between pov and å ådeλøós is broken by the intervention of the verb. This obliges us to lay stress on av i.e. “how different it would have been!" But it is not clear whether the emphasis on av does, or does not, take away the emphasis from the following μov. If oú had been inserted, we might have felt certain that pov (2564) is emphatic. Perhaps the writer draws a contrast between Martha, ending her sentence with "me" and Mary, ending hers with "brother." If so, Mov is the vernacular possessive. As it is, the conclusion is doubtful'. [2567] In vi. 51-5, where the Eucharistic doctrine is introduced, the ordinary possessive, nσápέ μov, occurs, first predicatively ("the bread that I shall give is my flesh") and then "except ye eat the flesh of (rv o.) the Son of man." After this, when mention is made of drinking the blood and eating the flesh, the unemphatic "his" and "my" are used in order to emphasize "flesh" and "blood" :—“[yea,] and drink his blood (αὐτοῦ τ. αἷμα)...he that eateth my Mesh (μου τ. σápka) and drinketh my blood (μov т. aîμa)." When a return is made to definition, the ordinary possessive is resumed: "my flesh (v σ.

T.

of ἄν (e.g. viii. 19 τὸν πατέρα μου ἂν ᾔδειτε, viii. 42 ἠγαπᾶτε ἂν ἐμέ, xv. 19 ὁ κόσμος ây tò lồiov épíλ) are mostly explicable by emphasis on special words, but they are irregular enough to perplex scribes (comp. Gal. iii. 21 (W.H.) ¿v vóμw âv ĥv (marg. èk vóμov v [ăv])). In xviii. 36 the final av suits well with the imperfectthe meaning being "would be in that case striving at this very moment" [comp. Mt. xxvi. 53 "at this moment...twelve legions of angels"] "that I might not be delivered to the Jews." Blass (p. 207) says “roîs 'Ioud. is contrary to sense and is omitted by Chrys." But Chrys. inserts roîs 'Iovd. in quoting the passage. Afterwards, it is true, he omits it. But then he omits not only roîs 'Ioud. but also the rest of Christ's sentence (τοῖς Ιουδ. νῦν δὲ ἡ βασ. ἡ ἐμὴ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐντεῦθεν). The reason appears to be that he stops short because he sees no ground for special comment on the omitted words. Subsequently he casually repeats the words our EvTEûOEV, shewing that he had the clause before him, though he did not think it worth while to quote it in full or to comment on τοῖς Ιουδ. Yet in fact there is great force in "the Jews," as denoting the real agents, Pilate being a mere puppet. In Lk. xix. 23, Blass (p. 206) takes ¿X@wv as = (temporal) protasis, where I should prefer to supply the protasis from the context, “Why didst thou not put my money into the bank...and [then, if thou hadst done this,] I on my side (kȧyw), when I came home (ewv), should have exacted the sum with interest?"

1 [2566 ] Some might urge that, if Jn had intended emphasis, he would have used ἐμοῦ, not μου. But uoû is never used in N.T. without (1) a preceding preposition Mt. v. 11, vii. 23, x. 18 etc.; or without (2) antithesis, Lk. x. 16 ὁ ἀκούων ὑμῶν ἐμοῦ ἀκούει: or parallelism to a preceding genitive, Rom. i. 12 ὑμῶν τε καὶ ἐμοῦ, xvi. 2 πολλῶν κ. ἐμοῦ αὐτοῦ, χνί. 13 αὐτοῦ κ. ἐμοῦ. (3) In one exceptional passage the text varies so as to cause suspicion of error Mt. xvi. 23 (*) σκάνδαλον εἶ ἐμοῦ, v.r. μου ει, ει εμοι, μοι ει, ει μου, where ειμι σοι may have been the original ("I am a stumbling-block [it seems] to thee!").

μov) is true food, and my blood (rò å. μov) is true drink." Then, when it has to be insisted that "abiding" in Christ is the result of feeding on the "flesh" and the "blood," the nouns are again emphasized: "He that eateth my flesh (μ. Tǹv σápka) and drinketh my blood (p. Tò aiμa) abideth in me'."

