[1921] vi. 39 "...In order that all (râv) that he hath given me I may lose none of it"; vii. 38 "He that believeth (å mioteúwv)..... rivers...shall flow from his belly"; x. 35-6" Whom (ov) the Father sanctified...do ye say [to him] 'Thou blasphemest,"" best explained as [èxeîvos] ov (in the light of the preceding passages); xv. 2-5 "Every branch (κλμa) in me that beareth not fruit he taketh it away...and every [one] (av) that beareth fruit he purifieth it...he that abideth ( pévwv) in me and I in him, he (ouros) beareth much fruit"; xvii. 2 "In order that all (mâv) that thou hast given to him [i.e. to the Son] he [i.e. the Son] should give to them eternal life." Here, grammatically, the meaning would be that the Son should give all that He has received from the Father, namely, eternal life. But the meaning is that He should give eternal life to the whole Church (comp. vi. 39 above). See 2422.

[1922] 1 Jn ii. 24-7 "Ye (emph.) (vues), that which ye heard from the beginning-let it abide in you. If in you there abide that which ye heard from the beginning, ye also shall abide in the Son and [in] the Father... And ye (emph.) (vμeîs), the chrism that ye received from him abideth in you, and ye have no need that any man should be teaching you." Here the writer emphasizes those that confess Christ ("ye") as opposed to those previously mentioned, who deny Him; and he may perhaps have begun by intending to say, "Ye, abide ye (imperat.) in the Son." But he deviates into saying, "let the chrism of the Son abide in you and then ye will abide in the Son."

Having regard to the instances in which the initial word ("he that conquereth," "he that believeth," "ye") is clearly nominative, it is probable that it is nominative in other cases, where the ambiguous neuter (πâv, kλîμα) would allow the accusative.

(iii) Digression

[1923] In the last section, anacoluthon sprang from the desire to insist and repeat. More often it digresses, e.g. in v. 44 "How can ye (emph.) believe, receiving glory from one another and-the glory that [is] from the only God ye seek not?" The writer perhaps began with the intention of saying "receiving from one another...and not seeking from God," and then strayed away into the definite statement "ye seek not." In viii. 53 "Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who (oσris) is dead? and the prophets are dead; whom

A. VI.

33

3

makest thou thyself?," as in the preceding example, the writer deviates from the logical continuation of the interrogative ("and greater than the prophets who are dead?") into a more brief and trenchant affirmation. This deviation is favoured by oσris åñélaver, which may imply an affirmation, "Now he (or, for he) is dead," so as to prepare the way for a second affirmation. In xii. 35 "Walk as (ws) (2201) ye have the light, lest (iva un) the darkness overtake you and [then]-he that walketh in the darkness knoweth not where he goeth," the speaker digresses from a particular consequence ("and lest ye walk in darkness and know not ") into a general one ("and thenwhat is the consequence? A man that walketh in darkness, knoweth not whither he goeth").

[1924] It was pointed out above (1919) that after mentioning "branch" John speaks of "them" instead of "it." So he has vii. 49 “This multitude that understandeth not the Law-[they] are [all] accursed (πáparoí eiσw),” which is more emphatic than the singular. Also xxi. 12 "No one (ovdeís) of the disciples was bold enough to question him, 'Who art thou?' knowing [all of them] (eidóres) that it was the Lord," though ungrammatical, is brief and clear'.

(iv) Impressionism

[1925] Anacoluthon in John often proceeds from his desire to let readers receive impressions of things in his pages as they receive them in nature, that is to say, first seeing the most striking of a group of things at a glance, and then gradually taking in the rest. In order to effect this, he may even deliberately let pass a statement that he afterwards corrects, as where he says that Jesus was baptizing and then adds that He Himself did not baptize, but His disciples did (iii. 22, iv. 1-2). Take, for example, the way in which he introduces (a) the Baptist's testimony concerning the coming of Christ, (6) Mary Magdalene's testimony concerning the Resurrection: (α) i. 15 (W.H. marg.) Ιωάνης μαρτυρεῖ περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ κέκραγεν λέγων, Οὗτος ἦν ὃν εἶπον· ὁ ὀπίσω (or,...ὃν εἶπον Ὁ ὀπίσω) μου

1 [1924 a] Clear so far as concerns the pl. But the participle, in such a context, suggests two interpretations, (1) "They did not dare to question though they knew it was he," (2) "They did not dare to question because they knew it was he." The Latin has the pl. part., SS has "because they were believing that it was he," (Walton) "since they knew that it was our Lord." See 2273.

