éoTW O apTos
See J
0 €€ ovpavod KataBas....
7 : , > A A A A
T vil. 38—42 xataBEeBynxa azo Tov otpavod... (42) Tas viv Néyer Ste
EB “A > “A pep 7
K TOD Ovpavov KatafsEeByka ;
e > ‘\ > / > wy cad > , ec iy ‘ > /
Vi. 39 GAAG avactyow ato TH éeoxaTyn NMEpa... (40) Kal avactyow
airov éyw tH eoxaTy WLEpa... (44) Kayo avaotyow abrov év (2715 d—a)
TH eaxaTyH 7pEepa... (54) Kayo avaotnow aitov TH eoxaTy HEPA.
+ vi. 44 ovdels Svvarar eAGetv ‘zpos pe’ (Marg. mpds eme) av py
c ‘\ c / 2 , > 4 = ” c n 7 S) \
0 TaTIp Oo Temas pe EAKVoH adrov, COMP. Vi. 65 eipyKa vuly OTL ovdEls
, > tal “4 8 ‘\ > / > na 93 lal , l
dvvarar ehOetv rpos pe eav pur) 7) Sedopevov adit €k TOU matpos (2545) ',
= > ov \ / (aid / > ‘ eon ‘ lal A
Mae 46 OvX OTL TOV TATEPA EWPNAKEV TLS EL #1) 0 wy Tapa [rod | Geod
= Cul ‘\ /
OUTOS EWPAKEVY TOV TATEPA,
1 [2548 a] Comp. also vi. 45 mas 6 dkovoas mapa Tov marpos Kal wabay Epxerac
mpos éué: vi. 65 seems to combine the positive and the negative statements
in vi. 44—5 into a negative, including ‘‘ draw,” “hear,” and “ learn”? in the single
term ‘‘give.” See 2470 and 2636.
404
ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION [2549]
vil. 18 6 ag’ Eavtot AaAdwy THY dd€av THY idtav Lnret 0 Se Lntav Tiv
By ‘ lal , S2aN e > / >
ofav TOU TémavTOs avTOV OvTOS adnOns ear.
Vite 2
\ 2 / , + > ‘
2 «al [ev] ocaBBatw mepitéuvere avOpwrov. «i mepitopiv
Aap Pave. [0] avOpwros ev caBBartw....
Vil. 34 Oov cipi eyo vpels od dtvacbe edAOety, but vill. 21 Szov
SHEN piel cer 3 F; 5 A ele
eyo vTayw vets od dSivacbe eAOeiv (rep. Xill. 33).
sis \ ‘ > a € \ + > c \ > 7 2
vil. 41 My) yap ek ris T. 0 xpurros epxetar; ody 4 ypady elrev ort éx
.-€PXETAL O XPLOTOS ;
[2549] vii. 14 ofda rofev HAPov Kal rod vrayw: vpels dé ovdKk
oldate Tobey épxopat 7) Tod VTayw!. vpeis KATA THY GapKa KpiveTe.
t vill. 21 Kal év TH apaptia vuov arobaveicbe, Comp. Vill. 24 €irov
> eMuantese, > 6 a 5 a ¢ s Gi Wa 38 x \ ,
OUV UIALV OTL QA7TTO aveto Ge €V TALS AUAPTLALS UILAWV* EQV yap PY TLOTEVONTE
> fa) a 6 2 ° € / ¢€ a
-. ATOUQVELOUE EV TALS AUAPTLALS VILWYV.
ths ¢ a > an / > , > \ > cal »” > , c ~ > Zz
Vill. 23 Ypets €K TWV KATW EOTE, eyo €K TWV AVW ELULL* VILELS EK TOUTOU
TOU KOT MOV EaTE, Cyd Ovk Eipl x TOD KOTO TovTOV (2553 c).
See cae ~ mz q = A s ¢
Vill. 47 0 wv é€k Tov feod...dTe €k TOV Heov ovd« eaTé, but x. 26 ore
Ni A , a a
OUK e€oTe €K TWV tpoBatwv TWV ELOV.
Ty. GOD >7 \ SIN , , fa / > \ 6 ,
Y vill. 5I1—2 eav Tis Tov Ewov Aoyov THPHTY, VavaTtov Ov fy VEewpynan
cis TOV aiwva.... (52) Kal od eyes “Hav tis Tov Aoyov pov THPYAoY,
od pn yevontat Oavarov eis tov aiava (2576).
ix, 28 30 pabyris «i exeivov, nets d€ TOU M. eopev pabyral.
2 U7) Kal TV Wuynv jLou TiOnpue UTep TOV mpoBatwv... G7) OTL
eyo TO nue THY Woxnv jLov.
1 [2549 a] The txt is doubtful. Origen omits duets d€...bmdyw. So do (Alf.)
Cyr., Aug., and several mss. Alf. explains the om. by homoeotel.—a hypothesis
well illustrated by 8 where y, in the first and in the second ymetc, twice ends
a line so that the eye might glance from the first y to the second meic. This
however would not explain Chrys. tyets 6€ odx ofdare, which omits only oder €. n
m.¥. SS has ‘‘ye know not neither from whence...2o7 whither...,’? which would
be excellent Gk: a, 6, e have ‘‘et,” f has ‘‘aut.” On the whole, W.H. is
probably correct, and the omission and variations have proceeded from two causes,
1st, very early omission through homoeotel., 2nd, a tendency to regard 7 as corrupt
(the H in D is of an unusual shape and d has ‘‘et”). If the text is correct, why
does Jn use ov...# instead of his usual ov...0vd€ (i. 13, 25, Vi. 24, X1- 50, xill. 16,
xiv. 17, xvi. 3)? ”H is intelligible after negation in iv. 27 ‘‘ No one however said
‘What seekest thou?’ 07 ‘Why speakest thou with her?’’—where ovdé would
have differentiated the two clauses too strongly. Is # used here for the same
reason? That Jn cow/d have used ov...kai in a quotation is shewn by Gal. iii. 28
otk &ve Lovdatos odé “EAAqy, odk eve Sodos ovdE EAevHeEpos, ovK Eve Apoev Kal OAV
(where a. xk. O9Av is a phrase from Gen. i. 27). Perhaps imets...vrdyw means
‘“ye know not whence I come or [which is the same thing] whither I go,”’ sug-
gesting that Christ is really speaking of one and the same region—‘‘ the bosom of
the Father (2759 a—/).” ”H, ‘‘ or,” is very much rarer in Jn than in any Synoptist.
405
[2550] ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION
s , . /
[2550] xi. 29g—31 nyép6y Taxd Kai npxeto mpods aitov...iddvres THY
M. ort taxéws avéotn Kai e&ndGev.
i as ae ee ¢ ” , jul ee Ny Ey 7 , ,
Xl. 41 €dxapitTw gor OTL HKOVTGs pov, eyw b€ yOew OTL TavToTE
prov akovets.
ae 2k > , -~ as, = ‘ Lad
Xll. 26 é€av EOL TLS dvaKov7y...€av TLS EfLOL d.aKov7.
+ xiii, ToO—11 Kai vpets KaSapot gare, aN’ odyxi waytes... (11) bia
TovTo eimev OTL Ody! TavTEs Kabapol éare (2545).
. ¢ yun, le , in ‘\ car ” ‘
+ xiv. 4—18 omov éyw vrayw oldate THY Obov... (18) EPXOMAL POS
Cures . > , o > \ Clans. 6 , .
UGS. Comp. Xlv. 28 KOVOGATE OTL eyo elTov vv Yrayw KQL EPKOULat
mpos vast.
XIV. 19 0 KOopos pe OdKETL Hewpel, Vets bE Oewperre je.
xiv. 26—8 ...Uropvyjcer vas Tavta a eirov vpiv eyw.... (28)
> , ot SE EN = coa € i
HKOVTATE OTL EyYW ElTOV Uplv Yrayo.... :
Ms 2 > s > wD Car X \ a 2X \
XV. 4-—7 PELWGATE EV EOL, KAW EV ULV. Kalas TO kAnpLa.. . EV LY
TiS, > ei, ) BN o aoe G a oN N > > \ , c
pen ev TH auTeA@, ovTWS OSE Twets av py) ev emo pevyTe... (5) 6
evov év enol Kayo ev avTo... (6) eav py tis pévyn ev emo... (7) eav
la pe Y WuPoor (Pf) OARS [ASL H.Ol... (7
5 \ ‘ , eon ,
prelvnre ev enol Kal TA PNaTa pov ev Duty peEtvy.
, an vA sid ¢ la) a > »”
XV. 15 ovKéte A€yw Duas dovAovs*, dre 0 SodAos...duas b€ €lpyKa
didouvs.
a, 3 A , > c , x \ 7d 247 ¢ \
XV. 19 el €k TOD KOgpoU NTE, 6 KOTPMOS av TO Ldtov epirer* OTL dE
cal / \ L a col
€k ToD KOowoU OvK eoTe, GAN’ eyo eLeAcLdpnv dpas ex TOD KoTpov, bo
A a” ¢€ cal c /
TOUTO [PLLOEL VILAS O KOOJLOS.
[2551] xvi. g—rI wept dpaprias pév, Ort... (10) wept dixaroovvys 8¢,
Orv..., (11) TEpt 6€ Kpioews, OTL...
+ XVl. 14 €k Tod €/LOv Anpwerat Kat avayyeXet vv, comp. XV1. 15
elrov OTL ek TOD enov AauBdver Kai avayyeret byiv (2488 and 2583).
+ xvi. 16 Muxpov Kat overs Gewpeite pe Kai TaAW puxpov Kal oWerbE
pe, COMP. XVI. 19 Ort etrov Muxpov Kal ov GewpetTée je, Kat TaALY puLKpov
kat oweoGé pe ; (2583 and 2613).
ai we , NEG ARES o €._seiN 5 ea , 5 , 3) +a
XVI11. 255 o€acov @Ov TOV VLOV, LYO O VLOS OOCAO?) TE,...OWTEL AUTOLS
N 7 oy Qs 9 G 27 , Faas 25 ré \ A
Conv ALWVLOV* GUT) b€ €OTLVY 7 AlLWVLOS Con...€yw O€ €0O0COOCQ...KaL VUV
4’ / ,
d0€ac0v pe Ov.
U toe ae, > \ > ~ > auld , e PY) z, \
fille ake: €TYPOVV GAVUTOVS EV TW OVOLLATL ou w €OWKAS LOL... KL
1 [2550 a] Jesus has also previously said xiii. 33 dou éyw brdyw and xiii. 36
érov tmrayw, but never trdyw without é7ov in the Last Discourse hitherto.
Earlier in the Gospel, Jesus says to the Jews vii. 33 @re xpévov wuxpov....kal drdyw
mpos Tov méupavrd we and vill. 21 éyw vrdyw Kal (nrjoeré we. But xiv. 28 appears
to be a free summary of xiv. 4—18.
2 [2550 6] ? Referring to xiii. 16 od« €orw dSoddos pelfwr Tod Kuplov avrod ovdé
dmrécrodos pelCwv Tod méuWavros avrév.
406
ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION [2552]
ovdeis e€ airav amweto, COMP. XVili. Q 6 Adyos dv €imev dt. Ods
dédwKds por ovK arwreca e€ aitdv ovdéva (2740—4).
ss ~ / 34 > , 7 > oy aM > a
OVI Ail 6 KQaL O KOOJLOS ELLONTOEV AVTOVS, OTL OVK ELOLV EK TOU
it >
4 \ >. \ > > \ > Lal , >, nw , >
KOopL0U Kabus ey ovK Eipl EK TOD KOT HOV... (16) €K TOV KOOLOV OUK
SEN \ SN > Sy 2Ny 5S a 4
ELO LV Kados eyw OUK ELLE €K TOU KOO |LODV.
- \ cy ow > , > ‘\ / > inp! / > XN
XV. 18 xaOws ee areoretias els TOV KOTPOV Kayw aTecTetAa adTovs
els TOV KOTpMoV, COMP. XVil. 23 Kal HydTyGAS adrois KABWs ewe HyaTYCAS.
pedo 8 aa, c , , ¢ , ey Y
XVI. 2I—3 Wa 6 Kdopos moTEvy OTL OV pe arréoTELNas... (23) iva
, ¢ i 7 , > , \ > , > N
Y'VWo Ky) O KOO}LOS OTL OV He a7mreatetAas, KQL YYATIYNTAS Q“UTOUS Kabus
> > ¢
EME HyaTnoas.
xvill. 29 eéndOev odv o IL. ew pods adrods cai dyow... (38) Kai
Touro eizwv tadw e&nAOev mpds Tovs lovd. kat A€yer adrots...xix. 4 Kat
ENO SEU SASL “UG Y
LA i, ~
en r\Oev matw e€w o IL. (marg. e&j\Oev wardw o I. é&w) Kai eye
QUvTOUS....
YOO a > 7 \ , c \ >
XVIll. 33 eiondOev ovv madw eis TO tpattwprov o IIL....Kai eirev
airg...xi i ciopOev eis 7 ipuov ma du Kat Aéyer TH Inood
@...) xX. 9 KQL €LO7) €V ELS TO TPALTWPLOV TAALV KAL evyel Tw NOOV....
she 5 ar 7 a , s
XVill. 38 A€yer adrois Kyo ovdeuiav cipioxw év avT@ aitiav...X1X. 4
7 ~ y EEN , Cy 8 ¥2 c , > oN > \ X > Lier
Wa YVOTE OTL OVdEMLAV GiTiav EvplaKM ev AUTO... (6) Eyw yap OVX EVpLaKw
> > a ae
€V aUT® aitiar.
> A ~ >
XX. 19 ovens ovv dWias...kat TOV Oupdv Kexeopevov...7rOev o ‘Ina.
Na, > ‘ , ‘ , > a > , c lol 4 cas
Kal EOTH Els TO LETOV Kal A€yer avTOLs Kipyvy vptv... (26) epxetat o Ino.
od 6 a e \ / Ny > \ / \ <n) mi / Cc AN
TWV UpWV KEK/ ELO [LEVOV, KOL €OT1) €LS TO Eo OV KQUL €LTTEV Eipyvy UpLLV.
XX1. 19 “AxoAovie pou... (22) eav avrov GédAw péverv...t¢ TpOs TE; OV
pow akoXovGer'.
[2552] Several of the foregoing instances indicate a tendency to
place the /as¢ word or clause of a saying frst, when the saying is
repeated :—“I daptize in water...in water baptizing” (followed by
“baptize in water”)?; “under the fig tree I saw thee...[ saw thee
under the fig tree”; “I have not a husband...Well saidst thou
“A husband I have not*?” ; “‘Our fathers—the manna they ate in the
wtlderness’...6your fathers—they ate in the wilderness the manna’”
(where the clause “ate in the wilderness ” was last and is now first)? ;
“T have come down from the heaven...how now saith he, ‘ From the
heaven I have come down®’?”; “not that the Father some one hath seen—
1 Only a few of these passages are commented on below, but the textual Index
will indicate that many of them are explained elsewhere in comments that include
order and emphasis as well as mere grammatical syntax.
2 i. 26—33. Dts isn Gee Nive, Wize W nes Wig AG):
6 [25522] vi. 38, 42. But perhaps we ought to take vi. 41—2, the whole
saying of the Jews, together, ‘‘The Jews...murmured because he said, I am the
407
[2553] ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION
except he that is from God, ¢h7s [man] hath seen the Father’” ; “and
on the sabbath ye circumcise a man: if circumcision ts received by (ap-
Bavet) a man on the sabbath*” ; “Can it be that from Galilee the Christ
cometh ?...Did not the Scripture say that from...cometh the Christ®?”
“in your sin ye shall die... said therefore [that] Ye shall die in your
sins*” ; “my life I lay down for the sheep...because 7 day down my
life’” ; “JV thank thee that ¢hou heardest me, but I (emph.) knew that
at all times me thou hearest®”; “he will give him “fe eferna/, and
this 1s the eternal life’”; “they are not from the world...from the
world they are not®” ; “follow me...do thou me follow.”
[2553] It is very natural that what has been last said should
sometimes be uppermost in our minds and foremost on our lips
when we repeat the substance of a saying. In Greek this alteration
of order is far more often possible than in idiomatic English, as the
last paragraph shews; but where the Greek order can be followed in
English, something is gained in the appreciation of emphasis. Still
more is gained by realising that Johannine variations, where they are
not deliberately introduced to serve some mystical purpose, spring
from the instinct of a dramatist in sympathy with life and living
speech. Wherever a word ts placed out of its usual order, or out of
the order in which it has previously occurred, then—unless a change
bread that came down from the heaven, and they kept saying.... How now saith he
From the heaven I have come down,” so that the Jews repeat the phrase at first in
Christ’s order ‘‘come down from the heaven” and then reverse the order, *‘ from
the heaven come down.” Subsequently Christ takes up the words as the Jews have
left them, placing ‘‘ from the heaven” first, and emphasizing it as indicating the
source of the living bread (vi. 50, 51, 58).
1 vi. 46. 2 vil. 22—3.
8 [2552 4] vii. 41—-2. In viii. 51—2, Christ says ‘‘ Death shall he surely not
behold for ever,” and the Jews repeat it as ‘‘ He shall surely not taste death for
ever” (2576).
4 vill. 21, 24. MS e pits, ity
6 [2552c] xi. 41. In xii. 26 “If me a man (éay éuol zis) be serving, let him
follow me...if a man (édy 71s) me be serving, my Father will honour him,” the
position of ‘‘me” in ‘‘if #ze” makes the pronoun extremely emphatic, and the
unusual separation of 71s from édy (édv and ts being usually in juxtaposition
vi. 51, Vil. 17, 37 etc.) suggests ‘‘a certain one” (whereas édv tts would be in
effect, ‘‘ whoever”) so that the meaning may be paraphrased as ‘‘ // an individual
here and there zs stxgular enough to wish to serve me, let him follow me.” In the
following clause (édv ris éuol) ‘*me” is still emphatic, but not so emphatic as
at first.
7 xvii. 2. S' XVile 14, (16. J eerak, 30}, 7 P2
408
ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION [2553]
is made for clearness'—some difference of emphasis may be expected”.
1 [2553 «,]| If (i. 20) éyw ovx eiué had been repeated in iii. 28 after elroy, readers
might have taken elroy éyw together. In iv. 17, ka@s elmes Ore ovK EXw avdpa
would have been liable to a momentary misunderstanding; but emphasis, there,
seems to me the main cause of the change.
2 [2553a] To take one of the most insignificant instances, relating to ‘‘the
sellers of doves” in ii. 14—16 Tovs mwdofivras Boas x. mpoB. K. WeploT....TOIs TAS
jeptaTepas mwAodow, the author first speaks of those se//izg oxen and sheep and
doves,” laying a slight emphasis on the ‘‘selling’” as being a defilement of the
temple, and then, owing to our Lord’s special mention of the ‘‘doves,” he lays
a slight emphasis on ‘‘the doves” by varying the order. In iv. 10 od av 7rneas,
the unusual position of dy calls strong attention to the hypothesis. ‘‘Thou, zz
that case [hadst thou but known] wouldst have asked him [?vstead of waiting for
him to ask thee) and he would have given thee (x. €wxey dy oo).” In ii. 18
‘* What sign shewest-thou?” the order is usual, but vi. 30 ‘‘ What then doest ‘ou
(emph.) [as a] stg (ri otv motets ob onmetov)?” the intention is to imply an
antithesis between ‘‘thou” and ‘‘ Moses” (previously implied) and also between
“‘sign” and the sign of the ‘‘manna” previously mentioned. On the difference
between viii. 23 €x Totrov rod Kécuou and €é€x Tov Kdcpou TovTOV, see 2553 c.
[2553 4] In viii. 47 逫 To Oeod ovk éoré, both the beginning and the end (but
especially the end) are emphatic (‘‘ om God ye are essentially ot”) as compared
with the ordinary and unemphatic order in x. 26 ‘‘ye are not from my sheep.” In
ii. 13 Kai dvéBy els Tep. 6 Inoots the order is to be contrasted with that in v. 1 Kal
avéBn “Inoots eis Iep. and in vii. 14 70n 6¢...dvéBn ‘I. els 7d iepdv x. édldacker.
In ii. 13, the position of Inaods at the end of the sentence, as well as its separation
from dvé8y, and a previous mention of (ii. 12) ‘Shis mother and brethren,” seem
intended to emphasize ‘‘ Jesus,” as going up to Jerusalem, apart from His family,
no longer as a common pilgrim, but by Himself, for the first time, in His character
of Saviour (Jesus). This emphasis wouid be out of place in v. 1, vil. 14.
[2553 c] Taira ra phuata etc., at the beginning of a sentence, in vill. 20, x. 21,
means ‘‘these words just mentioned” (comp. x. 6, 18, xi. 4, xix. 20). Jf 7#
zs desired to emphasize ‘‘these,’ ‘‘this” etc. in contrast with something else, it
is usual to write Ta phwara tadra. Consequently, in N.T., ‘‘chzs [ present] age”
is always 6 alwy ovros—except where Mt. xii. 32 ¢mserts the antithetical clause obre
év ToUTW TH al@ve oiire Ev TH éNovTe (but several authorities correct the unusual
phrase). So ‘‘¢his [present] world” in N.T. is always 6 xécmos ovros except in
Jn vili. 23 buets Ex TovTov Tod Kécpou éoTé, eyw ovK elul Ex TOU KdcmMou ToUTOU.
Here again so many authorities have substituted the usual é« 7. kéom. TovT. that
Tisch. has adopted it; but the evangelist may use the unemphatic form in the
first clause in order to prepare for the emphatic form in the second. In the
Samaritan Dialogue, the influence of such phrases as o alay otros and 6 Kécpmos
ovros is apparent in iv. 13 mas 6 Tivwy é€x 7. UdaTos To’rov, which means literally
the water of this well, but suggests spiritually ‘‘the water of this world.” The
woman replies, without any sense of emphasis, 56s sot TodTO 76 dup “give me this
water | you speak of |.” The emphatic form comes naturally from the Jews at the
end of the sentence in vi. 34 mdvtore dds quty 7. dprov Totrov. Christ uses the
unemphatic form in the middle of sentences in vi. 51, 58, but there antithesis is
implied in the context so that the emphatic form is not necessary.
[2553.7] What is the difference between the participial clause in vi. 14
409
[2553] ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION
0 mpopyrns 6 épxduevos eis Tov Kéauov and in xi. 27 0 Xp. 0 vios T. Beotd o els TOv
xégpov épxduevos? In the former, the multitude emphasize the popular phrase about
the Deliverer (1632 foll.) ‘‘He that is to come,” and subordinate ‘‘the world” ;
but Martha, having already used the phrases ‘‘ Christ” and ‘‘Son of God,” now
subordinates the “coming” to the thought of ‘‘the world,” which the Son is
to deliver. In xviii. 38 éya ovdeutay evploxw év avr@ airiay, xix. 4 ovdeulay air.
eip. &v adr@, xix. 6 éyd yap odx evp. ev aire airiay, Pilate begins and ends
by emphasizing his own personal opinion instead of merging it in the official
decision of a judge: (1) ““T for my part find nothing whatever in him of guilt [but
still instead of acquitting him I ask you whether you would like me to release him
as a favour to you]”; (2) ‘<I bring him forth to you outside the palace that ye
may recognise that I find xothing whatever of guilt in him” followed by an appeal
to pity or contempt, ‘‘ Behold, the man!” ; (3) ‘*Take him yourselves and crucify
him, for 7 for my fart do not find in him guilt.” On the third occasion, the
phrase “not...guilt” is a little weaker than ‘‘no guilt whatever” (ovdeuiay airiay)
on the first and second, the emphasis being reserved for the earlier part of
the sentence, which is, in effect, ‘‘Kill him, for I, the judge, pronounce him
guiltless.”
[25532] In discussing (1949) vi. 58, od Kkadws €payov of marépes no mention
_ was made of the fact that SS, D, and other authorities, add tuév, and some add
70 uavva. These additions would be naturally suggested (1) by vi. 49, of marépes
Upav éparyov...7d udvva, (2) by the fact that of rarépes in N.T. almost always means
the Patriarchs, represented by Abraham, as being receivers of the promises
on the basis of which they became fathers of the Chosen People. Fritzsche,
on Rom. ix. 5 ai érayyeNiat...oi marépes, censures Theodoret for supposing that of
marépes includes those who received promises ‘‘through the prophets.” Heb. i. 1,
however, appears exceptionally to use it thus, when contrasting Tots matpaow
and ju. But Jn vi. 58—where there is no such contrast—‘‘ the fathers ate...and
died,” if applied to the rebellious fathers of Israel in the wilderness, is unique in
its application. It has been suggested above (1949) that what Christ taught to
Jews in the second person John is summarising for Greeks in the third person.
In the former shape, it was: ‘* Your fathers ate in the wilderness the manna and
died.” In the latter it is, ‘‘ Zhe fathers ate and died.” By omitting ‘‘the manna,”
and ‘*in the wilderness,” John perhaps suggests an application that extends beyond
the period of forty years: ‘‘From the time of Abraham onwards the fathers
of Israel ate [of ‘every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God’] and
yet died.”
[2553 /] Origen, discussing God’s revelations to man before the Incarnation,
repeatedly protests against the view that the Apostles were superior in knowledge
to ‘*the Fathers and the Prophets.” In “‘¢he Fathers” he appears to give the
most prominent place to Abraham, then (Huet ii. 96 p) he mentions Moses and
Joshua, before passing to Isaiah and Ezekiel. Afterwards he says (74. 98c)
““Consequently, not even the Apostles are to be deemed wiser than ¢he Fathers,
or Moses, and the Prophets.” We complains that “many” vainly imagine that
“the Apostles are wiser than ¢he Fathers and the Prophets” and says that ‘they
cancel the gift bestowed on the Fathers and the Prophets by God through Christ
(through whom all things were made).” These expressions suggest that Origen—
whom I have not been able to find quoting Heb. i. 1 ‘‘spake ¢o the Fathers in the
Prophets’ —would have preferred to say that ‘‘God spake in times past i éhe
fathers and the Prophets.”
410
ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION [2554]
§ 2. Chiasmus
[2554] Many of the instances in 2546—51 are of the nature of
chiasmus (2544 a). This is a natural arrangement when the writer
wishes to combine parallelism with climax, or with the argument
a fortiori. For the change of order in the second clause (sometimes
taking the reader by surprise) emphasizes both the terms in that
clause : ‘‘If the things of earth I said unto you and ye believe not, how
[is it possible that] if 7 say unto you the things of heaven, ye will
believe!?”; “Ye do not receive me...him ye will recetve’” ; “Thou
art disciple to him, but we to Moses are disciples*.” In vill. 13—14,
the two halves of an accusation correspond to the two halves of the
reply, in chiasmus, thus, (1) “Thou about thyself testifiest” to “ Even
if Z testify about myself,’ and (2) “ Thy testimony ts not true” to
“ True is my testimony.” In “ Thou lovedst them, even as me thou
lovedst,” emphasis is laid upon the infinity of the Father’s love*. So,
= ible, ate 2EvanAG: Sixen2 Oe
4 [2554 a] xvii. 23 Kal nyamnoas adrois Kabws éue Wydmnoas. Here the verb is
at the extremes. Compare xvii. 18 ka@ws éué dméoreiias eis Tov Kécmov, KAY
améoretva avrovs els Tov kdauov, where there is neither exact parallelism (xa@ws ov
€ué...xkay@ atrovs) nor yet chiasmus.
[2554] In xi. 29-31 myép0n Taxd Kal Hpxero pds avrov...iddvres Thy Maprau
dre Taxéws avéary Kal €&pOev, the adverb taxéws—by the repetition of ‘‘quickly”
in a different form (‘‘[thus] quickly [as I have said”])—seems intended to
draw attention to the manner and haste of Mary’s ‘‘arising.” But raxv, by
its position between 7yép0n and Apxero (so that the reader has no time to dwell
on the adverb) is subordinated to its verb #yépAy, which is something more than
“rising up” and suggests ‘‘roused from torpor,” ‘‘awakened from the lethargy of
sorrow.” There is no emphasis on raxv, for the emphasis is on the “‘starting up
..and going to him [i.e. Jesus].” Similarly, in LXX, emphasis is laid, not on
the ‘‘quickness” but on the ‘‘falling away” of Israel in Ex. xxxii. 8, Deut. ix. 12,
16 (A), Judg. ii. 17, with ray’ after various verbs. But the vafrdzty of the falling
away of the fickle Galatians is emphasized by raxéws before the verb in Gal. i. 6
Bavpagw dre otrws Taxéws wetaribecbe. The Jews know nothing of the coming of
the Teacher, or of the consequent ‘‘rousing” of Mary. All they perceive is the
haste with which she ‘‘arose and went out.” In N.T., as in LXX, some writers
use Tax¥ not Taxéws, others Taxéws not tax’. It is characteristic of Jn that he
uses both with slightly different shades of meaning. For these and other reasons,
the conclusion of Blass about 7axéws in xi. 31 (p. 308 ‘‘certainly an interpolation”)
appears to me erroneous.
[2554-] The Egyptian Papyri have Oxyv. 743 (B.C. 2) Kad@s bé yéyover 76 Taxd
avrov é\Oety (no great emphasis), 531 (2nd cent.) éav yap Oeoi PéXwor TAXLOY Tpos
ge néw wera Tov Meyxeip piva émei ev yepoly exw éwééua Epya, i.e. [I cannot come
at once but] I will come sooner [than might be expected under the circumstances}
411
[2555 | ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION
at the conclusion of Christ’s last prayer (xvil. 21—3) when He turns
for a while from praying for the disciples to pray for the world, the
words may be paraphrased, “2” order that the world may grow in
belief (iva 6 Kdapos miotetn)...in order that knowledge may dawn on
the world (iva ywoony 6 Kéopos)” so as to indicate that, for the
moment, “the world” stands prominent in the thoughts of the
Saviour.
[2555] The following are instances of chiasmus in which there is
no repetition of a previous saying. Apart from the Prologue, only
one or two of them are from strict narrative’. The emphasis gained
by it for the final word is apparent in such instances as “No one
hath ascended into the heaven save he that from the heaven
descended”,” and still more in “ He that zs [essentiad/y] from the earth
after Mecheir is over,” Fayum 126 dvede ovv raxéws Ore émiye (sic), where the
words ‘‘for it is pressing”’ indicate that raxéws is emphatic.
[25542] On Heb. xiii. 23 dav rdxewov epxnra, Westcott says, ‘‘The com-
parative suggests the occurrence of hindrances which the apostle could not
distinctly foresee. Compare v. 19”—apparently rendering raxetov in both verses
‘more quickly [than might be expected in view of the obstacles]. Taxeov is
read by S as well as other inferior mss. in 1 Tim. iii. 14 (W.H.) Amiga edOetv
[rpos ae] ev taxet, €av 5€ Bpaddvw. There Chrys. reads raxéws: but he also
paraphrases thus Heb. xiii. 19 as Wore we taxéws ENOety mpds Uuas (though he
quotes that text with rdx.ov) and some scribes might avoid raxov owing to the
condemnation of it by Lucian (iii. 573) and by Phrynichus. Moreover, if the text
WaS TTPOCCETAXEIOEAN, an erroneous interpretation of eTayel0€e as being ETayele
might explain the dropping of o¢ and hence of mpos ge in some MSS. "Ev raxec in
N.T. is always connected with divine retribution or angelic command except
in Acts xxv. 4. If & rdxeu is a corruption of tdxecov, 1 Tim. as well as Heb.
might accord with the Papyrus as above quoted (2554c) in the meaning ‘‘sooner
than might be expected under the circumstances.” Comp. Plut. Vit. Fab. § 12
TaxLov mev 7 eyo mpoceddxwy, Bpddiov 6° 7 avrds Eorevoe... which shews how raxtov
might be used of vedative speed.
[2554¢] Against rendering 7dxvoy in xiii. 27 “‘at once’ —like the imperious
6arrov in Aristoph.—it may be fairly urged (1) that Steph. gives abundant
instances of 0@rrov thus used but none of rdxeov, (2) that raxv is repeatedly thus
used in N.T. (Mt. v. 25, xxviii. 7, Lk. xv. 22), in LXX (2 S. Vil. TO, Psi ixix. 07,
Ixxix. 8, cii. 2, exliii. 7) and (Deissmann pp. 274—7) in magic adjurations, one of
which (3rd century) concludes with the words 457 76 raxv Tax’. If this had been
the meaning we should have expected in xiii. 27 6 motets roinoov Taw.
1 ij. 15 “And of the money changers he poured out the copper coins and the
tables he overturned,” vii. « “And after these things walked Jesus in Galilee, for
he was not willing in Judaea to walk.’ The latter is not a very exact instance.
For vi. 46, vil. 22 —3, see 2552.
9
Stings
412
ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION [2556 |
from the earth [essentially] zs1,” 1.e. such a one cannot rise above his
nature. Only one of the following is certainly a precept, “‘ Judge not
according to appearance, but the judgment that is just 7udge ye,”
but it has been maintained above (2236—40) that a precept and not
a statement is probably conveyed in “ Believe (xerevere) in God, in
me also delieve®.” In xili. 36—7, emphasis is laid upon the adverbs
of time, ‘Thou art not able at present to be my follower, but follower
thou shalt be Za¢er on”—an emphasis repeated in Peter’s reply ‘“‘ Why
am I not able to be thy follower at this moment?” In the opening sen-
tences of the Gospel there is true chiasmus in i. 3 “A// ¢hings through
him came into being, and without him came into being /o¢ even one
thing.” But the preceding words 6 Adyos jv pos Tov Gedy, Kai Geds iv
6 Adyos do not contain true chiasmus or, at all events, not such strict
chiasmus as appears at first sight. For 6eés without the article is
distinct from Oeds (in zpos tov Geov) with it. This passage must be
discussed later on (2594).
INSTANCES OF CHIASMUS
. > n> \ / > \
[2556] i. r—4 “Ev apyx7 Hv 0 Aoyos Kal 0 Noyos Hv Tpos TOV Deov, Kai
\ > ¢ s i > > a \ \ 6 / , vie > A
Geos nv 0 Aoyos. Ovtos nv €v apxyn Tpos Tov Geov. Tavta ou avTov
Se \ \ > my Se 2SQx Ff
EVEVETO KGL XWPLS AUVTOD EyEVETO OVOE EV.
-* ‘\ cal col dicts X / ‘\ \ Me
ll. 15 Kai tov KoAA\vBiotav e&€xeev TA KEpwaTa Kal Tas Tparelas
> /
avetpewev.
oie > \ > , > x >? \ > \ ¢ > A > an
Wits 13 ovoels avaBéBnKev €ls TOV OUpaVOV EL 7) O EK TOV OUPAVOU
KaTrafas.
090 " A ~ A A ,
ill. 31 0 wv éx THS yns ek THS ys eoTLv.
¢ ‘ 4 > , AY , “~ , 4 J
Vv. 24 0 Tov oyov pov akovwv Kal TLOTEVWY TO TEMWaVTL pE...€is
, > + > \ , > a , > \ ,
Kplow ovKk €pxetat GAG petaPEBnKev Ex TOV Gavartov eis THY Conv.
:: / >? > a , IE ” AD
vil. I meprerares [o] “I. év tH Padirala, ov yap nOedev ev ri lovdaca
TEPLTATELV.
on > , c , A Cin ye oc N r
Vil. 7 ov dvvarat 6 KOT Mos Lely UULGS, Ewe OE pucrel.
aS \ , > 4 > \ \ / / ,
Vil. 24 py Kptvete Kat Ov GANA THY Sikalav Kpiow xKplvere.
vil. 28 Kape oldare Kat oldare rodev eipi.
1 [2555 a] ili. 31 6 wy éx THs yhs ex THs yas éorlv. Here 6 wy—which is
frequently used for God, ‘‘ He that essentially is”—is paradoxically connected
with ék ris ys. ‘O é€x« ris ys would have been quite sufficient to express,
unemphatically, ‘‘he that is from the earth.” At the end of the sentence, éoriv
receives emphasis from its position and from its relation to the preceding wy.
2 Vil. 24. SaN¥o. He
413
[2557 | . ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION
“* cal / 4 \
vil. 35 pa eis THY Siaomopay TeV ‘BAAnvov pedde ropeverGar Kat
o
didacKe Tors EAAnvas ;
SOs , “~ ‘ n~ ‘ an \
[2557] vill. 18 eyo cipe 6 paptupwv mept €MAUTOD KAL MapTUPEL TEPL
n c , ,
€“ov o Temas Le TATHP.
. > a > oe N BY A
ix. 25 Hi dpaptwAos éotw ovK oloa, év oloa, OTe TUP AOS WV apTt
Brerw.
“- a cal cal ¢ m” “~ ,
xii. 31 vov Kptows éeotlv TOD KOTpoV TOUTOV, VUV 0 apXwV TOV KYTpoU
/ “
tovtrov exBAnOynoetat E€w.
wee ” y, ty ¢ ees /
xiii, 20 6 AapBavov av twa repo ewe Kap Paver, o de ewe AapPavev
¢
NapBave Tov TEwWavTa pe.
wee > na Sy a > 4 . g
xlli. 36, 37 ov dvvacai pot vov axoXovbnoa, ako\ovbnces b€ VoTEpoV
AN , > 4 v2 > n~ »”
...61 TL ov Ovvapal wou akoXoveEtv apte ;
. , > \ id \ > Shas. 4
xiv. I muotevere els TOV Geov, Kal Eis EE TLOTEVETE.
. > > / / ‘\ ‘ , xX yv > > »”
xiv. 7 «i éyvikerré pe, Kal TOV TaTépa pov av yOeTe* Gm apTe
eee »y ‘ ‘\
ywookete adTov Kal EwpaKare, COMP. Vill. 19 ei ewe WOeuTe, Kat TOV
\ ” . .
matépa pov av ydete, where there is parallelism.
~ c cal Qo , ,
xvi. 20 kAatvoere Kal Opnvyncere vets, 0 JE KOTHLOS XapNoETAL.
xvi. 27—8 ...67t €y® Tapa Tod TaTpos eEnr\Oov. e&nOov ex Tod
‘\ N23 / ] x / / > Uf: ‘\ 4 \ /
matpos kal €AnAvoa eis TOV Koo pov: TAAL adinpt TOV KOT MOV Kal TOpEVvOpLaL
/
m™pos TOV TaTEpa.
- ‘ Oe wd 3) Nos a , \ > Aor) A , x Ty.
XVii. II Kat odkére ell ev TO KOT PH Kal avTOL Ev TO KOTHY EioLY.
ae > Les , > > XN \ > ‘\ > oS, A ,
XV. 16 €« TOU KOO |LOV OUK ELOLV Kaas EYW OUK Ell EK TOV KOT[LOV.
wee c iP: < > ‘ > »” > A / , >
xviii. 36 “H Paowreia y evn ovK eoTW EK TOV KOTpOV TOVTOU" EL
5 aA , > c Sc a . « One aN > ”
€k Tov x. TouTov nv n PB. 7H Epy,.....- vov d€ 9 B. y éun ovK eoTtw
evredder.
§ 3. Zhe Possessive Genitive
[2558] Among Johannine variations of order one of the most
frequent is that of the pronominal possessive genitive, which, for the
sake of brevity, may be conveniently illustrated by the use of the
genitive singular of avros used possessively. “‘ He stretched out “es
[own] hand” would be expressed (1) in Hebrew, briefly, by the
inflexional form “ Azs-hand,” (2) in LXX, lengthily, by tHv xetpa avrod,
(3) in classical Gk, briefly (as in French) by the article without the
pronoun, tiv yeipa—if at least the context made the meaning clear.
All the evangelists, John included, freely use (2). But in describing
how Peter wounded the High Priest’s servant and ‘cut off zs ear,”
all but Luke make avrod precede the article and noun (“he cut off
414
ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION [2558 |
of him the ear”) expressed by John thus, aréxoWev avtod 16 wraptov 7d
deftcov'. ‘This avrot, preceding the article and the noun, must be
carefully distinguished from avrotd zutervening between the article
and the noun, as in 76 avrod wrapiov. The intervening avtod would
be emphatic and the meaning would be “47s and nobody else’s ear,”
but the precedent aitod is unemphatic and throws the emphasis on
“ear,” so that it is almost equivalent to ‘cut off, not his hand, or
foot, but his ear.” To avrod, emphasizing avrod, seldom or never
occurs in the Gospels*, but avrod unemphatically preceding the
1 [2558 a] Jn xviii. 10, comp. Mk xiv. 47, Mt. xxvi. 51, Lk. xxii. 50. In Mk
xv. 19 érumrovy avrov rhy Kepadyy, the parall. Mt. xxvii. 30 has érumtoy els TH
kepadny avrov, and D reads, in Mk, érumroy airov...eis ray k., ‘they smote him on
the head,” which substantially represents the meaning. Such a genitive in John,
Rev., and Epictetus, for the most part ¢mediately precedes the article. But this
is not always the case in N.T., e.g. in Mk vii. 19 odK elomopeverat adTod eis Ti
kapdiay ah eis ri kowlay. But there, too, the unemphatic precedent avoid
throws the emphasis on what follows. Its precedent position also enables airod
to define both xcapdéay and ko.Nlay. See 2559 a and 2783.
® [2558 4] Outside the Gospels, Bruder (1888) indicates Rom. iii. 24 77 adrod
Xa pire, il. 25 TW avTov aiuarc, 1 Thess. ii. 19 év ry a’Tod mapovoig. But he omits
Tit. ui. 5 kara 7d avrod eos, Heb. ii. 4 kara tH abrod Oé\now and 1 Jn ii. 27 70
avrov xpiowa (2569a). W.H. mark the txt as doubtful in Jas i. 18 els 70 eivac
quads amapxny tia rev ‘adroit! (marg. é€avrod) Krisudtrwv. In all these cases the
pronoun is emphatic as when we say ‘‘ //zs will be done,” meaning ‘‘ God’s, not
man’s.” In 2 Pet. iii. 7 W.H. have avrg (not atrod). In such phrases as Rom.
1. 207 Te aldcos adrod divas, 1. 21 ) dovveros a’raev Kapoia, t Pet. 11. 9 TO Pavpacrov
avroU pws, part of the emphasis of the pronoun is intercepted by the preceding
adjective. Comp. Rom. viii. rr.
[2558 c] No satisfactory instances have been alleged where possessive av’rés
comes between the article and the noun without emphasis. Blass § 48. 8 (n. 1)
alleges Heb. vii. 18, Herm. J/and. vi. 2, and compares Clem. Hom. xiv. 7, 10.
But in Heb. vil. 18 the context has contrasted the Levitical priesthood and that of
Melchizedek ; and now the writer says ‘‘ there is a disannulling of the preparatory
command because of the weakness of ¢hat (dua 7d abrijs doGevés) [as compared with
the strength of this\.” In Herm. JZand., the context has described Hermas
as desiring to know the (v. 1—2) évépyecay of Wrath, and has spoken (vi. 1. 1) of
the d’ivauw and évépyecay belonging to Faith, Fear and Self-control. Now (vi. 2
1) the Teacher says, ‘‘ There are two angels with man, one of Righteousness and
one of Wickedness,”” and Hermas replies, r@s otv, Kipie, yuooouat Tas alter
evepyetas ‘“ How shall I recognise the energies of those [as of the rest] because both
the angels dwell with me?” The pronoun is therefore emphasized. Clem. Hom.
xiv. 7, Schwegler’s text, has twép mdvras a’rov pe Tos pious ayaray (not Tods
avrov iXous) so that it is not to the point. In Clem. Hom. xiv. 10 ot ef Pavotos,
6 TavTns avnp Kai Tay adTHs maldwy marHp, a husband and father, supposed dead, is
being identified in the presence of his wife: ‘Thou [it seems] art Faustus,
the husband of ¢his woman and the father of her children?” z.e. those whom she
415
[2559 | ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION
article occurs occasionally in the Synoptists and very frequently
indeed in John. It may be called the unemphatic precedent pos-
sessive avrod, or “the vernacular possessive” (2776—84)'. It occurs
in John about eighteen times; but in the Synoptists, taken all
together, not much more than half that number.
[2559] The same difference, though not to the same extent, is
perceptible in the Johannine and the Synoptic use of pov, cov, and
ipov?. Here, too, Luke appears to avoid the precedent unemphatic
calls children as mother you call children as father. Avrjs appears nearly
equivalent to ravrys, which is perhaps not repeated because the repetition would be
monotonous. But the text of this book is so full of errors that rwyauvrns may very
well be an error, T@TaYTHC being read as TWNAYTHC.
1 [2558 d] The ‘‘vernacular’’ possessive—which is freq. in Epictetus and
Rey.—appears in i. 27 a Nicw abot rév ivdvra Tov Urodjwaros as contrasted
with the parall. Mk i. 7, Lk. iii. 16 Ndoae Tov imavTa Toy Urodnudrwy airod (Mt.
diff.). Contrast also xi. 32 érecey airod mpos Tovs wédas with Mk v. 22 winter mpos
rods médas avrod (and sim. Mk vii. 25, Lk. viii. 41 "Ingod, xvii. 16).
[25582] Where Mk xi. 15, Mt. xxi. 12 have ras rpawe{as Tov KohduficTov,
Jn ii. 15 has TGv Ko\AuBiorev e&éxeev Ta Keépuara Kal Tas Tpawefas dverpevev. But
the precedent possessive noun stands on a different footing from the precedent
possessive pronoun, and is probably emphatic, placed first to define the two
following nouns (2559a). The meaning is, “And as for the money-changers he
poured out their coins and overturned their tables.” Similarly in vili. 17 dvo
avOporwy waptupla adnOjs éotw the genitive is manifestly emphatic—‘‘ the
testimony of wo men” being required by law to establish truth. So it is in the
second clause of x. 4—5 ‘‘they know his voice (7. ¢. avrov)...they know not
of strangers the voice (Tay ddoTpiwy Thy gwrnv),” where dddo7piwy, though
precedent, is more emphatic than av’rod. “ANAorpiwy is virtually a noun, and it is
emphasized by antithesis. In ix. 27—8 av’rod and Mwvoéws are perhaps to be
regarded as objective genitives ‘‘disciples following Azm and Moses” and the
genitives are emphasized by antithesis. The separation of the genitive from the
noun in xx. 23 dv Twwv apare Tas duaprias makes the intervening apjre emphatic,
“Of whomsoever ye forgive sins,’ and ‘‘forgive” is also emphasized by
antithesis with ‘‘ retain” (mentioned in the context).
2 [2559] I have not found the precedent unemphatic possessive with quev in
the Gospels unless it occurs in Jn xi. 48 dpotdow judy Kai rdv Témov Kai 76 EOvos
which is almost equivalent to ‘‘they will take away from us both Temple and
national existence.” Phil. iii. 20 Muay yap TO moNirevpa is differentiated by the
initial position of j44v, and by the intervening ydp: it means, in effect, ‘* Hor us
[whatever it may be for others], our country is in heaven.” Rom. xili. 11 éyylrepov
nav is prob. (see Steph.) an instance of objective genitive. In 1 Thess. ili. ro and
13 locity budy 7d rpdowror, and ornpitar ua Tas Kapdlas, the unemphatic buay
throws the emphasis on what follows, ‘‘see you face to face,” “ strengthen [you not
outwardly but inwardly in| your hearts.” The unemphatic precedent genitives,
ijuay and a’rav occur severally in 1 Thess. v. 23 Adrds d€ 6 Beds Tis elphyns
dyidoat buds OdoreXe?s, Kal ONKAnpoY Luar TO mvevua Kal n Yuxy Kal 7d gOua...
416
ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION [2560]
genitive as in his account of the healing of the paralytic compared
with that in Mark and Matthew’. And in the healing of the
centurion’s servant, where Matthew, using the unemphatic pov,
lays stress upon the condescension of coming all the way to the
centurion’s ‘‘house,” instead of healing at a distance (“come to
my fouse”), Luke neglects or avoids this distinction®. John, since
he is continually representing the Saviour as using the words “I”
and ‘“‘my,” is bound to use ‘‘my” more frequently than the
Synoptists: and accordingly he uses pov and é€uotd more frequently
than any one of them. But if he wishes to emphasize ““my” he
mostly uses 6 éuds, and, to increase the emphasis, he repeats the
article. “Eyds is used by John about forty times as against ten times
in the rest of the Gospels. Thus he can rise to a climax of pro-
nominal emphasis :—(1) pov 7a pyyara, (2) Ta pywara pov, (3) Ta ena
pypata, (4) Ta pyyata ra eua®. See 2776—84.
INSTANCES OF THE POSSESSIVE GENITIVE
[2560] i. 27 tva Avow adrod Tov ipavra Tod brodjparos.
il. 15 kat tov KoAAvBiotov e&eyeey TA KEeppata Kal Tas Tpamélas
3 /
avetpewev.
on na 3 A \ a Ay /
ll. 23 Gewporvvrtes avTOU TA ONMELA O ETFOLEL.
tnpndein, Acts iv. 5 éy&vero dé cuvaxSiva airav ros dpxovras x. Tovs mpecB.
k. Tovs ypau.—in both cases before a group of governing nouns, as in Jn xi. 48
before Tov romov k. TO €Ovos. See 2783.
1 [25596] Mk ii. 5, Mt. ix. 2 cov ai auapria, Lk. v. 20 co ai du. cov: rep.
Mk ii. 9, Mt. ix. 5, Lk. v. 23 (D has Mt. ix. 2 cou ai au., but Lk. v. 20 cov ai au,
(correcting Mt. to Lk. and Lk. to Mt. as freq.). D also has Mk ii. g cou ai am,
Lk. v. 23 cou ai ap.).
2 [2559] Mt. viii. 8 tva mov bao Thy oréyny eicédOns, Lk. vii. 6 va bard Thy
oréynv ov ciaéhOys. Mt., by using the unemphatic “ov, emphasizes oréynv.
3 [2559 da] Blass (p. 317) says that o éués ‘* often has so little emphasis that it
cannot easily be distinguished from wou: R. x. I 7) evdoxia Tis éuns kapdlas=Tis kK.
pov G.i. 13, Ph.i. 26.” But there is a wév in Rom. x. 1 7 péev evdokia Tr. é. k.
This, and the context, indicate an antithesis between that which would be
well pleasing to the writer’s ows heart and that which may be the will of God for
the present. In Gal. i. 12—15, there is a contrast between tiv éuny avacrpopyy
mote €v T® lovdaicu@ i.e. ‘‘my own [unconverted| manner of life” and the
previously mentioned change that had come (12) “ through the revelation of Jesus
Christ”; moreover the sense implies Thy pev éuny avactpopyy to correspond to
(15) dre dé evddxqoev. In Phil. i. 25—6 there may be antithesis between vudy
and éia THs éuns as freq. in the Pauline Epistles (‘‘Z shall continue to live
that you may boast in me,” Lightf. compares 2 Cor. i. 14 Kavxnua budy éoper
Kabdmep kK. buets Nuady).
AVI, Ly eke eee 27
f" UNIVERSITY }
[2561] ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION
-2e * SN > ite X\ ‘ ” > » \ \ -
lll, I9—21 nv yap avTwv Tovnpa TA Epya...OUK EPXETAL TPOS TO pos,
7 ‘\ > -“ \ ” 2 A ” ‘\ \ a a sy
wa [21 eheyxOn TA Epya avTOv...€pXeTaL TpOS TO Pws, wa pavepwOh
> nw ‘\ ” o > A” > ‘ > ,
GQuUTOV TA EPya OTL EV Geo €OTLV elpyao /Leva.,
see \ ‘ , > lal > ‘ /, ec ‘ > “A
lil. 32—-3 Kal THV papTUplav avTOD ovdeis Aap Bave. 6 AaBwv aitrod
THV papTupiay eoppay.ioev....
. , , \ ” > ” hy
iv. 16 dwvyoov cov Tov avdpa, (18) od« Et Gov avnp.
2 7 ‘ ‘ JD lal x iy,
lV. 34 tva...KQ@l TeNELwWow QAvTOV TO epyov.
2 og NS EE: > La \ ee
lV. 47 Wa...K@l L\aONTAL GVTOV TOV VLOV.
Md 3N\ ‘ , ‘ / Ase a 3 \ / > a ‘
Vl. 53, 55 €av py) paynre THV TAPKAa TOV V. TOV AG. KAL TLYTE AVTOV TO
e *
e , N \ \ \ ,
aipa...0 Tpwywv pov TyV oapKa Kat TivoVv fLovu TO ALLA EXEL Conv a@iwvLov
on yap odpE pov GAnOys éote Bpdors, Kal TO aipa pov GAnOys eote
roots. 6 Tpwywv pov THY TdpKa Kal Tivwv pov TO aia ev Emol PEEL.
[2561] vil. 3 Wa...dewpyoovow [ood] 7a epya (marg. Ta epya wou)
& 7rovels.
Vill. 17 OTe d¥0 avOpuorwv y paptupia aAnOys éorev.
ix. 6 érébynKev adtovd Tov mHAOV ext TOvs 6dHadpo0rs.
ix. 10 foll. ras [ovr | qvewxOnoayv cov ot 6Oadp0l; (11) eT EXPLOEV [LOU
seis fi (p30) (14) ava: GE ESTan See
: joe 2 4) avéwev avtov Tovs 6., (15) wyAov ereFnKey pp
éxt tovs 6., (17) yveweev cou Tovs 6. (rep. 26), (21) TU nVvousev AvTOU
-» (17) nvews ous 0. (rep. ae Tus NVOLE
Tous 0.
ix. 27, 28 py Kal tpets Oédere atrod pabytai yeveoOar;... 20 wabyrys
ei €xeivov, qmets d€ TOU M. éopev pabyrat.
X. 4, 5 Ort oldacw THY dwvyv adtod...d7t ovK oldace THV dAOTpLOV
THVv povyny.
. m” > wn ‘\ ‘\ 4> / > tal , Say e
XL. 32 €revev atTov Tpos Tovs Todas A€eyovoga aiTo Kupte, El Hs woe
ovk av pov amréfavey 6 4d., contrast 7d. 21, K., «i 7s de ovK av az.
6 ao. pov.
. ’ A (fw \ \ / \ \ oo»
Xl. 48 apovow nuwv Kal TOV TOTOV Kal TO €Ovos.
xii. 16 Tatra otk eyvwoav avdrod of pabytat TO TpaTov.
xil. 27 d0€ac6v cov 76 dvopa, SO Xvil. 1 dd€acdv Gov Tov vidv.
xii. 40 Tet’Vhroxev aitav tots dbOauo0rs Kal exupwoev a’Tdv TV
xapoiav, freely quoted from Is. vi. 10 where there is no precedent
genitive, but there is a non-precedent genitive rots atv aitév which
Jn omits.
as SF, / > , coal c , \ \ 4 c \
xii. 47—8 éav tis pov axovon TOV pynuatwv Kat pn pvdagy...0...4y
ap Bavov TO pynpara pov.
xiii. 1 OTe AGEv adrod y wpa, Contrast li. 4 7 Wpa pov, Vl. 30,
Vill. 20, 7) Wpa avrod, xvi. 21 7 wpa auras.
xiii. 6 foll. od pov virreis robs wddas; (8) ov pa viyys pov Tovs 70oas,
(9) pi Tovs médas pov povov, (12) dre ody Evuev TOvs Todas arTor,
418
ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION [2563]
(14) ei ovv éyo évupa tuov rors 7ddas, Kai tpets dpeiAere GAAjAwV
virrew Tovs modas. See 2064.
Xllil. 18 6 tpwywv pov tov aprov, quoted freely from Ps. xli. g 6
€aOiwv aptovs pov.
[2562] xiv. 1, 27 My tapaccéobo ipov 7 Kapdia, comp. xvi. 6, 22.
XV. 9, 10 petvare év TH Gyary TH Epa. ed Tas evToAds pov THPYTTE,
Lal ~ > , \ ‘\ Lal ‘\ \ ‘\ , QA
plevelte év TH ayaTy mov, Kafws éyw TOD maTpOs TAs EvToAGS TETHPNKA Kal
, > A > wa) ,
fEVW AUTOU EV TT) AYA777).
> Ean , a > nA ¢ ,
XV. 15 OUK oldev TL TOLEL AVUTOV O KUPLOS,.
XV1. 6 9 AUTH TEeTANPOKEV bpav THY Kapdiay.
XV1. 22 kal yapyoetar tuov 7» Kapdia, quoted from Is. lxvi. 14
Xapyoetar y Kapdia bmov).
> A
xvil. 6 “Edavépwoa cov TO ovoma, contrast Xvil. II, I2 é€v To
OvOMaTL CoV,
ss: ” \ ~ 3 , A NS ee, Sn
XVlll. 10 €raivev TOV TOD aGpyLepews SovAoV Kal ameKoWev avTOU TO
> , ON I (a ,
wTaptov TO desiov.
see im rie pany > a > , > , aA ~
XVI111. yi) TAS O WV EK TNS adnGeas QKOVEL [LOV THS povys.
> cal n~ ~
XIX. 2 otépavov...eréOynkay avtov TH Kepary.
XIX. 29 OTOyYOV...TpOTHVEYKAV AVTOD TH TTOPATL.
xix. 31—4 Wa kateaydow avtwy Ta oKEAN... (32) Kal TOD pev
, , \ / \ a ” ? Sign & = > na
Tpwrov Katéagav TA KEAN Kal Tod GAXov... (33) OV KaTéagay avTOD
Ta okeAn, (34) Adyxy avTod THy mAevpav evuser.
2 \ > \ > iyo) \ c /
XIX. 35 Kal adnbwy QUTOU E€OTLVY 7) LAPTVUPLA,
»” aie
XX. 23 QV TLYWV apnre Tas apaptias.
XX. 25, 27 €av py...Badw tov daxtvAdy pov...kat Bardw prov THY
“~ cal , >
x<ipa cis THY TAevpay avTod... (27) Pepe tov daxtvAov Tov ade Kai ide
\ i: \ , \ rn , ‘ , > nN ,
TAS XElpas Lov Kal Pepe THV XELpa Gov Kat Pade eis THY TAEVpaV pov.
XXl. 24 oldapev OTe aAnOys avTov 7 paptupla eativ.
[2563] In some of the instances given above, the pronoun
C5) 22.
(somewhat like the Latin “ei” in “‘ projecit se ez ad pedes ”) occurs
in a phrase mentioning some part of the body where “his,” ‘my ”
etc. do not exactly mean, or at least do not emphasize, possession.
Thus Luke (W.H.) “thou gavest me no water for my feet” is
expressed in text by por, but in margin by preceding pov: and
Luke’s following words twice use the unemphatic preceding pov to
throw emphasis on the homage paid to Jesus by moistening or
1 [2562 a] Note that in three instances, xii. 40, xiii. 18, xvi. 22, when quoting
LXX, Jn deviates from it by using a precedent genitive (sim. Rev., see 2781 4).
419 | 27—2
[2563] ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION
ees
kissing His “fee?”—perhaps taking the emphasis off the pronoun
and throwing it on the noun “feet,” because another tradition
described an anointing of the “ead.” In John, the “vernacular”
possessive occurs repeatedly with “eyes?” (in the narrative of the
healing of the blind man), also with “heart®,” ‘shead4 “mouth
“legs®,” “side’,” “hand®.” Once it occurs with “right ear”’—a note-
worthy instance because it occurs in a portion of “the four-fold
Gospel,” the smiting of the High Priest’s servant by Peter: and here,
though John agrees with Luke in adding that it was the “right ear”
(a point omitted by Mark and Matthew) he follows Mark and
Matthew against Luke in the use of the “ vernacular” possessive’.
' [2563 a] Lk. vii. 44—6 Udwp wor éri wédas (without the article) but marg. v.
ov emi rods 7édas: and then, €8petév pov Tos 760as...kaTagi\ovcd jou Tovs 1édas.
In his version of the Anointing, Mk xiv. 3 has karéxeev avrov ris kepadfs. Lk.’s
use of the precedent possessive here is all the more remarkable in view of his
general deviation (2559) from the Synoptic use of it. It is one of many proofs
that Lk. contains several documents written in several styles and variously revised.
S SEC 1x.17, 910,01, 045 eel: 3 xvi. 6, 22. a sabe We
xIx: 29: O Sabo Bits Of Sabre BV IFS te
° [2563 6] xviii. 10 dméxoWer abrod 7d wrdpiov TO Sekibv. Comp. 1 Cor. viii. 12
TUNTOVTES aUT@Y THY cuVvEeldnow adobevoicay, which is equivalent to “smiting them
[in the cruellest way, not in the body but] zx the conscience [and that too when it is]
in a state of weakness.” So Mk xii. 15 elds avrav rip umoxpiow and parall. Lk.
XX. 23 KaTavojoas d€ air&v Tiv mavovpyiay mean, in effect, ““detecting them in
their hypocritical craft” (parall. Mt. xxii. 18 yvovs 6€ rv movnpiay airov). Mk v.
30 Tis pov nYaro Trav ivariwy is given in Lk. viii. 46 as nward mov Ts and is
repeated in Mk v. 31 without rév iwariwy, the meaning being almost the same as
““who touched me on, or, took hold of me by, the cloak?”
[2563¢] In Acts xvi. 22 mepipjéavres abr&v ra iwdria, one or two inferior
authorities read €avréy, perhaps because the scribes took the “ rending”’ to be like
that of the High Priest in Mk xiv. 63 dtapnéas rots yerGvas adrod (sim. Mt. xxvi. 65
duépnEev ra ivdria avrod). Rending one’s own garments would properly be
expressed in classical Gk by the middle wepipjiac@a ra iudria. “ Rending off
(wepipneas) (act.) ¢he (rd) garments” (without possess. genit.) regularly describes
the action of public or private scourgers in Demosth. 403. 3, Polyb. xv. 3. 4, Plut.
Vit. Poplic. 6. But Diod. Sic. xvii. 35 and others (see Steph.) use the active for
the middle, and perhaps Lk. here used the unemphatic atr&y as an additional
indication that the meaning was mo¢ ‘‘ their own.”
[25637] The reader must distinguish between (1) 7a pjuara adtrod “the
ordinary possessive,” (2) ra abrod piuara ‘the zztervening emphatic possessive,”
intervening between the article and the noun and emphasizing avrod, (3) avrod
Ta phuara ‘‘the precedent unemphatic possessive,” preceding the article and the
noun and so unemphatic as to throw emphasis from itself—unless antithesis ex-
ceptionally (2564) compels it to receive emphasis—on fo the contiguous words.
This last, being characteristic of colloquial style, will be often called, for brevity,
** vernacular.”
420
ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION [2565 |
[2564] In xili. 6 o¥ pov virres tovs 7ddas, the genitive pronoun
is emphasized by coming next after another pronoun (2784 c) so that
the meaning is, ‘‘ Zou / for me/ washest the feet?!” This then—
owing to special circumstances in the context—is not an instance of
the vernacular unemphatic possessive. But it is followed by the true
vernacular possessive, xill. 8 od px) viyyns pov Tovs mddas, “thou shalt
assuredly never wash my /fee?,” where there is no emphasis on “thou”
nor on “my,” but on “assuredly” and “ feet.” Then comes the
ordinary construction in Xill, 9 py Tt. 7. ou povoy, Where j1)...ovov
throws some emphasis on “‘feet,” and xill. 12 dre ovv évupev Tovs Todas
avrov, where there is no emphasis on any particular word. Lastly comes
the precept xill. 14, where tua@v tots wodas is not an instance of the
true vernacular possessive, because “your” is exceptionally empha-
sized by the previous insertion of an emphatic “I” to which “your”
is obviously antithetical. “If therefore 7 (éyw) washed for you (ipav)
the feet...ye also (kai vets) are bound for ove another to wash the feet
(GAAHAwY virrew Tt. 7Odas)”.”
[2565] We are not, of course, to suppose that the evangelist
deliberately arranged these variations—which indeed might be to
some extent illustrated by an Englishman’s unconscious variations of
“shall” and “will.” But we certainly must suppose that the author
of this Gospel had an unusually keen sense of rhythm and dramatic
fitness. It may also well be that in the course—perhaps a very long
course—of oral teaching, his Gospel assumed a shape in which no
phrase or word has been set down except as the result of artistic as
well as spiritual evolution. ‘Take, for example, the first utterances
of Martha and Mary, when they severally come to meet Jesus before
the raising of Lazarus :—
. c > , € ” 7 > ” e ,
(1) Xi. 20—1 9 ovv MapOa ws jKovoey ori 'l. Epyerar UrnvTyoEV
1 [2564a] Comp. xxi. 22 ot poe dxodovde (equiv. to ‘‘it is for thee to follow
me”) where the two pronouns are emphasized by juxtaposition, and oe is more
emphatic than in xxi. 19 dkodo’fer po, ‘‘follow me,” where there is no
antithetical oJ. The meaning is, ‘‘ That disciple may follow me in his way, which
is not the way to the Cross; but you must not follow in his way, but in my way.”
2 [25644] So avréy in xix. 31—4 Wa Kareay@ow a’rdv 7a okédy is vernacular
possessive and unemphatic, ‘‘that they might have their legs broken,” but rod
bev mporov, though preceding xaréaéay ra oxédy, is not vernacular because pév
introduces antithesis; and, in od xaréatay avrod Ta oxéAn, the effect of antithesis
emphasizes avrov, so that the meaning is ‘‘they brake not zs legs.”
421
[2566 | ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION
aito: Mapp dt ev TH oixw éxabelero. eizev o'v 7 Map6a zpos
"Inaotv, 'Kipre!!, ei js dde, ovk av aréOavey 6 adeAhos pov.
(2) xi. 29—32 éxeivy b€ ws Hxoveer [7.e. that Jesus “called” her
hovei ce] HyepOn Taxd Kal pxeto mpods avrov...7 ovv Mapiap ws 7AOev
érov Av “Inoois idotoa airov éxecev avtod pds Tors TOdas NéyovTa AUTO,
Kupte, ei 7s Ode, ovK dv pov am@avev 6 adeAdos.
[2566] Everything in (1)—the deliberation implied in “ going to
meet,” the weighty word «tzev (2456), the ordinary sequence of ov«
dv arébavev, and of 6 adeAdos pov—points to deliberate utterance.
In (2), Mary’s “rising up quickly” (contrasted with the previous
“sitting in the house”) and her “ falling at the feet” of the Saviour
when she first catches sight of Him, prepare us for an utterance of
passionate emotion. And, as a fact, the ordinary sequence of ov« av
and verb? is broken by the intervention of pov, and the connexion
1 [2565 a] Kvpce is now known to be omitted by SS. It is also omitted by SS
in xiii. 37 where W.H. have "xvpte,' as here. In both cases, scribes have
probably added it to assimilate the text to passages in the context inserting Kvpte.
Peter’s omission of ‘‘ Lord” in xiii. 6 might spring from Peter’s haste to expostulate
with his Master. Here, Martha is perhaps represented as omitting it because her
mind is absorbed in the thought of what might have been (‘‘If only it could have
been otherwise !”) and an ‘‘if” is the first word that escapes from her lips. Mary,
though in greater haste than Martha, does not omit ‘‘ Lord.”
2 [25662] Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 8 ‘‘Never the Lord of glory would they have
crucified (ovx ay 7. KUpiov THs O6Ens Ecratpwoav),” Heb. iv. 8 ‘*‘Not about another
day would he have spoken,” ovK av wepi &dXns EXader wera Tabra Nuépas, 2. vill. 7
“not for a second [covenant] would place be sought,” ov« ay devrépas éfnreiro
TOTros.
[2566 4] In view of these instances, and of the reasonableness of emphasizing
most pronouns in such a position, it is possible that oo must be emphasized in
Jn xviii. 30 where the evangelist with bitter irony describes the Jews (1885 (ii)) as
avoiding external defilement, yet as defiling themselves internally by that which
‘cometh out of the mouth” in slander, accusing Christ of being an ‘‘evil-doer.”
“If this man had not been an evil-doer we should not have delivered him up ¢o
[a just judge like] thee,” ovdx dv oon wapedwxauev adrdv. Blass (p. 320) on ovx dy
go mapedwkapuev, says ‘better o¥d’ according to the Lewis Syriac.” And ovdé
would certainly be preferable unless an emphasis on oot could be justified. The
variations in the best MSS. as to the position of dy in vill. 19 and xiv. 7 proceed in
part from scribal doubts as to the relation between the two similar sayings, and in
part from a failure to recognise that dv, in John, always follows an emphatic word,
and that in these two sentences ‘‘my Father” is more emphatic than ‘‘ know.”
In xviii. 36, 7ywvlfovro dv (where B marg. has rightly inserted dv, casually omitted
by B at the end of a line before va) comes emphatically before a short pause; and
this (though not much more striking than xiv. 28 éydpyre dv) has caused variations
(2739 c). In none of these three passages does there seem good reason for
supposing that dy was originally omitted. The variations in the Johannine order
422
ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION [2567]
between pov and 6 adeAdos is broken by the intervention of the verb.
This obliges us to lay stress on av i.e. “how different it would have
deen!” But it is not clear whether the emphasis on av does, or does
not, take away the emphasis from the following pov. If ov had been
inserted, we might have felt certain that pov (2564) is emphatic.
Perhaps the writer draws a contrast between Martha, ending her
sentence with “me” and Mary, ending hers with “d7vother.” If so,
fou is the vernacular possessive. As it is, the conclusion is doubtful’.
[2567] In vi. 51s, where the Eucharistic doctrine is introduced,
the ordinary possessive, 7 oap& pov, occurs, first predicatively (“the
bread that I shall give is my flesh”) and then “except ye eat the flesh
of (rHv o.) the Son of man.” After this, when mention is made of
drinking the blood and eating the flesh, the unemphatic “his” and
“my ” are used in order to emphasize “ flesh” and “ dlood” :—“[yea, |
and drink his d/ood (avrotd 7. atwa)...he that eateth my flesh (pov rt.
odpxa) and drinketh my d/o0d (nov tr. aiva).” When a return is made
to definition, the ordinary possessive is resumed: “my flesh (7 o.
of ay (e.g. viii. 19 Tov marépa pov ay Hdecre, vill. 42 WyamwaTe av eu, xv. 19 0 KdoMos
av 70 técoy épidec) are mostly explicable by emphasis on special words, but they
are irregular enough to perplex scribes (comp. Gal. iii. 21 (W.H.) év vou ay ay
(marg. €x véuou nv [dv])). In xviii. 36 the final dy suits well with the imperfect—
the meaning being ‘‘would be 7x that case striving at this very moment” [comp.
Mt. xxvi. 53 ‘‘at this moment...twelve legions of angels” ] ‘‘that [ might not be
delivered to the Jews.” Blass (p. 207) says ‘rots Iovd. is contrary to sense and is
omitted by Chrys.” But Chrys. zserts rots "Lovd. tn quoting the passage. After-
wards, it is true, he omits it. But then he omits not only roés Iovd. but also the
rest of Christ’s sentence (rTo?s Iovd. viv 6€ 7 Bac. 7 éun ovx éorw évrevdev). The
reason appears to be that he stops short because he sees no ground for special
comment on the omitted words. Subsequently he casually repeats the words ovx
évred@ev, shewing that he had the clause before him, though he did not think
it worth while to quote it in full or to comment on Tots Iovd. Yet in fact there is
great force in “‘¢he Jews,” as denoting the real agents, Pilate being a mere puppet.
In Lk. xix. 23, Blass (p. 206) takes é\@wv as=(temporal) protasis, where I should
prefer to supply the protasis from the context, ‘‘ Why didst thou not put my money
into the bank...azd [then, if thou hadst done this,| on my side (kay), when
I came home (€\@wv), should have exacted the sum with interest ?”
1 [2566 c] Some might urge that, if Jn had intended emphasis, he would have
used éuod, not pov. But éuod zs never used tn N.T. without (1) a preceding
preposition Mt. v. 11, vii. 23, x. 18 etc.; or without (2) antithesis, Lk. x. 16
6 dxotwy tuay éuod dxover: or parallelism toa preceding genitive, Rom. i. 12 buav
Te Kal €uwov, xvi. 2 moAN@v kK. €uod avrod, xvi. 13 a’Tod Kk. éuod. (3) In one
exceptional passage the text varies so as to cause suspicion of error Mt. xvi. 23
(BN*) oxdvdarov ef euod, v.r. mov et, et Emol, Mo el, EL jeov, Where etme gor may
have been the original (‘‘I am a stumbling-block [it seems] to thee!”).
423
[2568 ] ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION
pov) is true food, and my blood (70 4. pov) is true drink.” Then,
when it has to be insisted that “abiding” in Christ is the result of
feeding on the “flesh” and the “blood,” the nouns are again
emphasized: “ He that eateth my flesh (yw. tHv odpxa) and drinketh
my dlood (p. 76 atya) abideth in me’.”
[2568] Where there is no antithesis we are generally safe in
taking the precedent possessive as unemphatic, e.g. “I manifested thy
name,” compared with “in ¢ky name*.” But antithesis and chiasmus
probably give it emphasis in xv. 10 “ye will abide in my love (pevetre
év T. ay. pov),,.even as I...and abide in Azs love (wévw adrod ev tH
ay.)*.” In ill. 19—20, the context is too long to discuss, but the
genitives (one of which is separated from its governing noun by a
predicative adjective, zovypa) are perhaps intended to throw the
emphasis on what follows in each case*. It is however a passage
where there is room for difference of opinion.
1 [2567 a] In xx. 25—7, there is perhaps a contrast between the vehement and
varied utterance of Thomas and the calm regularity of the Saviour’s reproach.
Jesus repeats four times the ordinary possessive genitive (‘‘thy finger,” ‘‘thy hand”
etc.). Thomas says ‘put my finger (8. Tov 6. wov) into the print of the nails, yea,
and put my hand (k. B. wov THv xetpa) into his side.” The difference cannot well
be expressed in English. But there appears to be intended a climax in the
thrusting of the whole of the ‘‘hand” (as compared with ‘‘the finger”) into the
open wound in the side.
[2567 4] In iv. 47 “‘that he might heal his sox (a. rov vidv)” there may be an
intention to emphasize ‘‘ som,” partly because it illustrated the urgency of the
request, partly because some traditions may have differed as to whether (1862a—c)
the sick ‘‘boy” was a ‘‘so” or a ‘‘ servant.”
2 [2568 a] xvii. 6 épavépwod cov T. dvowa, Comp. xvii. 11, 12 TAPHoOY (and
érnpovv) abrovs év TH dvduari cov.
3 [25684] In iii. 32—3 Thy wapruplay adrod obdels NauBaver. 6 NaBwv abrod Thy
paprupiay there is no antithesis between a’rov and another pronoun. The second
avrov is probably unemphatic, the emphasis being thrown on AaBwy, ‘‘he that aid
receive”’ (after the assertion ‘‘none receiveth’’).
4 [2568 c] iii. 19 —20 k. Hydynoayr ol dvOpwroa maddov 7d cKbTos 7 Td POs, Hv yap
aitGv movnpa Ta épya. mas yap 6 patd\a tpacowy pucei TO Pas Kal ovK EpxeTar mpos
TO Pas, a un eeyxO7 Ta epya airov* 6 dé roy THY adjOecay EpxeTar Tpds Td POs,
va pavepwOy abrov ra epya ore év Jew éorly eipyacuéva. If this view is correct the
meaning is that men as a rule loved darkness ‘‘for their works were essentially
bad (zovnpd),” but that the truth-worker comes to the light ‘that his works may
be manifested as being worked in God.” In both cases the emphasis is taken from
“their” and “this,” to be thrown on “‘zworks.” But as regards 6 dada mpacowr,
emphasis is thrown on his personal shrinking from the light lest ‘‘ zs works be
”
convicted In iii. 19 the position of movnpa before épya makes both words
emphatic: ‘‘For there was from the first an essential badness in their works.”
424
ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION [2569 |
[2569] In ii. 23 “ beholding his szgzs (avrotd ra onpeia), which he
was [continually] doing,” and also in vil. 3 “that they may behold
thy works (if we read cov ta épya),” emphasis is laid on “ s7gvs” and
“orks,” and the context implies, perhaps, that the speakers attached
more importance to these than to Christ Himself. The same
emphasis on the noun is to be laid in the only two instances where
precedent avrod occurs in the Johannine Epistles: 1 Jn 1. 4—5 “ He
that sayeth...and keepeth not his commandments (ras évr. avtod py
typov) is a liar...but whoso keepeth his word (6s 0 av typy avrod Tov
Aoyov)', truly in him is the love of God,” 3 Jn 9—10 “He that loveth
supremacy over them, Diotrephes, doth not fitly receive us: for this
cause, if I come, I will call to remembrance [ot his pretensions but]
his zworks (vropvyjcw avtod 7a epya)”.”
1 [2569 a] On this Westcott says ‘‘ The position of the pronoun here (avrov rov
Aéyov), as contrasted with that which it has in v. 3 (ras évroNds avdrov), emphasizes
the personal idea. The main thought is that the word is His word, the word of
God. There is emphasis also on the ‘keeping’ és 6 ay typy contrasted with
0...Tas EvT. wh THp@v.” In view of Jn’s frequent use of the ‘‘ vernacular” avrob
this interpretation seems untenable. Jn has not here tov avrovd Nébyor as in
1 Jn ii. 27 76 avrov xpicua. In avrov rév Adyor, the emphasis is taken from airod
to be thrown on Néyov, which here means ‘‘¢he [spzritual] word” or ‘‘the spirit,
not the letter,” and is stronger than évrodds, ‘commandments.’ Comp. xiv. 23—4
Tov Noyor mov Typnaec and Tovs Adyous mov ov Typet. The pl. Adyor in the Gospel
corresponds to the pl. évrodai in the Epistle and both occur in a negative clause
while the sing. éyos is in the positive clause. The position of the pronoun,
then, does not ‘‘emphasize the personal idea,” but throws the emphasis on the
spirituality of the ‘‘Word” that is to be ‘‘kept.”
2 [2569 4] Somewhat similar is the mention of ‘‘those who are puffed up” in
t Cor. iv. 19, ‘‘ But I will come quickly unto you...and will acquaint myself not
with the speech but with the fower of them that are puffed up, cai yywoouar ov
Tov NOyor THY Tepvowudvwy adda THY Svan.”
[2569 c] In ix. 6, the reading is very doubtful. W.H. txt has ratra eirwv
émrucev xaual K, Erolnoev mndov €x TOO mrvopaTos Kal "éréOnxev' (marg. Eréxpioev)
avtod Tov mnddv éml Tovs 6>8admovs. R.V. marg. has ‘‘the clay thereof,” taking
avrod to refer to mrégpuaros, and supplying ‘“‘his.” AC ins. ‘‘of the blind man”
after ‘‘eyes.” SS has ‘‘and took [it 7.e. the clay] up [and] smeared [it] upon the
eyes of that blind man,” D ‘‘and smeared upon him (éréxpicev adr) the clay
upon his eyes,” @ ‘‘et linuit ei lutum super oculos eius,” a ‘‘et linuit oculos
ejus,” 6 ‘Set superlinuit lutum super oculos illius caeci,” ¢ ‘‘et superunxit oculos
caeci,” f ‘Set superlinivit super oculos caeci,” // ‘‘et superunxit illud super oculos
ejus.” (1) Mark’s (viii. 23) tradition about healing blindness with saliva, (2) Jewish
traditions about such healing, and (3) the possibilities of mystical suggestion in
the present passage, combine with (4) the textual variations to make its adequate
interpretation at present impossible.
425
[2570] ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION
§ 4. Miscellaneous variations
[2570] The following miscellaneous variations, taken in their
order as they occur in the Gospel, may be of use for reference, and
for the purpose of giving the reader a general view of John’s style.
Many of them have been explained incidentally above: others will
be briefly discussed here. A few of them deal with synonyms not
discussed in Johannine Vocabulary. For example, the use of xata-
Aap Bavw in the Prologue (i. 5) was discussed in 1735 e—A, but the
relation between zapadapBavw and AapwBdvw in the same context
was merely touched on there, and will come first in the instances
given below.
In i. 11—r2 oF (dot avrov ov wapéAaBov: door dé &AaPov avrov, a
distinction is certainly drawn between zapéAaBov and €AaBov, and the
former is probably used with special reference to oi tuo. The meaning
probably is that, when the Son of God came to His own family, none
“received Lim fitly as coming from the Father (rapédafov),” but some
“recetved Him | though tmperfectly | (€haBov)}.”
' [2570 a] Oi Uioe aidrdv od mapéXaBov and the preceding eis ra ida FOE
are quoted by Clem. Alex. (882—3 eis 7. idua, pnoiv, 7AOEV 6 vids T. Beod x.
oi tdtoe adtov ovx éd€EavTo) as referring to ‘‘the world (kécpos).” In that case we
might reconcile 0 mapéAaBov with dco é\aBov by saying that tapédaS8ov means
a friendly ‘‘receiving” (Nonnus, éyépacpov), while €\aBov means a less active
“receiving” (Nonnus, défavro). Or we might say that John according to his
custom (2628) states a fact first roughly and inaccurately, and then more exactly.
[2570 4] But Chrysostom and Ammonius both take técoc in a twofold sense, as
meaning (1) the world, (2) Israel; and in view of the language of the prophets
about the rejection of Jehovah by His own children, and the language of Jesus
Himself about ‘‘a prophet in his own country,” there can hardly be a doubt that
both meanings are intended. (r) Applied to the world at large, wapéXaBov may
be illustrated by its use in Epictetus to describe our ‘‘vecetving from [God].” In
one passage he uses mapadauBarw (i. 6. 25 TH Oéav mapeAnpare) to describe our
reception of the gift of beholding the sights of God’s universe. Then he drops the
compound preposition (zd. 28) ‘*And come now, have you not received (elAjpare)
faculties?... Have you not received manliness? Have you not rece¢ved magnanimity ?
Have you not vece‘ved patience?” The Logos itself is described as (i. 20. 5)
““yeceitved from | God] (mapel\nrrat) by [human] nature (i710 Tis Picews)” : and
concerning the power of the Logos (7 Aoyext S¥vayus) it is said that (i. 1. 4) “*é¢ ds
received from ([God]” and, in the same sentence, ‘‘7¢ has come (édjAvde).” Else-
where mapadauBavw is used (Znch. xxiv. 1, xxv. 1, xxxii. 2) of calling a friend to
share one’s meal or one’s secret plans. (2) From the Jewish point of view,
mapahauBdvw is the regular word for ‘‘vecetving words, or traditions,” handed
down from a teacher. It is thus used frequently in N.T. The very first words
of the Sayings of the Jewish Fathers are ‘‘ Moses received the Law from Sinai,”
426
ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION [2572]
[2571] i. 15, 30 6 driow pov epxopevos Eurrpoobev pov yéyover, OTL...
(30) etrov, Oricw pov épxetat avanp os eumpoobev pov yéyovev. Hereby
the evangelist warns us that when he represents a speaker as
apparently repeating a previous utterance, we are not to expect
identity of expression. ‘The introduction of avyp may (2871) allude
to the meaning “husband” and may prepare the way for (ill. 29)
“bridegroom.” But in any case this is one of many passages in
which the writer seems to say, “The Baptist and the Lord Jesus
said the same things again and again in slightly different ways,
and there may be various traditions, all differing and yet all accurate.”
[2572] The verb of seeing is thrice varied in i. 32—4 rebeapar
TO Tvedpa KaTaBaivov...kayo ovK noew avtov: add’ o Temas ple... €l7reV
"Ed ov av ldys...Kayo éEwpaxa Kal pewaptipyxa, ‘This may be para-
phrased thus, “Z have beheld the manifestation of the Spirit...and
I for my part did not know him [the Messiah] but he that sent me
and the following sentences describe a long succession of teachers as each
“yecetving” from a predecessor.
[2570 c] In i. 4—12 the context makes it probable that rapéXaBov refers to the
Jews: for it appears to describe three stages of failure, in three negations, with
KaTahapBdvw, ywwokw, and mapahauBavw. (1) ‘* The life was the light of men...
and the darkness apprehended it not (airo ob xaré\aBev).” (2) ‘‘[The light] was
in the world; and the world, through him [or, it], came into being; and the
world recognised him not (airov otk éyvw).” (3) ‘To his own [house] he came,
and his own [household] dd not recetve him [as coming] from [the Father of the
house] (avrév ot mapédaBov).”
[2570.7] In the Synoptists, mapadauBdvw is used, with ‘Inooty as object, in
Mk iv. 36 of the disciples ‘‘¢akiny Jesus with them in the boat,” and in Mt. xxvii.
27 of the soldiers of the governor ‘‘¢aking Jesus with them into the praetorium,”
where Mk xv. 16 has amjyayov and Lk. altogether differs. The use of 7. to
describe ‘‘taking prisoners along with one” (or ‘‘accepting the surrender of
a city” as in t Mac. xv. 30 (NS) mapeXdBere, LXX kareX\dBeode) is very rare in Gk,
and occurs in canon. LXX perh. only in Lam. iil. 2 mapéAaBév we k. amriyyayev els
oxéros. It is therefore worthy of note that Jn, like Mt., has wapadapBadvw in his
account of the Passion. But, in Jn, it is not ‘‘the soldiers of the governor” but
the ‘‘chief priests,” who thus ‘‘take with them” or ‘‘recetve” Jesus; xix. 16—17
‘*then therefore he [z.e. Pilate] delivered him to them [?.e. the chief priests] to be
crucified. They therefore recetved (rapédaBov) Jesus.” The supposition that the
word was applied in diverse traditions to a ‘‘reception” of Jesus as a prisoner is
confirmed, if the txt is correctly supplied (as it probably is) by Zvang. Petr. (ed.
Robinson) § 1 kal rére Kedever ‘Hpwdys 6 Bacireds rapladnu|pOjvar tov Kiprov.
If Jn deliberately and allusively adapted a version of this ancient tradition, so as
to represent the Logos as being, after this fashion, ‘‘vece¢ved” by His own “‘ priests”
—who might be called pre-eminently ‘His own people” —it is one of the most
ironical instances of Johannine irony.
427
[2573] ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION
...Said, On whomsoever thou shalt see...and I [taught by God’s word]
have seen [and received the vision| and have testified” (1597 foll.).
®eaobo. here means spiritual “seeing” but refers rather to the form
(“descent as a dove”) of the vision while éWpaxa refers to the inner
meaning of it.
[2573] As to iii. 35, yevvnO9 dvwHey compared with y. é€ ddaros
kat mvevpartos, and idety tiv Bacwrelav tod Oeod compared with
cioe\Oeiv cis tHv B. 7. 6., it was noted in 1903a@ that Chrysostom
apparently took avwHev to mean “from above.” It should be added
that Origen certainly does this in a passage in which he comments
ON Vill. 23 tpeis ek TOV KaTw éoTE, ey ek TOV avw ipl, ill. 31 0 OY ex
THS YHS...0 €k TOD oOvpavod épyomevos, where he says Ta pev yap weplyea
KaTw e€oti, Ta O€ ovpavia avw, and then, afier quoting Matthew’s
doctrine about the “heart” and the “treasure” being together, he
adds: “If a man be treasuring up (@jcavpify) on earth, [then] as
the result of his treasuring up on earth he becomes ‘from below’ (é« Tav
katw yivetac), but if a man is treasuring up (@yocaupiler) in the heavens
he is born from above (yevvatar avwbev) and assumes (1 Cor. xv. 49)
‘the image of the heavenly.”
1 [2573 a] Huet ii. 280 E—282c. Comp. Origen’s Homily on Gen. i. 6-—7,
where he refers to the ‘‘/zving water” “as being that which is ‘‘adove the
Jirmament” and as opposed to the ‘‘ water below,” which is the water of death:
** Studeat ergo unusquisque nostrum divisor aquae effici ejus q4ae est supra, et quae
est subtus : quo scilicet spiritualis aquae intellectum, et participium capiens ejus
quae est supra firmamentum, flumina de ventre suo educat aquae vivae salientis in
vitam aeternam, segregatus sine dubio, et separatus ab ea aqua quae subtus est, id
est, aqua abyssi, in qua tenebrae esse dicuntur, in qua princeps hujus mundi, et
adversarius draco, et angeli ejus habitant, sicut superius indicatum est. Illius ergo
aquae supernae participio, quae supra coelos esse dicitur, unusquisque fidelium
coelestis efficitur, id est, cum sensum suum habet in arduis et excelsis, nihil
de terra, sed totum de coelestibus cogitans, quae sursum sunt quaerens, ubi
Christus est in dextra Dei patris.”
[2573 4] Toward the end of the first century Christian teachers would find
it necessary to emphasize the possibility that a man might be ‘‘ box” again” for
evil as well as for good. This is recognised in some of the Gospels by the Parable
of the “seven devils” entering into the man delivered from one devil, and by
Christ’s description of a proselyte as ‘‘¢wofold a child of Gehenna”: and
Christians might apply this doctrine to Simon Magus and others. Hermas
implies this double possibility of proselytism in a passage that contains an attempt
to draw a distinction (here made by John) between ‘‘ seed¢zg” and “ entering,” as
regards the ‘‘kingdom of God.” According to him (Sv. ix. 13—15) there are
twelve holy Virgins (who are ‘‘ holy spirits’’) and twelve unholy, Vexation (Avzy),
Wickedness etc.: ‘* The servant of God that bears these names, though he shall
428
ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION [2575]
[2574] iv. 13—14 mas 0 mivwv...ds 8 av win. Here was 6
introduces the multitude of those that go wrong, és @ dv the in-
dividual that goes right. Comp. ill. 20 was yap 0 datAa rpacowr...
with m1. 21 0 d€ rowdy thy aAnbeav.
vi. 48—51 eyw eis 0 aptos THs CwHs...eyw eipe 0 aptos 6 Lav, is
not variation but development—a good example of the way in which
John leads the reader on from suggestion to statement. ‘‘ The bread
of hfe” like “the tree of life,” is a comparatively simple phrase ;
but—after the analogy of “the water of life” and “diving (i.e.
running) water”—the Teacher passes on to say that the bread is
wtself “living,” and that it is indeed the “/éesh” of a living Man.
This was a new doctrine for the Jews, though it is only an application
to the spiritual world of a physical law—that life feeds on life.
[2575] In vil. 30 e{yrouv obv avrov midoar Kai ovdels éréBarev ex
avrov THY XElpa OTL OVTH eAynAVHeL y Wea adrod, is there any explanation
of the sing. xetpa here and the pl. xetpas in vil. 44 tuvés b€ NOedov e€
avTov maga avtov, GAN ovdels EBadev ex adrov Tas xetpas? It has
been pointed out above (2185 foll.) that aAAa as compared with kaé
represents Greek idiom as compared with Hebrew. So does 7/6eXov
as compared with efjrovv—which, though meaning in Attic Gk
“desire to” (Steph.) before such verbs as rvufécOai, expadety, cidévan,
Aadetvy, or other verbs expressing what one desires for oneself, does
not seem to be used as in LXX (Ex. ii. 15, iv. 24, Esth. i. 21,
Ps. Xxxvll. 32 etc.) in such phrases as “desire to £7/7.” Possibly, in
the same way, yxetpa may be explained as Hebraic and xetpas as
Hellenic. At all events, in Esth. vi. 2, where the Heb. has “lay
hand,” the LXX has ras yxetpas (comp. 1 K. xx. 6): and Eustathius
(Steph. éryBadAw 1524 D) speaks of the phrase in the pl., 76 xetpas
see the kingdom of God yet shall not ever therein,” ratra ra dvduara 6 popey Tod
Geot dodNos THv Bacidelav wev SWerar Tov Beov els avr dE ovK eioehevoeTaL, Where
the Latin has ‘‘spiritus” for dvéuara. Irenaeus (i. 13. 6 and i. 21. 1—5) shews
that parodies of baptism were common among certain heretics promising a
“‘redemption”’ or ‘‘restitution” that was to be compatible with the grossest
immorality. For these reasons it became needful to insist that the ‘‘ new birth ”
was not only ‘‘zew” but also ‘‘ fron above.”
[2573 c] In addition to the facts adduced in 1903 as to Chrysostom’s interpreta-
tion of dywéev it should be added that Cramer has 76 6€ dvwOev éx Tot obpavoi ob
dno? in a context that indicates either (1) that oJ d6yAot means ‘‘ does not make
clear,” or (2) that final -ov in ovpavod has been repeated as ov.
429
[2576 | ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION
éréBarte!. As to éréBadev compared with ¢Badrev, the latter is
perhaps the less aggressive, and John indicates, in vil. 44, that those
previously mentioned as longing to capture Jesus dared not now
play the part of aggressors even in a minor degree.
[2576] In reply to Christ’s words vill. 51 édv tus tov éuov Adyov
Typynan, Gavarov ov pi) Gewpynon «is Tov aidva, the Jews say, vill. 52 od
héyers "Eav tis Tov Aoyov pov? TypHoy, od pa yedontat Gavarov eis Tov
aiova, ‘ Taste of death” is an expression assigned to our Lord by
all the Synoptists just before the Transfiguration, and it means
literal death®. But “dehold death” appears to refer to spiritual
death, and perhaps contains an assumption that whatever one
“‘beholds ”—whether it be the true glory of Goodness or the false
glory of Satan—one is, as St Paul says, ‘conformed to it*” In
what follows, Christ says about Abraham, “ He saw it [z.e. my day]
and rejoiced,” z.e. he spiritually “saw” the joy of the day of the
Messiah and was conformed to that joy so that he himself “re-
joiced®.” Our Lord elsewhere uses the word idety of “seeing the
kingdom of God®.” Here John uses Gewpetv—a word that sometimes
(1598) means blank, unintelligent, or superstitious vision—perhaps,
as being more appropriate to the view of the dark powers of spiritual
death’. But the Aramaic phrase “see death ”—as distinct from
1 [2575 a] Aristophanes, however, has sing. in Mud. 933 Thy xeElp jv
émiBarrys, Lys. 440 Ta’rn Thy xeElp émiBadets. Polybius has é. xetpas with sing.
subj. xviii. 34. 8, and with pl. subj. in iii. 2. 8, iil. 5. 5 : it means ‘‘ lay sacrilegious
hands on” in Lucian (77. 4, Vol. i. p. 107). ’E. xetpas occurs in Mk xiv. 46, Mt.
xxvi. 50 (where Lk. xxii. 54 (nearly but not quite parall.) has cvA\aBdvTes), also in
Lk. xx. 19 é¢jrnoav...émiBadew éx’ abrov ras xetpas, and Lk. xxi. 12 éwiBadodow
ép ipas rT. xetpas airy. "EmiBdddw occurs only 4 times in Acts and alw. with ras
xeipas. In 1 Esdr. ix. 20 éréBadov ras xetpas (Ezr. x. 19 €dwkay xeipa a’tav)
means ‘they gave their hands as a pledge,” but Steph. does not quote this or other
instances ; and it is difficult to find any reason why Jn should use Badew xetpas
here (a very rare constr. if one may judge from Steph. (84\\w go B) who quotes
nothing except Zenob. 5. 93 kdtw Badwv ras xelpas eloryKer). Possibly he meant
“They dared not so much as move the hand against him.”
2 [2576 a] Tov \dyor wou is not quite so emphatic as rov éudv Adyor, which again
is not so emphatic as 6A. 6 éuds would have been. In Jn, 6 éués occurs thrice,
V. 47, Vil. 16, viii. 51, whereas 6...6 €ués is much more frequent.
8 [2576 6] Mk ix. 1, Mt. xvi. 28, Lk. ix. 27, comp. Heb. ii. 9.
4 [2576 c] See 2 Cor. iii. 18 karomrpifduevor, Rom. xii. 2 cuvoxnuariferde...
perapoppoiabe. 5 villi. 56. Sth oe
7 [2576 d] This view is favoured by the fact that, when the ‘‘seeing” refers
to “the kingdom of God”’ and to “life,” Jn has iii. 3 od dvvarac dei, ili. 36 ovK
berat fwny (not Pewpetv).
430
ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION [2577 |
“taste death,” and without any discrimination between different
verbs of seeing—may have referred to Biblical usage, which some-
times attaches to “see” the meaning of “see for oneself,” ‘ have
personal experience of,” “realise.” The fact that both Peter and
Paul are represented in the Acts as quoting Ps. xvi. 10, to shew that
the Messiah was distinguished from David by “not seeing the pit,”
makes it probable that the phrase ‘“‘ see death” was variously applied,
not without controversy, toward the end of the first century. John
here teaches that “wot to behold death” was a spiritual gift, ex-
tending, not only to Enoch, Elijah, and the Lord Jesus Christ, but
to all Christ’s true disciples. At the same time, he points out that
the Jews confused this with a phrase not used in O.T., “ tasting death,”
which they interpreted as referring to physical death.
[2577] ix. 213 was d€ viv Br€ret ovK oldaper, 7) Tis TvolEev avTod
Tovs OPO. Nets OVK OldapeEv? avTOV epwrnoaTe, HAtKiay ExEL...dU TOUTO..
civay OTe “HAikiav €xel, avtov érepwrnoate (Marg. épwrycate). The
difference between ‘‘we know not” and “ we (jets) know not ” is
that the latter implies a more emphatic disavowal because the
speakers, in the latter case, are more frightened: ‘But how he
now sees we know not. Ov, who opened his eyes, [if indeed some
one opened his eyes]—we know nothing about it.” In what follows,
the fact that the evangelist puts the last words of the parents first in
repeating their utterance is in conformity with the rule mentioned
above (2552—8). But the change of épwrycate to érepwrncate is
a remarkable concession to dramatic effect or impressionism. “In
effect,” John seems to say, ‘‘ what the parents meant was, He is of
9
age, ask him, |not us, and ask him| as much as you like.”
* [2576 c] See (Buhl 752—3) Is. xliv. 16 “‘I have seen the fire,” Eccles. ix. g
** See life with the wife whom thou lovest,” Ps. Ixxxix. 49 ‘‘...and shall not
see death,” Targ. ‘‘ see the angel of death” (comp. Heb. xi. 5 ‘‘ translated that he
should not see death’’), Ps. xvi. to ‘‘ Neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see
corruption (or, the pit)” (quoted in Acts ii. 27 foll. and xiii. 34 foll. as applying not
to David but to Christ). In Esth. ix. 26 ‘‘that which they had see,” LX X has
‘suffered,” memévOaow. Lk. ii. 26 has pH ldety Odvaroy and Rev. xviii. 7 wévos
ov u7 tw.
* [2577a] There is much variety in the O.T. and N.T. use of em epwr av
(456 (ii) @). It occurs in Mk (25), Mt. (8), Lk. (17), Jn (2), namely, here and
XVill. 7 mad éemnpwrnoev, ‘repeated his question again.” The two instances
indicate that in both Jn takes émi- to mean ‘‘ further,” ‘‘again.”” SS has here
“Lo, he also ts of age; from him ye can know. These things said... Therefore
431
[2578 | ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION
[2578] In xiii. 33 (rep. from viii. 21) Orov eyo irayw tyeis ov
dvivacGe eXOetv, which had been uttered to the Jews, the pronouns
emphasize the opposition between “7” and “ye” (‘Where Z go ye
cannot come ”)—as also in vii. 34, 36—but when Christ repeats this
to Peter, xili. 36 orov trayw od divacai por viv axodovbjoa, the
pronouns are omitted so as to lay no stress upon personal antithesis
but only on present time, ‘“ Where I go thou canst not follow me a¢
present.”
[2579] In xiv. ro—rr ov rurrevers Ore eyo €v TO 7. Kal O T. ev emo
éotw ; the position of éorw at the end of the sentence marks it as
emphatic—and all the more emphatic because the meaning would
have been clear without it,—‘‘Do ye not believe...that in me the
Father ¢vuwly is'?” In the repetition, ruoreveré pou drt éyo ev TO Zr.
kai o 7. év éuol, the stress on “is” is dropped by the omission of
éotw in order to emphasize ‘‘ me” (“ Believe me”), and the sentence
concludes, “ But if [ye can] not [do this], believe for the mere works’
sake” —thus omitting the whole of the object of ‘‘ believe” in order
oP)
to emphasize the cause of belief.
[2580] In xiv. 2324 éav tis dyawa pe tov Aoyov pov TypHcEL,
compared with o pa ayarav je Tois Noyous pov ov TypEt, eav TUS iS
more selective than 6 py (2552 c), and rdv Aoyov represents “the
word” taken as a whole, the spirit of Christ’s teaching, whereas
tovs Adyous means the separate doctrines, “does not [even] keep
[the letter of] my words.” This is the only occasion where Christ
in the Fourth Gospel uses the plural Aoyou’.
[2581] In xv. 9—11 petvate é€v tH ayarn TH euy...mevetre ev TH
ayary pov...Kabws eyo...Kal wevw avTOD ev TH ayaTy...lva 4 Xapa n eu
ev ipiv 7 Kal 1 xapa vudv wAnpwhH, the phrase 7 éuy emphasizes the
“love” and the “joy” so that they are distinguished from the
said his parents, As& him.” In classical Gk érepwrdv sometimes means ‘‘ ask in
turn,’ i.e. ‘‘ask after answering,” as in Mk xi. 29 (where Mt.-Lk. have épwrav)
but Steph. gives no instance where it clearly means ‘‘ask further.”
1 [2579 a] See Philo i. 267 in 2588 c, dvrws yap 6 adnOuwds ovTds éotw, where
éstw is similarly emphatic.
2 [25807] In the Synoptists, besides other less important passages, Néyou
(Chri.) occurs in Mk xii. 31, Mt. xxiv. 35, Lk. xxi. 33, ‘‘my words shall not pass
away”; also in Mt. vil. 24—6 (zs) (parall. Lk. vi. 47) ‘‘ whosoever therefore
heareth these words of mine”; also in Mk viii. 38 (parall. Lk. ix. 26) ‘* whosoever
shall be ashamed of me and my words” (Mt. om.). Comp. 1 Jn ii. 4—s where
the sing. Aéyos in a positive clause with rypéw is contr. with the pl. évrodaé in
a negative clause (47) Typ&v) (2569 a).
432
ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION [2583]
ordinary feelings so called—‘ the love that is peculiarly mine...the
joy that is peculiarly mine ”—indicating that a new Azzd of love has
been brought into the world by the Son of God.
[2582] In xv. 21 tatra ravta rowoovow...6t. ovK oidacw Tov
wéepavTa pe, and XVi. 3 TadTA ToLnTOVTW OTL OVK Eyvwcay TOV TaTépa
ovde eve, the exact meaning is hard to give without paraphrase, and
is not given by R.V. “ know not,” “have not known.” ‘The first
sentence says ‘ They will persecute you, my followers, because they
know not the nature of him that sent me.” Then Jesus shews that
this want of knowledge arose, not from intellectual but from moral
fault, and lastly He repeats “‘ They will persecute you, I say, because
—not having in themselves the spirit of love, the spirit of fatherhood,
the spirit of sonship—¢hey failed to recognise the Father and failed to
recognise me,—his Son |when the Father sent the Son to them).”
[2583] xvi. 14—15 €x Tod emod Anperar...du TodTo eiov OTL ek
Tov €uov AapPaver is a remarkable instance of verbally inaccurate
quotation. SS, and the Latin versions except a, read Anpwerau for
aw Pave. so as to make the quotation accurate’. After saying ‘“‘ He
will take from what is mine,” Jesus explains, that “‘mine” means
“the Father’s” because ‘‘all things as many as the Father hath ave
mine.” Then, having passed into the present, while describing the
ever present relations between the Father and the Son, He continues
in the present tense when repeating what He had previously uttered
about the relations between the Holy Spirit and the Son. Another
case of variation in repeating occurs in xvi. 16—19 where Jesus says
“ye behold me xo longer (ovxéz),” but the disciples repeat it as “ye
behold me zof (ov),” and our Lord Himself, accepting their variation,
says, ‘On this matter are ye questioning with one another because
I said, A little while and ye behold me of (ov)!” Perhaps “no
longer ” was intended to suggest ‘‘ no longer in the old familiar way,
after the flesh.” But the disciples, panic-stricken, fasten on the bare
negative “not,” and their Master adapts His reply to their fears, and
accepts their version of His utterance’.
1 [2583 a] S omits the whole of verse 15 (homoeotel.), e omits the last part of
it (671 ex 7. €. XN. kK. dvayyede?) reading ‘‘ propter hoc dixi vobis pusillum...,” ¢ has
*accipiet ” though D has A\auBaver.
* [2583 4] In xvi. 16—19 a, d, e, fand SS have ‘‘non” throughout.
[2583 c] On other variations of Christ’s sayings see 2545 foll., 2190. And add
ix. 7 Uraye vipac els riy KoNuUBHOpay Tod D., repeated by the blind man thus, ix. 11
eimév wor Ore" Trraye els Tov D. Kai viva.
A. VI. 433 28
[2584] ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION
[2584] In xvii. 12 ove nen pet aitav eyo étypovv avTovs ev TO
évopatt...xat epvdagéa, a difference is intended by the difference of
verb and tense. “Erjpouy, “I was always watching, or keeping
my eye on,” implies the continually watchful care of the Lord during
His incarnate life, on which He is supposed to be, by anticipation,
looking back; é#vAaéa “I protected” (not “I have protected”)
implies action regarded simply as past. There is emphasis
on “1” as distinct from the Father, ‘‘Z could do it once, now I
beseech ¢hee to do it.” Mer atrév (2349) implies friendly com-
panionship: “As long as I was sede by side with them,” i.e. in the
world—a phrase that is supplied by many authorities. On Xia 50
cuppéper...iva cis avOpwros arobavy, compared with xviil. 14 cvppepe
éva avOpwrov aobaveiv, see 2104".
[2585] xiii. 19 am’ apte Aeyw bpiv mpo Tod yeverOar iva TioTEvTE,
Orav yéevyTat, OTe eyo eipe (Marg. éyw «ipt) is to be compared with
1 [2584a] Another instance of synonymous juxtaposition is in ill, 20, 21, 6
patha mpdcowv...6 Toy Thy aAjHeuy and v. 29 oi Ta Gyaba TomnoayTes...ol TH
patra mpdéavres. In other passages of N.T.a distinction is recognised between
these two verbs, and mpdgow—which means ‘‘ do habitually,” “‘do as a business”
—is rather frequently connected with notions of evil: but 2 Cor. v. 10 mpos
a émpatev etre dyabov etre paidov, and many other passages, indicate that mpacow
may be applied to habitual action good or bad. We shall not find elsewhere
in N.T. the thought implied here, that the word * making,” or ‘‘ creating,” mow,
is appropriate to good, as distinct from mpacow which does not imply creation.
[25844] iv. 46—53 presents synonyms that may bear on disputed tradition
concerning the boy healed by our Lord at a distance. In Mt. viii. 6 he is called
mais i.e. ‘‘ doy,” which may mean (in the phrase “‘ thy day”’) “son ” or ‘‘ servant.”
In Lk. vii. 2, he is called SoGNos, ‘‘ slave” or “servant.” In Jn, the evangelist
begins by saying ‘‘ whose sow (vids) was sick.” The father then says, ‘‘Come
down before my Jitéle child (maidiov) dies.” Jesus then says, ‘‘ Thy soz liveth.”
Then servants of the father ‘‘ met him saying, ‘ Thy 4oy (ais) liveth.’ Thus, in
Jn, three names are given to the child, all of them compatible with fact, and
indicative of the manner in which a mistake might have arisen from mistaking
matdiov, or mats, for dovAos. See 1862 a—c.
[2584c¢] On the synonymous juxtaposition of dyamdw and gidéw in xxi. 15—17,
see 1436 foll., 1716 d—/, 1728 m foll. To the facts there alleged add Origen (on
Lam. i. 2 LXX obx bwdpyecd wapaxadGy abriy awd wavrwv Tov dyaTwvTwY avriy"
mavres ol pioivres alrny nbérnoav ev airy) oldueOa yap Td pev ayargv Bebrepov
elvac kal, iv’ orws elrw, mvevmarixdy: TO dé pireiy TwuarcKoy Kal dvOpwmixdrepov.
No doubt the prophet writes according to the canon of Hebrew parallelism and
draws little distinction between the two Hebrew verbs. But the second of the
two is more correctly rendered by Aq. and Sym. ératpo ‘her companions,” and
Origen is justified by LXX usage in saying that “ ayaray is the more divine and,
so to speak, the more spiritual, but pA is bodily and savours more of men,”
434
ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION [2586 |
xiv. 29 kal vov elpyka vty mp yeveobac iva, orav yévyToL, TisTEvoTE,
and both may be compared with the tradition in Mark and Matthew,
“7 have told you beforehana’.” ‘The first saying refers to the betrayal
by Judas, but this is regarded in the Last Discourse (xili.—xiv.) as
part of a general persecution, which is to befal the Church hereafter,
all of which Christ predicts ‘‘ defore it come to pass.” The first saying
is longer than the second and emphasizes the date (‘‘from this
moment”) and the object of the prediction, “that ye may grow in
the belief (2525—8) that I am [He]*” (2221 foll.). The second
emphasizes the time to come when the coincidence will be observed
—between what will have “come to pass,” and what was said before
—so as to cause a special belief based on this
?
it “came to pass’
evidence.
[2586] xix. 8 dre ovv nKovoev o IL. rotrov tov Aoyov padXov
édhoBn6y may be compared with xix. 13 0 ovv IL, dxovoas tov \oywv
toitwy nyayey e£w Tov “I. In the former, the “hearing” does not
produce (16144) any result beyond emotion; and the clause, being
subordinate in thought, is introduced with a subordinate conjunction.
In the latter, rovtwy is emphasized by position (2553 ¢) and +. Noywv
tovtwy by case (1614 4)—referring to the words “thou art not
Ceesar’s friend.” This is a charge that Pilate cannot hear unmoved.
Now therefore he is goaded to action, and the sentence introduces
the action as the consequence, o ovr II...yyayev*.
1 [25852] Mk xiii. 23 mpoelpnxa tuty marta, Mt. xxiv. 25 (do0v mpoelpnka
duty, following a mention of ‘‘ false Christs,” who would lead astray ‘‘if possible,
even the elect.”” All this Lk. omits. A little above, Mk xiil. 6, Mt. xxiv. 5,
Lk. xxi. 8, predict the coming of those who will say ‘‘ I am [He]” or ‘‘I am the
Christ”: and Mk-Mt. (but not Lk.) add ‘‘ they will lead many astray.”
2 [25854] The phrase ‘‘I am [He]” appears to connect this Johannine
tradition directly with Mk xiii. 6 and parall. mentioned above, and hence
indirectly with Mk xiii. 23 ‘‘I have told you beforehand.”
3 [2586 a] On the following minor points there is perh. not evidence enough to
establish any conclusion. Eis, in Jn, is regularly followed by é« but the Gk Mss.
omit €k in xix. 34 €. 7. oTpaTwwr@r, (a, e, f “unus ex”) and W.H. (following BL)
omit it in xii. 4. The great likeness of €1C to €k in some Mss. (e.g. D) increases
the uncertainty. But in xii. 49 é€& éuwavrov...é\a\noa—as compared with dadety azo
éuavrod (or, €avrov) in vil. 17, 18, xiv. 10, xvi. 13—perhaps indicates a more
emphatic statement, made at the end of Christ’s public teaching, that He did not
speak “ out of” His own treasure but from that which the Father gave Him.
[25864] According to W.H., Mary Magdalene is called Mapia in xix. 25,
xx. I, I1, but Mapidu in xx. 16, 18. According to Tischendorf, it should be
Mapidu throughout. If W.H. are correct, the explanation suggests itself that
435 2Bu2
[2586 | ARRANGEMENT AND VARIATION
Mapla was used in evangelistic narrative up to the point where Jesus called her by
her Aramaic name xx. 16 ‘‘ Mary (Mapidu),”’ and that here, and in the subsequent
xx. 18, the Aramaic form was retained.
[2586 c] In xi. r1—12 Kekolunrar—el Kekolunrat swijoeTat, SS has ‘‘ 2s lying
down...sleepeth,” a *‘ obdormit...dormit,” b, e, f ‘* dormit...dormit” (agreeing with
D xowGra...kouuara, but d has ‘‘dormivit...dormit”). Nonnus has etidec...
kvwoce. Perhaps the desire to explain the alleged misunderstanding of the
disciples caused some translators to represent the disciples as using a different word
from Christ’s when repeating what He had said. On the other hand an ancient
comment (Cramer on xi. 7) boldly asserts ‘‘ They did not really think it was sleep,
but supposed Him to be talking in a dark saying (aivéyyarc).” The writer declares,
not without force, that it would be senseless for the disciples to suppose that their
Master would go ‘‘fifteen furlongs (sic)’”’ to wake the sleeping man. Cramer
(Vol. ii. 316) prints, as from Origen, an explanation suggesting that Thomas
supposed the Lord to mean that He was ‘‘going down to the place of the
[departed] souls (karaBdvros eis 76 Tv YuxXSv Xwpiov)” to wake Lazarus, and that
hence the disciple desired to die with his Master.
[2586 7] In x. 28—g odx apace: Tis...0vdeis dUvarar apmadfew, is any difference
intended by the variation of o¥...71s and ovéels? The former, in (1) LXX and
(2) N.T., means ‘‘not a single man.” (1) In LXX, ovk dvOpwros, or avOp. ot, =
““not any one,” Heb. ‘“‘z0t a man,” or ‘man not,” in Josh. i. 5, Ezek. vii. 13 etc.
Tis, ‘‘any,” often= Heb. ‘‘man” in the phrase ‘‘zfa man,” but never (Oxf. Conc.)
in ‘‘mot aman.” In2 SS. xix. 22 ‘‘shall [any] man die...?,” 0 @avarwAjceral ts
dvip, and in Sir. x. 24 ovx éorw a’ray ms, the Gk seems to mean ‘‘xot a single
one.” Ov...7t seems to mean ‘‘70t a single thing” in LXX (where there is no
corresponding Heb.) in Job xxxv. 15 ovx éyrw mapamTwpda Tt, Prov. xv. 23 otdé uh
ely xalpidy Tt, Wisd. xi. 24 006 yap ay puody Te KareoKevacas (comp. Judith il. 13
ov mapaBnon & mt). (2) In N.T., ves, re etc., after ob or my, appear to be
emphatic in Mk iv. 22 marg., Mt. viii. 28, xi. 27 ovdels...oU0€...7US, xii. 19, xxii. 46
obdels €btvaro...ovde éero\unoév Tis, Lk. xi. 36 etc. In Mk v. 37 otk adijxey ovdeva
the parall. Lk. viii. 51 has odk apixer...7wd (al. ovdéva). It is very emphatic in
1 Cor. ii. 2, iv. 5, 1 Thess. ii. 9, 2 Thess. iii. 8, 1 Pet. iv. 15 etc. In 2 Pet. ili. 9
uh Bovdduevds twas arodéobar GANA TavTas...xwpfcae shews an exceptional use of
the pl. Perhaps the writer means ‘‘not desiring that some should perish [while
others are saved] but that all should come to repentance.”
[2586 ¢] In Mt. xi. 27, xxii. 46 o¥d€...71s is stronger than the preceding ovdels.
Here (x. 28—g) it is stronger than the fo//owing ovdeis. The question is at first
about ‘‘snatching”’ from the Son, and it is said, emphatically, that ‘of any” can
snatch from the Son. Afterwards, when ‘‘snatching” from the Father is spoken
of, stress is laid, not on ‘‘anyone,” but on the zotzon of ‘‘snatching” :—
“ there is no such thing as snatching from Him,’—where it is better (2767) to read
ovdels dprave: with Origen; but in any case, the ver, not the Pronoun, is emphatic.
If John had wished to emphasize the pronoun he might have used (2257) ov...
ovdels.
436
Cri ee il
REPETITION
S$1. Zhe nature of Johannine repetition
[2587] Johannine repetition may be roughly classified as (1) word-
repetition, (2) phrase-repetition. In (1), the repetition follows closely
in the context, e.g. “confessed and denied not and confessed.” In (2),
it is sometimes of the nature of a refrain, as in “A little while and ye
shall see me,” “‘ Feed my sheep,” ‘ All that thou hast given me” etc.
Repetition may, or may not, be accompanied with variation ef order,
such as we find in one of the prayers before sleep in the Jewish
Prayer Book: ‘ Behold, He that guardeth Israel will neither slumber
nor sleep.” This is “¢o be said three times” apparently without
variation. But the next sentence is varied thrice, as follows :—‘“ For
thy salvation I hope, O Lord. I hope, O Lord, for thy salvation.
