Skip to main content

Full text of "Johannine grammar"

See other formats

l j eIbrary p 




CLUE : A Guide through Greek to Hebrew 
Scripture (Diatessarica — Part I). 

Demy Svo, Cloth, Price 75. 6d. net. 

THE CORRECTIONS OF MARK (Diatessarica— Part II). 
Demy Svo, Cloth, Price 1 5.J. net. 

FROM LETTER TO SPIRIT (Diatessarica— Part III). 
Demy Svo, Cloth, Price 20s. net. 

PARADOSIS (Diatessarica— Part IV). 
Demy Svo, Cloth, Price ■js. 61I. net. 

JOHANNINE VOCABULARY (Diatessarica— Part V). 
Demy Svo, Cloth, Price i$s. 6d. net. 

See pp. 688 foil, of this volume. 



66 In in A\ km 1 . New \'<>uk 



Edwin A. Abbott 

" He settled HotFs business — let it be ! 
Properly based Oun." 

Browning, A Grammarians Funeral. 





Adam and Charles Black 


.' 1 f . 

•2 s I* 

Cambntjgc : 











IT was said in the first half of this work, Johannine 
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 1 . For 
example, what Browning calls Hoti on my title-page may 
mean "that" or "because." Browning extols his Grammarian 
: — alas ! an ideal — who " settled Hotts 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 "that" 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 fuhiess 

we all received the only begotten Son, which is 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- 


gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believelh in him 
should not perisli, 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 : 
hi. 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 ") W T estcott 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)." 



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 evangelistic explanation) is the following grammatical 
argument. There are two words, on and yap, used by John 1 
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. 



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 — 150 A. I), 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 the phrase had no 
other meaning in the Greek language. 1 have subsequently 


discovered that Origen thrice assumes this to be the meaning 
(" inclinasse 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 lie 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 



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 \V. Rhys 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 


Wells idf 


20 Dec. 1 905 

See Huh' on p. xxvii. 



References and Abbreviations . . xxv— xxvii 

§ i The scope of the proposed work (1886 — 7) 

§ 2 The arrangement and proportions of the work (1888 — 93) 


General warning as to use of Index (1894*) 


(i) Used predicatively (1894) 
(ii) Special 

(a) Movos (1895, 2664) 

(j8) npwros (1896—1901, 2665—7) 


(i) Intensive (1902) 

(ii) Special 

(a) "Ava6ev (1903—8) 

(0) "Apn, see vvv (1915 (i)) 

(y) 'Eyyis (1909) 

(8) EM«ur and ev6Cs (1910—15) 

(e) Nvv and apn (1915 (i)— (vi)) 

(0 Ourcos (1916—7) 

(17) Happrjaia (1917 (i) — (vi)) 

(6) Td X eiov (1918) 

A. vi. xiii b 



(i) Generally (1919) 

(ii) The Subject suspended (1920—2) 

(iii) Digression (1923—4) 

(iv) Impressionism (1925 — 7) 

AoRlST, see Index 

APODOSIS, see Index 

(i) With proper names (1928) 

(ii) In subdivisions (1929—30) 

(iii) Explaining, or defining (not with Participle) (1931 — 6) 

(iv) With Participle T937— 45) 

(v) Noun repeated in Apposition (1946) 

(vi) Of Pronoun with preceding Subject (1947) 

Article (see also 2669—74) 

(i) Before Nouns in general (1948) 
(ii) Inserted, or omitted, before special Nouns 
(a) Fathers (1949—50) 
(0) Feast (1951) 
(y) Heaven (1952—8) 
(S) Man (1959—61) 
(e) Mountain (1962—3) 
(0 Only begotten (1964) 
(17) Prophet (1965) 
(8) " Teacher [of I srael] !! (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) 


(i) Johannine use of (1996—9) 

(ii) Classification of references (2000 — 8) 




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) 'Aicouo) (2015) 

(j8) Teiofiai (2016—8) 

(y) UpoaKVi>(u> (2019) 

II Dative 

(i) Of instrument (2020) 

(ii) Of time (completion) (2021—4) 

(iii) Of point of time (2025-6) 

(iv) With -napa (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 npaiTos and Trpcorov (2044) 

(£) Tifcpidbos (2045) 

(y) 'H 8ia(nropa tS>v 'EAAi/i'coi' (2046) 

(8) Ta j3aia tcov (poiviKcov (2047) 

(e) UapaaKevr] tov Tvacr\a (2048) 

IV Nominative 

(i) Special passage 

(a) 'O Kvpuk pov (2049—51) 

V Vocative (see also 2679—82) 
(i) Special passages 

(a) Uar^p (2052—3) 

Conjunctions (1894*) : for a.v, lav, orav, '6t€, see Index 

(i) Johannine use of (2054) 

(ii) 'AXXd 

(a) 'AXXd = contrariety, "not this but that, or, something 
more" (2055—7) 

xv b 2 


03) 'AXXfl = difference, " nevertheless " (2058—9) 
(y) Special passages (2060—2) 
(8) 'AXX' in (2063—4) 

(iii) Tip 

(a) Synoptic and Johannine use (2065 — 6 
(/3) Special passages (2067 — 8) 

(iv) A€ 

(a) Consecutive or adversative f2069 — 73) 

(/3) Third word, or later, in its clause (2074—6 

(y) Mo/...8e(2077) 

(v) El 

(a) Ei, corresponding to av, in Words of the Lord (2078 — 9, 
(j8) Et 8e m (2080—6) 

(vi) 'Eirei 

(a) 'E7T6i Trapaa-Ktvi) rji> (2087 — 8) 

(vii) "Ecus 

(a) Not confused with cos- (2089) 

(viii) "H and r\-ntp 

(a) "H (2090-1) 
(0) "H7T6P (2092) 

(ix) "Iva (see also 2686—90) 

(a) In John, expresses, or implies, purpose (2093) 

(0) In John, never merely appositional (2094 — 6) 

(y) Special passages (2097—2103) 

(8) "iva and Subjunctive, compared with Infinitive (2104 1 

(«) Omission of principal verb before Iva (2105 — 12) 

(f) Dependent on verb implied in question (2113; 

(77) With Indicative (2114) 

(6) Connexion of (2115) 

(0 "lva...iva (2116— 21) 

(x) KaOois 

(a) Suspensive (2122) 

(0) Followed by Kai or K«yd> in Apodosis (2123 — 7) 

(y) Supplementary (2128—32 1 

(xi) KaC 

(a) Km in narrative (Hebraic) (2133—4) 

(0) Km connecting affirmation and negation (2135) 

(y) Km = " and yet " (2136—40) 



(8) Special instances of kcii = u and yet " (2141 — 5) 

(«) Km introducing an exclamation (2146) 

(f ) Km meaning " also " (2147) 

(77) Km' in Apodosis, after a, el, icadws etc. in Protasis (2148) 

(6) Km fyi«s (2149) 

(t) Km in Crasis (2150) 

((C) KllKt'lVOS (2151) 

(X) Km " also," connexion of (2152—3) 

(/*) Km " also " in viii. 25 (2154—6) 

(0 Km meaning " [indeed] and " (2157) 

(|) Kai iav (2158—9) 

(o) K&v (2160) 

(*■) Km... Km, "both... and" (2161—6) 

(p) Kal yap (2167) 

(a-) Km' omitted between two adjectives (2168) 

(xii) M«v, |x«vToi (2169—70) 

(xiii) "Ottov (2171—2) 

(xiv) "Oirws (2173) 

(xv) "On (see also 2694-5) 

(a) "On (1) suspensive, (2) explanatory (2174—7) 

(0) "On introducing (1) cause of action, (2) ground of 

statement (2178—80) 

(y) "On (?) " that " or " because " (2181—6) 

(8) "On p ) (2187) 

(e) Ov X on (2188) 

(0 "Or< recitativum (2189—90) 

(xvi) Ovv 

(a) In Christ's words (2191—7) 

(0) Applied to Christ's acts (2198—2200) 

(xvii) 'fis 

(a) '<fc(?) for eas (2201) 

(/3) 'fly "as it were" (2202) 

(xviii) "ft™ (2203, 2697) 


(i) Of two kinds (2204) 
(ii) Contextual (2205—9) 

(a) 'E«i> oui* 6((x>prjT( (2210 — 2) 



(iii) Idiomatic 

(a) Ellipsis of " some " (2213—5) 

(fl) Ellipsis (?) of " gate " (2216) 

(y) Ellipsis of " daughter " (or " wife " ?) (2217; 

(8) 'AAA' Iva, see 2063—4 and 2105—12 

(«) Oi x Sti (2218—9) 

(0 Ellipsis after " I am " (2220—8) 

(i?) Ellipsis of cWt (2229—30) 

Imperative, see Index 

Infinitive, see Index 

Interrogative Sentences 

(i) Interrogative particles (2231) 

(a) Or rf (2232) 

(j8) ObKoiv (2233—4) 

(y) Mij (2235) 
(ii) Interrogative tone (2236—47) 
(iii) Questions without interrogative particle (2248) 
(iv) Indirect interrogative (2249 — 51) 


(i) Imperative, Indicative, Infinitive, and Subjunctive, see Index 
(ii) Optative (2252) 

Negative Particles 

(i) M^j (2253—4) 

(ii) Ov (i-q with Future and Subjunctive (2255) 

(iii) El ov (2256) 

(iv) Ov...ov8ek (2257) 

(v) Ovt«..W (2258—9) 

(vi) Ov (or |xt() combined with was (2260 — 3) 

(vii) Ov v.r. oWa) (2264—5) 

(viii) Ov X <(2265(i)) 


(i) Plural referring to preceding Singular (2266) 
(ii) Plural Neuter with Plural Verb (2267) 
(iii) Special words 
(a) Ae/tara f2268 -9) 
(j8) 'i/xaVta (2270) 



Participle (1894*) 

(i) Causal (2271—3) 

(ii) Tenses of (see also Tense 2499—2510) 

(a) Tv(pUs &v (2274) 

(/3) 'O u>v iv tg> ovpava (2275) 

(y) 'H tKfidtjacra (2276) 

(iii) Present with r> (2277) 

(iv) Agreement of (2278) 

(v) Prefatory use of (2279) 

Prepositions (for o-vv see 2799 (ii)) 
Introductory Note (2280) 

(i) 'Avci (2281—3) 

(ii) 'Avri (2284—7) 

(iii) 'Am5 

(a) 'Afl-o and e< meaning "[some] of," see 2213 — 5 

(0) 'Atto, transposition of (2288) 

(y) 'Atto and e\ describing domicile or birthplace (2289 — 93) 

(8) 'A7ro, in, and napd, with e£(, see 2326 — 8 

(iv) Aid (see also 2705, 2715) 

(i) Aiti with Accusative of Person (2294—2300) 
(2) Aui with Genitive of Person (2301—4) 

(v) Els (see also 2706 foil.) 

(a) For TTia-rcuew eir, see 1480 foil. 

(|3) Eis without verb of motion (2305 — 9) 

(y) Ei's, " to " or " into " (2310—11) 

(8) Eis fatjv almviov (2312 — 6) 

(e) "O^ovrm els (2317—8) 

(f) Eis reAos (2319—23) 

(vi) 'Ek 

(a) 'Ek meaning " some of," see 2213 — 5 

(0) 'Ek meaning " native of," as distinguished from drro 

"coming from," or "resident in," see 2289 — 93 

(y) 'Ek fiirpov (2324) 

(8) 'Ek with (rco^o) and rr/pe'co (2325) 

(e) 'Ek, dno, and irapd, with etjtpxopai (2326 — 8) 

(£) 'Ek with irXrjpooi and ye/xi£ co (2329) 

(vii) "E^-irpoo-ecv (2330) 



(viii) 'Ev 

(a) 'Ev used metaphorically, e.g. " abide in," see 1881 

03) 'Ev used temporally (2331) 

(y) 'Ev quasi-instrumental (2332) 

(8) 'Ev used locally, iv tu ya£o<f)v\aKia> (2333 — 4) 
(ix) 'Evwiriov (2335) 
(x) 'Eiri 

(i) 'Eni with Accusative (2336) 

(2) 'Eiri with Dative (2337—9) 

(3) 'Errl with Genitive 

(a) 'Eirl t?is e a \a(T(rr,s (2340—6) 
(/3) 'Ent tov araupov (2347) 

(xi) Kara (2348) 

(xii) MtTd 

(a) Mera 'lovBalov (2349—50) 
((3) Ot /xer' avrov ovra (2351) 
(y) Mera compared with rrapd (2352 — 3) 

(xiii) Ilapa 

(1) Ilapa with Accusative (2354) 

(2) Ilapa with Dative 

(a) Ilapa with Dative and perd with Genitive, see 2352 — 3 
O) Synoptic and Johannine use (2355) 

(3) Ilapa with Genitive (2356) 

(4) Ilapa with Genitive and with Dative interchanged 


(xiv) n« P C (2360) 

(xv) n P 6 

(a) npo e'poG (2361—2) 

(0) npo transposed, see 2288 

(xvi) IIpos 

(1) npdy with Accusative, with verb of rest (2363 — 6) 

(2) Ilpdy repeated after verb of motion (2367) 

(3) npo? with Dative (2368) 

(xvii) 'Yir^p (2369—71, see also 2718—22) 
(xviii) 'Yir6 and (htokcL™ (2372) 

(1) 'Ytto with Accusative (2372) 

(2) 'Ytto with Genitive (2373) 




I Demonstrative 

(i) Avros (2374—80, see also 2723—7) 
(ii) 'EKtivos (2381—5, see also 2729—32) 
(iii) Ovtos(2386) 

(a) Am tovto (2387—91) 

(j8) 'Ev roirco (2392—3) 

(■y) Mera tovto or tcivtci (2394) 

(8) Avroi) omitted and raCra repeated (2395 — 7) 
(iv) Toiovtos (2398) 

II Personal 

(i) Insertion for emphasis (2399—2400) 
(ii) 'EyA (2401) 
(iii) 2{, (2402—4) 

III Relative 
(i) "Os 

(a) Attraction of the Relative (2405—7) 

(j8) 'Ev rw ovo^iaTi aov w 8(8a>Kcis /xoi (2408 — 11) 
(y) '~Evto\i]v Kaivr)v...o (2412) 

(ii) "Oo-ns (2413) 

(a) "Oo-tls av, or iav (2414—6) 


(i) Collective or noun group (2417 — 8) 
(ii) Neuter plural (2419—20) 
(iii) Suspended (2421) 

(a) Tlav 6 Se'Sw/caf (2422, 2740—4) 
(iv) Omitted in partitive clauses (2423) 
(v) "They" non-pronominal (2424—6) 
(vi) " We " non-pronominal (2427—8) 

(a) " We know (ot8a/xn/) " (2429—35) 


Tense-rules and word-rules (2436) 

I In the Imperative Mood 
Aorist (first) and Present (2437—9 (v)) 



II In the Indicative Mood 

(i) Aorist (see also 2747—55 and 2785—90) 
(i) Aorist compared with Perfect (2440 — 9) 

(2) Aorist of special verbs 
(a) 'Akovw (2450—2) 
(0) 'AjtootAXgi (2453) 
(y) At'Sw/xi (2454—5) 

(8) Elrrov (2456) 

(e) "Ep^o/iai and i^ip^ofiai (2457) 

(0 Mevco (2458) 

(3) Aorist for English Pluperfect (2459—62) 

(ii) Future, see 2484 foil, and 2255 

(iii) Imperfect 

(1) The Imperfect in general (2463 — 6 (i)) 
(a) "EXeyoy (2467—70) 
(/3) "HdeXov (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 Mood 

(i) Infinitive compared with Iva and Subjunctive (2495 1 
(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 Mood 
(i) Aorist and Present (2511) 

(o) In Deliberative Subjunctive (2512) 
(j8) With tdv (or &v) " if" (2513—5 (i)) 
(y) With Sv and Relative (2516) 



(5) "Av Tivav KpcniJTe (2517—20) 
(e) With ihp m (2521—3) 

(0 With Iva (2524—9) 

(77) "Iva fiij awoBvi-ja-Ki] (vi. 50, in Codex B) (2530) 

(6) With orai. (2531-5) 


(i) Middle 

(a) Alrovpai (2536) 

03) 'ArroKpivaaBai (2537) 

(ii) Passive 

(a) 'Efcpv/37; (2538—43) 






§ 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) 


§ 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 (2601—2) 



§ 8 Twofold repetition in Christ's words (2603—6) 

§ 9 Twofold repetition in narrative (2607) 

§ io Twofold or threefold repetition (2608 — 11) 

§ 1 1 Threefold repetition (2612—23) 

§ 12 Sevenfold repetition (2624 — 7) 



§ i Self-corrections (2628—30) 

§ 2 Parentheses (2631—5 (ii)) 

§ 3 Instances of doubtful connexion (2636 — 40) 



§ i 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) 



§ 1—2 Introductory Remarks ; Tischendorf and the Photograph 
(2650—3), § 3 List of Readings (2654—62), Pause-spaces 

For summary of Contents, see pp. 506 — 7 


To Johannine Vocabulary, (i) N.T. Passages, (ii) English, (iii) Greek, 

pp. 625— 51 
To Johannine Grammar, (i) N.T. Passages, (ii) English, (iii) Greek, 

pp. 652—87 




(i) Black Arabic numbers refer to paragraphs in this volume (1886 — 
2799) or in preceding volumes of Diatessarica : — 

1— 272 =Clue. 

273 — 552 = Corrections. 
553— 1149= From Letter to Spirit. 
1150— 1435 = Paradosis. 

1436 — 1885 —Johannine Vocabulary. 

(ii) 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 the writer, 
whoever he may be, of the words in question, and not as 
meaning that the actual writer was Samuel, Isaiah, or Matthew. 

(iii) The principal Greek MSS. are denoted by N, A, B, etc. ; the Latin 
versions by a, b, etc., as usual. The Syriac version discovered by 
Mrs Lewis on Mount Sinai is referred to as SS, i.e. " 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. 

(iv) The text of the Greek Old Testament adopted is that of B, edited 
by Professor Swete 1 ; of the New, that of Westcott and Hort. 

(v) Modern works are referred to by the name of the work, or author, 
vol., and page, e.g. Levy iii. 343 a, i.e. vol. iii. p. 343, col. 1. 


Aq. = Aquila's version of O.T. 
Apol. = Justin Martyr's First Apology. 
Blass, see Addendum on p. xxvii. 
Buhl = BuhPs edition of Gesenius, Leipzig, 1899. 

Burk. = Mr F. C. Burkitt's Evangelion Da-meftharreshe, Cambridge 
University Press, 1904. 

1 Codex B, though more ancient than Codex A, is often less close to the 
Hebrew than the latter {Clue 33)- 



C. before numbers = circa, "about" {e.g. c. 10). 

Canon. LXX = lhe canonical books of LXX. 

Chr. = Chronicles. 

Chri. = ///*' 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; Aram. G.= 
Grammatik Aramaisch, 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 

Diatess. = the Arabic Diatessaron, sometimes called Tatian's, trans- 
lated by Rev. H. W. Hogg, B.D., in the Ante-Nicene Christian Library. 

Ency. = Encyclopaedia 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, a l so 
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 II = severally the Targum of "Jonathan Ben 
Uzziel" and the fragments of the Jerusalem Targum on the Pentateuch. 

K. = Kings. 

Levy = Levy's Neuhebriiischcs und Chalddisches Worterbuch, 4 vols., 
Leipzig, 1889; Levy Ch. =Chalddisches Worterbuch, 1 vols., 1881. 

L.S. = Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon. 

Narr. = in narrative, as distinct from {a) speech of Christ, (b) 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. Cone. = The Oxford Concordance to the Septuagint. 

Papyri are indicated by Pap. [from the] Berlin [Museum] ; and Pap. 
[of the] Egypt [Exploration Society], vols, i — vi, viz. 6>.vy[rynchus] i — iv, 
Fayum v, 71V;/[unis] vi. 

Pec, affixed to Mt., Lk., etc., means peculiar to Matthew, Luke, etc. 

I'hilo is referred to by Mangey's volume and page, e.g. Philo ii. 234, 
or, as to the Latin treatises, by Auchers pages (P. A.) (see 1608). 

Resell = Resch's Parol leltcxtc (4 vols.). 

S. = Samuel ; s. = "see." 

Schottg. - Schottgen's Horae Hebraicae, Dresden and Leipzig, 1733. 



Sir. = the work of Ben Sira, i.e. the son of Sira. It is commonly called 
Ecclesiasticus (see 20a). 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 Septnagint. 

Tryph. = the Dialogue between Justin Martyr and Trypho the Jew. 

Wetst. = Wetstein's Comm. on the New Testament, Amsterdam, 1 75 1. 

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., 
e.g. dydnrj Mk (o), 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. 


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. 



§ i. The scope of the proposed work 

[1886] Obscurity of style in an inflected language is caused 
by ambiguity (i) in words 2 , (2) in inflexions of words 3 , (3) in 
combinations of words 4 . The First Part of this work, Johannine 
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. xxv foil. This is the sixth part of the series 
entitled Diatessarica. The fifth part of the series ("Johannine Vocabu- 
lary") terminated with subsection 1885. 

2 E.g. "apprehend" (1443, 17356' — g) may mean "understand" or 
" take prisoner." 

3 " Inflexions" include those of all parts of speech. 

4 "Combinations" include those in phrases, in clauses, in sentences, 
and in paragraphs (or sections). 

A. VI. I I 


| I. The scope of the proposed ivork 

[1886] Obscurity of style in an inflected language is caused 
by ambiguity (i) in words 2 , (2) in inflexions of words 3 , (3) in 
combinations of words 4 . The First Part of this work, Johannine 
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. xxv foil. This is the sixth part of the series 
entitled Diatessarica. The fifth part of the series ("Johannine Vocabu- 
lary") terminated with subsection 1885. 

2 E.g. "apprehend" (1443, 1735 e—g) may mean "understand" or 
" take prisoner." 

3 " Inflexions" include those of all parts of speech. 

4 " Combinations " include those in phrases, in clauses, in sentences, 
and in paragraphs (or sections). 

A. VI. I I 


[1887] In Johannine 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 1 . 

§ 2. The arrangement and proportions of tJic 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" (i.e. want 

1 Sec Johannine Vocabulary, Prof. p. ix. 



of grammatical sequence) space will be given to the discussion 
of several difficult passages ; and " Asyndeton " — i.e. 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 foil.) 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 Trio-revere in xiv. I rendered by R.V. " Ye 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 1 ." 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 avd, although 
it occurs in only one Johannine passage, ii. 6 " two or three 
firkins apiece" and dvrl, 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 1—2 


" 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 
I AM. 

[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 — although distinguishable on close examination — ap- 
pear to have been confused by some able critics with words of 



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, 1927 c) 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 on may mean " that " or " because," 
and where Kadd><$ 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 k now definitely (yvcare) and that 
ye may continue in the ever growing knowledge (yivcoo-Krjre) 
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 : 


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. 






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. 18109, iro\v<s i TrpofiaTLKrj), 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. 


(i) Used predicatively 

[1894] The adjective is used predicatively in iv. 18 tovto d\r]6ls 
€tpr/K-a?, which is quite different from tovto d\r)@<Zs elpr]Ka<;. The 
latter might have meant (1) " Truly, i.e. in truth, thou hast said 
this," or (2) "Thou hast said this truly, i.e. with truth.'''' But the 
former means " This, at all events, among all that thou hast said, is 


true"— implying that hitherto the woman has talked in a reckless 
and trifling way 1 . 

(ii) Special 

(a) Monoc 

[1895] Mdvos 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] (rrjv So^av ttjv irapa too) fxovov [#eoi)]) ye seek 
not ! " ®euv is here omitted not only by B but also by a ("gloriam 
ab unico non quaeritis ") and b ("honorem ejus qui 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 3 . But it occurs also in Origen 4 , 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 5 . The Greek "only" 
is used (as in Shakespeare, "the only man of Italy ") to mean 
"unique" — more than merely "first." In N.T. "only" is connected 
with ascriptions of glory 7 . Horace speaks of Jupiter as having "no 
like or second" although Pallas occupies "the place next in honour 8 ." 
Aristotle says that the heaven is "one and alone and perfect 9 ." But 

1 [1894 «] R.V. ("this hast thou said truly") is ambiguous, and might agree 
with X 1), f, a\r)6u>s "thou hast indeed (or, in truth) said." Comp. Demosth. 
(Teubn. p. 87) tovt6 ye dXrjdes (but better MSS. dXrjdi]) Xeyov<Tu>. Such a predica- 
tive use is prob. without another parall. in N.T. 

[1894/-*] In xiii. 34 ivToXrjv Kaivrjv 5lowfj.i vyuv iva. ayairare dXX^Xoi's — Ka^ws 
■qydirrjcra iifids, 'iva ko.l iifxeh dyairdre dXXrjXovs, the adj. "new" is not predicative. 
The meaning is, " I give you a new 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 "Not 
a new commandment do I write to you on the other hand (7rdXti<) a new com- 
mandment do I write to you — which [paradox] (0) is true in him and in you," i.e. it 
is " old " yet made " new " in Christ and in His newborn disciples. 

- [1895 a] The Lat. / 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 (Ik order as in d (" gloriam ab unico deo ") and e ("gloriam a solo do "). 

'■'■ [1895 /'J See 2650: OT might be omitted coming between the OT of fxivov 
and that of Oi). 

4 Orig. Huet i. 392, and see 2664. B 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 /xdvos ko.1 TrpQros tuiv 8ta\eKTiKu>i>, and is rebuked for being 
illogical. " Rom. xvi. 27, 1 Tim. i. 17, Jude 25, Rev. xv. 4. 

8 Odes, 1. xii. 19 — 20. 9 De Cacl. i. 9. 8. 



no passage is alleged in the Thesaurus where Greeks call God 6 /xoVos: 
and such a use, if it existed, must have been rare among the Jews 1 . 
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 the 
Alone should be alone 2 ,'' meaning the Only God. On the whole, it 
seems fairly probable that, when speaking about "glory" and its 
source, the evangelist used 6 MdVos — with allusion to the connexion 
of the word with "glory" both in Hebrew and Greek — to mean 
briefly " He that is alone glorious " i.e. " He from whom alone all 
glory comes." 

(/3) TTpooToc 

[1896] ITpojTos 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 (epurpoaOev /xov) ; for he was before me (on 
7r/owTos fiov rjv) " and i. 30 (R.V.) "After me cometh a man which is 
become before me ; for he was before me " (R.V. marg. in both 
verses "first in regard of me "). It is rendered by the conjunction 
"before," supplying a verb, in (b) xv. 18 (R.V.) " If the world hateth 
you, ye know that it hath hated me before [it haled] you (irpuTov 


[1897] To deal first with (a). Stephen's Thesaurus quotes from 
Aelian 3 "those who have investigated these things before me (ol -n-pwroL 
p.ov TavTCL avi^veucrai'res)." But 7rpajro's tlvos e7rot^cra ti is different 
from 7rpwT09 rtvos rjv. More to the point is 7rpcoi-os wv in the 
Scholiast's Preface to the Phoenissae of Euripides quoted in the 
Thesaurus thus : " Eteocles, as though he 7ve re first [in regard] of his 
brother (are TrpGno% wv tov dSeXcpov)," given by Dindorf (presumably 
correcting the text) as t<2v d8e\<pm>. Another Scholiast explains 
{Hecuba 458) " firstborn palm (7rpwTo'yovos re cpohn£) " by saying 
"created first [in regard] of the bay-tree (ttp<Ztov yewrjdivra rrj? 
8d<f>vr)<;)." Origen seems to take 7rpwros p.ov as parallel to, and 

1 [1895 (/] Levy ii. 234 £ quotes Genes. Rab., on Gen. iii. 22 "one of us," 
explained as "like the Only One of the universe," and Levy Cliald. i. 331 b 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 Aia rl rbv avOpuiwov, ci jrpo^^ra, ouk Zari koKov elvai p.ovov ; "On, 
(f>rt<rl, ko\6v eari rbv fxovov elvat. fidvor. Moj'oj 5^, Kal ko.6' avrbv, eh u>v, 6 deds, 
ovdeu 5e 6/j.olov dei^i. 

3 [1897a] Ael. N. A. viii. 12. Steph. also quotes Plut. Vit. Cat. Min. % 18 
oiire irpCirbs tis avefii].. .Karuivos otire varepos airrfKde : but he thinks irporepos 
should be restored here, and he expresses doubt about the quotation from Aelian. 



included in, tt/dwtotokos irdcr-q'i ktictcws 1 , i.e. "firstborn [brother] of 
all creation," so that -n-pwro-; fiov would mean " firstborn [brother] of 
me," i.e. " my eldest brother." His words are : " The Baptist teaches 
[us] how Jesus ' is become before him [by] being first [in regard] of 
him (wv TrpuJTos avrov)' since He was the firstborn (ttpcjto'tokos) of every 
creature 2 "; and the same view is suggested by irapd (implying the 
metaphor of a household) in the following words, " I understand 
that He was first [born in respect] of me and more honourable in 
the house of the Father (irapa. tw IlaTpi)." Chrysostom, without using 
the word "firstborn," argues that the words must refer to precedence 
in point of time 3 — 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 (i) 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 [1897 ^5] Col. i. 15 irpwroTOKOs Trdinjs Kricreuis, comp. the genitive in Rev. 
i. 5 ttpwt6tokos tQiv veKpuiv, and see Col. i. 18 i] dpxv, wputotokos eK tCov veupCcv, 
Gen. xlix. 3 irpwroTOKos fiov, crv layis fxov kclI dpxv t£kvo3v p.ov, Rom. viii. 29 eh to 
dvai avrov TrpwroroKov tv iroWoh doe\<pois, Col. i. 18 'iva yevrjrai. iv iracnv avrbs 
wpwrevuv, and 2 S. xix. 43 irpwroTOKos eyu rj av (LXX error). These passages shew- 
that wpurbroKos, suggesting supremacy among brethren, might be replaced by 
Trpurevuu, or irpGiros, if one wished to say "my firstborn [brother]," because "my 
firstborn" would naturally be taken to mean " my firstborn [son]." The phrase 
"my elder [brother]," TrpecT^vTepds fxov, would convey none of the old associations 
of the blessing and supremacy belonging to the Firstborn. 

2 Orig. Iluet ii. 99. 

8 [1897c] "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 ' | i.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]," 0i'5£ yap Ik 
Tiros, (t>T}<rl, TrpoKowrjs trp&Tbv p.e ovra. dnta-cj pttpas Zp.irpo<T6tv yiyovtv, dWd llpwrds 
fjiov tjv, d xal vurepos irapayherai. He explains lfxirpo<r$(v as Xaffrrpdrepos, 
IvTiixbrfpos. On ffov TrpQirbs dp.i in the I.eyden Papyri, see 2667. 



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 1 , instead of u first in regard of me," have 
"mightier than I." This suggests that some word capable of 
meaning " firstborn " might also be interpreted as " superior to," 
"stronger than 2 ." The Hebrew Rab, the root of "Rabbi," 
" Teacher," is capable of the two meanings (1897 b). The Baptist 
may have said, in effect, "Jesus of Nazareth numbers Himself 
among my disciples, but He was from the first my Teacher, or Rab." 
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 Rab (420) to mean 
"firstborn," alluding to the supremacy of Jacob preordained in the 
words " the elder shall serve the younger 3 ." But Rab is also used for 
"mighty" in Messianic passages such as "mighty to save" and 
" a portion with the mighty*." 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 7rpajTo's fiov means something more than 
Iacl&v /xov. Probably the writer had in view the Johannine 
traditions " I am the First and the Last 5 ." 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 

1 Mk i. 7, Mt. iii. n, Lk. iii. 16. 

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," irpwroroKos 
eyw rj cru. But the Hebrew word there erroneously read by the LXX never means 

3 Gen. xxv. 23. 4 Is. lxiii. 1, liii. 12. 
5 Rev. i. 17, xxii. 13. 



" He was, from the beginning, my First? i.e. the Firstborn of God, 
the object of my worship. 

[1901] We come now to the use of 7rpwrov with the genitive in 
(b), xv. iS "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 -n-pwrov 
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 irpQrov as an adjective 
("priorem 1 )." 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 2 ." He was not to be alone. He was to be 
" the firstborn among many brethren 3 ." The whole Church was to 
be "the Church of the firstborn 4 ," and He Himself was to be the 
First of the firstborn, the " first-fruits of them that had fallen asleep 5 ." 
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 6 . Being now destined to become younger brothers of the 
Firstborn, they must expect to share the Elder Brother's sufferings : 
" If the world now hateth you, adopted brethren of the Family 
of God, remember that it hath hated me — the First[boru] of you 
[a//]'." Possibly the evangelist wishes not so much to say this as to 

1 [1901 a] " You" is om. by a ("me prius odiit ") and e ("me primo odiit ") 
and also by D (d has "me primum odiuit ") ; b and ff have "me priorem odio 
habuit,"_/and Vulg. " me priorem vobis odio habuit." See 2665 foil. 

2 Rev. i. 5, quoting Ps. lxxxix. 27, where David is declared •'firstborn." 

3 Rom. viii. 29. 4 Heb. xii. 23. 
5 1 Cor. xv. 20. 6 Jn xv. 15. 

"' [1901 />] In i. 41 euplcTKei ovtos wpurov top adeXcpbv rov idioi> ~i(iuva, several 
authorities have irpwros : /'and e have "mane," apparently having read irpui. 
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 
upposed (1720/) that the meaning is, "Andrew first found his own brother [before 
Andrew's companion John the son of Zebedee found his own brother James the 
son of Zebedee]." But there may be also some allusion to ancient traditions in 
which trpuiTov ili/iwa, or (as in Mt. x. 2) irpuiros —ifj.u>i>, occurred at the head of 
a list of the Apostles. If wpuiros were read above, it would lay rather more stress 
on the fact that Andrew was the fir 1 Christian disciple that made a convert. 


ADVERBS [1903] 

suggest this, by expressing the phrase " before you " in a manner that 
would convey more than one meaning. See also 2665 — 7. 


(i) Intensive 

[1902] The adverbs Xiav, Trepurcrws etc. are rarely used by John, 
who differs greatly in this respect from Mark and Matthew, and 
slightly from Luke 1 . When John wishes to emphasize an adverb or 
adverbial phrase he gives it an unusual place, e.g. at the beginning of 
the sentence, xvi. 31 "Apri iruTTtveTt, xii. 27 NCi/ r/ ij/vXV f xov TCTa'puKTou, 
xvi. 30 iv tovtu) TTLcrTevofxev, vii. 14 77817 Se rrj<; i. /xeo-oucrris, vii. 37 cv Se 
rfi layanj 77/xe'pa . . . , xiii. I 7rpo 8i tt/; eoprrys r. Trdcr^a, xvi. 22 TraAtv Se 
oi//opat vpas 2 . See 2636 r and 2668. On d/ify dfjLtjv see 2611 a. 

(ii) Special 
(a) "AnooBcn 

[1903] The most important adverb in the Fourth Gospel is avi»6a; 
as used in iii. 3 — 7 (R.V. marg.) "Except a man be born from above 
(avwOev) 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 born ? " Chrysostom 
says that our Lord here speaks obscurely in order to lead Nicodemus 
on to further question ; and he adds, ""Aru>0eu here means, some say 
'■from the heaven,' others 'from the beginning 2 .'" The following facts 
indicate that our Lord is intended by the evangelist to mean "from 

1 [1902 a] Aiav occurs Mk (4), Mt. (4), Lk. (1), Jn (o) : atp65pa, Mk (1), 
Mt. (7), Lk. (1), Jn (o): TrepiaaQs, Mk (2), Mt. (1), Lk. (o), Jn (o). Mk has 
adverbial forms of 7roXi^s more freq. than Mt. Lk. Jn taken together. 

- [1902 £] But see 1914 as to the position of evdvs, and comp. xi. 29 riyepdij 
to-xv with xi. 31 raxe'ws aviar-q, where raxe'ws (2554/') before its verb appears to 
be more emphatic than raxu on which the voice does not rest. An adverb 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 &vwdei> to mean "from heaven" and that Nicodemus materialises it: 
" Why draggest thou," he says, apostrophizing Nicodemus, "the meaning (\6yov) 
down to earth? This kind of birth is above such birth-pangs (avuirepos iari tCjv 
tolovtwv wdii/icv ovtos 6 t6kos)." Origen's comment ad toe. is lost, but elsewhere 
he contrasts yefvarai avwdev with e/c tui> koltu yiverai in such a way as to demonstrate 
that he took the former to mean " born from above.'" See 2573. 


[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] "Avwdev 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 1 ." The Thesaurus shews that (i) 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 dviodev 
is thus used in connexion with WAiv, and with i£ ap^?;?. On the 
other hand (2) it means "from above " in a spiritual sense in Jn hi. 
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 "f?-om above, coming down from the Father of lights... By his 
will (fiov\r)9eis) he brought us forth (txTreKvrjcrev) by the word of truth " 
— thus connecting "from above" with spiritual generation: in two 
other passages St James connects it with " the wisdom that is from 
above 2 ." In the LXX, it always has a local meaning, except once 
(where it is joined with 7rd\iv) in the Wisdom of Solomon 3 . 

[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 avw#ei/, when he speaks of 
"him that is inspired from 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 above*." Commenting, also, on the 
calling up of Moses to Mount Sinai, he describes it as "a second 

1 Lk. i. 3, Acts xxvi. 5, Gal. iv. 9. 

s [1904rt] Jas i. 17 — 18, iii. 15, 17. In Jn xix. 23 Ik tQu dvuideu v<f>a.vr6s, its 
meaning is " from above." 

3 [1904/'] Wisd. xix. 6. In Is. xlv. 8 "Let the heaven drop from abo ve, " 
II. n Ezra says, "This is a commandment to the angels that they shall drop 

4 [1905a] Philo i. 482 6 KaTairievadeis dvoodev, i. 264 oi avwdiv irws (pikoao- 
ipriaavres, comp. ii. 442 rod dtiov trvfvfxaTos owep avutitv KaTairvevadtv eicipKrjtraTO 
rfj \pi'XV> '• 49^ c * 7r ' ovpavov Karairvtvadds &vw0tv. 


ADVERBS [1907] 

birth better than the first," where there is "no mother, but only 
a father, the Father of all 1 ." 

[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 2 . The Apocalypse speaks of "the ne?c> 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 "new" and in the other "second" 
might be used to paraphrase the expression "from heaven " ; and 
similarly "generate anew" 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 ane7C," 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 avwOev. Again, all the Synoptists say that Jesus 
asked the Jews whether " the baptism of John " was "from heaven or 
from men 5 "; 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, " the waters 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 " new " 
or "anew" this could not have been misunderstood; for the 
Aramaic " new," like the Greek KaivoV, cannot be confused with 
"above." Moreover if the evangelist had desired to represent in 
Greek the mere thought of " regeneration " he might have used 
avayewav. But " regenerate " — unless qualified as it is in St Peter's 

1 [1905(5] 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." 

2 Gal. iv. 25 — 6. 

3 Rev. xxi. 2. 4 1 Cor. xv. 47. 
5 Mk xi. 30, Mt. xxi. 25, Lk. xx. 4. 

A. VI. 17 

[1908] ADVERBS 

Epistle 1 — 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 2 . 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] i Pet. i. 3 " the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who 
regenerated us into a living hope... ," i. 23 "having been regenerated, not from 
corruptible seed, but from incorruptible; through the word of God, living and abiding." 
Comp. Jas i. 18 " he brought us forth by the word of truth" 

- [1907(5] On our Lord's opinion of some proselytes, see Mt. xxiii. 15 "twofold 
a child of hell." 

3 [1907 c] There are naturally some cases where dvwdev is ambiguous, e.g. 
Clem. Anc. Horn. ch. 14 tt)v eKKXrjo-iav ov vvv elvai dWa dvwdev. This (as in the 

above quoted Gal. iv. 25 — 6 rfj vvv i) be dvw) might conceivably mean, "that 

the Church is not of this present age ([tov] vvv [alwvos]), but from heaven?' But 
such an ellipsis is unlikely ; and the contrast is more probably between or vvv 
[ttpu/tov], "not now [for the first time] " (ov vvv irpwTov being freq. in Greek) and 
" but from the beginning." Epict. i. 13. 3 " Wilt thou not bear with thy brother, 
who hath Zeus for his ancestor, [and who] (wairep, ? 6s wo-irep) as a son, is born from 
the same seed and from the same celestial sowing (ttjs aiTr)s dvwdev KaTa^oXijs) " 
might be, but less probably, "initial sowing." Philo ii. 141 i)pxa.t.o\6yriffev dvwdev 
aps&fievos ttjs tov wavrbs yevecrews probably means "beginning from the beginning 
[i.e. the First Cause] " — having in mind the ancient Greek saying " Let us begin 
from Zeus" and " hi the beginning God created." He proceeds to say that the 
fust object was to set forth "the Father and Maker of the world," and then man 
obeying the Maker's laws. 

[1907 d] Justin Martyr Tryph. 63 dvwdev /ecu btd yaarpos dvdpwTreias (describing 
the birth of Christ) appears to mean ["by the action of the Sp'u'it] from above and 
through a mortal womb " (although the Psalm (ex. 3) from which Justin has 
quoted refers to birth (LXX) "before the morning star "). Comp. Kpiphanius 
(Ilaer. Ii. ch. 6, vol. i. 428) about Mark as "nowhere saying [that] the birth 
[was] from above ( dvwdev \iybjv tt)v y^vvrjo-iv) " and (ib.) ttjs dvwdev 
KaTaywyrjs deov \6yov. So Simon Magus (Ilippol., ed. Duncker, vi. 18) 
peaks of the generating principle as H from above." In Artemid. Oneirocr.'x. 13, 
yewao-Oai dvwdev undoubtedly means " to be born again" but there the meaning 
is prepared for in a peculiar way by the context : " If a man dreams that he is 

being bom this indicates that he will have a son in every respect like himself : 

for thus he might seem to be born over again (ovtw yap [av] dvwOev avrbs bo^ete 
yevvdffOai)." And there it should be noted that the meaning is not "to be born into 
a better life," but " to be born over again in every respect like what one was before." 


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 (i 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 " child of hell" is of 
itself sufficient to explain why it might be necessary to emphasize 
the truth that regeneration must be "from above." See 2573. 

09) 3 A P ti see nyn (1915 (i) foil.) 

(7) 'Ernfc 

[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 becoming near the boat (eyyus tov ttXolov 
yivo/jLevov)." 'Eyyt£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 yn'o'/xcroi' cyyu's 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 
be near 1 ." 

(S) Eyeeooc and eyOyc 

[1910] Mark (1693) never uses ev8eu>s, but he uses evOvs abun- 
dantly. Matthew uses both pretty often. Luke uses evOews and 
■xapaxpfjixa pretty often, but ev8v<; only once. John uses evdiws 

1 Eph. ii. 13 iifj.ds o'i irore oVres fiaKpav iyevr)6riT€ iyyvs. 

19 2 — 2 

[1911] ADVERBS 

thrice, and tiOvs thrice. Whenever Matthew uses eiOvs (7), it is 
found 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 evdvs "straightway," Phrynichus blames "many" 
who used ev6v ("straight away") instead of it. Hesychius says 
about it simply Ev9vs, avriov, which indicates that he took it to 
mean "straight opposite [to]," "coming face to face with." He also 

says, Eu#v, 6p8ov, OLTrXovv, eyyus, rrapa-^prjp.a, ets evOelar. Bonitz's 

Index shews that Aristotle uses evOvs of place, before uVd, 7rpd?, /acto. 
to mean "immediately under," etc. and also to mean "to take the 
first instance that presents itself," i.e. "for example," which it also 
means in Epictet. i. 19. 2 (where Schweigh. refers to many other 
passages) 1 . In LXX, as a rendering of Hebrew, evOvs occurs only 

in Gen. XV. 4 kou evdvs (pwvrj Kvptov irpos avrov, xxiv. 45 evQvs 
Pe/?£KKa i£e7ropev€TO, xxxviii. 29 kol evOvs i£y\8tv 6 aSeA.<£os avrov, where 

the Hebrew has "behold!" Similarly, parallel to Mk xiv. 43 "and 
straightway... there, cometh up," Matthew and Luke have "behold !" 
A Scholiast on Thucydides, who describes the Plataeans as "killing 
their prisoners straightway" says that here ev8v<; does not mean 
immediately but offhand and without reflection 2 , which is probably 
implied. Very likely Mark's evflus may be a loose rendering of 
an original Semitic " behold 3 ." 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 evOlw; does not require explanation in 
view of the fact that it is never used by Aeschylus and (though thrice 
by Sophocles 4 ) only once by Euripides in a fragment 5 , whereas both 
writers use evdv<; frequently. In the Indices of Epictetus and Lucian, 
tv6v<> is found, but not tvOiw;, and Bonitz's Index to Aristotle shews 
a very great preponderance of the former. The LXX Concordance 

1 EvOius in Polyb. xii. 5. 6 is perh. similarly used. 

- [1911 n] Step]), on Time. ii. 5 oi 5<: nXarcufJs aviKTeivav rods ae<5pas 

evOvs, " Hie enim schol. ait evdvs non esse irapaxpv^ a i se( l e!;ev$eia<; et acTKoirws. " 

3 [1911/'] It has been shewn (352—3) that "behold" in Mt.-Lk. freq. 
corresponds to some verb of "coming to" in Mk. This maybe illustrated by 
Ilesych. eiiOvs, avriov i.e. "coming to meet." 

4 Sophocles also uses evdvs 7 times. 

5 Fragm. 31. The I gypt. Pap. Indices have tvQtus (11), eidfc (2). 


ADVERBS [1914] 

gives eufle'ws 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. i. 3) "And 
immediately there was light," and in Susannah (29) LXX and 
Theodotion severally insert cu^'ws and omit it. Aquila uses the 
word (Micah ii. 7) to mean "straightforwardly," "righteously." 

[1913] In N.T., apart from the Gospels, evOews is used frequently 
in the Acts, and occasionally elsewhere 1 . Eu#vs occurs nowhere 
except in Acts x. 16 "Now this was done thrice and straightway 
(tvdvs) 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. 10) "Now this was done thrice and 
everything was caught up again to the heaven" 2 ." This indicates (1) 
that ev9vs 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) ewfle'ws in the 
Cure at the Pool of Bethsaida, the Walking on the Water, and the 
Denial of Peter 3 . Only as to the last of these ("immediately the 
cock crew") does the word occur in the parallel Synoptic narrative — 
where Mark has evOvs but many authorities omit it, Matthew has 
ei$vs but many authorities read ei'6*ew5, Luke has irapaxprjiJ.a*. 
(/;) EvBvs occurs in Jn xiii. 30 — 2, "Having taken the sop, therefore, 
he [Judas] went out straightway (i$rj\0ev eiOvs). 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 straightivay glorify (ev#us Sofacrei) him," 
xix. 34 " One of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear and there 

1 Acts ix. 18, 20, 34, xii. 10, xvi. 10, xvii. 10, 14, xxi. 30, xxii. 29, Gal. i. 16, 
Jas i. 24, 3 Jn 14, Rev. iv. 2. 

2 [1913 n] Actsx. 16 evdvs dve\r]/j.(pdr] to (TKevos, xi. 10 avecnrdadr] tt&\iv a iravra. 
Also the Hebraic use of "all. ..not" is altered from x. 14 ovdevore tcpa-yov irdv 
KOLvbv into xi. 8 koivov oiibiwoTe eicrrjXOev els to ard/xa fiov. 

3 Jn v. 9, vi. 21, xviii. 27. 

4 [1914 d\ Mk xiv. 72, Mt. xxvi. 74, Lk. xxii. 60 7rapaxpwta Zti \ix\ovvtos 
avrov. In the Walking on the Water, Mk vi. 50 6 5e evdvs iXdXijaev, Mt. xiv. 27 
evdvs oe i\d\7]aev are not quite parallel to Jn vi. 21 tvdeus eyivero to irXolov.., 


[1915] ADVERBS 

came out straightivay (i$r}\8ev evOvs) blood and water." Comparing 
(a) and (b) 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 (b) have not. In xiii. 30 the 
emphasis rests on evOvs, which comes at the end of the sentence 
(" rushed forth straightivay "). In xix. 34 the voice passes on from 
€vOv<; to at/xa ko.1 uSojp, but the adverb indicates that the " fountain " 
against "sin and uncleanness " (Zech. xiii. 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 ev9v<; and evBew; 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 evOvs in Luke is in the passage about the house without foundation 
(vi. 49) "against which the river burst and straightivay it fell in 
a heap (evOv<; o-weVecre)," 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) Nyn and &pfi 

[1915 (i)] In 1719, vvv was shewn to mean "at the present time" 
(as distinct from apri "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 now are 
ye light in the Lord 1 "). But the interpretation of kolI vvv in xi. 22 
(1719) is complicated by the use of the phrase in LXX, where "and 
notv" is often connected with the thought "And now in this crisis, 
or, at this stage, or, in these difficulties, or, in conclusion, what is 

1 [1915 (i) a] Eph. v. 8 tJtc yap vore ctk6tos vvv 8Z (puis ev KvpLtp- Of course in 
special phrases such as 6 vvv aiwv, 77 vvv ' \(povaa\i)tJ. etc. the contrast is with the 
future as in 2 Pet. iii. 7, rS (the only instances of vvv in that Epistle). But in 
1 I'et. i. 12, ii. 10 (bis), ii. 25, and iii. 21, the contrast is with the past. 


ADVERBS [1915 (iii)] 

to be done ? " e.g. " And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God 
require from thee?" "And now, Lord, what wait I for? My hope 
is in thee 1 ?" So Peter, after reproaching the Jews for crucifying 
Christ, says, "And 7iow, brethren, I know that in ignorance ye did 
it," where the underlying thought appears to be, u And now, what is 
to be done? Acknowledge your past ignorance 2 ." 

[1915 (ii)] In 2 Thess. ii. 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 "And ?ww ye know that which hindereth (ko.1 vvv to Kar^ov 
otSaTe)," where Lightfoot doubtfully inclines to the logical meaning 
(" Well, then, ye know") and says "this usage is particularly noticeable 
with 018a following." But he suggests alternatively "and as to the 
present time ye know what it is that restraineth " — -a transposition like 
that in Jn iv. 18 "for thou hast had five husbands, and he whom thou 
now hast (ko.1 vvv ov e^eis) is not thy husband*." 

[1915 (iii)] These facts indicate that koI vvv, especially in an 
author like John, prone to transposition and asyndeton, will 

1 [1915 (i) ^] Deut. x. 12, Ps. xxxix. 7, see Gesen. 774 a quoting Gen. iii. 22 
and many other instances. The LXX regularly represents the phrase by /cat vvv, 
and it is extremely frequent, e.g. 2 S. vii. 28 (sim. 1 Chr. xvii. 26) "And now, 

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. 

- [1915 (i) (] Acts iii. 17. In Acts this is often ko.1 to. vvv, e.g. Acts iv. 29 
" And noiv (k. to. vvv), Lord, look on their threats," v. 38 " and now {k. [to.] vvv) 

1 say unto you, desist- from these men." In Acts xx. 22 — 32 ko.1 vvv 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 
/cat rd vvv (" and now [in conclusion} I commend you to the Lord "). 

3 [1915 (ii) a] Theoretically, the italicised words might begin a new sentence in 
asyndeton, " The 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 Xvv 
Xalpu iv rot's Tra.drnj.aaLv, coming at the beginning of a paragraph and after a 
description of the wealth of God's mercy, is explained by Lightfoot "Now, when 
I see the full extent of God's mercy...," no doubt correctly. But he adds "compare 
also 2 Cor. vii. 9 vvv xo.ipco, oi<x otl k.t.X., 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, " ...dicrre p.e /.iclWov xapijvai. otl el ko.1 
i\vwriaa v/xds iv rrj iirLffToX-r], ov fi€Tafxi\of.caf el ko.1 /j.€Tefie\6fJ.riv, ( r /3\e'7rw n otl r) 

iTTLCTToXri eKeivT] el /cat 7rpos (lipav i\vw7]0-ev i'/J-as,) vvv x^P 03 " It might be printed 

otherwise. But, however printed, the context indicates that vvv may be temporal. 
According to W. H., the meaning would naturally be, "I may perhaps have 
repented once, I rejoice now." 


[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, TraiSCa, la-xarq wpa Icniv, 

K(iL Ka8o)s ?/k-oucraTe on 'Avrr^ptcrTo? ep^erat, koj. vvv avTi^pLdroi 7roA.Aot 

yeyovacnv, the meaning is " even as ye heard the prediction in past 
time, even so (kcli) at the present time (vvv) it is fulfilled 1 ." There is 
also some reference to past time in 1 Jn ii. 27 — 8, but the passage 
comes at the end of a section enjoining "[steadfast] abiding," and ko.1 
vvv appears to be logically or rhetorically (not temporally) used, 
"But as (ok) his anointing teacheth you... and even as (koL KaOws) 
it taught you, abide in it. And now [in conclusion, 1 repeat] abide 
in it 2 ." 

[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,' and now (koi vvv) in the world it is 
already (rj8rrj)V' Without any addition, ko.1 vvv might have meant 
"and [accordingly] at the present time [in accordance with past 
prediction] " : but by adding rjSrj, 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, and now (ko.1 vvv) I ask 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 /cat vvv in the Johan- 
nine Epistles. Nw, apart from ko.1, occurs in them only once, 
1 Jn iii. 2 "beloved, now are we children of God." This follows 
the mention of what the Father's love has done for us, and precedes 
the mention of what we shall become ; and vvv suggests the thought 
of the isthmus between the past and the future. 

1 [1915 (iii) a] But probably there is a double force in ko.1 so that it also 
suggests "even now is antichrist here." 

- [1915 (iii) b~\ 1 Jn ii. 27—8 ...teal kcl6ws i 5L5ai;ev v/ fiivere iv avT$. Kal vvv, 
reKvia, /xivere. Theoretically the first fj.ivere might be indicative; but this would 
be against Jn's general use of the word, and does not seem necessitated by to 
Xp/ff/ua /xivei iv itfuv in the context: for the meaning may be "the Spirit of Christ 
abides in you. ..take care to abide in Him." M^et iv v/xiv is an instance of the 
rule laudando praecipere: the Spirit abideth in you — if ye are Christ's. The 
repetition of "abide'' imperatively is like Phil. iv. 4, "Rejoice in the Lord alway, 
again / will say Rejoice. 11 

'■'■ [1915 (iv),/] A^ above, Kai vvv might theoretically mean "even now" and is 
perhaps intended to suggest "even now," which, however, is made clearer by 
adding ijor}. 



ADVERBS " [1915 (vi)] 

[1915 (v)] Returning to xi. 22 xa\ vvv oT8a on oaa av alrqoig... 
we find that many mss. and versions insert d\\d before /cat so as 
to make the meaning (A.V.) " But... even now..f R.V. has "And 
even now," apparently taking kuX vvv 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 /cat vvv or koX vvv ISov, with oTSa, occurs in 
N.T. elsewhere Hebraically (1915 (i) c) or with a suggestion of 
Hebraic meaning, and that koX vvv in the Johannine Epistles is 
frequent and sometimes Hebraic, we are justified in preferring a 
Hebraic meaning here, like that of the Psalmist {"And 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.] And now [Lord, 
what am I to say? My hope is still in theei\ I know that whatsoever 
thou shalt ask God, God will give it to thee." This is confirmed 
by two other passages where koL vvv 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... and now glorify thou me." 

[1915 (vi)] "Apn is distinguished from vvv as "this moment" 
is distinguished from "this present time 1 ." "Apn is practically 
(485 b) not a LXX word, and aV apn does not occur in LXX 
at all. "The present [dispensation]," to vvv, might be said to date 
"from the moment ( a V apn) " when the revelation of the Father 
had been consummated through the Son 2 , and Jesus says to the 
disciples, "From this moment ye know him (the Father)." "Ecus dpn 
is used in v. 17 ("My Father worketh (A.V.) hitherto") of that 
which has been going on "up to the prese?it moment" and is still 
continuing, as also in 1 Jn ii. 9 (" is in the darkness up to this very 

1 [1915 (vi) a] Comp. Mt. xxvi. 64 air' apn 6\pea6e "ye shall see from this 
moment the Son of man seated," with Lk. xxii. 69 diro tov vvv 8e earai, which 
presents much less difficulty than Mt. because airb tov vvv might mean "from the 
[beginning of the all but] present [age]." Lk. xii. 52 again uses d7ro tov vvv, 
which Jn never uses (except in viii. n interpol.). 

2 xiv. 7 air dpri yivwo-neTe clvt6v. Wit' dpTi also occurs in xiii. 19. "From 
this moment I tell you before it come to pass." On air' apTi, or airapTi, 
"exactly," see 485 c. 

[1916] ADVERBS 

moment 1 "). In the following, a distinction (though a slight one) is 
drawn between dprt and iw, xiii. 33 — 7, "And as I said to the Jews 
' Where I go ye cannot come,' to you also I say [it]— for the moment 
(kcu v/juv Aeyw apn)." Then, in answer to Peter's question, "Whither 
goest thou?" Jesus replies "Where I go, thou canst not follow 
me at the present time (vvv), but shalt follow later (vo-Tipov)." 
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 (vvv)." "Why," he asks, "can I not follow thee 
at this moment (apri) ? 2 " 

(£) OfTOK 

[1916] "Thus" in iv. 6 (R.V.) "Jesus... being wearied u-e*o- 
7riaKw?) . . . sat thus (outws) by the well," is scarcely intelligible. But 
R. V. marg. says " or, as he was." In classical Greek, ovtw; is often 
used of something that happens before circumstances have time to 
alter, e.g. of a speaker "departing thus" i.e. without another word, 
of an assailant "departing thus," i.e. without suffering in return. 
Similar to these is " I cannot answer thus," i.e. offhand. So here 
the meaning is, "he sat down/2/.y/ 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 15 . Almost all the 

1 [1915 (vi)/>] R.V., in both, "even until mm," but in xvi. 24 R.V. and A.V. 
have " Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name." Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 13, viii. 7, 
xv. 6. In v. 17 the meaning appears to be, "My Father worketh [on the sabbath 
from the beginning\ until this moment, and I accordingly work [such acts as my 

Father prescribes on the sabbath]." 

2 [1915 (vi) c\ Comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 12 "For we see for the moment (<5(/m) through 
a mirror." When Jn uses vvv thus, he adds fxev in xvi. 22 "and ye now indeed 
(vvv niv) have sorrow... but I will see you again and your joy none shall take from 

[1915 (vi)*/] ~Svv, in Mk xiii. 19, Mt. xxiv. 21 £ws tov vvv, Mk xv. 32, 
Mt. xxvii. 42, KarajiaTU) vvv airb t. (rravpov, and also in Mt. xxvi. 65, xxvii. 4/; has 
almost the meaning of dprt, "at this moment." But in Mk x. 30 vvv ev r. Kaipf 
tovt<p it means "at the present time." These are all the instances in Mk-Mt. 
In I.k. (1719) it is much more frequent. 

8 [1916(7] Chrys. ad loc.'. Aia tov kottov (Cramer t6wov) ij KaOedpa ydyove, 5ta 


ADVERBS [1917 (i)] 

Latin mss. omit the adverb, and SS has " sat [so] that he might rest 
himself," perhaps confusing kottluw and Ko-n-d^w. 

[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 (outws), on Jesus' breast, saith unto him, ' Lord, 
who is it ? ' " where many authorities omit ovtuos. 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, keeping 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. 
unpremcditatedly '." 

(??) TTapphci'a 

[1917 (i)] liapprja-ia, " 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,' Job. 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 iv irappyjaiu. 
elvaL ' to assume a bold attitude ' is opposed to iv KpvwT^ ttouIv 
(comp. xviii. 20) ; but it does not displace the primary sense." 
Hence, in Col. ii. 15 (R-V.) "he made a shew of them openly (iv 
■jrappTquia) triumphing over them in it [i.e. in the cross]," Lightf. 
substitutes "boldly" and (earlier) paraphrases thus, "As a mighty 

t6 Kav/xa, 5i& to wepifxelvaL tovs fxadrjT&s- ydei fxev yap <rv/j.l37](r6fia>ov to kclto, roi's 
HafiapeiTas, ovk sttI tovto 5e fjXde Trpor)yov[xtvu>s...'ri 64 eaTiv, Ovtws; Ovk ewi 
6p6vov, (prjalf, ovk sttI irpoo~Kecpd\aiov, d\X' awXuis ko.1 ws ^tuxc £tt e5d<povs. 

1 [1917 a] Ovrus in the Gospels almost always looks backward, " thus as has 
been said above.'" It seldom means "thus, namely, as follotvs" {e.g. Mt. i. 18, 
vi. 9, Jn xxi. 1). Mk iv. 26 Oiirws €<ttiv i] ft. t. deov u>s..., "the kingdom of heaven 
is even so as [if] a man were to cast seed...," is exceptional in the Gospels and 
also non-classical. Oiirws wore occurs in Jn iii. 16, Acts xiv. 1, but, in Jn with 
indie, 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). 


[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 7ro.pprjaria, 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 1 . 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 2 . Even in xi. 14 "then therefore 
Jesus said to them without ?nore reserve (Trappqo-La) '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 -n-app-qcria 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 without reserve concerning 
the Father"; and xvi. 29 "Behold, now speakest thou without 
reserve" i.e. frankly, and fully, and clearly. 

[1917 (iii)] There remain two questions as to Trapprja-La in the 
Gospels. (1) Why do Matthew and Luke omit it in the single 
passage where Mark employs it (viii. 32) "and he [i.e. 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 "boldly 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) a] 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 ma freely speak unto 

- 1 Jn ii. 28, iii. 21, iv. 17, v. 14. 


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 Trapp-qcria as "openly" i.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 part of a prediction of Christ, that, after death, 
He would rise again and speak the word " openly" or "until 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 -n-apprjaia 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 2 . 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 boldness — and not as Moses used to put the veil on his face 3 ." 

1 [1917 (iv) a] Comp. Rom. i. 16 "For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it 
is Ike power of God... to the Jew first and also to the Greek" with i Cor. i. 23 — 4 
" IVe preach Christ crucified — unto Jews a stumbling block and unto Gentiles 
foolishness, but, unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the 
po'uer of God and [Christ] the wisdom of God." 

- 2 Cor. ii. 17 "watering down" or "making merchandise" Kair-qXevovres, 
"of sincerity" e£ eLXcKpiveias, iii. 4 "confidence," ireTroidTjcriv. 

3 [1917 (v) a] 2 Cor. iii. 12 ^xoeres ovv tomxvtt)v eKirlda iroWrj irapp-qala 

Xpw/xe&a Comp. 2 Cor. vii. 4, Eph. iii. 12, vi. 19, Phil. i. 20, Col. ii. 15, 

1 Tim. iii. 13, Philem. 8, Heb. iii. 6, iv. 16, x. 19, 35; also Acts xx. 20 ovdef 
vweaT€L\dn7]i/, at first limited by tQv crufxtpepovrup, but repeated xx. 27 ov yap 
VTrecTTei\djjL7]v rod p.-q dvayyelXat. irdcrav rr\v $ov\r\v r. deov v/xiv, where "all the 
counsel of God" implies the fore-ordained sacrifice on the cross, which was, to 
some, "foolishness" or "a stumbling block." 


[1917 (vi)] ADVERBS 

Philo, describing the freedom of speech used by Abraham toward 
God, classes Trapp-qo-ia among "admirable virtues," the sign of a 
"good 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 -appyo-La. 1 ." 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 Trapprja-icL 1 ." Epictetus had been a 
slave ; but his teaching is permeated with a twofold Trapprjcrla. 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 irappyjaia, 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 21 " He refuses, at the 
moment, because His " hour was not yet come." Soon afterwards, 
the multitude is represented as " not speaking boldly through fear of 
the Jews," and this timid multitude testifies to Christ, "Behold, he 
speaketh boldly*." Later on, it is said that Jesus would no longer 
walk and teach "boldly" among the Jews; but this is almost 
immediately followed by His final journey to Jerusalem and to 
death 5 . To the Jews, who say " If thou art the Christ, tell us boldly." 
He replies in a dark saying ; yet to the High Priest He protests 
" I have spoken boldly to the world 6 ." The impression left by these 

1 [1917 (v) b~\ Philo i. 473 u>s koX to ku(xlkov dipevbu>s /xdWov t) ku>/j.ikus eipTJadai 

OOKtlv — 

" Av wdvd' 6 bovXos riavxa-tw iJ-avddvri 
Hovr/pos forai' /xerabibov Trapprjcrias. 

- [1917 (v)r] Letter of Arrian to Gellius, introducing the Dissertations: Ovre 
avviypa\j/a eyw tovs 'EviKTrjTov Xbyovs ovtus ottuis &v tls cn<yy pdipeie to. rotaOra* 
ovre e^-qveyKa eh dvdpwirovs avrbs bs ye ovbe avyypd\pcu <pr]fxi. baa be tjkovov avrov 
Xiyovros, ravra avra eTreipddr]i', avrols ovoflavin a>s olbv re rjv ypa\pdp.evos, VTrofxvi)- 
fiaTa eh varepov e/j-avrcp bia<pvXdi;ai. rfjs exelvov Otavoias xai Trapprjaias. Aristotle 
I-'.th. Xic. iv. 3. 2$ says that the p.eyaX6\pvxos must be irappr]<naaTiKbs. Plutarch 
ii. 68 — 9 (Dc Adulatore 27 — 9) has a long discussion on the good and bad Trapprjcria 
rather inclining against Trapprjulav kwik^v k. Xbyovs rpaxeh. 

'■'■ See 1917 (i), where Lightf. is quoted as rendering Jn vii. 4 "assume a bold 

4 vii. 13, 26. "' xi. 54. \ii. 1. (i x. 24, xviii. 20. 


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 1 " 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 "rise from the dead and speak the word boldly" \ 
for this is very much like the Johannine tradition, " The hour 
cometh when I shall no longer speak to you in proverbs, but shall 
announce to you without reserve concerning the Father 2 ." 

(6) Ta'xgion 

[1918] Ta'xeiov (or Ta'xiov) 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 xiii. 19 (R.V.) "that I may be the sootier restored to 
you," and xiii. 23 "if he come (R.V.) shortly" but the meaning is 
doubtful (2554(f) 3 . John also uses both jayi^% and ra^i' 4 . We 
pass to the important passage xiii. 270 7roiets iroirja-ov rdx^ov. R.V. 
renders this " do quickly, ." But it seems reasonable to suppose that 
John does not use the form ra^etov exactly like Taboos and rayy. 
And it makes excellent sense to suppose that Judas, who had not been 
originally purposing to commit the act of treachery on that flight, zvas 

- [1917 (vi) a] xvi. 25. It is interesting to note that the disciples, in spite of 
this warning as to the need of waiting for the irappijala, persist in affirming that 
Christ already speaks (xvi. 29) iv irapp-qoiq.. It should be added that wapprjaia occurs 
(5 or 6) in Canon. LXX, but only once (cf. Oxf. Cone. Lev. xxvi. 13 "upright," 
i.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 ddacrov is frequently used (perhaps 
meaning Oclttov \6yov, "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 t6.x<-ov is also thus used, though not nearly so many instances are 
given. Tdxioj' occurs thus in Diod. Sic. and in Plut. Moral. 2400 "Unless you 
turn the stranger (gevtiXhiov) out of doors at once, he will corrupt you." It belongs 
to vernacular Creek and is condemned by Phrynichus. 

4 [1918/'] xi. 29 raxv, xi. 31 rax^ws. In Wisd. xiii. 9, t&xiov means "sooner." 
In 1 Mace. ii. 40 iav.../j.ri Tro\efir)<no/j.ev ...vvv rdxiov Tjfids oXeOpevaovcnv, 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. , rax^ws, iv rax^, and rax", 
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 />. 



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 1 , "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 ra.yf.iov 
refers to it, it is one of the many instances where Luke omits and 
John intervenes. 


(i) Generally 

[1919] Anacoluthon 3 (lit. " not following") is the name given to 
a grammatical irregularity wherein, though the meaning may be clear, 
what is expected to follow does not folloiv, e.g. xv. 6 (R.V.) " If a man 
(tis) abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch and is withered ; 
and they gather them (aura) \i.e, the branches] and cast them into the 
fire." Here " as a branch " is simile, but " he is withered " is 
metaphor: and strictly "them" ought to be "it." 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. " The Lord, he is God." So in 
Revelation (iii. 12, 21) "//t'that conquereth (6 vikuv) " is followed by 
" 1 will make him a pillar," " I will give to 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 ovtol ol uprot... 

icfnj)Stdo-dq/j.€i' olvtovs, Ps. ciii. 1 5 avOpwrros, were! ^opro? at r)fxepaL 

avrov etc. The following passages may be thus explained. 

1 Mk \iv. 2, Mt. xxvi. 5. 

- The Johannine passages quoted under this head are i. 15, v. 44. vi. 39, 
vii. 38, 49, viii. 53, x. 35 — 6, xii. 35, xiii. 29, xv. 2 — 6, xvii. 2, xx. 18, x\i. 12: 
a]-. 1 i |n ii. 24 -. 

3- 1 


[1921] vi. 39 "...In order that all (irav) that he hath given me 
I may lose none of it"; vii. 38 "He that believeth (6 7rio-T€iW)... 
rivers... shall flow from his belly"; x. 35 — 6 " Whom (ov) the Father 
sanctified... do ye say [to him] 'Thou blasphemest,'" best explained 
as [eVeti'o?] ov (in the light of the preceding passages); xv. 2 — 5 
" Every branch (KXrj/ia) in me that beareth not fruit he taketh it 
away... and every [one] (Tray) that beareth fruit he purifieth it... he 
that abideih ( 6 /xeVwv) in me and I in him, he (ovto<;) beareth much 
fruit" ; xvii. 2 "In order that all (ttuv) that thou hast given to him 
[i.e. to the Son] he [I.e. the Son] should give to them eternal life." 
Here, grammatically, the meaning would be that the Son should give 
all that He has received frotn 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.) (v/ms)» 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.) (vfuls), 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, 
"let 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 {"he that 
conquereth," "he that believeth," "ye") is clearly nominative, it is 
probable that it is nominative in other cases, where the ambiguous 
neuter {-nS.v, KXrj^a) 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 seek not}" The writer perhaps began with 
the intention of saying "receiving from one another... and not 
seeking from God," and then strayed away into the definite statement 
"ye seek not." In viii. 53 "Art thou greater than our father 
Abraham, who (o<ms) is dead? and the prophets are dead; whom 

A. vi. 33 3 


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 oo-ris d-n-Wavev, 
which may imply an affirmation, " Now he (ox, for he) is dead," so as 
to prepare the way for a second affirmation. In xii. 35 " Walk as 
(w?) (2201) ye have the light, lest (u*a ^77) 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 " them " instead of " it." So he has 
vii. 49 "This multitude that understandeth not the Law — [they] are 
[all] accursed (i-n-dpaTOL tlo-iv)," which is more emphatic than the 
singular. Also xxi. 12" No one (ouSci's) of the disciples was bold 
enough to question him, ' Who art thou ? ' knowing \all of them] 
(ttSoTes) that it was the Lord," though ungrammatical, is brief and 
clear 1 . 

(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 — 2). Take, for example, the way in which he 
introduces (a) the Baptist's testimony concerning the coming of 
Christ, (/>) Mary Magdalene's testimony concerning the Resurrection : 

(tf) i. 15 (W.H. marg.) Ioiai^s /naprvpel avrov Kal KtKpayev 
\eywv, Ol'to? tjv ov airov 6 oTriaw (or,> elirov OTTiau}) fiov 

1 [1924 <?] Clear so far as concerns the pi. But the participle, in such a 
context, suggests two interpretations, (1) "They dicl not dare to question though 
they knew it was he," (2) "They did not dare to question because they knew it 
was he." The Latin ha^ the pi. part., SS has "because they were believing that 
it was he," (Walton) "since they knew that it was our Lord." See 2273. 



€p^oju.evo?...(W.H. txt \4ytav — outos rjv 6 elirtuv — 'O oVio-w...) 1 , 
(/>) XX. 1 8 €px eTat Mapta/x. T] Ma.y8aA.T7rr/ dyye'/XAovcra T019 pa^r/Tais 
ort 'Ewpa/ca tov Kvpiov kolI Tavra £t7T€V avrrj. 

[1926] In the latter (b), 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 she had seen the Lord and 
[that] he had spoken these things unto her 2 ." 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 on to be omitted 
before the direct speech, and to be inserted before the reported 
speech. But the writer reverses this, apparently using on (2189 — 90) 
to mean "these were her words," as the sign of quotation, (lit.) 
"There cometh M. M. bringing tidings to the disciples that" — 
i.e. these were her words — " ' / have seen the Lord'' — and [that] 
he said these things to her 3 ." 

[1927] In the earlier passage (a) above quoted (1925), we should 
expect outos r/v ov (or, -n-epl ov) elwov otl — if the meaning had been 
"This was he [concerning] whom I said that he that cometh after 
me is become before me 4 ." Consequently we are led to another 

1 [1925 a] The best MSS. give o eiwuv : 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, oemoooniCO), 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 /cat a eiirev avrij e/j.ijvvaei' (d adnuntiauit) avrois, a "et haec dixit illi," b " et 
haec dixit," /"et omnia quae dixit ei," e "et quae dixit ei manifestavit." Con- 
fusion may have arisen from reading T&yT&eineN as T&Y TAAeiTTeN anc l from 
supplying what then seemed needful to complete the sentence. 

3 [1926/'] Jn xiii. -29 "For some thought... that Jesus was saying {\eyei) to 
him [i.e. to Judas Iscariot] Buy (1176^00-01') the things we have need of for the 
feast, or, that he should give something to the poor (17 tois tttwxois 'iva ti 5o))" 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 6v v/xeh \4yere 
6'rt . . . 

35 3—2 


rendering, "This was he that I said" 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 [he] in behalf of whom (or, about whom) 
I said, 'After me cometh a man... V " It is reasonable to infer that in 
the first passage the Baptist must not be supposed to mean "/'« behalf 
of whom (or, about whom)" for else the evangelist would not have 
varied the phrase 2 . 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 I said" the 
second, " After me yet before me." Later on, he connects the two. 
At first he places them side by side without connexion 3 . 

AORLST, see Index 
Apodosis, see Index 

(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, [that is to sa)'] he that is called Didymus," xx. 24 
" Thomas, [that is to say] one of the Twelve, [that is to say] he 
that is called Didymus," vi. 71 "This man (i.e. Judas Iscariot) was 

1 Jn i. 30 ovrds eariv vvip oO iyu: dirov, 'Qiricrw fiov Zpxcrai dvrip 

2 [1927/'] See 2360, 2369 — 70. Supposing virip to be used for 7rep/ "concern- 
ing," as it is used by many authors, the argument will still hold good, that John 
would not have used virtp ov to denote exactly the same thing as 6v. 

3 [1927 c] 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 The Gospel of the Hebrews (1042) "Fill 
mi, in omnibus Prophetis exspectabam te." 



destined to deliver him up [(?) that is to say] one of the Twelve," xii. 4 
"Judas Iscariot, [that is 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. 7 1 outos yap e/xeAAej' 7rapaSi86Vai avrov — eis e« twv Sajoe/ca. This 

may be mere apposition, but it may be an abbreviation of eh u>v, 
"being one," understood to mean "though he was one 1 ." 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 those that 7vere selling oxen and sheep and doves." 
What follows may mean that Jesus (ii. 15) "drove all [of them] out 
of the Temple, both sheep and oxen (-n-aiTas i$e(3a\ev £k tov Upov, rd 
tc TrpofSaTa kuI rovs /5das)," i.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 
t€ — which occurs nowhere else in this Gospel without introducing 
a verb 2 . If so, the instance is appositional. Whatever the con- 

1 [1928 a] Comp. Mk xiv. 10 'I. 'Ick. 6 els rCov dwSeKa, Mt. xxvi. 14 els r. du>5. 
6 Xeyo/xevos I. 'I., Lk, xxii. 3 'lovdav rbv KaKovfxevov 'Io~k., 8vra £k tov dpt^/xoO r. 
8u>8., where Mk's 6 is very curious. Later on, W.H. read Mk xiv. 43 [6] 'I., eZs r. 
d., parall. to Mt. xxvi. 47 'I. ets r. 5., Lk. xxii. 47 6 \ey6/jLei>os 'I. eh t. d. In 
illiterate Gk MSS. of the 1st cent., and w being interchanged, the participle Cov 
might be written and confused with the article. 

[1928/'] It is worth noting that, in John, these appositional constructions have 
to do with (a) Thomas, who was called by some {Enc.Bib. 5058) "Judas Thomas," 
with [b) 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 rrj re yvvaiKi gXe-yoi', vi. 18 77 re 6a.\ao-o-a...8ieyeipero. In ii. 15, A.V. has 
"drove them all out... and the sheep," R.V. "cast all out of the temple, both the 



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 
(ao-OevovvTwv), blind, halt," apparently takes the participle as parallel 
to the adjectives : but A.V. takes the participle as including them, 
"a multitude of impotent folk," i.e. "of blind, halt...." In that case, 
the construction is appositional. If the former had been intended, 
we should have expected ao-devrjs 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. 

(iii) Explaining, or defining (not with Participle) 

[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 — Jesus, 
son of Joseph, the [Jesus] of Nazareth " ; iii. 13 " He that came down 
from heaven — the Son of man " ; vi. 4 " Now there was at hand the 
passover, the feast of the Jeivs" (W.H. enclose "at...passover " in 
half brackets. Contrast vii. 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," i.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) ; viii. 41 " We have one Father — God" ; viii. 44 " Ye are of 
[your] father — the devil" ; ix. 13, 18 "They bring him (avrov) to the 
Pharisees — (lit.) the once blind [man] (tov irore tv<j>\ov) "..." they 
called his parents — [the parents of] him that had recovered sight 1 " ; 

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 
OUl uf the temple — both the sheep and the oxen [did he cast out] — and he poured 
forth the money...." 

1 [1931 a] Toi/s yoveis avrou tov avapXtyavTos (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, 



xii. 46 "I (emph.), light, have come into the world " ; xiii. 14 "If 
I (emph.), then, have washed your feet — the lord and the teacher...'''' 
(perhaps generally interpreted as meaning "though I am the lord 
and the teacher,'' but possibly meaning " because I am the lord and 
the teacher," if Christ assumed that it was the attribute of the lord to; xiv. 16, 26 "And another Paraclete shall he give to you. ..the 
Spirit of truth," " But the Paraclete, the 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 — Jesus Christ " ; 
xviii. 16 "The other disciple — the friend (6 yrwo-Tos) of the high 

[1932] Some of the above quoted instances require little 
comment, being simply short and sudden ways of implying "that 
is to say," or "and it is," e.g. (viii. 41, 44) "We have one Father 
[and it is] God," "Ye are of [your] father [and it is] the devil." 
Similarly xviii. 16, "the other disciple, the friend..." means "now 
he was, as I said before, a friend of the high priest, and hence he was 
able to introduce Peter into the house." In i. 45, "son of Joseph" 
and "of Nazareth" are mentioned abruptly by Philip as attributes 
of the Messiah, whom he accepts. In i. 46 and vi. 42 the same 
phrases are mentioned as reasons for rejection 1 . 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 iii. 13 the words 
"coming down from heaven" followed, not by "the Son of God," 
but by "the Son of man 2 ," stimulate the reader to think of what was 

would be a rare Johannine usage. In the only Johannine instance of avros 6 
applied to persons (xvi. 27) "The Father himself {avros yap 6 TraT-qp)," 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 

2 [1932 1^] 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 loc). Probably a feeling of 
abruptness and paradox originated the interpolation (if it is one). 



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 "holy" and — which is 
twice repeated — "a Spirit of truth." 

[1933] In the above quoted xii. 46 'T, light (eyw <£ws), have 
come into the world," the appositional clause comes exceptionally 
near the beginning of the sentence. It is not parallel to iii. 2 "From 
God thou hast come a teacher 1 " because the emphasis in the former 
lies on "/, light" but in the latter on "from God" (and the pronoun 
"thou" is not expressed). It may mean, either, "I, though I am 
and have been Light from the beginning, have come into this world 
of darkness," or, "I, because I am Light, and because it is the mission 
of Light to enlighten, have come into the world." The reader is 
probably intended to thi?ik of both these meanings and to prefer the 
latter, 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.) a human being (or man, avOpw-rrov), ivho 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. 3 It is difficult to accept these explanations, and 
Chrysostom dispenses with the need of them by dropping "human 
being" thus: "Ye seek to kill me because (otl) I have told you the 
truth." Also two Latin versions (ff and e) have "hominem qui 
locutus est" ("a man that has" 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 he altered. 

1 1935] But the text may be retained and may receive a very 
natural and beautiful meaning if we suppose that our Lord assumed 

1 'Awo dtou tkrfhvdas 5i5d<rKa.\os. 

- Xf'<' 8i iyiTtlri fxe airoKTitvai, avOpuirov 6s ttjv dXrjt)fiaf i'puv \t\d\tjKa. 

J ( Irig. Hue! ii- 2()i A, 298 B, 41,5 ];, and comp. 297 A B, 363 B. 



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 am a man, and I am telling you God's truth, and 

you are seeking to kill me." Philo (ii. 30) speaks of Abraham's u love 

of man (<£'#pw7n.'a)'" 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," 4>L\av8pwj7ia. Again, the first mention of the word 

" truth " in the Bible is connected with God's manifestation of His 

"kindness and truth " to Abraham 2 . Moreover the statement (made 

a little later on) that the Patriarch '•'■saw the day" of the Messiah 

"and rejoiced 3 ," 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," AVestcott (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 4 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" 8ti avOpwrroi dSeA^ot i]/xeis 
etr/j.4i>. See Origen on Ps. lxii. 3 "a man" (2412a). 

2 Gen. xxiv. 2-. 3 Jn viii. 56. 4 See Index, " Speech." 



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 xp<.o-t6s 6 kpyop.zvo'i 
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 
(eyevero) a man (avOpuyn-os) — [one] sent from God (a7reo-TaA.yu.eVos 7rapa. 
deov)." Here (a) eyeVeTo seems to be contrasted with the previous 
tjv in i. 1 ("In the beginning was {-qv) the Word"), (l>) aV0pw7ros, "a 
man," with 6 Ao'yos, "the Word," and (possibly) (c) a7re0-TaA.yu.eVos 7rapa 
"sent from the house of," with yv 7rpo's "was with " ("the Word was 
with God "). 

[1938] i. 18 "Only begotten, God, HE THAT IS in the bosom 
of the Father — he (emph.) declared him (Movoyei'r/s, Qeo's, o con eis top 
k6\ttov rov -7Tarp6<; — eVelVos i^rjytjcraTo)." 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. 'Ek€<Vos, i.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). In i. 29 "The lamb of God — (?) 
he that taketh away the sin of the world (6 ap.ios row deov — 6 aipwv 
ttjv d/xapTLav rov koV/xou)," theoretically the construction might be 
non-appositional, "the lamb that," i.e. "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." 

