to some extent, God's being and attributes long before one has seen" Him, in the Johannine sense, as revealed in the Son.

[2492] No one has satisfactorily explained the extraordinary statement attributed to the Pharisees in vii. 52 "Out of Galilee ariseth no prophet (ἐκ τῆς Γ. προφήτης οὐκ ἐγείρεται).” On this, Westcott remarks, "Jonah, Hoshea, Nahum, and perhaps Elijah, Elisha, and Amos were of Galilee." How then could the Pharisees first say to Nicodemus, "Search and see," that is, in effect, “Look at the Scriptures [for you know nothing about them]" and then make such an astounding statement, inviting from Nicodemus an obvious refutation, "Search ye the Scriptures-and ye will learn that prophets do arise from Galilee""? The only approach to an explanation is that the present "arises " means "arises as a rule." But this-besides being forced-would expose the Pharisees to the charge of impiety, "Would you lay down 'a rule' for God and assert that He cannot do anything but what you say He does 'as a rule '?" As it stands, the text seems inexplicable. And there is no variation of the text sufficient to afford a solid ground for emendation'. Otherwise the conjecture would be obvious that, after the final c in "Galilee," o has dropped out. The result of this would be to convert "the prophet" (mentioned just before in vii. 40) to "prophet." Concerning "the prophet," the Pharisees might have traditions identifying His birthplace with that of the Messiah so that they might say "the prophet ariseth not from Galilee." In that case the present would be prophetic-" is not to arise."

[2493] In xi. 47 Tí Tоlovμer, Wetstein simply refers to Acts iv. 16 Tí Tоnowμev; as though the meaning were "What ought we to do?"

1 [2492 α] In vii. 52, B and L have ιδε οτι εκ της γ. προφ. οὐκ εγείρεται (Leynyeрrai). The order is given differently ("a prophet from Galilee") in Η ιδε οτι προφ, εκ της γ. ουκ εγείρεται, D ιδε τας γραφας οτι προφ. εκ της γ. ουκ EYELрETAL, SS "see that a prophet from Galilee hath not arisen," and in a (b is missing) and f. Origen has (Huet ii. 278 B) the order of B, but ovк étéρxeтai ovdè ἐγείρεται. There happens to be no other instance in the Gospels of tde ÖTL (Lk. xxiv. 39 idere örɩ not being to the point). "Ide is used absolutely in i. 46, xi. 34 "come and see." If the Greek ran originally è. K. ïde, 'O πроPÝTNS ÈK T. г. οὐκ ἐγείρεται, "Search and see, The prophet ariseth not out of Galilee," scribes and editors might be inclined to alter ide o πроηTMηs because according to Johannine usage (i. 29, 36, xix. 14, 26, 27) it would mean Behold, [here is] the prophet.” This might explain why D inserts "the scriptures" after "behold." Among other changes, or might be substituted for o. The o before #popýrηs is omitted in i. 21 by and in i. 25 by C. Moreover SS, although it has "the prophet" correctly in i. 21—5, has “a prophet” incorrectly in vii. 40.

64

But there, as in Lk. iii. 10, 12, 14, Acts ii. 37, the aorist subjunctive is used. Also the subjunctive in Jn vi. 28 (Tí Toμer) (2512) indicates that John would have used that mood here if he had meant "What is to be our course of action?" If ri πolovμev; could be used like Tí Touîs; "what folly art thou committing?" (Epict. ii. 15. 7, iii. 5. 15, Aristoph. Nub. 723, Vesp. 1443) it might mean here "How foolishly are we acting in doing nothing!" Such exclamations in the first person are existent in τί φημί; and τί πάσχω; but they are not given in the Thesaurus under o.

[2494] Philo i. 205 says that τί ἐποίησας is ἴσον τῷ οὐδὲν ἐποίησας or ovdev vvoas, and this meaning,-i.e. non-accomplishment-is very suitable here, "What are we accomplishing?" i.e. “We are accomplishing nothing." This also brings out more clearly the play upon Christ's "doing" mentioned in the context, saying in effect, "We are doing nothing while this man is doing miracle after miracle." Moreover it prepares the way for the utterance of Caiaphas, who tells them what to" do" ("it is expedient that one man should die"). It is on the same line of thought as xii. 19 "Ye behold that ye are doing no good (wpexeîte ovdév). See, the world is going after him!" Up to the time when they exclaim, "what are we doing?" they had been "doing" nothing: it was (xi. 53) "from that day," that they "took counsel to put him to death." The note of interrogation should follow movμer, and or, as frequently in John (2178), should be taken as an initial "for," thus, "What are we doing [apart from talking]? For this man is doing signs daily. If we let him continue, he will be our ruin1.”

