Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
OF THE
FOURTH GOSPEL
FOURTH GOSPEL
BY
THE
REV. C. F.
BURNEY,
St.
M.A., D.Lrrr.
at
Holy Scripture
Oxford
Canon of Rochester
OXFORD
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1923
Glasgow
Melbourne
Copenhagen
New York
Bombay
Toronto
Calcutta
Cape Town
Shanghai
Madras
HUMPHREY MILFORD
Publisher to
D-
theJJriiversity
/.,,.
CONTENTS
PAGE
...
vii
INTRODUCTION
CHAP.
I.
28
43
II.
THE SENTENCE
CONJUNCTIONS
49
III.
66
79
87
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
98
101
VIII.
IN
.
THE
.
114 126
IX.
EPILOGUE
.
.
APPENDIX
INDEX
153 173
507192
p. 23).
WH. =
The Greek
text of Westcott
and Hort.
Abbott, JG.
= Edwin A. Abbott, Johannine Grammar (1906). Dalman, Gramm. = G. Dalman, Grammatik des judisch-paldstinischen Aramdisch (1894).
Dalman, WJ.
1902).
G. Dalman, The
Words of Jesus considered in the light of and the Aramaic Language (Eng. Trans.,
the
Deissmann,
LAE. =
Trans., 1910).
HS' =
1
.
Sir
Moulton, NTG*.
(vol.
i,
John C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae (2nd edition, 1909). = J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek
Schlatter, Sprache
3rd edition, reprinted 1919). = A. Schlatter, Die Sprache und Heimat des vierten
Evangelisten (1902).
Wellhausen, Einleitung^
Evangelien (zweite
= J.
Wellhausen, Einleitung in
1911).
Ausgabe
INTRODUCTION
IN a sermon preached in June 1920 before the University of Oxford* the present writer made a plea for a closer synthesis of Old Testament learning with the study of the New Testament;
and reviewing summarily and generally the kind of New Testament problems which might receive fuller elucidation through the more direct application to them of Semitic learning, he put forward
the possibility that in the future a Semitic scholar might arise who, examining the language of the Fourth Gospel in detail, would prove beyond the range of reasonable doubt that it was based upon
an Aramaic original.
In venturing upon this somewhat bold prophecy, the writer had not at the time any thought of undertaking the task himself.
studies, and realizing with everthe task which lies before Semitic scholars growing insistency of widening and deepening the basis of their learning if they would
Absorbed
in
Old Testament
make any
he had not
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
and
authorship of the Fourth Gospel had, however, always attracted him. He had been impressed (as every Hebrew scholar
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
at the lightness
with which
it
was dismissed or
title
Since published by the Oxford University Press under the Testament Conception of Atonement fulfilled by Christ. t Biblical Essays, pp. 126 ff.
2620
The Old
INTRODUCTION
altogether ignored by New Testament scholars who confidently asserted the Hellenistic character of the Gospel. An article by Dr. C. J. Ball, entitled 'Had the Fourth Gospel an Aramaic
Archetype?', which appeared in the Expository Times for November 1909, explained certain peculiarities in the first chapter of the
and
it
this,
though
stands alone in
advocating this theory, yet appealed to him as evidently upon right lines.* The evidence there adduced he had casually supplemented by notice of additional peculiarities pointing in the same
notably, the sharing by the Fourth Gospel of many of the peculiarities of diction which Canon Allen and Prof. Welldirection
;
cite as exhibiting the influence of Aramaic upon the style of St. Mark's Gospel. This was about the position at which the writer's acquaintance
hausen
with the subject stood when he wrote the sermon which he has mentioned. He had formed an opinion based on general observation,
it
by the kind of
Further close study which deserves to be dignified as research. convinced him that the matter could not be reflection, however,
allowed to rest here.
*
He
out,
had suggested
in the
sermon
that both
The view
worked
Gospel was originally written in Aramaic was put by C. Salmasius (De Hellenistica Cowmen fanus,
dem
Messias,
iiber-
1797,
Vorbericht,
H. F. Pfannkuche (Ueber
die paldstinische
Landessprache in dem Zeitalter Christi, in Eichhorn's Allgem. Bibl d. b. Lift, viii, 1797, L. Bertholdt (Verosimilia de origine evangelii Joannis, 1805 p. 367). Einleitung
;
in
342^ supposed that St. John wrote down Schriften des A. u. N.T., iii, 1813, the discourses of our Lord in Aramaic soon after they were spoken, and long sub. . .
sequently translated them into Greek and incorporated them into his Greek gospel. Many scholars, from Grotius (Annotationes, 1641) onwards, while holding the
Gospel to have been written in Greek, have emphasized the Semitic character of its diction. The opinion of so great a Semitic scholar as H. Ewald (Die johann. Schriften, 1861, i, p. 44) is worthy of quotation: 'The Greek language of the author
bears in
itself the plainest and strongest marks of a genuine Hebrew. He is one born among Jews in the Holy Land, one who grew up to manhood in this society, without speaking Greek. Under the Greek mantle that he at a late date learned to
throw about himself, he still bears in himself the whole mind and spirit of his mother tongue, and does not hesitate to let himself be led by it.' The discussion by C. E. Luthardt on the language of the Gospel (St. John's Gospel, E. T., 1876, i,
pp. 15-64)
is
of considerable value.
Mention
should here be
made
of
the
highly important
work by
Prof.
A.
INTRODUCTION
Old and
too
New
in
much
Testament scholars were as a rule content to dwell water-tight compartments, and that more systematic
knowledge
to the
New
to
shed
light
upon a variety of
that professed
followed that
it
Testament scholars should realize the importance to their researches of a first-hand equipment in Hebrew and Aramaic, but
New
Old Testament scholars equipped with a knowledge of these languages should turn to New Testament research, and endeavour
that
by
practical
Thus
it
was
the writer
turned
seriously
to
tackle
;
the
Fourth Gospel and question of the original quickly convincing himself that the theory of an original Aramaic document was no chimera, but a fact which was capable of the fullest verification, set himself to collect and classify the evidence in
language of the
a form which he trusts
may justify
to all New Testament not merely to scholars who will take the pains to follow out his arguments.
Inquiry into the Semitic characteristics of a New Testament to take account of the fact that the great
discoveries of papyri and ostraka in Egypt have revoluvierten Evangelisten (1902), with
modern
writer
practically completed the present study. Schlatter has demonstrated the Palestinian origin of the diction of the Fourth
which the
Gospel in the fullest possible manner by citing Rabbinic parallels to its phraseology verse by verse, the majority of verses throughout the whole Gospel being thus illustrated (thus e. g. in ch. r parallels are cited for phrases in 34 out of the total 51 verses), and his work is a marvel of industry and intimate knowledge
but from Rabbinic
of the Midrashic sources which he employs. He has drawn, not from Aramaic, Hebrew the Mechilta (commentary on Exodus) and Siphre
(commentary on Numbers and Deuteronomy) which date in substance from the and century A. D. with supplements from the Midrash Rabba (on the Pentateuch and the Five Megilloth). He chooses these Rabbinic Hebrew parallels rather than the Aramaic material which we possess e.g. in the Palestinian Talmud,
,
because the former are nearer in date to the Fourth Gospel and better illustrate the religious thought of Palestinian Judaism in the first century; but, as he remarks
any phrase employed in Rabbinic Hebrew (the language of the Schools) could without difficulty be similarly expressed in Aramaic (the popular medium of speech in Palestine). Schlatter's conclusion is that the writer of the Gospel
(p. 12),
was a
Palestinian
who
work
(p. 9).
B 2
INTRODUCTION
it
to be, not
thing apart, but a more or less characteristic representative of the widespread Kowrj dialect. The writer is not unacquainted with
Thumb,
Milligan and
Moulton, and recognizes the fact that they have proved that many constructions and usages both in the LXX and New Testament
to
reflect
more than ordinary phenomena of the Kowrj lanWhile readily making this acknowledgement to the excelguage. lent work of these scholars, he does not stand alone in holding
that their reaction against the theory of Semitic influence
Biblical
upon
not
far.
The
fact is surely
without significance that practically the whole of the new material upon which we base our knowledge of the KoLvrj comes from
Egypt, where there existed large colonies of Jews whose knowledge of Greek was undoubtedly influenced by the translation-
Greek of the
LXX,
of having influenced in
some degree
A
* Cf.
'
The present
the judicious remarks of Dr. Swete, Apocalypse* (1907), p. cxxiv, n. i writer, while welcoming all the light that can be thrown on the
New
papyri, and in particular the researches of Prof. Deissmann, Prof. Thumb, and Dr. J. H. Moulton, deprecates the induction which, as it seems to him, is being
somewhat
hastily based upon them, that the Greek of the New Testament has been but slightly influenced by the familiarity of the writers with Hebrew and Aramaic ---- It is precarious to compare a literary document with a collection of personal and business letters, accounts, and other ephemeral writings slips in word-formation or in syntax which are to be expected in the latter, are phenomenal in the former, and if they find a place there, can only be attributed to lifelong habits of thought. Moreover, it remains to be considered how far the quasi;
large Greek-speaking
Semitic colloquialisms of the papyri are themselves due to the influence of the Jewish population of the Delta.' Similarly, Mr. G. C.
Richards, in reviewing the and edition of Dr. Moulton's Greek in the Journal of Theological Studies, x (1909),
Grammar of New
p. 289,
Testament
'
remarks
The
dis-
covery of the Aramaic papyri from Assuan emphasizes this point [the evidence for large Jewish settlements in Egypt from an early date] most strongly, and even Deissmann (Licht vom Osten, p. 83, n. 5) is prepared to admit that the adoption
of
(Is
Vorzeit".
rb ovofia as a legal phrase may be due to Semitic influence " in grauer But this " Vorzeit " can scarcely be earlier than the end of the fourth
century B.C. No doubt it is possible, as he says, that if originally a Semiticism, it Such influence on the language not have been felt to be so any longer. Dr. Moulton makes of a population from an influx of settlers is quite common.
may
INTRODUCTION
presented to us by Prof. Deissmann
5
ff.)
(LAE.
pp. 129
in
one of
two passages which he quotes from the papyri for the express
purpose of proving that the parataxis so characteristic of the Fourth Gospel, with its 'and and', is not due to Semitic
. .
.
This is a letter influence, but belongs to the popular Kotvrj style. from two pig-merchants (c. A. D. 171) in which they complain to the Strategus that they have been attacked by brigands and robbed
and beaten
VTTO TOV
ru>
dve/^o/xeVtov ^/xoov
^/xetv
a.7ro
KW/Z^S
.
eaSeA</>etas
. .
StyUOTOV
/u-ept8o5
opOpov linjXOav
KdKovpyoi rives
^/xa9 TrAtcrrats
Tj/cio-av
/c[at]
T/oav/xartatov
/cat
e/?ao-[Taav
'
to describe
the
guard of the tower', /xaySooAo^Aa^, embodies the ordinary Hebrew word for 'tower', migdol (originally magdol), and is thus clear
evidence for Jewish influence upon Egyptian Yet Prof. Milligan (New Testament Documents,
this section of
KoLvrj
terminology.
p. 154), referring to
'
Deissmann's work, states that he has been able to produce examples of similar [to the Fourth Gospel] paratactic sentences from sources where no Semitic influence can be predicated*
(the italics are the present writer's)
;
and similarly
'
Prof.
Moulton
(Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 486) remarks, Those who still find Semitism in these plain co-ordinated sentences [of the Fourth
Gospel], with their large use of
/cat,
may be recommended
to
study
the most instructive parallels which Deissmann has set out/ &c. cite this passage merely as suggesting that the theory of
We
Jewish influence upon the KOIVTJ of Egypt, so far from being false or negligible, may in fact be supported by concrete evidence drawn
from the papyri themselves.
It
a point of the case of Wales. South Wales Welsh is regarded by North Wales people as an inferior patois because of the Anglicisms, which are to be seen not
if
only in borrowed words but also in turns of expression. In fact we may say that, the native language of a whole district may be strongly affected by the entry of aliens who learn it and learn it badly, a fortiori is a language, which is not the
medium of communication between natives and strangers, likely be modified by all who use it.' So also Dr. A. T. Robertson, Grammar of the Greek Testament in the light of historical research* (1919), p. 91: 'The LXX, though "translation Greek", was translated into the vernacular of Alexandria, and one can but wonder if the LXX did not have some slight and resultant
native one, but the
to
influence
itself.
in
Alexandria.'
INTRODUCTION
due
to Semitic influence
i,
'
as Prof.
(NTG?
p. 12), in
speaking
of co-ordination of sentences with simple KCU, in itself the phenomenon proves nothing more than would a string of "ands" in an English rustic's story elementary culture/ The vice of arguing
Egyptian pig-merchant or the rustic to the style of the Fourth Gospel lies
style
of an
The
former are not in part materid with the latter. of elementary culture which satisfactorily explains the theory style of the former is ill applied to a work which in thought, scheme, and execution takes rank as the greatest literary produc-
tion of the
New
of
all
time.
stylistic peculiarities of the Gospel, such as the use of Casus pendens. This, Prof. Moulton tells us, 'is frequent one of the easiest of anacolutha, as much at home in English * as in Greek (NTG. Z i, p. 69). recognize the truth of this statement as regards colloquial English, especially among the
So with other
We
semi-educated.
We might be talking to a groom, and it would be natural for him to say, The gentleman who used to ride that horse he lost his arm in the war.' Probably at times we use the same kind of anacoluthon ourselves in ordinary conversation ;
'
but
we do
not use
it
in writing a
book or
article
if
may
be worthy to rank as
find as a rule
literature.
Nor,
we
New Testament
do we
usage,
and
In the Fourth Gospel, however, it is remarkably frequent; reasonable to seek some better reason than the supthat the writer of the finest piece of literature in the New position Testament was more than ordinarily infected with colloquialism.
it
is
a literature in which both the usages which we have been noticing parataxis and Casus pendens are not the
there
is
Now
marks of
common phenomena
of the best
writing style, namely, the literature of Semitic-speaking peoples. If, then, these two characteristics of the style of the Fourth Gospel,
only selected by
characteristics
way of example,
fit
in
with
numerous other
which point
to translation
INTRODUCTION
translation
is
not in the slightest degree invalidated by the fact adduced from the non-literary and ephemeral
type of document which we find represented in the papyri. As a matter of fact, we have little cause to quarrel with Prof. Moulton at any rate in the course which is followed in our
of the language of the Fourth Gospel, for he lays down a canon which covers a great part of the characteristics which are brought forward. 'If we are seeking', he says, 'for
discussion
Greek betrays of the resources of the language, we must knowledge not look only for uses which strain or actually contravene the Greek idiom.
We
shall
find
course applies only to Greek which is virtually or actually translated to the Hebraism of the and the Aramaism of New Testament books which are
writer's native tongue.
This
test of
LXX
thought in
It is
of Aramaic which will repeatedly be found to characterize the Greek of the Fourth Gospel.
the remarks which are occasionally to be encountered articles dealing with the Gospels it would appear that some amount of vagueness exists in the minds of many nonin
From
books and
By some
scholars,
in
fact,
the
question of distinction is ignored, and the two terms are used glaring inindifferently as though they were synonymous.t stance of this is to be seen in Prof. Schmiedel's remarks on the
'The
'
still
combinations
pp. 436-43) do not prove that the evangelist wrote Aramaic, but only that he wrote a kind of Jewish Greek
1900,
i,
p.
474.
8
that
INTRODUCTION
he had derived from a reading of the
LXX.
Hebraisms, not only in chaps, i f. but elsewhere as well, and not only where he is dependent on Mk. or Mt. but also where he had no exemplar before him (as, for example, often "and it
came
It
see
HS. 2
p. 37),
Lk.'s writing to
is
be a translation of a Semitic
feat to
have crowded so many misconMk. does not Hebraize ceptions into the space of a few lines. at all in the proper sense of the term ; but the fact that his Greek
something of a
Aramaic colouring is admitted by all Semitic have studied the subject, though they differ as to scholars who whether this colouring implies actual translation from an original
exhibits a strong
Aramaic document, or is merely due to the fact that the author was ill versed in Greek and accustomed to think and speak in
Aramaic.
Mk.'s
'
a reading of the , connect it with Aramaic) which are not found there, while at the same time the most striking Hebraisms of the are absent
LXX
Jewish Greek* cannot have been 'derived from for it exhibits peculiarities (those which
J
LXX
'
from
it.
The
fact that
is
the
first
accurate
*
Hebraisms
result of
in
The
made some attempt to smooth away the most palpable solecisms, but has by no means carried this out thoroughly or consistently; consequently a number of Marcan Aramaisms (not 'Hebraisms') remain in Lk.* The parts of Lk.
that the third evangelist has
*
'
As
Schmiedel
also
Hebraisms
in
employed by Lk., i. e. of course the Q document which is used common by Mt. and Lk., the present writer cannot claim to have examined in
detail into the question of its original language (Greek or Aramaic). No Semitic ~ " scholar can, however, study such a passage as Mt. lo 26 88 = Lk. i2 2 9 without at the clear conviction that we either have in it the literal translation arriving
of an Aramaic original, or that the ipsissima verba of our Lord in Aramaic were branded on the hearts of His hearers and reproduced with a reverential exactitude
virtual translation. Cf. especially the phrases /xi) ({>o^r]6fJT diro (Semitic fD of aversion after a verb of fearing), &no\o*ff]0(i tv l/xot (cf. on this expression even Moulton, NTG. 3 i, p. 104), dteoXovOt? uniau pov (Mt. io 38 ). Mistranslation of an
amounting to
INTRODUCTION
which
taken to be due to the author himself (such as the of narratives, to which the phrase cited, KCU cycvcro, belongs) setting do contain Hebraisms, and these so striking as to make this Gospel
stand out as stylistically the most Hebraic Gospel of the four. Yet, as Schmiedel states, 'no one holds Lk/s writing to be J a translation of a Semitic original for, paradoxical as it may
,
may be
seem,
Aramaic
passages
seems clearly
to the indicated
Mt. 2 3 26
26
Lk.
39
Oval
NCv
u/zefs
ot
Qapiffaiot
TO
viroKpiTai,
on KaOapifaf
KOI
yffjtovffiv
36
TO
eguOev
TOV
irorripiov KOI
TOV irtvaxos
TOV
rroTTjpiov
rrjs
l
irapotf/ioos,
taadcv
Kal
5f
apitayrjs
TO
oe
eauOev
*Q KCLI
vpwv
TO
*y/it
<>
atcpaaias.
Qapiaait
TV(p\e,
teal irovqpias.
d<ppovcs, 011%
irotrjaas
;
TO
KaOapiaov
iroTrjpiov
ea)6fv
ir\T)v
TO.
ZffuQfv
liroiijatv
irpwTov
KOI
TO
TTJS
CVTOS
TOV
41
tvovTa.
OOTC
c\er)fj.oavvT)V,
-jrapoif/ioos,
iva
-ftvrjTai
KOI
TO
(KTOS
O.VTOV
Kal
ISov
iravTa
KaOapcL
vpiv
iffTiv.
KaOapov.
can hardly be doubted that the remarkable variant between Mt. KaOapurov and Lk. irXr/i/ TO. IVOVTO. oore iXCfpMNrfnp is to be explained by the fact that New Heb. and Aram. ""St means both to purify (occurring in Aram, as well as normal ^ZH) and also to give alms' (cf. Wellhausen, Einleitung*,
it
Here
'
'
'
p. 27).
For the
latter sense
cf.
the
numerous occurrences
in
Midrash Rabba on
'
Exodus, par. xxxiv; e.g. sect. 5 (New Heb.), 'If misfortune has befallen thy companion, consider how to give him alms ("Q rYDP) and provide for him ; sect, ii (Aram.), 'The Rabbis Yohanan and Resh Lakish were going down to
bathe in the hot baths of Tiberias.
poor
He
When they came out, they found him dead.' The Lord used some such expression as J13T N^?" *That which is within purify this has been rightly rendered in Mt. and made more explicit by the addition of TOV iroTrjpiov KT\., while in Lk. it has been wrongly rendered, That which is within give as alms '. 'Hpurivevae 5' aura, a>s ffv Su^aro?, eaaTos. In the opening of the long indictment of the Scribes and Pharisees contained ~ in Mt. 23, presumably from Q, we find a passage (w. 2 7 ) which has clearly formed a source for Mk. in his short summary of teaching contained in i2 38 40 It seems not unlikely that Mk.'s opening phrase, Kai iv TTJ Sioaxfi avTov e\f~fev, which recurs nearly verbatim in 4 2 (introducing the parable of the sower), may be his manner of referring to this written discourse-source to which he had access. " Lk. 2o46 47 has followed Mk. and not Mt though his opening statement that our Lord's words were spoken both to the multitude and to the disciples seems to indicate that he rightly identified Mk's abbreviated version with the long discourse of Mt. (Q), and selected the former. The parallel passages run as follows
inference
is
They
said to him,
"When we come
5 !
'
10
is
INTRODUCTION
LXX
influence,
a sure indication that he was steeped with very possibly unacquainted with Hebrew.*
Mt. a 3 lff
1
.
and
Mk. is 38- 40
88
Lk.
46
Tore 6
'Irjoovs
e\d\rjaev
Km
fv
rrj
'AKOVOVTOS
flir(V
Se
travrbs
I \eyev'
Xaov
dno rwv
(v
rots
avrov \tyo)V'
8
irdvra
S(
TO.
iroiovffiv
irpos
0(\6vrow
KOL
d<nrafffj.oi>s
(V
rat's
oroAafs
If
Kal
<pi\ovvrcav
rots dvOpwirois'
\v
a-yopafs
rafs
dyopats
\v
yap Kal
rd
<pv\aKrrjpta
avrwv
rd
8e
89 Kal TrpcaroKaOfSpias
Iv rais
Kal
irpajTOKaOfSpias
rais
fieya\wovaiv
6
ovvaycuyas
fv
rois
irp(aroK\taias
40 oi
Kal
vpa)TOK\ioias
47 ot
Kpdancoa,
rrjv
oeiirvois
(pi\ovaiv
KO.T-
kv
rots
Sdvvois,
/far-
irpuroK\iaiav
Kal
\v
(v
rots
rs
otcas
faOiovffiv
rds
Kal
oiKias
ruv
rds
rats
npcuro-
irpo<pd<Tci
Ka0(optas
avv\{/ovrai
ovrot
if/ovrai irfpifffforepov
7 a-yoryafs KOI
rovs daitaap-ovs
The statements
rwv QfXovrwv
of
Mk.
in vv. 38 39
-
ev aro\ais trtpiirarftv,
.
which seems
Xvvovaiv rd KpdairtSa, Mt. 23 5 In v. 40 of Mk., however, we meet with two statements which do not seem, as they stand, to connect themselves directly with
we
anything in Mt. Noticing, however, that the second of these speaks of prayer, observe that the New Heb. and Aram, term for <pv\aKri)pia. (Mt. as6 ) is ppBri
Thus there is a suspicious resemblance fphillin, which properly means prayers '. between the two statements, make broad their phylacteries and make long
' '
'
'
their prayers'.
Now
is
rendered in Pesh. by
in
in his
which
'
this Aph'el ^j
make
verbose'
(e.g.
79
]]^o>
i<
j^!
'If
he wishes to be
broad their phylacteries', rightly rendered in Mt., appears in Mk. and Lk. in the mistranslation 'who make verbose their prayers'. It should be remarked that
ppQn
in
is
Aramaic word
for 'prayers'
(KVlviO
but
it
might
be so interpreted by a translator
New
Heb.
believes that this suggestion as to a misunderstanding of ppDJjl
The writer
not his own, but has already been made ; though he cannot recall to whom acknowledgement is due. He is himself responsible for pointing out the variant meanings of the verbal form.
That St. Luke was a Hellenistic Jew and not a Gentile would be apart from other evidence to the contrary the natural deduction from the fact that the has coloured his Greek style in so marked a degree ; since this surely implies that he was brought up upon the Greek Bible. Had he been a Gentile, and not
LXX
converted to Christianity until he was a grown man, his Greek style would presumably have been already formed and would not have taken on a LXX
INTRODUCTION
The
illustrate
following striking Hebraisms occurring in Lk. may serve to the true meaning of the term 'Hebraism', viz. a con-
Hebrew which has been copied in translation by the LXX, and has come through LXX influence into N. T. Greek
struction or word-usage found in Biblical
:
eyeWo introducing a time-determination. The use of And it came to pass' is in such a case very idiomatic in Hebrew, and the LXX equivalent is KOL eyeVero or cyevero 8e. After there
i.
'
may
e.g.
ev
An
came
'
Infinitive with
'
preposition 3;
DN'aa
'when they
'
(lit.
in their
coming ')
= LXX
;
TW IXOtlv avrovs.
'
An
e. g.
E$P|
at their
coming
= LXX
TPK3
(or '!) 'when* with a came '= LXX o>s (or ^t/ca) they
Perfect;
rj\0ov.
e.g.
W? Tf? 'when
;
A
e. g.
A = LXX
LXX
(>) T0 ^/xpa
TJJ
rpm?
D*
^
'
After this comes //^ apodosis, which is most frequently (though by no means invariably) introduced by and' (='then'); e.g.
*"!!!
*tiT\
LXX
(*cu)
eTSoi/
(LXX
often omits
KCU),
they saw'
= LXX
or simply
NO
cISoi/. The subject of the apodosis may they saw = of course vary from that of the time-determination (when this latter embodies a subject); e.g. cnnpb e* K2i DK33 \n;i 'And
LXX
it
came
to pass, as they
came, that
'
(lit.
and
')
man went
out
any rate to the extent that it has. We do, however, possess other and apparently contrary evidence in the fact that St. Paul in Col. 4 14 appears expressly to distinguish him from those of the circumcision previously mentioned ll and this is taken by most scholars, such as Dr. Lightfoot (Colossians, (v. ) p. 239) and Dr. Plummer (St. Luke, p. xix), as conclusive evidence that he was of Gentile origin, the latter scholar going so far as to maintain, 'That he was Such a verdict, however, surely originally a heathen may be taken as certain *. ignores the important criterion of style and perhaps the conclusion which best satisfies the conflicting evidence is that he may have been a proselyte from his youth and have come over to Christianity from Judaism.
colouring, at
' '
12
to
INTRODUCTION
meet them
',
or Bn&qi
Nr
'
And
it
came
to
pass,they (were) coming, and, behold, a man going out to meet them*. Instances of this Hebrew construction, with time-determination
eV
Lk. 5
TW (Infinitive) and apodosis introduced by /cat, 4 15 15 1 12 9" 14', 17", i 9 , 2 4 ); without K a, Lk.
-
may be
i
8
-
seen in
,
17", iS
35
,
24
3051
.
With
Lk.
i
-
-C
KOI in apodosis,
/cat
23 41
,
in apodosis,
20'.
Lk. 5
17
,
2 15, iQ29 With specific note of time, and 59 122 2 14G 7", 8 Acts 5 7 ; without /cat, Lk. i
.
9
in
in Lk.,
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
in
LXX
(3
Kgs.
43
B), can be
seems therefore in Lk. and Acts be a modification of the Hebraic construction under the in-
fluence of a
known
-
Kou/i}
construction
(cf.
21
,
p. 50).
It
So Lk. 3
-
6 12
-
may be noted
that in
some of these
6 17 32 examples, viz. Acts 9 , 14*, 22 , the note of time or occasion has been variously modified so as to lose its clear-cut Hebraic 26 In other cases, viz. Lk. I6 22 Acts 9 43, 288 it is form.
,
altogether absent.
This
is
f^nsn
niojl
'And
the poor
man
= 'and
inserting
note of time, ftaKn new D<DJ flgD W| < And it came to pass, after some time (lit. "from the end of days"), that (lit. "and") the poor
man
died';
it
nD^_
W = eyeWo
St.
Sc aTroOavtlv
Gospel-style in
this
his
It
would seem
two works, heathen in the course of his missionary labours exercised an influence on his style.
Outside Lk. and Acts
eyeVcro introducing
imply a not inconsiderable interval between the during which his wider intercourse with Gentile
to
a time-determination
is
only found in the five-times repeated phrase /cat e'ycVero ore ere'Aeo-ev s8 53 9 2 23 'tyo-ovs in Mt. 7 , , i3 19', 26 , and also in Mt. 9, Mk. i
(cf.
15
).
In Semitic
*
it is
With time-determination
INTRODUCTION
Eftblical
13
Hebrew
Targums.* These facts prove that in the construction under discussion we have a true Hebraism, which can only have entered into N. T.
LXX.
Incidentally,
its
absence
this
tells
LXX
by the writer of
in Dative.
When
emphasize a verbal idea, it prefixes the Infinitive Absolute to the Finite verb. In the place of the Infinitive
Hebrew desires
LXX
13
is
commonly taken by the cognate substantive in the Dative] e.g. Gen. 2 17 TOn nto 'Thou shalt surely die* (lit 'dying thou shalt die')
= LXX
^n
<l
Oava
<
D3 K7 DDni
')
thee
(lit.
but
we
'slaying
we
= LXX
Ov^i,
on
ov
oAX'
rj
Brj(TOfJiV <re
o-e.
KOL TrapaScocro/xev
ev
/^ avrwv,
KOLL 6ava.Tu>
An
alternative
method employed by
LXX
is
the rendering of
the Infinitive by a Participle-, e.g. Judg. i 28 Wnin ' did not expel them at all (lit. ' and expelling did not expel
&
B^
'and
them ')
= LXX
No examples
12 H except in the quotations Mt. 13", Mk. 4 Acts i f but the 15 first occurs three times in the Lucan literature ; viz. Lk. 22 ri-
LXX
6vfJiLa CTTfOvfirjo-a,
Acts $
TrapayyeXtia TrapTyyyetXa/xcv,
30
avcOtfjiaTio-afjLcv (cf.
also Acts 2
op/co) w/xoo-ey).
4
we
find
29
it
Mk.
(both O. T. quotations),
Jn. 3
X aP9- X ai/P t J as 5 Trpotreu^ Trpoa-rjv^aTO. This enforcement of the verbal idea by the Infinitive, while found
(cf.
Babylonian edisu
lidis
pletely victorious
* Cf.
"\
is
28 l Joel a (3 in Heb.)
Heb. ^JDPIV Diu^H, ivvvvia. kwuviaaBTjaovrai. t According to Dalman (WJ. p. 34) it is quite unknown in the Palestinian Aramaic of the Jews, apart from the Hebraizing rendering of the Targums.
in
LXX
4
3.
INTRODUCTION
Use
of
irpoo-TiOrjfjii
in place
of
7raA.iv
or a similar adverb in
i.e.
imitation of
it
to in
do something,
he did
again.
Hebrew
to
(i)
the auxiliary
*?,
verb *PpSn
e. g.
may
JHn
lWi
12
1
^P
, ,
'
again did it') = 6 or (2) it 4 io TTonypoV, Judg. 3 a Finite verb, e.g. n#K ngi DrrnK
;
LXX
*|D*J
/cat
Trpoo-efovro
Trot^o-ai
TO
may
',
or 'took a second')
1
= LXX
Trpoo-fle'ftcvos
1P
= LXX
8ovAov
icai
.
IIpoo-0eis 8e 'EAtovs
OTO
erepov
Tre/xi/fai
7Tfjuf/ai t
CITTCI/
Lk. 2O 11
'
12
',
TrpotrcOfTO o-vAAa/?eu>
fterpov,
Acts I2 3
(2) 7rpoo-0eis
Trapa(3o\^v,
Lk. 19".
4.
The usage is not found elsewhere in N. T.* The phrase Tropevov cts ctprjv^v, Lk. 7, 848 vrraye
,
-
ets
eipT/vi/v,
Mk. 5 3J (nowhere else in N. T.) is derived from the LXX rendering 18 of the Hebrew D&B$ ^; cf. i Sam. i 17 2O 13 42 i Kgs. 20 (LXX 2i)
,
, ,
2 Kgs. s 19
tion
*?
is
Chr. i2 1T, Tob. io 13 , Judith 823 here incorrectly given the sense
i
. '
The Hebrew
eis
preposi-
which
it
commonly
It is really an idiomatic usage known as ^ of norm, possesses. ' tnus meaning lit. ' peace-wise or health-wise ', i.e. 'in peace or health '. The phrase belongs distinctively to Biblical Hebrew.
EWp
in
copying
is
it
IN^^ ^J
i.
expression eVonrtov is peculiarly characteristic of Lk. (23 times), Acts (13 times), and Apoc. which is marked by an Hebraic style (34 times). It is derived from where it is
The
LXX
extremely common (some hundreds of occurrences), and ordinarily '*> 'before' (lit. 'to the face of), or T represents Hebrew ^ 'in the sight of (lit. 'to the eyes of). O/WTHOV is only found once 30 in Jn. (20 and is unused in Mt. and Mk. In these Gospels we
1
),
find
ZfjLTrpoo-Ocv,
in Lk.
,
Acts 7, 821 ), eVavrcov (Lk. I 6 2O' 6 , 24", Acts 7 10, 832), (Lk. exclusively Lucan in N. T., are both very common in LXX, where they ordinarily render *3^3 'in the sight of (lit. 'in the eyes of),
evam
* Cf.
however the
text of
in
Mk. i4 J5 ov
,
irpoadS) irutV.
INTRODUCTION
^3
15
Hebrew always observes a distinction i.e. 'in the opinion of. 'in the (mental) between *?$ 'in the (physical) sight of, and of. The same distinction may be notiged for the most part sight
in the
N. T. use
of Iv^tnov
and
'
ivavriov.
In place of the distinctively Hebraic expressions MS!*, Aramaic uses CHi?. before ', in front of.
'
W?,
3
,
6. The phrase irpo TTPOO-WTTOV, which is a common rendering 10 of *yb, occurs in the O. T. quotation Mk. r = Mt. Lk. v 27 24 52 1 76 and only besides in Lk. i 9 lo Acts i3 faro -n-poo-dnrov '3B
LXX
n =
=
lfi
in
LXX
TOV
is
(ttTTO
7T.).
found in Acts 3 19 5", y 45 2 Thess. i 9 Apoc. 6 35 26 7Tt TTpoVaJTrOV Lk. 2 1 Tl TrpOCTCOTTOV ActS l^ , arC
, ,
,
20"
LXX
renderings of
7.
*?.B~?y.
The phrase
is
TO Trpoo-wTrov
eo-njpto-cv,
it
N.T.)
8.
derived from
10
,
LXX, where
,
,
7rpoo-o>7rov,
LXX
as the rendering of
Hebrew
or
lift
up the face* of
More commonly 'i.e. show him partiality in judgement. phrase is rendered in by 0av//.ae/ Trpoo-wTrov. The Semitic phrase occurs in Aramaic as well as in Hebrew. The N.T. substantives Trpoo-wTroA^/ATrTTys ' a respecter of persons '(Acts io % ), s3 11 9 Trpo(Twiro\f]^\l/ia (Rom. 2 Eph. 6 , Col. 3 Jas. 2 ) 'partiality', are
any one,
this
LXX
LXX
Hebraism.
SiiSoyu in a wider range of senses, which be rendered 'put', 'set', 'appoint', 'allow', &c., appears in may N.T. to be exclusively Lucan ; cf. Lk. 7 44 i2 5158 15*, 19* Acts 2 19
The
Ps i6 10 ), lo40,
the regular
i9
LXX
where
St'Su/u
is
rendering of Hebrew ffij which, meaning primarily 'give', is reguCf. the LXX rendering in larly used also in such wider senses.
Gen. ly 20
S<ixra>
avrov
t?
e^vos /^eya,
Gen.
a-ov.
Deut.I 13 8ore eavrots avSpa? (ro<f>ovs, Deut. 2 s5 Ivdpxpv Sovvat Such instances might be indefinitely multiplied.
clearly to illustrate the character
LXX.
We
observe that they are characteristically Lucan, and in some cases Other N. T. Hebraisms may be found in the exclusively so.
(cf.
II),
16
INTRODUCTION
to a different cause,
viz.
first-hand
Hebrew
the
style
a cause which
also
operative
in
Birth-narrative
of
Lk.
The
Aramaisms
Prof.
in the article
mentioned by
in character
and the
ment that they only prove that this evangelist 'wrote a kind of ' is Jewish Greek that he had derived from a reading of the
LXX
most misleading.
Allen's
most
the very frequent use of the Historic striking Present in Mk., which he rightly ascribes to the influence of the
Aramaisms
Participle in narrative
(cf.
pp. 87
ff.
of the
How could this usage have been derived from present volume). the LXX, when, as Sir John Hawkins has shown (HS?, reading
p. 213),
it
is
the whole
of
LXX
there comparatively rare ? The total occurrences in are 337, and of these 232 occur in the four Books
LXX.
the
Kingdoms, leaving only 105 for the whole of the rest of the Out of the 232 instances in the four books of Kingdoms,
'
Book (= i Samuel) contains very nearly two-third?, which happens to be exactly the same number as Mark But then i Kingdoms exceeds Mark in length by contains.
First
viz. 151,
about one-third, as may be seen by comparing the two books in the pages of any English Bible e.g. in the R.V. minion 8vo 1885, in which i Sam. occupies 26 pages, and Mark (without the
half.
Consequently
it
appears
thickly
'
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,
place, while
ff.).
The marking of the distinction between Aramaisms and Hebraisms may thus be seen to be a matter of fundamental
our inquiry. If Aramaic and Hebrew were so similar in structure and phraseology that close translations made
importance
to
by
their style,
were
it
might not
INTRODUCTION
matter whether the
classed as
stylistic peculiarities
;
17
though even so since such would properly rank as the common property of two phenomena it would (if not more) languages of the Semitic group scientifically
be more correct to describe them as Semitisms. It is true that Aramaic and Hebrew, having sprung from a common ancestor, do
in fact exhibit a considerable
Aramaisms or Hebraisms
character-
istics, the occurrence of which in isolated Greek passages of brief length might leave us in doubt whether the influencing factor was
the one language or the other. In dealing, however, with Greek works such as the Gospels, we are concerned not with brief
sentences but with lengthy documents ; and if so be that in any of these we have actual or virtual translation from a Semitic original,
the distinction between
to assert itself.*
If,
Aramaic
style
and Hebrew
style is
bound
Mark's
then,
we
find a
New
St.
Gospel, which lacks the clearly-marked Hebraisms of the Lucan literature unmistakably derived from the LXX, and at the same time contains different marks of Semitic style which can only be
referred to Aramaic, the conclusion
Here we have
who
studied the
LXX,
but of a Palestinian
either actually wrote in Aramaic, or so moulded by Aramaic idiom that his Greek
it.
Jew who
Such a work
is
together with the specific Aramaisms, a number of Semitisms which may be paralleled both from Aramaic and Hebrew, and which may or may not be reflected in the Greek of the LXX. But it is
the specific
work
The
Mishna and Midrashim, which was the language of the Rabbinic Schools at or about the Christian era and subsequently, is structurally nearer akin to Aramaic than to Hebrew. This artificial product, however, fulfilled much the same function
as did the dog- Latin employed by scholars in the Middle Ages, and there reason for supposing that it ever came into popular use.
is
no
Cf. Allen,
ff.,
pp. 328
an
article
'The Aramaic Element in St. Mark', Expository which effectively disposes of the criticisms
2620
i8
INTRODUCTION
Whether
the
who, though using Greek as his medium of exprescasting his words in the Aramaic mould which is more
to him, is
a question which still remains open. The present writer, comparing the evidence for an Aramaic Marcan document with that which he himself adduces in this volume for
familiar
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 ;
by the
however, a still larger mass of evidence which can be cited for Jn. to which no adequate analogue
Mk.
There
is,
exists in
Mk.
volume
will
in the present
Usages common
Parataxis
(p. 56).
to
(p. 87).
Frequency of Imperfect lAeyev, IXeyov (p. 92). Sparse use of 8e, and preference for *<u (p. 69).
'
?i/a
(p. 70).
'
'
in
Mk.
49).
(p. 63).
contrasted statements
'
and yet
j (p. 66).
on
ov
One
case in Mk.
(p. 76).
Relative
fij]
.
Two cases in Mk. (p. 77). a Pronoun. Two cases in Mk. (p. 84). completed by TOV auova = 'never*. Two parallels in Mk. (p. 99).
fl<s
ets.
One
case in
Mk.
(p. 34).
* Allen quotes Asyndeton as characteristic of Mk. (St. Mark, pp. 18 instances bear no comparison with the frequency of the usage in Jn; t The present writer has noted only Mk. 6' 6 , 7 20 is 10 , 13". The only cases collected from Mk. are 4 32 , s 26 31 , i4 49 .
, -
f.),
but his
INTRODUCTION
To
these
19
may
:
in each, viz.
Pronoun
in
(p. 85).
Mk.
(p. 79).
on mistranslation
Zpxop.a.1
= of ^ =
"*]
Present as
'
ov
avfyxoTros
'
no one
'
(p. 99).
employed to the exclusion of /XTJTTOTC (pp. 69, 100). To these may be added an Aramaism of which one case only
fro /M}
occurs in Jn., viz. Anticipation of direct Object of verb by Pronoun (p. 86). Two cases of a construction which is Hebraic rather than
:
Aramaic,
viz.
Change
(p. 96).
The Marcan usages noted above which find parallels in Jn. do not exhaust the Aramaisms of Mk. Others are cited by Allen
(cf.
St.
