You are on page 1of 192

THE ARAMAIC ORIGIN

OF THE

FOURTH GOSPEL

THE ARAMAIC ORIGIN


OF THE

FOURTH GOSPEL
BY

THE

REV. C. F.

BURNEY,
St.

M.A., D.Lrrr.
at

Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of

Holy Scripture

Oxford

Fellow of Oriel and

John's Colleges, Oxford

Canon of Rochester

OXFORD
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1923

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS


London
Edinburgh

Glasgow
Melbourne

Copenhagen

New York
Bombay

Toronto
Calcutta

Cape Town
Shanghai

Madras

HUMPHREY MILFORD
Publisher to

D-

theJJriiversity

/.,,.

CONTENTS
PAGE

PRINCIPAL ABBREVIATIONS EMPLOYED

...

vii

INTRODUCTION
CHAP.
I.

PRELIMINARY TESTING OF THE THEORY BY EXAMINATION OF THE PROLOGUE


ADDITIONAL NOTE

28
43

II.

THE SENTENCE
CONJUNCTIONS

49

III.

66
79
87

IV.

V.
VI.
VII.

PRONOUNS THE VERB.


NEGATIVES MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE ORIGINAL ARAMAIC OF THE GOSPEL.

98

101

VIII.

OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS FOURTH GOSPEL


.

IN
.

THE
.

114 126

IX.

EPILOGUE
.
.

APPENDIX
INDEX

153 173

507192

PRINCIPAL ABBREVIATIONS EMPLOYED


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

p. 23).

WH. =

The Greek

text of Westcott

and Hort.

Abbott, JG.

= Edwin A. Abbott, Johannine Grammar (1906). Dalman, Gramm. = G. Dalman, Grammatik des judisch-paldstinischen Aramdisch (1894).
Dalman, WJ.
1902).

G. Dalman, The

Post-Biblical Jewish Writings

Words of Jesus considered in the light of and the Aramaic Language (Eng. Trans.,
the

Deissmann,

LAE. =

A. Deissmann, Light from

Ancient East (Eng.

Trans., 1910).

HS' =
1
.

Sir

Moulton, NTG*.
(vol.
i,

John C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae (2nd edition, 1909). = J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek

Schlatter, Sprache

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

Evangelisten (1902).

Wellhausen, Einleitung^
Evangelien (zweite

= J.

Wellhausen, Einleitung in
1911).

die drei ersten

Ausgabe

INTRODUCTION
IN a sermon preached in June 1920 before the University of Oxford* the present writer made a plea for a closer synthesis of Old Testament learning with the study of the New Testament;

and reviewing summarily and generally the kind of New Testament problems which might receive fuller elucidation through the more direct application to them of Semitic learning, he put forward
the possibility that in the future a Semitic scholar might arise who, examining the language of the Fourth Gospel in detail, would prove beyond the range of reasonable doubt that it was based upon

an Aramaic original.
In venturing upon this somewhat bold prophecy, the writer had not at the time any thought of undertaking the task himself.
studies, and realizing with everthe task which lies before Semitic scholars growing insistency of widening and deepening the basis of their learning if they would

Absorbed

in

Old Testament

make any

really first-hand contribution to their subject,

he had not

enjoyed the opportunity of prosecuting his

New

Testament studies

beyond the somewhat superficial stage which ordinarily represents a theological tutor's acquaintance with the wide range of learning
in which, in addition to his

own

generally to direct his pupils' reading.

special branch of research, he has The problem of the origin

and

authorship of the Fourth Gospel had, however, always attracted him. He had been impressed (as every Hebrew scholar

must be impressed) with the Semitic character of

its diction,

and

recognizing to the full the importance of Dr. Lightfoot's remarks on the question, t had realized that this was a subject of research

fundamental to the problem of authorship which called for closer and more expert attention than it had hitherto received ; and he

had been amazed


*

at the lightness

with which

it

was dismissed or
title

Since published by the Oxford University Press under the Testament Conception of Atonement fulfilled by Christ. t Biblical Essays, pp. 126 ff.
2620

The Old

INTRODUCTION

altogether ignored by New Testament scholars who confidently asserted the Hellenistic character of the Gospel. An article by Dr. C. J. Ball, entitled 'Had the Fourth Gospel an Aramaic

Archetype?', which appeared in the Expository Times for November 1909, explained certain peculiarities in the first chapter of the

Gospel by the theory of an Aramaic original


(to the best of the present writer's knowledge)

and
it

this,

though

stands alone in

advocating this theory, yet appealed to him as evidently upon right lines.* The evidence there adduced he had casually supplemented by notice of additional peculiarities pointing in the same
notably, the sharing by the Fourth Gospel of many of the peculiarities of diction which Canon Allen and Prof. Welldirection
;

cite as exhibiting the influence of Aramaic upon the style of St. Mark's Gospel. This was about the position at which the writer's acquaintance

hausen

with the subject stood when he wrote the sermon which he has mentioned. He had formed an opinion based on general observation,

but he could not claim to have substantiated

it

by the kind of

Further close study which deserves to be dignified as research. convinced him that the matter could not be reflection, however,
allowed to rest here.
*

He
out,

had suggested

in the

sermon

that both

The view

that the Fourth

forward, though not


1645, pp. 257
setzt',
f.), I.

worked

Gospel was originally written in Aramaic was put by C. Salmasius (De Hellenistica Cowmen fanus,

A. Bolten (Der Bericht des Joannes von Jesu


pp. xiv
ff.),

dem

Messias,

iiber-

1797,

Vorbericht,

H. F. Pfannkuche (Ueber

die paldstinische

Landessprache in dem Zeitalter Christi, in Eichhorn's Allgem. Bibl d. b. Lift, viii, 1797, L. Bertholdt (Verosimilia de origine evangelii Joannis, 1805 p. 367). Einleitung
;

in

342^ supposed that St. John wrote down Schriften des A. u. N.T., iii, 1813, the discourses of our Lord in Aramaic soon after they were spoken, and long sub. . .

sequently translated them into Greek and incorporated them into his Greek gospel. Many scholars, from Grotius (Annotationes, 1641) onwards, while holding the

Gospel to have been written in Greek, have emphasized the Semitic character of its diction. The opinion of so great a Semitic scholar as H. Ewald (Die johann. Schriften, 1861, i, p. 44) is worthy of quotation: 'The Greek language of the author
bears in
itself the plainest and strongest marks of a genuine Hebrew. He is one born among Jews in the Holy Land, one who grew up to manhood in this society, without speaking Greek. Under the Greek mantle that he at a late date learned to

throw about himself, he still bears in himself the whole mind and spirit of his mother tongue, and does not hesitate to let himself be led by it.' The discussion by C. E. Luthardt on the language of the Gospel (St. John's Gospel, E. T., 1876, i,
pp. 15-64)
is

of considerable value.

Mention

should here be

made

of

the

highly important

work by

Prof.

A.

INTRODUCTION
Old and
too

New
in

much

Testament scholars were as a rule content to dwell water-tight compartments, and that more systematic

first-hand application of Semitic linguistic

knowledge

to the

New

Testament might be expected


problems.
It

to

shed

light

upon a variety of
that professed

followed that

it

was not only desirable

Testament scholars should realize the importance to their researches of a first-hand equipment in Hebrew and Aramaic, but

New

Old Testament scholars equipped with a knowledge of these languages should turn to New Testament research, and endeavour
that

by

practical

demonstration of the value of such knowledge to


that

substantiate the truth of this thesis.

Thus

it

was

the writer

turned

seriously

to

tackle
;

the

Fourth Gospel and question of the original quickly convincing himself that the theory of an original Aramaic document was no chimera, but a fact which was capable of the fullest verification, set himself to collect and classify the evidence in
language of the
a form which he trusts

may justify

the reasonableness of his opinion

to all New Testament not merely to scholars who will take the pains to follow out his arguments.

other Aramaic scholars, but

book has nowadays

Inquiry into the Semitic characteristics of a New Testament to take account of the fact that the great
discoveries of papyri and ostraka in Egypt have revoluvierten Evangelisten (1902), with

modern
writer

Schlatter, Die Sprache

practically completed the present study. Schlatter has demonstrated the Palestinian origin of the diction of the Fourth

und Heimat des was unacquainted until he had

which the

Gospel in the fullest possible manner by citing Rabbinic parallels to its phraseology verse by verse, the majority of verses throughout the whole Gospel being thus illustrated (thus e. g. in ch. r parallels are cited for phrases in 34 out of the total 51 verses), and his work is a marvel of industry and intimate knowledge
but from Rabbinic
of the Midrashic sources which he employs. He has drawn, not from Aramaic, Hebrew the Mechilta (commentary on Exodus) and Siphre

(commentary on Numbers and Deuteronomy) which date in substance from the and century A. D. with supplements from the Midrash Rabba (on the Pentateuch and the Five Megilloth). He chooses these Rabbinic Hebrew parallels rather than the Aramaic material which we possess e.g. in the Palestinian Talmud,
,

because the former are nearer in date to the Fourth Gospel and better illustrate the religious thought of Palestinian Judaism in the first century; but, as he remarks

any phrase employed in Rabbinic Hebrew (the language of the Schools) could without difficulty be similarly expressed in Aramaic (the popular medium of speech in Palestine). Schlatter's conclusion is that the writer of the Gospel
(p. 12),

was a

Palestinian

who

thought and spoke in Aramaic, and only acquired his Greek

in the course of his missionary

work

(p. 9).

B 2

INTRODUCTION
it

tionized our conception of Biblical Greek, proving

to be, not

thing apart, but a more or less characteristic representative of the widespread Kowrj dialect. The writer is not unacquainted with

the researches of Professors Deissmann and

Thumb,

Milligan and

Moulton, and recognizes the fact that they have proved that many constructions and usages both in the LXX and New Testament

which were formerly supposed


really nothing

to

reflect

Semitic influence, are

more than ordinary phenomena of the Kowrj lanWhile readily making this acknowledgement to the excelguage. lent work of these scholars, 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.

The

fact is surely

without significance that practically the whole of the new material upon which we base our knowledge of the KoLvrj comes from
Egypt, where there existed large colonies of Jews whose knowledge of Greek was undoubtedly influenced by the translation-

Greek of the

LXX,

and who may not unreasonably be suspected

of having influenced in

some degree

the character of Egyptian

A
* Cf.
'

good example of such influence has been unwittingly


:

The present

the judicious remarks of Dr. Swete, Apocalypse* (1907), p. cxxiv, n. 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-Egyptian

papyri, and in particular the researches of Prof. Deissmann, Prof. Thumb, and Dr. J. H. Moulton, deprecates the induction which, as it seems to him, is being

somewhat

hastily based upon them, that the Greek of the New Testament has been but slightly influenced by the familiarity of the writers with Hebrew and Aramaic ---- It is precarious to compare a literary document with a collection of personal and business letters, accounts, and other ephemeral writings slips in word-formation or in syntax which are to be expected in the latter, are phenomenal in the former, and if they find a place there, can only be attributed to lifelong habits of thought. Moreover, it remains to be considered how far the quasi;

large Greek-speaking

Semitic colloquialisms of the papyri are themselves due to the influence of the Jewish population of the Delta.' Similarly, Mr. G. C.
Richards, in reviewing the and edition of Dr. Moulton's Greek in the Journal of Theological Studies, x (1909),

Grammar of New
p. 289,

Testament
'

remarks

The

dis-

covery of the Aramaic papyri from Assuan emphasizes this point [the evidence for large Jewish settlements in Egypt from an early date] most strongly, and even Deissmann (Licht vom Osten, p. 83, n. 5) is prepared to admit that the adoption
of
(Is

Vorzeit".

rb ovofia as a legal phrase may be due to Semitic influence " in grauer But this " Vorzeit " can scarcely be earlier than the end of the fourth

century B.C. No doubt it is possible, as he says, that if originally a Semiticism, it Such influence on the language not have been felt to be so any longer. Dr. Moulton makes of a population from an influx of settlers is quite common.

may

INTRODUCTION
presented to us by Prof. Deissmann

5
ff.)

(LAE.

pp. 129

in

one of

two passages which he quotes from the papyri for the express
purpose of proving that the parataxis so characteristic of the Fourth Gospel, with its 'and and', is not due to Semitic
. .
.

This is a letter influence, but belongs to the popular Kotvrj style. from two pig-merchants (c. A. D. 171) in which they complain to the Strategus that they have been attacked by brigands and robbed

and beaten
VTTO TOV
ru>

dve/^o/xeVtov ^/xoov
^/xetv

a.7ro

KW/Z^S
.

eaSeA</>etas
. .

StyUOTOV

/u-ept8o5

opOpov linjXOav

KdKovpyoi rives

/cat cSr/crav i^/xas o~vv /cat

//.ayS<oA.o<vAa/a /cat TrXrjyals

^/xa9 TrAtcrrats

Tj/cio-av

/c[at]

T/oav/xartatov

7rot^(rav TOV [llacriwjra *ai

rav?7pa[v ^/x,]wv ^otpt8t[ov] a


. .

/cat

e/?ao-[Taav
'

rov TOV IIao-iW]os KITWO.

The term here used

to describe

the

guard of the tower', /xaySooAo^Aa^, embodies the ordinary Hebrew word for 'tower', migdol (originally magdol), and is thus clear
evidence for Jewish influence upon Egyptian Yet Prof. Milligan (New Testament Documents,
this section of
KoLvrj

terminology.

p. 154), referring to
'

Deissmann's work, states that he has been able to produce examples of similar [to the Fourth Gospel] paratactic sentences from sources where no Semitic influence can be predicated*
(the italics are the present writer's)
;

and similarly
'

Prof.

Moulton

(Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 486) remarks, Those who still find Semitism in these plain co-ordinated sentences [of the Fourth
Gospel], with their large use of
/cat,

may be recommended

to

study

the most instructive parallels which Deissmann has set out/ &c. cite this passage merely as suggesting that the theory of

We

Jewish influence upon the KOIVTJ of Egypt, so far from being false or negligible, may in fact be supported by concrete evidence drawn
from the papyri themselves.
It

does not follow, of course, that the

a point of the case of Wales. South Wales Welsh is regarded by North Wales people as an inferior patois because of the Anglicisms, which are to be seen not
if

only in borrowed words but also in turns of expression. In fact we may say that, the native language of a whole district may be strongly affected by the entry of aliens who learn it and learn it badly, a fortiori is a language, which is not the

medium of communication between natives and strangers, likely be modified by all who use it.' So also Dr. A. T. Robertson, Grammar of the Greek Testament in the light of historical research* (1919), p. 91: 'The LXX, though "translation Greek", was translated into the vernacular of Alexandria, and one can but wonder if the LXX did not have some slight and resultant
native one, but the
to

influence

upon the Alexandrian Koivn

itself.

The Jews were very numerous

in

Alexandria.'

INTRODUCTION
due
to Semitic influence
i,
'

paratactic style of the pig-merchants is


for,

as Prof.

Moulton justly observes

(NTG?

p. 12), in

speaking

of co-ordination of sentences with simple KCU, in itself the phenomenon proves nothing more than would a string of "ands" in an English rustic's story elementary culture/ The vice of arguing

from the epistolary speech of an English


in the fact that the

Egyptian pig-merchant or the rustic to the style of the Fourth Gospel lies
style

of an

The

former are not in part materid with the latter. of elementary culture which satisfactorily explains the theory style of the former is ill applied to a work which in thought, scheme, and execution takes rank as the greatest literary produc-

tion of the

New

Testament, and the greatest religious monument

of

all

time.

stylistic peculiarities of the Gospel, such as the use of Casus pendens. This, Prof. Moulton tells us, 'is frequent one of the easiest of anacolutha, as much at home in English * as in Greek (NTG. Z i, p. 69). recognize the truth of this statement as regards colloquial English, especially among the

So with other

We

semi-educated.

We might be talking to a groom, and it would be natural for him to say, The gentleman who used to ride that horse he lost his arm in the war.' Probably at times we use the same kind of anacoluthon ourselves in ordinary conversation ;
'

but

we do

not use

it

in writing a

book or

article
if

may

be worthy to rank as
find as a rule

literature.

Nor,

we

which we hope take the whole


KOH/TJ,

New Testament
do we
usage,

as a fair specimen of literature written in the

more than very occasional instances of the

and

In the Fourth Gospel, however, it is remarkably frequent; reasonable to seek some better reason than the supthat the writer of the finest piece of literature in the New position Testament was more than ordinarily infected with colloquialism.
it

is

a literature in which both the usages which we have been noticing parataxis and Casus pendens are not the
there
is

Now

marks of

lack of education but

common phenomena

of the best

writing style, namely, the literature of Semitic-speaking peoples. If, then, these two characteristics of the style of the Fourth Gospel,

only selected by
characteristics

way of example,

fit

in

with

numerous other

which point

to translation

their evidence as part of

our proof that the Gospel

from a Semitic language, is such a

INTRODUCTION
translation
is

that parallels can be

not in the slightest degree invalidated by the fact adduced from the non-literary and ephemeral

type of document which we find represented in the papyri. As a matter of fact, we have little cause to quarrel with Prof. Moulton at any rate in the course which is followed in our

of the language of the Fourth Gospel, for he lays down a canon which covers a great part of the characteristics which are brought forward. 'If we are seeking', he says, 'for
discussion

evidences of Semitic birth in a writer whose


deficient

Greek betrays of the resources of the language, we must knowledge not look only for uses which strain or actually contravene the Greek idiom.

We

shall

find

a subtler test in the over-use of

locutions which can be defended as


their motive clearly in

good Kowrj Greek, but have


of the

their coincidences with locutions

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
writer's native tongue.

This

test of

LXX

either translated from

thought in
It is

Aramaic and moved with

Aramaic sources or written by men who * little freedom in Greek.'

precisely this over-use of locutions coincident with locutions

of Aramaic which will repeatedly be found to characterize the Greek of the Fourth Gospel.
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 nonin

From

books and

Semitic scholars as to the existence of a clear distinction between

Aramaisms and Hebraisms.

By some

scholars,

in

fact,

the

question of distinction is ignored, and the two terms are used glaring inindifferently as though they were synonymous.t stance of this is to be seen in Prof. Schmiedel's remarks on the

original language of St. Mark's Gospel in Encyc. Bib/. 1870.

'The

Hebraizes language of Mk.', he says, does that of Mt. Nevertheless, the


(Expositor,

'

still

more strongly than


of Allen

combinations

pp. 436-43) do not prove that the evangelist wrote Aramaic, but only that he wrote a kind of Jewish Greek

1900,

i,

Cambridge Biblical Essays,

p.

474.

t Cf. Dalman, WJ. pp. i8f.

8
that

INTRODUCTION
he had derived from a reading of the

LXX.

Lk. also has

Hebraisms, not only in chaps, i f. but elsewhere as well, and not only where he is dependent on Mk. or Mt. but also where he had no exemplar before him (as, for example, often "and it

came
It

to pass ", KCK eyeVero

see

HS. 2

p. 37),

and yet no one holds


original.'

Lk.'s writing to
is

be a translation of a Semitic
feat to

have crowded so many misconMk. does not Hebraize ceptions into the space of a few lines. at all in the proper sense of the term ; but the fact that his Greek
something of a

Aramaic colouring is admitted by all Semitic have studied the subject, though they differ as to scholars who whether this colouring implies actual translation from an original
exhibits a strong

Aramaic document, or is merely due to the fact that the author was ill versed in Greek and accustomed to think and speak in
Aramaic.
Mk.'s
'

a reading of the , connect it with Aramaic) which are not found there, while at the same time the most striking Hebraisms of the are absent

LXX

Jewish Greek* cannot have been 'derived from for it exhibits peculiarities (those which
J

LXX
'

from

it.

The

fact that

Lk. has Hebraisms


;

is

the

first

accurate
*

statement which Prof. Schmiedel makes


to confuse the issue again

but he goes on at once

by equating the supposed


'

Hebraisms

which are the


before him

result of
in

which are found


'.

passages in which the author


fact as

dependence upon Mk. or Mt. with those had no exemplar


regards the Marcan source in Lk.
is

The

made some attempt to smooth away the most palpable solecisms, but has by no means carried this out thoroughly or consistently; consequently a number of Marcan Aramaisms (not 'Hebraisms') remain in Lk.* The parts of Lk.
that the third evangelist has
*
'

As

regards Mt., which


'

Schmiedel

also

mentions as a source containing

Hebraisms

in

employed by Lk., i. e. of course the Q document which is used common by Mt. and Lk., the present writer cannot claim to have examined in

detail into the question of its original language (Greek or Aramaic). No Semitic ~ " scholar can, however, study such a passage as Mt. lo 26 88 = Lk. i2 2 9 without at the clear conviction that we either have in it the literal translation arriving

of an Aramaic original, or that the ipsissima verba of our Lord in Aramaic were branded on the hearts of His hearers and reproduced with a reverential exactitude
virtual translation. Cf. especially the phrases /xi) ({>o^r]6fJT diro (Semitic fD of aversion after a verb of fearing), &no\o*ff]0(i tv l/xot (cf. on this expression even Moulton, NTG. 3 i, p. 104), dteoXovOt? uniau pov (Mt. io 38 ). Mistranslation of an

amounting to

INTRODUCTION
which

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

may be

seem,
Aramaic
passages

the very existence of this Hebraic colouring in his style


original
:

seems clearly

to the indicated

by comparison of the following

Mt. 2 3 26
26

Lk.
39

Oval

vfuv, ypafipaTfts KOI *opi<7afot,

NCv

u/zefs

ot

Qapiffaiot

TO

viroKpiTai,

on KaOapifaf
KOI
yffjtovffiv
36

TO

eguOev

TOV

irorripiov KOI

TOV irtvaxos

TOV

rroTTjpiov

rrjs
l

irapotf/ioos,

taadcv
Kal

5f

apitayrjs

TO

oe

eauOev
*Q KCLI

vpwv
TO

*y/it
<>

atcpaaias.

Qapiaait

TV(p\e,

teal irovqpias.

d<ppovcs, 011%

irotrjaas
;

TO
KaOapiaov
iroTrjpiov

ea)6fv
ir\T)v
TO.

ZffuQfv

liroiijatv

irpwTov
KOI

TO
TTJS

CVTOS

TOV

41

tvovTa.

OOTC

c\er)fj.oavvT)V,

-jrapoif/ioos,

iva

-ftvrjTai

KOI

TO

(KTOS

O.VTOV

Kal

ISov

iravTa

KaOapcL

vpiv

iffTiv.

KaOapov.

can hardly be doubted that the remarkable variant between Mt. KaOapurov and Lk. irXr/i/ TO. IVOVTO. oore iXCfpMNrfnp is to be explained by the fact that New Heb. and Aram. ""St means both to purify (occurring in Aram, as well as normal ^ZH) and also to give alms' (cf. Wellhausen, Einleitung*,
it

Here

irpWTov TO ivTos KT\.

'

'

'

p. 27).

For the

latter sense

cf.

the

numerous occurrences

in

Midrash Rabba on
'

Exodus, par. xxxiv; e.g. sect. 5 (New Heb.), 'If misfortune has befallen thy companion, consider how to give him alms ("Q rYDP) and provide for him ; sect, ii (Aram.), 'The Rabbis Yohanan and Resh Lakish were going down to
bathe in the hot baths of Tiberias.

poor

man met them.

He

When they came out, they found him dead.' The Lord used some such expression as J13T N^?" *That which is within purify this has been rightly rendered in Mt. and made more explicit by the addition of TOV iroTrjpiov KT\., while in Lk. it has been wrongly rendered, That which is within give as alms '. 'Hpurivevae 5' aura, a>s ffv Su^aro?, eaaTos. In the opening of the long indictment of the Scribes and Pharisees contained ~ in Mt. 23, presumably from Q, we find a passage (w. 2 7 ) which has clearly formed a source for Mk. in his short summary of teaching contained in i2 38 40 It seems not unlikely that Mk.'s opening phrase, Kai iv TTJ Sioaxfi avTov e\f~fev, which recurs nearly verbatim in 4 2 (introducing the parable of the sower), may be his manner of referring to this written discourse-source to which he had access. " Lk. 2o46 47 has followed Mk. and not Mt though his opening statement that our Lord's words were spoken both to the multitude and to the disciples seems to indicate that he rightly identified Mk's abbreviated version with the long discourse of Mt. (Q), and selected the former. The parallel passages run as follows
inference
is

"Give me alms" ("a fpf). give thee alms" ("p p3t).


that our
'

They

said to him,

"When we come
5 !

said to them, out we will

'

10
is

INTRODUCTION
LXX
influence,

a sure indication that he was steeped with very possibly unacquainted with Hebrew.*
Mt. a 3 lff
1
.

and

Mk. is 38- 40
88

Lk.
46

Tore 6

'Irjoovs

e\d\rjaev

Km

fv

rrj

'AKOVOVTOS
flir(V

Se

travrbs

rots ox^-Ots Kal rots fjiaOijrats

I \eyev'

Xaov
dno rwv
(v

rots

avrov \tyo)V'
8

irdvra

S(

TO.

iroiovffiv

irpos

Hpya avruv TO OeaOfjvai


irXarvvovaiv

0(\6vrow
KOL
d<nrafffj.oi>s

(V
rat's

oroAafs
If

Kal

<pi\ovvrcav

rots dvOpwirois'

\v

a-yopafs

rafs

dyopats
\v

yap Kal

rd

<pv\aKrrjpta

avrwv
rd
8e

89 Kal TrpcaroKaOfSpias

Iv rais

Kal

irpajTOKaOfSpias

rais

fieya\wovaiv
6

ovvaycuyas
fv
rois

irp(aroK\taias
40 oi

Kal

vpa)TOK\ioias
47 ot

Kpdancoa,
rrjv
oeiirvois

(pi\ovaiv

KO.T-

kv

rots

Sdvvois,

/far-

irpuroK\iaiav
Kal
\v

(v

rots

rs

otcas

faOiovffiv

rds
Kal

oiKias

ruv

rds
rats

npcuro-

irpo<pd<Tci

Ka0(optas

avv\{/ovrai

ovrot
if/ovrai irfpifffforepov

7 a-yoryafs KOI

rovs daitaap-ovs

kv rats dyopats, KT\.

The statements
rwv QfXovrwv

of

Mk.

in vv. 38 39
-

ev aro\ais trtpiirarftv,
.

which seems

can be clearly recognized in Mt., except for to be a paraphrase of Kal peya-

Xvvovaiv rd KpdairtSa, Mt. 23 5 In v. 40 of Mk., however, we meet with two statements which do not seem, as they stand, to connect themselves directly with

we

anything in Mt. Noticing, however, that the second of these speaks of prayer, observe that the New Heb. and Aram, term for <pv\aKri)pia. (Mt. as6 ) is ppBri

Thus there is a suspicious resemblance fphillin, which properly means prayers '. between the two statements, make broad their phylacteries and make long
' '
'

'

their prayers'.

Now

the verb ir\a.rvvovaiv

is

rendered in Pesh. by
in

and Payne Smith

in his

Thesaurus quotes instances


Pa'el

which
'

this Aph'el ^j

'make broad', as well as the

^kJ>, has the sense


v.,

make

verbose'

(e.g.

Severus Alexandrinus, Rhetorica,


verbose').
It is likely,

79

]]^o>

i<

j^!

'If

he wishes to be

therefore, that an original

pn^Dri friBD'H 'who make

broad their phylacteries', rightly rendered in Mt., appears in Mk. and Lk. in the mistranslation 'who make verbose their prayers'. It should be remarked that

ppQn
in

is

not the ordinary

Aramaic word

for 'prayers'

(KVlviO

but

it

might

be so interpreted by a translator

who was aware

of this meaning of the term


is

New

Heb.
believes that this suggestion as to a misunderstanding of ppDJjl

The writer

not his own, but has already been made ; though he cannot recall to whom acknowledgement is due. He is himself responsible for pointing out the variant meanings of the verbal form.

That St. Luke was a Hellenistic Jew and not a Gentile would be apart from other evidence to the contrary the natural deduction from the fact that the has coloured his Greek style in so marked a degree ; since this surely implies that he was brought up upon the Greek Bible. Had he been a Gentile, and not

LXX

converted to Christianity until he was a grown man, his Greek style would presumably have been already formed and would not have taken on a LXX

INTRODUCTION
The
illustrate

following striking Hebraisms occurring in Lk. may serve to the true meaning of the term 'Hebraism', viz. a con-

Hebrew which has been copied in translation by the LXX, and has come through LXX influence into N. T. Greek
struction or word-usage found in Biblical
:

eyeWo introducing a time-determination. The use of And it came to pass' is in such a case very idiomatic in Hebrew, and the LXX equivalent is KOL eyeVero or cyevero 8e. After there
i.
'

follows the note of lime or occasion, which such as

may
e.g.
ev

take various forms,

An
came
'

Infinitive with
'

preposition 3;

DN'aa

'when they
'

(lit.

in their

coming ')

= LXX
;

TW IXOtlv avrovs.
'

An

Infinitive with preposition 3


0)5

e. g.

E$P|

at their

coming

= LXX
TPK3

(or T^viKa) rj\6ov.

(or '!) 'when* with a came '= LXX o>s (or ^t/ca) they

Perfect;
rj\0ov.

e.g.

W? Tf? 'when
;

A
e. g.

Participle Absolute with

pronominal or nominal subject


'

A = LXX

they (were) coming = note of time; e.g. Tv^n specific


E^iO nDH
<

LXX

avroV Ip^o^lv^v. Ei s ? 'on the third day'

(>) T0 ^/xpa

TJJ

rpm?

D*

^
'

FlB^f f^? 'after three

days '= LXX

//.era ly/xepas rpets.

After this comes //^ apodosis, which is most frequently (though by no means invariably) introduced by and' (='then'); e.g.
*"!!!
*tiT\

'and they saw '=


nani ^and, behold,
' '

LXX

(*cu)

eTSoi/

(LXX

often omits

KCU),

they saw'

= LXX

Kat t8ov cTSov,

or simply

NO

cISoi/. The subject of the apodosis may they saw = of course vary from that of the time-determination (when this latter embodies a subject); e.g. cnnpb e* K2i DK33 \n;i 'And

LXX

it

came

to pass, as they

came, that

'

(lit.

and

')

man went

out

any rate to the extent that it has. We do, however, possess other and apparently contrary evidence in the fact that St. Paul in Col. 4 14 appears expressly to distinguish him from those of the circumcision previously mentioned ll and this is taken by most scholars, such as Dr. Lightfoot (Colossians, (v. ) p. 239) and Dr. Plummer (St. Luke, p. xix), as conclusive evidence that he was of Gentile origin, the latter scholar going so far as to maintain, 'That he was Such a verdict, however, surely originally a heathen may be taken as certain *. ignores the important criterion of style and perhaps the conclusion which best satisfies the conflicting evidence is that he may have been a proselyte from his youth and have come over to Christianity from Judaism.
colouring, at
' '

12
to

INTRODUCTION
meet them
',

or Bn&qi

Nr

&** nam &'*? n ?n

'

And

it

came

to

pass,they (were) coming, and, behold, a man going out to meet them*. Instances of this Hebrew construction, with time-determination
eV

Lk. 5

TW (Infinitive) and apodosis introduced by /cat, 4 15 15 1 12 9" 14', 17", i 9 , 2 4 ); without K a, Lk.
-

may be
i
8
-

seen in
,

17", iS

35
,

24

3051
.

With
Lk.
i
-

27 2 6 9 18 33 , time-determination ws (Aorist), and without


1
-

-C

KOI in apodosis,
/cat

23 41
,

in apodosis,
20'.

Lk. 5

17
,

2 15, iQ29 With specific note of time, and 59 122 2 14G 7", 8 Acts 5 7 ; without /cat, Lk. i
.

9
in

There are besides some cases

in Lk.,

and many more

in Acts,

which the verb of the apodosis is not an Aorist but an Infinitive. This modification of the construction, which is not found in

Hebrew, and only occurs once


paralleled from the papyri.
to
It

in

LXX

(3

Kgs.

43

B), can be

seems therefore in Lk. and Acts be a modification of the Hebraic construction under the in-

fluence of a

known
-

Kou/i}

construction

(cf.
21
,

of the O. T. in Greek, i6 16, I9 , 22 6 17 , 28 17


1
.

p. 50).
It

So Lk. 3
-

Thackeray, Grammar 6 Acts 45 93 *- 32 37 if,


1
-

6 12
-

may be noted

that in

some of these

6 17 32 examples, viz. Acts 9 , 14*, 22 , the note of time or occasion has been variously modified so as to lose its clear-cut Hebraic 26 In other cases, viz. Lk. I6 22 Acts 9 43, 288 it is form.
,

altogether absent.

This

is

quite un- Hebraic.

Hebrew might say


then'),
or,

f^nsn

niojl

'And

the poor

man

died', without note of time except

as inferred from the context ('and'

= 'and

inserting

note of time, ftaKn new D<DJ flgD W| < And it came to pass, after some time (lit. "from the end of days"), that (lit. "and") the poor

man

died';

it

would not say fi^Kn


I6
22
).

nD^_

W = eyeWo
St.

Sc aTroOavtlv

rov TTTWXOV (Lk.

The reason why


respect in

Gospel-style in

this

Luke modified Acts demands investigation.

his
It

would seem

two works, heathen in the course of his missionary labours exercised an influence on his style.
Outside Lk. and Acts
eyeVcro introducing

imply a not inconsiderable interval between the during which his wider intercourse with Gentile
to

a time-determination

is

only found in the five-times repeated phrase /cat e'ycVero ore ere'Aeo-ev s8 53 9 2 23 'tyo-ovs in Mt. 7 , , i3 19', 26 , and also in Mt. 9, Mk. i

(cf.

15

).

In Semitic
*

it is

specifically a construction belonging to


before (ytvfro.

With time-determination

INTRODUCTION
Eftblical

13

Hebrew, and not found

language copies the

Hebrew

in Aramaic except where this construction in translation, as in the

Targums.* These facts prove that in the construction under discussion we have a true Hebraism, which can only have entered into N. T.

Greek through the influence of the


from Jn.
Gospel.
2.

LXX.

Incidentally,

its

absence
this

tells

against the use of the

LXX

by the writer of
in Dative.

Enforcement of verb by cognate substantive


to

When

emphasize a verbal idea, it prefixes the Infinitive Absolute to the Finite verb. In the place of the Infinitive

Hebrew desires

LXX
13

is

commonly taken by the cognate substantive in the Dative] e.g. Gen. 2 17 TOn nto 'Thou shalt surely die* (lit 'dying thou shalt die')

= LXX
^n
<l

Oava
<

D3 K7 DDni
')

dLTToBav^O^ Judg. I5 DTS Nay, but we will bind thee (lit.


;

^3TW TJDK3 Iton? l6


'

thee
(lit.

and deliver thee into their hand

but

we

binding we will bind ' will not slay thee

'slaying

we

will not slay thee')


<re

= LXX

Ov^i,

on
ov

oAX'

rj

Brj(TOfJiV <re
o-e.

KOL TrapaScocro/xev

ev

/^ avrwv,

KOLL 6ava.Tu>

An

alternative

method employed by

LXX

is

the rendering of

the Infinitive by a Participle-, e.g. Judg. i 28 Wnin ' did not expel them at all (lit. ' and expelling did not expel

&

B^

'and

them ')

= LXX

KOL eaip<ov OVK fyjpcv avrov.

No examples

of the second form of the idiom are found in N. T.


,

12 H except in the quotations Mt. 13", Mk. 4 Acts i f but the 15 first occurs three times in the Lucan literature ; viz. Lk. 22 ri-

LXX

6vfJiLa CTTfOvfirjo-a,

Acts $

TrapayyeXtia TrapTyyyetXa/xcv,
30

avcOtfjiaTio-afjLcv (cf.

also Acts 2

op/co) w/xoo-ey).
4

Acts 23 14 avaOefj-ari Elsewhere in N. T.

we

find
29

it

only in Mt. 13", i5


1'
'
-

Mk.

(both O. T. quotations),

Jn. 3

X aP9- X ai/P t J as 5 Trpotreu^ Trpoa-rjv^aTO. This enforcement of the verbal idea by the Infinitive, while found
(cf.

occasionally in other Semitic languages


'let
it

Babylonian edisu

lidis

be ever new'; Syriac yobjJ loj^o


'),

pletely victorious
* Cf.
"\

is

'when they are comcharacteristic of Biblical Hebrew.} peculiarly


J>
in

Dalman, WJ. p. 32. Acts 2 17 li'vrrn'ots ivvnviaaO-qaovrai, which occurs


is

28 l Joel a (3 in Heb.)

different, the substantive representing the

an O.T. quotation from cognate Accusative

Heb. ^JDPIV Diu^H, ivvvvia. kwuviaaBTjaovrai. t According to Dalman (WJ. p. 34) it is quite unknown in the Palestinian Aramaic of the Jews, apart from the Hebraizing rendering of the Targums.
in

LXX

4
3.

INTRODUCTION
Use
of
irpoo-TiOrjfjii

in place

of

7raA.iv

or a similar adverb in
i.e.

imitation of
it

Hebrew ^Dtn 'he added*

to in

do something,

he did

again.

There are two constructions

Hebrew
to

(i)

the auxiliary
*?,

verb *PpSn
e. g.

may

be followed by an Infinitive with preposition

JHn

lWi
12
1

^P
, ,

'

and they added

do that which was


. .
.

evil' (i.e. 'they

again did it') = 6 or (2) it 4 io TTonypoV, Judg. 3 a Finite verb, e.g. n#K ngi DrrnK
;

LXX
*|D*J

/cat

Trpoo-efovro

Trot^o-ai

TO

may

be followed by 'and* with

'And Abraham added and

took a wife' ('again took


Sc'AjSpai/*

',

or 'took a second')
1

= LXX

Trpoo-fle'ftcvos

aa/?V ywawca, Gen. 25


'

1P

added and said

= LXX
8ovAov
icai
.

IIpoo-0eis 8e 'EAtovs

W^JJK *)D*1 'And EHhu Both en Xeyei, Job 36


1
.

of these constructions occur in the Lucan literature:

(i) KOL irpoo-e-

OTO

erepov

Tre/xi/fai

KOL 7rpoo-e$eTo rpirov

7Tfjuf/ai t
CITTCI/

Lk. 2O 11

'

12
',

TrpotrcOfTO o-vAAa/?eu>

fterpov,

Acts I2 3

(2) 7rpoo-0eis

Trapa(3o\^v,

Lk. 19".
4.

The usage is not found elsewhere in N. T.* The phrase Tropevov cts ctprjv^v, Lk. 7, 848 vrraye
,
-

ets

eipT/vi/v,

Mk. 5 3J (nowhere else in N. T.) is derived from the LXX rendering 18 of the Hebrew D&B$ ^; cf. i Sam. i 17 2O 13 42 i Kgs. 20 (LXX 2i)
,
, ,

2 Kgs. s 19
tion
*?

is

Chr. i2 1T, Tob. io 13 , Judith 823 here incorrectly given the sense
i
. '

The Hebrew
eis

preposi-

which

it

commonly

It is really an idiomatic usage known as ^ of norm, possesses. ' tnus meaning lit. ' peace-wise or health-wise ', i.e. 'in peace or health '. The phrase belongs distinctively to Biblical Hebrew.

EWp

The Targum Hebraizes


5.

in

copying
is

it

in translation, but in the


,

Peshttta the regular rendering

IN^^ ^J

i.

e. iropcvov o> clprjvrj.

expression eVonrtov is peculiarly characteristic of Lk. (23 times), Acts (13 times), and Apoc. which is marked by an Hebraic style (34 times). It is derived from where it is

The

LXX

extremely common (some hundreds of occurrences), and ordinarily '*> 'before' (lit. 'to the face of), or T represents Hebrew ^ 'in the sight of (lit. 'to the eyes of). O/WTHOV is only found once 30 in Jn. (20 and is unused in Mt. and Mk. In these Gospels we
1

),

find

ZfjLTrpoo-Ocv,

which also occurs


,

in Lk.
,

Acts 7, 821 ), eVavrcov (Lk. I 6 2O' 6 , 24", Acts 7 10, 832), (Lk. exclusively Lucan in N. T., are both very common in LXX, where they ordinarily render *3^3 'in the sight of (lit. 'in the eyes of),

evam

* Cf.

however the

text of

in

Mk. i4 J5 ov
,

irpoadS) irutV.

INTRODUCTION
^3

15

Hebrew always observes a distinction i.e. 'in the opinion of. 'in the (mental) between *?$ 'in the (physical) sight of, and of. The same distinction may be notiged for the most part sight
in the

N. T. use

of Iv^tnov

and
'

ivavriov.

In place of the distinctively Hebraic expressions MS!*, Aramaic uses CHi?. before ', in front of.
'

W?,

3
,

6. The phrase irpo TTPOO-WTTOV, which is a common rendering 10 of *yb, occurs in the O. T. quotation Mk. r = Mt. Lk. v 27 24 52 1 76 and only besides in Lk. i 9 lo Acts i3 faro -n-poo-dnrov '3B

LXX

n =

=
lfi

in

LXX
TOV

is

(ttTTO

7T.).

found in Acts 3 19 5", y 45 2 Thess. i 9 Apoc. 6 35 26 7Tt TTpoVaJTrOV Lk. 2 1 Tl TrpOCTCOTTOV ActS l^ , arC
, ,
,

20"

LXX

renderings of
7.

*?.B~?y.

The phrase
is

TO Trpoo-wTrov

eo-njpto-cv,
it

N.T.)
8.

derived from
10
,

LXX, where
,
,

Lk. 9 51 (nowhere else in renders Hebrew B'JB O'fr


,

'set the face* (Jer. 2i


Xapftdveiv

7rpoo-o>7rov,

Ezek. 6 1 13", 14*, is 7 &c.). Lk. 2o 21 Gal. 2 6 occurs 9 times in


D'33 N'^J 'take

LXX

as the rendering of

Hebrew

or

lift

up the face* of

More commonly 'i.e. show him partiality in judgement. phrase is rendered in by 0av//.ae/ Trpoo-wTrov. The Semitic phrase occurs in Aramaic as well as in Hebrew. The N.T. substantives Trpoo-wTroA^/ATrTTys ' a respecter of persons '(Acts io % ), s3 11 9 Trpo(Twiro\f]^\l/ia (Rom. 2 Eph. 6 , Col. 3 Jas. 2 ) 'partiality', are
any one,
this

LXX

derived from the


9.

LXX

Hebraism.

SiiSoyu in a wider range of senses, which be rendered 'put', 'set', 'appoint', 'allow', &c., appears in may N.T. to be exclusively Lucan ; cf. Lk. 7 44 i2 5158 15*, 19* Acts 2 19

The

use of the verb

3 s7 (quotation from Joel 3 ), 2 , 13* (both quotations from


31

Ps i6 10 ), lo40,
the regular

i9

This usage comes from

LXX

where

St'Su/u

is

rendering of Hebrew ffij which, meaning primarily 'give', is reguCf. the LXX rendering in larly used also in such wider senses.

Gen. ly 20

S<ixra>

avrov

t?

e^vos /^eya,

Gen.

31' OVK ISw/cev avrai 6 Ofbs

a-ov.

Deut.I 13 8ore eavrots avSpa? (ro<f>ovs, Deut. 2 s5 Ivdpxpv Sovvat Such instances might be indefinitely multiplied.
clearly to illustrate the character

These examples should serve

of N. T. Hebraisms derived from the Greek of the

LXX.

We

observe that they are characteristically Lucan, and in some cases Other N. T. Hebraisms may be found in the exclusively so.

Greek of the Apocalypse

(cf.

Dr. Charles's Commentary, Index

II),

16

INTRODUCTION
to a different cause,
viz.

and these owe their origin


imitation of Biblical

first-hand

Hebrew
the

style

a cause which

also

operative

in

Birth-narrative

of

Lk.

The

was perhaps Marcan


state-

Aramaisms
Prof.

collected by Canon Allen Schmiedel are wholly different

in the article

mentioned by

in character

and the

ment that they only prove that this evangelist 'wrote a kind of ' is Jewish Greek that he had derived from a reading of the

LXX

most misleading.

For example, one of Canon


is

Allen's

most

the very frequent use of the Historic striking Present in Mk., which he rightly ascribes to the influence of the

Aramaisms

Aramaic usage of the

Participle in narrative

(cf.

pp. 87

ff.

of the

How could this usage have been derived from present volume). the LXX, when, as Sir John Hawkins has shown (HS?, reading
p. 213),
it

is

the whole
of

LXX

there comparatively rare ? The total occurrences in are 337, and of these 232 occur in the four Books

LXX.
the

Kingdoms, leaving only 105 for the whole of the rest of the Out of the 232 instances in the four books of Kingdoms,
'

Book (= i Samuel) contains very nearly two-third?, which happens to be exactly the same number as Mark But then i Kingdoms exceeds Mark in length by contains.
First
viz. 151,

about one-third, as may be seen by comparing the two books in the pages of any English Bible e.g. in the R.V. minion 8vo 1885, in which i Sam. occupies 26 pages, and Mark (without the

Appendix) about 15 pages and a

half.

Consequently

it

appears
thickly
'

that the historic presents are scattered considerably

more

over the pages of the latter than of the former, the average to a page being in i Sam. about 6 and in Mark between 9 and 10

(HS*

loc. cit.) Moreover, the same scholar has proved, in the most conclusive manner, in dealing with the Synoptists and the LXX, that Mark is considerably the least familiar with this version,

Matthew occupies an intermediate


familiarity with
it

place, while

Luke shows most

(//S. pp. 198

ff.).

The marking of the distinction between Aramaisms and Hebraisms may thus be seen to be a matter of fundamental
our inquiry. If Aramaic and Hebrew were so similar in structure and phraseology that close translations made
importance
to

from the two languages, or original Greek compositions influenced

by

their style,

were

practically indistinguishable, then

it

might not

INTRODUCTION
matter whether the
classed as
stylistic peculiarities
;

17

of such documents were

though even so since such would properly rank as the common property of two phenomena it would (if not more) languages of the Semitic group scientifically
be more correct to describe them as Semitisms. It is true that Aramaic and Hebrew, having sprung from a common ancestor, do
in fact exhibit a considerable

Aramaisms or Hebraisms

number of such common

character-

istics, the occurrence of which in isolated Greek passages of brief length might leave us in doubt whether the influencing factor was

the one language or the other. In dealing, however, with Greek works such as the Gospels, we are concerned not with brief

sentences but with lengthy documents ; and if so be that in any of these we have actual or virtual translation from a Semitic original,
the distinction between
to assert itself.*
If,

Aramaic

style

and Hebrew

style is

bound
Mark's

then,

we

find a

New

Testament document such as

St.

Gospel, which lacks the clearly-marked Hebraisms of the Lucan literature unmistakably derived from the LXX, and at the same time contains different marks of Semitic style which can only be
referred to Aramaic, the conclusion

should surely be obvious.

Here we have

the work, not of a Hellenist

who

studied the

LXX,

but of a Palestinian

whose mind was


perforce reflected

either actually wrote in Aramaic, or so moulded by Aramaic idiom that his Greek
it.

Jew who

Such a work

is

naturally found to contain,

together with the specific Aramaisms, a number of Semitisms which may be paralleled both from Aramaic and Hebrew, and which may or may not be reflected in the Greek of the LXX. But it is
the specific

Aramaisms which must determine the character of the

work

(Palestinian and not Hellenistic).

The

other Semitisms serve

but to add weight after the conclusion has been drawn.t


' * In ' speaking of Hebrew style it may be well to reiterate the fact that we are The 'New' Hebrew employed in the referring to Biblical or Classical Hebrew.

Mishna and Midrashim, which was the language of the Rabbinic Schools at or about the Christian era and subsequently, is structurally nearer akin to Aramaic than to Hebrew. This artificial product, however, fulfilled much the same function
as did the dog- Latin employed by scholars in the Middle Ages, and there reason for supposing that it ever came into popular use.
is

no

Cf. Allen,
ff.,

pp. 328

an

article

'The Aramaic Element in St. Mark', Expository which effectively disposes of the criticisms

Titnes, xiii (1902), of Schmiedel.

2620

i8

INTRODUCTION
Whether
the

Marcan Aramaisms prove


distinct

actual translation from

an original Aramaic document, as


tion of a writer
sion,
is

from the virtual transla-

who, though using Greek as his medium of exprescasting his words in the Aramaic mould which is more
to him, is

a question which still remains open. The present writer, comparing the evidence for an Aramaic Marcan document with that which he himself adduces in this volume for
familiar

an Aramaic Fourth Gospel,

feels that the case for the

former

is

not

of equal cogency with that for the latter. To a large extent, as is natural, the evidence for the two works runs upon identical lines ;

and here the argument


parallel usages of

for Jn. is materially strengthened

by the

however, a still larger mass of evidence which can be cited for Jn. to which no adequate analogue

Mk.

There

is,

exists in

Mk.

volume

will

Examination of the usages discussed be found to yield the following results


:

in the present

Usages common
Parataxis
(p. 56).

to

Jn. and Mk.

Frequency of Historic Present

(p. 87).

Frequency of Imperfect lAeyev, IXeyov (p. 92). Sparse use of 8e, and preference for *<u (p. 69).

= conjunctive that = With (p. 28). Trpos


'

'

?i/a

(p. 70).

'

'

Usages q/ Jn. found more rarely

in

Mk.

Asyndeton (p. Casus pendens t


Kat linking
Iva.

49).
(p. 63).

contrasted statements

'

and yet

j (p. 66).

on
ov

mistranslation of ^ relative. mistranslation of ^ relative.

One

case in Mk.

(p. 76).

Relative
fij]
.

Two cases in Mk. (p. 77). a Pronoun. Two cases in Mk. (p. 84). completed by TOV auova = 'never*. Two parallels in Mk. (p. 99).
fl<s

ets.

One

case in

Mk.

(p. 34).

* Allen quotes Asyndeton as characteristic of Mk. (St. Mark, pp. 18 instances bear no comparison with the frequency of the usage in Jn; t The present writer has noted only Mk. 6' 6 , 7 20 is 10 , 13". The only cases collected from Mk. are 4 32 , s 26 31 , i4 49 .
, -

f.),

but his

INTRODUCTION
To
these

19

may
:

be added an Aramaism of which one case occurs

in each, viz.

Anticipation of Genitive by Possessive

Pronoun
in

(p. 85).

Usages characteristic of Jn. not found

Mk.

Frequency of Personal Pronouns

(p. 79).

Frequency of Emphatic Demonstratives ' /a mistranslation of 'when (p. 77).

OVTOS, e*u/os (p. 82).

on mistranslation
Zpxop.a.1

= of ^ =
"*]

Present as

when (p. 78). Futurum instans (p. 94).


'

'

ov

avfyxoTros

'

no one

'

(p. 99).

employed to the exclusion of /XTJTTOTC (pp. 69, 100). To these may be added an Aramaism of which one case only
fro /M}

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

Aramaic,

viz.

Change

of construction after Participle

(p. 96).

The Marcan usages noted above which find parallels in Jn. do not exhaust the Aramaisms of Mk. Others are cited by Allen
(cf.

St.

Mark, pp. 48

ff.)

and by Wellhausen

(Einleitung*, pp. 7

ff.),

of which the most noteworthy are the frequent use of the adverbial TroAAa &&, and of the auxiliary rfp^aro, -an-o *"$ but they are not equally impressive because though they fit in with the theory

',

an Aramaic original they are the kind oi Aramaisms which might naturally be introduced by a writer of Greek whose native tongue was Aramaic. may also note
of translation from

We

the fact that the KOIVT? construction fva conjunctive that which characterizes Mk. (though to a less extent than Jn.) is a usage
'

'

which an Aramaic-speaking writer of Greek would naturally tend


to exaggerate.

On

the other hand, the use of

Iva.

in place of a

relative, which can scarcely be understood except on the theory of mistranslation, while frequent in Jn. (cf. pp. 75 f.), occurs but once in Mk. What is needed to substantiate the theory of an Aramaic original for Mk. is some cogent evidence of mistransla-

has not as yet been advanced. In contrast, the writer believes that the evidence which he has collected in
tion
;

and

this

C 2

20

INTRODUCTION
in Jn.

Chap. VII in proof of mistranslation on the whole, as exceedingly weighty.

must be recognized,

Granted, however, the possibility of an Aramaic original for the Fourth Gospel, the question naturally arises What evidence do

we

possess sufficient to enable us to prove this theory, and in a measure to reconstruct the original text ?

The evidence

is

naturally

drawn from our knowledge of

Palestinian Aramaic at or about the period at which the Gospel The following are the main sources is presumably to be dated.*

of our knowledge
1.
12

The Aramaic
f

2fi

j) an

2 4b

^
W.

sections of the O.T., viz. Jer. 10", Ezr. 4*

6 18

The

Ezra-sections,

if

they are what they

profess to be, date from the middle of the fifth century B.c.t The Book of Daniel is dated with approximate certainty under
the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, 168-167 B.C.

