Burney. The Aramaic origin of the Fourth gospel. 1922

8/7/2019 Burney. The Aramaic origin of the Fourth gospel. 1922.

1/192


2/192

\ STUDIA IN /

THE LIBRARYof

VICTORIA UNIVERSITYToronto


3/192


4/192


5/192

THE ARAMAIC ORIGINOF THE

FOURTH GOSPEL


6/192


7/192

THE ARAMAIC ORIGINOF THE

FOURTH GOSPELBY

THE REV. C. F. BURNEY, M.A., D.Lrrr.Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford

Fellow of Oriel and St. John s Colleges, OxfordCanon of Rochester

OXFORDAT THE CLARENDON PRESS

1923


8/192

K

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESSLondon Edinburgh Glasgow CopenhagenNew York Toronto Melbourne Cape Town

Bombay Calcutta Madras ShanghaiHUMPHREY MILFORDPublisher to the University


9/192

CONTENTSPAGEPRINCIPAL ABBREVIATIONS EMPLOYED . . vii

INTRODUCTION iCHAP.

I PRELIMINARY TESTING OF THE THEORYBY EXAMINATION OF THE PROLOGUE 28

ADDITIONAL NOTE 43II. THE SENTENCE 49III. CONJUNCTIONS ....... 66IV. PRONOUNS 79V. THE VERB 87VI. NEGATIVES 98VII. MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE ORIGINALARAMAIC OF THE GOSPEL. 101VIII. OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS IN THEFOURTH GOSPEL ...... 114IX. EPILOGUE 126

APPENDIX . 153INDEX . i73


10/192


11/192

PRINCIPAL ABBREVIATIONS EMPLOYEDCur. == The Curetonian Syriac Version of the Gospels (cf. p. 26).Pal. Syr. = The Palestinian Syriac Lectionary (cf. p. 25).Pesh. = The Peshitta Syriac Version (cf. p. 25).Sin. = The Sinaitic Syriac Version of the Gospels (cf. p. 26).Targ. Jer. = The Jerusalem Targum on the Pentateuch (cf. p. 24).Targ. Jon. = The Targum of Jonathan on the Prophets (cf. p. 24).Targ. Onk. = The Targum of Onkelos on the Pentateuch (cf. p. 23).Targ. Ps.-Jon. = The Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan on the Pentateuch

(cf. p. 23).

WH. = The Greek text of Westcott and Hort.Abbott, JG. = Edwin A. Abbott, Johannine Grammar (1906).Dalman, Grainm. = G. Dalman, Grammatik ties judisch-paldstinischenAramdisch (1894).Dalman, WJ. = G. Dalman, The Words ofJesus considered in the light ofPost-BiblicalJewish IVritingsand theAramaic Language ( Eng. Trans.,

1902).Deissmann, LAE. = A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (Eng.Trans., 1910).HS-. = Sir John C. Hawkins, Home Synopticae (2nd edition, 1909).Moulton, NT&. = J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek

(vol. i, 3rd edition, reprinted 1919).Schlatter, Sprache = A. Schlatter, Die Sprache und Heimat des vierten

Evangelisten (1902).Wellhausen, Einleitung* = J. Wellhausen, Einleitung in die drei ersteuEvangelien (zweite Ausgabe 1911).


12/192


13/192

INTRODUCTIONIN a sermon preached in June 1920 before the University of

Oxford* the present writer made a plea for a closer synthesis ofOld Testament learning with the study of the New Testament;and reviewing summarily and generally the kind of New Testament problems which might receive fuller elucidation through themore direct application to them of Semitic learning, he put forwardthe possibility that in the future a Semitic scholar might arise who,examining the language of the Fourth Gospel in detail, wouldprove beyond the range of reasonable doubt that it was based uponan Aramaic original.

In venturing upon this somewhat bold prophecy, the writer hadnot at the time any thought of undertaking the task himself.Absorbed in Old Testament studies, and realizing with evergrowing insistency the task which lies before Semitic scholarsof widening and deepening the basis of their learning if they wouldmake any really first-hand contribution to their subject, he had notenjoyed the opportunity of prosecuting his New Testament studiesbeyond the somewhat superficial stage which ordinarily representsa theological tutor s acquaintance with the wide range of learningin which, in addition to his own special branch of research, he hasgenerally to direct his pupils reading. The problem of the originand authorship of the Fourth Gospel had, however, alwaysattracted him. He had been impressed (as every Hebrew scholarmust be impressed) with the Semitic character of its diction, andrecognizing to the full the importance of Dr. Lightfoot s remarkson the question, t had realized that this was a subject of researchfundamental to the problem of authorship which called for closerand more expert attention than it had hitherto received ; and hehad been amazed at the lightness with which it was dismissed or

* Since published by the Oxford University Press under the title The OldTestament Conception of Atonementfulfilled by Christ.t Biblical Essays, pp. i26ff.

2520 B


14/192

2 INTRODUCTIONaltogether ignored by New Testament scholars who confidentlyasserted the Hellenistic character of the Gospel. An article byDr. C. J. Ball, entitled Had the Fourth Gospel an AramaicArchetype ? , which appeared in the Expository Times for November 1909, explained certain peculiarities in the first chapter of theGospel by the theory of an Aramaic original ; and this, though(to the best of the present writer s knowledge) it stands alone inadvocating this theory, yet appealed to him as evidently uponright lines.* The evidence there adduced he had casually supplemented by notice of additional peculiarities pointing in the samedirection ; notably, the sharing by the Fourth Gospel of many ofthe peculiarities of diction which Canon Allen and Prof. Well-hausen cite as exhibiting the influence of Aramaic upon the styleof St. Mark s Gospel.This was about the position at which the writer s acquaintance

with the subject stood when he wrote the sermon which he hasmentioned. He had formed an opinion based on general observation, but he could not claim to have substantiated it by the kind ofclose study which deserves to be dignified as research. Furtherreflection, however, convinced him that the matter could not beallowed to rest here. He had suggested in the sermon that both

* The view that the Fourth Gospel was originally written in Aramaic was putforward, though not worked out, by C. Salmasius (De Helknistica Commentarius,1645, pp. 257 f.), I. A. Bolten (Der Bericht des Joannes von Jesu dem Messias, fiber-sdzt ; 1797, Vorbericht, pp. xiv ff.), H. F. Pfannkuche (Ueber die paldstinischeLandessprache in dem Zeitalter Chrisii, in Eichhorn s Allgetn. Bibl d. b. Lift, viii, 1797,p. 367). L. Bertholdt (Verosimilia de origine evangelii Joanms, 1805 ; Einleitungin . . . Schriften des A. u. N.T., iii, 1813, 342 supposed that St. John wrote downthe discourses of our Lord in Aramaic soon after they were spoken, and long subsequently translated them into Greek and incorporated them into his Greek gospel.Many scholars, from Grotius (Annotationes, 1641) onwards, while holding the

Gospel to have been written in Greek, have emphasized the Semitic character ofits diction. The opinion of so great a Semitic scholar as H. Ewald (Die johann.Schriftcn, 1861, i, p. 44) is worthy of quotation: The Greek language of the authorbears in itself the plainest and strongest marks of a genuine Hebrew. He is oneborn among Jews in the Holy Land, one who grew up to manhood in this society,without speaking Greek. Under the Greek mantle that he at a late date learned tothrow about himself, he still bears in himself the whole mind and spirit of hismother tongue, and does not hesitate to let himself be led by it. The discussionby C. E. Luthardt on the language of the Gospel (St. John s Gospel, E. T., 1876, i,pp. 15-64) is of considerable value.

Mention should here be made of the highly important work by Prof. A.


15/192

INTRODUCTION 3Old and New Testament scholars were as a rule content to dwelltoo much in water-tight compartments, and that more systematicfirst-hand application of Semitic linguistic knowledge to the NewTestament might be expected to shed light upon a variety ofproblems. It followed that it was not only desirable that professedNew Testament scholars should realize the importance to theirresearches of a first-hand equipment in Hebrew and Aramaic, butthat Old Testament scholars equipped with a knowledge of theselanguages should turn to New Testament research, and endeavourby practical demonstration of the value of such knowledge tosubstantiate the truth of this thesis.Thus it was that the writer turned seriously to tackle the

question of the original language of the Fourth Gospel ; andquickly convincing himself that the theory of an original Aramaicdocument was no chimera, but a fact which was capable of thefullest verification, set himself to collect and classify the evidence ina form which he trusts may justify the reasonableness of his opinionnot merely to other Aramaic scholars, but to all New Testamentscholars who will take the pains to follow out his arguments.

