I said) ye do not accept it because ye do not believe." But, as the writer proceeds, the thought "as I said" becomes more and more prominent, and passes from an implied parenthesis into an expressed adversative statement1.

[2057] In vii. 26 "Can it possibly be that (un TOTE) it was recognised by (yvworav) the rulers that this [man] is the Christ? Nay, but [as for] this man (Aa ToÛTOV) we know his origin...": here aλá implies something quite different from that which has been suggested by the preceding context, and might be rendered by our exclamatory Why!" which often means "Why ask such a question?" In vii. 48 " Can it be said that a single one (μý rɩs) of the rulers has believed in him, or a single one of the Pharisees? But (addá) this rabble...are accursed," there is a reference to an implied negation: "Not a single Pharisee has believed in him but the rabble are ready to believe anything." The next instance resembles the last two, though the question is not asked by un, ("Could I possibly say (un Eiπw)?") but by Tí ("What should I say (rí eiπw)?") (for the various renderings of this see 2512b-c) xii. 27 "What should I say (rí enw)? 'Father, save me from this hour'? Nay, but (åλλá) for this cause came I, to [meet] this hour." 'Aλá implies the negation, or opposite, of a prayer that is merely put forward as an impossible one for the Saviour to utter.

(B) 'Aλλa difference, "nevertheless"

:

[2058] Passing over other instances (far too numerous to quote) where aά is used with an expressed or implied negative in the sense (1) "[not this] but [the opposite]" or (2) ["not this] but [something more]," we come to those where, without a negative in the context, it introduces something different from the past, something for which the past has not prepared us, but which nevertheless will take place, e.g. xi. 42 “I knew that thou hearest me always, but [nevertheless] for the sake of the multitude I said it,” xvi. 20 "Ye shall sorrow, but [nevertheless] your sorrow shall become joy," xvi. 33 "In the world ye have tribulation, but [nevertheless] be of good cheer."

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

1 [2056] Comp. vi. 63-4 "The words...are life. But there are some of you that believe not," where there is a contrast between the offering of a precious gift and the non-acceptance of it.

will keep yours also. But all these things will they do unto you because of my name because they know not him that sent me." Does this mean "If they kept my word they would keep yours: but on the contrary, instead of doing this, they will persecute you"?

italicised words point back to the earlier part of the section (xv. 18 foll.) so that the dá does not refer to what immediately precedes, but to the tenor of the section, which is, to prepare the disciples for persecution? In that case, the meaning is "Nevertheless [take courage from the thought that they will do all this to you for my sake and because they know not God." In view of the above quoted instances (xvi. 20, 33) where åλλlá means “nevertheless" in Christ's utterances of consolation, this meaning becomes all the more probable here.

(7) Special passages

[2060] 'Aά means, at first, "not this but more" in xvi. 1—7 "These [warnings about persecution] I have spoken unto you that ye may not be caused to stumble. Out of the synagogues will they cast you, nay, more (åλλá), there cometh a time when everyone that killeth you will think he is offering service [thereby] to God." But in the following verses, åλλá (1) first means "but, though it cannot be avoided," "but nevertheless," or "but at all events"; (2) then it means "but," as usual, after a negative; (3) then, again, it means "but nevertheless" (or "but still ”):—xvi. 3—7 “And these things will they do because they have not known the Father nor me. But at all events [though actions arising from such ignorance cannot be hindered] I have spoken these things to you that when their time shall come ye may remember that I said [these things] to you... And (de) now I go to him that sent me and none of you asketh me, Whither departest thou? but (aλλ'), because I have spoken these things to you, the grief thereof hath filled your heart. But still (a) I tell you the truth, it is profitable for you that I should depart." In the last sentence, it is not clear whether the writer means "I cannot expect you to believe me, but still I tell you the truth," or whether the real contrast is between "grief" and "profitable," so that the meaning is, "Sorrow hath filled your heart, but still it is for your profit (as I have truly told you) that I should depart."