The

dialect

of 2 46 of the

28

is

Aramaic, and

is

practically identical with that

Ezra-sections, exhibiting affinities to the dialects of the

Palmyrene and Nabataean inscriptions which date from the third


century B.C. to the second century A.D.J This source is therefore of great value as closely approximating to what must have been the type of Aramaic spoken in Palestine in the first century of the
Christian era.
2.

The Targums

synagogue- practice of expounding the

or Aramaic paraphrases of the O.T. The Hebrew text of the O.T. by

an Aramaic paraphrase is undoubtedly very ancient. Both the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds understand the term BnbD
in Ne'h.

distinctly

And they read in the book, in the law of God (marg. with an interpretation) ; and they gave the sense, so that they understood the reading' as referring to the use of
88

R.V.

<

On

this subject the standard

work

is

Dr. G. Dalman's Gramtnatik des jiidisch-

palastinischen Aratnaisch.

Cf. especially pp. 5-40.

This

may

usefully be sup-

plemented by the discussion in the same writer's The Words of Jesus, pp. 79-88. " t Ezr. 4 6 23 though inserted into a section which relates the efforts of the Samaritans to thwart Zerubbabel's rebuilding of the Temple in the latter part
,

of the sixth century B.C., really relates to the interruptions caused by the Samaritans and other enemies of the Jews to the project of the rebuilding of the
city-walls,

Nehemiah intervened and secured the support of


Introd. to Lit. of O.T. 9 p. 547.
9 I Cf. Driver, Introd. to Lit. of O.T. pp. 503
ff.

probably shortly before the twentieth year of Artaxerxes (444 B. c.) when the Persian king. Cf. Driver,

INTRODUCTION
an Aramaic paraphrase something to be said in
* Cf. Bab. Megilla 3 a
tion is given in
*
;

21

and

this

its

favour.t

view, though disputed, has If, however, the practice of

Nedarira 37 b

Jerus. Megilla 74 d.
12.

The same explana-

Midrash Bereshilh Rabba, par. xxxvi.

t Cf. Berliner,

Targum

Onkelos,

ii,

p 74,

who compares

the use of

EHDD

in the

words

of the Persian king's rescript in Ezr. 4 18 ,


i.e.

BhLD

K3^5|

[WT^jH^
The

&OJflK>3

"ETP "Hp,
before
rival
i.
'

most

naturallj',
',
i.

'The

letter

which ye sent unto us hath been read


principal
,

me

in translation

e.

translated from Aramaic into Persian.


' '

explanation
'

(offered
'
;

e.

section by section
'

by Dr. Bertholet) is divided (sc. into sections) and on this explanation the following words /2& Dife^

and giving the sense may refer to an Aramaic paraphrase. The synagoguecustom as known to us was to read a verse of the Law in the Hebrew and follow it by the Aramaic paraphrase. In the Prophets three verses might be read together and followed by the Aramaic rendering.

Even in pre-exilic times (cf. 2 Kgs. i8 26 ) Aramaic was the lingua franca of It international communication. must have been widely used, along with Cuneiform tablets of the late Babylonian, in the Neo-Babylonian kingdom.
Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Achaemenian periods bear Aramaic dockets
scribes or secretaries
;

and

were employed for the purpose of writing Aramaic upon parchment along with those whose business it was to write Babylonian in
(cf.

cuneiform upon clay tablets

the writer's Judges, pp. 255,

495").

Probably

Aramaic was the exclusive medium of intercouise between the exiled Jews and their captors, and was used by them in commercial dealings with foreigners. Thus the Jews who returned from exile must have come back with a knowledge of Aramaic at least as thorough as was their knowledge of Hebrew, and must have found that in Palestine Aramaic had established itself and gained ground owing to the mixture of races and the decay of national feeling among the Jews who had remained in Palestine. The fact that Hebrew of a more or less classical character remained the literary
language of the Jews to within at least a century before the Christian era does
it was widely and generally spoken by the Jews up to was understood and spoken in the earlier post-exilic period is implied by the fact that e. g. the prophecies of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, which were intended for a popular audience, are written in Hebrew and by the allusion in Neh. 13'*, which shows, however, at the same time, how easy the condition of affairs made it for the less precise Jews to drop Hebrew and adopt

not of course imply that


that period.

That

it

another language. All that we can say, then, with any certainty, is that after the return from exile Hebrew and Aramaic must for a time have been used concurrently by the Jews.
Religious, national, and literary feeling strove for the retention of Hebrew ; but external influence making itself felt in the exigences of daily life favoured the advance of Aramaic, and gradually led to its general adoption. Literary and cultivated Jews read Hebrew, and no doubt spoke it to some extent among

themselves at least for some time after the return.


did not read books

came more and more the knowledge of Hebrew.

to

The mass of the people who speak Aramaic exclusively and to lose

22

INTRODUCTION
any rate not
in dispute.

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

The

date at which written

Targums
It is

first

came

into existence

cannot certainly be determined.*

related that in the fourth

century A.D. Samuel ben Isaac once entered a synagogue, and seeing a scribe reading the Targum from a book, admonished him
thus
'
:

This

is

forbidden thee

for that

which

is

received orally
is

orally, and only that which be read from the book* (Jerus. Megilla writing may

must only be delivered


is,

received in

iv. i).

There

however, considerably

older

evidence for the existence of


public worship.

written

Targums for private reading and not for The Mishnat states that portions of the text of
'

the Bible were


exists

written

as
I

'

Targum

(Yadaim

iv.

5)

and there

Tannaitic
in the

tradition that a

Targum

of the

Book

of Job existed

days of Gamaliel the Elder (the grandson of Hillel and 34ff instructor of St. Paul cf. Acts 5 22 s ), and after being with;
-,

drawn from use by


son Gamaliel
II.

his orders, reappeared in the days of his grand-

which became the

The Targum official Targum

of Onkelos on the Pentateuch,

have been committed to writing and

of the Babylonian schools, must finally redacted at least as

early as the third century A.D., since its Masora dates from the first half of that century. Two Palestinian Amoraim of the third

century advised their congregation to read the Hebrew text of the Parasha (section of the Pentateuch read as lesson) twice in private and the Targum once, according to the practice of public
worship.

Joshua ben Levi commended


b),

this practice to his

sons

(Berakhoth 3
*

while

Ammi,

a pupil of Johanan,

made

it

a rule

article

this subject Berliner, Targum Onkelos, ii, pp. 88 ff., and the admirable 'Targum' by Dr. W. Bacher in the Jewish Encyclopaedia. f The Mishna (i. e. Repetition of the Law, or in a wider sense its Exposition) was compiled towards the end of the second century A. D. I The Tannaim ('Teachers') were the Rabbinic authorities of the first two centuries of the Christian era whose work is embodied in the Mishna. They were

See on

'

'

succeeded by the Amoraim (' Speakers' or Interpreters'), third to fifth centuries A. D., who chiefly concerned themselves with the exposition of the Mishna. The
'

outcome of

this

work was

the Gemara,

'

'

Supplement

or

'

Complement

'

of the

Mishna, which, together with the latter, forms the Talmud. Cf. the passage from Tosefta Shabbath , ch. xiv, quoted by Berliner,
p. 89.

op.

cit.

INTRODUCTION
'

23

These two dicta were especially generally binding (ib. 8 a). instrumental in authorizing the custom of reciting the Targum.' *
the practice of interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures in Aramaic, at one time presumably dependent upon e e the extempore skill of the individual thurg man, gradually

Thus we may gather how

assumed a
shape.

fixed form

first,

no doubt,

orally,

then in written

The The

principal
so-called

Targums which concern us Targum of Onkelos t on the

are as follows

Pentateuch.

This

is

sometimes called the Babylonian Targum, as adopted and standardized in Babylonia not later, as we have seen, than the third
century A.
in diction,
D.
it

exhibiting certain Babylonian peculiarities 'is composed in a dialect fundamentally Palestinian'.]:

While

Its contents

in

the second

elements

must have been drawn up in Palestine its Halakhic and Haggadic century, exhibit the influence of the school of Akiba (who
prove that
it

since both

perished in the rebellion of Bar Cokhba,

A. D.

135)

and other
has come

prominent Tannaim.||
of Pseudo-Jonathan is wrongly assigned to Jonathan (the reputed author of the Targum of the Prophets), possibly through mistaken interpretation of the

The Palestinian Targum of down to us, much later in date.

the Pentateuch

is,

as

it

The Targum

^n = Targum Yerushalmi, Jerusalem Targum, as Targum Yehonathan. As finally redacted it is not earlier than the seventh century A.D., but it is thought to contain many elements which are older than the Targum of Onkelos.lF Comparison of these two Targums yields evidence that they were originally
abbreviation
identical, their
*

agreement being often verbatim.


cit.

Cf. Bacher, op.

p. 58.

t The name Dpp^N Onkelos appears


Bab. Megilla
of Aquila
iii.

to

have arisen through confusion made


i.

in

of a reference in Jerus. Megilla


Cf. Berliner, op.
cit.

to the

Greek

translation

D^pV

Akylas.

pp. 92

ff.

J Noldeke, Manddische Grarnmatik, p. xxvii, quoted by Bacher, op. cit. p. 59 a. Haldkha ('walking' or 'way'; so 'custom') is the exposition and application

of the legal elements of Scripture


historical
||

Haggddd

('

narration

')

the elaboration of

its

and didactic portions.


cit.

Cf. Berliner, op.

p. 107.

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

Targum

' .

24

INTRODUCTION
In addition to the complete

Targum

of Pseudo-Jonathan there

survive fragments of a Jerusalem Targum, apparently not all ' contemporaneous. In the view of Dr. Bacher, Both the Pseudo-

Jonathan and the fragments contain much that has survived from
a very early period ; indeed the nucleus of the Palestinian is older than the Babylonian which was redacted from it
p.

Targum
'

(op. cti.

61

a).

The Targum of Jonathan on


tradition to
pupil.

the Prophets* is assigned by Jonathan ben Uzziel, who was Hillel's most famous
its

transmission appears to follow the same Targum of Onkelos. Palestinian in origin (as is expressly stated in the Bab. Talmud), it gained official It is frequently recognition in Babylonia in the third century A. D.
history of
lines as that of the

The

quoted by Joseph, the head of the


Babylonia
in the early part of the
11 6 referring to Isa. 8 and Zech. I2 ,

Academy

of Pumbeditha in

fourth century A. D., who, in remarks that * if there were


'

no Targum

to

it,
;

(Sanhedrin 94 b

we should not know the meaning of these verses Moed Katon 28 b Megilla3#). Such reference
;

implies the recognition of the Prophetic


authority.

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 illustrating the Palestinian Aramaic of the early centuries of the Christian era. Though, in the form in which we know them, they
are later than the
first

century, they

embody

material which
that

whether

in written

or oral form

must have come down from

period ; and from the linguistic point of view it is clear that they are faithful witnesses. Their dialect is closely allied to the dialect
of Daniel, such slight differences as exist being mainly orthographical. t The only drawback to their use is that, being

of the

Book

translations

Aramaic

they tend at times to Hebraize their but instances of this tendency are not difficult to detect,
of Hebrew,
to lead us astray. J

and are unlikely, therefore,


*

four historical books

The term 'Prophets' is known


Cf. Driver, Introd. to Lit.
e. g.

of course used in the Jewish sense, including the


as 'the
9

Former Prophets',
p.

viz. Josh.,

Judg

Sam.,

and Kgs.

o/O.T.

503
ff.

Noldeke

in Encycl. Bibl. 283.


in

I Cf.

the passages cited on pp. 61


p. 83.

On Hebraisms

the

Targums

cf.

Dalman, WJ.

INTRODUCTION
3.

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. These Aramaic sections are the latest portions
of these works, dating from the fourth to the sixth centuries A. D. They are clearly in the dialect of the people, and such linguistic peculiarities as this dialect exhibits connects it with Galilee rather

than with Judaea.*


4. The Palestinian Syriac Lectionary, of unknown date, exhibits an Aramaic dialect akin to that of the Palestinian Talmud and

Midrashim.
translated

As
into

offering us the text of a great part of the Gospels Palestinian Aramaic this Lectionary is of con-

siderable interest.

Hebrew
to its

text,

it

Like the Targums, however, in relation to the shows a certain tendency to adapt its language

Greek

original.

In addition to these Palestinian Aramaic sources, we may gain not inconsiderable aid through comparison of the ancient Syriac
versions of the O. and N.T., making, of course, such allowances as are necessary for the dialectical differences between Eastern

and Western Aramaic.

undoubtedly very ancient.

The Peshitta translation of the O.T. Made directly from the Hebrew,
it

is
it

exhibits the traditions of Jewish exegesis, as appears from the

points of connexion which


It

offers with

may

well have been the

work of Jewish

scholars,

Targumic renderings.t and can hardly

be later than the

compared with

As early second century A. D., if so late. the Targums, it exhibits less of a tendency to
language to the Hebrew constructions of the

accommodate
original.

its

No

We

know

Syriac version of the N.T. is as old as that of the O.T. that Tatian made his Diatessaron, or Harmony of the
this
It

Four Gospels (TO 8ta reo-o-apwi/ evayyeAioi/), in Greek, and that was translated into Syriac during his lifetime, c. A.D. 1704
* Cf.

Dalman, Gramm. pp. 12 ff., 31 ff. tendency collected by Dr. Driver in his Notes on the Heb. Text of the Books of Samuel*, pp. Ixxi f., and by the present writer in his Notes on the Heb. Text of the Books of Kings, pp. xxxiv f., and Book of Judges,

Cf. the illustrations of this

p. cxxviii.

For

authorities

cf.

Dr. Nestle's article


a.

Syriac Versions in Hastings''s Dictionary

'

of

the Bible, iv, p.

646

The view

that the Diatessaron

was

first

composed

in

26
continued in use
at

INTRODUCTION
Edessa
till

century, when Rabbula, bishop of Edessa (A.D. 411-35), prepared a revision of the text of
the
fifth
'

the separate Gospels (called Evangelion da-M*pharr*shtt Gospel of the Separate '), and ordered its substitution for the Diatessaron

(Evangelion da-M*hall*te, 'Gospel of the Mixed'), and the collection

and confiscation of the copies of the latter. This was carried out with such thoroughness that no copy of the Syriac Diatessaron has survived, and we only know the work through an Armenian translation of St. Ephrem's Commentary upon it, and a late Arabic
translation in
Peshitta.

which the

text has

been accommodated

to that of the

Dr. Burkitt has shown that Syrian writers prior to Rabbula 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. Cureton in 1858, and in the (nearly complete) palimpsest of the Gospels discovered by Mrs. Lewis
at the

when he

convent on Mount Sinai in 1892 ; and further, that Rabbula, forbad the use of the Diatessaron, made a revision of

this separate version of the

Gospels

in

conformity with the Greek

text current at Antioch at the beginning of the fifth century.

This

appears to have been the origin of the N.T. Peshitta. He has also shown that the Evangelion da-M pharreshe used the O.T.
Peshitta,

and must therefore be

later than it.t

His conclusion
e

is

that the Diatessaron

was the

earliest

form of the N.T. possessed

by the Syrian Church, the Evangelion da-M*pharr she being dated by him c. A.D. 200. According to this view the early Christian Church at Edessa had no N.T. prior to the Diatessaron in
A.D. 170.

the

first generation of Syriac-speaking Christians the Prophets sufficed/ \ This is a conclusion which is open to question, and it may be that the old version represented by the Sinaitic and Curetonian should be placed at an earlier date.

For the

Law and

The Old

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

Greek and then translated


it
ii,

into Syriac appears to be

more probable than

that

was
p. *
f*

Cf. Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, composed in Syriac. 206. For the latter view cf. J. F. Stenning in Hastings's DB., v, p. 452.

originally

Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mepharreshe,


op.
cit.
Cit.

ii,

pp. 101

ff.

% Op.

pp. 201 p. 212.

ff.

INTRODUCTION
the
Palestinian Syriac Lectionary, are of great value to our inquiry as illustrating Aramaic constructions in relation to the Greek of the Gospels. When, for example, we get a varying Greek construction, one form of which we suspect of being an

Aramaism, and the Syriac versions render both alike in accordance with our suspected Aramaism, our primary inference receives strong confirmation. There are many instances of this in the
Fourth Gospel (cf. e. g. pp. 72 ff.). The Ada Thomae, an original Syriac work * of fairly early date (early third century A. D.t) is sometimes used in the following pages
for

purposes of

illustration.
is

The evidence which


that the

brought forward in this volume

in

Greek
is

text of the Fourth

Gospel

is

a translation

proof from

Aramaic

concerned with the broad general characteristics of the Aramaic language, and does not depend upon dialectal details.

Though
istics (if

dialects of the language

may be

distinguished, belonging

to different places

and

different periods, their distinctive character-

9th-8th centuries

mon

except the earliest monuments of the language, of the B. c.) are but slight in comparison with the comwhich unite all branches of the language. Thus the features

we

exact dialectal form of the original which we presuppose is a matter of minor importance. may have doubts as to the

We

precise word or verbal termination or select we can have no reasonable doubt


;

suffix

which we should

as to constructions which

properly characterize the language as a whole.


*

The

fact that this

work was

originally written in Syriac has


ff.
;

proved by Dr. Burkitt in Journal ofTheol. Studies,!, pp. 280 f Cf. R. Duval, La Litterature syriaque, pp. 98 ff.

ii,

been conclusively p. 429 iii, p. 94.


;

CHAPTER

PRELIMINARY TESTING OF THE THEORY BY EXAMINATION OF THE PROLOGUE


As
it
it

a preliminary to the classified discussion of particular usages,


instructive to take the Prologue of the

is

Gospel and examine

verse by verse. Thus we may gain at the outset a clearer conception of the texture of the writer's language as a whole; and, when we come to classify, may realize that we are not dealing

merely with isolated phenomena, but with illustrations of a continuous characteristic which admits of but one explanation the
theory of an Aramaic original.

w.
in

l -2 .

The phrase
,
,

Trpos

TOV

Oeov

in

the sense 'with


cites
.

God*

is

remarkable, as Westcott observes.


,

He

2 Mt. is 56, Mk. 6 3 9 19 i449, Lk. 941 i Jn. i passages is an echo of the Gospel-prologue, presumably by the same author ^ris fy Trpos TOV Trarepa. With regard to the Synoptic

the parallel usage The last of these

instances

we

notice

(i)
7
,

that they are all from the


53

and

(2)

that Mt.
/xe0' v/xwv,

if

Lk. 22

alter

Mark's

Trpos

Marcan source, vpas to the more

natural

while Mt. 26 55 omits the phrase altogether.


:

The

parallel passages are as follows


k.

63

/cat

OVK
at

fla~lv at

dSeAc^cu avrov a>8e Trpos


Tratrat Trpos

i^tias

56 Mt. (M I3 Kal

dSeX^at avrov OV^L


V/XttS
O-O/Xttt

rjfJia.^

eitriV

k.

19

CWS 7TOTC TTpOS

,'

Mt. if' 0)S 7TOT6 [JicO' V/XWV Lk. 941 ea>s 7TOT Icro/xat Trpos (M
49

(7O/mi
v/xas
;

I4
Mt. 26

Ka^'

fjfJLepav

rj[jtf]V

Trpos v/xas

i/

TW

tepw 8iSao~K<ov.

Ka^' T7/xcpav ev TO> tepai fKaOe^ofJLrjv 8t8a<TKO)V.

)Mk. 22 53 Lk.
Clearly,

Ka^' ^/xepav OVTOS /xov /xe^' v/xwi/ ev rai Upu>.

then,
to the

we

are dealing with

Gospels

Marcan source and

to Jn.

a phrase confined in the which was so far strange

THE PROLOGUE
to the other Synoptists that they

29

or expunge
is

it.

The view

that

it

were moved on occasions to alter may represent an Aramaic phrase

once suggested by the fact that it occurs three times in Mk., for which on other grounds an Aramaic original, or at any rate Aramaic influence, has been postulated. In Aramaic the common
at

preposition rnb (possibly akin

to

the verb

*}?

'join')

denotes

It (i) connexion with, apud, Trapa, (2) motion towards, ad, Trpos. be suggested that feeling for the second meaning so commonly may borne by rnp has moved the translator of an Aramaic original

to represent the preposition

by
'

Trpo's

even when used in the former

sense.*

The usage
4

of

Trpos
,

=
i

'

with

is
,

5 10 3 , 2 Thess. 2 , 3 26 13 Phil, i , Philem.

Cor. i6 67

frequent in St. Paul ; 9 2 Cor. 5 8 Gal. ,


,

cf.

i
,

Thess.
2 3 , 4 18 20,
-

18

There

are,
is

however,

many

other indications

that this Apostle's language


v.
4
.

o yeyovev fv avroi

<o^

tinged with Aramaic influence. This reading has the consensus rjv.

of early attestation, the punctuation which connects 6 yeyoi/ev with the preceding sentence seeming 'to -be little if at all earlier than
Cent.

IV
pjn
',

(WH.).

Yet, as

is

well

known, considerable
'

difficulty

has arisen in connexion with the interpretation, That which hath been made in Him was life '. The Aramaic equivalent would be
(Kin)

which

Here the opening ^ answering to 'that might equally well bear the meaning inasmuch as, since, 41 because cf. the use of ^ in Dan. 2 nnjtrp-n 'And inasmuch as
FP3
Kl,-n.
' '

thou sawest'

2 20 K'n ab-v*

WTOM
this

snrpDn

'because
"1E>N

wisdom and
often bears

might belongeth unto Him'.


the

The Heb.
'

relative

same
'

sense.

Adopting

interpretation,

we

obtain

the

Because in Him was life ; and this admirably suits meaning, the connexion He was the source of all creation because He

Himself was
V
5
. .

Life.

KCU TO

<ws
of

ev TTJ ovcoTia

<cuv,

KOL

17

(TKorta avro ou Ka.TfXa.($fv.

The
* It

difficulty

Karekafitv is

familiar.

Dr. Ball, in his article

that wpos here

was only after finishing this chapter that the writer noticed that the facts = Aram. fllS, and that the other Gospel-occurrences emanate from
its

the Marcan source with

Aram, background, had been anticipated by Dr. Rendel


'

Harris in the

first

of a series of articles on
xii

The
f.

origin of the Prologue to St. John's

Gospel'

in the Expositor,
it is

(1916), pp. 156

The coincidence

in conclusion

serves to prove that

unmistakable for an Aramaic scholar.

30
mentioned
form

PRELIMINARY TEST
has made the
in
brilliant

in the Introduction,

suggestion

that confusion
5><3j3K

Aramaic between the Aph'el may 'akbel 'darken' and the Pa'el form ^\1 kabbel from an
have arisen

It may be outwardly identical root, meaning 'receive, take*. further noted that in Syriac the latter root actually occurs in the

Aph'el in the sense 'receive* cf. Lk. 15" in Sin. and Pesh. o\^o/ r>^~ *39 'because he hath received him whole' (cf. other
instances cited by Payne Smith, 3470). The difference between ri^apK vh obscured it not and iT^p vh avrb ov KariXapw is slight ;
' '

and

if

the construction was the

common one
tib
'

of the participle with


',

the substantive verb,


'

**}n b3jJD there would, in an unvocalized text,


'

nw

was not obscuring it be no distinction between


'.

>*app
is

obscuring

and ^32?

'

receiving
36

The sense

'

darken
KJ"

'

equally suitable to Jn. I2

Iva

fiy

O-KOTUL v/xa?

/caTaXa/fy,

afyfR
V.
6
.

'that darkness
avOpwiros
.

shroud you not'.


oVo/xa avTai 'Itoavj/^s,
'

iyf.vf.ro

i.

e.

^IIIS

^JH

DP.

'

Whose name was


1

is

only elsewhere so expressed in


oi/o/xa OVO/Xtt
'

N.T.

in
8

ch.

ai>#pG)7ros

IK

TWV ^aptcratwv NtKoS^/xos


6

avrai,

ApOC. 6
,

ITTTTOS

^X(0/3OS*
TOI>

Kttt

Ka$^/AVOS

7Ta/0)

ttVTOV,
oi/o/xa

ApOC. 9"
in
,

ayyeAov r^s

aftva-crov'

avrai

Elsewhere
cf.

Matt. 2 732
,

10 - 11 - 12 -33 - 36

io

N.T. the ordinary expression is ovo/xan (classical) ; 50 5 27 2 4 18 , Acts 5 IM 8 9 i io 38 i6 :0 2 3 5 24 9 28 13 14 34 2724 20 2i 10, 27 28 7 (30 i6'i8 i9 ii , i2 I7

Mk. 5% Lk.
,

occurrences).

Other expressions are


Lk.
.

oi/o/xart

/caAW/xevo?,
, , ,

KCU TO oi/o/xa avr^s,

5
;

<J

(J) o/o/ta,

Lk.

26 27
-

2 25 841 24 13

Lk. iQ2 Acts i3 6

ov TO oVo/xa,

Mk. I432

Pal. Syr.

renders the Gospel-occurrences of

oVd/xaTi

by

name', OJA-^? 'who his name' (i.e. 'whose name'), 'and his name'. Pesh. renders oVo/wm by o^so*,? (o^a^f) 'who
'his
his (her)

name', )oo <H^*,? 'who his name was', and once (Acts
otJ&A.

i6

14

)oo

'her

name

was'.

oVo/xtm

KaXov/xevos,

Joo*

'who his name name was'. Kal TO ovo/wx av-r^s, Lk. i = her name Pesh. )oo opa* and her name Pal. Syr. e*ax*,o 27 = who his Pal. Syr. caret, Pesh. <**!*,? w ovo/Aa, Lk. i was 25 name'; Lk. 2 = Pal. Syr. <**i**, )oo? 'who was his name' (i.e. 'whose name was'), Pesh. )oo opa* 'his name was'; Lk. 8 =
Pal.

Syr.

;-fcsjs>

opou*,?

Lk. i9 = was called', Pesh.


2
5
'

c*-vx*,j

'who

his
'

',

'

'.

41

OF PROLOGUE
Pal. Syr. <*xi**.?,

31
;

Pesh. o^a^?

'who

his

name*

Acts i3 6
,

Pesh.

)oo
26

oax,t 'who his name was*.


caret)

(i

Mk. I432
called*,

Lk. Pal. Syr. 24" 77 ovo^a, o^ax^?, Pesh. o>x*i 'which its name', ov TO WO/MI, = Pal. Syr. caret, Pesh. kijafcottf ]^/ 'that which was
i

26

= Pal. Syr. o^aa^*,? 'who his name', Pesh. ot^aA, 'his name'; Jn. 3 Pal. Syr. Q*VI.. 'his name', ' s Pesh. o^ v>. 'name Pesh. )oo CX^XA, 'his name was ; Rev. 6
ovofia avTw,

Jn.

)>

to

'

it

Rev.

9" = o^

Ua^,?

'

which,

In the Aramaic parts of the


not? 'and they

name to O.T. we find,


-

it

'.

Ezr. 5
'

'vxiwfo 13TW
(i.e.

were given to Sheshbazzar his name Dan. 226 4 5 16 -iVKPoia noB> whose name was S.')
;
,

'to

one
his

'

who

name Belteshazzar The Hebrew modes


'.

two,

viz.
1

Ru. 2
20
1

of expressing 'whose name was N.' are 'and his name N.', Gen. 2429 38' 2, Judg. 13*, if, Sam. i 9 12 , i 7 12 , 2i 8 22*, 2 Sam. 44 9212 i 33 i6 5 i 7 25,
(i)
,
1 ,

Chr. 2 34
',

Est. 2
-

name

Sam. I7 4 23

N. his , Jer. 37" (22 occurrences), or (2) 2 Sam. 2o 21 , i Kgs. 13", 2 Chr. 28*, Job i
1 ,

'

Zech. 6 12

(7 occurrences).
1EK>

Besides these two phrases,


&opJ
it^N
ta'O'T

1 (Dan. lo ) "iS?NB^3

'Daniel,

we once find who his name

was

called

Belteshazzar'.

In

all

these cases the rendering of

Targg. exactly corresponds with the Hebrew, except that in Targ. of Est. 2 5 we find npDN 'rniiD rpBtsn 'and his name was called

Mordecai' for 'and his name Mordecai' of Heb.


2 Sam. 9
2
' '
'

The rendering
l

of Pesh. exactly corresponds with Heb. except in Ru. 2


,

Sam. 9 2
'

where we find who his name for and his name ; 12 in i Sam. 13', where the phrase is omitted; and in Zech. 6 where, in place of Branch his name ', we have and his name In LXX Heb. MDB>1 'and his name' is rendered K<X! Sunrise'.
,
'
'

oi/o/xa avToJ,

12 except in Gen. 24^, 3& , where

we have

<5

(y)

wo/xa.
i
1

Heb.

1DB> 'his

name'

is

represented by
'

oi/o/xa

avrw except in Job


'

where we have w
Outside O.T.
'

ovo^a.

Syriac,

his

we name
Cf.

find that
'

',

his

whose name was is rendered in name was ', who his name ', who his
'

'

name
his
'

was'.

in

Wright's

Apocryphal Acts, U->

^o

*~

wBDOf>iftviNV

CH^IA

.iocu^jl? 'one of the chief


(p.

men
'

of Antioch,

name Alexander'
a certain
0*^0.*,?

^.v>o); )oo

ot^a*, yooo;o>*m>/
(p.

Now

man, Onesiphorus his name was


|>oj\2>

)^^

'a

bath-keeper,

who

his

name

32

A
'

PRELIMINARY TEST
uJLi-

Secundus
son,

(p.

^);

)oo opo.*.? *~ k>*3oo

+=>

'a procurator's

who his name was Menelaus' (p. )o). Thus it appears that 6Vo/xa aurai 'Iwai/K^s,

Nt/coSry/AOS

oVo//,a

avra>

exactly represent a Semitic construction common to Aramaic and Hebrew, and that the Greek represents the regular rendering of It is also the Hebrew phrase. noteworthy- that the only other

occurrences of

oVo/xa avra>

are found in Apoc., which

is

strongly
1

Semitic in colouring.
V.
7
.

Iva
is

Trcti/res

Trio-TevVawriv

01

avrov probably

= \?3

ITl paD'H

which
in
/'/'

most naturally taken to mean, 'that all might believe (the light) rather than 'through him' (John). Cf., for the
>

sense postulated, I2 36 o>s TO <cus *X TC Trio-revere 46 yevr)crOcf and I2 eyo> $(05 ets rov KOOT/XOV
els

el<s

ro

</>o>s,

Iva viol
Tras

\rjXv6a,

Iva

e^e ev rrj CTKOTICI


^i/

fir]

peLvy.

v.

8
.

OVK

eKelvos ro <f>^.

The emphatic pronoun


has
its

tVeu/os

so

characteristic of the

Fourth Gospel

counterpart in the

Aram, wnn, Syriac oo wn. See below (p. 82). dAV Iva jjLaprvprjo-r) Trepl

'that one', or in the Personal

Pronoun
supposed
familiar.
**\t\
**fy
)l

rov ^coro?.

The

difficulty of the
is
1

ellipse (usually supplied by the words, 'he came') " The whole verse would run in Aramaic, IDr^ N"?
1

wn

NT^nj

i)y

TnD^
It is

(cf.

Pal.

Syr.

o^{ ^J^
is
'

^xm-? M/ Jioop o

)6o

)>ooj?).

probable that l
relative force
light,

should have
'

its

here wrongly rendered Iva, and The sense then is, (one) who '.

That one was not the


Cf., for
'

but one

who was

to

bear witness of

the light'.

such a use of 1 or

antecedent ('one who', he who'), Ezr. 7 25 , him who knoweth not ye shall teach'; Dan. 2 23
'

without expressed ni 'and pjrfnn jn; *b

wynm
in

^]3D

and now Thou hast made known


'.

to

me
^n

that which

wyrtn \W we asked
Gen. 449 10
-

of Thee

Cf. the similar use of -)K>N in


iriN

Hebrew

ny

^"W
it

NXB^

-rate

nioj

^naj^

N^

ngte

'//^ with

w/zom

found of thy servants shall die ... He with whom it is found shall be my slave ', where the rendering of Targ. Onk.
is

is

Iva

Other instances of 1 relative mistranslated by fi^y narK^n. are given below (pp. 75 f.).*
view that the construction implies an ellipse stand 3 by Westcott g Ovre OVTOS ijfuipTev ovre ol yovfh avrov, eou iv OUTQ), where before iva we have to supply cpya rov

* In favour of the ordinary

two other passages


a\\' iva
<{)avtp<a0f)

cited

TO,

OF PROLOGUE
avOponrov ip^o^vov
ets

33

TOV KOCT^OV is rightly recognized

Lightfoot (Home Hebraicae, adloc.) and by Schlatter (Spmche, % 18 f.) as the common Rabbinic phrase D^V N? ?3 ' all comers pp. The Aram, equivalent into the world ', i.e. all that are in it.* N l/ would be 9r-? Thus Westcotfs proposal to regard r '?

by

J.

TO

of rjv cpxopwov ('The true light. .was R.V. margin) is excluded, and ty TO </>u>s TO It was the true light ', referring to the aXrjOivov can only mean, For this sense we seem to need a demonstrative verse. preceding
<o>s as the subject
: .

coming, &c.'

so

'

pronoun; and this probably stood misread Njn and rendered rjv.
v.
10
.

in

Aramaic as Wn, which was

KOL 6

Koo-fjios

avrov ovK eyvw.

Notice the adversative force


ol iSioi KT\.

of

/cat

=
.

'

and yet', here and


(cf.

n KOL in v.

This

is

very

frequent in Semitic
V.

p. 66).

u
L<s

TO.

iSia

^X$e,

KCU
(cf.

ot

tStot

avTov

ov

TrapeXa^ov,

i.e.

fj?

n^32
Ta
tSta,

NS

B>j*T)

W?

^.H

Pal. Syr.

and Pesh.).

The

use of

cannot, of course, be claimed as unusual; but the are striking, and at once suggest to an Aramaic expressions scholar the phrase Pf?l which to him*, i.e. 'that which pertains
ot tStot
'

(or those

who
19

pertain)
;

favourite term in Jn.

io

3 4 12
-

i3\ is
oo-oi

i6

32
,

his belongings '. iSios is a 44 18 43 18 llbi 42 occurring 15 times (i 4", 5 7 , 8 , 27 ig ), as against 5 in Mt, 1 in Mk., 4 in Lk.
to
-

him

'

'

V.

12
.

Se

eXaflov auToi/, eSwicev

avrots

KTX.

1 he construction

in thought
'tva

some such words as


6
.

'

he was born blind


is

'
;

and i5 25 where before dA\'

ir\r]pc>jOr)

\6yos KT\. there

Cf.

also

Mk. I4 49

an implied ellipse of 'This cometh to pass'. Similarly, Schlatter (Sprache, p. 18) cites parallels from

Mechilta on Ex. 20"

13D ? sb
possible

n^Vtt
to

WH

HICH H^^D "Vayni> l^DX


I
'

I^JN

nTTi

n"Tf3J

'

If

it

were

remove the angel of death

should have
'

removed him, but because the decree has already been decreed
do so'), and from Siphre on Num. 25*
'

(sc.

cannot

"]VW

H^H^ N^K

"]3n

D^ppM

WN

|*K

are not under such obligation to him, but (sc. it is necessary) that thou, &c.' In spite of these parallels for an ellipse, it is clear that T = iVa in the Aramaic

We

this conclusion is
is

rendering of our passage most naturally stands for the relative 'one who'; and supported by the other instances collected on pp. 75 f., where IVa
a mistranslation of a relative.
* Schlatter quotes a

remarkable para'lel to our passage from the Midrash Rabba

on

Leviticus,

par. xxxi. 6

D^JJ

*N3

Wl
D

tfiMWtjH

D^V^yb "VND nJlN

'Thou (God)
to all

givest light to those that are above and to those that are below, and
into the

comers

world

'.

2520

34

PRELIMINARY TEST
is
'

with Casus pendens

very frequent
'

in Semitic

Pal. Syr.
'

'

\i

For the occurrences of the construction


TOIS Tno-rcvovaLV eis TO 6Vo/Aa avrov, i.e.

in Jn. see p. 64.

^^^

P^P^Pr.

The

Striking

phrase

Tno-reveiv

ets

is

Aramaic construction (Heb. admitted by Moulton (NTG? p. 68), whose words are 'It would seem therefore that the substitution of ets or CTU for the simple dative may have obtained currency mainly in Christian circles,

strongly reminiscent of the Hebrew and 3 PPgn, Aram. 3 pp'n). This is

where the importance of the difference between simple (P PPS'J) and personal trust (3 'n) was keenly realized.
prepositional construction was suggested no doubt by a more literal translation of the Hebrew phrase with
its
3.'

belief

The
being

The
:i

occurrences of
vlov rov
^35.86^

TTLo-rf.vf.Lv

eis

are as follows
1(U8 36
'

eoO,

ci's

avr6v,

n &c.) Jn. 2
I

4^ j

j-

25.26.45.48^

^11.37.42.44.^
,

Matt. i8 6
I

=
;

^
,

3
)

TOV 'I^crow, ets rov 29 35 40 >--. 8 , , 4", 6 7


(eis
'

'

I6
,

>

Jn. 5
4
,

,'

elsewhere,
i
29
,

Mk. 9 42 Acts io 43 i42 i9 4 Rom. io


,

16 Gal. 2 , Phil,

Pet.

I
13

(eis

TO <ws) Jn. I2
i

36
;

(cts

TO oVo/xa avrov) Jn.

12
,

10

Jn. 5
13
.

(cis

T^V paprvpiav)

Jn. 5

(37 Johannine cases in all

3 9 other
,

23

18
,

cases).
V.
ot

OVK

aifJLdrwv

eytwiqOrjo-av,

i.

e.

fP

fry!

^9^

'^?

^T^rwc xnbx jo fn^x tnsa noar *; TTV:'* i. T T:


great interest
is

to
'

N^I T:

NIDB n^av. T
:

A
.
.

point
.

of

the fact that the Latin variant

o<s

lyevvrjOr)

becomes considerably more plausible upon the assumption of an Aramaic original. Since the particle ^ is invariable, it might
form the relative either
'

to

'as

many

as received

Him', or

He gave

'.

The

question of reading in Aramaic depends, then,


'

upon the difference between the plural rpjWK 'they were born', and the singular TVjrrtjl He was born a difference which
<

involves solely the insertion or omission of the letter 1. 14 it 1, over, since the following v. begins with Kat

Moreis

quite

possible that the plural form fP*WN may have arisen through dittography of this 1. Very probably ^ may not have had the
relative sense at
all,
'

but (as

in v.
',

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, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the

OP PROLOGUE
will of

35
after the

man, but of God

'

i.e.

He, being born not

manner

of flesh, but of God, was thus able to give to those Him power to become sons of God.

who

received

of a piece with th.it which is given above for w. just as the Logos was the Source of all physical life 'because in Him was life', so \vv. 12 13 ) He is the Source of spiritual
is
3 4
' -

This interpretation

life

(the

new

birth) because

He was

ordinary process of

human

born into the world, not by the 35 Cf. Lk. i generation, but 'of God'.
(iri
<re,

Hvevp-a ayiof eTreAevcrerat


KOL 8vva..L<; 'Yi/icrrov
/cat

7rr/aa<Ti croC

TO yeww/xevoi/ aytov
IO9

OV.

of Jn. i 12 which may not be accidental (cf. also eVel avSpa ov yti/wo-Kw, Lk. i 34, 1213 with ouSc IK 0eA?7/xaTo? di/S/oo's, Jn. i 13 ). If this explanation of Jn. i
note a connexion between
vlo<s

We

eou

and

re'/cva

eov

be correct, the writer


Virgin-Birth for

elsewhere

24

~29

drawing out the mystical import of the believers on precisely the lines on which he
is

i^ them of the Resurrection.


(5'
,

2526
,

19 )

draws out the mystical import


.

for

hand, the generally accepted reading ot involves a very strange sequence. The spiritual eyewrjOrjo-av surely birth of believers is clearly the result of the grace described by as phrased seems ISw/cev ca'Tots I^OVO-LOV T^KVO. cov yeveV&u, but v.
.

On

the

other

l:t

to imply that

it

was an antecedent
'

condition.

The author would


'

and so they were born ', or so that they surely have written should be born ', had this result been the fact which he was
intending to convey.
v.
14
.

KO.I

eV/o/j/oKTci/

ei/

rj^v.

The verb

eo-Kipowrey

very clearly

suggests the Jewish doctrine of the nj'ae? Sh'kma (Heb.), Sh e kmta (Aram.), or visible dwelling of Yahweh among His people, typified by the pillar of cloud standing above the Tent of Meeting,
as subsequently in Solomon's

^^

document E

10 n Kgs. 8

7 11 from the old (Ex. 33 ? Cf. also, for the use of the verb

"

Temple

Idkan of Yahweh's dwelling in the midst of Israel, Lev. 26 11 12 (H), Ex. 25 8 2 9 45 Num. 5 35 34 (P), i Kgs. 6 13 Ezek. 43 9 of His i6 6 n 26'2 & .). His Name to dwell there, Deut. 12", i4 causing
-

:i

2:{

:'

In

Hebrew passages

in

which Yahweh

is

said to dwell, or to cause

D 2

36

A
Name

PRELIMINARY TEST
to

His

to dwell, in the midst of Israel, the

He

caused His Stfkmta

dwell there.

Targumic phrase Examples are


Targ.

is,

Heb.
Lev.

26

12

'And
'.

will

walk

'And
'That
to

will

cause

My

Slikinta
'.

among you

to dwell

Ex. 25 s 'That I your midst '.

may
will

dwell in

among you e may cause My Sk kmtd dwell among you


I
'.

Ex. 29

45

'And
'.

dwell in

'And

will

cause

My
'.

Sh'ktnta

the midst of the children of


Israel

to dwell in the

midst of the

children of Israel

So, of the withdrawal of


Isa.

Yahweh's Presence,
'

57

17

'

hid Myself.

caused

My Sh kintd
e

to
'.

depart

(ascend) from them


Ps.

44

'And Thou goest not


our hosts'.

'And Thou dost not cause Thy


Sh*kinta
hosts'.
to

forth with

dwell with our

Ps.

88 5 'And they are cut off from Thy hand '.

'And they are separated from the face of Thy Sh e kmta.

Thus we may assume with some confidence that KOL V wlv represents the Aramaic N^a aWDB* *1&$\ 'and caused His Sh kinta to dwell among us'. The choice of the verb orxrjvovv
e

was doubtless largely dictated by its close resemblance to the Semitic root s-k-n. The same usage is to be seen in Apoc. 7 15
/cat

6 Ka$T//zevos tVt TOV Opovov o-Kryvaxrci


//.era TWI/

ITT

avrovs,

2 13

'iSov,

f)

crKrjvr)

TOV

eov

avOpwTrwv, KOL cr/oyvwo-ei

/xer* a^rai)'.

KOL fOcao-dfjitOa rrjv So^ai/ avrov.

Here we have
Targums
to

a clear reference

to a

second term used

in

the

describe God's Self-

manifestation to mankind,

conception of the K"Jj In to O. T. passages.


,

The ! N")^ 'the Glory of the Lord'. e e kard goes back, like that of the Sh kwta,
these the

Heb. term

is

1^3 Kabhodh.

10 ' Behold, the Glory of the Lord appeared in the Thus, Ex. i6 16 'And the Glory of the Lord abode upon mount Sinai, cloud 24
'
;

and the cloud covered

it

six

'

days

&c.

The Targums employ

Y kard,
e

like Slikinta, in

they stand in of God in bodily form.

paraphrasing passages which might, as the Heb., be taken to describe the actual appearance

Thus

OF PROLOGUE
Heb.
Ex. 3
1

37
Targ.

'And he came
of

to the

And he came

to the

mountain

mountain
Horeb'.

God,

unto

on which the Y*kard of the Lord was revealed, even to

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

5
.

For he

was

afraid

to

look

Ex. 24 10 'And they saw the of Israel'.

God

upon the manifestation of the Y'kara of the Lord'. e And they saw the Y kdrd of
the

God

of Israel'.

We
Isa.

sometimes

find

Sh'kmta and Y'kard coupled;


'That causeth the Sh'kmta of

'the Dwelling of the Glory'

4o

22

'

He

that sitteth

upon

the circle of the earth'.


24

His
'

kara
'.

to dwell in lofty

strength
Ps.

44

'Wherefore hidest Thou


face?'

Wherefore causest Thou the


Shklntd of Thy
depart?'

Thy

kdrd

to

Or, with inversion of order


Isa.

For mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of


'

65

For mine eye hath seen the


Y'kara
the

of the

Sh'kinta of
'.

hosts'.

King

of the ages

This

last

passage, from Isaiah's vision,

leads us to a point

which proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that when Jn. describes our Lord's Self-manifestation as 8oa he has in mind
the Y*kara of the Targums.*
Isa.

In Jn. i2 4(U1 the writer, after quoting


ravra. turev 'Ho-cuas 6Yi elSey TI,V

1U
,

adds the Statement,

8dov

avrov.

The opening

of the vision (Isa. 6') runs in Heb., 'I

saw

the Lord sitting upon a throne ', and this is rendered in Targ., e Other 'I saw the Y kard of the Lord resting on His throne'.
instances in Jn. of
avrov, II
40

Soa

in this
o^rrj

sense are, 2 U

e<ai/e'/o<ocrei/
4

r^v

&6av

cav Trwrrevtnys
e/A^v.

rrjv

S6av

rov

tov, I'J'

tra #eco/3tu<rtv rr)v

S6av

TTJV

We

are

now

in a position to maintain that the Ao'yos-conception

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

PRELIMINARY TEST
x "m?

of the Prologue must undoubtedly be derived from the third and most frequent Targumic conception representing God in manifestation;
that of the
;;*!

'the

Word

of the Lord'.

We

Memra

should no doubt trace the origin of the conception of the N"pp*O to O. T. passages in which Heb. dabhar 'Word' is

connexion which almost suggests hypostatization, 20 Ps. icy 'He sent forth His Word and healed them'; e.g. G s 33 the Word of the Lord were the heavens made'. By This latter passage, with its reference to the Word's action in s Creation, recalls the repeated Ea^g "iN ! 'And God said' in Gen. i,

employed
'
-

in a

'

where the Heb. verb


from which
Targg.
acting,
in

"*PN

'amar

is

identical with the

Aram, root

Memra

is

derived.

Memra

occurs repeatedly in the


as speaking, which seemed too

passages where the Heb. represents

God

or manifesting Himself in a manner

anthropomorphic to Jewish thought of later times. This may be illustrated from the occurrences of the term in the first few
chapters of Genesis.

Heb.

Targ.

Gen. 3 s 'And they heard the


voice of the
ing, &c.'
10

Lord God walkvoice'.

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

'I

heard

Thy

heard

the
'.

voice

of

Thy
His

Memra
6

'And
that

it

repented the Lord

'And

the

Lord repented

in

He
it

had made man

'.

Memra because He had made man


'.
'

6'

'

For

repenteth

Me

'.

Because
the

have repented
'.

in

My

Memra
8
1

'And
heart,
c.'

the Lord said in His


I

'And

Lord
,

said in (or by)


I

will not again curse,

His
'

Memra
J

will

no more

curse,
is

c.

12

'

This

the token
I

of the

This

is

the token of the coveI am making beMemra and you My


'.

covenant which

make
'.

be-

nant which

tween

Me

and you

tween

So

in

We

cannot

fail

to notice that in Jn.


all

14

the writer

no doubt

with intention

brings together

three of these

Targumic con-

OF PROLOGUE
ceptions.*

39
the

In *ai

Ao'yos

o-ap

lyf.vf.ro
\

we have

Memra;

in

KOL etrKTyi/oxreK ev

rjfjuv

the SJl''ktnta
is

in

/cat

e^cacra/xc^a r^f

Soav aurou

the

#ra.

This

evidence that, so far from his owing his

an Alexandrine source, he is soaked through and through with the Palestinian Jewish thought which is repreNor would the teaching of the Prologue sented by the Targums. need time for its development. Any disciple of our Lord who
Aoyos-doctrine to

had heard the Targumic rendering of the O.T. in the synagogue, and who was capable of recognizing a superhuman power shining through the Master's Personality in His mighty acts, of detecting
the Divine voice in
that in

His teaching, and


fail

at length of

apprehending

His Presence on earth God had come


to

to dwell

among

men, could hardly

draw

the inference that here


to

was the

grand fulfilment of O. T. conceptions so familiar the Aramaic paraphrase.


Tr\r)pr}<;

him through

^api-ros

/ecu

aAr}Oeias.

The
is
is

reference
6 Aoyos

of this statement

back

to the

main subject of the sentence,


a parenthesis
that

which makes
It

Kat

eOfaordfjieOa KT\.

certainly

awkward.

would be

possible to

a misreading for TrA^p^t referring 15 to TT/V Soav avrov. which speaks of the witness If, however, v. , of John, and somewhat harshly breaks the connexion of thought,

assume

TrA^s

be misplaced, and properly to follow after the Prologue before v. 19 ('John bear witness And this is the In v. 1G on e* witness of John, c.'), then another theory lies open.

may be supposed

to

TOV TrXrjpwfjLaTOS avrov

rjiJ.^ TTOLVTCS eAaySo/xev, i.e.


',

&*!??}

iW^S

'^V.r'P

l^.r

may

mean, not

'

because

but

'

He who

'

(the

assumed mistrans4-13

get the statement, 'Full of grace and truth was He of whose fullness we have all received '. Aramaic, literally rendered, would express ' Full of grace and truth (was) He who of His fullness we this by,
).

lation is a converse

one

to that

noted in w.

Thus we

have
v.

all
1S
.

received

'.

/Aovoycvr/s

o?.

the variant
* This has
is

//.ovoyev^s

This reading has stronger attestation than It must vtos, which looks like a correction.

been noted by Dalman, WJ. p. 231. the reading of Cod. D. Deissmann (LAE. pp. 125 ff.) defends ir\rjprjs as an indeclinable adjective, on the score of popular usage; and is followed by

t This

(NTG? p. 50). The same view was earlier put forward by Blass, Grammar I^Eng. tr. 1898), 31, 6, and by C. H. Turner in Journal of Theol. Studies
Moulton
i

(1900), pp. 120

ff.

4o

PRELIMINARY TEST
'

be admitted, however, that the expression (though fully in accord with the teaching of the Prologue) is hardly to be expected after No man hath seen God at any time'. It may the preceding,

be suggested that the Aramaic Knjg Tn^ 'the only- begotten of God ', has been misunderstood as Knjg TIT (Absolute for Construct State), and so rendered, the only-begotten God '.
'

It thus appears that nearly every verse of the Prologue yields evidence pointing to an Aramaic original. Besides, however, the

which have been discussed, we notice generally the simplicity of construction, with its fondness for co-ordination (i) of sentences linked by KO.L (cf. especially w. L3 5 10 11 14 ) and (2) the
special points
-

cases of parallelism in thought and expression a marked trait of Hebrew poetic composition. Close study of this latter

many

characteristic brings to light a

most interesting

fact.

The Prologue

seems

take the form of a hymn, written in eleven parallel couplets, with comments introduced here and there by the writer. This may be clearly seen in the Aramaic translation which follows,
to

together with an English rendering of it. In making the translation On the the Judaean dialect has been used as far as possible. distinction between the Judaean and Galilaean dialects of Aramaic,

see Dalman,

Gramm.

pp. 33

ff.*

Kin

Kin
T~:

TT

NN

rn!>

.n^bapN vh w
*

The

differences are slight.


.

We
|

have chosen

KiP!
T-:

see' rather than


.

NDH, JH* T -;
-

'know'

rather than

ist plural suffix

N3

D2n, in^N 'but'


rather than

in preference to

N?N

and the nominal

verbal tst plural suffix N3

rather than
"H

p_

Possibly the Relative should be "H as in Biblical Aramaic; but


is

is

the

Choice of the Judaean dialect authorship put forward on pp. 133 ff.

Targumic form.

bound up with the view of

OF PROLOGUE
by "pnp^ vinp.b
NTIN

41

pnn

.^nv

a^c^

Nin

.N-iinj

by Trio*"] fn^N *rnra

wn wn

r6g |p "wp aqaa Kb ,4s a*a

jn

xnbg

33

(pnn

or)\inc|3

Nmen

pnb nn^
or)

ND'

IP

|p
N3PI

\o
5

bia

a^bp
po
'

IP" ]

; :

fP ND^'Ipl N3H

A'tp

wn Nin Nawa
'

nw

Nnb^

n^n>

/nioi* |p K'JN

Mn

^b Nnbx

1.

And
2.

In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God.
the

And God was

Word

He was
3.

in the

beginning with God.

All things

by

And
4.

without
in

Him were made; Him there was made


life,

naught

Because

Him was
was the

And
5.

the

life

light of

mankind.

And And

the light in darkness

was shining,
it

the darkness obscured

not.

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

42

PRELIMINARY TEST
into the world.

all might believe in it. That one was not the light, but one who It was the true light that lighteth should bear witness of the light.

every

man coming
6.

He was
Him was

in the world,

And And

the world by the world

made,

knew Him

not.

7.

Unto His own He came, And His own received Him


Him,
to

not.

