\ STUDIA

IN

/

THE LIBRARY
of

VICTORIA UNIVERSITY
Toronto

I

.

THE ARAMAIC ORIGIN OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL .

.

M. St.Lrrr. at Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture Oxford Fellow of Oriel and John s Colleges.A.. D. Oxford Canon of Rochester OXFORD AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 1923 . C. F. BURNEY.THE ARAMAIC ORIGIN OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL BY THE REV.

K OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS London Edinburgh Toronto Calcutta Glasgow Melbourne New York Bombay Copenhagen Cape Town Shanghai Madras HUMPHREY MILFORD Publisher to the University .

IN THE 114 126 153 i 73 APPENDIX INDEX . 49 66 79 87 IV... . VI.. VII. IX.CONTENTS PAGE PRINCIPAL ABBREVIATIONS EMPLOYED . OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS FOURTH GOSPEL EPILOGUE . . V.. . PRONOUNS THE VERB NEGATIVES MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE ORIGINAL ARAMAIC OF THE GOSPEL. I i PRELIMINARY TESTING OF THE THEORY BY EXAMINATION OF THE PROLOGUE ADDITIONAL NOTE 28 43 II. THE SENTENCE CONJUNCTIONS III..... vii INTRODUCTION CHAP. 98 101 VIII. ....

.

26). WH. Onk. Syr. LAE. Trans.PRINCIPAL ABBREVIATIONS EMPLOYED The Curetonian Syriac Version of the Gospels (cf. A. p. p. Grainm. Pesh. = The Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan on the Pentateuch p. 23). 25). (cf. Wellhausen. Cur. p. = i. = Sir Moulton.. Wellhausen. (vol. == Pal. Dalman. Ps.-Jon. 25). = John C. NT&. Jon. Schlatter. Hawkins. judisch-paldstinischen Dalman. p. J. Dalman. Trans. Jer. Light from the Ancient East (Eng. Sin. JG. = The Targum of Onkelos on the Pentateuch (cf. = The Palestinian Syriac Lectionary (cf. p. Grammatik Aramdisch (1894). Einleitung* = J. Targ. 26). 24). Abbott. Home Synopticae (2nd edition. = The Sinaitic Syriac Version of the Gospels (cf. Einleitung in die drei ersteu Evangelien (zweite Ausgabe 1911). 23). Johannine Grammar ties (1906). reprinted 1919). Deissmann. A Grammar of New Testament Greek A. Abbott. = G. = The Peshitta Syriac Version (cf. = G. 1910). Targ. 1909). Die Sprache 3rd edition. WJ. Schlatter. 24). . = The Jerusalem Targum on the Pentateuch (cf. ( Deissmann. H.. Sprache = und Heimat des vierten Evangelisten (1902). Targ. Post-Biblical Jewish IVritings and the Aramaic 1902). Moulton. The Words of Jesus considered in the light of Language Eng. = Edwin A. HS-. Dalman. = The Greek text of Westcott and Hort. p. Targ. p. = The Targum of Jonathan on the Prophets (cf.

.

INTRODUCTION IN a sermon preached in June 1920 before the University of Oxford* the present writer made a plea for a closer synthesis of Old Testament learning with the study of the New Testament. had been amazed * at the lightness with which it was dismissed or title Since published by the Oxford University Press under the Testament Conception of Atonement fulfilled by Christ. he put forward the possibility that in the future a Semitic scholar might arise who. Lightfoot s remarks on the question. and recognizing to the full the importance of Dr. examining the language of the Fourth Gospel in detail. t had realized that this was a subject of research fundamental to the problem of authorship which called for closer and more expert attention than it had hitherto received and he . always attracted him. pp. he had not enjoyed the opportunity of prosecuting his New Testament studies beyond the somewhat superficial stage which ordinarily represents a theological tutor s acquaintance with the wide range of learning in which. 2520 The Old B . In venturing upon this somewhat bold prophecy. in addition to his own special branch of research. he has The problem of the origin generally to direct his pupils reading. t Biblical Essays. He had been impressed (as every Hebrew scholar must be impressed) with the Semitic character of its diction. however. the writer had not at the time any thought of undertaking the task himself. Absorbed in Old Testament studies. and authorship of the Fourth Gospel had. i26ff. would prove beyond the range of reasonable doubt that it was based upon an Aramaic original. and realizing with ever growing insistency the task which lies before Semitic scholars of widening and deepening the basis of their learning if they would make any really first-hand contribution to their subject. and reviewing summarily and generally the kind of New Testa ment problems which might receive fuller elucidation through the more direct application to them of Semitic learning.

fiber- A. though not 1645. 1876. have emphasized the Semitic character of scholar as H.). though . had suggested in the sermon that both The view that the Fourth forward. explained certain peculiarities in the first chapter of the Gospel by the theory of an Aramaic original and this. He is one born among Jews in the Holy Land. pp. from Grotius (Annotationes. I. A. 1813. Schriftcn. . E. Well- hausen of St. 1861. cite as exhibiting the influence of Aramaic s Gospel. and does not hesitate to let himself be led by it. i. but he could not claim to have substantiated it by the kind of Further close study which deserves to be dignified as research. the discourses of our Lord in Aramaic soon after they were spoken. He had formed an opinion based on general observa tion. 257 f. F. however. Ewald (Die johann. of considerable value. u. 1797. N. (to the best of the present writer s knowledge) it stands alone in advocating this theory. Under the Greek mantle that he at a late date learned to throw about himself.. Salmasius (De Helknistica Commentarius. pp. while holding the Gospel to have been written its in Greek. T. peculiarities pointing in the same notably. .). Bertholdt (Verosimilia de origine evangelii p. 44) is by C. worthy of quotation: The Greek language of the author bears in itself the plainest and strongest marks of a genuine Hebrew. 15-64) is (St. iii. Bibl d. John s Gospel. John wrote down Schriften des A. . the sharing by the Fourth Gospel of many of the peculiarities of diction which Canon Allen and Prof. p. the Mention should here be made of highly important work by Prof. An article by Dr.. Many scholars. and long sub sequently translated them into Greek and incorporated them into his Greek gospel. 1797. die paldstinische b. The opinion of so great a Semitic i. xiv ff. in L. Bolten (Der Bericht des Joannes von Jesu dem Messias. * He out. Joanm s. Luthardt on the language of the Gospel pp. convinced him that the matter could not be allowed to rest here. C. one who grew up to manhood in this society. diction. . 1805 Einleitung 342 supposed that St. Landessprache in dem Zeitalter Chrisii. without speaking Greek. J. Pfannkuche (Ueber Eichhorn s Allgetn. worked Gospel was originally written in Aramaic was put by C. Lift. H. 1641) onwards. upon the style Mark This was about the position at which the writer s acquaintance with the subject stood when he wrote the sermon which he has mentioned. E.* The evidence there adduced he had casually supple mented by notice of additional direction .2 INTRODUCTION altogether ignored by New Testament scholars who confidently asserted the Hellenistic character of the Gospel. 367). yet appealed to him as evidently upon right lines. viii. in . Vorbericht. he still bears in himself the whole mind and spirit of his The discussion mother tongue. Ball. which appeared in the Expository Times for Novem ber 1909. sdzt . entitled Had the Fourth Gospel an Aramaic Archetype ? .T. reflection.

the Fourth Gospel and question himself that the theory of an original Aramaic quickly convincing document was no chimera. Schlatter has demonstrated the practically completed the present study. because the former are nearer in date to the Fourth Gospel and better illustrate the religious thought of Palestinian Judaism in the first century.g. as he remarks any phrase employed in Rabbinic Hebrew (the language of the Schools) could without difficulty be similarly expressed in Aramaic (the popular medium of speech in Palestine). but that Old Testament scholars equipped with a knowledge of these languages should turn to New Testament research. in the Palestinian Talmud. Die Sprache Inquiry into the Semitic characteristics of a New Testament to take account of the fact that the great in modern discoveries of papyri and ostraka writer Egypt have revoluwith which the und Hetwat des was unacquainted until he had viertcn Evangelistcn (1902).g. and that more systematic first-hand application of Semitic linguistic knowledge to the New Testament might be expected problems. book has nowadays Schlatter. Schlatter s conclusion is that the writer of the Gospel was a Palestinian who thought and spoke in Aramaic. 9). set himself to collect and classify the evidence in of the original language of the a form which he trusts may justify the reasonableness of his opinion not merely to other Aramaic scholars. and endeavour by practical demonstration of the value of such knowledge to substantiate the truth of this thesis. He has drawn. in ch. Thus it was that the writer turned seriously to tackle . but a fact which was capable of the fullest verification.INTRODUCTION Old and too 3 to dwell New Testament scholars were as a rule content much in water-tight compartments. but. not from Aramaic. Hebrew the Mechilta (commentary on Exodus) and Siphre (commentary on Numbers and Deuteronomy) which date in substance from the 2nd century A. in the course of his missionary work (p. with supplements from the Midrash Rabba (on the Pentateuch and the Five Megilloth). than the Aramaic material which we possess e. 12). B 2* . It followed that it light upon was not only desirable that professed to shed a variety of New Testament scholars should realize the importance to their researches of a first-hand equipment in Hebrew and Aramaic. and only acquired his Greek (p. Palestinian origin of the diction of the Fourth in the fullest possible manner by citing Rabbinic parallels to its phrase ology verse by verse. D. the majority of verses throughout the whole Gospel being thus illustrated (thus e. i parallels are cited for phrases in 34 out of the total 51 verses). but to all New Testament scholars who will take the pains to follow out his arguments. He chooses these Rabbinic Hebrew parallels rather . and his work is a marvel of industry and intimate knowledge Gospel but from Rabbinic of the Midrashic sources which he employs.

C...:ese scholars. . Milligan and Moulton. the judicious The present papyri. is being hastily based upon them. n. not a thing apart. and if they find a place there. Moreover. and Dr. remarks The dis covery of the Aramaic papyri from Assuan emphasizes this point [the evidence for large Jewish settlements in Egypt from an early date] most strongly. are phenomenal in the former. G. Similarly. that if originally a Semiticism. Richards. in reviewing the and edition of Dr. Whil^ readily making this acknowledgement to the excel lent work of :. and in particular the researches of Prof Deissmann. can only be attributed to lifelong habits of thought. it may not have been felt to be so any longer. that the Greek of the New Testament has been but slightly influenced by the familiarity of the writers with Hebrew and Aramaic. Swete. and recognizes the fact that they have proved that many constructions and usages both in the LXX and New Testament which were formerly supposed to reflect Semitic influence. are really nothing more than ordinary phenomena of the Kowrj lan guage. Prof. No doubt it is possible. . proving it to be. slips in word-formation or in syntax which are to be expected in the latter. and other ephemeral writings.Vorzeit&quot. Apocalypse (1907). is not unacquainted with the researches of Professors Deissmann and Thumb. The fact is surely without significance that practically the whole of the new material upon which we base our knowledge of the Kou/^ comes from Egypt.Egyptian Cf.4 INTRODUCTION The writer tionized our conception of Biblical Greek. he does not stand alone in holding that their reaction against the theory of Semitic influence Biblical upon not Greek has been pushed too far. it remains to be considered how far the quasi- somewhat large Semitic colloquialisms of the papyri are themselves due to the influence of the Greek-speaking Jewish population of the Delta. 83. where there existed large colonies of Jews whose know ledge of Greek was undoubtedly influenced by the translationGreek of the LXX. Moulton s Greek in the Journal of Theological Studies. i : writer. while welcoming all the light that can be thrown on the vocabulary and syntax of the New Testament by a study of the Graeco. C. p. but a more or less characteristic representative of the widespread Kou/^ dialect. n. H. can scarcely be earlier than the end of the fourth Vorzeit&quot. Mr. Moulton makes quite common. Grammar p.in grauer But this &quot. as he says. It is precarious to compare a literary document with a collection of personal and business letters. cxxiv. is of a population from an influx of settlers Such influence on the language Dr. as it seems to him. Thumb. Moulton. x (1909). and even (Licht vom Osten. accounts. and who may not unreasonably be suspected of having influenced in some degree the character of Egyptian A * good example of such influence has been unwittingly 12 remarks of Dr. of Neiv Testament : 289. p. deprecates the induction which. 5) is prepared to admit that the adoption TO avo^a as a legal phrase may be due to Semitic influence &quot.. J. Deissmann ets of century B.

The term here used the guard of the tower /xay8(oAo&amp.) in one of two passages which he quotes from the papyri for the express purpose of proving that the parataxis so characteristic of the and is not due to Semitic Fourth Gospel. referring to p. A. a fortiori is a language.f)v\aKi KOI TrXyyoLS rjfjias TrAt crrat? rjKicrav TTOir)(rav TOV [l!a&amp.t Aa.translation Greek&quot. .lt. with their large use of Kat. T^t/Jaw ^otpt8t[ovj a Kat to describe TOV TOV IIao-tW]os Kii-wva . D.gt. Moulton (Cambridge Biblical Essays. . Deissmann (LAE./&amp. 154). p. Robertson. this section of Koivrj terminology.o&amp. The Jews were very numerous in Alexandria. states that he has been able to produce examples of similar [to the Fourth Gospel] paratactic sentences from sources where no Semitic influence can be predicated Deissmann s (the italics are the present writer s). was translated into the vernacular of Alexandria. that the a point of the case of Wales. TOV opOpov 7rf)\@av ly/zeiV KdKovpyoi TIVVS . of course. . and similarly Prof. 171) in which they complain to the Strategus that they have been attacked by brigands and robbed and beaten avep^o^vutv T^OJV 0. pp. influence. It does not follow. A Grammar oj the Greek Testament in the light of historical research* (1919). the native language of a whole district may be strongly affected by the entry of aliens who learn it and learn it badly. The LXX. 129 ff. /cat e S^craj/ fc[at] avv /cat /j. cite this passage merely as suggesting that the theory of We Jewish influence upon the Koti/^ of Egypt. . but the medium of communication between natives and strangers. expression. .lt. A. evidence for Jewish influence upon Egyptian Yet Prof. . likely only to be modified by all who use it. which is not the native one..lt. South Wales Welsh is regarded by North Wales people as an inferior patois because of the Anglicisms. p. may in fact be supported by concrete evidence drawn from the papyri themselves. embodies the ordinary Hebrew word for tower migdol (originally magdol). This is a letter from two pig-merchants (c. so far from being false or negligible.gt.Jia)]i a KOL flo~avfjpa[v . &c. and one can but wonder if the did not have some slight and resultant LXX influence upon the Alexandrian Koivri itself. So also Dr. T. Milligan (New Testament Documents. with its and . 91: though &quot. and is thus clear .ay8a)\. which are to be seen not if in borrowed words but also in turns of In fact we may say that.770 KW/X-^S as : eaSeA.&amp. 486) remarks.lt. . work. but belongs to the popular Kou^ style.INTRODUCTION 5 presented to us by Prof.et VTTO ra&amp. . Those who still find Semitism in these plain co-ordinated sentences [of the Fourth Gospel]. may be recommended to study the most instructive parallels which Deissmann has set out.

from the epistolary style of an Egyptian pig-merchant or the speech of an English rustic to the style of the Fourth Gospel lies in the fact that the The former are not in part materid with the latter. 12). as much at home in English as in Greek (NTG? i. Moulton justly observes (NTG? of co-ordination of sentences with simple /cat . namely. is This. an The vice of arguing English rustic s story elementary culture. fit in with numerous other characteristics which point to translation from a Semitic language. . of elementary culture which satisfactorily explains the theory style of the former is ill applied to a work which in thought. the literature of Semitic-speaking peoples.6 INTRODUCTION is paratactic style of the pig-merchants for. do we find as a rule more than very occasional instances of the In the Fourth Gospel. 69). The gentleman who used to ride that horse he lost his arm in the war. Nor. Moulton tells us. and the greatest religious monument of all time. and it would be natural for him to say. scheme. it is remarkably frequent. especially among the So with other We semi-educated. frequent one of the easiest of anacolutha. and it is reasonable to seek some better reason than the sup* position that the writer of the finest piece of literature in the New Testament was more than ordinarily infected with colloquialism. due to Semitic influence i. and execution takes rank as the greatest literary produc tion of the New Testament. Probably at times we use the same kind of anacoluthon ourselves in ordinary conversation . Prof. If. usage. such as the use of Casus pendens. in speaking in itself the pheno in menon proves nothing more than would a string of &quot.ands&quot. as Prof. their evidence as part of our proof that the Gospel is such a . We might be talking to a groom. recognize the truth of this statement as regards colloquial English. but we do not use it in writing a book or article may New Testament be worthy to rank as literature. if as a fair specimen of literature written in the which we hope we take the whole Koivrj. only selected by way of example. however. then. Now there is a literature in which both the usages which we have been noticing parataxis and Casus pendens are not the marks of lack of education but common phenomena of the best writing style. p. stylistic peculiarities of the Gospel. these two characteristics of the style of the Fourth Gospel. p.

for Semitic birth in a writer whose Greek betrays . the question of distinction is ignored. WJ. precisely this over-use of locutions coincident with locutions of the Fourth Gospel. . does that of Mt. we have in little Moulton any rate the course which cause to quarrel with Prof. which are brought forward. Greek. t Cf. We locutions which can be defended as their motive good Kou/r. he says. . Nevertheless. pp. BibL 1870. of Aramaic which will repeatedly be found to characterize the Greek the remarks which are occasionally to be encountered articles dealing with the Gospels it would appear that some amount of vagueness exists in the minds of many non- From in books and Semitic scholars as to the existence of a clear distinction between Aramaisms and Hebraisms. As a matter of at fact. the combinations of Allen (Expositor. By some scholars. 18 f. t stance of this is to be seen in Prof. in fact. The Hebraizes still more strongly than language of Mk. but have of the clearly in their coincidences with locutions writer s native tongue. 436-43) do not prove that the evangelist wrote Aramaic. Dalman. Schmiedel s remarks on the A original language of St. for he lays a canon which covers a great part of the characteristics If we are seeking he says. i. but only that he wrote a kind of Jewish Greek * Cambridge Biblical Essays. p. pp. and the two terms are used glaring in indifferently as though they were synonymous. 474.INTRODUCTION is 7 not in the slightest degree invalidated by the fact translation can be adduced from the non-literary and ephemeral that parallels type of document which we find represented in the papyri. is followed in our discussion down of the language of the Fourth Gospel. course applies only to Greek which is virtually or actually translated to the Hebraism of the and the Aramaism of New Testament books which are This test of LXX either translated from thought It is in Aramaic and moved with Aramaic sources or written by men who * little freedom in Greek. evidences of deficient knowledge of the resources of the language. 1900. Mark s Gospel in Encyc. we must not look only for uses which strain or actually contravene the shall find a subtler test in the over-use of Greek idiom.

and Lk.and it KO! eyeVero came to pass see HS. or Mt. the present writer cannot claim to have examined in &quot.. io 38 ). or Mt..lt.* The parts of Lk. is 2 9 without arriving at the clear conviction that we either have in it the literal translation detail into the question of its original of an Aramaic original. with those passages in which the author had no exemplar fact as Marcan source in Lk. especially the phrases ^T) diro (Semitic (D of aversion after a verb of fearing). No Semitic language (Greek or Aramaic). dependence upon Mk. is that the third evangelist has made some attempt to smooth away the most palpable solecisms. and yet no one holds &quot. . s Jewish Greek cannot have been derived from a reading of the for it exhibits peculiarities (those which connect it with Aramaic) which are not found there. of course the Q document which is used common by Mt. something of a feat to have crowded so many miscon Mk. often &quot. o/JoAt^cm \v e/j.o^rjerjT amounting to . at all in the proper sense of the term . 2 p. does not Hebraize ceptions into the space of a few lines. which Schmiedel also mentions as a source containing Hebraisms in employed by Lk. regards the * The * As regards Mt. Lk. on this expression even Moulton. Mk. but he goes on at once to confuse the issue again by equating the supposed * Hebraisms * which are the before him result of in which are found . has Hebraisms is the first accurate statement which Prof. not only in chaps. study such a passage as Mt. but elsewhere as well.f&amp.oi (cf. while at the . 37).. or is merely due to the fact that the author was ill versed in Greek and accustomed to think and speak in Aramaic. though they differ as to whether this colouring implies actual translation from an original Aramaic document.gt. LXX same time the most striking Hebraisms of the LXX are absent from it. but has by no means carried this out thoroughly or consistently. i. Schmiedel makes. for example. jo 26 33 = Lk. but also where he had no exemplar before him (as. however. consequently a number of Marcan Aramaisms (not Hebraisms ) remain in Lk. Lk. It s writing to is be a translation of a Semitic original.e. Mistranslation of an &amp. or that the ipsissima verba of our Lord in Aramaic were branded on the hearts of His hearers and reproduced with a reverential exactitude virtual translation. NTG? i. p. &quot. i f. Cf. scholar can. also has Hebraisms. unoXovOeT oniaca pov (Mt. but the fact that his Greek exhibits a strong Aramaic colouring is admitted by all Semitic scholars who have studied the subject. The fact that Lk. and not only where he is dependent on Mk. 104).8 that INTRODUCTION he had derived from a reading of the LXX..

Kal kv TTJ oioaxy avTov 6\(yev. as Schmiedel states. setting of narratives. the numerous occurrences in Midrash Rabba on If misfortune has befallen thy e. tvovTa Sore \CT)[j.INTRODUCTION which 9 may be taken to be due to the author. ii (Aram. /ecu eyeWo. himself (such as the which the phrase cited. we find a passage (vv.a. may be his manner of referring to this written discourse-source to which he had access. ^3] means both to purify&quot. For the latter sense .gt. paradoxical as it may the very existence of this Hebraic colouring in his style seem. -yeftei apnayTjs u iroirjaas tiroirjad . . while in Lk. in his short summary of teaching contained in i2 38 40 seems not unlikely that Mk. . aKpaaias. 27). iva yevrjTai Kal TO (ICTOS aurov Kal ISov iravTa Kadapa vpiv tanv. TOV -noTTjpiov T7)S | Trapo^/idos. Kal Trovrjpias. The Rabbis Yohanan and Resh Lakish were going down to bathe in the hot baths of Tiberias. how to give him alms (11 DI^T?) and provide for him sect. (occurring in Aram. &quot. presumably from Q. and these so striking as to make this Gospel stand out as stylistically the most Hebraic Gospel of the four. as well as normal and also to give alms (cf. 1 t 1 &amp. cf.g. a&amp.oavi T)i is to be explained by the fact that New Heb. they found him dead. A poor man met them. and Aram. 5 (New Heb.. ovx TO KaOdpiffov iroTTjpiov egaOev rrXrjv TO. 23 25 25 - 26 Lk.a Exodus. it has been wrongly rendered. Kal TO fffcudev irpuTOf Kal TO TTJS CVTOS TOV 41 tvovTa Sore f\TjfJLoavvr/v. 2o 45 Lord s 47 has followed Mk.). Einleitung1 ?|) it Here wpujrov TO (VTOS KT\. e/caoroy. consider .ovffiv 26 TO fca0fv TOV iroTTjpiov Kal TOV irlvaKos KaQapitT. n\r.s ^ In the opening of the long indictment of the Scribes and Pharisees contained ~ in Mt. and not Mt though his opening statement that our words were spoken both to the multitude and to the disciples seems to &quot.T(ts Kal Qaptaaioi. OTI Ka6api(T6 Kal ye(j. Lk. (&quot. Nw vpfis ol Qapiaatoi TO f^caOev viroKpiTai. Wellhausen.jj. Aramaic passages : original seems clearly to the indicated by comparison of the following Mt.Give me alms&quot. s opening phrase. n39-4i 39 Oval v[Mv. sect. belongs) do contain Hebraisms. They said to him.3 . eauOfv Kal 5e apirayrjs TO oe effcaOfv 40 vpuiv dippoves. The p^t). That which is within give as alms Hp^-fjvfvaf 8 aura. When they came out.). (Q). (&quot. can hardly be doubted that the remarkable variant between Mt. a translation of a Semitic original for.v KT\. p.When we come out we will p3|). ovvaTos. The parallel passages run as follows : . give thee alms&quot. to no one holds Lk. . par.gt. 23. which recurs nearly verbatim in 4 2 (introducing the parable of the sower).v TO. xxxiv companion. He said to them. KaOapov. ypa[*. $aptaat( TV(p\t. and selected the former. . indicate that he rightly identified Mk s abbreviated version with the long discourse of Mt. iiaOapiaov and Lk. s writing to be Yet. Lord used some such expression as p37 tf Oin That which is within purify this has been rightly rendered in Mt. 2 7 ) which has clearly formed a source It ~ for Mk. &quot.p inference is that our . irapoif/ioos. and made more explicit by the addition of TOV -noTijpi.

lt. except for to be a paraphrase of Kal p. Se ar- Sdirvois. ^ /ecu TOVJ dcrrrao~yuovy irfpiaaurtpov Kp tp. KT\. It should be remarked that (fcOnvl?) . appears in Mk. (e. verbose ). however. He is himself responsible for pointing out the variant meanings of the verbal form.gt. as well as the Pa el ^^Ji. The statements of Mk.. Joj . we meet with two statements which do not seem. but who make verbose their prayers .gt. ot ar- ^v : irpotiTOKXiaiav \v TOIS raj ot/cas /j. not the ordinary Aramaic word for prayers it might be so interpreted by a translator in who was aware of this meaning of the term New Heb. 23 5 In v. i2 38 . priDlp&quot.g. ?rpos epya OLVTUV TO deadrjvai irXarvvovcnv dcrnaff/jiovs 89 Kal ^^av 6 f \ovrcav irepnraTtiv (f&amp. that an original prP?Dri . but has already been made.lt.10 is INTRODUCTION a sure indication that he was steeped with with Hebrew. which properly means prayers between the two statements.lt.40 38 Lk. 38 39 - ran/ OtXovTcav tv ffTO\ai$ irtpnrardv. in vv. and Aram. as they stand. his Greek style would presumably have been already formed and would not have taken on a LXX . to Severus Alexandrinus. believes that this suggestion as to a misunderstanding of The writer ppDH is not his own. which seems can be clearly recognized in Mt. term for (pvXaKrrjpta (Mt. who make in the broad their phylacteries mistranslation Ppjpri is rightly rendered in Mt. &amp.pi\ovo~iv irpuTOKaOfSpias tv rats avvayajyars Kal irpajTOK\ifftas tv TOIS Seiirvois 40 of Kal trpajTOKaOfSpias avvaycayaTs ev Tofs Kal Trpo}roK\iaias 47 3acT7re8a. Tafy ayopais. Luke was a Hellenistic Jew and not a Gentile would be apart from other evidence to the contrary the natural deduction from the fact that the has coloured his Greek style in so marked a degree since this surely implies that he was brought up upon the Greek Bible. by .pv\aKTr)pia avT&v TO.a. however. Rhetorica. Had he been a Gentile.gt. . and Mk.i\ovvTajv fv v (TroAafy Kal ev av&pw-nois rafs uyopais aatraafjLovs rats ayopats tv rat s ra }/&amp.aKpa caSiovffiv ray Kal oiKias TWV /j. to connect themselves directly with we anything in Mt. ../ ne wishes 7 ! be It is likely. and Lk. it neyaXwovaiv 6 &amp. and not * LXX . 79 v. though he cannot recall to whom acknowledgement is due.. observe that the New Heb. 40 of Mk. therefore. make broad their phylacteries and make long their prayers Now the verb vXarvvovaw is rendered in Pesh. converted to Christianity until he was a grown man. OVTOI \povrai. 2 3 lff 6 irjOovs - LXX influence. 235 ) is P^SPl Thus there is a suspicious resemblance Fphillin.* very possibly unacquainted Mt.. that the second of these speaks of prayer. avTov 5e Trai t\ Ken ei/ 777 8t5axJ7 Toy TOU ^ois Kal TOIS fta /3AerreT Xaov 46 fiiTf rofy fM0T)T(Ut St itovffiv jfs TO. Noticing.aKpa nrvois KOI tv ray Tctfy Trpouro- -npofpafffi iQtop ias yaryafy avv- OVTOI TTtpiaa&amp. Mt.tya- \vvovaiv rd Kpaorrtoa.JTtpoi&amp. That St. has the sense -- make If verbose&quot. and Payne Smith in his Thesaurus quotes instances in which l this Aph el ^l 1 make broad .

g. possess other and apparently contrary evidence in the fact that St. ? and. such as Dr. cos DK33 at their coming = LXX A (or ?) rjviKa) rjXOov. The use of *nj it came to pass is in such a case very idiomatic in Hebrew. T. IK? -|B&amp.g. Greek struction or word-usage found in Biblical : i. xix).g. however. And eyeWo introducing a time-determination. That he was Such a verdict.gt. e. . e. in their coming = LXX T \6v An Infinitive with preposition 3. they saw = LXX it came to pass. on the third day ftj&amp.lt.lt.h/ E*jfr? when they avrovs. of Gentile origin.K3 when they came = LXX rjXOov. e. as conclusive evidence that he was colouring. 4 14 appears expressly to distinguish him from (hose of the circumcision previously mentioned ll and this is taken by most scholars.gt. Luke.)?! by no means invariably) introduced by and they saw = LXX ( K ai) elSov . and the such as there equivalent is KOL e yeWo or cyeVcro 8e. following striking Hebraisms occurring in Lk. cnKnpi) ^\S Ni*i DN33 \Tl And eTSov. which IN&quot. the latter scholar going so far as to maintain.g. (LXX often omits K a(). the true meaning of the term Hebraism serve to viz.Nl nani most frequently (though and (= then ). p. . Plummer (St.g. EW is rVfV after three rjfjiepas rpet?. 9^$? ry rpiry . they saw = LXX The KOI ISov etSov. (v. &amp. We do. ignores the important criterion of style and perhaps the conclusion which best satisfies the conflicting evidence is that he may have been a proselyte from his . surely originally a heathen may be taken as certain . E^N? A = LXX (eV) ry yfjitpa days = LXX /xera they (were) coming specific note of time. Participle Absolute with pronominal or nominal subject iiBn e. as they came. (or ^i/iica) e.g. or simply ^Ki subject of the apodosis may of course vary from that of the time-determination (when this latter embodies a subject). that (lit. and ) a man went out any rate to the extent that it has. LXX W An came Infinitive with (lit. rate? (or when &amp. a con Hebrew which has been in translation by the LXX. preposition 3. which may take various forms. however. Lightfoot (Colossians. ) e. ) p. 239) and Dr.k with a Perfect.g. After follows the note of time or occasion. behold. After this comes //^ apodosis.INTRODUCTION The illustrate n may . youth and have come over to Christianity from Judaism. LXX Di*3 avrw ep^o/AeVw. e. and has come through LXX copied influence into N. Paul in Col. at .

n . can be It seems therefore in Lk. !W W &amp. n 43 B). 3% 6 - fi - Thackeray. 8 122 . 26 1 . n 1 - 87 . rov TTTOJXW (Lk. There are besides some cases in in Lk. p. inserting altogether absent. a man going out to meet them*. .gt. * With time-determination . i7 /cat /cat . So Lk. in apodosis.they (were) coming. 59 i . It Gospel-style respect would seem to imply a not inconsiderable interval between the two works. in apodosis.gt.lt. Instances of this Hebrew construction. which is not found in Hebrew. 22 6 17 28 17 . 2 r 9 18 . And it came to pass. viz. 24 15 4 -( 15 ). (Infinitive) lls . . may be noted that in some of these B 17 32 the note of time or occasion .5 14 9 . . and without 29 2 Lk. or Qntoj Nr wx nan] D fcQ nan w /cat. 2 2:i . and Acts paralleled from the papyri. Hebrew might say quite un-Hebraic. And that it came to pass. . in Greek. seen in - Lk. &amp. is specifically a construction belonging to before f-yfvero. i 15 9 - . or. 3:i . Acts 9 14*. which the verb of the apodosis is not an Aorist but an Infinitive.). 50). note of time. and only occurs once in LXX (3 Kgs. examples. . Lk. T. . and. (lit. 7&quot. after days&quot. iS 35 24 . 7 28. i3 In Semitic it 1 n 5:i .12 to INTRODUCTION meet them .from the end of jj&amp. Grammar 12 Acts 4 5 c/*-^ . i 9 . with time-determination fv ro&amp. during which his wider intercourse with Gentile heathen in the course of his missionary labours exercised an influence on his style. 51 . may be i 8 . ftaKn nojl p some time (lit. This modification of the construction. 2 15 ). This is . &amp. Lk. Outside Lk. i 23 With specific note of time. . It . in The reason in why Luke modified his* Acts demands investigation.gt. 9 10 .) the poor man died . without /cat . i 4 \ :t7 .lt. 2 Mfi . .s Lk. Mk. . behold. Acts 5 7 . 5 17 . o&amp. 22 has been variously modified so as to lose its clear-cut Hebraic 26 In other cases.and&quot. it would not say i6 22 ).lt. i6 22 Acts 9 43 28 8 it is form.. viz. i6 16 19*. to be a modification of the Hebraic construction under the in fluence of a known - Koivr) construction (cf. &quot.. 14 30 51 - . and i9 41 . - of the O.. Lk. . and Acts eyeWo introducing a time-determination is only found in the five-times repeated phrase /cat eyeVero ore eVeXeo-ej/ I^o-oCs in 4 4 (cf. and also in Mt. i9 ] . Mt. And the poor man died without note of time except fV iiNn JIDJI as inferred from the context ( and = and then }. this |v?&fn riDM_ *nj}=y VeTo Se aTroOavelv St. without /cat. With time-determination (Aorist). 9 28:!7 20 1 . and many more in Acts. &quot. and apodosis introduced by 17&quot.

INTRODUCTION Biblical 13 this Hebrew. 4 12 Acts 7 :i4 . p.g. Greek through the influence of the LXX. TrapayytXta Trap-^yyet Aa/xci/. and not found in Aramaic except where language copies the Hebrew construction in translation. binding we will bind .X a W ei J 5 Trpo&amp.-VTWV. apart from the Hebraizing rendering of the Targums. Babylonian edisu lidil 3 as&amp.) is peculiarly characteristic of Biblical Hebrew. this Enforcement of verb by cognate substantive to When Hebrew desires is emphasize a verbal idea. T. &amp. Koi TrapaSwcro/xeV tv X L P^ &quot. 14 Mk. the substantive representing the an O.lt. This enforcement of the verbal idea by the Infinitive.J - find 21 it 14 4 only in Mt. Acts 28 5&quot. 30 di/c^artVa/xev (cf. Judg. No examples of the second form of the idiom are found in N. Syriac ^objJ j^ji& r o when they are com pletely victorious Cf. i^nin &6 ^niiTi KO. According to Dalman (WJ. but we will bind thee (lit. is different.T. Gen. LXX i 28 is the rendering of &amp.gt. .lt. T. X aP$. g. its absence LXX by the writer of in Dative. I5 13 DT3 ^UriJI TpDtO ibN ? 6O &amp.L egatpwv OVK l^yjpev avrov.ioo-ev). KOL Oavdrit) ov Oavarwo-OfJiev An alternative method employed by .t Acts 23 14 Elsewhere in N. = LXX and and expelling did not expel them ) e. from Jn. but the except in the quotations Mt. Incidentally. Dalman. T. WJ.lt. T. opxu w/&amp. 17 let it be ever new ).:}: which occurs in * p. 2. ivvjiviaaOriffovrai. J f^lV nioSn. tells against the use of the Gospel.rtvxf] 7rpoo-r)vaTO. LXX prefixes the Infinitive the place of the Infinitive it commonly taken by the cognate substantive in the Dative] e. LXX ^jyoa tib nom Nay.* These facts prove that in the construction under discussion we have a true Hebraism. LXX ivfavia evvwviaa6faovTat. also Acts 2 . 34) it is quite unknown in the Palestinian Aramaic of the Jews. Lk. 2 17 riiOn nto Thou shalt surely die (lit. 32. (lit. . the Infinitive by a Participle did not expel them at all (lit. i3 i5 = Mk. as in the Targums. thee ) and deliver thee into their hand but &amp. we will not slay thee -. slaying we will not slay thee ere ) = LXX O^ on dAA ) 8eo-/Aui ST/o-o/ieV o-e o-e. Judg.gt. In Absolute to the Finite verb. while found occasionally in other Semitic languages (cf. 22 . LXX OvfALa f-rreOv/J-irjcra. f Acts a 17 li viniois 28 Joel a (s l in Heb. we n . . quotation from cognate Accusative in Heb. which can only have entered into N. i3 15 first occurs three times in the Lucan literature viz. .lt. dying thou shalt die ) = 6avaru airoOavtlvOe. quotations). 10 7 (both O.gt.

g. i is derived from the i 17 . Sam. The Hebrew ets preposi which commonly h possesses. io 13 Judith 8 25 here incorrectly given the sense i . peace-wise or health-wise i. and Mk. however the text of D in Mk.lt. It is derived from where iuis evanriov is The LXX extremely common (some hundreds of occurrences). expression peculiarly characteristic of Lk.ii/ or a similar adverb in i. ipN 5 ! N^H^ fjD ! And 1 . Chr. . a Finite verb. followed by an Infinitive with preposition &amp. Trpoo-eOtTo (TvXXafifLV IleVpoj/. (23 times). Gen. 4. . . Acts (13 times).14 3. In these Gospels we find tfjiTTpoo-Otv. and Apoc. Lucan in N. * Cf. thus meaning lit.e. Lucan 3 . but in the i. i4 25 . /cat Trpoa-e^ero rpirov Lk. The Targum Hebraizes 5. literature: (i) *at 7rffjuj/ai. be followed by took a wife Se ( again took = . LXX rendering 18 ^ . g.. and ordinarily to the face of). Elihu added and said $ero erepoi/ LXX BovXov /cat . . Peshitta the regular rendering }N^^ ^J. where exclusively they ordinarily render ^ya in the sight of (lit. . EWp . y 00 8 48 vTrayf. . T. 2O 11 . to the eyes of). in the sight of (lit. . are both very common in LXX. or took a second 1 ) = LXX 5 7rpoo-0e/xevos Afipaan eAa/2ci/ ywaiKa. T. and with (2) may n$X n^l Drat? ^0*1 And Abraham added and . 3 4 io 1 fi = LXX it /cat 7iy&amp. he did again. in Lk. they again did it 12 or Judg. ov py TrpoaOw witiv. which is marked by an Hebraic style (34 times). jn? (i. Job 36 Both Trpoo-e12 of these constructions occur in the Tre/uuf/cu . (20). T. . 832). i2 17 Tob. e. i Kgs. lDp*l and they added ) do that which was 0ej/To . ets Mk. . or ^vb represents Hebrew */? before (lit. and is unused in Mt.e. 25 . evil Trovrjpov.oo-e Trot^a-ai TO . :f) Acts 7 10 8 21 ). Lk. The usage is not found elsewhere in N.. INTRODUCTION Use of Trpoa-TLOrjfjii in place of 7raA. 2o 1342 . 2 Kgs. Acts I2 (2) 7rpocr0eis etTrei/ Lk. in peace or health The phrase belongs distinctively to Biblical Hebrew. . 20 (LXX it 2i) . -n-opevov / clpyvy. 5 (nowhere else of the Hebrew Cri^ :i4 in N. Acts 7 10 . e. Ivai/n (Lk. in the eyes of). i 6 2o 24^. eVwTrtoi/ is only found once in Jn. .e.gt. . imitation of it Hebrew T^ n he added to in do something.) c f. of norm. i 8 which also occurs . . may be JWy^ . It is really an idiomatic usage known as . ivavriov (Lk. verb ^Tpin e. There are two constructions Hebrew to : (i) the auxiliary b. Ilpoo-tfets Se EAtovs In Aey. 5 tion 7 is 1! . 19&quot.* The phrase Tropevov ets clprjvrjv. . in copying is it in translation.

lt. wider range of senses.. i 2 and only besides in Lk. LXX rendering of Hebrew |ri3 which. allow &c. quotation Mk. 2 Thess. Dr. T. 6. LXX. Hebraisms derived from the Greek of the LXX. i 76 9. The phrase Trpo irpoa-wTrov. 31 OVK aurw 6 ^eo? . 6\ i 7 14&quot.j)ov&amp. &amp. lo Acts i3 24 .T. . use of ZVUTTLOV and cvai/rtov.lt..before in front of. . These examples should serve clearly to illustrate the character t.gt. arC LXX renderings of 7. n = 26 rendering Lk. 17. occurs in the O.) derived from (Jer. 19 41 . 2o 21 . derived from the LXX Hebraism. Jas.S(oo-co avrov ets e^ro? /xeya.. N. in LXX is found 67Tt (a7TO TOl) 7T. of N. in the (physical) sight of. 15 in the opinion of. Such instances might be indefinitely multiplied. show him partiality in N. ..lt. Lk. observe that they are characteristically Lucan. Lk. More commonly this phrase is rendered in LXX by Oav/jid^fiv irpoo-fD-n-ov. appears in appoint be exclusively Lucan cf. The phrase is TO Trpoa-wirov co-Typia-w. C7TI TTpOCTMTTOV ActS 51 7 . Acts s 5 TTp6(T(TTOV Lk. (Rom. 21^.T. Gal. .INTRODUCTION ^a &amp. f In place of the distinctively Hebraic expressions VJDp. T. &quot. T. Hebraisms may be found in the exclusively so. 6. substantives irpoo-wroXvitMfria Trpoa-coTroX^Trr^s 11 .ro&amp. .^ by. Index II)./cei/ Deut.P.2 25 ei/ap^ou Sowat a-ov.lt. and in some cases Other N. The Semitic phrase occurs in Aramaic as well as in Hebrew. f\ *3SO 1 -n-poa-^irov i 9 .&quot. . The same distinction may be noticed for the most part sight in the N. 2 ) partiality are 1 . 2 a respecter of persons (Acts io 35 ). it 9 (nowhere else in renders Hebrew D^s D^ 5 &c. Eph.). T. f\ i 2 5158 15-. which . N.e. 2% 13* (both quotations from Ps i6 ). .e. 45 7 . occurs 9 times in .). The use of the verb may be rendered put . where if.I 13 Sore eavrots avSpas Deut. 2i 10 Ezek. meaning primarily give is regu Cf. 6 1 20&quot. Apoc. Col. = d Mt. We Greek of the Apocalypse (cf. N^S*. I8o&amp. the LXX rendering in larly used also in such wider senses. T. in .\ Acts 2 19 in w (quotation from Joel 3= ). f) XafjifidvcLv TTpocrw-n-ov. set the face 8. Gen. Charles s Commentary. 2 as the rendering of Hebrew 0^3 ^ LXX of take or lift up the face judgement. ig. 9. 3^. Hebrew always observes a distinction i. and between Tj m the (mental) of. Lk. i. SiSw/u in a set . M*#? Aramaic uses E^i?.. &quot. . The anyone. io :u This usage comes from where Oayu is the regular i9 . which 1 is a common LXX 10 of ^eb. to : . Gen.

which he rightly ascribes to the influence of the Aramaic usage of the Participle in narrative (cf. as may be seen by comparing the two books in the pages of any English Bible e. For example. the whole of LXX are 337. when. or original Greek compositions influenced by their style. pp. first-hand a cause which Hebrew the style operative in Birth-narrative of Lk. collected by Canon Allen Schmiedel are wholly different in the article mentioned by in character . one of Canon Allen s most striking the very frequent use of the Historic Present Mk. The similar in structure and phraseology that close translations made from the two languages..g. the average to a page being in i Sam. marking of the distinction between Aramaisms and Hebraisms may thus be seen to be a matter of fundamental If Aramaic and Hebrew were so importance to our inquiry. which happens to be exactly the same number as Mark But then i Kingdoms exceeds Mark in length by contains.~ pp 198 ff. it is there comparatively rare ? . loc. minion 8vo 1885. in the most conclusive manner.). Out of the 232 instances in the four books of Kingdoms.} Moreover. were practically indistinguishable. and of these 232 occur in the four Books Kingdoms. in dealing with the Synoptists and the LXX. about one-third. First Book (= i Samuel) contains very nearly two-third?. 87 ff of the is Aramaisms in How could this usage have been derived from present volume). and the ment that they only prove that this evangelist wrote a kind of Jewish Greek that he had derived from a reading of the LXX is most misleading. 213). the viz. about 6 and in Mark between 9 and 10 (HS. the same scholar has proved. leaving only 105 for the whole of the rest of the LXX. and Mark (without the Appendix) about 15 pages and a half.16 INTRODUCTION to and these owe their origin imitation of Biblical also a different cause. viz. in which i Sam. 2 reading the LXX. The total occurrences in p. The was perhaps Marcan state Aramaisms Prof. 151. occupies 26 pages. as Sir John Hawkins has shown (//5.V. Z Matthew occupies an intermediate familiarity with it place. then it might not . Consequently it appears thickly that the historic presents are scattered considerably more over the pages of the latter than of the former. that Mark is considerably the least familiar with this version. in the R. while Luke shows most (HS. cit.

is structurally nearer akin to Aramaic than to Hebrew. the distinction between to assert itself. together with the specific Aramaisms. with Greek works such as the Gospels. which lacks the clearly-marked Hebraisms of the Lucan literature unmistakably derived from the LXX. we find a New Testament document such as St. a number of Semitisms which may be paralleled both from Aramaic and Hebrew. ff. t Cf. Here we have the work.t In speaking of Hebrew style it may be well to reiterate the fact that we are The Hebrew employed in the referring to Biblical or Classical Hebrew. 328 an which effectively disposes of the criticisms of Schmiedel. and which may or may the specific not be reflected in the Greek of the LXX. But it is Aramaisms which must determine the character of the work (Palestinian and not Hellenistic).* If. In dealing. . and if so be that in any of these we have actual or virtual translation from a Semitic original. or his Greek to contain. Mark s Gospel. which was the language of the Rabbinic Schools at or about the Christian era and subsequently. Expository 7tmes. fulfilled much the same function as did the dog. the conclusion should surely be obvious. however.. Aramaic style and Hebrew style is bound then. Allen. xiii (1902). either actually wrote in Aramaic. 17 stylistic peculiarities of such documents were classed as Aramaisms or Hebraisms though even so since such phenomena would properly rank as the common property of two it would (if not more) languages of the Semitic group scientifically be more correct to describe them as Semitisms. This artificial product. The other Semitisms serve but to add weight after the conclusion has been drawn. The Aramaic Element article in St. however.Latin employed by scholars in the Middle Ages. having sprung from a common ancestor. * New Mishna and Midrashim. It is true that Aramaic and Hebrew. pp. not of a Hellenist who studied the LXX. but of a Palestinian Jew who whose mind was so moulded by Aramaic idiom that Such a work is naturally found perforce reflected it. and at the same time contains different marks of Semitic style which can only be referred to Aramaic. we are concerned not with brief sentences but with lengthy documents . Mark .INTRODUCTION matter whether the . number of such common character Greek passages of brief the occurrence of which in isolated length might leave us in doubt whether the influencing factor was the one language or the other. do in fact exhibit a considerable istics. and there is no reason for supposing that it ever came into popular use.

gt. Usages of Jn. eis. t The present writer has noted only Mk. One case in Mk. Sparse use of 6V. 2G&amp. is 11 . 6 6 . 28). 18 instances bear no comparison with the frequency of the usage in Jn. feels that the case for the former is not of equal cogency with that for the latter. . and preference for /ecu (p. Frequency of Historic Present (p. Two cases in Mk. 92). Relative completed by a Pronoun. . Asyndeton (p. however. Casus pendens t /&amp. (p. as tion of a writer sion. 66). and here the argument for Jn. . pp. 87). The present writer. and yet linking contrasted statements iVa mistranslation of ^ relative. on mistranslation of ^ relative. Two cases in Mk. . 56). and Mk. as is natural. 76). To a large extent. found more rarely in Mk. (p. Allen quotes Asyndeton as characteristic of Mk. 7 32 49 J The only cases collected from Mk. (St.i8 INTRODUCTION Whether the Marcan Aramaisms prove distinct actual translation from an original Aramaic document. is casting his from the virtual transla who. . (p. 77). . Examination of the usages discussed in the present volume will be found to yield the following results : Usages common Parataxis (p. There is. 63). but his . 69). are 4 5 i4 . ov fjaj eis rov aum/a = never Two parallels in Mk. comparing the evidence for an Aramaic Marcan document with that which he himself adduces in this volume for familiar to him. though using Greek as his medium of expres words in the Aramaic mould which is more is a question which still remains open. . (p.31 * f. Mk.). to Jn. is materially strengthened by the of Mk. 34).at * 49).lt. to which no adequate analogue exists in Mk. an Aramaic Fourth Gospel. 70). a still larger mass of parallel usages evidence which can be cited for Jn. u/a 7T/)os = conjunctive that = with (p. Mark. eAeyoi/ (p. 84). 99). (p. Frequency of Imperfect eXeyei/. (p. One case in = J (p. I2 10 . the evidence for the two works runs upon identical lines . (p.

) of which the most noteworthy are the frequent use of the adverbial TToAAa = tf*b% and of the auxiliary r/paro. Usages characteristic ofjn. occurs but once in Mk. (though to a less extent than Jn.. do not exhaust the Aramaisms of Mk. . 7 ff. (cf. aj/#pw7ros = tva pi] employed : to the exclusion of /^Trore (pp. .). : Change of construction after Participle (p. 94). . . these may be added an Aramaism of which one case only occurs in Jn. 79). On the other hand. not equally impressive because though they fit in with the theory of translation from an Aramaic original they are the kind of Aramaisms which might naturally be introduced by a writer of Greek whose native tongue was Aramaic. while frequent in Jn. Others are cited by Allen 1 Mark. 86). when (p. Frequency of Personal Pronouns tva OTL (p. 78).at Present as when (p. Anticipation of Genitive by Possessive Pronoun in (p. is some cogent evidence of mistransla tion . . The Marcan usages noted above which find parallels in Jn. ov . 99). 100).) and by Wellhausen (Einleitung pp. no one (p. Frequency of Emphatic Demonstratives mistranslation of mistranslation OUTOS. What is needed to substantiate the theory of an Aramaic original for Mk. eVeu/os (p. Futurum instans (p.=} 1/o^oyu. Two cases of a construction which is Hebraic rather than To Aramaic. the that the evidence which he has collected in C 2 . pp. 85). not found Mk. viz. Anticipation of direct Object of verb by Pronoun (p. relative. St. 75 f. 82). We may also note the fact that the Kou^ construction tva = conjunctive that which characterizes Mk. viz. 48 ff. In contrast.INTRODUCTION To these I9 may : be added an Aramaism of which one case occurs in each. the use of Iva in place of a which can scarcely be understood except on the theory of mistranslation. 69. 96). -WTO = ^& but they are (cf. viz. pp.) is a usage which an Aramaic-speaking writer of Greek would naturally tend to exaggerate. and this writer believes has not as yet been advanced. = of 1 = &quot. 77).

