the context be examined, it will appear that our Lord is distinguishing between two stages of spiritual development for the disciples. He first says that, if the disciples love Him, they will keep His commandments even though they may have momentarily deserted Him, and He will "request" the Father to give them another Paraclete. Then He leads them to a higher stage, xvi. 23—6 “In that day ye shall request nothing from me.... These things have I spoken to you in proverbs "--which we might perhaps call metaphors, or parables" the hour cometh when I shall no longer speak to you in proverbs but shall announce to you plainly about the Father. In that day ye shall ask-for-gifts (airýoeode) in my name, and I say not [now] to you that I will request the Father about you; for the Father of himself loveth you...." Here He speaks of what He will not do after the Resurrection and after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. And this is quite compatible with the fact that just before His arrest -while the disciples are still in the stage of "dark sayings" and without the Spirit-He pours forth one last "request" for them1.

1 [2630 c] 'EpwτHOW TÒν TаTÉρа can hardly mean "I will question the Father," for-apart from other objections-—¿pwráw, meaning "question," in Jn, is always followed by a direct or indirect interrogative, i. 19, 21, 25, v. 12, ix. 2, 15, 19, xvi. 5, xviii. 21, or has something in the context that implies questioning (ix. 19, 21, xvi. 19, 30, xviii. 19, 21) (xvi. 23 is doubtful and perhaps includes both “ask a question" and "ask a boon").

[2630 d] 'Epwráw, in Alexandrian Greek of the 1st and later centuries, very freq. means "I ask whether you are pleased to do so and so," and is used in invitations to dinner and polite requests generally (Oxyr. Pap. i. no. 110 and 111 etc.). Hence épwrŋleis (Oxyr. Pap. ii. no. 269) (perh. literally “being asked what your pleasure is”) means “please” (A.D. 57). Comp. ib. i. no. 113 ἐρωτηθεὶς εὖ ποιήσεις ἀγοράσεις “I beg you to be good enough to...buy,” ἐρωτηθεὶς ἀγόρασον, "I beg you to buy” (2nd century), iv. no. 744 ἐρωτῶ σε κ. παρακαλῶ σε (B.C. 1) etc.

[2630 e] From classical Gk no instances of epwráw, "ask a boon," are given by Steph., but the germ of it may perh. be traced in Eurip. Phænissa 15, where the childless Laius ἐλθὼν ἐρωτᾷ Φοῖβον ἐξαιτεῖ θ ̓ ἅμα i.e. he not only asks Apollo whether it is the divine will that he should have children, but also asks for the boon. There is a close connexion between "Is it thy will?" and "Let it be thy will." Jn uses airéw concerning the disciples "asking" (not concerning Christ, except in the words of the Samaritan Woman iv. 9 (act.) and Martha xi. 22 (mid.)) but épwráw concerning the Son when He describes Himself as "requesting" that the Father's good will may be fulfilled for the Church (xiv. 16, xvi. 26, xvii. 9 (bis), 15, 20).

[2630] The distinction apparently drawn in xvi. 26 between aithσeσße and ἐρωτήσω invites comparison with r Jn v. 16 ἐάν τις ἴδῃ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτάνοντα ἁμαρτίαν μὴ πρὸς θάνατον, αἰτήσει, καὶ δώσει αὐτῷ ζωήν, τοῖς ἁμαρτάνουσιν μὴ πρὸς

θάνατον. ἔστιν ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον. οὐ περὶ ἐκείνης λέγω ἵνα ἐρωτήσῃ. This is preceded by the statement If we ask a gift (airwμeda) according to his will he heareth us. And if we know that he heareth us [as to] whatsoever we ask as a gift (airuela), we know that we have our (lit.) askings [the things] that we have asked from him (ἔχομεν τὰ αἰτήματα ἃ ᾐτήκαμεν ἀπ' αὐτοῦ).” It would be pedantry to express in a translation intended for general readers the precise differences between αἰτέω, αἰτοῦμαι, and ἐρωτάω: but it would be an insult to the writer to suppose that he did not discriminate between them. The impression left on the reader is that épwráw means asking with a question as to what God's will may be, “if it be thy will," "if it be possible."