Inquiry into the Semitic characteristics of a New Testamentbook has nowadays to take account of the fact that the greatmodern discoveries of papyri and ostraka in Egypt have revolu-Schlatter, Die Sprache und Hetwat des viertcn Evangelistcn (1902), with which thewriter was unacquainted until he had practically completed the present study.Schlatter has demonstrated the Palestinian origin of the diction of the FourthGospel in the fullest possible manner by citing Rabbinic parallels to its phraseology verse by verse, the majority of verses throughout the whole Gospel beingthus illustrated (thus e.g. in ch. i parallels are cited for phrases in 34 out of thetotal 51 verses), and his work is a marvel of industry and intimate knowledgeof the Midrashic sources which he employs. He has drawn, not from Aramaic,but from Rabbinic Hebrew the Mechilta (commentary on Exodus) and Siphre(commentary on Numbers and Deuteronomy) which date in substance from the2nd century A. D. , with supplements from the Midrash Rabba (on the Pentateuchand the Five Megilloth). He chooses these Rabbinic Hebrew parallels ratherthan the Aramaic material which we possess e.g. in the Palestinian Talmud,because the former are nearer in date to the Fourth Gospel and better illustratethe religious thought of Palestinian Judaism in the first century; but, as he remarks(p. 12), any phrase employed in Rabbinic Hebrew (the language of the Schools)could without difficulty be similarly expressed in Aramaic (the popular mediumof speech in Palestine). Schlatter s conclusion is that the writer of the Gospelwas a Palestinian who thought and spoke in Aramaic, and only acquired his Greekin the course of his missionary work (p. 9).

B 2*


16/192

4 INTRODUCTIONtionized our conception of Biblical Greek, proving it to be, not athing apart, but a more or less characteristic representative of thewidespread Kou/^ dialect. The writer is not unacquainted withthe researches of Professors Deissmann and Thumb, Milligan andMoulton, and recognizes the fact that they have proved that manyconstructions and usages both in the LXX and New Testamentwhich were formerly supposed to reflect Semitic influence, arereally nothing more than ordinary phenomena of the Kowrj language. Whil^ readily making this acknowledgement to the excellent work of :;:ese scholars, he does not stand alone in holdingthat their reaction against the theory of Semitic influence uponBiblical Greek has been pushed too far. The fact is surely notwithout significance that practically the whole of the new materialupon which we base our knowledge of the Kou/^ comes fromEgypt, where there existed large colonies of Jews whose knowledge of Greek was undoubtedly influenced by the translation-Greek of the LXX, and who may not unreasonably be suspectedof having influenced in some degree the character of EgyptianA good example of such influence has been unwittingly

* Cf. the judicious remarks of Dr. Swete, Apocalypse 12 (1907), p. cxxiv, n. i :The present writer, while welcoming all the light that can be thrown on thevocabulary and syntax of the New Testament by a study of the Graeco-Egyptianpapyri, and in particular the researches of Prof Deissmann, Prof. Thumb, andDr. J. H. Moulton, deprecates the induction which, as it seems to him, is beingsomewhat hastily based upon them, that the Greek of the New Testament hasbeen but slightly influenced by the familiarity of the writers with Hebrew andAramaic. ... It is precarious to compare a literary document with a collection ofpersonal and business letters, accounts, and other ephemeral writings; slips inword-formation or in syntax which are to be expected in the latter, are phenomenalin the former, and if they find a place there, can only be attributed to lifelonghabits of thought. Moreover, it remains to be considered how far the quasi-Semitic colloquialisms of the papyri are themselves due to the influence of thelarge Greek-speaking Jewish population of the Delta. Similarly, Mr. G. C.Richards, in reviewing the and edition of Dr. Moulton s Grammar of Neiv TestamentGreek in the Journal of Theological Studies, x (1909), p. 289, remarks : The discovery of the Aramaic papyri from Assuan emphasizes this point [the evidence forlarge Jewish settlements in Egypt from an early date] most strongly, and evenDeissmann (Licht vom Osten, p. 83, n. 5) is prepared to admit that the adoptionof ets TO avo^a as a legal phrase may be due to Semitic influence "in grauerVorzeit". But this "Vorzeit" can scarcely be earlier than the end of the fourthcentury B.C. No doubt it is possible, as he says, that if originally a Semiticism, itmay not have been felt to be so any longer. Such influence on the languageof a population from an influx of settlers is quite common. Dr. Moulton makes


17/192

avv /cat

INTRODUCTION 5presented to us by Prof. Deissmann (LAE. pp. 129 ff.) in one oftwo passages which he quotes from the papyri for the expresspurpose of proving that the parataxis so characteristic of theFourth Gospel, with its and . . . and , is not due to Semiticinfluence, but belongs to the popular Kou^ style. This is a letterfrom two pig-merchants (c. A. D. 171) in which they complain to theStrategus that they have been attacked by brigands and robbedand beaten : avepô^vutv TÔJV 0.770 KW/X-^S eaSeA.etasVTTO TOV opOpov 7rf)\@av ly/zeiV KdKovpyoi TIVVS . . . /cat eS^craj/ra> /j.ay8a)\.o

ra s (Aorist), and without/cat in apodosis, Lk. i 23 -41, 2 15, i929 . With specific note of time, and/cat in apodosis, Lk. 5 17, 8 122, Acts 57 ; without /cat , Lk. i 59 , 2 Mfi, 7",928:!7, 20 1 .There are besides some cases in Lk., and many more in Acts,

in which the verb of the apodosis is not an Aorist but an Infinitive.This modification of the construction, which is not found inHebrew, and only occurs once in LXX (3 Kgs. n 43 B), can beparalleled from the papyri. It seems therefore in Lk. and Actsto be a modification of the Hebraic construction under the influence of a known Koivr) construction (cf. Thackeray, Grammarof the O. T. in Greek, p. 50). So Lk. 3% 6 - fi - 12, Acts 45 , c/*-^ :t7, i4\i616, 19*, 226 - 17, 28 17 . It may be noted that in some of theseexamples, viz. Acts 932, 14*, 22B - 17, the note of time or occasionhas been variously modified so as to lose its clear-cut Hebraicform. In other cases, viz. Lk. i622, Acts 943, n 26, 288, it isaltogether absent. This is quite un-Hebraic. Hebrew might sayfV iiNn JIDJI < And the poor man died , without note of time exceptas inferred from the context ( and = and then }, or, insertingnote of time, ftaKn nojl !W p jj> W < And it came to pass, aftersome time (lit. "from the end of days"), that (lit. "and") the poorman died ; it would not say |v?&fn riDM_ *nj}=y VeTo Se aTroOavelvrov TTTOJXW (Lk. i622). The reason why St. Luke modified his*Gospel-style in this respect in Acts demands investigation. Itwould seem to imply a not inconsiderable interval between thetwo works, during which his wider intercourse with Gentileheathen in the course of his missionary labours exercised aninfluence on his style.

Outside Lk. and Acts eyeWo introducing a time-determination isonly found in the five-times repeated phrase /cat eyeVero ore eVeXeo-ej/Iô-oCs in Mt. 728, n 1 , i3 5:i, i9 ] , 26 1 , and also in Mt. 910, Mk. i 9, 22:i,44 (cf. 2 15). In Semitic it is specifically a construction belonging to

* With time-determination before f-yfvero.


25/192

INTRODUCTION 13Biblical Hebrew, and not found in Aramaic except where thislanguage copies the Hebrew construction in translation, as in theTargums.*These facts prove that in the construction under discussion wehave a true Hebraism, which can only have entered into N. T.

Greek through the influence of the LXX. Incidentally, its absencefrom Jn. tells against the use of the LXX by the writer of thisGospel.