O Lord, for thy salvation I hope (40 de sazd three times)'.” Few or
none of the Johannine variations will be found to present any
ambiguity ; but they are of importance as illustrating the deliberate
and poetic arrangement of large parts of the Fourth Gospel and the
weight and mystical meaning attached by the author to certain
utterances, and indicated by him in twofold, threefold, and sevenfold
repetition.
1 [2587 a] Jewish Prayer Book, transl. by Rev. S. Singer p. 296. In the
Confession on a Death-bed (p. 317) ‘‘ The Lord reigneth ; the Lord hath reigned ;
the Lord shall reign for ever and ever” is to be said three times, and so is
** Blessed be His name, whose glorious kingdom is for ever and ever.” But ‘‘the
Lord He is God” is to be said seven times. Presumably, and appropriately, there
is to be only one utterance of the final confession of the unity of God: ‘‘ Hear,
O Israel : the Lord our God, the Lord is one.’’ But even here the bald truth
might have been expressed by ‘‘ The Lord our God is one,” and the addition of
**the Lord”’ suggests a ‘‘threefold effect”’ like that in the first sentence of the
Fourth Gospel.
437
[2588] REPETITION
§ 2. Jewish canons of repetition
[2588] Jesus is represented as saying to the Jews “Yea even in
your own law it is written that the witness of two men is true.” The
passage referred to says, “At the mouth of two witnesses or at the
mouth of three witnesses shall a matter be established’.” This would
naturally lead to a discussion as to the matters for which, severally,
the witnesses should be “two” or “three.” Philo says (i. 243)
“A holy matter (aywov zpa@ypa) is approved (doximagerar) through
three witnesses (6:4 tpwov paptvpwr).” Commenting on the words of
the Psalmist ‘‘The Lord spake once, ¢zeice I have also heard this,”
he connects terrestrial “hearing” with the imperfect ‘ dad.”
Elsewhere he explains the idiomatic Hebrew reduplications of nouns
and verbs as indicating a twofold application to body and to spirit’.
Scripture, he asserts, never sets down a superfluous word, and never
commits ‘ tautology—the worst kind of verbosity *”
[2589] In Rabbinical literature we find much allusion to twofold
but not much to threefold witness. Philo is fuller on the latter:
We must not, he says, delight in casual witness, but must believe
that the [Supreme] God is very near us: ‘For there is no need,
says the sacred writer (Deut. xxx. 12), to go away to heaven, nor yet
to travel across sea, in search of the Good: for it 1s near and close
to each. And he divides it [ze. the Good] ¢#reefold— most naturally.
1 [2588 a] Deut. xix. 15, referred to in Jn vill. 17. Westc. says, ‘‘ The exact
form used here is found in St John of the old Scriptures only in this place
(compare xx. 31). It is the common form of citation in other books. St John
elsewhere uses the resolved form (yeypaupévoy éoriv), which is read here by Cod.
Sin.’ Apparently yéypamrac é7t is here used to introduce the substance of
a quotation not given exactly. It would be absurd to take “7s ¢rue” (‘‘the
witness of two men ?s ¢vwe”) as meaning anything more than ‘‘ 7s Zo be regarded as
true.”
2 [2588] Philo i. 284—s, on Ps. xii. rr and Ixxv. 8. Ps. Ixii. 11 is quoted
by Nedarim iii. 2 (Schwab viii. 179) to explain the apparent contradictions of the
Law; and the Targ. has ‘‘ God spake one daw...we heard tt twice from Moses.”
3 [2588c¢] See Philo i. 63 (on Gen. ii. 16 ‘‘ eating thou mayest eat”) and i. 129
(Gen. xxii. 17 “ Blessing I will bless”) and i. 554 (Ex. xxi. 12 ‘‘let him die the
death”). On Lev. xviii. 6 (lit. and LXX) ‘‘man man shall not approach” Philo
says (i. 267) ‘ His saying ‘man, man,’ not once but twice, is a sign that the
meaning is not the [man] of [mere] body and soul but the [man] of virtue. For
this is really the true [man] (4H rdv éx cwparos K. Puxijs ada Tov dpern Kexpnucvoy
Snotcbat. “Ovrws yap 6 ddnPuds ov'rds éorw).”’
4 [2588d@] Philo i. 529 od saxporoylas rd davdédrarov eldos TavTo\oylav
EMWLTETHOEUKE.
438
REPETITION [2590]
‘For,’ says he, ‘it is in thy mouth and in thy heart and in thy hands,’
that is, in speech, purpose, and act’.” Then, after quoting, from
Deuteronomy, “Ask thy father, and he shall declare unto thee,” he
protests that no human “ father” can describe the immemorial past,
but the “father” must mean “the Right Logos®.” Afterwards comes
the conclusion, ‘‘Now a holy matter is approved through three
witnesses*,” where there seems to be an underlying assumption that,
since the nature of the highest Good is threefold, the nature of the
testimony to the highest truth, and to that which is “holy,” must
also be threefold’.
[2590] As regards twofold repetition Philo says that there are
“two divine Words (Verba), one, the pillar and support of the world
of reason, the other of the world of sense...two Reasons (Rationes)
of the twofold Universe, shewing forth foreordained and fixed event,
that is to say, the harmonious connexion of all things’,” and this
harmonizes with a mystical view found in Jewish Midrash that “‘ ¢zeo
words,’ when found together in Scripture, denote a twofold fulfil-
and “in the kingdom _ below®.”
oP
ment—‘“in the kingdom above
1 Philo i. 241.
2 Philo i. 242, quoting Deut. xxxii. 7.
3’ Philo i. 243;
4 Comp. Philo ii. 19g—20 on ‘‘the three strangers” seen by Abraham (Gen.
xvili. 1 foll.) and (i. 657) on Jacob’s pillar as representing a threefold recognition
of God.
5 Philo (P.A. 510) (transl.) on Ex. xxv. I1—I4.
6 [2590a] Thus Schottg. (ii. 67) quotes Bammidbar r. xv. f. 230. 1 as
connecting Is. Ixil. ro, lvil. 14 “‘ sternite, sternite, viam’’ with Ezek. xi. 19, as
implying (1) a ‘‘clearing away” of the ‘‘stones” by men, and (2) an ‘ eradica-
ting” of the ‘‘stony heart” by the Messiah. Zé. ii. 71 quotes Vayékra r. x. f. 153.
3 ‘‘ Dixit Deus S. B. ad Iesaiam : ‘ Omnes prophetae proferunt vaticinia simplicia,
tu autem consolationes duplices,’”’ in support of which are alleged Is. xl. 1
“* Comfort ye, comfort ye,” li. g *‘ Awake, awake,” li. 12 ‘“‘/, Z, am he that
comforteth you,” li. 17 ‘‘ Arouse thyself, arouse thyself,” \xi. 10 “ Rejoicing I will
rejoice.”
[2590 4] It is interesting to note how Onkelos (followed by Jer.) deals with the
repetition in Ex. xv. 16, which is really nothing but poetic repetition for emphasis :
“* Until thy people, O Lord, fass over [Arnon], until thy people whom thou hast
redeemed fass over | Jordan].” All Jewish commentators of the first and second
century would agree with Philo that no word of Scripture is ‘‘ tautological.” But
they would defend it against the charge of tautology in different ways. Non-
mystical writers would try to supply references to two distinct historical events ;
mystical writers would explain by reference to ‘‘the kingdom above” and ‘‘the
kingdom below.”
[2590¢] Hor. Heb. (i. 84) quotes (from Menachoth ch. x. and TJosapAt. ibid.) a
439
>
[2591 | REPETITION
St Paul assumes that the Corinthians are familiar with the Deutero-
nomic saying above quoted—when he says, “This is the ¢#z7vd time
that I am coming to you. At the mouth of fwo witnesses or ¢hree
shall every word be established’ ”—and his Scriptural illustrations of
the doctrine about ‘‘the second man,” who is ‘“‘of heaven,” indicate
that Jewish canons of sacred writing would very soon influence
writers, and especially mystical writers, of Gospels intended largely for
Greeks
S$ 3. Repetition through negation
[2591] The Fourth Gospel shews traces of another Jewish canon,
of which little or no mention seems to have been made by Philo,—
namely, that a full statement includes the negative as well as the
positive aspect of a fact. Expressions on which it might be based
are frequent in O.T., such as “I shall zo? die but live,” “The dead
praise zof the Lord...but we will bless the Lord that live,” ‘ ot
unto us, O Lord, but unto thy name,” “ of their own arm but thy
right hand ”—all of which are in the Psalms*. It does not appear to
have been formulated in early Jewish literature; and the principal
authority for it is the work Sofar, known to be of late origin as
a whole but generally acknowledged to contain elements of great
quaint tradition combining the ‘‘twice”’ and the ‘‘ thrice,” apparently because the
“*twice”’ denoted certainty and the ‘‘ thrice” certainty about a holy matter (i. 84):
“* The sheaf of first-fruits was reaped from the Ashes-valley of the brook Kedron.
The first day of the feast of the Passover, certain persons, deputed from the
Sanhedrim, went forth into that valley...And the reason of the pomp was...
because the Baithuseans, or Sadducees, did not think well of doing that action on
that day: therefore, that they might cross that crossing opinion, they performed
the business with as much show as could be. ‘When it was now even, he on
whom the office of reaping lay, saith, ‘‘ The sun is set’’; and they answered,
“* Well.” —‘‘ The sun is set’ ; and they answered, ‘‘ Well.””—‘‘ With this reaping-
hook”’; and they answered, ‘‘ Well.”—‘‘ With this reaping-hook”; and they
answered, ‘‘ Well.””—‘‘In this basket’’; and they answered, ‘‘ Well.”—“‘ In this
basket’; and they answered, ‘‘ Well.”—If it were the sabbath, he said, ‘‘ On this
sabbath”; and they answered, ‘‘ Well.”—‘‘On this sabbath’; and _ they
answered, ‘‘ Well.”—‘‘I will reap”’; and they answered, ‘‘ Reap.”—‘‘I will
reap’’; and they answered ‘‘Reap.’’ This he said ¢4rzce; and they answered
thrice, *° Well.”?”
AI Cfoyy, sabi, oe
2 1 Cor. xv. 45—7 ‘* So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living
soul, the last Adam [became] a life-giving spirit.... The second man is of
heaven.” The amount of quotation in this passage is not clear.
3 Ps. cxvili. 17, cxv. 17—18, cxv. 1, xliv. 3.
440
REPETITION [2592]
antiquity. Expressed in the words of Gratz!, who does not err on
the side of exaggerating the importance of Sofar, the canon is as
follows: ‘All laws of the Torah are to be considered as parts and
constituents of a higher world; they resolve themselves into the
mysteries of the masculine and feminine principle (positive and
negative). Only when both parts meet together does the higher
unity arise.”
S 4. Repetition in the Synoptists
[2592] The Synoptic Gospels contain but few repetitions. These
are mostly in traditions peculiar to one or two writers, and of a very
different character from those of the Fourth Gospel. For example,
“Tf thy hand cause thee to stumble,” repeated thrice by Mark with
the substitution of “foot” and “eye” for “hand”—a tradition
condensed by Matthew and omitted by Luke—is manifestly of a
concrete and non-mystical character. Non-mystical also, and
manifestly rhetorical, are the repetitions of “‘ A greater than Solomon
is here” (varied as “A greater than Jonah is here”), “ Woe unto you,
scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites,” ‘‘ Ye have heard that it hath been
said to them of old time,” “Thy.Father, who seeth in secret, shall
reward thee” etc.? Emotional repetition of a single word, such as
that of Isaiah quoted above (2590 a), is found in Christ’s lamentation
over the Holy City (Jerusalem, Jerusalem”)*: but the Fourth
1 History of the Jews, Eng. Transl. iv. 16.
2 Mk ix. 43—7, Mt. xviii. 8—g.
3 Mt. xii. 41—2, Lk. xi. 312, Mt. xxili. 14—29, Mt. v. 21, 33, Mt. vi. 4, 6,
18.
4 [2592 a] Mt. xxiii. 37, Lk. xiii. 34. On the other hand, a mystical meaning
is perhaps assumed by the editors or scribes of some early Mss. and versions of
N.T. which represent Jesus as saying, ‘‘ Young man, young man,” ‘‘ Maiden,
maiden,” ‘* Lazarus, Lazarus.’ Aphraates says (om. viii. 6) ‘‘ By ¢wo words He
raised up each of them” ; and ‘‘the former is this resurrection, the latter is the future
resurrection.” Comp. Geresh. R. (Wunsche p. 268) on Gen. xxii. 11 *‘ Abraham,
Abraham,” where the reduplication is explained by one Rabbi as indicative
of ‘‘love and encouragement” but by another thus: ‘‘ God desired thereby to say
to him that it should extend ¢o him and to his posterity for merit (es werde ihm und
der Nachwelt zum Verdienste (Ruhme) gereichen). There is no generation in
which there is not one like Abraham or Jacob (Gen. xlvi. 2 ‘Jacob, Jacob’) or
Moses (Ex. iii. 4 ‘ Moses, Moses’) or Samuel (1 S. iii. 10 ‘ Samuel, Samitel’).” In
Ps. xc. 17 (lit.) ‘and the work of our hands establish thou upon us azd (R.V.
yea,) the work of our hands establish thou,” the reduplication is omitted by Targ.
and by LXX (and the whole is mistransl. by Syr.), but it follows xc. 16 ‘‘ let thy
work appear unto thy servants and thy glory upon ¢hezr children,” so that the
second clause might well be taken as referring to posterity.
441
[2593] REPETITION
Gospel contains nothing of this kind. Perhaps the nearest Synoptic
approximation to Johannine repetition is in Mark’s version of the
Rich Ruler, where the words “ How hardly shall they that have riches
enter into the kingdom of God” are followed by “Children, how
hard it is to enter into the kingdom of God!”—a repetition that
is omitted by the parallel Matthew and Luke. Others might be
mentioned, but few or none like those in the Fourth Gospel as will
appear later on.
[2593] Repetition by negation in the Synoptists is more frequent
comparatively in Mark than in Matthew, and in Matthew than in
Luke. Mark alone inserts the negative clauses in “Receiveth zot
me but him that sent me” and “ With men it is impossible du¢ not
with God,” and the positive clauses in “Is not able to stand dut
hath an end” and “ Hath not forgiveness...dut zs Ziable to condemna-
tion®.” Also, where Mark and Matthew write “ Have no root...dut
believe for a season,” Luke changes the construction so as to avoid
ovx...ad\Ada", and many passages containing this construction are
altogether omitted by him or given differently, e.g. ‘““The Son of
man came of to be ministered unto dv¢ to minister®.” Where Mark
and Matthew say that those who shall be raised from the dead “do
not marry...dut are as angels,” Luke has “do not marry...for neither
can they die any longer, for they are angel-like®,” and this and other
passages indicate that he, or the documents that he followed, some-
times eschewed the construction that abounds in Mark’s and
Matthew’s versions of Christ’s words, “ zof this du¢ that’.” But the
three Synoptists agree in retaining ovx...dAAa in the sayings “ ot
they that are whole...du¢ they that are sick,” ‘‘ /Vot the righteous
but sinners,” “She is zot dead but sleepeth,” “ Mot so-with you,
1 Mk x. 23—4.
2 Mk ix. 37 as comp. with Mt. x. 40, Lk. ix. 48, also Mk x. 27, Mt. xix. 26,
Lk. xviii. 27.
3 Mk iii. 26, Mt. xii. 26, Lk. xi. 18, also Mk iii. 29, Mt. xii. 32, Lk. xii. 10.
4 Mk iv. 17, Mt. xiii. 21; Lk. viii. 13 of instead of dAdd.
>» Mk x. 45, Mt. xx. 28; Lk. xxii. 27 ‘‘But I am in the midst of you as he
that serveth.”
68 Mk xii. 25, Mt. xxii. 30, Lk. xx. 35—6.
7 [2593 a] In Christ’s words, besides the passages above quoted or referred to,
Mk alone has ov« (or u%)...dAX4 in Vi. Q, Vil. 19, Xi. 23, xiii. 11a, xiii. 20; Mk-Mt.
alone in Mk x. 8 and Mt. xix. 6, Mk x. 40 and Mt. xx. 23, Mk xiii. 11 6, Mt. x.
20. In Mk vii. 15, Mt. xv. r1 and Mk viii. 33, Mt. xvi. 23, Lk. is wanting.
442
REPETITION [2594 |
but...,” “God is not God of the dead éut of the living,” “ ot my
will...du¢ thine.” The evidence tends to shew that our Lord
frequently used this form of speech in His doctrine, and that His
usage, in this respect, is better represented by Mark than by Luke.
$5. Zhe Johannine Prologue
[2594] Before giving a list of Johannine repetitions, twofold,
threefold, and sevenfold, it will be convenient to touch on the first
six verses of the Gospel from the point of view of the “canon of
repetition,” including also the “canon of negation” above mentioned
(2591), and adding a few remarks on the context. The first sentence,
for example, contains three statements about “the Word.” Schottgen
tells us that “when one word in the sacred text is twice or thrice
repeated, then the Cabbalists multiply that event and make many
persons or events out of one’.” Doubtless it would be an ana-
chronism (as well as a fault of judgment) to impute to John such
fancies as these. Yet it is probable that he followed Jewish tradition
as well as prophetic inspiration in his three repetitions of ‘the
Word,” implying a threefold aspect, first, the Word in itself, and
then the Word in two other aspects: “In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with the Divine Being’, and Divine Being
was the Word.” ‘The three relations of the Logos are then summed
up thus: “This [ze the Word conceived as above] was in the
1 [25936] See the parall. to Mk ii. 17, v. 39, x. 43, xii. 27, xiv. 36. In
Mk i. 44 (Mt. sim.) Lk. v. 14 changes undevi undév eins to mapriyyyerdev...undevi
eimrety so as to exclude the negative portion of ui...d\\a from Oratio Recta.
[2593] In the Sermon on the Mount, ovx«...d\Xd occurs in Mt. v. 17, 39, Vi- 13
(‘S Lead us zot...62¢ deliver us from evil”), vi. 18, vii. 21: but Lk. omits either the
phrase, or the phrase and its context. In Mt. xvi. 22, Lk. omits the phrase.
[2593 @] A curious exception to Synoptic usage occurs in Mk iv. 21 pyre...7)...
ovx iva...; where Mt. v. 15 and Lk. viii. 16, xi. 33 have dAda after a negative. In
Mk 1. 22, W. H. bracket the d\Ad-clause, giving it unbracketed in parall. Mt. Lk.
27718 3 On.
3 [2594a] ‘*‘ With the Divine Being,” mpés tov 6edv. The author might have
written mpds Gedy here as ini. 6 he has mapa Oeob, and in xiii. 3 awd Oeod. But he
apparently wishes (as does Philo i. 655) to call attention to the distinction between
deds and 6 @eds. In the last clause, ‘‘ the Word” though it comes last (as in Gk)
is subject, and we should express it more naturally in English by ‘‘the Word was
Divine Being.” This is stronger than saying ‘‘the Word was divine (@e@os).” It
means that the Word must be regarded as ‘‘ God,” but never apart from the
relationship described as ‘‘ being with, or towards, ¢he [one] God.”
443
[2595] REPETITION
beginning with the Divine Being,” a summary that is not tauto-
logical ; for it teaches us that the three propositions about the Logos
were all true “in the beginning.”
[2595] There follows a sentence in chiasmus, which also contains
a negation: ‘All things through him! came into being ; and without
him came into being not even one [thing].” From the logical point
of view the second clause is superfluous ; but it is suggestive of the
possibility that a thing mzght be “without him,” i.e. apart from the
Word, apart from law, order, and harmony. Grant that “all things
came into being” through the Word, does it follow that they may
not fall away so as to be ‘‘without him”? ‘This phrase prepares the
way for the subsequent mention of “darkness” (which is “ without
the light”). Moreover the sentence, beginning with “all” and
ending with “one,” suggests (though it does not state) that ‘ with-
out” the Logos or Word, there is no oneness or unity.
[2596] The writer began by three propositions about the Word,
telling us first what the Word was ‘‘zz” (‘‘z7 the beginning”). Now he
calls our attention to ¢hat which is “in” the Word—first defining it
as “life,” and then stating two facts about it:—i. 4 “That which
hath come into being*® in Him was life, and the life was the light of
men; and the light in the darkness shineth and the darkness ap-
prehended it not.” But in these three propositions the same subject
is not repeated (as it was above, “the Word”). The construction
goes forward step by step, the predicate in one clause being repeated
as the subject of the next, so as to suggest cause and effect*®. More-
over, whereas the first verse contained one tense (7v) thrice repeated,
this contains three predicative tenses (jv, dative, and xaréAaPev)
suggesting that we have passed from the Eternal “was” into the
conditions of change and time. We have also been brought down
from “God” to “men.” Immediately after the mention of “men”
there has come a mention of “ darkness” as that in which “the light
1 [2595a) Ad av’rod, ‘through him” or ‘‘ through it.” It is most unfortunate
that English does not allow us to retain the deliberate ambiguity of the Gk,
which gradually prepares the way for the revelation of the Logos or Word, as
a Son.
* [2596 a] On yéyovey see 2478. It seems to imply that although
came into being” (aorist) through the Word, yet not ‘‘all things” retain the state,
so to speak, of ‘‘ having come into being” thus. Only that which retains the state
Ison uikers
* [25964] Comp. Rom. v. 4—5 ‘‘ tribulation worketh patience, and patience
experience, aud experience hope, and hope maketh not ashamed.”
444
‘all things
REPETITION [2598 |
{of men] shineth.” Last comes a negation, discussed elsewhere
(1735 e—v), “the darkness apprehended not” the light. This—
whether it means “did not overcome” or “did not apprehend ” or
both—apparently implies something suggestive of failure or conflict.
[2597] After “men” comes mention of ‘‘a man,” 1. 6 “There
came into being a man (éyéveto av@pw7os) sent from God, his name
[was] John.” The writer could have said simply, “‘A man named
John was sent by God” or “God sent a man named John.” But he
apparently wishes to draw a distinction between “was” above (‘In
the beginning was the Word”) and ‘‘came into being” here (“‘ there
came into being a man”). Perhaps, too, he wishes to suggest a
distinction between “the Word was with God” and “a man sent
from God.” Next follows a statement that this man ‘“‘came to be
a witness,” which might have been briefly and naturally expressed
by saying simply that he ‘‘came to be a witness about the light.”
But this Gospel, in accordance with the canon of twofold repetition,
throws the statement into what may be called two ‘“‘witness-clauses” :
“This [man] came [fo be] for a witness, that he might bear witness
about the light, that all might believe through it (2302—4).” Then,
in accordance with the canon of negation, the fact is restated after
a negative: ‘He was xof the light, du¢ [he came, or, it was ordained
(2063, 2105 foll.)| in order that he might bear witness concerning the
light.”
S$ 6. Johannine repetition through negation
[2598] This is very frequent both in narrative and in words of
Christ. Ini. 20 “and confessed and denied not and (A.V. but) confessed,”
the negative (ov) is followed by “avd” (instead of “but (4AXa),” which is
almost invariably used). Very frequently the negation means ‘“ xot of
man,” or ‘“‘zot of this or that lower kind,” or “zo¢ evil”; and the
affirmation means “ du¢ of God,” or ‘‘du¢ of a higher kind” or ‘‘ du¢
good,” e.g. i. 13 ‘‘ot...nor yet from the will of man, dut from God,”
ii. 16 “should zo¢ perish du¢ should have life eternal,” i. 17 “ for
God sent zof his Son...that he should judge the world du¢ that the
world through him should be saved,” v. 24 ‘Cometh zof into
judgment, du¢ hath passed from death into life,” v. 30 “I seek
not mine own will, du¢ the will of him that sent me?.”
1 It is comparatively seldom that ov«...d\dAd introduces evil as in iii. 36 ‘‘ shall
not see life dt the wrath of God abideth on him.” But the negation of the good
follows the good, without ovx...a\Ad, in xiv. 23—4 ‘‘If any one loveth me he will
keep my word...he that loveth me not keepeth not my words.”
445
[2599] REPETITION
[2599] Instances of repetition with py are less frequent. The
py clause comes second in iil. 18 ‘He that believeth in him is not {to
be| judged. He that believeth not (6 py x.) hath been judged already” ;
v. 23 “that all may honour the Son even as they honour the Father.
He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father, who sent
him”; xiv. 234 “Jf any one love me he will keep my word...he that
loveth me not keepeth not my words.” The py clause comes first in
x. 1—2 ‘He that entereth not through the door...is a thief and a
robber, but he that entereth through the door is shepherd of the
sheep,” xv. 2 “very branch tn me that beareth not (pn pépov) fruit
he taketh it away, and every [branch] that beareth fruit he cleanseth it.”
[2600] There is no special ambiguity arising out of these con-
structions or out of John’s general use of the negative. But it is
worth noting that od occurs in his Gospel almost as often as in Mark
and Luke taken together. And we may often perceive how the
negation leads the reader towards an affirmation in a very suggestive
and stimulating way, as when our Lord says, “I have wo¢ come from
myself,” “I am zoft alone,” “I speak zo¢ from myself,” “I seek zot
mine own glory,” and “I will zo¢ leave you orphans',” preparing the
way for some positive doctrine. The negative, however, is not often
thus used in communicating the highest kind of truth. After stating
that the Baptist came to bear witness about the light, the evangelist
proceeds, “He was wot the light”; and his description of the
“witness” is as follows: “And this is the witness...And he con-
fessed and denied not and confessed, ‘I am zof the Christ’”—the
two subsequent answers being also negative (“I am wot,” “Vo”)?.
Then, and not till then, follows the positive testimony. The writer
perhaps feels that divine teaching is often a ‘‘ dark saying ” misunder-
stood for a time, and that the interpreter must explain by negatives,
“not this du¢ that.” At all events the last saying of Jesus recorded
in this Gospel affords an instance of a “not...but” correcting a
misunderstanding: ‘‘ But Jesus said zo¢ unto him that he was not
oe GN kane 77 a bees
§ 7. Twofold repetition in the Baptists teaching
(2601] The teaching of the Baptist, being rudimentary, contains,
as might be expected, several instances of twofold repetition. First
1 vii. 28, viii. 16, xii. 49, vill. 50, xiv. 18.
u
2 i, 20—21, dosh sy
440
REPETITION [2602]
the evangelist speaks, 1. 7—8 “‘John...came for witness ¢hat he might
wetness concerning the light...he was not the light, but [came] ¢hat he
might witness concerning the light.” Then the Baptist (probably, 1927)
speaks, 1. 15 (W.H. marg.) “ Zhis was he (lit.) that (ov) 7 said,” re-
peated with variation in 1. 30 “ Zhis ts he in behalf of whom (irép ov)
I said'.” The participial clause “‘e that cometh after me” is also
repeated twice*. So is the difficult sentence, “He zs become before
me because he was first in respect of me*.” The mission to “ baptize
in water” is also twice stated as a preparation for something higher’.
[2602] The words, ‘“ Behold, [here ts| the lamb of God” are
twice repeated; first, without mention of any particular hearers,
“Behold, {here is| the lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the
world,” then, in the presence of two of John’s disciples, “ Behodd,
[here ts| the lamb of God’.” The descent of the Spirit is twice
attested, “JZ have beheld,” “J have seen”; but it is also predicted by
God Himself (“ Upon whomsoever ¢hou shalt see the Spirit descend-
ing ”), so that it gives the impression of being twice attested on earth
and once from heaven, being one of those “holy things” described
by Philo as “approved by three witnesses.” Strictly speaking, the
1 [2601 a] See 2369—T71. ‘The repetitions in the context—i. 14 ‘‘ We beheld
his glory, glory as of [the] only begotten,” and ‘‘ full of grace and truth” followed
by i. 17 ‘‘ the grace and the truth” —probably spring unconsciously from a writer
reflecting on the way in which the ‘‘ glory” of heaven is seen in the ‘‘ glory” on
earth, and in which ‘‘the grace and the truth” that were latent in the law of
Moses were revealed in the person of the Messiah. See also 2718—22.
2 [2601 4] i. 15 6 dmicw pov épxduevos. In i. 26, W.H. have démicw pov
épxouevos (with BN) without the article; SS has ‘‘he that cometh,” Origen
varies. The testimony of B as to 0 following € is sometimes untrustworthy. In
i. 30 dmlow sou épxerat, the vb is indicative.
3]. 15, 30, see 1896—1900 and 2665—7.
4 [2601 c] 1. 26 *‘ 7 baptize in water...,” i. 31 ‘‘ For this cause came TI baptizing
* The mention of ‘‘ baptizing in the spirit” is assigned, not to the
Baptist (as in the Synoptists) but to God, i. 33 ‘‘ Upon whomsoever thou shalt
see the spirit descending...¢izs is he that is to baptize in the Holy Spirit.”
5 [2602 a] This happens on the third day. The account of the first day (i.
19—28) contains the Baptist’s zega¢zve testimony, ending with “ one whom ye know
not..., the latchet of whose shoe 7 am not worthy to loose.” The second day
(i. 29 ‘‘the morrow”) contains the first testimony to ‘‘the lamb of God,” which
testimony, however, is not recorded to have produced any effect. The third day
(i. 35 ‘fon the morrow again”) brings a repetition of the testimony to ‘‘ the lamb”:
and this second testimony being uttered in the presence of two witnesses, who
immediately become converts, results indirectly in the beginning of the Church of
Christ upon earth.
im water...»
447
[2603] REPETITION
Baptist’s testimony may be said to end here. But there is an appeal
to it later on in the section describing the close of his mission, where,
after negation and antithesis—‘“‘I am not the Christ, I am his
messenger”; “he, the bridegroom, must increase but I, the bride-
groom’s friend, must decrease ”—there follows a remarkable instance
of twofold repetition, ‘‘ He that cometh from above is above all. He
that is from the earth, from the earth he is, and from the earth he
speaketh: he that cometh from the heaven ts above all?.”
§ 8. Zwofold repetition in Christ's words
[2603] In Christ’s words, the twofold repetitions are for the
most part confined to negative or comparatively rudimentary
doctrine. The earliest of any importance is expressly said to
refer to “earth.” It describes the necessity of something more
than mere baptism by water, ii. 3 “Except a man be born from
above, he cannot see the kingdom of God,” Wi. 5 “Except a man be
born from water and the Spirit (2573, 2612) he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God” —concerning which statements and their context
Jesus says, “If I told you earthly things and ye believe not, how
will ye believe if I tell you heavenly things?” Another twofold
protest in behalf of ‘‘the spirit” is in iv. 23—4, “the true worshippers
shall worship the Father in spirit and truth...they that worship him
must worship in spirit and truth.” The following refers to the
resurrection, v. 25—-8 “the hour cometh and now is, when ¢he dead
shall hear the voice of the Son of God and they that shall have heard
shall live...the hour cometh when ad/ that are in the tombs shall hear
his voice and shall go forth.”
[2604] The belief in Christ for His works’ sake, being regarded in
this Gospel as rudimentary’, is naturally made the subject of twofold
repetition, v. 36 “for the works that the Father hath given me that
I may accomplish them, ¢he very works that I do, bear witness con-
cerning me,” compared with x. 25 “‘ the works that [ do in the name
As regards the
?
of my Father, these bear witness concerning me.
reduplication in xiv. 13—14 “IWVhatsoever ye shall ask in my name
this will 1 do...if ye shall ask |me| anything in my name this will 1
do,” it may be intended as a preparation for a further doctrine in
xv. 16 “that whatsoever ye may ask the Father in my name he may
l iii. 22—31. * ii. 23, XIV. II.
448
REPETITION [2605]
give it to you,” and xvi. 23—4 “If ye ask the Father anything he
will give it to you in my name. Hitherto ye have asked nothing in
my name. Ask and ye shall receive’.”
[2605] Further instances of twofold negative repetition, in Christ’s
words, occur as follows: v. 19, 30 “The Son can do, from himself,
nothing,’ “I can do, from myself, zothing?” ; v. 30, vi. 38 “I seek
zot mine own will but the will of him that sent me,” “zzo¢ that I may
do mine own will but the will of him that sent me”; v. 34, 41 “ But
I receive zo¢ my witness from man,” “I receive vot glory from man,”
vii. 6, 8 “ My time (kaupds) is xot yet present,” “ My time is xof yet
fulfilled.” The effect of a twofold repetition is produced both in
vii. 34—6 and in vill. 21—2 because Christ first says, and the Jews
then repeat, ‘‘Where Z (éy#) am (or, go) ye (vets) cannot come.”
Later on, Christ repeats the second of these sayings to the disciples,
xiii. 33 ‘Ye shall seek me’, and even as I said to the Jews, ‘Where
T (eye) go, ye (vpets) cannot come ’—to you also I say it now (aprt).”
Then, to Peter, He drops the emphatic pronouns, saying xill. 36
“Where I go, thou canst not follow me for the present.” All this
implies that what had been said to the Jews in one sense is repeated
to the disciples in another, which is explained to Peter. The
following is an utterance of mere condemnation, x. 25—6 “I told
you and ye believe not...... But ye delreve not because ye are not of my
sheep*.”
1 [2604a] It might be urged that the twofold use (xii. 23, xvil. 1) of
édjdvdev 7 wpa announcing that the time has come for the sacrifice and for
the ‘‘glorifying,” is to be contrasted with the sevenfold use (2625) of épyerac
n wpa referring to the time when the sacrifice shall have been consummated
in victory. But a closer examination shews that épyerac and €A7j\vbe are
combined with wpa in the description of the bitterest trial of all, which is to
leave Christ deserted and ‘“‘alone,” yet ‘‘not alone,” xvi. 32 ddod épxerat wpa Kal
eAjAvOev, closely followed by xvii. 1 Ildrep, EXjAvev ) wpa, SdEacdv cov Tov vidv.
Hence the more probable view is that €Aj\v@ev 7 wpa is used thrice as referring to
(2589) ‘‘a holy matter.”
2 [2605a] Note the emphasis laid on ovd¢v by its position at the end of the
clause or sentence, rrovetv ad’ EavTod ovdév, moeiv dm’ éuavTod ovdé&y. The saying is
repeated, without dvvawat, in viii. 28 dm’ euavrod mod ovdév, ‘‘from myself I do
nothing.”
® [2605 6] To the Jews Christ had said, viii. 21 ‘‘ Ye shall seek me and in your
sin ye shall die.” The disciples were to ‘‘seek” Jesus, after His departure, but in
a different way (2545).
4 [2605] It may be added that Christ twice says to the soldiers arresting Him
(xvill. 4, 7) ‘‘ Whom seek ye?” On this, and on its possible relations with other
sayings about ‘‘seeking,” see 2649 d—e.
A. VI. 449 29
[2606 | REPETITION
[2606] In Christ’s words, the pleonastic repetition of a noun or
verb may sometimes be sufficiently explained by the desire of
emphasis as in x. 32 “‘ Many deeds have I shewn unto you [and those]
good...For which deed of [all] those do ye stone me?” ‘The verb is
clearly emphatic in vi. 63 “The words that I have spoken unto you—
spirit ¢hey are and life they are (rvetpa eotw kal Cwyn eorw),” x. To
“that they may have life and abundantly may have [it].” It is
interesting—and probably we are intended—to compare Christ’s
words, x. 18 ‘‘ Authority have J to lay it [ze. my life] down and
authority have I again to take it,” with Pilate’s words, xix. 10
‘authority have I to acquit thee and authority have J to crucify ”—_
in view of (1593—4) the two different views of ‘ authority” here
contrasted. There is no pleonasm in the following, but the repetition
of the noun (instead of using a pronoun) adds weight: 11. 20 ‘“‘ hateth
the light and cometh not to ¢he ight,” iv. 14 “whosoever shall drink
of the water that [ shall give him...but the water that I shall give him
shall become...,” xu. 47 ‘for I came not that I might judge ¢he
world but that I might save the world,” with which compare ill. 17
“For God sent not the Son into the world that he might judge she
world but that the world might be saved through him.” In the last
two or three instances mystical meaning may be intended.
$9. Zwofold repetition in narrative
[2607] Twofold repetition in narrative may occasionally be in-
tended to emphasize a disputed or doubtful fact, as in the Anointing,
where some said that Christ’s head was anointed* but John says xii. 3
“She anointed ¢he feet of Jesus and wiped with her hair “zs feet.”
Emphasis is also laid on the piercing of Christ’s side by a “ soldier”
thus, xix. 32 ‘There came therefore ¢he so/diers...but, having come
to Jesus...they brake not his legs but one of ¢he soldiers with a spear
pierced his side.” Or it may be used for clearness after a parenthesis
as in il. 9 “ But when ¢he master of the feast had tasted...the master
1 [2606 a] In xii. 49 évro\nv dédwxev ri elrw kal Ti Nadjow, the meaning seems
to be, ‘‘what I should say [farticularly, on each occasion] and what I should
speak | generally, in proclaiming the Gospel|.” Weight is added by the pleonastic
repetition of ri, as well as by the two verbs. Comp. Rom. iil, 19 doa 6 vdmos Néyet
rots év Tw vouw Aadei, ‘whatsoever the Law says on any particular occasion it
invariably proclaims to those who are in the pale of the Law.”
2 Mk xiv. 3, Mt. xxvi. 7.
450
REPETITION [2609]
of the feast calleth,” or in scorn as in vil. 35 ‘“‘ Will he go to the
scattered people of ¢he Greeks and teach the Greeks?” It is
manifestly emphatic in u. 25 “‘he needed not that any should testify
about the [nature of | man, for he knew of himself what was in ¢he
[zature of | man,” and in the words of Thomas xx. 25 “and [unless]
I put my finger...and put my hand.” ‘There is a twofold repetition
in 1. 20 “ He confessed and denied not and confessed,” and probably a
pair of twofold repetitions with slight variations, in xix. 35 ‘‘ And he
that hath seen hath dorne witness (wewaptipyKev) and real-and-true
(aAnOw7) is his zvztness (waptupia), and he knoweth that he saith ¢rwe
(aAnO7).” But on the whole the evangelist’s tendency to twofold
repetition appears not so much in words as in the insistence on
parallelism in events, which is discussed later on (2646—9).
$10. TZwofold or threefold repetition
[2608] In Christ’s words, there occurs the twice repeated state-
ment (x. 11, 14) “Z am the good shepherd.” This describes a
condition of conflict intended to prepare the way for victory—the
shepherd contending against the wolf—and may be read as a twofold
repetition or attestation. But the addition of (x. 11) “the good
shepherd \ayeth down his life for the sheep” suggests a threefold
repetition of ‘‘¢he good shepherd,” as a separate phrase, implying a
reference to the sacrifice of Christ, which would be regarded as
(2588—9) “a holy matter,” to be triply attested. So, too, the triple
mention of the vine in xv. 1—5 “J am the true vine...if any man
abide not in ¢he vine...f am the vine” —these being the only instances
of “vine” in the Fourth Gospel—suggests a triple attestation. And,
if this is so with “good shepherd” and “vine,” it is probably true
about x. 2—g “But he that entereth through ¢he door...[ am the
door of the sheep... am the door”: and we are to regard the only
other mention of “door” (in Christ’s words) in this Gospel (‘he
that entereth not through ‘Ze door,..is a thief and a robber”) asa
negation, serving as a foil to a threefold attestation. With these
must be compared the duality of vill. 12 éyw eiue TO as Tt. Kocpov,
1x. 5 bos eiwi Tt. Koopov supplemented by xil. 46 éy@ us eis T. KOopov
éAn\va, and that of vi. 35, 48 “I am the bread of life,” supplemented
by vi. 51 “I am the bread that liveth.”
[2609] The same possibility of various interpretation occurs in
xu. 45 “he that beholdeth me beholdeth him that sent me.” ‘This, if
451 29—2
[2610] REPETITION
taken with xiil. 20 “he that recetveth me receiveth him that sent me,”
would suggest a twofold statement that the vision, and the reception,
of the Messenger on earth, are to prepare the way for a vision, and a
reception, of the Sender in heaven; but if the two are combined
with xiv. 9 “ He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” —the three
passages suggest a threefold attestation. So, too, the command
“Love one another” would be a twofold repetition if taken merely
in xill. 34 “A new command I give you that ve love one another even
as I loved you that ye also love one another”; but it is probably to
be taken as repeated a third time in xv. 12 ‘“‘ This is the command-
ment that is [peculiarly] my own that ye Jove one another even as I
loved you” (see also 2612). On the other hand the statements
xiv. 15, 23 “/f ye love me ye will keep my commandments,” “ If aman
love me he will keep my word,” are rudimentary and repeated only
twice.
[2610] In the Epistle, duality characterizes the passages that
deal with earthly testimony. We may give the name “dual ”—or
“quadruple” but certainly not “triple”—to the attestation with
which the Epistle opens, i. 1 ‘That which we have heard, that which
we have seen (éwpdaxapev) with our eyes,” followed by (zb.) ‘That
which we gazed on (é#eacape6a) and our hands handled.” Similarly
il. I12—13, containing a solemn testimony to all classes in the
1 [2609 a] Aviornm (trans.) occurs four times in Jn thus, vi. 39 avacryjcw av’rd
T. €oxaTn nuépa—where avré refers to the Church (‘‘all that thou hast given me”),
40 dvaornow altov éyw T. & 7., 44 KaYW avacTHow avTov év T. €. 7, 54 KAYO
dvactiow avrov T. €. 7. Here some may say that the language is a varied refrain
four times repeated, others that it is first a promise of resurrection to the whole
Church, and then a thrice repeated promise to individual believers. “The emphasis
n ‘‘I” inthe last three sentences, and the sing. ‘‘him,” differentiate these three
from the first sentence.
[2609 4] In the following three clauses, describing Christ’s legacy of ‘‘ peace”
(xiv. 27), the word ‘‘ peace” is twice actually repeated, and a third repetition is
suggested. In the first clause it is simply ‘‘feace,” in the second ‘‘ my peace.”
In the first clause the action is described as ‘‘/eaving” ; in the second, as ‘‘ giving”;
in the third, as ‘‘giving not as the world giveth”; and it is no longer dldwm
‘*T-give,” but éym dléwuc ‘7 give.” It would be contrary to all rules of
literature and good ta: e may almost say, of morality—to suppose that
the writer deliberately wrote the sentence according to numerical canons. But the
passage is one of the most beautiful instances of inspiration working under rule
—like the rule of poetic metre for a true poet—rule that gives life and force and
harmony to expression: ‘‘Peace 7 /eave (apinut) unto you; the peace that is
mine /-g7ve (didwut) unto you; not as the world giveth gezve 7 (éyw dldwur)
unto you.”
452
REPETITION [2611]
Church, repeats twice, to each, “I write,” “I have written.” It is
true that in this Epistle the witness is notably threefold in v. 6—8:
“This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not in the
water alone but in the water and in the blood; and the Spirit it is
that witnesseth, because the Spirit 1s the truth. Because three are
they that witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood, and the
three make up the one.” But even in this passage, the writer seems
to indicate by his arrangement of the “three” that “the water” and
“the blood” come first as representing the testimony of the life of
Jesus on earth, and that “the spirit” comes afterwards as witnessing
from heaven. The dual form of expression is naturally adopted
while the writer is describing the witness of apostles and the mani-
festation that led to it, and while his mind rests, at the outset, on
the dual aspect of the Christian message when the Son was drawing
men to the Father and when “the Holy Spirit was not yet”: (1. 2
foll.) “And the light (a) was manifested and (6) we have seen; and
we (a) wetness and (6) declare to you the life eternal, which (a) was
with the Father and (6) was manifested to us: (3) what we have
(a) heard and (0) seen, that we declare also to you, that ye too may
have fellowship with us, and indeed our fellowship is with (a) the
Father and with (4) his Son Jesus Christ.... (5) And this is the
tidings that we (a) have heard from him and (6) declare to you, that
(a) God is light and (6) darkness ts not tn him at all.”
[2611] Returning to the Gospel we may say in conclusion that
the general impression left on us by the form of its ordinary doctrine
is that of twofold attestation’. In statements made by our Lord
1 [26112] It is an interesting question whether Jn has any symbolic allusion to
twofold attestation in his remarkable use of duny aujv (instead of the Synoptic
single dujv) and dmexpiOn x. etrev (instead of the Synoptic dmoxpibeis eimev) as
introductions to utterances of Christ. In both of these, his deviation from
Synoptic usage must have seemed very strange to readers of the earlier Gospels.
It may be illustrated by the surprise that would have been felt by readers of
Boswell’s biography coming upon a new life of Dr Johnson in which ‘‘ Sz, Sz”
was regularly substituted for ‘‘ S27.”
[26114] “Aunv auny occurs twenty-five times (dau7jyv never) and is used in
predictions (i. 51, xili. 21, xiii, 38, xxi. 18) of good and of evil including the
prediction of betrayal. It introduces (viii. 58, x. 7) ‘‘I am [he]” and ‘‘I am the
door,” and on the other hand (vi. 26) ‘‘ Ye seek me...because ye have eaten of the
loaves,” and (viii. 34) ‘‘Everyone that doeth sin is a slave,” and it is thrice used
(iii. 3, 5, 11) in the Dialogue with Nicodemus. The facts suggest no special
doctrine for which the phrase is reserved.
[2611 c] ’AzrexptOn (‘Inoois) x. elev, in its last three instances, is used where
453
[2611] REPETITION
about Himself, the duality of “I am the good shepherd,” “I am the
light of the world,” “I am the door,” “I am the bread of life,”
“T am the vine,” is supplemented in such a way as to suggest a
trinity; but for the most part the doctrine is distinctly dual,
especially in the teaching of the Baptist. That there should be
passages in which the distinction is not clearly drawn is fit and
natural in a work that expresses spiritual truth with dramatic yet
natural vividness. A book made up of manifest twofold, threefold,
and sevenfold repetitions, broken by regular and systematic variations,
would be intolerably artificial. But the work we have before us
betrays nothing that could fairly be called artificiality—at least in a
Jew, trained to the study of the Bible in the literary school of Philo
(though raised up above the narrower formalities of that school by
the Spirit of Christ), and committing to paper some among many
traditions of the Christian Church, with his paraphrases and ex-
planations of them, according to the manner and pattern of the
Hebrew Scriptures and Jewish Targums. One reason for duality of
form may have been that he was profoundly impressed by the Lord’s
statement that His doctrines, without the Spirit, were “dark sayings.”
Hence perhaps, in a point of detail, the contrast between the Gospel
and the Epistle as to the “blood and water” from the Cross. The
Gospel says, “‘He that hath seen ath borne witness and true is his
witness’.” The Epistle speaks of ‘“ water” and “blood” and “spirit.”
The latter suggests trinity ; the former duality—because “the Holy
Spirit was not yet.”
there is some misunderstanding in the context, as where the Voice from heaven
is taken by some to be ‘‘thunder,” and Christ (xii. 30) explains that it came for the
sake of the multitude. It also introduces the saying to Peter (xiii. 7) ‘‘ What
I do, thou knowest not now,” and the answer to ‘‘Judas not Iscariot” (xiv. 23)
who cannot understand how a manifestation can be made to the disciples and not
to the world. At the outset of the Gospel it is used twice (i. 48, 50) in the
Dialogue with Nathanael, once before the words (misunderstood) (ii. 19) ** Destroy
this temple,” and thrice (iii. 3, 5, 10) in the Dialogue with Nicodemus, who
is supposed not to understand even elementary truths. Subsequently it is used
(iv. 10, 13) in the Dialogue with the Samaritan woman, who takes the Doctrine
of Water literally, and (from vi. 26 to viii. 14) several times in discussions with
literalising or hostile controversialists. The facts suggest that the phrase intro-
duces elementary doctrine or explanation of misunderstanding.
' xix. 35 followed by kai éxetvos oldev drt adnOH Eyer, on Which see 2383—4
and 2731.
454
REPETITION [2613]
S11. TZhreefold repetition
[2612] It is obvious that a threefold repetition of the same
saying, with little or no variation, and in the same context, would
be monotonous and unimpressive, except in special circumstances
where a refrain is intended, as in the threefold question to Peter,
“TLovest thou me?” followed by the threefold precept “ Feed my
sheep”: and, even there, the three utterances are not quite identical.
Hence, if the writer introduces this form of doctrine in Christ’s words,
it is diversified in various ways. For example, the commandment
“love one another” might be regarded as repeated twice as a com-
mandment and once more as a sign (xill. 34—5) “‘ A new command-
ment give I you that ve Jove one another; even as | loved you that ye
(emph.) also love one another: herein shall all know that ye are my
disciples if ye have love among one another”: but it is also repeated
once again (2609) as a commandment. It has been pointed out
(2608) that this variation so affects such sayings as “I am the good
shepherd” that we may regard them as either twofold or threefold
repetitions ; and the same statement applies to the doctrine about
new birth, which, though called an “earthly” doctrine from one point
of view (ill, 12), may be regarded as “‘ heavenly ” since it concerns the
Holy Spirit (iil. 3—7) “ Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man
be born from above...Except aman be born from water and the spirit...
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be dorn from above'.” In
the prediction of the suffering of the Good Shepherd, the monotony of
a repetition of “I lay down my life for the sheep” is avoided by
dropping “for the sheep” in the second clause, and “ my life for the
sheep” in the third, and by substituting for them phrases suggesting
the resurrection and the spontaneousness of the sacrifice (x. 15—18)
“7 lay down my life for the sheep...For this cause doth my Father
love me because J lay down my life that I may receive it again...No
man hath taken it from me, but J day zt down of myself.” The result
is a threefold repetition of nothing but “I lay down”: yet the
meaning is clear and the threefold effect is retained.
[2613] A triple effect is imparted to a long saying of Christ in
the following passage by the questioning of the disciples and the
1 [26122] That ‘‘baptism” in water implied something more than mere
washing in water, might be called an earthly doctrine. But what that ‘‘something
more” was, and whence it came, might be called a heavenly doctrine.
455
[2614] REPETITION
explanation of their Master: xvi. 16—19 “A Jittle, and ye no longer
behold me, and again a little, and ye shall see me...What is this that he
saith to us, A “ttle, and ye behold me not, and again a little, and ye
shall see me?...Jesus...said to them, Question ye with one another
concerning this that I said unto you, 4 UWttle, and ye behold me
not, and again a little, and ye shall see me?” In the following, which
states the absolute knowledge (otéa) of the Father possessed by the
Son, a third clause is introduced negatively: vill. 55 “Ye have no
understanding of (éyvwKare) him. But Z know (oida) him. And, if
I say 7 know (oida) him not, I shall be a liar like unto you. But
I know (otda) him'.” As in the Dialogue with Nicodemus a triple
repetition of the verb ‘70 de born” was accompanied with a double
repetition of other circumstances, so there is a triple repetition of
“he that feedeth,” with variations, in the following: vi. 54—7 “‘ He
that feedeth on my flesh and drinketh my blood hath life eternal.../e
that feedeth on my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me...he
that feedeth on me, he (emph.) shall live on account of me.”
[2614] Concerning the Wind or Breath or Spirit Christ says
(iii. 8) that man (1) hears its voice, but knows not (2) whence it
comes, and (3) whither it goes. This may refer to (1) the work,
(2) the origin, and (3) the object of the Holy Spirit, and may suggest
a threefold aspect of it. Certainly the Spirit’s “convicting ” influence
is triply described later on as referring to (xvi. 8) “sz,” “ righteous-
ness,” and “judgment.” It is also thrice mentioned (xiv. 17, xv. 26,
Xvl. 13) as “the spirit of truth®.” And in the following passage—
along with an implied threefold statement that what the Spirit will
“declare” comes from Him who is speaking, indicated by the thrice
repeated “me” or ‘‘ mine”—the words “ He shall declare unto you”
occur as a triple refrain (xvi. 13—16) ‘For he shall not speak from
himself, but what he heareth that shall he speak and things to come
(1) he shall declare unto you. He shall glorify me, for he shall take
from mine and (2) he shall declare unto you. All things that the
Father hath are mzve. For this cause said I that he taketh from
mine and (3) he shall declare unto you.” ‘The thought of the Spirit is
1 [2613 a] See 1621—9 for the difference between oiéda and ywwoxw. In only
one other passage (vii. 29) does Jesus use the words oléa a’réy of God, so that the
total number of positive repetitions is three.
* [26142] The Paraclete is mentioned positively thrice (xiv. 16, 26, xv. 26)
and negatively once (xvi. 7) ‘‘ For if I go not away the Paraclete will surely not
come unto you.”
450
REPETITION [2616]
connected with the thought of unity—unity both in the being of God
and in the Church ; and the prayer for this, which is uttered, first for
the Church as a whole, and then for the Apostles in particular, is
thrown (in both cases) into a threefold form (xvii. 21) “ That all may
be one :—even as (1) thou, Father, art in me, and (2) I in thee, that
(3) they, also, may be in us,” (xvi. 23) “that they may be one as we
are one :—(1) I in them, and (2) thou in me, that (3) they may be
perfected into one'.” Negative doctrine would naturally be seldom
expressed with threefold repetition ; but-when it points to the divine
unity an exception may be expected, as in viii. 16 “7 am not alone,”
vill. 29 “He [z.e. the Father] Zath not left me alone,” xvi. 32 “ And
Lam not alone because the Father is with me.”
[2615] As regards the use by the evangelist (in his own person)
of threefold repetition, it is most prominent in the Prologue, which
begins with a triple mention of “the Word” in the same sentence,
commented on above (2594). The last words of the Prologue (i. 18)
are not quite certain, but they are probably—as has been maintained
above (1964)—“ God no one hath seen at any time. Only begotten,
God (R.V. Son), HE THar Is in the bosom of the Father, he hath
declared him.” If so, instead of one name (R.V. txt) “ the only begotten
Son,” we may suppose the writer to mean two names, making a total
of three : (1) “ Only begotten,” (2) “ God,” (3) “ He that ts in the bosom
of the Father.” These will correspond to the three clauses in the
first verse: (1) “ln the beginning,” (2) “with God,” (3) “ God.”
This is far more symmetrical than the view that the Prologue begins
with three clauses describing the Word, and ends with two.
[2616] The act of “lifting up the eyes” is thrice attributed to
Jesus. Once also He uses the phrase as a precept, iv. 35 ‘‘ Lift up
your eyes (érapate t. 6.) and behold the lands how that they are
1 [26144] To these might have been added Christ’s triple repetition of the
doctrine that ‘the Son of man (or, 7) must be lifted up” in iil. 14, Vili. 28, xii. 32,
the last being ‘‘if 7 de /ifted wp from the earth I will draw all men unto me.”
[2614c] There remain threefold repetitions of words partly by Christ partly
by the evangelist. Of these, evyapioréw (vi. 11, 23, xi. 41) is probably accidental.
But Jn’s statement that Christ (xi. 33) ‘‘¢voudled (érdpatev) himself,” and (xiii. 21)
““was troubled in spirit,” may be intended to be read along with (xii. 27) ‘‘ Vow
zs my soul troubled,” as a threefold repetition (920). ‘There is also His doctrine of
‘*the way,” introduced with the words (xiv. 4) ‘‘ Ye know ¢he way,” to which
Thomas answers, ‘‘ How can we know ¢he way?” whereon Jesus replies ‘‘I am ¢he
way, and the truth, and the life,” which has decidedly the effect of a threefold
repetition.
457
[ 2617} REPETITION
white for harvest.” This is obviously a spiritual act. Philo (on
Gen. xvill. 2) treats it as such when he describes how Abraham,
seated at the door of his tent, “lifted up his eyes” and beheld the
three divine Persons to whom he ministered and gave bread (1608).
It is a commonplace in Jewish tradition that whatever Abraham does
in service to God, God will do, in return, to Abraham’s seed. Most
appropriately, therefore, before the Feeding of the Five Thousand,
John says that the Logos (vi. 3—5) “‘sat” with His disciples on the
mountain! and “dif/ted up [his] eyes (érapas ovv tr. 6.) and beheld that
a great multitude was coming unto him,” ze. He sees the spiritual
harvest, the seed of Abraham after the spirit, the future Church.
Then, as Abraham gave bread to the three Persons, so He gives
bread to Abraham’s children.
[2617] On the second occasion it is said (xi. 41) “ He lifted [his]
eyes upward (npev t. 6. avw) and said, ‘ Father, I thank thee that thou
didst hearken to me...,’” before the raising of Lazarus; and, on the
third (xvu. 1) “These things spake Jesus, and, having lifted up his eves
to the heaven (érdpas t. 6pbadpors airod eis Tr. ovpavev), he said, ‘ Father,
the hour hath come...’” In Isaiah (li. 6) “ Lift up your eyes to the
heavens and look upon the earth beneath” introduces a contrast be-
tween the eternal righteousness of God and the perishableness of men,
and Ibn Ezra says (though dissenting) ‘‘ Philosophers derive from this
verse the doctrine of the immortality of the soul of man.” Having
regard to the Scriptural use of the phrase, to the comments of Philo,
and to the metaphorical use of it as a precept by Christ, we are justified
in concluding that John attaches a spiritual meaning to the thrice
repeated act of our Lord, and that the last is regarded as the
climax of the three. No outward action, it is true, accompanies
the third utterance; but it prepares the way for the sacrifice on
the cross’.
1 [2616 a] As regards the ‘‘mountain,”’ Philo appears twice to use forms of the
word épixés of thoughts, ‘‘high,”’ ‘‘uplifted.” But his use of the word is based on
a mistransl. of Numb. xx. 19 ‘‘by the highway,” mapa 76 dépos, which he explains
by (1. 297) UWmAats kal peredpors Suvdmecc...xal dpixk@s Exacta oKomeiv, playing on
épexas and dpix@s, of which the latter means ‘‘ proceeding by definition.” So in
i. 299 Gd’varov yap Tov wh Tals UWndals Kal dpixats Xpwmevov ddo0ls droyvGva wey TH
Ovnra weraxNivat O€ kai peravacreioa mpds Ta ddOapra. Steph. recognises édpeckds
as applied to a mountainous district in Polybius, but not dpixéds as above.
* (2617. a] It may be noted that @eacba is twice applied to Jesus, once (i. 38)
when He sees the two disciples ‘‘following,” once (vi. 5) when He sees ‘‘that
a great multitude is coming to him.” ‘The two disciples are the firstfruits of the
458
REPETITION [2619 |
[2618] The word xpagw, “cry aloud,” applied to our Lord by
Matthew alone (or possibly by Matthew and Mark)’ is applied to
Him thrice by John on three solemn occasions. It has been pointed
out (1752 a—/) that there may have been various traditions as to the
Messiah’s not “crying aloud,” based on Isaiah xhi. 2, which may
have induced evangelists to refrain from assigning this act to Him at
any time, or at all events till the ‘‘ victory” consummated in the
crucifixion. ‘The first Johannine mention of it applied to Christ is
in vil. 28, “Jesus then cried aloud in the temple teaching and saying,
Ye know both me and ye know whence I am; and I am not come
of myself, but he is true that sent me, whom ye (emph.) know not.”
This clearly “ witnesses” to the Father. The second is in vil. 37,
“In the last day, the great one, of the Feast, stood Jesus, and cred
aloud saying, If any man thirst, let him come to me and drink. He
that believeth in me—as said the Scripture—rivers from his belly
shall flow forth, [yea,] of living water.” This “witness ”—the
evangelist himself tells us in the next verse—‘‘he spake concerning
the Spirit.” The third and last (xii. 44—50) introduces the final
public utterance of Jesus on finding Himself rejected by His
countrymen, and it is a series of statements concerning Himself :—
that He represents the Father; that He has come as the Light of the
World ; that His word will judge those who reject Him; and that
His utterances are the words of the Father. Of these three utter-
ances we may Say, roughly, that they severally witness to the Father,
the Holy Spirit, and the Son. Thus the peculiar nature of the
subject-matter supplies, in itself, some kind of probability that the
author deliberately chose this special and unusual word (xpafw) to
emphasize the public threefold witness of Jesus to a “holy matter.”
[2619] Corresponding to the threefold “crying aloud” of Christ
in His preaching of the Gospel we might naturally expect to find
a threefold manifestation of Himself after the Resurrection : and this
is stated as a fact (xxi. 14) “This is now ¢he third time that Jesus
Church; the Five Thousand are a type, though an elementary one, of the Church
as a whole. There is, therefore, an inward similarity between the two scenes,
however much they outwardly differ. BAérw is only applied once to Christ, and
then describes the Son (v. 19) ‘‘zo¢?zg” the acts of the Father in heaven. Philo,
too (1607), uses the same word to describe the Eldest Son ‘‘xo¢ing” the acts of the
Father ‘‘as patterns for His own action.”
[2618 a] Mt. xxvii. 50. Some authorities add it in Mk xv. 39, including
ACD ff, & and SS. These passages describe Christ’s death.
459
[2620] REPETITION
was manifested to the disciples (having been raised from the dead).”
Having previously mentioned one manifestation to Mary and two to
the disciples, John might have said, “This is now the fourth time.”
But presumably he lays stress on “fo the disciples” here, meaning
that it was “the third” to them collectively, excluding manifestations to
single persons. The first Epistle to the Corinthians enumerates three
manifestations to collective witnesses thus, (xv. 6—8) ‘‘ He appeared to
Cephas, then to (1) ¢he Tzwelve ; then he appeared to (2) five hundred
brethren at once;...then he appeared to James; then to (3) she
apostles all |together| (trois aroarodos waow). But last of all he
appeared as unto one born out of due time, yea, even to me.” If
both writers were to be supposed to have known all the manifestations,
and to be here enumerating all the manifestations they knew, it would
follow that the manifestation here mentioned by John in which
Christ sends forth Peter and his companions to “feed the sheep ” is
identical with the one described by Paul as being “to the apostles
all [together].” But John mentions only seven disciples as being
present.
[2620] More probably there were a vast number of manifestations
during the period described by Luke in the Acts (i. 3) as one of
“forty” days: and John uses the phrase “this is now ¢he ¢hird time”
in order to describe that particular one (out of a very large number)
which he intends to place third and last, as being the crowning
manifestation (apart from the one to Mary Magdalene)’. In con-
fining himself to ‘“ ¢iree” manifestations, he would be following
Hebrew precedent, as to phrases about Jehovah making His face to
shine on Israel. This refrain is thrice repeated in one of the Psalms’,
and the phrase occurs in the Blessing of Israel, which contains the
name of Jehovah in threefold repetition®. In view of these circum-
1 [26202] Cramer has the following (on Jn xxi. 14) Acad ré etre, ‘‘rodro Hd
tpirov épavepwOn 6 Inaot’s Tots wabnrais abrod éyepOeis éx vexpav ;” Seitac Oé\wy ex
ToUTOU OTL ov GivEXws éreXwplafey avrots ode duolws: Kal évradOa wev ov Eyer dre
épaye meT alr&v: 6 6€ Aovxds d\dNaxol abré now, bre cuvadibuevos abrots Hv Td
dé THs, obX Nuérepov elmeiv. Chrysostom (Migne) has, more briefly,"O7re dé ovdé
suwvex as émexwplafev ovd€ duolws, Néyer dre Tplrov roiiro épavyn avrots bre HyépOn ex
vexpav. See 2715.
SRE SMIKKK Ae 7 Os
* [26204] Numb. vi. 24—6 ‘‘ Jehovah bless thee and keep thee! Jehovah
make his face to shine upon thee and be gracious unto thee. Jehovah lift up his
countenance upon thee and give thee peace.’ Here the dual clauses in the three
460
REPETITION [2622 |
stances it 1s probably not accidental that the evangelist, besides
inserting ‘“¢i7rd,” mentions the verb davepow thrice, in connexion
with Christ’s resurrection, xxi. 1—14 “ Jesus manifested himself again
to the disciples on the sea of Tiberias. Now he manifested himself
thuSA cree This is the third time that Jesus manzfested himself to the
disciples.” How simple, in the first verse, to have written merely,
“Jesus manifested himself again thus...Tiberias,” using the verb once!
How can we possibly acquit the writer of that “tautology” which
Philo so gravely rebukes—unless he wrote with a sense of the
spiritual meaning and weight conveyed by this threefold repetition ?
[2621] The following passage contains a curious instance of the
threefold repetition of a mere pronoun, which, in an ordinary writer,
would naturally be set down to mere slovenliness of style :—xii. 16
“ These things (ratra) his disciples recognised not at the first. But,
when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that ¢hese things
had been written concerning him, and [that] they did ¢hese things to
him.” What are “these things”? The previous narrative describes
Jesus entering into Jerusalem riding on an ass: and it might be
supposed by one familiar with the Synoptists—who say that the
disciples found the ass and (according to Luke) placed Jesus
upon it—that John refers to this action of the disciples. But John
says expressly, ‘‘Jesus, having found an ass, sat on it.” Consequently
“these things” must refer to the fact that the multitude welcomed
Jesus as king in the words of the Psalms (cxvili. 25—6) crying
“Hosanna, blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.”
Now in the LXX of this Psalm “these things,” or its equivalent,
occurs in a very peculiar form. The whole of the Psalm may be
regarded as Messianic, and part of it is quoted by all the Synoptists
as being uttered by Jesus soon after the Entry, “ The stone that the
builders rejected....”. Then follow words, omitted by Luke, but
quoted by Mark and Matthew as follows; ‘ Zizs (atrn) is from
the Lord’”—meaning “this thing” or “these things,’ where the
evangelists (following the LXX) curiously reproduce a Hebrew
feminine use of the demonstrative pronoun.
[2622] Westcott, at this point, reminds his readers that (1) the
cry of Hosanna is from Ps. cxvili. 25, and adds, on “‘ these things,”
sentences suggest a blessing in heaven fulfilled upon earth: and the threefold
repetition suggests that the words contain ‘‘a holy matter” (2588—9).
1 Mk xii. rr, Mt. xxi. 42.
461
[2623] REPETITION
the remark, ‘‘(2) The triple repetition of the words is to be noticed.”
But he does not connect the two statements. Schottgen, however,
calls attention to the fact that the Hebrew feminine pronoun occurring
here is interpreted by the Cabbalists in a symbolical sense as referring
to the Messiah, and he quotes a very large number of passages in
which the pronoun is similarly symbolized’. But in Greek the
feminine is so unintelligible that even Origen misunderstands it and
refers it to the preceding xefady*, and perhaps the difficulty of it
was the reason, or one of the reasons, that induced Luke to omit it,
and to substitute something about a “stone” of a very different
kind. The facts, taken as a whole, point to the conclusion that
there was early difficulty as to the meaning of the words “ Zhzs
(avrn) was from the Lord”—quoted from the Psalm that was con-
nected on the one hand (through the cry of the multitude) with the
“ Hosanna” in the Entry into Jerusalem, and, on the other (through
our Lord’s quotation about “‘the sfove that the builders rejected”),
with Christ’s doctrine about the rejection of the Messiah or about
the Stone of Israel. Luke at all events omits both the cry
“Hosanna” (18164) and the difficult “this” or “these things.”
John (besides following Mark and Matthew in retaining “‘ Hosanna”)
paraphrases and amplifies an explanation of “these things” that
contains a latent symbolism. See 2757.
[2623] Another parallel instance of threefold repetition, as to a
fulfilment of prophecy, only touched on by Mark and Matthew and
given quite differently by Luke, refers to the “sponge” full of
vinegar given to Christ at the crucifixion. John introduces this as
part of the total ‘accomplishment ” (2115) of the will of the Father
by the Son “in order that the Scripture might be perfected” and as
prefaced by a special utterance of our Lord, “I thirst.” Then he
says xix. 29—30 “A vessel lay [near] full of wegar. A sponge
therefore full of ¢he vinegar...they brought near to his mouth. When
therefore he received the vinegar Jesus said, It is finished...*.”
1 (2622a] Schottg. ii. 45, ‘‘de Cabbala Exegetica,” places Ps. cxviii. 23 first
in the list of these interpretations. /d. p. 140 places Dan. ii. 35 (on ‘‘ the stone’’)
first, and then (after Ezek. i. 28) Ps. cxviii. 23. It will be remembered that
Lk. xx. 18, instead of the quotation about airy, has ‘‘ everyone that falleth on this
stone,” which W.H. also bracket in Mt. xxi. 44.
2 [2622 4] Origen (on Mt. xxi. 42) Huet i. 468 a. Field (ad /oc.) refers only to
modern commentators, not to Origen, but calls the explanation ‘ objectionable.”
3 [2623 a2] Comp. Mk xv. 36, Mt. xxvil. 48, Lk. (of the soldiers of Herod
462
REPETITION [2625 |
§ 12. Sevenfold repetition
[2624] The number “seven” occurs in Revelation more often
than in all the rest of N.T. taken together. In the Fourth Gospel,
which was probably written by some one connected with the author
of Revelation, “seven” never occurs at all (though fairly frequent
in the Synoptists). But the Gospel is permeated structurally with the
zdea of * seven,” as might be expected from one accepting the tradition
about (Rev. ul. 1) “the seven spirits of God.” John records only
SEVicliin:
of the “‘mighty works” recorded by the Synoptists. Again in xil. 1
“Jesus, six days before the passover, came to Bethany,” Westcott
says, “St John appears to mark the period as the new Hexaemeron,
a solemn period of ‘six days,’ the time of the new Creation. His
Gospel begins and closes with a sacred week.” But an ordinary
signs,” a small number as compared with the greater number
reader might easily overlook the ‘sacred week ” here, and still more
easily that at the outset. For there it is (we may almost say)
carefully disguised from those who are not on the alert for mysteries
by the phrases (i. 29) ‘‘on the morrow,” (1. 35) “‘on the morrow,”
(i. 43) “fon the morrow ”; (ii. 1) “Con the third day”: and the reader
has to go through an addition of 1 + 1 + 1 + 3, before he realises that
“those who see” are intended to “see” here a solemn period of six
days of spiritual creation. Again, a searching analysis of the work is
needed before one realises that the witness to Christ is, as Westcott
shews again, of a sevenfold character?.
[2625] As soon as this symbolism is recognised, we are led to
enquire whether it may not be also latent elsewhere. Thus, the
words I AM, though in their full sense occurring only once (viii. 58)
are repeated elsewhere in Christ’s words five times (directly or
indirectly) before the arrest of Jesus (iv. 26, vi. 20, vill. 24, vili. 28,
xlll. Ig), SO as to make up six; and then at the arrest we have a
single threefold testimony as follows :—xvili. 5—8 “He saith unto
>
Antipas) xxiii. 36. Jn, alone of the Gospels, mentions ‘‘ Scripture ” in connexion
with this incident. Very early writers connect ‘‘ gall” with the “ vinegar” in such
a way as to shew that they regarded the action as predicted in Ps. Ixix. 21. Jn
does not mention *‘ gall,” and leaves it open to suppose that he may have included
in ‘‘ Scripture” the words Ps. xlii. 2 ‘“‘ My soul is athirst.”
1 [2624a] According to Westcott (xly—vii) it is (1) the witness of the
Father; (2) the witness of Christ Himself; (3) the witness of works; (4) the
witness of Scripture; (5) the witness of the Forerunner; (6) the witness of
disciples ; (7) the witness of the Spirit.
463
[2626] REPETITION
them ‘7 am [he]’...(6) When therefore he said unto them ‘7 am
[he]’...(8) Jesus answered, I said unto you ‘Z am [he].’” The
supposition of a sevenfold intention is somewhat confirmed by the
fact that “I am” certainly occurs seven times in the sevenfold
representation of His relationship to mankind: (1) vi. 35 etc. “7
am the Bread of Life”; (2) villi. 12 etc. “Z am the Light of the
World”: (@)ex 7 ete, ~7-a7 the door”: (4) x... 1m ete Zsa7z athe
Good Shepherd”; (5) xi. 25 “Zam the Resurrection and the Life” ;
(6) sav6"7 am the Way, the Erupiyand the Life” ; (7) xvjaeeten
am the True Vine.” Again, in the last words of Jesus, when He is
reviewing the whole of His teaching, He uses seven times (xiv. 25,
XV. II, Xvi. I, 4, 6, 25, 33) the expression “ 7hese things have I spoken
to you (ratta NeAdAnka vpiv)” (which occurs nowhere else in the
Gospel’), and also, in connexion with promises (xiv. 13, 14, 26, xv. 16,
XV1. 23, 24, 26), the phrase “zz my name.” ‘There is also fair evidence
for a sevenfold repetition of ev in the expression of the divine unity
in the words of Jesus, first (x. 30) “I and the Father are one”; and
then in prayer that men may be one in that unity (xvil. 11, 21
(twice), 22 (twice), 23). Again, whereas the noun “Jove” is not
mentioned at all by Mark and only once by Matthew and Luke,
John uses it seven times, and always in the words of Jesus*. The
promise ‘‘thou shalt, or, ye shall, see” occurs also seven times, almost
always in reference to “glory” or resurrection’, and so does the
prediction ‘‘¢he hour is coming?.”
[2626] In concluding the instances of repetition, we may add
that the “‘ Law” is mentioned six times (vil. 19 (twice), 23, vill. 17,
X. 34, Xv. 25) in the words of Jesus, an imperfect number as ap-
propriate to the imperfect law as is the number “six” applied to the
water-pots which were (ii. 6) for “the purification of the Jews.” We
1 [26252] On the mystical meaning that may attach to “these things,” see
2621—2.
* [2625 4] The evidence of C for the omission of év is here discredited by the
fact that it omits it previously (against all the Mss.) missing the meaning.
3 [2625c] But the first of these (v. 42 ‘‘the love of God”) is negative.
The others are xiii. 35, xv. 13 aydamny, xv. 9 €v TH a. TH EMT, XV. 10 €v TH a. Mov,
XV. 10 aUToU év TH d., xvii. 26 4 a. HY rydmnods pe.
4 [2625 ¢] i. 39, 50—-51, xi. 40, xvi. 16, 17, 19. In xvi. 17 the words are
Christ’s but repeated by the disciples.
5 [2625 ¢] “Epyerac wpa is in iv. 21, v. 28, xvi. 2, 25 also (with Kal voy éorly) in
iv. 23, Vv. 253 also (with cal €\7\vOev) in xvi. 32.
464
{ UNIVERSITY }
“
REPETITION [2627]
might have expected perhaps that the Paraclete would have been
mentioned “three” or “seven” times. But the mentions are four.
Of these, the fourth is negative, xvi. 7 “If I go not away, /he
Paraclete will not come unto you,” and possibly this may be intended
to be excluded from the total. Westcott (p. xiv) reckons as five the
quotations from Scripture in Christ’s words; but if we add viii. 17
“Tt is written in your law, Zhe witness of two men ts true,’ the
number is six. If we also add xix. 28 “In order that the Scripture
might be perfected he saith ‘7 thirst?” the number is seven’.
[2627] What was said as to threefold must be repeated as to
sevenfold repetition. Several instances of the latter are certain, but
some are doubtful, eg. the repetition of ‘ love” which perhaps,
instead of being taken as one group of seven, might be grouped
as two pairs of three positive statements with one negation. The
same word may be differently regarded by the author in different
circumstances. ®avepdw applied to the Son in the Gospel is repeated
thrice. But when applied to the Father and to the Son in the
Epistle it is repeated seven times. Making every allowance for
doubtful cases and different aspects, we find enough to assure us
that the author of this Gospel was largely influenced by a habit of
sevenfold grouping that affected his whole narrative as well as
particular words and phrases in it.
1 [2626 a] In xix. 28, W.H. print ‘‘I thirst” as a quotation from Ps. Ixix. 21
els Thy divav pou émdricdy we d£0s. But Jn may contemplate also Ps. xlii. 2
edivncev Wuxn pov. The five quotations mentioned by Westcott are vi. 45
(Is. liv. 13), vii. 38 (‘Even as the Scripture said, ‘ Rzver of water...,” on which
Westcott remarks “there is no exact parallel. The reference is probably
general”), x. 34 (Ps. Ixxxii. 6), xiii. 18 (Ps. xli. 9), xv. 25 (Ps. xxxv. 19 and
Ps. Ixix. 4). Westcott is justified in excluding i. 51 (“the angels of God
ascending...”) on the ground that ‘‘Scripture,” ‘‘law,” ‘‘ written,” etc. do not
occur in the context. But I do not understand why he includes vii. 38 and
excludes viil. 17.
CHAPTER, Til
CONNEXION OF SENTENCES
S$ 1. Selfcorrections
[2628] One occasional Johannine characteristic, which might be
alleged as being incompatible with the view that the author paid
much attention to words or aimed at strict accuracy, is that he
occasionally sets down what he himself, by subsequently repeating it
accurately, admits to be inaccurate, e.g. iil. 32—3 “Vo one receiveth
his testimony. He shat [hath] received his testimony [hath] set his
seal [to this] that God is true,” viii. 15-16 “Ye judge according to
the flesh, I judge no one. Yea, and if 7 judge, my judgment is real
and true.” Somewhat different is iv. r—2 ‘‘ When therefore the Lord
recognised that the Pharisees [had] heard [the saying] that ‘Jesus is
making more disciples and baptizing [more] than John‘’—and yet
Jesus himself did not baptize, but his disciples [did].” his last
statement may be defended as strictly accurate. The writer tells
us, not what Jesus dd, but what the Pharisees Aeard that He was
doing—a very different thing. But this illustrates the evangelist’s
way of putting before his readers the popular view, or roughly
accurate view, and then correcting it. And this may explain iii. 33.
In comparison with the world-wide acceptance that might have been
expected, it might be said that “0 one” accepted the testimony of
the Logos. So, as to viii. 16, Christ came not to judge but to save
the world: yet indirectly He would necessarily judge those that
rejected Him, in so far as any moral ideal “judges” those that
behold it and reject it.
* [2628 a] W.H. have Bamrife [7] Iwdvys, but the omission of H may be expl.
by the similarity of 1H! coming together.
466
CONNEXION OF SENTENCES [2630]
[2629] In this last passage there may have been a desire to
subordinate the literal view of Christ as the future Judge, seated
on the clouds of heaven, in order to give more prominence to
(1581—5, 1714, 1859) the righteousness and present power of divine
judgment. And this indicates that John’s other so-called “in-
accuracies” are really deliberate. The Pauline Epistles in various
phrases describe “a//” mankind as “concluded in wnbelief,” and
John, in effect, may desire to say the same thing when he speaks of
“no one” receiving the testimony of the Logos’. Possibly, too, the
evangelist was moved by the fact that Christ Himself frequently
expressed a truth briefly and broadly at first and then “narrowed it
down” afterwards. This manner of speaking is at all events manifest
when He says “I go not up to this feast,” and yet “ went” (only not
after the manner of “going up” expected by His brethren)’, and
“Ve will leave me a/one and yet I am xot alone*,” and “dy teaching
is not mine*,” and when He first says, concerning the Paraclete, “ He
will take of sxe,” and then explains that He has said “mune”
because “All that the Father hath is mve°.”
[2630] As compared with the first and the third of Christ’s
utterances about “requesting®” the Father (xiv. 16 kayo épwtycw
Tov Tmatépa Kal GANov wapakAytov Sucre Ywiv and XVil. g eyo wept avTov
épwro) there is some difficulty in a second one (xvi. 26 év éxetvy TH
nepa ev TO dvopati pov aityoedbe, Kat ob A€yw tyty Te eyo epwtnow’
Tov Tatépa Tept pov: avtos yap 6 Taryp iret vpas). The first says
“7 will request the Father and he will give you another Paraclete,”
the third, addressed to the Father, says ‘‘/ request concerning them,”
i.e. the disciples, the second, “7 say not to you that I will request the
Father concerning you, for the Father of himself loveth you.” But if
[2629 2] Oni. 11 od mapédaBov...bc0 dé EhaBov see 2570.
vii. 8—ro. Se xvileea ze 4 vii. 16.
xvi. 14—15- Perhaps to these we might add ‘‘the hour cometh and hath
come,” on which see 1639 a, 6, 2485a, 2604a. On v. 31 “‘ If I am bearing witness
about myself my witness is not true,” contrasted with viii. 14 ‘‘ Even though I be
bearing witness about myself my witness is true,” see 2514 (i).
6 [26302] ‘‘ Request,” though in some respects not a very good rendering of
épwrdw, is used here to distinguish it from airéw ‘‘ask” and airodmac ‘task for
a gift” (or ‘“‘ask earnestly”). On the rendering ‘‘ question,” see 2630 c.
7 [26304] Chrys. reads ovk épwrjow and so does Cramer. SS has ‘‘I say not
unto you that I will beseech my Father—ée¢ my Father himself hath loved you,”
a has ‘‘ et ego rogabo propter vos.”
i
2
5
467 30—2
[2630 | CONNEXION OF SENTENCES
the context be examined, it will appear that our Lord is distinguish-
ing between two stages of spiritual development for the disciples.
He first says that, if the disciples love Him, they will keep His
commandments even though they may have momentarily deserted
Him, and He will “request” the Father to give them another
Paraclete. Then He leads them to a higher stage, xvi. 23—6 “In
that day ye shall vegues¢ nothing from me.... These things have I
spoken to you in proverbs ”—which we might perhaps call metaphors,
or parables—‘ the hour cometh when I shall no longer speak to you
in proverbs but shall announce to you plainly about the Father. In
that day ye shall ask-for-gifts (airyoecOe) in my name, and / say not
[ow] to you that L will request the Father about you; for the Father
of himself loveth you....”. Here He speaks of what He will ot do
after the Resurrection and after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
And this is quite compatible with the fact that just before His arrest
—while the disciples are still in the stage of “dark sayings” and
without the Spirit—He pours forth one last “request” for them!
* [2630 ¢] “Epwrijcw tov marépa can hardly mean ‘I will question the Father,”
for—apart from other objections—épwrdw, meaning ‘‘ question,” in Jn, is always
followed by a direct or indirect interrogative, i. 19, 21, 25, V- 12, ix. 2, 15, 19, xvi.
5, xvili. 21, or has something in the context that implies questioning (ix. 19, 21,
XV1. 19, 30, XVill. 19, 21) (xvi. 23 is doubtful and perhaps includes both ‘‘ ask
a question” and ‘‘ask a boon”).
[2630 ¢] “Epwrdw, in Alexandrian Greek of the 1st and later centuries, very
freq. means ‘‘I ask whether you are pleased to do so and so,” and is used in
invitations to dinner and polite requests generally (Oxyr. Pap. i. no. tro and rr
etc.). Hence épwrnfels (Oxyr. Pap. ii. no. 269) (perh. literally “‘ dezzg¢ asked what
your pleasure is”) means ‘‘ please” (A.D. 57). Comp. 20. i. no. 113 épwrnbels ed
Tomoers ayopdces ‘‘I beg you to be good enough to...buy,” épwrnfels aydpacor,
““T beg you to buy” (2nd century), iv. no. 744 épwrd ce x. Tapaxad@ ce
(1BECemn) eke:
[26302] From classical Gk no instances of épwrdw, “ask a boon,” are given by
Steph., but the germ of it may perh. be traced in Eurip. Phentsse 15, where the
childless Laius éh@dy é€pwrg PoiBov éfarret 6° dua z.e. he not only asks Apollo
whether it is the divine will that he should have children, but also asks for the
boon. There is a close connexion between ‘‘Is it thy will?” and ‘‘ Let it be thy
will.” Jn uses airéw concerning the disciples “asking” (not concerning Christ,
except in the words of the Samaritan Woman iv. 9 (act.) and Martha xi. 22 (mid.))
but épwrdw concerning the Son when He describes Himself as ‘‘ requesting” that
the Father’s good will may be fulfilled for the Church (xiv. 16, xvi. 26, xvii. 9
(d7s), 15, 20).
[2630/] The distinction apparently drawn in xvi. 26 between alrijoecbe and
épwrjow invites comparison with 1 Jn v. 16 éav ris ly Tov ddeAPdr adrod duapravovra
dpuaptlav wh pos Odvarov, airjoe, Kal dice alte fwhy, Tots duaprdavovew uh mpos
468
CONNEXION OF SENTENCES [2630]
Odvarov. éoTw dmaptia mpos Odvarov. ov epi éxelyns Néyw a épwryay. This is
preceded by the statement ‘If we ask a gift (airdpeba) according to his will he
heareth us. And if we know that he heareth us [as to] whatsoever we ask as a gift
(airwéueba), we know that we have our (lit.) askings [the things] that we have asked
from him (@xouey 7a alrhuara a yTjKapev am’ av’rov).” It would be pedantry to
express in a translation intended for general readers the precise differences between
aitéw, altoduar, and épwrdw: but it would be an insult to the writer to suppose
that he did not discriminate between them, The impression left on the reader is
that épwrdw means asking with a question as to what God’s will may be, ‘‘ 2 zt de
thy will,” ‘if it be possible.”
[2630 ¢] If that is the distinction in Jn, the meaning of 1 Jn v. 16 (4) may be,
‘« There is a sin [that tends] toward death. Jam not [now] speaking about that,
in order that he should ask [if tt be possible, that it may be forgiven, or stopped
before it be too late).” In other words, the writer distinguishes between two
classes of sins. About one class of sins he says, in effect, Aéyw iva airnons. About
the other—which would require épwryots not alrnots—he does not say Néyw Wa wy
épwrncys. He simply says od Néyw wa épwrnons, ‘*I am not at this moment
enjoining such an épwryos, I am not now talking about that.”
[26304] Comp. Hermas Vs. ili. 10. 1—6 jpdrwv va wor droxadt y...€repov det
ge EmEepwrficat iva cor dmokahuPO7...Taca Eepwrno.s Tatrevvoppootyns xXpycet...Th ov
bro xelpa aires amoxad’UWes ev dejoer; Béwe pnToTe TONG altoUmevos BAdWys cou
Thy odpka, where épwrav iva expresses ‘‘request” for a revelation, and this
‘request ” is afterwards called an ‘“urgent asking.” If we had
before us the whole Christian literature of 50—r150 A.D. we should probably find
many such distinctions between verbs of praying. For example, déouac is never
used by Mk, Jn, Heb., Pet., Jas, and Rev. Ilapaxadéw, to mean ‘‘ beseeching the
Lord” (as in 2 Cor. xii. 8), is very rare in N.T. (apart from ‘‘ beseeching”’ Christ to
heal etc. in the Gospels). Jn consistently represents the Son, when praying to the
Father, as épwrév, not mpocevxdmevos, nor deduevos, nor air@y, nor alrovmevos, nor
mapakah@v. It is true that the Epistle says (1 Jn i. r) ‘‘ If any man sin, we have
a Paraclete”—(‘‘one called in to aid,” ‘‘ advocate,” 1720 £)—‘‘ with the Father,
Jesus Christ the righteous”; but this does not mean that the Paraclete ‘‘ deseeches
(mapaxaet)” the Father. The Johannine doctrine is that the Son, when on earth,
offered ‘‘ requests” to the Father, but that, in heaven, ‘‘ request” became unmean-
ing in the unity between the Father and the Son.
[26302] Westcott (on r Jn v. 16) says, ‘‘It is interesting to notice that épwrav
is used in this sense of Christian prayer for Christians in a very early inscription in
the Roman Catacombs: ZHCHC €N KW Kal EPWTA YTTEP HMWN (Northcote and
Brownlow, Roma Sotteranea, ii. 159).’’ It is much to be regretted that Westcott
) > 59 g
ce
“asking” or an
ce
neither adds the evidence shewing that this inscription is ‘‘ very early,” nor gives
any indication as to the rarity or frequency of épwrdw in this sense in other ‘‘ very
early” inscriptions. I have not been able to find in Boeckh more than the
following, which may be the one he has in view, ‘9673 Romae lapis nuper
repertus in coemeterio Callisti. Edidit Rénier apud Perretum Les catacombes de
Rome VI. p. 28 et 178, qui habet a Bonnettyo Annales de philosophie chrétienne
Iv. série, tom. IX. p. rir, quem librum inspicere mihi non licuit. Versus duos
extremos citat etiam Wiseman Fabiola p. 147.’ The inscription is kat[adeous] ry
mpo vy Kad[avdwy] tovr[uwy| Auvyevde (noas ev K@ Kat Eepwra vmep nuwy. Boeckh
makes no further remarks, Kard@eots, here abbreviated as xat, is not given by
Steph., L. S., or Sophocles, in the sense of ‘‘ interment ”— which it seems to have
469
[2631] CONNEXION OF SENTENCES
§ 2. Parentheses
[2631] When a clause with ‘‘ therefore (otv)” follows a parenthesis,
the “therefore” ought to look back beyond the parenthesis to some
preceding statement, e.g. iv. 7—9 “Jesus saith to her, ‘Give me to
drink’ (for his disciples had gone away into the city to buy food).
The Samaritan woman /%erefore saith unto him....” Here ovv means
“in consequence of Christ’s request.” But, if we remove the marks
of parenthesis, it might seem that the woman uttered this decause the
disciples had gone away, and it is perhaps partly because of this
ambiguity, and partly because of a feeling that the chronological
order should be kept, that SS rearranges the whole text as follows :—
iv. 6—9g (Gk)
“Now (6€) there was there
Jacob’s spring. Jesus ¢herefore...
sat...over the spring. It was about
the sixth hour. There cometh a
woman from Samaria to draw
water. Jesus saith to her, Give
me to drink.—for his disciples
had gone away into the city to buy
food.... The woman of Samaria
therefore saith to him, How dost
thou—éeing a_Jew—ask drink from
Hes zeiti
iv. 6—g (SS)
‘““ Now there was there Jacob’s
spring of water, azd Jesus came
[and] sat over the spring...... And
his disciples had entered that town
that they might buy themselves
Jood; and when Jesus sat down
it was about the sixth hour, and
a certain woman had come from
Samaria to draw water. Jesus
saith to her, Give me water to
drink. That Samaritan woman
saith to him Lo, ¢how art a Jew ;
how askest thou me for water to
drink...?”
Here the Syriac once omits “therefore” and once renders it by
cc and.”
It also connects with the context the detached or parenthe-
tical “it was about the sixth hour” by means of a ‘“‘when.” But
the most important change is that SS places the parenthesis about
the departure of the disciples earlier, in its chronological order.
here, and in 9598, 9610, 9649, 9651, 9660, 9663, 9675, 9831 (comp. 9661
kateré@m). It occurs also in Oxyr. Pap. 475. 31 “burial.” There are some
hundreds of Christian sepulchral inscriptions given by Boeckh in the adjacent
pages, and I have been unable to find any other that has épwra. It should
be added that card@eots generally occurs at or near the end of an epitaph (except
where the epitaph states nothing but the fact of xard@eots and the date) and not, as
here, at the beginning.
like péuvnoo [Tod oot marépos| 7. 9865.
470
If genuine, épéra would seem to be quite exceptional
CONNEXION OF SENTENCES [2632]
[2632] The arrangement of SS is chronological, but it is not
Johannine. John does not accumulate his descriptions of scenery
and circumstance at the beginning of a scene as in a stage direction,
but prefers to give them in parentheses, each in its turn as it is
wanted. Thus, after the words of Christ’s mother, ‘‘ Do whatsoever he
may say unto you,” John inserts ‘‘ Vow there were there stone water-
pots...holding tivo measures or three”—but not till the insertion is
made absolutely necessary as a preparation for Christ’s following
words, “Fill ##e waterpots with water'.” Again, it is not till after
Christ’s exclamation ‘‘I thirst,” that we read “ A vessel lay near full of
A sponge, therefore, full of the vinegar...they brought near
to his mouth.
It is finished’.” In these passages, ‘‘¢he waterpots ” and ‘‘¢he vinegar”
would be unintelligible without what we may call the immediately
preceding and parenthetical stage direction®.
vinegar.
When therefore he received fhe vinegar, Jesus said,
1 ii. 5—7. 2 xix. 28—30.
3 [2632 a] SS is wanting for these two passages. But, so far as the faithful
representation of Johannine connexion of sentences depends—as it does very
largely—upon the faithful representation of the Johannine ovv, we must pronounce
SS worthless, as may be seen from its renderings of ofy in ii. 18 om., li. 20 om.,
Hea 2a UDUbse ily 25) NOW: Ley EHOW, ce Ves. and.2s vs 0) ands. nivalQu(see
2631), iv. 28 ‘‘and,” iv. 33 om. Compare also the Gk and Syr. of xxi. 7:
Gk
‘*Simon Peter therefore, having
heard [that] ‘It is the Lord,’ girt him-
self with (lit.) the coat—/for he was
naked—and cast himself into the sea.
But the other disciples came in the
little boat,—for they were not far from
the land, but about two hundred cubits
off—dragging the net of the fish.”
SS
‘““Now Simon, when he heard it was
our Lord, took his coat [and] put [it] on
his loins , and fell into the lake and was
swimming and coming, because they were
not far from the dry land. And the
rest of the disciples were coming in the
boat drawing that net ,.”
Here SS omits “for he was naked” and the curious addition ‘‘of the fish.”
It also places the parenthesis ‘‘for...land” earlier in the narrative, just as it did in
the Samaritan Dialogue (2631).
[26324] In vi. 10 ‘‘Jesus said Make the men sit down.—WVow (dé) there was
much grass in the place—The men therefore (ovv) sat down,” Syr. (Burk.) has ‘‘Go
make the folk sit down [to meat] companies by companies. Now the green grass
was plentiful in that same spot, and the folk sat down [to meat],” but SS ‘‘ He
saith to them: Make the folk sit down [to meat]. Now the green grass was
plentiful in that same place. He saith to them: Go, make the folk sit down
[to meat] ov the herbage.” Mk vi. 39 has émwérakev avrots davaxdOjvac (marg.
dvakNiva) mdvtas, cuumécia cuumocia, emi TH XAWPW XOpTw, which seems to have
influenced the Syriac.
[2632] There are two parenthetic clauses, followed by ‘‘thex therefore,” in
471
[2633] CONNEXION OF SENTENCES
[2633] A parenthesis is frequently followed by a resumptive oty,
which, in some cases, may mean “consequently” but in others little
more than “well, then” (or “to return, then”): 11. 16—18 ‘“ Make
not my Father’s house a house of merchandise.—/7s disciples re-
membered that tt ts written, ‘ The zeal of thine house shall eat me up.—
The Jews therefore answered and said...” ; iil. 23——5 “‘ And they used
to come to [John] and to be baptized.—/or John had not yet been
cast into prison.—There arose therefore a questioning...about puri-
fying” ; iv. 8—g “Jesus saith to her, Give me to drink.—For his
disciples had gone away...to buy food.—The woman therefore saith to
” So probably we should regard as parenthetical all that
comes between iv. 26 “Jesus saith to her 7 am [the Messiah]” and
iv. 28 “The woman ¢herefore left her waterpot...'.” In the following,
however, the italicised words are probably not parenthetical, vi. 3—5
“ Now (8€) Jesus went up to the mountain and there he sat with his
disciples. Vow there was (nv 5€) near at hand the passover, the feast
of the Jews. Jesus therefore having raised his eyes and having
beheld that a great multitude was coming to him...” The mention of
the passover may have a mystical meaning connected with what
follows. Jesus is described as “raising his eyes” to the contempla-
him....
xi. 12—14, ‘‘ The disciples therefore said to him, ‘Lord, if he is asleep he will be
saved [from death].’—Aut (6€) Jesus had spoken about his death. But (6€) they
supposed that about the falling asleep of slumber he was speaking.— Then therefore
(ré6re€ ovv) Jesus said to them plainly, ‘Lazarus is dead.’” SS renders 6é first by
**now” and then by ‘‘and”; and, for ‘‘then therefore,” it has ‘‘again,” thus:
**They say to him: ‘Our Lord, if he sleepeth, he will live.’ ow Jesus on [the
ground | that Lazar was dead had said [2t| to them, and they were supposing that
of sleep he said it. Again Jesus said to them plainly, ‘Lazar is dead.’”
[26327] In xix. 23 ‘‘The soldiers therefore...took his upper garments (and
made four parts, for each soldier a part)—and the tunic. Now the tunic was
without seam...,” John passes rapidly over the ‘‘garments,” for which there was
no need to draw lots, to the ‘‘tunic,” for which there was the need; and he twice
mentions the ‘‘tunic,” partly perhaps because the Synoptists had wholly omitted
this detail. SS and D are wanting here. But this twofold mention of the tunic
is avoided by most of the Latin and other versions by dropping ‘‘and the tunic.”
Thus they also avoid the parenthesis: e has ‘‘simili modo et tunicam. Erat
autem ei tunica...,” thus avoiding the parenthesis in a different way.
1 [2633 2] The intervening words describe the arrival of the disciples: ‘‘ And
they were marvelling that he was speaking with a woman. No one however said,
What seekest thou? or why speakest thou with her?” This does not seem to
contain a reason for the woman’s departure. But the astounding utterance ‘‘I am
(the Messiah]” may be intended to explain her sudden departure and her leaving
her waterpot behind her—either in amazement or in reverence for the ‘‘ prophet.”
472
CONNEXION OF SENTENCES [2634]
tion of the New Passover, of which a type was to be presented in
the Feeding of the Five Thousand. In xi. 4—6 “‘‘ This sickness is
not unto death.....—Now (6€) Jesus loved...Lazarus.—When there-
Jore he heard that he was sick, he abode at that time two days in the
place where he was...,” ody may mean “well, then,” or it may mean
that, because He knew that the sickness was “not unto death,”
Jesus “consequently ” abode where He was}.
[2634] In some instances a é€ clause is followed by an otv clause
that might express the consequence of the former, as in xviii. 1—3
“*...Jesus went forth...where was a garden... 4uf (dé) Judas also...
knew the place...Judas ¢herefore...cometh.” In this case it is
reasonable to take the dé clause as not parenthetic. But in what
follows, xvill. 5—6 ‘“‘ He saith to them ‘I am [he].’—Now (8€) there
stood Judas...with them.... When ¢herefore he said to them, ‘I am
{he]’ they went away backward and fell on the ground,” the 6é
clause seems parenthetic, and the “falling ” is described as the effect
of the majestic and mysterious utterance “I am [he].” In the
following, the ovv clause may be regarded possibly as the sequel of
the immediately preceding sentence but more probably as looking
back past a parenthesis, xi. 12—14 “His disciples therefore said,
Lord, if he is fallen asleep he will recover.— Aut (dé) Jesus had said
[the words] concerning his death, wt (dé) they thought that he was
saying [them] about falling really asleep.—Then ¢herefore Jesus said
2”)
to them plainly, ‘ Lazarus is dead®.
1 [2633 6] In the following, 6é (or oddé) introduces a parenthetical clause, which
is followed by an ody clause: vi. 10 Houjoare...dvareceiv (nv dé ydptos oNds ev TS
ToTW). davémecay obv, vil. 3—6 elroy otv mpos atrov of dd. avTod...parépwoor
geavTov TH Kicmy (ovde yap of dd. adrod ériarevov els atév). Névyer ovv avrots 6’T.,
Vil. 38—4o 6 miorevwy...tdatos (Gyros (TovTo dé elmev...€d0édc0n). €K TOO dyNov
otv...éMeyov, xi. I—3 Hv O€ Tis dodevav...Map. x. MdpO. Tis ddeAPfs adrhs (qv dé
Map. 7 ddelWaoa...) dréore:day oby ai ddeApal, xi. 2g —31 éxelvy O€...71pXETO Tpos abrov
(ovmrw dé EXnUGer O'T....) of ody Tovdator...7Ko\ovOnoar..., xi. 50—3 cuupépea buly
iva eis dvOpwros amobdvy... (roiro d¢ ad’ éavrod ovk elmev...)’ Am exelvns ody Tis
nuépas €Bouvdevoavto..., xii. 5—7 Aca rh...00K...€660 mTwyxois; (elmev dé ToUTO...).
eirev otv 6 ‘Inoots, xii. 32—4 mavras EdXxiow mpds euauTdv (TodTo dé édever
onuaivwy...). damexplOn ovv avtg@.... In xviii. ro—11, Christ’s reply is to an action
2. otv II....dmréxopev abrod rd wrdpiov 7d dekvdy (jv dé dvowa TH SovAMwW Mddxos).
eirev otv 0 ‘I. In all these cases ofy follows a parenth. with dé or ovdé.
? [2634a] There is something extremely impressive in the reticence of the clause
that defines the personality of Barabbas (in contrast with the details of Lk. xxiii. 19,
25). Coming at the end of a section, the clause is rather an appendix than
a parenthesis, xvili. 4o—xix. 1 ‘‘They therefore cried aloud again, saying ‘Not
473
[2635] CONNEXION OF SENTENCES
[2635] After xi. 57 “He will surely not come to the feast.—Now
(dé) the chief priests...had given commandment...so that they might
take him,” a new section begins, xil. 1 ‘‘ Zherefore Jesus...came to
Bethany.” ‘The 6€ clause cannot here be called parenthetical: but
it takes the reader behind the scenes to the previous plotting of the
chief priests, after having exhibited on the stage the gossipping
multitude. As to the ovv clause it is perhaps not merely resumptive
but describes Jesus as knowing the danger and ‘‘conseguently ”
advancing to meet it. This view is supported by the sentence
following the arrival of Judas with the soldiers, xvili. 4 “Jesus,
therefore, knowing all things that were coming on him, went forth, and
saith to them, ‘Whom seek ye?’” In many cases opinion may be
divided as to whether a 8¢ clause is, or is not, parenthetical: but it is
certain that ovv (far more frequently than d¢€) zxtroduces the more
weighty words and deeds of Christ!, and that an ovv clause is often
preceded by a parenthetical, explanatory, or subordinate statement.
[2635 (i)] A parenthesis on a very large scale—a great parenthetic
work of Christ in the conversion of Samaria—may possibly be
indicated by the extraordinary construction in iv. I—3 ws ovv éyvw 6
Kiptos...a@nkev tiv “lovdatay kai amnAGev tadw eis tiv TadwAalav, on
which Blass (p. 192) truly says that it “is at least remarkable, since
the aorist denotes the journey as completed, whereas in verses 4 ff.
we have an account of what happened on the way, and the arrival in
Galilee is not reached till verse 45.” The Diatessaron places iv. 3a
this [man] but Barabbas.—Wow / should explain that (6é) B. was a robber.—Then
therefore [without more delay] (rére oév) Pilate took Jesus and scourged [him].”
1 [2635 a] The difference is particularly noticeable in the last nine chapters
where dé is not applied thus except in xiii. 1, xix. 9, xxi. 1, 4, 19. Contrast the
frequency of ody, xiii. 6, 12, 26, 27, 31, xviii. 4, 7, 11, xix. 5, 26, 30, Xx. Ig, 21,
xxi. 5, 15. Of the five instances of &é€, one (xix. g) introduces a negation, and one
(xxi. 19 Todro 6€ ele onuaivwy) is a subordinate or parenthetic statement of the
meaning of what Christ has previously said, and this characterizes some of the
earlier instances of dé, e.g. ii. 21 éxetvos dé €Xeye..., Vi. 6 ToOTO dé Eleye Tweipdfwr,
vi. 71 €Aeve dé dv “lovdar, vii. 39 TodTOo dé elzre, xi. 13 elpjxer 5€ 0 'Inoois.
[26352] Aé, when introducing a word or deed of Jesus, often follows an
adv. phrase or participle, i. 38 orpagels dé, iv. 43 mera dé Tas Sto Huépas,
Vi. 12 ws dé éverAjoOnoay, vi. 61 eldws 5é 0 'I., vii. g Tabra dé ely, Vil. 10 ws de
avéSnoav, vil. 14 75 dé, etc. Such as the following are comparatively rare, li. 24
avros 6€°I. otk émlorevey avrév, v. 17 6 dé drexplvaro, vi. 3 av7AdOe dé els 7d dpos,
vi. 20 06 6€ Néyer abrots, "Hyd elut, vill. 59 I. d¢ ExpUBn etc.: xi. 41, Xil. 23, 44 are
exceptional and introduce acts or words of importance, but the rule remains
as above.
474
CONNEXION OF SENTENCES [2635 (ii)]
early (sect. 6) immediately before the Baptist’s imprisonment: ‘‘ And
[so] he left Judaea (Lk. ill. rg—20) And Herod...shut up John in
prison. (Mt. iv. 12) And when Jesus heard that John was delivered
up he went away (avexwpyoer, lit. retired) to Galilee.” Long after-
wards (sect. 21), omitting iv. 3 4, it has (after Mk vil. 31-—7) Iv. 4
“ And while he was passing through the land of Samaria he came to
one of the cities of the Samaritans,” omitting the very important
phrase in iv. 4 “7 was necessary” (before “that he should pass
through Samaria”)'. Origen ad /oc. has a long discussion on iv. 35
“four months,” shewing that various inferences were drawn, from this
expression, as to the date of the Samaritan dialogue. adv in iv. 3
is omitted by A, and is only added in the margin by B. Its omission
suggests motives based on chronology. Ila\w makes it almost
necessary to suppose that Christ, having come up from Galilee to
Jerusalem for the first Passover recorded in this Gospel, was now
“going away to Galilee again,” 1.e. back, without any very long
interval, and certainly without any intervening visit to Galilee. It was
“a return journey.” By omitting “again,” the Diatessaron leaves
itself free to regard the Samaritan Dialogue as a much later event
than the delivering up of John the Baptist.
[2635 (i1)] Chrysostom, quoting the passage at some length, has
p)
‘Os oty eyvw 6 "Inoois...avexwopnoev ard rhs “Tovdaias Kal AGev eis THY
TadtAatav, and he repeats dvaywpéw twice later on “ Why, pray, did
He zetire (avexoper) ?”—using the same word as that in Mt. iv. 12
quoted above. The context shews why he favoured this reading.
He points out that the Gospel was in the first instance offered to the
Jews, and that it was Jewish rejection that caused Jesus to preach
the Gospel to the Samaritans, as it caused the Apostles to preach to
the Gentiles. The visit to Samaria, he says, “was a farergon of His
journey*.” This seems to give us a clue to the Johannine expression
and arrangement. John might have written continuously that Jesus,
finding that His success was being magnified at the cost of the
Baptist, (iv. 3) ‘‘left Judaea and went away back to Galilee, (iv. 44)
1 [2635 (i)a@] Nonnus has Kai puv ére xpéos efde dv evvdpov L.: ede might be
confused with the following de, or read as é6e, 7.2. év 6€ (with foll. inf.).
* [2635 (ii) 2] Aeckyds 6500 mdpepyov ai’riv rotro mo.ovmevor, printed in Cramer
womep Epyov atrov Tovovmevor Ti THs Dauapeiridos 666v. In what precedes, Chrys.
has avaxwpjoas yoiv rddw Tov airay elxero av Kai mpbtepov. Ov yap ads émi
Thy TadtAaiavy amnpxero. This combines avaxwpéw and dmépxomar.
475
[2636] CONNEXION OF SENTENCES
for Jesus himself testified that a prophet in his own country hath no
honour.” But he desires to insert a parergon, or at least what some
might call by that name—the conversion of Samaria. This Aarergon
he expresses by a long parenthesis. According to his custom he
gives the reader an impression at first erroneous and then corrected.
* He left Judaea and went away back to Galilee.” Then follows the
correction “‘ But it was necessary that he should pass through
Samaria”; and every sympathetic reader of the Fourth Gospel
would at once understand that “necessary” implied “the will of the
Father” and that this ‘necessity ” would issue in some divine con-
sequence. If this view is correct, John’s use of the aorist arjAGev is
remarkable but not erroneous.
$3. Instances of doubtful connexion
[2636] In i. 43—5 “‘...and he findeth Philip. And Jesus saith to
him, Follow me. Vow (8€) Philip was from Bethsaida, sprung from’
the city of Andrew and Peter. Philip findeth Nathanael...,” dé
probably introduces a reference to the previous discipleship of
Andrew and Peter, as if to say, Wow J ought to explain that Philip
was connected locally with Andrew and Peter, and they may have
mentioned him to the Lord, who accordingly came to “find” him?,
The Latin and Syriac versions vary as to the italicised words in
vi. 64—5 ‘‘‘ But there are some of you that believe not.’—For Jesus
knew from the beginning...who was to betray him.—And he proceeded
to say (kai €Xeyev) Lor this cause have I told you that no one can come
unto me except...,” SS has “‘ He sath to them Therefore I have said
to you*,” a “et dicebat: propterea dixi vobis, Nemo...,” e “ et dicebat
propterea quia,’ Chrysostom omits ‘‘you that (viv érz),” Perhaps
some rendered kai €Xeyey dua rotro, “and it was for this cause that
he said [previously]”: but, if that had been the meaning, the text
would probably have been dia todro eirev or dua TodTo cipyxe. “* For
this cause” appears to mean ‘‘ Because of the fundamental difference
1 [2636 a] On a7é and éx here, see 2289—93. SS has ‘‘Now Philip, his kin
was from Bethsaida, from the city of Andrew and of Simon.”
2 On vii. 22 ob~x bre Too M. éorly ad éx r&v marépwy, see 2218—19, and on
iv. g od yap cuvyxpavrat ‘I, Lauapelrais, see 2066.
3 [2636 4] vi. 65 Kal éNevev Aca Tovro eipnka vuiv bre oddels Sivara,... Comp.
ix. 23 dia rovro oi yovets avrov elmav,.., and especially xiii. r1—12 yde yap
Tov mapadiddvra avrév: dia rovro elrev dre OdxXi wavres Kabapol éore,
476
CONNEXION OF SENTENCES [2638 |
between the wapaiCene or selfish theory of things, and the believing
or unselfish theory” ; and this is implied in “there are some of you
that believe not”; ze. ye believe not in a Father but believe in
your own worldly interests and in nothing else’.
[2637] In xviii. ro “Simon Peter ¢herefore having a sword drew
it...,” ovv cannot be resumptive of anything said about Peter, as he is
not mentioned in the preceding context. Nor does ovv introduce a
consequence of the preceding words, which are “‘...If therefore ye
seek me let these depart’—that there might be fulfilled the word
that he spake ‘Whom thou hast given me of them I have lost
none.’” Perhaps we may assume that the words “let ‘¢hese
depart” implied that Christ Himself would wot “depart” but sur-
rendered Himself, and that Peter “ ¢#erefore” intervened to prevent
the surrender’.
[2638] In xx. ro—11 “The disciples ¢herefore went away to
their own homes. But Mary was standing at the tomb. As ¢herefore
she was weeping, she glanced into the tomb,” SS has “‘ zow ” for the
first “therefore” and “avd” for the second, and makes one sentence
of the whole. But W.H. regard the words “But Mary” as beginning
a new section. Probably the first otv means ‘“‘as the result of all
that preceded,” namely, the entering into the sepulchre. Ovdv is here
nearly equivalent to pev ody, and as pév ends a book of Thucydides
1 [2636 c] In iii. 15 wa was 6 micTtebwy ev alt@ xn Cwny aidvov, R.V. txt has
‘“‘that whosoever dedéeveth may in him have eternal life,” but marg. ‘‘delzeveth in
him.” (1) The former is supported by the following facts. Iorevw €v occurs
nowhere in N.T. exc. Mk i. 15 ‘‘believe in the gospel” (1480a). (2) The
variations here, eis avrév, ém’ adrév, ém’ avr@, indicate that év was in the original
text and caused difficulty to scribes assuming its connexion with morevw. (3) It
is in Jn’s manner to have an adverbial phrase with év before its verb when the
phrase is emphatic or metaphorical as i. 1 év dpyy 7 etc. and comp. especially
v. 39 &v avrais {why ai. €xew, and 1 Jn passim. (4) It is also characteristic of Jn
to introduce a new doctrine, first in broad and general terms, and then to ‘‘ narrow
down” (2290). So here the first two mentions of SES Taig use the verb
absoletel ia ili. 12—15 “‘ye delieve not...everyone that de/ieveth.” Then comes
ili. 16 ‘‘everyone that deleveth in gets) him,” where ‘‘him” refers to the
previously mentioned ‘‘Son of man.”
2 [2637 a] It is surprising that the Latin versions here retain ‘‘therefore” ; but
SS has “‘zow,’ and D rére. It should be added that, in the context, almost
every sentence of narrative is introduced with ody as though indicating that the
delivering up of Christ took place in the regular sequence of divinely decreed
cause and effect: and the evangelist mes regard Peter’s impulsive action as a part
of the whole foreordained series.
477
[2639] CONNEXION OF SENTENCES
and 颀 begins the next, so here otv ends the account of what the two
disciples saw, and 6€ introduces the weeping of Mary as a prepara-
tion for what she, in her turn, was destined to see. The effect of
the particles is something of this kind: “So the upshot of it all was
that the two disciples went back to their several homes. One indeed
believed. But neither he nor Peter had any message of glad tidings
to convey to the Eleven. So /¢#ey went away, and ¢hat was all as
Jar as they were concerned. But Mary on the other hand abode by
the tomb in tears. While ¢herefore she wept she received a vision of
angels and then a manifestation of the Saviour Himself. And so
she returned, not to her home but to the disciples, the first to
proclaim the Gospel of the Resurrection.”
[2639] There is a parenthesis with asyndeton (according to W.H.)
in the following, 11. 16—18 ‘‘‘ Take these things hence...... make not
my Father’s house a house of merchandise.’—His disciples remem-
bered? that it is written, ‘The jealousy for thy house shall eat me
up. —The Jews therefore answered and said to him....” The variations
of the authorities that insert conjunctions to destroy the asyndeton
indicate that W.H. are right. But the question arises, When did the
disciples remember this? At once, or after Christ’s resurrection ?
In favour of the former it may be urged that several authorities
insert ‘‘at the time,” or something to. that effect, and that, if John
had meant “after the resurrection” he would have inserted the
words as he does in u. 22 “ When therefore he was raised from the
dead his disciples remembered....” But on the other side it may be
replied that (1) John may have assumed that the clause “when he
was raised from the dead,” which he is purposing to introduce
immediately, will modify “remembered” in both cases; (2) the
hypothesis that the disciples spontaneously called to mind a pre-
diction (virtually) of their Master’s death at the very outset of His
career perhaps never entered the mind of the evangelist and is
certainly very improbable; (3) John habitually represents the disciples
as misunderstanding much, and as foreseeing nothing, that relates to
”
Christ’s sacrifice ; (4) the meaning “remembered [in after times]
1 Thue. ili. 116 radra wey Kkard Tov xewmva rovrov éyévero... iv. « Tod 8’
émvyvyvopévou Oépous....
* (2639 2] SS as elsewhere (2631—2) avoids or softens the parenthetic abrupt-
ness by inserting ‘‘When he did these things” before “his disciples.’’ D is
wanting. Chrys. and a ins. rére, A and @ ins, dé, e has ‘tet continuo,” * ,
(4 also strangely has ‘‘discipulus ejus’’),
478
oe
et
CONNEXION OF SENTENCES [2640]
accords best with the two other passages that describe the disciples
as applying Scripture to our Lord, so as to make a threefold mention
of this ‘‘ remembering !.”
[2640] The discussion of the Johannine oiyv in narrative cannot
be quite satisfactory because it is not at present capable of illustration
from contemporary or earlier writers. In LXX, from the beginning
of Numbers to the end of Chronicles, the Oxford concordance does
not give thirty instances of ody, and, of these, none are in narrative’.
In the Gospels, narrative ovv is almost*—and in Revelation‘ it is
quite—non-existent. In classical and non-classical Greek the
Thesaurus gives no examples that can be fairly said to establish
precedents or parallels for the Johannine usage. But some quota-
tions from a Byzantine writer in the Thesaurus shew a tendency to
use narrative ovv abundantly in the sense “I say,” “to resume”:
and these, although much later than the Johannine period, preclude
a critic from deciding that John’s usage is a mere idiosyncrasy of the
writer’. Whatever may be the causes of the usage, there can be no
1 [26394] Perhaps we might add, as a fifth reason, that if John had meant
to modify é€uvjc8noav by ré7e he could have inserted rére (as Chrysostom does) or
something of the same kind, e.g. ‘‘in that very hour.”
2 [2640 a] Oty is frequent in Genesis, but not in narrative. From Genesis to
the end of Chronicles, narrative ofy is non-existent except in a few instances in
Exodus, as follows. In Ex. iy. 4 it occurs, like Johannine 6é, in parenthesis,
“**stretch forth thy hand and grasp the tail. —Having therefore (Heb. avd) stretched
out his hand he grasped the tail and it became a rod in his hand—‘in order that
they may believe.” (LXX éxreivas ody, F kal éxreivas.) In Ex. viii. Io, 19,
elev ovv, and eiray oty (Heb. “‘and”) occur in rapid dialogue, and 7d. 17 ‘‘ And
the Lord said...stretch... And they did so and Aaron stretched,” LX X omits ‘‘and
they did so and” and substitutes otv i.e. ‘‘accordingly.” It occurs also in Ex. xiv.