1 1939 1 ii. g "But the attendants knew — those that had drawn 



the water (ot Se Zio.kovoi yjSeicrav, ot rfvTXrjKOTes to iJSojp)," 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," i.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 is to say] he that standeth and hcarkeneth unto him 
(6 §€ (/h'Aos tov vvfX(j>LOV, 6 earrjKws kcli clkovidv avrov)," 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. epxeTcu, 6 Xcyofxero'i XpicrTo's)," 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)— he that talketh to 
thee (eyaj elfii, 6 XaXCw aoi) " 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 (?) [he] that is to come into the world (6 irpo$r)Ty)<i (?) 
6 epxo/Acvos)," W.H. place no comma after Trpo^rjT^. But John 
has, previously (i. 21), "Art thou the 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 ep^o/Aevo?) ? " 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 (eV) the Jews, — those that 
had come to Mary and beheld (jroWol ovv Ik tw 'IouScuW, 01 iX96i'Te<; 
7rpo? ttjv Mapia/A Kal OeaadfxtvoL)...," 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 



Greek means, namely, "Many therefore of the citizens of Jerusalem 1 
— [by ' many,' I mean] those that had come to Mary' 1 .'" 

[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 
xii. 9) need not surprise us much : but the sense seems to demand, 
after "Jews," the genitive t<3v eXdovrw, " Many therefore of the Jews 
[I mean many] of those [Jews] that had come to Mary... believed, but 
some of them [i.e. of those Jews that had come to Mary] gave informa- 
tion to the Pharisees." This is actually the reading of D 3 . 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 twv IkdovTw should not be read 4 . 
Chrysostom does not commit himself to anything definite in his 
brief statement, " Some marvelled ; but others went and carried word 
to the Pharisees 3 ." 

1 [1941 a] Jn uses 'lovSaioi to mean citizens of Jerusalem in xi. 18. 19, where 
he says that, as Bethany was close to Jerusalem, " many of the 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." 

2 [1941 b\ " Many " is a relative term. It would probably mean a very much 
larger number in (1) "A/any 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 
xi. 18 — 19 where the context defined it. 

[1941 r] The difficult question remains, Why does Jn repeat a phrase ("many 
of the Jews") that meant one thing above (xi. 18—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. 

:; [1942rt I SS, quite altering the sentence, has " Many Jews thai came unto 
Jesus because of Mary from that hour believed in [esus." 

4 Orij4. Huet ii. 353. 

'- [1942 /'] Cramer ad Joe, in an extract closely resembling Chrysostom's context, 
has yfuonivov 5t toD Oav/xaTos, ol fxlv iirlvTevoav tQv deaffan^fui'. 01 5e iv^yyeiXav 
to<s <J>ap«rcuots— which commits itself to the view that the informers had beheld 
the miracle. 



[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 1 . Perhaps 
he regards them as a type of the Church or of the Jewish section 
of it. 

[1944] Justin Martyr and Irenaeus 2 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 3 . 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 4 . 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 5 . 

1 [1943 a] Orig. Huet ii. 352 D. In what follows, he says that Jesus raised 
Lazarus "that the majority of the Jews (oi ttoWoL, not iroWoi), having come to 
Mary (dXddvres trpbs M., not oi i\$6vTes)... might believe in him." Then he adds, 
" The language is somewhat ambiguous." 

2 Iren. iv. 21. 3, Just. Mart. Tryph. 134. 

3 Cramer on Mt. ii. 18. 4 Orig. Huet ii. 343 B. 

5 [1944 a] This phrase (" those that came to Jesus because of Mary") might 
come into use in connexion with the part played by Mary3Iagdalene as the first 
announcer of Christ's Resurrection. A great deal remains to be explained about 
the different Maries, about the sisters Maiy and Martha, and the household of 



[1945] xii. 4 "Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples — he that was 
destined to deliver him up (els twi/ /j.a6r]TMv avrov, 6 fxikXwv avrhv 
7rapa8i8dvai)." Judas Iscariot has been previously mentioned in the 
same connexion, vi. 71 "for he was destined (ejueAAei') to deliver him 
tip— one, of the twelve": and now, reversing the clauses, John 
repeats the statement, when explaining that the words xii. 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, " One of you shall deliver me up 1 ." 
To these Mark alone adds " One of the twelve"." John follows Mark 
and Matthew in the former statement, "One of you shall deliver me 
up 3 "; 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 — glory 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 7r£/xi/'as....€K:ea'os, 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 KtWyos 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 fews that came unto Jesus because of Mary from that 
hour believed in fesus (R.V. Many therefore of the Jews, which came to Mary and 
beheld that which he did, believed on him)." 

1 Mk xiv. [8, Mt. xxvi. 21. 

- [1945<d 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 nf tlic twelve." 

3 Jn xiii. 21. 


ARTICLE [1949] 


(i) Before Nouns in general 

[1948] The Fourth Gospel, more than the Three, represents 
Jesus as using the Article to denote (i) 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]," i.e. the wife 1 , "the grain." In the last instance, 
R.V. has xii. 24 "Except a grain of iv heat (6 kokkos tov ctltov) 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 "the grain" 
(no less than "the 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 "the candle," 
where Matthew and Luke have dropped the article 2 . 

(ii) Inserted, or omitted, before special Nouns 

(1) "Fathers" 

[1949] vi. 58 "Not as the fathers ate and died," vii. 22 "Not 
that it [i.e. circumcision] is from Moses but from the 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 3 ; and the language of the Epistle to the Hebrews, "God, 
who... spake to the fathers in the prophets 4 ," is quite exceptional 
(2553 e). Hence, in the Acts, when the people of Israel (and not 
the Patriarchs) is denoted, "our" (or "your") is perhaps invariably 
inserted 5 : and we should expect a Jew to speak and write "our 

1 [1948 a] xvi. 21 17 yvur] orav 71*7-77, i.e. the married woman, not "a 
woman." The meaning is " the woman \pfthe Aome]," or "housewife." Comp. 
Ruth iv. 11 "Like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel." 
Perh. there is allusion to this thought in the description of Jehovah as, so to speak, 
building the builder, Gen. ii. 22 "he built the rib into a woman." See 1019. 

- [1948 £] Mk iv. 21 6 \vxvos, Mt. v. 15, Lk. viii. 16 \vx"ov. A.V. has 
even rendered 6 cireipuiv " 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. iii. 4). 

4 Heb. i. 1. 

5 [1949 a] Acts iii. 13, iii. 25 (vfxCov, marg. ti/muiv), v. 30, vii. (Stephen's speech) 
11, 12, 15, 38, 39, 44, 45 [bis), 51 (vfiwv), 52 (fytw"). xiii. 17, xv. 10, xxii. 14, xxvi. 6, 
xxviii. 25. Note that, amidst frequent repetitions of " our fathers " in the course 


[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 circumcisioD — 
not that it is from Moses but from the fathers — and on the sabbath 
ye circumcise a man (1961)," the exact historic truth would 
require, not " from the fathers," but " from Abraham." 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 vii. 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 1 . 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 the [principal] feast of the 
Jews, the feast of tabernacles (77 kopr-q rQv 'I. q o-K-qvoTr-qyia)." Josephus 
calls this (Ant. viii. 4. 1) "by far the most holy and important feast 
among the Hebrews," and (ib. 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, " the fathers" (according to W.H., following SBDj 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 navly born children"! 
Stephen calls the sons of Jacob " the patriarchs (oi TraTpiapxai) when they sell 
Joseph, and " our fathers" when they are sent to buy corn, and subsequently 
(Acts vii. 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 v/xvos 
Traripwv, is, in lick, " Praise of the Fathers of the World." 

1 [1950(7] Note that Jesus, in replying to the Jews (vi. 31 " our fathers ate the 
manna") has said vi. 49 "your fathers ate the manna. ..and died" (comp. Mt. 
xxiii. 30 — 2 " Our fathers. ..your fathers"). An evangelist, commenting on this 
in a Gospel for Greeks and Jews, not being able to say "your fathers," might 
substitute "the fathers." 


ARTICLE [1954] 

public, " Manifest thyself to the world," and this particular feast was 
the best occasion for obtaining publicity 1 . 

(3) " Heaven " 

[1952] The article is always used by John (16 times) with 
"heaven" except in i. 32 "I have beheld (Te0eapx<.) the Spirit 
descending as a dove from heaven (Z$ ovpavov) " ; vi. 58 " This is the 
bread that descended from heaven (6 e£ ovpavov Kcu-a/3as) — 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 2 ." This makes the two exceptions 
all the more remarkable. 

[1953] As a rule, " the heaven " means heaven regarded as a place 
distinct from " the earth," whereas "heaven " 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 3 ?," "from heaven' 1 '' means divinely inspired, but "from the 
heaven" would have implied a suggestion of an angelic message, or 
vision (Acts xi. 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 4 . 
But the same author may reasonably be expected to take the same 
view, and not to use the phrase with and without the article 

[1954] John habitually represents Jesus as asserting that He has 
come down " from the heaven,'' using the noun metaphorically in 
a spiritual sense like " the bosom of the Father," " the light of the 
world," " the bread 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 

1 [1951a] In v. 1, Mera ravra rjv iopri; tQv 'lovdaiojv, Tisch. reads 17 eopT-f). 
But W.H. reject the article without alternative. SS has " a feast of the Jews." 

2 [1952 a] All have £k, except vi. 38 &tt6. 

3 [1953 a] Mk xi. 30, Mt. xxi. 25, Lk. xx. 4. 1 Cor. xv. 47 6 devrepos 
dvdpwiros it; ovpavov, and 2 Cor. v. 2 to £% ovpavov imply " spiritual " as opposed to 
"earthly," "fleshly." 

4 [1953 f^] 1 K. viii. 32, 34, 36, 39, 43, 45, 49 eLo-a/coi'iay e/c tov 6., Nehem. ix. 13 
i\a\-qoas irpos avrovs e£ 6., ix. 15 dprov e£ 6. £5w/cas avrols, ix. 27 i£ 6. o~ov -rjnovaas, 
ix. 28 ei; 6. eiarjKovo-as. Contrast also Ps. liii. 2 6 deos e/c t. 6. oi^KV\pev with Ps. 
cii. 19 Kvpios e£ 6. eirl ttjv 777c e7r^/3\et/<e. 

A. VI. 49 4 

[1955] ARTICLE 

have descended "from the heaven." Thus John reverses the usual 
custom of speech. Most writers would speak of " the birds of the 
heaven" and would describe a bird as coming down " from the 
heaven" meaning "the sky," whereas they would say that a prophet's 
message comes "from heaven, 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, i. 32 "I have beheld the Spirit descending as 
a dove from heaven (£$ 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 heaven s " 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 " (outos icrriv 6 apros 6 it ovpavov KaTa/3as), 
follows, in the same chapter, no less than eight instances of " bread 
from the heaven " or " come down from the heaven" and, in particular, 
vi. 50 — 1 "This is the bread that is [continually] coming do\vn/;vw 
the heaven... I am the living bread that came down from 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 — not as the fathers ate and died) he that feedeth on (rpwyuv) 
this bread shall live for ever," (/>) vi. 49 — 51 " Your fathers ate in the 
wilderness the manna and died. This is the bread that is continually 


ARTICLE [1957] 

coming down from the heaven that anyone may eat thereof and not die 
(dTruOdvrj) (or, be liable to death, aTroOvrjaKrj). I 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 " tfie fathers," 
but in (/') "your fathers." This, as has been shewn above (1949), 
may indicate that (b) 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 (ov ku#ojs)," is paralleled by Westcott here to i Jn 
iii. 12 " — 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 1 . 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 2 the bread that came 
down from heaven \ not from men] — not as the fathers [of Israel] ate in 

1 [1957 a] According to Bruder, 01) icaddis — apart from 2 Cor. viii. 5 ral ov 
Kadvos r)\iricra./j,ev — is purely Johannine, occurring in Jn vi. 58, xiv. 27, 1 Jn iii. 12 : 
in xiv. 27 (where it is in Christ's words) the construction is quite regular. 

- [1957/i] "This is" both in (a) and (b) is ambiguous. It may mean, " This 
[bread] is the bread that came down," or " This [man] is the bread that came 
down (1974)." In Jn, Christ is never represented as saying ovtos ianv 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 [wan] is." The phrase occurs several times in testimony to 
Christ, i. 30 (from the Baptist) " This is he about whom I said," i. 33 " This is 
he that baptizeth," i. 34 "This is the Son (or, Chosen One) of Cod," iv. 42 (from the 
Samaritans) " This is in truth the Saviour of the world," com p. vi. 14, vii. 40 
" This is in truth the prophet," vii. 41 " This is the Christ." In some of these 
passages, e.g. i. 34, iv. 42, it comes at the close of a narrative. In xxi. 24 it comes 
near the close of the Gospel, " This is the disciple that testifieth these things." In 
the Epistle it occurs thrice : ii. 22 " This is the antichrist," v. 6. " This is he that 
came through water and blood," v. 20 " This is 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- 

[1958] In i. 51, "Ye shall see the 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 spiritual 
heaven — "and earth." The evangelistic use of the word with the 
article in xii. 28 "There came therefore a voice from the heaven" and 
in xvii. 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 1 ." 

(4) " Man " 

[1959] In the following passages, " the man " is used (like " the 
dog," " the vine " etc.) to mean "man in general," "mankind," or 
"human nature"; Jn ii. 24 — 5 " But Jesus himself (2374) would not 
trust himself to them because he understood all [men] (-n-a^Tas) 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 human nature (lit. the man)." Mark alone has (ii. 27) "the 
sabbath was made for the man and not the man for the sabbath." 
But Mk vii. 15 "There is nothing outside the man (i.e. man in 
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," viii. 21 "the imagination of the 
heart of the man, i.e. mankind" LXX has 1st " the men," 2nd " the 
man." Comp. Eccles. iii. 11 "so that the man cannot find out," 
where LXX has "the man" but Aquila "man," and iii. 19 "theman 
hath no preeminence above the beasts," where LXX and Theod. 
have " the man," but Sym. "man" So 1 Cor. ii. 11 "Who among 
men knows the things of the man?" i.e. the facts of human nature. 
The Hebrew phrase is identical with "the Adam," so that the Pauline 
phrases "the old man" and "the //era man," are equivalent severally 

1 For "judgment-seat " with ami without the article, see 1745. 


ARTICLE [1960] 

to (i) "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 1 ) our Law 
judge the man except it first hear from him...? " i.e. 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 the man' 2 ." In classical Greek, 6 dvdpwiro'; 
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," i.e. " Behold the 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 the man ! " i.e. the Man according 
to God's Image, the ideal Man 3 . 

1 [1960 a] The scribe that accented B gives Kpivel fut., which favours the view 
taken above; Kpivei would favour the rendering "the man [from time to time 
brought before the Law]." Comp. Lk. xix. 22 Kpivw— where W.H. (with most 
Lat. vss.) have Kpivw but R.V. KpivQi. 

2 [1960 3] Mt. xxvi. 72, 74 t'ov dvdpwTrov, Mk xiv. 71 top d. tovtov Sp 
Xeyere. Lk. xxii. 58, 60 has &vdpwwe. Mk softens the harshness, Lk. gets 
rid of it. 

3 [1960 c] 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. 9 title) " How 
that, being unable to fulfil the promise implied in ' The Man ' (ttjp rod 'Avdpwirov 
e7ra77eX/aj' TrXr]pu>o~ai) we take in addition to [it] (7rpoaXa/j.j3a.pop:ep) that of ' The 
Philosopher,'" (ii. 9. 1 foil.) "Beware, then, lest thou do aught as a wild beast ! 
Else, thou hast lost The Man (airuXeo-as top avdpwirov), thou hast not fulfilled the 
promise. Beware, lest [thou do aught] as a sheep ! Else, thus also The Man is 
destroyed (ambXeTo 6 avdpuiros).' 1 '' And again (Epict. ii. 10. 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 (air oXdiXex as) nothing? \\ hat ! 
Must you wait to lose the trash in your purse before you will confess to having 
suffered damage (dXXa del ae Kepfxa ajroXecrat. iva I'rj/xLwOrjs) ? Is there no other loss 
that damages 7"he Man (aXXov 5' ovdevbs a-n-uXeia i'T]/xioi top avdpwirov) ? " 


[1961] ARTICLE 

[1961] In vii. 23 " If a man (dv6pwiro<;) receiveth circumcision 
on the sabbath," W.H. have [6] dv6pu)Tro<;, 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 npoceMoy for rrpoeMoy, vi. 19 ooct&Aioyc 
for cocctaAioyc, vii. 38 eie/v\e for eice/v\e, and even vii. 43 cxima. 
for cxicma (where, as in vii. 23, the error of insertion or 
omission could not arise from the juxtaposition of similar letters). 
Possibly in vii. 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 vii. 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 (6'Aov dvOpwirov) sound on the 
sabbath ? " The plea is, in behalf of humanity, for a humane 
judgment ("judge righteous judgment"). And the whole passage 
illustrates the use of dvOpw-n-os 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 (rrj 7repi^ajpa)), escape into 
the mountain," the context defines " the mountain " as the mountainous 
country near Sodom. So in Mark, before the Choosing of the 
Twelve, (iii. 13) "he goeth up into the 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 1 : but the 
parallel Luke (vi. 12) "he went forth into the 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 

' To 6pos means " the mountain," or l, the mountainous country," defined by 

."iiiriliin^ implied m ( -\]>n <■<!, like "///<• 1 1 is^hlands," " the Lakes." 


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 1 . 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 
"GerasaV When the Transfiguration is described, Mark and 
Matthew speak of "a high mountain 3 " (as also does Matthew in the 
Temptation 4 ) but Luke has "He went up into the mountain to pray 5 ." 

[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 the 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 "the mountain" is used by him absolutely, vi. i— 15 "Jesus 
went away on the other side of the sea of Galilee.... Now Jesus came 
up into the 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- 

(6) " Only begotten " 

[1964] i. 18 "No man hath seen God at any time. Only 
begotten (Movoyevr}<;), 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," to ov, neuter. John adopts the Apoca- 
lyptic phrase "He that is," 6 w 6 , 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. 

3 Mk v. 11, Lk. viii. 32, following Mk v. 1, Lk. viii. 26. 

3 Mk ix. 2, Mt. xvii. 1. 4 Mt. iv. 8. 5 Lk. ix. 28. 

6 Rev. i. 4, 8 etc. 


[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 titles 
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 "an only begotten," any more than to render Oeos, "a God." 
As a Christian would not render Xpio-ros "an Anointed," but "the 
Anointed," or " Christ," so John intends us to render Movoyevr/s, "the 
only begotten," or else, as a proper name, Monogenes, i.e. " Only be- 
gotten." The alterations of this text are numerous and natural as 
Tohn 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) "Prophet" 

[1965] In i. 21 "Art thou the prophet}" A.V. has "that 
prophet," apparently (unless "that" is " ille " as in 1 K. xviii. 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 xviii. 15, 18, whom the 
Jews (825) seem not to have identified with the Messiah, although the 
prophet is thus identified in Acts iii. 22. 

(8) "Teacher [of Israel]" 

[1966] iii. 10 "Thou art the teacher of Israel (6 S. tov 'I.) and 
knowest not these things!" is probably ironical, meaning "the 
\well-knoiun~\ teacher." That 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 the Son of God, thou art King 
of Israel," the utterance of Nathanael, as compared with xii. 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 Israel" 
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-/ 1 In classical Gk a distini tion is drawn between fiaaiXevs, i.e. " King' 


ARTICLE [1969] 

(iii) Before Names 

[1967] The article before a name may mean (i) "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 (i. 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 1 . With Ae'yei, John, more often 
than not, has 6 'lrja., but he has aireKpiOr) 'I770-. about twenty-two 
times and dneKfnOy 6 'lrja. only once for certain' 2 . In phrases with 
aTr€Kpt6ri 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 Aeyet, 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 introduce a personal name 

uniquely, the name given to the sovereign of the East, and 6 j3aac\evs, "the king" 
of ihis or that barbarous tribe. There is perhaps an inner evangelistic meaning in 
the protest of the priests, xix. 21 "Write not, l the king of the Jews,' but that 
'He said, I am kingoi the Jews QS. rwv I. ei/iL),' " besides some allusiveness to the 
Synoptic differences concerning the inscription. See 2669. 

1 [1968 a] The statistics are doubtful owing to the similarity of o to C and 
the weakness of codex B on this point (1961 and 2650—2). But 65 is probably the 

' 2 [1968<$] vi. 29. In iii. 5, xviii. 37, W.H. have [6]. On the other hand 
where avrols is inserted after awcKpidr] we often find 6 or [6] before 'lijaovs. 
Perhaps where avrols or avrw is inserted, referring back to the person spoken to, 
a corresponding 6 is more often inserted to refer back to Jesus. 

[1968 r] Johannine variations may be illustrated by the use of "John (the 
Baptist)" which occurs with article (13), without (5), doubtful (1). Contrast i. 28 
ev B....ottov i]v 6 'I. fiaTvrLguv (where there has been much said about John in 
context) with x. 40 eh rbv rbtrov ottov rjv I. to irpuirov fiairrlfav. 


[1970] ARTICLE 

without the article 1 , and there appear only three or four exceptions 
to this. One is "Pilate" in xviii. 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 the [governor] 
Pi/ate" where Mark has no article (" they delivered him up to 
Pilate") and Matthew "they delivered him up to Pilate the 
governor 2 ." 

[1970] The other exceptions are indeclinable nouns : i. 43 — 5 
" He findeth Philip... now the [aforesaid] Philip was from Bethsaida... 
Philip findeth (lit.) the Nat 'hanael (rbv NaflavaifA.)." 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 ('I. vlbv rov 'Iohtt^)." Contrast this with vi. 42 
"Is not this Jesus, the [well-known] son of Joseph ('I. 6 vlbs 
'Iuxr?7<£)?" In iv. 5 "the well that Jacob gave to [the] Joseph his 
son," the reading is doubtful, and W.H. bracket tw. 'Iwo-t^ is 
shewn to be dative by vlu> airov, 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 3 ? 

1 [1969 a] "Solomon" (x. 23 iv Tjj aroq. rov 2.) could hardly be said to need 
"introducing." In xviii. 40 "Not this man but the [great] Barabbas," it is the 
crowd, not the evangelist, that speaks; and the same applies to xix. 12 " the 
\great\ Caesar."' 

' 2 [1969 /d Jn xviii. 29, Lie. xxiii. 1, Mk xv. t, Mt. xxvii. 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 II. 19 times, and once, according to W.H. , (xviii. 31) 
simply II. Probably W.I I. are wrong in following B here, especially as o may 
have been omitted after the preceding c in &YTOIC (1961. 2650 — 2). 

:i [1970'/ 1 Possibly i. 45 v'Cov rov 'lwa-q<p may shew traces of some tradition 
about "the carpenter Joseph," and the evangelist may intend a contrast between 
the beginning of the <i<>>pel (when Jesus was described as v. tov 'lw<rr)<p) and the 
development of the Gospel (after which Jesus was described as 6 v. '\uart<j>). 

[1970 />] 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 eth, the sign of the objective 
case, before "Shaphan...the scribe." The parall. 2 Chr. xxxiv. 8 has eth, but 
LXX omits t6v. For the article with names of places, see 2670 foil. 


ARTICLE [1972] 

(iv) With Participle and "is" or "are" 

[1971] In the Synoptists, this construction is comparatively 
rare, e.g. "Who is it that smote thee (tis io-rw 6 n-aicras o-e) 1 ?", 
"These are they that were sown 2 " "These are the things that 
defile (ravTa Icrrtv ra koivovvto.) the man 3 ," " Who is it [really] that 
gave (tis €<ttiv o hov<;) thee this authority 4 ?" 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 SiKcuwo-as p-e)." Isaiah proceeds, "Who will contend 
against me ? " varying the construction. But LXX does not vary it, 
" Who is he that contendeth with me (ti? 6 Kpivouevos jxoi) ? " The 
Epistle to the Romans loosely follows LXX " God [is] he that 
justifieth: who is he that shall condemn 5 }". In classical Greek it is 
necessary to insert the article in representing the Hebrew " one 
justifying me." If d were omitted above before SiKouwo-as, the meaning 
of the Greek would be " he is at hand, having justified me 6 ." 

[1972] Whereas Luke scarcely ever uses this construction in the 
Words of the Lord 7 , John uses it frequently as follows (i) v. 31 — 2 
" If I be testifying about myself my witness is not true. Another 
is [really] he that testifieth (aAA.os etrrtv 6 paprvpuiv) concerning 

1 Mt. xxvi. 68, Lk. xxii. 64, not in Mk (490—1). 

2 [1971 a] Mk iv. 16 — 20, Mt. xiii. 19 — 23, comp. Lk. viii. 12, 14, the 
explanation of the Sower. 

3 [1971 £] Mt. xv. 20 (?Mk vii. 15), not in Lk. Mt. also has this construction 
in iii. 3 ovtos ecrriv 6 prjOeis. 

4 Lk. xx. 2 parall. Mk xi. 28, Mt. xxi. 23 tLs crot tdwKev; 

5 Rom. viii. 34 (quoting Is. 1. 8) debs 6 diKaiQv, tis b koltclkplvuv; 

6 [1971c] In Proverbs xi. 24 (lit.) "there exists one scattering and yet 
increasing,"' the LXX paraphrases, "there are those who (elalv o'i), [while] 
scattering, make things more," but Aq. and Sym. ian oKop-Ki<;uv, comp. Prov. xii. 
18, xiii. 7. 

[1971 d"\ In classical Greek prose it would probably be hard to find an 
instance of eari and a participle, without 6, meaning e.g. "is scattering" — unless 
the meaning were "is really scattering." The instances given by Jelf § 376. 4 are 
mostly from poetry and not in the present. Plat. Legg. S60 E (and Demosth. 
p. 853. 29) TavTa. ovtws %x 0VT & e<rTiv means "these things are irally so.'" 

7 [1972 «] Lk. xx. 17 ti ovv iaTiv to yeypa^p.ivov is (apart from the Parable of 
the Sower (1971 a)) 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 oti clvt6s eanv b 
/jl^Wuv \vTpovo~dai Tov'IcrparjX. 


[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. "AAAos 6 /xaprypviv 
would have sufficed (like St Paul's Beos 6 SiKaiuv) if the meaning 
of "is" were not intended to be emphatic. The meaning really is 
twofold (i) "Another and distinct from myself is he that testifieth," 
(2) "Another [really] 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.) (iyw) will 
accuse you to the Father. There is [indeed] {lariv) he that accuseth 
you, [namely] Moses...," i.e. "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 1 ." 

[1974] (3) vi. 2>Z "For the bread of God is [not a thing of the 
past but of the present] the [one] that is ever descending from heaven 
and offering life to the world 2 ." Here comes into play the ambiguity 
(comp. 1957/;) sometimes inherent in 6 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." 'Eo-tiV 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 (to TrveufiA 
iani' to (wottoiovv), the flesh doth not profit at all 3 ." The words 

1 [1973r/| Comp. viii. 50 Zoriv 6 i'rjrQv Kai KpLvuv, "There [really] exists he 
/hut 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." 

- |1974,/| A.V. "the bread of God is he which," R.V. "that which," 6 yap 

dpTOS TOV OfOV tOTlV 6 naTafiaivwv . 

'■'■ 1 1975 </ 1 Here N omits "the," before "spirit," so as to moan "That which 
giveth life is of a spiritual nature." SS il'.tuk. marg.) has "He is the Spirit that 
giveth life to the body, bul ye ay 'The body nothing profiteth.'" 


ARTICLE [1976] 

might mean : "The Spirit (i.e. the Holy Spirit) is [distinguished from 
all other spirits by being] the [spirit] that giveth life," repeating 
■n-vevfxa after Iwottolovv : and it may be fairly argued that similarly 
R.V. (against A.V.) has repeated apros in the passage last quoted 
(•'the loaf is the [/oaf] 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 foil.). 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 1 , and this suits 
the antithesis of "the flesh." But we have to bear in mind that (i) 
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' 1 " 
" The last Adam [became] a life-giving spirit 3 " (4) the verb occurs 
twice in John elsewhere concerning the Father, who '■'■giveth life" 
and the Son who "giveth life' 1 ." In the light of these facts does it 
seem likely that John would use the phrase "give life" concerning 
the Spirit of man ? 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 5 ." 

1 1 Cor. ii. 13 — 14. 2 2 Cor. iii. 6. 

3 1 Cor. xv. 45. 4 Jn v. 21 (his). 

5 [1976a] 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 letter 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 spirit 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." 


[1977] ARTICLE 

[1977J Some such thought appears to have been in the mind of 
the originator of the version in SS, " He [i.e. the Son of Man] is the 
Spirit that giveth life to the body." He arrives at this by repeating 
"Son of Man" as the subject of "is," by taking to jr. to £. 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) viii. 50 — 1 "I honour my Father and ye dishonour 
me. But I seek not my own glory; there is [indeed] he that see kef h 
and judgeth (ea-Tiv 6 £,r)Twv kw KpiVwv)," i.e. as explained above 
(1971 — 3) "there is, all the while, though ye know it not." And 
the "judging" is regarded as going on (iii. 18) "already.'" Later 
on it is said (xii. 48) " He that is rejecting me and not receiving my 
words (prj/Acna. /xov) hath him that judgeth him (ex 61 TOV xpivovra 
avrov)," where a clause in the future follows: "The word (Xoyos) 
that I spake — that (ckcivos) shall judge him in the last day." The 
Logos is judging now, and the judgment will be summed up 

[1979] (6) viii. 54 " If I {ethph.) should glorify myself, my glory 
is nothing. // is [indeed] my Father that is glorifying me, of whom 
ye (emph.) say that he is your God, and [yet] ye have not recognised 
him; but I know him 1 ." Here the context indicates that the 
emphatic "is," expressed by arriv 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 it [realty'] is that loveth me (e/<eu'ds icmv 6 aya-n-wv 
/xe)." This follows xiv. 15 "If ye be loving me ye will keep my 
commandments," and it adds, in effect, " If ye keep them, then, and 

1 [1979 n] 'Ecti' eyw So^daw ifxaxabv, r\ 56$a fxov ovSiv eartu. iariv 6 7rar?;p /xov 6 
doi;a£wp fie 61/ vfiels \tyere 6Vt Oeos v/xuiv (marg. i]fj.wv) (<jtLi>, koI ovk eyvwxaTe avrdv, 
iyu 5e oloa avrof. The (<ttlv al the end of the first sentence is quite unemphatic 
and almost superfluous. But, if it were omitted, the following iartv mi^ht be 
taken to be final instead oi initial. Moreover, the juxtaposition ol the two lays 
mm u. il emphasis on the second. "// really is my Father." 


ARTICLE [1983] 

only then, will ye be really loving me," or, in the third person, "He 
that keeps them, he and he alone, is really loving me 1 ." 

[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 shall baptize you," John gives the words as 
11 He it is that is baptizing you"": and the Jews and others also 
speak thus 3 . 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 4 

[1982] The reduplication of the article changing a noun-adjective 
phrase, e.g. (i ) " the third day " to (2) " the day the third," adds weight 
and emphasis to the adjective. In Christ'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 5 . 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 the third," "the woe the third cometh quickly 6 ." 

[1983] In the Synoptists, the reduplication — apart from words 
of Christ and the Voice from Heaven ("My Son my beloved") — 

1 [1980 </] Other instances of 6 with the participle and ecrrt are iv. 10 "If thou 
hadst known who it [realty] is that saith unto thee (ris €<ttlv 6 \eyuu crot)...," 
iv. 37 aXAos (ffrlv 6 aTretpuv /cat aAXos 6 depifav where a aireipuv and 6 depifav are, 
in effect, nouns. In ix. 37 /cat idipaKas avrbv /cat 6 XaXwv p.era aou iKelvos eariv, 
the subject is 6 \a\wv, and e/ceiVos 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." 

2 Jn i. 5^, Mk i. 8, Mt. iii. n, Lk. iii. 16. 

3 Jn v. 12 "Who is the man that said... ,?" v. 15 ''...that Jesus was (lit. is) he 
that had made him whole," xxi. 20 " Who is he that is to deliver thee upV 

4 [1982 a] This excludes noun-participle phrases, e.g. "the people that [was] 
sitting (6 Xao? 6 Kadrifxevos)," "the miracles that [were] wrought (al dvvdfieis ai 
yevo/j.evai)'" etc. For phrases with possessive adjectives see 1987 — 9. 

5 [1982/5] Mt. xvi. 21, xvii. 23, xx. 19. The parall. Mk has fMera rpeh imepas, 
Lk. ix. 22 has rrj r. rj/i. 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 rrj tj/jl. rrj rp., the form used in 1 Cor. xv. 4. 

6 [1982 e] Rev. iv. 7, vi. 5, viii. 10, contrasted with Rev. vi. 5, xi. 14. 


[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, iii. 22, also Mk iii. 29, xiii. n, Mt. xii. 32) "the 
Spirit the Holy 1 ." 

[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] 2 ." In the less weighty clauses 
of the Lord's utterances he does not reduplicate it, as in "the true 
worshippers 3 ," contrasted with " I am the Vine the true [vine] 4 ." 

[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 his 
brother his own [brother] Simon 5 ." Here the evangelist is supposed 
to mean that Andrew's unnamed companion also found his 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] 6 ," "his glory his own [glory] 7 ." In "the day the 
third [day] " at Cana — if the text is correct — there is perhaps a 
mystical meaning 8 . In "the five loaves the barley [loaves] 9 " and 
"the ear the right [ear]" of Malchus 10 , symbolism may be latent, 
apart from the fact that (comp. 1983 a) John is adding details not 
mentioned by Mark and Matthew 11 . 

1 [1983 ,7] Mk v. 7, [Lk. viii. 28] assign to the demoniac the words, "Son of 
the God the Highest"; Lk. vi. 6, xxii. 50 — -when adding facts unmentioned by 
Mk-Mt., namely, that the "hand," and the "ear," severally, were "the right 
one" — reduplicates the article. 

2 i. 9. 

8 [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. 

4 xv. 1 . 5 i. 41. 6 v. 43. 

7 vii. iS. 8 ii. 1. '■' vi. 13. 

10 [1985<?] wiii. io. Luke may not have intended symbolism. The two 
evangelist- must be judged in the light of their several Gospels, taken as wholes. 

11 [1985/'] In wiii. 17, the person previously described as (xviii. in) '■'■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, " The maid, she [whom I described above as the one] that kept the door." 


ARTICLE [1987] 

[1986] The following are the instances in Greek : 

(a) i. 9 ^Hi' to c/>dk to lxXtjOlvov. Comp. VI. 32 tov aprov ck tov 
ovpavov tov aXy]6ivov, XV. I ?; dpTreXos rj dX-qdLvn. Contrast iv. 23 01 
akyjdivol -rrpoo-KwrjTai See above (1984). 

(/3) i. 41 ivpidKU outos irpcoTOv tov abeXfpov ror l6lov %Lp.tova 
(1985). Comp. v. 43 iv tw oydpciTi tu> ibia), vii. 18 ttjv 8o£av ttjv 
18 Lav. In all these there is antithesis. Contrast iv. 44 iv ttj iSta 
■n-aTpi^L, x. 3 ra i.'8ta -n-po^aTa, where there is no expressed antithesis. 
In the latter, there is no antithesis till x. 12. 

(y) ii. 1 ttj Tjp.ipa txj TpLTij yd/xos iyevero, but marg. T-fj TpiVj/ 
■qfjiipa. (1982/;). 

(8) In iii. 16, tov vlbv tov povoyevrj, "He gave his only begotten 
son," the adj. is more emphatic than in iii. 18 to ovo/xa toC povoyevous 
vlov tov 6eov, " because he hath not believed in the name of the only 
begotten Sou of God," where " God " attracts much of the emphasis. 

(e) iv. 9 r\ ywi] 1) Sa/xapetri? (the context lays stress on her 
Samaritan origin, " from me being a woman that is a Samaritan "). 

(£) vi. 13 ek tlov ttIvtc dpTiov tQ>v kplOlvlov, "from the five loaves — 
that were, as I have said, of barley." This detail is not given by the 
Synoptists (1985). 

(77) x. 11, 140 iroLp,y)v 6 koAos (3 times). Contrast ii. 10 (bis) tov 
KaXov olvov. 

(6) xviii. 10 to wTupLov to SctioV (1985). 

(1) xviii. 160 p,a8r)Tr)<i 6 a'AA.09 6 yvwcrTo? tov dpx- (? distinguished 
from Peter, who was not " an acquaintance of the High Priest ")« 
Contrast xx. 2, 3, 4, 8 d d'AAos p., xx. 25, xxi. 8 01 cIXXol p.. 

(k) xviii. 17-7 7rcuSto-K?7 17 Ovpwpos (called previously (xviii. 16) 
"the door-keeper" (fern.), 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 it. t<x ip.d) 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 (t<x tt. p.ov)." 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 5 

[1988] ARTICLE 

might call His own special commandment. Hence He says, xiv. 15, 
" If ye love me, ye will keep my own [special] commandments (ras 
e. Tas ep.a's)." 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 (tols i. /xov) and keepeth 
them — he it is that really loveth me." So the emphatic is followed 
by the unemphatic in xv. 9 — 10 "Abide in my [special] love (iv rfj d. 
rfj If ye keep my commandments ye will abide in my love (iv 
•j-77 a. fxov)," 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. 10 — 12, "If ye keep my commandments (ras e. 
/xov)... this is my [special] commandment (7} i. -q i/xrj) 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) iii. 29 avTTj ovv r\ ya-pa- ij epr/ 7re7rXr;pa)Tat. There is harmony, 
not antithesis, between " my [own] joy " and "your joy " in xv. 1 1 

iva tj \<xpd r\ ep?) iv y kcll rj X a P°- ifiwv TrXrjpuyOrj. 'Yp-eVepos (1774) 

is very rare. Comp. xvi. 22, 24, rrjv yapdv i/xiLv and xvii. 13 Iva e^cuo-iv 

rrjv yapdv rrjv i[X7]V TreTrXr]pii)p.evrjv iv eavrois. 

(/?) V. 30, viii. 16, rj Kpi(TL<i tj i/xr] Strata (dXrjB unrj) ccttu'. 

(y) v. 30, vi. 38, to dek-q/xa to ifxov (antithesis in context). 

(8) vii. 6 6 Katpos 6 e'pds...d de Kaipos d Operepos (antithesis). On 
repetition the writer (1987) adopts the less emphatic form vii. 8 
o epos Kcupos. 

(e) viii. 17 /cal iv tu 1'dp.a) Se tw i5p.eTe'pu), "yea, and even in your 
very own law." There is no antithesis but very strong emphasis. 
Contrast vii. 51, x. 34, xviii. 31, d vdp,os vixwv (dju.wv). 

(£) viii. 31 eav vixeis pen tjtc iv tw Aoyw tw epai, 370 Aoyos o epos 
ov X 0) P € ^ * v u /"Vj 43 T0V Xoyov tov iixov, xvil. 17 o Aoyos o o-os. 
Contrast v. 24 rov Adyov pov, viii. 51 tov ifibv Xoyov, 52 tov Xoyov 
/xov, xiv. 23 tov Adyov ixov, 24 tovs Adyous fxov, xvii. 6 tov Aoyov aov, 
J4 tov Ad-yov aov. 

(77) viii. 43 Trjv AaAiav tt;v i/xrji'. Contrast iv. 42 TTJV o-rjv XaXidv 
(marg. tt/v XaXidv o-ou). 

($) viii. 56 ttjv T/pe'pav tt/v i/xr/v, emphatic in a Messianic sense. 

(1) x. 26, 27 to. rrpd/iaTa t« iixd emph. Contrast x.\i. 16, 17 rd 


(k) xii. 26 d Siaxovos d epos, " my own [true] minister." 


ARTICLE [1990] 

(A.) XIV. 15 ras ii>To\d<; tol? epas, XV. \2 rj ivroXr) 77 cp?7. See 1987 

and contrast xiv. 21, xv. 10 ras evToXa's yu.ou. 

(p) XV. 9 /xeiVaTC eV T77 ayairi] rrj i/xfj, {lb. 10) /xevetTe iv rr} dydirr] 

pov (see 1987). 

(v) xvii. 24 rrjv $6£av ti]v i/xrjr. Contrast viii. 50, 54 vj 86£a pou. 

(£) xviii. 35 to 6^i'os to crov (contemptuously emphatic on the 
part of Pilate). 

(o) xviii. 36 rj (3aa-iXeta r\ €p.rj (bis)... 01 VTvqpzTai ol epoi. 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 oi Sia tt)v o-r/v AaAmv (marg. 
tt]v Xakidv crov) fairly emphatic, being antithetic to an implied " be- 
cause of our own hearing," v. 47 tois epois, antithetic to toi? 
eKeiVou ypdixixao-Lv. In vii. 8 6 ep.os /catpo's occurs after an emphatic 
(vii. 6) 6 Katpos 6 epos. The non-reduplicated form (though more 
emphatic than 6 Katpos p-ov would have been) is probably not so 
emphatic as the reduplicated. In vii. 16 77 epr) SiSa^r) ovk Zo-tiv 
ifjL-r], " that which is [in one sense] my teaching is [in another sense] 
not [really] mine," the first ip.ij is moderately emphatic. In viii. 51 
tov ip.6v Ao'yoi', "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 elp-rjvrjv ttjv epr/V, 
which must be taken with its context, see 1993. 

(vii) Omitted, or misplaced 

[1990] In xi. 19 "Now many of the Jews had come to Martha 
and Mary (7rpos ttjv MdpOav koL Mapiap.) to comfort them (am-as) 
concerning their brother (7rept tou dSeXcpov)," we should have expected 
T77V either to be omitted before MdpOav, or, if not, to be repeated 
before Mapiap. D omits it before Map#av: A has u to the household 
{irpb<i Tas 7repi') of M. and M.," and so too has C 3 (Trep-q): SS (Burk.) 
has "went forth to Beth Ania that they might comfort Martha and 
Mary," omitting " concerning their brother." The facts indicate that 
" the Martha-and-Mary" was felt by some scribes to be a combina- 
tion intended to mean lt the household" of the two sisters, and hence 
they (perhaps influenced also by the proximity of [aij]Ta.9 7repi tov 
d8e\(j>ov [Ptaken as an error for "the household oi the deceased brother, 

67 5—2 

[1991] ARTICLE 

t. 77. tot dSeX^o'i']) substituted ras we/oi for rqv. The reading of SS 
suggests that the translator took [ai]-ras ircpl rov aSekcpov 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. i Thess. i. 7—8 
iv rrj Molk. kou lv ttj 'Ax-.-.eV rfj M. Kol ' A x . (R.V.) "an ensample to 
all that believe in M. and in\ only in M. and A. but in every 
place" (A.V. (Ins) "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) 1 , and "every [other] place." 

[1992] xii. 9 — 12 (W.H.) Zyvu> ovv o 0x^.0? ttoXvs €k iw 'IouScuo.iv — 
Trj iiravpiov 6 oxA-os ttoXl-s o i\6wv els rr/v ioprrjv 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 6 ttoXvs ox'W, 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 elprj\r)v acpLTj/JLi. vfiiv, elpr]i'r)i> rrjv c'/at/v Si'Su^u vp.iv, 
if Jn had written, in the second clause, rrjv i. r. ifirjv, the article 
would have suggested, for the moment, a reference to the I 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 I 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 ipbv /3pw/xd hrriv iva ttoitJo-w... we ought not to 
say that the article is omitted but rather that the predicate is placed 

1 [1991 <i] 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 thief priests and Pharisees." But the article is 
tted before " Pharisees" where they are regarded as two distinct classes com- 
bining in hostility against Jesus (vii. y. dTr^oreiXai', xi. 47 0-1^70701'. \i. 57 
otdwKeiaav ^croXds). 



before the subject 1 . 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: " My 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". 

(viii) 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 3 . 


(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 o{ 
such a conjunction springs the ambiguity noted by R.V. marg. in 
the words " Without him was not made anything. That which (o) 

1 [1994 a] In i. i debs rjv 6 Xbyos, iv. 24 irvevixa 6 debs, 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 <rK\rjpbs eariv 6 Xbyos ovtos, "hard [indeed] is this 
saying," and iriarbs and evXoyrjTos are often thus placed (though not in Jn). 

2 [1994 6] In Jn iv. 43 (R.V.) "after the 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 those two days and no more. In Jn xviii. 3 
(R.V.) "the band (marg. cohort)," A.V. ("a band") has missed the reference to 
"the band " that regularly kept guard in the fortress called Antonia. 

a [1995 a] Bruder (1880) gives to with inf., Mk c. 15, Mt. c. 24, Lk. c. 70, Jn 
only 4, namely i. 48 irpb tov ae <f>. (pwvrjaai, xiii. 19 irpb tov yevicrdai, xvii. 5 irpb 
tov tov Kbdfxov elvcu, ii. 24 Ota Tb ai'TOv yivucTKeLv. 




hath been made," where many have taken the meaning to be (as 
R.Y. text) "anything that hath been made 1 ." 

[1997] The omission of the conjoining words commonly called 
conjunctions is called "Asyndeton," i.e. "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 "this"', with the conjunctions 
"if" and "even as"; with an adverbial phrase ("in him was light"); 
with a participle with the article ("he that believeth (6 -n-io-TevW')," 
or sometimes " everyone that (7ras o) believeth "). Sentences fre- 
quently begin abruptly with " noiv " 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," "Excommunicated shall they make you 2 ." 

[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 he baptizes with 
water : 

Mk i. 8 

" I baptized 
you with water, 
but he shall 
baptize (5V)...." 

Mt. iii. II 
" I on the one 
hand{\ikv) bap- 
tize you in 
water to re- 
pentance, but 


Lk. iii. 16 
" I on the one 
tize you with 
cometh (8 e ')...» 

Jn i. 26 
" I baptize in 
water : midst 
of you stand- 
eth (/xe'cros vfxcov 
o-Tr/Kei) one..." 

[1999] Under the head of "Conjunctions, ko.6ws," instances will 
be found where the absence of a ydp, Si, or /cat, makes it difficult to 
tell whether xa#w's 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, e.g. "There 

1 [1996</] (n i. 3—4. The meaning "That which..." would have been clearly 
conveyed by 8 5^, or (if the writer disliked 8 5i as confusable with 68() by 6<ra 5t. 

2 xiv. [9, xvi. 2. 



came into being (iyivero) [as distinct from rjv applied to the Logos] 
a man (ai'#p<o7ros) [as distinct from #eds applied to the Logos] sent 
from God. His name was John. This [man] came for witness 1 ...." 
The presence of asyndeton is most remarkable in the Prologue of 
the Gospel (i. i — 18) and in the Prayer to the Father (xvii. i — 26). 
The absence of asyndeton is very remarkable in xvi. 2 — n (which 
includes, as initial conjunctions, dAAd, /cat, dAAa, Se, 8e, dAA', dAA', 
ydp, Se, «at, yneV, Se, 8e). 'AAAd, "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) €<ds apTL, air dpn, vvv, ov/ceVi, r}8r), iv. 36, xii. 27, 31 (bis), 
xiii. 19, xiv. 7, 30, xv. 3, 15, xvi. 24, 30, xvii. 7; en, xvi. 12; 
fj.LKpbv kcli, xvi. 16. 

(/?) eirfira, elra, xi. 7, xiii. 5, xx. 27 ; oi'tws, iii. S. 

(y) T V bravpiov, i. 29, 35, 43, vi. 22, xii. 12. 

(8) iv eKeivr] Tjj 7]p,€pa, xiv. 20, xvi. 26. 

See also 2006 for Sid tovto, perd ravra etc. 

[2001] (2) With Conjunctions : 

(a) eaV, av, d, iii. 12, v. 31, 43, vi. 51, vii. 4, 17, 23, viii. 19, 46, 
ix. ^3^ x - 2 4, 35> 37> xi - 9> 4§, xii. 26, xiii. 17, xiv. 7, 14, 15, 28, 
xv. 6, 7, 10, 18, 19, 20 {bis), 22, 24, xviii. 36, xx. 23 (bis). 

(f3) kolOws, and ov Ka6w% v. 30, vi. 57, x. 15, xiv. 27, xv. 4, 9, 
xvii. 18, xx. 21. 

(y) on, XIV. 19 otl iya> £di kcu {i/xets ^r/crere. 
(8) oVtti', iv. 25, viii. 44, ix. 5, x. 4, xv. 26. 
[2002] (3) With Imperatives : 

ii. 16, iii. 7, v. 8, 28, v. 39 (?) Ipavvare ras ypa(pd<; (but see 2439 (i)), 
v. 45, vi. 20, 27, vii. 24, 52, xii. 35, xiv. 1, 11, 27, 31, xv. 4. 
(4) With Interrogatives : 
V. 44 7Tws, vi. 42 7rws, vii. ig ov Mwdct^s, vii. 42 ou^ 17 ypacprj. 

1 i. 6. 


(5) With Negatives : 

i. 8, v. 30, v. 37 ovt€, vi. 44 ouSet'?, vii. 7, viii. 27, 29, xiii. 18, 
xiv. 6 ovSet?, xiv. 18, xv. 16, xvii. 9, 15, xxi. 12 ovSets. 

[2003] (6) With the Object : 

(a) Object followed by Verb, vi. 68, viii. 26, 41, ix. 21, 25, 
x. 18, xiii. 34, xiv. 27 {bis). 

(/?) Object followed by Verb with Adverb or Clause intervening, 
v. 41, xiii. 37. 

(y) Object qualified by Relative or Participial Clause, xiv. 10, 

XV. 2 ; or with Adj., xvi. 2 a7roo-waywyous TroLfj<rov(Tiv v/xa?, XV. 13£om TavTi]<; ayaTrrjv ouSeis e'x et - 

[2004] (7) With Participles : 

(a) Participle without Article, i. 42 e^At'i^as avrai, xiii. 25 
aj'a7T€ow ckcifos oiirius, XX. 1 6 <7Tpa(f)e2aa eKt/'vr/ Aeyci auraJ, xxi. 20 
i7TL(TTpu<f>£l<; 6 IleVpos. 

(/3) Participle preceded by Article (with or without intervening 
Adverb or Adverbial Phrase), hi. 6, 18 {bis), 29, 31 {bis), 33, 36, 
v - 2 3> vi - 35' 54, 58. vii. 18, 38, viii. 12, 47, xi. 26, xii. 25, 48, 
xiv. 9, 21, 24, xv. 5, 23. 

(y) Participle preceded by Article and 7rus, vi. 45, xviii. 37, 
xix. 12. 

(8) With Prepositions : 

(a) Preposition and Noun, i. 1, 10, n, iv. 31, ix. 32, xiv. 2, 

xvi. ^^ xvu - *6- 

{(3) Preposition and Pronoun, v. 3, x. 9. See also 2006. 

[2005] (9) With Pronouns: 

(a) eyw (apart from eyoj el/ja) iv. 38, v. 43, vii. 8, 29, viii. 15, 23, 
x. 10, 30, xii. 46, xiii. 18, xvi. 33, xvii. 4, 9, 14, xviii. 20, 37. 

(/3) £yw dfxi vi. 48, 51, viii. 18, x. 9, n, 14, xv. 1, 5. 

(y) 77/Aeis ix. 4 (accus.), ix. 24, 29; at beginning of speech 
viii. 41, xii. 34, xix. 7 ; at beginning of clause iv. 22. 

(S) (TV xxi. 17 (^ai/Tci crv oI8as, crv yu'wcrKCis). 

(t) fyuls iv. 22, v. 33, vii. 8, viii. 15, 23, 41, 44, xiii. 13, xiv. 17, 
xv. 14, xvi. 20. 

(£) aAA.o(t) iv. 38, v. 32, vii. 41, ix. 9 {bis), x. 21, xii. 29. 
(■q) ttvro's ix. 21, iii. 28 avTol v/xas 

(0) e/ceu'os iii. 30, v. 35, viii. 44, ix. 9, xvi. 14, xx. 15. 

(1) ovros (apart from ravra) i. 2, 7, 30, iii. 2, iv. 18, 47, v. 6, 
vi. 50, 58, viii. 40, x. 3, xxi. 14, 24. 

(k) TaSra i. 28, vi. 59, viii. 30, ix. 6, 22, xi. 11, xii. 16, 36, 



xii. 41, xiii. 21, xiv. 25, xv. 11, 17, xvi. 1, 25, 33, xvii. 1, xviii. 1, 
XX. 14 (for /nerd ravra, see 2006). 

(A) outos, TavTr;i', ravra etc. in agreement, ii. 11, viii. 20, x. 18, 
X. 6, xv. 1 2 avrrj iarlv 77 ivroXrj ■>) ifxrj. 

[2006] Forms of ovros with Prepositions : 

(a) <ka tovto vii. 22, viii. 47, ix. 23, x. 17, xii. 39, xiii. 11, 
xvi. 15, xix. n. 

(/?) e/c rovrov vi. 66, xix. 12. 

(y) iv toutu) xiii. 35, xv. 8, xvi. 30. 

(8) fxerd tovto ii. 12, xix. 28. 

(e) fxera ravra iii. 22, v. 1, 14, vi. 1, xxi. 1. 

[2007] (10) With Relative clauses introduced by 2, oVou, ok, oVe : 

i. 4, iii. 32, viii. 21, xii. ^6, xvii. 12. 

(11) With the Subject: 

(a) Subject followed immediately (or with intervening Adverb 
or Adverbial Clause) by Verb 1 , i. 15, iii. 8, 35, iv. 20, vi. 49, 63, 
vm - *3> 35> 5 2 > 5 6 > ix. 41, x. 10, 11, xviii. 35, xix. 29. (In xvii. 17 
the verb is aA^eia kcrriv.) 

(/?) Subject qualified by Relative Clause or by Participle, i. 18, 
vi - 37, 63, x. 8, 12, 25, xii. 48". 

[2008] (12) With the Verb (not including aVe*^, el™, or 

Ae'yei) 3 : 

(a) Verb absolute, or followed by Adverbial Phrase, iv. 30, 
xiv. 1, xvi. 28 (bis, the second time preceded by irdXiv), xxi. 3. 

(fi) Verb followed immediately by Subject or Predicate, i. 6, 
9, 40, 41, 45- 47, ii- 17. iv. 7, 50, v. 15, vii. 32, viii. 50, 54, ix. 4, 35, 
xi. 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 ej3\€7rov eis d\\7]\ov<s oi fx., xxi. 2. 

(S) Verb followed immediately by Object (with or without 
intervening Adverb or Possessive Genitive), i. 42, vii. 34, ix. 13, 
x. 30, xiii. 33, xvii. 6. 

(e) Verb followed by oti, viii. 37, ix. 31, olSa and oiSafxev, 

XIV. 28 rjKovcrare. 

(£) To these add vi. 45 ecrriv yeypa/A/xeVov, ix. 40 rjKOvaav €K t<2v 

<E>apio-a<W ravra, where e/< twv <i>. is the Subject. 

1 In xvi. 21 i] YW77 orav rUrri, a conjunction intervenes. 

2 Asyndeton is also found in i. 39, iv. 7, xix. 14 wpa yi>, and x. 22 x^ 1 ^" V u - 

3 Asyndeton with these initial verbs is too frequent to permit or need a collec- 
tion of all the references. 


[2009] CASES 


I Accusative 

(i) Adverbial 

[2009] This occurs in Jn vi. 10 tov dptOjxov, viii. 25 rrjv apxWi on 
which see 2154 — 6, xv. 25 Swpeai' (from Ps. lxix. 4) which needs no 
comment. The present section will deal only with vi. 10 (R.V.) 
"Make the people (tov<; dvOpioirovs) sit down... So the men (ol aj/Spes) 
sat down in number about five thousand (tov dpiOfxor ws TrtvTa- 
Kio-xtAioi)." A distinction is probably intended by R.V. between 
" the people," i.e. the whole number, including women and children, 
and the "men" who are described by Matthew as (xiv. 21) "about 
five thousand men (avSpes) 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 all the "people" should 
be made to sit down, including the women and children, yet, for 
some reason or other, only "the men" sat down. We can however 
retain a distinction between dvOputiroL and avSpes by dropping ol with 
W.H. marg. "they sat down therefore, [being] men [exclusive of women] 
to the number of five thousand 1 ." 

[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 the me)i alone, 
following the customs of the Law 2 "; 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. xxii. 3 "Judas... 
being of the number of the twelve," and Rom. ix. 27 (Hos. i. 10) is 

1 (2009 n] (W.II.) aviirtaav r ovv ol avopes^ tov dpt0/j.6v ws Trevraiuaxl^i-oi (marg. 
01V, avdpes). Less probably, ovv, ol avdpes might be read, " they s;U down therefore 
— the men {-were, or, being] five thousand." 

1 [2010a] Cramer ii. 242 MapovcrCov 8t ywaiKuiv avv t^kvois /j.6vovs tovs avdpas 
dpidfxt? reus Kara, rbv v6fxov o~vvrjdtiat.s clkoXovOQv. 



used only in Acts and Revelation. In the former, it is always (with 
one exception) used to describe the growth of the Church 1 ; 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 kclt dpiOfxor is frequent. But the 
adverbial rbv api6p.6v rarely or never occurs in canon. LXX~. 

(ii) Absolute, or suspensive 

[2012] On vi. 39 iva irau . . . p,rj airoXecro) i£ avrov (where v. may 
possibly, but not probably, be accus., see 1921 — 2), and on xv. 2 irav 

K\rj/J.a....aipei avro... irav to Kapirbv cpepov KaOaipti avro, see 1920 — 2. 

(iii) Denoting time, but not duration 

[2013] iv. 52 — 3 '"Yesterday, \abouf\ the seventh hour (wpav 
i(386fxr]i') the fever left him.' The father, therefore, recognised that [it 
had left him] at that same hour (iKuvrj rfj u>pa) s ." The accus. is 
freq. in LXX in the phrase Trjv wpav Tavrrjv 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 " at the like of the time " : and it occurs in Rev. iii. 3 " thou 
shalt not know what hour (ttoio.v wpav) I will come against thee 4 ." 
It is perhaps vernacular, like our " what 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 oVras rbv (A oi?i.) a. e£a/acrxtX'ous, 
3 Mace. v. 2 rotis i\^(pavras woTicrai outols rbv d. irevTaKoalovs, also in Susan. 30 of 
the kinsfolk and attendants ocres rbv dpid/xov irevraKocnoi irapeyivovro (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(5] See Ex. ix. 18, 1 K. xix. 2, xx. 6. In Acts x. 3 wael irepl iipav 
eva-TTiv r. T]/j.epas, D is wanting, and W.H. follow the best MSS. in inserting wept. 
The accus. of duration in Jn is too frequent and regular to need comment. -Mk 
xiii. 35 /xfcrovvKTiov is prob. an adverb (2678). 


[2014] CASES 

(iv) Cognate 

[2014] Such a cognate accusative as vii. 24 rrjv SlkuUv Kp[o-iv 
k P lu€T€ requires no comment. But it is very unusual that this 
construction should accompany an accusative of the person as in 
xvii. 26 -q dya-n-q rjv rjydir-qo-ds fie, and it is surprising that (according 
to Alford) no Greek uncial except D has substituted rj for ffv. It is 
probably more than a mere coincidence that the only other such 
combination of personal and cognate accusative is a similar phrase, 

Ephesians ll. 4 01a ttjv Tro\\rji> dydir-qv avTov rjv r/yaVT/crcj' 77/xas. 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 x a pa x a W e h "rejoiceth with 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, "is 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 1 . 

(v) With special verbs 

(a) 'Akoyoo 

[2015] 'Akovw 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. 

(/3) rey'oMAi 

[2016] Tevofiat with accusative occurs in ii. 9 (R.V.) "And when 
the ruler of the feast tasted the water now become wine (cos Se 
eyeva-aro o a. to v8wp oh>ov yeyevqfxevov) 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 that was made 
wine," which would require to to be repeated after v8tap. R.V. marg. 
has " tasted the water that it had become wine." This would explain 
the construction here as parallel with that of yei'o/x«' meaning 

1 [2014 r/] I have not found in classical Gk an instance of dyaTrav rwa with 
&-yain)v. But comp. Otiyss. xv. 245 6v...<f>L\ei (i.e. e^lXei) TravToi^f 0i\<5T?/ra, and 
Soph. Electra 1034 tovovtov ^^os ix^° Ll P' j} ff ' (yd. 

7 6 


"taste and see that," in Hebrews " Having tasted [and seen that] the 
word of God [is] good 1 ." 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 ii. 9 is, whether the accusative is used 
like the genitive to mean " taste of" or to mean " taste and perceive 
that." Outside LXX yevofiat is rarely used with accusative : but in 
LXX the accusative is fairly frequent 2 . In N.T., ycuopu is never 
used with the accusative except in Hebrews as above mentioned and 
here 3 . 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 on as in Proverbs 
(2016 a)? 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 kclXov yevcra/j.ei'ovs deov prj/J.a (the nearest approach to 
which is Herod, vii. 46 yXvKvv yevaas rbv alQiva. " having made us taste, i.e. perceive, 
life to be sweet ") is a free quotation from Ps. xxxiv. 8 " taste and see that (yevaaade 
xal i'Sere on.) the Lord is good." In the context (Heb. vi. 4) yeuo/xcu occurs with 
the ordinary genitive ("having tasted of the heavenly gift"). Tevo/xai means 
" taste [and see] that (on) " " i.e. perceive that " in Prov. xxxi. 18. It also means 
"discriminate the taste of" and governs accus. in Job xii. rr o-ira (parall. to 
diaKpivei), xxxiv. 3 ppwaiv (parall. to ookl/jlo. j'et) , comp. Sir. xxxvi. 19 "As the 
palate discriminates (yeverat) the flesh of beasts of the chase (0pui/j.aTa drjpas) so 
doth the understanding heart [discriminate'] false words." 

2 [2017a] Steph. quotes only Antig. Caryst., Leonid., and the dictum of 
Suidas, yevopLdL, ainanKy. In LXX (besides the instances above mentioned) 
yevofxai is found with (1 S. xiv. 29 — 43) fipaxv t. fieXiros TOVTov...j3paxu /J-eXi, (Tob. 
vii. ir) ov8ei>, (Jon. iii. 7) fi-qSiu : but always with dprov (1 S. xiv. 24, 1 S. hi. $?, 
1 Esdr. ix. 2). In LXX, the accus. with yevofxai is always neuter, except where it 
is parall. (Job xxxiv. 3) to So/a/udfet. See 2016 a. 

3 [2017 £] The instances with genit. are Mk ix. 1, Mt. xvi. 28, Lk. ix. 27, Lk. xiv. 24 y. fxov r. deiirvov, Jn viii. 52 davarov, Acts xxiii. 14 jxi^oevos, 
Heb. ii. 9 davarov, vi. 4 dwpeas. 


[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 yevofxat 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 1 ." 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 — 
[now] become wine (and 2 (/<at) 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 wafer, but] it had become 
wine... 3 ." 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) TTpOCKYNe'cO 

[2019] Upoa-Kweoi 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 4 ... 
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—51, where it is shewn 
that (1) the dative is the regular form in LXX, but the accusative in 
classical Greek ; (2) the dative emphasizes the notion of " prostrating 
oneself to 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 

1 ix. 13, 17, 18. 

- Possibly Kal means " and yet," or " but," see 2136—45. 

'■* [2018 a] Codex a actually reads " aqua," but probably through scribal error: 
"cum autem gustasset architriclinus aqua vinum factum " 

4 [2019 n] In iv. 22 tt. 8 ovk oiSare 8 oidanev, the antecedent may be dat. or 

accus. Heracleon (Orig. Conim. Iluet ii. 213 1! i)8e<ra.v rlvi wpocrKvvovai) took it to 
be dative. 


DATIVE [2021] 

mountain nor in Jerusalem shall ye bow yourselves clown to the 
Father " ; and this is repeated : " They shall bow down to the Father 
[not in any place 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.)." 

II Dative f 

(i) Of instrument 

[2020] xxi. 8 " But the other disciples came by the little boat 
(tuj 7rAotapto) rjXOov)" appears to mean something different from 
coming "in (iv) the boat," the phrase used by Mark 1 . In Mk vi. 32, 
Tischendorf follows the authorities that omit iv 2 , and there the 
meaning may be that Jesus avoided the multitude by departing 
11 by boat," as distinct from " on foot" which is mentioned by Mark 
in the context. Chrysostom here contrasts "coming by the boat" 
with " swimming 3 ." 

(ii) Of time (completion) 

[2021] ii. 20 (R.V.) "Forty and six years was this temple in 

building," Tea-a-epaKOVTa kou e£ crecrtv wKoSofxtjOr] 6 vads ovto<;, 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 iJSoj/d ^/xepats TecraapaKovTa o'Acu? Kare^e'peTO, Euseb. v. 1 
7toAA.chs eTea- iv...o'<.aTpu//a<;, but always in passages where there is no 
possibility of confusing the dative of duration with the dative of 

t For the dative with special verbs, e.g. Triffrevw, rrpoaKvviu, see the special 
verbs in Index. 

1 Mk v. 21, vi. 32, with dicnrepdaavTos and dirTJXdov. Mt. xiv. 13 also has iv 
■n-Xoiip (but without the article) with dvex&priaev. 

- [2020 a] In Mk vi. 32 dirrjXdov iv tu irXoiy W.H. ins. iv without alter- 
native : the text there varies greatly. 

3 [2020 fi] 'AW ovdi ovtws iKaprip-que ry ttXoIu) irpbs avrbv iXdetv a\\a vrjxb^tvos 


[2022] CASES 

completion, which is the natural construction here, " was built [and 
completed^ in forty-six years 1 ." 

[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 2 . He takes it for granted that wkoSo/jltjOtj 
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 (Ant. xv. n. i foil, 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.E. p. 31) the Jews, at the time of 
the Passover, might have said forty-seven years, and, according to 
Westcott (ad toe.), forty-nine. It is against nature to suppose that 
they would have definitely understated this as "■forty -six.''' Much 
more probably they would have said " some fifty years." 

1 [2021 a] E.g. there is no possibility of confusing Ezr. v. 16 d-rrb Tore 'ius rov 
vvv uKodofirjOy] ical ovk eTeXiadrj, parall. 1 Esdr. vi. 19 dv ixelvov M^XP' T °u v *> v 
oiKo5op.ovp.evos ovk £\a8e avvr^Xeiav. 

- [2022 a] 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 I have 
italicised (ii. 188 e) wepl ov ovk ^x°/ a61 ' Tpavuss rbv tCiv TeaaapaKovra tcai ?§ iruiv 
diroSu^ai dX-qdei'6/j.evov Xdyov, 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 ami the temple, and I do not know if the 
temple was really built in that number of years." But the words are, toim hk koX 
Kara ret /xaKKaBaiKa woXXr) rts aKaraaraaia ytyovevai irepl rbv Xabv Kai rbv vabv Kai 
ovk olda e£' iron ipKodopLrjOr] toctovtols ZreaLv vaos. Steph. gives fiaKKa.8a.iKd as 
meaning "the hooks of the Maccabees" and ttot( appears to mean "ever" or "at 
any rate" — " I do not know whether the temple was ever built in this number of 
years." The Latin lias "tunc'' (reading rbre). Origen introduces all this with 
the words (Huet ii. 1S7 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," wQs t. 
k. I£ 'ireatv ipKoOop-TJo-aL (sic) <f>acri rbv vabv ol 'Iot'Satot Xtyovrai (marg. Xtytiv) ovk 
ixoiitv ei ttj ioTopla. KaraKoXovO^aonev. 


DATIVE [2025] 

[2023] But the definite " forty-six 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 {Ant. 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, i.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. ii. 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 1 ." 

[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 this 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. 

(iii) Of point of time 

[2025] iv. 53 "The father therefore recognised that [it was] 
at that same hour (on Ikwyj rfj wpa) in the course of which (iv ?y)..-." 

1 'Atto 5e deurepov grovs Aapeiov ews sktov dvew\ijpd}0ri...ev p.S~' treatf 6'Aots dwo 
rod TTpwrov Ztovs Ktipov. 

A. VI. 81 6 

[2026] CASES 

The majority of MSS. (Alford) insert iv before iKeivrj. 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 "about the seventh hour," which the 
father interprets as " precisely at the seventh hour." 

[2026] The phrase " in (iv) 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 (curd) 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) "returning a?id 
fnding" 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 irapd 

[2027] The Synoptic 7rapa dew — in the phrases "possible with 
God 2 ," "favour with God 3 ," "ye have no reward with your Father 
which is in heaven" (A.V. (txt) "of your Father 4 ") — rather gives 
the impression of meaning "in 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 irapd in Greek 
literature) as meaning "in the house of" John brings out this, which 
one may call "the domestic meaning," much more clearly, via. 38 
"That which I have seen in the house of the Father," xvii. 5 "And 
now glorify thou me, O Father, in thine own house (irapa crcavrw) 
with the glory that I had in thy house \yrapa croC\ 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 by him (rjp-rjv trap aur<3) 5 ." Both here and 

1 [2026 a] Luke has "in (iv) that same hour " once, vii. 21 "in that same 
hour he healed many «>f diseases." Hut lie prefers ii. 38, xxiv. 33 avrrj 7-17 
wpq. "at that very hour," x. 21, xii. 12, xiii. 31, xx. 19 iv avry r. u., "in that 
very hour." 

2 Mk x. 27, Mt. xix. 26, Lk. xviii. 27. :! Lk. i. 30, ii. 52. 
4 Mt. vi. 1. s Prov. viii. 22 — 30. 


GENITIVE [2030] 

in John, we might render irapd "by the side of" or "in the bosom 
of." On the distinction between 7rapa tw -rrarpi and napa tov 
7rarpos in Jn viii. 38, see 2355 — 7. 

Ill 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 1 . Mark 
never uses it in Christ's words, except once in the Parable of 
the Sower 2 . 

[2029] Matthew, in the Triple Tradition, uses it freely, like 
Mark, in the temporal clauses of narrative (often however with 8e 
where Mark has kcu'). 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 3 . As in Mark, the implied conjunction 
is "when" or "while," with perhaps one exception 4 . 

[2030] In the Triple Tradition, Luke introduces it twice into 
Christ's Discourse on the Last Days in insertions peculiar to him- 
self 5 , once in Christ's instructions for the preparation of the Passover 6 , 
and once in the words of our Lord at His arrest 7 . Luke appears to 
use it causally in xxiii. 44 — 5 "There came a darkness... the sun 
failing, or, being eclipsed" and quasi-causally in xxii. 55 "Now as 
they had lighted (irepia^avTuiv Se) a fire...," xxiv. 5 "Now as they 
were terrified (e/x<^o'/3wi' Se yi.vop.ivwv)." Except in these three 

1 [2028 a] Mk i. 32, ix. 9, 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 nai. 

2 [2028(5] Mk iv. 17 elra. yevofxivrfs dXiipews, Mt. xiii. 21 yevoixivrjs 8e dXitpeus^ 
Lk. viii. 13 kcu ev Kaipui ireLpa.criJ.ov. 

3 Mt. xiii. 6, 19, 21. 

4 [2029 a] Mt. xxvi. 60 /cat ou'x tvpov iroWQiv irpoo-e\dbvTiov ipevdofMapTvpuv. 

5 Lk. xxi. 26 airoipvxovTuiv ai>dpd)irwi>, xxi. 28 dpxo/J^vuv Be tovtwv ylveaOai.. 

6 Lk. xxii. 10 'I5oi> eiaeXddvTuv vp.Qv eh tt]v tt6\ii> (Mk xiv. 13, Mt. xxvi. 18 
TTrayere els ttjv tt6\lv). 

7 Lk. xxii. 53 Kad' i}p.ipau ovtos fiov (Mk xiv. 49 fifxi)v, Mt. xxvi. 55 

8s 6—2 

[2031] CASES 

passages, Luke appears, like Matthew and Mark, to imply "when" 
or " while." 

[2031] /;/ no case does John use the genitive absolute in 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 ii. 3, v. 13, 
vi. 17. " Though" is certainly implied in xii. 37, xxi. n, and 
perhaps in xx. 19 "There cometh Jesus, the doors being shut, 
i.e. (?) though the doors were shut 1 ." 

(ii) 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 (subject) 
loves man, 1 ' (2) " Man loves God (object)." " Of God" if it implies 
the former, is called a subjective genitive ; if the latter, an objective 
genitive. "The love of God" occurs frequently in the Johannine 
Epistle hut only once in the Gospel, v. 42 "But I know you, that 
ye have not the love of God in you," dAAd eyvwKa v^as on T571' dyaVv/v 
tov Otov ovk ex €T€ * v zavTols, 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, dyu7ny in N.T. is very rarely used with 
objective genitive, perhaps only once or twice". It is never thus 

1 [2031 a] 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 outos may be intended to 
mean, " though I was [in the temple by day, ye did not lay hands on me]." 

2 [2033 a] Westcott, on 1 Jn ii. 5, says that thegenit. with d>. "once marks the 
object of love, 2 Thess. ii. 10 17 ay. r?)? dX?;tfei'aj." He omits Lk. xi. 42 
7rap^px ecr ^ e T V V Kpicriv Kal rr}v aya^r/v rod deov. 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." Hut Cyril 
(Cramer) assumes the meaning to be dydirri 17 e/s debv (Winer and Alford are 
silent) and most people would probably take the meaning to be " [just] judgment 
and love toward God." 

|2033/'] In 1 Thess. iii. 5 "And [may] the Lord guide your heart safe 
(KaTevdi'vat vfiQu r. Kapdlav) into the love of God " the regular Pauline usage would 
of itself suffice to make it almost certain that it means " the 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 


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" iti 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 ii. 5) 
"perfected" by responsive human action, and it cannot grow and 
expand without pushing out the love of the world 1 . 

[2035] Greek scholars, familiar with ■>} dyd-n-r] 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 " the love" (as Jews used " the Name " and " the Will ") 
to mean "///<? 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 iii. 16 "Herein know we the love 

by the use of Karevduvu in Lk i. 79 "guide safely into the way of peace' 1 '' and by 
general Greek usage (Steph.), especially by that of Clem. Alex. 654 (Steph., but ? 
ref.) "guide the ship safe" and by Ps. cxli. 2 (LXX) " Let my prayer^ straight 
[to heaven] as incense before thee (KaTevdwd-qru) " 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 its. 

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 love 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." 


[2036] CASES 

[revealed by the Son of God] because he laid down his life for us," 
and in i Jn iii. 23 — iv. 10 "Let us love one another as he gave 
commandment to us.... Let us love one another, because the love 

[wherewith he commanded us to love one another] is from God 

Herein the love of God was manifested in us because he hath sent his 

only begotten Son herein is the lone [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 iii. 17 "Whoso shutteth up his heart... how abideth the 
love of God in him ? " 

[2036] These statements about "the [real] 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 the love 
that God hath in us'." That is to say, as we are in the sunlight even 

1 [2036 a] 1 Jn iv. 16 ko.1 jj^eh iyv<±n<afiev /ecu TTeiriaTevKaixev tt\v dydwrjv rjv ?x eL 
6 8e6s iv irjixiv. 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 maybe said to "love [with] love" (cogn. accus. dycnrdv dydnrfv 
(2014)), so we may be said to " trust [with] trust " (iricrTevaai irloriv), or rather to 
trust with something more than trust — to "trust [with] love (wLUTevaai dydwrjv). ,: 
Love is the atmosphere breathed by faith as well as the object of knowledge. 

[2036/^] As to 1 Jn iv. 16 ttjv dydirriv y\v £x el ° ^ e ° s 6 " ^/""i Westcott gives 
several instances of d.7. ^x €lv Dl U none of d.7. e r x e "' %" Tlvl except Jn xiii. 35 idv dy. 
%XV T€ & d\\r)\oLs, where iv dMiyXcus — a phrase capable of being applied to inter- 
course hostile as well as friendly (Aesch. Prom. 200 ordcris r ev d\\r)\oi<riv : but 
mostly friendly, Mk ix. 50 elprpreAere iv d. , Rom. xv. 5 rd avrb (ppovetv iv d.) — 
appears to be disconnected from ix elv an d 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 loved you, love one another thus shall men know 

you to be my disciples if ye keep love among one another." In Phil. ii. 1 — 2, 
"Comfort in Christ. ..consolation of love... fellowship of the Spirit... having 
the same love" the meaning seems to be that the Philippians are to '■'■keep" 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 ttjv els iavrovs dy. 
inTevrj e'x " 7 " 65 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 dy. £x w & ff °L means " I have love for thee " — we must take 
1 |n 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." 


GENITIVE [2037] 

while the sunlight is in us, so it is with love. Then he proceeds, 
" God is love, and he that abideth in the love [of God] abideth in 
God, and God [abideth] in him. Herein hath the love [of God] been 
perfected [working in our souls] along with us... Fear hath no 
existence in the love [of God], but the perfected love [of God] ' casteth 

out fear We (emph.) are loving [now, simply] because he first 

loved us 2 ." 

[2037] In the following passage, however, the objective genitive 
seems at first sight intended, i 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 the love of God (lit.) in order that 
(tra) 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 7vill 3 .'" But the "effort," or purpose, may, in 
this passage, be divine, not human. For (1) it will be shewn (2093 foil.) 
that, when our Lord says "This is my commandment in order that ye 
may love one another," an "effort," or " object," is implied on the part 
of the Son for the good of men, and (2) the Johannine phrase avrrj kariv 
77 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 :—for this is 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 the love of God in him?" So here, "What is the 
object of the love of God in you except that you should do His 

1 1 Jn iv. 16—18 7? reXei'a dydir-q, i.e. perfected, or fullgrown, in us, corre- 
sponding to (iv. 17) TeTeXeiw/xevr). 

2 [2036 c~\ 1 Jn iv. 19 77/ieis dyawuifxev, on avrbs irpwros T)ydirt)aev raid's. I have 
quoted 1 Jn ii. 5 — iv. 19 fully, because Lightfoot (2 Thess. iii. 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 airn] ydp icnv 17 dydin] rou 
deov iva ras evrokds avrou T7]pu/j.ev. 


[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. have not his word 
(A.0'701/) abiding in you (iv vfilv //.eWra), [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 (rrjv ay. t. Qeov ovk e^ere iv iavrois)." Theoretically, and 
taken by themselves apart from N.T. and Johannine usage, these 
last italicised words might mean, "Ye have no love for 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 in themselves" 
and Matthew follows Mark. Luke omits " in themselves 1 ." 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 in 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 life in yourselves." So in the 
Epistle (iii. 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 (vii. 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 iv eaurw — always regards it as the gift of God, not 
as the thought of man. 

[2040] (2) The second reason is the parallelism between "Ye 
have not in yourselves the love of God" and the preceding "Ye have 

1 [2039^] In the explanation of the Parable of the Sower, Mk iv. 17 ovk 
Zxoi'O-tv pi^av iv eavroh, Alt. xiii. 21 ovk i'x" 5e plfav iv tavrw, Lk. viii. 1 ; simply 
filfav ovk ^»wi". [So Mark alone has (ix. 50) "Have salt in yours, Ires (iv 
iavroh) and he at peace with one another (to dU^Xou)."] 


GENITIVE [2042] 

not abiding in you his Logos," i.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 

(iii) Partitive 

[2041] In partitive phrases with ttoXvs, John never uses 
Matthew's and Luke's expression 7roAAoi Twr..., "many of the...'." 
But he sometimes uses a modified form of it, interposing a verb or 
participle, e.g. " Many therefore having heard it [many L mean] of his 
disciples, said...." In such cases, the genitive is sometimes preceded 
by the Hebraic e« 2 : iv. 39 £k 8e rrj<; 7rdAew9 £i<eLvr]<; 7roAAoi iirio-rtvo-av 
eis avrov rwv 2., VI. 60 iroWol ovv aKovaavres £k twi' uaOrjrwv avrov 
eLTTav, xil. 1 1 ttoWol oi avrov virrjyov twv 'IouSattov, xix. 20 TOVTOV ovv 
rov tltXov ttoXXoX dveyvwcrav rwv 'IowSatW. Comp. vii. 44 rives 8c 
7}8e\ov e£ avrwv indcrai avrov. 

[2042] A construction almost if not quite peculiar to John is the 
partitive genitive, with or without «c, (a) before the governing word, 
or (b) with no governing word. In (b), £k t<Zv <&apio-aiMv 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] IloWol rQv 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^] The Hebraic " many from (Ik)" '"some from (4k)," which is also 
used by the Synoptists (though very rarely by Mark) is fairly frequent in In, 
especially in the Raising of Lazarus, e.g. xi. 19, 37, 45, 46. It is quite distinct 
from the selective e/c in classical Gk, e.g. dpurroi e/c. 


[2043] CASES 

1. 24 (?) Kai a.Tre<TTa\fJi£voi rjcrav €K Twf Qapio-aiiov, i. 35 lo"nr]KeL 'I. 
Ka.L £k tcoV ixaOrjTwv avrov 8vo, vi. 1 1 (?) 6/U.ot'tos kcu zk rtov ovjapioiv ocrov 
r/OeXov, vi. 64 aXAa ctovv e£ vfiOv -rive? 01, vi. 70 kgu e£ vfx.iav els 
otapoA.os etTTtv, vii. 31 ck tow ayAoi; 8c 7roA.A.oi eTno-revaav €is avroV, 
VII. 40 €K tov o%\ov ovv aKovcravrzs rwv A.oyajv rovrwv cAeyoi', 
IX. 16 lAeyov ow ck Ttov <Pa.pLcra.iiDi> tivcs, ix. 40 ^Koucxav ex twv 
<£>apicrautiv Tavra 01 par avrov 6Vt€S, xii. 42 o/xws p.£vroi kol €/c tcov 
ap^oi'rwj/ 71-0A.A.01 €7rt(TTeuo"av eis auToV, XVI. I 7 €t7rai' ovv Ik rdv paO-qrwi' 
avrov Trpos d\Xt]\ov<;, xviii. 9 ou'k a7TtoA.€cra ef auVw ouSeVa. 

(iv) Before Nouns 

[2043] The Synoptists place the possessive airov mostly after its 
noun, e.g. rbv lp.dvra avrov. John frequently places it before the 
article and its noun, e.g. avrov rbv l/xdvra 1 — somewhat like the Latin 
dative "loose for him the shoe-latchet": this throws the emphasis 
from the pronoun on the noun. See 2558 foil. 

(v) Special passages 

(a) With npooTOC and npdoTON 

[2044] i. 15, 30 7rpwTo's p-ov rjv, XV. 18 ip.e irpiorov vp.tov p.ep.1- 
o-qKev, see 1896 — 1901 and 2665 — 7, where it is maintained that the 
latter means "me your chief" and that vp.G>v is a possessive genitive. 

(J3) TiBepiaAoc 

[2045] In vi. 1 " Beyond the sea of Galilee [i.e. the sea] of 
Tiberias" the apparently superfluous genitive (Tifieptdb'os) 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 2 ." But Mark and 
Matthew speak of Gennesaret as a place at which the disciples 
disembark 3 . 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. Top avrov [pavra would emphasize atVou. 
- Lk. v. 1, 2, viii. 22, 23, 33. :t Mk vi. 53, Mt. \iv. 34. 


GENITIVE [2046] 

to substitute Gennesaret 1 . 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. i) 
"the sea of Tiberias" the scene of Christ's last manifestation to His 
disciples. T7/3epia8os in vi. i is a genitive of possession ("belonging 
to ")- governed by " sea" which must be understood as appositionally 

(7) 'H AiAcnopA toon 'EaAh'noon 

[2046] This phrase occurs in vii. 35 " Will he go to the 
Dispersion of the Greeks (tt/v Siaa-n-opav twv 'EWrjvwv) and teach 
the Greeks ? " In LXX, we find " the 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, i.e. belonging to, 
Egypt, Pontus, Cappadocia etc." Then "of Israel" might be 
assumed, and dropped for brevity, and so we might get (1 Pet. i. 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) 4 . 

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." 