2. Enforcement of verb by cognate substantive in Dative. WhenHebrew desires to emphasize a verbal idea, it prefixes the InfinitiveAbsolute to the Finite verb. In LXX the place of the Infinitiveis commonly taken by the cognate substantive in the Dative] e.g.Gen. 2 17 riiOn nto < Thou shalt surely die (lit. dying thou shalt die )= LXX 6avaru airoOavtlvOe, Judg. I5 13 DT3 ÛriJI TpDtO ibN ? 6O^jyoa tib nom < Nay, but we will bind thee (lit. binding we will bindthee ) and deliver thee into their hand ; but we will not slay thee(lit. slaying

we will notslay thee )

= LXX O^ -, on dAA ) 8eo-/AuiST/o-o/ieV o-e Koi TrapaSwcro/xeV ere tv X LP^ "-VTWV, KOL Oavdrit) ov Oavarwo-OfJievo-e. An alternative method employed by LXX is the rendering ofthe Infinitive by a Participle , e. g. Judg. i 28 i^nin &6 ^niiTi < anddid not expel them at all (lit. and expelling did not expel them )= LXX KO.L egatpwv OVK l^yjpev avrov.No examples of the second form of the idiom are found in N. T.except in the LXX quotations Mt. i314, Mk. 4 12, Acts 7 :i4, but thefirst occurs three times in the Lucan literature ; viz. Lk. 2215OvfALa f-rreOv/J-irjcra, Acts 5"28 TrapayytXta Trap-^yyetAa/xci/, Acts 23 14di/cârtVa/xev (cf. also Acts 230 opxu w/>ioo-ev).t Elsewhere in N. T.we find it only in Mt. i3 14 , i54 = Mk. 7 10 (both O. T. quotations),,Jn - 321 XaP$- XaW ei > J as> 517 Trpooo-e0ej/To . . . Trotâ-ai TOTrovrjpov, Judg. 3 12, 4 1 , io fi ; or (2) it may be followed by and witha Finite verb, e.g. n$X n^l Drat? ^0*1 And Abraham added andtook a wife ( again took , or took a second ) = LXX 7rpoo-0e/xevosSe Afipaan eAa/2ci/ ywaiKa, Gen. 25 1 ; ipN5! N^H^ fjD 5! And Elihuadded and said = LXX Ilpoo-tfets Se EAtovs In Aey, Job 36 1 . Bothof these constructions occur in the Lucan literature: (i) *at Trpoo-e-$ero erepoi/ Tre/uuf/cu BovXov . . . /cat Trpoa-eêro rpirov 7rffjuj/ai, Lk. 2O11 1 2 ;Trpoo-eOtTo (TvXXafifLV /cat IleVpoj/, Acts I23 ; (2) 7rpocr0eis etTrei/Lk. 19". The usage is not found elsewhere in N. T.*

4. The phrase Tropevov ets clprjvrjv, Lk. y00, 848, vTrayf. etsMk. 5

:i4

(nowhere else in N. T.) is derived from the LXX renderingof the Hebrew Cri^ ^ ; c f. i Sam. i 17 , 2o 1342, i Kgs. 20 (LXX 2i)18 ,2 Kgs. 5 1! , i Chr. i2 17, Tob. io 13, Judith 825 . The Hebrew preposition 7 is here incorrectly given the sense ets which it commonlypossesses. It is really an idiomatic usage known as h of norm,EWp thus meaning lit. peace-wise or health-wise , i.e. in peaceor health . The phrase belongs distinctively to Biblical Hebrew.The Targum Hebraizes in copying it in translation, but in thePeshitta the regular rendering is }N^^ ^J, i. e. -n-opevov / clpyvy.

5. The expression evanriov is peculiarly characteristic of Lk.(23 times), Acts (13 times), and Apoc. which is marked by anHebraic style (34 times). It is derived from LXX where iuisextremely common (some hundreds of occurrences), and ordinarilyrepresents Hebrew */? before (lit. to the face of), or ^vbin the sight of (lit. to the eyes of). eVwTrtoi/ is only found once

in Jn. (20), and is unused in Mt. and Mk. In these Gospels wefind tfjiTTpoo-Otv, which also occurs in Lk.

Ivai/n (Lk. i 8 , Acts 7 10, 821 ), ivavriov (Lk. i 6, 2o :f), 24^, Acts 7 10, 832),exclusively Lucan in N. T., are both very common in LXX, wherethey ordinarily render ^ya in the sight of (lit. in the eyes of),

* Cf. however the text of D in Mk. i425 , ov py TrpoaOw witiv.


27/192

INTRODUCTION 15i.e. in the opinion of. Hebrew always observes a distinctionbetween Tj in the (physical) sight of, and â < m the (mental)sight of. The same distinction may be noticed for the most partin the N. T. use of ZVUTTLOV and cvai/rtov.

In place of the distinctively Hebraic expressions VJDp, N^S*, M*#? fAramaic uses Eî?- before , in front of.

6. The phrase Trpo irpoa-wTrov, which is a common LXX renderingof êb, occurs in the O. T. quotation Mk. i 2 = Mt. n 10 = Lk. f\and only besides in Lk. i 76, 9, lo 1 , Acts i324. d -n-poa-îrov *3SOin LXX is found in Acts s 19, 541 , 7 45 , 2 Thess. i 9, Apoc. 6 1 ", 20"(a7TO TOl) 7T.). 67Tt TTp6(T(TTOV Lk. 21^, C7TI TTpOCTMTTOV ActS 1 726, arC LXXrenderings of ""P.^ by.

7. The phrase TO Trpoa-wirov co-Typia-w, Lk. 951 (nowhere else inN. T.) is derived from LXX, where it renders Hebrew D^s D^set the face (Jer. 2i 10, Ezek. 6\ if, 14", i57, &c.).8. XafjifidvcLv TTpocrw-n-ov, Lk. 2o21 , Gal. 2 f) occurs 9 times in LXX

as the rendering of Hebrew 0^3 ^ take or lift up the face ofanyone, i.e. show him partiality in judgement. More commonlythis phrase is rendered in LXX by Oav/jid^fiv irpoo-fD-n-ov. TheSemitic phrase occurs in Aramaic as well as in Hebrew. TheN.T. substantives Trpoa-coTroX^Trr^s a respecter ofpersons (Acts io35),irpoo-wroXvitMfria (Rom. 2 11 , Eph. 6, Col. 3^, Jas. 2 1 ) partiality , arederived from the LXX Hebraism.

9. The use of the verb SiSw/u in a wider range of senses, whichmay be rendered put , set , appoint , allow , &c., appears inN.T. to be exclusively Lucan ; cf. Lk. f\ i 25158, 15-, ig- :\ Acts 2 19(quotation from Joel 3= ), 2% 13* (both quotations from Ps i6 in), iow ,i9:u . This usage comes from LXX where Oayu is the regularrendering of Hebrew |ri3 which, meaning primarily give , is regularly used also in such wider senses. Cf. the LXX rendering inGen. 17- S(oo-co avrov ets e^ro? /xeya, Gen. 31 OVK I8o>/cei/ aurw 6 êo?

t, Deut.I 13 Sore eavrots avSpas ^ i^H] Nns n^vi (cf. Pal. Syr. and Pesh.). The use ofTO, tSta, ol Zoioi cannot, of course, be claimed as unusual ; but theexpressions are striking, and at once suggest to an Aramaicscholar the phrase By1 "5! which to him , i.e. that which pertains(or those who pertain) to him his belongings . t&os is afavourite term in Jn. ; occurring 15 times (i 11 ^- 42, 441, 5 "A\ 7 18 , 844,io3 -4 - 12 , I3 1 , 15 , i6 :!2, iQ-7 ), as against 5 in Mt., 1 in ML, 4 in Lk.