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

ye worship the Father. [Ye worship that which ye know not, we worship that which we know, because salvation is from the Jews.] But there cometh a time and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth1."

It has been shewn elsewhere (1702, 1713 m) that "Jews" in the Fourth Gospel is almost always used in a bad sense, and that for this and other reasons (1649-51), the italicised and bracketed words should perhaps be transposed and assigned to the Samaritan woman as her account of what the Rabbis say. Then our Lord's words would be to this effect: "Not in Jerusalem or in Gerizim, but in spirit and truth shall the Father be worshipped."

[2062] It is hard to find a satisfactory explanation of viii. 26 "I have many things concerning you to say and to judge. But he that sent me is true, and [as for me] the things that I have heard from him these do I speak unto the world." Perhaps the meaning is, "But, though there is much to judge, the judgment must wait till the time appointed by the Father. He is the Truth. His word, which I utter (xii. 48), will be the judge?."

(δ) Αλλ' ΕΝΑ

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

1 [2061 a] Westcott explains "But" thus: "The old differences of more and less perfect knowledge were to be done away." He apparently means that the preceding sentence describes "more and less perfect knowledge" and that “but” introduces the perfect knowledge. But do the preceding words describe "more and less perfect knowledge"? Concerning the Samaritans it is said “ye know not"; concerning the Jews, "we know." Is not this rather the "difference” between knowledge and ignorance? On 1 Jn ii. 19 ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθαν, ἀλλ ̓ οὐκ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν, where the meaning of ἀλλά may be affected by the meaning of ἐξῆλθαν, see 2110.

2 [2062 a] Westcott explains "but" by a paraphrase differently thus: "The utterance of these judgments will widen the chasm between us. But they must be spoken at all cost; they are part of my divine charge; he that sent me is true...."

[20626] Chrys. says "I have many things both to say and to judge, yea, and not only to convict but also to punish, but He that sent me, i.e. the Father, doth not desire this (ἀλλ ̓ ὁ πέμψας με, τουτέστιν, ὁ Πατήρ, οὐ βούλεται τοῦτο).” Theod. of Heraclea (Cramer) says "Even if ye do not take into your minds at present the day of judgment, yet He that sent me is true, and He hath decreed the day of requital (κἂν εἰς νοῦν μὴ λαμβάνητε τὸν τῆς κρίσεως καιρόν, ἀλλ ̓ ὁ πέμψας με, φησίν, ἀληθής ἐστιν, ὃς ὥρισε τὸν τῆς ἀποδόσεως καιρόν).” This is the view taken above.

light... he was not the light, but [? came] in order that (åλX' iva) he might bear witness concerning the light." This, then, is perhaps a case of ellipsis supplied from context, called below (2204-5) "contextual" ellipsis as distinct from "idiomatic" (2213). Even where there is no preceding parallel iva, a preceding verb may sometimes perhaps be supplied as, possibly, in ix. 3 "Neither this man sinned nor his parents; but [he was born blind] in order that the works of God might be manifested in him "-where "he was born blind" is regarded by some as repeated from the question of the disciples "Who sinned, that he was born blind?" But there (ix. 3) it is perhaps better to take dλ' iva as meaning "but [it was ordained] in order that." And even in i. 7—8 åλλ' ïva might have that meaning.

[2064] The ellipsis is certainly sometimes not contextual but idiomatic'. Instances must be considered separately, but generally it may be said that ảλλ' ïva, even where it is a contextual ellipsis, conveys a notion of divine ordinance. In i. 31, the best rendering is, “And I knew him not, but [all things concerning him-whether I knew them or not-were ordained] in order that he should be manifested to Israel. For this cause came I baptizing in water." This has the advantage of keeping "for this cause" " at the beginning of the sentence, where in John, it is almost invariably placed (see 2006 and 2387).