ἐρχόμενος... (W.H. txt λέγων—οὗτος ἦν ὁ εἰπών—Ὁ ὀπίσω...), (6) xx. 18 ἔρχεται Μαριάμ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ ἀγγέλλουσα τοῖς μαθηταῖς ὅτι Εώρακα τὸν κύριον καὶ ταῦτα εἶπεν αὐτῇ.

[1926] In the latter (6), W.H. give no various reading: but A.V. follows a text (similar to that of D and some Latin versions) that creates regularity by turning both clauses into reported speech, "M. M. came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord and [that] he had spoken these things unto her?." The true text, however, gives prominence to the all-important words-all-important, at least, for the speaker-"I have seen the Lord." Then there is a drop into reported speech ("and he said these things to her," where "these things" refers to the message just recorded by the evangelist and therefore not repeated). Some might have expected or to be omitted before the direct speech, and to be inserted before the reported speech. But the writer reverses this, apparently using or (2189-90) to mean "these were her words," as the sign of quotation, (lit.) "There cometh M. M. bringing tidings to the disciples that”— i.e. these were her words-"I have seen the Lord' and [that] he said these things to her."

[1927] In the earlier passage (a) above quoted (1925), we should expect οὗτος ἦν ὃν (or, περὶ οὗ εἶπον ὅτι—if the meaning had been "This was he [concerning] whom I said that he that cometh after me is become before me." Consequently we are led to another

1 [1925 a] The best MSS. give o ELTOV: but (1) SS (Burk.) supports W.H. marg., (2) the scribal difference turns on a point on which the evidence of B is comparatively weak, (3) the sequence of similar syllables, õЄПōоопIс, may have been a special cause of confusion (1961, 2650—2).

2 [1926 a] SS has "and the things which he revealed to her she said to them," D kai a elev auтn eμnrvoer (d adnuntiauit) avтois, a "et haec dixit illi," "et haec dixit," ƒ" et omnia quae dixit ei,” e “et quae dixit ei manifestavit." Confusion may have arisen from reading TAYTAЄITTEN as TAYTAAEITTEN and from supplying what then seemed needful to complete the sentence.

3 [1926] Jn xiii. 29 "For some thought...that Jesus was saying (Xéye‹) to him [i.e. to Judas Iscariot] Buy (dyópaσov) the things we have need of for the feast, or, that he should give something to the poor (ʼn Toîs #тwxoîs iva tɩ dŵ)” is perhaps hardly to be called anacoluthon, but rather variation, the sentence passing from a direct to an indirect imperative. The change seems to be one from definiteness to vagueness, from the authoritative "buy" to "instructions about giving ❞— as to which Judas, the (Jn xii. 6)“thief,” might be supposed to need a stimulus ("do (1918) more quickly ").

* [1927 a] For the construction of the relative, comp. Jn viii. 54 dv vμeîs Néyete ὅτι...

rendering, "This was he that I said," i.e. "meant, or contemplated, [in all my utterances]"; and the following words ("He that cometh ") may be a new statement of the Baptist's. Later on, the Baptist uses a preposition, thus "This is [he] in behalf of whom (or, about whom) I said, 'After me cometh a man...'.'" It is reasonable to infer that in the first passage the Baptist must not be supposed to mean “in behalf of whom (or, about whom)," for else the evangelist would not have varied the phrase'. On the whole we may believe that, at some cost of immediate clearness of detail, the evangelist wishes to put briefly before his readers the essence of the Baptist's testimony as being, from the beginning, twofold:-in the first place one of prediction, or anticipation, in the next place one of subordination. Then he can fill in the details afterwards. The first point is that when Jesus first appeared, the Baptist at once testified "This was he that I said,” the second, "After me yet before me." Later on, he connects the two. At first he places them side by side without connexion3.

AORIST, see Index

APODOSIS, see Index.