[2568] Where there is no antithesis we are generally safe in taking the precedent possessive as unemphatic, e.g. "I manifested thy name," compared with "in thy name?" But antithesis and chiasmus probably give it emphasis in xv. 10 "ye will abide in my love (μeveîte ἐν τ. ay. μov)...even as I...and abide in his love (μévw avtoù èv tŷy ay.)." In iii. 19-20, the context is too long to discuss, but the genitives (one of which is separated from its governing noun by a predicative adjective, ovηpá) are perhaps intended to throw the emphasis on what follows in each case1. It is however a passage where there is room for difference of opinion.

1 [2567 a] In xx. 25-7, there is perhaps a contrast between the vehement and varied utterance of Thomas and the calm regularity of the Saviour's reproach. Jesus repeats four times the ordinary possessive genitive (thy finger,” “thy hand” etc.). Thomas says “put my finger (B. Tòv d. μov) into the print of the nails, yea, and put my hand (к. ß. μov τǹv xeîpa) into his side." The difference cannot well be expressed in English. But there appears to be intended a climax in the thrusting of the whole of the "hand” (as compared with "the finger") into the open wound in the side.

[2567 b] In iv. 47 "that he might heal his son (ả. Tòv vióv)” there may be an intention to emphasize "son," partly because it illustrated the urgency of the request, partly because some traditions may have differed as to whether (1862a-c) the sick "boy" was a "son" or a "servant."

2 [2568a] xvii. 6 ἐφανέρωσά σου τ. ὄνομα, comp. xvii. 11, 12 τήρησον (and ἐτήρουν) αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου.

3 [2568 6] In iii. 32—3 τὴν μαρτυρίαν αὐτοῦ οὐδεὶς λαμβάνει. ὁ λαβὼν αὐτοῦ τὴν uaprupíav there is no antithesis between avroû and another pronoun. The second avroû is probably unemphatic, the emphasis being thrown on λaßŵr, “he that did receive" (after the assertion "none receiveth").

4 [2568 ] iii. 19-20 κ. ἠγάπησαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι μᾶλλον τὸ σκότος ἢ τὸ φῶς, ἦν γὰρ αὐτῶν πονηρὰ τὰ ἔργα. πᾶς γὰρ ὁ φαῦλα πράσσων μισεῖ τὸ φῶς καὶ οὐκ ἔρχεται προς τὸ φῶς, ἵνα μὴ ἐλεγχθῇ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ· ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸ φῶς, ἵνα φανερωθῇ αὐτοῦ τὰ ἔργα ὅτι ἐν θεῷ ἐστὶν εἰργασμένα. If this view is correct the meaning is that men as a rule loved darkness "for their works were essentially bad (ovŋpá)," but that the truth-worker comes to the light "that his works may be manifested as being worked in God." In both cases the emphasis is taken from "their" and "his," to be thrown on "works." But as regards o paûλa #ρáoσwr, emphasis is thrown on his personal shrinking from the light lest "his works be convicted." In iii. 19 the position of wornpȧ before pya makes both words emphatic: "For there was from the first an essential badness in their works."

[2569] In ii. 23 "beholding his signs (avtoû tà onμeîa), which he was [continually] doing," and also in vii. 3 "that they may behold thy works (if we read σov rà epya)," emphasis is laid on "signs" and "works," and the context implies, perhaps, that the speakers attached more importance to these than to Christ Himself. The same emphasis on the noun is to be laid in the only two instances where precedent avrov occurs in the Johannine Epistles: 1 Jn ii. 4-5 "He that sayeth...and keepeth not his commandments (ràs evt. avrov μỲ τηρών) is a liar...but whoso keepeth his word (ὃς δ ̓ ἂν τηρῇ αὐτοῦ τὸν λóyov)', truly in him is the love of God," 3 Jn 9—10 "He that loveth supremacy over them, Diotrephes, doth not fitly receive us for this cause, if I come, I will call to remembrance [not his pretensions but] his works (υπομνήσω αὐτοῦ τὰ ἔργα).

