The Aramaic Origin of The Fourth Gospel 1922 Burney

\ STUDIA
IN
THE LIBRARY
of
VICTORIA UNIVERSITY
Toronto
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
Colleges, Oxford
Canon
of Rochester
OXFORD
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1923
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

London
Edinburgh
Toronto
Calcutta
Glasgow
Melbourne
New York
Bombay
Copenhagen Cape Town

Shanghai
Madras
HUMPHREY MILFORD
Publisher to the University
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
III.
.......
49
66
79 87
IV.
V.
PRONOUNS THE VERB

NEGATIVES MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE ORIGINAL ARAMAIC OF THE GOSPEL.
VI.
VII.
98
101
VIII.
IX.
OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS FOURTH GOSPEL EPILOGUE

.
......
IN
THE
114
126
153
i 73
APPENDIX
INDEX
.
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.
Cur.
==
Pal. Syr.
p. 23).
Targ. Ps.-Jon.
(cf.
= The Targum
of Pseudo-Jonathan on the Pentateuch
p. 23).
WH. =
The Greek
text of Westcott
and Hort.
Abbott, JG.
= Edwin
A. Abbott, Johannine
Grammar
ties
(1906).
Dalman, Grainm. = G. Dalman, Grammatik Aramdisch (1894).
judisch-paldstinischen
Dalman, WJ.
G.
Post-Biblical Jewish IVritings and the Aramaic 1902).
Dalman, The Words of Jesus considered in the light of Language Eng. Trans.,
(
Deissmann,
LAE. =
John
C.
J.
A. Deissmann, Light from
the
Ancient East (Eng.
Trans., 1910).
HS-.
Sir
Moulton,
(vol.
NT&. =
i,
Hawkins, Home Synopticae (2nd edition, 1909). H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek
A. Schlatter, Die Sprache
3rd edition, reprinted 1919).
Schlatter, Sprache
und Heimat
des vierten
Evangelisten (1902).
Wellhausen, Einleitung*
= J.
Wellhausen, Einleitung
in die drei ersteu
Evangelien (zweite Ausgabe 1911).
INTRODUCTION
IN a sermon preached in June 1920 before the University of Oxford* the present writer made a plea for a closer synthesis of Old Testament learning with the study of the New Testament;
and reviewing summarily and generally the kind of New Testa ment problems which might receive fuller elucidation through the more direct application to them of Semitic learning, he put forward
the possibility that in the future a Semitic scholar might arise who, examining the language of the Fourth Gospel in detail, would prove beyond the range of reasonable doubt that it was based upon
an Aramaic original.
In venturing upon this somewhat bold prophecy, the writer had not at the time any thought of undertaking the task himself.
Absorbed
in
Old Testament
studies,
and realizing with ever
growing insistency the task which lies before Semitic scholars of widening and deepening the basis of their learning if they would
make any
really first-hand contribution to their subject,
he had not
enjoyed the opportunity of prosecuting his
New
Testament studies
beyond the somewhat superficial stage which ordinarily represents a theological tutor s acquaintance with the wide range of learning in which, in addition to his own special branch of research, he has
The problem of the origin generally to direct his pupils reading. 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. i26ff.
2520
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 Novem ber 1909, explained certain peculiarities in the first chapter of the Gospel by the theory of an Aramaic original and this, though
;
(to the best
of the present writer s knowledge)
it
stands alone in
advocating this theory, yet appealed to him as evidently upon right lines.* The evidence there adduced he had casually supple
mented by notice of additional

direction
;
peculiarities pointing in the
same
notably, the sharing by the Fourth Gospel of many of the peculiarities of diction which Canon Allen and Prof. Well-
hausen
of St.
cite
as exhibiting the influence of Aramaic

s Gospel.
upon the
style
Mark
This was about the position at which the writer s acquaintance with the subject stood when he wrote the sermon which he has mentioned. He had formed an opinion based on general observa
tion,
but he could not claim to have substantiated
it
by the kind of
Further close study which deserves to be dignified as research. reflection, however, convinced him that the matter could not be
allowed to rest here.
*
He
out,
had suggested
in the
sermon
that both
The view
that the Fourth
forward, though not

1645, pp. 257
f.), I.
worked
Gospel was originally written in Aramaic was put by C. Salmasius (De Helknistica Commentarius,
fiber-
A. Bolten (Der Bericht des Joannes von Jesu dem Messias,

pp. xiv
ff.),
sdzt
1797,
Vorbericht,
H.
Landessprache in dem Zeitalter Chrisii, in L. Bertholdt (Verosimilia de origine evangelii p. 367).

in
. . .
Pfannkuche (Ueber Eichhorn s Allgetn. Bibl d.

F.
die paldstinische
b. Lift, viii,
;
1797,
Joanm s,
1805
Einleitung
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

its
in
Greek, have emphasized the Semitic character of
scholar as H. Ewald (Die johann. 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 The discussion mother tongue, and does not hesitate to let himself be led by it.
diction.
The opinion of so great a Semitic

i,
Schriftcn, 1861,
p.
44)
is
by C. E. Luthardt on the language of the Gospel

pp. 15-64)
is
(St.
John
s Gospel, E. T., 1876,
i,
of considerable value.
the
Mention
should here be made of
highly important
work by
Prof.
A.
INTRODUCTION
Old and
too
3
to dwell
New
Testament scholars were as a rule content
much
in water-tight
compartments, and that more systematic
first-hand application of Semitic linguistic
knowledge
to the
New
Testament might be expected

problems.
It
followed that
it
light upon was not only desirable that professed
to
shed
a variety of
New
Testament scholars should realize the importance
to their
researches of a first-hand equipment in Hebrew and Aramaic, but that Old Testament scholars equipped with a knowledge of these
languages should turn to New Testament research, and endeavour by practical demonstration of the value of such knowledge to
substantiate the truth of this thesis.
Thus
it
was
that
the
writer
turned
seriously
to
tackle
;
the
Fourth Gospel and question himself that the theory of an original Aramaic quickly convincing document was no chimera, but a fact which was capable of the fullest verification, set himself to collect and classify the evidence in
of the original
language of the
a form which he trusts may justify the reasonableness of his opinion not merely to other Aramaic scholars, but to all New Testament scholars who will take the pains to follow out his arguments.
book has nowadays

Schlatter, Die Sprache
Inquiry into the Semitic characteristics of a New Testament to take account of the fact that the great
in
modern discoveries of papyri and ostraka

writer
Egypt have revoluwith which the
und Hetwat des was unacquainted until he had
viertcn Evangelistcn (1902),
Schlatter has demonstrated the
practically completed the present study. Palestinian origin of the diction of the Fourth
in the fullest possible manner by citing Rabbinic parallels to its phrase ology verse by verse, the majority of verses throughout the whole Gospel being thus illustrated (thus e.g. in ch. i parallels are cited for phrases in 34 out of the total 51 verses), and his work is a marvel of industry and intimate knowledge
Gospel
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 2nd century A. D. with supplements from the Midrash Rabba (on the Pentateuch and the Five Megilloth). He chooses these Rabbinic Hebrew parallels rather
,
than the Aramaic material which we possess e.g. in the Palestinian Talmud, because the former are nearer in date to the Fourth Gospel and better illustrate the religious thought of Palestinian Judaism in the first century; but, as he remarks
any phrase employed in Rabbinic Hebrew (the language of the Schools) could without difficulty be similarly expressed in Aramaic (the popular medium of speech in Palestine). Schlatter s conclusion is that the writer of the Gospel was a Palestinian who thought and spoke in Aramaic, and only acquired his Greek
(p. 12),
in the course of his missionary
work
(p. 9).
B 2*
INTRODUCTION
The
writer
tionized our conception of Biblical Greek, proving it to be, not a thing apart, but a more or less characteristic representative of the
widespread Kou/^
dialect.
is
not unacquainted with
the researches of Professors Deissmann and
Thumb,
Milligan and
Moulton, and recognizes the fact that they have proved that many constructions and usages both in the LXX and New Testament
which were formerly supposed
to
reflect
Semitic influence, are
really nothing more than ordinary phenomena of the Kowrj lan guage. Whil^ readily making this acknowledgement to the excel lent work of :;:ese 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 Kou/^ comes from Egypt, where there existed large colonies of Jews whose know
ledge of Greek was undoubtedly influenced by the translationGreek of the LXX, and who may not unreasonably be suspected
of having influenced in
some degree
the character of Egyptian
A
*
good example of such influence has been unwittingly

12
remarks of Dr. 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
Cf. the judicious
The present
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
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-
somewhat
large
Semitic colloquialisms of the papyri are themselves due to the influence of the Greek-speaking 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
p.
of Neiv Testament
:
289, remarks
The
dis
covery of the Aramaic papyri from Assuan emphasizes this point [the evidence for large Jewish settlements in Egypt from an early date] most strongly, and even
(Licht vom Osten, p. 83, n. 5) is prepared to admit that the adoption TO avoâ 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 Vorzeit".
Deissmann
ets
of
century B.C.
No
doubt
it is
possible, as he says, that
if
originally a Semiticism,
it
may
not have been
felt
to
be so any longer.
is
of a population from an influx of settlers
Such influence on the language Dr. Moulton makes quite common.
INTRODUCTION
presented to us by Prof. Deissmann (LAE. pp. 129 ff.) in one of two passages which he quotes from the papyri for the express
purpose of proving that the parataxis so characteristic of the and is not due to Semitic Fourth Gospel, with its and
. .
.
influence, but belongs to the popular
Kou^
style.
This
is
a letter
from two pig-merchants (c. A. D. 171) in which they complain to the Strategus that they have been attacked by brigands and robbed and beaten avepô^vutv TÔJV 0.770 KW/X-^S as
:
eaSeA.</>et
VTTO
ra>
TOV opOpov
7rf)\@av ly/zeiV KdKovpyoi TIVVS
/cat
S^craj/
fc[at]
avv
/cat
/j.ay8a)\.o<f)v\aKi
KOI TrXyyoLS
rjfjias
TrAt crrat? rjKicrav
TTOir)(rav
TOV
[l!a<Jia)]i
a KOL flo~avfjpa[v
.
. .
T^t/Jaw ôtpt8t[ovj
a Kat
to describe
TOV TOV IIao-tW]os Kii-wva

,
The term here used
the
guard of the tower /xay8(oAo<t 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
Koivrj
terminology.
referring to
p. 154),
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
Deissmann
(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
Kat,
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 Koti/^ 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
in borrowed words but also in turns of In fact we may say that, expression. the native language of a whole district may be strongly affected by the entry of aliens who learn it and learn it badly, a fortiori is a language, which is not the native one, but the medium of communication between natives and strangers, likely
only
to
be modified by
all
who
use
it.
So
also Dr. A. T. Robertson,

p.
A Grammar
oj
the Greek Testament in the light of historical research* (1919),
The LXX, 91: though "translation Greek", was translated into the vernacular of Alexandria, and one can but wonder if the did not have some slight and resultant
LXX
influence
upon the Alexandrian
Koivri itself.
The Jews were very numerous
in
Alexandria.
INTRODUCTION
is
paratactic style of the pig-merchants

for,
due
to Semitic influence
i,
as Prof. Moulton justly observes (NTG? of co-ordination of sentences with simple /cat
,
p. 12), in
speaking
in itself the
pheno
in
menon proves nothing more than would
a string of
"ands"
an
The vice of arguing English rustic s story elementary culture. from the epistolary style of an Egyptian pig-merchant or the speech of an English rustic to the style of the Fourth Gospel lies
in the fact that the
The
former are not in part materid with the latter. 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. is This, Prof. Moulton tells us, frequent one of the easiest of anacolutha, as much at home in English as in Greek (NTG? 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
may
New Testament
be worthy to rank as literature. Nor, if as a fair specimen of literature written in the
which we hope we take the whole

Koivrj,
do we find as a rule more than very occasional instances of the In the Fourth Gospel, however, it is remarkably frequent; usage.
and
it
is
reasonable to seek some better reason than the sup*
position that the writer of the finest piece of literature in the
New
Testament was more than ordinarily infected with colloquialism. Now there is a literature in which both the usages which we
have been noticing
parataxis and Casus pendens are not the marks of lack of education but common phenomena of the best
writing style, namely, the literature of Semitic-speaking peoples. If, then, these two characteristics of the style of the Fourth Gospel,
only selected by way of example,
fit
in
with
numerous other
characteristics which point to translation from a Semitic language, their evidence as part of our proof that the Gospel is such a
INTRODUCTION
is
not in the slightest degree invalidated by the fact translation can be adduced from the non-literary and ephemeral that parallels type of document which we find represented in the papyri.
As
a matter of
at
fact,
we have
in
little
Moulton
any
rate
the
course which
cause to quarrel with Prof. is followed in our
discussion
down
of the language of the Fourth Gospel, for he lays a canon which covers a great part of the characteristics
If we are seeking he says, for Semitic birth in a writer whose Greek betrays
,
which are brought forward.

evidences of
deficient knowledge of the resources of the language, we must not look only for uses which strain or actually contravene the shall find a subtler test in the over-use of Greek idiom.
We
locutions which can be defended as

their motive
good
Kou/r;
Greek, but have

of the
clearly in
their coincidences with locutions
writer s native tongue.
course applies only to Greek which is virtually or actually translated to the Hebraism of the and the Aramaism of New Testament books which are
This
test of
LXX
either translated from
thought
It is
in
Aramaic and moved with
Aramaic sources or written by men who * little freedom in Greek.
precisely this over-use of locutions coincident with locutions

of the Fourth Gospel.
of Aramaic which will repeatedly be found to characterize the
Greek
the remarks which are occasionally to be encountered articles dealing with the Gospels it would appear that some amount of vagueness exists in the minds of many non-
From
in
books and
Semitic scholars as to the existence of a clear distinction between
Aramaisms and Hebraisms.
By some
scholars,
in
fact,
the
question of distinction is ignored, and the two terms are used glaring in indifferently 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
Gospel
in
Encyc. BibL 1870.
The
Hebraizes still more strongly than language of Mk. , he says, does that of Mt. Nevertheless, the combinations of Allen (Expositor, 1900, i, pp. 436-43) do not prove that the evangelist
wrote Aramaic, but only that he wrote a kind of Jewish Greek
*
Cambridge Biblical Essays,
p.
474.
Cf.
Dalman, WJ. pp. 18
f.
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 KO! eyeVero came to pass see HS. 2 p. 37), and yet no one holds
",
Lk.
It
s writing to
is
be a translation of a Semitic original. something of a feat to have crowded so many miscon
Mk. 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
exhibits a strong
Aramaic colouring
is
admitted by
all
Semitic
scholars
who have
studied the subject, though they differ as to
whether
this colouring implies actual translation
from an original
Aramaic document, or is merely due to the fact that the author was ill versed in Greek and accustomed to think and speak in
Aramaic.
Mk.
Jewish Greek
cannot have been
derived from
a reading of the for it exhibits peculiarities (those which connect it with Aramaic) which are not found there, while at the
,
LXX
same time the most striking Hebraisms of the LXX are absent from it. The fact that Lk. has Hebraisms is the first accurate
statement which Prof. Schmiedel makes; but he goes on at once
to confuse the issue again
by equating the supposed

*
Hebraisms
which are the

before him
result of
in
which are found

.
dependence upon Mk. or Mt. with those passages in which the author had no exemplar
fact as
Marcan source in Lk. is that the third evangelist has made some attempt to smooth away the most palpable solecisms, but has by no means carried this out thoroughly or consistently; consequently a number of Marcan Aramaisms (not Hebraisms ) remain in Lk.* The parts of Lk.
regards the
*
The
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
" "
No Semitic language (Greek or Aramaic). scholar can, however, study such a passage as Mt. jo 26 33 = Lk. is 2 9 without arriving at the clear conviction that we either have in it the literal translation
detail into the question of its original
of an Aramaic original, 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 ^T) diro (Semitic (D of aversion after a verb of fearing), o/JoAt^cm \v e/j.oi (cf. on this expression even Moulton, NTG? i, p. 104), unoXovOeT oniaca pov (Mt. io 38 ). Mistranslation of an
<f>o^rjerjT
amounting to
INTRODUCTION
which
may
be taken to be due to the author, himself (such as the
which the phrase cited, /ecu eyeWo, belongs) do contain Hebraisms, and these so striking as to make this Gospel stand out as stylistically the most Hebraic Gospel of the four.
setting of narratives, to
no one holds Lk. s writing to be Yet, as Schmiedel states, a translation of a Semitic original for, paradoxical as it may the very existence of this Hebraic colouring in his style seem,
,
Aramaic
passages
:
original
seems clearly
to the indicated
by comparison of the following
Mt. 23 25
25
26
Lk. n39-4i
39
Oval
v[Mv,
ypa[*.jj.a.T(ts
Kal Qaptaaioi,
Nw
vpfis
ol
Qapiaatoi
TO
f^caOev
viroKpiTai,
OTI
Ka6api(T6
Kal
ye(j.ovffiv
26
TO
fca0fv
TOV
iroTTjpiov Kal
TOV irlvaKos KaQapitT,
TOV
-noTTjpiov
T7)S
|
Trapo^/idos,
eauOfv
Kal
5e
apirayrjs
TO
oe
effcaOfv
40
vpuiv
dippoves,
-yeftei
apnayTjs
u iroirjaas
tiroirjad
;
aKpaaias.
$aptaat(
TV(p\t,
Kal Trovrjpias.
ovx
TO
KaOdpiffov
iroTTjpiov
egaOev
rrXrjv
TO,
Kal
TO
fffcudev
irpuTOf
Kal
TO
TTJS
CVTOS
TOV
41
tvovTa
Sore
f\TjfJLoavvr/v,
irapoif/ioos,
iva
yevrjTai
Kal
TO
(ICTOS
aurov
Kal
ISov
iravTa
Kadapa
vpiv
tanv.
KaOapov.
can hardly be doubted that the remarkable variant between Mt. iiaOapiaov and Lk. n\r,v TO. tvovTa Sore \CT)[j.oavi T)i is to be explained by the fact that New Heb. and Aram. ^3] means both to purify" (occurring in Aram, as well as normal and also to give alms (cf. Wellhausen, Einleitung1 ?|)
it
Here
wpujrov TO (VTOS KT\.
>3
p. 27).
For the
latter sense
;
cf.
the
numerous occurrences
in
Midrash Rabba on
If misfortune has befallen thy e.g. sect. 5 (New Heb.), how to give him alms (11 DI^T?) and provide for him sect, ii (Aram.), The Rabbis Yohanan and Resh Lakish were going down to bathe in the hot baths of Tiberias. A poor man met them. He said to them, "Give me alms" They said to him, "When we come out we will p3|).
("a
Exodus, par. xxxiv companion, consider
The p^t). When they came out, they found him dead. Lord used some such expression as p37 tf Oin That which is within purify this has been rightly rendered in Mt. and made more explicit by the addition of TOV -noTijpi.v KT\., while in Lk. it has been wrongly rendered, That which is within give as alms Hp^-fjvfvaf 8 aura, ovvaTos, e/caoroy.
give thee
alms"
("p
inference
is
that our
;
a>s
In the opening of the long indictment of the Scribes and Pharisees contained ~ in Mt. 23, presumably from Q, we find a passage (vv. 2 7 ) which has clearly
formed a source
It
~ for Mk. in his short summary of teaching contained in i2 38 40 seems not unlikely that Mk. s opening phrase, Kal kv TTJ oioaxy avTov 6\(yev,
.
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. 2o 45
Lord
47 has followed Mk. and not Mt though his opening statement that our 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 :
10
is
INTRODUCTION
a sure indication that he
was steeped with with Hebrew.* very possibly unacquainted

Mt. 2 3 lff
6
irjOovs
-
LXX
influence,
and
Mk. i2 38 - 40
38
Lk.
avTov
5e
Trai
t\
Ken
ei/
777
8t5axJ7
Toy
TOU
ôis Kal TOIS fta

/3AerreT
Xaov
46
fiiTf
rofy
fM0T)T(Ut
St
itovffiv
jfs
TO.
?rpos
epya OLVTUV TO deadrjvai

irXarvvovcnv
dcrnaff/jiovs
89 Kal
^âv
6 f \ovrcav
irepnraTtiv
(f>i\ovvTajv
fv
v
(TroAafy
Kal ev
av&pw-nois
rafs
uyopais
aatraafjLovs
rats
ayopats
tv
rat s
ra
}/>
<pv\aKTr)pia
avT&v
TO,
it
neyaXwovaiv
6
<pi\ovo~iv
irpuTOKaOfSpias tv rats avvayajyars Kal irpajTOK\ifftas

tv
TOIS
Seiirvois
40 of
Kal
trpajTOKaOfSpias
avvaycayaTs
ev
Tofs
Kal
Trpo}roK\iaias
47
3acT7re8a,
Se
ar-
Sdirvois,
ot
ar-
^v
:
irpotiTOKXiaiav
\v
TOIS
raj
ot/cas
/j.aKpa
caSiovffiv
ray
Kal
oiKias
TWV
/j.aKpa
nrvois
KOI tv
ray
Tctfy
Trpouro-
-npofpafffi
iQtop ias
yaryafy
avv-
OVTOI
TTtpiaa<JTtpoi>
OVTOI
\povrai.
^ /ecu
TOVJ
dcrrrao~yuovy
irfpiaaurtpov Kp tp.a.
Tafy ayopais, KT\.
The statements
of
Mk.
in vv. 38 39
-
ran/ OtXovTcav tv ffTO\ai$ irtpnrardv,

.
which seems
can be clearly recognized in Mt., except for to be a paraphrase of Kal p.tya-
\vvovaiv rd Kpaorrtoa, 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 (pvXaKrrjpta (Mt. 235 ) is P^SPl
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 vXarvvovaw is rendered in Pesh. by
.
and Payne Smith
in his
Thesaurus quotes instances
in
which
l
this
Aph
el
^l
1
make broad
as well as the
Pa
el
^^Ji, has the sense

--
make
If
verbose"
(e.g.
to
Severus Alexandrinus, Rhetorica,

verbose
).
79
v.,
Joj
./
ne wishes
7 !
be
It
is
likely,
therefore, that an original prP?Dri

,
priDlp"
who make
in the
broad their phylacteries

mistranslation
Ppjpri
is
rightly rendered in Mt., appears in
Mk. and Lk.

but
who make
verbose their prayers
It
should be remarked that

(fcOnvl?)
;
not the ordinary
Aramaic word
for
prayers
it
might
be so interpreted by a translator
in
who was aware
of this meaning of the term
New
Heb.
believes that this suggestion as to a misunderstanding of
The writer
ppDH
is
not his own, but has already been made; though he cannot recall to whom acknowledgement is due. He is himself responsible for pointing out the variant meanings of the verbal form.
That St. Luke was a Hellenistic Jew and not a Gentile would be apart from other evidence 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
n
may
,
following striking Hebraisms occurring in Lk. the true meaning of the term Hebraism
serve to
viz.
a con
Hebrew which has been in translation by the LXX, and has come through LXX copied influence into N. T. Greek
struction or word-usage found in Biblical
:
i.
And
eyeWo introducing a time-determination. The use of *nj it came to pass is in such a case very idiomatic in Hebrew,
and the
such as
there equivalent is KOL e yeWo or cyeVcro 8e. After follows the note of time or occasion, which may take various forms,
LXX
An
came
Infinitive with
(lit.
preposition 3;
)
e.g.
<h/
E*jfr?
when they
avrovs.
in their
coming
= LXX
\6v
An
Infinitive with preposition 3; e.g.

cos
DK33
at their
coming
= LXX
A
(or
?)
rjviKa) rjXOov.
rate? (or
when
<k
with a Perfect;
(or
î/iica)
e.g. IK?
-|B>K3
when
they came
= LXX
rjXOov.
;
Participle Absolute with
pronominal or nominal subject
iiBn e,g. E^N?
A = LXX (eV) ry yfjitpa days = LXX /xera
they (were) coming specific note of time; e.g. 9^$?

ry rpiry
;
LXX
Di*3
avrw
epô/AeVw.
on the third day

ftj>
EW
is
rVfV
after
three
rjfjiepas rpet?.
After this comes //^ apodosis, which
IN")?!
by no means invariably) introduced by and they saw = LXX ( K ai) elSov

,Nl nani
most frequently (though and (= then ); e.g.
(LXX
often omits K a(),
and, behold, they
saw
= LXX
The
KOI ISov etSov,
or simply
^Ki
subject of the apodosis may of course vary from that of the time-determination (when this latter embodies a subject); e.g. cnKnpi) ^\S Ni*i DN33 \Tl And
eTSov.
they saw
= 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 (hose 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
colouring, at
;
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.
12
to
INTRODUCTION
meet them
,
or Qntoj
Nr wx
nan]
fcQ
nan
w
/cat,
<
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
fv
ro>
(Infinitive)
lls
,
and apodosis introduced by

17",
may be
i
8
,
seen in
-
Lk.5
14
9
,
51
,
14
30 51
-
15
9
-
24
15
4
-(
15
);
without
/cat,
o>s
Lk.
2 r 9 18
,
3:i
87
,
i7
/cat /cat
iS
35
24
in apodosis,
With time-determination (Aorist), and without 29 2 Lk. i 23 With specific note of time, and i9
41
,
,
.
in apodosis,
,
Lk. 5
17
,
122
,
Acts 5 7
without
/cat ,
Lk.
59
2 Mfi
7",
28:!7
20
1 .
There are besides some cases

in
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
in
LXX
(3
Kgs.
43
B), can be
It seems therefore in Lk. and Acts paralleled from the papyri. to be a modification of the Hebraic construction under the in
fluence of a
known
-
Koivr)
construction
(cf.
-
of the O. T. in Greek, i6 16 19*, 22 6 17 28 17

,
,
.
p. 50).
It
,
So Lk. 3% 6
-
fi -
Thackeray, Grammar 12 Acts 4 5 c/*-^ , i 4 \

:t7
may be noted
that
in
some of these
B 17 32 the note of time or occasion , examples, viz. Acts 9 14*, 22 has been variously modified so as to lose its clear-cut Hebraic 26 In other cases, viz. Lk. i6 22 Acts 9 43 28 8 it is form.
,
Hebrew might say quite un-Hebraic. And the poor man died without note of time except fV iiNn JIDJI as inferred from the context ( and = and then }, or, inserting
altogether absent.
<
This
is
note of time, ftaKn nojl p some time (lit. "from the end of
jj>
!W
<
And
that
it
came
to pass, after
days"),
(lit.
"and")
the poor
man
died
it
would not say

i6 22 ).
this
|v?&fn
riDM_
*nj}=y VeTo Se aTroOavelv

St.
rov TTTOJXW
(Lk.
in
The
reason
in
why
Luke modified
his*
Acts demands investigation. It Gospel-style respect would seem to imply a not inconsiderable interval between the two works, during which his wider intercourse with Gentile heathen in the course of his missionary labours exercised an
influence on his style.
Outside Lk. and Acts eyeWo introducing a time-determination is only found in the five-times repeated phrase /cat eyeVero ore eVeXeo-ej/
Iô-oCs in
(cf.
2 15 ).
Mt. 7 28, , i3 In Semitic it

1
5:i ,
i9
26
and also
in Mt.
10
,
Mk.
9
,
2:i
,
is specifically
a construction belonging to
before f-yfvero.
With time-determination
INTRODUCTION
Biblical
13
this
Hebrew, and not found
in
Aramaic except where
language copies the
Hebrew
construction in translation, as in the
Targums.* These facts prove that in the construction under discussion we have a true Hebraism, which can only have entered into N. T.
Greek through the influence of the LXX. from Jn. tells against the use of the
Gospel.
2.
Incidentally, its absence
LXX
by the writer of
in Dative.
this
Enforcement of verb by cognate substantive

to
When
Hebrew desires
is
emphasize a verbal idea,

In
Absolute to the Finite verb.
LXX
prefixes the Infinitive the place of the Infinitive

it
commonly taken by the cognate substantive in the Dative] e.g. Gen. 2 17 riiOn nto Thou shalt surely die (lit. dying thou shalt die ) = 6avaru airoOavtlvOe, Judg. I5 13 DT3 ÛriJI TpDtO ibN ? 6O
<
LXX
^jyoa tib nom Nay, but we will bind thee (lit. thee ) and deliver thee into their hand but
<
binding
we
will
bind
we
will not slay thee

-,
(lit.
slaying
we
will not slay thee

ere
= LXX O^
on dAA
8eo-/Aui
ST/o-o/ieV o-e
o-e.
Koi TrapaSwcro/xeV
tv
P^
"-VTWV,
KOL Oavdrit) ov Oavarwo-OfJiev
An
alternative
method employed by
,
LXX
i
28
is
the rendering of
<
the Infinitive by a Participle did not expel them at all (lit.
= LXX
and and expelling did not expel them )

e. g.
Judg.
i^nin &6 ^niiTi
KO.L
egatpwv OVK l^yjpev avrov.
No examples
of the second form of the idiom are found in N. T.

, ,
14 Mk. 4 12 Acts 7 :i4 , but the except in the quotations Mt. i3 15 first occurs three times in the Lucan literature viz. Lk. 22 ;
LXX
OvfALa
f-rreOv/J-irjcra,
Acts
28
5"
TrapayytXta Trap-^yyet Aa/xci/,

30
di/cârtVa/xev
(cf.
also Acts 2
,
opxu
w/>ioo-ev).t
Acts 23 14 Elsewhere in N. T.
we
n ,J
-
find
21
it
14 4 only in Mt. i3 i5
Mk.
10
(both O. T. quotations),
X aP$- X a W ei J 5 Trpo<rtvxf] 7rpoo-r)vaTO. This enforcement of the verbal idea by the Infinitive, while found occasionally in other Semitic languages (cf. Babylonian edisu lidil
3
as>
>
17
let
it
be ever
new
),
Syriac ôbjJ j^ji&
when they
are
com
pletely victorious
Cf. Dalman, WJ. f Acts a 17 li viniois
28 Joel a (s l in Heb.)
is
peculiarly characteristic of Biblical Hebrew.:}:

which occurs
in
p. 32.
ivvjiviaaOriffovrai,
is
different, the substantive representing the
an O.T. quotation from cognate Accusative
in
Heb.
J
f^lV
nioSn,
LXX
ivfavia evvwviaa6faovTat.
According to Dalman (WJ. p. 34) it is quite unknown in the Palestinian Aramaic of the Jews, apart from the Hebraizing rendering of the Targums.
14
3.
INTRODUCTION
Use
of
Trpoa-TLOrjfjii
in place
of
7raA.ii/
or a similar adverb in
i.e.
imitation of
it
Hebrew
T^ n
he added
to in
do something,
he did
again.
There are two constructions
Hebrew
to
(i)
the auxiliary
b,
verb ^Tpin
e. g.
jn?
(i.e.
may be JWy^
,
followed by an Infinitive with preposition

<
lDp*l
and they added

)
do that which was

0ej/To
. . .
evil
Trovrjpov,
they again did it 12 or Judg. 3 4 io

1
fi
= LXX
it
/cat
7iy>oo-e
Trotâ-ai
TO
a Finite verb, e.g.
and with (2) may n$X n^l Drat? ^0*1 And Abraham added and
,
be followed by
took a wife
Se
again took
=
or
took a second
1
= LXX
5
7rpoo-0e/xevos
Afipaan
eAa/2ci/
ywaiKa, Gen. 25
ipN
N^H^
fjD
And
1
.
Elihu
added and said

$ero erepoi/
LXX
BovXov
/cat
.
Ilpoo-tfets Se EAtovs
In Aey, Job 36
Both
Trpoo-e12
of these constructions occur in the

Tre/uuf/cu
.
Lucan
3
;
literature: (i) *at

7rffjuj/ai,
/cat
Trpoa-eêro rpirov
Lk. 2O 11
Trpoo-eOtTo (TvXXafifLV
IleVpoj/,
Acts I2
(2) 7rpocr0eis
etTrei/
Lk.
4.
19".
The usage is not found elsewhere in N. T.* The phrase Tropevov ets clprjvrjv, Lk. y 00 8 48 vTrayf.
,
,
ets
Mk. 5 (nowhere else of the Hebrew Cri^

:i4
in
N. T.)
c f.
i
is
derived from the

i
17
,
LXX
rendering
18
Sam.
,
2o 1342
.
Kgs. 20
(LXX
it
2i)
2 Kgs. 5
tion 7 is
1!
Chr. i2 17 Tob. io 13 Judith 8 25 here incorrectly given the sense

i
,
The Hebrew
ets
preposi
which
commonly
h
possesses.
of norm, thus meaning lit. peace-wise or health-wise i.e. in peace or health The phrase belongs distinctively to Biblical Hebrew.
It
is
really an idiomatic usage known as

,
EWp
The Targum Hebraizes

5.
in
copying
is
it
in
translation, but in the

i.
Peshitta the regular rendering
}N^^
^J,
e. -n-opevov
clpyvy.
expression 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 iuis
evanriov
is
The
LXX
extremely
common (some hundreds of occurrences), and ordinarily to the face of), or ^vb represents Hebrew */? before (lit. in the sight of (lit. to the eyes of). eVwTrtoi/ is only found once in Jn. (20), and is unused in Mt. and Mk. In these Gospels we
find
tfjiTTpoo-Otv,
i
8
which also occurs

,
in Lk.
:f)
Acts 7 10 8 21 ), ivavriov (Lk. i 6 2o 24^, Acts 7 10 , 832), Lucan in N. T., are both very common in LXX, where exclusively they ordinarily render ^ya in the sight of (lit. in the eyes of),
Ivai/n (Lk.
, , ,
Cf.
however
the text of
in
Mk. i4 25
ov py TrpoaOw witiv.
INTRODUCTION
â
<
15
in the opinion of. Hebrew always observes a distinction i.e. in the (physical) sight of, and between Tj m the (mental) of. The same distinction may be noticed for the most part sight
in the
N. T. use of
ZVUTTLOV
and
cvai/rtov.
f
In place of the distinctively Hebraic expressions VJDp, N^S*, M*#? Aramaic uses Eî?- before in front of.
,
6.
The phrase
Trpo irpoa-wTrov,
which
1
is
common
LXX
10
of êb, occurs in the O. T. quotation Mk. i 2 and only besides in Lk. i 76 9, lo Acts i3 24
, , .
=
d
Mt.
n =
26
rendering Lk. f\
*3SO
1
-n-poa-îrov
i
9
,
in
LXX
is
found
67Tt
(a7TO TOl)
7T.).
Acts s 5 TTp6(T(TTOV Lk. 21^,

in
,
19
41
,
45
2 Thess.
Apoc. 6
1
20"
",
C7TI
TTpOCTMTTOV
ActS
51
arC
LXX
renderings of
7.
""P.^
by.
The phrase
is
TO Trpoa-wirov co-Typia-w, Lk.
N. T.)
derived from
(Jer.
,
LXX, where
if,
Lk. 2o
21
,
it
9 (nowhere else in renders Hebrew D^s D^

5 &c.). occurs 9 times in
,
set the face

8.
2i 10 Ezek. 6\
14",
f)
XafjifidvcLv TTpocrw-n-ov,
Gal. 2
as the rendering of
Hebrew 0^3
LXX
of
take or
lift
up the face
judgement. More commonly this phrase is rendered in LXX by Oav/jid^fiv irpoo-fD-n-ov. The Semitic phrase occurs in Aramaic as well as in Hebrew. The
anyone,
i.e.
show him
partiality in
N.T. substantives
irpoo-wroXvitMfria
Trpoa-coTroX^Trr^s
11
,
(Rom. 2
a respecter of persons (Acts io 35 ), Eph. 6, Col. 3^, Jas. 2 ) partiality are

1
derived from the
LXX
Hebraism.
SiSw/u in a
set
,
9. The use of the verb may be rendered put

,
wider range of senses, which

,
allow &c., appears in appoint be exclusively Lucan cf. Lk. f\ i 2 5158 15-, ig- \ Acts 2 19 in w (quotation from Joel 3= ), 2% 13* (both quotations from Ps i6 ), io :u This usage comes from where Oayu is the regular i9
,
N.T.
to
LXX
rendering of Hebrew |ri3 which, meaning primarily give is regu Cf. the LXX rendering in larly used also in such wider senses. Gen. 17- S(oo-co avrov ets e^ro? /xeya, Gen. 31 OVK aurw 6 êo?
,
I8o>/cei/
Deut.I 13 Sore eavrots avSpas Deut.2 25 ei/apôu Sowat a-ov. Such instances might be indefinitely multiplied. These examples should serve clearly to illustrate the character
t,
<ro<j)ov<;,
of N. T. Hebraisms derived from the Greek of the LXX. observe that they are characteristically Lucan, and in some cases Other N. T. Hebraisms may be found in the exclusively so.
We
Greek of the Apocalypse
(cf.
Dr. Charles s Commentary, Index
II),
16
INTRODUCTION
to
and these owe their origin

imitation of Biblical
also
a different cause, viz. first-hand a cause which
Hebrew
the
style
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
Jewish Greek that he had derived from a reading of the LXX is most misleading. For example, one of Canon Allen s most
striking
the very frequent use of the Historic Present Mk., which he rightly ascribes to the influence of the Aramaic usage of the Participle in narrative (cf, pp. 87 ff of the
is
Aramaisms
in
How could this usage have been derived from present volume). 2 reading the LXX, when, as Sir John Hawkins has shown (//5. The total occurrences in p. 213), it is there comparatively rare ?
,
the whole
of
LXX
are 337, and of these 232 occur in the four
Books
Kingdoms, leaving only 105 for the whole of the rest of the LXX. Out of the 232 instances in the four books of Kingdoms,
First
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.
the
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
(HS.~ pp 198 ff.). marking of the distinction between Aramaisms and Hebraisms may thus be seen to be a matter of fundamental If Aramaic and Hebrew were so importance to our inquiry.
The
similar in structure and phraseology that close translations
made
from the two languages, or original Greek compositions influenced
by
their style,
were
practically indistinguishable, then
it
might not
INTRODUCTION
matter whether the
;
17
stylistic peculiarities of such documents were classed as Aramaisms or Hebraisms though even so since such
phenomena would properly rank
as the
common
property of two
it would (if not more) languages of the Semitic group scientifically be more correct to describe them as Semitisms. It is true that
Aramaic and Hebrew, having sprung from a common ancestor, do

in fact exhibit a considerable
istics,
number of such common character

Greek passages of brief
the occurrence of which in isolated
length might leave us in doubt whether the influencing factor was the one language or the other. 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
then,
we
find a
New
Testament document such as
St.
Mark
Gospel, which lacks the clearly-marked Hebraisms of the Lucan literature unmistakably derived from the LXX, and at the same
time contains different marks of Semitic style which can only be referred to Aramaic, the conclusion should surely be obvious. Here we have the work, not of a Hellenist who studied the LXX,
but of a Palestinian
Jew who
whose mind was so moulded by Aramaic idiom that Such a work is naturally found perforce reflected it.
either actually wrote in Aramaic, or his Greek

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
the specific
not be reflected in the Greek of the LXX. But it is Aramaisms which must determine the character of the
work (Palestinian and not Hellenistic). 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 Hebrew employed in the referring to Biblical or Classical Hebrew.
*
New
Mishna and Midrashim, which was the language of the Rabbinic Schools at or about the Christian era and subsequently, is structurally nearer akin to Aramaic
than to Hebrew. This artificial product, however, fulfilled much the same function as did the dog- Latin employed by scholars in the Middle Ages, and there is no reason for supposing that it ever came into popular use.
Cf. Allen,
ff.,
The Aramaic Element

article
in St.
Mark
Expository 7tmes,
xiii
(1902),
pp. 328
an
which
effectively disposes of the criticisms of Schmiedel.
i8
INTRODUCTION
Whether
the
Marcan Aramaisms prove

distinct
actual translation from
an original Aramaic document, as

tion of a writer
sion, is casting his
from the virtual transla
who, though using Greek as his medium of expres words in the Aramaic mould which is more
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
to
him,
an Aramaic Fourth Gospel, feels that the case for the former is not of equal cogency with that for the latter. To a large extent, as is natural, the evidence for the two works runs upon identical lines ;
and here the argument
for Jn. is materially strengthened by the of Mk. There is, however, a still larger mass of parallel usages evidence which can be cited for Jn. to which no adequate analogue exists in Mk. Examination of the usages discussed in the present
volume
will
be found to yield the following results
Usages common
Parataxis
(p. 56).
to
Jn. and Mk.
Frequency of Historic Present
(p. 87).
Frequency of Imperfect eXeyei/, eAeyoi/ (p. 92). Sparse use of 6V, and preference for /ecu (p. 69).
u/a
7T/)os
= conjunctive that = with (p. 28).
(p. 70).
Usages of Jn. found more rarely
in
Mk.
Asyndeton (p. Casus pendens t

/<at
49).
(p. 63).
and yet linking contrasted statements iVa mistranslation of ^ relative. One case in
J (p. 66).
Mk. (p. 76). on mistranslation of ^ relative. Two cases in Mk. (p. 77). Relative completed by a Pronoun. Two cases in Mk. (p. 84). ov fjaj eis rov aum/a = never Two parallels in Mk. (p. 99). One case in Mk. (p. 34). eis.
.
Allen quotes Asyndeton as characteristic of Mk. (St. Mark, pp. 18 instances bear no comparison with the frequency of the usage in Jn. I2 10 , is 11 . t The present writer has noted only Mk. 6 6 , 7 32 49 J The only cases collected from Mk. are 4 5 i4 . ,
,
2G>31
f.),
but his
INTRODUCTION
To
these
I9
may
:
be added an Aramaism of which one case occurs
in each, viz.
Anticipation of Genitive by Possessive
Pronoun
in
(p. 85).
Usages characteristic ofjn. not found
Mk.
Frequency of Personal Pronouns

tva
OTL
(p. 79).
Frequency of Emphatic Demonstratives

mistranslation of
mistranslation
OUTOS, eVeu/os (p. 82).
= of 1 =
"=}
1/oôyu.at
Present as
when (p. 77). when (p. 78). Futurum instans (p. 94).
no one
(p. 99).
ov
aj/#pw7ros
tva pi]
employed
:
to the exclusion of /^Trore (pp. 69, 100).
these may be added an Aramaism of which one case only occurs in Jn., viz. Anticipation of direct Object of verb by Pronoun (p. 86). Two cases of a construction which is Hebraic rather than
To
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
1 Mark, pp. 48 ff.) and by Wellhausen (Einleitung pp. 7 ff.) of which the most noteworthy are the frequent use of the adverbial TToAAa = tf*b% and of the auxiliary r/paro, -WTO = ^& but they are
(cf.
St.
not equally impressive because though they fit in with the theory of translation from an Aramaic original they are the kind of
Aramaisms which might naturally be introduced by a writer of Greek whose native tongue was Aramaic. We may also note the fact that the Kou^ construction tva = 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.
relative,
On
the other hand, the use of
Iva in
place of a
which can scarcely be understood except on the theory
of mistranslation, while frequent in Jn. (cf. pp. 75 f.), occurs but once in Mk. What is needed to substantiate the theory of an Aramaic original for Mk. is some cogent evidence of mistransla
tion
;
and
this
writer
believes
has not as yet been advanced. In contrast, the that the evidence which he has collected in
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
Palestinian
is
is
naturally
at
drawn from our knowledge of
or about the period at which the Gospel The following are the main sources to be dated.* presumably
Aramaic
of our knowledge
1.
12
The Aramaic
,
~ 2i
11 sections of the O.T., viz. Jer. lo , Ezr.
6 18
4"
Dan.
2,
4b
28
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 Bunder
the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, 168-167 B.C. The dialect 28 is W. Aramaic, and is practically identical with that of 2 4 7
of the
Ezra-sections, exhibiting affinities
to the dialects of the
Palmyrene and Nabataean inscriptions which date from the third century B.C. to the second century A.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
or Aramaic
synagogue-practice of expounding the
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 KHCD
in
Neh. 8 8
R.V.
And
they read in the book, in the law of

;
God
distinctly (marg. with an interpretation] so that they understood the reading

*
and they gave the sense,

as referring to the use of
On
this subject the
standard
wcrk
is
Dr. G.
Dalman
Grammatik
des jiidisch-
palastinischen Aramdisch.
Cf. especially pp.

in the
540.
s
This
may
usefully be sup
plemented by the discussion
same writer
The Words of Jesus, pp. 79-88.
though inserted into a section which relates the efforts of the Samaritans to thwart ZerubbabePs rebuilding of the Temple in the latter part of the sixth century B.C., really relates to the interruptions caused by the
,
f Ezr. 4 6
"
23
city-walls,
Samaritans and other enemies of the Jews to the project of the rebuilding of the probably shortly before the twentieth year of Artaxerxes (444 B. c.) when
the Persian king.
Cf. Driver,
Introd. to Lit. of
Nehemiah intervened and secured the support of O.T? p. 547. J Cf. Driver, Introd. to Lit. of O.T* pp. 503 ff.
INTRODUCTION
an Aramaic paraphrase something to be said in
*
*
;
21
disputed, has
9
and
this
view, though
If,
its
favour.t
however, the practice of

d.
Cf.
tion is
t
Bab. Megilla3; Nedaritn 376; Jerus. Megilla 74 given in Midrash Bereshith Rabba, par. xxxvi. 12.
The same explana
Cf. Berliner,
Targum
Onkclos,
ii,
p 74,
who compares
,
the use of
2hDD
l<:
in the
words of the Persian king
s rescript in Ezr. 4 18
KH2D
^^V
|1Pir6&J>~
&O1J;1&?3
^TP Hp,
before
rival
i.
i.e.
most naturally,
,
The
letter
which ye sent unto us hath been read
me
in tianslalion
i.
e.
translated from Aramaic into Persian.
The
principal
,
1
explanation
(offered
;
e.
section by section
divided by Dr. Bertholet) is (sc. into sections) and on this explanation the following words Qi^
73b>
and giving the sense custom as known

it
may
was
refer to an
Aramaic paraphrase.
to us
to read a verse of the
Law
in
the
The synagogueHebrew and follow
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 must have been widely used, along with Cuneiform tablets of the late Neo-Babylonian kingdom. Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Achaemenian periods bear Aramaic dockets and scribes or secretaries were employed for the purpose of writing Aramaic upon parchment along with those wfiose business it was to write Babylonian in
international
communication.
Babylonian, in the
cuneiform upon clay tablets (cf. the writer s Judges, pp. 255, 495^. Probably Aramaic was the exclusive medium of intercom se 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 not of course imply that it was widely and generally spoken by the Jews up to that period. That it was understood and spoken in the earlier post-exilic period
that e.g. the prophecies of Haggai, Zechariah, for a popular audience, are written in Hebrew
is implied by the fact which were intended
and Malachi, and by the