2 [2045^] Wetstein (Jn vi. t) quotes Erachin 32 a "Tiberiadi mare murus 
est." Hot: Heb. i. 14.2 says that the lake called in O.T. " the sea of Chinnereth " 
is called " in the Targumists ' the sea of Genesar, Genesor, Ginosar," 1 it is the same 
also in the Talmudists, but most frequently ' the sea of Tibe?-iah.' " 

;! [2046 a] Is. xlix. 6 rr\v 5. rod 'I<rpar)\, Ps. cxlvii. 2 rots 5. (Aq. and Sym. tovs 
^wa/j.ei>ovs) toO 'loparfk. Wetst. ad toe. quotes Paralipom . feremiae MS. 6 di Bapovx 
airiaTeiXev et's rrp/ Siaawopav tGiv iOvCiv. 

4 [2046(5] 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 etc. 


[2047] CASES 


[2047] The difficulty about this phrase xii. 13 to. fiata t<2v 
<f>oLviKwv is that both fiata and ^>otVt«es, separately, may mean " palm- 
branches" (though the latter may also mean "palm-trees") 1 , 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 fiaiwv, jScuv, /3aeoiv etc., and sometimes 
d>oivi£, but never /?aia <poiviK<tiv, except as an anonymous rendering 
in Lev. xxiii. 40 " branches of palm-trees." Possibly fiaia. 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 o-TtfidSas " bed-litter." 
Matthew has the common word kX<x.8ov<; 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 aToif3a8a<;, where SS omits the clause, D has eor-n/foSas 2 , and 
some inferior authorities crrei/UaSa? and o-Ti>/3a8as. John's rare word 
(3aia has different forms, /3atva§, /3ata§, /3aeis, and possibly one of 
these has been corrupted by Mark into o-ti/?u'<W 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 fid'ca 
as belonging to <£oiVi/ces. 


[2048] xix. 14 rjv Sc Trapao-Kevr) tov Trda-\a 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 {Didach. viii. 1 and Mart. Polyc. vii. 1) 
" Friday." But what makes the phrase interesting is that John's 
insertion of tov irdcrxa- differentiates his use of irapacrKivij from that 
of the Synoptists, two of whom connect it with the sabbath, and 

1 See Wetstein ad loc. and 1 Mace. xiii. 51, 2 Mace. x. 7, xiv. 4 (comp. 
1 Mace. xiii. 37). 

2 [2047 a] If an early (lurk Gospel used (Jelf § 817) Ian 5' oi for ciWoi 5<f, 
"and others [carried] palms," ea-nSoi/iruas, it might explain the readings of Origen 
and 1 ». Hafa (p. may be illustrated by L. S. on \vyos and /j.6(rxot(ri Ktiyouri. 



none with (2087 — 8) the passover. Mark xv. 42 is most definite, rjv 
Trapao-Kevr] o ecrrtv TrpocrdfSfSaTov. 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, (b) 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 (xii. 13 to. fiaia twv cpoivtKwv) 1 . 

IV Nominative 

(i) Special passage 

(a) '0 Kypidc moy 

[2049] On the Nominative used suspensively see 1920 foil. 
Only one passage needs separate discussion, xx. 27 — 8 "'...and 
be not unbelieving but believing.' Thomas answered and said to 
him, i My Lord and (?) my God' (6 Kvpios fiov koL 6 #eds /xov)." 
Here the nominatives are said to be vocatives by Wetstein, who 
alleges (1) the LXX use of d 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 0ed?, 
and also of Kvpiz 6 0e6<; rjfx<2v (which is the regular rendering of " O 
Lord our God 2 "). (2) In classical Greek, the instances of quasi-vocative 
with 6 are (a) accompanied by ovtos, or <rv, or they are like our "Mr" 
in vernacular speech ("you, Mr cricketer, Mr Yorkshireman etc."); 
(3) or else, as in u> cp[\os, 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 Kvpu 6 0eds which tells 
against him, shewing that, although Epictetus could use d #cds 

1 For the genit. gov. by aKotw, see 1614, gov. by yevo/xai, see 2017. 

2 [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 6e6s /nov ko.1 
6 Kvpi6s ixov. In the preceding verse, " my Lord (Adonai)" is rendered Kvpie as it 
is regularly in LXX when applied to God (see Gesen. n a ref. to Gen. xx. 4, 
Ex. xv. 17 etc.). But here, as it follows the nominatival form of the vocative, 
6 6e6s fxov, it is rendered for conformity 6 Kvpids fiov. In Jn, 6 nvpios precedes 
o 6e6s. Steph. 876 c gives many instances of voc. (pl\os but all from poetry. 


[2050] CASES 

vocatively, he could not use 6 kv P lo<; thus. The Egyptian Papyri 
use Kvpie freely, but never, so far as alleged, 6 kv P lo<; vocatively. 
Thus, a great mass of evidence from all extant Greek shews that, had 
the vocative been intended, Kvpie 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 1 . 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 2 . If it is so used here, is " my Master " subject 
or predicate? If it were predicate we should have to supply " Thou 
art," or "It is," which is inserted in xxi. 7 "it is the Lord (d kv/ho's 
io-TLv)." But could i<TTLv have been omitted there ? In any case it 
could hardly be omitted here, since the meaning required would be 
"it is indeed my Lord," so that it would be emphatic 3 . 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 "Lord 4 ." 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 
Ko.1 in John. As for the omission of eWt, 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. 

- [2050a] "My Lord" occurs in O.T., like the French "monsieur," with the 
third person, in respectful address, Josh. v. r 4 " What saith my Lord(hvA not LXX) 
unto his servant," Dan. x. 19 " Let my Lord speak." But perhaps here affection 
is predominant over respect, and Thomas speaks about his Master in the act of 
replying to his Master. 

8 [2050 />] See Jn i. 49 av d...<rv...d, "thou art the Son of God, thou art King 
of Israel." 

4 I's. lxxiii. 25. 



inspired conviction 1 ? 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, "his 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 2 ." 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 3 . 

1 [2051 a] In N.T. the rule is that 6 Kvpios means " the Lord [Jesus]," and the 
article before Kvpios differentiates this confession from Hos. ii. 23 "Thou [art] my 
God," Kijpios 6 deds fxov el <rv, Zech. xiii. 9 "the Lord [is] my God," tctipios 6 6e6s 
fjLov, where some copies (Field) insert " thou art " (Kvpios el). 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 LXX to express "Jehovah our God": 
and he probably desired to convey 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 b] 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 Kvpie and 6 deos in Boeckh Inscr. 91 10 foil, 
with avarravaov, viro/jivijaov etc., there is 9124 ("lapis in marginibus valde corrosus") 
^.]7;[j't] Ilaeti'ft] la. '0 K(vpi)os dvd[Tr]avuov. But the usual abbreviation for Kvpios 
is not KOC but KC Moreover, after the month, and before avairavaov, it is usual 
(though not invariable) to insert inA i.e. lv5{lktiGivo%) with a number. Possibly 
this has been corrupted into OKOC, and avawavaov is used here (as it often is) with- 
out Kijpie or 6 6ebs. 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 o 6c, i.e. 6 6e6s. 

3 [2051^] But this is not quite satisfactory. For xiii. 13 (puveiri jxe 6 5i5a- 
(T/caXos ko.1 6 Kvpios, and Rev. iv. 1 1 <x£ios el, 6 Ktjpcos /cat 6 9eos tiixwv, 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 foil. 


[2052] CASES 

V Vocative 1 

(i) Special passages 

(a) TTath'p 

[2052] According to W.H. 2 , the word irar-qp is used vocatively by 
our Lord (a) in the regular form Trdrep, in the Raising of Lazarus, xi. 41 
'■'■Father, I thank thee," {b) after the Voice from Heaven, and xii. 27 — 8 
"What (2512/; — c) should I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? 
...Father, glorify thy name," and (c) thrice in the Last Prayer, xvii. 
1 — 11 "Father, the hour hath come — glorify thou me, Father,... holy 
Father (Trarep ayie), keep them in thy name." In all these cases 7raT€p 
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 7raTv;p: 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 he... Righteous Father (iva.ry]p oY/<aie)...." 
The final instance is a remarkable contrast with Wrep ayie (if 
7rarep 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 
•n-arep 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 3 . 

1 In xx. 28, 6 Kupids /xov 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 Teschendorf. 

:t [2053(?j 'O -rrarrip 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 TrarTjp thus used, without the article. 

[2053 /'] In xvii. 21, saOws av, irar-qp, ev Ifioi, might mean "even as thou [being] 
Father, art in me [as being Son]." And xvii. 24 irar-qp, 6 d^dwK&s /jloi may be 
compared with X. 29 6 war-rip /xov 8 dtdwutv fioi. 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 hi--! two 
instances as appositional, at the end of the sentence xvii. 23 Katfws (fie T)yair-ri<ras — 
TraTrjp, xvii. 24 6Vt -r/ydTTTjcrds fie irpb /cara/3o\^s k6ct/j.ov — var-qp. But though |ohn 
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 



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 eaV and 6Vav 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 2031. 

(ii) 'A\\a 

(a) 'AaAa = contrariety, "not this but that, or, something more" 
[2055] 'AAAa 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 "not this but that," 
or "this but not that," and John (2598) is fond of stating a truth in 
its negative and positive aspects. Theoretically, d\\d 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 a'AXa. 

[2056] In vi. 9, the negative ("this is true but not that") is 
implied by a question, " There is a lad here with five barley loaves... 
but 1 what are they...?" i.e. but they are not anything to the purpose. 
In vi. 34 — 6, the Jews say "give us this bread," and Jesus replies, 
"I 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, but (as 

meaning in the threefold use of irar-qp, following the threefold use of irarep, 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.) rl eilirw; irarep, awaov 
/j.e...raiJTr)v. irarep, Sb^aahv aov to ovop.0., the photograph of B has, most distinctly, 
first 7rarep in the rejected prayer, and then var-qp in the accepted prayer. [Tisch.'s 
txt of B neither reproduces irarijp (2653) — though it reproduces B's reading /xov to 
ovo/xa for croi/ r. 0. — nor comments on it as an error. Alford does not mention 
irar-qp. 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 foil.). Codex D, in 
xvii. 1 — 25, has irarep throughout, except where cv precedes the noun, xvii. 5, 21. 

1 [2056 a] Here and elsewhere in this section, " but" = &W&. 

A. VI. 97 7 


I said) ye do not 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 1 . 

[2057] In vii. 26 " Can it possibly be that (/j.y wort.) it was 
recognised by (eypoxrav) the rulers that this [man] is the Christ? 
Nay, but [as for] this man ('AAAd tovtov) we know his origin...": 
here dAAd 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 vii. 48 " Can it be said that a single one {firj ns) of the 
rulers has believed in him, or a single one of the Pharisees? But (dAAd) 
this rabble... are accursed," there is a reference to an implied negation : 
"Not a single Pharisee has believed in him : but the rabble are ready 
to believe anything." The next instance resembles the last two, 
though the question is not asked by yu.77, (" Could I possibly say (/xrj 
€t7rw)?") but by Tt ("What should I say (ti ct7ra))?") (for the various 
renderings of this see 2512^ — c) xii. 27 "What should I say (ri elirw)? 
' Father, save me from this hour ' ? Nay, but (dAAd) for this cause 
came I, to [meet] this hour." 'AAAd implies the negation, or 
opposite, of a prayer that is merely put forward as an impossible one 
for the Saviour to utter. 

(/3) ' A AAa = difference, "nevertheless" 

[2058] Passing over other instances (far too numerous to quote) 
where dAAd is used with an expressed or implied negative in the 
sense (1) "[not this] but [the opposite]" or (2) ["not this] but 
[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 nevertheless 
will take place, e.g. xi. 42 " I knew that thou hearest me always, but 
[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, but [nevertheless] be of good cheer." 

[2059] It is sometimes difficult to decide whether dAAd means 
"nevertheless" or "on the contrary," e.g. xv. 20 — 1 "If they perse- 
cuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they 

1 [2056/;] Comp. vi. 0^—4 "The words. ..are life. But there are some of 
you that lielieve not," where there is a contrast between the offering of a precious 
L;ift and the non-acceptance of it. 



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 : but 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 
foil.) so that the d\\d 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 "Nevertheless [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 dAAd means "nevertheless" in Christ's 
utterances of consolation, this meaning becomes all the more 
probable here. 

(7) Special passages 

[2060] 'AAAd means, at first, "not this bat 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, nay, more (dAAd), there cometh a time when everyone that 
killeth you will think he is offering service [thereby] to God." But 
in the following verses, dAAd (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. But 
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 
(Se) now I go to him that sent me : and none of you asketh me, 
Whither departest thou? but (dAA'), because I have spoken these 
things to you, the grief thereof hath filled your heart. But still 
(dAA') 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, but still I tell you the 
truth," or whether the real contrast is between "grief" and "profit- 
able," so that the meaning is, " Sorrow hath filled your heart, but still 
it is for your profit (as I have truly told you) that I should depart." 

[2061] The use of dXXd in the following passage seems in- 
explicable as it stands, iv. 21 — 3, "Believe me, woman, that there is 
coming a time when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem shall 

99 7— 2 


ye worship the Father. [ Ye worship that which ye know not, we 
worship that which we know, because salvation is from the Jews.'] But 
there cometh a time and now is, when the true worshippers shall 
worship the Father in spirit and truth 1 ." 

It has been shewn elsewhere (1702, 1713 m) 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, but in 
spirit and truth shall the Father be worshipped." 

[2062] It is hard to find a satisfactory explanation of viii. 26 
" I have many things concerning you to say and to judge. But 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 (xii. 48), will be the judge 2 ." 

(8) 'AAA' INA 

[2063] Where dAA' tVa is preceded by another parallel Iva 
(expressed or implied) the verb in the first Iva clause may sometimes 
be regarded as repeated in the second Iva clause, as in i. 7 — 8 " he 
came in order that (iva) he might bear witness concerning the 

1 [2061a] Westcott explains u But" 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 il ye know 
not"; concerning the Jews, u 7ve know." Is not this rather the "difference" 
between knowledge and ignorance? On 1 Jn ii. 19 ££ rifiCov e^ijXOav, dX\' ovk -qaav 
(!; rj/J-wv, where the meaning of d\\d may be affected by the meaning of ei;rj\t>av. 
see 2110. 

- [2062a] Westcott explains "but" by a paraphrase differently thus: "The 
utterance of these judgments will widen the chasm between us. But they must be 
spoken at all cost; they are part of my divine charge; he that sent mc is true..." 

[2062/5] Chrys. says "I have many things both to say and to judge, yea, and 
not only to convict but also to punish, but He that sent me, i.e. the Father, doth 
no) desire this (a\X' 6 irifiipas /ue, tovt£<jtiv, 6 \\a.jr\p, ov jiovXerai. toOto)." Theod. 
of I leraclea (Cramer) says "Even if yc do not take into your minds at present the 
day of judgment, yet He that sent me is true, and He hath decreed the day of 
requital (k<ii> els vovv fxr) XapL^dv-qre rbv tt)s Kplcrews Kaipbv, d\\' 6 irifxipas yuf, (pTjalv, 
dXrjdris {cttiv, 6s aipicre rbv rrjs diroobaiws Koupdf)." This is the view taken above. 



light... : he was not the light, but [? came] in order that {akX 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 verb 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 dAA' Iva as meaning " but [it was ordained] 
in order that." And even in i. 7 — 8 dAA' Iva might have that 

[2064] The ellipsis is certainly sometimes not contextual but 
idiomatic 1 . Instances must be considered separately, but generally 
it may be said that dAA' Iva, 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, but [all things concerning him — whether 
I knew them or not — were ordained] in 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) Tdp 

(a) Synoptic and Johannine use 

[2065] In Matthew and Luke (when both are independent of 
Mark) ydp 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, nine ("/or they were fishers," "for he 
was teaching them," "for she said... If I touch...," "for Herod 
having seized John," "for John repeatedly said to him," "for the 
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 

1 E-g. xiii. 18 eyw ol5a...d\\' 'iva i] ypacpr) irXypwOrj, xv. 24 — 5 vvv 5e kolI 
ewpanaaiv /ecu p.e /xuxrj k a aiv .. .dXX' 'iva irXijpwOrj 6 X670S See 2105 — 12. 

- [2065 a] "Strict narrative" excludes the words of the Baptist, the disciples, 
the Pharisees etc., which are included generally in the term "nan-.," as distinct 
from "Chri." (1672*). 



Mark 1 . Tap 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 2 . Mark uses yap 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 foil, "...that whosoever 
believeth may in him have eternal life. For God so loved the 
world that he gave... For God sent not the Son... and men loved 
the darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil. For 
every one that doeth ill hateth the light...." This use creates 
ambiguity. Many commentators have taken iii. 16 — 21 as Christ's 
words. Similarly Chrysostom 3 appears to assign to the Samaritan 
woman the words, iv. 9 "For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans," 

1 [2065/'] Mt. iv. 18, vii. 29, ix. 21, xiv. 3, 4, 24, xix. 22, xxvi. 43. xxvii. 18. 
The exceptional instances are Mt. xxviii. 2 dyyc\os yap Kvpiov, which finds no 
apparent parallel in Mk xvi. 4 r/i> yap fieyas <r<p68pa, and Mt ii. 5 ovtus yap 
ytypawTai..., iii. 3 ovros yap icriv 6 pijdds.... 

2 [2065 f] Lk. viii. 29, xviii. 23, xx. 19. Lk. uses yap 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). 

[2066«] Chrys. ad lor. TloSvi}yvrfj...'\£yei,ILus<rv'I. u>u Za/iape/rcus... 

Kai wodev . . .ivop.i'i'ev . . .Ov yap iIttiv on "Z. rols I. ov airyxpuivrai d\.V 'Ioroalot IHa/xa- 
peiras ov Trpoaievrai, i.e. "For she did not say that Samaritans have do dealings 
with the Jews hut Jews repudiate Samaritans.'' Apparently Chrysostom thinks 
that ov o-vyxpuvrat means what his hearer> would render ov irpoo-UvTai, which is a 
litth- stronger (-re Steph.). 

[2066/;] In other passages, the abundance of yap ought not to be ignored as a 
ible indication of evangelistic origin, e.g. v. 21, 22, 26. Here Ciairep yap 

Iwiet . uo-wcp is not elsewhere found in John, and it would he possible to 

regard v. 21 — 3, and v. 26—7 a- comment 011 the clauses addressed to the fews in 
the second person. 



which are regarded by many modern commentators as a comment 
of the evangelist, if not an interpolation. 

(/3) 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, Judiea, because He had not been honoured in the 
latter." A second interpretation might be (2), "After having acquired 
honour in Judaea, 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, l For can it be that (fxrj 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 !] 
for...." 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 "For herein is the wonder of wonders (iv tovto> yap 
to davfxao-Tov) 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 !] for herein 
is the wonder... 1 ." But the text is doubtful. See 2393, 2683. 

1 [2068rt] 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 Xeyerai tl ko.iv6v ; [An amazing question !] yevono yap &i> tl /cat- 
vorepov ; Soph. Ajax 1125 — 6 aw okj... [An amazing statement !] diKaia yap...; 
where Kaivov and 8Lkt) are, practically, repeated. So ttQs yap (or, yap ov) ; means 
" [A surprising question !] For how could it be so [or, otherwise]? " 


la) Consecutive or a . ve 

'2069" In classical Greek. o«f. calling attention to the second of 
two things, may mean ( i ) " in the next p. i . ; ■ on the other he 
somewhat as our English word ' ; other" may mean ;i another | of the 
same h'nd]'' or in hind]," i.e. Eferent, opposite. The former 

may be called " narrative oe " because it is frequently used to 
ribe the sequence of events in a story. But in I s sense John, 
as compared with Matthew ike, very rarely ses it 

the phn~ - - when He uses it much more fit 

the latter sense, though not nearly so often as Matt - 

"2070" But there r sense in which John 

introduce that which comes second not in point of time but 
of thought, as being the next point to note, thus : " His r. -aith 

untc - -ever he saith unto you. do it. Nt - 

next point to note is that] there a rm ■ -. six wa bs .Jesus 

saith unto them, Fill the waterpot- Similarly in the Feeding of 
the Five Thousand, after recording the command, i; Mak I _ men 
lie down," John add-. "Now \the note is that I was 

much grass in the pla: And this . may occasionci 

introduce something of the r A an epigram. .-y cried 

out. ..'Not this m Barabbas." Nt i I : next point ft 

that - /:arabbas was a robbe: — thus implying . :on- 

nation (amplified in the .'-. : :he preference of a "rot 

to the Prince of Life. This parenthetic or supplemc i 

to introduce to the reader the for him to notk . 

hardly found in t" 

"2071" I: is sometimes difficult to decide whether -. hn is 

adversative or consecutiv _ s garments and r. 

four portion^, for each soldier a portion, and the tonic 
the tunic w - - without a seam"'." where the r. 

1 [2069 

6 etc. Br - ■ gives tc 

especial The 

IO. 4.O. . • \ : 



may be either "But the tunic on tht other hand [as of; 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 r/r 6e is used to introduce Nicodemus \ w there was a nun 
of the Pharisees"), the man cured at Bethesda (or Bethsaida), 
Lazarus, and perhaps the "nobleman" whose son is cured near 
Cana 1 . On o 8c in John, see 2684. 

2072] The uses of o«, adversative and consecutive, may be 
illustrated by the only two instances in which it occurs in the 
body of Luke's Gospel after 'Itjo-ows without the article. The 
introduces '-Jesus" as representing a new character entering on the 
si ge of public life* j the second represents contrast between Judas 
and Jesus 8 . The first of John's only two instances appears to be 
adversative, "They therefore took up at him. But 

Jesus ('I. oc) was hidden from them and went forth from the Temple 4 ." 
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 tv. . for they loved the glory of men 
rather than the glory of God. But Jesus ('I. Se) 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 Lig I and 
Christ's protest against the rejection. 

2073] When Se is used, without the article, after other 
names, there is a somewhat similar doubt. Probably however con- 
tract is intended — Mary being distinguished from the two disci; 
who had entered the tomb of the Saviour and had retur: -.heir 

homes, one at least believing — in the words " But Mary (M. i i -tood 
near the tomb outside weepii _ S tilarly the words, - But 

Tho; - . contrast Thomas, who had not seen the I 

1 [2071 a] iii. i, v. 5, xi. 1, and iv. 46 (marg.). In some of th 3 }n 

specifies time ("after these things," -'after the two days" etc.) an I place, and then 
introduces persons and circumstances. In ix. 14 " Now it was (r/v Se) the sabbath" 
introduces a point essential to the comprehension of what follow -. 

- [2072 a] Lk. iv. 1 'I. Se TrXrjp^s irvevnaros iylov briarpe •/'«'.... This 
the genea'i :+ 38) which is preceded by iii. 23 ko.1 otVij t\v 'I. apxop.evo$.... 
The nom. (as subject) has previously occurred without the article in Lk. ii. 43 
VTrefieivev 'I. 6 ttous, ii. 52 /cat 'I. irpoeKowrev..., iii. 23 /cat ai'ros tjv 'I. dpxou-fvoi 

3 Lk. xxii. 48 'Iti<joCs Se tlrer aiV£, 'lovSa. . 

4 viii. 59. 5 xii. 44. .11. " x.\. 24. 



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 Se' : 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. 

(/3) Ae, third word, or later, in its clause 

[2074] The instances are as follows, vi. 51 koI 6 dpTos Se 6V eyw 

otocrco rj crdp£ /jlov ecrTtv..., vii. 31 « tov d^Aou Se 7roA.A.ot e7rio~Tevo~av eis 
avrov, viil. 16 /cat iav Kpivto Se eyw, viii. 1 7 Kat ev tw vofjuo Se t<5 
t'tterepu) yiypairrai (comp. 1 Jn i. 3 /cat iq /coivouvta Se 77 rjp,erepa), 
XV. 27 e/cetvos fJLapTvpyjaei 7repi ip,ov- /cat i!>u€is Se ttap-rvpeiTe, xvi. 9 — 10 
7rept d/xaprtas p.ev...7rept StKatocrw?7s Se', xvii. 20 or 7rept toijtwi' Se 

epwrco p.oi'ov, xxi. 23 ov/c et7T€v Se avra) 6 'Iyycrovs . . . These may be 
classified according as Se' (1) is not, or (2) is, preceded by /cat. 

[2075] (1) In vii. 31, e/c Se tov d^Aou 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 tov d^Aou that 
e/c tov ox^ov might be regarded as almost a compound noun. In 
xvi. 9 — 10, per and Se' are placed third after preposition and noun 
as is frequently the case. In xvii. 20 ov Se' would have been against 
the rules of Greek. Compare 1 Jn ii. 2 7rept tw dpaprttui' yp-uiv, oi 

7repi twv T^aeTepaH/ Se p.6vov, dAAd Kat' But, in both, the unusual 

position of Se probably calls rather more attention to the context as 
worthy to be noted. In xxi. 23, A, D, and a, l>, ^,/etc. read Kat ovk 
€?7T€i' for ovk etTrev 8c. The weight of NBC 33 and Origen is so 
great that we must accept Se', as representing the earliest Greek 
text. But, on the other hand, Kat — where we should naturally 
expect dAAd or iteWot — -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 Kat would be corrected by a marginal 
Se'. When scribes began to transfer this to the text as a substitute 
for Km they could not place Se' after ovk, so they would place it after 
ovk et7rev. 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, ovk et7rei' Se is perhaps without parallel in Johannine Greek 1 . 

1 [2075 a 1 Ae is irregularly used in x. 41 'Iwdv-qs ntv ffrjixeiov ewoirjo-ev ovdtv, 
Tr&VTO. 5t oca dirtv 'I. Trepl tovtov aWrjVij r)v. But there the irregularity arises from 



[2076] (2) In the combination of Kai and Se', since ko.L would 
have sufficed to express mere addition, Se' seems to be devoted to the 
expression of emphasis, so that ko.1...8z probably means " and... what 
is more," in the sense "and... what is to be specially noted." Winer- 
Moulton (§ 53 p. 553) indicates two opinions as to koL Se': — (1) that Kai 
= " also," (2) that Kai = " and." If Kai meant " also," emphasizing the 
following word, Mt. xvi. 18 Kayw Se' 0-01 Ae'yw would mean " I also," 
or "Even I"; and, in Jn vi. 51 Kai 6 ap-ros would mean "even the 
bread" or "the bread also" — not likely interpretations. There are 
cases where initial Kai is shewn by some special preceding context to 
be, not "and," but "also" or "even." But, as a rule, Kai standing 
first in a sentence is to be assumed to mean "and." Kai in viii. 16, 
Kai lav Kpiv<n Se' might possibly be emphatic (not connective) "Even 
if" ; but, if so, the best course would be to treat both Kai and Se' as 
contributing to emphasis, "Yea, even if I should judge." 

(7) MeN...Ae 

[2077] In Johannine Words of the Lord, ftcv occurs only twice, 
and there Se' follows. Both instances occur in the chapter containing 
Christ's last words to the disciples : (1) xvi. 9 — n 7repi a/xaprtas /*eV 
...7repi 8iKaLoo"vvr}<; 84. ..7repi Se Kptcrews, (2) xvi. 22 Kai vfxeU ovv vvv fxev 
\v7rrjv e'^ere* 7raA.1i' Se oij/o/xai v/jlols. In xvi. II, 7rep<. KpiaeiDS Se' 

would have corresponded so exactly with the two previous 7rept 
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. MeV...Se' nowhere 
occurs in the Epistle. 

(v) El 

(a) Ei, corresponding to aim, in Words of the Lord 
[2078] Mark (followed by Matthew) only once attributes to 
our Lord a saying about what "would have happened 1 ," and 
such sayings are rare in Matthew and Luke 2 . But in John they 

the position of ixiv. Ylavra dt would have corresponded to ly-q/xe'cov /xev. Or we 
might have expected dWd or /xeVroi following 'I. without /xeV. 

1 [2078 a] Mk xiii. 20 (Mt. xxiv. 12) "If the Lord had not shortened those 
days no flesh would have been saved." 

- [2078/0 Mt. xi. 21—3, Lk. x. 13 "If in Tyre...," also Mt. xii. 7 (pec.) "If 
ye had known. 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 



occur more often than in all the Synoptists together 1 . The only 
passage that requires comment is one in which W.H. omit aV, 
viii. 39 " If ve are children of Abraham, then ye are doing (woteiTe) 
the deeds of Abraham. But as it is (jw 8e) ye are seeking to 
kill me 2 ." 

[2079] Here B alone has iroievre, and a scribe (possibly the 
first hand) has added c in smaller characters, so as to make e-oien-e 

(without av). L reads 67roieiT«: av, D eTroieirc, N eirouvrai, corr. adds 
av. The inferior mss. have "If ye were (^re) would be doing 
(iiroielTe av)." SS renders iroulre imperatively, " If ve are... do ye 
the deeds of Abraham " : but no instance occurs in John of an 
imperative preceding vvv oe, "but as it is," which requires before 
it either "ye would be doing" or something equivalent to it 3 . We 
therefore have probably to choose between ttoicTtc indicative and 
liroieurz. 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 iiroieire av. Omis- 
sions of av are found in John elsewhere 4 : but they are always with a 
negative. IIoietTc is therefore to be preferred here. In a similarly 
irregular passage, Lk. xvii. 6 ei exerc 7rarriv...eA.eyeTe av, many MSS. 
alter the present tx €Te ' m ° the imperfect ; and the tendency to do 
the same here would naturally be strong. If Codex B had been 
lost and only a fair copy of it preserved, writing e noieiTe as enoieiTe, 
not a single Greek uncial MS. would now preserve what appears to 
be the correct reading 5 . 

of the house had known..." Lk. xvii. 6 has el ?x eTe frhmv...iX4yeTe &v, where 
Mk xi. 23 (Pparall.) has ^x €Te tt'iotlv, Mt. xxi. 21 iav ^x r ) Te ttI<ttiv, followed by 
future. In Lk. xix. 42 " If thou hadst known," the apodosis is dropped. 

1 [2078r] iv. 10, v. 46, viii. 19, ? viii. 39, ix. 41, xiv. 7, 28, xv. 19, 
xviii. 36; also with el fx-q in xv. 22, 24, xix. n. In these last three instances 
&v is omitted. 

- El T€Kva tou A. iare, to. Zpya tov "A. 71-oten-e (marg. etroielTe). vvv dt ^rjTeiri ne 

3 [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 it is {vvv oe)...." 

In xvi. 5, xvii. 13, the meaning is, "Things were different once but m it is 

(vvv 64)...." 

[2079/'] ix. ^t„ xv. 22, 24, xix. 11 el firf in every case, ix. 33 is not a saying 
of Christ's. On &v omitted with indie, see 2213 ,1 and 2698. 

•' [2079 ^ J Origen's present text, when he is not expressly commenting on the 
ige, 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. »86, 294 6) with 
W.H. txl, twice (i/>. ii. 290, 293) with W.H. marg., comp. 2659 c. 



(/3) Ei Ae mh 

[2080] Et 8e fnj, without a verb, in LXX, almost always follows 
an expressed or implied imperative 1 . Apart from John, in N.T. 
(sometimes as d oe /^'ye) it follows (i) description of what ought 
to be done, (2) precept, (3) an if-clause 2 . In John, where it occurs 
twice, it follows an imperative in xiv. n" Believe me (p.01) that 
I [am] in the Father and the Father in me. But if not (d. Se fx.i]), 
because of the mere works believe," i.e. 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 ; if it were not so (d Be p,rj) I would have told you ; for 
(6'rt) I go ( to prepare a place for you. And if I go 
(TTopevOio) 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 (vTrdyo>) ye know the way." 

[2081] (1) The first point to be noted about this difficult 
passage is that €i Se prj 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 d Se /irj 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... hit, if [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" ( and "going back, or home" (virdyw) 
(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 (vii. ^t,) " I go back (vTrdyw) to him that sent me," and they 
say (vii. 35) "Where doth he purpose to go (TropeveaOai) i.e. journey?," 

1 [2080 a] The exceptions are Gen. xviii. 21, Job xxiv. 25, xxxii. 2 3. In Sir. 
xxix. 6 ei oe / follows eiw iax^' a V- I n 2 S. .xiiiL 6 jcoiriafl^v . . .d 5e /x-q, the verb 
may be intended to imply an imperative, "let us do." 

2 Mk ii . 21, 22, Mt. ix. 17, Lk. v. 36^7 ; Mt. vi. 1, Lk. x. 6, xiii. 9, xiv. 32, 
1 Cor. xi. 16, Rev. ii. 5,~ToT 



adding "Doth he purpose to go to the Dispersion of the Greeks?" 
It is also noteworthy that, up to this point (xiv. i) in the Gospel, 
Jesus has repeatedly described Himself as "going home, or back 
(vTrdyu>) " to the Father, but never, spiritually, as "going [on a 
journey (7ropeuo/" In the preceding context He has just said 
to the disciples twice (xiii. 33, 36) " Where I go home (virdyu>) 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 (7rop€t'o/Mcu)," and the context suggests that He 
does this in order to adapt His language to the understanding of 
the disciples 1 . 

[2083] (3) A third point is, that eiTrov av ip-lv on Tropevo/xat, 

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 that 
I am going." SS takes it thus. Chrysostom and many other 
authorities do the same, but omit on (" 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 
ct Se firj does not mean d 8e ^ ovrws rjv ("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," i.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 vir&yw (not in Pap. Index, but colloquial, so that it has passed into modern 
1 I and Troptvofxai, see 1652—64. Jn carefully distinguishes them. 



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 [i.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, 
cTttov av means " I should 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, (i) "If I had 
known your weakness I should have spoken differently," (2) "If you 
are so weak, believe me, I could 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 my 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 
1 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) "Eirei 

(a) 'Enei TTApACKeyi-i hn 

[2087] This conjunction did not appear in Johannine Vocabu- 
lary because it occurs, though rarely, in each of the Gospels 1 , 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 
(iirec) it was the Preparation, which is 'eve of the sabbath,' there 
came Joseph of Arimathaea," (2) Mt. xxvii. 62 "But on the morrow, 

1 [2087 a\ Mk only once (xv. 42 eirel r/v TrapaaKevrj, 6 (<xtlv Trpo<rd[3(3aTov), 
Mt. (3), Lk. (1 + 1 marg.), Jn xiii. 29 iwel to y\waa. elx e " '!•> x ' x - 3 1 ^ 7r ^ 
wapacrKevT] r\v. 



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. xxiii. 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] 'E7ret means "when," as well as "since," and is inter- 
changed with €7rei8>7, "when," in Daniel, Luke, and Acts 1 . Matthew 
and Luke, who omit hcu above, may have supposed that here it meant 
simply " when," not perceiving that it stated the cause for the 
coming of Joseph. John intervenes, at great length. Whereas Mark 
and Luke, in different ways, connect the day with " [he 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) "since 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) " because of the Preparation." Thus he 
repeatedly brings out the causal meaning of Mark's eirei, which is not 
represented in Matthew and Luke. 

(vii) "Etos 

(a) Not confused with (he 

[2089] "Ews, with the present indicative, occurs perhaps once in 
Mark 2 , but nowhere else in N.T. except 1 Tim. iv. 13 ecu? Ip^o/xat 
"white I am [still'] coming [and not yet present]," and thrice in John, 
ix. 4 "we must work... while (ews, marg. ws) (SS "while yet") it is 
day" and xxi. 22—3 (bis) "while I am [still] coming." The 
Thesaurus gives many such phrases as " While (cws) there is [still] 
opportunity," " While he [still] has breath and power 3 ," and — with 
"still (en)" inserted and verb omitted—" While the sea [is] still 
navigable," "while [there is] still hope" etc. J SS therefore 
expresses the sense in adding "yet." The importance of these facts 
consists in their indication that, when John uses ws later on in \ii. 35 
ois to <t>ws «X€T£, he means something different from "while" (2201). 

1 [20SS<i] Dan. iii. 22, Lk. vii. 1 (v. r.), Acts xiii. 46 (v. r.). 1 Esdr. vi. 14 
iird is paraJl. to Ezr. v. 12 &<p' ore, R.V. "after that," marg. "because that." 

2 [2089 a] In Mk vi. 45 (W.H. <xtto\v€l) KBL have &>S ai'rds (L euVoi's) 
diroXvtL, where D has avrbs St d-rrokiu and the other MSS. curoXvcrei or -crij : the 
parall. Mt. xiv. 22 has ewj ov diroKvari. 

3 [2089/'] Dem. 15- 5. Syncs. Epist. 44. 'Earl is om. in Plat. [.egg. 7S0 E rb 
yevbfitvov bt TrXdrreiv ?ws iiypbv. 

4 Time. vii. 47, viii. 40, also Xen. Cyrop. vii. I. 18 £ws tn aoi ax^- 

I 12 


(viii) "H and r^p 
(a) "H 

[2090] In the Synoptists, rj, "or," is frequently used in Christ's 
words for rhetorical fulness or impressiveness ("tribulation or perse- 
cution," "under the bushel or under the bed" etc.) 1 . In John, 
where it seldom occurs, it is mostly outside Christ's words. In 
Christ's words it occurs only thrice 2 . Once it introduces a direct 
question as follows : — xviii. 34 " Sayest thou this from thyself, or (rj) 
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 
foil.) 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 not say 
this from himself. Others had said it to him. In Greek questions, 
an absurdity is often put before the reality, thus: "When horses are 
injured do they become better, 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 3 ?" 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 ? " 

08) "Hnep 

[2092] "Rirep occurs only once in N.T., namely in Jn xii. 43 
"They loved the glory of men rather than (rj-n-ep) (marg. uVe'p) 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 Mace. xiv. 42 

1 [2090 a] In the Sermon on the Mount alone, it occurs about ten times. 

2 [2090 />] Two of these contain indirect questions, vii. 17 "He shall know... 
whether it is from God or I speak from myself," viii. 14 "Ye know not whence I 
come or where I return." 

3 [2091a] Steph. quoting Plato 335 B, 339 B, Xen. Cyrop. iii. 1. 12 (to which 
add ib. " Do you let him [i.e. the bad ruler] retain his wealth, or do you reduce 
him to poverty ? "). 

a. vi. m 8 


"desiring [rather] to die nobly than [i.e. and not]... to be subjected 
(OiXuw airoOavelv rjTrep. . .wo^etpio? yeveaOai)," and the variously inter- 
preted Iliad 1. 117 fSovXo/j. eyoj Aaov (roov efxp.eiai 7* u7roA.e'o-#ai, where 

77 (Eustathius says) was explained as being "for rj-n-ep," so as to 
mean emphatically "than," not "or." According to this distinction, 
whereas (i) fxaXXov rj might have meant that they loved the glory of 
God somewhat but the glory of men more, (2) fxaWov rj-rrep 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 p.a\Xov rj, 
iii. 19 "The light hath come into the world and men loved rather 
the darkness than the light (/xaAAov to o-ko'to? r} to <£ws)." 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 1 . See 2685. 

(ix) "Iva 

(a) "Ina, in John, expresses, or implies, purpose 

[2093] The frequency of Iva 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 purpose, e.g. on the 
purpose of the Baptist's birth and mission 2 , on the purpose of the Son's 
mission 3 , on the purpose of His actions and words 4 , 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 in order that, in doing them, they may 
do the will of their Father ; and the essence of the action consists in the 
motive, namely, to do that will. In English, "to do " often means 
"doing," having quite lost its old notion of "to doing," i.e. "toward 
doing," i.e. purpose: but in John — whatever may be the case in 
other writers — iva seems always to retain some notion, or suggestion, 
of purpose, or motive, as being the essence of action 7 . 

1 [2092rt] "Uwtp ("than") differs from r) ("or" or "than") in being nun- 
ambiguous and emphatic. 'TWp, v.r. for riirtp, substitutes a common for an 
uncommon word and weakens the sense. 

2 i. 7, S 'iva /AapTvp-qar), comp. i. 31 iVa cpavepwdy. 

■■ iii. 17 etc. 4 v. 34. 8 v. 23, 36. 

" vi. 40 tovto yap ianv to OtXrina t. warpds p-ov 'iva — 

7 [2093 <?1 |n does not use the infinitive of purpose with tov, or irpds t6, so that 
a priori we might expect him to use Iva as a substitute. Hinder gives the article 




(/9) "Ina, in John, never merely appositional 

[2094] If iva 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 to do this," " I command, or forbid, thee to do 
this." But iva 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 1 . "Evil" and "forbid" 
do not — or at least not to the same extent. In xiii. 34, R.V. marg. 
has "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love (Iva 
ayaTrare) one another ; even as I loved you, that ye also may love 
(iva Kal v. dyawaTt) one another," apparently taking the first 'iva 
as introducing the substance of the command (" that ye love"), 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, " My command is, and my purpose is, 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 
(£ova Taxnr]% dydirrjv ov8el<s e'x ei ) — 'that a man lay down his life (iva 
Ti? rrjv if/vxyv avrov Or)) for his friends," the iva 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 irpb tov, 
once Sid r6). "Iva occurs in Jn almost as often (1726) as in all the Synoptists 

[2093/'] In xii. 40 " in 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 (via. 10), but not in the parallel Matthew who avoids it (xiii. 13 8ri...oti 
/3Xe7roi/i7i, supplemented by xiii. 14 ov /ni] idrjTe). 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 think (56^) 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, Iva depends on Ztoi/ulov implied in e^u "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, i. 27 "I am not worthy that I should loose the shoe latchet," ii. 25 
"He had no need that anyone should testify," xviii. 39 "There is a custom 
[established] for you that I should release...." See 2104a. 

115 8—2 


apposition to Taurus [rrj<; a.], but tVa rt? Orj is not the same as 
tov Bilvai. 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 dozvn his life for another. And this suggestion of motive or effort 
is latent in tva. So, too, iv. 34 " My meat is in order that I may do 
(tva Tonjcrw) the will of him that sent me " implies that the " meat " 
consists in the will to do His will. Comp. xvii. 3 "This is eternal 
life, in order that they may know thee," which perhaps combines 
(1) "the effort to know thee," (2) " given to men that they may know 

[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] in 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 
"in order that ye may believe." Similarly vi. 40 "For this is the 
will of my Father [and His purpose and effort] in order that every- 
one that beholdeth the Son. ..may have life eternal," and xv. 12 
(comp. xiii. 34) "This is my commandment [and purpose] in order 
that ye may love one another." The following passages shew that 
John, differing from Epictetus and others, never uses Ivo. exactly for 
on or ware (2697). 

(y) Special passages 

[2097] In viii. 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, in 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 (i.e. "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" 



and "rejoicing," in order that he might fulfil a purpose of God, 
namely, might see the day of the Messiah 1 . See also 2688 — 9. 

[2098] ix. 2 " Rabbi, who sinned, this [man] or his parents, in 
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] in 
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 2 ," 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'i?^ '• an ^, 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 ^aipw and Iva consecutively, 
(as above (2097) 77'yaAAtacraTo Iva). " For your sakes " intervenes. 
Now "for your sakes" implies that the speaker desires something for 
the sake of those spoken to. And, in answer to the question, "desiring 
what?" tl 8e\(uv; the reply would be 6e\wv Iva 7rio~Tevo-r]T€, "desiring 
that ye may believe." Hence Iva may depend upon 6e\io implied in 
oY v/xa? : " I rejoice for your sakes desiring that ye may believe." 

[2101] (3) The next clause to consider is " because (on) 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] ' 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 to run {dpa/xelv) his course." For Origen's comment, see 2689. 

- Arifapos dwedavev, Kai xcupw, dY vpias, 'iva iriaTevay)Te, on ovk y]jxr\v eK«. I 
have added a comma after xolpw. 



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 negative and frail 
that it depends upon His absence? More probably, if this were the 
grammatical construction, there would be a latent positive meaning, 
"That ye may believe because I was not there to save him from death 
and because I shall consequently go thither to raise him from death" 
i.e. that ye may believe because I shall raise him from death as a 
consequence of my absence, (b) 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," i.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 Iva 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 Fat her 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 . 

1 1 2102 ./ ! Chrysostom's comment is " Died ami I rejoice on your account. 
Why, pray, on your account? Because I foretold [it], not being there, and 



[2103] In Xli. 7 "A<£es avrqv iva eis ttjv ijp.£pav tov ivTatpiao-piov /xov 
T-qprja-rj avro, obscurity arises, not from the construction of Iva Trjprjarj 
"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 1 . 

(S) "Ina and Subjunctive, compared with Infinitive 

[2104] In xi. 50 "It is profitable for you (lit.) in order that one 
man should die for the people," and in xvi. 7 "It is profitable for 
you (lit.) in order that I may depart," Iva 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 

should die (on crvp.(pep€L iva avOptaTiov d-rroOavelv) for the people 2 ." 

(e) Omission of principal verb before i'na 

[2105] As the Iliad 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 (ovdeula tcrrai iiwo\pla)." Theodoras (Cramer ad loc.) says " I rejoice, He 
says, for your sakes (vfi&v frenev). For the fact that I was not there will contribute 
to your faith (to yap fj.ii elvai fie frei crvvTeXecret. irpcs rr\v -kIutiv tyjv v/J.eTe'pav) since, 
if (ei I had been present, I should have healed him while still ailing (appco- 
gtovvto. idepairevov), but such a wonder as that would have been slight for the 
manifestation of power." 

1 On xv. 8 fr tovtcj} ido^dadij 6 iraT-qp fiov iva Kapirbv irokvv (pip-qre, see 2393. 

- [2104 a] Jn's preference of 'iva to the infinitive is illustrated by (a) i. 27 " I 
am not worthy that (iva)," contr. with "worthy to" in Lk. xv. 19, 21, Rev. v. 2, 
4, 9, 12, and by (b) ii. 25, xvi. 30, 1 Jn ii. 27 xP € ^ av ^X el " '" a » contr. with x- ^X 6 '" 
and infinitive in Mt. iii. 14, xiv. 16, 1 Thess. i. 8 (comp. Heb. v. \2 tov diddaiceiv). 
On the infinitive with tov see 2093 a. 



uses iva for the first time 1 . 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, i. 8 " He. was not the light, but [ ] in order 

that (a'AX' 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, but \ ] in order that' 1 the works of God should be 

manifested in him," xiii. 18 "I speak not concerning you all: I 
know whom (nVas) I chose, but [ ] in order that the Scripture 

might be fulfilled...," xiv. 30 — 1 "And he [i.e. the prince of the 
world] hath nothing in me ; but [ ] in 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 (vvv Se) have they both 
seen and hated me and my Father; but [ ] in order that the 

word that is written in their law might be fulfilled, They hated me 
without a cause." Similarly 1 ]n ii. 19 "They came forth [i.e. 
originated] from us, but (aAA.') they were not of us: for if they had 
been of us, they would have continued with us, but [ ] in 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 dX\d 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, or arreo-ToA- 
/ttevos [y)v\ or rj\$ev, from i. 6 — 7 (but see 2112) :! : similarly ix. 3 
" Neither did this man sin nor his parents but on the contrary [he 
was born blind] in order that the works of God should be manifested," 

1 [2105 a] i. 6—7 eytvero avdpuiros aireaTa\p.ivos -rrapa Btov...ovTos rjXdev 
eh p.aprvplav, 'iva iiaprvp-qorj... (.'(imp. Is. lv. 4 " I [i.e. Jehovah] have given him 
for a witness to the peoples." 

" Hiu [ ] in order that," in the whole of this paragraph = AM' 'iva. 

:i [ 2107 <■/ 1 The view that d\\d means "/>/// on the contrary [subordinated to 
the light]" and aot, " but stili\m some way connected with the light]" is favoured 
byjn iii. 2s or/, . . .,;..\V, "not... but on the contrary •" uttered by the Baptist himself 
about his relation to < Ihrist. 



referring to the question of the disciples "Who did sin. ..that he 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 (ovrm ttouS)," so that 
the meaning is, "Satan does not find sin in me [and constrain me 
to die because of my sin], but on the contrary — [unconstrained by any 
law of sin or Satan] in order that the world may know..., and even 
as the Father gave me commandment— w / do," i.e. I act sinlessly 
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 aAAa, the context suggests the ellipsis 
of some exclamation of sorrow for sin as being "[evil indeed], but 
yet [ordained] in 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] but yet [it has 
so come to pass] in order that the Scripture may be fulfilled." Similarly 
in xv. 24 — 5 aAAa 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; but s till [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. 19, where a negative precedes, but at some 
interval, aAAa' appears to mean "but still" and to suggest, in the 
thought of a mysterious and divine justice, some compensation for the 
defection of disciples: "They went out from us, i.e. they originated 
from us, but they never really belonged to us. Had they belonged to 
us, they would have continued with us — [evil, indeed] but [at all events 
an evil working for good] in order that they might be manifested.... 1 ." 

1 [2110 rt] R.V. supplies "they went out" from what precedes, and takes it as 
"they revolted" or "deserted." "E^rfkOov might, in suitable context, apply to 
" coming forth" either (a) as sons from a home, soldiers from a camp etc., or (b) as 
runaways, deserters, rebels. Here, the following words, dXX' ovk r\aav e£ Vp-Qv, 
rather suggest antithesis, "They [at first] came out from us [as children from our 
home, or soldiers from our camp] but they were ?iot really [in heart] belonging to 
us.... For e£epxo/ £k, irapd, aw6, meaning "originate from" or "come from," 
see Jn viii. 42, xiii. 3, xvi. 28, 30, xvii. 8. 

[2110/*] Origen, however (Huet ii. 410D), commenting on the going out of Judas 



[2111] There is but one instance of ellipsis with a'AA' Tva 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. xxii. 53 

" but in order that "but {hi) all this is "but (dXX') this is 

(dXX' Iva) the Scrip- come to pass (yeyovev) your hour and the 
tures might be ful- in order that the power of darkness." 
filled." Scriptures of the 

Prophets might be 

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] but 
yet, [ordained] in order that the Scriptures might be fulfilled." 
Matthew takes it so, and expressly asserts that " all this " (tovto 
oAof) came to pass according to divine decree. Luke, on the other 
hand, seems to emphasize the fact that the arrest took place by night: 
"Ye did not seize me by day; but [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. ix. 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 zvhole 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. .^o) says riXeov i^rjXdev a7rd rod '\-qaov 
avaXoyov t<£ 'E^XOov i$ riixGiv, apparently illustrating the "going out" in the 
Gospel by the "going out" in the Epistle, and taking the latter as revolt, or 
inn. According to that view, the rendering would be "They wen) out as 
rebels from us. (An evil, indeed,] but still they were never in heart belonging to 
us," /'.c. but still the evil would have been greater if they had really belonged !■> us 
and had yet fallen away. 



perhaps borrowed from the early Greek vernacular Gospel and 
retained in one instance by Mark alone of the Synoptists — that 
leaves the reader in some doubt as to what is alleged to have happened, 
but insists that it happened for a certain purpose. 

(£) "In a dependent on verb implied in question 

[2113] i. 22 "They said therefore to him, Who art thou (ti's el;)? 
that we may give an answer to them that sent us." 

ix. 36 "He answered [and said], And who is he, Lord, that I may 
believe on him ?" 

"Tell us," and (2157) "thou wilt surely tell me," may be 
severally supplied before " that." 

(77) "In a with indicative (2690) 

[2114] "Iva with future indicative occurs in vii. 3 "in order that thy 
disciples also shall behold (deupijo-ovo-i)," xvii. 2 "in order that all 
that thou hast given to him he shall give (8ajo-ei) to them eternal life." 
This (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 18 <W 6ija-a>) is fairly frequent in N.T But 
1 Jn v. 20 "he hath given to us a mind that we may be recognising 
(Iva yivwo-Koftev) " stands on a different footing, being probably a mere 
misspelling arising from the confusion of o and w (966 a). Compare 

Gal. vi. 9 — 12 Oepiaofieu (XCFG etc. -w/x£i')...w; Kaipov c^w/aci/ (so W. H. 
with KB* but Lightf. (2696) %o/A€v) . . Apyat.upe.da (AB* -d/*e0a)... 

SiajKaH'Tcu (ACFG etc. -ovTai). In the context, the writer says "See 
with what large (irrjXiKOLs, but B* tjXlkols) letters I have written to you 
ivith )iiy 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 xvii. 3 (ADL etc.) Iva ytvuxrKovo-iv (d cognoscant) where 
possibly some scribes took the meaning to be "so that they know." 
In the difficult passage (1673 c) v. 20 Iva vp.zl<; 0avp.d(r]Te (SS "and do 
not wonder ) xL have davp.dC,ere. In xii. 40 tVa p.-q l8ui(Tiv...Kal 
Idaop-ai ax>Tov%, John follows Is. vi. 10 (LXX, but Sym. la$fj), and so 
does Mt. xiii. 15. Compare Eph. vi. 3 tVa ev o-ol yeV^Tat Kal 'ia-y 
(which deviates from LXX both of Ex. xx. 12 and of Deut. v. 16). 
This resembles W.H. rnarg. in Jn xv. 8 Iva KapTrov...<f>tpr]Te nal 
ytvTjo-taOz ip.ol p.aQt]iai — a natural transition, but BDL have yivrjadz. 

(6) "Ina, connexion of 

[2115] A iva clause generally follows the principal verb, but see 
2108 and comp. xix. 31 (where iva occurs with a negative) ol ovv 



lonouiot, e7r€t 7T. i/v, Iva fx.7/ /x€Li i] . . . i]v yap . . .rjpwTi]aai' tov IX tVa... . 
The connexion is doubtful in xix. 28 pe-ra tovto etSw? 6 'Ir/o-oiis on 
77017 Trdi'Ta TCTeAeorat iva TeXtiwOr) rj ypa</>r) Ae'yei, Aii//w. Chrysostom 
paraphrases thus, ciSws oiv 7raVra 7r€7rA.?7pii>peva, Ae'yei, Aii^w, 7raA.1v 

ivravOa Ttpo<pr]Titav irXrjpCjv, apparently connecting the iva clause with 
A€yet, 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 iti 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 "I 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 Iva clause depends on TereXearat ; but, 
according to Johannine suggestion and intention, the Iva clause is 
to be repeated so as to depend on Aeyct. 

(4) "Ina...I'na 

[2116] Such a sentence as "In 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) subordinate to the first. But 
the second clause may be reiterative — y being another form of 
expressing x — -"in order that [I say] y may take place," so that 

1 [2115 1/] In this sentence 'iva. nr) could not depend on ripuiTTjaav, 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 
apposing thai in ordinary cases (where 'iva is used without a negative and 
where do epurdv 'iva follows) fohn Mould place a iva clause before the principal 



the second clause is coordinate with the first. In xiii. 34 "A new 
commandment give I unto you, that (<W) ye love one another — even 
as (Kadws) I loved you, that (IVa) ye (v^eis) also love one another," 
the second clause is reiterative (though amplified by the definition, 
"even as "). 

[2117] This sequence of iva...Ka8<6s...lva ("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?") xvii. 2 "Glorify thy Son 
that the Son may glorify thee — even as thou gavest unto him authority 
over all flesh, that 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 1 ." 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 toWas, and by taking 
Katfoj's as, in effect, ko! ydp, "for indeed": "Glorify thy Son, that the 
Son may glorify thee : for indeed 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 <W 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 xiii. 34. 

[2118] A similar sequence of tVa, kolOws, and iVa, but followed 
by a third iva, is in xvii. 20 — 1 "But not about these alone do 
I pray but also about them that are to believe through their word 
in me, that all may be one — even as (KaOws) thou, Father, in me, and 
I in thee, that [I say] they also may be in us 2 , that the world may 

1 Mt. v. 16. 

- [2118<7] xvii. 21 (R.V.) "That they also maybe in us," AM. has "That 
they also may be one in us," reading 'iva ko.1 avrol iv tj/alv £v wglv, with XAC 2 L. 



believe that thou didst send me," where the second Iva 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 that they may be one — even as (ko^?) 
we (^/xct?) [are] one, I in them, and thou in me, that they may be 
perfected into one, that 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 
"I 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 xvii. 22 — 3 as W.H., with no pause before Ka^uls : 
" that they may be one even as we [are] one, I in them and 
thou in me, that [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 they in me," or (2) "even as we are one, [namely] I in thee and 
thou in me." The present text seems to confuse (1) and (2) 1 . If 

SS has a blank in the MS. "may be [ ] that the world may believe." Burk. 

suggests " a possible restoration " meaning " united." On Kayu see 2127 b. 

1 [2118 b] The passage may have been confused at an early date owing to ( 1 ) 
its various possibilities of connexion, (2) the juxtaposition of 6N meaning "in" 
and 6N meaning "one," (3) doctrinal controversies as indicated by Epiphanius 
(Haer. lxix. 19 and 69, 743 A and 793 b). Clem. Alex, quoting xvii. 21—23 as 
"gospel" and as "the Lord's utterance," says (r4o)"Ei>a p.kv avrbv [i.e. rbv Qe6v~\ 
Xe-yet, " 'iva wdvres Sv w<ti Kadios av, irdrep, iv ipiol, Kay Co iv aol- 'iva Kal avroi iv 

rjpiiv iv ucri 'iva w<nv iv, icaOws r) iv, iyio iv avro?s Kal av iv i/xoi, 'iva wcri rere- 

\eiwfxivoi eis iv." But in the whole of this quotation there is nothing that contains 
a statement that " God is one," unless in av, irdrep, iv and av iv, Clement read iv 
for iv. iv ifiol might perhaps be taken to mean " one with me," as ets is used with 
a dat. by Plutarch (Mor. 1089 a) "having drunk from one and the same cup with 
[that of] Epicurus (e\- p.ias oiVox^s 'EmKovpy 7re7rwK6res)." Origen uses iv dp.a 
in connexion with the passage, {Exhort, ad Mart. 39) " Hecome worthy of becoming 
one with (tov iv yeviadai dpa) Son and Father and Holy Spirit, according to the 
Prayer of the Saviour saying ' As I and thou are one {'tis iyio Kal crv iv icr/xev) that 
they may be (?) one with us (iva Kal avrol iv rjjjuv iv ucrt, where " deest iv in edd. 
Wetst. et Kuaei").'" Here the last words may mean "in us" or "one in us," or— 
if iv takes a dat., like rb avrb— "one and the same with us." So Origen spr.ik- 
of (Ce/s. viii. 12) rb'Eytlj Kal 6 TTarr\p iv iapav, Kal to iv ev\rj ripynivov virb rod 
viou tov dtov iv Tifj, '(Is iyio Kal <tv iv io-p-tv. 

[2118 r- 1 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 



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 one." 

[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 I chose 
you, and set you [in the vineyard] that (<Va) ye might go [the] way 
[that I go] (1659 — 60) and [that ye] might bear fruit and [that] your 
fruit might abide — that (tva) whatsoever ye ask the Father in my 
name he may give you." "Fruit," as always in John 1 , 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 (Dc Princip. i. 6) quotes xvii. 22, 23 correctly, but, later on, 
he mixes up xvii. 24, 21, 22, giving, as part of the quotation (id. ii. 3. 5) "and 
that, as I and thou are one, these also may be one in us (? one with us)," and, later 
still, (id. iii. 6. 1) "and that as thou and I 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, ' The two of us are one, that they also may be one' (ical Sri, 
Oi duo iv ifffiev Iva Kai avrol iv waiv) " and (id. 793 a) " Make them that they may 
be in me (? one with me) as I also and thou are one (iroirjaov avrous 'iva uxriv iv ifioi 
us Kayu teal cv 'iv ifffxev) " and (id. b) " the two of us are one (oi dvo iv io-/j.ev)." 

[2118 d] xvii. 22 — 3 is thus given by W.H 'iva ucriv iv nadws rj/xeis 'iv, iyw iv 

avrois Kai av iv ifxoi, but by K.V. " that they may be one, even as we [are] one ; I 
in them and thou in me," SS begins a new sentence at xvii. 23 thus : "...that they 
may be one even as we are one. I 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 d and/("Ego in eis"). Many Gk and Lat. authorities ins. icr/mev 
before iyd>. All these facts indicate early differences of connexion. It may be 
worth noting that a, d, and f, have (at the end of xvii. 22) " sicut et nos," e 
"quomodottf nos" — facts that suggest confusion between KaOus, Kai us, and us Kai. 

1 [2120 «] 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. 



" reap," but here they are said to " bear " it as a vine-branch bears 
its clusters 1 . 

[2121] The question is, Why does not the sentence end with 
" that your fruit might abide," i.e. 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 "in order that (iva) the Church of Christ 
may be spread— in order that (Tva) 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, " That ye may save souls — that [I say] your prayers for the souls 
of men may ever be heard 2 ." 

(x) Ka9<6 s 

(a) Suspensive 

[2122] Katfak, when suspensive, keeps the reader's attention in 
suspense till he reaches the principal verb later on, e.g. "even as I... 
so do ye " ; when supplementary or explanatory, it follows the verb 
("Do ye.. .even as I"). Ka^s is never used suspensively in 
Matthew. Luke uses it thus thrice in the Double Tradition, where 
the parallel Matthew has Zairep etc." John has suspensive k<x0w? 

1 [2120/-] It is hardly possible that <ptpi}re can mean "carry home as 
vintagers." Apart from other reasons, the freq. tcapirbv (pipei in the context 
applied to (xii. 24) the grain of wheat, (xv. 2, 4, 5) vine-branches, precludes this. 

' 2 [2121rt] 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 ha. is subordinate to the 1st, the meaning is " in order that by saving 
souls, ye may acquire apostolic strength in order that your prayers for souls may 
be still more completely heard." This would be in accordance with the law , "He 
thai 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. 

•' [2122</] Lit. vi. 31 ica0£» (Mt. vii. 12 iro-vro. ovv otra iav) 6i\ere irotetre 

enrols b/u>lus, xi. 30, xvii. 26 K aOin tyfon (Mt. xii. 40, xxiv. 37 wvrrep). 

Ml. i. 2 _3 may possibly be suspensive. I.k. xvii. 2S has o^-olus xadus 



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 1 . 

(/3) Followed by kai' or ka^ m apodosis 

[2123] " Even as" in protasis naturally prepares the way for 
"precisely so," "altogether so" "al(l)so" in apodosis ("even as you 
do, he also 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, "Even as 
he [the Father] does.../ also («ayw) 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 "Even as he does. ..«#*/ [even as] I do." 
Ka#ak followed by Kayw occurs in the following five instances : — 

[2124] (i) vi. 57 "Even as the living Father sent me and I 
(Kayw) live on account of (Sta) the Father, he also (R.V. so he) that 
eateth me (kcu 6 rpwywv /xe) — he also [I say] (ko.kcivo<;) shall live on 
account of me." Here R.V. agrees with A.V. in rendering Kayw 
" and I" but Chrysostorn and Severus of Antioch both render it "so 
I" and this makes good sense : " Even as the living Father sent me, 
so I live on account of the Father" [i.e. so I, corresponding to His 
will, live (2297 foil.) merely to do His will, or on His account], "and 
he that eateth me shall [in the same way] live on account of me 2 ." 

1 [2122 b~] KaOws in i. 23, vi. 31, vii. 38 (? 2129), xii. 14 introduces (or follows) 
Scripture, and is supplementary, but is suspensive in iii. 14, v. 30, vi. 57 (Chrysost. 
agst. R.V.), viii. 28, x. 15 (2125—6), xii. 50, xiii. 15, 33, 34, xiv. 27, 31, xv. 4, 9, 
xvii. 18, xx. 21. In vi. 58, " Not as the fathers died [shall ye die]," the verb 
should probably be supplied after ov Kadics (as in xiv. 27 ov Kadws 6 /c6o>os bib'wo'i.v 
e'yw didufju), and in that case Kadws 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 />). 

- [2124 a] See Cramer and Chrysost. ad loc. fw ^70; ovtcjs <hs 6 HaT-fjp. 

The words might, in theory, be connected with what precedes : vi. 56 — 7 
6 rpdiyuiw fiov tt\v crdpKa. kclI irivwi' ixov to alfia iv ifiol [xivei. Kayoi iv avrui, a<z#ws 
aireareiXev /j.e 6 'cCiv ■narrfp kcljiI) fu) 8ia tow waT^pa. But it would be against the 
suspensive usage of Kadws, and is in other respects improbable. In the next 
instance, however, R.V. treats kclOws as non-suspensive. 

a. vi. 129 9 


[2125] (2) Ka0w? 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 1 ." 
But the generally suspensive use of ko.6u><; in Christ's words, up to 
and beyond this point in the Gospel 2 , would suggest that it is to be 
taken as in A.V., "As the Father knoweth me, even 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. "/know mine ozvn and mine own know 
me, even as the Father knoweth me and /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 not equal" between the shepherd 
and the sheep but that it is " equal " between the Father and the 
Son 3 . 

[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 personal 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 4 ." 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 'E7C0 eipib 7rot/U7)e 6 ko\6s, Kai yivucrKU to. ep.d Kai yivuxrKovcl Lie to. e/xd, Kat)w$ 
yivwoKei fxe 6 ttclttip K&ylo yivwiTKOj tov TraTepa, Kai ti)v \pvxv v / xol/ Tidrffii virtp rwv 

- [2125 </] Kafuis supplementary — apart from quotations of Scripture (2122 />) — 
is almost confined to the Last Discourse (2128—32). 

:; Chrys. (Migne) (reading as A.V.) "Akovgov tL iirrjyayt' Kai yivdbiTKU) to. e/xa, 

Kai yivuxTKO/xai inrb twv (/xuip Efra, iVa /j.t) rr/s yvucreuis iffov t6 /xirpov vo/j.iar}s, 

&Kovcov trG)s Siopdovrai avrb rrj iiraywyri' WvwaKti) to. epa, cp-qai, Kai yivuxrKOfxat. 
virb tGiv ip.wv. 'AXX ovk icnj i) yvuiais' a\\a wov (V77 ; 1'j7t£ tov Ilarpbs Kai ep.ov. 
'Eku yap, KaOios yivwo~KU Lit 6 llarrjp, K&yio yu>ibo~Kw rbv Ilartpa. 

4 vii. 1 7, viii. j8, 32. 



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.) "Even as the Father hath loved me, 
I also (/<ayw) have loved you : abide ye in my love 1 ," (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 and I loved you, abide in (/aci'votc hi) my love." 
But, if that were the meaning, might not John have marked the 
apodosis by inserting "ye also" (fxeivare kcu v/acis) 2 ? And is not 
R.V. (and A.V.) more consonant with the general meaning of Kayia 
in these sentences, and with the fact that John says "abide in my 
love" (not "in our love")? (4) In xvii. 18 "Even as thou didst 
send me into the world, / also (*cayw) sent them into the world," 
R.V. and A.V. agree in "As thou. ..even so... I." In (5) xx. 21 
"Even as the Father hath sent me, I also (#caya>) send you," R.V. 
and A.V. have "As... even so send I you." A comparison of the five 
instances confirms the view that A.V. is right in (2) and that in each 
of the five /<dyw should be rendered " I also" or, more idiomatically, 
"even so 3 I." 

(y) Supplementary 4 

[2128] Outside Christ's words, supplementary Ka8o)<s 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 5 ." But, in Christ's words, the earlier portion of the 

1 KaOibs riyain)a£v fie 6 irarrip, K&yw v/mas riydTrriffa, (marg. riydTrr/aa-) fxeivare 
ev rrj ay&Trr] ttj ipLrj. 

'-' [2127 «] Comp. xiii. 15 " For I have given an example to you that, even as I 
have done to you, ye also (/cat vfxets) may do," xiii. 33 " And even as I said to the 
Jews I say to you also (k. ufuv)" (comp. xiii. 34). 

3 [2127/'] 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. 

5 i- 23, vi. 31, xii. 14, xix. 40. 

131 9—2 


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 b) 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 1 ." Here it is im- 
possible to tell what passage or passages of Scripture the writer has 
in view (1722 /C*), 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 2 . "He that believeth on me (i.e. in the Word)" 
appears to be parallel to " If any man thirst [i.e. for the Word] " ; 
and " the Scripture " may refer to what precedes (i.e. the " thirsting " 
or " believing ") as well as to what follows (i.e. the " flowing " or 
diffusion). We cannot confidently say that /<a#ws here is suspensive 
or supplementary. 

[2130] In xiii. 34 "A new commandment give I unto you that 
(t'va) ye love one another — even as I have loved you, that (<W) ye 
also love one another 3 ," R.V. txt and A.V. agree in making k<z#ios 
suspensive. If the second "that" had been omitted, Katfojs 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 /caucus supplementally 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 'Edf tis OLipq. epx^aOu) wp6s /me /ecu mvirw. 6 irurrtvuv els e/xi, Kadws tlirev ?? 
ypaipri, TTorafjioi in rrjs KOiXias avrou pevoovviv iidaros fruvros. 

2 Is. lv. i— 13. 

3 [2130 </] 'Ei>to\t)i> ko.ivt)v dldufxi Vfuv iva dyairare aXkJjKoVS kcl6ws rjya.VTj(ra 
i' 'iva nai v/xth a-yairare aWrfKovs. W.I I. have a comma after aW^Xocs. 
K.V. marg. gives tlie last clause as "that ye also may love one another, "apparently 

ning " in order that ye may love " (2094). Hut that does not interfere with the 
suspensive nature of kclOws. 



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 /have loved you." And, as a fact, in the 
Last Discourse, the hitherto almost invariably suspensive construction 
is occasionally exchanged for a supplementary one, ^ r . xv. 10 "If 
ye keep my commandments ye will abide in my love even 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 even 
as I have loved you." Of the same character are the next four 
instances of kolOws in xvii. 2, n, 14, 16. 

[2132] This is not unnatural. As long as Christ is looking 
fonvard to His work on earth, He impresses on His disciples the 
truth that, "even as" this or that is in heaven, so He will do, or is 
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, "even as it is written ") mentioning it as an 
accomplished fact, a new Law for His disciples, "obey even as I 
have obeyed," "love even 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 His disciples (xvii. 18 
and xx. 21), "Even as the Father hath sent me I also send you" — 
which is the last instance of all 1 . 

(xi) Ka( 

(a) Kai' in narrative (Hebraic) 

[2133] The opening words of the Bible exhibit a frequent Hebraic 
use of "and," e.g. "And the earth was. ..and darkness was. ..and the 

1 [2132 a] The occasional difficulty of distinguishing suspensive from supple- 
mentary xadws may be illustrated by xvii. 21 — 2, punctuated by W.H. thus, 
'iva wavres iv waiv, Kadics av, iraT-qp, iv ifioi Ktxyw iv col, 'iva Kai avrol iv rifxiv wctlv 
'iva 6 ko<t/j.os it iffTevr]... Kay iii tt)v Sb^av tjv MSoiKas fioi 5i5wKa avrois, 'iva uaiv iv 
Kadws Jj/xeis ev, iyio iv avrois Kai o~i> iv i/xol, 'iva ucriv TereXeiiofievoi els ev, 'iva ytvuxrKri 
6 Koff/Aos.... 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 Kayu in the first sentence : 
but the difference is extremely subtle. 

[2132/'] In the Epistle, Kadus (total 9) is sometimes suspensive, e.g. ii. 27 
' And even as he taught you, abide" (1915 iiii>) ; sometimes supplementary, e.g. 
iii. 23 "That we may love one another even as he gave commandment." Its most 
noticeable use is in the phrase "even as he" where He means Christ, always 
expressed by inetvos (2382), in passages bidding Christians do, and be, "even as " 
their Lord (ii. 6, iii. 3, 7, iv. 17). 



spirit of God moved. ..and God said... and there was light. ..and God 
saw the light... and God divided the light... and God called... and the 
darkness he called... and there was evening and there was morning." 
Bruder, referring to this use of ko.l as "in oratione historica ex 
simplici Hebraeorum narrandi modo 1 ," 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 400 times 2 , 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 kcu as occurring only once 3 , whereas in the first twenty-five 
verses of the first chapter we have about eighteen instances? For 
example, the Prologue begins "...and the Word was with God and 
the Word was God.. .and without him was not anything... and the life 
was the light. ..and the light shineth...a«^ the darkness apprehended 
it not." The usage continues even when the writer brings us down 
from the Word to the testimony of John, "^4;/</this is the testimony... 
and he confessed and he denied r\oX....and they asked \\\m...and he 
saith...a;^ 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 ko.1 in narrative, meaning "and" (as distinct from "also," 

1 [2133«] He inserts by error ical (for on) in i. 16 and omits Kal in i. 4 /ecu ij 
<;wr) r/v. His list refers the reader elsewhere for the special phrases /ecu eytvero, 
Kal &ttcu, /ecu Idov. But these are not Johannine phrases. If they were included, 
[elm's abstinence from rai would appear still more clearly. Some of Bruder's 
instances might be otherwise classified ; but his statistics suffice as a rough lest. 

2 [2133//] Of course, this is in part explained by the predominance of narrative 
in Mk. Mt. has it about 250, I.k. about 380 times. 

:1 xxi. uj Kal tovto dirCov \4yei. 



"even" etc.) seldom if ever causes ambiguity and calls for no 
detailed comment. The following sections, which will deal with nai 
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. 

(/3) Kai connecting affirmation and negation 

[2135] In Hebrew, "and" 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. 10 — ri " The world 
was made through him and [yet] the world knew him not. He came 
unto his own [house] and [yet] his own [household] received him 
not," iii. n — -12 "That which we have seen do we witness and [yet] 
our witness ye receive not.... I told you and [yet] ye believe not" 
iii. 32 "What he hath seen and heard, this he witnesseth, and [yet] 
his witness no 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, and [yet] no one laid his hand on him because 
his hour had not yet come," viii. 49 " I honour my Father and [yet] 
ye ^honour (aTi/Aa'£€Te) me" (where a. has a negative force), viii. 54 — 5 
" Of whom ye say that he is your God, and [yet] ye know him not" 
viii. 57 "Thou art not yet fifty years old and [yet] thou hast seen 
Abraham?" ix. 30 "Ye know not whence he is and [yet] he hath 
opened mine eyes," xiv. 9 " Have I been with you so long, and [yet] 
knowest thou me not, Philip?" xiv. 24 "He that loveth me not 
keepeth not 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 not alone, because the 
Father is with me," xx. 29 "Blessed are they that have not seen and 
[yet] have believed." 

( 7 ) «ai = " and yet " 

[2136] Kat is thus used in some cases where both the connected 
clauses are affirmative, or affirmatively interrogative ("is it not?"), 
but the sense implies contrariety: iii. 19 "The light hath come.... 
and [yet] men loved the darkness," iv. 20 " Our fathers worshipped 
in this mountain, and [yet] ye say that in Jerusalem is the place....," 
vi. 49 "Your fathers did eat the manna...W [yet] they died," i.e. 
and yet it did not save them from death, vi. 70 "Did not I choose 



you the twelve, and [yet] one of you is a devil?" ix. 34 "Thou wast 
altogether born in sins and [yet] thou teachest us ! " x. 39 " They 
[therefore] sought again to seize him, and [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 "and" 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 and [yet] knew not that it was Jesus," 
(2) xxi. 4 "Jesus stood on the shore ; the disciples did not however 
(ov /xcVtoi) know that it was Jesus." 

[2138] Perhaps the construction with "and" 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, viii. 20) "and 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, but [in spite 
of that] (dAA') no man laid hands on him." 

[2139] Whatever his motive may be, the statistical fact is un- 
deniable that the phrase "and no one" (kcu ou'Sets) (unbroken by 
intervening words) is not often (perhaps only thrice) used by 
John in what we should call its natural sense, i.e. additively or 
consecutively, e.g. "My Father... is greater than I, and no one is 
able to snatch them out of my Father's hand 1 ." More frequently 
(about six times) it may mean " and 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 and ye behold me not" "They have taken the 
body of the Lord and we know not where they have laid him," 

1 [2139 a] Jn x. 29. The text and the translation are doubtful (see 2496^). 
The preceding context has the words (x. 28) "they shall assuredly not be lost... 
and no one (ko.1 ov...tis) shall snatch them out of my hand." The other instances 
arc viii. 33, xvii. 12. On iii. 13 see 2141. [In xvi. 22 "and your joy no 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 and yet not 
otu of you {koX ovdels 0; u/j-Qv) asks me whither I am departing." " And nothing 1 
occurs thus in vii. 26 " Is not this he that they seek to kill ? And yet (icai) see! he 
speaketh openly and nothing (ko.1 ovbiv) do they say to him." It might be fairly 
maintained that the "yet" implied in the preceding aal runs on to the second ko.1. 

I3 6 


" Thou knowest all things and hast not need," " Ye have neither 
seen him and ye have not his word abiding in you." Still, the 
instances in which "and not" is, or may be, adversative, slightly 
exceed the non-adversative 1 . 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 "and" than by a coarse, commonplace, 
obtrusive "out" : "He was in the world and — the world knew him 
not," " He came unto his own, and — his own received him not." 

(S) 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. i. 5 " The light shineth in the darkness and [yet] 
— the darkness apprehended it not" (1443, 1735^ foil.) [instead of 
"and the darkness overcame it not"]. In iii. 13 "If I told you 
earthly things and ye believe not, how shall ye believe [i.e. ye will 
assuredly not believe] if I tell you heavenly things ? And [yet] no 
man hath ascended into heaven except him that descended out of 
heaven...," the meaning appears to be, "Ye will not 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 no desire (kcu ov OeXere) to come unto me that ye 

1 [2140 a] This conclusion is reached by reference to ov in Bruder (1888) and 
by examining instances of kcli ov. An examination of the same phenomena, under 
the same heading, in Luke, reveals very different results. In the first place, John 
uses ov more frequently than Luke does in the proportion of about 4^ to 2% — 
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 koll ov adversatively till the end of his sixth 
chapter in the words of Christ, " Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and \j'et] 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 and [yet] they shall not be able 
to find " etc. 

[2140/;] In his first six chapters Luke freely uses the additive " and not" i. 7 
"and they had no child," ii. 43 "and his parents knew no/," ii. 50 "and they 
understood not," iv. 2 "and he ate nothing.'''' Later on, in Luke's adversative 
instances, there is probably not one that presents any ambiguity. 



may have life") "ye search. ..and " is more probably correct than 
"Search... and" (2439 (i)). 

[2142] In vii. 27 — 8, 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 
(Se) 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 I am ! And [jet] I have not 
come from myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not," 
i.e. "Ye say ye know my origin, and yet I come from Him who is 
Truth whom ye know not 1 ." 

[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 Swcn-ai, may be regarded as d in dSwaros, 
and kcu ov StWrai may be regarded as differing little from a parenthetic 
ahvvaTov 8e. 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.. .yet (koI) [R.V. and] your and (/cm) [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 but (Heb. vaw, " By hearing ye shall hear and 

"and") understand not." (comp. Acts xxviii. 26 "and") 

shall in no wise understand." 

1 [2142 a] AXXot tovtov oi5a/j.ei> irbdev tariv ' 6 Si xpiOTos orav ZpxrjTai oudtls 
yivuxTKfi irbdtv iar'iv. "FjKpa^€i> ovv...\iyu}v KdfJ.t oi'Sare nai otSare tt60(v el/xi m /cat 
dw' ifnavrov ovk i\rj\v6a, dXX' Zariv d\7]0iv6s 6 Tri/xxf/as /Ue, 6v i'/xeis ovk oidare. " Both 
me do ye know" is intended to reproduce the ambiguity of the original which may 
be either exclamatory or interrogative. OlHare repeats oiSa/xev ironically. Comp. 
ix. 20 — 30 '* ' YVc know not....' ' Ye know not... ! '" 

- ( >n i) ypa(pri, see 1722 k. 



[2145] Apart from all questions of taste it is certain that our 
Lord, speaking in Aramaic, used the ambiguous vazv, 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 vazv, when used in the latter 
sense, either literally by nai 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 Kat 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 and — the glory that comes from the only God ye 
do not seek?" vi. 36 "Ye have both (/cat) seen me and — ye do not 
believe," vii. 36 "Ye shall seek me and — ye shall not find." 

(e) Kai introducing an exclamation 

[2146] Kat occasionally introduces an exclamation that may be 
treated as a question, implying incongruity with a previous state- 
ment : ii. 20 "This temple was built in forty-six years: and [yet] 
thou (emph.) (Kat av) in three days wilt raise it up ! " viii. 57 "Thou 
art not yet fifty years old, and [yet] thou (unemph.) hast seen 
Abraham (emph.) (Kat 'A. ewoaKas ; marg. K-at 'A. ewpaxev o-c) ! " xi. 8 
" The Jews but now were seeking to stone thee, and [yet] again thou 
(unemph.) goest thither 1 ! " 

1 [2146(7] In i. 16 "From his fulness did we all receive, and grace for (avri) 
grace,"' the kclI does not mean "namely," or "that is to say," but "and, what is 
more," "and indeed," or "yea" (see dim, 2284 — 7). There is probably no instance 
in Jn where /ecu' means "namely." "Receive" is used absolutely (comp. 1315 and 
A both i. 3, 4, 7 etc.), and /ecu introduces a new statement about the nature of the 



(£) Kai meaning " also " 

[2147] Kat before 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 1 . Where "not only" precedes 2 , attention is called 
to "also" 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, e.g. 
vii. 3 " Depart to Judaea that thy disciples also («W xal ol /*. aov) 
may behold thy works," i.e. " Here in Galilee, among thy countrymen 
and kinsfolk, thou hast no disciples worth mentioning : go to Judaea, 
where thou hast disciples, that they also may behold thy works 3 ." 
In xii. io "But the chief priests took counsel that they might kill 
Lazarus also" 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 also in their plans 4 ." 

(77) Kai in Apodosis after £, ei, ka6coc 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 [i.e. the Father] doeth, these 
the Son also (koL 6 uio's) likewise (6/Wws) doeth.... For as the Father... 
raiseth up, so (ovtws) the Son also (koi 6 wo's) quickeneth....For as 
the Father hath life in himself so (ovruis) to the Son also (ko.1 t<3 vl<2) 
gave he to have life in himself," viii. 19 (comp. xiv. 7) "If ye knew 

1 [2147 <z] This construction is most freq. in Lk. In Jn it is about as freq. as 
in Mt. 

- [2147/0 "Not only," 06, or fx-q. nbvov (adv.), Jn v. 18 before verb, ov (x6vov 
(\ve, elsewhere before noun, xi. 52 oi'x bwip rod ZOvovs ijlovov, comp. xii. 9, xiii. 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 ovk iw apry fj.6v<? (adj.) (as LXX). In Jn xi. 52— xvii. 20, 01' and fxovov 
(adv.) are always separated, "not for the nation alone,'" " not because of fesus 
alone" etc. 

3 [2147 r] Comp. Rom. i. 13 "that I might have some fruit in you also (ko.1 iv 
v/xtv)—n.s also (ko.8ojs 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. 

4 [2147 <f\ Kal, meaning "also," is preceded by 8i in ii. 2, iii. 23, xviii. 2, 5, 

18, xix. 19, 39, xxi. 25 [But in ii. 2 Si Kal may mean "now both..."]. 



me, ye would know my Father also (k. toj/ it. h-ov)" xii. 26 " Where 
I am there shall be my servant also (k. 6 Sicxkovos 6 c/xo's) 1 ." 

(6) Kai YM6IC 

[2149] Kai vfiels, v/aus etc., meaning "ye also," "you also" etc., 
is so frequent in John 2 , that the frequency almost suffices of itself to 
determine the sense in xiv. 19 "...but ye behold me : because (0V1) I 
(emph.) («yw) live, ye also (Kai vfiels) shall live." Here R.V. marg. 
gives " and ye shall live." But this, — whether rendered " ye behold 
me... and 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. ..and ye (R.V.) therefore (ovv) have sorrow," might, and 
probably should, be rendered "ye also therefore have sorrow," since 
xat implies correspondence, and not mere addition. 

