without the article', and there appear only three or four exceptions to this. One is "Pilate" in xviii. 29 "There went out therefore the [governor] Pilate," and this may be paralleled by Luke's first mention of him in the Passion, "they led him to the [governor] Pilate," where Mark has no article ("they delivered him up to Pilate") and Matthew "they delivered him up to Pilate the governor2."

[1970] The other exceptions are indeclinable nouns: i. 43-5 "He findeth Philip...now the [aforesaid] Philip was from Bethsaida... Philip findeth (lit.) the Nathanael (ròv Nabavaýλ)." Here "Philip is introduced, according to rule, without the article; "Nathanael,” against the rule, with the article: i. 45 "We have found Jesus, (lit.) a son of the Joseph ('I. viòv rov 'Iwon)." Contrast this with vi. 42 "Is not this Jesus, the [well-known] son of Joseph ('I. ò viòs 'Iwond)?" In iv. 5 "the well that Jacob gave to [the] Joseph his son," the reading is doubtful, and W.H. bracket T. 'Iwon is shewn to be dative by vi avrov, but the article conduces to immediate clearness. If "Nathanael" were not indeclinable, we might suppose the article to imply distinction such as is implied in the words of the Lord ("Behold an Israelite indeed"), but can this be the meaning of the article just afterwards ("a son of the Joseph "), and does it seem likely that John would speak of anyone as distinguished ("the [great] Nathanael ") when describing his first approach to Jesus?

1 [1969 a] "Solomon” (x. 23 év tỷ σtoậ toû 2.) could hardly be said to need "introducing." In xviii. 40 "Not this man but the [great] Barabbas," it is the crowd, not the evangelist, that speaks; and the same applies to xix. 12 "the [great] Caesar."

2 [1969] Jn xviii. 29, Lk. xxiii. 1, Mk xv. 1, Mt. xxvii. 2. Mk subsequently has ò II. invariably, Mt. has it except in xxvii. 62 (pec.). Lk. has it exc. in xxiii. 6, 13, 24. Jn has ỏ II. 19 times, and once, according to W. H., (xviii. 31) simply II. Probably W.H. are wrong in following B here, especially as o may have been omitted after the preceding C in AYTOIC (1961, 2650—2).

3 [1970 a] Possibly i. 45 viòv Toû 'Iwond may shew traces of some tradition about "the carpenter Joseph,” and the evangelist may intend a contrast between the beginning of the Gospel (when Jesus was described as v. Toû 'Iwoŋø) and the development of the Gospel (after which Jesus was described as ó v. 'Iwońp).

[1970] The article before names of persons introduced for the first time is rare in LXX; but it occurs in 2 K. xxii. 3 to represent eth, the sign of the objective case, before "Shaphan...the scribe." The parall. 2 Chr. xxxiv. 8 has eth, but LXX omits Tóv. For the article with names of places, see 2670 foll.

(iv) With Participle and "is" or "are"

[1971] In the Synoptists, this construction is comparatively rare, e.g. "Who is it that smote thee (ris eoru o maioas σe)1?”, "These are they that were sown2," "These are the things that defile (Tavτá čσTIV Tà KOLODVтa) the man3," "Who is it [really] that gave (Tís éotiv o dous) thee this authority?" In the last instance, the parallel Mark and Matthew have "Who gave thee?" The construction with the article assumes the existence of some person or thing defined as doing something. Isaiah writes, "There is at hand one-justifying-me," LXX renders this, "There is at hand he that justified me (o dikaiwσas μe).” Isaiah proceeds, "Who will contend against me?" varying the construction. But LXX does not vary it, "Who is he that contendeth with me (rís o κpivóuevós poi)?" The Epistle to the Romans loosely follows LXX "God [is] he that justifieth: who is he that shall condemn"?". In classical Greek it is necessary to insert the article in representing the Hebrew "one justifying me." If ó were omitted above before dikaiworas, the meaning of the Greek would be "he is at hand, having justified me"."

[1972] Whereas Luke scarcely ever uses this construction in the Words of the Lord', John uses it frequently as follows (1) v. 31-2 "If I be testifying about myself my witness is not true. Another is [really] he that testifieth (aλdos éσrìv ¿ μaprupŵv) concerning

1 Mt. xxvi. 68, Lk. xxii. 64, not in Mk (490—1).

2 [1971 a] Mk iv. 16—20, Mt. xiii. 19-23, comp. Lk. viii. 12, 14, the explanation of the Sower.