(111) Γάρ

(a) Synoptic and Johannine use

[2065] In Matthew and Luke (when both are independent of Mark) yap is hardly ever used in strict narrative", but almost always in the words of Christ and other speakers. Out of Matthew's twelve instances in strict narrative, nine ("for they were fishers," "for he was teaching them," "for she said...If I touch...," "for Herod having seized John," "for John repeatedly said to him," "for the wind was contrary," "for he was one that had great possessions," "for their eyes were weighed down," "for he knew that through envy they had delivered him up") agree verbatim, or nearly so, with

1 E.g. xiii. 18 ἐγὼ οἶδα... ἀλλ ̓ ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ, xv. 24-5 νῦν δὲ καὶ ἑωράκασιν καὶ μεμισήκασιν... ἀλλ ̓ ἵνα πληρωθῇ ὁ λόγος.... See 2105-12.

2 [2065 a] "Strict narrative" excludes the words of the Baptist, the disciples, the Pharisees etc., which are included generally in the term “narr., as distinct from "Chri." (1672*).

Mark'. Tap is used by Luke altogether about a hundred times, and by Matthew still more frequently, but almost always in Christ's words (and in the words of other speakers). In strict narrative Luke uses it only eleven times; and in three of the eleven he agrees substantially with Mark'. Mark uses yáp altogether about seventy times, and, of these, as many as thirty or more are in strict narrative. The use of yap, therefore, in strict narrative, is characteristic of Mark (as distinct from Matthew and Luke), and the fact that Matthew and Luke agree with Mark in so large a proportion of the few instances in which they use "strict narrative" yap indicates that they have copied these clauses from Mark.

[2066] John uses yap about twenty-seven times in Christ's words-exclusive of its use (about nine times) in the words of other speakers and about twenty-seven times in strict narrative, so that he agrees (roughly) with Mark's usage. But there is this difference, that John's "strict narrative" includes what would commonly be called evangelistic comment, e.g. iii. 15 foll. "...that whosoever believeth may in him have eternal life. For God so loved the world that he gave... For God sent not the Son...and men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil. For every one that doeth ill hateth the light...." This use creates ambiguity. Many commentators have taken iii. 16-21 as Christ's words. Similarly Chrysostom3 appears to assign to the Samaritan woman the words, iv. 9 "For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans,"

1 [20656] Mt. iv. 18, vii. 29, ix. 21, xiv. 3, 4, 24, xix. 22, xxvi. 43, xxvii. 18. The exceptional instances are Mt. xxviii. 2 ayyeλos yàp kuplov, which finds no apparent parallel in Mk xvi. 4 ἦν γὰρ μέγας σφόδρα, and Mt. ii. 5 οὕτως γὰρ γέγραπται..., iii. 3 οὗτος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ῥηθεὶς....

2 [2065 c] Lk. viii. 29, xviii. 23, xx. 19. Lk. uses yap twice in the short account, peculiar to his Gospel, of the mocking of Christ by Herod Antipas (Lk. xxiii. 8, 12) and once in the Miraculous Draught (Lk. v. 9).

* [2066 α] Chrys. ad loc. Τί οὖν ἡ γυνή...λέγει, Πῶς σὺ Ι. ὤν........ Σαμαρείταις... Καὶ πόθεν. ἐνόμιζεν... Οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν ὅτι Σ. τοῖς Ι. οὐ συγχρῶνται ἀλλ ̓ Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμα ρείτας οὐ προσίενται, i.ε. “For she did not say that Samaritans have no dealings with the Jews but Jews repudiate Samaritans." Apparently Chrysostom thinks that οὐ συγχρῶνται means what his hearers would render οὐ προσίενται, which is a little stronger (see Steph.).

[2066 ] In other passages, the abundance of yáp ought not to be ignored as a possible indication of evangelistic origin, e.g. v. 21, 22, 26. Here wσneр yap twice occurs. woep is not elsewhere found in John, and it would be possible to regard v. 21-3, and v. 26—7 as comment on the clauses addressed to the Jews in the second person.