2. if they are what they profess to be. The dialect 28 is W. 8 8 R. VII in proof of mistranslation on the whole. of O. Both the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds understand the term KHCD in Neh.C. Jer. Driver. viz. 2.V. God distinctly (marg. exhibiting affinities to the dialects of the Palmyrene and Nabataean inscriptions which date from the third century B. to Lit. Granted.T.. must be recognized. 6 18 4&quot. 168-167 B.J This source is therefore of great value as closely approximating to what must have been the type of Aramaic spoken in Palestine in the first century of the Christian era. 503 ff. c. really relates to the interruptions caused by the . s This may usefully be sup plemented by the discussion same writer The Words of Jesus. Driver. 79-88.* presumably Aramaic of our knowledge 1.. in the law of . Cf. Introd. as referring to the use of On this subject the standard wcrk is Dr. f Ezr.20 INTRODUCTION in Jn. Ezr. Chap. however. with an interpretation] so that they understood the reading * and they gave the sense. by an Aramaic paraphrase is undoubtedly very ancient. 4 6 &quot. to the second century A. the possibility of an Aramaic original for the Fourth Gospel. in the 540.) when the Persian king. and in a measure to reconstruct the original text? The evidence Palestinian is is naturally at drawn from our knowledge of or about the period at which the Gospel The following are the main sources to be dated. And they read in the book. especially pp.C. The Ezra-sections.D.c.T* pp. pp.C. lo . J Cf. as exceedingly weighty. and is practically identical with that of 2 4 7 of the Ezra-sections. date from the middle of the fifth century B. .T. of Nehemiah intervened and secured the support of O. Cf.t The Book of Daniel is dated with approximate certainty Bunder the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes. . 23 city-walls. the question naturally arises What evidence do we possess sufficient to enable us to prove this theory. Introd. The Hebrew text of the O. G. Aramaic. Samaritans and other enemies of the Jews to the project of the rebuilding of the probably shortly before the twentieth year of Artaxerxes (444 B. Dalman s Grammatik des jiidisch- palastinischen Aramdisch. ~ 2i 11 sections of the O. 547. 7 Dan.T? p. The Targums or Aramaic synagogue-practice of expounding the paraphrases of the O. 12 : The Aramaic . 4b 28 7 . though inserted into a section which relates the efforts of the Samaritans to thwart ZerubbabePs rebuilding of the Temple in the latter part of the sixth century B.T. to Lit.

has 9 and this view. . are written in Hebrew is implied by the fact which were intended and Malachi. par. Berliner. Nedaritn 376. and gradually led to its general adoption. Zechariah. its favour. most naturally. external influence making itself felt in the exigences of daily life favoured the advance of Aramaic. Even in pre-exilic times (cf. cuneiform upon clay tablets (cf.~ l &O1J. The principal . the writer s Judges. tion is t Bab. The letter which ye sent unto us hath been read me in tianslalion i. e. how easy the precise Jews to drop Hebrew and adopt at the another language. for a popular audience. to us to read a verse of the Law in the The synagogueHebrew and follow by the Aramaic paraphrase. ) and giving the sense custom as known it may was refer to an Aramaic paraphrase. Neo-Babylonian. in the . Targum Onkclos. The mass of the people who did not read books came more and more to speak Aramaic exclusively and to lose the knowledge of Hebrew. and by the . Probably Aramaic was the exclusive medium of intercom se between the exiled Jews and their captors. and no doubt spoke it to some extent among themselves at least for some time after the return. 1 explanation (offered . pp. the use of 2hDD l&amp. 21 disputed. Megilla 74 given in Midrash Bereshith Rabba. with any certainty. The fact that Hebrew of a more or less classical character remained the literary language of the Jews to within at least a century before the Christian era does not of course imply that it was widely and generally spoken by the Jews up to that period. which shows. 13 *. 495^. allusion in Neh. section by section divided by Dr. 4 18 KH2D ^^V |1Pir6&J&amp. Babylonian. p 74. The same explana Cf. along with Cuneiform tablets of the late Neo-Babylonian kingdom.gt. who compares . 255. however.1&?3 ^TP Hp. is that after the return from exile Hebrew and Aramaic must for a time have been used concurrently by the Jews. i8 26 ) Aramaic was the lingua franca of It must have been widely used. 12.INTRODUCTION an Aramaic paraphrase something to be said in * * . and must have found that in Palestine Aramaic had established itself and gained ground owing to the mixture of races and the decay of national feeling among the Jews who had remained in Palestine. That it was understood and spoken in the earlier post-exilic period that e. it condition of affairs made for the less same time. Thus the Jews who returned from exile must have come back with a knowledge of Aramaic at least as thorough as was their knowledge of Hebrew. Bertholet) is (sc. Literary and cultivated Jews read Hebrew. Cf. national. 2 Kgs. the prophecies of Haggai.t however.: in the words of the Persian king s rescript in Ezr. and was used by them in commercial dealings with foreigners. xxxvi. the practice of d. before rival i. Jerus. and Achaemenian periods bear Aramaic dockets and scribes or secretaries were employed for the purpose of writing Aramaic upon parchment along with those wfiose business it was to write Babylonian in international communication. though If. .gt. Assyrian.e. into sections) and on this explanation the following words Qi^ 73b&amp. i. In the Prophets three verses might be read together and followed by the Aramaic rendering. then. All that we can say.g. translated from Aramaic into Persian.lt. Religious. Megilla3. e. and literary feeling strove for the retention of Hebrew but . ii.

which. They were succeeded by the Amoraim ( Speakers or Interpreters ). and seeing a scribe reading the Targum from a book.D. J The Tannaim ( Teachers ) were the Rabbinic authorities of the first two centuries of the Christian era whose work is embodied in the Mishna. cit. date at which written Targums It is using a Targum is not to be carried so far back as the days of Ezra. forms the Talmud. ch. Repetition of the Law. must have been committed to writing and finally redacted at least as early as the third century A.ff . or in a wider sense its Exposition) was compiled towards the end of the second century A.. 88 ff. and after being with drawn from use by his orders. and the admirable Targum by Dr. D. There however. admonished him thus: This is forbidden thee orally. century advised their congregation to read the Hebrew text of the Parasha (section of the Pentateuch read as lesson) twice in private and the Targum once. third to fifth centuries A. Cf. together with the latter. Supplement or Complement of the Mishna. considerably older evidence for the existence of not for public worship. The Mishna (i.. W. 89. must only be delivered received in iv. ii. . pp. Acts 5 22 3 ).D. made it a rule See on article *f- this subject Berliner. D. The outcome of the Gemara.22 INTRODUCTION any rate not in dispute. . reappeared in the days of his grand tradition that a Tannaitic Targum of the Book of 3&amp.e.* related that in the fourth century A.. son Gamaliel II. the fact that it became customary long before the Christian era is at The first came into existence cannot certainly be determined. since its Masora dates from the first half of that century. quoted by Berliner. work was p. Joshua ben Levi commended b} t this practice to his sons (Berakhoth 8 * while Ammi. according to the practice of public worship. Bacher in the Jewish Encyclopaedia. i). Targum Onkelos. op. Two Palestinian Amoraim of the third official The Targum Targum of Onkelos on the Pentateuch. text of the Bible were written Targums for private reading and The Mishnat states that portions of the written as J a Targum (Yadaim iv.lt. the passage from Tosefta Shabbath. -. Samuel ben Isaac once entered a synagogue. Paul cf. xiv. 5). who chiefly this concerned themselves with the exposition of the Mishna. for that which is received orally is and only that which writing may be read from the book (Jerus. and there exists a Job existed in the days of Gamaliel the Elder (the grandson of Hillel and instructor of St. which became the of the Babylonian schools. a pupil of Johanan. Megilla is.

op. Dalman. Cf. disputes this inference. p. much later in date. Megilla n to the Greek translation of Aquila D^pJJ Akylas.INTRODUCTION Thus we may gather how Scriptures in the practice of interpreting the 23 These two dicta were especially generally binding (ib. Hdldkhd ( walking or way so custom ) is the exposition and application . orally. then in written Aramaic. 84 f. possibly through mistaken interpretation of the abbreviation &quot.|| of Pseudo-Jonathan is wrongly assigned to Jonathan (the reputed author of the Targum of the Prophets). xxvii. the Pentateuch is. Cf. cit. pp. D. 590:. cit. Cf. Bacher. their * thought to contain many elements Targum of Onkelos. as we have seen. of the legal elements of Scripture historical || . 92 ff. elements perished in exhibit the influence of the school the rebellion of Bar Cokhba.. gradually assumed a fixed form first. . op. of a reference in Jerus. since both its Halakhic and Haggadic of Akiba 135) A.*n The Palestinian Targum of down to us. op. p. cit.! contents prove that it must have been drawn up in Palestine D. Its While exhibiting certain Babylonian peculiarities composed in a dialect fundamentally Palestinian . as it The Targum = Targum As Yerushalmi. (who and other has come prominent Tannaim. in diction. but it which are older than the of these two identical. J Noldeke. and WJ. finally redacted is is not earlier than the seventh century A. Berliner. as adopted and stan dardized in Babylonia not later.lf Comparison Targums yields evidence that they were originally agreement being often verbatim. The The principal so-called Targums which concern us are as follows Targum of Onkelos t on the Pentateuch. it is in the second century. cit. Megilla DPp^N Onkelos i appears to have arisen through confusion made i. instrumental in authorizing the custom of reciting the Targum. Gramm. no doubt. holding the most primitive elements to be exactly the parts taken from the Onkelos U Targum .. than the third century A. * Hebrew one time presumably dependent upon the extempore skill of the individual M e thurg e man. Berliner. Manddische Grammatik. 107. t The name Bab. quoted by Bacher. pp. 58. 21 ff.D. op. This : is sometimes called the Babylonian Targum. p. shape. Jerusalem it Targum. in iii. 8 a). p. pp.. Haggddd ( narration ) the elaboration of its and didactic portions. at . as Targum Yehonathan.

g. . 8 and Zech. Introd. The Targum of Jonathan lines as that of the (as is Targum of Onkelos. D. the passages cited on pp. ofO. remarks that * no Targum to it. they tend at times to Hebraize their difficult to detect. Such reference- implies the recognition of the Prophetic authority. indeed the nucleus of the Palestinian is older than the Babylonian which was redacted from it p. I2 . the head of the Academy of Pumbeditha in Babylonia in the early part of the fourth century A. Judg.24 INTRODUCTION In addition to the complete Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan there survive fragments of a Jerusalem Targum.. Palestinian in origin it expressly stated in the Bab. Bacher. WJ. Megilla 30). Sam.. who was Hillel s most famous The history of its transmission appears to follow the same pupil. they embody material which whether in written or oral form must have come down from that are later than the period . cit. such slight differences as exist being mainly of orthographical. D. first in the form in which we know them. of the Book of Daniel. e. 503 ff. NoMdeke in Entycl. J Cf. and Kgs. t Cf. and are unlikely. we should not know the meaning of these verses (Sanhedrin 94 . and from the linguistic point of view it is clear that they Their dialect is closely allied to the dialect are faithful witnesses. Dal man. Moed Katon 28 b . including the the Former Prophets viz. 61 p. who. * but instances of this tendency are not to lead us astray. Aramaic .T. Both the PseudoJonathan and the fragments contain much that has survived from a very early period .* p. Targum as an ancient These Targums and especially the Targums of Onkelos and of Jonathan on the Prophets are of great value to us as illus trating the Palestinian Aramaic of the early centuries of the Christian era. On Hebraisms in the Targums cf. therefore. J Prophets is The term four historical books known as of course used in the Jewish sense. on the Prophets * is assigned by tradition to Jonathan ben Uzziel. gained official It is frequently recognition in Babylonia in the third century A. being Hebrew.. Talmud). .. they century. apparently not all contemporaneous. Josh. in 11 6 if there were referring to Isa. Though. 283. to Lit. 61 a). 83. Bibl. Driver. Targum (op. t translations The only drawback to their use is that. In the view of Dr. . quoted by Joseph.

Syriac Versions in Hastings s Dictionary of the Bible.D. making. p. directly from the Hebrew.T.INTRODUCTION 3. Dr. we may gain not inconsiderable aid through comparison of the ancient Syriac versions of the O.T.. D. tendency collected by Dr. its language to the Hebrew of a tendency to constructions of the No We know Syriac version of the N.* 4. and can hardly if be later than the early second century so late.T. is as old as that of the O. A. Ixxi f. Like the Targums. cf. exhibits less accommodate original.. however. Text of the Books of Samuel*.. as appears from the points of connexion which it offers with Targumic renderings. in Four Gospels was translated * Greek. 646 The view that the Diatessaron was first composed in . The Peshitta translation of the O. dating from the fourth to the sixth centuries A. These Aramaic sections are the latest portions of these works. &amp.T. Driver in his Notes on the Heb. t Cf. exhibits an Aramaic dialect akin to that of the Palestinian Talmud and Midrashim. translated As into offering us the text of a great part of the Gospels Palestinian Aramaic this Lectionary is of con siderable interest. the illustrations of this J For authorities iv. The Palestinian Syriac Lectionary.. 12 31 ff. that Tatian made his Diatessaron. Dalman. and by the present writer in his Notes on the Heb. such allowances as are necessary for the dialectical differences between Eastern is and Western Aramaic. In addition to these Palestinian Aramaic sources. p. of unknown date. and N.lt. xxxiv f. They are clearly in the dialect of the people. it shows a certain tendency to adapt language Greek original. and such linguistic peculiarities as this dialect exhibits connects it with Galilee rather than with Judaea. Gramm. A. and Book of Judges. in relation to the its Hebrew to its text. ff. Text of the Books of Kings.. cxxviii. 1704 It Cf. As compared with the Targums. and that this c. into Syriac during his lifetime. pp. of course. pp. Nestle s article a. or Harmony of the (TO Sia reo-o-apwi/ evayye Aioj/). Made It may well have been the work of Jewish it scholars. pp.D. it exhibits the traditions of Jewish exegesis.t undoubtedly very ancient. 25 The Palestinian (so-called Jerusalem) Talmud and the Midrashim contain short sections stories and the like in Aramaic interspersed amid the New Hebrew in which they are for the most part written.

T. and further. This was carried out with such thoroughness that no copy of the Syriac Diatessaron has survived. and a late Arabic (Evangelion da-Me halle te.D. Burkitt. ff. Peshitta. Cureton in 1858. He has appears also shown that the Evangelion da-M epharreshe used the O. when Rabbula.T. more probable than that was p. forbad the use of the Diatessaron. Ephrem s Commentary upon it. the Evangelion da-M pharr she being daed by him c. Gospel translation in Peshitta. The Old Syriac and Peshitta versions of the N. 411-35). 200. pp. and must therefore be later than it. p. j This is a conclusion which open to question. Gospel of the Separate ). 201 p. to This have been the origin of the N.T. bishop of Edessa (A. . Stenning in Hastings s DB.T. 452. and we only know the work through an Armenian translation of St. and the collection and confiscation of the copies of the latter. composed in Syriac. Peshitta. cit. Lewis at the convent on Mount Sinai when he in 1892 . ii. A. and in the (nearly complete) palimpsest of the Gospels discovered by Mrs. * Cf. For the the is Law and first generation of Syriac-speaking Christians the Prophets sufficed. Evangelion da-Mepharreshe. For the latter view cf.D. and it may be that the old version represented by the Sinaitic and Curetonian should be placed at an earlier date. F. originally Burkitt. f pp.. made a revision of this separate version of the Gospels in conformity with the Greek text current at Antioch at the beginning of the fifth century. prior to the Diatessaron in A. I op. op.t His conclusion e is that the Diatessaron was the earliest form of the N. 101 ff. as well as into Syriac appears to be Greek and then translated it ii.26 INTRODUCTION e till the fifth century. 206. possessed e by the Syrian Church. v. cit. J. According to this view the early Christian Church at Edessa had no N. Burkitt has shown that Syrian writers prior to Rabbula e e used the Evangelion da-M pharr she* which has survived to us in the fragmentary remains of a recension of the Four Gospels discovered and edited by Dr. and ordered its substitution for the Diatessaron of the Mixed ). prepared a revision of the text of continued in use at Edessa the separate Gospels (called Evangelion da-Mepharr she. which the text has been accommodated to that of the Dr. that Rabbula..T. 170. 212. Evangelion da-Mepharreshe.D.

for example. . word or verbal termination or suffix which we should we can have no reasonable doubt as to constructions which properly characterize the language as a whole. La Litterature svriaque.). R. When. and the Syriac versions render both alike in accordance with our suspected Aramaism.C. . Thus the istics (if r w e except exact dialectal form of the original which we presuppose is a matter of minor importance.t) is sometimes used in the following pages (early The Ada for purposes of illustration. There are many instances of pp. of the 9th-8th centuries B. 98 j* ii.INTRODUCTION the Palestinian 27 Syriac Lectionary. our primary inference receives strong confirmation. an original Syriac work of fairly early date third century A. may have doubts as to the We precise select . are of great value to our as illustrating Aramaic constructions in relation to the inquiry Greek of the Gospels. 280 Cf. Duval. flf. is The evidence which brought forward in this volume in proof that the Greek text of the Fourth Gospel is a translation from Aramaic is concerned with the broad general characteristics of the Aramaic language. * The fact that this work was originally written in Syriac has if. and does not depend upon dialectal details. distinguished. this in the Fourth Gospel (cf.!. D. been conclusively p. 429 iii. their distinctive character Though dialects of the language may be the earliest monuments of the language. 94. Burkitt in Journal ofTheol. proved by Dr. Studies. 72 ff. we get a varying Greek construction. . pp.) are but slight in comparison with the com mon features which unite all branches of the language. pp. belonging to different places and different periods. p. * Thomae. g. e. one form of which we suspect of being an Aramaism.

9 41 i Jn.f&amp. gain at the outset a clearer s language as a whole . i^K.lt. conception of the texture of the writer and. .VTOV ov^i Tracrat Trpos Mk. (Mk.as j Ka ^ a ^ to) a. instructive to take the Prologue of the Gospel and examine verse by verse. Lk.al O. in Mt.ofX&amp. (i) With regard to the Synoptic source.& rj/Jiepav tv rai tepai e/ca^e^o/x^j/ StSacr/cojv. 26 Koff fj/Jifpav rj/Jirjv Trpos v/xas eV TW iepu TW j KO. . T I if 41 7 Io &quot. i 3 56 Mk. 9 19 Mt. 6 9 19 14^. we that they are all from the Marcan and (2) that Mt. when we come may realize that we are not dealing merely with isolated phenomena. if 7 .VTOV S)O Trpos T^/xas f)/j. I3 f Kat OVK 6 ctcrti/ at dSeAx^at O.O rjfjifpav Lk. same author instances ^ns ty notice irpos TOV Trare/oa. 22 OVTOS fjiov ptB* vfjtwv tv tepoi. 9 to)? [ Mk. . Thus we may to classify. KO. but with illustrations of a con tinuous characteristic which admits of but one explanation the theory of an Aramaic original. parallel passages are as follows : The 63 Mt. Lk. i 2 The last of these passages is an echo of the Gospel-prologue. dealing with a phrase confined in the to the Marcan source and to Jn. then. :! w. . as Westcott observes. .gt. Clearly. presumably by the 1-a . The phrase TT/OOS TOV Oeov in the sense with God is He cites the parallel usage remarkable. which was so far strange Gospels we are .CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY TESTING OF THE THEORY BY EXAMINATION OF THE PROLOGUE As it it is a preliminary to the classified discussion of particular usages. while Mt. 22 5! alter Mark s vrpos v^as to the* more natural paff vpwv. 26 55 omits the phrase altogether. I449 Mt.

i 18 . 156 f. for which on other grounds an Aramaic original. the use of ^ in Dan. Dip. and that the other Gospel-occurrences emanate from its first the Marcan source with Aram.THEPROLOGUE is 29 to the other Synoptists that they were moved on occasions to alter The view that it may represent an Aramaic phrase or expunge it. . xii (1916). This reading has the consensus of early attestation. 41 nrwrrni And inasmuch as because cf. frequent in St. 2 26 . Dr. Ball. Phil. and all this admirably suits creation because He Himself was V. Yet. There are. ad. The * It difficulty of KaTtXapev is familiar. is however. Harris in the 1 of a series of articles on . had been anticipated by Dr. in his article that Trpos here was only after finishing this chapter that the writer noticed that the facts = Aram. since. . i6 7 .gt. has been postulated. i 3 Philem.gt. thou sawest 2 20 *on nb-^ NPrjttM NnjpDn ^ because wisdom and The Heb. we obtain the &amp. (2) motion towards. Here the opening ^ answering to that might equally well bear the meaning inasmuch as. = i with is - 3 . considerable difficulty has arisen in connexion with the interpretation. Rendel The origin of the Prologue to St. Trpos 10 . the punctuation which connects o yeyovev with the preceding sentence seeming to be little if at all earlier than Cent. irpos. 4 . Adopting this interpretation.lt. OLVTO OV KaTtXafitV. once suggested by the fact that it occurs three times in Mk. many other indications that this Apostle s language v. 13 c Cor. &amp. Trapd. In Aramaic the common at preposition flip (possibly akin to the verb I? join ) denotes It (i) connexion with. Life.f&amp. .I TO tV TTJ CTKOTia KOL &amp.lt. The Aramaic equivalent would be which Kvn. John s The coincidence in conclusion Gospel in the Expositor. serves to prove that it is unmistakable for an Aramaic scholar. 5 . t Thess. Paul . pp.lVl.0. WT) rfv. o yeyovev eV curru&amp. IV (WH. . be suggested that feeling for the second meaning so commonly may borne by HO has moved the translator of an Aramaic original to represent the preposition by Ti-po s even when used in the former sense. 2 5 4 18 20 - n . cf. 5*.lt. as is well known. . tinged with Aramaic influence. n-a .).uJS KO. Gal. r] (TKOTLO. apud. That which hath been made (Nin) in Him was life . Because the connexion in Him was life He was the source of . background. 9 2 Cor.. or at any rate Aramaic influence. meaning. 2 pjn .* The usage 4 of 5 . relative IPK often bears might belongeth unto Him the same sense. 2 Thess.

that darkness .*i**. ApOC. . Acts 5 34 8 9 Matt. It may be outwardly identical root.? who his was Lk. 4-fcsj Lk.*.e. V 6 . Lk. 25 . 2 8 41 . take further noted that in Syriac the latter root actually occurs in the Aph el o\ao/ in the sense ^of receive cf. (cf. because he hath received him whole other yi/&quot. . Syr. renders wo/urn by Joo (O^Q^?) who .H^a^. be no distinction between ^Bpp is obscuring toJ^sp: and ^PP receiving Iva /XT) .s darken 35 equally suitable to Jn.gt. luKxW^s. CH^U. O^XL^O w ovo/xa.gt. n^apN tib obscured it not and IT^ap tfb The difference between slight .e. there would.VTOV. in Sin. ovofJLa ovo/xa avrai avrw 6 ApOC. occurrences). . eyevero a. 2 25 = Pal. /cat Other expressions are I 5 . shroud you not 6Vo/xa is avra&amp. joo ot^^ and her name Pal. Syr. and Pesh. i% 5 27 io 3s.? his name his . name ]oo? who was his name (i. 6 OdvaTos. who his name was called Pal.*. meaning receive.lt. ). 13 24 . 15&quot.27 /caAW/xei/os. a avTrj&amp. i6 LO 2 3 50 2 4 18 . .v~ instances cited by Payne Smith.24^ (3Q 9 10. in an unvocalized text. .s. Syr. 8 = Pesh. . .lt. 41 ). Pesh.. Lk. Kal TO ovo/xa Joo oca*.VTO ov Ka.lt. ^ . iQ = name was Pesh. and his (her) name name opo.T. -^ . Mk. Lk. 32 Mk.33. FPrP 3pp to of the participle with was not obscuring it .T. whose name O^JSQ.lt. Lk. ITTTTOS x^PO* 11 Ka^ L a-yytXov tTravco O. .**. Pesh. i = who his name was*. . i 27 = Pal. Syr.7. in 8 3 aV$pa):ros TUV $apuratW NiKoS^/xos Ka^/xevo? rrjs avrai. 27 W l6 2Q 9^ 2 jW 3^^ . his name was whose name was i6 14 ) Joo her &amp. Lk. . 9 TOV a(3v(ro-ov in N. .? her name Pesh. Pal. 1 only elsewhere so expressed in oi o/xa N. Lk. renders the Gospel-occurrences of ovo/xan by &amp.36^ IQ 1^ Ij2 ^ I2 Elsewhere 1 - cf. ov TO ovo/xa.* .12. iQ 2 Acts 13 .? . o&amp. ojaa. 5 2 Lk. the ordinary expression is wo/xart (classical) .? who . Lk. i.Te\a/3cv is and if the construction was the Njn common one p the substantive verb.11. Whose name was ch. . TO ^o/xa a^s. .30 A PRELIMINARY TEST has made the brilliant mentioned in the Introduction. O. ]oo c^Jd*. suggestion that confusion may have darken arisen in form ^apK akbel Aramaic between the Aph el and the Pa el form /*3j3 kabbel from an .v6po)7ros . caret. his name was and once (Acts 2 oVo /xtm KoXov^evos. I2 O-KOTM . Syr. The sense vfjui&amp. 3470).**&. I4 32 . : oi/o/xart 26 .^ j 7 34^ ^2. . e. who his name (i.? . $ I ($) Svo^a. .

. i4 called .gt.iSN^a whose name was S. 31 .gt. 22=. i7 2 Sam.?. . 2 2G 4 ^ who his &quot.gt. 13&quot. 38 2 Judg. 5 34 N. 2 Jer. . 2O 21 i Kgs. . 5 25 2 Sam. c*:*!**. i 1 Heb.gt. . . 0^1*-? his who .gt. - 1 . . Syr. exactly corresponds with Heb. .9. his o^jw . name to it In the Aramaic parts of the O. Pal. . his name .pi 1 (Dan. 5 10 - . i 26 24. .IK^N N&quot. . ov TO ovo/ja.? which.*xi++. Wright ^a . = Syr. .gt. i3 i Sam. 2 . and his name N. his .? who Pal. two. 29 except in Gen. in place of Branch his name is rendered /cat In LXX Heb.lt.*^ . or (2) 2 4 23 2 Chr. .j/ Ji-^j. . ovofjia OLVTU.OF PROLOGUE Pal. Jn.HpHK 31&quot. 6 12 (7 occurrences). 28 9 Job i i Sam. name Pesh. . U-. and in Zech. 5&quot. &amp. 4 4 9212 i3 3 i6 I? . lo ) i^ iwn Daniel. 9 2 2 Sam. ^o) .gt.lt. Ru. i7 . 12 Sam. where we have Outside O. find that . 6 we have and his name where. oi/o/xa. 9 where we find who his name for and his name . (22 occurrences). Pesh. In all these cases the rendering of Targg. viz. . to it )o*x*. . (i caret) C**X*A.WNt^a Besides these two phrases. 6 s = Pesh.J is represented by except in Job . 32 Pesh. Pesh. ) name Belteshazzar The Hebrew modes of expressing whose name was N. .X/ of the chief o*-aa*. Mordecai for and his name Mordecai . of Est.&amp. we find. Onesiphorus a bath-keeper. whose name was is rendered in who his name who his name was s Apocryphal Acts. name was y ovo/za. i = Pal. 9&quot. Syr. his . men of Antioch. joo* oj-iQj* his name was = Rev. o^ 1/m*. name cxi**. Ezr. (i) ovofjia afro). 24 38 . . its Acts . his name name of-iOA. Zech. i 1 .T. &amp. iDty his name &amp. his in name was &amp. ^xo). 2i 8 . . &quot. Syriac. 24.e.gt. . Syr. who J. except that in Targ.? Jn. 13 if. 2 20 1 1 . o**.U^QA^-J!? one name Alexander (p. . .lt. iai*&amp. ]oo . 2 Est. are Gen. .j&amp. caret. 2 of Pesh.? which name Mk. ]oo 26 c*:*!*. except in Ru. 9 12 12 . 2 i Sam. where we have ovo/xa cdr ($) ovo/xa. i name .ID iTECM and his name was called S The rendering of Heb. 3 Rev. his Chr. his name Lk. we name Cf.^^ his [t\=&amp.T. Now a certain name was man.floo&amp. 37&quot. Dan. that which was his . (p. = Pal. exactly corresponds with the Hebrew. = Pesh. Syr. . 2 3 we find &quot. nB&amp. i3 3 where the phrase is omitted. in i .. 1 who Pesh. we once find who his name was called Belteshazzar . &quot. * ^-*? ^o^*flQ. ID^I and his name Sunrise*. IMBU^ UTn to one not? and they were given to Sheshbazzar his name (i. ju^ofcoe? ]~l r&amp.

8 . I2 yivrforOf.gt.gt. nj ^l^?V o ^^ found of thy servants shall die . and the Hebrew Semitic in colouring. and The sense then is. Gospel has its counterpart in the that one or in the Personal Pronoun The difficulty of the supposed ^WTOS. should have its here wrongly rendered /a. ZX T TTIOTCVCTC eis TO &amp. iVa o v. n ^]3D and now Thou hast made known to me in that which in &quot.3oo ^z&amp. Wnn. OUK ^v e/ceu/os ^&amp. Secundus son. TO eyo&amp. f*.lt. are given below (pp. The whole verse would run in Aramaic. V. o)ij- Joo 0*^1*. See below (p. Pal. Tno^ It ( c f. Cf. Iva. for such a use of 1 or . J^). Cf.gt. for sense postulated. o^J ^.. where before iva we have to supply . Ezr. Syr.* * In favour of the ordinary view that the construction implies an ellipse stand two other passages cited by Westcott g 3 Ovre OVTOS TJpaprev cure ot yoveis avrov. (one) who .x is +*m+i W J&amp.. he came ) is familiar.. whom . 449 10 nay ^ irn? inx KSI^ it is i^s .s (John).a&amp. *a procurator s who his name was Menelaus (p.gt. the similar use of &quot. Syriac Kin. epya TOV &eov t v avrw. eKeu/os so characteristic of the Fourth Aram.). P^ the Iva viol Tras which in it most naturally taken :ili mean. . Onk. 2 23 K^p-H wy^n jyai Cf. . He with whom it is where the rendering of Targ. NiKo8r7/xos 6Vo//. .a avrui exactly represent a Semitic construction common to Aramaic and that the Greek represents the regular rendering of It is also noteworthy that the only other phrase. rBTrtnn yT vb Hi and antecedent ( one who AIW w/b knoweth not ye shall teach .^-) PRELIMINARY TEST . That one was not the the light . D is probable that T relative force light.s.. occurrences of 6Vo/xa avru are found in Apoc.o&amp. Thus it appears that oVo/xa OLVT& IwdVi/r/s.i^ we asked //^ with of Thee . and I246 TO (005 ets TOI/ KOdyxov eA^/Vi^a.I^N* in : Hebrew Gen.? ~ J^.. 75 f.gt. found shall be my slave Other instances of n relative mistranslated by is iwy rowH. fn^N Nnin: wn Nin b a/a /jiaprvprjo-r] Trepl rov (usually supplied tqina by Jjoop?).lt. dAA ellipse o 82). d\\ iva (pavfpuOr) TO..lt. Dan.gt.gt.32 A (p. by the words. iva Travres is TTLO-TevcrQHTiv Si avrov probably to = \?3 ^ &amp. that all might believe (the light) rather than (L? through him &amp. The emphatic pronoun . &amp. but one who was to bear witness of without expressed he who ).oo*j oot Joo.cos. which is strongly Hebrew.

a mistranslation of a relative. margin) is excluded. favourite term in Jn. all that are in it. 12 . there 4 49 . where iVa supported . and ty TO 0ws TO It was the true light can only mean.).) as the common Rabbinic phrase &piy *N3 ?3 all comers pp. ioi. Similarly. e 8a)Kei/ avrols KT\. 66). * Schlatter quotes a remarkable para par. &c.a r)\. which was /cat 6 KOO-^OS avrov OVK .V. cannot and from Siphre on Num. preceding coming.. expressions are and at once suggest . n . and is 25 where before dAA an iinplied ellipse of This cometh to pass Schlatter (Sprache. it is necessary) that thou. p.. r/v as the subject of : Thus Westcott s proposal to regard The true light. his . &quot. 25 ^ -pi V H^H^ fr6tf ^33 ^ D^PplJ UN pN are not under such obligation to him.lt.gt.was fyxoftwov ( . in Aramaic as wn. t&os is a belongings 44 11 41 A 18 15 times (i ^. . to an Aramaic scholar the phrase By (or those who pertain) 1 5 ! which to him to i. .u&amp. 7raj/ra avOpuirov epxo/J-fvov eis rov KOCT/XOI/ is Lightfoot (Home Hebraicae. tSta. be claimed as unusual striking. but because the decree has already been decreed do so ). (sc. also Mk. cannot. R. 1 I3 . . and comers into the world . and Pesh.* into the world by J. ^ ol i^H] Nns n^vi Zoioi Pal.e. Notice the adversative force n KOL ol 18101 of KOLL and yet here and (cf. eyj/co.OF PROLOGUE v. but (sc. . 15 .^? *yby&amp. Mechilta on Ex. use of but the TO. iTTTJ &quot.e. ad loc. This is very frequent in Semitic V.0j ol iStot auToi/ ov 7rapt\a/3ovt i.l^ DK l!?N If it were possible remove the angel of death should have I removed him. e/ s TO. in v. equivalent i.gt. The Aram. v. io 3 4 - - 12 . 18 f.iVa in the Aramaic this conclusion is is We and who rendering of our passage most naturally stands for the relative one by the other instances collected on pp.s ^ ba. i6 :!2 . Syr. The .42 4 5 \ 7 . would be Kobya TO &amp. of course. &quot.nnr&l D^vb THO iiriN Thou (God) to all 25?n givest light to those that are . V. referring to the oArfOtvov For this sense we seem to need a demonstrative verse. it is clear that T . . above and to those that are below. 75 f. p.} and by Schlatter (Sprache. as against 5 in Mt. In spite of these parallels for an ellipse. and this probably stood misread Kin and rendered rjv. 6 lel to our passage from the Midrash Rabba on Leviticus. 4 in Lk.e. pronoun. 1&quot. 18) cites parallels from he was born blind is . 8 occurring 7 iQ. 133: J^N 1T3VD to W\\ ni?0n l^i D inynb I &quot. !) 33 rightly recognized . &c. so 5 . 10 . The construction in thought some such words as irXrjpweri tVa Cf. that which pertains . KT\. 1 in ML. 6Voi Se eAa/?ov auToi/. xxxi.1133 20&quot. D^iy K3 Wl D fJ. Kal (cf. him . o I \6yos KT\.).

(eis TO ovo^a avrov) Jn. (eis T^V paprvpLav) Jn.-6. 2 . 7 io. admitted by Moulton (NTG* strongly reminiscent of the 3 Pgn Aram.gt.- 8 :to . I2 i :ir&amp.gt. . 68). 64.e. . n&amp. see p. 2- 3 18 cases). Matt.) Jn. yevvrjOr)crav f jr? i.WK may have arisen through dittography of this 1. . 4% T 6 29 35 40 j .jD3 nox. #. 14 it I. point of the fact that the Latin variant os lyfw^Brj becomes considerably more plausible upon the assumption of an Aramaic original. This is seem therefore dative that It would p. 10 Jn. Syr. f? ^/] ^91 ^? T 1 in^^n^ Knbx great interest | |n-^ is N^ns nay bi N&quot. Pet. --. i8 6 I i = . 1:i . 2 pB The striking Hebrew and n). begins with KCH More is = quite possible that the plural form W$&amp. not of blood. A . Rom. Phil.. .gt. in Jn. . Very probably ^ may not have had the relative sense at all. 4 ) may have been intended to express the sense fact inasmuch as thus giving the reason why the inasmuch as He previously mentioned became possible was born. . I Ki 8 (eis &amp. For the occurrences of the construction rots TTLO-Tfvova-LV eis TO ovofjia avTOv.gt. 9 . ^W? f P?*?? phrase TmrTeiW e?s is Aramaic construction (Heb. then. . construction was suggested no doubt by its being prepositional The a more literal translation of the Hebrew phrase with 3. 5 (37 Johannine cases in all . : (a s rov I^o-ow. . 42 . 9 TO 12 Acts io 4 . I 12 .. i.37. . io n.lt. Since the particle ^ is invariable. ets rov eo9. . it might form the relative either to as many as received Him . &C. whose words are em for the simple the substitution of eis or obtained currency mainly in Christian circles. 3 I6 o^ I7 .45. where the importance of the difference between simple belief may have (|) The pENH) and personal trust (3 n) was keenly realized. but (as in v. i. i 29 . The question of reading in Aramaic depends.^ais) Jn. s diro v. Mk. or to He gave*.^ I2 n. 5 . ot OVK e aifJiaTwv . nor of the will of the flesh. occurrences of Trio-roW vlov rov s6 86 - ets are as follows 11 . 3 9 other . 2 lfi - 18 - 3r&amp. 5 16 io 4 Gal.34 A PRELIMINARY TEST is with Casus pendens t very frequent in Semitic Pal. i9 . elsewhere. upon the difference between the plural n^JTN they were born He was born a difference which and the singular IV^N involves solely the insertion or omission of the letter 1. nor of the . over. f 4:! I4 14 . since the following v. e.

lt.. 8wa/us Kail Yt/a crrou eTrur/aacrei a TO yfvvw/Jicvov ayiov . man. Hebrew passages which Yahweh D 2 is said to dwell. other hand.^ (Heb.kmtd ruw Sh kma ~n very clearly Nrov. i 35 generation. & . the writer Virgin-Birth for believers on elsewhere fr24 --&quot. also with ot Se CK OeX-jfjLaros dj/Spo s.). 8 :t r from the old (Ex. 1:t as phrased Seems imply that it was an antecedent condition. Deut. 33 Cf. -- 13 be correct. 26 -. but V. 2 5 S In . Him power for 1 become sons of God. 43 of Fis 1: &amp. or visible dwelling of Yahweh among His people. 3 4 - just as the because in (the Him . typified by the pillar of cloud standing above the Tent of Meeting. i Kgs. Lk. Lev. Flie iwKjjvwvev suggests the Jewish doctrine of the Sh&quot.. as subsequently in Solomon 1(U1 . in the (P). Lk. 6 Ezek. Jn.). 35&quot. being born not after the manner of flesh. of a piece with thnt which is given above Logos was the Source of all physical life was life so (vv. also. was thus able to give to those who received . The spiritual birth of believers is clearly the result of the grace described by . drawing out the mystical import of the precisely the lines on which he i 4 ) draws out the mystical import for 1 - them of the Resurrection. in 12&quot. had this result been the verb fact which he was intending to convey. i 34 . He is the Source of spiritual ) is 1 This interpretation w. causing His Name to dwell there. .OF PROLOGUE will of 35 He. On the cyewrjOrjarav tSwKei/ avrois f^ovorLav re /cra eo9 yeveV^ai. 26 1U2 (H). but of God. ov yti/wo-Ko). and so they were born surely have written to The author would . Yahweh s dwelling 29*. aycov CTreXeu crerat KCU $10 (TTL ere. !) . but of to God i. i Kgs. 5 . or so that they should be born 14 . 14% i6 :fi11 . for the use of the verb f?B* s Temple Ex.). i i 1 12 eVct avSpa. not by the Cf. v.l VLOS note a connexion between vlbs which may not be accidental (cf. n 25 2 - &quot. document E sdkan of . . If this explanation of Jn. Num. midst of Israel.e. or to cause . i ). is i:i We oD and re /tra OcoG of Jn.. . (Aram. life new birth) because He was ordinary process of human born into the world. the generally accepted reading ot surely involves a very strange sequence. Kal eV/cr/i/wcrei/ ei/ rj^v. but of God .

/cat avrov.lt. and the cloud covered it six days . . ul in the Behold. the actual appearance the Heb. of the withdrawal of Isa. be taken to describe in Thus . KOL (T/c^voJcrei //er avrwr. 57 I hid Myself. (ascend) from them And Thou dost not cause Sli Thy our forth with our hosts kmtd .. like that of the Sh In these the Heb. r^v 86gav Here we have a clear reference to a second term used in the 1 Targums to describe God Lord s .lt. Self- manifestation to mankind. i6 16 Lord abode upon mount Sinai. . term is 1^3 Kabhodh.a among us . among you Ex. e like Sh kmtd. may dwell in your midst among you e may cause My Sk kmtd dwell among you I .\ Y kard e back. 26 12 And . 2I iSou. Lev. lOcao-dptOa. they stand in of God in bodily form.T.36 A caused His PRELIMINARY TEST midst of Israel. by close is resemblance to the be seen J Semitic root The same usage o-Kr)VU)&amp. Ps. And the Glory of the cloud 24 O. The Targums employ Y kdrd. tov [jifTa TWV dvOpttiirwv. I will walk And That to I will cause My Slikmta . conception of the to ^&amp. &c. that : Thus we may assume with some confidence e /ecu c V ^fiiv His Sh kintd f represents to dwell the Aramaic W3&amp. Examples Heb.gt. Ex. 17 Yahweh s I Presence. in the Targumic phrase are is. 29^ the midst of the children of in I And I will cause My . a-Krjvr] f TOV KOL 6 Ka0r//xei/09 tVi TOV Opovov eV avrovs. . T goes the Glory of the The kinta. 25 to dwell I That . nWDtp ntp^ The choice of the verb its and caused o-x-rjvovv was doubtless largely dictated s-k-n. caused My Sh kinta to depart . passages. He Sh e kintd to dwell there.Tti to in r) Apoc. And I will dwell Ex. as paraphrasing passages which might. 88 from And they are cut off . SJi kinta to dwell in the midst of the srae l \ children of Israel So. to dwell with hosts Ps. 44&quot. the His Name to dwell. And Thou goest not . the Glory of the Lord appeared Thus. And Thy hand they are separated from e the face of Thy Sh kmtd.

.gt. . For he was afraid to look upon the manifestation of the Y kara of the Lord . from Isaiah s vision. after quoting Isa. 5 For mine eye hath seen the Y^Aard the of the Sh kinta . of 86ga in this sense are. describes our Lord s Self-manifestation as 86ga he has in mind the Y*kara of the Targums. leads us to a point which proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that when Jn. with inversion of order Isa. upon the circle of the earth That causeth the kinta of His Ykdrd to dwell in lofty Sh&quot. even to Horeb For he was afraid to Ex. e of We Isa.* In Jn.concept ion Not of course necessarily the written Targums. strength Ps. Lord was revealed.OF PROLOGUE Heb. they saw the God And of Israel they saw the the God of Israel Y kara . 6 ) runs in Heb. 3 Targ. of King of the ages This last passage.. For mine eyes have seen the King. adds the Statement. 6 1 &quot. to 37 And he came of the And he came mountain God. a 11 O. e I saw the Y kard of the Lord resting on His throne Other avrov. 3 G look upon God . . II fav Tricrrewo-//? o^?j rijv 86av rov eor. The opening instances in Jn. .VTOV. Ex. the Dwelling of the Glory 22 4o He that sitteth . . but at any rate the conceptions which entered into the oral exposition of Scripture called Targum. ravra eiTrci/ Ho-aias art etSej/ TT&amp. i2^ 41 the writer. 17- We * are now in a position to maintain that the Aoyos. the Lord of 6 hosts .. I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne and this is rendered in Targ. unto to the mountain on which the Y*kara of the Horeb . 24 And . 44 24 Wherefore hidest Thou face ? Wherefore causest Thou the SIi kinta Thy of e Thy Y kard to depart? Or. sometimes find Sh kinta and Y e kara coupled. . 86cv of the vision (Isa. Ex.

&c. He it had made man heard the voice of Thy Memra And the Lord repented in His Memra because He had made man I . will no more &c. passages in which Heb. verb atnar is identical with the Aram. or manifesting Himself in a manner which seemed too anthropomorphic to Jewish thought of later times.]*? should no doubt trace the origin of the conception of the Memra to O. represents God as speaking. 67 For repenteth Me .lt.g. in My 8 1 And heart. connexion which almost suggests hypostatization. We N&quot. root from which Memra is derived. said in (or by) I will not again curse. the . Word of the Lord were the heavens made 33 By This latter passage. in passages where the Heb. Memra occurs repeatedly in the Targg. the Lord said in I His Memra And the Lord His Memra. &c. covenant which make be . ddbhdr Word &quot. all i 14 the writer no doubt with intention brings together three of these Targumic con- . Because I have repented . acting. . T.IDN And God said in Gen. Gen. He sent forth His Word and healed them . recalls the repeated D*r6x iEN*l &quot. nant which tween Me and you tween So in We cannot fail to notice that in Jn. i. And that it repented the Lord . And And they heard the voice of the Memra of the Lord God walking. s- in a 20 Ps. Targ. with its reference to the Word s action in the . 6 f I07 . Heb. 3 6 fi I heard Thy voice . that of the 1 tnip lD &amp. Creation. 12 9 This is the token I of the This is the token of the cove I am making be Memra and you My . curse. This may be illustrated from the occurrences of the term in the first few chapters of Genesis. 3 s they heard the voice of the Lord God walk ing. where the Heb.n^ ? is employed e.A PRELIMINARY TEST Word of the Lord of the Prologue must undoubtedly be derived from the third and most frequent Targumic conception representing God in mani festation . &c.

TOV 7rA?7p(o//. on IK avrov r//xei? Trai/rcs . Any disciple of our Lord who Aoyos-doctrine had heard the Targumic rendering of the O. need time for its development. Turner in Journal of Thcol. WJ. and truth was literally He Thus we get ). ). all 1S . 6.lt. then another theory &amp. Studies (1900). 1898). which looks like a correction.er.) defends ir\r)pr]S is the reading of Cod. a parenthesis Aoyos which makes It KOL fOeao-d/jifOa KT\. . It must This has been noted by Dalman.* 39 In tv /cut 6 Ko. and is followed by 3 The same view was earlier put forward by Blass. p. the statement. which speaks of the witness is would be of John. e This is evidence that.gt. v. conceptions so familiar to him through the Divine voice in the Aramaic paraphrase. on the score of popular usage. and who was capable of recognizing a superhuman power shining through the Master s Personality in His mighty acts. /jLovoyevys eo s. may be supposed to be misplaced. certainly awkward. . received . lies open. in in KOLL eueafrdfJifOa ryv So^av avrov the Sn Rlllttt ] the Y kard.J . Grammar \ tr. In H&amp. H. TrA^s x back to the L P LTO&amp. to TT)V Sogav avrov. Deissmann (LAE. he is soaked through and through with the Palestinian Jewish thought which is repre Nor would the teaching of the Prologue sented by the Targums.1 l(TKr)VM(T(. 125 ff. and by C.!Aay8o//. T. ^ may mean. t This (NTG. The is reference 6 of this statement main subject of the sentence. could hardly fail to draw the inference that here was the grand fulfilment of O. ff. i. 231. .T.aTos c. is not because but He who (the assumed mistrans lation a converse one to that noted in vv. as an indeclinable adjective. Moulton p.i KC &quot. witness of John. would express of Full of grace and truth (was) He who we have v. ( John 1&amp.lt.OF PROLOGUE ceptions. pp. so far from his owing his to an Alexandrine source. v. possible to assume that TrXr/p^s If.e. and properly to follow after And this is the bear witness the Prologue before v. and somewhat harshly breaks the connexion of thought. ^J??? u:i N^ 3 i^. a misreading for TrA^/r^t referring Va however. 31. 120 . u-XyOeLas. pp. in the synagogue. rendered.v Tj/uuv Aoyos o-ap e yeVero we have the Memra . all received Aramaic.vE i*?^. (Eng. of whose fullness His fullness we have this by. D. Full of grace . the variant * ju-oFoyei/r/s This reading has stronger attestation than wo s. and at length of apprehending that in His Presence on earth God had come to dwell among men. 50). of detecting His teaching.lt.

rather than is . pp. Close study of this latter fact. especially w. verbal ist plural suffix P _ O_ . In making the translation the Judaean dialect has been used as far as possible.&amp.H its fondness for co-ordination 1 &amp. (il^N __ in preference to . No man hath seen God at any time It may be suggested that the Aramaic Krg Tnj. and the nominal ist plural suffix NJ rather than _ . be admitted. Gramm.lt. 3 5 10 11 14 of sentences linked by and (2) the (cf. N. together with an English rendering of it. however.gt. the only-begotten God .gt. the special points which have been discussed. Targumic form. to This may be clearly seen in the Aramaic translation which follows. have chosen but NiPl see rather than NDP1. however.know rather than D3H. and so rendered.N yi &amp. that the expression (though fully in accord with the teaching of the Prologue) is hardly to be expected after the preceding. Possibly the Relative should be ^ as in Biblical is Aramaic but ^ the Choice of the Judaean dialect authorship put forward on pp. . 33 ff. Besides.t &amp. with comments introduced here and there by the writer.* Kin torn * The differences are slight. We f. written in eleven parallel couplets. we notice generally It (i) the simplicity of construction.lt. see Dalman. with K&amp. On the distinction between the Judaean and Galilaean dialects of Aramaic. ) many cases of parallelism in thought and expression a marked trait of Hebrew poetic composition. the only.40 APRELIMINJARYTEST .begotten of God has been misunderstood as Kr6g TIT (Absolute for Construct State). bound up with the view of . thus appears that nearly every verse of the Prologue yields evidence pointing to an Aramaic original. 133 ff. characteristic brings to light a most interesting The Prologue seems take the form of a hymn.lt.

without in Him were made. In the beginning was the Word. his name. the life light of mankind.OF PROLOGUE nn .p fp NO 1. the darkness obscured it not. And 2. Because Him was was the And 5. 41 tiro nb (pnn 5 or) \inpj ^n^i pn^ nn^ n 3^ai?^ i| ji x jo N^n (? pp 15 ) or) ^^l IP . in the beginning with God. That one came for a witness. the Word was with God. that . He was 3. naught . There was a man sent from God. And And the light in darkness was shining. All things by And 4. the And God was Word . Him there was made life. John. that he might bear witness of the light.

the next. Climactic parallelism is very characteristic 4 - 4b 5a . nor of the will of a will of the flesh. 8. That one was not the light. but one who should bear witness of the light. hath revealed/ Who is in A striking feature of hymn is that it contains several examples of the somewhat rare but well-marked form of parallelism which is known as Climactic. T.42 A PRELIMINARY TEST into the world. And grace for grace. He was full of grace and truth. . . &c. v. In this form stichos b of a couplet does not offer a more or less complete echo of stichos a. but of God. 11. to not. . but adds something more which completes the sense of the distich. Grace and truth through the Messiah. And And the world by the world made. And His own received Him Him.Songs of Ascents&quot. thus forming. as Ps. And we beheld His Glory. . (Pss. because He was born. &quot.. 3 13 There is something analogous to it. most elevated poetry and quotes as instances Ps. 10. knew Him not. And And the set Word was made His Sh e flesh. No man the hath ever seen of the Father God . 7 - (or line) in 2b 3a - 8a . Glory as of the only-begotten of the Father. . Unto His own He came. For the law was given through Moses. As many as received them gave He power the sons of God -to those that believe in His to become name. not of blood. He was Him was in the world. 9. i2i lb 2 (help). . i22 . Of Whose fullness we all have received. nor of the man. its 363) remarks that 1 9 Dr. Driver (Literature of the O. It was the true light that lighteth every man coming 6. 121-34). v. bosom He the the only-begotten of God. though much 94 96 U3 less forcible and distinct. 3b . klnta among us. 29 92 2 93*. where a somewhat emphatic word - is repeated from - one verse v. as p. it were. this kind of rhythm is all but peculiar to the climax. all might believe in it. 7. in some of the &quot.

There and St. tJie I 1! as referring to Virgin-Birth (cf. and n be noted that the couplets. 6. In v. Luke. 2. i. besides being parallel. All go back in thought to the appearance of Jesus Christ on earth as a new Creation. remaining couplets. 5. so was the birth of Christ the dawn and all of mankind therefore their theme. is an essential unity as to the in the teaching of St. John mode and meaning of the Incarnation which ought not to be overlooked. 10. 169 The : following examples may be noted poem 4. St. ov yap eatrous KT/pwrcro/xei dAAa Xpiorov .OF PROLOGUE of the 43 Song of Deborah. | And 7. Paul s mind is definitely stated by him in 2 Cor. i. see note in the writer s Commentary on in the Judges. 2 in working out was the formation of light. | Of Whose Of It fullness we all have received. That this idea was in St. And the light in darkness shining. Paul. the darkness obscured it not. draw upon Gen. synonymous. to be compared and contrasted with the first Creation of the world and . He was the full of grace and truth. each line containing three stresses. Glory as | of only-begotten of the Father. Additional Note on the interpretation of Jn. received | And His own 9. 34). 4 r . should the Messiah simply. appear also to be rhythmical. Just as God s first creative act of Light in the midst of the spiritual darkness of the world. Irjo-ov may very naturally have come in as a later addition. of the Prologue in Because Him was And the life life was the was light of mankind. Him the not. breaking in upon the physical darkness which had previously covered primeval chaos. p. pp. and 8 may be reckoned as are antithetical. 37 in place of &a I^o-oO Xpio-rov the translation offers through . Unto His own He came. f. while 3. And we beheld His glory. inetri gratia.