[2630g] If that is the distinction in Jn, the meaning of 1 Jn v. 16 (6) may be, "There is a sin [that tends] toward death. I am not [now] speaking about that, in order that he should ask [if it be possible, that it may be forgiven, or stopped before it be too late]." In other words, the writer distinguishes between two classes of sins. About one class of sins he says, in effect, Aéyw iva aitńons. About the otherwhich would require ἐρώτησις not αἴτησις—he does not say λέγω ἵνα μὴ ἐρωτήσῃς. He simply says οὐ λέγω ἵνα ἐρωτήσῃς, “I am not at this moment enjoining such an épúrnois, I am not now talking about that."

66

66

[2630 4] Comp. Hermas Vis. iii. 10. 1-6 ἠρώτων ἵνα μοι ἀποκαλύψῃ... ἕτερον δεῖ σε επερωτῆσαι ἵνα σοι ἀποκαλυφθῇ.. πᾶσα ἐρώτησις ταπεινοφροσύνης χρήζει...τί σὺ ὑπὸ χεῖρα αἰτεῖς ἀποκαλύψεις ἐν δεήσει; βλέπε μήποτε πολλὰ αἰτούμενος βλάψης σου τὴν σάρκα, where ἐρωτᾷν ἵνα expresses "request" for a revelation, and this "request" is afterwards called an "asking" or an 'urgent asking." If we had before us the whole Christian literature of 50-150 A.D. we should probably find many such distinctions between verbs of praying. For example, déoμai is never used by Mk, Jn, Heb., Pet., Jas, and Rev. Пapakaλéw, to mean “beseeching the Lord" (as in 2 Cor. xii. 8), is very rare in N.T. (apart from "beseeching" Christ to heal etc. in the Gospels). Jn consistently represents the Son, when praying to the Father, as ἐρωτῶν, not προσευχόμενος, nor δεόμενος, nor αἰτῶν, nor αἰτούμενος, nor Tapakaλ@v. It is true that the Epistle says (1 Jn ii. 1) "If any man sin, we have a Paraclete"-("one called in to aid," "advocate," 1720 k)—“ with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous"; but this does not mean that the Paraclete "beseeches (wapakadeî)” the Father. The Johannine doctrine is that the Son, when on earth, offered "requests" to the Father, but that, in heaven, "request" became unmeaning in the unity between the Father and the Son.

[2630] Westcott (on 1 Jn v. 16) says, "It is interesting to notice that pwrậv is used in this sense of Christian prayer for Christians in a very early inscription in the Roman Catacombs: ZHCHC EN κω και ερωτά Υπερ ΗΜΩΝ (Northcote and Brownlow, Roma Sotteranea, ii. 159)." It is much to be regretted that Westcott neither adds the evidence shewing that this inscription is " very early," nor gives any indication as to the rarity or frequency of epwráw in this sense in other "very early" inscriptions. I have not been able to find in Boeckh more than the following, which may be the one he has in view, "9673 Romae lapis nuper repertus in coemeterio Callisti. Edidit Rénier apud Perretum Les catacombes de Rome vi. p. 28 et 178, qui habet a Bonnettyo Annales de philosophie chrétienne IV. série, tom. IX. p. 111, quem librum inspicere mihi non licuit. Versus duos extremos citat etiam Wiseman Fabiola p. 147.” The inscription is kat[adeσis] în προ ιγ καλ[ανδων] ιουν[ιων] Αυγενδε ζήσαις εν Κω και ερωτα υπερ ημων. Boeckh makes no further remarks. Kará@eσis, here abbreviated as κaт, is not given by Steph., L. S., or Sophocles, in the sense of "interment "- which it seems to have