;
allusion in
Neh. 13
*,
which shows, however,

it
condition of affairs
made
for the less
same time, how easy the precise Jews to drop Hebrew and adopt
at
the
another language. All that we can say, then, with any certainty, is that after the return from exile Hebrew and Aramaic must for a time have been used concurrently by the Jews. Religious, national, and literary feeling strove for the retention of Hebrew but
;
external influence
making
itself felt in
the exigences of daily
life
favoured the
advance of Aramaic, and gradually led to its general adoption. Literary and cultivated Jews read Hebrew, and no doubt spoke it to some extent among themselves at least for some time after the return. The mass of the people who did not read books came more and more to speak Aramaic exclusively and to lose
the
knowledge of Hebrew.
22
INTRODUCTION
any rate not in dispute. date at which written Targums
It is
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
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
orally,
for that
which
is
received orally
is
and only that which writing may be read from the book (Jerus. Megilla
is,
must only be delivered
received in
iv. i).
There
however, considerably
older
evidence for the existence of

not for public worship. text of the Bible were
written
Targums for private reading and The Mishnat states that portions of the
written
as
J
Targum
(Yadaim
iv.
5);
and there
exists
Job existed in the days of Gamaliel the Elder (the grandson of Hillel and instructor of St. Paul cf. Acts 5 22 3 ), and after being with drawn from use by his orders, reappeared in the days of his grand
tradition that a
Tannaitic
Targum
of the
Book
of
3<ff
-,
son Gamaliel
II.
which became the
of the Babylonian schools, must have been committed to writing and finally redacted at least as early as the third century A.D., since its Masora dates from the first half of that century. Two Palestinian Amoraim of the third
official
The Targum Targum
of Onkelos on the Pentateuch,
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} t
this practice to his
sons
(Berakhoth 8
*
while
Ammi,
a pupil of Johanan,
made
it
a rule
See on
article
*f-
this subject Berliner, Targum Onkelos, ii, pp. 88 ff., and the admirable Targum by Dr. W. Bacher in the Jewish Encyclopaedia. The Mishna (i.e. Repetition of the Law, or in a wider sense its Exposition)
was compiled towards the end of the second century A. D. J The Tannaim ( Teachers ) were the Rabbinic authorities of the first two centuries of the Christian era whose work is embodied in the Mishna. They were succeeded by the Amoraim ( Speakers or Interpreters ), third to fifth centuries
A. D.,
who
chiefly
this
concerned themselves with the exposition of the Mishna.
The
outcome of
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, op. cit.
work was
p. 89.
INTRODUCTION
Thus we may gather how
Scriptures in
the practice of interpreting the
23
These two dicta were especially generally binding (ib. 8 a). instrumental in authorizing the custom of reciting the Targum. *
Hebrew
one time presumably dependent upon the extempore skill of the individual M e thurg e man, gradually assumed a fixed form first, no doubt, orally, then in written
Aramaic,
at
;
shape.
The The
principal
so-called
Targums which concern us are as follows Targum of Onkelos t on the Pentateuch. This
:
is
sometimes called the Babylonian Targum, as adopted and stan dardized in Babylonia not later, as we have seen, than the third
century A.
in diction,
Its
While exhibiting certain Babylonian peculiarities composed in a dialect fundamentally Palestinian .! contents prove that it must have been drawn up in Palestine
D.
it
is
in
the second
century,
since
both
its
Halakhic and Haggadic

of Akiba
135)
A. D.
elements
perished in
exhibit
the
influence
of the school
the rebellion of
Bar Cokhba,
(who 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
abbreviation
"*n
The Palestinian Targum of down to us, much later in date.
the Pentateuch
is,
as
it
The Targum
= Targum
As
Yerushalmi,
Jerusalem
it
Targum,
as
Targum
Yehonathan.
finally redacted
is
is
not earlier than the
seventh century A.D., but it which are older than the

of these two
identical, their
*
thought to contain many elements Targum of Onkelos.lf Comparison
Targums
yields evidence that they were originally
agreement being often verbatim.

cit.
Cf.
Bacher, op.
p. 58.
t The name
Bab. Megilla
DPp^N Onkelos
i
appears to have arisen through confusion made

i.
in
iii.
of a reference in Jerus. Megilla
to the
Greek
translation
of Aquila D^pJJ Akylas.
Cf. Berliner, op. cit. pp. 92 ff. J Noldeke, Manddische Grammatik, p. xxvii, quoted by Bacher, op. cit. p. 590:. Hdldkhd ( 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, Gramm. pp. 21 ff., and WJ. pp. 84 f., disputes this inference, holding the most primitive elements to be exactly the parts taken from the Onkelos
Targum
24
INTRODUCTION
In addition to the complete Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan there survive fragments of a Jerusalem Targum, apparently not all
contemporaneous. In the view of Dr. Bacher, Both the PseudoJonathan 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. cit.
61
a).
on the Prophets * is assigned by tradition to Jonathan ben Uzziel, who was Hillel s most famous The history of its transmission appears to follow the same pupil.
The Targum
of Jonathan
lines as that of the

(as
is
Targum
of Onkelos.
Palestinian in origin
it
expressly stated in the Bab. Talmud),
gained
official
It is frequently recognition in Babylonia in the third century A. D. quoted by Joseph, the head of the Academy of Pumbeditha in
Babylonia in the early part of the fourth century A. D., who, in 11 6 if there were referring to Isa. 8 and Zech. I2 , remarks that * no Targum to it, we should not know the meaning of these verses
(Sanhedrin 94
Moed Katon 28 b
Megilla 30).
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 illus trating the Palestinian Aramaic of the early centuries of the
Christian era.
Though,
first
in the
form
in
which we know them, they
century, they embody material which whether in written or oral form must have come down from that
are later than the
period ; and from the linguistic point of view it is clear that they Their dialect is closely allied to the dialect are faithful witnesses.
of the
Book
of Daniel, such slight differences as exist being mainly of
orthographical. t
translations
The only drawback to their use is that, being Hebrew, they tend at times to Hebraize their
difficult to detect,
Aramaic
and are unlikely, therefore,

*
but instances of this tendency are not to lead us astray. J

Prophets
is
The term
four historical books
known
as
of course used in the Jewish sense, including the the Former Prophets viz. Josh., Judg., Sam.,
,
and Kgs.
Cf. Driver, Introd. to Lit.

e. g.
ofO.T.*
p.
503
ff.
J Cf.
the passages cited on pp. 61

p. 83.
NoMdeke in Entycl. Bibl. 283. On Hebraisms in the Targums
cf.
Dal man,
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.
Like the Targums, however,
in relation to the
its
Hebrew
to its
text,
it
shows a
certain tendency to adapt
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
is
and Western Aramaic.
The
Peshitta translation of the O.T.
directly from the Hebrew, it exhibits the traditions of Jewish exegesis, as appears from the points of connexion which it offers with Targumic renderings.t
undoubtedly very ancient.
Made
It
may
well have been the
work of Jewish
it
scholars,
A. D.,
and can hardly

if
be
later
than
the
early second century
so
late.
As
compared with
the Targums,
exhibits less
accommodate
original.
its
language
to
the
Hebrew
of a tendency to constructions of the
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
(TO Sia reo-o-apwi/ evayye Aioj/), in
Four Gospels
was translated
*
Greek, and that this

c.
into Syriac during his lifetime,

ff.,
A.D.
1704
It
Cf.
Dalman, Gramm. pp. 12
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,
p. cxxviii.
Cf. the illustrations of this
For authorities
iv, p.
cf.
Dr. Nestle s article

a.
<
Syriac Versions in Hastings s Dictionary
of the Bible,
646
The view
that the Diatessaron
was
first
composed
in
26
INTRODUCTION
e
till the fifth century, when Rabbula, bishop of Edessa (A.D. 411-35), prepared a revision of the text of
continued in use at Edessa
the separate Gospels (called Evangelion da-Mepharr she, Gospel of the Separate ), and ordered its substitution for the Diatessaron
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
(Evangelion
da-Me halle te, Gospel
translation in
Peshitta.
which the
text has
been accommodated
to that of the
Dr. Burkitt has shown that Syrian writers prior to Rabbula e e used the Evangelion da-M pharr she* which has survived to us in the fragmentary remains of a recension of the Four Gospels
discovered and edited by Dr. Cureton in 1858, and in the (nearly complete) palimpsest of the Gospels discovered by Mrs. Lewis
at the
convent on Mount Sinai
when he
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.

to
This
have been the origin of the N.T. Peshitta. He has appears also shown that the Evangelion da-M epharreshe 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
e by the Syrian Church, the Evangelion da-M pharr she being daed 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.
For the
the
is
Law and
first generation of Syriac-speaking Christians the Prophets sufficed. j This is a conclusion which
open to question, and it may be that the old version represented by the Sinaitic and Curetonian should be placed at an earlier date. The Old Syriac and Peshitta versions of the N.T., as well as
into Syriac appears to be
Greek and then translated

it
ii,
more probable than
that
was
p. *
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.
pp. 201
p. 212.
ff.
I op.
INTRODUCTION
the
Palestinian
27
Syriac Lectionary, are of great value to our as illustrating Aramaic constructions in relation to the inquiry 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

pp. 72
ff.).
this
in
the
Fourth Gospel
(cf. e. g.
* Thomae, an original Syriac work of fairly early date third century A. D.t) is sometimes used in the following pages (early
The
Ada
for
purposes of
illustration.
is
The evidence which
brought forward
in this
volume
in
proof
that the Greek text of the Fourth Gospel is a translation from Aramaic is concerned with the broad general characteristics of the
Aramaic language, and does not depend upon
dialectal details.
distinguished, belonging to different places and different periods, their distinctive character
Though
dialects of the language
may be
the earliest monuments of the language, of the 9th-8th centuries B.C.) are but slight in comparison with the com mon features which unite all branches of the language. Thus the
istics (if
r
w e except
exact dialectal form of the original which we presuppose is a matter of minor importance. may have doubts as to the
We
precise
select
;
word or verbal termination or suffix which we should we can have no reasonable doubt as to constructions which
properly characterize the language as a whole.

*
The
fact that this
work was
originally written in Syriac has

if.
;
proved by Dr. Burkitt in Journal ofTheol. Studies,!, pp. 280 Cf. R. Duval, La Litterature svriaque, pp. 98
j*
ii,
been conclusively p. 429 iii, p. 94.

;
flf.
CHAPTER
PRELIMINARY TESTING OF THE THEORY BY EXAMINATION OF THE PROLOGUE

As
it it
is
a preliminary to the classified discussion of particular usages, instructive to take the Prologue of the Gospel and examine
verse by verse.
Thus we may
to classify,
conception of the texture of the writer

and,
gain at the outset a clearer s language as a whole ;
when we come
may
realize that
we
are not dealing
merely with isolated phenomena, but with illustrations of a con tinuous characteristic which admits of but one explanation the
theory of an Aramaic original.
The phrase TT/OOS TOV Oeov in the sense with God is He cites the parallel usage remarkable, as Westcott observes. in Mt. i 3 56 Mk. 6 9 19 14^, Lk. 9 41 i Jn. i 2 The last of these passages is an echo of the Gospel-prologue, presumably by the
1-a
.
:!
w.
same author
instances
^ns ty
notice
irpos TOV Trare/oa.

(i)
With regard
to the
Synoptic
source,
we
that they are all from the
Marcan
and
(2)
that Mt.
if
7
,
Lk. 22 5! alter
Mark
s vrpos
vâs to the*
more
natural paff vpwv, while Mt. 26 55 omits the phrase altogether. parallel passages are as follows
:
The
63
Mt. (Mk. I3
f
Kat OVK
6
ctcrti/
at dSeAxât O.VTOV S)O
Trpos T^/xas
f)/j.as
Ka ^ a ^
to)
a.ofX<f>al
O.VTOV ovî Tracrat Trpos
Mk. 9 19
Mt.
i^K.
T
I
if
41
Io
"
to)?
Mk. I449
Mt. 26
Koff
fj/Jifpav
rj/Jirjv
Trpos v/xas eV
TW iepu TW
KO.& rj/Jiepav tv rai tepai e/caêô/x^j/ StSacr/cojv. KO.O

rjfjifpav
Lk. 22
OVTOS
fjiov
ptB* vfjtwv tv
tepoi.
Clearly, then, dealing with a phrase confined in the to the Marcan source and to Jn. which was so far strange Gospels
we
are
THEPROLOGUE
is
29
to the other Synoptists that they were moved on occasions to alter The view that it may represent an Aramaic phrase or expunge it.
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
flip
(possibly
akin
to
the verb
I?
join
denotes
It (i) connexion with, apud, Trapd, (2) motion towards, ad, irpos. be suggested that feeling for the second meaning so commonly may borne by HO has moved the translator of an Aramaic original
to represent the preposition
by
Ti-po s
even when used in the former
sense.*
The usage
4
of
5
,
Trpos
10
,
=
i
with
is
-
2 Thess. 2
26
,
Phil, i
3 Philem. 13
c Cor. i6
7
,
frequent in St. Paul ; 9 2 Cor. 5*, Gal.
cf.
Thess.
2 5 4 18 20
-
18
,
There
are,
is
however,
many
other indications
that this Apostle s language

v.
4
.
o yeyovev eV
curru>
WT) rfv.
tinged with Aramaic influence. This reading has the consensus
of early attestation, the punctuation which connects o yeyovev with the preceding sentence seeming to be little if at all earlier than Cent. IV (WH.). Yet, as is well known, considerable difficulty
has arisen in connexion with the interpretation,
That which hath
been made
(Nin)
in
Him was
life
The Aramaic
equivalent would be
which
Kvn. Here the opening ^ answering to that might equally well bear the meaning inasmuch as, since, 41 nrwrrni And inasmuch as because cf. the use of ^ in Dan. 2
pjn
,
n-a
thou sawest
2 20 *on nb-^ NPrjttM NnjpDn ^ because wisdom and The Heb. relative IPK often bears might belongeth unto Him the same sense. Adopting this interpretation, we obtain the
<
meaning,
Because
the connexion
in Him was life He was the source of

;
and
all
this
admirably suits
creation because
He
Himself was
V.
5
.
Life.
<uJS
KO.I
TO
tV TTJ CTKOTia
KOL
<f>0.lVl,
r]
(TKOTLO. OLVTO
OV KaTtXafitV.
The
* It
difficulty
of
KaTtXapev
is
familiar.
Dr.
Ball,
in his article
that Trpos here
was only after finishing this chapter that the writer noticed that the facts = Aram. Dip, and that the other Gospel-occurrences emanate from
its
first
the Marcan source with
Aram, background, had been anticipated by Dr. Rendel The origin of the Prologue to St. John s The coincidence in conclusion Gospel in the Expositor, xii (1916), pp. 156 f. serves to prove that it is unmistakable for an Aramaic scholar.
Harris in the
1
of a series of articles on
30
PRELIMINARY TEST
has made the
brilliant
mentioned
in the Introduction,
suggestion
that confusion
may have
darken
arisen in
form âpK akbel
Aramaic between the Aph el and the Pa el form /*3j3 kabbel from an
.
It may be outwardly identical root, meaning receive, take further noted that in Syriac the latter root actually occurs in the
Aph el o\ao/
in
the sense
ôf
receive
cf.
Lk.
15"
in
Sin.
and Pesh.
(cf.
because he hath received him whole
other
yi/"v~
instances cited by Payne Smith, 3470). nâpN tib obscured it not and ITâp tfb
The
difference between
slight
;
O.VTO ov Ka.Te\a/3cv is
and
if
the construction was the

Njn
common one
p
the substantive verb, FPrP
3pp to
of the participle with was not obscuring it

,
there would, in an unvocalized text, be no distinction between
^Bpp
is
obscuring
toJ^sp:
and
^PP
receiving
Iva
/XT)
The sense
vfjui<s
darken
35 equally suitable to Jn. I2
O-KOTM
.
that darkness
.
.
shroud you not

6Vo/xa
is
avra>
6
.
.
eyevero a.v6po)7ros
.
luKxW^s,
i.
e.
Whose name was

ch.
1
only elsewhere so expressed in

oi o/xa
N.T.
in
8
aV$pa):ros
TUV $apuratW NiKoS^/xos

Ka^/xevo?
rrjs
avrai,
ApOC. 6
OdvaTos,
ITTTTOS
x^PO*
11
Ka^ L
a-yytXov
tTravco
O.VTOV,
ovofJLa
ovo/xa
avrai
avrw 6
ApOC. 9
TOV
a(3v(ro-ov
in N.T. the ordinary expression is wo/xart (classical) ; 32 Mk. 5 2 Lk. i% 5 27 io 3s, i6 LO 2 3 50 2 4 18 , Acts 5 34 8 9 Matt. 27 W l6 2Q 9^ 2 jW 3^^ ,.^ j 7 34^ ^2.7,24^ (3Q 9 10.11.12.33.36^ IQ 1^ Ij2 ^ I2
Elsewhere
cf.
-^
,
occurrences).
/cat
Other expressions are

I
5
;
oi/o/xart
26 - 27
/caAW/xei/os,
25
,
TO ô/xa
a^s, Lk.
Mk. I4 32
.
I ($) Svoâ, Lk.
41
,
13
24
Lk. iQ 2 Acts 13
ov TO ovo/xa,
Pal. Syr.
renders the Gospel-occurrences of ovo/xan by

<Hâ^,?
his
name
his
who
his
name
(i.e.
whose name
O^JSQ.*,?
,
),
and
his (her)
name name
opo.*
Pesh. renders wo/urn by

Joo
(O^Q^?)
who
CHÛ,?
who
.
his
name was
and once (Acts
2 oVo /xtm KoXovêvos, Lk. iQ = name was Pesh. who his name was called Pal. Syr. 4-fcsj Lk. i = who his name was*. Kal TO ovo/xa Joo oca*,? her name Pesh. joo ot^^ and her name Pal. Syr. O^XLÔ w ovo/xa, Lk. i 27 = Pal. Syr. caret, Pesh. ojaa.*,? who his was Lk. 2 25 = Pal. Syr. name ]oo? who was his name (i.e. Lk. 8 = Pesh. ]oo c^Jd*. his name was whose name was
i6 14 ) Joo
her
<**&.**,?
avTrj<s,
o>*i**,
41
),
OF PROLOGUE
Pal. Syr.
<*xi++,9,
31
;
Pesh. 0^1*-?
his
who
,
his
name
Lk.
its
Acts
,
13"
Pesh.
]oo
26
c*:*!*,?
who
Pal.
name was
ovo/za,
26
24.
,
Pal. Syr.
ov TO ovo/ja,
(i
caret) C**X*A.?,
32
Pesh. o**,?
which
name
Mk. i4
called
,
Syr. caret, Pesh. juôfcoe? ]~l

r>
that
which was
his
,
name cxi**,? Jn. = Pal. Syr. c*:*!**, his name name of-iOA. Jn. 3 Rev. 6 s = Pesh. o^ 1/m*. name Pesh. joo* oj-iQj* his name was = Rev. to it )o*x*,? which, name to it In the Aramaic parts of the O.T. we find, Ezr. IMBU^ UTn to one not? and they were given to Sheshbazzar his name (i.e. Dan. 2 2G 4 ^ who his "iSNâ whose name was S. ) name Belteshazzar The Hebrew modes of expressing whose name was N. are Gen. 24., 38 2 Judg. 13 if, and his name N. two, viz. (i)
ovofjia
afro),
Pal. Syr.
1
who
Pesh.
his
9"
<*^
5"
5 10
-
nB>
Ru. 2
20
1
name
5 25 2 Sam. 4 4 9212 i3 3 i6 I? , 5 34 N. his Chr. 2 Est. 2 Jer. 37" (22 occurrences), or (2) 2 4 23 2 Chr. 28 9 Job i i Sam. i7 2 Sam. 2O 21 i Kgs. i3
Sam.
,
12
12
i7
2i
22=,
Zech. 6 12
(7
occurrences).
"WNtâ
Besides these two phrases,

"IK^N
N">pi
1 (Dan. lo )
i^
iwn
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 3 we find "HpHK 31"ID iTECM and his name was called
S
The rendering of Heb. 2 of Pesh. exactly corresponds with Heb. except in Ru. 2 i Sam. 9 2 2 Sam. 9 where we find who his name for and his name ;
Mordecai
for
and his name Mordecai
12 Sam. i3 3 where the phrase is omitted; and in Zech. 6 we have and his name where, in place of Branch his name is rendered /cat In LXX Heb. IDÎ and his name Sunrise*.
in
ovofjia
OLVTU,
29 except in Gen. 24 38
,
2
,
where we have
ovo/xa cdr
($)
ovo/xa.
i
1
Heb.
iDty
his
name
<J
is
represented by
except in Job
where we have
Outside O.T.
Syriac,
his
.
oi/o/xa.
we name
Cf.
find that
his
in
name was
>floo>
whose name was is rendered in who his name who his name was s Apocryphal Acts, Wright â , ,
U-,j>
his
o^jw .U^QA^-J!? one name Alexander (p. ^xo); ]oo

; iai*>X/
of the chief
o*-aa*,
men
of Antioch,
*
^-*?
ô^*flQ.j/ Ji-^j,
(p.
Now
a certain
name was man, Onesiphorus a bath-keeper, who J;^^

his
[t\=>
ô)
his
name
32
A
(p.
<^-)
PRELIMINARY TEST
;
Secundus
son,
o)ij-
Joo 0*^1*,?
J^;3oo
^z>
*a procurator s
who his name was Menelaus (p. J^). Thus it appears that oVo/xa OLVT& IwdVi/r/s, NiKo8r7/xos 6Vo//,a avrui exactly represent a Semitic construction common to Aramaic and
that the Greek represents the regular rendering of It is also noteworthy that the only other phrase. occurrences of 6Vo/xa avru are found in Apoc., which is strongly
Hebrew, and
the
Hebrew
Semitic in colouring.
V.
.
iva Travres
is
TTLO-TevcrQHTiv
Si
avrov probably
to
= \?3
^
<cos,
P^
the
Iva viol
Tras
which
in
it
most naturally taken

:ili
mean,
that all might believe
(the light) rather than

(L?
through him
<o>s
(John).
Cf., for
sense postulated, I2
yivrforOf,
TO
eyo>
ZX T
TTIOTCVCTC eis TO
>
and I246
TO
(005 ets TOI/ KOdyxov eA^/Viâ,
iVa
v.
8
.
OUK ^v
e/ceu/os
^>a>s.
The emphatic pronoun

,
eKeu/os
so
characteristic of the Fourth
Aram. Wnn, Syriac Kin. See below (p.

dAA
ellipse
o
82).
Gospel has its counterpart in the that one or in the Personal Pronoun
The difficulty of the supposed ^WTOS. by the words, he came ) is familiar. The whole verse would run in Aramaic, fn^N Nnin: wn Nin b
a/a /jiaprvprjo-r] Trepl rov
(usually supplied
tqina by
Jjoop?).
Tno^
It
c f.
Pal.
Syr.
o^J ^.x
is
+*m+i
J>oo*j
oot
Joo,
is
probable that T
relative force
light,
should have
its
here wrongly rendered /a, and The sense then is, (one) who
.
That one was not the

the light
.
but one
who was
to bear witness of
without expressed he who ), Ezr. f*, rBTrtnn yT vb Hi and antecedent ( one who AIW w/b knoweth not ye shall teach ; Dan. 2 23 K^p-H wy^n jyai
Cf.,
for
such a use of 1 or
,
^]3D
and now Thou hast made known
to
me
in
that which
in
"i^
we asked
//^ with
of
Thee
Cf. the similar use of
"I^N*
in
:
Hebrew
Gen. 449 10
nay
irn? inx KSI^

it is
i^s
nj
^l^?V o
^^
found of thy servants shall die ... He with whom it is where the rendering of Targ. Onk. found shall be my slave Other instances of n relative mistranslated by is iwy rowH..
whom
Iva.
are given below (pp. 75
f.).*
* In favour of the ordinary view that the construction implies an ellipse stand two other passages cited by Westcott g 3 Ovre OVTOS TJpaprev cure ot yoveis avrov, d\\ iva (pavfpuOr) TO. epya TOV &eov t v avrw, where before iva we have to supply
OF PROLOGUE
v.
!)
33
rightly recognized
7raj/ra
avOpuirov
epxo/J-fvov eis
rov
KOCT/XOI/ is
Lightfoot (Home Hebraicae, ad loc.} and by Schlatter (Sprache, 18 f.) as the common Rabbinic phrase &piy *N3 ?3 all comers pp. The Aram, equivalent i.e. all that are in it.* into the world
by
J.
would be Kobya
TO
<u>s
ba.
r/v
as the subject of
:
Thus Westcott s proposal to regard The true light. .was fyxoftwov

(
.
R.V. margin) is excluded, and ty TO 0ws TO It was the true light can only mean, referring to the oArfOtvov For this sense we seem to need a demonstrative verse. preceding
coming, &c.
so
5
,
pronoun; and this probably stood misread Kin and rendered rjv.
v.
10
.
in
Aramaic as wn, which was
/cat
6 KOO-ÔS avrov OVK

,
eyj/co.
Notice the adversative force

n KOL
ol 18101
of
KOLL
and yet
here and
(cf. p.
in v.
KT\.
This
is
very
frequent in Semitic
V.
66).
Kal
(cf.
n
.
e/
TO,
ioi.a
r)\.0j
ol
iStot
auToi/
ov
7rapt\a/3ovt
i.e.
1"^?
*yby>
^
ol
i^H] Nns n^vi

Zoioi
Pal. Syr.
and
Pesh.).
The
;
use of
but the
TO,
tSta,
cannot, of course, be claimed as unusual

striking,
"
expressions are
and
at
once suggest
,
to
an Aramaic
scholar the phrase By (or those who pertain)

1
which to him
to
i.e.
that
which pertains
.
"
favourite term in Jn.
io 3 4
-
12
,
I3
15
i6
:!2
t&os is a belongings 44 11 41 A 18 15 times (i ^- 42 4 5 \ 7 , 8 occurring 7 iQ- ), as against 5 in Mt., 1 in ML, 4 in Lk.

his
;
, ,
him
V.
12
.
6Voi Se
eAa/?ov auToi/,
e 8a)Kei/
avrols
KT\.
The
construction
in
thought some such words as

irXrjpweri
tVa
Cf.
o
I
\6yos KT\. there

4
49
.
also
Mk.
Similarly,
and is 25 where before dAA an iinplied ellipse of This cometh to pass Schlatter (Sprache, p. 18) cites parallels from
he was born blind
is
;
Mechilta on Ex.
iTTTJ
"1133
20"
133:
J^N 1T3VD
to
W\\
ni?0n lî
D inynb
I
"l^
DK
l!?N
If
it
were
possible
remove the angel of death
should have
I
removed him, but because the decree has already been decreed
do so
),
(sc.
cannot
and from Siphre on
Num. 25
-pi V
H^H^
fr6tf
^33
D^PplJ
UN pN
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
this conclusion is
is
We
and who rendering of our passage most naturally stands for the relative one by the other instances collected on pp. 75 f., where iVa supported
;
a mistranslation of a relative.
*
Schlatter quotes a remarkable para

par. xxxi. 6
lel to
our passage from the Midrash Rabba
on Leviticus,
Dîy
K3
Wl
D
fJ.nnr&l
D^vb THO
iiriN
Thou (God)
to all
25?n
givest light to those that are

.
above and
to those that are
below, and
comers into the world
34
PRELIMINARY TEST
is
with Casus pendens

t
very frequent
in Semitic
Pal. Syr.
For the occurrences of the construction

rots TTLO-Tfvova-LV eis TO
ovofjia avTOv, i.e.
in Jn. see p. 64.
^W?
f
P?*??
phrase TmrTeiW
e?s
is
Aramaic construction (Heb. admitted by Moulton (NTG*
strongly reminiscent of the 3 Pgn Aram. 2 pB
The striking Hebrew and

n).
This
is
seem therefore
dative
that
It would p. 68), whose words are em for the simple the substitution of eis or
obtained currency mainly in Christian circles, where the importance of the difference between simple belief
may have
(|)
The pENH) and personal trust (3 n) was keenly realized. construction was suggested no doubt by its being prepositional The a more literal translation of the Hebrew phrase with 3.
occurrences of Trio-roW
vlov rov
s6 86
-
ets
are as follows
11
,
(a s rov
Iô-ow,
,
ets
rov
eo9,
42
,
diro v, &C.) Jn. 2
lfi -
18
3r>
io
n.-6.45.^
I2 n.37...
,
i.
f
4:!
I4 14
; ,
3 I6 o^ I7
,
4%
T
6 29 35 40
j
,
n>
7
io.
--.-
:to
,
Matt. i8 6
I i
=
;
Mk. 9
TO
12
Acts io
4
,
i9
Rom.
5 16 io 4 Gal. 2 , Phil,
I
12
,
elsewhere,
i
29
,
Pet.
I
Ki
(eis
<âis)
Jn. I2
i
:ir>
(eis
TO ovoâ avrov) Jn.
10
Jn. 5
(eis
T^V paprvpLav)
Jn. 5
(37 Johannine cases in
all
3 9 other
, ,
2-
18
cases).
#.
1:i
ot
OVK
aifJiaTwv
yevvrjOr)crav f
jr?
i.
e.
f?
^/]
^91
^?
in^^n^ Knbx
great interest
|n-^
is
N^ns
nay
bi
N"jD3
nox.
.
A
. .
point
of
the fact that the Latin variant os
lyfw^Brj
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 to
He
gave*.
The
question of reading in Aramaic depends, then,

,
upon the difference between the plural n^JTN they were born He was born a difference which and the singular IV^N
involves solely the insertion or omission of the letter 1. 14 it I, over, since the following v. begins with KCH
More
is
quite
possible that the plural form W$>WK 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
OF PROLOGUE
will of
35
He, being born not after the manner of flesh, but of God, was thus able to give to those who received
;
man, but of
to
God
i.e.
Him power
for
1
become sons of God.

of a piece with thnt which is given above Logos was the Source of all physical life was life so (vv. He is the Source of spiritual )
is
1
This interpretation
w.
3 4
-
just as the
because in
(the
Him
life
new
birth) because
He was
ordinary process of
human
born into the world, not by the Cf. Lk. i 35 generation, but of God
.
aycov CTreXeu crerat

KCU
$10
(TTL
ere,
8wa/us
Kail
Yt/a crrou eTrur/aacrei
TO yfvvw/Jicvov ayiov
.l
VLOS
note a connexion between vlbs which may not be accidental (cf. also
with
ot Se CK OeX-jfjLaros dj/Spo s,
is
i:i
We
oD
and
re /tra
OcoG of Jn.
i i
1
12
eVct avSpa. ov yti/wo-Ko),
Lk.
i
34
,
Jn.
).
If this explanation of Jn.
--
13
be correct, the writer
Virgin-Birth for believers on
elsewhere fr24
--",
25 2
-
",
drawing out the mystical import of the precisely the lines on which he i 4 ) draws out the mystical import for
1
-
them of the Resurrection.

other hand, the generally accepted reading ot surely involves a very strange sequence. The spiritual birth of believers is clearly the result of the grace described by
. . .
On
the
cyewrjOrjarav
tSwKei/ avrois fôvorLav re /cra
eo9 yeveVâi,
but
V.
1:t
as phrased
Seems
imply that it was an antecedent condition. and so they were born surely have written
to
The author would

,
or
so that they
should be born
14
.
had
this
result
been the
verb
fact
which he was
intending to convey.
v.
Kal
eV/cr/i/wcrei/
ei/
rj^v.
Flie
iwKjjvwvev
suggests the Jewish doctrine of the

Sh"kmtd
ruw Sh kma
~n
very clearly
Nrov;^
(Heb.),
(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
1(U1
.
document E
sdkan of
Kgs. 8
:t
r from the old (Ex. 33 Cf. also, for the use of the verb f?B*
Temple
Ex. 2 5 S
In
Yahweh s dwelling 29*, Num. 5

,
in the
(P),
35"
midst of Israel, Lev. 26 1U2 (H), i Kgs. 6 Ezek. 43 of Fis

1:
<
!)
causing His
Name
to
dwell there, Deut.

in
12",
14% i6
:fi11
,
26
-,
&
.).
Hebrew passages
which Yahweh D 2
is
said to dwell, or to cause
36
A
caused His
PRELIMINARY TEST
midst of
Israel, the
His Name
to dwell, in the
Targumic phrase
are
is,
He
Sh
kintd to
dwell there.
Examples
Heb.
Lev.
26
12
And
.
will
walk
And
That
to
will
cause
My
Slikmta
.
among you
Ex. 25
to dwell
I
That
.
may
dwell
in
your midst
among you e may cause My Sk kmtd dwell among you

I
.
And I will dwell Ex. 29^ the midst of the children of

in
I
And
will
cause
My
.
SJi kinta
to dwell in the
midst of the
srae l \
children of Israel
So, of the withdrawal of

Isa.
17
Yahweh
s
I
Presence,
57
hid Myself.
caused
My Sh
kinta to depart
.
Ps.
44"
And Thou
goest not
.
(ascend) from them And Thou dost not cause

Sli
Thy
our
forth with
our hosts
kmtd
.
to
dwell with
hosts
Ps.
88 from
And
they are cut off

.
And
Thy hand
they are separated from e the face of Thy Sh kmtd.

that
:
Thus we may assume with some confidence

e
/ecu
^fiiv
His Sh kintd
represents to dwell
the Aramaic
W3<a
among
us
nWDtp ntp^ The choice of the verb

its
and caused
o-x-rjvovv
was
doubtless largely dictated

s-k-n.
by
close
is
resemblance to the
be seen
J
Semitic root
The same usage

o-Kr)VU)<Tti
to
in
r)
Apoc.
a-Krjvr]
f
TOV
KOL 6 Ka0r//xei/09 tVi TOV Opovov
eV
avrovs, 2I
iSou,
tov
[jifTa
TWV
dvOpttiirwv,
KOL (T/c^voJcrei //er avrwr.
/cat
avrov. lOcao-dptOa. r^v 86gav
Here we have
a clear reference
to
a second term used in the 1
Targums
to
describe
God
Lord
s
.
Self-
manifestation to mankind,
T
goes
the Glory of the
The
kinta,
conception of the
to
^>\
Y kard
e
back, like that of the
Sh
In these the Heb. term is 1^3 Kabhodh. passages. ul in the Behold, the Glory of the Lord appeared Thus, Ex. i6 16 Lord abode upon mount Sinai, And the Glory of the cloud 24
O.T.
and the cloud covered
it
six
days
&c.
The Targums employ
Y kdrd,
e
like
Sh kmtd,
they stand in of God in bodily form.
as paraphrasing passages which might, the actual appearance the Heb., be taken to describe
in
Thus
OF PROLOGUE
Heb.
Ex. 3
Targ.
to
37
And he came
of
the
And he came
mountain
God,
unto
to the mountain on which the Y*kara of the
Horeb
Lord was revealed, even
to
Horeb
For he was afraid to Ex. 3 G look upon God
.
For he
was
afraid
to
look
upon the manifestation of the Y kara of the Lord

.
Ex. 24
And
.
they saw the
God
And
of Israel
they saw the the God of Israel
Y kara
.
of
We
Isa.
sometimes
find
Sh
kinta
and
kara coupled;
the Dwelling of the Glory 22
4o
He
that sitteth
.
upon
the circle of the earth
That causeth the kinta of His Ykdrd to dwell in lofty

Sh"
strength
Ps.
44
24
Wherefore hidest Thou

face ?
Wherefore causest Thou the

SIi kinta
Thy
of
e Thy Y kard
to
depart?
Or, with inversion of order
Isa.
For mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of

6
hosts
.
For mine eye hath seen the

YÂard
the
of the
Sh
kinta
.
of
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 86ga he has in mind the Y*kara of the Targums.* In Jn. i2^ 41 the writer, after
quoting
Isa.
",
adds the Statement, ravra
eiTrci/
Ho-aias art
etSej/
TT>
86cv
of the vision (Isa. 6 ) runs in Heb., I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne and this is rendered in Targ., e I saw the Y kard of the Lord resting on His throne Other
avrov.
,
.
The opening
instances in Jn. of 86ga in this sense are, a 11

O.VTOV,
II
fav
Tricrrewo-//?
o^?j rijv
86av
rov
eor,
17-
We
*
are
now
in a position to
maintain that the Aoyos- concept ion
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
Word
of the Lord
of the Prologue must undoubtedly be derived from the third and most frequent Targumic conception representing God in mani
festation
;
that of the
tnip
lD
<
the
We
N"]*?
should no doubt trace the origin of the conception of the Memra to O. T. passages in which Heb. ddbhdr Word
"n^
?
is
employed
e.g.
s-
in a
20
Ps.
6
f
I07
connexion which almost suggests hypostatization, He sent forth His Word and healed them
Word of the Lord were the heavens made 33 By This latter passage, with its reference to the Word s action in
the
.
Creation, recalls the repeated D*r6x iEN*l

"IDN
And God
said in Gen.
i,
where the Heb. verb atnar is identical with the Aram, root from which Memra is derived. Memra occurs repeatedly in the Targg. in passages where the Heb. represents God as speaking, acting, or manifesting Himself in a manner which seemed too
anthropomorphic to Jewish thought of later times. This may be illustrated from the occurrences of the term in the first few
chapters of Genesis.
Heb.
Targ.
Gen. 3 s
they heard the voice of the Lord God walk

ing, &c.
And
And
they heard the voice of the Memra of the Lord God
walking, &c.
3 6
fi
heard
Thy
voice
And
that
it
repented the
Lord
.
He
it
had made man
heard the voice of Thy Memra And the Lord repented in His Memra because He had made man
I
.
.
67
For
repenteth
Me
Because
have repented
.
in
My
And
heart,
the Lord said in

I
His
Memra And the Lord

His Memra,
curse, &c.
said in (or by)

I
will not again curse,
will
no more
&c.
12
This
is
the token
I
of the
This
is
the token of the cove

I am making be Memra 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
In
tv
/cut
Ko.1 l(TKr)VM(T(.v
Tj/uuv
Aoyos o-ap e yeVero we have the Memra ; in in KOLL eueafrdfJifOa ryv Soâv avrov the Sn Rlllttt
]
the
Y kard.
e
This
is
evidence that, so far from his owing his
to an Alexandrine source, he is soaked through and through with the Palestinian Jewish thought which is repre Nor would the teaching of the Prologue sented by the Targums. need time for its development. Any disciple of our Lord who
Aoyos-doctrine
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
His teaching, and at length of apprehending that in His Presence on earth God had come to dwell among men, could hardly fail to draw the inference that here was the grand fulfilment of O. T. conceptions so familiar to him through
the Divine voice in
the Aramaic paraphrase.
TrA^s x
back
to the
LTO<i
KC
"
u-XyOeLas.
The
is
reference
6
of this statement
main subject of the sentence,

a parenthesis
Aoyos
which makes
It
KOL
fOeao-d/jifOa KT\.
possible to
assume
that TrXr/p^s
If,
to TT)V Sogav avrov.
certainly awkward. a misreading for TrA^/r^t referring Va however, v. , which speaks of the witness
is
would be
of John, and somewhat harshly breaks the connexion of thought, may be supposed to be misplaced, and properly to follow after And this is the bear witness the Prologue before v. ( John
1<J
witness of John,
TOV
7rA?7p(o//,aTos
c.
),
then another theory

<!Aay8o//.er,
lies
open.
In
H>
v.
on
IK
avrov
r//xei? Trai/rcs
,
i.e.
^J???
u:i
N^
3 i^.vE i*?^,
may mean,
is
not
because
but
He who
(the
assumed mistrans
lation
a converse one to that noted in vv.

Full of grace
.
the statement,
and truth was

literally
He
Thus we get ). of whose fullness

His
fullness
we have
this by,
all
received
Aramaic,
rendered, would express

of
Full of grace and truth (was)
He who
we
have
v.
all
1S
.
received
/jLovoyevys
eo s.
the variant
*
ju-oFoyei/r/s
This reading has stronger attestation than wo s, which looks like a correction. It must
This has been noted by Dalman, WJ. p. 231. Deissmann (LAE. pp. 125 ff.) defends ir\r)pr]S is the reading of Cod. D. as an indeclinable adjective, on the score of popular usage; and is followed by 3 The same view was earlier put forward by Blass, Moulton p. 50).
t This
(NTG.
(Eng.
Grammar
\
tr.
ff.
1898),
31, 6,
and by C. H. Turner
in
Journal of Thcol. Studies
(1900), pp. 120
40
APRELIMINJARYTEST
.
be admitted, however, that the expression (though fully in accord with the teaching of the Prologue) is hardly to be expected after the preceding, No man hath seen God at any time It may
be suggested that the Aramaic Krg Tnj, the only- begotten of God has been misunderstood as Kr6g TIT (Absolute for Construct State), and so rendered, the only-begotten God
,
.
thus appears that nearly every verse of the Prologue yields evidence pointing to an Aramaic original. Besides, however, the special points which have been discussed, we notice generally
It
(i)
the simplicity of construction, with

K<H
its
fondness for co-ordination

1
>
3 5 10 11 14 of sentences linked by and (2) the (cf. especially w. ) many cases of parallelism in thought and expression a marked
trait
of
Hebrew
poetic composition.
Close study of this latter

fact.
characteristic brings to light a
most interesting
The Prologue
seems
take the form of a hymn, written in eleven parallel couplets, with comments introduced here and there by the writer.
to
This may be clearly seen
in the
Aramaic translation which
follows,
together with an English rendering of it. In making the translation the Judaean dialect has been used as far as possible. On the
distinction
between the Judaean and Galilaean
dialects of Aramaic,
see Dalman,
Gramm.
pp. 33
ff.*
Kin
torn
The
differences are slight.
We
f.
have chosen
but
NiPl
see
rather than NDP1,

N;>N
yi
<t
<know
rather than
D3H, (il^N
__
in preference to
and the nominal
ist plural suffix
NJ
rather than
verbal ist plural suffix
O_
;
rather than
is
Possibly the Relative should be
as in Biblical
is
Aramaic
but ^
the
Choice of the Judaean dialect authorship put forward on pp. 133 ff.
Targumic form.
bound up with the view of
OF PROLOGUE
nn
.
41
tiro
nb
(pnn
or) \inpj
^nî pn^
nn^ n 3âi?^
i|
ji
x jo N^n (?
pp
15
or)
^^l
IP
;p
fp
NO
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, the darkness obscured it 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 should bear witness of the light. It was the true light that lighteth
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
will of the flesh,
nor of the
man, but of God.

8.
And And
the
set
Word was made

His Sh
e
flesh,
klnta
among
us.
9.
And we beheld His Glory,

Glory as of the only-begotten of the Father.
10.
He was
full
of grace and truth,
Of Whose
fullness
we
all
have received,
And
grace for grace.