6 &fevéev ov, xxxii. 26 cuv#APov ov, and is a remarkable feature in this book.
3 [26402] Ovy narr. is in Mt. i. 17 maoat ovy ai y., xviii. 26, 29 (parab.) and
XXVil. £7 cuvnypévwy ovv, Lk. iii. 7, xiii. 18 eXeyev ovv, xix. 12 elev ovv. (In
Lk. xx. 29 the Sadducees say émra oty ad. noavy, where Mk xii. 20 has no con-
junction and Mt. xxii. 25 has 6é.) In Acts, narrative wey ody is freq. but this is
quite distinct from narrative ody which is very rare (perh. only in x. 23, xvi. 1,
Xxli. 29, xxv. I, 17 (?speech), 23). On ody in Christ’s words in the Synoptists
see 2191 a.
4 [2640c] The absence of oty narr. in Revelation is important because, like the
Acts, it is largely made up of narrative, so that we might have expected narrative
oty in abundance if it had been written by the hand that wrote the Fourth Gospel.
° [2640 7] In the following, oty is repeated resumptively after clauses such as
€& exelvou Tod xpdvov, Steph. v. 2391 ‘‘Mire Jo. Malalas p. 29, 19: Oi oty Lupo:
*Avtoxets €& Exevou TOD Xpivou ap ov of Apryetor ENOdvTES EfATnaay Ti Ic morovawy
oby Ti wynuny* neque enim delendum videtur alterutrum. Simplex sic est p. 59,
479
[2640] CONNEXION OF SENTENCES
doubt that the differences in the Greek Gospel between John’s
frequently repeated “and” and “but” and “therefore”—so often
covered up by the Syriac and Latin translators—do help in a very
remarkable manner to suggest relative importance and unimportance
in the events of the Gospel ; and the use of ‘“ therefore” often helps
the reader to receive the impression that what Christ said or did
was not an accident but a consequence, an effect proceeding from a
cause, and that cause from a cause still higher, reaching to the First
Cause of all.
16: Ta dé werayevéorepa Bacihea Alyurriwv, héyw dé awd Tod Napaxw xal kdrw,
oweypayaro ovv Tatra Oeddpidos* 101, 13: Kal ob mapexdpnoev, adN ed Péws amd
Tov Kémrov...guuBawv ov pdxeTar* 195, 4: Kai eloe\Odvra mpds adbri dua Tots...
mpeoBevtats yrwpicaca ov alrév* 238, 4: “Aknkovia dé T00...Xpicrod ra iduara, ds
.. Jepametier, mpos avrov oty Kayw...é5pauov* et similiter 362, 12; 380, 1. Ceterum
imprimis part. ody frequentari ab scholiastis notavit Dobr. ad Aristoph. Pl. 973,
p- 120, qui exx. illic citatis facile plurima ex schol. Aristoph. et aliis adjicere
potuisset.”
[2640 ¢] The foll. are not in narr., but they are useful as illustrating the various
uses of ofy: Fayiim Pap. 133 (4th century) xa@’ adryy oty thy byw, ui micbels
oiy Tos Kapmavas, Thy Tptynv toinoe, ‘‘so L say at sight of this—not listening,
I say, to the fruit-buyers—make the vintage.” Note also the strange use of odp
at the beginning of the following letter, 26. 114 (A.D. 100) ‘‘L.B.G. to his son S.
greeting. Zo repeat what I said (otv)—on receipt of my letter you will oblige me by
sending Pindarus...to me at the city (€6 otv mujoas Kopicdmevos mou Thy émvoTroNhy
méuots wv Ilivdapov els tiv wéduv).” ‘This may perhaps be explained as a repetition
of the phrase in a letter from L.B.G. to S. a few days before (76. 113). ‘‘Be sure
to send Pindarus...you will oblige me therefore tmmediately by sending him tmme-
diately (sic) (eb ov munoas éEauTijs wéuots avtov efavrjs).” The later of these two
letters (no. 114) indicates that G. was vexed with his son for delaying—on the
pretext that he was busy threshing—to send some fish: ‘*Send the fish on the 24th
or 25th for Gemella’s birthday feast. A%nadly (o(b)v) don’t talk nonsense about
your threshing.” Two previous letters from Gemellus (tr1 and 112) after a long
list of minute instructions, end thus “7 ofy &\XAws mujons, ‘*So, (or, frzally) don’t
neglect these instructions,” and the same formula occurs in 115, 118, and 119,
besides being conjecturally supplied in 116. Note the curious spelling of sovety
as uve.
480
APPENDIX I
TWOFOLD MEANINGS AND EVENTS
§1. Our Lord’s Sayings
[2641] It belongs to a Commentary, not to a Grammar, to
illustrate in detail the double and mystical meanings that underlie
large portions of the Fourth Gospel. But they may be briefly
touched on here, as the recognition of them sometimes influences
the grammatical interpretation or the textual reading, as, for example,
will appear (2648) in relation to 1. 28 W.H. “Bethany,” R.V. txt
“ Bethany ” but marg. ‘‘ Bethabarah ” or “ Betharabah.”
[2642] To begin with our Lord’s sayings, John himself tells us:
that the words “ Destroy this temple..."” were misunderstood by all!
till after Christ’s resurrection, and that the disciples understood “our
friend Lazarus has fallen asleep?” to refer to literal sleep. Before
the Feeding of the Five Thousand, Jesus says to Philip, “‘ Whence
shall we buy bread that these may eat*?” and though John does not
say that this had a double meaning, he adds ‘“ But this he said,
tempting him ”—implying that the words did not mean what anyone,
taking them literally, would have supposed them to mean. As
regards the prophecy ‘A little while and ye behold me no more and
again a little while and ye shall see me’,” he says that the disciples
were perplexed about it, and implies that they misunderstood it even
after Christ’s further comment. The utterance to the Lord’s mother,
“My hour is not yet come’,” and the prediction to Peter “Thou
ils 1G)> 3 Sith Tite Svilene SexVvientOr
° [2642 a] ii. 4. In 2230 it was said that this verse could present no doubt
about its meaning to “‘contemporary” Greeks. This limitation contemplated
Nonnus’ interpretation of Christ’s words to Mary ré éuot cal col; which he
A. VI. 481 31
[2642] TWOFOLD MEANINGS AND EVENTS
shalt follow me hereafter’,” are not commented on, but the im-
pression left on the reader is that neither of these utterances is
supposed by the evangelist to have been understood at the time.
The second of these, in a slightly varied form (‘‘ Follow me”), occurs
again in a mysterious connexion later on, after the prediction “ When
thou shalt grow old, thou shalt stretch out thy hands, and another
shall gird thee and carry thee whither thou wouldest not?,” to which
is added “This he said signifying by what manner of death he
should glorify God.” But it seems doubtful whether the prediction
was understood at the time. Almost the last words of Christ uttered
to the multitude are “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will
draw all men unto me®,” and John adds expressly “This he said
signifying by what manner of death he was destined to die”—
namely, ‘lifted up” on the cross. No doubt, the evangelist included
(here and elsewhere) the notion of “exaltation,” or ‘ascension.”
paraphrases as Ti pot, yovat, 7é oo. aitj; Nonnus wrote in the fifth century,
and he desciibes Mary at Cana thus:—
°Es eiNarivny 6é Kal a’rh
mapbevikn Xpictoto Penrixos tkeTo uyTnp,
axXpavTw Twadaun yaulns Wavovoa Tparréfns,
madorokos puyddeuvos, ael wePérovca Kopelnv.
It is probable that his translation of ré éuol x. col was influenced by poetic and
theological feeling.
1 xili. 36. 2 xxi. 18—19.
3 [26424] xii. 32—4. ‘‘ Lift up” implies (1) Gen. xl. 13 “‘exalting,” (2) 7d. 19
‘“‘executing.” Is it not possible that there may be some connexion between the
prediction that Christ would be ‘‘/ifted up” and the prediction that He would
“sive” His ‘‘flesh” for the world? Comp. Gen. xl. 17—19 where the baker
dreams that ‘‘the birds” eat bread from the baskets on his head and Joseph
explains it, ‘Pharaoh shall ft up thy head from off thee and shall ang thee on
a tree and the birds shall eat thy flesh from off thee.” Thus, such a saying as
“‘the crucified feeds many” would seem likely to be known to Jews from Jewish
sources apart from the Greek sayings quoted above (2211c), to which add
Artemid. iv. 49 ‘‘To fancy oneself crucified signifies glory and wealth: glory,
because the crucified is ifted higher [than others], wealth because he feeds many
birds (moXods Tpépev olwvods).” The same writer applies the phrase ‘‘he feeds
many” to one condemned to fight with wild beasts in the arena, (ii. 54) ‘‘To
fight with wild beasts is [a] good [sign] for a poor man, for he wil be able to feed
many (moddovds yap eer rpépew). For indeed the man condemned to fight thus
Jeeds the wild beasts from his own flesh (k. yao 6 Onpromaxav aro Trav ldiwy capxav
za Onpia rpépe).” Tpépw is used for feeding slaves in Pap. Oxyr. ili. 489,
ll. 9, 17, and in the phrase ‘‘dcard and clothing” for apprentices, 7. iv. 725,
]lj nk, 45 “Pasco” ‘is applied to the feeding of slaves by their masters and
of crows by the slaves on the cross (Hor. Z/. i. 16. 48 ‘‘non pasces in cruce
corvos,” and see Juv. iii. 141, annot. Mayor).
482
TWOFOLD MEANINGS AND EVENTS [2644 |
But the multitude apparently recognise neither of these meanings.
They reply ‘‘ How sayest thou that the Son of man must be lifted
up? Who is this Son of man?” The Gospel leaves us under the
impression that all Christ’s sayings were of the nature of “ proverbs”
till the Holy Spirit came. ‘The very last saying of all is recorded to
have given rise to a false impression about the disciple whom Jesus
loved—namely, that ‘‘he would not die’.”
§2. The Sayings of the Disciples and of the Evangelist
[2643] Here there is perhaps only one saying of which it can be
distinctly said that the speaker meant one thing and unconsciously
predicted another, namely, the utterance of Peter, “ Lord, 7 wz// lay
down my life for thy sake*.” Luke’s version is, ‘I am veady to go
with thee to prison and to death®.” The latter was not true. The
former proved true, though not in the way anticipated by the speaker.
There is no double meaning in “ Now speakest thou clearly*”—
uttered by the disciples to their Master at the very moment when
they had been warned that the time was yet to come when He
would cease to speak in “proverbs ”—but there is an irony. As
regards the saying of Philip ‘“‘We have found Jesus the son of
Joseph, [Jesus] of Nazareth’ ”—if we were certain that John accepted
the tradition of the birth at Bethlehem there would be, here too,
a touch of gentle irony in representing Philip as thus deluded and as
nevertheless believing. But John’s meaning may be that Philip’s
view of facts on earth was not incompatible with belief that Jesus
was the incarnate Son of God from heaven. Another saying of
Philip is that “Two hundred pennyworth of bread” would not suffice
to give even “a little” to the Five Thousand*. ‘This, in view of the
prevalence of inner mystical interpretations in this Gospel, may have
a double meaning: but in any case it will be found that double
meaning in the sayings of the disciples is not so frequent as in those
of non-believers (2645).
[2644] ‘There is little of double meaning or irony in the comments
of the evangelist made in his own person. He prefers for the most
part to exhibit the Jews or Pilate as the mouthpieces of Providence
uttering condemnations on themselves or testifying to the Messiah ;
HRT, D3
ESXVi0120
xiii. 37. 3 Lk. xxii. 33.
37 3
1. 45- evi.
483 a2
[2644 (i) ] TWOFOLD MEANINGS AND EVENTS
or else to relate events in such a way as to suggest that while man
after the flesh struts on the stage in front and says “I have authority,”
the hand of the real ‘‘authority,” behind the curtain, directs all the
puppet’s movements. But under the head of evangelistic irony we
may perhaps put down the statement that although many of the
Jews in Jerusalem, beholding Christ’s signs, ‘ ¢vusted in his name,”
Christ “did not ¢vust himself to them!.” Later on, when he sums
up the cause of Christ’s being rejected by the rulers, there is no
irony but merely grave condemnation in the words, ‘‘ They loved the
glory of men rather than the glory of God*.”
[2644 (i)] As regards the double meaning in xix. 30 xAivas thy
kepadnv it has been maintained elsewhere that the natural meaning
is ‘rested the head,” and that John intends, as the primary meaning
(1456), “laying His head to rest on the bosom of the Father.” Since
that passage was written I have found the following in Origen’s
Latin commentary on Matthew (xxvil. 50 apjxev 70 mvetpa) “If we
have understood the meaning of ‘bending the head’ (inclinare caput)
...let us be urgent so to keep our own lives that in our departure we
too may be able...to deliver up our spirit even as Jesus, who dent the
head and took His departure in the act of resting it as it were on the
lap of the Father who could cherish tt and strengthen tt in His bosom
(sicut Jesus, qui inclinavit caput et quasi supra Patris gremium illud
repausans exit, qui poterat illud in sinu suo favere et confortare).”
And he proceeds to repeat ‘‘zzclinasse caput super gremium Patris,”
and ‘‘zuclinare caput super gremium Det.”
$3. Zhe Sayings of Others
[2645] Caiaphas is expressly asserted to have said, “It is ex-
pedient for you that one man should die for the people,” under the
influence of the spirit of prophecy®*, because Jesus “‘ was destined to
die for the nation, and not for the nation only but also that he might
gather together into one the children of God that were scattered
abroad.” Similarly unconscious utterance of divine truth by un-
worthy and sinful agents is implied, though not stated, about other
sayings indicating the sovereignty of Jesus and the destruction of
the Jews. Thus Pilate writes the title ‘ Azug of the Jews.” The
chief priests—who are uniquely called on this occasion ‘chief priests
1 ii, 23—4. = Sab 15), 3 xi. 50—I.
TWOFOLD MEANINGS AND EVENTS [2646 |
of the Jews'”—say, ‘Write not ‘ King of the Jews.” But Pilate
replies, “What I have written, I have written.” Elsewhere the
Pharisees predict, in effect, the conversion of the world to Christ,
“Behold, the world hath gone after him*.” And, to one writing
thirty years after the fall of Jerusalem, the following, in spite of the
conditional clause, would read like an unconscious prophecy, “ If we
let him alone thus, all will believe in him, and she Romans will come
and take away both our place and our nation®.” In the days of the
descendants of Gideon, the trees of the field chose the bramble to
be their king, and fire was to come out from the bramble upon
them*; so, in the Fourth Gospel, the Jews cried, “‘ We have no king
but Caesar’,” and fire came out from Caesar to destroy their city.
Other ironies may probably be found in Pilate’s exhibition of “the
[ideal] man” with the saying, ‘ Behold the man*!” and in the
sayings of the multitude, “Surely he will not come up to the feast,”
““Who is this Son of man?” “Will he go to the dispersion of the
Greeks and teach the Greeks’?” As to Pilate, the whole of the
Dialogue between him and Christ inside the Praetorium, and between
Pilate and the Jews outside it, reads like an ironical drama on the
subject of ‘‘ False Authority, or the Ruler that is a Slave.” But on
this subject enough has been said elsewhere (1562—94) to illustrate
the Johannine irony latent in Pilate’s words, “I have authority to
release thee and I have authority to crucify thee®”
§ 4. LHvents
[2646] On two occasions Christ ‘‘was hidden” from the Jews.
In both, a literal meaning is intended, but a spiritual meaning also
is almost certainly included. In both cases apparently the “ hiding ”
takes place in the Temple’, and in the context of both there are
mentions of “light” and “‘blindness” which imply that the Shechinah
is being described as withdrawn first for a time, then finally. The
1 [2645 a] xix. 21. ‘‘Chief priests” occurs in Jn nine times elsewhere, but
never with this addition.
oe te Uae 4 a s
Xil. 19. Sle sy Judg. ix. 14—15.
D SIR, hss D sabe ie
7 “Xi. SO,pxll- 346 Vil 355 SSxixesOs
9
viii. 59, xii. 36. The Temple is not actually mentioned in xii. 36, but it
follows the entrance into Jerusalem which is connected by the Synoptists with the
entrance into the Temple.
485
[2647 | TWOFOLD MEANINGS AND EVENTS
Jews, it is said, came up to the passover—the passover of the
crucifixion—“ to purify themselves'”: at the same time they discuss
the question of Christ’s venturing to come up to the Feast, and decide
that He will ‘“‘surely not come.” They speak as spectators, neither
for, nor against, Christ. But this mention of “purifying” prepares
the way for the hypocrisy of their rulers, who, soon afterwards,
“defile themselves” (as Matthew’s Gospel implies’) by letting slander
“go forth out of their mouth” (“if this man were not an evil-doer we
should not have delivered him up unto thee*”) and yet “entered
not into the palace that they might not be defiled*.”
[2647] Of a different kind are certain arrangements and connexions
of events that indicate a recognition of the mysterious ways in which
the circle of things comes round, and history repeats itself, yet with
the strangest vicissitudes®. ‘hus it is implied (2624) that the public
life of Christ opens with a six days’ work preparing the way for the
Feast at Cana when the wine was changed to water, and that it closes
with a six days’ work preparing the way for the Passover, the sacrifice
of the Paschal Lamb, whence issued the water and the blood. The
typical meaning of the Feast at Cana is indicated by the words “my
hour zs not yet come” in the former narrative, compared with the
words ‘‘the hour zs come,” which precede the latter®. Again, in
summing up Christ’s work before the seventh and greatest “sign”
(the raising of Lazarus) it is said, “ He went away again beyond
Jordan into the place where John was at the first baptizing...and they
said, ‘John indeed did no sign, but all things whatsoever John spake
of this man were true’.’”
[2648] This last passage represents Jesus—after being rejected
by the Jews, who try to stone Him—as retreating, so to speak, before
achieving His crowning victory: and He goes back “into the place
where John was at the first baptizing,” z.e. where the Gospel began.
This place the Fourth Gospel—alone of the Gospels—has previously
described by name, “ Bethany beyond Jordan*”; and now, after
mentioning this retirement, it proceeds to describe a summons to
A Xi. 55s 2 Mt. xv. 11, 18.
3 xvili. 30. 4 xviii. 28.
5 Philo i. 298 xopever yap év Kikdw Néyos 0 Oetos, dv oi Tool TGV avOpwrwy
Ovoudgovet TUXHV.
OMI. 4 eXVILoi ls 7 x. 40—42, see 2649 (i).
She
486
TWOFOLD MEANINGS AND EVENTS [2649 |
another “ Bethany” (‘a certain man was sick, Lazarus of Lethany”’).
To this Bethany, which might be called “ Bethany on this side
Jordan,” Jesus now journeys and raises Lazarus from the dead. The
third and last mention of this ‘‘ Bethany this side Jordan” is the
following: “ Jesus therefore, six days before the Passover, came to
Bethany'.” At the first Bethany He was baptized for the work of
His life on earth: at the second Bethany He is described as being
anointed for His death and sacrifice.
[2649] Among minor interesting repetitions is the twofold use of
euBrepas, where John the Baptist is said to have “looked intently
on Jesus” before pronouncing Him to be the Lamb of God, and, a
few verses afterwards, Jesus ‘‘looked intently” on ‘‘Simon son of
John” before saying, “‘’Phou shalt be Cephas,” z.e. Peter or Stone’.
Perhaps the evangelist regarded both the Baptist and the Messiah as
perceiving by divine intuition what was in those whom they severally
“looked on.” Another interesting repetition (with variation) occurs
in the first words of Jesus as Preacher of the Gospel and in His first
words after He has risen from the dead. ‘To Andrew and Andrew’s
nameless companion the Lord says, “‘ Vat seek ye*?” After the life
of the incarnate Son is closed on earth, and when the disciples have
gained through sorrow and tears new insight into what that life has
been, the voice of the risen Saviour utters, as its first words, to Mary,
‘““Why weepest thou? Whom seekest thou*?” ‘There are passages
in O.T. and Philo that indicate how this question might be tra-
ditionally regarded as one of mystical meaning?.
1 Sats Tie
* [2649 a] i. 36, 42. Comp. Judg. vi. 14 ‘‘and the Lord Jooked on him
(Gideon),” LXX éméorpewer, ‘‘turned,” al. exempl. éréBdeVev, ‘‘looked on”—
whereby Gideon is endowed with strength (‘‘Go, in this thy strength”). So in
Lk. xxii. 61 ‘‘the Lord ¢urned and looked on Peter (ctpadels 6 kipios EvéB\eWev TH
Ilérpw).” Lk. and Jn are the only two evangelists that describe Jesus as ‘‘ looking
intently on Peter.” Mk x. 27, Mt. xix. 26, use €u A. of Christ ‘‘looking intently”
on the discouraged disciples; in the same context, however, Mk x. 21 uses it of
Christ looking on the rich young man, who ‘‘went away sorrowing” (1744 i—xi).
Oaks Bek SExcon Tiss
° [26494] Almost the first use of fn7éw in LXX (the only earlier one being
Gen. xix. 11 “seeking the door”) is the question of the unnamed man
(Gen. xxxvii. 15 ‘‘a certain man”) to the wandering Joseph ‘‘ What seekest thou?”
Philo (i. 196) regards Joseph as the type of the wandering soul to whom the ideal
Man (6 pds d\7jPeay dvOpwros)—who dwells in our hearts—speaks as a Con-
victer (¢\eyxos) asking us what we regard as the object of our life. By this
‘*man”—whom the Targum calls the Man of God or Gabriel—Philo means the
487
[2649 (i)] TWOFOLD MEANINGS AND EVENTS
[2649 (i)] Concerning the retirement beyond Jordan, x. 40 xat
amn\Oev radw! répav tov “lopdavov, Alford refers to i. 28, but Westcott
says ‘“‘the reference is probably to some recent and unrecorded visit.
The events of 1. 28 are too remote.” Both seem to assume that
maw means “again.” But wédw means (1) “ dack” locally, as well as
(2) “again” temporally’, and John frequently has (1) with verbs of
Logos. So here the incarnate Logos puts to the two companions the question,
““ What seek ye?” The probability of a mystical meaning is increased by the
occurrence, in the context (i. 38), of the phrase ‘‘Come and ye shall see” (1598).
[2649] In Genesis, the answer of Joseph to the ‘‘man” is ‘‘I seek my
brothers,” and the ‘‘man” guides him so that he may find them. So, concerning
the two companions, it is said that ‘‘ Andrew first fizdeth his own brother,” and it is
implied that Andrew’s companion does the same.
[26492] It is worth noting (1) that Elenchos, the Convicter, is supposed by
Philo to put this question to every wandering soul, who may answer it wrongly
or rightly, and (2) that the question (xviii. 4, 7) ‘‘ Whom seek ye?” is put—in
a very different sense and in very different circumstances—to Judas and his
companions when arresting Jesus. These men are quite ready with an answer.
They are the ‘‘darkness,” in one sense apprehending the light, but in another
sense ‘‘not apprehending it.” They want ‘‘Jesus of Nazareth.” The answer
to this is I AM, which causes them to ‘‘fall to the ground.” Then, when they
persist in their hostility, they are allowed to ‘‘apprehend” the Logos by binding
Him and leading Him away as a prisoner.
[2649 ce] Origen (Huet ii. 83 C—D) points out that the question addressed to
Christ ‘‘ Where abidest thou?” implies that they ‘‘/long to behold the habitation of
the Son of God” and that their ‘‘seekéng”’ implies that they will ‘‘fid.” To the
two companions Christ does not say at once where He ‘‘abides,” but only, ‘‘Come,
and ye shall see.” Elsewhere Christ says (2263 e—/), ‘‘The slave abideth not in
the house for ever, the Son abideth [in the house] for ever,” meaning in the home, or
bosom of the Father. In Luke, Jesus (in the days of His youth) says (Lk. ii. 49)
‘“Wist ye not that I must needs be in my father’s [abiding-place|?” If it be
admitted that “Come and ye shall see!” means, in its inner sense, ‘*Come unto
me and ye shall experience the peace of those at home with God,” then there is
a parallelism between this promise and the fuller revelation to Mary Magdalene
about that home: xx. 17 ‘‘Go unto my brethren and say to them, / ascend unto my
Father and your Father and my God and your God.”
1 [2649 (i)a@] SS and e omit mdéd\w. So does Chrys., in quoting; but he
paraphrases it as dvaxwpe? and discusses it as being a retreat. Nonnus, éxafero,
om. mé\w. Perhaps SS and e were influenced by the notion that ra\w must
mean ‘‘a second time” and must imply a reference to a recent visit.
2 [2649 (i) 4] See Steph. (87 B) quoting Aristarchus as to Homer's use, To raw
obk taorw éx devrépov ws ucts, GAN avril rod Eumadw épet, évavriws, and giving
copious instances of both uses, and of rddw é\eiv=‘‘redire.”” He also quotes
a schol. on //. ii. 276 7d 6é€ radu, eis rolmicw: 7d dé abris xpovxdy, €& varépov.
Comp. 1 Jn ii. 8 mddw évrodjy Kawny ypadw, i.e. “on the other hand.”
488
“cc
TWOFOLD MEANINGS AND EVENTS [2649 (ii) |
motion. Luke scarcely ever uses zaw'. Matthew uses it
rarely in comparison with Mark, John more frequently than either*.
Matthew and Luke frequently deviate from Mark’s phrases with
adAw*, One reason may have been that, when used with verbs of
motion, maAw is ambiguous, since it may mean (1) “coming dack to
one’s home, or to a place recently left,” (2) “‘ coming a@ second time to
a strange city.” Another reason may have been that the Greek
word sometimes represented a Semitic original that might have
various meanings‘. At all events in xviii. 33 elojAOev odv wadAw does
not mean “entered a second time” (for no previous entry has been
mentioned): but, “went Jack,” into the palace, comp. xx. Io “went
back (axqOov wad) to their homes”: and in the present passage
John seems to shew that he means “back” by adding “to the
place where John was at the first baptizing,” as if to say that the
Saviour, before working His greatest sign, went back to the place
where He had begun the Gospel. These passages make it probable
that others should be similarly translated, e.g. iv. 3 “went away back
(arOev radw) to Galilee,” iv. 46 “he came back therefore (jAOev ovv
madwv) to Cana of Galilee” (¢.e. on the eve of working a new “sign”
He came back to the place where He had worked His old and first
‘‘sion”), vi. 15 “he retreated (lit.) back (dvexepnoe madw) to the
mountain.” He had not “retreated” before; He had “sat” there ;
now He retires “‘dack” to the mountain.
[2649 (ii)] IlaAw coming at the beginning of a sentence, zwrthout
any mention of motion in the preceding sentence, naturally means
‘again ” in the sense of ‘“‘a second time.” But waAw with a verb of
motion may mean either ‘a second time” (as in “he came to London
1 [2649 (i)c] Only thrice, Lk. xiii. 20, xxiii. 20, and vi. 43 ovd€ mad dévdpor
campév, ‘nor, on the other hand, does a bad tree...” —not a freq. use of mah. If
this was derived from a Greco-Hebraic document, we should suspect that the
original was may, ‘‘not amy tree.” See the parall. Mt. vil. 17—19.
2 [2649 (i) 7] Mk about 27 times, Mt. about 16, Jn about 4o.
3 [2649 (i)¢] Mk ii. 1, Mt. ix. 1, Lk. v. 17; Mk ii. 13, Mt. ix. 9, Lk. v. 27;
Mk iii. 1, Mt. xii. 9, Lk. vi. 6; Mk iii. 20, Mt. xii. 22, Lk. xi. 14. All these
Lk.-parallels are greatly modified by D, which inserts maw in Lk. v. 27, vi. 6.
4 [2649 (i) £] In the canonical books of LXX, 7é\w may be roughly regarded
as an experimental way of rendering the Heb. ‘‘/ [ve]turn and do,” i.e. ‘*T do
again,” —a rendering rare in later books. It occurs Gen. (10), Ex. (4), Lev. (1),
Num. (1), Deut. (1), Josh. (1), Judg. (4), never in S. or K. and only once in
Chron. That it is characteristic of a free Gk. transl. is shewn by the fact that it
occurs (5) in 1 Esdr., (0) in Ezra, and (ro) in Job. The freq. use of maw is one
of many characteristics common to Genesis and Mark.
489
[2649 (iii) | TWOFOLD MEANINGS AND EVENTS
again”) or “back” (as in “turn again, Whittington”). In John, the
general rule is that taAw after a verb of motion means “ back,” but
zwadw before a verb of motion may mean either “ back” or “again”
and the meaning depends on the preceding context. In xiv. 3, where
Christ has previously said, “If I go [away],” raAw epyouat, coming in
the middle of a sentence, is best rendered ‘‘1 come back.” So, too,
in xvi. 28 é&)AOov éx 7. matpos K. €AnAVOa eis T. KOopov: Takw adinpe
tT. kocpov..., though zaAw comes at the beginning of a clause, the
meaning is not “a second time I leave the world,” but “ veverse/y, or
returning back, | leave the world,” referring to what precedes. In
Xl. 7—8 dywpev eis THY I. wadw...7radw imayes exec; the meaning of
the first wadw seems to be “‘dack-again”; and in the reply, the
second zadAw may have a temporal meaning, the local adverb being
exet emphatic: ‘‘ A second time dost thou go ¢here (1527)?” In the
description of Pilate’s going to and fro between Jesus in the palace
and the Jews outside, it has been shewn above that wad at least
once means “back,” but once it may mean ‘‘a second time,” xvill. 33
foll. eiondAGev ovv mary (back)...(38) madrw e&nrGev (a second time went
out)..:(xix. 4) (€&\Gev radkw eS) went out agazz outside [or, went
out dack to the Jews outside]...(9) eiondOev cis Td 7. waAw (went into
the palace back again, or again).”
[2649 (iii)] In xiii. 12 (W.H.) ore obv ev ev...xai EaBev 7. iparia
attov Kal ‘avérecev, Tadw' cizev avrots, the punctuation of W.H. txt
would connect zaAw with etzev, “said to them a second time.” But
W.H. marg. avérecev tadw “lay down in his place agazz” is far more
in accordance with Johannine usage and is probably supported by
Ongen (ad loc. 10 oxijpa Tod demvotvtos dvahaBwv, “resuming the
appearance of one at a meal”), by Chrysostom (aveAaBe ta iparia
avtod Kat katekdiOy), and by Nonnus (waAdwvopoos éovs évduve yiTavas
Kai radapys aykava radwoivytov épeioas...eirev...). This punctuation
is also supported by a and 4 (e and / leave the connexion doubtful).
490
APPENDIX i
READINGS OF CODEX VATICANUS
NOT ADOPTED BY WESTCOTT AND HORT
[2650] Where W.H. deviate from B, the following list reproduces
B’s text! Adjacent to each reading of B is placed W.H.’s text in
round brackets together with W.H.’s signs (" ‘and [ ]) of doubtful
readings. Where readings agreeing with B are placed by W.H. at
the foot of their page, the fact is indicated by ‘‘marg. as B.” The
context is given in some cases rather fully, because it often supplies
manifest evidence as to the reasons for W.H.’s deviation. For
example, the reader will soon discover that the scribe’s error of
repeating c twice, or of inserting 0 after c, or after €, occurs so often
as to make him in some cases an unsafe guide as to the article. The
list was compiled from Tischendorf’s edition of B (Leipsic, 1867).
[2651] Since the compilation, I have compared ‘Tischendorf’s
edition, in a few instances, with Danesi’s photograph of B. The
results indicate some apparent errors in the text (or omissions in the
notes) of the former, given below. It must be premised that the
original writing of B has been coarsely inked over by a subsequent
scribe, who has sometimes altered the text. For example, ini. 18, the
photograph shews ew at the end of a line as part of ewpaken, but the
w shews signs of having been originally 0, and Tischendorf prints
eopakeNn and calls attention to the w asa correction. This he also
does elsewhere, not only in ix. 37 where w is written above o, but in
cases where (occasionally) the correction, if it exists, is not visible to
1 [26502] The list does not give all the peculiarities of B’s spelling
rejected by W.H., e.g. the frequent use of €1 for long !—much more rarely (2654 2)
for short 1—nor insertions or omissions of -~ ephelkustikon. But it gives B’s
abbreviations, 1¢ (for Incods), @c (for Geds), KC (for KUpios), XC (for Xpiords).
491
[2652] | READINGS OF CODEX VATICANUS
a non-expert. This being the case, readers of Tischendorf and of
the photograph naturally assume that the former will either reproduce
in his pages the exact text of the latter with all its errors or else, in
his notes, will call attention to the reading shewn by the photo-
graphic text as a correction of the original text. We are all the
more entitled to expect this because Tischendorf, as a rule, agrees
exactly with the photograph even where the text contains a palpable
error, as in Jn v. 7 mpoc for mpo and Mk vi. 48 mepiaNT@N for
TIEDITIATOON.
[2652] In these circumstances I have thought it worth while to
call attention to the following discrepancies between the photograph
and Tischendorf, as to which Tischendorf is silent. I have included
cases where the photograph shews a correction above the line, e.g.
Bacideyel with c above, printed by Tischendorf BaowWeve a without
note. Probably Tischendorf has commented on these and other
differences elsewhere, but it is important to the possessor of the
edition of Tischendorf above described that he should be aware of
its deficiencies. The omission of c before ¢, as in BaciAeycel, is a
common error of B, illustrating the tendency of the scribe to drop,
or repeat, such letters as o, c, 6, and e, as in Mk vi. 22 where
Tischendorf rightly gives B’s error in his text ereAdoycuc, adding, in
a note, that the corrector has changed it to eiceA@oycuc. This bears
upon the evidence of B in readings where the question turns on the
insertion or omission of the article, 0, in juxtaposition with similar
letters. There may be other deviations in Tischendorf. These are
merely what came under my notice in examining a few passages in
the Fourth Gospel.
[2653] ‘TiscHENDORF PHOTOGRAPH
1. 45 0 mpopyrat ONTPOHTAI
eC
1. 49 ov Bacirevo ea cyBaciAeyel
lll. 27 Aap Paver AAMBAINEIN
V. 15 avOpwroo ANOPWTTOO
V. 35 ayad\Avacbnvat ATAAAIADHNAI
Vi. 15' epyeoOau epyecde
Vill. 39 e7rovere €troieite (2078—9)
[2653a@] Tisch. corrects this error in a note, Introd. p. xli. ‘*Alfordus
testatur epyere pro epxerOar, id quod nos fugit.”
492
NOT ADOPTED BY WESTCOTT AND HORT [2654|
‘TISCHENDORF PHOTOGRAPH
1X. 2 7 ol yoveuw HOIOIPONEIC
Al
IX. 7 epmnveveTat €PMHNEYETE
x. 6! tTiva 7 TINAHN
xil. 27—8 matep...7arep TIATEP.. .TTATHP
XIl. 43 v7ep HTTEp
wee N
XVII. 17 OvV TW OYT®@
9 €
XIX. 31 €7€l TAPATKEV?) ETTITIAPACKEYH
XX. 20 TOV LV TONKN
§ 3. Lust of Readings
[2654]? Chap. i. 4 to dws Kar (f. 70 Pos tdv avOpwrwr kai),
g adyfewov® (f. ddyfvov), 12 edaBay (f. &aBov), 13 avOpwrwv
(f. aiparwv), ovde ex GeAnuwatos aapKxos adXd* (f. otde ex 6. o. ode ex
GeAnparos avdpos XX’), eyernOnoay (f. eyevvynoav), 14 xapitos adyOevas
(f. x. Kat a.), 18 eopaxey (Tisch.) (f. Ewpaxev), 21 ov ovv tt Hdevas et
Cee tony, [ov] "HAcias’ ef;, marg. Té ovv ov; "HXelas el;), 23 epe
(Tisch.) (f. fy), 27 ovw eye eyw avos (f. 6. & [eyo] agvos), 35 eornKee
(f. tornKer), 41 evpeoxer (f. etpicxer), 48 mpo Tov oar (f. 7. 7. oe).
Chap. i. 1 ty tpirn yuepa (f. 77H “nwépa 7H Tpitn', Marg. as B),
6 rps (f. tpets), 17 eat yeypappevov (f. yeyp. éoriv), 19 Ka Tpiow
1 [2653 4] Tisch. has no footnote, but says in Introd. p. xli. ‘‘twa 7 ut M?;
male M! twa nv.” The photograph has clearly TINAHN.
2 [2654a] Om.=‘‘omits”; f. = ‘‘for,” e.g. ‘‘ehaBav (f. €\aBov)” means that B
has e\aBav for W.H. é\aBov. This Appendix does not, as a rule, include the
corrections of B mentioned by Tisch. as made by subsequent scribes. In some
cases where Tisch. has been found to differ from the photograph and may be
presumed to have differed because he thought he detected the original lettering
under the coarse ‘‘inking over” of a secondary scribe, ‘‘Tisch.” is inserted to
indicate the fact.
3 [26544] “AXnOuvés is spelt without e always later on (iv. 23, 37, vi. 32 etc.).
Conversely, Nixéddymos occurs in iil. 1, but Necxddnuos in ili. 4, 9, vil. 50, xix. 39.
4 [2654] Alford explains this omission by ‘‘homoeote/.” But if the eye of the
copyist had passed from the end of the first @e\nuaros to the end of the second,
overlooking the intervening words, he would have written ovde ex @eAnpmaros
avdpos adXX. Homoeoteleuton, therefore, does not explain the omission. And
the change (in the same sentence) of aiuatwy to avOpwirwy indicates that other
than mere transcriptional causes have been at work.
493
[2655] READINGS OF CODEX VATICANUS
npepass (f. Kati [év] tp. nu.), 23 ev Tw TacxXa TH eopTy' (f. ev T. TdoyXa ev
TH €.).
Chap. il. 4 Aeyer zpos avtov Neu. (f. A. zp. a. [6] N.), 5 amexpiby
o & (f. a. [6] “Ino.), 8 adda. ovk (f. GAN otk), 23 nv de Kat o Iw. (f. Av Se
kal [6] ‘Iw.), 27 ovde ev av (f. oddev dv), 28 evrov eyw ovK Eyl Eyw 0 XS
(f. etzrov [éyw] Odx € € 6 xp.), 34 ov yap ex petpov didwow? (f. od y: €k
p. 0. TO veda).
[2655] Chap. iv. 1 ts wAeovas pabytas...car Barriler Twavys
(f. “Ino. 7A. paé....Barrile [9] “Iwavys’), 3 arnOev as tyv T.*
(f. awpOev wadu eis tr. T.), 5 0 edwxev lax tw Iwond (f. 6 €6.71. [74]
'L.), 6 ovtw em (f. ovtTws eri), 9 ov yap cvvypwvtat Tovdacois4 Sapapertars
(f. [ov yap o. “Tovdator 3.}), 15 pnde duepyouar (f. py. duépywpac), 17 evrev
avtw (f. € [atrd]), 40 ovvndOov (Tisch.)* ovv zpos avrov o &. npwrwv
(f. Ws obv 7AGov zpos airov ot &. 7.), 42 edeyov (f. EXeyov [dr]), tHV
Aadtav cov (f. THY “onv Aaduav’, marg. as B), 46 nAOev ovv radrw ev
Kava tys TV. (f. 7AO. obv x. eis THv K. tis T.), 51 Aeyovrars® (f. -res),
52 Tyv wpav exewny (f. 7. wpav rap aitdv), amov (f. €izav), wpav
ePdopnv adyxev avtnv’ o muperos (f. wpav €. a. aitov 6 7.), 54 Tovto be
madw (f. todro [dé] z.).
Chap. v. 2 ByOcaida (f. "Bybfaba', marg. as B), 5 tpraxovta oxtw
(f. tp. [kai] dx7w), 7 mpos® emov (f. mpd euot), 14 avrov® is (f. &. [4]
‘Ino.), 15 avyyyedev (f. “eirev', marg. as B), 19 amexpwvato ovv Kat
1 [2654d@] Comp. vi. 4 (B) ro macya 7 eoprn Twv Iovdatwy which might mean
“the passover, [that is to say, not the Paschal offering but] the feast so called.”
If that is the meaning of the scribe in ii. 23, 7 eopry is appositional, not
temporal, dative. But see 2715c.
* In ii. 34, after d:dwow, a space is left sufficient for more than one letter, and
the margin adds romva. The next words are orarnp.
% B marg. ins. radu (see 2635 (i)).
* B has repeated the first c of Camapeitaic as the last c of 1oyAaloIc
(see 2652).
° The phot. shews OYNHAOON (with small superlinear we before OYN and
CYN after it), which might easily be confused with CYNHA@ON. See Tisch.
Introd. p. xl.
® Comp. i. 48 cae for oe (where, however, cae comes just above another oat and
might have been copied from the latter) and vi. 24.
7 Did the scribe take avryvy as agreeing with wpav ‘“‘the seventh hour
precisely” ?
* trpoc arises from the corrupt addition of c between the two similar letters 0
and €. In iv. 6 C was omitted through the juxtaposition of €.
® Adrév coming at the end of a line is written ayTO, and o may have
been omitted after it owing to the identity of the two letters.
494
NOT ADOPTED BY WESTCOTT AND HORT (2656]
edeyev (f. amexp. ovv [6 “Inaois| x. edXeyev), 35 ayaAAtac@nvac! (Tisch.)
(f. dyadXabjvar), 44 Tov jrovov ov” (f. 7. povov [@eod] od), 45 «oti o
KaTNyopwv vawv mpos Tov Tatepa® Mwvoys (f. €or 0 k. tyov M.),
47 mortevere (f. “muctevoere', Marg. as B).
[2656] Chap. vi. 12 reprocevovta (f. mepiooevoavta), 15 epxerbe
(2653 a) (f. épxec@ar), 17 ov7w mpos avtous eAnAvier o ts (f. ovzw ed. ‘7.
q 5
a. 0. “Ino.’, marg. ov7w éA. “Ino. 7. abtovs), 19 w” oradiovs (f. ws o7.),
22 mepa® rns (f. répav THS), 23 eK THS’ TiPeptados (f. ex T.), 24 Cyrovytas"
(f. Cytotvres), 25 Kar pn” evpovtes avtov Tepay THS Garacons (f. Kat
eipovres a. 7. T. 6.), 30 wa edmper (f. iva idwpev), 36 ewpaxate pe
(f. € [pe]), 43 petal aAnruv (f. per’ GXAyAwY), 44 pos" ewe (f. ‘pds
pe’, marg. as B), 46 eopaxe (Tisch.) (2651) (f. évpaxev), rapa bv™
(f. =. [rod] Geod), eopaxey (Tisch.) (f. édpaxev), 50 ayn Kar py
arobvnoKkyn'® (f. b. Kk. p. “arobavy', marg. as B), 51 Cyoerar as (f. Cpoer
eis), 52 Tyv capxa avrov dayew (f. t. o. [attod] d.), 53 avros ts
(f. a. [0] “Ino.), paynrae (f. paynte), 60 erov (f. eirav), 64 add eow
(f. adda eioiv),
1 [2655 a] The phot. clearly shews afaAAIdOHNAl. Codex L has ayad-
NacPjva, which may have arisen from a supposed analogy in ayadXidcbwoav
(freq. in LXX). But dyadXacOjvac belongs of right to dya\\dgw, which means
(Steph.) ‘‘I reproach or revile.” Clem. Alex. 815 quotes Ps. cxvili. 24 (LXX
ayahNacwueba) ayadN\iaba@mev.
* cod being written OY might be inserted by some Mss. and omitted by others,
between -oy and oy. (See also 1895 and 2664.)
* [26554] Perh. rep. by B from what precedes (ui doxetre bre eyw Karnyopnow
iuav m. Tov matépa). SS omits m. 7. m. in both clauses.
+ The variation might arise from C inserted or omitted before €.
° ¢ is dropped before c.
6 [26562] tTrepaTt in aMS. that used abbreviations might be easily copied
as TTEpAT in a Ms. that did not use them. Conversely (2651) in Mk vi. 48
B has TepitlAaNTWN for TIEPITTATWN.
* This is the first mention of Tiberias. On the article with names, see 1967 foll.
8 See above, i. 48, iv. 51.
* [2656 4] Perhaps the scribe meant ‘‘and because they had zo¢ found him on
the east side of the sea, they now ask him how he had come from the east to the
west.” In xv. 7, u# is ins. where it is very difficult to make sense of it
(see 2660 4).
19 Comp. iii. 8 d\Xa ovK.
11 B has c and € together.
* An error might arise from the similarity of Toy and 6y.
13 On this, see 2530.
[2656c] B has aytoicic, where 0 might easily have been dropped, or
inserted.
495
[2657 | READINGS OF CODEX VATICANUS
Chap. vil. 1 wepueware ws (f. 7. [0] “Ino.), 3 cov ta epya a rovets
(f. ‘[ood] 7a Epya’ @ oveis, Marg. Ta Epya gov & Tovets), 4 Lyte avto' ev
rapnova evae (f. Cyret adros’ (marg. atrd) év rappyoia elvar), 6 Tapert”
erounos (f. éoruv Erousos), 12 adXAou de (f. dAAor [d€}), 22 ovK ore (f. odx
67), kav caBBarw (f. x. [év]® caBBarw), 23 « weptropnv AapBave o*
avOpwros (f. et 7. X. [6] avOpwros), xohatar® (f. xoAGTe), 28 didacKwv o
is (f. 8. [0] “Ino.), 37 ecoryxe® (f. tatnKer), mpos ene (f. mpos pe), 38 «7
ene (f. els eué), 39 Tov wvevpatos o (f. 7. 7. ‘ov’, marg. 6), ovrw yap qv
mvevpa aytov dedopevor (f. 6. y. iv Tveipa), 40 eAeyov ort (Ff. € [ore]),
42 ovx 7 (f. ovx 7), 43 oxipa (f. oxiopa), 47 amexp. ovv ot ®. (f. azexp.
ovv [avtots] ot ®.).
[2657] Chap. viii. 12 edaAqoer is (f. é [0] “L), 14 9 paptupia pov
adnOns eorw (f. GA. € 7 pt. pov’, marg. as B), 15 xarara® ryv capKe
(f. kara 7. o.), 16 eyw Kat o wepas pe warnp (f. é K. 0 7. pe [zaryp]),
25 evrev avros ws® (f. é.a. [0] "1.), 28 eumev ovv o ts ort oray"” (f. €, obv0
L., “Orav), o rarnp pov (f. 6 ratnp), 34 avtos is" (f. a. [0] “L.), dovdos
cot Tys apaptias” (f. 8. eorw [THs dpaptias]), 39 avros ts™ (f. avrois
[o] “I.), ewovere (Tisch.) (2653) (f. “rovetre', marg. as B), 41 eurov
(f. elxav), 42 avros is (f. a. [0] “1.), ec o Os 0” watyp vpwr nv (cto
Oeds 7. 8. Hv), 52 evmov (f. eirav), Gavarov ov py Gewpnon es Tov awva"?
' [2656 a@] D and Syr (Burk.) also read airé (but SS avrés), Alford says that E
has atrév. It is a case where ayToc if genuine would precede €.
2 Perh. repeated from (vii. 6) ow mdpeotw.
3 Ev, temporal, is omitted by B in ii. 19, 23 and xviii. 39 (2715 c).
4 See 1961.
5 See above i. 48, iv. 51, Vi. 24, 53.
6 Comp. above, i. 35, and see 2661 c.
7 ¢ dropped from eic before € in EME.
8 [2657a] Meaningless rep. of syll., comp. below, (xi. 11) tavravra and the
instances quoted by W.H. ii. 234, Mk ix. 25 eyw eyw emitacow (f. éywa émiracow),
Acts xviii. 17 TovTwyTwy Tw (for ToUTwY Ta).
9 This is written AyTOIC at the end of a line and Ic at the beginning of the
next. See 2656 c.
10 "Orc ‘‘recitativum” is inserted here, as in vii. 4o. But here the archetype
may have written OT twice (2657 a), OTOTAN, corrected by B to OTIOTAN.
1 ayToicic as usual.
12 As above (v. 45), B repeated mpds rov marépa from a preceding clause,
so here it perh. repeats rs auaprias from the preceding 7a@s 6 rowdy Thy amapriay.
13 The facts are as in viii. 25 above.
M AaYTOICIC. 15 co.
16 [26574] In viii. 51 Jesus had said @dvarov ot} wh Oewpynon €. 7. d., and the
Jews in viii. 52 repeat what He had said. According to W.H. they repeat
496
Se ee
NOT ADOPTED BY WESTCOTT AND HORT [2658]
(f. ov pay yevontar Pavaroyv eis Tov aidva), 56 wa evdy (f. Wva iby), 57 etrov
(f. etrav), eopaxes (Tisch.) (f. “€dpaxas’, marg. éwpakév oe)’, 59 1s
expuBn* (f. “1. dé expt).
Chap. ix. 2 7 ot ot yovers (2658) (f. 7) of yovets), 4 nas der epyaleabe®
(f. 7 8. épyalecOar), 7 eppyvevere* (f. Epunveverar), arnbev Brerwv
(f. arnOev ovv Kai evivato Kat 7AGev BrErwv’), g add opovos (Ef. ade
dpowos), 10 Tws nvewxOnoay (f. rads [ovv] 7-), 16 addou de (f. adAox [d€]),
22 evrov (f. etrav), 26 erov (f. etrav), 27 Te ovv madw OedeTE akoverv
(f. re wadw O. d., marg. as B), 28 eurov (f. etrav), Mocews® (f. Movoés),
31 adda eav (f. GAN eav), 36 Kav Tus eat, epy, Kupte (Spelt Ke)’
(f. “dwexpiOn éxeivos [kal etrev| Kat ris éeorw’', xvpue, marg. as B),
37 (2651) copaxas (f. éwpaxas), 40 eurov (f. eiav), 41 avtous us® (f. a.
[0] °I.).
[2658] Chap. x. 1 anv apnv vw deyw (f. a. a. X. duty), 6 (Tisch.)
ae =
twa 7° a edade avrois (f. tiva nv a é.a.), 7 emev ovy Tadw ts apnv
10
> >
apnv vw eyw (f. eirev ovv wm. [o] “L, a. a. A€yw dyiv), 18 tavtnv
it inexactly, but, according to B, exactly. SS has viii. 51—2 ‘‘...death he shall
not taste for ever... dost thou say, ‘He that keepeth my word shall not taste
death?’” Apparently these two high authorities both err by conforming incon-
sistent passages, but B conforms the second to the first, SS the first to the second.
On misquotations in this Gospel, see 2544 foll.
1 Comp. xvii. 7 (B) edwxes: SS has ‘‘Fifty years old thou art not and A. hath
seen thee?”’ N has éwpaxéy ce.
* This is written as parts of two lines, thus: 1C€ KPpYBH.
3 In vii. 23 yoNatac was for xoddre, and here -e is generally taken as
a late inaccuracy for -a:, but see 2428 é foll.
4 Tisch. prints epunveverar, but the photogr. clearly has -Te with superlinear
al. See 2653 and note on ix. 4 above.
> [2657] SS has ‘‘‘Go, wash thy face with a baptism of Shiloah’; and when
he washed his face his eyes were opened.” In the words of Christ, a@ and 4 omit
**wash,” e om. ‘‘wash” after ‘‘go,” but has ‘*...Siloam quod interpretatur missus
et lava oculos tuos.”’ Apparently B’s omission is caused by homoeoteleuton. It
is not corrected in the margin.
5 But correctly spelt Mwvoe: afterwards in the same verse.
7 [2657a@] Nonnus has dvip 5° ipetyero pwviv, Koipave, ris médev otros,
indicating that he had before him ke (for xaé) ris éorw; and that he read ke
as KE z.e. Kvpte: S actually has evrev Ke Tis este with x added above the line.
Possibly the misunderstanding of cai, as requiring an additional verb, caused the
addition of eizev (‘‘answered and [said]”).
8 ayToIcic.
* [2658] Inserted above, because, if true, the reading might be of great
importance. But the photograph has clearly HN (2653).
10 [2658 6] B om. ryv next to ry, comp. below xiii. 7 me for wera before 7a,
xlv. 10 Aeyw om. after eyw.
Jaks WAG 497 32
[2659] READINGS OF CODEX VATICANUS
evroAny (f. ravtyv tHV é.), 23 meprerarer ts (f. 7. [0] *I.), 24 exvxAevoay
(f. “exvkAwoav’, marg. as B), eure! nw (f. eirdv 7M.), 25 amexpiOy avrows
us’ (f. az. air. [6] 7), Eurov vaw Kae ovk emotevoare (f. <2. teen
TurTeveTe), 34 amexpiln avros is (f. ax. avr. [6] ’I.), 39 eLyrovy wadw
avrov miacat (f. e€. [ovr] ‘avr. radw' miacat, marg. €€. [otv] [wadw] avr.
mliaca).
Chap. Xi. II ...ev avtw tavravta emev (f. €v aito. Tatra elrev),
12 evrov ov (f. eimay ovv), 15 add aywpev (f. GAAA ay.), 20 Mapa de
(f. “Mapiap.’ dé, marg. as B), 21 Eu ns wde (f. "Kupue, ci’ js Gde, marg.
as B), 24 avaornoera ev tH avactnoe® ev ry (f. a. & 7. dvactdce
* ore (f. € meriorevka Ott), 37 evrov (f. etrav),
38 evPpemopevos (f. euBpyswpevos), 39 TeTapreos? (f. teTaptaios),
44 Aeyer ts avrous (f. A€yer [6] “I. adr.), 46 evrov (f. efrav), 52 adda
>
€. T.), 27 €yw morevw
wa (f. add’ iva), 54 rapyova (f. rappyoia).
[2659] Chap. xi. 3 Aree tovs zodas w (f. y. 7. 7. [rod] *L.),
d¢ orxia exAnoby ex rns oopys (f. 7. 6. 6. erAnpwOn ex 7. 6.), 4 Neyer
de Iovdas (f. A€yer [de] “1.), 9 nAGov (f. 7AGav), 10 eBovAevoarto de Kat
ot apx. wa xau (f. € d€ ol apy. iva Kat), 12 akovoavres ott epxeTat o ts
(f. a. ore €pxerau ‘Ino.), 13 (Tisch.) expavyacay® Qoavva (f. éxpavyacov
‘Qo.), 18 bia tovtro varnvtnoev avtw Kat o oxAos (f. Sa TotTo Kal
tmnvrnoev ait@ 6 Oxos), 21 tpoondOov (f. mpoo7_dOav), 28 Tatep",
[2658c] Comp. xiii. 24 edré. On aor. imp. in -ov see 2437—9. Comp.
Mt. iv. 3 eiwéy (Tisch. eiwé), Lk. iv. 3 efwé: but Mt. viii. 8, Lk. vii. 7 (a humble
request) e(7é. Mk xii. 4 elwov nuiy wore raira ora is par. to Mt. xxiv. 3 elardv
(Tisch. edé) quiv. Lk. xxii. 67 & ob ef 6 xp. elroy tuiv is exactly parall. to
the present passage, and prob. the original had emo (for eémév) copied by B
as €LT7r€.
* From this point the reader will not be reminded that B’s omission of
o between avrots and ‘Inoots may be connected with the abbrev. spelling of the
latter, giving ayYTOIC IC, as here and ix. 41, x. 34 etc. In x. 7, 23 the omission
of 6 before "Incods cannot be thus explained.
3 Mechanical repetition of avacry- for avacra-.
Te
4 [2658] The phot. has tricteyka, but there are traces of w under ka.
Tisch. prints mucrevw and adds note ‘‘pro migrevw ipse *substituit wemirevKa.”
® [2658 ¢] On the interchange of € and at see i. 48, iv. 51, vi. 24, 53, vii. 23,
Xs ee KIVe Ss KV onl Os
6 [2659a] The photograph has €kpayfazoNn, with slight indications of
erasure under z, and Tisch. says ‘‘ex expavyacay B® fecit expavyafov.”
7 [26594] The phot. clearly has tatHp here with the accent on H though
it has trATep in the previous verse with the accent on a. On the possible
difference between the two when used as vocatives, see 2052—3. There is no trace
of correction or erasure in the photograph; and Tisch.’s silence indicates that
he has printed TratHp as mwarep by error.
498
NOT ADOPTED BY WESTCOTT AND HORT [2659]
dogacvov pov’ To ovopa (f. 7. 8. cov Td 6.), 29 0 oxAos 0 eatus (f. 6 [ovr]
6. 6 €), 43 padXdov vmrep tv Sokay (f. p. “Hrep' 7. 4., marg. as B)
46 wa o muotevwr (f. va ras 6 T.).
Chap. xill. 7 yvwon de pe” tavra (f. y. 6. pera radra), 9 deye
autw Ilerpos Suyswv® (f. A. a. &. IL), 10 ov« exer xpevav et poy Tovs Todas
vipa Gar (f. ox € x. [et pn t. 7.]* vivaoba), 14 B repeats twice ec ovy
eyo evula vpwv Tovs zodas o KS Kau 0 dvdacKados, 18 ernpev® ene THY
1 [2659c] The photograph has, at the end of the line (which terminates with
abbreviated letters), 11 for M (as freq.), O (small) above 1, and, below the UU,
the tail of a y, making the usual abbreviation of pov, thus: AozZacon#t. If the
original was AOZAcocoy with the last letters written small, the mistake might
easily be made by mechanical copyists, first writing AOZACONOY and then reading
this as A\OZACOMOY.
2 +a dropped next to TA and supplied by corrector above the line, comp. above,
x. 18 Tnv om. next to Ty.
3 [2659 d] A noticeable variation of the usual order. The corrector has not
rectified the error. In xiii. 21 there is also an unusual order in duny dun
tu Nr.
4 [2659¢] S omits (as R.V. marg.) the words bracketed by W.H. ‘‘save the
feet.” But the omission may be thus explained. The context is:—
OYKEXIXPEIANNI
waceal.
Now el! “‘if”’ in this Ms. (8) is sometimes written 1 (Mt. vi. 30, 2 Cor. ii. 2 corr.
p-m., Lk. xii. 28). Suppose it to have been written so here in the archetype
of & thus:—
OYKEXIXPEIANI
MHTOYCTIOAACNI
wacdal.
The ordinary error of homoeoteleuton would explain how the scribe mistook
the final NI in the second line for the final Ni in the first, and omitted the second
line. Then it would be natural to divide the words as ypela Niyvac@al taking
the former as ypela, z.e. xpelav. The spelling of €1MH as IMH would facilitate
the corruptions H and HMH which some Mss. present. If ‘‘save the feet” is
inserted, there is perhaps an allusion to the Levitical ‘‘ washing (vir7w)” of
the hands and feet of the priests (Ex. xxx. 19, 20, 21) following the ‘‘bathing”
(Ex. xxix. 4) by which they had been consecrated. And, in the context, the
expression ‘“‘ye are clean, but not ail,” suggests a parallelism between Jn and
Ezr. vi. 20 ‘‘adll of them were clean as one [man].’’ Jn is describing a preparation
for the New Passover, and Ezra a preparation for the old one. It must be
admitted, however, that Origen not only twice omits ei ui Tods médas but argues
on the omission (ad doc., Lomm. ii. 406—7). He inserts the clause in his (Latin
transl.) comm. on Lev. (Lomm. ix. 181) but nothing in the context is based on the
insertions, comp. 2079 c.
° [2659 7] The omission of ett following, at a little distance, a previous eT,
seems to be a fault of the same kind as the omission of TA next to TA (xili. 7)
499 32—2
[2660] READINGS OF CODEX VATICANUS
amrepvav (f. érnpev éx eve tT. 7.), 21 apnv apnv vu Neyw ore (f. a. a.
A€yw byiv O71), 23 ov nyara ts (f. dv 7. [6] “1.), 26 amoxpwerat ovr ts...
Baas ovv Yomor (f. dzroxp. ody [6] “1....8. ovv [76] W.), 28 TovTo ovdets
eyvo (f. rodro [dé] ot. €), 37 Aeyer avtw o Ilerpos (f. A. a. [6] IL.).
[2660] Chap. xiv. 6 Aeyer avTw o! ts (f. A€éyer ait@ “Ino.), 9 Neyer
avtw o ts (f. A€yer adr [6] “Ino.), 10 ov mictevorets” ote (f. od TuoTEveLs
Ort), TA pypara a eyw” vv ar euavTov ov dadw (f. 7. p. & eyo €éyw
ty az. €. ov X.), II dia Ta epya avrov TioTevere por (Ff. 0. 7. €. ‘adra' 7,
marg. as B), 13 ort av aurntau* ev Tw ovopati pov (f. dt av ‘airyonre!
(marg. airjre) €v TO 6. pov), 14 eav Te aiTyoNTE pe EV Tw O. pov (fF. ed TL
a. [we] év 7. 6. p.), 16 wa peO vw es Tov arwva y (f. va ‘7 wed” bp. eis
T. &'., marg. as B).
Chap. xv. 5 xwpis enov ov duvacbe rrorew ovde ev? eav... (f. x. pb. od
6. 3. ovdev. édv...), 7 Eav pn® pewnte ev epor... o av OeAnte aityoacbe
(f. éav petvynte ev enoi...6 eav GeX. air.), 9 €(f. ev)’, 13 peLova tavTys
ayarnv ovoe eis® exer (f. p. 7. a. ovdeis exer), 16 efeheEacGar® arr
(f. é€ehéEacbe GAN), ott av autyTe Tov Tatepa (f. Ore av “airyonte'
Tov 7™., Marg. as B).
and to be one of a group of errors (xiii. 7—21) shewing the scribe in an unusually
careless mood. But carelessness would not explain the insertion of ec uy Tous
moOas in xlil. 10, as to which B is probably correct.
1 [26602] Here, and in xiv. g, xviii. 37, B ins. 0 (where W.H. om. or
bracket it) before ic. In xx. 21 B has 0 1¢ where W.H. have [6 ‘Iyc-].
* Perhaps C was inserted as redupl. of € (2650).
3 NETW om. after EFW (2658 4).
4 -a1 for -€, see 2658 ¢.
5 Ovdé &v at the end of the sentence would resemble ovdé & adopted by W.H.
in i. 3, where ND have ovdév. Comp. ovédé efs in xv. 13 (B).
6 [26604] Comp. vi. 25 where u% is ins. Here, if the archetype spelt €1 as 4,
confusion might be caused by E€ANMINHTE with MI repeated by clerical error
EANMIMINHTE. In the same verse (xv. 7) B, alone of the uncials, reads an
for €AN. If €AN is right, this (and perh. xxi. 25) would be an instance,
exceptional in John though frequent in the Synoptists, of édv, for dy, with
relative. But the reading is doubtful, for N reads éca édv, A & éav OéderTe,
"Ooa dv is read by NC as éca édy in xi. 22, and éca itself
”
e ‘‘quod vultis.
is elsewhere confused with a or 6. Perhaps here the original was OCAN or OCAAaN,
corrected by B to OAN, by & to OCaeAN, and by others to 0€aN. The tendency
to read 6¢a éd4v would be increased by its frequency in Mt. (vii. 12, xviii. 18 (425),
xxiii. 3 etc.). [In 1 Jn iii. 22, W.H. print 6 dy alr@wev (with B) without alternative. ]
7 This is not a mistake of € for € at the end of a line: € is in the middle of the
line and Nn added by a corrector above the line.
8 Comp. ovde ev in xv. 5 (B).
© On the interchange of -a1 and -€, see 2658 ¢.
500
NOL ADORTEDS BY WES TCOTr AND HORE [266i]
Chap. xvi. 2 tas o avoxtewwas' dof (f. 7. 0 a. [buds] d0En), 13 oca
axovoe.” Aadnoet (f. ooa “dxove' NadAyoe, marg. as B), 18 ovK owWapev
(f. ob« oidaper [7é AaXeC])*, 25 wapyora (f. rappyoia).
[2661] Chap. xvil. 7—8 zavta ooa cdwxes* po...ta pyywara a
cdwkes prow (f. 7. doa “édwxds’ (Marg. dédwKds) por...7d fp. a ‘edwxas'
(marg. dédwxas) jor), 11 Maryp® aye (f. warep aye), wa wow ev Kabws
kav mes (f. va wow ev Kaas ypets), 12 ote nuev® pet avtwy (f. ore
UNV [LET G.), 15 OVK EpwTW Wa apys avTos eK TOV’ Tovypou (fF. odK ep.
Y ” > 2 lal / 2 29 / > \ 2
iva ap, ait. €k TOV KOTpoV GAN iva THPHOHS avTOds EK T. 7.), 17 ayLacov
avtous ev adnfea (f. dy. air. év 7H GA.), 0 Noyos o aos 7 adnOeva® eotw
7 ymac could be supplied from what precedes; but it has prob. been omitted
by B owing to the similarity of Nac, which begins a line, to the last three letters
of YMac.
2 [2660c] “Axov’oe is confirmed by SS, a, and / ‘“‘audierit” (@ has ‘‘audierit ”
=D axotvce). The act. fut. (instead of mid.) is non-classical and has been corrupted
by scribes in 2 S. xiv. 16, Is. vi. 9, Mt. xii. 19; but it is read by B in Jn v. 25, 28,
x. 16 (where W.H. adopt it, in spite of variations) and is prob. correct here.
[2660@] Winer-Moulton (p. 99) recognises dxoJow in Mt. xil. 19, xiii. 14,
Rom. x. 14 (fec.), Jn xvi. 13, but adds, ‘* Ako’cowat, however, is the more
common future in the N.T. especially in Luke, see Acts iii. 22 (vil. 37), xvil. 325
XXV. 22, xxviii. 28 (Jn vy. 28).” But Acts iil. 22 is a quotation from Deut. xviii. 15,
and Acts vil. 37 is an interpolation from Acts iil. 22. Acts xvii. 32 and xxv. 22
contain the words of Athenian philosophers and a Roman Governor—whom Luke
could hardly represent as using the active future. It is antecedently probable that
Luke would generally prefer the middle future, when writing in his own person or
in that of St Paul (Acts xxviii. 28); but Acts xxviii. 26 reproduces dxovoere from
Is. vi. g. Mt. xii. 19 has axovoer tis, where Is. xlii. 2 (LXX) has dkovcOjcerat,
indicating a preference for the active fut., even against LXX. If we follow B as
to the text of Jn it will not be true to say that ‘‘dxotcoua is the more common
future in the N.T.” The truth seems to be that Matthew and John prefer the
active whereas Luke prefers the middle.
3 [2660 ¢] In xvi. 18, some auth. om. é\eyov ofv, some om. 6 Aéyet, SS has, after
*‘unto my Father,” simply ‘‘ What is then this ‘A little’ that he saith?”
4 Comp. éédpaxes in viii. 57.
® [2661 a] Contrast xvii. 5 (B) cv marep, D ov marnp with xvii. 11 (B) warnp
ayte, (D) marep ayte, and see 2052—3, also 2659 0.
6 In xi. 15, B has #uny correctly.
7 Error of homoeoteleuton, caused by repetition of éx Tod.
8 [26614] B’s (probable) errors both come at the end of lines—where the
letters might have been originally small and obscure in the archetype. "Ev
adnGeia, ‘in truth,” might mean little more than ‘‘truly.”’ “H aX. as a predicate,
“thy name is ¢he truth,” would be contrary to the usage of Ps. cxix. 142 6 Né6yos
cov ahjdeia, 20. 151 maou ai dd0l cov adjPera. B’s txt would contain a kind of
play on “truth”: ‘‘Sanctify them not in mere name and not with mere external
purifications but 2 truth. Thy word is the truth [of which I speak).”
501
[2662 | READINGS OF CODEX VATICANUS
(f. 6 A. 6 ods aA. éotwv), 18 B repeats twice kayw ameoretAa avtous ets
TOV KOoMOV, IQ kal vTEp avTwv eyw aytalw enavror (f. Kai b. a. [eyo] ay.
eu.), 24 THY dogav THY Eunv nv edwxas por (f. THY 6. THY & HY “SédwKas'
pot, marg. as B).
Chap. xviil. 2 cvvnx6n ts peta tov pabytwv avrov exet’ (f. o. ‘I.
"exel pera TOV p. avTod'’, marg. as B), 3 ex Twv apy. Kau tov ®. (f. ék
tov apx. Kai [ex] tov ®.), 5 eyw eye tS” cornker Oe (f. ey eiwe (marg.
+"Inoots) iorjxer d€...), 7 evrov (f. erav), 15 yvworos nv (f. “jv
yvworos’, marg. as B), 17 ov tw* (f. ovv Ta), 20 wapyora (f. rappyoia),
36 nywviovro wa‘ (f. yy. av tva), 37 amexpiOn o° ts (f. ada. [0] ’I.),
39 arodvew vpw Tw® racxa. (f. da. vu. [ev] TO 7.).
[2662] Chap. xix. 5 eén\Oev ovv ts (f. é&. obv [0] "1.), ov? avOpwzos
(f. dod 6 dvOp.), 12 eyovtes avy Tovtov (f. X. "Hav todrov), 17 o Aeyere®
1 On the position of éxe? see 1527.
2 [2661] Hitherto B has had €1cTHKEl (i. 35, vil. 37) not ICTHKEl! (as also in
xx. 11), but here (xviii. 5) and in xviii. 16, 18, xix. 25 the text has had 1cTHKEl
and a corrector has prefixed €. In consequence of the initial 1c here, the original
scribe, by an error of repetition, has probably added tc, and it has been taken to
mean IC z.¢. ’Ingois. B’s habit of repeating syllables makes its testimony for Incois
(against almost every authority, but @ has ‘‘/esws autem”) of very little value.
Moreover there is some antecedent probability that éyw ewe might be intended to
convey a double meaning (2220—8) which would be destroyed by inserting
"Inoobs.
* [2661] B has, at the beginning of a line, oytw with part of a very small
N above the line. Tisch. is silent. If the Nn was added by the original scribe, it
might be explained by his copying from a Ms. that had oy. See 2656 a.
4 [2661¢] The 1 (faintly written) of INA comes at the end of a line and the Na
at the beginning of the next: AN may have dropped before 1Na. Above the faint
1 at the end of the line there is written a small aN, and the | is rewritten before
the beginning of the next line, in the margin. Alford places dy earlier after
banpérae (ol banpérae dv of enol jywvrifovro wa). In B, yTHpeTal comes at the
end of the line with some indistinctness in the at, suggesting that it might be easily
reduplicated as an.
5 [2661 /] Contrast dmrexpl0y I. in xviii. 8, 34, 36 and dm. ai’r@’I. in xviii. 20,
23, xix. 11. There is a blank space here (enough for a letter or a little more)
after amexpiOy. Perh. an obscure OY was in B’s archetype.
6 For the omission of év before the dative of time, see above, ii. 19, 23,
Vil. 22, and 2716 c.
7 [2662a] The omission of 0 between y and @ cannot easily be explained—
unless indeed the scribe felt that the article implied contempt (1960). Read
in the light of prophecy, the phrase ‘‘ Behold a man” might suggest Zech. vi. 12
ldod avyp, referring to the future Builder of the Temple.
8 -€ for -Al, see 2658 ¢.
502
NOT ADOPTED BY WESTCOTT AND HORT [2663]
eBpavote TodyoO" omov (f. 6 A€yerau “EBp. ‘ToAyoba' (marg. Todyo6)
Orov), 23 Tecoapa (f. réeaoepa), appados (f. apados), 24 eurov (f. cirav),
28 ts evdus (f. “eidas 6 “I. marg. as B), 30 ore ovy ehaBev to o€os ts
(f. ore 6. €& 7d o&os [0] “I.), 31 7 nmepa exewvn Tov caBBarov (f. 7 yp.
"éxeivov' Tod o., marg. as B), 38 ov pabyrys w (f. dv pw. [rod] ’1.).
Chap. xx. 11 Mapua de ecornKes (f. M. d€ tory Ker), 13 TeKAaers Kat Neyer
avtous (f. td KAaters ; A€yer avrois), 17 pn amrtou pov (f. "wy pov arto ,
marg. as B), 20 wovres tov w (Tisch.)* (f. idovres tov Kvptov), 21 eurev
ovy avrois 0 ts” Taduy (f. etrev ovv avtois [6 “Inoots| rat), 23 av twos
apyre Tas apapTias adEovTar avTos av TLVOS KpaTyTE KeKpaTnvTat (f. av
“rwwv' (Marg. Tos) ad. Tas du. “adéwvrar' (Marg. adiovrar) avrois’ av
“rwev' (Marg. Tuvos) iti a aa 25 ecopakapev (f. éwpaxapev),
29 Aeyer avtw us (f. A. a. [oO] “I
Chap. xxi. 3 e€mAOor (f. pee ro and 12 Aeyer avtors ts (f. r. a.
[o] “I.), 12 ovdes evroApa (Tisch.)* (f. otdeis éroApa), 17 Kae evrev KUpLE
(spelt xe) wavra ov ovdas (f. Kat elev até Kipie TavTa ov 6.), 24 OVTOS
eo7w 0 pad. o Kat paptupuyv (f. obtos €. 0 pw. 0 (Marg. ins. Kal) paprupar).
§ 4. FPause-spaces in B
[2663] Pauses in B are often represented by spaces of varying
size. W.H. frequently disagree from these, e.g. they make no pause
before 1. 15 it: papTupet, 1. 18 Oedv ovdeis OPED, ll. 19 EE alk
li. 20 etrav ovv ot “lovd., iv. 28 adijKey obv tHV Pavan Iv. 45 OTe ov
nrGev cis THV Tad., v. 5 Hv O€ Tis avOpwros, V. 17 6 bé ameKpivato avrois,
Vi. 3 avn\Oev d€ eis 76 Opos, Vi. 7 aveKpiOyn aité P.A., vi. 15 ’1. odv yvots,
Vi. 47 apnv apyv A€yw byiv, vi. 51 eyo cipe 6 aptos o Lav, vil. 6 A€yee
ow avtois o 'L., vil. 33 elrev ovv o ’L, vil. 43 oxiopa ov éyévero,
Vill. 13 €trov ovv avT@ ot Pap., vill. 17 Kai év TO vouw SE TO iperéepy,
vill. 18 éyo eime 0 paptupdr, viii. 51 apnv apnv éyw tpiv. In all
these (except 11. 20, vi. 47, vil. 43, vill. 17, 18, 51, where space is
left for only one letter) space is left for one and a half or more
* [26624] The phot. clearly shews KN, 2.e. xUpuov. If Tisch. regarded the
bent part of the k as a later addition, he would (no doubt) have stated his view
in a footnote. He seems to have overlooked the matter, or else it is a misprint
(like 0 mpopnra in i. 45 (2653)).
In B, oic is almost certainly an erroneous reduplication of o1c in AYTOIC.
3 [2662c] The photograph shews etoA at the end of a line and ma at the
beginning of the next. The m is curtailed at the beginning: but there is no
sign of N before T.
503
[2663] | READINGS OF CODEX VATICANUS
letters. The scribe seems to have used pause-spaces for two
purposes, (1) to call special attention to some of Christ’s weightier
sayings, (2) to indicate that the evangelist is passing to a new aspect
of an old subject—often after some parenthesis or digression. In
particular the scribe is fond of making pauses before an ovv clause,
and he does this (where W.H. have none) not only in the cases
indicated above (iv. 28, 45 etc.) but also before vill. 24 «fzov ovv
buty, 1X. 24 ehwvycav ovv, Xil. Ig ot ovv Pap., xil. 28 HAGev ovv dwvy,
xiii. 6 epyerar ovv, xIx. 5 eénAOev ovv, xix. 6 dre ovY Eldov, Xx. 6 Epxerat
ovv. Perhaps the scribe regarded otv in some of these cases as
similar in meaning to pey ovv, “ Well, then,” “And now, to proceed”
etc., so that it came well at the beginning of a new section.
504
NOTES
ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
505
SUMMARY
[2664] On pdvos (1895)
[2665—7] ,, mpards pov (1896—1901)
[2668] ,, the emphasis of adverbs (1902)
[2669] ,, Bacireds and 6 Bacired’s (1966)
[2670] ,, the article with "lepoooAvpa (1970)
[26714] ,, the article with KeApwn (1970)
[2675—7] ,, addos and érepos (1972)
[2678] ,, the accusative of time (2013)
[267982] ,, the article used vocatively (2051)
[2683] ,, ix. 30 ev rovrw ydp (2068)
[2684] ,, 6 dé, 7 dé (2071)
[2685] ,, #mep (2092)
[2686—7] ,, iva (2093)
[2688—9] ,, viii. 56 nya\Xuacato iva (2097)
[2690] ,, wa with indicative (2114)
[2691] ,, St Paul’s autograph (2114)
[2692] ,, iv. 45 kat avrol yap (2167)
[2693] ,, dmas dy (2173)
[2694] ,, dru=dore (2186)
[2695] ,, dre py (2187)
[2696] ,, ws (2201)
[2697] ,, iii. 16 ovrws...dare (2203)
[2698] ,, av with indicative (2213)
[2699—700] ,, Lk. xxiv. 39 éyo eiyse airdés (2224)
[2701—3] ,, xxi. 5 radia py te rpoopdywov exere (2235)
[2704 | 9 X- 12 6...00K dv Tou (2253—4)
[2705] ,, ¢@ diva oé (2297)
[2706—13] ,, various meanings of eis (2305—8)
[2714] ,, iii. 34 ex pérpou (2324)
5006
SUMMARY
[2715] On dca with genitive applied to time (2331)
[27167]
[2718 22]
[2723]
[27246]
[2727]
[2728]
[2729]
[2730]
[2731]
[2732]
[27337]
[2738]
[2739]
[27404]
[27456]
[274753]
[27545]
[2756]
[2757]
[2758]
[2759]
[27606]
[2766 (i)]
[2767]
[276870]
[2771]
[27725]
[277684]
[278590]
[27917]
[27989]
vi. 21 70eXov otv AaBeiv (2346)
i. 30 Umep avrov (2369)
ix. 21 avrds mepl éavtov (2374)
Vi. I5 avros povos (2375)
(nret avtos (marg. avro)...eivae (2375 a)
Viil. 44 €x T@v idiwy adret (2378)
exewvos (2381—5)
V. 32 aAXos...6 paprupov (2384)
Xix. 35 Kal exeivos oidev (2384)
Vil. IL mov e€oriv exeivos (2385)
xix. 9 wdOev ef ov (2403)
x1x. 17 Kpaviov Tozov 6...(2412)
dv and éav interchanged (2414)
XVil. 2 mav 6 d€daxas (2422)
Vil. 5 mo0ev ayopdcwpev (2428)
the
the
Xli.
non-use of some active perfects (2441 a)
“onomic” aorist (2445 a)
14 evpa@v dvapiov (2461)
Xll. 16 kal tatra éoinocay (2469)
Vi. 25 more dde yéyovas (2478)
Vill. I4 kal mov tray...) mov tmrdyw (2490)
Xlv. 7 aq apre YWOTKETE avTov (2491)
Xl. 47 Tl mowovpev (2493)
xX. 29 ovdeis Sivarar dprwatew (2496 2)
xil. 28 warep d0€acdv cov ro dvona (2512 c)
eav with indicative (2515 (i))
iota subscript (2515 (i) 4)
the possessive genitive (2558—69)
the “epistolary” aorist (2691 2)
a\Xos in Epictetus and John (2730)
“authority” in Epictetus (2740—4)
NOTES
ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
On monoc (1895)
[2664] On v. 44 rH dd€or tiv rapa Tod povov [Ged], Origen’s
Greek comment (correctly given by Huet’s (i. 392) text and Lom-
matzsch’s footnote) omits #eo0d, though the Latin translator inserts it.
Ongen De Orvat. 19 (Lomm. vol. xvii. 162) quotes the text fully wds
dvvacbe...... Tapa Tod povov Geod od Cyteire, with Oeor, but proceeds
to comment on it without Oeod, as tiv Kupiav dokav Kat GAnOH tiv ard
freading azo for zapa, as also in the quotation above mentioned] 70d
povov tov ths d0éns aktov...... dogalovros, which rather suggests that
6eod may have been added in the quotation by the scribe. Codex D,
though it has @y at the end of a line, has a little interval between it
and the preceding word. Euseb. P. E. 653 4 has, xai 6 owrnptos dé
Aoyos Pyoi: Aokav riv rapa avOpwrwv Cyteite Kat tiv ddéav THY Tapa
pLovou Tov Evds ov Lytetre’. See also 2724—6 on airos povos.
1 [2664 a] As regards xvii. 3 Tov wévoy addnOwor dedy (comp. Rom. xvi. 27 udvy
cope Oeg, Jude 25 wdvw Oe@ cwript, Rev. xv. 4 wévos dccos) it seems in accordance
with the Gk usage in Herod. i. 25 jotvos 67...é€fe0pev, Judith xi. 8 pdvos dyabds
(sc. el), and it is paraphr. by Nonnus, “O¢pa ce ywwokwor Oeov udvoy édrlda Kbouou,
z.e. 6rt wovos et ‘*that thou alone art the hope of the world.” The Heb. ‘‘ only,”
applied to God, is a declinable phrase, adverbial in meaning, but adjectival in
form, meaning ‘‘ by himself, herself, themselves” etc. When applied to God, it is
rendered by adj., wévos, in LXX. Moévov in 2 Chr. xviii. 30 aN 7 rdv Bac. Iop.
pévov, Esth. i. 16 ob rov Bao. povov, may theoretically be adv., but it may be
adjectival, “the king a/oze,” as when applied to God. There is no instance
where this Heb. word can be safely said to be rendered in LX X adverbially, exc,
Gen. xlvii. 26 xwpls ris ys Tav iepéwy wdvov: and even here A has mova
corresponding to the Heb. ‘‘of the priests dy ¢hemse/ves.”” In LXX, mdvos, when
applied to God in prayer, mostly comes at the end of its clause 2 K. xix. 15 od ef
6 Beds wdvos, 1b. 19 od Kipios 6 eds dvos, comp. Ps. lxxxvi. 10, Is. xxxvii. 20 ete.,
508
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS _ [2665]
On mpadtoc moy (1896—1901)
[2665] Oni. 15 zpards pov (1900) comp. Philo ii. 366—7 ozep
yip toAcws Bacirers, TotTO Kat KwpNS O TPOTOS, Kal oikias 0 deaTorTNS,
Kat vocovvtwy iatpos, Kal otpatowédov pev otpatyyos, vavapxos 8
emiBatixod..., also Juscr. Gr. 5754 A(ovkuos)...... immevs “Pwopaiwr,
mpotos! MeAitatwy Kat watpwv..., and Acts xxvii. 7 (referring, like the
inscription, to Malta) t@ zpaétw THs vyoov. ‘These facts shew that, in
the first century, ‘‘the headman,” or “patron,” of a village or district
might be officially known as the “First.” And the extract from
Philo indicates that, as a soldier or sailor might say ‘‘ my general” or
“my captain,” so a provincial villager might say “my /77s¢” meaning
“my Patron,” or “ Patronus.” All these terms might be used meta-
phorically. The context in Philo deals with true and false sovereignty
(like the Johannine Parable of the Shepherd) and likens the village
chief, or “First,” not only to a King but also to a Physician. This
but note Dan. iii. 45 Theod. od ef xipios Beds udvos Kai évdoéos, LX X ov ef pdvos
KUptos 6 Geds Kat évdogos. It probably combined the notions of (1) unity, (2) un-
approachableness or uniqueness. Nonnus, in v. 44, has Movvou rayyevérao Geod.
[26644] xi. 52 ovx brép Tod €Ovouvs udvoy is paraphr. by Nonnus ov mrepi uodvou
éOveos, adjectivally. This late position of adverbial uédvoy (though Steph. gives
only Lycurg. p. 151, 7 as an instance) is freq. in Epictetus, comp. i. 6.17, i. 9. 4,
i. 19. 17 etc., and even i. 28. 13 dmodwrer 7) “TAcas od pdvov adda Kal H ’Odtooea
(2 od udvov 6é). It occurs also in Mk vi. 8 ed 7) paBdov udvoy (not pdvny), Mt. v. 47
Tovs adeApods buay wdvov, xxl. 1g ef uy PIAA udvov (where Mk om. pwdvov). Lk.
nowhere uses the adv. uévoy exc. in viii. 50 pdvoy misrevooy: but a bracketed
passage in Lk. xxiv. 12 has ra 6@é6via wdva, where (1804) the parall. Jn xx. 3—11
speaks of ‘‘linen cloths,” with ‘‘ apart” in the context. Schweig. Index to Epict.
says about pdvoy ‘‘Saepe adverbium hoc ponitur ubi adjectivum expectasses :
verbi causa, wédvov radra, non péva i. g. 5n.: €f judy wovoy dant MSS. i. 6. 12
ubi vulgo pévwr.”
1 [2665 a] The omission of the article meets the very natural objection that we
should expect the article before rp&ros meaning ‘‘the first man,” or ‘‘ ¢he chief.”
Comp. Ox. Pap. 299. 4 (late rst cent.) Acovuciy mpoo(r)dry Newepdy, and edd. n.
““cf. 239. 11, 290. 21. The mpoorarns xauns was probably the village ‘sheikh’
and chief of the mpeaBi’repo or council of elders.” Comp. Zedbtun. Pap. 120,
122, 129 (B.C. 97 or 64). In the 6th cent., we find Ox. Pap. 155. 11 “‘to my
master, John, the all-magnificent comes and my patron (mpoordry) from
Theophilus, citizen.” In all these instances the article is omitted before mpoorarns.
[2665 4] In Mk xii. 28 rpdéryn mdvrwy, the text varies greatly, and the genitive
is generally taken as partitive. In Aristoph. dv. 468, éuod rprov means ‘‘[kings
over] me in the first place.” The way for rp&ros xwuns would be prepared by
such expressions as Aristoph. £g. 6 mp@ros IlapAayévwv (with a play on the phrase),
ib. 130 ds mp@ros &ea THs Toews TA Tpdypuara, 7. 325 TpwTos wy. Polyb. has the
pl. i. 31. 5 e&émeuwWav a’tav rods mpwrous dvdpas.
509
[2666] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
increases the probability that the Fourth Gospel might use the phrase
to represent in vernacular Greek the Baptist’s recognition of Jesus as
his Rabbi, or Superior, or Head.
[2666] The words zpdros or rpuituctos were Hebraized. Levy
quotes a saying that an earthly ruler, differing from God, puts his
name first and then his title: “N. N. the Augustulus, N. N. the
Protata” which Levy renders “der Prior.” Also, in connexion with
Mordecai and Haman, a proclamation uses the phrase “ Profé of the
Jews,” “der Vornehmste der Juden’.” Origen, Josh. Hom. i. 5
(Lomm. xi. 16) quotes xv. 18 ‘‘odit vos hic mundus quia me friorem
vestrum odio habuit,” which may mean “ your prior, primate, or chief,”
and, at all events, does not mean “defore it hated you.” Nonnus
paraphrases mpwrés pov 7v in 1. 15 aS pev HY mpwTLoTos, but omits
it in i. 30. In xv. 18, Nonnus has ‘Ypetwv ore padAov ererBoAtyow
ed€yxov [Iparov éueé otvyéerxe, which seems to combine (1) ‘“ Hated
me above you, or, more than you,” (2) “ Hated me first.”
[2667] In favour of the rendering zpwros twos ‘ before anyone ”
there has been urged the occurrence of cod zpéros eiws in an ancient
papyrus’. But the phrase is not used independently there. It
occurs in a “magical” papyrus containing the name /ao and
describing a contest between two ons. /ao is mentioned by
Irenaeus and Origen® in connexion with very early heresies, and it
is described by the former as a magic word the pronouncing of which
plays a prominent part in the Valentinian system; but, more
particularly, “the little Zao” is connected in the Pistis Sophia with
the birth of John the Baptist which was (according to the Pistis
Sophia) brought about by Christ*. In the contest described by the
Papyrus, the Gospel comparison between the Baptist and Christ is
transmuted into a conflict between a lesser and a greater AZon, with
1 Levy iv. t12@. The latter word is also used (2.) to mean ‘‘of superior
quality.”” Krauss refers to many other passages.
2 See the Classical Review xv. 437, a paper by Dr J. H. Moulton who adds (in
the Lxpositor x. 133) ‘‘ The phrase ood mp@rés elue (second or third century) shews
that in this word [viz. mp@ros] it was the superlative which ousted the comparative
and not vice-versa as elsewhere.”
3 Tren. i. 4. 1, Orig. Cels. vi. 31.
4 Pist. Soph. ch. 12 ‘I implanted in her [the mother of John the Baptist] the
power that I received from the little /ao,” comp. 26. ch. 371 ‘‘the great /ao.”’
The Papyrus (Leyden Pap. ed. Leemans, Lugduni, 1885, Pap. W. pag. 12a)
mentions “a great god” appearing after the pronunciation of Zao.
510
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS — [2668]
a curious confusion of the Synoptic ioxuporepds wov and the Johannine
mpotes pov, only with cov for jov' :— Having seen that he was
mightier than himself he withstood him saying, Z am [born] (?) before
thee (cov mpartos eiue)’.” Another reminiscence (apparent in the
Papyrus) of John the Baptist seems to point to the Johannine
distinction between Christ as the Word and the Baptist as ‘a Voice.”
The Papyrus describes the begetting of these two A‘ons by God
through various sounds, and then God decides the superiority of the
rivals not according to the date of birth but according to the sound
from which they were born: “Thou art from sound (7xots): but he
is from utterance (#O0yyov)*. So utterance is better than sound.”
The writer may take cot rpdros to mean “J was born before thee,”
or “Zam thy elder brother |and therefore thy better|*.” But whatever
his meaning might be, he could but help us as an interpreter, and
not a very intelligent one, writing about a century and a half after
the evangelists. Similarly, but much more intelligently, Theobald or
Pope might help us to interpret Shakespeare ; but they would not be
independent witnesses testifying to Elizabethan usage. The indices
of the Egyptian Papyri (1898—1904) indicate no instance of zpwros
with genitive.
On the emphasis of adverbs (1902)
[2668] The initial adverbial phrase in iv. 31 év 7@ petagd ypwreov
avrov ot wabyrai is emphatic, not only because of its position but also
because of its extreme rarity. Mevaév is almost non-existent in LXX.
In the Gospels elsewhere it occurs only as a preposition (4). Here
Syr. (Burk.) and SS have “ zow” or “and,” 6“ postmodum autem,”
d, ¢, “inter haec,” f “inter haec autem.” WHesychius explains peraév as
e€aipvys (conj. €fjs), per OAlyov, ava péoov, and mw. means “after-
wards” in Acts xiii. 42 eis 70 p. caBBatov, Clem. Rom. 44 (2s),
1 Mki. 7, Mt. iii. 11, Lk. iii. 16, Jn i. 15.
2 Another version (pag. 5@) says picev atr@ 6 mpbrepos éywv, eyw TovTOU
loxuporepos ett.
3 Then follow the words éore (z.e. Zorat) 6€ €& dudorépwr 7 S’vauts, cou UoTEpov
gwvouuévov. The other version (p. 5@) says 6 Oeds éon TO loxupd, od pev amd
rommveiod0 Tuvyxdvets, ovTos dé && HOS Everbe auddrepor emi Tdons avaryKns
(having previously said éyevv70y Beds éx Tod HOods (for jXOvs) 6s TavTwy éoTly
KUptos).
4 Comp. As You Like /t i. 1 ‘1 know you are my eldest brother...the courtesy
of nations allows you my etter in that you are ¢he firstborn.”
511
[2669] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
Barn. 13 etc.’ ‘But Jn appears to use the phrase in its classical sense
“in the intervening |time],” namely, between the departure of the
Samaritan woman (iv. 28 az7j\Gev) and the anticipated arrival of the
Samaritan men, who “were coming” (iv. 30 é&#\Oov éx THs TOAEws
kal npxovro). The appropriateness of the phrase will not be under-
stood till we perceive that ¢he context deals with the thought of “ inter-
vening time.” Jesus has just sown the seed of the Gospel in Samaria.
The Samaritans, who are speedily to bring forth the harvest—con-
fessing (iv. 42) “This is of a truth the Saviour of the world ”—are on
their way to the Saviour. “ During the interval” Jesus utters His
doctrine about the zw/erval between the sowing and the harvest :—
“Say ye not, ‘it ts four months’? Nay, the harvest is ready.”
On Bacideyc and 6 BaciAeyc (1966)
[2669] On the difference between i. 49 “King of Israel” and
xll. 13 “‘ the King of Israel” see 2233—4, where it is shewn that all
the Gospels agree that Pilate asked Christ whether He was “ she
king of the Jews,” but the fourth Gospel alone implies that Christ
refused this title, while accepting that of “A7zwg.” The LXX has
Bacrrevs ‘IopayX predicatively in r K. xxii. 32 datverae B. "I. obros, 7b.
33 ovk eotw B. "I. otros (and 2 Chr. xviii. 31—2), but the absence of
the article is not distinctive there, for the context contains 1 K.
XXil. 31 Kat Baoireds Supias evereikatro. Jn does not shrink from
using ¢he article with a predicate concerning Christ: but in all such
cases the article implies uniqueness in the universe (not like Mk vi. 3
ovx ovTOs éorw oO TéxTwrv ;), as “the light of men,” “the light of the
world,” “the good shepherd,” “the way,” “the truth” etc. In x. 2:
“He that entereth through the door is shepherd (roy éorw) of the
sheep,” R.V. has txt “¢he shepherd,” marg. “a shepherd.” But “the
good shepherd” comes later, and the intention here seems to be to
prepare the way for it by something intermediate between “a
1 [2668 a] Xen. Conviv. i. 14 & TO meratd TaVTadMEVOS...cUyKAAUWdLEVoS
xaréxetro looks, at first sight, like another instance of ‘‘afterwards”: but I think
the writer has in his mind i. 16 avexadUwWaro, so that év r. uw. means *‘ for the time.”
The passage at all events shews how the meaning ‘‘ afterwards” might naturally
arise. Origen explains twice (ad /oc.) év r. w., as meaning that the disciples did
not like to ask their Master to eat in the presence of the woman or before
the Samaritans—not a very satisfactory explanation, but one that at all events
recognises that the insertion of so unusual a phrase needs to be explained.
Nonnus has"Evéa xpbvov pecony', mpl toreos &xroO Balvew Srewouevwy vependov
emnrpiua Kiara Nady.
512
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS _ [2671]
shepherd ” (which might suggest “one of many shepherds”) and ‘‘¢he
[deal] good shepherd ” presently to be mentioned.
On the article with “lepocoAyma (1970)
[2670] John is the only writer in N.T. that uses the article with
the declinable name “IepoodAvpa, 11. 23, v. 2 (where it may be
intended to “carry the reader back” to Jerusalem mentioned in
v. 1, and may be explained as “‘anaphoric”’), x. 22 éyéveto tore Ta
évcaivia év tois I. (v.r. éyevero O€ Ta é., and ev 'I.), xi. 18 qv d€ Byfavia
éyyvs tov “I. In the last of these passages the article perhaps em-
phasizes the /oca/ meaning :—“‘near fhe city walls,” “near the [city
of | Jerusalem.” Similarly, in the first two books of Maccabees,
“Jerusalem,” though used without the article more than 20 times,
is used with it in 2 Macc. xi. 8 zpos rots “I. ‘ hard by ¢he [wads of |
Jerusalem,” and xii. g “so that the flashes of the light were visible
up to the [walls of | Jerusalem (cis ra °I.), two hundred and forty
furlongs.” In John, the context is local in y. 2 (“near the sheep
pool”) and in x. 22 (which mentions “Solomon’s porch”). In
ii. 23 the name cannot very well be “anaphoric” to il. 13 which
seems rather too far off for that hypothesis. Perhaps the meaning
is “When he was [with the multitude of the pilgrims assembled]
inside the {walls of | Jerusalem at the Passover, many believed on
him.”
On the article with Kedpwn (1970)
[2671] The article (rév) in xvii. 1 (R.V. txt) “ He went forth...
over the brook Azdron” (marg. “ravine of the (trav) cedars”)—on
1 [2670 a] “Avagopxdy is used (Steph.) by the Greek Grammarians to denote
the ‘‘ vedative” pronoun, but it is applied by Blass p. 153 to the definite article in
v. 2; and “‘ anaphoric” is a very convenient term to denote 6 when meaning “‘ ¢he
above-mentioned.”
2 [2670 4] Along with Jn’s peculiar use of ra "TepocéAupa may be mentioned
his use of tiv yy in iii. 22 (comp. iv. 3 (D and latt.)) els rHv lovdatay yar,
where it would be unreasonable to suppose that he meant the same thing as
the ordinary tiv Tovdalay (vil. 3, xi. 7). The context indicates that Jesus came
from Jerusalem so that He could not be said to come “‘zzto Judea”: but He
comes from the Judzean cafztal ‘‘into the Judzean /and,” 7z.e. into the country
round about Jerusalem, comp. Mk i. 5 7 ‘Iovéala xwpa (334) distinguished from
**the men of Jerusalem.” Mt. ii. 6 yy "IoJda seems to be an error for Mic. v. 2
‘*Ephrathah,” and the meaning of it is doubtful. In 2 S. xv. 23 cal maca 7 y7j
éxacev...kal mas 6 Nads maperopevovTo, the Heb. ‘‘land”’ is rendered by the Targ.
(Walton) ‘‘ habitatores terrae,” but the Targum word mostly means ‘‘sojourners ”
(Levy Ch. i. 173). It might suggest ‘‘ country folk,” peasants, called in Hebrew
** people of the land.”
A. VIL 513 33
[2672] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
which Blass (p. 315) says that the text is “in NBCD etc. stupidly
currupted*”—may certainly be explained, and possibly justified, by
the following considerations. The exact meaning of the Hebrew
name “Azdron” is unknown; but it is generally connected with
Kedar “ dark” —an epithet that might easily be given, from natural
causes, to a ravine or to the torrent init. According to Hor. Heb.
i. 85 (and 2d, on Jn xviii. 1) the ravine had come to be used as an
open sewer, and, in the Talmud, Kedar signifies “dung.” These two
facts might suggest for the name an unsavoury origin against which
some might be glad to protest by deriving it from the Greek xédpos,
which was adopted as a late Hebrew word”. Accordingly a Talmudic
tradition describes two “cedars” of portentous size on the neigh-
bouring mount of Olives. This hill ran down to the Kidron, and
cedars on the slope might be supposed to give the name to the
ravine’,
[2672] In the mss. of the LXX the accent of the word varies,
and (being of little authority) will be omitted in the following
quotations (as also all! distinctions between « and K); but it is
important to note that the LXX always spells the name with «. The
first place where it occurs describes the passage of David across
Kidron, and the mss. vary as follows, 2 S. xv. 23 (lit. Heb.) “and
all the people passing and the king passing in the torrent Kidron
and all the people passing on the face of the way of the wilderness,”
B xai mas 6 ads maperopevovto ev TO XELULdppw TOV KEdpwV Kal O
Baoreis d€By Tov Xetwappovy Kedpwv’...4, A x. 7. 6 AX. TaperopevovTo
Nuue X \ , > A , a 5 ]
Kal o Pacievs Tapepxopevos ev TO XELMLAPpw TOV KEdpwr..., LUC. K. 7.
0 A. dveropevero Kai o B. duetopevero &v TO XEappw Kedpwv...°. There
1 W.H. follow BC rwv xedpwv, SD have rov kedpou with a and 6.
2 [2671 a] Levy C4. ii. 347 a has xédpos, and Levy iv. 249 a has Kédpwor.
8 [26716] J. Zaanith. iv. 6 (Schwab vol. vi. p. 191). Under one of these
cedars were ‘‘four shops” selling things needed for purification, and under the
other were sold ‘‘ pigeons sufficing for the sacrifices of all Israel.’’ Cedars of such
immense size could almost certainly not have grown on Mount Olivet. If they
had grown there, they would almost certainly have found some other mention
in Jewish tradition.
* [2672 a2] Swete prints the first xedpwy as a paroxyton plural noun, rév Kédpwv,
the second as an oxyton sing. name, Kedpdy, 7.e. (1) ‘‘the ravine of the cedars,”
(2) ‘‘the ravine Kedvon, or Cedar-grove.” He prints trav Kédpwv ‘‘ of the cedars,”
ini K. xv. 13. Comp. Euseb. Oxomast. p. 273 xeue. 7) pdparye Kedpav, but p. 303
Xe. Kédpwr.
» [26726] Luc., at the end, has (2674a) xara rhv dddv ris édalas rhs ev TH
EpnEy.
514
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS _ [2673]
is no vy. r. in t K. xv. 13 &v TO Xeuu. THV Kedpwv (but Luc. om. rr).
Elsewhere tov is omitted before xedpwv (1 K. i. 37, 2 K. xxiii. 6
etc.) as it is also before “Arnon,” “Kishon” etc. when they are
preceded by the word “torrent” or “ravine” (xeupappous)'. It looks
as though some tradition connecting “ Kidron” with “cedars ” has
left its influence on one or two passages where that ravine is
mentioned, and especially the one in which David is described as
passing over it 7” sorrow”, so that it is described by some as “the
ravine of the cedars.”
[2673] In Josephus, xedpwy (which occurs nine times) is never
clearly an indeclinable noun and is sometimes clearly declinable’.
This proves nothing as to the sense he attached to the name, for
it is in accordance with his custom of making “Arnon” and “Sihon,”
etc. as well as “Simon,” declinable. But it is significant that he
often attaches to xedpwv the word “called.” Now it is the custom of
this historian to speak of “the mountain ca//ed of Olives,” “the
tomb cad/ed the Potter’s,” “the camp cad/ed of the Assyrians,” zx such
a way as to suggest that the Greek word connected with “ called” ts to
be translated, as explaining the origin of the place-name. This leads to
the conclusion that according to analogy he intends his readers to
translate xedpwv by “cedars” and not to transliterate tt as “ Kedron.”
It may mean xédpwv ‘of cedars” or xedpwv “ cedar-grove”: but in
either case, 7¢ must be translated*. It may be noted also that
1 [2672 c] The article is ins. between ‘‘the torrent” and ‘‘ Bosor”’ (‘the
torrent the Bosor”) by LXX in 1 S. xxx. 10, 21 (7. x. 7. Boodp, or Beava) and
by Luc. in 1 S. xxx. 9; but that is because the Heb. has ‘‘¢4e Bosor” quite
exceptionally. The Heb. has not ‘‘¢e Kidron.”
2 [2672d¢] Jerome (Onomast. p. 53) has ‘‘Cedron, ¢vstis maeror siue
aolor.”
3 [2673 a] In the following, éNatwy as well as xedpwy will be left unaccented :
Ant. viii. 1. 5. duaBaivew Tov Xemdppovv Kedpwva (v.r. Kedpwvos, and so Hudson),
ix. 7. 3 els Thy pdpayya Thy Kedpwvos, Bell. v. 2. 3 Kara TO €Xatwy Kahovpevov Opos...
pdpayye Babela drecpyduevoy 7 Kedpwv wvduaoTat, Vv. 4. 2 KaTa 70 TOO Tvadéws
mpocayopevouevov pvjua...eis Thy Kedpwra kaXoumevny papayya, v. 6. I axpe Tov
Kedpwvos...kal TY Kedpwra Kadouuévny pdpayya, Vv. 7- 3 Kara tiv “Acoupiwy
mapeuBorAry Kadounévny émisxwv wav Td meTakd wéxpe TOO Kedpwvos, Vv. 12. 2 amd Tis
Acouplwy TapeuBodjs...év0ev did Tod Kedpwvos emi TO €Natwy Opos, Vi. 3. 2 THS
Kedpwvos Kadouuévns Papayyos.
4 [26734] Contrast Amz. iv. 5. 1 éml Tov morauoy (Niese) Apyav’ bs éx Tar...
(v.r. dpyGvos, dpvava, dpyav, dpvdv) iv. 5. 2 Tpray moramwr...rot wey ’Apyavos...
(without xadovuuévov etc.) where the name has nothing to do with ‘‘lambs” and is
not to be translated. Scribes might well be perplexed by the various ways
515 Som
[2674] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
Josephus—when describing the flight of David from Jerusalem—
though he does not mention xedpwrv, uses éAawwv as a declinable
noun (Anz. vii. 9, 2) dua tod "EXatdvos dpovs “through the mountain
{called the] place of olives’.” Blass (pp. 32, 64, 85) would emend
*EXatavos both here and in Acts i. 12. But there is good reason to
think that "EAaov, the Latin Olivetum, or Olive-grove, might be a
form that recommended itself both to Josephus and to Luke,
when writing in an elevated style, in preference to the more
popular name “mount of olives.”
[2674] If John had written rov yeu. kedpwv, meaning “ the brook
Kidron,” without explaining it as he explains ‘‘ Siloam,” “‘ Gabbatha,”
“ Golgotha” etc., (1) he would have gone contrary to his usage by
introducing a place-name with the definite article without explaining
it; (2) he would have adopted a Hebraic construction contrary to
his usage ; (3) he would have gone the way to mislead Greek readers
(who would naturally suppose it to mean “ cedars”). But by writing
Tov Kedpwv without explanation (1) he writes intelligibly for Greeks,
(2) he adopts the exact language of the LXX describing the exile of
David from Jerusalem, (3) he falls in with a seemly tradition (possibly
Jewish as well as Greek) that the name meant “the torrent, or
of representing the names of places with the meanings of their names e.g. Gen.
XXVi. 33 €kdNecev 7d dvoua adrod “Opxos, Josh. v. 3 émt Tod Kaousévov réov
Bowds tav dxpoBvoriwyv. See 2680c.
1 [2673 c] In Azt., the only other mention is xx. 8. 6 mpds dpos ro mpocayopevs-
pevov €Natwy EpxecOar where Niese om. épxeo@ar but adds that two Mss. insert it.
Hudson inserts it without comment, and it is needed to complete the sense.
Hence we may read éAady’ EpxesPa as Niese reads in iv. 5. 1 ’Apvav ds
(2673 4). But Joseph. Ae/Z. il. 13. 5 and v. 2. 3 has rd €AXacwv Kadovmevor bpos, v. 3. 5
éml tov éNatwy dpous (v.r. Kadousévov spous), v. 12. 2, Vi. 2. 8 7d EXatwY Spos—
agreeing with the use of the LXX and of Mk-Mt., who all say ‘‘ mount of Olives.”
It may be taken as certain that Josephus never regards éNawy as an indeclinable
noun, for he dislikes and avoids such nouns as far as possible—as may be seen from
his use of Lwatoy dpos (never Ywd), Tadddns or Tadadnv7 (never Tadadd exc. as
a personal name), and from his avoidance (or mention as declinable nouns) of
the names ‘‘Canaan,” ‘‘ Hor,” “ Horeb,” and ‘‘Seir.” Note also the way in
which he introduces Gerizim (Amt. iv. 8. 44) dvoty dpoiv, Upifalov (with v.r.) wey
Tov..., only by degrees falling into the use of the indeclinable form. These facts
illustrate the divergence between Acts i. 12 dad dpous 7. Kadoumévou éatwvos
(a declinable noun) and Lk. xix. 29, xxi. 37 mpds (or els) 7d dpos 7d KaNovpmevor
é\atwv, where a declinable noun is out of the question, as it would have to be accus.
édawwva. The former is Luke’s own use, the latter is that of Synoptic Tradition.
516
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS [2676]
ravine, of the cedars.” This reading is also supported by the
best mss."
On 4\doc and Etepoc (1972)
[2675] On v. 32 addos éotlv 0 paptupdav (1972) Blass (p. 180)
most appropriately quotes Aesch. Suppl. 230f. Kaxet duxaler...Zevs
aAXos. See Lightf. (Gal. 1. 6—7) ‘‘adAos adds, while érepos distin-
guishes,” and ‘‘érepov implies a difference of kind, which is not
involved in aAXo,” “adAos is another as ‘one besides,’ €repos another
as ‘one of two’”; and from this notion of ‘‘two,” often implying
contrast, €repos sometimes comes to mean “different.” If adXos
means “another of the same kind” here, it has a bearing on the
relation between the Speaker and God, who is the “offer.” But there
is some difficulty in proving that John observes the distinction, as
he uses €repos only once, xix. 37 “‘another (érépa) scripture saith.”
He has previously quoted one scripture from the Law (Ex. xu. 46
“not a bone shall be broken”) and he may mean that ‘a second and
independent scripture” from Prophecy predicted the ‘‘ piercing.” Heb.
v. 6 kafos x. ev Erépw A€yer is not a certain parallel (R.V. ‘as he saith
also in another [place]”) for Westc. ad /oc. alleges no instance of to
omitted, and Clem. Rom. vili. év érépw to7w (“in another [or, second |
passage ”) suggests that ro7w would have been inserted had that been
the meaning ; moreover Chrys. ad doc. (ris éort kata tiv tag MeXx. ;
ovoels ETEpos...ovdeva av exo Tis ETEpov Setéar) rather suggests that he
took érepos to mean “other [than Christ |.” The use of €repos and
aXXos is different in different authors; eg. in Dan., LXX freq. has
aAXos and €repos whereas Theod. has €repos freq., adAos never. In
Is. Ixv. 15 ‘“‘ another name,” z.e. different, LXX has xawov, Aq. and
Sym. érepov. In N.T., the Petrine and Johannine Epistles never use
érepos, and Jude only uses it once (verse 7) in the phrase “ strange
flesh,” according to the LXX use of the word in “strange gods” etc.
[2676] The Pauline Epistles observe the distinction pointed out
1 (2674a] In the description of David’s flight (2 S. xv. 23 foll.), the Bible
mentions both ‘‘ Kidron” and ‘‘ Olivet.” Josephus mentions only Olivet. Luc.
in 2 S. xv. 23 adds (2672 4) ‘‘of the olive,” beside mentioning ‘‘the ascent of the
Olives” in 74. 30. In the Gospels, where Mk-Mt. mention ‘‘ Mount of Olives”
and ‘‘ Gethsemane,” Lk. has ‘‘ Mount of Olives” alone, Jn xedpwyv alone, but SS
in Jn has ‘‘the torrent of Cedron, a 42/7 where...” and so Diatess. It is almost
certain that at a very early time a parallel must have been perceived between the
going forth of David and that of Christ; and the parallel may have influenced
the latest of the Gospels most.
517
[2677] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
by Lightf. on Gal. i. 6 cis érepov evayyédwov, 6 ovK ext aAXdo, “to
a different Gospel, which is not another [of the same kind]....” So
Rom. ii. 1 “thou judgest ‘hy neighbour (rov érepov),” il. 21 “thou
that teachest some one else (érepov without tov),” vil. 3 “if she become
[wedded] to a new husband (avdpi €.),” 4 “that you should become
[wedded] to a mew [husband] (eis 76 yevéoOaur vas érépw),” vii. 23
“But I note a xew-and-strange (€repov) law in my members,”
vill. 38—g ‘nor [evil] angels, nor principalities, nor powers,...nor
any other [however new and strange| created thing (xriois €érépa).”
There is perhaps a play on €repos in xiii. 8—g “he that loveth /zs
neighbour (rov €repov) hath fulfilled Torah ; for the [command], Thou
shalt not commit adultery...and every other [however separate and
distinct| (érépa) commandment is summed up in this,” where perhaps
there is also an allusion to the fact that the second half of the
Decalogue (which deals with man’s duty to man) was recognised as
(Philo 11. 189, 201 etc.) y érépa awevtas, “the second and distinct
Pentad.” And perhaps Chrysostom is right here in saying that the
Apostle means that the love of man includes the love of God. It
would be possible similarly to go through the other Pauline Epistles
(excluding the pastoral ones) and to shew that ێrepos always
has a shade of difference from aAXos, e.g. in 2 Cor. xi. 4 adAov
"Inootv...rvedpa €repov...edayyéArov €repov “another Jesus...a different
[Holy] Spirit...a different Gospel.” Even in 1 Cor. xil. 8—r1o0
where érépw twice intervenes between aAdw, the writer means “one
...another...some one édse...another...someone else,’ and he omits dé
after €répw to gain emphasis by abruptness.
[2677] These details support Lightfoot’s view of Gal. i. 6 against
that of Blass, who sees (p. 318) “no distinction.” They also shew
that each author must be judged by himself. Perhaps in Lk. and
Acts the use varies according to the documents compiled by the
author. In Lk. xvi. 18 yauov érépay means (as in Rom. vill. 3)
‘‘marrying a zew wife,” but the parall. Mk x. 11, Mt. xix. 9 have
aAAnv. John, being a peculiarly discriminative writer, probably means
(xix. 37) ‘‘a different and independent prophecy” or a “second
prophecy” (not ‘another of the same kind”). In Jn v. 43 éav
adXos Gy, we might have expected €repos as in Mt. xi. 3, Lk. vii. 19
“Are we to expect a different [deliverer]?” but Jn means “If another
come [| professing to be of the same kind as myself |,” like the Pauline
(2 Cor. xi. 4) adAov ‘Incodv. On Lk. vil. 19 €repov rpoodoxamev perh.
softened to Lk. vii. 20 aAAov zpoodoxdpev see 1856,
518
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS _ [2679]
On the accusative of time (2013)
[2678] In Mk xiii. 35 dWe 7) pecovi«rioy (y. r. -iov) 7) dXeKTopo-
gwvias, it is usual (Swete ad /oc. and Blass p. 311) to take p. as
accus. But it would be difficult to explain the abrupt change from
accus. to genit. More probably w. is adverbial. See Wetst. ad oc.
who first quotes Phrynichus as saying that pecovv«riov is “ poetic,”
and then Theocr. xiil. 69, xxiv. 1, in both of which passages the
word is adverbial (wecovvxriov, in the latter, being illustrated by
Kiessling from Anacr. ill. t pecovuxriows tof dpats). This adverbial
use distinguishes Mk from Lk., who (like Lucian and Plutarch)
wses j2jaSea) Noun, Lk. ix. 5, Actsixviy 255 xx) 192.
On the article used vocatively (2051)
[2679] As regards xx. 28 “O xvpids prov (in the confession of
Thomas) it must be noted that the vocative with 6 in idiomatic Greek
differs in tone and usage from the vocative with the Hebrew article.
The latter is frequently solemn and addressed to God ; the former is
often vernacular and imperious as being addressed to a slave, or to
a policeman, or to a nameless person in a crowd, or to some one
whose name the speaker humorously affects to have forgotten’.
1 [2678 a] For a curious phrase, prob. indicating point of time, see Berl. Pap.
i. no. 69 (A.D. 120) dpaxmds...ds Kai dmodwow oo To evytora Sodnoouery dpwviw.
This is rendered in Class. Rev. (1901) vol. xv. p. 438 ‘‘ with your next wages,”
as meaning accompaniment; but the document is an I. O. U. given by Valerius
Longus immevs to Julius Agrippianus im7eds, of the same Tvpyy, as follows : 6uo\0y@
exw apd cov xpjow &vroxov apyuplov ceBacrod voulcuatos Spaypuas éexarov Tescepa-
KovTa, as kal amodwow co TH évyoTa SoOnoouévy dYwrviy. We cannot suppose that
one soldier would say to another in the same squadron ‘‘I will pay you so-and-so
with your next wages.” Perhaps—as in English we say ‘‘a¢ the next prize-
distribution,” ‘‘a¢ the next feast” (where ‘‘a/” means ‘‘at the time of” or
*‘when it comes round”)—so these military men were in the habit of saying
among themselves ‘‘at zext pay” meaning ‘‘ at next pay [day].”
2 [2679 a] Aristoph. Ach. 54 ‘‘the police [there, off with him],” of rogérax,
Ran. 40 6 mats, and 521, 0 mais, adxodovex lit. ‘‘the boy [in attendance],” Xen.
Anab. i. 5. 16 (in a hasty and unceremonious speech dispensing with the usual
dvdpes) KXéapyxe wai IIpdteve kai oi addor of wapdvTes “EdAnves, ovK tore 6,7e moetTe.
Perh. too we should follow Steph. in reading 6 (not with Stalb. &) in Plato Symp.
172 ‘‘ Mr Phalerian (6 ®.), said he, you there (ctros), Apollodorus!’’ Athen.
xill. 580 D Meipdxvov, 6 kadds, pyot, addressed to a young butcher with a play on
the word xa)és (sometimes written up in the streets as a sign of affection). Blass
p- 86 quotes Aristoph. Acharn, 242 mpdi’ eis Td mpdabev dAyor h Kavndopos which
sounds better than the regular and formal (Dind.) mpoitw ’s 76 mpédcev... : but
something would depend on the degree of respect attached to the young lady.