As many

as received

them gave

He power

the sons of

God -to

those that believe in His

to become name; because He

was born, not of blood, nor of the will of a man, but of God.
8.

will of the flesh,

nor of the

And And

the
set

Word was made flesh, e His Sh kmtd among us.

9.

And we

beheld His Glory, as of the only-begotten of the Father. Glory

10.

He was

full

of grace and truth,

Of Whose

fullness

we

all

have received,

And

grace for grace.


11.

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

No man
the

hath ever seen


of the Father

God

the only-begotten of God,

Who

is

in

bosom

He
the

hath revealed.'

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. In this form stichos b of a couplet
does not offer a more or less complete echo of stichos a, but adds something more which completes the sense of the distich, thus
g Dr. Driver (Literature of the O. T. p. 363) remarks that 'this kind of rhythm is all but peculiar to the most elevated poetry'; and quotes as instances Ps. 29% 92*, 93*,

forming, as

it

were,

its

climax.

though much distinct, Songs of Ascents" where a somewhat emphatic word is repeated from (Pss. 121-34), one verse (or line) in the next, as Ps. i2i lb2 (help); v. 3b 4 v. 4b 3a ;

94 96
,

13

H3

'There

is

less

forcible

and

something analogous " in some of the

to

it,

'

'

v.

8a
;

i22

2b 3a
-

&c.'

Climactic parallelism

is

very characteristic

OF PROLOGUE
of the

43

Song of Deborah

see note in the writer's following examples

Commentary on
be noted in the

Judges, pp. 169 f. poem of the Prologue


4.

The
:

may

Because

in

Him was And the

life
life
|

was the
was

light of

mankind.

5.

And

the light in darkness

shining,

And
7.

the darkness

obscured
|

it

not.

Unto His own

He

came,
|

And His own


9.

received

Him
the

not.

And we

beheld His glory,

Glory

as
|

of

only-begotten

of the

Father.
10.

He was

full

of grace and truth,


|

Of Whose
Of
It

fullness
i,

we

all

have received.

the remaining couplets,


3, 6,

2,

and 8 may be reckoned as

synonymous, while

and

are antithetical.

should be noted that the couplets, besides being parallel, appear also to be rhythmical, each line containing three stresses.
In
v.
ll
,

in place of
'

&LCL 'Ir/a-ov

Xpicrrov the translation offers


'I^o-ou

'

the Messiah

simply, metri gratia.

may

through very naturally have

come

in as a later addition.

Additional Note on the interpretation of Jn.


the

13

as referring

to

Virgin-Birth

(cf.

p. 34).

There is an essential unity in the teaching of St. Luke, St. Paul, and St. John as to the mode and meaning of the Incarnation which ought not to be overlooked. All go back in thought to the
appearance of Jesus Christ on earth as a new Creation, to be compared and contrasted with the first Creation of the world and

draw upon Gen. i, 2 in working out creative act was the formation of in upon the physical darkness which had previously light, breaking covered primeval chaos, so was the birth of Christ the dawn
;

of mankind

and

all

therefore

their theme.

Just as God's

first

of Light in the midst of the spiritual darkness of the world. That this idea was in St. Paul's mind is definitely stated

by him

in 2 Cor.

5 6
'

ov yap eavrovs

/O7pv(ro-o//.ev

aAAa Xptorov

'

44

A
on
6

PRELIMINARY TEST
eo5 6 tiTTwv

'Ex CTKOTOUS

</>co9 Xafti/^ei,

o? cAa/xi^e*/ ev ra??

pos <amo7/,ov r^9 yyaxrecos r^s


Cf. also
i

80^5
5",

TOI)

eo)
i
13
.

ei/

Tr/aoo-wTrw

Cor.

4*,

2 Cor. 6

14
,

Eph.

Col.

Allusion
i,

to

Gen. i, which is clearly seen in the opening words of Jn. 'In the beginning', seems also to be behind w.** where it
t

is

Creation, represented the Agent introduction of Light into the world, and, by an almost imperceptible transition, the writer's thought passes from the introduction of life
stated that the Logos, as the
in

and
tion.

light at Creation to its spiritual introduction at the Incarna-

Moreover, just as the introduction of

light into the

world

at

Creation did not immediately abolish physical darkness, but led to the setting by God of a division p^?l, Gen. i 4 ) between light and
5 darkness, so (Jn. i ) in the Incarnation the Light was shining in darkness and the darkness did not obscure it ; its introduction into

the world producing a /cptW whereby Light and darkness were sharply distinguished and men had to range themselves under the

one or the other

19

~21

'

(Jn.

cf.

9,

I2

5 36 46
-

).*

Turning
eTTt ere, /cat

to the

Birth-narrative of St. Luke,

it

is

surely not fanciful to find in the

Words cf the angel


'Yi/ao-rov

35 in I , ILvev^a ayiov eVe/Ye^o-erai

Swa/u?

eVto-Ktacret, <rot,

an implied reference to Gen.

2
,

where the

pictured as brooding or hovering (nsrn) over the face of the waters in the initial process of Creation which issues in
Spirit of
is

God

the production of light.t So for St. means the dawning of avaroXr) l vif/ovs,
tr/aa

Luke the Divine


3

Birth

e7ri<ai/ai rots eV o-Ko'ra /cat


").

Oavarov KafajfifVOtS

8 '' 9

(i'

),

and

c/>o>s

ets

aTTOKaXvij/w lOvwv (2

Again, the connexion in thought between the Old Creation and


* A similar mystical interpretation of the Genesis passage is given in Midrash Bereshith Rabba, par. iii. 10; Rabbi Yannai said, When He began to create the world, the Holy One ^blessed be He) observed the works of the righteous and the works of the wicked. "And the earth was a waste", i.e. the works of the
'

wicked.

"And God said, Let there be light", i.e. the works of the righteous. "And God divided between the light and between the darkness " between the
works
of the righteous
i.e.

and the works of the wicked.

"

And God

called the light,

the works of the righteous. "And the darkness he called, night'', i.e. the works of the wicked. "And there was morning", i.e. the works of the

day",

righteous.

"And there was evening", i.e. the works of the wicked. "One day", inasmuch as the Holy One ^blessed be He) gave them one da}'. And what
is

this?

The Day

of Atonement.'

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

f This Genesis passage

'

OF PROLOGUE
the

45

New

is

explicit in St. Paulas teaching as to the first

Adam

and

the second

Adam

in

Cor. I5

4
;

ovrws KOL yeypaTrrat 'EyeVero 6

worked out in the frequent antithesis between a-dp* and and in the representation of baptism as a burial with Christ TTvcvfjia., in which 6 TroAcuo? ^/xwi/ ai/0pu>7ros is put off, and the baptized rises
This
is

with Christ to newness of


antithesis

life

3ff (Rom. 6

-).

We
,

find

the

same
which

between

o-ap

and
fi3

TrreD/^a in Jn. 3",

6 M the whole of the

discussion with
is

Nicodemus
In 6

in ch.
it

3 turning on the
stated, in

new

birth

IK rov
7n/ev//.a

7n/ev'//,aro<?.

is

contrast to o-ap, that

TO

eerrtv

TO ^WOTTOIOW, a

St. Paul's eyfVeTo

...

thought of which the connexion with lo-^aTos 'ASa/x ets Tn/ev/xa ^WOTTOIOW can hardly
it

be accidental.

This connexion would,

may

be presumed, be

generally explained by the theory of the influence of Pauline Theology upon the writer of the Fourth Gospel and this may
;

be

surely beyond question is that St. Paul's OUTWS KOL yeypaTTTcu refers not simply to the quotation from Gen. 2 7 'He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and
fact,
is
,

so.

however, which

man became
first

Adam and

a living soul ', but to the whole passage relating to the the second Adam, from eyevero down to ^WOTT-GIOW.

6 eo-^aro? 'ASa/x ets Trreti/xa ^COOTTOIOW depends upon eyei/ero introducing the quotation equally with what goes before, from which it should be divided by a comma merely, and not by a colon (WH.) or full Had it been St. Paul's own addition, could he stop (R.V.).

possibly have phrased the sentence thus, and not have written at
least 6 Se lo-^aTos 'A8a/x eyeveTO as Trvev/xa ^WOTTOIOVV ?
If,

derived ?

however, the whole passage is a quotation, whence was it There can be no doubt that the form in which St. Paul's
is

argument

cast is influenced

by Rabbinic speculation, and

that

the Rabbinism of Palestine.*


*

Though born
'

at Tarsus,
is

he claims
in

The expression
to us in

p2 N~)n

CHK
e

the

first

Adam
the

'

well

known

early
is

Midrashic literature.

p"inXn D*1K 'the second Adam',

i.e.

the Messiah,

not

known

Midrash before the


(cf.

I5th century A. D

Thought, pp. 40 flT.) ; R. Hoshaiah, 3rd century A.D.) brings the Messiah into contrast with 'the first Adam when, in commenting on Gen. a 4 These are the generations of the heaven
' ' ,

work of a Spanish Jew in the Thackeray, '/'he Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish but the Midrash Beresliilh Rabba (ascribed by tradition to

N we shdlo m,

and the earth

',

it

quotes earlier Rabbinical speculation as to the reason


'

why

the
,

word

for

'

generations

is

written plene with

only

in this

passage nnd

in

Ruth 4 18

46
to

A
be
c

PRELIMINARY TEST
3*),
i.

E/3palo<s e

'E/fycuW (Phil.

e.

not a 'EXA^i/io-r^s

(cf.

Acts 6

),

Jerusalem under Gamaliel, who was one of the most prominent Rabbinic teachers of the time

and he obtained his education

at

3 (Acts 22 ).

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

peasant-class, but

of the priests
teaching, but

',

embraced (according to Acts 6 ) a great company who would scarcely have been unversed in Rabbinic
7
'

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. Testimonia,
composed with the object of meeting Rabbinic Judaism upon
its

own

be objected to this suggestion that elsewhere ground.* the N. T. yiypaitrai introduces a definite citation from throughout the O. T., and that this is also the case with allusions to fj ypa<f>r}
If
it

These are the generations of Perez (ITrVin but elsewhere always m/lfi), and cites the inference that 1, which numerically = 6, implies that the six things which Adam lost through the Fall shall be restored at the coming of 'the son of Perez ^
1
,

'

i.e.

the Davidic Messiah.

The Messiah appears


,

as a life-giver

(cf.

nixvua faoitoiovv}

the Midrash hag-gadol to Genesis (compiled by a Yemenite Jew of the I4th u states that there are six century) which, commenting on Gen. i6 persons whose
in

names were given to them before their birth, viz. Ishmael, Isaac, Moses, Solomon, On the last it saj'S, 'The King-Messiah, because Josiah, and the King-Messiah. " Before the sun his name shall be Yinnon ". And it is written, why is his name
called

Yinnon

because he

is

destined to quicken those


is

who

sleep in the dust.


'

'

Here

(he Scriptural passage quoted


1

Ps. 72

17

\Ci&

p3> $ICB* "Oab

Before the

sun shall his name propagate (or produ :e life""}, and the verbal form, only here in He who quickens This Midrash is quoted by O.T., is treated as a Messianic title
'
'

'.

n, who refers it to Moses had-Darshan, born at Narbonne about the middle of the nth century A. D. Late as this is, we have the evidence of the Talmud (Sanhedrin, 98 6) that Yinnon was early regarded

Raymund

Martin

in his

Pugio

Fidei, chap,

ii,

as a Messianic

for in the passage in question the pupils of R. Yannai (an generation 2nd to 3rd century A. D.) maintain, as a compliment The Psalm-passage is to their teacher, that the Messiah's name is to be Yinnon. quoted in Midrash Bereshith Rabba, par. i. 5, as evidence that the name of the
title,

Amora

of the

first

Messiah existed prior to the creation cf the world, though that Yinnon is to be taken as his name.

it

is

not there stated

Though no part of
ist

this

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. know that types Sanday, The Gospels in the Second Century, p. 272; and prophecies were eagerly sought out by the early Christians, and were soon
l

We

collected in a kind of

common

stock from which every one

drew

at his pleasure.'

OF PROLOGUE
(with the possible exception of
i
,

47

"Atog

6 epyarr/s TOV pia-Oov avrov

Tim. 5 18 where our Lord's words seem to be included under the term),

it may be replied that St. Paul's quotation does consist of such a citation from the O. T. plus a deduction therefrom, and would ex hypothesi be derived from a collection of proofs based on the

O. T. and therefore drawn

e/c

TW

ypa<j>Z>v.

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/cXeKroi ev/>e-

^TTOTC,

o>s

yeypaTTTcu, TroXXoi AcXryrot, oXiyot 8


is

Similarly, the formula Xe'yei jap f) ypa^rj i6 5 to introduce a quotation from Enoch Sg 56 66
-

used in Barnabas

If,

then, this interpretation of


is

Cor.

15*'

as wholly a quotation
St.

be correct, the implication

that

some time before

Paul wrote
first

his Epistle in A.D. 55-6, the antithesis

between the

Adam

and Christ as the second

Adam had

been worked out

in Christian

surely modifies the question

Rabbinic circles and was used in argument. This conclusion of the dependence of the Fourth
Paul in regard to the teaching here involved, does the alternative theory that both may have dependent upon a common earlier method of theological
St.
it

Gospel upon

suggesting as

been

expression of the truths of the Incarnation. St. Luke supplies us with further food for thought in this connexion. 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's words and Nunc


all

at the

Annunciation are no less a poem


to cite passages

cast in rhythmical parallelism than are the Magnificat, Benedictus,


dimittis.

We

have had occasion

from

except the Magnificat, in arguing the unity of their with that of St. Paul and St. John. thought may now note the fact that St. Luke carries back our Lord's genealogy to Adam,
these,

We

'

who was

the son of

God
is

'

(3).

What

is

the reason for this ?

Doubtless one reason


is

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 ?

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

Testimonia for general use.


links itself

an earlier source, embodied in a collection of eov If, then, St. Luke's TOV 'ASa//,, rov
eov in the

on

to vlos

words of the Annunciation, and


St.

if

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.

CHAPTER

II

THE SENTENCE
Asyndeton.
highly characteristic of Aramaic to open its sentences abruptly without the use of a connective particle. In this respect Hebrew is very marked, the latter language its contrast with
IT
is

regularly employing 'And' in prose to connect a sentence with what goes before, the force of this 'And 'varying as determined

by the context (And, So, Then, But, Yet, &c.). This difference in usage may well be illustrated from the Book of Daniel, in which
chs. i
1

24a, 8
1

12 are written in Hebrew, while

chs.

2 45

7 are in

Aramaic.
2 Aa (Hebrew) consists of 23 sentences. Of these, 22 (i.e. all but the opening verse of ch. i) begin with 'And* (sometimes variously rendered in R.V. ' Then ', But ', ' So ').

Dan.

'

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

49

With
v.
v.
6

connective particle.
v.'
a

Without connective particle.


:fe
'

'And if. 'For if. in n v. xrbw\ 'And the word'. n v. Km! 'And the decree'. u v. iwn }HN3 'Then Daniel'. v* b Krta pn 'Then the word 16 v. *?y Swrn 'And Daniel went
|m
9

my 'Answered
They answered
ruy
'.

the

king'.

V J Uy v
*

S ^D

'Answered the
the

king'.

KnOT uy 'Answered
Chaldaeans
'.

'.

v ^ nri
v.
n

^p
and

t>

<

Because of this'.

n>

1DW

njy

'He answered
*

v.

11

*?W\

pK

'Then Daniel'.

said'.

v.

l9a

fork

p
'.

'

Then

to

*>

fo^

n3y
'.

Answered

Daniel

Daniel

50
196
z>.
'

THE SENTENCE
i^n pK Then
'

Daniel
'.

22
'.
z;.

Nin

'

He

revealeth
'

'.

'

v.
z;.

2a

pK
ruw
ipl
'

'

Then Arioch
I
'.

ni>N

^
my

To

thee the
'.

30
35
z;.

And pK3

God
were
v.
2

of

fathers
'

'Then
'.

Jnp
this*.

Because

of

broken
39
z;.

-pmi 'And
K'jrai tt5>i

after thee'.

v.-

n:y

'Answered

the

40
z;.

'And the fourth


'.

king

'.

kingdom
v* nrVTn
42
z/.
1

v?

my
Daniel
'.

'

Answered
1
.

'And
'.

whereas
2

thou sawest

z;.
2

>n

'Thy dream
'Thou,

N^n

43
z;.

ny3VS1 'And the toes'. nnnn Hi 'And whereas thou

z>.

king'.

3
z;.
3
z;.

id.

sawest '.
44
z/.

pn NO
n
'

'This image
'

'.

46
z>.

48
z;.

days a^o pnxi ' Then the king'. tota |HK Then the king '.
'.
'

pV3l And
'

in their

z\

That image '.


'.
'

v?
3 z;.

nm

Thou sawest
This
is
'.
'

n:n

the

v.

49

^m 'And Daniel'.

dream
v? 1 ND^D
^.
45

nrotf

Thou,
'.

king

nmn H
NDfe

^3p ^D

'Whereas

thou sawest
z;.

47

njy

'Answered the

king'.

characteristic

This great frequency of unconnected sentences is equally of the rest of the Aramaic portion of the Book
In
ch.

of Daniel.

8 the

Hebrew

begins again, and here

we have

27 sentences (corresponding with the verse-division). Of these, 24 begin with 'And' (sometimes rendered, 'Then', 'Now', 'So',
lA 'Yea'), and 3 only (vv. ) without any connective particle. It will thus be seen how clear is the distinction in style between

167 B.C.). When we come down to the Hebrew of the Mishna, we do find a paucity of connective particles, entirely owing to the influence of Aramaic.

Aramaic and Hebrew even of so

late a date

(c.

great frequency of sentences opening without a connective If we particle is a marked characteristic of the Fourth Gospel. y> take ch. i in speeches (vv.' ~, &c.), where neglecting openings

Now

asyndeton

is

natural in Greek as in English

we

find 34

asyndeton

THE SENTENCE
'

51

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

doubly as frequent as

With connective particle.


V.

Without connective
eV

particle.

V?

OVTOS

rjv.

V*
V.
4

Travra OL avrov tyci

v:

V.
V.

V.
V.

OVK

rjv e/<eti/os

TO

</>a>5.

ty TO
10
11
>

^>a>s

TO dA^^tvov.

V.

(.V
'

V
V.
V.
l4a

* t f TO) KOO"/XO) r)V. v * \ /} "S eis Ta iota -nAuf.

Kal 6 Xoyos.
V.

ub Kal V.
V.'
6

paprvpci.

OTl

K TOV
6

v} ia on

v."
V.
}8a

i x df
fov ovSets ewpa/ce.

KCLL

avrr) eoriV.

V
V.
V.
z'

KOL
a

Kal Kal Aeyet.


Kal

n
lc
2

V."

"
a-rr

V*
,

furav ofo.
Kal
K al n
Ti'o^i/

24

25a
.

25?'
.

V'
V?
2*
Z>.

v/xoiv

TavTa ev JSrjOavLa
TTJ

29
ZJ.

7ravpiov ySAeV

V."

oa

OVK

rySctv avrov.

V^

Kai

jJLaprvpr]o-v.

E 2

52
V.
V.'
3

THE SENTENCE
/cdyto

OVK

"fl&e

O.VTOV
Try

/cdyw ewpa/ca.
/cat

tiravpiov Tra Ati/

V.

36

/cat

01 Se

eW.

390
fl.

Aeyet a

^XBavo^v.

V.

wpa fy

u>S

oWrr;.

^v 'Av8/3as.
OVTO<S. Via

V.

fjyaycv avrov.

avrw.

/cat

evpt/cet
3>l'A.t7r7TOS
4G

V ^^ O

Aeyet avrai 6

480
t;.

Xeyct avro) Na^avaijA.


'Ir)(Tov<s.

avru
'lrjcrov<s.

V.

/cat

Acyet atrai.

the Fourth Gospel,

In order to prove that this characteristic is found throughout we may take two other chapters from the contains middle and end consisting mainly of narrative. Ch.

n
-

59 sentences, of which 17 have no connective particle (vv. 9 "*- 11 23 24 lg conta ns 52 sentences, and 20 of these 25.26.27.84JB.396fc.4o.44W..48j. 8 34 K 6is 36 1Ab **- r 20 2 '- a 2c ao are without connective
s-

:;1

:t7

particle (vv.

).

a smaller proportion than in c/z. i ; yet, as compared with the Synoptists, it is a very high one. To take three chapters at
is

This

random from the

Mt. 3 contains 13 sentences, none without latter connective particle; Mk. i contains 38 sentences, 2 only without 8 Lk. 8 contains 60 sentences, 2 only connective particle (w. ); without connective particle (zw. 8 M9 ).
1
-

'

Asyndeton

aTrcKpLOrj,

ixcK/K^rav

asyndeton

np.y, faj|.

In the openings of unconnected sentences given above from the Aramaic of Dan. 2, it will be noticed that 9 out of the 22 take
the form,
'

Answered

(so and-so)

'.

This

is

very characteristic,

THE SENTENCE
,

53

28 examples occurring in the six Aramaic chapters, while there ' 14 ' are only 2 cases of Then answered (5 17 6 ), and none at all of

'And answered'.

In contrast, the whole

Hebrew O.T.
'

offers

only 2 such unconnected openings, 'Answered (Song 2', rendered 56 'spake' in R.V. ; Ps. n8 ), while there are 145 cases of 'And

answered (so-and-so)

', pn, ujn, &c. Thfodotion's version of Dan. does not always represent this Aramaic 'Answered'; but where it does, it regularly renders

airtKpiO-Y),

aTTfKpiOrjo-av

(11
5 7 - 10
-

times
,

once

a7roKpi0eis),

preserving the

asyndeton

in 4 cases (2

12 passages, in all followed by 'and said', before statement of the words spoken, are as follows
:

27 4 ), but elsewhere prefixing KCU. These of which the Aramaic phrase is regularly

2
27
"ICN1

nay
pL6r)(ra.v
.
. .

KCU
/cat e?7rev.

lay

Kat \eyovcrw.
Kat
/cat
.

nay

etTrev.

2"
2 47

nay
nay
nay

Kat aTreKpirj

Aeyet.

Kat a7ro/cpi0ets
Kat aircKptOr] Kat
.

tiTrtv. ttTrev.

Kat
. .

uy
nay

a.irtKpi6-r](Ta.v
a.TTf.Kp{6r)
.
.

Kat

Kat

Kat aTTfKpiOr]

KOL

CITTCV.

nay

Kat

e?7rev.

In the Fourth Gospel aireKplOvj or openings 65 times (see below),

hand,
os B

we have
5
6

16

25
,

a-n-cKpiOr)
11
;

ow, 7

I2 34
19
]

occurs as asyndeton On the other once, if. 18 20 47 ow, 2 , 7 , 9


;

a.7TKpi6r] f

aTTCKptVaro ovv,

23 ow, I3" ; 6 8e l^o-oO? a-rroKpLveTai, I2 ; i.e. 11 cases of this verb as an opening with connective particle, as against 66 cases without. Elsewhere in the whole N.T. anrcKptOri as an asyndeton opening

occurs only in Mk. i2- 9


is

In the Synoptists the


Sc)
11

common phrase
said',

Se

a7roKpi#ets

(aTroKpitfeis

CITTCV,

which rather resembles the

common Hebrew phrase HEN


of which
it is

|jn

'And he answered and

Of

frequently the rendering in LXX. the 65 cases of asyndeton opening aar^piOvi,

aTrcKpiOrjo-av in

54
Jn.,
,49 1 j

THE SENTENCE
38 introduce the words spoken without further verb,
5

viz.
,.31 I0
I
26
;
>

3> 5

C 7.11

^7.68.70
>

-20.46

Q19.33.34.49.54
;

_3.11.27
>

T -25.32.33.34 1O

T T9 ri
.
.

>

TO J

8.:ifi

l8 5.8.20.23.34.35.36.3^

j^.ll.lB.M

^5. wg
-

^^
-

haye

fc^^
-

.-

JVe'yW,

while in the 26 other cases the opening is 48 50 2 19 3 3 9 10 27 , 4 10 13 17, 6 26 29 43 7 21 52 , 8' 4 4s , KO! elTTcv (e?7rav), viz. i :8 23 30 303436 7 It is difficult to resist the conclusion i2 , is I4 18, 2o' , 9
-

:!!)

that a.TTKpiOj] KOL

and

aTreKpiOrjo-av

a literal rendering of the Aram. IBM np.V KOL eiTrav of P~ ?^T ] ty, for which, as we have seen,
eiTrev

is

|J

they stand in Theodotion's Daniel.

Asyndeton
Similarly,
-_8

Xeyei, Xeyovo-iv

asyndeton ^P^ (participle\

we
f.%

without connective particle.


21.25.26.34.49.50

>5^79
-50

constantly find that Jn. uses Xeyct as an opening The cases are i 39 46 48, 25 7 3 4 , 47.11.15.16.17.19.
-

O39
-

-.12

T ,23.24.27.39 6/8-40.44 11
3 10 ]2
-

T O 6.8.9.10.36.37 I3 >

T . 5.6.8.9.22 T4 >

jg5.i7.26.38

jQ

6 15
-

2O
2O 15 8
23

13 ' 5 16 17/29
-

2i

15M8

16

'

er

17M*-';2

a
in

total
8 34
-

of

63
;

without
.
. .

connective
;

particle

occurs
,

n
9

i6 29 , 2i 3

Ae'yet,

aA.Xot IXcyov in
/cat

io 21

i2 29
14

On

the other hand,

we have
19', 2 1
-

the opening

Xe'yei

in

2 48
42
;

ig

Kat Xeyovo-tv in
6
,

2O 13
17

Kat IXeyci/ in
5 '7
;
-

65
,

KOL cXeyov in

Xcyct ovv in
in

13% l8
;

Xeyovo-tv o*v in
,

4 71 8 19 25 9 10 16 ii 36 i6 18 i 9 01 IXcyov Xe'ya 8e in i2 IXeycv 8c in 6 20 27 8e in io ; etra Xcyet in 19% 2O i.e. a total of 31 openings with connective particle, as against 70 without such particle.
,

9 2o 25

17
;

tXcyci/

ow

8 31
;

eXcyov

ow

in 4^, 5',

In

Mt.
,

Xe'yei

as an
8 18 20
-

3 i6 15 , if' 10 times,

i822

I9
-

viz. 9^,

i9

7 10
,

asyndeton opening occurs 16 times, viz. 207 21 23 2i 31 42 22 43 2 6- 5 35 64 27 Xfyownv 2 o 7 233 2i 3 41 22 42 27 22 In Mk. Xeya thus
-

-22

--

never

Xeyoixru/ in

8 19 .*

In Lk.

Xe'yet

in

22

16',

i9

Xeyovo-tv never.

In Acts there are no occurrences of

Xeyet, Xeyovo-iv

as asyndeton

openings. That the historical present in Jn., of which Xe'yei is the most frequent example, represents the similar usage of the participle
in Aramaic, is argued later on (p. 88). There are no instances of the asyndeton opening "PN (participle) in Dan., because the
*

The absence
Gospel
is

this

literal translation

of this asyndeton usage in Mk. is a point against the view that of an Aramaic document. There are very many

cases where Mk. uses nai Ae-ye*, o 8< A*'-yei as openings, where Jn. would certainly have used asyndeton keya. Cf. e.g., for the difference in style, the dialogue of MK.

THE SENTENCE
writer of this book prefers

55

the

formula

'

Answered and said*

so
to

which we have already noticed. This latter phrase, however, much favoured in Dan., seems to have been practically confined
as in the Peshitta of the O.T.*
in
is

Western Aramaic, being unused in Syriac, except in translation, Ordinarily in Aramaic, especially its Eastern branch, the asyndeton opening ~>BK ;^>/ (participle)
P
;

one of the most characteristic


;

features

of the language in

description of a dialogue
to a rendering

and

this naturally lends itself in

by the asyndeton

historical
first

Greek For present Aeyei.


is

example, the Syriac Ada Thomae in the offers twelve examples of the usage.

four pages (ed. Wright)

The
sat

following
(p.

literal

rendering of a dialogue-passage from this work

^o):

'And when they had embarked and


merchant says
to practise ?
to Judas,

down, Habban the

"What
to him,

is
'

the craft that thou art able

"

Judas says
a carpenter".

Carpentry and architecture

the

Habban the merchant says to him, "What art thou skilled to make in wood, and what in hewn stone?" Judas says to him, "In wood I have learned to make
work of
;

ploughs and yokes and ox-goads, and oars for ferry-boats and masts for ships and in stone, tombstones and shrines and temples

Habban the merchant says and palaces for kings". "I was seeking just such a workman"/
With
Jn. 2I
'

to

him,

this
1

15

we may compare

the

structure of the dialogue in

':

So when they had broken their fast, Jesus says to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me more than these?" He says to Him, "Yea, Lord; Thou knowest that I love Thee". He says to him, "Feed My lambs". He says to him again

He says a second time, "Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me?" I love Thee". He to Him, "Yea, Lord, Thou knowest that
"Tend My sheep". He says to him the third time, Peter was grieved son of John, lovest thou Me?" Simon, because He said to him the third time, "Lovest thou Me?"
says to him,

"

And he
sheep",'
*

said to
I

knowest that

Him, "Lord, Thou knowest all things; Thou " Feed love Thee ". Jesus says to him, My
25) the formula

According

to

Dalman (WJ.

p.

is

unknown

in

later

Jewish

Aramaic.

56

THE SENTENCE
This very striking resemblance
in

structure between the two


j-so/

Ae'ya and asyndeton usage is no mere chance and isolated phenomenon. Dialogues so framed are frequent in the Fourth Gospel (cf. especially the

passages

both as regards pictorial

references to Xeyci in chs.

4,

n,

13,

14,

18, 20),

and innumerable

parallels from Aramaic might be collected.*

Parataxis.
Peculiarly Semitic is the simplicity of construction employed throughout the Fourth Gospel. Sentences are regularly co-ordiSubordinate sentences are few and nated, and linked by KOI.

where the writer embarks exceptionally upon a somewhat complex sentence, he speedily becomes involved "4 but this passage, is more successful as Greek in difficulty. I3
far between.
,

In 6- 2~~- 4

point of style, practically stands alone. t Such simplicity of construction can of course to some extent be paralleled from the Synoptic sources, particularly from Mk. But not even in Mk.
in

does

it

attain anything like the

vogue which

it

has in Jn.

Comparative rarity of Aorist Participle describing action


anterior to finite verb.

In speaking above of Jn.'s phrase

SureKpifrri

KOI

tl-n-ev,

we

noticed

that the Synoptic equivalent subordinates the prior action by use of the Aorist Participle, e.g. 6 8e airoKpiO^ etTrev, i.e. the natural

Greek construction.
struction in Jn.

Though we
36

occasionally find this latter con. . .

e.g. i

/ecu

fyfiXfyas

Ae'yet

it is

far less

common

than approximate count yields the following figures, the proportions of which are worked out according to the
in the Synoptists.

An

pages of

WH.

* The asyndeton construction is also frequent in Rabbinic Hebrew (under the influence of Aramaic), though here in description of past events the Perfect is Several examples are cited by Schlatter (Sprache, pp. 25 f.). normally used.

Cf. e. g.
'

Midrash Rabba on Exodus,

par. v. 18

(Moses and Aaron before Pharaoh),

He

said to them,

Who

are ye ?

Holy One, blessed be He.


the Lord, &c.'

They said to him, We are the messengers of the What are ye seeking? They said to him, Thus saith
%

We

may

note that

v. z

contains

two out of the only seventeen occurrences


in Jn.

of the Genitive absolute

which are found

pp. in

WH.

58
I
8

THE SENTENCE
Aeyet auruJ Na.OavaijX
26
. . .

aTreKpiOrj

'I^crovs Kat eiTrev aur<S


<>;

(contrast

Mt. I7
Kat
7^

etTToVros Se 'ATTO

TWV dAAorptW,

avrw 6
.

'IryaoiSs.
r)v
TL<S

Lk. 21
/?ao-iAtKos.

rtvwi/

AeyoVrooj/

etTrev).

46

T/A^ev

ow

/cat

*HA$ov

ow

ot

VJTqpcnu Trpos roug dpxtepets

Kai,

<l>apio-aibu9,
.

Kai

aurots

eKeti/ot
'

28 (contrast Mt. S

Kat eA$oVros avrov


778*7

VTryvTrja-av

Mt. ly 14 24
O.VTOVS o

2 1 25).

1'

Kat o-Koria

eyeyoVet, Kat OUTTW eA^Av^et

'I?7(roi}s

16 (contrast Mt. 8

oi/^tas

Se

yei/o/x,ev>;5
.

TrpocrrjveyKav aura)).

1O

2! ' 24

Kat Treptezrarct

6 'Ir/o-ovs
29

ei/

ra>

tepw

eKUKAwcrai/ ovi/ avrov ot

'lovSatot (contrast Ilk. II

The

place of the

o^Awv eTra^pot^o/xei/cov rjp^aro Aeyeti/). Genitive absolute is also taken in Jn. by

Twv

8e

a temporal clause introduced by ore, a construction for which, as compared with the Synoptists, this writer shows a relative fond21 ness. Neglecting cases in which ore has an antecedent (e.g. Jn. 4
ep^erat
4 25 23 25 wpa ore. So 4 , 5 , 9 i6 ), there are 16 cases of ore introducing a temporal clause in Jn., as against 13 in Mt. 10 in Mk., 10 in Lk. If Jn. were as long as Mt., there would be propor, ;

tionately 21 cases;

if

as long as

13 cases.

The occurrences

of

Lk v 22 cases; if as short as Mk. ws= 'when' introducing a temporal


is

clause in Jn. are 16; Lk. 16; Mt. and Mk. none. In cases where the subject of the ore or o>s clause

the

same

as that of the principal clause, the temporal clause so introduced of course takes the place of an Aorist Participle in the nominative. These in Jn. are oYe, 6 24 , i3 12 , if 2 19 -^ t 2 i 18 ; <k, 2 9, 4 MO, j j6.2o.29.rs.3Y 2I 9 There remain 8 cases in which, the subject
,

j^

the Genitive absolute might have been used of the d)5 clause. These are ore, i 19 , 2- 2 ,

of the ore clause being different from that of the principal clause, and 5 similar cases ;
45

i2 16

17
,

13=",

2ou>s

4
,

2i

15
;

J>9,

2
;

23
,

12 - 16
,

10

i8

6
.

Similar cases in Lk. are


cases in which a ore or
<I>s

ore 6,

Mt. ore 7

Mk.
9.

ore

Thus

clause takes

the place of a Genitive absolute are in Jn. 13, as against Lk. 14,

Mt.
it

7,

Mk.

Though

the figures in Jn. and Lk. are thus similar,


is

should be borne in mind that Lk.

considerably longer (72 pp.

as against 53 pp.)> and also contains much more narrative, to which, in distinction from speeches, by far the greater number of such temporal clauses belong. Thus we are justified in finding
in

WH.

compared with the Synoptists, a preponderance of temporal clauses introduced by ore or ws, which serve to explain
Jn.,

as

THE SENTENCE
(along with

59

parataxis) the comparative rarity of the Genitive absolute in this Gospel. Now the use of *"]?> "I?, Syr. o 'when' to introduce a temporal clause is very common in Aramaic. This is the ordinary

clause which

construction employed in the Syriac versions to render a temporal Greek expresses by the Genitive absolute. The first

few cases of the Genitive absolute


this (the
literal

in

Lk.

will serve to illustrate


finite

rendering 'when' followed by the

verb gives the

representation of the Syriac construction).


rj

Lk. 2
Pal.

Syr.

Ufomo

*CDQ>+*O

]6o

*o

'when Quirinius was


'in

in

Syria '. Pesh. |u9ad=> tocLL90? )lciivi^Ha


in

the

hegemony of Q.
the

S/
Sin.

)ljcuf
S.'

Jjcoa^pj

UD<XL^O

^LA^

'in

years

of

Q.,

governor of
Lk. 2
4
'

2A3

KCU ore eyei/ero eroiv SwSeKa, avaftaivovr^v O.VTWV Kara. TO !$os

TT}S copras, KOL TeA.eiOKrarrwi' ras i^yuepas, KT\.

^c* ^\>OA^ CLCX^CD ^+Ji w<Y>\Ul ^ )6ot ,oc v>\, ^oo ),j^<x> oLajLol/ 'And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast; and when they had fulfilled the days, &c.' Construction of Sin. and Pesh. identical.
Pal.

Syr.

jfcooc^ o

Lk. 3
Pal.

rjyefJiovevovTOS

HOVTLOV IIiAaTov
yq.>o^p>

T7)$ 'lovScuas,

KT\.

Syr.

)u?c<o

^>cx^X^
'.

oao^^ia

)6o

,0

'when

Pontius Pilate was governor in Judaea


Sin. )?oo>*r>

uo^A9

Pontius Pilate in Judah

'.

^roa^is? lloivi^o^ 'in the So Pesh.

hegemony of

Lk. 3 la

Trpoo-SoK&VTOs Se rov Xaov, Kal SiaXoyi^o/xeVwv TTCLVTCUV

iv rats

/capStats (LVTUV.

Pal. Syr.
'

v oov^^=>

Now when

the multitude

yCoXdo ^ASa^^ooo )Jo^o was expectant, and

la^ajso

]6ot

*f

all

of

them were
Ujjo 'And
minds'.

debating in their hearts'. Sin., Cur. yoo^a.!^ ooot


the

^^K*o o^
him were

men

that were hearing

^AV,N^I>? reflecting in their


t

ooo

V> V.

)cot

60
ooo
John, and
all
'

THE SENTENCE
Now when the people were speculating concerning of them were debating in their heart'.
Se
ev ro>
fiaTrTio-Ofjvai

Lk. 321 'EyevTO


Pal. Syr.
U.V50.JC

aTravra rov

A.O.OV

KO!

'Ir/(rou

/?a.7rTto-$eVTOS KCU 7rpoa'v^0fjivov dveco^^^at TOJ/ ovpavov.

*o

uaas^
.

]^x> .solo Do^o

cu.fcv3l/

^o

^^i^

'

Nw

o^oa "*^>/ ^
came
to
;

**!

f*-^^
all

i*

P ass when

the

multitude had been baptized, and also the Lord Jesus had been baptized and had prayed, that the heavens were opened '.

oo *..aa_s. x^o*... &( \^ ^ CH^XO )co .^a.^ too ^And when all the people had been baptized, Jesus UsQjk, cu*J^L/ also was baptized. And when He was praying, the heavens were
Sin. Joot
JJ

-*5

opened
Pesh.

'.

J)-aa

.do

w>
it

^a^. ^{o
came

IL^XX o*Xs

..N^.V.

^ ^?

Joo

UXY,

cu*^lsL/

'Now

to pass,

when

all

the people were


praying,

baptized, Jesus also

was baptized. the heavens were opened '.


Lk. 42
Sin.
KOL o-WTeA.eo-$etcra>i/

And when He was

Pal. Syr. caret.

^>

)oo

^|^?

on which

He

fasted,

Jkjcu f+^as! >1^ He was hungry


'.

^o

'

and

after forty

days

Pesh. ^ao )l;~\

^jl j\\. ^o 'and when He had completed


hungry
'.

them, afterwards

He was

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

Two

(Mk.
-I

32

ore 18 v o ^Atos.
Se TOV fjXiov.

Lk. 4 SWOVTOS 16 \Mt. 8 oi/tas

40

Mk.

4" KOL ore di/eretXev 6 77X105.


8e ayarei'A.avTos.

Mt. 13" fjXiov Lk. 86 omits.


*

original

Mk. also has o^t'as Se ytvoi*tvr)<; before ore ttv o TJ\IOS. If this is part of the Mk. and not a conflation, and if Mk. wrote in Aramaic, the text must have
in

run NC'tp^ T1V

*12 NK^lIfi 'And would be more natural to write

the evening,
I'Tjn

when

the sun

was

set'.
it

It

NEW

NW1

'And when KJH 13}

was
it?

evening, and the sun

was

set'

but would this have been translated as

we

have

THE SENTENCE
It
is

61

interesting to note that this construction of

'when 'with
to Semitic,
finite

finite

verb and the absence of an alternative construction resem-

bling the Genitive absolute in Greek, is not but is specifically Aramaic. Hebrew uses nptf2

common
'

when with a

'

verb .somewhat rarely, but far more frequently employs the Infinitive construct with pronominal suffix, and prefixed 3 'in' or 3 'as'; Further, it has e.g. ir)is<~O 'when he saw*, lit. 'in his seeing*.
a usage of the Participle absolute (cf. Driver, Tenses, 165) closely the Greek Genitive absolute, and regularly rendered resembling In the passages where this construction occurs in be found that Targ. Hebraizes its Aramaic to a large extent, while exhibiting a tendency to use the true Aramaic construction. Pesh., on the other hand, regularly breaks away from

by it O.T.

in
it

LXX.

will

Hebrew construction, and renders by *o when with a finite verb. The English renderings aim at exactly reproducing the
the
'

'

Semitic constructions.

Gen. 42 35

ip&ja

1DD3

nm

B*N rum D.TPP


their sacks,

WHO

on

Tn 'And

it

came

emptying bundle of money in his sack '.

to pass, they

and behold, each man's


cra/cicovs

LXX

eyevcro Se iv TO> Karaicevovv avrovs TOVS


cra/c/ca)

avTwy, KCU yv

Kaa~Tov o oecr^os TOV apyvpfov ev TO>

avroiv.

Targ. rrpBa nBD3 ins nnj


follows

xm
'.

pn^p^

ppno p^N

n'.m,

exactly

Hebrew.

Pesh.

)*>

o>flftr>>
it

'And
his bale
i
'.

their sacks, behold,

olAD *A^m^o ttJo* o )ooo when they were emptying each man's bundle of money in the mouth of
>>.

came

to pass that

Kgs. i3

20

m.T

nm vn

|r6e>n by

nu^

nn ^nn

'And

it

came

to
'.

pass, they

sitting at the table,

and there came the word of Yahweh

LXX
Kvptov.

/cat

eyevcro avr<oi> KaOrjiAWtov [CTTI r^s rpaTre^s], Kat cyei/cro Aoyo?

Targ.
'

mn

11

Dip

|o

nNU3 D^HQ

mm

And

it

came

to pass, whilst

they were

nina ^y pnnnoo prn ny sitting round the table, and


Y.'

mm

= then)

there

came a word of prophecy from before

Pesh. I-^D?

oco.^9

)oo

)jol^3

^x

^>kJ
came

when they were


Lord
'.

sitting at the table, there

ycuo the word of the

ao

'And

62
2 Kgs. 2 11
to pass, they
'y\

THE SENTENCE
PK
331 rum -o-n -p^n

D^n

ncn vn

'

And

it

came

going on

going and talking (= and talking as they


eXoXow'
/cat

went), and, behold, a chariot of fire, &c.'

LXX
apfJLOL

Kal cyevtro avr&v Tropevo/xeVooy, tTropevovro Kal

i8ou

TTVpOS KT\.

Targ.

Knew pa<m Km p^ooi

iro p5>w

p:w

iv

mm

'And

it

came

to pass, whilst they

were going on

going and
*>

talking,

and

(=

then) behold, chariots of fire'.


Jfcs^oj-io

Pesh. Jicu?

|oo

^a^o^o
'.

^\\>tt

'And it came to pass that when they were and (= then) behold, a chariot of fire
2 Kgs. 8 5
i>X

*o? )ooo and going on, talking

ycuo

newn rum nn n n^nn n^N 'And it came to pass, he telling ^cn the king how he (Elisha) had raised the dead, and, behold, the woman whose son he had raised crying unto the king '.
npJTC

LXX
,

KOL cyei/ero avrov e^yovyneVou TO> /?acr(Aet KOL i8ov


f)

ws eia7rvpr)(TV vlov
/3ooxra
TT/OOS

yvvrj

rjs

e^coTrup^crev TOV vlov

avrf]<s

TOV

Targ.

ma

n^ 'nNi

xnn^

ni

KJVD n

11

nn K3D WK^D
^*J?

Kin

mm
oo

Dip N^3p, as in Hebrew.

Pesh.

U^^
>+&

oi^

*~+l* jlfco/

JjL*

)^A-^>

la^^i^

)k>L]^

raised the dead, he

'And when he was relating to the king that he had saw the woman whose son he had raised making

supplication before the king*.

2 Kgs. 8 21
li'nxi?

nyn D^I
it

vi>y

auon DHK ns
.

nD s i

nW

Dp Kin

Tn

'And

smote
home*.

Edom

he arising (or arose) by night and who surrounded him and the people fled to their
to pass,
.
.

came

LXX
o-avra
CTT'

KOL cyeyeTO avrov avacrravTOS, Kal cTrdYa^ei/ TOV 'ESw/x rov KVK\(I)-

avrov

Kal c^>vyei/ 6 \ao<s KT\.


,

Targ. Noy ISM

MUTpi

5
,

n^ papon on construction as in Hebrew.


,
.

SWN n NHCI
11

Nii>^3 Dp Nin

mm
^oo

Pesh.

00*^0

o^, ^x*^>^

(us.^ofJJ

oo^j? tN\.a p^
. .
.

^And when he arose by night that he might yQo^uiAjsciX and (= then) destroy the Edomites who were surrounding him
the people fled to their

Uxx

homes

'.

THE SENTENCE
2 Kgs. is 21
nvian ns* i&n

63

rom

t?

N D'-op Dn
TOV

Tn 'And
Kat

it

came
iSov

to
'.

pass, they burying a

man, and, behold, they saw the robber-hand


BaTrrovTuv
aj/S/oa,

L-XX
Targ.

Kat

eyevero avrwv

l$ov

rov

im Nm N13JI p-Dp firm iy nini And it came to pass, whilst they were burying a man, and (= then) they saw, &c/ Pesh. )tti^ oJL* )-^ ^-^ ycuo oo 'And when they were

nn^B

'

n*

fe>

burying a man, they saw, &c.'


2 Kgs. i9 37 vj

'And
his god,

it came to pass, he worshipping in the house of Nisroch and Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote him '.

LXX
A. Kat ^.

KOL eyeVero avrov Trpoo-Kwovvros lv


ol I'iot

otKtt)

'Eo-8pa^ Otov avrov, KOL

avTOv cTraragav

O.VTOV.
s

Targ. \n^Dp >nin nvNn^i -jta-nKi n


as in Hebrew.
Pesh.
^*oiair>
,ii.*.o
.-^j?(
.

nivt3

THDJ

n3 n^o wn mm,

otoic

^CQ-

^d

oo

'And when he was worshipping god, A. and S. his sons killed him
'.

in the

house of N. his

Casus pendens. Hebrew and Aramaic to simplify the construction of a sentence, and at the same time to gain emphasis, by reinforcing the subject by a Personal Pronoun. Such reinIt
is

characteristic

of

forcement

is specially favoured if the subject happens to be further defined by a relative clause, since otherwise the sentence would to the Semitic ear appear involved and overweighted. The same

principle

is is

also adopted with the object,

when

this, for

the sake of

emphasis, brought to the beginning of the sentence ; and other oblique cases may be similarly treated. Examples in Hebrew are

Gen. 3 12

me p^njnj
PS?T?
N!|n

gavest to be with me, she gave j o f the tree and I did eat ; Gen. 15*, 'But one Kin) that shall come out of thine own bowels, he shall be thine heir'
,

'

The woman whom Thou

) j

Gen. 24 7
'

from

my

father's house, &c.,


1

before thee

Yahweh, the God of heaven, who took me He shall send (rf>^ K*n) His angel Deut. I3 'All the word that I command you, it shall
' ,
,

24 ' ye observe to do' (nibj VTOBTI ink); Ezek. i8 , In his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them ' shall he die (n; D2). See further, Driver, Tenses, 123 y Obs.

64

THE SENTENCE
'

37 38 Elan. 2 , Thou, O king, the king of kings, Similarly in Aramaic ' to whom the God of heaven gave, &c., thou art that head of gold

(fcarn

Dan. 3" 'Those men that took up and Abed-nego, the flame of the fire slew Shadrach, Meshach, them' pro ^ M?> ten >Bj?) Dan. 4 17 19 , 'The tree that thou
i

nBten

wn

nnjK);

king' (K?ijo wr\ nn3K) ; Ezr. 5", 'And moreover, the vessels of the house of God, &c., them did Cyrus the king take out (Bnte ten pSJn) o f the temple of Babylon';
sawest, &c.,
it

is

thou,

Ezr.

4
,

'

All priests

impose

tribute, &c.,

and Levites, &c., it shall not be lawful to 6 upon them' (&i"i\?J[ Kt?"??r); Ezr. f 'Every one
,

that will not perform the

law of thy God and the law of the king, let judgement diligently be executed upon him pat? ^33$? Kin?). This reinforcement of a Casus pendens by the Pronoun is a
'

marked
T
12

characteristic of the Fourth Gospel.


:

We

may

note the

following illustrations
o<rot Se
18

IAa/?ov aviw, eSwxcv avrols


eos 6

ifaywruuf re/cva

eou ycvtcrftu.

I
I

/xoi/oyevJ)?
33 26
32

aV

cis roi> KoXTroi/


ei/

rou Trarpos
//-oi

e/ceiVos efjyy^craTO.

6 Tre/xi^as /AC /?a7TTieiv


os

{8aTt e/cetvos

CITTCV.

3
3 5

^ ftera
yap av

orov

t8e

OVTOS ftcarrifai.*

o cwpaKev Kat -^KOVCTCV TOVTO /xa/9rvpet.


7rot>J(ra5 fte vyti} e/ceTj/os /xot CITTCI/.

5" 'O
a,

e/cervos Troir),

ravra KCU

6 vtos o/xotw? Troicr.

36

5
TToioi,

ra yap epya a
/xaprvpet Trept

8e8(o/cev ftot o Trar^p tva reAetcoo-w aura,


ep,oi)

aura ra epya a

on

6-

Trarryp /xc

omit the
/xaprupct,

comma
Tre/xi/^as

after

TTOUU,

a7r(rTaXKev (we should surely and make aura ra cpya the subject of
/xot KrA..)

reinforcing ra yap epya after a Sc&dKCK


yu.e

<<7

Kat 6

Trar^p e/cet^os p-e/xaprup^Kei/ Trepi e/xou.

5 6

s8

ov aTrecrretAev CKCIVOS rourw u/x,t9 ou Trtcrreverc.


wa.
TTO.V

o SeScuKev p,ot

jjirj

aTroAecrw e^ aurou.

6 46
7

6 an/ Trapa rou

ou, ouros

ewpaKev rov Trarepa.


a\r)@r)<; eoTiv.

6 Se ^rjTwv r^v So^av rou Tre/xi^avro? avror ouro?


/cdyo)

8 26

^/couo-a Trap' aurou ravra

AaAw
.
.

ei?

TOV KOCT/XO^.

IO l 6

/x^ etcrcp^o/xevos 8ia

r^s ^upas

e/cetvos KAcTrrrys ecrrti/ /cat

* Schlatter (Sprache, pp. 49 f.) quotes a number of instances from Rabbinic Hebrew in which fT[ "Hi"! 'behold, this one, &c.' reinforces a Nominativus pendens.

Thus e.g. Mechilta'on Ex. i6, D 10.X1 DIM ^3K ' HD li? ^"'^ ^D ilJDN IDinD HT nn "inO? 'Whosoever hath what he may eat to-day, and saith,

What

shall

eat

to-morrow

? behold, this

one lacketh

faith.'

THE SENTENCE
IO
2

65

TO.

epya a

eyo> TTOMO ev TO> oVo/xaTi

rov TraTpos /xou ravra /xapTvpei

Trept e/xov.

1248 6 Xoyos oV eXaXrycra e/ceivos Kpivet avrov cv rr) fo-^drrj 1249 6 Tre/xi^as /xe Trarrjp auros /xoi ei/ToX^v SeStoKci/.
12

^u,epa.

14
13

6 TTtOTCVCOV CIS

/X

TO,

epytt

a eyw

TTOlto KO.KCIVOS 7TOt^CT6.

14
21

fat ort av

aLT-qo-rjTC.

fv TO) ovo/xaTi /xou rovro Trot^crw.


ecrrti/

I4
26

6 e^wv ras evToAas /xov Kat rrypwv auras eKetvos 6 8e 7rapa.K\r)TO<s, TO


Tri/ev/xa

6 dyaTraiv

/xe.

I4
2

TO aytov o Tre/x^et 6 Trarrjp tv TW ovo^ari

Trdvra. /xov, e/cctf os v/xas SiSa^et

I5

Trav

K\rjfji,a

tv c/xot /x^ (f>epov KapTroy atpct avro, Kat Trav TO Kapirov

<f>epov KaOaipei avTO.

15
2

o /xevwi/

ci/

e/xot

Kayw
^eXw

ei/

auTw OVTOS

<^>epet

KapTrov TTO\VV.