Mark, pp. 48
ff.)
and by Wellhausen
(Einleitung*, pp. 7
ff.),
of which the most noteworthy are the frequent use of the adverbial TroAAa &&, and of the auxiliary rfp^aro, -an-o *"$ but they are not equally impressive because though they fit in with the theory
',
an Aramaic original they are the kind oi Aramaisms which might naturally be introduced by a writer of Greek whose native tongue was Aramaic. may also note
of translation from
We
the fact that the KOIVT? construction fva conjunctive that which characterizes Mk. (though to a less extent than Jn.) is a usage
'
'
On
Iva.
in place of a
relative, which can scarcely be understood except on the theory of mistranslation, while frequent in Jn. (cf. pp. 75 f.), occurs but once in Mk. What is needed to substantiate the theory of an Aramaic original for Mk. is some cogent evidence of mistransla-
has not as yet been advanced. In contrast, the writer believes that the evidence which he has collected in
tion
;
and
this
C 2
20
INTRODUCTION
in Jn.
must be recognized,
Granted, however, the possibility of an Aramaic original for the Fourth Gospel, the question naturally arises What evidence do
we
possess sufficient to enable us to prove this theory, and in a measure to reconstruct the original text ?
The evidence
is
naturally
Palestinian Aramaic at or about the period at which the Gospel The following are the main sources is presumably to be dated.*
of our knowledge
1.
12
The Aramaic
f
2fi
j) an
2 4b
^
W.
6 18
The
Ezra-sections,
if
profess to be, date from the middle of the fifth century B.c.t The Book of Daniel is dated with approximate certainty under
the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, 168-167 B.C.
The
dialect
of 2 46 of the
28
is
Aramaic, and
is
The Targums
an Aramaic paraphrase is undoubtedly very ancient. Both the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds understand the term BnbD
in Ne'h.
distinctly
And they read in the book, in the law of God (marg. with an interpretation) ; and they gave the sense, so that they understood the reading' as referring to the use of
88
R.V.
<
On
work
is
palastinischen Aratnaisch.
This
may
usefully be sup-
plemented by the discussion in the same writer's The Words of Jesus, pp. 79-88. " t Ezr. 4 6 23 though inserted into a section which relates the efforts of the Samaritans to thwart Zerubbabel's rebuilding of the Temple in the latter part
,
of the sixth century B.C., really relates to the interruptions caused by the Samaritans and other enemies of the Jews to the project of the rebuilding of the
city-walls,
probably shortly before the twentieth year of Artaxerxes (444 B. c.) when the Persian king. Cf. Driver,
INTRODUCTION
an Aramaic paraphrase something to be said in
* Cf. Bab. Megilla 3 a
tion is given in
*
;
21
and
this
its
favour.t
Nedarira 37 b
Jerus. Megilla 74 d.
12.
t Cf. Berliner,
Targum
Onkelos,
ii,
p 74,
who compares
the use of
EHDD
in the
words
BhLD
K3^5|
[WT^jH^
The
&OJflK>3
"ETP "Hp,
before
rival
i.
'
most
naturallj',
',
i.
'The
letter
me
in translation
e.
explanation
'
(offered
'
;
e.
section by section
'
by Dr. Bertholet) is divided (sc. into sections) and on this explanation the following words /2& Dife^
and giving the sense may refer to an Aramaic paraphrase. The synagoguecustom as known to us was to read a verse of the Law in the Hebrew and follow it by the Aramaic paraphrase. In the Prophets three verses might be read together and followed by the Aramaic rendering.
Even in pre-exilic times (cf. 2 Kgs. i8 26 ) Aramaic was the lingua franca of It international communication. must have been widely used, along with Cuneiform tablets of the late Babylonian, in the Neo-Babylonian kingdom.
Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Achaemenian periods bear Aramaic dockets
scribes or secretaries
;
and
were employed for the purpose of writing Aramaic upon parchment along with those whose business it was to write Babylonian in
(cf.
495").
Probably
Aramaic was the exclusive medium of intercouise between the exiled Jews and their captors, and was used by them in commercial dealings with foreigners. Thus the Jews who returned from exile must have come back with a knowledge of Aramaic at least as thorough as was their knowledge of Hebrew, and must have found that in Palestine Aramaic had established itself and gained ground owing to the mixture of races and the decay of national feeling among the Jews who had remained in Palestine. The fact that Hebrew of a more or less classical character remained the literary
language of the Jews to within at least a century before the Christian era does
it was widely and generally spoken by the Jews up to was understood and spoken in the earlier post-exilic period is implied by the fact that e. g. the prophecies of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, which were intended for a popular audience, are written in Hebrew and by the allusion in Neh. 13'*, which shows, however, at the same time, how easy the condition of affairs made it for the less precise Jews to drop Hebrew and adopt
That
it
another language. All that we can say, then, with any certainty, is that after the return from exile Hebrew and Aramaic must for a time have been used concurrently by the Jews.
Religious, national, and literary feeling strove for the retention of Hebrew ; but external influence making itself felt in the exigences of daily life favoured the advance of Aramaic, and gradually led to its general adoption. Literary and cultivated Jews read Hebrew, and no doubt spoke it to some extent among
to
The mass of the people who speak Aramaic exclusively and to lose
22
INTRODUCTION
any rate not
in dispute.
using a Targum is not to be carried so far back as the days of Ezra, the fact that it became customary long before the Christian
era
is at
The
Targums
It is
first
came
into existence
century A.D. Samuel ben Isaac once entered a synagogue, and seeing a scribe reading the Targum from a book, admonished him
thus
'
:
This
is
forbidden thee
for that
which
is
received orally
is
orally, and only that which be read from the book* (Jerus. Megilla writing may
received in
iv. i).
There
however, considerably
older
written
Targums for private reading and not for The Mishnat states that portions of the text of
'
written
as
I
'
Targum
(Yadaim
iv.
5)
and there
Tannaitic
in the
tradition that a
Targum
of the
Book
of Job existed
days of Gamaliel the Elder (the grandson of Hillel and 34ff instructor of St. Paul cf. Acts 5 22 s ), and after being with;
-,
early as the third century A.D., since its Masora dates from the first half of that century. Two Palestinian Amoraim of the third
century advised their congregation to read the Hebrew text of the Parasha (section of the Pentateuch read as lesson) twice in private and the Targum once, according to the practice of public
worship.
sons
(Berakhoth 3
*
while
Ammi,
a pupil of Johanan,
made
it
a rule
article
this subject Berliner, Targum Onkelos, ii, pp. 88 ff., and the admirable 'Targum' by Dr. W. Bacher in the Jewish Encyclopaedia. f The Mishna (i. e. Repetition of the Law, or in a wider sense its Exposition) was compiled towards the end of the second century A. D. I The Tannaim ('Teachers') were the Rabbinic authorities of the first two centuries of the Christian era whose work is embodied in the Mishna. They were
See on
'
'
succeeded by the Amoraim (' Speakers' or Interpreters'), third to fifth centuries A. D., who chiefly concerned themselves with the exposition of the Mishna. The
'
outcome of
this
work was
the Gemara,
'
'
Supplement
or
'
Complement
'
of the
Mishna, which, together with the latter, forms the Talmud. Cf. the passage from Tosefta Shabbath , ch. xiv, quoted by Berliner,
p. 89.
op.
cit.
INTRODUCTION
'
23
These two dicta were especially generally binding (ib. 8 a). instrumental in authorizing the custom of reciting the Targum.' *
the practice of interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures in Aramaic, at one time presumably dependent upon e e the extempore skill of the individual thurg man, gradually
assumed a
shape.
fixed form
first,
no doubt,
orally,
then in written
The The
principal
so-called
are as follows
Pentateuch.
This
is
sometimes called the Babylonian Targum, as adopted and standardized in Babylonia not later, as we have seen, than the third
century A.
in diction,
D.
it
While
Its contents
in
the second
elements
must have been drawn up in Palestine its Halakhic and Haggadic century, exhibit the influence of the school of Akiba (who
prove that
it
since both
A. D.
135)
and other
has come
prominent Tannaim.||
of Pseudo-Jonathan is wrongly assigned to Jonathan (the reputed author of the Targum of the Prophets), possibly through mistaken interpretation of the
the Pentateuch
is,
as
it
The Targum
^n = Targum Yerushalmi, Jerusalem Targum, as Targum Yehonathan. As finally redacted it is not earlier than the seventh century A.D., but it is thought to contain many elements which are older than the Targum of Onkelos.lF Comparison of these two Targums yields evidence that they were originally
abbreviation
identical, their
*
p. 58.
to
in
to the
Greek
translation
D^pV
Akylas.
pp. 92
ff.
J Noldeke, Manddische Grarnmatik, p. xxvii, quoted by Bacher, op. cit. p. 59 a. Haldkha ('walking' or 'way'; so 'custom') is the exposition and application
Haggddd
('
narration
')
the elaboration of
its
p. 107.
Dalman, Gratnm. pp. 21 ff., and WJ. pp. 84 f., disputes this inference, holding the most primitive elements to be 'exactly the parts taken from the Onkelos
Targum
' .
24
INTRODUCTION
In addition to the complete
Targum
of Pseudo-Jonathan there
survive fragments of a Jerusalem Targum, apparently not all ' contemporaneous. In the view of Dr. Bacher, Both the Pseudo-
Jonathan and the fragments contain much that has survived from
a very early period ; indeed the nucleus of the Palestinian is older than the Babylonian which was redacted from it
p.
Targum
'
(op. cti.
61
a).
the Prophets* is assigned by Jonathan ben Uzziel, who was Hillel's most famous
its
transmission appears to follow the same Targum of Onkelos. Palestinian in origin (as is expressly stated in the Bab. Talmud), it gained official It is frequently recognition in Babylonia in the third century A. D.
history of
lines as that of the
The
Academy
of Pumbeditha in
no Targum
to
it,
;
(Sanhedrin 94 b
we should not know the meaning of these verses Moed Katon 28 b Megilla3#). Such reference
;
Targum
as an ancient
These Targums and especially the Targums of Onkelos and of Jonathan on the Prophets are of great value to us as illustrating the Palestinian Aramaic of the early centuries of the Christian era. Though, in the form in which we know them, they
are later than the
first
century, they
embody
material which
that
whether
in written
or oral form
period ; and from the linguistic point of view it is clear that they are faithful witnesses. Their dialect is closely allied to the dialect
of Daniel, such slight differences as exist being mainly orthographical. t The only drawback to their use is that, being
of the
Book
translations
Aramaic
they tend at times to Hebraize their but instances of this tendency are not difficult to detect,
of Hebrew,
to lead us astray. J
Former Prophets',
p.
viz. Josh.,
Judg
Sam.,
and Kgs.
o/O.T.
503
ff.
Noldeke
I Cf.
On Hebraisms
the
Targums
cf.
Dalman, WJ.
INTRODUCTION
3.
25
The
Palestinian
(so-called
Jerusalem)
Talmud
and
the
Midrashim contain short sections stories and the like in Aramaic interspersed amid the New Hebrew in which they are for the most part written. These Aramaic sections are the latest portions
of these works, dating from the fourth to the sixth centuries A. D. They are clearly in the dialect of the people, and such linguistic peculiarities as this dialect exhibits connects it with Galilee rather
Midrashim.
translated
As
into
offering us the text of a great part of the Gospels Palestinian Aramaic this Lectionary is of con-
siderable interest.
Hebrew
to its
text,
it
Like the Targums, however, in relation to the shows a certain tendency to adapt its language
Greek
original.
In addition to these Palestinian Aramaic sources, we may gain not inconsiderable aid through comparison of the ancient Syriac
versions of the O. and N.T., making, of course, such allowances as are necessary for the dialectical differences between Eastern
The Peshitta translation of the O.T. Made directly from the Hebrew,
it
is
it
offers with
may
work of Jewish
scholars,
compared with
As early second century A. D., if so late. the Targums, it exhibits less of a tendency to
language to the Hebrew constructions of the
accommodate
original.
its
No
We
know
Syriac version of the N.T. is as old as that of the O.T. that Tatian made his Diatessaron, or Harmony of the
this
It
Four Gospels (TO 8ta reo-o-apwi/ evayyeAioi/), in Greek, and that was translated into Syriac during his lifetime, c. A.D. 1704
* Cf.
Dalman, Gramm. pp. 12 ff., 31 ff. tendency collected by Dr. Driver in his Notes on the Heb. Text of the Books of Samuel*, pp. Ixxi f., and by the present writer in his Notes on the Heb. Text of the Books of Kings, pp. xxxiv f., and Book of Judges,
p. cxxviii.
For
authorities
cf.
'
of
646
The view
was
first
composed
in
26
continued in use
at
INTRODUCTION
Edessa
till
century, when Rabbula, bishop of Edessa (A.D. 411-35), prepared a revision of the text of
the
fifth
'
the separate Gospels (called Evangelion da-M*pharr*shtt Gospel of the Separate '), and ordered its substitution for the Diatessaron
and confiscation of the copies of the latter. This was carried out with such thoroughness that no copy of the Syriac Diatessaron has survived, and we only know the work through an Armenian translation of St. Ephrem's Commentary upon it, and a late Arabic
translation in
Peshitta.
which the
text has
been accommodated
to that of the
Dr. Burkitt has shown that Syrian writers prior to Rabbula e used the Evangelion da-M pharr*she* which has survived to us in the fragmentary remains of a recension of the Four Gospels
discovered and edited by Dr. Cureton in 1858, and in the (nearly complete) palimpsest of the Gospels discovered by Mrs. Lewis
at the
when he
convent on Mount Sinai in 1892 ; and further, that Rabbula, forbad the use of the Diatessaron, made a revision of
Gospels
in
This
appears to have been the origin of the N.T. Peshitta. He has also shown that the Evangelion da-M pharreshe used the O.T.
Peshitta,
His conclusion
e
is
was the
earliest
by the Syrian Church, the Evangelion da-M*pharr she being dated by him c. A.D. 200. According to this view the early Christian Church at Edessa had no N.T. prior to the Diatessaron in
A.D. 170.
the
first generation of Syriac-speaking Christians the Prophets sufficed/ \ This is a conclusion which is open to question, and it may be that the old version represented by the Sinaitic and Curetonian should be placed at an earlier date.
For the
Law and
The Old
that
was
p. *
f*
Cf. Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, composed in Syriac. 206. For the latter view cf. J. F. Stenning in Hastings's DB., v, p. 452.
originally
ii,
pp. 101
ff.
% Op.
ff.
INTRODUCTION
the
Palestinian Syriac Lectionary, are of great value to our inquiry as illustrating Aramaic constructions in relation to the Greek of the Gospels. When, for example, we get a varying Greek construction, one form of which we suspect of being an
Aramaism, and the Syriac versions render both alike in accordance with our suspected Aramaism, our primary inference receives strong confirmation. There are many instances of this in the
Fourth Gospel (cf. e. g. pp. 72 ff.). The Ada Thomae, an original Syriac work * of fairly early date (early third century A. D.t) is sometimes used in the following pages
for
purposes of
illustration.
is
in
Greek
is
Gospel
is
a translation
proof from
Aramaic
concerned with the broad general characteristics of the Aramaic language, and does not depend upon dialectal details.
Though
istics (if
may be
distinguished, belonging
to different places
and
9th-8th centuries
mon
except the earliest monuments of the language, of the B. c.) are but slight in comparison with the comwhich unite all branches of the language. Thus the features
we
exact dialectal form of the original which we presuppose is a matter of minor importance. may have doubts as to the
We
suffix
which we should
as to constructions which
The
work was
proved by Dr. Burkitt in Journal ofTheol. Studies,!, pp. 280 f Cf. R. Duval, La Litterature syriaque, pp. 98 ff.
ii,
CHAPTER
is
verse by verse. Thus we may gain at the outset a clearer conception of the texture of the writer's language as a whole; and, when we come to classify, may realize that we are not dealing
merely with isolated phenomena, but with illustrations of a continuous characteristic which admits of but one explanation the
theory of an Aramaic original.
w.
in
l -2 .
The phrase
,
,
Trpos
TOV
Oeov
in
God*
is
He
2 Mt. is 56, Mk. 6 3 9 19 i449, Lk. 941 i Jn. i passages is an echo of the Gospel-prologue, presumably by the same author ^ris fy Trpos TOV Trarepa. With regard to the Synoptic
instances
we
notice
(i)
7
,
and
(2)
that Mt.
/xe0' v/xwv,
if
Lk. 22
alter
Mark's
Trpos
natural
The
63
/cat
OVK
at
fla~lv at
i^tias
56 Mt. (M I3 Kal
rjfJia.^
eitriV
k.
19
,'
Mt. if' 0)S 7TOT6 [JicO' V/XWV Lk. 941 ea>s 7TOT Icro/xat Trpos (M
49
(7O/mi
v/xas
;
I4
Mt. 26
Ka^'
fjfJLepav
rj[jtf]V
Trpos v/xas
i/
TW
tepw 8iSao~K<ov.
)Mk. 22 53 Lk.
Clearly,
then,
to the
we
Gospels
to Jn.
THE PROLOGUE
to the other Synoptists that they
29
or expunge
is
it.
The view
that
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
to
the verb
*}?
'join')
denotes
It (i) connexion with, apud, Trapa, (2) motion towards, ad, Trpos. be suggested that feeling for the second meaning so commonly may borne by rnp has moved the translator of an Aramaic original
by
'
Trpo's
sense.*
The usage
4
of
Trpos
,
=
i
'
with
is
,
Cor. i6 67
cf.
i
,
Thess.
2 3 , 4 18 20,
-
18
There
are,
is
however,
many
other indications
o yeyovev fv avroi
<o^
tinged with Aramaic influence. This reading has the consensus rjv.
of early attestation, the punctuation which connects 6 yeyoi/ev with the preceding sentence seeming 'to -be little if at all earlier than
Cent.
IV
pjn
',
(WH.).
Yet, as
is
well
known, considerable
'
difficulty
has arisen in connexion with the interpretation, That which hath been made in Him was life '. The Aramaic equivalent would be
(Kin)
which
Here the opening ^ answering to 'that might equally well bear the meaning inasmuch as, since, 41 because cf. the use of ^ in Dan. 2 nnjtrp-n 'And inasmuch as
FP3
Kl,-n.
' '
thou sawest'
2 20 K'n ab-v*
WTOM
this
snrpDn
'because
"1E>N
wisdom and
often bears
The Heb.
'
relative
same
'
sense.
Adopting
interpretation,
we
obtain
the
Because in Him was life ; and this admirably suits meaning, the connexion He was the source of all creation because He
Himself was
V
5
. .
Life.
KCU TO
<ws
of
ev TTJ ovcoTia
<cuv,
KOL
17
The
* It
difficulty
Karekafitv is
familiar.
was only after finishing this chapter that the writer noticed that the facts = Aram. fllS, and that the other Gospel-occurrences emanate from
its
Harris in the
first
of a series of articles on
xii
The
f.
Gospel'
in the Expositor,
it is
The coincidence
in conclusion
30
mentioned
form
PRELIMINARY TEST
has made the
in
brilliant
in the Introduction,
suggestion
that confusion
5><3j3K
Aramaic between the Aph'el may 'akbel 'darken' and the Pa'el form ^\1 kabbel from an
have arisen
It may be outwardly identical root, meaning 'receive, take*. further noted that in Syriac the latter root actually occurs in the
Aph'el in the sense 'receive* cf. Lk. 15" in Sin. and Pesh. o\^o/ r>^~ *39 'because he hath received him whole' (cf. other
instances cited by Payne Smith, 3470). The difference between ri^apK vh obscured it not and iT^p vh avrb ov KariXapw is slight ;
' '
and
if
common one
tib
'
nw
>*app
is
obscuring
and ^32?
'
receiving
36
The sense
'
darken
KJ"
'
Iva
fiy
O-KOTUL v/xa?
/caTaXa/fy,
afyfR
V.
6
.
'that darkness
avOpwiros
.
iyf.vf.ro
i.
e.
^IIIS
^JH
DP.
'
is
N.T.
in
8
ch.
ai>#pG)7ros
IK
avrai,
ApOC. 6
,
ITTTTOS
^X(0/3OS*
TOI>
Kttt
Ka$^/AVOS
7Ta/0)
ttVTOV,
oi/o/xa
ApOC. 9"
in
,
ayyeAov r^s
aftva-crov'
avrai
Elsewhere
cf.
Matt. 2 732
,
10 - 11 - 12 -33 - 36
io
N.T. the ordinary expression is ovo/xan (classical) ; 50 5 27 2 4 18 , Acts 5 IM 8 9 i io 38 i6 :0 2 3 5 24 9 28 13 14 34 2724 20 2i 10, 27 28 7 (30 i6'i8 i9 ii , i2 I7
Mk. 5% Lk.
,
occurrences).
oi/o/xart
/caAW/xevo?,
, , ,
5
;
<J
(J) o/o/ta,
Lk.
26 27
-
2 25 841 24 13
ov TO oVo/xa,
Mk. I432
Pal. Syr.
oVd/xaTi
by
name', OJA-^? 'who his name' (i.e. 'whose name'), 'and his name'. Pesh. renders oVo/wm by o^so*,? (o^a^f) 'who
'his
his (her)
name', )oo <H^*,? 'who his name was', and once (Acts
otJ&A.
i6
14
)oo
'her
name
was'.
oVo/xtm
KaXov/xevos,
Joo*
'who his name name was'. Kal TO ovo/wx av-r^s, Lk. i = her name Pesh. )oo opa* and her name Pal. Syr. e*ax*,o 27 = who his Pal. Syr. caret, Pesh. <**!*,? w ovo/Aa, Lk. i was 25 name'; Lk. 2 = Pal. Syr. <**i**, )oo? 'who was his name' (i.e. 'whose name was'), Pesh. )oo opa* 'his name was'; Lk. 8 =
Pal.
Syr.
;-fcsjs>
opou*,?
c*-vx*,j
'who
his
'
',
'
'.
41
OF PROLOGUE
Pal. Syr. <*xi**.?,
31
;
Pesh. o^a^?
'who
his
name*
Acts i3 6
,
Pesh.
)oo
26
(i
Mk. I432
called*,
Lk. Pal. Syr. 24" 77 ovo^a, o^ax^?, Pesh. o>x*i 'which its name', ov TO WO/MI, = Pal. Syr. caret, Pesh. kijafcottf ]^/ 'that which was
i
26
= Pal. Syr. o^aa^*,? 'who his name', Pesh. ot^aA, 'his name'; Jn. 3 Pal. Syr. Q*VI.. 'his name', ' s Pesh. o^ v>. 'name Pesh. )oo CX^XA, 'his name was ; Rev. 6
ovofia avTw,
Jn.
)>
to
'
it
Rev.
9" = o^
Ua^,?
'
which,
it
'.
Ezr. 5
'
'vxiwfo 13TW
(i.e.
were given to Sheshbazzar his name Dan. 226 4 5 16 -iVKPoia noB> whose name was S.')
;
,
'to
one
his
'
who
two,
viz.
1
Ru. 2
20
1
of expressing 'whose name was N.' are 'and his name N.', Gen. 2429 38' 2, Judg. 13*, if, Sam. i 9 12 , i 7 12 , 2i 8 22*, 2 Sam. 44 9212 i 33 i6 5 i 7 25,
(i)
,
1 ,
Chr. 2 34
',
Est. 2
-
name
Sam. I7 4 23
N. his , Jer. 37" (22 occurrences), or (2) 2 Sam. 2o 21 , i Kgs. 13", 2 Chr. 28*, Job i
1 ,
'
Zech. 6 12
(7 occurrences).
1EK>
1 (Dan. lo ) "iS?NB^3
'Daniel,
was
called
Belteshazzar'.
In
all
Targg. exactly corresponds with the Hebrew, except that in Targ. of Est. 2 5 we find npDN 'rniiD rpBtsn 'and his name was called
The rendering
l
Sam. 9 2
'
where we find who his name for and his name ; 12 in i Sam. 13', where the phrase is omitted; and in Zech. 6 where, in place of Branch his name ', we have and his name In LXX Heb. MDB>1 'and his name' is rendered K<X! Sunrise'.
,
'
'
oi/o/xa avToJ,
we have
<5
(y)
wo/xa.
i
1
Heb.
1DB> 'his
name'
is
represented by
'
oi/o/xa
where we have w
Outside O.T.
'
ovo^a.
Syriac,
his
we name
Cf.
find that
'
',
his
whose name was is rendered in name was ', who his name ', who his
'
'
name
his
'
was'.
in
Wright's
^o
*~
wBDOf>iftviNV
CH^IA
men
'
of Antioch,
name Alexander'
a certain
0*^0.*,?
^.v>o); )oo
ot^a*, yooo;o>*m>/
(p.
Now
)^^
'a
bath-keeper,
who
his
name
32
A
'
PRELIMINARY TEST
uJLi-
Secundus
son,
(p.
^);
+=>
'a procurator's
who his name was Menelaus' (p. )o). Thus it appears that 6Vo/xa aurai 'Iwai/K^s,
Nt/coSry/AOS
oVo//,a
avra>
exactly represent a Semitic construction common to Aramaic and Hebrew, and that the Greek represents the regular rendering of It is also the Hebrew phrase. noteworthy- that the only other
occurrences of
oVo/xa avra>
is
strongly
1
Semitic in colouring.
V.
7
.
Iva
is
Trcti/res
Trio-TevVawriv
01
avrov probably
= \?3
ITl paD'H
which
in
/'/'
most naturally taken to mean, 'that all might believe (the light) rather than 'through him' (John). Cf., for the
>
sense postulated, I2 36 o>s TO <cus *X TC Trio-revere 46 yevr)crOcf and I2 eyo> $(05 ets rov KOOT/XOV
els
el<s
ro
</>o>s,
Iva viol
Tras
\rjXv6a,
Iva
fir]
peLvy.
v.
8
.
OVK
eKelvos ro <f>^.
tVeu/os
so
characteristic of the
Fourth Gospel
counterpart in the
Aram, wnn, Syriac oo wn. See below (p. 82). dAV Iva jjLaprvprjo-r) Trepl
Pronoun
supposed
familiar.
**\t\
**fy
)l
rov ^coro?.
The
difficulty of the
is
1
ellipse (usually supplied by the words, 'he came') " The whole verse would run in Aramaic, IDr^ N"?
1
wn
NT^nj
i)y
TnD^
It is
(cf.
Pal.
Syr.
o^{ ^J^
is
'
^xm-? M/ Jioop o
)6o
)>ooj?).
probable that l
relative force
light,
should have
'
its
here wrongly rendered Iva, and The sense then is, (one) who '.
but one
who was
to
bear witness of
the light'.
such a use of 1 or
antecedent ('one who', he who'), Ezr. 7 25 , him who knoweth not ye shall teach'; Dan. 2 23
'
wynm
in
^]3D
to
me
^n
that which
wyrtn \W we asked
Gen. 449 10
-
of Thee
Hebrew
ny
^"W
it
NXB^
-rate
nioj
^naj^
N^
ngte
'//^ with
w/zom
found of thy servants shall die ... He with whom it is found shall be my slave ', where the rendering of Targ. Onk.
is
is
Iva
Other instances of 1 relative mistranslated by fi^y narK^n. are given below (pp. 75 f.).*
view that the construction implies an ellipse stand 3 by Westcott g Ovre OVTOS ijfuipTev ovre ol yovfh avrov, eou iv OUTQ), where before iva we have to supply cpya rov
cited
TO,
OF PROLOGUE
avOponrov ip^o^vov
ets
33
Lightfoot (Home Hebraicae, adloc.) and by Schlatter (Spmche, % 18 f.) as the common Rabbinic phrase D^V N? ?3 ' all comers pp. The Aram, equivalent into the world ', i.e. all that are in it.* N l/ would be 9r-? Thus Westcotfs proposal to regard r '?
by
J.
TO
of rjv cpxopwov ('The true light. .was R.V. margin) is excluded, and ty TO </>u>s TO It was the true light ', referring to the aXrjOivov can only mean, For this sense we seem to need a demonstrative verse. preceding
<o>s as the subject
: .
coming, &c.'
so
'
pronoun; and this probably stood misread Njn and rendered rjv.
v.
10
.
in
KOL 6
Koo-fjios
of
/cat
=
.
'
n KOL in v.
This
is
very
frequent in Semitic
V.
p. 66).
u
L<s
TO.
iSia
^X$e,
KCU
(cf.
ot
tStot
avTov
ov
TrapeXa^ov,
i.e.
fj?
n^32
Ta
tSta,
NS
B>j*T)
W?
^.H
Pal. Syr.
and Pesh.).
The
use of
cannot, of course, be claimed as unusual; but the are striking, and at once suggest to an Aramaic expressions scholar the phrase Pf?l which to him*, i.e. 'that which pertains
ot tStot
'
(or those
who
19
pertain)
;
io
3 4 12
-
i3\ is
oo-oi
i6
32
,
his belongings '. iSios is a 44 18 43 18 llbi 42 occurring 15 times (i 4", 5 7 , 8 , 27 ig ), as against 5 in Mt, 1 in Mk., 4 in Lk.
to
-
him
'
'
V.
12
.
Se
avrots
KTX.
1 he construction
in thought
'tva
'
'
;
ir\r]pc>jOr)
Cf.
also
Mk. I4 49
an implied ellipse of 'This cometh to pass'. Similarly, Schlatter (Sprache, p. 18) cites parallels from
13D ? sb
possible
n^Vtt
to
WH
I^JN
nTTi
n"Tf3J
'
If
it
were
should have
'
removed him, but because the decree has already been decreed
do so'), and from Siphre on Num. 25*
'
(sc.
cannot
"]VW
H^H^ N^K
"]3n
D^ppM
WN
|*K
are not under such obligation to him, but (sc. it is necessary) that thou, &c.' In spite of these parallels for an ellipse, it is clear that T = iVa in the Aramaic
We
this conclusion is
is
rendering of our passage most naturally stands for the relative 'one who'; and supported by the other instances collected on pp. 75 f., where IVa
a mistranslation of a relative.
* Schlatter quotes a
on
Leviticus,
par. xxxi. 6
D^JJ
*N3
Wl
D
tfiMWtjH
'Thou (God)
to all
givest light to those that are above and to those that are below, and
into the
comers
world
'.
2520
34
PRELIMINARY TEST
is
'
very frequent
'
in Semitic
Pal. Syr.
'
'
\i
^^^
P^P^Pr.
The
Striking
phrase
Tno-reveiv
ets
is
Aramaic construction (Heb. admitted by Moulton (NTG? p. 68), whose words are 'It would seem therefore that the substitution of ets or CTU for the simple dative may have obtained currency mainly in Christian circles,
where the importance of the difference between simple (P PPS'J) and personal trust (3 'n) was keenly realized.
prepositional construction was suggested no doubt by a more literal translation of the Hebrew phrase with
its
3.'
belief
The
being
The
:i
occurrences of
vlov rov
^35.86^
TTLo-rf.vf.Lv
eis
are as follows
1(U8 36
'
eoO,
ci's
avr6v,
n &c.) Jn. 2
I
4^ j
j-
25.26.45.48^
^11.37.42.44.^
,
Matt. i8 6
I
=
;
^
,
3
)
'
I6
,
>
Jn. 5
4
,
,'
elsewhere,
i
29
,
16 Gal. 2 , Phil,
Pet.
I
13
(eis
TO <ws) Jn. I2
i
36
;
(cts
12
,
10
Jn. 5
13
.
(cis
T^V paprvpiav)
Jn. 5
3 9 other
,
23
18
,
cases).
V.
ot
OVK
aifJLdrwv
eytwiqOrjo-av,
i.
e.
fP
fry!
^9^
'^?
to
'
N^I T:
NIDB n^av. T
:
A
.
.
point
.
of
o<s
lyevvrjOr)
becomes considerably more plausible upon the assumption of an Aramaic original. Since the particle ^ is invariable, it might
form the relative either
'
to
'as
many
as received
Him', or
He gave
'.
The
upon the difference between the plural rpjWK 'they were born', and the singular TVjrrtjl He was born a difference which
<
involves solely the insertion or omission of the letter 1. 14 it 1, over, since the following v. begins with Kat
Moreis
quite
possible that the plural form fP*WN may have arisen through dittography of this 1. Very probably ^ may not have had the
relative sense at
all,
'
but (as
in v.
',
4 )
intended to
inasmuch as
why
the
'inasmuch as He previously mentioned became possible was born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the
OP PROLOGUE
will of
35
after the
'
i.e.
manner
of flesh, but of God, was thus able to give to those Him power to become sons of God.
who
received
of a piece with th.it which is given above for w. just as the Logos was the Source of all physical life 'because in Him was life', so \vv. 12 13 ) He is the Source of spiritual
is
3 4
' -
This interpretation
life
(the
new
birth) because
He was
ordinary process of
human
born into the world, not by the 35 Cf. Lk. i generation, but 'of God'.
(iri
<re,
7rr/aa<Ti croC
TO yeww/xevoi/ aytov
IO9
OV.
of Jn. i 12 which may not be accidental (cf. also eVel avSpa ov yti/wo-Kw, Lk. i 34, 1213 with ouSc IK 0eA?7/xaTo? di/S/oo's, Jn. i 13 ). If this explanation of Jn. i
note a connexion between
vlo<s
We
eou
and
re'/cva
eov
elsewhere
24
~29
drawing out the mystical import of the believers on precisely the lines on which he
is
2526
,
19 )
for
hand, the generally accepted reading ot involves a very strange sequence. The spiritual eyewrjOrjo-av surely birth of believers is clearly the result of the grace described by as phrased seems ISw/cev ca'Tots I^OVO-LOV T^KVO. cov yeveV&u, but v.
.
On
the
other
l:t
to imply that
it
was an antecedent
'
condition.
and so they were born ', or so that they surely have written should be born ', had this result been the fact which he was
intending to convey.
v.
14
.
KO.I
eV/o/j/oKTci/
ei/
rj^v.
The verb
eo-Kipowrey
very clearly
suggests the Jewish doctrine of the nj'ae? Sh'kma (Heb.), Sh e kmta (Aram.), or visible dwelling of Yahweh among His people, typified by the pillar of cloud standing above the Tent of Meeting,
as subsequently in Solomon's
^^
document E
10 n Kgs. 8
7 11 from the old (Ex. 33 ? Cf. also, for the use of the verb
"
Temple
Idkan of Yahweh's dwelling in the midst of Israel, Lev. 26 11 12 (H), Ex. 25 8 2 9 45 Num. 5 35 34 (P), i Kgs. 6 13 Ezek. 43 9 of His i6 6 n 26'2 & .). His Name to dwell there, Deut. 12", i4 causing
-
:i
2:{
:'
In
Hebrew passages
in
which Yahweh
is
D 2
36
A
Name
PRELIMINARY TEST
to
His
He
dwell there.
is,
Heb.
Lev.
26
12
'And
'.
will
walk
'And
'That
to
will
cause
My
Slikinta
'.
among you
to dwell
may
will
dwell in
Ex. 29
45
'And
'.
dwell in
'And
will
cause
My
'.
Sh'ktnta
to dwell in the
midst of the
children of Israel
Yahweh's Presence,
'
57
17
'
hid Myself.
caused
My Sh kintd
e
to
'.
depart
44
forth with
Ps.
Thus we may assume with some confidence that KOL V wlv represents the Aramaic N^a aWDB* *1&$\ 'and caused His Sh kinta to dwell among us'. The choice of the verb orxrjvovv
e
was doubtless largely dictated by its close resemblance to the Semitic root s-k-n. The same usage is to be seen in Apoc. 7 15
/cat
ITT
avrovs,
2 13
'iSov,
f)
crKrjvr)
TOV
eov
/xer* a^rai)'.
Here we have
Targums
to
a clear reference
to a
in
the
manifestation to mankind,
The ! N")^ 'the Glory of the Lord'. e e kard goes back, like that of the Sh kwta,
these the
Heb. term
is
1^3 Kabhodh.
10 ' Behold, the Glory of the Lord appeared in the Thus, Ex. i6 16 'And the Glory of the Lord abode upon mount Sinai, cloud 24
'
;
it
six
'
days
&c.
Y kard,
e
like Slikinta, in
paraphrasing passages which might, as the Heb., be taken to describe the actual appearance
Thus
OF PROLOGUE
Heb.
Ex. 3
1
37
Targ.
'And he came
of
to the
And he came
to the
mountain
mountain
Horeb'.
God,
unto
Horeb
For he was afraid to Ex. 3 look upon God '.
'
5
.
For he
was
afraid
to
look
God
upon the manifestation of the Y'kara of the Lord'. e And they saw the Y kdrd of
the
God
of Israel'.
We
Isa.
sometimes
find
4o
22
'
He
that sitteth
upon
His
'
kara
'.
to dwell in lofty
strength
Ps.
44
Thy
kdrd
to
65
of the
Sh'kinta of
'.
hosts'.
King
of the ages
This
last
leads us to a point
which proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that when Jn. describes our Lord's Self-manifestation as 8oa he has in mind
the Y*kara of the Targums.*
Isa.
1U
,
8dov
avrov.
The opening
saw
the Lord sitting upon a throne ', and this is rendered in Targ., e Other 'I saw the Y kard of the Lord resting on His throne'.
instances in Jn. of
avrov, II
40
Soa
in this
o^rrj
sense are, 2 U
e<ai/e'/o<ocrei/
4
r^v
&6av
cav Trwrrevtnys
e/A^v.
rrjv
S6av
rov
tov, I'J'
S6av
TTJV
We
are
now
* Not of course necessarily the written Targums. but at any rate the conceptions which entered into the oral exposition of Scripture called Targum.
PRELIMINARY TEST
x "m?
of the Prologue must undoubtedly be derived from the third and most frequent Targumic conception representing God in manifestation;
that of the
;;*!
'the
Word
of the Lord'.
We
Memra
should no doubt trace the origin of the conception of the N"pp*O to O. T. passages in which Heb. dabhar 'Word' is
connexion which almost suggests hypostatization, 20 Ps. icy 'He sent forth His Word and healed them'; e.g. G s 33 the Word of the Lord were the heavens made'. By This latter passage, with its reference to the Word's action in s Creation, recalls the repeated Ea^g "iN ! 'And God said' in Gen. i,
employed
'
-
in a
'
"*PN
'amar
is
Aram, root
Memra
is
derived.
Memra
God
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.
'And they heard the voice of the Memra of the Lord God
walking, &c.'
'
'I
heard
Thy
heard
the
'.
voice
of
Thy
His
Memra
6
'And
that
it
'And
the
Lord repented
in
He
it
'.
6'
'
For
repenteth
Me
'.
Because
the
have repented
'.
in
My
Memra
8
1
'And
heart,
c.'
'And
Lord
,
His
'
Memra
J
will
no more
curse,
is
c.
12
'
This
the token
I
of the
This
is
covenant which
make
'.
be-
nant which
tween
Me
and you
tween
So
in
We
cannot
fail
14
the writer
no doubt
with intention
brings together
three of these
Targumic con-
OF PROLOGUE
ceptions.*
39
the
In *ai
Ao'yos
o-ap
lyf.vf.ro
\
we have
Memra;
in
KOL etrKTyi/oxreK ev
rjfjuv
the SJl''ktnta
is
in
/cat
e^cacra/xc^a r^f
Soav aurou
the
#ra.
This
an Alexandrine source, he is soaked through and through with the Palestinian Jewish thought which is repreNor would the teaching of the Prologue sented by the Targums. need time for its development. Any disciple of our Lord who
Aoyos-doctrine to
had heard the Targumic rendering of the O.T. in the synagogue, and who was capable of recognizing a superhuman power shining through the Master's Personality in His mighty acts, of detecting
the Divine voice in
that in
at length of
apprehending
to dwell
among
draw
was the
him through
^api-ros
/ecu
aAr}Oeias.
The
is
is
reference
6 Aoyos
of this statement
back
to the
which makes
It
Kat
eOfaordfjieOa KT\.
certainly
awkward.
would be
possible to
a misreading for TrA^p^t referring 15 to TT/V Soav avrov. which speaks of the witness If, however, v. , of John, and somewhat harshly breaks the connexion of thought,
assume
TrA^s
be misplaced, and properly to follow after the Prologue before v. 19 ('John bear witness And this is the In v. 1G on e* witness of John, c.'), then another theory lies open.
may be supposed
to
&*!??}
iW^S
'^V.r'P
l^.r
may
mean, not
'
because
but
'
He who
'
(the
assumed mistrans4-13
get the statement, 'Full of grace and truth was He of whose fullness we have all received '. Aramaic, literally rendered, would express ' Full of grace and truth (was) He who of His fullness we this by,
).
lation is a converse
one
to that
noted in w.
Thus we
have
v.
all
1S
.
received
'.
/Aovoycvr/s
o?.
the variant
* This has
is
//.ovoyev^s
This reading has stronger attestation than It must vtos, which looks like a correction.
been noted by Dalman, WJ. p. 231. the reading of Cod. D. Deissmann (LAE. pp. 125 ff.) defends ir\rjprjs as an indeclinable adjective, on the score of popular usage; and is followed by
t This
(NTG? p. 50). The same view was earlier put forward by Blass, Grammar I^Eng. tr. 1898), 31, 6, and by C. H. Turner in Journal of Theol. Studies
Moulton
i
ff.
4o
PRELIMINARY TEST
'
be admitted, however, that the expression (though fully in accord with the teaching of the Prologue) is hardly to be expected after No man hath seen God at any time'. It may the preceding,
be suggested that the Aramaic Knjg Tn^ 'the only- begotten of God ', has been misunderstood as Knjg TIT (Absolute for Construct State), and so rendered, the only-begotten God '.