V.12

. 6Voi Se eAa/?ov auToi/, e 8a)Kei/ avrols KT\. The constructionin thought some such words as he was born blind ; and is25 where before dAAtVa irXrjpweri o \6yos KT\. there is an iinplied ellipse of This cometh to pass .Cf. also Mk. I 449 . Similarly, Schlatter (Sprache, p. 18) cites parallels fromMechilta on Ex. 20" 133: J^N 1T3VD W\\ ni?0n lî D inynb "l^ DK l!?NiTTTJ "1133 If it were possible to remove the angel of death I should haveremoved him, but because the decree has already been decreed (sc. I cannotdo so ), and from Siphre on Num. 25 ^ -piV H^H^ fr6tf ^33 ^ D^PplJ UN pNWe are not under such obligation to him, but (sc. it is necessary) that thou, &c.In spite of these parallels for an ellipse, it is clear that T - iVa in the Aramaicrendering of our passage most naturally stands for the relative one who ; andthis conclusion is supported by the other instances collected on pp. 75 f., where iVais a mistranslation of a relative.

* Schlatter quotes a remarkable para lel to our passage from the Midrash Rabbaon Leviticus, par. xxxi. 6 Dîy K3 Wl fJ.nnr&l D^vb THO iiriNThou (God) givest light to those that are above and to those that are below, and

to all comers into the world .25?n D


46/192

34 A PRELIMINARY TESTwith Casus pendens is very frequent in Semitic Pal. Syr.t

For the occurrences of the construction in Jn. see p. 64.rots TTLO-Tfvova-LV eis TO ovofjia avTOv, i.e. ^W? P?*?? The striking

phrase TmrTeiW e?s is strongly reminiscent of the Hebrew andAramaic construction (Heb. 3 Pgn f Aram. 2 pB n). This isadmitted by Moulton (NTG* p. 68), whose words are It wouldseem therefore that the substitution of eis or em for the simpledative may have obtained currency mainly in Christian circles,where the importance of the difference between simple belief(|) pENH) and personal trust (3 n) was keenly realized. Theprepositional construction was suggested no doubt by its beinga more literal translation of the Hebrew phrase with 3. Theoccurrences of Trio-roW ets are as follows : (as rov I^o-ow, ets rovvlov rov eo9, s dirov, &C.) Jn. 2 11 , 3 lfi - 18 - 3r> , 4% 629 35 40, 7 --.- 8:to,9

s6 -86, io42, n.-6.45.^ I2

n.37...f I4

i. I6o^ I7T j n> 5

io. elsewhere,Matt. i86 = Mk. 9 12, Acts io4:!, 14 , i94, Rom. io4, Gal. 2 16 , Phil, i 29,I Pet. I 8 ; (eis TO ; (eis TO ovo^a avrov) Jn. I 12, 2-3 , 3 18,i Jn. 5 Ki ; (eis T^V paprvpLav) i Jn. 5 10 (37 Johannine cases in all ; 9 othercases).

#. 1:i . ot OVK e aifJiaTwv . . . yevvrjOr)cravf i. e. f? ^/] ^91 ^? T 1in^^n^ Knbx | |n-^ N^ns nay jr? bi N"jD3 nox. A point ofgreat interest is the fact that the Latin variant os . . . lyfw^Brjbecomes considerably more plausible upon the assumption of anAramaic original. Since the particle ^ is invariable, it mightform the relative either to as many as received Him , or toHe gave*. The question of reading in Aramaic depends, then,upon the difference between the plural n^JTN they were born ,and the singular IV^N He was born a difference whichinvolves solely the insertion or omission of the letter 1. Moreover, since the following v. 14 begins with KCH = I, it is quitepossible that the plural form W$>WK may have arisen throughdittography of this 1. Very probably ^ may not have had therelative sense at all, but (as in v. 4) may have been intended toexpress the sense inasmuch as , thus giving the reason why thefact previously mentioned became possible inasmuch as Hewas born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the


47/192


48/192

36 A PRELIMINARY TESTHis Name to dwell, in the midst of Israel, the Targumic phrase is,He caused His Shekintd to dwell there. Examples are

Heb.Lev. 26 12 And I will walk And I will cause My Slikmta

among you . to dwell among you .Ex. 25 That I may dwell in That I may cause My Sk ekmtd

your midst . to dwell among you .Ex. 29^ And I will dwell in And I will cause My SJi kinta

the midst of the children of to dwell in the midst of theI srae l \ children of Israel .

So, of the withdrawal of Yahweh s Presence,Isa. 57 17 I hid Myself. I caused My Sh kinta to depart

(ascend) from them .Ps. 44" And Thou goest not And Thou dost not cause Thy

forth with our hosts . Sli kmtd to dwell with ourhosts .

Ps. 88 And they are cut off And they are separated fromfrom Thy hand . the face of Thy Sh ekmtd.Thus we may assume with some confidence that /ecu c

eV ^fiiv represents the Aramaic W3 86cv

avrov. The opening of the vision (Isa. 6 ) runs in Heb., I sawthe Lord sitting upon a throne , and this is rendered in Targ.,

I saw the Y ekard of the Lord resting on His throne . Otherinstances in Jn. of 86ga in this sense are, a 11O.VTOV, II fav Tricrrewo-//? o^?j rijv 86av rov eor, 17-We are now in a position to maintain that the Aoyos-concept ion*Not of course necessarily the written Targums. but at any rate the conceptionswhich entered into the oral exposition of Scripture called Targum.


50/192

A PRELIMINARY TESTof the Prologue must undoubtedly be derived from the third andmost frequent Targumic conception representing God in manifestation ; that of the 1 tnip lD < the Word of the Lord . Weshould no doubt trace the origin of the conception of the N"]*? ?Memra to O. T. passages in which Heb. "n^ ddbhdr Word isemployed in a connexion which almost suggests hypostatization,e.g. Ps. I0720 , He sent forth His Word and healed them ;

s- 336 f By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made .This latter passage, with its reference to the Word s action inCreation, recalls the repeated D*r6x

iEN*l And God said in Gen.i,where the Heb. verb "IDN atnar is identical with the Aram, root

from which Memra is derived. Memra occurs repeatedly in theTargg. in passages where the Heb. represents God as speaking,acting, or manifesting Himself in a manner which seemed tooanthropomorphic to Jewish thought of later times. This may beillustrated from the occurrences of the term in the first fewchapters of Genesis.

Heb.Gen. 3s And they heard the

voice of the Lord God walking, &c.

3 I heard Thy voice .6 fi And it repented the Lord

that He had made man .67 For it repenteth Me .8 1 And the Lord said in His

heart, I will not again curse,&c.

9 12 This is the token of thecovenant which I make between Me and you .

So in

Targ.And they heard the voice of

the Memra of the Lord Godwalking, &c.

I heard the voice of ThyMemra .And the Lord repented in HisMemra because He had mademan .

Because I have repented in MyMemra .And the Lord said in (or by)

His Memra, I will no morecurse, &c.

This is the token of the covenant which I am making between My Memra and you .

We cannot fail to notice that in Jn. i 14 the writer no doubtwith intention brings together all three of these Targumic con-


51/192

OF PROLOGUE 39ceptions.* In /cut 6 Aoyos o-ap eyeVero we have the Memra ; inKo.1 l(TKr)VM(T(.v tv Tj/uuv the Sn Rlllttt ] in KOLL eueafrdfJifOa ryv So^av avrovthe Yekard. This is evidence that, so far from his owing hisAoyos-doctrine to an Alexandrine source, he is soaked throughand through with the Palestinian Jewish thought which is represented by the Targums. Nor would the teaching of the Prologueneed time for its development. Any disciple of our Lord whohad heard the Targumic rendering of the O.T. in the synagogue,and who was capable of recognizing a superhuman power shiningthrough the Master s Personality in His mighty acts, of detectingthe Divine voice in His teaching, and at length of apprehendingthat in His Presence on earth God had come to dwell amongmen, could hardly fail to draw the inference that here was thegrand fulfilment of O. T. conceptions so familiar to him throughthe Aramaic paraphrase.TrA^s x LP LTO


55/192

OF PROLOGUE 43of the Song of Deborah; see note in the writer s Commentary onJudges, pp. 169 f. The following examples may be noted in thepoem of the Prologue :4. Because in Him was lifeAnd the life was the light of mankind.5. And the light in darkness was shining,And the darkness | obscured it not.7. Unto His own He came,And His own

|received Him not.

9. And we beheld His glory,Glory | as of the only-begotten of the

Father.10. He was full of grace and truth,Of Whose fullness

|we all have received.