I7
4

tva Trav o SeSwxas avrai 8ojo*t aurots

I7"

o 8eS(OKas

/xot,

ii/a

OTTOV eittt

eyw

/ca.Keti/oi o>o~u>
7TIO)

/XCT

e/xov.

l8

TO

TTOTT/ptOl/ O 8e8wKl/

/XOt 6 TTttT^p OU /X^

ttUTO

Against these 27* instances in Jn. we can only set 11 in Mt. 20.22.23.SS 2l U ^13^ ( 4 , I3 3523^ 4 j n Mk> (gW ?20^ ^11^ n 14 15 i 3 ), and 6 in Lk. (8 i2 48 2 o 17, 2i 6 2 3 5 52 ); and of these Mt. 4 16
16
)

^
-

^
,

and Mt. 2i 42 = Mk. i2 10


is

Lk. 2o 17 are O.T. quotations. Of course it cannot be claimed that the use of Casus pendens it is a familiar to go no farther specifically a Semitism, since

Prof. Moulton remarks that 'it is one colloquialism in English. of the easiest of anacolutha, as much at home in English as in

Greek'

(NTG*

i,

p.

69).
its

The

fact

which concerns us

is

the

remarkable frequency of

occurrence in Jn. as compared with the Synoptists. If Lk., for example, is a fair specimen of Koivrj Greek, why should we find that a construction which occurs there

An is employed in Jn. with six times the frequency? answer is forthcoming in the assumption that a common adequate Aramaic construction has been exactly reproduced in translation.
but 6 times
Abbott (JG. 1921) adds io35 36 bv o irarrip rjyiaaev *ai a-niareiXtv " Whom the Father sanctified ... do on vfjitts
-

ets

rov

KO<T(JIOV

\tycTf

'

"B\aa<pr) fiefs /

ye say

[to

him]
. .

Thou blasphemest
our theory

? ", best

explained as
Cf. p. 109.

[ItfftVos]

ov.
is

38
,

6 mffrevotv els ipe

iroTanol (K TT;S KoiXias avrov (also cited

by Abbott)

not included as involving

on

a mistranslation.

CHAPTER
KCU.
OUV.

III

CONJUNCTIONS
As compared
narrative.

The

with the Synoptists, KCU in Jn. is infrequent in occurrences, as given by Abbott (JG. 2133 ; cf.

Bruder's Concordance*, pp. 456 ff.) are, Mt. about 250 times, Mk. more than 400 times, Lk. about 380 times, Jn. less than 100 times.

This comparative infrequency seems to be due partly


writer's use of asyndeton
(cf.

to

the

p. 50), partly to

his fondness for

ow, which he uses some 200 times, as against Mt. 57 times, Mk. 6 times, Lk. 31 times, /cat is frequent in Jn. in speeches, linking co-ordinate clauses, as in a Semitic language. A striking
Semitic usage or 'but*.

may
is

be seen in

its

employment
naturally

to link contrasted
'

statements, where in English

we should

employ

and yet

'

This
it

most frequent
4
,20
>

in speeches,

though occasionally

we
C^
i6
5
,

find
T 10.11
>

also in the reflections of the author

upon
*

his narrative.

20
t

10.11.19.32
>

-39.40.43.44

.10

,-4.19.30

>

7
16 17
-

O20.52.57

O30.34 9

>

T T8 LL

>

TO 34 ) *
l

'Of every tree of the , Cf., in Hebrew, Gen. a thou mayest eat; and (but) of the tree of knowledge of garden ' 2 3 Of the fruit of the good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it ; 3
20
, ' ,

29

2i n .

trees of the garden

we may

eat

and (=but) of the


garden God hath

fruit

of the tree

which
not

is

in the midst of the


-

said,

Ye

shall

eat, &c.';
I

behold
I

20 21 'And as regards Ishmael I have heard thee; , ly have blessed him, &c. And ( But) my covenant will

establish with Isaac

'

'

32

(Heb. 32"),
life

have seen
'

God

face

to face,
this

and

= and

yet)

my

is

preserved

(other instances of

common usage
' ,

usage in Aramaic from Dan. 2 5 6 If ye make not known to me the dream and its and (=but) if ye interpretation, ye shall be cut in pieces, &c. shew the dream and the interpretation thereof, ye shall receive
;

The same Oxford Heb. Lex. p. 252 b). where it is equally common may be illustrated
in

of

me

5 6
-

gifts,

&c.*; 3

'At what time ye hear ... ye shall

fall

down

CONJUNCTIONS
;
-

67

and worship the golden image, &c. and ( = but) whoso falleth not 17 18 If our God, whom we serve, be able to deliver down, &c.' 3 and (but) if not, be it known, &c/ us, He will deliver, &c. 4 7 'And I told the dream before them, and (=yet) its 4 (Aram. 4 ),
'

interpretation they did not

In a

make known to me '. Hebrew and Aramaic 'and may very idiomatically introduce contrasted idea in such a way as to suggest a question, this
*

being implied by the contrast without the use of an interrogative


particle.

So
I

my

mother

Behold, Hebrew, Judg. i/j. have not told it, and shall I tell
,

in

16

'

to
it

my

father
thee ?
*

and
(lit.

unto

'and to thee
servants of

shall tell it!*); 2


in

and Judah are abiding

Sam. n 'The ark, and Israel, tents; and my lord Joab, and the
11
,

/ go

into
*
!

my lord, my house,

are

to eat

encamped in the open and to drink, &c. ?'


in

field
(lit.

and

shall

'and / shall
252).

go, &c.

see further instances in Oxf. Heb. Lex.

p.

The

same usage may be illustrated Thomae (ed. Wright).


(p. *SL>).

Aramaic from passages

in

Ada

fco/

)lu>

lol^ms

fcojo .^xl^fcoo

oo )^*Ad liXls yOo^o.

'All buildings are built in


(p.
u*J>)

summer; and
t">N.V> w?JJ*>

thou buildest in winter!*

.|]^0ft

^ttO

wx\.v.

QV>..V)^.

*k-^
lord,

wfcojo.

^> ^O feJ^iVW tO&^^Jtt 'On thy account I excused


and

myself from

my

king Mazdai, and from the supper;

thou dost not choose to sup with


(p.
>*-*-)

me
U/

'
!

^*

Uo

ju^jk,

r **

\!

ts^liy U

yloX ^D ^SCJLO &0/

^.oo
us,

^.^i*
*
!

kta>/

fco/.

'Thou

thyself hast not departed from

except for a moment; and thou knowest not


inverted order,
JL^S

how we were
fco/
ss)^-i

shut up

With
^^cu9
to

(p.

.*>)

Jk^^S
'

JL

^-xu^e
sittest

)^/

oj^p^
I

t">^.v>

?Jco.

Thou

and hearkenest

vain words; and king Mazdai in his wrath is seeking to * destroy thee In a precisely similar way KCU introduces a paradox in several
is

passages in Jn., and the paradox, being hypothetical, as a question.

treated

220 TeoxrepaKovra
^/xepais cyepets avrov
10

/cat e
;

erecm/ otKoSo/x^r; 6 vao<s OUTOS, KCU crv iv rpicrlv

3 5v et 6 8i8ao-/caXos TOV 'Io-pa^A Kat ravra ov 8' HevTr/KOVTa trr; OUTTW ^s /cat 'AySpaa/A ewpa/ca? ;
F 2

68 9
s4

CONJUNCTIONS
'Ev d/Aaprtats
'Pa/?/?et,
<rv

cyevvrjOr)? oAos, /cat <ru StSaovcet? ij/xas


/cat

II 8

vw

ei7TOui> tre Xi^acrat ot lovSatoi,

TraXtv VTrdyets e/cct;

The
10

use of 'and* with the sense 'and so'

Semitic.
e.g.

Some few
//,

cases of

/cat

is very frequent in so used are to be found in Jn.,


(rot

SayS/SaroV
6

eorti/, /cat
a>i/

OVK eeo-TtV
a>

apat rov Kpafifiarov,


/cat

6 57

/ca#ws

ttWoTctAei/
/cd/cetvos

Tra-njp /cdya>

Sta TOV Trarepa,


airoi/
ourcos,

6 rpwyiav /AC
Trio-rcvo-oro-tv
/cat

>7<ri Si'
/cat

e//,e,

II

48

eai/

dc/><o/*,ei/

Traces
/cat

ets

auroV,

eXevtrovrat ot 'Pco/xalot

/cat dpoOcrti/

I0VOS.

in Jn.

by
'

Usually, however, ovv, which, as we have seen,


It
is
'

this consecutive
is

rj^v connexion

TOV TOTTOV
is

TO

expressed

extraordinarily frequent

(200 occurrences).
original
it

highly probable that


in

and

('

and so ')

Aramaic

in

many

ow represents an cases * ; in others

inserted by the translator to introduce a sentence which stood asyndeton in the original. The cases cited by Abbott

may have been


a), in

(JG. 2191
translator.

which Mk. omits ow while Mt. or Lk. has

it

in parallel passages, suggests that the particle in Jn. is

due
'

to the

Ow is

usually rendered in Pal. Syr. by o 'and


?

but sometimes by

= 8V.
piv,

simply;

U,

yap.

^eV,

which

is

The occurrences
*

very rare in Jn., is infrequent also in the Synoptists. are, Mt. 20, Mk. 6, Lk. 10, Jn. 8.
as he had

The writer's conclusion as to ovv given above stands before reading the words of Prof. Burkitt in Evangelion 1 In the course of working at the Syriac equivalents for S. ovv it has occurred to me that fundamentally they mean

worked

it

out
:

da-Mephwreshe, ii, p. 89 Mark's *vOi>s and S. John's the same thing, and that

" waw consecutive". they really correspond to the Hebrew Not, of course, that either of these Gospels is a translation from the Hebrew but if the authors
;

were familiar with the Old Testament otherwise than through the awkward medium of the LXX, they might well have felt themselves in need of something to correspond to the Hebrew idiom. The essence of the meaning of " u'div consecutive" is that the event related is as in due
of these Gospels

wholly wanting in the Hebrew: the turn of thought is more or less our English and so ". But this is exactly what S. Mark means by his xal evOvs, and it is what is generally meant in the Fourth Gospel
is
<

sequence to what has gone before. while Sc implies a contrast which

To

regarded happening express this KOL is too inadequate a

link,

by
tell

ovv.

(/ecu

(vOvs

Simon's wife's mother was sick of a fever and so they tell Jesus of her Mk. i 80 ) S. Mark does not mean to emphasize the haste they were in to
:

Similarly in S. John there are literally scores of verses beginning with ^Trey ovv or ttirov ovv where "he said therefore" brings out too prominently the idea of causation. All that is meant is "1DS S | " and so he said'', or "and so

the news.

they said", as the case may be.' That ovv corresponds to the Hebrew secutive was noticed by Ewald. Diejohann. Schriften (1861), p. 45, n. 2.

wdw

con-

CONJUNCTIONS

69

Se is uncommon in Jn. and Mk. as compared with Mt. and Lk.* The numbers are, Mt. 496, Mk. 156, Lk. 508, Jn. 176. t

are 7J in

Thus, while the average number of occurrences per page (WH.) Mt and 7 in Lk., in Mk. they are only 3| and in Jn. 3J. Now W. Aramaic, like Hebrew, has no equivalent of 6V, both
'

languages employing
opening.

and

'

in its place, or (Aramaic)


in

an asyndeton
is

The comparative avoidance of Se

Mk. and Jn.

there-

fore strongly suggestive of translation from Aramaic in which the Semitic use of ' and ', or of no connective particle at all, was

In Syriac the need for such a particle as 6V was, under Greek influence, so much felt that the Greek particle was
usually copied.

introduced in the form


is

The occurydp If Jn. were as long rences are Mt. 125, Mk. 67, Lk. 101, Jn. 66. as Mt., there would be proportionately 86 occurrences; if as long
as Lk., 92 occurrences
;

in Pal. Syr. **? di. ^*? den, less frequent in Jn. than in the Synoptists.

if

as short as Mk., 53 occurrences.


;

If

Mk.

were as long as Mt., there would be 96 occurrences


as Lk., 109 occurrences;

if

as long

In

W. Aramaic

if as long as Jn., 82 occurrences. such particles and phrases as correspond more

or less to ydp, n*, 1

H?,

Biblical

Aram.

^ 5^^|,

&c., are really

much more

many

In weighty, bearing rather the sense because, since. cases in which Greek would use ydp, Aramaic would be
'

simply ; and this may account for the comparative infrequency of ydp in Jn. Syriac, feeling the need for a light particle like ydp, introduced it in the form -*^ ger.
content with
fro.

and

'

The frequency of Iva in Jn. is one of the most remarkable phenomena in this Gospel. The approximate number of occurrences is 127 whereas in Mt. we find 33, in Mk. 60, in Lk. 40. If Jn. were
;

as long as Mt., there would be proportionately 163 occurrences; if as long as Lk., 178 occurrences if as short as Mk., 101 occur;
rences,
iva IMJ

5 times, in Lk. 8 times.


'that
.
.

occurs in Jn. 18 times, in Mt. 8 times, in Mk. On the other hand, ^T/TTOTC in the sense

not', 'lest',

never occurs

in Jn.,|

whereas

it

is

found

in

Mt. 8 times, in Mk.


*

twice, in

Lk. 6 times.
some 5 times
by
only, Sir John

In Apoc. 5f

is

excessively rare, occurring

t The numbers
p. 151.

for the Synoptists are those given

Hawkins,

HS

J Similarly in Apoc.

we

find iva prf 11 times, /^wore never.

70

CONJUNCTIONS
Now
there exists in Aramaic a particle in origin a demonwhich is used with peculiar frequency to denote various

strative

shades of connexion.
or ^
de, in Syriac as
?

This particle appears


de.

in

W.

Aramaic as
it

dl

As a

particle of relation

denotes

who, which, that (properly a connecting link between the relative sentence and its antecedent that one, usually completed by a pronoun or pronominal suffix in the relative clause; e.g. BV "V?K ^

'who he
when.

said to

him

',

i.e.

'to

It
<

K3jW

n*l

may
it

be used as
'

whom he said and also the relative a mark of the genitive, e.g. MP?B>
'),
'

the king's captain


is

Further,

sense in
that.

that,

the captain, that of the king '). especially frequent as a conjunction, that, in the inasmuch as, because, and in a final sense, in order
(lit.

Our purpose
of
^|

is

to

show

that Iva occurs in Jn. in

all

the

senses
relation.

or

except

that

which

marks

the

genitive

frequent occurrence of <W in a telic sense calls for no comment, beyond note of the fact that the use of Iva prj to the
exclusion of /^TTOTC favours the theory of
literal translation
Iva

The

of the

Aramaic phrase
junctive
that,

CT

'

that

not'.*

Further, the use of

= con-

followed by a

finite verb,
is

where

in classical

Greek we

should expect an
KOII/T}

Infinitive,

a well-ascertained characteristic of

Greek, and has come through the KOIVT; into modern Greek in the form vd. What 15 remarkable, however, in Jn/s usage of this idiom, as compared with Mt. and Lk., is its extreme frequency.

This

is

also

though

to

a less extent

true of

Mk.

and

it

is

instructive to notice

how many different expedients Mt. or Lk., or both of them, frequently employ in order to get rid of Mk.'s u/a, whether used in a final sense or otherwise.t
Mk. 4 21 Kcu
cXcyev avrois ort
r)

M^rt Ip^erat
',

6 Av^vos Iva VTTO TOV /xoSiov

TfOfj

VTTO TY]V K\LVrjV

Mt. 5 15 ouSe Maioocny \vyyov Kai TiOea<nv avrov Lk. 8 1R OvSets Se AV^VOJ/ ai^as KaAvTrrct avrov

VTTO

rov

{JLoSiov.
17

trKevci

VTTOKCITOJ

* Contrast the translation of


in
, ,

Hebrew
Iva.

Mt. i3 1B Mk. 4 12 with Jn. I2 40

^ ibwatv

fQ 'lest', Isa. 6 , by /x^irorc (as in LXX) rots o<pOa\nots KT\. (cf. p. 100).
l

t The following Synoptic comparisons Sir John Hawkins.

were kindly supplied

to the writer

by

CONJUNCTIONS
(

71

Mk. ov yap ecrrtv KpVTrrdv eav /xry tva ^avcpw^. Mt. IO26 ov8cv yap eo^Ttv KKaXv/x/xevov o OVK a7roKaXv0^o-Tat.
'

^Lk. o

ov yap

eo"Ttv KpvTTTov o

ov ^>avepov yev7yo~Tat.
ets
rj.

Mk. 5 18

^ a t e/M/3aivovTO5 avrov
avroi;

TO TrXotov TrapcKaXet avrov 6 Sat/xovt-

Mt. S 34 om. Lk. S 3


'' 38

avT09 8e e/x^as
d<>'

ei's

TrAotov VTreWpei^cv.
TO.

eSetro 8e avrov 6 dv

ov l&XrXvOei

SaLnovia elvat o~uv avrw.

Mk. 5 23
Mt. 9 18

/cat

Trapa/caXet avrov TroXXa

Aeywv

ort

To Ovydrpiov

JJLOV

e^et, Tva

eA^wv

fTTiOfjs

ras ^etpas avrij tva (rwOr)

/cat

tSov

ap^wv
apTL

ets TT/aoo-eX^wj/

Trpoo-cKwet avrw, Xeycov ort 'H Ovydrrjp

fjiov

CTeXevTTyo-ci^,

dXXa eX^wv

CTrt^es

T^V

^P a <rov

avrrjv, Kat

^o*Tat.

Lk. 8 4142

/cat

TTCO-WV 7ra/)a TOVS TroSas 'I^crov Trapc/caXct avroi/ cto-eX^etv et?

TOV OLKOV avrov, OTt Ovydnqp

avrai fJLOvoyevrjs rjv

/cat

avrrj

3 Mk-5^ Kat 8tO"TtXaTO avrots TroXXa Mt. 926 om.

Iva /x-^Sets yvoi rovro.

Lk. 8

5f>

6 Se TraprjyyeiXev avrot? /x^Scvt

ctTreti/

TO ycyovos.

Mk. 6 2

eXw

tva eavT?7S 8a>5 /xot

CTTI

TrtVaKt TT/V

Ke^aX^v 'Iwavvov TOV

ySttTTTtCTTOV.
-!

Mt. I48 Aos

/xot,

<f>fj(rLV,

wSe

CTTI

TrtVaKt

T^I/

K<f>aX.rjv

'Iwavvov

TOV

ySaTTTto-Tov.

Lk. om.

Mk. 6 4
Mt. Lk.
9

Kat eStSov Tots /xa^Tat? tva TrapaTiOwcriv avrot?.


e8coKj/ Tot? fJLaOrjTals TOV? apTOv?, ot 8e fiaOrjTal Tot? 0^X01?.

I4*
6

9*

Kat fOiSov TOIS /xa^ryTat^ TrapaOeLvai TW

Mk. 9 9 Kat
Mt. 17

KaTafiaivovTwv avTwv CK TOV opovs, 8to-TtXaTO avTots


'

Ti/a

Kat KaTaySaivovTwv avTwv

K TOV opovs evcTctXaTO avrots 6

Xeywi/ MrySevt ctTr^Te KTX.

Lk. om.

Cases

in

which Mk.

s u/a is retained

Synoptists are

Mk. 6s6

Mt. i436

by one or both of the other Mk. 8 30 = Mt. i6 20 (contrast

72

CONJUNCTIONS
=

Lk. 9 21 ); Mk. 9 18 = Lk. 9 40 (contrast Mt. i7 16 ); Mk. io37 = Mt. 2o 21 ; Mt. 2o :u = Lk. i839 ; Mk. i2 19 = Lk. 20 28 (contrast Mk. io48 Mt. 2224 ).
In face of this evidence
it

can hardly be maintained that the

deviations of Mt. and Lk. from

Mk.

resulting in elimination of

which

the construction with Iva are merely accidental. Mk.'s use of Iva, in proportion to the length of his Gospel is 3 times as

Mt, and 2^ times as frequent as that of Lk., must have appeared to these latter Evangelists to some extent Since it is generally acknowledged that offensive to normal style.
frequent as that of
in other respects

Mk. exhibits Aramaic

influence,

it

is

reasonable

to suspect that this influence

may

account for the characteristic


is supported by the fact, which is the natural repre-

under discussion

and such an inference

already noted, that the

Aramaic

or

"],

sentative of Iva with a telic force, has a

much wider range


Iva.

standing, for example, for the conjunctive that which

in

of usage, Mk. so

frequently represents.
If, however, the theory of Aramaic influence may be taken as accounting for the excessive use of Iva in Mk., the case for such influence in Jn. must be regarded as much stronger still, for Iva is

there proportionately nearly twice as frequent, while it is some 5 times as frequent as in Mt., and some 4^ times as frequent as
in Lk.
It is instructive to

notice that there are certain phrases in which

the Greek of the Gospels varies between the construction of Iva with finite verb and the Infinitive construction, and that in these

the Syriac versions normally represent both constructions by ? de followed by the finite verb, i.e. the construction which, on our
theory,
is literally is

rendered by the
aios

Iva

construction.
IKCH/OS)

One such
27 ov Jn. I

introduced by OVK
tifu
[eyo>]

ct/xt

aios (or
A.VOXD

OVK

Iva

avrov

rov

Ifjuavra

TOV

Pal. Syr.

OMOCUI,?

J^ja^

]+++) Jail

)u

Sin.

*otCLLm^D?
otCLLJBJ*>f
I

^;^-

Jjjk,!?

joe*,
U

U?
|o|9

oo
OCM

Pesh.
1

(Lo*^. ]i*.i?

JaX
I

That one who


'

am

not worthy that

should loose the latchet of


').

His sandal

(Pesh. 'the latchets of

His sandals

CONJUNCTIONS
Mk.
I
7

73

ov OVK dpi iKavos Kv\f/as Avo-eu rov t/xavra TWV vTroS^/xarcov avrov.

Pal. Syr.

^ooimx>

JfcvSi-^ )**-

y***** ~JLsoo?

W
I

W^?
a*

v?

Sin.

deest.

Pesh.
'

odlm^D? U*-*- JiW Vtt^M*


I

"? Oc

That one who

am

not worthy that

should stoop should loose

the latchet (Pesh. latchets) of His sandals*.

Lk. 3 16 ov OVK
Pal. Syr.

A.VO-O.I eiynl i/cavos

Toy

t/u.avra TCUV VTroSry/xarcov

avrov.

**<x.a*?

Jl^i^

)i*-?

)Lo?

\jf

fc^^?
)J?

y?

Sin.

^ojcamJio?
-oici.ai.-vo
I

U*-^ )^1?
]ijw!?

I^CLJ^

oo co

Pesh.

|u3^w

[j/
I

jo*,

JJ?

'That one who


(Sin.,

am

not worthy that

should loose the latchet

Pesh. latchets) of His sandals'.


elfjil

Acts I3 2 ov OVK
Pesh.
'

atos TO

V7rd8r;/xa

TWV TTOOWV
l>/

Avo^at.

-oiim.^?
I

U-^

)t*-l?

)jL U?

001

That one who

His sandals'.
with
its

am The

not worthy that I should loose the latchets of rendering of Pesh. is here verbally identical
i
27
.

rendering in Jn.
19 - 21

Lk. i^

OVKTL

ei/u

aios

K\r)6r)va.L vios o-ov.

Pal. Syr.
Sin., Cur.

Pesh.
I

]&l!

^9 M
that
I

JcuL

^nx>

Uo
'.

am no
In the

longer worthy

should be called thy son

passage
et/xt

Mt 8 s

Lk.

f where we

have the

Iva

construc-

tion after OVK

IKOVO^ the Syriac versions naturally represent this

by

with the
7'

finite verb.

Lk.

oib ov8e IfJLavrov rj&wcra 7rpb<s ore eXOclv.

Pal. Syr.

Sin.

om.
?
I

Pesh.
'

o?

a*,

oc
I

Therefore

did not count myself worthy that

should come to

Thee'.

Thus out of
have the
with
?

all

these passages only Jn.

27

and Mt. 88

Lk.

7*

Iva

construction,
is

which

used

in all

agrees with the construction passages by the Syriac versions.


this

and

74
Again, o-v/^epci
is

CONJUNCTIONS
followed both by the
Iva

construction and by

the Infinitive, and both constructions are represented in the Syriac versions by ? followed by the finite verb.
50 Jn. II

<rv[j.(f>cpL vfjuv

Lva ct? av6p<D7Tos airoOdi/r).

Pal. Syr.

io-aa-.

AJ^>

.*.?

^. c^

Sin.
'It is

and Pesh.

Loaaj

J^^

**?

u-jas

good (Sin., Pesh. profitable) to us that one


14

man

should die*.

Jn. l8

cru[A(f>epL

cva avOp^irov aTroOavtiv.

Pal. Syr.

L<MMU ^.u^

.**?

oo>

o^

Sin.
'

and Pesh.
good (Sin.
10

iojL )*^^
fitting,

(*AS Pesh.) Do

It is

Pesh. profitable) that one

man

should die

'.

Mt. I9

ov

Pal. Syr.
'

+>

It is

not good that a


;

man should marry

'.

But Sin. Cur., Pesh.


'

JlW

^.N
'.

-AS

J)

It is

not profitable to take a wife

crviufrepei Iva is

also found in Jn. i6 7 , Mt. 5 29 30, i8


-

6
.

The
'lovSatoi

construction
/a

o-WTi0e//,cu

/a in

Jn. 9^,

-5817

ol ya/o o-weriOeivro

eav ris avrov


in

ojJLO\oyrja~r)

Xptcrrov, aTroo-waywyo? yev^rat, is


?

reproduced
Pal. Syr.
)fcok*io

the Syriac versions by


,*j/ o>=

with the

finite

verb

so

oo?

^ao

)>cu ylj yOofcJL=> U^JOOM oJ-oU? ]6o ;.^ i-ao ^IA^J )OM I-^AX>. In the other two occurrences i^jk

of

(rwTi'0e/Acu, it is

tive,

and
:

this again is

followed by the normal construction of the Infinirepresented in Syriac by ? with the finite

Lk. 22 a~vvf.0f.vro avrw apyvpiov SoOwu, Pal. Syr. oXis-.? O-D Anr>o oC^ 'they agreed that they should give him money'; Acts 23 ol 'louSatot a~vvfOfVTO TOV epwr^crat crc, Pesh. t ytv> ci^rtJf O=IA**M verb
'

the

Jews have planned together


eStiSov

that they should ask of thee*.

Similarly, in the variants


TrapaGtivaL
j

...

a/a irapartO^a-Lv
.

Mk. 6
.

41
,

that Lk. Q 16, Pesh. reads yo^^mjf OOM 'gave they might set in both places (Pal. Syr. and Sin. desunt in Lk.); 38 in Lk. S eSctro etvat a~vv avrw is rendered by Pal. Syr. |jx
. . . . .
.

ot'yiv

)o-?,

by

Sin.

and Pesh. )ooj oio^>

)oo

)^
. .

was
.

per
is

begging ... that he might be with 56 18 O.VTOV J of Mk. 5 in Lk. 8 6 Se


;

Him

',

as in TraptKaXci

Iva

Tra/37/yyetXev avrois /XT/8cvt eiTrctv

rendered by Pal. Syr. yp$oo)*

H AJ))? ypot)^

ja3 ooo,

by

Sin.,

CONJUNCTIONS
Cur.

75

ooo by Pesh. *j)U ycu? oj ^? o U uuJJ? yQj/ *A& 'He commanded (Pesh. warned) them that they should yoj-aalo 43 as in /cat Sieo-TCiXaro avrois TToXXa <W KrX. of Mk. 5 tell no man

yo^lj
JJ

',

Such

illustrations could

be almost indefinitely multiplied.


l
"*]

Iva

as a mistranslation of
the most that

relative,

who

'

',

which

?
.

So

far,

we have accomplished

is

to establish

a good case for the hypothesis that the excessive use of Iva in Mk., and still more in Jn., may be due to the fact that the
writers of these Gospels were accustomed to think in Aramaic. The frequent use of the Iva. construction in place of an Infinitive
is

not in itself sufficient to prove translation

from Aramaic

for

to exaggerate the

an Aramaic-speaking Jew, in writing Greek, would naturally tend use of a Kou/rj construction which resembled his
native idiom.
Iva in Jn.

own

Now, however, we have to notice a usage of which can hardly be explained except by the hypothesis of actual mistranslation of an original Aramaic document. There
are several passages in which Iva seems clearly to represent Translate a mistranslation of ^ employed in a relative sense.

them

into

Aramaic

in

the only possible way, representing Iva

by "H, and an Aramaic scholar would, without question, give to that ^ the sense 'who' or 'which'. 8 This I OVK rjv tKLVO<s TO <co5, dXX' iva ]JiapTvpir)o-r) Trepl TOV </>O>TOS.
passage has already been discussed
in

our notes on the Prologue

accepted interpretation of Iva with a telic force (p. 32). 'but (he came) that he involves the assumption of an ellipse relative bear witness, &c.' If Iva is a mistranslation of might
**[

The

no such
the light,
5'

ellipse is required, the

' He was not passage meaning, but one who was to bear witness of the light'.

avOpi&Trov OVK
literally,

r^w

Iva

fiaXrj

fJL

cis rrjv
.
. .

KoXv^rjOpav.
;

Pal. Syr.,

quite

UjamaX

^fc^.

|LsDi

M^ k*^ +j&.

The
.

obvious meaning of this in Aramaic


sjiall

'

is,

have not a man who

put

me

into the pool


Troiets
o-v

'.

6M

Tt ovv

o-ry/^etov,

Iva tSw/Aev;

Pal. Syr., quite literally,

l^uij?

^iL

i/

fcs./

sign then doest

The sense intended may well be, 'What thou which we may see?' though, since the final
l_v>.

sense of ^ would here be appropriate in Aramaic as in the Greek Iva, the evidence of this passage is not pressed.

76

CONJUNCTIONS
6D
OUTOS CfTTlV 6
/AT)

<Z/3TOS

TOV OVpaVOV KaTa/3aiV<i)V

U/tt

TIS e

O.VTOV

<}>dyy KOL

a-rroOdvy.

lovu

}Io

ojJ

AJ/ "^cis )^? &KMJ U*i*..


is

oo y?o Pal. Syr., quite literally, ^jo? |O<IM>\> This is naturally to be

rendered, 'This which, if a man


36

the

eat

bread which came down from heaven, thereof, he shall not die* (expressed in
shall eat thereof
IvOL
**

Aramaic, 'which a

man

and

shall not die').


;

Kttt

TtS
o*

fCTTLVy

KVpL,
'

7riCTTVO~a>

CIS

OVTOV

Pal.

Syr., quite

^oo. ^A^OM? 'And who is he, Lord, on whom I should believe?* (the Aramaic construction is, who I should believe on him *). This meaning is surely much more natural and appropriate than is
literally,

oo

This means, without a

doubt,

'

the final sense given to Iva by A.V., R.V., 'that I may believe on him*, which can hardly fail to make us discount the quality of the man's faith, suggesting, as it does, that his gratitude to our Lord made him willing to believe on any one whom He

named.
16

I4
Syr.,

aXXov TrapaK\r]Tov
quite
literally,
v>.bw.

SOJCTCI

vfuv
Jc**?

lira

17

/x,0' v/x<ov cis

rov cuwva.

Pal.

;v>.v

^~Lw

^icu

yaa\ OOM
shall give

oo

meaning is, yoo another Comforter, who shall abide with you for ever *.

]^\^\
'qui'.

The

natural

'He

you
mq
)

So

(vt.

If the fact that n/a in these

passages

is

a mistranslation oi

1 relative be thought to need further evidence to clinch it, this 2 and the parallel may be found in the variation between Mk.

2G passages Mt. io

<f>avp(i)0f)

is

Lk. 8 17 already noted. reproduced in Mt. by o OVK


,

Here Mk.*s
Iva.

ear

/XT)

Iva.

a.7roKOi\v<f>OycreTai,
/XT)

and

in

Lk. by

o ov ffravepbv yevijo-erat.

Thus

eav

<f>avp<i>0f]

seems

clearly to represent an original V?W] i^r^ 'except that which shall be revealed*, i.e. 'which shall not be revealed*, and this
is

the rendering of Pesh. Jl^J^>

JJ?

(Pal. Syr., Sin. vacant).*

on
In Jn. Q
1 '

similarly a mistranslation of ^ relative.


cru

Tt

Acycts Trepl avrov,

on

r)vea)^ev crov

TOVS

6<f>6aX[j,ov<s

the use of on

convincing.
'

very awkward, and the 'in that* of R.V. unThe passage, however, at once becomes clear when
is

we recognize What sayest


*

that 6Vi

simply a mistranslation of ^ relative thou of him who hath opened thine eyes ? This
is
*

That

iva is

here a mistranslation of

"H

relative has

been noted by Wellhausen,

Einleitung*, p. 15.

CONJUNCTIONS
sense,

77
is

which

is

naturally to be deduced from the Aramaic,


_si <^JJ1
' ;

given

by the Arabic Diatessaron


of %
(vt.

vg.) is

'

qui aperuit
'

'.

and the best-attested reading 45 Similarly, in 8 eyw oc on

rendered by Pal. Syr. l^cua ^sof \j\i **> l>}, which would Aeyw This meaning, naturally bear the sense, I who speak the truth '.
is

which
verse,

offers a superior antithesis to


is

'

he

is

a liar

'

of the preceding

offered by the Diatessaron ^jjl 'who', and by two MSS. of % (vg.) 'qui'. In our notes on the Prologue a similar case

of mistranslation
KT\.
(cf.

is

suggested in

i
'

16

on

e*

TOV TrA^/ow/Aa-ros avrou


'

because, inasmuch as seems and, conversely, "] 4 to have been wrongly treated as the relative in i 13 (cf. pp. 29, 34). case in Mk. where on seems to be a mistranslation of ^ relative
p. 39),
'

(<5)

is

41

Tt's

apa OVTOS

ICTTLV

on

KOL 6 oW/xos KOL


. .

r)

OdXaaaa

vTranovei

avrai;

'Who

then
'

is this

the

sea obey ?

avrw) even the wind and (w Another may very possibly be seen in 824,
.

whom

BAeTTw TOVS dv0pw7rovs


difficult

Mt. I3 16

on us oevopa 6pa> TrcptTrarowTas, where the on may represent a wrong rendering of ^ (ovs).t In v/xoiv 8e (JLaKapLOL ol o<J>Oa\fjiol on ySAcTrovo-ti/, Acat TO. wra [V/AWV]
the words on pXtTrova-iv
.
. .

on
by

O.KOVOVO-W,

Sin., Cur., Pesh.


'

^oo*,?
. .
.

^*l~ 9,

on a/covovcrtv are rendered which may mean because


'

they see, &c or which see, &c.' The latter sense is given by the and by several MSS. of % Diatessaron Ju~J jJl ^jJl, audiunt '. Hegesippus quotes the vident (vt. vg.) 'qui quae
',

^J

passage in the form


vfjiwv
ra.

yu,a/<a/3tot

ot 6</>#aAjaot V/JLWV ol ySAeTrovres, /cat

ra wra

HE.

Since Hegesippus (according to Eusebius, was a Hebrew by birth and made quotations from Syriac and Hebrew, we may infer that in this case his quotation is
d/covovra |
iv.

22)

based upon a Syriac translation of Mt. The rendering of vt. here and in the passages previously noticed shows the influence of a Syriac version upon this translation, and illustrates the natural
sense which a reader of Aramaic would attach to the particle
the contexts in question.
so-called
?

in

Conversely, the
is

same influence upon the


//,eto>v

Western

text

n
*

aTre^avev,

M seen in Jn. 8 D, //.>) o-v where rightly has oo-ns a

el

TOV

WH.
,

J Cf.

Noted by Wellhausen, Einleitung"1 Grabe, Spicilegium SS. Patrum

p. 15.
;

f Cf. Allen, St. Mark, ad


ii,

loc.

edit. alt.

p.

213

a reference which the

present writer

owes

to Dr.

antient recension of the

Four

Cureton's discussion of the passage in Remains of a very Gospels in Syriac, p. xxv.

78
Iva,

CONJUNCTIONS
as a mistranslation of

=
""]

when

'.

have noticed, when speaking of the usage of ^, that it can bear the meaning when ', ore. Strictly speaking in such a usage it is relatival which ', with ellipse of in it W3\ which in it
'

We

'

'

'

'

'

= 'in
Iva

which';

cf.

s8

Jn. 5

where

ep^erat

Syr. as o>s? )?o

IC^A, tJL/.
:

The

wpa lv fi appears in Pal. following" cases occur in Jn. of

standing for ore


rj

I223 IXrfXvOev

o>pa Iva 8oacr6f) 6 vios rov avOptiyrrov.

Pal. Syr. U->^>>


I3
1

^
wpa

*sk^*

)fco**<

Li/.

^^

cv avTOv

fj

Iva jjL^TajBfj IK rov KOOT/JLOV TOVTOV.

Pal. Syr. |on\\,

^?d ^o |o^? oV^s^


Tras 6 a7roKTeu/a<;

Li/.

l6

Ip^erat

wpa

u/a

v/xas 8o^/ Xarpeiav

Pal.

Syr. roNQ oo.


(Spa
.

l632 ep^erat
Pal. Syr. v

ti/a
.

(TKOpTri<r@f)T.

^'ii?

b^

|ui/.

That in all these cases Iva simply stands by mistranslation for ore, and that no mystic final sense is to be traced in the usage such as is postulated by Westcott, is proved by the use of the normal phrase
wpa
ore in

21 23
'

5%

l6

2i)

and

cp^erat

wpa

iv

28 y in 5

on
In 98

similarly a mistranslation of

*]

'

when

'.

01 ^ecapovi/re?

avrov TO Trporepov ort Trpoo-atr^s ?v

we have

a very

awkward

on,

aforetime, that he

and R.V.'s halting rendering, 'they that saw him was a beggar', is the best that can be made
Clearly the sense demanded is when (ore) he ' when ' has and the natural inference is that ^
'

of the sentence.

was a beggar

',

been wrongly interpreted as conjunctive


instance of the
'Ho-atas

'

that

'.

Another clear
COTCV

same mistranslation
'

is

seen in I241 , ravra

on

ct8ev rrjv Sogav avrov


is
t

where the sense demanded

because he saw his glory'), when (ore) he saw His glory 'A
(R.V.
v. i)

* Freely quoted in the letter from the church at Lyons (Eusebius, HE. the correction li/ u 8oei for 'Iva . . 80^77 lAeuaerot Kaipbs cv $ irds 6
.

with

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

when seems

'

to

be preferable.

CHAPTER

IV

PRONOUNS
cyw,
Tjfxels,
cru,

great frequency of the Pronouns of the first and second persons is a marked feature in Jn. The occurrences in this

THE

Gospel and the Synoptists are as follows


Mt.
*yw
/cdyw

Mk.
17

Lk.
23 4
5

Jn.

29 9
5 18
31
~92

134 27
l8

?/**
(TV

3
10
II

27
21
~80

v/ms
Totals

60 68
307

U
Thus
of
3**).
-

a large extent this phenomenon finds its explanation in the fact that the Fourth Gospel is designed to prove our Lord's
31 Messiahship and His Divinity (2O ).

To

at the

opening
mission

St.

John
in

the

Baptist

contrast to

emphasizes the character * that of Christ

his

fyw

(i--awi
(

Our Lord
'-

lays stress
-

3036 635 -10 414 4851 54 , 8 12 42, IO79 U 14 1S 5 " 4 121419 9 M ii i2 i4 i? is20 8 ), is , i6 , i8 ), or His acts (15 bringing Himself into antithesis with others the disciples, the 32 8 2934 36 34 45 s 15 216 22 23 "'- 38 45 55 io 10 18, i2 26 47 Jews the world, &c. ( 4 5 , 7

upon
25
,

His claims -eyoi


46
6
1

14 - 26

33

:<7

i626, 17). Emphatic /* is frequently antithetical to eyw, and implied or expressed antithesis often accounts for the use of ^/xets and <rv.
17

I3 u.io.^ I4 God the Father

3.i 2o .i9. 2 o.27


;

5c ( .io.i

I5
,

6)

^H&.SO).
-

or
-

He
,

de fi nes Hisrelation to

(5

6 57 8 166
,

18 26
-

io 30

When all such cases have been taken into consideration, there remain, however, a large number in which the Pronoun appears Thus yw in to be used with no special emphasis.

8o
/C63./0 u
,

PRONOUNS
7
-17
,

014.16a.21a.29.49.50.54
c 4 - 7bis
, ,

T<~ 17-27.28.35 10 ,

n
;

T T 27-42
,

TO 50 12 ,
in
i
16
,

TO 7-18.26 13

14
H5
,

4.106.126.16.28
,

i5

"--*
7
;
-

i6

-"-M
7
10
, )

M -^-w I8 ;
,

^fc

6
26
,

42 69
-

7
,

8 48

24 29
-

I9

o-v
-

in 3
,

26
,

4
i

io e4
,

34 376 14, i8
-

fywfe

in i

35

*^"-...
;

8 31 46 9 19 30 ii 49
,

13
,

20

Now

I4 3 while in Semitic the use of the Personal Pronouns with


.

", i 5

3 166
-

greater or less emphasis is extremely common, we also find them employed without special emphasis in order to mark the subject

In Hebrew, and still more in Aramaic, the used with great freedom to describe an event as Participle in process of continuance, whether in the past or present, or as in process of coming into being (Futurum instans). In such cases,

of

the Participle.
is

the subject being unexpressed in the verbal form,

it

is

of course

necessary to

it, pronominal, by the Pronoun. This Semitic usage of the Participle being foreign to Greek, the in translating the Hebrew of the O.T. naturally represents

mark

when

it

is

LXX

it

by a Present, a

Perfect, a

Future,

c.,

and,

so doing, might

well have dispensed with the Personal Pronoun. As a matter of fact, however, the translation nearly always retains the Pronoun, and that, almost invariably, in the position which it occupies in the
original, before or after the verbal form.

Cases of
in
frt

^K,

^x, 'I
14

Genesis are as follows.

|yi
13 43
-

St'Sw/u,

lyu,
32

24

2Jf:i

>3b
,

I5 nan
,

with the Participle expressed by eyw 4 "VDDO "obK fyw eVayw veroV, 9 12 7 1 nn T \vrrj< "ObK ? Kpwu 30
',
1

e'yw,

&&
,

<?

y ^ lo-r^a.
.

25

12 20 5 18 s9 2f, 28 si 32 42 48", 49
,

So also i6 8 The only cases

i8 17 243 37 42, without eyw


-

are 37

l6 - 30
.

Genesis

Cases of umx, 'we', with the Participle expressed by T^/ACIS 13 Kings are Gen. i 9 njn Dip^n-nx ru D^n^n^D '3
:

in

Airo'XXvfiev

^/is
^ets
8
,

TO./ TOTTOV
.
.

TOVTOV,

43"

^3
i8

Aia

TO-

apyvpLOv

^/xet? eto-ayo'/xe^a,

Num. IO29
I
26
.

'E^atpo/xev
i

ets

TOV
3
,

TOTTOI/.

So

Deut.
,

28
,

22

Sam. i4
f)fJiCi<s.

Kgs. 22 2 Kgs. 6\ 7

396fs

No

I2 8 Judg. l8 5, 19*, cases with omission


,

of

Similarly, in Genesis

with the Participle

n^T

7rao-av

rrjv

yrjv

Kings there are 40 cases of nriK thou 15 expressed by o~v (e.g. Gen. i3 HPiSips ^Kn"b3 and 35 rjv cru 6pas), as against 14 without a~v
:

<

'

cases of BfiN 'ye' with the Participle expressed by Ex. l68 D3'h? DP.K "^^ D^nbpn'nS TOV yoyyvo-/>wv

V/ACIS

(e.g.

PRONOUNS
)

81
11 ),

and one case with

avrot (Ex. lo

as against 6 cases

Without

v/xets.

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.
TOK 'I':

Dan. 2 8 rux yr
is

y&

jo

'EV
T

olSa

pa

mn nj-n
? ^9v

cw

ey<u

Dan.

oi

Ezr. 4 16

K3p>
'

njPUK PVrtnO
:

yvtap^ofJLfv

fats

T<?

nnJN

thou

'

Dan. 4 15 ^n? nri3K1 o-{, Se', Aai/i7;A., 6 u.2i (16.20) ^^na nS-n^Q nri3K ^

SvVao-ai.

7jr6

Q ^os

o-

'ye*

Dan. 2 8

rT

xaipov

s
is

The only exception to the expression of the Pronoun Dan. a a nj


e^o/AoXoyov/Aat
/cat

found in

aivw.

As compared with Hebrew,


freely in
is
;

the Personal Pronoun is used more Aramaic with (e.g.) a Perfect where no special stress WI/J 5 apparent cf. Dan. 4" HVT ms ^ g v -]^JJ nyOB? njw

^^

Kat eyw ^Kovcra Trept o^ov.


it is at any rate a plausible hypothesis that the unemphatic of the Personal Pronoun in Jn. may often represent close usage translation of an Aramaic original in which the Pronoun was

Now

expressed with the Participle.

Thus

e.g., i
**?

26

/xeVos fyuuv O-TTJKCI ov

fats ov/c otSarc exactly represents 30 I oSrw eo-rtv V


cases

PV1,'

l^l

IP

D $S

^3*3;

JX

1DST KVl pin.

In Other

find the Aramaic Pronoun coupled without special with a Perfect or Imperfect; e.g. i 316 <iAA' a/a emphasis
5

we may

'lo-pa^X Sta TOVTO ^XOov


2C20

ya>

vSart ftairr^v, "^

82
JBJttD fljK

PRONOUNS
Again, in I the suffix of f^S naturally reproduces
p>.

WIK

nri

16

^ek
'all

Wvres
of us*.

eAct/Jo/xcv,

the

Particularly noteworthy

is

the throwing of

crv

to the

end of the
19

sentence, whether

in a question, as in i 216 'O TT/OO^T^S el crv; i8 37

OVKOW
0eoy>u>

/?a<riAevs el <rv;

19

IIo0ev et <'; or in a statement, as in

on

Trpo^TJT^s

ct

(TV,

48

^a^apur^

et

(rv.

This

is
,

4 never found

elsewhere throughout the N. T. except in Acts i333 Heb. i 5 Ytos et o-u, a quotation of Ps. 2 7 with accurate fjiov reproduction of the

Hebrew order

nri

^3.

Hebrew and Aramaic

can, in such a

statement or query, place the Pronoun after the predicate or before it (as e.g. in Gen. 2f 4 ^3 nj nriK) and Jn.'s use of both 42 49 orders (cf. < T in i 3', f\ &c.) looks much like a close repro;
-

duction of an Aramaic original.

auros, OUTOS,

To

express the 3rd person avros


(->?)

is fairly

frequent in Jn.

The
:

figures for avros

as subject in the four Gospels are as follows


12,

Mt.

Mk.

17,

Lk. 51,

Jn. 18.

Much more often, however, Jn. prefers to use an emphatic demonstrative OVTOS 'this one', CKSU/OS 'that one', and he employs
these Pronouns substantival ly with far greater freedom than do the The figures for ovros (corn?) as subject are Synoptists.

Mt. 35,

Mk.

14,

Lk. 36,

Jn. 44.

For

Keu/os

(-77,

-o)

used substantially, whether as subject or

obliquely, the figures are

Mt.

4,

Mk.

3,

Lk.

4,

Jn. 51.

eKivos is used adjectivally

Mt. 51,

Mk.

16,

Lk. 29,

Jn. 18.

Jn.'s extraordinary fondness for demonstratives in preference to

the Personal Pronoun finds adequate explanation in the heory that his Gospel is a close reproduction of an Aramaic original.

In the Aramaic of Dan. the 3rd Personal Pronoun N*n hti as subject is rendered avros by Theodotion, except where it forms the
subject of a predicative statement in which the copula is understood, in which case the Greek represents it by the substantive

PRONOUNS
verb
'

83
'

e. g. 6 Ktii pow faithful (was) he = irwrros fa 6 ?H2 Wfi he (was) kneeling = ^v Ka/xTrrwv. Aramaic is richly supplied with demonstrative Pronouns. The
5
<

11

following, with their

Greek renderings, may be noticed.


da,
fern.

n^

d'na 'this',

fern, ttt

plur.

c.
oftz
;

p!h*

Y/,

Dan. and Ezr.

passim.

Targums

p} den,

*n

strative prefix n ha-, P!!? haden, fem.

strengthened by demonK^n ^aofa = Syriac )Jo hana


;

(contracted from hacfn&), fem.

)?

/kfaE

plur.

c.

P.^n ha* Men


adj.
adj.

=
is

hallen. both as pronominal subs, and rendered OVTOS in Dan. and Ezr. (in a few cases of regularly

Syriac
is
1

^o

nw

use

it

I? "!

represented by the definite article only). dikken this, that ', c., Dan. 2 31 I?*! ND^ ^
'

6 iKa>v eKei'i/>?

(LXX
c.

and

0.),

Dan. 7 20 21
-

|?1 KJT2 TO

Dan 3

12 21 23
-

6 12 16
-

(also

K^as e/ccivo (LXX, found in Ezr.).


:

0.).

Plur.

^K

To

this
,

corresponds

in Ezr.
J
.

fem.

^ ^M
.^

this

^T

nnj? ^ ^dAis

^KH
16

Ezr.

15??^^ ; ^apjSay^p ^icctvos, 5 ; ^11 9T?K T n^2; (T t> v) lK ov TOV 6tov e/cetvov, 17, 678, O?KOV ^cov, 6 12 n^g 5 ' In addition, we find in Talmudic Aramaic Kinn hahu that or

4"*;

'

(i.e. 3rd personal pronoun hu + demonstrative particle contracted in Syriac into oo hau (Pal. Syr. also o|), fem. KVin ha),

'that one'

/f5^i (also

plur.
is

Syriac into **o hai (Pal. Syr. also !>), Syriac m. ycuot h&nnun, fem. hannen. This usage not found in the Aramaic of Dan. and Ezr., though we may
Nn), contracted^ in

^n hanho,

notice the use of the Personal

Pronoun

in

Dan. 2 32

NO.fe

wn

'that
is

image' (explained as Norn, pendens


'

'it

the image').
13
,
f

This

remarkably like eKetvos TO IIi/ev/>ia -n}? dAi?0et'as in Jn. i6 an expression which amounts to that Spirit of truth' or the Spirit, &c.'
(Pal. Syr. J^JICLO? )u.o> oio.

This version
IAJ^S oio

at

times uses oto to

express the definite article,

e. g.

6 ai/0pa>7ros.)

There can be no question


it

that

where

e/cetVos is

used adjectivally

would naturally be represented by Kinn. Thus 453 eKctVg rfj &pa would appear in the Jerus. Talmud as N;W *H3 (Cur., Pesh. <*a
Jks^*',

but Pal. Syr. jl^*, ol^.).

When

used substantivally as

subject

especially reinforcing a Nom. pendens (cf. p. 64) it is that e'/cetvos represents the Personal Pronoun Kin ; probable but there are other cases in which it looks much like a reproduction of Ninn.
Pal. Syr. represents
it

when

by o

(oU)

in 3",

f,

7",

1M2
;

G 2

84
:!5 -

P
,

R O N O U NJ5
-

Pesh. by e in 3 30 5 43 47, 7 U , 8 44 923 36 lo b5 i 3 25 , i 421 may note especially the rendering of oblique cases by Pesh. in the
1
-

2fi

We

following passages
30

3
43

fKtwov

Sti

avdveLv

= ks; NT>\

Do oo

OCH^ (Cur. oo o^.)

5
5*'

eKcti/ov Xr)iJ.\f/or6

Tots tKcivov
0"i>

^a^xol Oo^x (SO Cur.) = Oo* *o>cial^a\> (Cur. ooj). y/oa/A/zcuriv


ft e/cetVov
ciTrej/

28

fJia@r)TV)<i

I0

33

et

CKetVovs

= coJ o-OQ^l Ooj k*j( (Sin. om. Oo?). ^eov? = Jo>>/ <J/ ycuo^ y/ (Sin. om.).
Greek usage. Again, the 26 'that one (is) he* in i3
,

In cases such as these the idiomatic force of the Aramaic demonstrative satisfactorily accounts for the

phrase
21

c/ceu/os eo-riv,

rendered oo oo

lit.

I4

is

one

in

which Ninn would naturally be employed.

We

thus reach the following conclusions as to the pronouns


:

which we have been considering


Substantival use
avros

= hu. = hu and = haden.


e

hahu.

Adjectival use

= den, d na, or haden. = dikken, dekh or hahu.


}

The Relative completed by a Pronoun.


The Aramaic
relative
(p.

particle

^.,

originally,
'

as

we have
*

already remarked

70),

demonstrative
relative

that

one

is

in-

variable, and, like the

Hebrew

T^,

properly forms a link

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
connecting two co-ordinate
sentences.
clause which
it

introduces.
I

Thus
'

e.g.

such a statement

'

as,

saw

the

man

to

whom
'

in the form,

gave the book saw the man who

has to be expressed in Semitic

gave the book

to

him

'.

There

are several instances in Jn. in which the Greek copies this Semitic
construction.
i
6

'EyeWo wOpuTTos

ovo/xa avrai

'IwcWr/s.

Here the

relative

PRONOUNS
connexion
is

85

implied and not directly expressed.