This idiom is of a piece with the appellative otros, the French ‘‘ chose,” and
English slang equivalents.
519
[2680] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
When Mark uses this vocative in the Hebrew sense, he is careful to
prefix the Aramaic original’. When he uses it imperiously, he does
not insert the Aramaic*% In expressing the solemn vocative of
“Father,” divergences would naturally arise in Greek. The Aramaic
is Abba, the article, or vocative case, being in the suffix. This might
be expressed by (1) zarep, (2) 6 raryp, or (3) zatyp (setting aside
Hebraic ® as meaning in LXX something different from the Greek
6). The first of these (supplemented by 7pov in Mt.) has been
adopted in the Lord’s Prayer, the second (supplemented by ’AfBa)
in Mk; John, as we have seen (2052—3), uses both (1) and (3) and
appears to distinguish between them.
[2680] These facts should keep the reader’s mind open to the
possibility of exceptional Johannine usage as to the vocative of xvptos.
The vocative «ipre occurs repeatedly in the Egyptian papyri, and
it is also used in Talmudic Hebrew and Aramaic, meaning “my
lord” or “‘sir,” besides being applied (2049 foll.) to God in the LXX
and elsewhere. It might, therefore, imply no special reverence ; and
Mark puts paBfi, but never «vpre, into the mouths of the disciples
addressing Jesus*. In the healing of the leper, where Matthew and
Luke have xvpte, Mark omits it*. The Matthew-Luke tradition repre-
sents Christ as condemning those who say to Him Kvpte, Kvpre, without
doing His commandments®. Origen, ina comment on Jn xiii. 13 tpets
dwveiré pe ‘O didacKados xai ‘O kupios, remarks on the uselessness of
1 [26794] Mk v. 41 TadeiOd xotiu & éorw ueBepunvevouevov Td Kopdctov, col
Aéyw, éyecpe, Mt. ix. 25 om., Lk. viii. 54 7 mais éyespe, and Mk xiv. 36 ’ABBad,
6 marnp, Mt. xxvi. 39 mdrep pov, Lk. xxii. 42 mdrep.
? [2679 c] Mk ix. 25 70 ddadov Kal kwhov rvedua (Mt.-Lk. om.), Delitzsch does
not ins. the Heb. article. Lk. has the vocative article in xii. 32 ui PoBod 7d
fukpov troluviov, and a quasi-vocative article in vi. 25 oval tuiv, of gumemdnopuévor,
but xi. 39 viv duets of ....ca0aplfere seems rather appositional than vocative.
Maxdpioe of mrwxol is followed in Mt. v. 3 by avra@y but in Lk. vi. 20 by
vuerépa, as though vocative; and a corresponding difference continues in the
contexts.
% [2680 a] Kupce, in Mk, is uttered only by the Syrophcenician woman (Mk vii.
28). The disciples, including Judas, use paBPi thrice, Mk ix. 5, xi. 21, xiv. 45.
4 Mk i. 40, Mt. viii. 2, Lk. v. 12.
© [26804] Mt. vii. 21 od mas 6 Aéywv por Kipre, Kupie, Lk. vi. 46 rh dé Me
kanetre Kipre, Kipte; On the latter of these Alf. makes no remark, but Steph.
gives nothing like the constr. ; D has Neyerat, z.e. Néyere, and so have Clem. Alex
and Iren. (dicitis); SS and Diatess. have ‘‘ Not all that say wnto me, ‘ My Lord,
my Lord.’” Mt. vii. 22—3 describes the rejection of some, who cry Kupie, Kvpee.
The parall. Lk. xiii. 25 describes the rejection of some, who cry Kupte.
520
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS _ [2682]
some utterances of Kvpre, Kvpre, and he adduces 1 Cor. xii. 3 «ivetv
Kupvos ‘Iycots, and speaks of 76 kadds eirety TO SwrHpe 70 ‘O didaoKados.
He leaves on us the impression that he does not regard 6 ddacKados
as a Hebraic vocative, but as a title used in the nominative: ‘ Ye
address me [using] the [title] Teacher and the [title] Lord,” and
that this seems to him more weighty than the ordinary vocative xupte,
which might mean merely ‘‘Sir.” He is, of course, writing not about
the difference of cases but about the difference of spirit: yet he seems
to assume that the Johannine 6 xvpuos, though not predicatively used,
implies a confession of lordship.
[2681] In the Apocalypse, xvpre, 0 Feds is thrice used” vocatively.
In Rev. iv. 11 aguos €f, 6 KUpios Kat 6 Heds ypov—where A.V. follows
an inferior text with simply «vpee—the rendering (in view of the non-
existence of 0 «v¥pios as a vocative anywhere and the threefold xvpre
0 Ges in this very book) seems to be “ Thou, [being] our Lord and
our God, art worthy”; but it differs very little from a vocative.
[2682] Returning to the confession of Thomas, most readers will
feel that the ordinary vocative xvpué pov would have been com-
paratively common-place, and that it would also have almost required
to be followed by some appeal for help, or some ascription of praise.
Thomas’s silence is far more effective. We have also to consider
that the Saviour has previously approved of the appellation 6
dudaokados kal 6 xvpios: and there is an appropriateness in His
leading them on from that to the still higher 6 xvpios kat 0 Oeds.
It has been noted above (2680 4) that, where Matthew has o Aéywr
poor, Kvpee, Luke has the rare or unique pe KaXeire, Kvpre, apparently
meaning xadeite A€yovtes. Similarly, John might use eizev atvro@ in
the sense of éxaAeoe or cite dwvdv. These facts favour the view of
R.V. (against the one suggested in 2051) that xa means “and” (not
‘“‘also”) and that the meaning is ‘‘ Thomas said to him [the words]
‘My lord—and my God*.’”
1 [2680 c] Lobeck p. 517 quotes Dio Cass. lvii. 14. 860, Pausan. viii. 41. 479
and ix. 25. 76, Aesch. De fals. 7. p. 275, Plutarch, De Garrulitate ch. xxii. to
shew that the nominative may follow the phrases émwvuuiavy daBe etc.
(=kahetoGac). More remarkable are (2d.) Phot. Bibl. Ixxx. p. 192 @ kAjow €OevTo
Padevrinavds, Dio Cass. xliii. 13. 349 BiBdlov ypawas 6’ Avtixkatov éxddeoe. In
xiii. 13 Nonnus has accus. xolpavov and éddoKaXov.
FOREVa Sle 7 XV0) Sig XVI. 7s
® [2682] Origen (on xiii. 13) has elwety 7@ Dwrjpr 70 ‘O diddoxados. Having
regard to the frequent interchange of o and w in the first century, it is quite
52
[2683] _NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
On ix. 30 €n ToYTw raxp (2068)
[2683] In ix. 30 év rovtw yap TO Oavpacrov... a, 6, and SS omit
ytp. D, e and Walton’s Syriac have otv. A and others have év yap
tovT». Also e must have read totro for év tovtw (and Scrivener’s
Adversaria mentions rotro as a Gk reading). To before davpacrov
is omitted by AD and others. Diatess. has ‘‘ From this is the wonder.”
Blass (p. 275) remarks that the words are “ equivalent to an interroga-
tive od yap év rovrw.” This suggests that od interrogative may have
been dropped by most mss. but may have been read by D and e as
ovv supplanting yap. But od yap interrogative, though good classical
Greek, does not occur in John, who frequently uses it in statement
(ill. 17, 34, lv. 9, xil. 47 etc.). Nonnus has Totro yap éore 70 Oatdpa
ToAY mA€ov OTT. Tep ipiv “Ovros env ayvwortos, shewing that he read
yap’. Did he also read rotro with ¢, and, if so, év as & meaning
“unique,” “preeminent”? Comp. Epict. 1. 17. 13 dp’ ouv rodré éore
TO péeya Kai TO Gavpaordv,,.; “Is this, then, the great [object], che
wonderful {tdeal|...2”
On 6 Ace, H Ae (2071)
[2684] In John, o o¢, 7 dé etc. is far rarer than in any other
Gospel and almost always occurs in the phrase “avd, or but, he said.”
possible that in xx. 28 the original was €1TENAYTOTOOKYPIOC and that the second
To has been omitted. 6, when thus or similarly used, and also when prefixed to
interrogations, is very liable to corruption, as in Mk ix. 23, Mt. xix. 18, Lk. i. 62,
xix. 48, Gal. iv. 25, 1 Thess. iv. 1 etc.
[2682 4] Nonnus has Owpds 6 tborepdunris apmorBdda pntatro pwvjv, Kolpavos
nuétepos Kai éuos Beds, where the change of pron. (‘‘oz7...my”) is rather startling.
But perhaps he felt that ‘‘mzy Lord” was liable to be confused with ‘‘my lord,”
which means little more than ‘‘ Sir.” ‘*AZy God” could not be thus misunderstood:
and the sing. ‘‘7zy” was preferable here as it expressed Thomas’s personal con-
viction that his ‘‘lord” was also ‘‘God.” I do not however think that Nonnus
means ‘‘our Lord [is] a/so my God” as suggested in 2051.
1 [2683 a] Comp. Hayiim Pap. 123 (Edd.) ‘‘Having been molested I was
unable to come down...let us get from him the rest of the oil if you agree. [JZ say,
‘molested,’| for Veuphilus the Jew has come (€é\7Avdev yap T. Tovdaios) saying ‘I
have been pressed in as a cultivator, and I want to go to Sabinus.’ [7his és
strange| for he did not ask me to be released at the time that he was impressed
(otre yap elpnxe Tu(t)y aybuevos va amrodvOq), but has suddenly told me to-day
(GANG alpridi [[. ws elpnxev juty orjuepov). [ Vou need take no steps at present] jor
I will find out whether he is speaking the truth (ydooua yap ef adnAas Néy).”
[26834] The translation given above is that of the editors, except that they
have omitted a rendering of ydp in each case, and I have inserted it together with
a conjectural addition of the ellipsis implied. Note also (1) elpnxev (sc) used for
elrrev once at least, if not twice, (2) the use of odre...a\Xd.
522
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS _ [2687]
In“ ivs 32, v. 17, vi eo, RV, has) “Sv he’ | Jesus|| said,” in vil. 47
“‘ But some said,” in xx. 25 “ But he [Thomas] said ”—because in all
these cases there is adversativeness. Besides iv. 32, v. 17, vi. 20, it
is used once more (xxl. 6 R.V. “and he said”) of Jesus, in His reply
to the saying of the disciples that they have taken no fish. Perhaps
it would be best to render it “‘dzz,” so as to suggest adversativeness :
“They said, We have taken nothing [and were on the point of desisting
from fishing], dw¢ he said, ‘Cast the net...and ye shall find fish.’ ”
Then all the four passages where John uses o d€ concerning Jesus
will represent Him as correcting or comforting the disciples or
opposing the Jews.
On snep (2092)
[2685] “Hzrep occurs emphatically with »adAov in Xen. Conv. 1. 15
ouTe yap éywye orovdacat av duvaiuyv padAov nrep abavatos yeverbat,
“T could no more be serious than become immortal,” implying
“T could not possibly become immortal.” Comp. Orig. Comm.
Joann. Lomm. 1. 262 eddokodvtos Tov Geot padrXrov Huds avadeEac Gan...
aikias...nTep amad\aypvat Tov ToTOVTwWY vopilomevwv KaKov, and 20.
We, 2 ovvapralew parAov Kat copilerOat dvvatat...nrep meiGew (v.r.
eirep wetGe.). For Eustathius on /éad i. 117 see Steph. NTTEp.
On ina (2093)
[2686] John’s predilection for tva does not appear to be sufficiently
recognised in Blass’s remarks (p. 223) (a) ‘John, Matthew, and Mark
employ it very freely. Luke much more rarely especially in the
Acts,” (p. 321) (4) “‘ Probably even in the Gospels its insertion is
often the work of scholiasts”: (c) “in Jo. v. 36 read reAesdoar with
Tert.,” (Z) “in xi. 31 KAatoo. (without ékeZ) with Syr. Lew. and
Chrys.,” (e) “[in] xi. 55 [read] éyvéca: with Chrys.,” (/) “[in] xii. 20
[read] xpookvvjoae with Syr. Lew. and Chrys.”
[2687] To begin with (a). Since John employs iva about (1726)
as often as Mk, Mt. and Lk. all together’, it is reasonable to expect,
in him, many uses of it that would seem suspicious in the other
evangelists but (4) are not to be suspected, in his Gospel, of being
“the work of scholiasts.” (c) As regards Tertullian’s rendering of
v. 36 twa teXcwow (Prax. 31) “consummare,” it should be noted
1 [2687 a] Jn abt 150, Mk 65, Mt. 40, Lk. 50. These figures are hardly
compatible with the inference suggested above that Luke uses va ‘‘much more
rarely” than the other evangelists, including Matthew. It would be less
misleading to say that Lz. uses wa more freg. than Mt. in his Gospel, but less
freely in the Acts (12 times).
523
[2687] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
that whereas the Latin versions agree with the Greek order, Ter-
tullian disagrees; and it is quite possible that he wrote ‘‘dedit ut
consummaré,” and that the dropping of “ut” after “‘-it” has led to
the reading “consummare?.” Chrysostom twice quotes the verse
with tva*, Nonnus paraphrases it as of¢pa teAéoow. The ancient
Latin translations have “ut.” John himself repeats this very phrase
with tva. Why should all these witnesses weigh less than a possibly
corrupt text in Tertullian? (d) In xi. 31, it is true that SS renders
eis TO pevnpetov iva KAavon éxel. 7 ovv M. “‘to the grave...4o weep: and
she Mary”; but this, besides being slight evidence, may be the
result of textual corruption®. In any case Chrys. does not gwote this
passage without wa, but merely refers to it in a paraphrase, “all
began to follow her as though she were going away to weep (ws
kAadoar arepxopevy).” Nonnus has odpa. (e) In xi. 55 avéByoar...
iva ayvicwow éavtovs it is true that Mrs Lewis renders SS freely by
“to,” but SS has ‘(zz order] that” and Mr Burkitt has “hat.”
Chrysostom condenses and paraphrases three verses thus (xi. 55—7)
moXXou b€ €k 7S Xwpas aveBnoay ayvicat éavTovs. Kal eOwKkav Tapay-
yedias oi apxtepets Kat ot ®. iva mutowow adtov. Nonnus has o¢pa.
(/) In xi. 20 Hoav dé “EAAnveés tives ek TOV avaBaivovTwY iva Tpoc-
Kuvyowo ev TH €opth, SS has “to,” and Chrysostom has yoav 6€ tives
tov “EAAnvwv avaBavtes mpookuvycat eis tHv é€optnv. This is the
nearest approach to evidence of an original infinitive. But it is quite
unconvincing. It simply shews that Chrysostom would himself prefer
the inf. to iva after verbs of motion and that he sometimes lapses
into it when he quotes freely or paraphrases. As regards SS, or any
1 [26874] Both here and in xvii. 4 dédwKds woe iva movjow, D reads the aorist
(édwxev or édwxas). Translators with this reading would naturally use the imperf.
subjunct. ‘ consummarem,” and indeed in xvii. 4 the Latin versions have *‘‘ ut
facerem.” To go further into the question would require an examination of
Tertullian’s general rendering of va clauses and of the instances in which he allows
himself to use the infin. after ‘‘ dedit.”” Even in the absence of such evidence, it
is safe to say that error is more likely to be in Tertullian’s present text than in
the general consent of all the Greek texts and commentators.
2 [2687 ¢] Chrys. also thrice quotes the passage with @wxev for dédwxev,—which
favours the view that Tertullian may have written ‘“‘ dedit” as an aorist. Cramer
prints a quotation of the words as iva mow (for va TeAewow).
3 [2687] It is pretty certain that SS has read €kelH as though it were EKEIH
i.e. ‘‘ she.” This explains its omission of ‘‘¢/ere.” Reading the context thus
incorrectly, the translator may have dropped 1Na@ after 10N and taken KAdYCH as
KAAycal to make sense.
524
=
-
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS _ [2689]
translation, its evidence, on this point, may be very slight. Comp.
i. 27 agtos iva AVow (2104a) where there is no suspicion of any
various reading. The Latin versions mostly have “ dignus solvere,”
Vulg. ‘xt solvam,” mm “ut solvere” (sic); but it would be absurd to
deny that John wrote wa, although the parallel Synoptists have
ikavos with infinitive.
On viii. 56 HradAacato ina (2097)
[2688] On viii. 56 yyadAdoaro iva idy, Blass (p. 225) says ‘the
meaning can only be ‘to long with ecstasy’ ‘to rejoice that he should
see’”: and he compares Herm. Vs. iii. 8. 1 (misprinted ii. 8. 7)
Teprxapys €yevounv Tov idetv, and ill. 10. 6 wept TovTwy TepiduTos HUN
Nav tov yvdva, also (p. 321) Libanius (A.D. 350) Afpol. Socr. § 68
téproito idety ‘in the prospect of seeing.’ But, according to this
view, Herm. Vs. iil. 10. 6 ought to mean “I was very sorrowful
that I should know,” or “in the prospect of knowing,” which is the
opposite of what is meant. In both passages of Hermas, zepiyapys
and zepi\vros appear to be used like zoAAny xapay (or Avrnv) exov
followed by a genitive governed by the implied noun. Comp.
(if the text is correct) Joseph. Azz. xix. 2. 3 mepryapiys x. éAzidos
x. ppovnparos. In any case, these instances afford little guidance
as to the way in which John would use ayadAvaéo6ar iva. Nonnus
has idetv wyadAero', which Steph. (162 C) quotes, in about seven
columns of instances, as the sole instance of an inf. with this
verb. Steph. also gives (¢é.) one instance of the accus., but in
that and in every other case the verb refers to past or present
causes of joy and never means “look forward with joy to the future.”
In John, some reference to the future is needed, because of the
following words, “and fe saw.” We can hardly suppose that John
meant “ Rejoiced because he saw, and he saw.”
[2689] The probable explanation is that 7yaA\wdoaro—which
1 [2688 a] ’Ayd\Aouae mostly means ‘‘I am proud of,” but Irenaeus i. 2. 1 says
‘“ And according to them [the Valentinians] Nous alone took pleasure (é7épero)
[in] contemplating the Father, and exz/ted (ijya\Xero) [in] considering His im-
measurable greatness.” Nonnus could not use 7ya\\cdoaro in a hexameter: and
the aorist 7yj\aro appears (Steph.) to have been rare: 6 has ‘‘laetabatur,”
e ‘“‘exultatus est” (as also in v. 35). The Latin renderings of Origen vary as
follows (Lomm., vi. 38, viii. 216 ‘‘desideravit wt videret,” vi. 279 ‘‘exsultavit at
videret,” ix. 145 ‘‘concupivit vedere,” xiv. 425 ‘‘quia desideraverit vzdere”).
They afford a useful warning against the danger of inferring a Johannine infin.
from an infin. in a Latin translation.
525
[2689] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
may be here conveniently rendered “exulted” to distinguish it from
éxapy ‘rejoiced ”—expresses the Jewish tradition that Abraham was
filled with a divine “strength!” and ‘joy in believing’,” 2% order
that, in accordance with the divine decree, he might receive the
reward of the vision of the Day of the Lord*®. Origen expressly
1 [2689 a] Comp. Rom. iv. 20 ‘‘he (z.e. Abraham) was strengthened (évedvva-
p30n) in, or by, faith (7H mioret),” Heb. xi. 11 “‘ By fazth also Sarah herself received
strength (Sivapy).”
2 [26894] Comp. Rom. xv. 13 ‘‘ Now may the God of hope fill you with all
Joy and peace 27 believing.”
3 [2689 c] Comp. 1 Pet. i. 6—g ‘‘In whom ye exult (ayadcaoGe), though now
for a little while ye have been put to grief...that the proof of your faith...might be
found unto praise and glory...at the revelation of Jesus Christ : whom, not having
seen, ye love ; [looking] to whom, though now ye see not, yet believing, ye exit
(dyaN\Gre ? -GoGe) with joy unspeakable..., vecetwing the end of your faith the
salvation of your souls.” The context here implies that the “‘exultant” faith
itself—as well as the ‘‘ proof” of their faith—is ordained to lead the believers to
the ‘‘ end,” namely “‘ salvation.”
[2689 7] The ¢hought runs through the whole of the Bible that ‘‘ exultant joy”
in God is a gift from God, or a virtue to be practised: but the word (which
Steph. does not quote from any source but LXX or Christian writings) does not
occur (in any form) in the LXX till 2 S. i. 20 R.V. “‘lest the daughters of the
uncircumcised ¢ériumph” (LXX dyahhdowvrat, but Aq. and the rest, yaupidowsr).
When dyaddrdouac occurs as rendering Hebrew, it is restricted (with six excep-
tions) to the Psalms (about 50) and Isaiah (10). In 3 Mace. ii. 17, as in 2 S. i. 20,
it is used in a bad sense, being perh. used like dya\Xopac ** plume myself,” ‘‘ boast.”
It represents 7 (not 8, as Oxf. Conc.) Hebrew words including “sing,” ‘‘ boast,”
etc., but Aq. appears to have restricted it to ‘‘exultation” in a good sense. In
N.T. the verb (with the exc. of Mt. v. 12 dyaAddode, parall. Lk. vi. 23 oxiprjoare)
is restricted to Lk., Jn, Acts, 1 Pet.and Rev. Consequently, although the Pauline
Epistles emphatically inculcate the virtue or duty of ‘‘ veyozcing,” we might easily
miss the connexion between this and the ‘‘exu/tation” of Abraham: but the
Apostle certainly regards ‘“‘joy” or ‘‘rejoicing” as a gift—like ‘‘ faith” and
‘““hope”—to be used with a view to the ultimate seeing of the truth “face to
face.” Paul, like John, would maintain that we are to ““exult,” that we may
SPEC OHTISES IAG om
[26892] The non-use of dyaA\douwae in the Pentateuch perhaps prevented
Philo from using the word largely (if at all); but he (i. 602—3) dwells on the
“laughter” of Abraham (Gen. xvii. 17) ‘‘Then Abraham fell upon his face and
laughed—” reminding us that ‘‘ Isaac” means ‘‘laughter,” that the soul, so to
speak, ‘rejoices before joy,” and that ‘‘hope anticipates the coming good and
indicates it to the soul that is to be its permanent possessor.” Philo’s Quaest.
in Gen. (on Gen. xvii. 17) says that the ‘‘falling on the face” implied ‘‘ an
act of adoration and an excess of divine ecstasy” and also an act of confession,
and adds ‘“‘jure autem risit exsudtans de promissione magna spe adimpletus.”
Compare Rom. iv. 18—21 én’ édmld: érlorevoev els 70 yevéoOa avrov marépa moNNGY
éOvav...dos 5bEav 7H Oew Kal wAnpopopnbels.
526
: NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS _ [2689]
says that Abraham was zof one of those who ‘desired to see” the
Day of the Lord—and he adds that Abraham “rejoiced ” in offering
up his son Isaac—a sacrifice universally recognised as a type of the
crucifixion', Irenaeus also couples the ayaAAiaois of Abraham with
that of Mary the Lord’s mother*®: and probably it is implied that in
1 [2689 f] See Origen Lomm. i. 178 quoting Jn vill. 36 and saying of rere-
Aecwuévor Kat SiapepovTes (sc. mpopirar) ovK éemeOUunoay idety a eldov oi dmdcTo\o
(referring to Mt. xiii. 17) TePewpyxace yap atrd (taking ére@Juncay to mean
‘*desired in vain”). His words in Lomm. ii. 300 a¢’ ov léwy ri Iycod juepay
Hyaddudoato Kal éxdpy, give at first the impression that he took iva tén to mean
67t eldev : but a comparison of all his quotations indicates that the iva iéy is so
overshadowed in his mind by eiéev that he scarcely touches on the former. In
his commentary on Rom. iv. 24 (Lomm. vi. 279) he mentions the ‘‘ exultation ” of
Abraham after saying that the patriarch ‘‘ offered up his only son rejoicing
(gaudens),” and on Gen. xxi. 8 (Lomm. viii. 215) he treats the ‘‘7oy” of Abraham
as equivalent to ‘‘/saac,” so that ‘‘ Zsaac crescebat” =‘‘ gaudium crescebat
Abrahamo.” Before his first quotation of the passage, Origen (Lomm. i. 152—3)
maintains at great length that, as Christian apostles and martyrs were ‘‘ adorned”’
or ‘‘prepared” (kotpovmevor, éxoounbnoay Tw wdprupes elvac) so patriarchs and
prophets ‘‘have received as a gift [given] by God the [task of] preannouncing
Christ, having perceived Him [in the mind] (76 mpoxarayyet\ar Xpiorov, vonoavres
avrov, S@pov bro Oeod eiAjpact), teaching...... As now ‘he that hath not known the
Son hath not the Father (1 Jn il. 23),’ so also we must perceive that it was of old.
Wherefore (dtérep) Abraham ‘exulted [with exultation given from God] in order
that he might see the day of Christ’....” A gloss quoted in the notes to Hesychius
on aya\Naua quotes ayd\\w as meaning coon, and possibly Origen may have in
his mind some allusion to this meaning of the kindred word. In fine, we cannot
be certain that Origen took iva as meaning ‘‘in order that,” but it is certain that
he regarded the dyadXaots as something more than a subjective ‘‘ longing.”
2 [2689 c] Irenaeus iv. 5. 3—4 has “‘ ...‘ exu/davit ut videret..., et gavisus est.’
Quid enim? ‘Credidit Abraham Deo...(Rom. iv. 3, Gen. xv. 6),’” and ‘‘ Propheta
ergo cum esset A. et videret in Spiritu diem adventus Domini et passionis dis-
positionem...exzltavit vehementer. Non incognitus igitur erat Dominus Abrahae
cuius diem concupivet videre.” Either this is inconsistently translated or Irenaeus
halted between two meanings, ‘‘exultare,” and ‘‘concupiscere.” The translator
also renders éxdpy first ‘‘gavisus est” and then ‘‘exultavit vehementer”—or else
Irenaeus interchanged éxdapn and 7ya\Ndoaro. The context speaks of Abraham as
“following the Logos...27 order that (iva) he might find his abiding city (zrodrevb7)
with the Logos” and as ‘‘ willingly (3po@vuws) ” giving up his son as a sacrifice to
God, ‘‘ zn order that (iva) God also might be pleased to give zs son as a sacrifice
for us.” There is a suggestion (though no more) that Irenaeus took iva iéy to mean
‘in order that [Abraham] might see [the Incarnation and the Sacrifice of Christ
typified in the sacrifice of Isaac].”
[2689 4] Elsewhere Irenaeus paraphrases thus, iv. 7. 1 ‘‘ Abraham...concupivit
eam diem videre, uti et ipse complecteretur Christum: et per Spiritum prophetiae
eam videns exu/tavit,” where the last word seems to confuse 7yya\\doaro and
éxapn. He passes at once to Simeon’s utterance (‘‘ viderunt oculi mei salutare
527
[2689] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
both cases this exultant and ecstatic belief was a gift from God with
a view to (iva) the fulfilment of divine purpose. The Epistle to the
Romans (iv. 18) says the same thing in different words, when it
declares that Abraham “believed ¢o the intent that [in accordance
with God's will| he might become (eis to yevéobar adtév) the father
of many nations.” John elsewhere uses the very exceptional passive
form (ayaA\abjvar) concerning the Pharisees, who were willing (?)
“to be gladdened,” for a season, in the light of John the Baptist?2,
tuum”) and that of Mary, ‘‘ Magnificat...et exultavit,” and concludes ‘‘Bene igitur
Dominus noster...dicens, Abraham pater vester exultavit ut videret diem meum
et vidit, et gavisus est” (quoted similarly in ii. 22. 6).
[26892] This mention of the Magnificat (Lk. i. 47) #yaANacey 7d rredud pov
raises the question whether 7ya\Nacev (or -ce), read by all mss. there, means some-
thing different from 7ya\Ndcaro, The active is not found in LXX anywhere, nor
in N.T. elsewhere exc. in r Pet. i. 8 (where B has preserved it), and Rev. xix. if
Xaipwuev Kai ayad\@uev (where several authorities have ayaddueGa). 1 Pet. and
Rev. may have used the active in a special sense as will be seen below (2689 Z).
But that Lk. should use it thus is improbable, as he has the middle thrice (in Lk.
and Acts together) and applies it once to Christ Himself. A Greek tradition
printed as Origen’s in connexion with his Latin comment on Lk. i. 47, says 7d
d€ mvevua a’ris jyadNdoato...eira WyadX\udcaro TO Tvevua avrns, and Cramer
prints a comment, 6d kal qyadudearo 7d mvedud wov. This may be the true reading.
If yya\aca came at the end of a line and roro rvevya at the beginning of the
next, it would be very natural that the first ro should be dropped, and a changed
to € for sense.
1 [2689 7] Eis 76 in the Pauline Epistles almost always expresses, not result
alone, but at—the aim of God, underlying and controlling the motions of men.
This is especially the case in the Epistle to the Romans (i. 11, iii. 26, iv. 11
els 70 elvat...els TO KoyioO7var, iv. 16, vii. 4 etc.). Of course where eis 76 is
connected with a special phrase like émi@uulay éywv (Phil. i. 23) it may mean
‘“pointing towards” without this notion of divine control. But the whole
atmosphere of the Epistle to the Romans is full of the thought of God’s pre-
ordinance; and iv. 18 els ro yevéoOa, both from a literary and from a grammatical
point of view, must be regarded as implying that thought.
* [2689] On v. 35 7OeAjoaTe dyadNabjvar mpds wpay ev TE gwrl adror,
Chrysostom says ‘‘they merely admired (€0avpacav) for a season,” Cramer has
amedéavto mpos wav, SS ‘ye wished to make your boast for the hour in
his light,” Nonnus épatdpivacde...dyadNbuevor. Clem. Alex. (815) substitutes
dyahhadapmer for dyah\acwue0a in quoting Ps. exviii. 24. In many Christian
writers (eg. Chrys. on Gal. vi. 17 dydAXerac tpatuara mepipépwv, but Vulg.
ayahNdferat) there is much confusion between dydddonac ‘‘ doast [of what is my
own],” and dya\Xidomae *‘ refoice, or, sing praises [to the glory of God].” Field
(on Ps, xxxiii. 1) has wavrayxod rd, dyah\dobe, 6 wev Axvdas, aivetre, 6 dé LDUupmaxos,
evpnuetre, Hpuyvevoev: and it is true that Aq. substitutes ‘‘ praise” for the LXX
dyaXX. when the word means ‘‘j
‘
jubilaxe,?? ap.) Ps.) vi mn, 3X05, exxiik re ADRS
shews that, in the second century at all events, students of the Bible gave thought
528
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS _ [2689]
Here he uses the middle, probably with some general allusion (as
Chrysostom says)! to the “day” of the Lord’s sacrifice, and, if so,
with a special allusion to the Psalmist’s words, ‘‘ This is the day that
the Lord hath made, Let us exu/t and be glad in it’.” But the
principal allusion seems to be to the “laughing” of Abraham before
the birth of ‘“‘ Laughter” ze. Isaac, when he lay prostrate, adoring
the goodness of God, abased (as Philo says) in the flesh, but lifted
up in the spirit, rapt into the seventh heaven, zz order that he might
to this particular word, and prepares us to believe that some, without going with
Aquila so far as to change the word, might change its form, representing the mere
passive feeling of joy by aya\Xajva or other passive forms, but the active
outburst of ecstatic joy—expressing itself in responsive praise and magnifying of
God for His mercies—by active or middle forms.
[2689 7] This may explain 1 Pet. i. 6—g, which should perhaps be punctuated
thus, év @ dyad\udoe—érlyov dpri, ef Séov, NuTNOEVTeEs...tva Td “SoKipov...év
amokadiwer Inood Xpictod—év ovK iddvres ayamdre, eis dv dpre uy opdvTes mioTEd-
ovres 6€ ayadXdre (so B and Orig.) xapa dvexNadyjrw kal bedotacmevy, Komrfbuevor
TO Tédos THs mloTEews, Twrnpiay Wuxa@v. Here sense requires (1) a marked
difference between év @ dyadX\tdiobe and eis bv musrevovTes ayadALaTe, (2) a climax
in the latter. ‘‘ Some Latin fathers and inferior Vulg. Mss.,” says Hort, take the
former (aya\\cdoGe) as fut. ‘‘exultabitis.” But a better meaning may be expressed
in the foll. paraphrase, ‘‘In whom ye ave made to rejotce—in spite of your
momentary sufferings, which shall result to your good in‘the day of the final
revealing of Jesus Christ—whom, I say, not having seen, ye love, to whom even
now, though not seeing, yet believing, your hearts go out in ecstasy with a joy
tneffable and divinely glorified.” The Apostle speaks of the “ rejoicing” of the
Christian first from a passive, then from an active, point of view. The active joy
is called ‘‘ glorified”? because it is purified from all thought of self, as the rejoicer
merges himself in God—like Abraham (Rom. iv. 20) ‘‘ giving glory to God.”
1 [2689 7] Chrys. ‘‘ He seems to me to speak here of the day of the Cross,
which day he typically predicted (zpodverérwoe) in the sacrifice of the ram and of
Isaac,” Cramer diff. and adds ‘‘ He praises Abraham as having been filled with
joy because of the cross (ws evgpavOévra dia Tov aravpév) wishing to shew that he
does not unwillingly come to the suffering (detEac Oé\wv Ste ovK aKwy Eri 7d TAOS
épxerat) ’—which last words might apply to Abraham or to the Saviour.
? [2689 7] Clem. Alex. (815) quotes ‘‘ This is the day etc.” with a general
reference to ri dt viod évépyeay in the creation of the world, not in its redemption.
But Origen (Ps. cxviii. 24) ad loc. ‘‘ For what could possibly equal this day in
which the reconciliation of God came to men...and paradise was opened and we
received again our ancient country and the curse was blotted out and sin destroyed
... wherefore let us too exu/t (dya\\acwue0a) and be glad in it.”
[2689 0] Clem. Alex. 973 gives a Valentinian quotation of viii. 56 stopping at
Tiv Nuépay Thy éunv, and continuing thus, 7H év capki mapovatay. b0ev avacras o
KUpios evnyyeNioato Tols Sikatous To’s ev TH avatavcer Kal peTéoTnoev avTols...
apparently referring it to Abraham in Hades waiting to be liberated by the
Saviour.
Tent 529 34
[2690] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
see—and help all mankind to see—the vision of the Father sacrificing
flimself in the sacrifice of the Son’.
On ina with indicative (2114)
[2690] The instances of iva with fut. in John are so few that no
safe inference is possible as to any difference of meaning. In vii. 3
iva...Gewpyoovow (v.¥. -yowow) there may be an intention to blend
purpose with assured result. In xvil. 2 tva...duce (v. r. dwon, dwow
etc.) compared with Lk. xx. to va dwoovow and 1 Cor. ix. 18 fva
Oyow, it is possible that the use of the future may have been
facilitated by the tendency to substitute for forms of the 2nd aorist
active (see Blass, p. 43) forms of the rst aorist active in -oa, which
resembled forms of the future. It would be an anachronism to
suppose in N.T. the late Gk aorists édwoa” and @yo0a: but, long
before these forms came into use, there might be a tendency to avoid
the 2nd aorists of verbs in -yu, because of their perplexing irregularity
and erroneous use as in Ox. Pap. cclxix. col. il. 8—12 (a.D. 57)
é€av wou Ov (for 6@) 70 apyvpiov dus (for dds) ait@ aoyny, Kat cay ev| p |ns
dogadiy (sic) dds (for dds) aire TO apy'piov évévear po, and Fayim
CIX. 4 Tods TpEls OTaTHpes (Sic) OVs ElpyKE ToL ZEAevKos dwval (for dodvac)
por 70n 60s KAewv. It is probable that iva with particular futures
that had an aorist subjunctive sound would come into use long before
iva became customary with ¢he future in general. But the future
after (va would also displace, at a comparatively early date, z~regudar
and rare forms of the subjunctive.
On St Paul’s autograph (2114)
[2691] As regards the interchange of o and in a passage
written or partly written by St Paul’s own hand, compare the
Fayfim Papyri t11o foll., which gives several letters from one
1 [2689 7] Lk. x. 21 7#ya\Ndoaro, applied to Christ, and parall. to Mt. xi. 25
droxpiels, precedes an utterance of ‘‘confession” (€fouodoyoUuai co) to the
Father. The relation between Lk. and Mt. is too difficult a question to be
discussed here. But it may be noted that elsewhere in N.T. (exc. Jn v. 35)
both the verb and the noun almost always describe ecstatic joy in man tending to
the glorifying of God.
., 2 [2690 a] In Mk vi. 37 Swete reads dwcwmev (with NBD 33 etc., v.r. dwoower
and dwuev), but W.H. has ddécouev. Possibly, the original was dwowuev, with w
for o, intended as a fut., and the scribes of SB and D retained w because of the
preceding dyopdowpev, taking both words as delib. subjunct., whereas the meaning
was “ Are we to buy...and skal/ we give?” MHesychius explains mpoéuevos as
mpodwoas, and Lobeck’s Phrynichus (p. 719—20) gives many instances of
corruptions arising from a preference of debased first aorist forms.
5g0
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS — [2691]
Gemellus’. The first of these is dated a.p. 94. In this the spelling
1 [26912] How much was written by the Apostle himself cannot be decided
apart from the meaning of the aorist in Gal. vi. 11 tere "mnNixors' (marg. HALKoLS)
duly ypdumacw eypaya TH eu xeipl, R.V. ‘‘See with how large letters I have
written unto you with mine own hand,” marg. ‘‘ wrzte.” Lightf. renders this
‘**7 write, the epistolary aorist conveniently translated by a present”; and he
quotes Mart. Polyc. § 1 éypdwapmev tbuiv, addedpol..., at the very beginning of the
epistle, to shew that the ‘‘epistolary aorist’’ may refer to words that follow. But
that epistle, having been written in compliance with a request from the brethren
addressed (74. § 20), might naturally begin thus, ‘‘ We have written, brethren [as
you desired]”—especially if (as is very likely) the facts of the martyrdom were
written first and the introduction added afterwards. Lightfoot quotes no other
instance outside N.T.
[26910] As regards N.T., in Philem. 18—rog ‘‘ If he...oweth thee aught, pz
that to mine account ; I Paul have written (R.V. write) 2 (éypawva) with mine own
hand, I will repay it,” the aorist probably refers to ‘‘ put...account”’ (repeated, in
effect, in ‘‘I will repay it”); and 2d. 21 éypawa oo refers to all that precedes. In
Rom. xv. 15, @ypaya refers (Fritzsche) to previous portions of the letter. In
1 Cor. v. g—11 éypaya buw év ry émiorodg...viv 6€ &ypaya vytv, both aorists
—however 77 é€7. may be explained—appear to refer to something previously
written; and this is certainly true of 1 Cor. ix. 15 (ox éypaya 6€ ratvTa, which
refers to 76. 314), 2 Cor. ii. 3, 4, 9, vil. 12. The past meaning of the aorist is
made all the more probable because St Paul frequently uses ypadg~w or ypapomer
(1 (Corpav) 37,2) Cor t..13, xi, 10, Gal. 1.(20,.2, Dhess. ili. 17, 1 (ime i.) 14)
when he really means the present ‘‘I am writing.” In 1 Pet. v. 12, @ypaya
comes at the close of the epistle and means (as R.V.) “‘/ have written.” In
I Jn ii. 13, 14 (d25), 21, 26, v. 13, @ypaya is to be distinguished from 2d. i. 4
ypadpowey and ii. 1, 7, 8, 12, 13 (d25), yedgdw, and Westcott—who rightly regards
éypaya as a true aorist—supposes, between the two tenses in ii. 13, ‘‘a pause in
thought if not a break in the composition of the letter.” Even without that
hypothesis, the aorist causes no difficulty, ‘‘I wzz¢e (pres.) unto you, children,
because...[ Another reason why] I zw7o¢e (aor.) unto you, children, [was] because....”
In any case, éypawa in these Johannine passages means (R.V. txt) ‘“‘have written”
or (R.V. marg.) ‘‘wrote.” ’Eméorecda (R.V. ‘‘I have written”) occurs at the close
of the Epistle to the Hebrews (xiii. 22).
[2691¢] Lightf. refers to the ‘‘epistolary” use of érewya. This aorist, in
Acts xxiii. 30, occurs at the end of a letter in which Claudius Lysias says, in
effect, to Felix, ‘‘ Along with this letter 7 have sent you a prisoner.” It occurs
also in 2 Cor. viii. 18, 22, ix. 3, Eph. vi. 22, Col. iv. 8 about sending ‘‘ brethren ”
or friends, who, in all cases, bring the Apostles letter with them. Similarly, in an
English letter, many would prefer to say ‘‘I have enclosed, or, enclose, a cheque”
(though strict logic would require “‘ I shal/ enclose”’) meaning ‘‘ you well find that
I have enclosed.’ If we were to say ‘‘1 shall enclose, or, shall send, a cheque,” it
might often lead the reader to suppose that a cheque would be sent later on. The
same objection would apply to wéuyw in a Greek letter. We cannot argue from
this obviously convenient use of é@mreuwa that letter-writers would adopt an
obviously inconvenient use of éypaya—inconvenient, because it would merely
531 34-2
[2691] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
is excellent. In the second we have dod for odo%, [k]oun for conn
and A€yov for A€ywv, in five consecutive lines, and similar substitu-
tions occur in later letters. The reason for the difference is that
the first letter was written for Gemellus by a scribe, but the second and
Jollowing ones by Gemellus himself: and he himself regularly confused
o and w. In the LXX, comp. Gen. iv. 5 “his countenance fell,”
LXX ovvérecey 76 tpocwrw, Aq. érece TO TPOTwTOV avTov, Josh.
xv. 8 LXX ézi vorov, A vwrov, Sir. xlili. 26 LXX edwdia for XC
evodia etc. In Gal. vi. 8—12, beside the interchanges of o and w
mentioned in 2114, B clearly shews yArkors for wyAckous, a very
minute 7 being perhaps inserted above the line, and zepitepecGar
occurs at the beginning of the line for repitéuveobar. The photo-
represent the same thing as the epistolary ypad@w, which is very frequent, whereas
the epistolary wéuaw nowhere occurs in N.T.
[26917] Chrys. on Gal. vi. 11 takes éypawa to refer to ‘‘the whole letter.’
He and a ‘‘vir...eruditus” mentioned by Jerome—but Wetst. and Migne give
Jerome’s evidence very differently (2785 foll.)—regarded the ‘‘large letters” as
the uncouth handwriting of one unaccustomed to write Greek. Theodorus, on
the other hand, thinks that the Apostle, ‘‘ being on the point of sharply attacking
(ué\X\wv kaBamrecPat) his adversaries, used larger letters [than usual] emphasizing
[the fact] that he himself neither blushes nor denies what was being said (éudalywy
dre ore ards EpvOpia otire apvetrar Ta Neydueva).” The ‘‘vir...eruditus ”—about
whom Jerome adds (Migne) ‘‘miror quomodo rem ridiculam locutus sit ’—was
not improbably Chrysostom himself, though Migne dissents from this conclusion.
In any case, Jerome’s own explanation is quite unsatisfactory, as he translates.
andtxors as though it were motos. As to the view of Theodorus, favoured by
Lightfoot, that ‘‘large letters” might correspond to our underlining, no evidence
for it is alleged by Lightfoot, nor has any been (so far as I know) adduced from
the numerous papyri discovered since Lightfoot wrote. Lucian’s two mentions of
“‘sreat letters” refer only to placards and public inscriptions (i. 750 A/erm. 11
ii. go3 De Gymnas. 22).
[2691 ¢] A man writing, contrary to his custom, in “ large letters,” could not
reproduce the peculiarities of his handwriting in a natural manner. But St Paul
says ‘See with what large letters I have written with my own hand” in such a
way as to suggest that they could recognise his handwriting, as in 2 Thess. iii. 17
**the salutation of me Paul wth mine own hand, which ts the token in every
epistle, thus [ write.” It is probable that this “‘token” was written in large
letters, and that St Paul, on the very rare occasions when he wrote Greek at all,
always wrote thus. But the special peculiarity about the autographic writing to
b]
>
the Galatians was that it extended to a passage of some length. Some -of this
almost certainly preceded the word téere. Perhaps (as Chrysostom maintained)
it extended to the whole of the epistle. If so, we need not, of course, adopt
**sloried in his imperfect knowledge” (2788) ; he may be
referring to the laborious ‘‘large letters” as a proof that he loved the Galatians.
When forced to rebuke them more bitterly than he had rebuked any other church,
he would not rebuke them through the hand of an amanuensis.
532
the view that the writer
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS — [2693]
graph also shews something wrong in the accentuation of xeipé and
perhaps in the following 0, of XEIPIO. It may be urged that
Gemellus, though a man of means, was not highly educated, whereas
St Paul, as a youth, perhaps studied at Tarsus. But Augustus is
said by Suetonius to have been a bad speller (2790). And if a
Roman Emperor, why not a Jew—who probably had little practice
in Greek writing during his training under Gamaliel in Jerusalem, and
who certainly wrote Greek, for the most part, through an amanuensis ?
On iv. 45 kai ayto! rap (2167)
[2692] In iv. 45 xal avroi yap 7AGov, why is special emphasis
apparently laid on avrof? Kai yap avrot, “for they also,” would
have emphasized the pronoun; but kai avrot yap seems to give a
special emphasis. Does it mean “even the despised Galilaeans ”?
Chrys., in his comments, suggests this view, calling attention to the
contempt with which they were regarded by the Jews. But he omits
avroi (though Migne’s Latin translation supplies it). Origen (ad doc.),
besides quoting with avro/, appears to attempt to explain it thus,
HAjv e€eote TadtAatov ovta éoprdlew ev ‘TepooodAvpors ywopevov, Orov
6 vads TOD @cod, kai Gewpety Tavta oa emote exet O Inoots... “Apxy
yap 7 év ‘lepooodAvpous éopty Tots TadiAators €or Tod Kat deEac Gar Tov
viov ToD Meod €AOovta mpos avtovs. ‘This seems to mean, “‘ Though
the Galilaeans were at a distance from Jerusalem and somewhat
despised, it was quite lawful for them [as distinct from the Samaritans
mentioned in the preceding chapter| to keep the Feast in Jerusalem
and [hence possible for them\ to behold Christ’s works there... [And
this is essential to the narrative] for the Feast in Jerusalem was, in
effect, the beginning of the Gospel for them.” He proceeds to argue
that the Galilaeans would not have received Jesus if they had not
gone up to the Feast in Jerusalem. Nonnus inserts avrov, calling
the Galilaeans éopos Oeootopywv and adding Kai yap és iepov 7jap
éreotiyowvto Kai avtoi. Steph. 521 B—D gives freq. instances of kat
yap but none where the phrase is broken by an intervening noun
or pronoun.
On 6na@c An (2173)
[2693] “Ozws av, in the Psalms, is the regular equivalent of the
Heb. “in order that,’ “for the sake of,” when used with verb,
Psu a xxx 2, xl ville 13; lie 4) he 5, cvilis Ovete* “The ‘same
Heb. is rendered by Aq. (fragm. ed. Taylor) in 2 K. xxiii, 24 dzws
where LXX has ta (before (ava)ory0y). In Proverbs, the same Heb.
(occurring thrice) is rendered once «i yap, twice iva, and in Job
533
[2694] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
(occurring twice) once kal tére, and once } iva. In Egypt. Pap.
Indices owws with subjunct. is mostly confined to petitions but
occurs twice (Oxyr. 532. 13, Fayzéim 121. 10) in private letters.
On 6T1=dcte (2186)
[2694] “Or is equivalent to dere, ‘so that” in xiv. 22 Kvpte,
Tl yéyovev ore npiv pedAes eudavilewy ceavtov Kat ovxt TO Koopw; The
Diatessaron, it is true, renders this “What is the purpose of thy
intention to shew thyself....” But this indicates the reading ré éorw
om, the reading of D, SS (Chrys. has rst ti dr, and 2nd ré éorw
o7.;). Nonnus has Koipave, ras rtedv etdos opoppovéwy avadaivers
Movwvots cots érdpoust Kai ov Onntopt Koopo; Theoretically, td yéyovev
ére might be rendered, “ Why hath it come to pass that...?” But
or, “so that,” is very common in O.T. in such phrases as ‘‘ What is
man ¢hat...?” (Heb. ii. 6, qu. Ps. viii. 4), “ What have I done ¢that...1?”
and this is probably the meaning here: ‘Lord, what [xew thing]
hath come to pass so that thou dost purpose...?” It is one of the
very few certain instances of ore ‘so that,” in N.T.2 The Thesaurus
quotes no instances of 67. meaning wore except from Scholiasts on
Theocritus*. This Johannine instance of 87 in interrogation is quite
distinct from the Byzantine and post-Christian use of it after roaodros
etc. (2697).
On oT! MH (2187)
[2695] On iil. 18 6 wy miorévwy Ady Kéxpitar Ste pay TemloTevKev
cis TO Ovo“a TOD povoyevors viod Tod Heod*, Blass says (p. 255) that it
‘ [2694a] See Gen. xx. 9, 10, Judg. xiv. 3, 1 S. xx. 1, 1 K. xviii. gete. In
Gen. xx. 10 ‘‘ What sawest thou ¢ia¢ thou hast done?” LXX has rf énddv
(Sym. (6av) éroinoas; but Aq. ri eldes (Theod. évpaxas) 8re érolncas; In Gen.
xl. 15 ‘‘I have done nothing ¢ia¢ they should have placed me in the dungeon,”
LXX has dA\d. In all these cases the Heb. conj. is 93, which may mean ‘‘ dzt,”
*‘ for indeed,” ** since,” as well as “ that.”
* [2694] In Mk iv. 41, Mt. viii. 27, Lk. viii. 25, ére may have been used by
the writers to mean ‘‘such that,” or “for indeed.” In Lk. iv. 36 &re (which has
caused v.r. in parall. Mk i. 27) prob. means ‘‘ because” or ‘* for indeed.”
% [2694] On Theocr. ix. 25 uéyas...roco0Tov 67... dcéxoa, on 7b. x. 14 és ToTO0-
tov ért. Classical Greek might have used wore wéAXers here. But Wore with indic.
is almost non-existent in LXX, and (except as meaning initial ‘‘ wherefore”)
occurs in N.T. perh. only in Gal. ii. 13 and Jn iii. 16. This tradition about
“*Judas not Iscariot” or ‘* Judas Thomas” is perh. derived from some special
source. The indices of the Egyptian Papyri give no instance of 67 “so that,”
* [2695] Syr. Curet. (Burk.) ‘‘ But he that believeth not is guilty, in that he
believed not in the name of the only Son of God,” SS “and he that believeth not
in him is judged on [the ground] that he believed not in the name of the approved
”
Son (sic)
534
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS _ [2695]
is the only exception to the rule of using ov—‘“‘unless indeed the late
form 61 py should be taken as an indication of the spuriousness of
the subordinate clause which is omitted by Chrys. and is very
tautological.” But ote py is found in Joseph. AZ. 1. 23 diujpaprov
OTe pa) Tats tepats yuav BiBrous évérvxov, and Epict. iv. 4. 8 drav yap
eobins, axOn Ste pH avaywooKes (besides later writers such as Justin
Martyr and Lucian), so that the construction, relatively to John, can
hardly be called “ /aze.” Chrys., it is true, omits the words, but the
context indicates that he merely omits them because they seemed to
him unnecessary for the purpose of his comment. Nonnus para-
phrases them fully. Origen appears to have read them, if we restore
a missing py in a passage distinguishing between “ believing in him ”
and “believing in his name.” Origen’s argument is condensed, but
it seems to be this: “Christ says ‘He that deleveth in me is not
judged,’ but not ‘He that delieveth in my name is not judged.’
He does not go on to say ‘He that Jdelieveth not in me hath
been judged already’ [He says simply ‘he that Jdelveveth not,
meaning ‘believeth not in any way’): for perhaps ‘he that believeth
in His name, does at all events (ev) believe ; wherefore he does not
deserve to ‘have been judged already,’ though inferior to him that
‘believeth in Him.” From this it appears probable that Origen
assumed in this context the existence of a negative clause about
“not believing zz the name,” though he does not quote it. He
actually quotes it in his commentary (Latin) on the Epistle to the
)
Romans?. In his commentary on the Psalms he stops short, as
Chrys. does, at the word xéxpirat, but it is for brevity ; and there he
1 [2695 46] Orig. (on Jn ii. 23—5, Lomm. i. 371). nol yap 6 kvtpios, ‘*°O
“OQ mioretwy els TO Ovomd jou ov Kpiverat.”
mugTevww eis Eue ov Kplverat,” ovxl dé
Odkére 6€ pnow ‘'O [un] mioredwr els éue 76n Kéxpirar’” Taxa yap 6‘ murevwy els
To dvoua avrod” mistever pév, Sidmep ovK eaTw déios “dn KexplaOm,” éMarTwy dé
éort ToU mictevovTos eis avTov. For dre uy in Epictetus, see also iv. 4. 11 KNaéy...
bre wh Ew yuurdgerac and iv. 5. 8—g (thrice) éAoddpnoé ce 6 detva. ILoAAH yapes
atr@ bru wh Ewhnéev....
2 (2695c] Lomm. vi. gg ‘‘ Omnis qui credit in me non judicabitur. Qui autem
non credit, jam judicatus est quia non credit in nomine unigeniti Filii Dei.”
Both in Gk and Latin, Origen has ‘‘ He that believeth in me” (for ‘‘believeth in
him”). So has Irenaeus v. 27.2. The reason is, that all three quotations are
preceded by ‘‘ Zhe Lord said,” or words to that effect, and ‘‘7’e Lord said, ‘He
that believeth in 2zz’” would be liable to misunderstanding as meaning ‘‘ He that
believeth in God.” But the quotations afford an instructive illustration of the
manner in which a saying about ‘‘the Son of God” or ‘‘the Son of man” might
be altered to a saying in the first person.
535
[2696] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
adds ‘‘ But I understand the words ‘he that believeth not’ to stand
for ‘he that disbelieveth’.’” This may partly explain John’s ex-
ceptional use of wy. It may be taken as a sort of a/pha privative.
“The disbeliever (0 pi-mistevwv)” is condemned because “he has
disbelieved (pn-reniotevkev).” But the precedent py muetevwv occurs
also in 1 Jn (2187) where orc ov follows; so that it does not suffice
as a complete explanation.
On wc (2201)
[2696] ‘Qs, “donec,” is mentioned in Steph. (p. 2108 A) only as
an unsatisfactory rendering in Odyss. ili. 301 where ws ‘‘ when,” or @s
“thus,” is to be preferred. It certainly seems to mean ‘ while” (less
probably “as”) in Ignat. Smyrn. g ws [ete] Kapov exopev, 2 Clem.
Rom. 8 os otv éeopev ext yijs, 9 ws Exopev Karpov. But two of these
three passages appear to be quotations of Gal. vi. 10 ws Karpov
éxwpev (prob. a misspelling (2114, 2691) of €xouev) R.V. “as we have
opportunity”; and, even if the quoters regarded ws as equivalent to
éws, it by no means follows that they were right. In the Indices of
the Egyptian Papyri €ws is fairly frequent, but not ws except once in
ws av. In Lk. xii. 58 ws yap vrayes (R.V.) “as thou art going”
there is apparently no notion of “as long as” till Luke adds ev 7H 000
(Mt. v. 25 €ws orov ¢i...€v TH 000)—z.e. “[being still] in the way.”
In modern Greek (Blass p. 332), ws is said to be used for éws in
such a phrase as ws ére Ca, but in non-modern Greek, there appears
to be no evidence at present for such a usage of ws with indicative
except that given above. In Gal. vi. ro, there seems to be a
reference to the preceding words: “‘ Let us not faint, for zn its own
lie. the harvest’s| appointed time (xap@ yap idiwv) we [workmen] shall
reap the harvest if we faint not. Well then as we [workmen] ave
an appointed time (apa ovv ws Karpov €xopev, NOt -wpev) let us work....”
In view of the exceptional misspellings in the context of Gal. vi. 10
the conclusion is uncertain, but probably ws is not used for €ws, and
the passage means either “as we have an appointed time’,” or
+)
“ according as we have opportunity.”
1 (2695 d] On Ps. Ixxii. 4 (Lomm. xiii. 2) "Axotw 6€ rod “6 un mucredwr” avrl
Tod ‘*6 amoray.”’ Clem. Alex. 641 actually uses amiorety in quoting iii. 18,
6 amorThoas, KaTa THY cwrhpoy pwvyv, On Kéxptrac.
2 [2696 a] ‘Qs dv is prob. (Steph.) for éws av **as long as” in Soph. Ajax 1117
ws dv qs olds mep et in view of Plato Phaedr. 243 E €worep dv js ds el, and comp.
Soph. Phil. 1330, Gd. Col. 1361 and possibly (Steph.) Hippocr. 418. 5 und’ ds av
530
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS — [2697]
On oYtwc...dcte (2203)
[2697] Concerning il. 16 OUTWS yap YyaTyGEV...woTE TOV vioV TOV
povoyery eduoxev Blass (p. 224) says “the correct reading in place of
wate is 671, which is doubly attested by Chrys. (in many passages)
and Nonnus § 78, 6.” But Chrysostom, while guoting the whole text
with 67, comments thus, ovtws vpas yyarycev ws Urép Tov dovAwV
Sodvar tov vidv. Subsequently, he says arep éryyaye Néeywv ote TOV
vidv avtod Tov povoyevh edwxev. Here ote should prob. be printed
as “recitativum”; but its use suggests how easily ore rov viov might
creep into the text in the place of wore tov viov when the words were
quoted. Moreover this use of or after ovtws, tocodros etc. does not
appear to exist till quite late. We must carefully distinguish between
(1) the LXX use of 67 “so that” (2694) after questions and
negations, and (2) the Byzantine or post-Christian use of 67, “so
that,” after tocotdros etc.’ To impute to John the idiom otras...
é7t may have been natural for Chrysostom or for a scribe of
Chrysostom’s text, but for John himself (so far as evidence is
alleged) it would apparently have been an anachronism. Ovras...iva
“so greatly...that” he might have written, along with Epictetus’:
v.r. un Oe ws. But these are all with pres. subjunct., and must be carefully
distinguished from @s dy with aorist subjunct. ‘‘ whenever,’ or ‘‘ when,” which
occurs in Herodotus, Cebes (Steph.), Josh. 11. 14, ui. 8, 13 etc. Zedt. Papyr. xxvi.
l. 2 (B.C. 114) ws av dvayvGre, and in 1 Cor. xi. 34, Phil. ii. 23. Rom. xv. 24 ws
av ropevwuae is either quite exceptional ‘‘ wen I am taking my proposed journey,”
or ‘‘ provided that 1 journey.” In vernacular English, ‘‘as long as”
means ‘‘ provided that.”
[2696 4] ‘Qs in Mk ix. 21 (B éws, al. €€ ot and so Lat. and Syr.) méa0s xpévos
éoTly ws TovTo yéyovery means ‘‘since.’’ SS has ‘‘ dehold since,” which is like Judg.
xvi. 13 ‘“‘hitherto,” B “ dehold” idob (confusing the Heb.), A as viv, al. (Field)
éws viv. Ezr. ix. 7 ws 7 Nuépa atiry is corrupted in 1 Esdr. vill. 74 to wéxpe THs
o7jmepov juepas suggesting that ws has been read as €ws. Conversely Ezr. vi. 20 ‘‘as
one” is rendered éws els, al. (Field) ws eis. These facts (and others in Steph., and
see Herm. V7zs. iii. 8 ws, v.r. 65 and €ws) indicate frequent scribal confusion of ws
and éws, but they do not shew that early Christian writers used the former for the
latter.
sometimes
[2696 c] In xii. 35—6 mepirareire ws TO Pas ExeETE... ws TO Pas EXETE TLTTEVETE,
the repetition, and the reversed order of the words accord (2554) with Johannine
usage. Blass’s suggestion (p. 332) to read (with &) rst ws and 2nd ws would not
accord with it so well.
1 [2697 a] For the latter, Jannaris (p. 416) quotes only Theod., Apophth.,
J Moschos, Leont. Neap., J Canan.
* [2697 6] Comp. Epictet. ii. 2. 16 otrw pwpos qv wa wy Udy...; ii. 22. 9
oaivovTa...adddAjrots iv’ elarys (so as to make you say) Ovdéev Pirtxwrepoy, ill. 1. 12 Tb
Sex
[2698] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
but not ovrws or. As to Nonnus, Passow reads ottw...iva, with ére
as a rejected reading. ry
On an with indicative (2213)
[2698] On ay with indic. in hypothetical sentences Blass says
(205) “the insertion of av is not obligatory,” and he refers to viii. 39,
XV. 24, xix. 11 and Gal. iv. 15. But in viii. 39 it is maintained
(2079) that B has preserved the right reading, and that dv is not
omitted. In xv. 24 ovd« etyooar, xix. 11 ovx efyes—and, we may add,
XV. 22 ov« elyooav—the phrase is always of one kind and negative,
and does not afford a basis for a general statement that ay is
not obligatory. In Gal. iv. 15 paprupd yap vpiv dr, ei dvvatov, rods
6pGarpors vudv e€opv~avtes edwxaté por, the Apostle describes
hyperbolically the past affection of the Galatians by a reference to:
stories like that told by Lucian (ii. 548, Zvx. 40) of friends cutting
out their eyes for friendship’s sake. Perhaps av is omitted (though
the writer may have been combining in his mind (1) “‘Zf zt had been
possible, you would have cut out your eyes,” (2) “Zf J may say so, you
did cut out your eyes”), but in any case the sentence is exceptional.
eldev év épol 6'E. iva...mepitdy ; ‘‘ what did E. see in me so as to make him neglect
me?”; ili. 12. 10 obrw mpoBjcy Wwa...elmps ‘‘you will make such progress as to
be able to say” etc. But in i. 19. 13, il. 3. 3, and iii. 22. 63, placed by Schenkl
under rowiros iva with query, iva (see context) is probably not dependent on
Tovodros but means ‘‘in order that.” In the Pauline Epistles, va may possibly
mean ‘‘so that” in r Thess. v. 4 ‘‘ye are not in the darkness ¢hat (iva),” but it is.
more in accordance with Pauline thought and usage to take it as meaning ‘‘it is not
ordained for you ¢hat.” And in 1 Cor. ix. 24 ottrws rpéxere iva almost certainly
means ‘‘ Thus, as I have described, must ye run 2 order that ye may attain.” The
notion of an overruling Providence, or of an ordained conflict, is also probably
present in Gal. v. 17 tatra yap dddAnAos dvTikerrat iva wh a €av O6AyTE TadTa ToLFre,
where Chrys.’s paraphrase is wa wh ovyxwpps TH Yux7n wopeverOa év Tats érOvulas
avrjs Tats movnpais, shewing that he took wa to mean ‘‘in order that.” But
Cramer prints a comment of ‘‘ another,” who says 7d yap wa ovdx éml airlas elrev
GN ws axddovOov kara 70 olketoy ldlwua.
[2697c¢] In the Egypt. Pap. @ore rwe occurs about money received by,
or given to, someone ‘‘as for someone else,” in Oxy. vol. iii. 529, 582, Fayiim
xvii. 2, and wore with the infin., in wills and contracts, meaning ‘‘on condition
of doing” (as in classical Gk). Other notable uses are Oxy. vol. iv. 743 (B.C. 2)
war dv roirs ce Oé\w ~yewdoxew, ‘‘ wherefore I should like you to understand,”
Tebtun. Wiii. 35 (B.C. 111) Wor’ av adv Tots Oeots KaTacToyHoamev avroo ‘“ wherefore
(D.V.) we shall probably secure him” [This is quite distinct from der’ dy in the
phrase “so that the damage might be estimated at” (72d. xxxviii. 25, xxxix. 33
etc.)], Kayim xxiv. 15 (A.D. 158) émurros...Ware abrods dvépxerOat, ‘a notice...
ordering them to return.”
538
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS _ [2699]
Winer quotes ix. 33 ov« 7dvvaro, but this is negative. In Rom. vii. 7
TH Gpaptiay ovK éyvwv ei py Ova vomov, THY TE yap erOvplav ovK ydew
ei pq) 6 vomos eAeyev, the meaning of the first clause is ‘I dd not
recognise sin except through Law...” and then the* second clause
says, in effect, ‘‘I dd not know covetousness—except that the Law
[stepped in and] said, Thou shalt not covet.” Similarly Acts xxvi. 32
arodedvabar éduivato 6 avOpwros ovTos «i pup emexexAnto Kaioapa, is
equivalent to “/¢ was possible [up to the moment of his appeal] for
this man to have been released at once—on/y he had appealed to
Caesar”; but the last clause is changed into a protasis by using
““7f not” instead of “only,” “if he had not appealed (érexéxAnro).”
The facts indicate that in N.T. hypothetical av is not omitted
except in special circumstances’.
On Lk. xxiv. 39 éra eimi aytoc (2224)
[2699] In our discussion of éyw eiui, it was said that the
text of Lk. xxiv. 39 was “doubtful.” W.H. print éyw ei avros
without alternative, following NBL 4, But (1) SS has here the
same Syriac as in Mk vi. 50, Mt. xiv. 27, Jn vi. 20, where there is éyw
eit without avros. (2) The Palestinian Lectionary also has the
same Hebrew in Lk. xxiv. 39 as in Mt. xiv. 27. (3) Epiphanius
twice (i. T002 A and ii. 95 D) quotes dru éyw «ie without avros (once
with avrdés (i. 1003 8B) but with kai robs tUrovs tov 7Awv inserted).
(4) The treatise on the Resurrection attributed to Justin §9 (594 D)
> es ” 7 ,
has eizev avrois Ovrw éyere ristw; pyoiv, “dete ore éyw cir, and
oP)
continues katavoncartes OTe avTos éott Kal €v TO Twpmati, implying that
the avros belonged to the inference of the disciples, not to the words
of Christ. (5) One of Epiphanius’ quotations without avros (1. 1002 A)
1 [2698 a] “Av hypothetical is omitted in Ox. Pap. 526, 2nd cent., a private
letter (‘‘ badly written and obscurely worded”’) ed kal un avéBeve ey Tov Nbyov jou
ov mapéBevov, *‘ Even if he were not going I should not have broken my word”
(perh. ‘‘I was not going to break my word”), 76. 530, 2nd cent.,—a very well
written letter—el rAefov 6€ wor wapéxer[to] madw cor dmecrddxew (Edd.) “If I had
had more I would have forwarded a further sum,” where ‘‘a further sum”
represents 74\w. This seems rather harsh, and, if ré\a occurred in the Indices
of the Papyri, I should venture to suggest maXau ay “If I had had more money at
home 7 should have sent [this] long ago.” In 2 Cor. xii. 19 mada has been
corrupted into réAw so that A.V. has ‘‘again,” and wdXac dv might be still more
easily corrupted thus. The omission of a in negative sentences may sometimes be
explained by the hypothesis that the speaker has in his mind (r) ‘* It was not so at
first, u¢ something happened to bring it about,” which passed into (2) ‘‘ It was not
so and would not be so now, but that something happened to bring it about.”
539
[2700] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
has éyw eipe «at ov« yAAotwpac' and so has (Resch ad Joc.) John
Damasc. Fid. Orthod. p. 303. This looks like a negative paraphrase
of avros taken as 0 avtds. (6) ‘The Latin a has “ quoniam ego sum:
ipst tractate,” having apparently read éyw eiyi: avtoi Wyradyoare.
(7) The Latin and Greek authorities are divided as to the position of
avtos, many having it before éyw eiwe but some between éyw and
eiut. (8) Avroé éopev is frequent in Greek literature (Steph. p. 2558 c)
but means “we are dy ourselves.” Of adtos ceive Steph. gives no
instance. If it existed, it would naturally mean “I am a/one, or, dy
myself*.” (9) Ignatius, quoting a passage closely resembling Lk.
Xxlv. 39, asserts that the Lord said (Smyrn. §3) “see that (or,
because) 7 am not a bodiless demon (datpovov),”’ and makes no
mention of the words éyw «ius avros in any order.
[2700] ‘The most probable conclusion from all these facts is that
Lk. xxiv. 39 €yw eit avros is an attempt—not perhaps Luke’s
attempt but incorporated by Luke in his Gospel—to render the
Hebrew (2224) “7 |am| He,” more fully than it is rendered by the
“ZT am” of Mk-Mt. (2220). But éyw eis avros—being neither
exactly Greek nor exactly Hebrew idiom—caused great perplexity.
Some altered the order, to avtos éyw eiue meaning “I myself am
[present].” This would be Greek, if eizé could stand for mdépexpt,
but is (probably) not what Lk. meant. Others took it as éyw eiye
0 avtds, “I am the same.” ‘This, being negatively paraphrased (as
in Epiphanius and John of Damascus), became “I am not made
another.” “Another” is used in Isaiah (xlii. 8) as a parallel to
“idols”; and it is used, in New Hebrew, (Levy i. 57a) of things
evil and impure about which one would fain not speak. The
Ignatian legend might be explained by some as a mere inference
* [2699 2] This is somewhat similar to Mal. iii. 6 ‘‘I the Lord change not,” éyw
Kiptos 6 deds iuaev Kal ovk WAolwmat.
* [26994] Ad’rés occurs thus with the particip. of efué in Z/iad viii. 99 avrés
Tep €wv, mpoudxoitw éulxOn, where the schol. says Kaizep udvos wv. Of course,
one is free to theorize or conjecture that a’rés, in éyw elu avrés, may mean the
same as in Adrés pa, or the same as in some other special Greek idiom. But,
until the discovery of at least one instance of éyw elu abrés actually thus used, the
most reasonable explanation is that it is not idiomatic Greek at all, but an attempt
to render literally in Greek some non-Greek tradition that does not bear a literal
rendering. The nearest approach to Lk.’s phrase that I have found is Epict. iv.
1. 152 ‘‘ Diogenes was free...not that he was free-born (for he was not) du¢ that he
was himself (aXN bre av’rds jv),” i.e. his true self, or unsubjugated by external
influences.
540
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS _ [2702]
or paraphrase based on the words “I am myself.” But, in view of
these traditions about “another” in Jewish and Christian writers, it
is not improbable that something more than mere inference originated
the traditions about a ‘‘ bodiless demon.”
On xxi, 5 maida, MH TI TPOCHATION EyeTe ; (2235)
[2701] In xxi. 5 radia, py te rpoopayiov Exere; Questions suggest
themselves as to (1) radia, (2) py tt, (3) tpoopayrov. (1) If Christ
is to be regarded as presenting the appearance of a man much older
than the disciples, za:déa may be taken as “children.” Otherwise such
an address from an apparent stranger causes difficulty. Chrys., as
printed by Migne, omits za:déa, but a version in Cramer inserts it.
Both versions say that Christ asked whether the disciples had any
fish ‘“‘as though He were intending to buy from them!’.” Nonnus
paraphrases wavd/a as raides GOs Spnornpes, and perhaps agrees with
Chrysostom as to the object of the question*®. In the Acts of John
(§ 2) Christ is said to have appeared to James as a little child, but to
John, simultaneously, as a man with a long beard and head partly
bald. This was “on the shore.” The writer of the Acts appears
to have interpreted John here as meaning that Jesus appeared as
one of venerable aspect addressing the disciples as ‘ children.”
[2702] (2) As regards the interrogative, is it neutral, or does it
expect a negative answer? My 7, with a following noun with which
Tu agrees, does not occur anywhere in N.T. as far as I have found.
Myr occurs in all the Gospels, and thrice in John, as an interrogative,
always expecting a negative. In LXX, paz is repeatedly used by
1 [2701 a] Chrys. (Migne) Aéyec ofy avrots (Cramer + Iavdla) Mx re T poo parytov
ExeTe; Téws avOpwrwdrepov diadéyerac [Cramer om. T. a. 6.], ws wéANwY TL ver Oat
[Cramer -joaca] rap atrav. ws dé dvévevoay undev éxewv....
2 [2701 4] ‘LypoBious 5 épéewev EOhuovas ixOvBodrjas, IlAwra redecavydvo.o
Kouicere detrva Aaddoons, Ilatdes ados Spnormpes; where Kkoulfere seems to mean
““Are ye catching?” He proceeds, ameBduevor 6€ uabyral Ovdev éxew avévevov—
which resembles Chrys.’s comment.
3 [2702 a] Myre is in iv. 29 pyre obrds Eotw 6 Xprords; viii. 22 pre dwoxreved
€aurév; xviil. 35 unre éyw Lovdaids cfu; In xxi. 5 W.-H. give mi 7c without
option. But Greek Mss. having MHTI—or, if a scribe has added accents, MATI—
afford no guidance as to the separation or union of mH and J): 8 has mu to which
a corrector has added Ti, L has mitt, SS ‘‘ have ye not,” and so gat. ‘‘pul-
mentarium vo habetis,” 4, 7 “‘s2mguid pulmentarium habetis,” e ‘‘ zvmzguid habetis
pulmentarium,” d@ “‘ zumaguid aliquid manducare habetis ”—but the photograph of
D and d shews no difference between MHTI or #zmguid here (xxi. 5) and in Mk iv.
21, where everyone takes it as 7i—a has ‘‘habetis a/iguid pulmentum vos.” The
541
[2702] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
Aquila to represent ‘‘ Num?” and, so far as Oxf. Conc. shews (under
fn Tis, py TL), Te Never agrees with a following noun’. In N.T. pyre
variations indicate an early difficult tradition, most probably pyre (not wH te). In
the following paragraphs, for convenience, u7rTe will be printed as one word.
[27024] Westcott says (ad loc.) ‘‘The form of the question in the original
(unre) suggests a negative answer. See iv. 29,” 2.e. uqTt orbs Ear 6 XpioTos;—
where A.V. has “ /s mo¢ this the Christ?” R.V. “ Can this de the Christ?”
and Westcott says, ‘‘ The form of the sentence grammatically suggests a negative
answer (iv. 33) but hope bursts through it.”” M7 interrogative may perhaps always
be rendered by ‘‘can it be that?’’ and ware by “can it be in any way possible
that?” In Plato and Xenophon and other classical writers, 7 interrogative
is sometimes used courteously or ironically to suggest that the possibility may be
realised —‘‘ can it be that we are mistaken ?”’ but “7 is never used by them for ap’ ov.
In the Pauline Epistles, 47 is used in passionate rejections of blasphemy as Rom.
iil. 5 wm ddcos 6 eds; ix. 14 un ddixia mapa TM Hew; ix. 20 wh Epel TO WAdoua;
1 Cor. i. 13 47 Iladdos eoravpsbyn; (comp. Rom. iii. 3, xi. 11, 1 Cor. x. 22 etc.)
and always expects a strong negative reply. There is the same indignant fervour
in Rom. x. 18—19 pi odk HKoveay...un lap. obx éyvw, “ will any one venture to say
that they did not hear...and that Israel did not know?” t Cor. ix. 4—5 (625) wu ov
éxouev é£ovalay, ‘well any one deny that we have authority?” xi. 22 wi yap oikias
ov €xere eis TO EoBlew Kal mivew; Here, after saying that some of the Corinthians
drink too much at the Lord’s Supper, he adds ‘‘[.Shame on you!| for can it be
that ye have not houses for ordinary eating and drinking?” Myx interrogative
occurs thrice in the Epistles and always introducing a shameful or absurd
hypothesis, 2 Cor. 1. 17 ‘* Did I shew fickleness (uri dpa 7H édadpla expnod-
unv)?” 2b. xii. 18 “‘ Did Titus take advantage of you (ujre émdeovéxTnoey Umas
T.)?” Jas. ili. 11 wate H wHyh Ex THs avTHs ows Bpver TO yAvKY kK. TO TeKpdv;
[2702 4,] But it isin Epictetus that 47 and ure are most prominent : and there,
so far as I can judge from verifying about thirty of Schenkl’s very numerous
instances, 7 always expects a negative answer as in i. 11. 18 ‘‘Is there in-
compatibility between natural affection and reason?” and pjre is still stronger,
often propounding an absurd proposition for a negative reply e.g. ii. 19. 15 ‘* Is it
a vice to be shipwrecked (uqrt caxia éori 70 vavayjoa)?” In one instance (i. 16.
10 pyre (or wh Tt) Axpnorbrepov TpxGy ;) Te or wjre has a predicative adj. agreeing
with it. Schweigh. Index says of uy that it is sometimes (nonnunquam) 27-
terpreted interrogatively where it might be rendered negatively; and this at least is
certain that any pupil in Epictetus’s lecture-room hearing the philosopher begin a
sentence with ure would anticipate some question that required a negative answer.
And the style of Epictetus is so similar to that of John that the Epictetian usage
strongly increases the probability that the Johannine puyjre mpoopdyiov Exere must
have been written with a similar meaning. In later Greek writers, e.g. Clem.
Alex., wre ‘is it possible that?” is found occasionally meaning ‘‘ perhaps.” But
Clement as compared with Epictetus, for the purpose of illustrating John, is like
Dryden compared with Bacon, for the purpose of illustrating Shakespeare.
1 (2702 c] Mare interrog. and requiring a negative answer (generally to an
indignant question) is very often used by Aquila (where LXX differs) in Exod. ii.
14 (LXX pm), Is. vii. 13, Ixvi. g etc. In Is. vii. 13 ware (LXX pp) dAlyor; Job
x. 3 unre (LXX 4) dyabdv; there is no connexion between re and dAlyor or ayabdv.
542
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS _ [2703]
often introduces an impossibility (eg. ‘Do men gather grapes from
thorns?”) and implies a very strong negative’. But there is a difficulty
here if the words mean, “‘/s zt possible that ye have caught fish?”
The difficulty would not be much diminished by reading py, separated
from 7, since py, too, expects a negative answer*. Chrysostom and
Nonnus presumably interpreted pyre as “perhaps,” taking the
language to be that of a peasant dealing with fishermen, ‘ A/zght you
be having some fish for sale?” But this is a late usage not justified
by LXX, N.T., Epictetus, or Aquila. The Johannine meaning
appears to be widely different. The Lord does not ask for informa-
tion. He knew that the adtsciples had caught no fish and that tt
was not possible for them to have caught fish; because they had been
toiling without Him in the ‘‘night” of spiritual darkness and had
not cast the net on the “right side” of the ship. ‘This is mystically
described by representing the Master of the fishermen as standing
on the shore, witnessing the unavailing efforts of His servants and
calling to them, in effect, ‘‘Children, ye have toiled long, du¢ can ye
say that ye have caught anything? Ye cannot say tt.” ‘This is the
only way in which the words of the Gospel could be understood by
a Christian at the beginning of the first century familiar with the
language of the Gospels, or by a convert or enquirer familiar with
the doctrine of Epictetus.
[2703] (3) As regards rpoogayov, why is not the word dWapiov
attributed to Jesus here as it is later on (xxi. 10 a0 Twv 6Wapiwv, and
comp. xxl. 9)? Upoodayov appears to have been later, and more
vernacular, than éyapiov®. In classical Greek, it might naturally be
1 [2702d] Mk iv. 21 pare Epxerac 0 AVxvOs...; xiv. 19 (Mt. xxvi. 22, 25) wyre
€yo; Mt. vil. 16 unre cvAdNéyovow etc.; Lk. vi. 39 prjre dvvarae TUPAds...; Jn iv.
29 myte ovTds €orw 6 Xp.; Vill. 22 pyre amwoxrevel €avTdv; Xvill. 35 pte eyw
"Tovdaiés etuc;
2 [2702 ¢] Comp. iil. 4 wy ddvarac; iv. 12 un od melfwy el; iv. 33 uy TLS QVEyKEV ;
vi. 67 un K. bjmets Oédere UTayew ; Vil. 31 wy WeElova...moujoeL; Vil. 41 i) yap Ex Tis
TI. 6 Xp. Epxerar; vil. 47 wy Kal vuets memdvynode; etc. This last illustrates xviii.
17, 25 un kal od €k T. wabnTav ef; and shews how “Is it possible that?” may be
used sometimes to mean ‘‘ /¢ zs surely not possible that’? but sometimes, in special
contexts, ironically, to mean ‘‘ /¢ 7s perhaps after all possible that.” M7 in vii. 47
means the former ; in xvill. 17, 25 the latter.
3 [2703 a] See Steph. 2024 B ‘‘ Eust. p. 867, [54] él rod amAGs rpocoy7juaros,
raurov 6 elmeiv Kowas mpoopaylov, TO OWdpiov Néyerat. [Schol. Hom. //. 1, 489]
Itidem Suidas, "Opov rav 7d mpocd~nua 7 mpoopay.ov. Similiter et Hesych.:
"Opov, mpospayrov. [Et Etym. M. p. 646, 14]. Hoc alioqui vocab. neuter
543
[2703] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
taken as a form of zpéodaypoa “a preliminary victim.” The context
clearly implies that the ‘‘fish,” of which the disciples partake, is
a sacramental food, and a “ breakfast” to strengthen the disciples for
the work of evangelists. Origen (Lomm. i. 259—62), commenting
on ‘“‘the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world,” and
on the sacrifice of the lamb in the morning as “ ¢he beginning of the
sacrifices,” goes on to speak of the lamb in the language of Revelation,
as “standing, as having been slain as a victim (éotnKos ws eo aypévov).”
Christ, ‘‘standing on the shore” of Tiberias at the moment of
sunrise, might be a type of the sacrifice that is ‘“‘sent up at the
moment of the enlightening of the soul (aya 76 dwrilerOar tiv Woxnv
avareprropevos).” Regarded in this light, tpoodayrov might have an
inner meaning intelligible to none but the initiated—including an
allusion to the IXOYC', or ONE FISH, which in this very narrative
appears as a eucharistic type of Christ :—‘ Ye have not yet received
THE FISH. Ye have not yet partaken of that sacrificial victim
which was slain before the foundation of the world (Rev. xiii. 8),
without which the eyes of your souls cannot be enlightened nor can
ye see how to cast the net of the Church ‘on the right side’ of the
ship’.”
in serie alphabetica in numerum eorum quae exponuntur retulit: unde conjicere
licet plebeium fuisse, aut vetustioribus Graecis incognitum.’’ Hence Lk. xxiv. 41
might very well prefer Bpwormov, and the next note will shew that a Christian
writer substitutes Bpwouoyv for mpoogdy.ov in paraphrasing Jn.
1 On ‘‘the earliest extant reference to the emblem of the IXOYC,” see
Lightf. Zgzaz. vol. i. p. 181.
* (2703 6] The comment of Origen is lost. That of Chrys., and others printed
by Cramer, seem to mix together the literal and the metaphorical, and perhaps the
accounts of Lk. and Jn and the story of the Walking on the Waters. Chrys. says
that Christ ‘‘was not continuously present with the disciples, and the Spirit
had not yet been given to them,” and they were ‘‘ not yet commissioned (éyxexet-
piouévor).”” In the previous context he says Christ ‘‘appeared (égdvn)” to the
disciples and ‘‘flew away (amérrn),’”’ then appeared once again ‘‘and again
flew away; then, after this, [appeared] on (ézi, z.e. by) (2340—6) the sea and again
with the accompaniment of their exceeding fear (wera mood Tod PédBov).” By
this ‘‘fear” he appears to mean their fear of the Jews: for he says that Christ had
taken away most of their alarm so that they could now “ peep forth (axpoxtarewv)
from the house and go about everywhere.” But still he adds, ‘* Having therefore
nothing to do they came to fish and even this they did in the night because they
were in great alarm (zrepidee?s).”” He adds, ‘* This Luke, too, says, but this is not
the same [as Luke’s account] but different (rodro cai 6 Aovkds pnow, aN ovk €ore
rovro éxeivo, d\N erepov)”—where he seems to refer to Luke’s account of Peter
fishing all through the night and then saying to Jesus in alarm “ Depart from me,
544
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS _ [2704]
On x. 12 6...0¥K @N TIOIMHN (2253—4)
[2704] In x. 12 6 pucOwrds Kal ov« dv rouwnv, A has d¢€ after, SD
have it before, pucOwrds : a has “qui mercenarius est et non est pastor,”
e “mercinarius (sic) autem” (om. ‘et qui non est pastor”), Syr.
Curet. (Burk.) “but the hireling, the false one,” SS om. ‘the false
one” and substitutes nothing. Nonnus has o 6€ pious ov 7éXe
zouunv. The use of ovx, instead of wy, may be due to one of two
causes. (1) “Hireling and not Shepherd” may go together as
though the Greek were 0 pcOwrtds-Kal-ov-rousnv ov. (2) Ov may be
regarded as part of the name of the “‘hireling,” who is the antithesis
of the Shepherd, just as the Heb. of “not” is part of the names (Hos.
i. 23 ‘‘ Lo-ruhamah,” ‘‘ Lo-ammi”’) ‘‘ Not-beloved (07, pitied)” and
“‘Not-my people”—which are rendered in LXX tyv Ovk nyarnpevnv
and to Ov Aa@ pov (comp. Rom. ix. 25, 1 Pet. i. 10). Some sense
of this may have induced the Curetonian translator to paraphrase the
clause as “the false one,” perhaps meaning “the lVo-shepherd.” "Qu
might have been omitted by John without destroying the sense ; but
O Lord” (not to Luke’s account of the alarm of the disciples when Christ appears
to them after the Resurrection).
[2703 c] Another comment (Cramer) says, ‘‘ Those that were before the
disciples (oi mpd r&v wabnrav, ?mpd=‘‘at the head of,” more prob. read mpo-
To.Twy = Mporo. Tov, ‘‘chief of the disciples”) being in the dizziness and darkness
of error that was sent from evil spirits (€v cxorodwig ovtes Tis Satwoviwdous mdyns)
persuaded (éreay) no one, or very few—which is as good as ‘ nothing’” (comp.
xxl. 3 ‘‘ caught (érlacay) nothing’) ‘‘...nay even the multitude of the Gentiles was
not caught in the net [of the Gospel]...But when the Sun of Righteousness came,
He that hungereth for the salvation of men, He found nothing Zo eat” (the
writer uses Bpwomoy as in Lk. xxiv. 41, not mpoopdy.ov as in Jn xxi. 5) ‘‘and
told them that the evangelic word must be cast forth, that is to say the ‘right
(de&a)’ teaching” (comp. xxi. 6 ‘‘on the 7vzght (deka) side of the ship”) ‘‘com-
pared to which the Law and the prophets being cast forth are conceived as
the left side.” Nonnus spells muafew ‘‘take (fish)” with an e, which would
increase the likeness between €TTEICAN and ETTIECAN suggesting an early play
upon the two words preserved in this tradition.
[2703 @] Compare the three following traditions of Chrysostom: (1) (On vi.
21) ANN ovde Tots wabyrais WhOn em Todd TOTO Tomy, dANA dua TE WHON Kai
améoTn am avrav, (2) (On xxi. 1) Opas dre od cuvex@s adrots émixwpidfer, odd”
womep €umpoobev; “Eddvn yotv th éomépa kal amémrn: elra mera OKTW HMépas Tau
ama, kal radw amémtyn: elra pera Tata éml ris Oaddoons, Kal adv wera ToAdOV
Tod PoBov...Tadarwpouuévors épicrato 6 “Inoots (Cramer, €miotas dé avrots
Tadatmwpoumévors), (3) (On Acts 1. 3) (Cramer) epictato yap kal adiotato madw.
The comparison suggests that there has been a confusion between amémry and
améoTn.
A. VI. 545 35
[2705] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
perhaps it emphasizes the non-reality, ‘‘¢s zot really Shepherd.”
According to this view, John would have written 0 1 royjv ov as
he has written (x. 1) 6 px) eioepxopevos, if he had meant “he that is
not a shepherd.” But he means something different ; in effect, he is
declaring that the hireling is ‘‘7o shepherd.”
On z@ Aid cé (2297)
[2705] A very important illustration of 6 6.4 o€ occurs in a
passage where Epictetus describes the philosopher as using similar
language in the moment of death, i. 24. 95 foll. ‘“‘ For this cause the
man that is really good—bearing in mind both who he is and whence
he has come, and by whom he has been brought into being—is
wholly absorbed in this one thought, ow he can fill his appointed
place in orderly and willing obedience to God: Dost thou will me to
exist yet [longer]? [Then I will do so], as a free man and noble, as
thou hast willed: for thou hast made me unshackled in my own
sphere. But, on the other hand | ferhaps] thou hast no further need
of me (AAX ovKére pov xpetav éxers;)? I praise and bless thee
(Kadds oor yévorro) [then]! Even up to this day I kept on abiding
[on earth| simply for thy sake, and for no other (xat péxpe viv dua oe
éwevov, d« adAov ovdeva).” Here the context indicates that dua oé
means “for thy service,” “in orderly and willing obedience (evrdxtws
kat evrreifas)” to God. Other instances are iv. 1. 163 é€eAGe dud Ta
radia, ‘escape for the sake of the children,” i.e. to do them service,
iv. 8. 17 ooa Kadds érolovv...ot dia Tos Oeatas erolovv, adda
d0 euavrov, “not for the sake of the spectators but for my own sake,”
where he proceeds to exemplify the statement by using a dative of
advantage, naQ.ov euavtd xadds, “I used to eat decently for my own
sake.” Comp. i. 17. 18 ovd€ yap Xpvoirmov xpeiav éxopev bv avrov
...0vde yap tod Orov 6 avrov, where he subsequently (i. 17. 29)
explains that he goes to the @vrys or “sacrificer,” ovK avtov Gavpacas
“not out of reverence for him” but out of reverence for his teaching.
No doubt Epictetus frequently uses dua twa to mean “thanks to
so-and-so,” but that is not the meaning in any of these passages.
Where the verb employed with dca teva is passive or neutral, dia may
mean ‘thanks to.” But often, where it implies action and active
service, it means “‘for the sake of.”
On various meanings of cic (2305—8)
[2706] The peculiarity, and the importance, of i. 18 6 dv eis Tov
koArov are in danger of being obscured by vague affirmations that
“eis is used for év in Byzantine and modern Greek,” and that the
546
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS [2708]
same use is to be found in N.T. generally and in John elsewhere,
e.g. ix. 7 Uraye viar eis tiv KodvpByOpav Tod X. (6 Eppnveverac
*ArectaApevos). ‘This last, however, may be illustrated (2805 @) from
the use of Aovw, Bartw, and BarriGw in other authors’: and it affords
no ground for thinking that John would use eis for év with ety.
[2707] Again, as to xix. 13 yyayev cLw tov “Inoody Kat éxabioev
ext Bypyatos eis torov, the eis is shewn by the context not to be
connected with éxa6ioev in the sense of “fon” (which is represented
by éz/) but to mean “[going out] to,” being influenced by yyayev
e&w, and the preposition helps to illustrate two points on which John
lays stress (1745 2) namely, that Pilate had to go out to the Jews as
the Jews would not come into his palace, and that the sentence was
pronounced outside the palace in a place where a special tribunal
was erected. That John would not have used xa6i<w eis we may
perhaps infer from vi. 3 avjAGev de cis TO dpos “I. Kat exet exabyTo, as
compared with Mk xill. 3 xaOnpévov adrod eis 70 "Opos (Mt. xxiv. 3
éxt Tod “Opovs). Kafilw eis is classical Greek, but John does not
use it”.
[2708] Among other N.T. meanings of eis not found in John, is
“near” or “at” before place-names, e.g. “the things that happened
[away] a¢ Capernaum,” “ Philip was found [azvay] at Azotus,” “to
be at Jerusalem by the feast,” ‘that Paul was in custody [azay] a¢
Caesarea*.” This can hardly be paralleled from classical authors.
The meaning “with a view to,” “in regard to,” ‘‘in relation to”
—very common in Thucydides, when used with verbs of action
generally and of “expending” in particular, and also to denote
friendly or unfriendly relations*—is frequent in the Pauline Epistles,
1 [2706a] See Steph. on Bamrw and Bamrifw with e/s and even (109 A) mpés,
and comp. Mk 1. 9 €Bamria@y els tov I. (where Mt. and Lk. differ). Blass (p. 123)
says, on ix. 7, ‘‘ viva however appears not to be genuine.” But the omissions of
it, and the variations of its position in several authorities, may perhaps be explained
by (1) its unusual position, (2) a desire to conform the text to ix. 11 elwév por drt
Trae eis Toy Liwap cai viva. If viwae had been interpolated into ix. 7 from ix.
11, would it not have been interpolated in the same order, z.e. at the end of the
sentence? In any case the nature of the verb, and of the context, which implies
motion, make eis in ix. 7 easily explicable, as also in Mt. il. 23, iv. 13, Lk. xxi. 37.
2 [2707a] Chrys. (on Jn vii. 1) says ére yap els Td dpos éxdOnTo, pyoiv, jv 7
€0pT7 TOU mdoxa. Cuoting John loosely, he falls into language like that of Mark
describing Christ as seated on the Mount of Olives.
STICK iven 23 PA CtSaNiliy Os XX. LOS ESKV 14's
4 [2708 a] Comp. dpaprayw eis in Asch. Prom. 945, Mt. xviii. 21, Lk.
xvii. 4. Jn, in the Gospel, uses dwaprdyw always (thrice) absolutely ; in 1 Jn,
siIBRARS
f/ OF THE
UNIVERS
[2709] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
and may perhaps explain the curious idiom in Mark—altered by
many scribes and by the parallel Matthew—about breaking loaves
“7g the five thousand’.” But it is not found in John.
[2709] Another important use of eis, dating from the best
classical writers, is with verbs of speaking or proclaiming. Some-
times it distinguishes speaking publicly to an assembly from speaking
privately to a council. It is never used, in this sense, of addressing
a single person. It is appropriate to the far-reaching and public
nature of the message of the Gospel, and John lays stress on the
publicity of Christ’s teaching ; but he never uses this idiom’.
where it occurs (10) more freq. than in any book of N.T., it is always absolute or
with cognate accusative.
1 [27086] Mk viii. 19—20 6re robs mévte dprovs éx\aca els Tovs TevTa-
KisxiAlous..., dre Tos Ewa eis TOUS TeTp., parall. to Mt. xvi. g—Io Tovs TévTE Aprous
Tay mwevrakicxiniwy (D rots mevt.)...Tovs émta Aptous Tav TeTp. (D Tots TeTp.).
The text in Mk is greatly confused. As regards ‘‘the four thousand,” the Syriac
has the preposition ‘‘to” or ‘‘for.”” Delitzsch has it in both clauses. This preposition
might be interpreted as ‘‘ belonging to,” or ‘‘of.”” Comp. Ezr. x. 13 ‘‘and the
work is not for (2) one day,” eis juépay uiay where 1 Esdr. ix. 11 has taken the
meaning to be ‘‘ delonging to one day,” i.e. ‘‘of one day,” jucpas mas.
[2708] But ékdaca els, besides perhaps expressing the Semitic Original
exactly, harmonizes with the classical Greek use of efs with verbs of spending.
From this came the use of eds in accounts of expenditure (Deissmann p. 118) ‘‘Zo
lamps, so much” or ‘‘¢o a sick horse, so much” etc. So here, there is a
suggestion of items, ‘‘ Zo five thousand men, five loaves,” ‘‘ Zo four thousand men,
seven loaves.” ‘‘ To,” in this sense, would not often be used with persons except
when regarded as labourers; but Deissmann, who calls this, when used of persons,
**dativus commodi,” quotes (2d.) rév els Taynv oikov @xodounmévoy ‘‘ the house built
with a view to [the occupation of] Tages.” If Tages was a labourer or bailiff the
house might be built ‘‘ with a view to” Tages but for the advantage of his
employer. Having regard to this usage, it is best to render Mt. xx. 1 sicBodoba
els Tov dumeNava ‘‘hire with a view ¢o the vineyard,” not ‘‘hire [avd bring] znto the
vineyard.” In Mt. v. 22 évoyos els rhv yéevvav—coming as a climax after évoxos
T™ Kploee and 7@ ocuvedply—probably combines two meanings, Ist, a penalty
extending to Gehenna, 2nd, the penalty of being cast zzfo Gehenna. For the
first, comp. Numb. xxxii. 15 ‘as much as, or even (9) all this people,” els 6Xnv Thy
cuvaywyny TavTHY.
2 [27092] Comp. Mk i. 21 (W.H. marg.) kal ev@ds 7. ca BB. didacKkev els Thy
auvarywyhyv, (txt) 7. caBB. “eloeNOwy els rH ovv. édldackev', Mt. om., Lk. iv. 31 Kal
nv diddoxwv avrovs év Tots caBB.: Mk i. 39 kat 7Oev (SS, latt., ACD Hv) knpicowy
els Tas cwaywyds, Mt. iv. 23 mepupyev...dddoxwy év rats o. a’rav x. knptoowv, Lk.
iv. 44 Kal qv Knptoowr els ras o. Here Mk is doubtful. Lk. iv. 44 appears to use
els with a notion of extension or far-reaching publicity, sending forth the message
of the Gospel into the synagogues, as in Lk. vil. 1 éwAjpwoer...els Tas dKoas Tov
Aaod (perhaps with a suggestion of els 7d wéoov). Asa proof that Luke considers
the phrase good Greek, note Acts xvii. 20 eis ras dkoas hudr, uttered by
548
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS [2711]
[2710] As regards John’s use of oryjvae cis To pecov (2307)
compared with Luke’s orjvar év péow, we may adduce Mk ii. 3
éyerpe eis TO pecov, D eyepe kat ornOer (sic) év péow, d “in medium,”
Lk. vi. 8 yee cai orHOe cis TO peor, D ev To péow, d “in medio,”
which shew how easily the two constructions might be interchanged
according as the notion of coming zz¢o an assembly was prominent
or latent. Comp. Xen. Cyvopaed. iv. 1. 1 otras eis TO pécov’.
Reasons have been given (2307) for thinking that John might
deliberately prefer «is because of its spiritual suggestiveness.
[2711] More direct in its bearing on the Johannine 6 dv éis are
phrases in Mark where eis ofkoy or eis THv oikiav is used in connexion
with Christ’. But the text of these is doubtful. Nor do the Papyri,
philosophers (see dkoai, ‘‘ears,” in Lucian (iii. 585) Phzlop. § 1). Acts il. 22
dmodederyucvov amo Tod Oeod eis judas perh. means ‘‘approved from God in
the sight of [all of] you,” or ‘‘ approved [as being sent] from God to [all of] you.”
Comp. Herm. Vs. ii. 4. 3 méuper otv KAjuns els tas é&w modes... pamrn dé
voudernoel TAs X7Npas...gv O€ dvayvucy els TaUTHY THY TOA META TOY TpETBUTEpwr...
Tis exkAnoias, where the meaning seems to be ‘‘ read [fzbZicly] to [the people of ]
this city with the elders.’ Comp. Mk xiii. 10 kal els mavta 7a vn mparov
det knpuxOjvae (Mt. xxiv. 14 KnpuxOjoerat...tots €Oveow) and 1 Pet. i. 25 76 pjua TO
evayyedio bev eis buds (Hort) ‘‘ which was preached [reaching even] to you,” Lk.
xxiv. 47 kal knpuxOjvac...weravolay ‘eis! aperw ayapriav els [reaching even to] tavra
Ta €0vyn, and Rom. viii. 18 rhv wédNovcay dosav aroxadvPOjvar els Huds.
[2709 4] That \é-yew eis in this pzdlic sense is good Greek, appears clearly from
Thucydides, especially when he describes the fear of Alcibiades lest the Spartan
ambassadors should convert the Athenians to peace ‘‘if they should say the same
things [pzblicly] to the Demos” that they had said, less publicly ‘‘ 2 the Boulé,”
Vv. 45 7v és Tov Sjuov raiTa éywow (following éyorTes €v 7H Bovdy, and
preceding és rov djuov wapedOdvTes) and comp. i. 72 €pacav Bove Gar kal avroi és
TO TAIOOS aitay eimeiv, iv. 58 és TO Kowdy 7. 5H Abyous elwev. In this sense,
Reyer eis could not be used about addressing a single person. [In Herod i. 86 ovdév
Tt maddov €s EwuTov héywr ] és amrayv TO dvOpwrvov the meaning is, ‘‘ wth
reference to.” | Wis éra may be used of one person or many; but probably Mt. x.
27 «is 76 os 2.e. “secretly,” is deliberately altered into mpds 16 ots by Luke (xii.
3) who uses eis Sra for publicity in Acts xi. 22 Kova dé 6 NOyos els TA WTA
THs €xkAnaias (as well as in the sense of penetration in Lk. i. 44 ws éyévero...eis Ta
ard gov). Luke’s liking for e’s in connexion with the spread of the Gospel may be
illustrated by the Pauline doctrine, Rom. x. 18 i odk nKovcay; pevodvye, (Ps. xix.
4) Els wacav rv ynv e&nrOev oO POdyyos at’rwv.
1 [2710 a] In 1 Pet.v. 12 eis qv otH#re— regard being had to 2d. i. 8 els 6v and 2d,
iil. 20 eis mv and to their several contexts—we should probably take eés jy as
combining two meanings (1) ‘‘ looking to which” or ‘“‘with a view to which,”
and (z) ‘Sz which.”
? (2711 @] Comp. Mk ii. 1 (om. by parall. Mt.-Lk.) efceN@cwv mddw eis Kad....
jKovcbn re ‘év olkm éotw', where marg. has els oikov éotw, SS is wanting, Latt.
549
[2712] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
so far as is at present alleged, give a safe instance of eis rérov eva.
Blass (p. 122 n.) quotes Berlin Pap. (3rd cent.) Vol. ii. 385 eis
“AXeLavépeiay éori. But the context somewhat favours the view that
the person spoken of is not actually at Alexandria but is coming
there. Moreover the text has eoo.. And the editors regard this as
a misspelling for eiox “will be going.” If this is the meaning it may
be illustrated by Ox. Pap. (2nd cent.) 529 éyw dé cis Komrov pera
TOU HyEHovos ett, “Lam going to Coptus.” I am informed that in
Tebtun. Pap., Part u. (416) not yet published (1905), a rather
illiterate letter contains éyevépnv év “AXde~avdpeta followed by
eyevapyv eis “AA. But yiyvecOar cis is quite different from eva
eis, Of which (at present) no certain instance is adduced from
papyri.
[2712] These passages in Mark about the house or home of
Christ, being omitted by Matthew and Luke, may be expected
(2396) to be referred or alluded to by John. But the other details
above mentioned appear in no way to help us to explain, indeed
they make it more difficult to explain—except upon mystical and
spiritual grounds—why John, who generally avoids eis for év, writes
av eis tov KoAmov about the Son of God at the beginning of his
Gospel and év 7@ xoA7w about the beloved disciple toward the end
of it. That he had some peculiar meaning in «is is made all the
more probable because, so far as is alleged, eis xoA7ov without a verb
“in domo,” but e ‘‘domi.” Again, after the words ‘‘let not man put asunder,”
common to Mk and Mt., Mk alone has x. to kal els Thy olkiavy maddy ol wabnral...
éemnporav (Lk. om. the whole) SS ‘‘ when he entered the house again,” a ‘‘ domi,”
6 “in domum,” f, & ‘‘in domo.” The mention of madAw in Mk ii. 1, x. 10
suggests that in both cases the meaning is (as SS in the latter) ‘‘ when he entered
the house again.”
(2711 4] Mk xiii. 16 has 6 els rév aypév where parall. Mt. xxiv. 18, Lk. xvii. 31
have 6 év 7@ (Lk. om. 7@) dyp@. In this last passage, the antithesis between the
previously mentioned ‘‘on the housetop” and “ into the field” resembles that in
1S. ix. 26 ‘‘on the housetop...went out...abroad,” LXX éws Ew but “ANos (Field)
has els aypév. In t S. a verb of motion is expressed. Mark perh. intends to imply
one, ‘‘the [man that is] on the housetop” being contrasted with ‘‘ the [wan that
has gone out| to the field [to labour].” The fact that both Mt. and Lk. substitute
év for els indicates that Mk’s idiom was of the nature of a mannerism. Neither
els olkov nor els dypév could very well have a Semitic origin, as the Semitic
preposition used in “at home” and ‘‘abroad” is almost always ‘‘ 27,” not ‘‘ ¢o.”
Lk. xi. 7 els ri Koirny eloly (D and latt. év rH Kkolry) has not been illustrated by
other examples, and it appears alien from Hebrew and Latin. The meaning may
be ‘*[recently come] /o bed.”
550
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
[2714]
of motion occurs nowhere in the Bible, nor in Greek literature,
whereas év xoA7w is very common, and is familiar to all in the
phrase “in Abraham’s bosom'.” It is therefore natural to infer
that eis has a spiritual meaning—somewhat as in the Pauline Epistles
where men are said to be baptized, or confirmed, or fulfilled, or made
to grow, “zo Christ,” and where it is said concerning God, Rom.
Xi. 36 eis adrov Ta mavra, and 1 Cor. vill. 6 npets eis avrov (1475)*.
[2713] One explanation may be that, as the beloved disciple is
said to be (xiii. 23) “lying zz the bosom” of the Lord when he
asks Him to reveal a secret, so the Son is described as being ‘“‘zv¢o
the bosom of the Father” because He is regarded as the revealing
Mediator passing from man to God and from God to man. But,
beside this, it is not improbable that John is alluding to ancient
traditions about Christ’s “home.” It has been maintained elsewhere
(14518, 1839 foll., 2644 (i)) that John’s description of Christ as
“laying his head to rest” on the Cross contains an allusion to the
Matthew-Luke saying ‘“‘The son of man hath not where to lay his
head to rest.” If that is so, we may still more reasonably expect
some Johannine allusion to Mark’s repeated traditions about a
“house” or “home” into which Christ enters—traditions almost
always omitted by Matthew and Luke®*. The discussion of these
must be reserved for a future treatise. On the single occasion on
which John associates the mention of a house with Christ’s teaching
or action Origen calls the “house” (2329) “omnem hujus mundi
domum ac totius ecclesiae domum.” An attempt will be made in
a future treatise to shew that John desires to meet various unprofit-
able and conflicting traditions about Christ’s ‘“‘house ” by saying, at
the outset of his Gospel, that He was to be regarded as being in
no earthly house, but as being in heaven—even while on earth—
leading men “‘to the bosom of God.”
On iii. 34 €k meTpoy (2324)
[2714] On iii. 34 od yap é« pérpov didwow, Chrys. agrees with
Apollinarius in taking é« pérpov as perp, “ We all have received the
1 Hor. Heb. on Lk. xvi. 22—3, and comp. 2 S. xii. 3 (Heb., Gk, and Targ.),
2 [2712a] The Pauline Epistles exemplify all the uses of e’s above mentioned
except ‘‘at” with places, which would naturally be rare in hortatory language.
His is also very rare, in any sense, in Revelation.
3 [2713 a] Mk ii. 1, iii. 20, vii. 17, 24, ix. 28, 33 (but see Mt. xvii. 25), x. 10.
See also Mt. ix. 28 (which is in the style of Mk).
551
[2715] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
energy of the Spirit dy measure (pértpw)...but He has it without
measure (ayétpytov).” Wetstein gives a great number of instances
from Greek, Latin, and Hebrew (including Vajikra R. 15 “Spiritus
S. non habitavit super Prophetas nisi mensura quadam”) of “dy
measure” or “‘ according to measure”; but none have “ /vom measure.”
Nonnus, however, takes the words to imply a spontaneous stream, as
distinct from ‘“ measures” of water, otpavofev yap Odros dv és xOova
méeuwe Geos yparopyntopa Koopov Ilatpwys coins aitocavtov ouBpov
idAAer: Od yap pérpa Adyoro Peper Adyos, GAAG ot aici Movvw rvedpa
didwow dediéos poov 6ud@ys: and this suggests the most satisfactory
solution. John has in view the living water of the Spirit (Ps. xxxvi.
8—g ‘Thou shalt make them drink of ¢he river of thy pleasures, for
with thee is ¢he fountain of life”) as compared with draughts from the
“measured vessel” (comp. ll. 6 petpyntas) of the Law. Mézpw might
have meant linear (not liquid) measure as pérpov means in Rev.
xxl. 17. But é« peérpov could not mean this and might therefore
seem preferable’.
On Aix with genitive applied to time (2331)
[2715] Ara, with genitive, applied to time, means “ passing
through.” If the time means the whole of a life, age, year, month,
or day, da often means “ ¢hroughout’’ (dos being often inserted) ;
but, if there is no such notion of wholeness, it means “‘ Jassing through
one pertod toa pertod that follows,” i.e. ‘after an interval of.” This
ts always the meaning where a number is mentioned. Ava vuxtos,
however (Steph.) is sometimes loosely used to mean “ éy night.”
Plutarch Quaest. Rom. 279 F otk... peta Hwrds...dAda bia oKOTOVS
may throw light on Acts v. rg (comp. xvi. 9, xvii. 10, XxXiii. 31)
where an angel opens the door for Peter “dy night,” suggesting
perhaps that the deliverance took place, in part, “dy means of,” or
‘““cwtth the aid of,’ night. Steph. gives xo instance in which d.a ts used
with a number of years, days, etc. to mean anything but “after the
interval of.” Most frequently “‘ after the interval of the third, fourth
1 (2714a] A generic term for Heb. liquid measure occurs (Buhl 487 4) in Lev.
xIx. 35 (Wyos, Ezek. iv. 11, 16, wérpov, 1 Chr. xxiii. 29 LX X om. (or includes that
and another word under uézpov) but al. (prob. Aquila) dmroctpwrév (Field) ‘ut
praepositio quidem primam vocis Hebraeae literam repraesentet,” and he com-
pares Ps. cxxxvill. 20 da-évvoia. This suggests that, in connexion with this
particular word for ‘‘ measure,” the ‘‘ praepositio” é« might arise from ‘ prima
vocis Hebraeae litera,” and the same statement applies to another Heb. word
meaning ‘‘ measure” in Sir, xxxi. 27 (Jewish Q. 1889, p. 6).
552
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS [2715]
year etc.” means ‘every third or fourth year.” But Herod. i. 62 da
évdexatov éreos, describing the long interval during which Pisistratus
waited to effect his return to Athens, appears to mean “after an
interval extending to the eleventh year” (not, as L.S., “in the course
of the eleventh year”)'’. The facts confirm the view taken in 2331
that dua in Acts i. 3 means “after an interval of.” ’Ev, rather than
2
dua, would be used to express “in the course of?.
1 [2715 a] In an extremely obscure passage, Lucian Azst. Conscr. 21 (ii. 30)
ridicules a fabulous account of a death by self-starvation undergone by Severianus,
who attacked Osroes and was taken prisoner and killed by him. Lucian says that
‘*the man’s suffering” was, in fact, a matter of three days only; whereas men
starved to death mostly last as many as seven days—“ unless one were to resort to
the supposition that Osroes eiorynKes mepyévwv tor av D. yum awddAnTae Kai did
TOUTO OUK Emnyarye (v.r. Ew7ye) dua THs EBdduys.” The meaning is disputed. But it
affords very slight ground fer supposing that dia tecoapdxovra juepov can mean
‘*through forty days.” Like the extract from Herodotus it describes an interval of
prolonged waiting, and the final words seem to ridicule the notion that Osroes
stood waiting ‘‘¢2// the expiration of the seventh day.” It certainly does not mean
‘* during the seventh day.”
? [2715 6] As regards év, ‘‘in the course of,” or ‘‘during,” in vi. 39—54 (see
2548) the Mss. vary greatly, between 77, and &y 77, before éoxaryn nuépa. W.H.
gives, in order, two instances without év, a third with & (vi. 44), and a fourth
without €vy. As €N follows (or would follow), in some of these cases, aYTO
or AYTON, it might be easily dropped or inserted, after the similar letters o
or ON. But & 77 éoxd7n jmépa occurs, without v.r., in xi. 24 €v TH avacrdce, ev T.
€. 7)., Xll. 48 éxelvos Kpwel abrov év rT. €. 7. Both there, and in vii. 37 & dé T7 é.
])...THS €oprjs, the preposition seems to mean ‘‘in the course of”; and ‘‘the last
day” is regarded, not as a date or a point of time, but as a period iz the course of
which great events take place. If this view is correct, év 77 €. 7. in vi. 44 may be
regarded as a climax, the weightiest of the three utterances in vi. 39—¥44, and vi.
54 as being a separate utterance.
[2715] As regards caBSdrw with or without év, the preposition may be
regarded as emphasizing the sacred period of rest drézg which work may not be
done. But it is very doubtful whether John ever omits év with this word. B and
some latt. versions omit it once, so that W.H. bracket it, in vii. 22—3 kal |év]
caBBarw mwepiTéuvere...ei weptrounv...hauBdver év caBPB....tyin émoinca ev caBp.
But the latt. vss. omit it also in v. 16 radra érole év caBBdrw. And B, before
other words, (against W.H.) omits év temporal in ii. 19, 23, xviii. 39. In ii. 19,
23, €v, if inserted by B, would come at the end of a line and would be liable
to omission as being written in small letters. In xviii. 39, EN might be dropped
after YMIN, especially if the latter was written YMEIN in B’s archetype. In ii. 19,
vil. 22 €N follows kal, and the latter, if written ke in B’s archetype, might easily
cause the omission of a following € meaning €N. 4 frzor7 one might maintain
that, in vil. 22—3, caBBdrw was used at first unemphatically to be followed
by a more emphatic €y caBBdrw: but the evidence negatives this supposition.
[2715 2] ’Ev, or card, is always used by Mk, Mt., and Jn, with éop77 to express
5538
[2716] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
On vi. 21 HOEAON OYN AABein (2346)
[2716] Nonnus paraphrases this Kai pu édetv pyveavor (sic) és
OAkdda* Kai pévos adpyns* Hv rote, Kat wéAev Oppos, erel Geodwei Tarpa
Oia voos rrepoeis, avepwwv diya, voohw épetpav, TyrAeropos Apeverow
opitieey adtopatn vynis', where peveawov implies earnest desire that
was not fulfilled because the vessel was brought to shore by a heaven-
sent blast before the disciples could receive Jesus on board. Chrys.
takes the same view, twice repeating that Christ “did not go on
board,’ and attempting to give a reason for it®. Both take 76eAov as
denoting unfulfilled desire.
[2717] In the LXX, forms of 7eAvv are very rare as compared
with those of 76édyoa. The 3rd pers., 7GeAov, n6ede, without ov,
hardly occurs outside apocryph. exc. in Judg. xiii. 23 «i 70eAev 6
Kvpwos where Theod. (and sim, A) has éBovdAero (and see other
instances from LXX in 17354). Many Indices do not distinguish
between 6éAw and é#édw, so that statements must be cautiously based
on them. In Egypt. Pap. Indices, e6éAw is very rare; but 76€éAnca
is sometimes used about authoritative resolutions of those in power,
and ov« 76¢€Anoev means “he refused” ; 74eAev occurs (according to
the Indices) only once, and then apparently of unfulfilled desire®.
“during” or ‘‘in the course of.’ Lk. alone has the dat. without prep. in Lk. ii.
41 €mopevovro...77 éopr7, ‘at the feast.”’ Strictly, Lk. should have said ‘‘ for the
feast,” or ‘‘/o the feast” (as Jn vii. 8, 10, xi. 56, xii. 12 els Thy éopryv) and hence
D ins. év, d ‘‘in die festo,” & ‘in diem sollemni (szc),” ¢ ‘ad dies solomni (stc),”
/ “in die solemni,” a@ ‘‘ die sollemni.”
1 [2716a] For peveatvw signifying vain desire see Z/. xv. 617 aXX’ odd’ ws
divaro phtac udda wep weveaivwy and comp. //. xv. 104. “Hy ré7e is perh. an
imitation of Virgil’s ‘‘sed fait,” “was a thing of the past:”” HTOTE might easily
spring, asa corruption, from HCTOTE #.e. 7076 Te, but (Steph.) 7juae does not appear
to be used of “settling down.” Ocodwéi radu@ may be illustrated from Chrys. (ad
loc.) ob yap wovov adopady adda Kal €& odplwy atrots mapérxe Tov wody.
