therefore, Chrysostom has not chosen the right epithet in calling the clause "obscure'." But it is purposely preparatory and incomplete— as though beginning from the physical and passing to the spiritual. As, after the feeding of the Five Thousand, the Saviour says (vi. 63), "The flesh profiteth nothing, the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life," so, after the healing of the blind man, Jesus does not say, "I that healed thee am he," but describes the Son of man as "He that is speaking with thee." He thereby suggests another aspect of the Messiah. He is not only the Healer, but also the Speaker of the words of God.

[2164] Kaí is not immediately before the verb in xvii. 25 (lit.) "O righteous Father, both (kai) the world did not recognise theebut I (ey dé) recognised thee-and these (kai oυTO) recognised that thou didst send me." Here the first κaí is intended to keep the reader in suspense, aware that the meaning is incomplete3, and perhaps the sentence starts with the simple antithesis, "Whereas (Kai) the world did not...on the other hand (kai) these did." But the sentence is broken by a parenthesis ("but I recognised ") and this perhaps suggests the reason why "these did [recognise]," namely, because the Son imparted to the disciples His power of recognitionso that a new connexion is introduced, "but I did and consequently these did."

[2165] These words (xvii. 25) resemble-spiritually, though not verbally-the saying in the Double Tradition, "I confess unto thee, O Father...because thou hast hidden these things from the wise... and revealed them unto babes. Yea, Father, for so it hath seemed

1 Chrys. Οὐκ εἶπεν, Εγώ εἰμι· ἀλλὰ μέσος ἔτι καὶ ὑπεσταλμένος. Καὶ ἑώρακας αὐτόν. Τοῦτο ἔτι ἄδηλον ἦν· διὸ τὸ σαφέστερον ἐπήγαγεν· Ο λαλῶν μετὰ σοῦ, EKEIVOS EσTI. By uéoos he seems to mean "going half way."

2 Comp. vi. 68 "Thou hast the words of eternal life," which implies "Thou art the Saviour."

3 [2164 a] As a rule, kai ỏ xóσμos, in such a position as this, would mean "Even the world," and in some contexts it would make good sense to render it thus, "Even the world, even God's own creation, did not know Him"; but this would not be appropriate in a context where "the world" is clearly regarded as an enemy.

* [2164 b] See 2162 6 on Phil. iv. 12. In Jn xvii. 26, the words xai ¿yvúpioa..... καὶ γνωρίσω might begin a new sentence (like xii. 28 καὶ ἐδόξασα...καὶ πάλιν

i ožάow) “I have both made known...and will make known," and this hypothesis of asyndeton is more in accordance with Johannine style than the hypothesis of xal "and" repeated thrice after kal "both."

good in thy sight." There, too, the context says that no man knoweth the Father save the Son and he to whom the Son reveals Him. So, we might paraphrase the Johannine "righteous Father" as meaning substantially "I confess the righteousness of that which hath seemed good in thy sight." The Johannine antithesis between "the world" and "these" corresponds to the antithesis between "the wise" and "babes." Also the parenthesis "But I knew thee" followed by "and these knew that thou didst send me," suggests— what Matthew and Luke express-that the knowledge of the Father is peculiar to the Son and to those who receive the gift from the Son. The xa in the Fourth Gospel supplies the connexion between "hiding" from the "wise" (i.e. "the world" meaning "the worldly") and the revealing unto "babes" (i.e. the little ones of Christ, whom the Fourth Gospel calls "these "). The two are parts of one plan. In John, “hiding" and "revealing" are expressed by "not knowing" and "knowing." The thought is the same as in Matthew and Luke.

[2166] In xxi. 24, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ μαθητὴς ὁ καὶ μαρτυρῶν περὶ τούτων καὶ ὁ γράψας ταῦτα is the reading of B. On the context, see 2169 and 2429-35. It would be against Greek usage to suppose that this means, "he that both testifieth and wrote," ỏ κai μαρτυρῶν καὶ γράψας. In B, therefore, we must take the first και as "also": "This [i.e. the beloved disciple above described] is the disciple that also [besides seeing the Saviour in the way described above] testifieth concerning these things," i.e. he not only saw the Saviour but testifies to what he saw. After these words the evangelist continues, "and the one that wrote these things," making a pause after ToÚTwv and deliberately separating the two statements. As a rule, an apostle would "testify" and his amanuensis or interpreter would write (as in the case of St Paul's Epistles): but in this case the "beloved disciple" did both3.

1 Mt. xi. 25-7, Lk. x. 21—2.

2 [2166 a] "These things" may perhaps not refer to the whole of the contents of the Gospel, but to the events just described, like raûra in xii. 16 (2621—2): Codex a has" de Jesu” and e “de ihm," but these are perhaps confusions of “de his," read as "de ihs."