(t) Kai in Crasis 

[2150] Kai is always combined by crasis with ey<o (freq.), with 
€fioi (once, xvii. 6), and with I/ac (twice, vii. 28, xvi. 32) except in 
antithesis xv. 24 Kat kfiX Kai tov iraripa /xov. It is combined with 
cK€t in xi. 54, but not in ii. 12, iii. 22, vi. 3. With the masculine 
cK€tvos it is always combined, except in xix. 35 on which see 2383. 
For koV, see 2160. 

(k) Kakginoc 8 

[2151] After a subject expressed by a participle, eKeZvos is some- 
times used appositionally for emphasis, "he and no other" and where 
Kat is prefixed to it, the meaning is "he also" or "he i?i the same 
way," or "he on his side" etc. :• — vi. 57 "He that eateth me, he also 
(KciKelvos) shall live on account of me," i.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 he also (koikco/os) do," i.e. as well as I myself. 
In vii. 29 "I am from him (irap avrov) and he (emph.) sent me 
(Kajcctvos [i€ aVeo-retXcv) " the Kat 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 /ecu, after a clause with Kaduis, 
may mean "also" or "and," see 2123, and on Kadus followed by K&yw in particular, 
see 2124 — 7. 

2 vii. 47, ix. 27, xiii. 14, 15, 33, 34, xiv. 3, xv. 20. On viii. 38 Kai v/xels ovv... 
iroieire, see 2193 — 4 and 2359. 

3 [2151 a] Kat e\'€?j/os never occurs exc. in xix. 35, where NA read Kcuceivos 
(2383). In xvii. 6, KA Kai e/xoi — here with CD — again differ from W.H. Ka/xoi. 



but also by His express sending, "and he, and no other, sent me 1 ." 
In x. 1 6 "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold : them 
also (/mKetva) 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 ko.1 is 
emphatic, not additive. The only other instance is xvii. 24 " that 
where I (emph.) am they also (ko.k€lvol) may be together with me 
(/xcr epov)" i.e. "that they, as well as I, may be there"; the phrase 
Her ifxov suggests that they are to be not only in the same place but 
"together" in mind and spirit. 

(A.) Kai, "also," connexion of 

[2152] Kat, "also," before nouns and pronouns, has been dis- 
cussed above. But Kat, "also," before a verb, is sometimes liable 
to be confused with xai before the subject of the verb. Thus, Sia 

tovto Kat VTrrjVTrjcrev avr<2 6 o^A.os might be confused with Sia tovto 

virrjVT-qaev aura) koL 6 ox/Vos. Yet the former means (1) "For this 
cause the multitude went also to meet him," i.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 also" 
i.e. the multitude, as well as Christ's disciples, or companions. 

[2153] This distinction is ignored by A.V. in xii. 18 Sta tovto 
ko.1 vTTTjvT-qo-ev airr<5 o ox^-os, where A.V. has "for this cause the 
people also." R.V. has "for this cause also the multitude," which 
would naturally mean " for this cause as well as for other causes." 
But the words ought to mean that the multitude, besides doing other 
things (e.g. noising abroad the raising of Lazarus) also, or actually, 
took the extreme course of organizing a procession in Christ's 
honour, i.e. "went also to meet him," or "actually went to meet him-."' 

(//,) Kai "also" in viii. 25 

[2154] There is great difficulty in viii. 25 " They therefore said 
unto him, Who art thou? Jesus said unto them, [In] the beginning 

1 [2151/0 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 (unemph.) am from his presence: he, on his side, sent me. 

- [2153 a\ Possibly A.V. may have considered that ko.1 represented a distinction 
between two multitudes, (t) xii. 12 6 by\o% iroXvs, which came out oj Jerusalem, 
(2) xii. 17 6 oy\o% 6 wv fxtr avrov ore top A. i(p^vqctv... which accompanied Jesus 
into Jerusalem, and which is said to have (//'.) "testified." John does distinguish 
between these two multitudes. But koX here has nothing to do with emphasizing 
the distinction. 



whatever I also speak unto you (rrjf dpxv v otl kol XaXw vp.1v, 
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 1 ." Cramer 
quotes Cyril thus, "I am justly punished, says [He], because I made 
a beginning even of [receiving] word[s] from you, because I have 
addressed to [you] aught of the things that know [? 6iAot6on 
? eoiKOTooN "that seem likely " | to profit [you] and took counsel 
[how] to deliver [you], I have been counted thus cheap in your 
estimation 2 ." It will be observed that the two do not agree. 
Chrysostom apparently takes tt]v dp\v v as oAw?, "at all," but Cyril 
takes it as "beginning." Chrysostom's interpretation would require 
ov, or tl /ecu, or some negative context, which is found with t?/v 
dpxqv when it means "at all" (" never at all" "not at all" etc.) 3 . 

[2155] As regards on, Chrysostom apparently takes it as the 
neuter pronoun ("that which I even speak," paraphrased by him 
as "the words that fall from my lips," rwi/ Xoywv tlqv -nap ip.ov) : 
Cyril takes it as "because" ("because I made a beginning"). 
Neither of them takes otl interrogatively. Of the instances alleged 
by Westcott here for interrogative on, one is probably corrupt, and 
two are not parallel to the instance in question 4 . 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 5e \e7e1 tolovtSu iari ■ Tov 6Xws aKoueiv tQv \byuv tQv Trap' e/xov 
dvd^Loi eare, htjti ye Kal fiadeiv Scrm iyu eifii. 

" [2154 /'] Cramer ad loc. AiKaia ttclctx^, 4>T)<riv, otl Kal \6yov wap vp.uv 
€TroLritTa.p.r)v apxr)v, otl 7rpoo~we<pwvriKa. tl tujv ddorwv (?) ti^eXetp, Kal dcacrdi^eLV 
i(3ov\evad/jLT]v, ei'reXTjs ovtu \e\6yL<rp.aL Trap' 1 vlllv. Perhaps there should be a full 
stop after dpxw- Cramer also has a comment (resembling Chrysostom's) quoting 
the text as "rr/p dpxv v °' Tt Ka -l \a\Q, iroWd ^x w 7rct P' vp.Qv \a\elv Kal Kplvetv. 

3 [2154 c] 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] at all even that which I say [much less that which I am]"). 

[2154 if] No negative v.r. is given by Alford. SS (Burk.) has "The chief [is] 
that I (enip/i.) should speak [myself] with you," a "initium quod loquor vobis," 
b "inprimis quia loquor vobis; cum...," d "initium quoniam et loquor vobis," 
f "principium quod et loquor vobis," gat. and mm. "principium, quod loquor," 
e and Vulg. "principium qui et loquor vobis." 

4 [2155 a] In Mk ix. n, 28, otl is preceded by ewqpthTUv, and the best transla- 
tion would probably be an affirmative — 3tl or \e~yovTes otl 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 



[2156] If on is a relative pronoun the meaning would seem to be 
that Jesus identifies Himself with that which He speaks, i.e. with the 
words which, as He says (xii. 48), "shall judge" those who reject 
Him. Then, perhaps, the ko.1 may be explained with reference to what 
precedes — where He has said to the Jews, " If ye believe not that 
/ am " — so that the meaning is, " [/ 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) "/ [am not to be accepted 
as the son of Zachariah the priest, or on any other personal grounds, 
but as being] a voice (eyw $>wq)" 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," i.e. the Logos, as 
He had spoken it from the first, consistently 1 . 

(v) Kai' meaning "[indeed], and...?" 

[2157] In ix. 36 "And who is he, Lord, that (2113) 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 
diaXoyt^'ofj.ei'OL ev rah Ka.p8ia.1s avrwv, Tl ovtos ovtcjs Xa\e?; W.H. print on 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. apxri" (and tt)v a.pxv 1 ') when meaning "at all" appears always 
(Steph.) to have a negative context expressed or implied. It is implied in Clem. 
Horn. vi. 1 1 t'l Kal ttjv apxw oiaXeyopiai ; i.e. ov Set 8ia\tyeadai. Comp. ib. xix. 6. 
Without a negative, it means "at the first " as in Gen. xli. 21, xliii. 18, :o, and 
Just. Mart. Apol. § 10 {bis). 

1 [2156 a] So Nonnus, Tls ov 7r Aeis ; koX Xpiords dviaxev, ottl irep tofuv 'E£ 
apxvs ddptfop, Zxw vy)pLdp.a SiKafciv. 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 
away." He claimed for "the Son of man" that He was "Lord also "i 
the Sabbath." Combining these statements we shall arrive at a claim on the 
put oi the Son of man to identify Himself with the Father's Law or Word. 



phrase ("believe in the Son of man"), and he craves additional 
explanation "[Thou sayest this] and [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] and — who [then] can be saved 1 ?" 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. 

(f) Kai €an (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 kqX lav yiv-qrai. 
St Paul, for k. I. yevrjTai, has (Rom. ix. 27) e<xv 17 (A.V. "though," 
R.V. "if"). Probably St Paul used eav with the consciousness that 
the apodosis gave it the meaning "even if," and LXX intended kcu 
to mean "even." In an author like John, much given to asyndeton, 
there is an antecedent probability (in doubtful cases) that /cat e'a'v 
would mean, not " and if," but " even if." 

[2159] Kai lav occurs as follows: viii. 16 "I judge no man, 
(R.V.) yea, and if I judge (kcu lav npivw Se eyw), my judgment 
is true" (A.V. " and yet if I judge"). Perhaps, "yea, even if I 
judge"; xii. 46 — 7 (R.V.) "I am come. ..that whosoever believeth 
on me may not abide in the darkness. And if («ai eav) any man 
hear my sayings and keep them not, I judge him not," better, 
perhaps, "Even if any man hear and disobey, I judge him not"; 
xiv. 3 (R.V.) "And if (*ai eav) I go and prepare a place for you, 
I come again, and will receive you...," better, perhaps, "Even if 
(or, And even if) I go... [yet] again do I come." There is great 

1 [2157(7] Mk x. 26, Lk. xviii. 26 (Mt. xix. 25 ris &pa). So Xen. Cyrop. v. 
4. 13 " 'You are passing over a still greater marvel.' '[Indeed] and what might 
that be (nai rt 5r) tout i<rriv;)?" And, in reply to Cyrus's orders as to the 
drawing up of soldiers for an attack, an officer replies (ib. vi. 3. 22) "[Indeed] 
and doyon think we shall be strong enough (Kai ooKodfxev crot, 2<py, w Kvpe, 'iKavQs 
£l-eu>)...?" Similarly, in English we might have "'Give him what he asks.' 
'And where am I to get it?'" So /cai irus ; freq. (Steph. 2305 B). 

A. VI. I45 IO 


difficulty about the whole of this passage, but it seems to mean 
"I should not myself call it going on a journey (Tropcvofxai) but going 
back to the Father (v-rrdyu)) : however, to use your word, even if 
I do ' go,' yet I will return " (2080 — 6). In the Epistle, *ai eav occurs 
twice. It is used with indie, in i Jn v. 15 kcu e'av oioap.^v "and if we 
know " (see 2515 (i)). R.V. "and if" does not seem adequate to the 
meaning in 1 Jn ii. 1 — 2, "I write... that ye sin not. Grant however 
that one sin (kcu idv tis dp.dprrj) zve have a Paraclete." It is not 
meant that we have no Paraclete if we do not sin. The meaning 
is, "Even if we do sin [let us remember that] we have a Paraclete." 

(o) Kan 

[2160] Kav occurs four times in John and means " even if " 
certainly in viii. 14, x. 38, xi. 25, and possibly in viii. 55, (R.V.) 
"But I know him [i.e. the Father] ; and if I should say {kq.v crn-co) 
I know him not, I shall be like unto you, a liar." It is true that *o,v 
means "and if" in Luke, and in the Mark- Appendix 1 ; 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: 
" I know him. Even if I say I know him not — [what then ?] I shall 
be a liar." 

(73-) K<m'...k<m', "both... and" 

[2161] In vi. 36 "But I said unto you that ye (unemph.) have 
both seen [me] and [yet] do not believe," dAA' uttov v/j-lv on ko.1 
kwpa.Ka.ri [/i.c] koX ov iricrTcveTe, A.V. has " ye also," which would 
require ko.1 v/aus. R.V. omits "both." The word "both" increases 
the abruptness of the paradox, as in xv. 24 (where R.V. inserts it) 
" they have both seen and hated both me and my Father 2 ." Possibly 

1 [2160rt] Kdf, in Mk v. 28, vi. $6 means "though it were but," i.e. "merely," 
in Mt. xxi. 11, xxvi. 35, "even if." Hut in I.k. xii. 38, xiii. 9, Mk-App. [xvi. 18], 
J as 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. 

- [2161 rz] In vi. 36, yu f ' s om - by almost all authorities exc. HP. 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 believe." 



R.V. omits it here because it is contrary to English idiom, and 
because the paradox is expressed by rendering the second kcu " and 
\yef\." This however does not give the suspensive force of the first 
kcu, 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 Kai... Kai to represent (i) the same verb applied to two 
nouns, e.g. "healing both the blind and the lame 1 " or (2) the same 
noun or pronoun applied to two verbs, e.g. " he began both to do and 
to teach." But these and other instances ("both hungering and 
thirsting," and even "both to be filled and to be hungry 2 ") 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 both raised up the Lord and will raise up 
us 3 ," where the text suggests that Redemption is one great fore- 
ordained plan including past and present. Thus the Voice from 
Heaven says xii. 28 "I have both glorified and will again glorify," i.e. 
as it was, so it shall be. 

[2163] ix. 37 "Thou hast both seen him and he that is speaking 
with thee is he 4 ," 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, " I that 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 did not " believe " and needed 
to be commanded to " believe." 

1 [2162 a] Comp. Mk iv. 41 " (?) both (R.V. even) the wind and the sea," sim. 
Mt. viii. 27. Luke in the parall. (viii. 25) by a difference of order (/cat reus due/Mots 
eTriT&aaei. /ecu tcjJ vdari, not /ecu r. ave/xois k. t. v5olti.) perh. indicates that he takes 
/ecu... /ecu' as " even... and." 

2 [2162/'] Phil. iv. 12 otda /cat Tcnreivouadai, olda /ecu TrepiaatveLv is interesting 
as shewing the Apostle in the act of writing Kai Kai irepiffa. and then changing 
his mind, inserting olSa : as Lightf. says, Kai t aw ewovcrd at was "shaped in antici- 
pation of the Kai TrepLcr<reveiv which follows. " 

3 [2162 r] 1 Cor. vi. 14 6 8e debs Kai tov Kvpiov ijyeipev Kai r}/ etjeyepu (B 
i^rjyeipev). B's reading would mean that " God both raised up the Lord and (ipso 
facto) raised up us," as part of one plan. 

4 Kcu ecipa/cas avrbv Kai 6 \a\G>v /xera crov eKeivos ecrriv. 

147 IO — 2 


therefore, Chrysostom has not chosen the right epithet in calling the 
clause " obscure 1 ." 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 I 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 2 . 

[2164] Kat is not immediately before the verb in xvii. 25 (lit.) 
"O righteous Father, both (/cat) the world did not recognise thee — 
but I (cyw 8e) recognised thee — and these (kol ovtoi) recognised that 
thou didst send me." Here the first k<u is intended to keep the 
reader in suspense, aware that the meaning is incomplete 3 , and 
perhaps the sentence starts with the simple antithesis, " Whereas (Kai) 
the world did not... on the other hand (/ecu) 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 and consequently 
these did 4 ." 

[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. Ovk elireVy'Yiyd) eifjii' dXXd fxiaos Zti kcli inreaTaX/xiuos. Kai ewpanas 
clvt6v. Tovto Zti adrjXov r\v 5ib rb o~a<pt<TTepov iirriyayev '0 \a\wv fiera (rod, 
iKeivds ion. By ixiaos he seems to mean "going halfway." 

2 Comp. vi. 68 " Thou hast the words of eternal life," which implies " Thou 
art the Saviour." 

s [2164 a] As a rule, Kai 6 K6crfj.os, in such a position as this, would mean 
■" Even the world," and in some contexts it would make good sense to rentier 
it thus, "Even the world, even God's own creation, did not know Him*"; 
ibut this would not be appropriate in a context where "the world" is clearly 
regarded as an enemy. 

4 [2164/'] See 2162 b' on Phil. iv. \i. Injn xvii. 16, the words Ktd iyvdtptcra... 
Kai yvuplau might begin a new sentence (like xii. 28 Kai (do^a<ra...Kai tt6.\iv 
i'o^d(ruj) " I have both made known. ..and will make known," and this hypothesis of 
asyndeton is more in accordance with Johannine style than the hypothesis of Kai 
" a nd" repeated thrice after Kai "both." 

1 4 S 


good in thy sight 1 ." 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 " righteous 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 Kai in the Fourth Gospel supplies the connexion between 
" hiding " from the " wise " (i.e. " the world " meaning " the worldly") 
and the revealing unto " babes " (i.e. 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, outo's icrrtv 6 fxa6r)Tr)<; 6 Kal /xaprvpwv Trepi 
tovtu)v Kal 6 ypou//as Tairra 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 Kal 
p.apTvp<2v Kal ypdij/as. In B, therefore, we must take the first Kai as 
"also": "This [i.e. the beloved disciple above described] is the 
disciple that also [besides seeing the Saviour in the way described 
above] testifieth concerning these things," i.e. he not only saw the 
Saviour but testifies to what he saw 2 . After these words the 
evangelist continues, "and the one that wrote these things," making 
a pause after tovtwv 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 3 . 

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 ravra in xii. 16 (2621 — 2) : 
Codex a has " de Jesu " and e " de ihm," but these are perhaps confusions of " de 
his," read as " de ihs." 

3 [2166 /'] Kat would naturally be omitted by scribes before fiaprvpuiu 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 c] If we adopt the two marginal readings of W.H. and assume [6], in the 



(p) Ka'i r*p 

[2167] Kai ydp occurs in John twice. Once carrot intervenes 
(iv. 45 kcu airol yap rjkOov, " for they also went ") perhaps receiving 
special emphasis from its intervention (2692). The other instance is 
iv. 23, "For the Father also (ko.1 yap 6 7rarrjp) seeketh such for his 

worshippers (toiovtovs £,r)T€i rovs TrfjoaKwovvTas aurov)," R.V. txt 
"for such doth the Father seek to be h. w.," marg. "for such the 
Father also seeketh." This rendering ("for... also ") is more probable, 
here, than " for indeed." Kai ydp may mean " for indeed " — empha- 
sizing the cogency and truth of a causal proposition — when there is 
no noun or pronoun that comes close after7vards. But where there is 
such a noun or pronoun the force of Kai is to emphasize it, as in 
11 For I also am under authority 1 ." 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 2 . Mark 
records a saying of the Son about Himself, " For the Son of man also 
(Kai ydp 6 v. t. d.) came to be a minister 3 ." John here records 
a similar saying of the Son about the Father, and with the same 
conjunction, "For the Father also (Kai ydp 6 rr.) seeketh 4 ." 

On Kai. ..Se see 2076, and on ovre... Kai see 2258 — 9. 

(cr) Kai omitted between two adjectives 

[2168] Such collections of adjectives as we find in the Pastoral 
Epistles (2 Tim. iii. 2 foil.) "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 also,'" i.e. 
besides other suspicious circumstances, Mk x. 45 "for the Son of man also," i.e. 
He as well as others, not exempting Himself from the duty of common men, 
Lk. vi. 32 " for sinners also" i.e. as well as the righteous, etc. 

2 [2167/'] Christ had said to her " Give me to drink 7 ' and had then perplexed 
her by raying that He could give her to drink. The evangelist here represents the 
Son as saying " Give," just as a father might say to his children " Give me your 
hearts," and jusl as (lod is represented in O.T. as saying to Israel "Seek ye my 
face" — thus "seeking" them — in the hope that they may reply "Thy face, O 
Lord, will I seek." 

1 Mk x. 45. * Jn iv. 23. 



adjectives may always be explained by special circumstances. In 
xii. 3, vdpBov ■ma-TLKr}^ (1736 d) (perhaps intended to suggest an inward 
symbolical meaning) may be taken as a compound noun followed by 
tvoXvtl'ixov. In xvii. 3, ere tov fxovov dXrjBtvov deov may be illustrated 
by Rom. xvi. 27 p.6vw cro^w 6ed>, where p-ovos perhaps implies (1895, 
2664 tf) 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 (vii. 37) " Now on the last day — the 

great one [too] — of the feast (ev o"e rrj io-^dry yp-epa — rfj paydXy — t?/s 

iopTrjs),'' adding "the great one" as a parenthetical remark 1 . 

(xii) Mt'v, (j-evToi 

[2169] The Johannine use of p.iv is interesting mainly in its 
bearing on the question whether oTdapav in xxi. 24 may have been 
taken by Chrysostom as oTSa /xeV, on which point see 2429 — 35. 
Apart from vii. 12 01 p.\v tXtyov . . .dXXot [Sc], and xi. 6 Tore pikv tpmvev 
...errctra para, tovto, it is generally followed by Se, as in xix. 24 ol p.kv 

OVV (TTpa.TLWTai...l<TT7]K£l<Tav Se, xix. 32 TOV p.ZV TTpWTOV . . . £7Tt Se TOV 'I., 

XX. 30 7roXAa ovv k. dk\a...TavTa Se. In X. 41 'Iwav^s p-tv o"r]p.uov 
iiroir](T€v oi8ev, Trdi'Ta 8e 6<ja et7rei/ IoxiVt/s 7T€pt tovtov dXrjOij rjv, 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 Trdvra. The two remaining instances of p.i\> are in 
words of the Lord, xvi. 9 Trepl dp.apTia<; p.£v...TT€p\ StKatotrui'^s 8e...Trepl 
(2077) ok Kpi'creojs, and xvi. 22 k. v/xeis ovv vvv p.kv Xvir-qv «X eTe ' ^dXtv 8e 

oxpopai v/xa?, 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] McVtoi occurs nowhere in the Synoptists, but five times in 
John. In iv. 27 "No one, however, said, What seekest thou?" and 
in xx. 5 " He did not, however, enter in," a feeling of reverence is 
suggested : in vii. 13 "No one, however, 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 [2168 <?] Some Latin translators have been perplexed by the Gk article and 
by taking eoprr) as feast-day; a has " in novissima autem magna die festi Judaeorum," 
but b "in novissimo autem die magno ac solenne," e "in die autem novissimo 
magno die festo," d andjf" in novissimo autem die (^f+illo) magno diei festi," 
SS "and on the great day of the feast." 



however (o/xw<; fxtvToi) 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, however, did not know 
that it was Jesus" is the only remaining instance 1 . Reviewing the 
whole, we may say that fxivToi 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 

(xiii) "Ottov 

[2171] In classical Greek, ottov is not used after a definite 
mention of place, as it is in John, e.g. i. 28, "Bethany, beyond 
Jordan, where (ottov) John was...," xii. 1 "Bethany, where Lazarus 
was" etc. Compare especially xix. 17 — 18 " the place of a 
skull called in Hebrew Golgotha, where (ottov) they crucified him," 
i.e. almost equivalent to, "a/id there they crucified him." This 
Johannine use is not borrowed from the LXX, where ottov 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 thrice 2 . In connexion with the Resurrection, it 

1 [2170 a] Out of Jn, it occurs only 2 Tim. ii. iy 6 p.. arepebs dep.eXt.os, Jas ii. S 
ei p.. vbp.ov reXelre f3acriXiKbv, Jude 8 bp.oiios p.. koli ovtoi. 

2 [2171 «] Mk ii. 4 tt\v ariy-qv Sttov r)v...Tov KpafiarTov Sttov 6 TrapaXvTiKbs 
KariKtiTO, (?) iv. 15 oi irapa tt\v bbbv ottov aTrdperai b Xbyos, ix. 48 Y^epvai' ottov 6 
crKil>\ri^ avrdv ou TeXevroJ, xvi. 6 see below (21716'): Mt. xiii. 5 (definite) to. 
TTfTpwOr) ottov ovk elxev "YV" TroXXr)i>, but Mk iv. 5 (indefinite if xai is inserted) to 
TrerpQSes [tcai] ottov ovk dx*" yv v ToXXrjv. In Mt. xxvi. 57, Sttov follows Ka<.a.<pa.v 
which implies " the palace of Caiaphas." Mt. xxviii. 6, see below (2171c"). 

[2171/'] Mt. vi. 19 — 20 (Lk. xii. 33) is of a somewhat indefinite nature, and 
Sttov in Mk xiv. 14 (Lk. xxii. 11) (Mt. om.) ttov iarlv rb KaraXvpia. p.ov ottov... 
(payu, is interrogative, and, so far, indefinite. 

[2171 c] "Ottov occurs, in the Acts, only in xvii. 1 Qeo-aaXoptKriv, ottov..., xx. 6 
(v. r. ) 7-7)1/ Tpy&da... ottov (W.H. ov). Lk. uses ottov five times, but never as 
above, unless an exception is to be recognised in Lk. xii. 33 (where Lk. follows 
Mt. vi. 20) o7toi; kX^ttttjs ovk lyyLfrtL. 

[2171c/] The Johannine combinations of ottov with up.i above, as well as the 
non-use of el/u "go" in N.T., and almost complete absence of elpi.i in O.T., shew 
that o7roi; dp.1 (not dp.i) 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 TropdxaOai. If the meaning had 
been where I "go," i'Tr&yio or would almost certainly have been em- 
ployed (as Jesus frequently uses both). A strong incompatibility is suggested by 

'■where 1 am, there ye cannot come.'' 



occurs in Mark and Matthew in an angelic utterance ("see the 
place"), but in John in a description of two angels in the tomb 1 . 
Here Matthew approaches a dependent interrogative, but Mark and 
John do not. 

[2172] John frequently uses ottov, 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 (ottov) he had 
made the water wine," vi. 23 "near the place where (ottov) they ate 
the bread," vii. 42 "Bethlehem the village where David [once] was," 
x. 40 "the place where John [once] was, at the first, baptizing," xii. 1 
" He came to Bethany where was Lazarus," i.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 (2277a) be 
inserted after 171', thus : " These things came to pass in Bethany 
beyond Jordan — (lit.) where John was (fjv), baptizing (/3a7ri-i£a>i/)," 
and tjv may mean "was and had been for some time" (2648). 
Under ordinary circumstances we should translate ottov ckci-to in 
xx. 12, " where lay the body of Jesus," but it is shewn by the context 
to mean " ivhere it had lain' 1 ." 

(xiv) "O-rrws 

[2173] This (1695) occurs frequently in Matthew and Luke, but 
only once in Mark (iii. 6 " that they might destroy (aVoAeo-wo-iv) 
him") and once in John (xi. 57 "that they might take (-mao-iao-iv) 
him "). Matthew's parallel to Mark iii. 6 agrees with Mark verbatim, 
but Luke's differs 3 . Elsewhere, Matthew uses oVws (but Luke never) 

1 [2171 <f] Mk xvi. 6 l'5e, 6 t6ttos ottov id-qKav clvt6v, Mt. xxviii. 6 i'Sere 
tov tSttov 8ttov Zkcito, Jn xx. 12 deiopei b~\jo ayy£\ovs...6Trou txeiTo to aCofxa. 
rod Irjffov. 

- [2172 a] A " where-clause," e.g. " Etam where (?v9a) Samson lived," is 
common in the Onomasticon 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 ottov r\v T. fiaTTTi'fwv and x. 40 ottov rjv I. to TrpQnov 

3 [2173 a] Mt. xii. 14. Lk. vi. 11 has 8u\d\ovv -rrpos a\\r]\ovs tL ai> Troir/aaiei' 
rep 'Itjoov. On 7rtdj"c<; see 1723 c and Ox. Pap. 812 (B.C. 5) TreTriao-Tai Xoxpiwv. 



in similar contexts 1 . These facts suggest that oVws 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) "On 2 

(a) 'On (i) suspensive, (2) explanatory 

[2174] 'On 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 otl very frequently in the sense "because." In theory, 
ambiguity might arise from the fact that Ae'yw, ttio-tcvw, deiopiio etc., 
followed by otl, might mean "I say, believe, behold, that," or, "I 
say, believe, behold, because" 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 "that," introducing the object of 
the verb. 

[2175] A more serious cause of ambiguity is that on — like 
KaOws (2122 — 32) — may be used (t) suspensively ("because 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 U or other conjunction as in Gal. iv. 6 
"But because (otl 8e) 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 on is 
certainly suspensive after ovtws : the second on is probably sus- 
pensive — but not certainly (owing to the absence of a conjunction) 
Rev. iii. 16 — 17 "Thus (ounos), because (otl) thou art lukewarm... I 
am about to spew thee out of my mouth. Because (otl) thou sayest 
'I 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, because [/ say] thou sayest...," and "I counsel" 

1 [2173/'] Mt. xxii. 15 bwu>% avrbv ■Kayifevawoiv iv \6yifi, xxvi. 50 ottws avrbv 
OavaTuGwoiv. lilacs (p. :n) on Jn xi. 57 says " for the sake of variety"; but the 
repetitions of Ira in 2116- 20 are against this view. 

- <>ro»' is discussed under Tense, Aorisl and Present Subjunctive (2531 — 5). 



might begin a new sentence ; and the English Hexapla prints the 
words thus in all versions after that of 1380 a.d. 1 . 

[2176] The suspensive use of on in the Greek Testament is first 
found in Genesis iii. 14 "And the Lord God said unto the serpent, 
Because (otl) thou hast done this, cursed art thou," and iii. 17 " Unto 
Adam he said, Because (on) thou hast hearkened... cursed is the 
ground." In the second case, it would be quite possible to take 
otl 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 Sia to 
which Luke also has (xviii. 5 " Yet because this widow troubleth me "). 
In N. T., suspensive otl 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 2 . 

[2177] In John, the ambiguity of suspensive on is greatly increased 
by his excessive use of asyndeton, e.g. xiv. 19 "But ye behold me. 
Because (otl) 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 on 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. much 
give her of torment and mourning. Because she saith in her heart, ' I sit a queen 
and am no widow and shall in no wise see mourning,' therefore (5lo. tovto) 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." "On is 
also suspensive in Rev. iii. 10 "...that they may know that I loved thee. Because 
(otl) thou didst keep the word of my endurance I also (K&yu) will keep thee...," 
where it would be quite possible to render the words " that they may know that I 

loved thee because thou didst keep... and I " That is to say, it would be 

theoretically possible. But no one familiar with the style of the author would so 
render it. 

2 [2176 a] Besides Gal. iv. 6 (above quoted) otl suspensive occurs in i Cor. xii. 
15 — 16 (bis) "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, because they 
are Abraham's seed, are they all children." 




where 1 , and to his habitual use of (2149) /cat vfieh 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. 

(ft) "Oti introducing (i) cause of action, (2) ground of statement 

[2178] A doubt may sometimes exist whether on, "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] because you were caught in the act "), where (in 
English) we should mostly use " for." Such a sentence as x. 5 " They 
will fee... because 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 because you (or, they) do that"). 
But the meaning is not so clear in v. 38 "Ye have not his word 
abiding in you because (on) whom he sent him ye believe not." Does 
this mean (1) that, because 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, on introduces 
the reason why the "word" did ?wt "abide." Or does it mean (2) 
" Ye have not his word abiding in you : [I know this] because whom 
he sent him ye believe not"? In that case on introduces the cause 
of the speaker's kno7vledge, the proof of his assertion. The use of on 
to mean "[I 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 "For 
this cause (Sta. tovto) ye have not his word abiding in you because" — 
a very common formula with him' 2 . 

1 [2177a] Comp. i. 50 6'rt elirov crot, xx. 29 on ewpaKcis fJ.e, where ort is 
suspensive and initial. Suspensive on is also initial with 6V in xv. [9, and d\\' 
on is initial and suspensive in xvi. 6. In viii. 45 eyu 5e otl tt)v a\rjdciav Xeyw, ov 
iTLo-TeueTt fj.01, the 5^ introduces an antithesis to the previous sentence: "Ye on the 
one hand are the children of the Father of lies and move in falsehood as your 
atmosphere: but I on the other hand — just because I say the truth, ye do not 
believe me." 

- [2178a] R.V. and A.V. "for." Westcott says (ad toe.) "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. ij.." 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 know that we have passed from death... 
because we love the brethren") stales the ground of "knowing," which may be 

I 5 6 


[2179] In ii. 18 "What sign shewest thou because thou doest 
these things ? " the meaning of on seems to be " [We ask thee this 
question] because 1 ," and similarly in vii. 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, because 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, because it comes 
ultimately, not "from myself," but from the Father, the righteous 
Judge. In x. 12 — 13 "But the hireling... fieeth, and the wolf 
snatcheth and scattereth them because he is a hireling," some 
authorities insert " the hireling fieeth " 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 cause 
to disaster, and an enemy may be said to surprise a camp "because 
the sentinel was asleep." The passage illustrates John's varied use 
of on. 

[2180] In i. 14 — 18, a complicated passage in which connexions 
of thought are broken by interventions of parentheses, on 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. "On seems to mean 
in each case " [I say this] because of that" where " this " and " that " 
are similar or identical words (like "full" and "fulness" "first" and 
"before" "grace" and "grace") thus: (a) "He is become before me, 
[/say ' before '] because he was first in regard to me " ; (b) " the Logos 
tabernacled among us... full of...- [/ say i fuW\ because from his 
fulness did we all receive"; (c) "...and grace (or grace, [I say ' grace'] 
because, whereas the Law [of God] was given [as a preparatory grace 

also called the cause 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." 

1 [2179a] Somewhat less probable would be "In 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. 

- [2180a] 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. 



or preparation for grace] through Moses, the [real] grace [of God] and 
the truth [of God] came into being through Jesus Christ." 

(7) "On (?) "that" or "because" 

[2181] "On is interpreted "because" by Chrysostom, but "that" 
by R.V., in iii. 19 "And this is the judgment, that (avT-q Se eo-nv 77 
Kpto-is on) 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 (Sta tovto) 
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 1 Jn i. 5 
and v. 14 "And this is the boldness that we have . . . [namely] that..." 
confirms the view that on here means "that." The very fact that 
men love darkness is their condemnation. Similarly (2187) iii. 18 
6 /at) TTLarevoiv rj&r) KeKpnai on /at) TreTriarevKev is 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 on in his comment: 
"Disbelief is of itself a punishment 1 ." 

[2182] "On probably means "I say this because" in xvi. 8 — n 
" He will convict the world about sin and about righteousness and 
about judgment; in the first place (/teV) about sin, [/say this] because 
they believe not on me ; in the next place (Se) about righteousness, 
[/ say this] because I go unto the Father and ye no longer behold 
me ; in the next place (Se) about judgment, [/ say this] because the 
prince of this world hath been judged." The absence of the defining 
clause a\nq Se' ea-TLv differentiates this passage from iii. 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, because 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, because the prince of this world, who — by means 

1 Cramer ad loc. avrb rb diriaTUv k6\cl<tIs can. 

- Coiii|). Heb. xi. 37 "Evil entreated, of whom the world -.ens not worthy, 
wandering in deserts...." 



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 1 ." 

[2183] R.V. and A.V. differ in ix. 17 "What dost thou (o~v) say 
about him, (R.V.) in that he opened thine eyes?" (A.V. "that he 
hath opened thine eyes ? "). The object of " sayest " has preceded 
(" IVAat say est thou?") and the blind man has already said (ix. 15) 
in effect, "he hath opened mine eyes." Consequently, we may 
naturally expect on 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 did 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 on might lead 
the reader to give on 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 2 . 

[2184] In the following, on certainly means "that"; but the 
instance may be conveniently placed here, because, as in the in- 
stances last discussed, on follows ri 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 3 , asking one another whether He would come to the Feast, in 
view of the attempts, mentioned in the context, to kill or capture 

1 [2182(7] 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 

2 [2183 a] According to this view, this passage differs slightly from ii. 18, 
where a comma precedes &ri : "What sign art thou about to shew unto us — \we 
ask this'] because thou doest these things (2179)?" Here the position of the 
authoritative ftfuv, in t'i arjixdov SeiKvvets ijfj-'iv, indicates that the sign must be 
shewn "unto us," and that "we" have a right to ask for it. 

3 xi. 56 imperf. ei~riTovi>...Z\eyov. 



Him : xi. 56 "What think ye? That he will assuredly not come to 
the feast ? " Tt WokzI; on ov (xr) eXOy cts rrjv lopTr/v; 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 1 . The passage, however, comes 
usefully here as shewing how complex may be the considerations on 
which the meaning of 6Vi 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 e.g. iv. 35, (R.V.) "Lift 
up your eyes and look on the fields, that (6'n) they are white already 
unto harvest 2 ." Here A.V. has "/or they are white"; and, in favour 
of A. V., it might be fairly argued that if John meant "behold that..." 
he might have written " behold that the fields are white," as else- 
where (vi. 5) "beholding that (on) a great multitude cometh 3 ." 

1 [2184<z] D reads Tt 5o/ceiYe, a, b, e, AoKetre, "Do ye suppose?" (instead of 
Tt 5oK€t vlliv;). SS has "Do ye suppose that perchance he cometh not to the feast?" 
Origen ad loc. has at first ri vluv 8oku ov fx-q Z\8r)... ("What do you think? He 
will never surely come [will he]...?") though quoting correctly afterwards. 
Chrysostom (Migne) ad loc. has doKeire, and "in the course of (eV) the Feast." 
He adds Tovriariv, 'T&vravda, avrbv e/xireo~e7i> 8eT, tov Kaipov k<x\ovvtos avrbv. 
Cramer has ri vluv ooKei, on ov /xr/ 2\6r) els tt\v kopTqv, adding 6 Se \e7et toiovtov 
tOTiv, ivravda avrov eLnreaetv Set tov Kaipov koKovptos avrbv. Steph. iii. 882 gives 
efxirlTTTw absol. "temere irruere." Chrysostom uses ifx-ireo-eii* again (on Jn vii. 10) 
about coming to a feast in the midst of excitement. 

- [2185 <?] In iii. i\ (A.V.) "that his deeds may be made manifest, that they 
are wrought in God," R.V. has txt '■'■that" marg. "because." In vii. 52 (A.V.) 
"Search and see, /or," R.V. has txt "that," marg. "for." In viii. 22 (A.V.) 
"Will he kill himself? because he saith..." i.e. "\_We ash this'] because," R.V. has 
"that" he saith (presumably attempting to correct not the sense but the English). 
On xiv. 2 see 2186 foil. Cases of "not that" meaning "not because" are not 
included in this list. 

[2185/'] In xviii. 37 (R.V. txt) "Thou sayest that I am a king," R.V. marg. 
has, "Thou sayest [it] because I am a king," on which Westcott justly says, "The 
translation ' Tlwu sayest (i.e. rightly), because I am'' seems to be both unnatural as 
a rendering of the original phrase, and alien from the context." In xxi. 23 ovk 
elirtv 5e avrw 6 '\r}crovs tin ovk atrodwrjo-Kei, SS has "for that" i.e. because, "but 
|e-u>. ii"i for that he was not to die said he [it]." In such cases, the Latin quod, 
or quia, would often reproduce the ambiguity of the Greek. 

;; 1 2185 1] &eao-0al ti 8tl foil, by indie, (like v. 42 tyvwKa on ovk ?X eTt ) 
does not appear to exist elsewhere in N.T. Westc. says '-lor, rather that," but 
ons; Thayer recognises ri as the ordinary accus., apparently favouring 
A. V.; Alloid lias no remark about the construction. 



But perhaps R.V. is right in judging that John (even when an 
accusative intervened) would not use on (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 1 . 

[2186] In all the passages bearing on on, up to this point, no 
instance has been found of Ae'yw closely followed by on meaning " I say 
. . . because." This makes it all the more remarkable that in one passage, 
according to R.V., John has used €i7reiv on to mean, "say [it] because," 
on which is based the following rendering (xiv. i — 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 (el 8e fir/, e?7roi' du vfxlv on -rropevofxat) 
to prepare a place for you." It has been shewn, under the head of 
el 8e /XT] (2080 — 6), that there is no authority for the rendering "if it 
were not so." Even if it were allowable to supply the sense in that 
way (el 8e fxi] [olJtus 171']), 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] " elirov dv vfuv [on ov^ ovnos 
eortv]. No authority has been alleged for this 2 . But, apart from all 
these facts, the regular Greek and Johannine use of Xeyew or el-n-elv 
on, "say that' 7 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 that I a?n going*." 

For on equivalent to ware, in xiv. 22, see 2694. 

1 [2185</] In Jn xx. 13 R.V. and A.V. have '■'■Because they have taken away 
my Lord," but W.H. txt has \4yei clvtoTs otl 'Hpa^ (marg. "On TJpau), which — 
being more impassioned and more like xx. 18 otl 'Ewpa/ca— is prob. correct, in 
spite of the fact that the words are an answer to the question "Why weepest 

2 [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] (elirov) to you" refers to the preceding words 
"If thou art the Christ say [so] (d-rrbv) to us." In xiv. 29 "I have said [it] 
(dp-qua) to you" (better than "I have told you") probably refers to xiv. 28 
"I said (enroi') to you, I depart." 

3 [2186 />] For the new meaning that would be given to the whole passage by 
this interpretation the reader is referred to «' 5e /jlti (2080 — 6). Here it may be 
added that several authorities (including a and e) omit on, and that the Syriac 
(including SS) has "I should have said that I go." In LXX, otl "recitativum" 
is omitted after "I said" in Ps. xxx. 6 "I said I shall never be removed," xxxi. 

A. VI. l6l II 


(S) "On mh 

[2187] In one instance, on pif in the Gospel curiously contrasts 
with otl ov in the Epistle: Jn iii. 18 "He that believeth not (6 ^ 
■n-icTTeviDv) hath been judged already because he hath ?wt believed (on 
firj ircTrto-Tcu/cev) in the name of the only begotten Son of God," i Jn 
v. io " He that believeth not God (6 /at) -ino-Tevwv tw 0cw) hath made 
him a liar ; [I say this] because he hath not believed in the testimony 

that God testified (on ov Treirio-TevKtv fi? tt)v fxaprvpiav) " In the 

latter, on ov states the fact objectively ; in the former, on firj states it 
subjectively, as the judgment pronounced by the Judge, "This man 
is guilty in that he hath not believed'' so that the meaning is almost 
" hath been pronounced guilty of not believing:' See 2695. 

(e) Oyx oti 

[2188] In classical Greek, ov^ on often means "not only" and 
may be explained as "not [only do I say] that," so as to prepare the 
way for a'AAa K ai " 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\ o'n might be explained as 
(i) " [I say this], not because...," (2) " [7 do] not [mean to say] that...: 7 
The latter is generally the more probable. See Ellipsis, 2218 — 9. 

(£) "Oti " recitativum " 

[2189] "On "recitativum" is a Greek way of expressing our 
inverted commas, or the Hebrew "saying," as in i. 20 "he confessed 
that (otl) I 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 1 . The use of otl 'Eyw in 
the case of the Baptist above and of the blind man in ix. 9 lAeyci/ on 
'Eyw elfj.L, may be contrasted with the omission of on when " I am " 
is uttered by Jesus in xviii. 5 Ae'yci avTols 'Eyw dfj.L...Lo\ ovv elirev 
avTols 'Eyw elpL. Neither here nor elsewhere — except in two or 
three instances where sayings of Christ are repeated for the second 

12 "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 6n as meaning "that" not "because." 

1 [2189 a I The mss. vary, and editors print the same text differently (e& 8tl 
eyw and on 'E>u>) so that it is difficult to obtain exact statistics. W.I I. print 
Mt. x. 7 K-opixraere X^ovres 8n "HyyiKev , but Lk. vii. 4 \tyovres on a$i6s iariv $ 
irapi^ri tovto, dyairq. yip to tdvos TffxCiv.... 



time (2190) — does John use otl before direct speech of the Lord after 
"he said": consequently when we find "7 said" a little later on, 
xviii. 8 Uttov vfjuv otl lyu> elfit, there is some reason for thinking that 
this is reported speech, " I said to you that I am 1 ." 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. i. 50 "Because I said unto thee that 
(otl) I saw thee under the fig-tree," vi. 36 "But I said to you that ye 
have seen me," viii. 24 "/ said... to you that ye shall die in your 
sins," xi. 40 " Did I not say to thee that, 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 
otl 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 otl recitativum elsewhere after " he said " introducing words of 

[2190] The text varies somewhat in xiii. 33 " Even as I said to 
the Jews that ' 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 viii. 21, then otl recitativum is here used in exact 
quotation of a saying of the Lord. The quotation is not exact in 

xviii. 9 Lva irX-qptoOrj 6 Aoyos ov ei-rrev otl Ov<; Sc'Sojkci? /xol ovk a7rcoAecra 

1 [2189 b] For the omission of otl elsewhere before iyu elfxi, in words of the 
Lord, see vi. 20 \^y« clvtols 'E7W elfu, and vi. 35 elirev aureus 6 'I-qaovs 'Eyui eZ/xi 6 

tipTOS TT)V j'WJJS. 

[2189 c] In the Baptist's words, W.H. print iii. 28 elirov [6706] Ovk elfj.1 e'ytb 6 
Xptcrroj, dXX' 6Vt 'ATrearaXfi^vos el/xi tpLwpocrdev eKeivov. However printed, the text 
seems to blend (1) "I said ' I am not the Christ but am one sent,''" (2) "I did not 
say '/am the Christ,' but I said, 1 1 am one sent.'''''' 

2 [2190 a] "Oti is ora. by ND b, e. SS has "that, where I go they cannot 
come.'' Christ had said in vii. 34 "Where I am, ye are not able to come," and 
(perhaps for this reason) a and e read "sum" in xiii. 33; b reads "eo" which may 
be intended for «/u accented elfu "I go" (in vii. 34, a renders elfd "I am" by 
"vado" and sim. SS "go"). Another instance where on is omitted by Bruder 
(following XA) but ins. by W.H. is xiii. 11 dia. tovto elirev 8ti Ovxl TrdfTes Kadapoi 
ioTe. What Jesus had actually said, was 'T^ueis Kadapoi tore ctXX' ovxJL Trdvres, 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 Sirov eifii e'yw v/xeis ov duvacrde 
eXdeif is exactly repeated by the Jews in vii. 36, that (b) viii. 21 otrov eyih vwdyoj 
vfAels ov ovvacrde eXOeiv is exactly repeated by the Jews in viii. 22, and that (c) the 
second of these sayings is exactly repeated by Christ, with 6tl in xiii. 33 otl "Ottov 

l6T, II 2 


i$ avrwv ov8eia, which is a certain instance of on recitativum before 
words of the Lord. It is assumed by Westcott and Alford that the 

reference is to xvii. 12 irrjpovv avrovs iv tw ovojxaTL o-ov w Se'SwKas fJ.01 

...ko.1 oiSeU i£ avrwv cnrwAeTo. 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 foil.). It does not come under the present heading except so 
far as it suggests a possibility that the writer may sometimes use on 
to mean " [to this effect] that" — when he does not propose to give the 
exact words in a quotation '. 

(xvi) 05v 

(a) In Christ's words 

[2191] Ovv, 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 therefore anxious," " Look to it 
therefore whether the light within thee be darkness," "If therefore ye, 

1 [2190^] Thus our Lord says to the Jews ix. 41 \4yere tin WKiwo^v, and 
x. 36 Xiyere tin B\a<T<prjfieis, 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 c] It will be found that almost all Jn's quotations and repetitions, with 
or without tin, are given with variations (2544 foil.). But tin introduces an exact 
quotation (soon after the passage last quoted) in x. 34 Ouk Zanv yeypa/j./xevoi' ev r£ 
vow v/xCiv on 'Eyw elira Qeoi iare, where a short saying is quoted exactly to 
illustrate the pervading thought in the 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 
ayy^Wovua rots fiad-qrah tin "EwpaKO. t6v Kvptov kclI tclvto. elirev avrrj, 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 

[2190</] In xvi. 17 tL eanv tovto S \iyet tjixIu ~S\.iKptiv Kai ov...Kai "On i-rrdyu 
■n-pbs rbv waripa, tin is probably "because." Jn would hardly omit on recit. 
before "MiKpdv and insert it before 'Tttciyci; — 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 "because I go to the Father and ye no longer behold me." Several 
authorities interpolate the italicised words in xvi. id, and it is clear thai these 
took tin as "because." 




being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much 
more...?'' "If therefore in the unrighteous mammon ye were not 
faithful, who shall entrust to you... 1 ?" John (1883) uses ovv 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.) If therefore ye should 
be beholding {lav ovv Oeojpijre) the Son of man ascending where he 

1 [2191a] Mt. vi. 31, Lk. xi. 35, Mt. vii. 11, Lk. xvi. 
it as follows — mostly in Christ's words — where the parall 


iv. 24 [3\eTreTe ri... 
iv. 30 /cat i\eyev, ITcDs 



ix. 50 Ka\bv to aXas 
xii. 9 ri TToirjcrei 

xii. 10 oudi T7]v ypacprjv 
ravrrfv aviyvwre 

xii. 20 eirra. d. ■qcrav 

xii. 23 iv r. a. rivos aii- 
rCiv 'iarai yvvq 

xii. 37 Autos A. \iyei 

avrbv KvpLOV 
xiii. 4 eiirbv rjfiiv wore 

ravra 'icrrai. 
xiv. 61 Su el 6 xp«7Tos 6 

vibs rod evXoyqrov 

xv. 9 OiXere airoXvaw 

xiii. 31 clXXtjv wapafioX-qv 

ir.a. Xiywv Ofxola 
v. 13 v/j,els ecrri rb aXas 
xxi. 40 brav ovv e , Xdrj...Ti 

ttol Tjcrei 
xxi. 42 Xiyec avrois 

Trier. Ovdeirore dvi- 

xxii. 25 y)crav be irap' 

r\plv iirra. d. 
xxii. 28 iv rfj a. odv rivos 

tQv eirra i-arai 71*77 

xxii. 45 el ovv A. KaXel 


xxiv. 3 as Mk 

xxvi. 63 el o~ii el 6 XP L ~ 
arbs b vibs t. deov 

xxvii. 17 cr vvr)yp.iviov ovv 
avrQv elirev . . .riva 6i- 
Xere airoXvcrw 

In the last five passages of Lk., only Lk. xx. 44 is 
result indicates a general preference of ovv in Lk. 


1 1 . Luke often inserts 
Mk omits it : — 


viii. 18 (SXiirere odv ttwsI 
xiii. 18 fXeyev ovv, TivL 

xiv. 34 Ka\bv oZv to aXas 
xx. 15 ri ovv iroirjcrei 

XX. 17 ri OVV iffTLV TO 

xx. 29 eirra ovv d. rfaav 

xx. 33 i) 71*71 ovv iv T. 

d. rivos avrQv yiverai 

xx. 44 A. oZv avrbv kv- 

piov KaXel 
xxi. 7 irbre ow ravra 

xxii. 70 (perh. parall.) 

aii ovv el b vibs t. 

deov (see context), 
xxiii. 16, 22 iraidevcras 

ovv avrbv diroXvcrw 

in Christ's words. The 


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 viii. 24 
" I 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]," i.e. 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 therefore 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, ovv may help to decide 
between the alternative renderings given by R.V., (viii. 37 — S) (lit.) 
"Ye seek to kill me. ..The things that I (emph.) have seen in the house 
of the (irapd tw) Father I speak : ye also therefore (kol u/x«s °*"0 — 
the things that ye heard from the (-rrapa tov) father, ye do (a rjKovo-are 
■n-apd tov Trarpos Troupe)." Here R. V. txt has " and ye also do " 
(apparently rendering ko.1 by "and," olv 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 k«u lyxeT? ovv quoted from xvi. 22 above (2149, comp. 
2196—7) with the indicative, where it meant "ye also in a cor- 
responding way." So here, the meaning seems to be that there is a 
correspotidence 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, by the law 
of your nature as I by the law of mine — I do not say ye 'speak,' but, 
more than that— the things that ye have heard from the house 
of darkness, ye do 1 ." 

1 [2194a] It is implied that they "see" nothing, being children of darkness; 

but they execute the whispered suggestions <>f evil that come to them from "the 

father" of the house of darkness (somewhat as the mutterings of Satan are 

sented by Milton as coming to Eve in her sleep). There is a paradoxical 

antithesis: "What I see, I speak] what ye hear, ye do." 

[2194A] lor "the father" used to mean "Satan," comp. viii. 44 "Ye are of 



[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 therefore 
that I (emph.) speak — even as the father hath said [them] to me, so 
speak I," Chrysostom has excellently expressed the force of ovv by 
the paraphrase " // is not natural (ovk e^ei <f>vcriv to Trpayixa) that the 
Father should say one thing and I utter another." The meaning is, 
" I not only know what I am commanded to say, but also know that 
it is my Life, Life Eternal, to fulfil the commandment, it follows 
therefore that I must speak the Father's words." There is an argu- 
ment a fortiori in xiii. 13 — 14 "Ye address me [with the titles] 'the 
Teacher' and 'the Master (Kupios),' 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. much doth it behove you...!" 

[2196] In xvi. 21 — 2 "The woman [or, wife] when she is in 
travail (orav TiKTrj) hath sorrow because her hour hath come : but 
when she hath given birth to (yewrjarj) the child she remembereth no 
more the anguish because of the joy that a man is born into the 
world. Ye also therefore (kou v/acU ovv) now indeed (yvv fxiv) 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 "the father" in Greek ; and the writer deliberately 
uses the ambiguous expression "the father" in order to prepare for the defining 
climax in viii. 44, (1) "the father," (2) "the devil," (3) "your father." 

[2194 c] The view that Troielre 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 valuations, 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 
Pather," i.e. God, would imply that the Jews had 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 kill 
me" implies, "ye are doing the work of your father Satan," as appears from 
viii. 44 ("he was a murderer from the beginning") and from 1 Jn iii. 10 — 12 "in 
this the children of God are manifest and the children of the devil. ..Cain was of 
the evil one and slew his brother.'''' 



birth as a type of a fundamental law 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 until the time that she which travaileth hath 
drought forth 1 " and the phrase "birth-pangs of the Messiah" is 
associated with this prophecy in the Talmud, where it occurs several 
times 2 . 

[2197] Mark and Matthew represent our Lord as saying, just 
before His prediction of persecution for the disciples, " These things 
are the beginning of travail-pa?igs (wSiWv) 3 ." 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 4 : 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." 

(/3) Oyn applied to Christ's acts 

[2198] Setting aside instances where ovv 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 [2196«] Mic. v. 2 — 4 "But thou Bethlehem Ephrathah...out of thee shall 
come unto me he that is to he ruler in Israel ; whose goings forth are from of old, 
from everlasting. Therefore will he give them up until the time that she which 
travaileth 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 

2 [2196/'] Sanhedr. o8£. Levy ii. 5a refers also to Schabb. 118a, Pes. 118a. 

3 [2197 /rl Mk xiii. 8, Mt. xxiv. 8. The parall. Lk. omits this, but inserts 
(xxi. 1:1 "Before all these things,' 1 '' perh. intending this as a paraphrase of the 

4 [2197/'] 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 within the soul, which 
transforms the soul into I lis image. 



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. i " when therefore 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 therefore 
to Cana," introduce the healing of the nobleman's son. In vi. n 
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 therefore 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 "therefore... 
troubled himself"; some of the Jews ask, in effect, why Jesus did 
not save Lazarus, "Jesus therefore .. .cometh to the tomb 1 ." 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 therefore no longer walked openly among the 
Jews," xii. 1 "Jesus therefore 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 ovv to 8e. 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 
(xiii. 6 "He cometh therefore to Simon Peter"), the next is in the 
narrative of Gethsemane, where, upon the arrival of Judas and the 
soldiers (xviii. 4) "Jesus, therefore, knowing all that was coming 
upon him, went forth and said to them, Whom seek ye?" There 

1 «. 6, 17, 33, 38. 


remain but two more instances. One ("Jesus therefore \v ent out") 
introduces the exclamation of Pilate " Behold the man 1 ! " The 
other introduces the first manifestation of the risen Saviour, "When 
therefore it was evening... came Jesus and stood in the midst 2 ." 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 3 . 

(xvii) '£V 

(a) 'Qc (?) for eooc 

[2201] 'O? is translated "while" by R.V. in xii. 35—6 "Walk 
white ye have the light... white ye have the light, believe in the light." 
Several mss. and authorities read ews for ok, but the difficulty of the 
latter, and its double occurrence, demonstrate it to be the true 
reading. But that ok does not mean " while " is made highly 
probable by ix. 4 " I must work the works of my Father while (ecus) 
(marg. ok) it is day." It is scarcely credible that a writer like John 
should use ok twice in precisely the same sense in which he has used 
£W9. *f2s in Gal. vi. iows xaiphv (x M l xer i s doubtful. Lk. xii. 58 ok 
yap {i7rayeis is not quite parallel 5 . Taking the text as it stands, 

1 xix. 5. See 1960 and 2645. 2 xx. 19. 

3 [2200 a] 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 etrapas ovv, 
xiii. 12 "Ore ovv 2vi\pev tovs wSSas avrQv, xix. 26 'I. o$v idtbv rr/v fnjrepa, xix. 30 
tire 01V ZXafte to ofos, xxi. 15 6re odv i)piOTr\aa.v, because the principal verb that 
follows is, in each case, "said " (not a verb of action). Perhaps, however, there 
might have been included (on the ground that "cry aloud" is a kind of action 
distinct from mere saying) vii. 28 'lKpa.^v o$v iv t$ iep<f>. This occurs as follows 
vii. 25 — 8 "Is not this he whom they seek to kill? And, lo, he speaketh openly man knoweth whence he is. He cried aloud therefore in the temple...." 
See the context. It is uncertain whether the "therefore" means "in consequence 
of the words 'no man knoweiA,'" or "Accordingly, ' speaking openly' in spite of 
tin- attempts to kill him." On ovv used after parentheses, or resumptively, see 
2631—5. Of course it must be remembered that ovv, being used by Jn freely 
(1) to introduce action of any 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 ovv are compared with the actions of 
Christ introduced by 5^ or by asyndeton, I think it will be found that the first 
class are specially important. 

4 On lis, "when," see 1776 d— e. 
See 2696. 



we may make fair sense of xii. 35 — 6 by rendering <Js "as." 
Compare 1 Jn ii. 27 "As (cos) his anointing teacheth you [in the 
present]... and even as (kolOws) it taught you [in the past], abide 1 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] 2 ." 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 w9 enables us to take 7repi7raT€tv with an implied oirrw?, 
" Walk [thus, namely] as ye have light [to walk]," and delivers us 
from the necessity of taking it absolutely, " Walk [in the paths 
of righteousness]." 

(/9) *Qc "as it were" 

[2202] In vii. 10 "He went up [to the feast] not openly but as 
it were in secret (cos lv kpvtttw)," the meaning is " like one going up 
in secret," i.e. 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 it were compulsory (cos /an-a 3 
avayK-qv)." 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 xviii. 20, " In secret spake I nothing " ; and in this very feast 
Christ is described as (vii. 26) "speaking openly (irapp-qo-ia)" and 
(vii. 28) "he cried aloud in the temple teaching." According to this 
view, "as it 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 iti secret." But, in case 
any opponent of the Christians might refer to the saying of Christ's 
brethren (vii. 4) " No man doeth aught in secret and himself seeketh 
to be in publicity," the evangelist wishes to shew that there was 
nothing "in secret" in the exact sense of the term. For this purpose 
he inserts cJs here and Trapprjo-ia later on. 

1 [2201 a] "Abide," imperative. The writer has admitted that it does (ib. 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. t6, Phil. iii. 16 eis 5 e<pddaafj.ei' ry cu'tuj cttolx^v. 

3 [2202 a] Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 17 ws kv a<ppoauvrj, xiii. 7 ws &56kl/j.ol. In Rom. 
ix. 32 o6k £k iriarecos dXX' ws e£ Zpywu, the meaning is "on a false basis of works," 
or "as though it could be attained from works." 


[2203] ELLIPSIS 

(xviii) "ila-Tt 

[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 ovtws yap rj-yd-n-qcrev 6 
#eos tov KoafjLov cocttc tov vlov tov fiovoyevij <l8wk€i>. In the rest of N.T., 
ware occurs either (i) at the beginning of a clause ("so that " meaning 
"and so") with an emphatic indicative or imperative (Mk ii. 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-initially 
with an infinitive (Mk i. 27 "so that they questioned together") 1 . 
Both these constructions are frequent. But ware never occurs 
post-initially with an indicative except in John iii. 16 2 . This 
unique use of ovtws and wcrre with indicative is common in the 
best classical authors 3 , 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). 

Ellipsis 4 

(i) Of two kinds 

[2204] (1) Ellipsis, "leaving out," or "deficiency," may exist 
when something is left out that can be supplied from the preceding 
context, e.g. "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 Coare is pre- 
ceded by 01/rws, ui5e, els tchtovtov etc., so that the ware cannot possibly be called 
initial. Hinder i8<S8 prints ucrre "in principio periodi" separately, and always with 
iridic, or imperat. : but he prints Gal.ii. 13 crvi>VTreKpidr)<mv . . .wart Kai B. aKvawrix^Vy 
under the same heading as Jn iii. 16 oiirco yap i]yaTn)<Tti> . . .ware . . .ZowKtv, and marks 
these as the only two passages (in the group) where the indie, is used. I should 
take Gal. ii. 13 quite differently, "And the consequence zvas that even Barnabas 
was carried away." 

- [2203/] Acts xiv. 1 ey^f€TO...\a\TJaai ovtus uxrre wtcrreDcrcu..., is the only 
other passage in N.T. where diare is preceded by oiirws. Heb. xiii. 6 uxxrf Oappovv- 
ras ri/J-ds \£ytii> rather suggests what we may say than states what we do say. 

'■'■ See Steph. viii. 212^ <;, ami, in particular, the first definition of "log- 
r- -lliiiy " in Plato i~~, 1. oiirus ayairSicri roi'S tTratvtiras uicrre irpocnrapaypdcpovji 
TrpdiTovs 01 av eKacrraxov eTraivuxriv airrofa. 

4 Steph. (quoting Athen. 14, p. 644 A o-jjera/uoOs k-ot' 2\\et T 'tv tov &pros) calls it 
" Praetermissio, Omissio," adding " Potest vero et Defectus reddi." 


ELLIPSIS [2207] 

called "contextual." (2) Ellipsis may consist in the customary 
omission of words (apart from contextual influence) in certain con- 
densed phrases, e.g. " Away ! " for " [Go] away ! " or " the first of the 
month" for "the first [day] of the month." This 1 may be called 
" idiomatic." 

(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 (b) any special use of I AM with Hebraic associations. 
The present instance may be illustrated byxviii. 5, 6, 8 "I am [Jesus 
of Nazareth] " — which refers to the preceding mention of the name 
in xviii. 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 this is Messiah ? " and Jesus answers her silent 
question, "I am [Messiah]." 

[2206] iv. 52—3 "They said. ..[that] 'Yesterday, [about the] 
seventh hour (on 'E^cs uipav 2 k^ofx-qv) the fever left him.' The 
father therefore recognised that [it had left him] at that [same] hour 
(on eKeivy Trj wpa)...." Phrase mentally repeated. In v. n — 12 
" ' He that made me whole, he [it was that] said to me, Take up 
thy bed (*pa/3aTTov) 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 3 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 

1 On this, see 2220. Contextual ellipsis is sometimes called " brachylogy." 

2 [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 

3 [2206 b~\ No other instance in this group omits the object thus. Kpd/3arros, 
the word here used by the sick man and previously by our Lord, is (1736 (?) 
avoided by Luke and condemned by Grammarians as vulgar. 



[2208] ELLIPSIS 

Father that sent me," on /xdvos ovk elfit, aW eyw kcu 6 7r€//.i//as fx.e 
[iraTtjp]. Chrysostom says, " Hereby he hinted (yviiaro) that it was 
not He Himself alone that was to condemn them (on ovk euros /u.oVos 
avrovs KaraStxa^t) 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 cI/ju, so as to mean " But 
[I am] / and the Father 1 " 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] xiii. 8 — 9 "'Thou shalt assuredly not wash my feet.'... 
'Except I wash thee, thou hast no part with me '...'Lord, do not 
(fxrj) [wash] my feet (ir68a<;) alone but also my hands and my head!" 
Verb repeated. Here, /x-rj 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 2 ," 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 3 . 

[2209] In xviii. 39 — 40 " ' Desire ye therefore that I release 
unto you the king of the Jews?'. ...Do not (fxij) [release] this man 
(tovtov)...," as in xiii. 8 — 9, the fx.rj implies that the verb is to be 
repeated imperatively, but instead of repeating the object (/u.?) t6v 
fiacriXia r. 'I.) a pronoun (tovtov) is substituted so that the Jews 

1 Or we might supply £<ttI, "But [it is more correct to say] 'I and the Father 
that sent me.' " 

- [2208 a] There follows an ellipsis of 5vvaa6e Kapirbv <p£petv a<p' eain-Qv, which 
has to be mentally supplied after ovSi v/j.eis from the preceding Si'varai k. <p. a(j> 

3 [2208/'] In xvii. 21 "that they may be all one: even as (kci0u>s) 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. Hut, if a fresh sentence 
begins at "even 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/', 2132 a. 


ELLIPSIS [2211] 

avoid calling Jesus "king." In xxi. 19 — 21 '"Follow me' 

[My] Lord, but this man, whatV" the 8e denotes antithesis and 
implies a preceding yueVclause, " 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, but this man, what [is he doing, 
following without command}!" But the subsequent context ("If 
I will that he tarry till I come...") points to the future as the object 
of Peter's question : and both Origen and Chrysostom take it thus 1 . 

(a) 'Ean oyN 6eo3pHT6 (vi. 62) 

[2210] Perhaps the following extremely difficult passage is a case 
of contextual ellipsis, vi. 62 " This [it seems] causes you to 
stumble ! If (edv) therefore (ovv) ye should be beholding (OeioprJTc) 
the Son of man asce/iding where he was before — - 2 ." The interpre- 
tation turns on (r) 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 a fortiori, 
"Much more, therefore, will ye stumble" (see ovv, 2192) or some- 
thing equivalent to it. (2) " Behold " Oeutprjre (for which Chrysostom 
reads to^re) 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 
(iii. 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] 'AkoXovOu fioi...Ovros 8e tL ; On this Origen says (Huet ii. 405 D) 
(3ov\6p.€vos /xadelv K<xl t6 Kara tov , Iwawr]i> reXos, and Chrys. ad toe. ov ttjv avrr/v 
7]fiiv 68bi> rj^et; For an altera, ellipsis o( yevrjaerai see 2386 c. 

2 [2210 a] ToOro vfias tTKavdaKlfrei; iav ovv dewprJTe rbv vlbv tov avdpuirov dva- 
^aivovTa 6ttov t}v to TrpoTepov; SS has "but if," a has "quod si," b and e "quid 
si,"/ "si autem,"^" "quid ergo cum." Though D has ^d? ovv, d has "quid si." 
X om. otv. 


[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 
"stumble 1 ." 

1 [2211 a] 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-sacrilice. 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 /'] 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 c] On the late Jewish use of "lifted up*' for "crucified," or "hanged," 
see Levy i. 549 b (quoted in 1003 c). Artemidorus, too, writing in the second 
century, connects dreams about " lifting up" and "stretching out of hands" with 
crucifixion, thus, i. 76 el dt tis v\f/ij\bs iwi tlvos opxoiro, et's <p6(3ov Kai 8eos 7re<r«n-cu- 
KdKOvpyos 5£ wv ffTavpuOrjcreTai 5ia rb ihpos ical tt)v tQiv x i <-P& v ^KTaaiu, and again 
in his special section on dreams "about the Cross" (ii. 53) ayadbv 5e Kai TrtvrjTi- 
Kai yap u\pi]\bs 6 crravpwSeis Kai woWovs rpe<pei, i.e. " Such a dream betokens good 
for a poor man also; for the crucified is 'lifted 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 " ("noil pasces in cruce 
COIVOS"), which he refers to in the context, ras aapKas diroWvovtriv oi OTavpudivre s, 
"the crucified lose their flesh." For a bachelor, he adds, the cross betokens a 
marriage, "bul not at all a profitable one," by reason of the "binding" The 
cross also prevents a man From going forward {i-Rifialvw) on the land and from 
staying where he would like to stay. To be crucified in a city [ii.) "signifies 


ELLIPSIS [2212] 

[2212] According to this view, Oeupeu) 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] ? [ What] 
therefore \ivill ye do, a?id how much more grievously will ye stumble\ 
if ye behold 1 [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 2 ?" 

some office corresponding to the place wherein the cross is erected (apxv v Toiatirqv 
ar)/j.aivei. ofos &.v fi 6 t6itos ev u3 6 aravpbs eaTr/Kev)." In a later section about 
"carrying (/3aordfei^) and being carried (fiao-Td£ea6a.i)" (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) gird (i.e. bind) thee, and shall 
(3) bear thee where thou dost not desire," to which is added, "this he said signifying 
by what death he [i.e. Peter] should glorify God." See 2642 b. 

1 [2212 a] The present subjunctive may, perhaps, be regarded as prophetic 
present, or it may denote continuance, "what if ye find yourselves beholding...." 

2 [2212/^] Chrysostom, reading av ovv iSrjTe, 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 (rili /u.ey<:da. tuv ooyfiaTwv /cat ti2 irXrjdei avrovs 
iirayayiadai /3oi'>\ercu)." 

[2212 c\ This feeling (namely, that Christ is looking forward to a time when 
the disciples will not "stumble") has probably caused the alterations in the text 
mentioned above (2210 a). For, if 8i be read for ovv, then contrast replaces 
inference, and the whole meaning is changed to something of this kind: " This 
(emph.) causeth you to stumble : but [wait 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 in the act of ascending to God. It seems to take dewprjre as 
being a fleshly "beholding" and yet as one that will remove a stumblingdjlock. 
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. I77 12 

[2213] ELLIPSIS 

(iii) 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 2220 foil. There are two or 
three omissions of av with the indicative, which need little comment 1 . 
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. ..I may not lose [any] of it {Iva...^ airoXiaw i$ avrov)," 
where, strictly speaking, /xrj8ev would be supplied, not n, vii. 40 
"[Some] of the crowd, therefore (eV rov ox^ov ovv), having heard 
these words, said...," xvi. 17 "There said therefore [some] of (elirav 
ovv £k) the disciples...," xxi. 10 "Bring [some] of (otTro) the fish." 

[2214] The following is ambiguous, i. 24 Kat a7r€o-TaX/i.eVot rjaav 
Zk t<Sv 4>apicraiW, 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 e« is very frequent in John 2 . (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 3 ." 

[2215] ix. 40 "[Some] of the Pharisees heard these things (r}i<ovo-av 
ex roil' 4>. Taura) — those that were with him (en /act' avrov oVre?) — and 

I [2213 a ] xv. 22, 24 anapriav ovk eixocrav, xix. ir ovk elx^s (^ovalav. In viii. 
39, we ought probably to read, with W.ll. txt, -rroielre (not, with W.H. marg. 
^7roien-e) , see 2078 — 9. "Ac 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. 

- It is about as freq. in Jn as in Mk. Mt. Lk. together. 

II [2214c/] Chrysostom and many scribes of various MSS. read ol before 
air«TTa\nivoi., as A.V. " they which were sent," so as to leave no ellipsis. 


ELLIPSIS [2216] 

said, Are we also blind?" A.V. "And [some] of the P. which were 
with him," R.V. "Those of the Pharisees which were with him." 
John's frequent use of apposition (1928 — 47) combines here with 
his frequent use of partitive Ik, to make an ellipsis of nves almost 
certain. Chrysostom in his comment ("There say unto Him [some] 
of those that were following Him 1 ") apparently takes it thus, and 
he suggests that the evangelist added the clause ol ixer avrov to 
shew that they were the same that had previously revolted and 
afterwards tried to stone Him 2 . This construction ("[some] from," 
i.e. " [some] of") is frequent in Hebrew and fairly frequent in LXX. 
In both, it gives rise to ambiguities, e.g. Lev. xxv. 33 (R.V.) " If o?ie 
of the Levites redeem," marg. " redeem from the Levites," where 
LXX (jrapa.) takes the latter view, but Aquila and Symmachus (ck) 
the former 3 . 

(/3) Ellipsis (?) of "gate" (v. 2) 

[2216] v. 2 (R.V.) " Now there is in Jerusalem by the sheep [gate] 
(lirl Trj TrpofiaTiKr}) a pool...," A.V. "by 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 "gate"; yet the noun "gate" is never omitted by 
his narrative in Hebrew or Greek 4 . (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 Aiyovffiv avTip e/c rCiv &Ko\ovdovvTcov <xvtu), Mtj /cat rj/meis rv<p\ol ecfxtv ; 

- [2215 <?] Oi)x d.7rXt!;s 5e 6 evayytXiariis ifj.vy)[ibvev<Jtv, ort f/Kovaav in tG)v 
<£aptcratW ravra ol /tier' avrov ovres, /cat elwav • Mtj /cat rjfieis rv<p\oi eafxev; d\X' 'iva 
ffe dvafxi'Tjcrrj 6Vt ovtoi eKeivo: r\aav ol vporepov airoaravTes, elra \16do~avTts, /cat 
paStws ets Tovvavrlov J uera ; 3aAA6 / uei'oi. 

3 .[2215//] In Dan. i. 6 Theod. e/c "of the number <?/"" = LXX e/c rod yivovs 
"descended from.'''' In 1 Esdr. v. 45 ol e/c alters the sense of the Heb. of Ezr. ii. 
70 " some of," LXX awb rod. In 1 Esdr. i. 8, e/c tQiv (SaaikLKuiv "from the king's 
[treasures] (? king's officers) "—2 Chr. xxxv. 7 — 8 "from the king's substance. 
And his princes " 

4 [2216 a] Neh. ii. 13, 14, iii. 1, 3, 13, 14 etc. In Neh. xii. 31 "the dung- 
gate," LXX omits the whole; N has rrjs Kowpias, with rrjs wv\r]s superscr. 

179 12 — 2 

[2217] ELLIPSIS 

word similar to irpofiaTiKi] (and perhaps transliterated from it) was in 
use to mean " bathing place." (5) This might be interpreted in 
Greek as "pool (Ko\vp(3ij6pa)," besides being transliterated in the 
text as irpofZaTiicq, " bathing place." (6) On the three occasions 
where 7rpo(3aTiKy occurs in LXX it happens to be joined to Tv\rj 
(Neh. iii. 1, 32, xii. 39) so that the adjective might naturally suggest 
the interpolation of " gate" to any persons perplexed by the apparent 
use of 7rpo(3aTLKi] 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 
"gate 1 ." 

(7) Ellipsis of " daughter " (or " wife "?) 

[2217] xix. 25 (R.V.) "Mary the [wife] (r,) of Clopas." The 
almost universal practice in Greek writers is to use tj toS 'A. to mean 
" the [daughter] of A." In a few special cases, where the relationship 
was historically known, r? tov '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 "Pisp'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 ■>) tov must here have been intended 
to mean " daughter" must be deferred to another work. 


(S) 'AAA' ina, see 2063—4 and 2105—12. 

(e) Oyx oti 

[2218] Some verb or phrase is omitted in connexion with oix 
oti as follows: (1) vi. 45 — 6 (R.V.) "Every one that hath heard 
from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me. A r ot that (ot^ 
cm) any man hath seen the Father, save he which is from God, he 

1 [2216/'] As regards the possible ellipsis in v. 44 tt)v 56^av r-qv wapa tov 
fidvov [deov], and the question whether "the Alone is here used for God, see 
1895. For the ellipsis of i/xariois in xx. 12 iv XevKOtS, COmp. Rev. iii. 4 7rept- 
warrioov<Jiv...iv XevKoh, and Arteniid. ii. 3 iv XtvKoh £K(pipea6ai, also Ml. xi. 8, 
Lk. vii. 25 iv fux\a.Koi% . Wetst. on Jn v. 44 supplies more instances, Latin as well 
as Greek. 


ELLIPSIS [2219] 

hath seen the Father 1 ," (2) vii. 22 (R.V.) "For this cause hath 
Moses given you circumcision (not that it is of Moses but of the 
fathers) ; and on the sabbath ye circumcise a man " (A.V. " not 
because it is of Moses") 2 . Compare 1 Jn iv. 9 — 10 (R.V.) "Herein 
was the love of God manifested in us, that (on) (A.V. because that) 
God hath sent his only begotten son... Herein is love, not that (ou^ 
6V1) we loved God but that (dXA' on) he loved us and sent... 3 ." In 
the Epistle iv tout©.. .on appears to mean " Herein... [/ mean in the 
fact] that" and iv tovtu>...ovx oti " Herein... [/ do] not [mean in the 
fact] that." 

[2219] As regards the two passages in the Gospel, it is not 
possible to demonstrate that on means " that " (and not " because ") — 
just as, in English, it is not possible sometimes to decide whether the 
expression " not that I wish " means " [/say this] not because I wish " 
or "[/do] not [mean to say] that I wish." But, having regard to the 
classical 4 and the Pauline 3 uses of ovx on, and to the contexts of the 
two Johannine passages, we may conclude that "/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] lias 6 aKovcras irapa tov Trarpbs Kal p.a6Ccv ^p%erat irpbs efxe. ovx on 
tov waripa ewpanev tls el p.rj 6 uv irapa. [tov] deov, outos ewpaKev rbv irarepa. 
Origen (Huet ii. 293 a) 6 uv wapa tw irarpi, and so SS "he that is with God," 
Chrys. 1st, 6 wv irapa tov deov, 2nd, 6 wv 4k tov deov. 

2 [2218 b] Aia tovto ~Mwvo~rjs dedwKev vpuv tt\v TrepiTo/m-qv, — oi'X on e/c tov 
Mwutrecos ecrnv d\\' €K tlov iraTtpwv, — Kal [e^] 0-aj3j3aT<p irepiTe/x.veTe avdpunrov. 
SS "not because. ..but because," b, c, and /"not because," a om. "because." 

:i [2218c] 'Ey tovtu) i<pavepwdr] 77 d7(Z7r77 tov deov ev J)fuv, oti. tov vibv avTov tov 
/xovoyevrj ave<jTa\Kev 6 6eos...ev tovtix) ecrrlv t/ dyairri, ovx on i]fj.e7s 7jyaTrrjKap.ev t6v 
Bebv, d\\' oti avrbs rjydwT]aev ?j/xas Kal aTreareiKev.... But Jn ix. 30 ev tovtlo yap 
to davy.a<TTbv e<XTiv oti is to be explained differently, since "in this" means "in 
your not knowing"' (comp. "we know not") and on means "because." See 2393. 

4 [2219(7] In classical Greek ovx 0Ti means (1) "[I do] not [say only] that" 
i.e. "not only"; (2) "[I do] not [mention the fact] that" i.e. "I pass over the 
fact," e.g. Plat. Protag. 336 D "Socrates will not forget — / take no account of the 

fact that (ovx ° r ') he jokes and says he is forgetful," i.e. "although he jokes," 
comp. Gorg. 450 E. Similarly, but with 'iva yvr\ \lyw <roi 8ti, Philem. 19, "not to 
say that you owe me also yourself." 

5 [2219//] In 2 Cor. vii. 9 "Now I rejoice, not because,'" the meaning is clear, 
and there is no ellipsis, and prob. in 2 Cor. iii. 4 — 5 "This great confidence we 
have. ..iwt 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 0TL 
is attained by some insertion of "say" as "[/ say this] not because," or "[/ do] 
not [mean to say] that," and so in Phil. iii. 10 — 12, iv. 10 — 11, 17. 


[2220] ELLIPSIS 

general Greek usage if we supply Ae'yw not before ovx on, but before 
on, giving Xe'yw the sense "I mean to say," which it repeatedly has 
in N.T., and in Greek generally, so that ou'x on is equivalent to " [/ do] 
not [mean to say] t/iat." Then, in both passages, it will correct a 
possible misapprehension. In the former, vi. 45 — 6, 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 "[/do] not [mean] that 
any one hath seen the Father." In vii. 2 2, there is a similar disclaimer, 
"Moses hath given you circumcision — [/ do] not [mean to say] that 
he originated it, but it was from the fathers." 

(0 Ellipsis after " I am " 

[2220] In the Walking on the Waters it is usual to assume that 
vi. 20 cyoj 6i/xt means "/ am [indeed that which I appear to be]" 
"I am [my very self]" or, according to our English idiom, "It is TV' 
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 " I am 
[not 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 eyco eifxi to mean "/ am [the Saviour, 
Deliverer, or Christ].' 1 '' Moreover in that Discourse Luke (who 
omits the Walking on the Waters) agrees with Mark in the use of 
e'yw dfxi, and Matthew shews that he understood the phrase thus by 
supplying the ellipsis, "/ am the Christ 3 ." Lastly, Luke indicates 
that he would not have agreed in rendering iyo> el/xi "I am my 
very self" by the fact that elsewhere, when he actually attributes a 
meaning of this kind to our Lord, he adds auroV. 

[2221] The N.T. use of "/ am" to mean "/ 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 Oapaeire, 
iyuo elfM, /J.T) <po(3cicrde. Jn vi. 20 om. dapcreiTe. 

- Mk vi. 49 Zoo^clv otl (pdi>Ta(Xfj.d toTiv, Mt. xiv. 26 irapaxOrjcrav \4yovrts Sri 
fyavraoixa £gtiv. 

'■' (2220r/| Mk xiii. 6, Mt. xxiv. 5, Lk. xxi. 8 all have iroWol (Mt.-Lk.+yAp) 
iXtvoovrai t-rri tu 6v6p.arl fxov \ey6vres (Mk + 8n) 'Eyd (ifj-i (Mt. + 6 Xpiaros). In 
Mk xiv. 62, iyili tlfxi is not used absolutely hut answers the question "Art thou 
tin- Christ t" where the parall. Mt. xxvi. 64 has cru d-n-as and the parall. Lk. xxii. 
67—70 has, ist, t'di' bfiXv tiirw... and, 2nd, v/xeis Myere on iyd> el/u. 

* Lk. xxiv. 39 eyJi d(j.i ai)r6s. 


ELLIPSIS [2222] 

eyw eiyu.i corresponds to the Hebrew "/ [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, "/ [am], and there is 
none else beside me 1 ." Nor is there (as at present alleged) any 
solid evidence to shew that eyoj el/xt could bear, at least in the first 
century, anything else but this meaning — derived through LXX from 
Hebraic sources — "I 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 "lam" in this sense. Westcott and Swete quote none 
to the point 2 . 

[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 3 ." 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 live" or "I exist-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 
"I am." 

1 Deut. xxxii. 39, Is. xliii. 10, Zeph. ii. 15. The Heb. has " I he" in the first 
two, and simply "/" in the third. 

2 [2221a] Swete (on Mk vi. 50) says "eyw ei/u='It is I,' cf. Lc. xxiv. 39, 
iyjj ei/jLi avrds, and the use of "OH, LXX iyu in the O.T. (B.D.B., p. 59)." But 
Lk.'s insertion of avros separates his usage from that of Mk, and Gesen. p. 59 
merely says that Heb. *JX (LXX iydo) is used "alone in response to a question" 
e.g. Gen. xxvii. 24 "Art thou my son Esau? And he said I [am]" 6 Se tlirev, 
'E7W. None of these instances are to the point. 

[2221/;] Westcott (on Jn vi. 20) says, " It is I. Comp. iv. 26, viii. 24, 28, 58, 
(ix. 9), xiii. 19, xviii. 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 [2222a] Comp. Orig. on Mt. xiv. 27 (Huet i. 242 A — b) Tapaxdyvbp-eQa- T~plv 
Tpavuis KaraXa^eif on 6 awrrip rjpuv eTn8e5rifj.7]Kev, which suggests how "Saviour" 
and "Jesus" might be interchanged, especially in translating from a language in 
which "Jesus" meant " Saviour." 