Of the remaining couplets, i, 2, and 8 may be reckoned assynonymous, while 3, 6, and n are antithetical.It should be noted that the couplets, besides being parallel,

appear also to be rhythmical, each line containing three stresses.In v. 37, in place of &a I^o-oO Xpio-rov the translation offers throughthe Messiah simply, inetri gratia. Irjo-ov may very naturally havecome in as a later addition.

Additional Note on the interpretation of Jn. I 1! as referring totJie Virgin-Birth (cf. p. 34).

There is an essential unity in the teaching of St. Luke, St. Paul,and St. John as to the mode and meaning of the Incarnationwhich ought not to be overlooked. All go back in thought to theappearance of Jesus Christ on earth as a new Creation, to becompared and contrasted with the first Creation of the world andof mankind ; and all therefore draw upon Gen. i, 2 in working outtheir theme. Just as God s first creative act was the formation oflight, breaking in upon the physical darkness which had previouslycovered primeval chaos, so was the birth of Christ the dawnof Light in the midst of the spiritual darkness of the world.That this idea was in St. Paul s mind is definitely statedby him in 2 Cor. 4 r , ov yap eatrous KT/pwrcro/xei dAAa Xpiorov


56/192

44 A PRELIMINARY TESTKvpiov, . . . on 6 eos 6 euro)!/ E/c O~/COTOI>S a>s Xa/xi^et, os f.X.afjuf/fv ey rais

TT/>OS ^^ njy < AnsweredDaniel . Daniel .


62/192


63/192

THE SENTENCE 51openings, as against 28 with connective particle. In the 28 sentences which have connective particles, these are /cat 19 times,8e 4 times, OTL twice, ovi> 3 times. And , which is thus more thandoubly as frequent as all the others taken together, is the ordinarySemitic connective particle, which bears various forces accordingto the context (cf. p. 49). The openings are as follows :

With connective particle.

V." Kal TO cioi?.

V. 1 2 oo-oi 8e.V. a Kal 6 AoyosV.^ b KalV. 6 OTL K TOV

Without connective particle.

V

t]V.V." our05 r)v.

TrdvTa 8Y avTov eyeVcro.ev auroi ^(ury ?yV.eyeVeroovro5OVK JjV K.LVOS TO ^)U)5.TJV TO a>5 ro aXfjOtvov-lv ru> Koo-fjuo rjv.et5 TO. LOLa riXOf.

OTL O O/XOS.

V. /cat avTrj ecrrii .V. 2(i KOL .In order to prove that this characteristic is found throughout

the Fourth Gospel, we may take two other chapters from themiddle and end consisting mainly of narrative. Ch. 1 1 contains59 sentences, of which 17 have no connective particle (w, 8 -9M*-1L23 -24 -25.26. -7.34.35.396.^o.4-1 ^.4sj. ^ -^ contains 52 sentences, and 20 of theseare without connective particle (w.t*"-JMi-*J.s*-MM^--i8).This is a smaller proportion than in ch. i ; yet, as compared withthe Synoptists, it is a very high one. To take three chapters atrandom from the latter Mt. 3 contains 13 sentences, none withoutconnective particle; Mk. i contains 38 sentences, 2 only withoutconnective particle (vv. 1 *) ; Lk. 8 contains 60 sentences, 2 onlywithout connective particle (vv* bA *).

Asyndeton dTre/c/ot^, dTre/cpt^o-av = asyndeton np.y, UJJ.In the openings of unconnected sentences given above from theAramaic of Dan. 2, it will be noticed that 9 out of the 22 take

the form, Answered (soand-so) . This is very characteristic,


65/192

THE SENTENCE 5328 examples occurring in the six Aramaic chapters, while thereare only 2 cases of Then answered (5 17, 6 14 ), and none at all ofAnd answered . In contrast, the whole Hebrew O.T. offersonly 2 such unconnected openings, Answered (Song2 10, renderedspake in R.V. ; Ps. n856), while there are 145 cases of Andanswered (so-and-so) , ?jn, Ujn, &c.

The odotion s version of Dan. does not always represent thisAramaic Answered ; but where it does, it regularly rendersaTTtxptfr), aTreKptOrjo-av (11 times; once airoKpiOek), preserving theasyndeton in 4 cases (2~ -7 - 10, 427 ), but elsewhere prefixing Kai. These12 passages, in all of which the Aramaic phrase is regularlyfollowed by and said , before statement of the words spoken,are as follows :

22 72s -lEKi

2- 7 -1EN12 173"

3";

, . njy. , uy

. . ruy. . uy

. . ruy. . ruy. . nay. . uy

KatKai

KatKttl

Kttt flTTaV.Kat t7Tl .Kai XeyovcriF.Kai eiTrev.Ka i Aeyei.

. . Xeyorrc?.. . . Kai i

. . Kat

In the Fourth Gospel a^p^ or aTrtKpMrjo-av occurs as asyndetonopenings Go times (see below), u7roK/>iWEN, ^l (participle)is one of the most characteristic features of the language indescription of a dialogue ; and this naturally lends itself in Greekto a rendering by the asyndeton historical present Aeyei. Forexample, the Syriac Ada Thomae in the first four pages (ed. Wright)offers twelve examples of the usage. The following is a literalrendering of a dialogue-passage from this work (p. J^D) :

And when they had embarked and sat down, Habban themerchant says to Judas, "What is the craft that thou art ableto practise?" Judas says to him, Carpentry and architecturethe work of a carpenter". Habban the merchant says to him,"What art thou skilled to make in wood, and what in hewnstone?" Judas says to him, "In wood I have learned to makeploughs and yokes and ox-goads, and oars for ferry-boats andmasts for ships ; and in stone, tombstones and shrines and templesand palaces for kings". Habban the merchant says to him," I was seeking just such a workman "/With this we may compare the structure of the dialogue inJn.2i 15-17 :So when they had broken their fast, Jesus says to Simon Peter,

"Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me more than these?" Hesays to Him, "Yea, Lord; Thou knowest that I love Thee".He says to him, "Feed My lambs". He says to him againa second time, "Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me?" He saysto Him, "Yea, Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee". Hesays to him, "Tend My sheep". He says to him the third time,"Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me?" Peter was grievedbecause He said to him the third time, "Lovest thou Me?"And he said to Him, "Lord, Thou knowest all things; Thouknowest that I love Thee". Jesus says to him, "Feed Mysheep ".

* According to Dalman (WJ. p. 25) the formula is unknown in later JewishAramaic.


68/192

56 THE SENTENCEThis very striking resemblance in structure between the two

passages both as regards pictorial ;_*>/ = Xeyei and asyndetonusage is no mere chance and isolated phenomenon. Dialoguesso framed are frequent in the Fourth Gospel (cf. especially thereferences to Aeyet in chs. 4, n, 13, 14, 18, 20), and innumerableparallels from Aramaic might be collected.*

Parataxis.Peculiarly Semitic is the simplicity of construction employed

throughout the Fourth Gospel. Sentences are regularly co-ordinated, and linked by Kt We may note that v? contains two out of the only seventeen occurrencesof the Genitive absolute which are found in Jn.


69/192

THE SENTENCE 57pp. in WH. Occurrences. Proportionper page.

Mt. 68 338 5Mk. 41 224 5iLk. 72 324 4JJn. 53 58 1

Prof. Moulton (NTG. 3 i, p. 12), in speaking of co-ordinationof clauses with the simple K

Gen. 42 : 5 ipm 12D3 inv B*N mm empty WIB on MM And itcame to pass, they emptying their sacks, and behold, each man sbundle of money in his sack .

> O\5~ ".j\ \/ i ~ v?. (.yf.vt.ro of. v TOJ KaTa.Kf.vovv avrovs rot s craKKOf? ai>ru>y, /cat 7/v6 8e (TttKKO) GLVTWV.

Targ. n ptta nsD3 "i^iv nnj NHI pn-pe ppno p^N n .m, exactlyfollows Hebrew.

Pesh. J^^? o*amo? ]>. Jo . yOolAtt ^*c;.iax*5 \oj ? ? )oooog-ix^ paa.^>And it came to pass that when they were emptyingtheir sacks, behold, each man s bundle of money in the mouth ofhis bale .

i Kgs. 13- mm nm vn jn^ n ^y o^^ nn MM And it came topass, they sitting at the table, and there came the word of Yahweh .LXX KCU iyf.ve.ro avrwv KaOrj/Jitvwv [eVt TV}S rpaTre^s], KOL iyfvf.ro AoyosKvptov.