'
It thus appears that nearly every verse of the Prologue yields evidence pointing to an Aramaic original. Besides, however, the
which have been discussed, we notice generally the simplicity of construction, with its fondness for co-ordination (i) of sentences linked by KO.L (cf. especially w. L3 5 10 11 14 ) and (2) the
special points
-
cases of parallelism in thought and expression a marked trait of Hebrew poetic composition. Close study of this latter
many
most interesting
fact.
The Prologue
seems
take the form of a hymn, written in eleven parallel couplets, with comments introduced here and there by the writer. This may be clearly seen in the Aramaic translation which follows,
to
together with an English rendering of it. In making the translation On the the Judaean dialect has been used as far as possible. distinction between the Judaean and Galilaean dialects of Aramaic,
see Dalman,
Gramm.
pp. 33
ff.*
Kin
Kin
T~:
TT
NN
rn!>
.n^bapN vh w
*
The
We
|
have chosen
KiP!
T-:
NDH, JH* T -;
-
'know'
rather than
N3
in preference to
N?N
rather than
"H
p_
is
the
Choice of the Judaean dialect authorship put forward on pp. 133 ff.
Targumic form.
OF PROLOGUE
by "pnp^ vinp.b
NTIN
41
pnn
.^nv
a^c^
Nin
.N-iinj
wn wn
jn
xnbg
33
(pnn
or)\inc|3
Nmen
pnb nn^
or)
ND'
IP
|p
N3PI
\o
5
bia
a^bp
po
'
IP" ]
; :
fP ND^'Ipl N3H
A'tp
wn Nin Nawa
'
nw
Nnb^
n^n>
/nioi* |p K'JN
Mn
^b Nnbx
1.
And
2.
In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God.
the
Word
He was
3.
in the
All things
by
And
4.
without
in
naught
Because
Him was
was the
And
5.
the
life
light of
mankind.
And And
was shining,
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 It was the true light that lighteth should bear witness of the light.
every
man coming
6.
He was
Him was
in the world,
And And
made,
knew Him
not.
7.
not.
As many
as received
them gave
He power
the sons of
God -to
was born, not of blood, nor of the will of a man, but of God.
8.
nor of the
And And
the
set
9.
And we
10.
He was
full
Of Whose
fullness
we
all
have received,
And
For the law was given through Moses, Grace and truth through the Messiah.
No man
the
God
Who
is
in
bosom
He
the
hath revealed.'
striking feature
of
hymn
is
that
it
contains several
examples of the somewhat rare but well-marked form of parallelism which is known as Climactic. In this form stichos b of a couplet
does not offer a more or less complete echo of stichos a, but adds something more which completes the sense of the distich, thus
g Dr. Driver (Literature of the O. T. p. 363) remarks that 'this kind of rhythm is all but peculiar to the most elevated poetry'; and quotes as instances Ps. 29% 92*, 93*,
forming, as
it
were,
its
climax.
though much distinct, Songs of Ascents" where a somewhat emphatic word is repeated from (Pss. 121-34), one verse (or line) in the next, as Ps. i2i lb2 (help); v. 3b 4 v. 4b 3a ;
94 96
,
13
H3
'There
is
less
forcible
and
to
it,
'
'
v.
8a
;
i22
2b 3a
-
&c.'
Climactic parallelism
is
very characteristic
OF PROLOGUE
of the
43
Song of Deborah
Commentary on
be noted in the
The
:
may
Because
in
life
life
|
was the
was
light of
mankind.
5.
And
shining,
And
7.
the darkness
obscured
|
it
not.
He
came,
|
received
Him
the
not.
And we
Glory
as
|
of
only-begotten
of the
Father.
10.
He was
full
Of Whose
Of
It
fullness
i,
we
all
have received.
2,
synonymous, while
and
are antithetical.
should be noted that the couplets, besides being parallel, appear also to be rhythmical, each line containing three stresses.
In
v.
ll
,
in place of
'
&LCL 'Ir/a-ov
'
the Messiah
may
come
in as a later addition.
13
as referring
to
Virgin-Birth
(cf.
p. 34).
There is an essential unity in the teaching of St. Luke, St. Paul, and St. John as to the mode and meaning of the Incarnation which ought not to be overlooked. All go back in thought to the
appearance of Jesus Christ on earth as a new Creation, to be compared and contrasted with the first Creation of the world and
draw upon Gen. i, 2 in working out creative act was the formation of in upon the physical darkness which had previously light, breaking covered primeval chaos, so was the birth of Christ the dawn
;
of mankind
and
all
therefore
their theme.
Just as God's
first
of Light in the midst of the spiritual darkness of the world. That this idea was in St. Paul's mind is definitely stated
by him
in 2 Cor.
5 6
'
ov yap eavrovs
/O7pv(ro-o//.ev
aAAa Xptorov
'
44
A
on
6
PRELIMINARY TEST
eo5 6 tiTTwv
'Ex CTKOTOUS
</>co9 Xafti/^ei,
o? cAa/xi^e*/ ev ra??
80^5
5",
TOI)
eo)
i
13
.
ei/
Tr/aoo-wTrw
Cor.
4*,
2 Cor. 6
14
,
Eph.
Col.
Allusion
i,
to
Gen. i, which is clearly seen in the opening words of Jn. 'In the beginning', seems also to be behind w.** where it
t
is
Creation, represented the Agent introduction of Light into the world, and, by an almost imperceptible transition, the writer's thought passes from the introduction of life
stated that the Logos, as the
in
and
tion.
world
at
Creation did not immediately abolish physical darkness, but led to the setting by God of a division p^?l, Gen. i 4 ) between light and
5 darkness, so (Jn. i ) in the Incarnation the Light was shining in darkness and the darkness did not obscure it ; its introduction into
the world producing a /cptW whereby Light and darkness were sharply distinguished and men had to range themselves under the
19
~21
'
(Jn.
cf.
9,
I2
5 36 46
-
).*
Turning
eTTt ere, /cat
to the
it
is
Swa/u?
eVto-Ktacret, <rot,
2
,
where the
pictured as brooding or hovering (nsrn) over the face of the waters in the initial process of Creation which issues in
Spirit of
is
God
the production of light.t So for St. means the dawning of avaroXr) l vif/ovs,
tr/aa
Birth
Oavarov KafajfifVOtS
8 '' 9
(i'
),
and
c/>o>s
ets
aTTOKaXvij/w lOvwv (2
wicked.
"And God said, Let there be light", i.e. the works of the righteous. "And God divided between the light and between the darkness " between the
works
of the righteous
i.e.
"
And God
the works of the righteous. "And the darkness he called, night'', i.e. the works of the wicked. "And there was morning", i.e. the works of the
day",
righteous.
"And there was evening", i.e. the works of the wicked. "One day", inasmuch as the Holy One ^blessed be He) gave them one da}'. And what
is
this?
The Day
of Atonement.'
is applied in Midrash Bereshith Rabba to the endowment of the Messiah with the Divine Spirit This is the Spirit of the King-Messiah, as it is said, "And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him ".'
'
OF PROLOGUE
the
45
New
is
Adam
and
the second
Adam
in
Cor. I5
4
;
worked out in the frequent antithesis between a-dp* and and in the representation of baptism as a burial with Christ TTvcvfjia., in which 6 TroAcuo? ^/xwi/ ai/0pu>7ros is put off, and the baptized rises
This
is
life
3ff (Rom. 6
-).
We
,
find
the
same
which
between
o-ap
and
fi3
discussion with
is
Nicodemus
In 6
in ch.
it
3 turning on the
stated, in
new
birth
IK rov
7n/ev//.a
7n/ev'//,aro<?.
is
TO
eerrtv
TO ^WOTTOIOW, a
...
thought of which the connexion with lo-^aTos 'ASa/x ets Tn/ev/xa ^WOTTOIOW can hardly
it
be accidental.
may
be presumed, be
generally explained by the theory of the influence of Pauline Theology upon the writer of the Fourth Gospel and this may
;
be
surely beyond question is that St. Paul's OUTWS KOL yeypaTTTcu refers not simply to the quotation from Gen. 2 7 'He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and
fact,
is
,
so.
however, which
man became
first
Adam and
a living soul ', but to the whole passage relating to the the second Adam, from eyevero down to ^WOTT-GIOW.
6 eo-^aro? 'ASa/x ets Trreti/xa ^COOTTOIOW depends upon eyei/ero introducing the quotation equally with what goes before, from which it should be divided by a comma merely, and not by a colon (WH.) or full Had it been St. Paul's own addition, could he stop (R.V.).
possibly have phrased the sentence thus, and not have written at
least 6 Se lo-^aTos 'A8a/x eyeveTO as Trvev/xa ^WOTTOIOVV ?
If,
derived ?
however, the whole passage is a quotation, whence was it There can be no doubt that the form in which St. Paul's
is
argument
cast is influenced
that
Though born
'
at Tarsus,
is
he claims
in
The expression
to us in
p2 N~)n
CHK
e
the
first
Adam
the
'
well
known
early
is
Midrashic literature.
i.e.
the Messiah,
not
known
I5th century A. D
Thought, pp. 40 flT.) ; R. Hoshaiah, 3rd century A.D.) brings the Messiah into contrast with 'the first Adam when, in commenting on Gen. a 4 These are the generations of the heaven
' ' ,
work of a Spanish Jew in the Thackeray, '/'he Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish but the Midrash Beresliilh Rabba (ascribed by tradition to
N we shdlo m,
',
it
why
the
,
word
for
'
generations
is
only
in this
passage nnd
in
Ruth 4 18
46
to
A
be
c
PRELIMINARY TEST
3*),
i.
E/3palo<s e
'E/fycuW (Phil.
e.
not a 'EXA^i/io-r^s
(cf.
Acts 6
),
Jerusalem under Gamaliel, who was one of the most prominent Rabbinic teachers of the time
at
3 (Acts 22 ).
But prior to St. Paul's conversion the earliest circle of Christian believers at Jerusalem was drawn not merely from the
peasant-class, but
of the priests
teaching, but
',
embraced (according to Acts 6 ) a great company who would scarcely have been unversed in Rabbinic
7
'
may be supposed to have applied such learning as had acquired to the service of the new Faith. they It is by no means improbable, therefore, that the passage as a whole may have been drawn from a collection of O. T. Testimonia,
composed with the object of meeting Rabbinic Judaism upon
its
own
be objected to this suggestion that elsewhere ground.* the N. T. yiypaitrai introduces a definite citation from throughout the O. T., and that this is also the case with allusions to fj ypa<f>r}
If
it
These are the generations of Perez (ITrVin but elsewhere always m/lfi), and cites the inference that 1, which numerically = 6, implies that the six things which Adam lost through the Fall shall be restored at the coming of 'the son of Perez ^
1
,
'
i.e.
as a life-giver
(cf.
nixvua faoitoiovv}
the Midrash hag-gadol to Genesis (compiled by a Yemenite Jew of the I4th u states that there are six century) which, commenting on Gen. i6 persons whose
in
names were given to them before their birth, viz. Ishmael, Isaac, Moses, Solomon, On the last it saj'S, 'The King-Messiah, because Josiah, and the King-Messiah. " Before the sun his name shall be Yinnon ". And it is written, why is his name
called
Yinnon
because he
is
who
'
Here
Ps. 72
17
\Ci&
Before the
sun shall his name propagate (or produ :e life""}, and the verbal form, only here in He who quickens This Midrash is quoted by O.T., is treated as a Messianic title
'
'
'.
n, who refers it to Moses had-Darshan, born at Narbonne about the middle of the nth century A. D. Late as this is, we have the evidence of the Talmud (Sanhedrin, 98 6) that Yinnon was early regarded
Raymund
Martin
in his
Pugio
Fidei, chap,
ii,
as a Messianic
for in the passage in question the pupils of R. Yannai (an generation 2nd to 3rd century A. D.) maintain, as a compliment The Psalm-passage is to their teacher, that the Messiah's name is to be Yinnon. quoted in Midrash Bereshith Rabba, par. i. 5, as evidence that the name of the
title,
Amora
of the
first
Messiah existed prior to the creation cf the world, though that Yinnon is to be taken as his name.
it
is
Though no part of
ist
this
to
the
century A. D., it serves to illustrate the kind of Rabbinic teaching which may well have formed part of St. Paul's early training. * Cf. know that types Sanday, The Gospels in the Second Century, p. 272; and prophecies were eagerly sought out by the early Christians, and were soon
l
We
collected in a kind of
common
drew
at his pleasure.'
OF PROLOGUE
(with the possible exception of
i
,
47
"Atog
Tim. 5 18 where our Lord's words seem to be included under the term),
it may be replied that St. Paul's quotation does consist of such a citation from the O. T. plus a deduction therefrom, and would ex hypothesi be derived from a collection of proofs based on the
e/c
TW
ypa<j>Z>v.
We
may
further
draw
in
^TTOTC,
o>s
Similarly, the formula Xe'yei jap f) ypa^rj i6 5 to introduce a quotation from Enoch Sg 56 66
-
used in Barnabas
If,
Cor.
15*'
as wholly a quotation
St.
that
Paul wrote
first
between the
Adam
Adam had
in Christian
Rabbinic circles and was used in argument. This conclusion of the dependence of the Fourth
Paul in regard to the teaching here involved, does the alternative theory that both may have dependent upon a common earlier method of theological
St.
it
Gospel upon
suggesting as
been
expression of the truths of the Incarnation. St. Luke supplies us with further food for thought in this connexion. His Birth-narrative is certainly from a Jewish-Christian
source, and
of
it
is generally acknowledged to be early. If any portions are earlier than the rest, these are the poems which it contains
;
at the
We
from
except the Magnificat, in arguing the unity of their with that of St. Paul and St. John. thought may now note the fact that St. Luke carries back our Lord's genealogy to Adam,
these,
We
'
who was
the son of
God
is
'
(3).
What
is
to be
found
Gospel
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,
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 in a collection of eov If, then, St. Luke's TOV 'ASa//,, rov
eov in the
on
to vlos
if
his thought
Adams,
is it
was
This point has already been brought out by Dr. Box, The Virgin Birth of
f.,
Jesus, pp. 38
-:
150.
CHAPTER
II
THE SENTENCE
Asyndeton.
highly characteristic of Aramaic to open its sentences abruptly without the use of a connective particle. In this respect Hebrew is very marked, the latter language its contrast with
IT
is
regularly employing 'And' in prose to connect a sentence with what goes before, the force of this 'And 'varying as determined
by the context (And, So, Then, But, Yet, &c.). This difference in usage may well be illustrated from the Book of Daniel, in which
chs. i
1
24a, 8
1
chs.
2 45
7 are in
Aramaic.
2 Aa (Hebrew) consists of 23 sentences. Of these, 22 (i.e. all but the opening verse of ch. i) begin with 'And* (sometimes variously rendered in R.V. ' Then ', But ', ' So ').
Dan.
'
Dan. 2T~ (Aramaic) contains 44 sentences. Of these, 22 begin with a connective particle, and 22 without such particle. The
openings are as follows
:
49
With
v.
v.
6
connective particle.
v.'
a
'And if. 'For if. in n v. xrbw\ 'And the word'. n v. Km! 'And the decree'. u v. iwn }HN3 'Then Daniel'. v* b Krta pn 'Then the word 16 v. *?y Swrn 'And Daniel went
|m
9
my 'Answered
They answered
ruy
'.
the
king'.
V J Uy v
*
S ^D
'Answered the
the
king'.
KnOT uy 'Answered
Chaldaeans
'.
'.
v ^ nri
v.
n
^p
and
t>
<
Because of this'.
n>
1DW
njy
'He answered
*
v.
11
*?W\
pK
'Then Daniel'.
said'.
v.
l9a
fork
p
'.
'
Then
to
*>
fo^
n3y
'.
Answered
Daniel
Daniel
50
196
z>.
'
THE SENTENCE
i^n pK Then
'
Daniel
'.
22
'.
z;.
Nin
'
He
revealeth
'
'.
'
v.
z;.
2a
pK
ruw
ipl
'
'
Then Arioch
I
'.
ni>N
^
my
To
thee the
'.
30
35
z;.
And pK3
God
were
v.
2
of
fathers
'
'Then
'.
Jnp
this*.
Because
of
broken
39
z;.
-pmi 'And
K'jrai tt5>i
after thee'.
v.-
n:y
'Answered
the
40
z;.
king
'.
kingdom
v* nrVTn
42
z/.
1
v?
my
Daniel
'.
'
Answered
1
.
'And
'.
whereas
2
thou sawest
z;.
2
>n
'Thy dream
'Thou,
N^n
43
z;.
z>.
king'.
3
z;.
3
z;.
id.
sawest '.
44
z/.
pn NO
n
'
'This image
'
'.
46
z>.
48
z;.
days a^o pnxi ' Then the king'. tota |HK Then the king '.
'.
'
pV3l And
'
in their
z\
v?
3 z;.
nm
Thou sawest
This
is
'.
'
n:n
the
v.
49
^m 'And Daniel'.
dream
v? 1 ND^D
^.
45
nrotf
Thou,
'.
king
nmn H
NDfe
^3p ^D
'Whereas
thou sawest
z;.
47
njy
'Answered the
king'.
characteristic
This great frequency of unconnected sentences is equally of the rest of the Aramaic portion of the Book
In
ch.
of Daniel.
8 the
Hebrew
we have
27 sentences (corresponding with the verse-division). Of these, 24 begin with 'And' (sometimes rendered, 'Then', 'Now', 'So',
lA 'Yea'), and 3 only (vv. ) without any connective particle. It will thus be seen how clear is the distinction in style between
167 B.C.). When we come down to the Hebrew of the Mishna, we do find a paucity of connective particles, entirely owing to the influence of Aramaic.
late a date
(c.
great frequency of sentences opening without a connective If we particle is a marked characteristic of the Fourth Gospel. y> take ch. i in speeches (vv.' ~, &c.), where neglecting openings
Now
asyndeton
is
we
find 34
asyndeton
THE SENTENCE
'
51
In the 28 senopenings, as against 28 with connective particle. tences which have connective particles, these are KCU 19 times, oe 4 times, on twice, ovv 3 times. And ', which is thus more than
all the others taken together, is the ordinary Semitic connective particle, which bears various forces according to the context (cf. p. 49). The openings are as follows
doubly as frequent as
Without connective
eV
particle.
V?
OVTOS
rjv.
V*
V.
4
v:
V.
V.
V.
V.
OVK
rjv e/<eti/os
TO
</>a>5.
ty TO
10
11
>
^>a>s
TO dA^^tvov.
V.
(.V
'
V
V.
V.
l4a
Kal 6 Xoyos.
V.
ub Kal V.
V.'
6
paprvpci.
OTl
K TOV
6
v} ia on
v."
V.
}8a
i x df
fov ovSets ewpa/ce.
KCLL
avrr) eoriV.
V
V.
V.
z'
KOL
a
n
lc
2
V."
"
a-rr
V*
,
furav ofo.
Kal
K al n
Ti'o^i/
24
25a
.
25?'
.
V'
V?
2*
Z>.
v/xoiv
TavTa ev JSrjOavLa
TTJ
29
ZJ.
7ravpiov ySAeV
V."
oa
OVK
rySctv avrov.
V^
Kai
jJLaprvpr]o-v.
E 2
52
V.
V.'
3
THE SENTENCE
/cdyto
OVK
"fl&e
O.VTOV
Try
/cdyw ewpa/ca.
/cat
V.
36
/cat
01 Se
eW.
390
fl.
Aeyet a
^XBavo^v.
V.
wpa fy
u>S
oWrr;.
^v 'Av8/3as.
OVTO<S. Via
V.
fjyaycv avrov.
avrw.
/cat
evpt/cet
3>l'A.t7r7TOS
4G
V ^^ O
Aeyet avrai 6
480
t;.
avru
'lrjcrov<s.
V.
/cat
Acyet atrai.
In order to prove that this characteristic is found throughout we may take two other chapters from the contains middle and end consisting mainly of narrative. Ch.
n
-
59 sentences, of which 17 have no connective particle (vv. 9 "*- 11 23 24 lg conta ns 52 sentences, and 20 of these 25.26.27.84JB.396fc.4o.44W..48j. 8 34 K 6is 36 1Ab **- r 20 2 '- a 2c ao are without connective
s-
:;1
:t7
particle (vv.
).
a smaller proportion than in c/z. i ; yet, as compared with the Synoptists, it is a very high one. To take three chapters at
is
This
Mt. 3 contains 13 sentences, none without latter connective particle; Mk. i contains 38 sentences, 2 only without 8 Lk. 8 contains 60 sentences, 2 only connective particle (w. ); without connective particle (zw. 8 M9 ).
1
-
'
Asyndeton
aTrcKpLOrj,
ixcK/K^rav
asyndeton
np.y, faj|.
In the openings of unconnected sentences given above from the Aramaic of Dan. 2, it will be noticed that 9 out of the 22 take
the form,
'
Answered
(so and-so)
'.
This
is
very characteristic,
THE SENTENCE
,
53
28 examples occurring in the six Aramaic chapters, while there ' 14 ' are only 2 cases of Then answered (5 17 6 ), and none at all of
'And answered'.
Hebrew O.T.
'
offers
only 2 such unconnected openings, 'Answered (Song 2', rendered 56 'spake' in R.V. ; Ps. n8 ), while there are 145 cases of 'And
answered (so-and-so)
', pn, ujn, &c. Thfodotion's version of Dan. does not always represent this Aramaic 'Answered'; but where it does, it regularly renders
airtKpiO-Y),
aTTfKpiOrjo-av
(11
5 7 - 10
-
times
,
once
a7roKpi0eis),
preserving the
asyndeton
in 4 cases (2
12 passages, in all followed by 'and said', before statement of the words spoken, are as follows
:
27 4 ), but elsewhere prefixing KCU. These of which the Aramaic phrase is regularly
2
27
"ICN1
nay
pL6r)(ra.v
.
. .
KCU
/cat e?7rev.
lay
Kat \eyovcrw.
Kat
/cat
.
nay
etTrev.
2"
2 47
nay
nay
nay
Kat aTreKpirj
Aeyet.
Kat a7ro/cpi0ets
Kat aircKptOr] Kat
.
tiTrtv. ttTrev.
Kat
. .
uy
nay
a.irtKpi6-r](Ta.v
a.TTf.Kp{6r)
.
.
Kat
Kat
Kat aTTfKpiOr]
KOL
CITTCV.
nay
Kat
e?7rev.
hand,
os B
we have
5
6
16
25
,
a-n-cKpiOr)
11
;
ow, 7
I2 34
19
]
a.7TKpi6r] f
aTTCKptVaro ovv,
23 ow, I3" ; 6 8e l^o-oO? a-rroKpLveTai, I2 ; i.e. 11 cases of this verb as an opening with connective particle, as against 66 cases without. Elsewhere in the whole N.T. anrcKptOri as an asyndeton opening
common phrase
said',
Se
a7roKpi#ets
(aTroKpitfeis
CITTCV,
|jn
Of
aTrcKpiOrjo-av in
54
Jn.,
,49 1 j
THE SENTENCE
38 introduce the words spoken without further verb,
5
viz.
,.31 I0
I
26
;
>
3> 5
C 7.11
^7.68.70
>
-20.46
Q19.33.34.49.54
;
_3.11.27
>
T -25.32.33.34 1O
T T9 ri
.
.
>
TO J
8.:ifi
l8 5.8.20.23.34.35.36.3^
j^.ll.lB.M
^5. wg
-
^^
-
haye
fc^^
-
.-
JVe'yW,
while in the 26 other cases the opening is 48 50 2 19 3 3 9 10 27 , 4 10 13 17, 6 26 29 43 7 21 52 , 8' 4 4s , KO! elTTcv (e?7rav), viz. i :8 23 30 303436 7 It is difficult to resist the conclusion i2 , is I4 18, 2o' , 9
-
:!!)
and
aTreKpiOrjo-av
a literal rendering of the Aram. IBM np.V KOL eiTrav of P~ ?^T ] ty, for which, as we have seen,
eiTrev
is
|J
Asyndeton
Similarly,
-_8
Xeyei, Xeyovo-iv
we
f.%
>5^79
-50
constantly find that Jn. uses Xeyct as an opening The cases are i 39 46 48, 25 7 3 4 , 47.11.15.16.17.19.
-
O39
-
-.12
T ,23.24.27.39 6/8-40.44 11
3 10 ]2
-
T O 6.8.9.10.36.37 I3 >
T . 5.6.8.9.22 T4 >
jg5.i7.26.38
jQ
6 15
-
2O
2O 15 8
23
13 ' 5 16 17/29
-
2i
15M8
16
'
er
17M*-';2
a
in
total
8 34
-
of
63
;
without
.
. .
connective
;
particle
occurs
,
n
9
i6 29 , 2i 3
Ae'yet,
aA.Xot IXcyov in
/cat
io 21
i2 29
14
On
we have
19', 2 1
-
the opening
Xe'yei
in
2 48
42
;
ig
Kat Xeyovo-tv in
6
,
2O 13
17
Kat IXeyci/ in
5 '7
;
-
65
,
KOL cXeyov in
Xcyct ovv in
in
13% l8
;
Xeyovo-tv o*v in
,
4 71 8 19 25 9 10 16 ii 36 i6 18 i 9 01 IXcyov Xe'ya 8e in i2 IXeycv 8c in 6 20 27 8e in io ; etra Xcyet in 19% 2O i.e. a total of 31 openings with connective particle, as against 70 without such particle.
,
9 2o 25
17
;
tXcyci/
ow
8 31
;
eXcyov
ow
in 4^, 5',
In
Mt.
,
Xe'yei
as an
8 18 20
-
3 i6 15 , if' 10 times,
i822
I9
-
viz. 9^,
i9
7 10
,
asyndeton opening occurs 16 times, viz. 207 21 23 2i 31 42 22 43 2 6- 5 35 64 27 Xfyownv 2 o 7 233 2i 3 41 22 42 27 22 In Mk. Xeya thus
-
-22
--
never
Xeyoixru/ in
8 19 .*
In Lk.
Xe'yet
in
22
16',
i9
Xeyovo-tv never.
Xeyet, Xeyovo-iv
as asyndeton
openings. That the historical present in Jn., of which Xe'yei is the most frequent example, represents the similar usage of the participle
in Aramaic, is argued later on (p. 88). There are no instances of the asyndeton opening "PN (participle) in Dan., because the
*
The absence
Gospel
is
this
literal translation
of this asyndeton usage in Mk. is a point against the view that of an Aramaic document. There are very many
cases where Mk. uses nai Ae-ye*, o 8< A*'-yei as openings, where Jn. would certainly have used asyndeton keya. Cf. e.g., for the difference in style, the dialogue of MK.
THE SENTENCE
writer of this book prefers
55
the
formula
'
so
to
which we have already noticed. This latter phrase, however, much favoured in Dan., seems to have been practically confined
as in the Peshitta of the O.T.*
in
is
Western Aramaic, being unused in Syriac, except in translation, Ordinarily in Aramaic, especially its Eastern branch, the asyndeton opening ~>BK ;^>/ (participle)
P
;
features
of the language in
description of a dialogue
to a rendering
and
by the asyndeton
historical
first
example, the Syriac Ada Thomae in the offers twelve examples of the usage.
The
sat
following
(p.
literal
^o):
"What
to him,
is
'
"
Judas says
a carpenter".
the
Habban the merchant says to him, "What art thou skilled to make in wood, and what in hewn stone?" Judas says to him, "In wood I have learned to make
work of
;
ploughs and yokes and ox-goads, and oars for ferry-boats and masts for ships and in stone, tombstones and shrines and temples
Habban the merchant says and palaces for kings". "I was seeking just such a workman"/
With
Jn. 2I
'
to
him,
this
1
15
we may compare
the
':
So when they had broken their fast, Jesus says to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me more than these?" He says to Him, "Yea, Lord; Thou knowest that I love Thee". He says to him, "Feed My lambs". He says to him again
He says a second time, "Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me?" I love Thee". He to Him, "Yea, Lord, Thou knowest that
"Tend My sheep". He says to him the third time, Peter was grieved son of John, lovest thou Me?" Simon, because He said to him the third time, "Lovest thou Me?"
says to him,
"
And he
sheep",'
*
said to
I
knowest that
Him, "Lord, Thou knowest all things; Thou " Feed love Thee ". Jesus says to him, My
25) the formula
According
to
Dalman (WJ.
p.
is
unknown
in
later
Jewish
Aramaic.
56
THE SENTENCE
This very striking resemblance
in
Ae'ya and asyndeton usage is no mere chance and isolated phenomenon. Dialogues so framed are frequent in the Fourth Gospel (cf. especially the
passages
4,
n,
13,
14,
18, 20),
and innumerable
Parataxis.
Peculiarly Semitic is the simplicity of construction employed throughout the Fourth Gospel. Sentences are regularly co-ordiSubordinate sentences are few and nated, and linked by KOI.
where the writer embarks exceptionally upon a somewhat complex sentence, he speedily becomes involved "4 but this passage, is more successful as Greek in difficulty. I3
far between.
,
In 6- 2~~- 4
point of style, practically stands alone. t Such simplicity of construction can of course to some extent be paralleled from the Synoptic sources, particularly from Mk. But not even in Mk.
in
does
it
vogue which
it
has in Jn.
SureKpifrri
KOI
tl-n-ev,
we
noticed
that the Synoptic equivalent subordinates the prior action by use of the Aorist Participle, e.g. 6 8e airoKpiO^ etTrev, i.e. the natural
Greek construction.
struction in Jn.
Though we
36
e.g. i
/ecu
fyfiXfyas
Ae'yet
it is
far less
common
than approximate count yields the following figures, the proportions of which are worked out according to the
in the Synoptists.
An
pages of
WH.
* The asyndeton construction is also frequent in Rabbinic Hebrew (under the influence of Aramaic), though here in description of past events the Perfect is Several examples are cited by Schlatter (Sprache, pp. 25 f.). normally used.
Cf. e. g.
'
par. v. 18
He
said to them,
Who
are ye ?
They said to him, We are the messengers of the What are ye seeking? They said to him, Thus saith
%
We
may
note that
v. z
contains
pp. in
WH.
58
I
8
THE SENTENCE
Aeyet auruJ Na.OavaijX
26
. . .
aTreKpiOrj
(contrast
Mt. I7
Kat
7^
etTToVros Se 'ATTO
TWV dAAorptW,
avrw 6
.
'IryaoiSs.
r)v
TL<S
Lk. 21
/?ao-iAtKos.
rtvwi/
AeyoVrooj/
etTrev).
46
T/A^ev
ow
/cat
*HA$ov
ow
ot
Kai,
<l>apio-aibu9,
.
Kai
aurots
eKeti/ot
'
28 (contrast Mt. S
VTryvTrja-av
Mt. ly 14 24
O.VTOVS o
2 1 25).
1'
Kat o-Koria
'I?7(roi}s
16 (contrast Mt. 8
oi/^tas
Se
yei/o/x,ev>;5
.
TrpocrrjveyKav aura)).
1O
2! ' 24
Kat Treptezrarct
6 'Ir/o-ovs
29
ei/
ra>
tepw
The
place of the
Twv
8e
a temporal clause introduced by ore, a construction for which, as compared with the Synoptists, this writer shows a relative fond21 ness. Neglecting cases in which ore has an antecedent (e.g. Jn. 4
ep^erat
4 25 23 25 wpa ore. So 4 , 5 , 9 i6 ), there are 16 cases of ore introducing a temporal clause in Jn., as against 13 in Mt. 10 in Mk., 10 in Lk. If Jn. were as long as Mt., there would be propor, ;
tionately 21 cases;
if
as long as
13 cases.
The occurrences
of
clause in Jn. are 16; Lk. 16; Mt. and Mk. none. In cases where the subject of the ore or o>s clause
the
same
as that of the principal clause, the temporal clause so introduced of course takes the place of an Aorist Participle in the nominative. These in Jn. are oYe, 6 24 , i3 12 , if 2 19 -^ t 2 i 18 ; <k, 2 9, 4 MO, j j6.2o.29.rs.3Y 2I 9 There remain 8 cases in which, the subject
,
j^
the Genitive absolute might have been used of the d)5 clause. These are ore, i 19 , 2- 2 ,
of the ore clause being different from that of the principal clause, and 5 similar cases ;
45
i2 16
17
,
13=",
2ou>s
4
,
2i
15
;
J>9,
2
;
23
,
12 - 16
,
10
i8
6
.
ore 6,
Mt. ore 7
Mk.
9.
ore
Thus
clause takes
the place of a Genitive absolute are in Jn. 13, as against Lk. 14,
Mt.
it
7,
Mk.
Though
as against 53 pp.)> and also contains much more narrative, to which, in distinction from speeches, by far the greater number of such temporal clauses belong. Thus we are justified in finding
in
WH.
compared with the Synoptists, a preponderance of temporal clauses introduced by ore or ws, which serve to explain
Jn.,
as
THE SENTENCE
(along with
59
parataxis) the comparative rarity of the Genitive absolute in this Gospel. Now the use of *"]?> "I?, Syr. o 'when' to introduce a temporal clause is very common in Aramaic. This is the ordinary
clause which
construction employed in the Syriac versions to render a temporal Greek expresses by the Genitive absolute. The first
in
Lk.
Lk. 2
Pal.
Syr.
Ufomo
*CDQ>+*O
]6o
*o
in
the
hegemony of Q.
the
S/
Sin.
)ljcuf
S.'
Jjcoa^pj
UD<XL^O
^LA^
'in
years
of
Q.,
governor of
Lk. 2
4
'
2A3
^c* ^\>OA^ CLCX^CD ^+Ji w<Y>\Ul ^ )6ot ,oc v>\, ^oo ),j^<x> oLajLol/ 'And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast; and when they had fulfilled the days, &c.' Construction of Sin. and Pesh. identical.
Pal.
Syr.
jfcooc^ o
Lk. 3
Pal.
rjyefJiovevovTOS
HOVTLOV IIiAaTov
yq.>o^p>
T7)$ 'lovScuas,
KT\.
Syr.
)u?c<o
^>cx^X^
'.
oao^^ia
)6o
,0
'when
uo^A9
'.
hegemony of
Lk. 3 la
iv rats
/capStats (LVTUV.
Pal. Syr.
'
v oov^^=>
Now when
the multitude
la^ajso
]6ot
*f
all
of
them were
Ujjo 'And
minds'.
^^K*o o^
him were
men
ooo
V> V.
)cot
60
ooo
John, and
all
'
THE SENTENCE
Now when the people were speculating concerning of them were debating in their heart'.
Se
ev ro>
fiaTrTio-Ofjvai
aTravra rov
A.O.OV
KO!
'Ir/(rou
*o
uaas^
.
cu.fcv3l/
^o
^^i^
'
Nw
o^oa "*^>/ ^
came
to
;
**!
f*-^^
all
i*
P ass when
the
multitude had been baptized, and also the Lord Jesus had been baptized and had prayed, that the heavens were opened '.
oo *..aa_s. x^o*... &( \^ ^ CH^XO )co .^a.^ too ^And when all the people had been baptized, Jesus UsQjk, cu*J^L/ also was baptized. And when He was praying, the heavens were
Sin. Joot
JJ
-*5
opened
Pesh.
'.
J)-aa
.do
w>
it
^a^. ^{o
came
IL^XX o*Xs
..N^.V.
^ ^?
Joo
UXY,
cu*^lsL/
'Now
to pass,
when
all
^>
)oo
^|^?
on which
He
fasted,
^o
'
and
after forty
days
them, afterwards
He was
cases occur in which Mk.'s ore with finite verb (suiting the theory of an Aramaic background) is altered into the Genitive absolute in the other Synoptists.
Two
(Mk.
-I
32
ore 18 v o ^Atos.
Se TOV fjXiov.
40
Mk.
original
Mk. also has o^t'as Se ytvoi*tvr)<; before ore ttv o TJ\IOS. If this is part of the Mk. and not a conflation, and if Mk. wrote in Aramaic, the text must have
in
the evening,
I'Tjn
when
the sun
was
set'.
it
It
NEW
NW1
was
it?
was
set'
we
have
THE SENTENCE
It
is
61
'when 'with
to Semitic,
finite
finite
bling the Genitive absolute in Greek, is not but is specifically Aramaic. Hebrew uses nptf2
common
'
when with a
'
verb .somewhat rarely, but far more frequently employs the Infinitive construct with pronominal suffix, and prefixed 3 'in' or 3 'as'; Further, it has e.g. ir)is<~O 'when he saw*, lit. 'in his seeing*.
a usage of the Participle absolute (cf. Driver, Tenses, 165) closely the Greek Genitive absolute, and regularly rendered resembling In the passages where this construction occurs in be found that Targ. Hebraizes its Aramaic to a large extent, while exhibiting a tendency to use the true Aramaic construction. Pesh., on the other hand, regularly breaks away from
by it O.T.
in
it
LXX.
will
Hebrew construction, and renders by *o when with a finite verb. The English renderings aim at exactly reproducing the
the
'
'
Semitic constructions.
Gen. 42 35
ip&ja
1DD3
nm
WHO
on
Tn 'And
it
came
to pass, they
LXX
avTwy, KCU yv
avroiv.
xm
'.
pn^p^
ppno p^N
n'.m,
exactly
Hebrew.
Pesh.
)*>
o>flftr>>
it
'And
his bale
i
'.
olAD *A^m^o ttJo* o )ooo when they were emptying each man's bundle of money in the mouth of
>>.
came
to pass that
Kgs. i3
20
m.T
nm vn
|r6e>n by
nu^
nn ^nn
'And
it
came
to
'.
pass, they
LXX
Kvptov.
/cat
Targ.
'
mn
11
Dip
|o
nNU3 D^HQ
mm
And
it
came
to pass, whilst
they were
mm
= then)
there
Pesh. I-^D?
oco.^9
)oo
)jol^3
^x
^>kJ
came
ao
'And
62
2 Kgs. 2 11
to pass, they
'y\
THE SENTENCE
PK
331 rum -o-n -p^n
D^n
ncn vn
'
And
it
came
going on
LXX
apfJLOL
i8ou
TTVpOS KT\.
Targ.
iro p5>w
p:w
iv
mm
'And
it
came
were going on
going and
*>
talking,
and
(=
Pesh. Jicu?
|oo
^a^o^o
'.
^\\>tt
'And it came to pass that when they were and (= then) behold, a chariot of fire
2 Kgs. 8 5
i>X
ycuo
newn rum nn n n^nn n^N 'And it came to pass, he telling ^cn the king how he (Elisha) had raised the dead, and, behold, the woman whose son he had raised crying unto the king '.
npJTC
LXX
,
ws eia7rvpr)(TV vlov
/3ooxra
TT/OOS
yvvrj
rjs
avrf]<s
TOV
Targ.
ma
n^ 'nNi
xnn^
ni
KJVD n
11
nn K3D WK^D
^*J?
Kin
mm
oo
Pesh.
U^^
>+&
oi^
*~+l* jlfco/
JjL*
)^A-^>
la^^i^
)k>L]^
'And when he was relating to the king that he had saw the woman whose son he had raised making
2 Kgs. 8 21
li'nxi?
nyn D^I
it
vi>y
auon DHK ns
.
nD s i
nW
Dp Kin
Tn
'And
smote
home*.
Edom
he arising (or arose) by night and who surrounded him and the people fled to their
to pass,
.
.
came
LXX
o-avra
CTT'
KOL cyeyeTO avrov avacrravTOS, Kal cTrdYa^ei/ TOV 'ESw/x rov KVK\(I)-
avrov
MUTpi
5
,
SWN n NHCI
11
Nii>^3 Dp Nin
mm
^oo
Pesh.
00*^0
o^, ^x*^>^
(us.^ofJJ
oo^j? tN\.a p^
. .
.
^And when he arose by night that he might yQo^uiAjsciX and (= then) destroy the Edomites who were surrounding him
the people fled to their
Uxx
homes
'.
THE SENTENCE
2 Kgs. is 21
nvian ns* i&n
63
rom
t?
N D'-op Dn
TOV
Tn 'And
Kat
it
came
iSov
to
'.
L-XX
Targ.
Kat
eyevero avrwv
l$ov
rov
im Nm N13JI p-Dp firm iy nini And it came to pass, whilst they were burying a man, and (= then) they saw, &c/ Pesh. )tti^ oJL* )-^ ^-^ ycuo oo 'And when they were
nn^B
'
n*
fe>
'And
his god,
it came to pass, he worshipping in the house of Nisroch and Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote him '.
LXX
A. Kat ^.
otKtt)
avTOv cTraragav
O.VTOV.
s
nivt3
THDJ
n3 n^o wn mm,
otoic
^CQ-
^d
oo
'And when he was worshipping god, A. and S. his sons killed him
'.
in the
house of N. his
Casus pendens. Hebrew and Aramaic to simplify the construction of a sentence, and at the same time to gain emphasis, by reinforcing the subject by a Personal Pronoun. Such reinIt
is
characteristic
of
forcement
is specially favoured if the subject happens to be further defined by a relative clause, since otherwise the sentence would to the Semitic ear appear involved and overweighted. The same
principle
is is
when
this, for
the sake of
emphasis, brought to the beginning of the sentence ; and other oblique cases may be similarly treated. Examples in Hebrew are
Gen. 3 12
me p^njnj
PS?T?
N!|n
gavest to be with me, she gave j o f the tree and I did eat ; Gen. 15*, 'But one Kin) that shall come out of thine own bowels, he shall be thine heir'
,
'
) j
Gen. 24 7
'
from
my
before thee
Yahweh, the God of heaven, who took me He shall send (rf>^ K*n) His angel Deut. I3 'All the word that I command you, it shall
' ,
,
24 ' ye observe to do' (nibj VTOBTI ink); Ezek. i8 , In his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them ' shall he die (n; D2). See further, Driver, Tenses, 123 y Obs.