2 [27164] Tivos dé evexev ovx dvéBn els TO wHotov;...ovK EvéBn de els TO TAotov,
iva 76 Oadua peifov épydonrat. Chrys. supposes that Christ first walked on the sea,
and then, ‘‘ as soon as He had appeared to the disciples, in the same moment, removed
to the land, (apa re &f0n Kal dwéstn am airayv).” He quotes vi. 21 7HeXov
haBeiv abrov: Kal evOéws Td motor éyyis THs ns eyévero. Perhaps S means this in
substituting éml riv yay els qv bajvrncey ‘‘the land to which Jesus came ¢o meet
them.” Origen (on Prov. xxx. 19) has evbéws yap éyévero 7d motoy Eri Thy viv els
qv vmriyov, Vela duvduec.
8 (2717a] See Oxy. Pap. ii. no. 237, col. vii. 10, 18, 19 etc. Here, and
in several other passages of this long petition, the word seems to mean ‘‘ willed,”’
“decreed,” ‘‘decided”’ (once reOedAjxacr). In Fayiim Pap. 131. 7 obx nbéNnoev
means “refused.” In Oxy. iii. no. 472. 14 ‘did not wish (odx 70edev) her to
the context indicates that the desire was frustrated.
554
survive him”
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS [2718]
According to the Indices of Lucian and Aristotle, 7eAov does not
occur in those authors, although é#€\w and 6éAw are frequent in
them’. The fact that 7@eAov occurs twice at no great interval in
Test. xu. Patr. and that it is used by Hermas to express a modest
wish*, indicates that it may have been freely used by some writers ;
but its rarity in the writers above-mentioned and its non-existence in
Mt.-Lk., confirm the view taken elsewhere (17354) that in the
Walking on the Waters John’s use of 76eXov is connected with Mark’s
use of 7OeAev®.
On i. 30 yep aytoy (2369)
[2718] On this passage Blass (p. 135) says that the use of uép
1 [2717 6] Lucian’s Index has Dial. Marin, xiii. 2 (i. 321) ovx des, ‘you did
not wish,” but nowhere 7#eXes or 74€Ancas. Schenkl’s Index to Epictetus gives
H0edov (without dv) ist pers. sing. “I could have wished,’ “1 should have liked”
(in vernacular English, ‘I only wish”) in i. ro. 6 ‘I only wish I could stand by
him and remind him”’ (comp. iv. 1. 143 ‘‘I ody wish I could stand over one of
these people” and Gal. iv. 20 70eXov 6é mapeivac), i. 29. 35 ‘* I should have liked
to go on still as a pupil,” and sim. i. 29. 38, ii. 8. 16 etc., almost always of
impracticable (and often of unreasonable) desires. So in 2nd pers. i. 1. 18 (and
comp. ill. 23. 13) Té ofy; 7OeNes mavras TpaxnroKxomnOjva; “would you have
liked to see all the world beheaded?” and 3rd pers. ii. g. 22 oloy ei Tis déxa NiTpas
dpat uh Suvdwevos, Tov Tod Aiavros NOov Bacrdfew HOeXev “as though a man
unequal to carrying ten pounds wozdd lke to lift the stone of Ajax!” In ii. 17.
33 70edov 5° dopadds éxew the desire is scoffed at by Epictetus (od @eds ei, w
dv@pwre) as absurdly ambitious. It occurs with a neg. in iv. 11. 24, ‘God
forbid! I would not wish such a thing, even if it were to make me a wise man
(o¥5’ ef copos EueNDov eivar 7AeNov).” Schenkl gives only one instance of 7eXes
ay (ili, 17. 4) ‘‘could you possibly have wished,” referring to a disgraceful
action.
[2717¢] Schenkl’s very copious Index gives no instance of 7@eXe in Epictetus.
Swete’s note on Mk vi. 48 is ‘‘ Vg. volebat praeterire eos...With the feigned
purpose comp. Lc. xxiv. 28 and see Me. v. 36, vii. 27.” But 70€dev (so far as
I know) never means ‘he feigned,’ and the passages referred to in Mk and Lk.
do not contain 7e\er.
2 [2717d@] Test. xii. Patr. Rud. § 1 ef wh laxwB...rpoontéaro mepi éwov...dre (2)
nOere Kipcos avedety je, 20. Sy. $ 2 kK. ENOav “PouvBnu ehuTHOn: OEE yap airov
diac@oa.... In Herm. Mand. v. 1. 7, nOedov yvavat, ‘*volebam cognoscere,” is
like our “ 7 wanted to know—in case you can spare me five minutes—whether you
think...,” which does not imply that the ‘‘want” is given up.
3 [2717] Mt. xiv. 25 7\Oev mpds at’rovs has neither 7OeXov nor 7Oedev.
Possibly there may have been some Gk confusion between HANEN and HOEAON
or HOEAEN. In Jn vi. 21, the Cureton. Syr. (Burk.) has ‘‘ Azed they were willing
that they should receive him,” but SS ‘‘ and when they took him” ; ® has 7\Oov for
n0edov, an interchange like that in 2 S. xxiii. 9, where B* reads 76e¢de for
7mrOe.
So
[2719] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
for epi as in A€yew vrép “to speak about,” (1) ‘is common in Attic
and Hellenistic Greek,” (2) “as also in the LXX,” (3) that it “is
found more rarely [in N.T.] and is almost confined to Paul,” and he
instances “Jo. i. 30 vép ov (epi ov NCA al.) eizov, 2 Cor. viii. 23
eire UTép Tirov (‘as concerning’), xii. 8 Urép TovTov wapexadeoa (‘on
this account,’ ‘on behalf of this’)...2 Thess. ii. 1, xavyao0ae trrép
often in Paul, also duovoicba vrép, ppoveiv vrep (in Phil. i. 7 ‘to
think upon’ in iv. 10 ‘to care for’).” (4) On Jni. 30 he adds (p. 313)
“better ov without prep. Nonn. Chrys.”
[2719] (1) A distinction should be drawn Jetween vep Tivos
mast. and vrép twos neuter. The former almost always means “77
behalf of,’ or at all events suggests some ¢feres¢t in the person
mentioned. Comp. JZ. vi. 524 vzép oéGev alcye axotvw zpos Tpwwv
implying that Hector blushes for his brother Paris, whom he would
gladly defend, when he hears the Trojans revile him, Soph. Gd. Tyr.
1444 ovUtws ap avdpos abXiov revoecO vrép (7.e. taking any interest in
the fallen king), Lucian De Salt. 9 (ii. 273) of Achilles “receiving
good news about (zvuvOavopevos vrép)” his son. In Plat. Legg. 776 E,
the meaning may well be that Homer, ‘making proclamation zz
behalf of Zeus (vrép tod Atos ayopevwr),” has “openly declared” or
“given sentence” that Zeus takes away half a man’s being when
he takes his freedom : that is, he speaks for the god, though not in
the first person, as though he were in the counsels of Zeus'.
1 [2719 a] Plato 776 © may be punctuated thus, 6 6 copwraros juiv rev
TonTay Kai amepnvato bmép Tov Ards, ayopevwv, ‘‘has actually given sentence in
the name of Zeus, making public proclamation thereof.” Comp. 26. 580 B 1 67
Ho, pny éyw, viv dn worep 6 did TavTwY KpLTHS aToPpaivera, Kai od ob'Tw, ‘as the
judge gives his sentence [as to which chorus is first, which second] so do you,”
followed by picbwowpeba otv Khpuxa ‘‘let us hire a herald” to proclaim the
sentence. omer, then, seems to be the ‘‘herald” giving sentence in behalf of
Zeus. Conversely, comp. Epict. ii. 23. 7 Ti yap éore 7d dmopawéuevoy trép
éxdorns To’rwy Trav duvdpewv...with 26. uAre THs dparikys wor HKovoas Neyovons Te
mepi €aurjs; ‘*What is it that declares in behalf of each of these faculties ?...Did
you ever hear the faculty of sight uttering a word adouw? itself?” z.e. there is a
higher power that speaks 27 behalf of, or as the interpreter of, its servants, for they
cannot speak aéout themselves. Apart from Xen. Cyrof. (discussed in 2370 a),
Steph. gives no other instances except from an affidavit in Demosth. 554,11 7
elaayyeNla €660n...Umép Apiordpxov, and Aeschin. 22, 12 (ch. 154 Teubn. p. £57)
imép ait&v Whgpreicba dy 7 Slwits 7. As to the former, since a contest is said to
be ‘in behalf of (vmép) life or death,’ trép twos (masc.) came to be used in an
action of a public character (eleayyeNa), perh. meaning at first ‘2 behalf of,”
and then ‘‘for or against,” comp. Arrian Alex. i. 25. 8 rh xpR vrep ‘AdeEdvdpou
556
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS [2719]
yvavar. In Aeschin., the preceding words (ri tmets 6umudxare ;) and the context,
indicate that a’réy is neut., as in the accepted Latin transl. ‘‘ Vos quid jurastis ?
De ws rebus pronuntiaturos que in accusatione preescriptee sunt.” Steph.’s
numerous instances from Polyb. are all neuter. Lucian’s Index gives abundant
instances of wmép with gen. of person, but all mean “70,” exc. perhaps Phad.
prior to (ii. 197) da pev Urep Euod axnkows, émei 5” Ereipddn amAOev éEwawav pe
where the Latin gives ‘‘de me,” and the meaning may be ‘‘in controversy for and
against me.” [If the meaning had been “ other [good things] in my favour,” we
should have expected d\da Te...Kai.]
[2719 6] In Arrian’s Hxped. Alex. brép is freq. used with genit. of person and
verbs of writing, inquiring etc. In his preface, distinguishing between ypadw mrepi
and ypdpw wmép, he says, dca pwev (?)TavTa dupw mepl “Arefdvdpov...Evvéypayav
Tatra éyw ws mavTn aAnO avaypddw...,Ador péev dn adda wep ’AeEdvdpov
dvéypayar, ovd’ €orw daép Srov mreloves 7) dEvupwvdrepor és dAAHAovs. The dudw
are Ptolemaeus and Aristobulus, and he proceeds to explain that these two wrote
without being influenced by love of gain or other pressure. These two write in a
detached and disinterested way ‘‘ adowt’’ Alexander ; the others ‘7 behalf of,” or
‘‘in praise of”? him (or perhaps ‘‘in a controversial spirit about him”). He
proceeds (2d.) to say that he has neglected mere idle oral tradition or talk
‘in favour of ” Alexander (rdvrn dariora ws Neyoueva wovoy brép’A.). It is perh.
significant that vi. 2.6 wmép ’ANeEdvdpou Evvéypawe is followed by éWedcaro. Of
course v7ép with genit. of person may mean “a@dout”’ a man, or men, when regarded
impersonally, as an enemy, a nation etc., as in Arr. Alex. i. 5. 3 0. TaY
Avrapiaray, ii. 6. 2 v. Aapelov, v. 5. 1 v. Ivdév. The Index to Arrian contains
several instances where b7rép twos masc. means “in behalf of,’ as in N.T.
[2719¢] ‘Trép, in damopaiverOa imép, has been shewn (2719 a) to mean
“in behalf of,” or “in the name of.” Contrast Epict. iii. 18. 4 wept Zwxpdrous &
ovK amepyvavto of dixacrai;—z.e. ‘‘gave sentence adout Socrates.” Epictetus
appears never to use vzép for mepi. The former, when used with the genitive, he
mostly connects with verbs that imply anxious effort to gain some prize, retain
some possession, or defend some person. His view is (ii. 16. 41, and comp. iv.
10. 22) that it is right to ‘‘strive even to desperation for the sake of (twép)
tranquillity, freedom, noblemindedness,” for these things are parts of oneself; but
it is only fools that would be anxious for the sake of a mere possession. Hence
the parenthesis with t7ép in the following, amidst a group of mepé clauses, ii. 13.
It G\Aa trepi TOU gwuariov adywriduev—imep TOU KTyoeLdiov (comp. iii. 18. 3 émi TO
gwudriov—emi 7d kTnoeldov)—mepl Tod ri ddEx TY Kaicapr, mept Tav éow 5 oddevds.
This might be paraphrased: ‘‘But we are anxious adout the paltry body—
[anxious] for the sake of that most trumpery possession !—adout what Cesar will
think—but never a jot aéout the things within us.” The b7ép clause anticipates
and meets the objection: ‘‘Why of course a man is anxious for the sake of his
body !” and the meaning is, we are anxious for the sake of external unrealities, but
we are not anxious, not even in the lowest sense, ‘‘aéou¢” internal realities. In
i. 19. 26 varép iepwovvns édddet or, bép appears from the context to mean ‘‘adout
the advisableness of attempting to obtain” such an office (for it does not seem likely
that twép could mean ‘‘to secure my interest for his application”). The closest
approximation of waép to epi that I have been able to find is in iv. 1. 105 where
evxapiorewv (elsewhere twice used with é7i) is used with brép: but even here t7ép
probably represents a feeling less detached and more emotional than would be
represented by epi. Similarly, in English, when we say “‘sorry or thankful for”’
557.
[2720] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
[2720] (2) In-LXX, vumep with gen. is very rare except in the
titles of Psalms and in the phrases 6 vzép and trép ov. In the
Pentateuch, it occurs only in Deut. xxiv. 16 (47s) ‘the fathers shall
not be put to death for the children” and xxviil. 23 6 ovpavos o vrép
xepadyns cov. Different authors and mss. use vzép and epi differently.
As to genit. of person, note Judg. vi. 31 “Will ye plead for Baal?”
vmep, A mepi, 1 S. 11. 25 “who shall entreat for him?” vzep, A zepi,
but 1 S.i. 27 “jor this child I prayed” urep (no v.r.), 2 S. vil. 25
and parall. 1 Chr. xvii. 23 (David to God) “thou hast spoken
concerning thy servant and concerning his house,” S. LXX epi (once),
Lue. urép (d¢5), Chr. LXX zpos and ézi'. There are probably very
Jew instances of imép with genit. of person in canonical LX X meaning
“about,” except in the various reading (Luc.) of David’s prayer
quoted above”.
[2721] (3) In N.T., vep with genit. is relatively very much
more frequent than in LXX._ It occurs nearly twenty times in the
(but ‘‘angry or delighted a¢”) there is a notion of having received something ‘‘ [27
return) for”? which we make an emotional response of sorrow or thankfulness.
[2719d@] ‘{7rép with genit. of pers. occurs in Epict. Aragm. (3 Schenkl, 136
Schweig.) drép judy BeBovrevTac to mean ‘‘in behalf of” and also with ypagw
i. Q. 27, Where ypddw vrép twos means ‘‘write zz behalf of” or ‘a letter of
introduction for,” rep. i. 9. 33 Umép ToUToU Th GdXo 7H avdyKn ypadeww EmioTONAs ws
imép vexpoo; Here there seems to be a play on writing a letter of introduction for
the sake of helping a helpless creature and writing a letter of request for the sake
of recovering a dead body to give it burial. It may be doubted whether the
genit. is masc. or neut. in il. 16. 42 dpxew me Gérers, ldwrevew, weve, pevyew,
mévecOat, mouTeiv; eyo co vrép ardvTwy TovTwWY Tpds TOUS avOpwrous amooy?}-
goua deléw Thy Exdorov picw ola éoriv, but rovTwr, if not masculine, is at least
personal in effect. The Philosopher says to God, ‘‘ Make me play what part thou
wilt, Ruler, Citizen, etc. I will justify thy ways to men, representing these
characters {in accordance with thy will).” The discrimination between tepi and
imép in Epictetus strongly confirms the conclusion that John likewise discrimi-
nated between them.
1 [2720 a] As to genit. of thing, comp. 1 Esdr. vii. 8 tmép duaprias with Ezr.
vi. 17 mepl duaprias and Dan. ii. 18 ‘‘ mercies concerning this secret” (where there
is a notion of intercession) LX X zrept, Theod. vrép, with 2d. vii. 16 ‘‘ concerning all
this” LXX wép, Theod. wepi. Comp. also Ezr. x. 19 (about sacrifice) epi
mrynupednoews with parall. 1 Esdr. ix. 20 brép rijs dyvolas. In 2S. vil. 19
‘“spoken of thy servant’s house,” vii. 28 ‘‘ promised unto thy servant,” the LXX
has b7rép, perh. (1) taking ‘‘ house” as a thing, and (2) confusing *‘ unto” with “in
behalf of,” but the parall. LXX in 1 Chr. xvii. 17, 26 has émé in both cases.
2 [27204] In 1 and 2 Macc., brép with genit. occurs about 28 times, and when
used with genit. of person, it alw. means ‘tin behalf of’ exc. in 2 Macc. ix. 8
‘* above [the level of] men.”
558
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS [2722]
Gospels (as compared with twice in the Pentateuch and Joshua)
always with gent. of person, and—unless it can be proved that i. 30 ts
an exception—always meaning ‘‘in behalf of'.” This also is its
meaning in the Acts where the genitive is always personal, or quasi-
personal, referring four times (out of seven) to sufferings ‘‘in behalf
of the Name [of the Lord].” In the Pauline Epistles it occurs about
ninety times, and in almost every instance’ it means ‘‘77 dehalf of ”
some person, or some name, or cause, for which the Apostle contends as
though contending for a person, or some object for which he ts striving,
or praying, or interceding: and in the very few instances in which
this meaning is not expressed, it is probably always implied’.
[2722] (4) As regards the alleged omission of izép by Chrys. and
Nonnus in i. 30 ovrés éorw tréep ov, Migne prints two quotations of
it by Chrys. thus (1) Otros jv tepi ob cizov: ‘O éricw pov épyopevos
eumpoobév ov yeyovev, (2) OSros jv dv etrov: “Oricw pov épxetar avipp
ds eurpoobév pov yéyover, and a subsequent quotation of i. r5 thus
(3) éricw pov epxetar Os eurpoobev pov yéyovey although he has
previously quoted 1. 15 (ad Zoc.) thus (4) otros Av ov elrov, 6 éricw
pov epxomevos eumpoobev pov yeyovev. It will be observed, ist, that
Chrys. does not omit a prep. in his first quotation of 1. 30 (though he
1 (2721 a] Mt. has it only in v. 44 (Lk. vi. 28) mpocetyeade vaep (Lk. epi) Tay
dioxdvtwy. Where Mk xiv. 24 has trép moddOv, Mt. xxvi. 28 has zepi, and
bracketed Lk. xxii. 19, 20 has tmrép tudv.
* (2721 4] The single doubtful case of pers. genit. is Rom. ix. 27’Hoailas dé
pager tmep Tov ‘IopandX, where Fritzsche may be right in alleging Arrian Ax. AZ.
vi. 2. 6 Umép ANeEdvdpov, ‘about Alexander” (2719 4), so that Israel is not a person,
but a historical subject. But note the obvious contrast in Rom. xi. 2 Hela...ds
évruyxavet...kaTa Tov Iopand. In Rom. xi. 2, Elijah intercedes against /srael and
is rebuked by the answer that there ts ‘‘a remnant.” In Rom. ix. 27, Isaiah ‘‘cries
in behalf of Israel”? and announces that there will be a ‘‘vemnant.” 2 Cor. viii.
23 eire brép Titov means ‘‘ whether [If have to stand up in defence} concerning
Titus and his relations with you and myself”—I maintain that he has done you no
wrong. In 2 Thess. li. 1, daép rs mapovoias means—as Lightf. expresses it,
‘*‘roughly and broadly paraphrased ”—‘*‘ to advocate the true view of the coming.”
Phil. i. 7 Kka@ws €orw Sikacov éwol TodTo dpoveiy brép mavTwy budv, means that the
Apostle is bound to feel confident, hopeful, and thankful ‘‘2 dehalf of” his
Philippian converts.
[2721 c] ‘Ywép, when used with a verb and such phrases as vi. 51 ‘‘ the life of
the world,” xi. 4 ‘‘the glory of God,” Acts ix. 16 ‘‘my name,” Rom. xy. 8 ‘the
truth of God,” 2 Cor. 1. 6 ‘‘ your comforting,”’ 2 Thess. i. 4 “‘ your endurance ”—
whether the verb be ‘‘contend” or “speak as an ambassador” or ‘‘ boast” or
whatever else—manifestly implies a personal interest “in behalf of” some person or
some personified thing.
559
[2723] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
has wept for trép), 2nd, that he alters éoriv to 7 in both his
quotations of 1. 30 (conforming them to i. 15), 3rd, that he omits the
important word davyp in his first quotation of 1. 30. These variations
detract from the value of his testimony and indicate that he mixed
i. 30 andi. 15. The same statement applies to Nonnus so far as
concerns 7v in 1, 30 Otros env bv eeurrov, diaTepos Epxerat avnp. Even
Origen uses zepi in his commentary on Samuel (1 S. xxviii. 18 foll.)
ovTOS €oTL Tepl ov eyw elrov, “O driow pov épx., also omitting avyp'.
It has been shewn above (2871) that avyp, if it means ‘‘ husband” or
‘“‘bridegroom’,” goes far to explain vrép. This view is confirmed
by the fact that, when Origen says that the Baptist called Christ not
only apves but also avyp, he quotes the text correctly with vmép, and
he does it again later on® The evidence from Chrys. therefore
indicates nothing except that he did not understand the three points
that differentiate i. 30 from i. 15, namely, éorw for Av, vrép ov for
ov, and the important insertion of avyjp. A review of all the
evidence makes it almost certain that John did not use vzép for zrepé.
On ix. 21 aytoc mepi eaytoy (2374—80)
[2723] ix. 21 avs wept éEavtod Aadnoe, if translated according to
classical Greek usage, would closely connect avros repi éavtod making
autos little more than a preparation for emphasizing éavrod ‘he will
speak—se about his own sedf,” i.e. about himself and nothing else.
1 [2722.2] Lomm. xi. 328 Otros otv 6 cxipricas mpo yevécews, ‘lwdvyns 0 elma:
‘* obrés éoTt, Wepl ov ey elrov: 6 dricw wou épyduevos Eumpoobev mou yéyove.” Kal
“6 méupas eié wo ep dv dv loys To wvetpa KaTaBawor, Kal mévor, ouTés €or
6 vlos To Oe00.” ovTos, pacly, ovdKEeTL HOE Inoodv Xprordv ev KorNia. “Hider yap avrdv.
AMG be’ brepBorhy 5bEns Suordy Te TH Ulérpw weroinkev. Origen is quoting freely
but Lomm.’s text is also corrupt. We should prob. ins. the words bracketed as
follows, otros, pacly, ovxére 7deu’ Inoodv Xpurrov [dr] év Kola [HOer]* Hdee yap avrdv,
GAXNa Ov v..., ‘* They assert that he no longer knew Jesus Christ [whom] in the
womb [he had known]. Absurd (20682)! For he knew Him,...but....”
2 [2722] Origen (2722c) ranks the Baptist’s testimony as to ay%p along with
his testimony as to duvés, suggesting that he laid stress on the former ; but his
comment ad Joc. is lost. Cramer ad /oc. prints (as one of several explanations of
avjp given by Ammonius) 7 6re rdons Ths NoyiKHs Picews, 6 EaTe Tis *ExkAnelas,
vupplos €oTiy.
3 [2722c] Lomm. i. 47 olov 6’Iwavyns abrov dpuvov Oeod dvaryopever Nywr, “Ide...
kal dvdpa dud TovTwv, Obrds éorw wmép ob éyw elrov bri "Orlow jov..., rep. 7%.
p. 156. In both passages, Origen, or the scribe, has perhaps rep. ome (of dalow) as
ért. Nonnus (on Jn i. 13) seems to take aiwara as referring to (2269) the mother
and dvjp to the father, Ods Picts ovx wdwe eXwids, od Blos &yrw ’Avdpopéou
Brdornua OeAhpwaros, ode Kal ari Lapxods épwrordbkoio yauAdwos jporev evyy.
560
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS _ [2724]
Thus o 6@ Karwv avtos éavtov avethey would not mean “Cato Aimself
[virtuous though he was] committed suicide” but “Cato killed
himself wth his own hand,” as in Xen. Anad. il. 4. 10 ot 8 “EAAnves
bhopawvres ToOUTOUS avToOL ef’ EavTav éxwpovy “ but the Greeks...marched
entirely by themselves,” not “the Greeks themselves by themselves.”
So 2 Cor. 1. 9 adAG airoi év Eavtois TO aTroxpysa T. O. eoxyKapev Means
‘““we have had in our ozwz selves the sentence of death” (R.V. “we
ourselves ”—less suitably if it means “we ourselves [as distinct from
others].”) But where the context makes attos emphatic so that one
pauses on it, it may be separated from the éavrov-phrase, as possibly
in 2 Cor, x. 12 ada airoi—év Eavtots Eavtods peTpodvTes...ov TUVLaCL.
npeis 6€ ovx.... There W.H. make no stop after avrod, but avtod seems
to refer emphatically to “certain persons” mentioned above and
contrasted with “we” thus: “but ¢zey—measuring themselves by
themselves...have no understanding, but we....” So probably in
Rom. vil. 23 ov povov 6¢, aAAG Kai avtoi—rHv arapxyv ToD TvEvpaToS
exovres [ymets|—xal avrot ev éavtots otevalopev, “we ourselves, we
ourselves, I say, having in ourselves...” (not “in our own selves”).
In Jn ix. 21 the context exhibits the timorous parents shifting
responsibility from themselves to their son, laying an increasing stress
on the antithesis between ‘“‘we” and “Aim”: “We (unemph.) know
that this is our son...but how he now seeth we (unemph.) know not,
or (2759 a—/) who [as it is said] opened his eyes ze (emph.) (ype?)
know not. Ask “zm (avrov)—he is of age—fe (atros) shall speak
concerning himself”—where “he” means ‘‘e himself,” apart from
us and uninfluenced by. us.
On vi. 15 aytoc monoc (2375)
[2724] Origen, commenting on Christ’s retirement to Ephraim
(xi. 54) and mentioning other retirements, quotes vi. 15 yvovs ort...
dvexwpnoev eis TO Opos and adds GAN od peta THV pabyTdv GAA povos
(not airs povos)'. The Latin 4 also omits “‘ipse.” Chrys. has yvovs
O7L...avexwpnoev eis TO Opos, and proceeds to comment, without adding
aitos povos. Both Origen and Chrys. omit the preceding waAw (in
1 [2724 a] Origen elsewhere (on Mt. xv. 29 avaBas eis Td dpos ExdOnTOo Exe?) says
that the mountain represents the Ecclesia, and he argues that the disciples (Lomm.
iii. 122) went up with their Master. This is before the Feeding of the Four
Thousand. The going up to the mountain at first wzt# the disciples affords
a contrast with the going up to the mountain afterwards wzthowt the disciples
(avTOs vos).
A. VI. 561 36
[2725] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
avexupnoev waAw eis TO opos). Nonnus does not express avrés or
maw in his paraphrase, Ovpeos tAyevtos epnpada dvocato zérpyv.
Avcaro, implying “Azding,’ resembles éxpv8y in Epiphanius (117 D
Haer. Xxix. 2) yvois dveywopnce Kai expt Bn év Edpaip, roe TAS épypov
(after the words 7AGov yap (dyoi 16 ebayyéAvov) xpioar adtov cis
Bac.déa) which also omits the words avros povos. SS supports W.H.
as to atros povos, but the Curetonian Syr. has “he left them and //ed
again to the hill alone,” evye is also the reading of &*, and Chrys.,
in his comment, uses this word, 6 6€ Xpucros hevye. Ti dyzrore;
Strangely enough, a little afterwards, Chrys., who has omitted the
words zéAw and povos in describing Christ’s retirement, inserts them
in the Walking on the Waters’. D and @ add kaxet rpoonvyxero after
avTos povos, & has povos avtos.
[2725] In xii. 24 avros povos péve there is no various reading.
Latin versions of Origen twice paraphrase it as ‘doth not bring forth
fruit.” Chrys. first quotes the greater part of xii. 24, including avtos
pw. pever, then explains 7AGev 7 wpa, then 6 Koxkos...aroGavy, but
makes no attempt to explain avros p. péve. But Origen elsewhere
(in his comment on Jeremiah xi. 19 in which he finds a reference
to the ‘‘wood” of the cross) quotes xil. 24 éay px KoKKos (for o k.)
...avT0s povos pever and adds that, but for the crucifixion, ¢uewev av
povos 0 Koxxos. ‘There is nothing in his comment to shew clearly at
first whether he took avros to mean “zt” (as A.V.) or ‘dy itself” (as
R.V.), but when he repeats the words, he transposes them into a form
that may be rendered thus, ‘Consider therefore His saying [and
ask] whether He has not intended (SefovAnrar) this [z.e. a reference
to the cross] saying, ‘The grain of wheat, except i¢, [or, ¢¢ ttsedf| fall
into the earth and die (6 x. Tt. oirov, éav py Tecwv eis THY ynv arobavyn
autos), abideth alone (jovos péver)’”—if we punctuate after avros.
Nonnus brings out the predicative meaning of avros, “by itself
and fruitless,” with great force’.
[2726] Avros povos must be distinguished from povos avtos (which
x reads in Jn vi. 15). The latter, according to the analogy of
Se’tepos, tpitos etc. followed by avros, would mean “alone by
himself.’? It occurs two or three times in Lucian to mean “ unique’®.”
1 [27244] Tivos obv évexey adlnow avrods Kal dvaxwpet; “addov de, Tlvos Evexev
paiverat wadw povos eri THs Gadacons Badlfwr ;
2 (2725.a] Tére podvos érwaros avré@e pluver “Aoropos, axpioros, avijporos,
dpopos aprns.
8 [2726.a] Lucian Demon. 29 (ii. 386) udvos adrés éort Kal mp&ros Trav diadexre-
562
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS _ [2727]
But avros povos might have various meanings according to its
context eg. “he himself [did it, and that too] alone and unaided,”
or ‘“[He is] by himself [quite] alone,” or ‘“ [existing] by himself [and]
alone’.”” In vi. 15, avrds povos, coming at the end of the sentence
is peculiarly emphatic (more so than in xii. 24) and the general
confusion of the text, together with the difficulty of the phrase, suffice
to explain the omission (by some) of avros, or of povos, or of both.
But the peculiar language springs from peculiar circumstances. In
Gethsemane, Christ’s disciples were to “leave” Him “alone”
(xvi. 32). After the Feeding of the Five Thousand (as Origen
suggests”) they perhaps went, from one point of view, still further
from their Lord, if they abetted the multitude against Him, and
desired to see Him “made a king” by force. If ever the Son could
be called ‘“‘ alone ”—though He could not really de “ alone” because
the Father “was with” Him—it was on this occasion; and this
perhaps is the meaning of the final av7tds povos, ‘‘—by Himself, even
the disciples being against Him, taking His way alone.” In reality,
as Ongen says, it was not Christ that was left “alone.” It was the
disciples. And this sinister word ‘‘alone” ending the narrative of
the Five Thousand, prepares the way for the Walking on the Waters,
which describes the disciples as leaving their Master and failing in
faith.
On vii. 4 zHTel aytoc (marg. ayto)...einal (2375 a)
[2727] In vii. 4 ovdeis yap mu ev kpuTt@ wore Kat Lyre ‘avzos'
Kv, ‘that he is zzégue and first” (see 1895), Gymnas. 40 (ii. 921) wh Epjunr, &
yevvate, nde Tov dvdpav amdvTwr, pdvos avtos (alone by yourself) éywy oiov
kpatew. The meaning is ironical in both these cases. Harmon. 3 (i. 855) wdvos
avros duelvwv av qo8a, seems to mean ** You alone by yourself would have been
better than all these together.”
1 [2726 4] L. S. quotes ait pédvw and xa’ ad’rovs uédvoe from Plato, but
not avrds uévos, nor does Mitchell’s Index. Aristoph. Raz. 78 lopavr’ admodaBav
avrov «ovov means ‘‘ taking aside Iophon dy himself alone,” emphasizing the secrecy.
Long. De Sudblim. 35 Tod ynyevots éxelvov kal avTo0 udvov...mupés, referring to
the flames of Etna, might mean “zzzgue”’ fire, but Dr Roberts (p. 238) indicates
a parall. in Pind. Pyth. i. 21—4 mupos ayvorarat...mayat and renders avrod udvou
*“pure and unmixed” (comp. Steph. 2508 A quoting Demetr. De Eloc. 144 70 6€
avrirns memoinuévov €x To avrés). On ards meaning ‘‘alone,”’ see 2699.
® [2726 c] Lomm. ii. 368 (on xi. 50). Origen speaks of the disciples as
BovhnGetow av wera Tov BeddvTwy Tofoa avTovy Bacitéa, Wy dn yévnTra Kal
KoouiKWs avray Bacrdeds, z.e. their king after the manner of this world, which might
be paraphrased as ‘‘ according to the manner of ‘ the prince of this world.’” The
crisis resembled that in the Temptation (Mt. iv. 9, Lk. iv. 6).
563 36—2
[2728] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
(marg. avro) év rappyota eiva, there is probably a contrast between
the “works” mentioned in vii. 3 (“that thy disciples also may behold
thy works which thou art doing”) and the worker (“‘himself”)—as in
x. 38 (‘‘ Even if ye believe not me believe the works,” and comp. xiv.
11). Missing this contrast, some scribes have dropped avres as
superfluous or have supposed aytocen to be an error for aytoen}.
Chrys. quotes ovdeis yap ev kputT@ tW...avTos, but afterwards refers
freely thus, To pev ody ciety, Ovdels te ev KpuTTO Trorel, detiav eyKa-
Aovvrwy eotly...70 b€ erayayetv oti Zytet ev wappyaia eivat, pirodo€ias.
Under the circumstances this can hardly be taken as proof that he
did not read avros. For Cyret avtos quoted apart from its context
would be liable to misunderstanding. It should be added, however,
that SS has ‘“‘wisheth Azmsedf that z¢ (or, Ze) should be in the open,”
which suggests that it may have read avros avto. Nonnus certainly did
not read avro, but he may have omitted the pronoun altogether: Ov
yap tT1s...droKoArov epyov bdaiver...appadinv 0 eee Opacds Eupevar—
where he combines the two meanings of zappyoia, (1) publicity
(apdadinv), (2) boldness (@pacvs). The textual evidence against
auto, when combined with the fact that rappynoia is regularly applied
to persons, not to reports, makes it certain that avro is corrupt, and
probable that avrds is correct.
On viii. 44 €K TON IAIMN Addel (2378)
[2728] R.V. “speaketh of his own” leaves it an open question
whether é« is (1) partitive (2214) ‘“‘[some] of,” or (2) significative of
origin (as in Mt. xii. 34 (sim. Lk. vi. 45) €« rod wepiooevpatos THs
Kapdias TO otopa ad). Probably it is the latter (“from”). But
“speaketh from [a source] belonging to him” seems (but see 2728 2)
to make very poor sense as compared with Mt.-Lk. where the meaning
is “speaks, because he cannot help it—the stream of words bursting
forth from the fountain in the heart.” Chrys. says “Man _ uses
falsehood not as belonging to him (idtw) but as alien (adXotpiw), but
he [that is, Satan, uses it] as belonging to him.” By “belonging to
him” he means “one of his family” as appears from his preceding
1 [2727a} There are many variations in 8, D and latt. and syr. vss., as to
the order of the words and transl.: S and 6 have zro:év for rote? cal, e has *‘in
auctoritate”’ for év mappnoia and omits ydp, f/ has ‘‘ Nemo quid facit in occulto.
Quid facit quaerit ipse”: 4 and e omit “ipse.” "Ev xpur7@ 71, the reading of D
and most latt., seems to lay less stress on 7c than is laid in ovdels ydp re €v Kp. The
latter may have been supposed by the scribe of B to mean ‘‘ doeth a certain thing
in secret”’ in contrast with ‘‘ wisheth z¢ Zo de [known] in public.”
564
“ce
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS _ [2728]
statement that Satan was the ovzg7n and parent of falsehood (érexe 70
Weddos mpdros) in the words to Eve (“Your eyes shall be opened ”).
Origen ad doc. refers to the “spirit” that ‘stood before the Lord” in
order to cause the death of Ahab, saying “I will go forth and de a
spirit of falsehood in the mouth of all his prophets.” The lying
“spirit,” on that occasion “spake from his own (ék Tov idiwy éX\adnoe) ”
z.e. from the false prophets whom he had made “his own” by placing
the spirit of falsehood in them. ‘This view explains the Johannine
connexion between ‘‘speaking from his own” and ‘“‘ye are from the
devil as your father,” which otherwise is obscure’.
1 [2728 a] Comp. Mt. x. 20, “‘it is not ye that speak but the spirit of your
Father that speaketh in you,’ where it would have made good sense to substitute
<< sheaketh from you,” as the ‘ speaking”’ goes forth from the disciples to the world.
Nonnus gives no help as to the meaning of ‘‘his own,” ®@éyyerat €& idiwy dre
Nolyiov nOos déiwy WVetorns avros épu Vevdnuovos €x yeverjpos, where Nonnus
appears to take a view thrown out by Origen at the outset of his comment on the
passage (Lomm. ii. 241) du@iBoros 7 AéEts Earl: Synodrar yap am’ ars év pév, ws
apa éxel 0 OudBoros marépa.
[2728 6] In viii. 44 R.V. and A.V. may intend “‘ speaketh of his own” to mean
“speaketh from.” Comp. vii. 17, 18, xiv. Io, xvi. 13, Nadety did, xii. 49 Aadecy
éx, where A.V. has “‘ speak of” (but R.V. has ‘speak from”). In xviii. 34 (as in
viii. 44) dad ceavrod...déyers is rendered by R.V. as well as A.V. ‘‘of thyself.”
Shakespeare uses ‘‘of” for ‘‘ from” in ‘‘of one’s self, himself etc.,” and (in very
rare cases) with a verb of speech as prob. in Ad/’s Well i. 3. 7 “ when of ourselves
we publish them” z.e. our own praises. ‘‘ Sayest thou this of thyself?” is therefore
justifiable: but there is probably nothing in English literature to justify such
a phrase as “‘speaketh of Ais ow” in any sense but ‘‘speaketh about his own.”
[2728 c] Origen (Lomm. ii. 267) calls attention to the contrast between the
spirit of falsehood—which speaks é« twv léiwv—and the Holy Spirit, To wer ovy
aytov Tvetpa...ovK ex Twv dlwy Nae? GAN ad Tod Adyou Tis aAnOelas (comp. xvi. 13
ov yap Nadjoe ap EavTod).
[2728 7] The above comment, on viii. 44 éx Tv ldiwv, should have included
some notice of Epictetus’s use of 76 iéuov. By idva he means “‘ essential property.”
Etymologically, a man’s ‘‘ property,” being that which is ‘‘ peculiar” to him, ought
to include—if the question is of the difference between man and non-human
creatures—such possessions as his reason, temperance, charity, etc. But in Gk, as
in English, 7a i6ca had come to mean mostly a man’s house, estate, etc. Against this
popular use Epictetus protests, as when he bids us (iv. 5. 15—16) ‘‘ mourn over
one whose fate it has been, not to die, but, while still living, to dose his essential
property (amoNécat Ta ida), not his patrimony or paltry plot of ground...(for none
of these things is frofer (idvov) to the man)...but the qualities of man (7a
av@pwmrikd), those characteristics with the stamp of which upon his mind he
has come [into the world] (rods xapaxripas ods éxwv ev TH Siavoig EAndvOev).”
Elsewhere he says of a man’s ‘‘ rooted convictions (déyuara)” or ‘‘ motives ”—
a very different thing from our ‘‘dogma”—iv. 4. 44 ‘‘these are a man’s essential
property, the things that make his actions also either vile or honourable (raira yap
565
[2729] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
On ékeinoc (2381—5)
[2729] The insertion of a superfluous éxetvos for the sake of em-
phasis was explained above (1920) as mainly due to Hebrew influence.
But it is in part traceable to a universal desire, among those who
speak naturally, to put the subject they are going to talk about at the
head of the sentence, as often in old-fashioned English songs (“ our
captain he did say”). Comp. the use of avr in Ox. Pap. 299 (late
Ist cent.) Adurwv pvobnpevty edwxa av7@ Oa ood apaBdva (dpaxpas) 9
iva puobypetoe. EvtoKa. Karas Toujoes Tempers por avtds. Kal
Avovvolm mpoo[tlary Newepdv xeéxpyxa (dpaxyas) 1 Kal tavras ovK
erepipe, iva €idns, éppwo(o), which edd. transl. “ Regarding Lampon
the mouse-catcher I paid him for you as earnest money 8 drachmae
in order that he may catch the mice while they are with young.
Please send me the money. I have also lent Dionysius, the chief
man of Nemerae, 8 drachmae, and he has not repaid them, to which
I call your attention. Good-bye1.”
On v. 32 AddOC...0 MAapTYp@N (2384)
[2730] In v. 32 aAdos éoriv 6 paptupdy, Nonnus has “AdXos avyp
méXe paptus taking aAAos to mean the Baptist, as Chrysostom does
(2384): and x*D a, e, and SS, read oidare for otda in what follows
(“Ye know that his witness is true”), indicating that they, too, took
éott Ta ldia Exdorov, Ta kal Tas Tpdéers alaxpas 7 Kaas TovovvTa).” Comp. li. 4. I
dvarpéme: To idiov (2.e. faithfulness) Tod dvOpwrov, ii. 12. 14 TO...uddiora LOcov
Dwxparovs, ii. 26. tat. TO Wdcov Tod auaprnuatos. These facts indicate that, in the
Epictetian sense, é€k rv idlwy might mean nearly the same thing as ‘‘from the
abundance of the heart,” and that this is one of the two meanings intended.
1 [2729 a] Note here, for future reference (1) 6:a¢ cod used by an illiterate
writer for dua oé ‘‘on thy account,” ‘‘ for thy sake”’ (2294, 2705), (2) va with the
future (2114), (3) Kadws mojoes méupyers either misspelt for x. 7. méupas, or
more prob. taken by this writer as meaning ‘‘ you will kindly send,” (4) iva eldys
(familiar to us in N.T.) used for ‘‘[I write this] that you may know [it].” “ly
eldjs, used absolutely in Euripides, means ‘‘ that you may know [the facts],” and is
sometimes used towards enemies, ‘‘that you may know [what I think],” as in ec.
1243, where Agamemnon tells Polymestor what he thinks of him. Comp. And.
589 ‘‘that you may know [what will be the result of your insolence],” /ov 35
“that you may know [the truth],” Oves¢. 534 ‘‘that you may know [my mind,
I say] ‘Do not go against the Gods.’” So Ulysses to Philoctetes in Soph.
Phil. 989 *‘ It is Zeus, it is Zeus—that you may know [the truth]—who bade me
““TT write] that you may know [the
fact that I have not been paid].” The prevalence of dys in this particular phrase
do this.” In the Papyrus, it seems to mean
might result in the correct use of forms in the 2nd pers., eld7s, -#7e (comp. Mk ii.
10, Mt. ix. 6, Lk. v. 24, Eph. vi. 21, 1 Tim. iii. 15, © Jn ii. 29, v. 13), after other
forms, ¢.g. €16W, -wuev, had fallen into disuse (see 2690).
566
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS [2731]
the meaning to be “ Ye, Jews, know that the Baptists witness is true.”
But (1) whereas there is no difficulty in supposing that Jesus appeals
to the testimony of God (as a physician might appeal to Nature) there
is some weakness in supposing that Jesus, as it were, calls into court
a human witness to Himself and then adds “/ know that this man
speaks the truth.’ {This objection is removed by &*D etc., but at
the cost of altering the text.] (2) As John was probably by this time
in prison, or dead, and as he is described by the context in the past
tense (“‘ He was the lamp ”) it is not likely that he would be described
here in the present (éoriv). (3) The whole passage appears to mean :
“There is another witness now witnessing about me—I do not speak
of John, who witnessed in the past—a present witness and a greater
witness than Jobn, I mean the works given me by my Father.”
(4) This explanation suits aAdos (2675—7) “another of the same kind
as myself” (a d and ff “alter,” not ‘“‘alius” as the rest) by which the
evangelist suggests Christ’s unique unity with the Father. (5) Origen
(27945) probably agrees with Cyprian, who (£fzs¢. Ixvi. 2, ed.
Hartel, vol. ii. p. 727) quotes v. 31—2 as shewing that “The
Lord Himself...was unwilling to be believed on His own testimony,
but preferred to be approved by the judgment and testimony of
God the Father.’ On aXXos in Epictetus see 2791 foll.
On xix. 35 Kal ékeiINoc olden (2384)
[2731] On xix. 35 Kal éxeivos oidev, paraphrased by Nonnus as
iduev, comp. Barn. ix. 8—g dyAot ody Tov pev “Inootv év tots duciv
ypappacw Kal €v TO évi tov aTavpov. oldev o Ti EnuTov dwpedv THS
didaxys avtod Oewevos ev ypiv. The writer has been enlarging on the
mystery of “the three letters” that point to Jesus and His cruci-
fixion, and he concludes, “He knoweth [the truth of this mystery|—
even He who set in us the implanted gift of the Teaching.” The
parallel in the two appeals (“He knoweth”) is made the more
remarkable bya parallel corruption of the texts. As Nonnus tried to
make sense by reading oidapev, so the Latin translator of Barnabas
(‘‘scitote quia”) read ovate (or Pure) ott, and & has ore for o and
d.abnxys for dvdaxyns. Corresponding to John’s use of éxetvos to mean
the Lord or Master, is the ancient Greek use of ards in avtos eda,
“He [the Master] said it,” meaning Pythagoras, frequently referred
to in Greek literature, and used of God in Heb. xiii. 6 “ Be ye free
from the love of money...for HE (R.V. himself) hath said...,” where
Wetst. refers to Josh. i. 5 and adds “‘xar’ efoyny, z.e. Deus.”
567
”
[2732] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
On vii. 11 TOY EcTIN ékeiNoc (2385)
[2732] In vii. 11 lod éoriy éxetvos, whereas Chrys. asks why the
Jews will not call Christ by His name and decides that it is because
of their detestation of Him, Nonnus apparently takes the pronoun as
=“ijlle” in a good sense, Kai pw ‘lovdator piAiy pacrevov avaykn 74
pot €Bn; wot Ketvos; The double meaning is illustrated by Mt. xxvii.
Ig TO Otkaiw éxeivw, 2. 63 €xeivos 6 tAavos. ‘The context in vil. 11
allows of Nonnus’ interpretation; but that of Chrys. is favoured by
ix. 12 mov éotiv éxeivos; Xix. 21 éketvos eizev, where it is almost
certainly contemptuous as well as hostile. On Acts v. 28, Blass
(p. 171) says ‘*D has rod avOp. éxeivov: for 7. a. rovrov of the other
Mss. (the latter is due to ézi t@ dvopati tovrw in the same verse).”
Against this are the following facts: (1) the Latin of D in Acts v. 28
has “huius”; (2) the Gk, though it shews signs of an original
ekelNoy, has toytoy written over it, not above the line but in the
line ; (3) in the line above, there happens to be rein which may have
led the scribe to write exeinoy by a mere lapse.
On xix. 9 moGen el cy¥; (2403)
[2733] Alford and Westcott take 706ev ef ov; to mean, in effect,
“Whence art thou? [Art thou from heaven?]” ‘This suits the
charge brought by the Jews in xix. 7, ‘““He made himself the Son
of God.” It also suits xix. 8 paddov! éfoByOy, since “fear” would
be natural in a Governor if he suspected that he had scourged a god
or angel from heaven, as Pentheus had dealt with Dionysus. The
words may be intended éy /ofn to include this meaning, just as
(2645) ‘Behold, the Man!” may be intended éy /ohn to include
the meaning with which Christians utter the latter. That /%/a?e,
however, intended them thus is improbable for the following reasons.
[2734] We have seen (2403) that Chrysostom describes Pilate as
“ beginning the examination over again.” Similarly says Nonnus, but
1 [2733a] No mention has been previously made of Pilate’s “fearing.”
Hence it would seem we must render ‘‘he was vather terrified [¢han incensed
against the prisoner as the Jews had hoped).” Similarly, in v. 18, “adXov efjrouv
avrov ot’. droxreivat does not mean ‘‘ they sought more [earnestly than before] to
kill him.” For the previous context has made no mention of *‘ killing,” but only,
v. 16 ‘‘began to persecute Jesus.” Some MSS., it is true, after ‘‘ persecute,”
add ‘‘and sought to slay him”: but this is only because the scribes have mis-
interpreted waAXov later on, which means ‘‘ they va¢her sought to kill him [¢han
merely to persecute him as before].’ SS and Nonnus omit “adXov in v. 18 and
Nonnus (SS is wanting) in xix. 8.
568
Se
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS _ [2734]
more in detail, “ He began to question Jesus the second time 7 che
customary language, ‘Who art thou (redées)? Whence art thou
(ef ov)'?’” The phrase ‘customary language” appears to mean
that a magistrate would begin the examination, whether of a witness
or of an accused person?, by asking his name and domicile—as Minos
asks that of Scipio Africanus, when the latter demands a hearing—
“Who and whence are you?” Outside the Greek Testament, 706ev
et does not seem to be used without ris*, and ov is not usually
inserted. According to this view, Pilate—terrified rather than
goaded into severity by the charge of the Jews ‘“‘ He made himself
the Son of God ”—may be seeking to gain time, and to find a way of
releasing Jesus without irritating the Jews, by asking Jesus about His
birth and domicile in the usual form, which he ought to have used
at first’ This is a rational supposition. But in that case, it may
be urged that Pilate would have said ris xai wofev, according to
Greek usage (and as Nonnus has it), and that he would not have
inserted the superfluous ov, which, in non-hebraic Greek, savours
rather of familiarity, or contempt, or hatred, than of reverence, when
used in questions or commands’.
1 [2734a] “Inooty 6’ épéewe 7d devTepov jOdd. mHOw, Tis TedéOers; mibev
ei ov;
2 [27344] Lucian, Dial. Mort. xii. 7 MIN. Tis yap ef, & BéATioTE; 7 THEY wy
épets; DKH. Iradtwrns, DKynriwv, orpatnyos.
3 [2734c] Steph. quotes many instances such as Hom. //. xxi. 150 Tis 1odev eis
avdpav; Soph. Phzl. 56 ris te kal wébev mdpec; also from Plato and later authors,
but none of 7é6ev et without ris. Rev. vii. 13 Tives elolv kai 1é0ev ndOov refers to
those previously described as vil. g €k mayrTos €Ovous kai pudov Kal Nady Kal
yAwooSv, now brought into the City or Congregation of God.
+ [2734 ¢7] Chrys. has Hira IliMGros wéev poBetrar...avroi d€...00 meppixacuv, adn’
dvatpovow avrov wmép wy éxpqy mpookuvety, 2.c. Pilate on the one hand ‘‘ fears”
instead of being incensed against Jesus; the Jews, on the other hand, desire to
kill Him for the very reasons for which they should have done Him homage.
There is perh. a latent reference to uaddov €fo87On, z.c. to Pilate’s feeling ‘‘ fear,”
rather than desiring to kill Jesus as the Jews hoped. Chrys. continues, Aca rovro
ovKéeTe avtov épwra, Ti émoincas; ad\N dvwhev mdduy, bro Tod PbBov KaTaceLduevos,
moveirat Ti e&éracw, héywv, Ki od el 6 Xpiorés; GAN ovK amexpivaro. The Latin
of Chrys. renders dvw@ev “a sublimioribus,” but a. 7. must mean here ‘‘all over
again.” Jn, however, does not contain the words e/ od ei 6 Xpiordés nor anything
like them. Nor do the Synoptists attribute them to Pilate. Either Chrys. (or
a scribe) has attributed to Pilate the words of the Highpriest (Mt. xxvi. 63 ed ov ef
6 Xpwords) or the text is corrupt.
5 [27342] A superfluous ov is freq. in Aristophanes after kaxicre etc., and
comp. Soph. Phil. 927 & rip ot, Eurip. And. 261 6 BapBapov ov Opéupa. When
not required for sense e.g. after an imperative, it is either antithetical to another
569
[2735] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
[2735] In O.T., “Whence [art] thou (or [are] ye)?” is at least
once distinguished from ‘ Whence comest thou?” and means “ What
is thy birth and origin?” The Hebrew regularly omits the verb and
inserts the pronoun, contrary to the Greek idiom. On two occasions
the LXX inserts both verb and pronoun, thus mixing the two idioms.
The question is from a superior to an inferior except when Jacob
modifies it by adding ‘‘brethren’.”
[2736] These facts shew that if Pilate recommenced his exami-
nation as Nonnus and Chrysostom suggest—a view that is favoured
by Mark (xv. 4) who alone says “ but Pilate began to question him
again (raw) ”—he might begin with a question about the name and
domicile of the accused, and that this, in Bibjical Greek, might be
expressed by wofev & ot; This might commend itself to John
because of its inner and mystical meaning. Throughout his Gospel,
7oGev eiuic and 70bev Epxouar refer to the Father from whom the Son
was born and from whom He came’.
pronoun, or emphatic as in vernacular English (‘‘come here, yow rascal”), or
familiar. It does not appear to be used in reverential requests, e.g. with Zev, by
the tragedians (2776 4).
1 [2735 a] Comp. Gen. xxix. 4 Adeddol, mé0ev éoré duets; of 6é elray, Ex
Xappdy éopev, where the meaning may be ‘‘ What is your country ?”’ and the Heb.
(as always) omits the verb, 1 S. xxx. 13 Tivos ov ef kai md0ev ef (to a slave); 2S. i.
13 760ev ei o'; This last—since it follows i. 3 ‘*‘ Whence comest thou?”’—would
seem to mean, ‘* What is thy country and extraction ?”” The man answers ‘‘ I am
the son of a stranger, an Amalekite.” In Josh. ix. 8, ‘* Who [are] ye and whence
come ye?” LXX, through Heb. corruption, has wédev éoré (Aq. rls tmets) Kat
modev mapayeyovate; Philo i. 470 quotes Gen. xxix. 4 without vets.
2 [2736a] In the Synoptists, Christ is represented by Mt. as using wédev
in connexion with John’s baptism, xxi. 25 mé0ev nv; €& ovpavod 7 €E dvOpirav
(where Mk-Lk. om. 7éfev, and Orig. Lomm. ili. 55 reads mérepov and elsewhere
(Huet) omits é& ovpavod 7, prob. by homoeotel.). In Mk, the people of Nazareth
use it about Christ’s powers, Mk vi. 2 1é0e ro’rw ratra; The parall. Mt.
xiii. 54, 56 uses it twice thus. Both Mk and Mt. mention in the context
a discussion about Christ’s parentage. Mk’s two other uses of 7é@ev are vill. 4
mo0ev...... ém’ épnulas; (Mt. xv. 33 wé0ev...ev épnula), and Mk xii. 37 wé0ev atrod
éorly vids; (Mt.-Lk. Gs). In both, ré6@ev might imply zvposszbility.
[2736 2] According to the usage of Epictetus, wé@ev rovr~; would imply
a denial, ‘* Zits man could not possibly possess these powers.’ Comp. ili. 13. 12
mrbbev yap avt@ Tavrny [7.e. Ti elphynv] knpvEa; “for what power has he to preach
peace ?”’ iii. 21. 10 médev cor peradiddvar TovTwy ww ox exes; “what power have
you to impart to others things you don’t yourself possess?”’ Sometimes 7é@ev is
without a verb, as in Epict. iii. 24. 70 “‘ Who then has authority over me? Philip,
or Alexander, or Perdiccas or the Great King? Whence do they get it (160er
avrois)?”? Ini. 19.9 a tyrant says ‘*I will shew you that I am your lord,” and
570
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS _ [2737]
[2737] The evidence from Luke and from the Acta Pilati}
indicates that John is not inventing a saying for Pilate but is
utilising, in a form quite different from Luke’s, a tradition that
the Roman governor asked some question about Christ’s origin.
the philosopher replies ré@ev oJ ; and in iii. 1. 36 (see Schweig. Index) some Mss.
read the nom. 1é0ev yap éxetvos, but the best Mss. have éxelvw.
[2736 c] In Jn, wééev is freq. used by Christ to express His coming from
the Father, as in vili. 14 ol6a mé0ev 7APov Kal mov brdyw, bmets OE ovK oldaTE
mobev Epxomat 7 Tod brdyw, vii. 28 Kdue oldate Kal oldare méOev eiui. The Jews
are represented as using the phrase about Jesus in a local sense, vii. 27 TodTov
oldauev wdev early (2.e. His native place). They proceed, 6 dé Xpicrds drav
épxnrar ovdels yuwwoxer widev éoriv (a phrase quite distinct from the one implying
rejection or disowning in Lk. xiii. 25—7 (62s) ovK ofda buds wé0ev écré). How could
they make this last statement in view of the Jewish belief that the Messiah was to
be born in Bethlehem? or. Heb. (on vii. 27) refers to Jer. Berach. fol. 5. 1 and
to other traditions asserting that the Messiah, after being born, was snatched away
or hidden. Sanhedr. 97 a speaks of ‘* Messiah, treasure-trove, and a scorpion” as
three things that come when one does not think of them (comp. Lk. xvii. 20
“‘without observation”’), and the Jew in Justin’s Dialogue (77yf. 8) mentions a
belief that Messiah ‘‘if he is really born, is unknown and does not yet know his
own self, or possess any power, till Elias shall anoint him.” Traditions as to the
material and local ‘‘ whence” the Messiah was to come—on the clouds of heaven,
or riding on an ass down from Mount Olivet, or, as Tacitus says, ‘‘ from the East,”
or from Nazareth, or from Bethlehem—might so overshadow the spiritual
“whence,” that John might naturally desire to emphasize the latter.
1 [2737a] Luke, alone of the Synoptists, explains how such a question might
have arisen. He represents the Jews as using, concerning the origin of the
Christian heresy, the phrase (Lk. xxiii. 5) ‘‘ deginning from Galilee.” On this,
Pilate questions them and ascertains that Jesus came from the jurisdiction of
Herod |tetrarch of Galilee]. A rival tradition (in which the three versions of the
Acta Pilati (ix. 4) agree) says that the Jews mentioned, not Galilee, but ‘* Beth-
lehem,” as the implied birthplace, and mentioned Herod [the King] as having
sought for the infant Jesus. Pilate questions them as to whether this was the
Jesus whom ‘‘ Herod sought.”
[27374] Mk, in his description of Christ’s silence, has xv. 4 6 6é Il. raX\w
emnpwra avrov [Néywv] Ovk amokpivy ovdév; ibe mba cov Karnyopodcw (without
mention of previous silence). Mt., after mentioning Christ’s silence, has xxvii. 13
Tore héyer avT@ 6 II., OvK axovers mooa cov katauaprupovow; but here B has
ooa, D toca; the Acta Prlati—though reading tt ovro or tt ort or ‘Squid est quod
isti”’ here (ii. 2)—have, later on (ix. 5) ‘‘ thine own nation, or race, hath convicted
thee.” This would agree with John, “‘ ¢hzxe own nation...delivered thee up to me,
what hast thou done?” which Jn places at the beginning of the trial. ILé6ev,
which often means ‘‘for what cause?” ‘‘from what motive ?’”—might very well
come at the end of Pilate’s words thus: ‘‘ Dost thou not hear? Thine own people
accuse thee? Whence [zs this]?” If this were reported in the third person, kai
érnpwra airov ré0ev, or 76Gev nv, it might give rise to the tradition presented in
different forms by Lk., Jn, and Acta Pilati.
57.1
[2788] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
But it is far from sufficient to shew that Pilate uttered the Johannine
question. To understand its inner meaning we must go back to the
last words of Pilate’s previous dialogue with Jesus (xviii. 38) “What
zs truth?” and to the sequel—‘‘ Having said this he went out
again.” This does not imply (as Bacon assumes) that Pilate was
“‘jesting”; but it does imply that “he did not stay for an answer.”
Though we may be unable to believe that Pilate uttered the words—
at least in this abstract sense—it is easy to see the deep mystical
meaning capable of being attached to them as _ representing
the restless and unsatisfied scepticism of the upper classes
of the Empire. The Roman world asks the Truth to reveal itself,
and then, “goes out” from its presence without waiting for the
revelation. Hence, afterwards, when it asks the Truth a second
question, “Whence art thou?” the Truth is silent. The question
and the silence are dramatically appropriate. But this very appro-
priateness—suggesting that the Son of God was judicially hidden
from the eyes of the unjust judge—makes it likely that a symbolistic
evangelist would accept on slight evidence a non-historic tradition,
or interpretation of tradition, that lent itself to symbolism. This
likelihood combines with the divergence and confusion of all the
Gospel traditions at this point, and with the uncertainty as to the
witnesses of the dialogue between Christ and Pilate, so as to make
it impossible to feel sure that Pilate uttered the question in any
sense at all—least of all in the sense “What is thy parentage, human
or divine'?”
On xix. 17 Kpanioy Totton 6 (2412)
[2738] In xix. 17 «is tov Aeyopevov Kpaviov Térov, 8 Neyerat
"EBaiori ‘Todyoba' (marg. ToAy08), some ss. alter 6 to 6s, others
omit 6 Aéyerat, and Blass (p. 77) would read Kp. T., "Ep. dé I.
But the question is complicated by the fact that the same repetition
' [2737 c] The dialogue between Christ and Pilate is comparatively little quoted
by early Christian writers and is given in a confused form, in parts almost
amounting to a parody, by Acta Pilati. For example, Mk xv. 12 (Mt. xxvii. 22)
Tl oby movjow; addressed by Pilate to the Jews, appears, in all three versions of the
Acta (iv. 3), as addressed by him to /esus, A rl moujow co; (B) rl Oédeus
moijow go; Lat. “Quid faciam #67?” Cyprian Adv. Jud. § 6 quotes xix. 15
thus ‘‘Ignoramus qui sit hic, non enim est rex noster: habemus alium regem
Caesarem”—no doubt quoting from memory and perhaps blending ix. 29, but still
giving an insight into great possibilities of early confusion of the text. We have
seen above (27347¢) that perhaps even so late a writer as Chrysostom blends
an utterance of Pilate with an utterance of the High Priest.
572
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS _ [2739]
of Aey. is found in Mt. xxvii. 33 eis rérov Aeyopevov Todryoba, 6 (al. ds)
eotw Kpaviov Toros Xeyopevos (D om. Aeyouevos) where Mk xv. 22
has ézt tov ToAyobav torov (D térov ToAyoba), 6 éorw “pebeppnvervd-
pevos’ (marg. and D -épuevov) Kpaviov Téros, but Lk. xxiii. 33 (omitting
Todyo6a) has simply émi tov térov Tov KaXovpevov Kpaviov. Confusion
seems to have arisen from the fact that the place was really called
“Skull,” but was known to many Christians as The Place of the
Skull. The very extraordinary text in Mk (W.H. txt) seems to
mean “to the place [called] Golgotha which [word] is Place of Skull
rendered into [Hebrew],” making peepunvevdpevos agree with rozos !
For the most part an Aramaic word would be put first, then 6 éo7w,
and then the Gk equivalent. But in xix. 17 the Greek comes first,
and 6 may refer either (1) to Kpaviov as a Gk neuter noun, or (2) to
Kpaviov Tozov regarded as a place-name and therefore as neuter.
Having regard to the fact that this is a case where Lk. is omitting
and Jn intervening to support Mk-Mt., we must be prepared for a
mixture of traditions, and the safest plan seems to be to adopt
W.H.’s txt, though we must leave in doubt the precise antecedent
of o. The repetition of Aéyerar may indicate that the place was
(popularly) called (in Greek)” by one name and “ (correctly) called
in Hebrew” by another.
On an and e€xn interchanged (2414)
[2739] Since és av might be expressed by éav tus, some writers
might like, in the former phrase, to spell av as éév-—thus emphasizing
its conditional meaning and distinguishing it from av in apodosis.
On the other hand, writers that freely use av (as in classical Greek)
for ‘‘if” in protasis, would not recognise the use of this distinction.
John, alone of writers of N.T., uses av for “if”—almost, how-
ever, if not entirely, restricted to the phrase av tus. As he also
freely uses éav tus, it may be presumed that he uses av ts to express
the condition with less emphasis, so as to approximate to dotis av.
“Eav after a relative occurs frequently in Mark and Matthew, but
only in one passage of W.H.’s text of Luke (xvii. 33 os éav Cytyo7...
és 8 av drodécer). In John it occurs in xv. 7 6 édy OéAyTe (NS doa)
and in xxi. 25. As to the latter, see 2414 on the question whether
é€av means “if” or ‘“‘soever!.”
* [2739 a] In v. 19 ‘‘nothing, except,” ovdév, av uj, W.-H. read dy without
altern. on the authority of SB, but in both mss. oyYAEN comes at the end of the
line, which, in their archetype, may very well have originally terminated with
BS
[2740] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
On xvii. 2 TAN 6 A€dWKAC (2422)
[2740] In xvii. 2 d0gacdv cov Tov vidv, iva 6 vids dofaoy o¢, Kabas
oyAée so that the second € was dropped and an at the beginning of the next
line was supposed to mean ‘‘if.” In xii. 32 W.-H. read kayo av bYw8G, without
altern., on the authority of B alone, but there again AN comes at the end of the
line. In the other instances, dv is followed by ts, xiii. 20, xvi. 23, XX- 23 (625).
In Acts ix. 2 dmws, édvy Twas, 8 reads ay at the end of a line. Chrys. quotes vill. 14
xdyv éy# correctly, and then kai éav éy# immediately afterwards. He also quotes
vi. 62 as av obv idnre (W.-H. édv oby Oewpijre).
[27394] As regards vi. 62 discussed in 2210—2, 2515, and just mentioned as
misquoted by Chrys. (in Migne) as ay o#v ténre—it should be added that Cramer
prints a version containing the context of Chrys. (ro ra dméppyra pépew eis pécov)
but having éay with indic. pres., €dv ofv Oewpeire. SS has ‘‘ but [what] if ye shall
see,” and the Latin versions have ‘‘videritis.” The indices give no reference to
this passage in the works of Clement of Alexandria, or Origen. Nonnus has et 6€
kev dOphanre...ri pékere TovTo wabdvres; not only paraphrasing the protasis with an
aorist subjunctive but also consistently supplying an apodosis in the future. These
facts increase the uncertainty of interpretation. But it still remains probable that
the difficult @ewpfre is the correct reading, corrupted by translators and com-
mentators into something that gives a more intelligible and materialistic meaning
than the evangelist himself intended. According to Johannine usage, éav Gewpijre
should mean either ‘‘éf ye be at this moment beholding,” or ‘‘if ye be found in the
day of visitation beholding.”
[2739] An omission may be here supplied as to the Johannine use of ay with
indic. in apodosis touched on in 25664. Outside Jn, Bruder (1888) gives 70
instance of dv before a pause in N.T., the nearest approach being Mt. xxiv. 43
eypnyopnoev av kal ox ay elacev...where Bruder inserts a comma after the first av,
but W.H. rightly omit it, and the parall. Lk. xii. 39 has in W.H. txt éypnydpncev
ay kal ovx apfxev, but marg. simply ovK dv dpjxey. Jelf § 431, in a page on “the
position of dy,” gives no instance of dy at the end of a clause. But (26. § 432) in
a page on “the repetition of dv” he gives a large number of instances where it is
repeated in order to emphasize the condition. In a few of these (not distinguished
by Jelf from the rest) dv comes before a pause, Aesch. Ag. 340 ov rav...dvOadoiev
dv, Eur. Hipp. 961 riod’ ay yévowr’ dv, Hec. 359 lows ay...rixow av. Jelf adds
Plato 31 A bets 5 lows Tax’ ay...kpovoayres dy je...padlws av dmoxrelvaire, elra Tov
Aourdv Blov Kabevdovres duaredoir’ dv. But there (ira being equiv. to *‘and then”)
diareXotr’ dv seems to be parall. to dv dmoxrelvacre so that dy is not reduplicated.
This passage, then, resembles xiv. 28 éxdpynre dy and xviii. 36 jywrifovro av
quoted in 25664 as placing a non-reduplicated dy at the end of a clause. No
doubt there are other instances in Greek, but Jelf does not mention any and they
are probably rare.
[2739] As regards the position of dy in viii. 19, xiv. 7 Tov marépa mov av
joecre (where Bruder, 1888, has dy final), it follows the rule (Jelf § 431- 2) that ay
is generally joined to the predicate, as in @Aeyor dv, or to ‘that member of the
sentence on which most emphasis ts laid.’ What is peculiar to these two
Johannine passages is that the ‘‘»emder” is not here a single word (as in ovk dy,
méda dv, Tax’ dv, radr dv) but a phrase, Tov warépa ov.
574
en
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS _ [2740]
edwKas ato eLovotay Tacs Gapkos, iva Tay 6 dédMKas aiTd ducer adrois
Conv aidviov, there are striking variations in the Mss., in Chrysostom,
Nonnus, and Epiphanius, who repeatedly reads 80s for dwoet!.
Origen’s comment is lost; but elsewhere he blends xvii. 11 with
XVil. 21 mdtep aye, dos iva... in a manner resembling the tradition of
Epiphanius?. %O, ray 6, and dvoya 8, with the aorist or perfect of
“sive,” occur frequently in John, and seldom without important
variations. Sometimes the neuter is changed to the masculine; or the
clause about “giving,” or the word ‘‘name,” is omitted, so as to
substitute ‘“ e that gave” for “that which he gave,” “those whom
”
1 [2740a] W.H. have kxad&s edwxas ait@ é£ovciay mdons capkds, va wav
6 d€dwxkas airw Swoe a’rots fwhy aiwviov. Some MSS. read dwon, dwow and dus.
D has ex for déce avrots, and some conflation of these two readings (dws being
spelt (2114) as dos) might give rise to a tradition dos ev [e]avras exew which
Epiphanius (Resch) five times repeats (e.g. Epiph. 753 A aer. Ixix. 28 etc., pot
yodv 6 Kiptos: dos avrols (why éxew ev éavrots: ality O€ éoTw 7 aldvios §wi)...).
[27404] Chrys. appears to quote xvil. 2 in two forms, of which the first is va
mav 6 dédwkas a’T@ wi) awd\nTra. But perhaps “7 dwrdAyrar is not a quotation but
a preparatory paraphrase ; ‘*‘ Aven as thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that
all that thou hast given him’—may not perish, for to benefit is always ‘glory’ to
God.” Later on, having explained that ‘‘ authority over all flesh” does not imply
authority over those that refuse to believe, he resumes the text correctly thus, iva
tay 6 débwkas adre@ dy avdrots {wiv aiwyiov. But he proceeds to apologize for it, as it
were, by saying that Jesus speaks here about Himself dv@pwaivwrepoy, whereas the
evangelist takes higher language. His meaning seems to be that Jesus says,
in effect, ‘‘the Father hath given me eternal life,’ whereas John says ‘*‘ He was
life,” and ‘“‘ He was light.” This implies the rendering “that all that He [the
Father] hath given to Him [to the Son] He [the Son] may give to them—[xamely]
eternal life.”
[2740 c] Nonnus has...@s wépes ait@ DapKos bAns Bporéns mpuuryorov nyroxevew
BovAowat civ evi mavras, dcols Tapos wmracas aités, Zwhy Oectreciny aidvioy auduro-
Neve "Odpa ce ywwwoxwor Oedv wovorv...‘* I desire that in unity (ety évi) all on whom
‘thou thyself by preordinance (dpos) hast bestowed it may follow after eternal life,
in order that they may know....”” Comp. xvii. 11 Typyoov abrods év Te dvduati
gov @ [where he read oiis] d€dwxds por, which he paraphrases as ¢vdagov
oudgppovas. The two passages suggest that Nonnus vaguely felt that these phrases
about ‘‘giving’’ were connected with the unity of the Church and might be
rendered by ‘‘at one” and ‘‘likeminded.” Also, in xvii. 2 he seems to have read
@ dédwxas avr for 6 dédwkas avo.
* [27407] Lomm. xiii. 304 mdtep aye, dds va Kabws eyw Kai od &y éowev (and
sim. Lomm. xxy. 54) and xiv. 118, with ‘“‘I ask” for ‘‘ give,” ‘‘ Pater sancte, 7og0
ut sicut ego....”.. These quotations blend xvii. 11 with xvii. 21. They may have
arisen from regarding iva as meaning ‘‘ Oh, that!” ‘‘ Would that!” In xvii. 2,
wa following the imperat. défacov may have been taken as meaning [‘‘ Do this,
I pray thee] in order that,” or ‘‘[I desire that thou wouldest do this] in order that,”
and hence Nonnus may have rendered it Bod\ouat.
575
[2741] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
thou hast given” for “‘¢hat which thou hast given” etc. Sometimes
the word “give,” sometimes the whole clause about “giving,” is
omitted. The Latin translations of Origen repeatedly exhibit these
deviations ; and even in Christ’s utterance to the Samaritan woman
“If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith unto thee,
‘Give me to drink,’” the translation of Origen omits the italicised
words’.
[2741] Most unfortunately, Origen’s Greek comment is missing
on almost every one of the passages where this difficult phrase
occurs. But textual evidence and antecedent probability support
W.H. in retaining 6 against 6s and ovs, and indicate that the phrase
“that which thou hast given me,” even when it denotes the Church,
points back to the unity between the Father and the Son and to the
unity between God and man. Origen, in his commentary on
Romans (xvi. 20 ‘The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ”), says, “the
grace of God and the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ is to be taken
as one and the same, ‘ for as the Father maketh alive whom he will,
the Son also (et) maketh alive whom he will’; and ‘As the Father
hath life in himself, to the Son also (et) he hath given to have life in
himself’: so also the grace that the Father gives the Son too gives”:
he adds, “‘Gratia ergo est, quicquid habet is, qui non fuit, et est,
accipiens ab eo, qui semper fuit, et est, et erit in aeternum?.”
[2742] These words of Origen’s explain not only why the word
“give” occurs more frequently in John than in the Synoptists but
also why it is applied by him so frequently to the Father and to the
Son. What “grace” is in the Pauline Epistles, “gzvzmg” is in the
1 [2740 ec] Comp. xvii. 24 rarnp, 6 dédwxds mor, OéX\w Wa Grov elul éyw KadKetvot
gow mer’ é€uod, a very difficult passage but susceptible of a mystical rendering
(2741). The words 6 dédwxds wor are omitted in the Latin transl. of Origen
in eomm> vi. 3935) vile O25) X- 205,13 70,0 s1o 555 XI 2a (cE EKVAO eis eXVlle ene
érhpovv avrovs év T@ dvdmatl cov @ dédwKds mor Kal Epdaka Kal ovdels EF adTGv
amwero el w7y..., is rendered (Lomm. vi. 104) ‘‘Omnes, inquit, quos dedisti mihi
servavi et nullus ex eis periit...”: iv. 10 el 7deus THY Swpeadv Tod Oeod Kal rls éorw is
(vi. 199) ‘‘ Si scires quis est....””
* [2741 a] Origen here blends Jn y. 21 and v. 26 (Lomm. vii. 448). According
to this view, if xdpis is received only by a human being (‘‘qui non fuit et est”),
as distinct from a divine one, we might expect some evangelists to prefer not
to use such expressions as Lk. ii. 40, 52 about Christ, although Origen accepts
and explains them as applying to Christ’s human nature. Jn and Lk., alone
of the evangelists, use xdpis. And both apply it to Christ. But they apply it
very differently (1775).
576
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS [2742 |
Fourth Gospel. The Father is represented above as “giving” to the
Son ‘‘¢o have life in himse/f” and also the power of ‘“ making alive.”
That which the Son “makes alive” is the Church. The Father,
therefore, virtually “gzves” the Church to the Son. Elsewhere, it is
implied that the Father has “ given” His “‘ zame” to the Son (xvii. 12
“thy name that thou hast given me”), that is, the essential being of
the true Son of God. This implies unity with the Father (“I and
the Father are one” etc.) and the possession of the love of the
Father (xv. 10 “‘ye will abide in my love...I abide in his love,” xvii. 26
“that the love wherewith thou lovedst me may be in them and I| in
them”). There is also a gift of peace, a peace above the peace of
the world (“‘ My peace I give unto you—not as the world giveth ”).
When, therefore, the Son prays to the Father for the disciples ‘‘ Keep
them 7x ¢hy name that thou hast given me,” He means “keep them in
thy love and peace, at one with me, as I am with thee.”
1 [2742a] The ‘‘e7ving”’ of the Father to the Son is connected with the
following nouns or phrases :—iii. 34 “the Spirit,” ii. 35 ‘‘all things,” v. 22 ‘‘all
judgment,” v. 26 ‘‘to have life in himself,” v. 27 ‘‘authority to do judgment,”
v. 36 ‘‘the works that the Father hath given me,” vi. 37 ‘‘all that the Father is
giving (or, giveth) to me,” vi. 39 ‘‘all that he hath given to me,” x. 29 (W.H. txt)
‘¢my Father, that which he hath given to me,” xii. 49 ‘‘ He (av7és) himself hath given
me commandment what J should say,” xiii. 3 ‘‘the Father gave all things into his
hands,” xiv. 31 “even as the Father gave me commandment”’ (following the words
“that the world may know that I love the Father”). Here Tisch. and Alf. read
éverelhaTé wot with ADS. Nonnus too—who in xii. 49 has (eldwpov éxw mapa
marpos épetunv—has here xuBepyntipt marnp emerédXero mw. It is certainly
strange that no Mss. should alter “‘ give commandment” in xii. 49 and that so many
should alter it here. But éverelAaro so distinctly means the commandment of
a law-giver or master (e.g. Mk xiil. 34) that it is difficult to believe that John could
have used it here.
[2742 6] There remain the instances in the Last Prayer :—xvii. 2 ‘‘thou gavest
him authority over all flesh,” zd. ‘‘that all that thou hast given to him he should
give to them eternal life,” 24. 4 ‘“‘having perfected the work that thou hast given
to me that I might do it,” 2d. 6 “the men that thou gavest me out of the world
...thine they were and thou gavest them to me,” 7d. 7 ‘all things as many
as thou gavest (marg. hast given) me are from thee,” 2d. 8 “the words that thou
gavest (marg. hast given) me,” 2.9 “‘I ask...about them that thou hast given me,”
7b. tt “*keep them in my name that thou hast given me,” 2d. 12 “‘I was keeping
them in thy name that thou hast given me,” 2d. 22 ‘‘the glory that thou hast given
me,” 2d. 24 ‘Father, that which (6) thou hast given me, I will that where I am
they also may be with me,” 2d. 24 ‘‘that they may be beholding the glory that is
mine [the glory] that thou hast given (marg. gavest) to me,” xviii. g ‘‘those whom
thou hast given me I haye not lost [a single] one (ovdéva) of them” (referring
to xvil. 12), 26. 11 ‘“‘the cup that the Father hath given me.” There is nothing
tidy We SHI 37
[2743 | NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
[2743] Nonnus paraphrases the words ‘the Father hath life in
himself” as “provideth the a//-motherly life of the world (rappntopa
Koopov Cwyv),” an epithet applied to the Earth by Aischylus (Prom.
go) and Philo. As the Psalmist says (Ps. cxlv. 16) “Thou
openest thy hand and satisfiest the desire of every living thing,” so
Philo (i. 32) says that the poets were right to call the earth ‘“All-
mother,” and that “‘ Nature has bestowed on her, as being the most
ancient and fruitful of mothers, the streams of rivers and fountains,
like breasts,’—a saying that would appeal to worshippers of the
‘“‘many-breasted” image of ‘‘ Diana of the Ephesians.” Another epithet
of the earth was Pandora, the All-giver, applied by Philo to the earth
in the passage just quoted, and by Cleanthes (in the masculine) to
Zeus. In the Sermon on the Mount, our Lord refers to the Father
as the Giver of the sunshine and the rain. Elsewhere He speaks of
the Father as giving (Mt. vil. 11) ‘‘ good gifts” to them that ask Him.
For “ good gifts” the parallel in Luke (xi. 13) substitutes “the Holy
Spint.” John (iv. 10) speaks of “the gift of God,” meaning ‘‘the
living Water,” which must be interpreted as the Holy Spirit. The
Spirit, as being God’s “gift,” and ‘‘the gifts of the Spirit,” are
mentioned throughout the Epistles. When John describes the
Father as “giving” the bread of heavenly life and the water of the
Holy Spirit to men, and also as giving life in Himself, and in His
Name, to the Son, he appears to be attempting to raise his readers
above formal notions about ‘grace (xdpis)” and ‘‘reward (u060s),”
into a high spiritual sphere where God is regarded not only as the
All-giver, but also as the Self-giver, so that “that which he hath
given” to the Son means not only this or that divine attribute, but
the Pleroma or Fulness, of all the divine attributes,—the Father
giving His own Fulness to the Son, and, through the Son, dis-
pensing gifts from His Fulness to men. This language would be
intelligible to Greeks as well as Jews and would avoid the notion of
“* favouritism” suggested by the word “grace” or “favour” in Greek’.
like this in the Synoptists exc. Mt. xxviii. 18 ‘‘all authority is given to me in
heaven and upon the earth.”
1 [2743] Epictetus, like John, prefers to speak of God as ‘‘giving” rather
than to speak of His grace or xdapis. He twice (i. 16. 15 Schweig. n. ‘ beneficia,”
ii. 23. 2) uses the pl. (as Philo does, 2285 4, ¢) to mean God’s ‘‘gifts” to man; but
he much more frequently uses the sing. and then it almost always means “ gratitude”
(mostly from man to God), e.g. iii. 5. 10 viv we eNews arrehOely Ex THs mavnyipews ;
eo xdpw co txw macav bre jilwoas we ouumravnyuploa oot. On the doctrine that
578
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS _ [2744]
[2744] If this was John’s meaning, we can understand why he
may have in some cases strained the Greek language to suggest,
without too sharply defining, all that the Son of God implied when
He spoke of the Father as “gzvzmg.” For example, x. 29 6 raryp pov
‘6 dedwKev por ravtwv peilov éotw’, if it refers to the Church as being
the new-created Cosmos, may mean that the Church includes (and is
therefore “greater than’’) all things, or superior to all enemies. But
it may also refer to the redeeming Love of the Father—to the (Eph.
iu. 18—1g) “breadth and length and height and depth” of the love
of God in Christ ‘“‘which passeth knowledge,” by which the Church
is “filled unto all the fulness of God.” At the same time it suggests
the Father as a Fountain of Giving—‘ Zhe Father, that which hath
given to me”—a Being that desires to be known as “the Being that
gives'.”. We can also understand how some found difficulty in the
thought as well as in the Greek. The reception of gifts, they may have
said, is “grace”; and then they may have added, with Origen (2741),
“‘Grace, or the reception of gifts, belongs to man, who once was not,
and now is (qui non fuit, et est)—receiving from Him that ever was
and is and shall be to all eternity.” The inference followed that
Christ was zo¢ to be regarded as a recipient of “gifts?” This, as
well as the crabbed Greek, may have caused the corruption of the
‘fa man has nothing that he has not received from God’’ no Christian teacher
can be more fervid (iv. 1. 103) ‘‘And after all this, canst thou—having received
everything from Another, yea, even thine own self’s self (kal a’rdv ceavrdy)—canst
thou, I say, chafe against and chide 4/77 that gave (Tov dovra) if He take aught away
from thee? Who art thou [to dare this]? And for what hast thou come [into this
world]? Did not //e (éxetvos) bring thee on the stage (ela7jyayev)? Did not He
shew thee the light? Did He not gzve thee fellow-workers? Senses? Reason?
And in what character did He bring thee on the stage (ws riva 6€ eionyayev;)?
Was it not as a mortal?... Art thou not willing, then, after beholding the procession
for as long a time as hath been given to thee...to depart with homage and thank-
fulness for the things thou hast heard and seen?”
1 [2744a] For example, in xvii. 24 ‘‘ Father, that which thou hast given me,
I desire that where I am they also may be with me,” it seems probable that the
italicised words mean something more than ‘‘as for that portion of the human race
which thou hast given me.” They suggest a spiritual conception that puts the
reader on his guard against supposing that ‘‘ wth me” means ‘‘zn the same place
with me,” instead of meaning in the unity of the Giver and the Receiver, the
Father and the Son,
* [2744 5] Comp. Eph. iv. 8 ‘ Having ascended on high.../e gave gifts to men.”
This is from Ps. lxviii. 18 ‘Thou hast vecezved gifts among men,” LXX édaBes
Oouara év advOparw. The Targum however paraphrases with St Paul (Walton)
**Docuisti verba Legis, dedzsté dona filiis hominum.”
579 BY ae
[2745] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
Johannine doctrine expressed in wav 6 dédwxe, which teaches that it
is the glory of the Son to receive everything from God and to give
everything to man’.
On vi. 5 T08eN AropacwmeNn (¥.F. -OMEN)+ (2428)
[2745] Chrysostom, after explaining why Christ selected Philip as
the disciple to be questioned, drops ‘‘ézy” and inserts “so many” in
the question thus, ‘ And see what He saith (kai opa ti pyow éxeivos),
Whence |can there come| to us so many loaves that these may eat (robev
nev apto. To~odToL iva paywow ovto.;)?” Later on he describes che
disciples as having been, at first, so unbelieving as to say, “‘ Whence
shall we buy loaves (70bev ayopdcopev aprovs;)?”—words that occur
nowhere in N.T. except in vi. 5 (v.r.), which assigns them to Chr7s??.
1 [2744] In support of the masc. reading ods in xvii. 12 érjpouy abrods év TG
évéuart cov ois (for W.H. @) dé5wxds por...kai ovdels €& adr&v dmwderOo...it may be
urged that Jn himself refers to the words thus xviii. g ‘‘the word that he said, ‘ Zose
whom (ots) thou hast given me I have lost (47w#\eca) not one of them.’” To this
however it may be replied that, if the quotation had been intended to be exact,
amwXeTo would have been repeated. It is not exact. It refers to the general tenor
of Christ’s prayer for His disciples (xvii. 1—26) in which wy dédwxas, 6 dédwxas,
@ dédwxas, and @ d6édwkas occur in connexion with His thought of them. In
particular, John may be referring to xvii. g—12 épwr@...mepl dv dé5wKds pot...dT€
Hunv per airav éyw érjpovy abtovs...kal ovdels €& at’rav dmw\ero. Nonnus para-
phrases xviii. g as Tovtwy ob dev 6Nwa (v.r. -Ae) TA Woe WOpes, and xvii. 12 as Adds OAoUuS
éptaccov amnjpovas: ovdé Tis alT&v [Ovs mopes viet cot Bporéns cwrjpe yevéOdns]
"Qdero. He appears, as elsewhere, to have taken ‘‘in thy name, which thou hast
given me” to mean vaguely ‘‘in peace and unity” (which he expressed by ‘‘whole
and entire, unharmed”), An interpolator has added something about ‘‘giving””—
*‘which thou didst give to thy Son the Saviour of the race of mortals.”
* [2745 a] Chrys. says, in the context, (1) ‘‘ The other evangelists say that the
disciples came to [Jesus] and questioned and besought so that He should 7zo¢ send
them away fasting (épwrav cal wapakxadely wore wh dmohOoa adTods yjcres): but
this one [John] introduces [the fact] that Philip was asked by Christ (obros 6é
eladyet Tov P. épwrnOjvat apa Tov Xpiorov).” (2) Then, after assigning to Christ
the question, ‘* Whence [are there] to us so many loaves that these may eat?” he
proceeds, ‘*So also in the Old Testament He said to Moses. For He did not
work the sign till He had asked him, Whad ever (ri more) is in thy hand?” Here
we should have expected a reference to the question of Moses (Numb. xi. 13)
** Whence (is there] to me flesh to give to all this people?”’ But he quotes Ex. iv. 2
** What ts this (ti rovr6 éorw) in thine hand?’’—which does not seem to apply to
anything in the Feeding of the Five Thousand (unless it refers to the tradition
peculiar to Mk vi. 38 ‘‘ How many loaves have ye?” comp. 1 S. xxi. 3 ‘‘ Now
therefore what is zsader thine hand? Give me five loaves....”) (3) Chrys. continues,
**And having been asked he answereth (kai épwrnfels droxplverat) saying, Loaves
of [the value of| two hundred denarii suffice not that each should take a little.
But this he said tempting him, for he himself knew what he was intending to do.”
580
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS [2747]
Nonnus has “dzy” (in a different word—zpidpecOa, not ayopacwper)
but introduces ‘‘so many” in connexion, not with the loaves, but with
the people, “whence are we [to be] buying an abundance of loaves for
so many men (roocartioww.) ?”
[2746] Origen nowhere quotes vi. 5. Nor does he refer to
Christ’s question about “buying ”—though he refers more than once
to “buying food,” on the part of the disciples, as signifying the
attempt (and failure) to obtain spiritual truth’. He certainly regarded
the bread in the Feeding of the Five Thousand as having a
Eucharistic meaning, and as signifying the flesh or body of Christ.
But, if he accepted, as Christ’s, the question, “‘ Whence are we to buy
loaves ?” he would probably interpret it as mystically meaning (in
accordance with a frequent meaning (2736 a, 4) of ‘‘Whence?”) that
the Bread could not be bought. It was bread stamped with the sign
of the Cross, or imbued with its savour, g7vex by the Lamb of God
“without price*.”
On the non-use of some active perfects (2441 a)
[2747] The best illustration of the non-use of active perfects, as
compared with the use of passives, is to be found in xrilw “create,”
There can be no doubt that ‘‘he said’? here means “‘ H said,” that is, Christ. But
the extract, with the words so strangely transposed, shews how easily ‘‘said,
tempting him,” might form part of a tradition that Philip or some other disciple
‘tempted ” Christ, by questioning Him as Moses questioned God. In ‘‘so that
He should of send them away fasting,” uj seems to be a corrupt insertion:
‘*The disciples, 2 effect, said to Christ, ‘Send them away fasting.’” Or else
Chrys. has attributed to the disciples the expression of Christ’s own feeling,
*‘T am unwilling to send them away fasting.” This commentary—which is the
earliest we possess on the Johannine miracle—must be described as chaotic.
1 [2746 a] Origen on Mt. xiv. 15 represents Christ as saying to the disciples, in
effect, “These people ave need of me, not of food from the villages.” <A little
before this, he speaks of “the bread” and ‘‘the cup” of the Lord, and illustrates
Christ’s healing of the sick before the miracle, by. reference to 1 Cor. xi. 30
“For this cause [i.e. desecration of the Eucharist| many of you are weak and sickly.”
When the disciples abandon Jesus near Sychar, Origen says (on iv. 8) that they
had gone into the city ‘to buy food or [in other words]—having found agreeable
food among the heterodox—doctrines of a sort that suited them (Adyous tivas
apudfovras).”
2 [2746 4] Comp. Clem. Alex. 75—6 on Is. lv. 1 ‘‘ without price,’ where the
bastard or son of perdition is said to ‘‘buy for money” what the true child of God
receives ‘‘ without price,” created by God for the child’s *‘ echaristic banquets (rats
evxapioros Tpupais).” A connexion between the Bread and the Cross was traced
from the LXX of Jer. xi. rg ‘‘let us cast wood into his bread,” éuBadwuev Edo ets
Tov dprov a’tod, by Origen (ad Joc.) as well as by Justin Martyr (77yp%. 72).
Origen illustrates it by the wood cast by Moses into the bitter water,
581
[2748 | NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
applied to the Creator throughout the whole of the Greek Testament
and frequently used in the perfect passive, ektstar’, but never in the
active, éktuxa. Prof. Jannaris (Gk Gr. p. 189) gives €xrixa, without
reference. L.S. give “Kéxrtika Diod.” Diod. Sic. Index gives no
such instance. But Steph. gives “ Perf. xextixéevac tHv “Pownv ap.
Diodor. (ex Georg. Syncell.) vol. 2, p. 636, 67.” This may be
corrupt, but it is instructive. The rule is that when a verb begins
with «rt the perfect should begin with ext: but it is broken with
krdowat. Whoever wrote «kextixévat may have thought himself
entitled to break it with «rim. All other Greek writers (so far as
Steph. alleges) appear to have left the active perfect of xri¢w alone.
And yet there are abundant cases in LXX where the passive perfect
is used and where the active perfect would have been, though not
necessary, at all events suitable, as in Ps. Ixxxix. 12 “Thou hast created
the north and the south,” where the LXX has éxrucas.
[2748] Take also fyréw and épi~o. Veitch quotes Dinarchus
for éGjrnxa—non-occurrent in Aristoph., Demosth., Aristot., O.T.,
N.T. and Steph., though the latter mentions {yretrac and eljrnrac
as frequent in scholiasts. Its use by Dinarchus accords with the
unfavourable judgment pronounced on him by Dionysius. The
active perfect of dpiCw occurs once in Demosth. (doubtful), once in
Aristot., never in N.T.; the passive perfect is frequent’.
[2749] In support of the statement that “the perfect sometimes
stands for the aorist even in 4 |i.e. Classical Antiquity]” Jann. p. 439
quotes (a) “Thue. i. 21 ovre ws rourtai tyviKace...ovTE ws Aoyoypadou
évvbecayv,” (6) “Demosth. 7, 29 THv xwpav iv ot “EXAnves kai
Bacirre’s 6 Hepodv efyndicavto Kai wpodoynxacw twerepav civar,”
and, for post-classical Greek, (c) “ Polyb. iii. I. 2 €v 7 Tpitn BYBrw”
(Schweig. BiBrAw) “ dednAWKapev Opoiws S€ Kal Tas airias év avr?
éxeivy Stecapyoapev.” But, in (a), the perf. expresses the permanent
works of the ancient poets regarded as a present possession for their
posterity, while the aorist refers to comparatively recent compila-
tions, with perhaps a special allusion (Classen) to Herodotus. In
1 (2747 a] Comp. Col. i. 16 év abr@ éxricOn Ta mwavra...7ad wdvTa...els abrov
éxrutrat. The distinction here drawn between “were created” and “ have been
created” might (it would seem) be just as logically made between ‘‘thou didst
create” and ‘‘thou hast created.” But it is not made anywhere in the Gk Test. by
the use of the act. perf. of xrifw.
2 (2748@] Asan instance of variation, note the abnormal perf. in Eurip. /p/.
Aul. 595 éB\aorhKact, but the normal pluperf. in Thue, iii. 26 €BeBNacrijKet.
582
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS [2752]
(6),—beside the fact that the perf. of WydiGouae in active sense
(Steph.) appears to be extremely rare or non-existent—the aorist of
w. naturally expresses fast decrees, and the perf. wWyodoyyxacw the
resultant, permanent, and Present agreement. In (c), there is no
reason for saying that Polybius uses dednAdkapev for édyAvoapev'. It
would be less misleading to say that, as the perf. act. of diacadew
was very rare (in Steph. it is non-existent) and the aorist very
frequent, he used ¢he aorist, duecadyoaper, for the perfect, Siaceca-
gyxapev. But we may give both tenses their several value thus:
“T have indicated above...and similarly I clearly shewed.” In English,
we should often prefer to use the past thus, after the complete
present ; and Polybius, too, may have preferred it.
[2750] Again, Jann. p. 439 alleges from Mt. xiii. 46, and
Hermas, ‘‘and so on in all post-Christian compositions,” a number
of perfects, including zézpaxe, “he sold,” to illustrate “the full
development of this usage” of the perfect for the aorist ‘during the
latter part of G [the Graeco-Roman period].” But wurpackw never
had an active aorist from the beginning of Greek literature—so that
the use of its perfect as aorist cannot prove ‘‘ development.”
[2751] Jann. p. 439 also refers, for further illustrations of this
pdevelopment,jto.“Hebr 11, 17.) Cp John’ 4, 6.63.76) ofan In
iv. 6, Kexomaxws means “being completely tired out.” In vi. 3,
éxa@ynro is not a perfect and has no manifest bearing on the point ;
the other reference is perhaps a misprint. In Heb. xi. 17 aiore
mpocevynvoxev “ABpaap tov “loadKx metpalopevos, Kal tov povoyevp
mpooedepev, the contrast between the perfect and the imperfect is
most instructive. The perf. means that Abraham, through God’s
guidance, as offered up the typical sacrifice just as Moses (Heb.
xl. 28) “has instituted (rerotyxev)” the typical Passover, and it is one
of many perfects (see Westc. on Heb. vil. 6 dedexatwxev) shewing
that the writer regarded Biblical events as present possessions for
those who accept the Bible as God’s word. See 2758.
[2752] Jann. p. 439 alleges only one instance of the “perf. for
aorist” from LXX, “ Ex. xxxil. 1 Kai idev 6 Nads Gre Kexpovixe Mavorfis
n A ” , ” , « > Nous:
KataPnvar ék Tov opous, avertn” (Swete cvveatn) “6 Aads éxi ’Aapwr.”
1 [2749 a] In English we should more often say ‘‘ I have shewn above that this
is the case” than ‘‘I shewed.” Demosthenes (Preuss) uses de5%\wxa five times,
never €d7\woa. The Index to Polybius gives il. 22. 11 dedyA@Kauev but no
instance of €dnAdcapmev.
583
[2753] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
This might have been illustrated by Tob. x. 4 where Tobit’s mother
says to her husband, arwAeto 7d matdiov ditt Kexpovixev “ He must
be dead because he has been |so| long |away],” i.e. “he is putting oft
his coming” (comp. 20. ix. 4 “my father counteth the days”). Here
the perf. is clearly zot used for an aorist but rather for a present.
A close examination of Ex. xxxii. 1 shews that the perf. is there, too,
used rather as a present than an aorist, somewhat like Jn vi. 24 ore
ovv €ldev 0 OxXAOs OTL “Inoods ovK eotw exec (2466 (i)). Ex. xxxil. 1
means, in effect, “When the people saw [what was happening and
said| Moses zs disappointing us, or, not keeping to his time.”
[2753] These details have been discussed in order to shew the
futility of the attempt to judge Johannine by Byzantine Greek (in
which the perfect is unquestionably sometimes used for the aorist).
In criticizing the Fourth Gospel, credit must be given by the critic
to the evangelist for a careful use of tense forms above, not below,
the average of Greek authors. John may occasionally use an aorist
where Englishmen would use a perfect or a pluperfect: but such
uses will be found to be in accord with the rules of contemporary
Greek, written or vernacular. And the notion that he “uses” one
Greek tense “for” another Greek tense must be shunned as an zgnzs
fatuus*.
1 [2752 a] So Buhl 97a ‘‘beschaimt machen.” Gesen. Oxf. ror 6 ‘‘delay in
shame.” Jer. Targ. adds ‘‘ when they saw that the time he had appointed to them
had passed.”
* [2753 a] These facts illustrate such passages as xil. 19 le, 6 Kdomos drricw
avtod amndOev (R.V.) ‘‘ Lo, the world is gone after him,” where the rendering
“7s gone’? may seem to demand dmedndvdev, so that, if R.V. is right, some might
say ‘‘here we have a case where Jn uses one Gk tense for another.” Certainly,
it can hardly be maintained that the Pharisees mean ‘‘the whole of Jerusalem
went after him (a few hours ago when he rode into the City)”: but the following
facts shew that Jn could not have said dmedjA\vley because, besides being ex-
tremely rare, it had acquired a special meaning, which would have been unsuitable
here.
[2753 4] ’ArredNjAvOa does not occur once, in any form of the indicative perfect, in
the whole of Aristophanes and Demosthenes. The Oxf. Conc., amid more than
three columns of different forms of amépyouat, gives (as far as I have found) xo
Sorm of amednrv0a except in 2 S. iii. 22—4 “S He [z.e. David] had sent him [2.e.
Abner] away and he had gone away (ameAnd’Gec) in peace..., they told Joab
saying, ‘Abner...came to the king, and he hath sent him away (a7éora\xev) and
he went away (adm7dOev) in peace.’ Then Joab came to the king and said, ‘ What
hast thou done...Why is it that thou hast sent him away (éfamréoradxas, sent him
right away) and he 7s quite gone (amedjdvev év elpyvy) 2?” Here (besides repeating
“in peace,” which does not bear upon the point in question) the LXX clearly uses
584
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS [2755]
On the ‘‘gnomic”’ aorist (2445 a)
[2754] Jelf § 402. 1 says that the aorist ‘is used to express an
action which took place repeatedly in past time,” and goes on to say
that ‘“‘the imperfect also has an iterative force.” I should prefer to
say that the so-called ‘‘gnomic” aorist tells the hearer simply and
indefinitely that “so-and-so happened,” leaving him to take the hint
and to zufer that it will happen again. Z/zs “gnomic,” “empiric,” or
“suggestive” aorist is quite different from the aorist of instantancousness.
[2755] Special contexts, however, may make it doubtful whether
an aorist is “‘evomic” or “instantaneous.” ‘Thus Jann. p. 436 places
under empiric or gnomic aorists, and Jelf § 403. 2 under aorists that
“‘express future events which must certainly happen,” Demosth. 20, 9
which describes how, when a tyrant has attained power through
the perf. dedj\vdev emphatically to represent the emphatic Hebrew (lit.) ‘‘ going
hath gone,” i.e. ‘‘is quite gone,” or ‘* gone for good,” ** gone past recall.” [For
the same reason the LXX puts into Joab’s mouth ééaréoraNkas ‘* sent him reght
away” as compared with the preceding dméoradkev ‘sent him away ’’—a distinc-
tion not in the Hebrew. ]
[2753c] As to N.T., though various forms of amépxouar occupy more than two
columns of Bruder, xo form of amedpdvOa occurs except in Jas i. 24 xatevdnoey yap
éaurov kal amehndvdev rendered by Mayor ‘‘just a glance and “e 7s off,” where the
perf. expresses the completeness of the action as well as the suddenness of it—‘“‘ he
zs gone for good.” Compare the Demosthenic use of é&épxoua; it occurs fre-
quently in the aorist indic. but only once (Preuss) in the perf. indic. (xxiii. 204)
concerning the good old habit of punishing the guilty, which éfed7Avdev éx Tis
modews, ‘‘has quite vanished out of the City.”
[2753 ¢] In xii. 19 aw#\Oev, SS has ‘‘goeth,” Nonnus ddever, ff ‘* sequitur,” —
indicating that the translators felt (as it was right to feel) that the aorist had more
than the usual aorist meaning. ’Ared/AvMev being out of the question, Jn has used
amjOev as the best Gk writers often use the aorist to include a meaning that
would be expressed in English by “ Zave.” Similarly our English aorist (‘I
saw’) includes meanings that would be expressed in French by a perfect (‘‘ I saw
him yesterday,” “je 7az vi hier”). But we should not admit that such a use of
““T saw” was ‘‘using one tense for another.” It is our regular tense in such
circumstances.
[2753 ¢] In xii. 19 ide, 0 Kdouos, SS, DL, latt., Nonnus, and other authorities,
add 6dos. Chrys. does not. But he cad/s attention to the fact that xbcpos is here
used in the sense of 6xdos. Possibly this may explain the remarkable prevalence of
the interpolated 6Xos. “Oxos may have been first placed in the margin, or above
the line, as an explanation of xéomos. ‘Then it may have been introduced into the
text so as to give 6 kécmos 6xNos—in which 6xXos was afterwards corrected to éXos.
Comp. Oxf. Conc. on 2 Mace. vi. 3 (R) 6xAaus (A, as in Swete, dAas). This view
is confirmed by the reading of ff, ‘‘ecce ces populus sequitur post illum,” ‘‘ che
multitude as one man.”
585
[2756 | NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
villainy, 7 zpwrn mpodacis Kal puxpov Traicpa amavta dveyatture
kai dvéAvoev. This should be compared with 24, 21 which says that,
while a state is waging a distant war, apavy Ta Kaka Tots TOAXOLs eoTWY,
ereday O€ O“opos TOAELOS GUMTAAKH TaVvTa eroinoev EKOnAa. Probably
the aorist in both passages is not “‘gnomic.” It does not however
seem to indicate certainty so much as instantaneousness ; and this is
confirmed by many other instances of the aorist in apodosis. The
essence of the “‘gnomic” aorist is that it expresses nothing but
indefinite past action. When the protasis defines the circumstances of
the action, e.g. by a clause with orayv, the aorist in the apodosis cannot
be “gnomic”—if ‘‘gnomic” (2754) implies an indefinite “happened.”
Consequently after a oray clause, an aorist, if it occurs where a present
might have been expected, may be used to denote instantaneousness'.
It is therefore possible that the instantaneous aorist in xv. 6 é€BA76n,
being preceded by the protasis éav py tus, may not be Hebraic,
though it is in accordance with Hebraic Greek. But, in any case,
the purely gnomic aorist of the type of //. ix. 320 KatOav opas 07
Gepyos avip 0 Te TOAAG eopywis is Certainly alien from the style of O.T.
and N.T. and probably non-occurrent in the latter.
On xii. 14 €YpaNn...0NApION (2461)
[2756] The Diatessaron omits the whole of the clause about
Christ’s finding the ass. SS omits “jfimding” (“Now Jesus was
riding on [an ass]”). Origen (Lomm. i. 316 foll.) points out that
the Johannine and the Synoptic accounts are, according to the letter,
inconsistent: but both he and Chrys. mention the “finding” by
Christ ; and Chrys. tries to reconcile it with the Synoptic account®.
* (2755 a] Comp. the following passages where a protasis with 67ay, el etc., de-
fines the circumstances: (a) Eurip. JZed. 130 elfous 6’ dras bray dpyicAy Saluwv
oikos amédwxev, (6) 76. 245 dvnp 6’ bray rots évdov &xXOnrac Evvay, ew moNcoy
éravoe Kapdiav tons, (c) Zl. xvii. gg ommoT dvnp €0édy...TAXa Ol wéya whua
KuNloOn, (d) Zl. ix. 413 el wey Kk’ adOe pévor...dupiudxwuat, Gero ev or vdcTos,
(e) Plato 462 D érav...ddxrudbs Tou TAHYH...1Taea H Kowwvla,..noGeTd Te.... Jelf
calls (a) and (4) aorists of iteration, but the rest aorists of certainty. I should be
disposed to say that the aorist, in all of them, denotes z7stantaneous consequence
implying certainty. Add Epict. iv. 10. 27 bray Oédgs, €EHOes ‘at the instant you
desire, you are out |of prison.” “Oray or jv is expressed by the participle in Soph.
Ant. 709 bors yap...ppoveiv ybvos Soxei,...obTo damruxbevres WPAncay Kevol.
2 [2756a| Chrys., m@s dé ol GAN Pacly dre wabnras Ereupe Kai elev, Avoare
Thy ovov Kal Tov m&Xov (Cramer, Tov m@Aov Kai Tov dvov), ovTos 5é obdev Tocodréyv
gnaw, aN bre'Ovdprov ebpwv érexdOcoev (Cramer, éxdOicev) ; “Ore dupébrepa yevér Oar
elkos nv, Kal, pera 7d AVORVaL THY bvov, aybyTwr Tov pmabnrdv edpdvTa avrov
586
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS [2757]
Nonnus omits ecipwv, but has i@vvwv'. The very great difficulty
implied in evpwyr and its frank acceptance by Origen—whose spiritual
interpretation of the text raises him above all danger of harmonis-
tically corrupting it—make it certain that evpwv is genuine. Some
may have omitted or corrupted evpwv for the sake of reconciling the
Johannine with the Synoptic account.
On xii. 16 EMNHCOHCAN OT! TAYTA...KAl TAYTA ETTOIHCAN (2469)
[2757] In xii. 16, R.V. renders x. érotnoay “and that they had
done,” making ézoijoav depend on the or in the preceding words,
OTL TadTa nv ex adiTa yeypappeva, and accordingly supplying “¢/az’
in English. But a second “that” is not inserted in the Greek, nor
in SS, nor in the Latin versions. Nonnus also (ed. Passow) has Kai
oi tadta TéAeooav at the beginning of a new sentence, pointing to
a reading of ézotyoav as independent of ore. If John had wished to
say “remembered ¢hat...and ¢ha‘¢,” there seems no obvious reason
why he should not have repeated o7u after kai, as he does elsewhere
when he wishes to say “‘decause (of)...and decause,” and once “that...
and fthat*.” Here, however, he may have wished to combine the
fact that ‘“‘these things had been written,” and the fact that the
émcxadioat. Chrys. omits the difficult Synoptic words ‘* Ye shad/ find an ass,” but,
even when they are omitted, how he can say that Christ ‘‘/ownd” what the
disciples brought to Him I cannot understand. No doubt, edpisxw, besides mean-
ing ‘‘ find” in the sense of ‘‘ discover,” means also ‘‘find” in the sense of ‘‘earn,”
**procure” : but can Chrys. possibly be suggesting that the disciples first ‘‘/oznd”
the ass in the former sense, and Christ afterwards ‘‘ found” it in the latter? Also,
it is not clear whether atrév émixafioa: means ‘‘ He Himself (emph.) sat on [it],”
or, ‘‘He (unemph.) sat on [it].” Previously Migne’s text has rd 6é [émi] dvov
(Cramer, 7d 6é dvov) ka@icat which Chrys. explains as a prediction that Christ
“*was destined to subject (i7roxetpov éxew) the unclean race of the Gentiles (rav
€6v@v).” Cramer’s text takes évoy as accus. gov. by xabioa
1 [2756 6] ‘ldvvwy axddwov dvov radaepyov ddirnv, Efbuevos vibrowrw ameipirovo
gopjos. Possibly i@vvwv is to be explained from poetic desire of symbolism, and
to be illustrated by Origen (Lomm. i. 331) who describes Christ as qvcox@v Tous éx
TeplTouns Kal EOvay miorevovras having previously mentioned the ‘‘ ass” as the type
of the Jews, and the ‘‘ colt” as the type of the Gentiles.
* (2757 a] Nonnus has, rére mdvres dveuvjoavro padnrai Orr copy rade mavTa
meer KeXapayuéva BiBrw. Kai oi ravra réXecoay.... Burkitt has ‘‘ they remem-
bered that these things had been written of him, and these things did they (xo,
they did) to him.” Walton, without inserting ‘‘ that,” removes ambiguity by the
Latin subjunctive “quod ea essent scripta de eo et haec fecissent ei.” In xiii. 3
(see below) ‘‘ knowing ¢hat...and that,” Syr. (Burkitt) has “ was knowing ¢ha¢...
and was knowing that.”
3 [2757 6] ii. 25 “because of (6ra 70)...and because (67t),” xiii. 3 ‘‘that (6rt)...and
that (6r),” 1 Jn ii. 21 ‘ because (6rt)...and because (6r).”
587
[2758] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
pilgrims or disciples “had done these things” in fulfilment of the
prophecy, as one fact of coincidence “remembered” by the disciples. He
also wishes (2396—7) to convey a suggestion of divine fulfilment of
prophecy by the triple repetition of “these things” in one sentence.
But it is not surprising that the words have been variously interpreted
and perhaps corrupted}.
On vi. 25 mote Gade reronac (2478)
[2758] It is of course possible that Nonnus and Chrysostom
may have found no difficulty in regarding yéyovas as aorist because,
by their time, the 2nd perf. had come to be thus used. Is yéyovev
thus used in Origen (Lomm. i. 278) zuvOavopévors qpiv rept rod
1 [2757 c] Origen says (Comm. Matth., Lomm. iv. 46) 6 5€ Iwdvyns dvri rod
“* émiBeBnkws el Yrofiytov Kai mOdov véov”’ mremoinke “* kahuevos Epyerar érl mBdov
bvou:” darts Eudalywy dre yywoews detran, TO KaTd Tov Témov, émipéper, TO ‘‘ Taira
dé ovK Eyvwoay oi padyral abtod 7d mpédrepov.” This not only gives éyvwoav
correctly (which D reads as evonoav) but shews that Origen perceived its force. The
meaning is not ‘‘knew” but ‘‘vecognised” or ‘‘understood”; and Origen
accordingly says that the subject required gyosés, i.e. spiritual understanding or
recognition. Origen stops short at mp@rov (which he read, or remembered,
as mpérepov): but we cannot infer that he was unacquainted with the following
words aN Gre...émroinoav ai7@. He is not here commenting on Jn but on Mt.,
and he quotes enough for his purpose.
[27572] Chrys. on the other hand seems either to miss the meaning of éyvwoav
if he is paraphrasing, or else to misquote, if he is quoting, in the following (ad
loc.) Totro 6€ ovk noecav, pnoly, oi wadnral adrod dre Hy em adT@ yeypaumevor...épa
6€ dpidocodpiay evayyedoTov, Was ovK Emaicx’veTaL THY mpoTépay avTey dyvolay
éxroumevew. “Ore wéev ody yéyparrac ndecav: bre dé em air@ yéypamrat, ovK
joecav. He makes no mention of ‘‘remembering” and omits the whole of the
clause about ‘‘doing.” Thus the whole is condensed into a statement that the
disciples ‘‘knew” Zechariah’s prophecy but ‘‘did not Avzow” that it applied
to Christ—perfectly intelligible, but not what the evangelist meant.
[2757¢] These two criticisms—of Origen and Chrysostom—should be borne in
mind as giving a clue to their different methods. Origen is a scholar ; Chrysostom
at least as represented by his Johannine commentary in its extant form—is rather
a preacher. Origen gives full value to each word, Chrysostom criticizes on the
unscholarly basis of a belief—too common in our own days—that the evangelist
**uses one word for another.” Origen is often fanciful and minutely diffuse in
allegorization—as in this instance where he gives copious details about the typical
meaning of the ass and the foal—but he rarely tampers with, and does not very
often even paraphrase, his text. Chrysostom is much less imaginative but also
much less faithful to his author. As for the mysterious purpose of Providence
latent under 70 ris vou, all he says is xal TovTo péya jv, ‘‘ thts, too, was great” —
he means by, ‘‘ 00,” that it was ‘‘great” like the mystery in ‘‘ Destroy this
temple ”—but he does not make up for this brevity by any compensating
explanation of the verbal difficulties of the clause about ‘‘ remembering,” which he
does not quote.
588
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
[2759]
Ilore (Huet has gap in text, but wore in marg. with Cod. Bod.)
yéyove mparov év 7H Kadapraoip 6 Xpiords...? Unless other instances
of Origen’s aoristic use of yéyovey are produced, this might best be
rendered, “ When is tt on record that Christ was first at Capernaum?”
In the context, Origen appeals to the exact words (Aééis) of the
evangelists. Comp. Orig. on Ps. xxi. 4 where LXX has yryoarto...
éswxas, and Origen says (Lomm. xil. 80) zr7#oarT0...Kat eiAndev, “he
[Hezekiah] asked...and 7s recorded to have received.” According to
this view, yéyovev, like the perfects in the Epistle to the Hebrews
(2751), represents, in Origen, a past event as a present record'. And
if it does so in Origen, perhaps it may do so in the formula frequently
used by Matthew to introduce prophecy (2478 a) ‘‘/¢ 7s on record that
this came to pass in order that it might be fulfilled...”
On viii. 14 kal MOY yrAra@...H TOY YTAra (2490)
[2759] On vill. 14 otda...xal rod trdyw: twets d€ otk oldaTe 7dGEV
Epxopar ) 3ou trayw. tpeis... Blass remarks (p. 324) “Chrys. and
Nonnus omit 7...t7.” This is true of Chrys. who quotes thus, kav
€y® papTupO Tepi ewavtod, y paptupia pov GAnOys eat. OTL oida THEY
EpXopar Kal Tov vVirayw* vues bé odk oldate TOHev Epyowat,—and there
stops. But can we feel sure that he does not stop because he has
quoted enough to be the basis of his comment? After two short
sentences, he quotes again kal éav eyw paptupd epi euavtov adnOys
eOTW papT. {OVv, OTL oda TOOeV Epxowar—and there stops. If we had this
quotation alone, we might say that he omitted in his text the clause
Kal rov vrdyw. But he has quoted it above. Again, after one more
sentence, he quotes, “Ywets d€ ov« oldare—and there stops; but the
reason obviously is that he does not want to repeat what he has
said. Ammonius (Cramer) says, “Ywets 6€ 61 todro peév ovK oidate,
° Lal n~
errerdn) ovdev Gédere TOU hawopevov voetv. ovK Eire 5é, Meos eips, adda,
4 nA , . A
TloGev epxopat kat tov vrayw: ébeAoKakovy (sic) yap Kat mpowerovodvTO
1 [2758 a] See 2751 and contrast the perf. of vecordzd action with the imperf. of
habitual action, and with the aorist of speczal actzon, in Epict. il. 12. 15 ef OéXeTe
yvavat moony év TOUT Oivauw eixev (Sc. DwKparns) (habitually possessed) avayvwre
TO Revopavros Duumdo.ov kal oWere mooas uaxas dvadédvuKe ** how many quarrels
he ts recorded to have peacefully settled,” iv. 5. 3 ‘‘See in the pages of Xenophon
(rapa ZevopGvr.)...how many quarrels he 7s recorded to have settled (héduKe), how
again [22 the several dialogues in which thetr names are mentioned | he tolerated
(jvécxero) Thrasymachus, Polus, and Callicles, how he habitually tolerated his
wife (7s T7js yuvackos jvetxeTo).” So Origen (Lomm. ii. 366) after saying yéypamrac
(xi. 54) yap...dw7Oev, proceeds, Kai od pdvos ye exe? dmredAHAvOE?Y, z.e. is recorded to
have departed.