1 [2569 a] On this Westcott says "The position of the pronoun here (aŮTOû TòV Xóyov), as contrasted with that which it has in v. 3 (TÀS ÉVTOXÀS AŬToû), emphasizes the personal idea. The main thought is that the word is His word, the word of God. There is emphasis also on the 'keeping' ôs d' av Tηn contrasted with Ó...тàs Evт. μǹ Tηpwv." In view of Jn's frequent use of the "vernacular" aνToû this interpretation seems untenable. Jn has not here ròv avтoû Xóyov as in 1 Jn ii. 27 τὸ αὐτοῦ χρίσμα. In αὐτοῦ τὸν λόγον, the emphasis is taken from αὐτοῦ to be thrown on λóyov, which here means “the [spiritual] word” or “the spirit, not the letter," and is stronger than evroλás, "commandments. Comp. xiv. 23-4

τὸν λόγον μου τηρήσει and τοὺς λόγους μου οὐ τηρεῖ. The pl. λόγοι in the Gospel corresponds to the pl. evroλaí in the Epistle and both occur in a negative clause while the sing. Xóyos is in the positive clause. The position of the pronoun, then, does not "emphasize the personal idea," but throws the emphasis on the spirituality of the "Word" that is to be "kept.”

2 [2569 ] Somewhat similar is the mention of “those who are puffed up” in 1 Cor. iv. 19, “But I will come quickly unto you...and will acquaint myself not with the speech but with the power of them that are puffed up, kai yvwooμai ov τὸν λόγον τῶν πεφυσιωμένων ἀλλὰ τὴν δύναμιν.”

[2569] In ix. 6, the reading is very doubtful. W.H. txt has ταῦτα εἰπὼν ἔπτυσεν χαμαὶ κ. ἐποίησεν πηλὸν ἐκ τοῦ πτύσματος καὶ ἐπέθηκεν (marg. ἐπέχρισεν) AÚTοÛ TÒν Tη\òv éπì тoùs ¿¿ðaλμoús. R. V. marg. has "the clay thereof," taking αὐτοῦ to refer to πτύσματος, and supplying “his.” AC ins. "of the blind man' after "eyes." SS has "and took [it i.e. the clay] up [and] smeared [it] upon the eyes of that blind man," D "and smeared upon him (éπéxpɩev aurų) the clay upon his eyes," d"et linuit ei lutum super oculos eius," a "et linuit oculos ejus," "et superlinuit lutum super oculos illius caeci,” e “et superunxit oculos caeci,"ƒ“et superlinivit super oculos caeci,” ƒƒ “et superunxit illud super oculos ejus." (1) Mark's (viii. 23) tradition about healing blindness with saliva, (2) Jewish traditions about such healing, and (3) the possibilities of mystical suggestion in the present passage, combine with (4) the textual variations to make its adequate interpretation at present impossible.

§ 4. Miscellaneous variations

[2570] The following miscellaneous variations, taken in their order as they occur in the Gospel, may be of use for reference, and for the purpose of giving the reader a general view of John's style. Many of them have been explained incidentally above: others will be briefly discussed here. A few of them deal with synonyms not discussed in Johannine Vocabulary. For example, the use of Kaтaλaußávo in the Prologue (i. 5) was discussed in 1735 e—h, but the relation between παραλαμβάνω and λαμβάνω in the same context was merely touched on there, and will come first in the instances given below.

In i. 11-12 οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον· ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν, a distinction is certainly drawn between wrapéλaßov and λaßor, and the former is probably used with special reference to oi idiot. The meaning probably is that, when the Son of God came to His own family, none "received Him fitly as coming from the Father (πapéλaßov),” but some "received Him [though imperfectly] (čλaßov)1.”

1 [2570 α] Οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον and the preceding εἰς τὰ ἴδια ἦλθε are quoted by Clem. Αlex. (882-3 εἰς τ. ἴδια, φησίν, ἦλθεν ὁ υἱὸς τ. θεοῦ κ. oi tôioi autòv oùк édéžavтo) as referring to "the world (kóσμos)." In that case we might reconcile οὐ παρέλαβον with ὅσοι ἔλαβον by saying that παρέλαβον means a friendly "receiving" (Nonnus, éyépaɩpov), while Maßov means a less active "receiving" (Nonnus, désavтo). Or we might say that John according to his custom (2628) states a fact first roughly and inaccurately, and then more exactly.