3 [19716] Mt. xv. 20 (? Mk vii. 15), not in Lk. Mt. also has this construction in iii. 3 οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ῥηθείς.

Lk. xx. 2 parall. Mk xi. 28, Mt. xxi. 23 Tís σo EÔWKEV;

5 Rom. viii. 34 (quoting Is. 1. 8) θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν, τίς ὁ κατακρινῶν;

6 [1971] In Proverbs xi. 24 (lit.) "there exists one scattering and yet increasing," the LXX paraphrases, "there are those who (elolv oï), [while] scattering, make things more," but Aq. and Sym. čσтɩ σкоpπíjwv, comp. Prov. xii. 18, xiii. 7.

[1971 d] In classical Greek prose it would probably be hard to find an instance of ori and a participle, without ỏ, meaning e.g. "is scattering"-unless the meaning were "is really scattering." The instances given by Jelf § 376. 4 are mostly from poetry and not in the present. Plat. Legg. 860 E (and Demosth. p. 853. 29) Tаûта OUTWS EXOVтd or means "these things are really so."

7 [1972 a] Lk. xx. 17 Tí Oʊv ẻσTìv тò yeyрaμμévov is (apart from the Parable of the Sower (1971 a)) the only exception, if it can be called one. Outside the words of Christ, the constr. occurs (in Lk.) only in xxii. 64, xxiv. 21 ÖTɩ avтós ÉσTIV O μέλλων λυτροῦσθαι τὸν Ἰσραήλ.

me...," and then Jesus goes on to say that this "Testifier" is not the Baptist, nor even the works that He Himself does, but the Father, invisible to those whom He is addressing. Aos o μapтupov would have sufficed (like St Paul's eòs o Sukator) if the meaning of "is" were not intended to be emphatic. The meaning really is twofold (1) "Another and distinct from myself is he that testifieth," (2) "Another [really] exists [whose existence ye perceive not], namely, he that testifieth." The first is expressed, the second is suggested. "AXλos means "another [of the same kind]" (2675—7).

[1973] (2) v. 45 "Do not imagine that I (emph.) (èy) will accuse you to the Father. There is [indeed] (or) he that accuseth you, [namely] Moses...," i.e. "The very person to whom you look for testimony in your behalf (because you claim to be observing his law) is all the while testifying against you1."

it

[1974] (3) vi. 33 "For the bread of God is [not a thing of the past but of the present] the [one] that is ever descending from heaven and offering life to the world." Here comes into play the ambiguity (comp. 1957 b) sometimes inherent in with the participle, since may refer to the masculine noun last mentioned, namely "bread,” or "loaf," aptos "the loaf of God is the [loaf] that is descending." And this the Jews take to be the meaning, for they proceed to ask "Give us evermore this bread." But Jesus replies "I am the bread of life." 'Eotiv is not here so emphatic as in the last instance: but the context indicates that stress is being laid on the difference between the manna-a detail of the historic past-and the ever present, ever descending, bread of life. It is probable that John intends "the [one] that is ever descending" to mean the Man, quite as much as the Bread, or, primarily, the Man, and secondarily, the Man regarded as the Bread.

[1975] (4) vi. 63 "The spirit is that which giveth life (rò veμá EσTIV TÒ (WOTTOLoûv), the flesh doth not profit at all." The words

1 [1973 a] Comp. viii. 50 or ỏ nтŵv кai кρivwv, "There [really] exists he that seeketh...." This and other passages, and the Johannine love of apposition, are against the rendering "He that accuseth you is Moses," or "Moses is he that accuseth you."

2 [1974 a] A.V. "the bread of God is he which," R.V. "that which,” ỏ yàp ἄρτος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστὶν ὁ καταβαίνων.

[1975 a] Here omits "the," before "spirit," so as to mean “That which giveth life is of a spiritual nature." SS (Burk. marg.) has "He is the Spirit that giveth life to the body, but ye say 'The body nothing profiteth.""

might mean: "The Spirit (i.e. the Holy Spirit) is [distinguished from all other spirits by being] the [spirit] that giveth life," repeating πνεῦμα after ζωοποιοῦν: and it may be fairly argued that similarly R.V. (against A.V.) has repeated apros in the passage last quoted ("the loaf is the [loaf] that descends "). But in that instance there was perhaps a deliberate ambiguity, and possibly the primary meaning did not require the repetition. Here there is no question of any distinction between one spirit and another, but only between "the spirit" and "the flesh."