589
[2759] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
pa <idévar. This shews how commentators, even though they had
the full W.H. text before them, might stop short at ov« oldate (and
perhaps at 7é6ev épxouer) because those words sufficed to indicate
the argument as to Christ’s divine origin. The omission of vpets d¢€
...Urayw by Origen, Cyril, and Augustine (Alf.) (through homoeotel.)
indicates a lacuna in very early Mss. Nonnus has Motvos é€yw voew
rébev HAvOov 7} 760 Baivo. “Ypeis 8 ov« edanre roHev yevoynv wobev
gornv. John uses gory with eis but not with é« or amd, and éf és
improbable that Nonnus would paraphrase woev epxopor by two
clauses—the second so meaningless and farfetched as ro6ev éornv.
More probably Nonnus paraphrased i) 70d bmayw as TOBIAECTHN, Where
iA might easily be corrupted into In. Then mogin would be amended
into T06eN. Ilodev yevopny rob 8 e€otnv would correspond to 7odev
épxopar 7 od vrayw in John, and would also harmonize with the
preceding 70Oev nAvOov 7) 706e Baivw in Nonnus himself (see 2549 a)’.
1 [2759a] Ammonius, apparently commenting on the object of ov« oidare in
Vili. 14, oUK oldare méfev épxouat 7 ov..., has cai for 7, thus repeating the previous
clause 1d0ev épx. kal mot bwdyw. This is not so strange as Nonnus’s substitution
of 7 for xaé in the previous clause. "H is comparatively intelligible after a negative
(ovx oléare), but not after a positive (oléa). It was briefly suggested in 2549 a that 7
in viii. r4 prob. means ‘‘or [which zs the same thing].” In view of a frequent
confusion between 7 and xai elsewhere, and of arguments—based on these two
conjunctions—-about the Lord’s Supper, the following additional facts about ov...
xat and ov...7) are here submitted.
[2759 2] In Genesis and Exodus, when A.V. “nor” is represented by Heb.
“and,” it corresponds to o6é or wydé in Gen. xxi. 23, xlv. 6, Ex. xii. g, xxiii. 26,
but to xal in Gen. xlix. 10, Ex. xiii. 22 (R.V. ‘‘and”’), xx. 10, xxiii. 32, xxxiv. Io.
In Dan. xi. 24, LXX has ot6€ but Theod. cai, and so Heb. Ov...ovd€ is clear but
not literal. Ov...«aé is literal but not clear, e.g. ‘ thou shalt so¢ sow with wheat
and barley” would be a literal transl. of Heb., in which it would mean ‘ with
wheat or barley,” —wzeither being allowed. But in English and Greek it might
mean ‘‘thou shalt not sow with wheat azd barley [¢ogethev]”—one being allowed.
In 2 K. xxiii. ro ‘‘that no man might make his son (Heb.) avd (R.V. and A.V.
ov) his daughter pass through the fire,” Sym. has 7 for “and.” As his style
somewhat resembles that of Luke, the instance will prepare us to find ov...7 in the
Acts.
[2759 c] From classical Gk (from which Blass p. 266 and the Thesaurus quote
no instance) Winer-Moulton (p. 550) alleges only Thuc. i. 122, which I should
punctuate thus, ot lopwev dmws rdée Tprdv...dm7jANaKkTar—aiuvecias 7 padaklas
7 dpedelas. Here the negation ‘‘we do not see the way to an acquittal” is
equivalent to the affirmation ‘‘ there must be a verdict of guilty.” This necessitates
an appositional clause :—‘‘ that is to say, guilty, not of all three, but of the first,
or the second, ov the third of the three.”’ Both in rhythm and in grammatical con-
struction, the passage is inappropriate as an illustration of N.T. usage.
590
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS [2759 |
[2759 @] Winer-Moulton (but not Blass) refers to Acts xxiv. 12 xai ore év T@
iep@ evpdv we mpds Twa diaheyduevov—7 émloraciw movodvra dxov—obre ev Tals
swaywyais. But if this is punctuated as above, it appears that #) introduces
a parenthetical clause and that ore prepares the way for ovre not for 7. And this
gives the clue to other instances, ¢.g. Acts i. 7 odx tuav éotly yvdvar xpdvous
7 Kacpovs “It is zo¢ for you to know the times—or [vather [ should say] appointed
seasons,” preparing the way for the words, ‘‘ which the Father placed under his
own authority,’ Acts xvii. 29 ‘‘we ought zo¢ to suppose that the divine [being] is
like gold—or [may 6e] silver ov stone—the sculpturing of art and of human device.”
So, too, Rom. iv. 13 ‘* For zo¢ through Torah [was] the promise to Abraham—oy
[as 2¢ might also be said] to his seed,” ix. 11 ‘‘ zot yet having been born xox ever
having done anything—good or bad (undé rpatdvtwy t-—ayabov 7 paidov).”
[2759] A more interesting instance is Acts xi. 8 pundauds, Kipe, b7e Kowvov
7 axdbaprov ovdémore elojOev els TO oTdua wou, in a Petrine speech, corresponding
to Acts x. 14 wyndapas, Kipte, OTe obdémoTE Efayov Tay Kowov Kal dkdbaprov. In
Acts x. 14, several authorities have altered xaé to 7 to make the text correspond to
Peter’s report of his own words; but it has been pointed out (1913) that Luke in
writing the Petrine speech has allowed himself more freedom than in the Petrine
narrative of the facts. The narrative retains the old Hebraic idiom ovdérore...1av:
and the kai daxd@aprov (which, coming at the end of the sentence, cannot be
parenthetic) is also to be explained as Hebraic. But when writing a speech for
Peter—a speech that, without shorthand writers, or a miracle, or both, cannot
possibly be regarded as giving the Apostle’s exact words—Luke allows himself to
drop some Hebraisms; and, like Symmachus aboye (27594), he substitutes 7 for
the Hebraic kai.
[2759 f] We pass to r Cor. xi. 27 ds av éoOin Tov dprov } Tivy TO TwoTHpLoy TOU
kuplov avatiws, évoxos éorac Tod cwuaros Kal Tov aiwatos Tob Kupiov. ‘This may be
illustrated by Lev. xx. g és av kax@s ein Tov matépa avbroi 7 Thy unTépa avTou
Gavatw Oavarotcbw matépa abtov 7} untépa avtod Kak@s elmer, évoxos éoTa. Here
the Heb. has ‘‘azd” twice, but the obvious inconvenience of allowing a man to
suppose that he may ill-treat ‘‘ his father 07 his mother,” because the Law merely
forbade him to ill-treat ‘‘ his father avd his mother” has led the LXX here and in
Ex. xxl. 15, 17, Deut. xxvii. 16, Prov. xx. 20 (and comp. Mk vii. ro, Mt. xv. 4)
to render the Heb. ‘‘anad” by the Gk ‘“‘or.” In 1 Cor. xi. 22—9, the whole
passage assumes the “eating avd drinking” (2b. 22 éoOlew kat ive, 26 dodxis
yap €av éobinre...kai...rivgre, 28 éoOérw xal...rwéTw, 29 6 yap éoOiwy Kai rivwy)
of the Lord’s Supper, and teaches the preparation for it. But when the Apostle
comes to warn the Corinthians about the danger of eating avd drinking irreverenti-
ally, he naturally substitutes ‘‘ 07” for ‘‘ azd” in order to shew that ezthex act was
liable to penalty. There is no question of oJ—7 here, nor is the a@ in avatlws
regarded as a negative. The construction would have been the same if the adverb
had been tsrepnparas.
[2759.7] In explaining vili. 14, we must have regard to the fact that (1) it would
have made good sense to repeat ov...kai instead of introducing ov...7. (2) Also
(2549 a) 7 is rare in Jn as compared with the Synoptists. (3) It has been just
sbewn that ov...«aé and ov...7 are interchanged by various writers and scribes in a
manner that suggests a thoughtful distinction between the two. (4) ”H is used by Jn
(2549 z) where ovdé would differentiate too strongly. These facts confirm the view
taken in 2549 a that ‘‘or” means ‘‘ or [which is the same thing].”
591
[2760] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
On xiv. 7 AT 4pTi fiNwckeTe aYTON (2491)
[2760] The context (W.H.) «i eyvwxeré pe, Kal Tov tatépa pov
ay WOElTE* Gm apt. ywwokerte avTov Kal éwpakare (al. + atrov) is rendered
by SS “If me ye have not known, my Father also will ye know?
And from now ye know him and have seen him.” Nonnus has Ei éé
Geoppytw pe TopO ywookete pvOw, “HE eudbev yvooeobe Kai vWiédovta
toxja: “Apte dé piv dpaccacbe kai vWipedovta pabovres. The last
line shews that he took ywwoxere to be imperative, “If ye recognise
me...ye shall from me recognise the Father also. [Vay] but at once
understand Him learning the Father also [as well as myself].” This
makes good sense, meaning in effect, ‘Do I say ‘ Ye would have
known’? Nay, begin to know Him at once [through me], and
[then] ye [will] have seen [Him].” The sequence “Do this, and
straightway that will have followed” is like Lk. xi. 41 “Give for
alms...and behold all things ave clean.” It should be added that
Irenzus iii. 13. 2—quoted above (2491 a)—places these words out
of their order as part of Christ’s reply to Philip.
(2761] Epiphanius (i. 919) wedges between two quotations of
“ He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” a statement about
Christ as 6 A€ywv ot 6 ywookwv ewe yuwwoKke Tov watépa. The most
probable explanation of this is that he is borrowing unintelligently (as
he often does) from Hippolytus (adv. /Voet. 7), who, after quoting
“‘ He that hath seen...the Father,” adds, ‘‘ That is to say, Zf thou hast
seen me thou mayest know the Father through me.” Epiphanius seems
to have mistaken a version of this (conforming “ seez” to “know ”) for
an actual saying of Christ. Hippolytus—after saying that the Father
is known through ¢he “image” like Him—continues “But tf thou
didst not know the image, which ts the Son, how wouldest (Gédas) thou
see the Father?” It will not escape the reader that this is like SS ‘‘Zf
me ye have not known, my Father also will ye know?” Corruption
of the text may have done something to produce these variations,
but paraphrase probably contributed more.
[2762] Is Nonnus right in taking xiv. 7 ywwoxere imperatively ?
The answer depends partly on the general Greek use, and the
particular Johannine use, of ywwoxere, partly on the place assigned
by John to “knowing” in his theory of revelation and redemption.
Nonnus renders it by the subjunctive éoafpyonre in xiv. 17, where
the subjunctive is difficult to explain as an imperative but perhaps
592
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS _ [2763]
more difficult as an indicative’. In xi. 12 where W.H. punctuate
ywuwokere Ti meroinxa vuiv; Nonnus has elev €é0ts érapous ywwokere
TovTo Kat avTot punctuated by Passow interrogatively but probably
imperative, “Understand this ye, foo, [my disciples],” implying a
precept to understand it even as, or in the sense in which, their
Master understands it. In xv. 18 ywwokere ote eué...penlonkev,
Nonnus has Yotro yaporyevéewv ywwoKere praptupes Epywv. This is
ambiguous, but paprupes suits best with an imperative rendering, ‘I
call on you to bear witness and to recognise that they persecuted
me”: and it is so taken by the Latin versions and SS. Nonnus,
then, in two out of four instances certainly renders yuwwoxere by an
imperative or subjunctive ; in two, where he retains ywwoxere, he
probably intends the imperative.
[2763] Tuvwoxere occurs only twice in Aristophanes, once inter-
rogative, once doubtful*» In Demosthenes it occurs four times
indicatively (but in such a context as to present no ambiguity) and
always in connexion wth the “recognition” of character, good or
bad; once imperatively, at the end of a speech, bidding the jurors
recognise or decide that which is just’, In Epictetus, there is
1 [2762 a] xiv. 17 tuels ywwonere ard, dre wap buiv péver kal & buly éoriv
(marg.éorac): Nonnus, (1) Eoadpjonre d€ woivor Tpuets €vOeov etdos a0 nnT 010 Tpoo wou
"Orre we” juelwv pevéer kai oudcrorov eora ‘Tuiv, mavras €xov voepdy dduor....
Nonnus must have read weve? (not uévec) (19602). This is parall. to xiv. 19
bmers dé Oewpetré me, Ore Eyw (OB Kal buets (noere, which Nonnus paraphrases thus,
(2) AAN Eve wotivor Aevacere kai wera yatav ael Fwy bre wluyw, Kal 6. eué Edumravres
del (hore kal iets. Aevooere, a poetic word, seems alw. imperative, e.g. Soph.
Oed. R. 1524, Ant. 940, Eurip. Or. 977, Med. 161, and prob. (see p. 678 note r)
Iliad i. 120 (comp. Odyss. xxiii. 124 Tatrd ye Nedooe). Nonnus seems to mean
(1) ‘* But ve [7 pray] do ye—alone and apart from the world—jx your eyes on the
divine form of the invisible Person [and perceive] that it will abide with you as in
a home,” (2) ‘* But do ye [7 pray|—alone and apart from the world—éeho/d me
even after [my life on] earth how that ever living I abide,” taking 67, after the verbs
of ‘‘seeing,” as ‘‘that” (not ‘‘ because ’’) as in iv. 35 ‘‘ behold the fields...¢/az.”
[2762 4] In xiv. 17, Chrys., as printed by Migne and Cramer, has péver, but
a great part of the comment is consistent with the hypothesis that he wrote peve?.
Chrys. also twice repeats udvor, as Nonnus does, elrev bre IIpos buds mévous
épxerat, and again, ‘‘ Lest they should say, How then saidst thou to the Jews,
From henceforth ye shall not see me?—He destroys the [apparent] contradiction
by saying 70 you alone (Niet Thy avridecw eimuwv, Ipds buds udvous).”
® [2762c] Chrys. and Origen give no guidance on this point. Nor do the
Latin vss. SS has the interrogative.
3 Thesm. 606 interrog., /ragnvz. 203 (meaning doubtful).
4 Demosth. (Preuss) Indic. xviii. 10, 276, xxiv. 59, xxxix. 2. Imper.
xxxlil. 38 tpets ov, Kata rods vomous, ywwoKere Ta Oikaa.
AL VEE 593 38
[2763] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
abundant use of the aorist, and of yv@@ cavrov, but Schenkl’s Index
under “y.woKw Cc. accus.” gives no instance of any form of the
present. On the other hand, Plato, while emphasizing, as the great
precept of life, yyw: weavrov, insists repeatedly on 70 €avtov yuwoKewv
as being the fulfilment of this precept, and connects the phrases with
a distinction between material and spiritual knowledge of oneself’.
The Fourth Gospel teaches that ‘‘ eternal life” consists (xvii. 3) in the
“knowledge (yuvwoxworv)” of the true God and of Jesus Christ. It is
hardly possible that the evangelist was ignorant that he thus came
into collision with the doctrine taught by the successors of Plato and
popularised by his own contemporary, Epictetus, and it is almost
certain that the collision was deliberate. It may be asked why the
evangelist, if he wished to record a precept of Christ about ‘‘knowing,”
did not use the unambiguous aorist, but it has been pointed out (1626)
1 [2763.2] Comp. Plato Phzledb. 48 C—D yO cavriv...roivavtiov phy éxelvyp
djdov bre TO wndauy ywwokew abrov, 1 Alc. 131 A boris dpa THY TOU TwuarTds TL
ywooKer Ta aAVTOD GANG OdX abTov Eyrwxev ...obdels Apa TGV latp&y éavTOV ywWwoKEL,
kad’ cov iarpds, where the first words mean ‘‘ whosoever recognises, or knows
intelligently, something of his bodily system, has obtained the knowledge of his
possessions, not of himself.” In 1 Adc. 133 B—D it is said that the soul, if it is
to know itself, ‘‘must look to (BAemréov eis) the soul, and especially to that
province (ré7ov) of the soul wherein exists the soul’s [constituent] virtue,” that
nothing belonging to the soul ‘‘is more divine than this the centre of knowledge
and wisdom (@evdrepov 7 TodTO Tepl 6 70 eldéva Te Kal Ppovely éoriv),” and ‘‘the
intelligent knowledge of oneself we agree in calling healthymindedness (76 6é
ywwoKxew abrov dmoroyobuer cwppoctvnv eiva).” In Charm. 164 D, 165 B, it is
said that cw@pdver, not xaipe, is the best greeting, and that cwppdver means yrOAe
caurév : then follows cxeddv yap Te éywye atTd TovTd Pyue elvac cwppoo’yyy, 70
ywwoKxew éaurov. This gnosis is subsequently connected with oféa thus, 7d. 167 A
6 dpa cappwr udvos adrds Te EauTov yrwoeTat Kai olds Te EoTar ELeTdoae Ti TE TYYXAaVEL
eldws kai Th py, Kal Tous d)ous..,.émLoKomety Ti Tis olde Kai oleTat, eiep olde, Kal TL
ai rus olerar ev eld€éva, olde 5’ ov...xal ore dH TOUTO...TO EauToY avTov ywwoKe”,
TO eldévar & Te olde Kai ad mh older.
[2763 2] Tuwaoxw, in connexion with ‘ knowing”’ other persons than oneself,
and as distinct from ‘‘ seeing ” these persons, is discussed at great length by Plato,
beginning with émvywwoxw thus, 7heaet. 193, Zwxpdryns ervywwoKer Oeddwpov Kai
Ocalrnrov, dpa dé pndérepov, unde Ay alcOnots a’Tt@ wdapecte wepi ai’rav. After
this first hypothesis, a second, and its consequence, are stated thus, Aevrepov rotvuy,
bre Tov pevy ywwokwv buav, Tov be ph ywwokwy, alcPavduevos dé undérepor, obK av
more at’ olnbelny dv olda elvac dy wh olda. In a third hypothesis this collocation of
olda and ywwoxw is repeated; and the two verbs are manifestly intended to be
distinguished. Applied to facts of science, ywwwoxw means **
intelligently ” in /om 537 £, ‘‘ 1 recognise that these fingers are five: you recognise
the same facts,,.we both recognise them by arithmetic.”
594
recognise” or ‘*know
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS [2765 |
that John expressly distinguishes the aorist from the present as though
the latter represented a higher stage than the former; and he may also
have been influenced by the use of the aorist in Jeremiah (xxxi. 34)
quoted in the Epistle to the Hebrews (viii. 11) ‘‘ They shall no more
teach...saying A7zow (yvo6c) the Lord.” ‘The Fourth Gospel is full of
subtle distinctions between ywwwoxKw and otda that could not have
originated from Aramaic utterance, if exactly translated’, but may
well have originated from Greek paraphrase. 4 friorz it is quite
reasonable to suppose that John represented Christ as holding up to
His disciples “‘the Father” and not “‘ yourselves” as the object of the
highest knowledge, and that the precept to ‘“‘Avow” was expressed
so as to exclude the Delphic ‘‘kzow once for all,” yvoh, and to imply
“knowing by degrees” or “ growing in recognition and sympathy,”
ywookere. In the absence of help from Origen and Clement of
Alexandria the conclusion must be left uncertain, but it is not
improbable that Nonnus is right in his imperative rendering of this
ambiguous form.
[2764] Of course, the fact that John’s expresszon of the doctrine
of “knowing” God is in part Greek and Platonic, is not inconsistent
with the fact that the thought is Jewish, or Hebrew, and Biblical.
In John, “knowing” and “seeing” go together, and therefore the
“knowing” may be illustrated by v. 38 ovre eidos avtovd Ewpaxare, an
amazing phrase—‘‘ye have neither seen “7s form (etdos)”—con-
sidering that “zs” means the Father’s! Chrysostom’s explanation
is, in effect, “* Ve have not seen his form, because there was no form to
see”! God, he urges, is ‘above all outward fashion.” Nor will he
accept the notion of a spiritual form: ‘‘ He means, not that God has
a form dut not a visible one (ov Oearov dé), but that one of these things
concerns God (aXN ort ovdev TovTwy wepi Geov).” At the same time he
dismisses the statements that Moses heard the voice of God and that
Isaiah saw Him, and represents Christ as “ goading the Jews into
philosophic dogma (cis piocopov avrods évaye doypa).”
[2765] But the fact appears to be that ‘‘form” here alludes to the
ancient Jewish tradition about Penuel, the Face of God, twice called
by the LXX ¢he Form («idos) of God, a phrase unique in the whole of
ce
1 [2763 c] There do not exist in Heb. two words corresponding to oiféa and
ywwoxw. In Jerem. xxxi. 34 yvOOe Tov Kipiov...rdvres eldnoovoly pe, the Heb. of
‘“know” is the same word in both cases. It is not therefore exactly translated
by LXX.
595 38—2
[2766] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
the Bible’. It was there that Jacob said “7 have seen God face to face” ;
and from this fact Philo, though erroneously, explains the name of
“Tsrael,” there given to Jacob, as Seetng God. ‘Those who took this
view would discern in the words addressed to Nathanael, i. 47 ‘‘Behold
an /sraelite indeed,” the meaning, ‘‘ Behold one that sees God,” and
would find an appropriateness between this and the following words,
(1. 50) ‘‘ Zhou shalt see greater things than these...” followed by an
allusion to the ladder of heaven and the angels ascending and de-
scending over the head of Jacob.
[2766] Again it was said of Moses that (Ex. xxxili. 11) “the Lord
spake unto Moses face to face.’ Combining this with Jacob’s “ seezng
the Lord face to face,” we can understand how our Lord, in a spiritual
sense, not casting away the traditions of His nation, but interpreting
them, while condemning the Scribes and Pharisees for degenerating
from the true Israel, might say something that might be paraphrased
for Greeks thus “Ye are not genuine sons of Israel, who ‘saz the
form of God’ ; ye are not genuine disciples of Moses, who ‘heard the
voice of God’; ye have neither heard his voice at any time nor seen
his form.”
On xi. 47 Ti TOIOYmeN; (2493)
[2766 (i)] As regards the distinction between ré rovtpev; and
Ti roujoupev; it may be illustrated from Epictetus, who—besides
frequently using ti tomow; parall. to deliberat. subjunct. (i. 27. 7,
iv. 10. 1 etc.) so that it is proved to be subjunctive, and (i. 22. 17)
Ti ovv zomjowpev ;—has the indicative in a passage where he is
maintaining that “man is born for faithfulness (apos ziotw yéyovev).”
An intruder (o 8€)*, notorious for adultery, ironically replies (11. 4. 2)
GAN ayv..., abevtes TOTO TO TLTTOV Tpds O TEp’Kaperv, eTLBovAedwmeV TH
yuvaiki Tov yetTovos, Ti Tovovpev ; Presumably the man means “ /Vhat
1 (2765a] Gen. xxxii. 30—1. Aquila (once at all events) has mpéowzov
isxvpod the literal rendering. Clem. Alex. 132 has eidos #eod. Both he and
Origen (on Gen. xxxii. 30) explain the ‘‘angel” or ‘‘face of God” as being the
Logos, and represent the ‘‘ wrestling wth (cuumradalw)” as ‘‘ wrestling on the
side of,” meaning that He assisted Jacob in wrestling against Satan—Clem.
at least certainly, Origen probably. In LXX, ‘‘the form of ¢he glory of God” etc.
may be found elsewhere, but not ‘‘ the form of God.”
2 [2766 a] See 1716 / for another allusive phrase (in connexion with theophanies)
in the use of éudavl{w occurring in xiv. 21—22, and in one passage of the
Pentateuch Ex. xxxiii. 13—18 where Moses says to God éuddvicdy wor ceauriv.
8 'O 6é, in Epict. (Schenkl) means some one replying to a sfeech or /etler. But
here it may mean Epictetus replying to the zztrusion. If so, he himself utters
aXN av...7l rovoduev; See context.
596
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS _ [2767]
are we doing, in effect [except disproving this fine theory about
natural faithfulness, since our conduct shews that men are naturally
unfaithful]?” The sequel is, “Why, wat else [ave we doing| (ri
yap aAXo) except destroying and slaying?” “Whom?” “ The [ideal]
man of faith [within us].” In i. 3. 5 émt de tov Biov th row;
viv pev Aéyw ayabov, viv dé kaxov, the meaning is “‘ What am I in the
habit of doing?” But the context suggests “ What [good| am TI
doing?” —as in i. 25. 29 “revile a stone—and what [good] will you
do [by it] (Kat ré romoes)' 2”
On x. 29 oyAdeic AYNATAI ApTIAzEIN (2496 4)
[2767] In x. 28—9 oty dprace tis...ovdeis Svvatrar dpralew the
difference intended between dprdoea and dvvata dpwalew (if the
latter is correct) must depend to some extent upon the whole
context (2740—4), and especially on the object of apmra¢ev, which
is implied in W.H.’s text, but inserted by Chrys. and Latin versions’.
1 [2766 (i) a@] Another Epictetian use of ris, illustrative of a v.r. in Jn, is Té
Soxetre ; ri doxets ; introducing an absurd hypothesis, e.g. i. 26. 5 émel Tt doxets ;
bre OéXwv mepimimtw KaK@;...uy yévotTo, iv. 8. 26 Ti doxetre ;...u7y YEVOLTO, Il, 2. 15
émel Th doxets ; O7t...0€A\wy LwKparns...dv &eyev...; This may explain the reading
of D (2184) ri doxetre dre...in Jn xi. 56 Ti GoKel Huiv ; dr. od wi EADY... A scribe
may have thought that the context introduced an absurd hypothesis and that 7é
doxeire 7c was the correct phrase for this. D, however, by retaining ov m7, gives
the meaning ‘‘ What think ye? [Anything so absurd as] that he will not come to
the feast ?”—which is probably the opposite of what is intended. Ti doxe? duty, if
the text is correct, seems to mean “what is your serious opinion?” and so
Nonnus, ‘Tuiv ppagouévowrt th patverac; The original may have been ré OOKE(TE ;
ov un ENOy... If doxerre, spelt doxecrar, came to be regarded as two words, it might
lead to doxee ore and to the insertion of uy before or after doxe (as Origen
variously places it).
[2766 (i) 4] The questions put by the Jews to the Baptist i. rg—21 ob Tis e7;...
[ov] ’HXetas ef; may be illustrated by Epict. iii. 1. 223 ob of Tis ef...déye adT«,
dv oo d0éy, Du dé ris ef..., wh 5H Eye TO eEaipéeTy, =v ovy tis ei, where the
Athenians are supposed to put this question rudely to Socrates—whom they dislike
for attempting to reform them—and to be rebuked for it. So, too, there is rude
abruptness in ill. 22. gt ad ef 6 Acoyévys, 6 sux olduevos elvac Oeo’s ; and it elicits
arebuke. It illustrates the abruptness of Pilate’s first question to Christ, xviii. 33
av el 6 Bacired’s Tay Tovdaiwy ;
* [2767 a] Chrys. quotes ovdels divarar apragey ara €x Tis x. T. maTpds pov,
having previously read 6 rarhp és (for 6) @5wxé wor. He means by ara the sheep
of the flock (called atra in the preceding verse). But a, e, f having read 6 (‘‘ pater
quod dedit mihi”) supply the neut. sing. av7é (‘nemo potest rapere illud”).
Previously, Chrys. has ovdeis dvvarat taita apmrdca (for ovx apmdcer Tis ala)
€k THs XElpbs jwov, paraphrasing ‘‘no one will snatch” as ‘‘no one can possibly
597
[2768 | NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
Chrys. confuses together the clauses about “snatching” from the
Son and “snatching” from the Father; and Nonnus blends them
into one (“ Nor could anyone snatch my flock that knows [me] from
our hand”). Origen in two passages omits dvvatac and has ovdeis
aprale €x THS XELpOs TOD TaTpOs, OF ék TOV XEpwV adrod, and in one of
these, while repeating otdeis apraer, he explains it as meaning ovdeis
dvvarar nas AaBeiv*. SS also omits dvvarae (“ There is no one that
doth snatch away from the hand of the Father”). In the LXX, the
present infinitive, after dvvatai, occurs rarely as compared with the
aorist, and, when it does occur, mostly implies continuance*®. But
continuance is out of the question in x. 29. In some cases,
LXX adds dvvara to express the Hebrew interrogative, e.g. “Shall
I bear?” (ie. “Shall I be able to bear?”) “Did he deliver?”
(i.e. “Was he able to deliver*?”). So, where Matthew has (vii. 4)
“How welt thou say (ras épeis) to thy brother?” Luke has (vi. 42)
“How canst thou say (ras dvvaca Néyev)?” Probably x. 29 (W.H.)
is corrupt, and we should read dpra€eu for dvvarau dpraceuv.
On xii. 28 matep, AoZacON Coy TO bNOMa (2512c)
[2768] After ddgacov, B has an abbreviated moy (i) at the end
of a line, and Toonoma at the beginning of the next: L has coy at
snatch”; but a little later on, he writes as if the phrase ovdeis aprdfec were applied
to the Father (ri ofv; ef dia thy S’ivauw Tod mwarpos ‘ ovdels apmager”’...) and also
applied to the Son (elmdy dre Ovdels apmdgec adra—no longer raira—éx ris xeupds
Hou), and then argues as though he had read dpmdfew in connexion with the
Father: ef yap “y Tovtro, axédovov jy eimetv bre ‘*'O rarip bs Gdwxé wo pelfwv
TdvTwy éoti Kai ovdels SUvaTac apmavew atTa éx THs xetpds pov.” “ANN ovK elmev
olrws adN ‘‘€x THs XELpos TOD TaTpbs mov.”
* [2767 6] OvdE ris aprdieev euhv mwurddpova roluvny Xeipds ad’ huerépns.
Nonnus probably means ‘‘no one could [possibly] snatch” to be emphatic.
* [2767 c] Lomm. ii. 144 and xv. 318 (comm. Jerem.). This is important as
indicating that, in Origen’s view, if d6¢vara had been inserted, the aorist infin., not
the pres., should have followed.
* [2767 7] When pres., it mostly denotes continuance or habit, as in Gen. xiii. 6
ovK é€dtvavTo KaTo.Kely, Xxxvi. 7 ovK é€dUvaTo 7H y7...pépew avrovs, xxxvii. 4 OvK
edtvavro Nadeiv, xlili, 32 od yap edvvavTo...cvvecOlew, xlv. 1 ovK HdUvaTO...
avéxeOat, xlviil. 10 ovK Hdtvaro BNérew (Where ére might very well have been
inserted as it is in Ex. ii. 3 obk 7dtvavro atrd ere Kptrrew), xviii. 18 od SwHoy
movetv, ‘‘ you will not be able to continue doing ” ete.
4 [2767¢e] Deut. i. 12 mas Suvjcouae udvos pépew; Heb. (lit.) ‘*How shall
/ bear?” Comp. 2 K. xviii. 24 droorpépere with the parall. Is. xxxvi. 9 divacde
amoorpeyat, and 2 K. xviii. 34 éfelNavro with the parall. Is. xxxvi. 19 edvvavTo
picagba, where there is no “table” in the Heb. of either passage.
598
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS _ [2771]
the end of a line and TONYN Ze. Tov vidv at the beginning of the next :
s has coy at the end of a line, and Toonoma at the beginning of the
next. D has onoma at the end of a line, and adds ev 77 d0€n y ecxov
Tapa cou po Tov Tov Koopoy yeverGau (see xvil. 5). Nonnus follows
L, having Yia redv xvdave, and this is the reading of a Ms. in the
Ferrar group (zarep aye d0gacov cov Tov viov). Resch ad doc. quotes
Augustine, “ c/arifica me ea claritate...mundus fieret” and Jerome
“ clorifica me gloria...mundus esset,” as being uttered immediately
before the Voice from heaven; and Aphraates, ‘‘Jesws satd—I have
glorified it and will glorify it.”
[2769] SS, which agrees with W.H. up to “glorify thy name,”
proceeds “And in the same hour was heard” (instead of “there came
therefore”), D has xai éyévero for 7AGev ovv and Nonnus has 7éAe.
The facts indicate that there was early confusion as to the words
that followed ddgacov. The causes may have been, in part, a desire
to paraphrase for Greeks the meaning of ‘‘ Name,” and to shew that
‘‘slorify thy Name” meant in effect “glorify thy Son” ; in part, from
an early confusion caused by Greek corruption of the letters TONYN
and Toonoma. If, in some early MSS., TOONOMA was written TOYNOMA
—by crasis, as in Mt. xxvii. 57—Toyn, at the end of a line, might
easily be read as TOYN, “the Son.”
[2770] Origen, commenting on Christ’s recognition of the
ordinance of all things by the Father in accordance with the set
“hour,” says, “ Dicit in aliquo loco ad matrem suam /Vondum ventt
hora mea. Item, Nunc anima mea...propter hoc veni tn hanc horam.
Item, Pater, venit hora, clarifica Filium tuum ut et Filius tuus clarificet
te'.” If the second “item” were omitted, this would place the
immediately after that utterance of Christ
b)
words “ Glorify thy Son’
which preceded the Voice from heaven, in such a way as to lead
readers to take the two separate sayings as a single continuous one.
This indicates another way in which to explain the extraordinary
misquotation of Augustine and Jerome. They may have been
influenced by some collection of Christs sayings about the “hour.”
Some confusion arising from the repetition of wpa may perhaps
account for the phrase in SS, ‘‘and in the same hour.”
On €4n with indicative (2515 (i))
[2771] Deissmann (p. 201) calls attention to the fact that Berl.
1 On Mt. xxvi. 1 (Lomm. iv. 388).
599
[2772] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
Pap. 48. 13 (which he dates 2nd—3rd cent. a.p.) has éav with the
indic. and also thrice with the subjunct. The sentence with the
indic. runs thus, éav 6€ oo. d0€y Kal wept Tdv épidiwy, éav SE pay evnv
ép[ (dua, [x]apu roicas a[é]yes por...z.e. “If you would be pleased
[to do this] also in the matter of the fleeces [I should be obliged],
but, ¢f it should turn out that the fleeces were not practicable, kindly
send....” The first subjunctive is éav ovy d0xy co, the third is éav
avaBns 7H €optn (27152). Deissmann gives another instance of éav with
qv from Berl. Pap. 300. 5 (148 A.D.) dautycavta Tovs picbwras, Kav
deov Hv picOdoarta. 7) aitoupyycavta. Here, as above, the meaning is
“and, uf it should turn out to have been needful.” The ms. is illiterate.
But there seems a fair probability that the writer really meant, not
kav y “even if it be,” but kav nv, which he intended to be taken as
above.
On iota subscript (2515 (i) 2)
[2772] Phrynichus says js év dyopa aéAoukov. Eye odv Foba. He
then adds—according to the printed text—“ but the [person] saying
éav qs év ayopa would use [7s] more correctly,” dpbotepov dé xpGro av
0 N€éywv, av Hs ev ayopa. But how can what is absolutely correct, édv
ns, be described as “more correct” —and, more amazing still, ‘more
correct ” than what is described as coAotxov ? Dr Rutherford (p. 240)
calls attention to this language as indicating “ uncertainty,” which he
justly calls “surprising.” Coming from Phrynichus, not a lenient
critic, it is incredible. But Lobeck adds a note that suggests a
corruption in Phrynichus’s text, ‘‘ Ex Ed. Pr. et Phavor. restitui ay,
quod Nunnesius praetermisit. Vulgo 6p6wrepov.”
[2773] Omitting av, we obtain ypwtoo. Now Phrynichus, in his
Ecloga, when he tells his readers what to say, uses Aéye, épets, most
frequently, and xpy Aé€yew rarely, but never yporo with or without av.
On the other hand he has (Lobeck p. 37) 7 azreype xpd, and (p. 175)
TO pomriopa OvK ev XpyTEL’ XpO otv TO Kpetttov. A Priori, then, xpa
T® is more likely here than yporo. “And, if we accept ypo, we reject
av, with ‘“‘ Nunnesius.”
[2774] ‘To this it may be objected that the text has ypwro not
xpwrw. But the text (according to Lobeck “vulgo”) also has
opOwrepov for dpGorepov, indicating that the scribe, like the farmer
Gemellus (2691), confounded o and , an extremely frequent error.
And Jann. Gk G*y. par. 20° alleges “76 for rds H. ROhl 503 twice,”
and also quotes “Strabo 14, 41 zodAoi xwpis Tod | ypadovar Tas
dorixas Kai (add troraxtixas) exBaddAovar dé 7d os proxy aitiav ovK
600
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS — [2776]
€xov,” ze. “Many write the datives and [add subjunctives] without
the zofa” [i.e. the iota commonly called subscript] “and reject the
custom, having [indeed] no reason in nature.”
[2775] These facts suggest that the real question in Phrynichus’s
mind is not of a grammatical nature—whether éav 7s is “more
correct” grammatically than the ‘“‘soloecism” 7s. It is a question
of orthography-—whether Hc, when subjunctive, should be written with,
or without, the tota subscript. Strabo, as alleged above, seems to
have disliked the use of the iota subscript, and indeed the papyri
indicate that it was greatly abused’. But the use of the zo/a in 7s
subjunctive was certainly convenient, and Phrynichus seems to have
come to the conclusion that it was also “more correct”.” According
to this view, the text of Phrynichus must be read, épOorepov d€ xpa
TO | N€éywv, Edy ys ev ayopa, “ But when you mean, ‘If you be in the
market-place,’ wse the iota, [thus writing] more correctly {than those
who do not use it|.”
On the Possessive Genitive (2558—69)
[2776] ‘he vernacular possessive genitive*—called hereafter, for
brevity, the vernacular possessive, or vernacular genitive—is not only
unemphatic, but, so to speak, wder-emphasized, in order to emphasize
the context. It occurs in Plato’s Phaedo (117 B) where, in answer to
the question of Socrates “what must one do [after taking the hem-
1 (2775 a] Comp., as one of many specimens, Faydm Pap. (1st cent.) 137 beau
he(ya)No meydduxr. xXpyudTicov por, 7 welvanr...4 MEA(A)w evTUVX ALY ; TouTux €uol
Xpnudricov (answer me this). This also illustrates a for o (in Tourw.).
* [27754] It has been suggested to me that 6p06repov—instead of implying
that two views of 7s are more or less right—may bea ‘‘litotes,” or under-state-
ment, like Kemble’s reproof to George IV., ‘‘ It would de¢ter become your Royal
Highness’s mouth to say ‘oblige’ (instead of oddeege),”’ meaning that ‘‘ obleege ”
was not ‘‘ becoming” at all. But dpOdzepov éyew is used by Plato 165 B, 362 A,
Aristot. Phys. Ausc. iv. 13. 8, of ‘the more correct” of two assertions, and
Phrynichus himself says (Lobeck p. 235) Atécxoupor, dpOdrepov Ardcxopo. It is
true that he adds yeAdcers ovv Tods cdv Tw v AێyorTas. But he must have known
that both were right, since Plato and Thucydides (Lobeck) use the form at which
he says his readers may laugh as not being the usual Attic one.
3 [2776 a] z.e. for example, (1) adrod coming before the article and the noun, abrot
7 Kepady, as distinct from (2) the possessive genitive in the order usual in the
Synoptists and in the LXX 7 xegady avrod, and from (3) the very rare emphatic
genitive 7 a’tod kepady, see 2558. It may be in some slight degree illustrated
by “me” and ‘‘to me” in English, where ‘‘me” may be either emphatic or
unemphatic (‘‘Give me the book,” or ‘‘Give me the d00k”’), but ‘‘to me” is
necessarily emphatic (“‘Give the book ¢o me”’).
601
[2777] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
lock]?” the jailer replies ‘you must just drink it off and walk about,
till you feel a weight in your legs (€ws av cov Badpos év rots oKéAeor
yevntar)” : also Symp. 215 E where it is parallel to the unemphatic
dativus commodi yor, “When I am in the act of listening to Socrates
my heart leaps up with more than corybantic bounds (zoAv pou
pardov 7 tév KopuBavtiwvTwVv 4 TE Kapdia 7yda)...but listening to
Pericles...I used to feel nothing like this, and [though my outer man
was moved] my sow/ was not [thus] instantaneously whirled away
(odd reHopvByro pov y Woxy)....” It might fairly be called a genztivus
commodi or incommod?. So, the innkeeper in Aristophanes uses cov
and pov as genitivus incommodi in Ran. 572—3 “How dearly I
should love to smash your grinders with a stone (ws ndéws av cov
AiG tors youdiovs Korroyx av) for gobbling up my property (ois jou
katépayes TA optia),” 2b. 119g8—1200 ov Kat Eros yé Tov kvicw TO
pap exagtov, a\AG...a7d AnKvOlov Gov Tors Tpodoyous diapbepar.
[2777] The same use of an unemphatic pronoun, in order to
throw the emphasis on other words in the context, is noticeable in
the position of oe in adjurations, Soph. PAz/. 468 zpos viv oe ratpds
...lkvodpat, Oecd. C. 1333 mpos viv oe KpnVOV...aiTo. The speaker
merely touches the personality and passes from it to dwell on some
circumstance of the person. It is particularly convenient where
more than one noun is connected with the pronoun, as in the
sarcastic Athenian utterance to the poor trustful Melians (Thuc.
v. 105) “ But as for your fanciful way of looking to Lacedaemonians,
which makes you trust that their fear of disgrace will force them to
while congratulating your innocence we do not envy
help you
[your] insanity (paxapicavres vpav To areipokaxov ov CnAotmev TO
acbpov).”
[2778] The vernacular possessive is a frequent characteristic of
Epictetus. The following shews that ov and gov for example are
used, not to mean “belonging to me, or to you,” but to emphasize
the context, while merely indicating the personality :—i. 4. 13 30 ovv
evravda por Sei€ov cov tiv mpoxornv. Kabarep, ci aOAnTH dueheyouny,
Aetéov pou TOUS Gpous: era edeyev éxetvos, [de pov trois aArApas. The
yreceding context is about “progress,” mpoxory. The student has
prog ’ Pp |
1 [27766] In Aristoph. Razz. 1201 dd AnKvOlov; ob; Tos euods; would
perhaps be an exaggeration of the true punctuation, but it would be truer than
Dindorf’s ad. AnxvOlov od +r. é.; The ov is initial, emphatic, and insulting, as
in 26. 1205 (dot, od delfes;
602
ss
y/, OF THE ~ N
/ Th aul => od tet \ :
f UNIVERSITY )
-
OF
e /
>» wy ir 4
> Sr.
es r
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS _ [2779]
boasted of his progress—‘ in Chrysippus.” So many treatises! He
can now read Chrysippus by himself! Epictetus replies, I don’t
want progress ‘‘in Chrysippus” but progress zw right thought and
right action. “Do you, then, in these points shew me your progress.”
In what follows (dté6v poe Tovs wpovs) he could not say detédv pot cov
t. o. because that would have emphasized the two pronouns by
juxtaposition (2564, 2783). So he omits cov. But here the unem-
phatic po helps to throw emphasis on rovs wpovs. Similarly in the
pseudo-athlete’s answer the emphasis is thrown forward from the
unemphatic “my” to the following noun, “ Look at my dumb-bells.”
The poor creature has no acts on view—only preparations for acting.
Similarly in 1. 18. 16 arwAeoa pov ro ivatiov is parallel to adyo tiv
kedayv where no pronoun is inserted.
[2779] The ordinary possessive genitive after the noun, in
Epictetus, is more emphatic, or, at all events, not unemphatic. It
may be illustrated by i. 1. 23 “*‘I will bind you.’ ‘Man! what do
you mean? Me? Ay leg you will bind (70 cKédos pov dyoes),”—
that is, “the leg that belongs to me, a possession of mine, not my very
self.” In the next sentence, he does not say tiv zpoatpeciv pov,
for that would be an admission that the “ will,” like the “leg,” was a
mere possession; so he continues, tv zpoatpecw dé ovd 6 Zeds
vuenoa. dvvatat, “‘ But che will not even Zeus can conquer’.” “The
leg my possession” resembles “the corpse my possession ”—which
cannot be expressed in English—in i. 19. 9 ‘“‘I will shew you I
am [your] master.’ ‘You? Impossible !—But you are master of
muy corpse (Tov vexpov d€ pov Kvpios et). Take it!’” A querulous
egoist complains i. 6. 30 ai pvéar pou péovor, “my nose is running,”
and Epictetus, imagining himself an egoist, Says\(il 1S; 07)) “i stroke
my |own| head (xatayd tiv xopvpyv pov) and say, ‘Well done,
Epictetus !’” Again, the exceptional creature says to its censor
ill. 1. 23 ** Don’t require me to be like the rest. Or, if you must blame,
blame my [zzherent] nature (7h pice: pov)*.”
' Comp. i. 4. 24 and 29, i. 11. 4, and many more instances in Schenkl’s Index
under ’Eyw.
2 [2779 a] The “‘will,” or mpoatpeois, is the man himself, iii. 1. 40 ‘‘ You are
not flesh, or hair, but zw#// (wpoatpeots),” iv. 5. 11 ‘*Are you a mere utensil? No,
you are zwe// (ot, d\\a mpoaipects).”
3 For instances of the possessive wou after its noun, see Schenkl’s Index, in
which there are fewer of these than of the vernacular genitive.
603
[2780] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
[2780] The vernacular and unemphatic avrod and avroy is
also frequent in Epictetus, and, in some of these instances,
emphasis appears to be laid on what precedes as well as on
what follows, eg. i. 19. 4 “What! Do I not attend to my
donkey? Do I not wash his feet (ov virtw avtod Tovs rodas)?”
ii. 8. 26 “ Does the statue of Zeus in Olympia draw up [his] eyebrow?
On the contrary his Zook is fixed (ada wérnyev avT00 76 BAEwpa)” —
where the parallelism shews the pronoun to be unemphatic, il. 20. 14
‘what will you make of sickness? I will vevead its nature (detEw avrjs
tHv pvow),” iii. 22. 75 “See how low (70d) we are bringing down our
Cynic! after what a fashion we are despoiling him of his Aimgdom
(Gs abrod tyv Bacwretay adapovpeba)’ !”
1 [2780a] Comp. ii. 18. 22 dvaraifovra abrod tiv wpay, il. 21. 15 and many
other instances in Schenk]: iii. 5. 12 AAN 7 mwyrnp pov Thy Kepadyy voocovvTos
ov Kparihce. “AmiO Tolvy mpos Thy wntépa is placed by Schenk] as an instance of
precedent ov, but the Latin has ‘‘mea mater.” Probably Schenkl is right, and,
as Thy pntépa means “[your] mother,” so 7 mArnp means ‘‘[my] mother ”—
‘*Mother will not hold my head when it aches.”
[27802] For jay as a vernacular genitive see Epict. ii. 12. rt—12 ‘‘ We are
absolutely unable to move him by these means, and consequently, as is natural,
perceiving this inability of ours (ravrqs quay 77s dduvaplas) we give the matter
up,” where 7uGv is so unemphatic that Mrs Carter’s transl. omits it in English.
The difference between the moderately emphatic juGv in of woNrac Hudy and the
vernacular and unemphatic 7u@v in 7uGv of woNrac is neatly illustrated in ii. 20.
22—4 where a philosopher is first requested to prove that religion is a good thing
‘‘in order that ¢he cétizens of our state (oi woNrat HuGv) may honour the divine
Being”: then, after being thanked for the proof, he offers to prove the contrary,
and having done so, is thanked ironically, thus, ‘‘Well done, Mr Philosopher!
You have done a service to our citizens (ju@v Tos oNiras)”—almost equivalent to
“you have done the citizens a service for us, or, at our request.” Another instance
of the unemphatic 7uav when citizens speak of ‘‘our city’”’—in a context that has
previously implied ‘‘our”—contains also the unemphatic “ov and the emphatic ra
éud. The philosopher is describing the castle of his mind, iv. 5. 24—5 ‘‘ These
reptiles [dvdpd7roda ravra, #.e. the mocking world] do not know in the least either
who I am or where I find the Good and the Evil (085€ od mov 76 ayabov Kai 70
xaxév): for they have no way of getting at what zs really mine (67 ob mpdcodos
airois mpds Ta éud). Just so, those who dwell in a strong city mock at their
besiegers: [‘ Yesterday,’ they say, ‘things might have been different, ] but, as it is
(viv 6’), what trouble these fellows are taking—and all for nothing! Our wall
is secured (aopanés ear judy 7d Tetxos), we have food for any length of time, and
every preparation made.’”
[2780 c] ‘Tuay is a vernacular genitive following an emphatic bets in ill. 16. 13
‘The physicians send away their chronic patients for change of air (a\Xov aépa).
And they do right. You, too, [must do the same]. Make a thorough change of
habits, fix your fundamental conceptions (w7gare tuay Tas brodpypers).”
604
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS _ [2781]
[2781] This vernacular genitive may be frequent in some authors
and rare in others. In the LXX, for example, in such language as
“T know their sorrows, their imagination, thy rebellion and thy stiff
neck, thy pride and the naughtiness of thine heart, your thoughts,
their works and their thoughts, your manifold transgressions,” the
possessives are all represented (Ex. 111. 7, Deut. xxxi. 21, 27, 1S. xvii.
28, Job xxi. 27 (Symm.), Is. Ixvi. 18, Amos v. 12) by the ordinary
genitive. But in Rev. 1. 9 “I know thy tribulation and poverty,”
ii. tg “I know thy works and love and...,” and ili. 1, 8, 15 “I know
thy works,” the vernacular genitive is used. It follows that in N.T.
books in which LXX style is prominent—e.g. in the Acts and some
portions of Luke that are in the literary style, or else moulded on
the LXX—the vernacular genitive must not be expected’.
[2780 @] But tuay is emphasized by antithesis in the following contrast drawn
by Epictetus between men of the world and his pupils (‘‘you”’) in their present
undeveloped state. He asks them, first, whether ¢4ey have the power of Socrates,
to twist people round to his own view, iii. 16. 6—7 ‘‘ How could you possibly
have it (ré0ev tuiv)? Nay, it cannot be but the men of the world will twist yoz
round. Why then are ¢hey your superiors (éxetvoe tua loxupdrepor, 2564, 2783) ?
Because ¢hey talk their rotten [stuff] from convictions [of the heart]. But yoz
[preach] your healthy [doctrine] from the lips, for which cause it is nerveless
and dead; and it is sickening to listen to jos sermons (bua Tovs mpoTpeTTiKous).
Thus yove are vanquished by the men of the world.” There is an intervening verb
between #uéy and its noun in the following, and quay is emphasized by an
antithesis carried on from the context which describes how, when we were children
and fell down, ‘‘the nurse would not scold zs but would beat the stove,” iii. 19. 5
“ Again [in boyhood] if we don’t find a meal ready, the moment we come from the
bath, the private tutor never dreams of checking ow greediness (ovdér0’ huay
kataoréhree Thy émiuuiay 6 madaywyds) but gives the cook a flogging.”
1 [2781 a] The non-use of the vernacular genitive may sometimes result in a
want of clearness as to emphasis. For example, Luke uses the ordinary possessive
sometimes where it is certainly unemphatic Acts i. g BXerdvTwy a’tay emnpby k.
vepédn vrédaBev avrov dwd Tov dpPahuay airar, i. 18 eexvOn wavTa Ta oWhayxVG
avrov, but sometimes where it might well be emphatic as in i. 19 Gore KANOjvaL...
TH diadéxtw a’ray, i. 20 (LXX) ri émucxorhy atrod \aBérw Erepos. [OF course
uov in Acts i. 8 éceo0€ pov pdprupes is quite distinct from the vernacular genitive.
There is no article, and wou udprupes is predicative. |
[2781 4] Contrast Rev. x. 9 mixpave? cov Thy KoiNlavy aN évy TH oTduaTi cou
état yAukv, 2b. xiv. 18 Téupor cov TO Opémavov 70 dé, Xvill. 4—5 €féNOaTeE...iva mi
cuvkowwvhanre Tais duaprias adris...dre Exo\\HOnoav avTis ai duapriac adxpe Tov
ovpavod—all of which allude to LXX, but the reader will find no vernacular
genitives in the LXX passages indicated by W.H. (comp. 2562 a).
[2781¢] In the Gospel, Lk. has the vernacular genitive in vii. 48 apéwvrat
cov ai duapriat, xv. 30 ovTos 6 KaTapaywr gov Tov Biov, Xvi. 6 dé&ar gov Ta
605
[2782] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
[2782] In the Synoptists, the vernacular genitive manifestly
throws emphasis on the context in Mk ix. 24 Bone pov TH amoria,
and probably in Mt. xvi. 18 éri ravry tH 7érpa oikodounow pov THY
éxxAnoiav. In Mt. ii 2 eidomev yap avtod Tov acrépa, the Magi
assume that “the [great blazing] star” pointed to the expected King,
so that they ask, in effect, ‘‘Where is the King? For we have
seen fhe star that is his sign.” ‘These, and three instances in Luke
(2781 c), are peculiar to single evangelists. See also 2558 a.
[2783] In the Pauline epistles the vernacular pov is frequent when
the Apostle assumes that his disciples will be kind to him but wishes
them to be kind in a certain way and so subordinates the personal
pronoun to the noun of circumstance, Phil. i. 2 “complete my joy
(7. pov tHv xapav),” 2b. iv. 14 “sharing in my affliction (oc. pov TH
OAtWe),” Col. iv. 18 “vemember my bonds (py. pov tov Seopav).”
When he uses vpdv thus, there is sometimes an additional reason,
namely, that (besides throwing emphasis on the context) it is the
common precedent genitive of a number of nouns Col. i. 5 BAérwv
pov THY Taéw Kal TO... Of course, however, where there is antithesis—
and especially where two pronouns are in juxtaposition (2564)—the
precedent pronoun may be emphatic 1 Cor. ix. 11 peya ef ypets Yuav
\ x , 1
TA OG.PKLKG Gepicopev >
ypaupara rep. xvi. 7. All these are peculiar to Luke, and in what may be called
his vernacular style. Lk. xix. 35 émipipavres avrav ra iudria is parall. to Mk xi. 7
émiBdddovew avT@ Ta iudria airy (v.r. €avr@v and adrod), Mt. xxi. 7 €wé@nKay ém’
avrav Ta iwdria (v.r.+av7@v). This must be discussed in a future treatise.
[2781@] The vernacular possessive introducing a group of nouns is followed by
the ordinary possessive in Rev. ii. 19 of6a cov Ta Epya kal ri a. Kal Thy mT. Kal THY
6. kal Thy wmromoviy cov Kal Ta e€pya cov Ta éoxata melova THY mpwTwy, where
(1) the writer could not well have said «aé cov, and (2) the twofold repetition (k. 7.
U. cov k. T. €. gov) shews that emphasis is intended—‘“‘ the patience that you shew
and the deeds that you do.” Vhe vernacular is also followed by the ordinary
possessive in Rev. x. 9 kal mxpavet cov Thy KowNlav GXN év TH orduarl cov ora
yuk ws wédt, where the unemphatic cou throws the emphasis on mxpave? and rhy
kowNlav, but the writer could not have said aX’ éy cou T@ ordmart, and besides he
wished to throw the emphasis on yAukd ws wédt. The two passages shew that the
unemphatic gov is not likely to be used after an unemphatic word.
1 [2783 a] 2 Pet. ili. 1r—2 Tadrny 76n...devrépay tuity ypddw éemiorodjy, ev als
dteryelpw buay ev Vrouyijcer Thy Ei\ikpw7 didvorav, pynotOjvac TOY mpoeipnudvuw pn-
bdrov ind rev aylwv mpopnTrav Kai rhs TGv amrosré\wy budy évrodjs Tod Kuplov Kal
gwThpos is such amazing Greek that it is hard to say what precisely the writer meant.
But perhaps the first juav is under-emphasized in order to emphasize the following
words. As for the second tuday, R.V. renders it ‘your Apostles” —an astonishing
606
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS _ [2784]
[2784] Space does not admit of a fuller discussion of the Pauline
distinction between the vernacular and the ordinary possessive
genitive. It is sufficient to have shewn that the former is characteristic
of Aristophanes, Paul, Epictetus, and, generally, of what may be
described as “spoken Greek.” Often, it cannot be expressed in
English. But it adds greatly to the force of the Fourth Gospel,
and John’s abundant use of it as well as of the ordinary genitive
should protect us from the danger of imagining that he uses the two
promiscuously. It is an instance of what Winer-Moulton calls “an
effort to throw an unemphatic word into the shade!” and what Blass
calls “the tendency which from early times exists in Greek as in
cognate languages, to bring unemphasized (enclitic) pronouns and
the like as near as possible to the beginning of the sentence (though
not to put them actually at the beginning)”.”
phrase. To take it as meaning ‘‘ vows Lord and Saviour”’ would perhaps not be
much more astonishing.
1 [2784 a] Winer-Moulton p. 689. But in view of its use by the jailer in the
Phaedo and the inn-keepers in the Frogs, and in the perfectly spontaneous little
dialogues of Epictetus, and in the uncouth inartistic effusions of the author (or
authors) of Revelation, and in some of the most impassioned parts of the im-
passioned epistles of St Paul—combined with its extraordinary prevalence in the
Fourth Gospel, a work that breathes of a most divine inspiration—“ effort ” does
not seem to be the happiest of expressions for this very natural construction. Nor
is the unemphatic word exactly ‘‘ ¢irowm into the shade.” It zs in the shade, but
““the shade” is its natural place. For, being really not so much a genitive of
possession as a genitivus commod, it takes the place of the dativas commodi.
* [27846] Blass p. 288 quotes Rom. i. 11 Wa re weradd yapioua imiv mvevpare-
xov, Acts Xxvi. 24 Ta TONKA oe Ypauuara eis paviay mepitpére, Heb. iv. 11 iva wy
év 7TH atr@ ts brodelypatt wéon, 1 Cor. v. § Wore yuvaikd twa Tod marpds Exew.
On this last, he says that the object is ‘‘also to emphasize both uy. and rrarpés.”
I should extend this remark to his other instances, in all of which the context seems
to me to be emphasized by the unemphatic pronoun; and this applies to Jn ix. 6
éméxpicev avtovd Tov mndov él Tovs 6POadmovs, if (2569 c) the text is sound.
[2784¢] Blass includes xiii. 6 ot wou vimres rods médas, in which however,
owing to the juxtaposition of pronouns (2564, 2783), wou (as well as a) appears to
me to be emphasized. So too is tudy by the context in Mt. xxiii. 8 (42s) ‘* But be
not ye (vets) called Rabbi, for one is your teacher (els ydp éorw tua 6
ddacKaNos)....”
[2784 7] Blass adds ‘‘ Lk. xviii. 18 Kal emnpwrnoeév ris adrov dpywy Néywv. But
here again there is no obligation to use this order of words: thus we have 2 Cor.
xi. 16 Kav ws dpova béEacGé we, where no doubt the object was to give déZace the
prior position.” I should rather be disposed to explain it by the preceding words,
an Tis we d6En adpova civa, el dé unye Kav ws dppova déacHé me, Wa Kayw...the
personality being first under-emphasized and then, to some extent, emphasized,
607
[2785] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
On the ‘‘ epistolary aorist’’ (2691 2)
[2785] Jerome comments on Gal. vi. 11 thus (Migne): ‘ Videte
gualibus litteris scripst vobis ; non quod grandes litterae fuerint (hoc
quippe in Graeco sonat 7yAikows), sed quod suae manus essent eis
nota vestigia.” ‘This (1) renders ryAiKcors by “ qualibus” “of what
sort,” (2) appears to deny that the “letters” were ‘‘ g7vea/,” or at any
rate that the “greatness” was the point to which attention was
called, (3) asserts that they were written by the Apostle’s “ows hand.”
Later on, (4) he illustrates (or quotes’ an illustration of) “mea manu”
from Jerem. xxxvii. 2 “sermo Dei qui factus est zz manu Jeremiae”
(where “‘manu” does not mean lit. “ hand”) and says (or quotes a
saying) that St Paul writes ‘“ grandes litteras” to-day to everybody—
giving both to “and” and to “great” a spiritual significance—
‘“‘magnae sunt litterae quia in litteris magnus est sensus.”
[2786] Between these two distinct interpretations Migne’s edition
of Jerome inserts the following, ‘‘In hoc loco vir apprime nostris
temporibus eruditus?, sror guomodo rem ridiculam locutus sit’.
Paulus, inquit, Hebraeus erat et Graecas litteras nesciebat. Et quia
necessitas expetebat, ut manu sua epistolam subscriberet*, contra
consuetudinem curvos tramites litterarum, vix magnis apicibus
exprimebat: etiam in hoc suae ad Galatas indicia caritatis ostendens,
quod propter illos id quoque quod non poterat, facere conaretur.
Grandibus ergo Paulus litteris scripsit epistolam, quia sensus erat
grandis in illis....” If the text is correct, Jerome appears to be
sneering at, and parodying, the view held by Chrysostom, who
connects St Paul’s writing with yvayxac6n, avayKatws, qvayKacOnv
(Jer. “necessitas”) and who represents St Paul as saying “I do not
know how to write very well (apusra)”—which Jerome parodies by
saying that he “attempted to do what he was not able to do.” In
Jerome’s last quoted sentence (“ grandibus evgo Paulus...sensus erat
‘receive me [as being your Father in Christ] that I, too, may....” Comp. 7. xi.
1 dpeNov avelxeHE wou pixpby Te appoobyns: ara Kai dvéxerbE pou, where there is
first under-emphasis and then emphasis.
I Most probably it is a quotation, and not Jerome’s own view (see 2786), but
the passage is very obscure.
2 [2786] Migne has the following note ‘‘Quanquam hoc ferme Chrysostomus
sentiat, quod Hieron. impugnat, illum tamen hic denotari non puto.” Migne gives
no reasons for this opinion,
% Wetst. omits the italicised words.
4 Wetst. has ‘‘scriberet.”
608
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS _ [2788]
grandis”) the “ergo” introduces obscurity. It may mean ‘“conse-
quently, as this ‘vir eruditus’ says,” or “consequently, I suppose,
this ‘vir eruditus’ would infer.” It can hardly mean ‘‘ consequently,
as I infer from my own statement of the facts.”
[2787] Jerome repeatedly says that the Apostle began to write
with his own hand from Gal. vi. r1. But his evidence is discredited
(1) by the fact that he mistranslates one of the two words (ayA/kors)
on which the argument turns. (2) He may have been misled as to
éypawa by the Latin epistolary usage of the past tense. (3) There is
a tone of bitterness about his remarks indicating that the question
had become controversial, and not auguring well for a dispassionate
conclusion based on evidence.
[2788] Lightfoot (ad doc.) asks “Does he (ze. St Paul), as
Chrysostom and others have supposed, point to the rude ill-formed’
characters...as though he gloried in his imperfect knowledge of
Greek?” I can find nothing in Migne’s or Cramer’s version
indicating that Chrysostom—whose name I have italicised above—
supposed the apostle to have “gloried” in anything of the kind.
Cramer prints something of the kind as from Theodorus, but even his
words (2691 @) ovre adros épvOpia do not refer to any such “imperfect
knowledge.” Chrysostom says, ovdev adXo aivitretat, aXN ote avtos
eypae THY ériaToAny atagav: 6 ToAANS yvnovoTnTos (see Steph. and
comp. preceding yrnoiow “ relations”) onpetov jv ze. “a sign of great
natural affection,’ and he adds that Paul wrote with his own hand,
partly to refute those who asserted that he did not really condemn
the Judaizing doctrine but partly “owing to love (80 dyarnv).” He
concludes, 76 (al. 7G) d€ “andckous” enot doxed ov TO péyeos, adAa
THV apoppiav THv ypappatov eupatvoy Aé€yew (al. A€yer) povovovyi
A€eywv, oT ovde apirta ypadew cidds, ouws HvayKacOnv Ov ésavtod
ypayar wore ovkopavtav eudpaga To otdpa. ‘These words do not
deny that the ‘‘letters” were “large”; they merely suggest that
the Apostle emphasized, not their largeness but their uncouthness,
saying in effect “I cannot write [in Greek characters] very well, but
yet I was constrained to write with my own hand so as to stop the
1 [2788 a] Lightf. says, ‘‘ ryNixors denotes size only, not irregularity.” But it
does not need much imagination to see that a large O, or 9, or C, written by a
Jew, unaccustomed to the round characters of Greek writing, was likely to be
“irregular” in proportion to its ‘‘largeness”—very much like a child’s ‘large
hand” in English, which he is taught to write ‘‘ large” because the ‘‘largeness”
brings out the ‘‘ irregularity” that has to be corrected.
A. VI. 609 39
[2789] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
mouth of slanderers.” The whole of the context implies that there
is no ‘‘glorying,” but an affectionate allusion to his inability to write
Greek in anything but a laborious, uncouth “large hand.”
[2789] In Jerome, the interpretation that explains wyAkous by
“grandis sensus”—supposing it to be, not Jerome’s, but one
ridiculed by him—may be explained as part of the view adopted by
Chrysostom and perhaps borrowed by Chrysostom from Ongen,
whose commentary on this Epistle was freely used by Jerome.
Origen may have said that St Paul’s ‘“‘large letters” were ot only
literally large but also a sign of the largeness of his affection and
spiritual sympathy with the Galatians. Chrysostom expresses the
same thing, only without this symbolism. Jerome literalises and
laughs at it. If Origen had taken Jerome’s view of the epistolary
aorist, it seems probable that, on a point of this controversial
character, the Latin Father would have appealed to one Greek
Father against the rest. At the outset of his Galatian commentary,
Jerome expressly says that he has read that of Origen’. In one
passage he extracts nearly two columns from it continuously*. In
another he quotes a passage of some length without acknowledg-
ment*. In a third, he assails the opinions of Origen*. Not
improbably Jerome is here again dissenting from Origen as well as
Chrysostom—under cover of a “vir apprime nostris temporibus
eruditus,’ who, whether he is Chrysostom or not, appears to have
expressed Chrysostom’s view with considerable verbal similarity. It
may be added that when Jerome wrote this commentary (388 A.D.)
he had only recently commenced his long residence in Palestine
(which began in 386 4.D.)’.
1 [2789] Jerome pp. 369—70 (Migne pp. 332—3) ‘‘ Quid igitur, ergo (? ego)
stultus aut temerarius qui id pollicear quod illo (? ille) non potuit ? Minime. Quin
potius in eo, ut mihi videor, cautior atque timidior quod, imbecillitatem virium
mearum sentiens, Origents Commentarios sum secutus. Scripsit enim ille vir in
Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas quinque proprie volumina, et...tractatus quoque varios
...legi haec omnia.”
2 Migne pp. 434—6.
3 See Migne’s note, p. 391 n., ‘* Haec ex Origine (stc) pene ad verbum descrip-
sit,” and Migne appends more than a dozen lines from Origen.
4 See Migne’s note, p. 349 n., ‘* Haec, ut et inferior totus contextus, Origenem
ejusque asseclas verissime petunt: hance enim ille (sc. Origenes) blasphemiam
incurrit....”
5 Dict. Christ. Biogr. * Hieronymus,” vol. iii. p. 48.
610
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS _ [2792]
[2790] Wetst. on Gal. vi. 11 quotes “ /lotinus de Porphyrio,
eypade dé ode eis KaAXOS AroTUTOUMEVOS TA ypappata, OUTE EdOnMwWS TAS
cvirafBas diapav, ovte THs OpPoypadias ppovti~wv, adAAG povov Tod vod
€xopevos,” and Suetonius says of Augustus (§ 88) “ Orthographiam, id
est formulam rationemque scribendi a grammaticis institutam non
adeo custodit ac widetur eorum potius sequi opinionem qui perinde
scribendum ac loquamur existiment....”
On dAAoc in Epictetus and John (2730)
[2791] The use of aAXos in v. 32 addos éeotiv 6 paptypov to mean
the Father may be illustrated by its use in Epictetus to denote God,
whom he regards as the Friend and Father of all good men,
providing for His children all that they need, so that the philosopher
may say (ili. 13. 13—14) ‘‘ Now no evil can possibly befall me...all is
peace, all is calm,...4zother, who makes [my wants] His care,
supplies food, Another [not myself, gives me] raiment, Another gave
[me] perceptions, Azother gave [me] [mental] anticipations: and
when at any moment I find Him stopping this continual supply of
the necessaries [of life] [then, I know] He is sounding the retreat,
He has opened (yvolge) the door and He is saying, ‘Come’” ; il. 1.
42—3 “But mark what Socrates says...‘Equip thy will, eradicate
base convictions.’ ‘What about the body, then?’ ‘{Deal with it]
according to its nature. These things Azother has made His care ;
leave them in His hands.’ ”
[2792] This Being, whom Epictetus (i. 3. 1—10) reverentially
calls ‘‘ Another,” "AXXos, is not Different, "Erepos, from men—any
more than Caesar is “different” from his subjects. He is the Good
(76 dyafév) and He has stamped His image on “goodness” as His
“current coin (vouicpa)” and has given this current coin to man so
that he can keep it if he pleases. Not even Zeus can take it from
him. Man can keep it as Zeus keeps it’. As the banker or the
greengrocer cannot refuse the legal ‘good coin,” namely, Czesar’s
coinage, so, in the spiritual world, the bad and the good cannot refuse
that coinage which represents, for them, ‘‘the good*.” If a bad man
1 [2792 a] Epict. iii. 3. 5—10 ottw yap mépuxa® TodTé moe TO vouiocua bédwKey
0 Oeds...€k TaUTNS yap THs ovcias Tis dUvarat ExBadew ; 00d’ 0 Leds. ovde yap 7OéEAnCEV.
aX ém’ éuol atro érolynce, kal €Owkev olov eixev a’T6s—aKwUTOV, avavdyKacTor,
amapatrdd.orov.
2 [2792 6] Epict. ili. 3. 3 ws yap 7d Tod Katoapos vopuicua ovk eect arodokt-
pdoa T@ Tparefirn ovde TW NaxXavoTadNAn, GAN’ ay delEns—OéreL ov Oéhec—rpoesbar
avrov be 70 avT’ a’rod mwrovpevov, otirws éxer Kal éml THs Wux 7s.
611 39—2
[2793] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
chooses a bad coinage—he is constrained by the Law to take that.
A thievish proconsul comes into your province; you capture him with
money: an adulterer, with women. They must perforce take the
bribe. Toa sportsman you offer a fine horse or hound: ‘“ Cursing
and groaning [at his fate] he will sell you for it what you will. Fur
Another constrains him in his heart (éowbev), He that hath appointed
this current coin (6 70 vop.cpa Todt Tetaxus)'.” Elsewhere (1. 25. 13),
when the philosopher is asked by a controversialist to ‘suppose
himself” to be “in evils (€v xaxois),” he replies that he cannot suppose
this—meaning that he, a son of God (2799 ¢), never deserted by
God, cannot be in real “evils”—and he phrases it thus, ‘‘ 4xother
prevents me.” And, in case any of his pupils should be brought
before kings and rulers to testify for the truth, he prepares them
thus: “When thou art going into [the judgment hall of] some one
in power remember that ‘here ts also Another noting from above all
that goes on, and that thou must please Him rather than the man
in power’®.”
[2793] We pass to the Johannine use of addos. In xiv. 16 “If
ye love me ye will keep my commandments: and I will request the
Father and he wll give you another Paraclete (adXov rapakdytov ducer
vpiv),” SS has “another, the Paraclete.” A Paraclete (1720) meant
a ‘‘friend in court,” an “‘a/ter ego,’’ an unpaid advocate. ‘‘We know
not how to pray as we ought,” says the Epistle to the Romans (viii.
26), “but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us”; and Mark
1 [2792¢] Epict. iii. 3. 13”AXXos yap abrop avayKafer EowHev 6 Th vdpicua TodTO
reraxws. Schweig. “Is aliws, quem dicit (cf. ili. r. 43 n.) Deus est; qui talem
naturam constituit hominis ut qua in re is suum Bonum ponit, ei rei non possit non
caetera omnia postponere... Est autem hominis culpa, si ibi Bonum suum ponit ubi
Deus illud non posuit.”
* [2792] Epict. i. 30. 1. Comp. Acts iv. rg ‘*‘ But Peter and John answered
and said unto them,” z.e. to the Jewish rulers sitting in judgment, ‘‘ Whether it be
right in the sight of God to hearken unto you rather than unto God, judge ye.”
Steph. (who indeed does not quote any of these instances) does not appear to
contain any use of dXos in this Epictetian sense. It can hardly be Hebraic.
““Other” and ‘‘another,” in O.T., when connected with God or man, are
generally used in a bad sense, e.g. ‘‘ they followed after other Gods,” ‘‘my glory
I will not give to azother,” ‘there is no other God” etc, The notion of ‘‘another”
world, ‘‘ another” judgment, might naturally be developed in Gk literature out
of such passages as Aesch. Supp. 228—31 obdé wh *v “Acdov Garay Biyn udracov
alrias mpdéas rdde. Kadxet dixagec Taumaknuad’, ws Néyos, Leds dddos év kawodow
vordras dixas. But I have found no such use of &XXos.
612
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS _ [2794]
has, ‘‘It is not ye that are the speakers but the Holy Spirit.” Hence
a Christian, speaking in the reverential language of Epictetus, might
say, “I do not know how to pray, Another teaches me,” or “I do not
know how to speak before princes and rulers, Another speaks for me
and in me.” /Paraclete, or Parclete, was recognised as an Aramaic
word and may have been used sometimes as a proper name, some-
times as a common noun. This is the first place where it is
mentioned in N.T. and the meaning, according to SS, may be
paraphrased thus: ‘If ye do your part, ye will not be left unaided.
The Father will send you Another, a Spirit like yours but beyond
yours, [as] araclefe {to you].” This removes a difficulty that
attends the ordinary translation ‘‘ He will give you azother Paraclete
besides myself” or ‘‘in the place of myself.” For the latter assumes
that Christ has called Himself a Paraclete in the previous context.
This is not the case. Without any such previous mention it is
difficult to attach any great force to “‘another” in the sense ‘“‘another
than myself”: but it is both appropriate and forcible if it means
“other than yourselves” —promising the disciples that they will not be
left to their own unaided efforts”.
[2794] Origen quotes xiv. 16 thus (Lomm. x. 127, about the
“well” in Numb. xxi. 16) ‘Et rursus tertium puto viderl puteum
posse, cognitionem Spiritus Sancti. Alius enim et ipse est a Patre,
et Filio, sicut et de ipso nihilominus in Evangelio dicitur M7¢te¢
vobis Pater alium paracletum spiritum veritatis,’ where ‘“ mittet”
represents dwoe. and “ Pater” is supplied from the context. Before
this, Origen says, “‘ Alius enim a Patre Filius, et non idem Filius qui
1 [2793 a] Mk xiii. 11, parall. Mt. x. 20 ‘‘ but the Spirit of your Father that
speaketh in you,” parall. Lk. xii. 12 ‘‘ For the Holy Spirit shall teach you...” (see
Synoplicon p. 127 A).
* [2793 6] The passage is quoted inaccurately (Resch) by Ephrem, Epiph.
(thrice) and Eusebius. To his instances add Origen (Lomm. x. 127) “ metttet
vobis alium paracletum.” Chrys. and Nonnus both lay stress on d\Xov, as
meaning ‘‘another like myself,’ Chrys. ws €ué, Nonn. Xpist@ otyyovov d\dov
ouotiov. Chrys. also lays stress on it as indicating ‘‘ the difference of hypostasis,”
and he uses it against ‘‘ those infected with the Sabellian disease.”
[2793c] The Greeks seem to have regarded Hercules as the type of ‘‘the
friend in need,” and, besides calling a friend d\Xos éyw#, they had the proverb
Nos ‘Hpaxd7js, dANos ovTos (? adrés). Comp. Aristot. Ath. Magn. ii. 15 (Weise)
dANos ovros H. &ddos Pros (?) eyo, Lth. Huden. vii. (viii.) 12 (Weise) 6 yap piros
BovreTat eivar, WoTep H Taporuia pnoiv, dddos ‘H., GAXos ovros. Is there some
allusion to the story that Hercules helps those who help themselves ?
613
[2795] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
et Pater, sicut ipse in Evangeliis dicit: Adzus est gui et testimonium
de me dicit, Pater.” For this, Lommatzsch’s footnote refers the reader
to vill. 18 “I am he that beareth witness about myself and fhe
Father that sent me beareth witness.” But more probably the reference
is to v. 32 ‘‘ Another is he that beareth witness concerning me,” and
“Pater,” as in xiv. 16, is supplied for sense. It was shewn above
(2730) that a\Xos in v. 32 was taken by Chrysostom and Nonnus as
referring to John the Baptist, but by Cyprian as referring to the
Father. Origen, it would seem, takes the latter view.
[2795] In accordance with the difference of context, “another ”
means “another than myse/f” in v. 32, and “‘ Another than yourselves”
in xiv. 16—in both cases, however, referring to a supernatural power.
In iv. 37 GAXos éotiv 6 o7etpwv Kat adXAos 6 OepiLwv, the meaning of
aXXos is defined (1) by the following aAXos, (2) by the statement that
it is a “proverb.” Hence addXos is here correctly rendered “ one,”
and refers primarily to man and to the facts of social life, “ove
soweth, another reapeth.” But Christ goes on to say that this
worldly proverb is “really and genuinely true” in another interpreta-
tion, and that a spiritual one, namely referring to the spiritual harvest
(17277). Hence it is not fanciful to see a latent allusion to the
invisible ‘‘Sower,” the Holy Spirit: “He that soweth is Azother
[one without whom all human sowing By prophets and apostles
would be vain].”
[2796] What is the meaning of “another” in the prediction of
Peter’s martyrdom xxi. 18 ‘‘ Another (adXos) shall gird thee”?
Several authorities and mss. read the plural aAAo.. And indeed, if
the “girding ” and the following words allude—as everyone admits—
to Peter’s crucifixion, how can the plural be dispensed with? Even
if one man could perform the binding, how could one man perform
the lifting up on the cross or the carrying to the cross'? ‘The sense
seems to demand, ‘“ Others shall bind thee round the loins and carry
thee where thou wouldst not be [ze. to the cross]?.” But what
if the evangelist here again uses “ Avother” to mean “ One stronger
than thyself,” namely, Christ, or the Spirit of Christ, which constrains
1 [2796 a] Oloce has been altered by & to rovfrovew, and by D to amdyouow
(comp. Mk xv. 22 Pépovow atrov émi rov Toyoda rémrov, where Mt.-Lk. differ).
2 [2796 4] Nonnus, Ove 5& ynpdoxwy ravioces oéo xeipas davdyxy Kal oe
repoplytovtw dpedées dvepes GANor, Els twa y@pov dyovres dv ot céo Ouuds dvuwyet.
614
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS _ [2798]
the Apostle to go on the Path of the Cross’, and which “ girds” him
for the conflict—as the Psalmist (xviii. 32) says, “It is God that
girdeth me with strength”?
[2797] Chrysostom takes pains to explain the final words in
“shall carry thee where thou wouldest not,” as implying “ weakness
after the flesh.” In the Martyrium Petri et Pauli and the Acta
Petri et Pauli, Peter is described as retiring from Rome, and Christ
as commanding him to return, in order to be crucified, saying
“Follow me” and ‘Fear not, because I am with thee*.” Thus, in
effect, Christ “girds’” him with strength and “carries” him
“whither he would not.” Perhaps, however, in the Johannine
tradition, there is no reference to a temporary weakness of the
Apostle just before his martyrdom, but the meaning of the whole is
an antithesis—rather implied than clearly expressed—between ‘‘ doing
one’s own will” in youth, and “doing the will of Azother” in old
age: “When thou wast young thou wast strong [as thou didst
suppose] in thine own strength and didst walk according to thine own
will ; but when thou shalt be old thou shalt stretch out thy hands
[on the cross]*, and Another shall gird thee [for thy martyrdom] and
shall carry thee [to the cross, obedient now to His will] where
according to thine own [present] will thou wouldest not (0d Aes) be
Carried <./
On ‘‘authority ’’ in Epictetus (2740—4)
[2798] Epictetus looks forward to the hour of death when he
will stretch his hands up to God and say “ Because thou (emph.)
didst beget me I give thee thanks for the things thou gavest...take
them back again and dispose them in what place thou wilt: for they
were all thine; thou (emph.) hast given them to me.” The things
1 Comp. 2 Cor. v. 14 “the love of Christ constraineth us” and other passages
in which Christ is said to ‘‘apprehend ” z.e. take captive, or lead in triumph, His
disciples (Phil. iii. 12, 2 Cor. il. 14).
2 [2797 a] Acta Petri et Pauli § 82, sim. Mart. P. et P. § 61.
3 [2797 4] SS, ‘thou wilt ft wp thine hands,” suggests prayer rather than
crucifixion. The ‘‘spreading out of the hands” on the cross was regarded in
ancient times as typifying prayer or intercession.
4 [2797] Instead of omoyoy@eAdeic, D has otroycyGeAeic (with a small oy
above @€AEIC) which would mean ‘‘ Another shall carry thee whither [in thy
present love for thy Lord]—thouw desirest to go.” This is an intelligible and a
beautiful meaning. But it is almost certainly a corruption arising from (1) a casual
confusion of oy and cy, (2) a desire to remove the difficulty explained by Chry-
sostom.
615
[2798] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
given are described in the context as “perceptions” and “pre-
conceptions,” “helps received from thee that I might understand
thy ordinance [of the universe] and might follow it.” Over this
internal and spiritual realm the philosopher has “authority,” un-
shackled, unhindered*. No one can take it from him—this “authority”
to be virtuous, temperate, courageous, untroubled. No doubt,
occasionally, Epictetus suggests that this absolute fearlessness and
rectitude of conscience gives the philosopher some “ authority” over
others. This comes out clearly in a passage where he proclaims the
superiority of Diogenes, the natural king—the wielder of the sceptre®
' [2798 a] Epict. iv. 10. 14—16 as @\aBov dpopuas mapa cot mpds 7d aicbécbar
gov THS Stockjoews Kal dkoAovbjoa aiTy, TovTwWY ovK HuéAnoa../ OTL me ov eyévynoas
Xap exw av Ziwxas: Ef dcov expnoduny Tois cots apxel wor. madw adTa drddaBe
kal kardragoy els qv av OéXns XHpav. oh yap Av TdvTa, ot mot alta dédwkas. These
last words remind us of Jn xvii. 6 ‘‘ Thine they were and thou gavest them to me.”
But, in John, ‘‘¢zze” is masc. and means ‘‘the disciples.” In Epictetus, ‘‘ ¢izze”
is neut. and means the will and the power to be virtuous. No doubt, in John
also, ‘‘ all that thou hast given me” is frequently neuter. But, even when neuter,
it includes the thought of the Church as partaking in the spiritual unity of the
Father and the Son (2740—4).
* (2798 4] Epict. Ach. i. 1—2 éf quiv pev brddrnYWrs, opur, Specks, Exxdors...
kal Ta pev ep huiv éote picer ehevMepa, axwArUTA, draparddicta, The self-con-
trolled movements of the mind are (¢.) ‘ our own works (nuérepa épya)”’ and are
**in our power (€¢ juiv),” and the philosopher says, iv. 10. 30, apxet wor wy exw
efouvclav, “sufficient to me are those things over which I have authority,” iii. 3.
g—1o “can anyone defraud me of my trustworthiness or of my love for my
brethren? This is an estate from which none can eject me—not even Zeus! Not
that He would desire it for a moment. Nay, He has placed this at my own
disposal, and gave it to me even as He Himself possessed it—znhindered, uncon-
strained, unshackled.”
* [2798 c] See ili. 22. 57 ‘‘the sceptre of Diogenes,” 72. 63 ‘‘ the sceptre and
the kingdom” of the Cynic. The whole chapter deals with the essential nature of
royalty, which belongs to the Cynic because men recognise in him both their
unselfish Benefactor and their natural Master. How is it possible, asks the pupil,
that a naked, homeless, squalid creature—without a slave to attend him, or a
country to call his own—can live a life of equable happiness ? To which Epictetus
replies, iii. 22. 46—s0 ‘Behold, God hath sent unto you the man that shall
demonstrate in act this possibility. Behold, [all of] you, that I am without
country, home, possessions, slaves, making my bed on the ground—no wife, no
children, no paltry palace, only the earth and the sky and one poor cloak! And
what do I want? Am I not painless! Am I not fearless? Am I not free?
When saw ye me missing anything that I longed for? Or falling into any evil that
I shunned? What fault found I ever, either with God or man? When did I
accuse anyone? Saw ever anyone my face clouded with gloom? How do I
confront the great men before whom you stand frightened and abashed? Do
616
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS _ [2799]
of man’s conscience—to Nero, Sardanapalus, Agamemnon, and
Alexander: ‘‘ These kings and tyrants were wont to receive! from
their armed guards the [privilege of] rebuking this man or that and
the [brute] power of even inflicting punishment on offenders—and
this though they themselves were bad: but on the Cynic this
authority is bestowed not by arms and guards but by the conscience”
—v.e. the consciousness” of being a disinterested toiler for mankind,
of being a friend of Zeus, and of knowing men (whom he counts as
his brethren or children), as a general knows his soldiers, so that he
may reprove them freely*®. Still, this “authority” is shackled and
hindered. The only absolute ‘authority ” given to man is over his
own heart.
[2799] On the other hand there is the false “‘authority” of the
despot, which so imposes on the pseudo-philosopher that he cries
I not treat them as [cringing] slaves (avdpamddors)? Who that sees me does not
think that he beholds his own [true] King and Master ?”—This, says Epictetus, is
the Cynic’s message, this is his true character.
1 [2798] iii. 22. g4 Lit. ‘‘qwere wont to supply to these kings.” Mrs Carter’s
transl. has the pres. ‘‘give.” But Epictetus is looking back at the long line of
kings of the old dispensation (comp. Jn x. 8 ‘‘ all that came before me are thieves
and robbers”’) including (iii. 22. 30) Agamemnon, ‘‘ though he was better than
Sardanapalus and Nero.’”’ Not that Epictetus denies Agamemnon the title of
‘“shepherd.’”? ‘‘ Shepherd in truth,” he says (iii. 22. 35), ‘‘ for you weep like the
shepherds, when a wolf has snatched away one of their sheep!’ The “shepherd”
as fighting for the sheep against the wolf is not considered by Epictetus. He
dislikes the metaphor: ‘‘ And these [Greeks],”’ he says, ‘‘are sheep indeed, who
are ruled over by you.” As for the true Cynic, he is to abstain—at all events
(iii. 22. 67) during the present state of society—from the distractions of wife and
children so that he may devote himself wholly to his subjects, who include the
whole human race, and may play his part as the king (//ad ii. 25) ‘‘to whom the
nations are entrusted and [the burden of] so many cares,” going about the world
and doing good as Ruler and as Healer (iii. 22. 72).
2 [2798 e] ‘‘ The consciousness,” txt lil. 22. 95 dray idy dre UrepnypimvnKer
imép dvOpérwv. But the sense is improved by reading e1AH. It has been shewn
(2659 e) that SN sometimes uses | for €1. Moreover B—which frequently uses €/
for long 1—sometimes uses €1 for short | as (2654 4) in Jn i. g adyOecvov, Jas iil. 7
avOpwrewn, i. iv. 14 atwers. And, in Epictetus itself, Schweig. Index testifies
that édv e160, sciam, ‘‘interdum perperam cum édy idw permutatur.”’ See also
2515 (i) ec. By reading drav eidy here (‘‘ Avowing as he does,” or “ conscious as he
is”) we shall keep the connexion between e/67 and the preceding ovveidds. It is
the Cynic’s own “conscience” —as well as the conscience of those whom he
controls—that gives him a kingly power over his subjects.
3 [2798 f] ili. 22. 96 ‘‘speak freely,” diaré uy Oapphon mappynoidgerdac 7 pos
Tovs abedpods Tovs EavTov, mpds Ta TéKva, amAGS mpds Tovs cuyyevets; On the
prominence of rappyota in Jn see 1917 (i)—(vi).
617
[2799] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
out “But he has authority to kill me'!” To this Epictetus replies
elsewhere that the despot Aas “authority” over our body and other
possessions but not over our will. To the objection ‘‘So you
philosophers teach people to despise kings!” he replies, “God
forbid! Which of us teaches [anyone] to lay claim, in rivalry with
them, to the things over which they have authority? Take my body
—|we say|—take goods, take reputation, take my friends and
relations...‘ Yes,’ [says the despot], ‘but I desire also to rule your
[inmost] convictions.’ And who gave you this awzthority??” It
follows that the despot’s ‘‘authority ” is a mere vapour®, and that the
pupils of Epictetus might ask to be allowed to release themselves
from it by self-slaughter : ‘‘ Here [on earth, are] robbers and thieves
and courts of justice and so-called despots, who fancy they have
some sort of authority over us—simply because of [their hold on]
our paltry body and its possessions. Suffer us [O Epictetus] to shew
4)
them that they have authority over nothing’. According to
1 [2799 a] Epict. ii. 13. 22—3. The immediate reply to this is that such a
man must not pretend to be a philosopher: ‘* As long as you give people this grip
on you through your body your course must be always to follow the stronger (axohovbec
mavrl T@ loxupoTépw)” z.e. not the good and wise, but the strong, the tyrant. The
bitter phrase, ‘‘ follow the stronger,” helps us to understand why Jn would prefer
i. 15 mp@rds wou to the Synoptic loxupérepéds wou (2667).
2 [2799 6] Epict. i. 29. g—11. Did God, then, give the tyrant this
‘authority ’—transient and unreal though it is—over the bodies of men?
Epictetug 2vzf/zes that He did, in a passage (iil. 22. 5 foll.) where God is repre-
sented as allotting their several parts to the sun, to the heifer (which has to run
away from the lion), to the bull (which has to fight), to Agamemnon and to
Achilles : but he never says that God assigned a part to Thersites. The burden
of this difficulty is thrown (iv. 1. roo—1)on the 6puds—the “‘¢2des,”’ or ‘‘motions,”
of God’s universe, which we must carefully consider: ‘‘ Our will is unshackled,”
but ‘‘ the body of clay—how was He able to make that unshackled? Therefore
He made subject to the [ever moving] circle of the universe (bwératev obv TH TaV
dAwy ep.ddw) possessions, utensils, house, children, wife. Why, then, should I
fight against God?”
3 [2799c] Epictetus imagines his well-trained pupil, after an interview with
the ‘‘great man,” the possessor of false ‘‘ authority,’’ exclaiming i. 30. 6—7 ‘‘ Why
all these preparations to meet nothing at all? Was ¢hts his authority? This, his
antechambers, his gentlemen of the chamber, his yeomen of the guard !... These
things were nothing, and I was preparing for things great.”
4 (2799 d] Epict. i. 9. 15. Epictetus will not consent, he bids his pupils await
God’s sign. In iv. 10. 29, Ta adNbrpia SYerar adra ds dv Pépy, ds av Sldwrac rapa
rod éxovros ékovelay...apker mor wy exw ékovolav...ra 5 ddda ws av OXY O exelvwv
Kuptos, some have taken 6 éxelvwy kipios as God. Aut kipvos 2s almost always used
618
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS _ [2799]
Epictetus, then, as also according to the Fourth Gospel, all men
that receive the Logos of God receive authority over the will within
them, which enables them to conform their will to His and to become
His children ; and this—the authority to lead a virtuous life—is the
only real authority’. The authority to pronounce judgment is not
real authority unless the judge knows the truth®, That power which
has “authority” to bestow the greatest “ profit” is ‘ divine (@etov)*.”
by Epict. in a bad sense. His advice everywhere is, in effect, “ Call no man Jord.”
Here 6 éxelywy xUpios means ‘‘the lord or master of those transient objects.’
Comp. ii. 2. 25—6 ‘*But if you gape after external objects, you must needs
wobble at the dictate of the lord (divw kai katw KuNeoOae pds TO Bo'Anua TOD Kupiov).
And who is ‘lord’ (ris & éoti xipios)? He that has | from time to time] authority
over the things that you covet or avoid.”
1 [2799 e] Jn i. 12 ‘* But as many as received him [the Logos or Light] to them
gave he authority to become children of God.” Epictetus frequently describes the
Cynic as (i. g. 6) ‘Son of God” (comp. i. 3. 2 ‘knowing that thou art soz of
Zeus”), i. 19. 8—g ‘‘ When the tyrant says to anyone ‘I will fetter your leg,’ the
man that consistently honours (reruns) his leg says ‘ Don’t, for pity’s sake!”
But the man [that honours] his own will says, ‘If it appears advisable to you,
fetter it.’ ‘Won’t you bend ?’ [says the tyrant]. ‘ I will not bend.’ ‘I will shew
you that I am lord (kvpeds educ).” * You! Impossible! (2é0ev ot ;) I have been
freed by Zeus. Do you really suppose that He would purpose to allow //zs owz
Son (Tov tdvoyv vidvy) to be made a slave? But of my corpse you are lord.
Take it.’”
» [2799 f] Epict. i. 29. 50 ‘‘* But,’ say you, ‘the authorities (6 éxwv Thy
éfovciav) have given sentence [saying] 7 judge you [ guilty] of tmpiety and profanity.’
What [harm] is there [in that] for you?” i. 29. 52 ‘* This man, whoever he be,
that has authority to sentence you—does he know what piety or impiety is?”
Such ‘‘judgments”’ therefore are futile, i. 25. 2 ‘‘ What can henceforth cause us
trouble or fear? Can it be any of the objects of our life? No one has any
authority over these. As for the things over which the others have azthority, we
do not care a jot for them,” ii. 13. 14 ‘‘ Consequently, Zeno, for his part, felt no
anxiety when he was going before Antigonus. For what the former admired, the
latter had no authority over...but Antigonus was anxious at the prospect of
meeting Zeno,” ii. 24. 48 ‘* And further remember that [in going to a great man]
you have in effect gone to a shoemaker or greengrocer, to one that has xo
authority over anything that ts great or sertous—though he may sell [his goods] at
a great price.” These extracts have a bearing on Pilate’s judgment. Pilate sat
as judge to decide the truth: but he confessed that he did not know what it was
(‘‘ what is truth?”’’). He also “‘ was afraid,” as Antigonus before Zeno.
3 [2799.2] ‘‘ Profit,” apédeca (Epict. seldom uses cwrnpia except in a fashionable
asseveration). Comp. Epict. iv. 1. 61 vootpev yap bre 7d exov eLovolay rTijs
peylaTns wpedelas Geidy éo7t. But, says the context, we think the things of
greatest ‘‘ profit” are wealth, office, etc. Then it follows that (74. 39—6o0) ‘‘ those
who have azthority over these things are our /ords,” and ‘thus then we have
many Jords (kupious) ’’ because we have many worldly desires. It is assumed that
619
[2799] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
These and many other passages indicate that educated Greeks at
the beginning of the first century must have been familiar with the
contrast between true authority and false so vividly exhibited in the
Fourth Gospel (1594).
the only true Lord is He that can bestow on us the only true ‘‘ profit,” namely,
virtue. In his doctrine about lordship, Epictetus had to deal with the difficulty
that ‘‘lord” was regularly used in conversation to mean little more than “Sir.” He
does not forbid the use of the word thus, provided that it be used merely as a form.
But iv. r. 57 “If you hear anyone say heartily and feelingly (@owOev kal &€k
mdOous) * Lord, then—though twelve fasces go before him—call him ‘ S/ave.’ ”
[2799 (i)] Addendum on 6te. Jn’s use of dre differs little from the Synoptic,
exc. in the frequency of the phrase ‘‘ there cometh an hout...zwhem (ére)...,” iv. 21,
23, v. 25 (but v. 28 év 7), xvi. 25. In ix. 4 “‘there cometh xight, when,” W.H.
make no pause; but a comma is required after vvé, to distinguish it from ‘‘ a nzght
when.’ In y. 25 &pxerar wpa, kal viv éorlv, dre, a pause is also necessary, to
avoid the familiar juxtaposition éorw 6re, and also for the sense, “‘ there cometh an
hour [appointed by God], and even now it is [here], w/ev....”” Here “‘when” is
almost equivalent to é& 7 ‘‘in which hour,” or “in that hour” (as in v. 28). In
xvi. 2, 32, “‘the hour cometh” is not followed by 67e but by tva—probably because
here the phrase exceptionally introduces, not an ‘‘hour” of blessing or resurrection
but an “hour” of persecution or trial, and it is desired to emphasize the fact that
this trial is part of God’s purpose, ordained “27 order that” the trial may come
to pass.
[2799 (ii)] Addendum on CYN. Jn agrees with Demosthenes and Epictetus in
hardly ever using vy (while abundantly using werd with gen.). vv is also non-
occurrent in Rev. These facts stamp vy as belonging to literary as distinct from
spoken Greek. Accordingly o¥y occurs in 1 Esdr. ii. 7, viii. 14 where werd occurs
in the parall. Ezr. i. 4, vii. 16; and the instances of stv in Luke (including Gospel
and Acts) as compared with all the rest of N.T. are as three to two, Zvv with
neut. pl. ‘‘along with these things,” may have various meanings (Lk. XXIV. 21
“along with” (i.e. in addition to] but Nehem. v. 18, Epict. Amch. xxxii. 3,
xxxiii. 13 “‘along with [and in spite of |”). tv with persons regarded statistically
may mean “‘reckoned up with,” contrasted with meré which implies helpful
companionship, as in Epict. i. 24. 19 ‘‘Z reckon myself with the multitude
(cvyxatardrrw éuavrov civ rots moddois) and walk conpanionadbly with many
individuals (kal werd moNA@v trepurara).”” In ov Beg, oiv TE dixaly, oi oly adTo,
etc. the dat. mostly represents God, a Cause, a Leader on whose side (not “by
whose side,” wapd) one is fighting or working and with whom one identifies oneself
(as with Christ in the Pauline Epistles). vv occurs thrice in Jn, xii. 2, xxl
(which need no comment), xviii. t—2 radra elmdv Inoods €EjMev oly Tots waOnTats
620
NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS _ [2799]
avrov...elap\Oev adros K. ol wadyrai avbrov...cuvnxOn "I. éxet pera TOV madnTrav
avrod. Both here and elsewhere Christ is described by Jn as in helpful com-
panionship with (uerd) the disciples, but not elsewhere as ody T. uabnrats.
Nonnus omits the ovv clause, and so does Chrysostom (exc. in the title of his
homily). But Origen quotes it. Doubtless it is genuine and bears upon Lk. xxii.
39 ‘‘according to the (16) custom...there Jollowed him [also] the disciples.” Did
space allow, it might be shewn that Lk. and Jn appear to take different views of
“the custom”—Jn interpreting it as referring to Christ’s customary reception
of the disciples in a certain place. But the discussion of this point must be
deferred to a treatise on ‘Johannine Interventions.”
[2799 (ili)] Addendum on AOroc (sing. and defined) in Christ’s words
(1) IN THE Synoptists. The first Synoptic mention is in the Parable of the
Sower Mk iv. 14 6 o7elpwy Tov Noyor oreipe, parall. Mt. xill, 1g mavTds akovovTos
tov débyor Tis Baowelas, Lk. viii. 11 6 omdpos éoTiv 6 Aéyos Tod eov (foll. by
Lk. viii. 21 wATnp mou Kal ddeApol pov ovrol ela oi Tov Néyov TOU Deot akovovTes Kal
movoovtes, which is parall. to Mk iii. 35 ds dy rowjoy To OEAnu“a TOU Heod, Mt. xii. 50
doTts yap av Toujon TO OEAnua T. TaTpbs mov T. év otpavots). The only other mention
in Lk. is xi. 28 (pec. to Luke) pevotv paxdproe of axovovres Tov Néyou T. eod Kai
guddooovres. Apart from the Sower and its explanation (and Mk vii. 29 “‘for this
saying go thy way’) Christ’s only use of 6 Adyos, in Mk, is in the charge brought
against the Pharisees that they make void ‘* ‘Ae word of God” —which enjoins the
honouring of parents—for the sake of their tradition (Mk vii. 13, Mt. xv. 6 txt
‘*the word of God,” but marg. ‘‘law of God”). The impression given by these
passages is that ‘‘¢#e word” in Mk iv. 14 means the word of God as set forth in
the fundamental principles of the Law of Moses, interpreted and expanded in the
Sermon on the Mount—the law enjoining the love of God and of ‘‘ neighbour ”—
dealing primarily with motives, and claiming to override the sabbath in respect of
works of healing, but not as yet illustrated by Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross.
(2) IN JoHN. (a) ‘‘AZy word,” ‘his word,” “thy word.” The first Johan-
nine mention of 6 Adyos (apart from iv. 37 ‘‘ the saying [about the harvest]”’) is in
Vv. 24 6 Tov Adyor mou axotwy Kal micTevuv TH TéuparTt we EXEL FwHY alwnor.
This is part of Christ’s reply to the Jews, who first persecute and then desire to
kill Him for healing on the sabbath, and for saying ‘* My Father worketh hitherto
and I [too] work.” Chrysostom (twice, but varying with pl. and sing.) quotes this
as ‘‘my words,” and so does Nonnus. But ‘‘¢he wova’”” seems to mean the word
of the Son, which is also that of the Father—the word, or law, of love and kindness
exemplified in the healing on the sabbath—which is a principle, or seed, of
spiritual life, so that it abides in men, if they make room for it in their hearts by
‘*belief,” as above stated, v. 24 ‘‘He that heareth my word and believeth him that
sent me hath eternal life,” v. 38 ‘‘ Ye have not 47s word abiding in you,” viii. 37
‘* My word hath no place in you,” viii. 51—2 (d7s) ‘‘if any one keep my word” ; or
else men may be described as abiding in it, viii. 31 ‘‘If ye abide in my word.”
Concerning this ‘‘zovd” of the Father, the Son says, vill. 55 “I know him
[z.e. the Father] and I keep 27s word.” In the Last Prayer He thrice calls it
“thy word” thus, xvii. 6 “ They have kept ‘hy word,” xvil. 14 ‘SI have given
unto them ¢hy word,” xvii. 17 “thy word is truth ””—which implies that the vital
recognition of the true relation between God and man, and between man and man,
has been implanted by the Son of God in the hearts of men His brethren. After
saying (xiv. 23) ‘‘ If any one love me he will keep my word,” Christ is represented
as implying the identity between the ‘‘ word ” of the Son and that of the Father in
621
[2799] NOTES ON PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS
xiv. 24 ‘‘and ¢he word that ye hear (or, are hearing) is sof mine but [the word] of
the Father who sent me.”
(6) ‘* The word of God,” in Jn, occurs only in x. 35 “If he called them ‘gods’
unto whom ¢he word of God came (pds ods 6 Néyos T. Geod eyévero),” referring to
Ps. Ixxxii. 6 ‘‘ I said ye are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High, never-
theless ye shall die like men.” The Psalm is about ‘‘ judges” to whom ‘‘the word
of the Lord came”—as it is freq. said to ‘‘come” to prophets ( 7hrough Letter etc.
850 éyévero mpos)—to enable them to judge justly, as the Spirit of God was
imparted to the Seventy through Moses (Numb. xi. 25) for the same purpose.
The judges mentioned by the Psalmist judge unjustly. Nevertheless it is implied
that they had in themselves the potentiality to become ‘‘ gods” and the ‘‘sons of
God” because He offered them His Word, 7.e. the seed of spiritual life, though
they rejected it. See Origen (on Rom. iii. 4, Lomm. vi. 155—6).
(c) ‘* The word that ts in their own law, [there] written” occurs in xv. 25
referring to Ps. xxxv. 19 ‘‘ They hated me without a cause.” On viii. 43 ‘‘my
speech...my word,’ see 2251, and on xv. 20 ‘‘the word that I said unto you”
see 2405—6.
(d) ‘* The word that I spake (6 X. bv éXMa4Anoa)—that (€éxetvos) shall judge him”
(xii. 48), describes “the word”’ as rejected, so that it can no longer be an internal
source of life, a friendly ally, but is forced to become an external judge. This
must be contrasted with xv. 3 ‘‘ Already are ye clean because of the word that [
have spoken (heXadyka) to you: abide in me, and I too in you” —where ‘‘the word”
is the new Law of Love inculcated in the Washing of Feet. This ‘‘word” has
been taken by the disciples into their souls. Judas indeed rejected it; but
concerning the rest it is afterwards said, xvii. 6 ‘‘they have kept chy word.”
The cleansing influence of the Logos may be illustrated from Epictetus, who says,
iv. 11. 4 “But since it is impossible that man’s (a’r@v) being should be completely
clean (kadapdv)...the word, received from [God], so far as is possible, attempts to
make it cleanly (6 Néyos, rapadnpbels, els TO Evdexduevoy, Ta’TnY Kabdpiov amoTeEw
.” But Epictetus regards 6 Aéyos as little more than ‘‘reason.”” John
uses 6 Néyos in the words of Christ to represent not only the zvord announcing the
sonship of man to God, but also the ¢hought of sonship, so taken into man’s
heart that the personal Son enters along with the thought, as into a home, and
makes His abode there—or else so rejected that it becomes a Judge.
(e) ** Their word”—Christ’s last mention of Aéyos—occurs in xvil. 20 “I
pray...for them that believe on me through ¢hezr word,’ contemplating a time
when ‘‘¢he word” of the Son, transmitted to the disciples and assimilated by them
so that it becomes ‘‘thezr word,” will be a power diffusing belief in the Son
throughout the world.
Telparat)
INDICES
LL:
iB
LN DICES
TO “JOHANNINE VOCABULARY ”
New Testament Passages
Subject-Matter (English)
Words (Greek)
TO “JOHANNINE GRAMMAR”
New Testament Passages
Subject-Matter (English)
Words (Greek)
PAGE
62
641
646
INDIGES LO [JOM ANNINE VOCABULARY ”
I NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES
[Zhe references are to paragraphs, indicated by black numbers, which,
in this Index, run from 1438 to 1885,
figure ts not printed.|
Or
6
MATTHEW
PAR.
16 710c, 863 a
18 725 5
3-11 859e
4 674
6 750 4, 8544
8 857 c
II 554
12 8514
14 748
14-16 7152
15 858
16 728 h
18 860
19 7082
22 682 a
23-4 851d
25 565, 714 e,
719K, 852¢
37 753
44 856, 885 /
47 753
9 851 a,
14-15 Tlla
7 728 a
Ig-20 858
23 8642, 866
24 8547
25 865
26 856
2 856, 862
6
To save space, the thousand
MATTHEW
PAR.
28 859
29 864
I 714 d, 859 a
3-5 851d
7-8 8526
13 764, 810 a
16 864
22 478 a
22-2 484, 7642
25 862
aby 862-3
27-9 573-4
28 865 0
29 «=i
2 644
4 6954, 833,
885 a
5-6 862 Be c
5 862 a, b, ¢
9 BT4a,718c,855
ie) 4776, 673 a
Il 851 a, 856
13 477 a, 862d,c
14 834 a—b
17 679d, 724a,
853
19 839 foll.
20 452-8, 609 2,
839 foll.,
858 a
This Index extends from 1438 to 1885 (printed 438—885).
MATTHEW
PAR.
1 20 749 c
OT 865
23 728 /,
24 865
22 641 4
3 644, 7276
4 863
6 6827, 862
7 749 ¢
8 644, 6750, 751
9 725 da
If 644, 754
13 149 c
16 686
18 674
(9 749 c
2 860
3 2 690 a
3 726
6 678 a, 86la
8 852
9 851a
io) 858
Il 686 7, 833 a
16 866 (iv)
4 1-11 854a
6 863
9 565, 643
ime) 643
15 7146
Vale
O25 -*
4O
INDICES TO “JOHANNINE VOCABULARY”
MATTHEW MATTHEW MATTHEW
PAR. PAR. PAR.
8 22 7207 i (6 859 13 58 673 a
24 6804 » 6042, 689¢ | 14 5 708¢
26 4770 856 14 763 6
34 755 8 755 20 692¢
ee 834 a—b 10 681 a 21 693 ¢
6 562, 575, 594c II 683 22 735 a
8 575 13 860 2 71872, 813a
9 604 a 16 861 | 2 813 a, 8334,
iI 718 2 17 857 864
16 815d 19 775 a, 854, 864, 25 7187
17 751 6, 853.a 866 J 26 727 6
18 644, 765 a, 20 708 ¢ 27 7134, 81le
852¢ 22 859 33 644, 7277
22 477 6, 8640 23 851, 866 a iy 728 a
23 852¢ 24 859 6 3 714, 824-31
27-30 742 25 678 a, 852, 860, I4 861
28 477 a 864-5 | 17 817 a
29 4776 26 852 | 22 713 0
son TaSic, 1Sils; 27 810c, 852 24 7237
885 a 28 810c 25 644
36 708 ¢ 29 865 a | 28 477 6, 533
38 853 Wy > 728 e | 16 9 721, 728/
LO 580 a 14 695¢ | 18 709 a
2 709 a 15 810 | 23 864 /
3 TW4c 16 752 24 792 6, 842
5 863 18 674 ai 7122
6 7237 19 752 6 foll. 28 530 a, 710¢
8 751 a 20 689 e, 751 Nias 855
Io 852 21 855 | IT 634 6
II 707 a, 751 30 863 14 862 a
13 853 a 34 864 18 862 a
15-16 859 ‘ 41 859 0 20 477 b
18 695 4, 725 2 859 4, 864 26 712 ¢, 7510
20 720% 45 856.2, 858 18 2 793
21 679 48-9 749a 3 676 a, 865a
22 713 f 50 728 ¢ 4 865 a
24 723 hz 13 10 720 a, b, 802a 6 686
24-8 775 a, 784-92 Ii-13 7216 8 7340
25 723 hz 13 612-3, 724 9 682 a
20 7167, 738 a, 15 683 ¢ II 692 ¢
852, 859 d 16 560, 859 ¢ 15 851d, 852a,
27) 863 a, 866 19 854 a 855
28 565-6 21 8117 16 696¢, TO0Tic;
32 86la 22 676 725 e
3 4 854 ¢ 2 6927 20 793
35 860 28-48 864 21 79a, 781,
36 787 a, 192a 31 6927 852 a
By 450, 792 a, 35 721 ¢ 26 644
866 0 39 854 a 31 720 /
38 792 b 40 TBS 19% “a 865 /
40 671 4, 721 7 53 865 0) | 4 708
40-1 825-31 54 696d, 720%, 8 708d
42 7286 864 16 8B2c
Vhs ton 865 55 714c, T77 17 714 /
3 632, 856 a 57 720 / 28 859 w
This Index extends from 1438 to 1885 ( printed 438—885).
626
NEW
TESTAMENT PASSAGES
20
moe
WwwWPYP NNN DN N
bo
to
— = HEWN DN WV
_
iS}
WW nn
MATTHEW
CONT Crytn © em O'1O
w
°
1
mr at wv
~
nnsTror+t ¢
Mnm1WwW
WDNvNnvoowkh Qu vy
aN
PAR.
691e
449 a,
853
678
644
712 2, 753
678 ¢
570-1
7Aaley a-e-f
717 f, 723 1
579
737 a, 813
725 b-c
4776
T75e
86146
456 a, 634,
754a, T57
7207
633, 8164
8120
8160
860
712d
467
562
8570
477 a
841
477 a
722c, 811e
687 a, 718d
861
853
6042, 853
853
695c, 7230
727d, m
721e
866
722d
851a
860
680, 856
714h
8660
717 d-e
865a, 8662
477 4, 697,
716c, 851c,
8596
857
861
753
859
718 a,
23
26
MATTHEW
PAR.
34 678, 854¢
35-860
37 674, 682 7, 859
39 633
6 719 a, 7287
if 680 a, 6874,
718d
8 708d
9 713 7
[2 716c, 851c¢
T4 6950
Oe 708 ¢
23 477 a
26 477 a
27 866
30 7122
31 682 7
38 680 4, 710%,
755 a
2-4 634a
43 858
45 862¢, 866
46 859
47 865
49 752
50 856
51 860
I 720 7, 755
4 720 7
7 720 f
9 852
19 6346
21 862¢
2: 862¢
2 754
24-6 856
35 7506
36 8104
37 7506
38-44 8100
40 749 a
41 854a
42 7500
44 7506
I 8650
2 678
4 7236, 811
5 Tile
5 810a
9 742a, 814a
ie) 7287
12 734e, T51¢
18 834e
24 653, 713 a,
816 a
26
MATTHEW
PAR.
25 696 «
28 690 a
30 794
21 862
33 438 a
34 7182
36 634
3¢ 5 07a
39 7160, 728.2
40 634
44. 695e
45 634
48 716°, 8666
50 862
5 7386, 866
54 722a
55 857
56 722d
59 695¢
61 675
64 7132
67 737 ¢
71 860
73 7160, 7277
1 754
6,9 755
leat 725 c—e
15 T1le, 7356
19 745, 750
27 814¢, 815¢
28 805-6
29 689¢, 7342,
805-6,
8146
30 689 ¢
33 807, 810
40 675 ¢
44 817 ¢
45 7100
48 689e, 813¢
49 ~+=«-756
50 752d
51 107
52 6932, 858
53 716%
54 7277
59 T16a, 857 c,
866 (i)—(iv)
62 T17h
66 754
I-2 680c, 8326
5 681d
6 858
7 8020
8 6756
This Index extends from 1438 to 1885 (printed 438 —885).
627
40——2
INDICES TO “JOHANNINE VOCABULARY”
MATTHEW
PAR.
9 644
ite) 749
13 858
15 713 772
17 644
18 562, 590
19 485 ¢
20 793
MARK
I 708 7
2 681a
4 690a, 734c
5 678, 861a
i 686 /, 833d
ite) 852, 866 (iv)
15 467, 4802
16 7250
19 7166
20 7360
22 562
22-7 572-4
24 835
30 834a
39 884 ¢
43 713¢, 811 6-c
44 653, 695 0b,
833¢, 885a
45 738
I 884 ¢
4 834a, 884a
4-12 673,7360,834a
10 525 a, 562,
575, 594c
II 653
12 575
14 6042
15 834)
16 718 a
oI 8157, 853a
28 525 a
3 793
6 695 ¢
7 810, 834c
8 834¢
15 562, 580a
16 709 a
18 714c, 726
20 634a
20 712d
31 725a, 737
33- 749.4
35 728
10 720 a—b, 802a
iI 530a
4 TI-1
15
17
19
21
22
1o
MARK
PAR.
2 612-13, 721¢c
85424
8117
676, 833c¢
715¢
686c, 7162,
738a, 859d
515
686 a
721¢
720 a-d, 721¢
832¢
4770, 728/
681 ¢
644
723 a
6750
653, 6750
765a, 852¢
736¢
727m
477 +, 653,
728¢, 854e
477 a, 507 a,
533
728 /,
634a, 720%
696d, 864
686, 714c, 777
7207, %
673d
562, 580a
707a
6956
7350
832
738
832a
67506
7164, 810c¢
7636
710 ¢, 734d
69272
692¢
7354
7187, 813a@
634a, 7182,
735 b-c,
833 6
WAS, T2000,
81l¢
MOG
673, 7364
6776
7137, 728 a
10
MARK
PAR.
4 689 ¢
5 6770
6 688 a
9 714h, 824-31
13 82420
22 811
23 6770
26 7136
29 4776
33 693d, 7376
35 8526
6-7 6927
17 7281, 737¢
18 721 h
21 728/
22 693d, 7370
2 712 /, 744(xi)a
34 7924, 842
35 720 7
38 697,711a, 7127
I 530a, 710¢
1 6340
17 862d
18 735 e
2 533
2 8627
34 570d, 6830
35 717 da-¢
30 721 ¢, 793
37. ~=«* 721. f, 826-31
40 885 ~
41 6916, 7284
2 6860
43, 45 7340
I 634a
6 708d
15 865a
17 852 ¢
21 716d, 744(i)—
(xi)
24 686
37 7122
38-9 678¢
2 570-1, 594a
2-3 683a
43 810
43-4 T1Tda-¢
44 723k
45 579
40 737a
49 725 b—c
51 737d
52 477 b
I 776 e¢
2 653, 728 /
This Index extends from 1438 ¢o 1885 (printed 4838—885).