11.
For the law was given through Moses, Grace and truth through the Messiah.
No man
the
hath ever seen

of the Father
God
bosom
He
the
the only-begotten of God, hath revealed/
Who
is in
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
forming, as
p.
it
were,
its
363) remarks that

1
9 Dr. Driver (Literature of the O. T. this kind of rhythm is all but peculiar to the
climax.
most elevated poetry and quotes as instances Ps. 29 92 2 93*, 3 13 There is something analogous to it, though much 94 96 U3 less forcible and distinct, in some of the "Songs of Ascents"
;
",
(Pss. 121-34),
where a somewhat emphatic word

-
is
repeated from
-
one verse
v.
7
-
(or line) in
2b 3a
-
8a
;
i22
&c.
the next, as Ps. i2i lb 2 (help); v. 3b ; v. ; Climactic parallelism is very characteristic

4
-
4b 5a
OF PROLOGUE
of the
43
Song of Deborah;
f.
see note in the writer s
Commentary on
in the
Judges, pp. 169
The
:
following examples
may be noted
poem
4.
of the Prologue
in
Because
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,
received
|
And His own

9.
Him
the
not.
And we
beheld His glory,
Glory
as
|
of
only-begotten
of the
Father.
10.
He was
the
full
of grace and truth,

|
Of Whose
Of
It
fullness
we
all
have received.
remaining couplets, i, 2, and 8 may be reckoned as are antithetical. synonymous, while 3, 6, and
be noted that the couplets, besides being parallel, appear also to be rhythmical, each line containing three stresses. In v. 37 in place of &a Iô-oO Xpio-rov the translation offers through
,
should
the Messiah
simply, inetri gratia.
Irjo-ov
may
very naturally have
come
in as a later addition.
Additional Note on the interpretation of Jn.

tJie
1!
as referring
to
Virgin-Birth
(cf.
p. 34).
There
and
St.
is
an essential unity
as
to the
in the teaching of St.
Luke,
St. Paul,
John
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 was the formation of light, breaking in upon the physical darkness which had previously covered primeval chaos, so was the birth of Christ the dawn
and
all
of mankind
therefore
their theme.
Just as
God
s first creative act
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.
r
,
ov yap eatrous KT/pwrcro/xei
dAAa Xpiorov
44
Kvpiov,
. .
.
A
on
6
TT/>OS
PRELIMINARY TEST
eos 6 euro )!/ E/c
<f)<DTLO-[Jiov
O~/COTOI>S
</>a>s
Xa/xiêt, os f.X.afjuf/fv ey rais
T^S yj/oVeoos
5
,
-nys
8o^/5 TOV
s
,
eoS cV Trpoo-wTrw
i
i:t .
Cf. also
Cor. 4
2 Cor.
6",
Eph. 5
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

in
it
is
stated that the Logos, as the
Agent
Creation, represented the
introduction of Light into the world, and, by an almost imperceptible transition, the writer s thought passes from the introduction of life
and
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 P3?!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 Kptcns whereby Light and darkness were sharply distinguished and men had to range themselves under the
one or the other
19
~21
(Jn. 3
cf.
9,
i2
:!5 - :;G -
4C
).*
Turning
to
the
Birth-narrative of St. Luke, it is surely not fanciful to find in the Words of the angel in I , Hi/eC/m dytov eVeAeô-eTat CTTi (T, Kal Swa/xis
:<0
Yij/io-rov
eVio-Kicwm
Spirit of
God
is
an implied reference to Gen. i 2 where the pictured as brooding or hovering ? ?! ?) over tne
crot,
,
1
1
O"
face of the waters in the initial process of Creation
which issues
in
the production of light.t So for St. Luke the Divine Birth means the dawning of dvaroXr; c fyovs, tTTiâvai TOIS cv o-KOTfL KOL
o-Kia 6a.va.rov KaOrj/jicvoLS (i 78
79
),
and
<<s
ets
a.7roi<a.Xvif/iv
eOvuv (2^).
Again, the connexion in thought between the Old Creation and

*
similar mystical interpretation of the Genesis passage

iii.
is
Bereshith Rabba, par.
10;
Rabbi Yannai
said,
When He
began
given in Midrash 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
"And
God
said. Let there
be
light",
i.e.
the works of the righteous.
works
day",
divided between the light and between the darkness "between the of the righteous and the works of the wicked. "And God called the light,
i.e.
God
i.e.
the works of the wicked.
the works of the righteous. "And the darkness he called, night "And there was morning", i.e. the works of the
,
"And there was "One evening", i.e. the works of the wicked. inasmuch as the Holy One blessed be He) gave them one day. And what is this? The Day of Atonement. f This Genesis passage is applied in Midrash Bereshith Rabba to the endowment of the Messiah with the Divine Spirit; This is the Spirit of the King-Messiah, as
righteous.
day",
it is
said,
"And
the Spirit of the Lord shall rest
upon Him
".
OF PROLOGUE
the
45
first
New
is
explicit in St.
Paul
s
;
teaching as to the
OI;TW<?
Adam
and
the Second
Adam
in
Cor. 15^
/cat
yeypavrrat EyeVeto 6 Trptoros
This
is
worked out
and
in the
n-vevfjLa,
and frequent antithesis between representation of baptism as a burial with Christ

in the
<rap
in
which
6 TroAcuos r]^wv avOptoiros is

life
put
off,
:iff
and the baptized

-).
rises
with Christ to newness of

antithesis
(Rom. 6
We
6
r>i
find
the
same
between
<rdp
and
Tn/evfia in
Jn.
3",
the whole of the
discussion with
is
Nicodemus
In &*
in ch.
it
3.
3 turning on the new birth which

stated,
in
K TOV
TrvcvfjLaTos.
is
contrast to o-dp, that
TO Tn/ev/m eo-Tiv TO
St.
o)07roiow,
be accidental.
Paul s eyeVeTo ... 6 This connexion would,
thought of which the connexion with eo-âTOS A8a/x ets irvevâ. ÔOTTOIOVJ/ Can hardly
it
may be presumed, be
;
generally explained by the theory of the influence of Pauline Theology upon the writer of the Fourth Gospel and this may
be
St.
so.
A
,
fact,
however, which
/cat
Paul
s OUTOJS
ye y/raTTTat
surely beyond question is that refers not simply to the quotation from
nostrils
is
Gen. 2 7
Me
breathed
into his
,
the breath of
life,
and
man became
first
a living soul
the
Tri
but
to the
whole passage relating
to the
Adam and
second
Adam, from e yeWo down
to ÔJOTTOIOW.
depends upon eyeVtTo 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
eS/xa ^MOTTOLOVV
6 eo-âTo? ASa/x ets
stop (R.V.).
Had
it
been
St.
Paul
own
addition,
could
he
at
possibly have phrased the sentence thus, and not have written
least o Se ecrâTOS ASa/x eyeVeTO
If,
ei? Trvfv/Jia
^WOTTOLOVV ?
derived 1
however, the whole passage is a quotation, whence was it There can be no doubt that the form in which St. Paul s
argument is cast is influenced by Rabbinic speculation, and that the Rabbinism of Palestine.* Though born at Tarsus, he claims
*
The expression
to us in
p J N~in
D*TN
the
first
Adam
is
well
known
in
early
is
Midrashic literature.
pin^H DTK
the second
Adam
i.e.
the Messiah,
not
known
Midrash before the Nfwe shdlont, the work of a Spanish Jew in the I5th century A. D (cf. Thackeray, 7 he Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish but the Midrash Bereshith Rabba (ascribed by tradition to Thought, pp. 40 ff.)
; l
R. Hoshaiah, 3rd century A.D.) brings the Messiah into contrast with the first Adam when, in commenting on Gen. 2*, These are the generations of the heaven
and the earth
word
for
quotes earlier Rabbinical speculation as to the reason \\ hy the generations is written plene with 1 only in this passage and in Ruth 4 18
,
it
46
to
PRELIMINARY TEST
1
be E/?patos e E/3patW(Phil. 3 5 ), i. e. not a EAAiyi/wrnfc (cf. Acts 6 ), and he obtained his education at Jerusalem under Gamaliel, who
was one of the most prominent Rabbinic teachers of the time

3 (Acts 22 ).
But prior to St. Paul s conversiqn the earliest circle of Christian believers at Jerusalem was drawn not merely from the
peasant-class, but
of the priests teaching, but
who would
embraced (according to Acts a great company have been unversed in Rabbinic scarcely
6")
may be supposed to have applied such learning as had acquired to the service of the new Faith. they It is by no means improbable, therefore, that the passage as a whole may have been drawn from a collection of O. T. Testimonial,
object of meeting Rabbinic
composed with the
Judaism upon
its
own
be objected to this suggestion that elsewhere ground.* N. T. yeypaTrrai introduces a definite citation from throughout the
If
it
the O. T., and that this
is
also the case with allusions to
-fj
cites the inference that 1,
These are the generations of Perez (JTn. Ifl, but elsewhere always lYl/lfl), and which numerically = 6, implies that the six things which
lost
Adam
i.e.
through the
Fall shall
be restored at the coining of

as a life-giver
the son of Perez

(cf.
the Davidic Messiah.
The Messiah appears

,
-nvivua fao-rroiovv)
the Midrash hag-gadol to Genesis (compiled by a Yemenite Jew of the i4th 11 states that there are six persons whose century) which, commenting on Gen. i6
in
names were given to them before their birth, On the last Josiah. and the King-Messiah.
it is
"
viz.
it
Ishmael, Isaac, Moses, Solomon,

Yinnon".
says,
written,
Before the sun his

is
name
is
shall be
The King-Messiah, because And why is his name
called Yinnon ? because he
destined to quicken those

Ps.
72"
\"Q&
who
sleep in the dust.
Here
O. T.,
l.he
Scriptural passage quoted

1
\\P BfcB* *3BJ)
Before the
sun shall his name

is
propagate"
(or
prodit
treated as a Messianic title
He
and the verbal form, only here in who quickens Tiiis Midrash is quoted by
c life },
.
Raymund
Martin
in his
born at Narbonne
chap, ii, about the middle of the

Fictei,
Pnîo
n, who refers nth century
it
to
Moses had-Darshan,
Late as
this
is,
A. D.
we
have the evidence of the Talmud (Sanhedrin, 986) that Yinnon was early regarded as a Messianic title, for in the passage in question the pupils of R. Yannai (an Amora of the first generation and to 3rd century A. D.) maintain, as a compliment
to their teacher, that the
Messiah s name is to be Yinnon. The Psalm-passage is quoted in Midrash Bereshith Rabba, par. i. 5, as evidence that the name of the Messiah existed prior to the creation cf the world, though it is not there stated
that
Yinnon
is to
be taken as his name.

this
Though no part of
ist
Midrashic speculation can be traced back
to
the
century A. D., it serves to illustrate the kind of Rabbinic teaching which may well have formed part of St. Paul s early training. * Cf. Sanday, The Gospels in the Second Century, p. 272; know that types
We
and prophecies were eagerly sought out by the early Christians, and were soon collected in a kind of common stock from which every one drew at his pleasure.
OF PROLOGUE
(with the possible exception of
*
47
Agios 6 cpydrrjs rov ^LcrOov avrov
seem
Tim. 5 where our Lord s words to be included under the term),

,
1S
it
may be
replied that St.
Paul s quotation does consist of such
from the O. T. plus a deduction therefrom, and would ex hypothesi be derived from a collection of proofs based on the
a citation
O. T. and therefore drawn
e*
ruv ypa^tav.
We
may
further
draw
attention to the use of this formula of citation in the Epistle of
Barnabas 4 14 where our Lord

,
words
in
Mt. 22 14 are quoted:

e/<Xe/cTot
^TTOTC,
cos
yeypaTrrcu, TroAAot K\r)roi, oAiyot Sc

17
tvpe-
Similarly, the formula Ae yei yap
ypa^
5fi .
is
used in Barnabas
i6 5 to introduce a quotation from Enoch 89 66 45 as wholly a quotation If, then, this interpretation of i Cor. i5 be correct, the implication is that some time before St. Paul wrote
his Epistle in
A.D. 55-6, the antithesis between the
first
Adam
and Christ as the second

surely modifies
Adam had
in
been worked out

argument.
in Christian
Rabbinic circles and was used

the question
This conclusion
of the dependence of the Fourth Gospel upon St. Paul in regard to the teaching here involved, suggesting as it does the alternative theory that both may have
been
dependent upon a common
earlier
method of theological
expression of the truths of the Incarnation. St. Luke supplies us with further food for thought in this con nexion. His Birth-narrative is certainly from a Jewish-Christian
source, and
of
it
is generally acknowledged to be early. If any portions are earlier than the rest, these are the poems which it contains
;
and the angel and Nunc

all
words
at the
Annunciation are no less a poem
cast in rhythmical parallelism than are the Magnificat, Benediclus,
have had occasion to cite passages from except the Magnificat, in arguing the unity of their thought with that of St. Paul and St. John. may now note the fact that St. Luke carries back our Lord s genealogy to Adam,
dhnittis.
We
these,
We
who was
is
the son of
God
is
:is
(3
).
What
is
the reason for this?
Doubtless one reason
to be
found
in the fact that his
Gospel
pre-eminently a universal Gospel for the whole Gentile world also.
not for the Jews only but May not, however, another
(and perhaps the prime) reason be that the fact that the first Adam was born not by natural generation but by an act of God, in itself
suggests the reasonableness that the second
Adam
should likewise
48
so be born ?
PRELIMINARY TEST
it is
If this is so,
of course likely that St.
Luke may
have owed his conception to St. Paul s doctrine of Christ as the second Adam but, if our argument has been sound, St. Paul
;
himself owed
it
to
an earlier source, embodied

If,
in a collection of
eov
if
Tcslunonia for general use.

links itself
then, St.
Luke
s TOV ASa/x, rov
on
to vlos
cov in the
words of the Annunciation, and

St.
his thought
shows connexion with
Paul s doctrine of the two
Adams,
is it
likely that St. Paul, in enunciating this doctrine,

*
was
ignorant of the tradition of the Virgin-Birth ?

*
This point has already been brought out by Dr. Box, The Virgin Birth of
f.,
Jesus, pp. 38
150.
CHAPTER
II
THE SENTENCE
Asyndeton.
highly characteristic of Aramaic to open its sentences without the use of a connective particle. In this respect abruptly its contrast with Hebrew is very marked, the latter language
IT
is
in prose to connect a sentence with regularly employing And 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
2 4a 8
,
12 are written in Hebrew, while chs. 2 4
7 are in
Aramaic.
Dan.
(i.e. all
2 4w (Hebrew) consists of 23 sentences. but the opening verse of ch i) begin with

1
Of these, 22 And (some

).
times variously rendered in R.V. Then But ~ Dan. 2 5 (Aramaic) contains 44 sentences.
, 4!)
So Of these, 22
particle.
begin,
a connective particle, openings are as follows
with
and 22 without such
The
With connective
(>
particle.
Without connective particle.

v
v.
;m
And
if.
N3 ^ D
i
-,
n jy
.
Answered
the
v?
p H
For if.
king
.
And the word And the decree

v. v.
14
^>frOn
v v
.
:y
They answered
^D
my
.
Answered
the
pnsn
l
^>
xnÔ
Then Daniel Then the JHN
king v
Nn
nri
(
word
v.
Answered the wy Chaldaeans

.
w
i>y
fo ni
And Daniel went

Then Daniel Then pIN
. .
m
v.
11
^^
Because of this
v^
pns
to
IDNI
njy
.
He
<
answered
bwn
a
and said
v
*>
v"
^rh
Daniel
^^
njy
.
Answered
Daniel
50
i
TH
P*IN
SENTENCE
.
fHN
Then Daniel Then Arioch

I
.
v.
in
He
-jb
revealeth
ni>x
To
thee the
.
And
ipT
God
Then
were
i/.
of
my
fathers
piN2 broken
nn
^3p
this
.
^3
Because
of
-pnitt
And
la^DI
after thee
N2fe nay
king
^Nâi
.
Answered
nay
.
the
N^yai
And
.
the fourth
kingdom
nnnn
Hi
Answered
And whereas
.
Daniel
jrobn
thou sawest
Thy dream
Thou,
K^n
v.*
nyaVNI
nirrn HI
And the toes And whereas thou

,
N nta nn3N
1
king
sawest
;DT
KD/V
Nin
fiTV3l days K37O plN3 Then the king Nsta JHK Then the king
,,49
And
in their
NE>
This image That image
nîn run
v.
NE>>n
Thou sawest
This
.
is
the
And
Daniel
dream
v?
1
vzhft
nn^N
Thou,
king
nnvn
4
^3p ^3
.
Whereas
the
thou sawest
v.
roy
Answered
king
This
great
characteristic
of Daniel.
frequency of unconnected sentences is equally of the rest of the Aramaic portion of the Book In ch. 8 the Hebrew begins again, and here we have
27 sentences (corresponding with the verse-division). Of these, 24 begin with And (sometimes rendered, Then Now So Yea ), and 3 only (vv. ]A w ) without any connective particle. It will thus be seen how clear is the distinction in style between
,
,
167 B.C.). When do find a paucity of connective particles, entirely owing to the influence of Aramaic. Now great frequency of sentences opening without a connective If we particle is a marked characteristic of the Fourth Gospel.
Aramaic and Hebrew even of so
late a date
(c.
we come down
to the
Hebrew
of the Mishna,
we
take ch.
&c.). where neglecting openings in speeches (tw.-~ is natural in Greek as in English we find 34 asyndeton asyndeton
i
,
23
THE SENTENCE
particles,
8e
51
In the 28 sen openings, as against 28 with connective particle. tences which have connective these are /cat 19
times,
4 times,
OTL twice,
ovi>
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 The openings are as follows (cf. p. 49).
:
doubly as frequent as
With connective particle.
Without connective
t]V.
V."
particle.
our 05
r)v.
TrdvTa 8Y avTov eyeVcro.

ev auroi
V."
^(ury ?yV.
Kal TO
cioi?.
eyeVero
ovro5
OVK
JjV
K.LVOS TO
<^>a>5
^)U)5.
TJV
TO
ru>
ro aXfjOtvov-
lv
Koo-fjuo rjv.
et5 TO. LOLa riXOf.
V.
V.
12
oo-oi 8e.
a
b
Kal 6 Aoyos
Kal
OTL
V.^
V.
6
K TOV
O/XOS.
OTL O
is
V. V.
2(i
to?.
/cat
avTrj ecrrii
KOL
a
K(
<j)jJLoX6yr)o~cv.
V.-
V.
2lb
KOL Aeyet.
V."
eTTraj/
ow.
24
I^.
Kat
/cat
u.7rO"TaX/j,eVot.
V."
r)p<*)Tr)o-av.
V.
2:>
Ti
ow
3airrici<: ;
V."
/X0-05 V/JiUV 0-TrjKfL
V/*
V.
/cayco
Trj tTravptov
/ÂeVct
OVK
ry6etv
V*-
Kal
E 2
52
V. V.
A
THE SENTENCE
Kttyco
OVK yfiv avrov.

V.
3
Kttyw fiopaxa.
/cat /cat
rrj iTravpiov TraXiv tcrr^/cci.
e/x/SAe i/^.
rjKOVcrav.
ot Se ctTrai/.
V.
Ae yet avrois.
A$ai/
ow.
V.
4(}
r/v
41
Av8pea9.
0^x09
V.
evptcr/cet
42a
yytLytv avrov.
v.^
V.
rjv
V.
aura).
/cat cLTrtv
4
.
Aeya
4/
avrai 6 ^t
Iô-oSs.
i;.
etSei/
V.
4Sa
Aeyet aurai NaâvaÂ.
^.
Dl
/cat
Ae ya
avra>.
In order to prove that this characteristic is found throughout we may take two other chapters from the middle and end consisting mainly of narrative. Ch. 1 1 contains
the Fourth Gospel,
25.26. -7.34.35.396.ô.4-1
59 sentences, of which 17 have no connective particle (w, 8 9M 1L23 24 -^ conta ins 52 sentences, and 20 of these ^.4sj.
-
*-
are without connective particle ( .t*"-JMi-*J.s*-MM^--i8). This is a smaller proportion than in ch. i ; yet, as compared with
the Synoptists, it is a very high one. To take three chapters at random from the latter Mt. 3 contains 13 sentences, none without
connective particle; Mk. i contains 38 sentences, 2 only without Lk. 8 contains 60 sentences, 2 only connective particle (vv. *) without connective particle (vv* bA *).
1
Asyndeton
dTre/c/ot^, dTre/cptô-av
asyndeton
np.y, UJJ.
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 (soand-so)
This
is
very characteristic,
THE SENTENCE
,
53
28 examples occurring in the six Aramaic chapters, while there 17 6 14 ), and none at all of are only 2 cases of Then answered (5 In contrast, the whole Hebrew O.T. offers And answered
.
Answered (Song2 10 rendered only 2 such unconnected openings, 56 Ps. n8 ), while there are 145 cases of And spake in R.V.
, ;
answered (so-and-so) ?jn, Ujn, &c. The odotion s version of Dan. does not always represent this but where it does, it regularly renders Aramaic Answered
,
aTTtxptfr),
aTreKptOrjo-av
(11
-
asyndeton
in 4 cases (2~
7 10
-
times; once airoKpiOek), preserving the 27 4 ), but elsewhere prefixing K ai. These
12 passages, in all of which the Aramaic phrase is regularly before statement of the words spoken, followed by and said
,
are as follows 2 27 2
s
njy
,
uy
ruy
Kttt flTTaV.
-lEKi
Kat
t7Tl
uy
Kat Kai
Kai XeyovcriF.
Kai eiTrev.
2-
-1EN1
ruy
ruy
nay
Ka i Ae yei.
2 17
3"
; .
3"
uy
Kat
Kttl
.
. .
Xeyorrc?.
i
Kai
.
Kat
In the Fourth Gospel openings Go times (see below),
a^p^ or aTrtKpMrjo-av occurs as asyndeton

38
u7roK/>iW<u
owc^, i3
On
;
the other
, ,
9-"
hand, we have
os Se aireKptOri,
ovv,
avreKpi^ ovv,
;
7" ,
9"
I2
\
34
;
aTreKptOrja-av ovv,
2 1S 7
5"
air tKpiva.ro orv,
6 8e aireicpivaTO,
23
;
13-; o 8e iTyo-oCs airoKpiverai, i2 as an opening with connective particle, as against 66 cases without. Elsewhere in the whole N.T. atrtxptfr] as an asyndeton opening
i.e.
airOKptverai 5 11 cases of this verb
occurs only in Mk.

is
12".
In the Synoptists the
common phrase
,
Se
dTroKpitfeis
(dTTOKpi&ts
&)
ctTrer,
common Hebrew phrase

of which
it
"UDSÎ
iJH
which rather resembles the And he answered and said

in
Of
in LXX. frequently the rendering the 65 cases of asyndeton opening aireKpiOrj,

is
wjrtKpiOirivav
54
Jn.,
i
49
,
THE SENTENCE
-
38 introduce the words spoken without further verb, viz. 5 7 11 6 7 68 70 7 20 8 19 33 34 49 54 93 11 27 io 25 32 33 34 n 9 , i 3 8 i6 31 5 5.8.20. 2 26 l8 have 3.34.35.3G,^ j^-lLK-H ^5. W ^yw, I
-
4fi
:if
^^
:
<
^^
,
while in the 26 other cases the opening is aTrtKpiOrj (aareKpiOyo-av) 48 50 2 19 3 10 -% 4 KO! ctirev (eTTrav), viz. I 526.29^ ^1.52^ gu.^ 8 30 34 30 30 7 IS 2oIt is difficult to resist the conclusion i2 , is I4 9 ,
. .
">-".i7^
2:!
that aTrfxpiOr) Kal
and
d7rfKpi0i]<rav
a literal rendering of the Aram. *tt?N1 npV KOI eiTrav of P"}B] for which, as we have seen, fojj,
diTTfv
is
they stand in Theodotion
Daniel.
Asyndeton Xe yei, Xeyowu/

Similarly,
r8
asyndeton ^PN
(participle),
we
/C8
constantly find that Jn. uses Xe yei as an opening
without connective particle.

21.25.26.34.49.50
The
,-.12
cases are
39 46 48
-
2 57 3 4
,
47.11.15.16.17.19.
-50
O:!9
>
T *
,23.24.27.39 fct*.40.44 L
>
T ^0.8.9.10.36.37 1
T . 5.6.8.9.22 T4
l8
5.1 7
.26.38^
\iyova-iv
cKciviy
. . .
J9 B.15^ 2O i:.-5.16.17.29^ without connective

Xeyei,
2][
3.10.1 2 .15
W..16/,r.l7M.-:2
&
ii 8
total
-
Qf
,
6g>
particle
occurs
,
in
154
,
i6 29
2i 3
2o 15 8
:3
aXXoi IXeyov in io 21
/cat
i2 29
14
On
/cai
the other hand,
we have
2I 5 7
the opening
Xey
in
24 8
42
;
iQ
Xeyouo-tv in
2O 13
,
Kat cXeyev in
,
r5 ,
/cat
tXeyov in
Ae yei
o*j/
:il
in
4,
7",
I3
27 33
l8 17
,
19 Xeyowiv 8 19 25 9 10 16 II 36 l6 18 I 9 20 8e in io ; eTra Xeyet in

;
-
orv in
]
9
5
eXeycv ovv in
8
4
;
IXeyov ovv in
4
V
;
20"
Xeya
;
&
i.e.
in I2
e^Xeycv 8e in
6 71
yoi/
27 9% 2o
a total of 31 openings with
connective particle, as against 70 without such particle. In Mt. Xeyei as an asyndeton opening occurs 16 times,
l6 15 ,
I
25
viz.
l8 22 ,
viz.
I 28
8 18 20
-
10 times,
i9
7 10
-
20 7 21 83 2I 31 42 22 26 15 33 64 2 7 22 Xe yoi O-tv 2 o 7 -^ 3 2i 3 41 22 42 27-. In Mk. Xtyt thus

-
4:t
19 In Lk. Xeyet. in i6 7 i9 C2 ; Xeyovo-ti/ never. never; Xeyouo-iv in 8 .* In Acts there are no occurrences of Xcyet, Xe yowni/ as asyndeton
,
openings. That the historical present in Jn., of which Xe yet is the most frequent example, represents the similar usage of the participle
in
Aramaic,
is
argued later on
"tt?^
(p. 88).
There are no instances

in
of the asyndeton opening

*
(participle)
Dan., because the
The absence
Gospel
is
this
of this asyndeton usage in Mk. is a point against the view that a liicral translation of an Aramaic document. There are very many
cases where Mk. uses KOI Ae7, u 5e Xeyei as openings, where Jn. would certainly have used asyndeton \tya. Cf. e.g., for the difference in style, the dialogue of MK. i a 1 *- 7
.
THE SENTENCE
writer of this book prefers
55
the formula
Answered and said*
This latter phrase, however, which we have already noticed. much favoured in Dan., seems to have been practically confined so to Western Aramaic, being unused in Syriac, except in translation,
as in the Peshitta of the O.T.*
in its
is
Ordinarily in Aramaic, especially Eastern branch, the asyndeton opening (participle) one of the most characteristic features of the language in
~>EN,
^l
description of a dialogue
to
and
this naturally lends itself in
asyndeton example, the Syriac Ada Thomae in the offers twelve examples of the usage.
a rendering by the
historical
first
present Ae yei.
Greek For
four pages (ed. Wright)
The
sat
following
(p.
is
:
a literal
rendering of a dialogue-passage from this
work
J^D)
And when
merchant says
to
practise?"
they had embarked and

to
down, Habban the
Judas,
"What
is
the craft that thou art able
Judas
a
says to him,
Carpentry and architecture
the
work of
"What
stone?"
Habban the merchant says to him, carpenter". art thou skilled to make in wood, and what in hewn wood I have learned to make Judas says to him,
"In
;
and ploughs and yokes and ox-goads, and oars for ferry-boats 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
"
to
him,
"/
With
Jn.2i
15
this
:
-17
we may compare
the
structure of the dialogue in
So when they had broken

"Simon,
their fast, Jesus says to
Simon
love
Peter,
son of John, lovest thou

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

all
And he
sheep
*
".
said to
I
Him,
love
Thou knowest
Jesus says
to
things;
Thou
knowest that
him,
"Feed
My
According
to
Dalman (WJ.
p.
25) the formula
is
unknown
in
later
Jewish
Aramaic.
56
THE SENTENCE
This very striking resemblance
in
structure between the two

;_*>/
= Xe yei and asyndeton both as regards pictorial usage is no mere chance and isolated phenomenon. Dialogues so framed are frequent in the Fourth Gospel (cf. especially the
passages
references to Aeyet in chs.
parallels from
4,
n,
13,
14,
18, 20),
and innumerable
Aramaic might be
collected.*
Parataxis.
Peculiarly Semitic
is
the simplicity of construction employed
throughout the Fourth Gospel. Sentences are regularly co-ordi Subordinate sentences are few and nated, and linked by
K<H.
where the writer embarks exceptionally upon a somewhat complex sentence, he speedily becomes involved 4 in difficulty. i^~ is more successful as Greek but this passage,
far between.
,
In 6 22~- 4
Such simplicity of point of style, practically stands alone. t construction can of course to some extent be paralleled from the
in
Synoptic sources, particularly from Mk. But not even in Mk. does it attain anything like the vogue which it has in Jn.
Comparative rarity of Aorist Participle describing action

anterior to finite verb.
In speaking above of Jn. s phrase of the Aorist Participle, e.g.
d-n-eKpiOr]
KO!
tl-jrev,
we
noticed
that the Synoptic equivalent subordinates the prior action

6 Se d7roK/H#eis
etTrei/,
by use
i.e.
the natural
Greek construction.
struction in Jn.
e.g.
Though we occasionally find this latter con /u ep./3M\l/as it is far less common Aeyet
3f)
. .
than in the Synoptists. An approximate count yields the following figures, the proportions of which are worked out according to the pages of
WH.
* The asyndeton construction is also frequent in Rabbinic Hebrew (under the influence of Aramaic), though here in description of past events the Perfect is 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 ?
They
are
said to him,
We
are the messengers of the

said to him,
Holy One, blessed be He.

the Lord,
&c.>
What
ye seeking?
They
Thus
saith
We
may
of the Genitive absolute
note that v? contains two out of the only seventeen occurrences which are found in Jn.
THE SENTENCE
pp. in
57
Proportion per page. 5
WH.
Occurrences.
Mt.
68
41 72
338
224
324
58
i,
Mk.
Lk.
Jn.
Prof.
5i
4J
1
53
Moulton (NTG. 3
p.
K<U,
12),
in
speaking of
co-ordination
in place of the use of participles of clauses with the simple or subordinate clauses remarks that in itself the phenomenon
,
proves
nothing
more than would a
string
of
"ands"
in
an
English rustic s story elementary culture, and not the hampering presence of a foreign idiom that is being perpetually translated into its most literal equivalent This may be so in itself ; here,
.
however,
we have
to
ask why,
if
avoidance of the participial
construction in favour of co-ordination
we
find this striking disproportion
"which
the figures reveal.
is natural to Ko/r/ Greek, between Jn. and the Synoptists The answer has been supplied else
where by Dr. Moulton himself.

can be defended as good
KOLVTJ
The
Greek
.*
over-use of locutions which

is
a test of
Greek which
is
virtually or actually translated
Comparative rarity of Genitive absolute.
As compared with
absolute in Jn.
is
the
Synoptists,
the
use of the Genitive

figures are, Mt.
infrequent.
The approximate
48, 36, Lk. 59, Jn. 17; i.e. the Synoptists exhibit but slight variation in their use of the construction, and use it about 2^ times as often as Jn. While the Synoptists use the construction,
Mk.
almost without exception, in temporal clauses, Jn. employs it with more elasticity of meaning than is found in the Triple Tradition. A causal meaning or "because"} is implied,
("<7s"
probably or certainly,
in
:
Though is certainly implied i2 2i and perhaps in 20 (Abbott, JG. 2028-31). The rarity of the Genitive absolute in Jn. is due partly to the
,
.
in 2
:{
5,
6 18
"
"
"
use of parataxis: e.g. KOL I KOL Xeyet OVK ei/zi

4(>
1
I"
/col
^ptorrycrav
avrov Ti ovv
. .
(TV
H/Vetas el;
6
in
flrrev
UUTW Naâi/aryA,
A.eyei
ai/ru>
*
full
Cambridge on p. 7.
Biblical Essays, p. 474.
The quotation has already been given
58
I^
s
THE SENTENCE
Xe yet aura)
Naâva^X
U7re/cpt$r/
Irjo-ovs
</7
Kal flirev aurw (contrast

airrw 6
lycrovs.
r)v
Mt. ly 26
/ecu
4a
eiTroVros 6V
Avro ruV dXXorptW,

. .
Lk. 2 1 1
rii/oov
XeyoVrooi/
etTrev).
46
^X#ev
ow
/cat
<
rts
/cat
*HX$ov
ow
ot vTnype rat
Trpos rous
ap^Lfpi<5
Kal
I?apto"atotis,
avTOis
e/eeii/ot
Mt. ly 14 24
atirous 6
28 /cat eX0oVros aurou (contrast Mt. 8 /cat /cat crKorta 77877 2I 2! ). 6 cyeyoi/et,
1
VTrr)VT r]<rav aura).
OUTTOO
eXr/Xuêt
ly/o-oS?
(contrast Mt. 8
6
I^crovs
29
16
oi^tas 8e
r(3
ytvofjievr)<s
Trpoo-^vey/cai/
1O21 24 Kat
TreptCTraret
ev
itpw
e/cv/cXaxrav ovv
avrov
ot
lovSatot (contrast
Lk. II
Ttov 8e o^Xwi/ eTra^potô/xeVwv ^pâro Xeyeti/).
place of the Genitive absolute is also taken in Jn. by a temporal clause introduced by ore, a construction for which, as
The
compared with the Synoptists, this writer shows a relative fond 21 ness. Neglecting cases in which ore has an antecedent (e.g. Jn. 4
epxerat wpa ore.
So 423 5 25 g\ i6 23 ),
, ,
there are 16 cases of ore intro
ducing a temporal clause in Jn., as against 13 in Mt, 10 in Mk., 10 in Lk. If Jn. were as long as Mt., there would be propor tionately 21 cases; if as long as Lk., 22 cases; if as short as Mk.
13 cases.
The occurrences
of
o>s
= when
Mk.
introducing a temporal
none.
d>s
clause in Jn. are 16; Lk. 16; Mt. and
In cases where the subject of the ore or clause is the same as that of the principal clause, the temporal clause so introduced of course takes the place of an Aorist Participle in the nominative.
These
jj6.2o.2-j.:
in
2.:^
Jn. are
ore,
6 i4
i3
12
,
12
19"-
2 i 18
in
As,
!)
M
",
I9 :i3^ 2I ^
There remain 8 cases
which, the subject
the Genitive absolute might have been used of the ws clause. These are ore, i 19 2 22
,
,
of the ore clause being different from that of the principal clause, and 5 similar cases ;
^*,
i2 1(U7
4
,
13
2o"
2i
15
;
u>5,
2 23
;
6 12
lfi
10
,
i8
f)
Similar cases in Lk. are

cases in which a ore or
J>s
ore 6,
o>
Mt. ore 7
Mk.
ore 9.
Thus
clause takes
the place of a Genitive absolute are in Jn. 13, as against Lk. 14, Mt. 7, Mk. 9. Though the figures in Jn. and Lk. are thus similar,
it
should be borne in mind that Lk.
is
considerably longer (72 pp.
WH.
as against 53 pp.), and also contains much more narrative, to which, in distinction from speeches, by far the greater number
of such temporal clauses belong. Thus we are justified in finding in Jn., as compared with the Synoptists, a preponderance of which serve to explain temporal clauses introduced by ore or
<!)?,
THE SENTENCE
(along with
parataxis) the
59
Genitive
comparative rarity of the
absolute in this Gospel. Now the use of H3, 13, Syr. ,5 when to introduce a tem poral clause is very common in Aramaic. This is the ordinary construction employed in the Syriac versions to render a
temporal
clause which
Greek expresses by the Genitive

in
absolute.
The
first
few cases of the Genitive absolute

this (the
literal
Lk. will serve to

finite
illustrate
rendering
when
followed by the
verb gives the
representation of the Syriac construction).

rjye/j.oi
evovTO<s
Lk. 2 2
Pal.
rrjs
^,vpta<s
KvpyvLov.
Syr.
.
Uom^
ôo^ô
J6o
when Quirinius was

in
in
Syria Pesh.
in S.
U>a^x=>
*DOLUcua
jiujso.^H=>
the
hegemony of
the
Q
Q.,
Sin.
îauD?
ââ^pt
ôai^;^
woia
in
years
of
governor of S.
KOL ore
s copTrjs, KOLI
yvf.ro ecoj/
TOJi/
oje/<ra,
avi
TeAawcrdi
rus
r/ê/jus, KT\.
Pal.
Syr.
i,
ô ^^*,oi^
ôo
*.
aixûo
oilajLoi/
^î
im^.Ui
4^
]6o
oo
J^coo?
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 Con days, &c. struction of Sin. and Pesh. identical.
Lk. 3
Pal.
rj-ye/AovevovTOS
Hoi Tiov ITi/Wrou

yojsa.ôj
rrjs
Iov8a.Las, KT\,
Syr.
Jujcx=>
aa^X^
in
^cuîs
.
|6o
when
Pontius Pilate was governor

Sin. ujoa^^xS Pontius Pilate in Judah
J?O<H^>
Judaea
ao^j.9>
.
)laiâ^cH^>
in the
hegemony of
So Pesh.
KOL StttAoyiôyixeVojv TrdvTwv
tv rats
Lk. 3
TrpocrSo/cwj/ros
&c TOV Aaov,
Pal. Syr.
Now when
ôo^ziâ .00*^00 ÂÂJWI^?O JJoô the multitude was expectant, and

.
[appv>a
]6o
o>
all
of them were
debating in their hearts Sin., Cur. ôcnAa.i=> oeo

the
^>.ikoo
CH^.
men
that were hearing
him were
.
^^â.A,? reflecting in their

J^fit^^
ooo
U-|o
And
.
minds
Pesh.
XA~&oa
OoCô
.Lwd,
^.V.
)oo
60
ooo*
THE SENTENCE
Now when
of
the people were speculating concerning
in their heart
.
John, and
all
them were debating
Lk. 3
?1
Eyevero Se cv rw /SaTmcrOrivai aVaj/ra rov Xaov

aj/ew^^^Fai rov ovpavov.
JJoô
it
/cat
/3a7rrto~0ei/TOS /cat Trpocrevô/xeVov
Pal. Syr.
*o
^coo-ao..
*
j^s *sojo
^"^V
oâo
came
"*>^>/
r3
jkoocuw cu*Ksl/
î
oo
Now
to pass,
when
all
the
multitude had been baptized, and also the Lord Jesus had been baptized and had prayed, that the heavens were opened *.
Sin. joo
JuÛk,
U T .so
t
..-sxs.
^QA..
sS/
)â.j^
o^>o
)oo
,?xv.
,.00
also
And when all the people had been baptized, Jesus was baptized. And when He was praying, the heavens were
cu*]^3l/
.
opened
Pesh.
U*x*<
JJ-30
oo
*.
>,x\.v
>^CL^
vSJo
joc.^.
oXs
âJSw *o
^.*?
Joo
cu*J^sl/
Now
baptized, Jesus also
came to pass, when all the people were was baptized. And when He was praying,
it
.
the heavens were opened
Lk. 4 2
Sin.
/cat crvvTcX.to-@io-{i)v aiurcoj/ eTretVacrei/.
Pal. Syr. caret.

â.s ]oo
î^?
jfcoco..
^sji/
>)is^>
ô
and
after forty
days
on which
He
fasted,
He
was hungry
hungry
.
Pesh. ^.ao them, afterwards
]U^
VQJ/ jiX*,
ô and when He had completed

verb (suiting the
He was
Two
cases occur in which
Mk.
s ore with finite

is
theory of an Aramaic background) absolute in the other Synoptists.

(
altered into the Genitive
Mk.
ore
e Su
6 77X105. Se TOV
f)X.iov.
Lk. 4 Swovros (ML 8 16 oi//tas 8e
40
yei/o/xei/7/s.*
Mk.
/cat
4"
ore
Mt. I3 6
8"
f)\LOV
(Lk.
*
omits.
6 Âtos.
original
Mk. also has 6^/as tie jevopfviis before ore (*v Mk. and not a conflation, and if Mk. wrote
If this is
part of the
run
NK fpt? 21V 12 NB IDI^

to write
And
in
Aramaic, the text must have It the evening, when the sun was set
in
.
would be more natural

evening, and the sun
NB?DK>
21J|1
N^PI
KJH
^} And
when
it
was
it?
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
verb and the absence of an alternative construction resem
bling the Genitive absolute in Greek, is not but is specifically Aramaic. Hebrew uses "TB?K?
common
when with
a finite
verb somewhat rarely, but far more frequently employs the Infini tive construct with pronominal suffix, and prefixed 2 in or a as
e.g.
iniN~ia
when he saw
lit.
in his seeing
Further,
it
has
a usage of the Participle absolute (cf. Driver, Tenses, 165) closely resembling the Greek Genitive absolute, and regularly rendered
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 con
by it O.T.
in
it
LXX.
will
struction.
Pesh.,
on the other hand, regularly breaks away from
Hebrew construction, and renders by +z when with a finite verb. The English renderings aim at exactly reproducing the
the
Semitic constructions.
Gen. 42
ipm
12D3
inv
B*N
mm
empty
WIB
on
MM
And
it
came
to pass, they
emptying
.
their sacks,
".j\
and behold, each man
bundle of money
>
(.yf.vt.ro
8e<JyUOS
of.
O\5~ v
in his sack
TOJ
KaTa.Kf.vovv
f.V
TU>
avrovs rot s craKKOf?
\/
ai>ru>y,
/cat
v?
7/v
TOV dpyVplOV
(TttKKO) GLVTWV.
Targ. n
follows
ptta
nsD3
"iîv
nnj
NHI
pn-pe
ppno p^N
n .m,
exactly
Hebrew.
Pesh.
J^^?
o*amo?
it
]>.
Jo
yOolAtt
^*c;.iax*5
\oj
)ooo
og-ix^ paa.^>And
came
to pass that
their sacks, behold, each

his bale
.
man
when they were emptying bundle of money in the mouth of
Kgs.
13-
mm nm vn
avrwv
jn^ n ^y
o^^
nn
MM And
it
came
to
.
pass, they sitting at the table,
and there came the word of Yahweh
LXX
Kvptov.
KCU iyf.ve.ro
KaOrj/Jitvwv [eVt TV}S
rpaTre^s], KOL iyfvf.ro Aoyos
Targ. mn^
mp p
HNI^J D:HD mni NIIHQ ^y
pnnno
prxn iy mni
they were sitting round the table, and (= then) there came a word of prophecy from before Y. And Pesh. U^c? <*:*i^9 Joo Jiolâ ^Jix. ôfcJ vcuo
it
And
came
to pass, whilst
u>o
when they were Lord

.
sitting at the table, there
came the word
of the
62
2 Kgs.
2"
THE SENTENCE
ai
N aai n:m
%
"ia-n
76.1
D^n
ncn Tri
And
it
came
to pass, they
going on
going and talking (= and talking as they

fire,
went), and, behold, a chariot of
&c.
LXX
ap/Jia
Kal eyeVero avrwv Tropeuo/xeVcoi/, tiropevovro Kal
eA.aAoW
KO.I
IBov
7rvpo<s
KT\.
Targ. Kn&?an
pam
pi>i?i
came
to pass, whilst they
were going on
fire
.
iro pSnx p:^n ny mm And it going and talking, and
(=
then) behold, chariots of Pesh. jjcu? JK"^ i-V* )oo

it
And
came
to
pass that
when they were

fire
.
talking and going on,
and (= then) behold, a chariot of

2 Kgs. 8
5
n^xn
n:n
l^n
i?N
npW
mm non nx n^nn n^x nx HN mnn And it came

"IB^N
-ISDE
NIH
\n st
to pass,
he
telling
the king
how he
(Elisha)
had raised the dead, and, behold, the

.
woman whose
,
son he had raised crying unto the king

a>s
KCU eyevero avrov e^rjyov^vov roi /?aer(Aei Kal I8ov

?]
t^WTrvprjcrfv
vlov
yvvrf
rj$
e^wTrvpTrjcrev
rov vlov
avrr]<s
/Sooxra Trpo? TOV
Targ.
mn
rv ^nxn
Nnn^N
xm
n*
rv ^nsn
ôi>
yn^D
Nin
mm
Dip Kâp, as in
Pesh,
c>.^
Hebrew.
JJL*.
)s>LK*j
raised
ao u^|j Jll^j/ JÂ.-^ ou-j? U^jscx^ Usôo And when he was relating to the king that he had the dead, he saw the woman whose son he had raised making
,j3
.
supplication before the king
oj/n DÎ i^y aôn DHN HN na^ op Nin *rn And it came to pass, he arising (or arose) by night and smote Edom who surrounded him and the people fled to their home
,
,
2 Kgs. 8 21
nî>
ibnN^
LXX
craj/ra CTT
Kal
yeVero avrov dj/acrrai/Tos, Kal eTraraêj/ TOV ESwyu, TOV KVK\W. . .
avrov
Kal l^vyci/ o Aaos KT\.

, . ,
Targ.
Pesh.
Ny IDNI
cunô
.
mi?
papDT
DHN ^\x n
NT.Di
Nii>â
Dp Nin
mm
MIITpi?, construction as in
.
.
Hebrew.
o^. ^*a-^)? U"o?JJ oo^j? K\\=> p* ôo yoot.i^^vt.^ k*i.x And when he arose by night that he might and (= then) destroy the Edomites who were surrounding him
.
the people fled to their
homes
THE SENTENCE
2 Kgs. i3 21
63
nnan nx
un
rum trx onap on Tn

OOLTTTOVTUV
And
/cat
it
came
i8ov
to
.
pass, they burying a
man, and, behold, they saw the robber-hand

avrwv
rov
av8pa,
iSov
LXX
KCU
eyeVero
TOV
xm N-UJ p-np prjn ny mm And it came to were burying a man, and (= then) they saw, &c. Pesh. J.&^ oj.~ And when they were Ji^^ {-^.o â- ? * burying a man, they saw, &c.
Targ. JT-OT rv tm
pass, whilst they
.
1
2 Kgs. i9
:i;
v:a
IVKT;M
ikmNi
vnta TIDJ rvn
his
came to pass, he worshipping in the house of Nisroch god, and Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote him
it
.
And
LXX
A.
/cat
Kol eyeVero avrov TrpovKWOiivTOS eV OIKOJ Eo-Spa^ Beov avrov, Kal
2- ot vtoi avrov fTrdraâv avrov.

\Ti:n
Targ. Mitap
as in Hebrew.
^\siî
i^mNi n^yw
*.
-JIDJ
n3 TJD wn mm,
jooj
fsî>
Pesh. ôtol*
jii*,o
^^>>>/
oo^/ ^^xj
.
fcô
^00
woto^.^ 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 rein
It
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
also adopted with the object,
when
this, for
the sake of
brought to the beginning of the sentence; and other oblique cases may be similarly treated. Examples in Hebrew areGen. 3 -, The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me (Y~njnj Nin) O f the tree and I did eat Gen. 15 But one
emphasis,
1
is
that shall
come
out of thine
(TT: ^^); Gen. 2^,

from
bowels, he shall be thine heir Yahweh, the God of heaven, who took me
own
my
father s house, &c.,

;
He
shall
send (nbe*
I
Nl.l)
His angel
it
before thee
Deut. 13
All the
word
that
command
,
you,
shall
24 In his trespass that ye observe to do (JTO?b l-wn infc); Ezek. i8 he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die (TW? D3). See further, Driver, Tenses, 123 y Obs.
64
Similarly in Aramaic
to
THE SENTENCE
whom
the
God
(K3_rn
n new
Thou, O king, the king of kings, of heaven gave, &c., thou art that head of gold ran Those men that took up n^K); Dan. 3
Dan. 2 :i7:ss
,
them
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, the flame of the fire slew ten Dan. 4 17 - 19 (KTO ^ The tree that thou
KM
>r?i?)
And king (Nabo wn nriJN). Ezr. 5 moreover, the vessels of the house of God, &c., them did Cyrus the king take out (en; a ian psjn) o f the temple of Babylon
sawest, &c.,
it
is
thou,
14
Ezr.
f\
All
priests
impose
let
tribute, &c.,
and Levites, &c., upon them (D n^5J
it
shall
not be lawful to
N")Di>);
Ezr.
6
,
Every one
that will not perform the law of thy
God and
the law of the king,
judgement diligently be executed upon him (H3D "njpP N.inb). This reinforcement of a Casus pendens by the Pronoun is a marked characteristic of the Fourth Gospel. may note the
We
following illustrations
T
12
oVoi Be cXafiov avrov, loWci avTols fôvo-iav

/xoj/oyej -qs
reWa
eoO yei/eV$ai.
I
I
18
eos 6
an>
eis TOI/
KO ATTOV TOV Trarpos
e/ceti/os e
Trefjuj/as /xe ySaTrrtêti/ ej/

. .
vSari CKCIJ/OS
ftoi etTrcj^.
26
os ^v /xera o-ov O
(i)pa.KV KOI
tSe
ovros ftaarr^L*
yKOV<TV
TOVTO
/xot
KO.I
5"
O
TO,
7roiô-as /xe vyirj
e/<etôs
5 5
TTOKO,
a yap av eKtj/os
Troi^,
ravra
vlo<s
o/xotoos Troiet.
yap epya a
8e8(t)/cev p,oi 6
Trar^p
<W
rcAetwo-co avra,
aura ra epya a
paprvptl
vrept e/xov
OTt 6 Trar^p /xe aTreo-raX/cev

TTOIO>.
(we should SUrel}^
omit the
comma
after
and make a^ra ra epya the subject of

SeScoKeV
/ULOL
/xaprupa, reinforcing ra yap

-i/
pya after a
KT\.)
Kai 6 Tre/xâs
/xe
Trar^p
e/ceti/os
/xe/xaprup^Kei/ Trept e
5 OV 639 u/a
d7rO"TlA6F
KetJ/O5 TOt^TW VfJLftS
OV TTLOrTfVfTe. f^ avrov.
TTttf
8e8co/cei/ /xoi /XT) aTroXeo-co
O
18
eou, owro? ecopaKtj/ rov Trarepa. 6 8e ^roiv TT/V Sdâv roG Tre/xâi/Tos auroi/ OVTOS
o wj ?rapa roi;
26
Kayw a
6
/xr/
r/KOVo-a Trap
avroO ravra XaXto

.
.
eis
TOK
KOO-/JLOV.
IO 1
*
eiVep^d/xevos Sia TT}S ^vpas
e/ceti/os
/cXeTrr^s eVrii/ *at
Schlatter (Sprache, pp. 49

in
f.)
quotes a number of instances from
Rabbinic
Hebrew
Tims
e. g.
behold, this one, &c. reinforces a Nominativus pendens. Mechilta on Ex. i6 4 ^31N HD IÎNI DIM HD t^^ D
,
which HT ^.H
HT
eat
^N
11
li>
i>3
H3CN 1D1HE
nn ino;
Whosoever hath what he may

this
eat to-day,
and
saith,
What
shall
to-morrow? behold,
one lacketh
faith.
THE SENTENCE
IO
2
65
TO.
epya a
TTOUO lv
eyo>
TV
oVo/xaTi rou Trarpds /xou ravra
Trcpt e/xou.
12 48 6 Aoyos 12 49 6 Treyniâs
2
6>
AaXô-a
e/ceivos Kpivtl auroi/ ev TT?

yu,oi
yu,e
Trarrjp auros
ei/roA^v
^cSto/ceis.
I4*
13
6 Tricrreuajj cts e/xe TO, epya a eyob TTOICO Ka,K{Vos
I4
14
Kat OTI
ai/ aiTrja-rjTf.
tv rai oi/o/xart /xou TOVTO

/XOTJ /cat
o e^cov ras evroAas 6 Se

7rapa/<X^Tos,
rrjpwv auras e/myos
ecrrti/
6 dyaTrcov
/xc.
14
fjiov,
TO Tri/eiym TO ayiov o
Tre/xtêt 6 Trarrjp lv
TW
OVO/JLOLTL
fKtivos
v/Jia<;
SiSaêt Travra.
e/x,oi
ju.^
<f)tpov
15"
TraV K\TJfj,a lv
Kap7rov
aijoet
auTO, Kat ?rav TO Kapwov
(f>epov
KaOaipei avTo.
o
fji^voiv
15
17"
Iv
fjiol
Kayco
ei/
auTai OUTOS
<f>ept
Kapirov TTO\VV.
<W
?rav o SeSoj/cas aurai Sajo~ei a^Tois ^coî/ atooviov.
4
I7"
o SeSw/cas ftot, OeX.0) iVa
oVou
et//,i
cyaj /caKeti/ot oicrtv /xer
e/xou.
IO
TO TTOT^pLOV O
06a)KC
/XOt 6 TTttTT/p
OU /X^
TTt o)
ttUTO
Against these 27
,r,
instances in Jn.
we can only
26 ,
3)>
set 11 in
(6
Mt.
,o,,,,3s
(4
13"),
I3
u
f
I5
I9
14 15
-
2l4j;
,
^n^
25
4 in
Mk
M I2 u, ?
and 6
in
Lk.
(8
and Mt. 2i 42 = Mk. i2 10 =
i2 48 so 17, 21, 23 5 --V2 ); and of these Mt. 4 16 Lk. 2o 17 are O.T. quotations.
,
Of
course
it
cannot be claimed that the use of Casus pendens

Prof.
to go no farther it is a familiar Moulton remarks that it is one
is specifically
a Semitism, since
colloquialism in English.
of the easiest of anacolutha, as
much
fact
at
home
in
English as
is
in
Greek
(NTG?
\,
p.
69).
its
The
which concerns us
in Jn. as
the
remarkable frequency of
the Synoptists.
occurrence
is
compared with
If Lk., for example,
a fair specimen of Koivrj
Greek,
why
should
is
we
find that a construction

in Jn.
which occurs there
with six times the frequency? An employed answer is forthcoming in the assumption that a common adequate Aramaic construction has been exactly reproduced in translation.
but 6 times
Abbott (JG. 1921) adds io 35

\tyfre
36
,
t>v
6 rrar^p fjyiaafv
teal
a.iti<JTti\fv
tls
TOV Koaôv
the Father sanctified ... do ye say [to him] 38 u Thou blasphemest ? best explained as [l/tfiVoj] 6V. iricrrfvcav els f(*e . . 7 Trorayuoi (K rfjs KoiXias avrov (also cited by Abbott) is not included as involving on
vfttis
<
on
"
B\a(j<f>r}nis
Whom
",
our theory
a mistranslation.
Cf. p. 109.
CHAPTER
OUV.
III
CONJUNCTIONS
Kttt,
narrative.
As compared The
s
with the Synoptists, /cat in Jn. is infrequent in occurrences, as given by Abbott (JG. 2133; cf.
,
Concordance 2 pp. 456 ff.) are, Mt. about 250 times, Mk. more than 400 times, Lk. about 380 times, Jn. less than 100 times.
Bruder
writer s use of asyndeton

ovv,
This comparative infrequency seems to be due partly to the (cf. p. 50), partly to his fondness for
which he uses some 200 times, as against Mt. 57 times,

times,
Mk. 6
Lk. 31 times,
/ecu
is
frequent in Jn. in speeches,
linking co-ordinate clauses, as in a Semitic language.
striking
Semitic usage
or
may
is
be seen in
its
employment
naturally
to link contrasted
statements, where in English

but*.
we should
employ
and yet
This
it
most frequent
4
,20
>
in speeches,
though occasionally
we C^ 00
i6
5
,
find
T
10.11
>
also in the reflections of the author
upon
his narrative.
,-.30.34
2 20
>
3
.
-10.11.19.S2
>
-39.40.43.44
^70
>
-4.19.30
>
O20.5-2.57
;
7
16 17
-
TT 8 11 ;
T o3 * 1 5 ;
"
Of every tree of the Hebrew, Gen. a garden thou moyest eat; and {but} of the tree of knowledge of 2:! Of the fruit of the good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it 3
20
2<J
2i
Cf.,
in
trees of the garden
we may
eat
and (=but) of the

garden God
fruit
of the tree
hath said, Ye shall not eat, &c. ; if 21 , And as regards Ishmael I have heard thee; behold I have blessed him, &c. And ( = Buf) my covenant will 31 1 establish with Isaac ; 32 (Heb. 32 ), I have seen God face
which
is
in the midst of the

-
to face, this
and
= and
yet] in
my
life
is
preserved
(other instances of
common usage
r>
usage in Aramaic from Dan. 2 5 If ye make not known to me the dream and its and (=but] if ye interpretation, ye shall be cut in pieces, &c.
,
The same Oxford Heb. Lex. p. 252 b). where it is equally common may be illustrated
;
shew the dream and the interpretation thereof, ye shall receive 5G At what time ye hear ... ye shall fall down of me gifts, &c. 3
;
,
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 (Aram. 4
In a
),
And
told the drearn before them,

.
and (=yet)
its
interpretation they did not
make known to me Hebrew and Aramaic and may very idiomatically introduce contrasted idea in such a way as to suggest a question, this
So
I
being implied by the contrast without the use of an interrogative

Behold, to my father and Hebrew, Judg. and shall I tell it unto tJiee ? (lit. it, my The ark, and Israel, and to thee I shall tell it! ); 2 Sam. n and Judah are abiding in tents; and my lord Joab, and the
particle. in
14" ,
mother
have not told
11
servants of
7 go
into
!
my lord, my house,
are
encamped
and
in the
open
field
(lit.
and
shall
to eat
to drink, &c. ?
and /shall
252).
in
go, &c.
see further instances in Oxf. Hcb. Lex.

illustrated in
p.
The
same usage may be

Thoniae
(ed.
(p. aaja).
Aramaic from passages
Ada
Wright).
fco/
Jiii
Jofc-.m.2>
fcoj o
.oooo
4*?J^>
;-*>
oo
-*^^
L.UJ.O
All buildings are built in

(p.
w-j>)
summer; and thou buildest

kxiijsb
in
winter!
LofcO^-*>
.)k..on
^>oo
^50
kJîkW
thy account I excused from my lord, king Mazdai, and from the supper; and myself thou dost not choose to sup with me
JJ
kfco|o.
On
(p.
^*oo>
^ ^^^
**,)
!
r*
JJo
J^.A,
.
)..**
\!
JJ/
IÂ!^
JJ
yioX ô
âic
l^j/
)aa>/
k~i!
Thou
;
thyself hast not departed from
except for a moment shut up With inverted order, (p.

us,
and thou knowest not how we were

Jbo
-*)
jfcO^.::*
ÔA-O
wrath
fco/
o^
to/
^.jscu? to vain
jjixii
oiô^s words; and king Mazdai

)>n\.-
?J^co.
Thou
in
sittest
and hearkenest
is
his
seeking
to
destroy thee
In a precisely similar
passages
in Jn.,
way KCU introduces a paradox and the paradox, being hypothetical,

e
in several
is
treated
as a question.
2 20
10
TtcrcrfpaKovra KOL
eyepets avrov
;
crccrtv oiKoBofJifjOrj o
vaos OVTOS, KOI
(TV Iv rpicriv
f]/j.epa.LS
^v
el 6 SiSacTKaA.os
rov IcrparyA
KOLI
ravra ov
F 2
68
14
CONJUNCTIONS
Ei/ a/xa/oTtats
8
c
<rv
9
II
ZyevvqOrjs 0X05, Kat crv

o~e
StSao"Kts
^/xas
Pa/?/?t,
vw e^row
and
XtOdcrat ol louScuoi, Kat TraAti vTrayeis CKCI;
The
e.g. 5
use of
with the sense

cases of
/cat
Semitic.
Some few
/xe
ycrei
and so* is very frequent in so used are to be found in Jn.,

(rot
^dpflaTov
6
<TTW,
Kat OVK eêcrnV
apat TOV Kpd/3/3aTov,

TOJ/
Ka$obs
/xe
u.TrecrTeiAep
ajv
e/xc,
Trarrjp
Kayo)
co
Sta
Trarepa, Kat
6 Tpcoywv
KctKtvos
ets
6Y
II
48
ecu/
d<w/xev
avTov ourws, TraVres
7rto-Tucrou(rii/
auroV, Kat e/Vcuowrat ot Pw/xatot Kat dpoScrtJ/ ^toi/ Kat TOV TOTTOV Kat TO
etfj/os.
in Jn.
Usually, however, this consecutive connexion is expressed by ow, which, as we have seen, is extraordinarily frequent
It
is
)
(200 occurrences).
original
it
highly probable that

in
ow
and
and
so
Aramaic
in
many cases*;
represents an in others
may have been inserted by the translator to introduce a sentence which stood asyndeton in the original. The cases cited by Abbott (JG. 2191 a), in which Mk. omits ow while Mt. or Lk. has it
translator.
in parallel passages, suggests that the particle in Jn. is due to the and simply; is usually rendered in Pal. Syr. by o
Ow
but sometimes by ^?
= 6V.
fxeV,
8e,
is
yap-
/AC V,
which
is
very rare in Jn.,

are,
infrequent also in the Synoptists.