3 [21666] Kai would naturally be omitted by scribes before uapruρŵv because it would seem to them, if genuine, intended to mean "both": and this it could not mean. If we omit it, the rendering will still be as above, only omitting the emphatic "also."

[2166 c] If we adopt the two marginal readings of W.H. and assume [ö], in the

(p) Khi ráp

[2167] Kai yap

occurs in John twice. Once avroí intervenes (iv. 45 kai avroì yàp λ0ov, "for they also went ") perhaps receiving special emphasis from its intervention (2692). The other instance is iv. 23, "For the Father also (kai yàp & Taтýρ) seeketh such for his worshippers (τοιούτους ζητεῖ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας αὐτόν),” R.V. έχε "for such doth the Father seek to be h. w.," marg. "for such the Father also seeketh." This rendering ("for...also ") is more probable, here, than "for indeed." Kai yap may mean "for indeed "-emphasizing the cogency and truth of a causal proposition—when there is no noun or pronoun that comes close afterwards. But where there is such a noun or pronoun the force of xaí is to emphasize it, as in "For I also am under authority'.' Taken thus, the words are appropriate as a reply to the Samaritan woman, whose tone suggests that she may have thought it a mark of weakness in man, much more in God, to "seek," since "seeking" implied want and need. Mark records a saying of the Son about Himself, "For the Son of man also (kai yàp ô v. T. d.) came to be a minister"." John here records a similar saying of the Son about the Father, and with the same conjunction, "For the Father also (xaì yàp ô π.) seeketh."

On και...δέ see 2076, and on οὔτε...καί see 2258-9.

(a) Kai omitted between two adjectives

[2168] Such collections of adjectives as we find in the Pastoral Epistles (2 Tim. iii. 2 foll.) "Self-loving, money-loving, boastful, haughty etc." are not to be found in John, where two contiguous

But

second, to be part of the text, the translation will then be "This is the disciple that also testifieth concerning these things, the [disciple] that also wrote...." the possibilities of combining various readings are so numerous that it is not worth while to enter into further detail.

1 [2167 a] Mt. viii. 9, Lk. vii. 8. Comp. Mt. xxvi. 73" for thy speech also,” i.e. besides other suspicious circumstances, Mk x. 45 "for the Son of man also," i.e. He as well as others, not exempting Himself from the duty of common men, Lk. vi. 32 "for sinners also," i.e. as well as the righteous, etc.

2

[21676] Christ had said to her "Give me to drink" and had then perplexed her by saying that He could give her to drink. The evangelist here represents the Son as saying "Give," just as a father might say to his children "Give me your hearts," and just as God is represented in O.T. as saying to Israel "Seek ye my face"-thus "seeking" them-in the hope that they may reply "Thy face, O Lord, will I seek."

adjectives may always be explained by special circumstances. In xii. 3, váрdov IOTIKηs (1736 d) (perhaps intended to suggest an inward symbolical meaning) may be taken as a compound noun followed by πολυτίμου. In xvii. 3, σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεόν may be illustrated by Rom. xvi. 27 μóvų σope bew, where μóvos perhaps implies (1895, 2664 a) an adjective ("One") and an adverb ("uniquely "). It is characteristic of John that, instead of saying "the last and greatest day of the feast," he should say (vii. 37) "Now on the last day-the great one [too]—of the feast (ἐν δὲ τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ μεγάλῃ τῆς ops)," adding "the great one" as a parenthetical remark'.

(xii) Μέν, μέντοι

[2169] The Johannine use of pév is interesting mainly in its bearing on the question whether oïdaμev in xxi. 24 may have been taken by Chrysostom as olda μév, on which point see 2429-35. Apart from vii. 12 οἱ μὲν ἔλεγον... ἄλλοι [δέ], and xi. 6 τότε μὲν ἔμεινεν ...ἔπειτα μετὰ τοῦτο, it is generally followed by δέ, as in xix. 24 οἱ μὲν οὖν στρατιῶται...ἱστήκεισαν δέ, xix. 32 τοῦ μὲν πρώτου...ἐπὶ δὲ τὸν Ἰ., ΧΧ. 30 πολλὰ μὲν οὖν κ. ἄλλα...ταῦτα δέ. In x. 41 Ἰωάνης μὲν σημεῖον ἐποίησεν οὐδέν, πάντα δὲ ὅσα εἶπεν Ἰωάνης περὶ τούτου ἀληθῆ ἦν, the antithesis suggested by the beginning of the sentence is "John on the one hand did no sign, but this man, who was predicted by John, has fulfilled all John's predictions"-but the subject is changed in order to emphasize #ávra. The two remaining instances of μév are in words of the Lord, xvi. 9 περὶ ἁμαρτίας μέν...περὶ δικαιοσύνης δέ... περὶ (2077) δὲ κρίσεως, and xvi. 22 κ. ὑμεῖς οὖν νῦν μὲν λύπην ἔχετε· πάλιν δὲ oua iuâs, where, in strict regularity, the second verb should have continued in the second person ("but hereafter ye shall rejoice"), but the writer passes off to the cause of the future joy.