[1976] The words are of very great difficulty owing to the different meanings that may be attached, not only to them (taken by themselves) but also to their context (2210 foll.). One meaning may be “It is the spiritual part of man that must give vitality to all doctrine by receiving it spiritually," as St Paul says', and this suits the antithesis of "the flesh." But we have to bear in mind that (1) the phrase "life-giving spirit" is rare, (2) it occurs here in connexion with a preceding mention of "the Son of man ascending" and it is followed by a mention of "words" that are "life," (3) in N.T. elsewhere it occurs twice: "The letter killeth, the spirit giveth life"," "The last Adam [became] a life-giving spirit," (4) the verb occurs twice in John elsewhere concerning the Father, who "giveth life" and the Son who "giveth life." In the light of these facts does it seem likely that John would use the phrase "give life" concerning the Spirit of man? Would he not more probably use it of the Spirit of Christ, "the last Adam," the Son of Man in heaven? If so, the meaning here would seem to be, "the Spirit [of the Son] is that which giveth life"."

11 Cor. ii. 13—14.

3 1 Cor. xv. 45.

2 2 Cor. iii. 6.

4

Jn v. 21 (bis).

3 [1976 a] Perhaps there is a play on the word "spirit" as meaning also "breath" in Hebrew and Greek, that cannot well be reproduced in English. As there is a spirit that gives life beneath the letter that killeth, so there is a spirit that gives life beneath words that (taken literally) may "kill." The disciples of Jesus have to go back beyond the sound of His uttered words to the breath, spirit, or personality, that uttered them. Compared with the inner meaning, breath, or "spirit," of a word, the outward meaning or sound may be called its "flesh." "The words that I have spoken to you," says our Lord, "they are spirit and they are life, because they have not been mere 'flesh words,' or external sounds, but have passed, breathing life, into your spirits." And accordingly Peter says (vi. 68) "Thou hast words of eternal life."

[1977] Some such thought appears to have been in the mind of the originator of the version in SS, "He [i.e. the Son of Man] is the Spirit that giveth life to the body." He arrives at this by repeating "Son of Man" as the subject of "is," by taking Tò π. Tò . as “the Spirit that giveth life," and by altering the subsequent words. The version may be of value as testifying to a very early interpretation connecting "giving life" to the dead with "giving life" to words, and both of these with the Son of man.

[1978] (5) viii. 50-1 "I honour my Father and ye dishonour me. But I seek not my own glory; there is [indeed] he that seeketh and judgeth (čσtiv d (ytŵv kaì κpívwv),” i.e. as explained above (1971-3) "there is, all the while, though ye know it not." And the "judging" is regarded as going on (iii. 18) "already." Later on it is said (xii. 48) "He that is rejecting me and not receiving my words (ῥήματά μου) hath him that judgeth him (ἔχει τὸν κρίνοντα autóv)," where a clause in the future follows: "The word (Aóyos) that I spake that (èkeîvos) shall judge him in the last day." The Logos is judging now, and the judgment will be summed up hereafter.

[1979] (6) viii. 54 "If I (emph.) should glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is [indeed] my Father that is glorifying me, of whom ye (emph.) say that he is your God, and [yet] ye have not recognised him; but I know him." Here the context indicates that the emphatic "is," expressed by σTiv at the beginning of a sentence, describes an action going on in the presence of men ignorant both of the action and of the agent. The "glorifying" is manifested by the works that the Son receives from the Father to do in the presence of men.

[1980] (7) xiv. 21 "He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it [really] is that loveth me (èkeîvós éotiv å åyaπŵv Me)." This follows xiv. 15 "If ye be loving me ye will keep my commandments," and it adds, in effect, "If ye keep them, then, and

1 [1979 α] Ἐὰν ἐγὼ δοξάσω έμαυτόν, ή δόξα μου οὐδέν ἐστιν. ἔστιν ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ δοξάζων με ὃν ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι θεὸς ὑμῶν (marg. ἡμῶν ἐστίν, καὶ οὐκ ἐγνώκατε αὐτόν, ἐγὼ δὲ οἶδα αὐτόν. The ἐστιν at the end of the first sentence is quite unemphatic and almost superfluous. But, if it were omitted, the following or might be taken to be final instead of initial. Moreover, the juxtaposition of the two lays unusual emphasis on the second. "It really is my Father."