Targ. mn^ mp p HNI^J D:HD mni NIIHQ ^y pnnno prxn iy mniAnd it came to pass, whilst they were sitting round the table, and(= then) there came a word of prophecy from before Y.

Pesh. U^c? o Andwhen they were sitting at the table, there came the word of theLord .


74/192


75/192


76/192


77/192


78/192

CHAPTER IIICONJUNCTIONS

Kttt, OUV.

As compared with the Synoptists, /cat in Jn. is infrequent innarrative. The occurrences, as given by Abbott (JG. 2133; cf.Bruder s Concordance 2, pp. 456 ff.) are, Mt. about 250 times, Mk.more than 400 times, Lk. about 380 times, Jn. less than 100 times.This comparative infrequency seems to be due partly to thewriter s use of asyndeton (cf. p. 50), partly to his fondness forovv, which he uses some 200 times, as against Mt. 57 times,Mk. 6 times, Lk. 31 times, /ecu is frequent in Jn. in speeches,linking co-ordinate clauses, as in a Semitic language. A strikingSemitic usage may be seen in its employment to link contrastedstatements, where in English we should naturally employ and yetor but*. This is most frequent in speeches, though occasionallywe find it also in the reflections of the author upon his narrative.C^ T 10.11 20 -10.11.19.S2 ,20 -39.40.43.44 ^70 -4.19.30 O20.5-2.57 ,-.30.34 TT 8 To3*00 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5 > > 7 ; 9 J 11 ; 1 "5 ;i65, 20 2, If ye make not known to me the dream and itsinterpretation, ye shall be cut in pieces, &c. ; and (=but] if yeshew the dream and the interpretation thereof, ye shall receiveof me gifts, &c. ; 35G , At what time ye hear ... ye shall fall down


79/192

CONJUNCTIONS 67and worship the golden image, &c. ; and (= but) whoso falleth notdown, &c. ; 317 - 18, If our God, whom we serve, be able to deliverus, He will deliver, &c. ; and (but} if not, be it known, &c. ;47 (Aram. 4 ), And I told the drearn before them, and (=yet) itsinterpretation they did not make known to me .

In Hebrew and Aramaic and may very idiomatically introducea contrasted idea in such a way as to suggest a question, thisbeing implied by the contrast without the use of an interrogativeparticle. So in Hebrew, Judg. 14" , Behold, to my father andmy mother I have not told it, and shall I tell it unto tJiee ? (lit.and to thee I shall tell it! ); 2 Sam. n 11 , The ark, and Israel,and Judah are abiding in tents; and my lord Joab, and theservants of my lord, are encamped in the open field ; and shall7 go into my house, to eat and to drink, &c. ? (lit. and /shallgo, &c. ! see further instances in Oxf. Hcb. Lex. p. 252). Thesame usage may be illustrated in Aramaic from passages in AdaThoniae (ed. Wright).

(p. aaja). fco/ Jiii Jofc-.m.2> fcoj o .oooo oo -*^^ L.UJ.OAll buildings are built in summer; and thou buildest in winter!(p. w-j>) .)k..on ^>oo kxiijsb 4*?J^> ;-*> ^50 kJîkW LofcO^-*>

JJ kfco|o. On thy account I excusedmyself from my lord, king Mazdai, and from the supper; andthou dost not choose to sup with me !

(p. **,) ^ r* JJo . J^.A, )..** \! JJ/ . IÂ!^ JJ yioX ô âic l^j/^*oo> ^^^ )aa>/ k~i! . Thou thyself hast not departed fromus, except for a moment ; and thou knowest not how we wereshut up !With inverted order, (p. -*) jfcO^.::* Jbo ÔA-O fco/ o^ to/

^.jscu? jjixii oiô^s )>n\.- ?J^co. Thou sittest and hearkenestto vain words; and king Mazdai in his wrath is seeking todestroy thee !

In a precisely similar way KCU introduces a paradox in severalpassages in Jn., and the paradox, being hypothetical, is treatedas a question.

220 TtcrcrfpaKovra KOL e crccrtv oiKoBofJifjOrj o vaos OVTOS, KOI (TV Iv rpicrivf]/j.epa.LS eyepets avrov ;3

10^v el 6 SiSacTKaA.os rov IcrparyA KOLI ravra ov

F 2


80/192

68 CONJUNCTIONS9 14 Ei/ a/xa/oTtats ? U^ ];*,/ ^0*^!? W Jd*. JJ? cot

That one who I am not worthy that I should stoop should loosethe latchet (Pesh. latchets) of His sandals .

Lk. 3 ov OVK flfju iKavos X.vcra.1 TOV i/zai/ra TooyPal. Syr. ^QUO*? Jkust^. Jt^? w)Lo> )oSin. o)d.ii3a-v> i-ot-V^ ]^*-i? J^CLA, )J? 001Pesh. oaim^>; ^^_Sw jjjki; J.J/ jcuL JJ? oo

That one who I am not worthy that I should loose the latchet(Sin., Pesh. latchets) of His sandals .

Acts 13" ^ VK flfM a^tos TO vTroftrj/Jia rcov TroStov X.vcrai.Pesh. ^woim^? U^ J*JtI? ^/ ]Q^ U? od

That one who I am not worthy that I should loose the latchets ofHis sandals . The rendering of Pesh. is here verbally identicalwith its rendering in Jn. i 27 .

Lk. i^ 18 -21 OVKCTI et/xl aios KXsrjOijvai vlo Ucfcs.-? Jcul l>! ls^ ?a^wSin., Cur. Jtol/ ^v=>? >^.*A-amp;lt; IJCL*. DoPesh. )î ( t ;s? ^/ Jo*, ^^ HoI am no longer worthy that I should be called thy son .In the Q passage Mt 8s = Lk. 7" where we have the IVa construc

tion after OVK dpi IKOVOS, the Syriac versions naturally represent thisby ? with the finite verb.

Lk. 7 $ L ouSe e/xcurroi ryiujo~a Trpos ere eA$ea .Pal. Syr. ^Lo^ jLJu? Jo*. ls^? JI uô^ H ô/ v*oSin. om.Pesh. )i/ ?laX? l^c^ U |^ o "^^

Therefore I did not count myself worthy that I should come toThee .Thus out of all these passages only Jn. i 27 and Mt. 8s = Lk. 7

have the iVa construction, and this agrees with the constructionwith ? which is used in all passages by the Syriac versions.


86/192


87/192

CONJUNCTIONS 75Cur. \QIXS\J JJ vjJJ? yQj/ 4-as ooo, by Pesh. **jJJ? ^QJ/ io) ^? ooyOi.v)u JJ He commanded (Pesh. warned) them that they shouldtell no man , as in KOL Sieo-retAaro curois TroAAtt / ret. KrA...of Mk. 543 .Such illustrations could be almost indefinitely multiplied.

Iva, as a mistranslation of ^ relative, who , which .So far, the most that we have accomplished is to establish

a good case for the hypothesis that the excessive use of Iva inMk., and still more in Jn., may be due to the fact that thewriters of these Gospels were accustomed to think in Aramaic.The frequent use of the Iva construction in place of an Infinitiveis not in itself sufficient to prove translation from Aramaic; foran Aramaic-speaking Jew, in writing Greek, would naturally tendto exaggerate the use of a Kou/r; construction which resembled hisown native idiom. Now, however, we have to notice a usage ofIva. in Jn. which can hardly be explained except by the hypothesisof actual mistranslation of an original Aramaic document. Thereare several passages in which )IS 44 \ Tis apa. oi TO9 (TTIV on /cat 6 ai/e/xos /cat ^ OdXaaaa vTraKoveL

O.VT> ; Who then is this whom (u> . . . avr TrepiTrarowra?, where thedifficult 6 rt may represent a wrong rendering of "n (ovs). t InMt. I3 lfi {yxcoi/ 8e {JLaKa.pi.OL ol 6OaX/Jiol on /3\.7rov(riv, Kal ra tora [/ACUV]on aKovovcrtv, the words on ySAeVoDo-ti/ . . . 6rt d/:! D ; /JLTJ o-v //,ei an/ d TOV

on aTTtOavtv, where WH. rightly has oo-ns* Noted by Wellhausen, Einleitung*, p. 15. 1 Cf. Allen, St. Mark, adloc.% Cf. Grabe. Spicilegium SS. Patruin ; edit. alt. ii, p. 213 a reference which the

present writer owes to Dr. Cureton s discussion of the passage in Remains ofa veryantient recension of the Four Gospels in Syriac, p. xxv.