4 [2222/5] The Syr. of iyw eipu is a reduplication of "I," which pronoun (Thes. 
Syr.) also represents the copula, so that "I I" may mean "I am." 


[2223] ELLIPSIS 

[2223] viii. 24 — 5 '"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 1 .'" 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 3 ." The Song in Deuteronomy says "See now that I, I, [AM] 
HE," where LXX has " See, see that I AM 4 ." Here Philo para- 
phrases I AM as " that there is from the beginning a Cause of the 
Universe 5 ." Ibn Ezra (on Isaiah xliii. 10 — 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," i.e. is really, eternally, 
and unchangeably. 

[2224] In LXX, the Hebrew I HE is regularly rendered iyw 
elfXL. Aquila certainly rendered it so once and presumably always". 
In Hebrew, the personal pronoun " he " is so frequently used as a 
substitute for the verb "to be" that Greeks might well translate " he " 
by ci/u in this phrase. In Aramaic also (Levy) " he " is " used for 
the copula" as well as for the personal pronoun 7 . Hence any 
Semitic Logia of Jesus using this idiom would probably be rendered 
in (ireek for the most part by eyw el/xi. In the Psalms, HE in "Thou 
[art] HE" is once rendered 6 awds, "the same 8 ." The Semitic I 
HE is perhaps latent under iyw efyu euro's, assigned to Christ by 
Luke alone". But the text is doubtful (2699 foil.). 

1 [2223 a] 'Eai> yap /xi] Trt<rTevcrriTe 8ti iyw elfu dirodaveicrde iv reus a/xaprlaii 
vfiQv. As to "the beginning" and "that which I also speak," see 2154—6 and 

2 Is. xliii. 10 — 13, comp. xlvi. 4, xlviii. 12 (2224a). 

:t l's. cii. 27 (lit. Heb.) R.Y. "Thou art the same." 4 Deut. xxxii. 39. 

5 [2223 /'J Philo i. 258 on 'iari ti sal i/wapxti rb tQiv 6\wv atriov, and he 
paraphrases Sri 'E7W eifu lotTe as Ttjk ifii^v virap^iv deaaaaOe. 

6 [2224 r/] In Is. xlviii. 12, where I. XX om. the phrase, Aq. Syni. and Theod. 
render I HE by iyw el/u, and Aq. is so consistent in his general renderings that 
he may be presumed to have been consistent in this particular one. 

7 Levy C/i. i. 195*. s Ps. cii. 27. 9 Lk. xxiv. 39. 


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, (i) Christ's hearers (until they heard the words 
" before Abraham J ") 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 2 ." 
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 that 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 that is 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 (rrjv dp^r/V) 3 ." 

[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. - Is. xliii. 10. 

3 [2225 a] 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. Il) "I in 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 theLXX otl eyw elfu avrbs 6 \a\Qv Trdpet/xi, but there are 
many ways of combining the words. The Targ. is (Walton) "scietis, quoniam ego 
sum qui loquebar et Verbum meum permanet." 

I8 5 

[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 1 ), and "I will work-, who shall hinder 
it?" Another passage introduces "speaking," "I [AM] HE that 
speaketh 3 ." 

[2227] One of the most spiritually minded of the early Rabbis, 
Abba Saul, who flourished about 130 a.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 [i.e. God]: as 
He is merciful and kind, so will I too be merciful and kind 4 ." 
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 in " the arms " of God, 
his Father — and not as crouching under " 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 [2226«] The Ileb. 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." 

- [2226A] The Heb. of Is. xliii. 13 "work" is regularly rendered ipyd^ofiaL 
(though LXX renders it "make (ttoiQ) " here) which is the word in Jn v. 17 ".My 
Father worketh and I work."' 

[2226rJ The curious juxtaposition of "know" and "believe" 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 speaketh" may be compared with the Johannine form of 
Peter's confession (Jn vi. 68—9) "Thou hast words of eternal life, and we know 
and believe that thou art the holy one of God." 

1 Is. lii. 6. 

4 See 1022. Bacher {Die Agada, ii. 367) shews that some versions have "Be 
thou like,"' but prefers the above. 


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 1 ." On the one hand I AM means more than 
"I 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 (av/jLcpepovY' 
above all things, "This, i.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." This identification of the "profit" of the "/" with 
Goodness, is what a Jew might express mystically by saying "/ am He." 
Epictetus adds (id.) 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 hundred fold... mothers..."). 

[2228 fi] 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 not ' lose my soul that I 
may find it.' I will worship 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." 


[2229] ELLIPSIS 

(rj) Ellipsis of ecTi 

[2229] In ii. 4 ri e'/xoi xal croi, and in xxi. 22 ti tt/jos a-e; there 
is an ellipsis of iari Ti tt/dos ere (of which Wetst. «^ &c alleges 
comparatively few instances) presents no difficulty, as meaning 
"What [is it] in relation to thee?" i.e. What does it concern thee? 
Wetst. quotes Glycas, Annal. iv. p. 255, Anthol. mss. i. 1, and 
Epictet. (but without reference) /xrj ■n-po<ri\6ij<;- ovScV eVn 77-po's o-e (sic), 
and tl 77-pos i/xe ; 

[2230] Ti ifjLol kolI croi might, theoretically, be rendered "What 
does this concern me and thee?" for ti p.01, by itself, might mean 
"what does it concern me?" as in Epictet. iii. 22. 66 (foil, by infin.). 
But, as a fact, both in Hebrew and Greek (Wetst. on Mt. viii. 29) 
"What [is there] to me and thee?" always implies "to me and thee 
in 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, 
2 K. xvi. 10, 2 Chr. xxxv. 21, Joel iii. 4. But in Josh. xxii. 24, LXX 
omits kui, 2 K. xvi. 10 is a repetition (by error) of 2 S. xvi. 10, and 
in Joel iii. 4 LXX has (as Heb.) ti fyiets e/W;] It occurs in 
Aristoph., Demosth., Epictet., Achill. Tat., Anacreon etc., and none 
of Wetstein's numerous quotations adds an explanatory phrase except 
Synesius, o^'/aw -yap 8rj «ai <pi\oo-o<f>i<i. tl 7rpos dA.A77A.ous ; The phrase 
was so common that no contemporary (2642 a) Greeks could doubt 
that 7rpos a\\ij\ov<; had to be supplied 1 . 

[2230 (i)] The ellipsis of co-ti in the phrase €ti /aikooV is found 
in no Gospel but the Fourth, xiv. 19 " Yet a little (Iti fxiKpov) 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 

1 [2230a] In v. 36 " The witness that I have is greater than [that of] John," 
iyu 5e ^ u T V V fJ-aprvpiav fxelfa rod 'I., there is, perhaps, no ellipsis of ttjs 
fxaprvpias before rod 'I. Somewhat similarly we sometimes substitute the 
person for his work in vernacular English (as well as in Latin ami (Ireek) 
especially when speaking about a picture or poem, "This is rather like Gains- 
borough," "better than Linnell," "almost equal to Tennyson," "He was better 
than his word," " How very like /lint to say that !" etc. Winer explains in the 
same way (Mt. v. 20) " Except your righteousness (lit.) abound more than the 
scribes," and ^ives frequent instances in Greek and Latin. Probably the meaning 
here is all the stronger for the omission of Tij'i p.. : " The witness that I have is 
above the level of John." 


ELLIPSIS [2230 (iii)] 

in (KOfxiaijcrde) 1 the promise, For yet a little, just a little, [and] lie 
that cometh will come 2 ." 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 3 ." The ellipsis of «m after hi 
is not mentioned in the Thesaurus and appears to spring from 
Hebrew sources. 

[2230(h)] 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. 4 
Compare the thought 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 "hire," so does Isaiah, "Within yet a year as 
the year of a hireling," and elsewhere he says, "Within three years, 
as the years of a hireling, and the glory of Moab shall be brought 
into contempt 5 ," 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 6 ." 

[2230 (iii)] As regards the period of "four months," it appears 7 
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 rous napTTotis KeKOfxiade " ye have reaped the fruits," and Herod, ii. 14 Kapirbv k. 
"gather in corn." 

" Heb. x. 37 tri yap p.iKpbi> oaov oaov, 6 epxbp-evos ?/£« quoting from Is. xxvi. 20 
airoKpvfi-qOi /xinpov oaov oaov and from Hab. ii. 3 foil. (LXX). 

3 [2230 (i) b] Comp. Rev. vi. 11 " that they should rest yet a little time" and 
see Is. x. 25, xxix. 17, Jer. Ii. 33, Hos. i. 4. 

4 [2230 (ii) a] Gen. vii. 4 (R.V.) "For yet seven days and I will..." tri yap 
i]p.epu>v i-KTa iyui (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," In iviaurbs 
ws i. p.iaduTov, €K\el\p(i. ij 56S;a t. vlQv K., Jon. iii. 4 "Yet forty days and Nineveh 
shall be overthrown," LXX (by error) £ri rpeis r)p.tpai nai X. KaraarpacpriaeTai. 

5 Is. xvi. 14. 

(! [2230 (ii) ^] Job vii. 1 — 2. So Ibn Ezra (Is. xvi. 14) lt 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." 

7 Hor. Heb. on Jn iv. 35, quoting Baba Mezia 106 b. 



at the conclusion of "seed-time" to say " Yet four months [i.e. winter 
and winter-so Is tice\ and the harvest cometh," and from agriculturists 
the saying might pass into a proverb inculcating patient expectation. 
It is to be noted that Jn iv. 35 foil, is the only place in this Gospel 
where "hire" is mentioned. The meaning may be paraphrased 
thus: "Do not the farmers say, Four 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 
of the reapers already present 1 ." 

Imperative, see Index 
Infinitive, see Index 
Interrogative Sentences 

(i) Interrogative particles 

[2231] John's use of the interrogative ov 2 , oi^i, 7rws, iroOev, and n a 
seldom causes ambiguity and requires little comment. But his uses 
of oi firj and ovkovv are unique in N.T. as follows : 

1 [2230 (iii) a] Comp. Jas v. 7 " Be therefore long-suffering. ..the husbandman 
waiteth..." In Jn iv. 35 TeTp&ii-qvbs i<m, there is no ellipsis; hut the thought 
is similar to that of the ahove quoted passages from O.T. 

- [2231a] In xix. io e/j.01 ov ActXeij; "To me thou speakest not!" ov has the 
force of alpha privative, "Thou refusest to speak to me!" As regards ov\i — 
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 T ovyp ( mar g- oi>x) ovrds ecnv '\r)oovs 6 vlbs 
'luarjcp...; Comp. Mk vi. 3 oi>x ovrds ioriv 6 t^ktujv...; teal ovk...; Mt. xiii. 55 
ovx ovtos £<ttlv...; Kai...oi>xl-.-; Lk. iv. 22 oi'xi vios eariv 'lwar)<p ovtos ; In 
.Mt. v. 46, 47, vi. 25, xii. 1 1, the par all. Lk. rejects of>xl. Rut Lk. freq. has ovxi 
interrog. elsewhere, in traditions peculiar to himself, and also in the parall. to Mt. 
x. 29. On ewx 1 ' negative, see 2265 (i). 

:; [2231 /'| On xii. 27 ri eiVw, see 2512 b — r, which (the view taken in 933 being 
retracted) accepts the ordinary rendering " What should 1 say...?" In iv. z- t tI 
XaXels, A.V. and R. V. give " Why" without alternative, and Westcotl makes no ' 
comment. SS however has "//'//,?/ wast thou saying?'" The Latin mss. also 
have "quid loqueris" (following "quid quaeris") clearly meaning "what" (but 
Chrys. has ovk -qpwTriaav rr\v airlav). 

[2231<r] As !.. tlir interrogative use of rl generally, it has been noted (939/') 
that Jn never uses iVa tI. Aia rl he never uses without a negative. Ti, "wAy?" 
he u 1 frequently. "On, interrogatively used sometimes in I. XX, In never uses 


(a) Oy mh 

[2232] xviii. n "The cup that my Father hath given me shall 
I not assuredly drink it (ov fir} tt«o cwto)!" 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 ^ TriarevariTe) ! " 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 1/] As regards otl, the LXX uses it to express a great number of Hebrew 
particles, and it often represents Heb. "Why?" "For what?" "Is not?" etc. 
But there is often v.r. tl otl; and, where otl introduces a speech, confusion may 
arise from the use of otl recitativum, e.g. Gen. xviii. 13 elwev K. wpbs 'A. "On 
eyeAao-ei' 2. (D tl otl) " Wherefore did S. laugh?" Comp. Judg. ii. 2 v.r. ore, 
Judg. iv. 14 v.r. ovx l5ov (where Swete marks no interrog. and on may mean 
"for indeed"), 2 S. vii. 7 v.r. tl and tI on, xii. 9 v.r. tl, 2 K. viii. 14 (Swete 6' 
tl, called by Blass " v.I. (in AB) for rl," but Swete gives no v.L), Job xxvii. 12 
v.r. Ota tL de etc. The instances are extremely numerous. 

[2231c"] These special circumstances differentiate LXX Greek (and Greek 
influenced by LXX) from all other Greek, as to the use of 8n in particular and 
interrogative and relative particles in general. Blass says (p. 176) "the employ- 
ment of ocrrts or even of o's in a direct question is quite incredible, except that b, tl 
appears to be used as an abbreviation for tl 6, tl ' why.' ' Blass (p. 331) mentions, 
as quoted against him, (1) Plut. De Sera Vind. 14 p. 558 E: but this is best punctu- 
ated to ye aa(pes...ov5'\ws elirelv Hxop.ev, otov, 5ia tl..., rj ttclXlv 5l rjv airiav 

(2) 2 K. viii. 14 (see 2231 d) 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, '■''For the same reason for which (di r\v clLtLciv) 
you say Homer speaks the truth when he is on your side don't you think he speaks 
the truth when we prove (a.irofyyva.fxi'vujv for airo<p7)i>a/j.evos) from Homer a view 
opposite to yours?" (4) Euseb. P.E. vi. 7. 12 (Giff. p. 2$jd) T i2v de eveKa Tavra 
irpoffeurqveyKa. tu \6yLt> — otl ere eKwecpevyev ..., 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.E. vi. 7. p. 256 c, eKetvb fj.0L \{ye...apd ye tl ia/xev eyto re klu 06; 
— (pai-qs av — tovto de bwbdev Lo-fxev ; where I should suggest a repetition of X^ye. 
"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. 



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'?]' 

(j3) Oy'koyn 

[2233] xviii. 37 (R..V.) "Pilate therefore said unto him, Art 
thou a king then (ovkovv /Sao-tXevs el crv;)?" Ovkovv, 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 ovkovv, 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," ovkovv (A olkow, sic) XdfSe 2 . 
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 3 ." 

[2234] In xviii. 37, the force of ovkovv 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 4 !" But as to our Lord's answer, "Thou sayest [////V] 5 ," 
the Synoptists assert that it followed at once, whereas John says that 

Jesus answered at once, "Sayest thou this from thyself ?" 

Moreover, according to John, this answer provoked a contemptuous 
reply from Pilate, which led to Christ's explanation: "My kingdom 

1 [2232 «] Comp. 1 Cor. i. 26, which says that "not many mighty, not many 
noble," are chosen, after stating that (i. 22) "Jews seek signs and Greeks wisdom." 
'-' [2233a] 2 K. v. 23. Other copies have iirieiK&s XdySe, " kindly take." 

3 [2233/'] Lucian, De A/or/, xxiii. 3 (i. p. 428) ovkovv, w avep, ai> ko.1 tovt" 
lavai Steph. quotes also De Mort. x. 4, xxiii. 2 with imperatives. 

4 [2234(7] Mk xv. 2, Mt. xxvii. 11, Lk. xxiii. 3, Jn xviii. 33 ZSu el 6 /3. r. 
'Ioi'Sat'wi' ; 

5 [2234/'] 2ii Xiyeis, but Jn has dirb aeavrov <ri> tovto \eyeis at once, and 
afterwards (xviii. 37) — in answer to the question, ovkovv fJaoihevs e I o"l) — cri) \iyeis 
on /3. elfii. On <ru \4yeis, as a formula of assent, see WetsL on Mt. xxvi. 25. His 
instances of "vos dixistis" are from Talmudic sources. They express assent to 
bad news (" ' Niim mortuus est Rabbi?' Respondit ille, ' Vos dixistis ' ") which 
a messenger shrinks from repeating to a questioner. So in Eurip. Hippol, 352 cov 
rdd' ovk Cfxou k\v(is and fr. 379 (not in Hind.) <rv 5i \e"yeis tcuV, ovk eyw. I lis only 
instance from Ok prose is Xcn. Mem. iii. 10. 15 avrds, ^(pt]> tovto \eytis, where 
there is no bad news in the context. The use in the Gospels is prob. from 
Jewish sources. 



is not from this world." Then, when Christ had thus admitted that 
He had, in some sense, a "kingdom," Pilate replies — dropping "Jews" 
and "the" — "Well then (ovkovv) [we will not dispute about details, 
such as "the king" and "the 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." 

(ry) Mh 

[2235] M77' ("it is not so, is it?" "can it be that?") is used 
interrogatively in the Fourth Gospel 1 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 (fjnj) ye also 
(*ai viAels) desire to go away 2 ?" 

1 [2235 a] It occurs about 17 times injn. Mk uses it only in ii. 19 (Mk xii. 1 -, 
being (933//) not to the point). In Jn v. 45 /xtj done'ire, imperative, SS takes /u.y 
as interrogative, "Can ye suppose?" 

2 [2235 b] The other is xxi. 5 llaidia, p.rj ti irpoacpdyiov %x €T€ S Field says (ad 
toe) "^x e ' s Tl > is the usual question... answering to our 'Have you had any sport?'" 
By adding yu.77 to the usual phrase, the negative expectation is emphasized, "You 
have caught no fish, have you ?" But ought we not to read /mrjri (2702) ? 

[2235 <] On ^x ere > Wetst. ad loc. quotes conclusively Schol. on Aristoph. 
Nub. 731, and Field adds, from Nonnus, 77 'p ^x°^ v n J where Schol. has apa 
ed7ipa.<Tau.ti> ti ; but the statement quoted by some from Euthymius that iraidia is 
a term freq. applied to labourers (Zdos yap tovs epyariKoiis ovtios 6vop.d^eiv) is not 
proved (so as to be applicable to xxi. 5) by Aristoph. Ran. 37, Nub. 132 iraidiov, 
" boy ! " rightly explained by Steph. as " servulus." A Greek could say iraidiov 
to the " boy [at the door] " of the house he was visiting, but not iraidia to strangers 
fishing. Chrys. and a omit iraidia. Acts of John § 2 represents Christ Himself as 
appearing on the bank to James as a iraidiov. See 2701. 

[2235(/] On irpocxcpayiov, Field, quoting A.V. "any meat," and R. V. "aught 
to eat," says " Rather, ' Have ye taken any fish ? ' ' Steph. shews that irpoacpdyiov 
was a vernacular word for irpoo-6\pijua, oypdpiov (or 6\f/ov, which Clem. Alex. 104 
substitutes (2307(7) 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, irpoo-<pdyiov is rendered "relish'' 
— after "beer, leeks,... asparagus, a cabbage" — "a relish half an obol," and again 
''relishes for the women on two days two and a half obols." Similarly 739 "« 
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 (6\papiov) one obol. ..sauce (oxpov) 
one obol, sauce (ox^apiov) 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 oypov means nearly the same thing as 6\pdpiov and as 
irpocKpdyiov, namely "fish" in some form. Comp. Fay um Pap. cxix. 31 "forG.'s 

A. VI. 193 13 


(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 1 . 
In the first two of the following instances there is a protasis with 
a suspensive 6'n, in the third there is not : i. 50 (R.V. and A.V.) 
"Because (on) I said unto thee I saw thee underneath (A.V. under) the 
fig-tree believest thou ? thou shalt see greater things than these " ; xx. 29 
(R.V. txt and A.V.) "Because (on) thou hast seen me thou 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. Believe) (Trio-revert) in God : believe (irKjrevere) also 

2 j? 
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. pi. in -ere, when it may be (theoretically) either interrogative 
or affirmative or imperative, is largely determined by special custom. 
®e\ere, (3ov\ea6e, ooKelre, would naturally be interrogative, "Do ye 
desire?" "Think ye?" 'AKovere and iSXerrere 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 the ititer- 
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, e.g. mo-revo-are*. 

birthday feast send (?) fish (d>\f/dpia) (sic) (edd. delicacies)... and an artaba of wheaten 
bread"; and Oxyr. 531 roh b\papiois e'^XXafas ^uas (?) "you won me over by the 
fish (edd. dainties)." The editors add that certain "cloaks" mentioned in the 
context may have been "in exchange for the b\J/apia.^ 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, "[/ish] for eating [with bread]," but different terms may have 
been applied to different kinds of fish, fresh, salt etc. Oxyr. l^ap. 736 perhaps 
resembles Jn xxi. 5 — 9 in using 1st npoo<t>a,-)iov and 2nd b\p<xp<.oi> to mean nearly 
the same thing. But in Jn the word may have a symbolic meaning (2703). 

1 [2236^;] This is much more frequent in Jn than in the Synoptists, e.g. xiii. 6 
ffi'i fxov vlwTfis roiis 7ro5as; " Thou dost wash my feet ! " 

2 [2236/'] i. 50 "On elirbv aoi on elSbv oe vwokoltw t?i$ o-vKr/s Triorevets; fieli'dJ 
rovrwv 6\f/r], xx. 29 "On ewpaK&s fie TreirlarevKa's : fj.aKa.pioi 01 /.'A] ISbvres ko.1 
irtorevoavTis, xiv. 1 Trio-revere et's rbv debv, ko\ eh (fue mo-revere, marg. Trto-reOere, 
th rbv Oebv Kal els ifJ.? wiarevere. 

:| [2237 « ] The unambiguous aorist imperative, though theoretically somewhat 
different in meaning, differs sometimes little (in practice) From the present 



[2238] riio-Tei'cTe is certainly imperative twice in Mark 1 and 
thrice in John 2 (apart from the instance (xiv. i) under discussion). 
St Paul's exhortation to the jailor in the Acts, "Believe in the Lord 
Jesus 3 " 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, Tnarevere 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 "Ye believe \_I 
suppose" — before the words "that I am able to do this 4 ." 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 5 "): but this would be incompatible with the 
answer of the blind men, "Yea, Lord," which necessitates in ttio-tcvctc 
a meaning either directly interrogative ("Do ye believe?") or 
indirectly ("Ye believe [I assume before going further]?"). The 
latter is frequently used in English {e.g. "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. F. 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. i) TTiareveTe is imperative, "Believe in God,... fi ." 

imperative. Comp. Mk v. 36 irlcrtve — Lk. viii. 50 iriaTevoov, and Sir. ii. 6 
■Kiartvcov avrf, ii. 8 ■m.rjTe'uaa.Te avrw, xi. i\ wlareve ry Kvpiy, 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. Hpxo/Mxi, trie use 
of the present and of the aorist imperative may vary according to special circum- 
stances (2438^). 

1 Mk i. 15, xi. 24. 2 Jn xii. 36, xiv. 11 {bis). 

3 Acts xvi. 31 irLarevaov. 4 Mt. ix. 28. 

5 Mk v. 36, Lk. viii. ,^o. Comp. Mk xi. 24 "whatsoever ye pray... believe 
(iricrTeveTe) that ye have received them." 

K [2240a] Chrys. ad loc. says, "ILiffTetiere...ical els ep.€ TrttfTetfere." tovt4<jti, 
irdura. TrapeXeutrerai ra dava (Cramer, wavTa (p-qal irapeKOfiu 8eirai (?) to. deiva). 
'H yap ei's e/j.e Triaris kclI t6v yeyevvTjuoTa SwarcjT^pa rCiv etnbvTWv iari (Cramer 
rvyxdva) xai ovdtv edaei. KpaTrjaou tCjv dvax e P 1 ^"'- On this Erasmus says that it 
favours the rendering "Creditis in Deum et in me credit! s. Atque ita legisse 

195 J 3— 2 


[2241] The other two instances (i. 50, xx. 29) differ from the 
third, and agree together, in being preceded by a protasis with 
suspensive on ("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 on. We shall find that there are 
four, and that the verb in the apodosis is always affirmative 1 . 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' 2 : !" 

[2242] Similarly in the Acts, Paul says to Agrippa "Thou 
believest (7rtcrTcveis) the prophets [is it not so?]," and goes on to 
add the answer to this suggested question, "I know that thou 
believest 3 ," and the Epistle of St James addresses a controversialist 
ironically thus, "Thou (emph.) (av) [of course] believest that there 
is one God 4 ?" — 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, 7rto-Tcrj£is is used by 
Jesus to Martha, "thou believest this [is it not so?] 5 ," and, with 

videtur ex interpretatione sua Chrysostomus, quasi Jicfes quam habebanl. . .illis abunde 
prsesidio esset. " But might it not be consistent with an imperative rendering: 
"Be not troubled. Continue to believe.... That is to say, Your tenors 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 
" creditis," i.e. "believe in God and then ipso 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... credite " j Diatess., 
Syr. (Walton), b, d, and e have "credite...credite." Erasmus enumerates four 
possible interpretations (1) "creditis... credit is," (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 1st irLa-revere 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. 

2 [2241 a J But the tone in i. 50, xx. 29 is quite different from that of ordinary 
affirmation, e.g. xiv. 19 "Because (on) I live, ye also shall lire" 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 believes! |l>ut on how slight a ground]!" 
"Thou hast believed [it is true, but not with the highest belief]!" 

•'' Acts xxvi. 27. 

4 [2242*/] Jas ii. 19. W.H. punctuate interrogatively, Mayor prefers an affir- 
m.ition. The emph. aii seem-, to mean, ironically, "thou, the orthodox disputant." 

5 xi. 26 "...he shall never die. Thou believest this?" 



a different shade of meaning, crv irio-Tevzvi to the blind man : "He 
[Jesus] said, Thou (emph.) believest in the Son of man 1 ." 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, " Thou \I am sure] believest in the Son 
of man 2 ," and there is little or nothing of the interrogative tone. 

[2243] In xiii. 12 — although R.V. and A.V. agree in the inter- 
rogative — "He said unto them, (R.V.) Know ye (yivcoo-Kere) 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 
(yivoWre) that it hath hated me..." (1901, 2665—7), i.e. "understand, 
recognise, that the world hated me." The LXX usage rather favours the 
imperative 3 . In any case, we could not explain yivwaKeTe in xiii. 12 

* »*■ 35- 

- [2242 /'] 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 [2243a] Tivuo-KeTe does not mean "know" but "begin to know," "come to 
know," "recognise." It is therefore quite different from eyvuiKare (which is probably 
never imperatively used). Ytuwaisfre is imperatively used in the LXX, after eav 
yap a-rroo-TpacprJTe, in Josh, xxiii. 13. It is also imperative in Dan. iii. 15, 3 Mace, 
vii. 9 (and the sing, imperat. yivwuKe occurs in LXX 4 times) ; the only indicative 
instances are either with vfiels inserted (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, yivdoaKere is taken 
by Westc. as prob. inoperative, 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. i«Nit is generally taken interrogatively; it certainly cannot be 
affirmative. In'xiv. 7 and xiv. 17 it is preceded severally by aw' dpn and v/ieis 
and is indicative. In Heb. xiii. 23 "know ye that our brother Timothy hath 
been set at liberty," yivuxrKere is almost certainly imperative, and the only two 
Pauline initial uses of the word (2 Cor. viii. 9 y. yap, Gal. iii. 7 7. &pa) indicate 
that y. would seldom be placed at the beginning of a clause indicatively without 
some word such as yap, apa, vpeis etc. to denote that the word is used affirmatively 
or argumentatively, or to emphasize fact. Indeed, in one of these two passages 
(Gal. iii. 7), R.V. txt and A.V. have the imperative. In Phil. ii. 22 tt\v oe 8oki/j.7]v 
avrov ytvuiffKtTe, the verb is non-initial, and the meaning appears to be " Ye are 
alive to his tried worth " (not quite the same as eyvuKare) : Chrys. paraphrases it 
as v/xds avrol (v.r. avrbv) ewiaraade. 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 



like Trio-TeviTe above, as '• Ye know [do ye noff\? And the rendering, 
"Understand the meaning of what I have done to you," makes 
excellent sense. Origen (ad loc.) allows both renderings. 

[2244] In two instances, a conditional clause ("if. you cannot 
deny") prepares the way for something incongruous with that 
condition, which incongruity is expressed by an interrogative or 
exclamation of amazement: vii. 23 "If circumcision is received on 
the sabbath — [in the face of that fact] are ye angry with me (ifxol 
XoXuTe) 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.) (ifxeis) say (Xeyere), Thou blasphemest?" Here the 
emphatic "ye " means " ye the guardians and interpreters of Scripture." 
Only under special circumstances could v/xas Ae'yere, "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 1 !" "Thus answerest thou 
the High Priest 2 !" "Your king am I to crucify 8 !" " Our fathers 
worshipped in this mountain, and [yet] (2136) ye say (u/xei? Aeye-rc) 
that in Jerusalem is the place 4 !" Thus, an initial av A.e'yei?, where 
there is no incongruity between the person and the utterance, would 
naturally mean "thou (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 or did others say it to thee?" may be 

those of Jesus Christ. But as for his tried worth, I would have you recogiiise 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. yivwaKcre "be recognising,'" "try 
to recognise," would naturally be distinguished from yvtorc "recognise [once for 
all]," by a careful writer (2437 -9). 

[2243 />] In Euripides, ylvuiaKt freq. means "recognise [the facts of life etc.],"' 
Inns fr. xxi. 1 y. TavOpuweia (coin p. Hec. 227, Ale. 418, Hel. 1257) whereas 7. in 
2nd pers. indie, does not occur except interrog. Her. 630. Also, in Xenophon 
and Lucian, the imperat. ylvwoKe (Steph.) is freq., especially in the phrase ovtoj 
ylvuxjKt "make up your mind to this," which Lucian has 111 2nd pers. pi. (i- 337, 
Pluto § 1) " Make up your mind to this that I shali not stop for a moment (oOtu) 
ywuicTKeTe dis ouoe iravcrofj-^vov /xov)." Clem. Alex. 759 quotes the Preaching of 
Peter thus, Ilifrpos b> t£ Krjpuy/xaTi \iyei, YivuxTKere ovv on efs 6e6s i<rrw..., which 
can hardly be otherwise than imperative. 

1 i. 46. 2 xviii. 22. :l xix. 15. 4 iv. 20. 



interrogative, a question being suggested by the words "from thyself" 
followed by the alternative "or from others 1 ?" 

[2246] In xvi. 32, a contrast is implied between ap-rt, "at the 
present moment" and the "hour" that "is coming and hath come" 
(1915 (i) foil.). 'I<W here, as in the only other Johannine instance 
where our Lord uses it, is almost equivalent to the Greek Se, "but 2 ." 
As in the First Epistle to the Corinthians (" For the moment (dpTi) 
we see through a mirror darkly but then face to face 3 ") so here, the 
antithesis, having an affirmative in the second clause, requires us to 
suppose an affirmative in the first clause also, thus, " For the moment 
(apTt) [indeed] ye believe, [but] behold the hour cometh...vvhen ye shall 
be scattered every man to his own." This rendering agrees with 
xvi. 27 "Ye have believed''' and xvii. 8 "They [have] believed." Our 
Lord recognises that the disciples did really and truly " believe." 
They had said, however, too confidently (xvi. 30) "Now (at last) 
(vvv) we know... herein we believe" ; to which Jesus replies, in effect, 
" Do not say Nozv at last, say rather, For the moment. Ye believe for 
the moment, but the impending hour of trial will dissipate your 

1 [2245 a] xviii. 34 'Att6 aeavrou crv tovto \eyei$, 7} aXXoi elirov croi irepl e/xov ; 
This is clearly interrogative. But in xviii. 37 — in answer to Pilate's second 
question, "Well then, thou art [it seems] a king}" — -when Jesus replies 2.v \eyeis 
on patrtXevs elfju, 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 
king of the Jews" and "a king." The former our Lord puts aside with contempt 
as a question dictated by "others," i.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 king," and the 
Book of Revelation (Rev. v. 10) 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]," <rv diras is parall. to Mk xiv. 62 eyw et'/xi. At 
the same time it must be admitted that (2234 <^) the use of ci) Xiyeis, 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 [not /]" ; 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. 

" [2246 a] Jn iv. 35 "Do not ye say...? Behold, I say unto you," i.e. "Ye 
are in the habit of saying, 'The harvest is coming.' But 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 [2246^] 1 Cor. xiii. 12. "Apri is contrasted (Jn xiii. 7) with /xera ravra, 
(xiii. 37) with a preceding vcrepov, and (xvi. 12) with a preceding hi. 



[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: " Thou (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 1 

[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 ko.1 meaning 
"and yet" (2136 — 45). In iii. io, oi 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 oi as merely equivalent to alpha privative (" The 
teacher of Israel. ..and ignorant of this!"). Hence the instance is 
included below-. The dozen or more of interrogatives with oi are 
excluded as they do not throw light on ambiguity 3 . 

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 [2248/0 In vii. ro, (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 that (otl) 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. ..shall 
not find me." The Jews now say in consequence "Where is he going? For 
{according to his account'] Ion) we shall not find him." The initial on. means 
"{We say tAt's] because" or "for" and introduces the reason for asking "Where 
i> he going?" (2179). 

:i [2248c] i. 21 ■fipdiTTjaav clvtov Ti ovv ; [<rt>] 'H. d: (marg. T: ovvav; 'H. «;)... 
'0 it i>o<pT)TT)i tlov; i. 46 direv ai'rw X., E\ X. ovvarai ti ayadbv elvai; i. 50 turev 
avrco "On elwbv vol otl elbbv ae vttok&tco ttJs crvKrjs iruTTeveis ; ii. 20 e lirav... If acre- 
P&kovto. Kai ££ Zrtaiv olkoOolltiDij 6 yaos orroj, Kai crv ev Tpiciv j)txepaLS eyepeis avrbv; 
iii. 10 direv ainw 2i> el 6 5i5d<TKa\os tov T. Kai ravra ov ytvwffKeis; v. 6 \tyei...Qe'\eis 
vyir)S yevioOai ; vi. 6l elirev...'TovTo v/xas o-KavOa\ii'ei; edv ovv dfwprjre... ; vii. 23 
el nepiTO/J.r]v \a/x[3dvei...'iva /U17 \vdrj 6 vopos MajiWws, epLoi x°^°- Tf 0Tl ^°" a-vDpioirov 
iiyiri ewoirioo, iv aaf-ijidTip ; viii. 57 dirav ...wevTT)KOvTa trr) oifirw !x e ' s Kal x - 
ewpaKas; ix. 19 ripJirrjcrav avrovs \iyovres Ovt6s eoTLV 6 vlbs iifJMV, 6v bfteis Xtyere 



(iv) Indirect interrogative 

[2249] This is rare in John. He prefers the direct interrogative 
even where it involves such a repetition as (xiii. 24) "Simon Peter 
beckoneth to him and saith to him, 'Say Who is it? about whom he 
saith [this],' " where many mss. have (A.V.) "beckoned to him that he 
should ask who it should be {iwdkaQai tl<s av ei'77)," 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 (-n-oTepov) it is 
from God, or \j.vhether\ I am speaking from myself" lloTepov is not 
found elsewhere in N.T. 1 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 if [i.e. whether^ it is from 
God 2 ," and there to stop? The answer is, that John desires to 
emphasize " speaking from oneself " 2s 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 I say") He "spake from 

otl TixpXbs eyevvr)drj; ix. 34 tlwav . . .' Ei> dfiapTlais av eyevvr)6rfs oXos, KcU av 
diodaKeis rffids; ix. 35 elireu 2i) irtaTeveis els tov vVov tov dvdptbirov; x. 35 — 6 el 
eKeivovs elwev deovs,...6i> 6 warr/p y)y iaaev... vfiels Xeyere Sri BXaatprjfiets 8tl elwov 
vlbs tov Oeov elfu; xi. 8 Xeyovaiv . . .'Papfiei, vvv e^rjTovv ae XiOdaai ol 'lovSaloi, Kai 
7rd\tc virdyeis e/cet; xi. 26 ov fir) airoddvy els tov alQva- marei/eis tovto; xiii. 6 
Xtyei.^Kvpie, av fiov virrTeis tovs 7r65as; xiii. 12 elrrev ...YivtbaneTe (2243) tL 
irewolriKa vfiiv ; xiii. 37 — 8 ttiv ^vxw fiov virep aov 6r)aw. drroKplveTai 'Irjaovs 
Trji> ipvxriv aov virep ifiov Orjaeis ; xiv. 9 Xeyet.. .ToaovTov XP 0V0V I 160 VfiGiv elfil Kal 
ovk ^yvuiKas fie, <$L\iwire; xvi. \g elTrev...llepi tovtov fyrelre fier dXXrfXuv qti 
elrrov...; xvi. 30 — 1 maTevofiev on drrb 6. ei;r)Xdes. drreKpidri avTols 'I. "Apr: 
TriaTtvere; xviii. 22 eliruv Ovtojs diroKplvri t<£ dpxiepel; xviii. 33 etrrei' . . .2i» el 

ftaaiXevs tQv 'lovoaiwv; xviii. 34 dTreKpidr)... Awb aeavrov av tovto Xeyeis rj dXXol 
elrrov aoi rrepl ifiov; xviii. 37 drr eKpl8r]...1,v Xiyeis 6tl j3aaiXevs eifii; (so marg. but 
text, affirmative), xviii. 39 fiovXeade ovv dwoXvaw> tov /3. tQv 'I.; xix. 15 
Xeyei...Tov [jaaiXe'a vfiwv aTavpwaoj; xx. 29 Xeyei... "Qti ewpaKas fie rrerrlaTevKas ; 
xxi. 15 Xeyei.,.^,i/iwi> 'Iwdvov, dyarras fie irXeov tovtwv; xxi. 16 Xeyei... ~Z.Lp.wv 
Iwdvov, dyarras fie; xxi. 17 Xeyet... Zifiwv 'ludvov, (piXeis fie; 

1 [2250 a] In LXX, it occurs only in Job, and there always (12 times) in 
direct interrogation. 

2 Comp. Jn ix. 25 "If (i.e. whether) (el) he is a sinner I know not," also 

1 Cor. vii. 16 etc. 



himself." John represents Christ as affirming, some seven or eight 
times 1 , that He is not sent "from himself," and that He neither says 
nor does anything "from himself." Not even the Holy Spirit speaks 
"from itself 8 ." The 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 3 . 

[2251] (2) x. 6 "This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they 
understood not what things they were that he spake unto them 
[IkCivoi Se ovk lyi'wcrav rivo. r)v a eAdAei aurois)." 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 4 . Jesus had been "talking 
(AaAew)" 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 5 , 
"did not understand about what things (irepi tuw) " 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 (AaAiai/) ? Because ye are not able 
to hear my Word (a«ov€tv t6v \6yov Tor kp,6v)" i.e. ye have not the 
spiritual sympathy that would give you a key to my language 6 . 

1 v. 30, vii. 17. 18, 28, viii. 28, 42, xii. 49, xiv. 10. 

2 xvi. 13. 

3 [2250 /'J 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 not speaking "from himself" 
(xviii. 34 " sayest thou this/rom tliysclfV). 

* I 2251 <i] In vi. 64 i)8ei yap eif apxns '\t]<tovs rivts dalv oi wtj ntarevovres Kai 
Ws {(ttiv 6 irapaoibawv avrdv, the meaning is that Jesus could distinguish from the 
c rowd 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 "l the Cross began to be preached publicly in Capernaum, 
when Bchism and desertion first appeared among the disciples " (see 2254). 

• 1 Tim. i. 7. 

8 [2251 /'| AaXtd occurs, elsewhere in X.T., only in Mt. xxvi. 73 " thy [C.alilaean] 
dialect," J 11 iv. 42 "thy talk," i.e. the talk of the Samaritan woman. In classical 


MOOD [2253] 


(i) Imperative, Indicative, Infinitive and Subjunctive, see 
Index, also Tense (in Contents) p. xxi. 

(ii) Optative 

[2252] The optative mood is practically non-existent in the 
Gospels except in Luke. For example, the optative of ylv^adai 
occurs in Lk. (2), and that of elvat in Lk. (7), but neither of these 
occurs in Mk, Mt., J11. In Jn xiii. 24 the v.r. irvOio-Oai ti's oV tl-q (not 
in W.H.) is a corruption. In Mark, the forms iv. 29 jrapaSoi, v. 43 
and ix. 30 yvol, viii. 37 801 are subjunctive: but xi. 14 xapirov cWyoi 
has a true optative corresponding to Mt. xxi. 19 Kapw6<; yivrjTai. 
Compare 2 S. i. 2 1 /xt; KaTafirj Spocros, B (caTa/3oi, A KaTafirjTu), and 
Deut. xxxiii. 24 "let him be," LXX co-rat; also Oxyr. Pap. 742 "va 
7T(tAiv <£[i]Aos rjjxtiv Trapabot. 

Negative Particles 

(i) M^ 

[2253] In later Greek, fxrj encroached on ov, especially in 
connexion with participles 1 . In John, paq for ov is not so frequent 

Gk \a\ew 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 
first person, whereas it is never thus used by any Synoptist (exe. Lk. xxiv. 44, 
after the Resurrection). Comp. In 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 unpremeditated 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 AaXe'w when 
used by Jesus concerning His own teaching. 

1 [2253a] Winer, p. 606 n. "In modern Greek the participle invariably takes 
fir/" A striking instance of /jltj for ov is Mt. xi. 18 (Lk. vii. 33) y\dev yap T. 
/x-fjre (Lk. fir)) eadlwv fxrire irlvwv , and Mt. xxii. 12 7rws ei<Tr]\6es w5e ^x a "' &*" 
Oiifxa ydfiou; Lucian (iii. 104 Indoct. §5) koX 6 Kvj3epvdu ovk eiSws /ecu 'nnreveiv /xt) 
fiefxeXeTTiKuis is an excellent instance of the context that might in a few rare cases 
cause 6 ov to be used, namely where 011 = alpha privative, '■'■absolutely ignorant of 
steering and not having given much pains to riding." 



as in the Synoptists. But it is probable that vii. 15 "How doth this 
man know letters not having learned (107 fxcfxaOrjKw^)?" 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 1 ." In vii. 49 6 o^Ao? ovtos 6 /at/ 
ytvwo-KOiv, 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." In iii. 18 "He that believeth not is already condemned 
because he hath not believed (on /x?) 7r€7r<.'o-T€v/<ev)," the unbelief, 
though implied as a fact, is stated, not 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 (elalv e£ vfx<2v rive? di ov 7ri(TTevovaiv) " are followed 
by the comment "For Jesus knew from the beginning (lit.) who are 
those that are not believing (tiVcs eurlv ot to) 7rto-Teuovres) and who 
is he that shall betray him (kcu tis Icttlv 6 7rapa8ojcrwi' auYov)." 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 
believe — presumably knowing that they did not really 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 2251 a.) We are not to 
suppose, with some ancient Greek commentators, that "from the 
beginning" means "from the foundation of the world 2 ." As to the 

1 [2253/'] This utterance however takes place at Jerusalem, among strangers, 
ii"! in .Nazareth or Galilee: and therefore it is not quite certain that the other 
meaning i^ wrong. Winer (p. 607) quotes Philostr. A poll, iii. 22 5s koX ypd<pei fxi] 
txadiiv ypafJi/nara. 

- [2254</| Chrys. dvuOev, Cramer irpo KaTa(3o\iji kovixov. 'E£ apxys, "from the 
beginning," is similarly used in xvi. 4, and air' dpxTJs in 1 Jn ii. 7, 24 etc. 



change from ov iriaTevovmv to p.rj TTLarevopres, it is what might have 
been expected in consequence of the change from the indicative to 
the participle. On x. 12 o...ovk wv 7rotyu.7/v, see 2704. 

(ii) Ov p-TJ with Future and Subjunctive 

[2255] Ov }*.■>] is comparatively rarely used with the future in N.T. 
In John it occurs fourteen times with subjunctive 1 and thrice with 
future, as follows : iv. 14 ov p.rj Saf/rjaei eh t. aiwva, vi. 35 6 ep)(6p.evo<; 
7rpos ep,e ov p,y Tr£ivdo~7] k. 6 TTto-Tevwv eh ep,e ov /xr] oa^rjfrei tromoTe, 
X. 5 aAAorpiw 8e ov /xrj d.KoXov6rjo-ovcriv d\\d <f>€v£ovTai. The second 
instance (vi. 35) invites inquiry, in view of the parallel ire.iva.o-y and 
Sii//??o-ei. But a review of N.T. usage indicates no settled or general 
distinction of meaning. Compare Heb. viii. 12 ov p-y) /xvrja$u>, 
quoting Jer. xxxi. 34 correctly, with Heb. x. 17 ov p.r) 
quoting the same incorrectly: also Mt. xxiv. 35 ov p.r) -n-apeXOuio-iv 
with parall. Mk xiii. 31 (W.H. marg.) ov p.i) Trape\evo-ovTai (W.H. 
txt ora. ixr]) and parall. Lk. xxi. 33 ov pi) 7rape\evo-ovTat. In John's 
three instances there occur severally (1) eis rbv aliZva, (2) irwwoTe, 
(3) a following future (<f>cv£ovTai). 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) El oi 

[2256] Et ov never occurs in John, as an undivided phrase, except 
in antithesis (twice) v. 47, "If ye fail to believe (ov TTLarevere) his 
writings how can ye [succeed in] believing my words," x. 37 "If I fail 
to do {ov 7j-ou5) the works of my Father... but if I [succeed in] doing 
them...." In both cases ou has the force of alpha 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 iii. 12 
ov TTLo-TtveTe is divided from el, "If I have told you earthly things 
and ye disbelieve (ov 71-10-7 eveTe)." 

1 [2255 a] This includes xx. 25 ov fxr) iriGTevow, which, so far as the form is 
concerned, might be future. On xi. 56 rl doKei 6fuv on ov /xtj ^Xdy... see 2184. 
On xviii. 11 ov /xi] irioi see 2232. In the Pauline Epistles ov /xrj occurs only six 
times: two of these instances are from LXX: one of the two (Gal. iv. 30) is in the 




(iv) Ou...ov8€i's' 

[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 2 , John uses, never in narrative, but 
frequently in Christ's words 3 . It is never ambiguous. 

(v) Oi)T£...Ka( 

[2258] This construction is of the nature of a Latinism in 
3 Jn io "he neither himself (ovre auros) receiveth the brethren and 
those that desire [to come] he hindereth," where the sentence is long 
and periodic. It is quite different in Jn iv. 1 1 "Neither (oure) 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, ovSe, 
"not even a bucket" (so too SS). But oirre...iccu is highly character- 
istic of the style of the woman's talk, which is somewhat flighty, 
passing from "neither bucket hast thou [nor rope to let doivn 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 J" i°)- 

[2259] In v. 37 — 8, R.V. punctuates "Ye have neither (ome) 
heard his voice at any time, nor (ovt«) seen his form. And (W) 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, and [as 
a consequence, or, besides] ye have not his word abiding in you: 
[I say this] because... ye believe not." Perhaps R.V. was influenced 
by the supposition that "because 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 o6...o&k4ti, which does not occur in Jn but 
occurs 6 times in Mk (in Mt. and I.k. once, parall. to Mk xii. 34) nor oidiv...oi 
M-v, which is in Lk. x. 19. On oi...rts sec 2586^— £. 

Mk 111. 27 ov Suvarai ovdds eh tt\v oiKlav...lcrxvpov ei<re\dwv...8iapTrd<rai.. 
1 2257 /q Jn v. 10 ov dvvaTcu 6 vibs iroiclv d(p' eavrov ovb'tv, v. 22 ovde yap 6 
Tro.Ti)[> Kpivei ovoeva, v. ^o ov SiVa^at eh/d; iroieiv dv' ifiavrod ovStv, vi. 63 7/ <ra/)£ ovk 
w(pe\d ovdti>, viii. i,s iyw ov xpivu oiSiva etc. (about 12 times). It is also used in 
the words of others, iii. 27, vi. 33 etc. Jn lias once oiSiiru oiSels in xix. 41 
w>r)(iuov Kaiubv iv y ovbinw ovods r,v TeOeinhos, which resembles l.k. xxiii. 53 
p-vri/xari XaijevTy ov ovk rjv ovdeis oOirw KeLp.ivos. 



(vi) Ov (or, |j.t|) combined with -n-ds 

[2260] A distinction must be drawn between (i) ou...7ras, (2) ttS? 
...ov, and (3) ou Tras. The first two belong mostly to Hebraic, the 
third— in which ttSs follows ov without any intervening word except 
perhaps the verb "to be "--belongs mostly to Greek idiom. In (1) 
and (2) the meaning of -5s 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. ii. 5) "all plants 
of the field were not as yet," i.e. no plants yet existed; (Gen. iv. 15) 
"for the not-smiting him of all finding him," i.e. that none finding 
him should smite him; (Ex. xii. 16) "all work shall not be done" 1 etc. 
The last sentence might well be understood to mean "all 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 "not any (or, no) work" — and in Greek 
sometimes by repeating the negative ("no work shall not be done"). 
In the Synoptists, we have but few instances of either (1) ov...nas or 

(2) 7TUS...OU". 

[2262] In John's Gospel, and perhaps in the Epistle, there are no 
instances of ou...7ras meaning "not any," but 7ras followed by ov 
(or, fxrj) 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 3 "). These are connected mostly with 
affirmatives, but (a) sometimes with negatives followed by affirma- 
tives thus: iii. 16 "in order that everyone (iras) that believeth should 
not (fxij) perish but should have eternal life," vi. 39 "in order that 

1 [2261 a] Gesen. 482*7. Ex. xii. 16 Tlav Zpyov \arpevrov ov troi-qo-ere tv aureus, 
tt\t)v bcra... Comp. Ex. xx. 10 ov woiricreis iv avrrj wdv Zpyov. 

• [2261/5] See (i) oi'...7ras in Mk xiii. 20, Mt. xxiv. 22 "not.-.a^ flesh," 
Lk. i. 37 " no\....aiiy word," (2) 7ras... ov in Mk vii. 18 rrdv...ov ovvarai, Mt. xii. 25 
irdca . . . oiKia nepiffdeicra...ov aTadr/fferai (parall. Mk iii. 25 iav olKia.../j.epio'6rj, ov 
dvvriaerai arrival), Lk. iv. 33 (pec). 

a [2262a] In Is. xxviii. 16 "he that believeth," Heb. and LXX om. "all," 
but Rom. x. 1 1 inserts it, thus, lias 6 Trio-revuv eir' avri3. Parallel passages in 
Kings and Chronicles freq. differ in inserting or omitting Heb. " all " : and LXX 
freq. differs similarly from Hebrew. 



everything that he hath given to me I should not (^) lose [aught] 
from it but should raise it up": (6) sometimes with negatives implying 
a negation of death or darkness, xi. 26 "everyone that liveth and 
believeth in me shall surely not (ov fxij) die," xii. 46 "in order that 
everyone that believeth in me may not (fx-rj) abide in darkness 1 ." 

[2263] On the other hand, the Greek usage of ov ttS.<;, "not 
everyone" is frequent in traditions that say, in different forms, what 
the Lord says in the Sermon on the Mount, " Not everyone (ov ttSs) 
that saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of 
heaven 2 ." So in the Epistle to the Romans, "Not all that are from 
Israel" are really Israel, "nor yet (ovoe), because they are the seed 
of Abraham, are they all children " ; the Gospel was preached to 
them "but not all hearkened 3 "; so to the Corinthians, "Not in all 
[men] is knowledge," "Not with the most of them (ov/c lv toi? irXdoo-iv 
avroiv, Clem. Alex, -n-aaiv auroTs) was God well pleased." And in the 
Fourth Gospel Jesus says to the disciples (xiii. 10, 11, 18) "Ye are 
clean but not all" "Not all of you are clean," " Not about you all do 
I speak." Some uses of the phrase "not air 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 [2262 b] In the Epistle, the negation is sometimes a negation of truth, life, 
light etc., ii. 21 "every lie is not of the truth," ii. 23 "everyone that denieth the 
Son hath also not the Father (oOdi rbv varepa ?x f 'b" "*• 6 "Everyone that sinneth 
hath not seen him " (antithetical to iii. 6 " Everyone that abideth in him sinneth 
not"), iii. 10 "Everyone that doeth not righteousness is not of God," iii. 15 (lit.) 
"Every murderer hath not eternal life" (a sentence hardly English, and certainly 
not Greek, in form), iv. 3 "Every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God." 
lias is followed, as in the Gospel, by negation of death, darkness etc. in 1 Jn iii. 6, 
o, v. 18. In 1 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 fn 9 "Everyone that. ..abideth not in the teaching of Christ 
hath not God." 

- Mt. vii. 21. 

3 [2263 a] Rom. ix. 6—7, x. 16, 1 Cor. viii. 7, x. 5. It is also used in 
Ml. xix. 1 1 "Not all are capable of receiving this saying," 1 Cor. vi. 12 "not all 
things an- profitable," x. 2;, "not all things are profitable... not all things edify." 
In the two passages lasl quoted there is an antithesis to a previous "all," in "all 
t/iings are lawful." And such an antithesis is generally implied in the Greek 
idiom "[All may do that, but\ not all can do this." 

1 [2263 /'| Lewis ami Short quote Aul. Gell. i. 8. 4 oi wavTos avSpbs els 
K61UVO0V iffO' o w\oOs, and sec Steph. vi. 567 on iravrds (oti. 



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] is not 
the portion of all (ov yap tto-vtuiv rj ttlcttls) 1 ." 

1 [2263 <] 2 Thess. iii. 2. This traditional use of ov irdvTes 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. 19 "They went out 
[at first (but see 2110 a— b) as our soldiers] belonging to our camp (lit. from us, 
e£ 7]fj.wv) : 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 {fxe/j.ei>r}Keio-av 
&v fied' riixuiv) : but [their not remaining was foreordained] in order that they 
might be manifested [shewing] that not all are (or, they are not all) belonging to 
us (d\\' tva. (pav(poj6i2(nv otl ovk eiaiv iravres it, rjfxwv)." 

[2263 d] Westcott paraphrases this, "that they may be made manifest that 
they are not, no 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, "not 
any of them." He gives, as a reason, that "when the iras 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 elvai, and 
in such a writer as John, who nowhere else uses the Hebraic ov...iras? If, for 
example, John had written in xiii. 1 1 ovk eare iravres Kadapoi (instead of oi>xl 
ir. k. eare) should we have translated this, "Ye are not any of you clean"? I am 
disposed to think that 1 Jn ii. 19 does not afford a unique instance of the Hebraic 
ov...iras, 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) (pavepwOuaiv 6tl ovk elolv il- ij/mlov, and 
(2) (pavepudrj otl ov iravres [oi SoKOvvTes] elalv e£ ij/xcov. One thought is "they 
were not really ours"; another, "not 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 "not all of you are clean," and 
"not 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 not all chosen." 

[2263 £ ] In viii. 35 " the slave doth not abide in the house for ever (6 5e dov\os 
ov /xtvei iv ry olklo. eis tov alGva)," if we are to adopt here the meaning of 01' (or 
fx-q, /xTj/ce'rt etc.)... els tov aluva everywhere else in N.T. (Mk iii. 29, xi. 14, Mt. xxi. 19, 
Jn iv. 14, viii. 51, 52, x. 28, xi. 26, xiii. 8, 1 Cor. viii. 13) it should mean "never." 
Then the sentence would mean "The slave, e.g. Ishmael, shall never {be 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, b, 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 no 
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 


(vii) Ov, V. r. oinrw 

[2264] In vii. 8 (R.V. txt and W.H. txt) "I go not up yet to 
this feast," the reading, 'T go not 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 1 attacked Christ for the change of 
purpose implied (by "go not up") in this passage, when contrasted 
with vii. io — 14 "then he also himself went /// about the 
middle of the feast Jesus went 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 ovirw". 
It is almost incredible that ovttoj, 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 ov. 

[2265] The explanation of "I go not 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 " abideth for ever''' had preceded the negative " abideth 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 " never" for ov...els rbv alwva. 

[2263^'] Cyril (Cramer ad loc.) explains ov p.£vei els t. aiwva by adding "for 
he will hurry into the outer darkness (Spa/xelrai. yap as to e^wrepov ckotos)." 
Ammonius says, 6 p.7] ptvuv els rbv alQva Kal ibaavrus fx^v <* 6 ' SovXbs ecrri rrj 
<pvcrei...TrdvTa yap 5ov\a tov KTiaavros, p.evei 5£ els rbv aluva daavruis ^x 0JV ° ^' os 
us <pvaei debs, where the punctuation is doubtful but the phrase "all things are 
slaves of the Creator" suggests that he did not read "slave of sin." Chrysostom 
(Migne) thrice drops els rbv aluva after ov pLevei and interprets the words "the 
slave doth not abide for ever," as implying a "gentle casting down {iipe'p.a xara- 
ftdWei) " 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." 

1 Diet. Christ. Biogr. " Porphyrias," p. 442 a, referring to Jerome, Dial. c. 
Pelag. ii. 17. 

- 1 2264./] Migne prints a quotation from Chrys. ovk dvaSalvu &pn, and then 
(punctuating thus) llws ovv, (f^aiv, dvi^T}, elirwv, Ovk dvafialvw; Ovk elirev Kaddirai;, 
Ovk availuivw a\\a, 'Svv, direv, Tovriari., fieO' vp.wv, where apparently the writer 
does not mean that Jesus said vvv, but that He meant vvv. In Cramer, this 
appears, witli ovirw, thus, Avrbs be" ttCcs avifiri, (frqalv, elirwv, " eylc oi%w dvafiaivu — " 
It is clear thai neither ovirw nor vvv nor dprt was a part of the text thus com- 
mented on. 



Johannine view of Christ's "going up" to Jerusalem as a whole. 
Two acts of this kind have been mentioned (ii. 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 this 
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 feast 1 .." 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. 

(viii) CK^C 

[2265 (i)] Ov^i presents nothing remarkable in ix. 9 aAXoi eXeyov 
Ovx', aAAa ofxoios avrui ea-riv : for its use before a pause, and especially 

1 [2265 a] 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 this feast," and have substituted "the" later on, "I go not 
up to the feast," or have inserted "this" in both clauses. The difference, though 
subtle, is important: "Go ye up to the feast, as usual; I shall not go up to this 
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 avaj3aivoj 
elsewhere, see i. 51, iii. 13, vi. 62, xx. 17 where it is used of "going up to heaven." 

[2265/^] The remaining instance of ava.j3a.Lvcj in Christ's words is x. r "He that 
entereth not through the door into the fold of the sheep but goeth tip from some 
other quarter (avafiaivojv dWaxodev) — 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) "go 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 " as a sacrifice. 
John is probably alluding to these two kinds of "going up." Jews would contrast 
Hezekiah, who (Is. xxxvii. 14) ""went up 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 up into heaven." 

[2265c] 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 aXXd, is frequent in Greek and in N.T. 
But neither N.T. nor the Thesaurus affords a parallel to the following, 
xiii. 10 — ii, "ye (emph.) are clean but not all (dAA' ovyl -n-avTes) . . . 
for this cause said he (lit.) that ' Ye are not all clean,' on, Ou^i Tarres 
Ka.6a.poL co-re 1 ." Oi\i 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. i. 14 ot^i 7ravr€s elcrlv Aen-oupyi/ox 
7rviVjxara) "Are ye not all clean?" But in Numbers ("I shall see 
him but not now") LXX has /cai oux 1 ' 2 , as John has in xiv. 22 17/uv... 
Kal ovxi tw Koa-fjoo. Greek writers seem to have differed among them- 
selves — and John seems to have differed from most — in the use of 
ou^/ and its equivalents 3 . 


(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, vii. 49 "This 
multitude that knoweth not the Law — [they] are accursed," xv. 6 "If 
anyone abide not in me he is at once cast out as the branch [from the 
vine] (to KXr}fxa)...and they gather them {i.e. such branches, aird)," 
xvii. 2 "In order that all (sing.) that thou hast given to him — to [all 
of] them (avroU) he may give eternal life " (see 1919 foil, and 

(ii) Plural Neuter with Plural Verb 

[2267] This construction, which is rare in classical Greek, is also 
rare in John. 'ETrepiao-evcrav is supported by BD against SAL (-o-ev) 
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 ffvveid-qcriv 5e Xe-yw ovx'i tt)v eavrov..., dWd folloios, 
as also in Lk. i. 60 ovxi, <x\Xd KkyO-qatTai, xii. 51 ovxi. Xe^w v/juv, d\X' fj Siafiepia/xov, 
Rom. iii. 27 ovxi, dXXa did i>6/j.ov irlarews. The anomaly here is that d\\d 
precedes. Lk. xvii. 7 — 8 Tls...£pei...dW ovxi ipei.. .is interrogative. 

- [2265 (i) />] Numb. xxiv. 17, LXX deifa avrui kclI ovxi vvv. representing the 
Hel>. vaio by kcU. I have not found ovxi in the Egypt. Pap. Indices. 

3 [2265 (i)< ] Steph. (v. 2351) shews that Xenophon regularly says Ovk, dXXd 
whereas Epictetus says Oia dXXd. It has been shewn above (2231 ti ) that where 
Mt. has ovxi interrog, the parall. Lk. sometimes differs. On the other hand where 
Lk. xii. 51 has the negative o^x'i X^w iVtV, dXX' ij dia/j.epio-fxdv, the parall. Mt. x. 34 
has ovK.dWd. Mt. never uses ovxi otherwise than interrogatively. Mk does not 
use it at all. Steph. quotes I'orphyr. for a freq. and peculiar use of oi'X' St. 


NUMBER [2268] 

plurality may explain the plural (if genuine). In xix. 31, Iva p.}} 
IX€Lir] €ttl tov crravpov to. a(op.ara...iva KaTtayiUcriv avrwv to. CKeXy] /cui 
dpOuHTii; 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 p*r) fx.fivrj...Lva KaTeaywcriv). But (in spite 
of the genitive avruv, 2419 b) o-Ke'A.77 may be accusative : " that they 
might have their legs broken and be taken away." In the parable of 
the Good Shepherd, ivpojBara 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 (olSao-iv) his voice," and, having thus 
dropped into the plural, the writer continues to describe them 
individually: x. 5—8, "they will not follow," "they will flee," "they 
know not," "the sheep heard (pi.) them not (ovk rjKovaav avr<2v to. 
7rpd/3ttTa)." Finally the writer returns to the singular with ovk Iutlv — 
an emphatic phrase frequent in classical Greek — describing the 
"hireling" as one (x. 12) "whose own the flock is not (ov ovk Zo-tlv 

to. 7rp6j3aTa tSta)." 

(hi) Special words 

(a) Ai'mata (i. 13) 

[2268] Concerning those who (i. 12) "received " the Logos it is 
said that "he gave them authority to become children of God," and 
that these (lit.) "not from bloods (ai/xarajv), nor yet from will of 
flesh, nor yet from will of man (avSpos), but from God were begotten." 
The plural of "blood," both in classical Greek and in Hebrew, 
almost always means "bloodshed 1 ." But Horce Hebraicce {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 "bloods' 2 " in such a way as to indicate that it might mean 

1 [2268 a] Geseii. 196/', and Steph. al/j.a: but Steph. does not quote Eurip. 
Ion 693 (Chorus) aXKwv rpafieis a<p' ai/jL&Tuv 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 e£ aifj.&Tui' ovde aapKCov . . .Traidevdels . . ., d\\' ££ ayiov irvevfj.a.To% naddiv.... 

2 [2268/'] Ezek. xvi. 6 (lit.) "in thy bloods" (thrice) LXX ev ry ai>art...e/c rod 
aifxaros <rov (and om.) (Field, 6 "KjSpaios iv rrj uypaffiq. crov) rep. xvi. -22 LXX iv 
ti£ ai/jLari crov. 


[2269] NUMBER 

there, as Chrysostom says it means here, " the fleshly pangs of 
childbirth 1 ." 

[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," dvSoo's as distinct from ywij) 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 8 . Possibly one 

1 [2268 c] Chrys. tuiv aapKiKQv didivuv, and similarly Cramer Hesvch. refers 
to ai/xaros and yeverjs in the Iliad vi. 21 r, 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 al/xa to Greeks 
in later times. 

[2268,/] In LXX, no attempt is made to render literally the Heb. pi. "bloods" 
in the Pentateuch, but alpara, "bloodshed," is freq. after Judges. "His bloods 
be upon him" is ^oxos 'icrai. in Lev. xx. 9 etc., but "AX\oj has alfxa there and 
aifxara in Lev. xx. 1 r. In the obscure passage about (Ex. iv. 25, 26) "a husband 
of bloods? connected with circumcision, LXX has aip.a, but the rest of the 
translators have aip.6.Twv in one or both of the verses. 

2 [2269 a] Codex 13 omits (but ins. in marg.) ovde e/c OeXr/uaTos dfdpos, which is 
also perhaps omitted in a paraphrase by Clem. Alex. 460 top ovk it, aip.dTuv ovde 
(k deXri/xaros aapKos, ev iruevfiari be dvaytwupfvuv. Irenaeus (iii. 16. 2 and iii. 19. 
2) twice omits e£ aifiAruv, and has once "from the will of God." Tertullian (De 
Came 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 tarn exaggeranter inculcavit, non ex sanguine, nee 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 e'£ 
aipdroiv Kal (widv/jLtas aapKtKTJs. Irenaeus and Tertullian must have read, with b, 
iyevv-qdr) (natus est) for eyeuv-qdriaav: 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. 
SShas "in blood." 

[2269/;] 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, yevridrivai is rendered "generated," to dis- 
tinguish it from yevi>Tj0T)i>ai, "begotten": Apol. 21 "That the Logos, which is the 
firsl begotten offspring {yivvr)p.o.) of God, has been generated (7 tyevrjo 6 at) without 
sexual union (£rrifju%las), Jesus Christ our teacher..."; Apol. 22 "But even if [or 
But if also, referring to previous el nai koivws] \\v say that uniquely, contrary to 
common birth {ylvtciv). He has been generated (yeyevrjaOai) from God [asj God's 
Logos, as we said above, let this be in common with you (icotvdv tovto Iotu 
who say that Hermes is the LogOS that brings messages from God"; Apol. 32 

"For the phrase (Gen. \lix. ti) 'blood of the grape 1 was significant of the fact 

that ll<- that was to appear would indeed have blood, but not from human seed 
but from divine power...: for as not man, but God, hath made (Trarolt]Kfi>) the 


NUMBER [2269] 

of the two clauses BeXyj/xaTOS cmp/co's and 0e\rjjxaTO<; av&pos may be 
an interpolation ; but e£ alfidrtov 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 1 ." 
If that allusion is included here, the meaning of "not from bloods" 
is twofold, ist, "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 
(ilxrivveTo...yevrjae<ydai) not from human seed but from [the] power of God." 

[2269c] Justin's Dialogue has similar passages: Tryph. 54 "Christ hath 
indeed blood, but not from seed of man (dvdpixnrov) but from the power of God 
(tov deov). For as not man, but God (lit.) begot (eyivurjo-ev) the blood of the vine, 
so [the prophet] indicated beforehand that the blood of Christ also would be not 
from human birth (yivovs) but from [the] power of God. Now this prophecy... 
demonstrates that Christ is not man from men begotten (yevvndeis) in the common 
way of men (/card to koivov tGiu avdptlsTrwv) " ; 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 by the Father by will 
(/ecu 4k tov and tov Trarpos deX-qaei yeye uria 6ai) " ; Tryph. 63 "since His blood 
(lit.) has not been begotten from human seed (ws tov a'ifxaros avTov ovk e£ dvdpw- 
ireiov cirepfiaTos yeyevfrjp.€vov) but from [the] will of God (dXX' e/c 6e\rjfiaTos dfov) " ; 
Tryph. 76 " For the phrase (Dan. vii. 13) ' like a son of man ' makes it clear that 
He was to appear and to have been brought into being (cpaiv6p.efoi> kcli ywo/xevov) 
a man, but not from human seed... He was indeed to have blood, but not from men ; 
even as not man, but God, begot the blood of the vine." 

[2269 1/] 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 "blood") 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 aip.a.Twi> to mean, " not 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 "blood" in any sense, may be excluded from 
a consideration of the nature of the birth. 

1 [2269 e] 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 Shemoth Rab., sect. 19, and Gloss, in Vajikra Kab. fol. 191 
as to " the blood of the passover mingled with the blood of the circumcised." 


[2270] NUMBER 

(/3) 'Ima'tia 

[2270] 'I/tana (pi.) occurs in John as follows, xiii. 4 "he layeth 
aside his garments," xiii. 12 "he took his garments," xix. 23 "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 Ifxaria from the x^ojV (i.e. 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 1 . 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 2 ," but casting lots for it; and he quotes the 
Psalmist's prophecy "They parted my clothes (i/idno) among them, 
and on my clothing (i^aTto-/xoV) they cast [the] lot." This prophecy 
may have afforded John an additional reason for preferring the 
plural IfidrLa, even though our Lord wore nothing but the cloak 
over the tunic 3 . 

1 [2270 </] Mk v. 28 Iftarlw = Mt. ix. 21 i/xariov : Mk v. 27 has i/xariov (but 
ib. 30 i/xari^v). Mk v. 27 — 30 has pi. in speech, sing, in narrative. 

2 [2270 />] 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 Treptp^afres 
avTwv ra i/xaria, two or three scribes have eavrwv, supposing that the praetors rent 
their own garments (2563 c); but the meaning is that they caused the garments 
to be rent off from the Apostles. "Rend (garments) " in Mk-Mt. is Siapr/aav, but 
in Jn ffx^w. 

'■' [2270(1 I" iii- 33 vSara iroWd, the pi. of vdup, being freq. (Steph.) in non- 
hebraic Greek as well as in I, XX, 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, 
xvii. 1, xix. (). In Rev. xvii. 1 (Jer. li. 13, I. XX pi.), it is used of turbulent forces 
(as in Is. viii. 7, I. XX sing.). The first use of II eh. " many waters" (( iesen. c,i ; a) 
refers to the waters -1 Meribah (Numb. xx. n, I. XX sing.). In the Psalms 
xxix. 3, xxxii. (1, lxxvii. 10. \iiii. 4, cvii. 23, cxliv. 7, r5aro 7roX\d denotes Stormy 

violence, ovei which Jehovah rules, or from which tie delivers the Psalmist. In 

Ezek. xvii _:, 8, x\\i. 5, " many waters " (I. XX OSup iro\v sing.) denotes fertilising 
streams, hut in Ezek. xxvi. 19 il.XX sing.) it denotes destroying inundation. 



Participle (1894*) 

(i) Causal 

[2271] This is more frequent in John than in the Synoptists. 
The Johannine phrase "answered and said," as distinct from the 
Synoptic "answering (diroKpiOeis) 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 wearied {kikott- 
laKws) by the journey, was sitting, just as he was (ovtws) by the 
well," K€/<o7n.aKws 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 wearied 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 1 ," 
prepared the way for the work of the Apostles in later times, 
as described in the Acts (viii. 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 2 — says that the disciples conveyed Him "as he was (ok 
rjv) " 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 " because (on) 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. 

' : [2272 «] 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 (£Sei) that he should go through Samaria"). In Jn (as 
in Rev.) del always refers to spiritual decree or spiritual necessity, iii. 7, 14, 30, 
iv. 10, 24, ix. 4, x. 16, xii. 34, xx. 9. 
2 Mk iv. 36. 



[2273] In the same narrative (iv. 9) " How is it that thou, being 
a Jew, askest drink from me, being a Samaritan?" the participles 
might be most obviously explained as "though thou art," and 
"though I am." But an explanation more in accordance with 
Johannine usage would be to render the participles by "since" 
having regard to the negative implied in the question : " Thou hast 
no right, since thou art a Jew, to ask drink from me, since 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 testifying (rrj<; y. 
/xaprvpovar)<; . . .) " means "testifying as she did," suggesting "because 
she repeatedly testified 1 ": 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 etSore? 
probably means "because they knew," not "though they knew" 

(ii) Tenses of (see also Tense, 2499—510) 

(a) TycpAoc con (ix. 25) 

[2274] In ix. 25 "One thing I know, that [though] being [once] 
blind, now I see (rv<p\bs <Sv dprt fikeirw)," the present participle 
is perhaps used for brevity and ttotI is omitted because it has already 
been used (ix. 13 toV irore rucpAoV). 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 [2273a] iv. 39 (A.V.) "the woman, which," (R.V.) "the woman, who." 
Possibly R.V. took it as tt?? 7. rrjs /mapr., which Shakespeare would have rendered 
"the woman that" 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, "7i>//<?" 
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 I s-cntial to the complete meaning of the antecedent ("I heard 
it from the hoy that cleans the hoots"). See the author's How to Write Clearly, 
Seeley and Co., and comp. 1493 a, 1564/'. 



(ft) '0 con 6N rco oypANco (iii. 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," 6 wv eV tw ovpavw. 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 1 ." 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 wv els tov koKttov t. irarpSs. 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 &NOY (*'■*■ "the Son of man") and ownenoynco (i.e. "who is in 
heaven ") may have favoured the interpolation. A* omits con. 

[2275 b] In v. 35 ene'tvos y)v 6 \vx"os 6 Kaiofxevos Kai <palvuii> there are perhaps 
two allusions. The first is to Christ's doctrine about lighting the candle (\vx"os) 
and putting it where all may see (Mk iv. 21, fpxerai, but Mt. v. 15 has Kaiovaiv 
and Lk. viii. 16 axj/as), and prob. to a proverbial distinction between the candle 
that has to be thus daily "lighted" (6 Ka.i6fj.evos) 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 the sun but these [the bodily eyes] are like candlebearers 
(Ai;X"oi'<xots))." The second may be to Sir. xlviii. 1 "his word [i.e. the word of 
Elijah] burned continually like a torch (ws Xaiiiras iKaiero)" ; but there the 
Hebrew ("His words were like a burning furnace"), and the Greek context, 
indicate that kcu'w has a different meaning from that in Mt. Does Kaiofievos here 
mean "continually burning" or "lighted day by day"? In view of Kaio/xevos 
"steadily burning" in Lk. xii. 35 /\vx v0L Kaidixevoi, Rev. iv. 5 Xafitrddes irvpbs 
KaLO/jitvai evihiriov r. dpdvov, xxi. 8 r% Xi/J-vri rrj Kaio/xevr) (comp. Rev. viii. 8, xix. 20) 
and exaiero in Sir. xlviii. 1, we are justified in concluding that the present participle 
means continuousness (" steadily burning") : but the verb itself (" burn ") and the 
context, suggest that the continuousness is only for its appointed hour, and that 
the "candle" not only " burns''' but also " burns away." 



(7) 'H eKMAzACA (xi. 2) 

[2276] In xi. 2 " Now Mary was the [Mary, or, woman] that 
anointed..." it is correct, but not enlightening, to say that the 
Anointing " presented itself to the writer as a past event 1 ," 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 

(iii) Present with rfv 

[2277] The Hebraic use of rjv SiSaWwv, K-qpvcrcrwv etc. for the 
imperfect, "he was teaching, preaching etc." is quite distinct from 
such phrases as rjv ckci KaOrj/ievos " there happened to be on the spot 
sitting " (where rjv is separated from the participle) and also from rjv 
with the perfect passive participle. In N.T., when rjv 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 i)v avaKtijuevos (which however resembles 
both in meaning and in sound the passive pluperfect) and in xviii. 30 
€t /xrj rjv ovros kcxkov ttolwv, where perhaps the intention is, not to 
represent Hebraically the imperfect iKanoTroUi ("if he had not been 
doing mischief") but to suggest "if he had not been a man 
continually doing mischief," i.e. an habitual mischief-worker (SS, l>, 
and/, " if he had not been an evildoer-"). John's general separation 

1 Winer, p. 4.31. 

- [2277 a] In Jn iii. 22 — 3 "Jesus and his disciples came into the land of 
Judaea and there (iicei) he tarried with them and was baptizing (^/SAuTifei'). Novi 
there was also John (rjv hi Kai [6] ' 1 . 1 baptizing (j8a7rWf«»>) in Action," the context 
suggests the meaning "Jo////, a/so, was in that neighbourhood, namely, in Aenon," 
so that it is not quite like the r\v K-rjpvacwv or Sibaaxuv of Mark and Luke. 



of participles from iyevtro and rjv favours their separation in 
i. 6 " There came [into being] (eyeVe-ro) a man (avdpwTros), sent from 
God (aTrtaTaXfjievos irapa Oeov)," where (1937) eycvero is contrasted 
with tjv above, av6pwTro<s with Ao'yos above, and air. -k. Oeov with rjv 
•n-pos tov 6e6v 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 (ipxop-evov) [continually] into the world." On this, 
see 2508. 

(iv) Agreement of 

[2278] A singular noun, when plural in meaning, is often the 
subject of a plural verb, but is not so often followed by a plural 
participle, as in xii. 12 6 o^Aos -n-oXvs 6 €\6<jjv...a.Kovo-ai>T€<;...€\a.f3ov. 
In eXafiov alone there would have been nothing remarkable, nor in 
aKowai/Tcs if it had followed IXafiov : 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 6 o^\os ttoXvs (1739 — 40). In i. 48 -n-po tov ere <S?LXnnrov 
(f>wvrjo-ai oi'Ta vtto ttjv o-vKrjv cTSoV ere the participle may agree with the 
first or second o-e, see 2372 <£. 

(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 : xiii. 1 — 4 "Now before the feast... 
Jesus knowing that his hour had come. ..having loved his own. ..he 
loved them to the end. And, while supper was going on (Sel-n-vov 
yivofxivov), the devil having now put it into the heart... knowing 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 . 

1 [2279 a] The conversion of the two disciples that constitute the firstfruits of 
the Church is preceded by i. 38 orpcMpth 5e 6 T. ical, the cure of the 

impotent man by v. 6 tovtov Idujv 6 'I /cat yvovs on..., the feeding of the five 

thousand by vi. 5 ewdpas ovv rous 6<p9. 6 T. Kal Beaadfiefos oti..., the spiritual 
explanation of the doctrine of the flesh and blood by vi. 61 eldws de 6 1. iv eavru) 
ort... (referring to the "murmuring" of some of the disciples), and Christ's last 

two utterances on the Cross by xix. 28 — 30 nerd ravra eL8ws 6 I. on ifdy] ore 

ovv gXapev to o£os 6 T., where we have the subject preceded first by a participle 
and then by the equivalent of one. 




[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. 

(i) 'Ava 

[2281] 'Avd occurs only once in John, as follows: ii. 6 "Now 
there were six waterpots of stone set there after the Jews' manner of 
purifying, containing two or three firkins apiece (^wpowat ava. /xti-p^ras 
Svo r) rpcis)." 'Ava, with numbers, occurs elsewhere in N.T., though 
very rarely 1 . In the Apocalypse, it occurs in connexion with the 
"six" wings of the seraphs, whom Isaiah describes as with two 
covering the face, with tzvo the feet, and with two flying 2 . Philo 
(2283 b) speaks mystically of the number "six" 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 seven." No one 
disputes that purifying vessels of the Jews may have held "two 
or three firkins apiece" and that dvd /uci-py/ras Si'o t; i-peis means this: 
but if the phrase is also symbolically intended 3 , 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. 9, 10 "[one] denarius apiece,'" Lk. ix. 14 " by fifties,"' x. 1 " by 
twos," Rev. iv. 8 "six wings apiece" xxi. 21 '■''each one (dva. eh) of the several 
gates." In LXX, Oxf. Cone, mentions dvd (in any sense) as occurring — apart 
from dva. fiiaov — only nine times. 

- Rev. iv. 8, alluding to Is. vi. 2 (where dva is not used). 

8 See Enc. 1796 — 7 ("Gospels" § 47)011 the apparent symbolism of Johannine 
numbers generally and, in particular, the (xxi. 11) "one hundred and fifty three" 

4 [2281 r/ ] Field [ad toe.) " Oi 7]VT\r}K0Tes rd vSwp. This is generally under- 

tood "i dt iwing the water from the well, as in Ch. iv. 7. So Si Chrysostom : 

el yap eVe/Wiv rives dvat<7X l ' , ' Tf ' v > V$ l ' vavT0 Tpbs avrous \4yeiv oi diaKovrjcdfitvoi' 



good wine" had been "kept to the last." (i) 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 1 . (2) If, as Westcott explains it, the "drawing" was 
from the well — which would be the usual sense of avrAe'w — 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 that water by chance contract a?iy nncleanness, let him 
Jill the stone vessel with it 2 ." Westcott's interpretation avoids these 

7]/j.els to i'dup i}VT\r)(ra.!/.ei> • rjfieis rds vSptas €PeTr\r)o~a/j.ev " But Migne omits 

i]/ t. v. eveTrXrjO-a/j.ei' and gives no v. 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," ^677377x775, Heb. "bath," was nearly 9 gallons, so that the 6 
vessels would contain 6x2^x9 gallons. 

2 [2282 iz] Hor. Heb. ad loc. quoting Gloss, (apparently) on J\elim cap. 1, 
hal. 1. The phrase " the stone vessel" suggests that one 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 ^£77)777-775, Steph. says that the Attic 
measure differed from the Roman or Italian, and also quotes Aristotle as mention- 
ing a fierpTjrrjs MaKeSoetKos. The grammarian Thomas said, ap.<popevs Mye, /J.i] 
<tt6.ij.vos /J.rj5e /j.erpT]Trjs, ei kcli Tives. It is applied, however, by Polybius ii. 15. 1 
to wine in Gaul (tov 5' o'ivov tov /uerp^r^j') 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 /neTpriTrjs of wine on condition that it shall keep its 
name because of ixeTpioTTjs, i.e. he is to drink moderately. On the other hand, 
Xenarchus the Rhodian was called p-^Tp-qr-qs because of his vast drinking. 



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 and 
stavs 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 first in the vessels of the Law. 
Thence, having been transmuted, it is "drawn forth now (emph., vvv)" 
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 1 ) 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" "three" 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' 2 . 

1 [2283 a] Acts x. 14. Comp. Ephrem p. 56 " Denique hoc miraculum fecit 
ut res viles in delicatas permutando doceret eas non esse natura malas" — where 
perhaps "viles" means "common," "cheap." 

2 [2283/»] Philo says (ii. 281) "The number Six 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 Six generates these things the Seven exhibits when per- 

d." 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 [saiah's mention 
of the uses of each of the three pairs of wings would favour Philo's allegorizing 
interpretation <>i the "two" and the "three" as making up the "six." A work 
like the Fourth Gospel, which appears, even when narrating facts, to set them 
forth with symbolism and allusion, might naturally illustrate this sign, apparently 



(ii) 'AvtC 

[2284] 'Aim 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 {avri) 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, avri is used in phrases describing the 
lex talionis of "like for, i.e. in the place of like." The Thesaurus 
quotes "man for man," "woman for woman," "insult for insult," 

performed on the sabbath, by a numerical detail suggesting " two " and " three'" as 
part of the preparation for what Philo calls "the Seven when perfected." 