. i 2 where the pictured as brooding or hovering ? ?! ?) over tne crot. tTTi^avai TOIS cv o-KOTfL KOL o-Kia 6a. .lt. . 5 Col.Xvif/iv eOvuv (2^). the works of the . the connexion in thought between the Old Creation and * A similar mystical interpretation of the Genesis passage iii.rov KaOrj/jicvoLS (i 78 79 ).DTLO-[Jiov O~/COTOI&amp.lt.a. represented the introduction of Light into the world. &quot.One evening&quot..gt. -nys 8o^/5 TOV s . its introduction into the world producing a Kptcns whereby Light and darkness were sharply distinguished and men had to range themselves under the one or the other 19 ~21 (Jn. Gen. i. c fyovs. A on 6 TT/&amp. the Holy One ^blessed be He) observed the works of the righteous and the works of the wicked. And what is this? The Day of Atonement. where in it is stated that the Logos.e. Eph.. i. it is surely not fanciful to find in the Words of the angel in I . 10. i ) in the Incarnation the Light was shining in darkness and the darkness did not obscure it . os f. . Luke the Divine Birth means the dawning of dvaroXr.e. . Rabbi Yannai said.And God called the light.And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him &quot.. cf. but led to the setting by God of a division P3?!l. the works of the righteous.And God said. &quot.gt.lt.t So for St. This is the Spirit of the King-Messiah. light at Creation to its spiritual introduction at the Incarna Moreover. &quot.44 Kvpiov.between the of the righteous and the works of the wicked. Let there be light&quot.afjuf/fv ey rais T^S yj/oVeoos 5 .lt. i. the works of the righteous.va. i2 :!5 . Again.OS PRELIMINARY TEST eos 6 euro )!/ E/c &amp. as the Agent Creation.gt.. Cf. In the beginning seems also to be behind w. 4 2 Cor. to Gen.lt. the writer s thought passes from the introduction of life and tion. face of the waters in the initial process of Creation which issues in the production of light. the works of the wicked. f This Genesis passage is applied in Midrash Bereshith Rabba to the endowment of the Messiah with the Divine Spirit.* Turning to the Birth-narrative of St. the works of the wicked. &quot. so (Jn.lt. 3 .e. clearly seen in the opening words of Jn.S &amp. Kal Swa/xis :&amp./&amp.G - 4C ).e. Hi/eC/m dytov eVeAe^o-eTat CTTi (T. the works of the wicked.e. inasmuch as the Holy One blessed be He) gave them one day.And there was morning&quot.f)&amp.lt.. v it is said. par. night &quot. i. &quot. i 4 ) between light and 5 darkness..0 Yij/io-rov eVio-Kicwm Spirit of God is an implied reference to Gen.gt.s Xa/xi^et. works day&quot.And there was &quot. 6&quot.And the earth was a waste&quot.&amp. which is .7roi&amp. i. just as the introduction of light into the world at Creation did not immediately abolish physical darkness. as righteous. 1 1 1 O&quot. also i Cor. is Bereshith Rabba. When He began given in Midrash to create the world. .X. God i. by an almost imperceptible transition.:. i. Allusion i.e.a&amp. divided between the light and between the darkness &quot. and.s ets a.. Luke. &quot. 9. and &amp.And the darkness he called.And &quot. eoS cV Trpoo-wTrw i i:t .**. day&quot.

3 turning on the new birth which stated. it 3.gt. which /cat Paul s OUTOJS ye y/raTTTat surely beyond question is that refers not simply to the quotation from nostrils is Gen. 6 This connexion would. generally explained by the theory of the influence of Pauline Theology upon the writer of the Fourth Gospel and this may be St. 7 he Relation of St. and that the Rabbinism of Palestine. not known Midrash before the Nfwe shdlont.D.e. the Messiah. from e yeWo down to ^OJOTTOIOW. :iff and the baptized -). the whole passage is a quotation.? Adam and the Second Adam in I Cor. Paul s . depends upon eyeVtTo introducing the quotation equally with what goes before.) brings the Messiah into contrast with the first Adam when.OF PROLOGUE the 45 first New is explicit in St. These are the generations of the heaven and the earth word for quotes earlier Rabbinical speculation as to the reason \\ hy the generations is written plene with 1 only in this passage and in Ruth 4 18 . pp.. it . Paul to Contemporary Jewish but the Midrash Bereshith Rabba (ascribed by tradition to Thought. ei? Trvfv/Jia ^WOTTOLOVV ? derived 1 however.V. Hoshaiah. the breath of life. Thackeray. 2*.) or full eS/xa ^MOTTOLOVV 6 eo-^aTo? ASa/x ets stop (R. A .rap in which 6 TroAcuos r]^wv avOptoiros is life put off. 2 7 Me breathed into his . thought of which the connexion with eo-^aTOS A8a/x ets irvev^a.lt. fact. 3rd century A. . i. be accidental. that TO Tn/ev/m eo-Tiv TO St. o)07roiow. and not have written least o Se ecr^aTOS ASa/x eyeVeTO If. teaching as to the OI. from which it should be divided by a comma merely. in commenting on Gen. Had it been St. and frequent antithesis between representation of baptism as a burial with Christ in the &amp. however. 15^ /cat yeypavrrat EyeVeto 6 Trptoros This is worked out and in the n-vevfjLa. ^OOTTOIOVJ/ Can hardly it may be presumed. l R. Paul s argument is cast is influenced by Rabbinic speculation. be .i find the same between &amp. and not by a colon (WH. the work of a Spanish Jew in the I5th century A. is contrast to o-dp. 40 ff. . and man became first a living soul the Tri but to the whole passage relating to the Adam and second Adam. 3&quot.) .. pin^H DTK the second Adam . in K TOV TrvcvfjLaTos. Paul s own addition. could he at possibly have phrased the sentence thus.lt.TW&amp.. the whole of the discussion with is Nicodemus In &* in ch. Paul s eyeVeTo . he claims * The expression to us in p J N~in D*TN the first Adam is well known in early is Midrashic literature. D (cf. 6 We 6 r&amp. rises with Christ to newness of antithesis (Rom.).rdp and Tn/evfia in Jn.* Though born at Tarsus. so. whence was it There can be no doubt that the form in which St.lt.

46
to

A

PRELIMINARY TEST
1

be E/?patos e E/3patW(Phil. 3 5 ), i. e. not a EAAiyi/wrnfc (cf. Acts 6 ), and he obtained his education at Jerusalem under Gamaliel, who

was one of the most prominent Rabbinic teachers of the time
3 (Acts 22 ).

But prior to St. Paul s conversiqn the earliest circle of Christian believers at Jerusalem was drawn not merely from the

peasant-class, but

of the priests teaching, but

,

who would

embraced (according to Acts a great company have been unversed in Rabbinic scarcely
6")

may be supposed to have applied such learning as had acquired to the service of the new Faith. they It is by no means improbable, therefore, that the passage as a whole may have been drawn from a collection of O. T. Testimonial,
object of meeting Rabbinic

composed with the

Judaism upon

its

own

be objected to this suggestion that elsewhere ground.* N. T. yeypaTrrai introduces a definite citation from throughout the
If
it

the O. T., and that this

is

also the case with allusions to

-fj

cites the inference that 1,

These are the generations of Perez (JTn. Ifl, but elsewhere always lYl/lfl), and which numerically = 6, implies that the six things which
lost

Adam
i.e.

through the

Fall shall

be restored at the coining of
as a life-giver

the son of Perez
(cf.

the Davidic Messiah.

The Messiah appears
,

-nvivua fao-rroiovv)

the Midrash hag-gadol to Genesis (compiled by a Yemenite Jew of the i4th 11 states that there are six persons whose century) which, commenting on Gen. i6
in

names were given to them before their birth, On the last Josiah. and the King-Messiah.
it is
"

viz.
it

Ishmael, Isaac, Moses, Solomon,
Yinnon".

says,

written,

Before the sun his
is

name
is

shall be

The King-Messiah, because And why is his name

called Yinnon ? because he

destined to quicken those
Ps.
72"
\"Q&

who

sleep in the dust.

Here
O. T.,

l.he

Scriptural passage quoted
1

\\P BfcB* *3BJ)

Before the

sun shall his name
is

propagate"

(or

prodit

treated as a Messianic title

He

and the verbal form, only here in who quickens Tiiis Midrash is quoted by
c life },
.

Raymund

Martin

in his

born at Narbonne

chap, ii, about the middle of the
Fictei,

Pn^io

n, who refers nth century

it

to

Moses had-Darshan,
Late as
this
is,

A. D.

we

have the evidence of the Talmud (Sanhedrin, 986) that Yinnon was early regarded as a Messianic title, for in the passage in question the pupils of R. Yannai (an Amora of the first generation and to 3rd century A. D.) maintain, as a compliment
to their teacher, that the

Messiah s name is to be Yinnon. The Psalm-passage is quoted in Midrash Bereshith Rabba, par. i. 5, as evidence that the name of the Messiah existed prior to the creation cf the world, though it is not there stated
that

Yinnon

is to

be taken as his name.
this

Though no part of
ist

Midrashic speculation can be traced back

to

the

century A. D., it serves to illustrate the kind of Rabbinic teaching which may well have formed part of St. Paul s early training. * Cf. Sanday, The Gospels in the Second Century, p. 272; know that types

We

and prophecies were eagerly sought out by the early Christians, and were soon collected in a kind of common stock from which every one drew at his pleasure.

OF PROLOGUE
(with the possible exception of
*

47

i

Agios 6 cpydrrjs rov ^LcrOov avrov

seem

Tim. 5 where our Lord s words to be included under the term),
,

1S

it

may be

replied that St.

Paul s quotation does consist of such

from the O. T. plus a deduction therefrom, and would ex hypothesi be derived from a collection of proofs based on the
a citation

O. T. and therefore drawn

e*

ruv ypa^tav.

We

may

further

draw

attention to the use of this formula of citation in the Epistle of

Barnabas 4 14 where our Lord
,

s

words

in

Mt. 22 14 are quoted:
e/<Xe/cTot

^TTOTC,

cos

yeypaTrrcu, TroAAot K\r)roi, oAiyot Sc
17

tvpe-

Similarly, the formula Ae yei yap

ypa^
5fi .

is

used in Barnabas

i6 5 to introduce a quotation from Enoch 89 66 45 as wholly a quotation If, then, this interpretation of i Cor. i5 be correct, the implication is that some time before St. Paul wrote
his Epistle in

A.D. 55-6, the antithesis between the

first

Adam

and Christ as the second
surely modifies

Adam had
in

been worked out
argument.

in Christian

Rabbinic circles and was used
the question

This conclusion

of the dependence of the Fourth Gospel upon St. Paul in regard to the teaching here involved, suggesting as it does the alternative theory that both may have

been

dependent upon a common

earlier

method of theological

expression of the truths of the Incarnation. St. Luke supplies us with further food for thought in this con nexion. His Birth-narrative is certainly from a Jewish-Christian
source, and

of

it

is generally acknowledged to be early. If any portions are earlier than the rest, these are the poems which it contains
;

and the angel and Nunc
all

s

words

at the

Annunciation are no less a poem

cast in rhythmical parallelism than are the Magnificat, Benediclus,

have had occasion to cite passages from except the Magnificat, in arguing the unity of their thought with that of St. Paul and St. John. may now note the fact that St. Luke carries back our Lord s genealogy to Adam,
dhnittis.

We

these,

We

who was
is

the son of

God
is

:is

(3

).

What

is

the reason for this?

Doubtless one reason

to be

found

in the fact that his

Gospel

pre-eminently a universal Gospel for the whole Gentile world also.

not for the Jews only but May not, however, another

(and perhaps the prime) reason be that the fact that the first Adam was born not by natural generation but by an act of God, in itself
suggests the reasonableness that the second

Adam

should likewise

48
so be born ?

A

PRELIMINARY TEST
it is

If this is so,

of course likely that St.

Luke may

have owed his conception to St. Paul s doctrine of Christ as the second Adam but, if our argument has been sound, St. Paul
;

himself owed

it

to

an earlier source, embodied
If,

in a collection of
eov
if

Tcslunonia for general use.
links itself

then, St.

Luke

s TOV ASa/x, rov

on

to vlos

cov in the

words of the Annunciation, and
St.

his thought

shows connexion with

Paul s doctrine of the two

Adams,

is it

likely that St. Paul, in enunciating this doctrine,
*

was

ignorant of the tradition of the Virgin-Birth ?
*

This point has already been brought out by Dr. Box, The Virgin Birth of
f.,

Jesus, pp. 38

150.

. v&quot. Then But ~ Dan. the latter language IT is in prose to connect a sentence with regularly employing And what goes before.gt. . Yet. Answered the wy Chaldaeans .gt. v m v. a connective particle. v^ pns to IDNI njy . . 12 are written in Hebrew. In this respect abruptly its contrast with Hebrew is very marked. So Of these. And the word And the decree v. (i. 14 ^&amp. i 1 2 4a 8 . * N ^D my .m And if. begin. Then.gt. all 2 4w (Hebrew) consists of 23 sentences.CHAPTER II THE SENTENCE Asyndeton. Dan. ^rh Daniel ^^ njy . Answered the v? p H For if. . 2 4 7 are in Aramaic. 22 particle. So.gt.y fo ni And Daniel went Then Daniel Then pIN . answered bwn a and said v *&amp. Answered the pnsn l ^&amp.gt. v. But. times variously rendered in R. highly characteristic of Aramaic to open its sentences without the use of a connective particle. Answered Daniel .frOn v v . xn^O Then Daniel Then the JHN king v Nn nri ( word v. n jy . Without connective particle. This difference in usage may well be illustrated from the Book of Daniel. &c. but the opening verse of ch i) begin with 1 i Of these. ^ w i&amp. the force of this And varying as determined by the context (And. N3 ^ D i -. openings are as follows with and 22 without such The : With connective (&amp. 11 ^^ Because of this . He &amp. 4!) . 2 5 (Aramaic) contains 44 sentences. in which chs. . while chs.V.). 22 And (some ). v v. :y They answered . particle.lt.e. king .

. &c. 23 . f . nnvn 4 H ^3p ^3 .. .gt. . This image That image . When do find a paucity of connective particles.). v.C. entirely owing to the influence of Aramaic. K^n v. the fourth kingdom nnnn Hi Answered And whereas . O king . . fHN Then Daniel Then Arioch I . NE&amp. . in He -jb revealeth . of my fathers piN2 broken nn ^3p this . n^in run v.x To thee the . Then Now So Yea ). N2fe nay king ^N^ai . dream v? 1 vzhft nn^N Thou. . we take ch. . Aramaic and Hebrew even of so late a date (c. NE&amp.49 And in their . the N^yai And .-~ is natural in Greek as in English we find 34 asyndeton asyndeton i .50 i TH P*IN E SENTENCE . is the And Daniel . where neglecting openings in speeches (tw. Now great frequency of sentences opening without a connective If we particle is a marked characteristic of the Fourth Gospel.DT KD/V Nin fiTV3l days K37O plN3 Then the king Nsta JHK Then the king . . And ipT God Then were i/. 8 the Hebrew begins again. sawest .gt.). N nta nn3N 1 O king .gt. frequency of unconnected sentences is equally of the rest of the Aramaic portion of the Book In ch. ]A w ) without any connective particle.n Thou sawest This . 24 begin with And (sometimes rendered. This great characteristic of Daniel. Of these. -pnitt And la^DI after thee . Answered nay . .gt. ^3 Because of . It will thus be seen how clear is the distinction in style between .&amp. - 167 B. and here we have 27 sentences (corresponding with the verse-division). Daniel jrobn thou sawest Thy dream Thou. we come down to the Hebrew of the Mishna. Whereas the thou sawest v.* nyaVNI nirrn HI And the toes And whereas thou . and 3 only (vv. roy Answered king . ni&amp.

V.^&amp. 4 times. V. V. eTTraj/ ow. 3 times. particle. ^(ury ?yV. V. r)p&amp.gt.: . 6 K TOV O/XOS. /X0-05 V/JiUV 0-TrjKfL V/* V. V.lt.^ V.- V. /cayco Trj tTravptov /^AeVct OVK ry6etv V*- Kal E 2 .&quot.5 ^)U)5. : doubly as frequent as With connective particle. et5 TO.7rO&quot. 2(i to?.a&amp. our 05 r)v.LVOS TO &amp. p. Kal TO cioi?. ro aXfjOtvov- lv Koo-fjuo rjv. V TJV TO ru&amp.eVot. 2lb KOL Aeyet. 8e 51 In the 28 sen openings. 24 I^. is the ordinary Semitic connective particle. which bears various forces according to the context The openings are as follows (cf. And .*)Tr)o-av. Kat /cat u.j)jJLoX6yr)o~cv. 2:&amp. V. /cat avTrj ecrrii . LOLa riXOf.lt.lt.&quot. TrdvTa 8Y avTov eyeVcro. eyeVero ovro5 OVK JjV K.&quot. as against 28 with connective particle.THE SENTENCE particles. which is thus more than all the others taken together. KOL a K( &amp. V. ev auroi V. OTL O is V. a b Kal 6 Aoyos Kal OTL V.gt. 12 oo-oi 8e.&quot.TaX/j.lt. ovi&amp.gt. Ti ow 3airrici&amp.gt. 49).gt. tences which have connective these are /cat 19 times. Without connective t]V.&quot. V. V. OTL twice.

35. 3 A Kttyw fiopaxa.s*-MM^--i8). aura). A$ai/ ow.gt.. ^.y. UJJ. This is a smaller proportion than in ch.34. In order to prove that this characteristic is found throughout we may take two other chapters from the middle and end consisting mainly of narrative. ot Se ctTrai/. e/x/SAe i/^. 1 . 2. Answered (soand-so) . 4(} r/v 41 Av8pea9. This is very characteristic. i. V. Ch. -7. - *- - - ^ are without connective particle ( . 8 contains 60 sentences. dTre/cpt^o-av = asyndeton np. Mk. Asyndeton dTre/c/ot^. In the openings of unconnected sentences given above from the Aramaic of Dan. 0^x09 V. .4-1 59 sentences. it will be noticed that 9 out of the 22 take the form. 8 9M 1L23 24 -^ conta ins 52 sentences. /cat /cat rrj iTravpiov TraXiv tcrr^/cci. V.^ V. A THE SENTENCE Kttyco OVK yfiv avrov. of which 17 have no connective particle (w. etSei/ V. none without w connective particle. To take three chapters at random from the latter Mt. 25.26. i contains 38 sentences. rjv e V. Dl /cat Ae ya avra&amp. 1 1 contains the Fourth Gospel. *) without connective particle (vv* bA *). V. rjKOVcrav.-JMi-*J.^o. it is a very high one. a Ae yet avrois.. V. yet.396. 4Sa Aeyet aurai Na^ava^A. 2 only without Lk.t*&quot.52 V. as compared with the Synoptists. i . evptcr/cet ^ 42a yytLytv avrov. v.4sj. 2 only connective particle (vv. a /cat cLTrtv X 4 . and 20 of these ^. 1 Aeya 4/ avrai 6 ^t I^o-oSs. 3 contains 13 sentences.

. but elsewhere prefixing K ai. offers And answered .e. frequently the rendering the 65 cases of asyndeton opening aireKpiOrj.ro orv.T. Kat t7Tl . 5&quot.T. . 7&quot. Kat In the Fourth Gospel openings Go times (see below). followed by and said . is wjrtKpiOirivav . in all of which the Aramaic phrase is regularly before statement of the words spoken. and none at all of are only 2 cases of Then answered (5 In contrast. . 5 6 8e aireicpivaTO. 23 . 2 17 3&quot. These 12 passages. uy Kat Kttl . .UDS^I iJH which rather resembles the And he answered and said in Of in LXX. . .lt. 53 28 examples occurring in the six Aramaic chapters. . answered (so-and-so) ?jn. ruy ruy nay Ka i Ae yei. Elsewhere in the whole N. air tKpiva. . . . . are as follows 2 27 2 s : . the other . .THE SENTENCE . does not always represent this but where it does. i Kai . aTreKptOrja-av ovv. as against 66 cases without. . 3&quot. i2 as an opening with connective particle. a^p^ or aTrtKpMrjo-av occurs as asyndeton 38 u7roK/&amp. 56 Ps. Ujn. . . .u owc^. The odotion s version of Dan. hand. Xeyorrc?. 2- 7 -1EN1 . . aTreKptOrjo-av (11 - asyndeton in 4 cases (2~ 7 10 - . once airoKpiOek). ovv. -lEKi . atrtxptfr] as an asyndeton opening i. njy . avreKpi^ ovv. 9-&quot.. times. is 12&quot. n8 ). common Hebrew phrase of which it &quot. Kai eiTrev. o 8e iTyo-oCs airoKpiverai. uy ruy Kttt flTTaV. . 6 Se dTroKpitfeis (dTTOKpi&ts &) ctTrer.iW&amp. In the Synoptists the common phrase . 2 1S 7 . . i3 . 9&quot. Answered (Song2 10 rendered only 2 such unconnected openings. . while there 17 6 14 ). . On . . . 13-.V.gt. it regularly renders Aramaic Answered . . . the whole Hebrew O. uy Kat Kai Kai XeyovcriF. I2 \ 34 . &c. while there are 145 cases of And spake in R. aTTtxptfr). preserving the 27 4 ). airOKptverai 5 11 cases of this verb occurs only in Mk. we have os Se aireKptOri.

they stand in Theodotion s Daniel. particle occurs . . .. 7&quot. while in the 26 other cases the opening is aTrtKpiOrj (aareKpiOyo-av) 48 50 2 19 3 10 -% 4 KO! ctirev (eTTrav). - orv in ] 9 5 . 10 times.35. i 49 .16. Xeya . eXeycv ovv in 8 4 . . we have 2I 5 7 the opening Xey in 24 8 42 . .38^ \iyova-iv cKciviy .r. ^^ : &amp. Kat cXeyev in .gt.. u 5e Xeyei as openings. as we have seen.. openings. . . uses Xe yei as an opening without connective particle. There are very many cases where Mk. .-5. i9 7 10 - . . is a point against the view that a liicral translation of an Aramaic document.44 L &amp. 2 57 3 4 .29^ ^1.17.24. & i.16. Xtyt thus - 4:t - - . 2o 15 8 :3 .-&quot.8.10. . IXeyov ovv in 4 V . 6g&amp. . I3 27 33 l8 17 ..g.1 7 . never.lt. would certainly have used asyndeton \tya. . viz. l8 22 . 5 . i6 29 2i 3 . .6. On /cai the other hand.rav a literal rendering of the Aram. W ^yw..16/.23.-.19.e. . Xe yowni/ as asyndeton .7 . in I2 e^Xeycv 8e in 6 71 X yoi/ 1 27 9% 2o a total of 31 openings with connective particle.34. .lt. 2 26 l8 have 3. 21. ^^ . . 88).12 cases are i 39 46 48 - - . . that aTrfxpiOr) Kal and d7rfKpi0i]&amp. Xeyei as an asyndeton opening occurs 16 times.15. T .15^ 2O i:.8.22 T4 l8 5.34. viz. . of which Xe yet is the most frequent example.11. 20&quot. -50 O:!9 &amp. . . 19 In Lk. . iQ . Xeyet. .49. for the difference in style.20.tt?^ (p. *tt?N1 npV KOI eiTrav of P&quot.36. I 25 viz..15 W.37 1 3 . In Mk. Asyndeton Xe yei.10.52^ gu. diTTfv is . 5. Xeyouo-tv in 2O 13 . in 154 .}B] for which..gt. . Xeyouo-iv in 8 . . 5 7 11 6 7 68 70 7 20 8 19 33 34 49 54 93 11 27 io 25 32 33 34 n 9 . . l6 15 . we /C8 constantly find that Jn. - . .29^ without connective Xeyei. represents the similar usage of the participle in Aramaic.3G. Cf.&amp. because the The absence Gospel is this of this asyndeton usage in Mk. 6 r5 . I - 4fi - - - - - - - - - - :if 3 . . In Mt.26. J9 B.^ j^-lLK-H ^5.1 2 . as against 70 without such particle. /cat tXeyov in 6 Ae yei o*j/ :il in 4. .* In Acts there are no occurrences of Xcyet. . .^ 8 30 34 30 30 7 IS 2oIt is difficult to resist the conclusion i2 . &quot. 7 .8. THE SENTENCE - 38 introduce the words spoken without further verb. uses KOI Ae7. 9 . . . i a 1 *.gt. .gt. That the historical present in Jn. . 20 7 21 83 2I 31 42 22 26 15 33 64 2 7 22 Xe yoi O-tv 2 o 7 -^ 3 2i 3 41 22 42 27-. I 28 9 8 18 20 - . in i6 7 i9 C2 . e.40. 2][ 3. the dialogue of MK. . i 3 8 i6 31 5 5.50 The .9. fojj.-:2 . is argued later on &quot. is I4 9 . . viz. eTra Xeyet in . . . I 526. .26.l7M. There are no instances in of the asyndeton opening * (participle) Dan. & ii 8 total - Qf .i7^ - - 2:! .9. . r8 = asyndeton ^PN (participle).25. aXXoi IXeyov in io 21 /cat i2 29 14 . 5 7 9 T * . .17. 47. Xeyovo-ti/ never.27. 19 Xeyowiv 8 19 25 9 10 16 II 36 l6 18 I 9 20 8e in io .39 fct*. where Jn. T ^0.54 Jn. Xeyowu/ Similarly.

Him. ^l description of a dialogue to . Thou knowest that him.Feed a second time../ With Jn.Lord. Wright) The sat following (p. their fast. carpenter&quot. Jesus says to Simon love Peter. they had embarked and to down. lovest thou Me?&quot.Yea.In .Lovest Peter was grieved thou Me?&quot. seems to have been practically confined so to Western Aramaic. as in the Peshitta of the O.Tend My He says to him the third time.EN. Greek For four pages (ed. that I love Thee&quot. and oars for ferry-boats masts for ships and in stone. lovest thou Me?&quot. art thou skilled to make in wood. the asyndeton opening (participle) one of the most characteristic features of the language in ~&amp. He says to him again son of John.Yea. &quot. &quot.. the Syriac Ada Thomae in the offers twelve examples of the usage. third time. except in translation. &quot.What is the craft that thou art able Judas a says to him. son of John. said to I Him. however. Habban the Judas. Carpentry and architecture the work of &quot. Lord.Simon. a rendering by the historical first present Ae yei. &quot. Lord. Habban the merchant says to him. Thee&quot. being unused in Syriac. &quot. &quot. &quot. &quot. He says to him.THE SENTENCE writer of this book prefers 55 the formula Answered and said* This latter phrase.* in its is Ordinarily in Aramaic.2i 15 this : -17 we may compare the structure of the dialogue in So when they had broken &quot. . He to says to him. 25) the formula is unknown in later Jewish Aramaic. to him. because He said to him the &quot. lovest thou &quot. tombstones and shrines and temples Habban the merchant says and palaces for kings&quot. son of John. which we have already noticed. and what in hewn wood I have learned to make Judas says to him.. love Thou knowest Jesus says to things. p...Simon. I was seeking just such a workman &quot. and this naturally lends itself in asyndeton example. My lambs&quot.T. &quot.Simon.gt. He says Thou knowest sheep&quot.. &quot.. He says to Him.. and ploughs and yokes and ox-goads. is : a literal rendering of a dialogue-passage from this work J^D) And when merchant says to practise?&quot. Thou knowest Thee&quot.Feed My According to Dalman (WJ.. all And he sheep * &quot. much favoured in Dan. especially Eastern branch. Me more than that I these?&quot.What stone?&quot.

gt. than in the Synoptists. far between. and linked by K&amp.* Parataxis. struction in Jn. 18. . . * The asyndeton construction is also frequent in Rabbinic Hebrew (under the influence of Aramaic).56 THE SENTENCE This very striking resemblance in structure between the two . 13. Cf. d-n-eKpiOr] KO! tl-jrev.4 . the natural Greek construction. Sentences are regularly co-ordi Subordinate sentences are few and nated. Holy One. normally used. What ye seeking? They Thus saith t We may of the Genitive absolute note that v? contains two out of the only seventeen occurrences which are found in Jn. e. though here in description of past events the Perfect is Several examples are cited by Schlatter (Sprache. n. he speedily becomes involved 4 in difficulty./ = Xe yei and asyndeton both as regards pictorial usage is no mere chance and isolated phenomenon. In 6 22~. We are the messengers of the said to him. practically stands alone.g. 18 (Moses and Aaron before Pharaoh). parallels from 4. An approximate count yields the following figures. 14. the Lord. e.H. by use i.&amp. Such simplicity of point of style. pp. Midrash Rabba on Exodus. the proportions of which are worked out according to the pages of WH. par. In speaking above of Jn.lt. Dialogues so framed are frequent in the Fourth Gospel (cf. . i Though we occasionally find this latter con /u ep. 25 f.g. we noticed that the Synoptic equivalent subordinates the prior action 6 Se d7roK/H#eis etTrei/. .)._*&amp.g. But not even in Mk. ( He said to them. 20). and innumerable Aramaic might be collected. especially the passages references to Aeyet in chs. where the writer embarks exceptionally upon a somewhat complex sentence. e. &c.gt. t construction can of course to some extent be paralleled from the in Synoptic sources. s phrase of the Aorist Participle. Peculiarly Semitic is the simplicity of construction employed throughout the Fourth Gospel.e. v. i^~ is more successful as Greek but this passage./3M\l/as it is far less common Aeyet 3f) . Who are ye ? They are said to him. Comparative rarity of Aorist Participle describing action anterior to finite verb. particularly from Mk. does it attain anything like the vogue which it has in Jn. blessed be He.

gt. in speaking of co-ordination in place of the use of participles of clauses with the simple or subordinate clauses remarks that in itself the phenomenon . however. .lt. and not the hampering presence of a foreign idiom that is being perpetually translated into its most literal equivalent This may be so in itself . proves nothing more than would a string of &quot. 3 p. /col ^ptorrycrav avrov Ti ovv . in 57 Proportion per page. . flrrev UUTW Na^ai/aryA. in an English rustic s story elementary culture. Lk. between Jn. 5i 4J 1 53 Moulton (NTG.gt. almost without exception. 6 in . 68 41 72 338 224 324 58 i. Mt. 2028-31). can be defended as good KOLVTJ The Greek .ands&quot.THE SENTENCE pp. A. While the Synoptists use the construction. if avoidance of the participial construction in favour of co-ordination we find this striking disproportion &quot. A causal meaning or &quot.&amp. JG. Mt. Occurrences. Jn. use of parataxis: e.* over-use of locutions which is a test of Greek which is virtually or actually translated Comparative rarity of Genitive absolute.lt. the use of the Genitive figures are. infrequent.which the figures reveal. and the Synoptists The answer has been supplied else where by Dr. in 2 :{ 5. 36. 12). we have to ask why. here. 7 n &quot.U.eyei ai/ru&amp. is due partly to the . (&quot. 474. is the Synoptists. in : Though is certainly implied i2 2i and perhaps in 20 (Abbott. KOL I KOL Xeyet OVK ei/zi 4(&amp. (TV H/Vetas el. Mk. 6 18 &quot.e. Jn. * full Cambridge on p. 5 WH.} is implied.because&quot. is natural to Ko/r/ Greek.g. employs it with more elasticity of meaning than is found in the Triple Tradition. 1 I&quot. As compared with absolute in Jn. 17. . The approximate 48. Lk. 7. . Prof.7s&quot. Mk. in temporal clauses. p. The quotation has already been given . probably or certainly. The rarity of the Genitive absolute in Jn. and use it about 2^ times as often as Jn. . . i. Moulton himself. 59. Biblical Essays. &quot. the Synoptists exhibit but slight variation in their use of the construction. Jn. K&amp.

as against 53 pp. are 16. and In cases where the subject of the ore or clause is the same as that of the principal clause. . as against 13 in Mt. etTrev).gt. As. there would be propor tionately 21 cases. .. . Jn. 6 cyeyoi/et. r)v Mt. 4 46 ^X#ev ow . 13 cases. s 8 . e/cv/cXaxrav ovv avrov ot lovSatot (contrast Lk. ore 9. as The compared with the Synoptists.g. o&amp.2o. if as long as Lk. . I9 :i3^ 2I ^ There remain 8 cases which.gt. i8 f) . 7. as compared with the Synoptists.2-j. Neglecting cases in which ore has an antecedent (e. 2 23 . These are ore. of the ore clause being different from that of the principal clause. 14. 22 cases. Mt.. this writer shows a relative fond 21 ness. avTOis e/eeii/ot Mt. the temporal clause so introduced of course takes the place of an Aorist Participle in the nominative. . i 12 7 . 6 i4 . . are ore. Mt. and Lk.:^ Jn. WH. ly 14 24 atirous 6 . i 19 2 22 . d&amp.. 8 6 I^crovs 29 16 oi^tas 8e r(3 ytvofjievr)&amp. OUTTOO eXr/Xu^et ly/o-oS? (contrast Mt. ^*. as against Lk. 10 in Lk. and also contains much more narrative.lt. 1 .gt. there are 16 cases of ore intro ducing a temporal clause in Jn. Mk.lt.rav aura).s = when Mk. rts /cat 7 *HX$ov ow ot vTnype rat Trpos rous ap^Lfpi&amp. II Ttov 8e o^Xwi/ eTra^pot^o/xeVwv ^p^aro Xeyeti/). Lk. 2i 15 . a construction for which.lt.s Trpoo-^vey/cai/ 1O21 24 Kat TreptCTraret ev itpw . Similar cases in Lk. Though the figures in Jn. are cases in which a ore or J&amp. u&amp.s clause in Jn. These jj6. it should be borne in mind that Lk. ore 7 Mk. Thus we are justified in finding in Jn.5 Kal I?apto&quot. by a temporal clause introduced by ore. 9. the subject the Genitive absolute might have been used of the ws clause. by far the greater number of such temporal clauses belong. Lk.). 28 /cat eX0oVros aurou (contrast Mt. in distinction from speeches.gt. a preponderance of which serve to explain temporal clauses introduced by ore or &amp. 19&quot. are thus similar. ly 26 /ecu 4a eiTroVros 6V Avro ruV dXXorptW.. to which. 2o&quot.lt. introducing a temporal none.: in 2. VTrr)VT r]&amp. . .- 2 i 18 in .5.s ore 6. i2 1(U7 4 . So 423 5 25 g\ i6 23 ). /cat &amp. Mt. 10 in Mk. 13. If Jn. and 5 similar cases . The occurrences of o&amp. 13 . Thus clause takes the place of a Genitive absolute are in Jn.atotis. 2 1 1 rii/oov XeyoVrooi/ . 4 M &quot.gt. . 6 12 - lfi 10 . . .!)?. is considerably longer (72 pp. 2 !) ..lt. place of the Genitive absolute is also taken in Jn. 4 epxerat wpa ore. . 8 /cat /cat crKorta 77877 2I 2! ). 7 . i3 12 ./7 Kal flirev aurw (contrast airrw 6 lycrovs. .58 I^ s THE SENTENCE Xe yet aura) Na^ava^X .. if as short as Mk.lt. U7re/cpt$r/ Irjo-ovs &amp. were as long as Mt. 16. .

KT\.gt.. minds Pesh. oeo the ^&amp.00*^00 ^A^AJWI^?O JJo^o the multitude was expectant. and . 3 TrpocrSo/cwj/ros &c TOV Aaov. ujoa^^xS Pontius Pilate in Judah J?O&amp. aa^X^ in ^cu^is .oi^ ^oo *.lt.gt. Syr. This is the ordinary construction employed in the Syriac versions to render a = temporal clause which Greek expresses by the Genitive in absolute.gt. avi TeAawcrdi rus r/^e/jus. 13. KOL ore s copTrjs. |6o ^ when Pontius Pilate was governor Sin. Syr.gt.5 when to introduce a tem poral clause is very common in Aramaic. Syr.ra. Cur. ^iauD? ^a^a^pt ^oai^. *DOLUcua jiujso.gt. KOLI yvf. Lk. the hegemony of the Q Q. will serve to finite illustrate rendering when followed by the verb gives the representation of the Syriac construction).Las.? reflecting in their J^fit^^ ooo U-|o And . Pal. Judaea ao^j. i. Uom^ ^oo^^o J6o f o when Quirinius was in in Syria Pesh. Now the use of H3. KT\. U&amp.lt. Jujcx=&amp.A. Syr. 2 2 Pal. Now when ^oo^zi^a .H^&amp. struction of Sin. rjye/j. they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast.gt. )oo . .a ]6o o&amp. rrjs ^. men that were hearing him were .9&amp.lt. Pal.Lwd. Syr.V. and Pesh. in S. &c.vpta&amp. aix^uo oilajLoi/ ^^i im^. KOL StttAoyi^oyixeVojv TrdvTwv tv rats Lk. )lai^a^cH^&amp.s Lk. ..gt.a^x=&amp. and when they had fulfilled the Con days.gt.oi evovTO&amp.s KvpyvLov. . XA~&oa OoC^o .lt.THE SENTENCE (along with parataxis) the 59 Genitive comparative rarity of the absolute in this Gospel. ^ocnAa. j all of them were debating in their hearts Sin.ikoo CH^.^ woia in years of governor of S. identical. 3 Pal. ^.ro ecoj/ TOJi/ oje/&amp.i=&amp.^H=&amp.gt. rj-ye/AovevovTOS Hoi Tiov ITi/Wrou yojsa. in the hegemony of So Pesh. Sin.. [appv&amp. ^o ^^*.^oj rrjs Iov8a.Ui 4^ ]6o oo J^coo? And when He was twelve years old.gt. ^^^a.gt. The first few cases of the Genitive absolute this (the literal Lk.

ao them. Se TOV f)X. *o ^coo-ao. * j^s *sojo ^&quot.gt. it .gt. and also the Lord Jesus had been baptized and had prayed.so t .iov.gt. 21J|1 N^PI KJH ^} And when it was it? was set .o )oo . ^QA.-sxs. Jesus was baptized. s ore with finite is theory of an Aramaic background) absolute in the other Synoptists. . ^sji/ &amp. JJo^o it /cat /3a7rrto~0ei/TOS /cat Trpocrev^o/xeVov Pal. sS/ )^a.^V o^ao came &quot. He was hungry hungry . I3 6 8&quot.^CL^ vSJo . and not a conflation. . and all them were debating Lk. but would this have been translated as we have .)is^&amp. f)\LOV (Lk. Syr.. And when He was praying.. Sin. ^o and after forty days on which He fasted. also has 6^/as tie jevopfviis before ore (*v Mk. JJ-30 r oo *. Syr.lt.^. would be more natural evening.60 ooo* THE SENTENCE Now when of the people were speculating concerning in their heart .v &amp. and the sun NB?DK&amp. &amp.. I 3 ore e Su 6 77X105.?xv.00 also And when all the people had been baptized. John. wrote If this is part of the run NK fpt? 21V 12 NB IDI^ to write And in Aramaic. U*x*&amp.gt. joc. when the sun was set in . ^a.gt. 6 ^Atos.gt. when all the people were was baptized. j Lk. And when He was praying. joo Ju^Uk.*&amp. the text must have It the evening. Jesus also came to pass.gt. * omits. when all the multitude had been baptized.*? Joo cu*J^sl/ Now baptized.to-@io-{i)v aiurcoj/ eTretVacrei/. ^. Pal. /cat crvvTcX.s ]oo ^i^? jfcoco. oXs ^aJSw *o ^. original Mk. that the heavens were opened *. the heavens were cu*]^3l/ . ( altered into the Genitive Mk. Pesh. opened Pesh./ r3 jkoocuw cu*Ksl/ ^i oo Now to pass. and if Mk.. ^o and when He had completed verb (suiting the He was Two cases occur in which Mk..x\. the heavens were opened Lk. U T . 4 Swovros (ML 8 16 oi//tas 8e 40 yei/o/xei/7/s. 4 2 Sin. ore j Mt.* ( Mk.j^ o^&amp.gt.^&amp. /cat 4&quot. afterwards ]U^ VQJ/ jiX*. 3 ?1 Eyevero Se cv rw /SaTmcrOrivai aVaj/ra rov Xaov aj/ew^^^Fai rov ovpavov.. caret.

pass.Kf. Gen. is not but is specifically Aramaic. (. Pesh.gt.T. it has a usage of the Participle absolute (cf.g.gt. The English renderings aim at exactly reproducing the the Semitic constructions. n follows ptta nsD3 &quot. when he saw . O\5~ v in his sack TOJ KaTa.ve. and (= then) there came a word of prophecy from before Y.^&amp.gt.yf. KOL iyfvf. lit..gt.iax*5 \oj ? ? )ooo og-ix^ paa. ^ofcJ vcuo it And came to pass. and renders by +z when with a finite verb.o when they were Lord . will struction. Targ.gt.y.m. mn^ mp p HNI^J D:HD mni NIIHQ ^y pnnno prxn iy mni they were sitting round the table. exactly Hebrew. /cat v? 7/v 6 TOV dpyVplOV (TttKKO) GLVTWV. And Pesh.lt. 13- mm nm vn avrwv jn^ n ^y o^^ nn MM And it came to . there came the word of the . 42 : 5 ipm 12D3 inv B*N mm empty WIB on MM And it came to pass.And came to pass that their sacks.. their sacks. Hebrew uses &quot. and regularly rendered In the passages where this construction occurs in be found that Targ. 165) closely resembling the Greek Genitive absolute. a finite verb and the absence of an alternative construction resem bling the Genitive absolute in Greek.gt. Hebraizes its Aramaic to a large extent.TB?K? common when with a finite verb somewhat rarely. they emptying . while exhibiting a tendency to use the true Aramaic con by it O. but far more frequently employs the Infini tive construct with pronominal suffix.lt.THE SENTENCE It is 61 interesting to note that this construction of when with to Semitic. Driver. regularly breaks away from Hebrew construction. iniN~ia .*:*i^9 Joo Jiol^a ^Jix..ru&amp. they sitting at the table. and prefixed 2 in or a as e. behold. Jo .gt. in his seeing .JyUOS of. avrovs rot s craKKOf? \/ i ~ ai&amp. sitting at the table.ro KaOrj/Jitvwv [eVt TV}S rpaTre^s].ro Aoyos Targ. Further. KCU iyf. whilst u&amp. on the other hand. each man s bundle of money &amp.. Tenses. yOolAtt ^*c. in it LXX. &quot.vt.vovv f.ro 8e&amp. man s when they were emptying bundle of money in the mouth of i Kgs. U^c? &amp. Pesh.j\ and behold. J^^? o*amo? it ]&amp. and there came the word of Yahweh LXX Kvptov.V TU&amp.i^iv nnj NHI pn-pe ppno p^N n . each his bale . .

ia-n 76. the . Kn&?an pam m pi&amp. and (= then) behold. 8 5 n^xn n:n l^n i?N npW mm non nx n^nn n^x nx HN mnn And it came &quot. Ny IDNI cun^o .o?JJ oo^j? K\\=&amp. as in Pesh. .Di Nii&amp. Targ. whilst they were going on fire .lt. LXX ap/Jia Kal eyeVero avrwv Tropeuo/xeVcoi/. tiropevovro Kal eA. and. 2 Kgs. and.^ k*i. ^*a-^)? U&quot. . behold. son he had raised crying unto the king a&amp.LK*j raised ao u^|j Jll^j/ J^A.x And when he arose by night that he might and (= then) destroy the Edomites who were surrounding him . avrov Kal l^vyci/ o Aaos KT\. Targ. they going on going and talking (= and talking as they fire.62 2 Kgs.s /Sooxra Trpo? TOV Targ. . JJL*.s KCU eyevero avrov e^rjyov^vov roi /?aer(Aei Kal I8ov ?] t^WTrvprjcrfv vlov yvvrf rj$ e^wTrvpTrjcrev rov vlov avrr]&amp.gt. the people fled to their homes .s KT\. .lt. . construction as in . supplication before the king oj/n D^I i^y a^on DHN HN na^ op Nin *rn And it came to pass. Hebrew. yn^D Nin mm Dip K^ap.^ i-V* )oo it And came to pass that when they were fire .gt. .gt. chariots of Pesh. . o^.^ Hebrew.j3 . THE SENTENCE ai c N aai n:m % &quot.i^^vt. n^i&amp. a chariot of 2 Kgs.gt.I IBov 7rvpo&amp. . p* ^oo yoot.gt. . . went).gt. )s&amp.^a Dp Nin mm MIITpi?. iro pSnx p:^n ny mm And it going and talking. 2&quot.i?i came to pass. Pesh. c&amp. 8 21 . TOV KVK\W. . woman whose . a chariot of &c.gt.-^ ou-j? U^jscx^ Us^oo And when he was relating to the king that he had the dead.aAoW KO. Kal eTrara^ej/ TOV ESwyu. mi? papDT DHN ^\x n s NT. LXX craj/ra CTT Kal c yeVero avrov dj/acrrai/Tos.. . he arising (or arose) by night and smote Edom who surrounded him and the people fled to their home .IB^N D -ISDE NIH \n st i to pass. mn rv ^nxn Nnn^N xm n* rv ^nsn ^oi&amp. ibnN^ .gt. . he telling the king how he (Elisha) had raised the dead. behold.1 D^n ncn Tri And it came to pass. he saw the woman whose son he had raised making . talking and going on. jjcu? JK&quot. and (= then) behold.

See further. they burying a man. i8 he hath trespassed. who took me own my father s house. The same principle is also adopted with the object.^ And when he was worshipping god. Pesh. since otherwise the sentence would to the Semitic ear appear involved and overweighted. he shall be thine heir Yahweh. jooj fs^i&amp. ^otol* jii*. and. Tenses. -JIDJ n3 TJD wn mm. whilst they . and (= then) they saw. Driver. The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me. 15 But one emphasis. /cat Kol eyeVero avrov TrpovKWOiivTOS eV OIKOJ Eo-Spa^ Beov avrov. pass. Hebrew and Aramaic to simplify the construction of a sentence.&amp.gt. and at the same time to gain emphasis. and Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote him it . Gen. his Casus pendens. All the word that command . Targ.THE SENTENCE 2 Kgs. Kal 2. A. behold. Ezek.ot vtoi avrov fTrdra^av avrov.M ikmNi vnta TIDJ rvn his came to pass. by reinforcing the subject by a Personal Pronoun. Such rein It is characteristic of forcement is specially favoured if the subject happens to be further defined by a relative clause. i3 21 63 nnan nx un rum trx onap on Tn OOLTTTOVTUV And /cat it came i8ov to . J. &c. Examples in Hebrew areGen. 3 -. his sons killed him in the house of N. fc^o ^00 woto^.~ And when they were Ji^^ {-^. and S. i9 :i. He shall send (nbe* I Nl. that shall come out of thine (TT: ^^).? * burying a man.gt. 2^. Pesh. 13 .l) His angel it before thee Deut. ^\si^i i^mNi n^yw *. from bowels.o ^a./ oo^/ ^^xj .o ^^&amp. v:a IVKT. . JT-OT rv tm pass.&^ oj. . they saw. 123 y Obs. 1 is . for the sake of brought to the beginning of the sentence. and in his sin that he hath sinned.. they saw the robber-hand avrwv rov av8pa. &c. she gave me (Y~njnj Nin) O f the tree and I did eat Gen. when this. \Ti:n Targ. he worshipping in the house of Nisroch god. you. in them shall he die (TW? D3).gt.&amp. shall 24 In his trespass that ye observe to do (JTO?b l-wn infc). the God of heaven. Mitap as in Hebrew. and other oblique cases may be similarly treated.gt. And LXX A. &c. iSov LXX KCU eyeVero TOV xm N-UJ p-np prjn ny mm And it came to were burying a man. 1 2 Kgs. .

&c. 8 26 Kayw a 6 /xr/ r/KOVo-a Trap avroO ravra XaXto . tSe ovros ftaarr^L* yKOV&amp. TTttf o 8e8co/cei/ /xoi /XT) aTroXeo-co O 18 7 eou.gt. 6 8e ^roiv TT/V Sd^av roG Tre/x^ai/Tos auroi/ OVTOS o wj ?rapa roi. I I 18 eos 6 an&amp. oVoi Be cXafiov avrov.lt. eis TOI/ KO ATTOV TOV Trarpos e/ceti/os e 8 * 6 Trefjuj/as /xe ySaTrrt^eti/ ej/ . &c. ravra o vlo&amp. IO 1 * eiVep^d/xevos Sia TT}S ^vpas . O king. behold. This reinforcement of a Casus pendens by the Pronoun is a marked characteristic of the Fourth Gospel. upon them (D n^5J it shall not be lawful to N&quot.lt. i6 4 ^31N HD I^INI DIM HD t^^ D .3 H3CN 1D1HE nn ino.gt. O 14 . . &c. f^ avrov. 3 26 os ^v /xera o-ov O (i)pa. Ezr.oi 6 Trar^p &amp. .lt. f 6 . Ezr. And king (Nabo wn nriJN). loWci avTols f^ovo-iav /xoj/oyej -qs reWa eoO yei/eV$ai. &c.19 (KTO ^ The tree that thou KM &amp. .H HT eat ^N 11 li&amp.gt.TV TOVTO /xot KO. pp. Meshach. thou art that head of gold ran Those men that took up n^K). . the vessels of the house of God. it is thou. (we should SUrel}^ omit the comma after and make a^ra ra epya the subject of SeScoKeV /ULOL /xaprupa. the king of kings. which HT ^. them Shadrach.njpP N. &c. 3 Dan.TlA6F KetJ/O5 TOt^TW VfJLftS OV TTLOrTfVfTe. g.KV KOI .) quotes a number of instances from Rabbinic Hebrew Tims e. Mechilta on Ex. 5 moreover.)Di&amp.et^os 5 5 TTOKO.s o/xotoos Troiet.. the flame of the fire slew ten Dan. eis TOK KOO-/JLOV.gt. this one. and saith. Ezr. 49 in f. 2 :i7:ss . and Levites. yap epya a 8e8(t)/cev p. may note the We following illustrations T 12 : . Whosoever hath what he may this eat to-day. owro? ecopaKtj/ rov Trarepa.lt.r?i?) . 4 17 . reinforcing ra yap -i/ c pya after a KT\. reinforces a Nominativus pendens. &c. f\ All priests impose let tribute. of heaven gave.. 7roi^o-as /xe vyirj e/&amp.. Every one that will not perform the law of thy God and the law of the king. e/ceti/os /cXeTrr^s eVrii/ *at Schlatter (Sprache. and Abed-nego. . O TO.I 5&quot. judgement diligently be executed upon him (H3D &quot.) 5 Kai 6 Tre/x^as /xe Trar^p e/ceti/os /xe/xaprup^Kei/ Trept e 5 OV 639 u/a d7rO&quot. i&amp.64 Similarly in Aramaic to THE SENTENCE whom the God (K3_rn n new Thou.. them did Cyrus the king take out (en.. a ian psjn) o f the temple of Babylon sawest. aura ra epya a paprvptl vrept e/xov OTt 6 Trar^p /xe aTreo-raX/cev TTOIO&amp.).W rcAetwo-co avra.. Dan.gt.inb). vSari CKCIJ/OS ftoi etTrcj^.gt. a yap av eKtj/os Troi^. What shall I to-morrow? behold. one lacketh faith.