628
NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES
MARK MARK MARK
PAR. PAR. PAR.
11 2-7 8614 14 6 728 7 VelGrira 604 a, 856
F 7 720 f 8 734 ¢, 751¢ 12 5976, 686¢,
9 816 | It 686 687, 7162,
10 633 a, 816 4 13 653, 728 0, 738 a, 856a
12 17h | 834¢ 4 5976, 686,
14 712d 17 634 a | 708, 7162,
15 8126 21 653, W1sian | 738 a, 856
17 675 816 a 16-17 477 a, 487
18 739-40 26 794
22 467 2g 438 a an
ae) 69%). tla, a 718 7 PURE
725 a, 737 34 07a 1 2 708/, 719%
28 594 35 716 0 3 107 ¢
28-33 562 36 697, 711 a, 6 734 .c
2 857 0 728 ¢ 9 770
31 477 a 37 634 a 12 727 b
2 688 a 41 634a, 695e 13 708
12 2 23h 44 716.2, 8660 17 50la
4 1723 h, 832 47 738 6 30 775 ¢
10 722 ¢ 49 722 @ foll. 31 865
II 8ile 51-2 8100 33 712d
[3 723 6 54 7117, 715 ¢, 47 774 a, 851 6
14 727 ad, m 735 a 51 766
17 687 58 675 c, 679 4 52 865 a
22 866 62 713 7 53 768
24 722d 63 696 RS 712d
20 684, 837 a, 65 737 ¢ 57 708 6
851 a 67 735 a 59 ©7109
30-33 716d 70 716 6, 7277 | 69-77 7746
32 727 mz Way it 815 | 45 8546
26 «680, 856 ue yah 79 710c
37 739-40 12 707 A Aiegs 720 7
40 834d 19 814c¢, 815 ¢ 8 862
44 715 f 17 734a, 805-6, IT 7744
13 2 679 6 814 | 21 709 ¢
7 719 a, 728 / 19 644, 689 ¢ | 22 833 ¢
8 6802, 6874, 20 686 | 25 734¢
708 @, 718d 22 728 /,,807,810 | 34 764
9 695 6, 725 c 2 675 ¢ | 36 7340
II 720 & 31 686 39 720 f
12 679 32 817 ¢ | 40 175 ¢
13 713 f 33 710, 864a | 41-2 Tle
19 708d 34 128), | Eon Ec
20 +592, 7094 36 ©—«GB9e, 81Bc | Ci 34. ST6T
21 477 a | 38 107 ¢ 46 857
26 7122 39 7217 52 775 ¢
27 682 / 46 691, 7162, 3 2 764}, 857
2 697, 71la 857 c, 866 3 690 a
Buea t2s) 2.128 7 (i)—(iv) | 6 592
Ar 723 6, 811 | Gi 832 4 8 851 a, 852
2 688 a, T1le 2 815 a 9 858
3 736 «, 834) 6 858 12 690 f
4 810 a 7 802 a 13 7172
5 710 ¢, 738. 811 9 815 a 4 690 f, 852
a-c, 8144 10 802 a 15 885 0
This Index extends from 1438 to 1885 (printed 438—885).
629
INDICES TO “JOHANNINE VOCABULARY”
DUKE LUKE LUKE
PAR. PAR. PAR.
686 /,8337,899 6 28 8857 9 1 580a
674 | 32-4 775c A 707 a 7
855 35 856 5 695
866 (iv) 37 714d, 859. 8 749¢
767 38 769 12 858 a
772 a 39 861 14 693 ¢
-13 854a 40 123, tba, 16 6927
7 565 784-92 ity) 692¢
7-8 643 41-2 851d 23 792 6, 842
863 43 7g 2607122 ‘
778 44-5 864 27 530a, 696 a,
17-19 6900 7 1-10 8620 710 c, 7277
768 2 862 0 29 767, 769
719 h 3 713 m Be 802 a, 865
722 ¢ 5 687 a, 7182 35 833 a
115 c, 717-8, > 862.a, b 38 (771, 862d |
857 a, 859 7-8 718 c, 855 42 862d
23 +178 9 4774, 673d, 47 «1934
24 720f,h 8645 4S WAT e.. S1217,
25 727 mm 12 idk BOs: 826-31
29 606 a 13 779 a 50 885 7
32 562 19 632, 779 a, 55 864 0
32-6 572-4 856 a 56 = 692e |
34 835 23 859 ¢ 57 839 foll. |
38 = 834a 24 6042, 689¢, 58 452-8, 6094, |
I 725 b, 769 856 839 foll.,
2 736 é 25 769 858 a
2-6 763 27 681 a 60 720 7
BI 716 28 683 Or 779 a
4 63a, 775¢ 32 ~—«2857, 861 2 +853
6, 8 834c, 8354 34 775 a, 8660 3-859
6954, 833¢, | 35 854, 864 6 853a
885 a 37 834 5 707 a, 852,
884 1 38 7682 860
562, 575, 594c 44 7286, 68a, 8 6927
834a 864 4 12, 14 8594
575 | 47. +«860a 15-851, 866a
604 a | SaeKo 720 a, 6, 802a 16 6714, 825-31,
834 Io 612-3, 721 ¢ 832 a
4490, 718a, | 12 8540 17 478 «
853 ee Ciblya 17-20 589
7 853a | 14 676, 715/ 19-567, 580a
7516 17 7162, 738 a, 21 678a, 8514,
793 859 7 860, 864-5
695 ¢ 19 884 a 21-2 852
833 a 21 728 2, T49 a 22 810 ¢
709 a 24 882c 23 560, 859e,
726 25 «4775 | 864 d
714¢ 28 644 | 26 860
725 / 29 «= 8334 | 32 ~«770
2 859e 41-765, 852c 38 ‘TWla
750 J, 8545 Pic ae 39 «7174, 7714,
554 48 477 779 a
768 | 50 477a, 507a, 40 717 a, e, T7la
856 | 533 41 771a, 779 a
This Index extends from 1438 to 1885 (printed 438—885).
630
10
11
as
Ww
OO Dn
to
I
thw WwWWD nn Dn VN
Qn AO CON i mp OOW VN
(oe)
Or Ct
twWWwWWwWw PY nnn WN YD
Wm XO NT On Gy ST tn + Oo
nN
NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES
LUKE
PAR.
709 0,
833 a
851 a,
692 if]
852 6
852 6
720 Va
MG
863
856 a, 858
859 e
864
859
864 a, 866
775
179 a
857 c
477 +,
716c,
851c,
859 6
854 ¢
860
738 a,
859 @
784,
866
565, 723 z,
115 a, 6,
784-92
565
861 a
567 a, 569 a
7182
884¢
865
856
856, 862
859, 864
858
712.2, 858
712 2
858
779 ay
866
859 2
696 a,
865
752
856, 860
692 if
854e
860
862
691 ¢, 714 Bs if
Uh
697,
852,
863 a,
862 e,
727 j,
13
14
15
16
°
on
(SS) wwnrNy nN nnn eee
nb te RO
Ry NnNn =
wn n
nnwon
n=
°
8
mui + O”}
nwo
as
QU & Re NT Ro
LUKE
PAR,
565-6, 569 a,
T14e, 775e,
852 ¢
566
862
773
728 7
779 a, 8610
720 f
107 ¢
764
764 a
851 a
856
T74¢
674, 682 /,
720 7, 859
633
765 @
833 a
865 a, 866 a
861
8640
450, 713 /,
720 f, T92a
7207, 7926
686
720 7
718 a
715 7
720 7
T1567
720 f
720 /
767
767
T7152, 7120/5
782-3, 866
727 f, 764
851
854 o/
860
770
769
728 6, 765
674, ay
719 6
686 5
851 Z
852 a
781
781, 779 a
467, 477 b,
779 a
862
17
19
OC
WwW Nn es
Ak vr OO
te Www eR 8 fel bt
Om Ot w et
Cnt v
|
is)
OOw ws
ie)
oa)
i
Ons} BP Re oIW
LUKE
PAR,
712¢
775 c
723 h,
866
710 4
721 4
7187
779 a
725 d, 866
7207, 725d,
760
865 a, 866 a
852 ¢
737 a
860
725 b,
477 b
718 a
779 a
T7746
692 @
531, 693¢
720 7
862¢
760
856
7726
775 e
8614
720 7
633 v, 816 0
719 6, 859 c
739
562
857 6
477 a
672, 832
672
722¢
567 a,
723 6
727 ad, m
721 ¢
866
Wit,
851 a
680, 856
866 6
834d
696 a, 7277
7157
719 a
687 a, 718d
§80 a
725 c
861
569 a,
775,
This Index extends from 1438 to 1885 (printed 438—885).
631
INDICES TO
“JOHANNINE VOCABULARY”
21
LUKE
PAR.
13 695 6, 763 0
15 720 &
16 679
17 713 f
20 770
27 7127
36 725 a
1 T1le
2 723 6
3 6924, 765
5 774
6 678 a
10 728}, 834¢
15 833 c
17 721 7
19-20 885 7
22 653, 713 a,
816 a
23 772
25 570-1, 594d
26 = 717, f, 810
20 859 a
21 779.4
2 695%
33 438.2, 843
37 770
2 728 2
45 7137, 771, 858
47 7162, 866
50 738 0
51 7380, 866c
53 567
55 Tf
56 711, 715 ¢
59 727m
60 693 ¢
61 779 a, 8646
63 737 ¢
66 692
70 7137
2 6872, 718¢
7 567 a
1 676d, 806a
13 765a
15 772 6
20 107 ¢
22 695 ¢
23 769
28 864 /
29 708 &
33 807, 810
35 676c, T65a
41 7726
44 710 /
40 692 7
LUKE
PAR,
23 48 760
49 767
51 544, 71377
53 716a, 7194, |
728/, 857c, |
866 (i)—(iv) |
56 832 6
24 1 765, 8320
3 779a, 8010
4 832
5 858 a
9 8022
12 6004, 6738,
716 a,7260,
772, 798-
804, 866 |
(111) a |
13 798 foll.—804,
864
17 725d
20 765a
23 802
24 8020
25 477 a
26 722¢ foll.
27 722¢ foll., /
29 858a
32 722¢ foll., Z,
775¢
34 560
25 769
36 7256, 793-7,
804.2, 884c,
854¢
36-43 794-7
38 727 b
39 7137, 861
40 8044
41 796 a
43 768
44 724 /, 722¢
45 722¢, /
52 644
JOHN
er 708 /
1-5 6443
5 735 e-h, 885 |
6 734c¢, 885¢
Y| 464, 481-2
8 708 4, 748a
9 635, 727.2, 775 |
g-11 483
JOHN
PAR,
II 624 a, 6374,
720d, 7357
{2 481, 483-7,
576, 676a,
7217
13 484, 708 ,
728 &
14 604, 712 7,
744 (x) a,
771, T72a,
885 2, 885
(11) ¢
14-17 727, T75c
15 635, 885.¢
16 727 2
18 604 4, 605, 769,
771, 884c
19 688, 770
20 679-80
2 885d
22 723¢, 885d
696¢, 7287,
885 (ii) a
25 680, 885d
26 725a, ¢, 737,
796
26-7 635
or 635, 686 /,
833 d, 852
28 708 ¢
29 607,635, 717%,
885 (ii) a
30 635, 885 2
31 684¢, 7167
2 604, 707 a
33 T07a, 7T23e
34 606, 676¢
35 17h
36 885 (11) a
37 720 72
3 604, 694 c,
720 7,
728 d, 1,
864 0
39 598, 609.7, 610,
8857
41 717c, 720e, 2,
m, 728 /,
42 439,675, 709 a,
714a, 728/,
43 717, 720m
45 720, 778
40 598, 609
47 702 a, 713,
727 /, 811
This Index extends from 1438 to 1885 (printed 438—885).
NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES
JOHN JOHN JOHN
PAR, PAR. PAR.
1 47-30 610 3 16 6936,716¢,744 | 4 24 647
48 8852 (vi) foll., 25 635, 717 c
| 49 684c 771 27 673.4
| 50 ©—- 464, 481, 488, 16-18 498 28 885 (ii) c
598, 8852 16-21 497a 31 860
51 524, 598, 672, 17 581-5, 677d, 34 456, 774c
852 5, 866 692 f | 35 604, 608, 6742,
(iv), 8847 18 486, 502, 582— 885 (11) ¢
: ae 686d, 695d, 5, 677d, 36 691 4, 727 a
853 771 36-7 693
2 675, 686 d, 1g 582-5, 710 a, 36-8 856
853 716¢,728/, 37 7277
4 19a, 7287 744 (vi) a, 39-42 503-7
5 717d 859 d 42 727k, T14a
6 833, 885 (ii) 20 728%, 7724, | 43. TT=8
b,¢ 885 (ii)c | 44 7204, 155, 177
yi 707 7, 7286, 21 728, 7720 —8
885 (ii) ¢ 22 481, 493, 885 45 606 a, 689,
8 719d, 885(ii)a (ii) a 721
717d, 885 (ii) a 707 f, 7217 885 (ii) a
752, 885(ii)a 438 4, 688 683 ¢
464, 489-90, 7137, 833, 464, 508-9,
7127 885 (ii) 4 524a, 533
885 (ii) 4 6812 6764, 885 (ii)
686,751, 8124, 2 860 % 5 508-9
885 (ii) a—c 30 ~—s- 684, 885(ii)a 51 862.a
885 (ii) a 31 635, 7072 52 863,885 (ii) a, 2
17 7212, 860, 885 32 606 53 464. 509, 6842
| (11) d 33 727d foll., 754 ONer2 708%, 713 2,
| 18 885d 35 716¢ 885 (ii) a—c
1g 679 4, 7082, 36 501, 885(ii)a | 2-7 7207
722% 4 1 780 | 3 685c¢, 834a, c
20 675c, 885d I—3 493 4 728 ¢
21 507 2 481, 853. 5 683d
22 491, 7217, 722 5 687c, 726 6 610, 834a
a, 1, 860 6 — 885(ii) 2 6-15 728¢
QB 483-4, 493a, 6-14 736c 8-11 673, 736a
598 8 865 10 683 d-e, 685
232-4 464, 481 9 713/, 863, 885 13 683 ¢, 885(ii) a
24-5 626 (il) ¢ 14 852.0
Spin 734¢, 65a, 10 682°, 885(ii)a 16 854 c
852¢ TO-15, 7280 18 673 6, 7082
2 544, 7187 IT 765, 885d | 19 607
3 676 a, 685, 12 683c, 885(ii)d | 20 596, 6734, c,
707 ¢ 14 712d, 885(ii)a | 716¢, 728)
4 885 (ii) a 16 6522 | 21 716
5 685, 7280 18 719d | Pit) fale
7 673.a, T0Te 19 598 24. 6144, 710d,
8 6144, 655, 728 20 647 | 860
c, d, 862 =| 20-4 640, 647-51 24-47 510-11
10 684¢ 21 464, 503-7 | 25 719 c
12 464,494, 520a, 22 647-8, 71372, | 25-8 614c, 710¢
885 (11) a 7746 | 26-7 576-8, 581
(4 494, 524, 728/, 23. 719c, 885(ii)o | 24 -B81-5
8662 23-4 640-51, 727) | 28 673a
This Index extends from 1438 to 1885 (frinted 438—885).
633
INDICES TO “JOHANNINE VOCABULARY ”
SI Oyun So
Oo!
II
i) nv
wn
NAS
WwWwwwn nn vn
Wena ONO™
JOHN
PAR.
585 a, 7724,
8594, 885
(li) ¢
581-5, 691e,
728 &
692 ¢
685@, 748 a,
8514, 858,
885 (11) c
T74¢
605, 6144, 767
520 a, T07 a
492, 722.7, 885
(i) a
7202
885 ¢
855
492
492, 767
726 ¢, 81ld
598, 605 a,
606 a
885 (11) a
604, 608
695a
710 e,
852
708, 885 (ii) J
765
735 6
768
708, 885 (ii) a
635, 727%
810
7187, 813 a"
7104, 7182, 7
683.2, 832c,
862
598, 8330, 864
681 </, 7134, k,
81le
6520, 721/,
735 b, c
885 (ii) c
726 a
780
736 ¢
692¢
512-16
707 a, 754
512-13, 547
513
717, 728 /
727 h
512 a
734 d,
736 e,
~]
JOHN
PAR.
35 517, 684
36 512 4, 532, 605
37s 752
38 728 ¢
39 721e
40 517, 598, 721e
41 718 6
2 624, 719 d,
777, 857 a
43 718 6
44 517, 710 g,
721 ¢
45 885¢, 885 (ii) a
46 605, 885e
47 518 a
49 717, 728 f
50 710 /
51 712d
51-63 7126
52 885 (ii) 0
54 518 a, 721e
54-8 710%
55 727 ¢, 885 (ii) 2
56 107 a
57 884 6
55 712d
59 6946, 777
60 754
61 694 a, 7186
62 885 7
63 519, 716
64 520 a
64-70 464
67 652 a, 6957,
835 6
68 519
69 519, 629, 835
7° 695 z, 709 2,
854 a
71 6957, 724c¢
2 885 (ii) ¢
3 652 a, 860
5 520
6 688, 719 a,
728 /, 862
6-8 6957
7 728 h
be} T19 a
10 738
12 682
13 681 ¢
4 885 (ii) 4
15 673 a, T67
18 7202, T27a
foll., 7640
wv
\O ow ~ nN
a
JOHN
PAR.
673 a
709 ¢
708 z,
728 e,
885 (ii)c
691 ¢, 714 f,
859 a,
885 (ii) 4
7272, 65a,
885 >
624-5, 635
728 c
624, 727 io,
752 f
728 /
464, 521
655, 7164
702, 713 4,
728d
683 a, 725 f, IG
521, 722% ;
7284, 885 (ii) G
521 a, 6376
614¢, 727%
635, 679 a,
69271,
696 4,
722 k, 853
815 d, 884a
735 0
520. 765 a
885 (ii) a
765 a
885 (ii) a
735 4
694¢
726 a
884
852 a
748 a
624, 6370, 655,
728 c—d
581-5, 714 f,
859 a
661, 714f,
727 h
696 e,
7156
522
624, 626
728 /
522, 713 2,
885 a
708e
727 @ foll.
709 c,
707 c,
This Index extends from 1438 ¢o 1885 (printed 438—885).
634
NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES
9
(oe)
(one)
So WI to ww YD VN
me www NN
Lo So tv Lo
?
if
|
a)
JOHN
PAR.
713 £, 866a
885 (ii) a
464
523
707 a, 7272
727 g-r
712e
692 2, 854d
751
851 a
7237
684 a, 712d
885
6924, 81724
885 @
676 a, 728 2
7196
728 1
637 a, 856
614
708¢, 711d,
725 a,
727 p, 737,
833 c,
854 a,
885 (ii) a,c
522
6140, da
832
582
710 d,
714
683 c, 885 ¢
624, 686 a,
714/, 861,
885 (ii) c
478, 610, 8514
726 a, 859¢
610, 687, 813,
885 (ii) a
852 a
7181, 735a
748 a
693d, 7374,
885 (ii) 4, ¢
709
652a, 72072,
728 /,
773
607
737 a, 885 (ii) d
686 a, 861
652, 885 (ii) a
693, 815d
526
7122,
10
JOHN
PAR.
21 719 ad, 856
22 726, 774, 861a
23 672.c, 856
24-5 693
28 885 (11) 2
20 625, 728 ¢
30 728 c, 81le
31 693, 885 (ii) 4
2 672 a, 728%
35-8 524-5
38 464, 647
39 581-5, 594,
637 a
39-41 607
41 707 a, 7196
I-5 721la
I-10 858
3 601, 614a, c,
852 b
4 601
5 682 c
6 594, 721 a
9 692 &
10 637 a, 753
II 715 d
12 682¢, 7363,
863
13 736 0
14 626, 8857
15 626, 715 a
16 614 a, c, 7237,
862
17-18 587-9, 715 a
18 576-8
1g 815d
20 885 (ii)
21 679 c
22 885 (1i) @
23 864, 885 (ii) c
24 770
28 712d
29 683 ¢
31-3 7262
33 674
34 715 5, 722 £
35 708 2, 722%
36 674, 835 a
37-8 526
38 626
40 527
2 527
I 6964, 734c,
770, T71a, 6
2 734c, 768 a,
780
11
O conx~r
Oe
JOHN
PAR.
716 ec, 7280-p
529, 710d,
7127
728 p, 744 (vi)
foll.
527a, 652a,
719.2, T26a
607, 863
718 ;, 863
652¢, 693a,
858
693 a, 858
710d, 865,
885 (11) 6
528
528, 545
710, 885 (ii) c
864
885 (ii) 2
636, 7714
529, 719¢
534
529-34
534
5076, 5294,
7107, 712d
464, 636
535, 862
696
684.2, 885 (ii) 4
466, 610, 713¢,
727 b,
811 4, ¢
609
885 (ii) a
716 ¢, 7287
636, 713¢, 769,
8114, ¢
885 (11) 2, ¢
529-34, 598,
7127
608
528, 885 (ii) 4
683 a, 752a, f
652a, 760,
885 (ii) 2
604
692
536, 702, 718/,
721 &
768
6882, 718/,
770
885 /
768
This Index extends from 1438 to 1885 ( printed 438—885).
635
INDICES TO “JOHANNINE VOCABULARY ”
11
Ww Nest okwn =
on
© CnT OV
fo)
°
nv vy Nn dd YN
tn We O
|
i}
JOHN
PAR.
718 f
676 a, 682 f
536
710, 728 f
885 (ii) a
695 c, 771
717 1, 770
MAC Com nn, 4)
684a, 7173,
736 d, 753,
768 a,
7714,
885 (ii) d
810 a
710,
814 a
858, 885 (ii) a
734
688 b
652 4, 739-40,
884 a
537-8, 652 4,
884 a
636, 739-40
633 a, 635-6,
674, 684c,
752 a, 755,
816 4,
738,
885 (ii) a,c |
861 2, 885 (11)
456 a, 636,
6746, 677,
678 d,
754 a, 756,
8614
7217, 860
647, 7136
538, 702
677 a
639 &
681, 6927
450, 713 /,
716 ¢, 7282,
866 0
17a
6394, 692.2,
719 f, 7276 |
672
692 a
719/, 859 }
517, 710<¢,
866 a
710 d, 7240
538-9, 704,
866 a
13
JOHN
PAR.
35 657, 716 4,
735 e,
748 a,
775 ad
36 539-40, 715 2,
748 a,
775 a, 782—
SSD OIG.
866
37 540
38 766, 852
38-40 6736
39 540
39-40 612-13
40 683¢, 737,
813,
885 (ii) c
41 610, 7127
42 464, 726, 7652,
861 a, 8842
42-3 540-1 |
43 744 (vi)a
44 7527
44-5 598
44-6 543-4
44-8 825-31, 8320
47 614¢, 6374,
692 2
47-8 582-5
50 885d
I 680c, 720d,
744 = (vi)
foll., 860
I-3 657-8
2 724 c, 854.4
3 637 a
4 712 2, 885 (ii)
5 674a, T1292,
768 a,
885 (ii) 4
6 636
7 626
8 860
10 728 a
to-11 545a, 857¢c
I4 861, 8857
15 885 (11) c
16 672, 683 c,
72372, 775 a,
784 foll.
17 784 foll., 859e
18 680 4, 17094,
710 4,
722 k,
755 a,
| 13
14
JOHN
Nb
yn Vv
nw
n
(oom | CRONE
w
fo)
Ww
me
|
=I
nN
Ba
OO DOA OAirFw NN
PAR.
884 w/,
885 (ii) d
545-6
6714, 7217,
723 e,
826-31
727 6, 81lc
607, 832
596 a, 744 (vi)
foll., 769
885 (ii) 4
744 (x), 760
724c, 765
724 ¢
6924, 885 (ii) Gs
885 (ii) a
544 a,
718 7
658, 676 a,
716 6, 843,
885 (li) ¢
843
658, 1(l) a
728d, 866
692a, 715d,
843, 885 /
679, 692 a,
715 @, 843,
885 h
546, 7270
464
682 4, 6842
661, 688 ¢
637
658, 696 c¢
728d
696 c, 7277
605, 626
852
605, 626 4
546, 707 a
546
546, 662
714 h
708 a,
7207
627, 727 p
598
637
716 6
5974, 716%,
885 7
714c, 716%
637 0
7207, 723 ¢
710 4,
712 d,
This Index extends from 1438 to 1886 (printed 438—885).
636
NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES
14
16
JOHN
PAR.
28 637, 658, 662,
683 ¢
29 546
31 627
I 684, 727 /
2 674
2-6 885(ii)d
3 857 c
4-5 674, 707a
6 674, 682 a, 858,
864
g-10 T07a
12 843
13 715d
14 596, 775 a, 6,
784-92
15 596, 117 g,
7232, 775
a, 6, 784-
92
16 659-60, 676c
1g 7167, 728 p
20 (EEE, YePHlye
7237, 775a,
6, 784-92,
854¢
21 625, 626 c,
692 a
22 719 6, 834d
24 605, 719d
25 715c, T5la
26 7207, 723,
727 p
Dy 708 ¢
I 545, 694a
2 679, 726, 885
(11) } ,
3 626 c
4 708 ¢, 721%
5 658, 728d
5-7 662
6 713d, 771
7 7207, 7232
8 582-5
8-to 8544
9 464, 547
10 658
II 582-5
13 727 p, 861
16 597
16-19 598c, 7164
19 735
20 857
20-22 713d, 771
21 6764, 7084,
17
Nn YN WV
n=
on
|
‘©
nn Vv
sn
|
nN
Contr bh Ww YN eS
nN
wo etn
Non
Oo @~I
Lad
12
JOHN
PAR.
721/811 7,865
598,719, 885d |
675 4, 694d,
7127 |
7210 |
708 a |
548, 596 a,
637a, 716,
728 p
637 a, 662-3
662-3
464, 548, 6370
464, 548
639.a, 6, 6744,
863
549, 771 ¢,
8lle, f
639 4
590-2, 608
576-8
627
774, 884¢
712 7, T19)7)
{filly jf
464, 550, 637<¢,
727 2
708a
591, 722 k,
810 a |
119) fF
708a
7277
723 £
692 a, 885%
708a
464, 550
7127
627,
884 ¢
7127, 858
629 a, 6912
885 (11) 0, ¢
815c, 885 (ii)
b, G
860
885 (11) c
672 c, 860
652 a, 885d
680, 709 d,
710 2, 7344,
738 6, 885
(11)
508, 678c, 885
(11) 6
738, 815¢
774,
19
PAR.
13 7645, 768, 885
(1i) }
I4 688 a, 885 /
15 767, 885 (1i) c
16 767
ro). Le reba,
885 (11) ¢
20 6726, 6944,
712
22 737 e
24 764 4
25 679, 735d
26 680, 709d,
7340,7384,
866 c
27 679
28 745 a, 814c,
8154, 885
(11) 6
29 885 (11) 4
31 685, 7154
32 710 a, 7240
35 713 /, 718 f
36 685 a, 713 m2,
719 4, h,
764
37 614 c¢, 7277
38 727 +
40 752a
2 676d, 7344,
805-6, 8144,
885 (11) 2
3 737 €
4 707 ¢
5 6746, 734a,
755, 805 a,
885 (ii) 4
6 721 2, 152 a
7 861
8 614
9 728 c, 814¢
ie) 577, 593
II 570 c, 577,
707¢, 884/
12 752 a, 764,
788 a
12-16 593-4
13 6144, 7138,
745, 750,
885 (11) 2
15 752a
7 713.2, 7924,
807, 810
1s 796
19 860, 885 (ii) c
JOHN
This Index extends from 1438 to 1885 (printed 438—885).
637
INDICES TO “JOHANNINE VOCABULARY”
JOHN | JOHN JOHN
PAR. PAR. PAR.
689 a, 713¢,¢, | 20 14 725 f [P2axo 607, 711.2, 763,
721/, 885 | 15 728d, 885(ii)d 769
(ii) c 16 694¢, 713g, | Io 719 2, 7236
707 c, 885 (ii) | 737d II 683.2, 7102,
(as 1 17 695 2, 719 a, 712a
679, 722%, | 728 /, 749 12 602, 751, 780,
769-70 18 599 a, 601, 810¢
885 (ii) 6947, 885 12-13 636
596a, 610, 744 (ii) @ 14 5974, 686<,
(vi) foll. 19 636, 681 c, 695, 7167,
752 7 725 f, T96— | 738 a
721 f 7, 804a, 714a, 7284,
722 2, 750, 813.a,854e, 885 (ii) a
T74¢ 858, 884c¢ 7 437-41, 7142,
8654 20 780 728 p
813-, 864, 885 21 723 e—2, 854e 862, 885 (ii) 5
(ii) ¢ 22 721 f, 885(ii)a 6246, 6952,
451-8, 462 a—c, 23 6822, 691a, 728 ~, 885
839 foll., 7217 (ii) 3 ;
858 a 24 695 7, 710 698.2, 712<¢,
6832, 885(ii)c 25 465, 552-8, 735 5, 843,
751 885 (11) 4, c 885 (11) a
6784, 817¢, 636, 7257, 796 710 ¢, 712%,
885 (11) IES Dee. 7240, 843
775d, 885 (ii)c 858, 884c 596 w, 607, 638,
756 681 0, 862¢ 6954, 744
465, 551, 606, 465, 554-60, (vi) foll.,
727 599, 601, 760
722k, 861 7496, 859¢ | 20 foll. 638-9
687 ¢, 7222, 3 7686 22 735a
856 a, 885 31 465, 553, 561 223 708 7, 735 a
(ii) a 21 1 5976, 686, 25 885 (ii) J
541, 681 ¢ 7167, 726¢, ,
544, 7187, 754, 738a, 811d ACTS
885 (11) a, 4 2 710, 727a 4 7944
600, 7162, 3 5440, 652a, 14 749d
734e, T51c, 7187,719 2, 15 708 7
832, 866 723 6 16-20 722
(i)-(iv) 2-8 7136¢ 25 7207
607, 7104, 4 7256, f, 754, | 2 1x 727 a
7187, 815a | 884 ¢ 14 725 ¢
596 a, 728d, p PEGE 17 592
3-11 798-804 5 6766, 796a, 38 485 c
727 a, 885(ii)c 885 (ii) 5 is 736.
600-1, 607, 6 691d¢, 6937, 20 725 e
716 a, 7262 710¢,712a, (o) 23 7T72a
760,866(ii)—(iv) 768a, 834c | 7 43 645.2
465, 552-60, 7 596 a, 602, 55 T72a
722 a foll. 712.0, 744 55-6 725 /
673 ¢ (vi) foll., 8 16 485 ¢
491, 722 a—/ 780, 810 4 19 ~—-594a
466, 560, 600, 560 27 645 a
7260, T75d 712a, 734d, 32-5 TI2h
672, 858 736¢, 862, | 9 33 7362
728d 885 (11) c 42 476a
This Index extends from 1438 to 1885 (printed 438—885).
638
10
21
ACTS
PAR,
Io 735 0
25 645 a
43 476a
458 485
17 46a
24 T7720
28 7240
4 723 ¢
2I 745 a
41 507 4
2 708 7
13 735 6
17 853 a
23 476 a, 6927
19 710 ¢
aN 476 a, 507 a
34 6927
3 6927
22 725 e
27 617, 804d
1192, 10),
17 T45a
4 476 a
5 485 ¢
32 ©5044
33 735 0
28 720 z
30 710 2
19 476 a
2: 752 a
13, 21 5044
35 814¢
II 645 a
6, 10,
107/ 745 a
27 «= «7246
19 501 a
12 504 0
21 725 ¢
23 504
ROMANS
30 501 a
I-27 74¢
8 501 a
17 648
4 T71c
20-8 478
2-6 478
3 474, 722 h
5, 24 474
3 45a
6 517
19 7726
10
12
ol
16
nN
ROMANS
PAR.
17 844
35) 37 744 (iv)
IT 478
17 722 h
alt 583 @
32 478
33 474
g-11 541
Il 474, 722h
14 474
21 501 «a
2 722 h
6 478
32 7222
21 7T71¢
I 569 b, (Bi
3-22 Td14 o
4 725 a
24. 604 4
5 7227
CORINTHIANS
13, 15 485¢
22 479
II 727 oO
5 714°
II 842
3 714.9
12 594 a
1g 740
31 570 ¢
IO 834 0
I-5 594a
18 570 c
2 475 a
27 6927
18 507
I 475 a
478
iS)
Qin on WD tn NI we wy
|
aN
474 a, 5070
645
722 ¢
560, 802
-8 5970, 7167
504 é
24 569 a
3 725 a
22 630-1, 728 g
CORINTHIANS
it7/ 727 9
32 723 ¢
GAL,
PAR.
1 6 673d
2 4 884a
9 720c
16 474, 72272
20 +817, 744 (iv),
(x)
3} (6) 474
8, 10,
22 7222
27 475a
4 Io 648
Ig 598 6
20 735)
30 722 h
5) i 725a
12 709 @, 7340
13 altaya
EPHESIANS
2 4-5 T44(iv)a
3 10 569a
19 629
a2 744 (iv)
8 715,, 782
25 744 (iv)
6 12 569a
PHILIPPIANS
Th ain 744 (iv) d
19 763 0
290 «474
PA in 748 a, T49¢
3 12 735 /
4 13 744 (iv) a
COLOSSIANS
1) Ge PAT
13 568, 569a,570¢e
10 569a
9 5 475
9 2a
Io, 15 569a
16 648 6
4 12 725a
1 THESSALONIANS
1G 727 f
Dy AG 662
4 8 828 a, 832 a
14 4T4a
5 5 159, 782-3
2 THESSALONIANS
2 11, 12 474a
16 744 (iv) a
NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES
ATIANS
This Index extends from 1438 to 1885 (printed 438—885).
639
INDICES TO
“JOHANNINE VOCABULARY”
1 TIMOTHY
PAR.
ir 744 (iv)a
16 4740
18 6927
4 13 638, 735 a
5 18 722 h
Ome 677 a
2 TIMOTHY
Lene 474
2 ® 692 7
12 844
3 2 50la
EES
iL i653 501a
3} i 569a
3 501a
8 474.0
15 7289
PHILEMON
5 475
HEBREWS
6 645
7) <5) 712 h
12 794
15 81l¢
4 3 476), 853.a
Qt 845 |
Gia 485 a |
7 2 728 /,
23 504 4
82 727 4
ey 727 h
10 7,9 637a, 856
32 485 a
ll I 478 ¢
6 476 /)
18-19 722¢
21 645
34 858 a
12 2 4754
JAMES
1 25 600 /, 7264,
800
2 8 722
17 478
19 476
23 476, 596 a,
722, 7906
JAMES
PAR.
4 4 716 7
5 722 h
tr PETER
1 8 475
12 6004, 7264,
800 2
21 475
24 592
2 4 677 a
6 722 4
4 19 6927
5 3 594a
235) eS MDI Ry
i a3) 832 ¢
20 7227
ay il 832 c
1 JOHN
Wo 604, 8040
I-5 616-20
9 764 a, 848,
861 a
2 1 7207
3, 5 628
7 687d
8 T27 ¢
g-10 539_
II 656
12 553.7
18, 29 628
Bhs Ba 609
8, 12 728%
17 603 a
18 728 i, 744(v)
1g 628
23 487 6, 553.4
2 628
4 2 628
3 722k
6 628, 7277
i] 628
9 498, 723 0
10 723°
12 604
14 604, 723 2,
7744
16 629
17 585 a, 859 d
18 651, 681l¢
637 a, 7127p
10 491 /
Or
1 JOHN
PAR.
10-13 487a
13 5534
16 609
17 764 a
20 627, 856
3 JOHN
14 609
JUDE
6 800 J
REVELATION
I 7246
4 639
5 696 ¢
13 794
I 794
13 696 ¢
17 711
26 564, 594/
7-14 727 f
9 744 (iv)
14 696 ¢
19 7287
20 725
6 794
8 563, 594
Io 727 7
17 794
3: 10,
1g 563
20 646
3 696¢
6 563, 5946
10 563
2-12 564a
7 5940
8, 12 646
Qg, I1 646
18 564, 59470
9 5646, 5940
6 696 c
12, 13 564
r° 564
20 723 ¢
4 646
6 564
T4 564c¢, 5947
a 7287
17, 20 631
This Index extends from 1438 ¢o 1885 (printed 438—885).
IN DIGES MRO “TOMANNINE, VOCABULARY”
Il. SUBJECT-MATTER (ENGLISH)
[For Synoptic and Johannine words not tn this Index, see the English
alphabetical lists t 1672—96 and 1707—28}]
Aaron, ‘‘the holy one of God” 835 a@
Abide 707; ‘‘abiding in” 659-60;
‘‘abiding,” higher than ‘‘ believing”
547
Above, from, 707
Abraham, God’s “‘ friend” 596 a, 789 a,
790; his faith 472-8
Adders, deaf 614d
Allusiveness, in Jn 438-9, 446; speci-
mens of 450-8, 762-3, 797, 804,
831
Alone, ‘‘ the linen cloths alone” 804
Ambiguities, verbal 444-5, 529, and see
Index to ‘‘ Johannine Grammar”
Annas 764
A phesis, the sabbatical “ release’ 690
Apostles or Missionaries in the first
century 594a
“* Appeared to”
(&pOn) 5976
Apprehend (xaradauBavw) 735 ¢
Authority 562-94; ‘receiving author-
ity,’ explained by Origen 484
or ‘‘was seen by”
Baptism, baptizing 485, 487, 493
Baptist, see ‘* John”
Begin (vb.), only once in Jn 674a@
Beginning (n.) 708 @
Beholding (@ewpéw) 597 foll.,
sometimes unintelligent 598
Belief or faith, not used by Jn as noun
467; Mk’s doctrine of 467; meaning
of, influenced by Christianity 473;
‘*thy faith hath saved thee,” unique
agreement as to, in the Triple Tradi-
tion 477; insignificance of ‘‘ faith”
in the teaching of Epictetus 479;
a lower and a higher 505; inferior to
‘knowledge’ 559
“Believe” or “trust,” a key-word in
the Fourth Gospel 463—561
Benefactor, a name assumed by several
Eastern kings 571
Blood and water, the fountain of 606
Bowing the head 451 foll.
Bread 699 ; ‘‘ the true bread ” 513
Break (bread) 675
Brother (metaph.), not used in Jn till
after the Resurrection 701; ‘‘the
brethren” 708; ‘‘my_ brethren”
748-9
Burial of the Lord, the, verbal differ-
ences as to 866 (i)—(iv)
723 ;
Child 676; ‘‘ authority to become chil-
dren of God” 579; ‘receiving little
This Index extends from 1438 to 1885 (printed 438—885).
io Wile
641 4I
INDICES TO “JOHANNINE VOCABULARY ”
children” 698; ‘‘children of light”
782
Coming, vbs denoting 630-9; the
coming of the Lord 630 foll. ; ‘‘come
and see,” a Talmudic formula 609 ;
‘* He that cometh,” a technical Jewish
term 633; ‘‘thy king cometh” 634;
s. also 6244
Compassion 677
Cross, the, taking up, bearing etc.
7926, 842; in connexion’ with
‘*following”’ Christ 843
Cry aloud 752 a foll.
Darkness 710; degrees of 544
Dative w. micrevw 470—90
Deaf, the, not mentioned in Jn 614
Debts, remission of, in the sabbatical
year 462, 690; Mt. has “debts”’ for
“sins”? in the Lord’s Prayer 462
Destruction, parall. to ‘‘ Judas Iscariot”
8102; ‘‘the son of destruction” to
be ‘‘destroyed” 591
Devils, authority to cast out 580a@
Diminutives, Jn’s use of 736 ¢, 738
“Disciple that Jesus loved,
744 (x); at Christ’s tomb 600
Double Tradition, defined 447 foll.
the”
Edition, a second, hypothesis of in Lk.
8712
Elenchos, the convicting Logos or
Spirit 609 a
Enemies, ‘fa man’s enemies shall be
they of his own household” 792a
Enlightened, ‘“‘those who were once
enlightened ” = ‘‘ baptized” 485 a
“Eternal,” applied by Jn to nothing
but “life” 705
Euergetes and Kakergetes 571
‘* Eyes, lifting up the,” symbolical 608
Faith, see ‘ Belief”’
Family of Heaven, the 698
Father, divine 711
Fear (z.e. worship) the Lord 643 a, 651
Fellowship 619, 700
Fire of coals 711
Five Thousand, Feeding of the 512
Flesh, metaph. 699; ‘‘all flesh” 592
Following Christ 840-3
Forgive, forgiveness 682; authority to
forgive 575
Free (adj.) 712; ‘‘I am free and a
friend of God” 788 a
Freedom 727g; Epictetus on ‘“ free-
dom” and ‘‘ slavery” 717 ¢
Friend, ‘‘my friends” 775a, 784;
distinction between ‘‘ friends” and
“servants” 789-91; ‘‘a friend of
Caesar” 788a; “I am free and a
friend of God” 788 a
Galilaeans, the, described differently by
Lk. and Jn 606 a
Galilee, the sea of 811d
Glory, glorifying 712;
spiritual nature 489-90
God, ‘‘ knowing God,” ‘not knowing
God” 622
Going, vbs denoting 652-64; ‘‘go and
bear fruit ” 659-60
Golgotha 807
‘*Government, the,” Jewish traditions
on 570
Greater, of persons 683
Greek, classical, fails to represent
Semitic traditions about trust in God
470 ; low-class 732, 736, 737
‘*Grow in the understanding of God”
627
in Jn, of a
**Hating one’s own life” 450, 713,
761, 7922
Head, ‘‘bow the head,” meaning of
451 foll., 839
Hearing, the Johannine and the Synop-
tic view of 612
Heaven, the opening of 530 4, 866 (iv)
Hebrew, ‘‘believing” or ‘‘trusting,”’
meaning of, in Hebrew 469-71
This Index extends from 1438 to 1885 ( printed 4838—885).
64
°
~
SUBJECT-MATTER (ENGLISH)
Hell, ‘‘ destroying in hell,” parallel to
“ casting into hell” 566
Hillel, abrogated the Remission of
Debts 462, 690
** Holy One of God, the,” 835
Hosanna 807
Household, ‘‘they of his own house-
hold,” Heb. ‘‘ men of his house,” Syr.
‘*sons of his house,” =‘‘ friends ”
787
I AM [HE] 522
**Tsraelite, an” 727 Z
“‘Jews, the,” the term how used in Jn
647, 713
John, St, the Baptist 482
John, St, the Evangelist, see ‘‘Johan-
nine Grammar” Contents, fass7m,
and, in Index, ‘‘ Allusiveness,” “* Am-
biguity,’” ‘‘ Emphasis,” ‘‘ Metaphor,”’
‘*Mysticism,” ‘‘Narrowing down,”
‘*(uotation ”
‘*Joseph, son of” 776-8
Jubilee, the, =the Sabbatical Year 6904
Judas Iscariot, parall. to ‘‘destruction”
810 a .
Judging, judgment 714; not in Triple
Tradition 714d; ‘‘judgment,” not
used by Mk 585; ‘‘day of j.” not
mentioned in Jn 585 a; ‘‘authority to
do judgment” 581-5
‘*‘Judgment seat, @” or ‘‘the” 745
Kingdom, antithesis between k. and
‘authority ” 568; ‘‘the k. of God, of |
heaven” 685 a
Knowing, vbs denoting 621-9
‘‘Law, your” 715
Life, “‘hating one’s own life” 450, 7137,
792 a; ‘authority to lay down one’s
life” 594
Light, children (or sons) of 782; the
Light of the world 748
Logos, the, described by Philo as
“*standing”? 725 ¢
Look, ‘‘stoop (?) and look in” 798
Loosing the shoe 833 @
‘“*Lord, the,” meaning ‘‘Jesus” 779 foll.
Love, different words for 436, 596, 716,
728 m—p; the n. not used by Mk 697
Luke, a compiler of traditions in various
styles 758; hypothesis of a second
edition in his gospel 871@; his view
of ‘‘authority” 565-71; avoids irdyw
653 ; Jn differs from 606 a, 778; where
Lk. omits, Jn intervenes 792
Manifest (vb) 716
Maran atha 630-1
Mark, his doctrine of belief or faith 467
Marvel (see ‘‘Wonder”’) rebuked by
Jesus 673 a
Mary Magdalene at Christ’s tomb 601
Meant (é\eye) 491 a
‘*Meek,” an epithet om. by Jn in
quoting Zechariah 456
Metaphors, Johannine 699, 867
Midst, ‘‘standing in the midst,
of Jesus 793-7
Might, mighty 686; ‘mighty work”
686 ¢
‘“‘Minister” and “slave,” apparently
used by Mk as parallel terms 717 ¢
‘*Multitude, the great” 739-40
” used
| Name, the, believing in 483
‘* Narrowing down” 481
| Nathanael, his profession of belief 488;
the calling of 6712
‘*Nazareth where he was brought up”
778
| Nicodemus, the dialogue with 493-6;
‘*a ruler of the Jews” 7652
| Night (metaph.) 718
‘Nos qui cum eo fuimus” 802 a
‘““Now,” different meanings of 719
‘*Own, his” 720
This Index extends from 1438 to 1885 (printed 438—885).
643
41—2
INDICES TO “JOHANNINE VOCABULARY ”
Parable, see ‘‘ Proverb”
Paraclete, the 720
Paul, St, his view of ‘‘belief” 475, 478
Perfect belief, knowledge etc. 629
Peter, St, at Christ’s tomb 600
Phantasm, phantom, or spirit 813 a
Praetorium, not in Lk. but in Acts
814¢
Praying (mpocedxouat) not mentioned
by Jesus in Jn 649
Prepositions in the
881-5
‘*Privately,” not used by Jn of Christ’s
teaching 672 6
“Proverb” and ‘‘parable” 721
Four Gospels
“*Qui cum eo fuimus” 802 a
Quotation, Johannine, of Zechariah,
inaccurate 456, 757; from Scripture,
how introduced 722 4
Rebelling 502
Receiving (persons) 689, 721 ; ‘‘ receiving
little ones” 829
Recognising 629 a
“*Reigning with Christ’ 844
Rejection, Mk, Lk., and Jn on 823 foll.
Remission of sins 690
Resurrection, Christ’s, revealed dif-
ferently to different persons 600
“‘Retaining sins” 721
Revelation, ‘‘God revealed Himself by
degrees” 600 a
Righteous, only once in Jn 668; applied
to God 691¢
‘*Rising again,” an ambiguous term
529
Sabbatical Year, the 6904 foll.
Salim 721
Samaritan Woman, the, dialogue with
647-51
Scripture, ‘‘believing the s.” 491-2;
‘*another s.” 722; ‘‘the s.,” ‘‘this s.”
722; ‘‘the scriptures” 722
‘Sea of Galilee, the” 811
Seeing, vbs denoting 597—611, 723;
Philo on Gen. i. 31, ‘*God saw
(eldev) his works” 611a
Sending, vbs denoting 723; ‘‘He that
sent me” 723
Serpent in the Wilderness, the 495, 517
Servant 723; bondservant 785; dis-
tinction between ‘“‘servants” and
‘‘friends” of God 704, 789-91
“«Signs,” i.e. miracles 521
Simon, father of Judas Iscariot 724c;
Simon, in Heb. confusable w. ‘‘those
with us” 802 a
Sing, Christ singing 794
Single Tradition, defined 447
Sins, remission of 690; Mt. substitutes
“debts” for ‘‘sins” in the Lord’s
Prayer 462
“Slave” and ‘‘ Minister,” used by Mk
as parallel terms 717. ¢
Sleep, ‘‘ He giveth unto his beloved in
sleep” 515
‘Son of man” 525a, 539a, 704; the
Eldest Son ‘‘ looking at the Father’s
_acts” 607; Sons of Light 782
“Spirit, a,” = phantasm, or phantom
813 a; a spirit or messenger, in Epic-
tetus 7270
Spirit, the, ‘“‘the Spirit of truth’ 7207,
727 p; Spirit or wind, wvedua 655
Standing, applied to Jesus 725, 793-7;
to God, Wisdom etc. 725 .¢
Stretching out the hands 693
Stumbling 545-6
Synonyms, see note on next page
Talmud, the, on authority 569c, 570 a
Testimony, see ‘‘ Witness”’
“*The Lord (Jesus),” in narrative 779
Tradition, see Double,
Triple Tradition
Transliteration 728 /,
Triple Tradition, defined 447; does not
agree in a single saying of Christ
Single, and
using the verb ‘ believe” 477
This Index extends from 1438 to 1885 (frinted 438—885).
644
SUBJECT-MATTER (ENGLISH)
Trouble 727; ‘‘freedom from trouble”
in Epictetus 706, 727 c¢
True, truly, truth 727; ‘knowing truth”
703
Trusting or believing 469-78
Truth, see ‘‘True”
‘“Twelve, the,” how mentioned by Jn
6714
Understanding (God or man) 624-9;
implies sympathy 626
“Verily” and “ Verily verily” 696 @
Vine, metaphor of the 660
Water 699
Wind or Spirit, mvedua 655
With, ‘‘those with us,’ confusable in
Heb. w. “Simon” 802 a
Witness 696; believing witnesses 522;
witness=testimony 703
Wonder, in a bad sense 671 a, 673 a—e;
“‘T saw and wondered,” a phrase
used by Greek tourists 673 ¢
Worshipping 640-51; different from
“‘prostration”” 643; ‘‘we worship
that which we know” 647
This Index extends from 1438 to 1885 (printed 438—885).
Addendum on ‘‘ Synonyms ’”’
By ‘‘synonyms” are meant (1595) ‘‘words so far alike that at first the reader
may take the thought to be the same, though it is always really different.” A
more exact term—if it were English—would be ‘‘ homotonyms.’
’
Strictly speaking,
some might say that there ave no “synonyms” in John, i.e. no words that convey
precisely the same shade of meaning.
645
INDICES TO* JOHAN NINE VOCABULARY
III. WORDS (GREEK)
[The main object of this Index is to guide the reader to some paragraph in
‘Johannine Vocabulary” where a characteristic Johannine word is mentioned or
discussed. It does not contain e.g. dptos, caps, or dup, because these words are not
characteristically Johannine. But ‘‘bread,” “flesh,” and “water,” in the English
Index, will guide the reader to passages illustrating the Johannine characteristic use
of these common words.
For conjunctions, prepositions, pronouns etc., the reader is referred to Index IT.
of ** Johannine Grammar.” |
"ABpadu 851 akovw, w. accus. and w. | avarpémw 885 (ii)
ayabos 682 | gen. 614 a—c avaxwpéw 810
dyadhiaw 851 ckupbw 824a—. diveuos 696
dyavakTéw 684 ahjbea 727 avépxouar 885 (ii)
dyamdw and ¢gidéw 436, | adnOys 727, 810, d. and | avOpakid 711
596, 716, 728 m—y, adnOwos 727 hz avOpwmoxrévos 8865 (ii)
744 (i)—(xi) ahnOwwds 727, 764, a. and | dvinue 7526
ayarn 716, 851 adnOns 727 h—z aviornuc tr. 721, intr.
dyarnros 674 adnOas 727 672
ayyeria 620 adevw (Jn xxi. 3) om. | “Avvas 764
ayy6\\w 8865 (ii) | in 885 (ii) avolyw 852, 866 (iv)
ayyedos 672 a\\d 708, adr eis and | dvtiéyw 764
ayidgw 835a, 851 adA\Nos 756 avthéw 710
ay.os, 6 a. Tod Beod 835 | aXouar 886 (ii) dvw, -Oev 707
ayvi¢w 8865 (ii) dAXos, and aA els 756 | dkos 852
aywvlfoua 764 adNé6rpios 851 amayyé\\w 616, 675
adeXpds, of adehpol 708, | addy 885 (ii) | dmapvéoua 679
adedpds cov 851 auaprava 852 | amedéw 501, 885 (ii)
dons 851 apaprla, dpeois auapriav | dmréxw 679
adixia 764 690 | amioréw, -la, -os 681
aderéw 823-32 apaprwrdos 693 | amoBalyw 763-4
aiyiadds 750 | aunv 696 amodldwu 687
Alyy 707 auvds 8865 (ii) amobvncKkw 710
alpw, ad. dp0arpo's 608, | aumeddy 696 amokahinTw 738 a, 852
ad. oravpby 792 6 avayyé\X\w 616, 620 amoxérTw 709 d, 734
aljy 672 a, els Tov d., | dvaywaoKkw 689 améxpiots 765
els Tos ad. 712d, 728% | dvdKemma 689d amo\tw 679
alwvios 710, 715 | dvak\ivw 689 admopéw 832
axddapros 695 | dvarirrw 689d amoaTé\Xw 723 a
axdvOwos 734, 805a | avadoracts 529 ¢ | amdéarodos 672
This Index extends from 1438 to 1885 (printed 438—885).
646
WORDS (GREEK)
atocuvaywyos 726
amroua 695
amwdera 810
dpa 695
dpagos 885 (ii)
apyvp.ov 686
dpeoTés 8865 (ii)
apiOuds 765
dpictaw 765
dpxéw 852
dpvioy 8865 (ii)
apmatvw 750
dpre 719, 750
apxn 708, 810
dpxiTpikAwvos 886 (ii)
dpxouar 674
dpxwv 765, 852
dpwua 832
acbévera 679 d, 724, 853
acbevéw 724
acbevys 724, 750
aTyuatw 832
arapasia T27¢
avéava 684
avrouatos 515 a
ddeots 682, a. auapTidy
690
adinut 682; a.
T52e
agpopaw eis 475
Pury,
Baéus 765
Batov 885 (ii)
Barro, BeBAnuévyn 83424
Bamtifa 485 c
Barricua 673
Barriorys 673
Barrw 765
BaciXeia 685
Baowdtxds 885 (ii)
Bacrafw oravpov 792
ByGavia...répay tod “Lop-
ddvouv 708
BnOfaba, v.r.
etc. 708
Bynéreéu 853
Bua 745, 750
BiBpwdoKw 8865 (ii)
Bios 694
Bracpnpéw, -ia 674
BXérrw 600, 607, 723 |
Bodw 752e
Bovrevouar 766
Bovs 766
Bpaxiwy 766
Bpax’ 766
Bpépos 676 |
BpovTn 734 |
Bydcada
| de&lds 691
| dcaxdcvo. 734
Bpaos 746, 750 |
TaBBaéa 712
yafopu\dKiov 832
yapméw, -os etc. 686, 853
ydp 712
ye 853
yéevva 683
yelrwv 766
yeuiva 832
yeved 682
yeveTn 885 (ii)
yevvaw 708
yépwv 885 (ii)
yewpyos 684
ynpaoKw 886 (11)
yivouat 734, y. and jy
734¢
yweoKkw 621-9, 715, 738 a
yA\woodbxomov 8865 (11)
yrwpifw 766
yvwords 767
yoyyisw 689 4, 718, 853
yoyyucuos 718 |
Tovyo@a 810
ypduua 767
ypauuatrevs 692
ypapy, sing. and pl. 692,
722
ypapw, TO yeypaumévoy
TOUTO 722 ¢
ypnyopéw 696
yuuvos 810
yur7n (wife) 696
Aatnovigouar 679
Oaruoviov 679
daxptw 885 (il)
Aaveld 679
d€ouar 853
detre 810
déxouat 689, 721 7, 825-31
déw 866 (iii)
dud 692a, did Tiva 652 4,
884 ab
5idBoXos 665 a, 854
diayoyyvfw 6896
Odyw 79424
Oradldwue T67
Oragwvvume 712
Ovakovéw 717
dudkovos 717, 810
dvadoyifouat, -.cuds 689
Orapepifw 679
duacmopd 7134, om. in
885 (ii) a
dtarpiBw 8865 (ii)
Otdaxrds 885 (ii)
dvddoKaNe (voc.) 694
Alduuos 710
Oveyelpw 832
Oikatos 691, 7277
dikacocvvn 854
Otxatdw 854
dw Wwaw 750
diwKkw 854
d6Nos 811
d6&a 712
doeavw 712
dovrevw 854
dovXos 717 7, 723, 790 foll.
Ovvauus 669, 686
duvatés 686
dwdexa, of 6. 695
Swped 8865 (ii)
Owpedy 746, 751
O@pov 682
|
‘Eavrod, -Gy 7207
‘EBpatori 713
eyyif@ 687
eyyus 718
éyw and eiui 713
€Gvos 687, 718
€0os 767
eldov 610-11, (deity 609,
idwv 599
eldos 767
club OTe, 7 and
éyévero T34c¢
eipnvn 854
eis for €v 884, w. Bamri-
FeoPar 475 a, w. miorevw
470 foll.
eis ? aN eis read as d\Xos
756
elcayw 767
elaépxouar, parall. to
mpocépx- 801 a, b
é€kaTovTapxns 676
exBadd\w (Garudvia) 679
exdvw and evddw 806
éxel 527 a
éxkevTéw 8865 (il)
éxhéyouat 709, 833
éxNexTos 676
éxuaoow 762, 768
exvetvw 885 (ii)
exTelvw xeEtpa(s) 693
| éxxéw 751 0
é\a@y (al. -wyv) 687
é\aTTOw 8865 (ii)
é€XaTTwy 885 (ii)
éLavvw 833
This Index extends from 1438 to 1885 (printed 438—885).
647
INDICES TO
eNyxw 855 |
éNeéw 677 |
éeMenmoctyvn 855
€\eos 677, 727 72., 855 |
edeVOepos 712, 751
é\evbepdw 712
EXvyua 885 (ii)
€\Kvw 710
“EdAnves, -tcri 713
éA\rifw 855
é€uaurov, -dv 718, 855
euBpiudouat 713, 811
é€uos 718
eutralew 686
é€utriumAnut 768
éurrbptov 886 (ii)
éumpocbey 681 a
éumTiw 693
éudavifw 597 4, 716, 751
éEupuoaw 8865 (ii)
év 881-2, w. micTre’w
470, 480 |
évdtw 689, €. and éxdtw |
806 |
éve.héw 866 (i) foll.
évexa 692, 884 |
evade 768 |
éviauTés 768
évKaivia 8865 (ii)
evragiagw 734 ¢, 751
evragd.iacuos 732, 734
evrevdev 768
évTuAloow
foll.
évwr.ov 768
éLayw 833
éFépxouar 637 a
éecTw 594a, 685
egeratw 751
e&nyéouat 769
é€Fouohoyéouar 678
éEouvcla 562-94
éfovoratw 5706
éfumvifw (Jn xi. 11) om.
in 885 (ii)
€optn 711
émralpw 855
éraitéw 737 a
émaparos 8865 (ii)
eravpiov 811
éreta 769
émevdurns (Jn xxi. 7) om.
in 885 (ii)
émepwraw 672
éml 884, mioretw €. 470—
77
émlyevos 885 (ii)
éeTmiywwokw 685
855, 866 (i)
“JOHANNINE VOCABULARY”
érOuula 833
emikeyuat T69
| e€mAéyouat 8865 (ii)
éemioTpépw 695
emisuvayw 682
emiTlOnut, v.r. mwepiéOnkay
805
| émcxple 8865 (ii)
émoupavios 886 (ii)
< U e f}
€mMTA, EWTAKLS 692
| é€pavvaw 8865 (ii)
Epyagouat 513, 728
épyov 728
&pnuos 679, 728
€punvevw 713, 728 /,
épxouat 630-9, epxouac
and 7\@ov 624, 6 épxé-
bevos 633, eAndAVOa
637 a, €ed7j\VOEv wpa,
épxeTar wpa 639 a—b
€Epwtaw 708
écOiw 680
éoxatos 685, €. nuépa 715
érepos 687, 856
ETOAC, ETOLWLOS 688
evayyeNlfouat, evayyéALov
670, 682
| evdoxéw, -la 696
evbéws 693
evOvva 885 (11)
evOUs (adv.) 693
ev\oyéw, evNoynTobs 674
evvoéw 714e
| ’Edpatiu 710
€xOés 885 (ii)
€xOpds 680, 792 a, 856
éxw 796 a
| €ws conj. 735, prep. 884
| Zijdos 885 (ii)
(yTnots 885 (ii)
fon 715
Faovvupe 712
(wororéw 716
"H 647¢
TyEeHwv 682
HOedoy etc. Ss. O€Aw
nKw 637 a, 856
*HyXelas 680
7AtKia 856
| jos 8865 (ii)
rep 647 «
OdXacoa 811
@dvaros 710
Bavaréw 679
Gapoéw 811
Gavyagw 671 a, 673 a-—e
Gavyacrés 811
Gedoua 604, 723, 856
béAnua 728
Gé\w, FeNov,
735 b,¢
Geds, 6 497 a
GeoceB7js 885 (ii)
Geparrevw 683
Gepliw 856
Bepuaivouar 735
Gewpéw 598 foll., 723
OnKn 885 (ii)
Oris 811
Opéupa 8865 (11)
Opnvéw 857
Guyarnp 678
Oupwpés 735
-noa, -a
"TaxwBos 6842
idouar 683
ide 674, 812
idety 609-11, s. cidoy
idvos 720, kar idiay 672,
oi t6coc and Ta idea 720d;
(Tus) Tv idiwy 630
idov 674
iepevs 688
“Tepoco\upetrar 735
ixavés 683
iuas 833
imatiauds 769
iva 726
*Tovdaios 713
Tovdas, odx 6 Ioxapiwrns
714
‘Iopayn\ 684
"IopanXeitns 713
iornut 725, cradjva and
oThvat 725b—e, éoTws
of God 725g, éorn els
pwécov or é&v péow, of
Jesus 793 foll.
ioxupbs, toxvs, iax’w 686,
693
“Iwavns (Peter's father)
714
‘Iwond (Mary’s husband)
857
Kayo 857
kadalpw 885 (1i)
Kkabaplfw 676
Kabapiouds 833
Kkadapbs 857
kabéfouar 857
Kadevdm 693
Katagas 857
This Index extends from 1438 to 1885 ( printed 438—885).
648
kaipds 695
kalw 858
Kaka@s €xwv 679
KaNauos 689
Karéw 675
Kava 709
Kata 884, kar’ idlay 688
KkataBory 858
KatTayvuue 751
KaTakeiuat 834
KaTakNivw 689
KaTakpivw 677
Katakuptevw 570
KkaTadauBavw 735
Karadta 679
katavoéw 800 a
Katefovotafw 570
KaTnyopla 885 (ii)
Kato.kéw 858
Kédpwv (rév) 885 (ii)
ketuat 858
ketpla 8865 (11)
KevTupiow 676
Kepoaivw 682
képua 686, 885 (ii)
KepuatioTns 885 (ii)
Kepany, s. KAWw
Knmos 769
knmoupos 885 (ii)
Knpvoow 688
Kyngds 709
kAddos 674
kAdw 675
K\elw 858
KNémTns 858
kAjjua 674, 885 (ii)
KAnpovouéw, -ia, -os 684
K\ivw 858, KNivw kepadjv
451-8, 462, 839
K\wrds 885 (ii)
Kotdouar 693, 858
kolunots 8865 (ii)
Kowds 6776
Kowdw 677
Kowwvia 700 a
KoKKos 692
kod\age 723 c¢
KoNaots 723 ¢
Ko\NuBior7s 812
ko\tros 769
Ko\unB7Opa 720
Kouworepov éxew 885 (ii)
Komriaw 859
kécpos 728
KpaBatros 673, 736
Kpagw 752 a—f
Kpatéw 691, k. auaprias 721
Kpavya¢w 752 a—f
WORDS (GREEK)
KplOwvos 708 |
kplvw 677 d, 714, 859
Kplois 859
KpUmTw 859
KTHuaTa 694
KukNdm 770
Ktm@rw, forms of 799 ¢
Kuprevw 570
KUptos (0), of Jesus 770
kwodbs 679
Aayxave 770
Adgapos 770
AdOpa 752
Nartéw 724
Nadia 752
NauBavw 689 c, 721, 7357,
dX. oravpdv 792 6
Nauras 746, 752
dads 688, parall. to dxAos
739
Aarpela 8865 (ii)
Aéyw hist. pres.
éXeye 491 a
Néyriov 885 (ii)
Némpa, -ds 685
Aeveirns 770
ALOagw 726
NiAwos 885 (11)
\LBoBohéw 859
A\LBdoTpwros 8865 (ii)
Aitpa 885 (ii)
Noylfouar 770
Néyos, s. Joh. Gr. Index
Noyxn 752
Aovdopéw 885 (ii)
Nove 728 |
AUvKos 859
Nutréomat 727 c, 812
Urn 771
NUxVOs, -la 685
vw 679 6
804 a,
Matvoua 885 (11)
pakaptos 859 ¢
Madxos 885 (ii)
pavOave 812
pavva 717
Mapa 717, 771
Mapia(u) (the mother of
Jesus) 686
Mapid(u) (sister of Laza- |
rus) 771
paptupéw 703, 726, 859
puaptupia 695 0, 726, 834
baptuptov 695, 726
uaptus 696, 726
paoté (disease) 692
paxouat 8865 (ii)
| péyas 683
| meBepunvedw 728 7,, 812
| pebtw T52
belfwv, of persons 683
| pévw 707
beplfw 679
Képyuva 676
| bépos 860
béoos, S. iornut, 793 foll.
etbw 8865 (11)
Meoclas 717
MeoTés 753
peTaBalvw 860
MeTavoéw, -o1a 691
eras’: 860
MerpynTys (Jn ul. 6) om. in
885 (ii)
pndets 885
unmore 885
envio T71
puatvw 885 (11)
uukpov (adv.) 716, 812
puckpos 686
up joKouwat 721 7, 860
pucéw 713
pods 691
wicbwrobs 736
pvnwovetw 721
wovt) 707
fovoyevns 771
| wovos, Ta dOdvia udva 804
| Nagfwpaios 860
Nadavand\ 718
vapoos 736
vevw 885 (11)
vepédn 676
yym.os 676, 860
VnoTEVW, VNnoTElA, VHOTLS
681
vikaw T71
Nixddnuos 718
virrTnp 885 (ii)
| virtw 728, 813
voéw 813
voun (Jn x. 9) om. in
885 (11)
vouos 715, 860
vooos 679, 724a
vin 860
vov 719
| woe 718
vioow 753
=UNov 885 (i)
“Odnyéw 861
This Index extends from 1438 to 1885 ( printed 438—885).
649
INDICES TO “JOHANNINE VOCABULARY”
Odourropia 885 (ii)
006s 696
6¢w 885 (ii)
dOé6viov 716, 772, 804
oléa 621-9, 715
oikia 684
olkodecréTns 684
oikodouéw 675
oikos 684
oiuat 8865 (ii)
OxTw 772
uve 694
dmotos 861
Ouotbe 686
ouodoyéw 678 a, 861
Ouov 727
évapiov 8865 (ii)
dvoua 553a, mioretw eis
TO 6. 483
ovos 861
dvTws 834
OmXov 885 (ii)
émws 695
épacis 601
opaw 601, 605-6,
wpen 5970
opylfouat 861
dpkos 687
éppaves (Jn xiv. 18) om.
in 885 (11)
6oun 885 (ii)
édaTréov 861
édoTis 885
ére 775 e
Ort 726, mustevw 6 476
oval 696
ov ovoy 753
oiv 883, 885
ovmw 719
ovs 680, 866 c
ovxt 861
opeithw 861
6pbaduors aipw 608
6xXos and ads 739, 0 6.
mo vs 739-40
éWapiov 712
éwia 813
6Ys 885 (ii)
723,
Tlaéapiov 736 ¢, 885 (11)
matolov 676
mais 862
tmadat6s 687
mapa 885
mapapalvw 824a
mapaBodn 669, 687, 721 a
mapayw 687, 813
mapadocts 695
mapakahéw 674
mapakAnTos 720
mapakvTTw 600, 726, 772,
798—804
TapahauBavw 689c, 735 7,
781a
Tmapauvbéouat 885 (ii)
maparlénur 692
Tapaxpnua 693, 862
Tapert 862
Tapépxyoua 631, 687, 735¢
mapoula 669, 721
mappnoia 744(xi)a, (ev)
mw. 712, 719
Tacxyw 694
matnp 711
Tewaw 684
Teipagw, -acuds 695
méumw 723, 6 méuwas (ue)
723 e.
mevOepds 885 (ii)
TevTnKovTa 834
mépav Tod lopddvov 714,
813
mepi 885, ot m. Ilérpov
802 a
mepiamte 711 f
mepiBaddr\w 676, 806 a
meptoéw 8865 (11)
mepiaTnut 8865 (ii)
mepiTatew 656
Tepicous 753
mepiréuva 772
mepitiOnut 809, 813, mrepi-
é€Onkay v.r. for éré@nkay
805
mepttoun T09
meTpa 691
™nyn 736
wnros 709
mHxXus 862
muagvw 723
murpackw 808, 814
mioTEvW pp. X1—xil,
463—561, 681, perf.
472, 519, 629
musTLKOs 736
mwioTts 478 c, 681, 7. Beod
467
migTés 681, 736 ad, 862
mrelwy 5040
wrEKW 809, 814
mweupd 753
TwAHPos 834
| wAhpns 772
mANpwua 814
tAnclov 687
motdpiov 736
| mAovcvos 691
mAovTos 691
mvevua 655, 720%, eve-
Bpisnoaro T@ 1. 811 4
Tvew 862
mobev 728
movew 513, 772
Towualva 862
Toiuvn 862
oaks 814
mons, 6 dxAos 7. 739-40
moNUTiuos 753
Topevouat 652-64
jopveia 814
moppupeos 885 (ii)
moots 885 (11)
mocos 683
morepov (Jn vii. 17) om. in
885 (ii)
ToTnpiovy 678
mov 728
mpattwpiov 809, 814
Tpdcow 772 j
mpecBvTepor 680
po, ™. pukpod 7996, 7.
mpoowrov 681a, T.
Tov (inf.) 863
Tpoayw 682
mpoBarixy 885 (11)
mpoBdrtvoy 885 (ii)
mpoBarov 723
TpoépxXouar 682
Tpotropevouat 682
| mpocatréw 885 (ii)
mpocaitns 737
T poo €pXouat
801 a—é
mposevxy 688
tTpoctevxouat 649, 688
TpockémTw 863
mpockuvew 640-51
mpookuyyTis 885 (ii)
mpocpaytov 796 a, 885 (ii)
mpocwmov, mpo 7. 681 a
mpotepov, (76) adv. 708
mpotpéxw 773
mpbpacis 834
mpwt 815
mpwla 754
649, 677,
| mpa@ros 682
mrépva 8865 (11)
mrvona 8865 (11)
mrvw 693 da, 737
mrwxds 688
muvOavonar 863
Tip 682
w@os 677
mwpbw 737
This Index extends from 1438 tv 1885 (printed 488—885).
650
“PaBBel 694c, 815
“PaBBovvel 694c, 737
pamicna 737
péw 8865 (ii)
“Pwuato., -aiort 721
Daddovxatos 692
Darelu 721
Dapapeiryns 863
Dapapetris 885 (ii)
Lapapia 773
Daravas 692
ceionds 680
onualvw 724
onuetov 669
Drwau 773
Diumev (father of Judas
Iscariot) 724
Duddy 754
oxavdanl{w, -ov 545, 694
okéNos 8865 (ii)
oxnvornyia 885 (ii)
oknvow 885 (ii)
ok\npbs 754
cKkoptifw 863
okotia, -os 710, 863, 864
omvpya 746, 754
Dorouwy 864
covddpiov 773
codla, -ds 696, 864
ometpa 809, 815
otrelpw 693
omépua 692
omAayxuigouat 677
omoyyos 815
amdpos 692
oTad.os 864
ataupos, -dw 678, 792 6
otrépavos 815
oTnbos T73
oTHnKw 725, 737
oTod 885 (ii)
oTéua 864
oTpépw 864
ov 726
ovyyerns 773
aud\\éyo 864
cuupéepw 754
cuvdyo 6827
cuvaywyn 694
cuvanlifoua 794 a
cuvavaKeruat 689
cuvercépxouat 8865 (ii)
ovveots, cuveTos 695, 865
ouvéxw 834a
cuvjdea (Jn xviii. 39)
om. in 885 (ii); see
2464 6
ouvinus 695
cuvyuabnris 8865 (ii)
|
WORDS (GREEK)
owotavpow 678, 817 ¢
ouvTldeuat 774
otipw 885 (11)
Duxdp 726
oppayl(w 754
oxifw 866 (iv)
oxloua 815
cxowwlov 885 (11)
gwHcw 692
o@ua 674
owrTnp TT4
cwrnpla TT4
Tazrewds, -6w 865
Tapdoow 727
Tadxevov 8865 (i1)
Taxéws 774
Te 865
Texvlov 676 a, 885 (ii)
TéKvov 676
TeveLdw T7T4
TeNéw 865
TéXos 680
Te\wyns 689
Tépas 816
TeTapraios 886 (ii)
TeTpdunvos 885 (ii)
Tnpéw 714, 816
TiBepias 726
TlOnut 69a, 7. Wuxnv 715
TikTw 865
Tun 746, 755
TitXos 885 (ii) |
Tore 695
Tpraxda.or 738
tplrov, éx Tpitov 695, (70)
Tpirov 834
Tpitos 695
Tpopy 865
Tpwyw 6804, 710, 755
TUmos 885 (11)
Tupr6w 885 (ii)
‘Yyijs 728, 816
bdpla 885 (ii)
wp 728, 834
vuets 728
tyérepos T74
imdyw 652-64, 713, 816
bmdvrnos 755
trapéts Geov 476 b
bmdpxovrTa, Ta 694, 865
iwép 692 a, 885
banpérns 719
umvos 865
bird 885
brddevywa 8865 (ii)
Urokplvomat, -Kplols, -Kpt-
THS 684 |
trouimyjncKka 775
toowros 886 (ii)
torepov 866
UpavTds 885 (ii)
tyoros 683
SWow 711 c, 866
Payew 680 0
palvw, epavyn 749, 885 (11)
pavepds 686
pavepbw 597%, 716, 738
pavepws 738
gpavds 885 (ii)
paddos 885 (ii)
pevyw 682
prréw and dyatrdw 486,
595-6, 716d¢—f, 728
M—dq
pula 716 f
Pidirmos 720
pli\os 775, 866
poBéowat 643 a, 681
poBos 681
gotvie 885 (ii)
popéw 755
ppayédAXov 885 (ii)
ppéap 775
ppbvios 866
pudraxy 688, 696
gpuvéw 752 ¢
pas 715, 866, pd. Kdcmou
748
putifw 485, 775
Xapal 885 (ii)
xapis 775
xXeluwappos 885 (1i)
Xetwv 816
xAlapxos 738
Xo\dw 8865 (ii)
XopTavw 692
xwrds 685
Xwpéew 816
xwplov 816
Wevdos 885 (ii)
Wevorns 885 (ii)
yyn\apaw 617, 804
whos T11h
Wuxos 8865 (ii)
Wwplov 724
*Q. 687
ade 683
ws (when) 775
aocavva 816
| woel 693
womep 866
wate 693
w@Tapiov 736 ¢, 738, 866 ¢
wrlov 866
This Index extends from 1438 to 1885 (printed 438—885).
Ost
PU SBRARSY
INDICES TO “JOHANNINE GRAMMAR”
I. NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES
[Zhe references are to paragraphs, indicated by black numbers, which,
in this Index, run from 1886 to 2799.
printed. An asterisk distinguishes numbers up to [2)000.]
MATTHEW
PAR.
2 2 782
6 670
23 292
3 411 899*, 981%,
998*, 401 a
4 8 962 *
13 292
18 342 7
23 709 a
Se 679 c
Il 499
12 689 @
14 539
15 948*, 2750
22 708 ¢
23 513¢, 534¢
25-6 520
oA 377 a
26 144
tf A 767
7 53
II 743
16 702d
21 263, 6800
22 335 a, 409
24-6 580a
27 915*
8 6 584
8 559
27 162 a
This Index extends from 1886 to 2799.
10
11
13
14
MATTHEW
PAR,
2 559 0
g 3946
21 270 a
28 239
It 437 a
14 437 a
19 532
DW) 322, 499
23 532 a
27 709 d
3 940 *
8 2166
13 477
18 253 a
25 689 7
25-7 165
27 586 d, ¢
14 173
25 261
29 517 a
32 553 ¢
40 395
50 799 (iii)
2 342 /
13-14 0936
14 144
1g 799 (iii)
21 039
56 3644
3 460 a, 517d
15
16
17
18
19
20
The thousand figure ts not
MATTHEW
PAR,
i 536 7
15 428 a, 746 a
21 009-10
23 962*
25-6 341-6
26 220
27 914a*, 220-2,
699
2 532
6 799 (iii)
Il 959*, 646
14 513 ¢c, 534¢
18 646
29 724 a
g-10 7086
18 782
19 517-19
2 566 ¢
24 437 a,496c,515
28 576
I 962*
17 364 a
8-g 592
18 517-9
3 379
9 677
26 649 a |
I 708 c
12 272a
18 265 6
e.g. (1]999* ; defore others, 2, e.g. [2]000.
652
Before numbers with * supply 1,
NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES
20
21
v
win BY YN = ST FH OO
FrNnnndwr
_
Ow
INS
(ooo
nv
Ow
|
n
ww
Dor SOF WwW ODuw vw
WWwWNnN Nv wee
O MEI UO
Bene =
mmw Nw
NNN Vv
MATTHEW
PAR,
593
310 a
537 (ii), 781c
292
558 e
536
971*, 342¢
906*, 953*
356, 3964, 621
253 a
563 4
586 d, 2
784¢
329 a
950 a*
439 (v) 6
707
220a, 585a-0 |
197 a
322, 499
709 a
7116
439
186 a, 585 a—d
439
317 f
255, 580 a
918 *
607
928 a*
364 a
483 /
945 *
702d
945~*
702 a
721a
5326
307 ¢
6796
482 7
928 a*
575 a
558 a
111, 478a
331
734d
915 (vi) a*,
220 a, 245 a
2706, 563¢
960 J*
914*, 9606*
969 *
537 a
This Index extends from 1886 to 2799.
e.g. [1]999*; before others, 2, e.g. [2]000.
MATTHEW
PAR.
13 7137
15 464 b-c
19 294 a, 537 (ii) 0,
732
27 570d
30 558 a
33 738
48 «623
55 318
57 291, 769
62 087-8
63 732
I 310
6 17le
7 186 a
10 307 0
18 742
MARK
5 670 6
7 899*, 043,
558 @
8 981*, 998%,
401 a
9 292, 706 a
16 342 7
ei 709 a
27 694 d
2 425 6
39 709 a
I Tlla
4 294 a
5 559 b
7 155 a
13 394 6
19 235 a
27 959 *
3 710
6 173
9 294 a
13 962 *
25 261 6
26 593
27 517 a
29 593
31 395
35 799 (iii)
I 342 7
12 093 4
T4 799 (111)
17 039, 593
21 948*, 2752,
372.0, 593d,
702 a
653
or
fo 0)
MARK
PAR.
917 a ig
272, 570d
162 a, 6946
962*
558 7
270 a
270 a
270 a, 5630
482 6
237 a, 4390
586
679 6
363 a, 364a
437 «a
460 a, 517d
536 /
020
428 a
512, 690a
745 a
089 a
962-3 *
341-6, 472
220
914a*, 220-1,
699
449 a
799 (ili)
959 *
261 6
449 a
708 0
917 (iii)—(vi)*
437 a,496c,515
580 a
576
962 *
155 a
363a, 3642
6966
782
679 ¢
155 a
398, 593
513 a, 592
534 ¢
534 ¢
379 a
T1la
677
649 a
592
366 ¢
593, 649 a
Before numbers with * supply 1,
INDICES
TO “JOHANNINE GRAMMAR”
ee
- ©
12
13
14
MARK
PAR.
33 265
48 167, 593
I 310 a
7 537 (ii), 781c
8 047
15 BBB
23 B21 a
24 536
25 532 a
27 342 ¢
28 971*
30 «=: 906 *, 953*
32 466 (i) a
Il 356, 396, 621
12 366 c
15 563 0
25 593
28 665 3
37 468 }
Ar 333 a
3 707
6 585 a—0
8 197 a
Io 709 a
II 532
13 322, 499
16 7116
20 078 a, 441 b—c
21 439
2: 585 a—b
31 255, 580 a—d
35 678
2 918 *
3 563 a, 607
7 533
Io 928 a*
17 483 0
18 945 *
19 702 a
20 945*
2 721a
25 532 0
26 307 c
31 513 a—b
36 679 0
oY 482d
43 911*, 928a*
40 B75 a
47 558 a
49 111, 363 a,
364 a
58 331, 451
61 537 a
62 220 a, 245 a
This Index extends from 1886 to 2799.
14
16
or
MARK
PAR.
63 270 0, 563¢
71 960 b*
72 914*
I 969*
4 736, 7370
6 464 b-c
14 068 a
16 570d
1g 558 a
22 738
23 380 0
36 ~—«623
40 318
42 048, 087-8
43 291
2 310
6 171e
TE ORSE:
3 904 *
37 356 a
45 356 a
30 473
41 715 a
16 899*, 981%,
998*, 043,
401 a, 558d
18 335 a, 4147
19-21 460, 480a
20 517d
I 072
14-15 374a
16 292
30 542-3
31 709 a
36 694 4
40 425 0
44 709 a
I 342 f, 354
2 354
3 © 34a f
14 593 6
19 2944
20 559 4
27 3946
6 983 a*
8 710
Il 173
12 962 *
20 679 ¢
2: 689 a
25 679 ¢
33 513d
{
NNN DN SH
Cr QW TW fp
10
il @
e.g. [1]999*; before others, 2, e.g. [2]000.
654
LUKE
PAR.
513¢, 702d
767
649 (i) c
680 0
580 a
915*
709 a
584 0
559
940 *
253 a
563 a
178 a
781 ¢
374 a
093 4
799 (iii)
039
948*,
372 a
294a, 395
799 (iii)
162 a
962*
563 6
237 a, 439 6
586d
679 6
437 a
437 a
428 a
329 (i) a
437 a, 496¢,515
580 a
576
962 *
331 ¢
364 a
689 7
165
532 a
7114
536
743
533
517 a
532¢
329 a
760
033 a
709 b
532
144
679 G
275 b,
Before numbers with * supply 1,
NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES
LUKE |
PAR. |
12 58-g 520
13 3 521-2
5 521
26 335 a
28 532 0
14 12,13 532a@
23 2616
15 30 781 «
16 6 781 ¢
16 477
18 677
17 20 736 c
31 71146
33 739
18 5 322
an 265 4
Igy ® 3744
28-9 310a
31 513 d
35 537 (ii), 781¢
42 539
20 1 342 ¢
2 971*
4 906*, 953”
Io 690
18 397 a, 622a
23 563
Pat 333 a
8 220 a
12 197 a |
18-19 322 |
33 255, 5800 |
22 3 928 a*
14 4834
19 721 a
20 721 a
27 593
33 643
39 307 c, 799 (ii)
2 679 b
45 482 d
47 928 a*
48 072
50 983a*,985a*,
558 a
53 111, 364a
54 575 a
58 960 5*
60 914*, 9605*
61 649 a
67 220 a
69 915 (vi) a*
jo 220 a, 245a
I 969*
This Index extends from 1886 to 2799.
23
LUKE
PAR.
5 737 a
9 537 a
33 738
34 318 6
36 623
38 339, 347
48 3172, 318
49 318 a
51 291
52 257
53-4 087-8
I 310
12 664 0
21 472 6
36 307
36-42 483 a
39 220-1, 269d,
699-700
41 703 a, c
43 335
47 709 a
JOHN
I 937*, 994a%,
308, 363-8.
395
I-2 386
1-8 594-7
3 301, 440, 478
3-4 996%
5 141
6 937*, 277, 358
7 302-4, 525-8
7-8 063
8 105-7, 112, 382
9 277, 508
g-I1 508¢
ie) 301
I1-12 570
[2 268-9, 448 2a,
799 ¢
13 268-9, 371a,
654, 722c¢
[4 946 *
14-17 284-7
14-18 180
15 896 *-900*,
925-7*,
330, 371,
4784, 479,
507, 571,
665-6, 722,
799 a
JOHN
PAR.
1 15-34 601-2
16 146 a, 414/
16-18 pref. p. vii
17 301, 41l¢
18 938*, 964%,
275 a, 308-
9, 382,615,
706 foll.
19 481
19-21 766 (i) 0
20 189, 401, 598
20-1 600
21 940*, 965%,
248 c, 498 a
22 113
23 401
24 214, 481
26 998*, 399
26-7 401
26-33 552
27 094a, 1042,
558d, 687
28 968c*, 172,
648
2 938%, 509, 624
30 896 *-900%*,
927*, 330,
360, 369-—
71, 401,
4780, 571,
666, 718
foll.
31 064, 387
Bi ey chal
32 952-5*, 458,
473
32-4 572
33 947", 981%,
336, 382,
509
34 386a, 401, 473
35 624
36 649
38 279 a, 649
41 9014*, 985~*
42 456.7, 649
43 471, 624
43-5 970%, 636
44 289
45 931-2", 418 2,
643
45-6 289
46 932*, 245,
248 c
e.g. [1]999* ; before others, 2, e.g. [2]000.
655
Before numbers with * supply 1,
INDICES TO “JOHANNINE GRAMMAR”
nw iy
+ + w
n
on
This Index extends from 1886 to 2799.
bh We
\O sT Ou tn
JOHN
|
n
|
~I
|
lo)
“Iu
WWwWwWwn we
|
oo
PAR.
765
995a*, 278,
372, 491c,
552
966*, 669
189, 236, 241,
248 ¢, 372,
552
958 *,
275,
626 a
985*, 624
461
265 a,
336,
229-30,
647
414, 437, 5164
632
070, 281-3
437-8
939*,
642,
016-8,
3; 459,
506 a, 607
424
386 (i)
374, 394, 395
553 0
553 a
929*, 558 ¢
437
633, 639
179, 183 a, 400
439 (111)—(v)
331
021-4,
248 ¢
382, 467-9
406, 469
069 a, 569,
654, 670
466, 644
995 a*, 254
959*, 374,
491c,d
094a, 1042,
607
071 a, 290a
933 *
576d
573, 603
903-8*, 612
316 a
614
146,
069 a, 281-
3
JOHN
PAR.
Io 966*, 248
II 428
12 256, 554
13 931-2*, 141.
211, 265a,
275, 503
15 636 ¢
15-21 pref. pp. vii-—
Vili, 066
16 917 a=, 986",
203, 262,
697
17 301, 606
18 986%, 181,
187, 253,
475 a,
477 4, 484,
695
19 092, 181
19-20 568¢
20 574, 584 a, 606
21 185 a, 574, |
584 a
22 6700
22-3 277a
23 424
23-4 480
23-5 633
25 349-50
27 496
28 189 ¢, 330, 401
28-31 602
29 939*, 571
30-6 pref. p. viii
31 904*, 555 a
22 451
32-3 501, 5684, 628
a3 270 ¢
34 324, 654, 714
35 334 ¢
36 576d, 598
I 198, 459
1-2 628
I-3 635(i)
2 374 a
3 440, 649 (i),
670
4 272 a, 6365 (i)
4-5 482c
5 970*, 198, 310,
368 a, 405
6 916”, 198,
272, 751
6-9 631
JOHN
PAR.
7/ 482 ¢
8 310, 480, 7462
9 pref. pp. vili-
ix, 066, 273
Q-10 536 (i)a
ie) 980a*, 400,
553 a, 743
II 258
12 374 a
13 553 ¢
13-14 574
14 039, 255, 314—
16, 405
16 437-8
17 552
18 894%, 915(ii)*
19 439 (ii) a
20 245
21-3 019,061, 4852
2 167, 398
23-4 603
24 994 a*
25 939*, 382
25-6 205, 2214
26 940*
26-8 633
27 2310 foll., 338
28 310
29 «= 1024, d
30 465
31 668
34 994*, 095, 298
5 185, 230 (ii)—
(ili), 246 a,
437, 616,
762 a
36 287 4, 313
36-7 392
37 980 a*, 795
38° A aIg
39 ~—s 041, 273
40 465, 655
2 929 a*, 989%,
450
43. 9946*
43-4 067
45 167, 273, 460,
692
46 O7la, 198,
649 (i)
40-53 5846
47 5670
48 232, 366/,
456 a
e.g. (1]999* ; before others, 2, e.g. [2]000.
656
Before numbers with * supply 1,
NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES
JOHN JOHN JOHN
PAR. PAR. PAR,
50 406, 459 | 5 38-9 489 (i), (ii) 6 30 400, 525-8,
52 465¢ | 39 383 a 553a
52-3 013,025-6,206 | 39-40 141 31 552
53 374 a 41 605 32 455 a
I 951a*, 394 | 42 032-40 33 974*, 503
2 216, 670 | 43 145, 554, 677 34 553¢
3 930* | 44 Gi, ~~ Ghee 34-6 056
4 334 a, 348 | 145, 399 4, 35 255, 507, 625
5 O71a | 496, 664 36 161, 189
6 248¢,279a | 45 973*, 2354, 37 507
6-7 206a | 442-3, 474 38 952a*, 5524,
7 093 6 | 46 339 605
9 914* 47 989*, 256 39 921-2*, 213,
UI 3804,4388a | 6 I 045 262
11-12 206 I-15 963* 39-54 609a, 7154
13 031, 460, | 2 417 40 093, 096
466 (i), 541 3 707, 751 41 504
14 456 a, 478 / 3-5 616, 633 41-2 552a
ius 466 (i) 4 931*, 654d 2 9327970,
15-18 389 5 279a, 3664, 427 a,
16 537, 715 428, 512, 552a
16-18 464 | 642, 745-6 43 349
17 915 (vi)*, 6 374, 467-8 44 715 6
226 5, 537 | 7 643 44-5 548a
18 4685, 733a 9 056, 4120 45-6 218-19, 357-9
19 148, 382, 516, | 10 009-11, 070, 46 386, 552
537, 605, — 437, 6320 48-50 504-5
617a,739a | Ir 198 48-51 574, 608
20 114, 375 | 13 985 *, 267, 49 950a*, 5652,
21 148, 7410 329 (i), 419 553 ¢
21-3 0666 | [4 940*, 553d 49-51 956-7*
23 128 15 198, 375, 50 530
24 477 4, 799 (iii) 649 (i), 51 074, 076,
25 485a, 499, 724 foll. 504-5
603, 799 (i) 16 336 51-5 567
26 039, 148, 741 a 17 031 53 039
26-7 0664 18 929 a* 54 715 b
28 485 a, 603 19 909* | 54-7 613
2 499, 584a Tg-21 340-6 56 124 a
30 514 (i) ce, 605 20 205, 220-2, 699 | 56-7 297-300
31 514 (i) | 21 909*, 914%, 57 O57", 124,
are | 972" 472, 478 b, 151
32 384, 675, 730, | 498, 716-7 | 57-8 504-5
791-5 | 22 417, 466 (i) 58 949-50 *,
34 605 22-4 417a | 952-7*,
35 2756, 471, 24 466 (i), 482c, 1220, 553¢
655, 689 % 752 | 60 041
36 230 a, 384, 25 478, 758 61 248 c, 2794
453, 604, 27 931*, 312-13, 62 W72a,- 192,
686-7 438 210-12,
37 450 a | 28 493, 512 265 a, 515,
37-8 038-40, 259 | 29 «= 9684*, 096, | 739 b
38 178, 382, 764— | 382, 405 a, | 63 975-7 *, 257 4,
6, 799 (iii) | 526-8 | 545c, 606
This Index extends from 1886 ¢o 2799. Before numbers with * supply 1,
e.g. [1]999* ; before others, 2, e.g. [2]000.
AS Vile 657 42
INDICES TO “JOHANNINE GRAMMAR”
|
Lo. 2)
nn wv
COMI SI
JOHN
PAR.
056 4
251a, 254, 510
470, 636
548 a
235
226 ¢
442-3, 475
441 a-—d
ong 4. 9st
945 *,
467-8
498
931, 951
114, 147, 569,
690, 727
917 (i), (vi)*,
202, 375 a,
727
395 a, 466
989*, 605
8-10 264-5, 629
458
202, 375
385, 732
917 (i), (vi) *
264-5
253
989*, 629
7 250
498, 515 a,
586 a
386
2484, 455 a
388
949-50,
218-19
961%, 552,
715 ¢
244, 248¢
438
917 (vi) *, 057,
139 a
531, 535, 736 ¢
142
200 a, 479,
600, 618,
736 ¢
151, 6132
138, 472, 481,
575
074-5, 405a
991 a Ly
489
082
This Index extends from 1886 ¢o 2799.
e.g. [1]999* ; before others, 2, e.g. [2]000.
ny nnn
I
w
-WN Fe
Nun
|
on
RN NN VY
com
JOHN
PAR.
487 a
171d, 190a,
578, 605
046, 179, 2484,
607, 645
168, 479, 618 |
039, 129
921-2*,
315-16,
421, 626a
407, 468, 499
213
068, 289, 552
932 a*
138, 472, 498,
575
991a*, 385
057
924*, 253, 266,
417
960*
185 a, 439 (i) a,
492
348
915 (vi) a*
608, 625
13-14 554
457, 490,
514 (i),
549, 736c,
739 a, 759
15-16 628
074-6, 159,
207, 515 a,
600, 614
7 428
988%, 558 ¢, 588
foll., 626
794
148, 566 4,
739 d
138, 333-4, 481
487 a, 545,
552, 578
190 a, 605
185 a, 702d
399, 553¢
189, 192, 221d,
552
223-8
154-6, 413
062, 451
468
2210, 605a
658
on U1 tn tn tn
nub wW wv
© ont
on or on
WwW Vv
JOHN
PAR.
449, 614
470
3664, 506, 514
263 ¢-¢
192
193-4
027, 355, 357—
9, 439 (v)c
078-9, 2134,
698
934-5*, 412a,
451
932*, 194
326, 382, 457
251
932*, 194d-c,
326, 378-9,
' 498, 535,
728
177 a
389, 553
973 a*, 600
978 *
989 *
514-15, 5524,
576, 657 5
017
923*, 413
927a*, 979*
160, 613
935%, 097,
688-9
146, 248-
221 6, 625
072, 538-43,
646
098
063, 106-7,
112
089, 428 d-e
531 c, 608
569c¢, 7844
305, 437,
456 a,
583c, 706
466 (i)
189, 205, 221 4,
265 (i)
305, 381,
588 c,
706 a
732
Osi. 018,
3510
Before numbers with * supply 1,
NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES
10
JOHN
PAR,
I4 O71a
16 386 0
yi 018, 183, 274
18 931*, 018
19 248 c
21 723
IBV LL
22 480
24 425 a, 42724
25 274, 351, 381
27 498
27-8 558 ¢
28 554
29 400, 427 a,
737 ¢
29-30 068, 142a
30 218 c, 393,
683
23 079 4, 698
34-5 248¢
35 242, 456 a,
459
36 113, 157, 381,
525-8
37 980a*, 163,
456 a
40 215, 351
41 1904
1 265 b-c
2 669
2-9 608
2-12 267
3-27 420
4 330 a
4-5 558e
5 255
6 251, 382
5 361-2, 798d
10 606
i 484, 608, 625
12 704
12-13 179
14 608
14-15 125-6, 491c
15 484, 552
15-18 612
16 151
17 391, 552
18 606
22 670
23 969 a*
24 917 (vi) *
25 186 a, 604
25-6 605
|
|
|
10
11
JOHN
PAR.
26-7 987*
a7 491 c
28-g 139, 586 «-e,
767
29 0536, 4960,
744
32 441, 486, 606
34 190¢
35 143, 799 (ii1)
35-6 921", 244,248 ¢
36 1904
37 256
38 893*, 511
40 968c*, 172,
458, 649 (i)
HO) (OI
41 075 a, 169
I O71 a, 290
2 276
4-6 633
6 198, 458
7 394
7-8 649 (ii)
8 146, 248 ¢
9 514
II 394, 642
ft-i2 586¢
12-14 632c, 634
13 382, 464 a,
467-8, 481
I4 917 (i), (1i)*
I4-15 099-102
15 525 foll.
16 928 *
v7) 198
17-19 480
18 670
18-19 941-4*
19 990-1*, 360
20-1 565-6
22 915 (i)-(v)*,
536 (i) G5 Gy
660 4
25 456 a, 625
26 242, 248, 262,
545 a
Di 940°, 475,
553 d
29 9020*, 465,
565-6
29-31 90246%*, 5546
30 480
31 9024*, 941-
4*, 686-7
This Index extends from 1886 to 2799.
11
Before numbers with *
e.g. [1]999* ; before others, 2, e.g. [2]000.
659
JOHN
PAR,
32 465, 565-6,
558 d-e
33 198, 614
34 441
37 496
38 198
39 437
40 189, 545
41 052, 452, 552¢,
617
42 058, 294,525-8
4 437
45 941-4*
45-6 380
47 991 a*, 493-4,
512, 766 (i)
48 559 a, 645
50 104, 645
50-1 645
52 6640
54 917(vi)*, 199,
352a, 724
55 646, 686-7
55=7 G87
56~=—s«184, 349,
766 (i) a
57ae 991 a* 0) 173:
480, 635
I 172, 199, 288,
624, 635,
648
3 168, 329, 607
4 928%, 945%,
586 a
5 ©6945 *
7 108, 3524,
456 a
9 941 a*
g-12 992*
10 147
To-I1 464
Il 041, 2942
12 278, 417
13. 966%, 047, 669
14 461, 537(ii),
756
15 537 (11)
16 339, 360, 396—
7, 469,
621--2, 757
18 152-3, 3860
19 439 (i1), 494,
645,
753 a—e
supply 1,
(52
INDICES TO “JOHANNINE GRAMMAR”
JOHN
PAR,
20 046 0, 686-7
21 289
22 418, 482¢
23 537 d, 6042
24 948*, 375, 725
25 313 6, 485
26 487, 515, 552c
27 057, 231 4, 325,
389 a, 437,
512 b-c,
614¢
27-8 052, 053c, 659
28 958”, 162,441,
768 foll.
30 1104, 4784,
611 ¢
32 642, 739 a
33 467-8
34 642, 645
35 923%, 201,
3424, 438
35-6 201, 696c
36 238, 342 2,538,
646
37 031, 466
37-40 390
39 466, 496
40 093 2, 114,
449 a—b
43 092, 369
44 072, 479
44-50 618
45 609
46 933”, 262,457,
608
40-7 159
47 395 , 606
48 978*, 799 (iii)
48-9 179
49 293 2, 375,
586 a, 606a,
742 a
49-50 195
I 319-23
I-4 279
3 327, 334c¢
4 270
6 200, 236 a,
248 c, 483,
486, 564,
784¢
7 394a
8 564
8-9 208-9, 564
This Index extends from 1886 ¢o 2799.
13
14
JOHN
PAR.
190 a, 263,
265 (i), 510
243, 248c¢, 270,
477,564,649
(ill), 762
0517, 195, 680
931 *, 195,441,
477, 564
1272
550 0
514 (i)
105-12,
441
915 (vi)*,
995.a* 2214,
526-8, 585
507, 609, 739a
945*, 614¢
277, 308
249, 252,
465 -—d
917*
537d
918*, 437,
439(v),486,
554 e
464
926 5*
914*
446, 522
082, 1272,190,
489 }, 545,
578, 605
915 (vi)*
8946*, 094,
116, 127 a,
130, 412,
441, 609
036 6, 612
332, 393, 5150
082, 578, 605,
642
497, 555
565 a, 643
248 c
537d
889*, 236-40,
555
080-6, 186
159, 486-7,
649 (ii)
614¢
301 a, 625
263,
263, 265(i),659
14
nn wv
“I Qt - ww ©
nnn
nN
~y
WWNNN
Aiur RON YD HHO
e.g. [1]999* ; defore others, 2, e.g. [2]000.
660
=
I
a
|
No)
SNe
mw
JOHN
°
PAR.
915(vi)*,243a,
477), 491,
5662, 739d,
760 foll.
437 b
248 c, 609
579
080, 238, 727
151
536 (i)
414, 516
604, 625
987 *,
609
931-2%*,
793-5
352-3
243 a, 491c¢,
496, 762
600
149, 177,
230 (i),
241 a,
762 a
980*,
373
928 4*, 265 (i),
478 |, 694,
766 a
515 0, 609
569 a, 580
799 (iii)
625
931-2*, 411¢
957a*, 993%,
122 4, 609
525-8
550a, 739 c¢
186 a, 585
915 (v) *
106-8
428, 742 a
608, 625
920-2*, 421
921*
353, 799 (ili)
208, 437 c
521
386
919 *, 266, 426,
445, 755
514, 516 a,
536 (i),
6604, 739
515 ,
630,
987 *,
Before numbers with * supply 1,
TY )
yA
NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES
JOHN JOHN | JOHN
PAR. PAR, | PAR,
15 8 114, 393, 446 16 20 058 | 17 11-12 408-11, 568
9 127, 437 21 948 .2*, 535 | 12 584, 742, 744¢
Q-1f 988%, 581 21-2 149, 196-7 4 552
g-12 987* 22 915 (vi) c”, 15 325
Io 131, 514, 568 | 077, 169 16 552
ne 096,131, 529a, | 23 516, 630 ¢, 17 661
609 739 a 18 127, 132, 444,
13 095 23-4 536(i), 604 554 a
15 901 *, 441, 447, 24 915 (vi) d* 19 369, 376a
451, 477, | 25 917(i), (ii), 19-24 529a
550 | (vi)*, 4852 20 «074-5, 304,
16 120—1,313,414, 26 536 (i), 630 500,799 (iii)
441 a, ad, | 931a*, 246, 20-4 118-9
516,536 (i), 326-8, 21 2084, 308,
604 442-3, 376.0,
16-20 426 475-6 526-8, 554,
17 529a 28 326-8, 457, 614, 740
18 896*,901*,243, | 649 (ii) 21-2 1276, 132a
666, 762 29 917(i),(ii),(vi)*, | 21-5 052-3
19 387, 441 a, d 643 | 22 455
20 405-6 30 1042, 246, 327, 23 306, 554, 614
20-1 059 332 24. 151, 422, 455,
21 582 30-1 248c 487, 495,
22 213 a, 698 31-2 475 740 ¢, 7442
24 161, 2132, 442 | 32 ©—- 246, 485.2, 487, | 25 164-5
—3, 475,698 | 604 a, 614, | 26 014, 164 4,
24-5 105-12 629, 799 (1) 529 a
25-799 (iii) 33. +058, 477 | 18 1 S874a, 671-4
26 931-2* WG 958*, 4564, | I-2 799 (i1)
27 (O74 604 a, 617, 1-3 634
16 1-7 060 647 | 3 9944"
2 0934, 485 a, 1-2 455 | 4 200, 605c, 635,
499, 799 (i) I-II 052 649 7
2-11 999* 2 921*,936*,114, | 5 189, 205, 2214
3 «448, 582 117, 266, 5-6 634
4 © 254a 422, 552, 5-8 625
5 139 a 690, 740-4 6 205, 2214
7 104 2-24 T4206 | 7 605c¢, 649d
5 367, 614 3 936*,095,114, | 8 189, 191, 205,
8-11 182 | 168, 491 c, 2216
g-10 074-5 | 664 a 9 190, 742 0,
g-11 077, 169 4 340, 6870 | 744¢
It 477 b | 4-5 915(v)* | 10 985*, 558a,
12 497 | 5 995a*, 027, | 563, 637
13-16 614 355, 405, 1! 232, 377, 456 a,
14-15 488, 583, 629 768 foll. 742 6
15 189 6 455, 568, 798 a | [4 104
16 190«’, 642 7-5 448, 455a 16 931-2*, 986%,
16-19 583, 613 8 246, 328, 376a 368
17 190 d, 213, 9 405 a, 455, 630 | 16-17 985 0*
423, 468 0 Q-12 744c 17 381
19 248 c, 349, 10 332, 477 18 351 a
466 (i), 472, II 376a, 529a, 20 917 (vi)*,
498 661, 740 2516, 440a
This Index extends from 1886 to 2799.
e.g. [1]999* ; before others, 2, e.g. [2]000.
661
Lefore numbers with * supply 1,
INDICES TO “JOHANNINE GRAMMAR”
JOHN | JOHN
JOHN |
PAR. | PAR. PAR,
21 381, 450a | 19 28 115, 394, 6262 | 20 28 679 foll.
22 245, 248¢ 28-30 279 a, 632 2 236, 241, 248 c,
24 462 29 425 475, 499
25 425 | 29-30 623 30 335, 414 7
27 914* 30 456 a, 644(i) | 30-1 431-5
28 048, 646 | 31 048,087—8,115, 31 526 foll.
29 969* | 267, 419 AML i 917 a*, 340-6,
30 ©=—- 277, 5664, 646 31-4 5640 620
31 969 6* | 32 607 2 418
33 234, 248 c¢, 33 336 | 3 486
649 (i), | 34 ©««9'14*, 586a 4 137, 3072,336,
766(i)6 35 15la, 383-4, 341 a
33 foll. 649 (ii) | 526-8, 607, 5 2354-d, 701-3
34 090-1, 24542, | 611, 731 6 684, 703¢
248c, 2500 | 37 317-18, 675-7 7 632 a
35 702d | 38 291, 394 | 8 020, 288
36 © 988%, 5665 39~=—S« 461 | Q: wAt03
37 185, 233-4, | 41 257 b | 10 213, 405, 441,
245a,248¢ | 20 1 310-11 703
457 | 1-2 425, 482c 10-12 437
38 553 d, 737 | 1-18 482¢ CI 281, 283
39 094a, 248¢, | 2 367, 441 07 924”, 273, 466
464 bc 3 «418 12-13 483
39-40 209 3-4 £65 | 13 335 a
40 969a*, 070 3-11 6646 14 619-20
3 465 6 | 4 918* 15-17 248¢, 456a,
4 553 a | 6-7 377 584 ¢
5 960*, 200, 645 | 7 305 _ 18 211c, 796-7
6 553d lo-1r 638 19 468, 552, 564a
7 403, 733 II 073, 368 Ig-21 209
8 586, 733 a | [2 171-2, 2164, 20 509
9 403-4, 537¢, | 368 21 209, 386¢
733 foll. | 13 050, 1857 | 22 229-30, 552,
10 ~—- 231, 606, 645 14 137 | 564 a
tl 904*, 2134, | 15 377, 649 22-3 089, 495, 498,
698 | 16 586 / | 515 a
12 969 a* | 17 265a, 3070, 23 074-5, 185%,
13 837 (i)=(i), ~ | 489 486, 530 d,
586, 707 | 18 925-6*, 190c, | 600, 642
14 048, 088 | 482 ¢, 5860 24 166, 386, 427—
15 245, 248,645, | 19 031, 200, 307— 35
737 c | 9, 482 | 25 335, 414-16,
16-17 570d | 20 © ©384a | 430-5,
17 738 | 21 127, 132, 453 | 660, 739
17-18 171 22 41lc
19 347 | 23 473 6, 517-20, ACTS
21 966a*, 439, | 558¢, 739a ae 331c, 620, 715
645, 732 | 24 928*, 073 7 759 a
22 473 25 255 a, 607 8, 9 78la
23 904a*, 071, 25-7 567a 12 673
270, 632d | 26 307-9, 331d, 18-20 78la
24 270, 335a 482 2 22 709 a
25 928”, 217, 355, 27 384 a | 3 12 537
418, 586/ 27-8 049-51 13 385 a
This Index extends from 1886 to 2799. Before numbers with * supply 1,
e.g. [1]999"; before others, 2, e.g. [2]000.
662
NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES
SO 1S Ot
=
28
OS bo
| 10
itil
ACTS
PAR,
17 915 (i)*
5 559 a
28 732
II-13 451
19 949 a*
2 739 a
14 913a*, 759¢
16 913 *
36-8 2922
41 335 a
8 913 a*, 759¢
10 913 *
22 709
I 917 a*, 2036
22 270 6, 563¢
I alta hie
20 709 a
29 159d
14 409
25-6 439 (ii)
22-32 915(i)c*
20 439 (11)
30 691 c¢
12 759 a
7 335 a
24 439 (ii)
5 904*
24 7840
27 242
32 698
7 665
ROMANS
II 784 0
20, 21 55846
14 534
19 606a
24, 25 5580
27 265 (i)a
13 759 ad
18 689
ai 698
18 709 a
2 723
29 897 6*, 901*
II 759 d
27 158, 7214
I 559 d
1 262 a
18 702 6
7-8 4490-6
2 522
36 294
This Index extends front 1886 to 2799.
al
Oo Oo
11
12
16
n
ROMANS
PAR.
ru 559 a
15 691 6
20 741
or 664 a
CORINTHIANS
7-8 322
8 566 a
II 959*
4 534
9 530d
19 569 4
21 332 a
I 7840
g-it 6916
T4 162¢
12 563 >
A 702 6
II 783
15 691 4
18 690
22 440
22 7026
27 759 f
30 746 a
3 680
8-Io 676
I 522 a
iit 4780
12 915 (vi) c*,
51la
13 313 a
26 5340
6-8 619
19 474a
20 901*
22 530 0
24 531
47 906*, 953 a*
ite) 3640
CORINTHIANS
9 530d, 723
10 4742
14 559 7
23-4 2190
12 917 (ii) a, (v)*
14 449 a
13 443
3 523 a
8 364
10 584a
2 CORINTHIANS
PAR.
CG 9165 (ii) a*
8 9g 243a
23 7210
9 4 523.4
10 12 723
Wh 784d
4 676
16 784d
12 4 414¢
Io 534 a
17-18 440
13 9 6584a
GALATIANS
1 6-7 675-7
12-15 559d
18 3640
5 364 0
694¢
243 a
904*
698
472 a, 7174
413
906*, 907 c*
697 6
114
696
691 2-e, 78
90
bo
~
wu
|
= Nn N
NG Sar Omon
NAO
= =
=
|
4
is}
EPHESIANS
014
909 *
744}
439 (iii)
114
bo
n =
WwW Ow
Oo
PHILIPPIANS
7216
559 7
036 6
783
409
243 a
559 a
1626
783
iS)
!
f=)
bo
|
nv
n
w
n
nO NRO VN AMs
+
aS
Before numbers with * supply 1,
e.g. [1]999* ; before others, 2, e.g. [2]000.
663
INDICES TO “JOHANNINE GRAMMAR”
1
bo
COLOSSIANS
PAR.
15 897 6*
16 294, 440,
747 a
18 897 5*
24 915 (ii) a*
5 783
15 OUT (i=
18 783
1 THESSALONIANS
7-8 991%
1
2
oe
I
19
7
10
1G)
2
322
558 0
322, 559 a
2 THESSALONIANS
2
°
721 6
915 (ii) *
033 a
033 0
691e
TIMOTHY
554d
474.4
089
539
TIMOTHY
322 6
LEEUS
558
PHILEMON
18-19 69146
19g
[
14
This Index extends from 1886 to 2799.
219 a
HEBREWS
949", 553 e
265 (i)
12
13
2
a
HEBREWS
_~
Dr OW O+
Darr MN OM
ne
or
PAR.
558
694
5760
294
307
566 a
7840
675
016 a
439 (ii) a
539, 543 a
751
901*
203 6, 731
918*, 554d
918*, 24324,
554d
JAMES”
ret
445
17-18 904a*, 907 a*
18
24
14
17
19
24
15
17
2-3
4
Il
558 6
753 ¢
522 a, 523 a
522a
242 a
439 (ii)
904 a*
904 a*
536 &
034 a
322 6
tr PETER
I
3
6-9
o-I
3
5
9
8
ny nn
046
907 a*
689¢, /
304 a
907 a*, 3134
709 a
558 0
036 0
to
377 a
6914, 7102
Boy APIA IIR
I
1 foll.
oe
Aton
(e/0)
9
10
12
e.g. [1]999* ; before others, 2, e.g. [2]000.
664
}-
9
Coma sa Nowe wo Db Rob wD
2)
2
783 a
586 Z
1 JOHN
on
ioe)
|
as
427, 450
399 c, 610
074, 450
399 c, 6914
181, 450
159, 399¢, 630/
075, 159
392, 515
915 (iii)*,
450 a
106, 110,
263 c-d
262 4, 6914
262 6
254 a
922*
6916
104 a,
558 0,
569 a
915 (iii) *
427,
528
243 a, 515 (i)
391, 454a
915 (iv)*,
427a, 4340
132 4, 382
382
262 4, 491
132 4, 382
262 6
2626
957*
201,
437 c,
Before numbers with * supply 1,
NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES
1 JOHN 1 JOHN REVELATION
PAR, PAR. PAR.
3 14 178a, 427 a, 5 13 399 c, 691 0 It 5 897 5*, 901*
434 b 14 181, 536 (i) 7 317 ¢
15 039, 2624 15 21a, 159, 17: 900*
16 035 foll., 382 427 a, 2 2 497
ity) 035 foll., 516a 434 b, 7 920*
20 409 a, 414 515 (i), 9 781
21 522a, 523 a 536 (i) 17 409
21-2 5386(i)d 16 121a, 536(i), 19 781d
oe) 335, 516, 6607 6307, z 3 I 624
a2 454 a, 528 8 262 6, 502 a 3 013
23 foll. 035 foll. 19 427 a, 4340 Io 175 a
24 454 a 20 936%, 114, 12 920*
4 2 243 a 427 a, | 16-17 175
2-8 491d 434 b, 21 920*, 421
3 915 (iv)*, 454a, 4 11 681
262 6, 4500 491¢ 6 8 332 a
9 297, 304 10 9 7814, d
g-10 218, 440 2 JOHN 2a 350 0
10 476 a FR! | 14 18 781 0
13 454 a 5 915 (iv) | ia fi 664 a
14 473 6 4504 18 4-5 7816
16 0360, 475 Oe eae 7° «115 a
16-19 036 9 531
17-382, 5286 3 JOHN 19 7 6892
sy) 037, 535 9-10 569 II 362 a
3 037 10 258 12 409
6-8 610 13 +409
$ 306, 383 Pal (65 377 a
ie) 187 JUDE 22 3-4 409
II 454 a 25 6640
This Index extends from 1886 to 2799. Before numbers with * supply 1,
é.¢. [1]999* ; before others, 2, e.g. [2]000.
665
INDICES TO “JOHANNINE GRAMMAR”
Ife
Abba 679
Abide, abiding 915 (iii) *, 352, 437, 458,
514, 521; Origen on 649¢; imperat.
437; ‘‘a. in the house” 263¢-/;
*“a. (?) unto eternal life” 312 foll.;
‘*a. alone” 375
Aboth, the, quotations in, how intro-
duced 470 a
Above, ‘from a.,”’ in Jewish literature
906*; ‘* born from a.’’ 903% foll.
Abraham, his love of man, Philo on
935* ; his ‘‘ laughing,”’ Philo on 097,
689¢; Origen on 689
Abruptness of style 932*, 996% foll.,
136-40, 766 (i) d
Accent (Greek) 960 a@*, 190 a, 429-35,
671-4, 762 a—d
Accusative, absolute or suspensive 012 ;
adverbial 009-11; cognate 014, 036a; |
(2) of respect 267, 419; of time 013,
678 ; accus. and infin. 375 a, 495; for
accus. w. special verbs, see the several
verbs in Index III
Active (voice) and middle 563c, 6897
Adjectives, predicatively used 894*;
special 895*-901*, 664-7, s. Index
III, also Article 982-9*, Ellipsis 216,
Emphasis 982* foll., 993 *
Adverbs, how emphasized 902*, 554 4,
668 ; their position 636c; intensive,
rare in Jn 902*; special 903-18%, s.