[2283 c] Origen (Philocal. i. 12) explains dva. fxerpriTas duo i) rpeh as referring 
to three different aspects of the Scriptures, and he adds If U i/dpiai evX6yws dai 
rots ev ti2 Kda/iu) Kadapi^o/xivoLS yevoixivu (Robinson yeyevrj/nfrip) ev If -fnxipais 
apidfiw Te\el<p. 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 10 are called perfect numbers, because 3=1 + 2; 
6=1 + 2 + 3; 10=1 + 2 + 3 + 4. Philo (ii. 183) and Clement of Alexandria (782) 
call 10 " the all-perfect or all-perfecting decad " {8eK&5i 7-77 TravTeXdy, i] Sckols 5e 
ofioXoyelraL wavr^Xeios elvai (the fern, in -da 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 d] 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 1] In renderings of O.T., neTp-qT-qs represents the Hebrew bath, a 
measure of liquid, as follows: Ezek. xlv. 14 "the bath of oil. ..tenth part of a 
bath out of the cor which is ten baths, even an homer ; for ten baths are an homer," 
LXX thrice KorvX-q, Aq. (twice) fj.eTpr)Trjs, Theod. twice /3aTos: 2 Chr. iv. 5 "three 
thousand baths," LXX fierp^Tas (Field) "AAXos- Kepania (comp. Is. v. 10 "bath," 
Kepd/Aiov, Ot XoLTToi' fSdrov), parall. i K. vii. 26 " two thousand baths," LXX om. , 
A citcTxiAtous X of ' s : ' Esdr. viii. 20 "an hundred measures (fierpTjTwv) of wine," 
corresponding to Ezr. vii. 22 "an hundred baths of wine," aTrodr)Kui>, A /3a5wf. 
In Dan. Bel 3 LXX has eXaiov (Theod. ofrov) /j.erpriTa.1 Iff. 

A. VI 225 15 


"blow for blow" etc., and the Sermon on the Mount has "eye for an 
eye," "tooth/*??' a tooth 1 ." But, apart from contexts suggesting end- 
less vendetta, ovt'i might mean "[coming constantly] in the place of," 
so as to denote "one thing \following\ upon another"; and Origen 
actually paraphrases it so here, "a second grace upon (£tti) a former 
grace," though both in the preceding and in the following context he 
quotes the clause with avri*. 'Am' is used by Philo 3 similarly, but 
somewhat differently, to describe the succession of the graces of God, 
who takes away the old, and dispenses to us constantly "new in the 
place of old." Elsewhere He is said to pour them on us in an 
unceasing and continuous succession or orbit 4 . 

[2286] There is probably in John, as in Philo, an intention 
to suggest the notion of "exchange" rather than that of mere 
succession. Both Origen 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 Law was given to Israel through Moses 
because (Deut. vii. 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 "take away" the first grace, 
i.e. the Law of Moses, so as to establish the second grace, i.e. the 
grace of freedom, or sonship, — the grace of the Father as manifested 
in the grace of the Son 5 . 

[2287] "We all" is perhaps intended to mean more than the 
"we" that is so common in the First Epistle ("we know," "we 
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 fJ.r] tl xaKuiv dfMTravfxa /xepi/xve'wv evpoi/JLyv, Soirjv 5' dvr dviuiv dvias. Alf. quotes 
Chrys. de Sacerdot. 6. 13 vol. i. p. 435 irtpav dvd' eripas fipovrLSa. 

2 Orig. I hut ii. 95. 

a [2285/'] I'hilo i. 254 rds irpwras del xa/"Tas, irplv Kopeadivras i^vfUpiaai (so 
Wetst., Mang., by error, -eadev -Icre) tous Xaxforas, eirtirx^, *<*' rafxiewdfifvos, 
eiacudis irtpas dvrl tKtivwv, ko.1 rpiras dvrl tuv devripwv Kai del vias dvrl ira\aio- 
Tipiiiv, Tore p.(v 5ia<l>tpovoas, rorl 5' av Kal rds avrds eirtdlSuxri. 

4 [2285<] Philo i. 34: 6 ttjv tCjv dwpewv cTrd\\r}\oi> (popdv aTravoTus avvdpwv, 
6 ras x^P' Tas (X°l JL ^'' as d^\\r]\ioi> dva.KVK\ibv. 

5 Comp. I lfl>. x. o "He taketh away the Erst that he may establish the 



received, in various degrees and kinds, gifts from the Pleroma, 
the Fulness of Him that filleth all in all 1 . 

(iii) 'At6 

(a) 'And and e« meaning " [some] of," see 2213 — 5 

(/3) 'Ano, transposition of 

[2288] 'Atto, meaning "off," is placed before ir-qx^v in xxi. 8 
"about two hundred cubits off (euro -n-rj^v Sicucoo-iW)." 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 irpo is transposed in xii. i (lit.) " before six 
days the Passover (-n-po t£ rjfxepwv tow iraa-x -)," for " six days before the 
Passover," like the Latin '■''before the fifth day the Kalends" for "the 
fifth 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 (o.tt6 crraSiW...)." 

(7) 'And and e« describing domicile or birth-place 

[2289] 'Atto and Ik occur in i. 44 " Now Philip was from (ano) 
Bethsaida 2 , from out (eV) the city of Andrew and Peter 3 ," 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 

[2287 />] Perhaps, also, John wishes, at the outset of his Gospel, to indicate to 
his readers why he will very rarely use the Synoptic word, niadds, i.e. "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) "Already 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 TrpoaijXOap (i.e."'EX\vves) $t\t7T7ry ry a7ro B. rrjs Fa\i\aias. 

3 [2289a] A.V. "of B., the city," R.V. "from B., of the city." The Latin 
MSS. render a7r6 by "a," e/c by "de," "ex" (or om.). 

227 15 — 2 


i. 45 — 6 "We have found. .Jesus son of Joseph, — him [that is] from 
Nazareth ('I. viov tov 'Iwcn^ tov U7r6 ~Ka£ > apeT)...From out [Ik) 
Nazareth can any good thing be 1 ?" These two passages, so far as 
they go, suggest that (in both) d-n-o signifies domicile and Ik extraction. 
In the former, Ik 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 (Ik) Galilee ? Did not the Scripture say that//w« out 
{Ik) the seed of David, and//w« (d-n-6) Bethlehem, the village where 
David was (ottov tjv A.), the Christ is to come 2 ?" Here, where we 
might expect "from out Bethlehem," to denote that the Messiah was 
to be born 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 
(rjv 8e tis ao-0eiw) ~La.zams from Bethany (A. diro BrjOavLas) from out 
(*k) the village of Mary and Martha her sister" Chrysostom says, 
" Not at haphazard does the evangelist tell us whence Lazarus was 
(-TToOei' -qv 6 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], 7vas from 
Bethany 3 ," which agrees with the construction in (2289) "Now 
Philip was from Bethsaida." The writer proceeds on the principle of 

1 [2289/;] The Latin versions here translate both airb and e/c by "a": and 
"Joseph a Nazaret(h) (or, Nazara)" in a, b, e, and/, might mean "Joseph of 
Nazareth"; ff has "Joseph qui est a Nazareth," which perhaps increases the 

-[2289c] Codex a, ""; i, " ex...ex...(om.)"; /, "" ; 
f, "de semine David a Bethlehem de castello David venit." Mic. v. 
2 lias ^k, not airb, in the prophecy about "Bethlehem" here alluded to. 

3 [2290a] Comp. iii. 1 tjv de dfdpwiros, in tlcv <!>., X. ovo/xa avrw, apxuiv tGiv'I. 
ovtos r/Xde, where apx a " / ' s certainly the emphatic, if not the predicative part, of 
the sentence. In xi. 1, a, /»,/have "inlirmus Lazarus nomine (or, nomine Lazarus) 
a Bethania," /'.<•. "a sick man, Lazarus by name, from Bethany"; <■ has "erat 
autem quidam Lazarus a Bethania qui tenebatur inhrmitate magna"; all render 
dir6 by "a," in by "de." But d has "de" for both. 



"narrowing down." As Lazarus has not been mentioned before, he 
does not speak of "Lazarus from Bethany," but thus: (i) "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 1 ." It is not certain, he seems to say, that Lazarus was born 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 divo to mean 
domicile and e< to mean extraction. 

[2291] xix. 38 "But after these things Joseph from (aVo) Arima- 
thaea asked Pilate... 2 ." All the evangelists use aVo 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 3 . 

[2292] From the Johannine combinations of diro and e* 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 (aV6) Nazareth of Galilee 4 ," where the parallel Matthew omits 
"Nazareth" and has merely "from Galilee." (2) Matthew elsewhere 
says that Jesus left "the [city] Nazara" (in which Joseph of 
Bethlehem had settled on his return from Egypt 5 ) and settled in 
Capernaum 6 , but that the multitude called Him (not " Jesus from 
Capernaum " but) " the prophet, Jesus, the [man, or, prophet] from 

1 [2290//) The process of "narrowing down," probably used unconsciously by 
many, was recognised by the Jews {Sanhedr. 89 £) 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 dwo by "ab," but e by "qui ab" perh. 
reading 6 aw' 'A. with X. 

3 Mk xv. 43, Mt. xxvii. 57, Lk. xxiii. 51. 4 Mk i. 9. 
5 Mt. ii. 23 Nafa/><?T. 6 Mt. iv. 13 ttjv Nafaprf. 



Nazareth of Galilee 1 ." Luke never uses the phrase "Jesus//w# {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 Nazara where he had been brought up 2 ." 
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 3 ." 
[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 born at Nazareth instead of Bethlehem. John takes up 
the phrase diro 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 born 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 4 . 

1 Mt. xxi. 1 1 6 7rpo07jT7js 'Irjcrovs 6 dirb N. t??s PaXiXeu'as. 

2 Lk. iv. 1 6 rjXdev els Nafapd, ov r/v redpa.LLp.ivos. 

3 [2292 a] Acts x. 36—8, an inextricably confused sentence, or rather group of 
clauses, in which — without any certain grammatical construction— rbv \byov, and 
rb yevbp.tvov pvixa, and " beginning from {dirb) Galilee" occur in connexion with 
"Jesus from {diro) 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 [2293 a] 'Airb, 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 dirb) the Porch" (also " those from Aristarchus, Pythagoras etc."). Swete (on 
Mk xv. 43) quotes Joseph. Ant. xvi. 10. 1 (301) TZvpvKXrjs dirb AaKedaiLLOvos. But 
the quotation, after a parenthesis about the man's character, has £inb'r)fxr}(ras u>s rbv 
'Bpwbi)v, which suggests that dirb A. e. may mean "having come from Lacedaemon 
1 n a visit to Herod." Even if that were not the exact meaning there, dirb would 
probably be influenced by the impending verb (like Soph. Elcctr. 135 rbv y e£ 
'M8a..Mp.vas...dv(rTd(Tus, quoted by Jelf §647). Thayer quotes no instances from 
secular authors. In l.XX, between "Jephthah the Gileadite" and "Elon the 
Zebulonite," we have Judg. xii. 8 " Ibzan from Bethlehem" dirb (but A iic), and 
sim. in 2 S. xxiii. 20 dirb (parall. to 1 Chr. xi. 22 virip by error, al. ex. dwb). Comp. 
also the predicative use in j^'A- xii '- - "" V" WVP & a 7 ™ (A <*) ^apd\ dirb (A iic) 
ovp-ov ffuyyevdas tov Aavd Kai ovofia. o.vt$ Mavwe, Judg. xvii. 1 kcu iytvero dvrip 
dirb (A <!£) opovs 'Etppaip., Kai ovo/xa a.vr$ 'Meixaias. The variations of A are useful 
as indicating that different writers might distinguish differently between dirb and 
(k in phrases of domicile or extraction. 

[2293/'] The difference between dirb and in may also be illustrated by the 



(S) 'And, eK, and n^pA, with eSepxoMAi, see e«, 2326 — 8 

(iv) Aid 

( I ) Aia with Accusative of Person 

[2294] An action may be done Sia nva when it is done '■'■because 
of a person" in various aspects of causation : (i) (motive) "because 
of the doer's love of, or fear of, or, desire to please, the person," 
(2) (action) "because the person helped, prompted, or constrained, 
the doer." In the former aspect appear "The Sabbath was made 
because of [God's love of] man 1 ," and similarly "because of the elect" 
and "because of Herodias 2 ." 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 3 ." 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, i.e. the Father, because of 
whom are all things and through whom are all things (SY oV to. ttclvto. 
Kat Si' ov to. -rrdvTa), in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the 
captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings 4 ." It is also 
concerning the Father that the Epistle to the Romans says, " From 
him and through him, and to him, are all things 5 ." But the Epistle 
to the Colossians says concerning the Son, "All things through him 
and to him have been created 6 ." 

[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) e£ i/xaurov ovk e\d\r]<Ta as compared with the usual ouk 
cbr' ifxavTov \a\Q. 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 [2294 a] Mk ii. 4, iii. 9, Lk. v. 19, viii. 19, dia rbv &x^ov. Comp. 
Mt. xxvii. 19 5i' clvt6j> = (i) "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] 
Sl' avr6v) " (less probably " by reason of {their having seen] him ") see 1652 /;. 

4 Heb. ii. 10. 

5 Rom. xi. 36 e£ avrou ko.1 5i' avrov ko.1 els avrbv to. navTa. 6 Col. i. 16. 



the mediatory action of the Logos. He finds fault with Eve and 
with Joseph for using the phrase "-through God (Sio. tov Oeov) 1 " — 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 
(i) builder, (2) materials, (3) instruments. In the abstract, he adds 
a fourth term as follows : (1) the v<j> ov, "by what," to oItlov, "the 
causal," (2) the e| ov, "from what," r, v\rj, "the material," (3) the oV 
ov, " through what," to ipyakelov 2 , " the instrumental," (4) the BC o, 
"because of what," 17 ama, "the cause (or, 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 3 . 

[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 (Trap airod) as being 
the Causal 4 ." 

1 Gen. iv. 1, xl. 8. 

2 [2295 a] Philo i. 161— 2. Instead of to ipyaXttov, he regularly uses to 
6pyavov, or to. 6pyava, in the context. Aristotle defined a slave as "a living 
orjj-anon"' and Philo says expressly here opyava yap -r)p.eis, so that the term 
includes "living instruments." 

:i [2295/'] So far, so good; but as regards the Cause, the 5t' or afrla, 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?" (Ata tl ;) he asks " On account of what?" (TiVos Suaca;)— 
" On account of what [is the house built] except for shelter and safety..." Tivos St 
ZveKa ttAV o-Kitrr)s kcll acr<pa\eLas Si' S tovto £<ttiv; The sense seems to require rd St 
St' 8 to0t6 iaTiv, " and this constitutes the St' 6 or Why." In his description of the 
necessary conditions for a material house, he enumerates only three, (i) architect, 
(2) stone and wood, (3) tools. He omits tin- cause or motive. Also, in speaking 
of tlu: House of the Universe, he says that ''the cause (cu'Wct) of it-, creation is the 
/ the trchttect." Apparently he makes the object of the human architect, 
which he calls "shelter and security." parallel to the motive of the divine 
Architect, which he calb Ili> "Goodness." 

4 [2296(/| 0«5 oca tov 6eov, d\\a Trap' avrov, tbs atTtov, to o-wfraOat, where 
■jrapd implies proceeding from a perSun, whereas £k might mean "from a source." 
The whole o( the passage indicates a controversial attitude towards loose thinkers, 



[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 live because of the Father (ha rbv Trartpa) so he 
that eateth me, he also shall live because of me (£170-61 81' i/xe) 1 "? 
Starting from the second clause we begin by assuming that this 
is different from the corresponding phrase with the genitive in 
the Epistle, 1 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 (^'o-w/xev 81' avrov)." The phrase £w Sia o-e 
may mean "I live because 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 
thee, must serve thee, for the sake of serving thee [in the future] 2 ." 

who confused these distinctions. Taken all together, these extracts from Philo 
strengthen the probability that John deliberately reserved the instrumental phrase, 
di avrov, 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 Si' 6v 
for the Si ou or vice versa. 

1 [2297a] A.V. "I live by the Father. ..he shall live by me." A.V. mostly 
uses " by " to translate Sid with personal genitive when it refers to the action of 
the Logos. Apparently A.V. took Sid with accusative here as meaning the same 
thing as Sid with genitive. 

2 [2297/*] 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, Si 
ineivov /xkv £G)v did tovtov Si KaXQs fcDc, Dion. Hal. 1579 Sid tovs deotk (478 Si' 
oi)s) /ue7as eytvbfxrjv (Sylb. " frequentius genetivum "), (?) Aristoph. Pint. 470, Plutus 
says Si ifie re $Givto.s v/xds (ambig., perh. "to gain me"). In Hesiod Works 3 — 4, 
ov re Sid fipoToi &vS pes... Aids /xeydXoio ^ktjti 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 Si' eva dvSpa, " 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 
" I would fain live because of you alone (Si v/xa.s fiovovs £?jv eWXw) that I may be 
continually heaping favours on you [all]," and Eustathius, who (on Iliad v. 875 
ffoi Trdvres fiaxo/J-eada) says ijyovv Sid at, Sfioiov t<# 2ot ftD, rjroi Sid ae. This is 
important as indicating that fai Sid at was a familiar phrase meaning " I live for 
thy sake," i.e. to do thee service. Comp. Epictet. iv. 1. 150 (given by Wetst. as 



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 "I 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 to 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 to do 
the will ^/"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, not to do mine oivn 
will, but the will of him that sent me 1 ." But Jesus also says "My 
meat is to do the will of him that sent me 3 ," 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 because 
I desire to serve the Father" \ the second is (action) "I live because 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 e) had implicitly denied that it was right for anyone 

iii. 26) "For my part I had as soon not live, if one •were bound to live for the 
sake of Felicion (Sia <t>i\7]Kiuiva) [i.e. to do F. service] putting up with his frowns 
and fits of slave-like fury (5ov\lko0 (ppvay/xaros, i.e. such as one might expect from 
a slave promoted to office)." Also Winer (p. 498) quotes Long. Pastor. 2 p. 62 
(Schaef.) Sid rds vvfi<pas {£r)at. So the philosopher in Epictetus says to God " I 
abide on earth merely /or thy sake (Sid at) " (2705). 

[2297</] Comparing the two groups, we see that later Greek lakes Sid Tiva. 
in the second sense, "to do anyone service," and especially in the phrase fw Sid. 
Where the future is in view, 'Cw Sid would naturally have the second meaning. 

[2297 e] At' d\\ov, (81' ovSeva etc.) without frrjv, 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 dXXos Si d\\ov ov Svarvxe'i, 
and Ench. xxiv. 1 ot'' Svvaaai iv ko.k£ elvai 5t' dXXoi'. According to Epictetus, 
5v(ttvxQ> Si fiXXoc means " I am made unfortunate because of [my thoughts about] 
another." And this, he says, we ought never to say. This may include both 
meanings " we arc nol to be unhappy because of what anyone has done in the 
past," in " because ('/What anyone may experience in the future." 

' vi. 38. - iv. 34. 



to live "because of another.'''' But here John speaks of the disciples 
as "living because of the Son" and of the Son as "living because 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 sakeof(lv€Ka)" 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 because of (8id)" 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 V 

(2) Aia 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 by [v-n-6) 
the Lord through (8id) the prophet 2 ." But Luke only once uses 
this instrumental 8id in connexion with "prophets" ("written (lit.) 
through (Std) the prophets"); and once he has "through (8id) the 
mouth of his holy prophets" (avoiding personal instrumentality) 3 . 
Where Matthew describes the Baptist as sending "through (Sia) his 
disciples," Luke has "two (8vo Tivd<s) of his disciples 4 ." In the 
Triple Tradition, this personal genitive with 8id occurs only in the 
passages pronouncing woe on him "through whom (81 ov) the Son 

1 [2300 a] Chrysostom comments thus : Kcu 'Iva fx-q AytvvrjTov vop.Lar)S TrpocredrjKev 
evdvs to, &i.a tov Harepa, ov tovto deixvvs 6'ti evepyetas tlvos XP €L0LV ^X €l Tpbs 
to £rjv...Ti odu io~TLt>, Aia Tbv ITaWpa ; Ttjc alriav ivTavda alviTTerai fxbvov. "O 5£ 
\4yei toiovtov eo~TL, Ka#ws eo~Ti ^Qv 6 ITarr/p outo) Kayu fc2. He seems to take 
did as " because of [the divine begetting]" (in sense (i) given above (2297)), and 
to interpret the clause as meaning "because of the life similar to His own 
transmitted to me permanently by the Father." 

2 Mt. i. 22. Comp. ii. 5, 15, 17, 23, iii. 3, iv. 14, viii. 17, xii. 17, xiii. 35, 
xxi. 4, xxiv. 15, xxvii. 9. 

3 Lk. xviii. 31, i. 70. * Mt. xi. 2, Lk. vii. 19. 



of man is to be delivered up'." In John, Sia with genitive of person 
is repeatedly used to denote the agency of the Logos or of Christ, 
"All things came into being through him (oY avrov)," "The world 
came into being through him," "The grace [of God] and the truth 
[of God] came into being through Jesus Christ," "God sent not the 
Son into the world to judge the world but that the world should be 
saved through him 2 " etc. 

[2302] There is ambiguity in i. 7 "This [man] came for witness 
that he might bear witness concerning the light (<£orrck), in order that 
all might believe through him (or; through it, oV avrov). He (eVetvos) 
was not the light, but...." Is it meant (a) that all might believe 
through John the Baptist, or (b) 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 3 ; but (2) there is no other Johannine instance 
of "believe through the Son, or through Him, or through the Light." 
(3) The change from an unemphatic pronoun ("through him (avTov)") 
to an emphatic "he (eKctvos)" may be illustrated by other instances 
in N.T. 4 , 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 (b) 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 "belief 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 all might believe 

1 Mk xiv. 21, Mt. xxvi. 24, Lk. xxii. 22. Comp. Mt. xviii. 7, Lk. xvii. 1. 

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, Si 68ov. 

:1 xii. 36 7T. 645 t6 0UJf. 

4 See Field, Otiutn (on 2 Tim. i?.«6). 



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 all might believe through the Christ, 
or through the Son," or "that Israel should believe through the 

[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 ("in 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 xvii. 20 ("those who believe through their 
logos or word," i.e. through the word of the disciples) the evangelist 
avoids saying "believe through them" (although St Paul uses that 
phrase 1 ) and this, too, although the disciples were destined to 
receive the Spirit: much more does it seem likely that John would 
avoid saying that "all men" were intended (in the divine Providence) 
to "believe through the Baptist 2 ." (8) The pronoun auVos — with 
the exception of the unemphatic and parenthetic "his name was 
John" (ovofxa avrw 'I.), 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," "him" 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 81' avrov in the Epistle refers to the Son ("that we may 

1 1 Cor. iii. 5. 

2 [2304a] The Epistles teem with phrases indicating that "through him (avrov)," 
i.e. through Jesus, would be used in connexion with every gift of God to man, 
and, although -jno-Tevio is not thus used, the adjective iri<rr6s in the First Epistle 
of St Peter (i. 20 — 1) 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 (rovs hi avrov iner ovs els 6e6v)." 



live through Mm 1 "). There appears a preponderance of probability 
in favour of the interpretation "that he might bear witness con- 
cerning the Light that all might believe through that [Light] 2 ." 

(v) Els (see also 2706 foil.) 

(a) For mcTey'to eic, see 1480 foil. 
(/3) Eic without verb of motion 

[2305] This construction is used in the words of Christ, ix. 7 
"Go wash to the pool of Siloam," repeated by the blind man thus, 
ix. 11 "He said to me, Go to Siloam and wash 3 ." Motion is also 
implied in xx. 7 "the napkin... apart, rolled up [and put] into 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 xvii. 23 "that they may be 
completely perfected into one (TeTtAaiojueVoi 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 v. 8 "Three are they that bear witness, the spirit and the water 
and the blood, and the three are into the one (ol Tpels £t? to IV 
elan)." Elaiv appears to be emphatic ("are essentially"), and the 
writer seems to suggest (1) the reality of three witnesses tending "to" 
one truths and (2) the reality of three essences harmonizing themselves 
"into" one nature, namely, that of the crucified Son who first 

1 1 Jn iv. 9 IVo frj(TU)/j.fv 5(' avTov. 

'-' [2304 £] Origen, after an exposition of the words "he came for witness 
to bear witness of the light," says (Iluet ii. 85 n) "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 Origer^, "That is to say, so far as He was concerned (farov i<j> eavT$) — even 
though ' all ' did not ' 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 (17 yap irpbdeais rod ir(^\pavTO% avrbv tjv 
iri<TT(d<Tai iravra.%)." This rather suggests that < >rigen took 8l avrov to mean 
"through the Light— so far as the Light is concerned." 

:1 1 2305 </ 1 I' or \oveii> elf, see Epict. iii. 22. 71 'if' avro Xovcrrj efs OKa<py)v 
(lit.) "to bathe the child into the tub." Nlwrw ek is not given by Steph. 
On th for iv in the Synoplists and later Greek, see 2706 foil. 



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 twice 1 used to describe Christ's 
visitations after the Resurrection (xx. 19, 26) "and he stood (lit.) to 
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 in the midst of them " ; 
and the tradition about Jesus " in the midst " of the disciples is found 
in the Epistle to the Hebrews 2 . The writer of that Epistle regards 
Jesus as "singing the praises of God in 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 3 . 
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. Zcttt} 'Irjaovs et's (marg. eirl) tov alyiaX6v, all the 
Mss. (Alford) exc. BC have ewi. The Latin versions have "in," exc. it which 
has "ad" corresponding to D eiri. In BC the juxtaposition of the two similar 
syllables TceiC suggests that Tc may have been repeated as eis (comp. 2661 c) and 
may have supplanted iiri. There would also be a temptation to alter Zctt] iiri to 
&7T77 et's in order to assimilate the phrase to the two instances of 'iarr) eis applied 
by Jn to manifestations after the Resurrection. Clem. Alex. 104 quotes freely as 
follows : 4v yovv t£ evayyeXlqi, aradels, (prialv, 6 Kvpios eirl rf aiyiaXy wpbs tovs 
/xa6r]Tds — aXievovres 8e 'irvxov — ivecpuvqctv (?) re, Ylaibia, p.rj tl (?) 6\f/ov ?X eT€ >* 

- [2307/'] Heb. ii. 12 "He is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, 
'I will announce thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the assembly (eKKX-qaias) 
I will sing of (vfiv-hau) thee'" (Ps. xxii. 22). So Just. Martyr Tryph. 106 ko.1 6'rt 
ev pimp rdv ade\(pu>v avrov t<TT7], tuiv aTroarbXuv ...ko.1 fj-er avrCov Siayuiv v/iftjcre 
rbv deov, ws Kai ev tols airoixv-rnxovevixaai twu dwoaroXuv bTjXovTai yeyevr^fxevov, to. 
XeiTroura tov xj/aXfxou eSrjXucrev. "Effrc 5e ravra. Air)yr] to ovo/j.6. aov Toh 
ab~eX<poh fiov, ei< fieay iiacXrio-las v/mvtjo-uj ae. The words " not ashamed to call them 
brethren" are illustrated by Jn xx. 17 "Go unto my brethren, 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,:] 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. 



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 foil.) so as to suggest the 
Helper, and then he mentions Him as " standing into 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 
" into the midst " of the Church, and " into the midst " of each of 
the disciples 1 . This view is somewhat confirmed by the next 
instance to be discussed. 

[2308] i. l8 /iovoyci'7/s #€os o wv £ts tov koXttov tov 7raTpos is the 

only passage where the Fourth Gospel uses eh with a form of elvcu. 
SS has "an only [one] a Son from the bosom of his Father," and 
codex a " nisi unicus Alius solus (? els) sinum patris ipse enarravit." 
But there can be no doubt that ets t. koXttov is the true reading and 
that it is intended to mean something different from (xiii. 23) eV t<3 

Kokiru)'. In 1. 1, o Aoyos rye irpos tov 6e6v, koI #eos tjv 6 Aoyos, the 

preposition 7rpos is used to describe " God, the Logos " as from the 

1 [2307 <•/] The passage may be compared with 1 S. iii. 10 "And the Lord 
came, and stood, and called as at other times, Samuel, Samuel " ( LXX Kar^ar-r], 
but "Another" (Field) ia-r-riXwdt}). The 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, not 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 "standfast, 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 (e<rr<2)Tci) " 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 (Huel ii. 82 (comp. ii. 129)) says that this "standing" denotes Christ's 
■wporj-yovix4vT)v inroaracnv Si-qKOvaav eirl iravra rbv Kdfffxov Kara ras \pvxa.s rds \oyiK<is. 
Comp. Log. Oxyrhynch. "I stood (?<rTr)t>) in the midst of the world (udo-fiov) and 
in the flesh appeared to them." It- is quite characteristic of John that he should 
introduce at tin- beginning and at the end of his Gospel similar yet varied traditions 
about the Logos, "standing in the midst " (2646—9). 

8 [2308</| Chrys., however, reprinted by Migne, after quoting the text 6 <2v 
els at the head of his discourse, quotes it (/. 99) thus, (iwwv,. tiri'O wv 4v t<^ k6\tt^> 
t. iraTi>/>s, and henceforth has, consistently, ev (once (p. 100) dis ev toTs k<4\7tois 




beginning "[looking] toward (irp6<;) God." In xvii. 21 and elsewhere 
He is described as being "in " the Father and the Father "in " 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 Feather for the Son ; and as He is Mediator and 
Interpreter penetrating from earth into (ek) 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 into the bosom of the 

[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 to men and is also abiding in them. From 
Man the Logos is ever going up to God and is also abiding in Him. 
Hence concerning the Son incarnate on earth, but ever going up in 
thought and word and act to the Father, the evangelist says that "He 
IS to the bosom of the Father." Again, concerning the Son, when He 
has ascended to heaven, but is ever coming down to the hearts 
of men, it is said that He "came, or cometh, and stood to the midst 
of the disciples.''' 

(7) Eic, "to" or "into" 

[2310] Eis is sometimes ambiguous, since it may mean " to" or 
" into." In iv. 5 " He cometh therefore to a city (eis 7roA.1v)," eis has 
not the same meaning as in iv. 8, 28 "had gone away, or, went away, 
into the city (eis rrjv tt.) " : 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 1 ," 
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 (epx eTat € '?) the tomb" may be 
John's way of expressing what Mark and Luke express by the 
preposition eiri, " up to" or " towards" where Matthew has " they 
came to behold the tomb 2 ." John perhaps hardly ever uses «ri 

1 [2310 a] Comp. Mt. xxi. 1 ijyyiaav eis 'I. /cat fjXdov eis B., Mk xi. 1 iyyifovcriv 
eis 'I. eis B. Lk. xix. 29 has ko.1 iyivero ws -rjyyiaev eis B. preceded by xix. 28 /cat 
etVwf raOTa iiropevero 'inirpoodev ava(3aivwi> eis I. 

2 Mk xvi. 2, Lk. xxiv. 1, Mt. xxviii. 1. 

A. VI. 241 l6 


of motion " up to " or " towards " a place (2336). 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 (elaeXOovo-aL)." Matthew omits this. John has an account 
of the two disciples and Mary, in which the details — how the two 
"began to come to (rjpxovTo e ^) " (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." 


[2312] In vi. 27 " work not for the food that perisheth, but for the 
food that abideth unto eternal life (tt)i/ /xevovaav eis £. alwviov) " if John 
had meant merely "abideth for ever," would he not have written, as 
elsewhere (viii. 35, xii. 34), " abideth for ever (/xeVct ets toV alwva)," and 
consequently does he not mean here "abideth with a view to eternal 
life" 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. 10, n) "living," the full meaning probably is 
" abideth for life eternal" in the double sense of our English "for," 
namely, (1) " lasting for " (2) "for the sake of" or "for the purpose of 

[2313] Another interpretation would make a pause after 
"abideth" (as in xv. 16 "That your fruit may abide)\" 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 — with 

1 [2313 r/ 1 Comp. 1 Pet. i. 23 "Having been begotten again, not from cor- 
ruptible seed but from incorruptible, through the Word of God living and abiding 
(5ia \6yov fwiros Otou nal /x^vovtos)" and I Cor. xiii. 13 "And now abideth faith, 

hope, love." 



a view to life eternal 1 ," where the "view" is probably not man's view- 
but God's. That is to say, the reaper is not described as working 
with his eyes fixed on life eternal, but the fruit is regarded as stored 
up, in the eyes of God (or according to the will of God), for eternal 

[2314] In iv. 14 "The water that I will give him shall become in 
him a fountain of water leaping (a\\o/xevov) — unto (eh) life eternal" 
some have taken the meaning to be "leaping into life eternal.' 1 '' 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 into life " is good 
English, the metaphor is not alleged to occur in Greek. Nor is 
aWofxai alleged in the Thesaurus to be elsewhere applied to water. 
The Greeks have an abundant vocabulary to express a bubbling 
fountain 2 — but (so far as is known) they never use aAAo/xai 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 (vii. 38) "He that believeth on me. ..rivers from his 
belly shall flow— of living ivater" 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 aAXo/Aot, or €<£<zAA.o/acu, in LXX, is applied to the action of 
a "spirit of God" " forcing its way" or " falling violently " on Samson, 
Saul, and David 3 . 

[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 /'] "H5rj 6 deptfav /xardbu \ap.(3di>et. Kal crwdyei Kapirbv els ^wtjc a'ubviov. 
In xii. 25 eh fujr]i> alwviov <pv\d£ei, the nature and the position of the verb make 
the meaning certain. 

2 [2314 a] E.g. in Prov. xviii. 4 "the wellspring of wisdom is [as] a flowing 
brook " LXX dvawjidvei (al. dvawT]8Q)v), Aq. Sym. dvafi\vfav, Theod. av p.(3 pu>v. 
Steph. quotes no passage except this to illustrate the use of dWo/xai " de aqua 

3 [2315 a] "AXKonai in Judg. xiv. 6, 19, xv. 14, 1 S. x. 10, e<pd\\o/xai. in 1 S. x. 6, 
xi. 6. In 1 S. xvi. 13 "The Spirit of the Lord leapt on David from that day 
forth," LXX has e^Aaro, Aq. has ivrjvXladr], Sym. wp/j.ijaei', Theod. ewecpavev. 

243 l6—2 


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 1 . 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 up" (as in Numbers 
xxi. 17, "Spring up, O well") in opposition to a deep well. But 
mystically it appears to mean water "leaping down'' to convey life, 
or else "pulsing" with life, the water of regeneration' 2 . 

1 Acts ii. 2. 

2 [2316 a] The noun a\pLa (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 ffKiprao) in Lk. i. 41 icrKlpr-qaev to /3pec/>os iv rrj /coiXia avrrjs /cat cirXTjtrdr) 
irvevfj.a.Tos ayiov 77 'E\«crd/3eT. 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 " begotten from 
spiritual water" the water of inward generation. 

[2316/$] Origen often quotes iv. 14, sometimes blending it with vii. 38 "rivers 
of water," and seeming to interpret aWo/xevou in different ways, occasionally alter- 
in<* els to eirl to suit his interpretation. A passage in his Coram, ad loe. has ixctte 
TT7)yr)v ...avafi\v(x06.veiv kv avrui &vw tttiSwvtwv vdaruv ...aWeaOcu ko.1 Tr^SaV eVt to 
avwTepov. eiri ttjv aiibviov farjv. But he proceeds to quote Cant. ii. 8 "leaping upon 
the mountains, skipping upon the hills," Trrjdwv ewi to. 8pr) 5to.\\6/j.evos iwl roi>s 
povi>ovs, 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 (TTT/S^crei ^to.) the eternal life, [namely] to (els) 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." 06k airiOavwi 5e to aWofxhov onq^rjixaTO, ko.1 tovs /xeTaXa^dvovras tov 
avwdev iinxopvy 01 '^'' 01 ' v\ov<rius ko.1 avrohs «'k/3\iVoi ds ttjv eTipwv aidbviov fajTje to. 
tirLKexopvyy/J-tva ainoh. Heracleon's rendering of eis a. j"., "701th a view to 
produce eternal life" in others, agrees with the doctrine in vii. 38; but it will be 
rved that he does not paraphrase ak'kop.e'vov by ava.jl\vo-ai but by iic(i\&<rat. In 
Saul of Tarsus, for example, the water of life became a fountain— not merely 
"leaping [up]" to his own eternal life, but— "leaping [out]" to the eternal life of 
the Gentile world. 

[2316r] Comp. Aboth ii. 10— n (ed. Taylor), where Rabban Jochanan, 
ing his five best pupils, calls Eliezer son ol Hyrcanus "a plastered cistern, 
which loseth not a drop," and Eleazar son of Arak " a welling spring." He gave 
the palm to Eliezer, bul the spiritually minded Abba Saul (1022) said, "If all the 
w ise oi I Mr] were in one >i ale of the balam e, and Eliezer son of I [yrcanus with 
them, and Eleazar son of Arak in the other scale, he would outweigh them all." 



(e) "Oyontai eic (xix. 37) 

[2317] El's Ttva is used with ISelu, opav and fiXirreiv to mean 
"looking to" a person for help or encouragement, or in regard and 
deference 1 . Et's 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. 2 Hence in xix. 37 "And 
another scripture saith, They shall look to (oif/ovrat eh) 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 3 , and quotations from Revelation, Barnabas, 
and Justin indicate early Christian divergences as to traditions about 
"looking to" or "looking at" Jesus, and "mourning 4 ." 

1 [2317 a] Steph. (bpaw, 2137, 2139, and eh 292) quotes abundant instances. 

- [2317/;] With e>/3\eVw in Is. xvii. 7, xxii. n, li. 1, 2. The Heb. prep, 
"to" corresponding to et's (Gesen. 40<?) is used with verbs that imply looking 
to anyone in love, hope, expectation, or longing. 

3 [2317 c] Zech. xii. 10 "they shall look unto me (marg. him) whom they 
pierced and they shall mourn for him." LXX rat ewi^\4\povrat irpbs fie av8' div 
KarupxycravTO Ka -l Koxpovrai eV avrbv (al. exempl. ecp' eavrovs), Aq. avv up e^eKevrriaav 
rat KO\povrai avrbv, Sym. 'e'firrpocrOev eire^eKevrrjaav Kal Kb\[/ovrai avrdv, Theod. Kal 
e-KLfiXi'xpovTai. rrpbs fie els ov e^eK^vTTjtxav /cat Koipovrai avrbv. 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 e<p' eavrots should be noted. It converts the " mourning" for the "pierced" 
into " mourning" for the piercers themselves, and quite transmutes the passage. 

4 [2317 d] 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 land shall mourn, every family apart," clearly refers to 
the "land" of Judaea, and the "families" are immediately mentioned as those 
of David, Nathan, Levi, and Simeon, but the LXX rat Kb\j/erai 77 777 Kara 
<pv\as (pv\ds, 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. xii. 10, 
N has btyovrai for Ko\povrai, and this indicates that oxj/ovrai avrbv, "shall see him," 
might be substituted for (Aq. Sym. Theod.) Koxj/ovrat avrbv, "shall mourn for 
him," by Greek corruption. 

[2317 c] Rev. i. 7 has 6\f/erai avrbv rrds b<pda\fibs Kal oirives avrbv i^eKivrrjo-av, 
Kal Kb\j/ovrai eV avrbv iraffai al (pv\al tt)s yrjs, 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 him," instead of " Every 
eye shall look to him." However, it retains "for him" in "they shall mourn 
for hi in." 

[2317 /"] Mt. xxiv. 30 has rat rbre [<pavrj<rerai rb o-qfielov rod vlov rod dvOpwirov 
ev ovpavui Kal rbre KoxpovraL irdaai at <pv\ai rrjs yijs /cat] oipovrai r. v. r. a. epxbuevnv 



[2318] All the Synoptists mention a "beholding {dewpelv)" of 
some kind immediately after the death of Jesus. But Mark and 
Matthew connect it simply with the women "standing afar off 1 " 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 

eirl t. ve<pe\Qv. 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 

[2317 ,.f] Barnabas applies the prophecy to those who crucified the Lord, vii. 9 
" Since they shall see Him (oxpovrai avrov) 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 to") 
and omits all mention of " mourning." 

[2317 h] Justin expressly applies Zech. xii. 10 to the Jews, after mentioning 
a repentance that comes too late to prevent the tortures of hell, 1 Apol. 52 "And 
what the peoples (Kaol) of the Jews will say and do... was prophesied thus by 
Zechariah the prophet... They shall mourn {Kbxpovrai) tribe to (irp6s) tribe, and 
then they shall look to(?) Him whom they pierced (rdre oypovTai els 8v e^eKevr-qaav)" — 
a curious disarrangement, where perhaps Justin misunderstands "look to" (see 
below). The preposition " to" is retained, though ''look" is dropped, when Justin, 
mentioning Hosea (!) and Daniel, says to Trypho [Tryph. 14) " Your people will 
see and understand to whom they have pierced (6\perai 6 Xaos vfiwv koX yvupiel els 
hv i^Kivr-qaav)" and again (32) "one [Advent] in which He was pierced by you, 
but a second when ye shall recognise to whom ye pierced (e-rrtyvwo-ecrde els 6v e'£- 
eKevT-qaaTe) and your tribes shall mourn (KbxpovTai) tribe to {vrpbs) tribe...," (64) 
"whom they that pierced Him are destined to see and mourn (8c bpav p.e\\ov<ri 
ko.1 KbwTeadai oi tKKevT-qaavTes aurbv)," (126) "who shall come again also and then 
your twelve tribes shall mourn (Koif/oi>Tai)." 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 8\f/ovrai els Sv i%eK. to mean, "they shall see and 
recognise Him against -whom they have raised their hands to pierce Him." 

[2317 i] The Gospel of Peter says that after the crucifixion (§7) "the Jews 
and the elders and the priests... began to mourn (KOTrreadai) and to say, Alas for 
our sins," and also that (§ S) "the scribes and Pharisees and elders... heard that 
the whole people (\ct6s) murmured and [mourned] beating their breasts (icd-HTerou. 
ra ffTjjdij)." This resembles I.k. xxiii. 48 TvirTovres to. aTTjd-q (where SS and 
Other authorities add a clause like that of the Gospel of l'eteri. 

1 [2318<;] Mk xv. 40, Mt. xxvii. 55 ■qaau 5i Kal (Ml. ixei) ywaiKes diro 
fia.Kp60ei> dewpou<Tai. Ll<. xxiii. 49 mentions the women later xat yvvaLKes...6pu><Tai 



beating their breasts 1 " — 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 "to" 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 to 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 2 . 

(X) Eic TeAoc 

[2319] Eis re'Aos occurs in John once, in the only passage where 
he mentions reXo?, xiii. i (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 unto the end 
(marg. to tlie uttermost) (eis re'W)." 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 both the 
meanings given by R.V. 

[2320] In LXX, eis re'Aos means " to the end" in the sense of "to 
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 " I will bring thee up to the 
uttermost, or, in the end (cis tc'Aos)." On the other hand, in Job, 
LXX has "let him not cut me off A? the [bitter] end (cis reAos)," where 
the Hebrew and Aquila have " let loose the hand [for destruction] 

3 » 

1 Lk. xxiii. 48 koX iravres oi <TVVTrapay€i>6p.(voi. 6'xXot eiri ttjv Oeupiav TavT7)v, 
dewprjaavres to. yevopeva, rinrrovTes ra ar-qdrj i>ir£(TTpe<pov. 

2 [2318 fi] 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 land" 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. fVt^aXwc ttjv x €i P a - 



Elsewhere eis rcXos 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 1 ? " Somewhat different is its use in Ps. xvi. n "In 
thy right hand are pleasures [for] evermore" and (xlix. 9) "that he 
should still live a/way 2 ." 

[2321] In Greek literature of all periods es Te'Aos is almost always 
used of that which lasts " to the end" or "turns out to be the fact 
when one comes to the endV Exceptionally, in Polybius (where it 
is very frequent indeed), it means "perfectly" ; but the Thesaurus 
quotes no instance of this meaning from any other ancient author. 
Lucian perhaps uses it once to mean "perfectly* " but he certainly 
uses it once to mean "persistently 5 ," 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 "to the end" is 
unquestionably predominant. 

[2322] In N.T. the usage of eis riko^ is as follows. In 1 Thess. 
ii. 16 ecpOacrer 8k eV avTovs rj opyy] eis re'Aos "the wrath [of God] hath 
come upon them to [the bitter] end," the meaning follows the LXX. 

1 [2320 a] Ps. ix. 18, xliv. 23, lxxiv. 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 " not " last "for ever." But in Uab. i. 4 (R.V.) 
"judgment doth never (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 every it describes the destruction of man, but not in xxiii. 7 "So shall 
I be delivered for ever." The word rendered rAos 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. 1 uses ^XP 1 
tAocs thus, "Not to the end Aid thy anger abide," "on the impious there pressed 
unpitying anger to the end." 

[2320/'] EZs to rAos, Ps. iv. (title) R.V. "For the chief musician" (Aq. ru> 
vikottoiQ, Theod. et's rd vinos, Sym. iwivliaos) represents a different form of the 
same Hebrew root that is rendered et's rAos above. It is consistently given by 
l.XX in the titles of the Psalms where R.V. has "For the chief Musician." 

- [2320 1 I Ps. xvi. 1 1 Aq. vinos, xlix. 9 Aq. els vikos, Sym. els aiwva. 

3 [2321a] Steph. (rAos 1996—7) qu. Solon ap. Stob. Fl. 9, 25, :8 : Aid 
5' ovti \t'\r)0e oiafxwfpis ocrrts dXirpov 6v/u.6v ?x el J t'o.vtws 5' es rAos i^trpav-q. Fur. 
Iph. A. 161 OvrjTilv 5' SXpios ('s tAos oi'ofis. Steph. quotes no authors but Polybius 
ami Theodor. Prodr. for the meaning "perfectly." 

4 [2321 /'| Lucian Sown. 9 |i. 1:1 "I am Education, my child, a familiar 
acquaintance of yours for some lime, even though you have never yet had a 
perfect experience Oi me (tl nal fiySt-trw els rAos /jlov wcirflpaaai)." 

5 Lucian A 3 (iii. 260) "you keep on jeering at my VOW (es rAos... 
£irqpeA.fav)" referring to (il>. 25) a previous mockery. 



In Lk. xviii. 5 fx,rj ets te'Aos ep^o/xeVr/ ww 77-1(1417 /xe, 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 to theendhz shall be saved," and this is (no doubt correctly) 
punctuated as meaning " He that endureth to the end — he shall be 
saved 1 ." But even in Greek, apart from Hebrew originals, a's tc'Aos 
is liable to create confusion by being connected with what precedes 
instead of with what follows 2 . Much more, in Hebraic Greek, might 
a doubt arise, whether " to the end " ought not to be connected with 
"saved" ("he that endureth — to the end shall he be saved") as 
meaning "saved to the utmost," "saved in body, soul, and spirit." 
The parallel Luke omits "to the end," but has two clauses, " (1) A hair 
of your head shall surely not perish, (2) in your endurance ye shall 
win your souls 3 ." 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 presented entire 
without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ 4 "; 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 to the end (eco? Te'Aou?) unreproveable in the day 
of our Lord Jesus Christ 5 ." 

1 Mk xiii. 13, Mt. x. 22, xxiv. 13. 

2 [2322 a] See Steph. re'Xos 1996 D " Polyb. 8, 2, 2 : To [xei> yap pr/devl 
TTLtTreveiv els re'Xos airpanTov ■ ubi Schweigh. non recte disjungere eis reXos ab seq. 
airpaKTOv ostendit." 

3 [2322/;] Lk. xxi. 18—19. Comp. Jas v. 11 "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 "if we endure." It is also absolute in 1 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. 

4 1 Thess. v. 23. 

;l [2322 c~\ 1 Cor. i. 7 — 8. Comp. Heb. vii. 25 <jw'get.v els to Tra^reXes Svvarai 
"to save to the utmost," which, however, Chrys. explains as meaning "to all 
time," del, and i/eei ev rrj /meWovari fafj. Comp. 2 Clem. 19 'iva els re'Xos ffoidwixev 
"be saved unto the end" i.e. "retain salvation to the end," differing little from 
"be saved in the end," Barn. iv. 6 "utterly (or, for ever) lost," els r. dTnbXeo-av, 
x. 5 " utterly (or, irrevocably) impious and already adjudged to death," xix. 11 
" Utterly [ox, for ever) shalt thou hate the evil [one]." In Hernias Vis. III. x. 4 — 5 
i\apa 8e els tAos follows, as a climax, on iXapwrepa, and means "joyful to the 



[2323] Returning to xiii. i eh tc'Xos yyaTr^crev avrovs, we have to 
bear in mind that John must certainly have known (i) that eU tc'Aos 
was used in the first century to mean "to 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 to 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) foil.) 
that in the Pauline Epistles and elsewhere the aorist rjyaTrr/o-ei' 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 (2320 c) suggesting victory as 
well as consummation — and that he means something to this effect : 
" Having loved them before, he now loved them to the last, in a last 
and crowning act of victorious love 1 ." 

(vi) 'Ek 

(a) 'Ek meaning "some of," see 2213—5 

(ft) 'Ek meaning "native of," as distinguished from And "coming 
from," or "resident in," see 2289—93 

1 [2323 rt] Chrys. appears to give two interpretations, taking ei's reXos 07., 1st, 
as <r<t>68pa 1x7., 2nd, as aya.iru>i> SirjveKus : — (1) EI5<fs 7rcDs fiiWuv iyKaTaXifMirdveiu 
avrovs <T<po5poTtpa.v tt> aydtrr)i> emdeUvvTai; Td yap, 'Ayawqaas, eis rAos i)ya.Try)<Tiv 
avTous, toOto 577X0? • Oi''3ei/ iveXtirep u>v top <T<p68pa dyairuivra duos t> iroirjtrai. Tl 
5i77rore 5e ovk e£ dpxv* rovro eiroiijae ; Td /xflfova Harepov epyiferai..., (2) Ti 6V 
ecTiv, Eh re\os r\ydivr\aiv avrow ; 'AvtI tov, ifxevtv dyatrwu SirjveKWS, KoJ TiK^piov 
7-77S -rroWrjs dydir-qs tovto \iyei. 

|2323 /'| There is a similar expression with vwepayawdv and Tre'pas in Barnabas 
v. 8 -rrepas 7^ toi oiddnnwv rbv'\<Tpar)\ K. TTjXiKavTa ripara k. ttoiCiv (Krtpvcffev, 
k. inrepriy&irriofv aindv, where nepas means "as a climax - ' (or "finally"), vrrtp 
means "to the utmost," and the aorist means that love was expressed in definite 



(7) 'Ek MeTpoy 

[2324] This phrase occurs in iii. 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 
Thesaurus. 'Ev /Merpw means "in small measure'''' in Judith vii. 21, 
Ezek. iv. n, 16, but "in large measure" in Ps. lxxx. 5 (where Aq. 
has Tpio-o-dr, and Sym. fierpw without iv 1 ). The Thesaurus gives 
fxerpw for "in due measure," or "by measure," usually in a good 
sense, and iv /j.eTp<p for "in metre." The text is uncertain 2 . If "he" 
could be taken as the Son, the meaning might be "[the Son] doth 
not g'wefrom 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 Ik fxerpov is not 
found in Greek literature 3 . See 2714. 

(8) 'Ek with ccbzoo and THpeco 

[2325] It has been shewn elsewhere (940) that in LXX, and in John, 
ek, with o-w£w and tt^coj, does not always imply "take me out of evils 
in which I am." It may be used in the prayer "Keep me altogether 

1 [2324 a] So, too, Apollinarius here (Cramer ad loc.) iifxeh p.ev ovv, (prjal, 
jUerpu; tt}v ivepyeiav tov IlvevpaTos i\aftop.ev, avros r)e ov\ ovtws. 

- [2324(6] B omits "the spirit" (but B- adds it in margin): Syr. Burk. "for 
not by measure did the Father give [the Spirit] to his Son, but he loveth...." SS 
is partly illegible, but reads " For not by measure gave God the Father, but to his 
Son [he was loving] and...." Cramer prints a comment of Ammonius, okov e"x« 
to Ilvev/xa 6 Tios ov<na)5u>s, ov p.y]v ck piepovs ws KTia/xa: and Wetstein mentions etc 
fiepovs as a substitute for e*K perpov in three cursives. Many MSS. and versions 
insert 6 debs after 5i8uo-iv. 

3 [2324 (] Perhaps ovk e/c fiirpov is used with allusion to the LXX oik eK/xeTp-r)- 
drjaerai (Hos. i. io, Jer. xxxiii. 22 (Theod.)) and to the LXX use of fiirpov 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 (K\ijpovopia) " and that the Lord is 
this " lot (fiepis)" — comments on " lines (cr^wia)" as follows, Et to axoi-vlov P^pov 
earl, irws yiypairTcu if t. k. 'I. evayy. (iii. 34) ; and he suggests that the term 
fierpov is used ov irpbs avTrp> tt\v yvG>ai.v dWa 7rapa tov virobexb^evov Tip p.rj elvai 
civtov peifrvos deKTiKbv, "for," he adds, "the rain, though itself immeasurable, 
is measured in the vessels that receive it : eKX-qpoooTrjdy] di p.01, <p-qoiv, uxnrep 4k 
peTpov 77?, r) Ktd dpKovp.0,1. Apparently he takes ex piTpov as meaning, for the 
Psalmist, "proportionate [to my 7vants]" and ovk iK p.erpov for Christ as "im- 
measurable. " 

[2324 </] 'Ek peTpov might conceivably be a way of expressing eV.uerpos 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 
e/c fiirpov, in such a sense, is still more improbable. See 2714. 



out of evil" and is probably thus used in xii. 27 "save me from (e«) 
this hour" and xvii. 15 "keep them from (Ik) the evil [one] (tov 

(e) 'Ek, atto, and TTApA, with eSepxoviAi 

[2326] These three prepositions are used as follows to describe 
the coming forth of the Son from the Father: — 

(1) (Ik) viii. 42 "For I came forth from (Ik) the Father and am 
come (t)k(o)," 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 (viii. 44) "from their father the 
devil (ck tov Trarpbs tov Sia/3oA.ou) " : xvi. 28 "I came forth from 
(Ik) the Father and have come (iX-qXvOa) into (eh) the world," where 
the preceding verse says -n-apa t. -n-a Tpos e^rjXOov, i.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 

[2327] (2) (oltto) The words of the evangelist, xiii. 3 "Knowing 
that .. from (aVo) God he came forth and unto (-n-pos) God he goeth 
back," are to be compared with those of the disciples, xvi. 30 
"Herein we believe that from (aVd) God thou earnest 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 (irapd) 
the Father," and (xvi. 28) "I came forth (lit.) out of (U) 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 -n-apa and Ik to otto. 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) (Trapa) xvi. 27 "For the Father of himself taketh you 
as friends (<pi\ei i>pas) because ye have taken me as friend (e>e 
Tr«f>i\r}><aTe) and have believed that I came forth from the side of 
(vrapa) 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 [i.e. the disciples] recognised (iyvoHrav) in truth (d\i/0<Ss) that 
I came forth from thy side (irapd a-ov) and believed 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 ^>i\«r, see 1728/ and 2584 c. 

2 c 2 

PREPOSITIONS [2329 (i)] 

(£") 'Ek with nAHpooo and reMi'zoo 

12329] In xii. 3 "but the house was filled full (iir\rfpw6rj) from 
(ex) the odour of the ointment," B reads i^Xr/adr) (for e7rA^pw'(9r/) and 
this is the word used in 2 Chr. vii. 1 "the glory of the Lord filled 
(eTrXrjae) the house," as also by nA in Is. vi. 4 "the house tvas filled 
(LXX Iv^\7](tBi]) with smoke." But perhaps John uses -n-X-qpoot 
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 eV, 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 <ek expressed the Hebrew preposition used with 
"fill." But John might give it a spiritual application by taking the 
house as the House of God, i.e. the Church, which is "fulfilled," 
i.e. brought into the fulness of the glory of Christ, as a result of {Ik) 
this sacrifice of sweet savour. Origen takes some such view of the 
"house," which he calls "omnem hujus mundi domum ac totius 
ecclesiae domum 2 ." 

[2329 (i)l In vi. 13 iyifxiarav 8wSe/<a Kcxpu'ovs KXarrpaTwv c'k t<Zv 
irivTi. aproiv twv KpSivuw a irrepia-a-evaav tols /3e(3pwKoatv, is the 

connexion "filled [full] of fragments" or "baskets of fragments"? 
Our English versions adopt the former. A.V. has "filled twelve 
baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves," R.V. "with 
broken pieces from the five barley loaves." Westcott does not dissent. 
His comment on A.V. is "fragments i.e. the pieces broken for 
distribution (Ezek. xiii. 19)." But John has not mentioned any 
"breaking" for distribution. Chrysostom ad loc. calls the fragments 
Xd\\, a word denoting "fallen fragments." Origen speaks of "the 
barley loaves from which («<£' wv) there superabounded the twelve 
baskets 3 ." The Latin and Syriac versions indicate that Kocptvoc 

1 [2329 a] See Winer xxx. 8 (b) p. 251 quoting Rev. viii. 5 yefiifciv iic, xix. 21 
XopTdfeiv €K, xvii. 2, 6 fiedveiv, or iJ.e0WKecrda.i, e'/c. Comparing Mt. xxiii. 25 
Zawdev ytfiovcriv il- apiray^ with Lk. xi. 39 to ktrwdev v/xwv ytfiei apwayris, he 
thinks the former means that the contents of the vessels are derived from 

" 2 [2329/;] Horn, on Cant. i. 12. He takes the fragrance however to be that 
of the " odor doctrinae qui procedit de Christo et sancti Spiritus fragrantia." 

3 Origen Comm. Matth. about "the seven loaves." 



KXaa-fxarm' should be connected — as probably in Luke 1 (though 
Luke may mean "pieces broken for distribution") — and that the 
meaning may be, as in the Syriac, "filled twelve baskets-of -fragments 
from the five barley loaves 2 ," taking ye/u.i£w and Ik together. 

(vii) "Efxirpoo-Oev 

[2330] "E/xTrpoaOev <tov occurs in Matthew and Luke ("prepare... 
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 "before my face" 7rp6 Trpoa-wirov /jlov, instead of "before thee." Mark 
omits the clause with "prepare," but has "send my messenger before 
thy face (71730 irpotnIiTrov <rov)," and attributes the prophecy to "Isaiah." 
These facts shew that there were early Greek variations as to 
Z/Airpocrdei' applied to the Baptist as being the forerunner of Christ. 
Like the English "before" (in "placed before" "stands before" 
"ranked before") so ZpTrpoaBev, 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, (i. 15, 30) "He is become before me" 
i.e. "ranked before me" and, in the third instance, (iii. 28) "I have 
been sent before him" i.e. as His herald or harbinger 3 . 

1 [2329 (i) <?] Lk. ix. 17 ifpdrj rd irepicraevcrav avrots KXaa/ndruv xdcpivoi ddideKa. 
This prob. means "baskets of" not "superabundance of." Comp. Lk. xiii. 8, 
where D and the Latin mss. have "a basket of dung," and see Steph. for k6<plvo<s 
meaning "a measure," and for the curious phrase o'ivov Kdcpivos. 

- [2329 (i) b] The Syr. (Burk.) has " they gathered and filled twelve baskets 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 bailey 
and of those two fishes. Now the men that had eaten of that bread had been 
live thousand"). The Latin versions also have " fragmentorum " which prob. 
depends on " cophinos." 

:i [2330 a] See 830 — 5, where this Johannine use of ^/jLirpoadev should have 
been noted. In Ileb., Ciesen. 817/' mentions only two instances of Malachi's 
word as denoting superiority, Gen. xlviii. 20 "set Ephraim before Manasseh 
(lQy)Ktv ..Ay.-KpoaBev),''' Job xxxiv. 19 (LXX confused). "Vjunpoadev does not mean 
"superior" elsewhere in N.T., for Jn x. 4 "[the shepherd] goeth before them " is 
not an instance. No instance quoted by Steph. means "superior" except Plato 
o;i I) TavTa bi iravra ixilvwv ip.irpoaOtv TiraKTai (pvaei, "these have a natural 
superiority to tho-e," but comp. Plato 744 A <rw<ppoavvqs lfjnrpo(r6(v vyUiav ...TTOlWV 
rifxlav, and S05 I) tfiTrpoaOev.. 0€i/jlci> av. 



(viii) 'Ev 

(a) 'En used metaphorically, e.g. "abide in," see 1881 

(/3) 'En used temporally 

[2331] ii. 19 — 20 "Destroy this temple and \with~\in (iv) three 
days I will raise it up... thou within (iv) 1 three days wilt raise it up 2 !" 
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 (/*era 3 ) three days" (1297, 1301—2) Matthew 
and Luke have "the third day f 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 "in three days" and the Jews 
as quoting Him not quite correctly, "within three days." If the 
evangelist wrote this, his meaning may be that the Jews, while 
slightly exaggerating what Jesus had actually said 4 , nevertheless (by 
a sort of irony of Providence) more exactly predicted that which 
actually came to pass: Christ did raise up the Temple of His body 
"within three days 5 ." See 2715. 

1 [2331 a] Comp. Xen. Mem. iii. 13. 5 "within five or six days," Plato 240 B 
" within three days," Steph. (Vol. iii. 962) "Quod Hippocrates dixit 'Ev ewTa 
■hfj.^pyaii' awodvricFKovcnv, interpr. Celsus, Intra septimum diem," also Xen. 
Cyropaed. v. 3. 28 "To come (lit.) less than within (/udov 77 iv) six or seven days." 

2 [2331 i>] The first iv is om. by B but ins. by X, the second iv is om. by X, 
a has " in triduo...tribus diebus," b " in triduo," e "in trib (sic) diebus triduo." 

3 Mk xiv. 58, Mt. xxvi. 6r. 

4 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). 

5 [2331 <•] It would be wrong to translate Mk xiv. 58, Mt. xxvi. 61 5td rpiihv 
i)/j.epu)v, " within three days," or anything but "after an interval of three days" 
(comp. Mk ii. 1 5t' i]/j.tpQ>v), just as Mk viii. 31 fxerd t. 77. must be rendered 
"after three days." And these two expressions must be reconciled with 7-77 77x7-77 
TlP-tpq. partly (see Field on Mt. xvi. 21) by Greek looseness of expression, and 
partly by Biblical influence. As regards Acts i. 3 di' rj/xepuiv Tecrcep&KovTa, 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," ov yap elire reaaapaKovra rjp.ipas aWa Sl' 77/xepcDi' reaaapaKOvra- icplaraTo 
yap xai d(picrTaTO irdXiv. If that is the writer's meaning, he gives to Sid with T)p.epQ>v 
an unprecedented rendering, which completely changes the sense. No authority 



(7) 'En quasi-instrumental 

[2332] John does not use the Hebraic iv for "with" in such 
phrases as "slay with the sword 1 ": but Hebraic influence may in 
part account for his use of Iv tov'to where many would use 81a. 
tovtov "hereby": xiii. 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 (e.g. light, darkness, love), "In this region shall men 

for it is alleged by Blass (p. 313) except Mk xiv. =;8, Mt. xxvi. 61, which, as 
stated above, must be rendered "after an interval of." D omits 5td in Acts but 
places it above the line between recrcr. and T]ix.., d has "post dies quadraginta." 
This makes excellent sense, "After an interval of forty days, giving them a vision 
of himself (dTrravdixevos avroh) and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom 
of God, and (?) uniting himself with [them] ((rwa\i£6/j.€vos), 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 a 7 ] 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 
81 rifiepQiv "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 H/v\epu)N. Even if Chrys. interpreted 81& as meaning "at intervals 
during," it is impossible to accept his interpretation without a great deal of 
evidence for such a use of did with a plural ("days," " years" etc.). See 2715. 

[2331 <'] In Lk. ix. 37 rrj e£?)s -rjiiipq., D has 5id ttjs rjfxipas, d "per diem," Syr. 
"on that day again (SS om. again)." The Gk of D, if it is another way of saying 
rfj e^rjs ij., 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 cnroKTelvat. iv po/xcpaia. Comp. Lk. xxii. 49 iv fjuxxa-ipV- 
A Tebtunis Papyrus 16 (B.C. 114) has iv — and others (ib. 41, 45, 46. 47) 
have the same phrase (in pi.)— to express "[armed] with a sword." Comp. ib. 48 
Avkos ffvv dtXXots iv 6ir\ois, foil, by ko.1 airacaixivwv ras txaxaipa 1 :. As iv 6tt\ois 
practically means bw\o(j>6pos . "bearing arms," SO iv /xaxalpy by analogy mighl come 
to mean /xaxa.ipo<p6pos, "bearing a sword." None of these papyrus passages have a 
vi 1 b like a-rroKTelvu or 7rard(T(rw, as in Rev., Lk., and LXX (2 K. xix. 37, Jer. xxvi. 
23 etc., where iv represents Heb. "in"). So, too, 1 Cor. iv. 21 f v p&fiSip i\t)eiv — 
until in tai ire alleged from non-Hebraic I lk o{fpxotxai iv — must be regarded 

as akin to 1 S. xvii. 43 Zpxv---* v paftdy /cat \LO01s, ib. 45 fy>x?7 ••■£" pop.<pala, 
2 S. xxiii. 21 KaTifir]... (Field) iv pd[i8<p,p.\\M. 1 Chr. xi. 23 KaTi^rj...iv pd/35<fj. 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. 



discern that...," namely, in Christian fellowship. So xvii. 10 "I have 
been glorified in 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 "In this we 
believe that thou earnest 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: "In [the light of] this [thy 
saying], we believe — " 

(8) 'En used locally, in toj rAZOcpyAAKicp (viii. 20) 

[2333] viii. 20 "These words he spake in (iv) the Treasury 
teaching in the Temple." As no authority has been alleged for the 
supposition that the Treasury (ya£oc/>vAa/aov) was open to the public 1 , 
it has been suggested that iv 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 "to the Treasury 2 ," and this might 
suggest that the public had access to the Treasury. But according 
to Mark, Jesus stood "opposite the Treasury'' when He taught the 
disciples to judge the widow's gift not as man sees it, but as God sees 

1 [2333a] 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 xii. 41) i.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 v. 5. 2) that a portico ran "in front of (irp6) the treasure- 
boxes (tlov yai'ocpvXaKLuv)," and {Ant. xix. 6. 1) that Herod Agrippa suspended a 
golden chain "up above the Treasury (i>7re/) to ya^ocpuXaKtov) " i.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. Hor. Heb. 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'..." — i.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," ei's 
ya£o<pv\d Kioi> o'lkov tov deov. This might give the impression that the people came 
into the Treasury. 

A. VI. 257 17 


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 (viii. 15 "ye judge after the 
flesh"), since the whole life of man may be regarded as a "gift" or 
"offering" to God 1 . From his point of view, then, the Treasury has 

1 [2334/'] 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 iv : — 

[2334 <] 'Ej» X ei P L m iii - 35 irdvra diduKev iv rfi x el P l olvtov is Hebraic as 
compared with xiii. 3 irdvra <-8uKei> o.vt<£ eis rds x f *P a s- 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 (bis) " delivered into the hand of Israel," Heb. "gave, or placed, in the 
hand," LXX th x e ^P as --- €LS T & s X e 'P as ; DU ^ A iv x €l P'---- € ^ T( * $ x € 'P a *- Comp. 
Dan. i. 2 Theod. fdwKev iv x €L P l o.vtov, LXX Trapi!)wKev...els x^-P as o-vtov. 

[2334 if] The interpolation in v. 4 KaTiftaivev iv rrj KoXv/xjirjOpgi is probably 
from a Semitic source. Comp. Judg. vii. 9 Kard^rjOi iv (A as) rrj Trapefj.ftoX7J and 
1 S. xiv. 21 "into (marg. in) the camp," Josh. viii. 13 etc. Blass (p. 130) quotes 
Herm. Sim. i. 6 diriXdys iv rrj wSXei crov, and refers to Clem. Horn. i. 7, xiv. 6, 
and (p. 313) quotes Epict. i. ri. 32 dvipxv ev "Puip.rj. But in Clem. Horn, i. 7 iv 
Trvpl dafticrTy pupdeiaas rbv aiuiva KoXacrOrjffecrOai, the meaning maybe "punished 
in lire unquenchable." In Clem. Horn. xiv. 6 iv dXXo§dirr\ 6pp.rjcraaa is im- 
mediately described as iv dXXoodTry yivo^iviq. The context lays stress on a voyage 
by sea, and suggests that the meaning may be, not "having set out in (for to)," 
but " having found anchorage in (opfxiu) a foreign coast." In Epictet., Schweig. 
says that dvipxy covers an erasure, which, he says, may be dwipxy. Comp. 
ib. ii. 20. 33 direXddv iv /BaXaveiy. This would reduce the two instances in Epict. 
to agreement with Herm. Sim. i. 6, and comp. Steph. 12S9 n quoting Mustoxydis 
An< id. direXOdvTos iv rrj irarpldi, and "alia nun minus barbara schol. (pOLT-qr^s 6 
ffvvex^ Trapd t£ StOatr/taXy dTrepxofJ.evos." The facts indicate that in vernacular 
Gk, independent of Semitic influence, the use of iv was freq. with dtripxe<rda.i but 
not with other verbs "I motion. Epictet. elsewhere uses dvipxofxai with eh, and 
also absolutely (but not with iv), of "going up [to Rome]." '.\.Tripxo/ iv seems 
to have meant " I go and stay in [a place]." Hut the I 'ayi'nn Pap. 1 16, 138 give 
iirekffeiv tit tt6\lv (not iv, though the writers are illiterate). 



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 "in" it than " opposite to" 
it, or " looking up" to it 1 . 

(ix) 'Evcoiriov 

[2335] 'Evw7rtoi/ occurs only once, xx. 30 (lit.) "Many and other 
signs therefore on the one hand (ttoWo. ovv koI aAAa 2 o-^/xeta) did 
Jesus in the sight of (Ino-mov) the disciples," and once in the Epistle, 
1 Jn iii. 22 "we do the things that are well pleasing in his sight 
(e. avrov)." Mark and Matthew never use it. Luke uses it twenty- 
two times, the last instance being (xxiv. 43) " he ate in their sight" 
i.e. " in 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 i.e. to signs wrought by Jesus " in the sight 
of" the disciples alone, and not in the sight of the world at large. If 
the "signs" had not been restricted to the " sight" of u the disciples" 
the phrase (it seems probable) would not have been inserted. 

(x) 'EttC 

( I ) 5 Eni with Accusative 

[2336] 'Ettl 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. 
^1, e7u Se tov 'Irjcrovv eA^oVtcs. John uses it however of the Spirit 
(i- 33' 5 1 ) "coming down on" a person, and in vi. 16 "came down 

1 Lk. xxi. 1 avapXeypas. 

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 7ro\\a fih ovv kolI erepa, 
and Acts xxv. 7. In xxi. 25 '£<m.v 5£ icai &\\a iroXXa omits "and." Both in the 
use of evixnriov, and in the insertion of /cat, this passage resembles the style of 
Luke. Also fikv odv, which occurs in Jn only here and xix. 24, is extremely 
frequent in the Acts. 'Evuiriov, in Lk., in connexion with " eating," occurs in 
Lk. xiii. 26, "we did eat and drink in thy presence...,'" where Mt. vii. 22 has " we 
prophesied in thy name...." Justin Mart. Apol. 16. Tryph. 76 has "we did eat 
and drink in thy name.'''' So has Origen repeatedly (Huet ii. 389 — 90, 393, 
Cels. ii. 49). Acts x. 41 has (Peter's speech) o-vi>e<pdyo/j.ei> k. o-vueTrio/xev ai)ry, 

Ign. Smym. 3 avvtcpayev [i.e. the Lord] avrois Kal avvimev u>s aapKiKos 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 17 — 2 


on (R.V. unto) the sea." On the reading in xxi. 4 Za-rq hr(, where no 
verb of motion is expressed, see 2307 a. 

(2) 'Em' with Dative 

[2337] 'Ett-i, "close on," "at," "by," in iv. 6 hrl rjj irrjyrj, and in 
v. 2 €7rt rrj TrpofiaTiK-fj, calls for no comment. In the latter, bri — since 
it might be thus used whether the meaning were "by a. gate" or "by 
2. pool" — throws no light on the disputed ellipsis (2216). 

[2338] In iv. 27 "And upon this (eVi tovtw) came his disciples 
and were amazed that he was speaking with a woman," it has been 
shewn (1673 #) 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 em occurs not only in 
such phrases as "evil on evil," "one on another," but also in the 
ordinary meaning of sequence, "on this," "hereon," "hereupon." 
But in N.T. this use of km toutw — apart from some verb preparing 
the way for kitl — is unique 1 . Origen has en-i tovto : SS has "while 
they [were] speaking " ; the Latin versions, " meanwhile," " forth- 
with " etc.; Dx*, ev. Chrysostom says, "'Upon this came His 
disciples ' : they came most seasonably when the teaching of the 
Lord had been completed 2 " — perhaps meaning "Jesus had just time 
to utter the words, I am He" whereas the writer of SS ("while they 
were speaking [as above described] ") perhaps means " The woman 
had not time to add a word of question." Both interpretations 
appear to recognise the exceptional meaning of " upon 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 Tarra rjv iir auTai yeypa/x/xe'ra, D reads irepi 
(comp. v. 46 7repi yap i/xov ckciW? eypcujfev) which would be the usual 
preposition if the meaning were simply "concerning": but em "on 
the basis of" (not eis, "with a view to"), means that the Scripture was, 

1 The references given by Alford (act toe.) are not to the point, as they have 
verbs ("rejoice," "console" etc.) in the context and mean "rejoice at," "console 
over" etc. Eph. iv. 26 /xi] iiriUvtTw iirl reproduces a phrase from Deut. xxiv. 15. 

2 [2338 a] ^</;65/3a els Kaipbv awijvTricTav ttjs 8i8a<TKa\las dwapTi<70el<r7]s. On 
Origen (ad toe.) iiri tovto, note confusion of and u>. Kminus is strangely confused, 
Xpicrrbs ^70) yev6fi-qv ov Sevrepos dXXos Udvei- OvSt" pav -qpero Il^rpos are Opaovs.... 



by foreknowledge, "based on," and "adapted to," the act of Christ 
that fulfilled it. The context is quite different in Lk. xxiii. 38 
iiriypacfirj £tt avrip : but probably eVi, there too, means " suited to the 
case of," and hence " concerning " — not " over his head " (506 (i) b). 

(3) 'Etti with Genitive 

(a) 'Eni thc BaAacchc (vi. 19, xxi. 1) 

[2340] John seldom uses eVi with genitive, for it does not (1882) 
lend itself to metaphor. The only instance of eiri 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 (irzpnraTovvTa «rt rrjs 
6a\dcr(T7]<;)...a.nd straightway the boat (lit.) became on (? near) the land 
(evOeux; iyivero to ttAoiov €7ti 7-775 yr}<s) to which they were returning 
(ets 77V v7rr]yoi')," xxi. i " After these things Jesus manifested himself 
again to the disciples on (? near) the sea (eVt T7?s 6aXdo-o-q<;) of 

[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 1 " Why, then, does not John use the customary 2 phrase "by 
(■rrapd) the sea " ? Turning to the Synoptic account of the Walking 
on the Sea 3 , 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 (errl rrjv 6.)"; then with the 
genitive, "seeing him on the sea (i-n-l tt/s 0.) walking." This change 
of case may be explained as follows, from a desire to clear up an 
early obscurity attaching to the phrase "on the sea," and to the word 

[2342] " On the sea" is ambiguous — capable of meaning "near 
the sea," as when we say that a city " lies on the sea " — and more 
ambiguous in Greek than in English. We could not say, of a 
person, "he stood on the sea," for "on the edge of the sea." But 
Greek and Hebrew can say this. Moreover TrepnraTtLv means as 
a rule "walk about" and not "walk" in the sense of progression. 

1 [2341 a] xxi. 4 'i<jrr\ eis (marg. e7r/) tov aiyia\6v. For the reasons for 
preferring iwl, see 2307 a. 

- [2341 b~\ " Customary," even where there is no verb of motion, both in LXX 
and in Mk-Mt. Comp. Mk iv. 1 diddcrKew ir. ttjv 6., v. 21 tJv w. ttjv 6., Mt. xiii. 1 

(KddriTO IT. TT)V. 6. 

3 Mk vi. 48 — 9, Mt. xiv. 25 — 6, not in Lk. 



In LXX it is used of "walking to and fro," on a roof, or palace wall 1 , 
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 (/3aSi£ovTas) into the country or 
to see a friend 2 ." Hence 7repi7ra.T€u' could not well mean "walk 
forward " except in some special context, as where Herodian says 
" He used to travel with them, mostly walking (Tr€pnra.T<2v), rarely 
in carriage or on horseback 3 ." 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 4 . Now from the time of 

1 [2342<2] 2 S. xi. 2 ir. iirl rod SiJi/xaros, Dan. iv. 26 iwi tuiv reix&v (Theod. iirl 
ru) vatj)). Job ix. 8, Ps. civ. 3, describing Jehovah as " walking about (wepnra.T<2>v) " 
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 irepiwa.Tov),'''' 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," irepnraTrjcrei sttI irav reixos v/ulQv. 

2 [2342 b~\ Plut. Mor. p. 796 D tovs ei> reus crroais avaKa/xirroi'Tas irepnraTei.v 
(paaiv...ovKi'Ti 5k tovs els aypbv 7} irpbs <pt\ov padifovTas. 

3 [2342 r] Steph. quotes Herodian, iv. 7. 11 rd. TrXelard re avroTs crvvwSeve 
irtpiirarQiv , awavius ap/xaros rj Iwirov (TrijSaivwv. 

4 [2342^/] It maybe urged that Mark himself distinctly mentions advancing 
in the words " Cometh (tpxercu) towards them." Phis is true, but the context 
indicates varieties of tradition. For (1) Mark adds "he wished to (lit.) come past 
them (rjdeXev wape\duv avTovs)." (2) Matthew omits this, but has f)\dev instead 
of fpxercu. (3) John also omits this ("wished to pass by") but has rjdeKov in 
quite a different context (" they wished io receive him "). (4) Tlapekdelv, 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 h66Aon, 
H6eAeiM, and hA0€N 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 (iirl to. #5ara)," 
and then Peter " zvalked over the waters (wtpuwaT-qaev eirl to, vdara) " 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 In emphasize the meaning "walking 
onivard," as distinct from " walking about." 

[2342f] IIe/N7raT<?a> 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" Where Mark describes Jesus as 
(xi. 27) "walking about in the Temple," Matthew has (xxi. 23) "came into the 



Homer and Hesiod, eiri with the accusative of Odkao-crav, ttovtov etc. 
was extremely common in the sense of sailing, advancing etc. over 
the sea or ocean 1 . Consequently, by the slight change of the genitive 

Temple," and Luke (xx. i) '■'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 "lecturing to one's 
audience (itepataTOvvTOS is rods d.Kpowp.ivovs)," id. 302 "lecturing to people that are 
in a state of depression (it. is avdpwitovs ddvp-ois Zx oVTa s)" Diog. Laert. vii. 109 
"Ask and answer and lecture (to ipwT$v ko.1 ditoKpiveadai kclI it e areZv)." As 
Jewish teachers "sat" while teaching, itepntaTeu 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 itepnrarCov (Mk i. 76 itapdyuv) 5i itapa ttjv da\a<T<raD 
ttjs T. occurs before the call of Peter. The corresponding narrative in Lk. v. 1 
has iyivero iv tl2 tov ox^ov iitLKeladai avTt£ ko.1 aKOvetv t'ov \byov tov deov Kal avros 
r/v io-Tibs itapa ttjv \lnv-qv TevvqcrapiT. If this detail in Lk. is parallel to the 
detail in Mk-Mt., Lk. would seem, as above, to have taken it. as "teach." In 
Lk.'s sequel, Jesus goes into a boat and (v. 3) "sitting down, from (4k) 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 

" that he himself went into a " that he himself went into a 

boat and sat in (iv) the sea, and all the boat and sat, and all the multitude 

multitude were toward the sea on (or, had taken up its stand on the beach 

on the edge of, iitl) the land (iitl (iitl tov aiyia\bv ijTrjKei)." 

ttjs 777?)." 

[2342 »•] The facts indicate that there were many traditions about Jesus 
teaching the disciples " in the sea" or "by the sea." It is not at all likely 
that itepieitaT-qaev iitl ttjs 6a\daaris els tovs /j.a0r)T&s originally meant (according 
to the idiom of Philostratus) " He discoursed, on the edge of the sea, to 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 discoursed to them," or else " He, in 
the sea, i.e. in a boat on the sea, discoursed to the disciples." 

[2342 h] In Jn xii. 35 " Walk about (itepntareiTe) (R.V.) while (ws) ye have 
the light," the Syr. (Burk. txt) has " walk in the light" ; and a little later (xii. 36) 
instead of " believe in (els) the light," Chrysostom has "walk [having regard] to 
(eis) the light." If u>s 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) us means "as" and the sense is 
" Walk according as ye have the light." 

1 [2342/"] Steph. quotes abundant instances from Homer and Hesiod of iitl 
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. Hec. 
446 iit' olS/xa, also Hel. 400, Iph. T. 395, 409. It seems a poetic idiom. 



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, on 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 («ri tt}<; 


[2344] The variations may be illustrated by the description 
(LXX) of Israel " encamped by the [Red] Sea." The Hebrew 
preposition means literally "upon." In the first instance, LXX 
renders this literally by «ri with the genitive, but a few verses after- 
wards by 7rapa with the accusative 2 , which is the regular rendering 
all through the Bible, 7rapa Odkaaaav being very frequent whereas 
brl OaXaao-qs is extremely rare. When the latter occurs in the 
Psalms (R.V.) "terrible things by (Heb. on) the Red Sea," the 
Hebrew writer and the Greek translator (who uses brl with the 
genitive) may be alluding to the passage in Exodus where the 
meaning is "on the edge of the sea 3 ." 

[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 on 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 lohn 

1 [2343 a] Mk vi. 48—9, Mt. xiv. 25—6, Jn vi. 19. Some of the Latin MSS. 
distinguish between the two clauses. In Mt., a has "ambulans supra mari.. .supra 
mare ambulantem " (/> om. 2nd clause), e has "ambulans super mare... in mari 
ambulantem," /'has "ambulans super mare. ..supra mare ambulantem," SS lias 
"mi the water. ..on the waves of the sea." In Mk, SS has "walking on the 
water. ..on the water [and] walking." In Mk, a has "ambulans fesus super 
man m [sic)... ambulantem super mare." In Mk, D has ir. ewl 7-775 Oa\d(rarjs twice. 
In Mt., I) has two genitives; L has genitive first, accusative second. 

1 |2344,/| Ex. xiv. 2 iirl rijs 0., xiv. 9 irapa ttjv 0. 'E7rt ttjv 6. occurs in 
Ex. xiv. 16, 21 etc. of Moses " stretching out his hand over the sea." 

:i [2344A] In I's. cvi. 22, the Syr. and Vulg. have " in the Red Sea": Walton 
renders the Targ. "in," but the Heb. "super," but the preposition, in both, is the 
same as in Kx. xiv. 2 (Heb.). 



intended " walking on 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 on (i.e. on the edge of) the sea 1 ," 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 "on the 
sea" precisely as we are to interpret the Johannine "on the land" in 
the same story, and also as we interpret the Johannine "on the sea" 
in the narrative of the manifestation after the Resurrection. In each 
of these three cases " on " means "close to," "on the edge of." 

[2346] It has been shewn elsewhere that John's use of the rare 
(1735 be) word H0EAON in the context indicates that he was writing 
with allusion to Mark's H0EAEN. Mark had said that Jesus 
"willed" to pass by the disciples. John says that the disciples 
"willed" 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 2 . See also 2716 — 7. 