So

3*.

On

the

thoroughly Semitic character of this particular idiom cf. p. 30. 27 I ov eyw OVK eifjil aio? a/a AvVa) avrov rov laavra rov v7roS?7/xaTOs.
I
33

*E<^>'

ov

av toys TO

ITvev/xa

Karaftatvov

KOL
ll?

jievov

CTT*

avrov

Pal.

Syr.

^o\^

)>]^a.v>o

]^j

)uo

|.vw

y?o

lit.

'He who
is

thou seest the Spirit descending and abiding upon him '. 36 9 Kat TI'S o~rw, Kvpie, Iva TriorevVa) eis avroV; Here Iva
translation of the relative ^
26
;

a mis-

cf. p.

76.
/cat

I3

'EKCIVOS eVrtv
FpJ>

u>

eyw

y8ai^G)

TO ^tu/xtov

Stoo-w avT&i.

Peculiarly
I

Aramaic

ynvn nnj] Nonjj njw


it

wn wnn 'That
i.e. 'to

is

he de

shall

dip the sop and give

to

him',

whom

shall give the

sop

when

have dipped
/xot

it '.

l8 9 Ovs 8e8wKas

OVK aTrwXecra e^ avrwv ovotva.


2

Wellhausen
struction from

(Einleitung' , p. 15) cites

two instances of

this con-

Mk.
avrov,

viz. I

ov OVK
rj<s

et/xt

LKO.VOS Kv\l/as Xvarai rov l^avra

TWV

vn-oSrjfJuiT(av

and

2i>

fl\fv TO Ovyarpiov avrf)<s Trvev/xa aKaidaprov,

besides three cases from the text of

in

Mt. io u iS20 Lk. 8 12 .*


,

Pronominal constructions peculiar to Aramaic.


It is

peculiarly idiomatic in Aramaic to anticipate a genitive by

use of a possessive pronominal suffix attached to the antecedent. Thus the Aramaic of Dan. writes 'His name of God* (2 20), 'in their
44 days of those kings (a ), 'ate their pieces of the Jews* (i.e. slans dered them, 3 ), his appearance of the fourth (3"), &c. Pal. Syr.
'

'

in Jn. i writes

'

their light of

mankind

'

'

(v.
'

),

its

news of the

'

light
'

(w.
19

7 8
-

'

),
),

in

His bosom of the Father


to

18

'

(v.

),

his witness of

John

(v.

&c.

There appears
but this
is

be but one instance of this in the Greek of Jn.,

so striking that it should surely count for much in In 9 18 we read the theory of translation from Aramaic. estimating TOVS yovcis avrov rov dva/SA.etyavTos, 'his parents of him that had
received sight'.
|oa~? y?o?.
n/s 'HpwSiaSos,
*

This appears naturally in Pal. Syr. as oio*j/

Cf.

Mk. 6 22
is

io-cX^ovo-r/5

T^S

Ovyarpos avrov
to

(v.

avrfjs)

which

clearly an attempt
3",
rf)

reproduce the Aramaic


X fl pi avrov, upon the assumpwhose hand is the fan (not
'

He

also cites Mt. 3 12

= Lk
by
is

tion that ov is reinforced


1

ev

ov TO irivov tv ry ' x fi pi a vrov, In

Whose

fan, &c.')

but this

very doubtful.

86
construction DJ"Vhrn

PRONOUNS
nrna *h er daughter of Herodias',
i.e.
*

the

daughter of H.' (noted by Allen, St. Mark,

ad

loc.).

Another peculiarly Aramaic idiom


direct object of a verb
Pal.

is

the anticipation
'

of the

by a pronominal suffix. Thus Syr. renders oam. )jj*X ok- ~fcW he brought
16
'

in Jn. 19"

Him

(viz.)

Lord Jesus', I9 uam- );.^S> ok~> o;a> 'they led Him the Lord Jesus', iQ 34 o*^:^ ok~ +.<> he pierced it His side'.* An example of this idiom is seen in the Greek of Jn. 9 13VAyovo-tv
the
aVTOV
Cl.N^>
7T/3OS

TOVS
^--VJ

3>apl(ra.lOVS

TOV 7TOT
CK*^;2)

TV(f>\OV := Pal.
.

Syr.

Ot&s*

oVJ(

90O

)6otf

Oo^

LoX

No

Aramaic.

cases of the direct object of a verb so anticipated are found in Biblical find the anticipatory pronoun, however, in such phrases as

We

b*M13 PQ nn^n^n 'was


it
'

found in him in Daniel' (Dan. 5"),

K*^9

n3

'

in

in the night', i.e. 'in the

they sent to him to found in Hebrew cf. Brockelmann, Vergleich.


'

same night' (Dan. 5'), Sn^^nn^K f>V *fllbp IH^ Artaxerxes (Ezr. 4 11 ). A few cases of the construction are

Gramm.

der semit. Sprachen,

ii.

227.

CHAPTER V
THE VERB
The
Historic Present
Historic Present
:

= Aramaic

use of the Participle.

THE

is

extremely frequent in Jn.

The

occur-

rences are as follows


ayovviv,

13
,

I&*.

I2 23 I3 26 38
-

'

I3
/iXen-ei,

29
,

201 5 2I 20 ;
'

J3\7rovo-w,

2l 9

26

St'oWiv,

I3
5J
,
'

21

13
.

eyeiperai, 13'.

II
'

38
,

J2 226s, I3 6 l83 20
, ,

2 - 6 - 18 26
'

2I 13

41 43 45
,
'

14

5
2I

Ocwpcl,

206 12 14 ;
26 fi,

Ocwpova-iv,
13
.

6 19

I3

21.29.36.38.39.41.43.45.46.4/.48.51

/;5.8.12.50
>

-6.50

O39
^

.-.12

7
,

>

O 3.4.5.7.8.9 O 4 7.9.11.15.16.17.19.21.25.26.28.34.49.50 -6.8 2 * 5 ; 3 > 4 T T 7.1 1.23.24.27.39^8.40.44 TO 4 22 TO 6.8.9.10.24.25.27.31.36.37 JI I2 > X 3 >


>
-

T ^ 5.6.8.9.22

14

T 04.5.17 M.26.38W lo

19

Trk 4.5.6.9.10.14.15.26.27.28
,

o<-2.13.15 W.166tg.l7.19.22.27.29 20

24

vevci,

I3
Vy
,

I3
2
.

20
5
.

tvfLf I
t

iS29

29

gives a total of 164 occurrences.* The figures for the 2 Synoptists, as given by Sir John Hawkins (HS. pp. 143 ff.), are,

This

list

* Sir

John Hawkins gives the


in

figure as 162 (besides

two cases preserved

in

Tischendorf
writer,

29
).

He

has,

who

has added

<j>aivfi

however, kindly lent his MS. list to the present 13 6 i (which may be open to dispute) and Mdoxriv ai
.

88

THEVERB
:

in addition there are Mt. 78 (21 of which are derived from Mk. 151 ; Lk. only 4 [or 6] ; Acts 13. 15 Presents in Parables); Mk.
It

this usage.

thus appears that Jn. closely resembles Mk. in fondness for If Mk. were as long as Jn., the former would show

The higher proportionate figure proportionately 195 occurrences. in Mk. is explained by the higher proportion of narrative to discourse in this Gospel. There are comparatively few cases of the 10 and 14 17.* Historic Present in Jn. 5 The use of the Historic Present in Mk. and Jn. strongly

resembles a

common Aramaic

idiom in which in a description of

past events the Participle is employed to represent the action described as in process of taking place. The following instances

of this participial usage are found in the Aramaic chapters of the Book of Daniel. Theodotion sometimes renders it by an Historic

Present or (more frequently) by an Imperfect; and when this is In other cases he employs an the case his rendering is added.
Aorist.

'(was) answering* (always followed by ">PN] 'and (was) 5 8 15 20 26 27 47 "---. "6 M.* 6 13 17 21 2 , 3 -% 5 , 4 7 *(this verb is saying'), a
-

n ?.y

frequently

omitted
24
.
' ,

in

Theodotion's
15 20 26
-

rendering).t
4.11.16 6J8.20.2J
,

f^V

'(were)

answering*, 3
c\ s)
2

saying
in

aa\nnrr

o z5 8
-

2'- 4 '

o ,3

14 - 19 - 24 - 26 - 28

A ,4

,-7.13.17
;

/C13.17.21

P"W?j?

'(were) saying', 2

7 10
-

9 - 16 - 24
,

6
5

6 - 7 13 - 14 16
-

f. Theodotion,

Ac'yet

in

227

Ae'yovo-ti/
<

2 10 6 13 14 16
'

IXeyoi/ in
',

ptfaanp (were) gathering together


' *

3
'

r? K '(were) standing
i?

*,

3'

*T!i3

(e/?oa), 3 ; PVPf? (was) crying QJ '(were) falling down

(were) hearing
. . .

(^/covov),

7
;

and (were) worshipping*

ovtKvvow),

'
',

PpBJ

(were)

coming
3
s7
;

forth
f?tn

26
',

^|?no '(were) gathering together*


* Cf.

(o-wayovrat)

'(were)

HS*pp. Hsf.
remarkable
that,

It is

though

we

constantly find Hpy (participle) coupled with

(participle) in the singular

'he (was) answering and (was) saying',

we

do

not (with the single exception 3 24 ) find the participle plural pjy coupled with the
participle plural
perfect fay

JHDS1.

In the plural the regular usage


'

is

the coupling of the


'.

with the participle pltDNI

they answered and (were) saying

This

fact suggests the possibility that the singular

form should be vocalized, not npy

'aw

(Participle), but

ily 'and (Perfect).

TH;E
seeing' (cBeupow),

VERB
10

89

crying
(/cat

',

4;

nnt? '(was) drinking', 5*;


5
;

2y/m<ov), 5

4 ; N") '(was 'and (were) writing' f2JpjJl njn '(was) seeing' (etfewpet), 5"; tn ??''? '(were) being
3^;
1

nru '(was) descending',

loosed'
K"?.iJ

6
;

(StA.vovro),

5
7
;

]\?-l
e

'(were) knocking' (o-w/cpoTowro), 5


' '

'(was) crying', 5

P^g"^

'

fwV, K rer?V '(were) entering ' (were) not being able (OVK ^vvavro), 5
',

(efVeTropevoi/To),
;

^$*JR?

(was)
'(were)

being

terrified

5";
'

fW

'(were) being

changed
;
I

',

5";
'

P^f

being perplexed
15

(o-wcrapoWoi/To), 5

YLjjT**?

(were) not being

able', 5

fTO? '(were) drinking'


'

(ln-tvere),

5;

Vta"!?"^ Tl?

Mn

tnto

K?2flM

he (was) kneeling on his knees and (was) praying and


(^v /ca/XTrrcov
CTTI TO,

(was) giving thanks'


/cat

yovara

avroi;, KCU Trpoacv^o/xei/os


'

n
e^o/x,oAoyov/xvo9),6
'

fn^9 '(were) bursting forth (rrpoo-^aXXov), 7


'

2
;

|i?pD

(were) coming up

(avtpaivev),

npsn
. .

n^pl nbas

'

(was)
(eo-fltW

eating and (was) breaking in pieces


/cat

(was) trampling'
'(was) issuing
21

AeTrnW

7 19
'

(rweTraVet), 7
10

pB}1

133

and (was)

coming
'(was)

forth

'

(ctA/cci/),

7
7

bSDD '(was) speaking' (eXaAa), 7"; snag


;

making'

21

(eVotet),

nbaj. '(was) prevailing', 7

The
action

fact that in the

199^ Aramaic w. of Dan.

we

thus find no

less than 99 instances of this participial

shows how

usage describing a past characteristic of the language the idiom is. highly
itself to
is

That the usage naturally lends


If those

representation in Greek by

the Historic Present or Imperfect

obvious to an Aramaic scholar.

who

are unacquainted with Aramaic will read a passage

of the book in English, substituting the literal renderings given above for those of R.V., and remembering that the time-deter-

mination (was or
conclusion.
It will

is)

is

absent from the original and can only be


fail

inferred from the context, they can hardly

to

come

to the

same

be noticed

that,

out of the 99 examples, 23 are found with

the verb 'answer', and no less than 36 with the verb 'say', leaving 40 (or considerably less than half the total) to verbs bearing other
In Syriac the use of the Participle under discussion is practically confined to the verb 'say'.* In the 151 instances In of the Historic Present in Mk., 72 are cases of Ae'yct, Xcyovo-iv.

meanings.

the 164 instances in Jn. the proportion borne by


*

Ae'yci,

Aeyovo-tv to

of

its

See, however, Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mephatreshe, use with other verbs in Sin.

ii,

pp. 63

ff.,

for instances

9o
the whole
fourths.

THEVERB
number
is

considerably higher,

viz. 120,

or nearly three-

That the frequent use of the Historic Present in Mk. is due Aramaic influence is maintained by Allen (Expositor, 1900, Oxford Studies in the Expository Times, xiii, p. 329 pp. 436 ff.
to
;

Synoptic Problem, p. 295) and by Wellhausen (Einleitung in die drei


ersten Evangelietf, p.
17).

It

also the

same theory phenomenon.

offers

can hardly be doubted that in Jn. 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 3
vei,
22
.

I22

4
,

2
;

23

ipairritwro, 3

I2
22
.

6
.

I3 22 j
eyoyyvoi/; 6

41
.

3
,

I9
16
.

5
I9
12

29

I3
;

e^ow,
.

18

111 30
'

IO TO, II 8 56
'

21
,

18

4
.

s7
,

15

7
18

l8
,

62
5
;

I7

e!
6
,

X
II

I9
.

n
;

TX

i/,

2 25, I3 29

e? CTe,

41
;

e? oo-a/,

22 24
'

I5

20

63
29

I9

20 12

THEVERB
,

91

I2 13
13

eXaXct,
ZXeyev,
/

27
,

7
,

IO R
'- 19
,

22

>' 22

5
4lb*

23 27 6'-, 8
'

'

31
,

9
,

I229 33
'

33 42
"

iXeyov,
>

4
>

5",

6,
T/^l 8 lo
>

-11.12&IS.25.31.40

O19.22.25
>

.-.8.9

.10.W 16&Z8
;

1O

T/-.20.21.24.41

T 1X

T 36.47.56

To 29
A< ^
*

^OVTO,
f

2
.

I2 17 pL I
,

I2 6

>.

/.

6 6 71 II", I2 3 ', l8 32 40 c/xeivev), IO


),

47

'

39
;

>eXXoi/; 7
&

f7Tl<TTCVV,

2 24
38
.

466f
;

7r60-TVT, 5

*;

cVlWcVOl/, 7

I2 11

'

37
.

7TKtTO, II
eTrou.,

2 2 ', 5 16 6 2
,

4
I7
,

50
.

12
.

2I

12
.

2O 4

II
ifrdtTra,

36
,

19

I5
23

20 2
26

II

5
,

rjywvi^ovTOf

I3 iS 36

I9

2I 7

: ;

^ ra7r5re ; 8

42
,

28

I4

33

^Swaro

(eS.),
18
;

II 37

39 ^8wai/ro; I2
1

^cAes; 2i
^/coXov(9et,

2
,

^cXev, 7 l8 15
.

ij&Aw, 6

11 - 21
,

44

i6 19

ii 29

WXOVTO, 4

30
,

6 17 i9
,

:<

2o 3

4
,

47
;

rjpurwv,
, .

31 ' 40
,

15
,

I2

21
.

2 46 4 II 6 21
.

s,

2I 18 I2
11
.

TrepteTrarei,

23 54 II 5, f, IO
;

TrepteTraTOW,

6 66

vTrfjyov,

21
,

w/AoXoyovv, I2

42
.

92

THEVERB
The
total is 167.

In Mt. the Imperfect occurs 94 times

in

Mk.

228 times; in Lk. 259 times; in Acts 329 times.* If Jn. were as if long as Mt., there would be proportionately 212 occurrences
;

if as short as Mk., 133. Thus Jn,'s use of as long as Lk., 225 the tense, though more than twice as frequent as that of Mt., is
;

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

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 eAeycv, cXcyov

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,
eAeyei/,

cXcyov 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 ' of saying ' he did some action, Aramaic frequently says ' he

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

LXX

Aramaic.
2 2
31

Literal rendering.
<

LXX.
ew/oaKas.
id.

Theodotion.

rijtn
s4

ntn

Thou wast
id.
I

seeing'.

id.

id.

rpin ntn
id.

<

was seeing '.


id.

e*a0evSoi/.

4
5

10

f&etbpow.

id.
rjc-av

19

PV?,t
1

^H
r

'

?}

They were trembling and fearing '.

vacat.

*at <oov/*cvot.

* Cf. HS.* p. 51, where the figure 163 for Jn. requires correction, as also the printer's error 12 for the occurrences of 6^77, which should be 2.

Cf.

US* p.

12.

94

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

The use

of a Present to denote the Futurunt instans

is parti-

cularly frequent in Jn. with the verb epxo/xat. following instances


:

We

may

note the

I I

15 2 '
-

OTricro)

JMOV

30

OTTtVw

JJLOV

cpxerat
'

avirjp.

4 -,

f,
on

l6 2 25 32
-

4
4

25
s5

oTSa

Mecrcrias

TCTpa/xryvos e<rrt /cat 6 ^epioyxo? epxerai.


eis

24

5 6 14
s7

KptVtv OVK epxerai.


6 epxo/xevos eis TOV KOO-/XOV.

7rpo<l>rJTY)s

7
41

6 Se Xpwrro? oral/ epx^ai.

7
42

M^
O-TTO

yap

/c

T^S FaXiAatas 6 Xptoros


. . .

7
4

B^^Xee/x

ep^rau o Xptcrros.

9
11
3

Ipxerat vv^, ore ovSct


2/

6 Xpl(TT05,
TraA.ii'

...

6 CIS TOl/ KOOT/XOV ep^O

I4
30

ep^o/tat.

I4
-

epx^rat yap 6 TOV KOO*/XOV

vv

<roi.

2I 22 23 *Eav

avroi/

^cXw

xei/eii/

ews
in the Synoptists,

This use of

pxo/x,at is

found also

though with

3 not nearly such frequency: Mt. 3" (Mk. i 7 ; Lk. 3"), Mt. 20 11 12 Mt. 2i 5 (quotation), Mt. 2442 (Lk. 7 ), Mt. I7 (eX^wi/ Mk. 9 ) 35 4344 :i940 As Mt. 27 49 Lk. 17="', 23 29 (Mk. i2 ), Mt. 24 ); (Lk. i2
; ,
.

might be expected, it is particularly frequent 8 T 4.7.8 o*-16 o 11 n12 11 14 10 15 22 12 20 1 ;^ ;3>4>9; TT T^ oo'-

in the

Apocalypse

/I

Instances of other Presents so used in Jn. are:


I
29

"iSc 6 d/xvos TOI) ^eoO 6 atpwv T^I/ ayaaprtav TOV /cooyxou.

I22

6
,

<f>L\S)v

TTJV

tyvyyiv
,

avrov

airoXXvei

avrrjv (contrast

Mt. l6 :5,

Mk. 8 35 Lk. 9% I7 33
20

dTroAeo-ct

avr^).
ets c/xe.

I7
In

7Tp! TOJV TricrrevovTwv Sta TOV Aoyou avroiv

Aramaic

(as

also in

Hebrew) the

Participle is used as a

Futurum

instans with great frequency.

In

all

cases cited above

THEVERB
in

95

which
it

sents

sense
in Jn.

is

has the sense of a Futurum instans, Pesh. repre2 the Participle, except in 14?, i6 , where the future by expressed by the Imperfect. Moreover, in the only cases
epxo/Aai

where the Greek uses the Future

eAevVo/xcu,
48

we

find that

Pesh. represents this by the Participle;


teal

cAevVorrai oi 'Pu/uuot

apova-Lv

= ^*a*,
23
;

)tA*aoof ^.l|o,
TT/OOS

lit.

'and the

Romans
ola^o, (TR.

coming,
lit.

taking away'; i4
to

avrov eAevcro//,e#a
Trapa/tAr/ros ov

= ^1(
fjir]

'and

him We coming*
JJ

l6 7 6

t\6y
'

OVK eAevo-erai)

= )l/
Mt. 9

'[v.\ftfd y

lit.

'the Paraclete not coming*.

Cf. elsewhere,
'

15

cAev'o-ovTai Se ^cpat = Jfcoo<x ^9

25

31

"Oral/ Sc

'When
7raT/3o?

the

eX% 6 vios Son of man coming'; Mk. 8

^l/, lit. but days coming ; TOU avOpwrov = I^If o^s lit. ^-f ]li? |l,
:{8

orav cXOy iv

rfj 80^77 roi)

a^Toi)

= ^oco(?

)L*=>cLs )lj?

)o,

lit.

'when

He

coming
'

in

the glory of His Father* (so Lk. 926 ).


in the

Aramaic of Dan.

are,

2 13

decree went forth and the wise


to

pb^np men being

Instances of the usage app'sm ni2D3 xnni So the


'

killed

(i.

e.

were about

be killed'); 422 KBtopp PUf?


(i.e.

'And they driving thee from


29
t/.
;

men'

'they shall drive thee'); so ' ' wetting thee (i. e. they shall wet thee ').

Pys?

'they

Verbal sequences.
i
39

"Epxco-Oc
is
.
.

sequence an ark
.

'Come, and ye shall see*. A similar Hebrew. Cf. Gen. 6 14 Make ( n ^!) thee and thou shalt pitch (9"]??]) it within and without with
/cat

ctyecrfle

idiomatic in

'

'

pitch

so Targ.
'

Onk., nn;

^arprn

tf>

p.^-nK nn^ni
Jon.
P.ta|

^ Go, and nw n: *n&r\]

thou shalt smite

T^y. Amalek

j
'

Sam. is3
so Targ.
in
-

^r.

See

for

further instances

19 20 Hebrew, Driver, Tenses, 112. Cf. further in Aramaic, Ezr. 7 , 'And the vessels that are given thee for the service of the house of thy God, deliver thou (D^n) before the God of Jerusalem ; and

whatsoever more

is

needful
'.

thou shalt bestow

(ifljri)
'

out of the

king's treasure house

A eta
in
all

Thomae

(p.

uo>),

But conduct

yourselves (yofco/

humility and temperance and and in hope in God, and ye shall become purity, (^t^l ^oo.o)

oS?l/)

His household-servants'. This form of sequence is not (apart from translations from the Hebrew) so characteristic of Aramaic as it is of Hebrew, except where the sequence is clearly to be

96
regarded

THE VERB
(as in the last instance) as the result of the

preceding

Imperative.
"Epx<r$e Kat

This, however,
6\j/<r@e.

is

clearly implied in the expression


/cat
A.^/x,i/re(r$e.

So

l6~

4
,

atretre

Change
in Jn.
I

of construction after a Participle


Tc^ea/xat TO Tn/eC/xa Kara/Jaa/ov
. . . .

is
.
.

seen in two passages


Kat e/xetvcv lif avrov,

32

3 a frequently-used Hebrew idiom; e.g. Ezek. 22 flDDB> T V D T> ^t' n a ^ty shedding blood and makes f!n and and makes', or 'shedding idols' (i.e. 'that sheds

and 5 44
to

Aa/A/?dVon-es, Kat

ov ^retrc.

These are exactly analogous


.

D^a

'

making');

Ps. i8

:'

WD

V?b?

^]

i>|

fl

W?,
He
T*

lit.

my feet like the harts', and on my 'Who makes ... and sets'); Gen.

heights

sets

'Making me' (i.e.


.
. .

2f* njn, lit. 'the and one hunting venison and brought it' (i.e. 'who hunted See other cases in Driver, Tenses, 117. In accordbrought').
Kajl

ance with this usage, we should render Karapaivov ... Kat e/netvi> 32 not as R.V. 'descending in Jn. i .; and it abode', but
, .
.

'

descending
'

.,
.

5",

receiving

and abiding ; and Aa/A/^dVovres, Kat ... ov ^r/Tetre in and seeking not', or who receive and seek not '.
'
. .
.

'

This usage is remarkably frequent in the Apocalypse, and the cases have been collected and discussed by Dr. Charles in his

Commentary
'

i,

p.

cxlv

cf.

TO>

dyourwrt ^/xas
2a

Kat

cTrotr/o-cv

^/xas

Unto Him

that loved us
us',

... and hath made


semi-colon);
.
.

us, &c.' (not as

R.V.
'

'and

He made
.
. .

after
'

i5

eo-rwras
.

Ibarras

Ki0a/oas

Kat aSovo-tv

standing
-

having harps

(A.V., R.V.

cases

'And they sing', after full stop, be seen in 2 2 9 , 3", 7", 13", 14".* may The construction is rather Hebrew than Aramaic, though i ;nto Kwy] KBbK-fD p-np PDJJPJ may note Dan.

and singing are incorrect). Other


. .

we
TJ^J

KOI u uiv KO.I tytvofjujv vatpos, or ao 4 Not, however, (with Dr. Charles) at . (with rejection of ofrivfs as an editorial gloss) ras if/v^as rwv irfjrc\(KiafJifvojv ov ifpoafKvvrjaav TO Orjpiov. An essential element in the Hebrew construction is
. .

i 18

that the finite verb expresses the proper sequence of the Participle, which may be actually a sequence in time, so that the 1 connecting the finite verb with its

antecedent expresses the sense 'and then' t or as introducing the direct result, and so ' ; or a sequence in description in which, though the fact described may properly speaking be coeval with its antecedent, it follows naturally in the gradual
4

unfolding of the picture (especially frequent in description of types of character). do not find cases in which the sequence describes an event actually prior in time to its antecedent, as would be the case in the two passages in question. For

We

these quite a different construction would be employed in

Hebrew.

THE VERB
.
.

97
.

'And they shall drive thee (lit. driving thee) from men and have it in Jn. i 32 with grass like oxen they shall feed thee '. oXi*. Ufcoo Pal. Syr. !]^>*j? )l^j, Pesh. fcv-cuao

We

In 5
/

44

^retre
.
.

is

represented by the Participle; Pal. Syr.


;

fc^

^xmj vpW

Pesh. ^*J^

JJ

ypfco/

^>\^nv>

In the O.T. passages it is usual, both in Targ. and Pesh., to resolve the opening Hebrew Participle into a Perfect and then to follow it or Imperfect preceded by the relative

by another Perfect or Imperfect.

CHAPTER

VI

NEGATIVES
Semitic languages do not for the most part possess negative expressions such as none, never, but express them by using the

THE

corresponding positives coupled

Thus
'any
'
.

e.g.
.
.

Hebrew
not'

&

with the simple negative


.
.

not.
.

5>3,

'none';

or,

Aramaic 1$ b, ) since Heb. B*N, Aram. t?3g,

<V
,*./,

commonly used in the sense 'any one', 'none* may be expressed by this term with preceding negative. So in Heb., ^ 1't. Gen. 2 H?? n v?? D 19 n "F? P lant of the field was not yet in the earth (i.e. no plant was yet, &c.'); Gen. 4 wi? tob-^3 faiarnian, lit. for the o/-smiting him of a/1 finding him
a
is
5

man

'

'^

'

'

15

<

'

(i.e.

'that none finding


lit.

nb>j)>-fr6,

'all

him should smite him'); Ex. i2 roN?D~73 work shall not be done' (i.e. 'no work shall be

16

50 ey ^K f"N, lit. 'there is not a man with us' done'); Gen. 3i no one is with us'); Gen. 41" Vrj-nK B?<K tfV-*6 TIV^? 'inde(i.e. pendently of thee # ;<* shall not lift up his hand (i. e. none shall
( '
'

any place Dan. 46 fj"73 D3N frO, lit. 'every secret does wo/ trouble thee' (i.e. 'wo secret Tjp troubles thee'); Dan. a 10 5>3V N^P ^P ^ X]?f?-"^y t^g "0^"N^
lift

up, &c.').

In Aram., Dan. 235

was

not found for

them

'

'

(i.e.

narfn *6 no place was found


fln|>

^^3
')
;

'

^L

J r

,
'

lit.

'there
e.
'

is

not a

man on
. .

earth that can


&c.').
'

show the

king's

matter

(i.

no one on earth can show,


-ras (vav)
.

We find
in
TTtt?

the Semitism
:

^=
ja>)

none', 'nothing*', in Jn.


^ avrov, I2^
6

two passages
6 7Tt(TTV(01/ CIS

6
//,

39

Iva

TTO.V

o 8e8wKeV /xot
fJLLVrj.

aTroXeVw
.

ti/a

V TT^ (TKOTLO. [M]

TTttS

OV

(/X

in Mt.
Trapa

24

s2

Mk. I320
TTOLV
5
,

OVK av eVwtfry 7rao-a o-ap^, Lk. I 37 OVK

TOV

cov

piy/xa,

Ps. 143*),

Eph. 4*>, 5

Rom. 3 20 2 Pet. i, i Jn.


,
. . .

1C Gal. 2 (both quotations of 3 18 21 6M -- 9 2 where

(cf.
'

the renderings 'everyone 16 22 3 Apoc. 7 , i8 , 21% 22


.

not', 'no

one

2*, 3 , 4 5 ; are equally legitimate),


,

NEGATIVES
'No one
1

99
27

is

expressed by ov
/AT)
16

avOpuiros in Jn. 3

Ou
. .

avfyxoTTOS \a/j./3dvLv ovSev eav


fji

/crX., 5'

avOpuirov OVK

e;((o

tva

j3d\r)

OuSsVore eXaX^o-ev OVTCO? av0pa)7ros.* In eis TTJV KoXv/JiftrjOpav, 7" 2 I2 14 ov yap ^XeVeis Mk. II we find e<' ov ovSei? ovVa) dvfyxoTTouv eKa@L<TV,
(but here there
is

eis Trpo'o-wTrov dvfyxoTreov

a sense of antithesis to

TT?V

6Soi/ TOT)

eov following),

but elsewhere in the Synoptists there seems


avOpw-n-os.

to

be no case of
'Never'
is
7

ov

expressed

in

Heb. and Aram, 'not ...


'

for ever ';


J

cf.
l

in

Heb. Ps. so
j)

moved Ps. 93 ncn3-i>K Met me never be put to shame Ps. iiQ s^X 'I will never forget Thy commandments';
D^y|> DteK-5>3
I

shall never be

si

7i
2

D^yb
25

Isa.

nja?

xb

'

D^ij;^

it

shall never be

rebuilt

' ;

in

44 Aram., Dan. 2

i?3nnn
(p.

PD^
)i^^

'which shall never be destroyed';


Jl

^ Ada Thomae
'and they
'

JL^>)

^A-Na-^-V.

jp.^.^^?

)lcux^so.2>

yooc^jo

shall be with
id. (p.

Him
'.

in

the

kingdom which never passes away

U ?^) )*^^ never pass away

yx^^
.
.

|Lo)^*^) ^.?

ho

'but this banquet shall

Similarly, ov

^
:

ets
fj.r)

rov aluva occurs several times in Jn. in the


Suf/rja-ei cis

Sense 'never*
eis cis

14

4
ov
26

ov

rov aiwva, 8
ei?

o1

6a.va.rov
28

ov

fj,r)

@it)pr]o-r]

rov atwva, TOV cuoiva,


15

52

yu,^

ytvo-yrai Oavdrov
a.7ro6dvr)
32

rov aiwva, IO
8

ov

py

aTroXwi/rai

1 1

ov

/u,^

ets

Toy atcova, I3 ov /x^ vtyrjs /xov TOVS


aitovo<;

TroSas
is

TOV

aicova.

Cf. also

K TOV in

OVK

fjKovo-Q-r].

The phrase
e/c

only found elsewhere


cts

in

N.T.
II 14 ,

Mt. 2i 19 Ov
OVK c^et

/x^/ceri
a<^>co-iv

o-ov /capiros

yivyrai
I

TOV ataiva
/xr/

Mk.

Mk. 3 29

ct?

TOV aiava,

13 Cor. 8 ov

<^>ayo)
J

Kpea

cis

TOV ataiva.

To
from

express

'/^s/

Hebrew has

the single term

?B.

To

this in

Aramaic corresponds the compound term NDpH


9J'

from + 1, i.e. lit. 'since why?' This !, Targ. introduces a rhetorical question deprecating the taking of properly neb Dan. i 10 a certain course (cf. Oxford Heb. Lex., p. 554 a

tt>:

(Syr. JlaaX?), formed

i^

noW Song
style).

7
,

are instances of the equivalent

Heb. phrase

in late
,

This expression occurs once

in Biblical

23 Aram., Ezr. y

and
'

the regular equivalent of Heb. fa in the Targg. *O ^ 'that 18 6 9 18 ; and in Pesh. JIf ... not' 'lest' in the Aram, of Dan. 2
is

that

not

sense

'

lest'

used indifferently with jla&^9 'since why?' as the equivalent of Heb. |B.
is

'

in the

avQpuTTos

rts,

like indefinite t^JS,

is

also found in Jn. 3 1

4
,

23 ' 51
.

H 2

ioo

NEGATIVES
have

already remarked that in Jn. Iva fir) is regularly employed to the exclusion of firj-rrorc. The occurrences, 18 in all 16 20 15 14 12 39 5 3 4 , 5 6 ", (as against Mt. 8, Mk. 5, Lk. 8), are as follows :n :s36 35 40 42 46 50 23 These occurrences of 'that. i6 i8 I2 ii 37 i9 7
-

We

not' do not
following
eo
:

all

carry the sense 'lest'

but this force

is

clear in the

3
14

OVK tpxtrai Trpos TO


fir)KTL afidpravf,

<f>ws,

iva

fir]

cXtyxQrj

TO.

tpya avrov.

5
23

Iva. fir)

\tip6v

CTOL TL

ycvrjraL.
Iva.
fir)

ei

TrepiTOfirjv Xafifidvci

avOpwTros fv o-a/?/?aTa)

XvOf) 6 vo/zos

2s5
Tva
1

I2 40 I2
42

x,

?8(U(rtv

TOI?
<PapL(ra.LOv<s

aAXa

8ia

TOVS

ov% wfioXoyovv

Iva.

fir]

aTroarvvdywyoi

cXaX^Ka
1 1

v/xti/

Iva. firj ii/a

8"

avTol OVK eia-rjXOov cis TO 7rpaiTwpiov;


ot vTrrjptTai* ol tfiol rjyayvL^ovro

/Z^ fiiav6w(TW.

836
31

oiv, Iva. firj

TrapaSo^w TOI?

'Iou8ai'ots.

IQ

tra

/x-J)

fieivrj

tTrt

TOV aravpov

TO,

(rwfiaTa.

/XTJTTOTC,

which never occurs

in Jn., is

found in Mt. 8 times, Mk.


'

twicet Lk. 6 times.

A striking proof that Jn.'s


fc^i is to
40 Jn. I2
.

a/a

py

Mest

represents the Aramaic

be seen in the quotation from Isa. 6 10 which occurs in In this quotation the Heb. uses If 'lest', and this is

represented in

LXX

by

/xr/rroTe,

but in Pesh. by

JJ?

'that

not*.

Heb.

LXX
Pesh.

firJTTOTC tSwo-iv Tots 6<f>6aXfiol<i

The

quotation
,

while Mk. 4 12
firJTTOTf

15 given in Mt. i3 in the ipsJssima verba of quoting more freely, yet has the firjiroTt of

is

LXX

LXX,
Jn.,

C7TL(TTpe\}/<ixrLV

Kol
Iva.

a<f>e@r]
fir)

O.VTOIS (i.e.

^2"}1

2W

fB).

however, rendering

toWu/

TOIS 6<j>QaXfioL<s,

departs from the

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

original ?

CHAPTER

VII
1

MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE ORIGINAL ARAMAIC OF THE GOSPEL

THE most weighty form of evidence in proof that a document is a translation from another language is the existence of difficulties
or peculiarities of language which can be shown to find their solution in the theory of mistranslation from the assumed original
language.

There are a considerable number of such

in the

Fourth
in

Gospel, and some of them have already been noticed preceding discussion. These may first be summarized.

the

The
wa on

particle
for
=[

"^
'

with a relative sense mistranslated by

Iva.

or on.

= = Iva for ^ =
for ^
(cf. p.'

'

who

who, which ', .i 5 6 9 8 45 9'' ; less certainly ',


, ,
,

3050

14'

(cf. p.
16

75).

in i in

(cf. p.

76).
,

'when' (properly 'which ...


'

it'),

i2

2:{

13',

i622

77).

on
^
(cf.
5
,

for

=!

when

',

9*,

i2 41

(cf.

p. 78).

'because,

inasmuch

as',

mistranslated

as

a relative,

4 13
-

pp. 29. 34).

i2 35

Kara\afji^a.vLv
(cf. p.

^?

'take, receive', a

misunderstanding
&fln

of ^3j?K 'darken'
i
(cf.
9
.

29).

r)

= subst.

verb

N]L],

probably a misreading of

CKCIVOS

p. 33).

The ambiguity

of the particle ^ has, as

we have seen

in the cases

noted above, caused difficulty to the translator. There are several other passages in which, though the relative force of the particle
is

clear,

the fact that

it

lacks expression of gender and

number

has led to misapprehension.


together.

These may
/xoi

conveniently be taken
ianv.

IO

2<J

6 Trarrjp pov o Se8(o/ceV

Trdvrwv
,

fJiti^ov

This reading

has the support of B* %

(boh)

and

is

therefore adopted by

io2

MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE
can only be rendered, 'As for hath given Me is greater than all'.
It

WH.
He

My

Father, that which


is

This

explained by

Westcott

to

mean

that 'the faithful regarded in their unity, as

a complete body, are stronger than every opposing power. This 4 is their essential character, and "no one is able ..." Cf. i Jn. 5 .' The whole context cries out against the falsity of this exegesis.

Stress has been laid in the parable upon the weakness of the sheep, their liability to be scattered and injured by the powers of
evil,

and their utter dependence upon the Good Shepherd.


'

In

the parallel clause their safeguard is stated to consist in the fact that no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand '. But,
if

Westcott

is correct, this

to the thought of the

would seem to he merely supplementary power of the flock regarded as a unity


1

Again, the phrase 'greater than all' has, on this text, to be explained as 'stronger than every opposing power'; yet what authority is afforded by the context for thus Clearly the expression, as it stands without limiting its scope ?
is

which

incredible.

limitation,

is

applicable to

God
is

alone.

There can be no doubt


is

that

the

sense intended

that

which

given by the

less

authenticated
fj.oL

reading, adopted by R.V., 6 irar-qp pov 09 Se'Sw/ccV co-riV, which supplies the reason for the parallel are clause which follows. Yet there can be little doubt that
/xei<oi/ Trai/Twv

WH.

correct in regarding the

more

difficult
it

reading as original, and the


;

more
of
it.

natural one as a correction of


it

since,

had the

latter

been

original,

is

inconceivable that the former could have arisen out

Its origin

may

Aramaic N^'P? K?!


to

^
. .

be traced to an unintelligeril rendering of the in which a-TI ?1 1 may be taken


,

... /ieiov. Possibly the first draft of the translation rendered ^ only as a neuter (o /xei^wv, N L \^), and the other readings are corrections dictated by regard for grammar.
either os
.

mean

/x.etwv

or

This explanation of the anomaly offered by the Greek might


be regarded as less than convincing
the passage stood alone. There are, however, other passages in which the text is similarly and obviously at fault. In 17" we read, r^prja-ov avrovs ev TO> oi/o/xem
if
<o

(rov

SeSwKas

fjioi,

Iva.

a><riv

cv Ka$o>s ^/xets,

and similarly
Is
it

in

12
z/.
,

cyw

cTrjpovv aurovs cv

TU> ovo/xari
is,

vov

u>

Se'ScoKas

JJLOL.

possible to believe
hast given
is

that the sense intended

'Thy name which Thou


'

Me'?

Westcott

may

u well observe on v. ,

The phrase

very remark-

ORIGINAL ARAMAIC OF THE GOSPEL


able,

103

and has no exact


is

parallel except in v.
TTO.V

12
'.

Clearly the object

of

SeSto/cas

established by V? tva
V.
6

o ScSwKas aurai Swcret avTol<5

(D?)J/

aluvLov,

'E^>aW/30>cra crov TO 6Vo/xa rots av6p<i)7roi<s ov<s eSw/ca? /xoi


24

K TOV Kooyxov,
wo-iv /XCT' e/xov,

V.'

HaTtjp, o SeSw/cas

ftot,

$Aa>

iVa OTTOV et/xi

eyci)

KaKetvot

the whole burden of the prayer being the commendation of the disciples to the Father on the ground that it is He who
11

has given them to the Son. Thus ovs Se'Sw/cas /xoi, the less well and v. 12 certainly gives the meaning attested reading in both v. originally intended; yet in the Greek it must be regarded as a
,

correction of the
(N

A B C L Y *,

much more strongly attested reading KT\. is again found in the The solution &c.)ambiguity
There
29

another reading o (D* U X 157 al.pauc.), be conjectured to be the original rendering of the genderless 1 by a neuter, which easily lent itself to correction
of the relative ^.
is

which may,
into
o>.

like o in io

That the translator was capable of reproducing 1 by a neuter, and then completing the
TlaTrjp,

relative
tva

by a masculine,
et/xt

is

proved by
/

if

4
,

b SeSto/cas
o,

/>toi,

$eA.<o

OTTOV

eya

KO.KZLVOI wcriv

where

representing 'those whom*, is reinforced by Similarly, we read in if, u/a TraV o SeSwKas avrw Swo-ei aurot? aioii/toi/. Here irav o = the neutral ^ N?3, which may stand in

Aramaic

for 'all (or every one) who*, or 'all which'.

The same
TT/^OS e/xe

be seen again in 6A7, TTO.V o 8t&wriv /xot o irar^p phrase and here the sense intended is 'every one who' ry^e/,
is to

(cf.

the

'. not, /crA..), following :9 In 6 the neutral collective conception is continued throughout the Sentence Iva TTO.V o SeSco/cei/ /xot /x^ o-TroAeo-w c O.VTOV aXXa avaaTr)(rta

Kal TOV e/^o/xevoi/ TT^OS /xe

'

everything which

CLVTO rfj fa-xdrrj ^/xtpa.

In
'the

Hebrew

there

is

a similar usage of i^3

with neutral suffix


,

whole of ti'=' all of them', 'every one*. So Isa. i 23 'Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves; 13 all of it loveth bribes, &c.'; Jer. 6 'For from their least unto
,

their greatest all of it


Jer. 8
610
,

maketh unjust gain';

cf.

Ex. 14%

Isa.

9,

I5

&c.

Besides these instances of mistranslation


following passages
I
13
.

we may
on
'

notice

the

'O oTTwrw /xov epxo/xcvo?

e/x7rpoo-$eV JJLOV yeyovev,

TT/OWTO? /xov ty.

Dr. Ball (Expos. Times, xx\,

p.

92) remarks that

This testimony,

io 4

MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE
in

is most naturally understood as a , reference to the fact that our Lord's influence was to displace, or
-

virtually repeated

zw. 27

30

was already displacing,


of hath become,

that of

His Forerunner

(cf.

3).

Instead

rather have expected will become or is to He suggests therefore that the Greek yeyoi/cv may be due become.' to the translator's having supplied a wrong vowel to the Aramaic
*in,

we should

reading

it

as

^.L!

instead of
'

*)n

hawe
'

becoming* or is because He was before


is

by-form of the Perfect njn hawd) (the Participle) which would bear the sense about to become '. Further, on TT/XOTO'S //.ou rjv
(a

hawe

me
P"ji2

'

may be due
'

to a
'.

misreading

''Q'liJ

kodamay of an
text

l|

original

kadmay,

first

Thus

the original

may have run

'He who
Because
i.e.

is

coming

after

me, before

me

will

become;

He was

the

first (of all)':

because

He

existed

'in

the

Beginning'.
'

between the kindred words Wjj 'before


a characteristic Semitic word-play.

The assonance me and W|? 'first' offers

eov 6 aipa)i> rj]v a/xa/mW TOV Kooyxou. Dr. Ball while making some valuable remarks about the (op. supra), Aramaic original of the phrase 6 d/xi/os TOV 0eov, questions whether
I

29

l8e 6 a/^vos rou

cit.

the statement

which taketh away (or beareth) the sins of the world is original, on the ground that it antedates that doctrine of the which only came home to the Apostles themsuffering Messiah,
'

'

'

selves after the Resurrection (Lk. 24212f> )', and 'does not well harmonize with the general tone of the Baptist's teaching about

He therefore the Messiah, as reported by the Synoptists (Mt. 3) '. conjectures that the words 'may be supposed to have been added
by some editor of the Greek
text

who

recollected Isa. 53 7 , and

who

wrote in the light of a later stage of Christian knowledge '. It may be argued, on the contrary, that the whole of Jn.'s presentation of the Baptist's witness, including these words, is
fully in

accord with the Synoptic narrative.


6

It is

agreed that the

reference of
referring to

alpw

KT\. is to Isa. 53, i.e. the

the mission of the

culminating passage righteous Servant of Yahweh

ORIGINAL ARAMAIC OF THE GOSPEL


chs.

105

which forms the main theme of the prophecy of Deutero- Isaiah, 40-55, with which ch. 61 (the opening passage of which is
1Gff applied by our Lord to Himself in Lk. 4 -), though probably the work of a later prophet, stands in close association as further

drawing out the mission of the ideal Servant.


description of his

The

Baptist's

own

'

function,

am

the voice of one crying, &c.'

(common
it

to Jn.

and the Synoptists)

is

drawn from

Isa. 40";

and

is

therefore

mission

he

reasonable to assume that in preparing for his had made a special study of Isa. 40 ff., and was

impressed with the conception of the ideal Servant of Yahweh which these chapters contain. That he regarded himself as but
the forerunner of a greater One is a second fact common to all four Gospels ; and the relation of Isa. 40^ to its sequel might in itself serve to justify the conjecture that this greater One waspictured by
not,

him as

fulfilling

the ideal of the Servant.

We

are

however, limited
really 6

to

conjecture.

Our Lord's

reply to the

disciples

of the Baptist

whom

was

ep^o'/Aevo? (Mt. of performing acts of mercy in their presence; and His shape answer, based on the things which they had seen and heard,

he sent to inquire whether He " 2~6 =Lk. 7 18 23 ) took the practical

leaves us in no doubt that the evidence suited to carry conviction


Baptist's mind was His fulfilment of the acts which had been predicted of the ideal Servant. may compare especially Isa. 42*" to open blind eyes Tv</>Aoi avafiXeTrovo-iv with (part of
to the

We

'

'

the Servant's mission),* 6i


to

'to proclaim
5
'

the opening (of eyes)


'

them

be opened

man

Then the eyes of the blind shall 35 6 x w ^ot TrepnraroiW with Isa. 35 then shall the lame leap as an hart'; TH-W^OI emyyeXt^ovrai with 61' 'Yahweh hath
that are blind
'

',

anointed

me

to

words
os

of reproof with

preach good tidings to the poor'. which the message ends /cat

The

gentle

/xa/capid? eo-nv

ecu/ would naturally remind the Baptist o-Kav&aXio-Ofj eV e/xot not to range himself with those of whom it had been written, 'Like as many were appalled at thee, &c. J (Isa. 52 14 ), and 'as one

The reference
r

in Isa. is

of course to the removal of moral blindness

but

it

should be unnecessary to recall the fact that our Lord's physical miracles had alwa3 s their moral analogue, and depended for their performance upon faith in
the recipient.

Isa. 35,

which

is late, is

based upon

Isa.

40

ff.,

and develops

its

thought.

106

MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE
whom men
hide their face, he was despised and

from

we esteemed

him not*

(Isa. 53*).

From
fact

these considerations

we deduce
fulfil

the conclusion that the

that

our Lord was to

the role of the ideal Servant,

though not understood by the Apostles, was in some measure If this was so, since the atoning work realized by the Baptist. pictured in Isa. 53 formed the culmination of that role, can it be
maintained that the words
in the Baptist's
6

atpwv rty

d/xaprtW TOV

KOO-/XOV

are

Jn.

improbable a - 34 i he states that he had no previous knowledge of Him , Whose coming he was heralding, and did not know how to
recognize Him till it was Divinely revealed to him that the sign would be the descent of the Spirit upon Him. This revelation

mouth?

In the verses which follow,

was surely deduced from


Spirit

Isa. 42' (the first great

of the Servant's mission),

where Yahweh
6I
1

states,

passage descriptive I have put My


'

as saying,

upon him 'The

'

and

Isa.

where the Servant

is

represented

Spirit of the Lord

Yahweh

is

upon me'.*

Thus

evidence unites in indicating that it was the coming of the ideal Servant of Yahweh that the Baptist believed himself to be heralding, t
* Cf. the

way

in

which the heavenly announcement


Isa.
l

at the

17 Baptism, Mt. 3 and

parallels,

is

modelled on

18 42 as quoted in Mt. ia (noted by Allen,


'

ad

7oc.).
'

28 perhaps significant that (apart from Jn. 3 } the title Xptaros Messiah His titles are o oiriaoj /ioi (px^pfvos Mt. 3 11 Jn. not employed by the Baptist. 6 epxofJLfvos simply Mt. n 3 Lk. 7 20 o afu'os TOV &eov Jn. i 29 36 u vius TOV Qtov Jn.

It is

is
27
,

i i

34 .

The

fact is evident that Deutero- Isaiah's conception of the suffering Servant did not enter into the popular Messianic expectation of the time (cf. a sermon by the writer on 77ie Old Testament Conception of Atonement fulfilled by Christ, published

the

by the Oxford University Press, pp. 10 f.) Very possibly the Baptist avoided title Messiah in order that he might not mista\enly be supposed to be heralding the political Messiah of popular expectation. That he was not alone
'

'

in

fixing his

hopes upon the ideals of Deutero-Isaiah rather than upon those


1'

King is proved by the Birth- narrative of Lk., where Simeon is described (a 25 as TrpoaSex'-'H* 05 "no-po.K\-qaLv TOV 'Io~pa'j\ a clear reference to 'Comfort ye, comfort ye my people', which forms the burden of Deutero3 Isaiah's prophecy (Isa. 4O and in Trito-Isaiah 57 18 6i 2 66 1US ). cf. also 49", 5i Thus, when this latter holds the infant Saviour in his arms and uses the words,
associated with the Messianic
)

(?8ov ol wp6a\p.oi p.ov TO o&Trjpiuv aov

<pas (Is diroKa.\v\f/iv I0vwv f

he has clearly

in

mind the passage in the second great description of the ideal Servant where the words occur, I will give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be My salvation (or, that My salvation may be) unto the end of the earth (cf. also KOI ooav \a<v aov 'Iaparj\ with Isa. 46 13 'and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel My glory '). His knowledge of the third and fourth Servant-passages, where the Servant is pictured as meeting opposition, persecution, and death (Isa. so 4 "7
'
'

ORIGINAL ARAMAIC OF THE GOSPEL


What, however,
is

107

the origin of the expression

'Lamb

of God'

as used by the Baptist, and what is its precise force? The phrase does not occur in Isa. 53, where v. 7 which brings in the simile of a lamb, simply says that the Servant was ' like a lamb that is
,

led

to

the slaughter
d/zj/os)

(not,

'to

the

sacrifice'),
is

and
u
,

like

a ewe

(LXX
6

that

before her shearers

dumb*.
v.

The words
'

aipw

KT\. are based,

not on this verse but on

and

their

iniquities he shall bear', where the simile is dropped and 'My righteous Servant' preceding forms the back-reference of the

'The Lamb of God* suggests the sense, 'the by God* as a fitting offering, which reminds us provided of Gen. 22 s 'God shall provide Himself a lamb for a burnt 7 and and v. n of Isa. with v. 10 which v.
emphatic
'he'.

Lamb

offering';

combining

53

states that

it

was Yahweh who was pleased

to bruise him,

and

allowing for the influence of Gen. 22*, we may perhaps consider that we have accounted for the use of the phrase.

more probable

solution, however, is suggested


tale

remark that Heb. n^B


talya to
last

'lamb' has come in

its

by Dr. Ball's Aram, form N'p9

mean
it

'child', 'boy',

sense

denotes
so
also

in

(Gen.

22 3

in

'young man', 'servant'.* In the Pesh. e.g. Abraham's 'young men' Targ. Jerus.), the priest's 'servant'
-

6 13 m5 and the centurion's 'servant' Thus (i Sam. 2 ), (Mt. 8 ). 6 cyu/os TOV intended primarily to eoO may stand for Nn^Nl NvB, bear the sense, 'the Servant of God', i.e. Yahweh's righteous 12 53" , was to bear the sins of many. If this is so, there may well be a word-play in the choice of the term NvB, suggesting as it does the lamb-like or sinless character of the ideal Servant ; thus, the Lamb of God is a rendering by no

Servant who, according to

Isa.

'

'

means excluded by
of ' the Child of
52 53 destined
if/vxfjv
13

this

new

interpretation.
it

Further, since ^j>D

also bears the sense 'child',

God

'

is

not unlikely that the thought ~ In zw. 31 34 the sign by which also present. t
is

obliges him, moreover, to warn the holy Mother that the child is become a <jrjfj.fiov avriktyontvov, and to predict KOI <rov 8t avrrjs rrjv Si(\(iiotTai pofjL^taia. Anna the prophetess and her circle seem also to have
),

12

to

rested in the

same hope

(cf.

