ordinary feelings so called-"the love that is peculiarly mine...the joy that is peculiarly mine "-indicating that a new kind of love has been brought into the world by the Son of God.

[2582] In xν. 21 ταῦτα πάντα ποιήσουσιν...ὅτι οὐκ οἴδασιν τὸν πέμψαντά με, and xvi. 3 ταῦτα ποιήσουσιν ὅτι οὐκ ἔγνωσαν τὸν πατέρα ovdè qué, the exact meaning is hard to give without paraphrase, and is not given by R.V. "know not," "have not known." The first sentence says "They will persecute you, my followers, because they know not the nature of him that sent me." Then Jesus shews that this want of knowledge arose, not from intellectual but from moral fault, and lastly He repeats "They will persecute you, I say, because -not having in themselves the spirit of love, the spirit of fatherhood, the spirit of sonship-they failed to recognise the Father and failed to recognise me,—his Son [when the Father sent the Son to them].”

[2583] xvi. 14-15 ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λήμψεται...διὰ τοῦτο εἶπον ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λαμβάνει is a remarkable instance of verbally inaccurate quotation. SS, and the Latin versions except a, read Anuverai for λaußáve so as to make the quotation accurate1. After saying "He will take from what is mine," Jesus explains, that "mine" means "the Father's" because "all things as many as the Father hath are mine." Then, having passed into the present, while describing the ever present relations between the Father and the Son, He continues in the present tense when repeating what He had previously uttered about the relations between the Holy Spirit and the Son. Another case of variation in repeating occurs in xvi. 16-19 where Jesus says "ye behold me no longer (ovкéri)," but the disciples repeat it as "ye behold me not (ov)," and our Lord Himself, accepting their variation, says, "On this matter are ye questioning with one another because I said, A little while and ye behold me not (ou)!" Perhaps "no longer" was intended to suggest "no longer in the old familiar way, after the flesh." But the disciples, panic-stricken, fasten on the bare negative "not," and their Master adapts His reply to their fears, and accepts their version of His utterance".

66

1 [2583 a] omits the whole of verse 15 (homoeotel.), e omits the last part of it (ὅτι ἐκ τ. έ. λ. κ. ἀναγγελεῖ) reading propter hoc dixi vobis pusillum.....,” d has "accipiet" though D has λaußável.

* [25836] In xvi. 16—19 a, d, e, f and SS have "non" throughout.

[2583] On other variations of Christ's sayings see 2545 foll., 2190. And add ix. η ύπαγε νίψαι εἰς τὴν κολυμβήθραν τοῦ Σ., repeated by the blind man thus, ix. It εἶπέν μοι ὅτι Υπαγε εἰς τὸν Σ. καὶ νίψαι.

A. VI.

433

28

[2584] In xvii. 12 ὅτε ἤμην μετ ̓ αὐτῶν ἐγὼ ἐτήρουν αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι...καὶ ἐφύλαξα, a difference is intended by the difference of verb and tense. 'Erýpovv, "I was always watching, or keeping my eye on," implies the continually watchful care of the Lord during His incarnate life, on which He is supposed to be, by anticipation, looking back; púλaga "I protected" (not "I have protected) implies action regarded simply as past. There is emphasis on "I" as distinct from the Father, "I could do it once, now I beseech thee to do it." Mer' avrov (2349) implies friendly companionship: "As long as I was side by side with them," i.e. in the world—a phrase that is supplied by many authorities. On xi. 50 συμφέρει...ἵνα εἰς ἄνθρωπος ἀποθάνῃ, compared with xviii. 14 συμφέρει ἕνα ἄνθρωπον ἀποθανεῖν, see 21041.