1 Polyb. Bell. Pun. i. 44 iirl 5£ rrjs daXdaaris ^ary)uav \ol 'Pw/xcuoi] KaTaTreirXrjy- 
[xtvoi ttjv tQv TroXepLiiov rokixav. 

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 (wepiwaTovi>Tos)" 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 "on the edge of the sea {kid ttjs da\acro-r}s)" 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. 

[2346 />] The Acts of fohn 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?' {koX 
6 a. fxov tovto dwev, T. to waidiov touto <.to> inl tov alyiaXov KaXicrav i][ 
tL fiouXerai ;).'' 

[2346 <] The narrative goes on to say that, when they had "brought the ship to 



(/3) 'Etti xof cTAypof (xix. 19) 

[2347] Jn xix. 19 i-n-l tov aravpov — which is parallel to Lk. xxiii. 
38 ctt' avrw, R.V. "over him," but better, perhaps, "concerning him" 
(506 (i)/')— requires in itself no grammatical comment, but perhaps 
points to mistranslation of Semitic tradition by one or more of 
the evangelists. 

(xi) Kcn-d 

[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 xar' 
l8Cav, "privately." John never represents Jesus as doing anything 
"privately" (comp. xviii. 20). This is one explanation of the rarity 
of Kara 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 eU xaO' eU is also part of an interpolation (viii. 9). 

(xii) Merd 

(a) Mcta 'loyAAiOY 0«- 2 5) 

[2349] Mera with the accusative requires no comment, meaning 
almost always "after," of time, as in the Synoptists 1 . 

Mtra 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 {to ttUIov edpaffw/j.ei*):' For this remarkable expression comp. (Steph.) 
Callixenus Athen. 15, p. 204 n eSpaadfjvai to irXolov ao-<pa\us iirl tup <pa\ayywv 
(i.e., Steph. viii. 603, on the (1) "stocks" or (2) "rollers"), and Constantin. 
Basil. Mac. c. 34, p. 90 eirl tlvos d<r<pa\ovs (XiriSos edpaffdrji'ai (metaph.). In 
N.T. also we have "hope" connected with steadfastness in two metaphors, (1) 
Col. i. 23 Tedefj.t\iu/j.ti>oi. Kal edpaloL ical M /j-eraKLVOvfievoi d-rrb ttjs <?\7t/5os..., 
(2) Heb. vi. 18—19 Att/5o$, i)v u;s ti-yicvpav ^x°^ v - This " settling the ship" is 
perhaps originally derived from some poetic metaphor. 

1 |2349«1 Mera with accusative occurs (12) in the phrase p. raDra (or, tovto) 
(2394), also 111 iv. 43 /nerd 5<* rds 860 r/M^pas, xx. 26 ped' rifxipas 6ktu>. It is foil, by 
other nouns in [v. 4] fiera ttjv rapaxv" (interpol.), xiii. 27 fxeTa to \pufxlov. 

In the historical books of LXX, fxeTa raOra is very common (much more so 
than ixera tovto). It occurs (5) in 1 Mac, but not in 2 Mac, 3 Mac, 4 Mac. It 
occurs (3) in I Esdr. but never in lvr. , which has juerd tovto twice. Merd 
T0.VT0. is non-occurrenl in Mis and Mt., but it occurs Mk-App. xvi. 1:, and in 
Lk. (both speech and narr.). It is very fieq. in Rev. (i. 19, iv. 1. 2, vii. 9 etc.). 



of contention e.g. "fight with (i.e. against) 1 ," a use apparently 
confined to Hebraic Greek. In John, when it is used of people 
" talking," or " murmuring," or " questioning with one another (/xct 
dAAr/A-w) 2 ," the speakers are all on one side — either the Jews against 
Jesus, or the disciples wishing to question Jesus (not some for, others 
against, Him). And awfyrelv, ^rrjais etc. elsewhere are found with 
7rpos or a-vv or dative, but not with /xtTa 3 . These facts bear on the 
interpretation of iii. 25 (lit.) "There arose therefore a questioning 
from (? 2350) (e*c) the disciples of John along with (^era) 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 CrJTTjcris to mean (as it does in the Acts and Pastoral Epistles) 
a quarrel 4 , and a quarrel about some matter that seems to the writer 
unimportant, we can give /xera its usual Johannine signification by 
supposing (1) a parenthesis after "quarrel 5 ," (2) an ellipsis of Ttcts, 
" some," after e* (2213—5), (3) fxerd meaning " allied with " : " There 
arose therefore a quarrel — [some] of the disciples of John [siding] 
with a Jew [or, Jews] about purifying ; and they came to John 
and said, Rabbi,..." i.e. they tried to rouse him to jealousy of 

Jesus 6 . Nonnus has €pis...'I(uaFvao jxaO-qTai^ 'E/3pa.Lov (JLera cpwros. 

1 Rev. ii. 16, xi. 7, xii. 7, xiii. 4 etc. But comp. 1 Cor. vi. 6 — 7 adeXcpbs 
/Hera &5e\<pov KpipeTai...Kpifj.aTa £x eTe /*£#' ^o-vt&v. Steph. gives no instance. 

2 Jn xi. 56 ZXeyov, vi. 43 yoyyvfcre, xvi. 19 ^TjreXre, all foil, by /*. d.XXr/Xctii'. 

3 Mk viii. 11 dat., ix. 14, 16 irpos, Lk. xxii. 23 irpbs, Acts xv. 2 717x3s 
(v. r. <t6v), Acts xxv. 19 71756s : Acts vi. 9 dat., ix. 29 irpbs. 

4 [2350(7] Ztjttjctis 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. ZrjTrjfxa is 
also used in an unfavourable sense in Acts xv. 2, xviii. 15, xxiii. 29 etc. 

5 [2350(5] 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 

6 [2350c] The Latin versions have "Jews" instead of "Jew" and render 
iK as follows : — a and/" " inter," b " ex," e " de," d " a." They render nera thus : — 
a "et" (but a has "inter Judaeos et discipulos Johannis"), b and e "cum," 

/ "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 {or, ' the 
Jews') S," and the Arabic Diatessaron has "between one of John's disciples and 



(0) 0\ Me-r' aytoy" ontsc (ix. 40) 

[2351] In ix. 40 (lit.) " There heard [some] of the Pharisees these 
things — those that were with him (rJKovo-av e*c twv <I>. tclvtol ol /act 
avrov oi/tcs)," SS has " the Pharisees which were near him." This 
rendering, if allowable, would remove a great difficulty ; for the con- 
text represents Christ as severely condemning them, so that " on his 
side" or "his companions" — the rendering demanded by usage 1 — ■ 
seems out of place here. But (1) perd 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 (e7ri7roA.a«os) " : but 
how can the supposition of such an ellipsis be justified? It would 
be more allowable to suppose that, as in ix. 25 tu<£Ao? wv means 
"being once blind," so here 01 6Wes means "those who once were." 
But there the context continues " now I see (apn /JAeVo))," 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". 

(7) MeTA compared with nAp<\ 

[2352] John only once says fteVetr /actu 3 , the reason being perhaps 

one of the Jews." These last two renderings necessitate that the two must be 
described as going together to John and saying "Rabbi" etc. 

[2350 d] 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 fj.trd, 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 Arimathaea. 

1 [2351 a] Even where Peter is represented as (xviii. 18) " alongwith " the High 
Priest's servants (as Judas is "alongwith' 1 '' the soldiers that arrest Jesus) fierd 
probably suggests blame, "making himself their companion" And, with the 
article, the notion of companionship is strengthened. 

- [2351 />] Mori, "once," occurs in this narrative, a little earlier (ix. 13) "him 
that was once blind (t6v nore rv<p\6v)." And the context implies that, whereas 
"the once blind" had been caused to see, so, "those who had once seen"— i.e. 
those who, being Pharisees, had once been disciples of the Lord— had been made 
blind. Ii would therefore make good sense to read o'i irore per avrov ovres, and 
irore might have been dropped owing to its similarity with OT6C of which it 
seemed a repetition. Hut there is no variation in the MSS. except that A places 
6vra before per' avrov. 

:! [2352,?J |n xi. 54 "and there he abode with (utrd) the disciples" is shewn 
by the following words ("Now the passover of the Jews was nigh") to denote 
a brief period. 



that jxera mostly implies companionship, friendly conversation, aid 
etc., for a special occasion, unless the contrary is implied by adding 
"for ever" etc. 1 When the Paraclete (i.e. Friend and Helper) is first 
mentioned, it is with p-erd, but qualified by " for ever," then with Trapd, 
"at home with," then with ev, as follows, xiv. 16 — 17 "another 
Paraclete will he give to you that he may be in companionship with 
you (p.eff i/xwv) 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 in a home, with you 
(ivap vjxZv /xevet) and in you it [really] is (kcu ev v/xiv eo-nv, v.r. co-rat, 
W.H. txt eWv)." 

[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) (//.era) — would be their 
companion, guide, and prompter, "for ever (eh tov alwva)." 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 ivith them (irapd). 
The third statement is, that the Spirit was indeed essentia//)/ " in 
them," i.e. in their inmost being (ev) 2 . The MSS., except BD, read 
(xiv. 17) e'o-Tat "shall be in you." But "ye understand it because it 
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." 

(xiii) Ilapd 

(1) TTApA with Accusative 

[2354] This construction is never used by John. Whereas Mark 
and Matthew have "by the sea (irapa rrjv OdXao-aav) " with verbs of 

1 [2352 5] In xii. 7 "The poor ye have always with you (/J-ed' v/j.Qv)" is 
omitted (1688 b) by SS and D. If it were genuine it would be Jn's only mention 
of vrwxoi in Christ's words. 

2 [2353a] In some contexts, ev v/mv might mean "among you all" and not 
" in 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 (r) "by his side," (2) "at home with him," (3) "in his heart." 
Moreover, the Johannine ev almost always means "in," not " among." 



rest or motion, and Luke twice has " standing by the lake (co-no's, or 
eo-Ta>a, 7rapa rrjv Xifxvrjv) 1 " John, though he at least once describes 
Jesus as standing by the sea, never uses irapd thus. It has been 
shewn (2340 — 6) that once at least (and probably twice) he uses em 
with the genitive to mean " on the edge of the sea." 

(2) TT<\pA with Dative 

(a) TTApA with Dative and mgta with Genitive, see 2352 — 3 
(/3) Synoptic and Johannine use 

[2355] In the Synoptists, 7rapa tw Oew, or tw irarpi, "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 viii. 38 " that 
which I have seen with (irapd) 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 xvii. 5 "glorify me...^_y thy 
side (irapd creavTw). . .with the glory that I had by thy side (irapd 0-01)." 
In xix. 25 " Now there stood (laTrJKetaav 8e) by the cross (irapd t<3 
aravpw) of Jesus his mother...," there occurs the only instance in 
N.T. where irapd is used with an impersonal dative. It is quoted by 
Chrysostom with irapeaT7]Kevai 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) n<*pA with Genitive 

[2356] On irapd and ex, with i£, see 2326- — 8. Ilapa. 
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 2 . 
In John, Trapd with genitive almost always means "from [the bosom, 
or home, or hand, or immediate presence, of]" God 3 . 

1 I.k. v. 1 — 2. 

- [2366a] Mk xii. i i, Ml. xxi. 42 (I's. cxviii. 13). I.k. i. 45 Zarai reXeiuais... 
Trapa Kvpiov, and also i. 37 ovk adwarrjo'ei irapa rod deov ttSlv pr)p.a (alluding to 
Gen. xviii. 14 " too hard for the Lord" irapa tu> dap pij/xa) refer to the Incarnation. 

3 In this sense it occurs about 18 times, in other senses about 7 times. 



(4) FT^pA 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) viii. 38 a eyw ewpaKa irapd 

T<3 irarpl AaAw • /cat t'peis ovv a rJKOV<ran irapa. tov Trarpos rroteiTe. 

Commenting on this, Origen adduces vi. 45 — 6 ttS? 6 a.Kovo-a.% napa 

TOV TTOLTpOS KCU Ua6(OV £pX €TCtt ^pOS ip.€. Ol'X OTL TOV 7Ta.T€pa ewpctKeV TtS 

el an 6 (x)V irapa. [rou] Oeov, ovtos ewpaKev tov iraTepa. But in the latter 
Origen reads 6 u>v irapd tw iraTpi instead of o w irapa. [rot;] deov 1 , and 

Chrysostom reads 6 in tov Oeov at least once 2 . 

[2358] Retaining the text in vi. 45 — 6, we may explain 6 tov irapa 
\toi>~\ deov, like 6 wv eh tov koXttov tov irarpos above (2308 — 9), as 
a combination of rest and motion, suggesting the divine nature of 
the Son on earth, not " sent from the side, or home, of God " like 
John the Baptist (i. 6 aireo-Ta\p,evo<; irapa) but " BEING from the 
side of God," i.e. 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 

[2359] In viii. 38, the interpretation of the whole largely depends 
on the interpretation of iroieire as indicative or imperative, on which 
see 2193 foil. On this, too, rests in part the application of tov iraTpos 
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 in the House of the Father and the 

1 [2357 rt] Huet ii. 293 A 'irepos avyxpwp.evos /cat rip, lias 6 aKovaas irapa rod 
irarpbs Kai fxadwv ipxerat irpos fj.e, oi>x Sri tov iraripa e'wpa/ce tis, et fir] 6 wv irapa tcjj 
irarpl ovros ecopa/ce rbv iraripa, ipel on eiffi rives tQv ivcrwiJ.aTovij.evwv \pvx&v wplv els 
yiveaiv eXOelv, /j.e/j.a8y}Tevp.ivai irapa ru> war pi, /cat anovaacrai avrov, at rives /cat 
epxovrai irpbs tov <xwr%>a 

'- [2357/'] Chrys. Etra e7ra7ef Oi)% on tov Ylaripa rts ed/panev el /at? 6 wv t/c 
rod Qeov ' ov Kara tov rrjs alrias \6yov ivravda tovto \iywv d\Xd /card tov rpbirov 
rrjs ovaias. 'E7ret el tovto ZXeye, irdvres irapa tov deov iap.iv irov odv to e^aiperov 
tov Tiov /cat Kexwpi.o~iJ.ivov; That is to say, 7rapd would apply to "all men," 
e/c to the Eternal Son alone. One may infer from this that 6 wv irapa, 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 e/c repeatedly, but 
has a strangely different text, with irdvTes yap e/c tov deov eo-/J.ev. 



indistinctness with which men receive promptings from 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) n« P c 

[2360] Ilept with accusative does not occur in John. On the 
v.r. in xi. 19 ras irtpl yidpOar, see 1990. With the genitive, irepC 
occurs in John almost as often as in all the Synoptists together, 
because of the frequency of the Johannine phrases " testify con- 
cerning," "speak concerning" etc. This makes it almost certain 
that Trepi, the reading of A etc. in i. 30 l-n-ep ov iyih dirov, is 
incorrect ; for there would have been no temptation to alter it. It 
also demonstrates that virep ov, in that passage, cannot mean pre- 
cisely " concerning whom," for, had that been the meaning, John 
would have written irepL See 2369 — 71. The frequency of -n-epi, 
and the existence of ypa.<puv in v. 46, shew that xii. 16 r/v &tt 
avrw y€ypa^u.£Va does not mean quite the same as rrepl avrov. See 

(xv) IIpo 

(a) TTpo eMOY (x. 8) 

[2361] In x. 8 "As many as came before me (rrpo ip.ov) 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. Tlpo, in 
some contexts, might mean " in preference to" — as in "Thou shalt 
have none other gods before me 1 ," if rendered into classical Greek. 
But Trpo, with (\6eu>, 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 "before me," referring to what has 

1 1 2361 </ ] Ex. xx. .5, LXX ttMjv ifiov, Deut. v. 7, comp. Dent. xxi. 16. In 
Deut. v. 7, I.W lias wpd wpocrixnrov fiov, hut AF ttXtji- ifxov. The I, XX, so far 
mi he judged from the instances given by Trommius under seven Hebrew 
headings, never uses irp6 t<> mean "preferred to." 



just been said ("I am the Good Shepherd") can mean '■'■before 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 irpb i/xov 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 suggest) to leaders like Judas and Theudas 1 . 
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." 

(/3) TTpd transposed 

For xii. I npb e£ r)p.tpu>v tov 7raa-^a, see 2288. 

(xvi) ITpos 

(i) TTpdc with Accusative, with verb of rest 

[2363] The only Johannine passage that needs comment is i. i 
" In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with (fi-pos) God 
(tov 6e6v)," where the question is, What is precisely meant by 7rpos? 
An evangelist might have used o~vv " together with," or /xerd " in 
companionship with," or -n-apd (with dat.) "by the side of," "in the 
household of" — as, in Proverbs, Wisdom personified, describing her 
close connexion with God, says, " Then [i.e. during the Creation] 
I was by His side {nap aimS)*." But John uses a preposition that is 
(so far as present evidence goes) not used in this connexion by any 

1 [2362 n] Origen says (Huet ii. 41 d) irpo yap rrjs reXetuxrews rod \6yov ircLvra 
ipeKTa to. ev avOpibwoLS are evderj kclI iWiwrj. In his context he mentions the 
"■■white horse'''' in the Apocalypse (xix. n) with Ps. xxxiii. 17 "A horseis 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 Prov. viii. 30. 

A. VI. 273 l8 


Greek classical author, nor in LXX. 1 And this is all the more 
remarkable because Trapd with dative is used by John to describe 
" abiding with" 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. 7rpo's nva 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 2 . In the Second Epistle to the Corinthians the Apostle says 
that he desires " to be at home in converse with the Lord (ei-S^eiv 
77-pos tov K.) " and in any case to be " well pleasing " to Him ; and he 
uses this preposition to describe his "staying in converse with" Peter, 
and to express his hope that the youthful Timothy may " be free 
from intimidation in his intercourse with" the Corinthians 3 . 

[2365] According to the analogy of Mark's usage, 6 Ao'-yos yv 
7rpos tov 9c6v would mean " the word was in 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 7i>ith" men, and where, in each case, either 
Matthew or Luke has omitted or altered the preposition. As the 
Logos on earth rjv 7rpos di^pwVovs, so from the beginning He was 

1 [2363 a] Steph. and Thayer give no instance of dvai irpbs nva from classical 
Greek. Wahl's classical instances bear on ypa<pecr0ai, or airoypa<pea6cu, irpbs etc., 
and contain no example with elvai 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 " irpbs v^ds — ixed' v/uluov (Mt.), cf. vi. 3"; and vi. 3, commenting on 
irpbs ijfxas, simply says, "They were settled at Nazareth (w5e irpbs wuV)" — 
presumably a misprint for ^/xas. W. M. p. 504 gives no classical instance exc. 
Demosth. Apat. 579 a (Teubner 892) toTs fi£>> e...dvai ras dl/cas irpbs tovs dec- 
fxodiras, i.e. "bring their suits to " — which is not to the point. 

[2363/;] In -2 Chr. xxviii. 15 "they brought them to Jericho. ..unto their 
brethren," Kai^imjaav clvtovs eis 'I... irpbs tovs d5e\(povs avruif, motion is implied. 
No instance has been hitherto alleged of eluai. irpbs tlvol in LXX. 

2 [2364(7] Mk vi. 3, Mt. xiii. 56 (Lk. diff.) " they are all in familiar intercourse 
•With tis {irda-ai irpbs T/Acas elfflv),'' Mk ix. 19, Lk. ix. 41 (Mt. xvii. 17 p.i0' v/xQv) 
'• I low long shall I hold converse with you (irpos v/xas) \" Mk xiv. 41; (Mt. xwi. 55 
.mi., Lk. sxii. 53 ntd' v/xuv) "I was daily in converse with you (irpbs v/ in the 
Temple teaching and ye did not seize me." Cornp. Mt. xxvi. 18 (Mk-Lk. diff.) 
irpbs at irotw to llacrxa " I keep the Passover in thy house." The context suggests 
a sign, and a secret arrangement, and confidential communication. 

* [2364 b] 2 Cor. v. 8, Gal. i. 18, 1 Cor. xvi. 10 &<p6(3ws yivi)T<xi irpbs vfj.ds. 
Comp. Gal. ii. 5 "that the truth of the Gospel might abide in converse with you 
(biap-tiv-Q vpbs iifx.ds)." 



7r/3o5 tov Oeov, 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 1 , 
might seem appropriate to the definition of the Word. 

[2366] But would an educated Greek at once understand rjv 7ro6s 
toi' 0e6v in this sense ? In Mark, the context shews the meaning of 
euai 7rpos, but it is not shewn thus at the beginning of the Fourth 
Gospel : and 7rpo's with the accusative, in classical Greek, means 
"having regard to," as in wpos ravra " having regard to these things," 
one of the commonest phrases in the language. Hence Trpos rbv 
Oeov might be taken by Greek readers to mean " having regard to 
God." And this would agree with abundant instances of tfiv irp6% 
rira, in classical Greek, meaning " to live in absolute devotion to 
anyone" as where Demosthenes describes patriots as " living with 
constant regard to (7rpos) their country 2 ." 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 3 . 

1 [2365 a] Not however so freq. in Jn as in Lk. Myeiv and elrretv rrpbs in Jn 
occur only thrice of Christ's words, but more freq. as to the words of others. 

- [2366 a\ Aristot. Khet. i. 9. 4 eXevQepov yap rb pi] rrpbs aXXov ffjv, Plut. A/or. 
471 K iirei rrpbs erepovs rj irpos avrovs eidiapeda 'Ctjv, Demosth. 411. 33 rols 5e 
rrpbs vpas £w(7iv (comp. ib. 361. 4 Trpos rovrov rravr eaKorrovv), Lucian iii. 312 
irpbs pbvov ae j"cG. It is frequent in Aristotle. 

3 [2366 />] llpbs Tiva with verbs of speaking — which is prob. non-existent in 
Mk-Mt. except in 7rp6s dWrjXovs or iavroijs — 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), but more frequently of words addressed to Jesus 
(ii. 3, iii. 4, iv. 15, 49 etc.). In Lk. it is so freq. as to occur six times in the 
first chapter. In LXX, Trpds Tiva in r Kings xii. 5, 7, 10, xxii. 18 etc. corresponds 
to rivi in 2 Chr. x. 5, 7, 10, xviii. 17 etc. 

[2366 c] In Mk xii. 12, Trpos avrovs elrrev means "with reference to (or, against) 
them." In Mk x. 26, W.H. read Xiyovres Trpos avrbv without altern. following 
BCX, 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 7rpos eavrovs. 
There does not appear any reason why trpos avrbv, had it been in Mk, should 
have been altered to irpbs eavrovs. But if the e in eairroi''s were dropped in 
some MSS. after the C in rrpbs, or if eavrovs were spelt avrovs, it would be 

275 l8—2 


(2) TTpdc repeated after verb of motion 

[2367] In xx. 2 " She runneth therefore and cometh unto (Trpo's) 
Simon Peter and unto (7rpd?) the other disciple whom Jesus loved 
and saith to them..." why is irpo<; repeated? The repetition would 
certainly indicate a desire to distinguish in a marked manner between 
the two, if xpo's had been repeated in a brief phrase like 7rp6s 2. 
kcu 7r/3os 'IwaV^v. 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 iii. 
sect. 1. 7. a). Elsewhere prepositions are repeated to give dis- 
tinctness and weight to separated clauses as in Jn xvi. 8 (and, 
without /cat, in Eph. vi. 12). 

(3) Pfpuc with Dative 

[2368] This occurs four times in John (Mk (1), Mt. (o), Lk. (i) 1 ) 
always meaning "at," "close to," xviii. 16 "Peter was standing at 
the door," xx. 11 "Mary was standing at the tomb outside," xx. 12 
"two angels sitting one at the head and one at the feet." Ilpds, 
"near," with dative of person, occurs in Sophocles {Ant. 1189, Oed. 
Col. 1268) (comp. Aesch. Suppl. 242) and might conceivably have 
been used (7rpo<; tw $e<±>) in i. 1 if John had meant merely "near 2 ." 

(xvii) 'Yirt'p (see also 2718—22) 

[2369] 'Y-n-ep with accusative occurs as v.r. for (xii. 43) rjrrtp, see 
2092. 'Yntp with genitive occurs 1 3 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' 1 . But in the 

comparatively intelligible that avrote (read as aiVoi's) should be changed to avrbv : 
and avrbv 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. 
VY.II. reject B's reading of eavr. for avr. in Mk viii. 37 and xi. 8, and place 
it in tin- margin in xi. 7. On the whole, in Mk x. 26, eavrovs seems more 
probable than avrbv. 

1 Mk v. 1 1 r/v 8t (f/ctt irpbs r$ 6pti, Lk. xix. 37 iyylfrvros 5£ avrov 77S77 wpbs 
rrj narafidati r. opovs rQiv 'EXcuuSi'. 

'- [2368(7] \\\i)aiop, "near," deserves mention as a preposition peculiar to Jn in 
iv. 5 w\-qalov rov xw/j'oi', R.V. " near to the parcel of ground." \\\t)oiov, "near," 
occurs nowhere else in N.T., nor does Steph. quote it freq. except with genitive of 
person (but see Aescli. Prom. 364). Jn may have been influenced by LXX where 
it occurs (Tromm.) 10 times, .nice (Josh. viii. },},) in connexion with Geiizim, 
called in John (iv. 20 — 21) "this mountain." 

:t Jn xvii. 19 virep avrQv ayiafa itxavrbv refers also to mediation. 



following it is rendered by R.V. (as well as A.V.) "of": i. 30 "This 
is he of whom (virep 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) Trepi is the 
regular Johannine preposition in the phrase "speak, of" meaning 
"speak about." 'Yirep, it is true, is used by some authors in a sense 
closely resembling that of irepi, as we might use "on" ("on 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 1 . 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 in behalf of Christ 2 ." 

[2371] Ammonius 3 , among other explanations, suggests that dvtjp is 
here applied to Christ by John the Baptist in the sense of wp.(f>io<;, 
"bridegroom," and it is an undoubted fact that in the Fourth Gospel 
the singular of dvqp is always capable of this sense 4 : and the Baptist 
is introduced later on in this Gospel as calling Christ the "bride- 
groom" and himself the "bridegroom's friend 5 ." This suggests 
a new way in which we may interpret vnip in accordance with its 
legitimate meaning: "This is he in behalf of whom [coming as the 
bridegroom 's friend in behalf of the bridegroom] I said, After me 
cometh a man...." It would be too much to substitute "husband" 
for "man": but a play upon the word, suggesting 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 (ouros r/v ov €177-01'), He that cometh after me...." The 
insertion of the word dvrjp is therefore all the more remarkable here: 
and so is the insertion of v-n-ep. 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] E.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 
for them («' to. irapd crol KaXws lx et Odppet virep iKelvwv)." See 2719 a. 

- 2 Cor. v. 20. 3 Cramer ad loc. 

4 [2371(7] In iv. 16, 17, 18 the context shews that it must mean "husband." 
In i. 13 ovSe ek de\r)/j.a.Tos dvdpos, the use of dvrjp instead of dvdpwwos may indicate 
" husband," the meaning being " not by mortal begetting." See 2722 c. 

5 Jn iii. 29. 



dvijp, the lord, the husband of Israel. I came and spoke in his be- 
half, preparing the way for him as the bridegroom 1 " See 2718 — 22. 

(xviii) 'Y-iro and viroKaTa> 

(i) 'Ytto with Accusative 

[2372] 'Ytto with accusative occurs only in i. 48 "Before Philip 
called thee being under the fig-tree I saw thee {irpb tov o-e <J>tA.i7r7ror 
</)wi'»/crat oi'Ta vtto ryv avKrjv eirjoV o-e)." This should be compared 
with the following, which contains the only instance of v-rroKaria 
in John, i. 50 "Because I said to thee that I saw thee underneath 
the fig-tree (on cTSoV o-e iVokcitco rrj^ <rvKr}$) thou believest!" Here 
a phrase with v-n-6 and accusative is quoted with vTroKarw and genitive. 
Perhaps the more emphatic form viroKaro), "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 "under the 
bed," but Luke "under cover of a bed," or "thrust doivn under 
a bed 2 ." 

1 [2371 U\ For vieip with personal object and verb of speaking, comp. Xen. 
Cyrop. iii. 3. 14 eVei oSv <rii <riu}irq.s eyw Xe^w ko.1 vwep gov Kal inrtp r)p.£iv, Polyb. 
xxi. 14. 9 TavTa...atraprjvaTo vwkp iravros tov trvveSplov, xxviii. 16. 4 vwep rjs 
[7rpe<r|3ei'as] eVoterro rbv xPVf laTia 'P- 01 ' Ka ' tovs \6yovs. 

- [2372 a] Mk iv. 21 virb tt\v KKiv-qv, Lk. viii. 16 vnoKarw k\lvt)s. In LXX, 

( 1 ) "under the tree, oak, pomegranate etc." is regularly vw6 with accusative, but (2) 
"under every green tree," referring to idolatry, is regularly inro K&Tui (in Is. lvii. 5, 
where LXX has vird, Aq. and the rest have vtok&tu) 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 (vttok&tu)) 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, npb tov...<tvktjv. 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 
tlSbv ae is added, there is still ambiguity. "Qvtcl may agree with (1) the preceding 
or (2) the following ere: and the meaning may be (1) "[Long, or just] before 
Philip called thee at the moment when thou wast under the tig-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 lias a long and not very clear commentary, in the course 
of which he seems to assert that Christ had seen Nathanael not only "just />,/c>/r 
(Trply r\ <\>wvr)oai)" the calling hut also "before this (irpb tovtov)" : only the time 
had not come to say this. And yet Chrysostom previously says "But Jesus 



(2) 'Ytto with Genitive 

[2373] 'Ytto 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 (vVd) an agent. It occurs only in xiv. 216 ex wv T <*s 

c'rroAds jjlov k. Trjpwv avrds CKetvo's iariv 6 dyairdJv fie- 6 oe aya7rwv /xe 

dya-n-rjOyjo-eTai v-n-b t. TraTpd? /xov, where perhaps the writer desires to 
repeat precisely the words 6 dyairdiv pe so that they may constitute 
the two middle terms of the sentence (2544 a). Perhaps the frequency 
of the nominatives 6 aya.7rcoi' and 6 //.r) dya-n-wv in the Epistle (i Jn ii. 
io, iii. io, 14, iv. 7 etc.) may partly explain the shape of the sentence 
here. Had the verb been npaw we should have expected e'dV tis i/xi 
Tiiia Ti[X7]a€L avTov 6 Trarrjp similarly to xil. 26. 


I. Demonstative 

(i) Air6s (see also 2723—7) 

[2374] Avto's (nom. sing.), in Luke 1 , sometimes means "he" (un- 
emphatic); but John uses it always to mean "himself," sometimes in 
a context mentioning other persons ("himself (avros) and his mother," 
"himself and his household 2 ") 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] himself (d. Se'I.) would not 
trust himself to them because he understood [of] himself (Sid to 
avrbv yaw/cHv) all men... for he knew [of] himself (auVds yap eytvw- 

answered as God. For indeed He said I have known thee from the beginning... 
and 'But now (i.e. just now) did I see thee in the fig-tree (Kai yap el-rev, ore 
Avudev <re otSa...Kal, NO? eUbv ae ev ry (rviqj. ..).'" Probably teal yap elirev means 
"For indeed He said {in 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 "under the fig-tree" 
as "in [the covert of] the fig-tree." 

1 [2374 a] Comp. Lk. xix. 2 Kai Idoi/ avrjp ovd/nan Za/c. Kal avrbs tjv dpxiTe\uvTjs 
with Judg. xvii. 7 Kal eyevqdt) veavlas...>cal avros Aeveirys, a literal rendering of 
the Heb. "and he [was] a Levite," and see Lk. iv. 14 — 15, viii. 1 etc. In Lk., 
this use is probably Hebraic. 

- [2374/5] Jn ii. 12, iv. 2, 12, 53, xviii. 1 (R.V.) " he entered himself (d.) and 
his disciples," (A.V.) "he entered and his disciples." 


[2375] PRONOUNS 

o-Ktv) what was in man 1 ," vi. 6 "For he himself (a. yap) knew [i.e. he 
knew of himself, although he asked a question]..." 

[2375] So in vi. 15 "Jesus withdrew again into the mountain 
himself alone" avros /xo'vos is in contrast with the multitude that 
wished to seize Him, and perhaps it does not merely mean " by 
himself alone." Several authorities omit airrds. Perhaps it has a 
mystical emphasis (2724—6). The same phrase, avVo? pros, is applied 
to the grain of seed that will not die, xii. 24, A.V. "It abideth alone," 
but R.V. "it abideth by itself alone." It would be well to use the 
emphatic pronoun elsewhere, e.g. vii. 10 "Then he himself also went 
up [following his brethren]." In v. 20 "The Father loveth the Son 
and sheweth him all things that he himself doeth," R.V. has "himself" 
but does not have it in xii. 49 "The Father that sent me hath himself 
given me commandment (6 Tre/z^as p.* irar^p avros p.01 ivToX^v 
Se'SwKei')." In the latter, awVds is not quite the same as e/<€u'os, " He 
and no other " ; it is rather, " He in His own person," or " He in 
His own character of Father V 

[2376] Avtovs (accus. pi. masc.) occurs very frequently in the 
Synoptic narrative, to denote disciples, multitudes, Pharisees etc., in 
relation to Jesus, describing how Jesus "taught them" "healed 
them," " called them," "sent them" " questioned them " etc. In John 
it occurs thus only four times 3 (excluding one instance in an inter- 
polated passage 4 ). 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 5 ." 

1 [2374<| A.V. omits "self" in each of the three cases, R.V. in every case 
but the third. The threefold repetition of avrds 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 ravra in 2396—7. 

2 [2375 a] In xii. 49 R.V. has "The Father which sent me, he hath given me...." 
In vii. 4 ovdeU yap tl iv Kpvirr^ voui ko.1 forel r auT6^ (v irapp-qaia dvai, the txt, if 
correct, means "himself in opposition to his work." W.H. marg. has avrd, with 
BD d; but (1) c might be dropped before e, (2) although Syr. Cur. omits avrds, 
SS inserts it, (3) fijTui with accus. and inf. is not found in N.T. See 2727. 

■' Disciples in i. 38, vi. 17, xiii. 1, soldiers in xviii. 7. 

4 viii. 2. 

r ' [2376 a] xvii. 6 — 23. The noin. pi. avrol is used (peril, in a more personal 
and emotional sense than tKUfoi) in Christ's Prayer for the disciples, xvii. 19 
"that they may be also themselves hallowed," xvii. 21 "that they may be also 
themselves in us." In xvii. 8 na\ avroi iXafiov, there is perh. a notion of spon- 



[2377] In xviii. n to iroTrjpiov...ov /at/ 7ti<d au'rd, there is probably 
a combination of two constructions (i) "that very cup (avV6 t. it.)," 
i.e. the cup just as the Father presents it, and (2) the repetition of 
avro (more usually eKtivo) to emphasize the object 1 . 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 him"): but the narrative 
proceeds to describe how Peter (xx. 7) "entered into the tomb, and 
beholdeth...the napkin, which had [before] been upon his 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 him away," although 
the "gardener" has merely said, "Whom seekest thou 2 ?" 

[2378] The meaning of avrov is disputed in the following, viii. 44 
" He (eKeu'os) was a murderer from the beginning and stood (eo-rrjKev) 
not in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he is 
speaking that which is false (to i//ei)8os) he speaketh out of his own 
(<ek twv 181W) (2728) ; because he is a false speaker (i/zeuo-nrs) and the 
father of it (airrov)." Here "of it" probably means "of that which is 
false." Falsehood is regarded as being slanderous, i.e. 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, he speaks out of them as "his 
family " — 181W 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 b), or only the English of scholars. 

taneousness, "and they of themselves received the words I gave them." (In 
xvii. 11 avroi (v. r. ovtol), if genuine, is antithetical to the following eyu.) 

1 [2377a] 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 at)ros in Mt. vi. 4, Rev. xxi. 6, not even giving 
it in the margin. In 1 Pet. v. 10 aurbs Karapriaei 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 
avro should be "pleonastic." 

2 On avrov, as distinct from iavrov or t'Stos, used possessively, see 1720 a — i. 


[2379] PRONOUNS 

[2379] Some have suggested that avrov above (viii. 44) refers to 
ns "anyone," implied as the subject of AaA.17, "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 ns are quite different from 
the context here 1 . (2) Such an end to a sentence as xal 6 7raT»}p 
avrov, 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 e^ecrriv [nvt], " 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 (01 i\66vTe<;) to Mary... believed in him: but 
some of them (tiv« Se e£ avruv) went away to the Pharisees and told 
them...," the pronoun "t/iem" may mean either "the Jews" or that 
section of the Jews which "had come to Mary." For a discussion of 
this see 1941 foil. It is 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 " (" but some of them went 2 "). 

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" {i.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, 6v rpbwov ewepuT^o-rj is 
a literal rendering of Hebrew, "as though [one] were to take counsel," and has 
little bearing on independent Greek. In Mt. xix. 3, ran may be easily supplied 
after ^€<ttiv, "[one] is permitted," and the parall. Mk x. 2 has dt>5pL. In 
1 Thess. iv. 9, the substantival infinitive in ov xp e ^ av ^X eTe yp&<pe<- v vfi!iv is very 
doubtful, having regard to (1) dxopxv in B, tx.ofJ.ev in other good authorities, 
ypatpecdai. in some authorities, and to (2) the likelihood of conformity to 1 Thess. 
v. 1 ov xpeta" Zx eTe "V"" ypdtpeffdai.. In any case it supplies no parallel to \a\fj in 
Jn viii. 44. 

[2379 b\ Winer himself does not recognise the omission of the indefinite ns 
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" iiruo-KtypriTai, but 1 Esdr. ii. 18 eino-Kecptfrj) 
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 (idf tis \a\77, 6 \a\wv etc.), so that antecedently he would 
not be likely to use such an ellipsis even if the other evangelists used it. 

• [2380^/ 1 It may be said thai the impotent man cured by Jesus gave 
information similarly (v. 15) to the Jews. Bui 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." 



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 8s = auros or cKelvos, see below 1 . 

(ii) 'EKtivos (see also 2729—32) 

[2381] This pronoun is used frequently by all the evangelists as 
an adjective, especially in temporal phrases such^as "in those days," 
"from that hour" etc., and all the Synoptists have it in the phrase 
"woe unto that man (t<3 dv0pwir<a e/ceiVo)) 2 ." But the singular, as a 
personal pronoun, is almost confined to John 3 . He uses it some- 
times, without much apparent emphasis, in narrating a dialogue (" he 
answered," "he saith ") to mean "he, on his side, replied, said, 
denied etc. 4 " 

[2382] Outside dialogue, when John uses e/ccivos 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 " (i.e. do not suppose that he, the Baptist, was the Light), 
i. 18 "The only begotten... //t? [and no other] hath declared," i. 33 
" He that sent me... he [and no other] said to me," ii. 21 " [The Jews 
took the words literally] but he was speaking about... 5 ." It is often 
used by the Son concerning the Father, v. 19 "Whatsoever things he 
doeth " and similarly in v. 38, vi. 29, viii. 42. The Samaritan 
woman also uses it about the Messiah, iv. 25 "when he (emph.) (e.) 

1 [2380 b~\ In v. 1 1 6s Se aweKplOr) avrois, AB alone retain 8s dt, which is omitted 
or changed to 6 de by other authorities. *0s 5t is prob. more emphatic than 6 5^ 
and less emphatic than avrbs 8^ (which, in Jn, would mean " he [of] himself said"). 
"Os, in this sense, occurs in N.T. elsewhere only in Mk xv. 23 5s 8e ovk ZXafiev 
(where SB and 33 almost alone preserve 6s). It is one of several curious 
characteristics common to Mk and Jn. Steph. gives abundant instances of /ecu 6's 
in Plato and Xen., but none of 6s 5e. But comp. Job xxii. 18 6s 8e ev£w\r\ffev, 
where 6's represents the Heb. pron. "he" and is emphatic, Aq. and Theod. have 
accu cu't6s (A ore ye), Tob. v. 13 6s 8e etirev, 'Eyw 'Afixptas (X ko.1 etirev ai>T<p). "Os 
/j.iv...5s 8t does not occur in Jn. 2 Mk xiv. 21, Mt. xxvi. 24, Lk. xxii. 22. 

3 Lk. xviii. 14 has Trap' inuvov, Mk-App. xvi. 10 has iKelvi). 

4 Jn ix. 11, 25, 36 (?), xviii. 17, 21. 

5 Comp. the pi. in x. 6 "But they (e. de) did not know," xi. 13 "But they 


[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 writer's mind as his example. 'E/cctvos is used thus six times 
there, and in no other sense 1 . 

[2383] In John, ckcivos 2 , when preceded by *ai, is generally 
combined with it in the form kcWvos. The following is exceptional, 
xix. 35 "And he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his witness 
is true (dA. airov Icttlv 7] jj-apTvpia) and he (/ecu €Ke<Vos 3 ) knoweth that 
he (unemph.) saith true (oTStv on akrjdy \eyet), in order that ye also 
may believe." Here exeivos might theoretically be a mere emphatic 
substitute for the preceding au-ro's. Then the meaning would be 
simply, "he 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 v. 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 is 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 4 ; 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 5 ." 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 fern, occurs in v. 16, the 
neut. never. Comp. 2 Pet. i. 16 iTrbwTai...Tr)S (Kelvov fieyaXeiSTTjTos. 

- [2383 a] Perhaps the only exception in Jn, besides the one above discussed, is 
v. 39 " Ye search the Scriptures, and they are they (icai itcdval uaiv) that testify 
concerning me." 

3 Alford tends k&kuvos with X. 

4 Rom. ix. t, Gal. i. 20, 2 Cor. xi. to — 11. > 1 Cor. xi. },\ foil. 



(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 e/mvos, 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 1 ." For a parallel from Barnabas, see 2731. 

[2385] Chrysostom has the following comment on vii. 1 1 ttov 
iarlv eVeti'os; "By reason of their great hatred and rancour they 
would not even call Him by His name 2 ." The same pronoun that 
might mean, in the mouths of admirers, "that [great] man," might 
mean, in the mouths of enemies, "that [notorious] num." In vii. 45 
"There came therefore the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees 
and they (eVeivoi) said to them, Why did ye not bring him?" — we 
must bear in mind that John has previously described (vii. 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 "they said 3 ." See also 2732. 

1 [2384 d\ 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 (cd/jLef) prob. read oida/xev. 

[2384/>] 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 [i.e. the itcetvos clause], about the text of this clause, as Nonnus 
read eKcivov otdafiev, 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" ("ut et vos credatw "). So difficult a verse might naturally be 
amended into eKuvov oi8a/j.ei> ; but the emendation is manifestly based on xxi. 24 
o(8a/j.ev on. d\r]6ris avrov i] fxaprvpia earlv. 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." 

2 So, too, Cramer, rivos eveKev...; vtto iroWov /jlictovs /cat ttJs dyrex^eias 

:f [2385 a] The antithesis is much more obvious in Acts iii. 13 tv v^eis [j.£v 
Trap€8uiKaT€...KaTa irpdcwTrov IleiXaTov Kpivavros inelvov aTroXueiir, ii Ye on your side 
delivered up. ..when he on his side had decided to acquit." In the context of Jn 
there is no ixiv and there is a considerable interval between eicdvos and the earlier 
member of the antithesis. Still, antithesis is the explanation. 


[2386] PRONOUNS 

(iii) OStos 

[2386] Outos 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 outos 
after a previous description to sum up, or repeat, i. i — 2 "In the 
beginning was the Word.. J/iis [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...." 
Outos is also used, in apposition, to sum up a collective participle, 

vi. 46 6 wv trapa [tou] Oeov, outos..., vii. 1 8 6 Se ^tjtwi'. . .ovtos, XV. 5 6 
/a€Vwi'...ovtos (where the meaning would be quite different if outos 
were after a participle without a pause, e.g. 6 yueVwv outos, "this man 
that remains"). In all these cases, the meaning is that if a man 
does a certain antecedent act, then "this [same] man (outos)" also 
does a consequent act 2 . 

1 [2386 a] i. 15 (reading 8v dirov), i. 30, 34, iv. 42, vi. 14, vii. 40. In i. 34 
(W. H.) ovtos iariv 6 vibs t. 6eov, the reading (k\€kt6s for vibs, supported by SS 
and X (815), appears to have been in the txt of a papyrus of the 3rd century, Oxyr. 
Pap. vol. ii. p. 7, where the editors have shewn that a lacuna is prob. to be filled 

2 [2386^] In the Epistle, ovtos nom. sing. masc. occurs only thrice, ii. 22 
6. etrrtv 6 avTixpt-CTos, v. 6 6. ioriv 6 e\d<l>v Si' vScltos k. ai/xaros, v. 20 6. eanv 
6 a\r}divbs debs. On the difference between ovtos 6 d. and 6 d. ovtos, see 2553 c. 
The following is exceptional, ix. 16 ovk 2<ttiv ovtos irapb. 6cov — 6 avdpwTros (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 
xii. 18 fiKovaav tovto avTbv TrewoLr]K^i>ai — t6 o~qp.dov, the meaning seems to be 
" They heard that he had done this — [this great] sign." 

[2386r] On xxi. 21 ovtos di tI ; Blass (p. 177) compares Acts xii. 18 tI &pa b 
IWTpos iytvtTo, Lk. i. 66 rl apa Tb Trcubiov Zo-tcu; Joseph. Vit. § 296 01 eiKoai xpv<rot 
ri yeybvaaiv ; Xen. Hell. ii. 3. 1 7 rt Zoolto t) 7ro\trei'a, 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. Mori. vii. 2 
• '• 357) ° ytpw 8k tL npbs Tadra; "and the old man — what [<//</] he in conse- 
quence?" 1 Mat. Gorg. 502 A tL 5t b irarrip avTov Mrti)!; ib. A'ep. 332 E tLs 82 
TrXiovTas lovva.TwTo.T6s cgtiv e3 noidv] wpbs t6v tt)s 6a\aTTi)s kIv5vi>oi> ; Kv^epv^TTjs. 
'Vi 8t b oi k aios ; All these imply contrast, "so-and-so did thus: what shall this 
niiin do?" — so tl at they are parallel to xxi. 21. Nonnus supplies Te\to<rtt. 



[2386 (i)l Owto?, if connected with a noun and not used pre- 
dicatively, requires an intervening article as in classical Greek 1 . In 
ii. ii TavTtjv e7roL7](T€v dpx-ljv Twi' o-^/aciW, R.V. has " this beginning 
of bis signs," following N and Chrys., who read rrjv dpxtjv- — 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 3 ." 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 (Trporjyov/Aevov a-r]ixetu)v)," and he justifies this by saying that the 
creation of the draughts of sober joy is greater than acts of healing 4 . 
A similar predicative use of dpxv occurs in O.T. once, and perhaps 
only once, Prov. viii. 22 xvptos eKTure p.e apxw oBwy avrov, about the 
creation of Wisdom 5 . The Hebrew word there rendered kti(w is 
cana — Targum bara "create" — and means Krao/xai as well as kti£w: 
and Aquila and the rest substitute iKT-qaaro. Krrjcns, or KTrjpia, is 
accepted by Origen as representing the meaning of Cana 6 . In the 
first verse of Genesis, where LXX has ttoUw for the Hebrew bara 
"create," Aquila has kti£w. Philo (i. 361), inveighing against drunk- 
enness, quotes the passage from Proverbs thus, 6 0e6s e/cnfo-aTo p.e 
7rpwTL<rT7]v twv iavTov epytuv 7 . These facts shew that 7roi€to, KTt£w, and 
KTa.op.aL might be interchanged. Origen's direct comment on "Cana" 

1 [2386 (i) a] Ezr. x. 9 ovtos /xr/v 6 Zvoltos is a literal rendering of Heb. and 
means "this [is] month the ninth," parall. to 1 Esdr. ix. 5 ovtos 6 y.r\v kvaros — 
perhaps intended to mean, " this month [is] ninth in the year." Comp. 1 Chr. xi. 4 
avTT] 'Ie/3oi's " this [is] Jebus." 

2 [2386 (i) b] Alf. omits Chrys., but mentions " Eusj [-mss.]." As he does not 
mention Clem. Alex., he presumably refers to Eus. hi. 24. 11, quoting Clem. Alex. 
Tavr-qv apxw (Toiijcre tCiv irapaSd^wv 6 'Ir/irovs. But Heinichen and Schwegler 
mention ttjv only as an inferior reading [rain-qv ti\v apyj\v). 

3 [2386 (i) r] Hipp. v. 8 (pp. 107 — 9) avTrj, (prjah, earlv ij fj.eyd\rj ical aXrjdLvri 
dpxv tu>v (jy)iJ.eiwv, 7)v iiroir)0~tv 6 'Irjcrovs ev K. ttjs T. 

4 Lomm. vol. i. 295 — 6. Nonnus has TIpuTotpapes r68e dav fxa. . .irtXeao-ev . 

5 [2386 (i) d] Comp. Sir. xxiv. 9 (A) irpb tov aiQivos awapxyv fKriai /xe. 

6 Lomm. ii. 117 fieSaiCov eavTW kttjctiv tw a,7r6 ravTTjs rrjs yijs iricrTevovTwv eh 
tov iraTtpa. di clvtou, lb. 128 wapa. t6 KTTjfia avTOv...Js.ava ihvo^aadr}. 

7 Philo proceeds (i. 362) to describe the infinite flow of the graces of God as 
a fountain (iTnppeovo~qs ttjs tov 8eov x a P lTUlv Trriyrjs). 


[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 cana is used in O.T. of God (Gesen. 888 — 9) 
(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 (v\rj) and to be made one with the Logos that was in the 
beginning with God, and with His Wisdom, whom He created as the 
beginning of His ways 1 ." The facts indicate that ii. n ravr-qv 
iTTOLTjaev ap-^ffv means tovto iiroir)o~ei> tos (or ware, elvai) dpxqv, 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) AlA TOfTO 

[2387] Aia tovto, "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— for this cause (Sui tovto) the world hateth you." The 
initial "for this cause" is so frequent elsewhere that we may infer 
that here, too, John writes with the feeling that he is introducing 
a new sentence, as though the last terminated with the statement 
"I chose you out of the world," as a consequence of which, "the 
world hateth" them 2 . Another exception, according to R.V., is 
i. 31 "And I knew him not; but that (dW 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) e] 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 tovto irpCiTov arifxtiov 
(iro'nqcuv, and Chrys. quoting with r-qv apxv v , says etre 51 tovto are 'irepov irpGiTOv 
o~r)nilov iyivero tQv fxtra to pawno/Aa ~yevop.evwv oil o~(f>b5pa 5uax v P^ i<J ^ al ivayKaiov 
thai /xot SoKti. Their words indicate that any Greek writer would naturally have 
used irpwrov 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 bio. tovto, all have it at the beginning, Acts ii. 26, Rom. xv. 9, 
Ilcb. i. 9. 



u-a, and the rendering should be "But [it came to pass] in order that 
he should be made manifest to Israel. For this cause came I etc." 

[2388] In vii. 21 — 2, "...I did one work [on the sabbath] and 
ye all marvel. For this cause hath Moses given you circumcision... 
and on the sabbath ye circumcise a man," R.V. marg. gives "and ye 
all marvel because 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," i.e. are amazed with a foolish and faithless 
amazement (1673 a — e). Rebuking them, Jesus says, "For this 
cause" i.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] Aia tovto, with an interval, frequently precedes on, 
" because" e.g. viii. 47 "He that is from God heareth the words 
of God. For this cause (81a tovto) ye hear not, because (on) ye are 
not from God." Here, "/or 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 ("because 0/ this, 
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. And (kcu) for this cause did the Jews persecute Jesus; 
because [in other zvords] (6Vt) he did these things on the sabbath. 
But he answered them, My Father worketh...and I work. For this 
cause therefore (ow) 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 

1 [2389 a] Aia tovto follows dAAd and precedes eis in xii. 27 (see 2512 b — c),. 
"And what should I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? Nay (a\\d), for this: 
cause (dta tovto) came I, to [meet] (eis) 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"). 

A. VI. 289 19 

[2391] PRONOUNS 

represented by tovto, e.g. in xii. 37 — 40 ''But. ..they did not believe, 
in order that the word of Isaiah might be fulfilled, 'Lord, who [hath] 
believed...?' For this cause they were not able to believe, because 
again Isaiah said, 'He hath blinded their eyes....'" Apparently, 
however, "this" 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 1 . 

[2391] An apparent, but only apparent, exception (to Sia tovto 
looking back) occurs in x. 17 "For this cause doth my Father love 
me because 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..../ lay 
down my life for the sheep — and other sheep I have... and they shall 
become one flock, one shepherd. For this cause doth my Father 
love me because 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 "lay 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 "this 
cause" is to the preceding words, "and we are [the children of God]"; 
and the meaning is, "Because zve are His children the world knows 
us not — naturally, because it knows not the Father." 

(/?) 'En toyt(i» 

[2392] 'Er tovtw, (neut.) "in this," "herein," "hereby 2 ," occurs 
five times in the Gospel and twelve times in the Epistle. The uses 
are not quite similar. In the Epistle, when followed by cm or lav, it 

1 [2390 a] For 5id tovto (i) looking back to a previous statement and at the 
same time (2) preceding a sentence with initial 6Vt, see Ps. xvi. 8 — 10 (Acts ii. :6 — 7) 
Sta tovto Tji'^pafdr] r\ Kapdia /j.ov...Kal r) ff&pi; fiov KaTaffK-quwo-ft eV £\tt18l. oti ovk 
ecKaraXe/i/'as.... Here dia tovto merely looks backward. On begins a new 

uce and introduces a restatement of the cause for joy ("for indeed thou wilt 
not leave my soul to Sheol'') stated previously in the words "Because he is 
at my right hand 1 shall not be moved." 

2 Not in the Synoptists exc. Lk. x. 20 "/// this rejoice not." 



seems sometimes to look forward, as in i Jn ii. 3 "And hereby know 
we that we know him — if we keep his commandments," i.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 Sia tovto) it may also look forward to something supplementary. 
This, however, is not the case in iv. 36 — 7, "He that reapeth re- 
ceived wages and gathereth fruit unto life eternal; in order that he 
that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together. For herein 
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 on clause 
has nothing to do with iv tovtu) but defines 6 Aoyos. 

[2393] But iv tovtio is explained by a following on clause in 
ix. 30, where, the Pharisees having said "We know not," the blind 
man just healed says "Herein [i.e. in your not knowing] is the marvel 
[namely] because (on) ye know not whence he is, and [yet] he opened 
mine eyes." In xiii. 35 "...even as I have loved you that ye also 
love one another. Herein 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 (i'va...c/>ep7T€) 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 (I'm)" the disciples "may 
bear much fruit." Thus the <W clause does not define "herein" (as 
though it meant "in the fact that ye bear") but explains the object of 
the "abiding." 

(7) Mgta toyto, or tayta 

[2394] Mcto. tovto is rarer in John than (acto, tolvto.. The former 
occurs only as follows, mostly implying a short interval, ii. 12 "After 

291 19- 

[2395] PRONOUNS 

this [i.e. after the sign at Cana] he went down...," xi. 7 "afterthis [i.e. 
after abiding two days] he saith," xi. 1 1 "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 
T thirst." 5 In all these instances there follows some word or deed 
of Jesus. This is not the case after p.era ravra 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 1 . In ii. 12 and xix. 28, //.era tovto might refer 
to the completion of a definite period or act (like the Hebrew in 
Gen. xxiii. 19 "After this he buried Sarah 2 ") as distinct from fierb. 
ravra 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. 

(8) AyTof 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. 3 ). In the following, the mss. vary (ii. 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 (avrov) and his brethren (avrov)," but Matthew and 
Luke have "his mother and brethren (77 /a. kou ol d. avrov)," thus 
knitting them into one group 4 . 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 [2394^] The other instances are iii. 22, v. 14, vi. t, vii. 1, xxi. 21. It 
occurs once in speech, xiii. 7 "But thou shalt know after these things." 

* [2394 /'] LXX /j.era ravra. The more usual Hebrew is (lit.) " after these 
words'''' fxtra ra prjfj.ara ravra, Gen. xv. i, xxii. I etc. Neither jxera tovto nor 
fxera ravra is found in Mk or Mt. But Mk-App. xvi. 12 has fxera ravra. Lk. 
has fxera ravra, about past action, twice pec. (x. t, xviii. 4) and once (v. 27) where 
Mk ii. 13 has irdXtv irapa r'i)v doXaaoav, and Mt. ix. 9 iicetOev. Lk. has /xera 
ravra twice about the future (xii. 4, xvii. 8). 

3 i. 1, xii. 47, comp. ix. 5, x. 29. 

4 Mk iii. 31, Mt. xii. 4(1, Lk. viii. 10. 



"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 1 ." 

[2396] This general habit of omitting pronouns makes the 
following passage all the more remarkable, xii. 16 " These things 
(javra) his disciples understood not at the first : but when Jesus was 
glorified, then remembered they that these things (ravra) were written 
{y^ypajxjxiva) concerning (2339) him, and that they had done these 
things to him." On this Westcott says, "The threefold repetition of 
the words is to be noticed." He refers to the "threefold repetition" 
of Tavra. Schottgen 2 gives a multitude of instances in which "this 
thing," represented by the Hebrew feminine "this" (mostly altered as 
to gender in LXX), is mystically interpreted as referring to the 
Messiah. The most important is Ps. cxviii. 22 — 3 "The stone that 
the builders rejected is become the head of the corner. This [thing] 
(avT-r)) 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 3 . 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 co?igregational 
ascription of glory, or utterance of hope or thanksgiving, to God, was 

1 [2395 a] vii. 5. Of course it might be urged, on the other side, that by 
writing 17 /i^rr/p avrou /ecu oi a5e\<pol tcai 01 ^.a^r/rat avrov, 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. 

- [2396 a] Schdttg. ii. 45. Gen. ix. 12, 17 " This (tovto) is the sign," 
Ps. xxvii. 3 "In this (ravTri) do I trust," Jer. ix. 23 — 4 "Let him boast in this 
(toijtw) " are interpreted of the Messiah. 

3 [2396 £] Mk xii. n, Mt. xxi. 42 (Lk. om.) irapa. Kvpiov tyevero avT-q. Comp. 
1 S. iv. 7 "There hath not been such a thing" ov yiyovev toiclvtt], i K. xi. 39 
"And I will for this afflict the seed of David," LXX. om., A 5ia raiirriv. Field 
(on Mt. xxi. 42) says that some modern commentators have committed the error 
of taking avr-q as referring to Kt<pa\r), " This (head of the corner) was from the 
Lord." I fear we must add Origen {ad loc, Huet i. 468 a) ko.1 6av/j.aari] Ke<pa\-q, 
and probably Chrysostom. See 2621 — 2. 


[2398] PRONOUNS 

variously added (i) by Mark and Matthew, (2) by Luke, (3) by 
Barnabas 1 . If this was the case, John, taking up Mark's tradition 
about avrr], and converting it into the more intelligible ravra, may 
have placed the tradition in its right position, not 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. 9—10) — as being divinely 

(iv) TotOVTOS 

[2398] As to iv. 23 kclL yap 6 TraTrjp Toioijrovs £t7T€1 tovs TrpoaKV- 
vovvtcls avTov, Winer-Moulton (p. 138) parallels it to Mk ix. 37 [eV] 
T(5v ToiovTwv 7rai8<W "one of such little children 2 ." But John has not 
prefixed the article as Mark has ; and the article is invariably prefixed 
in IV. T. wherever toioiJtos is used as a niasc. pronoun, referritig to 
some previous description. It follows that tolovtovs must be taken 
predicatively, although the construction presents difficulties. Per- 
haps (r)Tei is nearly equivalent to "desire" (Dan. vii. 19 Theod. 
it,i]Tovv, LXX rjOeXov) and the meaning is " desires [to have] his 
worshippers such," as Horace uses " te semper amabilem sperat" for 
" hopes [to have] thee ever amiable." But of course tyrei does not 

1 [2397(7] 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, X^yei 8e ttolXlv 6 irpo^T-rjs- XiQov 8v 
aTreooKi/xaaav oi oLKodo/j-ovvres, ovtos iyevqdrj els K€<pa\rju ywvias. kcll ttclXlv \iyei' 
Autt] £<jt'lv 77 ri/j.e'pa. r\ neydXr] /ecu Oav/jLaarr], rjv eirol^crev 6 Ki'pios. 

[2397/'] The words in the LXX "This (aib-77) came (iyevero) from the Lord 
ami it is marvellous in our 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 (Ke<pa\i)), but we 
accept it, i.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 K, 
Chrys. ad toe.). 

-|2398</| Mk i\. 37, \. 14. Mt. \i\ 14, l.k. wiii. i". Acts xxii. ::, 
Rom. xvi. 18, 1 <'or. v. 11. vii. :S, wi. 16 etc. Chrys. ./</ /<v. d toloutovs (Morel. 
tovtovs) 7rri\cu i£r)Tu seems to have taken tolovtovs non-predicatively, but the 
usage of all books in N.T. (including 3 |n S) is hardly to be disputed. 


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, e.g. v/juls, as subject. But 
John uses v/meis about as often as it is used by all the Synoptists 
together. The main reason is his love of contrast as in viii. 23 " Ye 
(i5/xeis) are from beneath ; / (eyw) am from above : ye (v/aci?) are from 
this world; f (iyw) am not from this world 1 ." Sometimes, however, 
emphasis may be intended, and may be in danger of being confused 
with contrast. Thus, in the first instance where v/acis occurs, 
i. 26 ("I (cyw) baptize in water; midst of you standeth [he] whom 
ye (w/acis) know not ") a contrast might be supposed to be intended 
between "ye" and "I." But there "ye" perhaps means "evetiye-, 
although he is in the midst of you " ; and " I " is contrasted, not with 
"ye " 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 rt] There is very little in the Synoptists like this use of vfj-ets. The 
nearest approach to it is the contrast between the "my" of prophecy, meaning 
God's ("my house") and "ye," in Mk xi. 17 (comp. Mt. xxi. 13, Lk. xix. 46) 
" My house shall be called a house of prayer... but ye (i/ieis) have made it a den 
of robbers": and the Sermon on the Mount contrasts "/ say unto you" with 
what was "said to them of old time" (Mt. v. 21 — 2, 5$ — 4). 

- [2399/;] "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." 

[2399c] In i Jn, there is a clear distinction between "we write" and "/ 
write." The Epistle opens with "we" thus (i. r — 10) "That which we have 
heard, that which we have seen. ..And these things we (emph. ^m £ 's) write unto you 
that our (rifjuav, marg. v/jlQv) joy may be fulfilled.... If we say that we have not 
sinned we make him a liar and his word is not in us." 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 I write unto you," and this is repeated nearly 
a dozen times, ending with v. 13 " These things have I written." But no pronoun 
is inserted except for emphasis or antithesis, i. 4 "And these things we write 
(ypafiofji.ev r^eFs) that our (v. r. your) joy may be fulfilled." 


[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 "thou 
also [like Moses}" whom they presently mention, or else meaning 
"thou on thy side [since thou demandest obedience from us] 1 ." So in iv. 
10 "If thou hadst known. ..thou (ov) wouldst have asked him 
(avTov)," the second " thou " is emphatic and the meaning is, " Thou 
wouldst have asked him [not waiting for him to ask thee]." There 
is also a deliberately intended difference between r}/xds olSa^u and 
oiSafxev in the following, ix. 29 " We (v/xeU) 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) "Ey6 

[2401] For eyoJ with dpi, see 2220—8. For eyw, 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, 
"/am not the Christ," "/am [but] a voice," "/baptize with 
water," "/am not worthy to loose his latchet " etc. The following 
are the instances in Greek : i. 20 eyw owe el/u 6 xp-, i- 2$ «yw <j>wvrj, 

1. 26 — 7 eyw /?U7n-i'£aj...oi> ovk elfil [eyw] a£ios 2 , i. 30 ovtos iariv virlp ov 
iyw ilnov (where Chrys. not only changes vVe'p to the more usual vrepi 
but also drops eyw), i. 31 (rep. t,^) Kayw ovk ySew, i.e. "and I for my 
part did not know him, it was God that revealed him to me," i. 31 
Ota tovto rjXdov eyw ev vScltl /3a7rrt£(oi', i. 34 Kayw iwpaKa, i.e. "and 
I, with my own eyes, opened by God, have seen," iii. 28 avrol v/xels 

1 [2400 a] In vi. 30 tL ovv ttoius <rv o-n/netov ; the R. V. " What then doest thou 
for a ml;!]?" may he intended to emphasize "thou," hut there is nothing to make 
this clear to an English reader. Either italics in the text, or some sign in the 
margin, might have indicated it. And the absence of any such indication 
(ihscurcs tin- sense in many passages. 

- |2401 rt] So, too, Ml< i. 8 iyu ipdirTi<>T6s o«', Ml. in. 11, I.k. iii. 16 
4yio fi(i>...avT6s. But the SynoptistS om. iyw in the clause about the shoedatchet 
<'i hoes, ov ovk eifxi Inavdi. 


PERSONAL [2404] 

fXOL /xaprvpelre on ei7roi' [cyoj] Ovk elpu e'yco 6 ^ptaros, i.e. I did not 
wait for others to dispute my claim to be Messiah, I myself 
spontaneously denied all claim. Here Alford rejects the first e'yoj, 
apparently on the ground that B, alone of the uncials, has it. 

(iii) 2v 

[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 " Thou testifiest 
about thyself," " Art thou greater than our father Abraham ? " etc. 
But its frequency extends to the whole of the Gospel and indicates 
the evangelist's tendency, ist to lay stress on personality and, 2nd, to 
express personality in dialogue. 

[2403] In xix. 9 " whence art thou (iroflev el en;;) ? " a difficulty is 
raised by <jv as well as by -n-oOeu. As to irodev, 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 " From what source, 
celestial or terrestrial, art thou ? " But, even in that case, there is no 
need of av, 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 ? (av<a6ev...\€yu)v Ei av 
el 6 XpicTTosy) But He gives him no answer 1 ." 

[2404] The Index to Epictetus shews that iroOev aoi ; and -n-oOev 
arv ; 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 Son 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, "How could you possibly be 

1 [2403 d\ 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. 


[2405] PRONOUNS 

[Son of God] ? " irodev el av 1 ; Some might take this as an inquiry 
about the province from which Jesus came — an inquiry mentioned 
by Luke alone 2 . John, believing that this was an error, might insert 
the exact words that caused the error 3 . But see 2733 — 7. 

III. Relative 

(i) "0 S 

(a) Attraction of the Relative 

[2405] In IV. 5 T ov )(wpi.ov ov ISujkcv 'I., iv. 14 tou vSaros ov eyu> 
Swcrw, xvii. 5 rfj &6£ij 77 (marg. rjv) ei^oy, xxi. 10 twv 6\pap[wv <5v 
eVtao-aTc, the relative pronoun corresponds to the defining relative in 
English (" that," as in " the water that 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 4 . Similarly in xv. 20 p.vr)p.oi>eveTe tov \6yov 
ov eyw (Lvov v/xlv, the attracted relative indicates that "the saying" is 
meaningless until it is defined and completed. The meaning is not 
"the word, which I said," but "the tvord that I said." 

[2406] But, if so, why is the relative not attracted — not at least 

in the best MSS. — in ii. 2 2 i7rio-T€vcrav rfj ypcuprj /ecu nil Aoyw ov etTrev 
o Ir)o~ov$, and in IV. 5 £iTLO~Tevo~ev-o avOpwrros t<2 Aoyoj ov €t— er at'rw 

6 'Imam's 5 ? The answer may be that in these two passages the 
" saying " is special, and may be called in some sense complete — not 
"the zvord that Jesus uttered [as a general doctrine]," but (1) "the 
[mysterious] word [about destroying the Temple], "which Jesus then 
uttered," (2) " the zvord [of healing, 'Thy son liveth '], which Jesus 

1 [2404 a] The insertion of el in such a phrase is, however, improbable. 
On Epictet. i. 19. 9, for wbdtv av, the editor suggests irodev aoi. Similarly in Jn, 
if ot were written over av, the former might easily be added to the text as «, 
resulting in ait eL But the subject requires further investigation in connexion 
with the phrase irbdev ei/xi, frequent in this Gospel (2736). 

- Lk. xxiii. 6 — 7. 

■ ; Against this view, it may fairly be urged that 7r6#ee av, in the Epictetian 
idiom, suggests an incredulity approaching contempt, whereas Pilate is "'afraid"; 
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 </] The instances given by Hauler (l.SX.X) where (in this construction) 
the antecedent is omitted, are vi. 29 -marevrjTe as 5v awtareiXev, vii. 31 wXeiova 
arjfifia -Koir\an wv ovtos twoL-qacv, xvii. 9 irepi uv Sounds /xoi. 

8 Here W.I I. give ov in both passages without marg. altern. although some 
authorities read u5. 


RELATIVE [2409] 

had just uttered." It may be urged that the same reasoning applies 
to xv. 20, which repeats the word "just uttered" in xiii. 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 
vii. 39 tovto Se elnev 7rept tov it i'tv licit os, 6 e/xeAAov Xa/x/3dv€LV. . . Here 
W.H. place o 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 that was about to be 
received," but "the [Holy] Spirit, which (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 1 . 

(/3) 'En Tto ONOMATi coy (1) AgAcokac moi (see also 2740 — 4) 
[2408] The relative has been altered by some authorities, because 
of its difficulty, in xvii. n — 12 "Holy Father, keep them in thy 
name that thou hast given me (ev ra ovolhitl crov a> ScSwkcis /*<h) in 
order that they may be one even as we. When I was with them I 
kept them in thy name that thou hast given me (eV t<2 6. crov u> Se'cWa? 
/xoi)." Some in the first clause, and more in the second, have 
changed J> to ovs (" those whom thou hast given me "), and SS omits 
both clauses. Chrysostom explains "in thy name" as "through 
thy help," and reads ov% 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 "in him"), 
and with the language of Jehovah saying " I will put my name on " 
persons and places chosen by Him 2 . The Epistle to the Philippians 
says that God " gave as a free gift (exaptVaro) " to Jesus " the 
name that is above every name," in order that "in the name of 

1 On the difference between "that" and "which," see 2273 a. 

2 Ex. xxiii. 21, Numb. vi. 27, 1 K. viii. 16 etc. 


[2410] PRONOUNS 

Jesus every knee should bow," whether in heaven or earth or beneath 
the earth 1 . The Acts of the Apostles 2 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 3 . 
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 4 " : it describes one sitting on a white horse 
as " having a name written that none knoweth save himself, and clad in 
a cloak sprinkled with blood, and his name is called the Word of 
God 5 ," and adds, " His servants shall serve him and shall see his 
face and his name [shall be] on their foreheads 6 ." 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. i) "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 ' Name of God,' and ' Logos,' and ' the Man according 
to the Image,' and ' Seeing Israel 7 .' T 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 (7rpocrpr/creis) derived 
from beneficent actions and works 8 ." 

[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 

1 Phil. ii. o. - Acts xix. 14. 

J Mt. vii. 22 " In thy name have we cast out devils," where the parall. 
Lk. xiii. 25 — 6 omits the clause. 

4 [2409 a] Rev. ii. 17. tyrjcfros "pebble," here (as in Acts xxvi. 10 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 
oiowfxi \J/?)<poi> which means "I give my vote." Comp. 1 Jn iii. 20 "If our heart 
condemn* 11 • 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 
Rev. 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 lie that receiveth it." 

8 Rev. xix. 12 — 1.5. ,; Rev. xxii. 3 — 4. 

7 Philo i. 426 7. 8 Just. .Mart. 2 Apol. 6. 


RELATIVE [2411] 

a Son as Jesus Christ. In his Gospel, the word "name," when 
uttered by Christ, occurs almost always in the phrase (i) "thy name," 
or "the name of the (or, my) Father," or else (2) "in my name" as 
being the avenue through which the requests of the disciples are to 
pass to the Father 1 . 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 2 ." 

1 [2411 a] 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 the 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" 
xvii. 6, 11, 12, 26 "thy name" — making seven mentions of the Father's name by 
the Son. 

[2411^] "My 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 [2411c] The "name," i.e. essence, of the Father (not of the Son) is '■'■given" 
to the Son (not " revealed" 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. Cels. 1. 6 and 24, comp. v. 45), 
and also on the interpretation of the words in the Lord's Prayer, "Father, be 
thy name made holy." In the Fourth Gospel, Christ only thrice uses the word 
"holy," namely, here, xvii. 11 — 12 "Holy Father, keep them in thy na?ne 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 </] Another aspect of the Johannine doctrine is in the Didactic x. 1 
"Now after ye are filled (e/unr\7](rdrji>ai) give thanks thus, 'We give thanks unto 
thee, holy Father, for {virip) thy holy name which (06) thou didst cause to tabernacle 
(KareaKrivwaas) in our hearts,' " where the writer means the relative clause to be 
essential, "the Holy Name of thine that" or "that Holy Name of thine which.'" 

[2411 e] Why does Jn add "that thou hast given me" to "thy name"? 
Probably to lay stress on the free and fill " giving" — " Not as the world giveth, 
give I unto you." This includes the Pauline distinction between attainment 


[2412] PRONOUNS 

(7) 'EnTOAHN KAINHN...O (i Jn ii. 8) 

( 2412] In connexion with the above-mentioned "new name" of 
love, or Father, the following passage also may be mentioned as 
illustrating the use of the relative, 1 Jn ii. 8 "Again a new command- 
ment (ivroX-qv) I write unto you, which thing (o) 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 loveth 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 ii. 7) " not new," is 
also, paradoxically, " new." 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 "A new com- 
mandment give I unto you that ye love one another — even as I loved 
you that ye also love one another 1 ." It is to this saying that the 
author of the Epistle is referring. The words may be paraphrased : 
"I 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 2 ." 

attempted "through works," and " the free gift" received through '■'■faith." 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 

1 xiii. 34. 

- [2412 a] On viii. 40 ^rdri p.e dTroKrewai, dvdpoiirov 8s...\e\d\TjKa, where 
dvdpunrov, at first sight, seems needless, see Origen who refers to it in his 
comment on Ps. lxii. 3 £a;s tt6t€ iwiridtade ew' dudpwwov, saying, Tovto op.01.6v iari 
t(j5 XCv 'C-qTtlri fie airoKTeivai. " kvdpuirov 'C-qrovaiv dwoKTeivai- Kai ol €TriTit)ep.evoi 
dvOpuirip eirtTidevTCLi. In the Hebrew of the Psalm, "man" appears to be 
emphatic, Sym. has dvopos, and the Targ. has "<7 merciful man," as though the 
meaning were: "How long will ye spend your time in setting upon a man [made 
in God's image\\" To this emphasis Origen calls attention saying "This 
[expression of the Psalmist's] is like ' Now ye seek to kill me' | in the Oospel. 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 dvOpwrrov, 
ami we OUghl lo read Nw» i'rjTiiTf' fit dwoKTtlvaL, dvdpwirov. AvBpUTTOV 

In < >rigen's Comm. Johann. (on viii. 40) although he does not quote Ps. lxii. 3 

iTrtTiOecrOe, the influence oi ii may be traced on Ins statement about tovs tu> \6yip 
rod deov iwiftov\ti'oi>Tas that rip dvOpwirivuripip avrov K. ftXfTro/u.ei'ip e'iriTldo'Tai. 

3< '■-' 

RELATIVE [2413] 

(ii) "Oo-tis 

[2413] 'Oo-tis, "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 1 . In such cases oo-ris, 77719 etc. may be 
rendered " nmv he, she tic." e.g. Gal. iv. 24 — 6 "One from mount 
Sinai... now this (17ns) is Agar... ; but Jerusalem that is above is free, 
now this (tJtis) is our mother." So in Jn viii. 53 "Art thou greater 
than our father Abraham (R.V.) which (ocn-t?) 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 
unto you (rrjv apxw ° Tt KaL ^-aXaJ vfuv)," some take on as a con- 
junction, "because," but it is probably the neuter of cVns. This is 
discussed elsewhere (2154 — 6). 

Subsequently he says ovk Zcttlv ore 6 Kara tov 'Iriaovv TpoiriKuis voovp.evos avdpwTros 
ovk iireSrjfjLei ry /3iy. These facts bear on the statement made above (1934 — 5) 
that avdponrov is emphatic in viii. 40, which means "a man, who" — quite distinct 
from "a man that'''' meaning " one that." 

[2412 £] In vi. 9 io-Tiv iraiddpiov w5e 6s £x eL i some authorities, including X, have 
o. Some have %v before tide. Blass says (p. 317) "better iraid. Zx "' Chrys. 
Nonnus." Some corruption is indicated by the variations of words and order 
(b e, Syr. (Burk.) Chrys. "there is here a lad," a "est puer hie," f "est puer unus 
hie," SS "a certain lad hath on him here"). But e'x" > s probably correct. For 
Chrys. goes on to say fxera yap to eiire'ii' "Ex« wtvre aprons KpiOLvovs — which 

suggests that a scribe has given his previous quotation incorrectly. As to the 
change of gender, comp. 2 S. xiii. 17 eKaXeae to Traidapiov avrou tov irpoeaT^KOTa 

(unless the particip. is regarded as an appositional noun). Note also that X, 
which reads here, substitutes Tiva in 1 Mac. xvi. 16 Tivas tQv Traidapiov, and that 

D has oc here with a line drawn through the c. The facts indicate that os was 
the original reading. On xix. 17 Kpaviov Tonov 6, see 2738. 

1 [2413 a] In the parables, Matthew uses octtls to introduce the point of 
resemblance (of the householder, king, virgins etc.) between the emblem and 
the reality {e.g. "that planted a vineyard," "that took their lamps" etc.). So in 
Lk. vii. 37 "a woman that 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 (o'inves) say," where the "saying" is not a detached fact but bears 
on the following discussion. But initial Bans means " and accordingly or con- 
sequently " in Acts viii. 15 "They sent to them Peter and John, who accordingly 
(o'iTives) 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. 


[2414] PRONOUNS 

(a) "Octic an, or eAN 

[2414] "Oo-tis with uv or lav in the Johannine Gospel and 
Epistles occurs, certainly, only in the neuter, ii. 5 " Whatsoever (aV) 
he may say," xiv. 13, xv. 16 " w/iatsoever (av) ye may ask." It is also 
probable in 1 Jn iii. 20 " [in] whatsoever (on lav) our heart may 
condemn us." Bruder (Moulton) marks under this head xxi. 25 ecrriv 

Se Kai aAAa ttoWo. a iiroL-qatv 6 'I^croi'S, axiva lav ypa^rai 1 . But 

lav here is generally regarded as meaning "if," in which case the 
construction would be quite different from that of ooris av (or 
lav), and the meaning would be " Of such a kind that if they should 
be written 2 ." It is certainly strange that otto and lav should be 
placed together by any N.T. writer except in the sense of " whatsoever 
things* " ; and the fact is one of several that render the text extremely 
doubtful 4 . On av and lav interchanged see 2739. 

1 It is not so marked in the original Bruder (1888). 

8 SS "t/iat if one by one they were written," a, b, e,f,ff, "quae si." 

3 [2414a] "E>a.v or av, meaning "soever,"' immediately follows some form of 
outls in Mk vi. 23 r "Ori iav' 1 (marg. on '0 iav), Lk. x. 35, Acts iii. 23, 1 Cor. xvi. 2, 
Gal. v. 10, Col. iii. 17. I do not know any passage in N.T. where edv, in such 
a position, means "if," except the one under consideration (if genuine). There 
is not the same ambiguity about 6-rrep iav, which occurs in Ox. Pap. vol. iii. 653 
oirep idv prj iroir)(Tris apparently meaning "and unless you do this" (A.D. 162 — 3). 
This is closely followed by 6v iav ah Sips apparently meaning "whomsoever you 
appoint," not " whom, if you appoint." For further evidence from the Papyri see 
2416 a. 

4 [2414/'] Origen quotes Jn xxi. 25, as follows (omitting avrbv) Philocal. 15 
(pyjcriv 6 'Iwavvrjs uis apa Ovdi tov Koapov ofyicu x w P^ v Ta ypacpdpeva ptpXla, 
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 (diaXiKrois) 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 to. ypacpbptva /3i/3.\fa, or else 
a conjunction oi'5e rbv K6crp.oi>...ov5e ra ypacpbfxtva /3tj3\/a, "neither the world... 
nor yet books." 

[2414 f] In a second quotation, after describing Jesus as being (lit.) "a 
multitude of good [things] (ttXtJ^os d7a0i2>c) " Origen says about these "good 
[tilings]," (Huet ii. 12) "They have not however had room found for them 
(Kexupy^wv) by writings (virb And why say I ' by writings,' when 
I < dm says even (Kai) concerning the whole world [that] 'Not even the world itself 
I think would have room for (ovSi avrbv rbv tcbapov x u PV iTa '-) 'I"-' l> l||| ks 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," 


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 ' not by writings,' 1 when John says ' not even by the world ' ? " — 
omitting "the books to be written." 

[2414 tf\ In a third quotation, the context of which resembles that in the 
Philocalia above, Origen (Huet ii. 201 Ttfoll.) says that "writing (ypa<prj) " in 
some cases, and "the tongue of man" in others, "have not made room for (ov 
KexuprjKe)," i.e. have not been capable of expressing, the highest mysteries of 
God ; and he proceeds, "Ecri yap Kai <x\Xa woXXa a iiroirj^ev 6 'I. artva iav 
7pd07?rat Kat)' £V ovde avrbv {rbv Koajnov is omitted] olfiai x u} PV cr€l1 ' Ta ypa<pop.eva 
@ij3\ia. Both in the Philocalia and here, he illustrates his view by St Paul's 
hearing (2 Cor. xii. 2 foil.) "words not to be uttered." 

[2414 1*] Again, in a fourth quotation, Origen (Huet ii. 326 D — e) speaks 
about the numerous words {py\y.arwv) 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, ov5' avrbv 01/ rbv KOffnov 
Xuprj&aL to, ypafib/xeva j3tj8\ta " : and he alludes to xxi. 25 as shewing that John 
could have written more Gospels than the world would hold (Huet ii. 88) 
lwavvov, 8s evayye\iov £v Kara\£\onrev, bpLo\oyu>v bvvacdai rocravra iroi7)<jtiv a. 
ovbk b KbfffMOS x w P^I <JCLl ibvvaro. He adds Sypa\j/€ be Kai ttjv ' Aw 0K&\v\ptv KeXevadeis 
ffLUTrrjcrat. Kai /it) ypa\pai rds ruiv errra fipovrQv <pwvds — apparently as an instance of 
divinely commanded reticence. 

[2414/] In his Conim. on Lk. iii. 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 scnbendi erant " (combining xxi. 25 
with xx. 30 "not written in this book" and substituting "locutus est" for "fecit" 
so as to afford aparall. to Lk. iii. r8 " annunciabat "). On Lk. iv. 1 he has " Sicut 
mundus capere non poterat omnes libros si scripta fuissent quae fecit 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, nee tamen audemus dicere quod facie ad faciem ab 
ipso traditam susceperimus intelligentiam eorum quae in divinis libris referuntur : 
' quae quidem cerlus sum quod ne ipse quidem mundus ' pro virtute ac majestate 
sensuum ' capere potest ','" and ib. 3 "Sicut scriptum est: ' Ne ipsum quidem. 