6,
The occurrences
*
Mt. 20, Mk.
Lk.
10, Jn. 8.
it
The writer
conclusion as to
ow
given above stands as he had worked
out
:
before reading the words of Prof. Burkitt in Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, ii, p. 89 In the course of working at the S3 riac equivalents for S. Mark s evOvs and S. John s ovv it has occurred to me that, fundamentally they mean the same thing and that
they really correspond
to
the
Hebrew
"
waw
consecutive".
;
Not,
of course,
but if the authors that either of these Gospels is a translation from the Hebrew of these Gospels were familiar with the Old Testament otherwise than through the
awkward medium
something
to
of the
LXX,
they might well have
felt
themselves
in
need of
correspond to the
Hebrew
idiom.
The essence
of the meaning of
is that the event related is regarded as happening in due "wdzv consecutive" /mi is too inadequate a link, sequence to what has gone before. To express this while 5c implies a contrast which is wholly wanting in the Hebrew: the turn But this is exactly what S. Mark and so of thought is more or less our English means by his teal evdvs, and it is what is generally meant in the Fourth Gospel so they tell Jesus of her by ovv. Simon s wife s mother was sick of a fever and eWvs Mk. i so j S. Mark does not mean to emphasize the haste they were in to (/cat of verses beginning tell the news. Similarly in S. John there are literally scores
".
with
flTrev
ovv or Kirov ovv
the idea of causation.
All that
where "he said therefore" brings out too prominently or "and so and so he said is meant is IDS*}
1
"
they
said",
as the case
may
be.
That
ow
corresponds
to the
Hebrew waw con

2.
secutive
was noticed by
Evvald, Die johann. Schriften (1861), p. 45, n.
CONJUNCTIONS
69
8e is uncommon in Jn. and Mk. as compared with Mt. and Lk.* The numbers are, Mt. 496, Mk. 156, Lk. 508, Jn. 176. t Thus, while the average number of occurrences per page (VVH.)
are 7J in Mt. and 7 in Lk., in Mk. they are only 3| and in Jn. 3^. Now W. Aramaic, like Hebrew, has no equivalent of 6V, both
languages employing
opening.
and
in its place, or
(Aramaic) an asyndeton
The comparative avoidance

and
,
of
8e in
Mk. and Jn.

in
is
there
fore strongly suggestive of translation from
Aramaic
which the
all,
Semitic use of
usually copied.
or of no
connective particle at
was
In Syriac the need for such a particle as Se was, under Greek influence, so much felt that the Greek particle was
introduced in the form
den, in Pal. Syr. o? di. The occur ydp is less frequent in Jn. than in the Synoptists. rences are Mt. 125, Mk. 67, Lk. 101, Jn. 66. If Jn. were as
^
if
long
as Mt., there
would be proportionately 86 occurrences;

;
if
as long
If
as Lk., 92 occurrences
as short as Mk., 53 occurrences.
Mk.
were as long as
In
Mt., there
would be 96 occurrences
if
as long
as Lk., 109 occurrences;
W. Aramaic
if as long as Jn., 82 occurrences. such particles and phrases as correspond more

i>H3
or less to yap, nx, ^
Biblical
Aram.
^?P~^, &c., are really
much more
many
In weighty, bearing rather the sense because, since. cases in which Greek would use ydp, Aramaic would be
content with
and
simply;
and
this
may
account for the com
parative infrequency of ydp in Jn. Syriac, feeling the need for a light particle like ydp, introduced it in the form ^^^ ger.
iVa.
The frequency of u/a in Jn. is one of the most remarkable pheno mena in this Gospel. The approximate number of occurrences is 127 whereas in Mt. we find 33, in Mk. 60, in Lk. 40. If Jn. were
;
as long as Mt., there would be proportionately 163 occurrences; if as long as Lk., 178 occurrences if as short as Mk., 101 occur ; rences.
u/a
fjiri
occurs
in
5 times, in Lk. 8 times.

that
.
.
On
Jn. 18 times, in Mt. 8 times, in Mk. the other hand, /xr/Trore in the sense
in Jn.,|
not
lest
never occurs
whereas
it
is
found
in
Mt. 8 times,
*
in
is
Mk.
twice, in
Lk. 6 times.
some 5 times
only.
In Apoc. Se
excessively rare, occurring
t The numbers
p. 151.
for the Synoptists are those given
by Sir John Hawkins,
HS
J Similarly in Apoc.
we
find
va
p-rj
11 times, nrjnoTf never,
7o
CONJUNCTIONS
Now
there exists in Aramaic a particle
in
origin a
demon
used with peculiar frequency to denote various shades of connexion. This particle appears in W. Aramaic as ^ dl
strative
which
is
or
"=!
de, in
Syriac as
de.
As a
particle of relation
it
denotes
who, which, that (properly a connecting link between the relative sentence and its antecedent /to one, usually completed by a pro
noun or pronominal who he said to him

when.
It
suffix in the relative clause;

,
n e.g. Plv P^
i.e.
to
may
it
be used as
whom he said a mark of the

(lit.
),
and also the
relative
genitive, e.g.
NOW
taio
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
is
*]
Our purpose
of
**[
to
show
that Iva occurs in Jn. in all the
senses
relation.
or
except
that
which
marks
the
genitive
frequent occurrence of iva in a telic sense calls for no to the comment, beyond note of the fact that the use of !W
The
exclusion of
//^TTOTC
1
"!
Aramaic phrase tO
junctive
that,
favours the theory of literal translation of the con not .* that Further, the use of Iva
. . .
followed by a
finite verb,
where
in classical
Greek we
should expect an Infinitive, is a well-ascertained characteristic of KOII/T/ Greek, and has come through the KOLVTJ into modern Greek in the form vd. What is remarkable, however, in Jn. s usage of
this idiom, as
compared with Mt. and Lk.,

though
to
is its
This
is
also
a less extent
true of
extreme frequency. Mk. and it is

;
instructive to notice
how many
different expedients Mt. or Lk., or

Iva,
both of them, frequently employ in order to get rid of Mk. s whether used in a final sense or otherwise. t
21
Kou
Aeyev
rj
CLVTOLS
on
Mryrt cpêrat 6
;
\v^yo<s
iva VTTO TOV
rtOrj
VTTO TYJV K\ivrjv
JMk. Mt.
\
15
5
U>
ovSe KdLovo-iv \v\vov KCU riê curiv avrov VTTO TOV
JJLO^LOV.
r)
Lk. 8
OvSeis Se Xv^yov
KaXvirTCL avrov
auf/a<s
cr/ccêi
Contrast the translation of

, ,
Hebrew
iVa
fj.f]
fQ
lest
1 ,
Isa.
l
,
by ^Trort (as
KT\.
(cf. p.
in
LXX)
in Mt. I3 16
Mk. 4 12 with Jn. is 40
iSojaiv TOIS ixpOaXfAoTs
100).
The following Synoptic comparisons were kindly

John Hawkins.
supplied to the writer by
Sir
CONJUNCTIONS
Mk. 4 22
Mt.
f>
71
ov yap
ecrrtv KpvTrrov
lav
/AT)
ti/a
<(
IO"
ovoV yap
ov yap
ecmj/ KeKaXvp,/xeVov 6 OVK

KpVTrrov o ov
<f>avfpov
a.^
Lk. 8
ecrrtJ/
yevr/o-eTat.
Mk. 5
18
Kat e/A/3atVovTOs a^ToG ets TO TrXotov TrapcKaXet avToi/ 6 8at/xovttva
:u Mt. 8 om.
Lk. 8
:t7 - :i8
avros Se e/xâs
d<^)
s TrAotoi/
TO.
vTrtffTpBJfCV.
C&C~ITO
8e auroC 6
ou eeA7?A.i;$et
Satjuovta etvat
crw
a^Toi.
Mk. 5 23
Mt. 9 18
Kat Trapa/caAet avrov TroXXa Xeywi/
on To
Ovydrpiov /xow
ioou
apx^v
apri
els
TrpocreX^wv 7rpoo-e/aW avrw, Acywv
on
H OvyaTrjp
fjiov
tTcXeuTT/o-ei/,
aXXa
eX#<W
CTTI ^C?
rr/v
Lk. 8 114
/cat TTCO-WV
auroi/ elcrcXOw Trapa roi-s TroSas Iô-ov TrapeKaXei
TOV OIKOV at-Tov,
on
Ovyo.rf]p /xoi/oyci/T/?
*;i/
avrai
4:i
Mk.5
Mt. 9
2(;
/cat
SieorctXaro a^roi? TroXXa a/a
om.
6 Se
5
Lk. 8
5fi
7rap>/yyeiXei/
avrot? /A^Sevt etTreiv TO yeyovos.

CTTI
M k.
-
6-
cXw
iVa eâvT^s
8<?S
/not
7riVa/ci
T^V KcâXr/v Iwan/ov
Mt. 14s Aos

^Lk. om.
/xot,
ô-tV,
wSe
rt
TriVaKt
TT/J/
KâXrjV
Iwawov
/SaTTTtCTTOl).
11
Kat eStSov Tots /xa^rats

fJLaOfjTai<i
im
TrapaTtôJcrti/
ot Se
a^Tot?. TO!? oxXoi?.
TOVS apTor?, /xa^rat Mt. I4 eSwKey Tols Kat cot Sow Tot? pa^Tais Trapaêivat TW oxXw. Lk. IMk.
9"
19
(Mk. g
Kat
Kara)8aii
oi/Tto)v
at-Twi/
CK ToO opov9,
StecrTet XaTO
auTot5
/A-T/Sevt
a ctSov Str/yô-wvrai.
-j
Mt. I7
!l
Kat
CK TOV opovs everetXaTO avrots 6 Karaftaivovrtav aurwi/

t7rr/T
Xeyo)j/ MTyScrt
KTX.
Lk. om.
|
Cases
in
which Mk.
/a is
Mk. Synoptists are
6M
Mt.
retained by one or both of the other ai M Mt. i6 Mk. 8 i (contrast 4

:i
"
72
Lk.
9"}}
CONJUNCTIONS
Mk. 9
48
Mk. io
Lk. 9 40 (contrast Mt. i7 ); Mk. io = Mt. 2o 21 Mk. i2 19 = Lk. 2o 28 (contrast Mt. 2o :u = Lk. i8
18
lfi
:!7
:i!)
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 the construction with Iva are merely accidental. Mk. s use of Iva,
in proportion to the length of his Gospel is 3 times as frequent as that of Mt., and 2^ times as frequent as that of Lk., must have appeared to these latter Evangelists to some extent
which
offensive to normal style.

in other respects
Since
it
is
Mk. exhibits Aramaic
generally acknowledged that influence, it is reasonable
to suspect that this influence
may
account for the characteristic
under discussion
and such an inference
already noted, that the Aramaic ^ or sentative of Iva with a telic force, has a
is supported by the fact, which is the natural repre
much wider range

which
standing, for example, for the conjunctive that
Iva in
of usage, Mk. so
frequently represents.
however, the theory of Aramaic influence may be taken as accounting for the excessive use of Iva in Mk., the case for such
If,
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

in Lk.
It is
some \\ times
as frequent as
instructive to notice that there are certain phrases in
which
the Greek of the Gospels varies between the construction of Iva with finite verb and the Infinitive construction, 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.
iKavos)
One such
Jn.
I
2
introduced by OVK
elfu
[cyto]
ei/u
aios (or
Avcrw
ov
OVK
tva
avrov
rov
tyutavra
rov
Pal. Syr.
OMOO*,?
<M
Sin.
a-Lax.-*) ?
J..o;-X
)**>!?
Joa*. U
JJ
oo
OCM
Pesh.
t0i0lai_tt? JLO^Vw )**!?

I
jo.*.
jol?
That one who
am
not worthy that
should loose the latchet of

).
His sandal
(Pesh.
the latchets of His sandals
CONJUNCTIONS
Mk.
I
73
TCOJ/
{i
ov OVK
flfju IKO.VOS Kvif/as
Xvcrai TOV t/xavra
Pal. Syr.
oooimj?
jfcî-X )^^
â^^.?
];*,/
oJLsoo?
Sin.
deest.
oQ.lm^>?
Pesh.
U^
TOV
^0*^!?
Jd*.
JJ?
cot
not worthy that I should stoop should loose the latchet (Pesh. latchets) of His sandals
I
.
That one who
am
Lk. 3
ov OVK
flfju
iKavos
X.vcra.1
i/zai/ra Tooy
w)Lo>
Pal. Syr.
^QUO*?
Jkust^. Jt^?
o)d.ii3a-v>
)o
Sin.
i-ot-V^
]^*-i?
J.J/
J^CLA,
)J?
001
Pesh.
oaim^>;
^^_Sw
jjjki;
jcuL
JJ?
oo
not worthy that (Sin., Pesh. latchets) of His sandals

I
.
That one who
am
should loose the latchet
Acts
13"
VK flfM a^tos TO
vTroftrj/Jia
rcov TroStov X.vcrai.
^woim^? J*JtI? ^/ ]Q^ U? od That one who I am not worthy that I should loose the latchets of His sandals The rendering of Pesh. is here verbally identical
.
Pesh.
U^
with
its
rendering in Jn.
18 21
-
27
.
Lk. i^
OVKCTI
et/xl
aios
KXsrjOijvai
vlo<s
(TOV.
Pal. Syr.
Sin., Cur.
^^>
Ucfcs.-?
Jcul
>
l>!
ls^
<
?a^w
Jtol/
^v=>?
^.*AJo*,
I
IJCL*.
Do
Ho
.
Pesh.
I
)î
t ;s? ^/
that
^^
am no
In the
longer worthy
should be called thy son

7"
passage
Mt
Lk.
where we have the
IVa
construc
tion after OVK dpi IKOVOS, the Syriac versions naturally represent this
by
with the
$L
finite verb.
ryiujo~a Trpos ere
Lk. 7
ouSe
e/xcurroi
eA$ea
Pal. Syr.
^Lo^
jLJu?
Jo*.
ls^?
JI
uô^
U
ô/
o
v*o
Sin.
om.
)i/
I
Pesh.
? laX?
l^c^
|^
"^^
I
Therefore
did not count myself worthy that
should come to
Thee
Thus
with
out of
iVa
all
these passages only Jn.
27
and Mt. 8 s
Lk. 7
have the
?
construction, and this agrees with the construction which is used in all passages by the Syriac versions.
74
Again,
o-v/Mê/oei 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.
Jn. II
t
(rvjJi(f)pi
vfuv Iva
lojaa...
et?
avOpuTros airoOdvr).
.-?
**?
Pal. Syr.
+j^
U.=^
Sin. and Pesh.

It is
laâ.j
^ c^ ^
**?
-ja3
good
14
(Sin., Pesh. profitable) to us that

orvfji<f)fpi
one man should die
Jn. l8
eva avOpoyTTQV airoBaveiv.
Pal. Syr.
icoo^ JLJ^
iaîj
oo
c^
JJo
Sin.
It is
and Pesh.
good
U^^ ^?
(~A9 Pesh.)
(Sin. fitting,
ou
<TV/Ji<f>pci
Pesh. profitable) that one
man
should die
Mt. 19
ya^rjcrai.
Pal. Syr.
It is
jut
,sU^?
c^J
Jl
not good that a
man should marry

jlfco/
But
It is
Sin., Cur., Pesh.
cusxâ.^.
.
~-a3
JJ
not profitable to take a wife
o-vpêpcL Lva is also
found
in Jn.
16",
6 Mt. 5 29 30 i8
,
The
construction crvvriOf.^^
TL<S
Iva in
22
Jn. 9
r/8??
yap o-uvereêivro
01 IS
lovSatot Iva fdv
avrov
o/j,oXoyrja"r)
Xptcrrov, ttTrocruvaycoyo? yev^rai,

?
reproduced
Pal. Syr.
in
the Syriac versions by

o*=>
with the
finite
verb
so
oo? +jj
J?Q- ^!? yOl^.I*s

lo^.
<U?oc..
cmaLi? ]6c
;^
iô
Jfcâo
of
^3 ;^v
&.+SLJ
U**3.
In the other two occurrences
a-vvTiOefjuut it is
tive,
followed by the normal construction of the Infini and this again is represented in Syriac by ? with the finite
:
a-vviOtvro avroi dpyvpiov Sovvai, Pal. Syr. yOXi^-> O-D 20 they agreed that they should give him money ; Acts23 aa-**M )-? ot louSatot (rvvtOfVTO TOV eptor^crat o-e, Pesh. ^lô yQjâjf the Jews have planned together that they should ask of thee
verb
Lk. 22 5
â^mo oC^
Similarly, in the variants I8i8ov

-n-apaOwai Lk.
set
Iva TrapanOâ-iv
.
Mk. 6
.
41
,
1G
,
they might eSciro in Lk. 8

:!8
in
. . .
that Pesh. reads vcooAmj? OOM gave both places (Pal. Syr. and Sin. desunt in Lk.);
.
.
tlvai o-vv
avrw
is
rendered by
.
Pal. Syr.
.
.
.
j>-^^>
ov>.v )o-?, by Sin. and Pesh. JOOM oIa^? begging ... that he might be with Him as
,
joo
jjss
.
was
.
.
in Trape/caXei
Iva
/ACT
avrov ^ of
Mk. 5
18
;
in
Lk.
&
c>
6 Se TraprjyycLXcv airois
(JirjBevl tiTTfiv
is
rendered by Pal. Syr. yO$oooU
*J^?
yoK*
+&& ooo, by Sin.,
CONJUNCTIONS
Cur. \QIXS\J
yOi.v)u
tell
JJ
75
^QJ/ io)
JJ
vjJJ?
4-as ooo, by Pesh. yQj/
**jJJ?
^?
oo
He commanded
,
(Pesh. warned) them that they should

TroAAtt
/
no man
as in KOL Sieo-retAaro curois
ret.
KrA...of
Mk. 5 43
Such
illustrations could be almost indefinitely multiplied.
Iva,
as a mistranslation of ^
the most that
relative,
who
which
is
So
a
far,
we have accomplished
to
establish
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
is
frequent use of the Iva construction in place of an Infinitive not in itself sufficient to prove translation from Aramaic; for an Aramaic-speaking Jew, in writing Greek, would naturally tend
to exaggerate the use of a Kou/r; construction
which resembled his
own
to notice a usage of can hardly be explained except by the hypothesis Iva. which There of actual mistranslation of an original Aramaic document.
native idiom.
Now, however, we have
in Jn.
are several passages a mistranslation of
in
which
<W
seems
clearly
to
"*[
employed
the
in
a relative sense.
represent Translate
Iva.
them
into
Aramaic
in
only possible way, representing
by ^ and an Aramaic scholar would, without question, give to the sense who or which that 8 dAA iva p,apTvp^(ry Trepl rov C^GOTOS. This OVK 7/v eKefj OS TO I
**!
.
<co9,
passage has already been discussed

(p.
in
our notes on the Prologue

of
Iva.
32).
The accepted
interpretation
with
telic
force
but (he came) that he involves the assumption of an ellipse If Iva. is a mistranslation of ^ relative bear witness, &c. might
no such
the light,
ellipse
is required, the passage meaning, but one who was to bear witness of the light
He
.
was not
Pal. Syr.,
5
quite
avOpu>7rov
OVK
ôj
Iva.
/3ttAr/
I^-.
/x,e
ets TT)I/ KoX.vfJL/37/Opar.

. .
.
literally,
Jjumxxa.^
[**++
k~^
**j^s.
The
.
.
obvious meaning of this in Aramaic shall put me into the pool

.
is,
have not a man who
:i(l
Tt ovv
Troiets
a-v
(r^/xetoi/,
Iva,
tSw/xej/
Pal. Syr., quite literally,
The sense I? k*} |OCL*J? thou which we may sign then doest
j^.
[x>.
intended
see ?
may
well be,
What
though, since the final
sense of 1 would here be appropriate in Aramaic as in the Greek is not pressed. Iva, the evidence of this passage
76
CONJUNCTIONS
6
OVTOS IO-TLV o apros o IK TOV ovpavov
Kal arj aTroOdvrj.
Kara/3cuWv Iva
TIS e
OLVTOV
<f>d-y-rj
Pal. Syr., quite literally,
^jf
is
Jc*u*^.
oo
y?o
iojso...
Do
ou.v>
AJ/
is
ôoU?
the
J^.**J
U-va.*,.
This
naturally to be
rendered,
which,
if
This
a
man
eat
thereof,
bread which came down from heaven, he shall not die (expressed in
Aramaic, which a man shall eat thereof and shall not die ). 6 Kat Pal. Syr., quite IO~TLV, Kvpie, iva Trwrrevcro) eis O.VTOV ; Q oo This means, without a o*s ^_-^x>o*literally, ô.
TL<S
:*:*>
doubt,
And who
is
is
he, Lord,
on
whom
should believe?
(the
Aramaic construction
meaning
on him
of the
who I should believe on him ). This is, much more natural and appropriate than is surely
Iva
the final sense given to

,
by A.V., R.V.,
fail
that
may
believe
which can hardly
to
make us
discount the quality
man s faith, suggesting, as it does, that his gratitude to our Lord made him willing to believe on any one whom He
named.
14*
a\\ov
7rapaiK\r)Tov Sooo
ei
VJJLIV
wet
rj
/xe0
ty/,oii/
ets
TOV cuojya.
Pal.
)o? quite literally, The natural meaning va^sci.^. jf*N\\.

Syr.,
;âJiL
î:
yjo*.
is,
vaa^.
o<*I
oo
He
shall give
.
you
mg
)
another Comforter, who shall abide with you for ever

qui*.
If the
"]
So
(vt.
fact
that
Iva.
in
relative be thought to
these passages is a mistranslation ol need further evidence to clinch it, this
be found in the variation between Mk. 42 2 and the parallel Lk. 8 17 already noted. Here Mk. s lav Iva. passages Mt. io
may
2(i
///>?
(fravfpuOrj
is
reproduced
(f>avpov
in
Mt. by
OVK dTro/caAv^&jo-erai,
lav
fir]
and
fi
in
Lk. by
o ov
yev^frerat.
Thus
Iva
<f>avcp<a6
seems
clearly to represent an original ^nso fn^N except that which shall be revealed , i.e. which shall not be revealed , and this
is
the rendering of Pesh.
Jl^J
U? (Pal. Syr., Sin. vacant).*

relative.
"*}
on
In Jn. 9 the use of
similarly a mistranslation of
TTf.pl
Ti av Aeyeis
OTL
is
avrov, OTL r]veu)fv crov TOVS
&(f>0a\fjiovs ;
convincing.
The
very awkward, and the in that of R.V. un passage, however, at once becomes clear when
we
*
What
recognize that OTL is simply a mistranslation of 1 relative This sayest thou of him who hath opened thine eyes ?
iva is
That
here a mistranslation of
"1
relative has
been noted by Wellhausen,
Einleitung*, p. 15.
CONJUNCTIONS
sense, which
77
is naturally to be deduced from the Aramaic, is given the Arabic Diatessaron by ^jJl ; and the best-attested reading of % (vt. vg.) is qui aperuit Similarly, in 8^ eyw Se on ryv aXÔeiav
rendered by Pal. Syr. J^*,as ôl Ju{? ? naturally bear the sense, I who speak the truth
Xeyw
is
W,
.
which would
This meaning,
of the preceding
which
verse,
offers a superior antithesis to

is
he
<jjjl
is
a liar
,
offered by the Diatessaron

.
who
CK
and by two MSS.
of % (vg.) qui of mistranslation

KT\.
(cf.
In our notes on
is
the
i
lfi
Prologue a similar case

ro9 TrA^poj/Aaros O.VTOV
suggested in
^=
on
p. 39),
and, conversely,
because, inasmuch as
-
seems
to
A
(o>)
have been wrongly treated as the relative in i 4 13 (cf. pp. 29, 34). case in Mk. where on seems to be a mistranslation of relative
"^
IS
O.VT>
\ Tis apa. oi TO9
(TTIV
on
/cat
6 ai/e/xos
.
.
/cat
^ OdXaaaa vTraKoveL
Who
rots
6 rt
then
*
is
this
whom
.
avr<S)
(u>
even the wind and

,
the
sea obey?
B/VeVoj
Another may very possibly be seen in 8 24 TrepiTrarowra?, where the avOpwrrovs on cos Sei Spa
6pu>
difficult
may
8e
represent a
Mt. I3
lfi
{yxcoi/
{JLaKa.pi.OL ol
6<f>OaX/Jiol
wrong rendering of on /3\.7rov(riv, Kal

.
. .
"n
(ovs).
In
ra tora [/ACUV]
on
aKovovcrtv,
the words on
ySAeVoDo-ti/
.
6 rt
d/<ouoi;o-ir
are rendered
by Sin., Cur., Pesh. ^.ô.*,? they see, c or which see, &c.

.
,
jJl, jJl (vt. vg.) quae audiunt qui vident passage in the form /m/caîoi ot oÔaX/Jioi
.
. .
Diatessaron
JU.-J
^J ?, The latter sense

and
.
which may mean

is
because
given by the several MSS. of % by

wra
Hegesippus quotes the
VJJLWV ol ySAeTrovres, KOL TO.
v/jLuv
TO.
O.KOVOVTU. |
HE.
iv.
22)
Hegesippus (according to Eusebius, was a Hebrew by birth and made quotations from
Since
Syriac and Hebrew, we may infer that in this case his quotation is based upon a Syriac translation of Mt. The rendering of i1 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 ? in the contexts in question. Conversely, the same influence upon the
so-called
Western text is seen in Jn. 8 D on aTTtOavtv, where WH. rightly has oo-ns
:>:!
/JLTJ
o-v
//,ei
an/
TOV
Noted by Wellhausen, Einleitung*, p. 15. 1 Cf. Allen, St. Mark, adloc. SS. Patruin edit. alt. ii, p. 213 a reference which the of the passage in Remains of a very present writer owes to Dr. Cureton s discussion
% Cf. Grabe. Spicilegium
;
antient recension of the
Four
Gospels in Syriac, p. xxv.
78
IVa
CONJUNCTIONS
as a mistranslation of
>!
|= when
We
it
have noticed, when speaking of the usage of
that
it
can
bear the meaning

is
when
,
ore.
Strictly speaking in
in
it
relatival
which
;
with ellipse of
28
,
^^
such a usage which in it
=
a/a
in
which
<*=>?
cf.
Jn. 5
Jjix*,
:
where
Syr. as
J?o
|J^.
The
in Pal. l/oêrai &pa eV 77 appears following cases occur in Jn. of
standing for ore

f]
I223 fXrjXvOtv
Pal. Syr.
1
eopa
Iva.
SoâvOfj 6 wos row avdpuirov.
U>^?
^
wpa
u.^-.-?
jfcox*,
U/.
I^
Â.$ev auTOV
17
iVa /JLeraf^TJ IK TOV KotTfjiov TOVTOV.
Pal. Syr. Jc*iX^. ^.?

16"
ô Uu? oV^*^
a7ro/cTiVa<?
U/.
8o^?y
rai
Ipêrai ew.*
wpa
iVa Tras 6
V/JLOLS
Xarpeiav
Pal.
JoC^JJ
5yr.
OJ.,0^0
^>>o~o?
^rxao )oo
ycu9^ ^^-o?
00.
. .
.
^ ^^?
l632 epêrai wpa
iVa
.
cr/cop7rtcr^T.
Pal. Syr. v oiÛ?
U~
U/-
That and
in all these cases Iva
that
no mystic
1
final
simply stands by mistranslation for ore, sense is to be traced in the usage such as is
is
postulated by Westcott,
ep^crai aipa ore in
"
3
,
4"
5%
l6"
proved by the use of the normal phrase 3 28 and Ipêrat lv rj in 5

,
.
<bpa
on
In 9
8
similarly a mistranslation of ^
when
^v
ot
êcapoSvres avrov TO Trporepoi/
on
7rpoo-atT7/s
we have
a very
awkward
on,
and R.V.
aforetime, that he
was a beggar
halting rendering, is the best that can be

,
they that
saw him
made
of the sentence.
was a beggar
Clearly the sense demanded is when (ore) he when has and the natural inference is that ^
been wrongly interpreted as conjunctive

instance of the
that
Another
,
clear
same mistranslation is seen in i2 41 ravra cl-rev Ho-atas on elSev rrjv S6av avrov (R.V. because he saw his glory where the sense demanded is when (ore) he saw His glory t
),
.
<S
* Freely quoted in the letter from the church at Lyons (Eusebius, HE. v. l) with 5oet for iVa the correction tv So^ fêvaerni Kaipos Iv $ iras o dnonrdvas
.
vfjids 86f(i
\arpfiav
irpoffcpfpeiv TO) Qfaj.

"1
These relative f It is just possible that OTI may here be a mistranslation of but the sense things said Isaiah who saw His glory and spake concerning Him
,
when seems
to
be preferable.
CHAPTER
IV
PRONOUNS
THE
persons
great frequency of the Pronouns of the first and second is a marked feature in Jn. The occurrences in this
:
Gospel and the Synoptists are as follows

Mt.
eyto
/cdyto
Mk.
17
Lk.
Jn.
29 9
5 18
31
92~
23 4
5
^34 27
18
êis
a-v
3 10
II
27
21
"80
tyxets
60 68
307
Totals
H
:!1
To
fact
that
a large extent this phenomenon finds its explanation in the the Fourth Gospel is designed to prove our Lord s
).
Messiahship and His Divinity (2O

the
Baptist
-
Thus
*
-
at the
opening
mission
St.
John
in
emphasizes the character

:i
of
his
eyw
contrast to that of Christ (i* --*- 26 2 ^!
\
,
3^).
"
Our Lord
-
lays stress
-
claims -tyi (4 14 6 5 10 41 4 48 51 54 , 8 12 42, i 71UU4 ls 5 oM i8 7 ), or His acts (15 i6 15 if- -"-, i8Himself into antithesis with others the disciples, the bringing 34 45 s 15 216 22 23 ^- 38 45 35 io 1(US i2 47 Jews, the world, &c. (4 -, 5 f*>-
upon
ii5
,
His
4(i
,
2fi
:!0:i(i
i2
:t:!
<
14",
-",
"),
2ti -
jgu-is-a:^
jâ.iso.i j.^".-^
J^S/I.IO.IG^
r
j^wb.ssj.
(1
or j^ e
:i(1
(j
fi
e fi nes
23
His relation
to
is
io i6i7 ). Emphatic fyti? and implied or expressed antithesis often accounts for the use of r/êis and a-v.
,
,
God
the Father (5 17 , 6
8 u;618 ),
frequently antithetical to eyo
When
all
such cases have been taken into consideration, there

-
remain, however, a large number in which the Pronoun appears Thus e yw in i 30 316 3*, q 3 *, to be used with no special emphasis.
,
8o
/CG3.70 u
>
PRONOUNS
_17
7
-
c
>
Q14.1f)a.-21a.29.49.50.54
;
-
T ~17.27.28.35
>
T T 27.42 JI ;
TO 50 I2 )
in
i
ir>
T Z
~7.18.-:fi
3
-
>
T I4
.
:<5
4.106.126.10.28
>
14 20 26
-
i5
i6 4 7W
in 3
,
7
10
,
--^
io 24
,
I 82"
9
,
w
-2i-37;
,
êk
5
;
6 42 69
2t;
,
ls
,
i9
7
;
-
cnJ
26
,
4
i
i4
IS 34
-
-"
fyms in
4*
^^^^
24 29
-
8 31
46
,
19 - 30
ii 49
13
,
Now
while in
i 4 5 Semitic the use of the Personal Pronouns with

i
.
",
2n
3 lfib
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 of the Participle. Participle is used with great freedom to describe an event as
in process of continuance,
in
whether
in the past or present,
or as
process of coming into being (Futurum instans). the subject being unexpressed in the verbal form,
In such cases,
it
is
of course
necessary to mark it, when it is pronominal, by the Pronoun. This Semitic usage of the Participle being foreign to Greek, the in translating the Hebrew of the O.T. naturally represents
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.
in
Cases of OJN, I with the Participle expressed by eyw 12 Genesis are as follows, y 4 "Vlppp eroV, 9 eVayo) eycb 14 HHD T Si Soo/u, |flb ^bN ^ K pivu I5 3O
"ON,
,
"^K
lyt>
f>w,
24
27
37"
13 43
-
3
:o
,
"3bN
nan
12
,
i^
1S
,
^
21
,
eyw,
"ObK
AevT>yo-a>
ZO-TTJKO..
32
s
,
,
25
are
28
.
31
32
42
48
49
29
.
So also i6 j8 24 The only cases without

17
,
3 - 37 42
-
eycu
uo
Cases of i:mx,
Genesis
we
are
:
Kings
with the Participle expressed by n:N QGen. i9 13 mn nipsn-nx

,
^/xets
in
aTroXXvfJLfv rincis TOJ/ TOTTOI/ TOVTOV,
18
43
D^ltt
rl3K
Ata TO apyvpiov
Egaipofjifv ^/xeig
i
77/^15
da-ayoptOa,
3
,
Num.
I
.
IO 29
28
,
"
^P^?
, ,
ets roi/
,
TOTTOI/.
So Deut.
-
22
Sam. 14 s
rjfJieiS.
3 Kgs. 22 2 Kgs. 6
9to
)
i826
No
I2 8 Judg. l8 5; I9 18 cases with omission

,
of
Similarly, in Genesis
Kings there are 40 cases of

ra
nriN
thou
with the Participle expressed by o-v (e.g. Gen. i$ nns~)^s n??"^? and 35 n^T Trao-av rrjv yfjv fy av bpas), as against 14 without av
:
cases of
E^
ye
Dr.
with
the
Ex.
l6 8 D^;^
n^N
Participle expressed by D^WJjTriK rov yoyyvaôv
tyxets
(e.g.
PRONOUNS
e)
81
n
),
and one case with
avroi (Ex. io
as against 6 cases
without
vfjbtZs.
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.
n:N
I
8
:
Dan. 2
WK VT -mi ETT mn njN-Kn

f
dATêi as ol8a
e
"os
y<.
6p
eyo
Dan. 3 16
Njn^N;
pnf n-
QV
x/>
Ezr. 4 1G X3?p
n3m
:
pynin
nn^N
thou
"
Dan. 4 la ?Q|
1 ^ ?^] cru Se, Aai/i^X, Swacrcu.
ye
s
Dan. 2
m\
z^
P^: ^
1
^"Ijy
xatpov
/xets
eâyopa^cre.
The only
Tôn l^clll.
->-
n35<
exception to the expression of the Pronoun is found in ~ n!3tv ?3!i ^"linw ^nm^ HT^ îS _ O A rf.1 ^ I/COS TCOV TTCtTCOWV LiO V
*
*:
.!
O"Ot
eô/xoXoyoOytxat
/cat aivoi.
As compared with Hebrew,

freely in
is
the Personal Pronoun
is
used more
Aramaic with
;
(e.g.)
J"iV"P
a Perfect where no special stress

i
1(i
apparent
cf.
Dan. 4
fl
H3X
oi/
eyw
cyi/on/,
"n^Xj
^^^
^^l
Kat cyd) rjKov&a TTfpi crov.

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.

{yxets
Thus
e.g.,
OVK oiSare exactly represents

eo-rij/
6O
py"],"!
30
owos
VTrep
cases
we may
810,
H3N nDNT WH fHn. In other eyw CITTOJ/, ^H^g find the Aramaic Pronoun coupled without special
or)
emphasis with a Perfect or Imperfect;

TOVTO rjXOov
iv vBarc
cyo>
e.g. i
"
<1XX
Iva (fravtpuOy
ro>
82
P?pa JfcSB fWK JVriK ntt
PRONOUNS
p.
;
Again, in I 9?/ms naturally reproduces the suffix of f^3
16
Trails
Aa/V^>
the
all
of us*.
Particularly noteworthy is the throwing of o-v to the end of the i8 37 sentence, whether in a question, as in i 21f) O -nyxx^TT/s ei
<nJ;
OUKOW
flewpco
fiao-iXtvs el o-v;
itf HoOfv
el o-v
or in a statement, as in 4 19
et cru.
on
et
7rpo<f>r)Tr)<s
crt ,
8 48
3a/AapeiT??s
This
is
,
never found
elsewhere throughout the N. T. except in Acts i3 33 Heb. i 5 Yios eT o-u, a quotation of Ps. 2 7 with accurate reproduction of the IJLOV
Hebrew order
nriK
^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. 27 24 33 nj nPiN) and Jn. s use of both 52 orders (cf. o-v d in i 42 49 3 7 &c.) looks much like a close repro
;
-
duction of an Aramaic original.
auros, OUTOS,
To
express the 3rd person

(-ry)
CO>TO
S is
fairly frequent in Jn.
The
:
figures for curro s
as subject in the four Gospels are as follows

12,
Mt.
Mk.
17,
Lk. 51,
Jn. 18.
Much more
often,
demonstrative OVTOS
this
however, Jn. prefers to use an emphatic that one and he employs one
,
e/ce<Vos
these Pronouns substantival ly with far greater freedom than do the The figures for oSros (a^) as subject are Synoptists.
Mt. 35,
Mk.
14,
Lk. 36
Jn. 44.
For
CKCII/OS
(-77,
-o)
used substantially, whether as subject or
obliquely, the figures are
Mt.
e /ceij/os is
4,
Mk.
3,
Lk.
4,
Jn. 51.
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 theHieory
that his Gospel
is a close reproduction of an Aramaic original. In the Aramaic of Dan. the 3rd Personal Pronoun tttn hu as subject is rendered avro s by Theodotion, except where it forms the
subject of a predicative statement in which the copula is under stood, in which case the Greek represents it by the substantive
PRONOUNS
verb
:
83
e. g.
6 Kin pp-no
<
faithful (was)
KOL/JLTTTUV.
he
TTIO-TOS fy,
11
Tpn fcn
he (was) kneeling
ty
is richly supplied with demonstrative Pronouns. with their Greek renderings, may be noticed. following,
na-n
Aramaic
The
de nd
this
fern,
an
plur.
c.
flffl
P.W*
;
Y/,
Dan. and Ezr.
passim.
Targums
P}
d,
fem. K^
strative prefix n ha-, PI? haden, fem.
K"jn
strengthened by demon = Syriac jJot hana

/?#</#
e (contracted from had na], fem. jo hade
plur.
c.
P.?Kn haîllen
is
Syriac ^.ô regularly rendered OUTOS in Dan. and Ezr.

it
hallen.
n:n both as pronominal

(in
subs, and adj.
a few cases of adj. use
is
represented by the definite article only). \?n. dikken |?1 Kobx this, that , c., Dan. 2
:il
r/
CIKWI/ e/ceu/?/
.).
(LXX
c.
and
.),
Dan. 7
-
20 21
-
t?1
12 1G
-
wnp
TO
/ce
pas e/ceô
(LXX,
Plur.
^N
6 ///^ Dan 3 (also found To this corresponds in Ezr.

12 21 23
-
in Ezr.).
tft
dekh, fem.
^
;
dakh
H^3;
this
^ Nrsnp ^
Tro Ats eVeiny,
Ezr. 4
i:i -
15
lfi -
19 -2i
;
TroAis avn;,
8
lcb
^H 12??^, âpftayap
(
u
IKCIVOS,
^
, ,
riT3j; T 6 Ipyoi/
e/ceivo,
:n
^^K
we
In addition,
that
ha),
/j<5/jf
7 8 17 OIKOV êov, 6 -. 5 6 find in Talmudic Aramaic &wnn hahti that or
T ^) O 1KOV TO {} ^ O 9
exeii/ov,
(i.e. 3rd personal pronoun hu + demonstrative particle contracted in Syriac into oo hau (Pal. Syr. also ojo), fem. NVin
one
/M/ (Pal. Syr. also ~io), Nn), contracted] in Syriac into ^ ^njn hanho, m. â*jo hhnnun, fem. hannen. This usage plur. Syriac
(also
is
notice the use of the Personal
not found in the Aramaic of Dan. and Ezr., though Pronoun in Dan. 2 32 NB^S?
we may
wn
//!/
is
image
(explained as
like
e/<eu/os
Nom. pendens
TO ni/cO/ua
l
it
the image
i:f
).
This
remarkably sion which amounts

(Pal. Syr. )^.J,CLC?
TT}S
dX^da a? in Jn. i6
or
at
an expres
&c.
to
that Spirit of truth
the Spirit,
]^09
o{oi.
This version
}>AJ+=>
times uses o|o to
o|o = o avOpuiros.) express the definite article, e. g. There can be no question that where e /ceii/os is used adjectivally
it
would naturally be represented by Ninn. Thus 453 iKttvy rfj &pa would appear in the Jerus. Talmud as Nnyiy Kns (Cur., Pesh.
)fco^, but Pal. Syr. J]^*.
<ô
^).
When
used substantivally as
subject
reinforcing a ./Vow*, pendens (cf. p. 64) Pronoun Nin ; it is probable that f/cctW? represents the Personal but there are other cases in which it looks much like a reproduc
especially
tion of Ninn.
Pal. Syr. represents
it
when
by oo
(olo) in 3
:i>
,
7",
9"
",
G 2
84
:i ,
RONOU
44
N.S
1 .
U 8 A7 Pesh. by o in 3 io lb5, i^- 2 \ itf 7 9 may note especially the rendering of oblique cases by Pesh. in the
f^
28
We
following passages
i0
3
43
Kflvov Set
avdviv
= jo;J*i^X
yCiN-.ol
JJo
Oo
oc^
(Cur. oo
o*X)
CKUVOV
Xrjpif/ecrOe
Oo^
(SO Cur.)
(Cur. oof).
Ooj k~j(
(Sin.
om.
Oo?).
OJO^X
y/ (Sin. OHl.).
In cases such as these the idiomatic force of the

strative satisfactorily accounts for the
Aramaic demon
phrase
21
e/ce?vds
mi/,
rendered
oot o
Greek usage. Again, the 26 lit. that one (is) he in i3

,
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
e/ceti/o5
= hu. = hu and = hdden.

e
hdhu.
Adjectival use
= den, d na, or haden. = dikken, dekh, or hahti.

