ávýp, the lord, the husband of Israel. I came and spoke in his behalf, preparing the way for him as the bridegroom1." See 2718-22.

(xviii) Υπό and ὑποκάτω

(1) Υπό with Accusative

[2372] 'Yó with accusative occurs only in i. 48 "Before Philip called thee being under the fig-tree I saw thee (πpò тoû σe ÞíλTTOP φωνῆσαι ὄντα ὑπὸ τὴν συκῆν εἶδόν σε).” This should be compared with the following, which contains the only instance of vokáтw in John, i. 50 "Because I said to thee that I saw thee underneath the fig-tree (ŏrı eldóv σe vñokátw Tŷs σukηs) thou believest!" Here a phrase with úró and accusative is quoted with vокáтw and genitive. Perhaps the more emphatic form Toкáтw, "under cover of," emphasizes the notion of secrecy: "Because I said to thee that I saw thee under cover of a fig-tree [as if that were, in thine eyes, so very marvellous]." The same substitution is found in Luke's, as compared with Mark's, description of the suppressed light. Mark has "under the bed," but Luke "under cover of a bed," or "thrust down under a bed"."

1 [23716] For vrép with personal object and verb of speaking, comp. Xen. Cyrop. iii. 3. 14 ἐπεὶ οὖν σὺ σιωπᾷς ἐγὼ λέξω καὶ ὑπὲρ σοῦ καὶ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, Ρolyb. xxi. 14. 9 ταῦτα ἀπεφήνατο ὑπὲρ παντὸς τοῦ συνεδρίου, xxviii. 16. 4 ὑπὲρ τῆς [πρεσβείας] ἐποιεῖτο τὸν χρηματισμὸν καὶ τοὺς λόγους.

2

[2372 a] Mk iv. 21 vaò The Krán, Lk. viii. 16 ỦTOKÉT Khins. In LXX, (1) “under the tree, oak, pomegranate etc." is regularly vwó with accusative, but (2) "under every green tree," referring to idolatry, is regularly voкáтw (in Is. lvii. 5, where LXX has iró, Aq. and the rest have woкkáтw) with genitive. By so allusive a writer as Jn this distinction might be utilised here if the intention was to indicate in the second phrase (vπokáтw) that Nathanael was passing through some spiritual crisis and perhaps wrestling with the solicitations of evil thoughts just before Philip called him.

[23726] There is ambiguity in the first words, wрÒ тoÛ...σUKŶv. The caller might be Nathanael or Philip, and either Philip or Nathanael might be under the fig-tree. We have to infer the meaning from the context. And, even when eldóv σe is added, there is still ambiguity. "Ovra may agree with (1) the preceding or (2) the following σe: and the meaning may be (1) "[Long, or just] before Philip called thee at the moment when thou wast under the fig-tree-I saw thee," (2) "[Just] before Philip called thee-I saw thee in that moment when thou wast under the fig-tree."

[2372] Chrysostom has a long and not very clear commentary, in the course of which he seems to assert that Christ had seen Nathanael not only “just before (πρiv ǹ pwvñσai)" the calling but also "before this (πpò ToÚTov)": only the time had not come to say this. And yet Chrysostom previously says "But Jesus

(2) Υπό with Genitive

[2373] 'Yo with the genitive is avoided by John (1885) as he prefers to speak of an agent performing an action rather than of an act performed by (úró) an agent. It occurs only in xiv. 21 ô xwv Tas ἐντολάς μου κ. τηρῶν αὐτὰς ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαπῶν με· ὁ δὲ ἀγαπῶν με ἀγαπηθήσεται ὑπὸ τ. πατρός μου, where perhaps the writer desires to repeat precisely the words & ȧyanov μe so that they may constitute the two middle terms of the sentence (2544 a). Perhaps the frequency of the nominatives ò ayaπŵv and ô μǹ ayaπŵv in the Epistle (1 Jn ii. 10, iii. 10, 14, iv. 7 etc.) may partly explain the shape of the sentence here. Had the verb been τιμάω we should have expected ἐάν τις ἐμὲ τιμᾷ τιμήσει αὐτὸν ὁ πατήρ similarly to xii. 26.

PRONOUNS

I. DEMONSTATIVE

(i) Aúrós (see also 2723-7)

[2374] Aurós (nom. sing.), in Luke1, sometimes means "he" (unemphatic); but John uses it always to mean "himself," sometimes in a context mentioning other persons (“himself (avrós) and his mother," "himself and his household") but more often without such context to mean "of his own knowledge, or motion," "unaided," "unprompted," eg. ii. 24-5 "But Jesus [of] himself (å. dè 'I.) would not trust himself to them because he understood [of] himself (dià Tò avτòv yivwσkew) all men...for he knew [of] himself (avròs yàp ¿yívw

answered as God.