64
THE SENTENCE
'
37 38 Elan. 2 , Thou, O king, the king of kings, Similarly in Aramaic ' to whom the God of heaven gave, &c., thou art that head of gold
(fcarn
Dan. 3" 'Those men that took up and Abed-nego, the flame of the fire slew Shadrach, Meshach, them' pro ^ M?> ten >Bj?) Dan. 4 17 19 , 'The tree that thou
i
nBten
wn
nnjK);
king' (K?ijo wr\ nn3K) ; Ezr. 5", 'And moreover, the vessels of the house of God, &c., them did Cyrus the king take out (Bnte ten pSJn) o f the temple of Babylon';
sawest, &c.,
it
is
thou,
Ezr.
4
,
'
All priests
impose
tribute, &c.,
and Levites, &c., it shall not be lawful to 6 upon them' (&i"i\?J[ Kt?"??r); Ezr. f 'Every one
,
law of thy God and the law of the king, let judgement diligently be executed upon him pat? ^33$? Kin?). This reinforcement of a Casus pendens by the Pronoun is a
'
marked
T
12
We
may
note the
following illustrations
o<rot Se
18
ifaywruuf re/cva
eou ycvtcrftu.
I
I
/xoi/oyevJ)?
33 26
32
aV
rou Trarpos
//-oi
e/ceiVos efjyy^craTO.
{8aTt e/cetvos
CITTCV.
3
3 5
^ ftera
yap av
orov
t8e
OVTOS ftcarrifai.*
5" 'O
a,
e/cervos Troir),
ravra KCU
36
5
TToioi,
ra yap epya a
/xaprvpet Trept
aura ra epya a
on
6-
Trarryp /xc
omit the
/xaprupct,
comma
Tre/xi/^as
after
TTOUU,
a7r(rTaXKev (we should surely and make aura ra cpya the subject of
/xot KrA..)
<<7
Kat 6
5 6
s8
o SeScuKev p,ot
jjirj
aTroAecrw e^ aurou.
6 46
7
ou, ouros
8 26
AaAw
.
.
ei?
TOV KOCT/XO^.
IO l 6
r^s ^upas
* Schlatter (Sprache, pp. 49 f.) quotes a number of instances from Rabbinic Hebrew in which fT[ "Hi"! 'behold, this one, &c.' reinforces a Nominativus pendens.
Thus e.g. Mechilta'on Ex. i6, D 10.X1 DIM ^3K ' HD li? ^"'^ ^D ilJDN IDinD HT nn "inO? 'Whosoever hath what he may eat to-day, and saith,
What
shall
eat
to-morrow
? behold, this
one lacketh
faith.'
THE SENTENCE
IO
2
65
TO.
epya a
Trept e/xov.
1248 6 Xoyos oV eXaXrycra e/ceivos Kpivet avrov cv rr) fo-^drrj 1249 6 Tre/xi^as /xe Trarrjp auros /xoi ei/ToX^v SeStoKci/.
12
^u,epa.
14
13
6 TTtOTCVCOV CIS
/X
TO,
epytt
a eyw
14
21
fat ort av
aLT-qo-rjTC.
I4
26
6 dyaTraiv
/xe.
I4
2
I5
Trav
K\rjfji,a
15
2
o /xevwi/
ci/
e/xot
Kayw
^eXw
ei/
auTw OVTOS
<^>epet
KapTrov TTO\VV.
I7
4
I7"
o 8eS(OKas
/xot,
ii/a
OTTOV eittt
eyw
/ca.Keti/oi o>o~u>
7TIO)
/XCT
e/xov.
l8
TO
TTOTT/ptOl/ O 8e8wKl/
ttUTO
Against these 27* instances in Jn. we can only set 11 in Mt. 20.22.23.SS 2l U ^13^ ( 4 , I3 3523^ 4 j n Mk> (gW ?20^ ^11^ n 14 15 i 3 ), and 6 in Lk. (8 i2 48 2 o 17, 2i 6 2 3 5 52 ); and of these Mt. 4 16
16
)
^
-
^
,
Lk. 2o 17 are O.T. quotations. Of course it cannot be claimed that the use of Casus pendens it is a familiar to go no farther specifically a Semitism, since
Prof. Moulton remarks that 'it is one colloquialism in English. of the easiest of anacolutha, as much at home in English as in
Greek'
(NTG*
i,
p.
69).
its
The
fact
which concerns us
is
the
remarkable frequency of
occurrence in Jn. as compared with the Synoptists. If Lk., for example, is a fair specimen of Koivrj Greek, why should we find that a construction which occurs there
An is employed in Jn. with six times the frequency? answer is forthcoming in the assumption that a common adequate Aramaic construction has been exactly reproduced in translation.
but 6 times
Abbott (JG. 1921) adds io35 36 bv o irarrip rjyiaaev *ai a-niareiXtv " Whom the Father sanctified ... do on vfjitts
-
ets
rov
KO<T(JIOV
\tycTf
'
"B\aa<pr) fiefs /
ye say
[to
him]
. .
Thou blasphemest
our theory
? ", best
explained as
Cf. p. 109.
[ItfftVos]
ov.
is
38
,
by Abbott)
on
a mistranslation.
CHAPTER
KCU.
OUV.
III
CONJUNCTIONS
As compared
narrative.
The
with the Synoptists, KCU in Jn. is infrequent in occurrences, as given by Abbott (JG. 2133 ; cf.
Bruder's Concordance*, pp. 456 ff.) are, Mt. about 250 times, Mk. more than 400 times, Lk. about 380 times, Jn. less than 100 times.
to
the
p. 50), partly to
ow, which he uses some 200 times, as against Mt. 57 times, Mk. 6 times, Lk. 31 times, /cat is frequent in Jn. in speeches, linking co-ordinate clauses, as in a Semitic language. A striking
Semitic usage or 'but*.
may
is
be seen in
its
employment
naturally
to link contrasted
'
we should
employ
and yet
'
This
it
most frequent
4
,20
>
in speeches,
though occasionally
we
C^
i6
5
,
find
T 10.11
>
upon
*
his narrative.
20
t
10.11.19.32
>
-39.40.43.44
.10
,-4.19.30
>
7
16 17
-
O20.52.57
O30.34 9
>
T T8 LL
>
TO 34 ) *
l
'Of every tree of the , Cf., in Hebrew, Gen. a thou mayest eat; and (but) of the tree of knowledge of garden ' 2 3 Of the fruit of the good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it ; 3
20
, ' ,
29
2i n .
we may
eat
fruit
of the tree
which
not
is
said,
Ye
shall
eat, &c.';
I
behold
I
20 21 'And as regards Ishmael I have heard thee; , ly have blessed him, &c. And ( But) my covenant will
'
'
32
(Heb. 32"),
life
have seen
'
God
face
to face,
this
and
= and
yet)
my
is
preserved
(other instances of
common usage
' ,
usage in Aramaic from Dan. 2 5 6 If ye make not known to me the dream and its and (=but) if ye interpretation, ye shall be cut in pieces, &c. shew the dream and the interpretation thereof, ye shall receive
;
The same Oxford Heb. Lex. p. 252 b). where it is equally common may be illustrated
in
of
me
5 6
-
gifts,
&c.*; 3
fall
down
CONJUNCTIONS
;
-
67
and worship the golden image, &c. and ( = but) whoso falleth not 17 18 If our God, whom we serve, be able to deliver down, &c.' 3 and (but) if not, be it known, &c/ us, He will deliver, &c. 4 7 'And I told the dream before them, and (=yet) its 4 (Aram. 4 ),
'
In a
make known to me '. Hebrew and Aramaic 'and may very idiomatically introduce contrasted idea in such a way as to suggest a question, this
*
So
I
my
mother
Behold, Hebrew, Judg. i/j. have not told it, and shall I tell
,
in
16
'
to
it
my
father
thee ?
*
and
(lit.
unto
'and to thee
servants of
Sam. n 'The ark, and Israel, tents; and my lord Joab, and the
11
,
/ go
into
*
!
my lord, my house,
are
to eat
field
(lit.
and
shall
'and / shall
252).
go, &c.
p.
The
in
Ada
fco/
)lu>
lol^ms
fcojo .^xl^fcoo
summer; and
t">N.V> w?JJ*>
.|]^0ft
^ttO
wx\.v.
QV>..V)^.
*k-^
lord,
wfcojo.
myself from
my
me
U/
'
!
^*
Uo
ju^jk,
r **
\!
ts^liy U
^.oo
us,
^.^i*
*
!
kta>/
fco/.
'Thou
how we were
fco/
ss)^-i
shut up
With
^^cu9
to
(p.
.*>)
Jk^^S
'
JL
^-xu^e
sittest
)^/
oj^p^
I
t">^.v>
?Jco.
Thou
and hearkenest
vain words; and king Mazdai in his wrath is seeking to * destroy thee In a precisely similar way KCU introduces a paradox in several
is
treated
220 TeoxrepaKovra
^/xepais cyepets avrov
10
/cat e
;
3 5v et 6 8i8ao-/caXos TOV 'Io-pa^A Kat ravra ov 8' HevTr/KOVTa trr; OUTTW ^s /cat 'AySpaa/A ewpa/ca? ;
F 2
68 9
s4
CONJUNCTIONS
'Ev d/Aaprtats
'Pa/?/?et,
<rv
II 8
vw
The
10
Semitic.
e.g.
Some few
//,
cases of
/cat
SayS/SaroV
6
eorti/, /cat
a>i/
OVK eeo-TtV
a>
6 57
/ca#ws
ttWoTctAei/
/cd/cetvos
Tra-njp /cdya>
6 rpwyiav /AC
Trio-rcvo-oro-tv
/cat
>7<ri Si'
/cat
e//,e,
II
48
eai/
dc/><o/*,ei/
Traces
/cat
ets
auroV,
eXevtrovrat ot 'Pco/xalot
/cat dpoOcrti/
I0VOS.
in Jn.
by
'
this consecutive
is
rj^v connexion
TOV TOTTOV
is
TO
expressed
extraordinarily frequent
(200 occurrences).
original
it
and
('
and so ')
Aramaic
in
many
inserted by the translator to introduce a sentence which stood asyndeton in the original. The cases cited by Abbott
(JG. 2191
translator.
it
due
'
to the
Ow is
but sometimes by
= 8V.
piv,
simply;
U,
yap.
^eV,
which
is
The occurrences
*
very rare in Jn., is infrequent also in the Synoptists. are, Mt. 20, Mk. 6, Lk. 10, Jn. 8.
as he had
The writer's conclusion as to ovv given above stands before reading the words of Prof. Burkitt in Evangelion 1 In the course of working at the Syriac equivalents for S. ovv it has occurred to me that fundamentally they mean
worked
it
out
:
da-Mephwreshe, ii, p. 89 Mark's *vOi>s and S. John's the same thing, and that
" waw consecutive". they really correspond to the Hebrew Not, of course, that either of these Gospels is a translation from the Hebrew but if the authors
;
were familiar with the Old Testament otherwise than through the awkward medium of the LXX, they might well have felt themselves in need of something to correspond to the Hebrew idiom. The essence of the meaning of " u'div consecutive" is that the event related is as in due
of these Gospels
wholly wanting in the Hebrew: the turn of thought is more or less our English and so ". But this is exactly what S. Mark means by his xal evOvs, and it is what is generally meant in the Fourth Gospel
is
<
To
link,
by
tell
ovv.
(/ecu
(vOvs
Simon's wife's mother was sick of a fever and so they tell Jesus of her Mk. i 80 ) S. Mark does not mean to emphasize the haste they were in to
:
Similarly in S. John there are literally scores of verses beginning with ^Trey ovv or ttirov ovv where "he said therefore" brings out too prominently the idea of causation. All that is meant is "1DS S | " and so he said'', or "and so
the news.
they said", as the case may be.' That ovv corresponds to the Hebrew secutive was noticed by Ewald. Diejohann. Schriften (1861), p. 45, n. 2.
wdw
con-
CONJUNCTIONS
69
Se is uncommon in Jn. and Mk. as compared with Mt. and Lk.* The numbers are, Mt. 496, Mk. 156, Lk. 508, Jn. 176. t
are 7J in
Thus, while the average number of occurrences per page (WH.) Mt and 7 in Lk., in Mk. they are only 3| and in Jn. 3J. Now W. Aramaic, like Hebrew, has no equivalent of 6V, both
'
languages employing
opening.
and
'
an asyndeton
is
there-
fore strongly suggestive of translation from Aramaic in which the Semitic use of ' and ', or of no connective particle at all, was
In Syriac the need for such a particle as 6V was, under Greek influence, so much felt that the Greek particle was
usually copied.
The occurydp If Jn. were as long rences are Mt. 125, Mk. 67, Lk. 101, Jn. 66. as Mt., there would be proportionately 86 occurrences; if as long
as Lk., 92 occurrences
;
in Pal. Syr. **? di. ^*? den, less frequent in Jn. than in the Synoptists.
if
If
Mk.
if
as long
In
W. Aramaic
H?,
Biblical
Aram.
^ 5^^|,
much more
many
In weighty, bearing rather the sense because, since. cases in which Greek would use ydp, Aramaic would be
'
simply ; and this may account for the comparative infrequency of ydp in Jn. Syriac, feeling the need for a light particle like ydp, introduced it in the form -*^ ger.
content with
fro.
and
'
The frequency of Iva in Jn. is one of the most remarkable phenomena in this Gospel. The approximate number of occurrences is 127 whereas in Mt. we find 33, in Mk. 60, in Lk. 40. If Jn. were
;
as long as Mt., there would be proportionately 163 occurrences; if as long as Lk., 178 occurrences if as short as Mk., 101 occur;
rences,
iva IMJ
occurs in Jn. 18 times, in Mt. 8 times, in Mk. On the other hand, ^T/TTOTC in the sense
not', 'lest',
never occurs
in Jn.,|
whereas
it
is
found
in
twice, in
Lk. 6 times.
some 5 times
by
only, Sir John
In Apoc. 5f
is
t The numbers
p. 151.
Hawkins,
HS
J Similarly in Apoc.
we
70
CONJUNCTIONS
Now
there exists in Aramaic a particle in origin a demonwhich is used with peculiar frequency to denote various
strative
shades of connexion.
or ^
de, in Syriac as
?
in
W.
Aramaic as
it
dl
As a
particle of relation
denotes
who, which, that (properly a connecting link between the relative sentence and its antecedent that one, usually completed by a pronoun or pronominal suffix in the relative clause; e.g. BV "V?K ^
'who he
when.
said to
him
',
i.e.
'to
It
<
K3jW
n*l
may
it
be used as
'
whom he said and also the relative a mark of the genitive, e.g. MP?B>
'),
'
Further,
sense in
that.
that,
the captain, that of the king '). especially frequent as a conjunction, that, in the inasmuch as, because, and in a final sense, in order
(lit.
Our purpose
of
^|
is
to
show
all
the
senses
relation.
or
except
that
which
marks
the
genitive
frequent occurrence of <W in a telic sense calls for no comment, beyond note of the fact that the use of Iva prj to the
exclusion of /^TTOTC favours the theory of
literal translation
Iva
The
of the
Aramaic phrase
junctive
that,
CT
'
that
not'.*
= con-
followed by a
finite verb,
is
where
in classical
Greek we
should expect an
KOII/T}
Infinitive,
a well-ascertained characteristic of
Greek, and has come through the KOIVT; into modern Greek in the form vd. What 15 remarkable, however, in Jn/s usage of this idiom, as compared with Mt. and Lk., is its extreme frequency.
This
is
also
though
to
a less extent
true of
Mk.
and
it
is
instructive to notice
how many different expedients Mt. or Lk., or both of them, frequently employ in order to get rid of Mk.'s u/a, whether used in a final sense or otherwise.t
Mk. 4 21 Kcu
cXcyev avrois ort
r)
M^rt Ip^erat
',
TfOfj
Mt. 5 15 ouSe Maioocny \vyyov Kai TiOea<nv avrov Lk. 8 1R OvSets Se AV^VOJ/ ai^as KaAvTrrct avrov
VTTO
rov
{JLoSiov.
17
trKevci
VTTOKCITOJ
Hebrew
Iva.
^ ibwatv
fQ 'lest', Isa. 6 , by /x^irorc (as in LXX) rots o<pOa\nots KT\. (cf. p. 100).
l
to the writer
by
CONJUNCTIONS
(
71
Mk. ov yap ecrrtv KpVTrrdv eav /xry tva ^avcpw^. Mt. IO26 ov8cv yap eo^Ttv KKaXv/x/xevov o OVK a7roKaXv0^o-Tat.
'
^Lk. o
ov yap
eo"Ttv KpvTTTov o
ov ^>avepov yev7yo~Tat.
ets
rj.
Mk. 5 18
^ a t e/M/3aivovTO5 avrov
avroi;
avT09 8e e/x^as
d<>'
ei's
TrAotov VTreWpei^cv.
TO.
eSetro 8e avrov 6 dv
ov l&XrXvOei
Mk. 5 23
Mt. 9 18
/cat
Aeywv
ort
To Ovydrpiov
JJLOV
e^et, Tva
eA^wv
fTTiOfjs
/cat
tSov
ap^wv
apTL
ets TT/aoo-eX^wj/
fjiov
CTeXevTTyo-ci^,
dXXa eX^wv
CTrt^es
T^V
^P a <rov
avrrjv, Kat
^o*Tat.
Lk. 8 4142
/cat
/cat
avrrj
Lk. 8
5f>
ctTreti/
TO ycyovos.
Mk. 6 2
eXw
CTTI
TrtVaKt TT/V
ySttTTTtCTTOV.
-!
/xot,
<f>fj(rLV,
wSe
CTTI
TrtVaKt
T^I/
K<f>aX.rjv
'Iwavvov
TOV
ySaTTTto-Tov.
Lk. om.
Mk. 6 4
Mt. Lk.
9
I4*
6
9*
Mk. 9 9 Kat
Mt. 17
Ti/a
Lk. om.
Cases
in
which Mk.
s u/a is retained
Synoptists are
Mk. 6s6
Mt. i436
72
CONJUNCTIONS
=
Lk. 9 21 ); Mk. 9 18 = Lk. 9 40 (contrast Mt. i7 16 ); Mk. io37 = Mt. 2o 21 ; Mt. 2o :u = Lk. i839 ; Mk. i2 19 = Lk. 20 28 (contrast Mk. io48 Mt. 2224 ).
In face of this evidence
it
Mk.
resulting in elimination of
which
the construction with Iva are merely accidental. Mk.'s use of Iva, in proportion to the length of his Gospel is 3 times as
Mt, and 2^ times as frequent as that of Lk., must have appeared to these latter Evangelists to some extent Since it is generally acknowledged that offensive to normal style.
frequent as that of
in other respects
influence,
it
is
reasonable
may
under discussion
Aramaic
or
"],
in
of usage, Mk. so
frequently represents.
If, however, the theory of Aramaic influence may be taken as accounting for the excessive use of Iva in Mk., the case for such influence in Jn. must be regarded as much stronger still, for Iva is
there proportionately nearly twice as frequent, while it is some 5 times as frequent as in Mt., and some 4^ times as frequent as
in Lk.
It is instructive to
the Greek of the Gospels varies between the construction of Iva with finite verb and the Infinitive construction, and that in these
the Syriac versions normally represent both constructions by ? de followed by the finite verb, i.e. the construction which, on our
theory,
is literally is
rendered by the
aios
Iva
construction.
IKCH/OS)
One such
27 ov Jn. I
introduced by OVK
tifu
[eyo>]
ct/xt
aios (or
A.VOXD
OVK
Iva
avrov
rov
Ifjuavra
TOV
Pal. Syr.
OMOCUI,?
J^ja^
]+++) Jail
)u
Sin.
*otCLLm^D?
otCLLJBJ*>f
I
^;^-
Jjjk,!?
joe*,
U
U?
|o|9
oo
OCM
Pesh.
1
(Lo*^. ]i*.i?
JaX
I
am
His sandal
His sandals
CONJUNCTIONS
Mk.
I
7
73
ov OVK dpi iKavos Kv\f/as Avo-eu rov t/xavra TWV vTroS^/xarcov avrov.
Pal. Syr.
^ooimx>
JfcvSi-^ )**-
y***** ~JLsoo?
W
I
W^?
a*
v?
Sin.
deest.
Pesh.
'
"? Oc
am
Lk. 3 16 ov OVK
Pal. Syr.
Toy
avrov.
**<x.a*?
Jl^i^
)i*-?
)Lo?
\jf
fc^^?
)J?
y?
Sin.
^ojcamJio?
-oici.ai.-vo
I
U*-^ )^1?
]ijw!?
I^CLJ^
oo co
Pesh.
|u3^w
[j/
I
jo*,
JJ?
am
Acts I3 2 ov OVK
Pesh.
'
atos TO
V7rd8r;/xa
TWV TTOOWV
l>/
Avo^at.
-oiim.^?
I
U-^
)t*-l?
)jL U?
001
His sandals'.
with
its
am The
not worthy that I should loose the latchets of rendering of Pesh. is here verbally identical
i
27
.
rendering in Jn.
19 - 21
Lk. i^
OVKTL
ei/u
aios
Pal. Syr.
Sin., Cur.
Pesh.
I
]&l!
^9 M
that
I
JcuL
^nx>
Uo
'.
am no
In the
longer worthy
passage
et/xt
Mt 8 s
Lk.
f where we
have the
Iva
construc-
by
with the
7'
finite verb.
Lk.
Pal. Syr.
Sin.
om.
?
I
Pesh.
'
o?
a*,
oc
I
Therefore
should come to
Thee'.
Thus out of
have the
with
?
all
27
and Mt. 88
Lk.
7*
Iva
construction,
is
which
used
in all
and
74
Again, o-v/^epci
is
CONJUNCTIONS
followed both by the
Iva
construction and by
the Infinitive, and both constructions are represented in the Syriac versions by ? followed by the finite verb.
50 Jn. II
<rv[j.(f>cpL vfjuv
Pal. Syr.
io-aa-.
AJ^>
.*.?
^. c^
Sin.
'It is
and Pesh.
Loaaj
J^^
**?
u-jas
man
should die*.
Jn. l8
cru[A(f>epL
Pal. Syr.
L<MMU ^.u^
.**?
oo>
o^
Sin.
'
and Pesh.
good (Sin.
10
iojL )*^^
fitting,
(*AS Pesh.) Do
It is
man
should die
'.
Mt. I9
ov
Pal. Syr.
'
+>
It is
'.
JlW
^.N
'.
-AS
J)
It is
crviufrepei Iva is
6
.
The
'lovSatoi
construction
/a
o-WTi0e//,cu
/a in
Jn. 9^,
-5817
ol ya/o o-weriOeivro
ojJLO\oyrja~r)
reproduced
Pal. Syr.
)fcok*io
with the
finite
verb
so
oo?
^ao
)>cu ylj yOofcJL=> U^JOOM oJ-oU? ]6o ;.^ i-ao ^IA^J )OM I-^AX>. In the other two occurrences i^jk
of
(rwTi'0e/Acu, it is
tive,
and
:
this again is
followed by the normal construction of the Infinirepresented in Syriac by ? with the finite
Lk. 22 a~vvf.0f.vro avrw apyvpiov SoOwu, Pal. Syr. oXis-.? O-D Anr>o oC^ 'they agreed that they should give him money'; Acts 23 ol 'louSatot a~vvfOfVTO TOV epwr^crat crc, Pesh. t ytv> ci^rtJf O=IA**M verb
'
the
...
a/a irapartO^a-Lv
.
Mk. 6
.
41
,
that Lk. Q 16, Pesh. reads yo^^mjf OOM 'gave they might set in both places (Pal. Syr. and Sin. desunt in Lk.); 38 in Lk. S eSctro etvat a~vv avrw is rendered by Pal. Syr. |jx
. . . . .
.
ot'yiv
)o-?,
by
Sin.
)oo
)^
. .
was
.
per
is
Him
',
as in TraptKaXci
Iva
H AJ))? ypot)^
ja3 ooo,
by
Sin.,
CONJUNCTIONS
Cur.
75
ooo by Pesh. *j)U ycu? oj ^? o U uuJJ? yQj/ *A& 'He commanded (Pesh. warned) them that they should yoj-aalo 43 as in /cat Sieo-TCiXaro avrois TToXXa <W KrX. of Mk. 5 tell no man
yo^lj
JJ
',
Such
illustrations could
Iva
as a mistranslation of
the most that
relative,
who
'
',
which
?
.
So
far,
we have accomplished
is
to establish
a good case for the hypothesis that the excessive use of Iva in Mk., and still more in Jn., may be due to the fact that the
writers of these Gospels were accustomed to think in Aramaic. The frequent use of the Iva. construction in place of an Infinitive
is
from Aramaic
for
to exaggerate the
an Aramaic-speaking Jew, in writing Greek, would naturally tend use of a Kou/rj construction which resembled his
native idiom.
Iva in Jn.
own
Now, however, we have to notice a usage of which can hardly be explained except by the hypothesis of actual mistranslation of an original Aramaic document. There
are several passages in which Iva seems clearly to represent Translate a mistranslation of ^ employed in a relative sense.
them
into
Aramaic
in
by "H, and an Aramaic scholar would, without question, give to that ^ the sense 'who' or 'which'. 8 This I OVK rjv tKLVO<s TO <co5, dXX' iva ]JiapTvpir)o-r) Trepl TOV </>O>TOS.
passage has already been discussed
in
accepted interpretation of Iva with a telic force (p. 32). 'but (he came) that he involves the assumption of an ellipse relative bear witness, &c.' If Iva is a mistranslation of might
**[
The
no such
the light,
5'
' He was not passage meaning, but one who was to bear witness of the light'.
avOpi&Trov OVK
literally,
r^w
Iva
fiaXrj
fJL
cis rrjv
.
. .
KoXv^rjOpav.
;
Pal. Syr.,
quite
UjamaX
^fc^.
|LsDi
M^ k*^ +j&.
The
.
'
is,
put
me
'.
6M
Tt ovv
o-ry/^etov,
Iva tSw/Aev;
l^uij?
^iL
i/
fcs./
The sense intended may well be, 'What thou which we may see?' though, since the final
l_v>.
sense of ^ would here be appropriate in Aramaic as in the Greek Iva, the evidence of this passage is not pressed.
76
CONJUNCTIONS
6D
OUTOS CfTTlV 6
/AT)
<Z/3TOS
U/tt
TIS e
O.VTOV
<}>dyy KOL
a-rroOdvy.
lovu
}Io
ojJ
the
eat
bread which came down from heaven, thereof, he shall not die* (expressed in
shall eat thereof
IvOL
**
Aramaic, 'which a
man
and
Kttt
TtS
o*
fCTTLVy
KVpL,
'
7riCTTVO~a>
CIS
OVTOV
Pal.
Syr., quite
^oo. ^A^OM? 'And who is he, Lord, on whom I should believe?* (the Aramaic construction is, who I should believe on him *). This meaning is surely much more natural and appropriate than is
literally,
oo
doubt,
'
the final sense given to Iva by A.V., R.V., 'that I may believe on him*, which can hardly fail to make us discount the quality of the man's faith, suggesting, as it does, that his gratitude to our Lord made him willing to believe on any one whom He
named.
16
I4
Syr.,
aXXov TrapaK\r]Tov
quite
literally,
v>.bw.
SOJCTCI
vfuv
Jc**?
lira
17
rov cuwva.
Pal.
;v>.v
^~Lw
^icu
yaa\ OOM
shall give
oo
meaning is, yoo another Comforter, who shall abide with you for ever *.
]^\^\
'qui'.
The
natural
'He
you
mq
)
So
(vt.
passages
is
a mistranslation oi
1 relative be thought to need further evidence to clinch it, this 2 and the parallel may be found in the variation between Mk.
2G passages Mt. io
<f>avp(i)0f)
is
Here Mk.*s
Iva.
ear
/XT)
Iva.
a.7roKOi\v<f>OycreTai,
/XT)
and
in
Lk. by
o ov ffravepbv yevijo-erat.
Thus
eav
<f>avp<i>0f]
seems
clearly to represent an original V?W] i^r^ 'except that which shall be revealed*, i.e. 'which shall not be revealed*, and this
is
JJ?
on
In Jn. Q
1 '
Tt
on
r)vea)^ev crov
TOVS
6<f>6aX[j,ov<s
the use of on
convincing.
'
very awkward, and the 'in that* of R.V. unThe passage, however, at once becomes clear when
is
that 6Vi
simply a mistranslation of ^ relative thou of him who hath opened thine eyes ? This
is
*
That
iva is
here a mistranslation of
"H
relative has
Einleitung*, p. 15.
CONJUNCTIONS
sense,
77
is
which
is
given
vg.) is
'
qui aperuit
'
'.
rendered by Pal. Syr. l^cua ^sof \j\i **> l>}, which would Aeyw This meaning, naturally bear the sense, I who speak the truth '.
is
which
verse,
'
he
is
a liar
'
of the preceding
offered by the Diatessaron ^jjl 'who', and by two MSS. of % (vg.) 'qui'. In our notes on the Prologue a similar case
of mistranslation
KT\.
(cf.
is
suggested in
i
'
16
on
e*
because, inasmuch as seems and, conversely, "] 4 to have been wrongly treated as the relative in i 13 (cf. pp. 29, 34). case in Mk. where on seems to be a mistranslation of ^ relative
p. 39),
'
(<5)
is
41
Tt's
apa OVTOS
ICTTLV
on
r)
OdXaaaa
vTranovei
avrai;
'Who
then
'
is this
the
sea obey ?
avrw) even the wind and (w Another may very possibly be seen in 824,
.
whom
Mt. I3 16
on us oevopa 6pa> TrcptTrarowTas, where the on may represent a wrong rendering of ^ (ovs).t In v/xoiv 8e (JLaKapLOL ol o<J>Oa\fjiol on ySAcTrovo-ti/, Acat TO. wra [V/AWV]
the words on pXtTrova-iv
.
. .
on
by
O.KOVOVO-W,
^oo*,?
. .
.
^*l~ 9,
they see, &c or which see, &c.' The latter sense is given by the and by several MSS. of % Diatessaron Ju~J jJl ^jJl, audiunt '. Hegesippus quotes the vident (vt. vg.) 'qui quae
',
^J
yu,a/<a/3tot
ra wra
HE.
Since Hegesippus (according to Eusebius, was a Hebrew by birth and made quotations from Syriac and Hebrew, we may infer that in this case his quotation is
d/covovra |
iv.
22)
based upon a Syriac translation of Mt. The rendering of vt. here and in the passages previously noticed shows the influence of a Syriac version upon this translation, and illustrates the natural
sense which a reader of Aramaic would attach to the particle
the contexts in question.
so-called
?
in
Conversely, the
is
Western
text
n
*
aTre^avev,
el
TOV
WH.
,
J Cf.
p. 15.
;
loc.
edit. alt.
p.
213
present writer
owes
to Dr.
Four
78
Iva,
CONJUNCTIONS
as a mistranslation of
=
""]
when
'.
have noticed, when speaking of the usage of ^, that it can bear the meaning when ', ore. Strictly speaking in such a usage it is relatival which ', with ellipse of in it W3\ which in it
'
We
'
'
'
'
'
= 'in
Iva
which';
cf.
s8
Jn. 5
where
ep^erat
IC^A, tJL/.
:
The
I223 IXrfXvOev
^
wpa
*sk^*
)fco**<
Li/.
^^
cv avTOv
fj
Li/.
l6
Ip^erat
wpa
u/a
Pal.
l632 ep^erat
Pal. Syr. v
ti/a
.
(TKOpTri<r@f)T.
^'ii?
b^
|ui/.
That in all these cases Iva simply stands by mistranslation for ore, and that no mystic final sense is to be traced in the usage such as is postulated by Westcott, is proved by the use of the normal phrase
wpa
ore in
21 23
'
5%
l6
2i)
and
cp^erat
wpa
iv
28 y in 5
on
In 98
similarly a mistranslation of
*]
'
when
'.
01 ^ecapovi/re?
we have
a very
awkward
on,
aforetime, that he
and R.V.'s halting rendering, 'they that saw him was a beggar', is the best that can be made
Clearly the sense demanded is when (ore) he ' when ' has and the natural inference is that ^
'
of the sentence.
was a beggar
',
'
that
'.
Another clear
COTCV
same mistranslation
'
is
on
because he saw his glory'), when (ore) he saw His glory 'A
(R.V.
v. i)
* Freely quoted in the letter from the church at Lyons (Eusebius, HE. the correction li/ u 8oei for 'Iva . . 80^77 lAeuaerot Kaipbs cv $ irds 6
.
with
t It is just possible that on may here be a mistranslation of "^ relative 'These things said Isaiah who saw His glory and spake concerning Him', but the sense
'
when seems
'
to
be preferable.
CHAPTER
IV
PRONOUNS
cyw,
Tjfxels,
cru,
great frequency of the Pronouns of the first and second persons is a marked feature in Jn. The occurrences in this
THE
Mk.
17
Lk.
23 4
5
Jn.
29 9
5 18
31
~92
134 27
l8
?/**
(TV
3
10
II
27
21
~80
v/ms
Totals
60 68
307
U
Thus
of
3**).
-
a large extent this phenomenon finds its explanation in the fact that the Fourth Gospel is designed to prove our Lord's
31 Messiahship and His Divinity (2O ).
To
at the
opening
mission
St.
John
in
the
Baptist
contrast to
his
fyw
(i--awi
(
Our Lord
'-
lays stress
-
3036 635 -10 414 4851 54 , 8 12 42, IO79 U 14 1S 5 " 4 121419 9 M ii i2 i4 i? is20 8 ), is , i6 , i8 ), or His acts (15 bringing Himself into antithesis with others the disciples, the 32 8 2934 36 34 45 s 15 216 22 23 "'- 38 45 55 io 10 18, i2 26 47 Jews the world, &c. ( 4 5 , 7
upon
25
,
14 - 26
33
:<7
i626, 17). Emphatic /* is frequently antithetical to eyw, and implied or expressed antithesis often accounts for the use of ^/xets and <rv.
17
5c ( .io.i
I5
,
6)
^H&.SO).
-
or
-
He
,
de fi nes Hisrelation to
(5
6 57 8 166
,
18 26
-
io 30
When all such cases have been taken into consideration, there remain, however, a large number in which the Pronoun appears Thus yw in to be used with no special emphasis.
8o
/C63./0 u
,
PRONOUNS
7
-17
,
014.16a.21a.29.49.50.54
c 4 - 7bis
, ,
T<~ 17-27.28.35 10 ,
n
;
T T 27-42
,
TO 50 12 ,
in
i
16
,
TO 7-18.26 13
14
H5
,
4.106.126.16.28
,
i5
"--*
7
;
-
i6
-"-M
7
10
, )
M -^-w I8 ;
,
^fc
6
26
,
42 69
-
7
,
8 48
24 29
-
I9
o-v
-
in 3
,
26
,
4
i
io e4
,
34 376 14, i8
-
fywfe
in i
35
*^"-...
;
8 31 46 9 19 30 ii 49
,
13
,
20
Now
", i 5
3 166
-
greater or less emphasis is extremely common, we also find them employed without special emphasis in order to mark the subject
In Hebrew, and still more in Aramaic, the used with great freedom to describe an event as Participle in process of continuance, whether in the past or present, or as in process of coming into being (Futurum instans). In such cases,
of
the Participle.
is
it
is
of course
necessary to
it, pronominal, by the Pronoun. This Semitic usage of the Participle being foreign to Greek, the in translating the Hebrew of the O.T. naturally represents
mark
when
it
is
LXX
it
by a Present, a
Perfect, a
Future,
c.,
and,
so doing, might
well have dispensed with the Personal Pronoun. As a matter of fact, however, the translation nearly always retains the Pronoun, and that, almost invariably, in the position which it occupies in the
original, before or after the verbal form.
Cases of
in
frt
^K,
^x, 'I
14
|yi
13 43
-
St'Sw/u,
lyu,
32
24
2Jf:i
>3b
,
I5 nan
,
with the Participle expressed by eyw 4 "VDDO "obK fyw eVayw veroV, 9 12 7 1 nn T \vrrj< "ObK ? Kpwu 30
',
1
e'yw,
&&
,
<?
y ^ lo-r^a.
.
25
12 20 5 18 s9 2f, 28 si 32 42 48", 49
,
are 37
l6 - 30
.
Genesis
Cases of umx, 'we', with the Participle expressed by T^/ACIS 13 Kings are Gen. i 9 njn Dip^n-nx ru D^n^n^D '3
:
in
Airo'XXvfiev
^/is
^ets
8
,
TO./ TOTTOV
.
.
TOVTOV,
43"
^3
i8
Aia
TO-
apyvpLOv
^/xet? eto-ayo'/xe^a,
Num. IO29
I
26
.
'E^atpo/xev
i
ets
TOV
3
,
TOTTOI/.
So
Deut.
,
28
,
22
Sam. i4
f)fJiCi<s.
Kgs. 22 2 Kgs. 6\ 7
396fs
No
of
Similarly, in Genesis
n^T
7rao-av
rrjv
yrjv
Kings there are 40 cases of nriK thou 15 expressed by o~v (e.g. Gen. i3 HPiSips ^Kn"b3 and 35 rjv cru 6pas), as against 14 without a~v
:
<
'
cases of BfiN 'ye' with the Participle expressed by Ex. l68 D3'h? DP.K "^^ D^nbpn'nS TOV yoyyvo-/>wv
V/ACIS
(e.g.
PRONOUNS
)
81
11 ),
avrot (Ex. lo
as against 6 cases
Without
v/xets.
In Theodotion's version of the Aramaic portion of Daniel and the of the Aramaic sections of Ezra we find the following
LXX
Greek.
TOK 'I':
Dan. 2 8 rux yr
is
y&
jo
'EV
T
olSa
pa
mn nj-n
? ^9v
cw
ey<u
Dan.
oi
Ezr. 4 16
K3p>
'
njPUK PVrtnO
:
yvtap^ofJLfv
fats
T<?
nnJN
thou
'
Dan. 4 15 ^n? nri3K1 o-{, Se', Aai/i7;A., 6 u.2i (16.20) ^^na nS-n^Q nri3K ^
SvVao-ai.
7jr6
Q ^os
o-
'ye*
Dan. 2 8
rT
xaipov
s
is
found in
aivw.
the Personal Pronoun is used more Aramaic with (e.g.) a Perfect where no special stress WI/J 5 apparent cf. Dan. 4" HVT ms ^ g v -]^JJ nyOB? njw
^^
Now
Thus
e.g., i
**?
26
PV1,'
l^l
IP
D $S
^3*3;
JX
In Other
find the Aramaic Pronoun coupled without special with a Perfect or Imperfect; e.g. i 316 <iAA' a/a emphasis
5
we may
ya>
82
JBJttD fljK
PRONOUNS
Again, in I the suffix of f^S naturally reproduces
p>.
WIK
nri
16
^ek
'all
Wvres
of us*.
eAct/Jo/xcv,
the
Particularly noteworthy
is
the throwing of
crv
to the
end of the
19
sentence, whether
OVKOW
0eoy>u>
/?a<riAevs el <rv;
19
on
Trpo^TJT^s
ct
(TV,
48
^a^apur^
et
(rv.
This
is
,
4 never found
elsewhere throughout the N. T. except in Acts i333 Heb. i 5 Ytos et o-u, a quotation of Ps. 2 7 with accurate fjiov reproduction of the
Hebrew order
nri
^3.
can, in such a
statement or query, place the Pronoun after the predicate or before it (as e.g. in Gen. 2f 4 ^3 nj nriK) and Jn.'s use of both 42 49 orders (cf. < T in i 3', f\ &c.) looks much like a close repro;
-
auros, OUTOS,
To
is fairly
frequent in Jn.
The
:
Mt.
Mk.
17,
Lk. 51,
Jn. 18.
Much more often, however, Jn. prefers to use an emphatic demonstrative OVTOS 'this one', CKSU/OS 'that one', and he employs
these Pronouns substantival ly with far greater freedom than do the The figures for ovros (corn?) as subject are Synoptists.
Mt. 35,
Mk.
14,
Lk. 36,
Jn. 44.
For
Keu/os
(-77,
-o)
Mt.
4,
Mk.
3,
Lk.
4,
Jn. 51.
Mt. 51,
Mk.
16,
Lk. 29,
Jn. 18.
the Personal Pronoun finds adequate explanation in the heory that his Gospel is a close reproduction of an Aramaic original.
In the Aramaic of Dan. the 3rd Personal Pronoun N*n hti as subject is rendered avros by Theodotion, except where it forms the
subject of a predicative statement in which the copula is understood, in which case the Greek represents it by the substantive
PRONOUNS
verb
'
83
'
e. g. 6 Ktii pow faithful (was) he = irwrros fa 6 ?H2 Wfi he (was) kneeling = ^v Ka/xTrrwv. Aramaic is richly supplied with demonstrative Pronouns. The
5
<
11
n^
d'na 'this',
fern, ttt
plur.
c.
oftz
;
p!h*
Y/,
passim.
Targums
p} den,
*n
)?
/kfaE
plur.
c.
=
is
hallen. both as pronominal subs, and rendered OVTOS in Dan. and Ezr. (in a few cases of regularly
Syriac
is
1
^o
nw
use
it
I? "!
represented by the definite article only). dikken this, that ', c., Dan. 2 31 I?*! ND^ ^
'
6 iKa>v eKei'i/>?
