only then, will ye be really loving me," or, in the third person, “He that keeps them, he and he alone, is really loving me1."

[1981] Besides occurring in the Words of Jesus, this construction is found in the words of the Baptist and other speakers. Thus, whereas the Synoptists represent the Baptist as saying concerning the future Messiah "He shall baptize you," John gives the words as "He it is that is baptizing you": and the Jews and others also speak thus". But the phrase appears to have commended itself to the evangelist as especially suited to the Logos, who Himself sees everything, and describes it to others, as it really is, going on visibly before His eyes, though not before theirs.

(v) With Non-Possessive Adjectives'

[1982] The reduplication of the article changing a noun-adjective phrase, e.g. (1) "the third day" to (2) "the day the third," adds weight and emphasis to the adjective. In Christ's predictions of the Resurrection Matthew always gives the former: Luke, in the parallel to one of these, gives the latter. The latter is also used in the formal and traditional enumeration of the appearances of Christ after death in the First Epistle to the Corinthians. The Revelation has the former in speaking of "the third living creature," or "the third angel"; but in more solemn phrases we find "he opened the seal the third," "the woe the third cometh quickly."

[1983] In the Synoptists, the reduplication—apart from words of Christ and the Voice from Heaven ("My Son my beloved")—

1 [1980 a] Other instances of ỏ with the participle and éσrí are iv. 10 "If thou hadst known who it [really] is that saith unto thee (rís éσTIV ỏ Xéywv soi)...," iv. 37 ἄλλος ἐστὶν ὁ σπείρων καὶ ἄλλος ὁ θερίζων where ὁ σπείρων and ὁ θερίζων are, in effect, nouns. In ix. 37 καὶ ἑώρακας αὐτὸν καὶ ὁ λαλῶν μετὰ σοῦ ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν, the subject is ò laλŵr, and ékeîvos is not (as mostly) repetitive but means "that very Son of Man about whom you ask 'Who is he?' as though he were far off." 2 Jn i. 33, Mk i. 8, Mt. iii. 11, Lk. iii. 16.

3

Jn v. 12 "Who is the man that said...?" v. 15 "...that Jesus was (lit. is) he that had made him whole," xxi. 20 "Who is he that is to deliver thee up?"

* [1982 a] This excludes noun-participle phrases, e.g. "the people that [was] sitting (ỏ λads ỏ кaðýμevos)," "the miracles that [were] wrought (ai dvváμeis al γενόμεναι)” etc. For phrases with possessive adjectives see 1987-9.

5

[1982] Mt. xvi. 21, xvii. 23, xx. 19. The parall. Mk has μerà τpeîs ǹμépas, Lk. ix. 22 has 7 T. μ. in a prediction of Christ, and also in his account of what the Saviour said (xxiv. 46) after the Resurrection. But Lk. xviii. 33 (parall. to Mt. xx. 19) has Tŷ μ. Tŷ Tp., the form used in 1 Cor. xv. 4.

6 [1982] Rev. iv. 7, vi. 5, viii. 10, contrasted with Rev. vi.

5,

xi. 14.

is very rarely used, except in a few special phrases. Lk. ii. 7 has "her Son her firstborn"; Mark has often, and Luke twice (viii. 29, ix. 42) "the spirit the unclean"; Luke has (i. 26) "the month the sixth" (ii. 26, iii. 22, also Mk iii. 29, xiii. 11, Mt. xii. 32) "the Spirit the Holy1."

[1984] John, as a rule, reduplicates the article only in utterances of the Lord or in weighty sayings about Him, as in the Prologue, "This was the light, the true [light]." In the less weighty clauses of the Lord's utterances he does not reduplicate it, as in "the true worshippers," contrasted with "I am the Vine the true [vine]."

[1985] One or two perplexing instances of reduplication in John may be perhaps explained by a desire to suggest to the reader some latent thought, as when he says that Andrew "findeth first his brother his own [brother] Simon." Here the evangelist is supposed to mean that Andrew's unnamed companion also found his brother, James the son of Zebedee, but not till Andrew had "first" found Simon. Antithesis is certainly expressed elsewhere in "his name his own [name]"," "his glory his own [glory]"." In "the day the third [day]" at Cana-if the text is correct-there is perhaps a mystical meaning. In "the five loaves the barley [loaves]" and "the ear the right [ear]" of Malchus 10, symbolism may be latent, apart from the fact that (comp. 1983 a) John is adding details not mentioned by Mark and Matthew".

1 [1983 a] Mk v. 7, [Lk. viii. 28] assign to the demoniac the words, "Son of the God the Highest"; Lk. vi. 6, xxii. 50—when adding facts unmentioned by Mk-Mt., namely, that the "hand," and the "ear," severally, were "the right one"-reduplicates the article.

2 i. 9.

3

[1984 a] iv. 23 "The hour cometh......when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth." The italicised words do not predicate anything about the Logos, and they are subordinate in emphasis to what follows. v. 43.