For indeed He said I have known thee from the beginning... and 'But now (i.e. just now) did I see thee in the fig-tree (Kai yàp elπev, őtɩ Ανωθέν σε οἶδα...καὶ, Νῦν εἰδόν σε ἐν τῇ συκῇ...).”” Probably καὶ γὰρ εἶπεν means "For indeed He said [in effect]" i.e. He meant. And Chrysostom perhaps implies that the words of Jesus contained both of the meanings above mentioned, though the time had not yet come when the former ("long before") could be clearly expressed. It will be noted that he paraphrases "under the fig-tree" as "in [the covert of] the fig-tree."

1 [2374 α] Comp. Lk. xix. 2 καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀνὴρ ὀνόματι Ζακ. καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν ἀρχιτελώνης with Judg. xvii. 7 καὶ ἐγενήθη νεανίας...καὶ αὐτὸς Λευείτης, a literal rendering of the Heb. "and he [was] a Levite," and see Lk. iv. 14-15, viii. 1 etc. In Lk., this use is probably Hebraic.

2 [23746] Jn ii. 12, iv. 2, 12, 53, xviii. 1 (R.V.) "he entered himself (å.) and his disciples,” (A. V.) “he entered and his disciples."

σKEV) what was in man1," vi. 6 "For he himself (å. yàp) knew [i.e. he knew of himself, although he asked a question]..."

[2375] So in vi. 15 "Jesus withdrew again into the mountain himself alone," avròs μóvos is in contrast with the multitude that wished to seize Him, and perhaps it does not merely mean "by himself alone." Several authorities omit aurós. Perhaps it has a mystical emphasis (2724-6). The same phrase, avròs μóvos, is applied to the grain of seed that will not die, xii. 24, A.V. "It abideth alone," but R.V. "it abideth by itself alone." It would be well to use the emphatic pronoun elsewhere, e.g. vii. 10 "Then he himself also went up [following his brethren]." In v. 20 "The Father loveth the Son and sheweth him all things that he himself doeth," R.V. has "himself," but does not have it in xii. 49 "The Father that sent me hath himself given me commandment (ὁ πέμψας με πατὴρ αὐτός μοι ἐντολὴν δέδωκεν).” In the latter, αυτός is not quite the same as ἐκεῖνος, “ He and no other"; it is rather, "He in His own person," or "He in His own character of Father"."

[2376] AUTOús (accus. pl. masc.) occurs very frequently in the Synoptic narrative, to denote disciples, multitudes, Pharisees etc., in relation to Jesus, describing how Jesus "taught them," "healed them," "called them,” “sent them,” “questioned them" etc. In John

it occurs thus only four times3 (excluding one instance in an interpolated passage). On the other hand it occurs nine times in Christ's Last Prayer referring to the disciples, when He is praying to the Father concerning "them"."

1

[2374] A.V. omits "self" in each of the three cases, R.V. in every case but the third. The threefold repetition of autós is remarkable. In reality it does not mean "Jesus, by himself”—for Jesus repeatedly declared that He does nothing "from, or by, himself"--but Jesus being one with the Father or with the Spirit. Comp. the threefold repetition of raûra in 2396—7.

2 [2375 a] In xii. 49 R.V. has “The Father which sent me, he hath given me...." In vii. 4 οὐδεὶς γάρ τι ἐν κρυπτῷ ποιεῖ καὶ ζητεῖ αὐτὸς ἐν παρρησίᾳ είναι, the txt, if correct, means "himself in opposition to his work." W.H. marg. has aʊró, with BD d; but (1) c might be dropped before €, (2) although Syr. Cur. omits aúrós, SS inserts it, (3) nŵ with accus. and inf. is not found in N.T. See 2727. 3 Disciples in i. 38, vi. 17, xiii. 1, soldiers in xviii. 7.

4 viii. 2.

5 [2376 a] xvii. 6-23. The nom. pl. aurol is used (perh. in a more personal and emotional sense than exeîvo) in Christ's Prayer for the disciples, xvii. 19 "that they may be also themselves hallowed," xvii. 21 "that they may be also themselves in us." In xvii. 8 κal avтol λaßor, there is perh. a notion of spon

[2377] In xviii. 11 τὸ ποτήριον. οὐ μὴ πίω αὐτό, there is probably a combination of two constructions (1) "that very cup (avrò т. π.),” i.e. the cup just as the Father presents it, and (2) the repetition of autó (more usually exeîvo) to emphasize the object1. In xx. 2—15, after Mary has said "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb," the two disciples run thither, and one of them happens to be indicated by a pronoun (xx. 6 "Simon Peter following him"): but the narrative proceeds to describe how Peter (xx. 7) "entered into the tomb, and beholdeth...the napkin, which had [before] been upon his head," where "his," of course, means "the Lord's "-very naturally and dramatically since "the Lord" is in the mind of the evangelist and is assumed by him to be in the minds of sympathetic readers and similarly Mary addressing, for the first time (as she supposes), the "gardener," says "Sir, if thou hast conveyed him away," although the "gardener" has merely said, "Whom seekest thou??"