(LXX
c.
and
0.),
Dan. 7 20 21
-
|?1 KJT2 TO
Dan 3
12 21 23
-
6 12 16
-
(also
0.).
Plur.
^K
To
this
,
corresponds
in Ezr.
J
.
fem.
^ ^M
.^
this
^T
nnj? ^ ^dAis
^KH
16
Ezr.
15??^^ ; ^apjSay^p ^icctvos, 5 ; ^11 9T?K T n^2; (T t> v) lK ov TOV 6tov e/cetvov, 17, 678, O?KOV ^cov, 6 12 n^g 5 ' In addition, we find in Talmudic Aramaic Kinn hahu that or
4"*;
'
(i.e. 3rd personal pronoun hu + demonstrative particle contracted in Syriac into oo hau (Pal. Syr. also o|), fem. KVin ha),
'that one'
/f5^i (also
plur.
is
Syriac into **o hai (Pal. Syr. also !>), Syriac m. ycuot h&nnun, fem. hannen. This usage not found in the Aramaic of Dan. and Ezr., though we may
Nn), contracted^ in
^n hanho,
Pronoun
in
Dan. 2 32
NO.fe
wn
'that
is
'it
the image').
13
,
f
This
remarkably like eKetvos TO IIi/ev/>ia -n}? dAi?0et'as in Jn. i6 an expression which amounts to that Spirit of truth' or the Spirit, &c.'
(Pal. Syr. J^JICLO? )u.o> oio.
This version
IAJ^S oio
at
e. g.
6 ai/0pa>7ros.)
that
where
e/cetVos is
used adjectivally
would naturally be represented by Kinn. Thus 453 eKctVg rfj &pa would appear in the Jerus. Talmud as N;W *H3 (Cur., Pesh. <*a
Jks^*',
When
used substantivally as
subject
especially reinforcing a Nom. pendens (cf. p. 64) it is that e'/cetvos represents the Personal Pronoun Kin ; probable but there are other cases in which it looks much like a reproduction of Ninn.
Pal. Syr. represents
it
when
by o
(oU)
in 3",
f,
7",
1M2
;
G 2
84
:!5 -
P
,
R O N O U NJ5
-
Pesh. by e in 3 30 5 43 47, 7 U , 8 44 923 36 lo b5 i 3 25 , i 421 may note especially the rendering of oblique cases by Pesh. in the
1
-
2fi
We
following passages
30
3
43
fKtwov
Sti
avdveLv
= ks; NT>\
Do oo
5
5*'
eKcti/ov Xr)iJ.\f/or6
Tots tKcivov
0"i>
28
fJia@r)TV)<i
I0
33
et
CKetVovs
= coJ o-OQ^l Ooj k*j( (Sin. om. Oo?). ^eov? = Jo>>/ <J/ ycuo^ y/ (Sin. om.).
Greek usage. Again, the 26 'that one (is) he* in i3
,
In cases such as these the idiomatic force of the Aramaic demonstrative satisfactorily accounts for the
phrase
21
c/ceu/os eo-riv,
rendered oo oo
lit.
I4
is
one
in
We
hahu.
Adjectival use
particle
^.,
originally,
'
as
we have
*
already remarked
70),
demonstrative
relative
that
one
is
in-
Hebrew
T^,
For expression of the implied relation it is therefore necessary to complete the sense of the Relative particle by a Pronoun or Pronominal suffix in the
connecting two co-ordinate
sentences.
clause which
it
introduces.
I
Thus
'
e.g.
such a statement
'
as,
saw
the
man
to
whom
'
in the form,
to
him
'.
There
are several instances in Jn. in which the Greek copies this Semitic
construction.
i
6
'EyeWo wOpuTTos
ovo/xa avrai
'IwcWr/s.
Here the
relative
PRONOUNS
connexion
is
85
So
3*.
On
the
thoroughly Semitic character of this particular idiom cf. p. 30. 27 I ov eyw OVK eifjil aio? a/a AvVa) avrov rov laavra rov v7roS?7/xaTOs.
I
33
*E<^>'
ov
av toys TO
ITvev/xa
Karaftatvov
KOL
ll?
jievov
CTT*
avrov
Pal.
Syr.
^o\^
)>]^a.v>o
]^j
)uo
|.vw
y?o
lit.
'He who
is
thou seest the Spirit descending and abiding upon him '. 36 9 Kat TI'S o~rw, Kvpie, Iva TriorevVa) eis avroV; Here Iva
translation of the relative ^
26
;
a mis-
cf. p.
76.
/cat
I3
'EKCIVOS eVrtv
FpJ>
u>
eyw
y8ai^G)
TO ^tu/xtov
Stoo-w avT&i.
Peculiarly
I
Aramaic
wn wnn 'That
i.e. 'to
is
he de
shall
to
him',
whom
sop
when
have dipped
/xot
it '.
l8 9 Ovs 8e8wKas
Wellhausen
struction from
two instances of
this con-
Mk.
avrov,
viz. I
ov OVK
rj<s
et/xt
TWV
vn-oSrjfJuiT(av
and
2i>
in
use of a possessive pronominal suffix attached to the antecedent. Thus the Aramaic of Dan. writes 'His name of God* (2 20), 'in their
44 days of those kings (a ), 'ate their pieces of the Jews* (i.e. slans dered them, 3 ), his appearance of the fourth (3"), &c. Pal. Syr.
'
'
in Jn. i writes
'
their light of
mankind
'
'
(v.
'
),
its
news of the
'
light
'
(w.
19
7 8
-
'
),
),
in
18
'
(v.
),
his witness of
John
(v.
&c.
There appears
but this
is
so striking that it should surely count for much in In 9 18 we read the theory of translation from Aramaic. estimating TOVS yovcis avrov rov dva/SA.etyavTos, 'his parents of him that had
received sight'.
|oa~? y?o?.
n/s 'HpwSiaSos,
*
Cf.
Mk. 6 22
is
io-cX^ovo-r/5
T^S
Ovyarpos avrov
to
(v.
avrfjs)
which
clearly an attempt
3",
rf)
He
= Lk
by
is
ev
Whose
fan, &c.')
but this
very doubtful.
86
construction DJ"Vhrn
PRONOUNS
nrna *h er daughter of Herodias',
i.e.
*
the
ad
loc.).
is
the anticipation
'
of the
by a pronominal suffix. Thus Syr. renders oam. )jj*X ok- ~fcW he brought
16
'
in Jn. 19"
Him
(viz.)
Lord Jesus', I9 uam- );.^S> ok~> o;a> 'they led Him the Lord Jesus', iQ 34 o*^:^ ok~ +.<> he pierced it His side'.* An example of this idiom is seen in the Greek of Jn. 9 13VAyovo-tv
the
aVTOV
Cl.N^>
7T/3OS
TOVS
^--VJ
3>apl(ra.lOVS
TOV 7TOT
CK*^;2)
TV(f>\OV := Pal.
.
Syr.
Ot&s*
oVJ(
90O
)6otf
Oo^
LoX
No
Aramaic.
cases of the direct object of a verb so anticipated are found in Biblical find the anticipatory pronoun, however, in such phrases as
We
K*^9
n3
'
in
same night' (Dan. 5'), Sn^^nn^K f>V *fllbp IH^ Artaxerxes (Ezr. 4 11 ). A few cases of the construction are
Gramm.
ii.
227.
CHAPTER V
THE VERB
The
Historic Present
Historic Present
:
= Aramaic
THE
is
The
occur-
13
,
I&*.
I2 23 I3 26 38
-
'
I3
/iXen-ei,
29
,
201 5 2I 20 ;
'
J3\7rovo-w,
2l 9
26
St'oWiv,
I3
5J
,
'
21
13
.
eyeiperai, 13'.
II
'
38
,
J2 226s, I3 6 l83 20
, ,
2 - 6 - 18 26
'
2I 13
41 43 45
,
'
14
5
2I
Ocwpcl,
206 12 14 ;
26 fi,
Ocwpova-iv,
13
.
6 19
I3
21.29.36.38.39.41.43.45.46.4/.48.51
/;5.8.12.50
>
-6.50
O39
^
.-.12
7
,
>
T ^ 5.6.8.9.22
14
T 04.5.17 M.26.38W lo
19
Trk 4.5.6.9.10.14.15.26.27.28
,
o<-2.13.15 W.166tg.l7.19.22.27.29 20
24
vevci,
I3
Vy
,
I3
2
.
20
5
.
tvfLf I
t
iS29
29
gives a total of 164 occurrences.* The figures for the 2 Synoptists, as given by Sir John Hawkins (HS. pp. 143 ff.), are,
This
list
* Sir
in
Tischendorf
writer,
29
).
He
has,
who
has added
<j>aivfi
however, kindly lent his MS. list to the present 13 6 i (which may be open to dispute) and Mdoxriv ai
.
88
THEVERB
:
in addition there are Mt. 78 (21 of which are derived from Mk. 151 ; Lk. only 4 [or 6] ; Acts 13. 15 Presents in Parables); Mk.
It
this usage.
thus appears that Jn. closely resembles Mk. in fondness for If Mk. were as long as Jn., the former would show
The higher proportionate figure proportionately 195 occurrences. in Mk. is explained by the higher proportion of narrative to discourse in this Gospel. There are comparatively few cases of the 10 and 14 17.* Historic Present in Jn. 5 The use of the Historic Present in Mk. and Jn. strongly
resembles a
common Aramaic
past events the Participle is employed to represent the action described as in process of taking place. The following instances
of this participial usage are found in the Aramaic chapters of the Book of Daniel. Theodotion sometimes renders it by an Historic
Present or (more frequently) by an Imperfect; and when this is In other cases he employs an the case his rendering is added.
Aorist.
'(was) answering* (always followed by ">PN] 'and (was) 5 8 15 20 26 27 47 "---. "6 M.* 6 13 17 21 2 , 3 -% 5 , 4 7 *(this verb is saying'), a
-
n ?.y
frequently
omitted
24
.
' ,
in
Theodotion's
15 20 26
-
rendering).t
4.11.16 6J8.20.2J
,
f^V
'(were)
answering*, 3
c\ s)
2
saying
in
aa\nnrr
o z5 8
-
2'- 4 '
o ,3
14 - 19 - 24 - 26 - 28
A ,4
,-7.13.17
;
/C13.17.21
P"W?j?
'(were) saying', 2
7 10
-
9 - 16 - 24
,
6
5
6 - 7 13 - 14 16
-
f. Theodotion,
Ac'yet
in
227
Ae'yovo-ti/
<
2 10 6 13 14 16
'
IXeyoi/ in
',
3
'
r? K '(were) standing
i?
*,
3'
*T!i3
(were) hearing
. . .
(^/covov),
7
;
ovtKvvow),
'
',
PpBJ
(were)
coming
3
s7
;
forth
f?tn
26
',
(o-wayovrat)
'(were)
HS*pp. Hsf.
remarkable
that,
It is
though
we
we
do
not (with the single exception 3 24 ) find the participle plural pjy coupled with the
participle plural
perfect fay
JHDS1.
is
This
'aw
(Participle), but
TH;E
seeing' (cBeupow),
VERB
10
89
crying
(/cat
',
4;
2y/m<ov), 5
4 ; N") '(was 'and (were) writing' f2JpjJl njn '(was) seeing' (etfewpet), 5"; tn ??''? '(were) being
3^;
1
loosed'
K"?.iJ
6
;
(StA.vovro),
5
7
;
]\?-l
e
'(was) crying', 5
P^g"^
'
fwV, K rer?V '(were) entering ' (were) not being able (OVK ^vvavro), 5
',
(efVeTropevoi/To),
;
^$*JR?
(was)
'(were)
being
terrified
5";
'
fW
'(were) being
changed
;
I
',
5";
'
P^f
being perplexed
15
(o-wcrapoWoi/To), 5
YLjjT**?
able', 5
(ln-tvere),
5;
Vta"!?"^ Tl?
Mn
tnto
K?2flM
yovara
n
e^o/x,oAoyov/xvo9),6
'
2
;
|i?pD
(were) coming up
(avtpaivev),
npsn
. .
n^pl nbas
'
(was)
(eo-fltW
(was) trampling'
'(was) issuing
21
AeTrnW
7 19
'
(rweTraVet), 7
10
pB}1
133
and (was)
coming
'(was)
forth
'
(ctA/cci/),
7
7
making'
21
(eVotet),
The
action
we
thus find no
shows how
usage describing a past characteristic of the language the idiom is. highly
itself to
is
representation in Greek by
who
of the book in English, substituting the literal renderings given above for those of R.V., and remembering that the time-deter-
mination (was or
conclusion.
It will
is)
is
to
come
to the
same
be noticed
that,
the verb 'answer', and no less than 36 with the verb 'say', leaving 40 (or considerably less than half the total) to verbs bearing other
In Syriac the use of the Participle under discussion is practically confined to the verb 'say'.* In the 151 instances In of the Historic Present in Mk., 72 are cases of Ae'yct, Xcyovo-iv.
meanings.
Ae'yci,
Aeyovo-tv to
of
its
See, however, Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mephatreshe, use with other verbs in Sin.
ii,
pp. 63
ff.,
for instances
9o
the whole
fourths.
THEVERB
number
is
considerably higher,
viz. 120,
or nearly three-
That the frequent use of the Historic Present in Mk. is due Aramaic influence is maintained by Allen (Expositor, 1900, Oxford Studies in the Expository Times, xiii, p. 329 pp. 436 ff.
to
;
It
also the
offers
The Imperfect
6 18 3
vei,
22
.
I22
4
,
2
;
23
ipairritwro, 3
I2
22
.
6
.
I3 22 j
eyoyyvoi/; 6
41
.
3
,
I9
16
.
5
I9
12
29
I3
;
e^ow,
.
18
111 30
'
IO TO, II 8 56
'
21
,
18
4
.
s7
,
15
7
18
l8
,
62
5
;
I7
e!
6
,
X
II
I9
.
n
;
TX
i/,
2 25, I3 29
e? CTe,
41
;
e? oo-a/,
22 24
'
I5
20
63
29
I9
20 12
THEVERB
,
91
I2 13
13
eXaXct,
ZXeyev,
/
27
,
7
,
IO R
'- 19
,
22
>' 22
5
4lb*
23 27 6'-, 8
'
'
31
,
9
,
I229 33
'
33 42
"
iXeyov,
>
4
>
5",
6,
T/^l 8 lo
>
-11.12&IS.25.31.40
O19.22.25
>
.-.8.9
.10.W 16&Z8
;
1O
T/-.20.21.24.41
T 1X
T 36.47.56
To 29
A< ^
*
^OVTO,
f
2
.
I2 17 pL I
,
I2 6
>.
/.
47
'
39
;
>eXXoi/; 7
&
f7Tl<TTCVV,
2 24
38
.
466f
;
7r60-TVT, 5
*;
cVlWcVOl/, 7
I2 11
'
37
.
7TKtTO, II
eTrou.,
2 2 ', 5 16 6 2
,
4
I7
,
50
.
12
.
2I
12
.
2O 4
II
ifrdtTra,
36
,
19
I5
23
20 2
26
II
5
,
rjywvi^ovTOf
I3 iS 36
I9
2I 7
: ;
^ ra7r5re ; 8
42
,
28
I4
33
^Swaro
(eS.),
18
;
II 37
39 ^8wai/ro; I2
1
^cAes; 2i
^/coXov(9et,
2
,
^cXev, 7 l8 15
.
ij&Aw, 6
11 - 21
,
44
i6 19
ii 29
WXOVTO, 4
30
,
6 17 i9
,
:<
2o 3
4
,
47
;
rjpurwv,
, .
31 ' 40
,
15
,
I2
21
.
2 46 4 II 6 21
.
s,
2I 18 I2
11
.
TrepteTrarei,
23 54 II 5, f, IO
;
TrepteTraTOW,
6 66
vTrfjyov,
21
,
w/AoXoyovv, I2
42
.
92
THEVERB
The
total is 167.
in
Mk.
228 times; in Lk. 259 times; in Acts 329 times.* If Jn. were as if long as Mt., there would be proportionately 212 occurrences
;
if as short as Mk., 133. Thus Jn,'s use of as long as Lk., 225 the tense, though more than twice as frequent as that of Mt., is
;
considerably less than Lk.'s, and very much less than Mk.'s. The large amount of discourse in Jn. affords little opportunity for the
8 cases
use of the Imperfect. The last discourses, chs. 14-17, offer only while the bulk of the examples occur in chs. 4-12, where ;
Among
Jn.'s
and forms a bond of connexion with Mk.'s usage. has 46 occurrences, and Mk. 50; while in Mt. there are Jn. only 10, in Lk. 23, and in Acts 11. t It may be remarked that
attracts notice,
eAeyei/,
LXX,
Sir
but 40 cases.
frequent Aramaic usage, closely akin to the single use of the Participle above noticed, is the coupling of a Participle with
the Substantive verb in description of past events. Thus, in place ' of saying ' he did some action, Aramaic frequently says ' he
was doing'
The
it, thus pictorially representing the action as in process. instances of this usage in the Aramaic of Dan. are commonly
and Theodotion by a Greek Imperfect] though occasionally the rendering exactly copies the Aramaic by employing the Participle and Substantive verb. The following
rendered both by
are the instances of the usage in description of past events
:
LXX
Aramaic.
2 2
31
Literal rendering.
<
LXX.
ew/oaKas.
id.
Theodotion.
rijtn
s4
ntn
Thou wast
id.
I
seeing'.
id.
id.
rpin ntn
id.
<
e*a0evSoi/.
4
5
10
f&etbpow.
id.
rjc-av
19
PV?,t
1
^H
r
'
?}
vacat.
*at <oov/*cvot.
* Cf. HS.* p. 51, where the figure 163 for Jn. requires correction, as also the printer's error 12 for the occurrences of 6^77, which should be 2.
Cf.
US* p.
12.
94
THEVERB
The Present sometimes = the Aramaic
'Futurum instans'.
Participle as
The use
is parti-
We
may
note the
I I
15 2 '
-
OTricro)
JMOV
30
OTTtVw
JJLOV
cpxerat
'
avirjp.
4 -,
f,
on
l6 2 25 32
-
4
4
25
s5
oTSa
Mecrcrias
24
5 6 14
s7
7rpo<l>rJTY)s
7
41
7
42
M^
O-TTO
yap
/c
7
4
B^^Xee/x
ep^rau o Xptcrros.
9
11
3
6 Xpl(TT05,
TraA.ii'
...
I4
30
ep^o/tat.
I4
-
vv
<roi.
2I 22 23 *Eav
avroi/
^cXw
xei/eii/
ews
in the Synoptists,
This use of
pxo/x,at is
found also
though with
3 not nearly such frequency: Mt. 3" (Mk. i 7 ; Lk. 3"), Mt. 20 11 12 Mt. 2i 5 (quotation), Mt. 2442 (Lk. 7 ), Mt. I7 (eX^wi/ Mk. 9 ) 35 4344 :i940 As Mt. 27 49 Lk. 17="', 23 29 (Mk. i2 ), Mt. 24 ); (Lk. i2
; ,
.
in the
Apocalypse
/I
I22
6
,
<f>L\S)v
TTJV
tyvyyiv
,
avrov
airoXXvei
avrrjv (contrast
Mt. l6 :5,
Mk. 8 35 Lk. 9% I7 33
20
dTroAeo-ct
avr^).
ets c/xe.
I7
In
Aramaic
(as
also in
Hebrew) the
Participle is used as a
Futurum
In
all
THEVERB
in
95
which
it
sents
sense
in Jn.
is
has the sense of a Futurum instans, Pesh. repre2 the Participle, except in 14?, i6 , where the future by expressed by the Imperfect. Moreover, in the only cases
epxo/Aai
eAevVo/xcu,
48
we
find that
cAevVorrai oi 'Pu/uuot
apova-Lv
= ^*a*,
23
;
)tA*aoof ^.l|o,
TT/OOS
lit.
'and the
Romans
ola^o, (TR.
coming,
lit.
taking away'; i4
to
avrov eAevcro//,e#a
Trapa/tAr/ros ov
= ^1(
fjir]
'and
him We coming*
JJ
l6 7 6
t\6y
'
OVK eAevo-erai)
= )l/
Mt. 9
'[v.\ftfd y
lit.
Cf. elsewhere,
'
15
25
31
"Oral/ Sc
'When
7raT/3o?
the
^l/, lit. but days coming ; TOU avOpwrov = I^If o^s lit. ^-f ]li? |l,
:{8
orav cXOy iv
a^Toi)
= ^oco(?
)L*=>cLs )lj?
)o,
lit.
'when
He
coming
'
in
Aramaic of Dan.
are,
2 13
killed
(i.
e.
were about
men'
'they shall drive thee'); so ' ' wetting thee (i. e. they shall wet thee ').
Pys?
'they
Verbal sequences.
i
39
"Epxco-Oc
is
.
.
sequence an ark
.
'Come, and ye shall see*. A similar Hebrew. Cf. Gen. 6 14 Make ( n ^!) thee and thou shalt pitch (9"]??]) it within and without with
/cat
ctyecrfle
idiomatic in
'
'
pitch
so Targ.
'
Onk., nn;
^arprn
tf>
p.^-nK nn^ni
Jon.
P.ta|
T^y. Amalek
j
'
Sam. is3
so Targ.
in
-
^r.
See
for
further instances
19 20 Hebrew, Driver, Tenses, 112. Cf. further in Aramaic, Ezr. 7 , 'And the vessels that are given thee for the service of the house of thy God, deliver thou (D^n) before the God of Jerusalem ; and
whatsoever more
is
needful
'.
(ifljri)
'
out of the
A eta
in
all
Thomae
(p.
uo>),
But conduct
yourselves (yofco/
humility and temperance and and in hope in God, and ye shall become purity, (^t^l ^oo.o)
oS?l/)
His household-servants'. This form of sequence is not (apart from translations from the Hebrew) so characteristic of Aramaic as it is of Hebrew, except where the sequence is clearly to be
96
regarded
THE VERB
(as in the last instance) as the result of the
preceding
Imperative.
"Epx<r$e Kat
This, however,
6\j/<r@e.
is
So
l6~
4
,
atretre
Change
in Jn.
I
is
.
.
32
3 a frequently-used Hebrew idiom; e.g. Ezek. 22 flDDB> T V D T> ^t' n a ^ty shedding blood and makes f!n and and makes', or 'shedding idols' (i.e. 'that sheds
and 5 44
to
Aa/A/?dVon-es, Kat
ov ^retrc.
D^a
'
making');
Ps. i8
:'
WD
V?b?
^]
i>|
fl
W?,
He
T*
lit.
my feet like the harts', and on my 'Who makes ... and sets'); Gen.
heights
sets
2f* njn, lit. 'the and one hunting venison and brought it' (i.e. 'who hunted See other cases in Driver, Tenses, 117. In accordbrought').
Kajl
ance with this usage, we should render Karapaivov ... Kat e/netvi> 32 not as R.V. 'descending in Jn. i .; and it abode', but
, .
.
'
descending
'
.,
.
5",
receiving
and abiding ; and Aa/A/^dVovres, Kat ... ov ^r/Tetre in and seeking not', or who receive and seek not '.
'
. .
.
'
This usage is remarkably frequent in the Apocalypse, and the cases have been collected and discussed by Dr. Charles in his
Commentary
'
i,
p.
cxlv
cf.
TO>
dyourwrt ^/xas
2a
Kat
cTrotr/o-cv
^/xas
Unto Him
that loved us
us',
R.V.
'
'and
He made
.
. .
after
'
i5
eo-rwras
.
Ibarras
Ki0a/oas
Kat aSovo-tv
standing
-
having harps
(A.V., R.V.
cases
'And they sing', after full stop, be seen in 2 2 9 , 3", 7", 13", 14".* may The construction is rather Hebrew than Aramaic, though i ;nto Kwy] KBbK-fD p-np PDJJPJ may note Dan.
we
TJ^J
KOI u uiv KO.I tytvofjujv vatpos, or ao 4 Not, however, (with Dr. Charles) at . (with rejection of ofrivfs as an editorial gloss) ras if/v^as rwv irfjrc\(KiafJifvojv ov ifpoafKvvrjaav TO Orjpiov. An essential element in the Hebrew construction is
. .
i 18
that the finite verb expresses the proper sequence of the Participle, which may be actually a sequence in time, so that the 1 connecting the finite verb with its
antecedent expresses the sense 'and then' t or as introducing the direct result, and so ' ; or a sequence in description in which, though the fact described may properly speaking be coeval with its antecedent, it follows naturally in the gradual
4
unfolding of the picture (especially frequent in description of types of character). do not find cases in which the sequence describes an event actually prior in time to its antecedent, as would be the case in the two passages in question. For
We
Hebrew.
THE VERB
.
.
97
.
'And they shall drive thee (lit. driving thee) from men and have it in Jn. i 32 with grass like oxen they shall feed thee '. oXi*. Ufcoo Pal. Syr. !]^>*j? )l^j, Pesh. fcv-cuao
We
In 5
/
44
^retre
.
.
is
fc^
^xmj vpW
Pesh. ^*J^
JJ
ypfco/
^>\^nv>
In the O.T. passages it is usual, both in Targ. and Pesh., to resolve the opening Hebrew Participle into a Perfect and then to follow it or Imperfect preceded by the relative
CHAPTER
VI
NEGATIVES
Semitic languages do not for the most part possess negative expressions such as none, never, but express them by using the
THE
Thus
'any
'
.
e.g.
.
.
Hebrew
not'
&
not.
.
5>3,
'none';
or,
<V
,*./,
commonly used in the sense 'any one', 'none* may be expressed by this term with preceding negative. So in Heb., ^ 1't. Gen. 2 H?? n v?? D 19 n "F? P lant of the field was not yet in the earth (i.e. no plant was yet, &c.'); Gen. 4 wi? tob-^3 faiarnian, lit. for the o/-smiting him of a/1 finding him
a
is
5
man
'
'^
'
'
15
<
'
(i.e.
nb>j)>-fr6,
'all
him should smite him'); Ex. i2 roN?D~73 work shall not be done' (i.e. 'no work shall be
16
50 ey ^K f"N, lit. 'there is not a man with us' done'); Gen. 3i no one is with us'); Gen. 41" Vrj-nK B?<K tfV-*6 TIV^? 'inde(i.e. pendently of thee # ;<* shall not lift up his hand (i. e. none shall
( '
'
any place Dan. 46 fj"73 D3N frO, lit. 'every secret does wo/ trouble thee' (i.e. 'wo secret Tjp troubles thee'); Dan. a 10 5>3V N^P ^P ^ X]?f?-"^y t^g "0^"N^
lift
up, &c.').
was
them
'
'
(i.e.
^^3
')
;
'
^L
J r
,
'
lit.
'there
e.
'
is
not a
man on
. .
show the
king's
matter
(i.
We find
in
TTtt?
the Semitism
:
^=
ja>)
two passages
6 7Tt(TTV(01/ CIS
6
//,
39
Iva
TTO.V
o 8e8wKeV /xot
fJLLVrj.
aTroXeVw
.
ti/a
TTttS
OV
(/X
in Mt.
Trapa
24
s2
Mk. I320
TTOLV
5
,
TOV
cov
piy/xa,
Ps. 143*),
Eph. 4*>, 5
(cf.
'
not', 'no
one
NEGATIVES
'No one
1
99
27
is
expressed by ov
/AT)
16
avOpuiros in Jn. 3
Ou
. .
/crX., 5'
avOpuirov OVK
e;((o
tva
j3d\r)
OuSsVore eXaX^o-ev OVTCO? av0pa)7ros.* In eis TTJV KoXv/JiftrjOpav, 7" 2 I2 14 ov yap ^XeVeis Mk. II we find e<' ov ovSei? ovVa) dvfyxoTTouv eKa@L<TV,
(but here there
is
a sense of antithesis to
TT?V
6Soi/ TOT)
eov following),
to
be no case of
'Never'
is
7
ov
expressed
in
cf.
l
in
Heb. Ps. so
j)
moved Ps. 93 ncn3-i>K Met me never be put to shame Ps. iiQ s^X 'I will never forget Thy commandments';
D^y|> DteK-5>3
I
shall never be
si
7i
2
D^yb
25
Isa.
nja?
xb
'
D^ij;^
it
shall never be
rebuilt
' ;
in
44 Aram., Dan. 2
i?3nnn
(p.
PD^
)i^^
^ Ada Thomae
'and they
'
JL^>)
^A-Na-^-V.
jp.^.^^?
)lcux^so.2>
yooc^jo
shall be with
id. (p.
Him
'.
in
the
yx^^
.
.
|Lo)^*^) ^.?
ho
Similarly, ov
^
:
ets
fj.r)
Sense 'never*
eis cis
14
4
ov
26
ov
rov aiwva, 8
ei?
o1
6a.va.rov
28
ov
fj,r)
@it)pr]o-r]
52
yu,^
ytvo-yrai Oavdrov
a.7ro6dvr)
32
rov aiwva, IO
8
ov
py
aTroXwi/rai
1 1
ov
/u,^
ets
TroSas
is
TOV
aicova.
Cf. also
K TOV in
OVK
fjKovo-Q-r].
The phrase
e/c
in
N.T.
II 14 ,
Mt. 2i 19 Ov
OVK c^et
/x^/ceri
a<^>co-iv
o-ov /capiros
yivyrai
I
TOV ataiva
/xr/
Mk.
Mk. 3 29
ct?
TOV aiava,
13 Cor. 8 ov
<^>ayo)
J
Kpea
cis
TOV ataiva.
To
from
express
'/^s/
Hebrew has
?B.
To
this in
from + 1, i.e. lit. 'since why?' This !, Targ. introduces a rhetorical question deprecating the taking of properly neb Dan. i 10 a certain course (cf. Oxford Heb. Lex., p. 554 a
tt>:
i^
noW Song
style).
7
,
Heb. phrase
in late
,
in Biblical
23 Aram., Ezr. y
and
'
the regular equivalent of Heb. fa in the Targg. *O ^ 'that 18 6 9 18 ; and in Pesh. JIf ... not' 'lest' in the Aram, of Dan. 2
is
that
not
sense
'
lest'
used indifferently with jla&^9 'since why?' as the equivalent of Heb. |B.
is
'
in the
avQpuTTos
rts,
is
4
,
23 ' 51
.
H 2
ioo
NEGATIVES
have
already remarked that in Jn. Iva fir) is regularly employed to the exclusion of firj-rrorc. The occurrences, 18 in all 16 20 15 14 12 39 5 3 4 , 5 6 ", (as against Mt. 8, Mk. 5, Lk. 8), are as follows :n :s36 35 40 42 46 50 23 These occurrences of 'that. i6 i8 I2 ii 37 i9 7
-
We
not' do not
following
eo
:
all
is
clear in the
3
14
<f>ws,
iva
fir]
cXtyxQrj
TO.
tpya avrov.
5
23
Iva. fir)
\tip6v
CTOL TL
ycvrjraL.
Iva.
fir)
ei
TrepiTOfirjv Xafifidvci
avOpwTros fv o-a/?/?aTa)
XvOf) 6 vo/zos
2s5
Tva
1
I2 40 I2
42
x,
?8(U(rtv
TOI?
<PapL(ra.LOv<s
aAXa
8ia
TOVS
ov% wfioXoyovv
Iva.
fir]
aTroarvvdywyoi
cXaX^Ka
1 1
v/xti/
8"
/Z^ fiiav6w(TW.
836
31
TrapaSo^w TOI?
'Iou8ai'ots.
IQ
tra
/x-J)
fieivrj
tTrt
TOV aravpov
TO,
(rwfiaTa.
/XTJTTOTC,
in Jn., is
a/a
py
Mest
be seen in the quotation from Isa. 6 10 which occurs in In this quotation the Heb. uses If 'lest', and this is
represented in
LXX
by
/xr/rroTe,
but in Pesh. by
JJ?
'that
not*.
Heb.
LXX
Pesh.
The
quotation
,
while Mk. 4 12
firJTTOTf
15 given in Mt. i3 in the ipsJssima verba of quoting more freely, yet has the firjiroTt of
is
LXX
LXX,
Jn.,
C7TL(TTpe\}/<ixrLV
Kol
Iva.
a<f>e@r]
fir)
O.VTOIS (i.e.
^2"}1
2W
fB).
however, rendering
toWu/
TOIS 6<j>QaXfioL<s,
phrases in order to use an Aramaic phrase which What evidence actually employed in the rendering of Pesh. could prove more cogently that his Greek translates an Aramaic
is
Heb. and
LXX
original ?
CHAPTER
VII
1
THE most weighty form of evidence in proof that a document is a translation from another language is the existence of difficulties
or peculiarities of language which can be shown to find their solution in the theory of mistranslation from the assumed original
language.
in the
Fourth
in
Gospel, and some of them have already been noticed preceding discussion. These may first be summarized.
the
The
wa on
particle
for
=[
"^
'
Iva.
or on.
= = Iva for ^ =
for ^
(cf. p.'
'
who
3050
14'
(cf. p.
16
75).
in i in
(cf. p.
76).
,
it'),
i2
2:{
13',
i622
77).
on
^
(cf.
5
,
for
=!
when
',
9*,
i2 41
(cf.
p. 78).
'because,
inasmuch
as',
mistranslated
as
a relative,
4 13
-
i2 35
Kara\afji^a.vLv
(cf. p.
^?
'take, receive', a
misunderstanding
&fln
of ^3j?K 'darken'
i
(cf.
9
.
29).
r)
= subst.
verb
N]L],
probably a misreading of
CKCIVOS
p. 33).
The ambiguity
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,
it
number
These may
/xoi
conveniently be taken
ianv.
IO
2<J
Trdvrwv
,
fJiti^ov
This reading
(boh)
and
is
therefore adopted by
io2
MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE
can only be rendered, 'As for hath given Me is greater than all'.
It
WH.
He
My
This
explained by
Westcott
to
mean
a complete body, are stronger than every opposing power. This 4 is their essential character, and "no one is able ..." Cf. i Jn. 5 .' The whole context cries out against the falsity of this exegesis.
Stress has been laid in the parable upon the weakness of the sheep, their liability to be scattered and injured by the powers of
evil,
In
the parallel clause their safeguard is stated to consist in the fact that no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand '. But,
if
Westcott
is correct, this
Again, the phrase 'greater than all' has, on this text, to be explained as 'stronger than every opposing power'; yet what authority is afforded by the context for thus Clearly the expression, as it stands without limiting its scope ?
is
which
incredible.
limitation,
is
applicable to
God
is
alone.
that
the
sense intended
that
which
given by the
less
authenticated
fj.oL
reading, adopted by R.V., 6 irar-qp pov 09 Se'Sw/ccV co-riV, which supplies the reason for the parallel are clause which follows. Yet there can be little doubt that
/xei<oi/ Trai/Twv
WH.
more
difficult
it
more
of
it.
since,
had the
latter
been
original,
is
Its origin
may
^
. .
... /ieiov. Possibly the first draft of the translation rendered ^ only as a neuter (o /xei^wv, N L \^), and the other readings are corrections dictated by regard for grammar.
either os
.
mean
/x.etwv
or
(rov
SeSwKas
fjioi,
Iva.
a><riv
cv Ka$o>s ^/xets,
and similarly
Is
it
in
12
z/.
,
cyw
cTrjpovv aurovs cv
TU> ovo/xari
is,
vov
u>
Se'ScoKas
JJLOL.
possible to believe
hast given
is
Me'?
Westcott
may
u well observe on v. ,
The phrase
very remark-
103
parallel except in v.
TTO.V
12
'.
of
SeSto/cas
established by V? tva
V.
6
(D?)J/
aluvLov,
K TOV Kooyxov,
wo-iv /XCT' e/xov,
V.'
HaTtjp, o SeSw/cas
ftot,
$Aa>
eyci)
KaKetvot
the whole burden of the prayer being the commendation of the disciples to the Father on the ground that it is He who
11
has given them to the Son. Thus ovs Se'Sw/cas /xoi, the less well and v. 12 certainly gives the meaning attested reading in both v. originally intended; yet in the Greek it must be regarded as a
,
correction of the
(N
A B C L Y *,
much more strongly attested reading KT\. is again found in the The solution &c.)ambiguity
There
29
another reading o (D* U X 157 al.pauc.), be conjectured to be the original rendering of the genderless 1 by a neuter, which easily lent itself to correction
of the relative ^.
is
which may,
into
o>.
like o in io
That the translator was capable of reproducing 1 by a neuter, and then completing the
TlaTrjp,
relative
tva
by a masculine,
et/xt
is
proved by
/
if
4
,
b SeSto/cas
o,
/>toi,
$eA.<o
OTTOV
eya
KO.KZLVOI wcriv
where
representing 'those whom*, is reinforced by Similarly, we read in if, u/a TraV o SeSwKas avrw Swo-ei aurot? aioii/toi/. Here irav o = the neutral ^ N?3, which may stand in
Aramaic
The same
TT/^OS e/xe
be seen again in 6A7, TTO.V o 8t&wriv /xot o irar^p phrase and here the sense intended is 'every one who' ry^e/,
is to
(cf.
the
'. not, /crA..), following :9 In 6 the neutral collective conception is continued throughout the Sentence Iva TTO.V o SeSco/cei/ /xot /x^ o-TroAeo-w c O.VTOV aXXa avaaTr)(rta
'
everything which
In
'the
Hebrew
there
is
whole of ti'=' all of them', 'every one*. So Isa. i 23 'Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves; 13 all of it loveth bribes, &c.'; Jer. 6 'For from their least unto
,
cf.
Ex. 14%
Isa.
9,
I5
&c.
we may
on
'
notice
the
p.
This testimony,
io 4
MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE
in
is most naturally understood as a , reference to the fact that our Lord's influence was to displace, or
-
virtually repeated
zw. 27
30
that of
His Forerunner
(cf.
3).
Instead
rather have expected will become or is to He suggests therefore that the Greek yeyoi/cv may be due become.' to the translator's having supplied a wrong vowel to the Aramaic
*in,
we should
reading
it
as
^.L!
instead of
'
*)n
hawe
'
by-form of the Perfect njn hawd) (the Participle) which would bear the sense about to become '. Further, on TT/XOTO'S //.ou rjv
(a
hawe
me
P"ji2
'
may be due
'
to a
'.
misreading
''Q'liJ
kodamay of an
text
l|
original
kadmay,
first
Thus
the original
'He who
Because
i.e.
is
coming
after
me, before
me
will
become;
He was
the
because
He
existed
'in
the
Beginning'.
'
eov 6 aipa)i> rj]v a/xa/mW TOV Kooyxou. Dr. Ball while making some valuable remarks about the (op. supra), Aramaic original of the phrase 6 d/xi/os TOV 0eov, questions whether
I
29
cit.
the statement
which taketh away (or beareth) the sins of the world is original, on the ground that it antedates that doctrine of the which only came home to the Apostles themsuffering Messiah,
'
'
'
selves after the Resurrection (Lk. 24212f> )', and 'does not well harmonize with the general tone of the Baptist's teaching about
He therefore the Messiah, as reported by the Synoptists (Mt. 3) '. conjectures that the words 'may be supposed to have been added
by some editor of the Greek
text
who
who
wrote in the light of a later stage of Christian knowledge '. It may be argued, on the contrary, that the whole of Jn.'s presentation of the Baptist's witness, including these words, is
fully in
It is
reference of
referring to
alpw
105
which forms the main theme of the prophecy of Deutero- Isaiah, 40-55, with which ch. 61 (the opening passage of which is
1Gff applied by our Lord to Himself in Lk. 4 -), though probably the work of a later prophet, stands in close association as further
The
Baptist's
own
'
function,
am
(common
it
to Jn.
is
drawn from
Isa. 40";
and
is
therefore
mission
he
reasonable to assume that in preparing for his had made a special study of Isa. 40 ff., and was
impressed with the conception of the ideal Servant of Yahweh which these chapters contain. That he regarded himself as but
the forerunner of a greater One is a second fact common to all four Gospels ; and the relation of Isa. 40^ to its sequel might in itself serve to justify the conjecture that this greater One waspictured by
not,
him as
fulfilling
We
are
however, limited
really 6
to
conjecture.
Our Lord's
reply to the
disciples
of the Baptist
whom
was
ep^o'/Aevo? (Mt. of performing acts of mercy in their presence; and His shape answer, based on the things which they had seen and heard,
We
'
'
'to proclaim
5
'
them
be opened
man
Then the eyes of the blind shall 35 6 x w ^ot TrepnraroiW with Isa. 35 then shall the lame leap as an hart'; TH-W^OI emyyeXt^ovrai with 61' 'Yahweh hath
that are blind
'
',
anointed
me
to
words
os
of reproof with
preach good tidings to the poor'. which the message ends /cat
The
gentle
/xa/capid? eo-nv
ecu/ would naturally remind the Baptist o-Kav&aXio-Ofj eV e/xot not to range himself with those of whom it had been written, 'Like as many were appalled at thee, &c. J (Isa. 52 14 ), and 'as one
The reference
r
in Isa. is
but
it
should be unnecessary to recall the fact that our Lord's physical miracles had alwa3 s their moral analogue, and depended for their performance upon faith in
the recipient.
Isa. 35,
which
is late, is
based upon
Isa.
40
ff.,
and develops
its
thought.
106
MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE
whom men
hide their face, he was despised and
from
we esteemed
him not*
(Isa. 53*).