4

XV. I.

7 vii. 18.

5 i. 41.

8 ii. I.

6

9 vi. 13.

10 [1985 a] xviii. 10. Luke may not have intended symbolism. The two evangelists must be judged in the light of their several Gospels, taken as wholes. 11 [1985] In xviii. 17, the person previously described as (xviii. 16) “She that kept the door," is now called "the maid,' she that kept the door." This is probably not emphasis but afterthought; the evangelist wishes to retain the old Synoptic tradition that the Apostle was confused and abashed by a mere "maid," whom he had previously described as "she that kept the door." The meaning, then, is, "The maid, she [whom I described above as the one] that kept the door."

[1986] The following are the instances in Greek :

(α) i. 9 Ην τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν. Comp. vi. 32 τὸν ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τὸν ἀληθινόν, xv. I ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινή. Contrast iv. 23 οἱ ἀληθινοὶ προσκυνηταί. See above (1984).

(β) i. 41 εὑρίσκει οὗτος πρῶτον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τὸν ἴδιον Σίμωνα (1985). Comp. v. 43 ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τῷ ἰδίῳ, vii. 18 τὴν δόξαν τὴν idiav. In all these there is antithesis. Contrast iv. 44 év Tỷ idía πατρίδι, Χ. 3 τὰ ἴδια πρόβατα, where there is no expressed antithesis. In the latter, there is no antithesis till x. 12.

(γ) ii. 1 τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ γάμος ἐγένετο, but marg. τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ (1982 6).

(8) In iii. 16, Tòv viòv tòv μovoyev, "He gave his only begotten son,” the adj. is more emphatic than in iii. 18 тò ovoμa Toû μovoyevoûs vioù Toû coû, " because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God," where "God" attracts much of the emphasis.

(ε) iv. 9 ἡ γυνὴ ἡ Σαμαρείτις (the context lays stress on her Samaritan origin, "from me being a woman that is a Samaritan ").

(C) vi. 13 ÈK TÔV tévтe äρtwv tŵv kpɩłívwv, “from the five loaves— that were, as I have said, of barley." This detail is not given by the Synoptists (1985).

(n) X. 11, 14 o Toην o kaλós (3 times). Contrast ii. 10 (bis) Tou καλὸν οἶνον.

(θ) xviii. 1ο τὸ ὠτάριον τὸ δεξιόν (1985).

(ι) xviii. 16 ὁ μαθητὴς ὁ ἄλλος ὁ γνωστὸς τοῦ ἀρχ. (? distinguished from Peter, who was not "an acquaintance of the High Priest"). Contrast xx. 2, 3, 4, 8 ὁ ἄλλος μ., ΧΧ. 25, xxi. 8 οἱ ἄλλοι μ.

(K) xviii. 17 πaidíσêη ǹ Ovρwpós (called previously (xviii. 16) "the door-keeper" (fem.), and now, "the maid that [as I said] was doorkeeper ").

(vi) With Possessive Adjectives

[1987] The adjective is frequently possessive, and, in that case, is almost always accompanied by a reduplicated article. Instances. are given below in Greek. The student will find in almost every case that the phrase with the reduplicated article, e.g. x. 26-7 "the sheep that are my own (τà π. Tà ẻμá) hearken to my voice," lays more stress on the owner than is laid in the phrase with the possessive genitive xxi. 16-17 "feed my sheep (rà π. μov)." The "love" of Christ is to be regarded as unique, and the command to "love one another" with that kind of love is a new commandment," which our Lord

A. VI.

might call His own special commandment. Hence He says, xiv. 15, "If ye love me, ye will keep my own [special] commandments (ràs ¿. Tàs éμás)." But this is followed by an unemphatic repetition of the clause because the emphasis is to be thrown on something else, xiv. 21 "He that hath my commandments (ràs e. μov) and keepeth them-he it is that really loveth me." So the emphatic is followed by the unemphatic in xv. 9—10 “Abide in my [special] love (èv rŷ ả. Tŷ éμ)...If ye keep my commandments ye will abide in my love (ev Tỷ ả. μov),” where the last words amount to little more than, "Ye will do this." On the other hand, the unemphatic is followed by the emphatic in xv. 10-12, "If ye keep my commandments (ràs ẻ. pov)...this is my [special] commandment (ǹ è. ǹ è̟μý) that ye love one another even as I have loved you." Here, as often elsewhere, an if-clause, being less emphatic than a predicate, expresses ownership in the unemphatic form.

[1988] The following are the instances in Greek:

(α) iii. 29 αὕτη οὖν ἡ χαρὰ ἡ ἐμὴ πεπλήρωται. There is harmony, not antithesis, between "my [own] joy" and "your joy" in xv. II ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ ἡ ἐμὴ ἐν ὑμῖν ἢ καὶ ἡ χαρὰ ὑμῶν πληρωθῇ. Ὑμέτερος (1774) is very rare. Comp. xvi. 22, 24, Tǹv xapàv iμŵv and xvii. 13 iva exwolv τὴν χαρὰν τὴν ἐμὴν πεπληρωμένην ἐν ἑαυτοῖς.