[2631] When a clause with "therefore (ovv)" follows a parenthesis, the "therefore" ought to look back beyond the parenthesis to some preceding statement, e.g. iv. 7—9 "Jesus saith to her, 'Give me to drink' (for his disciples had gone away into the city to buy food). The Samaritan woman therefore saith unto him...." Here our means "in consequence of Christ's request." But, if we remove the marks of parenthesis, it might seem that the woman uttered this because the disciples had gone away, and it is perhaps partly because of this ambiguity, and partly because of a feeling that the chronological order should be kept, that SS rearranges the whole text as follows:—

iv. 6-9 (Gk)

"Now (8) there was there Jacob's spring. Jesus therefore... sat...over the spring. It was about the sixth hour. There cometh a woman from Samaria to draw water. Jesus saith to her, Give me to drink.-For his disciples had gone away into the city to buy food.... The woman of Samaria therefore saith to him, How dost thou-being a Jew-ask drink from me...?"

iv. 6-9 (SS)

"Now there was there Jacob's spring of water, and Jesus came [and] sat over the spring..............And his disciples had entered that town that they might buy themselves food; and when Jesus sat down it was about the sixth hour, and a certain woman had come from Samaria to draw water. Jesus saith to her, Give me water to drink. That Samaritan woman saith to him Lo, thou art a Jew; how askest thou me for water to drink...?"

Here the Syriac once omits "therefore" and once renders it by "and." It also connects with the context the detached or parenthetical "it was about the sixth hour" by means of a "when." But the most important change is that SS places the parenthesis about the departure of the disciples earlier, in its chronological order.

here, and in 9598, 9610, 9649, 9651, 9660, 9663, 9675, 9831 (comp. 9661 KATETÉON). It occurs also in Oxyr. Pap. 475. 31 "burial." There are some hundreds of Christian sepulchral inscriptions given by Boeckh in the adjacent pages, and I have been unable to find any other that has épúra. It should be added that katáßeσis generally occurs at or near the end of an epitaph (except where the epitaph states nothing but the fact of xaтábeσis and the date) and not, as here, at the beginning. If genuine, épúra would seem to be quite exceptional like μέμνησο [τοῦ σοῦ πατέρος] ib. 9865.

[2632] The arrangement of SS is chronological, but it is not Johannine. John does not accumulate his descriptions of scenery and circumstance at the beginning of a scene as in a stage direction, but prefers to give them in parentheses, each in its turn as it is wanted. Thus, after the words of Christ's mother, "Do whatsoever he may say unto you," John inserts "Now there were there stone waterpots...holding two measures or three "--but not till the insertion is made absolutely necessary as a preparation for Christ's following words, "Fill the waterpots with water." Again, it is not till after Christ's exclamation "I thirst," that we read "A vessel lay near full of vinegar. A sponge, therefore, full of the vinegar...they brought near to his mouth. When therefore he received the vinegar, Jesus said, It is finished." In these passages, "the waterpots" and "the vinegar" would be unintelligible without what we may call the immediately preceding and parenthetical stage direction3.

* [2632 a] SS is wanting for these two passages. But, so far as the faithful representation of Johannine connexion of sentences depends-as it does very largely upon the faithful representation of the Johannine ovv, we must pronounce SS worthless, as may be seen from its renderings of our in ii. 18 om., ii. 20 om., ii. 22 "but," iii. 25 "now," iv. 1 "now," iv. 5 "and," iv. 6 "and," iv. 9 (see 2631), iv. 28 "and," iv. 33 om. Compare also the Gk and Syr. of xxi. 7:

Gk

"Simon Peter therefore, having heard [that] 'It is the Lord,' girt himself with (lit.) the coat-for he was naked-and cast himself into the sea. But the other disciples came in the little boat, for they were not far from the land, but about two hundred cubits off-dragging the net of the fish."