Index III
Adversative particles, s.
and Connexion
Advocate, s. “ Paraclete ”
Afterthought, in Jn 461; how intro-
Conjunction
This Lndex extends from 1886 ¢o 2799.
|
|
SUBJECT-MATTER (ENGLISH)
duced 633-4; expr. by pluperf. 480 ;
s. Self-correction and Impressionism
“All that thou hast given me (or,
him),” =‘‘ the future Church” 921%,
262, 422, 444, 454, comp. 740-4
Allusiveness, in Jn 901 4*, 966 a*, 992%,
009 foll., 211 4, 265 4, 269, 2754, 372a,
517-20, 537 (ii), 5844, 689, 764-5;
s. also ‘‘ John, intervention of,” and
Mysticism
** Alone,” applied to God 895*, 664,
comp. 168; ‘‘ by himself alone” 375,
724-6; adv. 6647
Ambiguity, causes of 886*, 893 *
(i) in the meaning and reference
of words: “first,” ‘*before,?? or
‘chief’? 901*, 665-7; ‘‘from above”
903* foll.; “Sand now” 915 (1)*
foll.; ‘“‘thus” 916*; ‘‘boldly” or
‘plainly ” 917 (i)* foll.; ‘‘ (more)
quickly” 918*; ‘‘the Jews” 941*;
‘*the fathers ” 949-50*; ‘‘the heaven”
952-8* ; ‘“‘the man” 959-61*; ‘‘the
prophet” 965*; ‘‘taste” or “taste
that” 016; ‘‘that” or ‘* because”
083, 181-6, 219 ; ‘‘they went out [as
our soldiers, 07, as deserters] 110 a—é,
263c; ‘‘and” or ‘‘and yet” 141 foll. ;
“and” or ‘‘also” 149 foll.; ‘“‘{in]
the beginning” or ‘‘at all” 154;
‘fand if” or ‘even if’ 159; ‘‘ and,”
‘both,-4 (OL avalsO; al 6G athates
used for inverted commas 189 foll. ;
“lifted up” for “crucified” 211c ;
“why?” or ‘‘ what?” 2314; ‘‘ from
the beginning” 254; ‘‘blood” pl.
Before numbers with * supply 1,
e.g. [1]999" ; before others, 2, e.g. [2]000.
666
SUBJECT-MATTER (ENGLISH)
268; “we all” 287; “out of” and
‘*from” describing extraction and
domicile 289 foll.; ‘‘ because of” or
‘*for the sake of ” 294 foll.; “ through
him” or ‘‘through it” 302 foll.,
comp. 378-9; ‘‘to”’ or “into” 310;
‘looking to” (in hope or fear) 317 ;
“to the end” or ‘‘to the utmost”
319 foll.; “keep out of” or ‘‘take |
out of” 325; “in front of” or
‘* superior to” 330; ‘‘on the sea” or
‘near the sea” 342; ‘‘along with”
or “against” 349 ; “questioning” or
‘* quarrel” 350; “in ” Ofe samong ¥
353 a ; “before me; S61 stoll) >) she
knoweth” or ‘He (z.e. the Lord)
knoweth” 383-4, 7381; ‘‘that,”’
‘*because” or ‘‘ whatever” 413;
“if” or “soever” 414; “at feast
time ’=“‘at that feast”’ or ‘‘at any
feast’? 464c; ‘‘apprehend” z.e.
‘‘understand” or “take captive ”’
596; ‘‘again” 7.e. “‘a second time”
or “back” 635 (i), 649 (i)-(ii);
‘*another” or ‘‘ Another (7.e. God) ”
793 foll. (comp. 384, 730)
(ii) in forms or inflexions : indic.
or imperat. 889*, 915 (iii) 4*, 079,
193, 194¢, 236 foll., 2402, 439 (ii),
491, 760; particip. = =‘* because’ or
““though” 924a”, 273; particip.
pres. w. 7 277; “ ne that received ”’
or ‘“‘he, who received ” 501-2 ; present,
ordinary or prophetic 484 foll. ; ‘‘hid
himself”? or ‘‘ was hidden” 538-483 ;
dat. of time 021; genit. subjective or
objective 032 foll., voc. or nom. 049
foll. ; 1st pers. pl. inflexion, ‘‘ we,”
meaning of 427 foll.
(ili) in connexion or arrangement:
921*; apposition 928*, 933%, 937*
foll.; asyndeton 996* foll. ; con-
nexion of ‘‘for’’ (conj.) 067 foll. ;
‘*but ” adversative or consecutive
071 foll.; ‘‘ because” 099 foll. ;
‘faccomplished in order that” or
‘* saith in order that’? 115 ; ‘tin order
that...in order that” 116 foll.; ‘‘even
as” suspensive or explanatory 122-32;
** because ” suspensive or explanatory
175 foll.; “‘ because” or ‘‘I say this
because ” 178 foll. ; ‘‘I should have
told you that” or “I should have
told it to you, pes use © alps}s) 6 “not
pedllaneceseen ot any”’ or “not every’
260 foll.; ; connexion ae pavaciple 277;
‘leaping to life’? or ‘‘leaping, to
This Index extends from 1886 to 2799.
life” 314 (comp. 312-13); ‘filled
[full] of fragments” or ‘‘ baskets of
fragments ” 329 (i); ‘‘for this cause
[above mentioned, or, now to be
mentioned]”’ 387 foll.; ‘‘ everyone
that cometh” or ‘‘the light...coming
508 ; ‘‘ and they did” or ‘‘ and [that]
they did” 757; words of Christ and
words of the evangelist (or others)
not clearly distinguished 917 a*, 936%,
957 *, 066, s. Speech
(iv) in omission of words (s. also
Asyndeton) : ‘‘the [one] that is des-
cending 974*, 503; ‘‘that [? spirit]
which giveth life” 975* foll.; ‘‘ but
[? it was ordained] in order that ”
105 foll.; ‘‘[I say this] because”
180 foll.; ‘‘ This man what [shall he
do? less prob. shall become of him?]”
209 ; ‘‘If therefore...[what then will
ye do ?]” 192 and 210 foll. ; ‘‘[some]
from” ze. ‘some of” or ‘‘[sent]
from” 214-15; ‘‘ [daughter] of” or
“[ wife] of? 217; “[I do] not [say]
that’ or ‘*[I say this] not because”
219 ; “I AM[ HE} 220 foll.; omission
of interrogative particle 236 foll., and
see especially 240@; comp. 142a;
‘‘his own [family, or possessions]”
378, 728
(v) miscellaneous 3724, 5706
Anacoluthon 919-27*, 957* ; w. subj.
suspended 920-2*, 421, (?) 422
pee: article, the 670a
Anew, s. ** New”
pene of David, the 5020
‘* Another,” meaning God, in Epictetus
791-2; connected with the Paraclete
in Jn 793
‘* Answered and said,” a Johannine
phrase 271; ‘‘ made public answer”
537
Antithesis 209, 2637, 553a, 568; s.
Emphasis
Aorist : imperat. aor. and pres. 437-9 ;
indic. aor. and imperf. 465c, 584;
aor. and perf. 440-9, 753; aor. for
Eng. pluperf. 459-62; infin. aor.
and pres. 496-8, 767; particip. aor.
276, 499—505; subjunct. aor. and
pres. 511-35; aor. of experience or
habit 443c, 522/, instantaneousness
443c, 5224, 755, persistence 443 ¢;
anticipatory 635 (11), epistolary 691 a
foll., 785-90 ; ‘‘gnomic” and ‘‘in-
stantaneous ’ distinguished 754-5 ;
aor. of special verbs, see Index III
Before numbers with * supply 1
e.g. [1]999* ; before others, 2, e.g. [2]000.
667
INDICES TO “JOHANNINE GRAMMAR”
Apocalypse, the, s. Revelation
Apodosis, ellipsis of 192; see also
Index III dv, éav, ef, va, xabds, kai,
érav, bre
Aposiopesis, s. Ellipsis
Apposition, w. proper names 928*; in
subdivisions 929-30* ; explaining or
defining 931-6 *; w. particip. 937-45 *;
noun repeated in 946*; pronoun in
appos. w. preceding subject 947*, 386
Aramaic, s. Hebrew
Arimathaea, Joseph of 291
Arrangement and Variation 544 foll.
Artemidorus (Oxezrocritica) quotations
from 907 @*, 211 4, c, 216 4, 642 4
Article, the, w. nouns in general 948*
(s. also 1944); w. “fathers” 949-
BO eewe ceieastewm 9olan-cheaventc:
952-8*; “king” 966*, 669; ‘“‘man”
959-61 = -“Smountam’” '962=3~
“only begotten” 964*; ‘* prophet ”
965* (comp. 492) ; ‘‘ teacher” 966% ;
‘the woman [of the house]”’ z.e.
*‘ wife’ 948*; w. names of persons
967-70*; w. names of places 670
foll.; in ‘‘the [? daughter] of” 217 ;
w. “God,” Philo on 594a@; ‘‘ the
love” (like ‘‘the Name,” ‘‘the Will”)
035; w. adjectives 982-9* ; w. infin.
995* ; w. particip. 275-6, 507; w.
particip. and ‘‘is” or ‘‘are” 971-81 *;
quasi-vocative 049 (comp. 679 foll.) ;
omitted or misplaced 990-4*; redu-
plicated 982” foll.; in Codex B 652 ;
“ Teuphilus [the] Jew” 683 a
Ascending 211la@ foll., 489; “a. to
heaven” 211-12, 275
Asking 516, 536 foll.; ‘‘a.”
questing” 630
Asyndeton 996* foll.; instances of,
classified 000-8; used by Jn w.
historic pres. 482 ; introducing paren-
thesis 639
Attraction of relative 405-7
Authority 250; ‘‘I have a.” 644;
Epictetus on 798-9
and ‘‘re-
B z.e. Codex Vaticanus, readings of,
rejected by W.H. 650-62; pause-
spaces in 663; important readings
of, in special passages 053 c, 079, 166,
401, 407, 428, 455 2, 507 a, 521, 530,
768; its authority great on miore’w |
528a; its weak points 895*, 925%,
961*, 9680", 530c, 650-2; inter-
changes -ac and -e€ 658¢
Baptist, John the, 898* foll., 927*, 303,
This Index extends from 1886 to 2799.
330, 350, 371, 479, 480, 501-2; his
“*testimony ” 401; twofold repetition
in his teaching 601 (comp. 927%)
Before (ambig.) 330, 361
Began to do, to say etc., expr. by
imperf. 463, 470
**Beginning, from the ” 251 a, 254
Beholding 318, 473, 516a@; in a bad
sense 212
Belief 475
Believe, believing etc., 302-4, 438-9,
466, 475, 496, 499, 506, 695; aor. and
pres. 438-9, 524 foll.; imperf., ambig.
466; perf. meaning ‘‘ have fixed belief”
442, 474-5; ‘believe ye,” ambig.
238 foll.; ‘‘believe” and ‘know ”
in juxtaposition 226c¢ (see also /oh.
Voc. 1463—1561)
Bethany, connected w. Lazarus 290;
twofold mention of 641; beyond
Jordan 648
Bethlehem 289
Binding and loosing 517 e foll., 517-9
Blending two constructions 923*, 189 c,
468 b, 482c¢
Blinding (metaph.) 449 @
Blood, of Christ 2696 foll.; of the cir-
cumcised 269 ; of the passover 269 ¢
Boldness of speech, Christ’s, why em-
phasized 917 (i)* foll.
Bread, the, that descended from heaven
503 foll. ; ‘‘ buying b.” 745-6
Brethren, Christ’s 395; ‘‘ He is not
ashamed to call them b.” 3074
Bridegroom, the 371
Buying (metaph.) 745-6;
food,”’ Origen on 746
** buying
Cana, the ‘‘sign” at 281-3; meaning
of the name 386 (i)
Case, s. Accusative, Dative, Genitive
etc., also Contents p. xv
Causation, notion of, prominent in Jn
174; expr. by conjunct. 174 foll. ; by
particip. 271-3 ; by prepos. 295
Cedars on Mt of Olives 671
Chiasmus 544, 554-7, 568
Choosing, God’s 441 é foll.
Chronological order, not always fol-
lowed by Ju 632
Chrysostom, compared with Origen
757e; ?alluded to by Jerome 786; quoted
or referred to 897*, 903*, 916*, 934”,
942*, 020, 0622, 066, 083, 091-2,
102 a, 115, 1224, 124-5, 154-6, 163,
169, 181, 184, 195, 199, 207, 209,
211, 2124, 214a, 215, 218a, 231%,
Before numbers with * supply 1,
e.g. [1]999"; before others, 2, e.g. [2}000.
668
oa
SUBJECT-MATTER (ENGLISH)
232, 240a, 263.9, 264a, 268, 281 a,
290, 300.2, 3082, 322¢, 323a, 329 (i),
331 c, 338, 342%, 350d, 351, 355, 357,
362, 372 c, 384-5, 386 (i), 3964, 397 2,
398.2, 401, 403, 408, 4124, 433, 439 (i),
452, 461 a, 465c, 466 (1) a, 472 a, 478,
479 2, 489.2, 4914, 508c, 512, 514(i)<,
515e, 520, 537 (i)c, 540-1, 543¢, 549 a,
5547, 5664, 5704, 573, 6202, 6304,
635 (ii), 649 (i)@; 649 (iii); 675-6, 686-7,
689%, 72, 691d, 692, 694-5, 697, 7012,
7036, a, 707a, 714, 716, 718, 722,
724-5, 727-8, 730, 732, 734, 736,
739 afoll., 7404, 745, 753¢, 756,
757 d—e, 758-9, 7624, 764, 767, 786,
788, 7934, 794, 797, 799 (ii), 799 (iii)
Clean, man made clean by the Logos
799 (iii)
Codex Bezae, s. D
Codex Vaticanus, s. B
Come, applied to Christ 440, 482, 490 ;
aor. 457; imperf. 465; pres. 482-6 ;
‘“*he that is to come” 940*; ‘‘he
that cometh after me” 507 ; ‘‘coming
into the world” 508; ‘‘came” and
“have come” 440; ‘‘the hour
cometh”? and ‘‘hath come” 485 a,
604 a
Comparative degree 896*—901*, 918%,
092, 772, 7756; comp. 733 a
Concessive particles 158-60
Conditional sentences 078-86, 158-9,
513-5, 517-23
Conjunctions: for most, s. Contents
pp. xv—xvi1; for others, s. Index III;
for omission of conjunctions, s. Asyn-
deton
Connexion of sentences or clauses 996*,
278-9, 628 foll.; adversative or con-
secutive 069-76; with ‘‘and” or ‘‘and
yet” 136-45 ; with ‘‘that” or ‘ be-
cause” 174-86; doubtful instances
278, 414, 636-40, s. also Conjunctions
and Pronouns
Consecutive particles 191—200, 203, 694,
697
Constructio ad Sensum, s. Anacoluthon
Convicting Spirit, the 649 4, d
Corrective manner, a Johannine charac-
teristic 939*, 380, 628-30
Correspondence between the visible and
the invisible 122 foll., 148
Crasis 150, 151, 383, 769
Cross, taking up the 515
Crucified, ‘‘the crucified feeds many ”
211 c, 6420
Crucifixion 211 d-c
This Index extends from 1886 to 2799.
Crying and crying aloud 479, 618
D, 7.e. Codex Bezae, corrects irregularity
926", 990", 014, 258, 422; alters pres.
to aor. subjunct. 524, 530a@; some
readings of 942", 053 c, 422, 428 4, c,
637 a, 664, 797 c
Dative, of instrument 020; of time
(completion) 021-4; of point of time
025-6 ; of advantage, 776, 784a; w.
special prepositions 027, 338, 355,
357-9 ; w. special verbs 019, 506
Daughter (or wife ?) ellipsis of the word
217
Day, ‘‘three days,” ‘‘ third day” etc.
331; day of judgment, the 521-2, 535a
Dead, the, (?) prayer for the intercession
of 630 z
Death, “‘ tasting of d.” and ‘‘ beholding
d.” 576
Decalogue, the, second half of 676
Deliberative subjunctive 512, 766 (i)
‘* Delivering over to Satan ” 520
Demonstrative, s. Pronouns
Descending from heaven 275; of the
Son of man 503
Digression, causes anacoluthon’ 923-4 *
Diminutives 235 d (s. Joh. Voc.)
Disciple, the beloved, Origen on 545
Dispersion of the Greeks, the 046
Distributive use of avd 281 foll.
Domicile and birthplace, how denoted
289-93
Double Tradition, the, parallels be-
tween, and Jn 026, 165; ‘‘laying the
head to rest” 644 (i)
Dove, ‘‘as ad.” 955 *
Dreams, Artemidorus on 211 ¢, 6424
Drinking and eating at the Lord’s
Supper 7597
Dying 530, 576
Eating in the presence of Christ or the
disciples 335 ; ‘‘ eating and drinking”’
at the Lord’s Supper 759 7
Ellipsis, of two kinds 204; contextual
205-9 ; idiomatic 213 foll.; of apo-
dosis 210-12; of “some” 213-5;
(2) of “‘ gate ” 216 ; of ‘‘ daughter ” or
“wife” 217; of copula 229-30; w.-
‘*T am” 220foll.; between ‘“ but”
and ‘‘in order that” 063-4, 105-12 ;
s. also 386c, 698
Emphasis, caused by insertion of word
not needed for sense, ¢.g. of pron.
375, 399; of “is” 972”; of redupl.
article with adj. 982* foll., 993*;
Before numbers with * supply 1,
e.g. [1]999* ; before others, 2, e.g. [2]000.
669
INDICES TO “JOHANNINE GRAMMAR”
caused by unusual position 515, 553,
e.g. of pron. 552c, 553a, c, 692; of
‘this’? 553c; of adverbs 5544, 668
(comp. 902*); of ‘‘is” 353, 5534,
555 a, 579; caused by chiasmus, 555;
by antithesis 5644, 566c (which may
be expressed or implied 399) ; on two
pronouns in juxtaposition 564, 783,
784c¢; on contingency 566; diverted
from possessive genit. to noun 558,
569, 776-84; confusable w. contrast
399; s. also 902”, 979 a*, 983*, 993%,
267, 555, 566.a, J, 605a
Entering the Kingdom of God 496
Ephesians, Diana of the 743
Epictetus, quoted or referred to 907 c*,
917 (v)*, 960c*, 049, 228a, 229-30,
297 c-e, 305a, 334d, 404, 4392,
439 (iv), 473 a, 493, 532 a, 570 4, 6644,
683, 695, 6974, 7020, 705, 717 5-d,
719 a, c-d, 728d, 7366, 743, 755,
758, 763, 766(i), 778-80, 791-2,
798-9, 799 (ii), 799 (iii)
Epistle, of St John, the first: general
“duality” of its style 610; its use
of ‘‘now” 915 (iii-iv)*; of “we”
399c; of ‘‘ He” absolutely to mean
Christ 382; of ‘‘the true [One]”’
936*; of ‘“‘the love of God” to
mean ‘‘ God’slove for men” 032 foll. ;
itsemphasis on ‘‘confidence” 917 (1i)* ;
its universal negations 2624; on
‘‘asking” and ‘‘ requesting” 121a,
630 /—¢; peculiarities of construction
or meaning in 159, 392, 515-6, 528
Eucharist, symbols of 746+
Exclamatory Tone, s. Interrogation
Face of God, the 765
Father, ambig. 193, 359 ; “‘¢he fathers”
and “ your fathers’? 949-50*, 553e—/
Feast, ‘‘the [principal] feast [of the
News)? 19515) “cat, feast-time:’
ambig. 464c
Feminine, in Heb. and LXX, a cause
of error 621-2; s. also ‘‘sheep-gate”
216
First, different meanings of 899% foll.,
665-7
Fish, a symbol 703
Following 497
Form of God, the 765 a
Fruit (metaph.) 120
Future regarded as past 444; included
in pres. partic. 507; fut. partic.
a corrupt reading 500; fut. in
apodosis 5154; fut. and subjunct. w.
This Index extends from 1886 to 2799.
ov pn 255; w. iva 114, 690; s. also
484, 660c-d, 762a and 960a*
Galilee, ‘‘from out G.” 289; ‘‘out of
G....no prophet” 492; ‘‘sea of G.” 045
Gender, 216, 378, 621-2, 738
Genitive, absolute 028-31; objective
558 ¢ ; objective or subjective 032-40;
partitive 041-2; before nouns 043 ;
in special passages 044-8; possessive
558-69 ; unemphatic or ‘‘ vernacular”
possessive 563d, 776 foll. ; emphatic
possessive 5586, 563¢; ordinary
possessive 558, 563d, 779, 781 a—0;
for gen. w. special verbs, s. the
several verbs in Index III
Gennesar 045 a
Gennesaret supplanted by ‘‘ Tiberias ”
045
Giving 454-5 ; Hebraic use of ‘‘I have
given” 444; “9. by measure” 714;
““o, commandment ” 742a; ‘‘giving,”
in Jn, parall. to ‘‘grace’”’ in the
Pauline epistles 742-3; ‘‘all that
thou hast given”’ 740-4, 798a
Glorify, ‘‘ glorifying God” 117; ‘the
Father was glorified” 393, 446
Glory 211 a— ; connected with spiritual
unity 946%, 455
Gnomic aorist 754-5
God, ‘the face of’’ 765; ‘‘the form
of” 765a; ‘the word of” 799 (iii)
Gods, ‘“‘I said ye are g.” 799 (iii)
“** Going up to the feast ” 265; to Jeru-
salem 265 4, s. ‘‘ Ascending ”
Golgotha 738
‘Grace and truth” 286, 415 ; ‘‘ grace”
corresponds to the Johannine
“‘oiving” 742-3
Greek, non-classical, disuses the opta-
tive 252; uses m7 with particip.
253 a; literary as distinct from vernac-
ular 799 (ii) ; later Greek introduces
other developments not found in Jn
694, 697, 702, 718-22; the futility of
judging Jn’s Gk as Byzantine 747-53
Greeks, ‘‘ the Dispersion of the G.” 046
Hardened, confusable with ‘‘ blinded ”
449 a
Harvest, waiting for 230 (iii)
Hate, ‘‘hating one’s father” 228a;
‘*T hated,” meaning ‘I steadfastly
hated” 443; ‘‘I have hated” 475
He=HE 382 foll.
Head, “laying the head to rest,”
Origen on 644(i), 713
Before numbers with * supply 1,
e.g. [1]999*; defore others, 2, e.g. [2]000.
670
SUBJECT-MATTER (ENGLISH)
Healing at a distance 026
Hearing 450 foll., 586
Heaven, ‘‘ the h. opened ” 958% ; ‘‘from
h.” and ‘‘ from the h.” 952* foll.
Hebrew or Aramaic, influence of, in
N.T. 915(v)*, 920°, 938%, 019, 041,
133-4, 137, 145, 260 foll., 277, 332,
347, 443-5 (see especially 445 a), 4822;
Hebraized Gk 216, 666, 671, 793
Hellenistic, s. Greek
Herod the Great and Herod Antipas
737 a
Hide, ‘‘Jesus hid himself” 538 foll.,
724
Hireling, the years of a 230 (ii)
Historic present 482
Holy 411 ¢, d
Homoeoteleuton 490a,
657 c, 659¢e, 736a, 759
Hoping 474, 476
Horse, allegorized by Origen 362 a
Hour, the, “cometh,” ‘‘cometh and
now is,” ‘‘hath come” etc. 485a,
604.2; the hour of trial 523 a (see also
770 and 799 (i))
House, allegorized by Origen 329;
mention of, peculiar to Mk 711-13
549.2, 654c,
I emphatic 401; in the Baptist’s testi-
mony 401; Epictetus on ‘‘the I”
228 a
I AM and ‘I am” 205, 220 foll., 487 a
Uluminating 532 ¢
Imperative, aor. and pres. 437-9 ; imp.
pres. confusable w. indic. 439 (i1),
with interrog. 238-44 (especially
240 a, 2432) ; first aor. imp. authori-
tative 437; differently used by different
writers 437a; (?) ‘‘ concessive ” 439
(ili-v), might be called ‘‘judicial”’
439 (v) ; implied by prohib. conjunct.
208-9; expressed or implied before
‘“but if not” 080; s. also 233
Imperfect 463-6; imperf. and aor.
584; of special verbs 467-70; with
neg.=‘‘ would not” 466; ‘‘it was”
or ‘‘it had been’’ 466 (i)
Impersonal, s. Subject
Impressionism, results in anacoluthon
925 * foll.
‘*In you” may mean ‘‘among you”
353 a
Inaccuracies, so called, deliberate 629
Indefinite ‘‘ they ” 424 a
Indicative: tenses of 440-94, and see
“Contents p. xxii; interrog. or non-
interrog. 238-44; confusable w. im-
This Index extends fron 1886 to 2799.
perat. 193,
for subjunct. 114, 515 (i), 771
Indirect interrogative 249-51
Infinitive, aor. and pres. 496-8, 767;
compared w. iva and subjunct. 495 ;
accus. and infin. 375 a, 495; infin. w.
article 995*
Instantaneous aorist 755
Instrument, expr. in Hebrew by ‘‘in’
332; instrumental dative 020
Intercession of dead for living, (?)
prayer for 6302
Interrogation expr. by particles 231-5 ;
without particles 236-48; sometimes
exclamatory 142, 146, 486; confusable
w. imperat. and affirmation 238-44
(esp. 240 a); indirect 249-51
Lota subscript 515 (i) 6, 772-5
Irony, in Jn 960%, 046, 570d, 643-5
Isaac, z.e. ‘‘ laughter” 689
Ishmael, (?) alluded to 263 e¢
Israel = ‘* seeing God” 765
5
Jacob, described as seeing God 765
Jerome, (?) alludes to Chrysostom 786 ;
mentions Origen 789 a
Jew, ‘fa Jew” 350; ‘“‘the Jews” (?)=
citizens of Jerusalem 942*; ‘‘ many of
the Jews,” ambig. 941% foll.
Jewish canons of repetition 588, and of
negation 591; Jewish Prayer-Book,
repetition in 587a@; s. Hebrew
John the Baptist, s. ‘* Baptist ”
John the Evangelist, style of (see Al-
lusiveness, Ambiguity, Anacoluthon,
Asyndeton, Emphasis, Fpistle,
Impressionism, Irony, Metaphor,
Mysticism, Narrowing Down, Paren-
thesis, Quotation, Repetition, Self-
correction, Symbolism, Variation)
shews traces of more than one writer
891-2*; intervention of, where Lk.
omits or deviates from Mk 917% (111)
foll., 918*, 945*, 963*, 039, 045, 047,
048, 088, 173, 293,346 7, 396, 4640, 4802
Joseph (husband of Mary), Jesus called
“son of J.” 289, 643
Joseph (son of Jacob) seeking his
brethren 649 d-c
Josephus, his rendering of Heb. names
673
Judges, addressed in the words ‘‘I said
ye are gods ” 799 (ii1)
Judging, judgment, 3344, 695, 799; how
regarded by Christians 182 @
Kidron 671-4
Before numbers with * supply 1,
e.g. [1]999* ; before others, 2, e.g. [2]000.
671
INDICES TO “JOHANNINE GRAMMAR”
King, ‘‘ak.” and “the k.” 245 a, 669 ;
the natural k. 798
Knowing 491 foll., 511, 515, 760 foll. ;
“*knowing” in juxtaposition w. ‘‘ be-
lieving” 226c; ‘‘I know” 448a;
‘they have not known” 448; ‘‘know
ye” ambig. 243, 762 foll.; ‘know
thyself” 126, 763
Latin versions 895a*, 901a*, 926 a”,
118d, 154d, 168a, 190a, 2102,
289 a, b,c, 290a, 3314, 3432, 350c,
491 a, 569c, 687, 702a, 71la, 7152,
727 a, 767a; infin. and subjunct. in
687, s. also 688 a
Latinisms 213 a, 258, 288
Law, the 286; ‘‘ Present of Law” 484
Life, hating, loving, losing one’s life 485
Lifted up=crucified 2114,c; double
meaning of 6424
Lifting up the eyes 616-7
Logos, the 2694, 308, 410; action or
agency of 296a, 301; titles of 938”,
964*, comp. 410
Looking to 317
Loosing sins 517; binding and loosing
517 foll.
Lord, used by Epict. in a bad sense
799d; meanings of ‘‘my lord”’ 050
Losing one’s soul 228 6
Love, ‘‘love of God,” two meanings of
032 foll.; ‘‘the Love,” like “the
Name,” ‘“‘the Will” 035
Loving 476, 529a; loving one another
529
Luke, literary style of 781, 799 (ii) ;
various styles in his Gospel and the
Acts 913%, 563a, 677, 686, 759¢;
peculiarities of 737a@; optative in
252; differs in construction from Jn
972*, 995*, 191.4, 307, 593, 799 (ii);
deviates from Mk, or omits what is
in Mk, where Jn intervenes 917 (iii)*
foll., 918*, 945%, 039, 045, 047, 088,
173, 276, 293, 346 a, 396, 464, 480a
Man, emph. 412a; ‘‘the man” 959-60";
‘*the new man” 959*; perh.=‘‘ hus-
band” or ‘‘ bridegroom” 371, 722;
the ideal, in Philo 6494; in Epictetus
960 c*
Manifestations of Christ 331c foll., 4147,
619 foll., 699, 701-3, 715
Mark, style of 065, 3801, 5130, 649 (i) /,
686; his use of hist. pres. 482; of
article 967*; of the word ‘‘ house”
711; Mk regarded as a Petrine
This Index extends from 1886 to 2799.
Gospel 913”; similarities in Mk and
Jn 917 (vi)*, 112, 238, 240, 3804, and
s. ‘John, intervention of ”
Mary ‘‘ those that had come to M.” 380
Master, the natural m. of men 798 c¢
Matthew, John agrees with 026, 537 (ii) 2;
Mt’s use of ‘‘this is come to pass”
478 a, 758; s. also Joh. Voc. 1745-57
Mean, ‘‘he meant to say”’ 467 foll.
Messiah, Talmudic Traditions about
736 ¢
Metaphor 948%, 955-8", 120, 1974,
211 a foll., 230 (1i-ii1 281-3, 300,
329, 346a,c, 355, 449a, 520, 6424
Middle voice 536 foll., 660d, 688, 6897—/
Mis-spelling, s. Spelling
Mood 889*, 252; see also Imperative,
Indicative etc., Tense, and Contents
p. xxi foll.
Moses, Chrysostom on 745 a
Motion, implied without
motion 305
Mountain, the, meaning of 962”
Mysticism, 890*, 985*, 134, 168, 265,
281-3, 329, 384, 426, 483 a, 543, 587—
627, 6lla, 641-9, 702-3, 712-3, 731,
736-7, s. also Metaphor
verbs of
Name, God’s 409-10; ‘‘my n.” 4110;
“a new n.” 409, 412; ‘“‘thy n.” and
**thy Son” 769; ‘‘thy n. that thou
-hast given me” 744¢
Names: Proper names in apposition
928*; article with 967 * foll.; indeclin-
able, with article 968*; declinable
and indeclinable 672 foll.
“‘Narrowing down” 290 (esp. 2904) ;
908*, 303, 310, 629, 636c
Nazareth 289 ; ‘‘ Jesus from N.”* 292
Negation, repetition through 591, 598
Negative particles 253-65, 704; double
negative 257; negative w. imperf. 466
Net, of the Gospel, the 703 c¢
Neuter plural 267, 419-20
New 907*; the word in Aramaic and
Greek 906*; ‘‘the n. birth” 906* foll. ;
“‘the n. man” 959 ; ‘‘a n. command-
ment” 412; ‘‘an. name ” 409, 412
Nicodemus in Acta Pilati 461
Nominative 049-51, s. Subject
Nonnus, quoted or referred to 156 a,
235c¢, 338a, 350, 384a, 386c, 386 (i) 7,
419 4, 4350, 4612, 478, 487.2, 489,
508c, 514, 515, 537 (i)c, 540 a, 586 c,
635 (i)a, 6420, 649 (iii), 657d, 6642, 4,
666, 668a, 682%, 683, 687-8, 689°%,
692, 694, 701%, 702, 703c, 704, 714,
Before numbers with * supply 1,
e.g. [1]999* ; before others, 2, e.g. (2]000.
72
SUBJECT-MATTER (ENGLISH)
716, 722, 724-5, 727, 728a, 730-2,
733 a, 734, 736, 7396, 740c, 742a,
743, 744, 745, 753d, ¢, 756, 757, 758,
759, 760, 762, 766 (i) @, 767, 768-9,
7934, 7965, 799(ii), 799 (ili)
Nouns, indeclinable 968*, 970%, 673;
neut. pl. 267, 419-20; repeated in
apposition 946* ; genitive before 043,
558 foll., 776 foll.; with article 948*
foll.
Number, sing. and plur. 266-70
Numbering the people. under the Law
010
Numbers, mystically allegorized 281-3 ;
‘perfect ” 283 c
One, meaning unity 118 4
One, meaning ‘“‘anyone”’ 379
Only, ‘‘ the o. man of Italy ” 895*
Only begotten, with and without article
964*
Openly, confidently, or plainly 917
(i-vi)*, 727, comp. 7987
Optative 252, 514 (i) d
Oratio Obligua 189
Order, chronological, broken 460; of
words 544-86, 776 foll., s. Emphasis
and Variation
Origen, compared with Chrysostom
757¢; mentioned by Jerome 7892;
quoted or referred to 895*, 897%,
903a*, 934*, 942-4*, 965*, 022a,
079 c, 1104, 1184, c, 184, 209, 218 a,
222 a, 263 d, 2690, 275a, 283c, 285—
6, 3044, 307d, 3164, 324c, 329,
329 (1), 335 a, 338, 346a, 357, 362 a,
386 (i), 3962, 3976, 412a, 4146-h,
428 bfoll., 430, 434¢, 439, 439 (i),
(iii), (v) a, 452, 4644, 479, 489 a, 3,
4902, 492a, 507a, 508 c, 5404, 543,
545c¢, 549a, 553 7, 573, 584c, 586c,
622, 635 (i), 644(i), 649¢, 649 (iii),
659 ec, 664, 666-7, 668 a, 680, 682 a,
685, 688a, 689, 692. 695, 703, 713,
7166, 722, 724, 725, 726, 728, 730,
736 a, 740-2, 744, 746, 756, 757, e,
758, 759, 765, 766(i)a, 767, 770,
793 6, 799 (ii), 799 (ili)
Orthography 114, 691;
Augustus,
negligent of 790
Papyri, quoted or referred to 049, 114,
173 a, 235d, 252, 282a, 332a, 334d,
386 a, 4144, 416 a, 465 7, 479 a, 5204,
554c¢, 630d, 7, 640¢, 642%, 665a,
This Index extends from 1886 to 2799.
667, 678a, 6832, J, 690, 691, 693,
696, 697c, 698a, 708c, 711, 717,
729, 771, T75a
Paraclete, the 932*, 352-3, 793
Parallelism, as distinct from Chiasmus
544 a
Parenthesis 070 foll., 164, 168, 180,
631 foll.; w. Asyndeton 639; avoided
by SS 631; comp. 018
Participle 271-9; in apposition 937*
foll.; w. negative 253-4, comp. 704 ;
aor. 499—505; fut. a false reading
500; fut. comprehended in present
500; perf. 506, 517; pres. 3651,
507-10; probably expressing causé
924 a*, 273; see also Article and
Genitive Absolute
Partitive Genitive 041 foll.
Passive voice, avoided by Jn 373;
passive and middle 538-43
Patriarchs, the 949—50*
Paul, St, the Apostle, his handwriting
114, 691, 785-90 ; his view of God’s
preordinance 6897
‘* Pause-spaces” in Codex B 663
Penuel, meaning of 765
Perfect tense, as result of Johannine
style 473-5; as result of Johannine
thought 476-7 ; compared with aorist
440 foll.; meaning ‘‘it is on record
that”? 758; denoting instantaneous-
ness and permanence 517-20; in
Heb. 443; second perf. 478-9 ; some
act. perfects in Gk seldom used 441,
747-53 ; perf. partic. 506; s. also
683 a, 6
Personal, s. Pronoun
Pharisees 214-5 ; chief priests and P.
regarded as one council 991 a*
Philo, on the ‘‘ laughing ” of Abraham
097; quoted or referred to 890%,
895*, 905*, 907c*, 917(v)*, 935%,
964*, 097, 223, 275, 281, 2834, c,
285, 295-6, 307d, 346a, 386(i), 410,
414, 494, 5350, 579a, 588-90,
594.2, 602, 616, 617.2, 647 (n.), 649,
665, 676, 689, 743, 765
Philosophers and kings 799
Phrynichus on 7s 772 foll.
Pilate’s judgment 799 f
Plato, on ‘‘ knowing ” 763 a4; his use
of the ‘‘ vernacular genitive’ 776
Pleonasm for emphasis 606
Pluperfect 480-1; aor. for Eng. p.
459-62 ; no p. in Heb. 480; no p.
partic. in Gk 506
Plural 417; pl. vb w. sing. noun 278;
Before numbers with * supply 1,
e.g. [1]999* ; before others, 2, e.g. [2]000.
Ans We
673 43
INDICES TO “JOHANNINE GRAMMAR”
pl. referring to sing. 266; neut. pl.
267, 419-20
Position of words, 544-86; see also
Emphasis and Variation
Possessive adjectives 987—9*
Possessive genitive 558-69, 776-84
Prayer 452; the Lord’s Prayer, reference
to, in Jn 053
Praying 536 ; the Son not described as
‘‘ praying” to the Father 630 4
Predicate, when before subject 994* ;
p- in one clause subject of next 596 ;
‘such ”” used as p. 398
Preordinance, divine 093, 102-5, 109-10
“* Preparation of the Passover,” meaning
of 048
Prepositions 280 foll., and see Contents
pp. X1X—xx
Present, imperat. 437-9 ; indic, 482-94;
historic 482-3; of prophecy and of
law 484-94; infin. 496-8; aor. and
pres. infin. in LXX 767; particip.
507-10 ; pres. part. w. ‘‘ was” 277;
subjunct. 511-35
Privately, Christ does not teach privately
202, 348, 2512
Pronouns, demonstrative 374-98;
personal 399—404; relative 405-16 ;
ins. for emphasis 399 foll. ; in appos.
to preceding subject 947 * ; ambiguous
378-9 ; emphasized by juxtaposition
784c; see also possessive genit.
558-69 and 776-84
Proper names, s. Names
Prophecy, ‘‘ present of p.” 484, 509
Prophet, ‘‘a, or the, p.” 492 a; “the p.”
940*; ‘art thou the p.?”’ 940*,965*
Prophetic present 484, 509
Proselytes 907-8 *
Punctuation 996*, 186, 225 a, 248 a, 278,
314, 3724, 414, 508, 799(i), s. Con-
nexion of Sentences
Purpose, how expressed in Jn 093, 097,
173, 524-9, 686-90, 693, comp. 995 *
“* Question” (vb) meaning interrogate
498, 577
“« (Questioning ” (n.) meaning discussion
or dispute 349-50
Quotations and repetitions 190 a—c, 275 a;
variation in 544; of Christ’s words by
Himself 545; conformed to txt. rec.
269a, 3574; introduced in Aéoth
470a; s. also 079c, 4124, 745 a
Rab, root of ‘‘ Rabbi,” two meanings
of 899*
This Index extends from 1886 to 2799.
Rachel, regarded by Justin, Iren., and
Orig. as type of the Church 944*
Reception of Christ 448 a
Recognition 491, s. ‘‘knowing”’
Regeneration 903 * foll., 268 foll. ; ‘‘from
above” 573
Relative (Pronoun) 405-16; attraction
of 405; s. also 738
** Remembering ” after the Resurrection
469
Repetition, or Refrain 587 foll. ; varia-
tion in 544foll.; in Jewish Prayer
Book 587a; Jewish Canons of 588;
through negation 591, 598; in
Synoptists 592; of Vocatives 592a;
twofold, in the Baptist’s teaching
601-2 ; in Christ’s words 603 foll. ;
in narrative 607 ; twofold or threefold
608-11 ; threefold 396, 612-23; seven-
fold 624-7
Resumptive clauses 633
Resurrection, manifestations after the
335, 699-700, 703 4, @; the period of
331 c¢, comp. 715
Retaining sins 517-20
Revelation of St John, the 890*, 892*,
964*, 011, 176, 270c, 288, 329, 349,
624, 640, 781, 799 (ii)
“Right side of the ship, the” 703 ¢
Samuel, the call of 3072
Saul, Abba 227
Saying, vbs of 456, 469, comp. 2514;
“*began to say’ 467, 470
Scripture 339; difficulty of identifying
129; Orig. on lit. interpretation of
545; Christ’s quotations from 626 ;
“searching the scriptures”’ 439 (i)
Sea, ‘‘on, or near, the s.” 340-5; Jesus
standing ‘‘ by the s.” 354
** Searching the scriptures ” 439 (i)
Seeing=experiencing 576¢; s. and
beholding 572; s. and knowing 491,
764-6; s. the kingdom of God 573
Self-correction 628 foll., 635 (ii)
Sending 277, 440, 453
Sentences, connexion of 628 foll.
Septuagint, variety of styles in 349 a,
536, 649(1) 7, 689d@, comp. 911*
Serving 515
*“Seven,”’ the number, in Revelation
624; sevenfold repetition 624 foll.,
comp. 41la—d, 529d
‘* Sheep-gate, the,” an error 216
Singular number 418 ; referred to as pl.
266
Before numbers with * supply 1,
e.g. [1]999* ; before others, 2, e.g. [2]000.
674
SUBJECT-MATTER (ENGLISH)
“Six,” the number 2834; six days,
mystically implied 647
Slave, the, does not “abide in the
house”’ 263 e
Son of God 410, 798-9
Sower, Parable of the, ‘‘ word” how
used in 799 (111)
‘€ Speaketh of his own” 728
Speaking, vbs of, see ‘‘ Saying”
Speech, direct or reported 926*, 189 ;
speech confusable w. narrative or
comment (see Preface, pp. vil-ix)
936*, 949*, 956-7*, 066, 128, 203,
comp. 925* ; speech assigned wrongly
by Chrys. 734d, 745 (see esp. 745),
by Cyprian 737c, by Aphraates 768,
comp. 061; change of ‘‘him” to
“me” in 695¢
Spelling, St Paul’s 691; Augustus’s
790; misspellings freq. in Mk 5134
Spirit 315 foll., 407; different meanings
of 976a*; not given ‘‘from a
measure” 714; ‘‘the Holy S.” 488 ;
“the S. of truth” 352
SS (see p. xxv) 926a*, 942a*, 9440”,
977*, 990*, 079, 083, 1866, 2352,
329 (i) 5, 448a, 517d, 632a, 4, c,
739 4, 756, 760, 769; its avoidance of
parenthesis 631, 632.a, 639 a
Stand, ‘‘ Jesus stood” 307 a foll., 703, 710
Stone (metaph.) 397; ‘‘a white s.”
409; ‘‘the s. that the builders re-
jected” 622
Style, Johannine 891-3*, 112, 132, 134,
455; its abruptness 135; contrasts
140 a; rarely resembles that of Lk.
335a; s. “‘ Ambiguity,” ‘‘ Epistle,”
“EHebrew,. + speech
Subject 417 foll.; collective or noun-
group 417-8; neut. plur. 419-20;
suspended 421-2 ; omitted in partitive
clauses 041-2, 213-5; ‘‘they” non-
pronominal 424-6 ; “‘we’’ non-pro-
nominal 427-35; ‘‘[any]Jone”’ 379
Subjunctive aor. and pres. 893 *, 511-35 ;
deliberative 512, 766(i); in final
clauses 093 foll., 524-30, 687-9; in
conditional clauses 513-5, 517-23 ; in
temporal clauses 531-5; after the
indef. relative 516 ; in strong negation
255
Suspensive sentences 122 foll., 175 foll.
Symbolism, s. Metaphor and Mysticism
Synonyms (on the meaning, see p.
645n.) 6304; juxtaposition of 570,
576-7, 584a-c, s. Joh. Voc. p. 151
This Index extends from 1886 to 2799.
Tabernacles, the feast of 265 a
Talmud, the 196
Tautology, Philo on 588d
Teacher, ‘‘thou art the t. of Israel”’
966 *
Temple, the, rebuilding of 021 foll.
Tense 893*, 436, 753, s. Contents,
p- Xxi—xxiii, also Aorist, Future etc.
They, non-pronominal 424; THEY 426
Third day, the 982*
This, ‘‘this is he” etc. 9576*; ‘‘ this
[thing] is the Lord’s doing” 396
Thomas, his confession of faith 049-51
Three Witnesses 588-9
Threefold repetition 612-23, comp.
411c; thr. rep. of ‘‘ remembering”
639 ; twofold or threefold rep. 608-11
Tiberias, the sea of 045
Time, completion of 021foll.; duration
of 0134, comp. 678; interval of
331c, 715; point of 013, 025, 331;
simultaneousness of 531
Transliteration 216, 666, 671 a, 793
Transposition 915 (ii), (iii); s. Emphasis
and Variation
Treasury, the 333
Two, ‘‘t. witnesses”’ 588; ‘‘t. or three
firkins ” 281-3
Twofold attestation 589 ; twofold mean-
ings and events 641-9, comp. 172;
twofold repetition: in the Baptist’s
teaching 601-2; in Christ’s teaching
603-6 ; in narrative 607; twofold or
threefold rep. 608-11
Understanding, or knowledge, moral
491d
Variation in repetition or quotation
544 foll.; in sympathy w. meaning
565; miscellaneous 570 foll.
‘‘Vernacular genitive, the” 558 foll.,
776-84
Vernacular and literary Gk 781, 799 (ii)
Vocative 052-3; expr. by article
679 foll.
Voice, middle 536-7; passive 538-43 ;
s. also 563c, 689¢ foll.
Walking 342; =‘‘ teaching ” 2d.
Water, connected with ‘‘life’”’ 314;
“rivers of w.” 3164
‘* We,” meaning of 287; non-pronomi-
nal 427
‘© Which” anc
R.V. 273 a
Wife (?) ellipsis of the word 217
“who” in A.V. and
Before numbers with * supply I,
e.g. [1]999* ; before others, 2, e.g. [2]000.
675
43—2
INDICES £072 JOH
ANNINE GRAMMAR”
“Will of God, the,” parall. to ‘‘the
word of God” 799 (iii)
‘* With ’’=‘‘in the sight of” or ‘‘in the
house of” 355; ambig. 363, 799 (ii) ;
‘questioning w.” 349
Witnesses, ‘‘two” and “three” 588;
“three” 306
Witnessing 383-4
Wonder, in bad sense 338
Word, ‘the word,” ‘‘the word
God,” ‘‘my word” etc. 799 (iii)
of
This Index extends from 1886 ¢o 2799.
Worshipping 019
‘““Would”=‘‘was minded to” 471;
‘‘would not,” how expr. 463; ‘‘ would
have liked” 472, 498
”
Year, the agricultural, how divided by
the Jews 230 (ili); ‘‘forty and six
years” an error 021-4
Before numbers with * supply 1,
e.g. [1]999* ; before others, 2, e.g. [2]000.
676
INDICES it Oe JOHANNINE” GRAMMAR”
i WE
[This Index deals mainly with conjunctions, prepositions and pronouns.
WORDS (GREEK)
Nouns
and verbs tn it are regarded mainly in their grammatical and syntactical aspects
and not so much with reference to their separate meanings—for which the reader ts
referred to Index LI1 of * Johannine Vocabulary.”
Lf a word, e.g. ayaTaw, ts
occasionally mentioned in a non-grammatical aspect, it ts because of a desire to
supply some defect in ‘* Johannine Vocabulary,” e.g. the testimony of Origen to the
difference between ayataw and piéw (2584 c). ]
*A- privative expr. by od 143, 248, 256
"ABBd 679
ayad\douar: w. iva 097, 688-9; -abjvar
vy. r. -ac@7jvac 655a; active form of
689 z
dyamdw: aor. 323, 5154; aor. and
perf. 443; perf. 476-7; 7 ayarn jv
nyanrnods we 014; Origen on a. and
piréw 584c
aydamn 581; rarely w. objective genitive
033 foll.; 7 @., in Jn, ‘‘the love of
God revealed to men” 035
ayopagw: dyopdowuey in Mk and Jn
428 2, 512, 745-6
aypos: els aypoy 7116
ayo: dywuev 428
adedpos: Tots a. wou 3074
-a interchanged w. -e 4280, 514a, 658 ¢
aiua and atuara 268
airéouat, s. alréw
airéw: pres. and aor. subjunct. 516 ;
a. and airéouar 536; a., airéouar, and
épwrdw 630 foll. ; mpocetxerbe Kal
aitetcGe 536a; aitjoacde imper. or
infin. 514a
aitia, 7 295
aiwy; els Tov a. 312 ; ov (or my)...€ls TOV
a. 263 e—¢
axoal = ‘‘ ears” 709 a
axovw ; aor. and perf. 450-2; fut. act.
660 cd ; w. accus. and w. gen. 586
adndewos in Codex B 654
a\\a: =contrariety, ‘‘not this but
that, or, something more” 055-7; =
difference, ‘‘ nevertheless” 058-9 ;
in special passages 060-2; aX wa
063-4, 105-12, 387, in the Synoptists
1115; ad ovxi madvres 265 (i) ; ovK...
a\d 593 ; ov followed by xaé instead
of a\Ad 598; o're...a\da in Papyri
683 a, b
adhAjAwy : meTa a. 349
adNomar 314-6 b
adXos: d&AXos Eotiv 972*, 675 foll., 730;
ddXos and 6’ dAXov in Epict. 791 foll.,
297¢; adAAa woA\ad 335a;3; ddXos and
€repos 675-7
aunv aunv 611 a, b
dv: its omission 079, 213a, 698; its
position 566, before a pause! 739¢;
1 Yo the instances of ay at the end of a sentence add Lucian Hermotim. § 24
~ yw s ” , \ 3) > ‘ ‘ U 4 ‘ ~ , *
(i. 762) tows yap av aira 76n aul Ta mpoacrera kal mpos Tats wUdats HY dv.
This Index extends from 1886 to 2799.
Before numbers with * supply 1,
e.g. [1]999* ; before others, 2, e.g. [2]000.
677
INDICES TO “JOHANNINE GRAMMAR”
dots av, 6 dv (or édv) etc. 516; wore
av...d6\» 697¢; av and édy inter-
changed 739; dy ‘‘if,” only in Jn
739; s. also éav
ava 281-3
avaBalyw 264 a, 265; with éopri 264-5,
771 ; quoted as ropevowar 489 a
avjp: applied to Christ 371, 7224, c;
distinct from dv@pwios 009, 571;
bédAnua avdpbs 269; ldov dvnp in Zech.
662 a
avOpwros 3864; emphatic 412a; how
used in Jn 934*; 6 a. 959-61* ; 6a.
in Epict. 960c* ; a. contrasted w.
Noyos 277, distinct from avjp 009, 571;
ovK a. or & ov in LXX 586d
aviornm in repetition 609 a
avrl 284-7
avT\éw 281 foll.
avwhev 903-8*, 403, 573, 734d
amrdprt, S. apre
amépxouar: w. év 334d;
and am7\Gev 753 a foll.
dé: transposed 288; ambig. 2154,
291; amé and éx meaning ‘‘[some]
of” 213-5, denoting domicile and
birthplace 289-93, interchanged in
LXX 293 a, w. Nadéw 2936, 5862;
amd, €x, and mapa, w. écépxoua 326-8
amobvyckw: ovK amobvncxe. 486; 6
amodvnckwy ‘he that is under sentence
of death ” 530; va uh arobyjcky v.r.
for amofdvy 530
amokplvouat: amoxpiOets 271; amexpivaro
and amexpiOn 537; azexplOn (Ine.)
kal elev 61la—c; damexpiOn w. “Ino.
(not w. 6 Inc.) 968*
dmodtiw: Kata 6é €opryy amévev 4646
amogTé\\w: aor. and perf. 440, 453;
amecta\pévos mapa Oeo0 contrasted
Ww. qv mpos Tov Gedy 277; a. and
éEatrooTé\w 753 6
ame\n\vbev
amoTwacow : aTorwacceteand éxtivaéare
437 a
apiOuds : Tov a., adv. accus. 009
dpre and voy 915 (i)-(vi)*, 246
apTos: 6 ad. 6 KkaraBaiywy and 6 da. 6
KataBas 504; 6 a. ovTos and otros 64a.
553 ¢
apxn: THY apxhy dre kal Aad tuiv
154-6 ; a. T&y cHuelwy 386 (i); €& a.
and a7’ a. 254a
dabevéw : acbevovvrwr, ambig. 930*
aoTpamn 532¢
aurn s. ovros
avros 374-80, meaning ‘‘God” 731,
change from to éxetvos 302; avrod etc.
possessive, emphatic and non-em-
phatic 558, om. or rep. 395; avrod
ambig. 378-9; avréy ins. and om.
537 (1) a; avros 6 931 a*; ards wovos
and pdvos atrés 724-6; avrds mrepi
€auTou 723; eyw eiuc adrds 220, 221 a,
224, 699—700 ; 6: a’rod ambig. 302,
595 a; avroi éomev ‘we are by our-
selves” 699; kal atrol yap emph.
692 ; av’rés v. r. avté 727; avrots [6]
‘Inoots, why a doubtful reading 656 c
°
Bata: ra B. Trav powikwy 047
Barriga: w. eis T06a
Baoirela: eioeOeiv els, or idetv, THY B.
Tou Beov 573
Baovdevs: with and without article 966%,
669; ov déyers Ore B. eiui 245a; s.
also 798-9
Baoittkés : Ex TOV BaoitkGy 215 6
Baorafw: aor. and pres. infin. 497
BnOavia: amd B. 290
BnOdeéu : dd B. 289
Bawa 537 (ii) }
Brérw: hist. pres. 482 ; B\ézrere, initial,
imperat. 237}
1 In 2237 it was said that “ B\éaere would naturally be imperative.”
Pérere—except with relative or negative
when initial, alw. tmperative (1 Cor. i. 26 being no exception).
In N.T.,
is almost always (abt 20) initial avd,
In Poet. Scen.
Bdérere is only in Eurip. Cyc. 211 (imperat.). Initial opare in Poet. Scex., though
possibly interrog., prob. always means ‘“See!”—Aesch. Prom. 119 ‘* See [me
outraged because of my love for mankind]!,” Ag. 1217 “* See [these spectres] !,”
Soph. 7. 1228-30 ‘‘ See [Orestes restored to life]! ” to which the Chorus replies
‘We do see,” Oed. Col. 871—2 “ See [these insults] !” to which Oedipus replies,
‘‘ They do see,” Ant. 806 ‘* See [me led away to death] !,” Eurip. Fragm. Alcm.
11 ‘* See [the tyrant in exile]!” In Aristoph., too, opare initial, or after a pause,
is almost alw. imperative, or may be so taken. In N.T., dpare is alw. imperat.
exc. perh. in Jas ii. 24 dp@re dre (after BAérers drt) R.V. “ye see that”; and, even
there—in view of Epictet. iii. 13.9 dpare yap dm, “‘videte enim” and the frequency
This Index extends from 1886 to 2799. Before numbers with * supply 1,
e.g. [1]999* ; defore others, 2, e.g. [2]000.
678
WORDS
(GREER)
Tagogu\dkwov: é€v Te y. and Kxarévayre
TOU y. 333-4
yap: Synoptic and Johannine use 065-6 ;
sometimes an indication of evange-
listic origin 0664; in special passages
067-8, 683 ; kal yap 167, comp. 692 ;
ov yap, not interrogative in Jn 683;
various ellipses before 683 a
yeulfw: w. €x 329 (i)
yéuw: w. ex 3294
yevvdouat 904-8*, 573
yevouar: Ww. accus. 016-18 ; y. Javarou
576
yn: els thv “lovialay yy 6704; yh
*Tovda 670 b
yivouar: éyévero contrasted w. nv 277,
596-7; yéyova 396 4, 4784; yéyovev
va 478a; yéyova and éyevounv 440;
yéyovas 758 ; yevamevar 4726
ywookw: aor. and perf. indic. 448,
511 a; aor. and pres. subjunct. 511;
éyvwy 328, 511 a, 582; éyywy = “I
knew [at once]” 443¢; ywdoxere
ambig. 243, 491, 760; ywwoKere
combined w. éwpdkare 491; y. and
oida 491, 757 a, 763; yvO0e cavTov and
TO €auTov ywwoKkew 763
yopifw: aor. 447
Todyoda 738
ypdupa: mnQlikows ypdupacw 691 d-e,
785-90
ypagw: én air@ yeypaupéva 339; 6
yéeypapa yéypapa 473; éypaya in
letters 691 a foll., 785-90
yuv7n : w. article 948 a* ; ? ellipsis of y.
or dvyarnp 217
Aé: consecutive or adversative 069-73 ;
third word, or later, in its clause
074-6; denoting antithesis 209; intro-
ducing parenthesis 633 4; in doubtful
connexion 636; a dé-clause before an
oty-clause 634; w. édeyey 468; w.
pluperf. 480; xal...d€ 076; pév...dé
077; wév ends Thucyd. iii. 116 foll.
by 6é 2d. iv. 1 638; s. also 635 (i) a
det: Eder 272 a, 635 (i) a; de written 6d:,
confusable with 6.’ (prep.) 428 ¢
dexds 283 ¢
dua : w. accus. of pers. 294—300, 705 ;
w. gen. of pers. 301-4; w. gen. of
time 331c¢ foll., 715; de’ 6v...cai de
ov 294; ov did Tod Beod add Tap’
avrov 296a; dua Ti; 231¢; dia TovTo
387 foll.; (2) 60 duds 428c; dia cod
for dua oé 729 a
dvacmopa : 7 6. Trav‘ EN\jvwv 046
didaoKahos: w. article 966*, 195, ? vo-
catively used 680
dldwuc: aor. and perf. 454-5; imperf.
465 6; pres. and perf. in LXX 444;
6 6édwkds mor 422; wav 8 dédwxkas
740-4; dwkev, v.r. for dédwKev 687 ¢ ;
late forms of, e.g. €6woa 690 ; dds, v.r.
in ch. xvil. 740
diwKw: 0 diwkwv ‘the prosecutor” 537
dokéw: aor. and imperf. 464a; y7
Ooxeire 235a; Ti doxed but and Ti
doxetre 766 (i) a
dofafw: aor. 441; various meanings of
€dokac bn 446
dovNos 263 2, 584 4
Opaxual om., e.g. dpaBava (6.) 7 ‘‘eight
{drachmae] as earnest money ” 729
dvvamac: w. aor. and pres. infin. 496,
767; dvvara apmagew and adapmdcec
767; 6. ins. by LXX = Heb. interrog.
767
Ovo 281-3
E, 8, o and ¢ interchanged in B 650-2
-€ interchanged w. -ar 428 J, 658¢
édy or ay: w. aor. and pres. subjunct.
511, 513-5; w. indic. in 1 Jn 515 (i),
comp. 771; é€av uy 521-3, w. pres.
subjunct. in connexion w. the hour of
trial 523a; édyv tis 580; éay and Tis
separated 552c; kai éav 158-9; dv
Tay KpaTHre 517-20; éav obv Oewpnre
210-12; dors é€av ambig. 414-6;
doris civ, 6 dy (or Edy) etc. 516, 6604;
av and éav interchanged 739; éay for
dy in Papyri 416 a
€avTov : év €avT@, -ots, how used in Jn
039; mpos éavtovs 366c; avros mepl
é€aurovu 723
eyyvs 909*
eyelpw : mpopytns ovK éyelperar 492
of dpa 67x in Epictet., as well as i. 3. 9 dpare otv kal mpooéxere—the meaning may
be ‘‘ see [and nore] that.”
These facts bear on 2762 a, which rendered //. i. 120
Aevooere imperatively, though rendered in Monro’s Hom. Gramm. p. 190 ‘ ye see.”
The scholiast says, ‘‘épare, Bérere,”’ perh. intending not only to explain the
; ys,“ épare, p g not only to explain t
poetic Aevooere by a prose word, but also to shew that it was imperative, like
initial opa@re and P)érrere.
This Index extends from 1886 to 2799.
Before numbers with * supply 1,
e.g. [1]999* ; defore others, 2, e.g. [2]000.
679
INDICES TO “JOHANNINE GRAMMAR”
éyd 401; yw elu 220foll.; éyw elu
avros 221 a, 224, 699 foll.; d7rov brayw
and érov éyw Umdyw 578; Aéyw om.
after éyw 6584, 660; é€uov, not in
N.T. without (1) prepos. (2) antith.
or parall. (3) v.r. 566c¢; wov emph.
and non-emph. 559, 776 foll.; jou,
v.r. for wot 563 ; wou and gov confused
768 ; we TadTa for wera TaiTa 659; s.
also 7mets
€0€\w, S. O€Xw
ei: written ¢ 659¢, comp. 428c¢, 515(i)e,
650 a, 6546, 798e; corresponding to
av, in words of the Lord 078-9; e/
w. fut. 514(i)@, w. optat. 514 (i) 4;
ef ov 256; ef 6€ uy 080-6, in LXX
foll. imperat. 080
<ldov : idety ‘‘ to experience” 576 ¢; idetv
Thy Baoelav and elceNOew els THY B.
573; reBéaua...ep dv ay loys...€wpaxa
572; 167 and ev6n confused 5165 (i) e,
798 ¢}
eldos Geov 765 a
eiul: éyw eluc 220 foll.; eyw elue adros
224, 699-—-700 ; Ozov eiui (v.r. eluc)
éyw and dou éyw Urayw 190a, 487 a;
rode el ot 733-7; ellipsis of éort
229-30 (i) ; éo7i w. particip. 971-81* ;
eialy of 971c*; my, contrasted w.
éyévero277, 596-7; jv w. pres. particip.
277; dre éoriy and dre jv after eidov
466 (i) ; 6 wy in various phrases 938%,
964*, 275, 308, 358, 711 foll.; 6...ovx
ov 704; wy referring to the past 274;
iva wow, seven times repeated in the
Last Prayer 529a; forms of eli
emphasized 972*, 979 a-d*, 5534,
555a, 579; repeated for emphasis
6067, éay od yoba 515(i); ns and
jc@a 515(i)4; Phrynichus on the
spelling of ns 772-5; éoou 711
eluc: not used in N.T. 171d, v.r. for
elui 190 a, 487 a; els Kérroy eu 711 ;
(?) eae spelt eooe 711
elmov 456; dv elroy v.r. 6 ely 925 a",
507 a; etre, differently used by Lk.
and Jn 456 a; cimev and édeyev 469 ;
elpnker 481; Ti eimw; Tic’ eimw; 5124;
elév and elmé 658¢; eimov ay byuiy ore
083-6, 186; eizov with and without
6re 189 foll. ; eipnxev, in Pap., = elarev
683 a,
elpnvn: €. Thy éunv 6096
efs: without verb of motion 305-9, 706
foll;) ““to? or ““intoy S1O=10) 2 seis
Fon aiwvioy 312-6; dWovrat eis 317-8;
els TéNos 319-23 ; wepiraréw els 342 1;
mucTevw eis 506 (and s. micrevw) ; 6 wy
els Tov KO\trov 308-9, 706, 711 foll.;
els and émi 310, 3164; éorn els v.r.
él 307 a; eis 76 in St Paul’s Epistles
689 7 ; Néyw efs implying publicity 709
eis: used with dative 118 4; eis cad’ eis
348 ; cis [é€x] 586a; ev “Sone” in juxta-
position with ev ‘‘in” 1184; ovde ev
or ovdev 660
elaépxouat: eloeNMovoar 311; €. els, or
lOetv, Thy Bacielay Tod Geov 573
elra, see below?
etwOa: eiwOer parall. to imperf. 4644
éx: “‘ from” or ‘‘ (some) of ” 042, 213-5;
‘* native of ” (but dé ‘‘ resident in ”)
289-93; €x and a7é in LXX 2934;
é€k and a7oé w. Aadhéw 293 4, 586 a; Ex
w. efépxoua 326-8, w. mAnpdw 329,
w. yeulfw 329 (i), w. cwfw and rnpéw
325; €& Hudvy 110 a—d, 263 ¢ foll.; éx
éTpou 324, 714
€xet 7 conf. w. é€xelvn 687 a
exeivos 381-5, 729; emph., change to
from avrés 302; contemptuous 732;
meaning ‘“‘HE” 1326, 382, 731;
éxelvn conf. w. exel 7 687d; KaKelvos
150-1
éxkevTéw 317 h
éxhéyouat : aor. 441, and see esp. 441 6
foll.
éxNexTos : v.r. for vids 386 a
éxuagow: n éxkudsaca 276
éxmeTpos 324d
1 For ltée, see Joh. Voc., where it should have been added that ide, foll. by
nom. without verb, is pec. to Mk and Jn.
2 Comp. Epict. i. 14. 13—14 wéuvnobe undérore Néyew Ure povor éoré* ov yap
éaré.
aX 6 Oeds evdov éorl, kal 6 buérepos Aaiwwr €or.
3 elra occurs Mk (2), Mt. (0), Lk. (1), Jn (3), comp. Mk iv. 28 efrev (dis). In
canon. LXX, elra occurs only in Job (12, with v.r.), Prov. (2).
several points in common between the style of Job and Mk.
It is one of
In N.T. (outside
Gospels) it is only in 1 Cor. xv. 5 (txt), 7 (txt), 24, 1 Tim. ii. 13, iil. 10, Heb. xii.
9, Jas 1. 15.
This Index extends from 1886 to 2799.
Before numbers with * supply 1,
e.g. [1]999*; before others, 2, ¢.9. [2]000.
680
WORDS
éxvetw: é&évevoev, v.r. évevoev 541
ExTWdooW: aToTWwdaoceTe and ExTidéaTe
437 a
e\awy : how accented 673
"EdAnves : 7) Stacmopa Tey ‘E. 046
é\rifw: imperf. 472 6, 474; 7Amifapev
4726; perf. 442, 474
€uBdérw : twofold use of éuBréWas 649
é€uds : 6 €uds...and 6...6 éuds 987—-9*; 6
€uds, 1 €u7y etc. emphatic 559, 581
éumporbev 896*, 330
ev : temporal 025-6, 331, om. by B 661,
ins. and om. before 7juépa, éopr7, and
caBBdrw 715 6-d; instrumental and
quasi-instrumental 332; = ‘‘ into”
334¢,d@; &v TovTw 332, 392; év Te
yafopudakiw 333-4
évexa 300
évTé\Nomar 742 a
€vTO\N) Kaw7,..6 412
évwrov 335
€& 281-3
éepavvaw 439 (i) a
éépxouat 263 cfoll., w. amd, éx, and
mapa 326-8; aor. 457; €&7\Aov ambig.
110 ad
é£oucia 798-9
€opTH : w. article 951*; dvaBalvw eis é.
264-5; xara dé éoprnyv 464c; év ins.
and om. before 715 d, comp. 771
éraipw Tovs 6pbadpuovs 616-7
émet and é7re.d7) 087-8
é€Tepwraw and épwraw 577
éml: w. accus. 336, 342d,72; w. dat.
337-9 ; w. gen. 340-7; émi and eis
307 a, 310, 316 6 ; Emi ToUTW 338; Emi
Thy Oddhaccav and emi THs Gaddoons
340-6; éorn émi 336; én’ a’Tw yeypap-
Leva 339; émrypady em’ abt 339 ; emi
ToU oTaupov 347
éTLBANAW XeElpas 5TH a
émiBrérrw : EmuBréWovrar pds me 317 ¢
éemiywwoKkw 51la
éervypagy er ait@ 339
ETLELKWS 233 a
émixadiCaw: émexadicerv v.r. Exabicev T56a
émiTiGewat: how used by Origen 412 a
epauvaw: of ‘‘searching” the Scrip-
tures 439 (i) ; €pavyadre ambig. zd.
epyafouar 2260; epyafverOar v.r. -Oe 4286
€pxowar: aor. and perf. 326, 457; aor.
and pres. 490; hist. pres. 482; jpxovro
465; j\Gav 4724; 7AOev and 7Oedov
342d, 346, 717¢; épxduevos and 6
épxdmevos 940*, 277, 553d; 6 dricw
wou epxduevos 507; épxdmevoy (neut.
or masc.) els Tov Kéopov ambig. 277,
This Index extends from 1886 ¢o 2799.
(GREER)
508; éws Epxouar 089; epxerac...kal
éeAnrvbev 604a, 625¢; epxerac...kal
viv €or 799 (i); s. also els 310-11
é€pwrdw 498, 630; é., airéouar, and airéw
630 f-/; €. and érepwrdw 577; é. in
Alexandrian Gk 630d; (?) epwra umep
nuwy in Christian tombstone 630 z
eraipo. in Aquila=q@udodvres in LXX
584¢
€repos : repos and &)\\os 675-7; moNAa...
kal €repa 335 a
ere: &. uckpdv 230(i) ; &. rerpdunvos ear
230 (ii) foll.
éros: éreow, dat. pl. of duration, when
used 021
evbéws, evOU, and evAvs 910-15 *
evpioxw: hist. pres. 482; evpdy om. in
xii. 14 756
evxapitTéw 614 ¢
é€paddomat 315
éxw: €xes Tt; 2356 foll.
€ws (conj.) 089 ; (2) ws for Ews 201, 696 ;
€ws Epxouar 089
Zdw: w. dca and accus. of pers. 297,
705 ; w. mpdés and accus. of pers. 366 ;
gol (@, Hrot dia oé 297 C
(nréw 375a, 398; w. infin. 575, 727;
first use of in LXX 6494; forms of
748
Gyros 349, 350a
fon: els (wny aiwvioy 312-6
"H 090-1; after negative (ov...caé and
ov...7) 549a, 759; omitted 628 a
4 Tod ’A.? the [wife, or, daughter] of A.
217
nuets: perh. applied to Christ 4284;
how used in 1 Jn 399c¢; 7. mavtes
287; nuoyv and vuady in v.r. 428¢
Neepa : TpiTn Huépa, Ova Tpr@v Nuepov, ev
Tpioly jnuépats etc. 331; Kad’ nuépar,
inserted by Lk. 515; év ins. and om.
before 715 d-d
qrep 092, 685
“Hpwéns 737 a
QO, €, 0 and € interchanged in B 650-2
Oddacoa: emi Thy O., emi THs O., and
mapa THv O, 340-6, 354, and see
specially 341 and 344
Odvaros: w. yevouat, Gewpéw, and idety
576
Odaoov 918 a*
Oedouwar: twice applied to Christ 617 a:
TeGedueba 473; Tebéaua...ép dv av
ins...€Wpaxa 572
Before numbers with * supply 1,
¢.g. [1]999*; defore others, 2, e.g. [2]000.
681
INDICES TO “JOHANNINE GRAMMAR”
GéXnua avdpos and @. capkés 269; 0. 7.
Geov parall. to Néyos Tr. Aeov 799 (iii)
déd\w: nOedev of unfulfilled desire 716-7 ;
(2?) @edev, nOedov and n\Oe 342d,
346, 716-7; 70e\H and 7OéA\ncw
471-2, 716-7; w. accus. and infin.
495 ; é0edes 7174
Geds: the distinction between eds and
6 @eds 594a; mapa ew 027, 355;
6 Gy mapa [Tov] Geot 358; eldos Aeod
765 a
Gewpew 210-12, 318, 576, 739 4; Pewpeire
ambig. 439 (ii)
Ouvyarnp : (?) ellipsis of @. in the phrase
n Tob’ A. 217
I: sometimes written €1, and €1 written
| 659e, comp. 428c, 515(i)e, 650a,
6546, 798e
idetv, (dw etc., s. eldov
létav : kar idiav 348
Udcos : TOv ddeAPdy Tov idLov 985-6* ; Ex
Tav idiwy 378, 728 ; of Udcor 570 a—d
idov 246
*Tepocédusa w. article 670
"Ingots : with and without article 968* ;
in B written 1C, liable to confusion
661¢; Incody (IN) and Kvpiov (KN)
confused 6624; avrots [6] ‘Inaois,
why a doubtful reading 656 c
iudriov : sing. and pl. 270; in ellipsis
216 6
wa: freq. in Jn 686; expresses or
implies purpose 093-6; special
passages 097—103 ; va and subjunct.
compared w. infin. 104, 495; iva w.
indic. 114, 690; w. aor. and pres.
subjunct. 511, 524-30; omission of
principal vb before wa 105-12; de-
pendent on vb implied in question
113; its connexion 115; iva...iva
116-21; dA iva 063-4, 105-12;
jyaddacoaro iva tén 097, 100, 688-9;
wa ti; not used in Jn 231¢; ors...
iva 697; iva elds ‘‘to tell you the
plain truth’? 729@; épxerac wpa...iva
799 (i)
*Tovdaios : of Tovdato 941* foll. ; zrodXol
éx Trav “I. 941-2*; els rhv ’Lovdalav
viv 6700
torn: arn els (v.r. él) 307 a ; orhvae
els TO uéaov 710; éorra, of God 307 da
loxupbrepds ov in Synoptists 667, 799 a
IXOYC 703
‘Iwavns with and without article 968 c*
‘Iwojp with and without article 970*
This Index extends from 1886 to 2799.
Kay: in crasis 150; after kabws 123-7
kafapos in Jn, and xa@dpcos in Epictet.
connected with 6 Nédyos 799 (iii)
KaOnuac: forms of 751; Kka@nuévou eis
707
kadifw: trans. and intrans. use 537
(i)-(ii) ; éxd@uoev eis 707; €xdOicev
V.r. émekabicev 7562; 70 dvov (szc)
KaBica 7T56a
Ka@ws: suspensive 122, followed by
Kayo or kat in apodosis 123-7;
supplementary 128-32 ; iva...xa0ds...
va 117-8
kat: in narrative (Hebraic) 133-4;
connecting affirmation and negation
135; meaning ‘‘and yet,’ ‘ but,”
136-45, 265(i) 4, 439 (iii) ; parall. to
Heévrot 137 ; exclamatory 146 ; mean-
ing ‘‘[indeed] and’ 157; meaning
“also” 147, 152-6; in apodosis
123-7, 148; in crasis 150; omitted
between two adjectives 168; Kai
Umets 149; Kayo 123-7; KaKeivos 151,
383; xdv 160; kal ydp 167 (comp.
692) ; kal édv 158-9; Kai vov, varies
in meaning 915 (iii); Kal...dé 076;
kal...kal 161-6; ov...kai instead of
ov...a\\a 598; THv apxhv dre Kal
AaAG vuty 154-6; written Ke and
confused with K€ 7.e. kipie 657d;
_ov...kat and ov...7 549 ¢, 759°; kat and
9 interchanged 759 a foll.
Kawdés: é€vro\ny kawny 8945* ; évrodny
Kawyy...6 412
Kavomevos 275 4
Kakelvos 151, 383
kadéw and Néyw 4684; xkadéw foll. by
accus. and voc. 6806
KaN@s Tromjoers 729 a
kav 160
kaTd 348; els xa’ els 348; Kar
348 ; kara de éoprny 464c¢
KaTayvuu.: iva KatTeay@ouw atlray ra
oxéX\n 267, 419
KaTaeows : inscr.
stone 6302
KarahauPpavw 596
KarevOtve 033 6
Kedpwy : how accented 671-4
kAddos 047
K\douara 329 (i)
KAlvw Kepad7y 644 (i), 713
Koiudouac: double meaning of 586 ¢
KéKKos : W. article 948 *
Koos: 6 ay els Tov K. TOD Tarpds 308,
706 foll.
’
ldtay
on Christian tomb-
Before numbers with * supply 1,
e.g. [1]999* ; before others, 2, e.g. [2]000.
682
WORDS
(GREER)
Koulfouat 230 (i) a
Kémrrw : K6Wovrat 317 ¢ foll., v.r. oYovra
317 ¢
Kodpw@os: mois els K.! 263
Kéguos 329 (i)
Kéojmos 508c; 6 kK. ovTos and ovTos 6k.
553¢; in connexion with xwpety
4140; épxduevoyv eis Tov k. 508
KpadBarros 206 4
kpagw: thrice applied to Christ 618 ;
Kéxpaye 479
Kpaviov Tézov 6 Néyerar... .oA yoda 738
kpatéw: how used in the Gospels
517afoll.; dy twwyv xparnre 517-20
Kpliua or Kplots 799 7
kpivw: Kéxptxa, how used 473; xéxpirac
695; xpiver, unaccented, fut. or pres.
960 a*
kpUrTw: the meaning of éxp¥Bn as
applied to Jesus 538-43, 724
xTifw: éxric@n and éxricrat 440 ; forms
of 747
Kiptos : 0 KUptds nov 049, 679 foll. ; mapa
kuplov 356; xkUpre 680foll., ins. or
om. 565a; written KE and con-
fusable w. kai (KE} 657¢; KUpiov (KN)
confused w. Incoiv (iN) 6624; used
by Epict. in a bad sense 799
Kaun 746 a
Aadéwand Nadia 251; Nartéw w. €x and
amo 2936, 586a; é€x Tay ldlwy Nader
728; ratra NeAaAnKA Uuly, seven
times repeated 625
NauBSavw: EAaBov and mapéXaSov 570;
Anuyerac and AayBaver 488, 583
Aaol (pl.) ‘* peoples,” used of the Jews
317
Néyw: imperf. 467-70; édeyey and
elmevy 469; éyw and karéw 4684;
ov Néyers and tmets Néyere 2344,
245; drav Néywouw 531; éyw om.
after é€yw 6580, 660
AiGos 396-7
Adyos: distinct from Nadiad 251; 6 Adyos
jv foll. by éyévero dvOpwros 277;
6 Néyos in Christ’s words (1) in the
Synoptists and (2) in Jn 799 (iii)
(1) and (2); 6 Adyos pov, T. Aeov, 6
ads etc. in Jn 799 (iii) 2; Adyor (pl.),
in Christ’s words, only once in Jn
580
Novw: w. els 305 a
hUXVOs: Ww. article 9484*; 6 Xr. 6
Kavdmevos 2754
Maénris 545 ¢
fLakaplos : waKdp.ol €ote bray 499 b
baNXov 733 a, w. 7 and w. Hep 092
Mdp@a: tas mepi Madpéav, v.r.
Mapéay 990*, 360
Mapia and Mapiay 586 6
paprupéw: perf. 473; pwaptrupets cavT@
514 (i)e; ddXos...0 uaprupov 730
pLaptupla 383
paxaipa: év paxalpn 332 a
pév 169-70; weév...6€ 077, in Mt.-Lk.,
where not in Mk-Jn 998* ; pév ends
Thucyd. iii. 116 foll. by 6€ 76. iv. 1
638 ; wey ov 335a
wévrot 170, parall. w. cal 137
péva 263ce-f, 312, 313a; aor. and
imperf. 458; éueva 458; pévere
ambig. 915 (111) *4; wévere and peltvare
437 a—c; méver and pevet T62a; éav
wn mévnte and édy pmelynre 523; m.
mera 352
pera: w. accus. 349; w. gen. 349-53 ;
b. Tovro and uw. Taira 349a, 394;
bu. “Tovdaiov 349-50; of pw. avdrov
ovTes 351; pévw pw. 352; pera Tivos
compared w. mapa Twi 352-8, and atv
Tw 799 (ii)
pecovuKxtiov 678
Méoos : oTHval els TO Mégov and orjvat Ev
buéow 710
MeTavoew :
521-2
bmeTacl: 668
for
pres. and aor. subjunct.
| peTpntys 281-3
MEéTpov, METPY, EV METPW, EK féTPOU 324,
714
| wn (interrog.) 235 ; uw Te or unre 701-2
un (neg.): encroaches on ov 253-4;
implies imperat. 208-9; w. particip.
4994; w. mwas 260foll.; 67c uw 187,
695; ov wy 255
puxpov : ére utxpov 230 (i) foll.
pucéw: aor. and perf. 443, 475
picb6s 287 b
bovoryevns 938*, 964*, 308
povov (adv.) 6644
povos : applied to God 895%, 664, comp.
168 ; yovous inserted paraphrastically
1 Lucian Hermotim. § 27 foll. (i. 767) takes Corinth as the ideal city to which
all the seekers of truth are journeying.
This Index extends from 1886 to 2799.
Before numbers with * supply 1,
e.g. [1]999* ; before others, 2, e.g. [2]000.
683
INDICES TO “JOHANNINE GRAMMAR”
7626; airdos muovos and povos ares
375, 724-6
N dropped or inserted, €keE1H confused
W. EKEIH 687 a
Nagapér : ov amo N. 289
viv and dpre 915 (i)—(vi) *, 246; Kal viv
varies in meaning 915 ‘(iii) * 3 kal Ta
viv 915 (i) c*
O, €, 9, and ¢ interchanged in B 650-2
0 and w interchanged in Mss. 928%,
114, 691
6 and éy, v.r. 925 * foll.
6, 7, TO: see Index II ‘ Article”
0 6€ 684
olda: of6a and ywwoxw 491, 757 2, 763;
oldauev “we know” (?) oda pév
429-35; kal éxetvos oldev 3846, 731;
éay oldauev 515 (i); iva eldqs ‘‘to tell
you the plain truth” 729a@; edn and
.6n confused 515 (i) e, 798 ¢
oikta, olkos: Mark’s use of els oikov or
els THY olkiavy T1lla
Odos and dxXos 753 ¢
dvoua: €v TH 6. cou @ Sédwkas wor 408
(comp. 740-4); Toyn[omal], con-
fusable w. TOYN ‘the Son” 768-9
Omov 171-2; drrov elju (v.r. eluc), Grou
Umayw, and émrov éyw trayw 1904,
487 a, 578
O1rws 173 ; dws av 693
6piw: perf. 475, édpaxey and éwpaxev
651; reféauar...idns...€dwpaxa 572;
éwpakare and yuwwoKere 491; dovrac
eis 317; oWovra v.r. for Kowovrat
317¢; opare, after pause, mostly
imperat. or interrog., see n. on
p- 678.
ép0oypadpia 790
dpO0re poy : meaning of 7754
opie : forms of 748
ia w. article 962-3 *
s (demonstr.): ds dé 3804
8s (rel.): in attraction 405-7 ;
dvouati gov dédwKas jor 408-11;
EvTOAHY Kawny...0 412 ; Kpaviov Torov
d Névyerat... 738; dv 5, du’ ob, Up ob
etc. 294-5; ds dv and és éav 739;
v.r. os, 6, @ T40foll., 744c
dcos: boa éav 6600
dotts 413; 6,7c dy (or éav) 414, 516;
1 Add Epict. i. 24. 20 6ray cou paivnrat..
This Index extends from 1886 to 2799.
ev TO
arwa é€av ypadynrac 414-6; doris av
739
drav : parall. to 7) dv wpa 5383a; w. aor.
and pres. subjunct. 511, 531-5 ; érav
eywouw us in the moment when they
are saying” 531, in Epict. ** when, at
any moment” 532d!
bre 799 (i)
67: (1) suspensive and (2) explanatory
174-7 ; suspensive, a characteristic of
Jn and Rey. 176, 236; in LXX
390a; (2) “that”? or ‘‘ because”
181-6, 219; introducing (1) cause of
action or (2) ground of statement
178-80; recitativum 189-90; not
used interrogatively in Jn 231¢; dre
after vbs. of seeing 762a; 6ru v. r. rb
67 etc. in LXX 281d foll.; 67 uy
187, 695; ovx 67 188, 218-9; eldov
OTL nv 466 (i); THY apxHY 67 Kal AAD
vuty 154-6; Ort =worTe 694; ovrws...
ore 697; Ti Ore and ri éorw Ort, for
TL yéyovev Ort 694; OTL...Kal OTL 7570
ov(k) (interrog.) 231; ovKoty 233-4; ov
bn 232; odxl 231 (and see oxi below)
ov(K) (neg.) : encroached on by “7 253 ;
v. r. for otrw 264-5; ov and ovKére
583; ot uj w. fut. and subjunct. 255;
ei ov 256; ov...udvov 1474; ov...ovdeis
257 ; ov...o0KéTe 257 a; o¥ combined
w. mas 260-3; ot followed by «at
instead of dAda 598 ; ov(k)...d\Aa
593; Xenophon uses ov’, ada, but
Epictetus ov, dda 265 (i)c; odxl
265 (i); ov =a- privative 143, 248, 253,
256: ot yap, not interrog. in Jn 683 ;
6...00K wy 704; ov...xai and ov...7
549 a, 759; ov...T1s and ovdets 586d, 3;
ov confused w. ov 797 ¢
ovdé: v. r. for ore 258; introducing paren-
thesis 6334; ovde ev or ovdev 660
ovdels: Kal ovdels 139; ov...00deis 257 ;
ov...7ts and ovdeis 586d, ¢; ovder,
emphasised by position 605a; ovdev
or ovde ev 660
ovKéTL: repeated as ov 583 ;
257 a
ovKovv 233-4
ov LH 232, 255
ov udvov 147 b
oiv : in Christ’s words 191-7; in narra-
tive of Christ’s acts 198—200 ; after
parenthesis 631 foll. ; in LXX 640;
. OUKETL
.amah\acoou.
Before numbers with * supply 1
e.g. [1]999* ; before others, 2, e.g. [2]000.
684
5
WORDS
(GREEK)
in Papyri 640¢; ‘‘pause spaces”
before oy in B 663; v. r. rére 637a
ovrw: v.r. o0 264-5
ovpavés: with and without article 952-8 *
otre...kal 258-9; o’7e...aANa (in Pap.)
683 a, 6
ovros 386-97; how emphasized 553c;
otrés é€aTw etc., used in testimony
9575*; airy ‘‘this [thing]” 396,
621-2; dia Tovro 387-91; é€v TovTw
332, 392-3; émi Totro and €émi rovTw
338; wera TovTo and pera Taira 349 a,
394; ravra thrice repeated 396, 621,
TavTnv ێmoincey apxnv Tav onmelwy
386 (i)
otrws ‘‘unpremeditatedly” 916—7* ;
otrws...woTe 917 a*, 203, 697; ovTws |
...lva or Ore or ws 697
ovx O71 188, 218
ovxi: interrog. 231a; adn obxi mavres
265 (1)
6xAos 417; 6 byAos wodUs 153.a; dxXXos |
and 6Xos 753 ¢
éWapiov 235 ad, 703
GYouae Ss. dpaw
Tlacdaprov...0s 412 6
matdiov 701-3
mais, madlov, and Sovdos 584 0
maNat av (2?) confused w. radu 698 a
madw: double meaning of 635 (i), 649
(i)-(iii), 71la@; ? confused w. ma\ac
av 698 a
mavrTéNecos ; an epithet of the number
“ten ” 283 ¢
mapa: Ww. accus. 354; w. dat. 352-3,
355, 363; w. gen. 356; w. gen. and
dat. interchanged 357-9; mapa tH
dadacoav 341, 344, 354; mapa Jew 027;
Tapa Tw Oew 355; mapa Tw marpl and
Tapa Tov marpos 357; 0 wy mapa [Tou |
Geov 358; ov dia Tod Geod adda Trap’
a’roU 296a; mapd, amd, and éx w.
eépxouat 326-8
mapadldwut: mapadot 252; 0 mapad.dovs
510
mapax\yTos 630, 791-7
TapahauBavw: in Epict. 5704; mapé-
AaBov and é\aBov 570
Tapackeun: 4. TOU macxa 048; érel Hy
mT. 087 a
maperue 225 a
Tapépxoua 342 a
twappnoia 917 (i)-(vi)*, 727; connected
w. Epict. 917 (v)*, 798 f
mas: combined w. ov or uy 260-3; may
6 dédwKxev (dédwxas) etc. 921-2*, 422,
740-4; mepimavtwy, for mepurarwv
651 ; ov...rav Hebraic 759¢
TATXa: Tapackevy Tou 7. 048; TO TacKXa
n €0pTH 654d
matTnp: used vocatively, mdrep, tarp,
and 6 warnp, 052-3, 661 a, 679, v. r.
in B 6594; mapa 7 marpt, mapa Tod
matpos, and mapa Tod Geot 355-9 ; oi
matépes 949-50*, 553¢; of a. and oi
7. Uw 957 *
Tarpiipxat 949 a*
Taxvyw 449 a
méumrw: éreuwa, in letters 691¢
mepa for repay 656 a
mept 360, 370; Tas 7. Mapbay 990*; 7.
and tbrép 718, 7194
mepiratéw 342 a foll., diff. from Badifw
342), =‘‘teach” 342e; mepratwy
corrupted to mepimavrwv 651
Tepippyyvuuc: active and middle, w.
imatia 270 6, 563 ¢
myn 316 d
mydikos: mndikows ypaupacw éypayva
691 a—e, 785-90
miatw: eriacay ovdev and ovd€éva éreoav
703 ¢
IIcAaros : with and without article 969*
murpackw, forms of 750
miTevw: w. dat., els, ev, see Joh. Voc.
Index Ill and esp. 1470; mioreve and
mistevoov 4390; miorevere ambig.
237-40 ; perf. 442, 474; rovs memo-
TeukdTas avTw 506; ovK émlarevoy
466 ; of micrevovTes, Meaning of 500 ;
aor. and pres. subjunct. 525 foll. ;
TioTevTwWMEY V. Tr. -Um@pmev 528; pres.
subjunct. altered by D into aor.
subjunct. 530a; 7. did twos 304a
mlotts s. Joh. Voc. Index III
migTos 304 a
mj: v. x. for mpo mporwmou 361 a
| mwAnpdw: w. €x 329
wAnoloy ‘ near” 368 a
mdotov : Edpagwmev TO 7. 346 c
TvEvu“a: TOT. €oTL TO (woTro.oty 975—7T *
mwoGev: m. e¢ ot; 403, 733-7; mofev, a
corruption of wo@e 759
jouw: m. and épyafoua 2266; 7. and
Tpdcow 584a; éroiouvv 463-4 ; mroeire
ambig. 194c, 359; ri mowovuev; ré
Tomuev; and Ti momowpev ; 493,
512, 766 (i); Kad@s moijoets 7290;
qkKovgay Ore Errolncev 459
moAvs: Tool sometimes ambig. 941% ;
moNXol Tay, not in Jn 041; woAdoi...
éx Tov “lovdaiwy 941* foll.; vdara
This Index extends from 1886 to 2799. Before numbers with * supply 1,
e.g» [1]999*; before others, 2, e.g. [2]600.
685
INDICES TO “JOHANNINE GRAMMAR”
mod\a 270c; G&ANa oXAG, ToOAXG...
kal €repa and moAda...kal a\\a 3354
movnpds: cwrw, Tnpéw etc. Ex TOU movnpod
(ambig.) 325
Topevouac and wrayw 0821; 7m. substi-
tuted for dvaBaivw 489 a
mégo0s: toga Vv. Y. oca and Toca 737 6
moré 351 6
mOorepov 250
mpacow and mrovéw 584 a
mpo: mpo éuod 361-2; mpd mpoowrov
330, v. r. tAHY 361 a; mpo éE nuepor
Tov macxa 288; mpd corr. to mpéds
651, 655
mpopara (pl.):
collective 420
mpoBarikn 216
mpos: W. accus., w. vb of rest 363-6,
w. vbs of speaking 366 d-c, repeated
after vb of motion 367 ; w. dat. 368 ;
elvac mpds Twa 363a; yy mpds Tov
Gedy, contrasted w. amearahuévos mapa
Oeod 277; 7k mpos cé; 229; mpds a
corruption of mpé 651, 655
tpotdBBarov 048
mpoctevxoua 6304;
airetabe 536a
mpookuvéw: w. accus. and w. dat. 019
mpocpaytov 235, 701-3
mpbowmov: mpd mw. 330, v. r. ANY 361 a
mpopyrns: with and without article
940*, 965*; mpopyrns for 6 mpopyrns
(?) 492a; dia Tod 7. 301
mpwt for mpwrov 9016*
TpATOV, S. TPWTOS
mpatos followed by genitive 896% foll.,
665-7; mparov tuav ambig. 901%;
mpatos or mpwristos Hebraized 666
TpwroToKkos 897 *
mvAn 216a
muvOdvouwat: aor. and imperf. 465 c—-d
mwpow: v. r. wnpdw 449 a; aor. and
perf. 449 a—d
collective and non-
mpocevxerbe Kal
‘PaBBel 680
paBdos: év paBdm éOeiv 332 a
C, €, 8 and o interchanged in B 650-2
oaBBarov: caBBatw and év caBBarw 715¢
odp&: Oé\nua capkds 269; Tas cdpKas
amod\\vovow ol craupwHévres 211¢
onpetov 3864; dpxn Tav onuetwr 386 (i)
ocxavéadif~w: variations of ds av cKav-
dadicn 5130
oxéXos:: iva KateayGow a’trav Ta oKédn
419
ataupiw: wwWnrds 6 oravpwhHeis Kat
To\Novs Tpépel...Tas Tapkas Garro}-
Nvovow of ctavpwHévTes 211 ¢
oThkw: oTnKete w. édv and dray 515 (i)
oT Bddas: v.r. cToBddas 047
at 400 a, 402-4; ov Névyers 2340; 1dbev
el ot 733-7; ot with vocat. and
imperat. 734¢; gov and pou confused
768 ; cov unemph. 776 foll.; ov con-
fused w. ov 797 ¢
cuupepov : how used by Epict. 228 a
atv 799 (ii)
auvedds 798 €
ouvinréw 349
cuvndera 4640
owmw: Ww. €x 325
Tapdoow: applied to Christ 614¢
Traxevov ‘‘more quickly”: not the same
as Taxéws 918*, 439 (v) a, 554 ce
TAXEWS, TAXU, Ev TaxeL 554 b-d
re: how used in Jn 929*
téXevos : applied to numbers 283 ¢
réXos *‘ eminence” 320a; els rT. 319-23
TeTpaunvos: éru T. €oTw 230 (ii) foll.
Tnpéw : w. €k 325; pres. and aor. sub-
junct. 515; érjpouv...xai épvdata 584
TL. S. ats
TiBepias 045
rlOnut: late aor. of 690
Tis: omitted 3794; vii supplied w.
déeorw 3792; ellipsis of rivés 213 foll.;
édy tis 580; édy separated from vis
552c; ov...71s and ovdels 586d, €
ris; rt; (direct interrogative) ri; dia ri;
wa tL; 231 4-e; rl; rt Ore; and 674, in
v.r. 231d; ri ote; Th €orw 671; and Tt
yéyovev Ore; 694; Ti Nadets; ambig.
2314; ri elrw ; prob. =‘‘ what should
I say?” 5124,c; rl mowotuev; rl
Tommev ; The momjowuev; distinction
between 493, 512, 766 (i); 7i éuol Kal
coi; 229-30; ovros dé TL; 209, 386c;
rl mpos cé; 229; riva Av d éXdde 251;
Tis €oTw 6 mapadwowy 251a; rl doxeis;
in Epict. 766 (i) a
1 Add Epict. iii. 24. 44—7 0é\es we
ere mopevouar; iva déNOys.
This Index extends from 1886 to 2799.
...mopevetOar ;...dua Th uh awédOns;...7b odv
Before numbers with * supply 1,
e.g. [1]999* ; before others, 2, e.g. [2]000.
686
WORDS (GREEK)
To.ovTos 398; roav’ryn ‘‘such a thing”
396 4
Toros: ? ellipsis of rémw 675
TooouTot v.r. 745
Tore: v.r. for otv 637 a
Tpets 281-3, s.‘‘ Three” and “ Threefold”
Tpépw: 6 cTavpwOels moods Tpéper 211 ¢,
642
“Tdpia 281 a
tdwp: Vdata moda 270c; emi Ta Vv. 342d
vlés: ? interchanged w. mais 5844; v.r.
éxNexTOs 3864; TOYN 2.¢. Tov vidy,
confusable w. TOYN in Tovvoua 768-9
duets : Jn’s use 399; Kai ders 149; (?) de’
Uuds 428c; vuay, unemph. 559a; bets
in LXX before ambig. forms in -ere
243 a; du- and 7u- confused 428 ¢
Uuérepos : rare and emphatic 988*
brayw 486 ; distinct from ropevoua 082 ;
omou v. (and dou éyw v.) and ozov
eiue (v.r. eluc) 487 a, 578; wriyov 464
vmép 369-71 ; vrép ot 927 5*, 360; wrép
Twos masc. and neut. 718-22; vmép
and zrept 719 a—c
Umepayataw 323 6
bré: w. accus. 372; w. gen. 373; J. and
vmoxatw 372
UmokadTw 372
Uromévaw 3226; 6 Uropueivas 499
Uwnrds : applied to 6 cravpwOels 211 ¢
uyéow: applied to Christ 6144
Pavepdw: thrice applied to Christ’s
Resurrection 619
pépw : ‘bear fruit’ 120 4
gnu rare in Jn, freq. in Acts!
prriéw 328, 584c¢; perf. 442, 476-7;
Origen’s distinction between ¢. and
ayaTaw 584¢
pomée: ra Bala rv powikwy 047
prrdocow: ErHpouv...xal Epidata 584
pur : ai pudai ris yijs 317 ef
potifw 532 ¢
Xdpis: Philo on 285 4; Epictetus on 7432
xelp: in var. phrases w. eis and év 334c;
xelpa or xelpas w. BaddAw and ém-
Baddw 575
xXopros 632 6
xpovigw: forms of 752
xwpa: n Lovdala x. 6706
xwpéw 414 d foll.
WVijpos: didwur Yapov 409 a
Q) and o interchanged 114, 691
wodives 197
pa: combined with épxerac and €d7jAvdev
604a, 625¢; riv w. Ta’Trnv ‘about
this time ” 013 ; (év) éxeivn TH @. 025;
@. €Bddunv 013, 206; 7 dv w. parall. to
bray 533.2; &. wa and w&, dre 799 (i), s.
also 770
ws: (2) for €ws 089, 201, 696; ‘‘as it were”
202; ws dé ‘so when” 069; ws dy
696 2; otrws...ws, for otTws wate 697
womrep 066 4
wore 203, 694c¢; olrws w. 917 a*, 697;
in Egypt. Pap. 697 ¢
wpéXeva : how used by Epict. 798-9
' It should have been stated in 2456 a that Jn—who uses gyul only in i. 23,
ix. 38, xvill. 29—never applies it (as the Synoptists do) to Christ.
Mt. and Lk.
agree (agst Mk) in applying it to Christ in His answer to Pilate, ‘‘ Thou sayest it.”
It isa mark of classical style.
24 times.
peculiar to himself.
This Index extends from 1886 to 2799.
In Pentateuch, of seven instances, five are in the
prophecy of Balaam, Numb. xxiv. 3—15.
In the Synoptists, Mt. uses it most freq. (17), Mk (6), Lk. (7).
never used by three Synoptists in common.
In N.T., it occurs mostly in Acts,
It is
Lk. mostly uses it in traditions
Before numbers with * supply 1,
e.g. [1]999* ; before others, 2, e.g. [2]000.
687
BY THE SAME AUTHOR
Miatessarica, Warts [-—T
A: & €) BLACK, SOHO SQUARE, LONDON
Part t
Gn Be,
A GUIDE: THROUGH (GREEK. £O
HEBREW SCRIPTURE
Demy 8vo. cloth. Price 75. 6d. net.
“So far as we can judge, they (the arguments) are learned and
ingenious, though perhaps insufficient to carry the whole weight of his
hypothesis.”— 77mes.
“Worked out in great detail and with unflagging interest. For
Dr Abbott throws life into everything he touches....A contribution to
the ‘Synoptic Problem,’ claiming examination and commanding atten-
tion.”—Exposttory Times.
“We have nothing but thanks to offer Dr Abbott for the patient
industry with which he has collected and put before us, with great
clearness, dozens of experiments upon which even those who are not
experts either in Hebrew or Greek or Biblical criticism can exercise their
common sense.”—Guardian.
“ A very ingenious and very interesting argument.” —Dazly News.
“Of extraordinary interest and suggestiveness.”—
Manchester Guardian.
“The theory may be commended as most ingenious, and its applica-
tion as very interesting and full of light on many vexed readings.”—
Scotsman.
“Certainly, as far at least as the Septuagint is concerned, he has
found a Vera Causa.”—A berdeen Free Press.
‘“ Learned, acute, and ingenious.”—British Weekly.
Part tH
THE CORRECTIONS OF MARK
ADOPTED BY MATTHEW AND LUKE
Demy 8v0. cloth. Price 155. net.
“There is something very attractive in the way in which Dr Abbott
forces the documents to tell their secret history, not by brilliant guess-
work but by the use of rigid scientific method.”—Manchester Guardian.
“There is a great deal of valuable information in this second instal-
ment of Dr Abbott’s great work, whether one agrees with the main thesis
or not.”—Guardian.
“Full of acute and learned criticism.”—/2/o/.
“The industry and ingenuity displayed through the work are marvel-
lous. In this attempt to solve the Synoptic variations Dr Abbott is as
ploddingly persevering as he is dazzlingly original.” —Exposztory Times.
“One excellent feature in it is the effort to bring the whole evidence
within reach of an intelligent English reader.,—Dundee Advertiser.
“As an exposition of the documentary theory of the origin of the
Gospels, Dr Abbott’s work promises to hold a high place.”—
Glasgow Herald.
“Deserves to be read with the utmost care.”—Ouwtlook.
“ A monument of patient, scholarly labour.”—Christian World.
Part HHH
iO Met Err Oo SPIRIT
AN At EVMPr tr TO REACH
GHROUGH {VARYING VOICES
PAE ABIDING WORD
Demy 8vo. cloth. Price 205. net.
“The candid and reverent spirit in which the book is written wins the
reader’s sympathy....The criticism exhibited is often acute and it is set
forth with an accumulation of detail which is evidence of persevering
A, VI. 44
research ;...For the writer’s ability, labour, and candour we have great
respect....” —Guardian.
“The book is noteworthy as a defence on new grounds of the historical
tradition present in the Fourth Gospel, and the author’s diligence in
collecting details from every quarter must be universally admired.”—
Atheneum.
“A monument of painstaking comparison and _ analysis....... The
appendices and indices teem with suggestive material....... He has steeped
himself in the spirit, and he has logically explained much which to other
critics is mere opportunity for wriggling.” Outlook.
“The notion that St John wrote not to supplement the Synoptics but
to substitute a spiritual for a materialistic conception of Jesus...is
exceedingly suggestive and worked out with much ingenuity.”—
Daily News.
“A fresh illustration of the author’s sound learning and keen exegetical
insight.”— Dazly Chronicle.
“Very original and suggestive.”—Cambridge Review.
“To the proving of his case Dr Abbott brings all the wealth of
curious learning and the singular fertility of linguistic conjecture for
which he is so justly distinguished among Biblical critics of the day.”—
Scotsman.
“There is in the book...a large amount of careful work which will be
found helpful to all who are seeking their way through the letter to the
spirit of the Gospels.”—ookman.
“Has the true scientific temper....... The discussion does not fail to be
stimulating and suggestive.”—Literary World.
“The result at once of great learning, indomitable industry, and
remarkable ingenuity, this is a work that stimulates and rewards.”—
Aberdeen Free Press.
“Often throughout the book the incidental matters which crop up are
of the greatest interest. For instance, what Dr Abbott says on the
probability of Christ’s teaching about ‘taking on oneself the yoke’
becoming misunderstood and perverted to ‘taking up the cross’ is
luminously suggestive....... It is a storehouse of learning, and, quite apart
from the conclusions which Dr Abbott seeks to establish, it will be valued
for the recondite material both from Jewish and Christian early writings
which it brings together and makes easily accessible.”—-Chrvistian World.
“He spares no pains to bring a very ingenious discussion up to date
and well within the reach of those who have no knowledge of Greek or
Hebrew.”—Dundee Advertiser.
“The accumulation of such facts is a task of great labour, but is
valuable to all workers in the field of Biblical criticism, whether they
agree with Dr Abbott’s view of the Synoptic problem or not.......The
curious facts which he has gathered about the Rabbinical beliefs con-
cerning ‘voices from heaven’ contain much that is new to us.”—/2/ot.
“ A valuable contribution to the Synoptic problem.”—Leeds Mercury.
“The strength of his position lies in the accumulation of particulars.
He must be examined page by page and point by point.”—
Expository Times.
“Warm thanks are due to the author for the immense labour he has
undertaken.”—Primitive Methodist Quarterly Review.
“With thorough and penetrating scholarship, and a degree of toil
beyond all praise, Dr Abbott has sought out parallels to facts and
expressions in the Gospels for the purpose of elucidating their meaning,
and tracing them to their original sources....... Such a work as this, which
certainly puts to shame the sluggishness and the spiritual indifference,
and the miserable formality ordinarily displayed in the study of the
Gospels, will require prolonged and serious investigation, such as cannot
be given to it ina notice like the present. It materially advances our
comprehension of the intellectual conditions and methods of instruction
of Christ’s age...."— Baptist Magazine.
“They are full of minute and curious learning, and help to advance
Dr Abbott’s plea that the study of the Aramaic versions is of essential
importance for the interpretation of the Gospels.” —Manchester Guardian.
“The book is not more remarkable for its striking hypotheses than it
is for its careful and systematic collection of evidence....Dr Abbott’s recent
series of volumes (soon happily to be followed by another) really constitute
a new and enlightening commentary on some of the most important
passages in the New Testament. And the commentary is equally
illuminative of the Rabbinical passages quoted.......It is full of learning,
of originality, but above all of suggestiveness....... Page after page
scintillates with brilliant points....... Dr Abbott has clearly relied a good
deal on secondary sources, but he has so carefully verified and examined
his materials, he has applied to them so penetrating and sound a criticism,
that his book is distinguished by its accuracy in details. Dr Abbott
stands forth as a conspicuous example of the salvation which lies in
precision of thought and exactness of method.”—/ew7sh Quarterly Review.
The Classical Review, stating in detail “ what results the writer has
attained which seem tolerably certain to be correct,” adds ‘ Incidentally
Dr Abbott gives us a most valuable dissertation of 43 pages on Bath Kol,
z.e. Voices from Heaven in Jewish Tradition, reprinting in an Appendix
Pinner’s collection of examples from the Talmuds and Targums; he
gives us a useful restatement in another Appendix of the reasons for
believing that the so-called Second Epistle of St Peter is a forgery, and
in yet another a convincing review of Eusebius’ promise to record the
evidence accessible to him that bore on the canonicity or authenticity of
Christian writings. He demonstrates anew the correctness of Bishop
Lightfoot’s interpretation of that promise....... The temper of Dr Abbott’s
writing is worthy of his subject...he has shown us the true significance of
unregarded words.”
Part LW
PARADOSIS
OR
“CIN, CEE NIGHT OTN WAC Hier
WAS (7) BETRAYED,
Demy 8vo. cloth. Price 7s. 6d. net.
“We are inclined to think that the present instalment, although the
thinnest in bulk, is the most valuable of the four....... Dr Abbott exhibits
his customary industry, acuteness, and learning....... One finds oneself,
much more often than usual, able to follow not only with interest, but
with willing assent.”—Guardian.
The Dundee Advertiser, while calling attention to the “ conjectures in
the chain of argument,” says “‘ There is, however, a strong temptation to
think Dr Abbott’s hypothesis established when it is seen to be the key
that fits into one difficulty after another,” and adds “ For ingenious and
scholarly work there is nothing being done at present in the English
language like the series of volumes by Dr Edwin A. Abbott. It is
research work, painstaking and slow and elaborate.”
“Tn great detail and with learned elaboration the various passages are
examined; but the main topic of this book is often the occasion for
interesting digressions into paths in which Dr Abbott is always an
instructive, if not always a convincing, companion.” —
London Quarterly Review.
‘A marvel of minute scholarship and of patient industry.”—
Westminster Magazine.
“He has, in a rare degree, the true scientific temper, which knows
that far-reaching implications may be hidden in apparently trivial facts.
Indeed it may safely be said that, had he never established a single
conclusion, his investigations would, for their patient and unobtrusive
thoroughness, alone suffice to earn him an honourable name. This latest
book, the fourth part of the ‘ Diatessarica,’ is a case in point....... The real
value of the book, however, is not in the conclusion but in the way in
which the conclusion is supported....... Dr Abbott works out his argument
with great elaborateness and detail, and to follow it conscientiously is to
be amply repaid, whether one end in agreement or dissent. One of
Dr Abbott’s incidental remarks is too valuable to pass without reference :
‘We need,’ he says, ‘to become more, not less, anthropomorphic in our
thoughts about God, after the pattern of the best anthropomor phism of
= |
@
a
the prophets of Israel and the Son of God.’ Not many more useful
reminders could come to those who have the forming of modern
theology.”—Christian World.
“ Unwearied industry and remarkable ingenuity, a word which we use
honoris causa, distinguish this as they distinguish all Dr Abbott’s
work.” — Spectator.
“The criticism is marked by that singular nicety that marks Dr
Abbott’s work, particularly in an explanation of the intrusion of ‘Galilee’
into the Resurrection narratives.”—Pall Mall Gazette.
“We are struck once more by the ingenuity with which Dr Abbott
follows his theory of an Aramaic original, and finds in subsequent
misunderstandings of its text a reason for many of the divergences in the
canonical Gospels.......The conjectural character of a great deal of his
work is inevitable in such an unexplored field, but he is providing us with
a mass of new material for the literary study of the Gospels, especially in
the direction of accounting for discrepancies in parallel narratives.” —
Manchester Guardian.
“In fearless scientific criticism of the Gospels as documents,
Dr Abbott occupies a front place among modern scholars, but his
criticism is instinct with deep reverence, and always in his own happy
phrase ‘an attempt to reach through varying voices the abiding
word.’”—Literary World.
“We gladly confess that we have learned a great deal from the work
before us.” —fecord.
“It is characterized by the same extreme care and minuteness of
detail and thoroughness of scholarship which are found in preceding
volumes.”—Leeds Mercury.
“A scholarly work, worthy of Dr Abbott’s great reputation as a
Biblical critic.”—Oztlook.
“This is the fourth part of Dr Abbott’s great work, ‘ Diatessarica,’ and,
like its predecessors, ‘Clue’ and ‘From Letter to Spirit,’ is full of acute
criticism and painstaking inquiry. It is indeed monumental in its breadth
and thoroughness....... Novel as this interpretation is, no one has a right
to set it aside who does not study the contents of this learned, reverent,
and careful work.” —4aftist Magazine.
Part W
JOHANNINE VOCABULARY
A COMPARISON
OF THE WORDS OF THE FOURTH Ge@ser
WITH. GEIOSE. OF THE ARE
Demy 8v0. cloth. Price 135. 6d. net.
“This is likely to prove the most useful of the five volumes that
have now appeared in the series which Dr Abbott has called ‘ Diates-
sarica.’...Jt exhibits the marvellous industry which is so characteristic of
Dr Abbott’s work quite as much as any of the earlier volumes...the
accumulation of facts which it contains is likely to be of permanent
value to students of the language of the Gospels, and especially of the
Fourth Gospel.” —Guardian.
“The whole inquiry is a wonderful exhibition of patient and delicate
scholarship. Both beginners and experienced students may profit greatly
from Dr Abbott’s masterly treatment of verbal and grammatical szz2uZZae.
The handling of tenses is especially instructive....And as a storehouse of
facts laboriously collected from many sources and carefully marshalled
the work will be invaluable to students of the Fourth Gospel.”—Christian
World.
“The Synoptic variations, similarities, and peculiarities are admirably
set out above condensed and lucid notes. It is a book full of good things
on a question already full.”—Pall Mall Gazette.
“The reader, learned or unlearned in the technical sense, will find in
the book abundant matter to engross his attention and to stimulate
reflection. It is of the same high quality as Dr Abbott’s other works, a
minutely accurate, scholarly, and stimulating production—another volume
of a remarkable series.” — Aberdeen Free Press.
“No other work on Greek Testament synonymous words, especially
those in St John, so compietely brings to light their precise difference and
applies them to the clearer elucidation of the Gospel narrative, as this
volume, which throws much original light on obscure passages, and often
reconciles seeming difficulties in text and context and shows that in some
cases what appears to be mere tautology or redundance is in reality a
most important statement of either incident or doctrine.” —Academy.
“The present sympathetic and laborious study promises to be an
extremely valuable addition to the literature of the subject....The book
is an extremely suggestive study, and the temptation to see more in the
original than can fairly be taken out of it is, on the whole, wisely
restrained.”—Glasgow Herald.
“The plan, it will be seen, is thorough, and so is the execution ; yet
there is nothing abstruse, nothing beyond the comprehension of the
ordinary student of the New Testament. Almost every page of this
volume offers some fresh fact, suggestion, or discussion bearing on the
actual meaning of the evangelist, and there is none of that pedantic
philology which would confuse the real issues.” —Dundee Advertiser.
“Dr Abbott has rendered very real services to students of the Fourth
Gospel by this scholarly and laborious work....Sometimes he seems to us
to incline to draw large inferences from his own hypotheses, yet when
we turn again to these hypotheses they commend themselves to us, and
we feel that they have been reached by a very original and acute mind.
Dr Abbott has given us an invaluable guide to the interpretation of the
Fourth Gospel, a guide which some of us will very often consult.”—
Examiner.
“With confidence we recommend this book to all serious students
of the gospels....For English readers of the gospels it is, we believe, the
best piece of work that Dr Abbott has wrought.”—Lzterary World.
“Tt is a good deal—but not too much—to say that no one can
thoroughly understand the Fourth Gospel who has not studied the
material brought together by Dr E. A. Abbott in his ‘Johannine
Vocabulary.’ It is a masterpiece of minute, patient, and ingenious
scholarship.... Teachers and preachers especially will find it rich in raw
material for their work.”——-Great Thoughts.
“A substantial contribution to the knowledge of the greatest of
Christian writings.” —British Weekly.
“ A marvel of industry and scholarship, into which it is impossible to
enter in any adequate way within the limits of an ordinary review.”—
Record.
“ An exceedingly useful theological text-book.”—G/ode.
“Tt is all that the title indicates....But it is far more than that....The
consequence of such an investigation is that new, or at any rate clearer,
light is thrown on passage after passage....We hope we have said enough
to show our readers the value of this volume as a student’s book.”—
Church of England Pulpit and Ecclesiastical Review.
“The results which he brings out are very striking....The upshot of
the whole is in accord with the general tendency of recent criticism—to
put the Fourth Gospel on a higher plane of authority.”— Westminster
Gazette.
“The author brings out the exact meanings and subtle inflections of
the original in a very striking manner. The different shades of meaning
and the manner in which such important words as believing, authority &c.
are exemplified, makes the work one of great value to the Bible
student.”—Lock.
“The notes are packed with painstaking scholarship....And the whole
evidence is surveyed in a masterly manner at the end.”—L£xfository
Times.
“The vocabularies, with their exhaustive apparatus of notes, represent
a large amount of patient linguistic research....But it is only when we
approach the question of the right method of interpreting the Gospel
as a whole, particularly in its literary relations to the other three, that
the real value of all this critical spadework can be made apparent. We
hope that Dr Abbott’s scrupulous scholarship will allow him before long
to attack this work of constructive interpretation.” Manchester Guardian.
“His discussion of Johannine synonyms, e.g. the words for ‘seeing,’
‘hearing, ‘knowing,’ ‘coming, and other simple but fruitful ideas, is
most illuminating. Microscopic, it may no doubt be styled: but if
examination under a lens of high power reveals new beauties in the
structure of an organism, microscopic investigation proves both in-
structive and fruitful. We are inclined to say that this volume was
well worth publishing were it only for the complete account it contains of
the Johannine key-word ‘believing.’... These minute linguistic inquiries
may at first sight appear to be meticulous and useless. But it is only
by slow patient underground work of this kind that such subtle points
as the relation between the several lines of tradition concerning Christ
can be determined. And where the subject is so sacred and vital and
the end so important, time and trouble should not be begrudged.
Dr Abbott spares neither. He deserves the thanks of all careful and
earnest New Testament students for the work he is carrying through
with such patience and perseverance. Those who cannot accept all his
conclusions must admire his learning and his zeal, and they cannot help
receiving profit from his company and guidance.”—London Quarterly
Review.
“The present volume is full of valuable material....We do not know
of any investigation into the vocabulary of the Fourth Gospel so minute
and thorough as this. The labour expended in producing it deserves the
warmest recognition, and we shall look forward with great interest to the
publication on the Johannin mnar.”—Primitive Methodist Quarterly
Review.
co BRAR —
OF THE
UNIVERSITY
i
CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS,
my
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY,
BERKELEY
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE
* STAMPED BELOW
Books not returned on time are subject to a fine of
50c per volume after the third day overdue, increasing
to $1.00 per volume after the sixth day. Books not in
demand may be renewed if application is made before
expiration of loan period.
AUG 0 6 2000
MAR 2 1 2005
REC CIR MAR
10m-12,'23
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11