but...," ," "God is not God of the dead but of the living," "Not my will...but thine1." The evidence tends to shew that our Lord frequently used this form of speech in His doctrine, and that His usage, in this respect, is better represented by Mark than by Luke.

$5. The Johannine Prologue

[2594] Before giving a list of Johannine repetitions, twofold, threefold, and sevenfold, it will be convenient to touch on the first six verses of the Gospel from the point of view of the "canon of repetition," including also the "canon of negation" above mentioned (2591), and adding a few remarks on the context. The first sentence, for example, contains three statements about "the Word." Schöttgen tells us that "when one word in the sacred text is twice or thrice repeated, then the Cabbalists multiply that event and make many persons or events out of one?." Doubtless it would be an anachronism (as well as a fault of judgment) to impute to John such fancies as these. Yet it is probable that he followed Jewish tradition as well as prophetic inspiration in his three repetitions of "the Word," implying a threefold aspect, first, the Word in itself, and then the Word in two other aspects: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Divine Being3, and Divine Being was the Word." The three relations of the Logos are then summed up thus: "This [i.e. the Word conceived as above] was in the

1 [2593b] See the parall. to Mk ii. 17, v. 39, x. 43, xii. 27, xiv. 36. In Mk i. 44 (Mt. sim.) Lk. v. 14 changes μηδενὶ μηδὲν εἴπῃς το παρήγγειλεν ...μηδενὶ εἰπεῖν so as to exclude the negative portion of μή.....ἀλλά from Oratio Recta.

[2593 c] In the Sermon on the Mount, oùk...¿λλá occurs in Mt. v. 17, 39, vi. 13 ("Lead us not...but deliver us from evil"), vi. 18, vii. 21: but Lk. omits either the phrase, or the phrase and its context. In Mt. xviii. 22, Lk. omits the phrase.

[2593 d] A curious exception to Synoptic usage occurs in Mk iv. 21 μÝTɩ.......ĥ..... oux iva...; where Mt. v. 15 and Lk. viii. 16, xi. 33 have ¿Àλá after a negative. In Mk ii. 22, W. H. bracket the dá-clause, giving it unbracketed in parall. Mt. Lk. 2 ii. 361.

3 [2594 a] "With the Divine Being," pòs Tòv Oeóv. The author might have written πρὸς θεόν here as in i. 6 he has παρὰ θεοῦ, and in xiii. 3 ἀπὸ θεοῦ. But he apparently wishes (as does Philo i. 655) to call attention to the distinction between Ocós and ỏ cós. In the last clause, "the Word" though it comes last (as in Gk) is subject, and we should express it more naturally in English by "the Word was Divine Being." This is stronger than saying "the Word was divine (@eîos)." It means that the Word must be regarded as " God," but never apart from the relationship described as "being with, or towards, the [one] God."

beginning with the Divine Being," a summary that is not tautological; for it teaches us that the three propositions about the Logos were all true "in the beginning."

[2595] There follows a sentence in chiasmus, which also contains a negation: "All things through him' came into being; and without. him came into being not even one [thing]." From the logical point of view the second clause is superfluous; but it is suggestive of the possibility that a thing might be "without him," i.e. apart from the Word, apart from law, order, and harmony. Grant that "all things came into being" through the Word, does it follow that they may not fall away so as to be "without him"? This phrase prepares the way for the subsequent mention of "darkness" (which is "without the light"). Moreover the sentence, beginning with "all" and ending with "one," suggests (though it does not state) that "without" the Logos or Word, there is no oneness or unity.