The Relative completed by a Pronoun.
The Aramaic
already
relative
(p.
particle
"^
originally,
that
as
we have
is
remarked
70),
demonstrative
one
in
variable, and, like the
Hebrew
relative Tf^, properly
forms a link
connecting two co-ordinate sentences. For expression of the implied relation it is therefore necessary to complete the sense of the Relative particle by a Pronoun or Pronominal suffix in the
clause which
the
it
introduces.
I
Thus
e.g.
such a statement
as,
saw
man
to
whom
I
gave the book

I
has to be expressed in Semitic
in the form,
saw the man who
gave the book
to
him
There
are several instances in Jn. in which the Greek copies this Semitic
construction.
i
EyeVero avOpwiros
ovofjia
cdrro)
lajaw^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. 2 I OVK dpi aios a/a Avo-oo O.VTOV TOV IfJidvTa TOV uTroSr/pxTOS. ou
eyu>
3
I"
E<
ov
av
18775
TO
Uj/cCyu-a
KaTa/3cuvov
KOL
pîvov
en-
OLVTOV
Pal.
Syr.
oa^j^
JifcoLaoo
jfc^j
Uo
U^
U? v?o
lit.
He who
.
thou seest the Spirit descending and abiding upon him 36 9 Kai TIS ecrrii/, KU/OIC, a/a TrujTevo-o) eis auroV ; Here a/a
translation of the relative ^
26
;
is
a mis
cf. p.
76.
I3
E/<ea/os
eVnv
2,Tj
o>
eydo /3di{/w TO i^w/xibv Kai 8(oo-(o avrw.
Peculiarly
I
Aramaic
n^
N^nb nas
it
y^jrn sin tfinn

i.e.
That
I
is
he de
shall
dip the sop and give
to
.
him*,
to
whom
shall give the
sop
when
have dipped
8e 8w/cus
jioi
it
l8 9 OS?
OVK
ttTra Aeo-a
e^ avrcov
Wellhausen (Einleilmig struction from Mk., viz. I

TWV
v/roSrjjjLaTwv avTov,
2
,
p. 15) cites
two instances of
this
con
ov OVK
?/$
elfju
t/cavos Kvif/as \vo~ai TOV t/xdVra

TrvevfJio.
,
and
7"
etêv TO OvyaTpiov auT^s
aKaOapTOv,
besides three cases from the text of
in Mt. ic
11
,
i8 20 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
41 days of those kings (2 ), ate their pieces of the Jews dered them, &c. his appearance of the fourth
3"),
(i.e.
;
slan
(3"),
Pal. Syr.
light
in Jn. i writes
7 8
-
their light of
mankind
(v.
),
its
news of the
(vv.
19
),
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 estimating the theory of translation from Aramaic. his parents of him that had TOVS yoi/eis O.VTOV TOV di/a/SAc i/ aj/Tos,
received sight
This appears naturally

to
in
Pal. Syr. as O
P&~9
TT}S
\?o?
Cf.
HpcoSiaSos,
Mk. 6 22 LO-\Oovo-r]<; TT)S which is clearly an attempt

= Lk
is
3",
avTov
6vyaTpo<>
(v. /
reproduce the Aramaic

x^pt
cturoi), upon the assump whose hand is the fan (not
He
also cites Mt. 3 12
ov TO
mvov
tivrov,
Iv TTJ
tion that ov is reinforced b3
tv rf/
x ft pi
In
Whose
fan,
&c.
but this
very doubtful.
86
construction
PRONOUNS
</^
r daughter of Herodias i.e. the D^Tnrn nrna daughter of H. (noted by Allen, St. Mark, ad loc.}. Another ^peculiarly Aramaic idiom is the anticipation of the
,
direct object of a verb

Pal. Syr. renders
by a pronominal
suffix.
Thus
in Jn. i9
13
ojoaaoL-. U-vaX ok~ he brought Him (viz.) Lord Jesus / I 9 1G ô^. J;-*^ o,)^. they led Him the Lord Jesus igi* <x^:^ ol^, he pierced it His side .* An example of this idiom is seen in the Greek of Jn. 9 13
~W
the
o*2>?
+>^
TOV<S
3>apivaiov<s
rov
TTOTC
TvtfrXov
Pal.
Syr. ol
No
Aramaic.
âWD
it
cases of the direct object of a verb so anticipated are found in Biblical find the anticipatory pronoun, however, in such phrases as
We nnm^n
,
was found
in the
in
him
in
Daniel
(Dan. s
12
),
wtyl
!>y
HD
in
in the night
i.e.
they sent to him to found in Hebrew: cf. Brockelmann, Vergleich,
same night (Dan. 5 ;, KnKTnniN TH^y Artaxerxes (Ezr. 4 11 ). A few cases of the construction are
ir6tJ>
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

13
ayovo-iv,
Q
5
iS 28
(3<i\\ei,
I3
29
,
)8Xrei, I
6YSa>0-lV,
20 15 2I 20
,
2f>
jSXeTTOVO-w,
2I 9
I3
21
.
3
.
eyetperai,
,
13
4",
II
,
-
12**
14
8s 2O 12fil8
,
2fi
21
13
I
,
41 43 45
5
2I
20 6 12 14 ;
26
Owpovoriv,
13
.
6 19
I3
\ ^, T Aeyct; I
-
21 2 9- S6 -3S.M.41.43.45.46.47.48.51
O O ,2,3,4
3.4.5.7.S.9
4
.7.9.11.15.16.17.19.21.25.26.28.34.49.50
,
-6.8
^.5.8.12.20
>
n 6.50 ; 7
,
O39
>
_12
>
T T 7.11.23.24.e7.S9lt.40.44 IJ
,
TO 4.22 ; A^
or ,20
S
:!4
T o fi.8.9.10.24.25.27.31.36.37 XO
>
10 14 19 2I 3.5.7.io.i2.l5 er.l6er.l7M..19.2l.22. Xe 7 oi;o-/,

-r
.5.6.8.9.22
T Q4.5 176is.26.386ts
T .-4.5.6.9.10.14. 15.26.27-28
.2.13.15 W.16&ls.l7.19.22.27.29
,
<?
II
3 I2 22 l629 2O 13; 2I
,
,
I
.
10
.
24
I3
20-.
I".
<f>aiVL,
l8 29
This list gives a total of 164 occurrences.* The figures for the Hawkins (HS.~ pp. 143 ff.) are, Synoptists, as given by Sir John
f
* Sir
John Hawkins gives the

in
Tischendorf
writer,
29
).
He
has,
i 6
figure as 162 (besides two cases preserved in however, kindly lent his MS. list to the present
who
has added (paivd
(which may be open to dispute) and
SiScuaiv
ai 13
88
THEVERB
:
Mt. 78 (21 of which are derived from Mk.

;
in addition there are
Lk. only 4 [or 6); Acts 13. 15 Presents in Parables); Mk. 151 It thus appears that Jn. closely resembles Mk. in fondness for this usage. 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 dis
course
in this Gospel. There are comparatively few cases of the 10 and 14 17.* Historic Present in Jn. 5
The use
resembles a
of the
Historic
Present
in
Mk. and Jn. strongly
common Aramaic
idiom in which in a description of
past events the Participle
is employed to represent the action described as in process of taking place. The following instances of this participial usage are found in the Aramaic chapters of the Book of Daniel. Theodotion sometimes renders it by an Historic
Present or (more frequently) by an Imperfect ; and when this is the case his rendering is added. In other cases he employs an
Aorist.
(was) answering (always 5 8 15 20 26 27 47 w--*-a. , 3 4 saying ), 2

-
n ?.y
followed
<,
^-
by
-
">2N1
and (was)
(this
f?3iJ
13 g-w, 6
17 21
,
verb
is
frequently
,
omitted
24
.
in
Theodotion
15 20 26 27 47
-
rendering).t
(were)
answering 3 ipN (was) saying

f.
p-wpN
in 2 27 , \iyov(Tiv in 2
10
,
a5 8
-
^-^^
-
f
-
44.n.i66,;o.^ 5 7.i:u^
,
513.17.2^
(were) saying
,
-
2
,
7ao
,
9 16 24
66 7
-
13 14 16
-
Theodotion, Ae yet
3
6 13 14
-
16
eAeyov in 7
,
5
.
p$3?ri
*Qi?
(were) gathering together

4
;
$
.
r*? N i?
(were) standing
(^KOVOV),
PI??]
(was) crying (c(36a), 3 tv 3 (were)

,?
.
PVf?
(were) hearing
. .
7
;
falling
down
;
and (were) worshipping
(Trwrroi/Tes
TT/OOO-CKWOW),
pi?B
(were)
coming
27
;
forth
ftC
1
26
,
pfcno
*
(were) gathering
together
(oWyovrat) 3
(were)
Cf. //5.2pp.
It is
i 43 f. remarkable that, though
we
constantly find iljy (participle) coupled with

,
"HON")
(participle) in the singular
he (was) answering and (was) saying
we
do
not (with the single exception 3 24 ) find the participle plural p^JJ coupled with the
participle plural
perfect fay
p"lDSl.
In the plural the regular usage

p")ON1
is
the coupling of the

.
with the participle
they answered and (were) saying
This
fact
suggests the possibility that the singular form should be vocalized, not rOJJ
ane (Participle), but fOy and (Perfect).
THE VERB
seeing crying
(KCU.
,
89
U)
,
(cOewpow),
nriE>
27
;
rim
(was)
,
4";
(was) drinking
descending 4 N~li? (was and (were) writing |2Ti;:i

; ;
5";
5 2ypa<ov),
nin
(was) seeing
6
(e<9ewpei),
pl^tt (were) being

(orwe/c/oorowro),
5"
loosed
*T!i?
8
(8ic\.vovTo),
,
5
7
f$p3
e
(were) knocking
(was) crying
pfe"^
p^y,
K reT^
(were) entering
s
(efVeTropeiWro),
!>n3JTO
(were) not being able

,
(OVK ^vvavro), 5
,
5";
(was)
being terrified
able
NliDI
15
,
5;
f?3B>
(were) being changed
P^ri^rp
(were)
being perplexed
5
;
(o-werapao-o-oj/ro),
pbnjTK^
5;
pnt?
(were) drinking
(eTnVere),
(were) not being ^mDiB by Tpzi wn
he (was) kneeling on his knees and (was) praying and K?2ftp} (was) giving thanks (?/v KOL/JLTTTW eVt TO, yoVara avrov, Kal Trpocreuô/xevos 11 2 /cat fnÔ (were) bursting forth (Trpoo-eâXXoi/), 7 egofjioXoyoviJiwos), 6
; ;
|^p
(were)
coming up
. . .
(avtfiaivcv),
npsi
.
.
ni?^ nbx
was )
eating and (was) breaking in pieces

Kal XCTTTVVOV
7-19
(was) trampling
(was) issuing
(eAaAet),
21
,
(lo-Biov
o-weTTttret), 7
10
P??]
^?.J
and (was)
7";
coming
(was)
forth
(etAfccv),
N^k>D
(was) speaking
N*ny
making
21
(eVot et), 7
nJKP
The
action
fact that in the
199^ Aramaic
(was) prevailing zw. of Dan.
we
thus find no
less than 99 instances of this participial
usage describing a past

is.
shows how highly
characteristic of the language the idiom

itself to
is
That the usage naturally lends

If those
representation in
the Historic Present or Imperfect
obvious to
Greek by an Aramaic scholar.

read a passage
who
are unacquainted with
Aramaic
will
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 t s) is absent from the original and can only be inferred from the context, they can hardly fail to come to the same
conclusion.
It will
be noticed
that, out of the
the verb
answer
and no
less than
99 examples, 23 are found with 36 with the verb say leaving

,
40 (or considerably
meanings.
less than half the total) to verbs bearing other
In Syriac the use of the Participle under discussion is confined to the verb wo/ say*.* In the 151 instances practically of the Historic Present in Mk., 72 are cases of Ae yti, Ae yowiv. In the 164 instances in Jn. the proportion borne by Ae yet, Xeyovo-iv to
*
of
its
See, however, Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, use with other verbs in Sin.
ii,
pp. 63
ff.,
for instances
90
the whole
fourths.
THEVERB
number
is
considerably higher,
viz. 120,
or nearly three-
to
That the frequent use of the Historic Present in Mk. is due Aramaic influence is maintained by Allen (Expositor, 1900,
ff.
;
xiii, p. 329 ; Oxford Studies in the and by Wellhausen (Einleitung in die drei Synoptic Problem, p. 295) ersten Evangelietf, p. 17). It can hardly be doubted that in Jn.
pp. 436
Expository Times,
also the
same theory phenomenon.
offers
an adequate explanation of the same
The Imperfect
Aramaic use of the
Participle coupled with
the Substantive verb.

Instances of the Imperfect in Jn. (excluding the Substantive
verb) are as follows
:
6 18
22
v,
I2 6
22
.
I3 2 2D
41 lyoyyv&v, 6
I9
16
5
eSo/cow,
I3
29>
2 1.
v,
4
.
27
,
15
7
18
ivovro,
l8
eêcopow,
62
I3
29
;
cKa6eeTO,
Ka6tf]rot
4
.
6
,
1 1
20
.
63
29
KITO, I9
2O 12
THE VERB
4%
2
13
91
7
,
io
1
fi
21 22
5"
10
,
"
65 71
-
7ll.l2fo*8.25.3I.40,4lbM
,0
019.22.25
33 42 10 8 23 27 31 9, I2 29 33 6 1442 5 ZXeyor, 4 -.20.21.24.41 ~S.9 .lO.Ms Hjbis 9 T T To T^ 18 IO 12 TO ,1 T ,9

-
:ifi.47.5fi
I9
321
,
20 25
.
18
6 r2
G
.
I2
,
1
.
I2
r (^.),
(z/. /.
47
,
fi
71
,
ii
40
.
51
,
i2
3:i
i8
:i2
e//,eivev) ;
IO
eVotet,
2 2i 5 1R 6 2
, ,
eVopevero,
4.
.
erdA/>ta ;
2 1 12
2O 4
:i8
,
23
9
36
,
t,
ii
II
19
i5
2:i
2O 2
I9
2fi
5
,
I3
2I 7
:o
;
^yaTrSre,
8 42 I4
;
33
(e8.),
II 37
rySwai/ro,
1
I2 39
18
;
êXev, 7
,
.
^6>eXoj/,
6 11
21
,
44
l6 19
2 15 â, 6 l8
II 29
f,p
X ovTO, 4
31 40
6 17 19
,
2O 3
15
,
4
la^yoVj 2I
r>
I2 21
f
",
IO"
II
4
;
TrepitTraTOW,
fir>
vTrrjyov,
6 21 I2 11
,
I2 42
92
THEVERB
The
total is 167. in
;
In Mt. the Imperfect occurs 94 times in Mk. Lk. 259 times; in Acts 329 times.* If Jn. were as if long as Mt., there would be proportionately 212 occurrences if as short as Mk., 133. as long as Lk., 225 Thus Jn. s use of the tense, though more than twice as frequent as that of Mt., is
228 times;
considerably less than Lk. s, and very much less than Mk. s. The large amount of discourse in Jn. affords little opportunity for the
8 cases
use of the Imperfect. The last discourses, chs. 14-17, offer only while the bulk of the examples occur in chs. 4-12, where ;
there are 118 cases.
Among
Jn. s
Imperfects, the great frequency of eXeyev, eXeyov
and forms a bond of connexion with Mk. s usage. has 46 occurrences, and Mk. 50; while in Mt. there are Jn. only 10, in Lk. 23, and in Acts 11. t It may be remarked that
attracts notice,
eXeyev, eXeyov
are very rare in
LXX,
Sir
John Hawkins enumerating
but 40 cases.
frequent Aramaic usage, closely akin to the single use of the Participle above noticed, is the coupling of a Participle with
the Substantive verb in description of past events. Thus, in place he did some action, Aramaic frequently says of saying he
was doing
The
it, thus pictorially representing the action as in process. instances of this usage in the Aramaic of Dan. are commonly
and Theodotion by a Greek Imperfect] the rendering exactly copies the Aramaic though occasionally by employing the Participle and Substantive verb. The following are the instances of the usage in description of past events
rendered both by
:
LXX
Aramaic.
2
31
Literal rendering.
LXX.
.
Theodotion.
e flewpets.
rWH
id.
^.IP.
rttPI
Thou wast seeing

id.
I
eaj/xx/<as.
2 34
id.
.
id.
4 4
5
TIC
was seeing
id.
KaOev8ov.
eOewpow.
id.
rjo-av
/cat
10
id.
tOfwpow.
vacat.
19
PV^l
ftp
P?rni
* Cf.
They were trembling and fearing

.
rpe/xovres
fapovpevoi.
p. 51, where the figure 163 for Jn. requires correction, as also the printer s error 12 for the occurrences of tyrj, which should be 2.
HS*
Cf.
ffS*
p. 12.
THE VER
Aramaic.
Literal rendering.
Whom he was willing

he was
killing,
and
mn N3^ mn
mn~H]
NFID
whom whom
he was willing
he was smiting, and he was willing
ano
xnx
Njn N?X
nin-n]
Nin
he was raising up,
and whom he was wil

ling he
was abasing
njn
he
over
was
.
presiding
s
65
they were seeking
6 11
nin
2
he was doing
he was striving
I
7
4
i
..
mn
. .
was seeing
id.
id. id.
7
7 7
id.
id.
I
id.
mn
was considering was seeing

.
e(
id.
id.
13
id.
e
6!
id.
it
id.
was
differing
was seeing
The
use of the Substantive verb with the Participle of

is
"IEN
he
was saying
as eXeyev,
frequent in
Aramaic, and especially
in Syriac, just
eAeyoj/
are particularly frequent in
Mk. and
Jn.
Nin IDN
does not occur
in Dan., the writer preferring the
simple Participle
WK
(cf.
p. 88).
94
THEVERB
The Present sometimes = the Aramaic Futurum instans
.
Participle as
The use of
a Present to denote the
Futurum
instans
is
parti
cularly frequent in Jn. with the verb epxo/*ai. following instances

:
We
may
note the
I I
10
OTTIO-OJ
[LOU ep^dp-eVOS.
OTTIO-W /J.QV
epxerai avrjp.
otSa
4"
on
Mecrcrias
e<m
35
Terpa/AT/vds
cis Kpicrtv
/cat
$epioy<tos
epêrat.
5 6 14
27
OUK epêrat.
6 epxc/xevos eis rov KOO-/AOV.
TrpofftrjTrjs
7
41
6 Se Xptcrros orav ep^r/rai.
7
4
M^
a?ro
yap
e/c
T^S FaA-i/Was 6 Xptcrros epêrat

. .
.
B^^Xee/x
cpêrai 6 Xptcrros.
9
II
epêxat vv^, ore ouSets S^Varat epyae(r$ai.

6 Xpio~ros,
...
6 cis TOV KOCTJJLOV epô/xcvos.
14
-
7raA.iv epxpfAai.
18 28
I4
30
epô/iat vrpos v/xas.
I4 21
21
ep^crat yap 6 rou Koo-pov ap^wi/.
Ep^d/xcâ
/cai ^/xets crvi/ O-QI .

e oos
Eav
CLVTOV êAoo /xevav
epô/xai.
This use of epô/xat is found also in the Synoptists, though with 3 not nearly such frequency: Mt. 3 11 (Mk. i 7 Lk. 3 ), Mt. 20 5 12 42 (Lk. 7 ), Mt. (eA&oj/ Mk. 9 ), Mt. 2i (quotation), Mt. 24
1(i
17"
1 43 44 :!MO Lk. Mt. 27 As (Mk. i2 ), Mt. 24 (Lk. i2 ) 23-*. be expected, it is particularly frequent in the Apocalypse might 47 8 i 2 5 10 3 U 4 s 9 12 ii 14 i6 15 22 7 12 20
s;>
if"
Instances of other Presents so used in Jn. are:

I
29
iSe 6 d/xvos TOV Oeov 6 atpcov rryv ap.aprt av rou KOCT/JLOV.
I2 2
6
<f>tX(i)v
rr)v
,
IJ/V^TJV
,
avrov
aTroXXvei
avTrjV (contrast
Mt.
l6"
Mk. 8
17"
:i5
Lk. 9 2
rav
s3
dTroAeW
a^r^j/).
Trepi
TTLcrrfvovTOiV Bia
TOV Adyou awrojv
ets ep:e.
In
Aramaic
(as
also in
Hebrew) the
Participle is used as a
Futurum
instans with great frequency.
In
all
cases cited above
THEVERB
in
95
instans, Pesh. repre
,
which epô/mi has the sense of a Futurum

it
sents
by the
Participle,
except in
i4
i6 2
where the future
expressed by the Imperfect. Moreover, in the only cases in Jn. where the Greek uses the Future eAeuo-o/xcu, we find that
sense
is
Pesh. represents this by the Participle;

/cat
48
eXeuo-oi/rat 01
Payuubt
= apovo-iv
^>JXA,
Ju>ooj
taking away
tO
23
;
i4
;
Trpos
l6"
and the Romans coming, ^ljo, and avrov IXeva-ofjicOa = jj.+i( ojlaô, lit.
lit.
him we coming
J)
6 Trapa/cAT/Tos ov
eA&j
(TR.
.
OVK eXeuVerat)
= Jl/
31
)^Xc*9,
lit.
the Paraclete not
coming
Cf. elsewhere,
êpai = Jfcoocu ^? ^JL/, lit. but days coming ; JuV3, lit. 25 "Orav 8k eXOy 6 wos TOU avOpw-rrov =^ hajff o^s ^-.? When the Son of man coming Mk. 8 orav IA% ev T^ 80^77 TOV
Mt. 9 15 e Aev owTcu
8e
)i(>
:!8
Trarpos avrov
wo.=>i?
JL*.^Qjfc2>
)li?
Jl
jao
lit.
when He coming
1
in
the glory of His Father

in
(so
Lk. 9 - 6 ).
Instances of the usage
the Aramaic of Dan. are, 2 13
decree went forth

to be killed );
p^n?? NW?m n^D3 Nn !) So the and the wise men being killed (i. e. were about N^N fO PIIJ? ^] And they driving thee from
v.
29
;
men
they shall drive thee ); so wetting thee (i.e. they shall wet thee ).
(i.e.
4- PV^rp
Tjb
they
Verbal sequences.
i
39
"Epxeo-0e
sequence an ark
.
pitch
A similar Come, and ye shall see Hebrew. Cf. Gen. 6 14 Make ( n ^J|) thee and thou shall pitch ("]??]) it within and without with so Targ. Onk., nnj wni Tjb l^y. i Sam. 15
/cat
ctyeo-tfe
is
.
idiomatic in
P.^?rn
Jon.
ni
!?
?"l
^
n:
Go, and thou shall smite
Amalek
so Targ.
in
-
p.^
n-a-n
^n^n]
^.1>\
See
for
further instances
19 20 Aramaic, Ezr. y , And the vessels that are given thee for the service of the house of thy God, deliver thou (E.^L ) before the God of Jerusalem and
Hebrew, Driver,
Tenses,
112.
Cf. further in
whatsoever more
king
s
is
needful
.
treasure house
thou shalt bestow (i^ri) out of the Acta Thomae (p. u*o But conduct
. . .
>),
yourselves (yol^j/
humility and temperance and purity, and in hope in God, and ye shall become (ofcsj/ ôoo) household-servants This form of sequence is not (apart
o;^?!/)
in
all
.
His^ 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.
"EpXto-tfe
This, however,
oêcrê.
is
clearly implied in the expression

/cat
X.rj/juj/ccr6c.
/cat
So l6
24
,
aiTetTe
Change
in Jn.
I
of construction after a Participle

TeBcafuu TO Tri/eu/m Karafiaivov
/<at
is
.
.
seen in two passages

/cat
32
e/xctj/ev
CTT
avroV,
and 5 44
to
Aa/x/JdVoKres,
ou ^retre.
These are exactly analogous

e.g.
a frequently-used
Hebrew idiom;
lit.
. .
Ezek. 22* flDDK

. . .
"^V
Dâ
idols
nn OT
(i.e.
D^
:!4
that sheds
a city shedding blood and and makes , or shedding

. .
makes
.
.
and
making
);
Ps. i8
wi?
,
Tibzi
ty ni^Kf
j! njPD,
lit.
Making
my
feet like
the harts
and on
sets );
my
heights
He
sets
me
. . .
(i.e.
Gen. 2j a Nî TX isn, lit. the and one hunting venison and brought it (i.e. who hunted other cases in Driver, Tenses, In accord brought ). See 117.
Who
makes ... and
/cat ance with this usage, we should render Karafiaivov lîvfv 32 i , not as R.V. in Jn. .; and it abode , but descending and abiding ; and kapfidvovTes, /cat ov ^retre in ., descending
.
.
44
receiving
and seeking not , or who receive
and seek not
This usage is remarkably frequent in the Apocalypse, and the cases have been collected and discussed by Dr. Charles in his
Commentary
i,
p.
Cxlv
cf.
a
TO>
dyaTrajj/ri ry/xas
KCU
eTTOirja-ev ^//.as
Unto Him that loved us ... and hath made after semi-colon); and He made us
,
15-"
us, &c.
eo-rcoras
. .
.
(not as
.
.
R.V.
:!
xoj/ras
KLOdpas
/cat
a8owiv
standing
-
having harps
and singing
they sing , after full stop, are incorrect). Other 2 3 cases may be seen in a 9 20 23 , 3, y 14 , i4-- .* The construction is rather Hebrew than Aramaic, though we
13",
(A.V., R.V.
And
may
*
note Dan.
?
BJ^
=1?
p"W
18
fVl
K^
1
i
P11P ^}
ai b fav /rat t-ytvoprji Not, however (with Dr. Charles) i vtcpus, or 20* . nal (with rejection of omves as an editorial gloss) ras i/svâs ruv vtirtXtKiantvuv oil An essential element in the Hebrew construction is irpoafKvvrjffav TO Qrjpiov.
. .
that the finite verb expresses
actually a sequence in time,
the proper sequence of the Participle, which may be so that the 1 connecting the finite verb with its
antecedent expresses the sense
We
and then , or as introducing the direct result, or a sequence in description in which, though the fact described may properly speaking be coeval with its antecedent, it follows naturally in the gradual unfolding of the picture (especially frequent in description of types of character).
and
so
;
do not find cases
in time to its antecedent, as
these quite a different
which the sequence describes an event actually prior would be the case in the two passages in question. For construction would be employed in Hebrew.
in
THE VERB
.
.
97
.
And they shall drive thee (lit. driving thee) from men and with grass like oxen they shall feed thee have it in Jn. i 32 â^,^. iifcoo Pal. Syr. }k+~j9 )J^*J, Pesh. Kaso
.
We
In 5
.
44
^retre
.
.
is
represented by the Participle;

yol{
,
Pal. Syr.
r
*.
^.x^.mj
Pesh.
^*_^=>
JJ
oko(
In the O.T. passages ôl^sj. Pesh., to resolve the opening
it
is
usual,
both in Targ. and

to
Hebrew
Participle into a Perfect
or Imperfect preceded by the relative by another Perfect or Imperfect.
and then
follow
it
CHAPTER
VI
NEGATIVES
THE Semitic languages do not for the most part possess negative the expressions such as none, never; but express them by using not. positives coupled with the simple negative corresponding
1 Aramaic 1$ none .not or, since Heb. BN, Aram. 03K, +j( any none may be a man is commonly used in the sense any one So in Heb., this term with preceding negative. expressed by D ^-9 n l^ I 1 Gen. 2 5 H?? n ^^ pl ant f tne fi e ^ was
Thus
e.g.
.
Hebrew 16
bb,
&
<Vo
>3
wo/ yet in the earth
(i.
e.
no plant
was
yet, &c.
) ;
iNSb ^D to&rnian,
(i.e.
that none finding

lit.
TVr^,
done
(i.e.
all
him of #// 16 him should smite him ); Ex. i2 work shall not be done (i.e. no work
lit.
for the wo/-smiting
Gen. 4 15 Wp?? finding him

roKhri>3
shall
be
);
Gen. 3i 50
is
BJJ
pN,
lit.
44
there
is
wo/ a
wow
with us
with us ); Gen. 4 i of thee tf ;wfl shall wo/ pendently 5 In Aram., Dan. 2 lift up, &c. ).
no one
lift
ViynK B*K ITTT6 TTffr inde up his hand (i. e. none shall
n?nB?n N^ TTiK-b
"^
ay
place
no place was found ); Dan. 4 n~73 (i.e. D3N N;, lit. every secret does wo/ trouble thee (i.e. wo secret 7]^ 10 ^ KFl^r^ ^3K WirnJ troubles thee ); Dan. 2 N3^p lit. there is not a man on earth that can show the king s
was
wo/ found for
them
nk>
njSji?}*,
matter
(i.
e.
no one on earth can show, &c.
).
We find the
in
TTttS
Semitism
:
iras(irav}
^=
/xr/
none
nothing
in Jn.
tWO passages
6 TTlCTTeUCOV CIS
6 39
/X
Iva. TTO.V
o Se Sw/cei/ /xoi
JJL1]
aTToXeVoJ c^ auroi),
. . .
12
ii/a
CV T7^ (TKOTLO.
fJLLVrj.
TTttS
OV
(/XT/)
IS
alSO K)Und
in
Mt. 2422
roS
Mk. I3 20
irav
29
,
OVK av eo-Ôf]
-n-aa-a
20
<rap,
Lk.
3/
OVK dSwarrjcret
Trapa
@eoC
p^/xa,
5
Rom.
i
.
3
i
1G Gal. 2 (both
quotations of
-
Ps. 143-), Eph. 4

lfi
2 Pet.
. .
21 Jn. 2
(cf.
2, 3
66i
9
,
18
,
where
the renderings everyone l8 ;2, 2I 27 223 ApOC. 7

, ,
.
not
no one
are equally legitimate),
NEGATIVES
No
fjif
99
Ot>
one
is
expressed by ou
edv
4r>
avOpuiros in Jn. 3-
8iWrcu
.
dvOpu>7ro<s
XajJi/Bdveiv ovSei/
fjirj
xrX.,
5 avOpwirov OVK t^to Tva

ovra>s
flaXy
ets
TT)I/
2
KO\v/Ji/3r)8pav,
OuSeVore eAa.V^crev
avOpuiTros.*
ot>
In
Mk.
II
we
eis Trpoa-MTTov
oSo^ TOV to
yap /^XeVets dvOpuTrw (but here there is a sense of antithesis to TT)V eov following), but elsewhere in the Synoptists there seems
</>
find
oi/
ovSeis OVTTGO avOpwTrwv iKaOicrev,
I2 14
be no case of ov
SvOptaTros.
;
Never
in
is
Heb.
Ps. so 7
cf. expressed in Heb. and Aram, not ... for ever D ttST^ I shall never be moved Ps. 31% yi L let me never be put to shame Ps. 119 tit? S
<
D^yi>
^
;
tt
I
it
will
2 never forget Thy commandments Isa. 25 shall never be rebuilt in Aram., Dan. 2 41 ^
; ;
which
(p.
JC*.fi)
shall
never be destroyed
^c/a Thoniae
]t^-^.
JJ
^*.va.^.v
in
shall
id. (p.
be with
?j)
Him
)J
.
yaVv^f jlaa^!Q.=> yOOoô and they the kingdom which never passes away
)lo!^.^
U-^
^.^
.
.
^?
jtot
but this banquet shall
never pass away

Similarly, ov
^
:
ets roi/ atwi/a

/xr/
Sense
cts TOJ/
never
alwva,
14
4
ot>
2<!
ov
8n//7;o-ei cis
occurs several times in Jn. in the o1 TOV cuoim, 8 6<ivarov ov

atooj/a,
8
yevarjraL Oavdrov eis TOJ/

a.7ro6dvy
!2
IO 2S
ot>
ets TOI/ atai/a,
1 1 wi/tt.
ov
/>t^
els
TOV cuojva, I3 ov
/XT/
vt i//r;s JJLOV
TroSa?
is
15
TOF
tt/
Cf. also
9
II
tK TOV cu wros OVK ^KovvOf). in
The phrase
e<s
only found elsewhere

ets
13
in
N.T.
14
,
Mt. 21
Ov
/xr/Kert eV o-ov Kapiros
yevrjTai
I
TOI/
alwra
<f>dy<i)
Mk.
Mk. 3 29
OVK eêi a^ccriv
TOV
attoj/a,
Cor. 8
ov
/xr)
Kpia. ei?
Tor atwra.
To
from
express
/<?s/
Hebrew
has the single term

K>-?r
fS.
To
this in
Aramaic corresponds the compound term
^ (Syr.
Noh from N^ + 1, i.e. lit. !, Targ. properly introduces a rhetorical question deprecating the taking of neb tt?N Dan. i a certain course (cf. Oxford Heb. Lex., p. 554 a
^+
1>:
)L^5), formed since why? This
mDPtP
Song
i"
are instances of the equivalent Heb. phrase in late

in
if
style).
and
.
.
.
is
This expression occurs once the regular equivalent of Heb.
Biblical
in the
,
Aram., Ezr.
"H
f\
:
not
. .
=
.
lest
is
in the
Aram, of Dan. 2 18 6 !U8
that Targg. N7 and in Pesh. JJ?

;
that
not
used indifferently with Joc^.?
since
why?
in the
sense
*
lest
as the equivalent of Heb. fS.

= TU,
like indefinite
ai/fyamos
B>JX,
is
also found in Jn. 3 1
4
,
7*3.5^
H 2
ioo
NEGATIVES
have
already remarked
to the exclusion of /X^TTOTC.
We
employed
(as against
Mt.
8,
Mk.
16
,
f\
not
7 50
-
ir<
ia.
all
..
regularly occurrences, 18 in all 10 20 15 14 12 39 50 5, Lk. 8), are as follows s 4 5 6 , 8 8 :u iff These occurrences of that i9
that
in
Jn.
Iva
^
-
is
The
",
do not
:
carry the sense
lest
but this force
is
clear in the
following
UK OUK epêrai Trpos TO

14
tW
</>o)9,
/xr/
\ty^0rj
TO.
epya avrou.
/x^KeVt a/JidpTavc, Iva

ci
/JLY]
îpov
O-QL TL
ycvyrai.
TrepiTOfjLrjv
Xa/ji/3dvei
avOpwrros tv o-a/âru) tVa /x^ XvOfj 6 vo/xos
I2 3
I2 40
TrepiTraren-e cos TO
n/a
yw,-
tcoo-tv TOIS
o<aA./xots.
12
"
dAA.a
Sia
Tors
âpicraiovs ow^ toynoXoyouv
iVa
/x^
ctTroawaycoyoi
yeVcoi/Tai.
l6
1
8"
ra^Ta XfXdXrjKa
at>Tot
vjjuv Iva. pr) o-/car8aA.to-^T.

Ti
OVK
icrr)X9ov et? TO 7rpatTcopiov;

/xot ^ycoFtôi/TO av, iva
l8
-}G
ot inrrjpcTaL 01
py
7rapa8o@(Ji)
eTTt TO{)
crravpov ra
which never occurs
in Jn. ; is
found in Mt. 8 times, Mk.
c<?,
Lk. 6 times.
A striking proof that Jn.

Np"!
is
to
40
.
Jn. i2
= lest represents the Aramaic s Iva be seen in the quotation from Isa. 6 10 which occurs in In this quotation the Heb. uses |S lest and this is
represented in
LXX
by
/juj-n-orf,
but in Pesh. by JN
that
not
Heb.
LXX
Pesh.
/X^7TOT
tStOO-ll/
TOtS
6<f)6(lXfJLOL<S
The
quotation
12
,
while Mk. 4
fjLrjTTOTe
Mt. i3 15 in the ipsissima verba of quoting more freely, yet has the /^Trore of
is
given
in
LXX
LXX,
Jn.,
tTno-Tptywo-w Kol
Iva
a<f>f@rj
OLVTOLS
(i.e.
^^
^^
fS).
however, rendering
phrases in order to use an Aramaic phrase which What evidence actually employed in the rendering of Pesh. could prove more cogently that his Greek translates an Aramaic
is
Heb. and
LXX
iSwo-iv TOIS
6^6a\^,
departs from the
original ?
CHAPTER
VII
1
MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE ORIGINAL ARAMAIC OF THE GOSPEL

THE most
weighty furm of evidence
is
in
proof that a document

be shown
to
is
a translation from another language
the existence of difficulties

find
or peculiarities of language which can
their
solution in the theory of mistranslation from the
assumed
in the
original
language.
There are a considerable number of such
Fourth
in
Gospel, and some of them
preceding discussion. The particle ^ with a relative sense mistranslated by
have already been noticed These may first be summarized.

a/a
s
the
or on.
= Iva for = ore for ^ for ^ =

=!
Iva.
I who, which 9, i4 (cf. p. 75). 5 6 who 8 9 7 less certainly in i (cf. p. 76). when (properly which ... in it i21$,
-
30 50
lt;
15
lfi
:i
),
i6-
(cf.
p.
77).
on
"=]
for ^
when
s
,
12"
(cf. p.
78).
because,
pp. 29, 34).
:<J
inasmuch as
mistranslated
as
relative,
4J;!
(cf.
i, i2
KaTaXa/jifidveiv
= /^
29).
take, receive
a misunderstanding
of ^3J5K
<J
darken
(cf. p.
i
-
ty
subst. verb Njn,
probably a misreading of Nin
e/ceti/os
cf P- 33)-
The ambiguity of the particle ^ has, as we have seen in the cases noted above, caused difficulty to the translator. There are several other passages in which, though the relative force of the particle
is
clear,
the fact that
it
lacks expression of gender and
has led to misapprehension.

together.
IO".
number These may conveniently be taken

Travrwv
(^,
o Trarrjp
/JLOV
SeStaKtv
yu,oi
/moV
is
ecrrtr.
This reading
has the support of B*
(boh)
and
therefore adopted by
102
MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE
.
It can only be rendered, As for My Father, that which This is explained by hath given Me is greater than all Westcott to mean that the faithful regarded in their unity, as
WII.
He
a complete body, are stronger than every opposing power. This 4 Cf. i Jn. 5 is their essential character, and "no one is able ..."
.
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 In evil, and their utter dependence upon the Good Shepherd.
the parallel clause their safeguard is stated to consist in the fact that no one is able to snatch them out of My Father s hand But,
.
if
Westcott
is
correct, this
would seem
to
be merely supplementary
to the
which
thought of the power of the flock regarded as a unity is incredible. Again, the phrase greater than all has,
be explained as
is
on
this text, to
;
power
limiting
yet what authority

its
stronger than every opposing afforded by the context for thus

it
scope
is
Clearly the expression, as
stands without
limitation,
applicable to
God
is
alone.
There can be no doubt

is
that
the
sense intended
that
which
given
by the
less
authenticated
jjiOL
Trartjp /JLOV o? reading, adopted by R.V., which supplies the reason for the parallel are clause which follows. Yet there can be little doubt that
S&oxccV
(jiei&v -n-dvTuv eVnV,
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
\b
. . .
Aramaic
to
N^
p?
Kin
be traced to an unintelligent rendering of the nnn ^N, in which N2i ^ may be taken
. , ,
ê^wv or o ... /xeior. Possibly the first draft of the translation rendered only as a neuter (o /xei an/, N L ^), and
either os
.
mean
"]
the other readings are corrections dictated b}^ regard for grammar. This explanation of the anomaly offered by the Greek might
be regarded as less than convincing
if
the passage stood alone.

is
are, however, other passages in which the text we read, r^pr/o-ov avrovs and obviously at fault. In
17"
There
similarly
iv
rw
ovo/xart
}2
t
(rov
a>
Se ScoKas /xoi,
TU>
tVa
OJCTIV
ev
Ka6w<s
rj/jifis,
and similarly
Is
it
in V.
eyo)
frrjpovv avrovs ev
oi/o/xcm
is,
aov u
Se ScoKas yuot.
possible to believe
that the sense intended
Westcott
may
well observe on v. n
Thy name which Thou hast given Me ? The phrase is very remark,
ORIGINAL ARAMAIC OF THE GOSPEL

able,
103
and has no exact

is
r<
in parallel except
<W
v.
~
.
Clearly the object

at>ru>
of
Se SwKas
o)r]v
established by V.~ aov TO alwviov, V. E0aWpu>o-a

4
TTO.V
o SeSco/cas
Scocrei
aurots
oi/o/xa rots dv$pco7rois

/AOI,
ov<s
CK TOU Koo-fjiov, V.
Harrjp, o
SeoWas
#e
A<o
tVa OTTOU
ei/xt
yw
aW
the whole burden of the prayer being the commenda /xcr e/Aov, tion of the disciples to the Father on the ground that it is He who
has given them
to the
Son.
v.
Thus
and
v.
lz
,
ot>s
Se
8u>/<as
/xoi,
the less well
attested reading in both

originally intended
;
certainly gives the

it
yet in the Greek
meaning must be regarded as a
correction of the
(N
A B C L Y *,
much more strongly attested reading cu KT\. The solution is again found in the ambiguity &c.).
is
10-",
of the relative ^. There
which may,
into
like o in
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

u>.
That the translator was capable of reproducing ^ by a neuter, and then completing the relative by a masculine, is proved by if\
llarr/p,
o SeSto/cas
o,
/xoi,
9(.\ia
Iva.
OTTOV
et/xt
,
cyob
Ka/ceu Oi UHTLV /ACT
e/tov,
where
representing Similarly, we read in
those
17",
whom
TTU.V
is
reinforced
by
Kaxetvot.
^wryi/
Iva.
o Se ScoKas
avru Sdxra aurots
alwLov.
Here
for
is to
irav
the
neutral
^
,
^?3, which
may
.
stand in
Aramaic
The same or all which all (or every one) who be seen again in 637 -n-av o St Swo-tV /xot 6 -n-ar^p Trpos c/ê phrase sense intended is every one who (cf. the ygci, and here the
,
everything which following KOL TOV ipxo^wov Trpos /xe /crA.), not, In 6 :9 the neutral collective conception is continued throughout
.
the Sentence
avro
rf)
Iva. TTO.V
o SeSw/ceV
/JLOI
fj.r)
ttTroXecrco
e^-
avrov a.X\a avaarr^fro)
eo-xarr/ rj^pa.
In
Hebrew
there
is
a similar usage of i?3

.
,
with neutral suffix
So
all
Isa. i
2:i
of
it
all of them the whole of it every one princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves; For from their least unto loveth bribes, &c. ; Jer. 6
,
Thy
i:!
their greatest all of it

Jer. 8
6 10
maketh unjust gain
cf.
Ex. i4 7
Isa.
9,
15
&c.
Besides these instances of mistranslation

following passages
I
lD
.
we may
on
notice
the
oTTurw
fjiov
fpxofj.vo<s
/jL7rpocr@v fjiov yeyovev,
Trpwro?
JJLOV
yv.
Dr. Ball (Expos. Times, xxi,
p.
92) remarks that
This testimony,
io 4
l:M
,
is most virtually repeated in vv? naturally understood as a reference to the fact that our Lord s influence was to displace, or
that of His Forerunner (cf. 3 Instead of hath become, we should rather have expected will become or is to become. He suggests therefore that the Greek ytyovw may be due to the translator s having supplied a wrong vowel to the Aramaic
:i
").
was already displacing,
in,
reading
it
as
ML]
instead of
is
\in
hdwe
becoming or is because He was before me
by-form of the Perfect mn hawd) (the Participle) which would bear the sense about to become Further, on Trpomfc /xou ty
hdwe
(a
may
be due to a misreading
first
.
S
P"JP
koddmay
text
of an original
^p_ kadmay,
Thus
the original
may have
run
He who
Because
because
is
coming
after
me, before
(of all)
:
me
will
become;
He was
the
first
i.e.
He
existed
in
0*1 j?
the
between the kindred words
before
The assonance Beginning me and ^PIP first offers

.
a characteristic Semitic word-play.

9
I"
"lot
tt/xi/os
rov
eo9 6 aipwv
rryi/
apapriav rov
KOCT/JLOV.
Dr. Ball
(op.
cit.
supra), while
making some valuable remarks about the
whether which taketh away (or beareth) the sins of the world is original, on the ground that it antedates that doctrine of the suffering Messiah, which only came home to the Apostles them 21 selves after the Resurrection (Lk. and does not well 24 ) harmonize with the general tone of the Baptist s about
the statement
,
Aramaic
original of the phrase 6 d/ôs rov Ocov, questions
teaching the Messiah, as reported by the He therefore Synoptists (Mt. 3) conjectures that the words may be supposed to have been added
.
by some editor of the Greek
recollected Isa. 53 7 , and wrote in the light of a later stage of Christian knowledge
text
.
who
who
It may be argued, on the contrary, that the whole of Jn. s presentation of the Baptist s witness, including these words, is It is agreed that the fully in accord with the Synoptic narrative.
reference of 6 alpwv KT\. is to Isa. 53, i.e. the culminating passage referring to the mission of the righteous Servant of Yahweh

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
1C1L ), 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
own
function,
am
The Baptist s the voice of one crying, &c.