[2585] xiii. 19 ἀπ ̓ ἄρτι λέγω ὑμῖν πρὸ τοῦ γενέσθαι ἵνα πιστεύητε, ὅταν γένηται, ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι (marg. ἐγώ εἰμί) is to be compared with

1 [2584 a] Another instance of synonymous juxtaposition is in iii. 20, 21, § φαῦλα πράσσων. ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν and v. 29 οἱ τὰ ἀγαθὰ ποιήσαντες... οἱ τὰ Pavla πрážavтes. In other passages of N.T. a distinction is recognised between these two verbs, and πpáσow-which means "do habitually," "do as a business" -is rather frequently connected with notions of evil: but 2 Cor. v. 10 pus ὰ ἔπραξεν εἴτε ἀγαθὸν εἴτε φαῦλον, and many other passages, indicate that πράσσω may be applied to habitual action good or bad. We shall not find elsewhere in N.T. the thought implied here, that the word “making,” or “creating," row, is appropriate to good, as distinct from páσow which does not imply creation.

[25846] iv. 46-53 presents synonyms that may bear on disputed tradition concerning the boy healed by our Lord at a distance. In Mt. viii. 6 he is called waîs i.e. “boy,” which may mean (in the phrase "thy boy") "son" or "servant." In Lk. vii. 2, he is called doûλos, “slave" or "servant." In Jn, the evangelist begins by saying "whose son (viós) was sick." The father then says, "Come down before my little child (maidíor) dies.” Jesus then says, "Thy son liveth.” Then servants of the father "met him saying, 'Thy boy (waîs) liveth.'" Thus, in Jn, three names are given to the child, all of them compatible with fact, and indicative of the manner in which a mistake might have arisen from mistaking παιδίον, οι παῖς, for δοῦλος. See 1862

[2584 c] On the synonymous juxtaposition of ¿yañáw and piλéw in xxi. 15—17, see 1436 foll., 1716 d—ƒ, 1728 m foll. To the facts there alleged add Origen (on Lam. i. 2 LXX οὐχ ὑπάρχει ὁ παρακαλῶν αὐτὴν ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἀγαπώντων αὐτήν πάντες οἱ φιλοῦντες αὐτὴν ἠθέτησαν ἐν αὐτῇ) οἰόμεθα γὰρ τὸ μὲν ἀγαπᾶν θειότερον εἶναι καὶ, ἵν ̓ οὕτως εἴπω, πνευματικόν· τὸ δὲ φιλεῖν σωματικὸν καὶ ἀνθρωπικώτερα. No doubt the prophet writes according to the canon of Hebrew parallelism and draws little distinction between the two Hebrew verbs. But the second of the two is more correctly rendered by Aq. and Sym. èraîpo "her companions," and Origen is justified by LXX usage in saying that “dyarâv is the more divine and, so to speak, the more spiritual, but øλeî is bodily and savours more of men."

χίν. 29 καὶ νῦν εἴρηκα ὑμῖν πρὶν γενέσθαι ἵνα, ὅταν γένηται, πιστεύσητε, and both may be compared with the tradition in Mark and Matthew, "I have told you beforehand1." The first saying refers to the betrayal by Judas, but this is regarded in the Last Discourse (xiii.—xiv.) as part of a general persecution, which is to befal the Church hereafter, all of which Christ predicts "before it come to pass." The first saying is longer than the second and emphasizes the date ("from this moment") and the object of the prediction, "that ye may grow in the belief (2525-8) that I am [He]" (2221 foll.). The second emphasizes the time to come when the coincidence will be observed -between what will have "come to pass," and what was said before it "came to pass "-so as to cause a special belief based on this evidence.

[2586] xix. 8 ὅτε οὖν ἤκουσεν ὁ Π. τοῦτον τὸν λόγον μᾶλλον ἐφοβήθη may be compared with xix. 13 ὁ οὖν Π., ἀκούσας τῶν λόγων τούτων ἤγαγεν ἔξω τὸν Ἰ. In the former, the "hearing" does not produce (1614b) any result beyond emotion; and the clause, being subordinate in thought, is introduced with a subordinate conjunction. In the latter, ToÚTwv is emphasized by position (2553 c) and т. λóywv TOÚTOV by case (1614 b)—referring to the words "thou art not Cæsar's friend." This is a charge that Pilate cannot hear unmoved. Now therefore he is goaded to action, and the sentence introduces the action as the consequence, o ovv II...nyayev3.