[2170] MéνToι occurs nowhere in the Synoptists, but five times in John. In iv. 27 "No one, however, said, What seekest thou?" and in xx. 5 "He did not, however, enter in," a feeling of reverence is suggested in vii. 13 "No one, however, spake freely about him," the reason is added-"owing to the fear of the Jews." In xii. 42-after having said "they did not believe "-the evangelist says "yet

1 [2168 a] Some Latin translators have been perplexed by the Gk article and by taking coprn as feast-day; a has “in novissima autem magna die festi Judaeorum," but "in novissimo autem die magno ac solenne," e "in die autem novissimo magno die festo," d and ff" in novissimo autem die (f+illo) magno diei festi," SS "and on the great day of the feast."

however (oμws pévтo) even of the rulers many believed in him, but owing to [fear of] the Pharisees they did not confess him." In xxi. 4 "Jesus stood on the beach. The disciples, however, did not know that it was Jesus" is the only remaining instance'. Reviewing the whole, we may say that μévrou is never used except where the context indicates prevention of some action by fear, or reverence or some mysterious restraint. As bearing on the last instance comp. Lk. xxiv. 16 "But their eyes were holden that they should not know him."

(xiii) Ὅπου

[2171] In classical Greek, orov is not used after a definite mention of place, as it is in John, e.g. i. 28, "Bethany, beyond Jordan, where (oπov) John was.....," xii. 1 "Bethany, where Lazarus was" etc. Compare especially xix. 17-18 "...to the place of a skull called in Hebrew Golgotha, where (onov) they crucified him,” i.e. almost equivalent to, "and there they crucified him." This Johannine use is not borrowed from the LXX, where omov is so rare that it is non-occurrent in the Pentateuch, Joshua and Kings. Nor does the Thesaurus give instances of it. But Mark uses it thus four or five times, and Matthew-probably sometimes borrowing from Mark-uses it about thrice. In connexion with the Resurrection, it

1 [2170 a] Out of Jn, it occurs only 2 Tim. ii. 19 ò μ. σtepeòs deμéλios, Jas ii. 8 εἰ μ. νόμον τελεῖτε βασιλικόν, Jude 8 ὁμοίως μ. καὶ οὗτοι.

* [2171 α] Mk ii. 4 τὴν στέγην ὅπου ἦν τὸν κράβαττον ὅπου ὁ παραλυτικὸς κατέκειτο, (?) iv. 15 οἱ παρὰ τὴν ὁδὸν ὅπου σπείρεται ὁ λόγος, ix. 48 γέενναν ὅπου ὁ σkwλng aúтŵv oỦ TeλEUTậ, xvi. 6 see below (2171 e): Mt. xiii. 5 (definite) rà πετρώδη ὅπου οὐκ εἶχεν γῆν πολλήν, but Mk iv. 5 (indefinite if καί is inserted) τὸ πετρῶδες [καὶ] ὅπου οὐκ εἶχεν γῆν πολλήν. In Mt. xxvi. 57, ὅπου follows Καιάφαν which implies "the palace of Caiaphas." Mt. xxviii. 6, see below (2171 e). [2171 6] Mt. vi. 19—20 (Lk. xii. 33) is of a somewhat indefinite nature, and ὅπου in Mk xiv. 14 (Lk. xxii. 11) (Mt. om.) ποῦ ἐστὶν τὸ κατάλυμά μου ὅπου... payw, is interrogative, and, so far, indefinite.

[2171 c] "OTOυ оccurs, in the Acts, only in xvii. 1 Deσσaλovíêny, öñov..., xx. 6 (ν. r.) τὴν Τρωάδα.. ὅπου (W.H. ο). Lk. uses orov five times, but never as above, unless an exception is to be recognised in Lk. xii. 33 (where Lk. follows Mt. vi. 20) ὅπου κλέπτης οὐκ ἐγγίζει.

[2171 d] The Johannine combinations of oπou with ciul above, as well as the non-use of eîμu “go" in N.T., and almost complete absence of eiμ in O.T., shew that orov eiui (not elu) must be read in vii. 34, "where I am" (rep. by the Jews in vii. 36) although the Jews refer to it in vii. 35 as πорeveσα. If the meaning had been where I “go,” ὑπάγω or πορεύομαι would almost certainly have been employed (as Jesus frequently uses both). A strong incompatibility is suggested by "where I am, there ye cannot come."