;
(common
it
is
and the Synoptists) is drawn from Isa. 4O 3 and therefore reasonable to assume that in preparing for his
to Jn.
had made a special study of Isa. 40 ff., and was with the conception of the ideal Servant of Yahweh impressed which these chapters contain. That regarded himself as but
mission
he
he"
the forerunner of a greater One is a second fact common to all four Gospels; and the relation of Isa. 4o to its sequel might in itself serve to justify the conjecture that this greater One was
:i
pictured by him as fulfilling the ideal of the Servant. Our Lord s reply to not, however, limited to conjecture.
disciples
We
are
the
of the Baptist
whom
was
eô/xevo? (Mt. shape of performing acts of mercy in their presence; and His answer, based on the things which they had seen and heard,
really o
he sent to inquire whether He 2~ =Lk. f*^*) took the practical

r
leaves us in no doubt that the evidence suited to carry conviction to the Baptist s mind was His fulfilment of the acts which had
been predicted of the ideal Servant.
rv(f>X.ol
We
to
avaftXeirovo-w
with
Isa.
42
may compare especially open blind eyes (part of

.
.
the Servant
to
s mission),*
6I
,
to
proclaim
them
that are blind

L
35*
Then
the eyes of the

35"
the opening (of eyes) blind shall
be opened t; X M ^ man leap as an hart

anointed
Tre/jiTm-rovo-iv
;
with Isa.
then shall the lame
nr^x
ewyyeAioi/rat with 61
.
preach good tidings to the poor words of reproof with which the message ends KCU
o? euy
/xry
me
to
Yahweh hath The gentle

/xaKapios eVni/
would naturallv remind the Baptist not to range himself with those of whom it had been written, Like as many were appalled at thee, &c. (Isa. and as one
o-Kaj/SaAio-^
ei/
e/xot
52"),
The reference in Isa. is of course to the removal of moral blindness but it should be unnecessary to recall the fact that our Lord s physical miracles had always their moral analogue, and depended for their performance upon faith in
;
the recipient.
Isa. 35,
which
is late, is
based upon
Isa.
40
fT.,
and develops
its
thought.
106
whom men
(Isa.
from
hide their face, he was despised and

:i
we esteemed
him not
53
).
From
fact
these considerations
we deduce
fulfil
the conclusion that the
that
our Lord was to
the role of the ideal Servant,

in
though not understood by the Apostles, was

realized by the Baptist.
If this
some measure
was
so, since the atoning

role,
work
it
pictured in Isa.
53 formed the culmination of that maintained that the words 6 cupwi/ rryi/ dûa/mW
:{0
can
be
rov
KOO-ÔV are
improbable in the Baptist s mouth? In the verses which follow, ~34 he states that he had no previous knowledge of Him Jn. i Whose coming he was heralding, and did not know how to
,
recognize Him till it was Divinely revealed to him that the sign would be the descent of the Spirit upon Him. This revelation
was surely deduced from

Spirit
Isa.
42 (the
6i
!
first
great passage descriptive

states,
I
of the Servant s mission), where
Yahweh
have put
is
.*
My
upon him
and
Isa.
where the Servant

is
represented
as saying,
The
Spirit of the
Lord Yahweh
upon me
Thus
evidence unites in indicating that it was the coming of the ideal Servant of Yahweh that the Baptist believed himself to be heralding, t
* Cf. the
way
in
which the heavenly announcement

Isa.
1
at the
17 Baptism, Mt. 3 and
by Allen, ad he.}. 42 28 perhaps significant that (apart from Jn. 3 } the title Xpiaros Messiah His titles are uiriaca /J.QV tp\up.tvos Mt. 3 11 Jn. not employed by the Baptist. u 3 - Lk. 7 20 d/ij os TOV Qeov Jn. i 29 36 o vlus rov tov Jn. 6 simply Mt.
parallels,
is
modelled on
as quoted in Mt. ia 18 (noted
It is
is
i
i
27
,
f>
34 .
<5
px<->n(vos
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 The Old Testament Conception of Atonement fulfilled by Christ, published Very possibly the Baptist avoided by the Oxford University Press, pp. 10 f.)
the
title
Messiah
in
order that he might not mista .enly be supposed to be
heralding the political Messiah of popular expectation. That he was not alone in fixing his hopes upon the ideals of Deutero-Isaiah rather than upon those
associated with the Messianic
)
King is proved by the Birth- narrative of Lk., where Simeon is described (a 25 as Trpoaofx^ fl s napa.K\ri<jiv TOV Iapa j\ a clear reference to Comfort ye, comfort ye my people which forms the burden of Deutero18 3 13 6i 2 66 U 18 ). Isaiah s prophecy (Isa. 4O cf. also 49 5i and in Trito-Isaiah 57 Thus, when this latter holds the infant Saviour in his arms and uses the words, tTSov ol txpOa.\poi fiov TO ocoTTjpiuv aov (pus (Is a-rroKaXvij/iv edvwv, 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 salvation may be) unto the end of the earth (cf. also KOI salvation (or, that 86av v aov loparj\ with Isa. 46 , and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel
My
My
Xa<
My
glory
).
Servant
is
pictured as
His knowledge of the third and fourth Servant-passages, where the 7 meeting opposition, persecution, and death (Isa. 5O*~
,

What, however,
does not occur
is
107
as used by the Baptist, and what

in Isa.
Lamb of God the origin of the expression The phrase is its precise force?
53,
where
of a lamb, simply says that led to the slaughter (not,
which brings in the simile the Servant was like a lamb that is to the sacrifice ), and like a ewe
v.
(LXX
o
a/AJo s)
that
before her shearers
is
dumb
on
is
The words
n
,
cupwv KT\. are based, not
on
this verse but
v.
and
their
iniquities he shall
bear
where the simile
dropped and
My
righteous
Servant
.
preceding
forms the back-reference of the
he The Lamb of God suggests the sense, the provided by God as a fitting offering, which reminds us of Gen. 22 8 God shall provide Himself a lamb for a burnt
emphatic
Lamb
offering
states
and combining
it
v.
and
that
was Yahweh who
which of Isa. 53 with v. was pleased to bruise him, and

v.
,
11
10
s allowing for the influence of Gen. 22 we may perhaps consider that we have accounted for the use of the phrase.
remark
last
more probable solution, however, is suggested by Dr. Ball that Heb. n^D tale lamb has come in its Aram, form
NB
/a/yd to
mean
it
:!
child
boy
in
young man
e.g.
servant
s
.*
In the
sense
denotes
so
also
Pesh.
Abraham
young men
servant
(Gen.
(i
22
in
Targ. Jerus.), the

s
priest s
Sam. 2 1:u5 ), and the centurion

tt/xj/o?
servant
(U3 (Mt. 8 ).
Thus
may stand for Nn^NT Kjbg, intended primarily to bear the sense, the Servant of God i.e. Yahweh s righteous Servant who, according to Isa. 53 1US , was to bear the sins of many.
6
TOV
ov
If this is so,
there
may
thus,
this
term
N,vP,
suggesting as
;
it
well be a word-play in the choice of the does the lamb-like or sinless character of
the
the ideal Servant
Lamb
of
God
is
a rendering by no
means excluded by
of
13
also bears the sense
the Child of
12
),
God
is
Further, since KJpB child , it is not unlikely that the thought ~ In w. 3l 34 the sign by which also present. t
interpretation.
new
52 53 destined
tyvxftv
obliges him, moreover, to warn the holy Mother that the child is become a atjêiov dvTi\(yu/j.(vov, and to predict KCU aov 5e aur^y TTJV i(\ftaeTai Anna the prophetess and her circle seem also to have
to
/5oju</>ata.
rested in the
same hope
(cf.
Lk. a 36
"
38
).
All this
is
not a later invention
it
bears
stamp of historical truth. * The fern, of this word, t e lithd maiden is familiar to every one from Mk 5* t 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.
upon
its
face the unmistakable
io8
the
Baptist
to recognize 6 cpxo/j.0 09, viz. the descent and of the Spirit, was, as we have already remarked, the sign of Yahweh s ideal Servant. After witnessing this, the Baptist says, Kuyob ecopaKa /cat /JLefiapTvpyKa. on ouros ecrnv 6 mos TOV eov.
was
abiding on
Him
It
is
not impossible that
6 inos TOV
tov
may
Aram. Nnbtn
KB,
interpreted as
the Child of
.
again represent the God but intended

20
primarily to mean the Servant of God for the translation of the same term by
sufficient explanation
d/xvos in v.
but by vlos in
first
M v.
may
be found
in the difference of context,
the
passage
picturing the N vt? as a sacrifice, the second as baptizing with the
Holy
If
Spirit.
it
sense
be objected against this explanation of u/xi/os = NvB in the Servant that the term used in Deutero-Isaiah to denote
is
the ideal Servant
regularly Heb.
1^
Aram.
B^,
properly
bond-servant
it
may be
TT<US.
replied that the choice of Nvt? rather than
N^jy
N-n:y
in
is
- SoCAos,
to
sufficiently explained
N$B =
by the word-play .involved. While Both Greek terms are indifferently used
f
LXX
is
render the
"t^j?
Deutero-Isaiah, but the preference

fi
is
for 7rai5 (SoCAos in
which
2 2 ~.
5 TTCUS in 42*, 49 49 5o 52 ); and used of our Lord as the ideal Servant in Acts
1(l
1:!
it
is
- 7 - :i
.
TTCUS
3",
"Ore
ovv r)ycp@7]
e/c
VKpo)V,
/JLvr)(T0r]o~a.v
ol [jia.Or]Tal
CLVTOV
on
TOVTO
note the curious use of the Imperfect, He was saying , \yfv. In He had said where the context demands a Pluperfect,
.
We
Aramaic an Imperfect sense

Participle
"^
indicated by the coupling of the dinar with the subst. verb, while a Pluperfect is
is
commonly represented by use
of the Perfect
N>L]
"^
dmar
haiva
similarly
~ip^ coupled with the subst. verb. Thus said may easily have been misinterpreted as
amar
N}L]
He
had
"^
dmar hawd
He was
(so far as
saying
an unvocalized text
distinction
we know) no
beyond
that
Aramaic affording between the Perfect and the

in
W.
Participle
which
is
indicated by the context.

is
In a
carefully written unvocalized Syriac text the distinction
marked
was
by use of a
Participle.
diacritic point,
below
for the Perfect,
above for the
Thus
jo
+*?!
= He
had said
Jo
UB!
= He
saying
a cyw AeXaX^/ca
vfjuv
seems
to
to
mean,
about which
have been speaking
you
(viz.
The things the eating of My

flesh
a>>7s
109
pûrra
nr>D
and the drinking of

atuwtov
My
blood).*
So perhaps
life
.
in v.
should mean,
like
Hebrew
the things of eternal
Aramaic
.
means both
-
word
26
1 - 16 - 28 ,
and
.
thing
Cf.
for the
latter sense,
plfjia
Dan. 28 10 n
15 - 17 - 23
,
s"-
y
cf.
It is
aTre o-rv/
ordinarily rendered
UTT
e /xoi;
or Aoyos by Theodotion
Similarly Hebrew e.g. 2 Sam. I2 dv$

7
El/
W
o>j/
2s
TO
in
pry/m.
<
thing
is
often
TO
rendered /%ia
LXX
on
eTrot ^crev
T ?7
e
"X"
T ??
W*W T
?7
M<7ttA.
e/cpae Aeyo)j/ Eai/ TIS Su//a epxr0to Trpo s
/xe /cat TTIJ/CTCO.
TrioreiW
eis e/xe,
Ka^ws
etTrei/
17
ypa<^^,
iroTafwl ZK rfjs KoiXias avrov peuVouo-ii/ vSaTo? ^WVTO?.
The
it
quotation which our Lord here refers to the Scriptures has
caused great perplexity. The fact has rightly been recognized that is a free combination of several O.T. passages which speak of a river of living waters which, in the Messianic age, is to issue from the Temple-mount, and to become the source of life and healing far and wide. The principal development of this conception is found ~ in Ezek. 47 -. may notice especially v. \ where it is stated
:
We
to pass,that every living creature which swarmeth whither the rivers come, shall live Ezekiel s con every place ception has been taken up by two later prophets. Joel 3 1S (4 18 in the Heb.) predicts that a fountain shall come forth of the house of the Lord, and shall water the valley of Shittim while in Zech.
it
that
in
shall
come
14"
we
sea,
is
find the statement,
It
shall
come
;
waters shall go out from Jerusalem
pass in that day, that living half of them toward the eastern
to
(the latter statement based upon the passage quoted from Ezek., where the word rendered the rivers is vocalized as a dual,
and half of them towards the western sea
DW).
We
;
may
in
believe that our
Lord had
all
these passages in His mind
and
each of them the expressions which are most significant are itali In addition to these passages, it can cized. hardly be doubted
that, in
using the Words was dwelling on Isa-55 lff

the waters.
.
.
Eai/ TIS Stâ

-,
e/oxj-0a>
Trpo ?
//.e
Ka \ Trtrerw,
He
soul shall live

living waters
.
Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to Incline your ear and come unto Me hear, and your and Jer. 2 13 They have forsaken Me, the source of
; ;
,
There
still
remains the outstanding

*
difficulty,
out of his belly
Cf.
Gore, Batnpton Lectures, note 60
(p. 275).
no
is
seems more than doubtful, the thought in fuller measure by its who compares 4 14 6 57 the fact remains Westcott,
shall flow, &c.
Even
if,
as
of the distribution of the blessing
:fi
recipient (so
5"
),
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,
Hebrew i^VP tna ydn* ; and the word is Joel speaks of a fountain the same in Aramaic (employed, e.g., in the Targum of Ps. 104
, ,
Prov. 5
lf)
8 28 ).
The Aramaic
it
for
belly
or
bowels
is
pyo
mem
(Hebrew ^V?); It will Dan. 2 32

.
is
used, e.g., of the belly of the

that, in
at
once be seen
fountain
for
,
image in an unvocalized text,
pyo
belly
and i$P
would
Adopting the word

in P
fountain
va
our Lord
fp
be absolutely identical. s words would run
Aramaic, Nnro ip^n Tpn

|i
p^np^
If
W
in
nib
^mn
|p
n?
PV?,
3 T
P 91
VP"P?
pbro.
that
fountain
is
correct,
how
can
we connect
?
He
believeth
little
Me
however, with rivers
from the fountain
that, as was recog nized by the most ancient western interpreters, the clause really
There can be
doubt
belongs to the offer preceding the sense
it.
On
this
view the Aramaic yields
He
And
As
the
that thirsteth, let

let
him come unto
Me
Me.
him drink
that believeth in
Scripture hath said, fountain of living waters

.
Rivers shall flow forth from
the
*
is
It
is
worthy of note
that the Joel passage with
its
allusion to
the fountain
i.
directly applied to the Messiah in Midrash

WB>
Rabba on
"iwn
Ecclesiastes, par.
28
pyn
D on
JIN
nx
rpt?ni
nbsr
innx
v
"
btfia
*i
DN nbyn p.p&n ^NU no

Redeemer (Moses) caused
QiBBM bn3
^V
^30
Just as the
first
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."
which was clearly
This passage follows directly upon a similar Midrashic deduction in the minds of the people who witnessed our Lord s miracle

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
and
this
into Greek, pyo JO
was taken
the belly
was connected with
mean, from he that believeth in Me

, .
and was therefore rendered,

8 l6
.
from his belly

Iva.
Afipaafji o Trarrjp V/JLWV ^yaAAtacraro

e
xat IBy T TJV rjfJiepav rr/v e/^v,
ct8(v KCU
âpy.
This passage can hardly be preserved

Iva
in its original
form.
No
extension of the use of
seems adequate
grant that
to explain
rjyaXXiao-aTo Iva iSy,

is
and moreover,
if
we
rejoiced to see
the sense intended, the following clause xal elSev KCH exw> instead of forming a climax, makes mere tautology. What we expect the
first
clause to say
is,
not that
it,
Abraham
rejoiced to see the day, but
that he longed to see
and
that the satisfaction of this longing
was
the cause of his gladness. After a verb meaning longed the construction with Iva. (Aramaic 1) would be natural ; and this mean
ing is expressed both by Pal. Syr. +x~ll and by Pesh. )oo ô.m.>o. In Syriac in Pe al and Pa el (the form used in Pesh.) means both wished, longed and also exulted (cf. Payne Smith, s.v.).
u.o_tt>
The verb
reason
that
(
is
not
it
known
to
occur
in
W.
in
why
should not have been
use
Aramaic, but there is no and the assumption

;
wrong meaning has been given

instead of
exulted
longed
at
it by the translator once removes the difficulty.*
to
of the loaves and fishes, and, in asking a further sign, recalled the miracle of the Manna (614 30 31 ) Qr6 Dai? ^3i1 -|OWK> |OH DN TT.H p{?N"in ^13 HID
-
TODE
pxa
first
"in
HDD TP
WB>
|on
nx TTP fnnx
i>tn
*]
"
own
po
just as the
the Manna, as it is said, Behold, I am about to rain bread from heaven for you", so also (he second Redeemer shall bring down
Redeemer brought down

it is
"
the Manna, as
*
(i)
said,
There
shall
be a handful of corn in the earth
"
What
is
the basis of the statement that
Abraham saw the day
My day ? There is (2) what precisely is to be understood by text of Genesis, or elsewhere in the O.T., which seems adequately to answer these questions yet we must suppose that our Lord s words, so far from being
and
;
of our Lord, nothing in the
similarly obscure to His hearers,
were
ledge of current Biblical exegesis.
in fact calculated to appeal to their know Perusal of the Rabbinic interpretation of the
Covenant-scene
appears
at
in
Gen.
15,
as
we
find
it
set
forth
in
the Jerusalem Targum,

;
once to shed a flood of light upon both questions
and lends, moreover,
ii2
may
well be an error for na
g-\ eV oTSa, i.e. nox; JJT ton,
VT K^n
This
I
.
Î
this
n,
\j}
know The
)? reading of Pal. Syr. and Kin to/a difference between Nin hadd one
and
this is actually the
in an unvocalized text is merely the difference between n and which are very easily confused. It cannot be urged, however,
that eV olSa yields an unsuitable sense.
strange use of OVK otSa/zev in the mouth of Mary Magdalen, where we should expect OVK olSa, may be due to a
20-.
The
strong support to the reading above.
longed to see
My
day
which we have adopted
The Targum
of mind after
of this chapter opens by picturing Abraham in despondent frame his victory over the kings narrated in ch. 14; The righteous
in his heart
Abraham pondered
and
li
said,
Woe
is
me
perchance
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 not be found in me the second time, and the name of Heaven shall be profaned in me." Therefore there came a word of prophecy from before the Lord to righteous Abraham, saying, Fear not, Abraham although many legions shall be gathered together and shall come against thee,
the recompense of the no part in the world to
; ;
"
My Memrd shall be a protecting buckler to thee in this world, and a shield over 12 thee continually in the world to come." we find the following Coining to i;. And the sun was inclining towards setting, and a deep sweet sleep paraphrase
, :
fell
upon Abraham.
enslave his sons,
.
And
V^V
lo,
Abraham saw
r6 l3
which
;
four kingdoms which were to arise
to
fl^Bb
Terror,
is
H2K>n
HD^
<;
Terror Darkness Great
Falling upon him

is
n^N
which
is
Babylon;
and
Media
is
PP"!;!
Great,
Greece
is
flpQb Falling, which

fall,
it
HD^H Darkness, which is Edom (i.e. Rome),

shall not rise again for
;
that
the fourth
kingdom which
v.
11
destined to
ever and ever,
And
lo,
the sun had set and

in
was dark
;
and
beheld until seats were ranged

is
order and thrones set

to
and
lo,
lo, Abraham Gehenna which
prepared for the wicked

it
in the
world
come
like
surrounding
and flames of
fire,
into the midst of
an oven with glowing sparks which the wicked fell because

;
they had rebelled against the Law in their lifetime it shall be delivered from affliction
.
but the righteous

the
who
kept
The reference
of
is
to the four
kingdoms of Dan.
^~ u
(cf.
same
interpretation
c. in Midrash Bereshith Rabba, par. xliv. 20), whose career is Terror, terminated by the great world-judgement which ushers in the coming of the Son
of
Man
(v.
13
).
If,
the day of the
Son of Man
56 then, this Rabbinic exegesis lies behind Jn. 8 a vision of which was granted to
,
,
My
day
is
Abraham
in
response to his heart-searching and longing. This is in entire accordance with the eschatological background which we find to the conception of the Son of Man
in the
Synoptic Gospels.
113
e misreading Njiyi) &v fa y dcCna (ist plur. Perfect) of an original N^yT N? / yadfana (fern. sing. Participle combined with ist pers.
pronoun).
Cf., for this latter
form, Dalman, Grainni. p. 235.
The
same mistake, y ddna

with
ist
for
yada na (masc. sing. Participle combined
pronoun), is made in the vocalization of NJJTP Walton s Polyglot. Possibly oiSa/x.ei in the opening words of Nicodemus (3-) may likewise represent wyij I know on Eojpa/ca rov 2O 18 epêrat Mapta/x MaySaA.^^ dyyeAAoucra
pers.
in
Num. 22
.
YJ
The change from direct to oblique oration = n^Jon and awkward. strange Ewpa/ca = rVJpn. hdmeth, eoSpa/ce hamyath* The two forms are identical in the un vocalized text,
Kvpiov KOL raCra d-rrtv avrfj.
is
and the
latter
translator
may easily have been taken for the former by the under the influence of the ordinary construction with on
Thus we may
that
recitativum.
conjecture
that
the
original
ran,
announcing
spoken, &c.
*
she
had seen the Lord, and that
He
had
We
have assigned the Galilaean verb NJDH to a native of Magdala.

in
If
NTH
was used
the narrative there might be a precisely similar confusion
ist pers.
JVtn, 3rd pers. JVjn.
CHAPTER
VIII
IN
OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS FOURTH GOSPEL

THE
THE
question whether the writer of the Fourth Gospel cited the is important in its Hebrew Bible or the bearing on the question of the original language of the Gospel.
O. T. from the
LXX
If the author
the
LXX.
If
was a Hellenist he would naturally have employed he was a Palestinian he would be more likely to
make
his citations from the
Hebrew
and
if
he actually wrote
in
Aramaic he could hardly have done otherwise. Thus, though the question of the Johannine quotations has frequently received
discussion, a fresh examination may possibly bring to light certain points which have hitherto passed unnoticed. This section of our examination gives therefore a tabulation of all O. T. citations and references, together with the translation
I
23
Hebrew
text of each passage
and
its
compared with the

(fxjjvrj
/3oo>j/TOS
LXX
rendering.
Eycb
ev rrj Ipfj/juo îvOvvare TTJV 6Sov Kvpiov, /ca$u)s
Hcratas 6
Isa.
7ryoo^)^T>ys.
3 40 mrp
TjTi
"lan&a
jqip
i>ip
The
voice of one crying,

.
In the wilderness prepare ye the
way
of the Lord
LXX
clause,
<&a)vr)
/3owvTo<s
lv rrf
Iprj/jui),
E^TOL/JidcraTC rrjv
o&ov K.vpLov.
Jn. quotes from
memory, and
<
substitutes the verb of the parallel
ôVb
our
to
n^DB nrnjg n$:

,
make
straight in the desert a high.
way
for
seems
LXX,
Troutre.
In doing this, he be thinking, however, of the Hebrew and not of the since the latter renders not by EvOvvare, but by evOeias The fact that the words in the wilderness properly form
for the verb
1"^
God
^3 prepare ye
in the
in
Hebrew
the desert
the opening of the proclamation (synonymous with of the parallel clause), whereas and Jn., as
LXX
QUOTATIONS
a secondary matter.
2.
I
51
IN
THE FOURTH GOSPEL

is is
115
the text of these versions
of the speaker s situation,
punctuated, treat them as descriptive unimportant, since the punctuation is
Afjirjv
dfjirjv
Ae yoo V/MV,
oij/to-Qe
/cat
TOV ovpavov dvewyora,

CTTI
/cat
rovs
dyye Aous TOV

dvOpwtrov.
eou
dvafiaLVOVTas
/caTa/?atVoj/ras
TOV
vlbv
TOV
Gen. 28 12
13
"o^p
rum novrBM
JPSB
.B>*r
a-nt)
Sty
D^g
And he dreamed, and

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

;
5m>i
earth,
and
its
top reaching to the heaven
and
lo,
the angels of
God ascending and descending upon

/cat
tvv7Tvia.o~9
ets
f
i
/cat
loov
K\L/J.OL
O~Tf)piy/jievr)
lv
r?y
yrj t
TJS
rj
d(f>iKVLTO
TOV ovpavovf
/cat
ol
ayyeAot TOV
eov dve/3aivov
/cat
Ka.Tefia.ivov
ITT
aur^?.
It seems quotation takes the form of a free reminiscence. that in the words, ascending and descending upon clear, however, the Son of man , we have an interpretation of the final in different
The
from that which
mean on
Jn.
s
it
generally accepted, ia is regularly taken to (the ladder); but there is also the possibility of the
is
interpretation
citation.*
on him
Jacob,
his
(Jacob),
and
as
the
this appears to be adopted in ancestor of the nation of Israel,
summarizes
at the
in
person the ideal Israel in posse, just as our

it
Genesis-passage, image of the invisible, but actual and
Lord, Son of man.
other end of the line, summarizes
in csse as the
is
The
in
which
the ladder
an
in
unceasing connexion
which God, by the ministry of His angels, stands with the earth, in this instance with Jacob the (Delitzsch), points forward to
constant and living intercourse ever maintained between Christ and the Father (Driver). The point which concerns us here is
that
the
interpretation
in
Hebrew,
i3 is
which, since
put upon the passage depends on the && ladder is masculine, the force of
may
*
ambiguous. In LXX, CTT atrnys can refer only to /cAt)u.a. It be added that Jn. s dvafiaivovTas /cat /caraâiVo^ras literally
should of course expect Ivi? in this sense, as in the following verse
We
IvJJ 35fi
standing over him

to
(not
standing upon
it
the ladder).
We
are not,
however, concerned
;
origin though it may by the use of the preposition to denote proximity (see Oxford Hebrew Lexicon, 3 II).
I
argue the legitimacy of the interpretation, but merely its be remarked that this interpretation of 2 might be justified
Ti6
OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS

Hebrew
dve/3aivoi>
represents the
is
participial construction
Kal KaTtfiawov of
ÎT] &e9, which
obscured
3.
in
LXX.*
yeypafji/Jievov
2 17
EfJiV/jcrOrja-av
ol fJLaO fjTal
yu,e.
avrov
on
eoriV
?/Xos
rov OLKOV crov KaracâyeTtti
Ps.
69
.
^niraN
^n-a
DN3J5
The
zeal
of Thine
house hath
eaten
me LXX. 6
Here
}Aos roi) OIKOU crov Karaâyerat
ju,e.
Jn. and
LXX
.
are in verbal agreement against the
Heb.
hath eaten
me
There
is
a v.l. Karfyaycv which
is
found
in
LXX
r^
in
B b N ca R, and
in Jn. in (13)
4.
&c.
(vt.
vg.)
(boh)
Eus Epiph.
ev
ep^yaa),
6u
ot
Trarepes
"Aprov
rjjJLwv
TO
^.avva
ecâyor
Ka$ws
ecrriv
yeypa/A/zevov
CK rot) ovpavov ISwKev avrols
<ayeiV.
Ex. i6 4
*
O^g^n-f??
Dn^ DDb i^rpp ^Jn
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 \3
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.

.sn-a
Ixviii.
18
DHIVI
DvlJ)
Tl
"II
N^PI
D^W
n"^
D^DI
omvi
oîy
TD
nx
"ixsnx
QÎJ?
.n^yo^ npipn
^^
pjip^x^ Kin
IB>N
ntDD^ (Interpretations of) D^lp^N Rabbi Hiya and Rabbi Yannai. The one scholar says, li Ascending and descending u 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
"
D^NXUDI
Dm^l .1^
D^ni
",
him, and rallying him, as

art
it
is said,
"
Israel in
whom
glory
(Isa.
49
).
"Thou
he whose einuv
looking at his flnuv,
engraved on high." They were ascending on high and and then descending below and finding him sleeping The
is
.
words translated
obscure in
I
they were taking up and bringing down upon him are very meaning but the following note by Dr. Ball offers an elucidation.
;
would ask why the Genesis text does not say were coming down and going up thereon ? It seems rather strange that the Angels of God should start from the But leaving that on one side, I am inclined to think that the Midrashic earth.
IH
DH HIDI
D vJJD
is
a sort of general reply to the unasked question,
Why
were
going up and coining down ? the answer being, They n.ere taking up and bringing down acting as carriers between Earth and Heaven. In this case,
the angels
apparently, they
were taking up
to
Heaven the
CIKWV of the sleeping
Jacob (which
IN
THE FOURTH GOSPEL

.
117
you bread from heaven

ovpavov
LXX
fri3
iSou
eyob
vo>
V/MV aprous IK TOV
Ex. i6 15
nb?d? 03^
nVn<
ngte
Drfen
.
wn
That
is
the bread
6 apros
which the Lord hath given you

iiowKev
to eat
LXX
OUTOS
w
.
Kvpios v/ui
:4
<ayeu/.
Ps. 78
iob
in 3
D?p f
fa"rt
And
corn of heaven
He
gave them
LXX
/ecu,
aprov ovpavov eSw/eev

24
au-rois.
corn by aprov (only so s rendering of |n 4 rendered here) is dictated by recollection of Ex. i6 Jn. s quota 5 tion is a free reminiscence of Ex. i6 probably uninfluenced by In rendering "Ap-rov IK TOV ovpavov recollection of the Ps. passage.
In Ps. 78
.
LXX
4-
it
is
4 nearer to the Heb. of Ex. i6 than
is
LXX
Kat
plur.
5.
eor>.
41
f.(mv
Iv rots Trpoc^ryrais ys.ypa.jifjif.vov
ecrovrai Trai/rcs
is
"
fastened to the Throne of
Glory"
arg. Jon.
ad loc.~).
to
sleep,
was
this CIKUJV his
wraith or
spirit
supposed
As Jacob was in deep be separated from the body

"
under conditions of trance?

"caught
The
"
case would then be parallel to that of St. Paul
1ff up to the third Heaven (2 Cor. i2 -) where he heard" apprjra, much ll and heard His voice. as Jacob became conscious of Yahweh standing by him It is difficult to resist the conclusion that the remarkable explanation of this
",
Midrash throws further
light
upon the Johannine passage.

is
Jacob
in
Hebrew simply
reproduces the Greek term)

;
already existent
Heaven
tiKwv (the (cf. also
Targ. Jerus. and Targ. Jon. ad loc.] this (ifcwv inasmuch as Jacob embodies the 47 ~ 49 o national hope and ideal Sfvrepos represents the heavenly Man (cf. i Cor. i5 whose tittwv we are in the future to bear) who is to come e ovpavov, dV#pa>7Tos
on the clouds of Heaven

angels exulting over him.
if
the heavens
were opened Nathaniel might behold the

is
The same
(B.R. par.
interpretation of 1H as referring to Jacob

a
given a
little
further on
Ixix. t) in
comment on
:
Vî?
3W
jvî
v/
rOm
And, behold, the Lord

pi>
stood over him
13 (Gen. 2 8 )
^ ^
\W
iTnK>
D^-O
^B>D
1H3N
1"N
np^D
vbv
iy
f^3
nns>
inp^n
N3C>
,iy Dâ^ QÛT vm nony

ai?o
n^ni
rforw
.in
DÎVI DÎV DM^N
n^nnn
,vi>yo
,1vyD ini2 n
in a cradle
OpH
Rabbi Abbahu
said. It is like a royal child

;
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 I.liya and Rabbi Yannai also differed as to the interpretation of the suffix
".
of ^VV, the one explaining that the Lord stood on the ladder, the other that
He
stood over Jacob.
n8
Isa.

13
54
.
mn;
*yn*b
T?rHl And
V.
1J
all
thy sons shall be taught of
the
Lord
LXX
(in
connexion with
in treating the
Kai
$770*00
rots
eTraXêts crov
ta<T7riv,
KT\.} Kai TraVras rovs viovs crov StSaKxous
eo9.
Clearly Jn.
is
statement as an independent sentence,
dependent upon Heb. and not on

tov
is
LXX.
God
Nevertheless,
in place of
it
is
probable that the use of

of the Lord
taught of
influence.
taught
due
to
LXX
If this is so, the natural
inference is that the quotation was originally made directly from the Heb., and was afterwards modified by a copyist under
influence
6.
38
LXX
possibly by the translator from Aramaic into Greek.

L7TV
r)
/cantos
ypacfari,
Trora/jiol
e/c
Trjs
KoiAias avrov pevcrovcrw
{ Soros
âWos.
to involve a
7.
rrjs
This passage has already been discussed, and has been shown misunderstanding of an Aramaic original (cf. p. 109).
7
etTrei/ OTL IK TOV ^X ^ yp a( (TTrep/xaros AavetS, KOI Aavet 8, epêrai 6 Xptcrros ;
f>v]
O.TTO
B^Âee/x,
K<i)/jir]S
OTTOV rjv
Based on Heb.
8.
;
Isa.
Jer. 23*, &c. (Davidic descent), Mic. 5
(5* in
from Bethlehem).
1
The
references are general merely.

yiypair ran
ev TO)
i/o/xo)
Se
TW
v/x-erepo)
on
St o avOpwTrwv
rj
fJMprupia
riB Deut. i9 15 ^-y iN any ^-y At the mouth Dipj of two witnesses or at the mouth of three shall a word be estab
lished
LXX
A
9.
7rt
o-ro/xaros
ovo /JiapTvpo)v Kai
CTTI
o-TOfiaros
rpiwv
vague reference.
IO
;
!4
OVK
ca-Tiv
yeypa/xyueVoj/
Iv
rw
vo/^w
v/xaii/
on Eyw
.
eTTra
eot
eore
Ps. 82
I
DPIK D s
Eyo>
n^
pnox ^
eot core.
have
said,
Ye
are gods
XX
eiTra
Heb. and
Jn. and
LXX agree exactly, and the verbal agreement between LXX has therefore no special significance, since Heb.
KOLL
could hardly be otherwise rendered.

10.
12
-i
tKpavyaôv
Qaravva, evXayrj/ntvos 6
e/rô/xevos
tv oVo/zart
K i}LOV.
IN
Ps. ii8
:3
-
THE FOURTH GOSPEL

N3
119
26
njwin
nirp NSK
ni n?
DPS Ksn
!
Lord, save
now
Blessed be he that cometh in the
name
of the Lord
LXX
Kvpte,
croJcrov S?y,
o epô/tevos
^ v ovofjiarc
c
Kuptou.
Heb. and
hosia-nna
represents the Heb. agree exactly. Save now which, by substitution of the short form of
fl<raiW
!
LXX
the imperative for that with the cohortative termination,
becomes
;
hosa -na.
fvXoyyptvos xrX. is
verbally identical with
LXX
but the
Heb. could hardly be otherwise translated.

11.
I2 14
tvpwv
I /o ot5s
ovdpiov
(KaOicrfv
CTT
auro, KaâJ
Mr)
(frofiov,
Ovydrrjp
%iw
OVOV.
I8ov o fiacriXevs crov

Ka@ir)[JiVO$
CTTl
TTOjA-Ol/
Zech. a 9
nan
-^
l"
Exult greatly,
Shout,
daughter of Zion
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

Ovyarcp êtojv
Iepot>(raA.ry/x
LXX
Xo.tpe
O"^)o8pa,
r,
Ovyarep
6 ySacriA.ei S
<rov
epêrat
<rot
O?
KO.I
O"0)Û)J ,
ai -Tos Trpai 9
Kttt
Kal
7T(./?e/3ry/<ajs
CTTI
vTro^ytoi/
TTCOAOl
VCOV.
120

quotation
is
The
abbreviated and somewhat free.

ovov is derived
tK
It is clear,
however, that TT&XOV

12.
cucoj/a.
from Heb. and not from

VOJJLOV
LXX.
eis
12
"
Hyuets
fjKovcra/jiev
TOV
OTL
Xptoros
/xeVet
TOV
Ezek. 37 25 D^V? D ?? Wwi ^riy shall be their prince for ever

.
nn]
And David my
servant
LXX
The
13.
KCU AauelS 6 SovXos /AOV apâ)v ets TOV alwva.
7 Cf. also Isa. g
(^
is
in Heb.),
2 Sam.
7,
Ps.
89
f
-,
no
el:
reference
I2
18
.
vague and general.

TrpoffrrjTov
tva 6
Xoyos Hcrat ou rou

Kvpie, TIS
TrXifjpwOy ov
;
Tri(TTva V
TTJ aKofj -^/xajr
Kat o ppoLVLWV j\.vniov TLVL a
Isa.
53
Who
And
the
hath believed our report arm of the Lord, to whom hath

;
it
been revealed
;
LXX
Heb. and
Kiyne, ris
Kftl
e7rurreu<jei
rrj
TLI
aKorj rj/mwv
L
u /3paî(j)v
"Kvpiov
a,7rKaXv<ft07} ;
LXX
opening Kvpic, which

verbally with
has added the agree exactly, except that is also found in Jn. s quotation which agrees
It is
LXX
LXX.
clear that the text of Jn.
is
influenced
by
LXX.
14.
i2 tIM
"
on
7raA.il/
e(,7rei/
Hcraias
TeTi ^)Xo)Kv avrwv TOVS

KOL
iVa
eTro jpcocrei/
yar/
t 8(o<T(.F
avrwv
rots
rryv
Kat
j/07/o-axra/
r^ Ka/o8ia
/cat
o-rpa<f>w(Tiv,
KOL tacro/aat
Isa.
10
Nan
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
oxriv
rj
121
LXX
iira^yvBri
xapBta rov Xaov TOVTOV,

aurcov
/âpeoos
Kal
rots
r/Kovo-av
Kal
rovs
fjiij
Trore iScoartv roTs

rfy
o^âA/x-CH?
/cat
rots (icrtv
KCU.
/capSi a
(rwwcrij/ KCU e7rto-rpei//wo-iv, Kal lacro/xat
Here
Trore
/>t?y
Jn.
is
clearly independent of
LXX;
S
contrast
:
avrwv rot s
:
6(>@a\fjiov<s
With
Trj
ACO!
TOVS
o<$aA//m
eKa/xyu/ucrav
iVa
:
/XT^
With
KOL vorjerwcriv
KapBia with
is not,
/cat rrj
/capSt a
crwa<riv
(TTpaffrwcrLV
with
eTrto-rpei^wcrti/.
Jn.
however, merely a free reminiscence
of the Hebrew, as might be supposed from the fact that the writer uses past tenses TCTV^XMKW, eTrcopwo-o/, while the Hebrew appears to
use Imperatives (R.V.
shut
make
fat
).
i?^n,
Wy
are either
treated as Infinitives Absolute in

(lit.
place of Perfects
,
blinding
smearing
,
over
),
making gross
(a
1
standing for
He
hath
blinded
hath
made gross
normal and idiomatic usage); or
the forms are read as Perfects,
be read
in the
unvocalized text.*
J^C V^ n, as they might naturally Thus (allowing for omission of

,
the reference to ears, and the transposition of a clause) Jn. s read ing is a reasonably accurate rendering of Heb., and is nearer to it than in reading sing. re-nÂ-co/co/ in place of plur. e/ca/ which makes the people the subject.
LXX
18
15.
fJi
I3
10
ctAA Lva
r)
"ypa(f)7j
TrXrjpwOfj
rptaywv
JJ.QV
rov aprov
T TjV 7TTpVaV aVTOV.
Ps. 4i
lifted
3py
^V
^n
^
me
fj.ov,
bix
.
He
CTT
that eateth
my
.
bread hath
up
his heel against

6 ecrOioiv aprovs
LXX
16.
eymeyaAwev
is
e/xe TrrepVKrfjtoi
Jn. renders Heb. accurately, and
independent of
LXX.
15"
aAA. iva TrXypwO f] 6 Xoyo? 6 ev TGJ ro/xo)
avrwv yeypa/x/xeros ort
E/xt crTycrar /xe oa)peaj/.
Ps. 35
19
and
69
in
Heb.)
Dan
^b
8wpedv.
my
haters
without
cause
LXX
A
*
in
both passages,
ot /JLKTOVVTZS /xe
free reminiscence.
Symmachus
took the Imperatives 12311,
V^H
as Perfects *133il, JJîl, but,

o Aaos OVTOS TO. WTO. ifiapvvf,
unlike Jn., made the people (not KOI TUVS u(f>0a\/j.ovs aurov e/j.vfft,
Yahweh)
the subject
122
17.

4
IQ
Iva
f)
ypa<f>r)
7r\r]po)0fj
Aie/Aepi cravTO TO, t//una /xov eatTors

/Cat
18 19
7Tt
TOV
L/JLaTLO~[Ji6v
[AOV f./3a\OV K
Ps. 22
in
Heb.)
or6 nra
^m
garments among them,
.
They
part (or parted)
my
And upon my
vesture do (or did) they cast lots

TO
TO,
LXX
Heb. and
Jn. and
18.
Sie/zept o-aj
KOLL
e?rt
i//,ana
fjiov
favrciis
rov
f//ari<T/xov
/xov eySaXov KX^pov.
LXX agree closely. The LXX points to LXX influence.

28 29
-
verbal agreement between
i(^
YJ
Mera
TCLVTCL
etSw? 6
Iôm s on
e/ceiro
^8?^
TTO.VTO.
TereAearat
o~7royyov
Tiâ
T\Hj)Bri
/j.f.(TTOv
ypacfrr)
oov<s
Xryci Aii^to.
O
crtoTra)
cr/veDos
oovs
jtACorov*
ra>
ow
TOV
Treptêi^Tes TrpocrrjvtyKa.v
avrov
OTO/taTt.
21 Ps. 6 9
gave
me
Heb.) r n vinegar to drink

22
(
in
^P^ :
^^1
and for
my
thirst
they
LXX
The
19.
Kat cts rr/v 8tij/av

is
fjtov
ITTOTHTULV /xe oôs.
reference
ir>
general merely.
ypa</>r^
I9
eyevero yap raCra tVa ^
TrXypwOr)
Qarovv ov crwrpi-
Ex. i2 1G taTia
rrfc6 DJJ/j
and ye
air
shall
break no bone of
it
LXX LXX
Ps.
/cat
12
oo-row ov (TwrptyfTe
Ni?
avrov.
Num. 9
in-ns^
51
OXJ?]
and they
0,77
shall break
no bone of
it
Kat ocrrovv ov crvvrpiif/ovfriv
CLVTOV.
in
Heb.)
He
keepeth all his bones Not one of them is broken

;
<uXa<TO"ei
LXX
The
20.
ei/
TTttvra TO. oo~Ttt [Kt ptos] avrwv ov (TvvTpi^d^rai. e^
aurcoi/,
quotation
1C?
is
a free reminiscence.
"Oij/ovTai
KOL TruXiv erepa ypafy-t] Xeyei

1
eis oi/
Zech. i2 10
^JT"
^
.
tfKi Trj(rar.
l^n]
(lv^
(jjv
and they shall look on

Ka
me
whom
they have pierced

/ecu
LXX
7nf3\ij/ovTai Trpo?
/xe
IN
Some
fifty
is
THE FOURTH GOSPEL

MSS.
read vh*
;
123
Heb.
on him
"^N
and
it is
this text
is
upon
which Jn.
dependent
or
since
ns*
possible as a
Hebrew
">
construction
he
may
scarcely presuppose the more
p^K) I^N*
natural reading IS^TJK.

a
reading
Several
^P
strange rendering is based on an erroneous transposition of the they danced

,
.
The
LXX
letters
oH"^
they pierced
LXX
Kai iTnf3\\l/ovTa.i Trpos
MSS., representing the Lucianic recension, read eis ov eêKeVr^crar, which is the rendering of fjif
. . .
Theodotion.
Aquila
a-vv
to
l^Kcvrrjcrav,
Symmachus
It is
obvious that Jn.
is
independent of
LXX, whose
rendering
The connexion with Theo destroys the point of the quotation. dotion in the rendering efc oi/ e^KeVrô-av appears to be fortuitous
merely, and does not imply that Jn. and Theodotion were dependent
upon an
earlier
to
Swete, Introd.
non-Septuagintal rendering (as suggested by the O. T. in Greek, p. 398). EK/cej/retv is the

"ipl
natural rendering of
Jer.
(used by
LXX
in
Judg.
6V
9*
Chr. io 4
1
44
(37)
",
Lam. 4, and by Aquila and Symmachus

s
in Isa. I3
");
and the variation between Jn.

i-mf^Xiil/ovrai
fyovTai
eis
and Theodotion
Trpos
/ê
et?
">v
is
decisive against
from an earlier Greek source.
In the
LXX
common borrowing MS. 240 we find the
rendering otôi/rcu Trpos /xe et? bv eêKeVrô-ar 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 I
KOL oiêrat OLVTOV TTUS
o</>$aA/xos
Kat otrtj/e? avrov f^fKevT rjrrav.
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
Quotations dependent on the Hebrew; Nos.
1,
2,
4,
5,
11, 14, 15, 20.
Quotations agreeing with (1)) rendering of the Hebrew; 9, 10, 17.

(c)
LXX
where
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.
G.
Misreading of an Aramaic original
i2 4
Under (a) we notice that, while in 4 and 11 the points of agree ment with Heb. against LXX are slight, all the other cases are
weighty and preclude any other theory than a first-hand knowledge of the Heb. text.
Under
(b)
dental, since the
in 9 and 10 might be acci the agreement with Heb. could scarcely be translated in other words.
is
LXX
This, however,
a point not to be pressed, since 17 and the three
cases under
accidental.
(c)
show a connexion with
LXX
which cannot be
Under
(c}
we observe
slight,
that the variations of Jn.
and
LXX
from
and that the point of the quotations in no way them. In 3 (2 17 ) the Heb. reading hath eaten me depends upon is represented by Jn. s v. I. /careâyev which has considerable
Heb. are very
attestation.
substitution of
In 5 the variation from Heb. consists only in the eoO 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
criminately; 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.
LXX
Now
LXX
obvious that the agreements with Heb. cannot be due to alteration, since e.g. 2 and 20 exhibit points of connexion vital to the
it is
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
LXX,
since the variation between Heb. and
LXX
in every case slight
and unimportant.
This inference, which

has points of con
emerges from a consideration of the quotations as a whole, seems

to
be raised to a certainty by the
fact that 5
nexion with both Heb. and

be
all
taught of
God
And they shall agree with Heb. as being an independent

The words
. .
.
LXX.
sentence, and can hardly depend upon LXX, And 1 will make all thy sons to be taught of God ; while the point of connexion
IN
with
is
THE FOURTH GOSPEL

God
instead of Heb.
125
LXX
taught of
taught of the
Lord -
just the kind of alteration which might subsequently be made If this be granted, the fact that the writer under influence.
LXX
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 (7
:i8
we
which the O.T.
CHAPTER IX
EPILOGUE
AT
offer
it
the close of this discussion the writer
may be
expected to
if
some remarks
as to the influence which his theory should,
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
writer
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
is
issues he
and can claim some knowledge of the external criteria bearing upon the question of authorship, he cannot claim con versance with more than a small portion of the gigantic mass of
itself,
modern
literature
which has been directed towards the solution
of the Johannine problem. Still, it goes without saying that in the course of the linguistic investigation the question of its bearing upon the authorship of the
Gospel has been constantly in his mind. If the theory based, it must surely affect something like a revolution
is
soundly
in current
Johannine
criticism ; for, while cutting at the roots of the fashion able assumptions of a particular school of critics, it may be held to go even farther, and to demand a re-examination, if not a recon
struction, of certain
fundamental postulates which have hitherto been accepted by all schools of criticism. Thus it may be thought in brief the fitting that the author of the theory should indicate
results to
which he believes that

first
it
points.
fact
is
In the
that the
place,
it
should establish beyond question the
Gospel is a product of Palestinian thought. conclusion which emerges with no less clearness even
that the evidence
This
if it
be held
which has been offered
is
insufficient to
prove
EPILOGUE
actual translation from
127
it
Aramaic;
for at least
that the case for virtual translation is irrefragable.
cannot be disputed The author s
He is language is cast 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
original language.
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
If this
This can hardly be disputed in face evidence adduced on pp. 35 if. Could New Testament scholars ever have arrived at any other conclusion if they had
is
not derived from Philo.
of the
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 true that there is an ultimate connexion between the Logos-concep
Yet,
one
thing,
tion of Philo
is
and that of the Gospel-prologue

is
but this connexion
Philo s implied by a common parentage. doctrine was in no sense the moulding influence of our author s
no closer than
thought,
that the theory that the Gospel was written admirably with other well-ascertained results of internal evidence the author s intimate knowledge of Pales
It
may be observed
fits
in
Aramaic
in
Jewish festivals and customs, and of the current Messianic expectations at the time of our Lord. On all these questions, in which in time past his accuracy has in one way
tinian topography, of
or another been impugned, he has been triumphantly vindicated.