Lk. 2 36

- 38
).

All this

is

not a later invention

it

bears

upon
*

its

face the unmistakable

stamp of

historical truth.
.

The fern, of this word, flithd l maiden', is familiar to every one from Mk 5 41 f Dr. Ball renders the assumed Aram, original, Behold the Young Servant or Child of God ', and does not bring the expression into connexion with Deutero-Isaiah.
'

io8
the

MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE
Baptist

to recognize 6 epxo/xeios, viz. the descent and of the Spirit, was, as we have already remarked, the sign of Yahweh's ideal Servant. After witnessing this, the

was

abiding on

Him

Baptist Says, *dyw ewpa/ca KOL fjijj,apTvprjKa on OVTOS eoriv 6 vtos roO eov. It is not impossible that 6 vtos TOV eov may again represent the

Aram. Kr6*n
primarily to
34

KD,
'

interpreted as 'the Cht'ldofGod' but intended


the Servant of

mean

God

'.

sufficient explanation

for the translation of the

same term by

d/xi/os

in v.

but by

vios in

may be found picturing the NvB


v.

in the difference of context, the first

passage

as a sacrifice, the second as baptizing with the

Holy
If

Spirit.

be objected against this explanation of apvos sense 'Servant* that the term used in Deutero-Isaiah to denote
it

the ideal Servant


'

bond-servant
is

',

it

Aram. K'jny, properly regularly Heb. *n# be replied that the choice of NvB rather than may
is

N^fV N^iy
in

sufficiently explained

= SovAos, NvtD = TTCUS.


to
3>5

by the word-play involved. While Both Greek terms are indifferently used
is

LXX
is

render the *n? of Deutero-Isaiah, but the preference


TTCUS

for Trats (SovXo? in

which
2"
.

49 ; 52 ); used of our Lord as the ideal Servant in Acts


rjyzpvr)

in 42', 49", 50"',

1:!

and

it

is
27 30
.

3, 4

Ore ovv

CK veKpcov, l^L^crOrjo'a.v ol

fJiaurjT(j.L
'

O.VTOV OTL TOVTO

note the curious use of the Imperfect, He was saying ', He had said '. In where the context demands a Pluperfect,
'

We

Aramaic an Imperfect sense is indicated by the coupling of the 'amar with the subst. verb, while a Pluperfect is Participle ~^> commonly represented by use of the Perfect "^ 'amar similarly n coupled with the subst. verb. Thus N;n P^ 'amar hawa He had
'

said

may easily have been misinterpreted as K)n "?N "dmar hawa 'He was saying*, an unvocalized text in W. Aramaic affording (so far as we know) no distinction between the Perfect and the
Participle

'

beyond

that

which

is

indicated by the context.

In a

carefully written unvocalized Syriac text the distinction is marked by use of a diacritic point, below for the Perfect, above for the
Participle.

Thus

)oo

&*}

= 'He

had

said', )oo

;.W

= 'He

was

saying

'.

6 ra

TO.

p-rj^ara
I

a ryw XeXoA^/ca

v/xtv

seems
'

to

mean, 'The things


the eating of

about which

have been speaking

to

you

(viz.

My

ORIGINAL ARAMAIC OF THE GOSPEL


flesh
o>>7s

109

alwviov

like

and the drinking of My blood).* So perhaps in p^ara should mean, 'the things of eternal life*. Aramaic nVp, Hebrew "9^1 means both 'word* and 'thing'. Cf. for the
Dan. 2 8JO IM5
-

M v.

latter sense,
pfjfjia.

17

3
,

1 '-

28
,

16 - 28
.

s
;

7
cf.

It is

ordinarily rendered
9

or Xoyos by Theodotion

2 s curecm?

air

e/xov

TO

prjfjM.

Similarly Hebrew "9"n 'thing' is often rendered p^/za in 6 e.g. 2 Sam. I2 av@* u>v ort ciroirja-ev TO prj/xa Tovro.
s7 - 38

LXX

7
l/cpa^e

'Ey Se

Tfl

eVxarr; ^fiepa
TIS Sii^a

777

pcydXy

TTJS eoprfjs

target 6

*Iiy<rous, /cat
is
/ze,

Aeywi/ 'EaV
eTTrev
17

p^crO(D irpos /AC /cat Tri^erw.


e/c

6 TTIO-TCVWI/

Ka^ws

ypa(f>r), Trora/xot

T^S KotXias avrov pev(rov<riv vSaTos ^WVTOS.

The

quotation which our

Lord here

refers to the Scriptures has

caused great perplexity. The fact has rightly been recognized that it is a free combination of several O.T. passages which speak of a
river of. living waters which, in the Messianic age, is to issue from

the Temple-mount, and to

become the source of life and healing


is
is

far

and wide.
in

The 4f~
l

principal development of this conception

found
stated

Ezek.
*

~.

We

may

notice especially

v.

9
,

where

it

that

every living creature which swarmeth Ezekiel's conin every place whither the rivers come, shall live '. has been taken up by two later prophets. Joel 3 1S (4 18 in ception
it

shall

come

to pass,that

the Heb.) predicts that a fountain shall come forth of the house of 8 the Lord, and shall water the valley of Shittim ; while in Zech. i4
'

'

we

find the statement,

'

It

shall

come
;

to pass in that day, that living

waters shall go out from Jerusalem


sea,
is

half of

them toward the eastern


(the latter statement

and half of them towards the western sea'


' '

based upon the passage quoted from Ezek., where the word rendered the rivers is vocalized as a dual, ^^D?). may believe that our Lord had all these passages in His mind ; and in

We

each of them the expressions which are most significant are italiIn addition to these passages, it can hardly be doubted cized.
that, in

using the words 'Eav


Isa.

TIS litya.

tpxevOo

Trp6<s /AC

Kat TzWra),

He

was dwelling on
the waters.
.
.

55

lff
-,

'

Incline your ear


';

Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to and come unto Me hear, and your
;
'

soul shall live


living waters '.

and Jer.

2",

They have forsaken Me,


'

the source

of

There

still

remains the outstanding


* Cf.

difficulty,

out of his belly

Gore, Bampton Lectures, note 60

(p. 275).

no
is

MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE
Even
if,

shall flow, &c.'

as

seems more than doubtful, the thought

of the distribution of the blessing 'in fuller measure* by its 14 6 57 5':6 ), the fact remains recipient (so Westcott, who compares 4
,
,

that this conception as expressed cannot be connected with


;

any O.T. passage and though we can understand that our Lord may well have combined the sense of the passages noticed above, and
that so doing

His reference would be immediately apprehended by His hearers, we cannot believe that He would have imported, or that they would have, accepted, an idea which is not found in any

O.T. passage which speaks of the water of life. The difficulty may at once be solved upon the hypothesis that the passage has been translated from Aramaic. As we have seen,
Joel speaks of 'a fountain ', Hebrew IJVP ma'ydn* ; and the word is the same in Aramaic (employed, e.g., in the Targum of Ps. io4 10
,

Prov. 5 16 8 28 ).
,

The Aramaic
it

for

'

'

belly

or 'bowels'

is

TV? me in

(Hebrew ^VP); Dan. 2 32 It will


.

is

used, e.g., of the belly of the


that, in

image

in

at
iJVP

once be seen
'fountain',
for
' '

an unvocalized

text,

pyn 'belly' and


in

would
5

Adopting the word


Aramaic, Njra
fr] PV?,J

fountain

be absolutely identical. our Lord's words would run


!

-on
?jp"l

?pn

nj?T

TO1
'

^ r$.

IVno*

19

V?f^ ^}b
in

'mn

|ip

If 'fountain' is correct,

how

can

we connect 'He
?

that

believeth
little

Me'

however, with 'rivers

from the fountain

that, as was recognized by the most ancient western interpreters, the clause really belongs to the offer preceding it. On this view the Aramaic yields

There can be

doubt

the sense
'

He
And

that thirsteth, let


let

him come unto

Me
Me.

him drink

that believeth in

As

the

Scripture hath said,


'.

Rivers shall flow forth from

the

fountain of living waters


*
is
It

is

worthy of note

that the Joel-passage with

its

allusion to the

fountain
i.

directly applied to the Messiah in

Midrash Rabba on Ecclesiastes, par.

28

n3 JIN

npWl SV

>"*

JV3D

Just as the

first

Redeemer (Moses) caused

the well to spring up, so also shall the second Redeemer cause the waters to spring up, as it is said, "And a fountain shall come forth from the House of the

Lord, &c." '. This passage follows directly upon a similar Midrashic deduction which was clearly in the minds of the people who witnessed our Lord's miracle

ORIGINAL ARAMAIC OF THE GOSPEL


Our Lord, we
are told,
'

in
one of

stood forth and cried aloud

',

like

the prophets of old; and His words, like theirs, fall naturally into The reference to Scripture grand and impressive parallelism. which follows the parallel couplet summarizes the main conceptions

of Ezekiel, Joel, and Zechariah.


lated from

When

the passage
to

was

trans-

Aramaic

into Greek, fTO jo

was taken

mean, 'from
Me',

the belly'; and this

was connected with 'he

that believeth in

and was therefore rendered, 'from his belly'.


8
6
.

'A/?paayu, 6 Traryp V/JLWV


e'xapr;.

^yaAAta<raro Iva

/cat tSr/ rr]v rjfJLepav Tt]v C/XT/V,

ciSei/ /cat

This passage can hardly be preserved


Iva.

in its original

form.

No

extension of the use of

seems adequate

to explain

rjyaXXida-aro Iva
is

%,

and moreover,

if

we

grant that 'rejoiced to see'


etSei> /cat ex"/37?'

the sense intended, the following clause /cat of forming a climax, makes mere tautology.

instead

expect the first clause to say is, not that Abraham rejoiced to see the day, but that he longed to see it, and that the satisfaction of this longing was
the cause of his gladness.

What we

After a verb meaning 'longed' the

construction with

Iva

(Aramaic

^ would

be natural

and

this

mean-

ing is expressed both by Pal. Syr. +xi~ll and by Pesh. )oo *.am.:*>. In Syriac w*cu in Pe'al and Pa'el (the form used in Pesh.) means both 'wished, longed' and also 'exulted' (cf. Payne Smith, s.v.).

The verb
reason
that

is

not
it

known

to occur in

W.

why
'

should not have been in

Aramaic, but there is no use ; and the assumption

wrong meaning has been given


instead of 'longed
')

('exulted

at

to it by the translator once removes the difficulty.*

of the loaves and fishes, and, in asking a farther sign, recalled the miracle of the Manna (6 14 30 -3i) Dr6 D3^ -DKJB> |DH TIN TT.F1 ^KU HO
-

TBOB ^M

fm"n
'

"Q HDD
first

'MB> fDH

HN T"W

fnPIK

wa ^N DWfl

|D

Just as the

the Manna, as it is said, " Behold, I am about to rain bread from heaven for you ", so also the second Redeemer shall bring down the Manna, as it is said, " There shall be a handful of corn in the earth "''.

Redeemer brought down

*
(i)

What
what

is

the basis of the statement that


'

Abraham saw the day

of our Lord,

and

precisely is to be understood by text of Genesis, or elsewhere in the O.T.,


(2)
;

day ? There is nothing in the which seems adequately to answer

My

'

these questions yet we must suppose that our Lord's words, so far from being similarly obscure to His hearers, were in fact calculated to appeal to their knowledge of current Biblical exegesis. Perusal of the Rabbinic interpretation of the

Covenant-scene in Gen.

15,

as

we

find

it

set forth in the


;

appears

at

once to shed a flood of

light

upon both questions

Jerusalem Targum, and lends, moreover,

ii2
25

MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE
.

'

9 This
'

tv ol8a, i.e.
I
.

njx

yr Knn, may
this is

^*I
'this

\j?

know The

'

and

well be an error for HJK ynj actually the reading of Pal. Syr. v*? )?o
/rarfa

difference between N"jn #**#* 'one' and Kin


is

merely the difference between n and which are very easily confused. It cannot be urged, however, n, that cv oloa yields an unsuitable sense.
in

an unvocalized text

2o 2 The strange use of OVK o?8a/x,cv Magdalen, where we should expect OVK
.

in

the

mouth of Mary
to

oiSa,
',

may be due

strong support above.

to the reading

'

longed to see

My

day

which we have adopted

The Targum of this chapter opens by picturing Abraham in despondent frame of mind after his victory over the kings narrated in ch. 14; 'The righteous Abraham pondered in his heart and said, " Woe is me perchance I have received
!

commandment in this world, 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, and there shall be associated with them many legions whom they will lead out against me perchance the commands imposed upon me were but light in the former times when they fell before me, and they are spared as my opponents or perchance merit was found in me in the former times when they fell before me, but perchance it shall riot be found in me the second time, and the name of Heaven shall be profaned in me " Therefore there came a word of prophecy from before the Lord to righteous Abraham, saying, " Fear not, Abraham
the recompense of the no part in the world to
;
: ; ;

although

many legions My Memrd shall be a


:

be gathered together and shall co'me against thee, protecting buckler to thee in this world, and a shield over
shall

thee continually in the world to come."' Coming to t;. 12 , we find the following ' And the sun was inclining towards setting, and a deep sweet sleep paraphrase
fell

upon Abraham.
enslave his sons,

And

lo,

Abraham saw
nb'"!3

four kingdoms which were to arise

to

V^V rfcb
1

i"OETI
is

Falling upon
is

him

''
.

HD* ^ Terror, which

Babylon

H)0^ "Terror Darkness Great J"G>n Darkness, which


;

Media
is

nPIS

Great,

which

is

Greece
is

fibsb Falling,
fall,
it

which

is

Edom

(i.e.

Rome),

that

the fourth

kingdom which
v. 17

destined to

and

shall not rise again for


;

ever and ever,

beheld until seats were ranged in order and thrones set


is

prepared for
it

surrounding

and lo, Abraham and lo, Gehenna which the wicked in the world to come like an oven with glowing sparks and flames of fire, into the midst of which the wicked fell because
lo,

And

the sun had set and

was dark
;

they had rebelled against the Law in their lifetime it shall be delivered from affliction '.
l

but the righteous

who

kept

The reference is to the four kingdoms of Dan. 7 (cf. the same interpretation of 'Terror, &c.' in Midrash Bereshith Rabba, par. xliv. 20), whose career is terminated by the great world-judgement which ushers in the coming of the Son
68 then, this Rabbinic exegesis lies behind Jn. 8 'My day is the day of the Son of Man ', a vision of which was granted to Abraham in response to his heart-searching and longing. This is in entire accordance with

~u

of
'

Man

13

'

(v.

).

If,

the eschatological background which in the Synoptic Gospels.

we

find to the. conception of the

Son of Man

ORIGINAL ARAMAIC OF THE GOSPEL


e

113

misreading ^Vl? *V & y da'na (ist plur. Perfect) of an original N^yT N7 Id yad^dnd (fern. sing. Participle combined with ist pers.
pronoun).
Cf., for this latter

form, Dalman,

Gramm.

p. 235.

The
:yT

same mistake, y e dand


with
ist
6

for yadcCna (masc. sing. Participle


is

combined
of

pers.
in

pronoun),

made

in

the vocalization

Num. 22
2O
18
.

Walton's Polyglot.
(3*)
rj

words of Nicodemus
ravra

may

Possibly o?Sa/xev in the opening likewise represent N-iyT I know '.


'
.

Ip^erai Mapta/x

MaySaAryvr) dyyeAAovo-a

on 'EwpaKa
ew/oaxe

rov

KvpLov
is

Kttl

CITTCV avrfj.

The change from


'Ew^a/ca

direct to oblique oration

strange and awkward.

n^ion

hameih,

= J~npn

hamyath.*

The two forms

are identical in the unvocalized text,

may easily have been taken for the former by the translator under the influence of the ordinary construction with on
latter

and the

recitativum.
'

Thus we may
that

conjecture

that

the

original

ran,

announcing
spoken, &c.'
*

she

had seen the Lord, and that

He

had

We

have assigned the Galilaean verb


in

\RfoT\

to a native of Magdala.

If

NTH

was used

the narrative there might be a precisely similar confusion

ist pers.

n, 3rd pers. TTtn.

2520

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 on the question of the original language of the Gospel. bearing

O. T. from the

LXX

was a Hellenist he would naturally have employed the LXX. If he was a Palestinian he would be more likely to make his citations from the Hebrew; and if he actually wrote in
If the author

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
1.

Hebrew

text of each passage

and

its

compared with the


(frwvr]

LXX

rendering.

23

'Eyo>

POWVTOS

tv rfj ep^/xw

Eu0ware
'

TTJV

6Sov Kvptov, Ka^ws

t7TV 'Htratas 6 Trpo^Tyr^s.

Isa.

40

ntfi;

TO

"W?

K ^P

^P

The

voice of one crying,

In the wilderness prepare ye the

way of the Lord'.


'Erct/xao-arc rrjv 6Sov KV/H'OV.

LXX
clause,

<&(i>vrj

/3ooWos iv
n

rf) tprjfjui),

Jn. quotes from memory, and substitutes the verb of the parallel

>P? rnnjm r^: make straight in the desert a highway for our God', for the verb *33 'prepare ye '. In doing this, he seems to be thinking, however, of the Hebrew and not of the
<

wnVb

LXX,
Troun-e.

since the latter renders n^! not by EuflvWre, but by evfoias The fact that the words ' in the wilderness ' properly form
5

in the
'

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

Hebrew

LXX

QUOTATIONS

IN

THE FOURTH GOSPEL


is

115

the text of these versions

punctuated, treat

them as descriptive
is

of the speaker's situation, a secondary matter.


2.
I
51

is

unimportant, since the punctuation

'AfjLrjv

ajJLVjV

Acyw

vjjuv)

oij/ccr0
KOLL

rov ovpavov dvewyoTa, *ai TOVS


CTTI

dyyeAov? rov

eov

dvaySaiVofTa?

KaTafiaivovTas

TOV

vlov

TOV

Gen. s8 12 ^N.
i3

nam

novr.tf-i

r?P
lo,
;

D'-m

D'ity D'ritf

'And he dreamed, and


to the
it
'.

earth, and

its

top reaching

heaven

a ladder set up on the and lo, the angels of

God ascending and descending upon

LXX
Kf(f>aX.r)

Kal cvvTrvido-Orj'

KCU

i$ov /cXt/xa^ eo-r^piy/AeV^


/cat

Iv
coi)

ry

yrj,

^s

a<f>LKVLTO ets TOV ovpavov,


avrrj^.

ot

ayyeXot rov

a.vtf$ouvov KO!

Kare/?aivoi/ tir

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 ia different

The

from that which

is

mean 'on
Jn.'s

it' (the
'

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

interpretation
citation.*

on him

(Jacob),

and

Jacob, as

the

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

summarizes

The Genesis-passage, in which 'the ladder is an of the invisible, but actual and unceasing connexion in image which God, by the ministry of His angels, stands with the earth,
instance with Jacob' (Delitzsch), points forward to 'the constant and living intercourse ever maintained between Christ
in this

Lord, at Son of man.

person the ideal Israel in posse, just as our the other end of the line, summarizes it in esse as the
in his

and the Father


that

point which concerns us here is interpretation put upon the passage depends on the in which, since D^? 'ladder' is masculine, the force of Hebrew,
(Driver).

'

The

the

is is

may
*

ambiguous. In LXX, ITT avTrjs can refer only to KA.i/xa. It be added that Jn.'s di/a^atVovra? Kal Kara/fruVoi/Tag literally
should of course expect IvJ? in this sense, as in the following verse T T

We
3ST3

IvP

'standing over him' (not 'standing upon

it'

the ladder).

We

are not,

however, concerned to argue the legitimacy of the interpretation, but merely its origin ; though it may be remarked that this interpretation of 3 might be justified by the use of the preposition to denote proximity (see Oxford Hebrew Lexicon,

II).
I

Ti6

OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS


Hebrew
participial construction
KOL Kartflanvov of

represents the
is

^TH

&Y&, which

obscured in avipaivov
3.

LXX.*
ycy/aa/x/AeVov eoriv

2 17

'EiiJ.vrjcrOiqo'a.v

ot fjLaOrjTal

avTOV

on

r}Aos

Ps.

69

10

'?$?
'.

^JJT3

ntj?

'The

zeal

of Thine

house hath

eaten

me
6

LXX
Here
'

17X0? TOV oucov (TOV

Jn. and

LXX

Kara^aycrat /AC. are in verbal agreement against the Heb.

hath eaten

me

'.

There

is

a v.l. Kare^ayci/ which


c.

is

found

in

LXX in
T

B b N ca R, and

in Jn. in (13)
4.

<S (vt. 8 vg.)

(boh)

Eus Epiph.
eV

6 31

ot

Trarepes

T^/xwi/

TO

pawa

e</>ayov

CK TOV ovpavov e&o/cev avTOts yeypa/x/xevov "Aprov

Ex. i6 4
*

D$ D<p #n
T

D ?^

^^

<aytv.

'

^?

Behold,

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

which

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

cf.

Bereshith Rabba. par.

Ixviii.

18

DH1V1 D^IV K"n


H

W
.

'11

'EI

.Km D^D^ nmvi


D">:IID

n^iy n*o .2py 2 DHIVI D

in

onap

D^BN

.u

onnwi

0^5:0

s
r

of)

Rabbi Hij a and Rabbi Yannai. The one scholar says, li Ascending and descending 4< upon the ladder", and the other says, Ascending and descending upon Jacob '. The explanation, " Ascending and descending upon the ladder ", is to be preferred. The explanation, "Ascending and descending upon Jacob ", implies that they were taking up and bringing down upon him. They were leaping and skipping over " Israel in whom I s "Thou him, and rallying him, as it is said, glory'' (Isa. 49 ).
1

art

he whose tinwv
ei/uj/,
'

looking at his

is engraved on high." They were ascending on high and and then descending below and finding him sleeping'. The
'

words translated they were taking up and bringing down upon him are very but the following note by Dr. Ball offers an elucidation. obscure in meaning I would ask why the Genesis text does not say were coming down and going
;
'

earth.

up thereon ? It seems rather strange that the Angels of God should start from the But leaving that on one side, I am inclined to think that the Midrashic

13 D'H'nitDI
the angels

DvVD

is

a sort of general reply to the unasked question,

Why

were

going up and coming down ? the answer being, They uere taking up and bringing downacting as carriers between Earth and Heaven. In this case,
apparently, they were taking up to

Heaven the

t'tKwv

of the sleeping Jacob (which

IN

THE FOURTH GOSPEL


*.

117
aprovs CK TOV

you bread from heaven


ovpavov.

LXX

'I8oi>

eyw

{J<D

V/JLLV

iBte Drfen wn nfe|> Q?b mn; |n3 which the Lord hath given you to eat*.

Ex. i6 15

'That

is

the bread

LXX

OUTOS 6 apros ov

Ps. 78-* to

i^3

D ^'f fe? <And corn

heaven

He

gave them

'.

LXX

/cat

aprov ovpavov !8<OKev auToIs.

In Ps. 7824

LXX's

tion

rendered here) is 4 is a free reminiscence of Ex. i6

rendering of in 'corn* by aprov (only so 4 dictated by recollection of Ex. i6 Jn.'s quota.


-

15
,

probably uninfluenced by
e* TOV ovpavov
a/orovs.

recollection of the Ps. passage.


it is

In rendering"A/37w 4 nearer to the Heb. of Ex. i6 than is plur.

LXX

5.

4a

earn/ yeypa/x/xei/ov tv rots

7rpo<j>rJTai<s

Kat

ccrovrat TTCII/TCS

is

of Glory" ; Targ. Jon. ad loc.}. As Jacob was in deep wraith or spirit supposed to be separated from the body under conditions of trance ? The case would then be parallel to that of St. Paul
to the

" fastened

Throne

sleep,

was

this elxwv his

as Jacob
It
is

lff "caught up to the third Heaven" (a Cor. i2 ) where he "heard" appijTa, much became conscious of Yahweh " standing by him ", and heard His voice.'

difficult

to resist the conclusion that the

remarkable explanation of this

upon the Johannine passage. Jacob's dxcav (the Hebrew simply reproduces the Greek term) is already existent in Heaven (cf. also Targ. Jerus. and Targ. Jon. adloc.}; this tiicwv inasmuch as Jacob embodies the ~ national hope and ideal represents the heavenly Man (cf. I Cor. I5 47 49 6 Sevrepos
light

Midrash throws further

avOpuiros

ovpavov,

whose
;

tiKwv

on the clouds of Heaven


angels exulting over him.

if

we are in the future to bear) who is to come the heavens were opened Nathaniel might behold the
is

The same
(B.R. par.

interpretation of \2 as referring to Jacob

Ixix. i) in a

comment on
:

v5>3J

3J
;vai

given a

little

further on

H3ni 'And, behold, the Lord

stood over him' (Gen. 2 8 13 )

UJ

/JJ

|B

iTHP D^bo p^ ^PB IrOK "IK


.v^y

im3i inp^D i^y nn^ inp^D


vi>y

mv

&wy

nunt

vni

nony

rhmv

,n o
'

*nn D^iy DM^

3K^o

mm

l^byD ini2 n'Opn


in a cradle

Rabbi Abbahu

said. It is like
;

a royal child

n^nnn *p .vbyo who was sleeping

and flies were settling on him but when his nurse came, his nurse bent over him, and they flew away from off him. So at first, "And, behold, the angels of God ascending and descending upon him ". When the Holy One (blessed be

We may note that He) revealed Himself over him they flew away from off him Rabbi Hiya and Rabbi Yannai also differed as to the interpretation of the suffix
'.

of l^y, the one explaining that the Lord stood on the ladder, the other that

He

stood over Jacob.

n8
Isa.

OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS


54"
'.

njn?

n^

T??"l 'And
V.
12

all

thy sons shall be taught of


7raAets <rou

the

Lord

LXX

(in

connexion with

Kat

0>jo-a>

rots

tao-TTiv,

KrA.) Kat TraVras TOUS vtous crov 8i8a/crovs

eov.

is

Clearly Jn., in treating the statement as an independent sentence, dependent upon Heb. and not on LXX. Nevertheless, it is
cov

probable that the use of of the Lord' is due to


inference
is

LXX

influence.

'taught of God* in place of 'taught If this is so, the natural


originally

that the quotation

was

made

directly from

the Heb., and was afterwards modified by a copyist under influence possibly by the translator from Aramaic into Greek.
6.
s8

LXX

Ka$ws

i7Tv

rj

ypa<f>rj,

Trora/xot

IK T?}S

KotAtas avrov pcvvovcriv

to involve a misunderstanding of an
7.
rr/s
42

This passage has already been discussed, and has been shown Aramaic original (cf. p. 109).
7

ov%

f)

ypaffrr)

flircv

on

e/c

TOV trTrep/xaros AavetS, Kat

OLTTO

B^Aee/x
2
1

Ka)fjir]<;

oirov rjv Aavct'8, ep^erat 6

Xpwrros;

Based on
Heb.
8.
;

Isa.

Jer. 23*, &c. (Davidic descent), Mic. 5 (5 in

from Bethlehem).
1

The

references are general merely.

'

V TO) VO/AO) Se T(p v/xercpo) yeypttTTTat

on

Svo

av6p<j)iru>v

rj

jjiaprvpfa

aXrjOrjs ccrav.

Deut. i9 15 DHj; ^.f ':H?y 'At the mouth Dip; HK'V ^3-by of two witnesses or at the mouth of three shall a word be established
'.

LXX

7Tt

{TTO/XttTOS

SvO /JiapTVptoV KOL

7Tt

(TTO/ittTOS

TplWV

fJLapTV/)<OV

A vague
9.
O"T
;

reference.
eoriv yeypa/x/xevov cv

IO

34

OVK

TW

vo/xa)

v/xwi/

on

Eya)

ctTra

cot

6 Ps. 82

DnK D'r6
euro,

wpx
eot core.

'

have

said,

Ye

are gods

'.

LXX
Jn. and

'Eyw

Heb. and

LXX agree exactly, and the verbal agreement between LXX has therefore no special significance, since Heb.
/cat

could hardly be otherwise rendered.


10.

I2 13

fKpavya^ov 'flo"aW, cvAoy^/xe^os 6 ep^o/ACvos ev ovo/xart

K vptov.

IN
Ps.

THE FOURTH GOSPEL


N
rnrp

119

n8

:526

DPS Kan

'O Lord, save now!


Blessed be he that cometh
in the

name

of the Lord

!'

LXX

(o

Kvpie,

o-<Jo<rov 877,

evos 6 ep^o/xcvo? ey OVO^OLTL "Kvpiov*

Heb. and

LXX

agree exactly.
'
!

'Qo-aiW represents the Heb.

hosia-nna 'Save

now

which, by

substitution of the short form of

the imperative for that with the cohortative termination,


hosd-nci.
evAoyrj/neVos KT\. is

becomes
;

verbally identical with

LXX

but the

Heb. could hardly be otherwise translated.


11.

I2 14

'

10

ev/><W

8e 6 'Iryom'S ovaptov

fKofiurcv

CTT'

avro, Ka^cus eoriv

M^

<^>o/?ov,

OvyoLTrjp

iSov 6 j3a.(ri\v<s o~ov ep^crai,

Zech.

nan

'

Exult greatly,

daughter of Zion

Shout,

daughter of Jerusalem. Behold, thy king cometh unto thee; Righteous and victorious is he ;

Lowly, and riding upon an ass, And upon a colt, an ass's foal*.

LXX

Xatpe (T^oSpa, Ovyarcp


'

Kr)pvo-(T,

Ovyartp

iBov o /?a<7iA.ev? (TOV ep^crat voi


8t/caio? Kai o'w^cor,

auros Trpavs Kat


Vf.ov,

120

OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS


quotation
is

The

abbreviated and somewhat free.


is

It is clear,

however, that TrwXov ovov


12.
atcova.

derived from Heb. and not from


fK TOV VOJJLOV ort 6

LXX.
eis

I2

:i4

'H/x,er?

rjKovo-afJicv

X/HO-TOS

fiei/ei

TOV

25 Dr6 N'to ^ay in] Ezek. sv Dbtyj* shall be their prince for ever '.

'And David my servant

LXX
The
13.

KOL AavetS 6 SouAos /xov

ap^wv

eis

TOV auova.

Cf. also Isa.

(9 in Heb.), 2
is

Sam.

7", Ps.

89

4f
-,

no

4
.

reference

vague and general.


'Htrat'ov
rt's

I2 38

wo. 6

Adyos

TOU irpo^rov TrXyptaOfj ov


r>y 0.^077 ^/xaiv
;

eiT

Kvpie,

7mrreu<Tv

Kat 6 j3pa^L<DV Kv/HOV TtVt a.7rKaXv<f>6r)

Isa.

53

^nyo^

ppgn

^D

Who
And

hath believed our report the arm of the Lord, to whom hath
;

it

been revealed

'.

LXX
Heb. and

KvpLC, rts CTTicrrevo-ev ry


Kat 6
/3 pa,)(i<tiv

Kvptov

TiVt

a.7

LXX

opening Kvpie,
verbally with

which

has added the agree exactly, except that is also found in Jn.'s quotation which agrees
It is clear that

LXX

LXX.

the text of Jn.

is

influenced

by

LXX.
i23940 ort iraXw
tiTTfv

14.

'H<rcuas

avrwv TOVS
/cat

cTrwpaxrei/
i8a)(Tti/

avrwv
rots
TTJ

rr/v

tva /A^

6<f>6a.\fjiois

Kat voryawo'tv
Isa.

Kapftia.

KOL crrpaffiwa-w, KOI

icttroyuat

avrous.

6 10

nn

dyrr:

wan] 2^] pa;

nni

their eyes; Lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, and repent, and be healed

Make the heart of this people gross, And make their ears heavy, and blind

'.

IN

THE FOURTH GOSPEL


yap
wo-iv
rj

121

LXX

eiraxyvOr)

/capSta TOV

Xaov TOVTOV,
rjKov<rav
/cat

Kal

rots

auTwv

/Japews

TOVS

6(j>Oa\fJLov<s

jjirj

Trore tS<o(rtv rots 6<$aA/Aots /cat rots wo-tv aKouo-<oo-ti/,


T?7

/cat

/capSta crwaicrii/ /cat eirurTpeij/aHrw, /cat tao-o/xat avrovs.

Here
TTore

Jn.

is

clearly independent of

LXX

contrast
:

avrwv TOV?
/^>y
:

ocfrOaXfJiOvs

With

/cat

TOVS o^^aX/x,ous e/ca/x/xvcrav

a/a
:

/xry

with

Kat voi/o-wa'tv T^ KapSta

With

/cat TTJ

KapSta (rwcocriv

(rrpa.^>wcriv

Jn. is not, however, merely a free reminiscence eVto-T/aei^wo-tv. of the Hebrew, as might be supposed from the fact that the writer uses past tenses rer^Xw/cei/, eTrwpoxrei/, while the Hebrew appears to use Imperatives (R.V. 'shut', 'make fat'), i^fn, y^n are either

with

treated as Infinitives Absolute in


(lit.

place of Perfects

'blinding*

hath 'smearing over'), 'making gross ', hath made gross (a normal and idiomatic usage); or ', the forms are read as Perfects, iP^?, V^ n, as they might naturally be read in the unvocalized text.* Thus (allowing for omission of
standing for
blinded
'
'
;

'He

the reference to ears, and the transposition of a clause) Jn.'s reading is a reasonably accurate rendering of Heb., and is nearer to it

than

LXX
18

in

reading sing. rer^XcoKev in place of plur.

e/ca/

which makes the people the subject.


15.
f/Jif.

I3
10

dAA.' Lva

fj

ypa(f>Y] TrXrjpwOf)

'O rpwyon/ /xov

roi/

aprov

rrjv Trrepvav avrov.

Ps. 4 i
lifted

3j?V

^?

^W

^
me

fyx
'.

'

He

that eateth

my

bread hath

up his heel against

LXX
16.

6 e<r$iW aprovs p.ov, e//,eyaA.wei>


is

CTT'

e/xe TTTCpvicr/xoK.

Jn. renders Heb. accurately, and


2a

independent of

LXX.

I5

dAA' wo. TrXrjpwOfj 6 Aoyos 6 ev

ru> vo/xw avrfov yeypa/x/xei/os ort

'E/xrr;(rav /xe Swpcav.

Ps. 35 19

and

69*

in

Heb.)
ot

D3n

vjb

'

my

haters

without

cause

'.

LXX in both passages, A free reminiscence.


*

/XKTOWTCS

//.e

8topcav.

unlike Jn.,
Kal rc'uj

Symmachus made

took the Imperatives ISDH, VK'il as Perfects

IMH, V^n,
rd Sira

but,

the people (not uif>0a\fjiovs avrov efj

Yahweh)

the subject

6 \aos OVTOS

ifiapvvt,

122
17.

OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS


4

I9'

iva

rj

TO,
/cat
18

i/xarta

fjio

7Tt

rov

i/JLaTKr/Jiov

p,ov ZfiaXov K\f)pov.

Ps. 22

19

in

Heb.)

'

They

part (or parted)

my

garments among them,


'.

And upon my

vesture do (or did) they cast lots


TO,

LXX
Heb. and
Jn. and
18.

StC/ACpMTOlTO
/Cat
7Tt

t/xarta /xou eavrots


/JLOV

TOV

IfJLaTLCTIJLOV

/?ttXoj/

K\V)pOV.

LXX agree closely. The LXX points to LXX influence.


28 29
-

verbal agreement between

jo,
rj

Mera ravra

etSws 6 'Iryaovg ort ^8>; TTOVTO. TereAccrrat


cr^euo? e/ceiro oot>? /xecrrov o-7royyov

Tva

ypa<f>r)

Xsyet AU/ACO.

ow

fJL(TTOV

TOV OOTJS
21

VCTCTWTril)

Ps. 6 9

22
(

in

7TptVT5 7rpOCrTfJVyKaV O.VTOV TO) (TTO/XttTl. 'and for my thirst they Heb.) T? n ^P?! 'Kox
'.

gave

me

vinegar to drink
KCU
IS

LXX
The
19.

T^V
is

$llf/av JJLOV iirOTUTOLV

JJi

O^O5.

reference
30

general merely.
17

IQ
4fi

eyevero yap ravra a/a

ypaffrr]

TrXypwOfj

'Ocrrovv ov crvvrpL-

OLVTOV.

Ex. i2

b-nzifn-ij
/cat
12

DJJJI

'and ye shall break no bone of it*.


O.TT'

LXX
LXX
Ps.

ocrrow ov

crvvTpL\j/eT

a^rov.
it'.

Num. 9
:o

taTia^ *6 DJJ1 'and they shall break no bone of


o,7r'

Kai ocrrovv ou a-vvTptyovcrLV


21

avroi).

34

in

Heb.)

vnbxy-^3 ^ n3HD

'

He

keepeth

all

his bones
is
TO.

Not one of them

broken'.
otrra avroiv,

LXX
The
20.

[Kuptos] <uA.aVo-t TrdvTa


ev l

avrwv ou

(rwrpt/^rycreTat.

quotation
IQ
3'

is

a free reminiscence.
-ypa<f>r) A.eyet

/cat

TtaXiv erepa

"QtyovTai

cts

ov

Zech. i2 10

nK ^ *"jrpBte
'.

^ani 'and they

shall look

on me

whom

they have pierced

LXX

/cat CTrtySXei^ovrat 7rpo<s /xe a.v0'

IN
Some
fifty
is

THE FOURTH GOSPEL


MSS.
read V,K 'on him
since Tf
',

123

Heb.

and

it is

this text
is

upon

which Jn.

dependent; or

JIN

possible as a Hebrew construction he The strange natural reading "^N~?N.

may

scarcely presuppose the more

(^)

1^>N

danced a reading 'njH they ' letters of they pierced '. Vij'n
'

',

rendering is based on an erroneous transposition of the

LXX

Several

LXX

MSS., representing the Lucianic recension, read


fji

KCU (.Trip\tyovTa.i Trpos

cts

ov teKevT7)(Tav,
<

which

is

the rendering of
.

Theodotion.

Aquila

.... a-vv

tgeKwrrjo-av,

Symmachus

e/

obvious that Jn. is independent of LXX/ whose rendering The connexion with Theodestroys the point of the quotation.
It is

dotion in the rendering ei? ov e^eKe'myo-av appears to be fortuitous merely, and does not imply that Jn. and Theodotion were dependent

upon an

earlier
to

Swete, Introd.
10

non-Septuagintal rendering (as suggested by the O. T. in Greek, p. 398). 'EKKCI/TCIV is the


*lpl

natural rendering of
Jer.

(used by

LXX

in

Judg. 9
ov

54
,

Chr. io4,
15

44

(37)

Lam. 4, and by Aquila and Symmachus


oif/ovrai
ei's

in Isa. i3 );

and the variation between Jn.'s


l7rLJ3\fyovTaL
TT/a-os

and Theodotion's

ft*

cis

ov is decisive against

from an earlier Greek source.

In the

LXX

common borrowing MS. 240 we find the

rendering oi/^ovrat TT/OO? //,e cis ov e^eKeVrr;o-av as a doublet, and this no doubt is a Christian marginal variant influenced by Jn. The Apocalypse, which is thoroughly Hebraic, has an echo of the O.T.

passage
in Jn.

in

KCU O^CTCU avrov Tras offrOaXjjLos KOL otrive? CLVTOV c^e/cevrr/o-av.

Here we

notice that the two verbs are the

same

as those

employed

Thus
be made
(a)

the following classification of Jn.'s O. T. quotations


:

may
4

Quotations dependent on the

Hebrew
where

Nos.

1,

2,

5,

11, 14, 15, 20.

Quotations agreeing with rendering of the Hebrew; 9, 10, 17.


(b)
(c)

LXX

this is

an accurate

Quotations agreeing with


3, (5), 13.
;

LXX

where

this differs

from the

Hebrew;
(d)
(e)

Free reminiscences

4, 7, 8, 12, 16, 18, 19.


;

Misreading of an Aramaic original

6.

i2 4

OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS

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

Under

(b)

the agreement with

LXX

in 9

and 10 might be

acci-

dental, since the Heb. could scarcely be translated in other words. This, however, is a point not to be pressed, since 17 and the three

cases under
accidental.

(c)

show a connexion with

LXX

which cannot be

that the variations of Jn. and LXX from and that the point of the quotations in no way slight, 17 depends upon them. In 3 (2 ) the Heb. reading 'hath eaten me is represented by Jn.'s v. /. /care^ayev which has considerable

Under

(c)

we observe

Heb. are very

attestation.

substitution of

In 5 the variation from Heb. consists only in the cov for the Lord ', and in 13 only in the prefixing
'

of Kvpie.

We

have now

to

seek an explanation of the

fact

that,

while

a considerable

number of

use of the
to

Hebrew

LXX.

We
;

may

the quotations in Jn. presuppose direct Bible, certain others are as clearly conformed rule out the possibilities that the writer was

familiar with both

Heb. and

LXX, and

quoted from both indis-

or that the Gospel is composite, the use of Heb. and marking different strands of authorship. There remains the theory that the writer used either Heb. or solely, and that the variations from his regular usage are the work of a later hand.
criminately

LXX
Now

LXX

it is

alteration, since e.g. 2

obvious that the agreements with Heb. cannot be due to and 20 exhibit points of connexion vital to the

On the other hand, all quotation which are absent from LXX. the quotations which now agree verbally with might very well have been quoted from Heb. and subsequently modified so as

LXX

to agree with
is in

LXX,

since the variation between Heb. and

LXX

every case slight and unimportant. This inference, which emerges from a consideration of the quotations as a whole, seems

to

be raised to a certainty by the


'

fact that

5 has points of conthey shall

nexion with both Heb. and

LXX. The words 'And

taught of God agree with Heb. as being an independent sentence, and can hardly depend upon LXX, 'And 1 will make

be

all

all

thy sons to be taught of God'; while the point of connexion

IN
with
is

THE FOURTH GOSPEL

125

LXX

'taught of God' instead of Heb. 'taught of the Lord'

just the kind of alteration

which might subsequently be made

under

LXX

influence.

If this be granted, the fact that the writer

of the Gospel was a Palestinian Jew employing the Heb., and not a Hellenist dependent on LXX, is proved. Further, it must

surely be admitted that slight modifications of passages originally quoted from Heb. into verbal agreement with LXX, though they

might very possibly be made by a reviser or copyist of the Greek text, would be far more likely to arise in process of translation into

Greek from another language, such as Aramaic.


have very striking evidence that the language reference was originally cast was Aramaic.
in

And

in 6 (y

38
)

we

which the O.T.

CHAPTER IX
EPILOGUE
AT
offer
it

the close of this discussion the writer

may be

expected to

some remarks as to the influence which his theory should, if gains acceptance, exercise upon current historical criticism of the Fourth Gospel. This is a task which for two reasons he feels

somewhat

if loth to essay. Firstly, the question has been mainly not wholly linguistic, and ought at the outset to be presented for consideration uncomplicated by ulterior issues. And secondly, the

conscious that in attempting to touch upon such larger is in danger of getting outside his province ; for, while to the best of his ability he has made a minute study of the Gospel
writer
is

issues he

itself,

and can claim some knowledge of the external

criteria

bearing upon the question of authorship, he cannot claim conversance with more than a small portion of the gigantic mass of modern literature which has been directed towards the solution
of the Johannine problem.

course of the linguistic bearing upon the authorship of the has been constantly in his mind. If the theory is soundly Gospel based, it must surely affect something like a revolution in current
Still, it

goes without saying that


its

in the

investigation the question of

Johannine

criticism ; for, while cutting at the roots of the fashionable assumptions of a particular school of critics, it may be held to go even farther, and to demand a re-examination, if not a reconstruction, of certain

been accepted by
fitting that

all

fundamental postulates which have hitherto Thus it may be thought schools of criticism.
it

the author of the theory should indicate in brief the


points.
fact
is

results to

which he believes that


first
it

should establish beyond question the place, that the Gospel is a product of Palestinian thought. This

In the

conclusion which emerges with no less clearness even if it be held that the evidence which has been offered is insufficient to prove

EPILOGUE
actual translation from

127
it

Aramaic

for at least

cannot be disputed

that the case for virtual translation is irrefragable.

The

author's

is cast He is throughout in the Aramaic mould. thoroughly familiar with Rabbinic speculation. He knows his Old Testament, not through the medium of the LXX, but in the

language

original language.
If this be granted, the figment of Alexandrine influence upon the author must be held finally to be disproved. His Logos-doctrine is the development of conceptions enshrined in the Targums, and

not derived from Philo. This can hardly be disputed in face of the evidence adduced on pp. 35 ff. Could New Testament scholars ever have arrived at any other conclusion if they had
is

approached the subject with an adequate Semitic, as well as a Greek, equipment ? Not, indeed, that Palestinian Rabbinism was
wholly uninfluenced by Greek thought; the Midrashim prove the
contrary.
is

when this is admitted, Palestinian Jewish thought^ Alexandrine Hellenistic thought another. It may be thing, true that there is an ultimate connexion between the Logos-concepYet,

one

tion of Philo
is

and that of the Gospel-prologue


is

but this connexion

parentage. Philo's implied doctrine was in no sense the moulding influence of our author's

no closer than

by a

common

thought,
It

may be observed
fits

that the theory that the Gospel

was written

in

Aramaic

in

of internal evidence

admirably with other well-ascertained results the author's intimate knowledge of Pales-

tinian topography, of

Jewish

festivals

and customs, and of the

On all current Messianic expectations at the time of our Lord. his accuracy has in one way these questions, in which in time past
or another been impugned, he has been triumphantly vindicated. If, in addition, it is proved that he actually wrote in Aramaic, we

have added the coping-stone which harmoniously completes the


building.

Here, however, we find that our theory seems to call for the re-opening of a question which is generally supposed to be settled. If the Gospel was written in Aramaic, it must surely have been
written in Palestine or Syria ; it could hardly have been written at Ephesus. This conclusion is by no means necessarily at variance with the tradition that the author spent the latter part of his life at

is8

EPILOGUE
;

Ephesus

for obviously

we have

the possibility that he


It

written the Gospel at an earlier period.

may have may be observed that,

while tradition generally assigns the writing of the Gospel to Ephesus, there are traces of a different opinion. The Muratorian

Canon seems
Palestine.

to state

that

the Gospel

was written before the

breaking up of the Apostolic circle,* therefore, presumably, in

The assignment of a Palestinian or Syrian origin to the Gospel would seem to carry with it an earlier date for its composition than
that which
is

commonly accepted

possibly even a considerably earlier at variance with the facts of internal evidence.
full

0.90 or somewhat later); But this is by no means one.


(A.

Even apart from a

acceptance of the theory propounded in the present volume, it must surely be admitted that the facts which have been brought
together greatly strengthen the case for holding that the Gospel is ^the work of an eye-witness. The view that it represents the mature Christian experience of that witness is doubtless sound ;
if we are to assume that he was a man of eighty or more when he took up his pen, we are postulating for him a mental vigour quite exceptional in one so old. Opinions may differ as to the

but

impression of the author's personality conveyed by the Gospel ; but the present writer feels that, while the First Epistle might
fairly

and execution of the Gospel


theory.

be regarded as the product of extreme old age, the planning is hardly consistent with such a

The age

more normal
the author

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. Assuming that was about twenty at the Crucifixion, this would lead us

Gospel A.D. 75-80. The question whether it would be reasonable to place it even earlier demands an expert knowledge of its relation to the Synoptic Gospels and a first-hand conclusion as to the dates of these latter ; and on these points the writer does
to date the
*

The Fourth Gospel


its

is

said to
is

be the work of
'

'

loannis ex discipulis

'.

The

Cohortantibus condiscipulis et composition given as follows : episcopis suis dixit, Conieiunate mihi hodie triduo et quid cuique fuerit revelatum alterutrum nobis enarremus. Eadem nocte revelatum Andreae ex apostolis ut
occasion of

recognoscentibus cunctis loannes suo nomind cuncta discriberet.' himself is named one of the disciples ', it seems to follow that
'

Since John
'

his fellow-

'

disciples

(one of

whom

is

Andrew) are

the other Apostles.

EPILOGUE
We
that there

129

not feel qualified to venture an opinion. may note, however, seem to be no indications pointing to a date prior to the
5*, "Eo-riv 8e ev

destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70; the evidence of


rois 'lepoo-oAv/xoi?
CTTI

ry

TrpofiaTLKfj KoXvfJL/3r)6pa

TreVre OTOOIS t^ovcra,

which has been thought


intact,

to imply that the city was still standing being of doubtful validity if the Greek is regarded as a translation from Aramaic.*

On

the other hand, there are a

number of

indications which

suggest a certain remoteness, both in time and place, from the scenes described, and also seem to imply that the author was not
writing,
at

least

primarily, for Jews, but

for

a larger circle of

Jew, or indeed what Gentile inhabitant of would need to be informed that the Jews have no dealPalestine, ings with the Samaritans, that Tabernacles was the feast of the
Christians.

What

Jews, or that the festival of the Dedication took place in winter ?t Of course it might be maintained that the author, writing not
details

merely for his contemporaries but for posterity to would not be obvious, took care to insert them

whom
;

such

but such a

theory can hardly claim probability.

We

arrive, then, at the impression that the

Gospel was not

written at an earlier date than A.D. 75-80, nor from Palestine; yet on the other hand our theory of an Aramaic original seems to

demand
country.
*

that

it

should have originated


is

in
if

Thus Syria

indicated, and

an Aramaic-speaking Syria, then Antioch.

The meaning 'was' or

context, or at in translation.

't's' might be left in Aramaic to be inferred from the any rate expressed in such a way that confusion would be easy For 'Evriv tx. OVOa Cur." has ^^ l^-|o jooj l^/> lit*
.
.

'Existing was
'Existing was

and existing

in

it';

Pesh.
it';
t's

^^

OO)

^{o

. .

)o*t
find

and existing was


is
.
.
.

in

while in Pal. Syr.


in it'.

we

o^

J6oo

]6o 'Existing
is

and

Here, however, the only

time-determining factor

hdwe, not the Perfect hdwa. mark of distinction.

the dot above )6o. which marks it as the Participle In W. Aramaic there would probably have been no

f Instances of such touches


jpSi.40

may be

seen in a 6

18 - 23
,

^5.9^

51.4^ 72.37^

IO 22^

jjis^
TT}?

Two
TTJS
it

6a\daarjs

of these passages, viz. a 23 iv T> itaaya. I;/ TT/ toprfi, 6 l irtpav TuAjAatas TTJS TifteptdSos, convey the impression of conflation.
17

Of

course

must be assumed, on the hypothesis of translation, that


.
.

in 4 26 (o \fy6fjtfvos

'E/3p.),

(AiOoarpwTov, 'E0p. 5t), IQ (Kpaviov loirov, 6 \(ycrai \6yerai At8d<TaAt) the translator has glossed the text for the benefit of his readers. It is possible that some of the touches in the first set of
Xptaros), 5- ('EppaiaTi), 19

so 16 ('E0p.

passages given in this note


2520

may

be translator's glosses.

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, eastward into Mesopotamia and southward through

Syria and Palestine. The city must have been bilingual, and though Greek was doubtless the language of the upper classes, there must have been a large substratum of population to whom Aramaic was the more familiar language. This follows necessarily from the
exigencies of trade

both the regularly organized caravan-trade


local trade

from beyond the Euphrates, and the

country people into the metropolis to sell their food-stuffs,

which brought the and to

add new blood


northward

to the population.

As we

learn from Acts, the

natural line of expansion for the infant-Church at Jerusalem


to Antioch.

was

Fourth Gospel really the last part of his life at Ephesus, then we have in Antioch spent a half-way house between this and Jerusalem and if the line of his
If the writer of the
;

missionary activity was Jerusalem following in the footsteps of St. Paul.


It is interesting to

Antioch

Ephesus

he was

note that
at

we

are not entirely without external

indication that St.

Antioch and wrote the Gospel there. Mr. F. C. Conybeare has quoted a statement translated from a
'

John was

commentary of
scripsit
illud

Syriac fragment appended to the Armenian translation to the St. Ephrem on Tatian's Diatessaron lohannes
:

terra usque

[evangelium] graece Antiochiae, nam permansit in ad tempus Traiani'.* There exists a wide-spread

(though not very early) tradition that St. Ignatius was a disciple of St. John. The Maprvpiov 'lyvario-v (5th or 6th century A. D.) so describes him at its opening, and adds later on the scarcely credible

statement that he and Polycarp (born A.D. 69) had together been
disciples of the Apostle.t

lead the present writer to suggest the theory that the Fourth Gospel may have been written at Antioch are as follows
:

The facts which


i.

The

Epistles of St. Ignatius


It is

(c.

A.D.

no)

are

full

of Johannine

is only one passage in them which an actual verbal quotation, but reminiscences of approximates the teaching of the Gospel are more numerous than is generally

Theology.

true that there

to

ZNTW.
Cf.

1902, p. 193.

Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, II. ii, pp. 473 f, who argues against the historical value of the statement and seeks to explain how it may have arisen.

EPILOGUE
recognized.

131
(

Dr. Inge's conclusion


is

is

that

Ignatius'

use of the

Fourth Gospel
certainty'.*

ignorance

One how far some


This
is

highly probable, but falls some way short of of his reasons for this doubtful verdict is 'our

of the Logia of Christ recorded by John


if
it

may have been


Gospel'.
this

current in Asia Minor before the publication of the

met

can be shown that Ignatius was

probably also acquainted with the First Epistle of St.

John
6

and

seems

to

be the case.t

The

Ignatian expressions,

apx^v rov

and TC.KVCL <f><t)To<s aXrjQeias may actually imply acquaintance with the original Aramaic of the Gospel. 2. Drs. Rendel Harris and Mingana, in their recent edition of
atcovos TOVTOV

the

Odes and Psalms

of

Solomon

(1920),

have made a case for a

connexion between the Odes and the Letters of Ignatius, and have shown that the dependence is almost certainly on Ignatius's side.

There

is

a tradition

recorded

by the historian

Socrates that

Ignatius instructed the Antiochenes in the composition and singing of hymns. J Theophilus of Antioch was also familiar with the
*

The

New

Testament in

the Apostolic Fathers,

by a committee of the Oxford


i

Society of Historical Theology, p. 83. f Cf. especially the group of passages reflecting the teaching of

Jn. quoted

from the
J
'

letter to the

Ephesians on
tell

p. 154.

We

must also
its origin.

whence

the custom of the Church of singing antiphonal

hymns had

Ignatius, the third bishop after Peter of the Syrian Antioch,

who

also had personal intercourse with the Apostles themselves, saw a vision of angels praising the Trinity in antiphonal hymns, and delivered the fashion of the vision to the church in Antioch : from whence also the same tradition was

churches.' Socrates, HE. vi. 8, quoted by Harris and These editors also aptly call attention (p. 47) to two passages in Ignatius's letters in which he uses chorus-singing as a metaphor for Christian harmony; Ephes. 4, In your concord and harmonious love Jesus Christ is sung.

transmitted to other

Mingana,

p. 43.

And

do ye, each and

all,

form yourselves into a chorus,

that,

in concord,

and taking the key-note of God, ye may

in oneness sing

being harmonious with one voice

through Jesus Christ unto the Father, that He may both hear you and acknowledge you by your good deeds to be the members of His Son (i. e. His children) Rom. 2, Forming yourselves into a chorus, in love sing to the Father in Jesus Christ.' These passages find a striking parallel in Ode 41, which begins as follows
'
'

'

Let all of us who are the Lord's bairns, praise And let us appropriate the truth of His faith :

Him
:

And His
Let

children shall be acknowledged by


let

Him

Therefore

us sing in His

love.

us, therefore, all

of us unite together in the

name

of the Lord.'

The

italics

draw

attention to the parallelism in thought.

K 2

i 32

EPILOGUE
It

Odes.*
Syriac.t

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. J

Now
the

the fact that the writer

Fourth Gospel

of the Odes was acquainted with can be proved fairly clearly; though here

again the evidence takes the form of reminiscence of the teaching rather than actual verbal quotation. Surprising as this may seem in view of the very early date which is assigned to the Odes, it
is

the less surprising


earlier than
is
if

if,

as on our theory, the date of the Gospel


;

is

commonly supposed
the Gospel

and

it

becomes quite
at

comprehensible

was actually composed


It is

Antioch

and

first

circulated there in Aramaic.

noteworthy

that a great

part of the connexions with the thought of the Gospel, both in Ignatius's Letters and in the Odes, are with the Last Discourses,

Jn.

1317.
for all
in detail in

is

this appears so highly important that it an Appendix. given The supposed influence of Pauline Theology upon the Fourth Gospel in no way conflicts with our new theory as to the date

The evidence

and place of the Gospel.

period of twenty years or so allows time for the principal epistles of St. Paul to have become ample well known at Antioch. The present writer has, however, put forward suggestions (pp. 45 ff.) which may indicate a somewhat
different conclusion, viz. that both St. Paul

and the author of the

Gospel may have been influenced by a common earlier source of teaching. Both of them were Rabbinists and the course of
;

the present discussion has revealed several instances of a knowledge of Rabbinic speculation on the part of the Gospel-author

which
there

is is

independent of
for

St. Paul.

Both again were mystics

but

assuming Gospel was a development of Pauline teaching. Mysticism is one of the characteristics of the Rabbinic method of treating Scripture and the question how far this trait in the two Christian writers is based on Jewish Haggada is one which calls for further investi;

no reason

that the mysticism of the

gation.

The

inclusion within the early

Church

at

Jerusalem of

a large contingent from the priestly class (Acts 6 7 ) must almost


* ch.

op.

cit.

iii.

op.

cit.

ch.

xiii.

J op.

tit.

ch. iv.

EPILOGUE
to the service of the

133

certainly have resulted in the application of Rabbinic speculation

new

Faith.

As

to the author of the


in

wrote his Gospel

Gospel while the conclusion that he Aramaic strongly confirms the opinion that he

was an actual eye-witness of the events which he describes, it must be admitted that the clear traces which we have noticed of his acquaintance with Rabbinic learning * seem to diminish the St. Peter and probability that he was St. John the Apostle.
St.

John impressed the priestly


tSiomu (Acts 4
13

authorities at Jerusalem as avOpuiroi

aypd/jL/jiaTOL KCU

and though the phrase is used in connexion with their unexpected eloquence, the paradox consisted, not in the fact that having previously been dypa/x/xarot i.e. untrained
) ;

in

Rabbinic methods of exegesis


;

they
still

now appeared
dypa/x/xaroi,

so to be

trained
to

but in the fact that, though

speak and argue eloquently and convincingly. conceivable that the Galilaean fisherman, especially

they were able It is of course


if

young

man, may have had a natural aptitude for assimilating the Rabbinic methods of argument and that, his interest being whetted through
;

listening to

our Lord's discussions with the Rabbinists


through intercourse with the Christian
is

at Jeru-

salem, he

may subsequently have carried his studies farther


clear,

in

this direction, e.g.

members

of the Jewish priesthood. It reason to think that, like St.

however, that

if

we had

Paul, he

had actually undergone

a thorough Rabbinic training, much light would be thrown upon the Gospel. should then understand how it was that the author

We

was able

substance of our Lord's arguments with his former teachers, and why these arguments appealed to him more than the simple parabolic teaching which was adapted to the
to retain the

Galilaean peasantry.

His first-hand use of the Hebrew Bible would

be explained ; and, supposing that he may also have been the author of the Apocalypse, we should understand how he was able to
construct this

Now,
*

as

work upon a Biblical Hebrew model. Prof. Delff was the first to remark, t there are
;

details in

ff., 43 ff., non., inn., n6n. f Gesch. d. Rabbi Jesus v. Nazareth (1899). pp. 678". Das vierte Evangelium (1890), Delff's theory was followed by Bousset in the ist ed. of his OJfenbantng pp. i ff. Johannis (1896", but dropped by him in the and ed. (1906) cf. p .46, n. 2. It is

Cf. especially pp. 35

regarded with considerable favour by Dr. Sanday, Criticism of the Fourth Gospel,
pp. 17
f.,

90, 99

ff.

i 34

EPILOGUE

the

Gospel which, taken together, strongly suggest that the author had some connexion with priestly circles. He (on the

assumption that he is the unnamed disciple) was known to the high priest and gained ready admission to his house, which was denied to Peter until he intervened (i8 15 16). He alone of the
-

Evangelists mentions the

name
10 );

whose ear Peter

cut off (i8

of the high priest's servant, Malchus, and also the fact that one of those

who questioned Peter was


special
3g

a kinsman of Malchus (i8 26).

He
-,

has

knowledge of persons like Nicodemus and Joseph of lff Arimathaea, who were both members of the Sanhedrin (3 f,
have gained inside information as to what I9 ff-), ~ 47 - 53 went on at meetings of the Sanhedrin (7 15 5 -, i2 10), which , may have come to him through Nicodemus. The fact that, when
to

and seems

our Lord commended His Mother


i&ia
27

to his care,

he took her

els TO.

'from that hour' suggests that he had a house at or near

Jerusalem (iQ ). The deduction based on these internal indications serves further
to explain the

remarkable statement of Polycrates of Ephesus that

John, who
otherwise

reclined on the breast of the Lord,

was a

priest

the sacerdotal frontlet


is

(05 eycvrjOrj tepevs TO TreVaAoi/ 7re<opeAcws),

wearing which

an insoluble enigma. Moreover, if Polycrates supposed that John the author of the Gospel was the Apostle St. John, it is in the highest degree anomalous that he should mention

him subsequently to Philip, o-To'Aon/, and the daughters of


'

whom
Philip,

he defines as

run/

SwSe/ca cnro-

and should then describe him,


'

not as an Apostle, but as /xaprv? /ecu 8iSao-*aAos simply this too in spite of the fact that he sleeps at Ephesus where Polycrates himself was bishop, while Philip 'sleeps at Hierapolis' (Eusebius,

HE.

one of the most famous members of the original Apostolic band had actually preceded him in his own see, he would surely have named him first of all.
v. 24).

If

The familiar quotation from Papias (Eusebius, likewise to indicate that the celebrated John of
the Apostle.

Papias

tells

us that

'if

seems was not Ephesus any one chanced to come


iii.

HE.

39)

my way who

had been a follower of the presbyters, I would inquire as to the sayings of the presbyters what Andrew or Peter said (eiTrei/), or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any other of the Lord's disciples; and also what

EPILOGUE
Aristion and

135
disciples,

John the presbyter, the Lord's


'

'

Unless we adopt the view that the Apostles mentioned are termed * the presbyters (a view both improbable in itself and also

apparently excluded by the distinctive application of the term to the second John), it is clear from this passage that Papias only claims to have learned the Apostles* sayings at third hand, i.e.

he learned from his informants what the presbyters said that the Apostles said. On the other hand, the obvious deduction from
the statement 'also what Aristion and

John the

presbyter, the

Lord's disciples, say', is that Papias learned the sayings of these disciples at second hand', and since the change of tense from
eiTrei/ to Xiyova-Lv is clearly intentional, it is natural to infer that Aristion and the second John were still living, and that Papias might

have heard them at first hand


If this conclusion is

if

he had had the opportunity.t


if

sound, and

the

title

'

the Lord's disciples


it

'

implies

as in the

first

occurrence, where

is

applied to the

Apostles actual knowledge of our Lord during His earthly life, then the date at which Papias collected his materials cannot be later than A. D. 100 a conclusion which fits in with the statement
of Irenaeus that he was a companion of Polycarp (A. D. 69-155) and 'one of the ancients (dp^aTos av?Jp)4 It follows that c. A.D. 100
'

Papias knew of a John


ently in distinction from

whom

he termed 'the presbyter' (appar-

John the Apostle before mentioned), who, an actual disciple of our Lord, was still living at that date, though and must therefore have been of a very advanced age. On the
other hand,
all

that

he claims

to

have

learned (or to

have

* This is the view of Eusebius (see foot-note following), and it is taken e. g. by Lightfoot, Essays on Supernatural Religion, p. 145, and by Westcott, Canon of the N.T. p. 70, n. i. On the contrary, see Moffatt, Inlrod. to Literature of N. T. 3
P-

599-

f Papias
TJIUV

does not state in this passage that he


is

was an

actual hearer of Aristion


;

and John the presbyter, as


SrjXovfJLevos

unwarrantably assumed by Eusebius Kat o vvv 8 Uairias rois piv TWV diroaroXcav \6yovs irapd rwv iraprjKokovOrjKoTCUV

o/ioAo^ef Tiapfi\T)(p(vai } 'ApiffTtowos 8% Kat TOV Trptafivrtpov 'Icadwov avrrjKoov kavrov


(prjfft

Dr. Lightfoot (Essays on Sufiem. Rel. p. 146) should accept ycveaOai. Eusebius's opinion on this point against the plain sense of the passage is incom-

Why

prehensible.

A.D. 100 is adopted by Dr. Sanday iii. 39. 250 f.), as against the extreme date adopted by Harnack (c. A. D. 145-60). Eusebius (HE. iii. 36) states that his episcopate was contemporary not only with Polycarp's, but also with Ignatius's (d. A.D. no).
;

Haer. V. xxxiii. 4

Eusebius,

HE.

(Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, pp.

36
to

EPILOGUE
learn)
is

endeavoured

son of Zebedee

by word of mouth about the Apostolic what others said that the presbyters said that

he said; and so far is he from attaching any special prominence to him that he mentions him only sixth in a list of seven of the
Apostles.

Now

Irenaeus

tells

us that John, 'the disciple of the Lord

',

who

wrote the Gospel, survived at Ephesus until the times of Trajan,* If this John was the son of Zebedee, would i.e. until after A. D. 98.

who must certainly have been born long before his and who was probably collecting his information, if not death, before, at any rate not long after that event, and who was bishop
Papias
of a Church which was close to Ephesus

have been reduced

to

learning at third hand as to his teaching ? And since, for one man who could give him authentic information as to what Andrew or Peter had said, there must (on this hypothesis) have been ten who

could give him fuller and more recent information as to what John the son of Zebedee had said, is it at all likely that the vastly
superior importance to Papias of John as a witness to our Lord's acts and teaching, involved in the fact of his nearness to him both
in time

and

in place,

only mentions the Apostle sixth

should be ignored to such an extent that he in a list of seven ?

better

inference is clear that Papias did not claim to have any knowledge of John the son of Zebedee than he possessed of Andrew, Peter, and the rest who had died years before he began
to collect his materials.

The

The absence

of such a claim

fits

in

with

the statement attributed to him by Philippus Stdetes (5th cent.) and Georgius Hamartolus feth cent.) that John and James his brother

were

slain

by the Jews, which certainly seems

to

imply that John

the son of Zebedee did not survive to a ripe old age in Asia, but lost his life through Jewish persecution, and therefore probably in
Palestine and prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 7o.t

There
in

exists, however, yet another statement attributed to Papias an argument prefixed to a Vatican MS. of the Fourth Gospel (9th cent.) Evangelium lohannis manifestatum et datum est
'
:

ecclesiis
*

ab lohanne adhuc
II. xxii.

in

corpore constitute, sicut


4.
cf. Moflfatt,
i,

Papias

Haer.

III.

i.

III.

iii.

On

further evidence as to the


ff.
;

martyrdom

Introd. to Lit.
ff.

ofN.T.

pp. 601

and most recently, Charles, Revelation,

pp. xlv

EPILOGUE
nomine Hierapolitanus, discipulus lohannis cams,

137
in exotericis, id

est in extremis [externis] quinque libris retulit. Descripsit vero evangelium dictante lohanne recteV Confused and improbable as this statement seems in detail, we have no grounds for question-

ing the main facts, viz. that Papias may have stated that the author of the Gospel was John of Asia who survived into his

own
If,

times.

however, the other statement referred


suffered

to

Papias means that

John the son of Zebedee


squared with
it

martyrdom

in Palestine prior to

Gospel can only be on the assumption that the references are to two different Johns in the first case to the Apostle, in the second to
A. D. 70, the statement as to the writing of the

John of Asia,

Now

i.e. the presbyter. the writer of the Second and Third Epistles of St.

actually describes himself as the contents of the Epistles

6 7rpeo-/3v'repos,
is

John and the inference from


to

that they

were not intended

be

anonymous, but that


identity.

this title

was

sufficient to

mark the

writer's

If they are rightly ascribed to John, the inference that

this is the 'Iwato^s 6 Trpco-fivrcpos of Papias is obvious. t in his

Dr. Charles

Commentary on Revelation

a careful linguistic It follows that the Epistles of St. John are by the same author. Gospel is the work of John the presbyter, and that the tradition
that
it

xxxiv ff.) has argued from (i, pp. that the Fourth Gospel and the three study

was composed

at

Ephesus

is

wrapped up with the

fact

of his

authorship.

Papias and

the earliest Asian tradition, as represented by Polycrates and confirmed by the testimony of the

Thus

Second and Third Epistles, points to the presbyter and not the son of Zebedee as the author of the Gospel.
Essays on Supern. Rel. pp. 210 ff. ; Westcott, Canon of N.T. Lightfoot (p. 214) has an ingenious suggestion as to the way in which the statement may have arisen that Papias was actually the amanuensis of John.
p. 77, n. i. " may have quoted the Gospel delivered by John to the Churches, which wrote down from his lips " (6 dirfypatyov ano TOV OTO/JOTO? avrov} and some they later writer, mistaking the ambiguous uireypaQov, interpreted it "/wrote down", thus making Papias himself the amanuensis.' f This seems to be hinted by Eusebius, HE. iii. 25 1u>v 8* O.VTI \eyofjL(vcav,
1

* Cf. Lightfoot,

Papias

yv(upifi<uv 5'

ovv

ofjitas

TOIS TroAAofs

TJ

ov o f*a.o p-tvrf Sevrtpa

KO.I

rpirrj 'laidwov, fire

TOV

tvayy(\i0Tov rvyxavovffatj fire KOI ertpov ofjuovvfiov definitely taken by Jerome, de viris Must. cc. 9 and 18.

i/eeivv.

The view

is

138

EPILOGUE
evidence, however,

is incomplete without examination of the of St. Irenaeus, which is important because, in the welltestimony known passage from his letter to Florinus (Eusebius, HE. v. 20),

Our

he states that in his boyhood (TTOIS l-ri wv) he was a hearer of Polycarp and could remember his description of 'his intercourse
Irenaeus with John and with the rest who had seen the Lord '. to have suffered considerable misrepresentation. appears unjustly While claimed on the one hand as a conclusive witness to the
fact that the

John of Ephesus was the Apostle

St.

John, he

is

commonly accused, on

the other hand, by the opponents of this theory of having mistaken the meaning of his teacher Polycarp,

and supposed that he was referring to the Apostle when all the time he was speaking of the presbyter. Similarly, he is taken to task by Eusebius (HE. iii. 39) because he describes Papias as
6 'Iwdvvov
fjJkv

a/coucrnys,

IIoXvKapTrov Se eratpos yeyoi/ws.


is

Eusebius's
Kara TO

comment on
Ttav

this

statement

Avros

-ye

/x^v

IlaTrias

avrov Xdywv, aKpoaryv


iep<oi>

/xa/ Kat

avroTTTrjv

ouSaynws eavrov

WV

a7roo~ToA.u)i/

e/x^xuvet, TrapetX^^ei/at $. TO, Tr)s TriVreo)?

e/ceiVots

yi/wpt/xwv.

The
the

error of which
critics

he

is

accused
the

by

Eusebius

is

cited

by

modern

as

enhancing

probability

that

he

made

additional

Polycarp's reminiscences of the


Apostle.

of mistaking as referring to the presbyter


error

In
all.

reality,

it is

doubtful whether Irenaeus

makes any mistake

at

The

true state of affairs

may

best be gathered by tabulating

all

his references to the author of the

Fourth Gospel,

whom

he

also regarded as author of the Apocalypse.*

Occurrences.

'John the disciple of the Lord* In references to the Gospel In references to the Apocalypse In references to incidents at Ephesus

.... ...
.

9
3 2
14

Total

* These computations are as complete as the writer could make them but he cannot claim that they are more than approximately so. They cover the fragments as well as the Contra Haer. Under John a few Gospel references referring to
; '
'

the son of Zebedee have not been reckoned.

EPILOGUE
'

139
.

The

disciple of the
'

Lord

'
.

i
i

'

His disciple John 'John'

In references to the Gospel

,
.

20
10
i

In references to the Apocalypse In references to incidents at Ephesus

>
.

. .

Total

31

'The Apostle'

...

With
'

these references

we may compare
:

Irenaeus's references to

other Evangelists and Apostles

'

Matthew the Apostle ' Matthew elsewhere.


'

...
'
.

'

'

'

Mark Mark Mark

the interpreter and disciple of Peter the disciple and interpreter of Peter'
'

elsewhere.
'
.

'

'

'

'

Luke the follower and disciple of the Apostles Luke the disciple and attendant of the Apostles Luke the attendant of Paul Luke elsewhere.
'
. .

i
'

'

'

'

Peter the Apostle Peter elsewhere.


'

'

'

Paul the Apostle

'

17
'

Paul, being the Apostle of the Gentiles


'
.
-

Paul His Apostle 'Paul'

.64
.

'The Apostle'

74

Here we

notice the extraordinary care which

Irenaeus takes

accurately to define the position

This comes out especially

in his

and authority of his witnesses. description of Mark and Luke


is

while Matthew alone of the Synoptists of Apostle.

correctly given the

title

notice again that, while Matthew, Peter, and defined as Apostles, John is never so defined by name.
that in
'

We

Paul are
It is

true

two passages which come near together (Haer. I. ix. 2, 3) he the Apostle simply, having just previously been is mentioned as cited as 'John' ; but this is different from the direct attachment of
'

140
the
title

EPILOGUE
to his

name.

Irenaeus,

when
'

not specially defining the

rank of his witnesses, uses the term Apostle' in a wider sense. Thus in Haer. III. xi. 9, after a summary of the teaching and
scope of the four Gospels, he remarks,
the opinion of those
'

Having thus ascertained


let

who

delivered the Gospel to us ...


'

us

proceed to the remaining Apostles

'Accordingly, in sentence of the Apostles upon them passages in which John is included

and again in IV. pref. i, the book before this we have set forth the
;

all

'.

There are several

by inference among the

Apostles; II. xxii. 5, 'And all the elders testify, who in Asia conferred with John the disciple of the Lord, that John had
for he abode with them until the times them saw not only John, but also other Apostles'; III. iii. 4, 'And Polycarp too, who had not only been trained by the Apostles, and had conversed with many of those who had seen Christ, but also had been constituted by the Apostles
facts
;

handed down these


of Trajan.

And some

of

having always taught bishop over Asia in the church of Smyrna these things, which he had learned from the Apostles' ; 'And there are some who have been told by him (Polycarp) that John the
. .
.

disciple of the Lord,


. . .

and Polycarp too

when he had gone to have a bath at Ephesus Such pious care had the Apostles himself.
. .
.

and

their disciples, &c.';


for its

had both Paul


'

Yea, and the church at Ephesus, having founder, and John to abide among them
'

until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the

Apostles ; Letter to Victor (Eusebius, HE. v. 24), For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe (the Quartodeciman practice), inasmuch as he had always observed it with
'

John the

disciple of our
'.

Lord and the

rest of the Apostles with

whom

he had associated
full

Let us attach
believes are
all

weight to these passages (which the writer


fact that, if
still brought Irenaeus believed John of Ephesus Twelve Apostles, it is most remarkable that he

which come

into question),

and we are

to a standstill

by the

to

have been one of the never styles him 'John the Apostle', but always 'John the disciple note specially the fact that even where the four of the Lord '.

We

Evangelists are most carefully described in III. ix. i ; x. i, 6; xi. and the first of them figures as ' Matthew the Apostle ', John
still

i,

is

simply 'John the disciple of the Lord'.

Had. Irenaeus taken

EPILOGUE
him
for the

141
in this
'.

Apostle John,
'

it

would have been so natural


of the twelve Apostles
in

case to have added

who was one

We

are bound also to contrast the


referred to

way

which he

is

only twice

unnamed
is

as 'the Apostle', with the 74 occasions on

which

St.

Paul

so styled.

Now

arises
title,

distinctive

Whence did the question 'the disciple of the Lord'?

Irenaeus obtain this


It is

not derived from

the Fourth Gospel ; for, had this been so, we should have expected ' the disciple whom Jesus loved '. Looking at the titles of other
witnesses,

we observe
clearly to

that

'

Mark
.

the interpreter and disciple of


Map/cos ^lv
Traprj-

Peter

'

seems

depend upon Papias's statement,


. .

Ilerpov ycyo/xeyo?

Ovre yap
t<f>r)v,

rjKovcrz

rov Kupi'ou, ovre

avrar varrcpov

Se,

ws

Herpa) (Eusebius,

HE.

\\\.

39).

In the

same way, we observe


01

that Papias styles Aristion


It is

and John

the presbyter

rou Kvptov /xa^rai.

true that in the

same

paragraph he Subjoins rj rts erepos rcoi/ TOV Kvptov /za&yrwi/ to the names of the seven Apostles whom he mentions, and so may be
taken to include them as ^aO-^rai Here, however, we mark a difference since the sense obviously is that Papias was anxious to gain information coming from any (presumably deceased) px^rr)?
;

Kvpibv
wise.

(i.

e.

direct associate of the Lord),


in the
is

But

Kvptov

fuxflr/rcu

whether Apostle or othercases of Aristion and John the presbyter ot TOV their distinctive title, i.e. they were not Apostles,

but they were (presumably) associates of our Lord who fell into a class by themselves as still living when Papias was collecting his information.

On
'

the basis of these facts the disciple of the


that

we conclude
'

without hesitation that

by John byter, and


he
is at

Lord

Irenaeus means John the pres/xcv ctKovcrrTJs,

when he
.

refers to Papias as 6 'IwdVvov

any

rate as correct as Eusebius


.
.

when he says

6 vvv Se

rjp.lv
<^rf(Ti

tlcnrtas
It is

TOV Trpeo-ySvrepov

'Iwai/i/ou

avrr/Koov cavroV

the

Apostle

Eusebius who, jumping to the conclusion that John (mentioned sixth by Papias in his list of seven

Apostles) must be the Evangelist (o-a<ws SrjXwv TOV vayyeA.io-T?jv), attaches to Irenaeus the charge of misconstruing Papias's evidence which has stuck to him ever since. In reality Irenaeus appears to

be
to

impeccable witness as to the early Asian tradition in regard John ; and he completes our evidence that John the Evangelist
aji

i 42

EPILOGUE
to old age at

and disciple of the Lord, who survived

Ephesus, was

not the son of Zebedee, but the presbyter.

Thus

all

the early Asiatic evidence,

i.

e. all

the external evidence

that matters, unites in indicating that the only

was John the presbyter, and


This, as

that

John of Ephesus he wrote the Fourth Gospel.

we have

seen,

fits

in wonderfully well with the internal

evidence which favours the view that the author was not John the

son of Zebedee, but a Jerusalemite of priestly family. There are, however, other internal considerations which may seem to tell
against this view.
If there

were

not, then surely there

would be
the com-

no problem of authorship remaining.

The

first

difficulty is the finding of a place

among

panions of our Lord for a young man of priestly family who was not one of the twelve Apostles. This is largely based, it seems, upon the presupposition that the Apostles were our Lord's only
openly-confessed adherents and regular companions. This of course is not the case. There were others from whom the seventy
(or,

according to the alternative reading of WH., seventy-two) missioners were drawn, who must, we may conjecture, have com-

before they were fit to be entrusted with their mission. Yet of these we should know nothing apart from Lk. io lff There were, again, the women who accompanied

panied with

Him
.

not a

little

during a part at least of His evangelistic tours, and minisOf this tered to Him and His Apostles out of their substance.
fact too

Him

we should have been


in i Cor. i5
6
,

to St.

Paul

ances was 'to


the Ascension

According one of our Lord's Resurrection-appearabove five hundred brethren at once*. After
.

lff ignorant but for Lk. 8

the
i
15

number of

'

the brethren

'

at

Jerusalem

is

given in

as about one hundred and twenty, all of whom, apparently (perhaps with the addition of other disciples who had come up to Jerusalem for the Feast), received the outpouring

Acts

of the Spirit at Pentecost.

suppose that the young priestly our Lord upon His travels, this disciple regularly accompanied would not constitute an insuperable difficulty. But it is not so
Thus,
if it

were necessary

to

necessary; and indeed the probability is against such a theory. Let us ask ourselves How is it probable that our Lord would

have dealt with a young

man

of good family and priestly con-

EPILOGUE
nexions
not

143

whom we may assume


sixteen),

to

have been a mere youth (perhaps


keenly desirous of joining

more than

who was

Him

and becoming His disciple? Is it not likely that, while reading his heart and recognizing the great sincerity of his desire, He would
just because of his youth

prospects which

He knew

with

all

tenderness to

and the great renunciation of home and would entail have refused allow him at once to throw in his lot with
that the step

the Apostolic band, and

commanded him

for the time to

remain

at

Jerusalem ? Meanwhile, whenever our Lord came up to Jerusalem and engaged in discussion with the Rabbinists, the
at

home

young

disciple

would be

there,

making as much as he could of the

great Teacher's temporary presence, keenly following the debates which his scholastic training so well enabled him to appreciate,

drinking in every word of the subtle arguments of which the Galilaean Apostles could make nothing.* Thus may well be explained the fact that the great bulk of the

near Jerusalem, the Galilaean episodes taking a comparatively subordinate part.

Gospel has

to

do with scenes and discourses

at or

And, in assessing the qualities in the young disciple which made him pre-eminently 'the disciple whom Jesus loved*, shall we be wrong in attaching full weight to the intellectual bond the fact that
the youth's upbringing enabled him, in a far fuller measure than the untrained and more slow-witted Galilaean Apostles (at least

before Pentecost), to enter into our Lord's point of view, to follow


* It is important to notice that the opinion of Jewish scholars distinctly favours the general historical character of the discourses in the Fourth Gospel, as representing one aspect of our Lord's teaching. Cf. the words of Dr. Abrahams in his
' One of the essay 'Rabbinic aids to exegesis', Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 181. facts about the writings of recent Jewish critics of the New most remarkable Testament has been that they have tended on the whole to confirm the Gospel

picture of external
to prove that the their interpreters.

Jewish life, and where there is discrepancy, these critics tend blame lies not with the New Testament originals but with

Dr. Gudemann, Dr. Buchler, Dr. Schechter, Dr. Chwolson, Dr. Marmorstein, have all shown that the Talmud makes credible details which many Christian expositors have been rather inclined to dispute. Most remarkable

of all has been the cumulative strength of the arguments adduced by Jewish writers favourable to the authenticity of the discourses in the Fourth Gospel, especially in relation to the circumstances under which they are reported to have

been spoken. Much more may be expected in this direction, for Jewish scholars have only of late turned themselves to the close investigation of the New
Testament.'

144

EPILOGUE

His expositions of the inner meaning of the Old Testament, and to grasp the fact that He was in the highest sense the embodiment
of its ideals ?

only natural that such a disciple should have been present at the Last Supper, and that the Apostles should not have grudged
It is

him a place next


gifts entitled
* It would,

his

Lord

to
it

which his deep

him.*

Nor

is

affection and high even apart from his surprising,

Lord

to the

at least

however, not be strange if the position of privilege granted by our disciple should have excited the disapproval of some members " Lk. ga 21 34 a passage of extraordinary interest of the Apostolic Twelve.

young

as appearing to offer a summary of the events of the fuller narrative contained in 24 Jn. 13 States in v. 'Eyevfro 5e teat <f>t\ovfiKia fv avrois, TO ris avrwv SoKi dvat This is met by our Lord's words of reproof, in which (70; 5e kv pecry vpuv fjidfai'.
,

dpi ws 6 SiaKovuiv is the verbal summary with which the foot-washing of Jn. 13 corresponds as the acted parable. Occasion for the Apostles' strife as to precedence may, as Dr. Plummer suggests, 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, the reason why the
;

strife

should have arisen on

this

occasion of

all

others

is

not apparent.

Supposing,

however, that this time the circle was enlarged by admission of the young disciple, and that he was placed by our Lord next to Himself, it may be that we have found
the cause of this outbreak of (f>t\oveiKia. Adopting this hypothesis, we seem to read our Lord's words of reproof with a new understanding. In the injunction dA\' 6 ptifav iv vfjttv yiveffOca ws o vewrepos the young disciple John becomes the concrete example of 6 vewrfpos, which seems almost to acquire the meaning, 'this 33 ~ 41 and parallels). Again, the point of v. 28 appears to stand out youth' (cf. Mk. 9

'But ye (Apostles, in contrast to this young disciple) are they which clearly have continued with Me in My temptations and I appoint unto you a kingdom, even as My Father hath appointed unto Me, that ye may eat and drink at My table These in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel '.

more

words, with all the fullness of promise which they undoubtedly contain, seem to be cast with something like a touch of irony in language adapted to appeal to the

Twelve to St. John presents a close 38 "42 Like Martha they were eager analogy to that of Martha to Mary (Lk lo ). to spend and be spent in the service of their Master but they were not, at that stage, endowed with the religious insight and spiritual (as distinct from practical)
;

then-condition of the Apostles' ideals. If our theory be true, the relation of the

devotion possessed by Mary and the young disciple John. John, like Mary, had chosen the good part, which was not to be taken away from him.
If

such was the occasion which led

to

the sublime example of the foot-washing,

we

see at once

why the

which led up to it. and would, we may think, 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. that the words fj.era TUJV 8w8(Ka Mk. I4 17 p-tra TWV 8w5(/ca [/iaflj/Twy] Mt. 2620 /cat ol airuaTo\oi avv avTa> Lk. 22 14 by no means exclude the presence of a non-Apostolic guest at the Supper. The presence of John (as we picture him) might well have
; ,

Fourth Evangelist gives no hint of the special circumstances As elsewhere, he suppresses his own personality as far as

EPILOGUE
devotion, that

145

when

the Galilaeans fled in panic at the arrest,

he should have followed on and entered boldly into the high


priest's house.

have now, it may be observed, further explained the bond of union between St. John and St. Paul to which allusion has
Similarity of social position, a common already been made. Rabbinic training, common ideals and pride of race and enthusiasm for Judaism in its higher developments, account for much.

We

We
If

seem here
the

to find explained the

remarkable double attitude towards


converts.
St.

Jews which characterizes both the Christian

from one point of view the unbelieving Jews excite

Paul's

keenest antipathy, as those 'who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drave out us, and please not God, and are contrary
to all

men
;

be saved

forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may but the wrath is come upon to fill up their sins alway
:

them
with

to the uttermost
all

'

(i
'

Thess. 2 15

16

) ;

from another he can assert

could wish myself anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh who are Israelites ; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the
earnestness,
I
:

covenants, and the giving of the law, and the cultus, and

the

promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ after " the flesh' (Rom. 93 5), and can speak not without satisfaction of the privileges which he inherited as 'a Hebrew of Hebrew

and the recipient of a thorough training in the strictest 4~6 So to St. John 'the Jews' principles of Judaism (Phil. 3 ). from one point of view stand as the embodiment of unbelief and
parents

'

hardened opposition to the Embodiment of Light and Truth yet from another he can record (with certainly a strong touch of
;

national feeling) our Lord's

words
:

worship that which ye know not s2 for salvation is from the Jews (Jn. 4 ), and can refer, with a glow of enthusiasm, to 'the last day, the great day of the feast' of
:

Samaritan woman, 'Ye we worship that which we know


to the

'

Tabernacles (Jn.
It

7").

was precisely the grasp of Judaism from the inside only


to call for record.

seemed not
<tf

He may
official

have counted for no more to the Apostles


in the

that time than

would nowadays a young scholar and thinker


positions in the Church.

minds of men

of practical ability holding high

146

EPILOGUE
the light of the teaching of Him who was seen to be both supreme exponent and its ultimate goal; while at the same

possible to a trained Rabbinic scholar which emphasized the sense of its privileges and opened out the vista of its lofty possibilities
in
its

time strengthening the recoil from those its professed teachers and practitioners who resolutely shut their ears to and resisted

the

Truth,
life.

might have
Evangelist.

and would not come to Him that they Such scholars were St. Paul and the Fourth

other difficulty which may be urged against our view lies in the fact that there are indications in the Gospel which un-

The

doubtedly
the line
us, in

may

be taken to point to John the son of Zebedee as

the author.

This conclusion, however, is largely bound up with of reasoning with which Dr. Westcott has familiarized
first

take our stand upon the indubitable indications that the author of the Gospel was an eye-witness, and then argue if an eye-witness, then an Apostle ; if an Apostle, then John
the son of Zebedee.
to Apostle
it
If, however, the inference from eye-witness be questioned (as the present writer has questioned may in the preceding argument), and if the grounds upon which it is

which we

questioned be held to be valid, then the case for the authorship of John the son of Zebedee is clearly weakened. The fact that

John the son of Zebedee is not mentioned by name is weighty If there are grounds if the author must needs be an Apostle. for holding that he was not an Apostle, then this omission falls into the same category as the omission of the names of James the son of Zebedee, Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon Zelotes, and possibly Bartholomew, i.e. it may be due to accident.

We
in

may

feel surprise that

two of the Apostles who so frequently


special attendants

the Synoptic Gospels

accompany Peter as
;

of our Lord should not receive mention


justified in

arguing from this that one of must be the author, even in the absence of strong indications
the contrary.
disciple

we should hardly be these unnamed Apostles


but
to
it

From

the opening of ch. 21


is

is
oi

clear that the

whom

Jesus loved

included under

roD Ze/3e&uov

on

the ordinary view, but under aAAoi C'K rw view which we are maintaining; and
that, since the

/xa^wv

avrov Svo

upon the

it is legitimate to argue author always elsewhere deliberately conceals his

EPILOGUE
identity, the latter conclusion is (apart
trary)

147
to the con-

from evidence

more probable than the former.*

the fact that the disciple whom Jesus loved brought into connexion with Peter three times in rather special circumstances (i3 23ff -, 2o 2ff -, 2i off -) is weakened when we reflect that

The argument from

is

Peter stood in a special relation to our Lord as leader of the


Apostolic band, and therefore any one else who for any reason likewise stood in a special relation was bound to come into close
In i3 23ff all that the connexion amounts Apostle of greater boldness than the others suggested a question to a disciple whom he recognized as still more intimate with our Lord than himself; in 2i 20ff that, having

connexion with Peter.


to is that a privileged

heard a prediction as
fate of that

other

a special tie of -, indeed that the two disciples were lodging together or it may have been, keeping vigil in the same abode ; but this is natural in

to his own future, he inquired as to the who was similarly united to his Master by devotion. The remaining passage, 2O 2ff suggests

The very facts that the younger disciple had witnessed Peter's denial, and at the same time was animated by a kindred affection for our Lord which would make him understand
the circumstances.
the better the dreadful grief of the repentant Apostle, would undoubtedly draw him close to him in the hour of need.

We

are

left,

then, with

the account in Jn.

i 25ff

of the

first

meeting with Jesus of the two disciples of St. John Baptist, one of whom we are told was Andrew the brother of Simon Peter,

and the other, we


it is

infer,

was the author of the Gospel.


d8eA<6v rov

In

v.

41

said of Andrew,
this

evpicrKei ovros Trpwrov TOI/

tSiov ^t/xooya,

and from

Dr. Westcott draws the deduction


;

'The words

imply that some one else was afterwards found and from the form of the sentence we may conclude that this is James the brother
of

John

'.

This narrative

is

not a duplicate of the account of the


in

call

of the

two pairs of Apostles


(or Bethany)

Mk.

16 - 20

=Mt. 4
is

18

~22

for (not to
in Jn.

of the difference in detail) the scene

different

speak Bethabara

beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing; in the Synoptists, the sea of Galilee. The two accounts may quite well
*

Notice the similarity of the phrase to ex TWV

p.o.9r)rwv

avrov Ivo

35
,

a\\os

L 2

148

EPILOGUE
we suppose that the definite call (Aevre OTTIOSynoptic narrative came subsequently to the virtual
if
;

be harmonized
of the

call

described by Jn. and on this view the readiness of the disciples at once to leave their occupations and follow Christ receives
elucidation they came at once without question because they had already been prepared for the call by the meeting described in Jn.

considerable

muse be remarked, however, that while this conclusion is Andrew and Peter, the question as to the second mentioned in Jn. i 36ff is involved in considerable obscurity. disciple
It

clear as regards

In the

first place,

we cannot be

quite sure that the author of the

Gospel is referring to himself; though this assumption is natural, and explains the author's detailed knowledge of the circumstances,
both here and in the preceding w. 29ff -. Secondly, Dr. Westcott's deduction from the statement eupi'o-Kct OVTOS -n-purov KT\. is surely much too categorical. should -rrpurov imply that some one

Why

else
in

was afterwards found?


>{3

Comparing the use of the adverb


/cat

Mt. 6

,r)TiT

Se Trpwroj/ TY]V fidcriXeLav


it

rrjv

SiKa.iocrvvi]v
it

avrov,

we may say

rather that

implies that
'

Andrew made

his first

found him then and there '. If, then, the author of the Gospel is describing his own first interview with our Lord, there is nothing in the narrative which really conflicts
business to find his brother

with the theory that he was not the son of Zebedee but a member of a priestly family from Jerusalem. It is quite likely that such
a one

himself to him as a disciple and so have formed a friendship with Andrew, from whom incidentally he may at a later time have learned the details of the feeding
Baptist,

may have joined the may have attached

multitudes

who

flocked to hear the

of the five thousand


to

become

as on our view, he was not permitted a constant follower of our Lord, but was an actual
(cf.
if,

68),

eye-witness of the Jerusalem-scenes only. 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, while there is


difficult

much both

and external evidence which


former view, the
latter

harmonize with the

view seems wholly to be supported by the earliest external evidence, and to have the preponderant support of internal evidence; such internal indications as may

EPILOGUE
seem,
at first sight, to tell against
it,

149
a

being amenable to

reason-

able solution.

last point to

which reference must

briefly

be made

is

the

bearing of our theory of an Aramaic original for the Fourth Gospel upon the question of the authorship of the Apocalypse. In making the few remarks which he has to offer on this subject,
to a fixed opinion.

the writer would guard against the impression that he has come He has not studied the Apocalypse sufficiently

thoroughly to do this. All that he has to put forward are certain obvious considerations which seem necessarily to arise out of his
as to the Gospel. against the view that the Gospel and Apocalypse are the same author has always been based chiefly upon the differby ence in Greek style. It is held that the extraordinary solecisms

new theory The case

of the Apocalypse find no parallel in the Gospel, in which the language 'flows along smoothly from the prologue to the end; if it is there is no startling phrase, no defiance of syntax
;

obviously the work of one who was more familiar with the construction of the Semitic than of the Greek sentence, yet the author

seldom or never offends against


he not only
latter'.*

definite laws.

differs

from the Apocalyptist, but stands

In these respects at the opposite

pole to the eccentricities, the roughnesses, the audacities of the

obvious that, if the Gospel is a translation from Aramaic, the criterion of Greek style as differentiating the two books at once falls to the ground. On the other hand, if the Gospel was written
It is

Aramaic prior to the author's arrival in Ephesus somewhat late life, and he then adopted Greek owing to the exigencies of his new surroundings, such Greek as we find in the Apocalypse
in
in his

would not be surprising.t


* Swete, Apocalypse*, p. cxxviii. It may be remarked that this estimate of the smoothness of the Greek of the Gospel is perhaps somewhat exaggerated in face e. g. of the group of passages which the present writer has brought together on pp. 101 ff.

t It

may be urged

that, if the

Gospel

is

a translation, the Epistles

still

remain

and they, though presumably written in Greek, do not display the solecisms of the Apocatypse. But the Epistles may well have been dictated to an amanuensis, who was in some degree responsible for the correctness of the Greek: and possibly
this

amanuensis may have been the translator of the Gospel.

i 5o

EPILOGUE

Again, we have to notice that, as Dr. Charles has ably pointed out, the author of the Apocalypse frames his style upon a Biblical Hebrew model. Such a knowledge of Biblical Hebrew, though unexpected in a Galilaean fisherman, would be natural in a trained

Rabbinic scholar.

We

have found reason to believe that the

author of the Gospel was such a scholar ; and it seems necessary to hold that the author of the Apocalypse, who must likewise have

been a Palestinian, was similarly equipped.* It is a remarkable fact that, though Dr. Charles holds that the
author of the Apocalypse was not the author of the Gospel, the description which he gives (i, p. xliv) of the characteristics ot
the former
is

applicable, in

its

main

details, to the latter

according

to the conclusions

which we have formed

in the present discussion.

are told that the author of the Apocalypse * was a PalesHe was a great spiritual genius, a man of profound tinian Jew.

Thus we
insight

and the widest sympathies'.

He

tance with the


in

Hebrew text of the


translated
its

O.T.'

had an 'intimate acquainThe fact that he thought


'

Hebrew and

idioms
'

literally into

Greek, points to

His extraordinary use of Greek Palestine as his original home.' to prove not only that he never mastered the ordinary appears Greek of his own times, but that he came to acquire whatever
knowledge he had of
this

language when somewhat advanced in

All these characteristics are precisely those which we years.' should expect that the author of the Fourth Gospel would display
if

he turned himself

Apocalypse.

composition of a book like Is this coincidence merely accidental ?


to

the

the

following is a rough list of Semitisms Gospel and the Apocalypse


:

The

common

to the

Fourth

Asyndeton

(cf.

p. 49),

which

is

an Aramaic characteristic,

is

naturally not to be expected in a work which conforms itself to The author of Apoc. slips into it, however, Biblical Hebrew style.
* Dr. Charles
is

hardly accurate in speaking

(i,

p. xliv)
still

of 'his use of

Hebrew

the language of learned discussions in Palestine)'. The language of learned discussion in Palestine was New Hebrew, which is in many respects more closely akin to Aramaic than to the
practically as his
(for classical

mother tongue

Hebrew was

Hebrew

in

which

this writer correctly finds the author's

model

(cf. p. 17,

foot-note).

Rabbinic scholars were, however, naturally skilled in their knowledge of the O.T. in the original and the author is deliberately modelling his style upon
;

the O.T. and not upon

New

Hebrew.

EPILOGUE
fact that

151

not infrequently towards the end of his book, possibly owing to the Aramaic was his mother-tongue. It may be noted that
in this respect
(cf.

Aramaic has influenced New Hebrew 20 6 2o3 5 6 14 2i 4 22 15 17 Cf. Apoc. i6 I9


-

p. 50).

Parataxis
KO.L

(cf.

p. 56).

The

co-ordination of sentences by
it

KOLL

is

so frequent in Apoc. that

needs no

illustration.

Non-use of Aorist Participle describing action anterior to Finite 12 verb. There seems to be only one instance, viz. 7rrrpe'^as i

eW

In Jn. the usage


(cf.

is

far

less

frequent

than in the Synoptists

p. 56).

is

Avoidance of the Genitive absolute construction. This construction Though used occasionally in Jn., it is totally absent from Apoc.
than in the Synoptists
(cf.

far less frequent

p. 57).*
;

i,

Use of Casus pendens (cf. p. 63). See Swete, p. cxviii Charles, This construction is more frequent in Jn. than pp. cxlix, 53.

in

Apoc.
Kai linking contrasted statements (cf. p. 66).

Cf.

13 21 Apoc. 2
-

5 8
-

3*

Great rarity of 8e. There seem to be 5 occurrences only in 24 14 io2 i9 12, 2i 8 8e in Jn. is proportionately slightly Apoc., viz. i 2 less frequent than in Mk,, and less than half as frequent as in Mt.
, , , .

and Lk.
fro

(cf.

p. 69).
(cf.

Infrequency ofydp

p. 69).

^frequent, PJTTOTC never.

Only about 17 occurrences. There are 11 occurrences of Tm


prjTroTt

^
^

in Apoc.,
'

and none of
.

/XTJTTOTC.

that

not

'

',

lest

',

its

never occurs in Jn. in sense place being regularly taken by iva


Cf.

(cf. pp. 69 f., 100). The Relative completed by a Pronoun 2 9 i2 6 14 i38 12 if, 20s 7
-

(cf.

p. 84).

Apoc.

3*,

oyojAci

aurw

'

Whose name was


(cf.

'.

Jn.

6
,

3*,

3 Apoc. 6 9".
,

Never
-

elsewhere in N.T.

p. 30).
,

4 7 8 pxTai Present used as Futurum instans (cf. p. 94). Cf. Apoc. i 25 16, 3", 48 9 12 ii 14 i6 15 22 7 12 20 The same usage is seen with other 5 9 10 verbs in II (eKTropevcrcu, Ka.T<r6ii), 1 1 (/?A.7rouo-iv,
'
-

'

ev<f>paivovTai),
* Dr.

14
(i,

(TrpotrKWct,
'

Charles

p.

xxxv)

states that the Genitive absolute

'

occurs often

in Jn.
i.

As a matter of fact the occurrences are 17, as against Mt. 48, Mk. 36, Lk. 59, is proportionately about 2| times as frequent in the Synoptists as in Jn.

e. it

152

EPILOGUE
after Participle
(cf.

Change of construction
in

p. 96,

where the cases


2i 27 22'.
,

Apoc. are noted).


iras (iray)
.

ou

'

none'

(p. 98).

Cf.

Apoc.

6
,

28-*,

appears that the case against identity of authorship of the Gospel and Apocalypse can certainly not be maintained upon
it

Thus

the ground of style.

The evidence
be added as

is all in

the other direction.

A
i
1-4

few words
9

may

to the claim to authorship

made

by the Apocalyptist.
,

22 8 ; in

describes himself as 'John' simply in with the addition of 'your brother and companion in

He

kingdom and endurance (which is) in Jesus'. In iS 20 2i 14 he seems to distinguish himself from the Twelve In 22 he is ranked among the prophets. Though the Apostles. tone of authority in which he delivers his message is bound up
the tribulation and
,

with the fact that he

is

clear that he recognizes that his

a true mouthpiece, i.e. standing in the churches of Asia.


utilizing older sources,

the mouthpiece of the glorified Christ, it is name carries the authority of he is a man well known and of important

His work, though apparently


certainly be dated towards the

must almost

end of the reign of Domitian, i.e. shortly before A.D. 96. Now the evidence which we have already reviewed points
period, viz.

to the

conclusion that there was but one John of great note in Asia at this

John the

presbyter,

who was known


this

as

'

the disciple of

the

Lord

Evidence also indicates that


Gospel.
is

John was the author


is
f.) ;

of the

Fourth

Unless, therefore, the Apocalypse


i,

pseudonymous (against which see Dr. Charles,


the conclusion
self
'

pp. xxxviii

certainly cogent that the author

who

signs him-

'John

Thus

is John the presbyter. the evidence of claim to authorship combines with that of

Semitic style in suggesting that the author of the Apocalypse is one with the author of the Fourth Gospel and Epistles. Whether
there exist criteria of Theological thought or other internal characteristics which are sufficient to disprove this inference is a question

which the writer must leave

to others to decide.

APPENDIX
i.

Reminiscences of the teaching of the Fourth Gospel

(and i Jn.} in the Epistles of St. Ignatius.


To
2.

the Ephesians.

TrpeVov

ow

eo-Ttv
'IT/Q-OVV

Kara.

Trdi/Ta

Jn.

3
T.'f

/cdyw r)v

Soav

rjv Se'SooKas

rpoirov

Soaetv

XptoTOV TOV

/xot SeScoKa avTOts, ira

wo-ti/ ej/

/ca^ws

evot

Kara

Trdvra

19

rjre

Jn. I7

tva

wo-tv /cat avTot

17'

4
Kat
vo>

Sta TOI)TO eV TT^


<rv(ji(fni)V(a

6/xovota

v//.cov

Jn. 13
oYt
y
>

^''

TOTJTU) yi/coo"oi^Tat vrai/Tes


CQ-TC,

aya.7n) 'I^o-oGs Xpto-Tos

e/xot fiaS^frat
>

eav ayou

aOcTat.
vftas yaaKapt^w rovs
17

T 7

ev a>
21

Trofro) /x,aA.Xov

Jn. I7

u/a Travres

ci/

wcrir, /ca
ei/
(rot',

dra/ceKpa/xevous

OUTCDS, 009

KK\r)cria

crv, Trarrjp, lv e/^ot


/cat

Kayw

'Iryo-ov Xptcrrw Kat ws 'I^o-oi!? Xptcrros

avrot

ei/ T7/>tti/

[ev]

TW

Trarpt, tva 7rai/ra ev

7-

Christ
II.

is ev Oava.T<o ^o)^ a\r)0wr].

Jn.
6

2o 26

'Eyca
ets

et/xt

...

17

Cf.

IJLOVOV
cts

ev

Xpto-Tw
,fjv.

'I-^o-ov

Tmrrevwi/
>jo-eTat*

e/xe

Kai/
21
.

eupe^vat
9-

TO aX^Oivov
Ir/o"ou,

Trail.

KTA.

Cf. also i Jn. 5

V Xpio"TO)

01;

^(opts TO

We

may

note that the adj.

dA^^ti/os is

specially characteristic

of Jn. (9 times), i Jn. (4 times), and Apoc. (10 times), occurring but 5 times besides in the whole remainder of the N.T.
II. "Eo-^aTot Katpot.
I

Jn. 2

18

ea^aTr]

wpa

154
14.

APPENDIX.
*Ov ovotv XavOdvei
v/xas,

eav
7

I *

Jn. 4 J n 2&
*

8 16
'

cos ayaTrr)

<*X>7$a>s cV

TOVTW
Cf.

TTL(TTLV

Kat

TV

daTTV'

TIS

COTIV

TOV

fOV TCTcXei'toTai.