SS

"Now Simon, when he heard it was our Lord, took his coat [and] put [it] on his loins and fell into the lake and was A swimming and coming, because they were not far from the dry land. And the rest of the disciples were coming in the boat drawing that net."

Here SS omits "for he was naked" and the curious addition "of the fish." It also places the parenthesis "for...land" earlier in the narrative, just as it did in the Samaritan Dialogue (2631).

[26326] In vi. 10 "Jesus said Make the men sit down.-Now (de) there was much grass in the place-The men therefore (ovv) sat down," Syr. (Burk.) has "Go make the folk sit down [to meat] companies by companies. Now the green grass

was plentiful in that same spot, and the folk sat down [to meat]," but SS "He saith to them: Make the folk sit down [to meat]. Now the green grass was plentiful in that same place. He saith to them: Go, make the folk sit down [to meat] on the herbage." Mk vi. 39 has étéтažev avтoîs ȧvakλiðñvai (marg. ἀνακλίναι) πάντας, συμπόσια συμπόσια, ἐπὶ τῷ χλωρῷ χόρτῳ, which seems to have influenced the Syriac.

[2632] There are two parenthetic clauses, followed by "then therefore," in

[2633] A parenthesis is frequently followed by a resumptive ovv, which, in some cases, may mean consequently" but in others little more than "well, then" (or "to return, then"): ii. 16—18 "Make not my Father's house a house of merchandise.-His disciples remembered that it is written, The zeal of thine house shall eat me up.'— The Jews therefore answered and said..."; ii. 23-5 “And they used to come to [John] and to be baptized.—For John had not yet been cast into prison.-There arose therefore a questioning...about purifying"; iv. 8-9 "Jesus saith to her, Give me to drink. For his disciples had gone away...to buy food.--The woman therefore saith to him...." So probably we should regard as parenthetical all that comes between iv. 26 "Jesus saith to her I am [the Messiah]" and iv. 28 "The woman therefore left her waterpot...." In the following, however, the italicised words are probably not parenthetical, vi. 3-5 "Now (dé) Jesus went up to the mountain and there he sat with his disciples. Now there was (v dé) near at hand the passover, the feast of the Jews. Jesus therefore having raised his eyes and having beheld that a great multitude was coming to him..." The mention of the passover may have a mystical meaning connected with what follows. Jesus is described as "raising his eyes" to the contempla

xi. 12-14, "The disciples therefore said to him, 'Lord, if he is asleep he will be saved [from death].'—But (dé) Jesus had spoken about his death. But (de) they supposed that about the falling asleep of slumber he was speaking.-Then therefore (TÓTE Ovv) Jesus said to them plainly, 'Lazarus is dead."" SS renders dé first by "now" and then by "and"; and, for "then therefore," it has "again," thus: "They say to him: 'Our Lord, if he sleepeth, he will live.' Now Jesus on [the ground] that Lazar was dead had said [it] to them, and they were supposing that of sleep he said it. Again Jesus said to them plainly, ‘Lazar is dead.”

[2632 d] In xix. 23 "The soldiers therefore...took his upper garments (and made four parts, for each soldier a part)—and the tunic. Now the tunic was without seam...," John passes rapidly over the "garments," for which there was no need to draw lots, to the "tunic," for which there was the need; and he twice mentions the "tunic," partly perhaps because the Synoptists had wholly omitted this detail. SS and D are wanting here. But this twofold mention of the tunic is avoided by most of the Latin and other versions by dropping "and the tunic." Thus they also avoid the parenthesis: e has "simili modo et tunicam. Erat autem ei tunica...," thus avoiding the parenthesis in a different way.

1 [2633 a] The intervening words describe the arrival of the disciples: “And they were marvelling that he was speaking with a woman. No one however said, What seekest thou? or why speakest thou with her?" This does not seem to contain a reason for the woman's departure. But the astounding utterance “I am [the Messiah]" may be intended to explain her sudden departure and her leaving her waterpot behind her-either in amazement or in reverence for the "prophet."