If, in addition, it is proved that he actually wrote in Aramaic, we have added the coping-stone which harmoniously completes the
building.
Here, however, we find that our theory seems to call for the re-opening of a question which is generally supposed to be settled.
If the Gospel was written in Aramaic, it must surely have been written in Palestine or Syria ; it could hardly have been written at Ephesus. This conclusion is by no means necessarily at variance with the tradition that the author spent the latter part of his life at
128
EPILOGUE
;
Ephesus
for obviously
we have
the possibility that he

It
may have
that,
written the Gospel at an earlier period.
may
be observed
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
circle,*
was written before the

in
breaking up of the Apostolic
therefore, presumably,
The assignment of a Palestinian or Syrian origin to the Gospel would seem to carry with it an earlier date for its composition than
that which is commonly accepted (A. 0.90 or somewhat later); But this is by no means possibly even a considerably earlier one. at variance with the facts of internal evidence. Even apart from a
full
acceptance of the theory propounded

that the facts
in the
present volume,
it
must surely be admitted
which have been brought
together greatly strengthen the case for holding that the Gospel is the work of an eye-witness. The view that it represents the mature Christian experience of that witness is doubtless sound
;
but
if
we
are to assume that he
he took up his
was a man of eighty or more when we are postulating for him a mental vigour pen,
Opinions
quite exceptional in one so old.
may
differ as to the
impression of the author s personality conveyed by the Gospel ; but the present writer feels that, while the First Epistle might
fairly be regarded as the product of extreme old age, the planning and execution of the Gospel is hardly consistent with such a
theory.
The age
more normal
for the composition of a
of sixty-five or seventy would at any rate be work which exhibits so
markedly a maturity which is as yet unimpaired. Assuming that the author was about twenty at the Crucifixion, this would lead us The question whether it would be to date the Gospel A.D. 75-80.
reasonable to place
of
its
it
relation to the Synoptic Gospels
even earlier demands an expert knowledge and a first-hand conclusion
as to the dates of these latter; and on these points the writer does
*
The Fourth Gospel

its
is
said to be the
work
:
of
loannis ex discipulis
The
Cohortantibus condiscipulis et composition is 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 nomine cuncta discriberet. it seems to follow that one of the disciples himself is named
,
Since John
his
fellow-
disciples
(one of
whom
is
Andrew) are
the other Apostles.
EPILOGUE
We
that there
2 70; the evidence of 5
129
not feel qualified to venture an opinion. may note, however, seem to be no indications pointing to a date prior to the
D.
,
destruction of Jerusalem in A.
TOIS Icpo&oXv/Jiois
CTTI
"Eo-nv
Se eV
rfj TrpofiaTiKr)
KoXv/JifirjOpa
Trevre CTTOOLS eôvcra,
to imply that the city was still standing being of doubtful validity if the Greek is regarded as a translation from Aramaic.*
which has been thought

intact,
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 Palestine, would need to be informed that the Jews have no deal 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 merely for his contemporaries but for posterity to whom such
details would not be obvious, took care to insert them theory can hardly claim probability.
;
but such a
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
an Aramaic-speaking
Syria, then Antioch.
Thus Syria
1
indicated,
and
The meaning
translation.
context, or at
in
wets or is might be left in Aramaic to be inferred from the any rate expressed in such a way that confusion would be easy For "Eanv ex ovffa Cur. has j^.|o Joo* k/> lit.
.
^
.
Existing was
Existing tvas
and existing
in
it
Pesh.
it
;
Q^^
Oo ]
j^|o
Joo
find
K/
]^/
and existing was

Existing
is is
.
.
.
in
while in Pal. Syr.

in
it
we
o^k )6oo
]6o
and
is
Here, however, the only

it
time-determining factor
the dot above

In
Joo>
which marks
as the Participle
hdwe, not the Perfect hdiva.
W.
Aramaic there would probably have been no

-
mark of
TQ
31 40
-
distinction.
-
may be seen in a 6 13 23 4 6 9 , 5 2 , 6 1 4 , 7 2 37 , io22 , 18 1 of these passages, viz. 2 23 kv iraa^ci ii/ ry foprr), 6 ntpav rfjs Of OaXaaarjs TTJS Fa\t\aias TTJS ftfifptdSos, convey the impression of conflation. course it must be assumed, on the hypothesis of translation, that in 4 25 (o \(y6fj.(voy
t Instances of such touches
.
-
Two
TO>
\piar6s),
E/3p.),
5"
( (
EjSpai em ),
E/3/>.
ig
13
(AiOuffTpurov,
"E&p.
Se),
IQ
17
(Kpaviov
TOTTOI/,
6 \ty(Tai
so 16
u \ey(Tai AtSacr/faXt) the translator

It is
the benefit of his readers.
passages given in this note
may
has glossed the text for possible that some of the touches in the first set of be translator s glosses.
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
Syria and Palestine.
The
Mesopotamia and southward through 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 This follows necessarily from the the more familiar language.
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 was to Antioch.
If the writer of the
Fourth Gospel really
spent the last part of his life at Ephesus, then we have in Antioch a half-way house between this and Jerusalem ; and if the line of his
missionary activity was Jerusalem

following in the footsteps of St. Paul.
It is interesting to
Antioch
Ephesus
he was
note that
we
are not entirely without external
indication that St.
at 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
:
[evangelium] graece Antiochiae, nam permansit in terra usque ad tempus Traiani .* There exists a wide-spread (though not very early) tradition that St. Ignatius was a disciple
or 6th century A.D.) so lyva.ri.ov (5th 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
of St. John.
Maprvpiov
The
describes him at
its
The
i.
facts
the Fourth Gospel
which lead the present writer to suggest the theory that may have been written at Antioch are as follows
:
The
Epistles of St. Ignatius

It is
(c.
A.D.
no)
are
full
of Johannine
Theology.
approximates
to
true that there is only one passage in them which an actual verbal quotation, but reminiscences of
the teaching of the Gospel are

*
*h
more numerous than
is
generally
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
Fourth Gospel
certainty
.*
ignorance
One how far some
is that Ignatius use of the 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
may have been

.
Gospel probably also acquainted with the First Epistle of St. John and The Ignatian expressions, 6 apx^v TOV this seems to be the case.t
;
current in Asia Minor before the publication of the This is met if it can be shown that Ignatius was
and TWO. a\r)0eia<s may actually imply acquaintance with the original Aramaic of the Gospel. 2. Drs. Rendel Harris and Mingana, in their recent edition of
auoi/os TOVTOV
<CDTOS
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. | 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 from the letter to the Ephesians on p. 154.
<
Jn. quoted
We
must also
tell
whence
the custom of the
hymns had its origin. Ignatius, the third who also had personal intercourse with
of angels praising the Trinity in the vision to the church in Antioch
transmitted
to
:
Church of singing antiphonal bishop after Peter of the Syrian Antioch, the Apostles themselves, saw a vision antiphonal hymns, and delivered the fashion of
from whence also the same tradition was
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.
other
churches.
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
being harmonious sing with one voice
through Jesus Christ unto the Father, that He may both hear you and acknowledge you by your good deeds to be the members of His Son (i. e. fit s 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
children shall be acknowledged by

let
Him
Therefore Let
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
132 Odes.*
Syri:ic.t
It
EPILOGUE
seems clear
that
The
conclusion of
at
they were originally composed in these editors is that they were
probably written
Antioch
in the first century. J
Now
the
the fact that the writer of the
Odes was acquainted with
Fourth Gospel can be proved fairly clearly; though here again the evidence takes the form of reminiscence of the teaching
rather than actual verbal quotation. Surprising as this may seem in view of the very early date which is assigned to the Odes, it
is is
the less surprising

earlier
if,
as on our theory, the date of the Gospel

;
than
is
if
commonly supposed
the Gospel
and
it
becomes quite
at
comprehensible
was
actually
It is
composed
Antioch
and
first
circulated there in Aramaic.
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
this appears so highly important that it an Appendix. The supposed influence of Pauline Theology upon the Fourth Gospel in no way conflicts with our new theory as to the date and place of the Gospel. A period of twenty years or so allows
is
The evidence
given in detail
ample time
well
for the principal epistles of St. Paul to

at Antioch. (pp.
have become
known
The
45
ff.)
forward suggestions
present writer has, however, put which may indicate a somewhat
different conclusion, viz. that both St. Paul
and the author of the Gospel may have been influenced by a common earlier source of teaching. Both of them were Rabbinists; and the course of
the present discussion has revealed several instances of a know ledge of Rabbinic speculation on the part of the Gospel-author
which
there
independent of St. Paul. Both again were mystics but no reason for assuming that the mysticism of the Gospel was a development of Pauline teaching. Mysticism is one of the characteristics of the Rabbinic method of treating Scripture and
is
;
is
the question
how
far
this
trait
is
in
the two Christian writers
is
based on Jewish Haggada

gation.
one which
calls for further investi
The inclusion within the early Church at Jerusalem of a large contingent from the priestly class (Acts 6 7 ) must almost
*
op. at. ch.
iii.
f Op.
eft.
ch.
xiii.
op. at. 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 Gospel
while the conclusion that he
wrote his Gospel in Aramaic strongly confirms the opinion that he was an actual eye-witness of the events which he describes, it
must be admitted
that the clear traces
which we have noticed
of his acquaintance with Rabbinic learning* seem to diminish the St. Peter and probability that he was St. John the Apostle.
St.
John impressed the priestly

/cat
authorities at Jerusalem as avQpu-n-oi
and though the phrase is used in (Acts connexion with their unexpected eloquence, the paradox consisted, not in the fact that having previously been ay/aa/x/xaroi i.e. untrained
dypa/x/xaTot
tSiarrai
4") ;
in
Rabbinic methods of exegesis

;
they
still
now appeared
so to be
trained
to
but in the fact that, though
aypdâroi, they were able
speak and argue eloquently and convincingly. It is of course conceivable that the Galilaean fisherman, especially if a young man, may have had a natural aptitude for assimilating the Rabbinic
methods of argument; and that, his interest being whetted through listening to our Lord s discussions with the Rabbinists at Jeru
salem, he
may subsequently have

is
carried his studies farther in
this direction, e.g.
through intercourse with the Christian
of the Jewish priesthood. It reason to think that, like St.
clear, however, that if
members 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,
*
f-
as Prof. Delff
work upon a Biblical Hebrew model. was the first to remark, t there are
ff.,
details in
Cf. especially pp. 35
43
ff.,
110
n.,
in
n.,
116
n.
;
Rabbi Jesus v. Nazareth (1899). pp. 67 ff. Das vierte Evangelittm (1890), Delff s theory was followed by Bousset in the ist ed. of his Offenbarnng pp. i ff. Johannis (1896", but dropped by him in the and ed. (1906) cf. p .46, n. 2. It is regarded with considerable favour by Dr. Sanday, Criticism of the Fourth Gospel,
Gesch. d.
;
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 15 He alone of the denied to Peter until he intervened (i8 ). the name of the high priest s servant, Malchus, Evangelists mentions
-
lfi
whose ear Peter
cut off (i8
10
),
and also the
fact that
one of those
who questioned Peter was a kinsman of Malchus (i8 2C ). He has special knowledge of persons like Nicodemus and Joseph of 50 y Arimathaea, who were both members of the Sanhedrin (3
lff>
have gained inside information as to what 5 47 - 53 i2 10), which went on at meetings of the Sanhedrin (7 may have come to him through Nicodemus. The fact that, when
I9
38ff
-),
and seems
to
43
""
-,
our Lord commended His Mother

iSia
to his care,
he took her ds
at
TO.
from that hour

27
suggests that he had a house
or near
Jerusalem (ig ). The deduction based on these internal indications serves further
to explain the
remarkable statement of Polycrates of Ephesus that
John,
who
reclined on the breast of the Lord,

(os lyevÔv] lepevs
was a
priest
the sacerdotal frontlet
TO iriraXov
7re<iopeKcos),
wearing which
otherwise
is
posed that
it
an insoluble enigma. Moreover, if Polycrates sup John the author of the Gospel was the Apostle St. John,
is in the highest degree anomalous that he should mention him subsequently to Philip, whom he defines as ran/ SwSe/ca d-n-oo-ro Awi/, and the daughters of Philip, and should then describe him,
not as an Apostle, but as âpTvs KOL StSao-KaAos simply this too he sleeps at Ephesus where Polycrates in spite of the fact that
himself was bishop, while Philip

If
sleeps at Hierapolis
(Eusebius,
one of the most famous members of the original HE. v. 24). band had actually preceded him in his own see, he Apostolic would surely have named him first of all.
The
familiar quotation from Papias (Eusebius,
HE.
iii.
39)
seems
likewise to indicate that the celebrated

the Apostle.
John
of Ephesus was not
my way who
Papias tells us that if any one chanced to come had been a follower of the presbyters, I would
inquire as to the sayings of the presbyters what Andrew or Peter said (el-n-ev), 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
s disciples, sa
John the presbyter, the Lord
Unless we adopt the view that the Apostles mentioned are termed the presbyters * (a view both improbable in itself and also apparently excluded by the distinctive application of the term to
the second John),
it
is
claims to have learned the Apostles
clear from this passage that Papias only 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
fl-n-cv
s disciples,
say
is
that Papias learned the sayings of these
disciples
at second
hand; and since the change of tense from

it
to Xtyova-w is clearly intentional,
is
natural to infer that
Aristion and the second
John were still living, and that Papias might have heard them at first hand if he had had the opportunity.t
If this
conclusion
as
in
is
sound, and
if
the
title
implies
the
first
occurrence, where
it
the Lord s disciples 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) It follows that c. A.D. 100 and one of the ancients (dpxaios
<*"w)4
Papias knew of a John whom he termed the presbyter (appar ently in distinction from John the Apostle before mentioned), who, though an actual disciple of our Lord, was still living at that date,
and must therefore have been of a very advanced age. other hand, all that he claims to have learned (or
*
On
to
the
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-
599j*
Papias does not
state in
and John the presbyter, as

^fjLiv
8r]\ov/j.evos Tlairias
napei\r]<ptva.i,
passage that he was an actual hearer of Aristion unwarrantably assumed by Eusebius Kai 6 vw 8e rovs p.\v rwv airoaToXow \6yovs irapd TWV trapr]Ko\ovdrjff6TOJV
this
is
;
ofj.o\o~f?
<pr]ffi
AptffTiowos 8e
KOI rov rrptafivrepov
Icaavvov avrrjKoov tavrov
Dr. Lightfoot (Essays on Supern. Rel. p. 146) should accept Eusebius s opinion on this point against the plain sense of the passage is incom
yfvtaOai.
Why
prehensible.
Eusebius, HE. iii. 39. A.D. 100 is adopted by Dr. Sanday J Haer. V. xxxiii. 4 (Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 250 f.), as against the extreme date adopted by Harnack (c. A.D. 145-60). Eusebius (HE. iii. 36) states that his episcopate was
;
contemporary not only with Polycarp
s,
but also with Ignatius s (d. A.D. no).
136
EPILOGUE
to
endeavoured
learn)
is
son of Zebedee
by word of mouth about the Apostolic what others said that the presbyters said that
he from attaching any special prominence in a list of seven of the
he said
to
and so
far is
him
that
he mentions him only sixth

tells
Apostles.
us that John, the disciple of the Lord who survived at Ephesus until the times of Trajan,* wrote the Gospel, If this John was the son of Zebedee, would i.e. until after A. 0.98. Irenaeus
,
Now
Papias
death,
before,
who must certainly have been born long before his and who was probably collecting his information, if not at any rate not long after that event, and who was bishop
have been reduced
to
of a Church which was close to Ephesus
learning at third hand as to his teaching ? And since, for one man who could give him authentic information as to what Andrew or Peter had said, there must (on this hypothesis) have been ten who
could give him fuller and more recent information as to what John the son of Zebedee had said, is it at all likely that the vastly
superior importance to Papias of John as a witness to our Lord s acts and teaching, involved in the fact of his nearness to him both
in time
and in place, should be ignored to such an extent that he only mentions the Apostle sixth in a list of seven ? The inference is clear that Papias did not claim to have any
better
Andrew,
knowledge of John the son of Zebedee than he possessed of Peter, and the rest who had died years before he began
to collect his materials.
The absence
of such a claim
fits
in
with
the statement attributed to him by Philippus Sidetes (5th cent.) and
Georgius Hamartolus (9th cent.) that John and James his brother were slain by the Jews, which certainly seems to imply that John the son of Zebedee did not survive to a ripe old age in Asia, but
lost his life
through Jewish persecution, and therefore probably in Palestine and prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70. 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
in
corpore constitute, sicut

4.
cf.
Papias
Haer.
On
II. xxii. 5 ; III. i. i ; III. further evidence as to the

;
iii.
martyrdom
Moffatt, Introd. to Lit. of N.

i,
T?
pp. 601
ff.
and most recently, Charles, Revelation,
pp. xlv
ff.
EPILOGUE
nomine Hierapolitanus, discipulus lohannis carus,
quinque evangelium dictante lohanne recte
as this statement
est in extremis [externis]
libris retulit.
.*
137
in exotericis, id
Descripsit vero
seems
in detail,
Confused and improbable 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 to Papias means that John the son of Zebedee suffered martyrdom in Palestine prior to A. D. 70, the statement as to the writing of the Gospel can only be
squared with
different
on the assumption that the references are to two Johns in the first case to the Apostle, in the second to
it
John of Asia,
i.e. the presbyter. the writer of the Second and Third Epistles of St. John actually describes himself as 6 Trpeo-^repog, and the inference from the contents of the Epistles is that they were not intended to be
Now
anonymous, but that

identity.
this title
was
sufficient to
mark the
writer s
If they are rightly ascribed to John, the inference that

is
this is the Iwavi/^s o Trpto-fiuTepos of Papias

in his
obvious.t
Dr. Charles
xxxiv ff.) has argued from (i, pp. a careful linguistic study that the Fourth Gospel and the three
Commentary on Revelation
Epistles of St.
Gospel
that
it
is
John are by the same author. It follows the work of John the presbyter, and that the
at
that the
tradition
was composed
Ephesus
is
wrapped up with the
fact of his
Thus the earliest Asian tradition, as represented by Polycrates and confirmed by the testimony of the Second and Third Epistles, points to the presbyter and not the son of Zebedee as the author of the Gospel.
authorship.
Papias and
Cf. Lightfoot,
i.
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. delivered by John to the Churches, which Papias may have quoted the Gospel
p. 77, n.
1
"
they
wrote down from his
lips"
(6 airtypaipov airo
a-rreypcKpov,
TOV (TToâro? auroG)

interpreted
it
and some
later writer, mistaking the
ambiguous
"/wrote down",
thus making Papias himself the amanuensis. This seems to be hinted by Eusebius,
f*
HE.
iii.
25
TUIV
dvTt\eyo(j.fvow,
Icaavvov, tiTf
yvcuptîoji
8"
ovv
o//o;s
rofs 7ToAA.o?s
ff
uvonafonevT) Scvrepa KOI rp iTTj
TOV
eva.yye\i<JTov
Tvy\6,vov<rai }
ei re
KOL
krtpov dfnoivvfiov
t/cfivcp.
The view
is
definitely taken
by Jerome, de
viris illust. cc.
9 and
18.
138
EPILOGUE
evidence, however,
St.
testimony of
is incomplete without examination of the Irenaeus, which is important because, in the wellknown passage from his letter to Florinus (Eusebius, HE. v. 20), he states that in his boyhood (TTCUS en he was a hearer of
<m/)
Our
Polycarp and could remember his description of his intercourse with John and with the rest who had seen the Lord Irenaeus
.
have suffered considerable misrepresentation. appears While claimed on the one hand as a conclusive witness to the
unjustly to
St. John, he is on the other hand, by the opponents of this commonly accused,
fact that the
John of Ephesus was the Apostle
theory of having mistaken the meaning of his teacher Polycarp,
and supposed that he was referring

task by Eusebius
6
to the
time he was speaking of the presbyter.
Apostle when all the Similarly, he is taken to
(HE.
iii.
IIoAt>
39) because
ludvvov
fjikv
d/covo-nys,
xdpTrov Se eraipos yeyovcos.

is
he describes Papias as Eusebius s
comment on
Trpooi/Jiiov
this
statement
AUTOS ye
KCU,
^v
IlaTuas
Kara.
TO
TOJV
avrov Aoywv, d/cpoarî/ ^kv

tepcuv
aTroo-ToAtoj/
yva)pi/x,<Dv.
avroTTTrjv ou8a/xcos eavrov

TT)S
rwv
T<OV
eyu,<aiVei,
TrapeiAêVat Se ra
Trurrews
e/ceiVois
The
the
error of which
critics
he
is
accused
the
by
Eusebius
is
cited
by
modern
as
enhancing
probability
that
he
made
additional
Polycarp
Apostle.
reminiscences of the
of mistaking presbyter as referring to the

error
In reality,
all.
it is
doubtful whether Irenaeus
The
true state of affairs
may
best be gathered
makes any mistake at by tabulating
all
his references to the author of the
Fourth Gospel,
whom
he
also regarded as author of the Apocalypse.*
Occurrences.
John the
disciple of the
Lord
In references to the Gospel
....
.
. .
9
3 2
14
In references to the Apocalypse In references to incidents at Ephesus
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
The
1
139
i i
disciple of the
Lord
His disciple John John

In references to the Gospel
.
In references to the Apocalypse In references to incidents at Ephesus

.
.20 .10
.
Total
1
31
The Apostle
these references
With
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
i i
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 i
Peter
Peter the Apostle elsewhere.
Paul the Apostle
....
.
.17
i
Paul, being the Apostle of the Gentiles
Paul His Apostle Paul

.
.
The Apostle
Here we
notice the extraordinary care which
.64 -74
Irenaeus takes
accurately to define the position and authority of his witnesses. This comes out especially in his description of Mark and Luke ; while Matthew alone of the Synoptists is correctly given the title
of Apostle. notice
We
again
that,
while
is
defined as Apostles, John

that in two passages
is
Matthew, Peter, and Paul are It is true never so defined by name.

I. ix. 2,
which come near together (Haer.
3)
he
mentioned as
cited as
John
the Apostle simply, having just previously been 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
to the
1
Having thus ascertained

let
who
delivered the Gospel to us ...

;
us
and again in IV. pref. i, proceed remaining Apostles in the book before this we have set forth the Accordingly, sentence of the Apostles upon them all There are several
.
passages
in
II.
which John
xxii.
is
included
all
Apostles; 5, conferred with John the disciple of the Lord, that John had handed down these facts ; for he abode with them until the times
of Trajan.
And
the elders
by inference among the testify, who in Asia
of them saw not only John, but also other Apostles*; III. iii. 4, And Polycarp too, who had not only been trained by the Apostles, and had conversed with many of those who had seen Christ, but also had been constituted by the Apostles
And some
having always taught bishop over Asia in the church of Smyrna And there these things, which he had learned from the Apostles are some who have been told by him (Polycarp) that John the
. .
.
disciple of the Lord,

.
. .
when he had gone

. . .
and Polycarp too himself.

disciples, &c.
;
and their
had both Paul
for its
to have a bath at Ephesus Such pious care had the Apostles 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 whom he had associated
.
rest of the Apostles with
Let us attach
believes are
all
full
weight to these passages (which the writer

into question),
which come
and we are
still
brought
by the fact that, if Irenaeus believed John of Ephesus to have been one of the Twelve Apostles, it is most remarkable that he
to a standstill
never styles him

of the
John the Apostle
but always
fact that
John the
disciple
Lord
We note specially the

disciple of the
even where the four

;
and the
still
x. i, 6; xi. Evangelists are most carefully described in III. ix. i Matthew the Apostle John first of them figures as
,
i,
is
simply
John 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

as
We
are bound also to contrast the

referred to
way
unnamed
is
the Apostle
only twice with the 74 occasions on

is
which he
which
St.
Paul
Now
arises
title,
so styled. the question
Whence
Lord
did
?
Irenaeus obtain this

It is
distinctive
the disciple of the

;
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

s
Peter
seems
depend upon Papias

.
statement, Map/cos n*v

TOV Kuptou, cure
Traprj-
ep/x^veurr/s Tierpov yeô/êi/os
Oure yap
t(f>r)v,
rjxovcre
KO\ov6r)(Tv avrar vcrrepov
Se,
ws
Herpw (Eusebius,
HE.
iii.
39).
In the same way, we observe that Papias styles Aristion and John the presbyter ol TOV Kvpiov /MX^TCU. It is true that in the same he subjoins r/ rts erepos TWV TOV Kvptov //.a^ron/ to the paragraph
names of the seven Apostles whom he mentions, and so may be taken to include them as naO-qrai. Here, however, we mark a difference since the sense obviously is that Papias was anxious to
;
gain information coming from any (presumably deceased) /xa^r^/s Kvp(ov (i.e. direct associate of the Lord), whether Apostle or other
wise.
But
in
Kvpiov
/jiaOrjTai
the cases of Aristion and John the presbyter ol TOV is their distinctive title, i.e. they were not Apostles,
but they were (presumably) associates of our Lord who fell into a class by themselves as still living when Papias was collecting his information.
On
by
he
byter,
the basis of these facts
we conclude without
to
hesitation that
John the disciple of the Lord

and that when he refers
is at
Irenaeus means John the pres

Papias as
laxxvi ou
ludvrov
/x,ev
any
rate as correct as Eusebius

. .
when he
says
6 vvv Se
orjXovfAevos HaTr/as
ytvio-6a.i.
TOV TrpecrySurepou
avTrjKoov
iavTov
It is
Eusebius who, jumping
to the
the
(mentioned sixth by Papias must be the Evangelist (o-a^ws SrjXuv Apostles)

Apostle
conclusion that John in his list of seven

TOV cuayyeXio-r^),
attaches to Irenaeus the charge of misconstruing Papias s evidence which has stuck to him ever since. In reality Irenaeus appears to
be an impeccable witness as to the early Asian tradition in regard to John and he completes our evidence that John the Evangelist
;
142
EPILOGUE
disciple of the Lord, who survived to old age at Ephesus, was not the son of Zebedee, but the presbyter. Thus all the early Asiatic evidence, i. e. all the external evidence
and
that matters, unites in indicating that the only
was John the presbyter, and
that
John of Ephesus he wrote the Fourth Gospel.
This, as we have seen, fits in wonderfully well with the internal evidence which favours the view that the author was not John the son of Zebedee, but a Jerusalemite of priestly family. There are,
however, other internal considerations which may seem to tell If there were not, then surely there would be against this view.
no problem of authorship remaining.

difficulty is the finding of a place among the com of our Lord for a young man of priestly family who was panions not one of the twelve Apostles. This is largely based, it seems,
first
The
upon the presupposition

openly-confessed course is not the case.
(or,
that the Apostles
were our Lord
adherents
and
There were others from
according to the alternative missioners were drawn, who must,
regular companions. whom the seventy of WH., seventy-two) reading
s only This of
we may
conjecture, have com-
panied with Him not a little before they were fit to be entrusted with their mission. Yet of these we should know nothing apart
There were, again, the women who accompanied a part at least of His evangelistic tours, and minis during Of this tered to Him and His Apostles out of their substance.
from Lk. io lff
.
Him
fact too
we should have been

i
lff ignorant but for Lk. 8
According
After
is
to St.
Paul in
to
Cor. i5
6
,
one of our Lord

the
s Resurrection-appear
at at
ances was
above
the
i
15
five
hundred brethren
brethren
once
the Ascension
number of
Jerusalem
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
given in Acts
of the Spirit at Pentecost.

to suppose that the young priestly accompanied our Lord upon His travels, this would not constitute an insuperable difficulty. But it is not so
Thus,
if it
were necessary
disciple regularly
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 Him not likely that, while reading his
more than
who was
and becoming His disciple? Is it heart and recognizing the great sincerity of his desire, He would just because of his youth and the great renunciation of home and
prospects which He knew that the step would entail have refused with all tenderness to allow him at once to throw in his lot with
the Apostolic band, and
commanded him
in
for the time to
remain
at
Jerusalem Jerusalem and engaged
home
at
Meanwhile, whenever our Lord came up

discussion with
the
there,
to
Rabbinists, the
young
disciple
would be
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
Thus may
Gospel has
make nothing.* well be explained the fact that the great bulk of the
do with scenes and discourses
at or
to
near Jerusalem,
the Galilaean episodes taking a comparatively subordinate part. And, in assessing the qualities in the young disciple which made
him pre-eminently wrong in attaching
the disciple
full
whom
Jesus loved
shall
we be
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 repre Cf. the words of Dr. Abrahams in his senting one aspect of our Lord s teaching.
One of the Rabbinic aids to exegesis Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 181. most remarkable facts about the writings of recent Jewish critics of the New Testament has been that they have tended on the whole to confirm the Gospel picture of external Jewish life, and where there is discrepancy, these critics tend to prove that the blame lies not with the New Testament originals but with
essay
,
their interpreters.
Dr. Giidemann, Dr. Biichler, Dr. Schechter, Dr. Chwolson, Dr. Marmorstein, have all shown that the Talmud makes credible details which many Christian expositors have been rather inclined to dispute. Most remarkable
of all has been the cumulative strength of the arguments adduced by Jewish writers favourable to the authenticity of the discourses in the Fourth Gospel, especially in relation to the circumstances under which they are reported to have
been spoken.
Much more may

late
have only of Testament.
be expected in this direction, for Jewish scholars turned themselves to the close investigation of the New
144
EPILOGUE
grasp the
It is
His expositions of the inner meaning of the Old Testament, and to fact that He was in the highest sense the embodiment
only natural that such a disciple should have been present Last Supper, and that the Apostles should not have grudged
his
of its ideals ?
at the
him a place next

gifts
* It
Lord
to
it
which
his
entitled
him.*
Nor
is
surprising,
deep affection and high even apart from his
Lord
to the
would, however, not be strange if the position of privilege granted by our young disciple should have excited the disapproval of some members
at least of the Apostolic
Twelve.
as appearing to offer a 24 Jn. 13 states in v.
summary
Lk. 22 Zi 34 a passage of extraordinary interest of the events of the fuller narrative contained in
(f>i\ovfiKia
E-ytVero 5e /mi
s
tv aurois, TO ris aiiraiv
8oKi
f*effq>
tlvai
Hfi&v.
This
is
met by our Lord
words of
reproof, in
which
tyoj 5e
It/
vpwv
dpi us 6 SiaKovwv is the verbal summary with which the foot-washing of Jn. 13 corresponds as the acted parable. Occasion for the Apostles strife as to pre cedence may, as Dr. Plummer suggests, have arisen respecting the places at the
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
;
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
strife
the cause of this outbreak of (piXoveiKia. Adopting this hypothesis, we seem to In the injunction read our Lord s words of reproof with a new understanding. dAA. 6 fjLti^cav v v^lv yiveffOw 6 veurepos the young disciple John becomes the
d>s
concrete example of
6 veurepos,
which seems almost
to acquire the
meaning,
this
Mk. g 33 -* 1 and parallels). Again, the point of v. 28 appears to stand out more clearly But ye (Apostles, in contrast to this young disciple) are they which and I appoint unto you a kingdom, have continued with Me in My temptations 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 words, with all the fullness of promise which they undoubtedly contain, seem to be
youth
(cf.
:
with something like a touch of irony in language adapted to appeal to the then-condition of the Apostles ideals. If our theory be true, the relation of the Twelve to St. John presents a close 38 42 Like Martha they were eager ). analogy to that of Martha to Mary (Lk io
cast
"
spend and be spent in the service of their Master but they were not, at that stage, endowed with the religious insight and spiritual (as distinct from practical) devotion possessed by Mary and the young disciple John. John, like Mary, had
to
;
chosen the good part, which was not to be taken away from him. If such was the occasion which led to the sublime example of the foot-washing, we see at once why the Fourth Evangelist gives no hint of the special circumstances
which led up to it. As elsewhere, he suppresses his own personality as far as 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. 20 teal ol that the words /xerd TWV 8o;8e/ca Mk. I4 17 yêrd rSjv SdiSe/co. [/xa0?/TcDv] Mt. 26 Lk. 22 14 by no means exclude the presence of a non-Apostolic dir6ffTo\oi avv
;
avT<p
guest at the Supper.
The presence
of John (as
we
picture him) might well have
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.
We
have now,
it
may be
observed, further explained the bond

St.
of union between St.
John and
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
explained the remarkable double attitude towards the Jews which characterizes both the Christian converts. If from one point of view the unbelieving Jews excite St. Paul s
to find
seem here
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
to
forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may fill up their sins alway but the wrath is come upon
:
them
with
to the
all
uttermost
(i
I
Thess. 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,
:
promises
covenants, and the giving of the law, and the cultus, and the whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ after ;
3 5 (Rom. 9 ), and can speak not without satisfaction of the privileges which he inherited as a Hebrew of Hebrew parents and the recipient of a thorough training in the strictest
the flesh
Judaism (Phil. 3 ~). So to St. John the Jews from one point of view stand as the embodiment of unbelief and
principles of
hardened opposition to the Embodiment of Light and Truth yet from another he can record (with certainly a strong touch of
;
national feeling) our

that
Lord
words
:
to the
Samaritan woman,
Ye
:
which ye know not we worship that which we know worship 22 for salvation is from the Jews (Jn. 4 ), and can refer, with a glow
of enthusiasm, to
the last day, the great day of the feast
of
Tabernacles
It
(Jn.
7").
was
precisely the
to call for record.
grasp of Judaism from the inside only
seemed not
<nt
He may
official
have counted
for
no more
to the
Apostles
that time than
would nowadays a young scholar and thinker

positions in the Church.
in the
minds of men
of practical ability holding high
146
EPILOGUE
privileges
possible to a trained Rabbinic scholar which emphasized the sense
of
its
and opened out the

its
vista of its lofty possibilities
in the light of the teaching of

its
Him who was
seen to be both
supreme exponent and
ultimate goal;
while at the same
and
time strengthening the recoil from those its professed teachers practitioners who resolutely shut their ears to and re
the
sisted
Truth,
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 the fact that there are indications in the Gospel which un doubtedly may be taken to point to John the son of Zebedee as
in
The
This conclusion, however, is largely bound up with the line of reasoning with which Dr. Westcott has familiarized us, in which we first take our stand upon the indubitable indica
the author.
tions that the author of the Gospel
if
was an eye-witness, and then
an eye-witness, then an Apostle ; if an Apostle, then John argue the son of Zebedee. If, however, the inference from eye-witness to Apostle may be questioned (as the present writer has questioned
it
preceding argument), and if the grounds upon which it is questioned be held to be valid, then the case for the authorship of John the son of Zebedee is clearly weakened. The fact that
in the
John the son of Zebedee

if
is
the author must needs be an Apostle.
not mentioned by name is weighty If there are grounds
for holding that
he was not an Apostle, then this omission falls same category as the omission of the names of James the son of Zebedee, Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon
into the
Zelotes,
We
and possibly Bartholomew, i.e. it may be due to accident. may feel surprise that two of the Apostles who so frequently
in the
Synoptic Gospels accompany Peter as special attendants of our Lord should not receive mention ; but we should hardly be
justified in
arguing from this that one of these unnamed Apostles must be the author, even in the absence of strong indications to
the contrary.
disciple
the opening of ch. 21 it is clear that the Jesus loved is included under 01 roD ZeêScwbv on the ordinary view, but under aAAoi IK rw paOyrw avrov Svo upon the view which we are maintaining; and it is legitimate to argue
From
whom
that, since the
author always elsewhere deliberately conceals his
EPILOGUE
identity, the latter conclusion is (apart
trary)
147
to the
from evidence
con
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 20ff -) 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
that the
to
come
into close
connexion with Peter.
In i3 23 ff
all
connexion amounts
to is that a privileged Apostle of greater boldness than the others suggested a question to a disciple whom he recognized as still more intimate with our Lord than himself; in 2i 20ff that, having
-
heard a prediction as
fate of that
other
of
a special
tie
to his own future, he inquired as to the who was similarly united to his Master by The remaining passage, 2O 2ff suggests devotion.
-,
indeed that the two disciples were lodging together or it may have been, keeping vigil in the same abode ; but this is natural in
younger disciple had same time was animated by a kindred affection for our Lord which would make him understand the better the dreadful grief of the repentant Apostle, would un doubtedly draw him close to him in the hour of need.
the circumstances.
facts that the
The very
and
witnessed Peter
s denial,
at the
We
are
left,
then, with
the account in Jn.

St.
i 25ff
of the
first
John Baptist, one of whom we are told was Andrew the brother of Simon Peter, and the other, we infer, was the author of the Gospel. In v. 41
meeting with Jesus of the two disciples of
it is
said of Andrew,
this
tvpLO-Kfi ouros Trpurov TOV
a8eX^>6v
TOV tBiov îfjuava,
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 call of the

in
two pairs of Apostles

(or Bethany)
Mk.
lf - 20
=Mt. 4
is
18
~22
for (not to
in Jn.
of the difference in detail) the scene

Synoptists, the sea of Galilee.
different
speak Bethabara
in the
beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing;
The two
accounts
may
quite well
i
Notice the similarity of the phrase to e* rwv âQrirwv avrov 8vo so 2 3 4 8.

-
35
<5
a\\os
L 2
148
EPILOGUE
if
be harmonized
we suppose
that the definite call (AeDre
OTTI
of the Synoptic narrative came subsequently to the virtual call described by Jn. and on this view the readiness of the disciples
;
at
once to leave their occupations

elucidation
and
at
follow
Christ
receives
considerable
they came
once without question

call
because they had already been prepared for the described in Jn.
It
by the meeting
clear as regards
disciple
muse be remarked, however, that while this conclusion is Andrew and Peter, the question as to the second
mentioned
first place,
in Jn.
In the
we
involved in considerable obscurity. cannot be quite sure that the author of the
-
I 35ff
is
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 ewpiV/cet oro? irpurov KT\. is surely
much
else
in
too categorical.
Why
was afterwards found?
should irpurov imply that some one Comparing the use of the adverb
Mt. 6 !3 ^retre Se irpwrov TT/V /SaariXcLav /ecu TT/V SiKcuocruvryj avrov, we may say rather that it implies that Andrew made it his first business to find his brother found him then and there If, then,
.
describing his own first interview with our Lord, there is nothing in the narrative which really conflicts with the theory that he was not the son of Zebedee but a member
the author of the Gospel
is
a one
of a priestly family from Jerusalem. It have joined the multitudes may
is
quite likely that such
who
flocked to hear the
Baptist, may have attached himself to him as a disciple and so have formed a friendship with Andrew, from whom incidentally
he may
to
at
of the five thousand
a later time have learned the details of the feeding 8 not permitted (cf. 6 ), if, as on our view, he was
actual
become a constant follower of our Lord, but was an
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
the
earliest
latter
harmonize with the
view seems wholly to be supported by and to have the preponderant such internal indications as may of internal evidence support
external evidence,
;
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,
the writer would guard against the impression that he has come to a fixed opinion. He has not studied the Apocalypse sufficiently
thoroughly to do this. All that he has to put forward are certain obvious considerations which seem necessarily to arise out of his
as to the Gospel. against the view that the Gospel and Apocalypse are the same author has always been based chiefly upon the differ by ence in Greek style. 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 no defiance of syntax familiar with the con obviously the work of one who was more struction of the Semitic than of the Greek sentence, yet the author
there
is
no
startling
phrase,
seldom or never offends against definite laws. In these respects he not only differs from the Apocalyptist, but stands at the opposite
pole to the eccentricities, the roughnesses, the audacities of the
latter
.*
It is
obvious that,
if
the Gospel
is
a translation from Aramaic,
the criterion of
falls to
Greek
style as differentiating the
two books
at
once
was written in Aramaic prior to the author s arrival in Ephesus somewhat late in his life, and he then adopted Greek owing to the exigencies of his new surroundings, such Greek as we find in the Apocalypse
the ground.
On
the other hand,
if
the Gospel
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
t It
ff.
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 Apocalypse. But the Epistles may well have been dictated to an amanuensis, who was in some degree responsible for the correctness of the Greek; and possibly this amanuensis may have been the translator of the Gospel.
i 5o
EPILOGUE
out, the
Again, we have to notice that, as Dr. Charles has ably pointed author of the Apocalypse frames his style upon a Biblical Hebrew model. Such a knowledge of Biblical Hebrew, though unexpected in a Galilaean fisherman, would be natural in a trained
Rabbinic scholar.
We
have found reason to believe that the

;
author of the Gospel was such a scholar and it seems necessary to hold that the author of the Apocalypse, who must likewise have
been a Palestinian, was similarly equipped.* It is a remarkable fact that, though Dr. Charles holds that the
author of the Apocalypse was not the author of the Gospel, the description which he gives (i, p. xliv) of the characteristics of
the former
is
applicable, in
its
main
details, to the latter
according
to the conclusions
which we have formed
in the present discussion.
Thus we
insight
tinian Jew.
are told that the author of the Apocalypse was a Pales He was a great spiritual genius, a man of profound
.
and the widest sympathies

translated
its
He
had an
intimate acquain
tance with the

in
Hebrew text of the O.T.

idioms
The
fact that
he thought
Hebrew and
Palestine as his original home. appears to prove not only that he never mastered the ordinary Greek of his own times, but that he came to acquire whatever
Greek, points to His extraordinary use of Greek
literally into
years.
language when somewhat advanced in are precisely those which we should expect that the author of the Fourth Gospel would display if he turned himself to the composition of a book like the
knowledge he had of
All these
this
characteristics
Apocalypse.
Is this coincidence
is
merely accidental
The
following
a rough
list
:
of Semitisms
common
to the
Fourth
Gospel and the Apocalypse Asyndeton (cf. p. 49), which

Biblical
*
is
naturally not to be expected in a
an Aramaic characteristic, work which conforms itself

of Apoc. slips into
(i,
is
to
Hebrew
is
style.
The author
it,
however,
Hebrew
Dr. Charles
hardly accurate in speaking
p. xliv)
still
of
his use of
practically as his
mother tongue
.
discussions in Palestine)
The
the language of learned language of learned discussion in Palestine was

(for
to the
p. 17,
Hebrew was
New
Hebrew, which is in many respects more closely akin to Aramaic than classical Hebrew in which this writer correctly finds the author s model (cf.
;
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
foot-note).
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 6 20 20 3 14 2I 4 22 15 17 Cf. ApOC. l6 I9

5 6
-
p. 50).
Parataxis
KCU is so
(cf.
p. 56).
The
co-ordination of sentences by KCU

it
frequent in Apoc. that
needs no
illustration.
verb.
Non-use of Aorist Participle describing action anterior to Finite 12 There seems to be only one instance, viz. eTrio-r/Deâs eTSov i
.
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.
KCU linking contrasted statements (cf. p. 66).
Cf.
13 21 Apoc. 2 3
-
1 -5-8 .
Great rarity of 8e. There seem to be 5 occurrences only in s 2 12 14 24 8e in Jn. is proportionately slightly Apoc., viz. i 2 io i9 2i less frequent than in Mk., and less than half as frequent as in Mt.
, ,
and Lk.
(cf.
p. 69).
(cf. p.
Infrequency of yap
69).
iW
in
fXT)
frequent,
[XTJiroTe
never.
Only about 17 occurrences. There are 11 occurrences of
Iva
^
w
Apoc., and none of

. . .
that
(cf.
not
f.,
lest
/X^TTOTC never occurs in Jn. in sense /x^Trore. its place being regularly taken by Iva.
pp. 69
100).
(cf.
f-\
The Relative completed by a Pronoun 8 12 4 9 20s I I 7 3

-
p. 84).
Cf.
Apoc.
3*,
I2"
wopa aurw
elsewhere
5 16
,
Whose name was

(cf. p.
fi
Jn.
3 3\ Apoc. 6
9".
Never
i
4 7 8
-
in
N.T.
30).
(cf. p. 94).
epxercu Present
used as Futurum instans

i6
15
,
Cf.
Apoc.
3 5 verbs in II
,
,
11
12
ii",
22
7 - 12 20
-
The same usage

9 10
((3X.f7rov<riv,
is
seen with other
(e/oropeveTcu, Korreo-01 ei), II
dc/uWnv,
As
is
Dr. Charles (i, p. xxxv) states that the Genitive absolute occurs often in Jn. a matter of fact the occurrences are 17, as against Mt. 48, Mk. 36, Lk. 59, i. e. it in the Synoptists as in Jn. proportionately about 2| times as frequent
152
EPILOGUE
after Participle
(cf.
Change of construction
in
p. 96,
where the cases

28 22 2i 27 22
, ,
Apoc. are noted).

mis
.
(irai>)
ou
none
(p. 98).
Cf.
16
Apoc. 7
Thus
it
appears that the case against identity of authorship of
the Gospel and Apocalypse can certainly not be maintained upon The evidence is all in the other direction. the ground of style.
A
1
-
few words
may be added
by the Apocalyptist. He 4 i 22 s in i 9 with the addition of your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and endurance (which is) in Jesus
,
as to the claim to authorship made describes himself as John simply in
In i8 20 2i 14 he seems to distinguish himself from the Twelve In 22 he is ranked among the prophets. Though the Apostles. tone of authority in which he delivers hfs message is bound up
,
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 must almost certainly be dated towards the
to the
end of the reign of Domitian, i.e. shortly before A.D. 96. Now the evidence which we have already reviewed points
conclusion that there was but one John of great note in Asia at this period, viz. John the presbyter, who was known as the disciple of
the
Lord
Evidence also indicates that

Gospel.
Unless,
this
John was the author

the Apocalypse
i,
of the
Fourth
therefore,
is
pseudonymous (against which see Dr. Charles,

the conclusion
self
is is
pp. xxxviiif.),
signs him the presbyter. John John Thus the evidence of claim to authorship combines with that of
certainly cogent that the author
who
Semitic style in suggesting that the author of the Apocalypse is one with the author of the Fourth Gospel and Epistles. Whether
there exist criteria of Theological thought or other internal charac teristics which are sufficient to disprove this inference is a question
which the writer must leave
to others to decide.
APPENDIX
i.
Reminiscences of the teaching of the Fourth Gospel
(and i Jn.} in the Epistles of St. Ignatius.

To
2.
the
Ephesians.
Jn.
fJ-oi
17"
irpiirov
ovv IVTIV
Kara
-jrdvra
/cdyw rrjv
B6av
rjv
Se oWas
KaO<o<s
TpoTrov
Soaeiv
Irjcrovv XpioTOV rbv

<W
SeScoKa auTois, tVa wcnv ev

ev.
oo^dcravTa tyxas
.
ey pua VTrorayrj
r)/Jifi<s
Kara
Trdvra
19
rjre
Jn. I7
tVa
a>o"iv
KCU.
avrol
rjyia.-
4.
/cat
Sta ToCro lv
(rvfji(J)<ava)
rrj
opovoLa
V/JLMV
Jn. I3
ei
TOUTW
to-re,
(iydirr)
I^croCs Xpto-ros
on
e/xoi fiaOrjrai
eav dya
aScrat.
5- 7roo~w fjia\Xov v/xas /xaKapt ô) rot s
21
Jn. I7
o-u, 7raT7/p,
iVa Trai/res ev e/xot

TIILIV
i/
ai<
LvaKeKpa/xeVov? ovrw?,
XptO"TU)
co?
17
eK/cA/^cria
S
XptO"TOS
Kayo>
ev
croi,
iVa
KCU
(OS
I>yO"Oi
Kat O.VTOL fV
fV
\
(JJCTLV.
Trarpt, iva Trai/ra cv ei/or^n aruu,~
7.
Christ
II.
is
ei/
Oavdru
ei/
î-f]
dXyOivr).
Iiyo
o{;
Jn.
6
ii
25 - 26
Eyw
ets
et/xi
^
di
21
.
Cf.
/xoi
ov
XpicmS
rjv.
Trioreutov
/crX.
eyu,e
/cav
evptOrjvai ets TO aXyOivov
Trail.
âerat
Cf. also I Jn. 5
We
may
note that the adj. ttAû/o s
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.
"EcrâTOt
/catpot .
18 Jn. 2
tcrârr)
wpa
i 54
APPENDIX
*fii>
14.
ovSev XavOdvei vjnas,
eav
TT/I/
I I
8 16
Jn. 4 Jn. 2
5
eos ayaTrr) c ev
TOVTO>
TeAetcos eis Iô-ovV Xptcrrov 9(?7Te

Trio-rev
/cat
dA^ws
17
dyaVr;
-
T)V dyciTr^V
^rts
ccrriv
rov
fov TCTeActWat.
Cf.
12
,/j.
18
.
Te Aos Se dyaTT^ycvofjicva
ra Se 8vo
Iv
eos ecrrtv.
The Johannine
in i Cor. 13.
14.
ovScis TTtoriv
teaching
is
here combined with that of St. Paul
7rayyeXXd)U,ej/os
Jn.
TTUS 6
3"
ev
aurw /AeVwv ovx
ovSe
dyaTr^j/
KCKr^/xeVo?
d/xaprdi/ei.
I
Jn. 4
2
cai>
ris
eiTTT/
OTI
AyaTTto
[uo-fj,
rov
edv, /cat
rov dSeXôv avrov

Cf. also
crriv.
2J
2 9 11
15. Travra
^/xti/
ow TTOIW/XCV,
tva
a)
avroG ev
Jn. 3
ev
KCU 6 T^pwv ras

avrai
yaei/et
Karot/coCi/To?,
/cat
w/êv
eds.
aurov
avrov
airra>.
KCU
auros ev
vaoi
avros ^ ev ^/xtv
17.
TT}S
Trviifl
Ata rovro /ivpov eA.a/?/

[auroi)]
CTTI
3 Jn. I2 ^
8e oi/cta f.TT\r]pwOif]
e/c
T^S
/cetâA^s
Kt pto?,
tVa
OO-^T}?
rov pvpov.
rrj e/cKAT/cria
a<f>@apcriav.
The words
26"~
.
CTTI
3 9 mind the narrative of the anointing as recorded in Mk. i4 = 13 lff our Lord s/^/ were anointed; Mt. According to Jn. i2 to resist the conclusion that Ignatius s words it is difficult
-
r^? /ceâA^s avroG
prove that
St. Ignatius
has in ~
yet
iva
Trviri
KT\.
are based on recollection of the passage from Jn.

parallel,
which we have placed as a as referring to the Church.