A. VI. 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 (anva lav) 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 

mnndum capere posse arbitror libros qui scriberentur'' de gloria et de majestate 
Filii Dei. Impossibile namque est literis commiltere 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//] Origen's view that xwpetJ', "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 av ex^pijce deov \6yuv icx^'v tu>v curdarjs Kpeiaabvwv aKoijs... 
ovoe yap el ttXovtov iiribeUvvadai ^ovXrjdeirj rbv eavrov, x^PV'™ av (yireipudeiaris 
xal OaXdacrrjs) iq crvfj-irdcra yrj, (i. 362) ovde yap twv oupeQiv inavbs ov8eis x w P') lTa ' 
t6 acpOovov nXfjOos, icus Se ov5e 6 k6o-/xos, (ii. 218) opiyu} tw x a P*- T °s <*s'V ""acras 
Scras av olds re 17 de^acrdai dwpeds, tt\v de euijv KardXruf/iv ovx olov dvOpunrov <pvais 
■dXX' ovd' 6 crvfnras ovpavds re nal K6ap.os dw^aerai x^prjcrai. In the context of 
the first of these three passages, Philo describes the flow of (Jod's "graces 
ixdpiTas)" eripas dvrl iKelvwv aai rpiras avri rue oevre'pwv ... in language remarkably 
like that of John (i. 16 X°-P LV «" T ' X"P tT0S " 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. DeSubl. 
ix. 9 6 tCiv 'lovoaibiv 0ecp.odirris...T7}v rod Oelov 5vva/.uv Kara ttjv a^lav i\wp7)(re 

Ka^e(j>7)vtv. Wetstein {ad /or.) quotes hyperbolical and literal traditions from the 
Talmud, that the world and the sky and the sea would not supply paper pens 
.ml ink sufficient to write out the knowledge of this or that Rabbi. 


SUBJECT [2419] 

the portrait of the Lord, but] the books that would have to be 
written [in the attempt to represent Him] 1 ." 

Subject 2 

(i) 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 
1H vii. 49 6 o^Aos ovtos 6 fxn] yLvaxrKiov tov vo/xov i-rrdpaTot elcrw, xii. 12 
6 o^Ao5 7toA.ii? 6 iXOiov eis ttjv kopTrjv aKovaavra . . . eXafiov. These 

two instances favour the plural reading in vi. 22 6 6';vAos 6 ecm^Kux; 
Tre'pui' rrjs 6a\dcra7]<; eJ8ov (marg. tSoji) 3 . 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, xii. 9, 18). 

[2418] When the verb precedes several nouns that constitute its 
subject, the verb is mostly in the singular 4 . 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 there tvere 
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 Ipyerai 'A. /cat <E>. «ai 

Xeyovariv, XX. 3 i^rjXOev ovv 6 II. kcu 6 aAAos /ULa8r)T7]s kcl\ yp^ovro. 

(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 zvrites a 

1 [2416 </] Deissmann (pp. 203 — 5) has given, from Papyri, more than fifty 
instances of idv with os, baos, oirore, olos, us, et tis, octtis, ottov (from B.C. 27 to 
A.D. 586). From the same collections of Papyri he gives only eight instances of 
&v with similar words. His conclusion concerning the use of eav for av 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 
aTiva idv 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 (pi.).... When therefore the m. saw (sing, before the 
vb, eldev 6 6'xXos)...they themselves embarked ((vij3ijcrav avToL)...." 

4 [2418a] i. 35, ii. 2, 12, iii. 22, iv. 53, xviii. 1, 15. In i. 45 Se Zypa-^ev M. 
iv ry v6/xw Kal oi TrpcxprJTat., the last three words are of the nature of an appendix. 

307 20 — 2 

[2420] SUBJECT 

neuter noun, he is thinking of a masculine or feminine noun. But 
XIX. 31 iv a. fxrj p-tivr) Ittl tov aravpov to crw/xaTa. . .iva Kareayiocriv avrwv 

to. a-Kikr) ko.1 dpduxriv exhibits the two constructions side by side : and 
it can hardly be argued that o-kcA?; is more suggestive than o-w/xara of 
" a masculine noun." Is it possible that to aKeXyj is accusative, 
a construction very common with Kareayevai in such phrases as "to 
have one's head, skull, collar-bone etc. broken 1 "? This would have 
the advantage of avoiding the abrupt change of subject in passing 
from Kareaywo-tv to apOuxTtv (which, in classical Greek, would require 
avTOL before dpOwaiv : " that their legs should be broken and the men 
themselves {avToi) carried away"). Without avroi, if o-Ke'A/r/ is nomin- 
ative, the text reads as though the meaning were "that their legs 
should be broken and carried away." But if o-Ke'A.17 is accusative, the 
meaning is "that they should have their legs broken and be taken 

away." In vi. 13, KXaiTpaTOiV.-.d iirepLO-crevo-av AN have -rxev, but the 

tendency to make this correction would be strong in some scribes ; 
W.H. have -o-av without alternative. 

[2420] The following variations deserve attention, x. 3 — 27 

to 7rp6/3a-a rrj<; <f><Dvr}<; avrov aKOvei. . .to TrpofiaTa avraj nKnXovOil, otl 

otSactr aAAorpia) 8e ov p.rj aKoXovOrjaovo'LV ovk 7/Kovaav avTW 

to Trp6(3a.Ta...ov ovk eaTiv to irpofiaTa iSia. . .aAAa irpofiaTa e^co a ovk 
earnv Ktti Trjs <fn>}vrj<; p.ov (Lkovo-ovo-lv. . .to irpofiuTa to ipd tt}<; 

(fnovrjs p,ov (iKovovmv. 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, "they 
know... they will not follow." Thenceforth individuality and plurality 
prevail, except in the phrases describing to whom the flock "belongs" 
where personality is merged in collectiveness. 

(iii) Suspended 

[2421] 'O TricrreiW, in vii. 38 {"He that &/&»*//&... rivers... shall 

flow from his belly") might be defended by some grammarians as 
implying ootm dv nio-Tfvo-r) (where oo-tis might be regarded as having 

1 [2419<z| Steph. (Kar&yvvfxi) qu. Plat. 34? B, 515 E with aira, Pollux iv. 188, 
with K\eiv, Demosth. I«68. 3 and many others with Ke<pa\r)v. 

[2419/^] The objection to this suggestion is thai airwv should not have been 
inserted, as "their" is sufficiently expressed by the article. No authority omits 
aiiruiv, but a renders it " illis." I) and SS are missing. Syr. (Walton) has "lit 
confringerent crura eorum suspensorum atque deponerent eos," and so has the 
Diatessaron. tri Nonnus, 7r65« t^voivto favours the usual rendering. 


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 

irav KXrjfxa ev ifxol fxrj (pepov Kap-rrov cupei avro. In the Parable of the 

Sower, Matthew and Luke have 6 cxwv where Mark has o? £x ct '» but 
there 6 c^wv is the subject of a/cove'rco. 

(a) TTan o AeAwKAC (xvii. 2) 

[2422] The following requires separate discussion, xvii. 2 (R.V.) 
" Even as thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that 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 2 ." 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 life — 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 (o) thou hast 
given me, I will that where I am they also may be with me 3 ," which 
again indicates a desire to give prominence to the clause " that which 
thou hast given me" by assigning to it an irregular position in the 
forefront of the sentence. In these two passages, " all that (-n-dv 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 4 , in the first it is not (1921 — 2). See also 2740 — 4. 

1 Mk iv. 9, Mt. xiii. 9, Lk. viii. 8: so Mt. vii. 24 iras ovv octtis &Kouei = Lk. 
vi. 47 iras 6...&kovujv. Comp. Rev. iii. 216 vuaZv dwuca avTui, and Prov. xi. 26, 
where, with a nom. particip., Aq. alone retains the Heb. idiom, KaTapdaovrai 
avrdv, while Theod. has Sij/xoKardpaTos, Sym. XaoKardparoi. 

- xvii. 2 Kadws ZduiKas avrop i^ovaiav Tracys aapKOS, 'iva irav 8 5^5w/cas avrqi 
8d>aet aiVois iwrjv aiibviov. 

3 xvii. 24. Here D makes no alteration. 

4 [2422 a] In xvii. 24, we might theoretically explain the construction as de\w 
'iva 6 d^SaiK&s p.01. — indvoi. wcriv' e/xou : but the author must not be supposed to 
have premeditated any such construction. 


[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. pi. of a verb to 
mean "people" — if " 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 [they] have drunk freely... 1 ," iii. 23 "Now John 
also was baptizing in /Enon...and [they, i.e. 'those whom he 
baptized '] came thither (TrapzyivovTo) 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 (xviii. 19 — 24) 
as a parenthesis' 2 . In xix. 29 "there was set there a vessel full 
of vinegar," the evangelist probably assumes that "vinegar" would 
be understood to mean " wine 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 [2424a] 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 

omewhat different from the indefinite "they" 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. 

- [2425r/] Similarly, in ix. i\ "\they\ 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." 


SUBJECT [2427] 

Reviewing the instances, so far, we do not find any in which the 
missing subject cannot be supplied from the context 1 . 

[2426] We come now to omissions of the subject in words 
of our Lord. In one of them, " they" appears to refer to "the 
world " previously mentioned " If the tvorld 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 [they] persecuted me they 
will persecute you also 2 ." 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 3 ." 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 — in accordance with frequent Jewish tradition as well as 
occasional Synoptic usage — means " the powers of heaven " or " the 

(vi) " We " non = pronominal 4 

[2427] " We " non-pronominal — i.e. expressed by verbal inflexion 
and not by pronoun — in i Jn i. i " that which we 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 i Jn ii. 28 " And now, little 
children, abide in him, that, if he shall be manifested we [a//] may 
have confidence." The most serious ambiguity arising from this use 
of "we" is in xxi. 24 "we know that his witness is true." Are these 

1 [2425/;] With these contrast Mk i. 32 (Mt. viii. t6 sim.) "But in the 
evening... [they'] brought unto him all that were sick" (where Mk i. 29 — $1 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 "All that had 
sick folk.., .led them to him." 

- xv. 16 — 20, where "the world" is six times mentioned. 

s xv. 6. On THEY, see 667 a, 738 a — b. On the alleged omission of an 
indefinite subject, "any one," and on the question whether 6 irar^p clvtou is 
predicate or subject, in viii. 44, see 2378 — 9. 

4 [2427 a] The difference between the non-pronominal and the pronominal 
"we" is illustrated by 1 Jn iii. 2, v. 15 {bis), 19, 20 o'iSa/xeu and iii. 14 rjixeh o'ida/j.ev 
(where "we" is opposed to "the world"). In Jn vi. 42, ix. 24, 29 "we (w«s) 
know" implies "we know, even if others do not" (2399 — 2400). 


[2428] SUBJECT 

the words of the evangelist, and do they mean " We all 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": — iii. n (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 we to buy bread that 
these may eat?" xiv. 31 "Arise, let us go (ayw/xei/) 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 (iii. 2) "a teacher," and 
whom He had called (iii. 10) " the 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 1 ," 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 2 " — 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 (ivrevOev) 3 ." 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 anil context. 

1 [2428</J Mk vi. 36 — 7 "that th,y may buy. ..arc we to buy," Mt. xiv. 15 
"that they may buy," Lk. ix. 1,5 "unless... ;,-'<• are to buy." In Mk-Lk. "we" 
means the disciples. Chrys., however, in |n, omits the " buying." See 2745. 

'•'• Sec Paradosis, 1372 — 7 ami Joseph. Bell. vi. 5. ). 


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 
is true 1 ." 

1 [2428(5] In ix. 4 "We (ii/, al. efj-e") must work (Set epydfreadai) the works of 
him that sent me (/xe, al. r/ttas)," the insertion of T/tta? 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 i)p.ds. The preceding 
words are IV a tpavepudfj to. tpya rod deov eV aiirul, "that the works of God might 
be manifested in him," i.e. in the man born blind. Then follows, in B, rjfias Set 
epyafeade {i.e. -at, to work). Origen twice (Huet i. 125, ii. 25) omits rifids del 
and quotes the saying as beginning with epydfeade "work ye." 

[2428 1 ] D has 5t 7]/ epyafeatiai. This might mean "for our sakes. Work 
ye." But D means 5et by <5t, "it is necessary for us to work." MSS. often express 
et by t (see Boeckh Inscr. Gr. 4588 «ce 5t = *at 5e?) and errors arise in consequence. 
Again Otitis and v/acls are liable to confusion — as may be seen from Jn viii. 54, 1 Jn 
i. 4 where W.H. give the two (v/j.Qv and t/aiwc) as alternatives. Origen, then, 
might easily have read the words before epydfeade as 5t' v/j.ds "in order that the 
works of God may be manifested in him, i.e. the blind man, for your sakes.'" 
This would make excellent sense. Comp. xi. 42 (in the Raising of Lazarus) 5td 
tov 6'xXov...et7roj', "I said it for the sake of the multitude" xii. 30 ov 5i' i/xe 17 <puvi] 
avrr) yeyovev d\Xa 5t' uttas , "for your sakes," and so, xi. 15 x a 'pv 01' vp.ds iVa 

[2428 1/] SS has "and me it behoves to do...," and so Ephrem (p. 197) " et 
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 power 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. 

[2428t'] 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 (to yeypap.ij.ivov) by applying (xpyo-dfxevoi) a 
Gospel saying uttered by the Saviour, which runs thus (oiirws exovcrrj) ' Work while 
(ews) 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 (ovksti ovdeis) work : when (otclv) 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, m 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 ^as to mean "My disciples and I." 


[2429] SUBJECT 

(a) " We know (oi'Aamcn) " (xxi. 24) 

[2429] We return to the discussion of the words " we know 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 ("we all 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, 
xxi. 25 " But there are also many other things that Jesus did, the 
which (?) // they are to be written (lav ypd^-qTat) one by one, I think 
not even the 7vorhi will hold the books that are [to be] written 1 ." 
Portions of this sentence are repeatedly (2414 b— ■/) quoted by Origen, 
and thrice as coming from the evangelist. It could hardly come 
from any one else, at least in substance 2 . 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 

1 [2430 <?] "EaTiv 8e Kai ctXXa 7ro\\a a eTroiijaev 6 'I., artea eav ypd(prjTai ko.6' Hv, 
ovo avrbv ol/uai tov k6<tixov x^PVO't'-" T & ypa(po/ji(va I3tj3\ia. On ariva iav as 
generally meaning "whatsoever things" but here, possibly if the text is correct, 
"which things, if," see 2414 — 6. 

- [2430/'] Teschendorf says that xxi. 25, in N, is written by a different scribe 
from the one that wrote the body of the Gospel. Hut this scribe (according to 
W.I I. ad loc.) appears to have been I), the diopd^rrjs, or corrector, of the MS., 
who also probably (according to Teschendorf (X 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 Rev.i. 1—4 "The Revelation. ..and from the seven Spirits which are 
before the throne and from Jesus Christ." These farts are consistent with the 
hypothesis that the change of handwriting may imply some special circumstances 
but not necessarily interpolation or diminished authority. 


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 1 , 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 

[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 

1 [2432,?] The difficult words "This is the disciple that beareth 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." 


[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 1 . Chrysostom most certainly recognises nothing as coming 
from Elders. And he quotes oiSa/Aev, once at least, as otoa, " / 
know, he says, that the things that he says are true 2 ." One might 
have supposed this to mean that the evangelist was " setting his 
seal" to the truth of the "testimony" of Christ 3 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 otoa 
/xev and co-Tii/ Se, although he quotes the text freely as olSa and 
tori yap . 

[2434] Some variations in the mss. and Latin versions add to 
the uncertainty of interpretation 5 . Of course unaccented Greek mss. 
would give no guidance as to oiAamcn 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 Icttiv Se : but this is omitted by 
SS and by the best Latin versions 6 . Yet co-riv 8e is almost certainly 

1 [2433 <7] 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. 

- [2433 fr] Kai oWa, (prjcrlv, on aXrjdrj icrriv a Xeyei. Above, the text is printed 
as ot5a/xev, but this might be an error for olda /xev. Chrys. previously speaks of 
the evangelist as "testifying to himself (p.aprvp(ov eai'ry)." 

:i iii. 33 6 \aftu>i> avrou rrpi fiaprvpiav icrcppayicrev oti 6 debs a\ridr)s icrriv, comp. 
viii. 14 aXrjdris icrriv r\ fxaprvpia /jlov. 

4 [2433 r] The p.iv after olda may have been omitted because the rest of the 
sentence was not given, and the &m yap in Herri yap <pi)cn Kai &\\a ttoWo. may 
have been a part of Chrysostom's framework of the quotation, not a part of the 
quotation itself. 

• r ' [2434r?] SS has the past ("dare witness") and omits 'iariv hi, ofytcu and 
"itself" (in "the world itself"): "This is the disciple that hair 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 "/its'' for ihs, i.e. "Jesus," 
and it repeats "scimus" and turns "qui" into "quis" thus, "Hie est discipulus 
qui testificator de Jesu et quis scripsit haec scimus; et scimus quod verum est 
testimonium ejus." \Y. 1 1, give txt 6 fj,apTi'pun> wept toutlov Kai 6 ypd\f/as ravra, but 
marg Kai (before /xaprvpuiu) and [6] Kai for Kai 6, i.e. 6 Kai /xapTvpwii v. r. [6] Kai 
ypaif/as ravra. 

" [2434/'] Otdapcv occurs in 1 Jn iii. 2, v. 15 [6is), v. 19, 20, and ?;/xeis oi5afj.a> 


SUBJECT [2435] 

an integral part of the sentence in which it stands. If both oI8a fxev 
and eo-Tiv Se belonged to "the disciple whom Jesus loved," the most 
natural explanation of "his testimony" is " Chrisfs 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 1 . 

[2435] On the whole, the most probable conclusion is that 
ot'Sctyiei' 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 

in i Jn iii. 14. In all these cases it means "We, the disciples of Christ, know." 
On the one hand, this might be urged as shewing that ot<5a txev 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 otdajjav would not write ofda n-ev. 

1 [2434 c] Strictly after oi5a piv we should have something like Eurip. Hippol. 
1091 ws olSa p.kv ravr' , olda 5' oi>x ottios (ppdaui: but the clause with 84 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 me as bearing witness. It is rather He that beareth 
witness and I know that His witness is true," he would have said 4k€wos, as the 
Epistle, not avrds (2382—4). 

[2434 ti] If oi!5a./j.ev proceeded from the evangelist as part of the same sentence 
in which he also says ol/xai, we should have to suppose the meaning to be " We 
{the disciples of Christ, aW\ know that the testimony of the Lord is true, but...," 
which seems improbable. 

[2434 c'] On Rom. vii. 14 olSa^ev yap on 6 vofios Trvev/xariKos £<ttlv, Alford says 
that Jerome has li sdo." Gennadius (Cramer) certainly read oWa /jl4v, for he has 
JTricrTafxaL on 6 fo/xos irv. e. Cyril may have done so, for he has a/jLw/j.di' <pt\(jw 
elvai top vbixov, olde yap d/xw/xous d.7roTeAeiV. This is applied to David, as a parallel 
to the Apostle, who lo~x v P L fc TaL ^ v 0TI - TfvevfiaTiKbs 6 vb/xos aiVtarat 5e tt]i> dvdpuiirov 
(pvo-ii>. 0l8e and fxtv combine to suggest that he read olda fxei>. Origen (Lomm. 
vii. 31 — 2) seems to recognise, and to correct, this interpretation, by saying — after 
quoting the text with "scimus" — "Legem vero spiritualem esse non so/us Panlus 
sciebat, sed et hi qui ab ipso imbuebantur." 


[2436] TENSE 

portrait of the Saviour will not be " held " or " contained " in the 
"books 1 ." 


[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 Mood 

(i) Aorist (first) and Present 

[2437] The first aorist imperative is (i) sometimes more definite, 
(2) sometimes more authoritative 2 , (3) sometimes more solemn 3 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] books as by the [truths that came] from living and 
abiding Voice," ov yap to. £k [tQv] (li/3\iu)i> to<tovt6i> p.e uxpeXew i'ire\dfjif$avoi> ocrov 
rd irapd juices (pwvrjs nai fxevoixnjs. Nonnus omits the words /ecu oiSapiev 8ti a\r]dr)S 
avrov r\ fiapTvpta icriv. 

- [2437 a] But different writers might take different views of the authoritative- 
ness of the same utterance. Comp. Mk vi. 10, Lk. ix. 4 fiivere, but parall. 
Ml. x. 11 fieivare. Here we might say that Mk-Lk. meant "continue to abide." 
No such explanation avails for Mk vi. 11, Mt. x. 14 eKrivd^aTe, Lk. ix. 5 
air or ivda a ere. Put note that Lk. ix. 5 8aoi av fii) 5e , x m ' TaL ---° L7rOTLl ''*- <TaeTe > twice 
uses the pres., while Mk vi. 11, Mt. x. 14 6s hv (Mk + r67ros) p.-q d^Tjrai... 
e'KTiv&Za.Te twice use the aorist. Perh. Lk. means "do so habitually." Comp. 
Lk. ix. 23 "take up the cross daily" where the parall. Mk viii. 34, Mt. xvi. 24 
omit "daily." 

:: [2437 /'j "More solemn." E.g. Jn xiv. 8 5e't^ov, in Philip's mouth, is 
"solemn' - ami reverential (but not authoritative) — like Ktpte, SiSa^ot' in Lk. xi. 1, 
ip.(j>dvicrbv fioi ffeavrdv in the corresponding prayer of Moses (Ex. xxxiii. 13, 18) 
anil (Xl-qoou passim. So "thou," in Elizabethan English, is used to the Highest, 
and to the lowest. 



by the writer of the Epistle 1 . The authoritative imperative occurs 
in the miracle at Cana, ii. 5 (Christ's mother) ironjaaTe, ii. 7 — 8 
(Christ) ye/jLio-oLTe, ...avrX-rjcraTe : at the Cleansing of the Temple, 
ii. 16 apaT€, and ii. 19 Xvaare : in Christ's words to the Samaritan 
woman, iv. 16 <pu>vqo-6v <tov toV dvSpa, and afterwards to the disciples, 
iv. 35 lira par e...Ka\ 6zd<ja.(j6(.: in the Feeding of the Five Thousand, 
vi. 10 7roir/o-aT€ : in the Healing of the Blind, ix. 7 viraye vlij/ai : 
in the Raising of Lazarus, xi. 39, 44 apare, ...Xvaare : in the rejected 
(937 — 40) prayer xii. 27 awaov p.e, and in the accepted prayer lib.) 
So^acrov <rov to ovop.a : in the last words to Judas Iscariot, xiii. 27 
irotrjcrov Ta'xeiov : in the Last Discourse, XV. 9 /uei'varc Iv rfj dydiry rfj 
ip-Tj : in the narrative of the Draught of Fish and the subsequent 

meal, xxi. IO — 12 iveyKaTe and dpio-TTJaaTe. 

[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 ipyd- 
£ea9e, vii. 24 Kptvere, and xii. 35 Trepnra.Ta.Tc etc.' 2 The three 
Synoptists have "thou shalt love." Two (Mt.-Lk.) have "love ye 
(ayas-are)." 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 

[2439] John's avoidance of the aorist imperative of irta-Tevw 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 (/xr) e|era£e), 

1 [2437 c] Jn xv. 4, 9 /xelvare, but 1 Jn ii. 28 /xiuere (comp. 2 Tim. iii. 14 fiive). 
Mk xiv. 34, Mt. xxvi. 38 /j-eivare wde is an utterance of the Lord. Lk. xxiv. 29 
(xelvov fj.f6' ijixwv may represent the (id.) "constraint" put on the unknown Lord by 
the two disciples ("thou must needs abide with us "). 

- [2438 a] In ii. 8 avr\T)<T<XTe k. (p^pere, v. 11 apov k. Trepiirdrei why have we 
not eveyKare (as in xxi. 10) and irepnra.Triaov~? Probably because only the first 
action is to be done at once. 

[2438 /;] 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 <pdjvr)aov...K. i\de, it is probable that the substitution of tyxov 
for i\0£ would have been more solemn (as in i. 46, xi. 34, Rev. vi. 1, 3, 5, 7, 
xxii. 17 (61s), 20) or authoritative (as in Mt. viii. 9, Lk. vii. 8). 


[2439 (i)] TENSE 

but believe at once {Triarivaov) 1 ." 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 2 . 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 (fxrj " where Matthew has (xxiv. 
23, 26) " Believe [them] not," fir} Trio-Te.v<jr]Tc. This use of the 
present imperative (Mk xiii. 21 "be 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 fir) ypd(f>£, concerning what is already written. It is equivalent 
to " let not my lord write," and invites Pilate to cancel what he has 
written 3 . 

[2439 (i)] Both Origen and Chrysostom accept without question 
the imperative rendering of ipawdw in v. 38 — 9 tov Xoyov...ovK 
k^€Te. . .otl. ..ov TricTTeveTe. ipavvaTe ras ypa<pd<;, on uuels 8ok€lt€ iv 
aureus £01771' atan'iov 6Y€lV koli. eKeivai elaiv al jxapTvpovaai Trepl e/iov- «ai 

ov OeXeTe. i\$eiv 7rpo's /j.e.... But against this view is the fact that 
in the few cases where ipawdu) is imperative in O.T. and N.T. the 
aorist is used 4 , and that one of these passages is in John and refers 
to the searching of Scripture. Chrysostom says that the Jews merely 
"read" the Scripture whereas Christ bade them "search" and "dig" 
in them. But the answer is (1) that the Jews did "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... _>v? believe not. Ye search the Scriptures (1722^) 

1 [2439 «] Orig. Cels. i. 9. He might have said fir) tortus ■$$ if he had not 
wished to emphasize the lingering over the task of examining. 

- [2439/'] Mk v. 36 ixbvov vltrreve, Lk. viii. 50 nbvov irioTcvaov nai cruidrjcrerai, 
"only a special act of faith and she will be healed !" Comp. Epict. Fragm, § 3 
"If you wish to be good, first believe' once for all (irlaTevaov) 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)aJ 2 K. x. 23 (pavurjcraTe ko.1 TSerf, Jer. 1. 26 ipavvqffaTe avT-qv, 
[11 vii. 52 (jmvvT)ffov Kai f5e. Comp. Judg. xviii. 2 (A) i^fpawr)(jaT( (of which 
the pres. imper. does not occur in I, XX). Of course these facts prove little except 
that l lie pies, imper. was not in common use. 



[book by book] because ye suppose... and they are they that testify of 
me, and [yet] ye desire not to come to me." 

[2439 (ii)] In xii. 19 01 ovv Q. elirav 7Tpo? iavTOvs, 0eo>petT€ on ovk 
ufcXelrt oi84v, A. V. has " Perceive ye...?" R.V. " Behold " imper., but 
marg. "Ye behold." The indicative is supported by Acts xix. 25 — 6 

i-rrio-TaaOe — koI Oewpelre koI aKOvere, i.e. "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, ©ewpeirf is also indicatively 
used in Acts xxv. 24 and fjewpeis 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 7rws, and nowhere by a clause with on 1 . On the whole, the 
meaning probably is "Ye see for yourselves that ye profit nothing. 
Behold (iSe) ! the world hath gone after him." If so, the conclusion 
slightly confirms the view that epaware above (2439 (i)) — which is 
similarly initial and without vpel? — is also indicative. Comp. Jas 
ii. 24 opare otl i$ epytDv Succuovrai ai/#pco7ros where R.V. has "ye see " 
without alternative 2 . 

[2439 (hi)] Avaare 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... =iav xal Xvo-qre " and illustrated by Soph. 
Ant. n68ff. and also (id. p. 321) by " Eph. iv. 26 O.T. 6pyi£eo-0£ 
koI fji-i] dpupTavere, 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 loc, after a 
long discussion of LXX 6pyi£,ecr9e, which, he says, may be " indicative 
(bpio-TiKov) " or " imperative {ttpoot<xktik6v) " 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) <7] Comp. iv. 19 0ewpw Sri irpotpriT^s el crv, "I see [without more 
words] that thou art a prophet." The imper. occurs in 2 Mace. vii. 17 dedipet 
to fieyaXeiov avrou Kpdros. In 4 Mace. xiv. 13 fxrj Oavfiaffrbv r}yei(<i)peiTe §e 
7rtDs..., and in ^schin. p. 13, 19 (quoted by Steph.) deupeTre to irpayfia ixr\ e/c tov 
irapbvTos, the contextual fj.rj prepares for, or subsequently suggests, the imperative. 
In Heb. vii. 4 dewpdre 8e wrjXiKos ovtos, the 5^ makes it prob. that 6. is imper. ; 
but it might be a parenthetic indie, following the details about Melchizedek: "But 
ye see for yourselves how great this man was." Tob. xii. 19 (fc?) deupeTre is. 
doubtful. The oratorical imper. is naturally predominant in Demosth. (see Preuss)^ 

2 On xiv. 1 (R.V.) "Ye believe (marg. Believe)," see 2237 foil. 

A.' VI. ^2 1 21 

[2439 (iv)J TENSE 

angry [from time to time, it needs must be so], but 1 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 2 ." 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, 
"If thou seekest... continue doing as thou art doing {ttoUl a -^oiels), 
not even a god can any longer save thee." This "minatory" im- 
perative is common to all languages, e.g. Is. viii. 9 "Make an uproar 
...and be broken in pieces," Soph. Ant. 11 68, in effect "Go on 
making money and it will all be a shadow " etc. 

[2439 (v)] Whether ii. 19 Aware 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 under- 
stand not ; and see ye indeed but perceive not" uttered in obedience 
to the command of Jehovah, " Make 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 it, 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 ii. 19 and xiii. 27 as "judicial imperatives 3 ." 

1 [2439 (iii) a] The Hebrew vaw, " and" so often means "but" that the 
LXX may well have taken it thus here. Indeed Sym. substitutes d\Xd (as well 
as 6pyladr]T€ to make it clear that he takes the verb imperatively). 

2 [2439 (iv) a] Here the LXX has " walk spotless in [thy] ways and not 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. "In. ..thine eyes " implies self-will. 

3 [2439 (v) a\ On ii. 10 Origen {ait Inc.) says nothing that bears on Xvaare 
except (Lomm. i. 348) tovtov tov vabv \v0ijvai Set vwd tQv £irtjiovXev6vTwi' t<<3 \6ytf) 
tov Oeov. On xiii. 27 irolrioov he says (ad toe.) that Christ speaks wpoKaKovpievos 



II. In the Indicative Mood 

(i) Aorist 

(i) Aorist compared with Perfect 

[2440] Commenting on Col. i. 16 "in him all things were created 
(iKTi(rOr))...a\\ things through him and to him have been created 
{(.KTio-Tai)" Lightfoot says, "The aorist is used here: the perfect 
below. 'Ektio-&7 describes the definite historical act of creation ; 
Iktio-tui the continuous and present relations of creation to the 
Creator : comp. Joh. i. 3 x^P 15 clvtov eyevero ov8k eV with lb. 6 yeyovev, 
I Cor. ix. 2 2 ey€i'6fxr]v Tots acr9cv€(TLV dcr$evr]<; with lb. tois Tracrtv yiyova 
Trdvra, 2 Cor. xii. 1 7 fit] two. (Lv airiaTaXxa with ver. 18 kou avv- 
a7r£(TT£tAa tov aSeAt^oi', I Joh. iv. 9 tov fjiovoyevrj u7T€CTT<iAKev o 0eo<; 
€t? tov Koa-fJiov iva ijjatofiev 8l av'rov with ver. 10 on auros rjyairrjcrev 
■>jfjia<; ko.1 a7r€o-T€tXev tov vlov clvtov." This comment supplies a clue 
to several Johannine distinctions between the aorist and the perfect 1 . 
For example, as regards Christ's "coming into the world," or in- 
carnation, " / came" represents the definite act, " I have come'''' the 
continuous and present relation. But other explanations are some- 
times called for by Johannine use, which presents the following 
paradoxical characteristics 2 . 

tov avTayu)vi.(TT7]i> (i.e. Satan) eirl ttjv itclXtju 77 tov TrpoSdTrjv eirl t6 diaKOvr/crai rrj 
auTrjpiu) KOfffxit) io-ofx4vri oiKovo/xlg., rjv ovk ^TL...fie\\eiv ovde (3pa5vveiv dXX' 8o~rj 
dvva/j-LS Taxvveiv ijf)e\ev. These last words favour the view taken elsewhere that 
to-xiov means, not "quickly," but " more quickly" (1918, 2554 b — 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 v/xds irXrjpwo-aTe : but W.H. 
marg. gives TrXrjpibo-ere with B and e, and this reading is now supported by SS. 
Alford suggests that the v. r. wXripwo-eTe and eTrX^poxrare arose from the "im- 
perative not being understood." But it is not more difficult to understand than 
X(''crare above, for which there is no v. r. Moreover the position of v/xets before 
the imperative (without antithesis as in Mt. vii. 12 or yu.77 as in Lk. xii. 29 etc.) is 
somewhat suspicious. 

[2439 (v) c] In viii. 38 /cat v/xeh ovv a TjKovo-aTe irapa tov 7rarp6? TroulTe, one of 
several renderings of that difficult passage takes iroteiTe as imperative, but reasons 
have been given (2194 c) for taking it as indicative. 

1 [2440 «] Comp. xviii. 20 eyth irappriaia \e\a\rjKa ti^ Kb<j(iqi...wavTOTe edlda^a 
iv crvvayuyy...(v Kpvwru i\6.\t]cra ovtev, where the " continuous and present 
relation'''' comes first, "/ have spoken openly"; and this is supported by appeal 
to the past, "/ever taught" "Not once spake /in secret." 

2 [2440$] On iv. 3 airrfkOev ttlxKlv els ttjv Ta\i\aiav, 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, e.g. x. 32 "many good works have I shelved 
(&>£i£a) you," xii. 28 " / have both glorified (eod£ao-a) it and will 
glorify it again," xiii. 14 "If I have washed (evuj/a) your feet," xiii. 18 
" I know whom / have chosen (R.V. marg. chose) (tteXctdw)," x\u. 34 
"As / have loved (rjydTrrjo-a) you," xv. 15 "/ have made known 
(iyvupiaa) to you," xx. 2 " They have taken away (rjpav)...they have 
laid (W-qkclv) him 1 ," xxi. 10 "Bring of the fish that ye have now 
caught (cTrtaWre)." 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 2 . 

[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 

1 Yet comp. xi. 34 redelKare. 

2 [2441a] The Greeks seem to have avoided several active perfects, e.g. of 
KTifa, optfw, £t)t4u, yvwpl'Cw, somewhat as we might avoid the perf. of "awake" — 
doubting between "have awaked" and "have awoken" (2747—53). The rarity of 
a suitable perfect may explain the aorist in vi. 70 (A.V.) "Have not / chosen you?," 
but there R.V. has " Did not I choose!" without alternative, as also in xv. 16—19, 
where A.V. has " Ye have not chosen me but / have chosen you... / have chosen 
you out of the world." I do not understand why R.V. txt adopts "have chosen" 
(Westc. "chose") in xiii. 18 alone (" I know whom I have chosen"). "Have," 
if denoting recent choice, would seem most appropriate to vi. 70. 

[2441 b] The aorist of (n\ is applied to God or Christ in Mk xiii. 20 
dia tovs inXeKTous oOs e|eX<^aro (Mt. xxiv. 22 om. ovs <;£., Lk. diff.), Lk. vi. 13 
tKXesd/u.eeos aTr' aurwu dw5eK<x (Mk-Mt. diff.). 'E^X^aro occurs in I Cor. i. 27 
(bis), 28, Jas ii. 5, to describe God as choosing the poor and despised, and 
Eph. i. 4 has Kadws i&\ti,a.To r)ixa% iv avry irpb /cara/3oX??s k6u)mov. In Acts, it 
refers to the choosing of apostles or missionaries in i. 2, 24, vi. 5, xv. 7, 22, 25 etc., 
and only once (xiii. 17) to God's choosing the "fathers" of Israel. 

[2441 c] It seems clear that Mk xiii. 20 e£e\^a.TO 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 ei bwarbv (Mt. + nal) tovs 
(kXcktovs (which suggests that "the elect" could not possibly be led finally 
astray) and in Mt. xxii. 14 " many are called but few chosen." Hut Lk. omits 
all this, as well as (Mk xiii. 27, Mt. xxiv. 31) the gathering of the " elect." 

[2441 </] Jn agrees with Lk. in applying tKX^aadai once to the choice of 
:i].wstles, but he adds words that destroy the notion of finality, vi. 70 "Have I 
nol I just J chosen (2254) you the twelve, and one of you is a devil ?" < m the other 
hand, later on, he appears to exclude Judas, and to imply a different, spiritual, 
and final election in \iii. 1* "1 know whom / chose " following the words (xiii. u) 
"Ye are not all clean" (comp. xv. 16, 19). 

3 2 4 


ye have hoped (rjX-n-LKaTe)," xv. 24 "They have seen and have hated 
both me and my Father," xvi. 27 "The father loveth (</> you 
because ye have loved (7re4>iXiJKaTe) me and have believed t\\a.t. . .," vi. 69 
" We ha7>e believed (7r€7rto-T€i;Ka i u.ei/)...that thou art the Holy One of 
God." In modern English, " I have believed in him," if the emphasis 
is laid on "have," may mean " I have believed in him, in times past, 
or up to the present time, but I do so no longer." In John the 
context clearly implies persistent 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 "/ have believed (LXX i-trio-revo-a) 
therefore I spake," and continues, " We also believe therefore also we 
speak," thus applying the Hebrew perfect (LXX aorist) to himself in 
the present tense 1 . In that Psalm, A.V. has "7 believed" and R.V. 
txt " 1 believe" (marg. " I believed") ; but elsewhere the two agree in 
the perfect (Ps. cxix. 66) u I have believed in thy commandments." 
So when the Psalmist repeatedly says to God, " I have hoped (yX-n-iaa) 
in thee, or in thy mercy," the meaning (however it may be rendered 
in English) is " I steadfastly hope" or "my hope is fixed 2 ." The 
aorist " I hated (ifxlarjaa) " 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. viii. 13) "Pride and I hate," and there 
LXX has the perfect ^jxtcnqKa, but Symmachus, Theodotion, and 
"another," have the aorist. The perfect also occurs in Judges 
xiv. 16 "only hast thou hated me (/xe/iicr^Kas) and hast not loved me 
(rjya.Trrja-a%, but A Tjya.TT^Ka';)," where R.V. has " Thou dost but hate 
me and lovest me not 3 ." In all these cases, it is quite clear that the 

1 2 Cor. iv. 13 quoting Ps. cxvi. 10. 

- [2443 a] "H\7Ticra in the Psalms = Ps. vii. i, xvi. i (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.) 
"Ido put my trust," "trust," "trusted" etc. 

3 [2443(6] The Heb. perf., LXX aorist of /xamj/ = Ps. xxvi. 5 A.V. perf., R.V. 
pres., xlv. 7 A.V. pres., R.V. perf. : in Ps. v. 5, 1. 1 7, cxix. 104, 1 13, 128, exxxix. 2 1, 
R.V. and A.V. agree in having present. It is interesting to note that in Heb. i. 9, 


[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 I given (LXX, / will give) this land,"' but also 
made by Ephron " / have given thee the field... / have given. ..I have 
given..." and by Abraham, in return, " I have given thee money," 
where R.V. has thrice "give" and once "will give" and LXX has 
Si'Sw/ai and Sc'oWa or omissions 1 . 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 xvii. 18 "Even as thou didst send me 
into the world, so I also sent them into the world." Here the aorist 
is used in both cases, and " I sent " has been taken by some as 

quoting Ps. xlv. 7 rjya.Tryj(Tas...(/jLicTr]aas..., R.V. — -which usually renders aorists as 
aorists— follows A.V. in the perfect, "thou hast loved... and [hast] hated." 

[2443c] 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, i.e. the aorist of experience or habit. It is also different from (b) the Greek 
use of (Jelf §403. 1) ewfiveaa., wapyveaa, rjveaa, airtirrvcra, qlfioj^a, ide^dfj.^f, Zyvuv. 
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 "<z moment before" or "a moment ago," as 
in Kurip. Med. 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. / 
changed my mind [ji/st this moment'] about even what I had said before {OvSiv, 
fieTtyvw Kai to. irpbad' dprjfiiva)." So drrlTrrva-a may mean "/ 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 '/'cases § 60) 
renders Aristoph. Eq. 696 "H<70r?i/ airei\als, (yi\a<ra \po\oKO/uTrlais, "/aw amused... 
/ cannot help laughing," but the English past would there express the sense better 
'• / was amused.../ could not but laugh," as soon as you opened your mouth. 
So r)aOr)v in \u/>. 174, 1240. And that is the meaning — though perhaps idiomatic 
English will hardly allow the past tense— in Soph. Electr. 668 "/ welcomed 
{iSf^d/xrjv) your [well-omened] utterance [as soon as uttered]." 

1 [2444<zJ lien. i. 29 otduKa, xv. 18 Suntw, xxiii. 11 om., Sldwfii, 5t8wKa, 
xxiii. 13 om, 



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 (/xeVr?) in me — 
[behold] he was cast (ifiXijdrj) 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 c), 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 are but as yesterday ivhen it is 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 fell away... but the word of our God abideth for ever," which 
has been reproduced in the Epistle of St James with aorists thus, 
" Like the flower of the grass he shall pass away. For the sun rose 
up (avereiXev) with the scorching wind and dried up (e^'pavev) the 
grass and its flower fell away and the fair show of its countenance 
perished (aTrwA-cro) 2 ." In the light of these passages, and of the above- 
mentioned (2443) instances of Hebrew influence on Johannine tense 
construction, i^\y]8r] 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, 
iv Toy™ €So£ao-#i7 6 -rraTtjp /jlov appears to mean (2393) " Herein 
[namely, by your abiding in me, the Vine] was my Father glorified," 

1 Ps. xc. 5, Sym. ws Karaiyis i^erlva^as clvtous. 

2 [2445 a] Jas. i. n, 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 rapidity. 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." 


[2447] 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 xiii. 31 Nw eSogdaOr) 
6 vto? t. di'OpwTrov k. 6 6e6s i&o£d<r9r) iv cii'to), 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 (xiii. 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 spiritual act had taken 
place. This latter seems to be the primary meaning. 

[2447] In xv. 15 "all things that / heard ("jKovaa) from my 
Father (R.V.) I have made known (iyvwpi<ra) 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 aKiJKoa are frequent 
if we include instances in the Epistle. But the meaning of iyvwpura 
must depend on the context, which represents Jesus as " no 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 I heard from my Father when I came 
into the world to do His will / made known to yon just now in the 
Washing of Feet." 

[2448] In order to distinguish between the aorist and perfect of 
yivwKw it is well, in many passages of John, to render the verb 
"recognise," thus, xvi. 3 "These things they will do because they did 
not recognise {pw tyvwcrav) the Father nor me," xvii. 7 — S "Now [at 
last] (vvv, 1719/) have they recognised (ZyvioKav) that all things as 
many as thou didst give me are from thee, because., .and they 
recognised (tyvuicrav) truly that I came forth from thee." In the 
second passage, the perfect describes the present completed result of 
the previous definite recognition 1 . In xvi. 3, R.V. lias "they have 

1 |2448</| SS has "And now I know that all what thou hast given me is from 
thyself, because the words that thou didsl give to me 1 have given to them, and 



not knozvn" : but the aorist should mean " they did not recognise" 
either Father or Son, when the Son announced the Father to 

[2449] In viii. 29 "And he that sent me is with me : he did not 
leave me (R.V. hath not left me) (ovk d^rJKev fxe) alone," the aorist (if 
not used as a perfect (2441) for the rare a<£euca) would mean that the 
Father when He sent (aorist) the Son into the world did not leave 
Him alone. R.V. has " hath 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 on 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 1 ." 

they have received them from me and they have known truly...," and X has 
Zyvuv for isyvwKav. Some MSS. support Chrys. in reading 'tyvwaav for gyvwKai>, 
and one or two have iyvwuaaiv. Several mss. omit teal Zyvwaav. The textual 
variations of tyvuKav are easily explained as resulting from an original erNCOKA 
and from a failure to perceive the shade of difference indicated by the perfect and 
the aorist: — "They are now at last grounded in recognit ion... because I have 
definitely given them the regenerating words of life and they [at 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 to receive it at once with a certain amount of recognition. Comp. i. 1 2 
6aoi 8£ Fka(3oi> aiiTou, and note the immediate "reception" of Christ by Andrew 
and his companion and their brethren and successors. 

1 [2449 a] In xii. 40 "He hath blinded (reTiKpXuKev) their eyes and he 
hardened (iirdipuoev) their heart," irwpbw represents Isaiah's word (vi. 10) " make 
fat," e-rraxuvdr), and means not "make stiff" oicK-qpiivu, but "make callous." Buhl 
gives no other instance of Ileb. " make fat" applied to "heart"; and it was 
very natural that St Paid in w riling to the Romans (Rom. xi. 7 oi 5e Xonrol 
ewupud-qaav) and Corinthians (2 Cor. iii. 14 twup<l)d-q to. vorip-ara avrQv) should use 
TrwpSco instead of iraxvvu} 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. Ilwp6w is used by Mk (vi. 52, viii. 17) 
alone elsewhere in N.T. Its occurrence there, and in Hermas (Mand. 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 


[2450] TENSE 

(2) Aorist of special Verbs 1 

(a) 'Axoy'co 

[2450] 'Akovo} in the Fourth Gospel may be illustrated by olkovu) 
in the Epistle, where aKrjKoa/xev occurs thrice at the beginning to 
denote the sum total of the doctrine of Christ possessed by the 
writers, who " have heard" that which was from the beginning; and 
the same notion of completeness and satisfaction appears in the 
saying of the Samaritans, " We ourselves have heard and know that 
this is truly the Saviour of the world 2 ." 'HKovo-are 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 3 . 

(vi. 10) and Jn xii. 40 might lead scribes to confuse irwpdu with irrjpoco "make 
blind" (comp. Job xvii. 7 "mine eye also is dim," B-n-eirwpwvTat, AX- Treirripwi'Tai) 
and Hesych. explains ireirwpwuivoi as i(TK\-qpuix£voi T€Tv<p\wfiivoi, 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 b] A corrector of Codex B has altered iiru>pw<rev in xii. 40 to ireirwpwKev 
to conform it with the preceding perfect Ter6(p\wKei', 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 obtained (aorist) not (ovk iirirvxev), but the election obtained (aorist) ; but 
the rest were made callous (aorist) (iirupwd-qaav), even as it is written, God gave 
(aorist) (t'Savcee) them a spirit of torpor, eyes that they should not see...," and I. XX 
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 xii. 40 deviates 
from the Ileb. 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. 

1 On the aorist of ay aw du, see 1744 (iv) foil. - 1 Jn i. 1, 3, 5, Jn iv. 42. 

3 [2450 a] There is an apparent inconsistency in 1 Jn ii. i!S Kadics ijKovaaTt otl 
avrlxptcTTos fy>x era '» ' v - 3 tovt6 temv rb rod 6.vtlxpL<ttov 6 aKT)K6are 6'n ZpxeTat. 
Bui the firmer 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 have heard above and on many other occasions 
that he must needs come." Kafluij rjKovcaTe air' apxys occurs also in 1 Jn 6. In 
Jn wiii. 21 tpuiTT)<Tov t. aK7)Ko6ras means "ask those who hare regularly heard me." 
But with oil the perfect means (Rom. xv. 21 quoting Is. lii. 15) "have not [up to 
this time] heard," and comp. Jn v. 37 otfre <p<i}vr)v avrov ttJ}ttot€ aKrjKbare (2764). 



[2451] 'Akovu in the Fourth Gospel is in the aorist when Christ 
describes Himself, or is described, as " hearing " from the Father 1 : 
and this is the case even when " heard " is parallel to " hath seen " as 
in iii. 32 "That which he hath seen (ewpaKev) and [that which he] 
heard] (k. rjKovo-tv) this he testifieth." The explanation here is 
complicated by the fact that (apart from forms of o<f>8r}vai, o\ etc.) 
the perfect of 6pav is the only part of the verb used by John. He 
might therefore conceivably use the perfect of opav, 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 that 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, 
" tve heard this definite statement 1 ''; in the latter, " we have repeatedly 
heard him say " words to this effect, as is shewn by the context 2 . 

[2452] In xi. 41 " Father, I give thanks to thee that thou didst 
hear me (r)Kovo~ds p-ov)," 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 appearatice of praying (twos Se eveKev kcu evxrjs o"xw a 
avc'Aa/Stv;) 3 ?" 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 iii. 32, viii. 26, 40, xv. 15. 

2 [2451a] Mk xiv. 58 ijfids -qKoinrafiev clutov X^yofTos, Acts vi. n — 13 cLK-rjKoa/uLev 
avTov XclXovvtos p-q/xara ^\da<pt]fxa ets M. k. top debv...ov waverai XaXQv pfinaTO. Kara 
TouTowov t. dylov [tovtov] k. t. v6fxov, aK7)Kt>a.fiev yap clutov XeyovTos 

3 [2452 a] See the whole context, which shews the influence of controversial 
considerations: " Let ks therefore ask the heretic, 'Did He receive the [necessary] 
impetus (powrjv) 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. 


[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 word 
"pray," nor himself speaks of Him as "■praying" — here teaches the 
lesson that prayer may be sometimes most efficacious, and perfectly 
definite, when not expressed in words 1 . 

(y3) 'ArrocTeAAco 

[2453] 'A7rocrreAAaj is mostly (15 times) in the aorist, when 
applied to God as sending Christ, but twice in the perfect, v. 36 t<x 

epya a 8e8u>Kev /xol. ../j,apTvpet. . .otl o Tva-rqp /xe direaTaXKev, and XX. 2 1 
KaOw<; d7r€trraAK€ fxe 6 Trarqp, Kayw TrepLTrw v/ias. In the former, the 
perfect is perhaps used for parallelism with the preceding perfect 
Se'oWei/. In the latter, the mission of the Son on earth, being 
completed or perfected, is appropriately referred to in the complete 
or perfect tense. 

(7) AiAcomi 

[2454] In the Epistle, SYSw/ai 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 2 ." 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 /'j Origen (Iluet ii. 347) quotes Is. lviii. 9 "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, 
1 am here.*' He does not quote Is. lxv. 24 " And it shall come to pass that, before 
they cry, I will answer" where "cry" is KeKpd^aL, a word somewhat resembling 
the remarkable word enpati-yaatv in J 11 xi. 43. Possibly, "they" was an obstacle. 

2 [2464rtJ 1 Jn iii. 24 (5<i>Kei>, iv. 13 oidwuev. Comp. 1 |n iii. 13 Katfus IdiOKtv 
ivTo\y)v rituf : and v. 1 1 faqv aiwviov Hdwxev 6 Oebs rifuv, with iii. r idere irorani-\v 
ayair-qv blbwutv rifxtv, v. 20 ...rJKfi, Kai d(5wKti> ij/xii> 5idi>ota.v. These are all the 
instances of aorist and perfect in the Epistle. 



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 xvii. 6 — 9 " I manifested 
thy name to the men that thou gavest me out of the world. Thine 
they were and thou gavest them to me... (9) I ask not in behalf 
of the world but in behalf of those whom thou 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 xvii. 24 " that they may behold 
the glory that thou gavest me (W.H. marg. coWas, but txt o"e'6Was) 
because thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world." The 
previous context says (xvii. 22) "The glory that thou 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. B\it 
xvii. 22 may mean "the glory that thou hast given me [on earth] so as 
to shew forth the unity between the Father and the Son," whereas 
xvii. 24 may mean " the glory that thou gavest me [in the beginning']" 
which is explained by "for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the 
world 1 :' On itav o S £ '8<oKa S , see 2740 foil. 

1 [2455 a] B has £5w/cas here. AeduKev and Zduicev freq. occur as v.r. : see 
vi. 32, vii. 19, xiii. 15 (Tisch. 5(5uk<x, but W.H. £5w/cct without alt.), xvii. 7, 8, 24. 
In vi. 32 ov M. iSdiKev (marg. dtduiKev) vpuv rbv aprov ex r. 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 given you." It follows a quotation 
(vi. 31) dpTOv €K t. ovpavov ibunev avrols (payelv, from Ps. lxxviii. 24. In vii. 19 
ovM. ZdwKtv (marg. deduxev) v/xiv rbv vbp.ov ; the aorist would mean "Did not M. 
give you the Law from Mount Sinai?" the perfect, in effect, " Have 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, on a single 
occasion " ; the perfect "not, up to this time" 


[2456] TENSE 

(8) ElrroN 

[2456] Et7rc generally introduces longer and more weighty 
utterances of Christ than those introduced by the historic present 
Aeyet. In dialogue between Christ and a single person, ei7re very 
rarely introduces His words as compared with Ae'yei. The former is 
never thus used alone (i.e. without aVcKpt^ kou) in dialogue, except 
in a few cases of momentous utterance, six of which are in narratives 
of miracles 1 . 

(e) "EpyoMAi and e2ep)(OMAi 

[2457] "Ep^o/xai and e^epxo/xai 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£e\i]kv0a never occurs in any context, but iXr/XvOa occurs three 
times 2 with ets tov koct/xov, and once as a sequel to i£r}\6ov thus, 
viii. 42 " / came forth from God and am come (t]ku) ; for indeed 
/ have not come (e\rj\vOa) from myself, but he sent me." In all 
cases the aorist points to the definite "coming" of the Incarnation. 
On the curious contrast (viii. 14) between "whence I came" and 
" whence I come? see 2482, 2490. 

(£) MeN03 

[2458] MtVw, 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 e/Acvev, marg. l/xctvev. 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 vii. 9 and x. 40. The explanation of the imper- 
fect in x. 40 may be that the writer means " he stayed on there [i.e. 
stayed for some time]" and the context ("many came... and many 

1 [2456 a] In i. 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 bom blind, "Go, wash," "Dost thou believe," "He that speaketh 
with thee is he"), xi. 25 (to Martha, "I am the resurrection and the life"), 
xii. 7 (to Judas, about keeping the ointment for "embalming"), xviii. 1 1 (to Peter, 
"Put up thy sword"). FAwe, followed by Udrep, is also used in xvii. 1 (the 
Prayer to the Father) and, without Udrep, in xix. 30 ("It is finished"). Atyei 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 dire occurs no less than four times 
in sayings of Jesus to individuals, and it is his regular word in such cases, comp. 
Lk. vi. S, io, vii. 43 — 50. 

2 xii. 46, xvi. 28, xviii. 37. 



believed on him there") favours this view. In i. 32 " I have beheld 
the Spirit descending... and it abode (kcu e/xeivev) upon him" (where 
N, b, and e have "and abiding") the meaning is "it abode once 
for all." 

(3) Aorist for English Pluperfect 

[2459] The aorist, e.g. eTroirjae, if preceded (a) by rjKovaav on, or 
(b) by ws ("when"), is sometimes rendered "he had done" {"they 
heard that he had done" " when he had done "). Thus (a) iv. 1 " the 
Lord knew how that the Pharisees had heard (rJKovcrav)," iv. 50 "the 
man believed the word that Jesus (A.V.) had spoken (R.V. spake) 
(eiTTcj/)," ix. 35 "Jesus heard that they had cast (i$efiakov) him out"; 
(b) ii. 9 "When the ruler of the feast (A.V.) had tasted (R.V. tasted) 

[2460] Quite distinct from these is the use of the aorist to mean 
"he [previously] did" — 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 
(i^evevo-ev)," R.V. and A.V. " had conveyed himself away." This also 
appears to be the best rendering of rj\8ov (and perhaps of eVoiTjo-ev) 
in iv. 45 "When therefore he came to Galilee the Galilaeans received 
him, having seen all that he had done (iiroLrjcrev) in the Feast : for 
they also themselves had come (rj\6ov) to the Feast " — where R.V. 
and A.V. have "went," but the Latin versions have the pluperfect 1 . 

[2461] The English pluperfect is perhaps intended in ii. 1 — 2 
"There was a marriage in Cana...and the mother of Jesus was (rjv) 
there. Now there had been invited also Jesus (eKXijOr) SI kcu 6 'I.) and 
his disciples to the wedding 2 ." So, after describing the Entry into 

1 [2460 a] 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) eKpar-qaev "had laid hold of," describing Herod's arrest of the 
Baptist, which had occurred long before. Lk. iii. 19 — 20 mentions it much 

'-' [2461a] "Vocatus erat" is also read by a and f. Chrys. expressly reads 
twice (after iv Kava rrjs T.) /cat eKKrid-r] 6 'I. ets robs ya/j.ovs. 'He de /cat r\ nyr-rip 
tov T. eKei k. ot ade\<poi avrov, or, in Cramer, rji> de rj ft. rod 'I. /cat oi d.8e\<pol 
avrou iicei. Chrys. says that the last sentence was intended to "hint (TJet'^aro)" 
that Jesus was not invited as being a "great person" but only as an acquaintance. 
Nonnus has XptcrTOS.^.KXijroy h\v crvvdopiros 6/j.0K\ivies re fiaOrjral Ilderes faav 
crTotxTjSoc. 'Es eiXaTrlvriv de /cat avrr) HapOeviKT) Xptcrrolo OerjroKOS t/cero firjTrjp. 
If eKK-rjOi) 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. 


[2462] TENSE 

Jerusalem and the cries of Hosanna, without mention (2756) of the 
finding of the ass, John adds, apparently as an afterthought, xii. 14 
" But Tesus had found an ass and sat upon it (evpwv Sc. . .kKa.Q«rev)." It is 
possible then, grammatically, that xix. 39 fj\6ev 8k /cat Ni«oSr?/Aos might 
mean " Now there had come also Nicodemus." The preceding words 
are, " He [Joseph] came (rjk6ev) 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 xviii. 24 'A7re';TOv 6 "Avvas SeSe/ieVov 7rpos 
Kai'a'c/>ui/, A.V. has "Now Annas had sent him bound," but the 
correct reading, which gives ovv between aVc'o-TeiA.ei' and avrov, makes 
this rendering impossible. The ovv has been omitted by some 
authorities, and altered by others to 84, 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 foil., and ov pj 2255 

(iii) Imperfect 

(1) The Imperfect in general 

[2463] The imperfect tense, eVoiW, 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 
" I shewed no tendency to do," and with special verbs (e.g. " / shewed 
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 rt) 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 
Oil the sabbath. Assuming that no similar act was wrought in the 


interval, we cannot render IvoUi " 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-persecate (eSiWoi/) Jesus because he 
began to do (eiroi'ci) 1 these things on the sabbath. But Jesus answered 
them, My Father worketh even until now, and I work. For this 
cause therefore the Jews began-to-seek (e^r/row) rather (2733 a) to kill 
him because he was not only continuing to b?rak (or, thereby breaking) 
(e\ve) the sabbath, but also beginning to say 2 (eXeye) [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 xii. 10 — n "the chief priests took counsel that they 
might put Lazarus also to death because, for the sake of [seeing] him 
(1652 b), many of the Jews were going away and were believing (vTrrjyov 
k. hruTTtvov)" 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 xiii. 28 — 9 
ovSeis eyi'w... nves yap cSokow, the meaning is, "No one [exactly] 
understood... some were [at the time] under a vague impression V 

1 R.V. "did," A.V. "had done." 

2 But see 2468 b. "EXeye may = "he meant." "he was virtually saying." On 
pdWov, not "all the more" but "rather," see 2733 a. 

3 [2464 a] So Acts xii. 9 eddnei 5e opap.a pXewetv. Contrast the definite 
though erroneous supposition implied in Mk vi. 49 g5oi;av otl <p6.vTacp.d eariv, 
Jn xi. 13 eicelvoi Se Zdo^av 6'rt irepl r. Koifj-r/crews tov tiwvov Xiyei. 

[2464/;] The imperfect of custom is illustrated by Mk xv. 6 Kara de eoprijv 
aire'Xvev (Mt. xxvii. 15 elwdei...diroXveiv), Lk. om., Jn xviii. 39 iarw Se ffvrfideia 
vp.7v 'iva 'iva dwoXvau [ev~\ t<x> Trdax a - 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, ^w-qdeia occurs in N.T. only here and 1 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. 

[2464c] Kara 5£ eopr-qv (A.V. "at [that] feast," R.V. txt "at the feast" marg. 
"at a feast") is (like Kad' ijp.e'pav) 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 k (in Mk) has 
"singulis autem diebus festis" : D reads ttjv in both. The ambiguity is 
removed (whether in accordance with fact or not) by Jn's insertion of "the 

A. VI. 337 22 

[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 {i.e. the Samaritans) came out 
(e$rj\8ov) from the city and began to co/ne (rjpxovTo) unto him. In the 

meanwhile When therefore the Samaritans came (rfkOov) unto 

him," xi. 29 — 32 " She (Mary) arose (riyipByj) quickly and began to come 
(rjpx^ro) unto him. Now Jesus was not yet... The Jews, then,... 
followed her... Mary therefore, when she came (rjXOev) where Jesus 
was...," xx. 3 — 4 "Peter therefore came forth (e£fj\6ev) and the other 
disciple, and they began to come (rjpxoiTo) to the tomb. Now the two 
were running together; and the other disciple... came (rjkOev) first." 
In all these cases the context mentions an interval between the 
"beginning to come "and the "coming 1 ." 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, €7rto-Teixrui') in his 
name... but Jesus himself did not trust (ovk l-trio-reviv) himself to 
them," the meaning is " did not even begin to 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 tende?icy 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 shelved a tendency to venture (ouSeis eTo'A/za)," or, "so much as 
began to vetilure." But, in vii. 5 ovSe yap 01 a8e\<pol avroi) kTriarevov 
ets avTov, the separation of the verb from the negative favours the 
rendering "not even his brethren were [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.) 

2 [2465 /■>] In xix. 3 (describing the soldiers mocking Christ), the imperfects, 
T7PXOCTO, 2\eyov, and iolooaav, mean " kept coming " ' ' kept saying " " kept giving" 

|2465<] The imperf. iwwOdveTo might be expected in J 11 iv. 5: where, 
according to Blass (p. 191), "iwvdtTO is incorrectly used and the correct form 
iirvvdavtTo has weak attestation (in xiii. 24 irvd^adat [which should strictly be 
irvvOavtoOai.] is only read by AD al...)." In classical ( .k, iirvth ro would mean "he 
ascertained" and tTrvvOavtro would be used (as in Mt. ii. 4, Lk. xv. 26 etc.) to mean 
"//e tncJ to ascertain" In iv. 5: Chrys. has ewwddvero and n, it, f have 
"interrogabat," but this attestation is certainly weak. It is noticeable, however, 
that, in what follows, NI )<//;/ have Kai for ovi> (SS um. ovv) SO as to make the 


IMPERFECT [2466 (i)] 

[2466 (i)] When 6Vi r/v is used after imperfect or aorist state- 
ments of perception ("saw that it was so "), the natural presumption, 
in John, is that the meaning is " saw that it had been " ; for, in order 
to express "saw that it was" John would probably use the present, 
as in vi. 24 "the multitude saw thai Jesus was not there (€l8<lv...oti 
'I. ovk eo-Tiv ckci) " i.e. saw [and said to themselves] " Jesus is not 
here" (comp. Mt. xviii. 25 "commanded him to be sold... and all, 
[said he], that he hath (ex et ) ")• With other imperfects, distinguishable 
from aorists, the imperfect meaning may be retained, e.g. xvi. 19 
" recognised that they 7vere and had been desiring (-rjOeXov) to 
question him," but not with rjv. In v. 13 ovk r]8ei tis £<ttiv, D reads 
tjv : but the Pharisees have just asked "Who is it?" TVs io-riv ; and 
now it is added that the man "did not know [and could not answer 
this question] Who is it?" and then (v. 15) "he said to the Jews 
(lit.) that ' It is Jesus.'' In vi. 22 elSov (marg. i8wV) on irXoiapiov 
aXXo ow rjv eK€t, the sense requires " that there had been no other 
boat," and (as there are v. r. eioW, iSor, eiSe^, and e has " scirent "), 
Blass's (p. 192) suggestion that the orig. was eiSw's is probably right : 
" the Jews knew there had been no other boat there on the previous 

night." In ix. 8 01 Oewpovvres avrov to -rrpoTtpov on TrpoaaiT7j<; r)r, the 

present eo-ri could not have been used, because the meaning is not 
" Beheld [and said] He is 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 " had been 1 ." 

meaning, "He therefore ascertained the hour — and they said, 'Yesterday about 
the seventh hour...,'" i.e., in effect, "the father ascertained the hour and found 
it was the seventh." But as the text stands, In must be admitted to have 
used iirtidero incorrectly, erring, however, with Plut. fit. Denietr. ch. 27 (1076c) 
rod Arj/j.rjTpiov vvdofxiuov, Tt aoi 5okbl; (also id. ch. 28) and with Hesychius, who 
says, livdeadai ' axovcrai., epwrrjaai, yvdxreaQai. 

[2465c/] On the other hand the v.r. xiii. 24 irvdtadai may be defended as 
meaning "to ascertain.'" Similarly, in LXX, irvdeadai, "to ascertain," in Gen. 
xxv. 22 and 2 Chr. xxxii. 31, is as justifiable as ewwddvero and eTrwdavo/j.e6a, 
"tried to ascertain," in 2 Chr. xxxi. 9 and 1 Esdr. vi. n; but Esth. iii. 13 
irvdop-evov is an error for irvvdavojxevov which is read by AN 2 . In Ox. Pap. 533 
(edd.) "sell the grass-seed and ask (irvdecrde)... whether he wants...," I should 
prefer "ascertain." It would be quite correct to say thata man, " trying to ascertain 
something (irvudavh/j-evos)" sends messengers "to ascertain it (rod irvdeadai.)" 

1 [2466 (i) a] Comp. Mk xi. 32 elx " T ° v 'lua-v-qv ovtws otl irpocp-qry)^ r\v, 
Mt. xxi. 26 ws 7r po<f>r\T7)v ^x ot " Tl1 ' T ° v 'I-i Lk. xx. 6 Treireia/j.i'vos yap ecrrtv I. 

339 22 " 

[2467] TENSE 

(a) "EAeroisi 

[2467] John very frequently uses e'Aeyov to describe what " was 
being said " about some one subject, first by some, then by others, 
of a chattering multitude 1 , or what people " began to say," or "said 
repeatedly" to some one person 2 . But he also uses it sometimes to 
introduce Christ's sayings, as follows ii. 2 r e/ceuos Se eAeye v 7repi tov 
vaov tov (xco/u.a.TOS avrov, vi. 6 tovto Se eAeyev 7retpa^ojv avrov, vi. 7 1 
eAeyev Se rov IovSav, xii. 33 tovto Se eAeyev ojv ttolw ^avaTto 
rj/K-Wev a.Tro8vt]o-K€iv. In all these cases the saying is mysterious and 
not understood by the hearers, and eAeyev 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 uprquei Se 6 'I. -n-ept tov 
Oavarov avTov. 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 Se follows the verb ; and Se', 
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 3 . A somewhat similar meaning 
may be conveyed by €i7rev with Se', as in vii. 39 tovto Se ei7rev (v. r. 
eAeyev but not marg.) 7repi tov 7rvevp.aTos, xxi. 19 tovto Se ei7rev 
o~f/'i'a)v. 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. Ae'yw, in Greek literature, must often be rendered " I 
mean." so that eAeyev may often be rendered " he was [all the while] 
meaning," as in viii. 27 "They did not understand that he was [all 
the while] meaning the Father [in speaking] to them 4 ." 

it po<pr\r-r\v dvai. Mk's rjv, with reference perh. to his recent death, means that 
"he had been a prophet." Acts iii. 10 eirtyivwaKov.. 6tl oiVos rjv "began to 
recognise further that this man was..." is rather different. Jn peril, would have 
here written IotIv which (Alf.) is read by some authorities, including Chrys. : but 
the meaning may be " had been but lately sitting as a beggar." The wpbTepov in 
Jn ix. 8 differentiates it from Acts iii. 10. 

1 iv. 33, vii. ii, 12 etc. - iv. 42, v. 10 etc. 

:; [2468a] Comp. x. 6 ixtlvoi Si ovk tyvucrav, xi. i_^ tKea>oi 5t Z5oi;av, where 5e" 
luces a statement of misunderstanding. 

•' [2468 /'| This sentence may be illustrated by xvi. 17 "what is (emph.) (tI 
iuTiv) this that he says (\tyei) to us?" which seems to be a blending of (i) 



[2469] After ii. 21 "But he was speaking (e'Aeyev) about the 
temple of his body " there arises some doubt as to the meaning 
in ii. 22 " When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples 
remembered that he (R.V.) spake (A.V. had said) (eAeyci/) this, and 
they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus (R.V. and A.V.) 
had said (eta-ci/)." It is but fair to assume that the writer means two 
slightly different things by eXeyev and d-rrzv, and that e'Aeyev 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 re?nembered that 
certain similar things had happened to Jesus, and inferred that 
'these things were written concerning him." So here, in this 
prediction about the Temple, " remembered '" is probably a short 
way of saying "remembered and recognised"; and ekeyev irept is 
but a longer form of Zkeyev, " he was speaking [about], or speaking 
[of]," thus : " But he 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 

[2470] In two instances eXeye appears to be used by John as in 
Mark to mean "began to say," or "went on to say," or "used to 
say 1 ": vi. 64 — 5 "...but there are some of you that believe not. — 

"What really is this?" rl eoTw tovto; (2) "What does he mean?" rl Xeyei; 
(3) "What is he saying to us?" tl Xeyei tj/jliv; in v. 18 0TL...waTipa Zdioi' ZXeye rbv 
6e6v, the meaning is uncertain (2464) because of the context: but it may mean 
"because.../^ was [virtually] declaring God [to be] his own father." This differs 
a little from exdXet. Comp. Mk xii. 37 Xtyei avrov Kvpiou "[virtually] declares 
him [to be] Lord," where the parall. Mt. xxii. 45, Lk. xx. 44 have KaXet, and 
comp. Mt. vii. 21 ov ira.s 6 Xeywv /xoi, Kvpce, K6pie with parall. Lk. vi. 46 rl de /xe 
KaXeire, Kvpie, KOpie; 

1 [2470a] In Mark, ZXeyev (which is often (535 (v)) corrected by Matthew and 
Luke) may sometimes mean "used to say." In the A both the sayings of a Rabbi 
are introduced [a) sometimes by "was," with participle "saying," as in i. 2, 
3 etc., (b) sometimes by "saying" without "was," as in i. 4, 5, 7 etc., (c) very 
rarely by the past tense, "said," in the case of sayings to special persons etc., 
ii. 7 "he saw a skull. ..and he said to it," ii. 12, 13 "He said to them, 'Go and 
see....'" Dr Taylor renders (a) by "used to say," (b) and (c) by "said." The 


[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 (kou 
ZXeyev), For this cause I have said unto you that no man can come 
unto me except it be given to him from the Father...," viii. 30 — 1 
"While he was saying these things many believed on him. Jesus 
therefore began to say unto those that had believed him [those that 
were] Jews." In the former, besides other variations in the text 
(2636) the Latin e has " et dicebat propterea quia nemo," i.e. "And 
it was on this account that he said No man can come unto me 1 ." This 
is equivalent to, "And this was what he meant when he said." But, 
as the text stands, eAeyev 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 

(/3) "HeeAoN 

[2471] Both rjOekev and rfdik-qaev 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 y)&zkr)<ja.Tz 
(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 
Baptist, " // was your pleasure to rejoice for a season 2 ." 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 Sid. tovto as non-initial (as e does) would be contrary to Johannine 
usage (2387 — 91). For vi. 65 compared with vi. 44, see 2548 a. 

- [2471 a] In LXX and N.T., (apart from negative and relative clauses, in 
which it is very frequent in LXX) rjdiXrjcra with an infinitive is rare. In Judg. 
xx. 5, Tobit iii. 10 (K), it is used of a desire entertained but not accomplished. 
In N.T. it is similarly used, of a desire frustrated, in Alt. xxiii. 37, Lk. xiii. 34 
irocra.KL's i]dt\y)ffa, and in Lk. x. 24 T)dt\-r)crav ISelv (where the parall. Mt. xiii. 17 
has-iTredvfxv<Tav). Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 18 r)de\r)<ra/j.ev i\d£v irpbs vfias tyu p.ev II. 
k. d'7nz£ k. 5Ls, k. eveKO\pev i)/ 6 Saravas, which seems to mean "resolved once, 
yea twice." 

[2471 /'J In Mt. xviii. 23 (R.V.) " which would (i)64\r)<re) make a reckoning," the 
modern English might be "who decided to have an audit, "and so Acts xvi. 3 " Paul 
decided that he [Timothy] should go forth with him." SoXen. Cyrop. i. 1. 3 "We 
know that many made up their minds (edeX-rjcravras) to obey," Winer (p. 587) 
quotes Isocr. Callim. 914 ol...TrpOKiv5vi>eveii' 6flQ» i)d£\ri(jav, which should be 
rendered "made up their minds to meet danger for your sake": so in Lucian 
ii. 40S {Amor. 10) eOeXrjo-avras auToi/t iwrjydfirjv, it means "of their own free-will 
and resolution." 



in LXX sometimes means "// was the pleasure'" of God, or a king, 
where it conveys the notion of a decree 1 . The meaning of deliberate 
resolve is also usually conveyed by the aorist when used affirmatively 
in classical Greek. 

[2472] In John, the imperfect rjOeXov occurs (apart from a 
negative or relative) in vii. 44 tivcs 8e rj0e\ov...7ridaat, "now some 
would have liked to have taken him," where it is perhaps (2575) 
implied that their desire was frustrated because (vii. 30), His "hour 
was not yet come...." In xvi. 19 r)6e.\ov (s rj^eWov) avrbv Ipurav the 
meaning is, " Jesus knew that they were ivishing to ask him " so that 
the imperfect has its proper force. In Mark vi. 19, 48 (1735^), 
Acts x. 10, xiv. 13, xix. ^^, rjOeXe 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 rjdtXov ovv \af3eii', we are justified in saying that the desire 
must be supposed unfulfilled : " They began 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 2 ." 

1 [2471 <] Job xxiii. 13 o yap avrbs r]6eXr]ae icai eTrolrjae, comp. Ps. cxv. 3, 
cxxxv. 6, Esth. i. 8, 1 K. ix. 1. 

2 [2472 a] 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 not go on board the vessel 
(riVos 8e eveKfv ouk ave(3r] els to ttXoiov ;) ?" So Cramer ova evifir] de els to ttXoiov. On 
the occurrence of -ijdeXev in the parall. Mk. vi. 48, see 1735 b. The 1st pers. in 
Gal. iv. 20, i)de\ov 8e -rrapeivai, A.V. "I desire," R.V. "I could wish," Lightf. 
"I would I had been," is equivalent to our curious expression " / 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 r)QeXov yvuivcu. 

[2472/*] Comp. Lk. xxiv. 21 ridels be ifKTri^ofiev otl cu't6s eariv 6 [itWuv 
XvTpovadai top 'lcrpar]\. 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 it 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 7]\iri£a/j.ei>, 
and, in the context yevap.evcu and -qXdav (an interesting cluster of forms in -a).) 
The tense of-qX-rri^o/xev, like that ofijdeXov in some of the above-mentioned instances, 
implies frustration. On -fjdeXov implying unfulfilled desire, see 2716 — 7. 


[2473] TENSE 

(iv) Perfect 

(i) 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 
" I continue to love and hate." We know from Epictetus and Pliny 
that Roman gentlemen borrowed the Greek KeVpiKu to express what 
the French call chose jugee, "I have decided [once for a//] 1 ." 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) o yeypa4>a ycypacpa, i.e. "What I have 
written, I have written [and shall not rewrite]." This is the usual 
meaning of the Johannine perfect— permanence. For example, 
ficfxapTvpyjKa (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 " I have beheld (A.V. / saiv) (reOiap-ai) 
the Spirit descending," the meaning might be "I have [just] beheld"; 
but — in view of 1 Jn iv. 14 " ive have beheld (TeOed/xtda) and testify" 
— it more probably denotes the present and permanent result of the 
vision, such as Luke (ii. 30) expresses by the Hebraic el&oi', "mine 
eyes ha7>e seen [once for all] (etSov) thy salvation"." 

[2474] The most interesting uses of " the perfect of permanence " 
are tjXttiko. and TreTrioTevKa. As to the former which occurs in v. 45 
(R.V.) " Moses, on (eis) whom ye have set your hope (^XTriKare) (A.V. 
in whom ye trust)," there can be no doubt that the perfect in N.T. 
corresponds to the LXX aorist ^Xinaa above described (2443) and 
it is fairly frequent in N.T. 3 It may be contrasted with the imperfect 

1 [2473a] Epictetus ii. 15. 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 ' [K&pura],' he replied." Comp. 1'lin. Epist.i. 12. 10 
"Dixerat sane medico, admoventi cibum, iciicpiKa." 

[2473/'] In xx. 23 &v rivwv KpaTiJTe KeKparriVTai, the meaning of Kpariw is 
doubtful, but the perfect appears to imply mstan taneousness, see 2517 — 20. 

2 Comp. i. 34 iupaKa A.V. "I saw," R.V. "1 have seen." 

:i [2474a] 1 Cor. xv. 19 eV Xp. 7';\7Tik6t€j (apiiv, R.V. "we have hoped in 
Christ," A.V. "we have hope in Christ": 2 Cor. i. 10 et's 6v r)\irlKap.(:i>, R.V. "on 
whom we have set our hope," A.V. "in whom we trust"; 1 Tim. iv. 10 i)\niKanei> 
4ttI Oey 'Cwvti, R.V. "we have our hope set on the living Cod," A.V. "we trust in 
the living Cod," and sim. in i Tim. v. 5, vi. 17. 



7)\TTi£ofxev describing, in Luke, the disappointed, hopes of the disciples 
a few moments before the manifestation of the risen Saviour (2472 b). 
[2475] Il€7r6crT£u«a/x€i/ occurs in the Epistle i 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 " I perfectly 
believe {TreiricnzvKa) 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, perfect 
conviction. And, although the disciples had not 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 (ireiriaTevKaTe) 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 1 . 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 " They 
have both seen and have hated (/ecu iwpaKaa-iv Kal /xe/xtcr^Vao-tv) 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 7T€7rio-T€i;Ka, ^kTTLKa, and fJL€[Ai<Tr]Ka. the 

form rjyaTrrjKa 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") 2 . But the perfect of (/)iA.e'a) 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 fori") between "seeing" 
and "perfect belief": "Because thou hast seen me thou hast attained \_ivhat 
seemeth to thee] perfect belief." The only other Johannine instance of ireirlarevKa. 
is in iii. 18 8n /jlt] tt€ttl(7T€vk€v "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) 7re7rioTev/cu)s, see 2506. 

2 [2476 a] If W.H. txt is correct, the perfect occurs in 1 Jn iv. 10 ovx otl rip-els 


[2477] TENSE 

the Father himself loveth you because ye have loved (ire(f>L\7]Ka.Te) 
me." It has been maintained elsewhere (1716^,/, 1728 m — -p, 2584^-) 
that John always uses <£<Aea> to denote love of a lower kind than that 
expressed by aya-iram. Using the higher term, St Paul says " Owe ho 
man anything save to love one another 1 " ; 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 7re</>iA?7/<a. 

[2477] If this is the correct explanation of the use of Tr(.<$>L\.r]Ka. 
and the non-use of r/yd-n-qKa, it follows that we must be prepared in 
other instances for similar explanations — that is to say, explanations 
not based on Greek style like yiypa<j>a, 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 prophesied!'' Thus, Matthew and 
Luke have " All the prophets and the Law prophesied until John " 
and " From that time the kingdom of God is being preached' ''." John 
has " Other men have laboured and ye have entered into their labours 3 ." 
John often prefers the latter aspect, viewing the present as a co?n- 
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 is doing" but must say "God hath done." Thus 
the Epistle to the Hebrews says "In saying 'new covenant,' he has 
[by the mere word, at once] made antiquated the first [covenant] 4 ." 
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 / have done unto you " and " But 
you I have called friends 5 ." And when He speaks of the inevitable 

■rjya.TrrjKa/j.a' rbv deov dXX' 6ti ai'ros rjya.Trrjcrei' 7]fia.s, "not that 7<>e 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 
slated only to be denied. But W.I I. marg. has riyair-qoantv. 

1 Rom. xiii. 8 el fxi] to d\\?;\ous ayairav. 

'-' Mt. xi. [3 ami parall. Lk. xvi. 16. 3 Jn iv. 38. 4 Heb. viii. 13. 

•'' [2477a] xiii. 1 2 yivwo-Kerf ri Tre-rrolrjKa, contrasted with xiii. 14 el iyw iviipa. 
(but this is partly the result of the general non-use of the pelf, of vlirrw), XV. I.S 
e/xas 5£ itprjKO. (f)i\ovs. 



sequence of divine judgment and reward, He says that the unbeliever 
" hath been condemned already," and that the believer " hath passed 
from death into life 1 ." Similarly, placing Himself where He sees 
future glory and victory as already achieved, He says u I have been 
glorified in them," " I have conquered the world 2 ." The Johannine 
perfect is never " used for the aorist " (2747 — 55). 

(3) Second Perfects 

[2478] iYyoi'a 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 ttotc wSe yeyovas; (R.V.) ''when 
earnest thou hither?" The perfect would seem to accord better with 
" how long " (" How long hast thou been here ? "). Perhaps it is a 
condensed expression for " When [earnest 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 3 . But the general Johannine use keeps the sense of the 
perfect 4 . Nonnus has IIotc Sevpo 7rapeVXees; Chrysostom asks 
whether ttotc may be here used for ttcSs, but does not explain 
yeyovas. The Latin and Syriac versions paraphrase it by "come." 

[2479] Ke/vpaye in i. 15 'Icuav^s fxaprvpet irepl olvtov k. K€Kpay€v is 
rendered by R.V. "John beareth witness of him and crieth," A.V. 

1 [2477 <$] iii. 18 rfdrj KeKpirai, v. 24 fx.eTa(3eflriKev e/c r. davarov eh ttjv 'Cwqv, 
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, KiKptrai applied to 
the " prince of this world " describes an invisible condemnation that has just been 
ratified; and xiv. 7 ewpaKare describes a vision of the Father that has just been 
imparted to the disciples. 

8 [2477 r] xvii. 10 SeSiijao-jUCU iv avrols, xvi. 33 eyw vevtKijKa rbv Kbcr/xov. It 
would be impossible to say how far these perfects are proleptic, how far regarded 
as actually expressing completion (in the eyes of God). 

:i [2478 a] Mt. i. 22, xxi. 4, xxvi. 56 R.V. "is come to pass," which seems 
contrary to English idiom (A.V. " was clone"). In 1 K. x. 20 (R.V.) " there was 
not the like made in any kingdom," ov yiyovev is parall. to 2 Chr. ix. 19 owe 

4 [2478(5] Jn i. 15, 30, v. 14, xii. 30, xiv. 22. In 1 Cor. xiii. 11, A.V. "But 
when I became (yeyova) a man," is rightly corrected by R.V. to "now that / am 
become." Feyova (Steph. ii. 623) = "natus sum" in such phrases as "I am ten 
years old," ytyova '4tt) 5^Ka, comp. Rom. xvi. 7 " my seniors in Christ (irpb i/xov 
yeyovav iv Xp^r^)." Alford and Thayer quote no instance of yiyova meaning 
"I am 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 evdiws iyivero rh 
Tr\dioi> iirl rrjs yrjs, seems to imply supernatural and instantaneous arrival. Is that 
the meaning in Jn vi. 25 yiyovas "suddenly come"? See 2758. 


[2480] TENSE 

" bare witness... and cried." Kocpaya, " cry aloud," is connected by 
Origen 1 with the effort of voice needed to make the deaf hear, and is