[2378] The meaning of autoû is disputed in the following, viii. 44 "He (exeivos) was a murderer from the beginning and stood (orηKEV) not in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he is speaking that which is false (rò vedos) he speaketh out of his own (èk Twv idíwv) (2728); because he is a false speaker (evσrns) and the father of it (avrov)." Here "of it" probably means "of that which is false." Falsehood is regarded as being slanderous, i.e. diabolic, or Satanic. Whenever Satan utters that which is false he speaks "out of the abundance of his heart," "out of his inmost nature"; but it is also suggested (by "your father" in the context) that, when the Slanderer causes men to slander, he speaks out of them as "his family"-idiwv being either masculine or neuter. For Origen's and Chrysostom's views see 2728. R.V. has "speaketh of his own which, if "of" is meant for "from" (as in "give of," "take of"), is probably not English (2728 6), or only the English of scholars.

وو

taneousness, "and they of themselves received the words I gave them." (In xvii. 11 avtol (v. 1. ovroɩ), if genuine, is antithetical to the following ¿yw.)

1 [2377 a] Winer-Moulton p. 184, after quoting Jn xviii. 11, says "The pronoun is used for emphasis: so also in Mt. vi. 4, 1 Pet. v. 10 (Acts ii. 23), Rev. xxi. 6." But W. H. reject aúrós in Mt. vi. 4, Rev. xxi. 6, not even giving it in the margin. In 1 Pet. v. 10 avròs KaTaρTloe probably implies the willingness of the Father to strengthen those who resist temptation (not "He [as distinct from others]"). In such a solemn utterance as xviii. 11, it is hardly possible that autó should be "pleonastic."

2 On auroû, as distinct from davroû or tôios, used possessively, see 1720 a—i.

τις

But

[2379] Some have suggested that auroù above (viii. 44) refers to TIS "anyone," implied as the subject of daλ, "Whenever anyone speaks...he is a liar, and so is his father," i.e. so is the devil. (1) the alleged instances of the omitted rs are quite different from the context here'. (2) Such an end to a sentence as κai & Taτηρ avrou, leaving the reader to supply "is the same," or "likewise a liar," is quite unparalleled in this Gospel. (3) Where the subject is omitted, it would not be permissible (except in very special cases, such as Mt. xix. 3 ëέeσti [Tiví], "a man may") to use a pronoun referring back to the non-existent subject.

[2380] In xi. 45-6 "Many therefore of the Jews, [by 'many' I mean] those that had come (oi bóvтes) to Mary...believed in him: but some of them (τινὲς δὲ ἐξ αὐτῶν) went away to the Pharisees and told them...," the pronoun “them” may mean either "the Jews" or that section of the Jews which "had come to Mary." For a discussion of this see 1941 foll. It is not likely that those who "told the Pharisees" told them from good will to Jesus, desiring to glorify the latter: for, had that been the meaning, the writer would probably have used "and," or "therefore," instead of "but " (" but some of them went").

66

1 [2379 a] Of the instances alleged by Winer-Moulton p. 736 n. 3, Job xxviii. 3 has "man" supplied in R.V. but "He" (i.e. God) in A.V.; both R.V. and A.V. agree in supplying "God" in the context (xxvii. 22), and its poetic character makes it of little use as a parallel to Jn. In 2 S. xvi. 23, dv тpóñov ¿ñepwrhoŋ is a literal rendering of Hebrew, as though [one] were to take counsel," and has little bearing on independent Greek. In Mt. xix. 3, Tɩɩ may be easily supplied after eσT, "[one] is permitted," and the parall. Mk x. 2 has avôpí. In I Thess. iv. 9, the substantival infinitive in οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε γράφειν ὑμῖν is very doubtful, having regard to (1) eixoμev in B, exoμev in other good authorities, Ypápeσla in some authorities, and to (2) the likelihood of conformity to 1 Thess. ν. 1 οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε ὑμῖν γράφεσθαι. In any case it supplies no parallel to λαλῇ in Jn viii. 44.

[23796] Winer himself does not recognise the omission of the indefinite ris in any instance except where the subject can be supplied by the reader from his own knowledge or reading, or where it means "God,” “Scripture,” “the sacred writer" etc. and, though it is frequent in LXX (as literal transl. of Hebrew, e.g. Ezr. iv. 15 "that [one] may search”. Èπiσкéηrai, but 1 Esdr. ii. 18 ¿mɩokepëý) it requires more support than is alleged by Winer-Moulton before it can be recognised in any book of N.T., and especially in John, who had other ways of expressing himself (¿áv Tɩs λaλy, ỏ laλŵv etc.), so that antecedently he would not be likely to use such an ellipsis even if the other evangelists used it.

2 [2380a] It may be said that the impotent man cured by Jesus gave information similarly (v. 15) to the Jews. But we are not told that he “believed in Jesus"; and it is quite possible that the evangelist regarded him as ungrateful and unbelieving-a contrast to the blind man, of whom it is expressly said that (ix. 36—8) he "worshipped," after expressing "belief.”