^ &amp.ept Kapirov TTO\VV.gt.THE SENTENCE IO 2 65 TO. do ye say [to him] 38 u Thou blasphemest ? best explained as [l/tfiVoj] 6V. 4 I7&quot. . 1921) adds io 35 \tyfre - 36 .oi yu.lt.X^Tos.gt.f&amp.lt. 21. of the easiest of anacolutha. i2 10 = i2 48 so 17.K{Vos I4 14 Kat OTI ai/ aiTrja-rjTf. set 11 in (6 Mt. TV oVo/xaTi rou Trarpds /xou ravra Trcpt e/xou.gt. on &quot.JTti\fv tls TOV Koa^ov the Father sanctified .lt. 2o 17 are O. instances in Jn.0) iVa oVou et//.f)tpov 15&quot.o. TO Tri/eiym TO ayiov o Tre/xt^et 6 Trarrjp lv TW OVO/JLOLTL fKtivos v/Jia&amp. (8 and Mt. 3)&amp. OeX.3s (4 13&quot. o SeSw/cas ftot. . ? and 6 in Lk. 69).r}nis ..oi ju. as the remarkable frequency of the Synoptists. for example. p. .lt. o fji^voiv 15 17&quot. which occurs there with six times the frequency? An employed answer is forthcoming in the assumption that a common adequate Aramaic construction has been exactly reproduced in translation. tv rai oi/o/xart /xou TOVTO /XOTJ /cat o e^cov ras evroAas 6 Se 7rapa/&amp. I3 u f I5 I9 14 15 - 2l4j.gt.lt. p. 109.. t&amp. 4 16 Lk. &amp.. 2i 42 = Mk. IO TO TTOT^pLOV O 06a)KC /XOt 6 TTttTT/p OU /X^ TTt o) ttUTO . 14 fjiov.v 6 rrar^p fjyiaafv teal a.r.a lv Kap7rov aijoet auTO.gt. Of course it cannot be claimed that the use of Casus pendens Prof.gt. Whom &quot. I4* 13 6 Tricrreuajj cts e/xe TO.f&amp.).. why should is we find that a construction in Jn. . epya a TTOUO lv eyo&amp. ^n^ 25 4 in Mk M I2 u. a fair specimen of Koivrj Greek. our theory a mistranslation.lt. TraV K\TJfj. e AaX^o-a e/ceivos Kpivtl auroi/ ev TT? yu.. to go no farther it is a familiar Moulton remarks that it is one is specifically a Semitism.lt. 7 Trorayuoi (K rfjs KoiXias avrov (also cited by Abbott) is not included as involving on vfttis &amp. 12 48 6 Aoyos 12 49 6 Treyni^as 2 6&amp. occurrence is compared with If Lk. e/x. B\a(j&amp. and of these Mt.. its The which concerns us in Jn. but 6 times * Abbott (JG.e Trarrjp auros ei/roA^v ^cSto/ceis. as much fact at home in English as is in Greek (NTG? \. Against these 27 . epya a eyob TTOICO Ka. 23 5 --V2 ).W ?rav o SeSoj/cas aurai Sajo~ei a^Tois ^co^i/ atooviov. since colloquialism in English.. quotations.lt. we can only 26 .i cyaj /caKeti/ot oicrtv /xer e/xou.T. rrjpwv auras e/myos ecrrti/ 6 dyaTrcov /xc. Kat ?rav TO Kapwov (f&amp. . . SiSa^et Travra. iricrrfvcav els f(*e . .iti&amp..epov KaOaipei avTo.gt. Cf. Iv fjiol Kayco ei/ auTai OUTOS &amp.

456 ff. as against Mt. 252 b). . 50). in speeches. -39.gt.43. Bruder writer s use of asyndeton ovv. Mk. if 21 .gt. 6 Lk.30.19. -4.40. Mk. .-. 7 16 17 - 9 J TT 8 11 .gt. Mt. Of every tree of the Hebrew.19. in . as given by Abbott (JG. Lex. cf.30 &amp. /ecu is frequent in Jn. Concordance 2 pp. T o3 * 1 5 .J . Jn. this and ( = and yet] in my life is preserved (other instances of common usage r&amp.gt. O20. . 32 (Heb. partly to his fondness for which he uses some 200 times. p. about 250 times. .11 &amp. a garden thou moyest eat. 3 . A striking Semitic usage or may is be seen in its employment naturally to link contrasted statements. 2i u Cf. as in a Semitic language. /cat in Jn.11. &c. &quot. &c.gt. Lk. The same Oxford Heb. 57 times. times. usage in Aramaic from Dan. trees of the garden we may eat . ye shall receive 5G At what time ye hear . And ( = Buf) my covenant will 31 1 establish with Isaac . Gen. 31 times.CHAPTER OUV. p. where in English but*.34 2 20 &amp. where it is equally common may be illustrated . thou shalt not eat of it 3 20 2&amp. .57 . less than 100 times. narrative. . -10. and {but} of the tree of knowledge of 2:! Of the fruit of the good and evil. ye shall be cut in pieces. I have seen God face which is in the midst of the - to face. about 380 times.. shew the dream and the interpretation thereof. and (=but) of the garden God fruit of the tree hath said. also in the reflections of the author upon his narrative. III CONJUNCTIONS Kttt.gt. 3 . more than 400 times. And as regards Ishmael I have heard thee.20 &amp. . behold I have blessed him.. find T 10. This comparative infrequency seems to be due partly to the (cf. As compared The s with the Synoptists. .gt. 2133. is infrequent in occurrences. 2 5 If ye make not known to me the dream and its and (=but] if ye interpretation.lt.) are. 32 ).S2 &amp. &c. Ye shall not eat. ye shall fall down of me gifts. linking co-ordinate clauses.. &c. though occasionally we C^ 00 i6 5 .5-2. we should employ and yet This it most frequent 4 .44 5 ^70 &amp. in speeches.

and shall to eat to drink.gt.. and the particle. and thou knowest not how we were Jbo -*) jfcO^.gt. I^A!^ JJ yioX ^o ^aic l^j/ )aa&amp. . (p. thyself hast not departed from except for a moment shut up With inverted order.oo ^50 kJ^ikW thy account I excused from my lord.gt. are encamped and in the open field (lit.gt. &c. and (=yet) its interpretation they did not make known to me Hebrew and Aramaic and may very idiomatically introduce contrasted idea in such a way as to suggest a question. ^ ^^^ **. illustrated in p. and myself thou dost not choose to sup with me JJ kfco|o.gt. be able to deliver down. king Mazdai. being hypothetical. . He will deliver. mother have not told 11 . .O All buildings are built in (p.. J^. and king Mazdai )&amp. whom we serve. . oo -*^^ L./ k~i! Thou .) ! r* JJo .epa. Lex.on ^&amp. . - 67 and worship the golden image.) summer. .os rov IcrparyA KOLI ravra ov F 2 . Hcb.CONJUNCTIONS . .gt. fcoj o . it. On ! (p. and Israel.. The same usage may be Thoniae (ed. to my father and Hebrew.)k. crccrtv oiKoBofJifjOrj o vaos OVTOS. servants of 7 go into ! my lord. in 14&quot. and thou buildest kxiijsb in winter! LofcO^-*&amp.oooo 4*?J^&amp. .-*&amp. and from the supper.gt. (p. And I told the drearn before them. &c. 2 Sam. Thou in sittest and hearkenest is his seeking to destroy thee ! In a precisely similar passages in Jn.2&amp. &c. and ( = but) whoso falleth not 17 18 If our God. fco/ Jiii Jofc-. &c. us. Judg. way KCU introduces a paradox and the paradox. be it known. e in several is treated as a question. n and Judah are abiding in tents.A. this So I being implied by the contrast without the use of an interrogative Behold.::* ^OA-O wrath fco/ o^ to/ ^. 4 (Aram. 4 In a 7 ). ).LS 3 ^v el 6 SiSacTKaA.** \! JJ/ .m. and shall I tell it unto tJiee ? (lit. Aramaic from passages Ada Wright). KOI (TV Iv rpicriv f]/j.- ?J^co. in go. and to thee I shall tell it! ). &c. ^*oo&amp. my house.n\. 3 and (but} if not. &c. ? and /shall 252). 2 20 10 TtcrcrfpaKovra KOL eyepets avrov .gt. us.gt. . aaja).jscu? to vain jjixii oi^o^s words. . w-j&amp. my The ark.UJ. and my lord Joab. see further instances in Oxf.

. omits ow while Mt.. Usually. The essence of the meaning of is that the event related is regarded as happening in due &quot. . brings out too prominently or &quot. which is very rare in Jn. fundamentally they mean the same thing and that they really correspond to the Hebrew &quot. Kat OVK e^ecrnV apat TOV Kpd/3/3aTov. Burkitt in Evangelion da-Mepharreshe. : with flTrev ovv or Kirov ovv the idea of causation. in parallel passages. waw consecutive&quot. Kat 6 Tpcoywv KctKtvos ets 6Y II 48 ecu/ d&amp.lt. 89 In the course of working at the S3 riac equivalents for S. 20. The occurrences * Mt. are. John there are literally scores &quot. .he said therefore&quot. Mark does not mean to emphasize the haste they were in to (/cat of verses beginning tell the news. p. Pa/?/?t. John s ovv it has occurred to me that. it The writer s conclusion as to ow given above stands as he had worked out : before reading the words of Prof. original it highly probable that in ow and ( and so Aramaic in many cases*. All that where &quot. has it translator.. as we have seen. or Lk. and it is what is generally meant in the Fourth Gospel so they tell Jesus of her by ovv. Similarly in S. of course.TrecrTeiAep ajv e/xc.and so and so he said is meant is IDS*} 1 &quot. Syr. Kat e/Vcuowrat ot Pw/xatot Kat dpoScrtJ/ ^toi/ Kat TOV TOTTOV Kat TO etfj/os. is usually rendered in Pal. but if the authors that either of these Gospels is a translation from the Hebrew of these Gospels were familiar with the Old Testament otherwise than through the awkward medium something to of the LXX.lt. /mi is too inadequate a link. they said&quot. Schriften (1861). p. Lk. 2191 a). is due to the and simply. suggests that the particle in Jn. n. i so j S. That ow corresponds to the Hebrew waw con 2. secutive was noticed by Evvald. this consecutive connexion is expressed by ow. 8e. however. they might well have felt themselves in need of correspond to the Hebrew idiom. (rot ^dpflaTov 6 &amp. Die johann. Kat crv o~e StSao&quot. Kat TraAti vTrayeis CKCI. Mark and so of thought is more or less our English means by his teal evdvs. Simon s wife s mother was sick of a fever and eWvs Mk. TraVres 7rto-Tucrou(rii/ auroV. vw e^row and XtOdcrat ol louScuoi. which. in which Mk. infrequent also in the Synoptists. TOJ/ 6 7 Ka$obs /xe u.lt. Some few /xe ycrei and so* is very frequent in so used are to be found in Jn. The cases cited by Abbott (JG.68 14 CONJUNCTIONS Ei/ a/xa/oTtats 8 c &amp. by o Ow but sometimes by ^? = 6V. To express this while 5c implies a contrast which is wholly wanting in the Hebrew: the turn But this is exactly what S. Mk.g. .Kts ^/xas .w/xev avTov ourws. as the case may be.TTW. 8. Mark s evOvs and S.rv 9 II ZyevvqOrjs 0X05. Not. Trarrjp Kayo) co Sta Trarepa. represents an in others may have been inserted by the translator to introduce a sentence which stood asyndeton in the original.. is yap- /AC V. ii. The e. 10. 45. in Jn. sequence to what has gone before.wdzv consecutive&quot. Jn. 5 use of with the sense cases of /cat Semitic. is extraordinarily frequent It is ) (200 occurrences).. 6. fxeV.

cases in which Greek would use ydp. On Jn. Lk. 109 occurrences. twice. in Mk. and in its place. if as long If as Lk. /xr/Trore in the sense in Jn. and Jn.* The numbers are. 92 occurrences as short as Mk. Semitic use of usually copied. and 7 in Lk. some 5 times only. Jn.. 101. under Greek influence. were as ^ if long as Mt. if as long as Lk.. there would be proportionately 163 occurrences. 178 occurrences if as short as Mk. * in is Mk. in Mt. the other hand. rences are Mt.. nx. there would be 96 occurrences . . Mt. is one of the most remarkable pheno mena in this Gospel. as compared with Mt.. .H3 or less to yap.. 151. Now W. never occurs whereas it is found in Mt. If Jn. iVa.. in Pal. The occur ydp is less frequent in Jn. W. HS 2 J Similarly in Apoc. nrjnoTf never. while the average number of occurrences per page (VVH. introduced it in the form ^^^ ger. we find i va p-rj 11 times. lest . 82 occurrences. of 8e in Mk. Mk. Syr. Aramaic. Mk.. ^ ^?P~^. &c. if as long as Lk. 3^. 66. 508. Syriac. 125. 6 times. The approximate number of occurrences is 127 whereas in Mt. Mk. they are only 3| and in Jn. 8 times. feeling the need for a light particle like ydp. rences. 8 times. Se excessively rare. in Lk. In Apoc. in Lk. such particles and phrases as correspond more i&amp. Lk.) are 7J in Mt. or (Aramaic) an asyndeton The comparative avoidance and . not . Aramaic if as long as Jn. bearing rather the sense because. occurring t The numbers p. in Mk.CONJUNCTIONS 69 8e is uncommon in Jn.| . u/a fjiri occurs in 5 times. 8 times. ^ . Aramaic would be content with and simply. 496. were . both languages employing opening. than in the Synoptists. in Mk. that . o? di. and this may account for the com parative infrequency of ydp in Jn. we find 33.. since. 60. and Lk. are really much more many In weighty. in is there fore strongly suggestive of translation from Aramaic which the all. like Hebrew. so much felt that the Greek particle was introduced in the form den. If Jn. Biblical Aram. . has no equivalent of 6V. Jn. 18 times.. in Lk. 156. 53 occurrences... were as long as In Mt. The frequency of u/a in Jn. t Thus.gt. for the Synoptists are those given by Sir John Hawkins. as long as Mt. 176. 67. or of no connective particle at was In Syriac the need for such a particle as Se was. 101 occur .. there would be proportionately 86 occurrences. 40. and Mk.

that of the king ). s whether used in a final sense or otherwise. by ^Trort (as KT\. and it is . that.* that Further. as compared with Mt.g. or Iva. in all the senses relation. e. the use of Iva . p. the captain. .gt. and has come through the KOLVTJ into modern Greek in the form vd. Mt. and Lk.=! de. because. t The following Synoptic comparisons were kindly John Hawkins. Mk. ). What is remarkable. favours the theory of literal translation of the con not .e. . especially frequent as a conjunction. where in classical Greek we should expect an Infinitive. to may it be used as whom he said a mark of the (lit. 4 12 with Jn. however. s usage of this idiom.s cr/cc^ei V * Contrast the translation of . ovSe KdLovo-iv \v\vov KCU ri^e curiv avrov VTTO TOV JJLO^LOV. n e. . that (properly a connecting link between the relative sentence and its antecedent /to one.g. . in LXX) in Mt. or except that which marks the genitive frequent occurrence of iva in a telic sense calls for no to the comment. t 21 4 Kou c Aeyev rj CLVTOLS on Mryrt cp^erat 6 .f] fQ lest 1 . Hebrew iVa fj. This particle appears in W. 8 OvSeis Se Xv^yov KaXvirTCL avrov auf/a&amp. I3 16 Mk. or Lk. Plv P^ ^ i. and also the relative genitive.lt. \ 15 5 U&amp. in Jn.. \v^yo&amp.! Aramaic phrase tO junctive that. though to is its This is also a less extent true of extreme frequency. in the inasmuch as. sense in that. in Syriac as ? de.s iva VTTO TOV rtOrj VTTO TYJV K\ivrjv JMk. It suffix in the relative clause.lt. Isa. is 40 iSojaiv TOIS ixpOaXfAoTs 100). supplied to the writer by Sir . in order is *] Our purpose of **[ to show that Iva occurs in Jn. NOW taio n the king s captain is Further. r) Lk. and in a final sense. beyond note of the fact that the use of !W The ^ exclusion of //^TTOTC 1 &quot.7o CONJUNCTIONS Now there exists in Aramaic a particle in origin a demon used with peculiar frequency to denote various shades of connexion. is a well-ascertained characteristic of KOII/T/ Greek. usually completed by a pro noun or pronominal who he said to him when. instructive to notice how many different expedients Mt. followed by a finite verb. frequently employ in order to get rid of Mk. both of them. (cf. 6 l . that.. As a particle of relation it denotes who. which. Aramaic as ^ dl strative which is or &quot.

- 6- cXw iVa e^avT^s 8&amp. | Cases in which Mk.rf]p /xoi/oyci/T/? *.lt.^ Lk.gt. 8 om. 4 22 Mt. 5 23 Mt. 9 18 Kat Trapa/caAet avrov TroXXa Xeywi/ on To Ovydrpiov /xow ioou apx^v apri els TrpocreX^wv 7rpoo-e/aW avrw.CONJUNCTIONS Mk.lt. vTrtffTpBJfCV. 14s Aos ^Lk.lt. Synoptists are 6M = Mt. i6 Mk. CTTI M k.5 Mt. IMk. /cat SieorctXaro a^roi? TroXXa a/a om. 71 ov yap ecrrtv KpvTrrov lav /AT) ti/a &amp. Lk. 8 7 ecrrtJ/ yevr/o-eTat. Lk. on Ovyo. 8 114 - /cat TTCO-WV auroi/ elcrcXOw Trapa roi-s TroSas I^o-ov TrapeKaXei s TOV OIKOV at-Tov. aXXa eX#&amp. TOVS apTor?. /xa^rat Mt. om. g 9 Kat Kara)8aii oi/Tto)v at-Twi/ CK ToO opov9. 5 18 Kat e/A/3atVovTOs a^ToG ets TO TrXotov TrapcKaXet avToi/ 6 8at/xovttva :u Mt. I4 eSwKey Tols Kat cot Sow Tot? pa^Tais Trapa^eivat TW oxXw. .lt. 6 Se 5 Lk. s /a is Mk. 19 (Mk.$et Satjuovta etvat crw a^Toi. 9 2(.^) s TrAotoi/ TO. ovoV yap ov yap ecmj/ KeKaXvp./xeVov 6 OVK KpVTrrov o ov &amp./yyeiXei/ avrot? /A^Sevt etTreiv TO yeyovos. om. Mk.f&amp. .lt. I7 !l Kat CK TOV opovs everetXaTO avrots 6 Karaftaivovrtav aurwi/ t7rr/T Xeyo)j/ MTyScrt KTX. TO!? oxXoi?. 6 11 Kat eStSov Tots /xa^rats fJLaOfjTai&amp. /xot. ^o-tV.i/ avrai .gt.W CTTI ^C? rr/v Lk.gt. wSe rt TriVaKt TT/J/ K^aXrjV Iwawov T /SaTTTtCTTOl).i im TrapaTt^oJcrti/ ot Se a^Tot?.:i8 avros Se e/x^as d&amp. Acywv on H OvyaTrjp fjiov tTcXeuTT/o-ei/.avfpov a.lt. 8 5fi 7rap&amp. -j Mt. StecrTet XaTO auTot5 T /A-T/Sevt a ctSov Str/y^o-wvrai. 8 i (contrast 4 :i &quot. = . 8 :t7 .i. 9&quot. K 4:i Mk. f&amp. Mk. C&C~ITO 8e auroC 6 ou eeA7?A. .?S /not 7riVa/ci T^V Kc^aXr/v Iwan/ov Mt. Lk. retained by one or both of the other ai M Mt.( IO&quot.

t0i0lai_tt? JLO^Vw )**!? I jo. in proportion to the length of his Gospel is 3 times as frequent as that of Mt. on our theory. i. and in Lk.. s use of Iva. so frequently represents. while it is some 5 times as frequent as in Mt. and that in these the Syriac versions normally represent both constructions by ? de followed by the finite verb.? &amp. is literally is rendered by the aios Iva construction. the theory of Aramaic influence may be taken as accounting for the excessive use of Iva in Mk. 9 48 Mk. I 2 introduced by OVK elfu [cyto] ei/u aios (or Avcrw ov OVK tva avrov rov tyutavra rov Pal. influence in Jn. 2o 28 (contrast Mt. 2o 21 Mk. :i!) . must be regarded as much stronger still. Syr.. in other respects Since it is Mk. from Mk. i2 19 = Lk. i7 ). the case for such If.72 Lk. that the Aramaic ^ or sentative of Iva with a telic force.M Sin. io = Lk.!? Joa*. Mk. however.*. must have appeared to these latter Evangelists to some extent which offensive to normal style. a-Lax. the latchets of His sandals . In face of this evidence it can hardly be maintained that the deviations of Mt. exhibits Aramaic generally acknowledged that influence. jol? That one who am not worthy that I should loose the latchet of ). for example.gt.. for the conjunctive that Iva in of usage.-X )**&amp. resulting in elimination of the construction with Iva are merely accidental. His sandal (Pesh. and such an inference already noted. it is reasonable to suspect that this influence may account for the characteristic under discussion . and 2^ times as frequent as that of Lk. 2224 ). the construction which. 9 40 (contrast Mt. U JJ oo OCM Pesh.}} CONJUNCTIONS Mk.o. io = Mt. which is the natural repre much wider range which standing. Mk.. OMOO*.-*) ? J. for Iva is there proportionately nearly twice as frequent. Mk. 9&quot. has a ^ is supported by the fact.lt. iKavos) One such Jn. 2o :u = Lk.e. and Lk. Mt. i8 18 = lfi :!7 . It is some \\ times as frequent as instructive to notice that there are certain phrases in which the Greek of the Gospels varies between the construction of Iva with finite verb and the Infinitive construction..

latchets) of His sandals I . Q passage Mt 8 s = Lk. I IJCL*. ^Lo^ jLJu? Jo*. That one who am I should loose the latchet Acts 13&quot.gt. ^ VK flfM a^tos TO vTroftrj/Jia rcov TroStov X.gt. is here verbally identical . ^QUO*? Jkust^. I )^i ( t . 8 s = Lk.-? Jcul &amp. )o Sin.CONJUNCTIONS Mk.lm^&amp. Thus with out of iVa all these passages only Jn. I 73 TCOJ/ {i ov OVK flfju IKO. l&amp. 18 21 - i 27 . Sin./ oJLsoo? Sin. i^ OVKCTI et/xl aios KXsrjOijvai vlo&amp. jcuL JJ? oo not worthy that (Sin.gt. the Syriac versions naturally represent this by ? with the $L finite verb. ls^? JI u^o^ U H ^o/ o v*o Sin. where we have the IVa construc tion after OVK dpi IKOVOS. Lk. Syr. Syr.? ].? Pesh. ?a^w Jtol/ ^v=&amp.s? ^/ that ^^ am no In the longer worthy should be called thy son 7&quot. Syr.ii3a-v&amp.lt. ^^&amp. Pesh. ryiujo~a Trpos ere Lk. Do Ho . 7 have the ? construction. )J? 001 Pesh.. Syr. )i/ I Pesh. Pesh. .VOS Kvif/as Xvcrai TOV t/xavra Pal.! ls^ &amp. U^ with its rendering in Jn.vcrai.^^ I Therefore did not count myself worthy that should come to Thee .gt.? ^.gt.vcra.. Pal. oooimj? jfc^i-X )^^ ^a^^. JJ? cot not worthy that I should stoop should loose the latchet (Pesh. latchets) of His sandals I . Cur. U^ TOV ^0*^!? W Jd*.J/ J^CLA. Pal. 7 ouSe e/xcurroi eA$ea . ^woim^? J*JtI? ^/ ]Q^ U? od That one who I am not worthy that I should loose the latchets of His sandals The rendering of Pesh. Pal.s (TOV. oaim^&amp. i 27 and Mt.lt.1 i/zai/ra Tooy w)Lo&amp. 3 ov OVK flfju iKavos X. deest. That one who am Lk. ? laX? l^c^ |^ &quot. om.gt.gt. Pesh. ^^_Sw jjjki. and this agrees with the construction which is used in all passages by the Syriac versions.*AJo*. i-ot-V^ ]^*-i? J. oQ.gt.*. Jt^? o)d. Ucfcs..

..S Iva in 22 Jn.gt. and Sin.. followed by the normal construction of the Infini and this again is represented in Syriac by ? with the finite : a-vviOtvro avroi dpyvpiov Sovvai. l8 eva avOpoyTTQV airoBaveiv. It is la^a. . with the finite verb .^ i^o Jfc^ao of ^3 .U?oc. that he might be with Him as . .^^ TL&amp. 5 29 30 i8 . yOXi^-&amp.^. O-D 20 they agreed that they should give him money . j&amp.^!? yOl^. so oo? +jj J?Q..gt. The construction crvvriOf. reads vcooAmj? OOM gave both places (Pal. et? avOpuTros airoOdvr).gt. 41 . Mt..-? **? Pal. ov&amp. . and both constructions are represented in the Syriac versions by ? followed by the finite verb. Iva TrapanO^a-iv .+SLJ U**3.sU^? c^J Jl not good that a man should marry jlfco/ . icoo^ JLJ^ ia^ij oo c^ JJo Sin. in Trape/caXei Iva /ACT avrov ^ of Mk. .. cmaLi? ]6c . Pal. .lt. +j^ U.. Jn.v )o-?. was . cusx^a. . . yO$oooU M *J^? yoK* +&& ooo. 9 . Mk. 22 5 ^a^mo oC^ . joo jjss . Cur. tlvai o-vv avrw is rendered by . Syr.=^ Sin.gt.gt.lt. . Syr. ou &amp. Pesh.74 Again.. ^l^o yQj^ajf the Jews have planned together that they should ask of thee verb Lk.gt. 9 1G . in the Syriac versions by o*=&amp. Pesh. . & c&amp. In the other two occurrences a-vvTiOefjuut it is tive. Pal.TV/Ji&amp.. . that Pesh.I*s lo^. It is jut . 6 Mt. . But It is Sin. Jn. profitable) to us that orvfji&amp. Pal.). they might eSciro in Lk.r) Xptcrrov.. Syr.lt. ? reproduced Pal. Similarly...by the Infinitive. It is and Pesh. and Pesh. ~-a3 JJ not profitable to take a wife o-vp^epcL Lva is also found in Jn. fitting.f)fpi one man should die . 5 18 . . Syr. o-v/M^e/oei is CONJUNCTIONS followed both by the Iva construction and. 6 Se TraprjyycLXcv airois (JirjBevl tiTTfiv is rendered by Pal. 16&quot. Pal. Acts23 aa-**M )-? ot louSatot (rvvtOfVTO TOV eptor^crat o-e. Syr. profitable) that one man should die . in Lk. Pesh.^v &. r/8?? yap o-uvere^eivro 01 IS lovSatot Iva fdv avrov o/j.gt. 19 ya^rjcrai.-^^&amp. in the variants I8i8ov -n-apaOwai Lk. 6 . and Pesh. good U^^ ^? (~A9 Pesh. . . 8 :!8 in .f&amp. desunt in Lk.) (Sin. &amp.lt.pci Pesh.j ^ c^ ^ **? -ja3 good 14 (Sin. Syr. set . . by Sin.lt. . Syr. II t (rvjJi(f)pi vfuv Iva lojaa.oXoyrja&quot. . Syr. by Sin. ttTrocruvaycoyo? yev^rai. JOOM oIa^? begging .

I have not a man who . Iva. /x. however.. This OVK 7/v eKefj OS TO I **! . . without question. So a far. [x&amp. Such illustrations could be almost indefinitely multiplied. The .. Pal. passage has already been discussed (p.*[ employed the in a relative sense. in writing Greek. ellipse is required. is a mistranslation of ^ relative bear witness.W seems clearly to &quot.CONJUNCTIONS Cur.lt.. was not Pal. 6 :i(l Tt ovv Troiets a-v (r^/xetoi/. Iva..lt. for an Aramaic-speaking Jew.co9. which is . Now.apTvp^(ry Trepl rov C^GOTOS. are several passages a mistranslation of in which &amp. The accepted interpretation with a telic force but (he came) that he involves the assumption of an ellipse If Iva. Iva. who .7rov OVK ^oj Iva. the evidence of this passage . might no such the light. the passage meaning. 5 43 . representing by ^ and an Aramaic scholar would.. is. represent Translate Iva. yQj/ **jJJ? ^? oo He commanded .of Mk. (Pesh. KrA. but one who was to bear witness of the light He . &c. since the final sense of 1 would here be appropriate in Aramaic as in the Greek is not pressed. . tSw/xej/ .^ [**++ ? ^ k~^ **j^s.e ets TT)I/ KoX. give to the sense who or which that 8 dAA iva p. intended see ? may well be. . as a mistranslation of ^ the most that relative. obvious meaning of this in Aramaic shall put me into the pool . \QIXS\J yOi. may be due to the fact that the writers of these Gospels were accustomed to think in Aramaic. which There of actual mistranslation of an original Aramaic document. by Pesh. The is frequent use of the Iva construction in place of an Infinitive not in itself sufficient to prove translation from Aramaic. &amp.v)u tell JJ 75 ^QJ/ io) JJ vjJJ? 4-as ooo. and still more in Jn. quite literally. we have in Jn. . /3ttAr/ I^-.gt. ..vfJL/37/Opar. .gt. we have accomplished to establish good case for the hypothesis that the excessive use of Iva in Mk. . them into Aramaic in only possible way. What though. Syr. 32). The sense I? k*} |OCL*J? thou which we may sign then doest j^. native idiom. literally. warned) them that they should TroAAtt / no man as in KOL Sieo-retAaro curois ret. Jjumxxa. in our notes on the Prologue of Iva. would naturally tend to exaggerate the use of a Kou/r. Syr.. construction which resembled his own to notice a usage of can hardly be explained except by the hypothesis Iva. 5 quite avOpu&amp.

quite IO~TLV. jf*N\\. If the &quot. at once becomes clear when we * What recognize that OTL is simply a mistranslation of 1 relative This sayest thou of him who hath opened thine eyes ? iva is That here a mistranslation of &quot. is.S :*:*&amp.1 relative has been noted by Wellhausen.] So (vt. Kvpie.d-y-rj Pal. 9 the use of similarly a mistranslation of TTf. 6 Kat Pal. bread which came down from heaven. ^jf is Jc*u*^. who shall abide with you for ever qui*. that his gratitude to our Lord made him willing to believe on any one whom He named. passages Mt. AJ/ is ^ooU? the J^.oii/ ets TOV cuojya.V.V. without a o*s ^_-^x&amp. R. Q oo This means.V. 8 17 already noted. by A.v&amp.. Kara/3cuWv Iva TIS e OLVTOV &amp.? (fravfpuOrj is reproduced (f&amp.. oo y?o iojso.. vacant). and this is the rendering of Pesh. doubt. Do ou.^. Sin.. by o OVK dTro/caAv^&jo-erai. by o ov yev^frerat. Jl^J U? (Pal.gt. you mg ) another Comforter.gt. Here Mk.pl Ti av Aeyeis OTL is avrov. Syr. TL&amp. p..gt.VTOV .lt.o*literally.a6 seems clearly to represent an original ^nso fn^N except that which shall be revealed . this be found in the variation between Mk. The very awkward. in relative be thought to these passages is a mistranslation ol need further evidence to clinch it.*. much more natural and appropriate than is surely Iva the final sense given to . and the in that of R. ^o.f&amp. o&amp. fact that Iva. Syr.f&amp. on whom I should believe? (the Aramaic construction meaning on him of the who I should believe on him ). convincing. This naturally to be rendered. un passage. lav fir] and fi in Lk. Thus Iva &amp. 15. )o? quite literally.*I oo He shall give . The natural meaning va^sci. s lav Iva. . Einleitung*.. ///&amp.0a\fjiovs .gt.**J U-va.avcp&amp.e.* relative. Pal.lt.avpov in Mt. however. iva Trwrrevcro) eis O. suggesting. which shall not be revealed .^aJiL ^i: yjo*. &quot.. i. quite literally.lt. And who is is he.lt.76 CONJUNCTIONS 6 OVTOS IO-TLV o apros o IK TOV ovpavov Kal arj aTroOdvrj. OTL r]veu)fv crov TOVS &(f&amp. which a man shall eat thereof and shall not die ). Syr. fail that I may believe which can hardly to make us discount the quality man s faith. Syr. he shall not die (expressed in Aramaic.gt. 14* a\\ov 7rapaiK\r)Tov Sooo ei VJJLIV wet rj /xe0 ty/.lt. as it does..gt. 42 2 and the parallel Lk. This is. which.*} on In Jn. vaa^.. . Lord.gt.gt. if This a man eat thereof. io may 2(i .

p.^o. iv.gt. KOL TO. Conversely. c or which see.lt. here and in the passages previously noticed shows the influence of a Syriac version upon this translation. jJl. the words on ySAeVoDo-ti/ .VT&amp. .KOVOVTU. 6 rt d/&amp.. O. Grabe.gt.gt. . 1 Cf. Patruin edit. where on seems to be a mistranslation of relative &quot.OaX/Jiol wrong rendering of on /3\. was a Hebrew by birth and made quotations from Since Syriac and Hebrew.VTOV suggested in ^= on p. . Who rots 6 rt then * is this whom . the same influence upon the so-called Western text is seen in Jn. Mark. . where the avOpwrrovs on cos Sei Spa 6pu&amp.gt. which 77 is naturally to be deduced from the Aramaic. 29.*. rendered by Pal.) have been wrongly treated as the relative in i 4 13 (cf. Spicilegium . p. is given the Arabic Diatessaron by ^jJl . alt. where WH. SS.7rov(riv. ^ ^J ?. avr&amp.ouoi. oi TO9 (TTIV on /cat 6 ai/e/xos .as ^ol Ju{? ? naturally bear the sense. and.jjjl is a liar . Cureton s discussion % Cf.. because. p.:! . .-J . jJl (vt. /JLTJ o-v //. case in Mk. .OL ol 6&amp. Diatessaron JU. inasmuch as - seems to A (o&amp. . v/jLuv TO.gt. vg.) qui of mistranslation KT\. of % (vg. St. Pesh.^ IS O. pp. offered by the Diatessaron . 34). The latter sense and . in 8^ eyw Se on ryv aX^Oeiav ^ . the sea obey? B/VeVoj Another may very possibly be seen in 8 24 TrepiTrarowra?. (cf.lt. xxv.lt.f&amp. who CK and by two MSS. . which may mean is because given by the several MSS. and illustrates the natural sense which a reader of Aramaic would attach to the particle ? in the contexts in question. which would This meaning. Einleitung*. offers a superior antithesis to is he &amp.? they see. J^*. * antient recension of the Four Gospels in Syriac. /cat ^ OdXaaaa vTraKoveL . even the wind and . 4 4 \ Tis apa. 22) Hegesippus (according to Eusebius. and the best-attested reading of % (vt. 39).lt. Kal . 8 D on aTTtOavtv. I who speak the truth Xeyw is W. The rendering of i1 vt. of % by wra Hegesippus quotes the VJJLWV ol ySAeTrovres. Allen. . I3 lfi {yxcoi/ {JLaKa. &c. . rightly has oo-ns :&amp.CONJUNCTIONS sense.S) (u&amp.) quae audiunt qui vident passage in the form /m/ca^ioi ot o^OaX/Jioi .o-ir are rendered by Sin. . In our notes on is the i lfi Prologue a similar case ro9 TrA^poj/Aaros O. ^. vg.) is qui aperuit Similarly.pi. | HE. ii.gt. Syr. 15. conversely. adloc. .n (ovs).ei an/ d TOV Noted by Wellhausen. 213 a reference which the of the passage in Remains of a very present writer owes to Dr. we may infer that in this case his quotation is based upon a Syriac translation of Mt. Cur. &quot. difficult may 8e represent a Mt. of the preceding which verse. t In ra tora [/ACUV] on aKovovcrtv.

&quot. . s aforetime. ^ ^^? l632 ep^erai wpa iVa . I^ ^A.gt. . 4&quot. .* wpa iVa Tras 6 V/JLOLS Xarpeiav Pal.V. U/. Clearly the sense demanded is when (ore) he when has and the natural inference is that ^ = been wrongly interpreted as conjunctive instance of the that .V. 5% l6&quot. Syr.gt.lt. We it have noticed. and R. Jn. l/o^erai &pa eV 77 appears following cases occur in Jn. .bpa on In 9 8 similarly a mistranslation of ^ = when ^v . v. .lt. when speaking of the usage of ^ that it can bear the meaning is when . ot ^ecapoSvres avrov TO Trporepoi/ on 7rpoo-atT7/s we have a very awkward on. with ellipse of 28 . OJ. 1 eopa Iva. Jc*iX^. proved by the use of the normal phrase 3 28 and Ip^erat lv rj in 5 . . . sense is to be traced in the usage such as is is postulated by Westcott. is the best that can be .S * Freely quoted in the letter from the church at Lyons (Eusebius.$ev auTOV 17 iVa /JLeraf^TJ IK TOV KotTfjiov TOVTOV.gt. of standing for ore f] I223 fXrjXvOtv Pal.1 These relative f It is just possible that OTI may here be a mistranslation of but the sense things said Isaiah who saw His glory and spake concerning Him . Another . that he was a beggar halting rendering. &amp.o~o? ^rxao )oo ycu9^ ^^-o? 00. So^avOfj 6 wos row avdpuirov.? 16&quot.-? jfcox*.^? ^ wpa u.*=&amp. HE. . ^o Uu? oV^*^ a7ro/cTiVa&amp.. because he saw his glory where the sense demanded is when (ore) he saw His glory t ). Pal. 8o^?y rai Ip^erai ew.? U/. cr/cop7rtcr^T. 3 . . JoC^JJ 5yr. . ^^ such a usage which in it = a/a in which &amp. &amp. ore. clear same mistranslation is seen in i2 41 ravra cl-rev Ho-atas on elSev rrjv S6av avrov (R. when seems to be preferable. Syr. l) with 5oet for iVa the correction tv So^ f^evaerni Kaipos Iv $ iras o dnonrdvas . Pal. Syr.0^0 ^&amp. Strictly speaking in in it relatival which . 5 Jjix*. .78 IVa CONJUNCTIONS as a mistranslation of &amp. v oi^U? . .? cf. .gt. vfjids 86f(i \arpfiav irpoffcpfpeiv TO) Qfaj.gt. was a beggar . U&amp.lt.! |= when . as J?o |J^. : where Syr.lt. ^.&amp. The in Pal.^-. ep^crai aipa ore in &quot. they that saw him made of the sentence. U~ U/- That and in all these cases Iva that no mystic 1 final simply stands by mistranslation for ore.

a large number in which the Pronoun appears Thus e yw in i 30 316 3*. or His acts (15 i6 15 if. - - - - - - 2ti - . . there - remain.gt. .-. eyto /cdyto Mk. i2 :t:! : &amp.IG^ r j^wb.-&quot. The occurrences in this : Gospel and the Synoptists are as follows Mt.lt. 1 14&quot. His 4(i .26 2 ^! \ . &c. i8Himself into antithesis with others the disciples.80 tyxets 60 68 307 Totals H :!1 To fact that a large extent this phenomenon finds its explanation in the the Fourth Gospel is designed to prove our Lord s ). 17 Lk.ssj. to be used with no special emphasis. .IO. however. 29 9 5 18 31 92~ 23 4 5 ^34 27 18 ^eis a-v 3 10 II 27 21 &quot.. jgu-is-a:^ j^a. Jn. . . .). Our Lord - lays stress - claims -tyi (4 14 6 5 10 41 4 48 51 54 . (1 or j^ e :i(1 (j fi e fi nes 23 His relation to is io i6i7 ). . (4 -. i 71UU4 ls 5 oM i8 7 ). &quot. John in emphasizes the character :i of his eyw contrast to that of Christ (i* --*.iso.38 45 35 io 1(US i2 47 Jews. frequently antithetical to eyo When all such cases have been taken into consideration. f .618 ).-^ J^S/I. &quot. - 2fi :!0:i(i - - - - .- upon ii5 .. the world. 5 f*&amp. 6 7 8 u. 8 . . the bringing 34 45 s 15 216 22 23 ^. 8 12 42.CHAPTER IV PRONOUNS THE persons great frequency of the Pronouns of the first and second is a marked feature in Jn. Messiahship and His Divinity (2O the Baptist - Thus * - at the opening mission St.i j. 3^). .. . q 3 *.^&quot. God the Father (5 17 . Emphatic fyti? and implied or expressed antithesis often accounts for the use of r/^eis and a-v. -&quot.

70 u &amp.gt. . . by the Pronoun. Q14.42 JI . the in translating the Hebrew of the O. So also i6 j8 24 The only cases without 17 . i 3 Kgs. Participle is used with great freedom to describe an event as in process of continuance. 5 31 . and. &quot. . ^ 21 . . Gen.10. eyw. 18 43 D^ltt rl3K . 19 .gt. This Semitic usage of the Participle being foreign to Greek.35 &amp. it is of course necessary to mark it. As a matter of fact.37 42 - . IO 29 28 . - 22 5 Sam.T. &quot. 3 Now while in i 4 5 Semitic the use of the Personal Pronouns with i . 4 i i4 IS 34 - -&quot.. . i 7 10 . T Z ~7. 3 . 32 42 48 49 29 .yo-a&amp.126. a Perfect.5 4. fyms in i 4* ^^^^ 9 24 29 - . --^ io 24 . a Future. l6 8 D^. 9 eVayo) eycb 14 HHD T Si Soo/u. &quot. w -2i-37.g. in Genesis Kings there are 40 cases of ra nriN thou with the Participle expressed by o-v (e. .3bN nan 12 .. i^ 1S . &c. ^P^? . - cnJ 26 . in Cases of OJN. 6 42 69 2t. 22 2 Kgs.54 . . Genesis we are : Kings with the Participle expressed by n:N QGen. so doing.30 9 ii 49 13 . . |flb ^bN ^ K pivu I5 3O &quot.Vlppp eroV. 14 s rjfJieiS. with the Ex.g. s 3 .-21a. T T 27. however.28. the subject being unexpressed in the verbal form. i9 13 mn nipsn-nx . of Similarly.49. i6 4 7W in 3 .gt. and that.gt. before or after the verbal form. might well have dispensed with the Personal Pronoun. i$ nns~)^s n??&quot. 77/^15 da-ayoptOa.ObK AevT&amp. 7 . .1f)a. In such cases. . I . . TOTTOI/.gt. almost invariably. y 4 &quot.gt. ^/xets in aTroXXvfJLfv rincis TOJ/ TOTTOI/ TOVTOV. Num. 8 31 46 .27.106. ^ek 5 . I 82&quot. 6 7 9to ) i826 No I2 8 Judg.50. 13 43 - 3 :o . ZO-TTJKO.gt. the of the Participle.. . - ] T ~17. PRONOUNS _17 7 - c &amp.8o /CG3. I with the Participle expressed by eyw 12 Genesis are as follows.gt. 5 ets roi/ . Ata TO apyvpiov Egaipofjifv ^/xeig i . &quot. . 25 are 28 . we also find them employed without special emphasis in order to mark the subject In Hebrew. . as against 14 without av : cases of E^ ye Dr. i9 7 . 2n 3 lfib greater or less emphasis is extremely common. when it is pronominal. So Deut. . . 14 20 26 - i5 . T I4 .^? and 35 n^T Trao-av rrjv yfjv fy av bpas).^K ^ 1 lyt&amp.ON.gt.18. 9 . in the position which it occupies in the original. 24 27 37&quot.gt. in whether in the past or present.w. 8 ls .lt. l8 5. :&amp. I9 18 cases with omission .-:fi 3 - &amp.^ n^N Participle expressed by D^WJjTriK rov yoyyva^ov tyxets (e. &quot. f&amp.28 &amp. TO 50 I2 ) in i ir&amp.29. 32 s . and still more in Aramaic. naturally represents LXX it by a Present. eycu uo Cases of i:mx. the translation nearly always retains the Pronoun. or as process of coming into being (Futurum instans).

Ot e^o/xoXoyoOytxat /cat aivoi.&quot.gt. TOVTO rjXOov iv vBarc cyo&amp.iV&quot. io as against 6 cases without vfjbtZs.1XX Iva (fravtpuOy ro&amp. In other eyw CITTOJ/. &amp.! I 30 owos VTrep cases we may 810. Aai/i^X. Dan.lt.n^Xj ^^^ ^^l Kat cyd) rjKov&a TTfpi crov. exception to the expression of the Pronoun is found in ~ n!3tv ?3!i ^&quot.lt.) J&quot. As compared with Hebrew. and one case with avroi (Ex. 4 la ?Q| l 1 1 ^ ?^] cru Se.gt. pnf n- QV x/&amp. 3 16 Njn^N.P a Perfect where no special stress i 1(i apparent cf. may often represent close usage translation of an Aramaic original in which the Pronoun was Now expressed with the Participle. e.]. r OVK oiSare exactly represents eo-rij/ 6O py&quot. 5 &quot. -&amp.gt. . (e.os ^ y&amp.linw ^nm^ HT^ ^iS _ O A rf. Dan. 2 WK VT -mi ETT mn njN-Kn f dAT^ei as ol8a e &quot.- n35&amp. ^H^g find the Aramaic Pronoun coupled without special or) emphasis with a Perfect or Imperfect.! \ O&quot. it is at any rate a plausible hypothesis that the unemphatic of the Personal Pronoun in Jn. The only T^on l^clll.PRONOUNS e) 81 n ).g. {yxets Thus e. N ye s : Dan. 6p eyo Dan. 4 1G X3?p n3m : pynin nn^N thou &quot. n:N I 8 : Dan. Ezr. freely in is the Personal Pronoun is used more Aramaic with .g.Ijy xatpov /xets e^ayopa^cre. G .g. 2 m\ z^ P^: ^ 1 ^&quot. Swacrcu.. In Theodotion s version of the Aramaic portion of Daniel and the of the Aramaic sections of Ezra we find the following LXX cases of the Personal Pronoun with the Participle expressed in Greek.. H3N nDNT WH fHn.lt.gt. i 3 &quot. 4 fl H3X oi/ eyw cyi/on/.1 ^ I/COS TCOV TTCtTCOWV LiO V * ^ *: .

18. i 5 Yios eT o-u. Jn. Jn. e /ceij/os is 4. Jn. . except in Acts i3 33 Heb. 8 48 3a/AapeiT??s This is .gt. Mt.lt. Much more often. OUKOW flewpco fiao-iXtvs el o-v. Mt. In the Aramaic of Dan. Lk. in Gen. Mk. Lk.gt. whether in a question. 16.lt. Particularly noteworthy is the throwing of o-v to the end of the i8 37 sentence. 51. 18. never found elsewhere throughout the N. place the Pronoun after the predicate or before it (as e.r)Tr)&amp.gt.lt.) looks much like a close repro . used adjectivally Mt.lt. or in a statement.f&amp. e/ce&amp. 36 . 35. Jn. Jn.s crt . duction of an Aramaic original. 14. in I 9?/ms naturally reproduces the suffix of f^3 16 ^ s Trails e Aa/V^&amp. The : figures for curro s as subject in the four Gospels are as follows 12. prefers to use an emphatic that one and he employs one . demonstrative OVTOS this however. o-v d in i 42 49 3 7 &c. 4. in such a statement or query. 17. . on et 7rpo&amp. the all of us*. 51. Hebrew and Aramaic can. as in 4 19 et cru. OUTOS. these Pronouns substantival ly with far greater freedom than do the The figures for oSros (a^) as subject are Synoptists. For CKCII/OS (-77.nJ.TO S is fairly frequent in Jn.g. in which case the Greek represents it by the substantive . Lk. the 3rd Personal Pronoun tttn hu as subject is rendered avro s by Theodotion. auros. 27 24 33 nj nPiN) and Jn. whether as subject or obliquely. Mk. 2 7 with accurate reproduction of the IJLOV Hebrew order nriK ^3. Jn.82 P?pa JfcSB fWK JVriK ntt PRONOUNS p. T. 3. itf HoOfv el o-v . Again. - . 29. s use of both 52 orders (cf. . Mk. a quotation of Ps.Vos . 44. Lk. except where it forms the subject of a predicative statement in which the copula is under stood. Mk. 51. s extraordinary fondness for demonstratives in preference to the Personal Pronoun finds adequate explanation in theHieory that his Gospel is a close reproduction of an Aramaic original. as in i 21f) O -nyxx^TT/s ei &amp. To express the 3rd person (-ry) CO&amp. the figures are Mt. -o) used substantially.

a few cases of adj. p. ^ .lt. 64) Pronoun Nin .. Dan. 6 11 Tpn fcn he (was) kneeling = ty is richly supplied with demonstrative Pronouns. Y/. plur.). use is represented by the definite article only). e.eu/os Nom. 7&quot. with their Greek renderings. 2 :il r/ CIKWI/ e/ceu/?/ . K&quot. &quot. There can be no question that where e /ceii/os is used adjectivally it would naturally be represented by Ninn. T 6 Ipyoi/ e/ceivo. though Pronoun in Dan. 3rd personal pronoun hu + demonstrative particle contracted in Syriac into oo hau (Pal. 5 . fem. ^N 6 ///^ Dan 3 (also found To this corresponds in Ezr. NVin one /M/ (Pal.. P. : tft dekh. fem. and . jo hade . 9&quot.). PI? haden. represents it when by oo (olo) in 3 : :i&amp. also ojo). Talmud as Nnyiy Kns (Cur. fem. Syr. it hallen.jn strengthened by demon = Syriac jJot hana /?#&amp. i6 or at . 5 6 find in Talmudic Aramaic &wnn hahti that or T ^) O 1KOV TO {} ^ O 9 exeii/ov. it is probable that f/cctW? represents the Personal but there are other cases in which it looks much like a reproduc especially tion of Ninn. fem.?Kn ha^illen is Syriac ^. faithful (was) KOL/JLTTTUV. to that Spirit of truth the Spirit. )fco^. \?n./Vow*. c. This remarkably sion which amounts (Pal. Ezr.e. this . following. and Ezr. 7 - 20 21 - t?1 12 1G - wnp TO /ce pas e/ce^o (LXX. fem. Nn). G 2 . passim.. that ha). na-n Aramaic The de nd this . J]^*. Syr. n:n both as pronominal (in subs. ^apftayap ( u IKCIVOS./# e (contracted from had na].gt.CLC? TT}S dX^da a? in Jn. /j&amp.J. c. ]^09 o{oi. ^a*jo hhnnun. pendens (cf..). 5 .5/jf 7 8 17 OIKOV ^eov.lt.^o regularly rendered OUTOS in Dan.. = (i. &amp.) express the definite article. $ . Syr. Pal. flffl P. When used substantivally as subject reinforcing a . he = TTIO-TOS fy. Plur. times uses o|o to o|o = o avOpuiros. fem. Thus 453 iKttvy rfj &pa would appear in the Jerus. Syriac (also is notice the use of the Personal not found in the Aramaic of Dan. Pesh. dikken |?1 Kobx this. and Ezr. and Ezr. Syr.. hannen. (LXX c. g. 6 Kin pp-no 5 &amp. and adj.lt. 6 -. 2 32 NB^S? we may wn //!/ is image (explained as like e/&amp. 4 i:i - 15 - lfi - 19 -2i . may be noticed. 12 21 23 - . 8 4 lcb ^H 12??^. ^ . g. . This usage plur.^o ^). This version }&amp. but Pal. contracted] in Syriac into ^ ^njn hanho. ^ TroAis avn. an ^ plur. ^ Nrsnp ^ Tro Ats eVeiny.gt. riT3j.AJ+=&amp.lt. Dan. in Ezr. . :n ^^K we In addition. )^. K^ strative prefix n ha-.PRONOUNS verb : 83 e. c. Syr. m. an expres &c. that . dakh H^3.lt.gt. fern. also ~io). Dan. pendens TO ni/cO/ua l it the image i:f ). Targums P} d.W* .