From
fact
these considerations
we deduce
fulfil
that
though not understood by the Apostles, was in some measure If this was so, since the atoning work realized by the Baptist. pictured in Isa. 53 formed the culmination of that role, can it be
maintained that the words
in the Baptist's
6
atpwv rty
d/xaprtW TOV
KOO-/XOV
are
Jn.
improbable a - 34 i he states that he had no previous knowledge of Him , Whose coming he was heralding, and did not know how to
recognize Him till it was Divinely revealed to him that the sign would be the descent of the Spirit upon Him. This revelation
mouth?
where Yahweh
6I
1
states,
as saying,
'
and
Isa.
is
represented
Yahweh
is
upon me'.*
Thus
evidence unites in indicating that it was the coming of the ideal Servant of Yahweh that the Baptist believed himself to be heralding, t
* Cf. the
way
in
at the
parallels,
is
modelled on
ad
7oc.).
'
28 perhaps significant that (apart from Jn. 3 } the title Xptaros Messiah His titles are o oiriaoj /ioi (px^pfvos Mt. 3 11 Jn. not employed by the Baptist. 6 epxofJLfvos simply Mt. n 3 Lk. 7 20 o afu'os TOV &eov Jn. i 29 36 u vius TOV Qtov Jn.
It is
is
27
,
i i
34 .
The
fact is evident that Deutero- Isaiah's conception of the suffering Servant did not enter into the popular Messianic expectation of the time (cf. a sermon by the writer on 77ie Old Testament Conception of Atonement fulfilled by Christ, published
the
by the Oxford University Press, pp. 10 f.) Very possibly the Baptist avoided title Messiah in order that he might not mista\enly be supposed to be heralding the political Messiah of popular expectation. That he was not alone
'
'
in
fixing his
King is proved by the Birth- narrative of Lk., where Simeon is described (a 25 as TrpoaSex'-'H* 05 "no-po.K\-qaLv TOV 'Io~pa'j\ a clear reference to 'Comfort ye, comfort ye my people', which forms the burden of Deutero3 Isaiah's prophecy (Isa. 4O and in Trito-Isaiah 57 18 6i 2 66 1US ). cf. also 49", 5i Thus, when this latter holds the infant Saviour in his arms and uses the words,
associated with the Messianic
)
he has clearly
in
mind the passage in the second great description of the ideal Servant where the words occur, I will give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be My salvation (or, that My salvation may be) unto the end of the earth (cf. also KOI ooav \a<v aov 'Iaparj\ with Isa. 46 13 'and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel My glory '). His knowledge of the third and fourth Servant-passages, where the Servant is pictured as meeting opposition, persecution, and death (Isa. so 4 "7
'
'
107
'Lamb
of God'
as used by the Baptist, and what is its precise force? The phrase does not occur in Isa. 53, where v. 7 which brings in the simile of a lamb, simply says that the Servant was ' like a lamb that is
,
led
to
the slaughter
d/zj/os)
(not,
'to
the
sacrifice'),
is
and
u
,
like
a ewe
(LXX
6
that
dumb*.
v.
The words
'
aipw
and
their
iniquities he shall bear', where the simile is dropped and 'My righteous Servant' preceding forms the back-reference of the
'The Lamb of God* suggests the sense, 'the by God* as a fitting offering, which reminds us provided of Gen. 22 s 'God shall provide Himself a lamb for a burnt 7 and and v. n of Isa. with v. 10 which v.
emphatic
'he'.
Lamb
offering';
combining
53
states that
it
to bruise him,
and
allowing for the influence of Gen. 22*, we may perhaps consider that we have accounted for the use of the phrase.
more probable
its
mean
it
'child', 'boy',
sense
denotes
so
also
in
(Gen.
22 3
in
'young man', 'servant'.* In the Pesh. e.g. Abraham's 'young men' Targ. Jerus.), the priest's 'servant'
-
6 13 m5 and the centurion's 'servant' Thus (i Sam. 2 ), (Mt. 8 ). 6 cyu/os TOV intended primarily to eoO may stand for Nn^Nl NvB, bear the sense, 'the Servant of God', i.e. Yahweh's righteous 12 53" , was to bear the sins of many. If this is so, there may well be a word-play in the choice of the term NvB, suggesting as it does the lamb-like or sinless character of the ideal Servant ; thus, the Lamb of God is a rendering by no
Isa.
'
'
means excluded by
of ' the Child of
52 53 destined
if/vxfjv
13
this
new
interpretation.
it
God
'
is
not unlikely that the thought ~ In zw. 31 34 the sign by which also present. t
is
obliges him, moreover, to warn the holy Mother that the child is become a <jrjfj.fiov avriktyontvov, and to predict KOI <rov 8t avrrjs rrjv Si(\(iiotTai pofjL^taia. Anna the prophetess and her circle seem also to have
),
12
to
rested in the
same hope
(cf.
Lk. 2 36
- 38
).
All this
is
it
bears
upon
*
its
stamp of
historical truth.
.
The fern, of this word, flithd l maiden', is familiar to every one from Mk 5 41 f Dr. Ball renders the assumed Aram, original, Behold the Young Servant or Child of God ', and does not bring the expression into connexion with Deutero-Isaiah.
'
io8
the
MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE
Baptist
to recognize 6 epxo/xeios, viz. the descent and of the Spirit, was, as we have already remarked, the sign of Yahweh's ideal Servant. After witnessing this, the
was
abiding on
Him
Baptist Says, *dyw ewpa/ca KOL fjijj,apTvprjKa on OVTOS eoriv 6 vtos roO eov. It is not impossible that 6 vtos TOV eov may again represent the
Aram. Kr6*n
primarily to
34
KD,
'
mean
God
'.
sufficient explanation
same term by
d/xi/os
in v.
but by
vios in
passage
Holy
If
Spirit.
be objected against this explanation of apvos sense 'Servant* that the term used in Deutero-Isaiah to denote
it
bond-servant
is
',
it
Aram. K'jny, properly regularly Heb. *n# be replied that the choice of NvB rather than may
is
N^fV N^iy
in
sufficiently explained
by the word-play involved. While Both Greek terms are indifferently used
is
LXX
is
which
2"
.
1:!
and
it
is
27 30
.
3, 4
Ore ovv
CK veKpcov, l^L^crOrjo'a.v ol
fJiaurjT(j.L
'
note the curious use of the Imperfect, He was saying ', He had said '. In where the context demands a Pluperfect,
'
We
Aramaic an Imperfect sense is indicated by the coupling of the 'amar with the subst. verb, while a Pluperfect is Participle ~^> commonly represented by use of the Perfect "^ 'amar similarly n coupled with the subst. verb. Thus N;n P^ 'amar hawa He had
'
said
may easily have been misinterpreted as K)n "?N "dmar hawa 'He was saying*, an unvocalized text in W. Aramaic affording (so far as we know) no distinction between the Perfect and the
Participle
'
beyond
that
which
is
In a
carefully written unvocalized Syriac text the distinction is marked by use of a diacritic point, below for the Perfect, above for the
Participle.
Thus
)oo
&*}
= 'He
had
said', )oo
;.W
= 'He
was
saying
'.
6 ra
TO.
p-rj^ara
I
a ryw XeXoA^/ca
v/xtv
seems
'
to
about which
to
you
(viz.
My
109
alwviov
like
and the drinking of My blood).* So perhaps in p^ara should mean, 'the things of eternal life*. Aramaic nVp, Hebrew "9^1 means both 'word* and 'thing'. Cf. for the
Dan. 2 8JO IM5
-
M v.
latter sense,
pfjfjia.
17
3
,
1 '-
28
,
16 - 28
.
s
;
7
cf.
It is
ordinarily rendered
9
or Xoyos by Theodotion
2 s curecm?
air
e/xov
TO
prjfjM.
Similarly Hebrew "9"n 'thing' is often rendered p^/za in 6 e.g. 2 Sam. I2 av@* u>v ort ciroirja-ev TO prj/xa Tovro.
s7 - 38
LXX
7
l/cpa^e
'Ey Se
Tfl
eVxarr; ^fiepa
TIS Sii^a
777
pcydXy
TTJS eoprfjs
target 6
*Iiy<rous, /cat
is
/ze,
Aeywi/ 'EaV
eTTrev
17
6 TTIO-TCVWI/
Ka^ws
ypa(f>r), Trora/xot
The
Lord here
caused great perplexity. The fact has rightly been recognized that it is a free combination of several O.T. passages which speak of a
river of. living waters which, in the Messianic age, is to issue from
far
and wide.
in
The 4f~
l
found
stated
Ezek.
*
~.
We
may
notice especially
v.
9
,
where
it
that
every living creature which swarmeth Ezekiel's conin every place whither the rivers come, shall live '. has been taken up by two later prophets. Joel 3 1S (4 18 in ception
it
shall
come
to pass,that
the Heb.) predicts that a fountain shall come forth of the house of 8 the Lord, and shall water the valley of Shittim ; while in Zech. i4
'
'
we
'
It
shall
come
;
half of
based upon the passage quoted from Ezek., where the word rendered the rivers is vocalized as a dual, ^^D?). may believe that our Lord had all these passages in His mind ; and in
We
each of them the expressions which are most significant are italiIn addition to these passages, it can hardly be doubted cized.
that, in
TIS litya.
tpxevOo
Trp6<s /AC
Kat TzWra),
He
was dwelling on
the waters.
.
.
55
lff
-,
'
Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to and come unto Me hear, and your
;
'
and Jer.
2",
the source
of
There
still
difficulty,
(p. 275).
no
is
MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE
Even
if,
as
of the distribution of the blessing 'in fuller measure* by its 14 6 57 5':6 ), the fact remains recipient (so Westcott, who compares 4
,
,
any O.T. passage and though we can understand that our Lord may well have combined the sense of the passages noticed above, and
that so doing
His reference would be immediately apprehended by His hearers, we cannot believe that He would have imported, or that they would have, accepted, an idea which is not found in any
O.T. passage which speaks of the water of life. The difficulty may at once be solved upon the hypothesis that the passage has been translated from Aramaic. As we have seen,
Joel speaks of 'a fountain ', Hebrew IJVP ma'ydn* ; and the word is the same in Aramaic (employed, e.g., in the Targum of Ps. io4 10
,
Prov. 5 16 8 28 ).
,
The Aramaic
it
for
'
'
belly
or 'bowels'
is
TV? me in
is
image
in
at
iJVP
once be seen
'fountain',
for
' '
an unvocalized
text,
would
5
fountain
-on
?jp"l
?pn
nj?T
TO1
'
^ r$.
IVno*
19
V?f^ ^}b
in
'mn
|ip
If 'fountain' is correct,
how
can
we connect 'He
?
that
believeth
little
Me'
that, as was recognized by the most ancient western interpreters, the clause really belongs to the offer preceding it. On this view the Aramaic yields
There can be
doubt
the sense
'
He
And
Me
Me.
him drink
that believeth in
As
the
the
is
worthy of note
its
allusion to the
fountain
i.
28
n3 JIN
npWl SV
>"*
JV3D
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." '. This passage follows directly upon a similar Midrashic deduction which was clearly in the minds of the people who witnessed our Lord's miracle
in
one of
',
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
When
the passage
to
was
trans-
Aramaic
was taken
mean, 'from
Me',
that believeth in
^yaAAta<raro Iva
ciSei/ /cat
in its original
form.
No
seems adequate
to explain
rjyaXXida-aro Iva
is
%,
and moreover,
if
we
the sense intended, the following clause /cat of forming a climax, makes mere tautology.
instead
expect the first clause to say is, not that Abraham rejoiced to see the day, but that he longed to see it, and that the satisfaction of this longing was
the cause of his gladness.
What we
construction with
Iva
(Aramaic
^ would
be natural
and
this
mean-
ing is expressed both by Pal. Syr. +xi~ll and by Pesh. )oo *.am.:*>. In Syriac w*cu in Pe'al and Pa'el (the form used in Pesh.) means both 'wished, longed' and also 'exulted' (cf. Payne Smith, s.v.).
The verb
reason
that
is
not
it
known
to occur in
W.
why
'
('exulted
at
of the loaves and fishes, and, in asking a farther sign, recalled the miracle of the Manna (6 14 30 -3i) Dr6 D3^ -DKJB> |DH TIN TT.F1 ^KU HO
-
TBOB ^M
fm"n
'
"Q HDD
first
'MB> fDH
HN T"W
fnPIK
wa ^N DWfl
|D
Just as the
the Manna, as it is said, " Behold, I am about to rain bread from heaven for you ", so also the second Redeemer shall bring down the Manna, as it is said, " There shall be a handful of corn in the earth "''.
*
(i)
What
what
is
of our Lord,
and
My
'
these questions yet we must suppose that our Lord's words, so far from being similarly obscure to His hearers, were in fact calculated to appeal to their knowledge of current Biblical exegesis. Perusal of the Rabbinic interpretation of the
Covenant-scene in Gen.
15,
as
we
find
it
appears
at
light
ii2
25
MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE
.
'
9 This
'
tv ol8a, i.e.
I
.
njx
yr Knn, may
this is
^*I
'this
\j?
know The
'
and
well be an error for HJK ynj actually the reading of Pal. Syr. v*? )?o
/rarfa
merely the difference between n and which are very easily confused. It cannot be urged, however, n, that cv oloa yields an unsuitable sense.
in
an unvocalized text
2o 2 The strange use of OVK o?8a/x,cv Magdalen, where we should expect OVK
.
in
the
mouth of Mary
to
oiSa,
',
may be due
to the reading
'
longed to see
My
day
The Targum of this chapter opens by picturing Abraham in despondent frame of mind after his victory over the kings narrated in ch. 14; 'The righteous Abraham pondered in his heart and said, " Woe is me perchance I have received
!
commandment in this world, and there shall be for me come or perchance the brethren and neighbours of those slain ones who fell before me shall come and be established in their cities and provinces, and there shall be associated with them many legions whom they will lead out against me perchance the commands imposed upon me were but light in the former times when they fell before me, and they are spared as my opponents or perchance merit was found in me in the former times when they fell before me, but perchance it shall riot be found in me the second time, and the name of Heaven shall be profaned in me " Therefore there came a word of prophecy from before the Lord to righteous Abraham, saying, " Fear not, Abraham
the recompense of the no part in the world to
;
: ; ;
although
be gathered together and shall co'me against thee, protecting buckler to thee in this world, and a shield over
shall
thee continually in the world to come."' Coming to t;. 12 , we find the following ' And the sun was inclining towards setting, and a deep sweet sleep paraphrase
fell
upon Abraham.
enslave his sons,
And
lo,
Abraham saw
nb'"!3
to
V^V rfcb
1
i"OETI
is
Falling upon
is
him
''
.
Babylon
Media
is
nPIS
Great,
which
is
Greece
is
fibsb Falling,
fall,
it
which
is
Edom
(i.e.
Rome),
that
the fourth
kingdom which
v. 17
destined to
and
prepared for
it
surrounding
and lo, Abraham and lo, Gehenna which the wicked in the world to come like an oven with glowing sparks and flames of fire, into the midst of which the wicked fell because
lo,
And
was dark
;
they had rebelled against the Law in their lifetime it shall be delivered from affliction '.
l
who
kept
The reference is to the four kingdoms of Dan. 7 (cf. the same interpretation of 'Terror, &c.' in Midrash Bereshith Rabba, par. xliv. 20), whose career is terminated by the great world-judgement which ushers in the coming of the Son
68 then, this Rabbinic exegesis lies behind Jn. 8 'My day is the day of the Son of Man ', a vision of which was granted to Abraham in response to his heart-searching and longing. This is in entire accordance with
~u
of
'
Man
13
'
(v.
).
If,
we
Son of Man
113
misreading ^Vl? *V & y da'na (ist plur. Perfect) of an original N^yT N7 Id yad^dnd (fern. sing. Participle combined with ist pers.
pronoun).
Cf., for this latter
form, Dalman,
Gramm.
p. 235.
The
:yT
combined
of
pers.
in
pronoun),
made
in
the vocalization
Num. 22
2O
18
.
Walton's Polyglot.
(3*)
rj
words of Nicodemus
ravra
may
Ip^erai Mapta/x
MaySaAryvr) dyyeAAovo-a
on 'EwpaKa
ew/oaxe
rov
KvpLov
is
Kttl
CITTCV avrfj.
n^ion
hameih,
= J~npn
hamyath.*
may easily have been taken for the former by the translator under the influence of the ordinary construction with on
latter
and the
recitativum.
'
Thus we may
that
conjecture
that
the
original
ran,
announcing
spoken, &c.'
*
she
He
had
We
\RfoT\
to a native of Magdala.
If
NTH
was used
ist pers.
2520
CHAPTER
VIII
IN
THE
question whether the writer of the Fourth Gospel cited the is important in its Hebrew Bible or the on the question of the original language of the Gospel. bearing
O. T. from the
LXX
was a Hellenist he would naturally have employed the LXX. If he was a Palestinian he would be more likely to make his citations from the Hebrew; and if he actually wrote in
If the author
Aramaic he could hardly have done otherwise. Thus, though the question of the Johannine quotations has frequently received
discussion, a fresh examination may possibly bring to light certain points which have hitherto passed unnoticed. This section of our examination gives therefore a tabulation of all O. T. citations and
references, together with the translation
1.
Hebrew
and
its
LXX
rendering.
23
'Eyo>
POWVTOS
tv rfj ep^/xw
Eu0ware
'
TTJV
Isa.
40
ntfi;
TO
"W?
K ^P
^P
The
LXX
clause,
<&(i>vrj
/3ooWos iv
n
rf) tprjfjui),
Jn. quotes from memory, and substitutes the verb of the parallel
>P? rnnjm r^: make straight in the desert a highway for our God', for the verb *33 'prepare ye '. In doing this, he seems to be thinking, however, of the Hebrew and not of the
<
wnVb
LXX,
Troun-e.
since the latter renders n^! not by EuflvWre, but by evfoias The fact that the words ' in the wilderness ' properly form
5
in the
'
the opening of the proclamation (synonymous with in the desert of the parallel clause), whereas and Jn., as
'
Hebrew
LXX
QUOTATIONS
IN
115
punctuated, treat
them as descriptive
is
is
'AfjLrjv
ajJLVjV
Acyw
vjjuv)
oij/ccr0
KOLL
dyyeAov? rov
eov
dvaySaiVofTa?
KaTafiaivovTas
TOV
vlov
TOV
Gen. s8 12 ^N.
i3
nam
novr.tf-i
r?P
lo,
;
D'-m
D'ity D'ritf
earth, and
its
top reaching
heaven
LXX
Kf(f>aX.r)
Kal cvvTrvido-Orj'
KCU
Iv
coi)
ry
yrj,
^s
ot
ayyeXot rov
a.vtf$ouvov KO!
Kare/?aivoi/ tir
It seems quotation takes the form of a free reminiscence. that in the words, 'ascending and descending upon clear, however, the Son of man ', we have an interpretation of the final ia different
The
is
mean 'on
Jn.'s
it' (the
'
generally accepted, in is regularly taken to ladder); but there is also the possibility of the
'
interpretation
citation.*
on him
(Jacob),
and
Jacob, as
the
summarizes
The Genesis-passage, in which 'the ladder is an of the invisible, but actual and unceasing connexion in image which God, by the ministry of His angels, stands with the earth,
instance with Jacob' (Delitzsch), points forward to 'the constant and living intercourse ever maintained between Christ
in this
person the ideal Israel in posse, just as our the other end of the line, summarizes it in esse as the
in his
point which concerns us here is interpretation put upon the passage depends on the in which, since D^? 'ladder' is masculine, the force of Hebrew,
(Driver).
'
The
the
is is
may
*
ambiguous. In LXX, ITT avTrjs can refer only to KA.i/xa. It be added that Jn.'s di/a^atVovra? Kal Kara/fruVoi/Tag literally
should of course expect IvJ? in this sense, as in the following verse T T
We
3ST3
IvP
it'
the ladder).
We
are not,
however, concerned to argue the legitimacy of the interpretation, but merely its origin ; though it may be remarked that this interpretation of 3 might be justified by the use of the preposition to denote proximity (see Oxford Hebrew Lexicon,
II).
I
Ti6
represents the
is
^TH
&Y&, which
obscured in avipaivov
3.
LXX.*
ycy/aa/x/AeVov eoriv
2 17
'EiiJ.vrjcrOiqo'a.v
ot fjLaOrjTal
avTOV
on
r}Aos
Ps.
69
10
'?$?
'.
^JJT3
ntj?
'The
zeal
of Thine
house hath
eaten
me
6
LXX
Here
'
Jn. and
LXX
hath eaten
me
'.
There
is
is
found
in
LXX in
T
B b N ca R, and
in Jn. in (13)
4.
(boh)
Eus Epiph.
eV
6 31
ot
Trarepes
T^/xwi/
TO
pawa
e</>ayov
Ex. i6 4
*
D$ D<p #n
T
D ?^
^^
<aytv.
'
^?
Behold,
will
rain for
it
occurred to him to
Rabba
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.
Ixviii.
18
W
.
'11
'EI
in
onap
D^BN
.u
onnwi
0^5:0
s
r
of)
Rabbi Hij a and Rabbi Yannai. The one scholar says, li Ascending and descending 4< upon the ladder", and the other says, Ascending and descending upon Jacob '. The explanation, " Ascending and descending upon the ladder ", is to be preferred. The explanation, "Ascending and descending upon Jacob ", implies that they were taking up and bringing down upon him. They were leaping and skipping over " Israel in whom I s "Thou him, and rallying him, as it is said, glory'' (Isa. 49 ).
1
art
he whose tinwv
ei/uj/,
'
looking at his
is engraved on high." They were ascending on high and and then descending below and finding him sleeping'. The
'
words translated they were taking up and bringing down upon him are very but the following note by Dr. Ball offers an elucidation. obscure in meaning I would ask why the Genesis text does not say were coming down and going
;
'
earth.
up thereon ? It seems rather strange that the Angels of God should start from the But leaving that on one side, I am inclined to think that the Midrashic
13 D'H'nitDI
the angels
DvVD
is
Why
were
going up and coming down ? the answer being, They uere taking up and bringing downacting as carriers between Earth and Heaven. In this case,
apparently, they were taking up to
Heaven the
t'tKwv
IN
117
aprovs CK TOV
LXX
'I8oi>
eyw
{J<D
V/JLLV
iBte Drfen wn nfe|> Q?b mn; |n3 which the Lord hath given you to eat*.
Ex. i6 15
'That
is
the bread
LXX
OUTOS 6 apros ov
Ps. 78-* to
i^3
heaven
He
gave them
'.
LXX
/cat
In Ps. 7824
LXX's
tion
15
,
probably uninfluenced by
e* TOV ovpavov
a/orovs.
LXX
5.
4a
7rpo<j>rJTai<s
Kat
ccrovrat TTCII/TCS
is
of Glory" ; Targ. Jon. ad loc.}. As Jacob was in deep wraith or spirit supposed to be separated from the body under conditions of trance ? The case would then be parallel to that of St. Paul
to the
" fastened
Throne
sleep,
was
as Jacob
It
is
lff "caught up to the third Heaven" (a Cor. i2 ) where he "heard" appijTa, much became conscious of Yahweh " standing by him ", and heard His voice.'
difficult
upon the Johannine passage. Jacob's dxcav (the Hebrew simply reproduces the Greek term) is already existent in Heaven (cf. also Targ. Jerus. and Targ. Jon. adloc.}; this tiicwv inasmuch as Jacob embodies the ~ national hope and ideal represents the heavenly Man (cf. I Cor. I5 47 49 6 Sevrepos
light
avOpuiros
ovpavov,
whose
;
tiKwv
if
we are in the future to bear) who is to come the heavens were opened Nathaniel might behold the
is
The same
(B.R. par.
Ixix. i) in a
comment on
:
v5>3J
3J
;vai
given a
little
further on
UJ
/JJ
|B
mv
&wy
nunt
vni
nony
rhmv
,n o
'
3K^o
mm
Rabbi Abbahu
said. It is like
;
a royal child
and flies were settling on him but when his nurse came, his nurse bent over him, and they flew away from off him. So at first, "And, behold, the angels of God ascending and descending upon him ". When the Holy One (blessed be
We may note that He) revealed Himself over him they flew away from off him Rabbi Hiya and Rabbi Yannai also differed as to the interpretation of the suffix
'.
of l^y, the one explaining that the Lord stood on the ladder, the other that
He
n8
Isa.
njn?
n^
T??"l 'And
V.
12
all
the
Lord
LXX
(in
connexion with
Kat
0>jo-a>
rots
tao-TTiv,
eov.
is
Clearly Jn., in treating the statement as an independent sentence, dependent upon Heb. and not on LXX. Nevertheless, it is
cov
LXX
influence.
was
made
directly from
the Heb., and was afterwards modified by a copyist under influence possibly by the translator from Aramaic into Greek.
6.
s8
LXX
Ka$ws
i7Tv
rj
ypa<f>rj,
Trora/xot
IK T?}S
to involve a misunderstanding of an
7.
rr/s
42
This passage has already been discussed, and has been shown Aramaic original (cf. p. 109).
7
ov%
f)
ypaffrr)
flircv
on
e/c
OLTTO
B^Aee/x
2
1
Ka)fjir]<;
Xpwrros;
Based on
Heb.
8.
;
Isa.
from Bethlehem).
1
The
'
on
Svo
av6p<j)iru>v
rj
jjiaprvpfa
aXrjOrjs ccrav.
Deut. i9 15 DHj; ^.f ':H?y 'At the mouth Dip; HK'V ^3-by of two witnesses or at the mouth of three shall a word be established
'.
LXX
7Tt
{TTO/XttTOS
7Tt
(TTO/ittTOS
TplWV
fJLapTV/)<OV
A vague
9.
O"T
;
reference.
eoriv yeypa/x/xevov cv
IO
34
OVK
TW
vo/xa)
v/xwi/
on
Eya)
ctTra
cot
6 Ps. 82
DnK D'r6
euro,
wpx
eot core.
'
have
said,
Ye
are gods
'.
LXX
Jn. and
'Eyw
Heb. and
LXX agree exactly, and the verbal agreement between LXX has therefore no special significance, since Heb.
/cat
I2 13
K vptov.
IN
Ps.
119
n8
:526
DPS Kan
name
of the Lord
!'
LXX
(o
Kvpie,
o-<Jo<rov 877,
Heb. and
LXX
agree exactly.
'
!
hosia-nna 'Save
now
which, by
becomes
;
LXX
but the
I2 14
'
10
ev/><W
8e 6 'Iryom'S ovaptov
fKofiurcv
CTT'
M^
<^>o/?ov,
OvyoLTrjp
Zech.
nan
'
Exult greatly,
daughter of Zion
Shout,
daughter of Jerusalem. Behold, thy king cometh unto thee; Righteous and victorious is he ;
Lowly, and riding upon an ass, And upon a colt, an ass's foal*.
LXX
Kr)pvo-(T,
Ovyartp
120
The
It is clear,
LXX.
eis
I2
:i4
'H/x,er?
rjKovo-afJicv
X/HO-TOS
fiei/ei
TOV
25 Dr6 N'to ^ay in] Ezek. sv Dbtyj* shall be their prince for ever '.
LXX
The
13.
ap^wv
eis
TOV auova.
(9 in Heb.), 2
is
Sam.
7", Ps.
89
4f
-,
no
4
.
reference
I2 38
wo. 6
Adyos
eiT
Kvpie,
7mrreu<Tv
Isa.
53
^nyo^
ppgn
^D
Who
And
hath believed our report the arm of the Lord, to whom hath
;
it
been revealed
'.
LXX
Heb. and
Kvptov
TiVt
a.7
LXX
opening Kvpie,
verbally with
which
has added the agree exactly, except that is also found in Jn.'s quotation which agrees
It is clear that
LXX
LXX.
is
influenced
by
LXX.
i23940 ort iraXw
tiTTfv
14.
'H<rcuas
avrwv TOVS
/cat
cTrwpaxrei/
i8a)(Tti/
avrwv
rots
TTJ
rr/v
tva /A^
6<f>6a.\fjiois
Kat voryawo'tv
Isa.
Kapftia.
icttroyuat
avrous.
6 10
nn
dyrr:
nni
their eyes; Lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, and repent, and be healed
Make the heart of this people gross, And make their ears heavy, and blind
'.
IN
121
LXX
eiraxyvOr)
/capSta TOV
Xaov TOVTOV,
rjKov<rav
/cat
Kal
rots
auTwv
/Japews
TOVS
6(j>Oa\fJLov<s
jjirj
/cat
Here
TTore
Jn.
is
clearly independent of
LXX
contrast
:
avrwv TOV?
/^>y
:
ocfrOaXfJiOvs
With
/cat
a/a
:
/xry
with
With
/cat TTJ
KapSta (rwcocriv
(rrpa.^>wcriv
Jn. is not, however, merely a free reminiscence eVto-T/aei^wo-tv. of the Hebrew, as might be supposed from the fact that the writer uses past tenses rer^Xw/cei/, eTrwpoxrei/, while the Hebrew appears to use Imperatives (R.V. 'shut', 'make fat'), i^fn, y^n are either
with
place of Perfects
'blinding*
hath 'smearing over'), 'making gross ', hath made gross (a normal and idiomatic usage); or ', the forms are read as Perfects, iP^?, V^ n, as they might naturally be read in the unvocalized text.* Thus (allowing for omission of
standing for
blinded
'
'
;
'He
the reference to ears, and the transposition of a clause) Jn.'s reading is a reasonably accurate rendering of Heb., and is nearer to it
than
LXX
18
in
e/ca/
I3
10
dAA.' Lva
fj
ypa(f>Y] TrXrjpwOf)
roi/
aprov
Ps. 4 i
lifted
3j?V
^?
^W
^
me
fyx
'.
'
He
that eateth
my
bread hath
LXX
16.
CTT'
e/xe TTTCpvicr/xoK.
independent of
LXX.
I5
Ps. 35 19
and
69*
in
Heb.)
ot
D3n
vjb
'
my
haters
without
cause
'.
/XKTOWTCS
//.e
8topcav.
unlike Jn.,
Kal rc'uj
Symmachus made
IMH, V^n,
rd Sira
but,
Yahweh)
the subject
6 \aos OVTOS
ifiapvvt,
122
17.
I9'
iva
rj
TO,
/cat
18
i/xarta
fjio
7Tt
rov
i/JLaTKr/Jiov
Ps. 22
19
in
Heb.)
'
They
my
And upon my
LXX
Heb. and
Jn. and
18.
StC/ACpMTOlTO
/Cat
7Tt
TOV
IfJLaTLCTIJLOV
/?ttXoj/
K\V)pOV.
jo,
rj
Mera ravra
Tva
ypa<f>r)
Xsyet AU/ACO.
ow
fJL(TTOV
TOV OOTJS
21
VCTCTWTril)
Ps. 6 9
22
(
in
7TptVT5 7rpOCrTfJVyKaV O.VTOV TO) (TTO/XttTl. 'and for my thirst they Heb.) T? n ^P?! 'Kox
'.
gave
me
vinegar to drink
KCU
IS
LXX
The
19.
T^V
is
JJi
O^O5.
reference
30
general merely.
17
IQ
4fi
ypaffrr]
TrXypwOfj
'Ocrrovv ov crvvrpL-
OLVTOV.
Ex. i2
b-nzifn-ij
/cat
12
DJJJI
LXX
LXX
Ps.
ocrrow ov
crvvTpL\j/eT
a^rov.
it'.
Num. 9
:o
avroi).
34
in
Heb.)
vnbxy-^3 ^ n3HD
'
He
keepeth
all
his bones
is
TO.
broken'.
otrra avroiv,
LXX
The
20.
avrwv ou
(rwrpt/^rycreTat.
quotation
IQ
3'
is
a free reminiscence.
-ypa<f>r) A.eyet
/cat
TtaXiv erepa
"QtyovTai
cts
ov
Zech. i2 10
nK ^ *"jrpBte
'.
shall look
on me
whom
LXX
IN
Some
fifty
is
123
Heb.
and
it is
this text
is
upon
which Jn.
dependent; or
JIN
may
(^)
1^>N
danced a reading 'njH they ' letters of they pierced '. Vij'n
'
',
LXX
Several
LXX
cts
ov teKevT7)(Tav,
<
which
is
the rendering of
.
Theodotion.
Aquila
.... a-vv
tgeKwrrjo-av,
Symmachus
e/
obvious that Jn. is independent of LXX/ whose rendering The connexion with Theodestroys the point of the quotation.
It is
dotion in the rendering ei? ov e^eKe'myo-av appears to be fortuitous merely, and does not imply that Jn. and Theodotion were dependent
upon an
earlier
to
Swete, Introd.
10
natural rendering of
Jer.
(used by
LXX
in
Judg. 9
ov
54
,
Chr. io4,
15
44
(37)
in Isa. i3 );
and Theodotion's
ft*
cis
ov is decisive against
In the
LXX
rendering oi/^ovrat TT/OO? //,e cis ov e^eKeVrr;o-av as a doublet, and this no doubt is a Christian marginal variant influenced by Jn. The Apocalypse, which is thoroughly Hebraic, has an echo of the O.T.
passage
in Jn.
in
Here we
same
as those
employed
Thus
be made
(a)
may
4
Hebrew
where
Nos.
1,
2,
5,
LXX
this is
an accurate
LXX
where
this differs
from the
Hebrew;
(d)
(e)
Free reminiscences
6.
i2 4
Under (a) we notice that, while in 4 and 11 the points of agreement with Heb. against LXX are slight, all the other cases are weighty and preclude any other theory than a first-hand knowledge
of the Heb. text.
Under
(b)
LXX
in 9
and 10 might be
acci-
dental, since the Heb. could scarcely be translated in other words. This, however, is a point not to be pressed, since 17 and the three
cases under
accidental.
(c)
LXX
which cannot be
that the variations of Jn. and LXX from and that the point of the quotations in no way slight, 17 depends upon them. In 3 (2 ) the Heb. reading 'hath eaten me is represented by Jn.'s v. /. /care^ayev which has considerable
Under
(c)
we observe
attestation.
substitution of
In 5 the variation from Heb. consists only in the cov for the Lord ', and in 13 only in the prefixing
'
of Kvpie.
We
have now
to
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
Heb. and
LXX, and
or that the Gospel is composite, the use of Heb. and marking different strands of authorship. There remains the theory that the writer used either Heb. or solely, and that the variations from his regular usage are the work of a later hand.
criminately
LXX
Now
LXX
it is
obvious that the agreements with Heb. cannot be due to and 20 exhibit points of connexion vital to the
On the other hand, all quotation which are absent from LXX. the quotations which now agree verbally with might very well have been quoted from Heb. and subsequently modified so as
LXX
to agree with
is in
LXX,
LXX
every case slight and unimportant. This inference, which emerges from a consideration of the quotations as a whole, seems
to
fact that
taught of God agree with Heb. as being an independent sentence, and can hardly depend upon LXX, 'And 1 will make
be
all
all
IN
with
is
125
LXX
under
LXX
influence.
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
And
in 6 (y
38
)
we
CHAPTER IX
EPILOGUE
AT
offer
it
may be
expected to
some remarks as to the influence which his theory should, if gains acceptance, exercise upon current historical criticism of the Fourth Gospel. This is a task which for two reasons he feels
somewhat
if loth to essay. Firstly, the question has been mainly not wholly linguistic, and ought at the outset to be presented for consideration uncomplicated by ulterior issues. And secondly, the
conscious that in attempting to touch upon such larger is in danger of getting outside his province ; for, while to the best of his ability he has made a minute study of the Gospel
writer
is
issues he
itself,
criteria
bearing upon the question of authorship, he cannot claim conversance with more than a small portion of the gigantic mass of modern literature which has been directed towards the solution
of the Johannine problem.
course of the linguistic bearing upon the authorship of the has been constantly in his mind. If the theory is soundly Gospel based, it must surely affect something like a revolution in current
Still, it
in the
Johannine
criticism ; for, while cutting at the roots of the fashionable assumptions of a particular school of critics, it may be held to go even farther, and to demand a re-examination, if not a reconstruction, of certain
been accepted by
fitting that
all
fundamental postulates which have hitherto Thus it may be thought schools of criticism.
it
results to
should establish beyond question the place, that the Gospel is a product of Palestinian thought. This
In the
conclusion which emerges with no less clearness even if it be held that the evidence which has been offered is insufficient to prove
EPILOGUE
actual translation from
127
it
Aramaic
for at least
cannot be disputed
The
author's
is cast He is throughout in the Aramaic mould. thoroughly familiar with Rabbinic speculation. He knows his Old Testament, not through the medium of the LXX, but in the
language
original language.
If this be granted, the figment of Alexandrine influence upon the author must be held finally to be disproved. His Logos-doctrine is the development of conceptions enshrined in the Targums, and
not derived from Philo. This can hardly be disputed in face of the evidence adduced on pp. 35 ff. Could New Testament scholars ever have arrived at any other conclusion if they had
is
approached the subject with an adequate Semitic, as well as a Greek, equipment ? Not, indeed, that Palestinian Rabbinism was
wholly uninfluenced by Greek thought; the Midrashim prove the
contrary.
is
when this is admitted, Palestinian Jewish thought^ Alexandrine Hellenistic thought another. It may be thing, true that there is an ultimate connexion between the Logos-concepYet,
one
tion of Philo
is
parentage. Philo's implied doctrine was in no sense the moulding influence of our author's
no closer than
by a
common
thought,
It
may be observed
fits
was written
in
Aramaic
in
of internal evidence
admirably with other well-ascertained results the author's intimate knowledge of Pales-
tinian topography, of
Jewish
festivals
On all current Messianic expectations at the time of our Lord. his accuracy has in one way these questions, in which in time past
or another been impugned, he has been triumphantly vindicated. If, in addition, it is proved that he actually wrote in Aramaic, we
Here, however, we find that our theory seems to call for the re-opening of a question which is generally supposed to be settled. If the Gospel was written in Aramaic, it must surely have been
written in Palestine or Syria ; it could hardly have been written at Ephesus. This conclusion is by no means necessarily at variance with the tradition that the author spent the latter part of his life at
is8
EPILOGUE
;
Ephesus
for obviously
we have
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
The assignment of a Palestinian or Syrian origin to the Gospel would seem to carry with it an earlier date for its composition than
that which
is
commonly accepted
possibly even a considerably earlier at variance with the facts of internal evidence.
full
acceptance of the theory propounded in the present volume, it must surely be admitted that the facts which have been brought
together greatly strengthen the case for holding that the Gospel is ^the work of an eye-witness. The view that it represents the mature Christian experience of that witness is doubtless sound ;
if we are to assume that he was a man of eighty or more when he took up his pen, we are postulating for him a mental vigour quite exceptional in one so old. Opinions may differ as to the
but
impression of the author's personality conveyed by the Gospel ; but the present writer feels that, while the First Epistle might
fairly
be regarded as the product of extreme old age, the planning is hardly consistent with such a
The age
more normal
the author
markedly a maturity which is as yet unimpaired. Assuming that was about twenty at the Crucifixion, this would lead us
Gospel A.D. 75-80. The question whether it would be reasonable to place it even earlier demands an expert knowledge of its relation to the Synoptic Gospels and a first-hand conclusion as to the dates of these latter ; and on these points the writer does
to date the
*
is
said to
is
be the work of
'
'
loannis ex discipulis
'.
The
Cohortantibus condiscipulis et composition given as follows : episcopis suis dixit, Conieiunate mihi hodie triduo et quid cuique fuerit revelatum alterutrum nobis enarremus. Eadem nocte revelatum Andreae ex apostolis ut
occasion of
recognoscentibus cunctis loannes suo nomind cuncta discriberet.' himself is named one of the disciples ', it seems to follow that
'
Since John
'
his fellow-
'
disciples
(one of
whom
is
Andrew) are
EPILOGUE
We
that there
129
not feel qualified to venture an opinion. may note, however, seem to be no indications pointing to a date prior to the
5*, "Eo-riv 8e ev
ry
TrpofiaTLKfj KoXvfJL/3r)6pa
to imply that the city was still standing being of doubtful validity if the Greek is regarded as a translation from Aramaic.*
On
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
for
a larger circle of
Jew, or indeed what Gentile inhabitant of would need to be informed that the Jews have no dealPalestine, ings with the Samaritans, that Tabernacles was the feast of the
Christians.
What
Jews, or that the festival of the Dedication took place in winter ?t Of course it might be maintained that the author, writing not
details
merely for his contemporaries but for posterity to would not be obvious, took care to insert them
whom
;
such
but such a
We
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
in
if
Thus Syria
indicated, and
context, or at in translation.
't's' might be left in Aramaic to be inferred from the any rate expressed in such a way that confusion would be easy For 'Evriv tx. OVOa Cur." has ^^ l^-|o jooj l^/> lit*
.
.
'Existing was
'Existing was
and existing
in
it';
Pesh.
it';
t's
^^
OO)
^{o
. .
)o*t
find
in
we
o^
J6oo
]6o 'Existing
is
and
time-determining factor
the dot above )6o. which marks it as the Participle In W. Aramaic there would probably have been no
may be
seen in a 6
18 - 23
,
^5.9^
51.4^ 72.37^
IO 22^
jjis^
TT}?
Two
TTJS
it
6a\daarjs
of these passages, viz. a 23 iv T> itaaya. I;/ TT/ toprfi, 6 l irtpav TuAjAatas TTJS TifteptdSos, convey the impression of conflation.
