Adam," or "first Adam," and (2) “the last Adam," or to (1) "the old "second man," who is said to be " from heaven." [1960] In vii. 51, "the man may very well refer to previous context, which describes an attempt on the part of the Sanhedrin to arrest Jesus. Nicodemus, a member of the Sanhedrin, pleads that Jesus ought at all events to be heard: "Will (or, doth1) our Law judge the man except it first hear from him...?" i.e. the man you have been trying to arrest. The term is perhaps slightly contemptuous, and exhibits Nicodemus as affecting to speak from a detached and superior position-in spite of the fact that he has visited Jesus by night. Somewhat similarly, in Matthew, Peter detaches himself under pressure of fear, and, when he is questioned about his Master, says, "I do not know the man." In classical Greek, & aveρwπos often means "the poor man," "the poor creature," and there is probably a tinge of this mixture of pity and contempt in Pilate's saying (xix. 5) "Behold the man," i.e. "Behold the poor creature— whom you are persecuting, and who is surely beneath your hostility!" But Pilate, like Caiaphas (xi. 50), may also be regarded as speaking "not from himself," so that he unconsciously uses an expression that may mean "Behold the man!" i.e. the Man according to God's Image, the ideal Man3.

1 [1960 a] The scribe that accented B gives κpieî fut., which favours the view taken above; κpive would favour the rendering "the man [from time to time brought before the Law]." Comp. Lk. xix. 22 кpw-where W.H. (with most Lat. vss.) have кpivw but R.V. крiŵ.

* [1960] Μt. xxvi. 72, 74 τὸν ἄνθρωπον, Μk xiv. 7ι τὸν ἀ. τοῦτον ὃν λέγετε. Lk. xxii. 58, 6ο has ἄνθρωπε. Mk softens the harshness, Lk. gets rid of it.

3 [1960] Epictetus' use of the term is worth considering here. He uses it to mean “the ideal man," what Philo would call “the man according to the image [of God]," St Paul "the new man," and some "the Son of man." It may be briefly expressed by "The Man" in the following extracts: (ii. 9 title) "How that, being unable to fulfil the promise implied in The Man' (rỳν Tοû 'AvůμúñοU ἐπαγγελίαν πληρῶσαι) we take in addition to [it] (προσλαμβάνομεν) that of The Philosopher,'" (ii. 9. 1 foll.) "Beware, then, lest thou do aught as a wild beast! Else, thou hast lost The Man (ȧπúλeσas тòv äv0pwπov), thou hast not fulfilled the promise. Beware, lest [thou do aught] as a sheep! Else, thus also The Man is destroyed (awλeто д äveрwπоs)." And again (Epict. ii. 10. 14) "But if, from being a man, a creature mild and sociable, you have become a wild beast, noxious, cunning at mischief, given to biting, have you lost (ároλwλexas) nothing? What! Must you wait to lose the trash in your purse before you will confess to having suffered damage (ἀλλὰ δεῖ σε κέρμα ἀπολέσαι ἵνα ζημιωθῇς) ? Is there no other loss that damages The Man (ἄλλου δ ̓ οὐδενὸς ἀπώλεια ζημιοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον) ?”

66

ог

[1961] In vii. 23 "If a man (av@pwños) receiveth circumcision on the sabbath," W.H. have [ö] äveρwños, and B inserts 8. But the high authority of B is weakened as regards the article by the fact that it makes frequent mistakes (2650-2) about o and the similar letter c, e.g. v. 7 просEMOу for проemoy, vi. 19 wCTADIOYC for wсCтaдIOYC, vii. 38 €ieme for Eiceme, and even vii. 43 cxima for CXICMA (where, as in vii. 23, the error of insertion omission could not arise from the juxtaposition of similar letters). Possibly in vii. 23 the scribe of B may have referred to the previous words ("and on the sabbath ye circumcise a man") and he may have supposed the text to proceed, “if the man [just mentioned]..........” In any case man" is as emphatic here as it is in Mark's statement "The man is not made for the sabbath"; and the emphasis is illustrated by vii. 22 "On the sabbath ye circumcise a man." "A man" might have been omitted if emphasis had not required it. But the argument is: "You do not hesitate to break the sabbath by circumcising a human being. If human beings on the sabbath are allowed to receive this partial purification, are ye angry with me for having made a whole human being (öλov avрwπоv) sound on the sabbath?" The plea is, in behalf of humanity, for a humane judgment ("judge righteous judgment"). And the whole passage illustrates the use of av@pwmos alleged above (1934-5) to mean "human being" in connexion with Abraham whose "love of men is eulogized by Philo.