90/192


91/192

CHAPTER IVPRONOUNS

THE great frequency of the Pronouns of the first and secondpersons is a marked feature in Jn. The occurrences in thisGospel and the Synoptists are as follows :

Mt. Mk. Lk. Jn.eyto 29 17 23 ^34/cdyto 9 4 27êis 5 3 5 18a-v 18 10 27 60tyxets 31 II 21 68

Totals 92~ H "80 307To a large extent this phenomenon finds its explanation in thefact that the Fourth Gospel is designed to prove our Lord s

Messiahship and His Divinity (2O:!1 ). Thus at the opening St. Johnthe Baptist emphasizes the character of his mission eyw incontrast to that of Christ (i* --*-26 -2^! * - :i \ 3^). Our Lord lays stressupon His claims -tyi (4 14 - 2fi, 5 :!0:i(i, 6 5 "10 -41 -4 -48 -51 -54 , 8 12 -42, i 71UU4 - ls,ii-5, i24(i , 14", 15 , i6:t:!, i8 : 7 > c ; ] > JI ; I2 ) Z3 > I4 >i5 14 -20 -26, i64 -7W , i 7 --^ I 82" w -2i-37; êk in i ir>, 642 -69, 7 :yo-a>f>w, 2413 -43 3 "3bN nan i^ ^ ZO-TTJKO.. So also i6s, j8 17, 243 -37 -42,2532, 27s, 28:o , 3 1 5 , 3212, 421S, 4821 , 4929 . The only cases without eycuare 37"uo.

Cases of i:mx, we , with the Participle expressed by ^/xets inGenesis Kings are : Gen. i9 13 mn nipsn-nx n:N Q-aTroXXvfJLfv rincis TOJ/ TOTTOI/ TOVTOV, 43 18 D^ltt rl3K . , .Ata TO apyvpiov . . . 77/^15 da-ayoptOa, Num. IO29 ^P^? " 5Egaipofjifv ^/xeig ets roi/ TOTTOI/. So Deut. I 28, 522, I28, Judg. l85; I9 18,i Sam. 14s, i Kgs. 223, 2 Kgs. 6 , 73 -9to) i826 . No cases with omissionof rjfJieiS.

Similarly, in Genesis Kings there are 40 cases of nriN thouwith the Participle expressed by o-v (e.g. Gen. i$ ra nns~)^s n??"^?n^T Trao-av rrjv yfjv fy av bpas), as against 14 without av : and 35cases of E^ ye with the Participle expressed by tyxets (e.g.Ex. l68 D^;^ Dr. n^N D^WJjTriK rov yoyyvaôv


93/192

PRONOUNS 81e) and one case with avroi (Ex. ion ), as against 6 cases

without vfjbtZs.In Theodotion s version of the Aramaic portion of Daniel and

the LXX of the Aramaic sections of Ezra we find the followingcases of the Personal Pronoun with the Participle expressed inGreek.

n:N I :Dan. 28 WK VT -mi f ETT dATêias ol8a y OVK dpi aios a/a Avo-oo O.VTOV TOV IfJidvTa TOV uTroSr/pxTOS.I"

3E< ov av 18775 TO Uj/cCyu-a KaTa/3cuvov KOL pîvov en- OLVTOV =

Pal. Syr. oa^j^ JifcoLaoo jfc^j Uo U^ U? v?o lit. He whothou seest the Spirit descending and abiding upon him .936 Kai TIS ecrrii/, KU/OIC, a/a TrujTevo-o) eis auroV ; Here a/a is a mis

translation of the relative ^ ; cf. p. 76.I326 E/ eydo /3di{/w TO i^w/xibv Kai 8(oo-(o avrw. Peculiarly

Aramaic n^ 2,Tj N^nb nas y^jrn sin tfinn That is he de I shalldip the sop and give it to him*, i.e. to whom I shall give the sopwhen I have dipped it .

l89 OS? 8e8w/cus jioi OVK ttTraAeo-a e^ avrcovWellhausen (Einleilmig 2 , p. 15) cites two instances of this con

struction from Mk., viz. I ov OVK elfju t/cavos Kvif/as \vo~ai TOV t/xdVraTWV v/roSrjjjLaTwv avTov, and 7" ?/$ etêv TO OvyaTpiov auT^s TrvevfJio. aKaOapTOv,besides three cases from the text of D in Mt. ic 11 , i820, Lk. 812.*

Pronominal constructions peculiar to Aramaic.It is peculiarly idiomatic in Aramaic to anticipate a genitive by

use of a possessive pronominal suffix attached to the antecedent.Thus the Aramaic of Dan. writes His name of God (220), in theirdays of those kings (2 41 ), ate their pieces of the Jews (i.e. slandered them, 3"), his appearance of the fourth (3"), &c. ; Pal. Syr.in Jn. i writes their light of mankind (v. 4 ), its news of the light(vv. 7 -8), in His bosom of the Father (v. 18), his witness of John(v. 19), &c.There appears to be but one instance of this in the Greek of Jn.,

but this is so striking that it should surely count for much inestimating the theory of translation from Aramaic. In 9 18 we readTOVS yoi/eis O.VTOV TOV di/a/SAci/ aj/Tos, his parents of him that hadreceived sight . This appears naturally in Pal. Syr. as OP&~9 \?o? Cf. Mk. 622 LO-\Oovo-r]2N1 and (was)saying ), 25 -8- 15 -20 -26 -27 -47, 3w--*-a. 4^- n3JTO (was)being terrified , 5; f?3B> (were) being changed , 5"; P^ri^rp (were)being perplexed (o-werapao-o-oj/ro), 5 ; pbnjTK^ (were) not beingable , 5 15 ; pnt? (were) drinking (eTnVere), 5- ; ^mDiB by Tpzi wnNliDI K?2ftp} he (was) kneeling on his knees and (was) praying and(was) giving thanks (?/v KOL/JLTTTW eVt TO, yoVara avrov, Kal Trpocreuô/xevos/cat egofjioXoyoviJiwos), 6 11 ; fnÔ (were) bursting forth (Trpoo-eâXXoi/), 72 ;|^p (were) coming up (avtfiaivcv), f ; npsi . , . ni?^ nbx (was)eating and (was) breaking in pieces . . . (was) trampling (lo-BiovKal XCTTTVVOV . . . o-weTTttret), 7 7-19 ; P??] ^?.J (was) issuing and (was)coming forth (etAfccv), 7

10; N^k>D (was) speaking (eAaAet), 7"; N*ny(was) making (eVotet), 721 ; nJKP (was) prevailing , 721 .The fact that in the 199^ Aramaic zw. of Dan. we thus find no

less than 99 instances of this participial usage describing a pastaction shows how highly characteristic of the language the idiom is.That the usage naturally lends itself to representation in Greek bythe Historic Present or Imperfect is obvious to an Aramaic scholar.If those who are unacquainted with Aramaic will read a passageof the book in English, substituting the literal renderings givenabove for those of R.V., and remembering that the time-determination (was or ts) is absent from the original and can only beinferred from the context, they can hardly fail to come to the sameconclusion.

It will be noticed that, out of the 99 examples, 23 are found withthe verb answer , and no less than 36 with the verb say , leaving40 (or considerably less than half the total) to verbs bearing othermeanings. In Syriac the use of the Participle under discussion ispractically confined to the verb wo/ say*.* In the 151 instancesof the Historic Present in Mk., 72 are cases of Aeyti, Aeyowiv. Inthe 164 instances in Jn. the proportion borne by Aeyet, Xeyovo-iv to

* See, however, Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, ii, pp. 63 ff., for instancesof its use with other verbs in Sin.