= hu and = hdden. in the f^ 28 - 6 . is one in which Ninn would naturally be employed. . I saw man to whom I gave the book I has to be expressed in Semitic in the form. ovofjia cdrro) lajaw^s. The Relative completed by a Pronoun. oo o*X) 5 CKUVOV Xrjpif/ecrOe = Oo^ (SO Cur. that one (is) he in i3 . We thus reach the following conclusions as to the pronouns : which we have been considering Substantival use avros e/ceti/o5 = hu. that as we have is remarked 70). There are several instances in Jn.2 \ itf 7 9 may note especially the rendering of oblique cases by Pesh. the 26 lit. a demonstrative one in variable. Here the relative . om. in which the Greek copies this Semitic construction. properly forms a link connecting two co-ordinate sentences. = dikken. Oo?). OHl.ol JJo Oo oc^ (Cur. . U 8 A7 Pesh. OJO^X y/ (Sin. by o in 3 io lb5. P RONOU 44 N. Again. . i EyeVero avOpwiros . Ooj k~j( (Sin. oof). Adjectival use = den. d na. I Thus e. i^. The Aramaic already relative (p. i4 .S 1 . . such a statement as.J*i^X yCiN-.) (Cur. For expression of the implied relation it is therefore necessary to complete the sense of the Relative particle by a Pronoun or Pronominal suffix in the clause which the it introduces. and. dekh.). saw the man who gave the book to him . or hahti.84 :i . We following passages i0 : 3 43 Kflvov Set avdviv = jo. like the Hebrew relative Tf^. In cases such as these the idiomatic force of the strative satisfactorily accounts for the Aramaic demon phrase 21 e/ce?vds mi/. e hdhu. or haden.g.^ originally. particle ^ &quot. . rendered oot o Greek usage.

in their 41 days of those kings (2 ). ov av 18775 TO Uj/cCyu-a KaTa/3cuvov KOL p^ivov en- OLVTOV = Pal.&amp. I3 E/&amp..lt.lt. upon the assump whose hand is the fan (not * He also cites Mt. ate their pieces of the Jews dered them. his appearance of the fourth 3&quot. He who . That I is he de shall dip the sop and give to . ou eyu&amp. I TWV v/roSrjjjLaTwv avTov. On the thoroughly Semitic character of this particular idiom cf. &c. p. is a mis cf. 8 12 . . (i. 76. ). oa^j^ JifcoLaoo jfc^j Uo U^ U? v?o lit. and 7&quot. p. ). / reproduce the Aramaic x^pt cturoi). Iv TTJ tion that ov is reinforced b3 tv rf/ x ft pi In Whose fan. p. KU/OIC. 2 I OVK dpi aios a/a Avo-oo O. him*. ) . avTov 6vyaTpo&amp. et^ev TO OvyaTpiov auT^s aKaOapTOv.ea/os eVnv 2. 3 I&quot.). Peculiarly I Aramaic n^ N^nb nas it y^jrn sin tfinn i. to whom shall give the sop when I have dipped 8e 8w/cus jioi it l8 9 OS? OVK ttTra Aeo-a e^ avrcov Wellhausen (Einleilmig struction from Mk. Syr.). ).. Pal. so striking that it should surely count for much in In 9 18 we read estimating the theory of translation from Aramaic. slan (3&quot. i writes 7 8 - their light of mankind 4 (v. viz. There appears but this is be but one instance of this in the Greek of Jn. (v. &c. Thus the Aramaic of Dan. 6 22 LO-\Oovo-r]&amp. light in Jn. . Mk. writes His name of God (2 20 ). but this very doubtful. . 3 12 ov TO mvov tivrov. 30.Tj o&amp. So 3 . 19 ). TT)S which is clearly an attempt = Lk is 3&quot.e. eydo /3di{/w TO i^w/xibv Kai 8(oo-(o avrw.lt. This appears naturally to in Pal.VTOV TOV di/a/SAc i/ aj/Tos. his witness of John (v. It is peculiarly idiomatic in Aramaic to anticipate a genitive by use of a possessive pronominal suffix attached to the antecedent. ic 11 . 2 . a/a TrujTevo-o) eis auroV .lt. Here a/a translation of the relative ^ 26 . i8 20 Lk..PRONOUNS connexion is 85 implied and not directly expressed. received sight . E&amp. thou seest the Spirit descending and abiding upon him 36 9 Kai TIS ecrrii/.VTOV TOV IfJidvTa TOV uTroSr/pxTOS. 15) cites two instances of this con ov OVK ?/$ elfju t/cavos Kvif/as \vo~ai TOV t/xdVra TrvevfJio. as O P&~9 TT}S \?o? Cf. Syr.gt. besides three cases from the text of D in Mt.e. in His bosom of the Father to 18 (v. his parents of him that had TOVS yoi/eis O. HpcoSiaSos.* Pronominal constructions peculiar to Aramaic.gt. Syr.. &c. its news of the (vv.gt.

? . 4 11 ). Vergleich. 5 . direct object of a verb Pal.lt. A few cases of the construction are ir6tJ&amp. Brockelmann. they led Him the Lord Jesus igi* &amp. renders by a pronominal suffix. in such phrases as We nnm^n .86 construction PRONOUNS &amp. Mark. (noted by Allen. same night (Dan.* An example of this idiom is seen in the Greek of Jn.e. ol * No Aramaic.-*^ o.}.gt. .x^:^ ol^.lt. +&amp. however. ii.e. J. he pierced it His side . der semit. was found in the in him in Daniel 1 (Dan. Syr. Gramm./^ r daughter of Herodias i. i9 13 ojoaaoL-. KnKTnniN TH^y Artaxerxes (Ezr..gt. Another ^peculiarly Aramaic idiom is the anticipation of the .)^. 9 13 ~W the o*2&amp. the D^Tnrn nrna daughter of H. Thus in Jn.gt. 227.s rov TTOTC TvtfrXov = Pal.gt.lt.^ TOV&amp. Sprachen. they sent to him to found in Hebrew: cf.S 3&amp. ad loc. Syr.apivaiov&amp. s 12 ). ^aWD it m cases of the direct object of a verb so anticipated are found in Biblical find the anticipatory pronoun.) Lord Jesus / I 9 1G ^o^. U-vaX ok~ he brought Him (viz.y HD in in the night i. wtyl !&amp.gt.lt. St.

Synoptists.40.50 . &amp.12.S6 -3S.2l.-4.20 S :!4 T o fi. 2I . A^ or .5.34.2. ^.9 4 .9.27.* The figures for the Hawkins (HS. -r .6.i\\ei. I 6YSa&amp.26.9.3. II .gt. .8 5 .19. 21 2 9. 21 13 I .27. Q 5 . 15. T T 7. kindly lent his MS. .26.41.aiVL.29 . I 6 3 . . .7.l7.21.24. iS 28 .15 W.S.8..22 . He has.17. i 6 figure as 162 (besides two cases preserved in however. jSXeTTOVO-w.5 176is.~ pp. n 6.0-lV. )8Xrei.gt. - 12** 14 .gt. THE is extremely frequent in Jn.9.gt. .11. 3 I2 22 l629 2O 13.5.7. eyetperai.28.l6er. -6.5.31.l5 er. 1 8s 2O 12fil8 . I3 . I3 \ ^. . The occur rences are as follows 13 ayovo-iv.e7.386ts T . 21 . Xe 7 oi.14.gt. 10 14 19 2I 3. 2I 9 .gt.8.16&ls.13. O39 &amp.4.f&amp.CHAPTER V THE VERB The Historic Present Historic Present : = Aramaic use of the Participle. 41 43 45 5 2I - 20 6 12 14 . 7 . 2f&amp.4 3. . 3 .8. I&quot.gt.i2.25.43. l8 29 .20 &amp.44 IJ . list to the present who has added (paivd (which may be open to dispute) and SiScuaiv ai 13 . 9 _12 &amp.22.36.7.46.16.10. 26 Owpovoriv.lt.5. 13 . . &amp. 143 ff.9.24.11.o-/.51 O O . 10 .22 T Q4. I .M.lt.49.lt.47. I3 29 .? . as given by Sir John f * Sir John Hawkins gives the in Tischendorf writer.5. 20 15 2I 20 .37 XO &amp. This list gives a total of 164 occurrences. I - .45.) are.27-28 .23. 13 4&quot.2. 24 I3 20-..48. II . T Aeyct.22. 6 19 ..10.19.19.50 .6. (3&amp. 2fi .l7M.25.io.S9lt.26.15. TO 4. n 29 ).

. - - - - - ^- by - &quot. It is t i 43 f. but fOy and (Perfect). were as long as Jn. PVf? (were) hearing . 5 The use resembles a of the Historic Present in Mk. In other cases he employs an Aorist. 6 17 21 . $ . Theodotion. 151 It thus appears that Jn. .. 9 16 24 3 .gt. Acts 13.. 3 7 . There are comparatively few cases of the 10 and 14 17.lDSl. though we constantly find iljy (participle) coupled with .^ 5 7. Theodotion sometimes renders it by an Historic Present or (more frequently) by an Imperfect . only 4 [or 6). and when this is the case his rendering is added. 66 7 - - 13 14 16 - f . in addition there are Lk. 3 tv 3 (were) . in Mk. PI??] (was) crying (c(36a). forth ftC 1 26 . falling down . p-wpN in 2 27 .o. 3 .* Historic Present in Jn. (was) answering (always 5 8 15 20 26 27 47 w--*-a.2pp.88 THEVERB : Mt.t (were) answering 3 ipN (was) saying f. //5. r*? N i? (were) standing (^KOVOV).&amp. 513. 5 . closely resembles Mk.HON&quot.lt. a5 8 - - .y followed &amp. ^-^^ - f - 44. \iyov(Tiv in 2 10 .? . Ae yet 3 6 13 14 - 16 eAeyov in 7 . 2 - n ?.i66. &quot. omitted 24 . in Theodotion 15 20 26 27 47 - s rendering).i:u^ . .. In the plural the regular usage p&quot.n. If Mk. 3 7 pi?B 3 f (were) coming 27 . 78 (21 of which are derived from Mk. the former would show The higher proportionate figure proportionately 195 occurrences. strongly common Aramaic idiom in which in a description of past events the Participle is employed to represent the action described as in process of taking place.2N1 and (was) (this f?3iJ 13 g-w. . and Jn. 7ao . - 2 . remarkable that. in fondness for this usage. with the participle they answered and (were) saying This fact suggests the possibility that the singular form should be vocalized.)ON1 is the coupling of the . p$3?ri *Qi? (were) gathering together 4 . The following instances of this participial usage are found in the Aramaic chapters of the Book of Daniel.2^ (were) saying .17. 15 Presents in Parables). pfcno * (were) gathering together (oWyovrat) 3 (were) Cf. 2 7 verb is frequently . Mk. . not rOJJ ane (Participle). and (were) worshipping (Trwrroi/Tes . . is explained by the higher proportion of narrative to dis course in this Gospel. 3 4 saying ).) (participle) in the singular he (was) answering and (was) saying we do not (with the single exception 3 24 ) find the participle plural p^JJ coupled with the participle plural perfect fay p&quot. 3 . . . TT/OOO-CKWOW).

f . substituting the literal renderings given above for those of R. (were) being changed P^ri^rp (were) being perplexed 5 .gt. nriE&amp. . 7 egofjioXoyoviJiwos). 5&quot. the proportion borne by Ae yet. Xeyovo-iv to * of its See.gt. nJKP The action fact that in the 199^ Aramaic (was) prevailing zw. 23 are found with 36 with the verb say leaving . (lo-Biov o-weTTttret).V.. 5 . |^p (were) coming up . 72 are cases of Ae yti.9ewpei).. 7 . 5 . . coming (was) forth (etAfccv). f$p3 e (were) knocking .gt.. f?3B&amp.. rim (was) . . 21 . 5 . 5.. 7 . of Dan. 5&quot.gt. they can hardly fail to come to the same conclusion. . 89 U) . 6 .. P??] ^?.lt. 5 7 . (OVK ^vvavro). 7 10 .n3JTO 5 . loosed *T!i? 8 (8ic\. .^ 5 . 4&quot.lt. (o-werapao-o-oj/ro). ii. pbnjTK^ 5. N^k&amp. . . (cOewpow).. for instances . (were) not being able . It will be noticed that. 3 27 . 63 ff. pp. Ae yowiv. (was) crying pfe&quot. Kal Trpocreu^o/xevos 11 2 /cat fn^O (were) bursting forth (Trpoo-e^aXXoi/).* In the 151 instances practically of the Historic Present in Mk.THE VERB seeing crying (KCU. . less than half the total) to verbs bearing other In Syriac the use of the Participle under discussion is confined to the verb wo/ say*. use with other verbs in Sin. and remembering that the time-deter mination (was or t s) is absent from the original and can only be inferred from the context. 5&quot.ov). 5 2ypa&amp. K reT^ (were) entering s (efVeTropeiWro). Burkitt. !&amp. p^y. (was) trampling (was) issuing (eAaAet). 40 (or considerably meanings. however. (was) being terrified able NliDI 15 . out of the the verb answer . Evangelion da-Mepharreshe. pnt? (were) drinking (eTnVere).:i . npsi . yoVara avrov. ni?^ nbx ( was ) eating and (was) breaking in pieces Kal XCTTTVVOV 7-19 . 7 .D (was) speaking N*ny making 21 (eVot et).J and (was) 7&quot. (were) not being ^mDiB by Tpzi wn he (was) kneeling on his knees and (was) praying and K?2ftp} (was) giving thanks (?/v KOL/JLTTTW eVt TO. read a passage who are unacquainted with Aramaic will of the book in English. pl^tt (were) being (orwe/c/oorowro). . shows how highly characteristic of the language the idiom itself to is That the usage naturally lends If those representation in the Historic Present or Imperfect obvious to Greek by an Aramaic scholar. (avtfiaivcv). In the 164 instances in Jn. and no less than 99 examples. we thus find no less than 99 instances of this participial usage describing a past is.vovTo). (was) drinking 5 descending 4 N~li? (was and (were) writing |2Ti. . . nin (was) seeing 6 (e&amp.

90
the whole
fourths.

THEVERB
number
is

considerably higher,

viz. 120,

or nearly three-

to

That the frequent use of the Historic Present in Mk. is due Aramaic influence is maintained by Allen (Expositor, 1900,
ff.
;

xiii, p. 329 ; Oxford Studies in the and by Wellhausen (Einleitung in die drei Synoptic Problem, p. 295) ersten Evangelietf, p. 17). It can hardly be doubted that in Jn.

pp. 436

Expository Times,

also the

same theory phenomenon.

offers

an adequate explanation of the same

The Imperfect

=

Aramaic use of the

Participle coupled with

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

6 18
22

.

3

.

v,

I2 6
22
.

.

j

I3 2 2D

.

41 lyoyyv&v, 6

.

3

I9
16

.

5
eSo/cow,

.

I3

29>

2 1.
v,

4
.

27
,

15

7
18

.

ivovro,

l8

.

e^ecopow,

62

I3

29
;

cKa6eeTO,
Ka6tf]rot

4
.

6
,

1 1

20
.

63
29

KITO, I9

,

2O 12

.

THE VERB
4%
2
13

91

,

7
,

,

io
1

fi

.

21 22
5"

-

10
,

,

6

r

"

65 71
-

,

7ll.l2fo*8.25.3I.40,4lbM

,0

019.22.25

33 42 10 8 23 27 31 9, I2 29 33 6 1442 5 ZXeyor, 4 -.20.21.24.41 ~S.9 .lO.Ms Hjbis 9 T T To T^ 18 IO 12 TO ,1 T ,9
-

,

;

,

,

,

:ifi.47.5fi

-

;

,

;

;

I9

321
,

20 25
.

.

18

5

,

6 r2
G
.

.

I2
,

1
.

I2

r (^.),
(z/. /.

4

47
,

6

fi

-

71
,

ii
40
.

51
,

i2

3:i

,

i8

:i2

e//,eivev) ;

IO

eVotet,

2 2i 5 1R 6 2
, ,

.

eVopevero,

4.
.

erdA/>ta ;

2 1 12

,

2O 4
:i8
,

.

I

23

9
36
,

t,

ii
II

19

i5
2:i

;

2O 2
I9
2fi

.

5
,

,

I3

,

,

2I 7

:o
;

^yaTrSre,

8 42 I4
;

2

33

(e8.),

Q

,

II 37

;

rySwai/ro,
1

I2 39

.

I

18
;

^eXev, 7
,
.

;

^6>eXoj/,

6 11

21
,

44

7

,

l6 19

.

2 15 ^a, 6 l8

,

II 29

;

f,p

X ovTO, 4
31 40

,

6 17 19
,

,

2O 3

.

15
,

4
la^yoVj 2I
r>

9

,

I2 21

.

.

f
",

7

,

IO"

,

II

4
;

TrepitTraTOW,

6

fir>

.

vTrrjyov,

6 21 I2 11
,

.

,

I2 42

.

92

THEVERB
The
total is 167. in
;

In Mt. the Imperfect occurs 94 times in Mk. Lk. 259 times; in Acts 329 times.* If Jn. were as if long as Mt., there would be proportionately 212 occurrences if as short as Mk., 133. as long as Lk., 225 Thus Jn. s use of the tense, though more than twice as frequent as that of Mt., is

228 times;

;

;

considerably less than Lk. s, and very much less than Mk. s. The large amount of discourse in Jn. affords little opportunity for the

8 cases

use of the Imperfect. The last discourses, chs. 14-17, offer only while the bulk of the examples occur in chs. 4-12, where ;

there are 118 cases.

Among

Jn. s

Imperfects, the great frequency of eXeyev, eXeyov

and forms a bond of connexion with Mk. s usage. has 46 occurrences, and Mk. 50; while in Mt. there are Jn. only 10, in Lk. 23, and in Acts 11. t It may be remarked that
attracts notice,
eXeyev, eXeyov

are very rare in

LXX,

Sir

John Hawkins enumerating

but 40 cases.

frequent Aramaic usage, closely akin to the single use of the Participle above noticed, is the coupling of a Participle with
the Substantive verb in description of past events. Thus, in place he did some action, Aramaic frequently says of saying he

A

was doing

The

it, thus pictorially representing the action as in process. instances of this usage in the Aramaic of Dan. are commonly

and Theodotion by a Greek Imperfect] the rendering exactly copies the Aramaic though occasionally by employing the Participle and Substantive verb. The following are the instances of the usage in description of past events
rendered both by
:

LXX

Aramaic.
2
31

Literal rendering.

LXX.
.

Theodotion.
e flewpets.

rWH
id.
^.IP.

rttPI

Thou wast seeing
id.
I

eaj/xx/<as.

2 34

id.
.

id.

4 4
5

7

TIC

1

was seeing
id.

KaOev8ov.

eOewpow.
id.
rjo-av
/cat

10

id.

tOfwpow.
vacat.

19

PV^l

ftp

P?rni
* Cf.

They were trembling and fearing
.

rpe/xovres

fapovpevoi.

p. 51, where the figure 163 for Jn. requires correction, as also the printer s error 12 for the occurrences of tyrj, which should be 2.

HS*

f

Cf.

ffS*

p. 12.

mn . 6 11 nin 2 he was doing . was differing . 7 7 7 id. . and especially in Syriac. 13 id. mn I was considering was seeing . njn he over was . . and he was willing ano xnx Njn N?X nin-n] Nin he was raising up. 3 I was seeing . and mn N3^ mn mn~H] NFID whom whom he was willing he was smiting. he was striving I . Literal rendering. it id. Nin IDN does not occur in Dan. I id. the writer preferring the simple Participle WK (cf.IEN he was saying as eXeyev. id. id. 88).THE VER Aramaic. . T was seeing id. Whom he was willing he was killing. id. just eAeyoj/ are particularly frequent in Mk. e( id. e 6! 7 id. .. frequent in Aramaic.. and Jn. 7 id. p. presiding s 65 they were seeking . 7 4 i . and whom he was wil ling he was abasing . The use of the Substantive verb with the Participle of is &quot.

with the verb epxo/*ai. :i5 . 24 (Lk. be expected. 9 2 rav 1 s3 7 dTroAeW a^r^j/). Mt.tos ep^erat.aprt av rou KOCT/JLOV. l6&quot. e oos Eav CLVTOV ^eAoo /xevav ep^o/xai. 7 ). Lk. 6 cis TOV KOCTJJLOV ep^o/xcvos. Mt. .gt.. . i2 ) 23-*. I4 21 21 ep^crat yap 6 rou Koo-pov ap^wi/. . . 3 ). - - - - .m 4 35 Terpa/AT/vds cis Kpicrtv /cat 6 $epioy&amp. 8 17&quot. if&quot. 7 B^^Xee/x cp^erai 6 Xptcrros.tX(i)v rr)v .gt. 5 6 14 27 OUK ep^erat. are: I 29 iSe 6 d/xvos TOV Oeov 6 atpcov rryv ap. otSa 4&quot. . though with 3 not nearly such frequency: Mt. . . 20 5 12 42 (Lk. - - * . i2 ). IJ/V^TJV .&amp. 1 43 44 :!MO Lk. . 7 4 M^ a?ro yap e/c T^S FaA-i/Was 6 Xptcrros ep^erat . Mk. I2 2 6 &amp.f&amp. avrov aTroXXvei avTrjV (contrast Mt. Participle as The use of a Present to denote the Futurum instans is parti cularly frequent in Jn. it is particularly frequent in the Apocalypse might 47 8 i 2 5 10 3 U 4 s 9 12 ii 14 i6 15 22 7 12 20 s. .94 THEVERB The Present sometimes = the Aramaic Futurum instans .iv epxpfAai. . 6 TrpofftrjTrjs 7 41 6 Se Xptcrros orav ep^r/rai. . . 6 epxc/xevos eis rov KOO-/AOV. M OTTIO-W /J. 9 ).lt. 24 1(i .QV epxerai avrjp. Mt.lt. 18 28 I4 30 ep^o/iat vrpos v/xas. This use of ep^o/xat is found also in the Synoptists. . Instances of other Presents so used in Jn. 14 - 7raA. Mt. In all cases cited above . ore ouSets S^Varat epyae(r$ai.. . n 17&quot.lt. In Aramaic (as also in Hebrew) the Participle is used as a Futurum instans with great frequency. 9 II ep^exat vv^. i 7 Lk. Mt. on Mecrcrias e&amp. (eA&oj/ Mk. 27 As (Mk. ^ Ep^d/xc^a /cai ^/xets crvi/ O-QI . 6 Xpio~ros. Mt. following instances : We may note the I I 10 2 6 OTTIO-OJ [LOU ep^dp-eVOS. 2i (quotation). Trepi TTLcrrfvovTOiV Bia TOV Adyou awrojv ets ep:e. 3 11 (Mk.

6 ). f 2 p^n?? NW?m n^D3 Nn !) So the and the wise men being killed (i.). in the only cases in Jn. and in hope in God. whatsoever more king s is needful .l ^ n: Go. in - p. idiomatic in . repre . and ye shall see Hebrew. )li? Jl jao . Trpos l6&quot. Cf.1&amp. 4. 6 14 Make ( n ^J|) thee and thou shall pitch (&quot. Onk. :!8 . And the vessels that are given thee for the service of the house of thy God. y . are. Instances of the usage the Aramaic of Dan. OVK eXeuVerat) = Jl/ 31 )^Xc*9. pitch .e. lit. lit. i 39 &quot.gt. u*o But conduct . Moreover. .^?rn Jon. lit. but days coming . ni !? ?&quot.^ n-a-n ^n^n] ^. treasure house thou shalt bestow (i^ri) out of the Acta Thomae (p.i? JL*. lit.Orav 8k eXOy 6 wos TOU avOpw-rrov =^ hajff o^s ^-.gt. 112. and the Romans coming. yourselves (yol^j/ humility and temperance and purity.gt. i6 2 where the future expressed by the Imperfect. .^Qjfc2&amp. ^ljo. i Sam. 8 orav IA% ev T^ 80^77 TOV Mt. &amp.gt.\ See for further instances 19 20 Aramaic. Ju&amp.^L ) before the God of Jerusalem and Hebrew. P. 15 /cat ctyeo-tfe . except where the sequence is clearly to be .PV^rp Tjb they Verbal sequences. lit. . . were about N^N fO PIIJ? ^] And they driving thee from v. . we find that sense is Pesh. Ezr.? When the Son of man coming Mk. i4 . e.Epxeo-0e sequence an ark . except in 3 i4 . 9 . .=&amp.^?!/) in all . /cat n 48 eXeuo-oi/rat 01 Payuubt = apovo-iv ^&amp. . which ep^o/mi has the sense of a Futurum it sents by the Participle. JuV3.. lit. the Paraclete not coming Cf. represents this by the Participle. and ye shall become (ofcsj/ ^ooo) household-servants This form of sequence is not (apart o. men they shall drive thee ). further in 1 .gt. 2 13 decree went forth to be killed ).JXA. they shall wet thee ). 29 . so Targ. so wetting thee (i.e. A similar Come. deliver thou (E. (i. him we coming J) 6 Trapa/cAT/Tos ov ^ eA&j (TR. Pesh. is . 9 15 e Aev owTcu 8e )i(&amp.gt.+i( ojla^o. nnj wni Tjb l^y. Gen. and thou shall smite Amalek .gt. 25 &quot. and avrov IXeva-ofjicOa = jj. where the Greek uses the Future eAeuo-o/xcu. Cf. His^ from translations from the Hebrew) so characteristic of Aramaic as it is of Hebrew. Trarpos avrov = wo.ooj taking away tO 23 . ^epai = Jfcoocu ^? ^JL/. Driver. when He coming 1 in the glory of His Father in (so Lk. Tenses. elsewhere.THEVERB in 95 instans.]??]) it within and without with so Targ.

. KCU eTTOirja-ev ^//. aiTetTe Change in Jn. lit. . . i8 wi? . seen in two passages /cat 32 . . or as introducing the direct result. .^V D^a idols nn OT (i. . us. . and He made us . Charles in his Commentary i. . xoj/ras KLOdpas . . and making ). and kapfidvovTes. or shedding .W 18 3 fVl K^ 1 i ? P11P ^} ai b fav /rat t-ytvoprji Not. or who receive . . not as R.V. ou ^retre. that sheds a city shedding blood and and makes . e/xctj/ev CTT avroV.as Unto Him that loved us .. and it abode . .rj/juj/ccr6c. 44 5 . Cxlv . 3. :! . . the proper sequence of the Participle. Gen.. a frequently-used Hebrew idiom. is clearly implied in the expression /cat X. dyaTrajj/ri ry/xas . eo-rcoras . however (with Dr. lit. . y 14 . and 5 44 to Aa/x/JdVoKres. which may be so that the 1 connecting the finite verb with its antecedent expresses the sense We and then . These are exactly analogous e. &c. /cat ov ^retre in . i4-. (i. however. having harps and singing they sing . Ps. in . p. Making my feet like the harts and on sets ).. /cat a8owiv standing - . Tibzi ty ni^Kf j! njPD. R. . my heights He sets me . . . . are incorrect).gt. who hunted other cases in Driver.V. and seek not . . though we 13&quot. lit. Tenses. or 20* . and so .g. . Other 2 3 cases may be seen in a 9 20 23 .V. See 117. (not as . that the finite verb expresses actually a sequence in time. . For construction would be employed in Hebrew.. . do not find cases in time to its antecedent. o^ecr^e. . . I a TO&amp. . Charles) i vtcpus.e.lt. I of construction after a Participle TeBcafuu TO Tri/eu/m Karafiaivov /&amp. . &quot. 2j a N^i TX isn. D^ :!4 . we should render Karafiaivov l^ivfv 32 i . . . . and hath made after semi-colon).. In accord brought ). nal (with rejection of omves as an editorial gloss) ras i/sv^as ruv vtirtXtKiantvuv oil An essential element in the Hebrew construction is irpoafKvvrjffav TO Qrjpiov. Ezek. &quot. . . cf. and seeking not . makes .e. or a sequence in description in which. . . . .96 regarded THE VERB (as in the last instance) as the result of the preceding Imperative.* The construction is rather Hebrew than Aramaic.e. R. receiving . . .V. . the and one hunting venison and brought it (i. it follows naturally in the gradual unfolding of the picture (especially frequent in description of types of character). /cat So l6 24 .. And may * note Dan. in Jn.. though the fact described may properly speaking be coeval with its antecedent. . and /cat ance with this usage. but descending and abiding .. and the cases have been collected and discussed by Dr. 22* flDDK ..EpXto-tfe This. as these quite a different which the sequence describes an event actually prior would be the case in the two passages in question. Who makes . 15-&quot. ? ^ I BJ^ =1? p&quot. . This usage is remarkably frequent in the Apocalypse. descending .at is . (A. after full stop. .

97 . ^*_^=&amp..x^. . We . }k+~j9 )J^*J. .mj Pesh. . oko( In the O. both in Targ. is represented by the Participle. . . . Pesh. In 5 . Pesh. Syr.gt. Kaso . .THE VERB . Syr. passages ^ol^sj.T. .^. ^ and then follow it . . . i 32 ^a^. to resolve the opening it is usual. And they shall drive thee (lit. iifcoo Pal. . r *. . ^. . Pal. yol{ . JJ . driving thee) from men and with grass like oxen they shall feed thee have it in Jn. and to Hebrew Participle into a Perfect or Imperfect preceded by the relative by another Perfect or Imperfect. 44 ^retre .

Lk. no plant . 3 18 . none shall n?nB?n N^ TTiK-b : &quot. & f . wo secret 7]^ 10 ^ KFl^r^ ^3K WirnJ troubles thee ). (i. . 44 there is wo/ a wow with us with us ). 2 N3^p lit. 12 ii/a CV T7^ (TKOTLO. never. iNSb ^D to&rnian.gt. TVr^. 143-). bb. &c. ). . TTttS OV (/XT/) IS alSO K)Und in Mt. . e.gt. . i2 work shall not be done (i.. BN. 21 Jn. . . tWO passages 6 TTlCTTeUCOV CIS 6 39 /X Iva. &c. D3N N. no one lift ViynK B*K ITTT6 TTffr inde up his hand (i. 2I 27 223 ApOC. 2 lift up.g.V o Se Sw/cei/ /xoi JJL1] aTToXeVoJ c^ auroi). We find the in TTttS Semitism : iras(irav} .e.CHAPTER VI NEGATIVES THE Semitic languages do not for the most part possess negative the expressions such as none. . njSji?}*. 2 5 H?? n ^^ pl ant f tne fi e ^ was Thus e. 2 (both quotations of - Ps. 4 15 Wp?? finding him roKhri&amp.. 4 lfi 5 . . . Gen. +j( any none may be a man is commonly used in the sense any one So in Heb.Vo . . Dan. e. 3i 50 is BJJ ^ pN.e. TTO. no one on earth can show. 4 i of thee tf . I3 20 irav 29 . &amp.gt.lt. . &c. ^ &amp. OVK av eo-^Of] -n-aa-a 20 &amp. . since Heb. .^ ay place no place was found ). 7 . that none finding lit. I 3/ OVK dSwarrjcret Trapa @eoC p^/xa. ) . 2 Pet. 3 i . . Aram. .e.2. not . . .e. 5 Rom. nothing . 2422 roS = Mk.not or. lit. 3 66i 9 . no work lit. fJLLVrj. . . . in Jn. . Dan. done (i. 4 5 . where the renderings everyone l8 . was yet.3 - wo/ yet in the earth (i. for the wo/-smiting Gen.3 shall be ). all him of #// 16 him should smite him ). . 2. Eph. Gen. this term with preceding negative. 1G Gal. there is not a man on earth that can show the king s was wo/ found for them ^ nk&amp. . but express them by using not. 4 n~73 (i. . every secret does wo/ trouble thee (i. e.wfl shall wo/ pendently 5 In Aram. 03K. positives coupled with the simple negative corresponding 1 Aramaic 1$ none . Ex.lt.rap. ).e. 2 (cf. ^= /xr/ none . i .. expressed by D ^-9 n l^ I 1 Gen. matter (i. Dan. no one are equally legitimate). lit. Hebrew 16 .

NEGATIVES
No
fjif

99
Ot>

one

is

expressed by ou
edv
4r>

.

.

.

avOpuiros in Jn. 3-

8iWrcu
.

dvOpu>7ro<s

XajJi/Bdveiv ovSei/

fjirj

xrX.,

5 avOpwirov OVK t^to Tva
ovra>s

.

.

flaXy

ets

TT)I/
2

KO\v/Ji/3r)8pav,

7

OuSeVore eAa.V^crev

avOpuiTros.*
ot>

In

Mk.

II

we

eis Trpoa-MTTov

oSo^ TOV to

yap /^XeVets dvOpuTrw (but here there is a sense of antithesis to TT)V eov following), but elsewhere in the Synoptists there seems
</>

find

oi/

ovSeis OVTTGO avOpwTrwv iKaOicrev,

I2 14

be no case of ov

.

.

.

SvOptaTros.
;

Never
in

is

Heb.

Ps. so 7

cf. expressed in Heb. and Aram, not ... for ever D ttST^ I shall never be moved Ps. 31% yi L let me never be put to shame Ps. 119 tit? S
<

1

D^yi>

;

;

^
;

tt

X

I
it

will

2 never forget Thy commandments Isa. 25 shall never be rebuilt in Aram., Dan. 2 41 ^
; ;

which
(p.
JC*.fi)

shall

never be destroyed

;

^c/a Thoniae

]t^-^.

JJ

^*.va.^.v
in

shall
id. (p.

be with
?j)

Him
)J
.

yaVv^f jlaa^!Q.=> yOOo^o and they the kingdom which never passes away
)lo!^.^

U-^

^.^
.
.

^?

jtot

but this banquet shall

never pass away
Similarly, ov

^
:

.

ets roi/ atwi/a
/xr/

Sense
cts TOJ/

never
alwva,

14

4
ot>
2<!

ov

8n//7;o-ei cis

occurs several times in Jn. in the o1 TOV cuoim, 8 6<ivarov ov
atooj/a,
8

8

2

^

yevarjraL Oavdrov eis TOJ/
a.7ro6dvy
!2

IO 2S

ot>

y

ets TOI/ atai/a,

1 1 wi/tt.

ov
/>t^

els

TOV cuojva, I3 ov

/XT/

vt i//r;s JJLOV

TroSa?
is

15

TOF

tt/

Cf. also

9
II

tK TOV cu wros OVK ^KovvOf). in

The phrase
e<s

only found elsewhere
ets
13

in

N.T.
14
,

Mt. 21

Ov

/xr/Kert eV o-ov Kapiros

yevrjTai
I

TOI/

alwra
<f>dy<i)

=

Mk.

Mk. 3 29

OVK e^ei a^ccriv

TOV

attoj/a,

Cor. 8

ov

/xr)

Kpia. ei?

Tor atwra.

To
from

express

/<?s/

Hebrew

has the single term
K>-?r

fS.

To

this in

Aramaic corresponds the compound term

^ (Syr.

Noh from N^ + 1, i.e. lit. !, Targ. properly introduces a rhetorical question deprecating the taking of neb tt?N Dan. i a certain course (cf. Oxford Heb. Lex., p. 554 a

^+

1>:

)L^5), formed since why? This

;

,

mDPtP

Song

i"

;

are instances of the equivalent Heb. phrase in late
in
if

style).

and
.
.
.

is

This expression occurs once the regular equivalent of Heb.

Biblical
in the
,

Aram., Ezr.
"H

f\
:

not
. .

=
.

lest
is

in the

Aram, of Dan. 2 18 6 !U8

that Targg. N7 and in Pesh. JJ?
;

that

not

used indifferently with Joc^.?

since

why?

in the

sense
*

lest

as the equivalent of Heb. fS.
= TU,
like indefinite

ai/fyamos

B>JX,

is

also found in Jn. 3 1

-

4
,

7*3.5^

H 2

ioo

NEGATIVES
have
already remarked
to the exclusion of /X^TTOTC.

We

employed
(as against

Mt.

8,

Mk.
16
,

f\
not

7 50
-

ir<

,

ia.
all

..

regularly occurrences, 18 in all 10 20 15 14 12 39 50 5, Lk. 8), are as follows s 4 5 6 , 8 8 :u iff These occurrences of that i9

that

in

Jn.

Iva

^
-

is

The

-

-

:

,

,

,

-

.

.

.

",

.

do not
:

carry the sense

lest

;

but this force

is

clear in the

following

UK OUK ep^erai Trpos TO
14

tW
</>o)9,

/xr/

\ty^0rj

TO.

epya avrou.

5

/x^KeVt a/JidpTavc, Iva
ci

/JLY]

^ipov

O-QL TL

ycvyrai.

TrepiTOfjLrjv

Xa/ji/3dvei

avOpwrros tv o-a/^aru) tVa /x^ XvOfj 6 vo/xos

I2 3
I2 40

TrepiTraren-e cos TO

n/a

yw,-

tcoo-tv TOIS

o<aA./xots.

12

"

dAA.a

Sia

Tors

^apicraiovs ow^ toynoXoyouv

iVa

/x^

ctTroawaycoyoi

yeVcoi/Tai.

l6
1
8"

ra^Ta XfXdXrjKa
at>Tot

vjjuv Iva. pr) o-/car8aA.to-^T.
Ti

OVK

icrr)X9ov et? TO 7rpatTcopiov;
/xot ^ycoFt^oi/TO av, iva

l8

-}G

ot inrrjpcTaL 01

py

7rapa8o@(Ji)

eTTt TO{)

crravpov ra

,

which never occurs

in Jn. ; is

found in Mt. 8 times, Mk.

c<?,

Lk. 6 times.

A striking proof that Jn.
Np"!

is

to
40
.

Jn. i2

= lest represents the Aramaic s Iva be seen in the quotation from Isa. 6 10 which occurs in In this quotation the Heb. uses |S lest and this is

w

,

represented in

LXX

by

/juj-n-orf,

but in Pesh. by JN

that

.

.

.

not

.

Heb.

LXX
Pesh.

/X^7TOT

tStOO-ll/

TOtS

6<f)6(lXfJLOL<S

The

quotation
12
,

while Mk. 4
fjLrjTTOTe

Mt. i3 15 in the ipsissima verba of quoting more freely, yet has the /^Trore of
is

given

in

LXX

;

LXX,
Jn.,

tTno-Tptywo-w Kol
Iva

a<f>f@rj

OLVTOLS

(i.e.

V

^^

^^

fS).

however, rendering

phrases in order to use an Aramaic phrase which What evidence actually employed in the rendering of Pesh. could prove more cogently that his Greek translates an Aramaic
is

Heb. and

LXX

^

iSwo-iv TOIS

6^6a\^,

departs from the

original ?

CHAPTER

VII
1

MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE ORIGINAL ARAMAIC OF THE GOSPEL
THE most
weighty furm of evidence
is

in

proof that a document
be shown
to

is

a translation from another language

the existence of difficulties
find

or peculiarities of language which can

their

solution in the theory of mistranslation from the

assumed
in the

original

language.

There are a considerable number of such

Fourth
in

Gospel, and some of them

preceding discussion. The particle ^ with a relative sense mistranslated by

have already been noticed These may first be summarized.
a/a
s

the

or on.

= Iva for = ore for ^ for ^ =
=!

Iva.

I who, which 9, i4 (cf. p. 75). 5 6 who 8 9 7 less certainly in i (cf. p. 76). when (properly which ... in it i21$,
-

7

30 50

lt;

,

,

,

,

15

lfi

,

,

;

:i

),

,

i6-

:

2

(cf.

p.

77).

on
"=]

for ^

=

when

s
,

9

,

12"

(cf. p.

78).

because,
pp. 29, 34).
:<J

inasmuch as

,

mistranslated

as

a

relative,

i

4J;!

(cf.

i, i2

.

KaTaXa/jifidveiv

= /^
29).

take, receive

,

a misunderstanding

of ^3J5K
<J

darken

(cf. p.

i
-

.

ty

subst. verb Njn,

probably a misreading of Nin

=

e/ceti/os

(

cf P- 33)-

The ambiguity of the particle ^ has, as we have seen in the cases noted above, caused difficulty to the translator. There are several other passages in which, though the relative force of the particle
is

clear,

the fact that

it

lacks expression of gender and

has led to misapprehension.
together.
IO".

number These may conveniently be taken
Travrwv
(^,

o Trarrjp

/JLOV

o

SeStaKtv

yu,oi

/moV
is

ecrrtr.

This reading

has the support of B*

G

(boh)

and

therefore adopted by

and either os . . if Westcott is correct. . more of it. is inconceivable that the former could have arisen out Its origin may \b . 5 is their essential character. ^e^wv or o .V. This 4 Cf.gt. Again. n Thy name which Thou hast given Me ? The phrase is very remark. N L ^). applicable to God is alone. and &quot. WH. Stress has been laid in the parable upon the weakness of the sheep. and the .lt.102 MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE .. natural one as a correction of it since. as WII. mean .gt.s rj/jifis. As for My Father. that which This is explained by hath given Me is greater than all Westcott to mean that the faithful regarded in their unity. and similarly Is it in V. . are stronger than every opposing power. power limiting yet what authority its stronger than every opposing afforded by the context for thus it scope is ? Clearly the expression. possible to believe that the sense intended Westcott may well observe on v. This explanation of the anomaly offered by the Greek might be regarded as less than convincing if the passage stood alone. TU&amp. In 17&quot. It can only be rendered. eyo) frrjpovv avrovs ev oi/o/xcm is. The whole context cries out against the falsity of this exegesis. the phrase greater than all has. i Jn.. other passages in which the text we read.&quot. r^pr/o-ov avrovs and obviously at fault.. He a complete body. ... is are. There can be no doubt is that the sense intended that which given by the less authenticated jjiOL Trartjp /JLOV o? reading. be explained as is on this text. &quot. . correct in regarding the more difficult it reading as original. Possibly the first draft of the translation rendered only as a neuter (o /xei an/. to . . and their utter dependence upon the Good Shepherd. tVa OJCTIV ev Ka6w&amp. had the latter been original. /xeior. which supplies the reason for the parallel are clause which follows. aov u Se ScoKas yuot.no one is able . Se ScoKas /xoi. in which N2i ^ may be taken . . . this would seem to be merely supplementary to the which thought of the power of the flock regarded as a unity is incredible. the parallel clause their safeguard is stated to consist in the fact that no one is able to snatch them out of My Father s hand But.] the other readings are corrections dictated b}^ regard for grammar. There similarly iv rw ovo/xart }2 t (rov a&amp. Aramaic to N^ p? Kin be traced to an unintelligent rendering of the nnn ^N. their liability to be scattered and injured by the powers of In evil. however. adopted by R. Yet there can be little doubt that 6 S&oxccV (jiei&v -n-dvTuv eVnV. as stands without limitation.

. That the translator was capable of reproducing ^ by a neuter. Thy i:! .gt.s Se 8u&amp.. Isa. &c. cf. ~ .lt. . Dr. i 2:i of it all of them the whole of it every one princes are rebellious.gt.r) ttTroXecrco e^- avrov a. the Sentence avro rf) Iva. Besides these instances of mistranslation following passages I lD . xxi. Trpwro? JJLOV yv. In Hebrew there is a similar usage of i?3 . and then completing the relative by a masculine. Clearly the object at&amp. . and companions of thieves. their greatest all of it Jer. OTTOV et/xt . of Se SwKas o)r]v established by V. lz .o tVa OTTOU ei/xt e yw aW the whole burden of the prayer being the commenda /xcr e/Aov. into like o in another reading o (D* U X 157 al. whom TTU. is 10-&quot. For from their least unto loveth bribes. cyob Ka/ceu Oi UHTLV /ACT e/tov.lt. we read in those 17&quot.\ia Iva.lt. ^wryi/ Iva. /xoi. stand in Aramaic The same or all which all (or every one) who be seen again in 637 -n-av o St Swo-tV /xot 6 -n-ar^p Trpos c/^e phrase sense intended is every one who (cf. In 6 :9 the neutral collective conception is continued throughout . the less well attested reading in both originally intended .lt..~ aov TO alwviov. p.).gt./&amp.as /xoi. The solution is again found in the ambiguity &c. 9. . everything which following KOL TOV ipxo^wov Trpos /xe /crA.W l v. Here for is to irav o = the neutral ^ .V o SeSco/cas Scocrei aurots oi/o/xa rots dv$pco7rois /AOI. ^?3.V is reinforced by Kaxetvot. V. There which may.gt. 9(. TTO. 103 and has no exact is r&amp. v. Harrjp.. in parallel except &amp. where representing Similarly.s CK TOU Koo-fjiov.ru&amp. 15 . i4 7 .vo&amp. much more strongly attested reading cu KT\. u certainly gives the it yet in the Greek meaning must be regarded as a correction of the (N A B C L Y *. o Se ScoKas avru Sdxra aurots alwLov.pauc.o-a 4 TTO.gt.X\a avaarr^fro) eo-xarr/ rj^pa.ORIGINAL ARAMAIC OF THE GOSPEL able. E0aWpu&amp. o SeoWas #e A&amp. we may on notice the : O oTTurw fjiov fpxofj. be conjectured to be the original rendering of the genderless 1 by a neuter. 8 6 10 maketh unjust gain . ov&amp. Times. ot&amp.lt. of the relative ^.s /jL7rpocr@v fjiov yeyovev.V o SeSw/ceV /JLOI fj. not. which may . and here the . Ex. tion of the disciples to the Father on the ground that it is He who has given them to the Son. V.lt. Jer. is proved by if\ llarr/p.). the ygci. which easily lent itself to correction u&amp. 92) remarks that This testimony.gt.). with neutral suffix So all Isa. 6 . &c. Thus and v. Ball (Expos. o SeSto/cas o.

e. 53 7 . and does not well 24 ) harmonize with the general tone of the Baptist s about the statement . 3 Instead of hath become. before (of all) : me will become. &quot. on the ground that it antedates that doctrine of the suffering Messiah.e. who who It may be argued. He was the first i. while making some valuable remarks about the whether which taketh away (or beareth) the sins of the world is original. He existed in 0*1 j? the between the kindred words before The assonance Beginning me and ^PIP first offers . which only came home to the Apostles them 21 selves after the Resurrection (Lk. as reported by the He therefore Synoptists (Mt. Aramaic original of the phrase 6 d/^os rov Ocov. 53. is to Isa. i. a characteristic Semitic word-play.JP koddmay text of an original ^p_ kadmay. reading it as ML] instead of is \in hdwe becoming or is because He was before me by-form of the Perfect mn hawd) (the Participle) which would bear the sense about to become Further. is It is agreed that the fully in accord with the Synoptic narrative. was already displacing. s presentation of the Baptist s witness. on Trpomfc /xou ty hdwe (a . Dr. Ball (op. in.).lot o tt/xi/os rov eo9 6 aipwv rryi/ apapriav rov KOCT/JLOV. and wrote in the light of a later stage of Christian knowledge text . is most virtually repeated in vv? naturally understood as a reference to the fact that our Lord s influence was to displace. by some editor of the Greek recollected Isa. He suggests therefore that the Greek ytyovw may be due to the translator s having supplied a wrong vowel to the Aramaic :i &quot. reference of 6 alpwv KT\. may be due to a misreading first . the culminating passage referring to the mission of the righteous Servant of Yahweh . on the contrary. or that of His Forerunner (cf. Thus the original may have run 1 He who Because because is coming after me. supra). that the whole of Jn. 3) conjectures that the words may be supposed to have been added . questions teaching the Messiah.io 4 MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE l:M . 9 I&quot. cit. S P&quot. including these words. we should rather have expected will become or is to become.

and the relation of Isa. and develops its thought. 40 fT. really o n he sent to inquire whether He 2~ =Lk. the forerunner of a greater One is a second fact common to all four Gospels.ol We to avaftXeirovo-w with Isa. preach good tidings to the poor words of reproof with which the message ends KCU o? euy /xry me to Yahweh hath The gentle /xaKapios eVni/ would naturallv remind the Baptist not to range himself with those of whom it had been written. disciples We are the of the Baptist whom was e^o/xevo? (Mt. 105 which forms the main theme of the prophecy of Deutero. shape of performing acts of mercy in their presence. and as one o-Kaj/SaAio-^ ei/ e/xot J 52&quot. and His answer. (common it is and the Synoptists) is drawn from Isa. is based upon Isa.Isaiah. . 40-55. however. and depended for their performance upon faith in .gt. limited to conjecture. . then shall the lame nr^x ewyyeAioi/rat with 61 .). The reference in Isa. t Isa. . them that are blind L 35* Then the eyes of the 35&quot. I am The Baptist s the voice of one crying. with Isa. had made a special study of Isa. based on the things which they had seen and heard. &c.X. &c.. the Servant to s mission). f*^*) took the practical r leaves us in no doubt that the evidence suited to carry conviction to the Baptist s mind was His fulfilment of the acts which had been predicted of the ideal Servant. and was with the conception of the ideal Servant of Yahweh impressed which these chapters contain. is of course to the removal of moral blindness but it should be unnecessary to recall the fact that our Lord s physical miracles had always their moral analogue. the opening (of eyes) blind shall be opened t.. 4O 3 and therefore reasonable to assume that in preparing for his to Jn. 4 though probably the work of a later prophet. stands in close association as further drawing out the mission of the ideal Servant. 1 to proclaim . 42 7 may compare especially open blind eyes (part of .* 6I . Like as many were appalled at thee. * the recipient. rv(f&amp. That regarded himself as but mission he he&quot. (Isa. 40 ff. with which ch. description of his own function.ORIGINAL ARAMAIC OF THE GOSPEL chs. 4o to its sequel might in itself serve to justify the conjecture that this greater One was :i pictured by him as fulfilling the ideal of the Servant. X M ^ man leap as an hart anointed Tre/jiTm-rovo-iv . which is late. Our Lord s reply to not. applied by our Lord to Himself in Lk. 61 (the opening passage of which is 1C1L ). 35.