[1962] In Genesis (xix. 17) (LXX) "Look not behind thee nor stand in any of the surrounding country (TM Tepixwpw), escape into the mountain," the context defines "the mountain "as the mountainous country near Sodom. So in Mark, before the Choosing of the Twelve, (iii. 13) "he goeth up into the mountain," is defined by the previous mention of (iii. 7) "the sea"-presumably the sea of Galileeas being the mountainous country near the sea of Galilee': but the parallel Luke (vi. 12) "he went forth into the mountain to pray" is not defined by anything-unless we suppose it to follow closely on Christ's teaching in (vi. 6) "the synagogue," and assume this to mean the synagogue of Capernaum, so that "the mountain" means "the mountainous country" near that city. In Mark and Matthew

1 Tò opos means "the mountain," or "the mountainous country," defined by something implied or expressed, like "the Highlands," "the Lakes."

Christ's going "into the mountain to pray," after the Feeding of the Five Thousand, follows a previous mention of going in "a boat," presumably on the sea of Galilee'. In the story of the Gerasene demoniac, "the mountain" is also defined (in Mark and Luke) by a previous mention of "the sea," or "sailing," as well as by "Gerasa"." When the Transfiguration is described, Mark and Matthew speak of "a high mountains" (as also does Matthew in the Temptation) but Luke has "He went up into the mountain to pray.”

[1963] A review of the contexts of the passages in which Mark mentions "the mountain" makes it probable that he uses the phrase to mean the mountainous country in view of Capernaum—not that which was actually nearest to the city on the west of the Lake, but that which lay on the east of the Lake. The former, though near, could not be seen by the citizens of Capernaum who lived under it, so to speak the latter, being constantly visible to them, might naturally be called "the mountain." This is not always clear in the Synoptists. But John defines the position thus in the only passages in which "the mountain" is used by him absolutely, vi. 1-15 "Jesus went away on the other side of the sea of Galilee....Now Jesus came up into the mountain....he withdrew again into the mountain." Luke makes no mention of "the mountain" in connexion with the Feeding of the Five Thousand, Mark and Matthew mention it once, John mentions it twice. It is a case where Luke omits and John inter

venes.

(6) "Only begotten"

Only

[1964] i. 18 "No man hath seen God at any time. begotten (Movoyevs), God, HE THAT IS in the bosom of the Father,he hath declared him." Under the head of Apposition (1938) reasons have been given for punctuating as above, and for regarding "Only begotten," "God," and "HE THAT IS" (ỏ v qualified by "in the bosom of the Father") as three titles of the Logos. The Greeks, and Philo (the Jewish interpreter of Greek philosophy) called God "that which is," rò ov, neuter. John adopts the Apocalyptic phrase "He that is," o v, so as to make God a Person, not a thing. He then adds "in the bosom of the Father" to indicate

1 Mk vi. 46" went away to pray," Mt. xiv. 23

Mk vi. 32, Mt. xiv. 13.

66

went up to pray," following

* Mk v. 11, Lk. viii. 32, following Mk v. 1, Lk. viii. 26.

3 Mk ix. 2, Mt. xvii. 1.

6 Rev. i. 4, 8 etc.

a Person, in whom the defining characteristic is not strength or wisdom but filial union with a Father. Thus an expression implying both paternal and filial love closes the list of titles and descriptions of the Logos enumerated in the Prologue. In the last three of these titles, the first place is given to "Only begotten," which, both in Greek and Hebrew-owing to the connexion between an only Son and a beloved son (803)-implied "beloved Son." It is not likely that John meant us to render the word " an only begotten," any more than to render feós, "a God.” As a Christian would not render Xprós an Anointed," but the Anointed," or "Christ," so John intends us to render Movoyevs, "the only begotten," or else, as a proper name, Monogenes, i.e. "Only begotten." The alterations of this text are numerous and natural as John has strained to the utmost the elastic Greek language to express briefly the intensity of his conviction that the Father is known only through the Son.