102/192


103/192

THE VERB 91

, 4% 713, io fi ., 221 22 , 5" 1 - 10, 6rquot;65 -71 , 823 -27 31 , 9, I229 33 ; ZXeyor, 433 42, 5 10, 61442,

7ll.l2fo*8.25.3I.40,4lbM019.22.25 ~S.9 .lO.Ms Hjbis T -.20.21.24.41 T T :ifi.47.5fi To-9 T^ 18,0 ,9 ; IO ,1 , 12 ; TO ;

I9321 , 2025 .5 18.

, 6r2 .I2 1 .

, I2G .r (^.), 447, 6 fi - 71 , ii 51, i23:i, i8 :i2(z/. /. e//,eivev); IO40.

eVotet, 22i , 5 1R, 62.eVopevero, 4.erdA/>ta ; 2 1 12 .

, 2O4 .I 23, 9:i8

t, ii 36, i5 19; 2O2., II 5, I32:i, I92fi, 2I 7 :o ; ^yaTrSre, 842; I4 2

(e8.), Q33, II 37 ; rySwai/ro, I239.I 18 ; ^eXev, 7 1 ; ^6>eXoj/, 6 11 21 , 744, l6 19 .

^a, 62, l8 15 ., II 29 ; f,pXovTO, 4 , 6 17, 19 , 2O3 .

431 40, 9 15 , I221 .

la^yoVj 2I r>.

", 7 , IO" f, II 4 ; TrepitTraTOW, 6 fir>.vTrrjyov, 621, I211 .

, I242.


104/192

92 THEVERBThe total is 167. In Mt. the Imperfect occurs 94 times ; in Mk.

228 times; in Lk. 259 times; in Acts 329 times.* If Jn. were aslong as Mt., there would be proportionately 212 occurrences ; ifas long as Lk., 225 ; if as short as Mk., 133. Thus Jn. s use ofthe tense, though more than twice as frequent as that of Mt., isconsiderably less than Lk. s, and very much less than Mk. s. Thelarge amount of discourse in Jn. affords little opportunity for theuse of the Imperfect. The last discourses, chs. 14-17, offer only8 cases ; while the bulk of the examples occur in chs. 4-12, wherethere are 118 cases.Among Jn. s Imperfects, the great frequency of eXeyev, eXeyov

attracts notice, and forms a bond of connexion with Mk. s usage.Jn. has 46 occurrences, and Mk. 50; while in Mt. there areonly 10, in Lk. 23, and in Acts 11.t It may be remarked thateXeyev, eXeyov are very rare in LXX, Sir John Hawkins enumeratingbut 40 cases.A frequent Aramaic usage, closely akin to the single use of theParticiple above noticed, is the coupling of a Participle withthe Substantive verb in description of past events. Thus, in placeof saying he did some action, Aramaic frequently says hewas doing it, thus pictorially representing the action as in process.The instances of this usage in the Aramaic of Dan. are commonlyrendered both by LXX and Theodotion by a Greek Imperfect]though occasionally the rendering exactly copies the Aramaic byemploying the Participle and Substantive verb. The followingare the instances of the usage in description of past events :

Aramaic. Literal rendering. LXX. Theodotion.231 rWH rttPI Thou wast seeing . eaj/xx/JXA, Ju>ooj ^ljo, lit. and the Romans coming,taking away ; i423 Trpos avrov IXeva-ofjicOa = jj.+i( ojlaô, lit. andtO him we coming ; l6" 6 Trapa/cAT/Tos ov ^ eA&j (TR. OVK eXeuVerat)= Jl/ J) )^Xc*9, lit. the Paraclete not coming . Cf. elsewhere,Mt. 915 eAevowTcu 8e êpai = Jfcoocu ^? ^JL/, lit. but days coming ;2531 "Orav 8k eXOy 6 wos TOU avOpw-rrov =^ hajff o^s ^-.? )i(> JuV3, lit.When the Son of man coming ; Mk. 8:!8 orav IA% ev T^ 80^77 TOVTrarpos avrov = wo.=>i? JL*.^Qjfc2> )li? Jljao , lit. when He coming inthe glory of His Father (so Lk. 9 -6). Instances of the usagein the Aramaic of Dan. are, 2 13 p^n?? NW?m n^D3 Nn 1!) So thedecree went forth and the wise men being killed (i. e. were aboutto be killed ); f2 N^N fO PIIJ? ^] And they driving thee frommen (i.e. they shall drive thee ); so v. 29 ; 4- PV^rp Tjb theywetting thee (i.e. they shall wet thee ).

Verbal sequences.i 39 "Epxeo-0e /cat ctyeo-tfe Come, and ye shall see . A similarsequence is idiomatic in Hebrew. Cf. Gen. 614, Make (n^J|) thee

an ark . . . and thou shall pitch ("]??]) it within and without withpitch ; so Targ. Onk., nnj wni , . , Tjb l^y. i Sam. 15P.^?rn ni!? ?"l ^ Go, and thou shall smite Amalek ; so Targ.Jon. p.^ n-a-n n: ^n^n] ^.1>\ See for further instances inHebrew, Driver, Tenses, 112. Cf. further in Aramaic, Ezr. y 19 -20,And the vessels that are given thee for the service of the house

of thy God, deliver thou (E.^L1 ) before the God of Jerusalem ; andwhatsoever more is needful . . . thou shalt bestow (i^ri) out of theking s treasure house . Acta Thomae (p. u*o >), But conductyourselves (yol^j/ o;^?!/) in all humility and temperance andpurity, and in hope in God, and ye shall become (ofcsj/ ôoo)His^ household-servants . This form of sequence is not (apartfrom translations from the Hebrew) so characteristic of Aramaicas it is of Hebrew, except where the sequence is clearly to be


108/192

96 THE VERBregarded (as in the last instance) as the result of the precedingImperative. This, however, is clearly implied in the expression"EpXto-tfe /cat oêcrê. So l6 24, aiTetTe /cat X.rj/juj/ccr6c.

Change of construction after a Participle is seen in two passagesin Jn. I 32 TeBcafuu TO Tri/eu/m Karafiaivov . . . /cat e/xctj/ev CTT avroV,and 544 Aa/x/JdVoKres, / 8iWrcu

dvOpu>7ro OuSeVore eAa.V^crev ovra>s avOpuiTros.* InMk. II 2 we find

oi/ ovSeis OVTTGO avOpwTrwv iKaOicrev, I2 14 ot> yap /^XeVetseis Trpoa-MTTov dvOpuTrw (but here there is a sense of antithesis to TT)VoSo^ TOV eov following), but elsewhere in the Synoptists there seemsto be no case of ov . . . SvOptaTros.

Never is expressed in Heb. and Aram, not ... for ever ; cf.in Heb. Ps. so7 D^yi> D ttST^ < I shall never be moved ; Ps. 31% yi 1

let me never be put to shame ; Ps. 119 tit? S L^tt X I will never forget Thy commandments ; Isa. 25 2it shall never be rebuilt ; in Aram., Dan. 241 ^

which shall never be destroyed ; ^c/a Thoniae(p. JC*.fi) ]t^-^. JJ ^*.va.^.v yaVv^f jlaa^!Q.=> yOOoô and theyshall be with Him in the kingdom which never passes away ;id. (p. ?j)

U-^ )J ^.^ )lo!^.^ ^? jtot but this banquet shallnever pass away .Similarly, ov ^ . . . ets roi/ atwi/a occurs several times in Jn. in the

Sense never : 4 14 ov /xr/ 8n//7;o-ei cis TOV cuoim, 8o1 6 ^ yevarjraL Oavdrov eis TOJ/ atooj/a, IO2S ot> yets TOI/ atai/a, 1 1 2t^ a.7ro6dvy els TOV cuojva, I38 ov /XT/ vti//r;s JJLOVTroSa? 15 TOF tt/ wi/tt. Cf. also 9 !2 tK TOV cuwros OVK ^KovvOf). The phraseis only found elsewhere in N.T. in Mt. 21 Ov /xr/Kert eV o-ov KapirosyevrjTai ets TOI/ alwra = Mk. II 14, Mk. 329 OVK eêi a^ccriv e

Documents

Burney. The Aramaic origin of the Fourth gospel. 1922