.narrative of Lk. in though not understood by the Apostles.lt. and death (Isa.* My upon him . The fact is evident that Deutero. words occur. i 29 36 o vlus rov tov Jn. where Yahweh have put is . Mt. also KOI salvation (or. where the Servant is represented as saying. since the atoning role. . .Lk. and did not know how to . 10 f. This revelation was surely deduced from Spirit Isa. - 34 .jiv TOV Iapa j\ a clear reference to Comfort ye. 3 } the title Xpiaros Messiah His titles are uiriaca /J. Servant is pictured as His knowledge of the third and fourth Servant-passages. 7 20 d/ij os TOV Qeov Jn.}. 3 and by Allen. pp. is modelled on as quoted in Mt. persecution. a sermon by the writer on The Old Testament Conception of Atonement fulfilled by Christ.. 4O cf.Isaiah s conception of the suffering Servant did not enter into the popular Messianic expectation of the time (cf. . 46 . The Spirit of the Lord Yahweh upon me Thus evidence unites in indicating that it was the coming of the ideal Servant of Yahweh that the Baptist believed himself to be heralding. the way in which the heavenly announcement Isa.enly be supposed to be heralding the political Messiah of popular expectation. ad he.) the title Messiah in order that he might not mista . 6 simply Mt. . f&amp. That he was not alone in fixing his hopes upon the ideals of Deutero-Isaiah rather than upon those associated with the Messianic ) King is proved by the Birth.lt. 1 at the 17 Baptism.QV tp\up.-&amp. 42 28 perhaps significant that (apart from Jn.lt. . I of the Servant s mission).gt. where the 7 meeting opposition.5 px&amp. when this latter holds the infant Saviour in his arms and uses the words. 3 11 Jn. recognize Him till it was Divinely revealed to him that the sign would be the descent of the Spirit upon Him. from hide their face. My glory ). where Simeon is described (a 25 as Trpoaofx^ fl s napa. published Very possibly the Baptist avoided by the Oxford University Press. i Whose coming he was heralding. work it pictured in Isa. . . that thou mayest be salvation may be) unto the end of the earth (cf.106 MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE whom men (Isa.lt. he was despised and :i we esteemed him not 53 ).K\ri&amp. u 3 . and Isa. and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel My My Xa&amp. 5O*~ .n(vos . also 49 5i and in Trito-Isaiah 57 Thus. that 86av v aov loparj\ with Isa. 53 formed the culmination of that maintained that the words 6 cupwi/ rryi/ d^ua/mW :{0 can be rov KOO-^OV are improbable in the Baptist s mouth? In the verses which follow. If this some measure was so. 1 - .gt. 42 (the 6i ! first great passage descriptive states. comfort ye my people which forms the burden of Deutero18 3 13 6i 2 66 U 18 ). From fact these considerations we deduce fulfil the conclusion that the that our Lord was to the role of the ideal Servant. he has clearly in mind the passage in the second great description of the ideal Servant where the . ~34 he states that he had no previous knowledge of Him Jn. not employed by the Baptist. was realized by the Baptist. .tvos Mt. &amp. tTSov ol txpOa. . parallels. * I will give thee for a light to the Gentiles. ia 18 (noted i f It is is i i 27 . t * Cf. Isaiah s prophecy (Isa.\poi fiov TO ocoTTjpiuv aov (pus (Is a-rroKaXvij/iv edvwv.

upon its face the unmistakable . according to Isa. was pleased to bruise him. and v. rested in the same hope (cf. does not occur is 107 as used by the Baptist. Ball that Heb. t interpretation. 1 and that was Yahweh who which of Isa. . . Lk. new 52 53 destined tyvxftv obliges him. young man e. * The fern. where the simile dropped and My righteous Servant .* In the sense denotes so also Pesh. intended primarily to bear the sense. original.(vov.ORIGINAL ARAMAIC OF THE GOSPEL What. 53 1US . the Servant of God i. since KJpB child . which reminds us of Gen. is suggested by Dr.vP. this term N. If this is so. God is Further.g.gt. there may thus. Lamb of God the origin of the expression The phrase is its precise force? 53. a 36 &quot. . form s NB /a/yd to mean it :! child . 8 ). and what in Isa. 22 we may perhaps consider that we have accounted for the use of the phrase. boy in . Jerus. it well be a word-play in the choice of the does the lamb-like or sinless character of the the ideal Servant Lamb of God is a rendering by no means excluded by of 13 also bears the sense the Child of 12 ). however. and to predict KCU aov 5e aur^y TTJV i(\ftaeTai Anna the prophetess and her circle seem also to have to /5oju&amp. All this is not a later invention . and combining it v. and the centurion tt/xj/o? servant (U3 (Mt. The words n . (i 22 . 38 ). it bears stamp of historical truth. . Behold the Young Servant or Child of God and does not bring the expression into connexion with Deutero-Isaiah. which brings in the simile the Servant was like a lamb that is to the sacrifice ). simply says that led to the slaughter (not.lt. Yahweh s righteous Servant who. 11 10 s allowing for the influence of Gen. 53 with v. 6 TOV ov . was to bear the sins of many. 2 1:u5 ). the provided by God as a fitting offering. of this word.ata. \ (LXX o a/AJo s) that before her shearers is dumb on is . offering states . 3l 34 the sign by which also present. cupwv KT\. servant s . it is not unlikely that the thought ~ In w. A remark last more probable solution.). and like a ewe v. however. t e lithd maiden is familiar to every one from Mk 5* t Dr.e. suggesting as . . Abraham young men servant (Gen. are based. preceding forms the back-reference of the he The Lamb of God suggests the sense. Ball renders the assumed Aram. where of a lamb./&amp. moreover. to warn the holy Mother that the child is become a atj^eiov dvTi\(yu/j. and their iniquities he shall bear . the s priest s Sam. Thus may stand for Nn^NT Kjbg. n^D tale lamb has come in its Aram. not on this verse but v. 22 8 God shall provide Himself a lamb for a burnt emphatic Lamb . in Targ.

/JLvr)(T0r]o~a. Participle which is indicated by the context. it is . TTCUS 3&quot. 4 &quot. After witnessing this. the descent and of the Spirit. but by vlos in first M v. the passage picturing the N vt? as a sacrifice.0 09. diacritic point. 49 49 5o 52 ).7 . and used of our Lord as the ideal Servant in Acts 1(l 1:! .US. an unvocalized text distinction we know) no beyond that Aramaic affording between the Perfect and the in W. B^. He was saying .gt. to sufficiently explained N$B = by the word-play . the sign of Yahweh s ideal Servant.^ indicated by the coupling of the dinar with the subst.Ore ovv r)ycp@7] e/c VKpo)V.v ol [jia. about which I have been speaking you (viz. 5 TTCUS in 42*.Or]Tal CLVTOV on TOVTO note the curious use of the Imperfect. Jo UB! = He saying .SoCAos. again represent the God but intended 20 primarily to mean the Servant of God for the translation of the same term by A sufficient explanation d/xvos in v. 1^ Aram. but the preference fi is for 7rai5 (SoCAos in which 2 2 ~.. interpreted as the Child of . . . it may be TT&amp. as we have already remarked.lt.L] &quot. Kuyob ecopaKa /cat /JLefiapTvpyKa.^ dmar haiva similarly ~ip^ coupled with the subst.io8 the MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE Baptist to recognize 6 cpxo/j.:i . it sense be objected against this explanation of u/xi/os = NvB in the Servant that the term used in Deutero-Isaiah to denote is the ideal Servant regularly Heb. the second as baptizing with the Holy If Spirit. above for the Thus jo +*?! = He had said . on ouros ecrnv 6 mos TOV eov.involved. In He had said where the context demands a Pluperfect. the Baptist says. verb. We Aramaic an Imperfect sense Participle &quot. Thus said may easily have been misinterpreted as amar N}L] He had &quot. below for the Perfect. Nnbtn KB. While Both Greek terms are indifferently used f LXX is render the &quot. while a Pluperfect is is commonly represented by use of the Perfect N&amp. was. properly bond-servant . is In a carefully written unvocalized Syriac text the distinction marked was by use of a Participle. verb. a cyw AeXaX^/ca vfjuv seems to to mean. replied that the choice of Nvt? rather than N^jy N-n:y in is . . \yfv.^ dmar hawd He was (so far as saying . viz. may be found in the difference of context. was abiding on Him It is not impossible that 6 inos TOV tov may Aram.t^j? Deutero-Isaiah. The things the eating of My .

lt. may notice especially v. Joel 3 1S (4 18 in the Heb. 28 10 n - 15 . The fact has rightly been recognized that is a free combination of several O. Gore. Batnpton Lectures. soul shall live living waters .ORIGINAL ARAMAIC OF THE GOSPEL flesh a&amp. we sea. waters shall go out from Jerusalem pass in that day. &amp. and to become the source of life and healing far and wide. . for the latter sense. in using the Words was dwelling on Isa-55 lff the waters. 6 TrioreiW eis e/xe. may in believe that our Lord had all these passages in His mind and each of them the expressions which are most significant are itali In addition to these passages.7s 109 p^urra nr&amp. in v. in the Messianic age.* So perhaps life .23 . should mean. e/oxj-0a&amp. Ka^ws etTrei/ 17 ypa&amp.28 . 2s TO in pry/m. passages which speak of a river of living waters which. We .T. Eai/ TIS St^a -.^^. note 60 (p.) predicts that a fountain shall come forth of the house of the Lord.lt. There still remains the outstanding * difficulty.lt.gt.g. every one that thirsteth. thing Cf. . He . . out of his belly Cf.gt. The it quotation which our Lord here refers to the Scriptures has caused great perplexity.gt.that every living creature which swarmeth whither the rivers come.7ttA. . is to issue from the Temple-mount. it can cized. I2 dv$ 7 El/ W o&amp. and . come ye to Incline your ear and come unto Me hear. T ?? W*W T ?7 M&amp. hardly be doubted that. . \ where it is stated : 1 We to pass. or Aoyos by Theodotion Similarly Hebrew e.gt. . and your and Jer. is find the statement. 2 Sam. where the word rendered the rivers is vocalized as a dual. The principal development of this conception is found ~ in Ezek.&amp. and half of them towards the western sea DW).17 . thing is often TO rendered /%ia LXX . It is aTre o-rv/ ordinarily rendered UTT e /xoi. 14&quot. 47 -. that living half of them toward the eastern to (the latter statement based upon the passage quoted from Ezek. and shall water the valley of Shittim while in Zech.. like Hebrew W the things of eternal Aramaic . means both - word 26 1 . the source of . plfjia Dan. on eTrot ^crev ^ T ?7 e &quot.- y cf. iroTafwl ZK rfjs KoiXias avrov peuVouo-ii/ vSaTo? ^WVTO?. .j/ . It shall come .X&quot. .D and the drinking of atuwtov My blood). 275). shall live Ezekiel s con every place ception has been taken up by two later prophets. Ho.e Ka \ Trtrerw. s&quot.16 . e/cpae Aeyo)j/ Eai/ TIS Su//a epxr0to Trpo s /xe /cat TTIJ/CTCO. Trpo ? //.gt. 2 13 They have forsaken Me. it that in shall come .

104 . 5 lf) . in the Targum of Ps. the thought in fuller measure by its who compares 4 14 6 57 the fact remains Westcott. that fountain is correct. &c. The Aramaic it for belly or bowels is pyo mem (Hebrew ^V?). that this conception as expressed cannot be connected with . Rabba on &quot. Hebrew i^VP tna ydn* . as of the distribution of the blessing :fi recipient (so . Prov. we cannot believe that He would have imported. . On this view the Aramaic yields He And As the that thirsteth. ). &c. and the word is Joel speaks of a fountain the same in Aramaic (employed. 8 28 ). . Rivers shall flow forth from the * is It is worthy of note that the Joel passage with its allusion to the fountain i. 3 T P 91 i VP&quot. btfia *i DN nbyn p. any O. image in an unvocalized text. 5&quot.g. of the belly of the that. . as was recog nized by the most ancient western interpreters. passage which speaks of the water of life. As we have seen. an idea which is not found in any O. s words would run Aramaic. let let him come unto Me Me. directly applied to the Messiah in Midrash WB&amp. which was clearly This passage follows directly upon a similar Midrashic deduction in the minds of the people who witnessed our Lord s miracle . e. him drink that believeth in Scripture hath said. with rivers from the fountain that. pyo belly and i$P would Adopting the word in P fountain va our Lord fp be absolutely identical. passage and though we can understand that our Lord may well have combined the sense of the passages noticed above.g. e.no is MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE seems more than doubtful. . &quot. so also shall the second Redeemer cause the waters to spring up. or that they would have accepted. par.iwn Ecclesiastes. shall flow..gt. 2 32 .p&n ^NU no Redeemer (Moses) caused QiBBM bn3 ^V 1 ^30 Just as the first the well to spring up. how can we connect ? He believeth little Me however. the clause really There can be doubt belongs to the offer preceding the sense it. is used. The difficulty may at once be solved upon the hypothesis that the passage has been translated from Aramaic. fountain of living waters . as it is said.T..T. and that so doing His reference would be immediately apprehended by His hearers. 28 : pyn D on JIN nx rpt?ni nbsr innx v &quot.P? pbro. Nnro ip^n Tpn |i p^np^ If W in l nib W ^mn |p n? PV?.&quot. in at once be seen fountain for . Even if. It will Dan.And a fountain shall come forth from the House of the Lord.

is and moreover. and Zechariah. lated from When the passage to was trans Aramaic and this into Greek. as we find it set forth in the Jerusalem Targum. if we rejoiced to see the sense intended. and this mean ing is expressed both by Pal. |on nx TTP fnnx i&amp. or elsewhere in the O. and His words. and was therefore rendered. moreover. What we expect the first clause to say is. In Syriac in Pe al and Pa el (the form used in Pesh. recalled the miracle of the Manna (614 30 31 ) Qr6 Dai? ^3i1 -|OWK&amp. .gt.v. The verb reason that ( is not it known to occur in W.* to of the loaves and fishes. but there is no and the assumption . pyo JO was taken the belly .o_tt&amp.&amp. so far from being and . s. No extension of the use of seems adequate grant that to explain rjyaXXiao-aTo Iva iSy. Joel. in asking a further sign.gt. (Aramaic 1) would be natural . .in HDD TP WB&amp. |OH DN TT. was connected with mean. which follows the parallel couplet summarizes the main conceptions of Ezekiel. fall naturally into The reference to Scripture grand and impressive parallelism. as * (i) said.gt.T.in ^13 HID - : TODE pxa first &quot. This passage can hardly be preserved Iva in its original form. so also (he second Redeemer shall bring down Redeemer brought down it is &quot. the Manna. once to shed a flood of light upon both questions and lends. in fact calculated to appeal to their know Perusal of the Rabbinic interpretation of the Covenant-scene appears at in Gen. in why should not have been use Aramaic. There shall be a handful of corn in the earth &quot.gt. not that it. Payne Smith. .. longed and also exulted (cf. )oo ^o. Afipaafji o Trarrjp V/JLWV ^yaAAtacraro e xat IBy T TJV rjfJiepav rr/v e/^v. own po just as the the Manna. Syr. Abraham rejoiced to see the day. 15. in one of stood forth and cried aloud . makes mere tautology. of our Lord. 8 l6 . like the prophets of old. as it is said.H p{?N&quot.ORIGINAL ARAMAIC OF THE GOSPEL Our Lord. Behold. from he that believeth in Me . from his belly Iva.tn *] &quot. instead of forming a climax.) means both wished.). but that he longed to see and that the satisfaction of this longing was the cause of his gladness. we are told. which seems adequately to answer these questions yet we must suppose that our Lord s words.. What is the basis of the statement that Abraham saw the day My day ? There is (2) what precisely is to be understood by text of Genesis.o. were ledge of current Biblical exegesis. I am about to rain bread from heaven for you&quot. the following clause xal elSev KCH exw&amp. a wrong meaning has been given instead of exulted longed ) at it by the translator once removes the difficulty.m. nothing in the similarly obscure to His hearers. After a verb meaning longed the construction with Iva. +x~ll and by Pesh. . ct8(v KCU ^apy. u.gt. and.gt. like theirs.

.n HD^ &amp. i. and there shall be for me come or perchance the brethren and neighbours of those slain ones who fell before me shall come and be established in their cities and provinces.e. the recompense of the no part in the world to . The righteous in his heart Abraham pondered and li said.&quot.. Therefore there came a word of prophecy from before the Lord to righteous Abraham. : fell upon Abraham.e. And V^V lo. And lo. which we have adopted The Targum of mind after of this chapter opens by picturing Abraham in despondent frame his victory over the kings narrated in ch. Abraham saw r6 l3 which . longed to see My day . it HD^H Darkness. PP&quot. but perchance it shall not be found in me the second time. 14. Woe is me ! perchance I have received commandment in this world. the sun had set and in was dark .! Great. 8 a vision of which was granted to . that eV olSa yields an unsuitable sense. VT K^n This I . however.ii2 MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE may well be an error for na g-\ eV oTSa. and there shall be associated with them many legions whom they will lead out against me perchance the commands imposed upon me were but light in the former times when they fell before me. they had rebelled against the Law in their lifetime it shall be delivered from affliction . nox. Greece is flpQb Falling. Rome). same interpretation c.&quot. enslave his sons. . 11 destined to ever and ever. ^~ u (cf. ^I this n. where we should expect OVK olSa. My Memrd shall be a protecting buckler to thee in this world. and Media is . we find the following Coining to i. four kingdoms which were to arise to fl^Bb Terror. this Rabbinic exegesis lies behind Jn. that the fourth kingdom which v. . the day of the Son of Man 56 then. JJT ton. strange use of OVK otSa/zev in the mouth of Mary Magdalen. may be due to a 20-. is H2K&amp. If. saying. shall not rise again for . . 20). which is Edom (i. Terror Darkness Great Falling upon him is n^N which is Babylon. which fall. 13 ). )? reading of Pal. par. and beheld until seats were ranged is order and thrones set to and lo. and a deep sweet sleep paraphrase . \j} know The .!. Syr. and they are spared as my opponents or perchance merit was found in me in the former times when they fell before me. into the midst of an oven with glowing sparks which the wicked fell because . It cannot be urged. &quot. This is in entire accordance with the eschatological background which we find to the conception of the Son of Man in the Synoptic Gospels. lo.. Abraham Gehenna which prepared for the wicked it in the world come like surrounding and flames of fire. and the name of Heaven shall be profaned in me. Abraham although many legions shall be gathered together and shall come against thee. and a shield over 12 thee continually in the world to come.lt. Fear not. . but the righteous the who kept The reference of is to the four kingdoms of Dan.gt. And the sun was inclining towards setting. xliv. . whose career is Terror. terminated by the great world-judgement which ushers in the coming of the Son of Man (v. and Kin to/a difference between Nin hadd one and this is actually the ^ in an unvocalized text is merely the difference between n and which are very easily confused. My day is Abraham in response to his heart-searching and longing. in Midrash Bereshith Rabba. The strong support to the reading above.

ORIGINAL ARAMAIC OF THE GOSPEL

113

e misreading Njiyi) &v fa y dcCna (ist plur. Perfect) of an original N^yT N? / yadfana (fern. sing. Participle combined with ist pers.

pronoun).

Cf., for this latter

form, Dalman, Grainni. p. 235.

The

same mistake, y ddna
with
ist

for

yada na (masc. sing. Participle combined

pronoun), is made in the vocalization of NJJTP Walton s Polyglot. Possibly oiSa/x.ei in the opening words of Nicodemus (3-) may likewise represent wyij I know on Eojpa/ca rov 2O 18 ep^erat Mapta/x MaySaA.^^ dyyeAAoucra
pers.
in

Num. 22
.

G

.

YJ

.

.

.

The change from direct to oblique oration = n^Jon and awkward. strange Ewpa/ca = rVJpn. hdmeth, eoSpa/ce hamyath* The two forms are identical in the un vocalized text,
Kvpiov KOL raCra d-rrtv avrfj.
is

and the

latter

translator

may easily have been taken for the former by the under the influence of the ordinary construction with on
Thus we may
that

recitativum.

conjecture

that

the

original

ran,

announcing
spoken, &c.
*

she

had seen the Lord, and that

He

had

We

have assigned the Galilaean verb NJDH to a native of Magdala.
in

If

NTH

was used

the narrative there might be a precisely similar confusion

ist pers.

JVtn, 3rd pers. JVjn.

CHAPTER

VIII
IN

OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS FOURTH GOSPEL
THE

THE

question whether the writer of the Fourth Gospel cited the is important in its Hebrew Bible or the bearing on the question of the original language of the Gospel.

O. T. from the

LXX

If the author

the

LXX.

If

was a Hellenist he would naturally have employed he was a Palestinian he would be more likely to

make

his citations from the

Hebrew

;

and

if

he actually wrote

in

Aramaic he could hardly have done otherwise. Thus, though the question of the Johannine quotations has frequently received
discussion, a fresh examination may possibly bring to light certain points which have hitherto passed unnoticed. This section of our examination gives therefore a tabulation of all O. T. citations and references, together with the translation
I
23

Hebrew

text of each passage

and

its

compared with the
(fxjjvrj
/3oo>j/TOS

LXX

rendering.

Eycb

ev rrj Ipfj/juo ^ivOvvare TTJV 6Sov Kvpiov, /ca$u)s

Hcratas 6
Isa.

7ryoo^)^T>ys.

3 40 mrp

TjTi

a

"lan&a

jqip

i>ip

The

voice of one crying,
.

In the wilderness prepare ye the

way

of the Lord

LXX
clause,

<&a)vr)

/3owvTo<s

lv rrf

Iprj/jui),

E^TOL/JidcraTC rrjv

o&ov K.vpLov.

Jn. quotes from

memory, and
<

substitutes the verb of the parallel

^oVb
our
to

n^DB nrnjg n$:
,

make

straight in the desert a high.

way

for

seems

LXX,
Troutre.

In doing this, he be thinking, however, of the Hebrew and not of the since the latter renders not by EvOvvare, but by evOeias The fact that the words in the wilderness properly form
for the verb
1"^

God

^3 prepare ye

in the
in

Hebrew

the desert

the opening of the proclamation (synonymous with of the parallel clause), whereas and Jn., as

LXX

QUOTATIONS
a secondary matter.
2.
I
51

IN

THE FOURTH GOSPEL
is is

115

the text of these versions

of the speaker s situation,

punctuated, treat them as descriptive unimportant, since the punctuation is

Afjirjv

dfjirjv

Ae yoo V/MV,

oij/to-Qe
/cat

TOV ovpavov dvewyora,
CTTI

/cat

rovs

dyye Aous TOV
dvOpwtrov.

eou

dvafiaLVOVTas

/caTa/?atVoj/ras

TOV

vlbv

TOV

Gen. 28 12
13

"o^p

rum novrBM

{

JPSB

.B>*r

a-nt)

Q

Sty

D^g

And he dreamed, and
it
.

njnx 3^p D;D D nan] a ladder set up on the lo,
;

5m>i

earth,

and

its

top reaching to the heaven

and

lo,

the angels of

God ascending and descending upon
/cat

tvv7Tvia.o~9
ets

f
i

)

/cat

loov

K\L/J.OL

O~Tf)piy/jievr)

lv

r?y

yrj t

TJS

rj

d(f>iKVLTO

TOV ovpavovf

/cat

ol

ayyeAot TOV

eov dve/3aivov

/cat

Ka.Tefia.ivov

ITT

aur^?.

It seems quotation takes the form of a free reminiscence. that in the words, ascending and descending upon clear, however, the Son of man , we have an interpretation of the final in different

The

from that which

mean on
Jn.
s

it

generally accepted, ia is regularly taken to (the ladder); but there is also the possibility of the
is

interpretation
citation.*

on him
Jacob,
his

(Jacob),

and

as

the

this appears to be adopted in ancestor of the nation of Israel,

summarizes
at the

in

person the ideal Israel in posse, just as our
it

Genesis-passage, image of the invisible, but actual and

Lord, Son of man.

other end of the line, summarizes

in csse as the
is

The

in

which

the ladder

an
in

unceasing connexion

which God, by the ministry of His angels, stands with the earth, in this instance with Jacob the (Delitzsch), points forward to
constant and living intercourse ever maintained between Christ and the Father (Driver). The point which concerns us here is
that

the

interpretation
in

Hebrew,
i3 is

which, since

put upon the passage depends on the && ladder is masculine, the force of

may
*

ambiguous. In LXX, CTT atrnys can refer only to /cAt)u.a. It be added that Jn. s dvafiaivovTas /cat /cara^aiVo^ras literally
should of course expect Ivi? in this sense, as in the following verse

We

IvJJ 35fi

standing over him
to

(not

standing upon

it

the ladder).

We

are not,

however, concerned
;

origin though it may by the use of the preposition to denote proximity (see Oxford Hebrew Lexicon, 3 II).
I

argue the legitimacy of the interpretation, but merely its be remarked that this interpretation of 2 might be justified

2

Ascending and descending upon Jacob&quot. 49 3 ).ere taking up and bringing down acting as carriers between Earth and Heaven.. li Ascending and descending u upon the ladder&quot.l.gt. Ball offers an elucidation. The explanation.avva ec^ayor Ka$ws ecrriv yeypa/A/zevov CK rot) ovpavov ISwKev avrols &amp. they were taking up to Heaven the CIKWV of the sleeping Jacob (which .ixsnx Q^IJ? .. which obscured 3.^ D^DI omvi o^iy TD nx &quot. 6 Here }Aos roi) OIKOU crov Kara^ayerat ju.sn-a Ixviii. Ex.. Ascending and descending upon Jacob implies that they were taking up and bringing down upon him. ev ep^yaa). and the other says. and LXX . represents the is participial construction Kal KaTtfiawov of ^IT] &e9. Karfyaycv which is found in LXX r^ in B b N ca R. .Ti6 OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS Hebrew dve/3aivoi&amp. are in verbal agreement against the Heb.n^yo^ npipn ^^ pjip^x^ Kin p IB&amp. engraved on high. Jn. In this case. is to be preferred. They n. &quot. Why were going up and coining down ? the answer being. . The explanation. in (13) 4. words translated obscure in I they were taking up and bringing down upon him are very meaning but the following note by Dr.gt.) ( (boh) Eus Epiph. D^NXUDI Dm^l . and rallying him.II N^PI X 1 D^W n&quot.* yeypafji/Jievov 2 17 EfJiV/jcrOrja-av ol fJLaO fjTal yu. @ s (vt. par. 18 : DHIVI DvlJ) N Tl I W I &quot. would ask why the Genesis text does not say were coming down and going up thereon ? It seems rather strange that the Angels of God should start from the But leaving that on one side.Aprov rjjJLwv TO ^.Ascending and descending upon the ladder&quot. as art it is said. vg. &quot.e.lt. the angels apparently. 6u ot Trarepes &quot.N ntDD^ (Interpretations of) D^lp^N Rabbi Hiya and Rabbi Yannai. ^niraN ^n-a DN3J5 The zeal of Thine house hath eaten me LXX. him. Israel in whom I glory (Isa.e. I am inclined to think that the Midrashic earth. 69 . in LXX. Bereshith Rabba. &quot. &c. cf.1^ D^ni &quot.&quot. The one scholar says. hath eaten me There is a v. He now finds that such an interpretation was actually put forward and debated in early times in Rabbinic circles . and in Jn.ayeiV. IH DH HIDI D vJJD is a sort of general reply to the unasked question. i6 4 * O^g^n-f?? Dn^ DDb i^rpp ^Jn Behold. They were leaping and skipping over &quot.Thou he whose einuv looking at his flnuv. avrov on eoriV O ?/Xos rov OLKOV crov Karac^ayeTtti Ps. I will rain for This note stands as worked out by the writer before it occurred to him to consult the Midrash Bereshith Rabba for traces of the interpretation of \3 which he has suggested as inherent in the Johannine reference.. They were ascending on high and and then descending below and finding him sleeping The is .

caught The &quot. stood over him 13 (Gen. . Paul 1ff up to the third Heaven (2 Cor. Jon.gt. ad loc.D 1H3N 1&quot. passage. interpretation of 1H as referring to Jacob a given a little further on Ixix.ypa. .jifjif.vi&amp.lt. it is 4 nearer to the Heb. as Jacob became conscious of Yahweh standing by him It is difficult to resist the conclusion that the remarkable explanation of this &quot. 2 8 ) ^ ^ \W iTnK&amp. i6 than is LXX Kat plur. i6 15 nb?d? 03^ nVn&amp.iy D^a^ Q^UT vm nony ai?o n^ni rforw . behold. Jerus. I arg. In Ps. the Lord pi&amp. Ps. and Targ. i6 Jn.gt.liya and Rabbi Yannai also differed as to the interpretation of the suffix &quot. i5 whose tittwv we are in the future to bear) who is to come e ovpavov. D^-O ^B&amp. behold. fastened to the Throne of Glory&quot. .IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL .in D^IVI D^IV DM^N n^nnn ^ . i2 -) where he heard&quot. ad loc. ngte Drfen .gt. apprjra. his nurse bent over him.vov ecrovrai Trai/rcs is &quot. .. inp^n N3C&amp. the angels of God ascending and descending upon him When the Holy One (blessed be We may note that He) revealed Himself over him they flew away from off him Rabbi I. wn That is the bread 6 apros which the Lord hath given you iiowKev to eat LXX OUTOS w .1vyD ini2 n in a cradle OpH Rabbi Abbahu said. &quot. under conditions of trance? &quot. case would then be parallel to that of St.(mv Iv rots Trpoc^ryrais ys. aprov ovpavov eSw/eev 24 au-rois. and they flew away from off him. the other that He stood over Jacob.gt.. i6 probably uninfluenced by In rendering &quot. was this CIKUJV his wraith or spirit supposed As Jacob was in deep be separated from the body &quot. 78 . . much ll and heard His voice.gt. LXX 4- . of ^VV.lt. V/MV aprous IK TOV Ex. corn by aprov (only so s rendering of |n 4 rendered here) is dictated by recollection of Ex. 78 iob in 3 D?p f fa&quot. eor&amp.7Tos on the clouds of Heaven angels exulting over him.] this (ifcwv inasmuch as Jacob embodies the 47 ~ 49 o national hope and ideal Sfvrepos represents the heavenly Man (cf..rt And corn of heaven He gave them LXX /ecu. 6 41 f.ayeu/.gt.N np^D vbv iy f^3 nns&amp.yo . Midrash throws further light upon the Johannine passage. Kvpios v/ui :4 &amp. Jon.R. the one explaining that the Lord stood on the ladder.~).gt. also Targ. dV#pa&amp. t) in comment on : V^i? 3W jv^i v/ rOm And. So at first.gt.Ap-rov IK TOV ovpavov recollection of the Ps. if the heavens were opened Nathaniel might behold the is The same (B. is Jacob in s Hebrew simply reproduces the Greek term) . i Cor.gt. already existent Heaven tiKwv (the (cf. 117 you bread from heaven ovpavov LXX fri3 iSou eyob vo&amp. who was sleeping and flies were settling on him but when his nurse came. s quota 5 tion is a free reminiscence of Ex. to sleep. of Ex.And. 5. It is like a royal child . par.

.} Kai TraVras rovs viovs crov StSaKxous eo9. since Heb. and LXX agree exactly. in place of it is probable that the use of of the Lord taught of influence. &c.lt. n^ pnox ^ eot core. . 12 -i tKpavya^ov Qaravva. and the verbal agreement between LXX has therefore no special significance. L7TV r) 7 /cantos ypacfari. OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS 13 54 . the natural inference is that the quotation was originally made directly from the Heb.gt. Mic. K&amp. dependent upon Heb. 82 I R DPIK D s Eyo&amp. eTTra eot eore Ps. 5 2 (5* in from Bethlehem). Jer. !4 OVK ca-Tiv yeypa/xyueVoj/ Iv rw vo/^w v/xaii/ on Eyw . Ye are gods XX eiTra Heb. 10.v] O. p.gt. mn. f&amp. 109). 1 The references are general merely. and not on tov is LXX. (Davidic descent). KOI Aavet 8. ep^erai 6 Xptcrros . KOLL could hardly be otherwise rendered. 7 etTrei/ OTL IK TOV ^X ^ yp a( (TTrep/xaros AavetS. Isa. 8. 7rt o-ro/xaros ovo /JiapTvpo)v Kai CTTI o-TOfiaros rpiwv vague reference. Trora/jiol e/c Trjs KoiAias avrov pevcrovcrw { Soros ^aWos. n 1 . and Jn. rrjs This passage has already been discussed. taught due to LXX If this is so. to involve a 7. 1J all thy sons shall be taught of the Lord LXX (in connexion with in treating the Kai $770*00 rots eTraX^ets crov ta&amp. and was afterwards modified by a copyist under influence 6.lt. 1 have said. yiypair ran 8 ev TO) i/o/xo) Se TW v/x-erepo) on St o avOpwTrwv rj fJMprupia riB Deut. is .n8 Isa. and has been shown misunderstanding of an Aramaic original (cf. KT\. 23*. God Nevertheless.i)/jir]S OTTOV rjv Based on Heb. *yn*b T?rHl And V. statement as an independent sentence. 38 LXX possibly by the translator from Aramaic into Greek. LXX A 9.T7riv. evXayrj/ntvos 6 e/r^o/xevos tv oVo/zart K i}LOV. Clearly Jn. IO .TTO B^^Aee/x. i9 15 ^-y iN any ^-y At the mouth Dipj of two witnesses or at the mouth of three shall a word be estab w w lished . .

o ep^o/tevos ^ v ovofjiarc c Kuptou. is verbally identical with LXX but the Heb. Exult greatly.lt.rov ep^erat &amp. I2 14 1 tvpwv B 6 I /o ot5s - ovdpiov (KaOicrfv CTT auro. an ass s foal Ovyarcp ^etojv Iepot&amp. a 9 nan -^ l&quot.ry/x .IN Ps. ii8 :3 - THE FOURTH GOSPEL N3 119 26 njwin nirp NSK ni n? DPS Ksn ! T O Lord. LXX Xo. croJcrov S?y. Shout.ei S &amp. thy king cometh unto thee O . 11. Heb. .gt.lt.lt. And upon a colt.raiW ! LXX the imperative for that with the cohortative termination. Save now which.ajs CTTI vTro^ytoi/ TTCOAOl VCOV. Behold. I8ov o fiacriXevs crov Ka@ir)[JiVO$ CTTl TTOjA-Ol/ Zech. Ovydrrjp %iw OVOV./?e/3ry/&amp.lt. could hardly be otherwise translated.^)o8pa. becomes . and hosia-nna represents the Heb. daughter of Jerusalem.(raA. O daughter of Zion . save now Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the Lord ! LXX w Kvpte. and riding upon an ass.rot O? KO. fvXoyyptvos xrX. .tpe O&quot. hosa -na. Ka^aJ Mr) (frofiov.I O&quot. Ovyarep 6 ySacriA. Righteous and victorious is he Lowly. r. agree exactly.0)^U)J . by substitution of the short form of fl&amp. ai -Tos Trpai 9 Kttt Kal 7T(.

vniov TLVL a Isa. vague and general.il/ e(. 89 f -. 7 Cf. 14. Ps. ovov is derived tK It is clear. LXX opening Kvpic. cucoj/a. however. . and not from VOJJLOV LXX. from Heb.Kvpiov a. and blind . except that is also found in Jn. is influenced by LXX. and be healed Make the heart of this people gross. and Kiyne. 7. to whom hath . Tri(TTva V TTJ aKofj -^/xajr Kat o ppoLVLWV j\. on 7raA. that TT&XOV 12.120 OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS quotation is The abbreviated and somewhat free. g (^ is in Heb. eis 12 &quot. 6 10 Nan their eyes. And understand with their heart. s quotation which agrees It is LXX LXX.f&amp.F avrwv rots rryv Kat j/07/o-axra/ r^ Ka/o8ia /cat o-rpa&amp.lt. i2 tIM &quot. 2 Sam. clear that the text of Jn. ris Kftl e7rurreu&amp. and repent. l 53 Who And the hath believed our report arm of the Lord.lt. which verbally with has added the agree exactly. it been revealed . 37 25 D^V? D ?? Wwi ^riy shall be their prince for ever . and hear with their ears. no el: . LXX Heb.).lt. KOL tacro/aat Isa. KCU AauelS 6 SovXos /AOV ap^a)v ets TOV alwva. nn] And David my servant LXX The 13.lt.7rei/ Hcraias TeTi ^)Xo)Kv avrwv TOVS KOL iVa eTro jpcocrei/ yar/ t 8(o&amp.T(. And make their ears heavy.7rKaXv&amp.jei rrj TLI aKorj rj/mwv L u /3pa^i(j)v &quot. also Isa. Hyuets fjKovcra/jiev TOV OTL 6 Xptoros /xeVet TOV Ezek.gt.w(Tiv. Lest they see with their eyes. reference I2 18 . . TIS TrXifjpwOy ov .ft07} . TrpoffrrjTov tva 6 Xoyos Hcrat ou rou Kvpie.

making gross (a 1 standing for He hath blinded hath made gross normal and idiomatic usage).lt. e/ca/ which makes the people the subject. bread hath up his heel against 6 ecrOioiv aprovs LXX 16. fJi I3 10 ctAA Lva r) &quot. LXX A * in both passages. merely a free reminiscence of the Hebrew.vfft. Jn. Symmachus took the Imperatives 12311.0a\/j. Kal lacro/xat Here Trore /&amp. make fat ). Wy are either treated as Infinitives Absolute in (lit. and the transposition of a clause) Jn. and independent of LXX.gt. JJ^il. place of Perfects . i?^n. V^H as Perfects *133il.V. blinding smearing . as might be supposed from the fact that the writer uses past tenses TCTV^XMKW. LXX 18 15. but. 15&quot.t?y Jn. Yahweh) the subject . Ps. ifiapvvf. shut .ovs aurov e/j. or the forms are read as Perfects. unlike Jn. /capSi a (rwwcrij/ KCU e7rto-rpei//wo-iv. however.s With Trj ACO! TOVS o&amp.riv (TTpaffrwcrLV with eTrto-rpei^wcrti/. be read in the unvocalized text. iva TrXypwO f] 6 Xoyo? 6 ev TGJ ro/xo) avrwv yeypa/x/xeros ort E/xt crTycrar /xe oa)peaj/.. accurately. aurcov /^apeoos Kal rots r/Kovo-av Kal rovs fjiij Trore iScoartv roTs rfy o^^aA/x-CH? /cat rots (icrtv KCU.QV rov aprov T TjV 7TTpVaV aVTOV. eymeyaAwev is e/xe TrrepVKrfjtoi Jn. eTrcopwo-o/. 4i lifted 3py ^V ^n ^ me fj. and is nearer to it than in reading sing.lt.gt. bix .ypa(f)7j TrXrjpwOfj O rptaywv JJ. over ). He CTT that eateth my .ov. Ps. while the Hebrew appears to use Imperatives (R. /cat rrj /capSt a crwa&amp. as they might naturally Thus (allowing for omission of .IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL yap oxriv rj 121 LXX iira^yvBri xapBta rov Xaov TOVTOV. re-n^A-co/co/ in place of plur. aAA. my haters without cause .lt. 35 19 and 5 69 ( in Heb. WTO..gt.* J^C V^ n. the reference to ears. s read ing is a reasonably accurate rendering of Heb. made the people (not KOI TUVS u(f&amp.) Dan ^b 8wpedv. is clearly independent of LXX. ot /JLKTOVVTZS /xe free reminiscence. renders Heb. S contrast : avrwv rot s : 6(&amp. o Aaos OVTOS TO.@a\fjiov&amp.$aA//m eKa/xyu/ucrav iVa : /XT^ With KOL vorjerwcriv KapBia with is not.

t//una /xov eatTors /Cat 18 19 7Tt TOV L/JLaTLO~[Ji6v [AOV f. ei/ TTttvra TO.s Xryci Aii^to. LXX The 19.lt. LXX LXX Ps.r) 7r\r]po)0fj Aie/Aepi cravTO TO. quotation 1C? is a free reminiscence. TereAearat o~7royyov Ti^a T\Hj)Bri /j.) or6 nra ^m garments among them.r^ I9 eyevero yap raCra tVa ^ TrXypwOr) Qarovv ov crwrpi- Ex.lt. &quot. e^ aurcoi/. The LXX points to LXX influence. &amp.(TTOv ypacfrr) oov&amp./3a\OV K Ps. LXX The 20. ow TOV t Trept^ei^Tes TrpocrrjvtyKa.lt. 6 9 gave me Heb.lt.122 17. LXX agree closely. general merely.gt. i2 10 ^JT&quot./&amp. 28 29 - verbal agreement between i(^ YJ Mera TCLVTCL etSw? 6 I^om s on e/ceiro ^8?^ TTO. /cat 12 oo-row ov (TwrptyfTe Ni? avrov.TO&quot.f. ^ tfKi Trj(rar.77 shall break no bone of it . oo~Ttt [Kt ptos] avrwv ov (TvvTpi^d^rai. Kat cts rr/v 8tij/av is fjtov ITTOTHTULV /xe o^os.) He keepeth all his bones Not one of them is broken . 21 Ps.Oij/ovTai KOL TruXiv erepa ypafy-t] Xeyei 1 eis oi/ Zech. Num. OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS 4 IQ Iva f) ypa&amp.ei . 22 ( in Heb.T/xov /xov eySaXov KX^pov. ^ .lt.gt.) r n vinegar to drink 22 ( in ^P^ : ^^1 and for my thirst they . i2 1G taTia rrfc6 DJJ/j and ye air shall break no bone of it . LXX Heb. reference ir&amp. in Heb. and 18.gt. Sie/zept o-aj KOLL e?rt i//.VTO. ypa&amp. O crtoTra) cr/veDos oovs jtACorov* ra&amp. .lt.gt. l^n] (lv^ (jjv and they shall look on Ka me whom they have pierced /ecu LXX 7nf3\ij/ovTai Trpo? /xe . and Jn. 9 in-ns^ 51 OXJ?] and they 0.uXa&amp.v avrov OTO/taTt. They part (or parted) my And upon my vesture do (or did) they cast lots TO TO. Kat ocrrovv ov crvvrpiif/ovfriv CLVTOV.f&amp.ana fjiov favrciis rov f//ari&amp.

123 Heb.). s O. 4. (d) (e) Free reminiscences 4. LXX where this differs from the Hebrew. G. Misreading of an Aramaic original . 19. 9. 12. io 4 1 . Lam.gt. . 18. and the variation between Jn. (c) LXX where this is an accurate Quotations agreeing with 3. 7. 13.gt. 1. . in Greek. 17. 15. Here we notice that the two verbs are the same as those employed Thus be made (a) the following classification of Jn. I3 &quot. dependent or since ns* possible as a Hebrew &quot.T.v is decisive against from an earlier Greek source. 10. 398). . 44 (37) &quot. T. and it is this text is upon which Jn. read eis ov e^eKeVr^crar. and this no doubt is a Christian marginal variant influenced by Jn.i Trpos MSS. The Apocalypse. on him &quot./&amp. non-Septuagintal rendering (as suggested by the O. which is the rendering of fjif . T. 8. which is thoroughly Hebraic. The LXX letters oH&quot. It is obvious that Jn. Introd. Aquila a-vv to l^Kcvrrjcrav. dotion in the rendering efc oi/ e^KeVr^o-av appears to be fortuitous merely. 5. (5).gt. 20. quotations : may Quotations dependent on the Hebrew. has an echo of the O.. EK/cej/retv is the &quot. in I KOL oi^erat OLVTOV TTUS o&amp. construction he may scarcely presuppose the more p^K) I^N* natural reading IS^TJK.&amp. is independent of LXX. Nos. . 14.IN Some fifty is THE FOURTH GOSPEL MSS.^ they pierced LXX Kai iTnf3\\l/ovTa. whose rendering The connexion with Theo destroys the point of the quotation. (used by LXX in Judg. i Chr.$aA/xos Kat otrtj/e? avrov f^fKevT rjrrav. 4. and does not imply that Jn. . and by Aquila and Symmachus s in Isa. .^N . 2. a reading Several ^P T strange rendering is based on an erroneous transposition of the they danced . read vh* .ipl natural rendering of Jer. and Theodotion were dependent upon an earlier to Swete. In the LXX common borrowing MS. p.lt. 11. Theodotion.&amp. . 6V 9* . Quotations agreeing with (1)) rendering of the Hebrew. passage in Jn. 16. 240 we find the rendering ot^oi/rcu Trpos /xe et? bv e^eKeVr^o-ar as a doublet. i-mf^Xiil/ovrai fyovTai eis and Theodotion s Trpos /^e et? &quot. Symmachus . representing the Lucianic recension..

the quotations which now agree verbally with might very well have been quoted from Heb. or solely. and LXX from and that the point of the quotations in no way them. and can hardly depend upon LXX. and be all taught of God And they shall agree with Heb. LXX. is LXX This. and marking different strands of authorship. This inference. and that the variations from his regular usage are the work of a later hand. the use of Heb.g. text. In 3 (2 17 ) the Heb. seems to be raised to a certainty by the fact that 5 nexion with both Heb. 2 and 20 exhibit points of connexion vital to the it is On the other hand. while in 4 and 11 the points of agree ment with Heb. s v.i2 4 OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS Under (a) we notice that. since the in 9 and 10 might be acci the agreement with Heb. since 17 and the three cases under accidental. all the other cases are weighty and preclude any other theory than a first-hand knowledge of the Heb. all quotation which are absent from LXX. consists only in the eoO for the Lord and in 13 only in the prefixing . or that the Gospel is composite. of Kvpie. There remains the theory that the writer used either Heb. and LXX in every case slight and unimportant. a point not to be pressed. I. We have now to seek an explanation of the fact that. LXX Now LXX obvious that the agreements with Heb. sentence. which has points of con emerges from a consideration of the quotations as a whole. cannot be due to alteration. while a considerable number of use of the to Hebrew LXX. . while the point of connexion . reading hath eaten me depends upon is represented by Jn. . since the variation between Heb. since e. are very attestation. substitution of In 5 the variation from Heb. against LXX are slight. (c) show a connexion with LXX which cannot be Under (c} we observe slight. We may the quotations in Jn. that the variations of Jn. however. Under (b) dental. And 1 will make all thy sons to be taught of God . as being an independent The words . certain others are as clearly conformed rule out the possibilities that the writer was familiar with both Heb. /care^ayev which has considerable Heb. presuppose direct Bible. and LXX. could scarcely be translated in other words. and quoted from both indis criminately. and subsequently modified so as LXX to agree with is LXX.

though they might very possibly be made by a reviser or copyist of the Greek text.T.IN with is THE FOURTH GOSPEL God instead of Heb. and not a Hellenist dependent on LXX. would be far more likely to arise in process of translation into Greek from another language. in And in 6 (7 :i8 j we which the O. have very striking evidence that the language reference was originally cast was Aramaic. Further. 125 LXX taught of taught of the Lord - just the kind of alteration which might subsequently be made If this be granted. . it must surely be admitted that slight modifications of passages originally quoted from Heb. into verbal agreement with LXX. such as Aramaic. LXX of the Gospel was a Palestinian Jew employing the Heb. is proved. the fact that the writer under influence..

If the theory based. exercise upon current historical criticism of the Fourth Gospel. it must surely affect something like a revolution is soundly in current Johannine criticism . and ought at the outset to be presented for consideration uncomplicated by ulterior issues. if not a recon struction.CHAPTER IX EPILOGUE AT offer it the close of this discussion the writer may be expected to if some remarks as to the influence which his theory should. fact is In the that the place. while to the best of his ability he has made a minute study of the Gospel is issues he and can claim some knowledge of the external criteria bearing upon the question of authorship. he cannot claim con versance with more than a small portion of the gigantic mass of itself. Firstly. Still. the writer conscious that in attempting to touch upon such larger is in danger of getting outside his province . of certain fundamental postulates which have hitherto been accepted by all schools of criticism. it may be held to go even farther. for. and to demand a re-examination. conclusion which emerges with no less clearness even that the evidence This if it a be held which has been offered is insufficient to prove . the question has been mainly not wholly linguistic. while cutting at the roots of the fashion able assumptions of a particular school of critics. This is a task which for two reasons he feels somewhat if loth to essay. modern literature which has been directed towards the solution of the Johannine problem. gains acceptance. it goes without saying that in the course of the linguistic investigation the question of its bearing upon the authorship of the Gospel has been constantly in his mind. Thus it may be thought in brief the fitting that the author of the theory should indicate results to which he believes that first it points. it should establish beyond question the Gospel is a product of Palestinian thought. And secondly. for.

as well as a Greek. we have added the coping-stone which harmoniously completes the building. we find that our theory seems to call for the re-opening of a question which is generally supposed to be settled. he has been triumphantly vindicated. cannot be disputed The author s He is language is cast throughout in the Aramaic mould. it could hardly have been written at Ephesus. not through the medium of the LXX. indeed. Here. 35 if. If. the Midrashim prove the contrary. be granted. Could New Testament scholars ever have arrived at any other conclusion if they had is not derived from Philo. for at least that the case for virtual translation is irrefragable. It may be true that there is an ultimate connexion between the Logos-concep Yet. it must surely have been written in Palestine or Syria . equipment ? Not. and If this This can hardly be disputed in face evidence adduced on pp. in addition. His Logos-doctrine is the development of conceptions enshrined in the Targums. and of the current Messianic expectations at the time of our Lord. thoroughly familiar with Rabbinic speculation. On all these questions. of or another been impugned. of the approached the subject with an adequate Semitic. in which in time past his accuracy has in one way tinian topography. the figment of Alexandrine influence upon the author must be held finally to be disproved. but this connexion Philo s implied by a common parentage. however. He knows his/ Old Testament.EPILOGUE actual translation from 127 it Aramaic. This conclusion is by no means necessarily at variance with the tradition that the author spent the latter part of his life at . one thing. that the theory that the Gospel was written admirably with other well-ascertained results of internal evidence the author s intimate knowledge of Pales It may be observed fits in Aramaic in Jewish festivals and customs. tion of Philo is and that of the Gospel-prologue is . is when this is admitted. it is proved that he actually wrote in Aramaic. that Palestinian Rabbinism was wholly uninfluenced by Greek thought. Palestinian Jewish thought Alexandrine Hellenistic thought another. doctrine was in no sense the moulding influence of our author s no closer than thought. If the Gospel was written in Aramaic. but in the original language.

and on these points the writer does * The Fourth Gospel its is said to be the work : of loannis ex discipulis . may differ as to the impression of the author s personality conveyed by the Gospel . Since John his fellow- disciples (one of whom is Andrew) are the other Apostles. 75-80. there are traces of a different opinion.90 or somewhat later). The Cohortantibus condiscipulis et composition is given as follows episcopis suis dixit. may be observed while tradition generally assigns the writing of the Gospel to Ephesus. at variance with the facts of internal evidence. it must surely be admitted which have been brought together greatly strengthen the case for holding that the Gospel is the work of an eye-witness. Assuming that the author was about twenty at the Crucifixion. But this is by no means possibly even a considerably earlier one. reasonable to place of its it relation to the Synoptic Gospels even earlier demands an expert knowledge and a first-hand conclusion as to the dates of these latter. Even apart from a full acceptance of the theory propounded that the facts in the present volume. The age more normal for the composition of a of sixty-five or seventy would at any rate be work which exhibits so markedly a maturity which is as yet unimpaired. The Muratorian Canon seems Palestine. the planning and execution of the Gospel is hardly consistent with such a theory. Eadem nocte revelatum Andreae ex apostolis ut occasion of recognoscentibus cunctis loannes suo nomine cuncta discriberet. to state that the Gospel circle. 0. Conieiunate mihi hodie triduo et quid cuique fuerit revelatum alterutrum nobis enarremus. Opinions quite exceptional in one so old. this would lead us The question whether it would be to date the Gospel A. but if we are to assume that he he took up his was a man of eighty or more when we are postulating for him a mental vigour pen. it seems to follow that one of the disciples himself is named . while the First Epistle might fairly be regarded as the product of extreme old age. The assignment of a Palestinian or Syrian origin to the Gospel would seem to carry with it an earlier date for its composition than that which is commonly accepted (A. Ephesus for obviously we have the possibility that he It may have that. presumably. but the present writer feels that.* was written before the in breaking up of the Apostolic therefore.128 EPILOGUE .D. The view that it represents the mature Christian experience of that witness is doubtless sound . . written the Gospel at an earlier period.

