"brethren" and "disciples" in that impartial way. He may have omitted "his" before "brethren" and inserted it before "disciples" because he has in view-what he tells us later on-that "his brethren did not believe in him1."

[2396] This general habit of omitting pronouns makes the following passage all the more remarkable, xii. 16 "These things (Tara) his disciples understood not at the first: but when Jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these things (raûTa) were written (yeypaμμéva) concerning (2339) him, and that they had done these things to him." On this Westcott says, "The threefold repetition of the words is to be noticed." He refers to the "threefold repetition" of Tavra. Schöttgen gives a multitude of instances in which "this thing," represented by the Hebrew feminine "this" (mostly altered as to gender in LXX), is mystically interpreted as referring to the Messiah. The most important is Ps. cxviii. 22- -3 "The stone that the builders rejected is become the head of the corner. This [thing] (aurn) is the Lord's doing." This is quoted by our Lord, soon after the Entry into Jerusalem, in Mark and Matthew, who follow the LXX in retaining the literal (but from the Greek point of view quite misleading) feminine. Luke, however, stops short at the word "corner." This, then, is just one of the occasions where we might expect John to intervene (see Index, "John, interventions of").

[2397] There are good reasons for thinking that our Lord's quotation about the "stone" originally terminated with the words. "head-stone of the corner," and that an early Christian congregational ascription of glory, or utterance of hope or thanksgiving, to God, was

1 [2395 a] vii. 5. Of course it might be urged, on the other side, that by writing ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ, he groups "the brethren with the disciples," apart from "the mother." This must be admitted. If therefore a meaning is intended, the meaning is ambiguous (as often in this Gospel) and only to be decided by the sequel, which states that His brethren remained unbelievers.

2 [2396 a] Schöttg. ii. 45. Gen. ix. 12, 17 "This (TOUTO) is the sign," Ps. xxvii. 3 "In this (raúrŋ) do I trust," Jer. ix. 23-4 "Let him boast in this (TOUT)" are interpreted of the Messiah.

3 [23966] Mk xii. 11, Mt. xxi. 42 (Lk. om.) wapà Kupiov éyéveтo aurŋ. Comp. I S. iv. 7 "There hath not been such a thing," où yéyover Tolαúтη, 1 K. xi. 39 "And I will for this afflict the seed of David," LXX. om., A dià тaútηv. Field (on Mt. xxi. 42) says that some modern commentators have committed the error of taking αὕτη as referring to κεφαλή, This (head of the corner) was from the Lord." I fear we must add Origen (ad loc., Huet i. 468 A) kai Oavμaotǹ kepaλŃ, and probably Chrysostom. See 2621-2.

66

variously added (1) by Mark and Matthew, (2) by Luke, (3) by Barnabas'. If this was the case, John, taking up Mark's tradition about aurŋ, and converting it into the more intelligible raura, may have placed the tradition in its right position, not as an utterance of Christ's, but as an evangelistic statement, namely, that the Church, in later days, recognised "these things," which took place in connexion with Christ's Entry into Jerusalem-meaning the whole, and not excluding the contrast between the fixed rejection by the rulers and the recognition by the multitude (xii. 9-10)-as being divinely ordained.

(iv) Τοιοῦτος

[2398] As to iv. 23 καὶ γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ τοιούτους ζητεῖ τοὺς προσκυ Voûvras aúróv, Winer-Moulton (p. 138) parallels it to Mk ix. 37 [&] TŵV TOLOÚTWV Taidiwv "one of such little children2." But John has not prefixed the article as Mark has; and the article is invariably prefixed in N.T. wherever ToLovros is used as a masc. pronoun, referring to some previous description. It follows that rooúrous must be taken predicatively, although the construction presents difficulties. Perhaps re is nearly equivalent to "desire" (Dan. vii. 19 Theod. ¿ýτov, LXX 0λov) and the meaning is "desires [to have] his worshippers such," as Horace uses "te semper amabilem sperat " for "hopes [to have] thee ever amiable." But of course ¿éî does not

1 [2397 a] Luke xx. 18 (instead of Mk-Mt.'s continuance of the Psalm quotation) has a prediction that (see Dan. ii. 35-44) "Everyone that falleth on that stone shall be broken in pieces." Barnabas, after the words "He hath made me as a hard rock,” continues, vi. 4, λέγει δὲ πάλιν ὁ προφήτης· Λίθον ἂν ἀπεδοκίμασαν οἱ οἰκοδομοῦντες, οὗτος ἐγενήθη εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας. καὶ πάλιν λέγει Αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ μεγάλη καὶ θαυμαστή, ἣν ἐποίησεν ὁ κύριος.