[2596] The writer began by three propositions about the Word, telling us first what the Word was "in" ("in the beginning"). Now he calls our attention to that which is "in" the Word-first defining it as "life," and then stating two facts about it :-i. 4 "That which hath come into being in Him was life, and the life was the light of men; and the light in the darkness shineth and the darkness apprehended it not." But in these three propositions the same subject is not repeated (as it was above, "the Word"). The construction goes forward step by step, the predicate in one clause being repeated as the subject of the next, so as to suggest cause and effect3. Moreover, whereas the first verse contained one tense (v) thrice repeated, this contains three predicative tenses (ἦν, φαίνει, and κατέλαβεν) suggesting that we have passed from the Eternal "was" into the conditions of change and time. We have also been brought down from "God" to "men." Immediately after the mention of "men" there has come a mention of "darkness" as that in which "the light

1 [2595 a] ▲i avrov, "through him or through it." It is most unfortunate that English does not allow us to retain the deliberate ambiguity of the Gk, which gradually prepares the way for the revelation of the Logos or Word, as a Son.

66

2 [2596 a] On yéyovev see 2478. It seems to imply that although “all things came into being" (aorist) through the Word, yet not all things" retain the state, so to speak, of “having come into being" thus. Only that which retains the state is " life."

3 [25966] Comp. Rom. v. 4-5 "tribulation worketh patience, and patience experience, and experience hope, and hope maketh not ashamed."

[of men] shineth." Last comes a negation, discussed elsewhere (1735 e-g), "the darkness apprehended not" the light. Thiswhether it means "did not overcome" or "did not apprehend" or both--apparently implies something suggestive of failure or conflict.

[2597] After "men comes mention of " a man," i. 6 "There came into being a man (èyéveto άv0ρwπоs) sent from God, his name [was] John." The writer could have said simply, "A man named John was sent by God" or "God sent a man named John." But he apparently wishes to draw a distinction between "was" above (" In the beginning was the Word") and "came into being " here (“there came into being a man"). Perhaps, too, he wishes to suggest a distinction between "the Word was with God" and "a man sent from God." Next follows a statement that this man "came to be a witness," which might have been briefly and naturally expressed by saying simply that he "came to be a witness about the light." But this Gospel, in accordance with the canon of twofold repetition, throws the statement into what may be called two "witness-clauses": "This [man] came [to be] for a witness, that he might bear witness about the light, that all might believe through it (2302-4)." Then, in accordance with the canon of negation, the fact is restated after a negative: "He was not the light, but [he came, or, it was ordained (2063, 2105 foll.)] in order that he might bear witness concerning the light."

§ 6. Johannine repetition through negation

[2598] This is very frequent both in narrative and in words of Christ. In i. 20 "and confessed and denied not and (A.V. but) confessed," the negative (ou) is followed by "and" (instead of "but (aλλá)," which is almost invariably used). Very frequently the negation means "not of man," or "not of this or that lower kind," or "not evil"; and the affirmation means "but of God," or 66 but of a higher kind" or but good," e.g. i. 13 "not...nor yet from the will of man, but from God," iii. 16 "should not perish but should have life eternal," iii. 17 "for God sent not his Son...that he should judge the world but that the world through him should be saved," v. 24 "Cometh not into judgment, but hath passed from death into life," v. 30 "I seek not mine own will, but the will of him that sent me1."

1 It is comparatively seldom that oỷk.....¿XXá introduces evil as in iii. 36 “shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him." But the negation of the good follows the good, without ouк...άXXá, in xiv. 23—4 "If any one loveth me he will keep my word...he that loveth me not keepeth not my words."

[2599] Instances of repetition with un are less frequent. The μý clause comes second in iii. 18 "He that believeth in him is not [to be] judged. He that believeth not (ỏ μǹ ñ.) hath been judged already”; v. 23 "that all may honour the Son even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father, who sent him ; xiv. 23—4 “If any one love me he will keep my word...he that loveth me not keepeth not my words." The un clause comes first in X. 1-2 "He that entereth not through the door...is a thief and a robber, but he that entereth through the door is shepherd of the sheep," xv. 2 "Every branch in me that beareth not (un pépov) fruit he taketh it away, and every [branch] that beareth fruit he cleanseth it.”