17
Of
course
in 4 26 (o \fy6fjtfvos
'E/3p.),
(AiOoarpwTov, 'E0p. 5t), IQ (Kpaviov loirov, 6 \(ycrai \6yerai At8d<TaAt) the translator has glossed the text for the benefit of his readers. It is possible that some of the touches in the first set of
Xptaros), 5- ('EppaiaTi), 19
so 16 ('E0p.
may
be translator's glosses.
130
EPILOGUE
a
Greek
city, it
of the district whence from the earliest times the Aramaic speech diffused, eastward into Mesopotamia and southward through
Syria and Palestine. The city must have been bilingual, and though Greek was doubtless the language of the upper classes, there must have been a large substratum of population to whom Aramaic was the more familiar language. This follows necessarily from the
exigencies of trade
to the population.
As we
was
Fourth Gospel really the last part of his life at Ephesus, then we have in Antioch spent a half-way house between this and Jerusalem and if the line of his
If the writer of the
;
Antioch
Ephesus
he was
note that
at
we
Antioch and wrote the Gospel there. Mr. F. C. Conybeare has quoted a statement translated from a
'
John was
commentary of
scripsit
illud
Syriac fragment appended to the Armenian translation to the St. Ephrem on Tatian's Diatessaron lohannes
:
terra usque
[evangelium] graece Antiochiae, nam permansit in ad tempus Traiani'.* There exists a wide-spread
(though not very early) tradition that St. Ignatius was a disciple of St. John. The Maprvpiov 'lyvario-v (5th or 6th century A. D.) so describes him at its opening, and adds later on the scarcely credible
statement that he and Polycarp (born A.D. 69) had together been
disciples of the Apostle.t
lead the present writer to suggest the theory that the Fourth Gospel may have been written at Antioch are as follows
:
The
(c.
A.D.
no)
are
full
of Johannine
is only one passage in them which an actual verbal quotation, but reminiscences of approximates the teaching of the Gospel are more numerous than is generally
Theology.
to
ZNTW.
Cf.
1902, p. 193.
Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, II. ii, pp. 473 f, who argues against the historical value of the statement and seeks to explain how it may have arisen.
EPILOGUE
recognized.
131
(
is
that
Ignatius'
use of the
Fourth Gospel
certainty'.*
ignorance
highly probable, but falls some way short of of his reasons for this doubtful verdict is 'our
met
John
6
and
seems
to
be the case.t
The
Ignatian expressions,
apx^v rov
and TC.KVCL <f><t)To<s aXrjQeias may actually imply acquaintance with the original Aramaic of the Gospel. 2. Drs. Rendel Harris and Mingana, in their recent edition of
atcovos TOVTOV
the
of
Solomon
(1920),
connexion between the Odes and the Letters of Ignatius, and have shown that the dependence is almost certainly on Ignatius's side.
There
is
a tradition
recorded
by the historian
Socrates that
Ignatius instructed the Antiochenes in the composition and singing of hymns. J Theophilus of Antioch was also familiar with the
*
The
New
Testament in
Society of Historical Theology, p. 83. f Cf. especially the group of passages reflecting the teaching of
Jn. quoted
from the
J
'
letter to the
Ephesians on
tell
p. 154.
We
must also
its origin.
whence
hymns had
who
also had personal intercourse with the Apostles themselves, saw a vision of angels praising the Trinity in antiphonal hymns, and delivered the fashion of the vision to the church in Antioch : from whence also the same tradition was
churches.' Socrates, HE. vi. 8, quoted by Harris and These editors also aptly call attention (p. 47) to two passages in Ignatius's letters in which he uses chorus-singing as a metaphor for Christian harmony; Ephes. 4, In your concord and harmonious love Jesus Christ is sung.
transmitted to other
Mingana,
p. 43.
And
all,
that,
in concord,
in oneness sing
through Jesus Christ unto the Father, that He may both hear you and acknowledge you by your good deeds to be the members of His Son (i. e. His children) Rom. 2, Forming yourselves into a chorus, in love sing to the Father in Jesus Christ.' These passages find a striking parallel in Ode 41, which begins as follows
'
'
'
Let all of us who are the Lord's bairns, praise And let us appropriate the truth of His faith :
Him
:
And His
Let
Him
Therefore
us sing in His
love.
name
of the Lord.'
The
italics
draw
K 2
i 32
EPILOGUE
It
Odes.*
Syriac.t
seems clear
that
The
conclusion of
at
probably written
Antioch
Now
the
Fourth Gospel
of the Odes was acquainted with can be proved fairly clearly; though here
again the evidence takes the form of reminiscence of the teaching rather than actual verbal quotation. Surprising as this may seem in view of the very early date which is assigned to the Odes, it
is
if,
is
commonly supposed
the Gospel
and
it
becomes quite
at
comprehensible
Antioch
and
first
noteworthy
that a great
part of the connexions with the thought of the Gospel, both in Ignatius's Letters and in the Odes, are with the Last Discourses,
Jn.
1317.
for all
in detail in
is
this appears so highly important that it an Appendix. given The supposed influence of Pauline Theology upon the Fourth Gospel in no way conflicts with our new theory as to the date
The evidence
period of twenty years or so allows time for the principal epistles of St. Paul to have become ample well known at Antioch. The present writer has, however, put forward suggestions (pp. 45 ff.) which may indicate a somewhat
different conclusion, viz. that both St. Paul
Gospel may have been influenced by a common earlier source of teaching. Both of them were Rabbinists and the course of
;
the present discussion has revealed several instances of a knowledge of Rabbinic speculation on the part of the Gospel-author
which
there
is is
independent of
for
St. Paul.
but
assuming Gospel was a development of Pauline teaching. Mysticism is one of the characteristics of the Rabbinic method of treating Scripture and the question how far this trait in the two Christian writers is based on Jewish Haggada is one which calls for further investi;
no reason
gation.
The
Church
at
Jerusalem of
op.
cit.
iii.
op.
cit.
ch.
xiii.
J op.
tit.
ch. iv.
EPILOGUE
to the service of the
133
new
Faith.
As
Gospel while the conclusion that he Aramaic strongly confirms the opinion that he
was an actual eye-witness of the events which he describes, it must be admitted that the clear traces which we have noticed of his acquaintance with Rabbinic learning * seem to diminish the St. Peter and probability that he was St. John the Apostle.
St.
aypd/jL/jiaTOL KCU
and though the phrase is used in connexion with their unexpected eloquence, the paradox consisted, not in the fact that having previously been dypa/x/xarot i.e. untrained
) ;
in
they
still
now appeared
dypa/x/xaroi,
so to be
trained
to
speak and argue eloquently and convincingly. conceivable that the Galilaean fisherman, especially
young
man, may have had a natural aptitude for assimilating the Rabbinic methods of argument and that, his interest being whetted through
;
listening to
at Jeru-
salem, he
in
members
however, that
if
we had
Paul, he
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.
be explained ; and, supposing that he may also have been the author of the Apocalypse, we should understand how he was able to
construct this
Now,
*
as
work upon a Biblical Hebrew model. Prof. Delff was the first to remark, t there are
;
details in
ff., 43 ff., non., inn., n6n. f Gesch. d. Rabbi Jesus v. Nazareth (1899). pp. 678". Das vierte Evangelium (1890), Delff's theory was followed by Bousset in the ist ed. of his OJfenbantng pp. i ff. Johannis (1896", but dropped by him in the and ed. (1906) cf. p .46, n. 2. It is
regarded with considerable favour by Dr. Sanday, Criticism of the Fourth Gospel,
pp. 17
f.,
90, 99
ff.
i 34
EPILOGUE
the
Gospel which, taken together, strongly suggest that the author had some connexion with priestly circles. He (on the
assumption that he is the unnamed disciple) was known to the high priest and gained ready admission to his house, which was denied to Peter until he intervened (i8 15 16). He alone of the
-
name
10 );
of the high priest's servant, Malchus, and also the fact that one of those
He
-,
has
knowledge of persons like Nicodemus and Joseph of lff Arimathaea, who were both members of the Sanhedrin (3 f,
have gained inside information as to what I9 ff-), ~ 47 - 53 went on at meetings of the Sanhedrin (7 15 5 -, i2 10), which , may have come to him through Nicodemus. The fact that, when
to
and seems
to his care,
he took her
els TO.
Jerusalem (iQ ). The deduction based on these internal indications serves further
to explain the
John, who
otherwise
was a
priest
wearing which
an insoluble enigma. Moreover, if Polycrates supposed that John the author of the Gospel was the Apostle St. John, it is in the highest degree anomalous that he should mention
whom
Philip,
he defines as
run/
SwSe/ca cnro-
not as an Apostle, but as /xaprv? /ecu 8iSao-*aAos simply this too in spite of the fact that he sleeps at Ephesus where Polycrates himself was bishop, while Philip 'sleeps at Hierapolis' (Eusebius,
HE.
one of the most famous members of the original Apostolic band had actually preceded him in his own see, he would surely have named him first of all.
v. 24).
If
The familiar quotation from Papias (Eusebius, likewise to indicate that the celebrated John of
the Apostle.
Papias
tells
us that
'if
HE.
39)
my way who
had been a follower of the presbyters, I would inquire as to the sayings of the presbyters what Andrew or Peter said (eiTrei/), or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any other of the Lord's disciples; and also what
EPILOGUE
Aristion and
135
disciples,
'
Unless we adopt the view that the Apostles mentioned are termed * the presbyters (a view both improbable in itself and also
apparently excluded by the distinctive application of the term to the second John), it is clear from this passage that Papias only claims to have learned the Apostles* sayings at third hand, i.e.
he learned from his informants what the presbyters said that the Apostles said. On the other hand, the obvious deduction from
the statement 'also what Aristion and
John the
presbyter, the
Lord's disciples, say', is that Papias learned the sayings of these disciples at second hand', and since the change of tense from
eiTrei/ to Xiyova-Lv is clearly intentional, it is natural to infer that Aristion and the second John were still living, and that Papias might
if
sound, and
the
title
'
'
implies
as in the
first
occurrence, where
is
applied to the
Apostles actual knowledge of our Lord during His earthly life, then the date at which Papias collected his materials cannot be later than A. D. 100 a conclusion which fits in with the statement
of Irenaeus that he was a companion of Polycarp (A. D. 69-155) and 'one of the ancients (dp^aTos av?Jp)4 It follows that c. A.D. 100
'
whom
John the Apostle before mentioned), who, an actual disciple of our Lord, was still living at that date, though and must therefore have been of a very advanced age. On the
other hand,
all
that
he claims
to
have
learned (or to
have
* This is the view of Eusebius (see foot-note following), and it is taken e. g. by Lightfoot, Essays on Supernatural Religion, p. 145, and by Westcott, Canon of the N.T. p. 70, n. i. On the contrary, see Moffatt, Inlrod. to Literature of N. T. 3
P-
599-
f Papias
TJIUV
was an
unwarrantably assumed by Eusebius Kat o vvv 8 Uairias rois piv TWV diroaroXcav \6yovs irapd rwv iraprjKokovOrjKoTCUV
Dr. Lightfoot (Essays on Sufiem. Rel. p. 146) should accept ycveaOai. Eusebius's opinion on this point against the plain sense of the passage is incom-
Why
prehensible.
A.D. 100 is adopted by Dr. Sanday iii. 39. 250 f.), as against the extreme date adopted by Harnack (c. A. D. 145-60). Eusebius (HE. iii. 36) states that his episcopate was contemporary not only with Polycarp's, but also with Ignatius's (d. A.D. no).
;
Haer. V. xxxiii. 4
Eusebius,
HE.
36
to
EPILOGUE
learn)
is
endeavoured
son of Zebedee
by word of mouth about the Apostolic what others said that the presbyters said that
he said; and so far is he from attaching any special prominence to him that he mentions him only sixth in a list of seven of the
Apostles.
Now
Irenaeus
tells
',
who
wrote the Gospel, survived at Ephesus until the times of Trajan,* If this John was the son of Zebedee, would i.e. until after A. D. 98.
who must certainly have been born long before his and who was probably collecting his information, if not death, before, at any rate not long after that event, and who was bishop
Papias
of a Church which was close to Ephesus
to
learning at third hand as to his teaching ? And since, for one man who could give him authentic information as to what Andrew or Peter had said, there must (on this hypothesis) have been ten who
could give him fuller and more recent information as to what John the son of Zebedee had said, is it at all likely that the vastly
superior importance to Papias of John as a witness to our Lord's acts and teaching, involved in the fact of his nearness to him both
in time
and
in place,
better
inference is clear that Papias did not claim to have any knowledge of John the son of Zebedee than he possessed of Andrew, Peter, and the rest who had died years before he began
to collect his materials.
The
The absence
of such a claim
fits
in
with
the statement attributed to him by Philippus Stdetes (5th cent.) and Georgius Hamartolus feth cent.) that John and James his brother
were
slain
to
the son of Zebedee did not survive to a ripe old age in Asia, but lost his life through Jewish persecution, and therefore probably in
Palestine and prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 7o.t
There
in
exists, however, yet another statement attributed to Papias an argument prefixed to a Vatican MS. of the Fourth Gospel (9th cent.) Evangelium lohannis manifestatum et datum est
'
:
ecclesiis
*
ab lohanne adhuc
II. xxii.
in
Papias
Haer.
III.
i.
III.
iii.
On
martyrdom
Introd. to Lit.
ff.
ofN.T.
pp. 601
pp. xlv
EPILOGUE
nomine Hierapolitanus, discipulus lohannis cams,
137
in exotericis, id
est in extremis [externis] quinque libris retulit. Descripsit vero evangelium dictante lohanne recteV Confused and improbable as this statement seems in detail, we have no grounds for question-
ing the main facts, viz. that Papias may have stated that the author of the Gospel was John of Asia who survived into his
own
If,
times.
to
martyrdom
in Palestine prior to
Gospel can only be on the assumption that the references are to two different Johns in the first case to the Apostle, in the second to
A. D. 70, the statement as to the writing of the
John of Asia,
Now
i.e. the presbyter. the writer of the Second and Third Epistles of St.
6 7rpeo-/3v'repos,
is
that they
be
this title
was
sufficient to
mark the
writer's
Dr. Charles
Commentary on Revelation
a careful linguistic It follows that the Epistles of St. John are by the same author. Gospel is the work of John the presbyter, and that the tradition
that
it
xxxiv ff.) has argued from (i, pp. that the Fourth Gospel and the three study
was composed
at
Ephesus
is
fact
of his
authorship.
Papias and
the earliest Asian tradition, as represented by Polycrates and confirmed by the testimony of the
Thus
Second and Third Epistles, points to the presbyter and not the son of Zebedee as the author of the Gospel.
Essays on Supern. Rel. pp. 210 ff. ; Westcott, Canon of N.T. Lightfoot (p. 214) has an ingenious suggestion as to the way in which the statement may have arisen that Papias was actually the amanuensis of John.
p. 77, n. i. " may have quoted the Gospel delivered by John to the Churches, which wrote down from his lips " (6 dirfypatyov ano TOV OTO/JOTO? avrov} and some they later writer, mistaking the ambiguous uireypaQov, interpreted it "/wrote down", thus making Papias himself the amanuensis.' f This seems to be hinted by Eusebius, HE. iii. 25 1u>v 8* O.VTI \eyofjL(vcav,
1
* Cf. Lightfoot,
Papias
yv(upifi<uv 5'
ovv
ofjitas
TOIS TroAAofs
TJ
KO.I
TOV
tvayy(\i0Tov rvyxavovffatj fire KOI ertpov ofjuovvfiov definitely taken by Jerome, de viris Must. cc. 9 and 18.
i/eeivv.
The view
is
138
EPILOGUE
evidence, however,
is incomplete without examination of the of St. Irenaeus, which is important because, in the welltestimony known passage from his letter to Florinus (Eusebius, HE. v. 20),
Our
he states that in his boyhood (TTOIS l-ri wv) he was a hearer of Polycarp and could remember his description of 'his intercourse
Irenaeus with John and with the rest who had seen the Lord '. to have suffered considerable misrepresentation. appears unjustly While claimed on the one hand as a conclusive witness to the
fact that the
St.
John, he
is
commonly accused, on
the other hand, by the opponents of this theory of having mistaken the meaning of his teacher Polycarp,
and supposed that he was referring to the Apostle when all the time he was speaking of the presbyter. Similarly, he is taken to task by Eusebius (HE. iii. 39) because he describes Papias as
6 'Iwdvvov
fjJkv
a/coucrnys,
Eusebius's
Kara TO
comment on
Ttav
this
statement
Avros
-ye
/x^v
IlaTrias
/xa/ Kat
avroTTTrjv
ouSaynws eavrov
WV
a7roo~ToA.u)i/
e/ceiVots
yi/wpt/xwv.
The
the
error of which
critics
he
is
accused
the
by
Eusebius
is
cited
by
modern
as
enhancing
probability
that
he
made
additional
In
all.
reality,
it is
at
The
may
all
Fourth Gospel,
whom
he
Occurrences.
'John the disciple of the Lord* In references to the Gospel In references to the Apocalypse In references to incidents at Ephesus
.... ...
.
9
3 2
14
Total
* These computations are as complete as the writer could make them but he cannot claim that they are more than approximately so. They cover the fragments as well as the Contra Haer. Under John a few Gospel references referring to
; '
'
EPILOGUE
'
139
.
The
disciple of the
'
Lord
'
.
i
i
'
,
.
20
10
i
>
.
. .
Total
31
'The Apostle'
...
With
'
these references
we may compare
:
Irenaeus's references to
'
...
'
.
'
'
'
the interpreter and disciple of Peter the disciple and interpreter of Peter'
'
elsewhere.
'
.
'
'
'
'
Luke the follower and disciple of the Apostles Luke the disciple and attendant of the Apostles Luke the attendant of Paul Luke elsewhere.
'
. .
i
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
17
'
.64
.
'The Apostle'
74
Here we
Irenaeus takes
in his
title
notice again that, while Matthew, Peter, and defined as Apostles, John is never so defined by name.
that in
'
We
Paul are
It is
true
two passages which come near together (Haer. I. ix. 2, 3) he the Apostle simply, having just previously been is mentioned as cited as 'John' ; but this is different from the direct attachment of
'
140
the
title
EPILOGUE
to his
name.
Irenaeus,
when
'
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
'
who
us
'Accordingly, in sentence of the Apostles upon them passages in which John is included
and again in IV. pref. i, the book before this we have set forth the
;
all
'.
Apostles; II. xxii. 5, 'And all the elders testify, who in Asia conferred with John the disciple of the Lord, that John had
for he abode with them until the times them saw not only John, but also other Apostles'; III. iii. 4, 'And Polycarp too, who had not only been trained by the Apostles, and had conversed with many of those who had seen Christ, but also had been constituted by the Apostles
facts
;
And some
of
having always taught bishop over Asia in the church of Smyrna these things, which he had learned from the Apostles' ; 'And there are some who have been told by him (Polycarp) that John the
. .
.
when he had gone to have a bath at Ephesus Such pious care had the Apostles himself.
. .
.
and
Yea, and the church at Ephesus, having founder, and John to abide among them
'
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
'.
whom
he had associated
full
Let us attach
believes are
all
which come
into question),
and we are
to a standstill
by the
to
have been one of the never styles him 'John the Apostle', but always 'John the disciple note specially the fact that even where the four of the Lord '.
We
Evangelists are most carefully described in III. ix. i ; x. i, 6; xi. and the first of them figures as ' Matthew the Apostle ', John
still
i,
is
EPILOGUE
him
for the
141
in this
'.
Apostle John,
'
it
We
way
which he
is
only twice
unnamed
is
which
St.
Paul
so styled.
Now
arises
title,
distinctive
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
.
Peter
'
seems
Ilerpov ycyo/xeyo?
Ovre yap
t<f>r)v,
rjKovcrz
avrar varrcpov
Se,
ws
Herpa) (Eusebius,
HE.
\\\.
39).
In the
and John
the presbyter
same
paragraph he Subjoins rj rts erepos rcoi/ TOV Kvptov /za&yrwi/ to the names of the seven Apostles whom he mentions, and so may be
taken to include them as ^aO-^rai Here, however, we mark a difference since the sense obviously is that Papias was anxious to gain information coming from any (presumably deceased) px^rr)?
;
Kvpibv
wise.
(i.
e.
But
Kvptov
fuxflr/rcu
whether Apostle or othercases of Aristion and John the presbyter ot TOV their distinctive title, i.e. they were not Apostles,
but they were (presumably) associates of our Lord who fell into a class by themselves as still living when Papias was collecting his information.
On
'
we conclude
'
Lord
when he
.
any
when he says
6 vvv Se
rjp.lv
<^rf(Ti
tlcnrtas
It is
TOV Trpeo-ySvrepov
'Iwai/i/ou
avrr/Koov cavroV
the
Apostle
Eusebius who, jumping to the conclusion that John (mentioned sixth by Papias in his list of seven
Apostles) must be the Evangelist (o-a<ws SrjXwv TOV vayyeA.io-T?jv), attaches to Irenaeus the charge of misconstruing Papias's evidence which has stuck to him ever since. In reality Irenaeus appears to
be
to
impeccable witness as to the early Asian tradition in regard John ; and he completes our evidence that John the Evangelist
aji
i 42
EPILOGUE
to old age at
Ephesus, was
Thus
all
i.
e. all
that
we have
seen,
fits
evidence which favours the view that the author was not John the
son of Zebedee, but a Jerusalemite of priestly family. There are, however, other internal considerations which may seem to tell
against this view.
If there
were
would be
the com-
The
first
among
panions of our Lord for a young man of priestly family who was not one of the twelve Apostles. This is largely based, it seems, upon the presupposition that the Apostles were our Lord's only
openly-confessed adherents and regular companions. This of course is not the case. There were others from whom the seventy
(or,
according to the alternative reading of WH., seventy-two) missioners were drawn, who must, we may conjecture, have com-
before they were fit to be entrusted with their mission. Yet of these we should know nothing apart from Lk. io lff There were, again, the women who accompanied
panied with
Him
.
not a
little
during a part at least of His evangelistic tours, and minisOf this tered to Him and His Apostles out of their substance.
fact too
Him
to St.
Paul
According one of our Lord's Resurrection-appearabove five hundred brethren at once*. After
.
the
i
15
number of
'
the brethren
'
at
Jerusalem
is
given in
as about one hundred and twenty, all of whom, apparently (perhaps with the addition of other disciples who had come up to Jerusalem for the Feast), received the outpouring
Acts
suppose that the young priestly our Lord upon His travels, this disciple regularly accompanied would not constitute an insuperable difficulty. But it is not so
Thus,
if it
were necessary
to
necessary; and indeed the probability is against such a theory. Let us ask ourselves How is it probable that our Lord would
man
EPILOGUE
nexions
not
143
to
more than
who was
Him
and becoming His disciple? Is it not likely that, while reading his heart and recognizing the great sincerity of his desire, He would
just because of his youth
prospects which
He knew
with
all
tenderness to
and the great renunciation of home and would entail have refused allow him at once to throw in his lot with
that the step
commanded him
remain
at
Jerusalem ? Meanwhile, whenever our Lord came up to Jerusalem and engaged in discussion with the Rabbinists, the
at
home
young
disciple
would be
there,
great Teacher's temporary presence, keenly following the debates which his scholastic training so well enabled him to appreciate,
drinking in every word of the subtle arguments of which the Galilaean Apostles could make nothing.* Thus may well be explained the fact that the great bulk of the
Gospel has
to
at or
And, in assessing the qualities in the young disciple which made him pre-eminently 'the disciple whom Jesus loved*, shall we be wrong in attaching full weight to the intellectual bond the fact that
the youth's upbringing enabled him, in a far fuller measure than the untrained and more slow-witted Galilaean Apostles (at least
picture of external
to prove that the their interpreters.
Jewish life, and where there is discrepancy, these critics tend blame lies not with the New Testament originals but with
Dr. Gudemann, Dr. Buchler, Dr. Schechter, Dr. Chwolson, Dr. Marmorstein, have all shown that the Talmud makes credible details which many Christian expositors have been rather inclined to dispute. Most remarkable
of all has been the cumulative strength of the arguments adduced by Jewish writers favourable to the authenticity of the discourses in the Fourth Gospel, especially in relation to the circumstances under which they are reported to have
been spoken. Much more may be expected in this direction, for Jewish scholars have only of late turned themselves to the close investigation of the New
Testament.'
144
EPILOGUE
His expositions of the inner meaning of the Old Testament, and to grasp the fact that He was in the highest sense the embodiment
of its ideals ?
only natural that such a disciple should have been present at the Last Supper, and that the Apostles should not have grudged
It is
his
Lord
to
it
him.*
Nor
is
Lord
to the
at least
however, not be strange if the position of privilege granted by our disciple should have excited the disapproval of some members " Lk. ga 21 34 a passage of extraordinary interest of the Apostolic Twelve.
young
as appearing to offer a summary of the events of the fuller narrative contained in 24 Jn. 13 States in v. 'Eyevfro 5e teat <f>t\ovfiKia fv avrois, TO ris avrwv SoKi dvat This is met by our Lord's words of reproof, in which (70; 5e kv pecry vpuv fjidfai'.
,
dpi ws 6 SiaKovuiv is the verbal summary with which the foot-washing of Jn. 13 corresponds as the acted parable. Occasion for the Apostles' strife as to precedence may, as Dr. Plummer suggests, have arisen respecting the places at the
at
Last Supper but when we consider that the Twelve must presumably have sat meals alone with their Master on many other occasions, the reason why the
;
strife
this
occasion of
all
others
is
not apparent.
Supposing,
however, that this time the circle was enlarged by admission of the young disciple, and that he was placed by our Lord next to Himself, it may be that we have found
the cause of this outbreak of (f>t\oveiKia. Adopting this hypothesis, we seem to read our Lord's words of reproof with a new understanding. In the injunction dA\' 6 ptifav iv vfjttv yiveffOca ws o vewrepos the young disciple John becomes the concrete example of 6 vewrfpos, which seems almost to acquire the meaning, 'this 33 ~ 41 and parallels). Again, the point of v. 28 appears to stand out youth' (cf. Mk. 9
'But ye (Apostles, in contrast to this young disciple) are they which clearly have continued with Me in My temptations and I appoint unto you a kingdom, even as My Father hath appointed unto Me, that ye may eat and drink at My table These in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel '.
more
words, with all the fullness of promise which they undoubtedly contain, seem to be cast with something like a touch of irony in language adapted to appeal to the
Twelve to St. John presents a close 38 "42 Like Martha they were eager analogy to that of Martha to Mary (Lk lo ). to spend and be spent in the service of their Master but they were not, at that stage, endowed with the religious insight and spiritual (as distinct from practical)
;
then-condition of the Apostles' ideals. If our theory be true, the relation of the
devotion possessed by Mary and the young disciple John. John, like Mary, had chosen the good part, which was not to be taken away from him.
If
to
we
see at once
why the
which led up to it. and would, we may think, be the more careful to do so if it was his own possible It may be added position at the Supper which excited the envy of the Twelve. that the words fj.era TUJV 8w8(Ka Mk. I4 17 p-tra TWV 8w5(/ca [/iaflj/Twy] Mt. 2620 /cat ol airuaTo\oi avv avTa> Lk. 22 14 by no means exclude the presence of a non-Apostolic guest at the Supper. The presence of John (as we picture him) might well have
; ,
Fourth Evangelist gives no hint of the special circumstances As elsewhere, he suppresses his own personality as far as
EPILOGUE
devotion, that
145
when
have now, it may be observed, further explained the bond of union between St. John and St. Paul to which allusion has
Similarity of social position, a common already been made. Rabbinic training, common ideals and pride of race and enthusiasm for Judaism in its higher developments, account for much.
We
We
If
seem here
the
Paul's
keenest antipathy, as those 'who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drave out us, and please not God, and are contrary
to all
men
;
be saved
forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may but the wrath is come upon to fill up their sins alway
:
them
with
to the uttermost
all
'
(i
'
Thess. 2 15
16
) ;
could wish myself anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh who are Israelites ; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the
earnestness,
I
:
covenants, and the giving of the law, and the cultus, and
the
promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ after " the flesh' (Rom. 93 5), and can speak not without satisfaction of the privileges which he inherited as 'a Hebrew of Hebrew
and the recipient of a thorough training in the strictest 4~6 So to St. John 'the Jews' principles of Judaism (Phil. 3 ). from one point of view stand as the embodiment of unbelief and
parents
'
hardened opposition to the Embodiment of Light and Truth yet from another he can record (with certainly a strong touch of
;
words
:
worship that which ye know not s2 for salvation is from the Jews (Jn. 4 ), and can refer, with a glow of enthusiasm, to 'the last day, the great day of the feast' of
:
'
Tabernacles (Jn.
It
7").
seemed not
<tf
He may
official
minds of men
146
EPILOGUE
the light of the teaching of Him who was seen to be both supreme exponent and its ultimate goal; while at the same
possible to a trained Rabbinic scholar which emphasized the sense of its privileges and opened out the vista of its lofty possibilities
in
its
time strengthening the recoil from those its professed teachers and practitioners who resolutely shut their ears to and resisted
the
Truth,
life.
might have
Evangelist.
and would not come to Him that they Such scholars were St. Paul and the Fourth
other difficulty which may be urged against our view lies in the fact that there are indications in the Gospel which un-
The
doubtedly
the line
us, in
may
the author.
This conclusion, however, is largely bound up with of reasoning with which Dr. Westcott has familiarized
first
take our stand upon the indubitable indications that the author of the Gospel was an eye-witness, and then argue if an eye-witness, then an Apostle ; if an Apostle, then John
the son of Zebedee.
to Apostle
it
If, however, the inference from eye-witness be questioned (as the present writer has questioned may in the preceding argument), and if the grounds upon which it is
which we
questioned be held to be valid, then the case for the authorship of John the son of Zebedee is clearly weakened. The fact that
John the son of Zebedee is not mentioned by name is weighty If there are grounds if the author must needs be an Apostle. for holding that he was not an Apostle, then this omission falls into the same category as the omission of the names of James the son of Zebedee, Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon Zelotes, and possibly Bartholomew, i.e. it may be due to accident.
We
in
may
accompany Peter as
;
arguing from this that one of must be the author, even in the absence of strong indications
the contrary.
disciple
From
is
oi
whom
Jesus loved
included under
roD Ze/3e&uov
on
the ordinary view, but under aAAoi C'K rw view which we are maintaining; and
that, since the
/xa^wv
avrov Svo
upon the
EPILOGUE
identity, the latter conclusion is (apart
trary)
147
to the con-
from evidence
the fact that the disciple whom Jesus loved brought into connexion with Peter three times in rather special circumstances (i3 23ff -, 2o 2ff -, 2i off -) is weakened when we reflect that
is
heard a prediction as
fate of that
other
a special tie of -, indeed that the two disciples were lodging together or it may have been, keeping vigil in the same abode ; but this is natural in
to his own future, he inquired as to the who was similarly united to his Master by devotion. The remaining passage, 2O 2ff suggests
The very facts that the younger disciple had witnessed Peter's denial, and at the same time was animated by a kindred affection for our Lord which would make him understand
the circumstances.
the better the dreadful grief of the repentant Apostle, would undoubtedly draw him close to him in the hour of need.
We
are
left,
then, with
i 25ff
of the
first
meeting with Jesus of the two disciples of St. John Baptist, one of whom we are told was Andrew the brother of Simon Peter,
infer,
In
v.
41
said of Andrew,
this
tSiov ^t/xooya,
and from
'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
call
of the
Mk.
16 - 20
=Mt. 4
is
18
~22
for (not to
in Jn.
different
speak Bethabara
beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing; in the Synoptists, the sea of Galilee. The two accounts may quite well
*
p.o.9r)rwv
avrov Ivo
35
,
a\\os
L 2
148
EPILOGUE
we suppose that the definite call (Aevre OTTIOSynoptic narrative came subsequently to the virtual
if
;
be harmonized
of the
call
described by Jn. and on this view the readiness of the disciples at once to leave their occupations and follow Christ receives
elucidation they came at once without question because they had already been prepared for the call by the meeting described in Jn.
considerable
muse be remarked, however, that while this conclusion is Andrew and Peter, the question as to the second mentioned in Jn. i 36ff is involved in considerable obscurity. disciple
It
clear as regards
In the
first place,
we cannot be
Gospel is referring to himself; though this assumption is natural, and explains the author's detailed knowledge of the circumstances,
both here and in the preceding w. 29ff -. Secondly, Dr. Westcott's deduction from the statement eupi'o-Kct OVTOS -n-purov KT\. is surely much too categorical. should -rrpurov imply that some one
Why
else
in
Mt. 6
,r)TiT
rrjv
SiKa.iocrvvi]v
it
avrov,
we may say
rather that
implies that
'
Andrew made
his first
found him then and there '. If, then, the author of the Gospel is describing his own first interview with our Lord, there is nothing in the narrative which really conflicts
business to find his brother
with the theory that he was not the son of Zebedee but a member of a priestly family from Jerusalem. It is quite likely that such
a one
himself to him as a disciple and so have formed a friendship with Andrew, from whom incidentally he may at a later time have learned the details of the feeding
Baptist,
multitudes
who
become
as on our view, he was not permitted a constant follower of our Lord, but was an actual
(cf.
if,
68),
eye-witness of the Jerusalem-scenes only. In endeavouring thus to strike a balance between the two views
of authorship which
priestly disciple
we have been
is
discussing
to
Apostle or young
in internal
we
much both
view seems wholly to be supported by the earliest external evidence, and to have the preponderant support of internal evidence; such internal indications as may
EPILOGUE
seem,
at first sight, to tell against
it,
149
a
being amenable to
reason-
able solution.
last point to
briefly
be made
is
the
bearing of our theory of an Aramaic original for the Fourth Gospel upon the question of the authorship of the Apocalypse. In making the few remarks which he has to offer on this subject,
to a fixed opinion.
the writer would guard against the impression that he has come He has not studied the Apocalypse sufficiently
thoroughly to do this. All that he has to put forward are certain obvious considerations which seem necessarily to arise out of his
as to the Gospel. against the view that the Gospel and Apocalypse are the same author has always been based chiefly upon the differby ence in Greek style. It is held that the extraordinary solecisms
of the Apocalypse find no parallel in the Gospel, in which the language 'flows along smoothly from the prologue to the end; if it is there is no startling phrase, no defiance of syntax
;
obviously the work of one who was more familiar with the construction of the Semitic than of the Greek sentence, yet the author
definite laws.
differs
obvious that, if the Gospel is a translation from Aramaic, the criterion of Greek style as differentiating the two books at once falls to the ground. On the other hand, if the Gospel was written
It is
Aramaic prior to the author's arrival in Ephesus somewhat late life, and he then adopted Greek owing to the exigencies of his new surroundings, such Greek as we find in the Apocalypse
in
in his
t It
may be urged
that, if the
Gospel
is
still
remain
and they, though presumably written in Greek, do not display the solecisms of the Apocatypse. But the Epistles may well have been dictated to an amanuensis, who was in some degree responsible for the correctness of the Greek: and possibly
this
i 5o
EPILOGUE
Again, we have to notice that, as Dr. Charles has ably pointed out, the author of the Apocalypse frames his style upon a Biblical Hebrew model. Such a knowledge of Biblical Hebrew, though unexpected in a Galilaean fisherman, would be natural in a trained
Rabbinic scholar.
We
author of the Gospel was such a scholar ; and it seems necessary to hold that the author of the Apocalypse, who must likewise have
been a Palestinian, was similarly equipped.* It is a remarkable fact that, though Dr. Charles holds that the
author of the Apocalypse was not the author of the Gospel, the description which he gives (i, p. xliv) of the characteristics ot
the former
is
applicable, in
its
main
according
to the conclusions
are told that the author of the Apocalypse * was a PalesHe was a great spiritual genius, a man of profound tinian Jew.
Thus we
insight
He
O.T.'
Hebrew and
idioms
'
literally into
Greek, points to
His extraordinary use of Greek Palestine as his original home.' to prove not only that he never mastered the ordinary appears Greek of his own times, but that he came to acquire whatever
knowledge he had of
this
All these characteristics are precisely those which we years.' should expect that the author of the Fourth Gospel would display
if
he turned himself
Apocalypse.
the
the
The
common
to the
Fourth
Asyndeton
(cf.
p. 49),
which
is
an Aramaic characteristic,
is
naturally not to be expected in a work which conforms itself to The author of Apoc. slips into it, however, Biblical Hebrew style.
* Dr. Charles
is
(i,
p. xliv)
still
of 'his use of
Hebrew
the language of learned discussions in Palestine)'. The language of learned discussion in Palestine was New Hebrew, which is in many respects more closely akin to Aramaic than to the
practically as his
(for classical
mother tongue
Hebrew was
Hebrew
in
which
model
(cf. p. 17,
foot-note).
Rabbinic scholars were, however, naturally skilled in their knowledge of the O.T. in the original and the author is deliberately modelling his style upon
;
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.
p. 50).
Parataxis
KO.L
(cf.
p. 56).
The
co-ordination of sentences by
it
KOLL
is
needs no
illustration.
Non-use of Aorist Participle describing action anterior to Finite 12 verb. There seems to be only one instance, viz. 7rrrpe'^as i
eW
is
far
less
frequent
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.
p. 57).*
;
i,
Use of Casus pendens (cf. p. 63). See Swete, p. cxviii Charles, This construction is more frequent in Jn. than pp. cxlix, 53.
in
Apoc.
Kai linking contrasted statements (cf. p. 66).
Cf.
13 21 Apoc. 2
-
5 8
-
3*
Great rarity of 8e. There seem to be 5 occurrences only in 24 14 io2 i9 12, 2i 8 8e in Jn. is proportionately slightly Apoc., viz. i 2 less frequent than in Mk,, and less than half as frequent as in Mt.
, , , .
and Lk.
fro
(cf.
p. 69).
(cf.
Infrequency ofydp
p. 69).
^
^
in Apoc.,
'
and none of
.
/XTJTTOTC.
that
not
'
',
lest
',
its
(cf. pp. 69 f., 100). The Relative completed by a Pronoun 2 9 i2 6 14 i38 12 if, 20s 7
-
(cf.
p. 84).
Apoc.
3*,
oyojAci
aurw
'
'.
Jn.
6
,
3*,
3 Apoc. 6 9".
,
Never
-
elsewhere in N.T.
p. 30).
,
4 7 8 pxTai Present used as Futurum instans (cf. p. 94). Cf. Apoc. i 25 16, 3", 48 9 12 ii 14 i6 15 22 7 12 20 The same usage is seen with other 5 9 10 verbs in II (eKTropevcrcu, Ka.T<r6ii), 1 1 (/?A.7rouo-iv,
'
-
'
ev<f>paivovTai),
* Dr.
14
(i,
(TrpotrKWct,
'
Charles
p.
xxxv)
'
occurs often
in Jn.
i.
As a matter of fact the occurrences are 17, as against Mt. 48, Mk. 36, Lk. 59, is proportionately about 2| times as frequent in the Synoptists as in Jn.
e. it
152
EPILOGUE
after Participle
(cf.
Change of construction
in
p. 96,
ou
'
none'
(p. 98).
Cf.
Apoc.
6
,
28-*,
appears that the case against identity of authorship of the Gospel and Apocalypse can certainly not be maintained upon
it
Thus
The evidence
be added as
is all in
A
i
1-4
few words
9
may
made
by the Apocalyptist.
,
22 8 ; in
describes himself as 'John' simply in with the addition of 'your brother and companion in
He
kingdom and endurance (which is) in Jesus'. In iS 20 2i 14 he seems to distinguish himself from the Twelve In 22 he is ranked among the prophets. Though the Apostles. tone of authority in which he delivers his message is bound up
the tribulation and
,
is
the mouthpiece of the glorified Christ, it is name carries the authority of he is a man well known and of important
must almost
end of the reign of Domitian, i.e. shortly before A.D. 96. Now the evidence which we have already reviewed points
period, viz.
to the
conclusion that there was but one John of great note in Asia at this
John the
presbyter,
as
'
the disciple of
the
Lord
of the
Fourth
pp. xxxviii
who
signs him-
'John
Thus
is John the presbyter. the evidence of claim to authorship combines with that of
Semitic style in suggesting that the author of the Apocalypse is one with the author of the Fourth Gospel and Epistles. Whether
there exist criteria of Theological thought or other internal characteristics which are sufficient to disprove this inference is a question
to others to decide.
APPENDIX
i.
the Ephesians.
TrpeVov
ow
eo-Ttv
'IT/Q-OVV
Kara.
Trdi/Ta
Jn.
3
T.'f
/cdyw r)v
Soav
rjv Se'SooKas
rpoirov
Soaetv
XptoTOV TOV
wo-ti/ ej/
/ca^ws
evot
Kara
Trdvra
19
rjre
Jn. I7
tva
17'
4
Kat
vo>
6/xovota
v//.cov
Jn. 13
oYt
y
>
^''
e/xot fiaS^frat
>
eav ayou
aOcTat.
vftas yaaKapt^w rovs
17
T 7
ev a>
21
Trofro) /x,aA.Xov
Jn. I7
u/a Travres
ci/
wcrir, /ca
ei/
(rot',
dra/ceKpa/xevous
OUTCDS, 009
KK\r)cria
Kayw
avrot
ei/ T7/>tti/
[ev]
TW
7-
Christ
II.
Jn.
6
2o 26
'Eyca
ets
et/xt
...
17
Cf.
IJLOVOV
cts
ev
Xpto-Tw
,fjv.