[23976] The words in the LXX "This (aurn) came (èyévero) from the Lord and it is marvellous in our eyes" supplied an extremely appropriate congregational utterance for Greeks, coming after the words "The stone that the builders rejected"—as though the Gentile converts said, "The rulers of Israel, the builders of the Temple, rejected the Stone that was to become the head (xɛpaλń), but we accept it, i.e. the head, and it is marvellous in our eyes." This would be an error; but, as we have seen, it was one that Origen certainly, and Chrysostom probably, adopted. Both these commentators connect the text with the notion of the cornerstone as uniting the believers in Israel with the Gentiles (Orig. Huet i. 467 E, Chrys. ad loc.).

2 [2398 a] Mk ix. 37, x. 14, Mt. xix. 14, Lk. xviii. 16, Acts xxii. 22, Rom. xvi. 18, 1 Cor. v. 11, vii. 28, xvi. 16 etc. Chrys. ad loc. el tocoútovs (Morel. τούτους) πάλαι ἐζήτει seems to have taken τοιούτους non-predicatively, but the usage of all books in N.T. (including 3 Jn 8) is hardly to be disputed.

mean "desire" exactly: and the evangelist may intend to suggest not only what the Father "desires" His worshippers to be, but also the fact that He is "seeking" them out of the world, and "seeking" to help them, as the shepherd "seeks" his flock.

[2399] In classical Greek the personal inflexion of a verb dispenses mostly with personal pronouns, e.g. vueîs, as subject. But John uses vues about as often as it is used by all the Synoptists together. The main reason is his love of contrast as in viii. 23" Ye (vueis) are from beneath; I (y) am from above: ye (vueîs) are from this world; I (y) am not from this world1." Sometimes, however, emphasis may be intended, and may be in danger of being confused with contrast. Thus, in the first instance where peis occurs, i. 26 ("I (y) baptize in water; midst of you standeth [he] whom ye (vueîs) know not") a contrast might be supposed to be intended between "ye" and "I." But there "ye" perhaps means "even ye2, although he is in the midst of you"; and "I" is contrasted, not with "ye" but with "he whom ye know not."

[2400] But a great deal is lost by readers of the English versions of the Fourth Gospel from the general neglect of the translators to distinguish the instances where the English personal pronoun does,

1 [2399 a] There is very little in the Synoptists like this use of vμeîs. The nearest approach to it is the contrast between the "my" of prophecy, meaning God's ("my house") and "ye," in Mk xi. 17 (comp. Mt. xxi. 13, Lk. xix. 46) "My house shall be called a house of prayer...but ye (vueîs) have made it a den of robbers" and the Sermon on the Mount contrasts "I say unto you" with what was "said to them of old time" (Mt. v. 21-2, 33-4).

:

66

2 [23996] Even ye." Perhaps the emphasis is condemnatory, not "even ye," but " 'ye of course," "ye, being such as ye are." Comp. v. 44 "How can ye [being such as ye are] believe, [ye] that receive glory from one another."

[2399 ] In 1 Jn, there is a clear distinction between "we write" and "I write." The Epistle opens with "we" thus (i. 1—10) That which we have heard, that which we have seen... And these things we (emph. nueîs) write unto you that our (ŋμŵv, marg. vμŵv) joy may be fulfilled........ If we say that we have not sinned we make him a liar and his word is not in us." After thus writing in the name of the Apostles and Elders generally, describing their testimony, their privileges, and their dangers, the writer passes to his individual testimony (ii. 1) "My little children, these things I write unto you," and this is repeated nearly a dozen times, ending with v. 13 “These things have I written." But no pronoun is inserted except for emphasis or antithesis, i. 4 "And these things we write (ypápoμev nμeîs) that our (v. r. your) joy may be fulfilled."

from those where it does not, represent a Greek pronoun. Thus, ii. 18 (A.V.) "What sign shewest thou unto us?" and vi. 30 "What sign shewest thou then?" appear on the same level. But in the latter the pronoun, "thou," is inserted in the Greek; and the context shews that the Jews emphasize the pronoun, possibly meaning "thou also [like Moses]," whom they presently mention, or else meaning "thou on thy side [since thou demandest obedience from us]1." So in iv. 10 "If thou hadst known...thou (o) wouldst have asked him (aúróv)," the second "thou" is emphatic and the meaning is, "Thou wouldst have asked him [not waiting for him to ask thee]." There is also a deliberately intended difference between queîs oïdaμev and oldaper in the following, ix. 29 "We (nues) know that God hath spoken to Moses, but this man- we know not whence he is" where the former means, "We, the guardians of the Law about which you know nothing."