1 [2585] Μk xiii. 23 προείρηκα ὑμῖν πάντα, Mt. xxiv. 25 ἰδοὺ προείρηκα uiv, following a mention of "false Christs," who would lead astray "if possible, even the elect." All this Lk. omits. A little above, Mk xiii. 6, Mt. xxiv. 5, Lk. xxi. 8, predict the coming of those who will say "I am [He]" or "I am the Christ" and Mk-Mt. (but not Lk.) add "they will lead many astray."

2 [25856] The phrase "I am [He]" appears to connect this Johannine tradition directly with Mk xiii. 6 and parall. mentioned above, and hence indirectly with Mk xiii. 23 “I have told you beforehand."

3 [2586 a] On the following minor points there is perh. not evidence enough to establish any conclusion. Els, in Jn, is regularly followed by ek but the Gk MSS. omit éx in xix. 34 È. T. σтPATIWTŵv, (a, e, ƒ “unus ex ") and W.H. (following BL) omit it in xii. 4. The great likeness of EIC to EK in some MSS. (e.g. D) increases the uncertainty. But in xii. 49 ἐξ ἐμαυτοῦ...ἐλάλησα—as compared with λαλεῖν ἀπὸ éuavroù (or, éavroû) in vii. 17, 18, xiv. 10, xvi. 13-perhaps indicates a more emphatic statement, made at the end of Christ's public teaching, that He did not speak "out of" His own treasure but from that which the Father gave Him.

[25866] According to W.H., Mary Magdalene is called Mapía in xix. 25, xx. 1, 11, but Mapiáμ in xx. 16, 18. According to Tischendorf, it should be Mapiáu throughout. If W.H. are correct, the explanation suggests itself that

Mapia was used in evangelistic narrative up to the point where Jesus called her by her Aramaic name xx. 16 “Mary (Mapıáμ),” and that here, and in the subsequent xx. 18, the Aramaic form was retained.

66

[2586 c] In xi. 11-12 κεκοίμηται-εἰ κεκοίμηται σωθήσεται, SS has " is lying down...sleepeth," a “obdormit...dormit," b, e, f“ dormit...dormit” (agreeing with D KOLμâTaι...Koμâтaι, but d has "dormivit...dormit"). Nonnus has evdet... KVσσEL. Perhaps the desire to explain the alleged misunderstanding of the disciples caused some translators to represent the disciples as using a different word from Christ's when repeating what He had said. On the other hand an ancient comment (Cramer on xi. 7) boldly asserts "They did not really think it was sleep, but supposed Him to be talking in a dark saying (aiviyμarı)." The writer declares, not without force, that it would be senseless for the disciples to suppose that their Master would go "fifteen furlongs (sic)" to wake the sleeping man, Cramer (Vol. ii. 316) prints, as from Origen, an explanation suggesting that Thomas supposed the Lord to mean that He was 'going down to the place of the [departed] souls (kaтaßávтos eis tò tŵv Yuxŵv xwpiov)" to wake Lazarus, and that hence the disciple desired to die with his Master.