TeXos Se

ayainf]'

ra 8e

8i;o ev

The Johannine
in i Cor. 13.
14*

teaching

is

here combined with that of St. Paul

ovSeis TTICTTIV cTrayycXXo/xevos

Jn. 3
2

Tras 6

e^

avrw

/xeVwi/

ov^

d/xapraj/ct
fJLLCTL.

ov8e

dyaTr^v

KCKTry/xevos

d/xaprdvet.
I

Jn. 4

CaV TtS

t7T>y

OTt 'AyttTTCO

TW
OVV TTOtW/XCV, W? OLVTOV
u/a
^/xti/

eov, Kat

rot' d8eX<^>o/

avrov [uo"fl,

eo-rtV.
24

Cf. also

2 9 11
'

TTOLVTa

I Jfi.

3
ei/

Kttt

6 Trjp&V TttS
/Ai/ci

Acaroi/covvTO?,

w/xei/

avroO

avrov
avrw.

avrw

Kat

avros iv

vaol Kat avros

17

e^

eos.

17. Ata rovro

fjivpov

eXa^ev

CTTI

3 Jn. I2

17

8e ot/cta tTrXrjpwOr)

e/c

T^S

T^S K<^aX^s [avTOv] 6 Kvptos,


Trverj rrj eKK\r)(TLa a<f>0ap(riav.

/a

oa/x^s rov pvpov.

prove that St. Ignatius has in ~ mind the narrative of the anointing as recorded in Mk. i43 9 = ~~ lff Mt. 26 6 Ki our Lord's/^/ were anointed; According to Jn. i2
eVt r^s KtfaXfjs avrov
-

The words
.

yet
a/a

it

is

difficult

to

resist

the conclusion that Ignatius's

words

Tri/ery

KrX.

are based on recollection of the passage from Jn.


parallel, 'the

which we have placed as a as referring to the Church.


17,

house* being allegorized

19.

The phrase
7;
Phil.
6).

apxw

rov atwi/os TOVTOV occurs six times

in St. Ignatius's letters (the other

4;
\JQ*

Rom.
o

occurrences are Magn. i ; Trail. In the Syriac version the equivalent is


19).

[XL^^I

CHJOOJ/

(Eph.
KOO-/AOV

In

Jn.

I231
is

i6 n

we have

the

phrase
)jo

apx^v TOV

TOVTOV,

which

rendered
|uo

by Sin.

I^D^JJX? (c*Ji^j
30

I231 )

CHJCLOJ/,

and by Pesh.
is

l^a^,^? Ij&a*!;

in i4

I^N.x?

[TOVTOV] apx^v In Jn., as in Ignatius, the thought is of the spiritual ruler of the present age or world-period (properly TOV atwos 6 8 TWI> apxwTwv TOV atoii/os TOVTOV denotes TOVTOV), just as in i Cor. 2
Koa-fjiov

6 TOV

rendered by Sin. and Pesh.

|ooo>/.

APPENDIX
the earthly rulers of the present age.

KBpV

(Syr. IviS.v.) to

denote

auoj/

and

Aramaic has but one term Koo-/xo9, and the Johannine


aioivos TOVTOV,

rendering TOV

KOO-/AOV TOVTOV is less

accurate than TOV

and mistranslates the original which must have been NDpjn

N3i3~iK

It can hardly be doubted, then, that Ignatius drew his P!!?. phrase from Jn., and the form in which he gives it suggests that he may have known the Aramaic original of the Gospel.

To
I.
fjiai
c.v

the

Magnestans.
Jn.
l 5).

ats [e/c/cXr/crtai?] evaxrtv ev^o/cat

(quoted

above

on

o-apKos

Tn/ev/xaTOS
rj

Eph.
t,rjv,

Xpiorov TOV oia Trai/Tos TmrTews TC KOL aydVr/s


TrpOKe/cptrat,
Kttt

rj<s

TO 8e Kvptorrepov,

5.

wo*7rep

yap

eo*Tiv vo/ttcr/jiaTa Svo,


/cai

19

Jn. I5
KOQ-/XOS

et

CK TOV /cooyxov ^rc, 6


c^t'Aei'

o /xev

eov o 8e KOO-/XOV,
tSiov

tKacnov

av TO iSiov

OTt 8e CK
ya>

avT<ov

^apaKT^pa
TOV

CTriKct/xevov

TOV KOQ-/ZOV OVK


XcdfJirjV

ecTTe,

dAX*

eSttt

^l,
ot

Ot aTTtO-TOt
TTIO-TOI
ei/

KOCTfJLOV

TOVTOV,

V/XaS

TOV

KOO^AOV,

8e

ayoiTrrj

^apa/cT^pa
.
.

TOVTO

/xio-et

v/xas 6 KOO"/XOS.

eov TraTpos Sia 'Iryo-ov Xpio~TOv


5. TO

^V

aVTOV OVK

0-TtV

l/

T7/XtJ/.

I
I

Jn.

I
10

Jn. I

6 Aoyos avTov OVK Z(TTLV iv

Jn.
V
i

8 3/

6 Xoyos 6

e/>tos

ov

V/XIV.

Jn. 3'

VK ^X

avTa
6.
\afiovTe<s
c

ovV

6/xoTJ^ctaj/

eov
.
.

35

Jn.

I3
4).

(quoted

above

on

dAA.?}A.ovs
Sio,

Eph.

ev 'Iryo^ov XptcrT<5 dXAi/Xovs

TOS dyaTraTe.
7. "Oo-Trep

ov/ 6 Kvpios avcv TOV


7roir)<Tv

19

Jn. 5
eavrov

ov SwaTat 6 vios

Troietv d^>'

TraTpos

ovSev
.
.

[i^vw/xevos

ovSei/

ay

TI

j3\7ry TOV

Wv],

TTttTCpa TTOlOWTa.

Jn.

S28

a7r'

c/x,avTov

TTOtto

ovSev,

156

APPENDIX
dXXa Ka0ws
ravra XaXw.
30 Jn. IO eyw Kat 6

Trarrjp ev

Cf. also io
era

25 3 '- a8
-

7.

7rt

'Irjo-ovv

Xpio-Tov TOV d<'

Jn.

16

s8

f&jXOov fK TOV Trarpos Kat


TOV
KOO-/XOV'

evos TraTpos TrpoeX^oi/Ta Kat eis cva

eX^Xv^a
TO i/

ets

TraXtv a<n7/>u

ovra Kat

TOV Kocrfjiov Kat Tropeuo/jtat Trpos


Cf.
18

irarepa.
ets

842 I3 3
,

cva wra.

Jn.

wv

eis
-

rov KoX-n-ov TOV


.

TraTpds.

Cf. I4
12 -- 8
,

10 11 ' 20

Cf. i 4
8.
oYt els eos eortv 6

i6

10 - 17
.

Jn. I7

'E<^>avepo)o-a crov

TO oVo/xa.

eavroi/ Sta 'Irycrov Xptcrro9 TOV vlov


OLVTOV,

os

eo~rtv

avrov

Xoyos

aTro

crty^s

Jn.

os Kara Trdvra.

TU>
eo-Ttv*
. .
.

avrov.

OTt cya>

TO,

pco-Ta

avrw

Trotw

TravTOTe.

Cf. also
34
,

with TW
23 24 30 3
-

Tr^avTL aMv, Jn. 4


/C38.39.44
;

',

^ie.18.28.33

16. 18-26

7 IS", l65.
.

>

O 4 TO 44.45.-19 V I *^
-

M
I3
9.
^topts
TTCUS
,

H",
I5

21

^/Aets
cf.

Svvrja-ofJLtOa

Jn.

lff>

Cf.

especially

v.

avrov;

Trail. 9. ov

ts e/xov.

TO aXrjQwbv

tftv

OVK

To
II.

Trallians.

^cvyeTe

ow

Tas KaKas

vaSas Tas ywci>o"as


,

The Father is the husbandman who tends the vine


-

Jn.

12

is

ov ea
OVTOL

Tts,

rrapavTa
cto-tv

and

removes

the

worthless

aTroOvycrKei.

yap OVK

shoots.

Lightfoot compares Clement Alex. Paed.


K\aovofJivr]
17

i.

8 Kavo/xai/ct yap
Ka$atpei 8c avrov Tas
7rapa<^>uas

a/XTrcXoS) OUTOOS 8e Kat 6 ai/^po>7ros"

e^v^Spt^ovo-as 7rapa<va8as 6 Xoyos,

KTX.

The word

denotes
fertility

a side-growth or worthless sucker which detracts from the

APPENDIX
of the plant.
ra
O.TTO

According
TOV

to Aristotle, Plant,

i.

-n-apa^mSes 8e

ei'or

TTJS

Ignatius

is

the thought of pi'?7S 8ev8pov /?A.ao-TaVovTa. allied to that of Jn., with the difference that the

Thus

<j>epov KapTroV

of the latter becomes ras


there
is

ycvi/aio-as Kap-n-bv 6ava.Tr)<f>6pov.


,

In the

last clause

allusion to Mt. i5 13 Ilao-a

6 TraTrjp /xov 6 ovpaVtos


II.

Kat

rjv

av

KapTTO?

avTwv

16

Jn. I5

a/a

...

To

the

Romans.
19

3. /xeye$ovs earii/ 6 ^pio-Tiai/io-//o5,

Jn. I5
KOO-/XO?

et

CK TOV KOO-/AOV ^TC, 6

>Tav /xto-^Tat VTTO Kooyxov.

av TO t8tov e^tXcf OTI 8e CK


ecTTt,

TOV KOCT/XOV OVK


Xe^d/xr;v

dAA' eyw ceKooyxov,

v/xas

CK

TOV

8ta

TOVTO

fJLKTCL V/XttS

6 KOQ-/XO5.

7.

/x^

AaXetT
f

Ttyo-ovV

Xpto-Tov

l0 Jn. 2

edi/Tts dya?ra TOV KOO-/XOV,


aya.Trr)

KOO-/XOI/

OVK
^a>v Kat AaXovi/ ev

CO-TIV

17

TOV TraTpo? cv avTai.


o~ot v8a>p

7.

vSwp 8e

Jn. 4
Jn. 4

10

e8(o/cej/
14

av

lo-w^ei/ /xot Xeyoi/ KrA...

TO v8a>p o 8wo-

ev

avrw

?rr;y^

v8aTO? dAXo/xevov
Cf. also Jn. 7
s8
.

7.

aprov

eov 0eAa>, o
. .
.

crap^
^eAa> TO

s2 33 6 Jn. 6
'

/tov
TOI/

v/ui>

TOV Xptcrrov

/cat

7ro/xa

TOV aprov CK TOV ovpavov


o

dX^^ivov

at/xa avTOV, o eo-Tiv ctyaTn; a.<f>0apro<s.

yap dpTOS TOV

eov eo~Ttv 6 /caTa/cat

j3a,LV(DV

K TOV ovpavov

^(u^v 8i8ov?

TO) KOO-/XO).

Jn. 6

55
17

yap

a-dp

(Jiov

aXrjOrjs eo"Ti

/3pa>o-i5,
7TOO-15.

Kat TO at/xd /xov

To

//!^

Philadelphians.
36 Jn. I2 ws TO

dA^^eta?,*

TOV
*

/xepto-/>iov

Kat Tas KOKO-

cts

TO

Lightfoot's verdict is, 'The reading of the Greek MSS. <<WTOS dAi^cfa? "of the light of truth", cannot stand; for definite articles would almost certainly be

158

APPENDIX
4 Jn. IO oVav

StSao-KttXta?' OTTOV Se 6 Trot/x^i/ CO~TIV,


I ir. I);

TO, tSta TTO.VTO.

T )>

3
.

in ioXjj??rf
.
.

TT

oXXot

e/XTrpoo-#ev

avr&v

TropeveTai,

Kat Ta

yap XVKOI

atxyu,aXom'ovo'ti' TOV?

7rp6j3aTa auTai aKoXov^ct.


v.
12

^o8pd/xov?.

/cat

6 XUKOS dpTrd^et avTa Kat

3.

'ATre^ccr^e

TCOI/

KaKcoi/ /?OTai/<oi/,
Iryo-ovs Xptcrros,

Jn. I5

lff.

ao-Ttras ou ycoopyet

Sia TO /x^

eti/at

auroiis ^>f rciai/ Trarpo?.

Cf.

on

Trail,

n.
ou TrXai/aTat, a7r6
eov

Jn.

3**

TO TrveO/xa OTTOV PeAct

TTJ/CI,

ov

otdcv

VTrayet, Kat

yap Ta KpvTrra eXey^ei.

TroOtv ep^eTat Kat TTOV

Kat r^v

<fxavr)v

avrov aKovet?, dXX' OUK

otSas TroOcv ep^eTat Kat TTOV VTrayet"

OVTWS

eo~Tti/

Tras 6 yeyevv^/xevos CK

TOV

Jn.
tva

3'"

Kat OVK ep^eTat Trpos TO


TO.

c/>(os,

/xi)

e\y\6f)
Kat

epya avTov.

8.
O-TOV,

3235 Jn. 8

yvw

os

A.v

ii/Ta

Otiav,

Kat
.

^
cav

dX^eta

Secr/xor.
oo-ry,

ow

6 vtos v/xas

OI/TWS cXev^epot
'

9- avros

a)i/

$vpa TOV TraTpds,

8t'

^s

Jn.

IO7 9 eyw
. . .

et/xt

17

Ovpa
17

TWI/

to~p^OKrat Appaa/x Kat Io~aaK Kat

TrpoySaTwi/.

eya>

et/xt

6vpa.'

6V

laKw^

Kat ot
Kat
"~
-^

7rpo<f>f)Tai

Kat ot aTrd-

e/xoi edv TIS

to~eX^

KK\r)(ria.

The text might be mended by inserting a ai, as the Armenian Version On such a point however a version has little weight, gives "light and truth". since this would be a very obvious expedient for a translator. I am disposed
required.

was the original reading of Ignatius ; and that 0om>s intended as a substitution or a gloss or a parallel, suggested by the familiar scriptural phrase Ttrcva It may be remarked, however, that (viol') ^XWTOS'. the Aramaic method of expressing is the true light Syr. NDK^p"}
to think that TCKVO. d\rj6(ias

was

first

'

N"}iri3,

TO )>;*.? )>ocu 'light of truth', this latter being used e.g. to translate
d\ij0iv6v in Jn.
i
9
.

<f>>s

vb

Thus

<f>airos

than any existing authorities ', 6 apxojv rov aluvos TOVTOV noted on p. 154) to an acquaintance with the original Aramaic Gospel. For omission of the definite article in rendering such a Semitic

is older d\r)edas, which, according to Lightfoot may well be an Aramaism, possibly pointing (like

phrase into Greek


of truth')

cf.

Gen. 24 48

HDK ^Pia
Ps. 118

'

in the true (right)


30

way

'

'

(lit.

in

way

LXX iv o5$ d^et'ias,

(up)

odov d\rj6d

APPENDIX
To
I.
7T7rA?7poc/>o/377/Aei/ovs
. . .

159

the

Smyrnaedns.
Tov
14 10
'

ets

Jft.

Kal KaOuis
TTJ

M.a)V(rf)<s vif/oxrev

K.vpiov ^/xtov

a\r)@<t)<s CTTI

HOVTIOV

TOV OC/HV cv
Orjvau Set
TTttS

epr;/xa),

oimos

VJ/AO)-

/cat

'HptoSov
TTtp
T^U,tol>

Tcrpdp^ov
V
CTCLpKL'

TOV vtov TOV avOpwTrov, u/a


Iv (XUTW
^r/

7TL(TT.VWV

^W^V

va

pr;

a~v<ra"f]^ov

ets cts

TOVS TOV?
ev
evt

atwviov.
32 Jn. I2 /cdyw av

aiwvas 8ta T^S draaTcurcws


dyt'ovs

vi^w^o)

/c

r^s y^5,

*at

TTIQ-TOVS ciT
ei/

avTOV,
eOvecriv,

CITC

Trdi/Tas eA/cvo-w Trpos e/xavTov.

'lovSaiots
O-CO/XttTt

Iv

Cf. also Jn.

^.
*

T^9

CKKAvyO-t'ttS ttVTOV.

The

allusion of o-uWry/xov

seems

to

be to the D3

standard

'

or
-

8 9 'signal-post' on which the brazen serpent was set, Num. 2i LXX /cat ^5 avToj/ eVt (n/fictov. W is rendered o-vo-o-^/xov by LXX in 6 26 22 10 Isa. 5 It is so rendered by Aquila in Ps. 60 (59) 49 62
.

Isa. ii

10
,

2:{

33
s3
.

by Symmachus

in Isa.

10
,

2:f

33

and by Theodotion

in Isa.

33

2.

Reminiscences of the Odes of Solomon in the


Epistles of St. Ignatius.
which Drs. Rendel Harris and
familiar to

The
follows

principal passages from


that the

Mingana argue
:

Odes were

Ignatius are as

Ode 38"
.Uj-ii
.^ ]oo

UK>)O
fcs^oot

joo,

%f/
JJ?

t+9

}9^

)ov>

>xJ

'But Truth proceeds in the right path, And whatever I did not know it made clear

to

me,
*

Even

And
*

the drugs of error, the plagues of death which


all

men

think to be sweetness/
l

In the last line the Syriac construction is somewhat harsh; lit. And the ' plagues which they think to be sweetness, of death '. The separation of of death from the plagues (if not merely an accidental misplacement) may have
'

'

'

been dictated by desire

to bring

it

into sharp contrast to

'

sweetness ', the sense

the plagues which they think to be sweetness, (though they be the being, plagues) of death '.

'And

160

APPENDIX
:

In Trail. 6 Ignatius warns his readers against the teaching of heretics in the following terms ' For these men do even mingle

poison with Jesus Christ, imposing upon others by a show of honesty, like persons administering a deadly drug with honied
wine, so that one who knoweth not, fearing nothing, drinketh in death with a baneful delight (wo-Trep Oavaa-L^ov <j)dp^aKov 8i8oVres /xera
'

olvofjLc\iTO<5, OTrep

o dyvowv aSetos Aa/x/2avei ev fjSovrj /caKTj TO aTro^averv). In the view of the editors 'Jia*X* halyutha is not merely "sweetis

ness", but something with which the poison


drink
'.

taken,

i.e.

a sweet

This

is

that Bardaisan, in
'

substantiated by a passage in which Ephrem states composing his Psalter in imitation of David,
to the simple bitters in halyutha'.
otvo/x-cXt

was administering

It is

fair

inference, then, that the

of Ignatius corresponds

to the

Ignatius compare heretical teaching to a poisonous drug concealed in a sweet drink, so that men imbibe it unwittingly. The coincidence in thought can hardly

Syr. halyutha.

Thus both

the

Ode and

be accidental.

Ode

ii

'And speaking waters drew near my

lips
stint.'

From
Ignatius,

the fountain of the Lord, without


'

hath been crucified, and there is no fire of material longing in me, but only water living and speaking in me, saying within me, Come to the Father* (vSwp Se tov /cat
7
;

Rom.

My

lust

\a\ovv

ev e/xot, (ra>0V JJLOL Xeyov* Aevpo TT/SO? rov Trarepa). In explanation of AaAow, Lightfoot cites Jortin (Eccles. Hist, i, pp. 356 f.) as finding an allusion to the heathen superstition that

certain waters

drinking them.

communicated a prophetic power to the people As there was one of these speaking fountains at Daphne (Sozomen, HE. v. 19; Evagrius i. 16), the famous suburb
'
'

of Antioch, Jortin supposes that the image could readily suggest itself to Ignatius. Lightfoot himself is inclined to question the 14 text, and to prefer the interpolator's text aXXo^vov (cf. Jn. 4 ); but
the correctness of AoAovv
is

now confirmed by
fail

the passage in the

Ode, with which we can hardly

to trace a connexion.

APPENDIX
more

161

In assessing the character of that connexion, in this and the former passage, Drs. Harris and Mingana remark with justice that
'it is

far

likely that Ignatius, writing letters rapidly

on his

western journey, should quote the Hymn-book of the time, than that the early Hymn-book should have picked up an obscure

passage

in

a letter which had hardly got into circulation at a very


n

early date'.*

Ode

to -

*{

*o

*Ji{

+sa JJo

fc^OO*

'And nothing appeared closed to me; Because I was the door of everything And I went towards all my bondmen to loose them*.
:

Cf.

Ignatius,
'.

Phil.
is

bond
the

This

'Christ Jesus shall loose you from every followed by the statement (9) that He is the door
8,
'

of the Father, by which enter Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and Prophets and the Apostles and the Church'; i.e. Jesus Christ is the door of everybody, which is an explanation of 'the

door of everything' in the Ode.

Ode 41 The connexion


'ff.

of

this

passage with
J.

Ignatius,

Rom.

2,

has

already been noticed on

p. 131, n.

These are the


letters of Ignatius

principal parallels between the

Odes and

the

which Drs. Harris and Mingana have collected. The few others which they cite are of but slight importance. The

case for Ignatius's knowledge of the Odes is, however, considerably strengthened when it is noticed that in Eph. 19 he actually seems to be quoting at length an ode of a similar character. The passage runs as follows
:

Kat

\a.0v TOV apxovra TOV

aton/os

TOVTOV

fj

TrapOevia

Mapt'as

/cat

To/ceres avTrjs, 6/xotws Kat 6 Oa.va.TOS TOV K.vpiov

Tpta /Avoriypta /cpavy^s,


ai<S(rii>
;

arira

ei>

r]crv\La
\.afJi\l/V

eoO
VTrep

7rpa)(0r}.

TTWS ovv tyavepwOr) rots

currr/p

ei'

ovpavu

TrdWas
rj

TOV<S

aoWpas,

/cat

TO

</>a>s

avroO di/e/cXaXryrof

rjr,

/cai ^VL(TfJLOv

Trapet^ev

Katvori;? aurov' TO.


*

A,ot7ra

Travra aorpa

ayu.a r)\iip

op.
2520

tit.

ii,

p. 43.

i6a

APPENDIX
eyeycTO TU> doTe/ot, avros Se
TrdvTa' rapayri T
^i/

YJV

vTrepySdAAcov TO </>ws

TTO&V

17

KawoTr)<s

f]

dvo/xotos auTois.

o$v

7rao-a /xayeia,

*at Tras oW/x,os rjffxwi&TO

/caKt'a?,

dyvoia KaOypflro, TraXata


cts

TO Trapa
(TVVCKLVfLTO
SlCt

cot)

OLirrfprurfJifvov.

\vQev ra TTOVTO.

TO

XeXcTttO-^ttt OaVOLTOV KO.raXv(TLV.

seems clear that the description of the Incarnation introduced the query TTWS ow e^ave/aw^ TOIS aituo-tv; which is poetical in by character and not in Ignatius's usual style, is a hymn which he is
It

quoting.

Translated

into

Syriac

it

is

seen to consist of four

stanzas, carefully constructed to consist of 4, 6, 6, 4 lines.

The

following translation

based, from o0ev eXvcro Traa-a /xayeta, upon the version of the letter, in which the earlier part of the poem Syriac
is

is

not included.

Vf OJCXQ.JO
.loot (oto^oo cxlo i.^*o

+~ 0004

t-M

In-,/

^9

loot |L^O)O

1^009 V? wOt

loot

*
Hal

Following the older punctuation.


TTO.S

Lightfoot punctuates o6tv (\vfro


ira\aid 0aat\(ia, [5if(f>OdpCTo], This, from the poetical point of view, upsets

SeafjLos,

itfavifaTO xanias dyvoia, tcaQripeiTo

regarding the last verb as a gloss. the balance altogether.

APPENDIX
)ootO

163

1.

star

shone forth
all

in the heaven,

Surpassing

the stars;

And And
2.

its

light

its

was not to be uttered, newness caused amaze.


the rest of the stars,

Then

all

Together with sun and moon, Joined in concourse round the star But its light outshone them all.

Bewildered, they questioned whence came The new thing, unlike to themselves.
3.

Thenceforth was magic annulled,

And bonds
And

of evil dissolved

Error was swept away,


the ancient

kingdom passed
life

When God
4.

appeared

in the flesh

Unto newness of

without end.

Thus was begun

the scheme
:

Perfected in God's design

Hence all things were perturbed For that death's destruction was planned.
of the

In this ode the following points of connexion with the thought Odes of Solomon may be noticed
:

1.

Ode Ode
2.

Conception of the star shining in the world. 86 Let not the Luminary be conquered by darkness Nor let Truth flee away from falsehood '.
'

14

'

41

And Light dawned from the Word That was beforetime in Him'.
stars gather

The
i2 4

round the new

star,

and express
to

their

wonder.

Ode

'And

the

Most High hath given Him

His worlds,

(Worlds) which are the interpreters of His own beauty, And the repeaters of His praise*.

M 2

164
'

APPENDIX
3.

And bonds
2

of evil dissolved

'.

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 Ode 42 And bring me out from the bonds of darkness Ode i7 n (Christ speaks)
1

'

'.

'

'.

'And That
'

I I

went towards

all

my bondsmen

to loose them,

might not leave any

man bound and

binding'.

Error was swept away'.


21
'

Ode

For ignorance hath been destroyed, Because the knowledge of the Lord hath arrived

'.

have adopted Jlcu^} 'error' incur rendering, following the The Greek, however, has ayvoia, which is exactly Syriac text. Ode. We have both terms )j^^*^ (lit. 'not- knowledge') of the
JJ

We

in the following

passage

Ode

i8

1011

'And error (Jlcu^) Thou knowest For neither doth it know Thee.

not,

And And
Ode
38"

ignorance
like the

(Jfcsj^,-* JJ)

appeared
sea'.

like dust,

scum of the

'And error

fled

away before Him,

And would
With
'

not meet
cf.

Him
-

'.

the whole passage


:

Ode 22 3f (where
enemies

Christ

is

represented

as speaking)

He who And My He who


That
I

scattered

My
;

adversaries

gave

Me

authority over bonds,

might loose

them

He

that overthrew

by

My hand the

dragon with seven heads,

And set Me at his roots that I might destroy his seed Thou wast there and didst help Me; And in every place Thy name was round about Me*.
Later on in the same

Ode we

read

'Thou

didst bring Thy world to corruption, That everything might be dissolved and renewed, And on it Thou didst build Thy kingdom And it became the dwelling-place of the saints '.
;

APPENDIX
This recalls the passage
in

165

our Ignatian ode

'And

the ancient

kingdom passed (}+l perished);

When God
'

appeared in the flesh Unto newness of life without end'.


all

4.

Hence
is

things were perturbed, &c.'


'

covered by the expression all things' ? It is difficult to think that the whole universe is intended since, though the
;

What

o^)Li( 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
1

o-wocu/etTo

redeemed
uppermost

to

be included under one term.

Probably the thought

of the powers belonging to the ancient kingdom, responsible for the magic, the bonds of evil, and the error mentioned in stanza 3. The somewhat obscure Ode 24
in the poet's
is

mind

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
to describe a similar state of perturbation

seems

as universal,
fjLTj

TTJV

TWV

o-aXefo/xeVwi/ /xera^eortv

ws

TreTrot^/xeVwv, n/a

JJLCLVYJ

TO,

0-aAeuo/x.ei/a.
'

The Dove
Because

flew over the head of our Lord the Messiah,

He was

her

Head

And she sang over Him, And her voice was heard
And And
The

the inhabitants were afraid,


the sojourners trembled
;

birds took to
all

flight,

And

creeping things died in their holes.


;

And the abysses were opened and closed And they were seeking for the Lord, like (women)
But

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

they perished in the thought in which they had existed from the beginning.

i66

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

And
For

every one of them that was defective perished was not permitted to them to make a defence for themselves that they might remain'.
;

it

at the

Drs. Harris and Mingana compare a somewhat similar passage beginning of Ode 31
:

'The abysses were dissolved before the Lord; And darkness was destroyed by His appearance.

And
And And
'

Error went astray disappeared from Him,


(as for)
it

no path, was submerged by the Truth of the Lord


Falsehood,
I

gave

it

'.

For
15

that death's destruction


'

was planned

'.

Ode

And Sheol And there


land'.

Death hath been destroyed before my face hath been abolished by my word.
;

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.

in

3.

Reminiscences of the Johannine literature in the Odes of Solomon.


list

The

includes

some

points of connexion with the Apocalypse.


i

Ode i 3 'For I should not have nown how to love the Lord, if

Jn. 4

19

'We
first

love (Him) be'.

cause

He

loved us

He
is,

had not loved me'.


i
5

Ode

'And where His

rest

Jn. 14* 'That

where
'.

am, there
ye shall

there also
'

am

'.

ye may
Jn. i4

be also
'

Ode i 8 For he to Him that is

that is joined

19

Because

live,

immortal, will
;

live also

'.

himself also become immortal

and he that hath pleasure in the Living One, will become living '.

APPENDIX
Ode
i
10

'This
'

is

the Spirit of
lie'.

Cf.

Jn. 4'
14

the Lord, that doth not

Ode
that
I

He became

like

me,
;

Jrr. i

'And the

Word became
among
as
re-

might receive
I

Him

in

flesh,

and tabernacled
1

fashion

was he reckoned
might put

like

us'.

me, that

Him

on*.

Jn.

'But as

many

Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of


ceived

God'.

Ode 8"
in

Pray, and continue the love of the Lord


;

'

Jn.
love'.

15''

'Continue ye in

My

Ye

beloved
;

ones,

in

the

Jn. i5
11

'As the Father hath


I

Beloved

loved Me, so have


that are kept, in
'.

loved you
in

'.

And ye

Him

Jn. i;

'Keep them

Thy
Thy

that lived (again)

name
v.
}

'.

'I
'.

have kept them

in

name
v.
* r

'That
19

Thou

shouldest keep
live'.

them from the


Jn. i4

evil (one)'.
I

'Because
5
'

Ode 9 'And all those that have overcome shall be written


11

Apoc. 3 He that overcometh ... I will in no wise blot his

in

His book
12
'

'.

name
inscription
is
i

out of the book of

life

'.

Ode
is

For their 9 the victory, which


io 4 'I

Jn.

5 'And

this is the victory

yours
took

'.

that

overcometh the world, even


faith
'.

our

Ode

(Christ)
'.

the

3 Jn. i6' 'I have overcome the

world captive

world
the nations were

'.

Ode

io"

'And

Jn. ii

52

'That

gathered

together as one that


'.
'

together into

might gather one the children of


'.

He

were scattered abroad

God

that are scattered abroad

Ode

io 6

And

the traces of the


;

light were set upon their heart and they walked in My life and were saved; and they became

24 (Pesh.) 'And the Apoc. 2i nations that are saved shall walk

My

people for ever and ever

'.

by the light thereof. 3 Apoc. 2i 'And they shall be His peoples' (Pesh. 'people').
15 Apoc. ii 'The kingdom of the world has become our Lord's

i68

APPENDIX
and His
Christ's,

and

He
'.
;

shall

reign for ever

and ever
the door
in,

'And nothing appeared closed to Me, because I was the door of everything
i7
'.

Ode

10

9 Jn. io

'

am

by

Me
be

if

any enter
'.

he

shall

saved
Jn.
v.
5

Ode

i8 4 6

'

Lord, for the sake

iiff-'

The Word'.
the Light shineth in

of them that are deficient, do not Let deprive me of the Word


.

'And
it

the darkness, and the darkness

not the luminary be conquered by the darkness, nor let Truth


flee

obscured

not

'.

away from falsehood


G

'.

Ode 22

(Christ speaks)

'He

that overthrew

by

My hands the
I

Apoc. i2 'And there was seen another sign in heaven and,


:<

dragon with seven heads, and


set

Me

at his roots that


'.

might

destroy his seed

a great red dragon, having seven heads, &c.' Cf. the whole chapter.
behold,
Jn. 4
10

Ode so 12

'Fill

ye water for

'Thou wouldest have

yourselves from the living fountain of the Lord ; for it hath been

asked of Him, and He would have given thee living water'.


v.

opened

to

you

"

'

The water that


become
life

shall give

him

shall

in

him a fount
Cf.

of water for
38

eternal'.*

Jn. y

as
37
'

emended on p no.

ye thirsty, and take a drink, and rest by the


come,
all

And

If any man thirst, let him come unto Me and drink'.

Jn. 7

fountain of the

Lord

'.

(Christ speaks) 'And a Son of Man, I was although named the Luminary, the Son of God '.

Ode s6

Jn.

That was

the

true

Light'.

Ode 41" 'And His Word was


with us in
all

Jn.

lff
:i3

'The Word'.
life

Saviour

who

our way, even the giveth life and doth


'.

Jn. 6 'That giveth world '.


v.
I
37

to the

not reject our souls

'Him
i

that

cometh

to

Me
and

will in

no wise cast out '.


'In

Ode

14

41

'And
*

light

dawned

Jn.
'

45

Him was
'.

light,

So

Sin.

and Cur., omitting springing up

APPENDIX
from the Word, that was beforetime in Him'.
4i 'The Messiah is truly One; and He was known
i5

169

the light was the life of men. And the light shineth in dark-

ness

'.
4
'

Ode

Jn. ly-

For Thou lovedst


foundation
of

Me
the

before

the
'.

before

the
'.

foundation

of

the

world

world

From

the poetical character of the

Odes

it is

obvious that more

or less exact quotations could hardly be expected ; yet even so, some of the above-noticed coincidences are very remarkable.

Ode S22

is

entirely built up

upon thoughts derived from the Last


11

Apoc. 3\

Discourses of Jn. Ode io 56

the poet's

use

is a fairly close representation of 9 a passage which illustrates very remarkably of the Johannine writings. His theme is the is
;

Ode

gathering of the Gentile nations into the Church


deliberately to

and he seems

have selected outstanding passages on this subject from Jn. and Apoc., and worked them up in a manner which utilizes their most striking phrases. This appears very clearly through
comparison of the Syriac text with the corresponding phrases of Pesh. in Jn. and Apoc.

'And were gathered together


as one

that

were scattered
abroad
;

the nations

'He might

'

gather together

into

one

'

'the nations

rhat

were scattered
abroad
'

Jn.

n
of light

Apoc.

2i'

24

Jn. ii

52

and were

set the

traces

170

APPEN DIX
;

and were saved

and they became

My people

for ever

and ever '.

000*0

'

that are saved


2t Apoc. 2i

'

'and they shall be His


'

'

for ever

and ever '.

people 3 Apoc. 2i

15 Apoc. ii

We

notice incidentally that the text of Pesh. appears to be


in
24 Apoc. 2i (cu9saU?=Twi/ o-o^o/xeW.

presupposed
3 Apoc. 2 1

WH.

om.) and

(CH^,*?

|.J^ = Aaos avrov. WH.

Xaol avrov).

form an argument for the early date of the Fourth Gospel which is exceedingly
lines of evidence taken together

These three

weighty. St. Ignatius, writing in A.D. no, was thoroughly familiar with the Theology of Jn. and i Jn., and therefore (we must surely He also appears to have infer) with the documents themselves.

known the Odes of Solomon, and at any rate quotes an ode which marked by the same lines of thought. Lastly, the Odes of Solomon appear unmistakably to have known not merely Jn. and i Jn., but also the Apocalypse. The knowledge of the Apocalypse shown in the Odes is perhaps the most surprising fact of all. If Ignatius knew the Odes, they are carried back, if not to the
is
first

But

if

century, at any rate to the very beginning of the second. the Apocalypse is, as is commonly thought, not earlier than

the last years of Domitian's reign, i.e. c. A.D. 95, there scarcely seems sufficient time for the book to have influenced the Odes;

even when we make

full

allowance for the facts that intercourse

between Ephesus and Antioch was easy, and that the Apocalypse was precisely the kind of work which was likely to gain ready circulation in the east, and to be speedily utilized in time of
persecution.
difficulty seems, however, to be resolved by the consideration that the book, if as late as Domitian, is generally

This

admitted to embody much earlier elements ; and it these that the reminiscences in the Odes are drawn
.

may be from

The weakest strand in our threefold cord is undoubtedly that which postulates Ignatius's knowledge of the Odes of Solomon. Though it will probably be admitted, upon the evidence adduced, that Ignatius quotes a hymn like the Odes, and though the evidence that he was interested in hymnology and actually knew some of

APPENDIX
the

171

Odes is sufficiently striking, it has not been proved that he knew all the Odes, or that they are all by one hand, and not (like a modern hymn-book) the work of different authors at various
us
fact which principally concerns of the Fourth Gospel, which seems to Ignatius's knowledge be proved to demonstration, The manner in which he utilizes

dates.
is

At present, however, the

its

merely

teaching shows further that his acquaintance with it was not superficial, but that he had assimilated it through a familiarity

extending over many years. This thoroughly favours the theory of the Antiochene origin of the Gospel.*
*

The
is

Gospel

peculiar character of Ignatius's indebtedness to the thought of the Fourth emphasized by Freiherr von der Golz (Ignatius von Antiochien ah Christ

und
of
'

und Untersuchungen, Band xii), and by Dr. Sanday (Criticism Fourth Gospel, pp. 2428.). The former scholar concludes (p. 130) that Ignatius must have come under the prolonged influence of a community itself influenced by Johannean thought'. Dr. Sanday says, I do not think there can be
Theologe, in Texte
the
<

any doubt that Ignatius had digested and assimilated to an extraordinary degree the teaching which we associate with the name of St. John ... I had occasion
a few years ago to study rather closely the Ignatian letters, and
I

was

so

much

impressed by

it

as even to doubt

whether there

is

any other instance of resemblance

between a

biblical and patristic book, that is really so close. Allowing for a certain crudity of expression in the later writer and remembering that he is a perfervid Syrian and not a Greek, he seems to me to reflect the Johannean

teaching with extraordinary fidelity.' The writer concludes by expressing his belief that, to explain the connexion in thought, the alternative lies between falling back upon the tradition that Ignatius was an actual disciple of St. John, or ' had
to

actually had access to the Johannean writings years before the date of his journey Rome, and that he had devoted to them no mere cursory reading but a close and

which had the deepest effect upon his mind '. Elsewhere in the same Dr. Sanday remarks, 'I have long thought that it would facilitate our reconstruction of the history of early Christian thought, if we could assume an anticipatory stage of Johannean teaching, localized somewhere in Syria, before the Apostle reached his final home at Ephesus. This would account more easily than any other hypothesis for the traces of this kind of teaching in the Didache, and in Ignatius, as well as in some of the early Gnostic systems.'
careful study

work

(p. 199)

INDEX
Abbahu, R., 117 Abbott, Dr. E. A.. 57, 65, 66, 68 Abraham sees the day of the Son of
Charles, Dr. R. H.. 15.96, 136, 137, 150, I5 1 '53
'

Chwolson, Dr

Man, in f. Abrahams, Dr. I., 143 Ada Thowae, 27, 55, 67, 95 Adam, first and second, 45, 47
Akiba, R., 23 Alexandrine influence on Fourth Gospel, theory of, 39, 127
Allen,

143 Con3'beare, Mr. F. C., 130 the Incarnation regarded as a Creation, new, 43 ff. Cureton, Dr. W., 26, 77
,

Dalman, Prof. G. H.,


25. 39,
4<>>

7, 13,

20, 23, 24,


of,

55

Canon

W.

C., 2, 7, 16, 17, 18, 19,

Daniel, Aramaic section in

Book

20

77, 86, 90,

106

22 Ammi, Amoraim, 22
,

asyndeton in, 49 f. Daphne, speaking fountain of, 160 Deissmann, Prof. A., 4. 5, 39
Delff, Prof. H.,

Andrew, 147, 148 Anna, 107


Antioch,
as

133

Delitzsch, Prof. Franz, 115

home

of

Fourth Gospel,

1298"., 171

Aorist Participle describing action anterior to finite verb, 56 f., 151 Apocalypse, Greek of, 15, 1496. authordate of, 170 ship of, 149 ff. Apostle ', wider usage of term, 140
;

Demonstrative Pronouns, 82 ff. Diatessaron, 25 f., 77, 130 Discourses in Fourth Gospel, authenticity of,

143

Driver, Prof. S. R., 20, 24, 25, 42, 6r,

96,

H5
in,

'

Duval, R., 27
)

Aquila, 23, 123, 159

Aramaic, Palestinian, 20
of,

rise of use ff. the Jews, 21 Aramaic constructions and usages contrasted with Hebrew, 7 ff., i2f., 13, 14, 15, 16 f., 49 f., 53, 61 ff., 96, 99
;

Jews

f.

among

Aramaisms,

ff.

32 Enforcement of verbal idea, 13 Ephesus, supposed writing of Fourth Gospel at, 127; John of, 130, 134 ff., 149
Ellipse,

Aristion, 135

Asyndeton, in Aramaic, 49 f., 52 f., 54 f. in Fourth Gospel, 18, 50 ff. in Mark, in Apocalypse, 150 f. 18, 54
;
;

Eusebius, 77, 78, 134, 135, 137, 138, 140, 141 Evagrius, 160 e e Evangelion da-M hall te, 26

Evangelion

Bacher, Dr. W., 22, 23, 24


Ball,

Dr. C. J.,

2,

29!'.,

103, 104, 107,

da-M pharr Ewald, Prof. H., 2, 68 Ezra, Aramaic sections


e

shc,

26
of,

in

Book

20

116 Barnabas, Epistle of, 47 Bertholdt, L., 2 Berliner, Dr. A., 21, 22, 23
Bertholet, Prof. A., 21 Blass, Prof. F., 39 Bolten, I. A., 2 Bousset, Prof. W., 133 Box, Prof. G. H.,48

Florinus, 138

Brazen serpent, 159 Brockelmann, Dr. C., 86


Buchler, Dr., 143
Burkitt, Prof. F. C., 26, 27, 28, 68, 89 Casus pendens, 6. 34, 63 ff., 151.

Gamaliel the elder, 22, 46; Gamaliel II. 22 Gemara, 22 Genitive absolute, 57 ff., 151 Genitive anticipated by Possessive Pronoun, 19, 85 Georgius Hamartolus, 136 Glory of the Lord, the ', 36 ff.
4

Golz, Freiherr von der, 171 Gore, Dr. C., 109

Grabe, J. E., 77 Greek, character of Biblical, 3

ff.

INPEX
Greek words and phrases
OLKO\OVO(IV biriaOJ) 8
,
:

irpos

153

icily a,

ns, 99 avQpu-nos l ovpavov, o Sfvrepos, 117 avcKpi&r], dtrfxpiOrjaav as asyndeton opening of sentence, 52 ff. diro irpoawirov, 15 apx cav T v olSivos TOVTOV, 6, 154 yap, 69, 151
avOpwircs
yffpairratj
5e,

107

f.

'with', 1 8, 28 f. place of itaXiv or similar adverb, 14 irpoao0Tro\T)fj.nTTjs, TTpocrcairoXrj^iaj 15 - thing ', 108 f. pf}fji.a
TrpooriOrj^i in
'

odp

and

Trj/eO/xo,

45
15 157
f.

TO

Trpoffcanov,

(pcaris d\r)0eias }

46
;

of, in Fourth Gospel and Mark, 18, 69 extreme rarity of, in Apocalypse, 151 5t5<y/it in wide range of senses, 15 5oa, 36 ff.

sparse use

<po0toBai d-rro, XpiaTos not employed as title by the Baptist, 106 us introducing temporal clause, 58 Grotius, H., 2

Giidemann, Dr., 143

Haggada,

23, 132

fftvfro

introducing
f.

time-determina-

tion, it

e\eytv, (\eyov, frequency of fects, 1 8, 92, 93 tvavTt, (vavriov, 14


(vuiTiov,
liri

Imper-

14

Halakha, 23 Harnack, Prof. A., 135 Harris, Dr. J. Rendel, 29, 131, 159 ff. Hawkins, Sir J. C. (HS. 2 ), 8, 16, 69, 70, 87, 88, 92 Hebraisms, 7 ff. Hebrew, New, contrasted with Biblical
17, 150 Bible employed by writer of Fourth Gospel, 1146*". by writer of Apocalypse, 150 Hegesippus, 77 Hillel, R., 22, 24 Historic Present in Fourth Gospel, 18,

irpuaojnov (irpoaoa-nov^ 15

Hebrew,

fGKrjvwacv, 35 ff. tvMs in Mark, 68


ijpa.To auxiliary,
iVa,

Hebrew

19

frequency of, in Fourth Gospel, 69, 70 ; Mark's i'va avoided by the other Synoptists, 70 ff. Aramaic character of iva construction, 70, 72 ff. 'iva = conjunctive that', 18, 19, 70 ff.
;

54
in

ff.,

87

ff.;

in

Mark,

16, 18, 88,

89;

LXX,

16

mistranslation of Aramaic relative, mistranslation 18, 19, 32, 75 f., 101 of 1 = when ', 19, 78.
;
'

Hiya, R., 116, 117 Hoshaiah, R,, 45


Epistles of, 130 f.; reminiscences of Fourth Gospel and First Epistle of St. John in, 153 ff., 170, 171 Syriac ode quoted in, 161 ff. Imperfect in Fourth Gospel, 90 ff. Inge, Dr. W. R., 131
Ignatius,
;

'iva firj, itai

19, 69, 70, 100, 151.

linking co-ordinate sentences, 5 f., 56; linking contrasted statements, 18,


33, 66 f., 151 ; introducing apodosis after time-determination, f.

\afi@dviv Trpoaojnov, 15 asyndeton, \l~jovoiv, Historic Presents, 87, 89. you\o(t>v\a, 5


'"'

54

ff.

Irenaeus, 135, 136, 138


;

ff.

6S

avrw, 30 f., 151 ore introducing temporal clause, 58 ff. on mistranslation of Aramaic relative, 1 8, mistranslation of ^ = 76 f.
ovofj.a
;

'when', 78
ov ov
. .

.
.

dv6pcairos
.
.

'

no one
18,

',

19,

99

fjLrj

eh TOV
.
.

a'.uva,

99

o5i/,

66, 68
.

irds (iraf)

ov

(/w^),

98

Jacob, nsff. Jerome, 137 Jerusalem, predominance of scenes at or near, in Fourth Gospel, 143, 148 John, Epistles of, 137, 149 First Epistle Second and of, 131, 153 ff., 166 f. Third Epistles of, 137 John, Gospel of, style of, 5 ff., 149; a product of Palestinian thought, 39, I26f. written in Palestine or Syria, glosses in, 129 127 ff. ; date of, 128 discourses in, 143 author of, 133 ff. John the Baptist, 104 ff. the disciples
;

irtareveiv
77X17/0175,

els,

18, 34

39
faotroiovv ,

trvev/Jia

45

f.

TioAAd, adverbial, 19
iropeveaOat (vndyfiv^ its flprjvrjv, 14
Trpo irpoauirov,

147 John the presbyter, 135 ff., 152 ; author of the Fourth Gospel, 137 John the son of Zebedee, 133, 134, 135 f., 138, 141, 146 ff.; tradition of martyrof,

15

dom

of, 136,

137

INDEX
Jonathan ben Uzziel, 24 Joseph of Arimathaea, 134 Joseph of Pumbeditha, R.. 24 Joshua ben Levi, R., 22
Koivrj dialect,

Parataxis, in
literature,
18,

papyri, 5
in

f.

in

Semitic

6;

56

ff.;

Fourth Gospel, 5f., in Mark, 18 ; in Apoca-

ff.,

57. 65, 70

Last Supper, 144 Lewis, Mrs., 26 Lightfoot, Dr. John, 33


Lightfoot, Dr. J. B., i, n, 130, 135, 137, 156, 157, 160, 162 Logos-conception, origin of, 37 ff. Luke, nationality of, jof. ; Gospel of,
style of,
8ff.;

lypse, 151 Participle, change of construction after, 19, 96, 152 Participle in Aramaic, 88 f. ; with Substantive verb, 92 f. as Futurum instansj 94 Paul, St., Aramaic influence upon style
;

Hebraisms

in,
f.

ff.

Birth-narrative of, 16, 44, 47 Luthardt, Prof. C. E., 2

Malchus, 134 Mark, Gospel of, Aramaic style of, 2, 7f., 16 ff., 29 comparison of style with that of Fourth Gospel, 18 f. Marmorstein, Dr., 143 Martin, Raymund, 46 Matthew, Gospel of. See Q document. Mechilta, 3, 33, 64 Memra, 38 f. Messiah in Rabbinic Literature, 44,
;

29 Theological conceptions of, Rabbinic influence upon, 45 f., 43 ff. relation of writer of Fourth 132 Gospel to, 45, 47, 132, 145 f. Payne Smith, Dr. R., 10, 30, in Perez, the son of, 46 Personal Pronouns, frequency of, in Fourth Gospel, 79 ff. in Semitic, 80 f. Peshitta, O.T., 25 ; N.T., 26 Peter, St.. association of, with writer of Fourth Gospel, 146 f. Pfannkuche, H. F., 2
of,
; ; ;
'
;

uof.
Midrashim, 17, 25 Midrash Rabba, 3, 110, 112, Il6 f.
9, 33, 44, 45, 46, 56,

Philip the Apostle, 134 Philippus Sidetes, 136 Plummer, Dr. A., n, 144 Polycarp, 130, 135, 138 Polycrates, 134 Present as Futurum instans, 19, 94 f., 151 Prince of this world, the ', 154 f. Prologue of Fourth Gospel, 28 ff. ; poetical form of, 40 ff. climactic parallelism
'

Milligan, Prof. G., 4, 5 Mingana. Dr., 131, 159 Mishna, 17, 22, 50
;

of,
ff.

42

f.

Pronoun

Mistranslation of an Aramaic original, in Q, gf. in Fourth Gospel, 18, 19, 29, 30, 32, 34, 39, 40, 75 ff-, T <>iff. ; in Mark, 76, 77 Moffatt, Dr. J., 135, 136

anticipating direct object of verb, 19, 86 marking subject of Participle in Semitic, 80


;

document, original language Mark's knowledge of, 9

of,

ff.

Moses had-Darshan, 46 Moulton, Prof. J. H., 4,


57,65
Muratorian Canon, 128 Fourth Mysticism in St. Paul, 132
Negatives, 98 ff. Nestle, Dr. ., 25

5,

6, 7, 8, 39,

Gospel

and

Rabbinic influence on Fourth Gospel, 116, 132, 133, 35 ff., 43 ff., no, 145 f 150 on Apocalypse, 150 of Edessa, 26 Rabbula, bishop Relative completed by a Pronoun, 18, 70,

m,

84, 151 Relative particle invariable in Aramaic, 70, 84, 101 ff.

N we sha/dm,
e

45 Nicodemus, 134 Noldeke, Prof. T., 23, 24

Richards, Mr. G. C., 4 Robertson, Dr. A. T., 5


Salmasius, C., 2

Old Testament quotations


Gospel, ii4ff.

Samuel ben
in

Fourth

Onkelos, origin of name, 23


Palestinian Syriac Lectionary, 25, 26 Papias, 134 ff., 141 Papyri, modern discoveries of Greek,

Isaac, R., 22 Sanday, Prof. W., 46, 133, 135, 171 Schechter, Dr., 143 Schlatter, Prof. A., 2 f., 33, 56, 64 Schmiedel, Prof. P. W., 7, 8, 9, 16 Semitic Influence on Biblical Greek, 4 ff. Semitic Studies, importance of, to N.T.

research,

ff.

Semitisms,

4,

17

76

INDEX
Targum Targum
of Onkelos, 22, 23 of Pseudo-Jonathan

Septuagint, influence of, on Luke, 8 IT. Servant of Yahweh, the ideal, 1046*".

on

the

Sh"kina,

Sh

kvita,

35

ff.

Simeon, 106
Siphre, 3? 33 Socrates, 131

Pentateuch, 23 Tatian, 25, 130

Temporal
;

clauses, 58

ff.

Solomon, Odes
of,

in

reminiscences of, 131 Epistles of Ignatius, 159 ff.


;

Tcstimonia, early Christian, 46 Thackeray, Dr. H. St. J.. 12, 45

Johannine
i66ff.

literature

known
15
ff.

to,

132,

Theodotion, 53 f.,8i, 82, 88, 92, 123, 159 Theophilus of Antioch, 131

Thumb,
1

Prof. A., 4

Son

of Man, the, Sozomen, 160

12,

Turner, Prof. C. H., 39

Stenning, Mr.

J. F.,

26
4, 123,

Verbal sequences
149

in

Swete, Prof. H. B.,

Virgin-Birth, the, 34
IVdiv consecutive in

Fourth Gospel, 95 f. ff. f., 43

Symmachus, 121, 123, 159 Syriac version of the Gospels, Old, 26


Tannaim, 22, 23 Talmud, 22, 46 Palestinian, 3, 25 Targums, 20 ff. Hebraizing renderings
;

Hebrew, 68

2,9, 19, 76, 77,85,90 Westcott, Dr. B. F., 28, 32, 33, 78. 102,
,

Wellhausen, Prof. J

no,
'

135, 146, 147, 148

Word
e

of the Lord, the

',

38

of, 13,

14 24, 61
ff.

conceptions derived

from, 35

Yannai, R., 44. 46, 116, 117


23, 24,

Targum, Jerusalem,

nr

Targum

ot Jonathan on the Prophets, s\

Y kard, 36 ff. Yinnon as Messianic

title,

46

PRINTED IN ENGLAND
AT THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

LU2 l-100m-7,'40(6936

S)

TL

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY

You might also like