Trevre CTTOOLS e^ovcra. has j^. . . lit. * that it should have originated is in if an Aramaic-speaking Syria. the evidence of 5 129 not feel qualified to venture an opinion.Eo-nv Se eV rfj TrpofiaTiKr) KoXv/JifirjOpa . both in time and place.(voy t Instances of such touches . which marks as the Participle hdwe. . 7 2 37 . 75-80. . or at in wets or is might be left in Aramaic to be inferred from the any rate expressed in such a way that confusion would be easy For &quot. E/3p. &quot. 5 2 . but for a larger circle of Jew. viz.gt. - may be seen in a 6 13 23 4 6 9 . What Jews. and existing in it . . at the impression that the Gospel was not written at an earlier date than A. convey the impression of conflation. at least primarily.Eanv ex ovffa Cur. destruction of Jerusalem in A. that Tabernacles was the feast of the Christians.* which has been thought intact. ( ( EjSpai em ). or indeed what Gentile inhabitant of Palestine. Aramaic there would probably have been no - mark of TQ 31 40 - distinction. . and existing was Existing is is .E&p.). . . 5&quot. Thus Syria 1 indicated. Se). on the hypothesis of translation. ]6o and is Here. or that the festival of the Dedication took place in winter ?t Of course it might be maintained that the author. yet on the other hand our theory of an Aramaic original seems to demand country. and The meaning translation. there are a number of indications which suggest a certain remoteness. in while in Pal. Existing was Existing tvas . . 18 1 of these passages. to imply that the city was still standing being of doubtful validity if the Greek is regarded as a translation from Aramaic. then. ig 13 (AiOuffTpurov.. . . but such a We arrive. from the scenes described. . Joo find K/ ]^/ . the only it time-determining factor the dot above In Joo&amp. it . 2 23 kv iraa^ci ii/ ry foprr). Two TO&amp. Pesh. . course it must be assumed.EPILOGUE We that there 2 70. .gt. . . Syr. io22 . On the other hand. 6 1 4 . ^ . passages given in this note may has glossed the text for possible that some of the touches in the first set of be translator s glosses. not the Perfect hdiva. . 6 \ty(Tai so 16 . for Jews. \piar6s).gt.|o Joo* k/&amp. however. then Antioch. - . E/3/&amp. seem to be no indications pointing to a date prior to the D. . and also seem to imply that the author was not writing.D. TOIS Icpo&oXv/Jiois CTTI &quot. . . however. . context. that in 4 25 (o \(y6fj. IQ 17 (Kpaviov TOTTOI/. may note.gt. . writing not merely for his contemporaries but for posterity to whom such details would not be obvious. u \ey(Tai AtSacr/faXt) the translator It is the benefit of his readers. u . nor from Palestine. 6 ntpav rfjs Of OaXaaarjs TTJS Fa\t\aias TTJS ftfifptdSos. in it we o^k )6oo . Q^^ Oo ] j^|o . took care to insert them theory can hardly claim probability. W. would need to be informed that the Jews have no deal ings with the Samaritans.

and though Greek was doubtless the language of the upper classes.. 473 f.) so lyva. which brought the and to add new blood northward to the population. and the country people into the metropolis to sell their food-stuffs.ri. 1902. and if the line of his missionary activity was Jerusalem following in the footsteps of St. but reminiscences of the teaching of the Gospel are * *h more numerous than is generally ZNTW.D. Maprvpiov The describes him at its The i. eastward into Syria and Palestine. facts the Fourth Gospel which lead the present writer to suggest the theory that may have been written at Antioch are as follows : The Epistles of St. who argues against the historical value of the statement and seeks to explain how it may have arisen. C. It is interesting to Antioch Ephesus he was note that we are not entirely without external indication that St. t of St. pp. Ignatius It is (c. Apostolic Fathers. If the writer of the Fourth Gospel really spent the last part of his life at Ephesus.130 EPILOGUE a Though Antioch was was Greek city. it stood not far from the heart of the district whence from the earliest times the Aramaic speech diffused. approximates to true that there is only one passage in them which an actual verbal quotation.D. Cf. Conybeare has quoted a statement translated from a John was commentary of scripsit illud Syriac fragment appended to the Armenian translation to the St. Lightfoot. then we have in Antioch a half-way house between this and Jerusalem . . John. no) are full of Johannine Theology. and adds later on the scarcely credible statement that he and Polycarp (born A. II. Ignatius was a disciple or 6th century A. nam permansit in terra usque ad tempus Traiani . ii. A. F. As we learn from Acts.* There exists a wide-spread (though not very early) tradition that St. there must have been a large substratum of population to whom Aramaic was This follows necessarily from the the more familiar language. 193. The Mesopotamia and southward through city must have been bilingual. p.D.ov (5th opening. Mr. the natural line of expansion for the infant-Church at Jerusalem was to Antioch. Ephrem on Tatian s Diatessaron lohannes : [evangelium] graece Antiochiae. 69) had together been disciples of the Apostle. exigencies of trade both the regularly organized caravan-trade local trade from beyond the Euphrates. at Antioch and wrote the Gospel there. Paul.

| Theophilus of Antioch was also familiar with the * The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers. in their recent edition of auoi/os TOVTOV &amp.t . saw a vision antiphonal hymns. In your concord and harmonious love Jesus Christ is sung.CDTOS the Odes and Psalms of Solomon (1920).lt. There is a tradition recorded by the historian Socrates that Ignatius instructed the Antiochenes in the composition and singing of hymns. current in Asia Minor before the publication of the This is met if it can be shown that Ignatius was and TWO.* ignorance One how far some is that Ignatius use of the highly probable.lt. the third who also had personal intercourse with of angels praising the Trinity in the vision to the church in Antioch transmitted to : Church of singing antiphonal bishop after Peter of the Syrian Antioch. and delivered the fashion of from whence also the same tradition was Socrates. but falls some way short of of his reasons for this doubtful verdict is our of the Logia of Christ recorded by John may have been . The italics draw attention to the parallelism in thought. These passages find a striking parallel in Ode 41. Ephes. Jn. and have shown that the dependence is almost certainly on Ignatius s side. and taking the key-note of God. that He may both hear you and acknowledge you by your good deeds to be the members of His Son (i. other churches. praise And let us appropriate the truth of His faith : Him : : And His children shall be acknowledged by let Him Therefore Let us sing in His love. 43. 83. Ignatius. 2. &amp. 154. HE. form yourselves into a chorus. a\r)0eia&amp. vi. in love sing to the Father in Jesus Christ. Drs. which begins as follows : Let all of us who are the Lord s bairns. fit s children} Rom. quoted by Harris and These editors also aptly call attention (p. quoted We must also tell whence the custom of the hymns had its origin. e. us.EPILOGUE recognized. 8. Mingana.lt. Rendel Harris and Mingana. ye may in oneness being harmonious sing with one voice through Jesus Christ unto the Father. Inge s conclusion is Fourth Gospel certainty . 2. p. f Cf. by a committee of the Oxford i Society of Historical Theology. 4. especially the group of passages reflecting the teaching of from the letter to the Ephesians on p. 6 apx^v TOV this seems to be the case. have made a case for a connexion between the Odes and the Letters of Ignatius. in concord. And do ye. therefore. Forming yourselves into a chorus. all of us unite together in the name of the Lord. John and The Ignatian expressions. p. that. 47) to two passages in Ignatius s letters in which he uses chorus-singing as a metaphor for Christian harmony. 131 Dr. the Apostles themselves. K 2 . Gospel probably also acquainted with the First Epistle of St. each and all.s may actually imply acquaintance with the original Aramaic of the Gospel.

) forward suggestions present writer has. ch.* Syri:ic. The supposed influence of Pauline Theology upon the Fourth Gospel in no way conflicts with our new theory as to the date and place of the Gospel. Both of them were Rabbinists. ch. have become known The 45 ff. Paul. J Now the the fact that the writer of the Odes was acquainted with Fourth Gospel can be proved fairly clearly. it is is the less surprising earlier if. A period of twenty years or so allows is The evidence given in detail ample time well for the principal epistles of St. however. as on our theory. Both again were mystics but no reason for assuming that the mysticism of the Gospel was a development of Pauline teaching. (pp. ch. at. iii. 1317. Paul and the author of the Gospel may have been influenced by a common earlier source of teaching. . both in Ignatius s Letters and in the Odes. iv. are with the Last Discourses. put which may indicate a somewhat different conclusion.t It EPILOGUE seems clear that The conclusion of at they were originally composed in these editors is that they were probably written Antioch in the first century. + op. Jn. and the course of the present discussion has revealed several instances of a know ledge of Rabbinic speculation on the part of the Gospel-author which there independent of St. Surprising as this may seem in view of the very early date which is assigned to the Odes. noteworthy that a great part of the connexions with the thought of the Gospel. at. the question how far this trait is in the two Christian writers is based on Jewish Haggada gation. than is if commonly supposed the Gospel and it becomes quite at comprehensible was actually It is composed Antioch and first circulated there in Aramaic. Mysticism is one of the characteristics of the Rabbinic method of treating Scripture and is . eft. though here again the evidence takes the form of reminiscence of the teaching rather than actual verbal quotation. viz. the date of the Gospel . that both St. Paul to at Antioch. f Op. is . xiii. one which calls for further investi The inclusion within the early Church at Jerusalem of a large contingent from the priestly class (Acts 6 7 ) must almost * op.132 Odes. for all in this appears so highly important that it an Appendix.

90.. especially pp. Johannis (1896&quot.g. t there are ff. his interest being whetted through listening to our Lord s discussions with the Rabbinists at Jeru salem. St. clear. 67 ff.46. 35 43 ff. he had actually undergone a thorough Rabbinic training.EPILOGUE to the service of the 133 certainly have resulted in the application of Rabbinic speculation new Faith. i ff. John impressed the priestly /cat authorities at Jerusalem as avQpu-n-oi and though the phrase is used in (Acts connexion with their unexpected eloquence.. not in the fact that having previously been ay/aa/x/xaroi i.) . was the first to remark. Gesch. Sanday.e. but dropped by him in the and ed. details in Cf. John the Apostle. it must be admitted that the clear traces which we have noticed of his acquaintance with Rabbinic learning* seem to diminish the St. through intercourse with the Christian of the Jewish priesthood. * f- as Prof. the paradox consisted. especially if a young man. Rabbi Jesus v. that if members we had Paul. in Rabbinic methods of exegesis .. 99 ff. untrained dypa/x/xaTot tSiarrai 4&quot. . 17 f. pp. n. Delff s theory was followed by Bousset in the ist ed. . His first-hand use of the Hebrew Bible would be explained and. It is regarded with considerable favour by Dr. It reason to think that. (1906) cf. . though aypd^aroi. supposing that he may also have been the author of the Apocalypse. like St. of his Offenbarnng pp. d. 2. 116 n. pp. 110 n. As to the author of the Gospel while the conclusion that he wrote his Gospel in Aramaic strongly confirms the opinion that he was an actual eye-witness of the events which he describes. Delff work upon a Biblical Hebrew model.. It is of course conceivable that the Galilaean fisherman. much light would be thrown upon the Gospel. . Das vierte Evangelittm (1890). e. however. may have had a natural aptitude for assimilating the Rabbinic methods of argument. and why these arguments appealed to him more than the simple parabolic teaching which was adapted to the to retain the Galilaean peasantry. p . they still now appeared so to be trained to but in the fact that. Peter and probability that he was St. in n. we should understand how he was able to construct this Now. and that... he may subsequently have is carried his studies farther in this direction. Criticism of the Fourth Gospel. should then understand how it was that the author We was able substance of our Lord s arguments with his former teachers. Nazareth (1899). they were able speak and argue eloquently and convincingly.

v. The deduction based on these internal indications serves further to explain the remarkable statement of Polycrates of Ephesus that John. wearing which otherwise is posed that it an insoluble enigma.&quot. Moreover. 24). John of Ephesus was not my way who Papias tells us that if any one chanced to come had been a follower of the presbyters.53 i2 10). n . he took her ds at TO. but as ^apTvs KOL StSao-KaAos simply this too he sleeps at Ephesus where Polycrates in spite of the fact that himself was bishop. and also the fact that one of those who questioned Peter was a kinsman of Malchus (i8 2C ). iii. our Lord commended His Mother iSia to his care. . from that hour 27 suggests that he had a house or near Jerusalem (ig ). -.lt. . HE. band had actually preceded him in his own see. (os lyev^Ov] lepevs was a priest the sacerdotal frontlet TO iriraXov 7re&amp. whom he defines as ran/ SwSe/ca d-n-oo-ro Awi/. or any other of the Lord s disciples. which was 15 He alone of the denied to Peter until he intervened (i8 ).gt. and also what . the name of the high priest s servant. John. while Philip If sleeps at Hierapolis (Eusebius. taken together. is in the highest degree anomalous that he should mention him subsequently to Philip. one of the most famous members of the original HE. and the daughters of Philip. He (on the assumption that he is the unnamed disciple) was known to the high priest and gained ready admission to his house. Malchus. not as an Apostle. The fact that. when I9 38ff -). 39) seems likewise to indicate that the celebrated the Apostle. and seems to 43 &quot. I would inquire as to the sayings of the presbyters what Andrew or Peter said (el-n-ev). have gained inside information as to what 5 47 .i 34 EPILOGUE the Gospel which. or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew. He has special knowledge of persons like Nicodemus and Joseph of 50 y Arimathaea. which went on at meetings of the Sanhedrin (7 may have come to him through Nicodemus. if Polycrates sup John the author of the Gospel was the Apostle St. Evangelists mentions - lfi whose ear Peter cut off (i8 10 ). who reclined on the breast of the Lord.iopeKcos). who were both members of the Sanhedrin (3 lff&amp. and should then describe him. strongly suggest that the author had some connexion with priestly circles. he Apostolic would surely have named him first of all. The familiar quotation from Papias (Eusebius.

ptva. the Lord Unless we adopt the view that the Apostles mentioned are termed the presbyters * (a view both improbable in itself and also apparently excluded by the distinctive application of the term to the second John).\v rwv airoaToXow \6yovs irapd TWV trapr]Ko\ovdrjff6TOJV this is .lt. to Literature of N.D. p.T. he learned from his informants what the presbyters said that the Apostles said. 69-155) It follows that c. the obvious deduction from the statement also what Aristion and John the presbyter. all that he claims to have learned (or * On to the have This is the view of Eusebius (see foot-note following). . contemporary not only with Polycarp s.lt. and since the change of tense from it to Xtyova-w is clearly intentional. n.). 250 f.t If this conclusion as in is sound. see Moffatt. and that Papias might have heard them at first hand if he had had the opportunity. 70. as ^fjLiv 8r]\ov/j. 4 (Criticism of the Fourth Gospel. Lord fl-n-cv s disciples. and if the title implies the first occurrence. ofj. 3 P- 599j* Papias does not state in and John the presbyter. i. 36) states that his episcopate was . 39.D. Inlrod. sa John the presbyter. it is claims to have learned the Apostles clear from this passage that Papias only sayings at third hand.T.D. was still living at that date. other hand.i.pr]ffi AptffTiowos 8e KOI rov rrptafivrepov Icaavvov avrrjKoov tavrov Dr. iii. by Lightfoot. Lightfoot (Essays on Supern. as against the extreme date adopted by Harnack (c. HE.EPILOGUE Aristion and 135 s disciples. 100 a conclusion which fits in with the statement of Irenaeus that he was a companion of Polycarp (A. who. Why prehensible. Sanday J Haer. Canon of the N. the .o\o~f? &amp. A. though an actual disciple of our Lord. is natural to infer that Aristion and the second John were still living. On the contrary. 100 is adopted by Dr.D. A. and it is taken e. g. Eusebius. no). i.w)4 Papias knew of a John whom he termed the presbyter (appar ently in distinction from John the Apostle before mentioned). and by Westcott. and must therefore have been of a very advanced age. Rel.*&quot. p. Eusebius (HE. passage that he was an actual hearer of Aristion unwarrantably assumed by Eusebius Kai 6 vw 8e rovs p. A. V. 145. D. 100 and one of the ancients (dpxaios &amp.evos Tlairias napei\r]&amp. 146) should accept Eusebius s opinion on this point against the plain sense of the passage is incom yfvtaOai. xxxiii.lt. pp. say is that Papias learned the sayings of these disciples at second hand.D. p. 145-60). iii.e. then the date at which Papias collected his materials cannot be later than A. On the other hand. but also with Ignatius s (d. Essays on Supernatural Religion. where it the Lord s disciples is applied to the Apostles actual knowledge of our Lord during His earthly life. A.

sicut 4. and so far is him that he mentions him only sixth tells Apostles. xlv ff.) that John and James his brother were slain by the Jews. i. Irenaeus . . pp. martyrdom Moffatt. us that John. 601 ff. 70. Introd. of N. i . before. 0. and the rest who had died years before he began to collect his materials. Charles.* wrote the Gospel. but lost his life through Jewish persecution. T? pp. f On II. there must (on this hypothesis) have been ten who could give him fuller and more recent information as to what John the son of Zebedee had said.) Evangelium lohannis manifestatum et datum est ( : ecclesiis * ab lohanne adhuc in corpore constitute.) and Georgius Hamartolus (9th cent. Now Papias death. until after A. Papias Haer. however. and who was bishop have been reduced to of a Church which was close to Ephesus learning at third hand as to his teaching ? And since. and most recently. is it at all likely that the vastly superior importance to Papias of John as a witness to our Lord s acts and teaching. of the Fourth Gospel (9th cent. which certainly seems to imply that John the son of Zebedee did not survive to a ripe old age in Asia. involved in the fact of his nearness to him both in time and in place. iii. III. Revelation. would i.98. to Lit. xxii. if not at any rate not long after that event. for one man who could give him authentic information as to what Andrew or Peter had said. knowledge of John the son of Zebedee than he possessed of Peter.136 EPILOGUE to endeavoured learn) is son of Zebedee by word of mouth about the Apostolic what others said that the presbyters said that he from attaching any special prominence in a list of seven of the he said to . III. and therefore probably in Palestine and prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A. The absence of such a claim fits in with the statement attributed to him by Philippus Sidetes (5th cent.e. the disciple of the Lord who survived at Ephesus until the times of Trajan. who must certainly have been born long before his and who was probably collecting his information. yet another statement attributed to Papias an argument prefixed to a Vatican MS. t There in exists. D. should be ignored to such an extent that he only mentions the Apostle sixth in a list of seven ? The inference is clear that Papias did not claim to have any better Andrew. cf. 5 . further evidence as to the . If this John was the son of Zebedee. i.

pp.) has argued from (i. id Descripsit vero seems in detail.o?s . (6 airtypaipov airo a-rreypcKpov. Papias and * Cf. 70.T. this title was sufficient to mark the writer s If they are rightly ascribed to John. n. It follows the work of John the presbyter.lt. Rel. Canon of N../wrote down&quot.* 137 in exotericis.e. however. delivered by John to the Churches. . ovv o//o. they wrote down from his lips&quot. iii. i. and that the at that the tradition was composed Ephesus is wrapped up with the fact of his Thus the earliest Asian tradition.EPILOGUE nomine Hierapolitanus.yye\i&amp. ff uvonafonevT) Scvrepa KOI rp iTTj TOV eva. thus making Papias himself the amanuensis. The view is definitely taken by Jerome. points to the presbyter and not the son of Zebedee as the author of the Gospel. Gospel that it is John are by the same author. 210 ff. viz. the inference that is this is the Iwavi/^s o Trpto-fiuTepos of Papias in his obvious.lt. 77. tiTf yvcupt^ioji 8&quot. Charles xxxiv ff. TOV (TTo^aro? auroG) interpreted it . de viris illust. which Papias may have quoted the Gospel p. . the presbyter. Confused and improbable we have no grounds for question ing the main facts. quinque evangelium dictante lohanne recte as this statement est in extremis [externis] libris retulit. authorship.t Dr. John actually describes himself as 6 Trpeo-^repog.rai } ei re KOL krtpov dfnoivvfiov t/cfivcp. as represented by Polycrates and confirmed by the testimony of the Second and Third Epistles.s rofs 7ToAA. 9 and 18. Icaavvov. that Papias may have stated that the author of the Gospel was John of Asia who survived into his own If. 1 &quot.vov&amp. Westcott. but that identity. This seems to be hinted by Eusebius. the other statement referred to Papias means that John the son of Zebedee suffered martyrdom in Palestine prior to A. and the inference from the contents of the Epistles is that they were not intended to be Now anonymous.. D. Essays on Supern. Lightfoot. cc. Lightfoot (p. mistaking the ambiguous &quot. in the second to it John of Asia. pp. the statement as to the writing of the Gospel can only be squared with different on the assumption that the references are to two Johns in the first case to the Apostle.fvow. . . discipulus lohannis carus. a careful linguistic study that the Fourth Gospel and the three Commentary on Revelation Epistles of St. times. f* HE. the writer of the Second and Third Epistles of St. 25 : TUIV 5 dvTt\eyo(j. and some later writer.JTov Tvy\6. 214) has an ingenious suggestion as to the way in which the statement may have arisen that Papias was actually the amanuensis of John. i.

138 EPILOGUE evidence.. and supposed that he was referring task by Eusebius 6 to the time he was speaking of the presbyter. Apostle when all the Similarly. iii.lt. 39) because ludvvov fjikv d/covo-nys. which is important because.lt. all. xdpTrov Se eraipos yeyovcos. by the opponents of this commonly accused. d/cpoar^i/ ^kv tepcuv aTroo-ToAtoj/ yva)pi/x. . . John the disciple of the Lord In references to the Gospel . . Total * These computations are as complete as the writer could make them but he cannot claim that they are more than approximately so.aiVei.lt. St. IIoAt&amp.&amp. he is taken to (HE. it is doubtful whether Irenaeus The true state of affairs may best be gathered makes any mistake at by tabulating all his references to the author of the Fourth Gospel. .lt. have suffered considerable misrepresentation. ^v 6 IlaTuas Kara. TrapeiA^eVat Se ra Trurrews e/ceiVois The the error of which critics he is accused the by Eusebius is cited by modern as enhancing probability that he made additional Polycarp Apostle.. however. .* Occurrences. he states that in his boyhood (TTCUS en he was a hearer of &amp.m/) Our Polycarp and could remember his description of his intercourse with John and with the rest who had seen the Lord Irenaeus . 9 3 2 14 In references to the Apocalypse In references to incidents at Ephesus . John. is he describes Papias as Eusebius s comment on Trpooi/Jiiov this statement AUTOS ye KCU. Under John a few Gospel references referring to the son of Zebedee have not been reckoned. testimony of is incomplete without examination of the Irenaeus. fact that the John of Ephesus was the Apostle theory of having mistaken the meaning of his teacher Polycarp. . They cover the fragments as well as the Contra Haer. he is on the other hand. appears While claimed on the one hand as a conclusive witness to the unjustly to St. HE. v. in the wellknown passage from his letter to Florinus (Eusebius.OV eyu.&amp. s reminiscences of the of mistaking presbyter as referring to the error In reality.Dv. whom he also regarded as author of the Apocalypse. 20).. TO TOJV avrov Aoywv. avroTTTrjv ou8a/xcos eavrov TT)S rwv T&amp.gt.

i Total 1 31 The Apostle these references 2 With we may compare Irenaeus : s references to other Evangelists and Apostles Matthew the Apostle Matthew elsewhere.. . .10 . . . i Peter Peter the Apostle elsewhere.. This comes out especially in his description of Mark and Luke .. . and Paul are It is true never so defined by name. . Luke the follower and disciple of the Apostles Luke the disciple and attendant of the Apostles Luke the attendant of Paul Luke elsewhere. i i . 2. . .EPILOGUE The 1 139 i i disciple of the Lord His disciple John John In references to the Gospel . . i The Apostle Here we notice the extraordinary care which . being the Apostle of the Gentiles Paul His Apostle Paul .64 -74 Irenaeus takes accurately to define the position and authority of his witnesses. . i 1 Mark Mark Mark the interpreter and disciple of Peter the disciple and interpreter of Peter . . . having just previously been but this is different from the direct attachment of . which come near together (Haer. I.17 i Paul. In references to the Apocalypse In references to incidents at Ephesus . . Peter. the Apostle simply. John that in two passages is Matthew. . elsewhere.20 . while is defined as Apostles. ix. i i . i Paul the Apostle . notice We again that. 3) he mentioned as cited as John . . while Matthew alone of the Synoptists is correctly given the title of Apostle.

disciple of the Lord. Thus in Haer. which come and we are still brought by the fact that. passages in II. and had conversed with many of those who had seen Christ. . conferred with John the disciple of the Lord. having founder. . the opinion of those to the 1 Having thus ascertained let who delivered the Gospel to us . that John had handed down these facts . Had Irenaeus taken . proceed remaining Apostles in the book before this we have set forth the Accordingly. . disciples. v. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe (the Quartodeciman practice). III. 9. &c. but also other Apostles*. for he abode with them until the times of Trajan. xi. 24). inasmuch as he had always observed it with John the disciple of our Lord and the whom he had associated . who had not only been trained by the Apostles.140 the title EPILOGUE to his name. Letter to Victor (Eusebius. it is most remarkable that he to a standstill never styles him of the John the Apostle . is included all Apostles. And the elders by inference among the testify. . when he had gone . but also had been constituted by the Apostles And some having always taught bishop over Asia in the church of Smyrna And there these things. which John xxii. and the church at Ephesus.. i. We note specially the disciple of the even where the four . when not specially defining the rank of his witnesses.. 4. and the still x. pref. ix. which he had learned from the Apostles are some who have been told by him (Polycarp) that John the . sentence of the Apostles upon them all There are several . i. us and again in IV. i Matthew the Apostle John first of them figures as . he remarks. . iii. Evangelists are most carefully described in III. after a summary of the teaching and scope of the four Gospels. And Polycarp too. rest of the Apostles with Let us attach believes are all full weight to these passages (which the writer into question). is a true witness of the tradition of the Apostles . 5. 6. Irenaeus. i. . but always fact that John the disciple Lord . . III. who in Asia of them saw not only John. . uses the term Apostle in a wider sense. and their had both Paul for its to have a bath at Ephesus Such pious care had the Apostles Yea. HE. and John to abide among them until the times of Trajan. xi. . if Irenaeus believed John of Ephesus to have been one of the Twelve Apostles. . and Polycarp too himself. is simply John the Lord .

whether Apostle or other wise. when he says 6 vvv Se orjXovfAevos HaTr/as ytvio-6a. i.gt. we observe clearly to that Mark . Paul Now arises title. case to have added who was one as We are bound also to contrast the referred to way unnamed is the Apostle only twice with the 74 occasions on is which he which St. we observe that Papias styles Aristion and John the presbyter ol TOV Kvpiov /MX^TCU. the basis of these facts we conclude without to hesitation that John the disciple of the Lord and that when he refers is at Irenaeus means John the pres Papias as laxxvi ou 6 ludvrov /x. we mark a difference since the sense obviously is that Papias was anxious to . had this been so. In reality Irenaeus appears to be an impeccable witness as to the early Asian tradition in regard to John and he completes our evidence that John the Evangelist . TOV TrpecrySurepou avTrjKoov iavTov It is Eusebius who. jumping to the the (mentioned sixth by Papias must be the Evangelist (o-a^ws SrjXuv Apostles) Apostle conclusion that John in his list of seven TOV cuayyeXio-r^). rjxovcre KO\ov6r)(Tv avrar vcrrepov Se. . cure Traprj- ep/x^veurr/s Tierpov ye^o/^ei/os Oure yap t(f&amp. 39). Apostle John.a^ron/ to the paragraph names of the seven Apostles whom he mentions. it would have been so natural of the twelve Apostles in . It is true that in the same he subjoins r/ rts erepos TWV TOV Kvptov //.e. ws Herpw (Eusebius. On by he byter.e.ev any rate as correct as Eusebius . attaches to Irenaeus the charge of misconstruing Papias s evidence which has stuck to him ever since.r)v. Map/cos n*v TOV Kuptou. . however. the interpreter and disciple of s Peter seems depend upon Papias . but they were (presumably) associates of our Lord who fell into a class by themselves as still living when Papias was collecting his information. In the same way. statement. iii.EPILOGUE him for the 141 in this . the question Whence Lord did ? Irenaeus obtain this It is distinctive the disciple of the . But in Kvpiov /jiaOrjTai the cases of Aristion and John the presbyter ol TOV is their distinctive title. witnesses.i. direct associate of the Lord). gain information coming from any (presumably deceased) /xa^r^/s Kvp(ov (i. and so may be taken to include them as naO-qrai. Here. HE. so styled. not derived from the Fourth Gospel for. they were not Apostles. we should have expected the disciple whom Jesus loved Looking at the titles of other . .

all of whom. however. who must. Paul in to Cor. unites in indicating that the only was John the presbyter. whom the seventy of WH. fits in wonderfully well with the internal evidence which favours the view that the author was not John the son of Zebedee. According After is to St. that the Apostles were our Lord adherents and There were others from according to the alternative missioners were drawn. received the outpouring given in Acts of the Spirit at Pentecost. as we have seen. was not the son of Zebedee. from Lk. This. Him fact too we should have been i lff ignorant but for Lk. but the presbyter. io lff . difficulty is the finding of a place among the com of our Lord for a young man of priestly family who was panions not one of the twelve Apostles. this would not constitute an insuperable difficulty. apparently (perhaps with the addition of other disciples who had come up to Jerusalem for the Feast). (or. first The upon the presupposition openly-confessed course is not the case. i5 6 . Let us ask ourselves How is it probable that our Lord would have dealt with a young man of good family and priestly con- . and that John of Ephesus he wrote the Fourth Gospel. But it is not so Thus. but a Jerusalemite of priestly family. the women who accompanied a part at least of His evangelistic tours. no problem of authorship remaining. There are. again. who survived to old age at Ephesus. regular companions. e. the Ascension number of Jerusalem as about one hundred and twenty. one of our Lord the s Resurrection-appear at at ances was above the i 15 five hundred brethren brethren once . it seems.142 EPILOGUE disciple of the Lord. then surely there would be against this view. i. have com- panied with Him not a little before they were fit to be entrusted with their mission. and indeed the probability is against such a theory. to suppose that the young priestly accompanied our Lord upon His travels. 8 . This is largely based. Yet of these we should know nothing apart There were. if it were necessary disciple regularly necessary. and minis during Of this tered to Him and His Apostles out of their substance. Thus all the early Asiatic evidence. all the external evidence and that matters.. other internal considerations which may seem to tell If there were not. seventy-two) reading s only This of we may conjecture.

Most remarkable of all has been the cumulative strength of the arguments adduced by Jewish writers favourable to the authenticity of the discourses in the Fourth Gospel. their interpreters. Dr. p. 181. Giidemann. Dr. the young disciple would be making as much as he could of the great Teacher s temporary presence. Dr. Abrahams in his senting one aspect of our Lord s teaching. the words of Dr. while reading his more than who was and becoming His disciple? Is it heart and recognizing the great sincerity of his desire.* well be explained the fact that the great bulk of the do with scenes and discourses at or to near Jerusalem. for Jewish scholars turned themselves to the close investigation of the New . drinking in every word of the subtle arguments of which the Galilaean Apostles could Thus may Gospel has make nothing.EPILOGUE nexions not 143 whom we may assume sixteen). One of the Rabbinic aids to exegesis Cambridge Biblical Essays. Chwolson. Biichler. to have been a mere youth (perhaps keenly desirous of joining Him not likely that. especially in relation to the circumstances under which they are reported to have been spoken. And. and where there is discrepancy. shall we be weight to the intellectual bond the fact that the youth s upbringing enabled him. be expected in this direction. and commanded him in for the time to remain at Jerusalem Jerusalem and engaged home at ? Meanwhile. keenly following the debates which his scholastic training so well enabled him to appreciate. as repre Cf. the Galilaean episodes taking a comparatively subordinate part. to enter into our Lord s point of view. in a far fuller measure than the untrained and more slow-witted Galilaean Apostles (at least before Pentecost). these critics tend to prove that the blame lies not with the New Testament originals but with essay . Dr. Schechter. Much more may late have only of Testament. in assessing the qualities in the young disciple which made him pre-eminently wrong in attaching the disciple full whom Jesus loved . have all shown that the Talmud makes credible details which many Christian expositors have been rather inclined to dispute. Dr. Marmorstein. to follow * It is important to notice that the opinion of Jewish scholars distinctly favours the general historical character of the discourses in the Fourth Gospel. whenever our Lord came up discussion with the there. most remarkable facts about the writings of recent Jewish critics of the New Testament has been that they have tended on the whole to confirm the Gospel picture of external Jewish life. He would just because of his youth and the great renunciation of home and prospects which He knew that the step would entail have refused with all tenderness to allow him at once to throw in his lot with the Apostolic band. to Rabbinists.

This is met by our Lord words of reproof. 20 teal ol that the words /xerd TWV 8o. in contrast to this young disciple) are they which and I appoint unto you a kingdom. 13 states in v. as Dr. like Mary. If our theory be true. 22 Zi 34 a passage of extraordinary interest of the events of the fuller narrative contained in (f&amp. Again.s concrete example of 6 veurepos. Plummer suggests. l this Mk. chosen the good part.gt. the point of v. we see at once why the Fourth Evangelist gives no hint of the special circumstances which led up to it. 22 14 by no means exclude the presence of a non-Apostolic dir6ffTo\oi avv . John presents a close 38 42 Like Martha they were eager ). Occasion for the Apostles strife as to pre cedence may. which was not to be taken away from him. in which tyoj 5e It/ vpwv dpi us 6 SiaKovwv is the verbal summary with which the foot-washing of Jn. had to . we may think. avT&amp. however. Supposing. [/xa0?/TcDv] Mt.i\ovfiKia ~ . and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel words. that this time the circle was enlarged by admission of the young disciple. the reason why the . not be strange if the position of privilege granted by our young disciple should have excited the disapproval of some members at least of the Apostolic Twelve. guest at the Supper. 13 corresponds as the acted parable. spend and be spent in the service of their Master but they were not. summary Lk. be the more careful to do so if it was his own possible It may be added position at the Supper which excited the envy of the Twelve. dAA. analogy to that of Martha to Mary (Lk io cast &quot.8e/ca Mk. he suppresses his own personality as far as and would. have arisen respecting the places at the at Last Supper but when we consider that the Twelve must presumably have sat meals alone with their Master on many other occasions. . 6 fjLti^cav v v^lv yiveffOw 6 veurepos the young disciple John becomes the d&amp. . which seems almost to acquire the meaning. I4 17 y^erd rSjv SdiSe/co. that ye may eat and drink at My table These in My kingdom. 26 Lk.gt. should have arisen on this occasion of all others is not apparent. with something like a touch of irony in language adapted to appeal to the then-condition of the Apostles ideals. : .lt. with all the fullness of promise which they undoubtedly contain. however. have continued with Me in My temptations even as My Father hath appointed unto Me. 28 appears to stand out more clearly But ye (Apostles. and to fact that He was in the highest sense the embodiment only natural that such a disciple should have been present Last Supper. John. seem to be youth (cf. E-ytVero 5e /mi s tv aurois. deep affection and high even apart from his Lord to the would. .144 EPILOGUE grasp the It is His expositions of the inner meaning of the Old Testament. at that stage. TO ris aiiraiv 8oKi f*effq&amp. we seem to In the injunction read our Lord s words of reproof with a new understanding. as appearing to offer a 24 Jn.p . it may be that we have found strife the cause of this outbreak of (piXoveiKia. If such was the occasion which led to the sublime example of the foot-washing. g 33 -* 1 and parallels). and that the Apostles should not have grudged his of its ideals ? at the him a place next gifts * It Lord to it which his entitled him. and that he was placed by our Lord next to Himself. tlvai Hfi&v. As elsewhere.gt. the relation of the Twelve to St. endowed with the religious insight and spiritual (as distinct from practical) devotion possessed by Mary and the young disciple John. The presence of John (as we picture him) might well have . Adopting this hypothesis.* Nor is surprising.

whose is the adoption. Rabbinic training. If from one point of view the unbelieving Jews excite St. 2 15 . 3 5 (Rom. of union between St. Paul s to find seem here keenest antipathy.).16 ) . be saved to forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may fill up their sins alway but the wrath is come upon : them with to the all uttermost (i I Thess. grasp of Judaism from the inside only seemed not &amp.EPILOGUE devotion. and can refer. with a glow of enthusiasm. and of whom is Christ after . 3 ~). in the minds of men of practical ability holding high . to the last day. and the whose are the fathers. it may be observed. 4 ). my kinsmen according to the flesh who are Israelites . and the glory. 9 ). further explained the bond St. and can speak not without satisfaction of the privileges which he inherited as a Hebrew of Hebrew parents and the recipient of a thorough training in the strictest the flesh ~ Judaism (Phil. the great day of the feast of Tabernacles It (Jn. So to St. as those who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets. that 145 when the Galilaeans fled in panic at the arrest. 7&quot. from another he can assert could wish myself anathema from Christ for my brethren s sake. account for much. John the Jews from one point of view stand as the embodiment of unbelief and principles of 4 hardened opposition to the Embodiment of Light and Truth yet from another he can record (with certainly a strong touch of . We have now. and the cultus. and are contrary to all men . he should have followed on and entered boldly into the high priest s house. and drave out us. and the giving of the law. national feeling) our that Lord s words : to the Samaritan woman. was precisely the to call for record. and please not God. : promises covenants. We explained the remarkable double attitude towards the Jews which characterizes both the Christian converts. a common already been made. common ideals and pride of race and enthusiasm for Judaism in its higher developments.lt. . and the earnestness. John and Paul to which allusion has Similarity of social position. Ye : which ye know not we worship that which we know worship 22 for salvation is from the Jews (Jn.nt He may official have counted for no more to the Apostles that time than would nowadays a young scholar and thinker positions in the Church.

is largely bound up with the line of reasoning with which Dr. i. Paul and the Fourth other difficulty which may be urged against our view lies the fact that there are indications in the Gospel which un doubtedly may be taken to point to John the son of Zebedee as in The This conclusion. and if the grounds upon which it is questioned be held to be valid. then the case for the authorship of John the son of Zebedee is clearly weakened. but under aAAoi IK rw paOyrw avrov Svo upon the view which we are maintaining. then an Apostle . might have Evangelist. even in the absence of strong indications to the contrary. and would not come to Him that they Such scholars were St. James the son of Alphaeus.146 EPILOGUE privileges possible to a trained Rabbinic scholar which emphasized the sense of its and opened out the its vista of its lofty possibilities in the light of the teaching of its Him who was seen to be both supreme exponent and ultimate goal. however. since the author always elsewhere deliberately conceals his . tions that the author of the Gospel if was an eye-witness. it may be due to accident. Westcott has familiarized us. if an Apostle. Matthew. and then an eye-witness. and it is legitimate to argue From whom that. If. the inference from eye-witness to Apostle may be questioned (as the present writer has questioned it preceding argument). however. but we should hardly be justified in arguing from this that one of these unnamed Apostles must be the author. Simon into the Zelotes. in which we first take our stand upon the indubitable indica the author. then this omission falls same category as the omission of the names of James the son of Zebedee. then John argue the son of Zebedee. while at the same and time strengthening the recoil from those its professed teachers practitioners who resolutely shut their ears to and re the sisted Truth. The fact that in the John the son of Zebedee if is the author must needs be an Apostle. disciple the opening of ch. 21 it is clear that the Jesus loved is included under 01 roD Ze^eScwbv on the ordinary view.e. not mentioned by name is weighty If there are grounds for holding that he was not an Apostle. life. We and possibly Bartholomew. may feel surprise that two of the Apostles who so frequently in the Synoptic Gospels accompany Peter as special attendants of our Lord should not receive mention .

having - heard a prediction as fate of that other of a special tie to his own future. 4 is 18 ~22 . would un doubtedly draw him close to him in the hour of need. in 2i 20ff that.EPILOGUE identity. and therefore any one else who for any reason likewise stood in a special relation was bound that the to come into close connexion with Peter. but this is natural in younger disciple had same time was animated by a kindred affection for our Lord which would make him understand the better the dreadful grief of the repentant Apostle. i lf . the latter conclusion is (apart trary) 147 to the from evidence con more probable than the former. indeed that the two disciples were lodging together or it may have been. one of whom we are told was Andrew the brother of Simon Peter. where John was baptizing. Peter stood in a special relation to our Lord as leader of the Apostolic band. of the difference in detail) the scene Synoptists. was the author of the Gospel. and from Dr. 41 meeting with Jesus of the two disciples of it is said of Andrew.20 =Mt. facts that the The very and witnessed Peter s denial. In i3 23 ff - all connexion amounts to is that a privileged Apostle of greater boldness than the others suggested a question to a disciple whom he recognized as still more intimate with our Lord than himself. different speak Bethabara in the beyond Jordan. i 25ff - of the first John Baptist. for (not to in Jn. - 35 &amp. Westcott draws the deduction . at the We are left. this tvpLO-Kfi ouros Trpurov TOV a8eX^&amp. In v.gt.6v TOV tBiov ^ifjuava. -. keeping vigil in the same abode . The words imply that some one else was afterwards found and from the form of the sentence we may conclude that this is James the brother of John .5 . we infer. the circumstances. then.* the fact that the disciple whom Jesus loved brought into connexion with Peter three times in rather special circumstances (i3 23ff 2o 2ff 2i 20ff -) is weakened when we reflect that The argument from -. The two accounts may quite well i Notice the similarity of the phrase to e* rwv ^aQrirwv avrov 8vo so 2 3 4 8. is - . 2O 2ff suggests devotion. This narrative is not a duplicate of the account of the call of the in two pairs of Apostles (or Bethany) Mk. a\\os L 2 . the sea of Galilee. he inquired as to the who was similarly united to his Master by The remaining passage.lt. with the account in Jn. St. and the other.

. he was actual become a constant follower of our Lord. from whom incidentally he may to at of the five thousand a later time have learned the details of the feeding 8 not permitted (cf. In the we involved in considerable obscurity. both here and in the preceding w. in Jn. while there is difficult much both and external evidence which former view. is surely much else in too categorical. In endeavouring thus to strike a balance between the two views of authorship which priestly disciple we have been is discussing to Apostle or young in internal we find that.148 EPILOGUE if be harmonized we suppose that the definite call (AeDre OTTI of the Synoptic narrative came subsequently to the virtual call described by Jn. but was an eye-witness of the Jerusalem-scenes only. at once to leave their occupations elucidation and at follow Christ receives considerable they came once without question call because they had already been prepared for the described in Jn. It by the meeting clear as regards disciple muse be remarked. if. . however. as on our view. the the earliest latter harmonize with the view seems wholly to be supported by and to have the preponderant such internal indications as may of internal evidence support external evidence. 6 ). . Dr. though this assumption is natural. the question as to the second mentioned first place. 29ff -. there is nothing in the narrative which really conflicts with the theory that he was not the son of Zebedee but a member the author of the Gospel is a one of a priestly family from Jerusalem. we may say rather that it implies that Andrew made it his first business to find his brother found him then and there If. that while this conclusion is Andrew and Peter. 6 !3 ^retre Se irpwrov TT/V /SaariXcLav /ecu TT/V SiKcuocruvryj avrov. and on this view the readiness of the disciples . cannot be quite sure that the author of the - I 35ff is Gospel is referring to himself. Secondly. It have joined the multitudes may is quite likely that such who flocked to hear the Baptist. Westcott s deduction from the statement ewpiV/cet oro? irpurov KT\. may have attached himself to him as a disciple and so have formed a friendship with Andrew. then. Why was afterwards found? should irpurov imply that some one Comparing the use of the adverb Mt. and explains the author s detailed knowledge of the circumstances. describing his own first interview with our Lord.

if the Gospel is a translation from Aramaic. But the Epistles may well have been dictated to an amanuensis. yet the author there is no startling phrase. and he then adopted Greek owing to the exigencies of his new surroundings. On the other hand. A last point to which reference must briefly be made is the bearing of our theory of an Aramaic original for the Fourth Gospel upon the question of the authorship of the Apocalypse. to tell against it. the Epistles still remain . the roughnesses. such Greek as we find in the Apocalypse the ground. may be urged that. It is held that the extraordinary solecisms new theory The case of the Apocalypse find no parallel in the Gospel. the criterion of falls to Greek style as differentiating the two books at once was written in Aramaic prior to the author s arrival in Ephesus somewhat late in his life. It may be remarked that this estimate of the smoothness of the Greek of the Gospel is perhaps somewhat exaggerated in face e. g.* It is obvious that. the audacities of the latter .EPILOGUE seem. . who was in some degree responsible for the correctness of the Greek. cxxviii. seldom or never offends against definite laws. do not display the solecisms of the Apocalypse. p. Apocalypse*. 101 t It ff. t * Swete. in which the language flows along smoothly from the prologue to the end. but stands at the opposite pole to the eccentricities. and they. against the view that the Gospel and Apocalypse are the same author has always been based chiefly upon the differ by ence in Greek style. He has not studied the Apocalypse sufficiently thoroughly to do this. and possibly this amanuensis may have been the translator of the Gospel. if it is no defiance of syntax familiar with the con obviously the work of one who was more struction of the Semitic than of the Greek sentence. if the Gospel would not be surprising. if the Gospel is a translation. 149 a being amenable to reason able solution. In making the few remarks which he has to offer on this subject. In these respects he not only differs from the Apocalyptist. though presumably written in Greek. the writer would guard against the impression that he has come to a fixed opinion. All that he has to put forward are certain obvious considerations which seem necessarily to arise out of his as to the Gospel. at first sight. of the group of passages which the present writer has brought together on pp. .

would be natural in a trained Rabbinic scholar. 49).T. Charles hardly accurate in speaking p. and not upon New Hebrew. as Dr. the Again. p. author of the Gospel was such a scholar and it seems necessary to hold that the author of the Apocalypse. and the widest sympathies translated its He had an intimate acquain tance with the in Hebrew text of the O. slips into (i. Thus we insight tinian Jew. The author it. the O. the description which he gives (i. discussions in Palestine) The the language of learned language of learned discussion in Palestine was (for to the p. Such a knowledge of Biblical Hebrew. which is in many respects more closely akin to Aramaic than classical Hebrew in which this writer correctly finds the author s model (cf. a man of profound . however. work which conforms itself of Apoc. Charles has ably pointed author of the Apocalypse frames his style upon a Biblical Hebrew model. but that he came to acquire whatever Greek. though unexpected in a Galilaean fisherman.i 5o EPILOGUE out. in its main details.T. to the latter according to the conclusions which we have formed in the present discussion. Is this coincidence is merely accidental ? The following a rough list : of Semitisms common to the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse Asyndeton (cf. though Dr. however. Charles holds that the author of the Apocalypse was not the author of the Gospel. We have found reason to believe that the . which Biblical * is naturally not to be expected in a an Aramaic characteristic. we have to notice that. . language when somewhat advanced in are precisely those which we should expect that the author of the Fourth Gospel would display if he turned himself to the composition of a book like the knowledge he had of All these this characteristics Apocalypse. Hebrew was New Hebrew. Hebrew Dr. are told that the author of the Apocalypse was a Pales He was a great spiritual genius. idioms The fact that he thought Hebrew and Palestine as his original home. 17.* It is a remarkable fact that.T. who must likewise have been a Palestinian. points to His extraordinary use of Greek literally into years. is to Hebrew is style. Rabbinic scholars were. appears to prove not only that he never mastered the ordinary Greek of his own times. . in the original and the author is deliberately modelling his style upon foot-note). xliv) still of his use of practically as his mother tongue . was similarly equipped. p. xliv) of the characteristics of the former is applicable. naturally skilled in their knowledge of the O.

Parataxis KCU is so (cf. l6 I9 5 6 - p. p. . Charles (i. Cf. Lk. the usage (cf. Cf. Never i 4 7 8 - in N.. ii&quot. is seen with other (e/oropeveTcu. 22 7 . verb. 53. lest .lt. I2&quot. xxxv) states that the Genitive absolute occurs often in Jn. 3*. wopa aurw elsewhere 5 16 . KCU linking contrasted statements (cf. 57). . (cf. 3 5 verbs in II . Aramaic has influenced New Hebrew 6 20 20 3 14 2I 4 22 15 17 Cf. as against Mt. See Swete. that (cf. . p. 30). iW in fXT) frequent. 3 3\ Apoc.* i. 48. ApOC. . Charles. . 56). Mk. .. 2 3 - 1 -5-8 . . Korreo-01 ei). It may be noted that in this respect (cf. 9&quot. . . and Lk. 36. 66). a 11 s 12 4 9 . not f. 84). cxviii . frequent in Apoc. f-\ The Relative completed by a Pronoun 8 12 4 9 20s I I 7 3 - p. . 94). . (cf. epxercu Present used as Futurum instans i6 15 . Non-use of Aorist Participle describing action anterior to Finite 12 There seems to be only one instance. 6 . and none of . Cf. . There seem to be 5 occurrences only in s 2 12 14 24 8e in Jn.T. p. 50).riv. . p. in sense /x^Trore. (cf. 56). cxlix. [XTJiroTe never. viz. . The same usage 9 10 ((3X. 63). This construction Though used occasionally in Jn.. * As is Dr. . in Apoc. /X^TTOTC never occurs in Jn. 59. Apoc. = Whose name was (cf. p. e. is Avoidance of the Genitive absolute construction. . proportionately about 2| times as frequent . fi . Use of Casus pendens (cf. . Infrequency of yap 69). (cf. . There are 11 occurrences of Iva ^ w Apoc. eTrio-r/De^as eTSov i . i. than in the Synoptists (cf. far less frequent p. a matter of fact the occurrences are 17. Great rarity of 8e. In Jn. This construction is more frequent in Jn. its place being regularly taken by Iva. 13 21 Apoc. pp. possibly owing to the Aramaic was his mother-tongue. that needs no illustration. . viz. . Apoc. than pp. The co-ordination of sentences by KCU it . i 2 io i9 2i less frequent than in Mk.12 20 - . is far less frequent than in the Synoptists p.f7rov&amp.. . II dc/uWnv.EPILOGUE fact that 151 not infrequently towards the end of his book. is proportionately slightly Apoc.. i ... 69). it is totally absent from Apoc. it in the Synoptists as in Jn. p. Jn. Only about 17 occurrences. and less than half as frequent as in Mt. p. 69 100). p. . p.

96. Thus it appears that the case against identity of authorship of the Gospel and Apocalypse can certainly not be maintained upon The evidence is all in the other direction. tone of authority in which he delivers hfs message is bound up .e. Now the evidence which we have already reviewed points conclusion that there was but one John of great note in Asia at this period. . ou = none (p. John the presbyter. (irai&amp. as to the claim to authorship made describes himself as John simply in . In i8 20 2i 14 he seems to distinguish himself from the Twelve In 22 he is ranked among the prophets. i. mis . Whether there exist criteria of Theological thought or other internal charac teristics which are sufficient to disprove this inference is a question which the writer must leave to others to decide. it is name carries the authority of he is a man well known and of important His work. i. 98). . . the mouthpiece of the glorified Christ. shortly before A. are noted). xxxviiif. Cf.D. He 4 i 22 s in i 9 with the addition of your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and endurance (which is) in Jesus . this John was the author the Apocalypse i. where the cases 28 22 2i 27 22 . is pseudonymous (against which see Dr. Change of construction in p. with the fact that he is clear that he recognizes that his a true mouthpiece. signs him the presbyter. standing in the churches of Asia. of the Fourth therefore.). John John Thus the evidence of claim to authorship combines with that of certainly cogent that the author who Semitic style in suggesting that the author of the Apocalypse is one with the author of the Fourth Gospel and Epistles. 96. 7 .152 EPILOGUE after Participle (cf. Evidence also indicates that Gospel.) .gt. .e. who was known as the disciple of the Lord . though apparently must almost certainly be dated towards the to the end of the reign of Domitian. the ground of style. viz. Apoc. Though the Apostles. A 1 - few words may be added by the Apocalyptist. 16 Apoc. Unless. utilizing older sources. the conclusion self is is pp. . Charles.

e /cav evptOrjvai ets TO aXyOivov Trail. (9 times). (iydirr) I^croCs Xpto-ros on e/xoi fiaOrjrai eav dya aScrat. Cf.Ecr^aTOt /catpot . fJ-oi 17&quot. iva Trai/ra cv ei/or^n aruu. ^aerat Cf.lt.gt. /cat Sta ToCro lv (rvfji(J)&amp.} in the Epistles of St.W SeScoKa auTois.26 Eyw ets et/xi . avrol rjyia. I 18 Jn. ev croi. Iiyo o{. tVa wcnv ev ev.s TpoTrov Soaeiv Irjcrovv XpioTOV rbv &amp. 2 tcr^arr) wpa . (10 times). &quot.s .lt.TU) co? 17 eK/cA/^cria S XptO&quot.iv KCU. 5 We may note that the adj. 5.lt. Christ II.ava) 3 rrj opovoLa V/JLMV Jn. ttA^u/o s is specially characteristic of Jn. eyu. is ei/ Oavdru ei/ ^i-f] dXyOivr). 7raT7/p. ^ di 21 .o&amp. and Apoc. Reminiscences of the teaching of the Fourth Gospel (and i Jn.lt. ey pua VTrorayrj r)/Jifi&amp. XptO&quot. Ignatius. iVa Trai/res ev e/xot TIILIV i/ ai&amp.o&quot. occurring but 5 times besides in the whole remainder of the N.gt.- 4. Trioreutov /crX. also I Jn.VTOL fV fV \ (JJCTLV. Kara Trdvra 19 rjre Jn.~ 7. 6 ii 25 .Oi Kat O. To 2.APPENDIX i. II. Trarpt. I3 ei TOUTW to-re.7roo~w fjia\Xov v/xas /xaKapt ^o) rot s 21 Jn. Jn.lt. irpiirov ovv IVTIV Kara -jrdvra /cdyw rrjv B6av rjv Se oWas KaO&amp. . I7 o-u. /xoi ov XpicmS rjv. . (4 times).lt. LvaKeKpa/xeVov? ovrw?.T. Jn. the Ephesians.TOS Kayo&amp.gt.yO&quot. iVa KCU (OS I&amp. I7 tVa a&amp. oo^dcravTa tyxas . i Jn.