not any one," Heb. "not a man,' or

66

[2586 α] In x. 289 οὐχ ἁρπάσει τις... οὐδεὶς δύναται ἁρπάζειν, is any difference intended by the variation of où...Tis and ovdeis? The former, in (1) LXX and (2) N.T., means "not a single man." (1) In LXX, ovк äv@рwños, oг äveρ. oử, = "man not," in Josh. i. 5, Ezek. vii. 13 etc. Tis, "any," often = Heb. "man" in the phrase "if a man," but never (Oxf. Conc.) in "not a man." In 2 S. xix. 22 "shall [any] man die.....?,” où lavaTWOŃOETAł TIS ȧvýp, and in Sir. x. 24 oùк čσTI AUTŵv Tis, the Gk seems to mean "not a single one." Ov...Ti seems to mean “not a single thing" in LXX (where there is no corresponding Heb.) in Job xxxv. 15 οὐκ ἔγνω παράπτωμά τι, Prov. xν. 23 οὐδὲ μὴ εἴπῃ καίριόν τι, Wisd. xi. 24 οὐδὲ γὰρ ἂν μισῶν τι κατεσκεύασας (comp. Judith ii. 13 οὐ παραβήσῃ ἕν τι). (2) In N.T., τις, τι etc., after οὐ or μή, appear to be emphatic in Mk iv. 22 marg., Mt. viii. 28, xi. 27 ovdeìs.......ovdè.......Tɩs, xii. 19, xxii. 46 οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο... οὐδὲ ἐτόλμησέν τις, Lk. xi. 36 etc. In Mk v. 37 οὐκ ἀφῆκεν οὐδένα the parall. Lk. viii. 51 has oùк døñкev.....Tɩvá (al. ovdéva). It is very emphatic in I Cor. ii. 2, iv. 5, 1 Thess. ii. 9, 2 Thess. iii. 8, 1 Pet. iv. 15 etc. In 2 Pet. iii. 9 μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας...χωρῆσαι shews an exceptional use of the pl. Perhaps the writer means “not desiring that some should perish [while others are saved] but that all should come to repentance."

[2586 e] In Mt. xi. 27, xxii. 46 ovde...tus is stronger than the preceding ovdels. Here (x. 28-9) it is stronger than the following ovdeís. The question is at first about "snatching" from the Son, and it is said, emphatically, that “not any” can snatch from the Son. Afterwards, when "snatching" from the Father is spoken of, stress is laid, not on "anyone," but on the notion of "snatching":"there is no such thing as snatching from Him,"-where it is better (2767) to read ovdels ȧpráce with Origen; but in any case, the verb, not the pronoun, is emphatic. If John had wished to emphasize the pronoun he might have used (2257) ov....... οὐδείς.

CHAPTER II

REPETITION

SI. The nature of Johannine repetition

[2587] Johannine repetition may be roughly classified as (1) wordrepetition, (2) phrase-repetition. In (1), the repetition follows closely in the context, e.g. "confessed and denied not and confessed." In (2), it is sometimes of the nature of a refrain, as in "A little while and ye shall see me," "Feed my sheep," "All that thou hast given me" etc. Repetition may, or may not, be accompanied with variation of order, such as we find in one of the prayers before sleep in the Jewish Prayer Book: "Behold, He that guardeth Israel will neither slumber nor sleep." This is "to be said three times" apparently without variation. But the next sentence is varied thrice, as follows:-" For thy salvation I hope, O Lord. I hope, O Lord, for thy salvation. O Lord, for thy salvation I hope (to be said three times)." Few or none of the Johannine variations will be found to present any ambiguity; but they are of importance as illustrating the deliberate and poetic arrangement of large parts of the Fourth Gospel and the weight and mystical meaning attached by the author to certain utterances, and indicated by him in twofold, threefold, and sevenfold repetition.

46

1 [2587 a] Jewish Prayer Book, transl. by Rev. S. Singer p. 296. In the Confession on a Death-bed (p. 317) "The Lord reigneth; the Lord hath reigned; the Lord shall reign for ever and ever" is to be said three times, and so is Blessed be His name, whose glorious kingdom is for ever and ever." But "the Lord He is God" is to be said seven times. Presumably, and appropriately, there is to be only one utterance of the final confession of the unity of God: "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one." But even here the bald truth might have been expressed by "The Lord our God is one," and the addition of "the Lord" suggests a "threefold effect" like that in the first sentence of the Fourth Gospel.