[25706] But Chrysostom and Ammonius both take dio in a twofold sense, as meaning (1) the world, (2) Israel; and in view of the language of the prophets about the rejection of Jehovah by His own children, and the language of Jesus Himself about "a prophet in his own country," there can hardly be a doubt that both meanings are intended. (1) Applied to the world at large, rapéλaßov may be illustrated by its use in Epictetus to describe our "receiving from [God]." In one passage he uses παραλαμβάνω (i. 6. 25 τὴν θέαν παρειλήφατε) to describe our reception of the gift of beholding the sights of God's universe. Then he drops the compound preposition (ib. 28) “And come now, have you not received (elλhpate) faculties?... Have you not received manliness? Have you not received magnanimity? Have you not received patience?" The Logos itself is described as (i. 20. 5) "received from [God] (ñapelλyñτai) by [human] nature (¿πò rês púσews)”: and concerning the power of the Logos (ʼn λoyikǹ dúvaμs) it is said that (i. 1. 4) “it is received from [God]" and, in the same sentence, “it has come (éλýλvð€).” Elsewhere Tapaλaußávw is used (Ench. xxiv. 1, xxv. 1, xxxii. 2) of calling a friend to share one's meal or one's secret plans. (2) From the Jewish point of view, Tapalaußávw is the regular word for "receiving words, or traditions," handed down from a teacher. It is thus used frequently in N.T. The very first words of the Sayings of the Jewish Fathers are "Moses received the Law from Sinai,"

[2571] i. 15, 30 ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, ὅτι... (30) εἶπον, Οπίσω μου ἔρχεται ἀνὴρ ὃς ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν. Hereby the evangelist warns us that when he represents a speaker as apparently repeating a previous utterance, we are not to expect identity of expression. The introduction of ȧvýp may (2371) allude to the meaning "husband" and may prepare the way for (iii. 29) "bridegroom." But in any case this is one of many passages in which the writer seems to say, "The Baptist and the Lord Jesus said the same things again and again in slightly different ways, and there may be various traditions, all differing and yet all accurate." [2572] The verb of seeing is thrice varied in i. 32—4 tebéaμaι τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον...κἀγὼ οὐκ ᾔδειν αὐτόν· ἀλλ ̓ ὁ πέμψας με... εἶπεν Ἐφ ̓ ὃν ἂν ἴδῃς...καγὼ ἑώρακα καὶ μεμαρτύρηκα. This may be paraphrased thus, "I have beheld the manifestation of the Spirit...and I for my part did not know him [the Messiah] but he that sent me

av

and the following sentences describe a long succession of teachers as each "receiving" from a predecessor.

[2570 c] In i. 4—12 the context makes it probable that πapéλaßov refers to the Jews: for it appears to describe three stages of failure, in three negations, with καταλαμβάνω, γινώσκω, and παραλαμβάνω. (1) “The life was the light of men... and the darkness apprehended it not (avrò oỷ karéλaßev).” (2) “[The light] was in the world; and the world, through him [or, it], came into being; and the world recognised him not (avròv oùk čyvw).” (3) "To his own [house] he came, and his own [household] did not receive him [as coming] from [the Father of the house] (αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον).”

[2570] In the Synoptists, rapaλaμßávw is used, with 'Inσoûv as object, in Mk iv. 36 of the disciples "taking Jesus with them in the boat," and in Mt. xxvii. 27 of the soldiers of the governor "taking Jesus with them into the praetorium," where Mk xv. 16 has ȧnnyɑyov and Lk. altogether differs. The use of . to describe "taking prisoners along with one" (or "accepting the surrender of a city” as in 1 Mac. xv. 30 (N) πapeλáßete, LXX kateλáßeσ0€) is very rate in Gk, and occurs in canon. LXX perh. only in Lam. iii. 2 wapéλaßév μe k. áπýyayev els OKOTOS. It is therefore worthy of note that Jn, like Mt., has rapaλaußávw in his account of the Passion. But, in Jn, it is not "the soldiers of the governor" but the "chief priests," who thus "take with them" or "receive" Jesus; xix. 16—17 "then therefore he [i.e. Pilate] delivered him to them [i.e. the chief priests] to be crucified. They therefore received (rapéλaßov) Jesus." The supposition that the word was applied in diverse traditions to a “reception" of Jesus as a prisoner is confirmed, if the txt is correctly supplied (as it probably is) by Evang. Petr. (ed. Robinson) § 1 καὶ τότε κελεύει Ηρώδης ὁ βασιλεὺς παρ[αλημ]φθῆναι τὸν Κύριον. If Jn deliberately and allusively adapted a version of this ancient tradition, so as to represent the Logos as being, after this fashion, "received" by His own “priests” -who might be called pre-eminently "His own people”—it is one of the most ironical instances of Johannine irony.