Te Aos Se dyaTT^ycvofjicva ra Se 8vo Iv eos ecrrtv. TeAetcos eis I^o-ovV Xptcrrov 9(?7Te Trio-rev /cat dA^ws 17 dyaVr. which 31 Pesh. rrj e/cKAT/cria a&amp. KCU auros ev vaoi avros ^ ev ^/xtv 17. /cat w/^ev eds. Lo. 14. 1 - 18 .gt. In the Syriac 31 i6 n we have the In Jn.gt. i in St. 17. The words 26&quot. Phil. and Pesh. TT}S Trviifl Ata rovro /ivpov eA. aurov avrov airra&amp. tVa OO-^T}? rov pvpov. which we have placed as a as referring to the Church. 12 .gt.TT\r]pwOif] e/c T^S /cet^aA^s 6 Kt pto?. parallel.f&amp. ev aurw /AeVwv ovx ovSe dyaTr^j/ KCKr^/xeVo? d/xaprdi/ei. According to Jn. the house being allegorized occurs six times ap-^v TOV atou/os TOVTOV Trail. thought the Ui^? joooj/. U^^? is ^c^^J of in i4 6 TOV is [TOVTOV] apx^v rendered by Sin.gt. are based on recollection of the passage from Jn. I2 ^ 8e oi/cta f. ris eiTTT/ OTI AyaTTto [uo-fj.gt. 2 - . ovSev XavOdvei vjnas. 7. rov edv. 15. Ui^? 6 30 .. 2J 2 9 11 . tva a) avroG ev I Jn.ej/os I Jn. TTUS 6 3&quot. (CHJ^^ I2 ) opooi/. The Johannine in i Cor. i4 = 13 lff our Lord s/^/ were anointed.i 54 APPENDIX *fii&amp. /cat rov dSeX^ov avrov Cf. The phrase 6 . 4 2 cai&amp. and by Koo-fjiov by Sin. CTTI 3 9 mind the narrative of the anointing as recorded in Mk./j. }joi 19. 19).a/?/ [auroi)] CTTI 3 Jn.~ . 4 Jn. - T)V dyciTr^V ^rts ccrriv rov fov TCTeActWat. are Magn. I2 o^aoj/ (Eph. ovScis TTtoriv teaching is here combined with that of St. In Jn. 2 5 6 eos ayaTrr) c ev TOVTO&amp.jo. 13. I Jn. U^K? rendered is apx^v rov KOO-^OV TOVTOV. Ignatius s letters (the other occurrences version the equivalent is 4. eav TT/I/ I I 8 16 Jn. Cf. Mt.lt. the or world-period (properly TOV atwos spiritual ruler of the present age 6 8 TWV apxovTwv TOV atwvos TOVTOV denotes TOVTOV). as in Ignatius.. Paul 7rayyeXXd)U. phrase J&amp. 3 ev KCU 6 T^pwv ras avrai yaei/et Karot/coCi/To?.gt.@apcriav. just as in i Cor. i2 to resist the conclusion that Ignatius s words it is difficult - r^? /ce^aA^s avroG prove that St. Ignatius has in ~ yet iva Trviri KT\. also crriv. 6). 14. Travra ^/xti/ ow TTOIW/XCV. Rom.

To I. I s 17 1 d/V/^eia OVK eo-rtv ej/ ^/xtr.N-) to denote alw and KOO-/AOS. /cat c/ et /coo~/xo 6K TOV KOCTfJLOV ^TC. eov . . eTrot^crei/ rt fiX-CTri] TOV wvj. 7.5 a?r efJiavTOV ~ TTOIOJ JCv/ ouoe^. Trdi/res ovv o/j-orjOfLav .gt. ov Trarpos Sta I^croS Xptcrroi) 5.. I 6 Aoyos avTov OVK ecrrti/ ei/ Jn.os ov V/JLLV. rov 8ta Travros re /cat Tmrreojs dyaTr^s ^5 Trpo/ce/cptTat. Aefd/^^j/ TO7TTO fJLLO {yxas rov /COQ-/XOV.iK rendering TOV It KOO-/JLOV TOVTOV is less accurate than TOV al&vos TOVTOV. and the form in which he gives it phrase suggests that he may have known the Aramaic original of the Gospel. . ot ot ^apaKTrjpa TOT) rou KOCT/JLOV OVK care. . that Ignatius drew his n?. ^v auroi) ov/c ecrrti/ ei/ TJ/JUV.V- TOS dyaTraTe. TraTpo? ovSev .TO . (quoted above on AaySoVres errpe7reo-$e dAA^Aovs lv Irjo~ov Xpto~Tu&amp. /cat ro 8e /cvptorrepov. .^ O KOCT/XOS. Trarpo?. **??% 155 (Sy r - I v&amp. 3 c^et awviov e 6.gt. cus [e/c/cA^o tais] eVax /cat if 5). Xptcrroi. 1 (quoted above on crap/cos Trveu/xaros Eph. fjiat (. 6 t o /xei/ av TO Stov e^t Aet* on Se e/c av rciiv e^et. 6 Aoyos 6 e//.APPENDIX the earthly rulers of the present age. wcnrfp yap ecrriv FOyatcr/xara eou o Se tStov /cocr/xov. dAA^Aovs Sta TTO.gt. 5 eavroG u Svvarai 6 vtos ouSej/ ai/ yu. Eph. Trarepa Trotov^ra.gt. i/ 8&quot. n.v the Magnesians. I I Jn. . I Jn. Aramaic has but one term and the Johannine NJi3&quot. 13 4). then. from Jn. Jn. 5. o JQ2S J&amp. fio~7rep ovi/ 6 Kv ptos dVeu ro9 [^vw/xevos Jn.rot KOO-/AOU TOTJTOU. 8ta 8e TTicrrot ev aydirrj ^apaKTrjpa . el VfJiO. Jn..7^ Trotetj^ d^&amp. and mistranslates the original which must have been ^9^1 can hardly be doubted. Jn. dAX e/c eycb c^e- a7rio&quot.

also lo )vp Xpio-Top TOP 25 37 38 . KTX.va. v / Yd)p&amp. v^J. Pf .gt.Tf]- &amp. Cf.37 4 O 2o21 9.r\v OVK To ii.30. Cf. ^(opts . 10 .lt. &amp. O CO-TIP TTOlai . I lff- os KttTa TrapTa ev^pecmyo-ep TO) i/rai/Ti ?re/x- jn.^8 . . 9.lt. eavTop Sia auTOv. //^^ Trallians. 28 Kai Jn. Kai o ..dpov. ./)i.156 APPENDIX dXXa TavTa Karoos XaXa&amp. a^Tov cf. .a8as Xo yos. os CO-TIP TOU vtou avrov Xoyos d?ro a-iyiys Jn.lt.. OTI cya) dpeo-Ta TTCIPTOTC. TO) * TTc/xu/apT i avTOPj J n.gt. /^ti avTOP. 18 8 42 I3 3 .ks ycvywo-as KapTrbv Tts.epT7 17 i. The Father is the husbandman who tends the vine Jn. d&amp. Jn. OVTWS 8e Kai 6 ap$pco7ros 6 Ka^aipci 8c ?rapa(/)uds c^v^piCovo-as 7rapa&amp. alSO / with &amp. especially v. Jn. The word denotes fertility a side-growth or worthless sucker which detracts from the . CIS CPa OPTtt.l7 * on eis co s CO-TIP 6 c^apcpwo-as Iryo-ov XpicrTOi) Jn. TraTpo s. 126 i5 &amp.pi7//xt TOP KOO-/XOP Kai Tropeuo/xai Trpos TOP TraTe pa. . 8 Ka0vXo/zapei yap atiToi) /4 Tas a/xTreXos.?o&quot.lt.gt.11 20 14 T fil0.o//. Cf. TO opo/ia.lt. i5 lff -. TTWS Jn. l6 tr]X@ov K rov TraTpos epos TraTpos 7rpoeX$oPTa Kai eis eVa opTa Kai ^(op^o-avTa. I 6 OOP CIS TOP KOXTTOP TOV . IO 30 eyu) - Kai 6 - Cf. Trapavra eto-tv and removes the worthless owot yap OUK shoots. 17 E(#)apcpwo-a Q-QI. $vyeT TOLS ow Tas KaKas ?rapa0a. . Lightfoot compares Clement Alex. oS c. TTC^US pt TO. TO dX^^iPOi t. ou eav yevoTyrai i. I4 12. Cf. ! .24. Kai 8. Trail.jW&amp.gt. eXv^Xt^a eis TOV KOO-//-OV TraXiv a&amp.apTa.lt.34 -23. KXaSei. Paed.

e7Tl6v(J..lt. i$&amp.s To the Philadelphians. KOO-fJiOV $.gt. with the difference that the /x?) Ignatius (f&amp./xov Kat Tas KO.lt.lt.f&amp. Se CK e^e- rod Koo-pov OVK Ae^a/x. 7. for definite articles would almost certainly be . also Jn. (pcarus a\r]0(ias the light of truth&quot.gt. 2 eai/ TIS dyaTra TOJ/ KOO-/XOV.lt. According to Aristotle. 4&quot.lt.lt. ^e Aw. 7. In the e&amp.gt.op 8e ^w^ /cat AaAoi V er e//.gt.epto&quot.6apro&amp.* TO yu.lt. 6 /3pa&amp.KO- ets TO &amp. o CQ-TIV o-ap 32 33 6 Jn. 17 yap o~ap ttov d\r)6r)&amp. cannot stand. 13 . i5 ITSo-a fareta ty OVK 6 TraTrjp fiov o oupdVtos II.tpov KapTrov of the latter becomes ras clause there is yei/i/axras Kap-n-ov davarrjf^opov. 6 7rarr)p /JLOV tooo-tv vp. To 3.. /XT) Xpurrov la Jn.oi . . 19 (rrv Jn. Kat rjv av 6 KapTTOs auroov G Jn.CTTiV f) ayOLTTTf} TOV TTaT/OOS V aVTO&amp.j)VT(vo~fv last allusion to Mt.CLT. Jn.s.gt.3 ei/ aura) 7T7/y^ iuoWos a wi/iov. yap apTO5 TOV eoS ecrTtv 6 *caTa- fiaivwv K TOV ovpavov KOU ^toryv StSous Jn. o eo-Ttv ayaTrrj a^^apTos.lt. 3G Jn.lt. /xeyeous the Romans.iv TOV XptcTTOi) Kai 7ro/xa $cAa&amp. 7.APPENDIX 157 of the plant. 7 38 . Thus the thought of is allied to that of Jn.9 w TOV ^&amp. I5 KapTros a&amp.TTavovTa. Plant. .WTOS dA^^etas. o-Tat 10 eSw/cev av o-oi i Scop ^oii/.gt. 4 Jn. i. TO vSop o Stoo-ca avT&amp.a)s. TO TOV apTOV K TOV ovpavov TOV aXrjOivov o at/xa aiuTOV. OVK (.^i/ {yxtts dAA eyw CK roi) TOUTO XaAetre I /xto-t v/xas 6 KOO-/XO?.s eo~Ti CO~TL Kat TO al/xa /xou d\rjOrj&amp. I2 a&amp. 4 Trapaufivdots Se eto-t ru (ZTTO TTJS pic^s TOU Scvopov j3Xa&amp. V ttot \iyov KT\.o~is. Cf. I5 et e/c orav /xtcr^rat VTTO KOOT/XOV /coV/xo? av TO on eo-re... tVa vt * u of Lightfoot s verdict is.gt. aprov eo{5 . The reading of the Greek MSS.

12 Z^. on TO Trail.gt. e The text might be mended by inserting a /cat. JnM )&amp. Xptbs Jn. ow 6 inos vfj.g.KoXoi.o&amp. .gt./&amp. . 2^ DDN 7]113 in the true (right) way (lit. in way . 3 Kat Tr/v TO 7rveC/x. aroi). yecopyet Xpto TO ?.} Syr. IO7 9 . . Trpos TO epya o.7rpoo-0ev auTcov TropeueTai. et/xt iy eto~ep^ovTat AfipaafjL Kat ot Trpo^rjraL 17 Io&quot. cyto .lt. KpvTrra eXey^et. ov otoev yap 7ro$ev ep^eTat Kat TTOV (f&amp.a OTTOV $eXci TTVCI. Ps. possibly pointing (like of truth ) = LXX iv oSw d\rjedas. N&quot. For omission of the definite article in rendering such a Semitic 8 phrase into Greek cf.pa TOV TraTpos.lt.158 SiSao-KaXtas e APPENDIX OTTOU Se 6 ?rot/x^v eo-Ttv. than any existing authorities may o apxow TOV alwvos rovrov noted on p.pajros a\ri6eias.15 IT.aXwTt oi. aTro eoi) s 7.Ttv vrrdyeL Tras 6 yeyevv^/xeVos CK TOI) Jn.lt. . gives Might and truth I am disposed since this would be a very obvious expedient for a translator. :? I).gt. c A ) j ?:^r. Kat 6 XWKOS dpTrd^et avra Kat TOJV iw KaKoov I^o~oi)s i Jn. 3 ir . &amp. . Sta TO /x^ etvai auTous (favreiav TraTpos. tSta TrdvTa Kat TO.gt. 6 t ^ eav dX^eta e . 154) to an acquaintance with.(i)vr]v avrov aKO^ets. to think that rewa a\i]6fias was the original reading of Ignatius . n. 118 (up) 80 68ov dXrjedas rfpfriad^v. to translate TO of truth . oo-^. .aaK Trpo/SdYoov. suggested by the required. ov TrXavttTat.o*cu light i 9 . IO 6Vav TO. t it 4 Jn.lt. ot8as TTO^CV ep^eTat Kat oi)TO)5 eo&quot.Tai. 8 s &quot. T &amp. TO this latter being used e. 3^ Kat OVK ep^CTat TO.gt. Cf. that the Aramaic method of expressing the true lighf is NDK^p&quot. . . according to Lightfoot is older well be an Aramaism. OI/TCOS IXevOepoL 9 auTos IaKw/3 Kat crroXoL Kat cov $i. Trvev/JLO. Thus &amp.. Kat TO. Gen. Jn. which. e/xoi) eya) t/xt iy ^v Si Kat ot d?ro- edv Tts elareXOy (ruOr)&amp. &amp.. dXX OUK TTOI) VTrayet.rc. the original Aramaic Gospel. and that (pcoros was first intended as a substitution or a gloss or a parallel.r TT oXXot TOVS e//.a&amp.lt.? a\rjQiv6v in Jn.gt. &quot.pJTp. however. yap XVKOI atxp.$e?. familiar scriptural phrase Tewa (vfot) ^euros It may be remarked.o~iJ/ 7rpof3ara awTai d. as the Armenian Version On such a point however a version has little weight. St ^s Kat Jn. r &amp.

a r^s ttj/acrrao-ecas /cdya) aj/ v\l/w6&&amp.gt. l . and by Theodotion in Isa.op?7//.lt. also Jn. 2fi 5 . 7re7rA?7po&amp. avTov. And to bring it into sharp contrast to sweetness . 2i s 9 signal-post LXX /cat avrov CTTI crr/^et ou. * And * the drugs of error.APPENDIX To I. been dictated by desire being.gt. (though they be the . Rendel Harris and Ignatius are as Mingana argue : Odes were familiar to Ode 3 8 78 .3 ^o)^v ivo. Oe&amp. 3 . ayiovs /cat Trto-rovs O./ KaOyXuipevov virep . principal passages from which that the The follows Drs. the sense the plagues which they think to be sweetness.gt. 62 .VTOV.lt. crap/a o Trwrrevooi/ avr&amp.s Isa.jiff*! Ju*90JO JOO) ^)V JJ? ^*? )&amp. D3 is rendered (rva-a-f]fjiov by LXX in - The allusion of . TOV 14 10 eis Jn.eVous 159 the Smyrnaedns. . 3 roi/ /cat /ca$oi)S f. ii 10 . 60 (59)./cuo-a&amp. 49 23 . Num. 33 2. Ps.** v^^l 00 But Truth proceeds in the right path. And whatever Even all I did not know it made clear to me. eV Cf. Reminiscences of the Odes of Solomon in the Epistles of St. 33* by Symmachus 33- ..v errt n&amp.lt. the plagues of death which men think to be sweetness. 22 . tVa e^&amp. 32 Jn. etre Traj/ra? eA. . r^s e/c/cA^a-tttS D3 standard or o-^o-o-Ty/xov seems to be to the on which the brazen serpent was set. In the last line the Syriac construction is somewhat harsh lit.Aarov IIoi/TW)V o(tj/ rfj /cat HpcoSou rjfjiwv rerpdp^ov tv - Orjvai Set TOV -rras wov TOU ei/ av6pu7rov. Isa.lt. CK rrjs yfjs. plagues) of death . of death death from the plagues (if not merely an accidental misplacement) may have . ii 10 .gt. And the The separation of of plagues which they think to be sweetness. 14 lowSaiots o-co/xart ctre eV lOvevw. It is so rendered by Aquila in in Isa. I2 aitoi/a? 8&amp. aprj crvarcrrjfjiov eis ets rows TOUS ev ej/t aicovioi/. Ignatius.lt. Trpos e/xavroj/.

heretical Syr. halyutha. Thus both the Ode and Ignatius compare so that teaching to a poisonous drug concealed in a sweet drink. It is a fair was administering to the simple bitters in halyutha to the inference. jlcu^. halyutha is is not merely taken. Hist. Evagrius of Antioch. that the oivo/xeAt of Ignatius corresponds drink This is .ov \a\ovv lv cp.) as finding an allusion to the certain waters communicated a prophetic power to the people drinking them. like persons administering a deadly drug with wine. speaking fountains at interpolator prefer the correctness of XaXovv is now confirmed by the passage in the Ode. but the and to 16). Jn. My lust in hath been crucified. Rom. 6 Ignatius warns his readers against the teaching of For these men do even mingle poison with Jesus Christ. without stint. i.oi t tcrwOtv fJLOL \eyov Aevpo TT/OOS TOV Trarepa). imposing upon others by a show of honied honesty. HE.a/&amp. As there was one of these i.160 APPENDIX : heretics in the following terms In Trail. Ode n 6 ^la JU And speaking waters drew near my lips From the fountain of the Lord. Lightfoot himself is inclined 14 s text aXXo/xei/ov (cf. &quot. a sweet substantiated by a passage in which Ephrem states that Bardaisan. heathen superstition that pp.sweet but something with which the poison . v. i. drinketh in SiSovres jaera death with a baneful delight (oWep Oavda-L/JLOV &amp. text. 356 f.oi/ ewo/xe AiTOS. and there is no fire of material longing me. the famous suburb . Daphne (Sozomen.ap//. 19. then.lt. but only water living and speaking KOL Come to the Father (v Swp Se in me. so that one who knoweth not. In explanation of XaXow.. In the view of the editors ness&quot. with which we can hardly fail to trace a connexion.e.lt. Lightfoot cites Jortin (Eccles. oVcp 6 dyi/oah/ dSeoJs Aa/z/Savet ev f)$ovfj KaK-fj TO aTro^aveiv). saying within me. fearing nothing. Jortin supposes that the image could readily suggest to question the itself to Ignatius. The coincidence in thought can hardly be accidental. Ignatius.lt. in composing his Psalter in imitation of David. 4 ). &amp. 7 . men imbibe it unwittingly.

APPENDIX more on 161 In assessing the character of that connexion. which is an explanation of the . 43. ii.lt. 2.lt. Harris and Mingana have collected.Tos TOV K. lff of this passage with Ignatius. however.vpLov TTOJS Tpia.ai e\a. M . 131. Harris and Mingana remark with justice that it is far likely that Ignatius. by which enter Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and i. Rom. 8e AOITTOL TrdvTa darrpa a/xa r/Xt w * op. : . ^fvicrjiov Traaev KaivoTr^5 avTOu* TO. . bond the This Christ Jesus shall loose you from every followed by the statement (9) that He is the door 8. Ode4i The connexion . writing letters rapidly his that western journey.vcrTr^pLa . considerably noticed that in Eph. nothing appeared closed to I I me. p. should quote the Hymn-book the early Hymn-book should have picked up an obscure in a letter ..[ju(/ev Trwras rj TOV&amp. i. currr/p ei aTLva lv rjfrv^ia eou fTrpd^Or]. in this and the former passage.VTTJS.lt. VTrep ovv e^xxvepw^r/ rots cuwcriv /cat ovpavw /&amp. cit. Because was the door of everything went towards all my bondmen to loose them Phil. door of everything in the Ode. The case for Ignatius s knowledge of the Odes it is. /ji.S dcrrepas.gt. Kpavyrjs. TO &amp.CU ZXaOev TOV ap^ovTa TO? alwvos TOVTOV O. of the Father. than passage which had hardly got into circulation at a very early date Ode ln n i7 . These are the letters of Ignatius principal parallels between the Odes and the which Drs.r)Tov r/r. The few others which they cite are of but slight importance.X 1^001 And And Cf. n. 19 he actually seems to be quoting at length an ode of a similar character.*/ OOfr^O ^s. f) TrapOfvia Mapias /cat o TOKCTOS 6/xoioos Km 6 $ava. is Ignatius.s auToG dvK\dX.a&amp. Drs. has already been noticed on p.* - of the time.e. The passage runs as follows is : strengthened when K. Jesus Prophets and the Apostles and the Church Christ is the door of everybody.

It by the query TTCOS ow tyavtpuOf] TOIS character and not in Ignatius s usual quoting. into Translated following translation is based.oios aurois. in which the earlier part of the poem is not included. i f KO. o^ev eXvero Tracra /mycia. SeafAos. 6. carefully constructed to consist of 4.Trrjprtfr^f.a Oai Oavdrov KardXva iv.i6a os eyeVeTO Yj TU&amp.TWKiveiTO o. 4 lines.lt. TTOVTO. ayvota KaOypecro. 17 auros Se 77 r)V vTrcpfidXXwv TO &amp. * Following the older punctuation.VCTO Tracra /xaya a. upon the Syriac version of the letter. which is poetical in style.Xf.lt. from the poetical point of view. is a hymn which he is Syriac it is seen to consist of four The stanzas.ws aurou re ^i/ vro^ev /cau/orrys dvo//. Sta TO jJiC.Ta. iivBev TO.vov.pavifTO .loot . seems clear that the description of the Incarnation introduced atwo-ii/. This.I iras &amp. from o@cv C\. cow A* \H*( low Lightfoot punctuates oOev lAvero -na Kan ias devoid.lt. KCU Tras Secr^os ^^avi ^tro eoi) Ka/ct a?. .3 CO Joo . TraAata di/^pwTriVcos (fravtpovfjitvov cis KaivoTrjra ai&iov eoi) 8e f\dfjiftavv TO Trapa &amp. upsets the balance altogether. 6. APPENDIX dcrrepi. KaBriptiTO iraXaia 0affi\fia f regarding the last verb as a gloss.gt.

Error was swept away. the rest of the stars. Conception of the star shining in the world. they questioned whence came The new thing. 1 hus was begun the scheme Perfected in God s design : Hence all things were perturbed For that death s destruction was planned. But its light outshone them all. Let not the Luminary be conquered by darkness Nor let Truth flee away from falsehood . . A star shone forth all in the heaven. newness caused amaze. Joined in concourse round the star . Surpassing the stars And And 2. its light its was not to be uttered. Ode And the Most High hath given Him . 3. Bewildered. the ancient kingdom passed life . His worlds.APPENDIX 163 1. Thenceforth was magic annulled. Then all Together with sun and moon. unlike to themselves. That was beforetime Him The i2 4 stars gather round the new star. (Worlds) which are the interpreters of His And the repeaters of His praise own beauty. 8&quot. And bonds And of evil dissolved . and express their to wonder. appeared in the flesh Unto newness of without end. In this ode the following points of connexion with the thought of the Odes of Solomon may be noticed : 1. M 2 . 41&quot. Ode Ode 2. . And Light dawned from the in Word . When God 4.

. With the whole passage : cf. . . And bonds of evil dissolved 3. have both terms We in the following passage : Ode i8 lcul And error (Jlcu^) For neither doth it Thou knowest know Thee. And Later on in every place in the Thy name was round same Ode we read about Me . Error was swept away .knowledge ) of the Ode. And And Ode 38&quot. enemies adversaries He who That I gave Me authority over bonds. . .164 APPENDIX . That I might not leave any man bound and binding 2 . lc .^ JJ) appeared like dust. That everything might be dissolved and renewed. have adopted jicu^ text. which is exactly not. Ode 21 7 For ignorance hath been destroyed. following the The Greek. might loose them.. . He that overthrew by My hand the dragon with seven heads. like the scum of the sea And error fled away before Him.^. And would not meet Him . And set Me at his roots that I might destroy his seed Thou wast there and didst help Me. Ode if My choking bonds were cut off by His hand Ode 2i Because He hath cast off my bonds from me Ode 25 I was rescued from my bonds Ode42 And bring me out from the bonds of darkness Ode (Christ speaks) And I went towards all my bondsmen to loose them. however.. And on it Thou didst build Thy kingdom And it became the dwelling-place of the saints . our rendering. Ode 22 s f- (where Christ is represented as speaking) He who And My scattered My . Thou didst bring Thy world to corruption. We Syriac Jk. has ayvoia. Because the knowledge of the Lord hath arrived error in . JJ (lit. ignorance (Jk. 17&quot. not.

The somewhat obscure Ode 24 in the poet s is mind seems to describe a similar state of perturbation caused by our Lord s baptism in the ancient order of things which through this event was condemned to pass away and this is perhaps pictured . like (women) in travail : Because He was He not given to them for food did not belong to them : And And the abysses were submerged in the submersion of the Lord . . And And But the abysses were opened and closed they were seeking for the Lord. they perished in the thought from the beginning. He was her Head . Hence is things were perturbed. covered by the expression all things ? It is difficult to think that the whole universe is intended since. and the error mentioned in stanza 3. &c. though the . as Universal.l And kingdom passed When God appeared in the flesh Unto newness of life without end all the ancient perished). . the bonds of evil. rrjv rwv craXeuo/xei/cov /xe The Dove Because flew over the head of our Lord the Messiah. Probably the thought of the powers belonging to the uppermost ancient kingdom. And And And And The she sang over Him. What might mean simply were moved or excited we hardly expect the terror and disquiet of the powers of evil and the joyous excitement of mankind destined to be verb o-wcKtvetTo . the sojourners trembled .^)11 / redeemed to be included under one term. in which they had existed . = 0^. 4. responsible for the magic.gt. birds took to all flight. And creeping things died in their holes. her voice was heard ! the inhabitants were afraid.APPENDIX This recalls the passage in 165 our Ignatian ode (}+s&amp.

iiown how i 5 to love the Lord. For 15 that death s destruction was planned . . may For he that is that is joined Jn. i4 19 Because . was submerged by the Truth of the Lord . there ye shall ye will . . himself also become immortal Him live also and he that hath pleasure in the will Living One. And And And And 1 darkness was destroyed by His appearance. 14* That where be also . immortal. And For the end of their travail was life. I gave it no path. become living . Error went astray disappeared from Him. hath gone up deathless life in the Lord s Thus our Ignatian ode appears throughout to be thoroughly keeping with conceptions contained in the Odes of Solomon.i66 APPENDIX For they travailed from the beginning. Ode And Sheol And there land . . I am. Reminiscences of the Johannine literature in the Odes of Solomon. for themselves that they might remain Drs. had not loved me Ode Ode to there also i 8 And where His am I . rest Jn. 4 We first love (Him) be. Harris and at the Mingana compare a somewhat similar passage beginning of Ode 31 : The abysses were dissolved before the Lord . in 3. cause He loved us He is. i &quot. (as for) it Falsehood. list 3 The Ode includes some points of connexion with the Apocalypse. i For I should not have Jn. I live. Death hath been destroyed before my face hath been abolished by my word. if . And every one it of them that to was not permitted was defective perished them to make a defence .

That Thou shouldest keep (one) I . 1 5&quot. ones. Apoc. 4 14 the Lord. Continue ye in My Ye beloved .APPENDIX Ode i 10 167 1 This is the Spirit of lie . Jn. have kept them in name v. ii 5- That gathered together as one that . 5 And . (Pesh. Ode 10 And Jn. And ye that are kept. Apoc. his in His book 12 name inscription is i out of the book of 4 Ode is For their the victory. and continue the love of the Lord . to them gave He power to become the sons of ceived God . so have I loved you u . this is the victory yours . world has become our Lord The kingdom of the s . . 2 I . Ode 9 have overcome shall be written all 11 And . and tabernacled 1 fashion me. Him Jn. together into He might gather one the children of . r!&amp. 15 loved Me. nations that are saved shall walk by the light 3 thereof.gt. us . i7 Keep them in Thy Thy that lived (again) name v. i - But as many as Him. Apoc. i6 I have overcome the world captive world the nations were . that was he reckoned like I might put Him on . Jn.. 15 people ). Jn.. that doth not Ode that I 4 7 He became like me. 3 . Ode 8~ in Pray. 1 . i And the Word became among re might receive Him in flesh. love . ijn. were scattered abroad God that are scattered abroad 2i4 Ode light 10 And set the traces of the . which 9 10 I Jn. I He in that ovcrcometh will no wise blot life . that overcometh the world. Cf. . them from the evil 19 Because Jn. those that 5 Apoc. even faith :i:i our Ode (Christ) took . in . . i4 live . 2i ii And they shall be His peoples (Pesh. in the Beloved As the Father hath Jn.) And the upon their heart walked in My life and and they and they became were saved for ever and ever My people were . the Jn.

the whole chapter. of them that are deficient. fi if any . 45 Him was . behold. i2 And there was seen another sign in heaven and. because I was the door of everything Ode i8 4 Lord. and take a drink. Ode 30 12 10 Thou wouldest have Jn. (Christ speaks) although a Son of Man. for the sake . light. Me be peared closed to Me. and the darkness And not the luminary be conquered by the darkness. r . 4 asked of Him.. I might destroy his seed having seven heads. not reject our souls Him i cometh cast out to . Me and will in no wise In Ode 14 4i And * light dawned Jn. away from falsehood by . shall and ever he Ode 10 i7 And nothing ap 9 Jn. io I am the door. Ode s6 3 And was Son Jn. 7 . That was the true Light Ode4i Saviour u And His Word was all Jn.1 68 APPENDIX and His Christ reign for ever s. &c. v. Jn. :i : Me at his roots that . enter shall saved Jn. fountain of the Lord . do not Let deprive me of the Word . Jn. 6 :i3 life to the world v. by in. So Sin. I named the Luminary. even the giveth life and doth . nor let Truth flee obscured it not . all And If any man thirst. let him come unto Me and drink Jn.* of water for :i8 eternal Cf. Ode 22 (Christ speaks) He that overthrew My hands the dragon with seven heads. Fill ye water for from the living foun yourselves tain of the Lord for it hath been . ye thirsty. opened to you : v. the of God . omitting springing up . and He would have given thee living water . and He . 5 O iiff- The Word . i ff- The Word That giveth that . I 37 . the Light shineth in the darkness. Cf. and rest by the come. with us in who our way. and set Apoc. 7 as i7 emended on p TIO. and Cur. a great red dragon. H The water that shall I shall give him become life in him a fount . . .

APPENDIX from the Word.. and worked them up in a manner which utilizes most striking phrases. the nations 0004 . Ode One. foundation world world From the poetical character of the Odes it is obvious that more . the light shineth in dark ness . His theme . a fairly close representation of a passage which illustrates very remarkably the poet s use of the Johannine writings. that was beforetime in 169 Him 15 . 3&quot. Ode is 9&quot. some of the above-noticed coincidences are very remarkable. before 4i the . and Apoc. and Apoc. Ode io 5(i Apoc. or less exact quotations could hardly be expected yet even so.. The Messiah 24 truly Jn. in Jn. Ode 8 22 is entirely built up upon thoughts derived from the Last is Discourses of Jn. is the gathering of the Gentile nations into the Church and he seems deliberately to have selected outstanding passages on this subject their from Jn. This appears very clearly through comparison of the Syriac text with the corresponding phrases of Pesh. i7 For Thou lovedst foundation of Me the and He was known of the before the . And is the light was the life of men. And were gathered together as one ) I that were scattered abroad .

lines of evidence taken together form an argument the early date of the Fourth Gospel which is exceedingly weighty.gt. Though it will probably be admitted. if not to in the the century.lt.D. St.gt. 2i presupposed Apoc. WH. :t 2i&quot. and i Jn. appears to be in 24 Apoc.D. om. . 95. The weakest strand in our threefold cord is undoubtedly that which postulates Ignatius s knowledge of the Odes of Solomon.. This difficulty seems. and to be speedily utilized in time of persecution. WH. as is commonly thought. Apoc. 2i :&amp.J&amp. ii We notice incidentally that the text of Pesh. the Apocalypse is. they are carried back. however. known the Odes of Solomon. if at any rate to the very beginning of the second. that Ignatius quotes a hymn like the Odes.* OOOtO y ^. Lastly. The knowledge of the Apocalypse all. even when we make allowance for the facts that intercourse between Ephesus and Antioch was easy. was thoroughly familiar These three for with the Theology of Jn.^i O His for ever and they shall be and ever 15 . 2 1 3 (*cua-*3li?=Tcoi/ o-o)oju. no.gt. and that the Apocalypse was precisely the kind of work which was likely to gain ready circulation in the east. there scarcely But seems sufficient time for the book to have influenced the full Odes . and were saved and they became My people &amp. but also the Apocalypse. is generally admitted to embody much earlier elements and it may be from these that the reminiscences in the Odes are drawn. A.170 APPENDIX .) and (CH^. and though the evidence that he was interested in hymnology and actually knew some of . the Odes of Solomon appear unmistakably to have known not merely Jn. i. Apoc. not earlier than the last years of Domitian s reign. people Apoc. and i Jn. Aaot aurov). for ever and ever ..lt. shown If first Odes is perhaps the most surprising fact of Ignatius knew the Odes. Ignatius.. if as late as Domitian. to be resolved by the consideration that the book. X to w OM that are saved O&amp.*? }-*aJS* = Aaos ai Tov.gt. upon the evidence adduced. writing in A.e. and therefore (we must surely He also appears to have infer) with the documents themselves.eV&amp. and at any rate quotes an ode which is marked by the same lines of thought.oi&amp. c.

have long thought that r . it through a familiarity This thoroughly favours the theory of the Antiochene origin of the Gospel. in Texte und Untetsuchungen. belief that. pp.. but that he had assimilated extending over many years. and that he had devoted to them no mere cursory reading but a close and work Elsewhere in the same it would facilitate our reconstruction of the history of early Christian thought.APPENDIX the 171 Odes is sufficiently striking. Sanday remarks. which seems to be proved to demonstration. before the Apostle reached his final home at Ephesus. the fact which principally concerns Ignatius s knowledge of the Fourth Gospel. the alternative lies between falling back upon the tradition that Ignatius was an actual disciple of St. and not (like a modern hymn-book) the work of different authors at various dates. John. The manner in which he utilizes its teaching shows further that his acquaintance with it was not us is merely superficial. Sanday says. 199) which had the deepest Dr.. effect I upon his mind . and I was so much any doubt that Ignatius had digested and assimilated impressed by it as even to doubt whether there is any other instance of resemblance book. or that they are all by one hand. The former scholar concludes (p. as well as in some of the early Gnostic S3 stems. to explain the connexion in thought. 130) that Ignatius must have come under the prolonged influence of a community itself Dr.). John . however. Band xii). or had to actually had access to the Johannean writings years before the date of his journey Rome. At present. careful study (p. to an extraordinary degree the teaching which we associate with the name of St. Sanday (Criticism of the Fourth Gospel. I had occasion a few years ago to study rather closely the Ignatian letters. localized somewhere in Syria. he seems to me to reflect the Johannean biblical between a and patristic The writer concludes by expressing his teaching with extraordinary fidelity. if we could assume an anticipatory stage of Johannean teaching.* * The is Gospel peculiar character of Ignatius s indebtedness to the thought of the Fourth emphasized by Freiherr von der Golz {Ignatius von Antiochien als Christ und Theologc. This would account more easily than any other hypothesis for the traces of this kind of teaching in the Didachc. 242 ff. it has not been proved that he knew all the Odes. and by Dr. and in Ignatius. I do not think there can be influenced by Johannean thought . that is really so close. Allowing for a certain crudity of expression in the later writer and remembering that he is a perfervid Syrian and not a Greek.

.

5. i6f. G. 96. Ellipse. J. Prof. E. H. Prof. 20 ff. 78. 90. 89 Gamaliel the elder. . Dr. 133 Box.. 13. 159 Brockelmann. 21. L. . 57. Prof.. . 18. 3 ff. 63 ff...INDEX Abbahu. Dr. 34. 61 ff.. 115 Duval. 7.. Ezra. 20 . 130 Discourses in Fourth Gospel. authen ticity of. Daphne. Prof. 151. Freiherr von der. R. 149 Eusebius. 26 Ewald. 135. J. Greek . 150. C. 39 Bolten. Prof. 22. 15.. 29 f. 7 Aristion. rise of use of. 151.. supposed writing of Fourth Gospel at. . Dr. 7 ff. 27. R. 115 Demonstrative Pronouns. 96. 4 f. 67. 143 Conybeare. 4. 13 Ephesus. * Jews in. 134. Diatessaron. . 86 Biichler. 49 f. John of. 96. C. terior to finite verb. 140. C. Prof. 43 ff. 86.. 134 ff. 2 Bousset. 143 Driver. 23. 22. Apostle wider usage of term. 150 f. 140 Aquila. 7. 6. 130. A. 147. 61. 27 % . ... first and second.. 160 e e Evangelion da-M hall te..39.. 4 8 Brazen serpent. 22 Andrew. 50 ff.. Palestinian. 149 ff. 2 Berliner. character of Biblical. F. G.. 127.. speaking fountain of. Ammi. Hebrew. Dr. 130 Creation. R.. 141 Evagrius. Franz. Dalman. S. 39. 21 Aramaic constructions and usages con Apocalypse. 160 Deissmann. i5 2 Abbott.. 117 Charles. 85 Georgius Hamartolus. 49 f. Golz.. Dr. R. i AramaismS). 25. H.. 77. 56 f. Dr. E. Abrahams... F. 47 Bertholdt. A. 55 Daniel. 15. 127 Allen. 149 ff. 82 ff. 151 Genitive anticipated by Possessive Pro noun. in Mark. 19. 151 of. 68. 137. Prof. . 57 ff. as home of Fourth Gospel. 47 Chwolson.. H. 106 2. 68 Abraham sees the day of the Son of Man. in Apocalypse... 16. 143 Burkitt. Aramaic sections in Florinus. 25 f. 2. 18. 137. F... 54 f. 133 Delitzsch. 23 Alexandrine influence on Fourth Gos pel.. R. 20. 20 Bertholet. the 36 ff. 49 f. 99 Enforcement of verbal dea. Prof. 109 Grabe. 52 f. 2 5. 4. 28. 13. Castts pendens. 18.22 Gemara. author date of. Dr. I. ff. 19. 143 Ada Thomae.. I. 55. Prof. 159 Aramaic. Cureton.. W. 22. 23 Bacher. theory of. 68 Ball. 95 Adam. 26.. 1 29 ff 171 Aorist Participle describing action an .. 138. in Fourth Gospel. 171 Gore. 17. 26 Evangelion da-M^phar^shc. 23. 24 Dr. 107. H. 21 Blass. 65. 26. 45. Aramaic section in Book of.. . 23. 39 Delff. Asyndeton. 66. . in f. 107 Antioch. Dr... 77. 138 Book of. 42. i2f. 135 in Aramaic. 20. 77. Prof. 24. 2. 22 Amoraim. 170 ship of. 148 Anna.. W. 77 Greek. 22 Genitive absolute. 103. Prof. C. 77 Akiba. Canon W. 116 Barnabas. Epistle of. 136 Glory of the Lord. among the Jews. 32 trasted with 14. asyndeton in. Mr. 15. the Incarnation regarded as a new. 136. H. 24.. 46 Gamaliel 11. Dr. 104. A. R. C. 123. 27.. C. W. Dr. A. A. 54 . 53..

. 18. 45 ffTT)pietv TO TTpoaajnov. (po&eiaOai diro. 137 . 130 f. 68 avTa&amp. 131 Ignatius. reminis cences of Fourth Gospel and First Epistle of St. tradition of martyr of. 131. 171 Imperfect in Fourth Gospel. 14 liri Imper Halakha. 129 127 ff.INDEX Greek words and phrases dtcoXovdeTv oniffcn. . 151 ore introducing temporal clause. Rendel. 108 f. LXX. Historic Present in Fourth Gospel. t*v. Fourth Gospel and extreme rarity of. John in. 87. author of the Fourth Gospel.. . . Prof. 131. eXeyov. . 1 8. 151 Sioajfu in wide range of senses. Hebrew. . 153 ff. 89. d-rreKpiOr^crav ovpavov. Inge. 87. in Fourth Gospel. 45 Epistles of. 133 ffff. .. 7off Aramaic character of iva construction. talya. Mark s iva avoided by the other 17. 35 ff. 159 ff.. 58 Grotius. 89. 153 ff-. ovopa 30 f.. 39. 72 ff. ii f. 8 Xpiffros not employed as title &amp. . 87 ff. . . 23. 29.. the disciples John the Baptist. TTpocrcanoXTjiJuf/ia. 1 8. iva pr). 78. Hawkins. . dfj. 128 discourses in. 39 nvevpa faoiroiovv. 36 ff. 99 pri^a = 15 thing . 22. in Fourth Gospel. 104 ia6f. 135. . ovi&amp. 92. 23 Harnack. dvGpuiros . (^17)} 98 written in Palestine or Syria. 151. 152 . 19. dom of.p&amp. 133. adverbial. W. 93 tvavTt. Dr.. 150 Bible employed by writer of Fourth Gospel. 5 ff. cm mistranslation of Aramaic relative. style of. no one . Gospel of. 150 Hegesippus. R. 14 irpoffO)TTo\r]fnTTTjs. n Xtyet. . 151 introducing apodosis after time-determination.. . 54 ff. ff. 143.rj eh TOV a wva. 16. 100. 18. 68 i Hebrew ]pa. 19. frequency of fects. R. 8 dXrjOivos. Xeyovaii asyndeton. 24 in Synoptists. iriaTeveiv TTXrjpTjs. 15 s (iprjvrjv.. 56. 18. Hiya. 19. 76 f. 70 . . 8.. 77 .s TfKva by the Baptist. 18. H. 115 Jerome. Trds (iraz ov 18. l . 143 Haggadd.... C. 135 ff. 70 ff. yap. 70. 16. 45 TToAAd. = mistranslation of 18. 117 as asyndeton ff. 32. 141. 135 f.. 88. 19 Trpo iropeveaOai (vitdyeiv^ irpoawnov. 58 ff. 149 a product of Palestinian thought. 68 ) . predominance of scenes at or near. 101 of 1 = when 19. 99 fj. Mark. 70.vTi. o. els. 2 ). Dr. 5 f. . by writer of Apocalypse. Hebrew. J. 69. . 19. 1146*&quot. 18. ff. 70. 90 ff. mistranslation of Aramaic relative. o Sevrepos. 154 d\r]0eias } 157 f.. 149 First Epistle Second and of. iva = that conjunctive 18. 54 in ff. 148 John. .. adverb. 151 5e. 19 iVa. dvOpoiTTOs ( direiepidr). 7 ff. 137 Jerusalem. . 138 . 92 Hebraisms. = Third Epistles of. Dr. frequency of. Epistles of. . 15 opening of sentence. 170. Syriac ode quoted in. 166 f. 69. . kyevero introducing time-determina tion. 69 Apocalypse. 138. (#S.To auxiliary. 137 John. Historic Presents. in . 52 ap\cav TOV aluivos TOVTOV. 69. Sir J.lt. 137. Kai linking co-ordinate sentences. 88. 1468&quot. 2 Giidemann. 14 147 John the presbyter. 136. 107 dv0po}iros = TIS. date of. 134. 28 f. 106 sparse use of. linking contrasted statements.gt. R.vos : irpos = i with . 132 fXeyev. 137 John the son of Zebedee. 78 . 136. 66 f.gt. 34 f. vpoffriOrjfU in place of ird\iv or similar = 153 f. R. . Mark. adp and -rrvevfia. 116. fv0vs in Mark. 161 ff. evavriov.1 Jacob. 143 author of. in us introducing temporal clause. &quot. 99 . New.. mistranslation 18.lt.. contrasted with Biblical irpuownov (jrpoaajirov^ 15 eaKrjfojaev. glosses in. 117 Hoshaiah.. 15 ooa. 135 Harris. 66... . Hillel. 16 . f. A. 69.. 33. when ov ov . 75 f. Irenaeus.

Prof. 22 . 37 ff. 4.. 46. in Semitic 6. 43 ff. 33. 80 f. Mark... 33.. 130. 25 45 Nicodemus. 26 Papias. 4. 3. . in. Midrashim. H. Parataxis. in 5 f. 8 ff Hebraisms in. Prof. 10. 132. 150 145 f. Mechilta. Marmorstein. Prologue of Fourth Gospel. of. poeti . in 56 ff. 94 f. 46. 9. Q. i. C. 151 Prince of this world. 132. 16 Semitic Influence on Biblical Greek. . Messiah in Rabbinic Literature. 17. Dr. 18. Gospel and 132 Rabbinic influence on Fourth Gospel. . 7f. 24 Joshua ben Levi. Fourth Gospel. 162 Logos-conception. 88 f.. 151 Relative particle invariable in Aramaic. 146 f. Paul.T. 135.. 17. 46 Matthew. 84. 136 Moffatt. See Q document. 152 with Sub Participle in Aramaic. 30. in Perez. Prof. modern discoveries of Greek. St. Moses had-Darshan. 44.. 5 Mingana. Sanday. 136 . G.. 39 4. 134 ff.. T. Dr.. n ff. 5. Dr. 77 Dr. 57. 10 1 ff. Aramaic style of. 75 ff-. R. 47 f. 46 Moulton. n. 4 Robertson. 143 Schlatter. ii4ff. 26 Lightfoot. Richards. Plummer. 24 84. T. cal of. Mishna. 23. E. icf. 50 Mistranslation of an Aramaic in form 42 f. J. 144 Polycarp. no. 2 Samuel ben Old Testament quotations Gospel. 2 style of. Malchus.. 4. Luke.. Dr. origin of name. 79 ff. 7. Mr. 44. 143 Martin. 134 Philippus Sidetes. Dr. 8 ff. Dr. 57. comparison of style with that of Fourth Gospel. 134 Joseph of Pnmbeditha. in Fourth Onkelos. 6. in 29.. 18. G. R. 26 Peshitta. papyri.. 134 Mark. in Semitic. 3. 135.. in Fourth Gospel. Rabbinic influence upon. original language s knowledge of. Isaac. 47. 70 Last Supper. - anticipating direct object of verb. 4 ff.. R. Luthardt. 5 Salmasius. Nestle. R. 28 ff. Gospel of. no. A. 159 ff. with writer of Fourth Gospel.. e Negatives. Aramaic influence upon style . 45. 130. . 45 f. J.. relation of writer of Fourth Gospel to. the 154 f. 64 Schmiedel. 70. 9. 141 Papyri. 30.. . Semitic Studies. 40 ff. 86 marking subject of Par ticiple in Semitic. 92 f. 116 f. 32. H. 2. 25 Peter. St. nationality of. Prof. 134 Present as Futurum installs.. Dr.. research.. in 5 Q Mark document. . 64 Metnrci. 19. . of. 18 . 145 f. N. climactic parallelism Pronoun original.T. Schechter. 133. in literature. Raymund. 16. 34. 98 ff. 17 . 70. B. 26 Relative completed by a Pronoun. stantive verb. i ff.65 Muratorian Canon. 65. Milligan.. 8. 35 ff. . F. Mrs. 151 Participle. 24 Joseph of Arimathaea. 96. 2 f.INDEX Jonathan ben Uzziel. 150 Rabbula. P.. 39. $f. 144 Lewis. 9 of. 22... . T i ff Mark.. 157. 112. 128 in Fourth Mysticism St. C. 44. 33. 132 . lypse. as Futurum instans. Dr. 80 . 23 Palestinian Syriac Lectionary.. 29. Gospel of. O. 56. Fourth Gospel. 131. 43 ff.T. J. .. 25 Midrash Rabba. nof. 33 Lightfoot.. . origin of.. 25... to N. importance of. . u. 22 Prof. 19. 18. . 46 Personal Pronouns. 19.. . 4 ff.. bishop of Edessa. Pfannkuche. 29 Theological conceptions of. 94 Paul. 38 f. 160. 133. 19. Prof. 2 Philip the Apostle. Gospel of. 135. W. John. 116. . 45. change of construction after. i6ff. 56.. Birth-narrative of. W. gf. in Apoca dialect. Prof. Payne Smith. 18 f.. N we s/ialotH. Dr. E. 134 Nsldeke. frequency of. 137. 138 Polycrates. 156. 135. 8. A. 171 Semitisms. association of. on Apocalypse. 76. A. the son of. C. 7.

Johannine 1 66 ff. 131 Epistles of Ignatius. Prof. 148 Word of the Lord. J. conceptions derived from. ff. 22. 78. St. A. the. Hebraizing renderings . literature known 15 ff. 159 Theophilus of Antioch. in Y Targum ot Jonathan on the Prophets. in reminiscences of. 88. . 23 Tatian. 77. 82. 123. 85. 146.. no. Svvete.i 76 INDEX Targum Targum of Onkelos. Tt stimonict. Mr. 121. 102. 28. 1 12.. 92. to. . Servant of Yahweh. 159 ff. 45 Theodotion.. 4 Son of Man. 46 PRINTED IN ENGLAND AT THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS . Dr. 160 Stenning. of. H. 44. 53 f. Old. 43 Symmachus. .. H. 131 Thumb. 1 Turner. Prof. 26 149 Verbal sequences in II. 46 Solomon. on Luke.Jonathan Septuagint. 61 ff. 20 ff. early Christian. J. 36 ff. 22. 131 . Sh e ktnta.. 135.. 104 ff. 117 23. 8 ff. | Thackeray. Targum. 147. Sk kina. the ideal. F.. Prof. 95 f. 106 Siphre. 23 Talmud. ! Pentateuch. 24. 26 Hebrew. 9. 123. F. Prof. 19. 33. 46 Palestinian. 35 ff. Virgin-Birth. 12. 116. on the Simeon. 34 IVdiv consecutive in Fourth Gospel. 35 Yannai. Jerusalem. R.8r. 24 kara. 4. Yinnon as Messianic title. Wellhausen. 132. f. 14 24. 130 Temporal clauses. Sozomen. 123. the. 3. 22. C. 25 Targums. 32. the 38 .. 58 ff. 25. . influence of. Tannaim. B. 33 Socrates. 46. 68 2. 39 J. 76. 23 of Pseudo. Dr. 13.90 Westcott. 159 of Syriac version the Gospels... B. 3. Odes of.