(7) "Prophet "

66

[1965] In i. 21 "Art thou the prophet?" A.V. has "that prophet," apparently (unless "that" is "ille" as in 1 K. xviii. 7 (A.V.)) regarding it as a repetition of the previous question "Art thou Elijah?" Origen, with more probability, supposes it to refer to the "prophet" mentioned in Deuteronomy xviii. 15, 18, whom the Jews (825) seem not to have identified with the Messiah, although the prophet is thus identified in Acts iii. 22.

(8) "Teacher [of Israel]"

[1966] iii. 10 "Thou art the teacher of Israel (ó d. Toû 'I.) and knowest not these things!" is probably ironical, meaning "the [well-known] teacher." That John would not indiscriminately insert and omit the article in such phrases, may be inferred from his general carefulness and subtlety in linguistic discrimination and, in particular, from i. 49 "thou art the Son of God, thou art King of Israel," the utterance of Nathanael, as compared with xii. 13 "the king of Israel," the utterance of the crowd, in the Entry into Jerusalem. "The Son of God" reigns over, or is “king of,” all the nations of the earth including Israel. David, or Hezekiah, or a merely Jewish Messiah, might naturally be called "the king of Israel," i.e. the king for the time being. Nathanael is made to utter a confession much more inclusive than that of "the great multitude1."

1 [1966 a] In classical Gk a distinction is drawn between Baσideús, i.e. “King”

(iii) Before Names

[1967] The article before a name may mean (1) "the [abovementioned]," (2) "the [well-known]." This leaves room for great variety of usage in different writers, and even in the same writer (when writing in different moods). Mark is singularly consistent in his use of the article with the nominative, "Jesus." He omits it in the first mention of the name (i. 9) but never again, except in the phrase (x. 47) "Jesus the Nazarene "-where custom requires its omission as the name is defined by "the Nazarene." Matthew and Luke omit the article at first, but omit it also (with the nonpredicative nominative) in about five and eight instances, severally, later on (besides the parallel to Mk x. 47).

[1968] In John-excluding such instances as "Jesus the Nazarene" and others where we might expect omission-we find the article omitted about sixty-five times'. With Aéye, John, more often than not, has o 'Ino., but he has ȧmeкpion 'Ino. about twenty-two times and dreкpion o 'Ino. only once for certain. In phrases with άexpion and names, the LXX regularly omits the article. John may have been influenced, in using this word, by LXX usage, while, in the use of Aéye, he follows Greek usage. With indeclinable names, case-inflexions are sometimes indicated by the article for the apparent purpose of clearness; and perhaps it is sometimes inserted in accordance with an unconscious sense of rhythm so as to avoid monotony in the long dialogues that characterize the Fourth Gospel.

[1969] John's general rule is to introduce a personal name

uniquely, the name given to the sovereign of the East, and ỏ ẞariλeús, "the king" of this or that barbarous tribe. There is perhaps an inner evangelistic meaning in the protest of the priests, xix. 21 "Write not, the king of the Jews,' but that ‘He said, I am king of the Jews (ß. tŵv 'I. eiμí),'” besides some allusiveness to the Synoptic differences concerning the inscription. See 2669.

1

[1968 a] The statistics are doubtful owing to the similarity of o to c and the weakness of codex B on this point (1961 and 2650-2). But 65 is probably the minimum.

2 [1968] vi. 29. In iii. 5, xviii. 37, W.H. have [o]. On the other hand where αὐτοῖς is inserted after ἀπεκρίθη we often find ὁ or [ό] before Ἰησοῦς. Perhaps where auroîs or aur is inserted, referring back to the person spoken to, a corresponding & is more often inserted to refer back to Jesus.

[1968] Johannine variations may be illustrated by the use of "John (the Baptist)" which occurs with article (13), without (5), doubtful (1). Contrast i. 28 ἐν Β....ὅπου ἦν ὁ Ἰ. βαπτίζων (where there has been much said about John in context) with x. 40 εἰς τὸν τόπον ὅπου ἦν Ι. τὸ πρῶτον βαπτίζων.