'I-^o-ov
Tmrrevwi/
>jo-eTat*
e/xe
Kai/
21
.
eupe^vat
9-
TO aX^Oivov
Ir/o"ou,
Trail.
KTA.
V Xpio"TO)
01;
^(opts TO
We
may
dA^^ti/os is
specially characteristic
of Jn. (9 times), i Jn. (4 times), and Apoc. (10 times), occurring but 5 times besides in the whole remainder of the N.T.
II. "Eo-^aTot Katpot.
I
Jn. 2
18
ea^aTr]
wpa
154
14.
APPENDIX.
*Ov ovotv XavOdvei
v/xas,
eav
7
I *
Jn. 4 J n 2&
*
8 16
'
cos ayaTrr)
<*X>7$a>s cV
TOVTW
Cf.
TTL(TTLV
Kat
TV
daTTV'
TIS
COTIV
TOV
fOV TCTcXei'toTai.
TeXos Se
ayainf]'
ra 8e
8i;o ev
The Johannine
in i Cor. 13.
14*
teaching
is
Jn. 3
2
Tras 6
e^
avrw
/xeVwi/
ov^
d/xapraj/ct
fJLLCTL.
ov8e
dyaTr^v
KCKTry/xevos
d/xaprdvet.
I
Jn. 4
CaV TtS
t7T>y
OTt 'AyttTTCO
TW
OVV TTOtW/XCV, W? OLVTOV
u/a
^/xti/
eov, Kat
rot' d8eX<^>o/
avrov [uo"fl,
eo-rtV.
24
Cf. also
2 9 11
'
TTOLVTa
I Jfi.
3
ei/
Kttt
6 Trjp&V TttS
/Ai/ci
Acaroi/covvTO?,
w/xei/
avroO
avrov
avrw.
avrw
Kat
avros iv
17
e^
eos.
fjivpov
eXa^ev
CTTI
3 Jn. I2
17
8e ot/cta tTrXrjpwOr)
e/c
T^S
/a
prove that St. Ignatius has in ~ mind the narrative of the anointing as recorded in Mk. i43 9 = ~~ lff Mt. 26 6 Ki our Lord's/^/ were anointed; According to Jn. i2
eVt r^s KtfaXfjs avrov
-
The words
.
yet
a/a
it
is
difficult
to
resist
words
Tri/ery
KrX.
19.
The phrase
7;
Phil.
6).
apxw
4;
\JQ*
Rom.
o
[XL^^I
CHJOOJ/
(Eph.
KOO-/AOV
In
Jn.
I231
is
i6 n
we have
the
phrase
)jo
apx^v TOV
TOVTOV,
which
rendered
|uo
by Sin.
I^D^JJX? (c*Ji^j
30
I231 )
CHJCLOJ/,
and by Pesh.
is
l^a^,^? Ij&a*!;
in i4
I^N.x?
[TOVTOV] apx^v In Jn., as in Ignatius, the thought is of the spiritual ruler of the present age or world-period (properly TOV atwos 6 8 TWI> apxwTwv TOV atoii/os TOVTOV denotes TOVTOV), just as in i Cor. 2
Koa-fjiov
6 TOV
|ooo>/.
APPENDIX
the earthly rulers of the present age.
KBpV
(Syr. IviS.v.) to
denote
auoj/
and
rendering TOV
N3i3~iK
It can hardly be doubted, then, that Ignatius drew his P!!?. phrase from Jn., and the form in which he gives it suggests that he may have known the Aramaic original of the Gospel.
To
I.
fjiai
c.v
the
Magnestans.
Jn.
l 5).
(quoted
above
on
o-apKos
Tn/ev/xaTOS
rj
Eph.
t,rjv,
rj<s
TO 8e Kvptorrepov,
5.
wo*7rep
yap
19
Jn. I5
KOQ-/XOS
et
o /xev
eov o 8e KOO-/XOV,
tSiov
tKacnov
av TO iSiov
OTt 8e CK
ya>
avT<ov
^apaKT^pa
TOV
CTriKct/xevov
ecTTe,
dAX*
eSttt
^l,
ot
Ot aTTtO-TOt
TTIO-TOI
ei/
KOCTfJLOV
TOVTOV,
V/XaS
TOV
KOO^AOV,
8e
ayoiTrrj
^apa/cT^pa
.
.
TOVTO
/xio-et
v/xas 6 KOO"/XOS.
^V
aVTOV OVK
0-TtV
l/
T7/XtJ/.
I
I
Jn.
I
10
Jn. I
Jn.
V
i
8 3/
6 Xoyos 6
e/>tos
ov
V/XIV.
Jn. 3'
VK ^X
avTa
6.
\afiovTe<s
c
ovV
6/xoTJ^ctaj/
eov
.
.
35
Jn.
I3
4).
(quoted
above
on
dAA.?}A.ovs
Sio,
Eph.
TOS dyaTraTe.
7. "Oo-Trep
19
Jn. 5
eavrov
ov SwaTat 6 vios
Troietv d^>'
TraTpos
ovSev
.
.
[i^vw/xevos
ovSei/
ay
TI
j3\7ry TOV
Wv],
TTttTCpa TTOlOWTa.
Jn.
S28
a7r'
c/x,avTov
TTOtto
ovSev,
156
APPENDIX
dXXa Ka0ws
ravra XaXw.
30 Jn. IO eyw Kat 6
Trarrjp ev
Cf. also io
era
25 3 '- a8
-
7.
7rt
'Irjo-ovv
Jn.
16
s8
eX^Xv^a
TO i/
ets
TraXtv a<n7/>u
ovra Kat
irarepa.
ets
842 I3 3
,
cva wra.
Jn.
wv
eis
-
TraTpds.
Cf. I4
12 -- 8
,
10 11 ' 20
Cf. i 4
8.
oYt els eos eortv 6
i6
10 - 17
.
Jn. I7
'E<^>avepo)o-a crov
TO oVo/xa.
os
eo~rtv
avrov
Xoyos
aTro
crty^s
Jn.
os Kara Trdvra.
TU>
eo-Ttv*
. .
.
avrov.
OTt cya>
TO,
pco-Ta
avrw
Trotw
TravTOTe.
Cf. also
34
,
with TW
23 24 30 3
-
',
^ie.18.28.33
16. 18-26
7 IS", l65.
.
>
O 4 TO 44.45.-19 V I *^
-
M
I3
9.
^topts
TTCUS
,
H",
I5
21
^/Aets
cf.
Svvrja-ofJLtOa
Jn.
lff>
Cf.
especially
v.
avrov;
Trail. 9. ov
ts e/xov.
TO aXrjQwbv
tftv
OVK
To
II.
Trallians.
^cvyeTe
ow
Tas KaKas
Jn.
12
is
ov ea
OVTOL
Tts,
rrapavTa
cto-tv
and
removes
the
worthless
aTroOvycrKei.
yap OVK
shoots.
i.
8 Kavo/xai/ct yap
Ka$atpei 8c avrov Tas
7rapa<^>uas
KTX.
The word
denotes
fertility
APPENDIX
of the plant.
ra
O.TTO
According
TOV
to Aristotle, Plant,
i.
-n-apa^mSes 8e
ei'or
TTJS
Ignatius
is
the thought of pi'?7S 8ev8pov /?A.ao-TaVovTa. allied to that of Jn., with the difference that the
Thus
<j>epov KapTroV
In the
last clause
Kat
rjv
av
KapTTO?
avTwv
16
Jn. I5
a/a
...
To
the
Romans.
19
Jn. I5
KOO-/XO?
et
v/xas
CK
TOV
8ta
TOVTO
fJLKTCL V/XttS
6 KOQ-/XO5.
7.
/x^
AaXetT
f
Ttyo-ovV
Xpto-Tov
l0 Jn. 2
KOO-/XOI/
OVK
^a>v Kat AaXovi/ ev
CO-TIV
17
7.
vSwp 8e
Jn. 4
Jn. 4
10
e8(o/cej/
14
av
TO v8a>p o 8wo-
ev
avrw
?rr;y^
v8aTO? dAXo/xevov
Cf. also Jn. 7
s8
.
7.
aprov
eov 0eAa>, o
. .
.
crap^
^eAa> TO
s2 33 6 Jn. 6
'
/tov
TOI/
v/ui>
TOV Xptcrrov
/cat
7ro/xa
dX^^ivov
j3a,LV(DV
K TOV ovpavov
^(u^v 8i8ov?
TO) KOO-/XO).
Jn. 6
55
17
yap
a-dp
(Jiov
aXrjOrjs eo"Ti
/3pa>o-i5,
7TOO-15.
To
//!^
Philadelphians.
36 Jn. I2 ws TO
dA^^eta?,*
TOV
*
/xepto-/>iov
cts
TO
Lightfoot's verdict is, 'The reading of the Greek MSS. <<WTOS dAi^cfa? "of the light of truth", cannot stand; for definite articles would almost certainly be
158
APPENDIX
4 Jn. IO oVav
T )>
3
.
in ioXjj??rf
.
.
TT
oXXot
e/XTrpoo-#ev
avr&v
TropeveTai,
Kat Ta
yap XVKOI
atxyu,aXom'ovo'ti' TOV?
^o8pd/xov?.
/cat
3.
'ATre^ccr^e
TCOI/
KaKcoi/ /?OTai/<oi/,
Iryo-ovs Xptcrros,
Jn. I5
lff.
ao-Ttras ou ycoopyet
Sia TO /x^
eti/at
Cf.
on
Trail,
n.
ou TrXai/aTat, a7r6
eov
Jn.
3**
TTJ/CI,
ov
otdcv
VTrayet, Kat
Kat r^v
<fxavr)v
OVTWS
eo~Tti/
Tras 6 yeyevv^/xevos CK
TOV
Jn.
tva
3'"
c/>(os,
/xi)
e\y\6f)
Kat
epya avTov.
8.
O-TOV,
3235 Jn. 8
yvw
os
A.v
ii/Ta
Otiav,
Kat
.
^
cav
dX^eta
Secr/xor.
oo-ry,
ow
6 vtos v/xas
OI/TWS cXev^epot
'
9- avros
a)i/
8t'
^s
Jn.
IO7 9 eyw
. . .
et/xt
17
Ovpa
17
TWI/
TrpoySaTwi/.
eya>
et/xt
6vpa.'
6V
laKw^
Kat ot
Kat
"~
-^
7rpo<f>f)Tai
Kat ot aTrd-
to~eX^
KK\r)(ria.
The text might be mended by inserting a ai, as the Armenian Version On such a point however a version has little weight, gives "light and truth". since this would be a very obvious expedient for a translator. I am disposed
required.
was the original reading of Ignatius ; and that 0om>s intended as a substitution or a gloss or a parallel, suggested by the familiar scriptural phrase Ttrcva It may be remarked, however, that (viol') ^XWTOS'. the Aramaic method of expressing is the true light Syr. NDK^p"}
to think that TCKVO. d\rj6(ias
was
first
'
N"}iri3,
TO )>;*.? )>ocu 'light of truth', this latter being used e.g. to translate
d\ij0iv6v in Jn.
i
9
.
<f>>s
vb
Thus
<f>airos
than any existing authorities ', 6 apxojv rov aluvos TOVTOV noted on p. 154) to an acquaintance with the original Aramaic Gospel. For omission of the definite article in rendering such a Semitic
is older d\r)edas, which, according to Lightfoot may well be an Aramaism, possibly pointing (like
cf.
Gen. 24 48
HDK ^Pia
Ps. 118
'
way
'
'
(lit.
in
way
(up)
odov d\rj6d
APPENDIX
To
I.
7T7rA?7poc/>o/377/Aei/ovs
. . .
159
the
Smyrnaedns.
Tov
14 10
'
ets
Jft.
Kal KaOuis
TTJ
M.a)V(rf)<s vif/oxrev
K.vpiov ^/xtov
a\r)@<t)<s CTTI
HOVTIOV
TOV OC/HV cv
Orjvau Set
TTttS
epr;/xa),
oimos
VJ/AO)-
/cat
'HptoSov
TTtp
T^U,tol>
Tcrpdp^ov
V
CTCLpKL'
7TL(TT.VWV
^W^V
va
pr;
a~v<ra"f]^ov
ets cts
TOVS TOV?
ev
evt
atwviov.
32 Jn. I2 /cdyw av
vi^w^o)
/c
r^s y^5,
*at
TTIQ-TOVS ciT
ei/
avTOV,
eOvecriv,
CITC
'lovSaiots
O-CO/XttTt
Iv
^.
*
T^9
CKKAvyO-t'ttS ttVTOV.
The
allusion of o-uWry/xov
seems
to
be to the D3
standard
'
or
-
8 9 'signal-post' on which the brazen serpent was set, Num. 2i LXX /cat ^5 avToj/ eVt (n/fictov. W is rendered o-vo-o-^/xov by LXX in 6 26 22 10 Isa. 5 It is so rendered by Aquila in Ps. 60 (59) 49 62
.
Isa. ii
10
,
2:{
33
s3
.
by Symmachus
in Isa.
10
,
2:f
33
and by Theodotion
in Isa.
33
2.
The
follows
Mingana argue
:
Odes were
Ignatius are as
Ode 38"
.Uj-ii
.^ ]oo
UK>)O
fcs^oot
joo,
%f/
JJ?
t+9
}9^
)ov>
>xJ
'But Truth proceeds in the right path, And whatever I did not know it made clear
to
me,
*
Even
And
*
men
think to be sweetness/
l
In the last line the Syriac construction is somewhat harsh; lit. And the ' plagues which they think to be sweetness, of death '. The separation of of death from the plagues (if not merely an accidental misplacement) may have
'
'
'
to bring
it
'
the plagues which they think to be sweetness, (though they be the being, plagues) of death '.
'And
160
APPENDIX
:
In Trail. 6 Ignatius warns his readers against the teaching of heretics in the following terms ' For these men do even mingle
poison with Jesus Christ, imposing upon others by a show of honesty, like persons administering a deadly drug with honied
wine, so that one who knoweth not, fearing nothing, drinketh in death with a baneful delight (wo-Trep Oavaa-L^ov <j)dp^aKov 8i8oVres /xera
'
olvofjLc\iTO<5, OTrep
o dyvowv aSetos Aa/x/2avei ev fjSovrj /caKTj TO aTro^averv). In the view of the editors 'Jia*X* halyutha is not merely "sweetis
taken,
i.e.
a sweet
This
is
that Bardaisan, in
'
substantiated by a passage in which Ephrem states composing his Psalter in imitation of David,
to the simple bitters in halyutha'.
otvo/x-cXt
was administering
It is
fair
of Ignatius corresponds
to the
Ignatius compare heretical teaching to a poisonous drug concealed in a sweet drink, so that men imbibe it unwittingly. The coincidence in thought can hardly
Syr. halyutha.
Thus both
the
Ode and
be accidental.
Ode
ii
lips
stint.'
From
Ignatius,
hath been crucified, and there is no fire of material longing in me, but only water living and speaking in me, saying within me, Come to the Father* (vSwp Se tov /cat
7
;
Rom.
My
lust
\a\ovv
ev e/xot, (ra>0V JJLOL Xeyov* Aevpo TT/SO? rov Trarepa). In explanation of AaAow, Lightfoot cites Jortin (Eccles. Hist, i, pp. 356 f.) as finding an allusion to the heathen superstition that
certain waters
drinking them.
communicated a prophetic power to the people As there was one of these speaking fountains at Daphne (Sozomen, HE. v. 19; Evagrius i. 16), the famous suburb
'
'
of Antioch, Jortin supposes that the image could readily suggest itself to Ignatius. Lightfoot himself is inclined to question the 14 text, and to prefer the interpolator's text aXXo^vov (cf. Jn. 4 ); but
the correctness of AoAovv
is
now confirmed by
fail
to trace a connexion.
APPENDIX
more
161
In assessing the character of that connexion, in this and the former passage, Drs. Harris and Mingana remark with justice that
'it is
far
on his
western journey, should quote the Hymn-book of the time, than that the early Hymn-book should have picked up an obscure
passage
in
early date'.*
Ode
to -
*{
*o
*Ji{
+sa JJo
fc^OO*
'And nothing appeared closed to me; Because I was the door of everything And I went towards all my bondmen to loose them*.
:
Cf.
Ignatius,
'.
Phil.
is
bond
the
This
'Christ Jesus shall loose you from every followed by the statement (9) that He is the door
8,
'
of the Father, by which enter Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and Prophets and the Apostles and the Church'; i.e. Jesus Christ is the door of everybody, which is an explanation of 'the
of
this
passage with
J.
Ignatius,
Rom.
2,
has
p. 131, n.
Odes and
the
which Drs. Harris and Mingana have collected. The few others which they cite are of but slight importance. The
case for Ignatius's knowledge of the Odes is, however, considerably strengthened when it is noticed that in Eph. 19 he actually seems to be quoting at length an ode of a similar character. The passage runs as follows
:
Kat
aton/os
TOVTOV
fj
TrapOevia
Mapt'as
/cat
arira
ei>
r]crv\La
\.afJi\l/V
eoO
VTrep
7rpa)(0r}.
currr/p
ei'
ovpavu
TrdWas
rj
TOV<S
aoWpas,
/cat
TO
</>a>s
avroO di/e/cXaXryrof
rjr,
/cai ^VL(TfJLOv
Trapet^ev
A,ot7ra
Travra aorpa
ayu.a r)\iip
op.
2520
tit.
ii,
p. 43.
i6a
APPENDIX
eyeycTO TU> doTe/ot, avros Se
TrdvTa' rapayri T
^i/
YJV
vTrepySdAAcov TO </>ws
TTO&V
17
KawoTr)<s
f]
dvo/xotos auTois.
o$v
7rao-a /xayeia,
/caKt'a?,
TO Trapa
(TVVCKLVfLTO
SlCt
cot)
OLirrfprurfJifvov.
\vQev ra TTOVTO.
TO
seems clear that the description of the Incarnation introduced the query TTWS ow e^ave/aw^ TOIS aituo-tv; which is poetical in by character and not in Ignatius's usual style, is a hymn which he is
It
quoting.
Translated
into
Syriac
it
is
The
following translation
based, from o0ev eXvcro Traa-a /xayeta, upon the version of the letter, in which the earlier part of the poem Syriac
is
is
not included.
Vf OJCXQ.JO
.loot (oto^oo cxlo i.^*o
+~ 0004
t-M
In-,/
^9
loot |L^O)O
1^009 V? wOt
loot
*
Hal
SeafjLos,
APPENDIX
)ootO
163
1.
star
shone forth
all
in the heaven,
Surpassing
the stars;
And And
2.
its
light
its
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.
And bonds
And
of evil dissolved
kingdom passed
life
When God
4.
appeared
in the flesh
Unto newness of
without end.
the scheme
:
Hence all things were perturbed For that death's destruction was planned.
of the
In this ode the following points of connexion with the thought Odes of Solomon may be noticed
:
1.
Ode Ode
2.
Conception of the star shining in the world. 86 Let not the Luminary be conquered by darkness Nor let Truth flee away from falsehood '.
'
14
'
41
And Light dawned from the Word That was beforetime in Him'.
stars gather
The
i2 4
star,
and express
to
their
wonder.
Ode
'And
the
His worlds,
(Worlds) which are the interpreters of His own beauty, And the repeaters of His praise*.
M 2
164
'
APPENDIX
3.
And bonds
2
of evil dissolved
'.
Ode if 'My choking bonds were cut off by His hand'. Ode 2i 'Because He hath cast off my bonds from me'. Ode 25 I was rescued from my bonds Ode 42 And bring me out from the bonds of darkness Ode i7 n (Christ speaks)
1
'
'.
'
'.
'And That
'
I I
went towards
all
my bondsmen
to loose them,
binding'.
Ode
For ignorance hath been destroyed, Because the knowledge of the Lord hath arrived
'.
have adopted Jlcu^} 'error' incur rendering, following the The Greek, however, has ayvoia, which is exactly Syriac text. Ode. We have both terms )j^^*^ (lit. 'not- knowledge') of the
JJ
We
in the following
passage
Ode
i8
1011
'And error (Jlcu^) Thou knowest For neither doth it know Thee.
not,
And And
Ode
38"
ignorance
like the
(Jfcsj^,-* JJ)
appeared
sea'.
like dust,
scum of the
'And error
fled
And would
With
'
not meet
cf.
Him
-
'.
Ode 22 3f (where
enemies
Christ
is
represented
as speaking)
scattered
My
;
adversaries
gave
Me
might loose
them
He
that overthrew
by
My hand the
And set Me at his roots that I might destroy his seed Thou wast there and didst help Me; And in every place Thy name was round about Me*.
Later on in the same
Ode we
read
'Thou
didst bring Thy world to corruption, That everything might be dissolved and renewed, And on it Thou didst build Thy kingdom And it became the dwelling-place of the saints '.
;
APPENDIX
This recalls the passage
in
165
'And
the ancient
When God
'
4.
Hence
is
covered by the expression all things' ? It is difficult to think that the whole universe is intended since, though the
;
What
o^)Li( might mean simply 'were moved* or excited ', we hardly expect the terror and disquiet of the powers of evil and the joyous excitement of mankind destined to be
verb
1
o-wocu/etTo
redeemed
uppermost
to
of the powers belonging to the ancient kingdom, responsible for the magic, the bonds of evil, and the error mentioned in stanza 3. The somewhat obscure Ode 24
in the poet's
is
mind
caused by our Lord's baptism in the ancient order of things which through this event was condemned to pass away ; and this is perhaps pictured
to describe a similar state of perturbation
seems
as universal,
fjLTj
TTJV
TWV
o-aXefo/xeVwi/ /xera^eortv
ws
TreTrot^/xeVwv, n/a
JJLCLVYJ
TO,
0-aAeuo/x.ei/a.
'
The Dove
Because
He was
her
Head
And she sang over Him, And her voice was heard
And And
The
birds took to
all
flight,
And
And the abysses were opened and closed And they were seeking for the Lord, like (women)
But
in travail
Because
He was He
And
And
Lord
they perished in the thought in which they had existed from the beginning.
i66
APPENDIX
For they travailed from the beginning, And the end of their travail was life.
And
For
every one of them that was defective perished was not permitted to them to make a defence for themselves that they might remain'.
;
it
at the
Drs. Harris and Mingana compare a somewhat similar passage beginning of Ode 31
:
'The abysses were dissolved before the Lord; And darkness was destroyed by His appearance.
And
And And
'
gave
it
'.
For
15
was planned
'.
Ode
Death hath been destroyed before my face hath been abolished by my word.
;
life
in
the Lord's
Thus our Ignatian ode appears throughout to be thoroughly keeping with conceptions contained in the Odes of Solomon.
in
3.
The
includes
some
Ode i 3 'For I should not have nown how to love the Lord, if
Jn. 4
19
'We
first
cause
He
loved us
He
is,
Ode
rest
where
'.
am, there
ye shall
there also
'
am
'.
ye may
Jn. i4
be also
'
that is joined
19
Because
live,
immortal, will
;
live also
'.
and he that hath pleasure in the Living One, will become living '.
APPENDIX
Ode
i
10
'This
'
is
the Spirit of
lie'.
Cf.
Jn. 4'
14
Ode
that
I
He became
like
me,
;
Jrr. i
'And the
Word became
among
as
re-
might receive
I
Him
in
flesh,
and tabernacled
1
fashion
was he reckoned
might put
like
us'.
me, that
Him
on*.
Jn.
'But as
many
God'.
Ode 8"
in
'
Jn.
love'.
15''
'Continue ye in
My
Ye
beloved
;
ones,
in
the
Jn. i5
11
Beloved
loved you
in
'.
And ye
Him
Jn. i;
'Keep them
Thy
Thy
name
v.
}
'.
'I
'.
in
name
v.
* r
'That
19
Thou
shouldest keep
live'.
evil (one)'.
I
'Because
5
'
in
His book
12
'
'.
name
inscription
is
i
life
'.
Ode
is
Jn.
5 'And
yours
took
'.
that
our
Ode
(Christ)
'.
the
world captive
world
the nations were
'.
Ode
io"
'And
Jn. ii
52
'That
gathered
together into
He
God
Ode
io 6
And
light were set upon their heart and they walked in My life and were saved; and they became
24 (Pesh.) 'And the Apoc. 2i nations that are saved shall walk
My
'.
by the light thereof. 3 Apoc. 2i 'And they shall be His peoples' (Pesh. 'people').
15 Apoc. ii 'The kingdom of the world has become our Lord's
i68
APPENDIX
and His
Christ's,
and
He
'.
;
shall
and ever
the door
in,
'And nothing appeared closed to Me, because I was the door of everything
i7
'.
Ode
10
9 Jn. io
'
am
by
Me
be
if
any enter
'.
he
shall
saved
Jn.
v.
5
Ode
i8 4 6
'
iiff-'
The Word'.
the Light shineth in
'And
it
obscured
not
'.
'.
Ode 22
(Christ speaks)
'He
that overthrew
by
My hands the
I
Me
might
a great red dragon, having seven heads, &c.' Cf. the whole chapter.
behold,
Jn. 4
10
Ode so 12
'Fill
ye water for
yourselves from the living fountain of the Lord ; for it hath been
opened
to
you
"
'
shall give
him
shall
in
him a fount
Cf.
of water for
38
eternal'.*
Jn. y
as
37
'
emended on p no.
And
Jn. 7
fountain of the
Lord
'.
(Christ speaks) 'And a Son of Man, I was although named the Luminary, the Son of God '.
Ode s6
Jn.
That was
the
true
Light'.
Jn.
lff
:i3
'The Word'.
life
Saviour
who
to the
'Him
i
that
cometh
to
Me
and
will in
Ode
14
41
'And
*
light
dawned
Jn.
'
45
Him was
'.
light,
So
Sin.
APPENDIX
from the Word, that was beforetime in Him'.
4i 'The Messiah is truly One; and He was known
i5
169
the light was the life of men. And the light shineth in dark-
ness
'.
4
'
Ode
Jn. ly-
Me
the
before
the
'.
before
the
'.
foundation
of
the
world
world
From
Odes
it is
or less exact quotations could hardly be expected ; yet even so, some of the above-noticed coincidences are very remarkable.
Ode S22
is
entirely built up
Apoc. 3\
the poet's
use
is a fairly close representation of 9 a passage which illustrates very remarkably of the Johannine writings. His theme is the is
;
Ode
and he seems
have selected outstanding passages on this subject from Jn. and Apoc., and worked them up in a manner which utilizes their most striking phrases. This appears very clearly through
comparison of the Syriac text with the corresponding phrases of Pesh. in Jn. and Apoc.
that
were scattered
abroad
;
the nations
'He might
'
gather together
into
one
'
'the nations
rhat
were scattered
abroad
'
Jn.
n
of light
Apoc.
2i'
24
Jn. ii
52
and were
set the
traces
170
APPEN DIX
;
My people
for ever
000*0
'
'
'
for ever
people 3 Apoc. 2i
15 Apoc. ii
We
presupposed
3 Apoc. 2 1
WH.
om.) and
(CH^,*?
Xaol avrov).
form an argument for the early date of the Fourth Gospel which is exceedingly
lines of evidence taken together
These three
weighty. St. Ignatius, writing in A.D. no, was thoroughly familiar with the Theology of Jn. and i Jn., and therefore (we must surely He also appears to have infer) with the documents themselves.
known the Odes of Solomon, and at any rate quotes an ode which marked by the same lines of thought. Lastly, the Odes of Solomon appear unmistakably to have known not merely Jn. and i Jn., but also the Apocalypse. The knowledge of the Apocalypse shown in the Odes is perhaps the most surprising fact of all. If Ignatius knew the Odes, they are carried back, if not to the
is
first
But
if
century, at any rate to the very beginning of the second. the Apocalypse is, as is commonly thought, not earlier than
the last years of Domitian's reign, i.e. c. A.D. 95, there scarcely seems sufficient time for the book to have influenced the Odes;
full
between Ephesus and Antioch was easy, and that the Apocalypse was precisely the kind of work which was likely to gain ready circulation in the east, and to be speedily utilized in time of
persecution.
difficulty seems, however, to be resolved by the consideration that the book, if as late as Domitian, is generally
This
admitted to embody much earlier elements ; and it these that the reminiscences in the Odes are drawn
.
may be from
The weakest strand in our threefold cord is undoubtedly that which postulates Ignatius's knowledge of the Odes of Solomon. Though it will probably be admitted, upon the evidence adduced, that Ignatius quotes a hymn like the Odes, and though the evidence that he was interested in hymnology and actually knew some of
APPENDIX
the
171
Odes is sufficiently striking, it has not been proved that he knew all the Odes, or that they are all by one hand, and not (like a modern hymn-book) the work of different authors at various
us
fact which principally concerns of the Fourth Gospel, which seems to Ignatius's knowledge be proved to demonstration, The manner in which he utilizes
dates.
is
its
merely
teaching shows further that his acquaintance with it was not superficial, but that he had assimilated it through a familiarity
extending over many years. This thoroughly favours the theory of the Antiochene origin of the Gospel.*
*
The
is
Gospel
peculiar character of Ignatius's indebtedness to the thought of the Fourth emphasized by Freiherr von der Golz (Ignatius von Antiochien ah Christ
und
of
'
und Untersuchungen, Band xii), and by Dr. Sanday (Criticism Fourth Gospel, pp. 2428.). The former scholar concludes (p. 130) that Ignatius must have come under the prolonged influence of a community itself influenced by Johannean thought'. Dr. Sanday says, I do not think there can be
Theologe, in Texte
the
<
any doubt that Ignatius had digested and assimilated to an extraordinary degree the teaching which we associate with the name of St. John ... I had occasion
a few years ago to study rather closely the Ignatian letters, and
I
was
so
much
impressed by
it
as even to doubt
whether there
is
between a
biblical and patristic book, that is really so close. Allowing for a certain crudity of expression in the later writer and remembering that he is a perfervid Syrian and not a Greek, he seems to me to reflect the Johannean
teaching with extraordinary fidelity.' The writer concludes by expressing his belief that, to explain the connexion in thought, the alternative lies between falling back upon the tradition that Ignatius was an actual disciple of St. John, or ' had
to
actually had access to the Johannean writings years before the date of his journey Rome, and that he had devoted to them no mere cursory reading but a close and
which had the deepest effect upon his mind '. Elsewhere in the same Dr. Sanday remarks, 'I have long thought that it would facilitate our reconstruction of the history of early Christian thought, if we could assume an anticipatory stage of Johannean teaching, localized somewhere in Syria, before the Apostle reached his final home at Ephesus. This would account more easily than any other hypothesis for the traces of this kind of teaching in the Didache, and in Ignatius, as well as in some of the early Gnostic systems.'
careful study
work
(p. 199)
INDEX
Abbahu, R., 117 Abbott, Dr. E. A.. 57, 65, 66, 68 Abraham sees the day of the Son of
Charles, Dr. R. H.. 15.96, 136, 137, 150, I5 1 '53
'
Chwolson, Dr
Man, in f. Abrahams, Dr. I., 143 Ada Thowae, 27, 55, 67, 95 Adam, first and second, 45, 47
Akiba, R., 23 Alexandrine influence on Fourth Gospel, theory of, 39, 127
Allen,
143 Con3'beare, Mr. F. C., 130 the Incarnation regarded as a Creation, new, 43 ff. Cureton, Dr. W., 26, 77
,
7, 13,
55
Canon
W.
Book
20
106
22 Ammi, Amoraim, 22
,
asyndeton in, 49 f. Daphne, speaking fountain of, 160 Deissmann, Prof. A., 4. 5, 39
Delff, Prof. H.,
133
home
of
Fourth Gospel,
1298"., 171
Aorist Participle describing action anterior to finite verb, 56 f., 151 Apocalypse, Greek of, 15, 1496. authordate of, 170 ship of, 149 ff. Apostle ', wider usage of term, 140
;
Demonstrative Pronouns, 82 ff. Diatessaron, 25 f., 77, 130 Discourses in Fourth Gospel, authenticity of,
143
96,
H5
in,
'
Duval, R., 27
)
Aramaic, Palestinian, 20
of,
rise of use ff. the Jews, 21 Aramaic constructions and usages contrasted with Hebrew, 7 ff., i2f., 13, 14, 15, 16 f., 49 f., 53, 61 ff., 96, 99
;
Jews
f.
among
Aramaisms,
ff.
32 Enforcement of verbal idea, 13 Ephesus, supposed writing of Fourth Gospel at, 127; John of, 130, 134 ff., 149
Ellipse,
Aristion, 135
Asyndeton, in Aramaic, 49 f., 52 f., 54 f. in Fourth Gospel, 18, 50 ff. in Mark, in Apocalypse, 150 f. 18, 54
;
;
Eusebius, 77, 78, 134, 135, 137, 138, 140, 141 Evagrius, 160 e e Evangelion da-M hall te, 26
Evangelion
Dr. C. J.,
2,
29!'.,
shc,
26
of,
in
Book
20
116 Barnabas, Epistle of, 47 Bertholdt, L., 2 Berliner, Dr. A., 21, 22, 23
Bertholet, Prof. A., 21 Blass, Prof. F., 39 Bolten, I. A., 2 Bousset, Prof. W., 133 Box, Prof. G. H.,48
Florinus, 138
Gamaliel the elder, 22, 46; Gamaliel II. 22 Gemara, 22 Genitive absolute, 57 ff., 151 Genitive anticipated by Possessive Pronoun, 19, 85 Georgius Hamartolus, 136 Glory of the Lord, the ', 36 ff.
4
ff.
INPEX
Greek words and phrases
OLKO\OVO(IV biriaOJ) 8
,
:
irpos
153
icily a,
ns, 99 avQpu-nos l ovpavov, o Sfvrepos, 117 avcKpi&r], dtrfxpiOrjaav as asyndeton opening of sentence, 52 ff. diro irpoawirov, 15 apx cav T v olSivos TOVTOV, 6, 154 yap, 69, 151
avOpwircs
yffpairratj
5e,
107
f.
'with', 1 8, 28 f. place of itaXiv or similar adverb, 14 irpoao0Tro\T)fj.nTTjs, TTpocrcairoXrj^iaj 15 - thing ', 108 f. pf}fji.a
TrpooriOrj^i in
'
odp
and
Trj/eO/xo,
45
15 157
f.
TO
Trpoffcanov,
(pcaris d\r)0eias }
46
;
of, in Fourth Gospel and Mark, 18, 69 extreme rarity of, in Apocalypse, 151 5t5<y/it in wide range of senses, 15 5oa, 36 ff.
sparse use
<po0toBai d-rro, XpiaTos not employed as title by the Baptist, 106 us introducing temporal clause, 58 Grotius, H., 2
Haggada,
23, 132
fftvfro
introducing
f.
time-determina-
tion, it
Imper-
14
Halakha, 23 Harnack, Prof. A., 135 Harris, Dr. J. Rendel, 29, 131, 159 ff. Hawkins, Sir J. C. (HS. 2 ), 8, 16, 69, 70, 87, 88, 92 Hebraisms, 7 ff. Hebrew, New, contrasted with Biblical
17, 150 Bible employed by writer of Fourth Gospel, 1146*". by writer of Apocalypse, 150 Hegesippus, 77 Hillel, R., 22, 24 Historic Present in Fourth Gospel, 18,
irpuaojnov (irpoaoa-nov^ 15
Hebrew,
Hebrew
19
frequency of, in Fourth Gospel, 69, 70 ; Mark's i'va avoided by the other Synoptists, 70 ff. Aramaic character of iva construction, 70, 72 ff. 'iva = conjunctive that', 18, 19, 70 ff.
;
54
in
ff.,
87
ff.;
in
Mark,
89;
LXX,
16
mistranslation of Aramaic relative, mistranslation 18, 19, 32, 75 f., 101 of 1 = when ', 19, 78.
;
'
54
ff.
ff.
6S
avrw, 30 f., 151 ore introducing temporal clause, 58 ff. on mistranslation of Aramaic relative, 1 8, mistranslation of ^ = 76 f.
ovofj.a
;
'when', 78
ov ov
. .
.
.
dv6pcairos
.
.
'
no one
18,
',
19,
99
fjLrj
eh TOV
.
.
a'.uva,
99
o5i/,
66, 68
.
irds (iraf)
ov
(/w^),
98
Jacob, nsff. Jerome, 137 Jerusalem, predominance of scenes at or near, in Fourth Gospel, 143, 148 John, Epistles of, 137, 149 First Epistle Second and of, 131, 153 ff., 166 f. Third Epistles of, 137 John, Gospel of, style of, 5 ff., 149; a product of Palestinian thought, 39, I26f. written in Palestine or Syria, glosses in, 129 127 ff. ; date of, 128 discourses in, 143 author of, 133 ff. John the Baptist, 104 ff. the disciples
;
irtareveiv
77X17/0175,
els,
18, 34
39
faotroiovv ,
trvev/Jia
45
f.
TioAAd, adverbial, 19
iropeveaOat (vndyfiv^ its flprjvrjv, 14
Trpo irpoauirov,
147 John the presbyter, 135 ff., 152 ; author of the Fourth Gospel, 137 John the son of Zebedee, 133, 134, 135 f., 138, 141, 146 ff.; tradition of martyrof,
15
dom
of, 136,
137
INDEX
Jonathan ben Uzziel, 24 Joseph of Arimathaea, 134 Joseph of Pumbeditha, R.. 24 Joshua ben Levi, R., 22
Koivrj dialect,
Parataxis, in
literature,
18,
papyri, 5
in
f.
in
Semitic
6;
56
ff.;
ff.,
57. 65, 70
lypse, 151 Participle, change of construction after, 19, 96, 152 Participle in Aramaic, 88 f. ; with Substantive verb, 92 f. as Futurum instansj 94 Paul, St., Aramaic influence upon style
;
Hebraisms
in,
f.
ff.
Malchus, 134 Mark, Gospel of, Aramaic style of, 2, 7f., 16 ff., 29 comparison of style with that of Fourth Gospel, 18 f. Marmorstein, Dr., 143 Martin, Raymund, 46 Matthew, Gospel of. See Q document. Mechilta, 3, 33, 64 Memra, 38 f. Messiah in Rabbinic Literature, 44,
;
29 Theological conceptions of, Rabbinic influence upon, 45 f., 43 ff. relation of writer of Fourth 132 Gospel to, 45, 47, 132, 145 f. Payne Smith, Dr. R., 10, 30, in Perez, the son of, 46 Personal Pronouns, frequency of, in Fourth Gospel, 79 ff. in Semitic, 80 f. Peshitta, O.T., 25 ; N.T., 26 Peter, St.. association of, with writer of Fourth Gospel, 146 f. Pfannkuche, H. F., 2
of,
; ; ;
'
;
uof.
Midrashim, 17, 25 Midrash Rabba, 3, 110, 112, Il6 f.
9, 33, 44, 45, 46, 56,
Philip the Apostle, 134 Philippus Sidetes, 136 Plummer, Dr. A., n, 144 Polycarp, 130, 135, 138 Polycrates, 134 Present as Futurum instans, 19, 94 f., 151 Prince of this world, the ', 154 f. Prologue of Fourth Gospel, 28 ff. ; poetical form of, 40 ff. climactic parallelism
'
Milligan, Prof. G., 4, 5 Mingana. Dr., 131, 159 Mishna, 17, 22, 50
;
of,
ff.
42
f.
Pronoun
Mistranslation of an Aramaic original, in Q, gf. in Fourth Gospel, 18, 19, 29, 30, 32, 34, 39, 40, 75 ff-, T <>iff. ; in Mark, 76, 77 Moffatt, Dr. J., 135, 136
of,
ff.
5,
6, 7, 8, 39,
Gospel
and
Rabbinic influence on Fourth Gospel, 116, 132, 133, 35 ff., 43 ff., no, 145 f 150 on Apocalypse, 150 of Edessa, 26 Rabbula, bishop Relative completed by a Pronoun, 18, 70,
m,
84, 151 Relative particle invariable in Aramaic, 70, 84, 101 ff.
N we sha/dm,
e
Samuel ben
in
Fourth
Isaac, R., 22 Sanday, Prof. W., 46, 133, 135, 171 Schechter, Dr., 143 Schlatter, Prof. A., 2 f., 33, 56, 64 Schmiedel, Prof. P. W., 7, 8, 9, 16 Semitic Influence on Biblical Greek, 4 ff. Semitic Studies, importance of, to N.T.
research,
ff.
Semitisms,
4,
17
76
INDEX
Targum Targum
of Onkelos, 22, 23 of Pseudo-Jonathan
Septuagint, influence of, on Luke, 8 IT. Servant of Yahweh, the ideal, 1046*".
on
the
Sh"kina,
Sh
kvita,
35
ff.
Simeon, 106
Siphre, 3? 33 Socrates, 131
Temporal
;
clauses, 58
ff.
Solomon, Odes
of,
in
Johannine
i66ff.
literature
known
15
ff.
to,
132,
Theodotion, 53 f.,8i, 82, 88, 92, 123, 159 Theophilus of Antioch, 131
Thumb,
1
Prof. A., 4
Son
12,
Stenning, Mr.
J. F.,
26
4, 123,
Verbal sequences
149
in
Virgin-Birth, the, 34
IVdiv consecutive in
Hebrew, 68
2,9, 19, 76, 77,85,90 Westcott, Dr. B. F., 28, 32, 33, 78. 102,
,
Wellhausen, Prof. J
no,
'
Word
e
',
38
of, 13,
14 24, 61
ff.
conceptions derived
from, 35
Targum, Jerusalem,
nr
Targum
title,
46
PRINTED IN ENGLAND
AT THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
LU2 l-100m-7,'40(6936
S)
TL