[2600] There is no special ambiguity arising out of these constructions or out of John's general use of the negative. But it is worth noting that ou occurs in his Gospel almost as often as in Mark and Luke taken together. And we may often perceive how the negation leads the reader towards an affirmation in a very suggestive and stimulating way, as when our Lord says, "I have not come from myself," "I am not alone," "I speak not from myself," "I seek not mine own glory," and "I will not leave you orphans'," preparing the way for some positive doctrine. The negative, however, is not often thus used in communicating the highest kind of truth. After stating that the Baptist came to bear witness about the light, the evangelist proceeds, "He was not the light"; and his description of the "witness" is as follows: "And this is the witness... And he confessed and denied not and confessed, 'I am not the Christ'"-the two subsequent answers being also negative ("I am not," "No")". Then, and not till then, follows the positive testimony. The writer perhaps feels that divine teaching is often a "dark saying” misunderstood for a time, and that the interpreter must explain by negatives, "not this but that." At all events the last saying of Jesus recorded in this Gospel affords an instance of a "not...but" correcting a misunderstanding: "But Jesus said not unto him that he was not to die, but...."

$7. Twofold repetition in the Baptist's teaching

[2601] The teaching of the Baptist, being rudimentary, contains, as might be expected, several instances of twofold repetition. First

the evangelist speaks, i. 7—8 “John...came for witness that he might witness concerning the light...he was not the light, but [came] that he might witness concerning the light." Then the Baptist (probably, 1927) speaks, i. 15 (W.H. marg.) "This was he (lit.) that (ov) I said," repeated with variation in i. 30 " This is he in behalf of whom (vrèp ov) I said." The participial clause "he that cometh after me" is also repeated twice. So is the difficult sentence, "He is become before me because he was first in respect of me." The mission to "baptize in water" is also twice stated as a preparation for something higher.

[2602] The words, "Behold, [here is] the lamb of God" are twice repeated; first, without mention of any particular hearers, "Behold, [here is] the lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world,” then, in the presence of two of John's disciples, "Behold, [here is] the lamb of God." The descent of the Spirit is twice attested, “I have beheld,” “I have seen"; but it is also predicted by God Himself ("Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending "), so that it gives the impression of being twice attested on earth and once from heaven, being one of those "holy things" described by Philo as "approved by three witnesses." Strictly speaking, the

1 [2601 a] See 2369-71. The repetitions in the context-i. 14 "We beheld his glory, glory as of [the] only begotten," and "full of grace and truth" followed by i. 17 “the grace and the truth”—probably spring unconsciously from a writer reflecting on the way in which the "glory" of heaven is seen in the "glory" on earth, and in which "the grace and the truth" that were latent in the law of Moses were revealed in the person of the Messiah. See also 2718-22.

* [2601 6] i. 15 ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος. In i. 26, W.H. have oпlow μov épxóuevos (with BN) without the article; SS has "he that cometh," Origen varies. The testimony of B as to o following € is sometimes untrustworthy. In i. 30 dniow pov Epxeral, the vb is indicative.

3 i. 15, 30, see 1896-1900 and 2665--7.

5

4 [2601 c] i. 26 “I baptize in water...," i. 31 "For this cause came I baptizing in water...." The mention of "baptizing in the spirit" is assigned, not to the Baptist (as in the Synoptists) but to God, i. 33 "Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the spirit descending...this is he that is to baptize in the Holy Spirit." [2602 a] This happens on the third day. The account of the first day (i. 19--28) contains the Baptist's negative testimony, ending with "one whom ye know not..., the latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy to loose." The second day (i. 29 "the morrow") contains the first testimony to "the lamb of God," which testimony, however, is not recorded to have produced any effect. The third day (i. 35 "on the morrow again") brings a repetition of the testimony to "the lamb": and this second testimony being uttered in the presence of two witnesses, who immediately become converts, results indirectly in the beginning of the Church of Christ upon earth.