(ii) 'Eyú

66

[2401] For y with eiμí, see 2220-8. For yw, as denoting emphasis generally, see 2399 and 1713. The emphatic use of “I” in the testimony of the Baptist-attested sometimes by B alone among the uncial MSS.-has perplexed some, who have not perceived that the Baptist is intended, by the use of this pronoun, to emphasize his own inferiority to Christ, or else the spontaneousness of his testimony, "I am not the Christ," "I am [but] a voice," "I baptize with water," "I am not worthy to loose his latchet" etc. The following are the instances in Greek: i. 20 ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ὁ χρ., i. 23 ἐγὼ φωνή, ¿yw eiμì i. 267 ἐγὼ βαπτίζω. οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ [ἐγὼ] ἄξιος, i. 30 οὗτός ἐστιν ὑπὲρ οὗ ἐγὼ εἶπον (where Chrys. not only changes υπέρ to the more usual περί but also drops éyu), i. 31 (rep. 33) kȧyw ovк ydew, i.e. "and I for my part did not know him, it was God that revealed him to me," i. 31 διὰ τοῦτο ἦλθον ἐγὼ ἐν ὕδατι βαπτίζων, i. 34 κἀγὼ ἑώρακα, i.ε. “ and I, with my own eyes, opened by God, have seen," iii. 28 autoì vμeîs

1 [2400 a] In vi. 30 тí ovv Toleîs σoù onueîov; the R. V. "What then doest thou for a sign?" may be intended to emphasize "thou," but there is nothing to make this clear to an English reader. Either italics in the text, or some sign in the margin, might have indicated it. And the absence of any such indication obscures the sense in many passages.

2 * [2401 α] So, too, Mk i. 8 ἐγὼ ἐβάπτισα...αὐτὸς δέ, Mt. iii. rr, Lk. iii. 16 ἐγὼ μὲν αὐτός. But the Synoptists om. ἐγώ in the clause about the shoe-latchet or shoes, οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανός.

μοι μαρτυρεῖτε ὅτι εἶπον [ἐγώ] Οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐγὼ ὁ χριστός, i.e. I did not wait for others to dispute my claim to be Messiah, I myself spontaneously denied all claim. Here Alford rejects the first yw, apparently on the ground that B, alone of the uncials, has it.

(iii) Σú

[2402] The pronoun "thou" (1726) occurs in John more frequently than in all the Synoptists together. It occurs four times in the short cross-examination of the Baptist by the Jews, four times in the Samaritan Dialogue, and seven times in Christ's Last Prayerwhereas in the whole of Mark's Gospel it does not occur more than ten times. In many cases the Jews use it to Jesus "Thou testifiest about thyself," "Art thou greater than our father Abraham?" etc. But its frequency extends to the whole of the Gospel and indicates the evangelist's tendency, 1st to lay stress on personality and, 2nd, to express personality in dialogue.

[2403] In xix. 9 "whence art thou (móbev el σú;)?" a difficulty is raised by ou as well as by wó0ev. As to móbev, it is barely conceivable that Pilate might have been so impressed by the charge of the Pharisees (xix. 7 "he made himself a son of God") that he returns to his mysterious prisoner with the question "From what source, celestial or terrestrial, art thou?" But, even in that case, there is no need of ou, which in questions, as in imperatives, sometimes implies contempt (2734). Chrysostom-who apparently had a different reading-says that Pilate, terror-stricken, "begins his examination all over again saying, Art thou the Christ? (άνωθεν...λέγων Εἰ σὺ eló Xpurrós;) But He gives him no answer1."

[2404] The Index to Epictetus shews that πόθεν σοι; and πόθεν σú; might be used, as detached phrases, to mean "How could you have the power to do so-and-so?" "How are you able to do this or that?"-with a suggestion of incredulity. This suggests another explanation of the words of Pilate. Fresh from the saying of the Pharisees ("He made himself Son of God") he comes back into the Praetorium repeating to himself "This man son of God!" and then utters his thought aloud to the prisoner, "How could you possibly be

1 [2403 a] It is possible that Chrys. has confused the utterance of Pilate with the utterance of the High Priest in Mt. xxvi. 63, see 2734 d.