1 [2494 a] Blass says (p. 210) "The pres. indic. is used very rarely in a deliberative sense in place of the fut. ind. (§ 56, 8): Jo. xi. 47 (Herm. Sim. ix. 9. 1) тí жоcoûμev; for which there are parallels in colloquial Latin." But he alleges no parallel from Gk and he adds "Plato Symp. 214 A πŵs rocoûμev is not quite a similar case; it is not deliberative like Ti To@μev ibid. B, but the present" -i.e. the present indicative-" contains a gentle rebuke." This appears to me to apply to Ti TоLoûμev in John, which also "contains a rebuke" and is distinct from τί ποιῶμεν; For τί ποιοῦμεν ; in Epictetus, distinct from τί ποιήσωμεν ; see 2766 (i).

III. IN THE INFINITIVE MOOD

(i) Infinitive compared with va and Subjunctive

[2495] The accusative and infinitive as the object of few in affirmations is rare in the Gospels'. In xxi. 22—3 (bis) eàv avròv béλw μévev, the context is somewhat parallel to that in xvii. 24 θέλω ἵνα ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ κἀκεῖνοι ὦσιν μετ ̓ ἐμοῦ. The comparison suggests that iva conveys some notion of spiritual effort and purpose (2093-2104), which is not implied in the accusative and infinitive ("if I desire his abiding”).

(ii) Aorist and Present

[2496] The difference between the aorist and the present infinitive, in John, may be illustrated by his use of both after dúvapai Where, for example, the infinitive represents what one can habitually "do," or "not do," in accordance with the law of one's nature, πoɩîv is used. And, as John deals principally with this aspect of "doing," he never uses onσαι, except in xi. 37, "Was not this man [i.e. Jesus], who opened the eyes of the blind man, able (lit.) [so] to do (Tonσa) that this man also [i.e. Lazarus] should not have died (iva κаì оνтOS μǹ άжоðávy) ?"—where the aorist is used because the reference is not to a course of action, but to a particular act. Hence ἐλθεῖν regularly follows οὐ δύναμαι οι οὐδεὶς δύναται, denoting the definite act of entering into the Kingdom of God, or of going with Christ on the path of the Cross3. Hence, too, a distinction is to be drawn between v. 44 πῶς δύνασθε ὑμεῖς πιστεῦσαι, which may be paraphrased as, "How is it possible for you (emph.) so much as to reach the threshold of belief?" and the ordinary course of action contemplated in xii. 39 "For this cause they were not able to believe (oỷk ýdúvavтO

1 [2495 a] With negative, it occurs in Mk vii. 24 ovdéva †0€λev (Tisch. 40€λŋσev) yvval (contrast Mk ix. 30 OÙк Hoeλev ivα Tis yvoî), Lk. xix. 14, 27; without negative in Lk. i. 62 τὸ τί ἂν θέλοι καλεῖσθαι αὐτό. In the Epistles it is more freq., Rom. i. 13, xi. 25, xvi. 19, 1 Cor. vii. 7 etc.

2 [2496 a] For Toler with dúvaμai, see v. 19, 30, ix. 16, 33 etc.

[24966] There is great difficulty in x. 29 ovdels dúvataí áprášew. The Greek MSS. present no variation. But SS, Origen, and perh. Chrys., seem to have read ovdels àprášel, and this is prob. right (2767).

3 [2496 c] So, too, ideîv and eloe\0eîv, yevvŋ0ĥvai etc., see iii. 3, 4, 5, vi. 44, 65, vii. 34, 36 etc. Comp. Mk viii. 34, Mt. xvi. 24 X0eîv with parall. Lk. ix. 23 Epxeoba (about the path of the Cross) where Lk. indicates continuousness by adding "daily" to "take up the cross."

πιστεύειν).” In iii. 27 οὐ δύναται ἄνθρωπος λαμβάνειν, the Baptist is enunciating a general law, that no man can from time to time "receive" except what is given him; but xiv. 17, ó kóσμos où dúvataι Aaßev, perhaps refers to the preceding definite promise "He will give you the Spirit of truth," and means "cannot receive when you receive it." It may however mean "the world cannot even reach the state of reception."

[2497] In xiii. 36-7 (W.H.) οὐ δύνασαί μοι νῦν ἀκολουθῆσαι... διὰ τί οὐ δύναμαί σοι ἀκολουθεῖν ἄρτι; the first clause speaks of the "following" as a new act, the second treats it as the continuance of an old one: "Why can I not continue following thee-[both at all times and] at this moment?" Or else the present may mean "be at this very moment following" as in xvi. 12 "But (lit.) ye are not able to [be] bear[ing] them (Baoráčew) at this moment (apri)," contrasted with Rev. ii. 2 où dúvŋ Baoráσai Kakoús, "thou art not able so much as to tolerate evil [men]," or 66 ever to tolerate."