17,
the house
being allegorized
occurs six times ap-^v TOV atou/os TOVTOV Trail. are Magn. i in St. Ignatius s letters (the other occurrences version the equivalent is 4; Rom. 7; Phil. 6). In the Syriac 31 i6 n we have the In Jn. I2 oâoj/ (Eph. 19). }joi
19.
The phrase
Ui^?
6
30
phrase
J>jo,
U^K?
rendered is apx^v rov KOO-ÔV TOVTOV, which 31 Pesh. Lo, (CHJ^^ I2 ) opooi/, and by
Koo-fjiov
by Sin.
U^^?
is
^c^^J
of
in i4
6 TOV
is [TOVTOV] apx^v
rendered by Sin. and Pesh.

thought
the
Ui^?
joooj/.
In Jn., as in
Ignatius, the
or world-period (properly TOV atwos spiritual ruler of the present age 6 8 TWV apxovTwv TOV atwvos TOVTOV denotes TOVTOV), just as in i Cor. 2
-
APPENDIX
the earthly rulers of the present age.
**??%
155
(Sy r
I v>.N-)
to
denote alw and
KOO-/AOS,
Aramaic has but one term and the Johannine

NJi3"iK
rendering TOV
It
KOO-/JLOV
TOVTOV is less accurate than TOV al&vos TOVTOV,
and mistranslates the original which must have been ^9^1
can hardly be doubted, then, that Ignatius drew his n?. from Jn., and the form in which he gives it phrase suggests that he may have known the Aramaic original of the Gospel.
To
I.
fjiat
(.v
the
Magnesians.
Jn.
cus [e/c/cAô tais] eVax

/cat
if
5).
(quoted
above
on
crap/cos
Trveu/xaros
Eph.
Xptcrroi;
rov 8ta Travros

re
/cat
Tmrreojs
dyaTr^s
^5
Trpo/ce/cptTat,
/cat
ro 8e /cvptorrepov,
Trarpo?.
5.
wcnrfp yap ecrriv FOyatcr/xara

eou o Se
tStov
/cocr/xov, /cat
c/
et
/coo~/xo
6K TOV KOCTfJLOV ^TC, 6

t
/xei/
av TO
Stov e^t Aet*
on
Se
e/c
av rciiv
eêt, ot ot
âpaKTrjpa
TOT)
rou
KOCT/JLOV
OVK care, dAX

e/c
eycb cê-
a7rio"rot
KOO-/AOU TOTJTOU,
Aefd/^^j/
TO7TTO
fJLLO
{yxas
rov
/COQ-/XOV,
8ta
8e
TTicrrot
ev
aydirrj
âpaKTrjpa
. .
el VfJiO.^ O KOCT/XOS.
ov Trarpos Sta I^croS Xptcrroi)

5- TO
^v
auroi) ov/c
ecrrti/ ei/ TJ/JUV.
I
I
Jn.
Jn.
s
17
1
d/V/êia OVK eo-rtv
ej/
^/xtr.
Aoyos avTov OVK
ecrrti/ ei/
Jn.
i/
8"
Aoyos 6
e//,os
ov
V/JLLV.
Jn. 3
cêt
awviov
6.
Trdi/res
ovv
o/j-orjOfLav
.
eov
. .
Jn.
13
4).
(quoted
above
on
AaySoVres errpe7reo-$e dAAÂovs

lv
Irjo~ov
Xpto~Tu>
Eph.
dAAÂovs Sta
TTO.V-
TOS dyaTraTe.
7.
fio~7rep
ovi/
Kv ptos
dVeu ro9
[^vw/xevos
Jn. 5
eavroG
u Svvarai 6 vtos
ouSej/
ai/
yu,7^
Trotetj^
d^>
TraTpo?
ovSev
. .
eTrot^crei/
rt
fiX-CTri]
TOV
wvj,
Trarepa Trotov^ra.
n. o JQ2S
J>5
a?r
efJiavTOV
~ TTOIOJ
JCv/
ouoe^,
156
APPENDIX
dXXa
TavTa
Karoos
XaXa>.
Jn. IO
30
eyu)
-
Kai 6
-
Cf. also lo
)vp Xpio-Top TOP
25 37 38
.
d<
28 Kai Jn. l6 tr]X@ov K rov TraTpos
epos TraTpos 7rpoeX$oPTa Kai eis eVa
opTa Kai ^(opô-avTa.
eXv^Xtâ eis TOV KOO-//-OV TraXiv a<pi7//xt TOP KOO-/XOP Kai Tropeuo/xai Trpos TOP
TraTe pa.
Cf.
18
8 42 I3 3
,
CIS
CPa OPTtt.
Jn.
OOP
CIS
TOP KOXTTOP TOV

.
/
Yd)p>?o"apTa.
Kai
8.
TraTpo s. Pf ,.
v^J.
Cf. I4
12.^8
;
10 - 11 20
14
T fil0.l7 *
on
eis
co s CO-TIP 6 câpcpwo-as
Iryo-ov XpicrTOi)
Jn. 17
E(#)apcpwo-a
Q-QI;
TO opo/ia.
eavTop Sia
auTOv,
os
CO-TIP
TOU vtou
avrov
Xoyos
d?ro
a-iyiys
Jn.
lff-
os KttTa TrapTa ev^pecmyo-ep TO)

i/rai/Ti
?re/x-
jn. O
CO-TIP
TTOlai
,
,
Kai o
.
.
TTCÛS pt
TO.
/^ti
avTOP.
OTI cya)
dpeo-Ta
TTCIPTOTC.
>
Cf. alSO
/
with
>
TO)
*
TTc/xu/apT i
avTOPj
J n.
.34
-23.24.30.37
2o21
9.
^(opts
TTWS
Jn.
;
i5
lff
-.
Cf.
especially
v.
a^Tov
cf.
Trail. 9. oS
c;
TO dX^îPOi
t,r\v
OVK
To
ii.
//^^
Trallians.
$vyeT
TOLS
ow
Tas KaKas ?rapa0a.va.Tf]-
<jW<ks
ycvywo-as KapTrbv
Tts,
The Father is the husbandman who tends the vine

Jn.
126
i5
<dpov,
ou eav yevoTyrai
i.
Trapavra
eto-tv
and
removes
the
worthless
owot yap OUK
shoots.
Lightfoot compares Clement Alex. Paed.

KXaSei;o//.epT7
17
i.
Ka0vXo/zapei yap
atiToi)
/4
Tas
a/xTreXos,
OVTWS 8e Kai 6 ap$pco7ros

6
Kaâipci 8c
?rapa(/)uds
c^v^piCovo-as
7rapa</)i;a8as
Xo yos, KTX.
The word
denotes
fertility
a side-growth or worthless sucker which detracts from the
APPENDIX
157
of the plant. According to Aristotle, Plant, i. 4 Trapaufivdots Se eto-t ru (ZTTO TTJS pic^s TOU Scvopov j3Xa<TTavovTa. Thus the thought of is allied to that of Jn., with the difference that the /x?) Ignatius
(f>tpov
KapTrov
of the latter becomes ras

clause there
is
yei/i/axras Kap-n-ov davarrjfôpov.

13
,
In the
e<j)VT(vo~fv
last
allusion to Mt. i5
ITSo-a fareta ty OVK
6 TraTrjp fiov o oupdVtos
II.
Kat
rjv
av
KapTTOs
auroov
Jn. I5
KapTros
a<f>6apro<s.
To
3. /xeyeous
the
Romans.
19
(rrv
Jn. I5
et
e/c
orav
/xtcr^rat VTTO KOOT/XOV
/coV/xo? av TO
on
eo-re,
Se CK
eê-
rod Koo-pov OVK

Aeâ/x.î/
{yxtts
dAA eyw
CK
roi)
TOUTO
XaAetre
I
/xto-t v/xas 6 KOO-/XO?.
7.
/XT)
Xpurrov
la Jn. 2
eai/ TIS
dyaTra
TOJ/ KOO-/XOV,
KOO-fJiOV $. e7Tl6v(J.CLT.
OVK
(.CTTiV
f)
ayOLTTTf}
TOV
TTaT/OOS
aVTO>.
7.
i$<op
8e
^w^
/cat
AaAoi V er
e//,oi ,
Jn. 4
Jn.
o-Tat
10
eSw/cev av o-oi i Scop
ôii/.
ttot
\iyov
KT\..
4"
TO vSop o
Stoo-ca
avT<3
ei/
aura) 7T7/y^ iuoWos a

wi/iov.
Cf. also Jn. 7
38
.
7.
aprov
eo{5
. . .
ê Aw, o CQ-TIV o-ap
32 33 6 Jn. 6
7rarr)p /JLOV
tooo-tv vp.iv
TOV XptcTTOi)
Kai 7ro/xa
$cAa>
TO
TOV apTOV K TOV ovpavov TOV aXrjOivov

o
at/xa aiuTOV, o eo-Ttv ayaTrrj
a^âpTos.
yap apTO5 TOV
eoS ecrTtv 6 *caTa-
fiaivwv
K TOV ovpavov KOU ^toryv StSous
Jn. 6
/3pa>o~is,
17
yap
o~ap
ttov
d\r)6r)<s
eo~Ti CO~TL
Kat TO al/xa /xou
d\rjOrj<s
To
the Philadelphians.
3G Jn. I2
a>9
w
TOV
^>WTOS
dA^êtas,*
TO
yu,epto"/xov
Kat Tas KO.KO-
ets
TO
<a)s,
tVa vt
* u of Lightfoot s verdict is, The reading of the Greek MSS. (pcarus a\r]0(ias the light of truth", cannot stand; for definite articles would almost certainly be
158
SiSao-KaXtas
e
APPENDIX
OTTOU Se 6 ?rot/x^v eo-Ttv,
t
it
4 Jn. IO 6Vav
TO. tSta
TrdvTa
Kat TO,
:?
I);
>
>
3 ir
. .
.
j ?:^r,r
TT
oXXot
TOVS
e//,7rpoo-0ev
auTcov
TropeueTai,
yap XVKOI
atxp,aXwTt
oi;o~iJ/
7rpof3ara awTai d.KoXoi;$e?.

12
Z^.
Kat 6 XWKOS dpTrdêt avra Kat
TOJV
iw
KaKoov
Iô~oi)s
Jn- 15
IT.
yecopyet
Xpto TO ?,
r
<
Sta TO /x^ etvai auTous (favreiav TraTpos.
Cf.
on
TO
Trail,
n.
ov TrXavttTat, aTro
eoi)
s
7.
Trvev/JLO,
Jn. 3
Kat Tr/v
TO
7rveC/x,a
OTTOV $eXci TTVCI,
ov
otoev
yap
7ro$ev epêTat Kat TTOV
(f>(i)vr]v
avrov aKOêts, dXX OUK

TTOI)
VTrayet, Kat TO, KpvTrra eXeyêt.
ot8as TTO^CV epêTat Kat

oi)TO)5
eo"Ttv
vrrdyeL
Tras 6 yeyevv^/xeVos CK TOI)
Jn. 3^ Kat OVK ep^CTat

TO,
Trpos TO
epya
o.
aroi),
Xptbs
Jn. 8
s " 6
^
eav
dXêta
ow
6 inos
vfj.a<;
oo-^, OI/TCOS
IXevOepoL
9 auTos
IaKw/3 Kat
crroXoL Kat
cov $i;pa
TOV TraTpos,
St
^s
Kat
Jn.
IO7 9
.
cyto
. .
et/xt
iy
eto~epôvTat
AfipaafjL Kat
ot Trpo^rjraL
17
Io"aaK
Trpo/SdYoov.
e/xoi)
eya)
t/xt
iy
^v
Si
Kat ot d?ro-
edv Tts elareXOy
(ruOr)<rc.Tai.
The text might be mended by inserting a /cat, as the Armenian Version On such a point however a version has little weight, gives Might and truth I am disposed since this would be a very obvious expedient for a translator. to think that rewa a\i]6fias was the original reading of Ignatius ; and that (pcoros was first intended as a substitution or a gloss or a parallel, suggested by the
required.
".
familiar scriptural phrase Tewa (vfot) êuros It may be remarked, however, that the Aramaic method of expressing the true lighf is NDK^p"} Syr. N"pJTp, TO this latter being used e.g. to translate TO of truth
.
JnM
)>o*cu
light
i
9
.
</>o>?
a\rjQiv6v in Jn.
Thus
<pajros
a\ri6eias,
than any existing authorities may o apxow TOV alwvos rovrov noted on p. 154) to an acquaintance with. the original Aramaic Gospel. For omission of the definite article in rendering such a Semitic 8 phrase into Greek cf. Gen. 2^ DDN 7]113 in the true (right) way (lit. in way
,
which, according to Lightfoot is older well be an Aramaism, possibly pointing (like
of truth
LXX iv
oSw d\rjedas, Ps. 118 (up) 80 68ov dXrjedas rfpfriad^v.
APPENDIX
To
I.
7re7rA?7po<op?7//,eVous
159
the
Smyrnaedns.
TOV
14 10
eis
Jn. 3
roi/
/cat /ca$oi)S
f.v
errt
n<Aarov
IIoi/TW)V
o(tj/
rfj
/cat
HpcoSou
rjfjiwv
rerpdpôv
tv
-
Orjvai Set TOV

-rras
wov TOU
ei/
av6pu7rov, tVa
e^>/
KaOyXuipevov virep
.
.
crap/a
o Trwrrevooi/
avr<3
ô)^v
ivo.
aprj
crvarcrrjfjiov
eis ets
rows
TOUS
ev
ej/t
aicovioi/.
32 Jn. I2
aitoi/a?
8<.a
r^s
ttj/acrrao-ecas
/cdya) aj/
v\l/w6&>
CK rrjs yfjs,
ayiovs
/cat
Trto-rovs
O.VTOV,
etre
Traj/ra?
eA./cuo-a>
Trpos e/xavroj/.
14
lowSaiots
o-co/xart
ctre
eV
lOvevw,
avTov.
eV
Cf. also Jn.
r^s
e/c/cAâ-tttS
D3 standard or o-ô-o-Ty/xov seems to be to the on which the brazen serpent was set, Num. 2i s 9 signal-post LXX /cat avrov CTTI crr/êt ou. D3 is rendered (rva-a-f]fjiov by LXX in
-
The
allusion of
Oe<s
Isa.
2fi
49
23
.
22
,
62
;
It
is
so rendered by Aquila in
in Isa. ii
10
,
Ps.
60 (59),
Isa. ii
10
,
33*
by Symmachus
33-
and by Theodotion
in Isa.
33
2.
Reminiscences of the Odes of Solomon in the

Epistles of St. Ignatius.
principal passages from which
that the
The
follows
Drs.
Rendel Harris and

Ignatius are as
Mingana argue
:
Odes were
familiar to
Ode 3 8 78
.jiff*!
Ju*90JO JOO)
^)V
JJ?
^*?
)>**
v^^l
00
But Truth proceeds
in the right path,
And whatever
Even
all
did not
know
it
made
clear to
me;
*
And
*
the drugs of error, the plagues of death which
men
think to be sweetness.
l ;
In the last line the Syriac construction is somewhat harsh lit. And the The separation of of plagues which they think to be sweetness, of death death from the plagues (if not merely an accidental misplacement) may have
.
been dictated by desire

being,
And
to bring it into sharp contrast to sweetness , the sense the plagues which they think to be sweetness, (though they be the
.
plagues) of death
160
APPENDIX
:
heretics in the following terms
In Trail. 6 Ignatius warns his readers against the teaching of For these men do even mingle
poison with Jesus Christ, imposing upon others by a show of honied honesty, like persons administering a deadly drug with
wine, so that one who knoweth not, fearing nothing, drinketh in SiSovres jaera death with a baneful delight (oWep Oavda-L/JLOV
<ap//,a/<oi/
ewo/xe AiTOS,
oVcp
6 dyi/oah/ dSeoJs Aa/z/Savet ev f)$ovfj KaK-fj TO aTroâveiv).
In the view of the editors

ness",
jlcu^, halyutha
is
is
not merely
taken,
i.e.
"sweet
but something with which the poison

.
a sweet
substantiated by a passage in which Ephrem states that Bardaisan, in composing his Psalter in imitation of David, It is a fair was administering to the simple bitters in halyutha to the inference, then, that the oivo/xeAt of Ignatius corresponds
drink
This
is
heretical Syr. halyutha. Thus both the Ode and Ignatius compare so that teaching to a poisonous drug concealed in a sweet drink, men imbibe it unwittingly. The coincidence in thought can hardly
be accidental.
Ode
^la
JU
And speaking waters drew near my lips From the fountain of the Lord, without stint.
Ignatius,
Rom.
My
lust in
hath been crucified, and there
is
no
fire of material longing me, but only water living and speaking KOL Come to the Father (v Swp Se in me, saying within me,
<ov
\a\ovv
lv cp.oi t tcrwOtv
fJLOL
\eyov Aevpo
TT/OOS
TOV Trarepa).
In explanation of XaXow, Lightfoot cites Jortin (Eccles. Hist, i, heathen superstition that pp. 356 f.) as finding an allusion to the certain waters communicated a prophetic power to the people
drinking them.
As
there was one of these

i.
speaking
fountains at
interpolator prefer the correctness of XaXovv is now confirmed by the passage in the Ode, with which we can hardly fail to trace a connexion.
text,
Daphne (Sozomen, HE. v. 19; Evagrius of Antioch, Jortin supposes that the image could readily suggest to question the itself to Ignatius. Lightfoot himself is inclined 14 s text aXXo/xei/ov (cf. Jn. 4 ); but the and to
16), the famous suburb
APPENDIX
more
on
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
his
that
western journey, should quote the Hymn-book the early Hymn-book should have picked up an obscure
in a letter
.*
-
of the time, than
passage
which had hardly got into circulation
at a
very
early date
Ode
ln
i7
..*/
OOfrÔ
^s.X 1^001
And
And
Cf.
nothing appeared closed to

I
I
me;
: .
Because
was the door of everything went towards all my bondmen to loose them
Phil.
is
Ignatius,
.
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 i.e. Jesus Prophets and the Apostles and the Church Christ is the door of everybody, which is an explanation of the
;
door of everything
in the
Ode.
Ode4i The connexion

.
lff
of
this
passage with
Ignatius,
Rom.
2,
has
already been noticed on
p. 131, n. i.
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

it
is,
however, considerably
noticed that in Eph. 19 he actually seems to be quoting at length an ode of a similar character. The passage runs as follows
is
:
strengthened when
K.CU
ZXaOev TOV apôvTa TO? alwvos TOVTOV

O.VTTJS,
f)
TrapOfvia
Mapias
/cat
TOKCTOS
6/xoioos
Km
6 $ava.Tos TOV K.vpLov

TTOJS
Tpia. /ji.vcrTr^pLa
;
Kpavyrjs,
currr/p
ei
aTLva lv rjfrvîa
eou fTrpdÔr].
VTrep
ovv e^xxvepw^r/ rots cuwcriv

/cat
ovpavw
/<ai
e\a.[ju(/ev
Trwras
rj
TOV<S
dcrrepas,
TO
<a>s
auToG dvK\dX.r)Tov
r/r,
^fvicrjiov
Traaev
KaivoTr^5 avTOu* TO. 8e AOITTOL TrdvTa darrpa a/xa r/Xt w

*
op.
cit.
ii,
p. 43.
i6a
os eyeVeTO
Yj
TU>
APPENDIX
dcrrepi,
17
auros Se
77
r)V
vTrcpfidXXwv TO
<ws
aurou
re
î/
vroêv
/cau/orrys
dvo//,oios aurois.
oêv eXvero
Tracra
/mycia, KCU Tras Secrôs ^âvi ^tro

eoi)
Ka/ct a?,
ayvota KaOypecro, TraAata
di/^pwTriVcos (fravtpovfjitvov cis KaivoTrjra ai&iov

eoi)
8e f\dfjiftavv TO Trapa
<TWKiveiTO
o.Trrjprtfr^f.vov.
iivBev TO. TTOVTO.
Sta TO
jJiC.Xf.Ta.a
Oai Oavdrov KardXva iv.
It
by the query TTCOS ow tyavtpuOf] TOIS character and not in Ignatius s usual
quoting.
seems clear that the description of the Incarnation introduced atwo-ii/; which is poetical in
style, is
hymn which he
is
Syriac it is seen to consist of four The stanzas, carefully constructed to consist of 4, 6, 6, 4 lines.
into
Translated
following translation is based, from o@cv C\.VCTO Tracra /xaya a, upon the Syriac version of the letter, in which the earlier part of the poem
is
not included.
.3
CO
Joo
.loot
cow
A*
\H*(
low
Lightfoot punctuates oOev lAvero -na Kan ias devoid, KaBriptiTO iraXaia 0affi\fia f regarding the last verb as a gloss. This, from the poetical point of view, upsets the balance altogether.
Following the older punctuation.

SeafAos,
i
f
KO.I
iras
<pavifTO
APPENDIX
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.
1 hus was begun the scheme

Perfected in
God
design
Hence all things were perturbed For that death s destruction was planned.
In this ode the following points of connexion with the thought of the Odes of Solomon may be noticed
:
1.
Ode
Ode
2.
8"
Conception of the star shining in the world. Let not the Luminary be conquered by darkness Nor let Truth flee away from falsehood
.
41"
And
Light dawned from the

in
Word
.
That was beforetime
Him
The
i2 4
stars gather
round the new
star,
and express their

to
wonder.
Ode
And
the
Most High hath given Him

.
His worlds,
(Worlds) which are the interpreters of His And the repeaters of His praise
own
beauty,
M 2
164
APPENDIX
.
.
And bonds of evil dissolved 3. Ode if My choking bonds were cut off by His hand Ode 2i Because He hath cast off my bonds from me Ode 25 I was rescued from my bonds Ode42 And bring me out from the bonds of darkness Ode (Christ speaks) And I went towards all my bondsmen to loose them, That I might not leave any man bound and binding
2
.
lc
17"
Error was swept away
Ode
21
For ignorance hath been destroyed, Because the knowledge of the Lord hath arrived
error
in
We
Syriac
Jk.^,..
have adopted jicu^

text.
JJ
(lit.
our rendering, following the The Greek, however, has ayvoia, which is exactly not- knowledge ) of the Ode. have both terms
We
in the following
passage
Ode
i8 lcul
And
error (Jlcu^)
For neither doth
it
Thou knowest know Thee.

.
not,
And And
Ode
38"
ignorance (Jk.^ JJ) appeared like dust, like the scum of the sea
And error fled away before Him, And would not meet Him
.
With
the whole passage

:
cf.
Ode 22
s f-
(where Christ
is
represented
as speaking)
He who And My
scattered
My
;
enemies
adversaries
He who
That
I
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
Later on
in
every place
in the
Thy name was round same Ode we read
about
Me
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

(}+s>l
And
kingdom passed When God appeared in the flesh Unto newness of life without end
all
the ancient
perished);
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
might mean simply were moved or excited we hardly expect the terror and disquiet of the powers of evil and the joyous excitement of mankind destined to be
verb
o-wcKtvetTo
,
0^.^)11 /
redeemed
to
be included under one term.
Probably the thought
of the powers belonging to the uppermost 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
seems to describe a similar state of perturbation caused by our Lord s baptism in the ancient order of things which through this event was condemned to pass away and this is perhaps pictured
;
as Universal,
rrjv
rwv
craXeuo/xei/cov /xe
The Dove
Because
flew over the head of our Lord the Messiah,
He was
her
Head
And And
And And
The
she sang over Him, her voice was heard
the inhabitants were afraid, the sojourners trembled ;
birds took to
all
flight,
And
creeping things died in their holes.

;
And And
But
the abysses were opened and closed
they were seeking for the Lord, like (women)
in travail
Because
He was He
not given to them for food did not belong to them

:
And
And
the abysses were submerged in the submersion of the
Lord
they perished in the thought from the beginning.
in
which they had existed
i66
APPENDIX
For they
travailed from the beginning,
And
For
the end of their travail
was
life.
And every one

it
of them that
to
was not permitted
was defective perished them to make a defence

; .
for
themselves that they might remain

Drs. Harris and
at the
Mingana compare a somewhat
similar passage
beginning of
Ode
31
The abysses were
dissolved before the
Lord
And
And
And And
1
darkness was destroyed by His appearance.
Error went astray disappeared from Him,

(as for)
it
Falsehood, I gave it no path, was submerged by the Truth of the Lord
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
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
3
The Ode
includes
some
points of connexion with the Apocalypse.

i
"
For
should not have
Jn. 4
We
first
love (Him) be.
iiown
how
i
5
to love the Lord, if

.
cause
He
loved us
He
is,
had not loved me
Ode Ode
to
there also
i
8
And where His am I

.
rest
Jn. 14*
That where
be also
.
am, there
ye shall
ye
will
;
may
For he
that
is
that
is
joined
Jn. i4
19
Because
.
live,
immortal, himself also become immortal
Him
live also
and he
that hath pleasure in the

will
Living One,
become
living
APPENDIX
Ode
i
10
167
1
This
is
the Spirit of
lie
.
Cf.
ijn. 4
14
the Lord, that doth not
Ode
that
I
He became
like
me,
;
Jn.
And
the
Word became
among
re
might receive
Him
in
flesh,
and tabernacled
1
fashion
me, that
was he reckoned like I might put Him on

.
us
Jn.
But as many as
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
.
1
5"
Continue ye in
My
Ye
beloved
;
ones,
in
the
Beloved
As the Father hath Jn. 15 loved Me, so have I loved you

u
And
ye that are kept, in

.
Him
Jn. i7
Keep them
in
Thy
Thy
that lived (again)
name
v.
1
I
.
have kept them
in
name
v.
r!>
That Thou shouldest keep

(one)
I
.
them from the evil 19 Because Jn. i4
live
Ode 9 have overcome shall be written

all
11
And
.
those that
Apoc. 3
...
I
He
in
that ovcrcometh
will
no wise
blot
life
.
his
in
His book
12
name
inscription
is
i
out of the book of

4
Ode
is
For their the victory, which

9
10
I
Jn. 5
And
.
this is the victory
yours
that
overcometh the world, even

faith
:i:i
our
Ode
(Christ) took
.
the
Jn. i6
have overcome the
world captive
world
the nations were
Ode
10
And
Jn. ii
5-
That
gathered
together as
one that
.
together into
He might gather one the children of

.
were scattered abroad
God
that are scattered abroad

2i4
Ode
light
10
And
set
the traces of the

;
Apoc.
(Pesh.)
And
the
upon their heart walked in My life and and they and they became were saved for ever and ever My people
were
;
.
nations that are saved shall walk
by the
light
3
thereof.
Apoc. 2i
ii
And
they shall be
His peoples (Pesh.

15
people
).
Apoc. world has become our Lord
The kingdom
of the
s
68
APPENDIX
and His Christ
reign for ever
s,
and
He
.
shall
and ever
he
Ode
10
i7
And
nothing
ap
9 Jn. io
am
the door; by
in,
Me
be
peared closed to Me, because I was the door of everything Ode i8 4 Lord, for the sake
.
fi
if
any
.
enter
shall
saved
Jn.
v.
5
iiff-
The Word
of them that are deficient, do not Let deprive me of the Word

. .
.
the Light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness
And
not the luminary be conquered by the darkness, nor let Truth

flee
obscured
it
not
away from falsehood

by
Ode 22
(Christ speaks)
He
that overthrew
My
hands the
dragon with seven heads, and

set
Apoc. i2 And there was seen another sign in heaven and, behold, a great red dragon,
:i
Me
at his roots that

.
might
destroy his seed
having seven heads, &c. the whole chapter.
Cf.
Fill ye water for from the living foun yourselves tain of the Lord for it hath been
;
Ode 30 12
10 Thou wouldest have Jn. 4 asked of Him, and He would have given thee living water
.
opened
to
you
v.
The water that

shall
shall give
him
become
life
in
him a fount
.*
of water for
:i8
eternal
Cf.
Jn. 7
as
i7
emended on p
TIO.
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) although a Son of Man, I named the Luminary, the of God
.
Ode s6
And
was Son
Jn.
r
.
That
was
the
true
Light
Ode4i
Saviour
And His Word was

all
Jn.
ff-
The Word
That giveth
that
with us in
who
our way, even the giveth life and doth

.
Jn. 6
:i3
life
to the
world
v.
I
37
not reject our souls
Him
i
cometh
cast out
to
.
Me
and
will in
no wise
In
Ode
14
4i
And
*
light
dawned
Jn.
45
Him was
.
light,
So
Sin.
and Cur., omitting springing up
APPENDIX
from the Word, that was beforetime in
169
Him
15
And
is
the light was the life of men. the light shineth in dark
ness
Ode
One;
before
4i
the
.
The Messiah
24
truly
Jn. i7
For Thou lovedst

foundation
of
Me
the
and
He
was
known
of
the
before
the
.
foundation
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 8 22
is
entirely built up
upon thoughts derived from the Last

is
Discourses of Jn. Ode io 5(i Apoc.

3".
Ode
is
9"
a fairly close
representation of
a passage which illustrates very remarkably
the
poet s
use of the
Johannine writings.
His theme
;
is
the
gathering of the Gentile nations into the Church
and he seems
deliberately to have selected outstanding passages on this subject
their
from Jn. and Apoc., and worked them up in a manner which utilizes 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
0004
170
APPENDIX
;
and were saved
and they became
My people
>
for ever
and ever
X
to w OM
that are saved
O>J>*
OOOtO
y
^.î
O
His
for ever
and they
shall be
and ever
15
people
Apoc.
:t
2i"
Apoc. 2i
:<
Apoc. ii
We
notice
incidentally that the text of Pesh. appears to be

in
24 Apoc. 2i
presupposed
Apoc. 2 1
3
(*cua-*3li?=Tcoi/
o-o)oju,eV<oi>.
WH.
om.) and
(CH^.*?
}-*aJS*
= Aaos ai Tov. WH.
Aaot aurov).
lines of evidence taken together form an argument the early date of the Fourth Gospel which is exceedingly weighty. St. Ignatius, writing in A.D. no, was thoroughly familiar
These three
for
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
is
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
all.
shown
If
first
Odes is perhaps the most surprising fact of Ignatius knew the Odes, they are carried back, if not to
in
the
the
century,
if
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
But
seems
sufficient
time for the book to have influenced the

full
Odes
even when we make
allowance for the facts that intercourse
between Ephesus and Antioch was easy, and that the Apocalypse was precisely the kind of work which was likely to gain ready circulation in the east, and to be speedily utilized in time of
persecution.
This
difficulty
seems, however, to be resolved by
the consideration that the book,
if as late as Domitian, is generally admitted to embody much earlier elements and it may be from these that the reminiscences in the Odes are drawn.
;
The weakest strand in our threefold cord is undoubtedly that which postulates Ignatius s knowledge of the Odes of Solomon. Though it will probably be admitted, upon the evidence adduced, that Ignatius quotes a hymn like the Odes, and though the evidence
that he
was interested
in
hymnology and
actually
knew some
of
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
dates.
At
present, however, the fact which principally concerns
Ignatius s knowledge of the Fourth Gospel, which seems to be proved to demonstration. The manner in which he utilizes its teaching shows further that his acquaintance with it was not
us
is
merely
superficial, but that
he had assimilated
extending over
many
years.
it through a familiarity 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 als Christ
und Theologc, in Texte und Untetsuchungen, Band xii), and by Dr. Sanday (Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 242 ff.). The former scholar concludes (p. 130) that Ignatius must have come under the prolonged influence of a community itself Dr. Sanday says, I do not think there can be influenced by Johannean thought
.
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
any doubt
that Ignatius
had digested and assimilated
impressed by
it
as even to doubt
whether there
is
any other instance of resemblance
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
biblical
between a
and
patristic
The writer concludes by expressing his teaching with extraordinary fidelity. 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
work
Elsewhere in the same 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 Didachc, and in Ignatius, as well as in some of the early Gnostic S3 stems.
careful study
(p. 199)
which had the deepest Dr. Sanday remarks,
effect
I
upon
his
mind
have long thought that
INDEX
Abbahu,
R., 117
Charles, Dr. R. H., 15. 96, 136, 137, 150,

151, i5 2
Abbott. Dr. E. A.. 57, 65, 66, 68 Abraham sees the day of the Son of
Man, in f. Abrahams, Dr. I., 143 Ada Thomae, 27, 55, 67, 95 Adam, first and second, 45. 47
Chwolson, Dr., 143 Conybeare, Mr. F. C., 130

Creation, the Incarnation regarded as a new, 43 ff. Cureton, Dr. W., 26, 77
Akiba, R., 23 Alexandrine influence on Fourth Gos pel, theory of, 39, 127
Allen,
Dalman, Prof. G. H.,
7,
13, 20, 23,
24,
Canon
W. C,
106
2. 7, 16, 17, 18, 19,
2 5- 39, 4, 55 Daniel, Aramaic section in
Book
of,
20
77, 86, 90,
Ammi, R., 22 Amoraim, 22

Andrew, 147, 148 Anna, 107
Antioch, as home of Fourth Gospel, 1 29 ff 171 Aorist Participle describing action an
. ,
asyndeton in, 49 f. Daphne, speaking fountain of. 160 Deissmann, Prof. A., 4. 5, 39
Delff, Prof. H.,
133
Delitzsch, Prof. Franz. 115
Demonstrative Pronouns, 82 ff. Diatessaron, 25 f., 77, 130 Discourses in Fourth Gospel, authen
ticity of, 143 Driver, Prof. S. R., 20, 24. 25, 42. 61,
56 f., 151 of. 15, 149 ff. author date of, 170 ship of, 149 ff. Apostle wider usage of term, 140 Aquila, 23, 123, 159 Aramaic, Palestinian, 20 ff. rise of use of, among the Jews, 21 Aramaic constructions and usages con
Apocalypse, Greek
;
, ;
terior to finite verb,
96, 115 Duval, R., 27
Jews
in,
f.
Ellipse, 32
trasted with
14, 15, i6f.,
Hebrew,
ff., ff.,
i2f.,
13,
49 f., 53, 61
ff.
96, 99
Enforcement of verbal dea, 13 Ephesus, supposed writing of Fourth Gospel at, 127; John of, 130, 134 ff.,
i
AramaismS), 7 Aristion, 135

in
Aramaic, 49 f., 52 f.. 54 f. Asyndeton, in Fourth Gospel, 18, 50 ff. in Mark, in Apocalypse, 150 f. 18, 54
;
;
W. 22, 23, 24 Dr. C. J., 2, 29 f., 103, 104, 107, 116 Barnabas, Epistle of, 47 Bertholdt, L., 2 Berliner, Dr. A., 21, 22. 23
Bacher, Dr.
,
149 Eusebius, 77, 78, 134, 135. 137, 138, 140. 141 Evagrius, 160 e e Evangelion da-M hall te, 26 Evangelion da-M^phar^shc. 26
Ewald, Prof. H.,
2,
68
Ball,
Ezra, Aramaic sections in

Florinus, 138
Book
of,
20
Bertholet, Prof. A., 21 Blass, Prof. F., 39 Bolten, I. A., 2 Bousset, Prof. W., 133 Box, Prof. G. H., 4 8
Brazen serpent, 159 Brockelmann, Dr. C., 86

Biichler, Dr., 143 Burkitt, Prof. F. C, 26, 27, 28, 68, Castts pendens, 6. 34, 63 ff., 151.
89
Gamaliel the elder, 22, 46 Gamaliel 11.22 Gemara, 22 Genitive absolute, 57 ff., 151 Genitive anticipated by Possessive Pro noun, 19, 85 Georgius Hamartolus, 136 Glory of the Lord, the 36 ff. Golz, Freiherr von der, 171 Gore, Dr. C., 109 Grabe, J. E., 77 Greek, character of Biblical. 3 ff.
; ,
INDEX
Greek words and phrases
dtcoXovdeTv oniffcn, 8
dXrjOivos,
dfj,vos
:
irpos
with
8,
28
f.
vpoffriOrjfU in
place of ird\iv or similar
153
f.
adverb, 14
irpoffO)TTo\r]fnTTTjs, TTpocrcanoXTjiJuf/ia,
talya, 107
dv0po}iros
TIS,
99
priâ
15
thing
108
f.
dvOpoiTTOs (
direiepidr),
d-rreKpiOr^crav
ovpavov, o Sevrepos, 117 as asyndeton

ff.
adp
and
-rrvevfia,
45
ffTT)pietv TO TTpoaajnov, 15
opening of sentence, 52
ap\cav TOV aluivos TOVTOV, yap, 69, 151
5e,
o,
154
d\r]0eias } 157 f. (po&eiaOai diro, 8 Xpiffros not employed as title

<p<vTi,s
TfKva
by the
Baptist, 106
sparse use
of, in
;
Mark, 18, 69 Apocalypse, 151 Sioajfu in wide range of senses, 15 ooa, 36 ff. kyevero introducing time-determina
tion, ii
f.
Fourth Gospel and extreme rarity of, in
us introducing temporal clause, 58 Grotius, H., 2
Giidemann, Dr., 143
Haggadd,
23, 132
fXeyev, eXeyov, frequency of fects, 1 8, 92, 93 tvavTt, evavriov, 14

liri
Imper
Halakha, 23 Harnack, Prof. A., 135 Harris, Dr. J. Rendel, 29, 131, 159 ff. Hawkins, Sir J. C. (#S. 2 ), 8, 16, 69, 70, 87, 88, 92 Hebraisms, 7 ff. Hebrew, New, contrasted with Biblical
irpuownov (jrpoaajirov^ 15
eaKrjfojaev, 35 ff. fv0vs in Mark, 68

i
Hebrew
]pa.To auxiliary, 19
iVa, frequency of, in Fourth Gospel, 69, 70 ; Mark s iva avoided by the other
17, 150 Bible employed by writer of Fourth Gospel, 1146*". by writer of Apocalypse, 150 Hegesippus, 77
;
Hebrew,
Hillel, R., 22.
24
in
Synoptists, 7off Aramaic character of iva construction, 70, 72 ff. iva = that conjunctive 18, 19, 70 ff. mistranslation of Aramaic relative, mistranslation 18. 19, 32, 75 f., 101 of 1 = when 19, 78.
; ;
Historic Present in Fourth Gospel, 18,
54
in
ff,
87
ff.;
Mark,
16, 18, 88,
89;
LXX,
16
Hiya, R., 116, 117 Hoshaiah, R., 45

Epistles of, 130 f.; reminis cences of Fourth Gospel and First Epistle of St. John in, 153 ff., 170, Syriac ode quoted in, 161 ff. 171 Imperfect in Fourth Gospel, 90 ff. Inge, Dr. W. R., 131
Ignatius,
;
iva pr), 19, 69, 70, 100, 151. Kai linking co-ordinate sentences, 5
f.,
56; linking contrasted statements, 18, 33, 66 f., 151 introducing apodosis after time-determination, f.
;
Xtyet,
Xeyovaii asyndeton, Historic Presents, 87, 89.

,
54
ff.
Irenaeus, 135, 136, 138

;
ff.
t*v,
68
avTa>,
ovopa 30 f., 151 ore introducing temporal clause, 58
ff.
cm
mistranslation of Aramaic relative, = mistranslation of 18, 76 f.

;
"1
Jacob, 115 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.
ff.
; ;
when
ov ov
.
.
78
dvGpuiros
.
.
.
Third Epistles of, 137 John, Gospel of, style of, 5 ff., 149 a product of Palestinian thought, 39,
;
no one
19,
99
fj.rj
eh TOV a wva, 18, 99

.
.
ovi>,
66, 68
)
.
Trds (iraz
ov
18,
(^17)}
98
written in Palestine or Syria, glosses in, 129 127 ff. date of, 128 discourses in, 143 author of, 133 ffff. the disciples John the Baptist, 104
ia6f.
;
iriaTeveiv
TTXrjpTjs,
els,
34
f.
39
nvevpa faoiroiovv, 45 TToAAd, adverbial, 19

Trpo
iropeveaOai (vitdyeiv^ irpoawnov, 15
(iprjvrjv,
14
147 John the presbyter, 135 ff., 152 ; author of the Fourth Gospel, 137 John the son of Zebedee, 133, 134, 135 f., 138, 141, 1468".; tradition of martyr
of,
dom
of, 136,
137
INDEX
Jonathan ben Uzziel, 24 Joseph of Arimathaea, 134 Joseph of Pnmbeditha, R., 24 Joshua ben Levi, R., 22
;
Parataxis, in
literature,
18,
papyri,
in
f.
in
Semitic
6;
in
56
ff.;
Fourth Gospel, $f., Mark, 18 ; in Apoca
dialect, 4
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, icf. ; Gospel of,
lypse, 151 Participle, change of construction after, 19, 96, 152 with Sub Participle in Aramaic, 88 f. stantive verb, 92 f. as Futurum instans, 94 Paul, St., Aramaic influence upon style
;
;
8 ff Hebraisms in, Birth-narrative of, 16, 44, 47 f. Luthardt, Prof. C. E., 2

style of,
. ;
ff.
Malchus, 134 Mark, Gospel
of, Aramaic style of, 2, 7f., i6ff., 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 Metnrci, 38 f. Messiah in Rabbinic Literature, 44,
of, 29 Theological conceptions of, Rabbinic influence upon, 45 f., 43 ff. 132 ; relation of writer of Fourth 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. N.T., 26 Peshitta, O.T., 25 Peter, St., association of, with writer of Fourth Gospel, 146 f. Pfannkuche, H. F., 2 Philip the Apostle, 134 Philippus Sidetes, 136
; ;
;
Plummer, Dr. A., u, 144

Polycarp, 130, 135, 138 Polycrates, 134 Present as Futurum installs,
,
nof.
Midrashim, 17, 25 Midrash Rabba, 3, no, 112, 116 f.
9, 33, 44, 45, 46, 56,
19, 94 f., 151 Prince of this world, the 154 f. Prologue of Fourth Gospel, 28 ff. poeti
;
cal
of,
Milligan, Prof. G., 4, 5 Mingana. Dr., 131, 159 ff. Mishna, 17, 22, 50 Mistranslation of an Aramaic
in
form 42 f.
of,
40 ff.
climactic parallelism
Pronoun
original,
-
anticipating direct object of verb, 19, 86 marking subject of Par ticiple in Semitic, 80
;
Fourth Gospel, 18, 19, in 29, 30, 32, 34, 39 4, 75 ff-, T i ff Mark, 76, 77 Dr. J., 135, 136 Moffatt, Moses had-Darshan, 46 Moulton, Prof. J. H., 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 39,
Q, gf.
;
in
Mark
document, original language s knowledge of, 9
of,
ff.
57,65
Muratorian Canon, 128 in Fourth Mysticism
St. Paul,
Gospel
and
132
Rabbinic influence on Fourth Gospel, 35 ff., 43 ff., no, in, 116, 132, 133, on Apocalypse, 150 145 f, 150 Rabbula, bishop of Edessa. 26 Relative completed by a Pronoun, 18, 70,
;
N we s/ialotH,
e
Negatives, 98 ff. Nestle, Dr. E., 25
45
Nicodemus, 134 Nsldeke, Prof. T., 23, 24
84, 151 Relative particle invariable in Aramaic, 70, 84, 10 1 ff. Richards, Mr. G. C., 4 Robertson, Dr. A. T., 5
Salmasius, C.
Samuel ben
Old Testament quotations

Gospel, ii4ff.
in
Fourth
Onkelos, origin of name, 23

Palestinian Syriac Lectionary, 25, 26 Papias, 134 ff., 141 Papyri, modern discoveries of Greek,
Sanday, 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,
i
ff.
Isaac, R., 22 Prof. W., 46, 133, 135, 171
Semitisms,
4,
17
76
INDEX
Targum Targum
of Onkelos. 22, 23 of Pseudo- Jonathan
Septuagint, influence of, on Luke, 8 ff. Servant of Yahweh, the ideal, 104 ff. Sk kina. Sh e ktnta, 35 ff.
on
the
Simeon, 106
Siphre, 3, 33 Socrates, 131
, !
Pentateuch, 23 Tatian, 25, 130
Temporal
clauses, 58 ff. Tt stimonict, early Christian, 46
Solomon, Odes
of,
in
reminiscences of, 131 Epistles of Ignatius, 159 ff.

;
Johannine 1 66 ff.
literature
known
15
ff.
to,
132,
|
Thackeray, Dr. H. St. J.. 12, 45 Theodotion. 53 f.,8r, 82, 88, 92, 123, 159 Theophilus of Antioch, 131
Thumb,
Prof. A., 4
Son of Man, the, Sozomen, 160

Stenning, Mr.
Svvete. Prof.
12,
Turner, Prof. C. H., 39
J. F.,
26
149
Verbal sequences
in
II. B., 4, 123,
Virgin-Birth, the, 34
IVdiv consecutive in
Fourth Gospel, 95 f. ff. f., 43
Symmachus,
121, 123, 159

of
Syriac version
the Gospels, Old, 26
Hebrew, 68
2, 9, 19, 76, 77,
Wellhausen, Prof. J.,
Tannaim, 22, 23 Talmud, 22, 46 Palestinian, 3, 25 Targums, 20 ff. Hebraizing renderings

; ;
85,90 Westcott, Dr. B. F.. 28, 32, 33, 78. 102, no, 135, 146, 147. 148 Word 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,
in
Targum
ot
Jonathan on the Prophets, 24
kara, 36 ff. Yinnon as Messianic
title,
46
PRINTED IN ENGLAND
AT THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

The Aramaic Origin of The Fourth Gospel 1922 Burney

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

The Aramaic Origin of The Fourth Gospel 1922 Burney

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

\ STUDIA

THE ARAMAIC ORIGIN

THE ARAMAIC ORIGIN

Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of

Fellow of Oriel and

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

Copenhagen Cape Town

PRINCIPAL ABBREVIATIONS EMPLOYED

PRELIMINARY TESTING OF THE THEORY BY EXAMINATION OF THE PROLOGUE

PRONOUNS THE VERB

OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS FOURTH GOSPEL EPILOGUE

PRINCIPAL ABBREVIATIONS EMPLOYED

of Pseudo-Jonathan on the Pentateuch

Dalman, Grainm. = G. Dalman, Grammatik Aramdisch (1894).

Post-Biblical Jewish IVritings and the Aramaic 1902).

A. Deissmann, Light from

Ancient East (Eng.

3rd edition, reprinted 1919).

in die drei ersteu

Evangelien (zweite Ausgabe 1911).

and realizing with ever

really first-hand contribution to their subject,

enjoyed the opportunity of prosecuting his

had been amazed

(to the best

of the present writer s knowledge)

mented by notice of additional

peculiarities pointing in the

as exhibiting the influence of Aramaic

but he could not claim to have substantiated

that the Fourth

forward, though not

A. Bolten (Der Bericht des Joannes von Jesu dem Messias,

Landessprache in dem Zeitalter Chrisii, in L. Bertholdt (Verosimilia de origine evangelii p. 367).

Pfannkuche (Ueber Eichhorn s Allgetn. Bibl d.

Gospel to have been written

Greek, have emphasized the Semitic character of

The opinion of so great a Semitic

by C. E. Luthardt on the language of the Gospel

s Gospel, E. T., 1876,

should here be made of

Testament scholars were as a rule content

compartments, and that more systematic

first-hand application of Semitic linguistic

Testament might be expected

light upon was not only desirable that professed

Testament scholars should realize the importance

book has nowadays

modern discoveries of papyri and ostraka

Egypt have revoluwith which the

und Hetwat des was unacquainted until he had

viertcn Evangelistcn (1902),

Schlatter has demonstrated the

but from Rabbinic

in the course of his missionary

not unacquainted with

the researches of Professors Deissmann and

which were formerly supposed

Semitic influence, are

that their reaction against the theory of Semitic influence

Greek has been pushed too

the character of Egyptian

good example of such influence has been unwittingly