(β) v. 3o, viii. 16, ἡ κρίσις ἡ ἐμὴ δικαία (ἀληθινή) ἐστιν.

(y) v. 30, vi. 38, tò béλnμa tò èμóv (antithesis in context).

(δ) vii. 6 ὁ καιρὸς ὁ ἐμός.....ὁ δὲ καιρὸς ὁ ὑμέτερος (antithesis). On repetition the writer (1987) adopts the less emphatic form vii. 8 ὁ ἐμὸς καιρός.

(c) viii. I7 kì ẻ tập có u là tự vuerépu, “yea, and even in your very own law." There is no antithesis but very strong emphasis. Contrast vii. 51, x. 34, xviii. 31, ὁ νόμος ὑμῶν (ἡμῶν).

(ζ) viii. 31 ἐὰν ὑμεῖς μείνητε ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῷ ἐμῷ, 37 ὁ λόγος ὁ ἐμὸς οὐ χωρεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν, 43 τὸν λόγον τὸν ἐμόν, xvii. τῇ ὁ λόγος ὁ σός. Contrast v. 24 τὸν λόγον μου, viii. 51 τὸν ἐμὸν λόγον, 52 τὸν λόγον μου, xiv. 23 τὸν λόγον μου, 24 τοὺς λόγους μου, xvii. 6 τὸν λόγον σου, 14 τὸν λόγον σου.

(η) viii. 43 τὴν λαλιὰν τὴν ἐμήν. Contrast iv. 42 τὴν σὴν λαλιάν (marg. τὴν λαλιάν σου).

(0) viii. 56 tŷv ýμépav tǹv éμýv, emphatic in a Messianic sense.

(1) x. 26, 27 Tà πρóẞата тà èuá emph. Contrast xxi. 16, 17 Tà

προβάτια μου.

(K) xii. 26 o diákovos o èμós, " my own [true] minister."

διάκονος ἐμός,

(λ) χίν. 15 τὰς ἐντολὰς τὰς ἐμάς, xv. 12 ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ ἐμή. See 1987 and contrast xiv. 21, xν. το τὰς ἐντολάς μου.

(μ) χν. 9 μείνατε ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ τῇ ἐμῇ, (ib. 1ο) μενεῖτε ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ μov (see 1987).

(ν) xvii. 24 τὴν δόξαν τὴν ἐμήν. Contrast viii. 50, 54 ή δόξα μου. () xviii. 35 Tò vos Tò σov (contemptuously emphatic on the part of Pilate).

(ο) xviii. 36 ἡ βασιλεία ἡ ἐμή (bis)...οἱ ὑπηρέται οἱ ἐμοί. There is antithesis implied between "my own kingdom" and kingdoms derived from this world," and the same applies to "my own officers (1388 a)."

66

[1989] The non-reduplicated article before a possessive adjective is rare, but occurs as follows: iv. 42 oẻ dià tǹv oǹv daλiáv (marg. Typ dadiáv σov) fairly emphatic, being antithetic to an implied "because of our own hearing,” ν. 47 τοῖς ἐμοῖς ῥήμασιν, antithetic to τοῖς ἐκείνου γράμμασιν. In vii. 8 ὁ ἐμὸς καιρός occurs after an emphatic (vii. 6) å kaɩpòs o quós. The non-reduplicated form (though more emphatic than å kaιpós μov would have been) is probably not so emphatic as the reduplicated. In vii. 16 ἡ ἐμὴ διδαχὴ οὐκ ἔστιν un, "that which is [in one sense] my teaching is [in another sense] not [really] mine," the first eun is moderately emphatic. In viii. 51 Tòv quòv λóyov, “if anyone keep my word," the emphasis is moderate. This construction seems to indicate an emphasis greater than that of the possessive pronoun but less than that of the possessive adjective with the reduplicated article. As regards xiv. 2] εἰρήνην τὴν ἐμήν, which must be taken with its context, see 1993.

(vii) Omitted, or misplaced

66

[1990] In xi. 19 Now many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary (πρὸς τὴν Μάρθαν καὶ Μαριάμ) to comfort them (αὐτάς) concerning their brother (Tepi Toù adeλpoû)," we should have expected T either to be omitted before Máplav, or, if not, to be repeated before Mapiáp. D omits it before Máplav: A has "to the household (πρòs τàs πeρi) of M. and M.,” and so too has C3 (πεрη): SS (Burk.) has "went forth to Beth Ania that they might comfort Martha and Mary," omitting "concerning their brother." The facts indicate that "the Martha-and-Mary" was felt by some scribes to be a combination intended to mean "the household" of the two sisters, and hence they (perhaps influenced also by the proximity of [av]ràs Tepi Tov åd‹à¤œû [?taken as an error for "the household of the deceased brother,