[2498] With éλw and où éλw the present infinitive means "go on doing," as in vii. 1 "he did not wish to continue teaching (ñeρɩñаTeîv) (2342 e—ƒ) in Judæa,” vii. 17 "If any one be willing to continue doing (mov) his will" (comp. viii. 44), ix. 27 “Why do ye desire to be hearing [it] (akoveiv) [all over] again (máλıv)?” xxi. 22—3 (bis) “If I desire him to remain permanently (μévei)." There is an interesting difference between vi. 21 ἤθελον οὖν λαβεῖν and vii. 44 τινὲς δὲ ἤθελον...πιάσαι, contrasted with xvi. 19 ἤθελον αὐτὸν ἐρωτᾶν. ΑΠ three refer to particular actions; but perhaps epwrav, "to be asking," means "to ask all about" the mysterious saying, and not merely to put a definite question. Or possibly, as in the Acts, the present may denote an action almost begun but stopped because Jesus anticipated the question, "they wished [and were almost beginning] to ask"."

1 [2496d] The latter may mean "form a habit of belief." Comp. Arrian's introductory remarks about the fascination of the uttered words of Epictetus, so that, "whenever he himself was uttering anything, it was inevitable that his hearer should feel on every occasion (wáoxew) what Epictetus desired him to feel on that special occasion (ὅπερ ἐκεῖνος αὐτὸν παθεῖν ἠβούλετο).”

2 [2498 a] Comp. 10€λe foll. by Acts xiv. 13 @vew, xix. 33 áñoλoyeîolaι, where the actions are stopped severally, by the Apostles and by the multitude, and see 2472 and 2716-7. 'Hpúrnoa suggests cross-examine" in i. 21 (comp. 19), 25, xviii. 19; but not in ix. 2 ήρώτησαν αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ λέγοντες, Ραββεί, τίς nuаprev...; Hence it does not seem likely that John would avoid the aorist infin. from a feeling that it suggested disrespect.

IV. IN PARTICIPLES

(i) Aorist

[2499] The aorist participle with the article is comparatively rare in John except in the phrase "he that sent me" or "the Father that sent me1." In some instances it occurs in reference to future time, where we might have expected the future participle. But the meaning is "those that [shall] have," as in the Synoptic Tradition, "But he that shall have endured (ô dè vñoμeivas) to the end, he shall be saved." So in John v. 25—9 "The hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear...and they that shall have heard (oi áκovσavres, i.e. really heard, or hearkened, or obeyed) shall live...they that shall have done (oi moinσavтes) good......they that shall have practised (oi páέavтes) evil..."; vii. 39 "Now he spake concerning the Spirit, πράξαντες) which they (lit.) were destined to receive that should [hereafter] have believed on him (οὗ ἔμελλον λαμβάνειν οἱ πιστεύσαντες (al. πιστεύοντες) eis autóv),” xvi. 2 "the hour cometh that every one that shall have killed you (wâs ó átokтeivas vμâs) shall think......" ; XX. 29 "Blessed [are] they that [hereafter (1554)] shall not have seen and shall [vet] have believed (μ. οἱ μὴ ἰδόντες καὶ πιστεύσαντες).”

[2500] In xvii. 20, "Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that (R.V.) believe (A.V. shall believe) (wtevóvtwv) on me through their word," the R.V. might give the impression that "them that believe" denoted the converts already made by the Twelve

1 [2499 a] See Bruder (1888) pp. 588-9. In the sing., without wâs, it probably always refers, in John, to a definite person, as in v. 11, 13, 15, xi. 2, xviii. 14. On iii. 33 probably referring to the Baptist, see 2501—2.

2 Mk xiii. 13, Mt. x. 22, xxiv. 13.

3 [24996] In view of the freq. use of un with participles where où might be logically expected, some may urge that oi un i. Kai T. may refer to those who, in the course of the last seven days, had believed in the Resurrection of the Saviour, not having seen it themselves, but having accepted the testimony of the disciples that had seen it. But, if so, would not the Evangelist have stated, however briefly, that certain persons did thus believe? And does it seem likely that he would suppose the Saviour to have thus limited His benediction? Moreover, if that had been the writer's meaning, he could have made it clear by using où as in 1 Pet. ii. 10 and Rom. ix. 25 (from the LXX). In Mt. v. 11 (sim. Lk. vi. 22) (R.V.) "blessed are ye (μaкápioi èσтe) when [men] shall reproach you (örav óveidiowoiv vuâs)," the reference is to future time, although the blessing is indicated (by the insertion of “are") as present. Much more might the reference include future time when "are" is not inserted (see 1554-5).

4 W.H. πιστευόντων. Some authorities read πιστευσόντων.