APPOSITION

(i) With proper names

[1928] Apposition is a method of expressing the phrase “that is to say" without writing it, by "apposing" a second word with a caseending to a first word with the same case-ending, as in xi. 16 "Thomas, [that is to say] he that is called Didymus," xx. 24 "Thomas, [that is to say] one of the Twelve, [that is to say] he that is called Didymus," vi. 71 "This man (i.e. Judas Iscariot) was

1 Jn i. 30 οὗτός ἐστιν ὑπὲρ οὗ ἐγὼ εἶπον, Οπίσω μου ἔρχεται ἀνὴρ...

2

66

[1927 b] See 2360, 2369-70. Supposing vwép to be used for epi concerning," as it is used by many authors, the argument will still hold good, that John would not have used vrèp où to denote exactly the same thing as öv.

3 [1927] After all attempts at explanation it remains difficult to understand how any writer-and particularly one that shews himself so subtle and careful occasionally in distinguishing various shades of meaning-could here express himself with such extraordinary irregularity, abruptness, and obscurity. Possibly we have here (1892) some clause of ancient tradition inserted with the result of dislocating the context. The expression "This was he that I said "-if it means longing expectation-is similar to that in The Gospel of the Hebrews (1042) “Fili mi, in omnibus Prophetis exspectabam te."

destined to deliver him up [(?) that is to say] one of the Twelve," xii. 4 "Judas Iscariot, [that is to say] one of his disciples, he that was destined to deliver him up." This construction conduces to brevity and force, but sometimes to obscurity as is seen in the above queried vi. 71 οὗτος γὰρ ἔμελλεν παραδιδόναι αὐτόν—εἷς ἐκ τῶν δώδεκα. may be mere apposition, but it may be an abbreviation of eis wv, "being one," understood to mean "though he was one'." There is also serious ambiguity in xix. 25 "His mother and the sister of his mother Mary the [daughter] of Clopas and Mary Magdalene.” Here it is impossible to tell, from the text apart from other evidence, whether "the sister of his mother" is "Mary the [daughter] of Clopas," or whether they are two persons.

(ii) In subdivisions

[1929] Apposition is used after a broad statement to define its parts. But the first of the instances given below is not a certain one. John is referring to a previous statement that Jesus "found in the Temple those that were selling oxen and sheep and doves." What follows may mean that Jesus (ii. 15) "drove all [of them] out of the Temple, both sheep and oxen (πάντας ἐξέβαλεν ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ, τά TE TρÓẞата Kai Toùs Bóas),” i.e. the men and what they sold, indicating that "all [of them]" included their belongings, "sheep sellers and ox sellers, sheep and oxen." And this may be his meaning in using Te—which occurs nowhere else in this Gospel without introducing a verb. If so, the instance is appositional. Whatever the con

1 [1928 a] Comp. Mk xiv. 10 'I. 'Iok. ò els tŵv dwdexa, Mt. xxvi. 14 els T. dwô. ὁ λεγόμενος Ἰ. 'I., Lk. xxii. 3 Ιούδαν τὸν καλούμενον Ισκ., ὄντα ἐκ τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ το dud., where Mk's ó is very curious. Later on, W.H. read Mk xiv. 43 [ö] 'I., els T. d., parall. to Mt. xxvi. 47 'I. els 7. d., Lk. xxii. 47 ò Xeyóμevos 'I. els 7. d. In illiterate Gk MSS. of the 1st cent., o and w being interchanged, the participle v might be written ō and confused with the article.

[1928] It is worth noting that, in John, these appositional constructions have to do with (a) Thomas, who was called by some (Enc. Bib. 5058) “Judas Thomas," with (6) Judas Iscariot, and (xiv. 22) with (c) "Judas not Iscariot "-all of whom might need to be distinguished. But in other cases also, when the Gospels came to be read publicly in sections, there would be found great use and clearness in appositional clauses defining personality at the beginning of a section, even though such a clause had been already inserted on the introduction of the character in an earlier section.

[1929 a] Te occurs only thrice in this Gospel. The other two instances are iv. 42 τῇ τε γυναικὶ ἔλεγον, vi. 18 ἥ τε θάλασσα...διεγείρετο. In ii. 15, A.V. has "drove them all out...and the sheep," R.V. "cast all out of the temple, both the